Decoding the Gurus - Guru US Election Special

Episode Date: November 4, 2024

Matt and Chris dip their toes into the fetid, guru-infested swamp surrounding the 2024 U.S. election. Straining to see what lurks in the murky depths, they encounter dark shapes, including Eric Weinstein pledging his services to whoever wins (or will give him a call), Joe Rogan conspiracy hypothesizing with Donald Trump, the Free Press hosting a truly heterodox election party, Michael Moynihan pulling no punches, and finally, Jordan Peterson’s shockingly sycophantic psychological assessment of Donald Trump and his cohort.Join Chris and Matt as they navigate the election discourse swamp and the ever-unsettling convergence of internet personalities and political power, examining how these online figures function like the courtiers of old—gathering around their would-be kings, flattering them with pseudo-profound or sycophantic praise, and vying to secure their place in the new order.All very cheerful stuff, we’re sure you’ll agree!LinksA Psychological Analysis of Trump’s Personality by Dr. Jordan B. Peterson | EP 492Professor Dave Explains: The Problem With Sabine HossenfelderMatt Johnson's article on Joe Rogan: A Conspiracist for the Trump EraJoe Rogan Experience #2219 - Donald TrumpMoynihan on Triggernometry: The Most Important Election in History - Michael MoynihanQAnon Anonymous: Episode 211: Tulsi Gabbard P1 (The Cult) feat Mike Prysner

. Hello and welcome to Decoding the Guru with the cognitive anthropologist Christopher Kavanaugh, me and him, the psychologist of unknown sub-discipline, as he likes to be referred to. Matthew Brown in America, Roving Correspondving correspondent holding the mic in his hand. So now we have a higher quality mic situation, but I have discovered, I've been informed by Matt that he did not see Fred to bring the stand for his mic. So we're relying on Matt not to move his hand during this. So let's see how that goes. How do you think that's gonna go, Matt? So we're relying on Matt not to move his hand during this.

So let's see how that goes. How do you think that's going to go, Matt? I'm feeling confident. I'm feeling good. I feel like it's going to go really well, Chris. Don't worry. You're a worrier. You worry too much. Things will turn out fine.

You lack confidence. That's your problem. What we need to do is try and locate where you are so we can just send you like a $20 microphone on the stand. I know this is a complex concept, but we'll see. We'll see. Maybe I'm being pessimistic.

That's not going to work. Chris. I'm a, as you said, I'm a roving correspondent by the time you find out where I am. And I'm at Venice beach at the moment. Very nice. I'll be gone. Uh, off to Palm Springs. Yeah.

You can't catch me, man. You can't catch me. Look, I was going to, I was going to bring the stand, Chris, but, uh, here's the thing. I was already concerned about immigration because it's all a bit suspicious. We've come to the United States for three months and you know what they're like. They're worried that we're going to, you know, stay here for too long. We're trying to sneak into the country. Americans are paranoid.

They think everyone wants to sneak into the United States. They don't know that that's the last thing I want to do. I'm already looking forward to it. I'm not, I'm not going to stay here forever, but that's what they think. And if you bring anything that makes it look like you're working and you're on a tourist visa, then it could be problems. And I thought I can get away with the microphone. I can get away with that.

But my stand is really big. It looks very technical. It looks like equipment and it doesn't look like a guy that's going on a holiday. So I was just a bit paranoid about having to, yeah, getting turned away. Oh yeah. I know your stand is huge, but there's like microphone stands that are not huge. That are just like, you know, little like, like the one I have. I don't have one I have.

I don't have one of those. It's in the desk. That's it. Yeah. Well, that's the problem. You've got it, but I don't. Yeah. I could buy one.

You're right. I could buy one, but I'm busy. I'm busy. I'm, I'm roaming. I'm busy roaming, Chris. Don't worry about it. It'll be fine. Yeah.

Yeah. Well, we'll see. We'll see. So any complaints about audio quality, please contact Matt directly. Okay. That's Matthew Brown at gmailer. You can reach me at the Decoding the Gurus email. That'll be fine.

It'll, it'll get forwarded onto me eventually. That's true. That's true. All right. Well, so we're coming up to election season, in any case, Matt. And the Guru ticks, they have been flying. They've also been interviewing political candidates, giving their opinion on the upcoming election. And I thought it might be good to, you know, do a little whirlwind tour with some clips, yes, but also just take a look in on what a couple of

the crews up there that had a lot of people message me to recommend that I look what Eric is up to Eric who's been a little bit silent recently. And did you happen to see the trouble that Eric got into on, on twitter.com? I did not. I did not. I know nothing about this. Tell me. You're coming fresh. Wow.

Well, well, given that, given that you don't know what has happened to Eric, what would you anticipate that Eric's stance on the upcoming election would be? What would you imagine that he would add, you know, to this tense time? Oh, well, it would have to have something to do with a shadowy conspiracy where nothing is as it seems. And everything that you're reading is kind of a distraction around the really important thing that is going on, which will be, and that's where, that's where I don't know Chris, because with Eric, you know, I know the general tenor, but I don't know the specifics.

You tell me. The first tweet, the first tweet is very much in that being, I am feeling this election. I tried, but I simply failed. I cannot work within these concepts. My world, my country, my America is not on the ballot. Poor Eric is lamenting his choice. And his familiar trope there of, I don't understand what's going on. Can somebody please

explain it to me? I'm baffled. There's lawn signs out there. There are campaign ads happening. What's going on, Chris? It's unclear. How do we get to this situation? But that's not where he finished, Matt. If he had done that, that would have been just a standard Eric election tweet, or really an Eric tweet. That's what they are usually like. Now, he went on and he made full use of his ability to extend past the arbitrary Twitter word limit, so unfortunately I can't read it all,

but I'll read some of it. Here's what I will say. Colon. I will work with anyone to restore my country. I have been an expert in what is wrong with our CPI inflation gauge. I was an expert in immigration in the 1990s and early 2000s. I wrote one of the earliest peer reviews, academic papers on the danger of mortgage-backed securities back in 2001. And I know how and why the science system and the physics were prepared to get us out of the solar system is being dismantled by our government. I co-ran the Sloan Science and Engineering Workforce Project at Harvard and MBER. I refuse to take all that hard work and just flush it down the toilet on these campaigners. These campaigns are horrific. They destroy the ethos of our nation. So then he goes on.

He doesn't want lawfare. He doesn't want insecure elections or insecure borders. He doesn't want bullying. He doesn't want government departments' name to promote financial instruments. Blah, blah, blah. Kind of both sides. But leaning a little towards Elon. Any thoughts so far? Well, I enjoyed the way it started. He's got a real talent for taking his extraordinarily slim resume and making it seem like he's a leader in all of these different fields.

Economics, physics, what else is there? Mortgage-backed securities, whatever. So why aren't people asking him? Why isn't he being invited into the walls of into the corridors of powder? He's got his jacket. Was he wearing a jacket? Well, here's a tweet, you don't know. But I assume he's wearing his jacket. He's ready. Why haven't they called? Oh, yeah. Well, more explicit, Matt. There's more both sides orism. I don't want censorship. I don't want tech companies to be front ends of the security seat, but I don't want a naive

American foreign policy in a dangerous, dangerous world. We need to be muscular, but I don't want to go around the world screwing over or killing good people because they happen to live on top of mineral resources. I don't want endless wars. I don't want isolationism. Eric, you know, he doesn't want anything about it. What he's been offered, it can't give him it. And what he does want, common sense, some concept of civility, charity of

spirit and decency. He wants a world free from endless utopian reactionary progressive or evolutionary nonsense. I think we're pretty much on board with this. You don't want the extremist politics. All good, Eric. But now we come to the pivot. I'm rolling up my sleeves. If any of you want my help,

I'm here for ELO team should you win. I do not believe that anyone on the blue team will ever do anything to contact me other than get head pieces written against me. Even though I'm a registered Democrat, you have become a cult that brooks no dissent. So be it. That said, I would love to be proven wrong. Try me. There aren't that many technical US born Harvard STEM PhDs, MIT postdocs with a huge audience. If you can't work with me, that's on you. As for the red team. So that's the Democrats.

That's the pitch to the Democrats. I think it's an enticing proposal, as you said, resume. It speaks for itself, Matt. Now, should the red team win and seek out Eric's services? Three of the big six of you know me. I am here to help get things done on science, policy, and higher ed, physics beyond relativity in Model, Inflation, CPI, GDP, Indexed Construction, Immigration Migration, National Reconciliation, AI and Labor Markets, Quasi-Solutions to AI Migration Problems. Those are my core competencies where I have something unique to offer you. If loyalty to campaign matters to you, I'm sorry. I'm loyal to the country as I understand it.

And the campaigns weren't in my idiom at all. They felt almost totally wrong to me. No hard feeling. Let's get things fixed or not. Up to you. I'd opt for the former. Let's unfuck ourselves as soon as this is over. Praying hands.

Praying hands. Wow. That's the thirstiest tweet I think I've ever heard. Poor Eric. Poor Eric. He wants anybody. Someone call that. Like, you know, if it's blue or red, someone call.

He's got a PhD, Chris. He's had thoughts about AI and workplace disruption. He's got ideas. He's got an audience. He's got a lot of followers on Twitter. He's exactly who they need in the government. I wonder what position he's angling for. Is it just any position in the government? The cabinet? And he can do economics, he can do AI, he can be a full, you

know, come on, come on, he's got core competencies coming up the wazoo. Because is he even available? Like, is he free? Like, does he doesn't he have a job at the moment But Chris, is he even available? Like is he free? Like does he, doesn't he have a job at the moment? Like when he, when he have to resign or is he letting someone down to stop doing what he's doing so he can join the government? No, Matt, he's too much of a patriot, too much of a patriot for that, but he knows it's not going to happen.

