#0025 - Jordan Peterson

If you thought goldenly breaded McDonald's chicken couldn't get more golden, think Kohler!

Because new, sweet, and smoky special edition gold sauce is here.

Made for your chicken favorites.

At participating McDonald's for a limited time.

Don't miss the EV lease incentive ending soon.

And now, well-qualified current FCA lessees get an ultra-low mileage lease on the 2025 Jeep Rango Sport S4xE for $189 a month for 24 months with $3,079 due at signing.

Tax, title, license extra.

No security deposit required.

Call 1-888-925-G for details.

Requires dealer contribution and lease through Stellantis Financial.

Extra charge for miles over 10,000.

Current vehicle must be registered to consumer 30 days prior to lease.

Includes 7,500 EV cap cost reduction.

Not all customers will qualify.

Residency restrictions apply.

Take delivery by 9:30.

Jeep is a registered trademark.

On this episode, we cover the Joe Rogan Experience 2308

with guest Jordan Peterson.

The No Rogan Experience starts now.

Welcome back to the show.

This is a show where two podcasters with no previous Rogan experience get to know Joe Rogan.

It's a show for those who are curious about Joe Rogan, his guests, and their claims, as well as anyone.

who wants to understand Joe's ever-growing media influence.

I'm Cecil Cicarello, joined by Michael Marshall, and today we're going going to be covering Joe's April 2025 interview with Jordan Peterson, which has been viewed 4 million times to date on YouTube alone.

Hey, Marsh, how did Joe introduce Jordan in the show notes?

Yeah, according to the show notes, Jordan Peterson is a clinical psychologist, co-founder of the educational platform Peterson Academy, host of the Jordan B.

Peterson podcast, and the author of several best-selling books.

His most recent title is We We Who Wrestle with God, Perceptions of the Divine.

Wow.

Is there anything else we should know about?

I think so.

I think so.

So Jordan Peterson was a Canadian college professor who completely shot to the headline, shot to fame in 2016 for opposing Bill C-16, which was a Canadian bill that criminalized hate speech against trans people.

He argued that doing so would constitute

governmently compelled free speech and therefore amounted to essentially thought crime laws.

And he became an international superstar for saying that he was willing to go to prison over his beliefs that he shouldn't have to use somebody's preferred pronouns.

Even though, as many legal scholars have pointed out, Need pointed out at the time, pronoun use or misuse would never actually meet the threshold for hate speech under the law, and therefore a jail term was never going to be on the cards.

And the only way he could get a jail term is if he was deemed to be discriminatory based on gender and then lost a tribunal investigation and then was imposed a fine that he then refused to pay and therefore could be jailed as contempt of court but nothing to do with the pronoun misuse just purely contempt of court none of that stopped jordan from being inducted into the intellectual dark web as a warrior for free speech and embraced by the anti-woke intelligentsia and praised as a world leading public intellectual so he toured with atheist luminaries like richard Dawkins and Sam Harris.

Then he wrote the books 12 Rules for Life and 12 More Rules for Life.

Those were international bestsellers.

They did one book that's 24 Rules of Life.

Why do you, yeah, I don't even know.

Okay.

I wonder if there's a third in the series coming.

Who knows?

Who knows?

But these books, although being international bestsellers, they attracted criticism for obscuring what was fairly standard self-help ideology behind verbose and overly cerebral illusions and imagery, and then for using his trademark linguistic overcomplexity, which we will hear today, to disguise what was a pretty traditional conservative Christian worldview.

Okay, and on this show, what did they talk about?

The Bible.

At almost every possible opportunity and quite a few seemingly impossible opportunities.

The Bible came up a lot, as did political centrism, UFC fighters, babies, snakes, how the nurturing instinct makes women weak and gullible, Jordan's new unaccredited online college, the tyranny of 20 mile-an-hour zones in the UK, the appeal of Andrew Tate, and the victimhood of Jordan's friend and noted rapist, Russell Brand.

Noted, alleged rapist.

Sorry, I should say.

Charged with rape.

Charged with rape.

I just, let's be very clear.

Who knows?

He might be innocent, and everything he's ever said

may just be.

No idea.

We should keep an open mind.

All right.

Before we get to our main event, we want to say thanks to our Area 51 all access past patrons at Stargazer97, Dr.

Messi Andy, Scott Laird, Dahlene, Stone Banana, Laura Williams, No, Not That One, the Other One, Definitely Not an AI Overlord, 11 Gruthius, Chonky Cat in Chicago has a full belly.

Am I Robot Captcha says no, but maintenance records say yes.

Fred R.

Gruthius, Martin Fidel, Alfred at Blue Ridge, True Crime on Substack, KTA, the Fallacious Trump podcast, and don't thank me, your show is just worth the investment.

They subscribe to patreon.com slash no Rogan.

You can do that too.

All patrons get early access to episodes, a special patron-only bonus segment each week.

And this week, we're going to talk about George Floyd, Canada, and the Peterson Academy.

Check it out, patreon.com/slash no Rogan.

But for now, our main event.

It's time.

Well,

it's complicated.

Huge thank you to this week's veteran voice of the podcast.

That was not Jordan Peterson.

That was Jonathan Jerry announcing our main event.

Remember that you too can be on the show by sending a recording of you giving us your best rendition of It's Time.

Send that to no noroganpod at gmail.com as well as how you'd like to be credited.

All right.

So the beginning segment here is going to be talking a lot about Christianity and sort of trying to insert that whenever he could into the dialogue.

So we're going to be talking about his Christian views and his conservative views that keep seeping in as he

pontificates to Joe.

So we're going to start early in the show.

This is coming off the end of a conversation talking about

love and marriage and young men and their direction in the world.

And he starts talking about family.

That would be another reason why the family with children is the foundation of the community.

It has to be the foundation of the community.

I mean, it's kind of obvious from a biological perspective, I'd say no children, no community.

But there's no reason to assume that you wouldn't get radically better at something with necessity and practice.

And if you're practicing loving your infant and your child, well, why wouldn't that generalize?

So Jordan seems to want to shift everything he can towards justifying a muclear family setup.

So he keeps doing these little crowbars throughout the conversation.

He's talking about how you get better at love if you're around children because you get the opportunity to practice love for children if you're in this kind of little family state.

But if he's right that practicing love generally is a good thing and it will generally generalize, the more you do it, the better you'll get at it.

Wouldn't that also be the same for child-free couples that love each other?

Yeah.

Or for poly people who have multiple partners, they're practicing lots of love with lots of different people.

Yeah.

And so if it was really just about getting practice at love and affection, the only reason that would lead to the assumption of requiring children to be there for that to work would be if you went in with that assumption to begin with.

He's also in this,

there's in this lead up, he sort of decries birth control a little bit.

He He starts bagging on birth control as if as it's like a societal negative.

And then he also talks about how there's a study that religious couples are out there just banging away on the drum.

They're just going at it.

He says that more, like essentially saying what seems to me a comment to the young men listening that religious people are having more sex.

Maybe that might be a reason to do something like this.

And they're also, in his eyes, procreating more.

And it sounds like, I mean, really sounds like the book, the 2025 book, Project 2025 that we read about procreating and about Christian nationalism.

A lot of this is sort of seeping through here.

And I also want to point out just a real simple comment here.

There's a lot of people who become parents and they don't get any better at loving.

They get bad.

They're bad at it.

They're just real bad at it.

And some of those people have a lot of kids and they're also real, real bad at it.

So just because you have a kid doesn't mean you get better at something or you practice it more or any of the things that he's saying.

It just, what he's saying doesn't follow in any way.

Yeah, no, absolutely right.

All right.

Now we're going to talk about a organization that I guess he helped create called the Alliance for Responsible Citizenship.

So, okay, so that's an interesting point there, too, that issue of control and fear.

You know, I started this.

I was part of a group that started this organization in the UK called the Alliance for Responsible Citizenship.

We had our second convention in November, which went very nicely, by the way.

So, you're doing like a positive counter to the world economic?

Yeah, well, we have some rules.

And one rule is you don't use force or fear, right?

Use invitation.

So, can I tell you a story about this?

Please do.

Please do.

A lot of mmms this episode, by the way.

There's going to be a whole bunch of grunts as we work our way through.

Before I let you go on this

ARC group, I want to remind everybody that Joe endorsed a political party that literally ran on fear.

Now, this conversation leading up to this is fear as a coercion technique.

They're talking about how these political parties and these awful people who run the government, et cetera, they use fear to try to scare you.

Now, they're using fear in the sense that it's climate change.

They're trying to scare you about climate change, and you shouldn't listen to them because we're talking about you should be invited instead of being afraid, essentially, is what he's saying.

But Joe endorsed a guy who had the people at posters at the

Republican convention that said mass deportation now on them.

They kept on bringing immigrant crime up, how immigrants are going to steal your jobs and your tax money.

They said that the people of Springfield, Ohio are eating cats and dogs.

So let, you know, this is one of those things, these moments of where they're so myopic.

They're looking at one thing and they're not paying attention to anything that's happening on the side that they are both endorsing.

Yeah, I think that's fair.

And it's worth taking a look at what the Alliance for Responsible Citizenship is, because Joe paints it while talking to Jordan here as a positive counter to the World Economic Forum.

And okay, if that's the case, what did they talk about at the ARC?

Well, there's a few articles from journalists who actually went to the ARC.

There's one from the Financial Times who report on what they saw there.

And according to the Financial Times, the theme of the first day was a Western civilization in decline, ranging from the warnings over the decline of Europe's industry to the failures of the British health system and railway, many of the solutions for the renewal of civilization appeared to come from a return to Christian beliefs and the importance of traditional heterosexual family values.

Jordan Peterson, the right-wing Canadian psychologist and commentator, described homosexuality at the ARC as a deviation, calling stable, committed, heterosexual, child-centered monogamy the fundamental unit of civilized society.

So we're seeing some pretty clear worldviews coming in that are being, I'd say, whitewashed by saying this is just a positive counter to the World Economic Forum.

