The Jordan B. Peterson Podcast - 175. Journalist or Heretic? | Bari Weiss

Episode Date: June 10, 2021

On this Season 4 Episode 29 of the Jordan Peterson Podcast, Jordan Peterson is joined by Bari Weiss. Bari Weiss is a journalist and author. She has worked as an opinion writer and editor at the New York Times, before that she was an OP editor and book reviewer at the Wallstreet Journal, and a senior editor at tablet magazine. Bari now writes for herself on SubStack.Jordan and Bari Weiss discussed her career, the circumstances surrounding her resignation from the New York Times, the aftermath of her famous resignation letter which criticized the New York Times, Twitter and social media, the phrase “Systemic Racism”, the work she is doing now, and much more.Find more Bari Weiss on her substack Common Sense with Bari Weiss https://bariweiss.substack.com/, on Twitter @bariweiss, and read her notorious resignation letter at https://www.bariweiss.com/resignation-letter

Welcome to the Jordan B. Peterson podcast. This is season four episode 29 featuring Barry Weiss. Barry Weiss is a journalist and author and a fiery human being. She's worked as an opinion writer and editor at the New York Times. Before that, she was a book reviewer at the Wall Street Journal and a senior editor at Tablet Magazine. Barry now writes for herself on Substack. Jordan and Barry discussed her career, the circumstances surrounding her resignation from the New York Times, the aftermath of her famous resignation letter, which criticized the New York Times, Twitter and social media, the phrase systemic racism, the work she's doing now and much more. She's just started her own podcast called honestly Barry Weiss, that is definitely worth checking out.

This episode is sponsored by Relief Band. Check out ReliefBand.com. Naja can rear its ugly head at the most inconvenient times. I'm in Russia, where they serve half a cup of vodka at meals, so I'm thrilled to know that Relief Band exists. Relief Band is the number one FDA-cleared anti-naja wristband that has been clinically proven to quickly relieve and effectively prevent nausea and vomiting associated with motion sickness, anxiety migraines, hangovers, morning sickness, chemotherapy, and more. How it works is actually pretty interesting. Relief Bend stimulates a nerve in the wrist that travels to the part of the brain that controls

nausea. I know this sounds like voodoo witchcraft, but it's not. It blocks the signal your brain is sending to your stomach to tell you that you're sick. Relief band is the only over-the-counter wearable device that has been used in hospitals and oncology clinics to treat nausea and vomiting. If you know someone who deals with nausea, relief band can make a great gift. I gave relief band to my producer, who normally gets nauseous when he flies. This time because of relief band there was no problem. The product is a 100% drug-free,

non-drousy and provides all natural relief with zero side effects for as long as needed. The technology was originally developed over 20 years ago in hospitals to relieve nausea from patients, but now through relief band it's available for the masses. Relief band has an exclusive offer just for Jordan B. Peterson listeners. If you go to reliefband.com and use promo code JBP, you'll receive 20% off plus free shipping and a no questions asked 30-day money back at guaranteed. head to RELIFBADND, ReliefBand.com, and user promo code JBP for 20% off plus free shipping. Hello, everyone. I'm pleased today to have, as my guest is Barry Weiss, whom I haven't seen since she interviewed me for the Aspen Ideas Fair.

And that was, I think, three years ago. Something like that. Barry is a journalist and the author of How to Fight Antisemitism, which won a 2019 National Jewish Book Award from 2017 to 2020. Ways was an opinion writer and editor at the New York Times. Before that, she was an op-ed and book review editor at the Wall Street Journal and a senior editor at Tablet Magazine. She's the winner of the inaugural pair all-mark award in recognition of her moral courage and the winner of the Reason Foundation's 2018 Bastia Prize, which honors writing that best

demonstrates the importance of freedom with originality, wit, and eloquence. That's a lovely combination. In 2019, Vanity Fair called Weiss the Times Star Opinion Writer. Despite that, Barry now writes on Substack. Follow her work at berryweiss.substack.com. Thanks very much for agreeing to talk to me today. Barry, it's a pleasure to have you here. It's a pleasure to see you, Jordan. I've been exceptionally curious about exactly what happened with you since I was out of sync with the entire world for a good long time, but I did know that you left the New

York Times to start on your own, start as an independent journalist on sub-stack. And that's quite the turn of events that say, especially given that Vanity Fair called you time star opinion writer. That feels like a hundred years ago. Yeah. It's not so long ago though, is it? But many things have happened in the interim. So should we start with something easy, like just exactly what the hell happened at the New York Times? Sure.

Okay. Sure. Well, I guess I should start with the would drove me to come to the New York Times in the first place. I came to the New York Times following, you know, the, well, it was shocking in the context of the New York Times, the victory of Donald Trump in the 2016 election. There was a brief period of soul searching that happened after Trump won. I would say inside the New York Times, but inside the legacy media in general. And there was a sense of, wow, our job is to hold up a mirror to the country as it is. And we sort of failed our readers.

We haven't exposed them, let's say, to views or to the zeitgeist outside of places like, you know, the Upper West side and Berkeley. And so, in a way, I was an intellectual diversity hire, along with Brett Stevens. I had been at the Wall Street Journal editorial page for years in two different stints. And as viewers may or may not know, I, you know, the Wall Street Journal editorial page is conservative. It's motto is free people, free markets. And I was always the squish in the context of the journals editorial page. I was always on the leftmost flank. So you were a diversity hire at the Wall Street Journal as well?

I've always just been on a fringe in one place or not. Yeah. And I think it's weird to be fringe and in the center. Well, not weird. I feel like that's increasingly where anyone who's in the center is these days, you're politically homeless and you're sort of forced to choose between one side or another. It's maybe unique in so far as, you know, the kind of jobs that I had, but the number of people I know who feel that way, who feel politically homeless, who feel like they have to sort of contort themselves to fit into one of these two tribes

is growing by the second. And so in that sense, I don't think my experience was that unique. What, so anyway, I get to the New York Times, and I want to be clear, like I didn't go into the New York Times and I want to be clear like I didn't go into the New York Times naïve. You know, I read the paper for years, I saw, you know, what's obviously it's liberal bias, but I felt fundamentally like the paper was still trying to adhere to what it claims to be all about in its mission statement, you know, pursuing the truth, even when it's hard, you know, the famous ad that the Times has,

the truth is hard. It's all over tote bags. Striving for objectivity. That tells you how hard it is. Right, right, exactly. Striving for objectivity, even though we know none of us are objective. You know, telling people the truth,

even when it's inconvenient. So, right, still nested inside this idea that journalists, for example, could represent a viewpoint that was actually objectively true rather than expressing, inevitably expressing their association with an arbitrary power structure. It was still an enlightenment idea as far as you were concerned that reigned at the times. Right, and specifically on the editorial page, on, you know, I was an op-ed editor.

So, you know, what the public saw that I did was write columns, but the majority of what my job was, was to commission and edit op-eds from people who wouldn't otherwise think of the New York Times as their natural political home. So that meant conservatives, God forbid, in meant libertarians, it meant heterodox thinkers, it meant high schoolers and first time writers and dissidents, you know, across the Arab world, which is a subject I'm particularly

passionate about. So my job was specifically to expose our readers to views that would not otherwise naturally appear on the op-ed page of the New York Times. Okay, and that was an explicit condition of your hiring. Everyone knew that to begin with. That was my job description. Okay, so you were to fifth column. Or if you were, it was something that everybody had agreed upon. Yeah, the goal was for me to bring in pieces that would otherwise make maybe my even my deskmates uncomfortable. Why did they pick you, do you think? And why did the Wall Street Journal pick you to begin with? Those are very difficult positions to attain. And how old were you when you started with the Wall Street Journal? So I started at the Wall Street Journal. I had a fellowship there the summer that I graduated

from Columbia University. The way that I got to the Wall Street Journal is very serendipitous. I was very much a, I would say, center left liberal when I was a student in college. But I was very passionate on the subject of Israel and fighting anti-Semitism, which is the book that I ended up writing. I sort of have been writing that book for a very long time.

And I would frequently host debates on campus with the socialist group for the sort of anti-Zionist group. And there was an older gentleman that would come to some of my events. And one day, he definitely was not an undergraduate. And one day he came up to me and said, my name is Charles Stevens. You need to meet my son Brett Stevens. He works at the Wall Street Journal. And they have this amazing summer internship. I had never really heard of Brett. Stevens. He works at the Wall Street Journal and they have this amazing summer internship.

I had never really heard of Brett. I had never heard of the Wall Street Journal, but that was how I ended up getting there. It started with a summer internship called the Bartley Fellowship that's still in existence today. And like anything, you know, I worked really hard and worked my way up into into a job. And so that internship became became my first job. What did you study at Columbia? I studied history. I wanted to be a Middle East studies major, but found that what was happening in classrooms was not

was not was not conducive to exploration. It was okay. So I want to do a little divergence here. So I want to tell you a story. I spoke with Yon Mi Park about three weeks ago and she wrote in order to live. Now she wrote in order to live, well, because she had a horrendous life. That's one reason. Even though one of the things she told me while I interviewed her was that she'd met people who whose life was so much worse than hers that she felt blessed, which was quite the bloody catastrophe of a statement. I'll tell you. And anyways, her book ends in 2015. So I asked her what she had been doing since 2015. And she went to Columbia to take a humanities degree. I talked to her about this recently too.

Oh, okay. No, but go ahead. Go ahead, please tell us. Well, she told me, yeah, well, she said, I mean, I thought that was quite remarkable. He had this young woman who was raised under the most horrifying totalitarian conditions, well, not the most, because that's a deep hellhole,

but bad enough. And then was a slave in China, along with her mother, and then managed to get to South Korea, and then did all her pre-University education, basically, in one year, virtually hospitalized herself with effort. And during that time, she read Animal Farm by George Orwell, and that sort of motivated her to write. Then she went to university in South Korea, which is no joke. It's very competitive place. Then she went to Colombia to take humanities degree, which in her words was part of her father's wish that she become educated. So she went to this stellar institution in the center of what's arguably the greatest city on earth to pursue the sort of

enlightenment to pursue the spark that had been lit in nearby or well, let's say, and by her introduction to freedom. And I said, well, how was it at Columbia? And she said, it was a complete waste of time and money. And like she's a reasonable person, she's not actually prone to statements like that. It quite surprised me. And I said, surely that can't be the case. I mean, you know, that's a damning global statement. You must have had one professor, one course that spoke to you. And she said, well, there was a human biology course where I studied evolution, but even it got politically correct by the end. And I felt that I was never able to say anything I actually thought.

And I pushed her, and she was adamant. It was that it was catastrophe going to Columbia, and that she felt, I hope I'm not exaggerating this, but I do believe that this is what she was attempting to put forward. She didn't feel any fear in her speech and actions at Columbia, and then she did in bloody North Korea. And I didn't, wasn't dancing with Glee hearing that, you know, noting that my prognostications about political correctness and universities had manifested themselves. It's terribly shocking to me and terribly saddening that that's actually the case. And I've interviewed some older people recently, they'd be my age, who look back on their humanity's education with nothing but nostalgia and the fondest of memories for the professors that opened up their lives and started them on their careers, great journalists in Canada and businessmen as well, Jocke Willink as well, who took an English literature degree and

was illuminated by it. What was it like for you at Columbia? You know, Jordan, it was a mix. On the one, Columbia has, and who knows how much longer this will be around, but it has what's called the core curriculum. It's basically a study of the classics freshman year, you read classical literature, sophomore year, you study classical philosophy. Those, that was the reason that I went to Columbia and those classes for me were exactly what you described. That spark that you and me felt when she read George Orwell. I absolutely... Why were they that for you? Well, first of all, I had never read those books before. And first of all, I had never read those books before. And knew who Plato was, vaguely, new Socrates was, knew, go down the line.

It heard who Virginia Woolf was. All of these books, they were sole expanding. And it happened to be that I got extremely lucky, especially in that second year course that I described the philosophy course, to have a teacher who was genuinely committed to, I think, what education is supposed to be about at its best. And what is it supposed to be about at its best as far as you're concerned? What did it do for you?

Teaching me how to think and think critically and read a text and allow it at, I mean, at the deepest moments, have it transformed me rather than what I encountered, for example, in the Middle East Studies Department, which was like more like hearing a preacher. I mean, it was more just propaganda. And what do you think the difference is between propaganda and education? I mean, especially I'm asking you this because the claim, one of the claims that is splitting our culture down the middle is that there is no, there is nothing but propaganda essentially. And you just think the propaganda on your side is the truth because it serves your purposes to believe that.

