In Response to Netanyahu | Maajid Nawaz | EP 337

You should accept yourself just the way you are. What does that say about who I should become? Is that just now off the table because I'm already good enough in every way? So, am I done or something? Get the hell up! Get your act together! Adopt some responsibility! Put your life together! Develop a vision! Unfold all those manifold possibilities that lurk within! Be a force for good in the world and that'll be the adventure of your life.

[Music]

So that's why you're noticing polarization go up everywhere. Not just on the Israeli side of the debate on the terrorism everywhere. There's polarization because that's their method for change. And so we've got to be careful we're not being useful PSIs for dialectical materialism by using language that continues the divide. Increases the divide rather than bring people together. People are possessed to a greater or lesser degree by this web of ideas. They reflect that in their own perception and action as individuals. But then when they get together as groups, like imagine that a given person is 25% possessed by the politically correct web of ideas. But then you get a hundred people like that in a room, let's say at Davos. And then you have the whole web of ideas and it has an animating ethos. Like, it looks at the world in a certain way and is aiming at certain ends. And then that entire system of ideas works to promote that. And it also means that it can operate in a distributed manner. Because, to the degree that any given person is possessed by some fraction of those ideas, they'll go off into their own domain and agitate on behalf of the idea system. And that's a principality, and that will act to further the entire, uh, the entire catastrophe. And really, the entire idea system in its most fundamental element is an idol. It's a false idol. It's a false religion.

[Music]

Hello everyone! I'm here today talking to Majid Naas, a colleague and well-dawning friend of mine. We've spoken a number of times in a variety of different circumstances. Most recently, Majid had contacted me with some opposition to things I had said or allowed to be said, or facilitated the transmission of, let's say, talking to Benjamin Netanyahu about the situation in Palestine. And so we've been going back and forth on that front and decided to have a conversation. And so that's what's happening today here and also on The Daily Wire on YouTube and also on The Daily Wire Plus platform. Majid Naas is a British anti-extremist political commentator, activist, and podcast host. He was recently released from his LBC Radio Show as a consequence of his views on the COVID-19 pandemic. He wasn't really in favor of the mandated vaccines and has roots as one of the original named members of the hypothetical intellectual dark web, along with characters such as myself, Douglas Murray, and Ben Shapiro, among others. Good to have a chance to talk to Majid again today.

Hi, Ma. It's been a while since we've had a chance to talk. I don't, I think I, the last time we spoke, I think was probably on your show, wasn't it? And that was, what is that, four years ago, three years ago?

Thank you for remembering! I was very proud to be the first national broadcaster to conduct a long form interview with you in Britain on the national airwaves. A job I was since cancelled from, but it was around the time of your own incredibly interesting conversation on Channel 4, when what became a meme, of course from there, if you remember was, "So, what you're saying is..." and your response to that persistent question was basically were the stuff of legends. So, it's a pleasure being here again with you, Jordan.

And as I said, thank you for remembering that we had that conversation. They had some sound issues. It's still on YouTube, and people can still catch that. It was before the world went mad. I think even though we could probably both see it was on the way to going mad.

It was definitely on the way! Yeah, that Channel 4 interview with Kathy Newman, I think, has 30 million views now still, doesn't it? Refuses to die. But interesting, you know, I was interviewed a couple, probably two years later by Helen Lewis for the GQ on putatively for their issue on masculinity, strangely enough. And that interview, Helen had more tricks in her bag than Kathy Newman, and that interview now has 60 million views.

And so, but they’re both reflections of the same underlying surreal strangeness that we see ourselves constantly surrounded with now.

Yeah, so, but that's not where I first met you, though. I first met you when I had just finished my touring with Sam Harris, and you had just come on the scene there with Sam and began your dialogues. And I was in the audience actually for some of those, especially the ones in London.

And again, thank you for having us at your recent London event, man, and I, Brother man, that you met. We were very happy to see you there as well. We met, I think with Douglas Murray, didn't we at that point for a dinner?

We had dinner, lunch, yep. Tammy was there, Douglas was there, you were there. And I think it was in his London flat the time that he had. And we had a lovely conversation then as well.

Um, yeah, it's been a while. It's been many years we've been in touch, but this is I think the first time we've sat down on your show and it's actually, I'm very happy that we're doing this because I think the time is a good time.

So for everybody watching and listening, I've been corresponding with Majid for the last couple of months trying to set this up. And a fair bit of that has circulated around the Abraham Accord issue that I've been speaking about and the Israel-Palestine situation. And so I thought we might as well hash that out to begin with.

