Will Cain Country - Getting You On The Right Track in 2025 w/ Dr. Jordan Peterson

Episode Date: December 31, 2024

On this encore episode, Will and Psychologist, Dr. Jordan Peterson have an honest and candid conversation about education, Dr. Peterson's relationship with faith and the potential for societal upheaval in the West. Tell Will what you thought about this podcast by emailing [e-mail] Subscribe to The Will Cain Show on YouTube here: Watch The Will Cain Show! Follow Will on Twitter: @WillCain Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

For a limited time at McDonald's, enjoy the tasty breakfast trio. Your choice of chicken or sausage McMuffin or McGrittles with a hash brown and a small iced coffee for $5.5 plus tax. Available until 11 a.m. at participating McDonald's restaurants. Price excludes flavored iced coffee and delivery. Happy New Year's Eve. It's Wilcane from the Will. Will Kane show. Normally streaming live every Monday through Thursday at 12 o'clock Eastern time at Fox News.com on the Fox News YouTube channel on the Fox News Facebook page. Always available

by just heading over to Spotify or Apple and hitting subscribe. As we approach New Year's Eve, it's no better time to take inventory. How you doing in your life? You got it on the right track? Somebody that can make sure to help you take inventory and make sure you're on the right track is Dr. Jordan Peterson. He visited with us a little bit earlier this year on the Will We thought we'd perfectly revisit that here on New Year's Eve. Here is Dr. Jordan Peterson. He is a best-selling author, most notably, of the 12 Rules for Life. He has launched the Peterson Academy, which is a revolution in education.

He's soon going on tour with We Who Wrestle with God. It is Dr. Jordan Peterson. Jordan, it's great to have you on the Will Kane Show. Hey, thanks very much for the invitation. Yeah, I've been a big fan. I hope I can call you Jordan. I don't have to say Dr. Peterson throughout the entire program, not to minimize your esteem, but it's fewer words.

I wonder, you know, Dr. Peterson, as you look last night, to the extent that you pay attention to American politics, at the results of the Iowa caucus, one of the things that stood out to me was that 36% of Republican caucus goers in Iowa wanted, they said, a total upheaval in America. American government. Something like over 50% wanted substantial change. Now set aside what that means about Donald Trump versus Nikki Haley. What it says is something, although in a slice of America, Republican Party, Iowa, but it's something there's an undercurrent clearly that is

dissatisfied with the American governance and maybe the American society at large. And it made me think of you and something you've talked about when it comes to young men that if you can't win at the game of life, marriage, career, success. Young men have a tendency to flip over the game board. I'm not sure that's an exact quote of yours, but it's of essence. And I think about the American people flipping over the game board and they want upheaval. What do you think about this result from Iowa? Well, we do build a certain degree of upheaval, necessary upheaval into the political system with elections. Now, election is a tamed revolution. And then you could imagine that there are elections of different depths.

You know, you were just speaking about the monoculture, and there's a hierarchy of cultures. You were talking about the fact that you wanted sports kept in its proper place, right? So it allows people to be tribal under control and to have the excitement of group identification and the excitement of groups driving towards a goal without that being associated with too much destruction and mayhem. capitalism by the way does the same thing very very effectively and this is one of the things that the leftists don't give it credit for you know capitalism allows warlike men to to establish domains of competence and influence that are of general productive utility to the rest of society instead of tyrannies that dominate and hurt now you know one can shade into the other and it's useful to keep that in mind but it's necessary to have those sorts of impulses, it's necessary to find a place where they can be allowed proper expression. And sports certainly does that. Now, with regards to the revolutionary requirement

that's part and parcel of this current election, and also, I think, part of what brought Trump to prominence to begin with is there's a sense that's deeply rooted in America and in the West more broadly, that something fundamental has gone wrong. And I think the culture war, is a closer approximation of that which has gone wrong. And I think that in turn is associated with this insistence that our future is going to be a, let's say, an environmental catastrophe, that it's a kind of hell that we need to avoid

and that the way we need to avoid that clear and present danger is by essentially ceasing our forward striving, quelling our ambition, eradicating the patriarchy, returning to a simpler way of life, et cetera, et cetera. It's a vision that's predicated on a false apocalypse, and it's very much antithetical to the American spirit in particular, because it's an entrepreneurial and outward moving spirit, and it's certainly something antithetical to the spirit

that made the West great as well, and I believe that people can feel that in their bones. We're replacing the primacy of the human, spirit with something like a terrified worship of the natural order. It's something like that. And this is a very, very, very bad idea. And the working class people in particular who support Trump, the so-called Maga deplorable. So they feel this in their bones, just like the farmers do in Germany and in the Netherlands. And with all these popular uprisings that you see in Europe, It's a desire of the populace to shrug off this appalling apocalyptic narrative that's allied with a tyrannical demand that's, you know, nipping more than nipping at our heels.