So it's very, very important to make a distinction between propaganda and education now you had two different kinds of classes as far as you're concerned. One of them you describe as opening yourself up and the other you describe as being preached at okay so what what's the difference there. Why didn't I just describe the difference there. Well, I didn't I just describe the difference? Well, I'm not so much on the preaching side. What were you being compelled to think in the Middle East? Okay, first of all, you're making a case that you were compelled to think in one set of classes. What were you compelled to think? Well, let me give you an example. The course that I was thinking about in my mind as I just described this was a course called, Topics in Middle East Studies.

So it's the entire region of the Middle East for going back thousands of years in a sort of general 101 course was part of a requirement if you wanted to continue on in the major. And that course basically, here's what you had to accept that the sole sort of source of maladies in what I think we all can agree

is a very complicated and blood-soaked region of the world are all the result of essentially European or American colonialism, that everything goes back to that core idea, and that even things like, let's say in India, you know, widow burning could be connected to colonialism, even things like honor killing could be connected to colonialism. Even things like honor killing could be connected to colonialism. Everything had to do with this sort of one lens with which you could understand an extremely complicated thing. And then the second part, and this, this is again, like, I think often times this is the case. If you know something about one particular topic, like let's say a lot about it. And you don't know a lot about Saudi Arabia or Iran or any of the other places you're studying,

but you know a lot about this one place. And for me, that was Israel. And you hear that what you're being taught about it is so out of line with reality, then you start being skeptical about everything else the person is saying. And that was very much the case with me, that, you know, first of all, Israel's one of, you know, dozens of countries in the Middle East,

but it was obsessed on in the course. And the one text we were asked to read about this complicated, very interesting place, the history that goes back thousands of years, which is the cradle of Western civilization, was a book by a guy called Maxime Robinson. I recommend people look it up called Israel colon, a Zionist colonial settler state, question mark. And suffice it to say the question mark was superfluous. And everything was just sort of driving toward the, I felt the political view of the professor that was teaching the course, whereas, you know, in contrast, the philosophy course that I was describing to you, or even I'm thinking about an intellectual history class that I took.

I didn't really know what my professor thought. And we were always obsessed with like, what do they really think? And that made it, it just felt like they were trying to as much as possible remove their own views to teach texts and ideas to us in the most capacious way possible. Now, it turns out with the intellectual history course, that professor is now on Twitter. And I see what he thinks.

And it's very much not my view of the world, but I really admire the fact that he, that I didn't know that when I took his class, and that I was able to sort of come to my own positions without feeling like if I wasn't herding what he said, that I would somehow be punished, whether it was in the grade that I received or in the seminar section part of the lecture course. So to me, that's a really important decision.

Okay, so, so there's a couple of things there that I think might be worth highlighting or they're, they strike me as worth highlighting, anyway, is, I wrote a chapter in my last book, which is beyond order, called Abandoned Ideology. And one of the propositions that makes up the argument in that chapter is that you have to be aware of unifactorial explanations for complex phenomena is that if you look at anything, perhaps you might look at the wage cap, say, between men and women, the purported wage gap. Well, the probability that there's one exactly reason that that occurs. Well, first of all, you have to ask the question to begin with, is the gap real? There's a measurement issue there. And so you can take that apart because you

don't have to accept the proposition that the phenomena even exists to begin with. That happens in psychology all the time where people will use a term in common parlance, but not necessarily be able to translate that into some like objective reality. Like for example, we experience an emotion, the emotion of shame, but it isn't obvious that there's a shame system neurobiologically. Maybe it's the interaction of a variety of neurological systems, whereas for anxiety, there looks like there's a neurological system, and for play, there's a neurological system. And so there's not necessarily one-to-one correspondence between a word and an objective world. So you can always question that. But then when you look at a complicated phenomena,

the probability that there's multiple reasons for its existence, or even if there isn't, that there's multiple theories about the single thing that's the cause of its existence. That's a necessary part of sophisticated thinking. And so maybe one thing for people to be aware of is is a consequence of this one thing. And that's the hallmark, that's one of the hallmarks, perhaps one of the hallmarks of propaganda, when it's not utilizing just outright deceit. And so, and then I think there's another, something that you pointed to more implicitly, which is that maybe it's also necessary to cast an extraordinarily skeptical eye on totalizing theories that identify a convenient enemy, and a convenient enemy would be someone that you're clearly not.

Because it's, and so I've become very leery of conversations, for example, where people rely on the word they. And I don't mean that as a gender neutral pronoun. I mean, when you talk about the they that are at fault when they're doing the things they're doing, you think, well, it's kind of convenient that that doesn't include you, because a lot of the really complex problems that we face are all our problems and all are doing in some sense, in some broad sense, or at least all our responsibility. So there's the totalizing element, there's the oversim… and it's so psychologically rewarding also to do in some sense to develop a totalizing theory that means that you have

an explanation for absolutely everything because with minimal cognitive effort, you have a map of the entire world. And it means you have a community. I mean, I don't think we can overstate how comforting it is to feel like you're part of a tribe and that you were aligned against those people over there. Yeah, well, the first part of that might be beneficial and positive, but the second part, which tends to go along with it, is the danger of that communal drive. You know, there is evidence, for example, that people who are high in empathy are much harsher in their out group evaluations than people who are low in empathy.

We think of empathy as an untrammeled good. Well, it unites people, and it unites them with love, essentially. It's biologically speaking. It's a manifestation of the affiliative circuit that bonds mother and child, and that's elaborated up into pair bonding for adult humans, but then it extends out to those who are your kin. That all sounds lovely and positive, but you don't want to get between a mother grizzly and her cubs, so there's that side of it. So now the distinction between the propaganda, let's say, and a real exploration, or real class, or real education, I think hinges on something like exploration.

So, let's think about these podcasts as an example. I mean, I find a podcast discussion particularly useful when the two people who were involved in the discussion are exploring at the fringes of their knowledge and trying to further what they already know, instead of trying to hammer home a point to convince the person they're talking to or themselves or the listener. And in my classes, you know, when they were going well, I stepped through a variety of psychological theories in my personality class, right? So started with Freud and Jung and Adler and Rogers and all the great clinicians.

And I would put forward their case as strongly as possible and then trying to explore what they meant. But that wasn't my viewpoint. It was, it was an attempt to explore. And then I could pull the students along with it. And that seems to be much different than, here's the problem. Here's the perpetrators. It's a soul.

And then you experienced, like, there was a phenomenological experience that you had that made you contrast those two approaches. Yeah. And it was also, I mean, this connects it back to your initial question, which is what the hell happened at the New York Times, in a way that answer to that begins in college, because that was the first time that I started to encounter what has been called critical social justice or critical race theory or wokeness or what Rodrayers called soft totalitarianism or a really cultural and moral relativism to put it more simply. I remember very, very clearly getting

into an argument with another friend, also identified as a feminist, and she was justifying female genital medilation to me, because that's other people's culture and we need to respect it. I'm being crude, but that was the basic argument. And I remember thinking, what the hell? How can you possibly call yourself a feminist and believe in defending the rights of women and believe that women should be safe and have equality of opportunity to mend and also believe that female genital mutilation can be justified in any universe.

And so it was the first time, and it was very uncomfortable, but in a way, I'm grateful for it, because the ideas that I started to encounter, both in classes and also socially at school, those are the ideas that have now swallowed the culture and have swallowed the institutions that are meant to uphold the liberal order. Okay, and now let's talk about that for a minute because why are you so convinced that that's true? I mean, I- What's true?

That they swallowed everything? Exactly, right? Because this is a major question, so our culture is facing this stream division, or that's what it appears. But the question is, is it as serious as you might perceive it to be, or is that a consequence of the information sources that you're availing yourself of? And of course, this is exactly the same thing applies to me. I mean, I saw this coming as far as I'm concerned, you know, well, 20 years ago, 25 years ago, but more particularly five years ago, and you know, well, 20 years ago, 25 years ago, but more particularly, five years ago, and, you know, that's got me in all sorts of trouble,

but it seems to me to be something real and something dangerous, and I'm trying to put my finger on exactly what it is and to warn people about it, but it's not like I don't have my doubts about, you know, whether this is just my conspiratorial idiosyncrasy, making itself known in the world. And so... I don't think it's a conspiracy. I think the question is whether or not The optimists are right and this thing is a moral panic and it will burn itself out just like you know panic around

Satanic, you know Child molesters burned them that that burned out in the 1980s in this country and maybe in Canada too I'm not sure. Yes, definitely. Well, we always do things a little less extremely, but we follow along in your way. Right. So the question is, are those people right? Will wokeness, I hate that word, but I don't know what else to call it. Will it recede on its own, like a fever that burns itself out? Or will it only sort of, let's say, lose the battle over the culture

and over sense-making and over the elite institutions in America and more broadly in the West, if it meets another force that pushes against it? I don't see it receding on its own, and the more I look inside, look inside, certainly the press, I have the front row seat to witness that, and we can talk about it. Let's talk about it. But education, science, the big tech,

the HR departments of major corporations in this country, like it's touching everything. I got a notification from my university department today. They developed a contract for undergraduates who are going to work in labs, which seems to me to be completely unnecessary anyways, because that was something that was always handled by individual professors. But most of it's just, you know, care of data and the sorts of things that you might expect that might be made explicit if you were going to work in a lab.

But of course, two- thirds of the way in it, there's a huge statement about all the groups that you're not allowed to be prejudiced against in your conduct and so forth. And so it's just another example of how these ideas, these, let's call them anti-racist ideas for the time being, are anti-group prejudice ideas, these, let's call them anti-racist ideas for the time being, or anti-group prejudice ideas, are there, there's an insistence that they manifest themselves everywhere. And you

might say, well, you know, who isn't anti-racist? And so why object to that? And my sense is that, well, they don't come, they're not part, they're not, they don't stand on their own. They're part of an entire system of ideas. That's the that that that's always bothered me is that there's a whole system of ideas here and the And I mean, maybe it's best exemplified in critical race theory that's sort of its most extreme I also really don't believe in seeding the language like in saying yeah, right? anti-racism because I'm not seeding that language to an ideology that is insisting on re-segregating the culture. Why not seed the language?

Because it's a war of language. It's a war of language. I mean, if you're going to call, what with essentially neo-racism and neo-segregation anti-racism, like I'm not going to go along with the lie of that, I'm just not. I am going to insist on a version of anti-racism that is rooted in our common humanity and is actually about eradicating racism, not on obsessing on the social construct of race and reifying it and making us pitted in a kind of like zero sum war against each other based on our immutable characteristics. I'm sorry, I'm not doing that.

I'm not giving in to their lives. Yeah, well, then the question I'm sorry, I'm not doing that. I'm not giving into their language. Yeah, well, then the question is, right, where do you draw the line? I mean, I didn't want to use identity politics language in reference to personal pronouns in Canada. And that's pretty much done in my career as a researcher and probably as a clinical psychologist as well. So it's not a trivial battle to undertake. And people, of course, asked,

well, why did you pick that particular hill to die on? Because what weren't protections that were already built into the law for other groups merely extended to another deserving group. But what I saw was a terrible misuse of language at a very fundamental level. So part of it was an issue of compelled speech. I have to use the terminology that you demand and you claim that it's only about your emotional well-being and your identity. But for me, it's part and parcel of a completed ideology. And then there's also the smuggling in of a particular view of identity that I don't believe has any credence whatsoever

because your identity is by no means only who you feel that you are. Your identity is a complex game that you negotiate with others and it's what it is exactly is very difficult to elucidate because it's central to the nature of human existence, what your identity is, but it's certainly not the simplistic group signifier that can be, that you conveniently hang your hat on, especially when you want to exercise arbitrary power over other people without them noticing that that's what you're doing.

So I don't want to see the language either. And part of the discussion we can have today is just about exactly what the language implies. We can talk about systemic racism for a minute or two if you don't mind. Then we'll get back to the Wall Street Journal story and sort of let's get that to the graphically. Yeah, yeah. Yeah. Well, so I've been thinking about the phrase systemic racism. And it's a very interesting phrase because it's sort of systemic racism, systemic racism. And you can't hear racism. Well, it's important. It's important. You can't hear racism. Like as soon as you hear racism, there's a there's a moral issue, a major moral issue

at stake. And the proposition essentially is if I come up to you and say, this is racist, I instantly put you in a position where if you disagree with anything that I'm saying, you have to defend yourself morally right to the basis of your soul, because it's such a terrible thing. Arbitrary prejudice is such a terrible, devastating thing. And virtually everyone recognizes that. And so, and so there's a club that comes along with the use of the phrase right away. And the club is, well, I'm on the right side of history here

with my claim about opposing this terrible satanic an ethnocentric viewpoint. And then I can say systemic. And so I've been thinking about systemic. Now systemic means pervasive. It means everywhere. That's what systemic means. It has its connotations and its explicit meaning,

but it means that it's the central tendency of the system, let's say. And that's just wrong. The central tendency of functional Western social institutions is not racism. The central tendency is something like cooperative endeavor towards productive ends. And the aberration is deception and power and racism.

