The Jordan B. Peterson Podcast - 544. When the Right Goes Too Far | Dr. James Lindsay

Episode Date: May 5, 2025

Is the radical right becoming the very thing it hates? Dr. Jordan B. Peterson sits down with Dr. James Lindsay to unpack the rise of the "Woke Right"—a faction of online reactionaries using the same tactics of victimhood, outrage mobs, and cult-like behavior once exclusive to the radical left. Together, they explore how parasitic ideologies hijack belief systems, mimic virtue, and weaponize social media to manipulate the masses. From cluster B psychopathology to Nazi apologetics, from Marx to modern meme culture, this is a deep dive into the psychological and ideological rot infecting both ends of the spectrum.If you've sensed that something is deeply wrong in today’s culture wars—on both sides—this episode puts it into words. Dr. James Lindsay has written eight books spanning a range of subjects including education, postmodern theory, and critical race theory. Dr. Lindsay is the Founder of New Discourses, an organization dedicated to shining the light of objective truth in subjective darkness.  Dr. Lindsay is the co-author of “Cynical Theories: How Activist Scholarship Made Everything about Race, Gender, and Identity―and Why This Harms Everybody” and is the author of “Race Marxism,” as well as his newest book, “The Marxification of Education.” Dr. Lindsay has been a featured guest on Fox News, Glenn Beck, Joe Rogan, and NPR, and he has spoken at the Oxford Union and the EU Parliament. This episode was filmed on April, 29th, 2025.  | Links | For Dr. James Lindsay: On X https://x.com/ConceptualJames?ref_src=twsrc%5Egoogle%7Ctwcamp%5Eserp%7Ctwgr%5Eauthor On YouTube https://www.youtube.com/@newdiscourses/videos Read his latest book, “The Queering of the American Child: How a New School Religious Cult Poisons the Minds and Bodies of Normal Kids” https://a.co/d/9lpXvGc 

So, what are you in trouble for now? The woke, right? It's a fraught term, right? Because you have woke, which they associate with left. You have right, which they associate obviously with the right. And so now you've got a paradox. It's troublesome for those with a conservative bent to throw away the idea of institutional legitimacy. The only possible antidote to really unrestrained investigation.

The idea seems to be something like the more radical the revolutionary precept, the more likely something Luciferian is behind it. So now we're talking at a very abstract, I think metaphysical is the right word, level for what represents woke. This isn't gonna be recognizable to your average Joe on the street who's dealing with, you know, a pride parade.

Yeah, and they are called pride parades. They are called pride parades. And the cardinal sin of Lucifer is pride. Hello everybody. My guest today is James Lindsay, who's been a commentator on cultural affairs for a good 10 years, I suppose longer than that, but being well known for that long. He was one of the people, along with Helen Pluckrose and others who published a sequence of papers in radical journals that were Not genuine let's put it that way and that was very scandalous it was part of an attempt to expose the pathology of the

academic path the pathology that had set into certain aspects of the academic institutions and It's become much more widespread now James has got himself in trouble in recent months once again for popularizing the phrase woke right by accusing or pointing out depending on your perspective there the fact that various members of the so-called right are Engaging in shenanigans that are very much reminiscent of those that characterize the radical left

And so that's what we talk about today the nature of the woke right I discussed the overlap between such behavior and Classification of psychopathology with James, the relationship between woke behavior, mobbing, extreme perspectives, self-victimization, protest, gaming the system, and cluster B psychopathology, narcissism, histrionic behavior, borderline, antisocial, and the dark tetrad. And we attempted to determine how our views align and how they differ, and well, it's a walk through the dark side of ideology. So, join us for that. Nice to see you, Dr. Lindsay. It's good to see you, Dr. Peters. It's been two years, eh? It's been two years. Yeah. So, what are you in trouble for now? The woke, right?

Lay it out, man. It's a fraught term, right? People see it as paradoxical. Because you have woke, which they associate with left. You have right, which they associate, obviously, with the right. And so now you've got a paradox. And so I've caused myself some trouble by calling a radical segment, not the whole right, a radical segment of the left, which I've called the left.

And so I've caused myself some trouble by calling a radical segment of the right, which I've called the left. And so I've caused myself some trouble by calling a radical segment of the right, which I've called the left. And so I've caused myself some trouble by calling a radical segment of the right, which I've called the left. And so I've caused myself some trouble by calling a radical segment of the right, which I've called the left.

And so I've caused myself some trouble by calling a radical segment of the right, which I've called the left. And so I've caused myself some trouble by calling a radical segment of the right, which I've called the left. And so I've caused myself some trouble by calling a radical segment, not the whole right, a radical segment of the right, which I've called the left. And so I've caused myself some trouble by calling a radical segment of the right, which I've called the right. And so now you've got a paradox. And so I've caused myself some trouble by calling a radical segment, not the whole right, a radical segment of the right, woke right, which I kind of started doing, I guess, last fall, September, I really came, I started using it before that, the term, I didn't invent the term, a lot of people accuse me of inventing the term or credit me with it. This term has been in rough circulation, floating around in the internet space for at least since middle of 22.

So it's not a brand new term. I just adopted it and went kind of hard about it. And the simplest explanation I give people for, well, what do you mean by woke right? How does that make sense? And I say, well, it's woke people who call themselves conservatives. And some of them don't, though. They call themselves right wing. And they distinguish that conservatives and right-wing are different. But it's woke people. So the whole suite of behaviors, beliefs,

even the deep metaphysical constructs underneath those beliefs. And as you recently pointed out, I think the psychology that generates those beneath all of that, the cluster B personality disorders are presenting and the psychopathologies, psychopathy itself sometimes, all of that kind of feeds upward into this concept of woke, which I think we can talk pretty fruitfully about.

But I don't believe it can only be presented through, you know, left-wing causes. You can present it in terms of right-wing causes or religious causes or other causes, because it's the pathological expression of an ideology or of a belief structure that ultimately is woke. And so, this term has confused people, it's angered people. I decided to try to put less— Who is it angered? Well, this is the thing. I, this is what has, I'll use this word, this is a heavy word for the beginning of a conversation,

but this is what has dismayed me. I knew it would anger the people that it applies to, in my opinion, because who would want to be called woke right, first of all. And second of all, it limits their ability to interact because they have a label that's not a good label that sticks to them. But what I'm dismayed over is that almost the, I hate to use this word so glibly, but what I refer to sort of as a bookmark, as elite maga, or the more who's who of the conservative movement seems entirely captured by this as well.

And they also became upset, saw me as a turncoat and a traitor against the movement. One of the things that I think, tell me what you think about this, but I don't think we should name any names in this podcast. That's fine. If that's okay with you. That's totally fine. Okay, we can talk about why that is as we progress. Okay, good, good.

I mean, I wasn't going to make that a cut and dried rule, but I have my reasons. So you just referred to some comments I made on Fox News and also to some degree on Rogan talking about, and I've actually written a fair, a fair passel on this. Um, you know, there's been this idea that the extremes of political belief meet. Hey, so let's hash that out a little bit. You seem to find useful or possibly accept this additional diagnostic distinction,

which would be Cluster B or dark tetrad. That's right. I actually wrote about this. I don't know if you know. In 2020. That specific? In December, yes. In 2020. I called the article something like Psychopathy and the Origins of Totalitarianism, and I published that at the end of December of 2020. I put forth the hypothesis, which of course, I got from somewhere else in significant part.

I had read that infamous quirky, but I think important book, Political Ponerology. Yes. Was it Lubachewski or something like this is that name, the author. And I had read that and found it striking. And at the same time, almost, I think sometimes, you know, a chapter here, a chapter there, I read a very, I think one of the most important essays in English, which is Joseph Peeper's

Abuse of Language, Abuse of Power. I don't know if you've heard of this. Joseph Peeper was a Catholic and he had some, he wrote this essay. I don't know what else he did, honestly. I should probably look into it, but he wrote this essay, Abusive Language, Abusive Power, and talked about how tyrants arrange an abused version of the prevailing language to mislead people into the tyrannical program. And it's in two sections, two parts, it's been five years since I've read it, so forgive the details.

But there's, in a sense, two chapters to this long essay. And one of the two is very Catholic in its orientation, and one of them is this more general thesis. And it was extremely interesting. But of course, in political punterology, you also have the discussion of the importance of language, which of course we were seeing with the social justice woke movement as well, that they're misusing words like racism very blatantly.

And so, in political ponderology, you have this claim he makes that he says, well, with the psychopath, what he calls a pathocracy, what you have is you have people who are psychologically disordered who create a vision of the world, they need other people to play in it, and the way that they do this is by creating, he calls it a second language. So it's the same language, but the words now refer to other things. Of course, having read the postmodernists like Derrida,

I'm picturing all of his ideas. That's what happens in the Tower of Babel. That's right, that's right. That's exactly right. Remember, words lose their meaning and no one can understand. That's right. Nobody can understand each other. So they reorient the discourses, and then what he says actually solves the tyrannical problem.

