The Jordan B. Peterson Podcast - 246. The Adventures of Pinnochio and Free Speech Part 1/4

Episode Date: April 21, 2022

Utilizing Dr. Peterson’s lectures from the 2015 and 2017 Maps of Meaning Lectures as a framework; we have continued the investigation while adding conversations from the Jordan B Peterson Podcast, as well as from conversations where Dr. Peterson was a guest on other podcasts.We recently decided to move this compilation up in our release queue because of Dr. Peterson’s recent lecture at Caius College at the University of Cambridge, “Why Free Speech is the Antidote to Our Problems”You can view that lecture here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Twc6T19tap4 Like in Dr. Peterson’s recent lecture, we hope this compilation will inspire you to speak the truth and act in the protection of our most fundamental rights, including, maybe most importantly, the Freedom of Speech.Time Codes: [00:00] Overview of the psychology behind Pinocchio - 2015 Personality Lecture 06: Depth Psychology: Carl Jung (Part 01)[03:44] Events at Evergreen - Bret Weinstein Episode 10[18:18] Teaching at Grace Church - Paul Rossi on JBP Podcast S4 E17[24:51] What exactly happened to Dr. Rima Azar - Dr. Rima on JBP S4 E28[39:25] Free Speech and No Safe Spaces documentaries attempt to get distributed - Prager & Carolla on JBP Podcast S4 E44[50:16] Changes in free speech policy at Cambridge - James Orr & Arif Ahmed on JBP Podcast S4 E75[01:02:17] - Did Dr. Ponesse ever apologize? - Dr. Julie Ponesse on JBP Podcast[01:03:16] When Yeon Mi started to speak out - Yeon Mi Park on JBP Podcast S4 E26

Welcome to episode 246 of the JBP podcast. I'm Michaela Peterson. This is part one of a new compilation series on free speech. The episode begins with Dad's clip describing the trials Pinocchio had to overcome to reach maturity, followed by people like Brett Weinstein, Julie Punnies, Arif Offmed, and a, Park, describing how they've all been affected by free speech or censored speech in their own unique ways. I hope you enjoy this compilation. I'm going to show you something from Penelkyl. Now this is an initiation ritual.

It's a journey to the depths, so it's a journey to the underworld. It's the consequence of a collapse in previous personality and the disintegration of that previous personality into a chaotic state prior to rebirth. Now what happens in Pinocchio, which by the way was released at about the same time that World War II was brewing, and which also contains one of the best representations of the individual motivations for fascism that I've ever seen anywhere. That's the scenes that are associated with Pleasure Island.

Remember, all the puppet is trying to become a real boy, right? So he's a Marianette to begin with, something else is pulling his strings. Well, for Jung, that's your habitual state of being. Something else is pulling your strings. Even the idea that your autonomous is the consequence of something else pulling your strings. And for Jung, what you needed to do was find out exactly who and what is pulling your strings and decide if that's the direction in which you want to go.

And that's really what happens to Pinocchio, because we're going to watch Pinocchio part of it in the Pinocchio story. He starts out as a Marionette. Now he's a Marionette made by a good father, because Japetta was a good father. He's a good craftsman and so on. So he's a Marionette with a benevolent puppeteer. But as soon as he develops some autonomy, then he becomes prey to forces that are elements of the demonic archetype.

In fact, the worst bad guy in the entire movie turns into Satan himself at one point in the movie. He basically has horns in a bright red face, and he manifests himself as so terrifying that the coyote, coyote, wolf, fox, and the cat that are trying to corrupt Pinocchio are terrified because they get, like, they're criminals, they're petty criminals and deceptive and so forth, but when they get a look at who's pulling their strings, it's enough to terrify them. And so Pinocchio goes through a series of temptations, of various sorts, including a Freudian temptation,

and the Freudian temptation is to remain weak and sickly instead of becoming a real person. So it's an eatable problem. And another problem that faces Pinocchio is that he's offered false celebrity as a way of solving his life's problem. So he's offered the opportunity to become an actor. And what that means is a deceitful fake who's constructed a persona that makes him appear far more valuable than he really is.

So the movie outlines two pathological modes of movement towards maturity, one being a phony and the other taking the easy way out and hyper-valuing all your pathology so that you become dependent. So anyways, and then another mode of pathological development is offered to Pinocchio, which is to do nothing but engage in short-term impulsive and destructive play, and that's on Treasure Island, but when he, a Treasure Island, but when he goes to Treasure Island, he when he pleasure island, but when he goes to pleasure island

he finds that it's actually ruled by demonic forces with faceless entities who are transforming all the pleasure-seeking Marionettes to braying donkeys who are slaves It's like It's like, so Pinocchio escapes from that and he does it basically by jumping into the unknown, and that's where we're going to start our exposure to his initiation. I'd like you to walk me through what's happened to you since the events in Evergreen and bring everybody up to date on my end. So, man, maybe you could start with what happened

at Evergreen, although I suspect many of the people watching this do know. Does that seem reasonable? Sure. Yeah, we can start there. I think we should probably air in the direction of being sparse with the details and see where it leads up.

Yeah. So in 2017, I was teaching at Evergreen as was Heather, my wife. And she was literally Evergreen's most popular professor. I wasn't too far behind. I was very popular as well. Our classes were always over full. And we accepted more people than we had to and had to turn some away anyway. And then in actually 2016, the new president of

the college, George Bridges, began an initiative or a set of initiatives surrounding diversity equity and inclusion. And these initiatives included the impaneling of a committee that was supposed to look into racism at the college, its impacts and to propose solutions. And as it became clear what they were alleging and proposing, Heather and I became very alarmed. And I began to speak out at first in faculty meetings. And then when the ability to speak out in faculty meetings became non-existent, I took to our faculty and staff email list to talk about the threat to the college that was created by these initiatives.

