Tuesday morning, which for most people means uneventful, Wednesday is hump day. Monday is a horrible. That was Tuesday doesn't feel like anything, but I tell you what, it feels like today. Saying hello to an old friend who we have not seen now, full disclosure. I've spoken, of course, with our next guest behind the scenes, but a lot of you have been asking, why hasn't he been here in the show? Well, look what we'll talk about that with them. Usually we've been doing guest segments. I think this one warns long-form sit down because, well, first
if you're not going to get them to answer a question and then easy and
and
You know, a novella but a very good out though. Very smart, man. We actually, I think this was the first show to really have him sort of stateside. Because originally we wrote about him at a lot of crowder.com with the Free Speech laws from my homeland of Canada. And this guy really was like, I think some people maybe not appreciate, and I don't want to, you know, I don't want to do this with him here because he'll get embarrassed. But the truth is,
This man took a big risk, and I want people to really appreciate.
What he the limb he stepped out on the reason, you know, who he is right now is not because of Joe Rogan and not because of the show, but he was Public Enemy. In Canada, Free Speech doesn't exist in Canada. And so now he's talked about a lot of other things. And he's he's brilliant. He's a professor but the whole reason he came to the Forefront as because he was one of the few people in Academia in a country where you are not allowed to go against groupthink and he took a stand at Great risk to himself.
So I think that warrants as its first time back here. Doing a long-form interview time. I don't think the whole world is different. So I'm curious to see what he has to say what's going on right now in his world because we haven't spoken since the pandemic. Yeah. This is a totally different interview, Whole New World. A whole new man. Whole new world. Let's get to it with dr. Jordan Pederson.
All right, here he is. He was talking. I mean, I can give them an introduction. Yeah, but you know, does he need? Does he need one? I mean, I can say doctor because he'll make a whole big thing about it, but I don't know if he's been on since this new book has been out. But
you could say Professor, but it's three
syllables. Well, you know, listen, you're asking a lot of me sir. What's a sinus infection and the soft palate affect their and the new book is beyond order 12 more rules for life. So a lot of rules, you follow me.
The Twitter. Jordan be Peterson Professor. Thank you for being here, sir. How are you?
I'm I'm, I'm quite well, at the moment, actually, I'm so happy about that. I can't believe it. So that's, that's good. I am talking to you and you, and I'm looking forward to it. Oh, you know, I'm well, if that's the case
I was going to say. Yeah, I don't know. You must have had to to rally for this. So let me do my very best to shoot that down. Do you think you're feeling so well? Because of all your
Wouldn't be because of all your rules. Now, what? It Professor?
Oh, you can't have too many rules, man. So 24 is just that's just the tip of the
iceberg. Isn't that kind of funny though that you? And I would say myself a lot of people who sort of had run-ins with big Tech your sort of seen as an auntie certainly an anti-authoritarian figure. I just have a general problem with authority. But then you really are a big believer in rules in order. Is that more so personal rules and
He's opposed to something being enforced. Externally. Do you think it's a big
difference?
Yeah, well, I'm not interested so much in what people should and shouldn't do in some rules sense. I'm more interested in trying to discover and discuss with people, what principles we should live. By each of us as individuals that would serve each of us and the collective best. And I can't see why why you wouldn't want that. I mean, if you're bitter and cynical and resentful and you want things to go to hell and I, you know, I can understand that and I understand.
People get there, but I'm not really interested in stopping people from misbehaving because what they're doing is wrong, is that I'm interested in investigating. What are the principles that that help you live a life that that justifies itself and even more than that, you know, if you're fortunate and so, and maybe it's because I'm not finger-wagging in some sense that people are willing to put up with the fact that I'm writing about rules and therefore me to right? They're not, I'm not saying these.
Or for other people. And I also not saying that I can abide by them all the time.
So, I know there's no, wait. I mean, that's the only person who can abide by all the rules that are set as is Jesus, and that was kind of the great irony of it. It's like yeah, you guys can't do this. Only I can. And then anyone else coming around? We don't. But let me ask you this. This is something. And this might be a bit of a smartass question. But um, so you wrote the first book and there's 12. Rules. What point did you go?
And you realize that you missed 12.
Oh, well, huh. I do have an answer for that. Okay, that isn't what happened. I wrote 43
rules. Oh, okay. So this end I did
it. Exactly. That's right. I haven't thrust old my rules upon everyone yet. So well, I wrote I wrote an answer to a question on quora. I wrote like 50 answers. I had a core of fit there for a while and wrote a bunch answers and and some kid had written in saying, you know.
What? What principles help you live a meaningful life, let's say right so I cranked out 43 rules just very fast, you know, and then that answer became very popular on Korra has way more popular than any of my other answers. And so and I talked to my first agent Sally Harding and about a more popular book. I wrote this book called maps of meaning which is sure hard book and though the audio version.
Version is probably more accessible and we were talking about how some of these ideas might be made more publicly accessible, and I remembered this list of rules and the fact that it was popular and I thought well, you know, it's been market-tested already and I don't mean that in a cynical way. No. No, I mean, I look if you're going to write a book, a popular book you want people to read it. Otherwise you're a fool. And if you don't pay attention to what people are interested in, then you're not meeting your audience halfway, right? And that's how it came about.
So I picked 12 that I kind of thought went together thematically and that struck me as, as interesting and meaningful, and I wrote the first book and then why did the same? And then I group them? Yeah. Well, I think that one was an antidote to chaos and one was, was a danger about the danger of Tamara warning about the danger of too much order. So that kind of covers the political landscape in some sense.
Yeah, definitely', I wonder too if you just touch on something, that's why you have more. There's some people like yourself who have more staying power and
It's because like you said, you're not you are meeting your audience halfway, but then on the flip side, if people who are just sort of who are what I would consider Trend Chasers, right? They throw bombs. They look at the trend. They throw something in there, some red meat, get people riled up. But then once that Trend goes away, they go away. And we've always said, look, if we're talking about subjects that don't interest people are don't matter to people on this show. We're not really serving our audience but probably might be last week, you know, the FBI they were having to deal with the sex scandal, the Olympic gymnasts and not reporting this for 17 months, and 40 more women having come forward being raped.
You know, and I use that to segue into something that I've wanted to talk about regarding the difference between field, agents, and corruption in our intelligence agencies for a long time, but there just wasn't really an in. And how are you going to get people to go long history of FBI and CIA corruption and I'm not talking about insane, false flag operation. I'm talking about things that have been determined in a court of law where people have already been tried and convicted that. Most people don't know about but we said this is a perfect opportunity because now all eyes are on the FBI's transgressions and kind of, you know, you feathered into what
Matters to people so that you buy yourself some leeway so that you can say, well may I offer this up, perhaps this might be of interest and I noticed that you you do that and I think it's an important delineation between what people like you do and certainly what I try and do versus someone who's just you know, Trump 2024.
