The Jordan B. Peterson Podcast - 457. God, Marxism, and the Fall of the West | Ayaan Hirsi Ali

Episode Date: June 20, 2024

Dr. Jordan B. Peterson sits down with author and activist Ayaan Hirsi Ali. They discuss the subversion of the West, how the pursuit of truth has become the ownership of it, the corruptive nature of the oppressor/oppressed power narrative, the importance of Christian ideals, and why a push for restoration is more necessary than ever before. Ayaan Hirsi Ali is a Fellow at the Hoover Institute at Stanford University, a Senior Fellow with the Future of Diplomacy Project at the Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs at The Harvard Kennedy School, a member of the Council on Foreign Relations, and the bestselling author of “Infidel” (2007) and “Heretic: Why Islam Needs a Reformation Now” (2015). Born in Mogadishu, Somalia, Hirsi Ali strove to live as a devout Muslim during her early life, but in 1992, fled to the Netherlands to escape a forced marriage. She became a citizen and went on to study at the University of Leiden. From 2003 to 2006, Hirsi Ali served as an elected member of the Dutch parliament and then moved to the U.S., where she founded the AHA Foundation to protect and defend the rights of women from harmful traditional practices. In 2024, Hirsi Ali founded Restorationbulletin.com, where she explores the forces of subversion plaguing Western society.  - Links - For Ayaan Hirsi Ali: On X https://twitter.com/Ayaan?ref_src=twsrc%5Egoogle%7Ctwcamp%5Eserp%7Ctwgr%5Eauthor Restoration Bulletin https://www.restorationbulletin.com/

[♪ MUSIC PLAYING 》 [♪ MUSIC PLAYING 》 Hello everybody! I had the privilege today to speak with Ianne Hersi Ali, who, I don't know, if you took the ten bravest people in the world, she'd be one of them, as far as I can tell. She made a remarkable splash years ago with her first book, Infidel, which talked about her experience about moving from Somalia to the Netherlands, which is like the center

of Western civilization. And so, that was a great book. Ayaan has had a very storied political career, to say the least, and a threatened life in many ways, standing up against the Islamic fundamentalists. She's recently converted to Christianity, which is also a stunningly brave move for someone in her situation. And she's launched a new enterprise called Restoration, which is a substack media enterprise designed to make a case for the necessary primacy and, what would you say, bedrock foundational necessity of the presumptions of Western civilization.

And so we had a chance to talk about all that. And so I would say it'll be 90 minutes well worth your while with the additional conversation that I had with her as well on the daily wire side. So welcome everybody. Listen to Diane, that's always worthwhile. She's a real force of nature. And so as I said, it was a privilege to talk to her again. All right, so you've recently announced a new writing and media endeavor,

and I've been following that quite avidly, particularly on Twitter, and so called Restoration. And so do you want to tell us how that came to be and what it is and what you're hoping to accomplish with it? Well, Restoration, I think the word says it. My mission is to restore our institutions that you and I love to their original missions. Ideas, our culture, the origins and history of our culture, institutions like the family, schools, the university, democratic institutions, what political parties are supposed to do,

what our governments are supposed to do, what they're not supposed to do. And then discourse. A lot of us have been talking quite a bit about freedom of speech and the institutions that protect freedom of speech, the free press, all of these have been, in my view, they've been subverted. There's been an effort to subvert our institutions. And we're in a place now where we cannot communicate with people we disagree with or we have a different perspective from without immediately seeing an enemy status in them. And I think the first and most important thing to do is to bring back that civic discourse.

When I came to Europe in 1992, and over the course of the first 10 years of my residence there, conversations between people who disagree with one another were seen as what defined Europe and what defined the West and what made it different from other places. And now look at where we are. And so restoration is an attempt to awaken people to recognize what's at stake and then to restore, yeah, in one word, to restore sanity. Okay, so you brought up a lot of points there, and I want to delve into them one by one. I guess I'll start with an overarching question and then drill in a little bit. Do you find yourself surprised to have

developed the beliefs that you have developed? I mean, in your description of civic discourse, the threat to democratic institutions, the threat to our culture, the collapse of freedom of speech. And all of those are serious charges, right? Especially, let's say, the observation of subversion. And it's difficult to, it's easy for, let's see, it's easy for the apprehension of something like subversion to be tossed into the conspiracy theorist bin. Let's say that. I mean, in the things that you've been writing about in Restoration and pointing to, they're quite dramatic. And so, let's do two things. The first is, why don't you talk a bit more about what you mean by subversion, where that might be stemming from, right? Because that's, well, that's a mysterious question.

And then also address the issue of whether or not you find yourself surprised to be in the position that you're in having to say the sorts of things, let's say, that you're saying to be now. So let's start with subversion. The opening essay in Subversion, the bulletin, so my platform on Substack, has to do with I start by describing the fact that many of us feel that something is off and that like in the parable of the Buddhists, we're all trying to figure out what is it that is off.

So we're all these blind people, we're touching different parts of the elephant and we're trying to figure out what this whole is. When I look at these, you know, take any list, I'm in the academic world and I see what has happened to academia from the time I came as a student in 1995 in the University of Leiden to my present role at Stanford. And there is just this churning out of very expensive, useless degrees in gender and race and you name it. That's the universities K to 12. There is this crisis that I see because I'm a parent. Parents around me homeschooling their children going from A to

B just completely confused about what is it that's going on with our education systems. They're on the brink of collapse. going on with our education systems, they're on the brink of collapse. There are these statements that are contrary to reality that there is an endless number of genders. There's this whole, what seemed like in, you know, 10, 15 years ago when I first heard about terms like intersectionality and oppressor and oppressed and all the rest of it. It just seemed like some, to me, juvenile,

intellectual mishmash, nonsensical, the sort of things that first year freshmen, is students dapple in and then they grow up and they grow out of it. And then along comes 2020 and we have that incident with George Floyd in the United States of America. And what then happens is what I only see can describe as a revolution because we went full on with the defund the police.

Let's abolish SATs and other standardized tests, mathematics is racist, everything is racist. And this demolition, clearly demolition of ideas and institutions, or like the family education. And I'm looking at this and I'm thinking this is familiar. And I'm looking at this and I'm thinking this is familiar. And let's pay attention to the people who are leading the charge in these projects to destroy the structures and the institutions that have served us so well. And on the one hand, you have these identity politics,

cultural Marxists that have developed these elaborate theories that they call critical theory, critical theories. And it's not a conspiracy theory, Jordan. They state it as clearly as possible that they want to bring down, they point to all of these injustices and they say the answer to all of this is to bring down these structures and destroy them. And then on the other hand, I see the Islamists, and the Islamists have never really been dishonest. It was always in your face, but they fast-tracked many years to bring down our system through terror and terrorist plots and relentless terrorist attempts. And they failed at that.

We are militarily and economically and technologically superior to them. And so obviously they went down the path of Dawa, which is a religious subversion, which it has a much longer timeline. And then of course you look at the CCP and Putin and these are external adversaries and they're looking what's going on on our soil domestically and they would be stupid not to take advantage of that. So as I try to look into and analyze, again think of me as one of the blind men touching the elephant, is to say where have we seen this before? Now communist attempts at subverting the West as communism, they're as old as the times of the Bolsheviks and Lenin and all the various Marxists.

And when the Soviet Union was established, they had programs to subvert us. And it was mutual. We had programs to subvert them. So when you listen, I quote Yuri Besmanov at length, where he describes their length. You just listen to him and the institutions that he describes and the intended effects of that kind of subversion.