But the central tendency isn't that. Now, and this is, this is the crucial issue here because systemic means central tendency. And, and, and if you accept systemic, not only do you accept that the central tendency is racist, let's say an exclusionary, and that also means in support of the privilege of certain groups, because that's part parcel of the entire argument, but you also accept the proposition that the motivations that drive people to success in the systemically racist system also have to be power and systemic racism, hence the use of tests like the implicit association tests. So not only are the institutions systemically racist, but the psychological motivations

of those who are striving to move forward within the systems are all of a sudden now tyrannical power and systemic racism. And all that's packed into that word systemic. And it's just snuck in there because racism is so loud and so vicious and so horrible that you're not allowed to object to anything that manifests itself within its vicinity. It's unbelievably. What would you call it? Well, it's propaganda. Andistic is probably the right word, but it just blows people out of the water because they're hit with this racist issue. And that just, you know, it rattles them up so badly ethically that they

can't stand forward and make a reasonable argument. Well, there's a ton there, Jordan. I guess I would say that I think there is a way to acknowledge that, for example, this country had, you know, in the way that let's say black Americans were deprived of building generational wealth because they were deprived of loans. They weren't allowed to buy homes or redlining or Jim Crow or we could go all the way back to 1619 or slavery. I mean, oh, we could go back a lot farther than that. But it is true that there were systems in America that were, I don't know what other word to say it, systemically racist. Well, you wouldn't, you could say there were systems in America that were racist without

saying there were systems in America that were systemically racist. There's no doubt whatsoever that arbitrary prejudice is a blight upon mankind and that it manifests itself everywhere. But it's not just arbitrary, right? If you look just at one discrete example, like the drug war, the disparity between the punishment in the 1980s between being caught with crack and being caught with cocaine, I don't know what else to call that. You know, that, but... Call it racist. Sure, but that's not just whatever the word adjective you used before was. Just before. Well, we should argue about this a lot because it's the core point, so it's a good idea

to do this. So there are definitely systematic manifestations of racism. They inculcate themselves, let's say, into the legal system. And some of them are more explicit and some of them are more implicit, but that's not the issue, the issue, or that that's, yes, that's not the issue when you're talking about systemic racism, because there's a tangle of claims in that term. And so please do argue with me, okay? Okay, so I think that we need to be able to acknowledge,

I think as you just did, what I just said, and also see that the way that that phrase is being weaponized right now is basically as an argument to tear down liberalism, America and the West. Okay, okay, so now we're starting to unpack that. So we're, so we'll look at the issue of racism first. Okay, so people are radically ethnocentric and that's a human universal. Now we're, we have a tendency to trade with groups of people who aren't us and we will investigate them and explore them, but we're also not so much terrified of them because it's not exactly fear, but

leery of them. And we're leery of them for all sorts of reasons. One reason we're leery of them, I just talk to a great biologist whose name is going to escape me momentarily. He formulated the Parasite Stress Theory of political belief. And so one of the things he points out is that as isolated groups of human beings came into contact with one another throughout our entire evolutionary history, we were able to trade ideas and goods and that was greatly to our benefit. But we also traded infectious agents

and that killed us a lot. And so we have this terrible tension at the base of our being between being open to what's new and being killed by what's new. And so that's part of what makes us ethnocentric. It's not by any means the entire thing. So, but we have this ethnocentrism built in as well as the desire to trade. Slavery is a human universal. It goes back as far back in time as you can possibly manage. And so we can admit that all those things exist. And we can admit that

they're powerful tendencies without having to take this next step, which is the one that you pointed to by saying, well, that's the foundation of our institutions themselves. And because of that, the institutions have to be torn down. Rather than saying slavery has been with humanity for eons. And the exceptional thing about America is not that we had slavery, but that slavery was abolished. Okay. And I would say that's the exceptional thing about Britain, not America, because the Brits did it first, and they were, that's my understanding of the situation.

Now, that doesn't take away from the American accomplishment, or the Canadian accomplishment for that matter. Right. The systemic tendency is the eradication of slavery. I'm simply saying that the thing that is being emphasized, that I wanna push back against, that often comes along with the use of the phrase systemic racism, is the idea that because the dead white men that wrote the Constitution or that came up

with these enlightenment values or any number of other things that have allowed us to live in this exceptional, let's say, civilization. It's beyond just America, that because of their moral hypocrisy, that somehow the things that they built are ill-gotten and need to be sort of rooted out, torn down at the core. And I fundamentally reject that view. Okay, now why should I presume that your fear of, okay, you've just

characterized the relationship between the idea of systemic racism with a bunch of other ideas. Okay. So right, the idea that there's a lot more to the story than the mere emphasis on systemic racism. There's a belief that the institutions themselves, the fundamental institutions of the West, are corrupt right to their core. That is the implication often of the people using the phrase, but I think one should be able to use the phrase without implying all of that. Unfortunately, right now, when you hear it, it tends to be that the things I just described

come along with the use of that phrase. A little bit like anti-racism. Why are you convinced that your belief that the idea of systemic racism is associated with these other ideas is true? Because I see it. Tell me about that. I don't know where to start. I mean, that is— I understand that. So help push me toward what area you're in. Well, I agree with you. I mean, the reason that I took this stance, I took five years ago, which I've had plenty of time to think about, by the way, is because I saw the linkage between ideas. I didn't believe that this was just what it appeared to be.

It was associated with an entire ideology. And the ideology seems to me to be. It was associated with an entire ideology and the ideology seems to me to be all layout some of its features. And you can tell me if you think it is in accord with what you see, that inequality of outcome is evidence of systemic discrimination, for example. Yes, that would be that inequality of outcome conveniently described for the purposes of just justifying the ideology. Yeah, let me describe how I like some described for the purposes of justifying the ideology. Yeah, let me describe how I like some of the features of this ideology. And you tell me a few agree that inequality of outcome is necessarily a result of systemic discrimination or systemic

bigotry. Okay, and that's part of the equity issue. Sure. But again, that's another one of these words that's been hijacked. I know. Well, that's exactly why I brought it up is because I've been talking to a group of people in L.A. who are liberals, and on the left of me, I would say, but, and we've been stuck on this issue of equity because I've been insisting, for example, that it does mean it's a drive towards equality of outcome defined in exactly the manner that you describe. And their insistence is, no, that's a view that only a minority of the people who are pushing the idea of equity hold. Well, the majority of people that go along with equity just think, I believe in fairness.

They're not thinking deeply about this. It's like the person that says black lives matter will of course, black lives matter. But if you look under the hood of what the organizations that are at the forefront of the black lives matter movement believe, well, they believe in abolishing the nuclear family. They believe in abolishing or defunding the police. They believe that capitalism is evil. I mean, they believe in all kinds of things, but the majority of people that are saying or putting up a sign, Black Lives Matter,

are saying racism's bad. The majority of people that are saying, I believe in equity and diversity, are saying, I believe in the dignity of difference and I believe in fairness and I believe in equality of opportunity. So when the people in these theoretical people in LA, when they're saying that, is that what they mean

or do they mean something else? No, they mean, they, I think what they mean is that the people who are pushing equity believe in equality of opportunity. And they don't see the true business. They exactly right. And these are reasonable people. And they're not that happy with political correctness

I should also say so there is an reasonable a group as I can communicate But I have to be honest at this point if you can't if one can't see the way that this language has been hijacked and has been used as a kind of Trojan horse brilliant, I should say Trojan horse strategy to smuggle in a sort of hardened, you know, zero-sum identity politics view of the world, to smuggle in a view of the world in which we either have collective guilt or collective innocence literally based on the circumstances of our birth that smuggle in a, you know, deeply anti-capitalist position that smuggle in essentially, you know, a leftist liberalism, then I'm sorry, you have blinders on. The evidence for this is so overwhelming at this point.

I'm really not sure how, like if you don't want to believe it, I think it's because the discomfort of believing it outweighs the, let me say that again. I think it's because that admitting that that's true and that that's what's happening is extremely psychologically scary. And it's extremely socially scary if you're a liberal. Because all of a sudden, it means that these institutions and let's just even say like the social world and the culture that you took for granted as being a certain thing and having certain qualities is no longer what it appears to be. And that is the perfect segue to connect it back to the New York Times.

Yes, okay. So let's do that. I agree with you. let's do that. That I agree with you. Let's do that now. So now you're at the Wall Street Journal and you're starting to write there. Yeah, and let's just fast forward that I get to the New York Times. And suffice it to say that, you know, I was never popular.

I had already published lots of things. I was known as being a Zionist. I was known for, for, you know, views that put me outside of the, let's say, the cool woke kids tape. What do you mean by you were never popular? You just glossed over that very rapidly. Sure. What does it experience there? There was a skepticism of me from the beginning. skepticism of me from the beginning. But I mean, it was the New York Times.

It's the most important journalistic platform in the world. And so I was more than willing to put up with getting the cold shoulder from some of my colleagues because the, you can just can't overstate how powerful that distribution system is, much more so than the Wall Street Journal. And it holds a certain position, I would say, just beyond America, you know, in the West. And so I was low to give that up, and I would be willing and was willing to put up with a lot in order to cling to that position. Well, how do you think people saw you?

Like because they assumed they made a variety of assumptions about human. That was what was alienating. What is it that you represented or were in their eyes, do you? Heresy. Heresy. Heresy. Someone who lived like them went to the same restaurants as them, dated like them, by all metrics, should have agreed with them on every tenant of this new orthodoxy.

But I don't know. Right, so you're worse because of that. See, I just talked to Rima is our Professor at Mount Ellison who's who's an Arab Immigrant to Canada Lebanese and she just got hung out to dry by the pathetic cowards at her university For her son She doesn't exactly know but apparently it was something like incitement to sexual violence and also insistence that Canada

isn't a systemically racist country. And she wrote some of this in her blog, which she thought was mostly for distribution to her friends. And anyways, but she's a heretic like you are because she's female and she's an immigrant to Canada. And so it's incumbent upon her to adopt the victimized identity that people like her should know is good for them. And because she didn't, although quite a minor way, she really literally doesn't know what her crime was. She doesn't really know

who her accusers were. They suspended her without pay. She's a tenured professor. It's a worst case than the case in New York with Paul Rossi. It's much worse. It's quite stunning. I mean, if you met her, you'd think, really, this is the she's the person that all these institutions was hypothetically designed to protect. But if you think about it in a way, it makes sense that it's sort of the, the, the, the people at the edges that are more dangerous than the people across the street. Because if what your goal is is to reshape, let's say, what it means to be liberal and progressive, which is what this is about. And if your goal is to sort of remoralize people into that view of the world, then you need to make examples of people

and sharpen the boundary of who is in the community of the righteous and the good by making examples of people who don't go along with every part of it. Because right, the point of the ostracisms and the point of what sounds like happened at this professor is to say, you know, it's not really about the person, it's about sending a message to everyone watching it, that if you don't fall in line, if you don't conform, if you don't obey, this is what's going to happen to you. And you better believe that that is an extraordinarily effective strategy unbelievably so. So I think what I saw at the New York Times was, I guess the only way to describe it is

is this kind of ideological succession. And it's not just a story about the New York Times, it's a story about Nature magazine, it's a story about Bloomberg, it's a story about the New York Times. It's a story about Nature magazine. It's a story about Bloomberg. It's a story about Harvard. It's a story about the name, the institution. It's probably about that institution. And so what's maddening for someone who's seeing it is that for most people on the outside, they're just saying, wait, it's the New York Times. It has this like vested authority. It has the same font. It has the same nast head. And you're telling me that really the New York Times

is no longer the New York Times. And that's exactly what I'm telling you. And it's... Yeah, and so then the question is, what is it? Well, it's... Well, what it used to be, it basically is... Well, what it used to be, it basically is if the old version of the New York Times was supposed to be, you know, telling the truth without fear of favor, now it's something more like MSNBC in print, right?

If you look at Fox, you look at MSNBC, it's very easy to see what those things are. Their political heroin for their side. That's increasingly what the New York Times is. And you can really point, I mean, you don't have to believe in, you know, an ideological conspiracy to understand the push for that to be the new product, right? Go back to the age before the internet when the group that the New York Times had to appease were the advertisers. That was who you had to fear pissing off. Well, now that advertising's basically a dead letter,

who do you have to appeal to? You have to appeal to your subscribers. Those are the people that are paying the bills in the end of the day. And lo and behold, 95% might be 92%, but it's something along those lines of New York Times subscribers identify as liberals, progressives, or Democrats.

So you better believe that in order to keep your subscribers, your readers, the people paying the bills happy, you have to give them what they want. And so we just shouldn't be surprised anymore that Fox is doing what it's doing and that the New York Times is doing what it's doing. It's very good for business. It may not be good for democracy, but it's extremely good for business. And I think that the only reason that it's been...