This is the Lobachevsky's, if I'm saying his name is right, thesis. What solves it is that a third language evolves that unmasks the second language and allows people to see it for what it is and in fact laugh at it. And so this is what takes it apart. So I read these two essays and I'm taken in by them. Of course, I'd been reading the postmodern literature quite a lot. I had been reading Lyotard, the postmodern condition, and he has this very confusing,

they're all very confusing sections throughout the whole book, this very confusing section about this thing called legitimation by parology, that he accuses all knowledge-seeking enterprises, including the sciences, of being legitimation by parology. And there's this story that goes along where he's teaching legitimation by parology to his students at some point, or no, somebody's teaching Lyotard to their students,

a philosophy professor, and says, okay, so what do you think legitimation by parology means? And everybody comes up with crazy ideas because you can barely get it from the text. And finally, the professor says it means false legitimation through consensus. You get everybody to agree. And so, I framed up this essay in terms of saying that what the pathocracy or the pathological, ideological state, which becomes a vehicle for that pathology that serves the psychopaths at the center of it, the way that it operates is it generates

a parology, a second false logic that defines the ideology and a paramorality, a second false set of values and virtues that also defines the parameters, the social parameters and the psychosocial parameters. How do I know if I'm a good person? How do I fit in with my society? And so I write this long essay, my poor assistant, I got in trouble for this, I had him publish it on Christmas, I was so excited about it. Christmas Day we put this out.

And you know, very long essay explaining that this is what I see as at the root, because I was trying to diagnose and explain to people what we, nobody was calling woke yet at the time, at the end of 2020, or maybe we had just begun to call woke. We were trying to diagnose and explain this social justice left phenomenon. And so I put out this essay and said I think at the root underneath the whole thing, there's the same psychopathologies that motivated people like Lenin and Stalin and all this. And I didn't have the psychological chops. I was aware of dark triad or tetrad terminology. I did know quite a bit about the cluster B personality disorders Because I knew some people who were basically rabid feminists

in the 2010s and they were all talking about various schizoidal personality or that one may be cluster A. Yeah, it is. Yeah. And then they had the, you know, borderline anti-social history on it. Yeah, narcissistic. Narcissistic would come up again and again. And I think that actually is, tell me, is paranoid's cluster C, right? My reading, for example, of Derek Bell,

one of the founders of critical race theory, is that he had very likely suffered both paranoia and schizoidia, which are both mentioned by Lobachevsky as well, as indicative. I can't say any about any of the cluster Bs. So I think it's a little broader than just that one cluster up here.

Conspiracy theories or paranoid thinking, for example. Yeah, yeah, right. And schizoid tend to have imaginary conversations with people who aren't there on a childish fictional level. They're pretending the world is the way that it should have been for their emotions when they were nine years old. That's the split, the skits and the schizoidal. And so they write these elaborate stories about how the world's supposed to be,

and then they have outbursts when the world doesn't match that. And Derrick Bell was famous for writing these missives where he would present them as evidence of racism, let's say at Harvard, where he had an imaginary conversation with a dean and then would write the whole imaginary conversation down, and I'm thinking, this is so disordered, not just disordered thinking, but this is psychologically disordered,

that you would then present this hypothetical conversation as evidence. But at any rate, for a long time I've thought that's there. Okay, so let's lay down some theses and tell me what you think of them. So the first is that about 4 to 5% of the population, maybe more, has dark tetrad cluster B traits to some significant degree. Okay, and so that was histrionic, narcissistic, antisocial and psychopathic, right? That's the cluster B cluster.

Whether those are psychopathologies, like illnesses, that's a matter of dispute. They're certainly forms of severe social misbehavior, manipulative social misbehavior. Yes. And people who fall into those categories will use cries of victimization to parasitize. Yes.

So they're parasitizing on empathy. That's one hallmark. Right? They have disordered interpersonal relationships, often very intense. They're predatory, particularly the antisocial types. That's more straight, repetitive criminals. Very stable pattern of behavior. Yeah.

So let's say four to five percent. It's probably increased because of the net. That would be my guess because it's not well regulated on the net, because most of our evolved mechanisms for dealing with such people don't work. Especially, we could talk about anonymity, because I can understand why people defend it, but by the same token, it allows you to escape from your well-deserved reputation. Yeah. Right. Okay, so that's...

Years ago, by the way, you said that one of the features, you got in trouble for this, and you were right, of course, but you said that one of the features of our moment was that there's male aggression and female aggression that express themselves differently. Yeah. And male aggression, I don't know if you use this terminology, but I think it's something that doesn't upload very well.

Yeah. You can't punch somebody through in the nose through the screen, but female aggression, the social aggression uploads very well, but what it turns out is this, this, you know, cluster B or dark tetrad, uh, manipulation uploads almost even better. Yes. Yes. your dark tetrad manipulation uploads almost even better. Yes, yes. You can have 50 accounts, you can switch from one to the other, you can create entire false environments

that your targets have to engage in. It's particularly true because it's literally cost free. Yeah. Right, so you might imagine that any storehouse of value is likely to be parasitized to the degree that you can invade it for no cost. Yeah, that's totally right. Right, okay, so this is what I think happened to the universities, right, is that they're

whale carcasses and they've been invaded by parasites. And the whale carcass idea is a very old one. It's a huge storehouse of value, right? So since World War II, the West was on a pretty productive trajectory, and we generated massive storehouses of value in many, many places. Those would be financial storehouses, but reputational storehouses, even more,

that's even more germane. Like Harvard has both, it did have both, right? $53 billion plus a stellar reputation. Yeah, the best brand in America. Exactly. In the world. Next to Disney. Yeah, right.

Right, which is another storehouse of value that's been severely parasitized. Okay, so now, so that's two things. There's five percent of the population. Oh, yes, the dark tetrad types are narcissistic, Machiavellian. So they use language only as a means to manipulate towards instrumental ends.

There's no communicative intent. It's all essentially status gaming. They're psychopathic, and that means they're predatory parasites. And then they had to top it all off with sadism. And I think that's what changed the dark triad to the dark tetrad. I think the reason for that is that if you have a dark triad orientation towards the world and the world turns against you. It makes you so angry because you're rejected and unsuccessful that that expresses itself in positive delight in the unnecessary suffering of others, right? So this is dark material. Now, there's no reason to assume that the cluster B, dark tetrad types would do anything

other than gravitate towards storehouses of value. First of all, the parasite problem is a very deep problem biologically, right? It's so deep that some people think sex evolved to solve it. As you mix the genes, it's harder for parasites to move down the generations, right? That's actually one of the canonical theories for the evolution of sex itself. Why would you take a 50% hit in terms of genetic transmission when you could just clone yourself? Well, the parasites can breed, multiply faster than you can,

and so they have the upper edge in a lengthy battle. So you mix up the genes and anyways, it's the parasite problem, it's a very old problem. Yeah. Okay, so I want to add one more thing to that. Yeah. So imagine that a system of knowledge is a way of representing the world and navigating in it.

Okay, so that would be like a scientific theory or an engineering theory, right? And so, you might be able to assess that theory on the grounds of objective fact, say. Okay, but then imagine that there's a different form of language game, and that is that you orient yourself with a lot of… you bring a number of people together and you lay out some game rules. They could be religious axioms. In fact, I think religious axioms are game rules. I think that's the right way to think about it. But it could be political, right? So, communism, a pseudo religion, has game rules, axioms that you have to accept. And so does conservatism. These are games that can integrate a large number of people. Mm-hmm.

OK, so that's a slightly different function, right? Because now it's like if you and I decide to play basketball, we're going to produce a hierarchy within that set of rules, right? Whatever set of rules you lay out, people are going to be differentially able at implementing. That's right. Right? Any set of rules. That's right.

So, for example, if you were in a gym and you had school children roll and you had a competition, you'd get a hierarchy of rolling speed, and then the top rollers would be the high status people within that game. So, you can organize systems of knowledge so that they're ground rules for a game, and then you produce a hierarchy. Now, hierarchical position has value. So, the higher you are in the social hierarchy, the more positive emotion you feel and the less negative emotion and the less likely you are to perish. Partly because you have social capital and social support. So people will compete for status within the confines of any given

hierarchical game. That's a whole different function than representation of the world. Now, maybe you'd hope that your game represents the world too, which I suppose that would be something like competition in a scientific lab? Right? Because... Something like that. Or, yeah, competition within a game that's actually productive and self-sustaining. Yeah. Right, and the axioms of Western culture

seem to be a game like that. They do. Right, right. Now, okay, having established that, you can game it. Yeah, of course. Right, and so that seems to be, okay, so we agree on so far, there's nothing in that that you think is objectionable?

No, nothing. No, that's right. I think that's exactly right. And it's a good way to look at it, and I think it opens the door to how this becomes woke in a particular way, if we get very, very general. Because if you actually want to know the controversy about woke right, what's happened, Eric Weinstein told me this, and I know we said we're not going to name names, but it's positive. He told me that, uh, what he realized, and of course he's a mathematician as well. So then I'm a mathematician. So he, he said, what ha he told me this at arc, actually, we were having a conversation and he said, when I realized what you've done is generalized the

concept of woke and then applied it in a different domain, it clicked. the concept of woke and then applied it in a different domain, it clicked. So it's no longer just left-wing totalitarian behavior. It's now this mode of totalitarian behavior that I can apply in domains. It's transferable. Correct. And so with the hierarchy, not just the hierarchy, everything you just described, but you have these reservoirs of value in hierarchies built off of these games. So there's value there, and the parasite is drawn to the reservoir of value. Wherever it is.