And that, of course, brought about exactly what you would imagine, which were accusations that I was motivated by some kind of racism or white supremacy or white fragility, or who knows what the accusations were exactly. But in any case, I fought back anyway, and my sense was I had tenure, and I was well-liked, and I was well-known at the college. I'd been there for 14 years. And so I didn't think they had the power to get rid of me and that gave me the

ability to say what needed to be said about these proposals. Well, the upshot is that ultimately protesters, 50 students that I had never met, showed up at my classroom, accused me of racism, demanded that I either be fired or resign. I told them I wouldn't. And riots broke out at the college in which faculty and administrators were kidnapped. I was apparently hunted car to car on campus by protesters. The police were stood down by the college president and we were basically left defend for ourselves with student patrols roving the campus with weapons, baseball bats and the like.

the campus with weapons, baseball bats and the like. So it was a chaotic scene. There was a lot of interest in it because it was very colorful, but of course most people back in 2017 dismissed this as yes, an overreaction, but you know how college students are. And those of us who saw it up close knew that that couldn't be the case, that it would ultimately spill out into civilization. And we, of course, were right. And now it's everywhere. We see it taking over institution after institution. In the US and Canada, we see it making tremendous strides in government. And there's no telling where it ends. And what is, I mean, I have a bunch of questions

that come out of that. So I'm gonna lay out three. Why in the world did this bar that you enough so that you took a stand, especially given your political leanings? Because you were, which I'm not criticizing by the way, I'm just stating that it isn't obvious to begin with why it would be you that would take a stand, say rather than someone else, but you did.

And so I'm curious about why. And what is it that you saw coming? And what is this it that you're referring to? You've had a lot of time to be thinking about this now. It's been four years. And I mean, you're, and the other thing I want to ask you about is your life was thrown completely upside down, you and your wife. You don't have your job at the university anymore, either of you, despite the fact that you were tenured professors. It's not an easy thing to get another toehold in academia. Once you've been a tenured professor

somewhere, especially if you've gone through what you went through because no hiring committee anywhere is going to give you any consideration once you've been once you've been tired by scandal regardless of what your role in it was there are far too conservative to ever do anything like that and so okay, so let's I don't know if I can remember the order in which I asked those questions, but remember the order in which I asked those questions. But the first one was, why in the world were you compelled to object and what is it that you were objecting to? Do you think?

Well, it's a funny question for you to pose to me because I have the feeling that the answer will be entirely native to you. I literally don't believe I had any choice. People frequently ask me why I stood up and my sense is if I think through the alternative, I simply can't live with it, I can't sleep. Yeah, but that doesn't seem to bother most people.

So I don't get that, like why, why you? Well, right, I mean, I guess that's the, the thing I'm discovering. So you alluded to my political leanings and you and I both know what you mean by that. I'm a liberal and I would actually, I describe myself sometimes as a reluctant radical. By that, I mean that I believe we must engage in radical change if we are to survive as a species but I also know that radical change is very dangerous and so it's not like, you know, I find most people who would call themselves radicals

feel like radical change is always called for and I don't my my sense is I hope to see change that makes civilization good enough that I get to be a conservative, that I get to say, actually, we're doing so well that we have no choice but to preserve this. If we try to improve it, we'll mess it up. That's where I wanna go. But what I'm discovering is that the bedrock of my liberalism is nothing like the underpinnings of the so-called liberalism

of most of the people on the left side of the political spectrum. My liberalism comes from a sense that yes, compassion is a virtue, but that policy must be based on a dispassionate analysis of problems. It is based on an understanding that the magic of the West comes from a tension between those who aspire to change things from the better for the better and those who recognize the danger of changing them at all. And so in any case, I think the short answer is, we look around the world and everybody makes arguments that sound as if they come from first principles. But most people do not arrive at conclusions from first principles.

If they extrapolate it all, they don't do it very well. And that results in a severe compartmentalization of thought. And that means that when confronted with changes that threaten a system on which we are dependent, most people don't recognize it and if they do recognize it, they wouldn't know what to do about it. So how can I put it in plain terms? I had no choice because I was as if on a ship where somebody had proposed to fix our course through a field of icebergs and navigate based on some absurd theory with no grounding in fact. Somebody had to object and I was a little surprised at how few and far between the objectors were, but you know, if I'm to be totally candid about it at the point that things went haywire at Evergreen

I had watched video of you reacting to protesters in Toronto and It had made so much sense to me at a number of different levels You know, I recognized you as somebody who knew that although the initial proposals were arguably symbolic, that they were connected to things that ultimately were very much about an exercise of power and a transfer of well-being, and that it was therefore you felt obligated to stand up and say no, which resulted, as you know, better than anyone in you stand up and say no, which resulted as you know better than anyone, and you being mocked for overreacting. And then here we are years later, and it turns out that you saw with absolute clarity what

others couldn't even imagine. Yes, but I certainly didn't see what was going to happen to me. Right. With clarity, you know, so, I don't think it's rude. It wasn't possible to see what would happen with specificity. But I, am I correct in seeing that you knew that something very dramatic was likely to come from your standing on principle and that that didn't provide any license to do anything but make that stand? I really can't say, you know, it's a

while ago now, so that that's part of it, but so much has happened to me that's been so strange in the last four years that I have a very difficult time making any sense of it. I can't even really think about, especially the last two years, I can't really think about them in any consistent and comprehensive way. I mean, my family situation has been so catastrophic in my illness and my wife's illness. It's just been, although she recovered completely, thank God, it's just been so utterly catastrophic that my thinking about it is unbelievably fragmented. And I'm struck dumb still to some degree by all of what emerged as a consequence of me making the first videos that I made, you know, I went downstairs, talked to my wife and my son, my son was living at home

at that time, temporarily. And I said, this piece of legislation is really bothering me because it calls for compelled speech. And I looked at the background documents and something wasn't right. And I said, I need to say something about it. They said, well, go for it. You know, we'll see what happens. And all hell broke loose and continues to break loose for that matter, which is one of the things that's so bloody strange about it is it doesn't seem to end. And I would have thought when it first started, I thought, oh, well, you know, I'd be a flash in the pan for a week or something or two weeks or a month or six months or a year or two years or but

it doesn't stop and I really can't understand that. It's beyond my comprehension. Now, I guess it's partly because I continue to communicate my thoughts to some degree even talking to mainstream media people, all the increasing less and perhaps not at all from here on in. I mean, I had an interview with the London Times two weeks ago, three weeks ago, it was published and it was just another complete, absolute bloody nightmare for my family, my daughter in particular, because they took her to task in an extraordinarily nasty way. And, you know, in the journalist who did the interview was completely, she, you couldn't invent her.