And so I'm not exactly sure how to begin that. I, maybe I'll start by talking about my experience on the Abraham Accord front and you can tell me, you know, what you think about that and then we'll dive into the weeds.

So sure, I was very ill for a good while from 2000, even 2018 when I was on tour. But it got really bad by 2021. I was kind of out of commission for about three years. And when I started to spring back to life, some people in my circle alerted me to the emerging fact of the Abraham Accords.

And I started to keep an eye on them and was very struck by what was happening. The fact that this peace process, putative peace process was emerging outside of the confines of the state department, under the tender auspices of Donald Trump and his organization.

And it looked to me like an extraordinarily, it had the potential to be an extraordinarily significant advance. And then I was struck by how much it was downplayed in the, let's say Legacy press, and also by the Democrats that I was working with because I worked with some Democrats behind the scenes for a very long time and was unable to elicit from them any real enthusiasm for this move forward, which struck me as very, very odd, to say the least, and still does.

And since then I’ve investigated the process by which the Abraham Accords were negotiated with a number of the people who were directly involved in including the former Israel ambassador to the US and the American ambassador to Israel.

And still am of the opinion that this looks like an avenue to something approximating peace in an area that has been characterized by very little peace for a very long time.

So in any case, that's the situation on my front and we've exchanged a bit of email about that topic and I'm well, I'm very interested in your views about the Abraham Accord and about to the degree that you regard that as relevant about my involvement with publicizing it.

Well, first of all, it's something I raised as well before I was cancelled on my previous show, on LBC. I was cancelled, for the record, three months before my contract was due to expire. And the reason I was cancelled was very evident and clear to me. I have all the receipts.

And in fact, five years remaining on a legal case that I initiated, and the lawyers were so happy with the case that they're doing it without charge. And my basic point was that I was cancelled for raising COVID mandates, being what I believe one of the greatest crimes ever committed or attempted to be committed against humanity.

And I objected to the mandates and refused as a conscientious objector to take from the booster shot onwards, having been coercively injected in prison against my will. I thought that it was absolutely unacceptable for the state to put me back in that position because everything I had been fighting for since up until that point, including on LBC, and this relates to the Abraham Accords question you just asked me, Jordan, was for universal peace and love.

And with the background that I have, which I won't go into now, it's well known. And if anyone wants to catch up on that, they can watch my other interviews. But with the background I have, I thought it was particularly important for me to reach out to all communities in peace and extend a hand of peace.

We say salamu alaykum when we meet people. And I did so with, and you know I don't need to go over that as well, the track record there for the last decade, what I've been doing is very clear. It culminated in my dialogue with Sam Harris, "Islam and the Future of Tolerance." And that turned into a film.

So when the Abraham Accords came about in that spirit, Jordan, of course you'd expect me to want to give peace a chance. And my views in reaction to that are on the record. They're all there online. Again, before my job was canceled, in fact, clips were uploaded of me embracing the opportunity for peace.

What I'd like to say in response to your question, but I think it was necessary. That preamble was necessary because I think peace, and though it must be embraced, it has to be regardless of power dynamics. I believe it has to be, it has to be presented, the opportunity has to be presented as if we are speaking to equals.

And I don't mean equals in terms of physical strength or war capabilities. I mean human equals, I mean cognitive equals, I mean spiritual equals. And for that reason, I’m probably, again a caveat for what I'm about to say, I’m probably one of the most vocal Muslim voices in the West who has advocated for giving peace a chance, considering my background.

And where I've come from, I have every excuse not to want to give peace a chance when it comes to how the world has treated certain people, including me in the past. But I think it's really important that we have to fight for peace.

And one of the ways that it's possible is regardless of material power dynamics, we approach the so-called adversary, who’s really a mirror of ourselves, as an equal. And the reason I mentioned that is that there’s certain language around the entire question of the Middle East.

And it's what I think I gave you a bit of a telling off, I’m sorry, Jordan. It's better in person with a smile than it is online, so I'm happy to have this opportunity to explain why I believe this is a much better way for us to progress.

And that is because there are certain language that is used around not just the Abraham Accords, but peace in the Middle East which can unintentionally can come with stigmatizing connotations that build up a feeling of otherness, as opposed to bringing people closer together, which is a prerequisite for peace.

Our language has to bring people closer together. If our language is stigmatizing while we're saying that we want peace, then unfortunately, that's not the behavior of somebody that wants peace. That’s the behavior of somebody who wants to blame the adversary for still being angry while they've extended a hand of peace.