It's not going towards fear.

What we're seeing is a very traditional conservative worldview.

We'll carry on.

There's another quote here from the Financial Times.

Several speakers, including Reform UK leader Nigel Farage and event co-founder Tory peer Baroness Philippa Stroud, raised the issue of the need for rising birth rates.

Catalin Novak, a former president of Hungary, who was forced to resign last year after pardoning a man convicted of covering up a child sexual abuse case, asked anyone in the audience with 10 children to stand up.

One did to thunderous applause.

At one point, babies were held aloft from the back of the room.

So this to me, yeah, this just doesn't sound like just a fairly standard,

you know, positive counter to the World Economic Forum.

This seems like a very specific form of essentially Christian nationalism that they're calling for.

And this is what we'll see throughout our main event here of the things that Jordan is aligned to and representing are actually this Christian nationalist worldview.

But he did end that segment by saying, do you mind if I tell you a story?

And he does tell a story.

It's a four-minute long story from the Bible.

And genuinely, I'm honestly unclear why he brings that story up here.

He'll do this throughout the interview.

He'll do stories from the Bible, but he'll do it in a way that he's saying, oh, this reminds me of this thing from the Bible that I cannot see any link in almost any of the cases other than he wanted to talk about the Bible.

Right, right.

Okay, this next clip is continuing the discussion about ARC.

We need to claim the center.

Yeah, well, that's also what we're trying to do with ARC.

What is the center?

The center is kind of where we can all meet up.

And I think that's doable.

Well, let's specify it even more.

Okay.

The center is a place you'd go if you were invited.

So they're talking about how they're they're centrists.

You know, they're keen to paint themselves as centrists, because the center, by definition, can't be extreme.

You can't be extremely center.

That's not a thing you can be.

But the ARC, from its views, I would argue, isn't centrist.

It's talking about this heterosexual only worldview where homosexuality is seen as deviant.

It's promoting higher birth rates among the native population in

the face of mass migration.

It's a very specific worldview that we're talking about.

The fact that they're talking about the threat that immigration poses as a replacement for the native population, it even are parts of the ARC, they talked about the evils of abortion.

These aren't centrist ideas.

One of the speakers at the ARC was Kevin Roberts, who is the president of the Heritage Foundation, the authors of Project 2025.

So while putting forward what is a very clearly Christian nationalist right of center, and if you are right of center, if you know, if listeners are on the political right of center, these are ideas that aren't just hovering around the center slightly to the right they're pretty fur far along the lines they're pretty far out towards the right of the spectrum it's taking those ideas but repackaging them to say well we're the sensible centerists yeah you know the arc is a place that you go where you're in if you're invited but there are a very specific set of people not being invited there you know if you're gay you are not being invited to their center of the politics because that's not what uh what they think uh the center is all about.

There's another quote here from The Guardian about the about the ARC.

I'll just read this one too.

And these links are going to be in the show notes.

At one large stand, Focus on the Family, the US-based right-wing evangelical Christian group with 13 officers around the world, was promoting a documentary it aims to stream later this year about the activities of like-minded activists internationally.

This film is about responding to the cultural moment we're in, said Ken Windenback, minutes ahead of a Slovakian anti-abortion NGO approaching him about the possibility of collaborating.

He said the film was intended to galvanize people who are living out their Christian faith and trying to change things.

So is this really centrism or is this a right-wing evangelical

Christian nationalist movement trying on the clothes of centrism because they think that's what's going to persuade most people to join and get behind their cause?

I wonder too, it occurs to me as you're saying this, I wonder if we're sort of past the point of no return where the Overton window has shifted so much that this is center, where we're, you know, like there's been so many far-right views that have been mainlined to

the world, essentially, that now

people that are just, that are, that are in this space might, might consider themselves center because the, the ballast on the far right is so heavy and it's pulling us so deeply down into that far right spin that these people think, well, we're centrist.

I'm centrist compared to this Nazi over on Twitter.

I'm a centrist compared to that guy.

I wonder how much that is playing into into it, too.

Yeah, I think that could be a part of it.

But I also think that's always been the case, that people who are

to even a

further end of a spectrum will always look to the people further out than them and assume that they are centrists.

But if you look at the policies they're putting forward, that they're talking about an anti-abortion agenda.

Well, abortion is

one of the most

pro-abortion is one of the clearest stances that the majority of Western democracies

take.

I mean, the American electorate are overwhelmingly pro-abortion.

And so it is not a centrist position to be anti-abortion.

Similarly, most people have absolutely no issue with homosexual relationships and even gay marriage.

That is an overwhelmingly popular view.

And so it's quite a minority view to be anti-that.

But by painting it as centrist, they overstate the popularity of their ideas.

So now Jordan wants to tell Joe a story from the Bible.

Well, and you want to incentivize people to pay attention to their local environment.

And you do that in part by ensuring that they're not living so close to the edge of catastrophe that they can only think about today.

Right.

And if you start from the mindset that...

Can I tell you another story?

Sure.

Okay.

You tell me all the stories.

I don't have to ask questions.

All right.

This is a really cool story.

Okay.

This is how to set the world right, this story.

So I've been traveling around lecturing about my book, and I wrote a chapter on Abraham in that book.

And Abraham is the father of, in principle, Islam, Christianity, and Judaism.

He's the father of nations.

That's how the story goes.

And he's going to carry on with this story about Abraham.

But he started off talking about the environment and how you incentivize people to make sure their environment near them is in good condition, how they don't want to live close to the edge of catastrophe.

You'd expect when he says, Can I tell you a story?

It might be related to that because that's what they were talking about.

It's not.

It's not related to that at all.

I don't see, and we'll go through the story.

I don't see what it's got to do with what they were talking about.

But what we will see is every single time Jordan has the chance, he's going to go back to quoting the Bible.

And I think that's interesting because when he did shoot to fame, when he was in the headlines initially, there was a lot of people.

I mean, he was touring with Richard Dawkins and Sam Harris.

He did shows with Matt DeLunty, very famous atheist thinkers.

And people would say at the time that, well, Jordan Peterson isn't a particularly religious person.

He's just using illusions from the Bible in order to to illustrate points, but he's an atheist like all these other intellectuals.

I don't think that was ever the case.

And I think what we see throughout this conversation is that Jordan Peterson is a deeply religious person and it influences all of his thinking.

And that's fine.

He's allowed to be that.

But I think when people put him on a pedestal as a great intellectual thinker, they did that in spite of this being the root and the foundation of what he's thinking.

I think a lot of his fans, certainly when he first broke onto the scene, would not have been quite so vociferous in their support for for him had he been showing just how religious he actually was.

But every single time he mentions a story, every time he has an opportunity, he's going back to the Bible.

It sort of feels like he's knocked on my door to do this during while I'm cooking dinner or something.

I've got a knock on the door from Jordan Peterson.

He's standing there in his nice bright white shirt with a little tie and he's got his Bible.

He's ready to talk.

Have you heard the terrible news?

The terrible, awful, terrible news.

Yeah, the apocalyptic news.

It reminds me as well, there's a thing on Radio 4 that gets a lot of criticism in the UK called Thought for the the Day.

It's like a five-minute segment on Radio 4, BBC Radio 4, which just crowbars whatever's happening in world events into a reference to the Bible.

And it will be the most kind of cliched crowbar thing you can imagine.

You know, as I watched Big Ball's 420 become the number one TikTok

influencer in the world, I realized in many ways it's a lot like Jesus because, and then he'll tell the story from the Bible.

It feels like that.

Like the first half of this sentence has nothing to do with the rest.

And the first half of Jordan, you you know talking about the environment has nothing to do with the story he will tell instead yeah the story he decides to choose is abraham and if you're familiar with abraham being sort of punked into trying to like kill his son by god it's like one of the most horrible stories to anybody who's not religious to the religious it's like a it's like a test of faith or whatever but if you're not religious and you look at that story from the outside you're like that's a psychopath story that's a crazy person story so he chooses one of the one one of the stories too that happens to be

very, very polarizing when it comes to whether or not you're religious or not.

All right, more on the Abraham story.

This is where we're going to basically listen to him tell a story to Joe.

So

when

God comes to Abraham in a very particular way, it's one of the ways God is characterized in the Old Testament.

So this is like a definition of God.

It's not a testament to God.

It's a definition of what God is.

Okay, so Abraham, he doesn't doesn't hear anything about God till he's like 70.

And he's already living in privileged paradise because his father and his mother are rich.

And so he doesn't have to lift a finger.

If life is about having your needs met, Abraham's got it covered.

And so he lives like a satiated infant till he's 70.

And then a voice comes to him.

And it says, you are required by the God of your ancestors to leave your zone of comfort, to leave the wealth of your father, to leave your nation, to leave your language, to go out into the world and have your terrible adventure.

And

if you do that, so now imagine that's the call to adventure, if you do that, these things will happen.

This is the covenant that God makes to the Abrahamic people.

It's so cool.

I just talked to Brett Weinstein about this from an evolutionary biological perspective on the road, because I wanted him to evaluate the story I'm going to tell you from an evolutionary perspective.

So is this compelling?

I'm not convinced that it is.

I'm surprised that Joe is quite as interested in this, because this is just a slow retelling of what's happening in the story of Abraham.

But it has to have this patina of intellectualism for it to bypass, I think, Joe's initial sense of

his blocker that would say, you're just telling me a Bible story here.

So Jordan has to wrap this up in this patina of intellectualism, which is why he's saying things like, could you evaluate this story from an evolutionary perspective?

What do you mean by that?

What does that actually mean?

Because this is a story from the Bible, which I think most scholars would agree is not a literal depiction of things that happened.

I mean, I don't think it's particularly true in any way, but even Joe says that later.

Exactly.

So how can you analyze a story of a thing that didn't actually happen from an evolutionary perspective?

What evolution is this illustrating?

I don't it is at all, but it's just Jordan trying to tie this to some sense of intellectualism to make it seem like he has an incredibly smart point that I just think is absent from why he's retelling this story.