And it's right before your eyes. You don't really need a conspiracy theorist for that. The Islamists, it's the same thing. What's interesting about all of this is to see this collusion between the Islamists and the neo-Marxists or cultural Marxists, what is called the unholy green-red alliance. Some people describe it as the watermelon and you think, okay, where is this going? Queers for Palestine looks nice in

Colombia on a plaque that students hold up. What would queers look like if they were actually in Gaza or the West Bank? We know what happens. But that aside, the question of is there subversion and has it been effective? Are we on the brink? To all of that the answer is yes. And my remedy for that is restoration. Recognize the institutions, the ideas, you know, it's our elites. And then we have to come together and restore this. And so not together in these empty sort of platitudinous ways, but to say, what made us different as Western societies is that we used to disagree. And actually, we used to think it was fun to disagree.

The other day, I had a debate with, what I didn't think of it as a debate, I thought was a lovely conversation with Richard Dawkins, where, I mean, we live in a world where a lot of people who watched that discussion, their takeaway was not, oh, how interesting. This one has to say that, you know, there was suddenly this enemy friend thing. Yeah. I think for me the greatest takeaway from that whole thing was the hug at the beginning and the hug at the end. That it is possible to disagree on fundamental issues and continue to have that affection for one another.

And if you don't want to have affection for one another, still, you know, peaceful handshake. Well, with Dawkins in particular, like I've met him a couple of times and I've read his books, and I learned a lot from his books. And one of the things that I've thought about Dawkins all along, and I think this is reflected in the fact that he described himself as a cultural Christian recently, is that he is a good scientist. And a good scientist is someone who strives to seek the truth. And I think that truth-seeking is a religious enterprise, and so a true scientist is embedded in a religious enterprise, and I think that's why Richard Dawkins understands that he's

a cultural Christian. But it's very, there's many things that Dr. Dawkins and I don't see eye to eye about, but some of that is because we don't understand each other, like a fair bit of it. And some of it is that the issue at hand is insanely complex and difficult to figure out, and neither of us should be presuming that we've got the right answer. And then the discourse that you're describing, which is competitive discourse, should be conducted in a manner that enables both of the participants to further seek the truth. And then you actually want that enmity, so to speak, you want the person you're talking to to come at you with ideas that you haven't heard and positions that you haven't thought through, because in principle, they move you closer to the truth. And so hypothetically, Dr. Dawkins

and I will be speaking at some time in the next few months. We're trying to arrange that now. And I'm really looking forward to it because I think that we can talk because I think that he's trying to pursue the truth. And I found the same thing with Sam Harris. And I recently spoke to Dan Dennett, which went very well. I've managed to speak to him in a few short weeks before his demise. And we had a very productive conversation. And you want conversations between people who don't hold the same viewpoint if they're

reliable people because that's where the real thinking takes place. And so for me, what you just described was the defining feature of Western civilization. I came from, I was born in Somalia and I lived in Saudi Arabia and I lived in Kenya and I lived in Ethiopia and, and I lived in Kenya, and I lived in Ethiopia, and then I landed in the Netherlands in 1992. And there were so many differences between the world, the non-Western world I grew up in and the Western world that I came to. But the one thing that I would say was really different was this, that you can't really have these radically different views. You can be religious, you can be atheist, you can be pro-market, you can be anti-market.

You can't, in fact, in the streets of America shout the most anti-American things, even burn the American flag. That is protected. That for me was wow. And when I say let's talk about restoration, I'm now seeing a breakdown, a near collapse of that. On the political level, on the academic level, on the civic level, on the journalism level. We are breaking up into tribes, like the world where I came from, where you have not the pursuit of the truth, but ownership of the truth.

My truth versus your truth, and that kind of nonsense, is now a serious, serious deep-rooted problem in the West. And that, I think, is an outcome of subversion. Well, okay, so let's take that apart further. So you talk about a relapse into a kind of tribalism of idea ownership. So there's a disintegration of something that was unified into a more pluralistic tribal landscape. Okay, so that's one of the things. Let's identify some of the other characteristics of the collapse. So we could talk about purposeful and accidental subversion. So let's start with the Marxists with regard to purposeful subversion. Okay, so Karl Marx split the world into oppressor

and oppressed in an envious manner, presuming that all the moral virtue was with the oppressed and all the evil was with the oppressor, and that that all could be understood from within the framework of economics. So the primary axis of oppression and oppressed for Marx was the economic axis. And he presumed that the reason that that inequality

between oppressor and oppressed exists was because of the structure of capitalism. At least that's what he claimed. Now, whether or not he believed that is a whole different issue. Okay, so now I wanna take that in two directions. I want to point to how that's metastasized into what I think is less than ideally conceptualized

as cultural Marxism. And I want to also discuss its precursors, its archetypal precursors, okay? So what seems to me to have happened, and I want your thoughts on this, is that Marx established the framework for an elaborated victim-victimizer narrative. But he basically stuck to the economic realm when he made that case. Now, as the revolution unfolded, what we found out was that the subversion of the capitalist order

in favor of the oppressed only produced the universalization of poverty and produced no viable redistribution of equity or income. And so by the 1970s, the hollowness of the economic approach to the victim victimizer had been demonstrated so thoroughly that even idiot Marxists in France were forced to accept it. And so, you know, the proof is compelling when a French intellectual is forced to accept it. And so you know the proof is compelling when a French intellectual is forced to swallow it. And so then what happened, as far as I could tell,

is the postmodernists, who were all Marxist at their core, decided that there was no utility in beating the economic inequality drum anymore, but that they could fragment the victim victimizer narrative into a metastasis and say, well, the basic idea that it was a power dynamic that ruled everything was correct. But we underestimated the seriousness of the power dynamic because it shows up in estimated the seriousness of the power dynamic because it shows up in the relationship between men and women and it shows up in the patriarchal structure of the family and it shows up in the dynamic of sex and then the dynamic of gender and race and ethnicity.

So all of a sudden you have the same victim. Between countries. Sure, sure. Between races, between tribes. You can understand the postmodern claim was that even though they purported to dispense with the idea of a superordinate metanarrative, in the power narrative as the fundamental exploratory concept, and then metastasized it to account for, to explain the relations between human beings, regardless of how they categorize themselves, so that every group categorization became a locus of power and exploitation.

Right, and so now we have a metastatic Marxism. Okay, so that's bringing it forward. Now I want to bring it backward and you tell me what you think about this because I think Marxism itself is a variant of something deeper, much deeper. So there's a Marxist-like spirit that inverts the French Revolution soon after it occurs. And that was well before Marx. And I've been thinking more archetypally, let's say, in relationship to fundamental stories that Marxism is a variant, Marxism versus capitalism, let's say, as a variant of the story of Cain and Abel, right?

Because Cain and Abel is really the first victim-victimizer narrative. And it basically presents the human moral landscape because it's the first story about human beings in history, right, because Adam and Eve were in the Garden of Eden, let's say. Cain and Abel are the first two human beings that are born in the world of history. And they develop modes of being that are antithetical to one another, with Cain being the oppressed, angry, bitter, malevolent, murderous, and then genocidal victim,

and Abel being the successful, right, the successful individual who strives forward, aims up and makes the proper sacrifices. Now, that's presented in the biblical corpus as the fundamental spiritual division, and Cain's failure to make the proper offering and then his rebellion against God. Like, there's a Luciferian touch to that.