You know, not only the way she was so deceitful in what she did, but I learned more about her background afterward as a consequence of another journalist who wrote about her and you know, she's a very singular person to say the least and So I did feel at the time like you did I guess that I was more afraid of not speaking than I was afraid of speaking and I have something against being told what to say it's like I'll pay the price for what I have to say. I'm not going to pay the price to say what you want me to say. You go say it yourself and see what the hell happens. see the beginnings of what has unfolded

since then, although I can't even really put my finger on what it is that's happening. So well, I wonder a little bit about, you know, in some ways, you know, there's nothing good about why you were absent from the scene. But there may be something good about you're having not been there for every moment of it and being able to come back to the discussion with something like fresh eyes, because a lot of this is developmental. And, say, you're surprised that this is continuing. And I must say I'm having the same experience. I feel like I was picked up. My whole family was picked up by a tornado

and we haven't been put down. And I sort of feel like we rejoined in the tornado during 2020. It was such a crazy year that a lot of people whose lives were continuing in some normal fashion are suddenly aware that things are wildly off-kilter. And so what was it like going to teach at Grace at Grace Church School? Well, it was really nice because I was used to a corporate environment, I guess, because of my time that I had done a previous job at HBO. I was a technical manager, it was a whole other career. I was very concerned that I reported

to the right people, or what's the org structure. They were just like, well, you have colleagues, and you can discuss things with them, and we're not going to make you do anything, you can talk to us. It's a very friendly environment. I mean, there were serious expectations, and everyone took their jobs very seriously, but there really was a sense of belonging and community. They were very, that was very welcoming, actually, and very energizing, I will say, because I wasn't used to that. I didn't expect it. And so I would remain a loop from it,

at the beginning, like what's, all these people, where are they always smiling at me? Like what's going on? I don't know why, I just, but gradually loosened up and you, it was kind of corny, but I would kind of go along with it. And I did, it did.

Yeah, it's a good kind of corny. Yeah, and I did actually, you know, I warmed up a little bit. I felt I did feel like I was a part of things and I was able to sort of transmit that to others too. And so what happened over time? It was a very gradual change that, you know, I would say, well, within the first three years, one of the tenets of our school was that every employee and every faculty and staff member had

to attend a seminar called Undoing Racism. That was your HR department, was it or who? Yeah, it was a mandate from the dean of faculty at the time and the that was a requirement. Yeah Yeah, and you know, so I went to that and that was a very interesting experience It's hard to what would you say refuse a call to anti-racism? Sure, I mean, you do that. What kind of monster? Yeah. And I went into it and I actually felt energized and I was converted.

I had a sort of, I am white and I'm privileged and you're right. We need to take care of this. There were people in a circle and people of all different races and backgrounds and it was facilitated. Later I looked back on it and I realized how they did it. They did it in a very interesting, seductive way. And what way was that?

Well, as I recall, they started out, well, it was sort of two parts. The first part was the history since the slave ships landed on American soil. And then throughout time leading up to the present, and then they focused for the second half of the session. They focused on how to help a community that has been shaped by all of this.

And very early in the very early in the session, they said, we want you to withhold any judgment of anyone's choice or agency, anyone, any of the minority black populations that we're talking about here. We want you to simply bracket or hold with hold any analysis of the choices that people make. Because that will often lead to misunderstanding or insensitivity towards what's happening. Why do you focus on that specifically? That issue specifically. Well, because as they retold the history and as they talk about the present

circumstances, they never actually revisited that. So you, you know, you're constantly focused on the oppressed population in terms of what is acting upon it, acting upon those individuals. And you know, to me,, that's denying a certain agency, but they never actually lifted the blinders off at the end. Like they would put these, everyone sort of acknowledged that they were gonna go along with this at the beginning.

And I was like, really, we're gonna do that. We're gonna treat people as less than human. Well, okay, it must be like a temporary thing. And why did you see that as treating them as less than human? Well, okay, it must be like a temporary thing. And why did you see that as treating them as less than human? I mean, I presume that the people on the other side of the fence would say, well, you know, we're all caught like corks on the sea in the throes of vast social movements over which we have little or no control. And who are you to cast judgment on people who have been the relatively deprived in that regard compared to you? It's possible to make a fairly stringent moral

case that that's the appropriate mode of behavior, but there was something in you that objected to that. And you remember that now, despite the fact that you said that you were energized by this and pulled in by it, why do you think it caught you as well? Well, it was a social thing, right? It's a people in a circle and people are talking about their experiences and people are saying, as a black person, I have this has happened to me. And at one point they ask, they actually, you know, it's empathy, right? You care about people. You feel, if you're sitting face-to-face with someone, of course, you're going to be, I'm going to be sympathetic and empathetic

and people are narrating. But the problem I think is generalizing that to groups and, you know, getting you to make a different set of assumptions about those groups based on a sort of selective way that the empathy is leveraged, I would say. Well, there's also the implicit, there's the implicit, what would you say? The implicit perceptual and categorical structure that comes along with it, which is the a priori assumption that the appropriate classification for human beings is by group. Yeah. And that that that's so implicit, but so pervasive that in some sense never needs to be stated.