But you don't know what the second part of the story is. So on its own, it's a desperately thirsty, but very Weinsteinian tweet. Um, so the second part of this month is that Mike Cernovich noted conspiracy theorists and you know, MAGA die hard. He clearly got annoyed with Eric's both sides and yet asking to get called in to help out. So he said, Eric, no one loves you more than me. So I'll lay it out. When you came out as a liberal who doesn't understand the left, you were welcomed by many people far more significant than you,

including myself. You responded by trying to steer MAGA people to the left, sabotage Kavanaugh, you owe an apology for that, using your platform to promote warmongers. Whether you were ever sincere is a question for others, but this is all nonsense. You're afraid to take a stand because your peers and friends and Sam Harris would not like it. You're not above it all. You're not even a heterodox to an appreciable degree. You don't break news. You don't have right-wing podcast guests on. You're timid. You're a moral coward. You find a cozy existence where Joe Shapiro will promote you. You want to keep the audience of Trump people without paying a social price. No one will tell you this because then they'll be blacklisted from

the podcast circle jerk, but this is pathetic. Every word you wrote oozes moral cordial in a pivotal moment in American history. This is self-important horse shit best suited for a therapist chair. best suited for a therapist chair. This is coming from Sernovich. Isn't it for the rest of us? Now, Sernovich, of course, well, you can say it better than me. He is a weird cultish right-wing extremist, right? Yeah, yeah.

He's a misogynistic, racist, conspiracy theorist. He was, you know, the alt-right and actually the alt-right movement in 2016. But before that, he was like a Manosphere influencer and whatnot. And he's just like, he's Alex Jones level conspiracy theorist, but one that Eric has consistently prized, I might add. Yeah, so it makes for an interesting read, doesn't it? Because he is bonafide alt-right. Whereas Eric is this, you know, above it all, both sides obfuscating, blathering mess. Uh, so it's just interesting to hear the alt-right, hyper-partisan take, which a lot of it is true, but it's also

filtered through that lens of someone who is a psychopath. So you have like Eric Wontavon, right wing guess, and he's like pandering to Sam Harris, which I think is an interesting read on it. But he's right about the attempt to portray himself as an above-it-all figure while still pandering to the Trump cries So yeah, sort of each is a reprehensible character, but he is right about some of his analysis of Eric Yeah, you gotta hand it to him, okay Yeah, you got to hand it to him. Okay. Well, but so Matt, there was a nuller response, Matt, from Eric to this.

So I want to ask you, you know, there was a long street there. There were many points raised. What do you think is the single point that Eric took most issue with? He doesn't respond to everything, but he highlights one particular phrase that got to him. What do you think it was? Oh, oh, I can't even guess. I don't know. No, I can't imagine Chris.

Tell me. Okay, I got you. So you were welcomed by many people far more significant than you, including myself. Oh, whoa. What the fuck? You are more significant than me? Uh, wow, Mike, I don't treat you this way. You have never said anything like that before. You have been decent to me. I'm just shocked. I mean, f that, geez, I'm not doing this. I treat you with respect. You can certainly do the same. You have a champion. I do not. Passions are high. So go fight. I don't even think we are playing the same

sport honestly. And I don't want any of what you're staring up here against me. I'm not steering Marga to the left. Seriously? What the hell? I'm largely a moderate common sense person during a time of mass delusions, particularly on the left. That is not news. It's not low T, a trick or a secret crime. Not everything is a gorilla or gorilla mindset. Go do MAGA, go try to win. Good luck, but leave me the hell out of this.

And... Well, that is funny that the thing that got him off. And of course, I feel silly for not having guessed this, but being called insignificant, unimportant, less important than Sernovich. Oh yeah, yeah. Poor Eric. Yeah, that is not. He's such a little sad sack, right? And actually, Sernovich again calls that out saying, that is the thing that you focused on from everything that I said there. But yeah, so that's, that's Eric, Matt is, he's a beautiful crystal.

You know, he's a snowflake that, that cannot be replicated. Nobody else can quite out Eric, Eric, even Brett can't do it quite the way Eric does. Nobody can do it like Eric can. And, uh, but it is interesting to see those exchanges and see how they look at the world because, you know, like you said, there is truth in what they both say. I guess, like, you know, Sinovich correctly identifies Eric as the bloviating obscurantist that he is, who will not put his chips down. He wants to keep all options open.

And yeah, we'd be quite happy to switch Democrat if somebody would just give him a job. So he's different. You know, he sort of correctly identifies him as different from himself and a typical MAGA chud. You know, he's terrible in a completely different way. But I think we have some common ground there. Yeah, agreed. And Eric retreats,

Indus Cloud of Ink, as he often does. Yeah, we should. But, alright, so that's Eric, Matt. There are all our gurus, though. Oh, there's more. That's right. That's right. There are unfortunately Eric may be the alpha and omega, but he's not the only star in the sky.

Um, so another collision of gurus was that Joseph Rogan had Donald J. Trump on for a three and a half hour long, hard nose, journalistic interview with Trump focusing on policies and, you know, to giving them the task on his past record. Only kidding, a sycophantic three and a half hour, incredibly indulgent interview. Par for the course Yep, oh sphere, but you might remember the broken said he wouldn't do that to Lex Wasn't interested in helping Trump and by the way, I'm not a Trump supporter in any way shape or form I've had the opportunity to have him on my show more than once. I've said no every time I don't want to help him I'm not interested in helping the the night is still young young we'll see if I have month the night is still

young yeah I think I'll have month I think you'll have one really why do you think that because you'll have Putin on and your competitive as fuck no I think ultimately I mean you had you've had a lot of people that I think you may otherwise be skeptical, would I have a good conversation, which I think is your metric, you don't care about politics, so can I have a good conversation? And I think you had people like Kanye on, for example,

and you had a great conversation with him. I think you, I think. Yeah, but Kanye is an artist. But Kanye doing well or not doing well doesn't change the course of our country. Yeah, but you know, do you really bear the responsibility of the course of our country based on a conversation? I think you can revitalize and rehabilitate someone's image in a way that is pretty shocking.

But after some other people had Trump on their podcast, it seems like he got over that concern. Yeah, he did. I guess in Venice though, he did subsequently invite Kamala on, but only if she flew to him. Right. So I think the latest is, is that she turned that down. Yeah. So, I mean, to be honest, I would have probably initially said, oh, talking to Rogan could be beneficial, but after seeing the Trump interview, you know, this is just my, my take on it, but

I think it would be a waste of time for Kamala Harris to go on because, so Rogan with Trump was yes-ending his every response and he was raising conspiracies that then Trump would endorse or go on and Rogan was just talking about how much he loves everyone that Trump is around. He loves R.F.K. Jr. He loves Tulsi Gabbard. He loves all the people that are supporting them. So it was, you know, it was a bro fest. Plus, they have some shared overlap in terms of MMA. Trump is also a fan of MMA to some extent, at least enough that he can talk about it and whatnot. Whereas with Kamala Harris, it would have went like his interviews with vaccine doctors. He would have been, you know, give a couple of softballs and then he would re-ease a bunch of conspiracies or potentially, you know, the kind of things that a journalist might

raise in terms of, well, you said this, but now you said that. And I don't think she would have come across well in that encounter, right? Because if the person on the other side of Joe is not yes, and in him, and instead is having to get into it, it just would come across poorly. And she probably wouldn't give great answers to some contradictory statements that she's made, but Trump did that as well. But it, you know, the fact that Rogan is willing to constantly help him out means that there's no emphasis placed on that.

So yeah, I don't think it would be that beneficial. And Rogan's audience is already strongly right leaning, strongly like bro centered. So it's a big audience, but I doubt Kamala going on is going to really pick her up that many votes. Yeah, no, I feel like you're right about that. I don't think there's much benefit. And I just, I just dislike it on principle. The vice president and presidential nominees, you know, making their way to Austin, you know, to pay homage to the great Khan. Screw that. I don't like it.

Yeah. Yeah. So Rogan mentioned that they proposed in instead that they could do like a one hour interview, you know, at a, a location that's on the campaign trail or whatever. And he didn't like that, right. Which is understandable from his point of view, but also just shows that they're treating him like a media appointment, a fairly normal one, and obviously that's not what Rogan sees himself as. No, no, that's true. That's true. Okay. So what, what happened? Any, any guess of note in this

interview with Trump? Yeah. So I've just got a couple of clips. I mean, it could go through it all and it just, just reinforces the point, Matt, that we made repeatedly whenever we covered Rogan that, you know, he, he is best understand as a partisan conspiracy theorist and, and like a narcissistic, egotistical person who regards himself as having, you know, very good insights and good judgment and also very credulous, very credulous, right. But in terms of motivations about having Trump on, so here's him talking about that.

So think of it. I was seven, this is the Washington Post, ABC, Paul. I was down 17 points in Wisconsin and I won. It's crooked stuff. There's a lot of crooked stuff. And I wanted to talk about that too, because one of the things that people talk about with you is the denial of the results. I think JD Vance did a brilliant job the other day when he was being interviewed,

and they asked him, did Trump lose the 2020 election? And he turned it around and said, was there legitimate election interference in suppressing the Hunter Biden laptop story on social media? And was that a concerted effort? Well, they say it made 10-point difference, lost by one one tenth of a point. They say it was 22,000 votes but look it was much more than that and I appreciate JD Vance saying that and by the way I think he was a great pick. Do you like JD? I like him a lot. You're allowed to say that. No I do. I like him a lot. I think he's a brilliant guy and I think his ability to talk like a normal human being

He did you did my friend Theo Vance podcast, right and he just did it. How did he do? He did great and he just talks about you call me. Is that why you called me to do? No, no We're like I was he was a nice shot you I was like he's got to come in here It's all about timing. It's all about the timing So you get Rogan talking about, you know, it's important to timing and he was definitely going to have Trump on after he was shot and whatnot, but before that, Matt, you know, Trump is predictably talking about how it's all crooked. They had him down in polls and he won and all this.

And then Joe's response is, yeah, yeah, it's crooked. Like there's lots of crooked stuff. Joe's response is, yeah, yeah, it's crooked. Like there's lots of crooked stuff. And he liked JD Vance's absolute deflection around the question about whether Trump actually won the last election. And Rogan was like, oh, that was great. Because he brought up the point, you know, about the Hunter Biden laptop. Yeah.

I mean, Trump, I mean, not Trump. Joe Rogan is completely on board with those stolen election conspiracies and the grand overarching narrative that the Democrats have been fighting dirty and stealing the election and doing fake news in various ways. This is basically Rogan sees the world pretty much the same way as Trump does, right? Yeah, yeah. And I just put a pin on that. So you can hear Rogan saying that denying election results, everybody does it. And anyway, the media, they've all been calling Trump Hitler, and that's not fair.