I also want people to pay close attention here to how this conversation progresses.

Here's a guy talking to young disaffected men, and that's now at this point we're about halfway through the episode.

So that much of the previous conversation was talking about sort of young, disaffected men.

Many of those men are leaning religious because they find the structures in those religions religions embrace patriarchy and it gives them a feeling of importance, right?

So these young men automatically feel like

they have primacy in this religion.

And now Jordan's going to tell a story about adventure, which might very much resonate with young men who are directionless.

And he'll eventually capstone this conversation with a plug to his university where you can come and learn and perhaps have an adventure, which is a cruise, I guess, all the while free from indoctrination from the ivory towers of the liberals.

So there's this,

I don't think it's, it might not even be calculated, but it certainly fits within the theme of what he, I think he brought to talk about, talk to Joe about, which is

inspiring young people, young men very specifically, to to lean Christian and learn about Christian values because they find great worth in a patriarchal structure.

All right, so more about Abraham.

So

God is the voice that says to Abraham, if you follow the call of adventure, you'll be a blessing to yourself.

So that's the meaning of life, right?

To have the adventure.

You'll do this in a way...

Adventure, blessing to yourself.

Yeah, yeah, because adventure is compelling.

Responsible, romantic adventure is the most compelling pathway, right?

And if it's intense enough, it justifies the suffering, right?

It's a reason to get up in the morning even if you're in pain okay then he says there's

another thing that'll happen too which is that your name will become known among your people for valid reasons so that's that genuine reputation that we talked about so if you follow the pattern of adventure properly you'll be a blessing to yourself and your name will become known among your people for valid reasons so that's a good deal

You'll do this in a way that will maximize the probability that you'll establish something of permanence or even eternal permanence.

So Abraham is offered, if he accepts the call and makes the proper sacrifices along the way, God says your descendants

will outnumber the stars.

So he establishes the pattern of fatherhood that best propagates down the generations, which is the same as following the pathway of adventure.

Then he says, you'll do this in a way that will make sure no one can stand before you, right?

So that if you adhere to that adventurous spirit and you propagate it, all the enemies will,

all enemies will either be converted into friends or flee before you.

And then you'll do it in a way that brings abundance to everyone.

And so now, Matt, this is the question I'd ask Brett.

So imagine this.

So, I mean, first of all, in case you're wondering, what follows this isn't a question.

When he says the question I ask, Brett, it isn't a question.

It's just more Bible.

It's just more of this, this slow telling, this slow unpacking of several sentences of the Bible and what God meant about certain particular lines here and certain things that he said.

And, you know, Joe is, as you say, he's,

he's wowing, he's kind of trying to follow.

But what they're really doing is just unpacking a couple of lines from a book of fiction, essentially, and then trying to overlay onto this an intense amount of meaning, a deep amount of textual analysis of what could God possibly have meant by these specific words in this specific order.

But none of this is actually a strong intellectual pursuit and none of this is actually advice none of this is things that you can really follow um oh you know i'll go out there and have my romantic adventure and my name will echo out and i'll have more children to outnumber the stars and my enemies will fear me is that a good like is that a good advice for navigating the world in 2025 is that is that how we're going to do things i'm not convinced all right next up abraham more of it

So imagine that we have an instinct in us or a divine voice.

I don't care which of those you use, an instinct within us that calls us to develop, right, that puts us on the edge.

And that's not the same as looking for infantile satiation or the gratification of our needs.

It's genuinely this call to expand yourself and to be on the edge and to develop.

That if you did that, to follow that instinct, then you'd be a blessing to yourself.

Your name would become known among your people.

You'd establish something of permanent significance.

No one could stand before you and it would bring abundance to everyone.

Right?

And then in the Abrahamic story, what happens is that as Abraham accepts that, goes out in the world, and then he has a series of adventures, each of which requires a more complete sacrifice.

Because as you develop under the influence of this call,

what you're required to do is to

live more carefully in accordance with your expanding domain of opportunity.

And that's the pathway forward.

So I asked Brett about that, because this is different than the self-esteem idea, right?

It's like there's an instinct within us that calls us to develop, that pulls us out into the world.

And if we follow it religiously and we make the proper sacrifices along the way, then those five things will happen around us.

And that speaks of a concordance which has to be there, has to be there between the spirit that develops us and

the pathway that brings maximal benefit to the natural and the social world.

And I can't see how that can be the case.

If we're adapted to the world, that has to be the case, right?

It has to be that if we followed the instinct that would best put us together psychologically, this quest, this adventure, that would also be the spirit that set the world in order.

And that spirit, that whole thing, that's what's defined as God in that particular story.

That resonates.

But does it resonate?

Does that resonate?

I'm not convinced that it does resonate.

I think that just contains an awful lot of complex seeming language that wraps back in on itself and repeats certain things and has like echoes of itself.

But when there's terms like what you're required to do is live more carefully in accordance with your expanding domain of opportunity, what does that actually mean?

And

what is resonating with Joe in that?

I mean, if we unpack that, the more options you have to do things, the more careful you have to be.

So when you don't have many options, you don't have to be that careful.

Is that really a great, you know, world-shifting amount of advice?

And what he's also talking about here as well is

he says he's bringing that to Brett Weinstein because he thinks this is a counter to the idea of the selfish gene, the idea that genes want to propagate.

And that's kind of what's driving evolution: that you have this gene, you want to pass your gene on.

He's putting this forward as

a counter to that idea, like a separate version of why we evolved, that we evolved because we have this pull towards meaning and grandeur and achievement and adventure.

And therefore, anything that allows us as a species to more readily meet that adventure is going to be beneficial.

And therefore, we've tooled ourselves towards adventure.

And okay, that might be a really nice fun idea, but it's not something that's going to actually play out in terms of how that is going to be passed down from

species to species, from generation to generation.

It's not a competing theory of evolution.

It's teleological.

It's this idea that there is meaning and everything is designed for meaning.

And it is that because Jordan is fundamentally a conservative Christian and has to put God at the center of everything.

But remember, this was his story that started with how to deal with pollution in India.

That's what he said.

He was talking about, well, the thing about pollution in India is we need to make sure that people aren't living on the edge of environmental catastrophe.

Can I tell you a story?

Abraham lived more carefully in accordance with his expanding domain of opportunity.

But it's not,

it feels like it's um meaningful.

It feels like it's powerful.

That's got this explanatory complexity to it.

But it's, if anything, it's obfuscating the conversation to a point where it's not saying anything, but it is referencing the Bible.

And that's kind of what Jordan, that's kind of his MO in this conversation.

Yeah, we are at this point, I think, four or five minutes after that reference, where they were talking about.

I just checked, it was six minutes.

Six minutes.

He's talking for almost six minutes unbroken about the Abraham story here.

Yeah.

So

that piece of tape comes up.

They talk about something that's, you know, in some ways practical, right?

They're talking about practical things, something that's happening in the world right now.

And then they spend six minutes with this sort of

mishmash of intellectualism mixed with the Bible and 31 Joe grunts.

And then we get to here, which is, which is now they're going to, now Joe is going to interject.

in this story and he's going to talk about George St.

Pierre and how he is sort of a modern-day Renaissance man.

Well, one of the best examples is your countryman, George St.

Pierre, one of the greatest of all time, one of the nicest guys I've ever met.

And if you didn't know that he was one of the greatest fighters of all time, you would never guess it.

You would never guess it talking to him.

He's curious.

He's interesting.

He's intelligent.

He's very well read.

He's always interested in different things.

He's constantly searching for new information.

And as a martial artist,

he is still on a quest of improvement, even though he's retired from competing.

Always trains.

He's constantly training.

A quest for new information.

Okay, so let me tell you a story about that.

Please.

All right, so

this is the story that comes up at the beginning of Moses when he turns into a leader.

So it's about how you turn into a leader.

Okay, so he's already killed a man and he's left Egypt because of it.

So now he's in this land called Midian and he goes there and he chases some ruffians away from a well for these two girls who are drawing water.

And they go and tell their father and he says to them, bring this young man home to have dinner.

So he does and then he gets married to them.

And then he becomes a shepherd.

And this is crucial because the shepherd's an image that runs through the biblical corpus, right?

Well, shepherds at that time lived by themselves in the wilderness.

on their wits.

And so this story is going to carry on.

But, you know, three guesses how relevant this story is going to be to what Joe was talking about and how clearly it's going to link to anything, because it's just not.

And Joe's actually having an interesting conversation.

You know, fair play to Joe here.

We don't often give Joe the credit he deserves.

He's talking about a UFC fighter, Joe Simpier, and saying, actually, despite him being a fighter, he's also very well-read.

He's a very interesting guy.

He's quite intellectual.

He's got a thirst for kind of trying lots of different things.

And people wouldn't think that to look at him.

And we can easily write people off because they're fighters and write them off as being, you know not not uh not intellectual being stupid those kind of things that's a perfectly fine thing to be talking about and actually a really good lesson to be uh spreading the idea that we shouldn't judge people based on what job they do or how they look people are more rounded interesting people and jordan immediately just diverts that to something completely different this is how moses became a leader What has George Simpier's interest in reading got to do with how Moses became a leader?

This isn't even about how George Simpier became a leader.

And I don't think he'd call himself a leader.

I don't know much about him.

We're not talking about his leadership qualities.

But Jordan is just thinking, how do I get to my next Bible story?

I've done Abraham.

Now give me Moses, baby.

Play this.

And

the other piece that George, that Joe was talking about too, and you're right, fair play to Joe here.

He's talking about somebody and he has a point here.

And I think another point he was trying to make was.

A lot of these really high-level MMA guys, they are humble.

They recognize that they can be beat at any time, that, you know, like it's a tough, it's a tough business and the things that they do are difficult and that they always strive to be better.

And so they were talking about always, there was sort of like this, this piece of the conversation that they keep coming back to is sort of when he's talking about the great adventure, they're also talking about knowledge acquisition.

They mention it here.