And the idea is that you want to be high status, but they have natural limitations because they're not competent. They're not competent. Yeah, they're outside of the range of what brings you to the top of these hierarchies. They tend to be very low in conscientiousness. They tend to be, that's right. And so what would you do? What you would do is try,

there's a word for what you would try to create. As the parasite who's now latched on, the thing you would try to, if you wanna talk about it in politics, there's one word, and if you wanna talk about it in religion, or more generally, there's another. The general word or the religious word is cult. You'll create a cult where you've taken a variation on those rules to where there's a new status game that's rigged so

you're always on top of it. Yep. And what you're going to do is pervert the underlying rules. We call it an ideology or a cult doctrine. The word in politics would be splinter, a splinter movement within a broader movement. So MAGA is a political movement and you can imagine a splinter off of it, where the Democratic Party had a political movement and the Justice Democrats came along 10 years ago and made a splinter off of it that created the squad. A lot of people know that history at least, so it should be, you know, germane. So the generation of a localized cult is sort of this hypothesis, and the ideology grows

out of the desire for the people at the top of that, who are parasitizing the hierarchy to create their kind of internal nested hierarchy where they're on top of the whole thing. And the way they do that is by saying the big system is gamed. The big system is rigged. The big system is rigged. The big system is fake. And we have a secret truth about how things really work. And now you enter into the Gnostic kind of, I don't know, even metaphysical space. You know, the ancient Gnostic religions, whether against Judaism or Christianity, all held

out that Yahweh, the character, the creator God of Genesis, was in fact a demon, who had tricked everything. He wasn't the actual highest unknowable God. He was this low-level, you know, functionary God who said, you know, I'm going to rule over all this stuff. I'm going to imprison them in this, you know, wonderful garden. And then, whoops, they disobeyed me and almost realized the game by eating from the forbidden tree. So now we're going to throw them out into a real prison.

And they've been in the Heideggerian sense, they've been flung, their being has been flung into a world they didn't choose in which they suffer. And you get the whole Gnostic architecture. But the way that Gnosticism attracts is by saying, and I can make this kind of literal to things that are happening in our world if we have to, is that the authorities in the existing game know so much, but they don't want you to know everything. They don't want you to know more because you might surpass them. They're trying to keep you down. But if you come with me in my cult, I'll tell you the real secrets." Partly that's an appeal to paranoia too.

And that's going to be more effective under conditions of extreme uncertainty. Okay, so let's concretize this a little bit. I'd like to talk about, we can talk about Douglas and Joe. I think let's amend our rule. We're not going to point any fingers at woke, right people. Okay. But I'd like to talk about the current situation. Yeah, the situation and the ideas, I think, are important.

Well, you know, Douglas's point with regard to Joe was that it's troublesome for those with a conservative bent to throw out, to throw away the idea of institutional legitimacy. And that's a fair comment, standalone comment. Joe's rebuttal to that, insofar as he had a rebuttal, because I thought the conversation was actually pretty civil, given how difficult it was, was that the institutions have been so cataclysmically faulty in the last 10 years that the only possible antidote to their falseness is really unrestrained investigation. And Joe's been a master of unrestrained investigation, obviously, because he's allowed his interest

to take him wherever it goes, which allied with a certain amount of conscience is a pretty good orienting function, as far as I'm concerned. And I'm at a loss to some degree, how to reconcile those few points because I think it's a, it is a cataclysm that the institutions have become unreliable, but let's, let's walk through them a little bit. I think the universities are gone. Me too. I think that Harvard is having this war with Trump and that Trump is 100% right.

Yep, me too. The president of Harvard, in my understanding, said to the Trump administration that it was unfair to punish the researchers by withholding their research funds, but I look at that and I think those researchers have been filling out DEI statements for 10 years. Yeah. So, as far as I'm concerned, they lost all their credibility. They're not independent researchers at all. That's right.

And they could say and have said that they were just following the rules. It's like, that's not a pretty very good excuse if you're a seeker after knowledge, right? If the rules have become pathological, you have an obligation to cease following them. Harvard took its DEI head, I think it was Harvard, and changed, kept the person and changed the name. Well, that's what's, all the universities are going to do that. Yeah, that's right. Why wouldn't they? That's just fundamentally deceitful. are going to do that. Yeah, that's right. Why wouldn't they? That's just fundamentally deceitful.

More deceitful even. Yeah. Right. It's another form of mimicry. And I guess that's another thing we could point out about the psychopathic 5% is that they're masters of camouflage. Yeah. Yeah. What a psychopath does is mimic competence, right?

That's right. And usually they can't get away with it because not for long, because they don't create, they destroy. And eventually that evidence accrues. And then they have to leave and find another host, so to speak. Right. Now online, that's a snap, right? Because you can just switch help.

Exactly. You can just switch your identity. And that's right. And you've solved the problem, Because you can just switch help. Exactly. You can just switch your identity and that's right. And you've solved the problem or you can multiply it beyond. And then there's there's a bought problem online too. Tremendous bought problem. Yeah, yeah, we've tracked some of that. And for some of these discussions about the woke right, 30% of the comments are bought.

Yeah, right. So right. So, so that means we're automating the psychopathy. Like I've thought for a long time, and I do think this may be the case that virtualization enables psychopathy. And if that's the case, we're in trouble. We're in big trouble. Well, at least 50% of internet traffic is criminal, right?

Holy cow, yeah. It's 30% pornography, which is close enough to criminals. So I think distinguishing them is not useful. And then like old people are just scammed nonstop. Right. Nonstop. Right. And so, and there's no policing and there can't be because you can hide so effectively. Right. And so, and there's no policing and there can't be because you can hide so effectively. Right.

So, and then it's, what it seems to happen is that the unrestrained psychopathy spills over into the public domain and everyone is mad. Like in both senses, angry and insane because of it. Let's return just for a moment to the hierarchy idea. like in both senses, angry and insane because of it. Let's return just for a moment to the hierarchy idea. So you pointed out one interesting mechanism of attaining status, which is to twist the rules slightly, create a new game and dominate that as its originator. That's a transformation of a process that's actually creative and adaptive, right?

Because if I wanted to make a variation of a business, I could do that. And then if I served my customers well and so forth, I could climb to the top of that new business niche and succeed. This is the parasitical equivalent to that. Yeah. Right?

It's to what? To generate a version that does nothing but attract unwarranted attention. That would be the narcissistic spin. And to use any means whatsoever to attract that attention. While directing blame to the parent structure. I think that's very important. So, for example, with Karl Marx, he phrased his vision of communism wasn't the crude communism that was experimented with by

Gracchus Babouf in the French Revolution. It was a transcendent communism. And I use that word because he doesn't call it transcendent communism. He calls it communism. But what he says, his exact wording for it is, it's communism as the positive transcendence of private property, as human self-estrangement, and thus a complete return of man to his true nature as a human or social being. Right. So that's a Nietzschean revaluation of all values.

Yeah. It's really, it's much deeper than people think. It's redistributing property. It's to transcend property. And so how does this turn into what I said is that the game, which at that point he's looking at, it doesn't matter if it's capitalism or feudalism or even slavery, it's the private property game that he believes is the course of history.

He says, everything is actually that thing's fault. And people who play that game are the people who are the problem. And that's how he recruits. He finds people who are being, who are losing within that game, who are being injured by that game and says, you know what, it's the, it's not you. It's the whole, it's the whole bloody game. Come over here. We've got a different game.

But the trick is who's at the top of that game. With Karl Marx, we've got a different game. But the trick is, who's at the top of that game? With Karl Marx, it was Karl Marx. It wasn't the people ever. If you read it, so what's Communist Manifesto? We'll just break it down. Chapter one, Communist Manifesto is titled, Bergeois and Proletarians. The Bergeoisie and Proletarians. So he describes the relationship between the people who are playing that game, the bourgeoisie, and then the proletarians who are the workers at the bottom who are making that game possible. And he says, all you guys down at the bottom

are getting exploited. You're being alienated from who you really are. You're alienated from your product. Everything's terrible for you and it's exploitation so the winners of that game can cheat you. That's the relationship that he puts out. Chapter two is communists and proletarians. And he says, so it starts out brilliantly.

He says, so what's the relationship between the communists and the proletarians or the workers' movements? Says, we don't disagree with any of the workers' movements. We actually are the highest expression of them. So we take their vision and put theory behind it and take it to a higher level of understanding, and we're going to bring all you guys with.

And so naturally, naturally, what's going to happen? So let's say he agitates the proletarians to revolt. He's just said that the shepherds are going to be the Communist Party. And then who's going to run the Communist Party? Karl Marx. Yes. So it's a whole thing is a giant scam to blame the existing system, to agitate a large group of people who aren't winning within that system,

to get them to switch games with him at the very peak. Okay, so to me, I know that we've talked a little bit about religious matters, but I'm going to delve into that for a second. Let me actually, before we go, put a bookmark. Yes. Because Hitler did the exact same thing. The exact same. Yes. Because Hitler did the exact same thing. The exact same thing. Mussolini did the exact same thing.

Hitler is much more clear. He says, we had this German race, and back in history, he writes this fictional mythological history of the Germans. Some of it, if you read or see it, it's just kind of humorously, transparently false about how great they were in antiquity and all of it. So we've got these Germans and they've got all this, you know, he's got this whole

occult, theosophical, Aryan stuff that he's brought in from Helena Blavatsky and read the secret doctrine and all this weird occultism. He's attached to race. In Mein Kampf, second volume, chapter one, he talks about, well, the Nazis have a new world concept, Weltanschwung, and that world concept will be the racial world concept. Then he lays out how the state exists to preserve the race. That's the point, because when you have the race, you have the people who will generate high culture.