And the only persons that have the ability to do that are those that have the material power, in other words, the luxury to be able to afford speaking in tones that are divisive while saying, "I'm extending a hand in peace."

So a person that has nothing but their dignity to try and defend in any war situation will only ever expect people to address them as a cognitive and a spiritual equal on a human level.

So when I say language, you're no stranger to this, Jordan, because of your own expertise and what, in fact, has led you to prominence around the world because you understand the importance of language and context and symbolism and tradition.

So we’re going to, I would love to revisit this question of language actually, as we continue speaking later on. But for now, I'll just say the example, because I think it goes all the way back to the oral tradition and why it's important to remember before the written word how language was received and given, which I'm sure you're aware to what I'm alluding in terms of the Semitic tradition as well.

But we can come to that later. For the moment, what I'd like to say is, right down to, if we want the Abraham Accords to work, right down to the adjectives we use to describe it.

As I said, I probably done, with respect, and I don't mean this to be in any sense arrogant, Jordan, I don't mean to boast and I don't mean to put you down. I probably done more than you on for peace in the Middle East.

That wouldn't surprise me in the least, and I've suffered for it. And so take this from a brother who says it to you, that I think that, for example, when we say things like Judeo-Christian civilization, when we know for a fact that historically, all of the philosophies and the principles that we cherish so dearly in our small o, small s, open societies, because I don't want to endorse Soros's program of open Society, so all the principles and values we endorse in our small o and small s open Society were protected, cherished, and then translated by the golden era in the Middle East during the time of the ancient caliphates.

And we know the heritage of Andalusia, Islamic Spain, and the way in which the philosophies were preserved from there. How may Maimonides and others emerged from there. And we understand, therefore, that part of this equation, Judeo-Christian civilization, it's a deliberate amputation of a limb not to include Muslims within that conversation.

And so Abrahamic is more inclusive. But I've noticed people increasingly use Judeo-Christian civilization when talking about challenging the woke for example. Another problem there is that, what does that lead to? Why am I raising that? Because the "othering" words for me, I believe, are spells. And when we cast spells, we create feelings in people that receive those words.

So when we speak in those terms that exclude one key element of that from that conversation, though of course I know I'm a British citizen and I'm welcome here in this discourse, if it's a Judeo-Christian civilization, I'm expected to assimilate into, then I will always be the other.

And I will always be approaching this discourse from an outside perspective and will be heard as the other by those on the inside. But if we understand that our civilization isn't only Judeo-Christian and in fact, right down to algebra coming from Al-Khwarizmi, who invented the concept of zero, either coming from the Sanskrit in India or from the Arabic numerals, you know, I could go on and on.

If we understand that, then there's no way that that philosophically, we could ever find ourselves in a position where, whether with thought or not, we don't raise, there's no way we could ever raise a question that erases the existence of a people. And that's what I believe happened when you spoke to Netanyahu.

I believe the attempt to erase the existence of Palestinians. I believe the attempt to present the squatter analogy. In other words, as was expressly stated in that conversation between you and Benjamin Netanyahu that this was empty land, had no occupants, and therefore when we arrived like the squatters in an empty property, we immediately have right over this land!

And that recognizes absolutely no claim for Palestinians. I believe that's exclusionary language and doesn't aid the spirit of what's called the Abraham Accords. In fact, denies a people. And last thing I say, Jordan, last I say please...

Yeah, no, go ahead.

It's not a new point, it's not a new point.

So when we do that, of course, how do we expect Palestinians to receive that language? If they receive it being excluded, that leads to reaction. In other words, anger. It leads to a separation, not a bringing together. And I acknowledge one thing, by the way, that the term Palestinian in our language is a modernist term. So I'm not getting stuck on semantics.

I'm saying that there were an Arab people there as well, and they must be acknowledged whether you want to call them Palestinians, whether you want to call them Shami, inlentine today. They happen to be in the area that is within Israeli military authority called the West Bank. Today they happen to say, okay, you know, this is, we're Palestinian because this is the ancient land of Palestine.

I don't prefer, I prefer not to get stuck on semantics. I know Netanyahu's argument is all but there was no such thing as Palestine, there was no such thing as Israel before 1948, there was no such thing as Pakistan, my parents' country of origin, of which I have a national ID card. I'm not dismissing or lowering or belittling any country.

Yeah, so we have to I think acknowledge identity so that we can have the conversation, the spirit for which Abraham Accords, the spirit for which it was named. I hope that makes sense.

Hey, Reagan! I know you're picky when it comes to skincare products, so tell me, what did you think of GenuCell skincare?