Well, I'm trying constantly to talk about things that I think are are true in some sense regardless of time and place. I mean, I'm not trying to make some claim that I've managed that but look that 12 rules for life.
First book, it hit the number 10 spot in the London Times bestseller list. Again this week. It's four years later. And so it's been perennially in the top 10 on Amazon. And the reason for that I think is that I didn't bind it to anything specifically political that was topical at that moment and I didn't want to do that. And and I'm trying not to do that with my podcast as well. And and in terms of meeting the audience halfway, I mean, I really
Try to do that in my lectures to when I go on tour, when I went on to her. I don't use notes. And part of the reason for that is that I'm looking at audience members all the time. I'm always pick someone out and talk to them and then I pick someone else out and I'm talking to that person. I'm not lecturing.
I'm not lecturing and and I'm meeting the meeting people. You meet the whole audience if you concentrate on one person and and that's much well, that's working. And yeah, it's a good. It's a good thing to do. It's a dialogue that way because he gets you get the audience then informs you as well. Right?
Right. So and so do you and you feel like you get inspiration from, you know, it's funny. I don't I don't you definitely. I don't use notes just because I can't write them. I'm dyslexic. So it reads Sons. See this is just a penis. I don't know if I can see. That's all I did on here. There's nothing useful.
It's not a very good
one really. Well, it's, it's, it's, it's a self-portrait. Thank you. Professor ha,
a lots of people would agree with
that. Well, look, no, not the least of all my life, the hell even. Hey, speaking of things that you like, and meeting people that we would just talk about this, not long ago. One of your guilty pleasure. I hope I'm outing you. I think people will be thrilled to hear this. It shouldn't be a surprise because you're Canadian and I know you two have a sense of humor, but sometimes, you know, people see you as it's more of a father figure. I'm just going to come out, trailer park.
Boys, you've seen every episode, right?
Oh, I've seen every episode number of times. Yes. Okay. I find that. It's, I grew up in a working-class community in Canada in the north. I mean, that's all antic Canada humor, the Trailer Park, Boys, but it's the same thing. And, yeah, I think those three characters are comic Geniuses. I really do. I mean, it's filthy and it's, it's, it's obscene, and it's way too hot. Yeah. It's inexcusable. It's way too much.
Reminds me of Foo bar, which is another, it's a Canadian movie and it's about the same sort of people except in the west and it's even more deadly aimed at the sort of people that I grew up with and they were working class people. And they, they were smart, and they were bonded to each other and they were witty. And, and well, I'm trying to rationalize this. I think it's funny. I think, yeah, donkey episode with really when the bubbles
character the ventriloquist
dummies out this damn puppet. I mean, I think
Think that's one of the funniest 30 minutes of television that's ever been produced. It's really work of G of terrible awful unforgivable, obscene, genius, and so more power to them. And yeah, I'm big fans. Yeah, we now find.
Was that work on? I haven't seen them. I haven't seen that kind of thing. Yeah,
that's that's exactly it.
That was, you know, what? That was actually. And I maybe perhaps I was reading into it too much. I thought that was a send-up of, I don't remember.
Anthony Hopkins. A film magic where he was sort of a serial killer threw a ventriloquist dummy, and maybe they hadn't made that connection. But every time, you know, someone is sort of a cinephile and I've seen the only other person who I know who Seymour's is Dave who's, who's not here right now? I always go. Oh wait, maybe there's a connection there and you know, I might want to tell you maybe let me turn you on to show. It's not a Canadian show, but it's you will see. You can just hear the Canadian accent. It's all shot in Vancouver, even though it's set in Seattle. It's called Loudermilk, and it's about a 12-step program, Ron, Livingston.
And heads up a 12-step sort of Alcoholics Anonymous program in Seattle. He's a former music critic and I don't want to give it away, but I will say Brian Regan who's just know not only is a comedian but an ultra clean kind of goofy dad like comedian but really well-respected deserves an Emmy. He will rip your heart out my order milk Loudermilk. Yeah, there's three seasons and I hope to God, they make a fourth but it is a really really good show and there is definitely a Canadian bent there just because you know, it absorbs. It's a character in a novel.
Off, even though it's set in Seattle. We all know what it's like out there in western Canada. I kind of only have heard Tales because I grew up in Quebec where we're not really witty and bonded to their mostly just loud tolls
and they speak French too, which is really unforgivable. It really is on this day and age. It's like get on, get on board guys. It's like, you know, you're in the rest the world. Oh it absolutely
it. Absolutely. I'm not even joking though. When I say that people used to get furious when I would point to Quebec as an example of multiculturalism, versus The Melting Pot in the United.
States gone wrong and I would talk to Americans when I lived in New York and I would say, do you realize you can just go 30 minutes north to the border and you can go into a country, wasn't it with its own culture? Different language that they don't speak a word of your language. You can't read a word of your language. They don't watch the same shows. They don't know. You're same celebrities, and they are a part of an English country known as Canada, but you will have gone to Quebec. And you won't know that it's Canada. And by the way, they have a nationally representative party whose only interest is to separate from Canada.
So this is part of the political and these were a conquered people who the English said. You know, what? Alright? Well let you have this and we go through the plains of Abraham and I tell Americans ago. You just don't know. That's why you say, okay? Look French French folk time for you to feather in Canada's English. And then you have the referendums to sit be like, it'd be like Texas separating because they wanted to just be Spanish. It doesn't make any sense. Americans are understanding this, but Quebec Cecilia place. That's my point.
So I should say Quebec's defense. Let's say that Montreal is a great City and
And let's try if people in the u.s. Want a quick taste of Europe, Montreal's Creek Place. It's one of the world's great. It's truly one of the world's great cities. It really is. I love country all lived there for like eight years. And it it's such a great City. It's so fun. It's got such a dynamic culture. The street life is amazing. It's really, really safe. Like you could wander around anywhere 3:00 in the morning. It's no problem. It's
beautiful. Well, I can't. I was mugged twice.
In Montreal Jeff,
I was mugged over a set of Interpol tickets by a small Haitian incidental. I only say it because the story was one that I've told on air. Yeah, it was bugged for Interpol tickets. He was a scalper. Anyway. Mummy for the money for the Interpol tickets. And, anyway, the
whole point is, it's really humiliating. That's really, that's really he, especially, because he was small and it was Montreal. It's like, how did you manage that and twice? Do you know how he got away? He's
screaming. I swear to you. This is true. He screamed out.