And it's definitely something that attracted Marx because Marx was an admirer of Mephistopheles, of Goethe's Mephistopheles. And Mephistopheles was the variant of the usurping spirit whose motivation was nothing but destruction. You talked about the attack on all the levels of subsidiary society simultaneously, right? The Marxists definitely planned that. We can't have marriage because men and women are in a power battle. We can't have families because the family is a patriarchal, oppressive institution. We can't have communities

because all power should be seated to the state, etc. But it seems to me that all of that has that roots in that fundamental antagonism that's laid out initially in the story of Cain and Abel. And what we are seeing is we're seeing variants of that story play out and also at an accelerated rate because of the rate of technological change. So well, so I've been thinking about those things a lot. That's what I've been lecturing about on this last tour. And in part, that's what my new book is about. So I'm curious about your reaction first of all to the idea of a

metastasizing Marxism and then to the idea that Marxism itself is a variant of a, it's a retelling of a more fundamental story. Um, so fascinating and I'm glad you're doing this. Okay, so my two reactions then, just as I was listening to you, one thing that has occurred to me is Marx and his work and his legacy and what we've done with it. So, you know, this history better than I do. But the reaction he was hoping for, he had created a new religion, Marxism. It failed because instead of people sticking, his followers, his own disciples, sticking follows his own disciples sticking with his revolutionary goals. What sprung up is the reformists. Basically what I'm getting at, I'm schooled in political science, you're a psychologist, but it was the left and the right, the left divided up into these two

branches and one branch is fully Marxist and revolutionary and committed to the revolution and the other one becomes reformist. And I think that is the first defeat of the Marxist idea that instead of overturning the capitalist system, you work within the capitalist system and through incremental means everybody's life gets better. So that was the first defeat. Up until 1989, that whole economic argument of take from the rich give to the poor falls apart when it becomes, I think, obvious, if you stick with the material economic topic, that the Soviet Union collapses.

And not only does the Soviet Union all have satellites everywhere that these five-year plans touch, you have devastation, you have masses of deaths, you have concentration camps, of deaths, you have concentration camps, you have starvation. And then you look at the West and there's growth and so on. So in 1989, I think there's this sense, the winners, the victorians, those who are victorious, maybe you want to say, you were comparing Ken and Abel, you can say, those who are victorious make one big mistake in my view after 1989,

which is they forget about it. They think we've won this. Right, history's over. History is over. Let's move on. The loser, for the loser, history is never over. For the loser, history is never over. For the loser, history begins when he loses. He has to shake off all of this and come up and come back.

And they come back now with this idea of identity groups, of culture. The person who can tell this way better than I can is James Lindsay, who has been through all of their creeds and screeds and is really eloquent in the way he tells this. But they divert towards the culture thing. But my takeaway as a relatively new Westerner is I come into this world of ideas, good ideas, bad ideas. I'm 22 years old.

I'm trying to find an explanation for why are these rich countries rich and powerful? Why are poor countries poor? I was a Muslim, so it's like if we have the, as a Muslim, if I have God's last prophet, God's last book, God is on my side, then why are we poor and miserable and so on? And so in that world of ideas, in the 1990s, when I'm going to university, I'm acquainted with the idea of National Socialism that nearly destroyed European society and Western society. And what follows after the defeat, listen to this Jordan, after the defeat of National Socialism, what happens is an intense process of denazification.

In fact, using some of the tools of subversion that Besmanov speaks about. And after the process of denazification, what follows is another reckoning of what was National Socialism. Why would a society as advanced as Germany fall victim to ideas that later on we all understood to be so destructive. This is in my classrooms, okay? This is what's happening. I come into the West just as it's going through that reckoning of the idea.

And the idea is forensically scrutinized and it becomes after we fully understand what Hitler's ideas were, that this is something that would never and should never happen again. Now this is something we did not do to communism. Right, right, right. Definitely not. After the fall of the Soviet Union, there was no campaign of decommunization or demarcification of everything and anything. There was no reckoning. So up until I think 2002, 2003, we were still finding individuals who had been found to be active or sympathizers with Hitler. We were trying them still.

We were still trying to go after them and put them in jail. But we never did anything of the sort with Marxism. So the first thing I noticed, the big thing is, of course, this terrible idea keeps recurring and it metastasizes and it manifests itself in different ways because for the young generations it never really has been here. This is what Marxism led to. The death toll, I mean we all have been schooled in how many people actually died, but more interesting, I think more fascinating is the Nazi psyche.

Do you know, we explored it to the point that right now there are conversations we can't have without everyone referencing Nazi. In fact, I think one of the reasons why Europe is completely paralysed when it comes to the issue of immigration. It's because there is this terror, this fear, that they might fall again into that nasty collective madness of putting people in concentration camps. We haven't done that to Marx. We haven't done that in ideas of Marx and communism. And I think it's a bit... We are a bit on the later side, but we should do it. Well, okay, so while you've got two issues there

that run in parallel because, okay, three. So the first is your observation that we assumed too prematurely after 1989 and the collapse of the Soviet Union that the spirit of communism was dead and buried. Right, now if that spirit is a reflection of something far deeper, say like the internal antagonism between Cain and Abel,

then it's not going to be dead and buried, or at least it's not going to stay buried without a lot of work. And your point is, well, we didn't do that work. Now, we might have thought that the object lesson of the collapse of the Soviet Union, plus the capitalist transformation of China and the triumph of the democracies was enough evidence that the West had something right. But apparently, no, the house cleaning wasn't deep enough. Well, then you point out though that there's an additional problem, which is that we're not exactly sure

how to handle internecine conflicts at a deep ideological level without falling prey to something like the worst excesses of the Nazi regime. It's like, well, let's imagine, for example, that we did do something like a demarcification of the institutions. I've been thinking about this in relationship to universities. So, you know, when Musk took over Twitter and demarcified it, he fired like 80% of the people. Now, I do not believe for a moment

that an institution like Harvard can be reconstituted or restored when all of the same players are still in place and they're doing the same thing with different words. Now, you know, I just met a couple of Harvard professors last week when I was in Boston, who are at the forefront of the genuinely active free speech movement at Harvard. They have, I think, 140 professors. That number may be wrong, but it's a substantial number of professors who are pushing the administration hard and have, and Harvard has proclaimed in the last couple of weeks, like Stanford,

I believe, they've adopted an official position of institutional neutrality, at least with regard to their public utterances. But there's all sorts of machinations still going on behind the scenes. Okay, so what's my point? But there's all sorts of machinations still going on behind the scenes. Okay, so what's my point? Well, if 80% of the institutions are corrupt, and that's the accusation from the conservatives, well, first of all, that risks falling into the hands of the radical leftists who say, while the institutions are corrupt, we told you so.

And so that's a big problem. But even worse, it's like, if the corruption is as pervasive as you indicate, and I have every reason to agree with you, then how is it even possible that these institutions can be restored and reconstituted? And how is that possible without us falling into something like ideological persecution?

You know, like I watch Chris Rufo in Florida, and I think Chris is aiming up, and I like Ron DeSantis and think he's got a good moral keel, but I could easily see that their attempts to exert legislative control from the top over the universities could easily devolve into a counterproductive witch hunt. And so, okay, so now what we're doing about what I'm doing about that, for example, is we're launching Peterson Academy at the end of June, and I'm involved with Ralston College in Georgia, trying to generate institutions that offer an alternative. But I don't have any idea at all how the institutions that are already in place

can be demarcified. So you have your restoration enterprise and that's devoted to the same thing, but that doesn't help us with the nitty grgritty here it's like the K through 12 education system is completely dominated by the worst possible students of the worst faculty at the university the faculties of education that's been going on for four generations and it's completely corrupt at every possible level. Okay, what the hell do you do about that in a manner that, you know, doesn't become oppressive

and tyrannical in and of itself? So have at her. What are your thoughts about that? What I found wonderful about Besmanov's layout is that it allows you every time to take a step back so that you don't become part of the subversion process yourself with what you're doing. And I think that's what you're worried about is we don't want Christopher Rufo, who I think is doing admirable work by exposing the corruption and by showing, I just love his grit.