Exactly right, Garrett. I'm the type of person who needs to know exactly what ingredients I'm using in my skincare routine, which is why I'm loving GenuCell. Their products are made with antioxidants and formulated by a compounding pharmacist, and they're all about preventative skincare.

I've been using GenuCell's new microbiome moisturizer to target skin redness, fine lines, and other signs of premature aging. It uses the same probiotics that are in your yogurt. As it turns out, these super ingredients can have the same nourishing benefits on your skin as they do to your digestive system.

The results have been incredible. My skin cleared up within hours. GenuCell has a product for every skin type, and it's not just for us girls. I got started with their most popular package, which includes all their best sellers bundled into one amazing price.

You heard it here first! Go to GenuCell.com/Jordan to get 70% off their most popular package. That's GenuCell.com/Jordan, GenuCell.com/Jordan.

Okay, so you brought up three very complex issues there. And so let me walk through them one by one.

So one of the things that has struck me very positively in my life in the last five years is the fact that the work that I've done, particularly with regards to the elucidation of the meaning of Genesis, has attracted a very large number of Muslims. And I'm very happy about that, and I've completed a number of podcasts with Muslim thinkers, I would say across the entire spectrum of Muslim thought, not comprehensively obviously but people ranging from pretty traditionalist, I would say Muslim fundamentalists to people who are as liberal on the Muslim side as it gets.

And then also critics of the Muslim tradition, like Ayaan Hirsi Ali, trying to understand more deeply the situation that we find ourselves in.

And I need to say a couple of things. I mean, I'm extraordinarily ignorant in relationship to my understanding of Islamic culture. It's a closed book to me in many ways. I've done what I could to rectify that, but it's very difficult to come to an understanding of your own culture, much less to try to claim expertise in the niceties of someone else's culture, especially when it's an extraordinarily diverse culture.

So, you know, I'm stumbling around in a sea of ignorance. And I would also say the same thing with regards to the situation in Jerusalem. I mean, I was just in Jerusalem a couple of months ago for the first time. And one of the things you learn very rapidly if you're in Jerusalem for even a few days is that that place is so bloody complicated that it's amazing it's not on fire all the time.

And clearly, it's also the case that whenever there's ongoing conflict like there is in the Middle East, it's because the situation is so complex that no one and everyone has a handle on it. No one understands, and that's why it descends into warfare. There’s no agreement on what the realities are, and so people fight.

And so the problem with commenting on that or putting a toe in the water is that the probability that you're going to say something stupid and the certainty that you're going to eat by piranhas approaches 100%. So, now having said that, I would also say that I'm very sympathetic to your notion that there's something very important to accomplish here in the next 10 or 15 years on the Abrahamic side.

Now, so you said that the notion of Judeo-Christian culture is exclusionary, and then you outlined a variety of problems with that, and that that's an extraordinarily complicated problem because I do believe that there are affinities between Christians and Jews and Muslims that are very, very deep.

And they're particularly important right now because Muslims, Jews, and Christians have more in common than any of the members of those three groups have in common with this woke ideology that's pervasively sweeping the planet that poses an equal threat to all three of those groups and whatever civilization might be founded on their joint and separate contributions.

And the fact that Muslims, Jews, and Christians are squabbling amongst themselves in the rubble while the idiot woke ideology rages madly out of control is counterproductive, to say the least. And so, you know, on the religious front, the Abrahamic religions share the belief in the centrality of the book. They share a fundamental monotheism.

And then after that, well, then differences that are difficult to reconcile start to emerge, and no one really knows how to deal with them. So I mean, obviously, one of the problems on the religious front with regards to Jews, Christians, and Muslims is conceptualization of the figure of Christ and also of the figure of Muhammad.

And no one knows how to sort that mess out and what you get are dogmatic insistences on both sides, with the Jews taking a completely different perspective. Wars have been fought for hundreds of years, or even thousands, over exactly those issues. So I do believe there are important historical, what would you say, there’s an important history that unites us, and there’s an important body of conceptions that unites us on the religious side in the broad way, but we're still in the early stages of the kind of conversation that would allow those remaining points of contention, which are very severe, to be ironed out.

But to your point, what that at least implies in part is that language that is predicated on the assumption that the central civilizing tendency in the West is only Judeo-Christian.

Well, you know that brings with it a host of potential problems like the ones you outlined. And then you talked about the Netanyahu conversation with regards to the Palestinians and their erasure, and that’s extraordinarily complicated as well.