And as soon as you assume that the group level is the appropriate level, then you're bound to minimize or even forbid discussion of such things as individual agency. So tell us about the blog. When did you start writing your blog? In July 2019. And why did you start to do that? I mean, you have your research career, your undergraduate or your teacher as well. You're working in the community, you have a full

life. What compelled you to start a blog? I love to write and I think it's a reflex that I have from war. So I used to write my diary in Arabic and in French and I have time with me, that came with me in a box and went across three provinces. So I loved to write. So in July 2019, I didn't have the chance, maybe to say what I wanted to say on a platform. So I decided to have my own blog and just write for the pleasure of writing. I write about Lebanon, maybe half of the time,

I write about Canada, Quebec, here. I just write and express views in relation to what is happening in Canada and in the world. And I think I'm seeing something very worrisome and maybe that's part of why. Maybe I'm writing because I'm seeing that we are in times where we can't talk about things, when look what's happening in my story, like people are afraid, they may think things when they are at home privately, but they may not express them publicly, or maybe because of your own political correctness or whatever. I'm not that type of person, like what I write or bani, the name of the person writing is actually the meaning of my

first name, Rima. It means a little deer in Arabic and Bambi is that deer. So Bambi's of car are Bambi's thoughts. So what I write is actually whom I am, my own thoughts privately and on that blog. I sometimes write maybe personal things about birthdays of loved ones and whatever, it's a blog, right? So that's it. And what kind of audience does your blog have? Well at first I thought it had maybe 10 people, maybe first myself I was writing for myself but I thought family

members and then when that story happened I I, for once I searched, I actually don't have the time to do that. And I thought it was like really getting 2000 on one day. And then like, I don't know, another day I checked 500, something like that. I thought, oh my goodness, like I was really thinking, I'm writing, you know, I'm using during the pandemic my in-laws or my parents sometimes with some some issues. All right, about the Barut explosion, I interviewed friends about what they are going through with the financial crisis, you know, things like that. Right. So it had expanded beyond the small number of people that you had assumed were reading it.

Absolutely. Exactly what happened to you. So you were you were living what I would presume was a pretty comfortable and and happy life as you've described being a teacher in a researcher. You spun off this blog on the side and then what happened one day you were notified by the university. Tell us exactly the story. I can tell you, but I want to say yes, I'm extremely happy, even in the pandemic, even despite the very explosion and everything, like fighting my ways of living coping, where New Brunswick is amazing for Canada. But we're also lucky to be in the semi-hero areas where even the pandemic did not hit us as hard as strong or bigger places, Montreal. So in that sense, it was all okay until that February 22nd, where I can tell you that story because

it's my story, that's my part, and it's in the media actually. I was having symptoms of actually like COVID-19, I wasn't sure. And I was very, very, very sick, not I usually run fast and jump and go on the stairs. And I couldn't take the stairs, I would stop, you know, couldn't breathe. And so on that day, the Monday where it happened, I went for testing, was finally negative. But I went, came back, did my work day, and then at the end of the day I was lying on the couch, thinking that I was resting, I got a phone call from a kind former student, telling me, Dr. Azhar, you need to know what is happening. And I thought, are you okay?

What is happening? It was worried. And he said, no, I'm fine. You are in trouble, in big trouble. So the story started in the social media. I'm not on social media myself. So for me, I chose that blog because it's what suits my personality,

what I'm writing and having enough space to write. And so anyways, I enjoy reading social media and I too, but I'm not on it. So I went, I read quickly and I was okay, it's, you know, it was there. And this is where this was on Twitter, this was all happening on Twitter. I don't know if it was happening on, as well as a Facebook, I guess, but I saw the Twitter myself. And then, and you made that out of the university publicly, so not on Twitter, on Facebook, or the public channels of the university, saying, you know, it's public, so I'm not saying what is not public.

To the warning, that blog, we dissociate ourselves from it, and you know, or encouraging complaints. Okay, so what people, what were people saying on Twitter? And who was it that was saying it and how many of them were there? Do you know? A lot. And like it was, it was a big thing on social media. And there has been also at one point, you know,

threat of violence on social media, I think like that. So it was, it was then, I don't want to forget that part. When there were three student organizations asked for my removal from my position at my university and also affiliations as well, like University of New Brunswick invested among them as well. So it got really big. OK, so I want to zero in on this.

So there's some students primarily on social media, on Twitter primarily, and they're complaining about your blog. And there are students who are part of student organizations. And then the student organizations themselves, three of them are contacting the people that you're working for or with, suggesting that you're not the sort of person they should be associating with and asking for your removal.

Exactly. Now you said there were lots of students doing this. And I'd like to get something, an estimate of something like a number. So does a lot mean 500 or does it mean five? Hmm. In between maybe I don't know precisely the answer. Well, the reason I'm asking is because one of the things I'm curious about is just how

many people have to complain before complaints are taken with some degree of seriousness. Now I've dealt with ethics boards, for example, at my own university, and they have a policy that every complaint should be investigated thoroughly. And I'm not very fond of that policy particularly, because there are a lot of people who cause a fair bit of trouble for absolutely no reason. And it seems to me that complaints need to pass something approximating a reasonable threshold before they're dealt with, let's say, seriously. And so, you know, it's striking when you're talking about this, that you don't know how many people actually came after you, because they came after you on social media.