And when you have the people who generate high culture, then you can advance society to its highest level of expression and man's highest level of expression, very progressive ideology. But what he's saying is, we had this somewhere in this mythical, distant, foggy past, and we can recover it. How? By taking every step that we can to figure out the race and purify the race. And guess what? Everybody who's with me, that wants Germany to be made great again, after World War I and the ravages of the Treaty of Versailles, they saw it, and the challenges that came with the post, or the interwar period as we see it now.

All you Germans who are mad at Europe and mad at the French and you're having a bad time, guess what? There's a mythic Germany that you've lost and we can get it back. Hey, come on, let's go. And here's the ideology, it's our racial world concept. And here's how it's gonna be organized,

not with this Vanguard Bolshevik model over there that the communists use, but we're going to use what I call the Fuhrer Principle, not me, Hitler called the Fuhrer Principle, the Leader Principle. Of course, who's the Fuhrer? Hitler! So he's on top, and it's this absolutely rigid, top-down pyramid of authority, which is a completely different expression. That's what a Tower of Babel is. That's exactly right.

Yeah, with the wrong thing at the top. But it's the same program. The game that we've now, it's not the game that we're all playing, it's the game that we've been forced into by this rotten circumstance, has dispossessed us from who we should be. We're heritage Germans, for example, and we should have the benefits of our mastery of race, but the problem is, in his sight... It's very attractive to anyone. That's right.

There's nothing to offer but racial identity. That's right. That's right. And two things, racial identity and obedience. Maybe a modicum of cruelty as well. Yeah, well, that comes along for the right. It comes along for the right eventually. Yeah. Because a lot of the young Germans were actually inspired

because they thought it was going to be good for the worker. They were inspired by the socialism part of national socialism, they thought it was going to be good for the worker. They were inspired by the socialism part of national socialism and that it was going to be good for Germany and they loved their country and they wanted to see it great. And so they were swept up, the Hitler youth were swept up to get into this. But it's the same program. There's a game, we used to be the masters of the game, but now we've been dispossessed from the game. They threw us from top to bottom.

That was an intolerable experience. By the way, this is all the story of Lucifer. We've been cast to the bottom. And so what we're going to do now is we're going to grab our rightful inheritance and we're going to build the structure that returns us to it. P.S. the organizational structure is the fur of principles, so I'm at the top.

Okay, so I want to talk about this Lucifer idea. So Lucifer is the morning star and he's the angel of the untrammeled intellect. That's how he's portrayed in Milton, right? And he's allied in some strange way with the serpent in the Garden of Eden. If I might just interject, if he's the morning star, what do you do in the morning? After the morning star rises, you wake up. Right. Woke.

Right, right, right. The spirit of enlightenment. Right. Okay, so in the … Or dark enlightenment, as it were. Yeah, right. Absolutely. Well, that's the question.

What's the difference between genuine? What's the difference between what's genuine and what's false, let's say. So, in the story of Genesis, God tells Adam and Eve that they can pretty much have free reign, except for one thing. They can't, as far as I can tell what it means, is they can't take the right to define the moral order to themselves. They have to abide by the moral order, that there's an intrinsic moral order that's grounded below nature, even grounded in the principle of being itself. They have to ally themselves with that. But Eve, interestingly, Eve is tempted by the serpent. Maybe her powers of discrimination are somewhat lacking, maybe her proclivity

to empathy clouds her, and maybe it's a form of feminine pride. In any case, the serpent tempts her, telling her that if she ate of the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil, that she would become like God, which is the one thing God forbade. So the idea seems to be something like the more radical the revolutionary precept, the more likely something Luciferian is behind it. So it's a serpent in the garden, so it's clearly something poisonous, but then it gets weirdly associated with the idea of Lucifer, right? Which is a very strange leap.

The leap is something like, what's the most poisonous of all possible serpents, right? So then it becomes a meta principle. And it looks to me like it's something like the drive to power. And that fits well with the notion that, well, Marx would be on top of the communists and Hitler would be on top of the Nazis and Muss and Hitler would be on top of the Nazis, and

Mussolini would be top of the Italian fascists. So if the belief system is pressed into the service of the hierarchical status of its originators, then there tends to be something profoundly Luciferian behind it. Yes? Yes. So now we're talking at a very abstract, deep, whether metaphysical is, I think metaphysical is the right word, level for what represents woke. This isn't going to be like recognizable to your average Joe on the street who's dealing with, you know, a pride parade and saying, well, that's woke. I understand woke. Yeah, and they are called pride parades.

They are called pride parades. And the cardinal sin of Lucifer is pride. Is pride. Right. And the desire to replace God, to replace the fundamental moral order. So I figured something else out, too, recently. So imagine that you could found a society on power, because you can, at least for a short period of time,

and imagine that you could organize a group of people hedonistically as well. So that would be the real dark side of populism, right? We'll just have the government give people, it's like Pleasure Island in the Pinocchio video, right? Bread and circuses. You can get away with that for a while. Power, hedonism.

You can abandon everything and sink into a pit of nihilism. That's not very effective psychologically or socially. But that begs the question that the postmodernists wreck their ship on, I would say. Is there a unifying principle, a high order unifying principle? That's the metanarrative idea, right? Because the cardinal proclamation of postmodernism

is that there's no pinnacle metanarrative. There's no upper union. But I think that's wrong. I think that the principle of voluntary self-sacrifice is foundational. And I think that's the narrative that runs through the biblical chorus. You've given very, very eloquent speeches on that. Yeah, yeah, yeah. And so, then we would have a dynamic where one...

Because we're trying to figure out how to identify the Luciferian players, let's say. That seems reasonable, right? So they're in love with the creations of their own intellect, but that intellect is not serving the principle of voluntary self-sacrifice, it's serving the principle of power. You remember in the Gospel account, when Christ is in the desert, the third temptation that Satan lays before Him is the temptation of power. That's right. Everything that you see before you. Yes. Matthew 4.

If you follow me. That's right. Right, right. So, that seems, okay, so you don't have any problem with the underlying dynamic of that explanation. No, not at all. No, not at all. And I see, you know, a fruitful discussion, because, you discussion because this is, of course, very high order thinking and expressing, but the experience for people on the ground is exactly what we were mentioning earlier. It's those traits of the dark tetrad like Machiavellianism and all of this. So they're going to experience, what does that look like in everyday experience?

The swarms on social media, the cancel culture, the struggle session, you know, this kind of stuff, the lying and the manipulation. The cries of victimization. The gaslighting and this is the, you know, it's called sometimes DARVO, deny, attack, reverse the roles of victim and offender. When you catch a psychopath out, they do, it's an acronym DARVO, they deny that it's them. Yes, there's a number of people operating like that at the moment. Yeah, that's right. It's everywhere. And so these are the experiences.

So the expression that I could give to tie people just to bring Woke Right back to the conversation is we're familiar now with the machinations of Woke Left. Right? And what I would say is, well, what's Woke Right is same energy, different direction. You have all of those same exact, whether it's Luciferian at the high level,

whether it's struggle sessions, Machiavellianism, sadism at the low level. Well, we've got a hierarchy there. It's like, it's Luciferian at the core, then we've got the cluster B, dark tetrad traits, then there's the mechanisms that you described, right? So that's a differentiated, that gives us a way of identifying.

So if we use the kind of, you know, pop word of the day of, you know, vibes or energy, it's same energy, different direction. This is exactly like what I was already saying with Marx versus fascism or communism versus fascism. And we could go as weirdly deep as you want. There's a few ways to get to it. Like you say, well, obviously communism is kind of the arch progressive ideology, but I disagree, it's probably fascism. But differently, communism was actually obsessed,

if you read Marx, he's obsessed, what was the quote? Positive transcendence of private property is human self-estrangement and therefore a complete return of man to what? His real true self. It's obsessed with state of nature. It's obsessed with, we've been alienated all the way back to the beginning for him, private property marks the fall. So the serpent came along and didn't offer an apple, but offered the fundamental right

to exclude the private property. But you have the same general concept. So they're obsessed with looking all the way back to the state of nature. Well, and that is also an unbelievably effective move on the psychopathic side, because the basic criminal attitude is, and I've dealt with criminal types quite a lot, it's pretty straightforward. It's perfectly fine for me to take what you have, because you took it. Yeah, that's right. Right. And so, Marx has just nailed that perfectly.

That's exactly what it is. But that's property is theft. As soon as property is theft, the criminal is the moral agent. And that happened in the Soviet Union, right? Because in the prisons, the criminals were treated as moral agents, whereas the political prisoners were treated as, you know, what would you say, the kinds of heretics who deserve nothing but the longest possible sentence, sentence of death, right?

Because the criminals were victims. If property is theft, criminals are victims. That's a hell of a satisfying outcome for the criminals. That's right. And so, what you have in that same paragraph, so you have Marx saying that what we're going to do is get back to our state of nature, but we're not going to go back.

It's not going back. He's just discussed Babouf and the failure of the French Revolution commune model. It was all low end, it was grubby, it was dirty, they had no high culture, they had not the same as Hitler's interest, no high culture. He says, this is wrong, we're going to have a transcendence. So we're not going to go back to state of nature, we're going to transcend.