It's sort of always trying to go for knowledge acquisition.

And I think Joe is genuinely interested in knowledge acquisition and trying to learn about stuff.

And I think there is sort of this pull it to the Christianity that Jordan's doing, but also keep mentioning, you know, hey, there's a quest for new information.

By the way, I have a academy.

I could, you know, if you want to get some new information, you could always go to Jordan Peterson Academy where we're, we're teaching people new information all the time.

And I'm not saying there's a direct link between those two things, but it certainly is suspicious that he keeps bringing up these same ideas over and over and over throughout the entire conversation.

Yeah, I think so.

And he's going to carry on with this Moses, Moses story.

And I think what's interesting here is because he can't just tell a Bible story for the sake of a Bible story, as any other kind of preacher or priest or evangelical might, he has to make it something deeply intellectual, which means he has to read meaning and significance into everything.

And we'll hear, actually, I think in this next clip, him trying to inject this additional meaning and relevance into every bit of imagery of the Moses story.

And so he's out there, and something attracts his attention, makes him curious.

That's the burning bush.

It's not a forest fire.

It's not something you can't ignore.

It's something alive because that's a bush.

A tree is a symbol of life.

And it's burning because things that are alive burn, right?

That's metabolism.

And an intensification of that, like a psychedelic intensification of that, that's what the burning bush is.

And that's what glimmers to Moses.

And he steps off the beaten track, right, to investigate what drives his curiosity.

And so then he goes off the beaten track and he starts to delve deeply into the mysteries of the burning bush.

And at some point he realizes he's on sacred ground.

He takes off his shoes.

That's a symbol of willingness to transform identity because shoes signify identity, right?

They're part of your costume, your working man's costume.

So just look at how Jordan is trying to,

I'm not even going to say unpack, inject meaning and relevance into every little bit of this story.

You know, he sees a burning bush.

It's alive because the tree is a symbol of life.

So it must just be,

it must be about life.

That's what it has to be there.

It's there to symbolize life.

It can't just be that they're writing a story about the wilderness and a tree is going to fit the story more, or a bush is going to fit the story more than something else might because they're in the middle of the wilderness.

What else are you going to have in the wilderness?

You're not going to have, you know, a cityscape in the middle of the wilderness.

Trees and bushes are what you're going to see there but no and it's burning well it's burning because it's alive if some things that are alive burn that symbolizes metabolism and intensification does it or is it just that people the the kind of things people might see are things burning you we we would people would be used to things burning fire was something part of part of people's lives um taking off the shoes is symbolic it symbolizes a willingness to transform identity does it is that what the shoes are symbolizing Is it symbolizing the costume of a working man?

Is that really what those are meant to be symbolizing in that story?

And more to the point, is this helping anyone?

Is this really useful to anyone?

This level of kind of injected relevance, injected symbolism.

This intense style of symbology, of searching for meaning in every little symbol, is something that I've only really ever previously seen among conspiracy theorists.

And I'm not saying Jordan is a conspiracy theorist, but this intense search for symbology and imagery is something I've seen in conspiracy theorists.

This is similar to when QAnon followers bake through the cue drops to find exactly what Q meant by this particular word of this particular message here.

Why would they use that specific word?

What could it mean?

Or this is no different to people pouring through imagery to look out for triangles and Masonic symbols and hidden eyes and why is Lady Gaga got a hand over her left eye.

It feels the same thing.

Because you can connect it to a piece of symbolism, that must have been what the author intended.

It must be what you're meant to be taking.

And bear in mind, this story and all of this symbolism was brought up as an explanation for why a UFC fighter might be well read.

That's what we're supposed to be symbolizing and illustrating with this story.

And I don't think it's got any relevance.

It's just Jordan wanted to hit the Bible again.

Yeah.

And look at some of the messages that are in there.

Stepping off the beaten track.

Investigate what drives your curiosity.

You're going to transform your identity.

All those things certainly sound like a pitch to me.

Now we're going to finally, are we going to get to the point of this?

I don't know.

We'll see.

So

what's the pattern?

Well, you discipline yourself so you become a shepherd,

and then you follow what compels you off the path.

Then you take it seriously and get to the bottom of it.

And then that transforms you.

And thus transformed, you can face the tyrant you can specify the promised land properly and you can lead the slaves across chaos and blood that's the red sea and then through the desert right and so you said you know you said two things you said that the good fighters have learned to integrate their civilized side

Otherwise, they don't get to be great.

And that they continue the pathway of self-improvement, right?

They continue to pursue what's calling to them.

Again, we've got a symbolism here, you know, through the chaos and blood, which is the Red Sea.

It can't just be that the sea was

a local geographical feature.

The sea must have been a reference to blood.

And it can't just be that some people who are elite sports people can also be intelligent, that we're rounded people.

We're not just these one-dimensional creatures that we have rich inner lives, that lots of people can be lots of different things.

We can wear different hats.

No, it has to be this deeply convoluted and intensely imagery-laden and illusion-laden biblical reference.

It can't be anything more mundane than that.

It has to be able to be wrapped

into this

biblical investigation.

All right, we're going to take a short break.

We'll be back right after this.

Discover a smarter way to manage your law firm with Filevine.

No, we're not filing vines, unless Tarzan got his law degree.

We're revolutionizing how legal teams operate.

Filevine is your all-in-one solution for managing new leads, business analytics, accounting, billing, and comprehensive case management.

Imagine having all your firm's needs streamlined in one place, giving you more time to focus on what truly matters, your clients.

With Filevine, you can easily track and manage your cases from start to finish, ensuring nothing slips through the cracks.

Our platform offers robust tools that help you analyze business performance and optimize your operations.

Whether you're handling billing or diving into detailed analytics, Filevine has you covered.

Ready to transform your practice?

Start your free trial now by visiting Filevine.com.

Experience the ease and efficiency of a system designed specifically for the legal industry.

Filevine, where your firm's success is just a click away.

Ready to elevate your wardrobe?

Check out Bohm, where fashion meets fun.

From trendy dresses and chic tops to versatile denim and cozy sweaters, Bohm has it all.

With great quality, affordable prices and freshly picked new arrivals every week, you'll always find something new and exciting.

Plus, our accessories collection will add the perfect finishing touch to any outfit.

Whether you're dressing up for a special occasion or keeping it casual, Bohm has the perfect pieces to match your style.

Head over to Bohm.com today and start your style journey with Bohm.

Your perfect outfit is just a click away.

Don't miss the EV lease incentive ending soon.

And now, well-qualified current FCA lessees, get an ultra-low mileage lease on the 2025 Jeep Wrangler Sport S4xE for $189 a month for 24 months with $3,079 due at signing.

Tax, title, license extra.

No security deposit required.

Call 1-888-925-GEP for details.

Requires dealer contribution and lease through Stellantist Stellantis Financial.

Extra charge for miles over $10,000.

Current vehicle must be registered to consumer 30 days prior to lease.

Includes 7,500 EV cap cost reduction.

Not all customers will qualify.

Residency restrictions apply.

Take delivery by 9:30.

Jeep is a registered trademark.

This is Bethany Frankel from Just Be with Bethany Frankel.

Here's my summer tip.

Don't overthink your dog's meals.

My pups love just fresh from just food for dogs.

Complete, balanced, fresh, shelf-stable meals that go everywhere from New York City to weekends in the Hamptons.

I mean, you can have real food ready to go for your pup anywhere.

No cooler, no hassle, just grab and go.

I've seen the difference.

Healthier coats, more energy, tails wagging at mealtime.

Biggie and smalls love it, and I'm all about stuff that just makes sense when life is busy.

Go to justfoodfordogs.com and get 50% off your first order right now.

No code needed.

Okay, welcome back.

Let's jump right back in.

So now we're going to move on to another clip about Christianity.

That to me is one of the most fascinating aspects of Christianity, regardless of whether or not you think

logically these things took place.

Logically, these stories are a completely accurate depiction of exactly how if you follow the principles, it's incredibly beneficial to your spiritual life as a person.

Well, that's a kind of interesting proof, isn't it?

Because it means that there's truth in it.

Well, there's certainly there's certainly the spirit that makes

what would you say the spirit of truth that makes life more abundant that's exactly right and these are weird stories because the way they're true is very sophisticated they're true always

that's different than a story about the past like the truest story is always happening The story of Moses is exactly like that, like the pattern of leadership development that's embedded in the Exodus story.

That is how leaders develop, if they're real leaders.

So, it can't just be that these are stories.

This can't just be that people were talking about the things that were around them, the things, the experiences that they had at the time that they were writing.

It has to be something deeper than that.

You know, the truest stories are always happening.

They're not just things that happened in the past.

The Moses story is currently always happening.

I don't actually think it's complicated as to whether these stories are true or not.

It's not that sophisticated whether they're true.

Was there a biblical flood?

Was there a burning bush?

Did Moses use magic to part the seas?

These are easy claims to evaluate truth, but Jordan doesn't want to do that.

He doesn't want to evaluate the truth of these things because then that would weaken some of the explanatory value or some of the illusionary value, illusory value rather, of these stories.

So he has to make it more sophisticated.

The Moses story is always true in an ongoing sense.

Well, that can't make sense unless Moses and the leadership is constantly, currently right now parting the Red Sea.

Well, the Red Sea is chaos and blood.

We can change the Red Sea to something else and say that everybody who's ever going through a leadership journey is the Moses story being played out.

Well, if you want to kind of widen things so broadly, for me, they lose meaning.

But yeah, he wants to talk like the stories are literal and he wants to talk like these stories are eternal and timeless and have some deeper truth to them that must be divinely inspired because his goal is to convert you to his religion.

It always has been.

But if he's ever pushed, he's going to pull back.

Well, okay, it's not true that they're literally true.

Moses didn't, maybe he didn't literally part the sea, but they're they're true in an archetype sense.

Moses is an archetype of leadership.

And where do these archetypes come from?

It's almost like the platonic form of leader was handed down to us by God in the Bible.