That I was racist and I stopped chasing him. I would have a
good that should have happened to you. That
absolutely. Absolutely should about this is this is the true story. Okay, I'm
gonna, he's gonna see God up in the
clouds because I was going. Why isn't anyone stopping him. I was going to see Interpol that night with my friend Carl. It was a band sort of an indie rock band was going to see them at I believe is Metropolis or spectrum and I was going to what I knew was a scalper.
Well, he didn't have inner Bowl tickets, but another guy who you know, he presented himself as a scalper turns out, not all. I don't know. If you know this, you have to be at choosy with your scalpers. They're not
all you mean not all scalpels are
honest, not all legitimate. Is that something? So ironically you'll hear at the end of this tale? It was all redeemed through it, through an, on a scalper. So this small Haitian man says, I owe you one Interpol tickets. I'm not going to try and do is accent because people get all mad. But rest assured, he had one sounds like most people who are Haitian immigrants in Montreal and he said I got Interpol tickets.
And I said, okay he gave me the price and seems a little steep. But okay, so he goes to a camera which hotel and remember it wasn't the Queen Elizabeth. It wasn't a hotel, was familiar with it. Go pick them up at the front desk right away. I'm thinking this is weird. He just said he has Interpol tickets. Why would he go to this hotel front desk? So he goes there and then he goes into the restroom again, should have given me a red flag. I'm 16 years old, mind you. Okay. Well, that's it more. Yeah. Yeah, 16 years old and he comes out and then he has I see him putting stuff in what's like toilet paper?
In this and envelope. And he goes, all right here, the tickets. Give me the money. And I said, no, that's not, goes aren't tickets. He said, what do you mean? I said, there's a toilet paper. There's toilet paper envelopes, and he goes, how do you, how do you know that? I said? I saw you put toilet paper in there and he goes like, man, he's he walks out. So I go k, walks up the revolving door. Now when I walk I was waiting for music. No, no youyou. Missed. Humans took it. This is these are the tickets and he shows what actually looks like tickets at this point. I said, okay, so then I hold my money, but I see these
Covering up the name on the ticket? Never. Let me see the ticket. He goes. Well, what you don't trust me, you don't trust me. He's just making these accusations and I said, no. No, I'll just show me the ticket. He grabs the money from my hand, but the good thing is he ripped the, the twenty dollar bills in half. So it was of no value to him. So I find solace in that then he runs out in the middle of the street and what? Hey, I gotta guys guys took my money and I'm at this point six foot one six-foot-two, but very skinny, but this guy could is all of five foot three and he's running through the street and I go I let anyone do it.
And, of course, no French, I found that guy that back Mac. They're not friendly at all. And this guy just goes what you're saying, it, because I'm black, you're racist. And I'm stopping like, watch, no, no. No Eddie's ran into an Alleyway and I thought. Well, now that the alleyway has him. Now, I'm 16, and it's an Alleyway. And then finally, I told the story to another scalper who was right outside the Interpol concert at that point the show had already started. He said men, there are some really dislike. There's some really rough people out there here and he gave me the tickets because they were of no worth at.
Point to show it already started. He gave me Interpol tickets, which is very nice. But then he said, don't trust the Haitians and I said you're racist. That's the problem. So it could have been fault
that the devil scalper and the Saints Calpers, the same
night, right? Yeah. So point is not as safe as you make it out to be but yes, Montreal is a wonderful City to visit. I don't know that I would ever want to live there again with the taxes and I don't know that I could raise kids there at this point.
I mean, I love living there. I love living
there. So our x square is Club. Super sex in Montreal, when I tell people that I go, our Santa Claus parade, is going back, giant flashing neon purple, tits. It's not like there's a red light district. It's the whole city and Americans are exaggerated. I'll just go visit but unbelievable restaurants, a lot of fun. So Trailer Park Boys. Okay, this is, this is something that might surprise quite a few people. Lot has changed since we last spoke. I know I want to talk with you about this because I know you're you're eating some jerky.
All right. Am I seeing that lamb?
Yeah. Yes. Okay. Lamp, that
it's beef with lamb fat. Well, I know you've talked about, you know, sort of the carnivore diet with to, I accidentally went on the corner of our diet. After my surgery recently for like Hardline accidentally, nothing but red meat for about five weeks,
accident happened. Well I
had surgery, and then I I gained 30 pounds in a week and a half. Now, I didn't know at that time that it was at a gallon and a half of fluid in my welfare.
Working it for the Canadian that they're five and a half liters of fluid in my thoracic cavity. So I said, oh I'm getting I'm really gaining weight. I mean, I looked like I was you know looked like Macaulay Culkin after he found out he was allergic to bees and my girl and I I said I should cut out sweets that didn't do anything. I still kept gaining weight, you know, I didn't know what's going on, internal bleeding in such as well, that, you know, now I'll just cut out carbs and it didn't work. But at that point once I had been drained from, you know, surgically I'd already gotten into that Rhythm and I was kind of by myself.
After five days in the ICU to recover, and I kind of enjoy grilling. It's something I've always done. You know, my wife will make the sides. If we do a grill night and then I'll make the meat. But at this point, my wife was across the country preparing to have twins because we didn't foresee these complications. So, I'm recovering by myself, and I'm grilling like a porterhouse Aires and I don't, I don't want to learn how to make the sides. That's my wife's thing. So it was born out of
laziness. You are a sexist. You're a second. I'm lazy to stress and your, and your carnivore York.
On Everest, you're really a bad
person. I am an awful human
did sounds like it. Yes. Yes. Did you lose weight when you started eating just meat? Or was that still like, we're still being affected by the surgical
know? So, I lost, I lost like the 30 pounds in about six days because they actually drain the fluid and then the rest of it and admit a diuretic so that I stabilized back to my pre-surgery wait, so, I went in about 2:30 and I came out about two thirty two, so yeah, but it was, I tell you what, I didn't feel bad. I was surprised that there was just sort of born.
Of all right. At this point I was, I was doing one meal a day and I've just always preferred red meat. I'm not saying that I'm a doctor would advocate in a surly anyone, but it was accidental and it was it was a fun little experiment. Nothing. In other words. There was no, there were no side effects. There was no sometimes you're like, oh, I go through this when it's times, like, I think it could be a blood type thing because when I was a kid, my mom used to call me a carnivore. I go to McDonald's. And I'd say, could I not get the fries? Just double up on the burger patties and she locked me in a closet.