But why did it work before? Like if this is necessary to appease your consumer base, for example, I mean, you made a bit of a case there that it was the advertisers, and you said that the advertisers, in some sense, now have been replaced by the direct consumer, and they're more arbitrary. But it still begs the question, if the New York Times was a reasonable paper

of record 20 years ago, or Time Magazine, for that matter, it's quite shocking to look at a Time Magazine from the 1970s. It's about a quarter of an inch thick, and it's all text. It's a real magazine, and that's, of course, gone by the wayside. But why did it work before? Why was there a market for, let's call it objective journalism,

five years ago or 10 years ago, and there isn't now? Well, social media has a tremendous amount to do with it. I mean, because there's no longer what Martin Goury has called like secret knowledge. And for those who haven't read his book, the revolt of the public, it is the best description of everything that we are talking about. You no longer need Walter Cronkite or, you know, or the New York Times for that matter to tell you about the anti-Semitic attack that happened in West Hollywood the other night, because by the way, they're probably not gonna cover it.

All you need to do is follow the right accounts on Twitter. And so when information becomes democratized and you don't rely, let's put to the side, for example, the Times's excellent China coverage, or it's foreign policy coverage, where you really do need an enormous budget and people flying to the other side of the world oftentimes infiltrating close societies to tell you what is genuinely closed information. But for by and large let's say on domestic issues and a number of and certainly style and opinion, you can just get that on the internet

and so what am I subscribing what am I what is the reason to pay for the New York Times? Well, the reason for that has changed. It's no longer so that you can find out what happened in West L.A. the other night. Increasing, increasingly, first of all, it's products like crosswords and cooking and documentaries and all these other things that are more like entertainment. But it's also to raw, raw for your team. That's another enormous reason for it.

And I'll just add one more thing about Twitter. I just, you cannot overstate the effect that social media has on editors and reporters. You know, they are people like anyone else. And you know very well, Jordan, as I do, how bad it feels to get dragged and slandered on on social media by often, you know, thousands of people. And you and if you know that in advance, and you know that writing about a certain topic or writing about a topic that's ugly or writing about a topic that has't perspective, that the majority of your followers or the subscribers to your paper don't agree with,

it's like you don't need to be told, don't write about it. You tuck yourself out of it because you don't want to experience that punishment. Why is it worth it? Why should I die on that hill? It's easier to commission the 5,000th op-ed about why Donald Trump is horrendous. And so every incentive just pushes you in that direction.

The social incentive, both social online, but social in your real life, and the economic incentive. And frankly, the incentive of the people that you're literally surrounded by. And so resisting all of those forces is extremely difficult. The only way that it becomes, it's like the only way it becomes possible is if you know that the people who are running the paper and the people that are in charge and the people who are in the, in the end of the day writing your paycheck, believe in that mission that goes against those incentives and supports you. And once that falls away and once you see as I did, that you could no longer rely on

those people to support and sort of defend you, including against other colleagues at the paper, then you just knew that you weren't going to be protected anymore. Okay, so I want to split this now into two. I want to continue with the biographical. And I make a sense. You are, you were, yes, absolutely. I want to continue with the biographical, but I want to go back to the, to the propagandistic issue too, because there's still something that we haven't explored. So you and, and I, in this discussion, have fleshed out this structure of ideas that's lurking behind the claim of systemic racism. We haven't done that thoroughly, but we've done it to some degree. We've linked it with such things as propagandistic education and tried to contrast that with

the genuine exploration of ideas. But what we haven't touched on and something that's quite mysterious to me is, well, what's driving this? Like, what's in it for the people who are pushing the critical race theories? Well, it's strange, though, because they're the proposition that is being put forth by people who hold these theories is that it's power that's fundamentally driving all social institutions, and that's the fundamental manifestation of human ambition. And so, but then to turn around and say, well, it's power that's driving the ideology seems to be adopting their theoretical stance to criticize their theoretical stance.

It's like, I still don't get it. Well, let's give them, let's try and steal man their argument, right? The idea that, you know, for all of human history up until five minutes ago, that people like you were at the top of the, let's call it the caste system. And, you know, a black transgender disabled person is at the very bottom. There is an understandable impulse to say, let's remedy that. Like you've had your day in the sun, Jordan. So is Brad Pitt and, you know, John Ham and all of the other cisgendered white males. And let's give a chance and elevate voices who historically, let's be honest, have been

kept out of the pages of the New York Times. You think that 70 years ago I would have been able to walk into the New York Times wearing a Jewish star. Oh, I would have taken it off before I walked in. So there is a... Right, but you could now, except perversely, and perversely, you couldn't for any length of time because of the influence of the ideas that we're describing.

Well, okay, so you made a steel man argument there. So I would first say, well, let's take it apart carefully. All throughout history, those who have shared some of my immutable characteristics have had a higher probability of attaining positions of status. But those positions can't be confused only with positions of power because status is about much more than power. And when systems are working properly, status is conferred upon people because they're productive and generous and cooperative and useful,

not because they're arbitrary holders of tyrannical power. And that's so true that it's not just true for human beings. It's also true for our nearest non-human relatives like chimpanzees who are often parodied as power mad. But if you do the analysis there, you see that it's reciprocity that keeps even chimpanzee social organizations going. So there's the first thing is that it was not merely the arbitrary bestowal of power. And the second thing is that merely possessing those immutable characteristics was in no way a certain avenue to the top because, of course, it was a certain, but the point is that if you didn't have those qualities, you weren't even allowed to enter the race.

That's the point. No? I'm just trying to understand like what is drawing people to these ideas? Okay, good, hearted, well-intentioned people. And I believe that the thing that is drawing them to these ideas is a sense of historical repair. Is a sense of justice. Is a sense of... Well, fair, okay, fair, look, fair enough. And I mean, it's not like. The reason I think, the reason I think it's important to understand which drawing people to these ideas is because I want to defeat these ideas.

Why? Because I believe they are fundamentally illiberal and because I do not believe in a world of cast. I believe that we should be fighting for a world in which there isn't a caste system, not where we reverse a caste system. Okay, well then I would say that the systems that have privileged people like me in the past are also the same systems for whatever reasons that have in fact led to the freeing of the people who weren't allowed to play the game

increasingly across time and that that's a universal truth, not a particular truth. And that's the point, right? Well, and you accept that argument. You accept that argument. And so then we have another problem here, Barry, still, which is you're making the case that well-meaning people want this.

And I understand your point, and it's not like I don't feel for the dispossessed, you know, and grasp the argument. But my sense is, is that the very institutions that are under assault by people who purport to be standing up for the dispossessed are, in fact, the best antidote to that dispossession that the world has ever produced. And it seems to me that if you don't see that, then you have blinders on. And if you have those blinders on, then the question is why are you more interested in tearing down than in building up? Let me tell you a brief story.

Okay. And you tell me what you think of this. I had this debate with Slavo Giecek. And in the beginning of the debate, which it was a strange debate because he basically declared himself not a Marxist even though that was what the debate was about. And I say that with all due regard for Giecek, who was very kind to me when I was ill and who seems like a fine person and so this is not an ad hominem attack at all. People are complicated and it was a delight actually to have the debate with him. But in any case, I started the debate with a 15 minute critique of the communist manifesto.

And at one point, I said, it was a call to bloody violent revolution. And the crowd cheered and laughed for about three seconds. And a substantial, maybe 10% of the crowd. And so there were a lot of people there who were on the radical end of the Marxist distribution and they had come to hear their purported champion, you know, will give me a good stomping. But it was so interesting, especially for someone who's psychoanalytically minded because it was a great Freudian slip. I thought, it put me back for about 10 seconds because I thought, really, you sons of bitches, you cheered, violent, bloody revolution, knowing full well what happened over the course

of the 20th century with all the absolutely catastrophic horrors that laid out as a consequence of Marxist ideas because you're hidden by the crowd. You can let your laughter, you can let your resentment, your desire for nothing but a people manifest itself, because it's invisible, but it wasn't invisible, because there was thousands of people there. And so they laughed away about bloody violent revolution. And so on the one hand, and then I've been talking to people, I talked to Stephen Blackwood this week, who's starting a college designed to teach people liberal arts again.

Yeah. starting a college designed to teach people liberal arts again. Well, he insisted that people are always pursuing the good. And a number of people on my show have insisted that, even if it's warped and twisted, it's analogous to the argument that you were making. This isn't criticism of you. You said, look, you can see why these ideas are so attractive. I know you are. I know you are. I know you are.

And I'm not going after your argument. I'm just trying to elaborate it. It's, you know, there is this concern for the dispossessed. And that's what gives the radicals the moral high ground. So often we're concerned for the dispossessed. Aren't you? It's like, well, yes, as a matter of fact, we are. And so they start out, these, the, the, the a matter of fact, we are. And so they start out these, the

wielders of these ideas start out with a moral advantage. But the evidence seems to suggest that the very systems they're attempting to tear down are, in fact, the best antidote to the problems that they're laying out. So then the question pops up again. So if that's the case, why the hell is there so much force behind the ideas? What's driving it? And it's associated with that laughter at the thought of violent bloody revolution. Because we're so removed from violent bloody revolution. That's why there's it like the it's a luxury to flirt with these ideas. like it's a luxury to flirt with these ideas. That's a good, that's a really good idea. That's a really good idea.

If you think, if you are so, if you take the fact, let's just take an example that I can, you know, I'm not wearing long sleeves, you could see my collarbone and that I can walk down the street here with my wife and go get a full awful at the end of the street and not be stone to death. Okay? Like that's a miracle. That's a miracle. That's right. That's what divides people is whether or not they know that's a miracle. Yes. And if you are so removed from the truth of that miracle and from gratitude for everyone and every idea,

every piece of scaffolding that allows for that to be that my reality, then you will have the foolishness, but it's really the luxury and the decadence to flirt with ideas about doing away with it. And I just, I don't know why some people feel like people. Okay, I'm just going to steal men. I'm just going to steal men. I was going to say one thing. Okay. I am so curious about why certain people feel in their bones,

how thin the veneer of civilization is, and why other people are so nonchalant about it. I feel it's a psychological question, but I don't know it. I don't know either. I don't know either to know when I was in graduate school, I was obsessed with the finitude of life and with mortality and death. I mean, I wake up every morning and think there's no time, get to it now. And I had friends who I would say were more well adjusted than me. That's certainly part of it. Like they were more emotionally

stable, technically speaking, less prone to depression and anxiety. So that's part of it. And they, it was that those ideas never entered the theater of their imagination. They, they, they just weren't a set of existential problems for them. For me, it's always been paramount. And I read, oh, I can't, he worked for the New York Times too, a great journalist. He wrote, but I can't remember the book. Anyways, he had spent a lot of time in Beirut during the catastrophes in Beirut. And then he talked about going to a baseball game in the United States, right? And he was at these baseball game with all these people who were sitting there doing what people do at baseball games

chat nonchalantly drink a bit of beer have a hot dog. It's like I went to a I've hardly gone to any baseball games and I went to one in Boston and I was thinking Jesus this is, nothing's happening. Why are people here? Don't they have something better to do? And then I started to look around and I thought, oh, I see, I'm so wrong. They're here because this is nothing to do. It's just leisure. It's like, you don't really have to pay it. But it's deeper. It's channeling those human forces that want us to go into tribal warfare and putting it, you know, into supporting the Red Sox or the Yankees. Right, right, there's that. But there's that exactly. But the whole thing is a miracle is that we can go out there and play out these tribal antagonisms at a completely peaceful level and sit there and and and and and have it be benevolent and calm. And then I realized, well, people do this for leisure. That's why they're doing this.

And you're the idiot, not them, but the commentator, the author. He had a hard time going to baseball games after he had been in Beirut because the thinness of the veneer was always apparent to him after that, because he couldn't drive across the city without being stopped by armed gangs constantly. And I guess it's also maybe, to some degree, whether your view of humanity tilts more towards Hobbes or more towards Rousseau, you know, and I like to think of myself as balanced between the two, because I think people do have the capacity for good and that you know it's not a war against all in the state of nature, but I certainly am sensitive to the state of

nature argument. It is always a miracle to me when I go outside and there isn't a riot in the streets. And I do think it's a thin veneer and we have to be very careful with it. So Dostoevsky said in notes from the underground, one of the most insightful passages there, sections, talks about the flaws in utopian thinking. He said, well, people are constituted such that if you provided them with utopia, the first thing they would do is break it to pieces just so that something interesting would happen, so that they could have their own capricious way. And that's very much akin to the argument that you're making, the luxury argument. And so then there's another problem there that we could delve into that I've talked about

with the sort of rational, optimist types like Matt Ridley and Bjorn Lomburg and so on, is that we offer young people this luxury that produces the kind of decadence that you're describing, but what they're deprived of is the opportunity for romantic adventure. And so part of the positive thing that's driving them to shatter the veneer is the desire for something more than, you know, the cause. Yes, yes, yes, it's a, yes, I completely agree with you. Yeah, it's a desire for, it's a desire for meaning. Yeah, meaning.