So listen to this extended exchange. It does a good job of encompassing the vibe of the whole interview. Yep. So I'll either go as president or I'll be depressed and I won't bother going. I think they're having a fight right now. One of the things that was fascinating also was the denial of the election results is a pretty common thing. Hillary Clinton famously denied that she called you an illegitimate president,

and she said that Russia put you in place. Even though she conceded. Yes. You know, she conceded the night of the election because she was beaten. Yes, and it was a thing that was pretty common for people, especially Democrats, to deny the elections. There's been many of them, the Bush administration, the, you know, the dangling Chads, all that stuff. Well, look at these guys in Congress, all these sleazebags in Congress that are Democrats, they're still denying 2016. But now they don't so much because, you know, they try and pin it on me. You don't hear them say it. But they denied it right up until the end. My point is this idea of election fraud is a forbidden topic. And you get labeled an election denied. It's like get labeled an election denied.

It's like being labeled an anti-vaxxer if you question some of the health consequences that people have from the COVID-19 shots. Oh my God, you're an anti-vaxxer. If you say, and what I say publicly, and I've said this a lot, it's not 0%. So if you ask me, what is the amount of election fraud in this country?

Is it 0%? No one thinks it's 0%. So, if you ask me, what is the amount of election fraud in this country? Is it 0 percent? No one thinks it's 0 percent. I've never met one person, not a super liberal, progressive, far left person, or a right-wing conservative. Not one person thinks it's 0 percent. They think when you have human beings, and also you have a lot of weirdness that was going on during the 2020 elections, particularly with mail-in ballots and you had

Legislatures that had to approve and they didn't approve and they went out and did it anyway And you had ballot you had old-fashioned ballot screwing I mean you had you have people going up and dropping in phony votes you had unsigned ballots, etc etc certain people that they that they have... The rhetoric is also that you're Hitler, and that in order to stop Hitler, you have to do whatever it takes. That was okay, yeah.

Yeah, and this is... I mean, you're hearing this now. Kamala compared you to... said your love of Hitler yesterday. It's... You know, Kamala is a very low IQ person. She's a very low IQ... Yeah. Yeah, Chris.

I think the thing that's upsetting about this is, like, I've watched a documentary recently on the Australia's ABC that just did a very good factual and brief summary of all of the explicit steps that Donald Trump took to try to overturn those election results, which were absolutely valid. And it was only stopped by the refusal of the Vice President Pence to go along. And then when Plan A failed inside of this riot on the Capitol building. You know, that's the reality of that. And I don't think Rogan acknowledges that at all. Am I wrong? No, I mean, not really.

He might in a very offhand way, but you hear there that he's talking about, you know, Democrats are really the ones that deny elections historically. And like, there was a lot of sketchy things going on, you know, like he, he moves from saying there's not 0% voter fraud to saying like, yeah, you know, there's, there's a lot of weirdness going on and strange things, but like the reality is no Joe people have looked into the American elections

in quite some detail and Trump's claims don't hold up. And in many cases, they're just outright lies. Like there are people lying who have been found to be lying and found in court to be guilty of lying. And then had Trump, in some cases, pardon had Trump in some cases pardon him. In some cases, the Supreme court say that he can't be charged for the things that he's done. And in all these cases, it's Trump wielding power or institutions

wielding power, you know, to protect them and him trying to subvert democracy. And Joe just doesn't, he doesn't grapple with that at all. He just buys into all of Trump's rhetoric. And you can hear him there, right? Linked in, in to his stance as a, an anti-vax COVID person, right? Oh, they called me anti-vaccine and what I'm just not allowed. And like Rogan was an anti-vax advocate. He is an anti-vax advocate, but they don't want to own those positions.

So yeah, it's just the whole interview is like that, Matt, three and a half hours of Rogan doing Trump's job for him. And in many occasions doing it better. Cause even there, Trump was like Clinton, she did, she conceded on the day because he wanted to say like, she knew she lost, but Rogan doesn't at all seem to grapple with, well, that is a difference, right? That is actually a rather significant difference because you didn't do that. He most definitely did not do that.

He tried to absolutely subvert the democratic process in the United States, which is an incredibly serious thing. And it's worth at least mentioning in this extremely long interview. Chris, a friend of the podcast, Matt Johnson, sent us both, I think, a pretty good article talking about Joe Rogan, conspiracies for the MAGA era. Yeah, just a quick quote. I mean, he reiterates some of the stuff we've just said. Yeah.

When, when Rogan told Trump that a lot of weirdness was going on during the 2020 elections, it was basically affirming Trump's big lie. Trump claimed that old fashioned ballot screwing had taken place, such as people dropping in phony votes and Rogan agreed with that. Trump claimed the Russian hoax swayed the 2020 election. Rogan agreed with that. Trump claimed that the temporary suppression of the Hunter Biden laptop story also swayed the election. Rogan agreed with that.

And Trump claimed the Democrats weaponized the justice system against him. Rogan agreed with that. So, you know, as Matt says in his article or argues, and I think he's right, Joe Rogan is still perceived as, oh, maybe he's a bit conspiratorial. Maybe he's a bit delusional, but, you know, he's just a regular guy and he's just open-minded and he's a centrist kind of guy, you know, just interested in hearing perspectives from both sides. No, the most accurate way to understand him is a red-pilled loon, who

was a hundred percent on the Trump train. Yeah. Yeah. And, uh, on the anti-vaccine point, you know, he said people call them anti-vaccine, all these kinds of things. So vaccines did come up and this time not the COVID vaccines. And let's just hear, you know, Rogan, the responsible vaccine advocate talking about polio vaccines. I know you're against certain vaccines, but like the polio vaccine, people had polio. It was like a disaster. And they came up, Dr. Salk, and he came up with a vaccine and there's no polio.

Now very interesting, there hasn't been polio, but now in the Gaza Strip, can you believe that? Have you heard that? There's been a big strain of polio coming out in the Gaza Strip. Is it vaccine-derived polio? Because you know, there's a strain of polio that comes directly from the vaccine, because unfortunately, sometimes when you vaccinate people for polio, you actually give them polio. See, I haven't heard of that.

I mean, all I can do is I sit down and I listen to him, and I'll give it a total. I would love him to be right, because if he's right, it's a lot less expensive, generally. There's two things that people point to when they point to the dangers of the pharmaceutical drug industry. One thing is when pharmaceutical drugs were allowed to advertise on television. We're only one of two countries in the world that allow pharmaceutical drugs to advertise on TV. The other one's New Zealand. But they're more restrictive than we are.

People are worried. But those ads, those ads, when you hear like, you know, take a certain drug. And then you hear all the consequences. And then you say, it causes cancer and baldness. We don't like baldness. Suicidal ideation. And they said that in the eyesight. And you can lose your vision.

Yeah. The polio vaccine is smart. Maybe the outbreak of polio is because of the vaccines. Yeah. Yeah. I mean, it just illustrates that Brogan is pretty far gone. It's not just COVID. You know, he's consumed so much of that anti-vax literature, like a lot of people,

I think, due to COVID and now become a more general anti-vaxxer, lapping up the various conspiracy theories that are floating around. You know Trump you know hadn't really heard of that but you can you understand how Trump operates right? If RFK wants him to do this stuff and it'll help him it's like yeah fine yeah he doesn't care. He doesn't care about the health system or anything like that. He's not a true believer I think. He's more like an Eric Weinstein. He's he's all about himself, but we'll quite happily go along with, with that

nonsense if, if it benefits him in some way. Um, and, uh, I mean, the, the one thing that I do agree with Trump on is the advertising of pharmaceuticals on TV. Uh, it's, it is a bit unusual and we don't do it in Australia and it's shocking. I was Rogan bringing up. Oh, was that Rogan who brought that up? Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. I mean, they were both talking about it.

Yeah. They both agreed. I think about that. Yeah. I think they could be right there, but I'm throwing them a bone. Yeah. Well, the issues with Gavarrakin pharmaceutical promotion aside, maybe this actually provides the background context. Rogan is, as you described, a red pill conspiracy freak, but his background is at least a little bit more towards the alternative spirituality hippie, not like 1970s hippie, but kind of counter culture Americans, right?

The X-Files kind of American. And as a result, he likes RFK. He likes Bret Weinstein for the same reason, right? The crunchiness approach. And you can hear this in the way that he talks about RFK Junior and concerns about health and chemicals and stuff like this. So listen to this. First of all, I love this idea of you teaming up with Robert Kennedy.

And I love this make America healthy again idea because there are chemicals and ingredients in our food that are illegal in other countries because they've been shown to be toxic. There's pesticides and herbicides and there's a lot of shit that's been sprayed on our food that really is unnecessary. And there's a lot of health consequences that people are suffering from a lot of these things. And to- I brought this chart for you. Beautiful.

Because I had a feeling you'd be asking me. Thank you. Look at this chart. These are healthier countries. Look where the United States is. I'm going to send this to RFK Jr. Look at this. So this is, well, something along the line.

I was actually talking to RFK today, and he told me that more than 70 percent of young men are ineligible for the military because of their health. I could see it. That's crazy. A lot of it's obesity. So here's the life expectancy versus health expenditure expenditure same chart yeah did you see that USA yeah that's pretty good he's very good he's the best so no but look at that look at the USA not good and that's our diet that's that sedentary lifestyle that's

our diet that's the chemicals we ingest that's what that is but RFK is gonna be very you know, I think he's a great guy. I think he's great. I love the fact that you guys teamed up. Yeah. And are you guys, are you completely committed to have him a part of your administration?

Oh, I am. But the only thing I want to be a little careful about with him is the environmental. Because, you know, he doesn't like oil. I love oil and gas. I think, you know, I think it's to fire. So I'm going to sort of keep them out of a little bit. I said focus on health, you can do whatever you want,

but gotta be a little bit careful with the liquid gold. I understand, but listen, there's plenty of good work that could be done if you focus on health. The format of R.F.K. Jr. being in charge of American health policy, like fucking hell. Yeah, yeah, it's a sobering image. I mean, I presume he was pointing at some graph that showed that America is not doing so great, relatively speaking, in terms of health, respect to other developed countries.

He knows his audience, right, Matt? So do you think Kamala Harris would come with like a pre-prepared diagram showing America is doing badly in health? No, like Trump understands how to play to Rogan. Yeah. I mean, that's the thing. I mean, like sure, like promoting measures to reduce obesity, promoting a healthy lifestyle, exercise and stuff like that. That's good, right?