How do we stop? Where do we stop? How do we not become part of, I mean he- Right. How do we not go too far? How do we not go too far? How do we not go too far? So I think if we just have, if we step back from that table that Besmanov lays out and you say, okay, we are an open society, he makes a distinction between open societies

and closed societies and we know that the characteristics of an open society is that it's easier for the forces of subversion to access institutions. And not only to access those institutions but actually to use the laws and the conventions of open societies to establish themselves within universities K-212 and all the various just within our society. And so we don't want to become closed societies. We have to pay the price of being an open society and remaining an open society. And one of those prices is this permanent vigilance where we can never forget what these ideological threats are. But also we must not allow ourselves to fall into this trap of everything is gone. Because I think if you say all of these institutions are corrupt beyond repair, in a way you do sort of propel the subversion further and you validate it.

And I think we have to look at what our strengths are. And let's not forget, we have enormous resources. For instance, the market. So when the meltdown of our mainstream media, which is really a meltdown, the open society, what we responded is this independent media. It was obviously Elon Musk, this giant who stood up to not just by establishing Twitter, but using his power and his leadership to say, this is what I stand for, so that his millions of followers know what his morals are and what his principles are. So for me, Elon Musk is the definition of courage,

standing up to all his different forces, putting his own, almost his life at stake and his life's earnings. And Elon Musk is this big, visible guy, but there's so many people like that. And I come across them every day. So we have all of these resources. And starting new things like new universities, new media. I think that's a good thing if only even to catch some of those people who despair of the existing institutions. The brand Harvard is now tainted. I think in many ways the brand Harvard is ruined.

But I don't think we should throw the baby with the bath water. We should not throw the baby out with the bath water. We should not declare that the Ivy League and all of the universities that we have in America and beyond in Western societies are beyond repair. I think some of them are terminal and have stage four cancer and it will probably cost more to try and rescue them than to just let them die. But I think there are many that can be rescued. Ben Sasse has made this very clear in Florida.

You just have to change the leadership in some of these places. In other places, you have to go much deeper In other places you have to go much deeper and turn around the demoralization process. The places that are actually on the level of destabilization try to turn those things around. But all of that starts with leadership. And we've got to find the leadership. Have you talked to John Chalmers by any chance?

I don't think I have. Have you talked to John Chalmers by any chance? I don't think I have. Okay. Well, he's a military strategist at West Point. Yeah. Right. And he, we just had a very interesting discussion, which you might want to check out about how, see, it's very much related, for example, to this idea of denazification that you described. So in his analysis of the history of military endeavor, he's also thought through from a strategic perspective, some of what's necessary in the transformation of institutions, because certainly it was the case that after Nazi Germany, most of the Germans, it wasn't like all the Germans who participated in some ways in the Nazi regime, were all tried and executed or confined

to perdition. Most of them, except for a few leaders, were regarded as redeemable. And the leadership transition happened at the top. And Chalmers told me, you know, I asked him what he thought about the situation in Gaza, because so many of the Palestinians purport to support the Hamas regime and its aims. And so a pessimist might say, well, that has to be dealt with in the most severe possible manner and a optimist and hopefully a realist would say, well, no, if you're careful in analysis of the key people,

you can produce a leadership change and then a transformation of spirit, let's say, that redeems people who've been possessed by these pathological ideas. And then like Germany or like Japan, which are stellar examples of this, obviously, and, well, South Korea for that matter, at least in terms of economic transformation, that great things are still possible without institutional devastation. So that is a good vision of optimism. And I suppose Rufo did that to some degree by focusing his attention, for example, on Claudine Gay, which was an object lesson that perhaps many

institutions took to heart. And it's also that is why the trajectory of restoration is, I hope, is one that is going to be fruitful. And it's, I think we are in a place where Jordan, I've never been more optimistic. And the reason is because people are waking up. People who are busy with their industries, busy with their art, with their music, with whatever it is that they were doing. This subversion virus is touching on everyone's lives. There are people who are happy to ignore these things because they hate trouble, they don't like politics, they don't want to be involved in other things.

I'd say the general public in the West just loves going about their lives. And by the way, when we talk about freedom, most of us really think about that. You know, we elect people who represent us and we pay taxes and I just want to get on with my life. And that's no longer possible. People are feeling affected in every way, shape and form. October 7 opened the eyes of many people, our friend Barry Wise, I remember, she said

everyone went to bed on October 7 and was, what did she say, went to bed as a liberal, and woke up as a conservative or... Yeah, well we'll see. You know it's funny, like, well I wrote an article, which I'm going to read on my Well, I wrote an article, which I'm going to read on my, on my YouTube channel and publish on my blog, I wrote an article, I'll just lay it out for you very quickly because I guess it's a bit of a pushback against your optimism. Although I share that optimism in a fundamental way. I don't want to get optimistic too early. So here's the basic outline of the argument. So, and I sent it to the National Post in Canada, which always publishes what I wrote, and they took it and then rejected it. And then I sent it to the Telegraph, which also always publishes what I send them. And they took it and edited it and then rejected. So this is what I said, you know, it's a very contentious

piece. So I pointed to the fact that in the United States, something approximating 75% of the Jewish population supports the Democrats. Now, the problem with that is the Democrats have allowed themselves to be infiltrated by the radicals, who they will not attend to and whose existence they deny. And I know this full well, having worked on this issue for like five years and talked to hordes of moderate Democrats. Oh, they don't really exist. Oh, they don't really mean that.

It's like, yeah, they mean exactly what they're saying. The radicals have adopted the victim victimizer narrative. Now the problem with that for the Jews is that if we're going to play victim, victimizer, and the victims are the people who are the victimizers, are the people who are successful, then the Jews are first on the firing line like they always have been since the time of Exodus because the Jews are the perpetually successful minority. And I think that's why they're the canary in the coal mine is that when a society flips

and the successful become the criminals, let's say, in the eyes of the ideologues, the first criminals identified are the Jews, because they are overrepresented in positions of success. And so part of what I suggested, and this is what Barry Weiss has realized, let's say, is that the worst possible game for the Jewish community to play is any game that has anything to do with a victim-victimizer narrative. Now, there's something

also very interesting about that. Like, I've spent a lot of time looking at the Old Testament in recent years, and there's something very interesting about the Israelites, at least insofar as they maintain their alliance with the prophetic tradition and the laws, is that every time something untoward happens to Israel, the prophets call upon the Jews to take personal responsibility for that and not to regard themselves as victims, no matter what, to reestablish their covenant.

So that would be this restoration and to proceed with cleaning up the, what would you say, the cancer in their own souls first. And that always works. And so, well, now you said that, you know, things shifted dramatically after October 7th, but I'm wondering, and this is with regards to your optimism, after October 7th, we saw the universities go so absolutely out of their mind that Khomeini himself, the president of Iran, congratulated them on their efforts on his behalf and suggested that they start reading the Quran. We saw these encampments and occupations everywhere. And that, man, I was just in DC this

week and there were huge pro-Palestine, pro-Iran demonstrations everywhere. So, okay, so with all of that, why is it do you think that you're still optimistic? Because it's outrageous like that. The supreme leader of Iran who shouts and compels his population to shout death with America for years and who's been trying to achieve exactly that and been trying to achieve the destruction and annihilation of the state of Israel, finding supporters in our ivy leagues and on our streets, it's exactly these outrages that force the left in general and in particular the Democratic Party to face the reality that you have been trying to draw their attention to, and that we've all been trying to draw, there are two branches of the left, the revolutionaries and the other reformists. And the revolutionaries now seem to be on top, because this what you call the moderates. I think in academic jargon,

they're the ones who are for reform. They wouldn't say defund the police. They would say, let's see what's wrong with the police and let's tweak with the institution, not bring the institution down. So those moderates, most moderate lefts, moderate Democrats, those who are for reform, I think they're having reality rubbed in their noses now.