And all he's doing is rehashing Rousseau, which had passed through Hegel and Schiller. And what Rousseau had said is we need to be, because he wanted to live a free libertine lifestyle, not liberal, but libertine, but he liked being a citizen, didn't he? And so he wanted to do savages made to live in cities. I mean, in the French, however, but that's what he literally called them. Savages made to live in cities, that's the completion of man. The omega of man, alpha of man is the primitive communist. The omega of man is when you reach the point where you're the same sharing attitude and liberated lifestyle as the beginning, but now you have all the high culture and

benefits of all the production in between. So it's a perfectly paradoxical and impossible thing, but Marx calls it the riddle of history solved that knows itself to be its own solution. And so that's the alpha and the omega, though. So that libertine offering is an interesting twist. I've been trying to puzzle out, I wrote this article with Jonathan Pagio on the scarlet beast of the apocalypse. And it was really illuminating to me.

There's lots of book of Revelation, I just don't understand me and many other people. But I understand some of it. So, the scarlet beast is the degenerate state. So, imagine that when a uniting principle disappears, so that would be the Nietzschean death of God, you get the postmodern condition, which is that there's no uniting narrative, and so the state grows a lot of different heads. It's kind of a hydra now. It's collapsing into chaos, symbolically speaking.

It has a lot of different heads because nothing's uniting it. And that's why it's blood red, because that's a very dangerous condition. It's a fragmenting condition. Okay, so that's the scarlet beast of the degenerate state. This is a symbol of the end of times. And I don't mean the end of time per se. This is a symbol of how things end, right? Always, always.

Sure, yeah, that's right. Right. OK, fine. So the state deteriorates till it's a multi-headed hydra. OK, but then it has something on its back. And that's the horror of Babylon. Yeah, the mother of all prostitutes. So, the idea there is that when the patriarchal state or psyche loses its central function,

female sexuality commoditizes, right? And we can see that's like just happening everywhere, right? OnlyFans is the greatest example of that. That woman in Great Britain who's sleeping with like a hundred men a night, or I think she managed a thousand in a week, something like that. I won't say her name, but she's become very well known for the absolute outrageousness of her behavior. Her mother is her business manager.

So awful that you just can't believe it. Okay, so you have this mother of all prostitutes, so that's the central spirit of commoditized female sexuality. That's going to happen when the state deteriorates. Of course, female sexuality is going to commoditize when the state loses its protective and integrative function. And so she offers this libertine pleasure, right? So you could think of power, that's a way that power, that's what power offers to those who are willing to use power. It's like, why do you want control over someone?

Well, to have your way with them, obviously, and there's gonna be a sexual component to that. That was certainly the case in Marx's own life, for example. So you can imagine the fantasies that possessed him, too, would be, well, once we establish this new utopia, and the communists promised free love. That's a common leftist trope. As if it's love, which it isn't,

and as if sex is free, which it never is. What happens at the end of the scarlet beast, it isn't and as if sex is free, which it never is. What happens at the end of the scarlet beast, horror of Babylon dichotomy, say, interaction, is the beast kills the prostitute. So that's perfect, right? Because so the degenerate of patriarchal state breeds the commoditization of female sexuality,

but ultimately destroys all pleasure. And I also think that's happening now. I mean, you have radically high rates of virginity, for example, among Japanese and South Koreans. And in the West, more broadly, a breakdown, an apparent breakdown of the relationship between men and women, not least politically, right, with the men starting to fly off into the conservative sphere of influence and the women becoming increasingly liberal. So that's another, it shows you the fact that these mythological tropes appear fitting, shows you how deep the malaise is, right?

Sure. The culture wars way deeper than the political. And a vehicle to this is transgression, right? Transgression of the existing order. And transgression, I think, is such a key feature. In fact, I've described recently a cult of transgression that you could easily describe on the woke left, right? And it kind of fits my same energy, different direction, or same energy, opposite direction.

Because you see with both of these two wokes, but also other these kind of degenerate ideologies and psychosocial dynamics, you have this cult of transgression where the way, it's like the payment to be in the cult is to transgress a little further. You start with, oh yeah, well, we need LGBT representation. Okay, we've already transgressed because the T is different from the LGB. It's completely different. It refers to trying to work out a... Disintegration of transgression.

Well, there's nothing in lesbian, gay or bisexual that is a disintegrated psychology. There's something fundamental in the transition that's a disintegrated psychology. If you have gender dysphoria, if we admit that that's even real, you have a disintegrated psychology. Your phenomenology of self and your ontology of self are out of whack. And in fact, what they do then is once it gets out of whack, they invert it. And they put this phenomenology first and say the ontology has to follow. So if we do enough surgery, somehow we've changed ourselves. This is completely disordered thinking. So it's already a transgression, but let's not

get lost in the weeds. Well, in the foundational principle there is sexual identity, right? Of course. This is a very strange thing about these fragmented identity claims, is that they, like, an identity should unite and it should serve a psychological and a social purpose simultaneously. Sure. An identity that's predicated on hedonistic orientation isn't an identity at all. And this is where the transgression is. What does the whore present?

The whore, she presents sex out of its context. As you said, sex is never free. She presents free sex. So what she presents is the ability to transgress. And. The ability to transgress. The ability to transgress. And so you go from LGBT itself as a word, but we need representation. Okay, fine. So we need to put gay characters on TV. Maybe that's a problem. Maybe it's not a problem.

Who knows? Well, we take a step. What does it got to be after this? We know, well, we need gay characters and children's programming. It's a further transgression. Then we need them in schools. Now we need a drag queen to come read to the kids. Well, the drag performance needs to get more radical.

And you can see it in the pride parades too. It's the inclusion of more and more transgressive stuff. This is a cult of transgression and it's how these things go crazy. Okay, so those trends, now we can link the transgression back to your original idea that you have a hierarchy of social status, let's say, let's call it conservative. And so now the parasitic site predators swarm in and they splinter it.

They splinter with transgression. Sure. Right. So that's an important thing to note, right? But there's a deeper thing here, which is also what Mao did with his red identity, black identities, which were split themselves, is that the target is actually normal integrated society and the excuse for the targeting is the opposite side pathology, right? And so, with Marcuse, to go back to the left, he

writes this essay in 1965, Repressive Tolerance. He says, okay, there's three kinds of tolerance. He says there's democratic tolerance. That's what a normal healthy society has and it only can tolerate so much it'll fall apart. And then there's the repressive right wing, maybe it's fascist, whatever. He actually uses the word fascist repeatedly. And then what he says is actually those two things are the same thing because of different stupid excuses, nuclear weapons or whatever else. So actually we live in the repressive state now. Yeah, right, all game rules are repressive.

And his argument is actually that all capitalist society will degenerate into fascism unless it's resisted. And he says the answer to this is liberating tolerance. And what is liberating tolerance? In his own definition, which is, you know, close to from memory a quote, it is we will extend liberating tolerance, he says, would mean we extend tolerance to movements from the left and we withdraw tolerance from movements

from the right, which is everything to his right. Okay, so speaking of- It's amazing how that's played out. In psychopathology, that's splitting, by the way. And sociologically, I mean, one of the things I've noticed about my home country, Sociologically, I mean, one of the things I've noticed about my home country, it's really stark in Canada. If conservatives protest, they're flattened. Left protest, there's no holds barred, no matter how pathological it becomes,

the left-wing protesters are always the heroic victims. The trucker convoy was a great example of that, right? Because, you know, it was a disruptive demonstration, although remarkably peaceful, and the legal repercussions are still unrolling. And I think maybe it's, tell me what you think about this, I think it's because it might be partly the spread of the ideas of Marcuse through the culture.

Yeah, absolutely. But I also think that people are genuinely people. There's something to genuinely fear when actual conservatives protest, because they don't do it until they're pushed to the wall. Is it also an indication that something very fundamental has gone sideways? Because conservatives aren't the protesting type. We'll be right back, but first here's a sneak peek at the member exclusive portion of this episode. What the hell is going on? I mean the left is doing what the left does. The issue is never the issue. They're trying to tear apart society, gain advantage, the whole thing. Everything they did with critical race theory, queer theory, you name it, they're doing it now with this new issue.

They're saying Israel is bad and the Jews are a problem. That doesn't play well with mainstream America, so very plausible that this is coming from foreign adversaries. China's behind it, let's say. Qatar's behind it. 2018, the Wall Street Journal publishes an article, 250 MAGA influencers are on the payroll of Qatar trying to influence Trump's policy. Do you think they stop? Well, certainly in Iran's interest. The Iranians would sacrifice every single Palestinian

in a second. They're just cannon fodder. I mean, it's obvious that Iran is funding Hamas. Propaganda works. Throwing the dust of moral confusion into the air blinds the eyes. Say you tweet something that they like, doesn't matter that it's you.

They can blow it up. They can put tons of bots behind it. They can put lots of positive comments on it so that they can create an artificial environment. This is such an ugly vision of the future. Listen to the full member exclusive session now on Daily Wire+. No, but I think that the trucker protest

tells us something different. Because the target, these people, this is one that the trucker protest tells us something different because the target, these people, this is one of the most genuinely peaceful pro-liberty, it was the freedom convoy and they meant it and they policed their own borders and they kept the radicals out on the right. So what happened was they showed up, the left showed up to protest the normal people. I'm not going to say the middle, the normal people. Everyday freedom loving Canadians. And the excuse was there's a far right. Yeah. Okay. So what happened is I call this ideological flattening or dialectical flattening, but

it's psychologically, it's splitting. The person that's occupying the leftist deranged position has flattened liberals and conservatives into a single monster. Not so they can fight the conservatives, so they can fight the liberals. And that's happening on the other side. Conservatives will look over and say, well, there's the far left and all the classical liberals are actually in their camp and they've flattened them. It's the same splitting behavior.