But somehow I'm not thinking that they're going to be encouraging people to like, like building bike paths, for instance, so people can, can ride their bikes to work and you know, some kind of universal healthcare that, that ensures that people get their regular health checkups and so on. I mean, not that I'm an expert on this, but my strong feeling is that the contradiction that America at once has the best healthcare system in the world in terms of being the most technologically advanced and having the most capabilities and just the most prestigious centers of health in the world.

The reason why it doesn't have the best population health is essentially inequity in healthcare access. That is the principal reason. I mean, yes, Americans are too fat. Yes, they don't run around enough. That's true of Australians too, and I'd say many European countries. And certainly this idea of this sort of woo health stuff about, oh, we've got to get the chemicals out of our foods

and stuff. That's just such a total red herring, I think. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. I mean, I think there is a focus on RFK and Rogan and outdoor activities and health and getting exercise and all those things, but they talk as if there is no public health messaging recommending that people do exercise and eat vegetables. And that's been recommended for decades. Absolutely decades. And it also doesn't jive with like in all the parts of the conversation, Trump is talking about the need to remove all these regulations. And then this part, they're essentially talking about America needs more health regulations, right? Compared to other comparable countries.

So like it does nothing coherent about it. It is all rhetoric and it's all personality driven. And the thing to note there as well, Matt, Joe Rogan mentioning he was getting messages or talking to RRFK Jr. earlier, right? That's just an indication. Do you think Joe Rogan is communicating with many Democratic politicians regularly? I would suspect not unless they're Tulsi Gabbard, right?

I would think so, Chris. I would definitely think so. So that's that. Now, if you wanted some more moderate election coverage, you know, there's going to be various streams covering the election. I think Destiny, Hassan, you could choose your pick. But there's also, I saw the free press, Barry Weiss's, you know, centrist outlet. It is having a election event. And I just wanted to note what modern centrism looks like over at the free press. So there's a lot of people, but I'll give you some highlights. So of course you've got Barry Weiss, right?

You've got Michael Schellenberger. You've got the fifth column guys. They're all, right, you know, libertarian sorts. Oh, Red Scare. Nuda Centrist's Red Scare. Anna Katchayen and Bashe Nekrasova are there. Along with Konstantin Kissen. The, you know, the

theme centrist Constantine Kissin, who else have they got appearing now? Marianne Williamson, you know, ex presidential candidate, Marianne Williamson. Yeah. So, and, and of course you may or may not know, but Anna Kasparian of the Young Turks has recently started her heterodox arc. So she will be showing up, along with Brianna Wu and the other, you know, I was left wing and then the Democrat party have abandoned their principles.

So yeah, this just speaks to the state of centrism in Barryweissland. That's what,antine Kessin. It's a completely meaningless term, unfortunately. It just feels like a bunch of aristocrats sort of flocking around the hopefully new god emperor. Don't you get that feeling that they're such lackeys? like they're such flatterers. They seem to be, you know, scheming and maneuvering and, well, I'm not sure of a polite way to put it, jerking people off to get a place at the table. I mean, Eric is quite straightforward about it.

He simply begs. But, you know, that's what's going on here, isn't it? Yeah. simply begs, but that's what's going on here, isn't it? Yeah, like, and it is not centrism. It is a weird postmodern, crunchy, conspiratorial, reactionary conservatism, if you had to try to label this movement. Now, I will say, Matt, that there are degrees within that, because I think the fifth column guys

still have it within their capacity to be critical of right-wing stuff or John McWhorter. There are some other people that I think are more critical, but I think it's worth noting the absolute dregs that are there with them, Constantine Kissin and so on. And like Michael Moynihan, somebody that's come up on our episodes repeatedly for doing softball interviews with people that he gets on well with, just recently was on trigonometry. Like there is exactly what you say here, that there is a kind of groove of heterodoxy. And Donald Trump, as we just covered, went on Joe Rogan, had a sycophantic interview for three and a half hours.

The fifth column guys mentioned it in a two minute segment where they just talked about whether or not he actually will put RFK Jr. in charge of the FDA, but they didn't talk anything about how incredibly sycophantic it is or that kind of thing. Actually in the trigonometry interview, Moynihan, because it was recorded before Rogan had the interview with Trump, so he talks a bit about what he expects. It's not going to be a softball interview from somebody from MSNBC like Stephanie Ruhl. I believe it's 20 minutes, 25 minutes, something like that. I believe it's 20 minutes.

25 minutes, something like that. The next one was in that universe too. So you have Presumably a lead-up some questions some niceties. You're probably talking about 15 minutes of actual substance. Joe Rogan does two hours Two and a half hours don't try to do four and a half Right. I mean is it going to be substantive? Is it going to be making sense the whole time? Absolutely not. Is it going to be funny? Absolutely I cannot imagine what would she would be like over a 45 minute period an hour period an hour and a half and especially if somebody Who is not on one side or the other and is going to ask Kind of curious questions and probing questions and Joe Rogan is not somebody who's going to, from watching him over the years, is going to allow a bunch of bluster and nonsense

to pretend it's an answer. And she gets away with that. I mean, Anderson Cooper, I don't hate Anderson Cooper. That, there were a couple of answers about the economy that I, I mean, word salad is being generous. I had no idea what she was talking about. And she loops back and they say, you know, like, what are you gonna do on taxes?

And she's, you know, I grew up in a middle class family. And it's like, oh, here we go. That is the indicator that everything that's gonna come after is absolute fluff. When you're sitting in front of somebody for two hours, who is not a professional journalist, who just wants to know the answer to questions, right? Is not trying to please a constituency.

You know, was, I think it was the biggest media deal in the past decade, maybe, probably in history, with that single deal for Spotify. He doesn't need you, he doesn't need your money, he doesn't express fealty to any party, and you think he's just gonna let you get away with this stuff? It will be interesting to see what he does with Trump. I don't think he's gonna take it easy on Trump.

Well, we'll find out by the time this interview comes out. It's interesting. I have two things to say. I think Joe is great. And one of the things I would say, he's one of the most open-minded people I've ever met. But he will push back if you talk about something that he knows about and he doesn't agree. And then he's like a pit bull and he will not let you get away with any bullshit.

And he does the standard thing of saying, you know, Rogan's not an ideological guy. I expect he'll ask critical questions of Trump and all this kind of thing. And it's not like none of the people can ever voice criticisms of Trump. They can, but it's, it's just a very uneven application where, like, everything on the Democratic side

is hammed up really highly. There was a story a couple days ago. It's amazing that it's taken this long. Now, granted, it's a very short campaign. A short campaign for her is that she actually prosecuted a handful of cases, 10, 20, something like that, in the courtroom. That this is not what, she actually doesn't have a ton of courtroom experience.

And this was, look, I just read this the other day, I don't know if it's true or not. It strikes me as watching her on stage that it probably is true, because she doesn't seem to have that ruthless killer instinct that you need to be to be a DA. So she was chief prosecutor? Yeah. And she only was in court prosecuting people 10 or 20? That's what I... there's been some reporting on this recently that in the actual courtroom, she was not often there. She was not often present.

You can offload this stuff pretty easily. I'm a Brit. I'm not the smartest person in the world. I'm not as au fait with your ways of government. This is mental. You have a lot in common with Cabo Harris. This is this all everything you're saying sounds insane. This just sounds like someone who has failed upwards continually until they get the chance to be the most powerful person in the world. Or to be the ultimate failure. You know, they're just as bad, they're lying as well, they challenged elections previously, whereas on the right, you know, the press exaggerate the threat of Trump. They're always saying that people are at danger to democracy and so on,

and they're taking his comments out of context. He lies constantly. I mean, we know that. I mean, he makes things up all the time. I always said that Donald Trump, when he says the word sir, you know, he's lying. It's like somebody came to me and said, sir, when that happens, you're like, oh, here comes the bullshit.

But that is not even really a January 6th. I mean, that's obviously related, right? And that's why that happened. But I think that the overstatement of that from some people, the armed insurrection was not armed. I mean, nobody- No, was it an insurrection, by the way? No, no, I mean, I don't think that either.

I think that it was a disgusting, sickening riot that if somebody who is a conservative should think is everything about this is opposed to conservative principles from attacking the seat of government to beating up cops with With don't like the blue lines the the cop flag whatever they call it Thin blue line flag attacking him with the flag. I mean good lord that stuff is sickening and on almost every way Where they lose it is overseeing come on here. It's the other day said people were killed during the January 6th uprising she's not talking about Ashley bad but talking

about police officers were killed mm-hmm that's not true I mean it's not really not true it's been disproven like you are lying about this in a very sinister way of saying that this man is controlling this mob who goes and kills people in the capital they did bad stuff stuff. They didn't kill anyone. All that kind of thing. And it gets so tiring because it's the constant refrain and a heterodox fear. And you feel like people present themselves as brief truth tellers, but whenever they're actually in the presence of, you know,

like politicians or whatnot, they become like little puppy dogs, you know? And if they, if they lob anything beyond the softball, it's always immediately backpedaled. You know, as soon as it gets uncomfortable, they'll just move on to something and say, well, you know, anyway, people disagree on that. So it's just, it's frustrating because of how much distance there is between the brand and between what they do. Yeah. Well, that's what I was going to say.

We just have to stop using this word heterodox because it, I just can't think of a less appropriate term for what this is. Like when, when I think heterodox, I think of someone like, I don't know, Peter Singer or maybe Roger Penrose. Or what's it really called? The big grumpy man that binds around on Twitter. Oh, um, Talib. Nassim Talib. Yeah, he's heterodox, right?

Yeah, I'd count him. He's, he's heterodox. Yeah. I mean, you don't have to be good to be heterodox, right? But my, my conception of it is that you actually have some genuine of it is that you actually have some genuine original position that is, you know, in some way remarkable and salient and, you know, you are going to be pushing for that and rubbing shoulders and, you know, bustling around, you know, probably disagreeing a lot with other people in this heterodox community. You

know, but what we see here is none of these people have an original thought. Eric pretends to, Constantine Kissin doesn't even do that. Or they're just simply sycophants who promote conspiracies and are on an ideological train. So I see that the brand is incredibly effective, because it's very flattering. Oh, I'm interested in heterodox ideas.