And maybe I'll make a case for my viewpoint or the viewpoint that I tentatively hold at the moment and you can tell me what you think about it. Sure, sure, okay.

So clearly, having the Palestinians drawn centrally into the process that's unfolding on the Abraham Accord side is desirable. Now, let's see if we can figure out some of the impediments to that.

I mean one impediment for me is that it's very convenient for actors outside of the immediate local of Palestine and Israel to ensure that the conflict rages untrammeled for as long as possible. And it isn’t obvious to me at all that the Palestinians have been well served by their own structures of governance.

And I think that's partly because the tradition of democratic governance is not well-founded in many places in the Middle East. And because, as I said, it’s very convenient for bad external actors to ensure that the conflict with Israel rages unabated.

And then I would say I'm also sympathetic to the Israeli claim for a variety of reasons, and let me lay those out. And I don’t know how those can be pursued without being, while also taking into account the fact that this is unfortunately done not infrequently at someone’s expense.

I mean the founder of Zionism rightly observed that there was a dawning wave of vicious anti-Semitism in Europe that was going to be incredibly destructive, and that was definitely the case.

And then it was the case that the West, in the guise of the UN, let’s say decided that the establishment of a Jewish state was going to be, all things considered, something like a universal good. And it’s definitely the case that the establishment of that state has been incredibly problematic, but that one of the consequences is that there’s a flourishing nation in that area now that is doing quite well economically and on the government side and that has become powerful enough economically and morally, I suppose, but at least practically to be regarded as a worthy ally by the countries that have signed the Abraham Accords.

And what that has meant is that the Palestinian situation is still unaddressed and the catastrophes that are associated with that are still playing themselves out. And it isn’t obvious to me at all what can be done about that.

Now, your point was, well, one thing that could be done is not to exclude the Palestinians linguistically or practically. And I would say fair enough, but I don't know how we address the bad factor problem, which is partly the fact that it's pretty damn convenient for people who are anti-Israel in the most fundamental sense to keep the Palestinian conflict raging for their own particular narrow self-interest.

And that's a true impediment to peace. It was also a true impediment to peace that the bloody State Department has insisted for the last 70 years that there's no possibility whatsoever of moving even incrementally towards peace in the Middle East without a full solution to the Palestinian problem, which the people who established the Abrahamic Accord demonstrated in a very short period of time was a preposterous claim.

So okay, so let’s go from there. I would much rather see the Muslims and the Jews and the Christians, uh, what would you say, arm together on the monotheistic front. That'd be nice, but how the hell we do that?

Well listen, you mentioned you entered this debate from the Abraham Accords onwards, so forgive me if I assume that but that's what I gathered. If it's wrong, I can assure you I've been living this debate for my entire life.

I have been to Jerusalem and the West Bank, to Ramallah, and to Tel Aviv and up and down the country, to the Golan Heights and down into the South. I have been on the Egyptian side of the border with Gaza. I have been right into the various sites there, prayed there in the Masjid Al-Aqsa.

And one thing I can assure you with the last decade of my work on this front is I'm not really interested in the last thing you mentioned there, which is presenting obstacles to peace.

And so I'm with you on that. I think there are vested interests that want the conflict to continue. The question is, Jordan, that it be overly simplistic to assume that those vested interests are only on one side of the debate.

Andy, fair enough! Yeah, I come at this as somebody who, again, it's all open, you can look it up. I have gone further than almost any Muslim you will find in the English language on this conversation and I refuse to go any further because I find the people purporting themselves to be partners speaking the language of alienation, demonization, and exclusion.

So, let’s agree on one thing: if it holds, as you said, that there is more in common than there’s different, which I believe is self-evident, then that and it then holds by definition that if we were to be able to somehow rally around the fact that we have more in common than what's different—and I think that's also self-evident—that we’d achieve a great prize for peace on planet Earth if we were able to do that.

So by definition, I don't need an answer to the question, "How can we do that?" to say to you, with the full confidence of somebody whose heart is where your heart is, that the way to do that isn't to use exclusionary language and I think that needs to be the starting point. Because you know and I know how it feels to be excluded.

You’ve been cancelled, your voice has been taken by people that have wanted to silence you. And this Muslim, who has been to prison for a belief in Islam that I now no longer subscribe to but we're all products to a certain extent of our environment and experiences, I was one of the first national broadcasters in Britain to reach out to you and say your voice was taken away.

My belief in infinite love demands that your voice is now heard on a point of principle, regardless of whether I agree with you or not. Now that's the philosophy I approached this conversation with.