And, you know, this is something we could talk about this for a long time. But I think that there is a reckoning that, that needs to be had with, you know, the new atheist or what it was called the new atheist. And a group of that might be having that reckoning that needs to be had with the New Atheists or what was called the New Atheists in a group but I admire it. Yes, I've been having that reckoning. So why do you say that? Well, only because,

well, let me back up into it this way. When I look at the qualities of the people who have the strength and the fortitude to not go along with the crowd and to be willing to be slandered and to sacrifice for the sake of resisting this liberalism, almost all of them are religious in some way or another, almost all of them were deeply, deeply anchored I would say to, I don't want to say spirituality, but like local something deeper is rooting them. Not for Soshenetsin said against about the people he met in the Gulag who could stand

up to the Soviets. And I think that's the thing I'm finding again and again now as I'm sort of making my way through all of these different sectors of life reporting on the spread of this ideology. Who's willing to talk to me? Who's willing to speak up? And one of the things that I don't necessarily think that the atheist group, you know, who I admire on a lot of levels, that they maybe couldn't have foreseen is that robbing people of that religious impulse, both sort of soften the ground for the rise of this deeply illiberal ideology that functions in many ways like a new religion,

and also hamged, like it just deprived, it in a way it's deeply connected, I think, to the rise of this new orthodoxy. So I've been thinking about the idea of rendering unto Caesar, what is Caesar's and rendering unto God what is God's. And it seems to me that if we blur the distinction between God and Caesar, then Caesar becomes God, it's not that we dispense with God.

That's the thing. And that's what's at the core. That's what's wrong with the new atheist hypothesis is that, so imagine just psychologically that we have a drive towards ethical unity. And that would be the same force that drives us towards a monotheism, right? The idea that all is one is that there has to be a unifying spirit that animates and unites all of our ethical strivings, and we picture that in all sorts of different ways, but it tilts in this monotheistic direction. and unites all of our ethical strivings. And we picture that in all sorts of different ways,

but it tilts in this monotheistic direction. And so that becomes a transcendent value. And it's the value, the transcendent value from which we derive our notions of sovereignty and individual worth and natural law and all of that. But it's a psychological necessity, I would say, that rises from the requirement that we build our ethical systems in a manner that's internally non-contradictory, because that drives them towards a unity.

Well, and then we have to worship that unity, or we worship something else that approximates it. And that would be one of these totalizing systems that you discussed, where instead of there being God who's mysterious and who we can't understand and who we have some relationship with that we can't specify and whom we have to struggle with because that's the meaning of the term Israel, right, to struggle with God. We replace it with an idol, we replace it with an idol that has exactly the same totalizing impulse, but lacks all the advantages of that transcendent that can't be identified with us. That's the thing is that, you know,

if Stalin doesn't have God, then Stalin is God. And that's not, and that seems to me to be somewhat independent of whether or not there is a God, which is, that's a different issue, right? The metaphysical reality of that unity is a different issue than the psychological necessity of that unity. And I do think the new atheists, I mean, they're getting hoist on their own petard to some degree. You see what's happened to Dawkins in the last couple of months?

Strip, stripped of his award by the humanists because he dared to challenge this rising religious orthodoxy. And I do think it is that. And so now I want to switch a little bit here. So and talk about your column. You talked about you just showed it to me, but I had to come across it before. It's a call to what people need to do in order to resist this totalizing propaganda. Let's call it. And we've started to explore their reasons for its existence.

Now, the reason I want to bring it up is because we've also been making the case that people do need something like a romantic adventure and toying with catastrophe at the fringes provides that romantic adventure, right? Because you're juicing, jousting with the drag and at that edge, you can understand, if you have any sense, if you can remember what it was like to be a teenager at all, you can understand how exciting it would be.

Yes, well, that's for sure and confusing, but you could also understand how it's exciting to go to a riot and then to sit and drink a few beer afterwards and to talk about the incredible excitement that that generated and especially if that's bolstered by your sense that you're on the moral frontier. Now you have had an adventure and your adventure at least in principle was a consequence of telling the truth and

That to me is the replacement for that romantic adventure is that if you embody the truth in your own life, you have that romantic adventure. And the thing you straighten out is you, not other people, so you don't get to have an enemy under those conditions. So you have a call in your column too. And I explored this as well with Paul Rossi, who stood up against the incursion of the politically correct agenda into his classrooms. So let's go back to the New York Times. Now you're trying to, I presume, you're trying to explore the truth, to tell the truth. What are you doing as a journalist?

I mean, all kinds of things. I would say the thing that got me the most national attention in the beginning were some columns that I wrote that I think subsequently have definitely become the common-sensical position, the most on me too. So the biggest one was this piece that I wrote about Aziz Ansari and I wrote a piece about called the Limits of Believe All Women. It was basically saying, you know, we should just never, but it's trust but verify and that someone's gender shouldn't determine whether or not what they're saying is true. It seemed to me a very basic point, but I caused a lot of controversy. And, you know, but I did lots of different pieces.

I did pieces. I wrote that piece about the intellectual dark web, of course. I did deep features, you know, like one on the city of David, which is the most important archeological dig in in Jerusalem. That tells us a lot about what Jerusalem used to be and says a lot about its future, all kinds of stories. But the thing that I love doing more than more than writing was commissioning pieces that other people didn't agree with and working with writers. I mean, there's nothing that I love more than commissioning

and editing and that's still the case and I'm doing a lot of that. Why, why do you love that? What is it about it when it's working right? Helping someone, first of all, the like, if you've never published before and then you get to be read by people in the world. Like go back in your mind if you can

to the first time that that happens, that happened for you maybe in your own life. It's extremely exciting. The experience of that and getting to engage the people. Why do you think that's so exciting? And you're making the case that you were opening up that avenue of opportunity to other people. Why was? Okay, so I want to comment on, well, I want to comment on that a little bit briefly and then go back to, well, let me just say this one thing here.

Well, give you one of this. Yeah, I was going to give you, I was going to give you an example of, I interviewed someone, I was, there, there were kind of panels of people that would interview new hires. And I was brought in, as I always was, as the kind of intellectual diversity people that would interview new hires. And I was brought in, as I always was,

as the kind of intellectual diversity person. And it really struck me because the first thing that this candidate to be an op-ed editor, the first thing she said to me was, I don't know how you can edit op-eds from people you disagree with. And I said, that's kind of the point of the job here. And it's fun because it, not only for the pleasures, the personal pleasures of helping someone find their voice and articulate what they want to say in the most clear and powerful way possible.

But why is that a pleasure? Why is that a pleasure? I don't know. Why is like going for a swim in the sunshine? No, no, this is more, this is a more crucial point. I'll tell you why because one of, I've been thinking very hard about this proposition that our social institutions are predicated on power and power implies aggressive exploitation. That implies forcing people to do things that are against their will. And the proposition that our social institutions are predicated on power

implies that there is pleasure, substantial pleasure enforcing people to do things that they wouldn't otherwise do against their will. Now, what I've seen instead in the functional institutions that I've been associated with is that the best people are fundamentally motivated by exactly what you just said. And that's why I'm holding in on it, which is that there's something unbelievably intrinsically pleasurable. And now, what you said about helping people find their voice and expressing themselves in the clearest possible terms.

And that doesn't matter whether you agree with them or not. And you love that. And that's to see, yes, yes. Well, that is the opposite of power. It's not just that it isn't that power manifests itself in these institutions. It's not just that power manifests itself in these institutions. It's that when they're running properly, it's the very opposite of power.

It's the opening up of the possibility of creative expression for others. And we take tremendous pleasure in that. I don't think there's a more fundamental human pleasure than that, a deeper, more fundamental pleasure. Yeah. And then you think you think so, it's so odd because you, you focused on this anecdote, how can you do that even for people

that you disagree with? Well, it turns out that the pleasure of opening up the possibility of expressing the ideas, the thoughts, the pleasure in that is so intense that you'll even take the hit to your own beliefs in order to engage in it. And it also, there's a selfish aspect of it too, which is that it sharpens your own beliefs. It sharpens them to encounter and actually to help someone with the opposite beliefs articulate them in the most powerful way possible forces you to confront your own. And I think that

I take a lot of pleasure in that. I mean, it's the kind of pleasure of like going for a run, you know, it's maybe not like in immediate, it's different than then licking an ice cream cone, but it's a deeper kind of pleasure in a way. And I thought, well, I think that would be a lot with the same, that would be allied with the same motivation, because imagine that if part of what's giving you pleasure is the ability to foster the capacity of other people to communicate, to formulate their ideas and communicate,

while you're doing that, you're also fostering that within yourself by putting yourself to the test constantly. Well, it's a repetition of the same fundamental motivation. And so it seems to me that when our social institutions are functioning properly, then the basis of the relationship between individuals within it at different levels of the hierarchy is actually one of broadened. It's more like parenthood than it is like the expression of power.

Well, what I'm expressing though, is like so old fashioned. Like, you know, it's not necessarily a gener, it's largely a generational divide. It doesn't always break down along those lines, but I would say for the younger generation of people who don't believe, let's say in journalism is embodying the values I just described,

exploratory and hearing the other perspective and trying, in fact, to make it as strong as it possibly can be, hearing the other person in good faith, all of those things that are like fundamental to the liberal worldview, they don't believe that. They believe in journalism as a tool. And why do they believe that? And now is that a consequence of their education? Yeah, it's completely connected to the ideas that I was describing, encountering when I was a student at Columbia, that Yonmi Park described to you. You know, it turns out that there was an idea until extremely recently that was shared by conservatives

and liberals in your generation, I would say, that what happened on largely, what happens on campus stays on campus. The Oberlin Gender Studies major will make her way into the University of Chicago, get her job at McKinsey and she's going to leave those silly ideas behind. No, no, that is not what's happened. It turns out ideas really, really matter. Ideas are extremely serious. And if you're marinating at the most important formative

years of your life in basically an echo chamber of this ideology and that all of a sudden you're going into these institutions, incredibly important institutions that are newspapers, are publishing houses, are polywood like go go down the line It's not like you're leaving checking those ideas at the door you're bringing them with you And what we've seen is that you don't actually need a majority of people inside an institution to agree with these ideas For these ideas to gain moral for these ideas to gain force. No, you need a tiny minority. A tiny minority and you need cowardice at the top.

Cowardice at the top, that is the key ingredient. You need people at the top who are willing to sell out the authority of the institution and the values of the institution that have taken decades sometimes centuries to accrue, basically for the short-term benefit of not being called a bad name. But in case you let's delve into that a little bit, okay? Because that's actually pretty bloody awful as it turns out, you know? I mean, we don't want to... Look, here's what I've learned in the

last five years. One thing I've learned is that most people will shut up very rapidly and apologize when attacked and a very small minority won't. Why is that? Well, because it's, because it's so horrible to be attacked. And not only that, because it's so horrible to be attacked, but also because if you're a sensible person and you get attacked, the right thing to think to begin with is made to stupid and wrong. Yes, exactly. Of course.

Exactly. Natural. Well, it's not only natural, it's even beneficial, right? I mean, because you want to be reactive to your social surround. And so then the question becomes, well, the first question is, why stick your neck out at all when the cost of sticking your neck out is extraordinarily high, psychologically, and practically, which it's certain, even if you stick your neck out accidentally, which you... Because it's...

I guess because there are things that are... And I don't know how to say this without sounding cheesy, but there are things that are, and I don't know how to say this without sounding cheesy, but like there are virtues that are so much more important than getting ratioed on Twitter. There's just R. There are, again, without sounding too like high-minded, if you can get in touch with things that are, that you're willing to risk your life for or let's say risk your reputation for. It's only them will you be able to withstand the pain of the lies and the slander. Okay, so what are you going to, what do you, what, what you gave up your job at the New York Times? I'm going to return to this point you just say, I want to run through the biography again.

Now you're working at the New York Times. You're not the world's most popular person there. So you're paying a price. Now you can obviously tolerate that. You're constitutionally built so that you can tolerate that. I think that I'm not an expert in this subject, but I think that I would qualify as highly disagreeable according to your definition. Although it's hard for me to say that because I really care what other people think about me. You might be high. You should take my personality test and find out because I suspect you, I suspect your low in politeness and high in compassion. That splits agreeableness. Because then you would care for other people, but you'd still be willing to say what you have to say.

I suspect that's, and I also suspect you're probably pretty high in conscientiousness and openness. And that makes you a weird political animal because openness tilts you in a liberal direction, but conscientiousness tilts you in a conservative direction. But it'd be worth taking the test to find out. I'll take it. I've never taken it. Okay. In general, I've never taken personality to it.