I like thinking outside the box. I don't just assume that the conventional point of view is correct. But that is not what this is. That's not what this movement is. It's a bunch of lackies and wannabe apparatchiks or court flunkies attaching themselves to a movement in the hopes of, of personal gain and influence. Um, yeah, yeah, yeah, just terrible people. I do, I do want to just, uh, make a comparison as well, but when Michael Moynihan interviewed Megyn Kelly, he didn't really push back very strongly when she just

suggested that Alex Jones is always right and Tucker is a force for good, right? It does take work if you want to stay factual and totally non-conspiratorial even in a day and age when our conspiracies are being proven true like you know Lab Leak versus Penglin and all that. But I'm still in favor of more voices versus fewer. And while it bothers me a little, some people who have gone really far on demonizing certain groups have become so popular. It's just that's America. And the answer to that is more voices that are saying not fewer of those voices.

I wonder if you agree with me on this, this because I mean, I've been thinking about this quite a bit recently. And I think that, you know, I kind of blame the previous gatekeepers for this is that there was such a stranglehold on what one could say in what one could discuss and that those guardrails were set by people that I think Tucker would call the elites, you know, and I mean, I think he sees everything from that prism now. Well, he has no love lost for William F. Buckley. Yeah, which is really surprising to me, actually, when I saw that conversation when he was, you know, denouncing Buckley. But you know, that it's an interesting thing because, you know, people are desperate for information that is not filtered through everybody who went to Columbia Journalism School. And what's going to happen

and what's going to come out the other end is a lot of people who have maybe kind of over-corrected and started to think that every elite is lying to them and every elite narrative is a conspiracy theory. And so one must push back against it. I mean, I think that that's, being somewhere in the middle of these conversations is actually the people who are generally most successful. And I

think that's why Tucker's interesting to people, because he's a bit of an outlier in the sense that he's wildly successful in does go into these kind of odd places, right? Speaking of kind of odd people, Donald Trump, and, you know, as he talked about afterwards, this might relate to the fact that these friends with Megyn Kelly and that the Fifth Column guys have regular appearances on their show. And sure, that might influence him a little bit. But actually, he doesn't want to get into like, if you want to hear all the people who gotcha journalism, that's not, you know, what he's avoid and stuff. And you're like, are people really confused about what Meg and Kelly is offering?

Like, I feel a brand is pretty well established at this point. So it might have actually been interesting to hear. And if your friendship relies on you not questioning someone hard or if your gig relies on you not questioning people. That's heterodoxy Chris. That's heterodoxy when you never, you can never disagree with anyone about anything in order to maintain your network of connections. That's heterodoxy. Yeah.

And I'm going to give Destinys some credit again here because he had on Bacha Ngarsogon to talk with him, right? And she tried the heterodox thing of saying, you know, look, we are both disaffected liberals. Yes, I want to vote for Trump. Or, you know, I might be more likely to vote for Trump, but we both agree there's problems with that. Right. And there's the, what's having done about it. Right. I just eventually got to the point about like, what are her views about election conspiracies and whatnot on, but, uh, his editor on his channel. Titled the video to be it with Marjorie Taylor green admirer

ends with shocking tourists. So he did that because she said she respects Marjorie Taylor Greene. So like, instead of presenting it as, you know, like a fun heterodox fast where we all agree, you know, there are, there are issues of both sides or whatnot. He correctly framed it as this person is so far partisan, but they're supporting Marjorie Taylor Greene. Right? And obviously, I'm sure Bacha didn't like that framing, but that's accurate. That's accurate. Yeah. Yeah.

Well, I do like that Destiny or his video editor guy don't care about making people happy. Don't mind burning those bridges, whatever they are. But I'm still stuck in Moynihan Chris because, because as you said, he could be good. You know what I mean? He is good in some respects and could be so much better. He doesn't have to be part of that useless gaggle of clowns. I feel sad that he feels that he needs to do that, because he projects this sort of hard-bitten journalist.

He seems like someone who'd be fun to have a drink with and talk Turkey about this, that, and the other, but then when somebody says that Tucker Carlson is a force for good, you can't let, you know, like if, if you can't, if you can't say anything to that, then you've lost your way. I, yeah, I, I tend to agree. And I, I think it's the same issue that it's the kind of self presentation versus the willingness to roll over. And I actually still like Moynihan's takes on a whole bunch of things. And I think he is very good, for example, on Ukraine. And there he shows that he can be critical of people like Tucker Carson,

but that also reveals when he's pulling his punches and it is in a particular direction that he pulls his punches. And it happens to be a direction which is working out quite lucrative. And it's why he will, for example, appear on a panel for Ron DeSantis, but it's unlikely to feature on any such democratic panel about corruption in the media. I feel like there's a distinction there, isn't there, between some of the characters we cover. There are some people that do have substance and have contributed good things to the discourse and could continue to do so.

But it's just very regrettable and sad when, as you say, they pull their punches or they compromise in certain ways. I think it's no secret that we're thinking about covering Sabine Hossinfelder sometime soon. And she's someone who also demonstrably can produce excellent content, but also I think has the capacity to bend with the incentives at play. And, you know, that's quite, that's quite a different issue from someone like Constantin Kissen, who is just an inconsequential, insubstantial,

nothing, who couldn't contribute anything good if he tried, right? So I think in my mind anyway, I have these different categories, people who could do better. I hate that phrase, but then there's just people that are just either clowns or probably kind of evil like Tucker Carlson. Yeah. Yeah. And you know, on that frame, so I have various criticisms of Sam Harris, but he recently was hosted on the free press

to debate Ben Shapiro about the election and whether they should vote for Trump or Kamala. And he makes the case for Kamala. But I think in that case, he does emphasize the issues that we've highlighted about the election interference and just, you know, Trump in general. And he also throughout it kind of acknowledges that he would likely vote for a more moderate Republican. You know, he would prefer to vote for Mitt Romney over Kamala Harris. And then, well, one, that suggests that you're now a moderate Republican, right? If that's just that's what, but two, the fact is that he is making the case just before the election for Kamala, like quite strongly against Ben Shapiro and whatever other issues

you have that, that to me like counts at least, you know, that you are not falling into line with everything in the heterodox sphere. Like, you're still willing to argue that. Yes. Yeah. And you can see, like, the response to that episode, obviously, on the free pass, lots of people hit Sam, right? Because that's what their audience is like. Yeah, yeah. A lot of those Ritoids, those pseudo-centrists hate Sam for that reason. But yeah, like if he's vocally supporting and arguing for the Democrats in the current election, then he's doing more for the progressive side of politics than, dare I say, people on the activist left who talk about not voting for the Democrats because, you know, they don't measure up to their standards. So Sam manages to clear that bar when others do not.

Yeah. Yeah. So there you go. Just an example that we're not just criticizing everything that Head Reduxphere produces, right? That was on the free press. So it's not like they can't produce content that at least has to be. But I think that is the extent of the ideological divergence, right?

It's Ben Shapiro to Sam Harris. That's the stretch of their reach. So for some people, that's a long stretch. For others, it might seem a relatively limited bandwidth they have. It is what it is. But speaking of sycophancy, so the last thing that we'll look at today, and it is the pathiosis of sycophancy. It's possibly one of the worst pieces of content that we've ever covered. It's genuinely, I don't want to be hyperbolic, but this is literally the worst thing I have ever heard. Yeah.

So this is Jordan Peterson's psychologically informed analysis of Donald Trump and his surrounding figures and potential cabinets. We were just complaining, as we often do, about the level of sycophancy that you can come across in the heterodox and gurus here. But this to me is genuinely on a whole new level. Like I think this is a level of secrecy that would make Lex Friedman blush. If he were to say it's just, uh, it's incredible. And it makes me think about that. We're basically dealing with this pyramid in a way where, you know, you have the gurus at the top with, with Trump being probably the mega figure currently in that constellation. But there

are others, you know, there's Rogan and there's Jordan Peterson themselves and whatever, but they're always just like crawling up to the, the next level or the people that they consider their friends. And as you go further down, you're going to get Constantine kissing and Andrew Gold and what not. But they're all on the same pyramid structure. They're all crawling in the same way. Well, I think you're right. They're all on their all fours, kissing each other asses, but they could be in a circle. It's a human centipede of sycophancy, Chris. Yeah.

And, you know, Jordan Peterson has done it a lot, but he really excels himself in this one. Yes. So, right for a lawyer, let's get to some of the clips. So first, this is him giving the introduction, showing some of his psychological bona fides. as both assertive and enthusiastic, although more particularly the former rather than the latter, and also at least relatively high in trait openness, which is the single best predictor of entrepreneurial slash creative activity and prowess after general intelligence. This makes him high in the personality meta trait of plasticity

Which is characterized primarily by the capacity to change grow and transform Something quite evident in the case of Trump who is a very dynamic individual indeed particularly given his age Many people have been set in concrete with regard to their essential being. By the time they're 30, not Trump. He reinvents himself constantly and with a high degree of continual success. So just, I wanted to play that to give an example of like, you know, Jordan, he's referencing psychological terms, he's doing, you know, a kind of clinical analysis. My he's looking at his tree at openness and there's assertiveness.

And so this is a Joe ordinary approach, right? This is a, a professional analysis. Yeah, this is a professional clinical psychologist. It's informed by all the greatest research. You know, Trump does, what is it? He's got the meta trait of neuroplasticity. Yeah. Yeah.

I mean, you know, the absolute sick offense of your site, don't worry, we'll be hearing much, much more of that. But yeah, I think that's a good example of, you know, he talks about the, the big five personality traits as well as a whole bunch of other, you know, he alludes to a whole bunch of concepts in psychology. But what I really want to emphasize is that in this context, like the big five personality traits is a real thing, but what he's doing, where he's just like freewheeling, diagnosing people with various traits at particular levels based on a conversation he's had with them

or some material that he's listened to. Yeah, he's, he's using those technical terms purely to sex up what is otherwise just, just unadulterated adoration being expressed for each of these people. Yeah. Yeah. So he, you know, he talks about Trump's agreeableness and how he's, this makes him able to relate with the ordinary man. And already that's highly questionable, but one of his next tier, which is how empathetic Trump is.