Which is why when anti-Semitism was rising in this country again, you will find that my voice was the one, despite how difficult it was considering my background, that was the voice in Britain that was raised probably among the loudest to say I have a covenant with my Jewish cousins that, as far as we’re concerned, they must feel that their right to life and property and family and all of that is kept sacred.

And so the point I’m making is that if it holds, as I believe it does and you’ve stated it yourself, that we have more in common than is different. And if our only problem is how do we arrive at a common basis for that sharing of what we have in common and celebrating it, then it’s a no-brainer that the language we’re using in the meanwhile, while we’re trying to work out how to arrive there will be language that brings people closer, not pushes people further apart.

And that would be what I’d say to Kanye West, by the way. It’s what actually I have said to people that speak like Kanye West, who have started encouraging me to speak like that.

But likewise, I’d expect people like Netanyahu to abide by the very thing that he says he fears arising from other people, and that is people denying his identity, his country’s identity, and their own trauma in their own history.

I have visited Yad Vashem. I have been many times with my brethren in the Jewish community to Holocaust museums, and I have cried because it's human suffering, just like I cry in the mosque when I'm asking Allah to elevate suffering in Turkey and Syria right now with the thousands and thousands who have died in the earthquake.

It's human suffering.

And so if it holds that that's the intention that we have, our language will not divide. It will only try and bring people closer together.

I can't sit here and claim to you I have the answer to peace in the Middle East. That would also be incredibly arrogant. What I can say to you is that that answer, whenever and however it's arrived at one day, I believe it will be arrived at because you know at the end of the day we don't want to start engaging in self-fulfilling prophecies.

If we believe peace is never possible, we will be in perpetual war. That’s how language works. We're casting spells.

So if I, as I am, I believe that peace is possible because I believe in the human condition enough to sacrifice for that in terms of my own background and where I'm coming from and to have people attack me for saying peace is possible.

Then what I expect is my interlocutor will adhere to the same language that reflects their intention.

I believe you're a smart man. I believe you're understanding what I’m saying. But I believe that there are vested interests on both sides of this war because there are people that believe in the Hegelian dialectic. They've subscribed to dialectical materialism.

What they want is to create change. We know Klaus Schwab subscribes to that. He calls it "build back better" after a great reset. And the way that they bring change is by encouraging division.

This dialectical materialism was created by materialists and they understand that if they want to advance their interests, they need to pick groups against each other. The British Empire did it in the name of divide and conquer, but actually its theoretical underpinning is, as you're aware of, Jordan, is the Hegelian dialect upon which was built the Communist idea of dialectical materialism.

And it's this belief that only conflict advances civilization. Now that conflict can come in many forms. At this month’s One World Government Summit, which was also happened to be, I believe, hosted in one of the countries that are subscribed to the Abraham Accords. The speakers, Klaus Schwab and the usual suspects, told us that they believe shocks to planet Earth are what are required to bring about the great reset that they are pursuing.

Those shocks that they’re talking about, whether it’s a cyber blackout, whether it’s the COVID mandate period, and the shocks being depriving us of our civil liberties.

Those shocks in the form of net zero carbon targets where they want to enslave us within fifteen-minute zone cities as if we’re serfs. Those shocks are designed to bring about conflict and riots so that they can create change through this dialectical materialism.

Now, there’s people that subscribe to that methodology on the Israeli side of the debate. Which is hence FISA being a major culprit with the Israeli government in all of this.

The Israeli government today, it’s just been released some documents that name the three ingredients in those COVID mandates. But there are also people, of course, on all sides of the debate, not just the Israeli side.

In Canada, where you're from, just today or yesterday, Chrystia Freeland, the deputy PM, has announced the result of the Emer inquiry and stated that they were right to cut everyone’s money off.

Now, the thing is, Jordan, they’re not stupid people. They know this angers people. They know there’s a risk of riots. They know there’s a risk of terrorism. But that’s why they’re doing it! Because if you can bring about the conditions in which people can't eat because they can’t buy food, and as was published in the Times newspaper of London today, they’re now suggesting rationing, rationing in Britain to bring about the carbon targets—the agenda.

That doesn’t surprise me in the least. I watched yesterday someone at the WEF talk about demand management on the power side. So their bloody excuse is, "Well, we can't provide you with reliable power anymore, so we want centralized control over your appliances so we can shut down your use of energy when it becomes inconvenient for the system."

Now, we got to understand why they’re doing this, Jordan. They're doing it so that the conflict increases on both sides. That’s why you’re noticing polarization go up everywhere, not just on the Israeli side of the debate, on the terrorism everywhere.