But I don't think when he's talking about Abraham, he's talking about that in a non-literal sense.

When he's talking about Abraham being 70 and having lived very easily and then going out into the world because God says he'll get all these wonderful things, it seems like he's telling that story as if it happened and not because these are just illustrations of the types of things, the archetypal types of things that

people's lives can be.

The Bible doesn't also,

to be clear, doesn't have to have received these archetypes from on high or invented these archetypes and tropes, whole cloth, to use them as the basis of stories.

People have always been people.

These archetypes and tropes will always have been around.

The idea of two brothers, one of whom betrays the other and kills him, is always going going to appear throughout all of

mythology and all of stories because they're very easy things for people to understand how these things happen.

But yeah, the trials of Moses are in leadership.

He's told us that story.

He has to use this huge symbolic crowbar to make it even slightly fit anything modern.

He has to say, bushes symbolize life, and fire symbolizes metabolism, and the Red Sea symbolizes blood and chaos, and shoes symbolize transformation of the working man.

And even then, it says nothing about leadership.

Like, does any of that explain how, say, Mark Carney just got elected PM of Canada?

Does any of that help you understand the Canadian election process?

I don't think it does.

No.

And

I think that is sort of, you know, we look at this, the Bible as a book of metaphors.

You can mold those metaphors to mean literally whatever you want.

And it should be pointed out that the people who are using the Bible to justify things like slavery back before when America had a tradition of slavery, those people were not wrong biblically.

They were just using the book differently than people do today, but they were not wrong in the sense that they were reading the Bible and choosing the metaphors that they chose to say that slavery was justified.

And so that's something you need to think about when people keep on bringing up this Bible.

They're using it in a way to try to manipulate people and try to make sure that, you know, these metaphors, they're so easy to mold to whatever you want for the day.

And I think Jordan is very much molding these metaphors on on the great adventure and the acquisition of knowledge.

All right.

Now we're going to talk about Joe's Holy Spirit.

There's an intense religious ethos under that.

So, okay, so what does it mean?

You start without pride in humility.

It's like, what the hell do I know?

Right?

Or maybe more precisely, there's probably some things I could still learn that would be beneficial.

Okay.

You note your interest in a topic and your desire to know more.

So that's the quest elements, like you're after something, right?

You don't know what it is,

but it's more development.

It's more wisdom.

It's more information, right?

And you're not sure where it's going to be.

Okay.

So now you're the sort of person who could learn and that has something to learn.

And now you have a quest in mind.

Okay.

So now that's the frame for your actions.

Well,

if you're talking to someone who's also doing that, well, then those are the words that come.

Yeah.

Right.

And

they come in a compelling way to you and to the participant, and in a way that's compelling enough so that they compel other people.

That's the Holy Spirit, by the way.

That's that phenomenon from a religious perspective.

That's exactly what it is.

Because that's like you sit before the talk and rehearse what words you're going to say.

They just appear.

So Jordan has to crowbar everything back to religion, regardless of how inappropriately he's doing that.

And here he's talking about the Joe Rogan experience, the podcast itself being an intense religious ethos underpinned by this deep, intense religious ethos, that what Joe's doing is an expression of the Holy Spirit.

I'd argue that the Joe Rogan experience podcast isn't really like in any way connected to the Holy Spirit.

I don't know that there's a great deal of Holy Spirit behind it.

But imagine, and so, and that's what he's trying to do here.

He's saying this podcast is an expression of the Holy Spirit because you've got this quest and you go and you go with humility because you say you don't know things and you go to try and learn things.

And that's the way the Holy Spirit moves us.

Imagine trying to work this supposed definition of the Holy Spirit backwards and saying to Jordan, Jordan, could you give me an example of the Holy Spirit?

Do we honestly think he'd say any of that about the Joe Rogan experience podcast as part of his answer?

I don't think so.

I don't think so.

After spending this much time listening to Joe Rogan, I 100% agree it's not the Holy Spirit, but I wouldn't discount that he sold his soul to the devil to make his podcast popular.

All right.

Now, now, as we work our way through the Bible, of course, there cannot be parts that are,

you have to include the parts that are demeaning to women.

And this next couple pieces, they are, they bring out the misogynist sort of portion of the Bible that Joe and Jordan both embrace.

And so here's a section about Eve.

You know, like wise women, my wife is one of these women.

She was a very good mother.

She never thought adult men were babies.

Like one of the things that's quite striking about my wife is that if you're a useless man, she doesn't feel sorry for you.

You're not a baby.

Now, she's really good at taking care of babies.

And so she got to be,

she's discriminating in her empathy.

And we're in a situation now where people think that indiscriminate empathy is a virtue.

That's Eve's sin.

See, Eve, literally, Eve wants to put the feminine ethos at the top of the hierarchy of value.

That replaces God,

right?

And that causes the fall.

And then Adam, he's such a cuck, that that's exactly it, is that he goes along with her.

He doesn't stand up and tell her that maybe she shouldn't be listening to poisonous serpents.

He doesn't.

He consumes with her what she delivers so that she'll be his friend, because you know how useful men like that are.

And then when the fall happens, he complains to God that he made, that God made Eve and cursed him with her.

That's the story.

So

it's not just women, and we've got to get this straight.

Women with their drive towards indiscriminate compassion so that even the serpents are their children.

It's men, too, who won't say.

They always say, yes, dear, whatever you want.

Yes, dear.

Weak men, weak men who enable the, who don't help the women set boundaries.

Now, you've got to do that as a man, you know.

Like,

so I think there's a load of really interesting things here throughout the conversation.

Jordan does refer to his relationship with his wife, and it's really interesting.

We can hear, hear, hear what his wife's values, perceived values to him, are.

You know, she's not indiscriminate with her empathy.

She's really good at looking after babies.

There's a part earlier they're talking about doing a live show, and she's really good at reading out the questions that the audience have submitted on Slido and provoking putting those questions to him so he can answer them.

He seems to have, in even the way he describes his wife, an incredibly hierarchical version of the gender dynamics of relationship here, is that his wife is only good for these nurturing things or for these things are supporting him.

It doesn't seem like she has a great deal of agency in the way that he describes it, which I think is an interesting thing.

But also, let's look at the story he's telling.

He's telling this story like it's a real thing that genuinely happened.

There was an Adam, there was an Eve, there was a talking snake, and Eve took the apple and Adam tried to complain to God and God said to Adam and all these things.

He's talking about it like these are things that literally true.

But if they didn't really happen, if there wasn't really a talking snake and a magic apple, if it's just a story, This doesn't tell us anything about our lives.

We shouldn't be building our morals around it.

We shouldn't be making our day-to-day assumptions about how men and women ought to interact off the back of this story, because this story is a product of the culture in which it was written.

It's not a literal truth handed handed down from above.

We learn just as much from the Adam and Eve story, and we learn just as much about the women and gender dynamics from the Adam and Eve story as we learn about janitors from an episode of Scooby-Doo.

Well, you know, we can't trust janitors because they're always pretending to be ghosts in spooky fairgrounds.

So we should elect politicians who are anti-janitor, who run on an anti-janitor platform because of the lessons we learned from Scooby-Doo.

It's obviously silly if you use any other source of stories than the Bible to say we should be using these things as a foundation of our actions, not just our morality, but our actions and how we see the world.

And we know that even from this conversation, because the part that I think we might get to either in the, probably in the gloves off segment, where Jordan does the same thing talking about Pinocchio.

And Joe does not get on board with it.

He laughs at the idea of analyzing Pinocchio to that degree.

He doesn't with the Bible because the Bible is given this extra place of prominence and reverence that makes Joe go, whoa, rather than that doesn't make sense.

Yeah, you're absolutely right.

He laughs at the Pinocchio story because it doesn't have the gravity that the Bible has.

It just doesn't have the same thing.

Also, can I point out some of the language he's using?

He's like, men need to guide women because their ovaries will just make them too compassionate.

Like, what the fuck is that garbage?

And it is, it is genuinely misogynistic to be like, oh, yeah, we need to guide women because without us, they would just be way too empathetic and would just allow way too much stuff.

They need the strong hand man to go out and make sure that we are the ones who control how things happen in society.

That is trash.

That is absolute garbage.

And the idea that these guys, these two guys on the largest podcast in the world are just spitting straight misogyny is trash.

This is something that I just want to, you want, I wanted to turn the podcast off.

I was like, this is genuinely garbage.

And he's also talking too, he talks about useful men.

He uses the word useful men my wife she knows what a useful man is she doesn't like a useless man right well how do you become a useful man

how do you become a strong man maybe

going to a class that Jordan Peterson on self-improvement maybe reading a Jordan Peterson self-improvement book will turn you into a useful man and so these are important things to keep in mind because he's he's separating out men too right he's saying there are a group of people out there who are useless and and there's a group of people out there are useful.

And when he's talking about indiscriminate empathy, he is very specifically talking about how

look at how, look at how people have been reacting to the Trump administration and their stance on immigration.

I guarantee you that many of these undertones are very specifically about policies that are in place where someone is coming in with an, with political overreach and he's redefining it as a strong hand, as the guiding hand that you need because all of you are filled with indiscriminate empathy yeah i think that's uh i think that's very fair i mean he's when you talk about the misogyny of this i think it's worth um really and we will we'll have another clip about that in just just a second um but i think what it's looking what where this comes from is this this patriarchy as defined by the bible but also as uh it's kind of this patriarchy as supported and propped up by the bible because these are metaphorical stories if you don't believe these things are literally true, and there's times when Jordan will regress to a position where he'll admit they may not be literally 100% true, but the archetype is there,

the deeper truth is there, these are ongoing and true in a meaningful way.

But if you believe these things are reflections of

reality or metaphors of reality, you can read them any way you want.

And the way that Jordan is choosing to read this is women can't be trusted with their evaluation of things because they're too emotional, they're too driven by their empathy.

And so it needs men to keep them in check.

And what's and the worst type of men are the ones who just submit to women, the ones who go along with women, the ones who agree with them and say, yes, dear, as he sort of puts it.