And it's happening not because of what you and I see, but because of what these outrages that we're witnessing, these so-called pro-Palestine protests, they are not pro-Palestine protests, they're pro-Hamas protests. And they're seeing this for themselves, the slogans, things that these people are shouting. And not only just what they shout, but I think even the tiniest amount of curiosity will take you to go and take a peek at this syllabi, the syllabuses that are taught in these universities.

What is it that these kids are learning and you go through these books, courses, images that they are taught and you see immediately left or right that there is something there that shouldn't be there. And so I see this awakening. I see these mega donors who are giving billions and billions to what they thought was social justice coming around and saying, hang on a minute, and many of them are Jewish. And looking at this and thinking, hang on a minute, this is not what my philanthropy was about.

So I think there is a long-awaited audit that is about to happen, that is happening. And so in order to get to this point of restoration, we have to do the audit first and we have to do it together. That is, the moderate lefts, the moderate Democrats, the moderate Republicans and conservatives, it is those people on either side of whatever the argument is of the moment to actually freeze for a moment some of these issues and say, hang on, how do we cope with this enemy that really wants to rip things apart, these

revolutionary groups? And so, and I see more and more people asking these questions. And what I find delightful is that every time one of the people who wasn't aware of these things wakes up, he says, I'm the fastest to see. And it doesn't matter, it's great. It's great because they think,

why didn't I see it in the past? I was having conversations in 2005, 2006, that if the Islamist-driven anti-Semitism continues unchecked in that infrastructure of Dawa, where they're building mosques and madrasas and preaching and then it went online, if that goes unchecked, all you have to do is compare the numbers, the number of Jewish people in the West versus the number, the increasing number of Muslims that are being radicalized through these Dawa efforts and people who are converted into Islam. And down the road, you are going to have a huge problem. And some of the people I was talking to...

Well, we have it now already. But I was saying this in 2004, 2005. Oh yes, yes, yes, of course. And the reason for having those conversations was they were making demands. The political Islamists were making demands that the Holocaust cannot be taught in schools. They're not talking about Muslim schools, they're talking about public schools, public schools in the Netherlands, in France, in Germany, et cetera. And the leaders of that time were through consensus,

trying to be nice and accommodating, were saying, all right, then we'll just not teach that. That is 2004, 2005. They were shouting Hamas, Hamas, Jews to the gas. They were disrupting the commemorations to the death of the people who died during the Second World War. And all of that was at that time, 15, 20 years ago, it was seen as it's going to pass. The longer they live here, the more they will integrate and assimilate. They will become like us. Now 20 years on, no, we are becoming like them. And there are people who are waiting.

Well, the same thing is true of China. Oh, yes. Right. We assumed that if we brought China into the West, that China would become Western. And what's happening instead is that at the first hint of serious trouble, let's say the pandemic, the so-called pandemic, we became China. And so, and it's not obvious at all that the CCP is budging. And it is absolutely obvious that they're building the eye of Sauron and would like to produce a totalitarian state so absolute that we can hardly even comprehend it. And they're a long way ahead with doing that. Okay, so let me ask you, let's turn a bit here.

We've done a bit of diagnosis. We've talked about the pervasiveness of the problem. We've talked about your hypothesis that we have to do a very careful consideration of the current circumstance and identification of the leaders, let's say. We have to confront face to face the pervasive subversion of our institutions. We have to separate the wheat from the chaff and reestablish them, and we have to move towards restoration. You can see in that sort of a confession, what would you say, a confession, and a move towards atonement. And so on the restoration side, so let's delve into that. Now, the first question might be, well, what exactly are we restoring?

And I've been talking to some of the principals at the Alliance for Responsible Citizenship about exactly this in the last weeks, trying to plot our way forward. And so in the Alliance for Responsible Citizenship, we identified six or seven key domains, right? Restoration of the nuclear family, unapologetic support for the idea that the nuclear family is the minimal viable social unit, right? We support for the notion that energy

should be made as low cost and freely accessible and what easily accessible to people within a market framework as possible so that we can work towards eradicating absolute poverty, environmentalism as stewardship and not as what would you say apocalyptic fear-mongering in the service of the tyrants, concern about fear-mongering in the service of the tyrants, concern about globalization and regulatory capture and fascist corporate capitalist collusion, the telling of a better story. And we've more recently agreed that all of that is integrated into something approximating, let's say your vision of restoration is that we're trying to put the underpinnings of Western civilization back in place and trying to make a very strong case including to people like Richard Dawkins and Douglas Murray, and even you in some ways

until recently, let's say, that there is a relationship between the foundations of Western culture and something that's even deeper that's not political. And so that's the next thing I wanted to talk to you about. So, and maybe we could approach that, you, I guess we could approach that personally. Now, for a long while, in my understanding, after you moved to the West and you became more acutely aware of the advantages of free discourse and of the tyrannical aspect of the philosophical milieu that you'd been

raised in, you were an admirer of the West but also attracted towards the more atheistic philosophy, let's say, that was put forth by Dawkins and Harris and Hitchens and the horsemen of the atheist movement. And so, do you want to walk us through that a little bit, if you would? Before that, I had read Jonathan Israel. Yeah, I mean, we don't have much time. And I don't want to make a caricature of this, of what I believe is a very important, if not the most important aspect of the restoration is the roots, to seek the roots. I say Christian, sometimes we say Judeo-Christian, roots of what has made the foundations on which these societies are built. Well, we'll take the time.

I'm not going to rush you for sure. I'd like to let this unfold because it's crucially important. Yeah. On the personal side, as I have told it a few times, and it's very, very personal. I have had my own awakening that has to do with mental breakdown, depression, anxiety, all of these things, the meaning and purpose of life. And not finding, I just couldn't find it, I didn't find it in the material world. And to give you an example, if you think of someone like me who comes from, you know, I grew up in a childhood where there was very little. Little of everything, little food, little water, no water. I mean, we didn't have running water.

Scarcity. Not, there were people who were poorer than us, but we were poor. There were people who were poorer than us, but we were poor. I remember books. I loved books, and they weren't books. So sometimes I would finish a book that I borrowed or that we borrowed from the library, and the last few pages, which is where the resolution of the story is, would have fallen out of that book. And I would go to a bookshop, pretend I was buying the book, actually read the last pages in the bookshop and then leave until our Indian booksellers noticed what

we were doing and chased us out of that level of poverty. So then I come where there is plenty and I find myself in my 40s and 50s surrounded by absolutely everything, materially completely satiated, happily married, two children, everything that you would describe would give meaning and purpose. And yet there I was completely depressed and unhappy and Yeah, depressed and unhappy and terrified and all the rest of it. And I was self-medicating. I was self-medicating with wine, with alcohol, and that was where my go-to was that actually brought itself brought me on the brink of destruction. And I sought help and the help went from, obviously, with me focusing on the material again, the scientific help. I'm going to see people who I

trust to be the professionals who will fix me and fix this need. And that didn't happen. They were good people. I learned a lot. I learned a lot about the human brain, the human psyche. I respect and I'm still a huge admirer of some of the people that I saw. But the one person who made a change was, you're looking in the wrong places. Her diagnosis was, what you're going through

is spiritual bankruptcy. And once in my sort of last moment of despair, when I allowed that to come in and to register. And I surrendered to that. It's only after that, literally on my knees in prayer, that things started to change. And so, on a personal level, and this is extremely subjective, I'm not imposing it on anyone else, I have undergone this change that has transformed my life. If you allow me to go a little bit beyond, it is when I look around and talk to the same people who were in the same boat as I am, or as I was, the stories we share are stories of this abiding success over many years.