Clear from the personality and psychopathology literature that people tilt towards narcissism when they are extroverted and disagreeable. Trump is indisputably extroverted and disagreeable. Trump is indisputably extroverted, and extremely so. He's also definitely low in politeness, but he simply would not be able to make contact with the so-called ordinary people that love him if he did not care deep in the blackness of his heart. I have a suspicion that his very impoliteness is

at least in part a mask worn to shield him from the pain that such caring can produce. This would make Trump a man whose gruffness is there to shield himself from the public exposure of his tender heart. There are many men who are like that. Now, I don't know Trump except from a distance, but I know many people who do. All of them have spoken to me of his hospitable nature in private and of his proclivity to go out of his way for the people around him. This group of witnesses to his character includes people who are seriously not aligned with him politically, by the way. It is also by no means obvious

that Trump kisses up and kicks down. That tendency is a very damning sign indeed, particularly in someone who has genuine power and is simply not reported of Trump. This is something that appears to stand in marked comparison to Kamala Harris, who is notoriously unpopular among her staff, current and former, and for precisely that reason. You couldn't parody that. That just has to be the worst diagnosis of Donald Trump's personality that it could be possible to make. Wouldn't you think, Chris? It's unbelievable idiocy. Trump is empathetic because deep in his heart, his gruffness hides.

He might seem harsh sometimes, but that's just because he cares too much. There are many men like that, Matt. harsh sometimes, but that's just because he cares too much. There are many men like that, Matt. My God. Yeah. So it's, so this is something between just licks, spittle, flattery and, you know, political propaganda, isn't it? Yeah. Well, but the thing is, I think Jordan believes his analysis.

He's not deranged. He's deranged that he thinks Trump is a tender, caring man. I mean, he makes reference to how Trump is loved by all those close to him. Who have worked with him. Yeah. And he's been condemned by almost all of his previous cabinet as a point. It's unprecedented, the number of prior staff people. Yeah, it's not even like just as vice president or whatever, right?

It's chief of staff. I did like all of them, almost all of them are condemning him. But Jordan's in like an alternative reality or something where everyone close to Trump says how wonderful he is. And you're like, how could you have missed how broadly he's being condemned by ex allies and whatnot? Yeah, it's just, it's a ridiculous analysis. It's absolutely astonishing.

Yeah. But, but Jordan seems very, I think Jordan is convinced of it because he's not delusional. Like what he's saying there is he's considered analysis, which just speaks to genuinely how little insight he has. Right. Well, he's absolutely, he's also absolutely delusional about his ability to do this kind of pseudoscientific psychological personality analysis. Like he really thinks like this is how it works. This is how you take your training in psychology and paint that kind of picture based on vibes, basically.

Yeah, it's ridiculous. And you heard the rank partisanship at the end, the way he's like, and Kamala is just completely the opposite. Everyone dislikes her. Right. Like it's a child. She kisses up and kicks down. Whereas Trump, yeah, he'd never do that. Yeah.

He's not known for praising like strong men or anything like that. He's literally known for saying you're fired. Isn't that? That was his s**t. Well, but there's all the evidence we haven't considered. Like Jordan's not just drawing from, you know, that kind of thing. He's also considered, you know, the broader context. However, he is genuinely compassionate, really quite surprisingly so, and appears

on the basis of his behavior to be relatively or perhaps even markedly conscientious. The presence of those aspects and traits mitigates against what could otherwise be the dangers associated with narcissism. We might also spend some time in regard to Trump's personality, considering his family and the evidence

for the Donald's fundamental reliability and perhaps even goodness that its high level of function indicates the Trump children are a remarkably scandal-free and stable bunch, certainly by the standards set by, say, Hunter Biden. Barron seems to genuinely admire his father. Donald Jr. has many of the same personality traits of his father, for better or worse, but he has also remained free of the taint of narcissistic privilege and power.

Jared Kushner married into the family, but has certainly done it credit, not least on the Abraham Accord front. Trump's beautiful and elegant wife Melania keeps her own counsel and is admirable in so doing. She does not appear to think that she could or should run the country merely because she is married to the man who does, in marked contrast, say, to Hillary Clinton. This familial honesty and reliability is particularly telling. In the case of the Trump family, given that the almost universally Democrat biased legacy media and its propagandistic agents would be thrilled

to trump at any possible misstep on behalf of those near the former president to the skies. Where there is smoke, there is fire, or so goes the cliche. This is sometimes, but not always true. Now, people who know anything about Donald Trump might be surprised by some of the things they've just heard. Yeah, yeah. Uh, yeah. Yeah. How did it begin?

I just showed our children. Uh, how did it begin? Uh, he's genuinely compassionate. And if you consider his family, it shows his fundamental reliability, even goodness that he's he and his children have managed to remain scandal free. Yeah. God, his children, Trump's children are perhaps even worse than Trump. It's amazing.

It depends on the ones, but they're certainly not scandal free or a scandal free family. I mean, Trump is not, his children are not. Donald Trump Jr. is a version of him and was involved with, just for an example, the Trump-Tar meeting with the Russian lawyer. Remember that? Remember Ivanka Trump getting in trouble about when she was a senior White House advisor and business interests in China? There's huge numbers of them, Matt. There's so many scandals associated with that. There's huge numbers of them, Matt. There's so many scandals associated with it.

Yeah. I mean, yeah. I mean, at this point, Jordan Peterson is someone who has just gone completely mental, but somehow retains the ability to string words together in a reasonably coherent way. It is just, it's like being gaslit hearing someone say things which are just so completely wrong. So they just couldn't be wronger. Every diagnosis that he makes about Trump and his family is the opposite of what the truth is.

And it's plain to see, like, benevolent, compassionate. He's just got a big heart and that he cares too much. I mean, it's just surprising that Jordan Peterson even thinks that this is like, surely this cannot ring true even to. I know. I don't know. Yeah, I think it does. It speaks to the different realities that people inhabit, but also the same, you know, just to finish off the zero scandal point.

the just to finish off the zero scandal point. Zero scandal within the Trump family is reminiscent for me of the zero wars of the Trump presidency. It's something easy to take for granted, given its too easily invisible non-existence, as it's hard to be grateful for a problem you just don't have. But it is a relief. And another indication that the bombastic Donald J. has at least properly ruled his own roost. This is also no easy matter, as we have seen in the appalling family scandals of the Biden White House, and is another fact mitigating against the claim that President Trump is

a danger on the temperamental front. Every opportunity to get a reference to Biden or Hunter Biden scandal, every time, that's the dominating thing. So Jordan's analysis of Biden's character would be, I imagine, horrified, right? What a venial and corrupt and incompetent person. And, and his son's scandal, terribly reflecting on him. But in comparison, Trump is basically saintly. Yeah.

His children, just good, upstanding citizens who, who just mirror the best of Trump's qualities. I remember, have you seen the photos of Trump's son? I forget which one, like hunting beautiful animals in Africa. Yeah. Yeah. I mean, anyway, I mean- Beautiful people. Yeah.

Beautiful people, beautiful people. I mean, this is a partisan screed. Like it pretends it's like, oh, this will be interesting. I'll do a, I'll contribute to the discourse, but I'll do a, I'll present my psycho analysis of these, of these personalities. But of course it is desiccophancy and it is absolutely a partisan screed. Like he kind of acknowledges in a backhand kind of way that Trump is perceived as narcissistic. And then of course, you know, devotes all of this effort to explaining why to the untrained eye it might seem like that, but actually to a qualified psychologist like me, he's

not at all, his temperament is perfectly fine. And it always drives me the wrong way to this. It seems to have become accepted wisdom that it's just Democrats who just love war, just love kicking off wars all over the place. But it was the Republicans that started the most, I guess, wasteful and unnecessary wars in recent memory. And it's Vladimir Putin that started the war in Ukraine, not the U S Democrat party. I just, yeah.

I mean, but I guess it makes sense, right? This is the new riot, which is isolationist, no nothing, right? You had the same version of it before world war two as well. Yeah. Well, I mean, like under Trump's presidency, the people like the Titan wars, but like the US was involved in Iraq and Syria, Afghanistan, Yemen, you know, they were still actively involved in a whole bunch of conflicts and Trump famously okayed various strikes in retaliation for events.

So it wasn't like that. And even like in the case, you know, the withdrawal from Afghanistan, which Trump promised that took place under Biden. And yes, it was a disaster, but you know, that would be a policy where you could argue that there's a continuation. But in Trump land and then Peterson's version of it, it would always be that the shambles that that was is because of the Biden administration, right? If it had taken place under Trump, it would have been perfect. In the same way, if Trump had been president, there would never have been

an invasion of Ukraine, despite the fact that Russia was in the Donbas, right? Like during Trump's residency, it doesn't- Trump would have cut a deal, Chris. He would have cut a deal. He would have cut a deal with the Taliban as well. A good deal. Good deal for America. I'm sure you know, we were talking about whenever we had the

verveky episode about like these responsible man vitamins that came in and how they were on the nose, but also like, you know, it's kind of, well, that's some silly conservative branded like supplement pill, right? It's not like Jordan Peterson is doing the ad read. In this episode, you can't quite use that defense because listen to this. I own a very comical book, The Collected Poems of Donald J. Trump, available for purchase at the Daily Wire website, by the way, which compiles his most memorable tweets and declarations from 2009 to 2019 into beautiful library edition hardback form. It is a ridiculously funny tome. I believe

that deeper consideration of this proclivity for the viciously funny is also useful in shedding more general light on Trump's admittedly complex personality. First, we should fairly note that dictatorial types, a category which his enemies insist he falls into, are generally not known for their sense of humour. People were imprisoned in the Stalinist Soviet Union for being the first to stop applauding after a speech by the great leader. Criticism was absolutely out of the question, and certainly not forthcoming from the top. I've also never encountered a commendium of the witty and amusing things said by Adolf Hitler or Fidel Castro or Chairman Mao.

Absolutely shameless, Chris. Absolutely shameless. A hardback library edition volume, Matt. You know? You know the image that's playing in my mind. I'm just imagining Jordan Peterson in his study, the little books on the wall. He's, he's running his finger along the volumes looking for inspiration.