There’s polarization because that’s their method for change. And so we’ve got to be careful we're not being useful PSIs for dialectical materialism by using language that continues The Divide. Increases the divide rather than bring people together.

Okay, so the first thing I would say about all that is that I just rewatched Eisenhower’s speech on the military-industrial complex, his 1961 speech, with my wife this week. Because I was curious, once again, what had motivated someone who was so well-versed in the machinations of the behind-the-scenes military-industrial enterprise to put forward that warning 60 years ago.

And it's certainly the case that that situation hasn't improved. And it is definitely the case that, as you point out, there are vested interests promoting conflict everywhere on both sides of every conflict.

I mean we’re certainly seeing that play out on the Russia-Ukraine front at the moment. And that this is a complex, who are they? That’s okay, okay.

Now, I think it's the wrong question, Maj. And here’s why I think that. So, well, there’s this idea that is deeply rooted in Christian traditional thought of the idea of principalities.

And a principality, I’m going to think about it psychologically instead of religiously. Sure, what we’re in at the moment is a war of idea networks. And an idea network has an animating essence.

So, you see that reflected in the use of terms such as zeitgeist, you know, the spirit of the times. And you see that the animating nature of a set of ideas when you look at photographs from different decades. You see how styles move and shift. Everybody across the decades, and that becomes very evident as you move away from the decades.

I mean people in the 60s didn’t think they looked like people in the 60s, but you could sure tell now that they did. And that’s partly because we’re all imitating each other all the time, and we’re all striving for consensus.

And we’re all possessed by webs of ideas that happen to be rampant during the time and place that we happened to be born. And we have a rat’s nest of postmodern, neo-Marxist ideas operating behind the scenes at the moment that are rooted in—it’s rooted in a corrupt Enlightenment, and it’s rooted beyond that in an envious spirit of psychovegefulness that’s ancient.

And that system of ideas tends to act like a conspiracy. And so imagine that there's a—so with one of my graduate students just before I got cancelled as a professor, we undertook a formal statistical evaluation of the universe of politically correct ideas.

Okay, so here were the questions we were trying to answer. The first question was: Was there a coherent set of ideas that could be identified as politically correct? And the way you assess that is you gather a tremendous number of questions about political opinion, as diverse a range as you can manage, gather them everywhere, and then you give those to thousands, thousands of people and find out their opinions.

And then you conduct a statistical analysis and you see if people answer question A in a particular direction, what other questions are they likely to answer in the same direction and are there correlations between those? Does that constitute a correlation pattern across many, many people?

So the question is: What ideas hang together as a set? And we found there were two domains of ideas that hung together as sets on the clearly politically correct side, and one was a kind of inclusive compassionate liberalism, and the other was something more like an authoritarian, political correctness.

So imagine you took the liberal compassionate inclusive domain of ideas and you allied that with willingness to use compulsion and force. Okay? So those that set of ideas clearly, two of them hung together and those two sets were correlated.

So the notion that there is a web of ideas that are part of this dialectical materialism that you described, or that would be a subset of it—that’s clearly the case.

Now, we also looked at what predicted that. So let’s say there is that system of ideas, who is most likely to be possessed by it? And the answer was, well, the first, the biggest predictor was low verbal intelligence.

And it’s partly because at the core of that idea set is a very simple proposition, which is that you can understand all of human social and psychological dynamics merely by referring to the principle of power and oppression, and so it's a radical simplification.

And that turns out to be attractive to people who aren’t very verbally sophisticated. Okay? The next predictor was being female. The next predictors were having a feminine temperament, and the final major predictor was having ever taken a course that was overtly propagandistic on the politically correct side.

And so, well, that was all very worrisome, as you might imagine. But here’s the reason I’m telling you all this, is that we’re seeing a situation where it looks like there are conspiracies at work, and sometimes there are.

But what's actually happening is that people are possessed to a greater or lesser degree by this web of ideas. They reflect that in their own perception and action as individuals. But then when they get together as groups, like, imagine that a given person is 25% possessed by the politically correct web of ideas. But then you get a hundred people like that in a room, let's say at Davos.

And then you have the whole web of ideas and it has an animating ethos. Like, it looks at the world in a certain way and is aiming at certain ends. And then that entire system of ideas works to promote that and it can do that and writes books promoting it and writes books promoting it.

Yeah, absolutely. Well, and it also means that it can operate in a distributed manner because to the degree that any given person is possessed by some fraction of those ideas, they'll go off into their own domain and agitate on behalf of the idea system.