He's very much setting up this patriarchal version of reality, and he's using the Bible to justify it.

And the reason he's using the Bible to justify it isn't because he's getting it from the Bible necessarily, but because if he used a different story to justify it, it lacks the reverence to keep Jord going, whoa, rather than laughing.

Yeah, we're going to continue on with that story of Eve.

When you and your wife have a baby, for the first nine months, every time the baby cries, it's right.

Right?

You respond to a baby's cries as if it's right 100% of the time because human infants are so dependent and utterly unable to fend for themselves.

So that sets up a very powerful feminine dynamic.

It's like, if it cries, take care of it.

Okay, so what are the men for?

It's like, if it cries,

take care of it, it, except that

that's a false cry.

And you see that with kids, they'll start playing with that by the time they're nine or ten months old, right?

Yes, of course.

And so you differentiate.

It's like, oh, no, that's not a baby.

That's a snake.

Well, are you sure it's not a baby?

It's like, nope, nope, snake, for sure.

Snake.

Poisonous snake, in fact.

Right.

Well, I'm feeling pretty sorry for it.

It's like, save your compassion for the truly needy

and leave the snakes to me.

Right.

And Adam doesn't do that.

Okay, Adam doesn't do that because he's not real.

The Adam and Estory is not literally true.

So you can't go to it's teaching us something big about the world and then go back to, oh, but these are things that have happened.

And Adam, you messed up in this story.

But notice what he's talking about here.

You know, feminine dynamic of listening to babies.

Even when the baby's crying is real, is right.

It's a feminine dynamic to have to look after your child.

I think that's an incredibly pressing idea.

I mean, I haven't got a kid, but the idea that as a father, me looking after my kid would be a feminine dynamic, I think is an incredibly depressing idea.

His version of a woman is inherently here intensely stupid and helpless.

That's what he's setting up.

It's like, oh, she's too stupid because of her emotions to even realize when her nine-month-old baby is lying to her.

And it takes

the strong man to be able to come in and say, no,

that nine-month-old child, that nine-month-old baby, who I'm not even sure could particularly crawl at this point is lying to you and must be dealt with with a strong hand sure um again i i i don't know i can't imagine what kind of uh parenting that would lead to i don't want to imagine the kind of parenting it would lead to where there as a father you're um teaching yourself or being taught by jordan peterson to doubt the crying of your baby to to what end i don't know what like what so what you're just going to leave the baby not look after it what is your plan there if your baby is lying?

These are just staggeringly regressive views on men and women.

But also, I think these views on men and women, Andrew Tate comes up in this conversation and Jordan says, and we'll cover it in the gloves off maybe, or no, we'll cover it in the toolbox, in fact.

Jordan will look at Andrew Tate and try to, say, he's trying to understand the appeal of Andrew Tate.

I don't think the rhetoric we're seeing here is all that far away from Andrew Tate's rhetoric about men needing to be in charge and

protect but rule women and have a strong hand and rule with with force.

It feels like the same rhetoric.

I think Jordan should be able to understand the appeal of Andrew Tate because it's in part the same appeal that's led to him selling so many books.

Yeah.

And this whole thing starts with them talking about how his wife can tell a useless man, right?

She can tell a useless man versus none, and she has empathy for useful men, but not

useless men.

And so we're still working on that.

And now he's bringing in babies, but I think we can also extend the metaphor to men here and to adults and people and say, who are the snakes, Jordan?

Who are we talking about?

Who are the snakes that don't deserve our empathy?

Those are, that's really charged language.

What are we talking about here?

And I think Jordan, of course, is going to tell you, and throughout this whole episode, he's going to say the people who are pushing for climate change that are saying climate change is bad, those are snakes.

Those are bad people.

Those are people.

And he's talking about, too, how

there's multiple times throughout that he has a very sort of far-right Christian worldview.

And those people have enemies, and those people are going to be dehumanized.

And this is a way to dehumanize them.

We're going to end on,

like they did, on a positive note.

I hate to end this on a bleak note.

Well, let's end it on a positive note.

Okay.

Okay.

So what's positive?

Young people are flocking back to churches across the West

and more to the conservative churches.

And

the only thing we have to buttress us into the future against the Islamists and the Marxists and the Nihilists and the Hedonists is

our return to our core traditions.

Without that, we're done.

And so that's happening and in big numbers.

And so that's really quite something.

So I'm not actually convinced that it's true.

I don't think the data is there to support a massive swing towards religion or even a massive swing towards conservative religion at that.

But notice, even if that was true, notice that that's Jordan's idea of a positive.

The big positive to take away is that more and more people are joining conservative churches.

The idea that he's ever been anything other than a religious preacher for a deeply conservative strain of Christianity, I think should be very well dismissed at this point.

It never was the case that he was anything other than that.

His worldview, his rhetoric was all tooled up around this end goal, this set of values.

And it's pretty clear that he's seeing this as the most important thing.

Get people into conservative churches where they will have this regressive view of men and women.

They'll have this patriarchal, hierarchical relationships.

My wife is very good at looking after babies and helping me read the questions from the audience.

We'll see this kind of thing as

his positive, his end goal, what he's looking for society to be.

And look at who he's...

calling out here.

Who are his snakes, right?

Who are the people you need to buttress yourself against?

islamists well that's a group of people a large group of people in the world that they can easily demonize and have for a long time marxists well that could be probably anybody who's left of them so they could easily demonize those people nihilists i'm sure there's a lot of people that fit in there for the for that bucket and hedonists and i think he means atheist by nihilist atheists and nihilist and hedonist i think is atheist i think yeah i think i think nihilist means atheist i think hedonist means lgbtq i think that might be what he's talking about when it comes to hedonists So who is he bucketing in the snakes and the and the people who you have to buttress yourself against?

That's a lot of the world that he doesn't like, but it also seems to match a lot of the world that the Christian right doesn't like.

So when it comes to hedonists there, you know, people might listen to this and think you're making a bit of a leap to connect hedonism to LGBTQ.

But look again at his alliance for responsible citizenship and the things they were talking about there as being what's wrong with society.

He included homosexuality in that.

People who deviated from a nuclear family, people who deviated from a man, a woman, and their kids were the ones who were considered deviations.

So I think the rest of his, the places where he's speaking, the things that he's doing, the events that he's running show that he has these anti-LGBTQ views.

The fact that he became famous off the back of refusing to use people's pronouns.

I think we can take those two things together and put those over what he's seeing here.

And I think it isn't much of a leap to say that he's talking about the LGBTQ people when he's saying hedonists there.

So So, yeah, I think, I think you're right.

And it could be too that it's anybody who doesn't do traditional family, right?

It could be the hedonists, could be anybody.

It could be you and I who are both child-free, right?

We could be part of that hedonist group.

It could be people in poly relationships.

It could be anybody who's not just in a nuclear family producing children, could be that hedonist group.

And so

you might be right that it's that singling it down

might not be the perfect thing, but I think there is a connection there between LGBT and what I think think he thinks hedonism is.

Yeah, absolutely.

And so we've made the case here in this main event that what Jordan is and has always been putting forward is this conservative Christian worldview and that he's used his intellectualism and his status as a perceived public intellectual in order to access people he can then convert to his religion and use this kind of messianic

crusade almost to reach people and convert them to his religion.

I want to just read you a couple of the YouTube comments that I think will make the point as to what the effect of this conversation is.

These are the comments underneath this conversation.

I'm not going to put the names on them, but I will read out the comments that are in there.

I've got a couple.

The first one, seven years ago, I was a drug addict.

Today, I'm a Marine Corps veteran.

Father, made dean's list at my university, working a good job, and just converted to Catholicism.

Thank the Lord for Jordan Peterson.

Another comment, I met Jordan in Nashville and the first thing he did was compliment my suit.

I told him this is my first suit as an adult and it was because of him.

He smiled and we took a photo.

Another one here, I'm a 35-year-old single mother in business.

I've listened to Jordan for years and my success speaks for itself.

He serves as such an eloquent, stoic speaker, and I've used it to model my behavior as a mother and father figure to my child.

Another one, my father passed away a few months ago.

I had the strength to stand at his funeral and deliver a powerful eulogy thanks to the wisdom this man parted to me through his lectures many years ago.

And just the last one, one of these men changed my life.

The other saved it.

Thank you to both of them.

I hope the world sees this podcast.

So pretty clear what the impact of this conversation is and the impact of Jordan's work on people is that he's reaching them and converting them to his worldview.

And I would argue that worldview is not a positive one.

We're going to take a quick break and then move on to our toolbox section.

This is Bethany Frankl from Just Be with Bethany Frankl.

Here's my summer tip.

Don't overthink your dogs' meals.

My pups love just fresh from just food for dogs, complete, balanced, fresh, shelf-staple meals that go everywhere from New York City to weekends and the Hamptons.

I mean, you can have real food ready to go for your pup anywhere.

No cooler, no hassle, just grab and go.

I've seen the difference.

Healthier coats, more energy, tails wagging at mealtime.

Biggie and smalls love it, and I'm all about stuff that just makes sense when life is busy.

Go to justfoodfordogs.com and get 50% off your first order right now.

No code needed.

Today, we'll attempt a feat once thought impossible: overcoming high-interest credit card debt.

It requires merely one thing: a SoFi personal loan.

With it, you could save big on interest charges by consolidating into one low-fixed-rate monthly payment.

Defy high-interest debt with a SoFi personal loan.

Visit sofi.com/slash stunt to learn more.

Loans originated by SoFi Bank NA, member FDIC.

Terms and conditions apply.

NMLS 696891.

Wow.

So that's the tool bag?

And something just fell out of the toolbag.

All right.

So for the toolbox section this week, we're going to be doing

a false dichotomy.

So false dichotomy, Marsh?

A false dichotomy is where you present only two outcomes, only two options for how things will go.

The one that you want and the worst possible one.

And you're making out that these are the only two things that are possible.

These are the only two possible options.