And it's the people who went down the path of spirituality to fix what it was that bottomless avoid the cravings, the endless thoughts that colonize your head and never go away. So again, this isn't a statistical empirical study. This is purely anecdotal. I see people who keep on failing. I see people who I think have some success and I look at them and it's the ones who went down that spiritual path. And when I say that, when I say spiritual path, I'm not saying it's Christianity or

any other faith or organized faith. It's just for some people, it's Buddhism. For some people, it's mindfulness and... Like Harris, for example. Yeah. And I don't think, I don't know. I mean, I haven't really talked to Sam Harris about his spiritual welfare, but... I've talked to him a bunch about it, you know, and it's clear that Sam, you know, Sam has found in the realm of something approximating and ineffable and non-articulate Buddhism, the spiritual succor that materialist atheism lacks. And I think the reason that Sam was attracted

to the more abstract religious domains of experience, the ones that aren't articulated into a creed, which is something he really still rejects, is because Sam knows perfectly well that if the transcendent that he's making contact with through his meditative practice was transformed into a creed, that his ravenous, Luciferian intellect would just shred it in a moment and he'd be right back where he started. This is also why I think, Ayan, if you look on the Christian revival side of things, that the Christian denominations that are growing most

rapidly aren't the more explicit Protestant formulations. They're the really conservative branches like Orthodox Christianity and even Latin Mass Catholicism, because those religious practices are so densely embedded in the ritual and the ceremonial that they're almost impervious to rational critique. Right? Because you can't criticize a hymn, you can't criticize a beautiful building, like they speak for themselves. And so, let me ask you a personal question if you're perfectly welcome not to answer. I want to comment on Sam. See, I think Sam has just got this commitment to the pursuit of truth. And so, I haven't spoken to him since my conversion.

And I've been very busy. I know he's also very, very busy. But I would be really fascinated to have a conversation with him about it because... Yes, that's necessary. He is just so, so committed to. And so, when we talk about these different levels of consciousness and different levels and planes of perception, I am so curious to know what he thinks of that, what he would say about that. I've spoken to Richard. Richard is also another pursuer of truth. And I think in many ways that's why Richard has come to the conclusion that he is a cultural Christian and that Christianity has a value

on that sense. But again, I really do want to separate these two things where I'm still at heart a classical liberal in the sense I really do want to respect people's conscience and people's perceptions and the way people live and so I'm in no way imposing anything saying you know, I've gone through this terrible experience and I've come out of it and now, heavens, everybody has to come to Christianity. That is not, that's not what I'm saying. I'm saying in my work, in the realm of ideas and in this quest to understand subversion, who is subverting us and all of this. Christianity is one of probably the most important idea for us to grasp. Even if I were an atheist, I would say that.

The most important idea is to grasp because it takes us to the roots of our civilization. And if you want to reject parts of it, that's okay. But I think the wholesale rejection of Christianity and its legacy is precisely what brought us where we are. That's why we're in the sorts of trouble we are in. One of the things that I've come to realize, tell me what you think about this. This took a lot of thought to conjure up.

I guess it was brought home to me with particular force. I did a documentary with Jonathan Pagio in Jerusalem. And we walked the stations of the cross and then we ended up in the Church of the Holy Sepulcher and I learned some things about that church that I didn't know historically. So I didn't know that it was founded by Constantine's mother and I didn't know that it was really the first Christian church. And it's on the site, it purports to be on the site of the crucifixion. Okay, so when I was there, a bunch of images, so I was in the church and then I was in the center of the church,

and then I was in a small room at the very center of the church that contained a cross, very elaborate cross. And so I was in the center of the center of the center of the center, let's say. And a bunch of things fell into place, realizations fell into place. So the first thing I understood was that European towns were based on the model that was, if not established, at least substantively elaborated upon

by Constantine's mother. We have a ceremonial building in the shape of a cross at the center of the town. And so it's the staff in the ground around which the town is organized. And in the center of the church, we have an altar that's the center, and on that there's a ritual of sacrifice being conducted.

And so what we're acting out is the proposition that sacrifice is the core of the community. And so now I've been thinking about that biologically, because I'm an evolutionary psychologist, let's say, at least in part. And what I've come to understand is that there's no difference between the process of true cortical maturation and the process of self-sacrifice. They're the same thing, because to be in a community, you have to give up what's, you have to offer up what's narrowly individual, right? So when you socialize a toddler, you help the toddler integrate his or her

primordial biological urges, their intrinsic hedonism, you help them integrate that into a framework that enables them to understand that they have a future and can't act to destroy that, and understand that they have to exist in relationship to other people. And so that's a kind of harmony. It's a kind of harmony. It's a sacrificial harmony And so what that means if that's true, and I can't see how it can be not true is that Society itself is based on the principle of sacrifice Work is sacrificed because you sacrifice the pleasant pleasures of the moment to the community in the future, right? And the community itself is a form of

future, right? And the community itself is a form of sacrificial organization. So then if you accept that, and I can't see how you can formulate an argument to the contrary. If you accept that, the next question that emerges is, well, what's the ultimate or ideal form of sacrifice? And the Christian passion is a portrayal of something approximating the final sacrifice, right? It's a union of sacrifice of child and self. So those are the two most brutal forms of sacrifice. It's a rejection of power in relationship to that sacrifice. So there's no indication whatsoever that the fundamental uniting principle of the Christian world is power.

Quite the contrary, because Christ never resorts to power regardless of the provocation. And so, what we have at the core of our culture is the recognition that sacrifice is central, and then the elaboration of a pattern of ultimate sacrifice that involves It involves something like exposing yourself to the full Force of mortal vulnerability and the full reality of evil That's the harrowing of hell and as far as I can tell I've written all this out in great detail in this new book Of mine by the way as far as I can tell I Can't see anything about

that that's not in keeping with what we know at the deepest levels in the world of evolutionary psychology. And I can't see anything about it that's erroneous on the conceptual side, because how could community be anything other than the result of the sacrificial gesture on the part of the individual? I mean, if you're a wife, you sacrifice your whims to the marriage. If you're a mother, you sacrifice your narrow self interest

to your children. If you're a family in relationship to other families, you sacrifice the narrow interest of your family to the harmony of the community and so on, all the way up to the subsidiary hierarchy. And you know, at the end of Tolstoy's confessions, I don't know if you ever read that, but it details something very much like

what you described happening to you. So Tolstoy became suicidally desperate at the height of his fame and earthly material success. He was an unbelievably rich man. He was known all over the world. He was a great literary figure. People compared him to Shakespeare. He had a wife and a flourishing family.

Like on the purely material front, Tolstoy had it nailed. And he was so suicidal that he was afraid to walk alone around his estates. And he had a dream, and this is how confessions end. He dreamt that he was suspended in an immense space and he was looking down into the abysmal, bottomless pit of despair, let's say, but he was suspended and he turned around and looked up and realized that there was a cord around his waist made of gold and the cord extended upward into the sky past where he could see. And so he was suspended over the abyss of despair by a relationship with what was transcendent

and highest, right? It's like an image of Jacob's ladder. It's that extends up into the ineffable stratospheres that is our ally, you might say, is our ally against what the terror of mortality and malevolence. And as far as I can tell too, that that's not some ignorant superstition. That's a foolish way of considering it.