And it's certainly not in the hundreds. It's unlikely to be, correct me if I'm wrong, it's unlikely to be in the dozens. Is it 10? Is it fifteen? And were they students who were actually in your classes or were they just people who read your blog? And what were they objecting to in your blog exactly? What did you say that was in principle, or do you even know what it is that they're upset about? What I've read is that you made some claim that Canada wasn't systemically racist, that wasn't the right way of looking at the country. And to me, that means now, is that

the case now that at university, if I stand up and say that I don't believe that the lens of systemic racism is the proper way to analyze Canada, especially compared to other countries, that now I'm so reprehensible that I deserve to be suspended. If a couple of people object, is that the situation that we're looking at? Or am I being too hard on the university? Well, I think we're sorry to answer that question. So, I know.

The numbers that I know of now, I know them because of what happened and how many people. But before I didn't know anything, I personally found it amazing that my university, my employer that I love and respect, did not call me to tell me what was happening that I learned it in that way. Did you union? My union is doing what needs to be done and I'm very grateful. But I didn't know about that.

I knew, that's how I knew it. And then after that first call, friends from Nova Scotia, Emerson, Nova Scotia called hearing in the news and the radio, it was all everywhere. I have to admit, I may be wrong, but there may have been a flavor for that during that month. So like, my story was sort of a scapegoat for something that is much bigger than a

deer, a simple deer, a silly deer. Sometimes we're not allowed to write serious things or silly things or be wrong or change our mind. So what precisely I don't know what I do, I personally am allergic to identity politics given my background. So I may have written things about that or about, you know, it's hard to tell. But you're still not sure, you're still not sure what it is that, okay, so you're not sure exactly who you offended or how many of them there are and you're not exactly sure why you offended them. And you're so unsure that what you say is that as far as you're concerned, you can't safely write down what you think, despite the fact that you have your opinions given where you came from, given the fact that you've immigrated here, that you can take a look at Canada from the perspective of an insider and an outsider, you're not sure what your crime is. No, but now because it's in the media, I can talk to that. So I'm not respecting the confidant

shallity of the process of the investigation report. It's in the media. There is a valid case. Well, you get the chance to defend yourself. In any case, I mean, you've been suspended, correct? Yes. In the fall. OK. And you said your university didn't even call you when all this blew up, which is typical,

in my experience of the way institutions are reacting to this sort of thing. So an unnamed number of students made comments that you have used that are in some sense reprehensible, even though you don't know what they are. And the response of your university, despite the fact that you have tenure, that you're an accomplished scientist, that you're a popular undergraduate researcher, that you have tenure, the response of your university was to not call you, but suspend you for the

fall, what pending an investigation. An investigation into what exactly have they told you what you did wrong? Of course I saw those complaints and I can tell you I think that but I can say it is most of them are related to the blog and that's fine. People have the right not to like what you say what I say what anyone what anyone else is saying, that's fine. But when we get into false allegations, it's a different story. There's also a difference between having the right not to like what you say on your blog and aggregating

behind your back and conspiring to contact all your employers and to insist that you be removed because you're reprehensible and hypothetically a danger to the, let's say, the safety of students and to have you removed from your position and have your reputation dragged through the mud and have you exposed in the media. I mean, that's not merely not liking what you said. That's an all-out attack. And it's amazing to me that the me that this handful of students, an unspecified number, has the power to move the administration to produce such a dramatic response.

And you keep wavering, in some sense, as to the nature of your crimes. You said, you think it might, you think it's likely the blog. But I guess there are allegations that go outside the blog as well. Have you ever had trouble with your students in classes that have resulted in complaints? Never. Never. All those who know me personally, who can guess who my am in the blog because I think it shows a little bit that, you know, I write a lot, so you can guess, you can see, you can make links, you can see. So for example, I may criticize a certain politician in one blog, but I can say thank you

on another one for doing something. You know, I'm writing because we cannot comment on art media articles many times, you know, comment section is closed, right? So for me, it's my way of doing it. So if they... Well, it doesn't seem to me that it's something that needs to be justified. I mean, first of all, you're a citizen of a free country. You have right to express yourself anyway that you see fit.

Second of all, you're a tenured professor and your thoughts actually protected to a fair degree and it's protected broadly so that you can think broadly. And the fact that this has happened despite your tenure, well, I guess part of the question that people who are watching might be asking is why the hell should they care about this? And the reason I believe that people should care about this, first of all, is that what happens in the universities ends up happening everywhere else very, very rapidly.

And if it can happen to someone like you, it seems to me that it can happen to anyone at any time and any place. And this unbelievable cowardice that our institutions show in the face of unwarranted allegations, as long as they're the right flavor, is something that should be tremendously worrisome to everyone. Tell us about no safe spaces first and then tell us about, you know, your attempts to get distributed or the attempts to get it distributed. Well, I'll start with the movie and then Dennis will go on to the attempts to be distributed. Well, I actually wanted it to reverse.

Okay. But when that's fine, either way, you know, Dennis and I are very different, we have very different backgrounds, but we do have common sense and common. And I have found more and more, and I'm assuming you guys feel the same way, which is just finding someone with common sense seems to trump all the other characteristics that we're constantly talking about, about, you know, where, what region you're born in or who your team is or what color your skin is. Dennis and I always had common sense and common. And we struck up a great friendship. We've done many speaking engagements. We've always had a great time in each other's company.

And so when the producers came to us with this idea, I immediately jumped at it just because it selfishly seemed like we could spend a lot of time together talking about a subject that we're both pretty passionate about, which is free speech. And since the time we made this movie, I feel like things have gotten much worse. I think the movie was a bit ahead of its time in terms of what it is, the subject matter. And now I feel like in just the three or four years since we started

three or four years since we started this free speech issue has gone into overdrive. Go ahead, Dennis. Yeah. A word on the movie and then a word on the distribution. I've said from the beginning, and I'm neither arrogant nor humble. I just pretty much try to see myself in life objectively. And so I have said this is a great movie, and it's not a great movie because I'm in it. It might be a great movie because Adam is in it,

but the truth is it's a great movie. And Adam and I happen to be the quote-unquote stars, but that's not the point of the movie. I have watched this about five times. I have the attention span of a child, and so for something to keep me riveted five times speaks immensely about it. It is truly an important movie. It's more important today, even than when it was made, about free speech, and it's gotten movies within the movies. And anyway, people should see it. I should, I'd like to point out too,

just as an advertisement of sorts. There's a Canadian equivalent to that movie called Better Left Unsaid that is faced the same sort of distribution problems that you guys have faced. And it focuses on issues that are more germane to Canada, although also relevant to the US. And so, well, they deserve a no,

they deserve a mansion. So, I'm glad you pointed out. I happen to think that things are worse in Canada than in the US, but that's an interesting discussion for either another time or later on today. So, what was your impetus for making, I'm in the movie just however, when you talk about a distribution.