I was just talking to a Dutch commentator, Ava Vladingerbrook and a German farmer yesterday on my podcast. That'll be released soon. And, you know, there were, well, literally hundreds of thousands of working class people, essentially. revolting in Germany. They've been doing it for a number of years, but this all culminated in these massive demonstrations that engulfed Germany and virtually brought it to a halt in the last two weeks. Well, you're seeing a reflection of that in the United States. So that's where we're at, man. And Trump signifies, Trump's the proverbial bowl in the China shop, you know, although interestingly enough, his presidency wasn't characterized by that kind of, you know, rampage

rampaging destruction that his most fervent and paranoid opponents feared might typify his leadership. I'm glad you brought up the Netherlands in Germany because I wanted to ask you how you analyze what's happening. And I don't think it's simply, as you point out, something that's happening in America. It's happening perhaps across Western civilization. And it's not easily analyzed through the framework or not accurately analyzed through the framework of left, right. I mean, that's the polar dichotomy we've been taught for decades in the United States of America, that it's left versus right. It's clearly not left versus right, meaning I don't think you can put many of our modern day issues into that at least historical or traditional definitional spectrum. Since when has the left been so antithetical to free speech, for example. But I don't know, does it fit into Marxist versus Western civilization viewpoint of the world? Does it fit into an elitist versus populist framework? view of the world? What is it that you can, the framework you look at to say, yes, this is why this is happening in Germany, in the Netherlands, in the United States of America? Well, I would say

that the Marxist versus capitalist dichotomy and struggle was a reflection of an even deeper struggle that's playing itself out right now. So, for example, the fundamental narrative of the Marxist ideologues was victim, victimizer, analyzed along the economic. economic dimension, right? There were proletariat and bourgeoisie. The essential Marxist insistence was that you could categorize all human social interactions as fundamentally economic, and then you could cast people into two classes, the oppressed and the oppressor. And that was all economic. What's happened with the postmodernists, and that's the place of the new radical left, is that that victim-victimizer narrative, which is the core element of

Marxism, but deeper than Marxism itself. It's a very, very old story. It goes all the way back to Kane and Abel. That's been transformed sort of multidimensionally. So now we have victim and victimizer along virtually every dimension that you can possibly conceptualize, sex, gender, ethnicity, ability, while the postmodernist just keep multiplying the dimensions of oppression. And so the basic idea there is that the fundamental human story is one whereby those who use power to clamber to the top on the corpses of those they are dominating have stolen everything of value from the oppressed class and that a revolution has to occur to redistribute those perloined resources. Now you can see a parallel there with the Marxist revolutionary rhetoric and that's

fighting against another story which really typifies the United States, which is something like hard work, honesty, merit, and productive generosity can produce more than enough wealth for everyone. The best way to have that occur is to allow the free market to operate according to its dictates of distributed decision making and let the cream rise to the top. And maybe as well, well doing that to produce a multitude of different games so that people can find their place. Now, I don't think there's ever been a society on the face of the planet that's actually put that into practice more successfully and continues to do so than the United States. You know, there are contenders and competitors on that front,

particularly in Europe and arguably in Canada, although increasingly less so. But that's the basic war. And so, you know, the Marxists and the postmodernists, they stumbled onto the that human beings are motivated by a story, that we see the world through a story, that we live in a story, but the story they provided was essentially one of power and exploitation. Now, that's a powerful story because when our institutions become corrupt, they do become corrupt in the direction of power. But that doesn't mean that the fundamental human story, and certainly not the story of the United States, you know, as imperialist, colonizing prejudiced oppressor.

There, of course, the America, like every country, has deviated in that direction from time to time, but deviance and central attribute are not the same thing. I think you have to be a damn fool to look at the United States, especially the United States, that eradicated slavery, right? One of the scourges of humanity since the dawn of time, and to describe the country itself as nothing but a cesspool of historical oppression. and, you know, a nightmare of tyranny. I mean, compared to what here exactly?