And what you're missing is all of the other options out there.

And it's essentially saying, well,

we want to go out tonight.

Well, we can either go and see the film that I want to see or we'll stay home and do nothing at all.

That's a false dichotomy because there's a range of other things we could do.

We could go bowling, we could go for drinks, we'd go for dinner.

There's lots of different things we could do.

But if you present it in this false dichotomy, you're forcing people to choose between two options, one of which you clearly favor and the other of which you're making as negative as possible and hiding all of the others so that you force people down your particular route.

Yeah.

All right.

So we're going to start with our first clip.

So one of the rules we put together for ARC was invitation only.

Play.

We're going to do this playfully.

Yeah.

And we're not going to use force or fear ever.

You have to use invitation.

And so I don't know what you think about that.

Is it distinguished?

Imagine

it's the distinguishing characteristic between the wannabe tyrants and the true leaders.

The true leaders say, here's an offer.

Would you accept this of your own free will?

And the tyrants say, the apocalypse is coming and

we are allowed to do everything to forestall it.

Right.

Right.

Including control you and everything that you do.

That's the problem.

Yeah.

And that's how they get people to fall in line.

They fall in line through fear.

Yeah.

Yeah.

Well, fear and force.

I don't want to keep belaboring the point, but pay attention to all the things that Donald Trump ran on, and they were fear and force.

So I think

that's pretty easy to see.

Joe endorsed that candidate.

It appears that Jordan also likes that candidate, too.

I don't need to say any more about that, but it's pretty obvious if you look at any of the rhetoric that they were saying leading up to the election.

The false dichotomy here is that there's There's tyrants and then there's leaders.

One scares you and the other one asks you to sort of participate.

By compartmentalizing these things, he can easily point out that if someone suggests something like, the fate of all humans hangs in the balance because of climate change, you can just ignore that because they're trying to scare you to follow them.

Yeah, I think that's true.

I think there's another false dichotomy in here too, which is that you, let's say, you've got the true leaders who invite you and the tyrants who say, we're allowed to do

because the apocalypse is coming, we're allowed to do everything we want to foster all you, including control you.

Well, obviously, there's another option in here, which is bad things are coming.

So you can do lots of things.

We'll all have to make some sacrifices.

Apparently, the sacrifice was what was make the journey worthwhile all along early when Jordan was talking.

But now we're talking about the climate.

The sacrifice isn't something worthwhile.

But you can stop at including control you.

There are lots of other options for how we face climate change that don't require tyrants forcing you to do anything they want and having complete control over you.

But because he painted down these two things, obviously you're going to reject the tyrants who want to do complete control over you, and therefore you'll follow Jordan wherever he wants to take you.

All right, so now we're going to talk about energy and climate change.

So one of the things we're doing on the energy side, I'm going to an event with Alex Epstein here in two days, talk to energy executives about this.

You know,

well, what kind of world do you want to see?

Well, how about a world where there's so much energy that

poor people can afford it.

How'd that be for a vision?

Like, Like, have you got a problem with that?

Well, poor people can't have energy because that'll destroy the planet.

It's like, no, poor people can't have that energy because you'd have to let go of the game that you're playing as a narcissistic psychopath that's elevating your status inappropriately, and you're perfectly willing to sacrifice the world's poor to continue your grip on power.

How about that for a psychological interpretation?

Right.

And how about this as an alternative?

Why don't we do everything we can to drive energy costs down to the lowest degree that's sustainable, like in a market economy, and make energy available to everyone so that we eradicate absolute poverty.

Why wouldn't the left line up again around that?

Because the left hypothetically serves the poor.

It's like nothing serves the poor better than an ethos first.

We've got to get that right because we're also interested in getting the story right.

But after that, on the material side, there's nothing more important than that.

I don't think people on the left are getting that message.

I don't think they're hearing that this is exactly what third world countries need is a reliable source of energy and industry to elevate themselves out of poverty.

They're not.

They're not getting that.

But it's not the problem of the people that are on the left, like the

general followers.

Well,

it might be a problem that's facilitated by the psychopathic fringe types.

Like, look, I think.

It's not offered to them, is my point.

Yeah, the question is, why not?

So the false dichotomy

basically saying that we either make a bunch of traditional energy that's going to lift people out of poverty or we limit it and avoid climate change and those people still live in poverty.

But there's a lot of other options there.

You don't just have to have those two options.

You can create green energy or the bigger countries can adhere more to green energy.

There's other things that you can do to help

combat climate change other than the things that they're suggesting.

Yeah, absolutely.

And nobody is saying that the solution is that poor people can't have energy because it'll destroy the planet.

There's nobody out there saying that.

So, even that is a bit of a straw man.

But, yeah, renewable energy is getting cheaper and cheaper.

It's in some climates, it's a better solution, especially if you've got a great deal of sun, you can have solar panels, you don't need to be connected to a grid or maintain a grid as much

in that kind of way.

Or, you know, there's lots of places where renewable energy is going to be a better solution.

So, the idea of it has to be traditional energy at the lowest prices or nothing just doesn't pan out.

And the left are also not denying that it's a good thing to get energy to poor people.

That's not part of anyone's idea at all.

There's a few other things that's worth pointing out here.

He's talking about Alex Epstein that he works with.

Alex Epstein is a climate change denier.

He explicitly said we need to expand the use of fossil fuels.

He's a former advisor to the Cato Institute, which is a libertarian think tank that receives funding from the oil industry.

So there's maybe a reason why he thinks we should expand the use of fossil fuels.

What Jordan is missing here is that part of the reason there is increasing chaos in parts of the global south is because of climate change exacerbating so many issues.

Why is there increased migration?

Well, in partly, it's due to wars that are happening around the world, but also it's the effects of droughts and famines and various other things that are exacerbated by climate change.

So the idea of saying we don't have to worry about climate change, we'll just lift people out of poverty.

You will lift them out of poverty if you deal with the things that are destroying their areas, destroying their crops, destroying their ability to farm.

All of this is in service to big oil.

But making the climate unlivable in parts of the world is a price none of us can afford to pay, even if we don't live in those parts of the world.

And what I think is really interesting, earlier in this conversation, we didn't cover it, but earlier Jordan talks about how people have this short-term attention span and we need to have longer-term thinking, the hard thing to do, that's good good for us and we need to have more discipline to have that kind of mentality and too much of society is built around these short-term rewards and we don't do the thing where we have to take our lumps and do the hard thing that's better for us where's that thinking here when it comes to the the long-term planning to make this planet habitable versus the short-term win of getting more oil out of the ground he's completely reversed his value set here because it's in his interest his economic and ideological interest to reverse his entire values.

And let's just presume that what he's saying, what he thinks is true.

He thinks this is true.

He thinks that, you know, you're denying these groups of people that live in poverty around the around the world.

You're denying them access to energy because you want them to clean up.

Well, what does that say about like some of the things that we've done here?

They have, that has nothing to do with other people around the world that literally have to do with only things that happen in the United States, like pulling out of the Paris climate accords.

Like that's where you monitor your own carbon emissions.

It has nothing to do with anyone else.

It's literally your own standards that you set.

We're deregulating and cranking up drilling here in our own country.

This has nothing to do with other countries.

This very specifically is something that they would decry as virtue signaling.

They are choosing a group of people and they are saying, look, think of these poor people, these poor countries all over the earth.

Oh, they're going to be totally destroyed by this.

And you don't even care about those people.

And they're only pawns.

They don't care about these people either.

They're only pawns to try to make it so you don't feel like you need to push them on climate change.

That's the real issue here.

And this is straight up virtue signaling.

Yeah, yeah, you're absolutely right.

I think there's another point later in the conversation that we might cover in the bonus show, where essentially anytime anyone in the global south or Africa is brought up, they're only ever brought up in a way of shaming you for wanting to do something else.

So

they're essentially, yeah, make weights on don't do the thing you want to do because what about Africa?

But when it comes to things that Jordan Peterson or Joe Rogan or his many guests want to do, Africa doesn't exist until it's going to suffer from what the left want to do.

All right.

Next one is talking about famine.

And the reason is, like, this is part of the, you talked to Lomberg,

right?

To Bjorn.

And Bjorn's pretty good on this, or very good on this, I should say,

you know, to give him credit.

And he would like to see a world where, and he's part of ARC.

He'd like to see a world where we make energy abundance a top priority.

It's probably the only way you're going to pull third world countries out of dire poverty.

Well, it's also, as far as I can tell, the only way that you pull them out of environmental catastrophe.

Right.

Because if you want to produce an environmental catastrophe, a true environmental catastrophe, how about a three or four year famine so that everyone there kills all the animals, for example, or dies.

So, yeah, sure, but the thing he's missing here is climate change is what's driving famine right now so you know we will get them out of this environmental catastrophe if you deal if you mitigate climate change but he's arguing that we shouldn't be doing anything to mitigate climate change we should instead be trying to help people you know pull people out of environmental catastrophes these two things are the same thing by mitigating climate change you'll you'll stop those environmental catastrophes or you'll limit how effective how much they affect them Yeah, I,

you know, again, he's, this is the same virtue signaling they were doing in the last segment.

But the false dichotomy here is that there's you either make a bunch of traditional fuel and you burn like crazy so you can lift these people out of poverty, or they will face an environmental catastrophe of famine.

That's the two options.

And that's not, again, those are not the two things that are going to happen.

But the way Jordan paints it, he makes it seem like these are the only two options that can happen

with our choices on how we decide how, you know, like how energy is used on the globe.

Next one, we're going to talk about GDP.

Right.

So we also know that if you get people above $5,000 a year GDP,

then they start paying attention to long-term environmental sustainability because they don't have to scrabble around in the dirt for their next meal.

So then we could say, well, how about we have a future of

sufficient abundance so that no one is deprived of energy or opportunity for their children.

Right.

Well,

that sounds like an invitation.

Now, if you hate people and you think the industrial enterprise is a stain on the planet and that we're viruses or cancer on the planet, then you're going to have a problem with that.