Yes, yes. Netflix refused to distribute it to stream it, which is incredible, given how popular the movie is. Okay, so make a case for that. Like why? Okay, so Netflix should have been incentivized as far as you're concerned by the fact that the movie was economically successful. And there are other streaming agencies too online that are fairly powerful, so Amazon, et cetera.

Have you had any interest from any of the streaming agencies? Well, it's interesting. I don't know the, I'll look up the Amazon question. I know that Walmart doesn't sell it in its stores. They have the same thing. All you need really in Netflix or Walmart or any of these is one or two people who are woke to tell, you know, we can't do this, we're going to get a bad name.

And then, you know, what is it to Netflix not to listen to somebody who says, oh, Dennis Prager, we know for a fact that it was my name, that was the trigger. Which is an interesting thing, which I, one day would be fascinating to discuss, because whenever my name is raised as this bugaboo, I always say, well, can you say anything in 35 years of broadcasting, 10 books, literally 1,000 columns on the internet, plus tens of thousands of hours of the radio recorded, say one thing that I have ever said that strikes you as extreme.

And so there's never an example. This literally never, the New York Times did a piece on me, they couldn't find one sentence. They made up something, in fact, they said, Prager suggested, and I always tell people that if they don't say said, don't believe the line. Suggested is the New York Times, not what I said. And then they had no quotes. But anyway, I've had the same experience, Dennis, you know, I have no idea. I know that I can't find a thing you've ever said that is an enobling. I love your work. I wrote the introduction to your biography.

I had this experience as well. And then I have another thought, which is I got into a lot of trouble and I got out of favor with critics because it was widely said that Adam Corolla said women weren't funny. Now, this is perfect and you guys have experienced a version of this. I did an interview years ago and the person said at the end, who's funny here, men or women? And I said, well, I think men are, I think it's based on them trying to have sex essentially. So they had to exercise that muscle a little bit, but I know many female comedians that are funnier than anybody, any guy ever went to high school with that then turned into Adam Corolla said women weren't funny.

And then they just ran with it. And that's up there with that. Well, look, it's pretty credible what you say because my sense is that there's been a couple of things I've said that have been blown up in the press. And they were exaggerations of the sort that you're describing taken out of context. I think that in the current climate, if you've ever said anything reprehensible on public record, that you will be slaughtered for it. And so if you haven't been slaughtered for it, the probability that you haven't said anything reprehensible is pretty damn high because people are combing over the utterances of people

like you trying to find a smoking pistol. I don't know if you can comb over things to find a smoking pistol, but I was at a Senate subcommittee on the suppression of free speech, testifying about what's happening to Prager U, where hundreds of our videos are placed on the restricted list, meaning if you have a filter against pornography and violence, you actually can't see the video. So one of them was in fact one that I have given. I only give one tenth of the videos, 90% of other people. But I have given a number of videos on a 10 Commandments, for example.

And so Senator Ted Cruz asked the representative of Google, why did you, people could see this on YouTube, but it's still there. Why did you put Mr. Prager's talk on the 10 Commandments on the Restricted List? And the man looked at Senator Cruz and said, because it mentions murder. And I remember, I remember humming the Twilight Zone theme, because I felt I had entered an alternate universe. So what do you think the reason was Dennis? I mean, obviously, look, that's got to be a bit of a PR nightmare for Google to do something like that. So it smacks of a certain degree of incompetence to begin with. And I like to hypothesize incompetence before malevolence. So why do you think it was censored that specifically? And then why with regards to, is it reasonable to call what's happening

with PragerU censorship? And why do you think it's happening? Well, I'll tell you the, I'll answer the last one first, and this will help you realize that I think there's more and more levelings than incompetence. There is never an instance in the history of the world, and this is my field of study since I was in graduate school at Columbia. That's why study Russian was to read Pravda and visit the Soviet Union on multiple occasions and other, and other communist countries. There is no instance in world history that has since the Russian Revolution of the left gaining power and not suppressing speech. Liberals are for free speech, conservatives

are for free speech. The left has never been for free speech. Okay, so let me ask you a clarifying question there, all right, because you know, I come, I'm a Canadian and I suppose, along with this Scandinavian countries, we're tilted a fair degree to the left compared to the US. And so, I mean, freedom of speech is in reasonable shape in our countries, those countries that I mentioned. And so when you talk about the left, tell me more specifically what you mean and how you would define that particular say because you're not talking about the Democrats per say I can't imagine or perhaps you are. The Democrats used to be, I was a Democrat. The Democrats used to be liberal. The Democrats, when I was a kid in the 70s, Nazis, real Nazis, not people they just call Nazis. Real Nazis with swastikas demonstrated in Skokie, Illinois because a lot of Jews live there, especially Holocaust survivors, who's a particularly vicious act.