Again, so this is, again, an emphasis of this woke right, an exhibition of this woke right phenomenon of same energy, different direction, opposite directions in this case. And the idea is that they are attacking the middle through the proxy of the far opposite side. So, I brought up Marcuse because he's also famous for Eros and Civilization and the sexual liberation and we were talking about the pride in the Queer theory. Well, those left-wing movements in the 60s all floated on a cloud of free love. That's right, they did. But look at the pride parade.

Okay, so we need representation and visibility for gay people because there's a repressive society. That's the excuse. It's the far right that won't let anybody come out. So they come out, and is that where it stays? Is that what they're actually targeting? No. You have fetishes, you have all kinds of perversion, degeneracy. I mean, I don't want to even talk about what it is explicitly, which is an advantage to queer theories. Nobody will say what it actually says. It's so gross. But what they were targeting were liberal societal norms, real societal norms, healthy, let's forget liberal, healthy, Real societal norms, healthy, let's forget liberal, healthy, not degenerate societal norms about sex and sexuality.

And the excuse was if you don't … Well, degenerate is the right word, too, I think, because I think one of the hallmarks, because if you are a relativist, you might say, well, who are you to place modes of orienting yourself in the world in a hierarchy? Yeah, sure. Because you described some of them as degenerate. The reason that they're degenerate is because when they're employed, they degenerate. Yeah, sure.

Right. So they're games that violate their own principles as they play themselves out. But there's nothing about a guy in fetish gear at a parade in front of children, for example, that's challenging the norms of a repressive sexual society that thinks that, you know, it should be procreative heterosexual sex only. That's an excuse, it's pretext. What they're after is the norms

that hold regular society together. And my argument is that the woke right does the same thing. They have a cult of transgression too. They sometimes call it being based, but that's a completely bad word for what they're trying to describe because based should mean based in reality, although the origin of the term is slang for being free based on cocaine. So they're out of their minds, right? It's funny how this lines up. But what do they do? Okay, so the left has told us, the far left has told us, you can't be racist. Racist

is worse. Everybody's a racist. And of course, they completely made degenerate the concept of racism, the word racism, the accusation, the sky is racist, going for a hike is racist. But they aren't trying to reclaim and say, okay, no, wait, racism's bad. We don't want to be racist and nobody should be racist and the left completely ruined it. So we need to reclaim the term and have this healthy societal norm about discrimination and bigotry. What they're doing instead is saying, it's time for us to be a little bit racist.

The left said, don't be racist, so we're gonna be really racist. And we're gonna do it in order to own the libs as they sometimes phrase the thing, right? But really it's to reject what cultures the pretext. They're not acting racist or blaming Jews for everything going wrong in society or, you know, getting further and further into the racial expression or the white racial consciousness or whatever, the white supremacy or even white nationalism in order to challenge

the left. No. They're doing it to challenge the, not again, the center, the healthy core of society and its norms. So that's the target. It's a cult of transgression, but they point in opposite directions. Left in some sense says, don't be racist. They say, do be racist.

And this is again the communist fascist thing. We're going to liberate everybody. That's what the communists say. They come along. It screws everything up. And you know, there's all this oppression in society. We're going to liberate people from oppression and everything's going to be utopia. That's Marcuse in a nutshell, okay? Defined primarily by full sexual liberation.

Of course. You know, there is. Hold on, hold on. It all goes to hell. And so then the right wakes up, wakes up, woke, and says, actually, I think the oppression is what was holding us together, so we should do more of it.

And they create a hierarchy in society that's very rigid, again, with that Fuhrer principle from the fascists, because Mussolini had his lighter version of it. Hitler concretized it for Nazi Germany in 1933, following Carl Schmitt's book, The Legal Basis for the Total State. They created the legal structure for this thing. But the idea was that there is a hierarchy that kept society on the rails, and we're gonna go back to that hierarchy in extreme pastiche form. And there's a reward structure socially for the people in the club to push the envelope

and attack those normal everyday societal norms in the center. So again, same energy, opposite direction. But the point is the transgression, which they call queering on the left. We don't have a word for it on the center. So again, same energy, opposite direction, but the point is the transgression, which they call queering on the left, we don't have a word for it on the right. They call it being based, but that's not the same as transgress, but it's still transgression. And so, same pathology for different reasons, same idea like Mark said, you go all the way back to the state of nature, you're going to combine it with the end, so you're going to become the alpha man who's also the omega man, in other words, the alpha and the omega of humanity.

So there's you become God man, Homo Deus, as Harari named it in his book, Homo Deus. And then on the right, they don't go that far back. They don't go back to the state of nature. They're not interested in the state of nature. They're interested in the mythic past from which they've been dispossessed and never existed, a romantic vision of who they were at some golden era in the past that they've been ejected from. But they're still now the alienated outsider. The alien force came in, dispossessed them from who they are, and now they're going to claim it back. And the way they're going to do it is by organizing a fascist structure as an answer to the degeneracy, a very rigid structure and a too rigid structure, in answer to the not rigid enough structure of communism.

And then what they do is the exact same transgression against the center to build their own power out in their local little cult against the big game of society, they're attacking the game of society to build their numbers with the hope of being able to replace it in both cases. So this is why I call these people woke. It's not just that they've gone on cancel rampages and struggle sessions. It's not that they've put me through a relentless struggle session since September without stopping or, you know,

doxed my family and everything else in their wrath. They said, I said, James calls them all woke right, and they decided to prove me wrong by canceling me and struggling me and doxing my family and acting exactly like we all went through in 2015 when you stood up about the pronouns. And so, and that's the thing, Jordan, back then, you stood up and you paid. That was ugly. And you were right. You saw that when they said you will use these literally transgressive pronouns.

Or else. Or else. You said no. And it's like the world lost its mind on you. And it says, looking back, it's almost quaint, but it wasn't quaint to go through. But the thing is, is you were right. And then Peter and Helen and I did the grievance studies papers and we were right. So we were right. I see the same structures, the same patterns, the same behaviors, the same reactions, the same explanations

with slight modifications that's the difference between communism and fascism as modern archetypes. And what I see when I, you know, you can think of those as modern era mythologies for how society is supposed to be organized. And I see the same thing. And the thing is, we were right then and we're right now. Yeah, I've been thinking about it as the hijacking of belief, right? That's a nice phrase. Yeah, because it's a parasite.

Yeah, yeah. And that hijacking of belief is this, just to take it all the way back to the Gnostic thing, that's what the Gnostic cults did before Irenaeus put them down and then Augustine comes along and mentions them all and says there have been 84 heresies or whatever up to this point by the fourth century.

The Gnostic cults did the same thing. They splintered off from the true faith. They came up with the idea that they had secret knowledge, that's the gnosis. But look at what the cults were like, the Manichaean cult. The Manichaean cult is an absolute splitting of the world into total good and evil. It's not us and them, it's us and everybody else against us. And the idea is that the evil is embodied in the world and the good have to slowly work to consume the evil

and turn it to good. And eventually you end up with all good. But this Manichaean battle between good and evil is what Marx codifies on the first page of the Communist Manifesto when he says that in a word what he's talking about, the entirety of the story of history is oppressor versus oppressed. It's a fundamental dualistic metaphysics. There's no unity of society with a kind of melange of different people in different places

working, playing different roles, sliding up and down the ladder. No, there is a fundamental dualism. You might move within each of those, but there's a fundamental dualistic structure and they are in conflict. That's the first line of the Communist Manifesto after the famous preface, the first chapter. The history of man is the history of the conflict of contending class as oppressor and oppressed.

And he says that what it's going to result in is the revolution of society or the common ruin of the contending classes. So either the bottom is going to come up on top and take over, the splinter group is going to replace society itself, or they're going to ruin everything. They'll destroy everything that they can't have. And then we're looking at, you know, beastly behavior.

And I don't mean animals. So do we? Maybe we could lay out some of the behavioral markers so that because we might as well make this concrete. I can tell you what I've observed about the behavior of psychopathic parasites online. OK. Sure.

Maybe if you have five of these, you're one of them. You know what I mean? Yeah, that's often how I die. Anyone alone isn't enough. Right, diagnostic criteria. So, in the comments sections, for example, anonymity is a marker. Use of a transgressive cover name? Often satanic. Often. So, you know, and it's tongue-in-cheek, but no, it's not.

Yeah. Derisive language, right? So that would be language indicative of contempt. Yeah. Contempt's a really toxic emotion, contempt and disgust. Hitler used disgust language to characterize the Jews, not fear language. That's right. And you destroy things you're disgusted by. That's right.

You stay away from things you're afraid of. It says in Mein Kampf, early in the book, in the second chapter, that one of the best moments, he doesn't say it's the best moment of my life, but he realizes, and it's clear that he's very happy about it, was the moment when he realized that the Jew is not a German and the German is not a Jew. That's disgust. Right, right, absolutely, absolutely. They use derisive and contemptuous, what do you call those?

LOL is a good example. Oh yeah, dismissive kind of... Yeah, acronyms. Yeah, acronyms. Now you know there's lulz culture online. Yes, of course. I do it for the lulz. That's a hallmark of sadism.