And so these are the forces that are moving underneath the surface right now. And I think the reason they've got everyone in their grip is in part because our technological progress now is so rapid that these more archetypal processes are becoming more and more tangible. And everyone can feel that, that the tectonic plates are moving and shifting. and Trump is a manifestation of that as are the protests throughout Europe and the trucker convoy in Canada.

Let's take a quick break, but continue this conversation with Dr. Jordan Peterson on The Wilcane Show. Listen to the all-new Brett Bear podcast featuring Common Ground, in-depth talks with lawmakers from opposite sides of the aisle, along with all your Brett Bear favorites,

like his All-Star panel and much more. Available now at foxnewspodcast.com or wherever you get your podcasts. Welcome back to the Will Kane Show. We're still hanging out with Dr. Jordan Peterson. I don't want to over-psychologize everything in our culture. Sometimes people just like something, and that's okay. But I also think everything is worthy of some analysis as to why we like something.

You know, and I have this, and I don't even know I've rationalized it to myself, if I have this natural aversion to the idea of the monoculture, I like regionalism, I like distinct flavors. And so I think that's part of what I don't like about, you know, the force-feeding of Taylor Swift. Now, from what, look, Taylor Swift may disagree with me to the extent that she understands our disagreements on politics, but that's not important to me. I'm used to celebrities who disagree with me. It's sort of this sense that I'm being force-fed part of the monoculture. And I'm curious what your thoughts are. But, you know, Canada is not different, I imagine.

You talk about the United States. We're not just in a successful experiment in governance. We're a successful experiment in a culture that is risk-tolerant, distinct, trial-and-erer, and entrepreneurialism, and Protestant work ethic. And all of these things come together and many other complicating factors that have made this a successful experiment. And I just, I don't know, Dr. Peterson, I just have this aversion, not specifically to Taylor Swift, but to the idea that everything has to be the same, the monoculture. Yeah, well, you're, okay, you're pointing to a very important realization there, which is that tyrant and slave is a bad model for governance. And that's what happens when everything collapses into a monoculture. The monoculture that you're afraid of is essentially the tyranny of the homogenous state.

And part of the reason that your country works is because it was set up with a series of bulwarks against that. So the division of powers, for example, is a bulwark against that overly unified tyranny, as is the federal system itself. The states, you have your domain of autonomy as a citizen. You and your wife have your domain of autonomy and responsibility as a family or as a couple. The same applies to your family and then to your local community and then to your state and then to the federal government. And the principle is, too, that those at the top, at the federal top, let's say, they only have the power and the responsibility that's being granted to them because it couldn't be delivered at any of those lower levels.

And so the impetus for you opposing the tyranny of the monoculture is your implicit understanding of the necessity of a system of distributed responsibility. That's everything in its proper place. Right. Yes. And so that's a, that's a crucially, that's a crucially important realization. And it's also the kind of thing that is making people en masse leery about our descent into a kind of gigantism, right? You see this, I suppose that's best exemplified by what's happening in China.

And it's part of our fear of fascism. And so that would be for us right now, that would be a coalition between, let's say, gigantic media sources, artificial intelligence production companies, the big social media corporations and government. We saw plenty of that during the COVID era, for example. And so I would say that that concern you have is the rebellion of your spirit as an independent American against this looming homogenous gigantism. And that's probably become more of a threat in the last 20 years because we're now so tied together. You know, and we even have models of brain function that reflect this. Every neuron in your brain is not communicating with every other neuron.

It communicates in a hierarchy of dependency. Every aggregation of neurons has its independent responsibility, and then that aggregate communicates with other aggregates all the way up to the top. It's the system, a system like that technically is described as subsidiary. And so, and this is a very ancient idea too. So this goes all the way back to the, to the book of Exodus, when Moses is trying to figure out what structure of government is antithetical to tyranny and slavery, his father-in-law teaches him about a subsidiary system.

And what Moses does is divide the Israelites into groups. Groups of 10, they elect a leader. The 10 leaders get together. They elect a leader. The leaders of the leaders get together. They elect a leader all the way up to groups of 10,000. At the top of that is Moses, who now judges only those cases that get up to him, and on top of Moses is God. And that's a model for a structure of governance that's neither tyranny at the top.

It's not tyranny at the top, nor slaves at the bottom. A system of distributed responsibility with every level taking on. its appropriate burden and opportunity. Right. And America is set up exactly like that. It's also what makes it so incredibly robust. Let's take a quick break, but continue this conversation

with Dr. Jordan Peterson on the world. Hey, I'm Trey Gowdy host of the Trey Gowdy podcast. I hope you will join me every Tuesday and Thursday as we navigate life together and hopefully find ourselves a little bit better on the other side. Listen and follow now at Fox Newspodcast.com. Welcome back to the wheel game show. We're still hanging out with Dr. Jordan Peterson.