There's, I know Thomas Mann is there, maybe a Greek poet, you know, maybe some philosophy and then his finger arrives on the leather bound copy of Trump's greatest tweets. And then his finger arrives on the leather bound copy of Trump's greatest tweets from 2010. There's so much stupidity there. The fact that the Daily Wire is selling this speaks to their stupidity and the ecosystem that he exists in as well. But the other thing, Matt, this is just a small dope, but Jordan is unaware of a commandium of the

saints of Chairman Mao. Chairman Mao. Yeah, good point. I don't think they were very funny though. Maybe that's the argument, but just you know, the little red book, you know, I'm sure there are some good one liners in there. But you know, the level of sycophancy here, it just, I cannot emphasize it enough. They're talking about selling a bounded book of the collected tweets of Donald Trump. And then also he's talking about how he can't be a dictator because dictators are not funny, but also they don't allow criticism Donald Trump, famously someone that is on board with receiving

criticism, open to critical feedback, not at all known as somebody who absolutely rejects critical comments or things he doesn't want to hear. Like it's he's talking about a different person. Trump is not someone who is known for creating high level critical feedback sessions or whatever. It's just, ugh. I know, it's just delusional. It's just an alternative reality that is, like, it's just the Bizarro world version. It's completely opposite in every respect to the real reality. But like, imagine you knew nothing about Jordan Peterson.

Like, imagine you were coming at this fresh. And imagine it wasn't even about Donald Trump. It doesn't have to be. But somebody who has just spent the last 15 minutes or so, you know, waxing lyrical on just what an amazing person this public figure is, just how brilliant in every way. And then just segues effortlessly into, oh, by the way, would you like to buy this expensive

book that's written by this person? I mean, that is just so clearly grifting. Come on. I know. I concur, but have you considered maybe, sure, I get that you're, you know, that you find a little bit distasteful with the bound book of tweets, but have you considered if Trump deserves the Nobel peace prize? Furthermore, he negotiated the Abraham Accords, the nine miraculous peace agreements that have built around Israel a cohort of, if not exactly Arab allies, at least not outright enemies.

In a just world, Trump and his previous team of diplomats should have been awarded the Nobel Peace Prize for this accomplishment, which was deemed impossible by the experts decade after decade of the State Department. It is of significant note too that these accords have held even after the events of October 7th, 2023, and all the work that has been done mostly by the truly pathological actors of the Islamic Republic. Yeah, Trump should have a Nobel Prize as well, Matt. Nobel Peace Prize. Yeah, yeah, why not? Yeah, Nobel Prizes are a recurring theme in the gurus here, aren't they? Yeah, they are. They're apparently not that hard to get the degree to which they

should be doled out. It's unacceptably low. So, I mean, that's all, as we talked about, it is what we said, right? But the worst part, Matt, I've left for the end. So he gave Trump a verbal tongue-baving that will echo through the ages for its fairness. Right. It's, it's remarkable, truly remarkable.

He got right in there. That's for sure. Yeah. All the crevices all absolutely cleaned out, right? Spotless. But we haven't got to the team that surrounds Trump. Now some people have described him as a clown car. Some people have discussed, you know, the kind of retrogrades that inhabit Trump

world and the, you know, the motley crew that he assembles around himself. Jordan has a slightly different take on them. The Republican candidate has now attracted a truly remarkable, surprising, and stellar group of compatriots around him, all highly accomplished and formidable figures, each with their own marked eccentricities. This is also not something that is likely to occur when someone pathologically narcissistic is running the show. That group includes Elon Musk, Tony Stark,

genius billionaire playboy philanthropist, Robert F. Kennedy, charismatic, eccentric, and intimidating, Tulsi Gabbard, who is in truth everything that Kamala Harris plays at being, Vivek Ramaswamy, smart, self-promoting, creative, witty, articulate, young, entrepreneurial, and fast on his feet, as well as JD Vance, the hillbilly, who pulled himself out of the Appalachians by his bootstraps, and who would, in sane times, be a veritable poster boy for the hypothetically support the poor and working class left. I have been joking to myself and some others in my circle that the X-Men have

now arrived in reality to rescue the Republic. This is a transformation that has not yet been fully noted even by the Trump campaign itself despite its truly and surreially revolutionary nature. It's cults of personality all the way down, isn't it, Chris? And he gives each one of these figures the same treatment, of course, as he gave Trump. They're all superheroes on a similar level. But just that, like this idolization, like this mythologizing, this cult of personality that, like Jordan Peterson has, like this mythologizing, this cult of personality that, like Jordan

Peterson has got that around himself, but they sort of pass it up in a feudal kind of manner. And, you know, it is, it's just a concerning style of politics when you are presenting, it's not so much about a party with a set of policies, it's rather this personality cult with Trump and the various heirs and colonels and captains, each of whom is an absolutely amazing Nobel Prize worthy person in their own right. It is this horrible intersection of gurudom with American politics. When you and I started this podcast, we didn't think there would be this kind of overlap. The Venn diagram

overlap would be so large. We thought it was a funny, quirky, unwholesome, but just a localized internet thing. But it is actually quite dispiriting to me that it has become really important. Yeah. The current election cycle. And again, just the absolute distance from like the presentation and the reality, like Vivek Ramaswamy as, you know, this hugely mythical figure, instead of a degenerate, fast-talking, self-promoting politician who's clawed his way up, getting every scrap of attention from the media that

he can get. Or JD Vance, just another opportunistic chameleon. It's like taking a group of shady used car salesmen with weird mustaches and then dressing them up in superhero costumes. It is absolutely absurd. Yeah. And you know, he'll go on to do, you know, like a little mini psychological breakdown of each of them and it's all the same.

We'll only cover like a little bit of the Elon one, I think. We'll give a taste for it. Yeah. All the rest are the same. But when he talks about Tulsi Gabbard, for instance, he goes through all these, you know, her character and how she's also such a feminine grace, Matt, and you know, she's robust and stalwart and all these things. She has as well the emotional resilience not to panic, even under pressure,

not to claim that the sky is falling and rush around madly and counter productively merely for the show of work. It doesn't hurt as well that she is the epitome of feminine grace and attractiveness, Wonder Woman indeed, borrowing, if we can, from the DC world, the comic books and not the city. I could certainly envision her as the first truly deserving female president of the United States. But in all this analysis, he's never looked into things like Tosie's remarkable ability to absolutely spin another dime, her ideology.

There's a good episode of Cuneon Anonymous where they look through her history. And she has been, you know, at times an anti-gay marriage activist, and then like a hard left progressive person, a neocon. She's been a moderate Democrat, and now she is a migrant Trump Republican. Right. And the connecting thread is a search for power and influence and attention and Fiume and she was Tucker Carlson's stand in host. So these just, they are misfits, but they're misfits in the realm of

self-promoting media. Opportunists. Yeah. Yeah. Absolutely opportunists. But there are misfits in the realm of self-promoting media points. Yeah, yeah, yeah. Absolute opportunists. Like, you know, we've mentioned her a few times, but, you know, Anne Appelbaum with her diagnosis of the kind of person, you know, like ideologically labile, very ambitious and totally without principle. And you know, not necessarily having any talent,

but having a huge amount of willingness to bend with the wind, flatter the right people, and just, as you said, claw your way to the top. So Trump, who you can think of him in terms of sort of those authoritarian left, right terms, but he is fundamentally like an opportunistic con artist. And it makes perfect sense that he's gathered these kinds of people around him.

Yeah, or Roger Stone. Yeah. Yeah. And to hear Jordan Peterson really find his stride and really wax lyrical about their almost superhuman virtue and amazing cognitive abilities. Like at some point there, he did one of our, superhuman virtue and amazing cognitive abilities. Like, you know, like at some point there, he did one of our, you know, who was our guru

who talked about, you know, running seven different paradigms. Seven different paradigms at Jordan Hall. Yeah. He talked about one of them like that too. Well, man, hold on. Aren't you exaggerating, but it's not like you'd compare them to actual gods and superheroes. First and foremost among these new supporters and colleagues of the former president is Elon Musk.

He truly is and so comically an X-Man as is starkly evidenced by the new name of the controversial social media platform he now owns and was once known as Twitter. He has been struggling to build X, the everything platform, for decades with that particular moniker in his mind the whole time. The X-Men, like the Avengers, was a group of misfit mutants who came together to save the normies from the various monsters of the world. It is frequently the case that life imitates art, and there were perhaps real reasons stirring in the collective unconscious of the West, inclining us to look toward the eccentric and supernormal for our salvation. Fiction meets reality in the strangest of ways.

In any case, Trump is now playing Charles Xavier to a strange group of mutants, or if the similar metaphor of the Avengers is more attractive conceptually, Captain America to the gods and superheroes. Let us assess this group of remarkable people psychologically. Oh God. I know it's so pure. I was like that. It really is. It's like Bret Weinstein, you know, comparing themselves to the Harry

Potter, Order of the Phoenix or the Transformers or whatever. Like they're like little kids. That's right. the Harry Potter, the Order of the Phoenix, or the Transformers, or whatever. They're like little kids. That's right. I mean, for all these intellectual pretensions, the ideas that resonate with these people the most are from stupid movies more than anything else. How about even in this case, this is what is slightly annoying about this is like the X-Men, right? Famously, famously a metaphor analogy for like discrimination against gay people or

other marginalized groups, right? They're people that were like pilloried by society but had these abilities and whatnot. You know your X-Men lore clearly better than I do. But go on. Yeah, well, this is, this is, this is not a deep reading. It's a very superficial thing. It's probably like the one of the second or third lines that'll come up on the Wikipedia article.

And so his reading of that is even just wrong. Trump and this group is not the marginalized people in the society. It's the elite billionaires and the leaders of political parties and in Vivek's case, like these investors and whatnot, but he wants to analogize them to the X-Men and like, you know, put Trump into the professor Xavier thing. Like, I'm sure you don't know that much about it, but like professor Xavier, I could, I'm like the image of that person and it's certainly not the image of Trump. And so it's ridiculous.