Now, those people, people who do those things, so those are four or five things, anonymity, pathological, nom de plume, derisive language, and then the use of these contemptuous and cool acronyms. Belittling, they use the word dude, that's a real good marker. Yeah. Or they'll use a derisive nickname to kind of equalize the playing field.

Yeah, I'm Jimmy a lot. You're Jimmy. Yeah. Yeah, right. Diminutive, they'll use a diminutive. Jimmy concepts instead of conceptual James. Right, right, right. That started on the left and now the right uses it. Right, right, right. That started on the left and now the right uses it. Right.

Yeah, yeah. So, so those are markers. What else have I seen? An insane rise in explicit anti-Semitism. And that's been going on for about five years. Open Nazi, and Nazi apology. Yeah, well that's starting to creep in now. Which isn't just the apology too.

It's the transgression. It's the post-meme meant to be funny. So you have plausible deniability or the other social functions of humor come into play, but they'll post the meme of Hitler. Why? Because you're not supposed to. That's why. So you have norms of decency around different things. And one of those norms in, again, mainstream, healthy society has been that we're not going to valorize Nazis.

We're not going to lionize these guys. We're not going to valorize Nazis. We're not going to lionize these guys. And you have, I'm not talking about the historians or whatever else that are coming out and rehashing David Irving or any of that. I'm talking about these, to use the word that's on the internet, shit posters who come and post pictures of Hitler with a smile on his face,

or they're translating his speeches into English and clipping out parts where he's rousing Germany to a cheerful future. Oh, he just loves his country. That's one of the messages they put. They love it. I'm sorry. Read Mein Kampf. Actually read it. He's utterly clear about the point of his state is to preserve the race and the biggest pollution of the race, to preserve it against pollution of inferior races, and the most inferior race is the Jews. Absolutely clear. The demonization is absolutely visible in 25,

when he publishes that way before, they say, well, it took until 38, 39, maybe 42, when Churchill got involved. That's when they had to really start hating the Jews, and known, and that current is all the way back to the beginning. So, this shitposting problem, so that's part of the enabling of the psychopaths by the free social media platforms, right? By the costless social media platforms. Do you have any sense?

So, we're working out ways to identify people. Swarm behavior, by the way, is another one. Another marker. Another marker. So, you'll get one of these derisive replies, and within minutes it'll get 600 likes on it. You don't know how that happened. From an account with 30 followers and your reply somehow gets 600 likes in a minute or two minutes. And then, you know, everybody piles up.

It's like a biblical plague of locusts. Yeah, and then they jump in on you and say, you got ratioed. Of course, a lot of it's bots that people bought. But what they do is they say, my comment was more popular than your comment. Therefore, you're not very interesting and we're very interesting. So we're ascendant. And by the way, that's psychologically really impactful if you don't know what's going on. Yes, definitely.

You feel like the crowd, they tell me this all the time, we're all laughing at you, we're all laughing at you, we're all laughing. Yeah, right. It's very sophisticated psychological torment. Unfortunately for my antagonists. Hallmark of sadism. I understand the game and therefore... Does it affect you?

Only when I'm not prepared for the pathway by which it comes. When I'm aware of it, no. But not at all, except maybe to encourage me. Somebody put up a meme of me the other day, and it shows a guy building a castle standing inside the wall, a big giant guy, and it's me, and there's all these people throwing rocks and it says on the meme, it says, James, when his haters throw rocks at him, and I'm building a castle out of all the stones they throw at me. And so, no, not so much, except they can catch you off guard. They can catch you off guard. And what catches you off guard the most, and this is the power of the struggle session,

what will catch you off guard the most is when one of your friends buys it. They see it and they go with the people that are haranguing you. That's when it'll get you. That's when it'll affect you. So, the proliferation of this kind of pathology seems to be linked to... Another characteristic is the attempt to get people to distance themselves from you. I face that very frequently. You want to get away from him.

He's contaminated. Yeah, well, that's disgust terminology again, right? You're the carrier of something pathological. That's right. Yeah. So, the social media platforms, so Musk's perspective, and Rogan's to some degree too, mine for that matter, is that the best antiseptic is sunlight.

But there might be a flaw in that reasoning, and maybe you can help me think it through. When I'm sitting across from you, I bear the weight of my words, right? It's going to have an impact on the net, but it's also going to impact the relationship I have with you. And so I'm constrained or regulated, I'm regulated in my utterances by consequences. And so there's never been a time really where free speech existed without reputational weight. Now maybe pamphlet, tearing, and that sort of thing, but that's trivial compared to what we have now.

Right. I mean, how many people can you get your pamphlet to, and what sort of effect is that going to have? That was back in the time of writing, but now your pathology can multiply virtually without end. And then I'm thinking, well, maybe it's necessary. I thought for Twitter, for example, that there should be two sections. There should be a section where people's identification is validated

and a section for the anonymous trolls, and that should be demarcated. So you can go visit hell land of trolls if you want, but you know that they're not real people. Now, the problem with that, as far as I can tell, is the digital ID problem. I mean, the net allows people to escape the reputational consequences of their psychopathology, their destructive, sadistic, corrosive, power-mad, hedonistic psychopathology. It's a terrible thing, and people have no idea how dangerous it is. But if you verify IDs electronically, then we walk down the route to Chinese totalitarianism,

something like that as far as I can. And if you read the original documentation, Stanford University has its Digichina project and translates Chinese documents. 2014, they're putting forth a social credit system and they actually explain that the purpose of the social credit system is to achieve a perfect socialism because it's not just

a social control mechanism, it's a Pavlovian training mechanism. Right. Nudging. That's yeah, it's like, uh, your life becomes a video game, nudging you to hold the beliefs that the state wants you to have. Well, the guy who just got the man who just got elected prime minister in Canada, he says two quite stunning things in his book, which no Canadians read, because we'll leave

that lie. 75% of the world's fossil fuels have to stay in the ground. Okay, that's proposition number one, and he's made that a centerpiece of his thinking for 20 years. There's no priority guiding every financial decision by every individual and every corporation that should be prioritized higher than decarbonization. That means every single thing, and then he says, of course, there'll be losers in consequence of that, but it's a price we're willing to pay. We have to pay the sacrifice of others. So this is a man who thinks that net zero is the proper game

and that if you were a moral actor, decarbonization would be your God, right? Regulate every single one of your decisions. Well, out of that comes the kind of pathocracy that you described. It's like, you've seen this already. There's edges appearing. There's credit cards. They were issued in Australia that track your carbon footprint. Right? And at the moment, you're still allowed to spend

on whatever you want, regardless of your- At the moment. At the moment, that's exactly right. And once you're fully trackable, well, then we know what will happen. You know exactly what will happen. That's exactly right. And once you're fully trackable, well then, we know what'll happen. You know exactly what'll happen. You'll be nudged in whatever direction benefits the power-mad Luciferians.

That's exactly what'll happen. It's not just social control, it is social training. It is operant conditioning. I was looking for the word. It's operant conditioning in its most sophisticated form, especially when equipped with the technologies of AI. That's for sure, because the AI systems trained on your purchasing behavior, for example,

will be able to predict your likely behavior with a stellar degree of accuracy. That's right. I mean, the advertisements that you're fed already do that to some degree. That's right. So, the only. I mean, the advertisements that you're fed already do that to some degree. That's right. So I'm, I, the only solution I can think of to this is to, because the digital ID solution seems to be troublesome to say the least means no privacy whatsoever,

forever, fundamentally. Yeah. It's, I guess it's exposing this and hoping that people make wise decisions. I guess that's what you're trying to do with the woke right idea. Yes. Yeah. There are workable activities that could step into play. For example, a lot of times you'll hear, especially libertarians, talk about the revision to the

Smith-Munt Act in 2012, and now our intelligence communities, we know that our social media is awash with propaganda. Well, there are legal constraints that you can put at least on your own government to prevent that. You can take, if you want to have a task force for doing something in terms of, say, national cybersecurity, keeping Russian and Iranian and Qataris and Chinese bots and bad actors, Pakistani, these are where a lot of these bot networks are coming from.

Keeping those influence campaigns, foreign influence campaigns out with a dedicated cyber security project is going to clean up a lot of it. You think the administrators can stay ahead of the bots? I don't think so, actually, so far not yet. I don't know. No, that's another problem, right? Is that the system transforms itself so rapidly that it's very difficult to regulate it.

What I'm thinking is, you know, Trump created a space force because of maybe space war or whatever it's supposed to do, and I'm not quite sure. But this is like, there's, I don't want to make it a branch of the military, but I'm using it as an analogy. I don't know. Maybe it should be a branch of the military. Yeah.

A cyber security or cyber warfare division, an entire branch that is dedicated to that. Because this is a serious problem for, and again, the bigger the country, the more power it wields, the more likely it is to be attacked. Not to be rude to people from Botswana, but there's just not that much incentive to go mess around with their internet. There's a ton of incentive to mess with MAGA, which is informing Trump. Well, we've already tracked, too, some of the groups that I'm working with. Women 18 to 34 have political opinions

that are way off center compared to everyone else. Plus they're dreadfully miserable. Yeah. While they get 80% of their news from TikTok and TikTok is a bought farm fundamentally. And the algorithms are designed to produce exactly the kind of upsetting pathology that characterizes female voters between the ages of 18 to 34.