And Jewish groups, the ACLU, liberal groups, the Democratic Party, all defended their right because in America anybody could say anything except Yelp fire in a crowded theater. That is no longer the position. Look, why did you get in trouble? And you're wondering about that for a long time. Okay, so, Krona, no, well, if you're wondering, I'm not. You said something the left didn't like, that you were not gonna be told by the government what pronoun you will use. We need institutions that we can respect

and that hold up the standards that have made them what they are. And if they fold, well, how can you expect normal people say not to be cowed and intimidated by the same tactics? Absolutely. Actually, there were two other episodes on my mind, one of which sort of confirmed my theory about what was happening in your case, the other of which suggested different sorts of motivations. So one of them was a case that occurred around the same time as

yours, which was the case of a research fellow at St Edmund's College here in Cambridge. He was doing research, he was a sociologist, well then respectable sociologist, he had worked, worked profiling the economist in top journals. He was fired because there was, again, there was a more protesting about his association's conferences he'd been to, journals that he published in, which other people that they found his taste for, published in, and so on. Again, Daniel said, nothing illegal. That was one case, which again, I think illustrates the sorts of pressures that I think would be brought to bear. So what were the topics for that? The topics of race and intelligence. Yes, yes, yes. The intelligence literature is rough. That's true. I mean, the whole thing was so chilling, Jordan, because it was decided by an inquiry that was kept

secret. Nobody's going to know what the evidence was in this inquiry. So the whole thing was terrifying. The other case was slightly different. So there was another case that concerned me, which was a case where it was an event for the Palestinian society, where there was a chair from that society, which the university threatened to shut down because they thought they were worried

that the chair might be an extremist or something. She wasn't at all, she was a respectable, respectable academic from so ass. And the university imposed its own chair on that. Now that was slightly different because that was responding to another threat of free speech which is the government's legislation on prevent and anti-terrorism. But those three events were sort of coalescing in my mind around the time that I tried to change the

universities free speech policy. Okay, so let's talk about the change in the free speech policy. What changes did you propose? And then it took a couple of years as I understand to really get this through. And I also understand from James that it wasn't that easy to get people to speak in favor of your proposal, but that it was passed and when we need to go into that, by an overwhelming majority of the people who were concerned and able to legislate such things, so to speak for the university. Yeah, so I can take you through that.

What happened was, this was around actually March 2020, so about a year after your case. And the university had decided that it was going to put through a new freedom of speech policy. This was obviously at a time when everyone had had other things on their mind at least in Britain in March 2020. They didn't offer a vote on it, they just wanted to put it straight through.

And it was a policy which I found concerning, especially in life of these incidents. One part of it was that it mandates said that we have right to respite, but we must always exercise respect for other people's identities and opinions. Now, that might seem innocuous, but of course the word respect being so vague can be interpreted. It doesn't seem innocuous to me. Indeed. I mean, it seems terrible because it just it just removes the first part of protection for free speech. I mean, if you have to be cautious about other people's opinions, much less their identity. Well, we should reverse that. Their identity, much less their opinions, is well, who decides when that's respectful? And what yeah, yeah, it's just we go words that.

Exactly. And the bit about identities, I bet they had you in mind when they were saying that actually but whenever anyone says I believe in three speech parts that's a good sign to me that they don't believe in speech and that was the impression that this policy gave off. Other parts of the policy which may not have been directed explicitly new but which certainly brought you in those other cases for instance the Palestinian society to mind were rules which said that the university could stop speaker events if they thought they were threatened the welfare of students, and then their welfare is defined to get undefined and could be interpreted broadly, and indeed allowed the university to stop events under pretty much any circumstances that they like, speaker events, for instance.

So that was the proposed policy in March 2020. So why did that bother you so much? I mean, you're pretty young and starting your academic career in many ways. Maybe I'm wrong about that, but it's a hell of a thing to take on, and it's not without its risks. And I'm always curious about people's motives. There's lots of professors at Cambridge.

Why do you think this was your problem? Well, you flatter me, but I will say that I guess there were two things. One of them was philosophical, and one of them was more to do with the nature of the job. So, philosophically speaking, my basic philosophical position is what you might call classical liberal.

So, my basic value is individuality. And in terms of what I do, my political engagement, even my professional engagement, to some extent, that's the ultimate and most important value. So for me, it really touched in there. It touched in there, it was a core of my identity if you want to use that, that important word. The other aspect, which I said was professional, was simply to do something I alluded to earlier, which that, um, the Paul in word. Um, the other aspect, which

I said was professional was simply to do something I alluded to earlier, which was, what is this job for is part of your duty as an academic, I would have thought, you know, academics are normally cautious as they should be, but the one thing that they shouldn't be cautious about is defending the ultimate, um, uh, purpose of the academy. And that cannot be, um, pursued without free speech, um, And without the ability to question freely beliefs that are held by the majority, also beliefs that are held by minorities, and without worrying about who you're going to defend,

who's going to be hurt by your words, especially in a subject like philosophy, and I dare say in a subject like yours, and certainly in a subject like James, is you can't have free discussion if every time you talk about something, you'll frightened that you're going to offend the other, and then it might report to you and you might get in trouble.

I can't do my job. I didn't expect James Canada to expect you can if discussion is curtailed in that way. So, no scientists can because that freedom of inquiry and the freedom to upset traditional truths, let's say, well, in a really fundamental sense, that's what science is all about. And as a, let's say a creative scientist, you're always working against what's established because otherwise what you discovered wouldn't be new. And you're always going to be facing people who are upset for one reason or another by your hypothesis and your research. So it's not a side issue here.