Chris, I have my own metaphor here. I'm going to sit against Jordan Peterson's because I just finished reading A Distant Mirror by Barbara W. Tuckman. It's a really good history of the 14th century in medieval Europe. She's done a few history books. Anyway, basically, long story short, the 14th century was a shit show. But, you know, she really paints a very accurate picture of the sociology and the ideology of that time where you had these, you know, monarchs and despots and princes or wannabe princes,

you know, the various schisms. And then you had their court, you know what I mean? The various powerful nobles and dukes and knights and so on that they would gather around them, right? Who were the ones that they would reward? They would all be extremely obsequious. But of course, loyalty in that kind of feudal system is the most important thing. So that's kind of how I see, you know, this culture personality culture. It's not a culture for the modern world. It is this archaic, horrible throwback. And so in this metaphor, Chris, Jordan Peterson would be the court poet or the jester, you know? He's got his

pointy shoes with the little bells on and he's prepared these soliloquies to entertain the court and flatter them all with what amazing persons they are. That's Jordan's role in this whole scheme, I think. Yeah, absolutely. And he's delivering it with aplomb, I will say. Maybe a little on the nose. I will say maybe a little on the nose like when a little he went a little heavy He may be spread it on a bit thick but yeah, she's definitely doing the work But it so just the show mud This is a very short clip but like on Elon being very good insights on to Elon himself First and foremost the world's premiere

engineer and inventor is a man clearly and demonstrably capable of doing six impossible things at the same time. This speaks primarily of his intelligence. Musk is exceptionally one in a billion, high in general cognitive ability and openness, a true genius, albeit in the technical manner. So, counter-dios, Matt, he regarded Ilan as actually being an engineering genius, right, like an inventor. One in a billion, Chris. Yeah, that that does stand in stark contrast to our diagnosis, which is that he's a fucking moron.

He's a good bullshitter, a good marketer. And that's it. It's like somebody that has interests and whatnot, but primarily his value is in getting investment for his companies and attention, which he is very good at. But yeah, so, you know, two different visions of the man, the intrepid engineer and genius level internet versus somebody that's good at self-promotion and promoting his companies. One of them is Mark, right? Yeah, one of them is.

I mean, like you said at the beginning, Chris, it just speaks to the different mental worlds that we inhabit. Because, you know, Jordan Peterson isn't alone in this idolization and hero worship of Musk, Trump and all the rest of them. And we're not alone, obviously, in how we feel. And regardless of who's right and wrong, we can put that aside. It is amazing, isn't it, that Jordan Peterson is genuine here in a way. I don't think he could get so, you know, he couldn't find his stride. He couldn't be so passionate and find inspiration unless he truly did believe this on some level.

And I just, I find that endlessly fascinating. Yeah, I don't. Well, you know, if you, if you're more compelled by his vision of ideal on mosque, I think just one last one, Matt, RFK junior. All right. See if this description fits what you're aware of R.F.K. Jr. I have met with the next member of this group in question, Mr. Robert F. Kennedy, five times, speaking with and listening to him at some length each time. He has the near manic energy and loquaciousness of those with exceptional verbal intelligence and the intensely focused concentration that pushes people who have that

proclivity beyond even their own limits in pursuit of a goal. He's dreadfully well informed, a veritable master of historical minutiae in a manner nonetheless relevant to today's concerns. He is also someone who like Trump and Musk can and does draw the overall picture accurately. And even in a somewhat prophetic manner, he is fearless and dedicated, having stood up and successfully against even the largest giants of the proto-fascist modern state, and is single-handedly drawn public attention to what is genuinely a health crisis of gargantuan proportions, despite its

invisibility on the political stage until the current time. Anti-vax stuff, presumably. Yep, yep, anti-vax stuff. But yeah, Jordan's on board with that. Yeah, he is nice. Yeah, I mean, he's very eloquent, isn't he? He keeps finding new ways to... To flatter.

To flatter, yeah. I do think it is like a court poet poet, you know, they're, you know, really, really putting in the effort to find all the, you know, munificent and multiplicitous ways in which the, the Lords and the King are so wonderful, um, such great insights. So yeah, the angels themselves, the angels themselves don't tremble. And this is presented, like we were talking about at the start, the kind of

consistent thing with like Joe Rogan with the heterodox sphere more broadly, whatever is there's supposed to be these brave truth tellers and what they They're supposed to be these brave truth tellers and what they consistently appear to be is the most base sycophants. They are, yeah, when it comes to political opponents that they dislike, but anybody that is in the orbit and kind of aligned with their vision, They are the greatest person on the planet. Their merits cannot be counted over several volumes. And it is just so counter to the image presented of like these hard-bitten truth tellers who are willing to go alone and stand up against whatever moral feelings there are in the world.

No, you're going to pre-is someone who is whatever your view of his policies, obviously a deeply venial and narcissistic, self-centered character. And you're going to talk about what a wonderful family man he is and how incredibly empathetic, like he actually really cares for the little people Matt and it's it's his graphics theory is his way to mask that deep empathetic heart like fuck off Jordan. Fuck off. I know the king loves his people.

The king loves his yeah he does. He does so yeah. Yeah with a horrible propagandist and mentally ill probably, but yeah, yeah, I think that's fair. That's usually right. You know, well, can we say that? No, I think that's fair in Jordan's case. And so my DM with we've been around a roller horrific little tour of the

gurus fear. I have to go. I have to go be sick in a moment. So let's wrap it up. The US election is approaching, though. We're not voting. We don't live there. But I do hope that this podcast, who can't vote, don't find it

a particularly difficult choice. I'm sorry. But when the choice is Trump or Kamala, there really only is a single option. Oh, so what are you doing? This is like the Washington Post situation or the various other institutions. You're coming down. Like, Decoding the Gurus has an official position. Yeah, yeah. Yeah. What is it? What is it? I'm fascinated to know. So third party, right, Matt? Right in your muller, right in your...

Yeah, like I mean, this isn't news, right? This isn't news. As we have constantly declared since the first episode, we are moderate left leaning people. So our view, even if it wasn't Kamala, even if it was like AOC or whatever, I would still be saying, you know, against Trump, you should vote for the moderate left wing candidate. If you care about, you know, the kind of things that we care about. If you are like Jordan Peterson and want a political establishment ruled by only the greatest Superman and mutant heroes around, then yes, perhaps Trump is the option, but I don't know. We are both going to be insulated to some degree from the choice that

Americans make, but I just don't find this particularly a big hand-wringing exercise. It just doesn't seem like it should be. It's a stark choice. Well, in a normal world, I'd say that this kind of thing would be totally inappropriate for us, Chris. It's not our country. It's not a political podcast. What people do is up to them. But I guess due to this massive overlap between Guru-dom and all the things we cover that Gurus do. And Trump and the people that are affiliated with this movement.

Yeah, I think I'm on safe grounds when I say that there is one of those parties in the United States which exhibits a really strong Gurumata score, if you took them in aggregate, uh, and one much less so. So, uh, the way it, it looks to me is kind of like, you know, people, people can vote whatever where they want, but like, if there's any person in the audience who is like, Oh, those guys think that it would be better to support like Kamala over Trump.

Like, come on, it's not a secret, Matt. Like I think you can be a reasonable person and vote for different parties. I think you can be a perfectly reasonable moderate conservative. But I just think given Trump and all this stuff around this. Yeah. No, no, that's right. I mean, hopefully we won't be making a habit of this. Hopefully in another four years or eight years or 12 years. Well, who knows, we'll still be podcasting.

But you know, hopefully by then, who knows, maybe there'll be like a Mitt Romney character or a McCain type character and you and I will have nothing to do with it. It'll be totally out of bounds. I think you're overestimating our influence. will have nothing to do with it. It'll be totally out of the. I think you're overestimating our influence. We have nothing to do with this one. Like, but this is the thing. So all I'm saying is exactly where like, what do you think I would vote for in the

UK, the labor or the conservative government, which one would I pick? It's not hard. So I don't, I don't feel shy at all about saying to people, you know, my birthday is on the 4th of November. If you were a nice present, American listeners, who would not have me wake up to another four years of listening to fucking Trump. So if you have a reason, I appreciate it.

You've missed the best reason to hope for a democratic victory, which is that it would make the vast majority of our gurus really, really upset. It would make them really sad. It would cause them pain. I know that will be beautiful. If that happens, that is perhaps the greatest benefit. It would be very funny for that reason. I mean, that's all I'm saying. I mean, I don't wish her unhappiness or pain on anyone, but

we will drink their tears on this podcast if the Democrats win. And that makes for great content. So that's a decent reason. Yeah. But in my case, Matt, it's a 50-50 toss-up. I expect the worst, but I just hope for the best. Come on, America. Don't let me down just this time. It's once in all my freaking birthday. Oh, come on. Let's see what we can do.

All right. You know, vote wherever you want. Jill Stein, is she running? Vote for her. Yeah, see who Brett Weinstein's proposing. Yeah. Well, he's Trump. Oh no.

So there's no unity candidate this time. Nah, shame. Unity candidate is Trump with RFK, Matt. You must've missed that, but they- Oh, that's right. Of course. Yeah. Of course.

Okay. All right. Well, thanks for indulging us everyone. Sorry for inflicting Jordan Peterson's absolutely gut wrenching display there. But yeah, stay well. And don't be too psychologically affected by the election. The world will still turn.

We'll muddle through somehow whatever happens. Oh, yeah, yeah. That's true. We'll all manage with whatever happens everywhere in the world. Okay, so let's leave on that note of site optimism. And yes, good night and God bless. Yep, keep plugging on by the way. Ciao! I'm going to be a little bit of a little bit of a little bit of a

little bit of a little bit of a little bit of a little bit of a little bit of a little bit of a little bit of a little bit of a

little bit of a little bit of a little bit of a I want to present another choice. And the other choice is voting for somebody else, a third party. They're not gonna win. Doesn't make a difference. My job as a citizen when voting is to express disgust, or pleasure, but I never have ever experienced that. I wanna reelect this guy because he's so great.

It's never actually happened in my life. And one way of doing that is either not voting, which is a choice. If turnout is low, it tells you something about your political society. Or voting for somebody who's not these two people. And in a way is saying, try harder guys. You can do better than this. We want somebody who is actually, you know, relatively sane, is stable, is not going to act like a complete nut all the time, or can actually put a sentence together. And agrees with my fundamental values, and is not going to lie to people to tell them what they want to hear, to get the votes, and then not do anything about it. You know, I think that voting for whoever the libertarian is, I don't even know. I'm sorry to a libertarian candidate that I don't know. For me, that is also a choice.

And that I think is a choice to show that you have utter contempt for where this two-party system has lent. What a fantastic uplifting note to wrap up the episode. Bye.