Well, I mean, this is why woke is so female coded. Everybody kind of wonders what in the world is critical race theory? Why is it so female coded? It's because it all, every bit of what we call woke on the left passed through feminism to mainstream. Yeah. So it was all built off of pathological women trying to figure how to pathologize young women to join their club or cult really. And so it all ended up getting twisted. If you look at communism, that like Soviet-

That's part of that oppressor oppressed narrative too. Soviet communism was not a feminine endeavor, right? Brutal, gun shooting, the whole thing. And there's a lot of things you could say about the snitch culture and all of this, but it's not like what we have now, but the reason is because the ideology passed in order to become viable in our society, to be, to find the receptor sites.

The receptor sites for Marxism in the West were overwhelmingly young white women. And it had to pass through feminism to be able to get the parasite to attach as a mind virus in order to get there, because that's what it was designed to do. On the other hand, therefore, you have young men who've been ravaged. You, I literally, Dave Rubin and I were talking the other day, and he said that you, as an individual, have done

more than, and I believe him, more than any individual on the planet Earth to help young men who've had a hard time through all of this nonsense for the last 20 to 30 years, they need a voice in the wilderness to reach and help and guide them and get them to, you know, clean their room and all of the stuff, you know. And to identify the parasitic predators and keep them at bay.

So what we have now is we had a vulnerability complex that attached to young girls. Now we have another one that's rising in answer that's attaching to young men. So the tragedy for me, and I'm watching this and I get, you know, I talk, I'm integrated with the moms networks of the grassroots moms all over the country, right? And of course these demons have come up with all kinds of salacious rumors to spread with regard to that to discredit me and to remove me from their activity, which are all nonsense. But at any rate, what I'm watching is all these moms, I'm hearing from these moms already, who are telling me, they aren't using this phrasing, this is my phrasing, that by the

grace of God, their daughters didn't get pulled into the trans destruction mania, and now they're having to watch their sons get lured into Nazism. And that's why I'm so worked up about this woke right cult of transgression. I get it. You're a 15-year-old boy, maybe you're a 19-year-old boy, or 25-year-old, maybe you're a 35-year-old who hasn't grown up and got out of his parents' basement, and you think it's funny to post a mustache man meme or two here and there to rile up the libs and the normal people in the left and everybody else.

Plus, you're irritated that your identity has been targeted for 30 years. Yeah, of course. On racial grounds. Just like the way the Germans felt with the imposition of the Treaty of Versailles, they saw it that way, whether we do or not. How the Germans felt about the French and broader Europe

and the rest of their standing in the world. And they were impoverished and they were broken down. It's the same powder keg, or maybe that's not the right word. It's more like a tank of propane, because you're going to pump it up and get it to spray fire when it comes out the other end. Right? It's like a flame thrower. Well, one of the things people can watch for everybody who's watching and listening is

beware of anything that's motivated by resentment. You know, the mere fact that you have had difficulties that are somewhat arbitrary, first of all, doesn't distinguish you from the main run of the human race, but if the motivation stems out of resentment, the probability that something horrible has got a hold of your soul is extremely high. So, I go back to the first thing I said, right? What's woke right? Well, it's woke people who act like, or call themselves conservatives. It's woke people who call themselves conservatives, or right-wing, right?

So, there it is. You just said it. They are people who feel alienated and dispossessed from their heritage, victimized. They're filled with resentment and they channel it through left-wing or right-wing causes. Yeah. You know, that's the story of Cain, eh? It is the story of Cain. Cain's sacrifices are not rewarded. He invites the spirit of resentment into occupy his soul and becomes not only murderous, but the progenitor of genocide

and the precursor to the flood. Right? And the media... It's so interesting, James, because... So, Cain's sacrifices are rejected, and it's a little ambiguous as to why. Yeah. And then he goes to complain to God. And God says, basically, He says, you think you're miserable because you're failing. It's like, you're not.

There's lots of things you could do about failing. If you did well, you would be accepted, right? What you've done is you have allowed something terribly tempting that crouched on your doorstep to enter your house and have its way with you, and that's why you're bitter, resentful and murderous. It has nothing to do with your failure. It's this additional variable which is... Because the thing is, everyone, in a sense, this is true of heroes in mythology,

everyone starts out lowly, everyone starts out dispossessed, everyone starts out oppressed, right? And there's angles of your identity that you can construe as oppressor-oppressed narrative with no problem. If you decide that you've been treated unfairly and now you have a right to resentment and revenge, then, well, then you're the monster that breeds genocide. Yeah, so what does Cain do? He's rejecting the system that he has to succeed in order to be rewarded. He's rejecting... So there's a system out there. There's a Luciferian element there.

And so what does he do, though? He goes and kills his brother. He goes and murders the successful guy. His successful brother. His successful brother. Yeah, exactly. So it's exactly the same thing. A lot of these guys that are pushing the woke right stuff,

and there's nothing wrong with a new character coming on the scene. Every one of us was a new character. I mean, you were doing great work, obviously, and you have a body of work extending well before that as a professional. But then you spoke up in 2015 about that horrific pronouns bill and you sort of became a different monster,

a public intellectual. It's a curse word, I think, but you know what I mean. And this, you know, my favorite moment ever. I was skeptical of you until I watched you talk to Kathy Newman, and then I watched you do the most effective— You should have been skeptical of me to begin with. The most effective judo I've ever seen in a discussion in my entire life. And I said, I watched that. I was going gonna tell everybody how you were wrong. And I watched it and you impressed me.

And I was like, I have to like him now. And so- How annoying is that? Isn't it? Yeah. I'm so sure. No, but, and I think that that's a thing. I don't, I was excited to start learning

as opposed to being annoyed and resentful. I'm like, oh, well I was wrong about this guy, move on. Right, right. But a lot of these fellas that are pushing the Woke Right stuff appeared in the anger and in the repression is the word of 2020, more 2021. They don't have a body of work extending before that. They just kind of came out of the ground. And good, I get it. There was a lot going on. There were people making great commentary about liberty regarding the COVID policies. There were people making great commentary

about the obviously critical race theory, cultural revolution running amok, and the queer theory later. So I'm very grateful to everybody who came along. But these people that have a longer perspective and a deeper body of work, it's hard because- Well, that's a crucial... So that touches on Douglas's point, too, is that to not throw the baby out with the bathwater.

That's right. One of the things... Institutions are corrupt, but due diligence matters. Right, right. What has this person who's saying these things done and to whose benefit is it, is what they're saying? So, you have these pretenders. I think this is... maybe we can end with this at this section. I think what we'll do maybe on the daily wire side is talk about the anti-Semitic

trope, but I'd like to introduce that for a bit. I don't understand it exactly. I don't understand why the woke right for example is particularly capitalizing on Antisemitism do you just think that that's a particular particularly daring and attention-seeking Transgression is I mean is is is they are they proclaiming that no There's no they'll violate something sacred because that's how brave they are? This is a yes and. A yes and. Okay. Yes, it's this transgressive. Also, they know good and damn well that there are certain transgressions you can't come home from. You go too far down that road, there's no way back.

And not because your new friends are going to call you names like a sellout or a cuck or dual loyalties or whatever, there are certain lines you go down and you don't get to come back and they know that, so they get to trap people there. But this, I believe, and we will probably or possibly disagree on this, I think that there are particular malevolent actors that are pushing this who have grander designs than getting clicks, getting an audience, satisfying their own narcissistic urges, transgressing boundaries. I think that there are, and it makes total sense if I were to say China's supporting all of it.

And if I had evidence, you'd believe me. And Iran? Oh, China, Iran, Qatar, Pakistan, like the Arab League, Russia, and the deep state possibly. Trump is a problem to something. We can tell by the way that they've organized the Trump derangement program that's just screwed Canada royally, but has deranged Americans. I have family members I can barely relate with still

because of Trump derangement. I was obviously cast out in disgrace from the last vestiges of the left when I said I was going to vote for Trump and said publicly on a podcast, Make America Great Again, they lost their minds and said, I went crazy. And so Trump is something, right? There is a lot of reasons besides just the fact that he's the sitting president of the United States of America.

He's doing a lot of things to this global order that are disruptive and in a good way, in all likelihood, there's a lot of motivation to take this man down. And if you can fragment his base by getting them to argue about Israel good, Israel bad, that's a deep cut that you've just taken Cloven Maga in half. So all it takes is one event, something that goes down in Israel, and Trump takes a side, takes the Israeli side, and bang, they can pull the thing apart. So it's like a wedge. It's not just what we were saying. It's also a wedge to hammer deeper and deeper and deeper into MAGA, the people who like Israel and the people who don't, or the conservative movement, or America itself, which therefore implicates the left side doing the same exact

thing at the same exact time using the horrible events of October 7th as their pretext. Well, we'll continue this on the Daily Wire side and that way we can attract the maximum number of commentators who say that the reason we saved the discussion of anti-Semitism for the Daily Wire section is because I'm under the thumb of Ben Shapiro and the Zionists. Oh, me too, don't worry. I don't have Ben Shapiro or the Zionists. I'm Zionist, I'm paid by Israel.

I've turned out the lights for them on Friday for years. Don't worry. I see, okay. Well, apparently we're in the same club. Yeah. All right, good talking to you, sir. Thanks very much for coming in today. Thank you to all of you who are watching

and listening and to the film crew here in Scottsdale for this, making this completely preposterous conversation possible and helping us broadcast the word to be awake and be careful who you're listening to and why you're listening and what spirit possesses you while you're listening. And beware of resentment, boys and girls, that everyone in hell is resentful. So good to talk to you, sir. You too, Jordan.