Hmm, that accounts for that account.
As for some of your weird personal characteristics, I guess. Yeah. Well, I've been eating, I've been eating basically, nothing but meat. I don't like to talk about this much because I'm not a dietitian, and it's really weird in some ways. I just hate this diet because I love to cook and I love to go to restaurants. It's very restrictive, but I when I went on this diet to begin with I think because of autoimmune issues. As far as I could tell ya, I lost like 50 pounds in six months. It was ridiculous. Like I wasn't really that much overweight.
About 6 to. So, but like eight pounds a month. It was unbelievable. I just couldn't believe it and that is permanent. I've never gained the weight back. And so now I'm down to the same weight. I was when I was like 26, and
I've never get you over where do
well, even back that was in 2015. My was up to about 212 and I met 165 now.
You know, I wasn't I wasn't in great shape, but but I was tall enough to carry it, but losing that much weight was quite the, it was a real shock to me a conceptual shocked. I couldn't believe it. I will can't believe it
for me. It was different, gaining the weight so quickly. And I think this is something people realize psychologically, and I would imagine it happens to a varying degree but long term, you know, right now we sort of talked, I've talked about this on the show to kind of go back to something, a little little more philosophical in the fat Pride movement. For example, mister.
Ties in obviously with as restricted struggling with an international pandemic and the sigil been is preventative, you know. Comorbidity. Is it obesity? But we're not allowed to talk about it because we've declared that it's beautiful. You know, when I gained that much weight very quickly. I felt it on my joints. Now keep in mind. This was obviously fluid in my thoracic cavity was basically, you know, medically induced. It was a complication but I felt like a very different person and it was amazing. How much it also affected my psyche and I've got to imagine that even if that's happening.
Over the course of a long period of time. Sure, physiologically you adjust more, you know that the connective tissue but it's got to have an effect on your mental state and like you've talked about even losing the weight. I'm right now. This is this is right. Have we bound ourselves in such a not to kind of go here with to me covid and the fat Prime. We need to delineate people who are overweight and want to lose weight. And that's an entirely different situation. And someone saying you will declare me beautiful and healthy. At the same time. The people that we can talk.
Well, one of the things I've really been thinking about lately and I'm going to write the next book that I'm going to write about this. I think, at least in part, is that
It seems to me that if we don't have a delineate.
Space conceptually and socially for the sacred and the religious. And that it's put in, its proper relationship to the other things that were concerned about then, what happens is not that we become pure rationalists, as people like Dawkins and and Harris, for example, might hope, but that much that should never be religious instantly becomes contaminated with it, right? And so an issue like like body size, relative obesity.
Starts to take on this intensely moral element and and the people who are pushing hard against shaming someone, if they're fat, they have their point, but it should be. It shouldn't be a moral issue to begin with if you're overweight. It's not because you're a bad person.
There's all sorts of reasons that you might be overweight and we should be able to have a discussion about that without becoming moral and we can't. And part of the reason for that is, well. We don't know what sacred and what isn't and and and we don't even know that some things have to be. And we certainly don't know what things should be. And so everything in our political landscape is becoming contaminated, as far as I can tell, with what are essentially religious concerns. And I mean, that psychologically not theologically. Yeah, so
It's not good. It's very bad. It also means that we're going to be more more tempted to elevate, our leaders, our political leaders into spaces of of treatment, that should be reserved for the sacred. And that's not a good thing either. When politicians are basically administrators in, that's the proper sense. That's the proper conception. Right? So,
yeah, as opposed to leaders are really almost almost executive decision makers. That's not necessarily what they're supposed to be.
Empowered to do, you
know, they're not Kings. Now, they're not Kings. I mean, what are the weaknesses? I think of the American political system, which I admire greatly is that it's not a monarchy. It's not a constitutional monarchy. And I think the advantage to a constitutional monarchy is that you have someone carry the weight of the symbol symbolism of the state. And so, because you see this, and you really see this in the US and you see it manifest itself in Celebrity culture to it's very hard for Americans, not to turn the president and his family.
Into something like, the royal family and Americans place. A tremendous amount of attention on the first family was very foreign to Canadians because we never do that in Canada for one reason or another. But, you know, your president has to carry all that symbolic weight. And that's, that's not good. I think, I think it's a problem.
It's a stark contrast in a we have assassination attempts in Canada. They have successful successful pie, ings of the Prime Minister. Will they will get pied in the face and that has happened many times.
Times. Now I tell Americans that they go. What do you mean like your prep? I guess, like our president. They go like a. Like what? Like a like a Boston cream pie, right? In the face. On a Podium on National Television. It has happened. Multiple times. They go. You can't be serious. I said, yes. I am. And I had someone on this show. It's interesting. You bring up sort of discussing the monarchy. I don't remember who it was and I and so please if this person remembers, I don't want to miss giving them credit or maybe they were quoting a philosopher. Said, you know, the one thing that people sort of fail to realize about the monarchy is unlike pure.
Democracy, at least in the sense with the monarchy royal family. They had some kind of attachment to their legacy and wanting to be remembered fondly wanting to be remembered. Well, because really, there wouldn't be this capability of passing. The buck that you voted for this at. This is a democracy. So some in some ways they were actually more beholden to some kind of at least self-governing. Moral Moral Compass, moral guidance, code of ethics. It said that's one of the sort of the Great.
Eight attributes that people often miss out on. I thought very, very introspective lie on the monarchy. The worst part the fruity
hats.
You don't you're not a fan of the
Hat, not a fan of that now. Yeah, but I'm just the first part was true. The second part that was just my editorializing. But it is interesting though, to, I mean, it is true. It's given to us a king. This is as old as time. I mean, this is, this is really one of the original sins of the Bible. And one thing going back to what you're talking about. Sort of not keeping our sacred institution separate. I see a lot when I grew up,
not even noticing that we actually need a space for the sacred, and, and we need to figure out what that is and it isn't optional. And this is one of the problems I have with these.
It's rationalist types is that and that the mistake they're making, I believe is that they treat religion as if it's a set of propositions about the nature of reality, like a scientific theory and and religious people make a huge mistake because they react to the scientific criticisms also, as if that's the case, but the religious is, this has nothing to do with an argument for, or against the existence of God, by the way. That's a separate issue, right? That, it's that the religious covers all sorts of elements.