And you've got this tour, which is, I think, very provocatively titled, We Who Rustle with God. A friend of mine, big fan of yours, is very fascinated in your Exodus series as well. I can't say that I'm well-versed in every chapter of your career to say this is something new, but it does seem of interest to you over the last several years, and that is God, that is Christianity, that is faith. What is your relationship with faith? Well, I did a series of lectures on Genesis in 2017, and they proved very popular. Certainly the initial lecture in that series, which is two hours on the first sentence of Genesis, is that's the most viewed lecture offering I ever produced on YouTube.

And I've been analyzing religious themes as a psychologist for, well, my whole career, partly because I've always been concerned with the issue of evil. And so, you know, I have faith in the reality of evil. And the reason for that is I spent a lot of time studying the disintegration into absolute hell of totalitarian states and trying to puzzle that through psychologically. You know, we tend to think of totalitarian states as top-down tyrannies, let's say, and in some sense they are those terrible, homogenous, gigantic monsters. But tyrannies occur when every single individual has sold their soul to the devil, so to speak, because in a tyranny, in a totalitarian. tyranny, the God is the lie. Everyone in a totalitarian state lies about absolutely everything they say and do 100% of the time. And the way that typical individual contributes to that totalitarian proclivity is to be possessed by the spirit of the lie. And whatever is properly put in the transcendent place is the opposite of that. It's truth, for example, and it's probably truth in the spirit of productive generosity and love, something like that. And I'm trying to lay out these ideas in a manner that makes them entirely comprehensible.

And I'm looking at the deepest stories that mankind has told, and certainly in the West, the deepest stories, and that would be the stories upon which most depends are for better or worse, the biblical stories. So the book I'm writing, which is just about finished, there's going to be two books, actually. It's called We Who Wrestle with God. And it's an analysis, a continuing analysis of the narratives upon which our values are predicated and an attempt to explain them so that they're not stories that you just hear or stories that you just have a kind of blind faith in.

I don't think we have the luxury of blind faith. anymore. We have to understand, just like you want to understand, for example, why you have this antipathy towards monoculture, and we're interested in the explanation. We have to understand why we predicated our culture on the stories that are at its base. Now, that's partly because we have to decide if those stories still have any validity. The Marxists and the postmodern radicals will claim up and down that there isn't anything in our ancient stories. apart from oppressive patriarchy and exclusion, for example, and that a revolution in conceptualization, in entertainment,

in story, in politics, in governance, in business is absolutely required. And, you know, I've watched how revolutions go wrong for a very long time, and you touch what's at the base of your culture at your great peril. And again, part of the reason that everyone, especially in the working class, is inclined now in a revolutionary manner is because they can feel that we're, that the political is treading on the ground of the sacred, right? That's a very bad idea. You don't want to make the political sacred. That's almost the definition of a totalitarian state. It's certainly the definition of a state where no one any any longer has any right to free speech. I almost feel like that barn door has been opened. The voting booth has become the chapel.

It is your projection of virtue, and politics is sacred. It feels like we're there. You know, I'm curious, you know, I'll tell you, Dr. Peterson, I'll tell the audience, you know, various times in my life I've gone through, you know, someone who would be, well, no, no, even now I would be someone who should have that title of your book and your soon-to-come tour series, we who wrestle with God as applicable to my life. but there have been other times, there have been times in my life where I have allowed probably intellectualism to not serve, to not be accompanied by enough humility.

And I have tried, and I think I've successfully tried, not that there's a finish line, but I've tried to humble myself, and I think I've gravitated much more towards faith. What I'm curious about is you have a very intellectual approach to the role of morality, the existence of evil, and the value of various religions and specifically Christianity. I'm curious, though, after all of your studies and your intellectual analysis of it, are you a believer? People ask me that question all the time, but see, it's not, people think that's a straightforward question, but it's not, because belief makes itself manifest in many ways. What's the biblical injunction? By their fruits, you will know them. Right. Well, that's the hallmark of the evaluation of belief.