I don't know what my Myers-Briggs either, but I will take it. I guess it's a longer conversation, but the question of how to incentivize, like, I'm obsessed with the idea of courage and what makes people courageous or what makes people willing to be not Tonscheransky or be Andrei Sakharov like what is it? I think it's fear of God. Yeah. You know they say that's the beginning of wisdom. Well I kind of I mean that it I I mean that genuinely but also metaphorically. A lot of courage, I think, is being afraid of the right thing. I kind of think it was courage that drove me to do what I did five years ago in Canada. I think it was fear of what was coming as an alternative. I can see it. It was like, well,

there's a little beast here that I could tackle. Or there's a great huge beast that's lumbering forward in the distance. But why are so many people deluding themselves into thinking that if they just keep quiet about any number of the issues we're talking about, that it will somehow get easier to speak out later? Like, this is going to be the easiest time, right now. Yeah, well, that's the thing. I don't know what the conditions are for learning that you see that's one thing I kind of I think I've sort of known that For a long long time that the time to have the fight is now. For me, I think

Being deeply connected to Jewish history and feeling like it's not just history, but it's like a compass in my life and that I am deeply obligated to its lessons and deeply obligated to all of the people who suffered and sacrificed so that I can live in the freedom and the privilege that I have, like, that's my anchoring thing. And it just, I'm interested in how do we incentivize more people to see what this is and to sort of come out of the closet because the thing that is like so fascinating to me about this, this strange phenomenon is like by any measure we're living in the freest societies that human beings have ever

known. And they're probably improving. Yes, and that people are acting as if, and for very understandable reasons, like we're living in a totalitarian society to some degree, meaning they are double thinking. They are living lives in which they have a private persona and they will tell me in private at dinner, totally agree with you, but I could never say it out loud.

Like that phenomenon to me is so unbelievably widespread. Well, that's the state. Well, that is the indication of the dawning of the totalitarian state because the totalitarian state depends entirely on the dissociation between the public persona and the private viewpoint. And to the degree that each person is willing to swallow that lie, that's their contribution to the totalitarian state. And so it is a requirements interesting that you pose your moral obligation in terms of your responsibility

to at least in part to Jewish history. Well, and the fact that so many times people didn't say what they needed to say and the consequences were absolutely catastrophic. I mean, that's certainly the case in Nazi Germany, to say the least, but it also characterized the Stalinists and the Maoists and all of those totalitarian states. I mean, if people need to realize that if they're in a position where they can't say what they think, that that's the evidence that we're sliding in a direction that's not good, there's the evidence, it's right there. And what do you do about that? Well, you say what you think carefully. And the reason for that is the alternative is worse. That's the... I also think that it was really hard for me to give up the prestige of what I've heard.

God, I bet. I want to hear about that. It was really hard for me. But I think that putting myself, the fact that I had already put myself on the hook so publicly for standing up for certain values made it impossible for me not to follow through with doing the right thing. It's a little bit like when I wanted to run the marathon, like I insanely, because I can't run a half a mile right now, but years ago I ran the New York City marathon having never been a runner in my life. And the way that I did that was I told everyone

in my life I'm running the marathon before I'd even run a step. And the pressure to sort of follow through with what I had publicly stated was very good because it forced me to do it. And I guess what I would say to me just said every great man is the actor of his own ideal. Well, yeah, I guess what I would say to people listening to this is like put yourself on the hook now in front of people that you respect and admire. And maybe even do it in a public way because then when the testing time comes, it's very embarrassing not to follow through with, with living by your ideals. Well, and let's say while the testing time isn't going to come and we're just overstating the danger, because that's the, that's the rationale, right? That's the rationale.

Well, do you think we're overstating it? We can talk about France. Well, I don't know. I don't know, right? Because who knows, right? I don't know which way history is going to turn it. It doesn't look very, I'm certainly not happy with what's happening in the universities.

I'm not happy with what's happening in the scientific journals. It doesn't seem to me a great thing that diversity, inclusivity, and equity is popping up absolutely everywhere that human resources departments have a strangle hold on corporations. All I'm saying is that if we're living in a world in which people cannot say their common sensical views out loud, Okay, I'm not talking about political views. I'm talking about are there differences between men and women are, you know, is America fundamentally a good place? Is Lincoln a hero? Like these are basic things that have become taboo. If we cannot say those basic things out loud and if those ideas about the fundamental goodness,

let's say of the American project, but really of the Western project, have become. Really, I would say more than that, I would say of humanity itself, because this is a fundamental critique, the idea that our social institutions are predicated on exploitative power. That's a critique of the human spirit.

It goes past even the West. Yeah, if you can't say that looting is bad, okay, to think about this summer. If you can't say that segregation is evil and wrong, if you can't say that, I mean, we all know what the things are, the things that have become unsavable. And I'm suggesting that that is enough for me to sound the alarm. And if it turns out that I was a little paranoid or hysterical, that I need these things more sayable in sounding the alarm, I'm okay with that. I'd rather be wrong now. So tell me, you, why did what happened when you decided to leave the times? Well, I

mean, how did you come to, I'd like the story, what, how did you come to that decision? Well, there was a kind of forced ideological conformity that was happening. And it became like a battle to get any piece through that didn't conform to the narrative. And anything that didn't... How would that battle manifest itself? So you would commission all stories. In all kinds of ways, in all kinds of ways. Yeah, I mean, it would be, I'd like to do a column on this and be being tremendously,

like having to jump through hoops and get 10 more sources whereas other pieces from other writers would just sail through with like obvious embarrassing errors. Not that I haven't had my own share of errors I have and they're horrifically embarrassing and anyone can find them online, but I'm saying if you didn't Comport with the orthodoxy then you your character and your work We're just unbelievably scrutinized in a way that another person's weren't.

When it came to- To the load increase, the effort- Yeah, I mean, when it came to commissioning things like, I'm, you know, I remember Ion, her CLE called me the smuggler because early on when I was there, again, in this very brief good period of self-reflection, I was able to get an op-ed that she wrote into the New York Times, and she was like, I can't believe you were able to do that. So there was this brief period

in the beginning where the humiliation of getting Trump wrong, I think, led to an opening of the Overton window. But then, for reasons I can't really figure out, it really, really, really just closed again, and it narrowed much more so to a sliver in a way. It was much narrower than I would say pre-the election. And of course, Trump had a tremendous amount to do with it. If you believed that, and I think a lot of my colleagues genuinely believed this, that Trump was a fundamental threat to America, to the Republic, to minorities.

We can go on and on and on. We know the argument we could read it anywhere else. Then you were morally obligated to defeat that threat. And that meant that anything that flirted with any number of topics where he was on the particular side of it, then the right was like the correct position was always to be on the opposite side of it, then the right was like the correct position was always to be on the opposite side of it. And so you saw this really, really clearly, let's say in the lab leak theory, right, which was completely of the Wuhan of coronavirus, which increasingly it seems like the

coronavirus was, you know, unintentionally, let's say leaked from this lab in Wuhan. Well, that became unsayable. And it became unsayable because people in the Trump administration were saying that that was the case. And so everything was seen through the prism of this incredibly singular figure of Trump. So that sped it all up. And then you had the summer, and you had the killing

of George Floyd. And that just brought everything that was sort of at a low boil, just absolutely bubbling over. And the way that it bubbled over, most acutely, was in the choice in June to run an op-ed by Republican Senator Tom Cotton that said not that the National Guard should be brought into quell peaceful protests, but that the National Guard should be brought into quell violent rioting. It was a controversial piece by any stretch in that really sensitive moment. But it was a view, frankly, that was shared by the majority of Americans. If you go back and look at polls at that time. But inside the

context, the verified context of the New York Times, not only was this op-ed seen as controversial, it was seen as literal violence, literal violence. 800 more than 800 of my colleagues signed a letter saying that this op-ed literally put the lives of black New York time staffers in danger. And anyone that didn't see it?

And what was the argument, what kind of argument was made in favor of that position? That the argument was, first of all, it was a misreading of his op-ed. It was based on a fundamental misreading that insisted that his op-ed was about bringing in the military to put down justified understandable riots in reaction to George Floyd. So they never made the distinction, they collapsed the distinction between bringing in the National Guard to put down violent writing and bringing in the National Guard to put down peaceful protests. And then they said, you know, that that because police and the military are systemically racist, I'm being crude and just kind of giving you the overview, that this move would necessarily result in an inordinate amount of black death, death of black Americans. So that was the argument. And what happened was not from the top a defense of the op-ed

and a defense of all of the various things. Was this an op-ed? You had commissioned? No, I had nothing to of the op-ed and a defense of all of the various. Was this an op-ed? You had commissioned? No, I had nothing to do with op-ed. Oh, okay. I ended up being- You're just watching this. Yeah, I ended up being sort of brought in as a kind of punching bag because I ended up tweeting out some tweets that I think hold up extremely well about that this was a very, very useful litmus test to understand

the generational divide inside the New York Times. But I had nothing to do with the op-ed, but the people that did have something to do with the op-ed, my 25 year, uh-huh. I want to ask you something about that generational divide, sorry. Well, I'm still trying to think through this. Sorry. Well, I'm still trying to think through this. The education of young people to adopt the viewpoint that our social institutions are fundamentally corrupt and driven by power. So then I think, well, how much of that this calls for speculation? How much of that is a consequence of the breakdown of family structure? I mean, so I see the the positive element of our social institutions as something like the positive aspect of

of the paternal spirit. So it's a father, it's the positive father who encourages in exactly the way that you encourage the writers that were under your care to express themselves and develop. Am I the father in that situation? Well, you know, you're female, but you're working in the patriarchy. So yes, I would say symbolically speaking that that's a manifestation of, well, the spirit of your Jewish ancestors, let's put it that way.

Well, I mean that. I mean that. And you're the one who said that that tradition has shaped you to such a degree. It's like, well, you're in body, you feel you and you're the one who said that that tradition has shaped you to such a degree. It's like, well, you're in body. You feel you have an obligation to embody that. Well, is it not a paternal spirit?

That's the tradition. And it's the, but what have you never experienced that? I don't know if I would call it paternal or not. That's not the way I think about things. But I, I do think, I, I don't know if your family's broken. If you've never had a positive relationship with someone who's, I think it's different than that. I think it's about should corporations, which is what the New York Times is in the end

of the day, should they be moral actors? That's the big difference. Like there's a sense among the younger generation that a newspaper or a tech company or whatever the place that you work should somehow also not just be about pursuing the bottom line, but should also be a manifestation of what you consider to be good politics and good morals. And that's why you see, I don't know if you followed this entire story at Coinbase that

I think is really, really interesting. We're basically the heads of Coinbase said because they felt like rather than pursuing excellence for the company, so much of employees' energy and attention and time was being devoted to You know using slack to discuss the politics of the day and they basically said look no more politics at work That's not work is not a place for politics work is a place for making coin-based excellent And if you're uncomfortable with that we're gonna give you a really really nice severance package You've seen base camp follows suit. You've seen and I suspect that we're going to do this happen. This happened. I would say coin base in the past two months and then these camp another select another company much more recently.

And this I I'm really watching that trend because if you're running a company and rather than let's take the case of the New York Times, you're not spending your time reporting and editing and commissioning, but you're spending your time basically being like an offense archeologist looking through things that other people have published to decide whether or not an adjective was orientalist or not. That's a bad use of your time, if you're supposed to be producing the best newspaper in the world. That's one thing I'm watching for. I'm curious if what Coinbase did is going to take off, because I think it's extremely, I thought that was

just really, really, really smart strategy to say, no, that's not going to be what we do at this company. Suffice it to say the New York Times has not followed Coinbase's suit. What happened after, so the fallout from the Tom Cotton episode was that within 48 hours, my immediate boss was reassigned. The boss who had hired me, James Bennett, was pushed out of the paper after he was struggle sessioned in front of thousands of employees at the company. Tell us about that. I will.

Well, in Slack channels with thousands of people, guillotines and axiomogies were put next to his name and my name. And no one said a word about that. Remember, this is an ideology that tells us silence is violence, you know, and, and, you know, the guillotine, guillotine, the emojis aren't exactly. It basically what happened was that, you know, they, it's the same script that's happened everywhere else, like a normal human being who looked out and saw that 800 of his colleagues felt that he decided to run an op-ed that literally put their lives in danger.