I've experienced that aren't proposition lies. They're not statements about the structure of reality. So architecture has a religious element. You certainly see that in the cathedral's music ritual. Yeah, all of that, that it's more in that it's more on the domain of the Arts. Let's say so that that's technically speaking. So but then also, within the domain of Human Experience, so we all have the capacity to experience ah, for example, and
We can experience that to a greater or lesser degree and I would say, the more profound the experience of awe, the more it Shades into, what's always been described in religious terms. And so, you can say, well, we'll dispense with religion. But well, what about the experience of all? That's not a proposition. It's not an argument. It's something that happens to you. And it takes you unaware, right? You don't necessarily expect it to happen. Although sometimes you'll seek it out and you experience all when you're in the face and it seems to me.
Me that this is the case you experience. Ah, when you're faced by something that calls you it's beyond you. It's greater than you. So you see that and you experienced that but then it also calls to you in some sense to be better than you are. Right. And that seems to be an intrinsic part of the experience. And so and there's no just rationally dispensing with that and atheist or not. You can experience this. I think you experience it when you look up at the night sky, if you're somewhere extraordinarily dark, and maybe that it's a
Problem that modern people often don't have that experience now. And so, so, and so the argument I'm formulating, I suppose. Like I said, this is part of the next book. I'm planning to write is that we need to have a really serious conversation about this the psychological reality of the religious and how it exists in relationship to let's say the political or the ideological. Because if that's all mangled together in cautiously, all sorts of things happen that we don't.
Not want to have happened and that's the issue of rendering unto God. What is God and unto Caesar? What is Caesar's? And that's also the idea that church and state need to be separated. Not only politically and unconstitutionally say, but also conceptually, yeah. Otherwise we get muddied up. And so what are the atheist? The Atheist types, what they don't, what they haven't. Grappled with, as far as I can tell, is well.
There is a hierarchy of values. Some values are lesser than others. Otherwise, you would be able to pursue what you believe to be the most important. So some things announce themselves as more important than other things. There's a ranking of those, the most important issues there in the domain of something approximating the religious and whenever you touch on them, you elicit from people religious experience religious reactions, and and like I said that has nothing to do with an argument for again.
The existence of God, it's a philosophical and conceptual issue. And part of the problem that we're facing in, our society is that were were muddying the lines and that means all sorts of things, get inflated beyond their they're necessary importance. And it also means that the arguments aren't about what we're arguing about at all. They're about something underneath. That's hidden. Yeah, and that pops up everywhere.
I think no more apparent than actually to sort of piggyback on that but explain a little bit of a difference in where I was raised.
I was on YouTube in 2006, right. And then 2009 doing every week and there were no conservatives. There were no real Christians. That no one of significant note not like today like yourself or other, even a Christian and political channels out there, self-help to whatever we wanted to. However, we want to describe them. It was the edgy atheist territory, right? It was you are an atheist or bust, and I watched them sort of, always trying to attack Christians and I wouldn't say in a way that's completely unfounded with. Well. How do you reconcile your religion?
In the face of this scientific data, you know, that's what they would often be arguing, or the evolution argument was very big back then. Whereas now I see it on the flip side where especially in this sort of air of covid. We're like you're talking about in muddying the lines. Sometimes science has tried to insert itself and almost replace religion and people not necessarily science itself, but people have tried to turn to science as a religion for, for example, things that are unexplainable, sometimes,
while the other the other
Problem that comes up there. As far as I can tell, and Tim Harris has tried to address this. Although I don't think he's done. It successfully, is that?
You're always, we're always faced with the problem of perception and action. We have to see the world. We have to hear the world. We have to interact with the world, through our senses, and we have to act and none of that's optional. And even to perceive something, you have to select what's important and what isn't. So if you listen to someone in a crowded room, you focus in on their speech and not on the speech of the people in the background, right? And so you, you prioritize that person speech.
In the hierarchy of value, that guides your perception. Well, so you're stuck with existing inside a system of value. There's no way out of that. Well, it isn't obvious at all. That science can provide us with guides as to what constitutes, the appropriate values. And it's not obvious to scientists. In fact, I would say that science and some sense was designed so that, that was something. It didn't even try to do, right? It's trying to present an object.
Viewpoint devoid of to the degree that it's possible. Devoid of a priori value judgments, but then you have this whole domain of why we need to make judgments of value. Well, okay, where do they come from? And when I point out, for example, that there are things that call to you experientially that are outside of rationality. I would say to the atheists. Well, why don't you look at the science of religious experience? Let's say or that domain and try to account for that from
Then your particular perspective, if you criticize the religious people for not following the science. It's a lot of. What are you going to do with this fact that human beings are wired? For example, to admire and to imitate that, which they, which they find calls them to a greater self. Right? That's the the Instinct for imitation. And so what is it? We're imitating and, and why do we imitate that particular value? And so that the whole that
Well, that's a domain of unexplored mystery that has to be taken. Seriously. This isn't a matter of mere rationality by no
means. And I think you make a great point about the hierarchy of values. And so, you end up looking toward a Messianic figure. I mean, this is, this is kind of what what was supposed to be beautiful to me about the scientific process. I hate the word, the science. Now the science is the equivalent to. It is an equivalent to religion just like Scientology a certain what science in the name the science especially if someone says that with a fauci, pillow in their office, which Governor Whitmer did of mine.
The film state of Michigan science, what was beautiful about it is that it wasn't determined by consensus. Like you said that, that was by design. It was determined by truth. It didn't necessitate. As a matter of fact, it rejected people saying this is the right science because of consensus know if the consensus of the World is Flat, but it's wrong. The science says that you're wrong. And now we're at this point where people are don't even understand, they're making these same religious judgments and saying when we say, trust the science were saying fauci. Well on a second.
And what about when fauci goes against the World Health Organization? What about when the World Health Organization doesn't actually correspond with the CDC. What about the fact that you have other scientists at the time, for example who have come out and said fauci was wrong, while he was talking about the fact that if you lived in a home with a parent who had AIDS, you could catch it from a cereal box. This is all on the record. You had all kinds of other scientists who are more qualified. Who said this is not the guy and people and not understanding that they've made this value. Judgment have said, no. No, I've decided he's the guy.
And this is a real problem right now because, you know, this this kind of brings me an. I hope that this all makes sense and you can just tell me if I'm if I'm stammering. I've always been my litmus test for a conspiracy theory when you have to kind of dismiss it, right. You can't go through every conspiracy that someone brings up. You'd have to D. But you have too much, too much to debunk. You do have to start with how many people is, they? How many people is they? In this conspiracy theory.
How many people have? Okay, so, okay. So one of the things you're suggesting implicitly, is that one of the ways?