What does someone do? And if you have any sense, you let people, answer that question themselves as a consequence of their observation of your behavior. You know, who are you to proclaim your fealty to God? You know, you said that you're working

on your humility. Well, I'm not going to put myself forward as a standard bearer for a divinity that who's, what would you say, whose injunctions I'm woefully incapable of carrying out. I'll do my

best as I move forward. And that's sufficient. And I don't want to proclaim any moral virtue in faith. And I certainly don't want to do that publicly. And that's part of it too, isn't it? Because the other thing you're not supposed to do is pray in public or take God's name in vain. And those are the same things. And when we talk about sacred matters, we shouldn't do that casually.

So it isn't even obvious to me. And I don't mean this in any manner that's disrespectful to you, is that you ask such questions at your peril. The practical question I'd love to ask you is you now have the Peterson Academy, which you're looking to reduce the cost of education by something like 90, 95 percent, an online course for education. I have teenage boys. I would hope as we air this live and on demand on YouTube, this also reaches young men who are making choices in their life. The practical question I would ask you is you've spent your life as a professor, you have ushered a daughter at least through the life choices of an education. what would you do now? Would you say, hey, yes, it's a worthwhile idea to pay for a higher education?

And we could do specifics, I mean, Harvard, Ivy League, or even state colleges, all of which, by the way, to some extent, have been co-opted by the framework we discussed at the beginning of this conversation. Would you send your kids to college? Well, I think Harvard, MIT, and UPenn showed their true colors in the last month. So we can let people draw their own conclusion about that. I think they've raped their own brand just like Disney. I think they were that those institutions have been invaded by the ideologues

who are capitalizing on a hundred years of virtuous brand development and that they're going to raise it to the ground if they haven't already. We wouldn't be building Peterson Academy if we didn't think that there was a need and a desperate need for alternatives to education. I'm also working on an education app with my son called essay, which teaches people to think and to write. And those are the same thing, by the way. And we're also dead serious about that. And what I would say to young men is try to find out what you're interested in, try to find out what your conscience compels you to stop doing,

try to attend to both of those, and then make your way forward. Now, are there courses at universities that are still worth taking? Yes, but you're going to have to seek them out with great care. Are there educational institutions that are still valid? Yes, but again, you have to pay attention. Hillsdale, for example, is an exemplar of an educational institution that hasn't lost its way. Are the large-scale institutions of education infiltrated by this post-modernist victim-victimizer narrative? Absolutely.

as has been, as I said, made dreadfully clear in the last month to anyone who's paying attention, I wouldn't counsel my children to put themselves a quarter of a million dollars in debt and to waste four of the most promising years of their life, pursuing the opportunity to become ideologically addled and intellectually prideful. Now, you might, if your feet were on the ground and your head was properly oriented towards the sky, be able to enter an institution like that and still derive some residual value. But it's very difficult when the entire reigning ideology is something like one unholy mishmash of hedonistic whim and the desire for power. You could throw some resentment in there, too, just for good measure.

Not good. We're hoping with Peterson Academy to bring professors who are staying in their bailiwick and concentrating on what they understand and who love it. to the attention of as many people as we possibly can at the lowest possible price. And we have a very good stable of professors already at hand, let's say. You know, I'm sure that to be the case. You know, and I am rooting for you to revolutionize education as I am the University of Austin or Hillsdale or any other to do so.

But it seems to me there's two great challenges, Dr. Peterson, to overcome. I'm going to ask you about both of them separately. First is just inertia. You know, there's a reputational. long tail to Harvard to the University of Texas to to the University of South Carolina that that is just it works you know you send your kid to college and it comes with the presumption of it puts him a step forward in life and even though Harvard or somebody like that is destroying that reputation to your point I think it has a long tail it's a it's a melting glacier

so that's that's a that's a level of inertia that's hard to overcome and then the other thing quite honestly I know sometimes people people kind of wave their hand at me and maybe it's where I'm from. I'm from Texas. But culturally, the social presumption is this is where you go. This is where you find your life friends. This is maybe where you find your wife. This is where you find what you root for on Saturdays for the rest of your life in college football, which is a very powerful marketing mechanism, very powerful. And I think those are huge hurdles that as someone who would root for you would say, how do you overcome those hurdles? Although, you know, those are great questions and there are things we've wrestled with. I mean, first of all, this is a very tough nut to crack

trying to produce an alternative to the higher education system. And the probability that we'll get at 100% right is very low, although I think our initial offerings will be very good. The universe, it's not obvious what a university does. It's easy to reduce it to courses, professors, lectures, and exams. But that's probably, as you point out, at least implicitly, only about 10 or 15% of what a university does. It also brings together, in principle,

highly qualified and academically oriented students to meet one another in their domains of interest, to foster friendships and to find potential mates. And that might be the 90% of the offering. It truly could be, especially if you add to that, the opportunity to apprentice with a, with someone who's truly skilled.