It's crucial to the academy as such. Yeah, absolutely. It's absolutely. But that still doesn't explain why you made your problem say when so many people were perfectly willing to remain silent. Well, one thing I would say is that I was slightly surprised when I wrote, so after the university's policy came out, there was a discussion. What's called the discussion in Cambridge University

really means that you write a paper and it's published in the University magazine. And so I sent a short paper off proposing some changes to these policies and state-of-my objections. And I had expected this being Cambridge University that many other people would do the same, because I didn't think I was alone and being concerned about this. Nobody else did. So that was the first point in which I realized, so there was no real braver on my path because I'd expected at that point that a lot of people,

a lot of other people would be jumping in, nobody did. So that was the point in which I realized that I was perhaps more isolated than I'd expected. To go back to your question about motivations, I mean, I don't know what more I can tell you. I mean, these are things that matter to me. I don't really care if anyone else is doing it. Did you face any trouble? So you voiced your opinion and you wanted to modify this document, which had, let's say, politically correct underpinnings. And did it cause grief for you? Were people outraged by what you said or did things proceed as a matter of course? Well it was interesting. So some people

some people wrote to me, in fact, but a few people wrote to me at the time saying that they agreed with with my concerns, which sort of made it even more surprising that nobody had actually said so in public. Some people wrote to me saying they agreed with my cousins that weren't willing to say anything in public. James was, as it always, was really helpful. James has always been really supportive and James has been publicly supportive throughout this process. But it's because there have been a few courageous people like James and a few others in Cambridge at that stage. That was definitely a big help. So there was some support. I also had people warning. So I had people saying, you know, you might get, you know, you might get some kind of disciplinary procedure, you might get some kind of investigation. I didn't expect anything at

that stage. That indeed nothing happened to me at that stage. And I'm pleased to say there have been no investigations or anything that have made me sense. So that's really interesting in two ways, isn't it? Because it shows you how low people are to do this because they're afraid. And we shouldn't make light of that because this is actually no fun. You know, if you do something like this and it explodes in your face, like it probably took me, oh, it took me a long time to recover from the disinvitation, especially the way it was handled. And my health and my wife's health were extremely compromised at the time.

And so it came at a particularly bad time. We had just received news that she probably had terminal cancer. And so this came on top of that. Now, luckily, she survived. Thank God. But, you know, it was a harrowing time. And so I see why people can be cowed like this, because you don't know when this is going to explode and when it's going to tangle you up so deeply that while your jobs go on,

that's what happened to the Weinstein's, for example, it evergreen. And I mean, that was really, that did them a tremendous amount of damage. They're unbelievably resourceful and they go back on their feet. And they were a husband and wife team, so they had each other, and that was good. But not everybody can do that, and you can get seriously taken out if something like this goes wrong. But then that ties into this issue we discussed a bit earlier, which is how a small minority of people whose wrath knows no bounds in some sense can be so dominant.

Yep, so it was in some ways a calculated risk. I can't imagine how difficult that must have been for you, Jordan. It must have been horrific. I mean, one thing I saw happening in Cambridge, not quite then, but a little bit later, was the treatment that was meted out to, not an academic, but to a member of the university staff. So we have college porters in Cambridge. And these are these people who work at the colleges, often they're there sort of, you know, retirement, or military or something, really helpful, they do all kinds of jobs

around the college, students rely on them, the academics rely on them, the ones in my college, brilliant. There was one at a college in Cambridge who was also a Labour counsellor, who resigned on political grounds, which was to do with his view about trans issues. So he thought it was, you know, there was, there was emotion about trans issues that he thought, you know, threatened women safety. And so he resigned on a point of principle. And that's his political activity. That's his right. I could understand his grounds of doing that. The students at his

college, so these are typically much more privileged people than him. Students at his college formed a mob to try to get this man sacked. And this was, you know, this is a much more privileged people. They didn't care about, you know, the consequences for him. They just thought, because he diverted from their line of ideological purity, do you remember this case, James? And James may know all about me, but yeah. I do, and it was thanks to a very brave female undergraduate.

I think she was in her, even a second year, she spoke out, wrote a public article about it, a great courage, I thought to herself, and she, there was an awful lot of resistance to her doing that, but it was remarkable. She got in touch with us, I seem to remember, and I can't remember how the case was resolved. Did you ever apologize, or did you use what happened with you?

Apologize for what? Well, that's the cool, for whatever you were being accused of. I never apologized for refusing to comply with my university's mandate. I never apologized for speaking publicly about it. I never have and won't apologize for continuing to try to have discussions about the truth. That doesn't mean that I or who I'm talking with will always get it right. Surely, we'll make mistakes. Everyone makes mistakes.

The truth isn't a set of facts. The truth is an approach to discussion. That's what Joe Rogan's so good at. That's why he's so popular. It's not because Joe knows the truth. It's because he acts out the truth in his speech and his actions. So, yeah, that's a whole different thing. Whole different thing.

Well, Solzzynitsyn was convinced that a totalitarian state could not exist unless everyone was participating in the lie, and that the most potent anti-authoritarian action is to tell the truth. And that means to say something when you have something to say, because not because you're brave, but I think, but because the alternative is worse. Yeah, that's. And it was or well. It's so, so interesting to me that it was or well that opened your eyes to that. I mean, it makes perfect sense, but it's still really something.

Yeah, I know. It's like that like that book. I think that's when I realized, oh, everybody was responsible. And that's when I started thinking about speaking out. That's when you started thinking about speaking out. I see. I see. And so you made a conscious decision at that point. Yeah. Why? Why? Because I knew the price of silence. Because like that,

that was a price real pain, not even knowing. Like, that's the thing, like, when people say, why no revolution? Because we don't't know your slaves in North Korea. How do you fight between when you don't know your slave? And that's a different thing. Like, the fact that my people don't even know they're oppressed, that's the thing. Like, what cares the me to this point about my father is, not like he, I, of course, I would be great

if he lived in freedom even one day. But the heartbreaking thing is he didn't even know life could be this free and life could be this beautiful. He didn't even know that like life could be so different for other human beings. I just wish he knew before he goes so he doesn't remember this life so hard, it's fairly with the sadness, you know. And that's the thing with North Koreans, we're talking with different variable oppression. You don't even know life can be this way. And yeah, so that was my time of understanding what happened and started believing in this freedom.