Well, the normal human response to that, as you explained before, is, I'm so sorry. But unfortunately, in the rubric of this ideology, I'm so sorry is evidence of your guilt. It's blood in the water. And that's exactly what happened. I mean, it was, I'm so sorry, it's a confession. Yes. And so, which means don't apologize if you haven't done anything wrong. Yes. Because that's exactly right. So he was pushed out of the paper and perhaps most disgustingly. My colleague is a very dear friend of mine, Adam Rubenstein, who was one of the editors,

one of seven editors who worked on the piece. His name was leaked by others of our colleagues to the new side of the paper, one of seven editors who worked on the piece, his name was leaked by others of our colleagues to the new side of the paper. And a 25-year-old editor at the very beginning of his career was sort of the guy that was thrown under the bus, and he ultimately ended up leaving the paper too. And I found that to be the most disgusting part of the entire episode, because as everyone who works in any organization knows and he didn't make him there was no mistake that was in that op that. But generally what happens in a collegial environment is if someone makes a mistake.

So for example, months prior to the Tom Cotton episode, the New York Times ran a flagrantly anti-Semitic cartoon in which the Bibine Netanyahu, the Prime Minister of Israel, is shown as a doxant, a long weener dog wearing a collar with a Jewish star. He's shown leading a blind Trump who's wearing a Yamakon his hat. People can look it up. Everyone in the editorial staff knew who chose that outfit. Sorry, that cartoon. And no one in the public knows his name.

And that's exactly as it should be. It's exactly as it should be. And yet in this case, a 25-year-old editor was hung out to dry. So essentially, what I gathered from this entire episode was, risk-taking can get you fired, running an op-ed that other people inside the paper considered controversial could get you struggle session in front of the entire company. And knowing that that was literally what my job was, well, that job became impossible. And the thing that happened, that I, that's really unbelievable, if you're thinking about like running a large organization, this will sound as insane as it is. The new rule became kind of editing by consensus. So every single op-ed editor had to say that they were comfortable with every single op-ed. Well, you can imagine that if 9.9 out of 10 people

agree with this view of the world that my job became impossible. By the time that I, you know, sort of the last few weeks of the paper, I was told explicitly, don't commission our beds anymore because there are none of them are, I mean, none of them were able to get through this new gauntlet. And I said to myself, you know, why did I go into journalism? I did not go into journalism to be rich. You know, I went into journalism because it's a job that allows you to pursue your curiosity, which is incredible. And if I can't do that anymore, and if I need to sort of become a half

version of myself and sit on my hands about an increasing number of topics that I think are incredibly urgent. What's the point of doing this? And so I felt like, you know, I could kind of like become a husk or I could leave of my own volition before something similar happened to me. And so I decided to leave and left in a very public way. And having no idea sort of what I would do next. And I will be honest, it took me a long time to sort of like get my bearing after I did that.

Have you got your bearer? And in retrospect, I would say to anyone considering leaving an institution, have a good plan in place for what you plan to do next, because I wish that I could. That's no easy thing to manage. I mean, it's, you know, you had, well, a dream job fundamentally, right? I mean, that's the pinnacle to be an op-ed editor at the New York Times. That's, that's, that's a star position. And you have, yeah.

Have I gotten my bearings? My bearings? I would say very much so. And I feel good for you. I feel so much more optimistic now than I did. If I left in July, it was in August and September. I mean, it was very disorienting at first to feel like, wow, I've been in institutions

for my entire life. I've never been an entrepreneur. I've never had to figure out all these things for myself. You know, I've always sort of been in these fancy institutions and what would it look like to try and build one myself? And how would I, and this is something I'm struggling with a lot right now, not struggling in a good way? How do I resist the same forces that I so criticize the New York Times for. And let me give you a specific example. So I'm writing on Substack now. And it's incredible. Tell us about Substack too. So Substack for people that don't know is this new platform for, well, it's for any writers,

but that allows people to subscribe directly to you. And so I publish about two things a week, often a column that I've written in a column I've commissioned. But ultimately, I want to build this into a much bigger media company, but this is the start of it. And it's going extremely, extremely well. And I'm in the top 10 of politics. So I just have to go a little bit further to beat Andrew Sullivan and Glenn Greenwald.

So it's going really well. But the thing that is corrupting about it, it's the same force that's corrupting at the New York Times or any media right now, which is to say, I know that if I run certain kinds of stories, that that's going to be like a heroin hit for my readers. And I see, you see right away. Yes, and we all know about the temptation of providing heroin hits for our readers. And I see you see right away. Yes, and we all know about the temptation of providing heroin hits for our readers. Yes. And it's very, I mean, and at least at the New York Times, you have some insulation. Okay, you write one column that is a viral hit. Great. You write one the next month

that's only a couple hundred thousand. But there is some level of insulation. With sub-stack, there's not. I see every single night how many people are converting to paid subscriptions. And I see extremely clearly what kinds of stories make that happen. And I don't wanna give in to the same, I don't wanna radicalize my readers in a certain direction. And so you have to be as an editor

and as a writer, disciplined. You know, I'm going to commission this story. You have to be pursuing something else. That's the thing is, I mean, I've struggled with the same thing with this podcast. I mean, and what I'm trying to do, maybe this is insulation, I don't know, as I'm trying to learn things I don't know. And so I'm talking to people that I think are interesting and I'm hoping they'll teach me things so that I'm not quite so stupid. And if people are happy with that, I mean, I read the comments. I'm responsive to my audience. I respect my audience. But the respect is that I'm going to take them along for the journey that. And

so I'm not tailoring it to an audience at all. And that's, but what's so nice about that is it really seems to work. Like when I'm not tailoring to my audience audience at all. And that's, but what's so nice about that is it really seems to work. Like when I'm not tailoring to my audience, when I'm engaging in a genuine conversation, that's when the responses are the best. And so that's so heartening that that's the case. What are you seeing with regards to responses? What's the temptation exactly?

Yeah, so I think that when I resigned from the New York Times, that letter, I think, was probably the most widely read thing that I've ever written. And I'm really, really proud of it. But I think in a way, I became like symbolic of, let's just say like the anti-woke position. And on the one hand, I think it's extremely important for me to report on that.

And I'm really proud of the reporting that I've done exposing the way that this ideology, for example, is taking over K through 12 education. And one of the reasons I think it's so important that I do it is that the mainstream media is not going to touch it, because it's the same ideological succession that they're implicated in. So on the one hand, I think I have a particular burden to write about this topic that's being untouched. And on the other hand, I don't want every single piece to be pounding the drum beat. Yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, one of the problems because then because then it's a feeling of like, oh my God, the world's melting down. It's like, no, you also want to give people

a sense of perspective. So that's that's my challenge, but I imagine for other writers on the site, it's a different challenge. And yeah, the challenge is that you don't want to become a parody of yourself and serve you in your previous image. I mean, that's a very, that's a very troublesome thing, especially as your image develops. So as you said, you've become symbolic of something. And so then the question is, is the power of that symbol so overwhelming that it shapes your entire character and everything that you do? And there's definite incentives in that direction. And it's hard to resist.

And it's being demanded in some sense by your audience. Right. Right. And it's really hard also because I picture my reader as someone who still reads the New York Times and the Washington Post and they're coming to me for the thing they're not getting there. But for the readers who are only reading me, let's say, and only reading a handful of writers that are sort of playing in my same playground, that can have a radicalizing effect. And so, I just want to, that's the thing. Right. Because you're also not embedded with a bunch of other opinions as you would be in the

newspaper, right? Exactly. So that's right. And so my dream situation and what I'm trying to build toward is creating that ecosystem. I'm not interested in like the creator economy, whatever that meaning. I think I've watched you and I've watched other public figures who have become such potent symbols.

And on the one hand, I'm like, look at the effect that they've had. It's so powerful. And I know just from when I was writing about the intellectual dark web, and reading 12 rules for life, I remember sitting at a hotel in a young waiter, a man coming up to me saying, like, not book save my life.

And that's unbelievably powerful. And on the other hand, it's the burdens of it seem very scary and dangerous to me. And I want to place myself ideally in a kind of round table, like a kind of group where it's like a sensibility. And I'm not the only one because I don't know. Am I wrong about... No, no, I don't think you're wrong at all.

I mean, in the new book, I wrote Beyond Order, and I talk about this necessity for social interaction as a as a sanity as the prime sanity maintaining process is that sane people aren't sane because they're so organized internally that their psyches are organized properly. That's what you might expect to conclude if you are psychoanelitically minded or maybe psychologically minded. But what really is the case that what maintains our sanity is constant receptivity to the reactions of other people. At least that's part of what maintains it. We have a dialogue with our own conscience, which is something

like that internal spirit that you described earlier, the spirit that animates history speaking within us. We have a responsibility to that, but we have to be open to other people, especially people who don't share our opinions, because we're stupid and lost, and it's absolutely crucial. So I think that from a psychological perspective, I think that's a great idea. And I mean, it also keeps you alive, because then other people are feeding you new ideas all the time, right? And yeah, and I mean, it also keeps you alive because then other people are feeding you new ideas all the time, right? And, and, and, yeah. And I think, you know, for all of the downsides of the New York Times, I think being around

people, you know, good faith people and there were many good faith people who just disagreed with me. And like, I, you know, I had a wonderful editor there who, you know, was definitely to my left, but was such a fair reader and made everything I wrote stronger. Like, I had a wonderful editor there who was definitely to my left, but was such a fair reader and made everything I wrote stronger. Like I need that. Everybody needs that. And one of the things that I think is one of the beauties of this sort of like Cambrian

explosion of the podcast world and newsletter world and the Patreon world and the locals world and the whatever is going to come before we publish this world, it's amazing because we can connect directly to an audience, but also like everyone, everyone needs an editor, everyone, and everyone needs a community. And, you know, if your community is only like parroting back to you the things you believe, that's not a recipe for growth. And it's also a recipe, I think, for being captive to who you are in a particular moment. And I really want to make sure that I'm giving myself the ability to change and grow as hard as that might be able to do in public. Well, that's the right thing to model, I think, is that I believe that when these podcasts work

properly, the reason they're compelling to the degree they manage to be compelling is because what people are observing and participating in is the process by which two people mutually transform one another towards a higher good. And they're like, so we're both struggling to make things clear and to approach something that we don't have yet, but it's in that struggle that's that the motivation rises. But you know how you and I before this podcast started both said like, I said to you, I'm nervous and you said, I've been nervous for five years or anxious for five years. And I said, I know exactly what you mean. Like, that's true to some extent.

But we both know that we're having this conversation, just the two of us right now, but that it's gonna be in public and that millions of people potentially could see it. And that ultimately changes the way that we talk to each other. It makes us more careful. And I think that's a good thing, but the conversation...

Can I have this? Yeah, and more nervous, but the conversation you and I might have in private, like that's a different conversation. That to me is the most precious kind because that's the high trust. Obviously, I have a high level of trust enough to be able to come on this and trust that the conversation is going to be fair and good faith. Of course, I have that. But it's still in public. but it's still in public, right?

And. My dream is that these conversations are as close to a private conversation as public can possibly be managed. Of course, of course. But thank you, Steve. But it is, it is, well, yeah, it's interesting because we've struggled with this a fair bit because often at the end of the interview

or the discussion, we'll close it and then we'll keep talking, me and whoever I'm talking to, and then we'll talk about some things that are interesting. Then we have the decision because we're still recording often, it's like, well, do we include that? Generally, the answer has been yes, although not always. It's hard to. It's interesting, though, too, because if you make a private conversation public, see,

that is the truth to do that. And then that really shows that you have trust in your audience is that, look, I'm going to tell you what I actually think. I'm going to take, but then they see Barry too. That's that adventure that we were talking about earlier. That is being offered by these radical movements is like, there's something unbelievably adventurous about telling the truth in public. Because you don't know, you see, you have to stake, you have to stake your faith on the truth in that situation because you make the presumption that

that's the best possible approach for it, even though you don't know what's going to happen. You hedge your bets otherwise, right? And you're more conservative and you're more cautious because, well, because you want to direct what's going to happen, even though you really can't, but to the degree that you can throw that off and say, well, to hell with it, so to speak, I'm going to say what I think. But that's also when these things really take off, when the discussions really take off.