Let's take a quick break, but continue this conversation with Dr. Jordan Peterson on The Wilcane Show. The Wilcane Show. This is Jimmy Phala, inviting you to join me for Fox Across America, where we'll discuss every single one of the Democrats' dumb ideas. Just kidding. It's only a three-hour show. Listen live at noon Eastern or get the podcast at foxacrossamerica.com. Welcome back to The Wilcane Show.

We're still hanging out with Dr. Jordan Peterson. The last place I wanted to go with you, Dr. Peterson, was I didn't want to end on disagreement, but I want to explore one of the few areas I've come across in following your work where I've felt some level of disagreement. You obviously have expressed, and by the way, have suffered the slings and arrow of championing free speech throughout your career. It's what originally put you in the public's mind. free speech. But I've been a little surprised at times in, I think basically where I've seen you on your account on X, you seem to have a real aversion to anonymous speech. And look, we all do from an individual and cultural perspective. There's a style of manhood that's like put your name on

it. If you have something to say, say it with your chest and put your name on it. But as a practical matter, and certainly as a political matter, anonymous speech has been invaluable to our democracy, to our, I hate to use that term, to our republic, invaluable to society building. Where are you on anonymous speech? Well, first of all, I've never claimed that anonymous speech in any sense should be forbidden. If people want to speak anonymously, they have the right to do that. What I've observed is that for every one person who uses anonymous speech to be the heroic whistleblower, there are literally 999 who use it to further a narcissistic, psychopathic, and Machiavellian orientation. And it pollutes the social discourse

in a terrible way, and it exaggerates the degree of polarization. And so, as I said, if you're using your anonymity to allow yourself to speak the responsible truth while shielding the people you love from the potentially cataclysmic immediate consequences, that's one thing. But if you're the typical troll who's doing nothing but doing that to cause trouble, and that's the LOL culture, right, the lulls culture, which is essentially a sadistic culture, and I mean explicitly so, then your behavior is utterly inexcusable, and it is definitely polluting the social environment. And not in a trivial way.

Look, in face-to-face communication, everyone is held responsible for their utterances. Now, if you eradicate that level of responsibility, you do provide people with the shield of anonymity, but you also provide them with the opportunity for the grossest of irresponsibilities. And we know from the psychological literature, like this is already well documented, that the typical anonymous troll has dark tetrad personality characteristics. Narcissistic, which means wanting attention without doing anything to deserve it. Machiavellian, which means willing to manipulate people for their own selfish ends. Psychopathic, which means predatory and parasitical.

And this was added later out of necessity, sadistic. Well, anonymity allows for the expression of all those traits as well. And if enough people are expressing that element of themselves, we're going to shake the culture to its foundations. You know, part of the reason we feel so polarized is because people, especially the anonymous troll types, are radically careless with the expression of their opinions. Now, that doesn't mean, like I'm perfectly aware

that anonymity is necessary. I'm certainly no standard bearer, let's say, for universal digital identification. I believe we should be able to have some privacy from the reach of the authorities, whether they happen to be digital or governmental, but I can tell you what I've observed online. And it is exactly this, that for every anonymous hero, there are 99 narcissistic psychopaths. So, no doubt. That's obviously, that's an accurate analysis. Yeah, that's an accurate analysis of our culture. Unfortunately, I think it is, and you're not advocating

for prohibition, but it's a price we have to pay for now, I think, in order for the exchange. of free expression. Dr. Peterson, first, everyone can check out your tour, We Who Ressel with God. They should check out the Peterson Academy. It is online. I really appreciate this conversation. It's been invaluable to me, and I hope to many people listening as well. Thank you so much, Dr. Peterson. Thank you very much for the invitation and for your thoughts, yeah. There you go. I hope you enjoyed that conversation with Dr. Jordan Peterson. Have a safe and happy New Year. We'll see you again in 2025. Listen ad-free with a Fox News podcast plus subscription on Apple Podcasts

and Amazon Prime members, you can listen to this show, ad-free on the Amazon music app. I'm Janice Dean. Join me every Sunday as I focus on stories of hope and people who are truly rays of sunshine in their community and across the world. Listen and follow now at foxnewspodcast.com