Ways we established value judgments is through consensus, but that isn't how we do science and fair enough, but but it does point to some mechanism for the establishment of value. So if you're trying to figure out what's important, what isn't? Well, one way you can do that is to see what people in general think and that might be a reasonable thing to do. But as you pointed out that's not part of the scientific process, certainly not. It be very weak if it was right.
And now I guess my point that was going to sort of in where we live the domain, you know, big big.
This sort of sphere where we one point. We're really grateful that there weren't Gatekeepers the conspiracy. Now, when we say hold on a second, we're talking about fauci, the CDC and scientific guidelines that fly in the face of other scientific guidelines, that they, and this conspiracy is really only about five heads of organizations. People have decided about fight. You're talking about five companies in about two or three international governing bodies who determine what is allowed to be spoken, regardless of your scientific qualifications for it to be considered.
Proper or misinformation. And by the way, that can change that a week from now. And they have we've documented at least 20 something times that to me your well. So it's really talked
talked. Talked talked to John Anderson last week. He's the debt was, the Deputy Prime Minister of Australia, a variety of years ago number of years, right? He was Finance Minister, when they ran something like five consecutive budget. Surpluses. Nationally, that's a hell of an accomplishment for a western democracy, man. So he's a very sensitive.
Old guy, and we were talking about what was happening in Australia. Underneath this. As a consequence of the covid pandemic and various other causes his point essentially to was that well, because politicians, in some sense are abdicating. Their responsibilities were forcing medical people to make what are essentially political decisions. And so just as much of the dialogue that much of the problems that beset is politically are a consequence of the bleeding over of religious.
Turns into the political domain. We now have bleeding over of the, scientific concerns into the political domain. And because politicians are using these experts as proxies for their own particular, for pushing forward, their own particular ideological positions, and that's a very dangerous misuse of Science. And so you see that in the climate change discussion to where the insistence is. Well, here's the problem and this is the magnitude of the problem and it's a moral issue and you have to accept that or you're not a good person or your rig.
Enter your malevolent, you're a bad person fundamentally, but the part of the reason that that insistence is there is because there's a pack of solutions at hand in that person's imagination that are usually idia logical in nature. And if the first proposition is true, then that the imposition of that particular set of solutions is a fait accompli. And so not examining that is extraordinarily dangerous because your if you have that ideological set of
Solutions. Then you're going to be extraordinarily tempted to co-op, the force of the scientific Endeavor, as a justification for your political Ambitions. It's very difficult for people to separate those sorts of things out. Like, I believe personally, I believe this is that it's very, very probable to me that
Massive solutions to the climate change problem, the global scale Solutions even national scale Solutions are going to cause far more troubled than the problem itself will. Cause I really believe that of course, so
no, I don't think is any question about that. I mean, I learned that again, when I was 20 years old and I went to the Cancun climate Summit. And I watched Ted Turner proposed China's one-child policy to thunderous. Applause. Everyone had flown into grain Coon. They hadn't heard of Steve.
There.
I was there and I said, oh, you know what? For me, that's when I stopped trying to feign being a Centrist. I said,
I don't know why I did that. Why why did that strike you so hard? Do you think how old were you? And so why I hit you so hard might have been
would have been 21 or 22. I just started at Fox News. I think it struck me so hard because it was sort of funny. You know, that you always see the hypocrisy. Everyone's a hypocrite. I always say, don't focus on the hypocrisy. Focus on the whether it's genuine. For example, Nancy Pelosi was a hypocrite when she went and had her
Are Vortex blown out, it's not that she's a hypocrite. It's that she doesn't believe about covid-19 tells her constituents or she wouldn't be going out in public and putting her head into a, particle accelerator. So, the issue there is, I had seen the hypocrisy was kind of funny. They all really were all a bunch of climate scientists finding an excuse to vacation in Cancun. This is when it was still a coda protocol and then it hit me. When about as bad of a policy as you can think of right. Almost a policy that would be considered a straw man. If you were to say,
To an environmental almost Pagan us, which is a pagan which is what I would determine some of these people to be. Now who worship at the altar of Gaia. If you were to say, well, how far does it go? Like China's one-child policy? They would have said, oh, okay, strawman, red herring and rightfully. So
I would think many of them would have agreed with it in their heart of hearts. It's like yeah, you know goddamn. Well, there's too many people on this planet. It's like they have to go some way or other where a cancer on the surface of the planet.
I guess I gave him the benefit of the doubt and then hearing Ted Turner say it, and I thought that's as Extreme as it gets. And that
It's not a problem. Okay, I'm out. I'm out with any. I'm not on board with any. I'm not going to fame being a Centrist here because this guy wants to help
you. So why did you think that was a bad idea? So like why not? Why not have fewer people and why wouldn't that be better for the planet? What, why do you see as a danger in that?
Well, that comes from a fundamental worldview. Were, I don't believe that. That basically our role here is to be subservient to the planet. Our role here is to go forth and subdue the planet and that we were created the image of God. And not the wildebeest, not the Beast to the
The field nor the fish of the sea. I think we need to be good stewards of the planet. But the minute you start getting into the territory of eliminating, human life. For the betterment of the planet. To me. That's a Pagan religion, diametrically opposed to not only, obviously the Christian worldview, but a pro human world view. I just don't think you can do it.
You're killing babies, right? You can't tell you walk. Who's gonna we talk about taxes. Who's gonna enforce. Hey, on second. Is that yours? Is that child? Number two, when we know what happens in China? I've made jokes about
the. Yeah. That's that's that's the, that's the more that's a straightforward route to walk down. It's like, yeah, you really want to see that much power to your governmental structure, right? And you're not worried about authoritarianism. Are you sure of that? And are you so sure that your motives were positing that have nothing to do with anything but your
Devotion to the long-term well-being of the entire planet. You're really sure of that. Are you and why? And how come, you're not sure that maybe you're not a bit bitter and maybe you just don't like people that much because life is hard and you've suffered a lot and you're angry. And this is a bit of Revenge. And like, if you don't think you have motivations like that, didn't I don't think you've thought very much because if you put someone into vice president make them suffer. They're going to produce all sorts of bitter ideas.
Yeah, and so we have to watch out for that. We have to be very careful about that.