It's actually the way the proper order of the cosmos is constituted. And okay, now you talk to Dawkins, right, publicly in New York, and you are friends, I believe, and I presume still are. And so, yeah, yeah, yeah. So tell me about that conversation and how it went and what you concluded. It's such a fascinating thing to have happen. I'd love to see you talk to Sam Harris. What I concluded is what I started off with when we started this conversation, which is I think it is always a wonderful experience to have, to come at a subject from these radically

different viewpoints and hold your viewpoints and argue for your viewpoints and maintain the level of mutual affection and respect and friendship. And so for me that was really, it was very, very important that Richard and I demonstrated that and again that's what we're trying to restore. What else? Richard ended with a sentence, if you watch that, where he says, okay, so he's not convinced. He thinks, of course, it's a heap of nonsense. But still he says he does recognize the difference between Islam and Christianity. He does recognize the threat of political Islam.

And his conclusion was, maybe we should take something small to inoculate us against the larger virus. Now, different people may take that differently, but I think that's coming from- You mean like a wafer, something small like a wafer, like that small, you mean? Yeah, well, but that's exactly the symbol. That's the mustard seed that Christ talks about, right?

That's something small. It's like, it's small, alright, but it's alive and don't underestimate its power. And so, see, the thing that I see as telling about Dawkins, I wouldn't say admission, but realization, that he's a cultural Christian. It's like, okay, when you're pushed against the wall, would it be the Christians or the Islamic fundamentalists that you choose? And Dawkins looks at that and he thinks, well, I can't even talk about the Islamic fundamentalists and at least I can criticize the Christians, so there's something they're doing right. It's like, okay, there's something they're doing right. It's like, okay,

there's something they're doing right. Yeah, okay, that means there's a right there that isn't in the other domain, the domain of fundamentalist power, let's say. Well, what is that, that leaven, that small thing that makes Christianity in its Western form preferable to fundamentalist tyranny. Well, it's not something little, it's something absolutely fundamental and vital. And so it seems to me that it's incumbent on Dawkins to really understand just exactly why when push comes to shove that he's a cultural Christian.

And so, well, I'll leave that. Well, yeah, and I think also, so my other takeaway was that he, we were coming at it from, I had, I was an atheist just like him and then, and I didn't, when I was an atheist, did not accept the existence of these different planes of consciousness or perception or what have you. You didn't have the language for it. And by the way, I was also in a state of rebellion and I didn't want that. So the statements, all religions are the same, were ones that I sort of lazily accepted. And I think Richard now recognizes, no, not all religions are the same. A. And B. I hope that he also recognized, I don't know, we didn't get anywhere with that.

But I think the conversation started with, there are different ways of appreciating reality. And you know, we cannot have an experiment that will measure as accurately as possible the impact of music on your psyche or on your perception or the appreciation of works of art. So there are so many ways of appreciating reality that is not, you know, the purely... Reducible. Naturalistic empirical science, the falsifiable and the verifiable. This is that whole story of what if we rewind the tape, verifiable. There's that whole story of what if we rewind the tape, would things look the same or not? We can't do that. And so it's also we've got to be very careful because

I think we are having discussions about religion and history and so on, and we're using the standards of today. This is one of the things that I think is despicable about the woke, is they haul people from the past and judge them by the merits and by the standards and by the insights of today. Yes. Well, and the people doing that comparison always come out ahead on the personal side, which is, you know, a little bit on the suspicious. You might regard that as a rather suspicious endeavor.

If you're playing a game you always win, you might ask yourself whether or not you're just playing it so that you always win, rather than to get at the truth. I mean, it's pretty fun for an undergraduate to presume that they're the moral superior of George Washington, let's say, or Winston Churchill. I mean, what a deal! You're 18, you have an idiot professor who talks to you for 10 minutes, and your first revelation is that you're better than the best men of the past. Now, that's a little bit too attractive for my liking, I would say. Yeah. So, I don't know how we've heard from this, but I think what you just said also

goes to the classics in general, the ditching of the classics, where we said, oh, well, okay, look at the list of books that students are to read, and it is My Angelo, Shakespeare, My Angelo, Shakespeare, Shakespeare Out, Let's Read My Angelo. Right, right, same thing. That's part of the death of God. Yeah, yeah. Yeah, I don't want to say anything. I'm not saying there's anything wrong with My Angelo.

I think she's done a fantastic work, but she's no Shakespeare. And we should be able to have the courage to say, we are not going to remove Shakespeare or Dante. Well, right, well, that's part of the undermining of the fundamental traditions that's part and parcel of this decimation of the institutions at every level. It's part of total revolution, the total revolution Marx called for and the upending even of the norms of sex identity by the queer activists, let's say it's complete chaotic revolution

Yeah, and it's got to stop. So let me ask you another difficult question. If you don't mind, maybe we'll close with this one. I I was ill during the time the Abraham Accords were Established and when I kind of woke up and was healthy again and saw what had happened I thought it was something approximating a miracle and I was amazed that it wasn't front-page headline news in every country in the world, because I think what the people who formulated the Abraham Accords achieved was the closest thing to a foreign policy miracle that I've seen in like 70 years. And so now, and then part of the reason I'm optimistic at the moment like you are is that

despite October 7th, the Abraham Accords have held, and I've heard from behind the scenes that the Saudis are still quite willing to contemplate signing it even under the present conditions. There's political issues that have to be sorted out, but they're still on board. Okay, now I'm going to add to that one other thing. One of the connection points between Islam and Christianity is the figure of Jesus, is the figure of Christ. And so what I see happening on the optimistic side in the Islamic world is that there are actors

like the leaders, let's say, of the UAE and some of the other Islamic states who appear to want to establish something like an entente and a dialogue, and that it might be possible that there could be at least the exploration of cooperation or a competition of invitations between Islam and Christianity instead of this all-out drag-down knock-em-dead fundamentalism. It seems to me as well that the cluster B psychopath types are very good at weaponizing Islam, and that we need to separate out the psychopathic types who are basically Pharisees who claim religious motivation while pursuing nothing but their own aims.

We need to separate that out on the Islamic side too, and see, maybe see if because there is such admiration in the Islamic world for the figure of Christ, if there's something there that would enable us to establish the beginnings of a deep Abrahamic dialogue. And so I'm wondering, this is a world you're more familiar with in many ways than me, although also more hurt by than me. I mean, what do you think of the Abrahamic chords? And do you have any optimism on the side of, on top, let's say, between Islam and Christianity or between Islam, Christianity,

and Judaism to broaden the net appropriately? So, what do I think of the Abrahamic Accords? I think if we lived in a farewell, the people who brought about the Abrahamic Accords would get the Nobel Peace Prize, but we don't live in a share world. And what I find, I really admire Jared Kushner in the sense that he tried something new. And this is why sometimes it's good to have people come in from the outside and break open something. So our State Department has been doing the same thing over and over again for the last 50 years, if not the last 70 years. And this man whose politics is not his thing comes into this realm and says, let's try something new. And that's again part of the American spirit, by the way. Let's try something new. Yes, definitely. Definitely, definitely.

And something new yields the Abrahamic Accords. And yeah, the people who didn't get anywhere all those years, obviously, they don't take kindly to that, which is unfortunate, because it shouldn't have been… That's for sure. Yeah, it shouldn't have been condemned as's for sure. Yeah, it shouldn't have been condemned as, oh, we hate Trump, anything that Trump does, we deplore. It should have been claimed as an American victory. That's right. That's an opportunity Biden had. I think he could have given Trump a medal and a ceremony and he might have ridden off into the sunset.