But my sense, too, is that if we had enough energy, we could make all the deserts bloom.

Okay, nobody hates people and industry and enterprise and thinks that we're viruses and cancers on the planet.

That's a straw, man.

That's not what the people who oppose Jordan Peterson's ideas here.

That's not what they actually think.

It is interesting, though, that these are two incredibly wealthy men talking about how to make the lives of the poorest people in the world better, coming up with solutions that will only make them worse.

I mean, Jordan is saying, you know, if you give people a GDP of $5,000,

they will have all these other benefits in their lives.

At no point is Jordan suggesting, for example, giving people a GDP of $5,000.

They're not talking about taking incredibly wealthy, massive amounts of wealth that's invested in people like, you know, Elon Musk, Mark Andreas, and half the people in Joe's phone book and saying, maybe you need to give some money to the global south that you've exploited to get all this kind of income.

That kind of redistribution of wealth is not on their mind, even though Jordan is literally saying

what would help these people is having access to some of that wealth.

But let's not do that.

And the false dichotomy is linked to the straw man Marsh.

mentioned earlier.

Either you love people and you want to help the global poor by giving them fossil fuels or you hate people and they're a cancer and then basically you have to like so and you the only way to deal with that is to uh eliminate uh people because you want to make sure the climate change doesn't happen again those are that's a silly false dichotomy that he brings up this is an interesting bit and in the in the in the episode they bring up andrew tate and it's not in a good light uh so this this is this is continuing on in some of that conversation

Because I've spent a lot of time, for example, trying to figure out why people are attracted to Andrew Tate.

And I know why they're attracted to Andrew Tate.

They'd rather be Andrew Tate than an incel.

And they're right, right?

It's best to give the devil his due.

Like if you had to choose between

being kind of flabby and unhealthy and resentful and in your basement looking at pornography, hating women because all of them reject you all the time and you deserve it and you're ineffectual and

the future looks pretty damn gloomy.

And then you see Andrew Tate, who's tough and

hyper-masculine in an almost manner that's almost a parody, and wealthy and famous, and apparently has women at his disposal with a fair bit of stress on the idea of disposal.

You'd think, well, I'd much rather be him than me.

That's the incorporation of the shadow from the Jungian perspective.

It's like, it's right.

So this is a false dichotomy, even though it's obfuscated through his supposed expert insight, you know, the incorporation of the shadow from the Jungian perspective.

It's coming through the false intellectualization here.

But the false dichotomy is

you can either be Andrew Tate or an incel.

Either you are fat and ineffectual and gloomy and living in a basement, or you're Andrew Tate who's hypermasculine.

And there is a vast spectrum in between, which I would argue the vast majority of men fall on, and most of them fall in, and many of them fall in a much, much better place than either of those.

In fact, it's not even like there's a spectrum in between.

There are other ways to be a man that don't require you to be like Andrew Tate.

It's also interesting here that while he is bringing up Andrew Tate in a negative light, this doesn't feel that negative.

Other than when he's saying about, you know, Andrew Tate, he's tough, he's hyper-masculine, he's wealthy, he's famous.

He says he's got women at his disposal with a disposal with a stress on the idea of disposal.

I think that's the criticism that Jordan has for Andrew Tate.

And that's because Jordan wants there to be this traditional, conservative, monogamous version of

relationships.

I don't think he's seeming like he's critical of Andrew Tate for his hyper-masculineness or his wealth or his fame.

It's about how he's treating women, but not because he's treating women as less than.

It's because he's treating women as disposal, disposable when you should only have one and stick to them kind of thing.

That's what it feels like he's saying.

Are you sure he's not referring to the

trafficking thing there with the disposal?

Perhaps, perhaps he is, yes, yeah, but yeah, yeah, he could well be, and maybe I'm being uh unfair.

Um, I would say there's another part of the conversation where he brings up in a similar part, this conversation, actually, he's bringing up Russell Brand and he's talking about how Russell Brand has been essentially victimized.

We'll mention it, I think, in the gloves off, but he's he's bringing it up as that, um, well, you know, Russell Brand had all these women throwing themselves themselves at him, and how did that work out for him?

It worked out badly like he had no agency in you know the the things he's done which uh include being charged for rape and i think that's it feels like a similar kind of thing here that he's not uh he's not so much judging andrew tate for um

it feels like the judgment is for his promiscuity with women uh rather than the the way that he's treating women that could be that could be let's finish this up with a clip about carl jung

so you know you just outlined there the the progression that carl jung identified as characteristic of individuation, right?

With the second thing that you said.

So imagine that

you start an incel, right?

You're ineffectual and you're rejected as a young man.

Now, there are exceptions, but let's just play that out as

the unhappy majority.

Okay, now you look for a shadow figure to sharpen you up, to toughen you up, and to make you strive at least along one dimension, right?

And so then you do that.

Well, then the next thing that happens in the union stage progression is for a man, it's integration of the anima, which is the feminine part.

And it's integration.

It's not replacement.

It's like, oh, well, then you discover the utility of empathy and compassion and kindness and mercy and care, while still being able to deal out justice, let's say.

And so then you bridge that gap.

And then that integration you just said, even among fighters, that's what puts them in the highest place.

Right?

that's right.

That's right.

So, but it's hard for the people, it's hard for those who are completely disaffected and also quite angry about it.

You know, the people who are interested in the pathway that Tate offers, they're not so unhappy that he's hard on women because they're pretty mad at women.

And so, you know, if it's the bitch or me, then I'll pick me.

You know, right, exactly, exactly, exactly.

And so, and it is very crucial to get this progression correct because

monster is better than wimp.

Right.

Right.

But the question is, what's better than monster?

I mean, first of all, the question I've got is, is this honestly helpful for anyone?

Is this a good analysis of why people are drawn to Andrew Tate?

I'm not sure that the idea of, well, you start as an incel and you kind of build yourself in this way and you look for a shadow figure to toughen you up and then you incorporate the feminine feminine part and integrate that.

I just, I don't know that this is useful in any kind of way.

But it also treats gender issues as this zero, zero sum game, that you have your masculine part and your feminine part and there's not kind of, and that's how you define your personality, that it's her or it's me.

And that's, that's the choice what we've got to make.

And I think he's critical of that choice, but I don't think he's so critical of that choice that he's that because elsewhere in his rhetoric, that's what you've seen when he talks about Adam and Eve, when he when he talks about babies and snakes.

So it doesn't seem like he's so far away from treating gender and gender relationships as this zero-sum game.

When obviously that's a false dichotomy, you get much

treating it as zero-sum.

You get much further in life, including romantically, if you seek out a supportive partnership and you're a supportive partner and you kind of lift each other up and see people as equals and that kind of thing.

And then he brings up this, you know, monster is better than wimp.

Yeah, but there's other options, man.

Like, you want to, those aren't the things you have to choose even he's saying okay what's better than monster well yeah you know there's a whole plethora of options and i don't think he answers this i don't think he i don't think he offers a better solution and when he talks about the people who are interested in the pathway that tate offers i think all jordan peterson can really offer people on that pathway is a fork in the rod but not turning them around yeah you can fork off towards my academy but i'm not sending you back towards society yeah what he can offer is that's better than monster is a monster deal at peterson academy

Yeah, in the gloves off, we will actually do the bit where he does his hard sales pitch for the Peterson Academy.

And it is, yeah, it is very much a, but don't buy yet.

Don't pick up the phone just yet.

I know.

I'm the last person that thinks I'm smart.

Trust me.

Okay, Marsh, end of the show.

Anything good here?

I really wanted to say yes.

I've tried hard to find something I want to.

I mean, okay, I will say, yeah, the good thing I will say is when Joel's talking about UFC fighters, he talks about Joel Simpierre, and he's talking about how people might write them off as being just meatheads.

I mean, he's not using those terms, but might not think about those intellectual.

But people can be fighters and intellectual.

They can be, they can have these multiple facets.

I think that's good.

I think that's a good message.

I think Joe would know that from knowing these people personally.

And I think more people would

do better appreciating that we aren't just the one-dimensional things that you take us at at face value.

And even the people in the public eye have these other layers to them.

So

I'll go with that one.

I think that's the one good thing or one good thing I can pick from this.

Yeah, I agree.

I think

that's a small piece of it, but it really is kind of the only thing in it that's shining.

The rest of it is kind of mostly just drudgery around religion and then him trying to make it seem a lot more complicated than it is.

I am noticing a pattern when we get to the something good:

I always go first, and your something good is quite often.

Yeah, I agree with that.

I don't appreciate you calling me out like this on the air, Marsh.

I think that's rude, to be honest.

All right.

So, that's going to be it for the show this week.

Remember, you can access more than a half hour of bonus content each week for as little as a dollar an episode by subscribing at patreon.com/slash no Rogan.

Meanwhile, you can hear more from me at cognitive dissonance and citation needed, and more from Marsh at Skeptics with a K and the Skeptic Podcast.

We'll be back next week for a little more: the No Rogan experience.

If you love the show, please rate and share it.

If you want to get in touch with us, become a patron, or check out the show notes, go to knowrogan.com.

K-N-O-W-R-O-G-A-N.com.

The Mercedes-Benz Dream Days are back with offers on vehicles like the 2025 E-Class, CLE Coupe, C-Class, and EQE sedan.

Hurry in now through July 31st.

Visit your local authorized dealer or learn more at mbusa.com slash dream.

Hey, this is Dan Harris, host of the 10% Happier podcast.

I'm here to tell you about a new series we're running this September on 10% Happier.

The goal is to help you do your life better.

The series is called Reset.

It's all about hitting the reset button in many of the most crucial areas of your life.

Each week, we'll tackle a topic like how to reset your nervous system, how to reset your relationships, how to reset your career.

We're going to bring on top-notch scientists and world-class meditation teachers to give you deep insights and actionable advice.

It's all delivered with our trademark blend of skepticism, humor, credibility, and practicality.

10% happier is self-help for smart people.

Come join the party.