So well, I think that's an interesting parallel, right? The climate situation because I've always said this, I'm not look, I'm not saying that there is no impact, of course in humans and climate and I'm not a climb. I'm not a scientist. I don't work for no even though they get their predictions wrong every single year, but my point is I don't hold myself out to be an expert. However, I can I can say it doesn't pass the sniff test when I read the entire 16-page green New Deal and it says and social
Justice and social justice and equity in their my. Well, haha was like and you just, you just added everything into this bill. This doesn't make sense. Right? I don't have to say, hey here Mi cyant. I'll present my scientific qualifications to say, I don't believe that AOC, or the UN have a shot in fixing it and getting China to play in line. When you look at the policy, proposals way, way down the trail policy, proposals. No way they work. So it doesn't matter if your science leads to those policy proposals. He
You can't enact it. So let's try and be better. Not throw our shout out the window. You know, when we're
going. Did you have to be a pretty damn incautious scientist to posit that the science necessarily elicits a given policy approach? Because one of the things you learn is the practicing scientist, is that you set up your experiment to test the micro details of your pet Theory and it's highly probable that the experimental results will turn out some other way than you predicted even when you're trying to predict.
Small things. And so to say, we can go from the science to the policy as if there's no intervening mystery and as if the as a scientist, you're 100% certain that the imposition of your policy is only going to produce the results. You intended and nothing else. None of that science. Write a scientist, with any sense would never ever make a claim like that Having learned through painful laboratory experience that everything will go wrong with your stupid theory that you can possibly imagine. And then a whole bunch more to
To that's so there isn't a direct line from the science to the policy. It's it when anyone ever tells you that they're not speaking as a scientist except perhaps in, you know, extraordinarily limited cases that moving from what the situation is, to what we should do about it to bring a given future into being that's that's an unbelievably difficult proposition and science can only solve that in micro in micro domains. And so that's the problem with saying, well,
You know, the science is settled. It's like yeah, why are you telling me that like, why is it so important for you that? I believe that? Oh, well, it's because I need to do these things. It's like, yeah, that's exactly why right because the science just sits there as a set of fact asset in some sense, if it's properly done as a set of disembodied facts, right? Well, what do we do about that? Well, that's a different question. How do we side what to do about it? That's a different question to those, aren't scientific questions. As far as I can
tell.
Yeah, I know. I think we almost see sort of the art World mirrored in science a little bit. And this goes right to sort of, sort of what you're talking about, and how this is happening in real time. If we want to know, what will happen with the climate proposals long-term, take a long-term version of what's been accelerated with covid and the radical changes in proposals, because we didn't take that first step. At least, not in a multitude of ways. When, okay, where are we? What is actually happening? We rushed to you have to do this. This is what has to be done. This has to be the proposal. Wait. Hold on a second. Put that back. We're
To change it. And as a comedian of talk about this, with, with comedy, I think there's the objective, right? Objectively funny. You put people there may be. People don't find them. But like Richard Pryor, George Carlin Norm Macdonald, right? You may not love them, but they're objectively. Funny objectively unfunny, which is people who've been opened miking for 20 years and never made a dime. They're obviously not very good. And then there's subjective. This is what's most art? Write, some art will appeal to some people. I think with science, there is the objective facts data at some point. Something is settle. Otherwise, we'd never get.
Get anything done. For example, if I say the room temperature is 67 degrees right now. I know that it is, otherwise, someone will be fired. If it's not, I'm a tyrant. Now, there's the objectively incorrect. I know the room is not 63 degrees because I can look at the thermometer, but then there's the subject of. How do we most effectively? Let's say get to 67 degrees and it seems as though, we've really just blurred that line in covid with the objective, and that whole subjective and science yet to be determined.
Armand. And we've altered everyone's lives because of it. And that's not to say that it's not a pandemic. And then it's not a virus that is particularly lethal to certain groups of people. But it seems like a lot right now, especially in big Tech asking the why we've done what we've done. And if this this is the correct course, forward is really scary. And a lot of people are afraid to speak out. This is something you and I haven't had a chance to talk about because I've been spoken in a while. The world has changed dramatically. Has it changed your?
Review of Where the world is going fundamentally than when we last spoke, maybe a year and a half, two years
ago.
Well, I have been shocked to see how fragile our civil liberties have turned out to be cross. The West mean, we basically China, put the first lockdowns into place and we mimic. So we mimic the axes of a totalitarian state instantly. Now, you know, we didn't know what to do, exactly in some sense. So I it's complicated problem. We didn't know the magnitude of
Problem. And
It's hard to criticize people in some sense for jumping to conclusions prematurely. Right, but but it's a long while later.
and,
The danger of using danger as an excuse for social control.
Is making itself more and more manifest. Yeah, so I've been very, very sick through most of this. So I haven't had a chance to think it through as much as I might have wanted to. And I've been criticized for that too. For, you know, not adding my voice, to the general. Clamor mean, I I spoke again with well, leader of a new political party in Canada. Maxine birdie, after I spoke with John Anderson about about the covid issue. My sense is that with the
bird policy move essentially, I think it's something like
Well, we've got the vaccines. We think they're useful. You can get one whenever you want now. And so in lots of people have got them. So.
January 15th, everything's open. And if you don't, if you're not vaccinated and you have your reasons for that, well, and we'll still do what we can to make sure the systems are in place to take care of you, if you get sick, but it's time to get back to normal. And I think an approach like that would actually convince a lot more people to get vaccinated because when you push and you push and you force and you mandate, then, all you do is increase the skepticism radically.
The skepticism of those who are skeptical of pushing and forcing and shoving and mandating, right? And I just see that. I see all of that mandate, all of that Force as a admission of the failure of policy. Yeah. Well, you didn't convince P. Didn't convince as many people as you think you should have that? The vaccine was a good idea. Well, whose fault is that? Well, it's the anti-vaxxers those sons of bitches. It's no no. No, you didn't formulate your argument properly. You didn't formulate your argument.
Ali. It's not so clear that all those idiots, it's their problem and they're just stupid and malevolent compared to you. It's a policy failure, and you don't admit that you won't admit that. And so now, you think you're justified in the use of force and so but and you're justifying that because well you're doing the right thing is like are you are you doing the right thing? Exactly? I remember when the vaccine
so sure, first came out. It was unanimous, right? That the insult du jour was ha you do you dumb, you do?
My anti-vaxxers. Okay. Republicans will kill off their own base problem solved, right Darwin Awards. I thought great, if you believe that then let him win it and then it became this is a pandemic of the end exit. You said, you didn't care, let them kill themselves off. That is proof positive that the argument they presented was that someone not being vaccinated didn't affect them and I don't even want to get into the hole man. Anyway, people know where I'll end up on that but I will say this
why you see weird, you see very weird things happening in Australia right now, and so for example there and I hope I've got this right but
The police. They're using an app that works on your cell phone, which so conveniently happens to know where you are, which perhaps turns out to not be such a good thing and maybe you have to send the police a photograph of yourself with something in the background that proves you are in fact right there. It's like, okay. Are you so sure that that app isn't more dangerous than the virus, right?