Because Trump deserved an award for that. He deserved the Nobel Prize for the Abraham Accords. Absolutely. And so, and the figure of Jared, I think. Yep, yep, definitely. So we go from there to, you know, is there, what, in Christian theology and Islamic theology, can we find points and things that we have in common? I remember Bernard Lewis, who I think died at the age of 103, and one of the, I would

say, best scholars of all three of the Abrahamic, but he was a historian, and he had really spent a good long time studying the Middle East and spent years and years there. And he kept saying, we have more in common than meets the eye, and especially with Pazhi. So there's a lot we have in common from a theological perspective. The Takfir wal Hijra people, you know, these, you call them cluster B-bombs or whatever, these radical groups have done something that if you did it to Christianity, you would say, this is what Martin Luther did during the Reformation, he said, let's go back to Scripture. We don't want the church and interceptors between us. So when someone who identifies as Christian goes back to Scripture pure and simple, What they find there is radically different from what an average Muslim when he's told

to go back to scripture. Let's go back to the beginnings of Muhammad, let's go back to the time of Medina, let's go back to the time of the conquests. What they find there is a different message. So I think for leaders like the leaders of the UAE, of Saudi Arabia, for them, they realized after the Arab Spring, with the rise of ISIS, but even before the rise of ISIS, when bin Laden was in Afghanistan and they supported him and they knew these radical elements kept coming and they would just bash them or export them elsewhere or accommodate them, that over time they actually came for their own seeds of power and for

their own families. And their response was, we define Islam. So it is the crown prince right now of Saudi Arabia who defines what Islam is for the Saudis and the world beyond. And living in the society they live in, they round up the subversives and the insurgents who operate in the name of Wahhabism and Salafism and the various flavors of political Islam and they domesticate them. They can do that. And the same with the UAE.

And they then, the Crown Prince and the Sultan and the King and the leader of the day, they decide in their definition of what Islam is, that we want to recognize the state of Israel and we now want, we think we have more in common with our Jewish neighbors and brothers and our Christian neighbors and brothers, the new disruptors in the world that you're leading us to, towards the path of Hamas, of Al-Qaeda, of ISIS, of the Muslim Brotherhood. That is a path of destruction. And they've given us a taste of it when Islamic State was established in Iraq and Syria. So we know where that goes and they reject it. That doesn't mean that they've, yeah,

that doesn't mean they've accepted liberal democracy or that they've become like us. Right, right, right, no, no, right, right, okay, okay. But their conclusion for their own survival has led them to accept the Abraham Accords and to say, we can recognize and we can make our societies recognized. Now I think Jordan the next thing that has to happen and maybe is happening is there has to be not just on the political level that we want to establish the Abraham Accords and sign peace and trade deals. I think the next level is to de-Hamasify Muslim societies.

The propaganda that Muslim societies were fed about the Jews and about the Christians and about modernity in the last 70 or so years, it has to be undone. And so there has to be a new information and knowledge warfare, not propaganda, but a counter propaganda that emphasizes for people in the Middle East, for Muslims, a life, a narrative and a story and a theology that emphasizes a life over death. Well, yeah. Well, that's what we've been trying to do with this Ark Enterprise in London, right, is to formulate. So, you know, you talked about it in terms of counter propaganda, but I think it's more appropriately formulated, pardon my objection, as a, what would you say, a far more attractive invitation.

You know, like if, so my students used to ask me about what I was teaching at Harvard and at the U of T, they'd ask me, well, why isn't this just another form of the ideology that you reject? And, you know, that's a very good question. It's the postmodern question fundamentally. Why isn't this just another power game, let's say? Well, I know, that's a very good question. It's the postmodern question fundamentally. Why isn't this just another power game, let's say? Well I think, well I think I figured that out, I am. So I think the spirit of play is the antithesis of the spirit of tyranny. And play can only occur if the players are playing voluntarily and with their full ascent.

And so you can tell an ideology from an invitation because an ideology manipulates and compels, but an invitation offers the possibility of joint mutual voluntary play. And so, you know, what we've been struggling with at Arc and what I'm trying to do in my lectures is to formulate an invitation, right? A story that's attractive and believable enough so that all other competing ideologies, ideological stories are revealed as corrupt, inadequate, and what would you say, anxiety provoking and hopeless.

And so, right, and so I think we could, in this restoration project, let's say, because I think we share the same vision on that front, it's very useful to understand that the best form of counter propaganda is a much better invitation that's actually real and believable. For example, why, who would oppose if they had any sense the idea that we should drive energy costs down

so that we could eradicate absolute poverty? You might say, well, that's not practical and fair enough, we could have that discussion, but I think it is highly practical and also completely possible. And so I can't see why left and right alike can't get on board with that. It's not like right wingers who have any sense like the fact that there are poor people, you know, they might be inclined to deserve to presume that some of the poor deserve to

be poor because they're really not putting their best foot forward. But by the same token, most conservative types are perfectly cognizant of the fact that, to some degree, economic fate is arbitrarily distributed and we should do some work to try to ensure that the poor thrive. And so the restoration should be an invitation, right? This is a better way.

Yeah. Here's the better way. I think the best way, the first step of restoration is to bring these people together in the same room. I think for me, the assumption is the moderates on either side, they have more in common than. Yes, definitely. And there's some of these problems.

Imagine, we're not talking about, you know, Harry Truman had to consider whether or not to throw the bomb. Roosevelt had to consider whether he wanted to enter the war or not. When St. Churchill had to consider whether to declare war or not because Chamberlain was there saying let's accommodate the NAPs and so on. The Soviet Union, pigs of bay, remember the leaders in the Oval Office, some of the considerations that they had to make were not there. Our problems compared to that of previous generations is so, These things are so easy to address. The problem is, I don't know, part of it is subversion,

and part of it is this re-tribalization of Western society. It's that we hate the other one so much that we're willing to destroy. It's not even about the issue anymore, it's about the person. And so I think the first step is to restore the humanity of the person on the other side. Yeah, well, that's a turn the other cheek. That's a turn the other cheek ethos, right? Is that what you want to work for if you can,

if you have any sense, is not the eradication of your so-called enemy, but what would you say, His redemption in a manner that allows you both to cooperate and compete peacefully and productively. That's a much better aim. And your point is, well, we're not so much at each other's throats that there's blood in the streets. And so, we could still have the conversations, the difficult conversations and the negotiations and what extend the accords across the warring tribes. And I do think that's possible.

Absolutely. But look at our, like where we are with our technology and where we are with our economy and where we are with our economy. For me, I think we just have an overflow of resources and even human resources, the smartest people in the world. And still, again, look at the whole world still wants to come here, regardless of the problems we have. So it's easy, I think, right now to come back from these stages of demoralization and into some degree destabilization.

That's a very good place to end, I would say, this discussion, at least, for everybody watching and listening. I'm going to continue talking to Iain on the daily wire side. We'll delve into what's more autobiographical and continue to elaborate the ideas that we're discussing here. So if you're inclined to join us behind the daily wire paywall, well, that would be potentially useful to you and also, what would you say? Welcome from our perspective.

The Daily Wire in their collaborations with me have certainly extended my ability to have conversations like this and to make them freely available and have been really good and forthright partners in that endeavor. So anyways, I will thank you very much for talking to me today. It's a pleasure to see you. And it was really good to hear what you had to say and to delve into these things more deeply. And while I'm looking forward to the next half an hour of our conversation and also to seeing you again in the future and to everybody who's watching and listening and to the film crew

here in Fairview, Alberta, which is my small hometown in the middle of nowhere up on the frigid plains of the Northwest. Thank you guys for coming in from Saskatoon and doing this and thank you again, Ayan. Much appreciated. Jordan, you're welcome. Thank you very much.