I agree. And I just, for me, now that I'm doing well on Substack and I'm building my company, it's like I can tell the truth. Telling the truth is sort of, it's good for business for me. But what about the young person who hasn't even started their career. It seems to me that the I guess what I'm trying to say is the price of telling the truth is so high. Well, I thought about that a lot, you know, and in my first book, I learned a fair bit of this from reading Nietzsche, I would say, but there is an emphasis in Nietzsche's thinking on the necessity for an apprenticeship, like

let's say you're a young person, well, and you don't really know how to express yourself and you don't really know anything yet. And so what you have to do to some degree is subjugate yourself to a disciplinary process. And that means that your particular voice is temporarily, it's not suppressed exactly. It's subordinated. Yeah. Right. But it's subordinated to authority, not suppressed exactly. It's subordinated. Yeah, right, but it's subordinated to authority, not to power. And then you go through that that that apprenticeship process, which for

you would have happened to some degree in college and then to some degree at the Wall Street Journal, you go through that subordination process and discipline yourself. And then you can start integrating who you are with the discipline and then speaking. Well, this, this is the thing that I think some people in our, in like, let's say the independent, like the Wild West universe, do not appreciate about what the institutions at their best can do, which is exactly what you're describing. It's the training and the raising up and the elevation of the younger generation and of other voices. And yeah, that's not their exploitation. No, and I want to figure out how can I do that? How can I build a version of an institution that somehow is immunized or notculated from the ideological takeover that adheres to the kind of old

school liberal values that we've talked about on this podcast and that allow me to do the thing that I told you I love doing, which yes, I love writing. And I, something about my personality allows me to be in the arena much more so than a lot of other people. Extra virgin and openness. Maybe sure. You'll find out when you take the test. Yes, but, but also like I will not be satisfied if that's the only thing that I do. Like I, I just know that the reasons that I'm able to do what I do or be able to put together a column

or know how to report or speak in public is because so much effort on the part of other people went into trading me to be able to do that. Yes. Yes. This is something else we talk about. And people talk about editing. But for people that are coming up, let's say like as Instagram influencers or like clubhouse personalities or whatever, like that's not a substitute for the kind of

process that I'm describing. It's just really not. So you talked about you can get the substitute to some degree, I suppose, by being carefully responsive to your audience because they will train you to some degree. But then you run into the problem of the echo chamber, the potential echo chamber developing the positive feedback loop. Now, there's something here about judgment. Like, in our society, the idea that you should become, that you should be non-judgmental has become a truism. And it's one of those truisms that you have,

that you violate at your own peril. But I don't like that at all, because if you're going to be a good apprentice master, let's say, what you use is your judgment. Judgment is my entire, judgment is my entire business. Judgment's discernment, saying that some things are worthy and some things aren't, some ideas are worthy of being heard by the world and some writers and some voices and some style and certain

like you want to tell me that like, you know, everyone's as good as Joan Didian and we should have no judgment. Like give me a right. Well, that's it. Well, right. Well, it's certainly the pathway to insanity because everything comes. Just the problem. But when people say that, it like, no judgment, it's like good vibes. No, yeah, yeah, yeah. It doesn't mean it. I don't think people understand the depth of

what it means. Judgment is essential. Judgment is absolutely essential and certainly essential. If you want to be a good writer, and, if you want the good, judgment is inevitable because you have to differentiate between what is good and what isn't. Now, so how do you construe the relationship between fostering the development of someone and the imposition of that judgment? Because, you're going to impose high standards, right? And so that means judgment. And judgment means criticism. Criticism means this and high standards, right? And so that means judgment. And judgment means criticism.

Criticism means this and not this, right? It doesn't mean not this. It doesn't mean it's all bad. It means, well, we'll keep this and we'll dispense with the rest, right? It's the winnowing of the wheat from the chaff. And so how do you construe that in relationship to mentoring? And how do you do that without becoming a, becoming a two imposing force? It's very interesting. It's such a delicate, good question that really comes down to the trust you develop with someone and whether or not they believe that you're trying to shape them into the best potential, not version of themselves.

That's saying too much, but like their talent becoming, I don't know if it is saying too much. I think I don't think so. I think that is, and I do think that's an extension of the parental place and that that's the proper way to construe the social institution. I would say to, to say to steal a term. I do think a safe space is extremely important. I have been able to hear incredibly harsh criticism from people in my life, mentors in my life,

thinking now especially back to my early days at the Wall Street Journal. And people like Brett Stevens and Paul Gego were Melanie Kirkpatrick. When I knew it was coming from a place of genuinely wanting the best for me, that's really what I mean. And. Right, so you trusted the sort, the judgment was,

and because I think you were on the right path. Because it was connected to like, I admired what they were doing. I saw that it was impressive and good. I saw, even if I disagreed with the view, right? The crap. Right. And I knew that I couldn't do that yet. Right. So judgment in the service of what's admirable and good is to be devoutly hoped for. Yeah. Yeah. And just it was so powerful. But it was just so obvious to me that I couldn't do what they could do. And that if I wanted to learn to do what they could do and what I so desperately wanted

to be good at for whatever reasons about my history or the way I was raised or whatever, then I needed to like put my ego aside and listen to them. And sometimes that meant that the things I wrote, they said, we're like, pretty much garbage. Yeah, well, that's the case though, when you start to write or think, is 95% of what you write or think is garbage. And even when you're good at it, you have to, the more you throw away the better in some sense, because you only keep what's great if you can manage it. And I also think that like, there's a mimicry in the beginning that I think is extremely important. Yes.

Studying what works and literally mapping it out, you know, I was just, yeah, that's the humanities by the way. Yeah. Like that's very important. And that doesn't mean that you're a parrot. And that doesn't mean that you're, you and that doesn't mean that you're you don't have your own style, but like You know, and now why would you make that comment about style? Well, because I think that a lot of people in my generation are and especially younger obsessed with like being singular and being Different from everyone that came before and They confused the discipline with the eradication of their style. I think, yeah, yeah.

Well, it is a fine discernment. It is. And I think that, you know, you can, I also think that style has to do with inborn talent a lot of the time and that you can learn to be an excellent, like, I'm not a great writer. I'm a very good writer, but there are people who are just like, Cirque du Soleil writers. But being a very good writer and being able to communicate

plainly and compellingly and convincingly, that's more than most people can hope for. I guess I'm saying that I think a lot of young writers imagine that they can do something that no one's ever done before. It's like, why don't we strive for being able to communicate really clearly and plainly without jargon to someone with only a high school degree so that they can understand a complicated. That's the imposition of constraints to begin with just to develop the discipline of the craft. And then hopefully you can deviate from that in a stylistically appropriate manner as you become an expert. Exactly. It's just like, you're not Hunt rest, Thompson. Maybe you could be that, but like, let's try and just get the basics down.

We start with the basics. The basics are hard enough. The basics are hard enough. And like, yeah, I just think that it sounds so basic, but being able to communicate plainly without the crutch of jargon is something that many people that are coming out of the most celebrated elite prestigious universities in North America cannot do. And I will tell you that when I can find a young person that can do that, I will, I cling to that person. That's how rare it is. Now, why cling?

Why do you say that? Because it's special and rare. It's special and rare to be able to find someone that who's frankly worldview, but then that's reflected in the writing has not been captured by... It seems so obvious to me that it's obvious in a way that it's only obvious when you realize it, but that when institutions are functioning properly, they're consistent of people who are looking to young people to find talent

in the direction of their interests and to nurture that. I mean, isn't that you've experienced your apprenticeship in this various institutions? Is there any relationships that you've had that you regard as intensely positive that weren't of that nature? That weren't that weren't meant to? Yeah, that weren't. So I like to think about it as the best in that person serving the best in you. And when you look back at the people who've shaped your development, I mean, isn't that

the nature of the relationship that you had with them, rather than the relationship of arbitrary power where they're skimming off, say, the excess profits of your labor? It's not fundamentally exploitative. And that's a sec. Overwhelmingly, it's been the former. Overwhelmingly, it's been overwhelmingly, it's been the former, overwhelmingly, it's been positive. Now, that's not to say, listen, as you've sort of assessed me without me taking the personality test yet, I'm also someone that can piss off a boss because I'm someone who can, you know, swim upstream by my nature. Now oftentimes though, that's been a quality that's appreciated because it's meant sometimes in homogenous environments that I've been looked to as like a check on it. So I think that they're, you know, a good manager.

The advantage of disagreeable people is exactly that. They will actually tell you what they think. Yeah. But sometimes they're right. Often we are right. I will say, but it can piss people off that are just trying to kind of like, you know, let's get through the day. Let's put out the paper. It can be annoying, frankly. And I know that about myself. But also, I think that it can be a superpower. I really do. know that about myself, but also I think that it can be a superpower. I really do. So what's in the immediate future with regard to sub-stack? And how many subscribers do you have? Tell me about, tell me the the end of the story. So now you're on sub-stack. Oh god, there's so much. We've drawn out like a resignation over two hours, but I hope we fit other things

that are of interest into it. Um, so now I'm on sub-stack, like, you know, I like I think a lot of the, a lot of heterodox journalists who don't fit in with a tribe are also on sub-stack. And I think it's extremely interesting. The thing that I think is a challenge. Like an IDW of journalists. Yeah, I mean, the thing that I think is challenging, right, is if you're like a dentist or an accountant or a lawyer and I meet a lot of these people, they say, I don't trust the New York Times anymore. What do I read? Well, it's a really dissatisfying

answer because I'm like, well, you need to subscribe to these 10 sub-stacks and listen to these five podcast and follow these 30 people on Twitter. No, like that's not going to work. So I am extremely interested in what I've been referring to. Like, how do I make a common address for that sensibility, that independent-minded spirit that is not like centrist in the sense of just finding the middle path, but is able to see truth on, but is able to separate, let's say, identity from ideas and is able to say, yeah, that person maybe sucks on this thing, but they're really right about that.

That's what I'm interested in building. And so the way that started off for me, and I'm proud of it, is commissioning op-eds and columns and reported pieces from voices that don't have the platform that I think that they should and trying to elevate them to my readers. But it's gonna be my podcast, podcast network. And ultimately, I hope like a whole ecosystem of journalism and storytelling.

That's what I'm interested in building. And so I have tens of thousands of subscribers. And that's been fantastic. And I'm incredibly grateful to it. But for me, this is just the beginning. And and I really, really like in the end of the day, the reason that I left the New York Times. Jordan is that, you know, yes, because I was being bullied. Yes, because I couldn't do my job. Both true things, but ultimately it's because I really believe that the fight for liberalism, and I don't mean that in the partisan sense, but I mean the kind of values we've been describing during this conversation, that like, that is more important than any amount of popularity, than any amount of accolades on Twitter, than anything else, than anything else. And so I had to

leave the institution in order to fight for liberalism. And that I see as like the mission of my life, I guess you would say. Yeah, and the catastrophe of our times. Yeah, but. Especially for someone who's older like me, I mean, I had a dream a while back. I wandered into the backyard of a cabin

that I was staying at and there was a dying lion by a fire pit at the boundary of this of this cabin's property. And my aunt, who was an actual dying lion? This is in a dream. Oh, in a dream. In a dream. Yeah, sorry. Yeah. So so my aunt called to me to warn me about the presence of this lion. And I looked at it and it was in rough shape. It was mangy and and ill-camped and not good, but still, you know, a lion and powerful. And then I wandered around to the left side of the house and interestingly enough. And there was a whole number of them, tigers, lions, all these predatory beasts, all in terrible shape, and all hungry and willing to attack.

And I had to speak in order to keep them at bay. And I woke up and I thought, well, Jesus, that's pretty bloody obvious. I know what that dream means. I mean, there's all these dying lions, the New York Times, the legacy media, the institutions, I'm not happy to see their demise. It's really awful. I mean, they were still to hear someone like you on Meet Park talk about Columbia in that way. It's so awful. And to see what happened with you at the New York Times, it's like, you know, one on one hand, the story is, well, you know, you pursued your creative spirit and you established yourself independently and isn't that wonderful.

But that loss that you described of the institution that has the capacity to apprentice and train, that's cataclysmic. I will say that I spent months, I could kind of cry thinking about it morning that. Like it is catastrophic. But there are things in history that have been more catastrophic. And that's the kind of perspective that I'm trying to keep because if I spent all day looking at the wreckage and more than just looking at the wreckage trying desperately to try and like just looking at the wreckage, trying desperately to try and like shore up something that is so clearly rotten, I would spend my life in grief. And I just believe so strongly that, not believe, I see that people have had to build things in way, way, way more trying and difficult circumstances than this.

And so, if they could build things from true wreckage, believe me, we can rebuild new institutions, we can. And that's what I'm going to do. And I think that's what everyone that comes to me, you know, complaining about what's going on in their kids' school or what's going on in their company. Sometimes people that are running the companies coming to me complaining about what's happening in their own company that they have control over, like enough, enough, like no more complaining quietly, no more anonymous emails.

Like the time is now to out yourself as someone that is opposed to this, that is alarmed about it, and then spend all of your energy and money and time banding together with people to build new things. I wish there was another option because that sounds exhausting, I realized, but I just don't think there's another option. And three years ago, if you had asked me, I would have suggested something different. I really believed that a lot of these institutions can be saved and by the way, some of them and the extent to which there are ones that can be saved

and short up, they should be. Because it's really, really, really, really hard to build new things, really hard. It's so easy to tear things down. But that's the conclusion that I've come to. And I think the more people that can, yes, like let's grieve the, let's grieve the 20th century institutions that are crumbling. Let's understand that they are something that they might have the same

name, but they're no longer what they used to be. And then let's get to work building the things that we know we need to build that are necessary for upholding the civilization that we talked about earlier. That's what I think the task is. Thank you very much for talking with me today. Thank you, Jordan. It's really good to see you, Barry. It was great to see you too. you