You know what, because it's not obvious like these, you look at an app like you look at this technology. This technology is stunningly. Overwhelmingly. Cataclysmically powerful, right? And you think well, it's just an app. It's like yeah. In Tinder was just a dating app to but it completely transformed. The psychological dynamics of human sexual interactions. Now whether that's how permanent that is, is a whole different question, but we're faced with these radical Technologies every day, and we don't even notice how revolutionary.
They are like this app. This is, this is quite something that you have to send that. The technology is already there to establish a system that makes it the case that you have to take a photograph of yourself and send it to the police. So they know where you are so that you can go and do your business. Are you sure that's not more dangerous than the virus.
Yeah, and it
isn't obvious to me
now. It's not obvious and I would take that one step back, you know, because I was accused of being a conspiracy theorist. When I said red lights, red light cameras are in constant.
Additional same exact argument. When will become like, Cameron Kent. It's Not a Human Being. It doesn't present context. These things can be faulty and you don't have the right to monitor me at any point in any intersection. So I
went worse than that. Where's that? Are you? So sure that establishing the precedent that enables a machine to find someone and elicit the force of the state. Is it good precedent, right? Because remember these things are getting twice as smart every year or so.
It's like, where exactly do we want them to
go? Well, if Nature's kind that Australian app technology will be relegated to yet another pile of a mechanism for picks that one day. We will see greatest. Hope we'll see, won't we? It's terrifying to think of and I would say this what scared me most is not just policy. Not that I've always believed that civil rights. Certainly the government would see them as riddle. What struck me the most and I and then it will go to will go to my club Only.
A bit here because we've been going along on YouTube and I want to show a clip of you sort of talking about authoritarian regimes and their relation with infectious diseases, which may be a little little difficult on YouTube. We never know what they will think about that. But I will say this, what's scared me the most and as someone who's far more thoughtful than myself. I'd love to hear your thoughts. What? Scared me more than what the government would do. I never realized how willing half of the country half of the world and now even more, but my fellow countrymen,
Are willing to rat me out, even knowing that it could come with dire violent consequences. We're going II, want to flag this person. Look, this person's breaking the rule. This person can't be allowed to go in public. This person doesn't have a passport and revel in
it. Yeah. Well you also want to ask yourself is are you so sure you want to set up policy that rewards that kind of behavior because you think while it's for a good reason, it's like yeah. Well you train
People do what they practice and they practice what you incentivize. You sure you want to incentivize that. And so I mean we have these Liberties in some sense to distribute decision-making power. So that cataclysmic errors aren't made in the name of doing the best thing, right? So,
But did you know, I think well, I think the vaccines are there. I'm vaccinated for what it's worth and I'm not stating that as some Badge of moral superiority, but I'm still I it seems to me that the right policy move is. Here's the vaccines are available. We're opening up, take your chances and away we go. Yeah, and let's get back to our free
life. Now. The problem is what's scary is the fact that you just said something entirely reasonable and I go yeah.
That sounds and I don't even necessarily know that. I agree. I think that the, I would take it more extreme, you know, being the right-wing extremist. I would say they had no authority to do any of this in the first place, and take a step further. But the point is either one of our views could result in this being removed because the policies and this goes to the First Amendment, right? It doesn't just involve the government and now you have people who meet with the federal government who meet with international governing bodies. I mean, it's not again, it's not a conspiracy to say Mark, Zuckerberg, Susan, wojcicki Jack Dorsey that these people are in a meeting a closed room meeting and come out with agreed-upon terms of
What you're allowed to say, look behind us. There's the orwellian double double think and I will say that is accelerated exponentially since the last time we've spoken and it is scary. That's what scares me. Not a new disease or even the next pandemic. What scares me more is my fellow countrymen.
Well, the next the next pandemic worries me too, because we've now we've established a precedent, which is this true, if the health
Is severe enough, then your civil liberties are optional. Okay, so while exactly how severe I mean, exactly. And then then I think about other freedoms that we have like the freedom to drive. That's actually pretty dangerous and it's not that good for the planet.
And so just what makes you think that?
You should be doing that. Exactly, like the safety issue, the impact issue.
It's very it's very disturbing to me to see those issues being hijacked for what are essentially political purposes. Yeah, and it's worrisome.
Remember that shocking moment. When you first get behind the wheel of the car by yourself when you're 16 or 17 on your
What two tons of steel glass and gasoline and I can point it anywhere.
You kidding. It's it'll kidding. There's nothing that is nothing that embodies individual Freedom more than 550 horsepower, internal combustion engine sports car in the hands of a young man. Well now you're just shooting
up. Yeah. I had a fire Ford Windstar,
it's bloody amazing that that ever that that was ever
allowed. I know, I know it is absolutely
You know what the same thing can be said for the first time ever shot a gun when I moved to the United States. I said, oh, oh, oh, this is the finality. This isn't a film. And that's why I've always encouraged people to take proper shooting lessons and just go understand what it is. That respect the power of anything, mechanical, whether it be an automobile or be a be a gun. And with our kids to I will have my kids shooting very, very young just to make sure they respect it because I tell you what, I knew I think I was 20 years old when I first fired
A firearm. I said, you know what, had? I never shot a gun. I don't know that if I walked into the magical closet of mystery and stumbled across a gun. Let's say a friends. Father's gun that I would have respected it. But I know if I would have shot this gun when I was a kid, I absolutely would have. And so, I spoke to my wife, I said we're going to get them to a shooting range with us supervised as young as they can so that they learn respect for it because I had no respect at all for that and very little respect for my parents paneled. When Star
It was an awful. Awful awful vehicle. You couldn't get a less cool car. Actually, no, wait. That was the upgrade. It was an old Aerostar, which was fear. Okay, we're going to go to my club because I want to show a clip talking about authoritarian regimes and infectious diseases, but the book, the new one, if people don't have it, as I say new. Because even been here in a while Beyond order 12, more rules for life. There might be some bonus rules in there because he likes them working people. Get it there, professor.
They could get it anywhere. Any bookstore, any book seller online at Amazon? It's, it's round. And so, if you like the first book, well, hopefully, you like the second book, I are, they online consensus seems to be on Amazon. There's thousands of reviews that it's an improvement over the first book. So I hope that's true.
Well you tease me as a professor knows I can't read YouTube. Thank you very much for going to go discuss things that you may not allow. We don't know not going to chance it piss off.