And that's a principality and that will act to further the entire catastrophe. And really, the entire idea system in its most fundamental element is an idol. It's a false idol. It's a false religion.

So, uh, can I say I agree with everything you've just described? I think it's a beautiful way of describing what I was alluding to. I don’t think there’s one mastermind stroking a cat, sitting behind a bit like Danger Mouse.

Which was a very famous British cartoon that I used to watch as a child, and it had this character called Baron Greenback. And he used to stroke the white cat and laugh and cackle as Danger Mouse and Penfold, his sidekick, bespectacled sidekick called Penfold, who bless him happened to be quite short and boarding with spectacles.

I think the whole point was that they want to outshine Danger Mouse in Danger Mouse’s presence. But I don’t think there's some Baron Greenback figure stroking a cat.

Because I've met enough of the frontline candidates for those who fancy themselves as Baron Greenback figures, and I don’t respect their abilities to pull off such a feat, having looked at them in the eyes and sh—well that’s the other—well, exactly.

Well, yes, exactly, that’s the other problem with the conspiratorial theories is that—yeah, so I agree with your description of it. Where I would perhaps push you a bit to go a bit more into this description, perhaps, uper layer, if I may, Jordan, is to say that it struck me as describing the reality from one end of a dualist perspective.

And I need to elaborate that. I need to unpack that to really explain what I mean.

That happens, what you describe, the reason people engaging in dialectical materialism are seeking to do this and utilize, or sorry, weaponize, political ideas for the purposes of bringing change, to exploit conflict for a direction of travel, which is what dialectical materialism essentially boils down to, the exploitation of conflict for a direction of travel, they would call that direction progressive.

The reason they’re doing that is because they are very upset with the status quo and they believe that the status quo has not only failed us but is actively harming us.

Now, the problem I have with what you said isn’t what you said. Again, I emphasize I agree with everything you said. I just believe you described half the picture.

The other half of the picture is, everything you said is also being done by those to whom it’s being done too. In other words, those engaging in woke political activism, cancelling, they're reacting to the way which the machine, the state, has such a power hegemony over them that it also, by the way, believes that the ends justify the means.

Let’s not pretend that when the state in Canada shut off people’s money that it doesn’t believe the ends justify the means. And the problem here we've got is that we've got people resisting to this, resisting the status quo, opposing it with something just as absurd.

Because what the vision they want to get to, equality, not equity, results in tyranny.

But what they’re opposing also has an element of the absurd in it, because we saw some of that with the unbridled corporatism that is on display through the big pharmaceutical companies and the way in which they’re prepared to kill human beings for profit.

Now, the problem here—that's why I said it's what you've described in my view—is is a critique of half of the problem. And if we can zoom out here and understand that this whole thing is caught in problem-reaction-solution, right?

And if we understand then that the problem here isn’t the proton or the neutron, but actually both of them recognizing they’re part of an atom, you know.

And if they understand they’re part of one whole, then perhaps they won’t approach the world’s problems through a subject-object lens. An othering through a perspective of my grievance, my pain, my victimization is valid, and yours is invalid because you’re the one doing it to me.

That’s subject-object. It’s separation. And I believe that separation is the root cause of all of this. If we could understand that, in fact, we are all in our own ways one part of an indivisible whole, the, uh, there is no single center in a sphere, for example.

Every point on a sphere is its center and yet it’s still a point. If we look at the world in a different way, I think that we could escape this trap.

Because the problem I’ve got isn’t just with the woke people, Jordan. And I’m very happy with your work on that front and I think that more so than most other people I can think of, if not all other people I can think of, your interviews on that front have been game-changing.

And I congratulate you for that. But my problem is a lot deeper than that. My problem is what I’m calling the machine. It demonstrated its power now, COVID mandates and the imposition of mandatory injections against the population, and being told that we would lose our jobs, for example, we would remain locked in our homes unless we consented.

That’s not a woke thing to do.

In the caricatured sense of the woke idea that we have in our heads, that’s—put it candidly for you—that is the state flexing its muscles and demonstrating that it can do what it wants because it’s been captured.

The second part is my analysis of it because it's been captured by corporate interests, and in this case they are big pharmaceutical corporate interests.

So we’ve got a—I think we need to understand that they’re also engaging in subject-object. They’re also engaging in othering.

And I think that's where the problem begins. And therefore, of course, the solution isn't political. The solution isn't in any way short-term. This is a long-term solution to heal what I believe has become a global problem of human beings living in a state of permanent psychosis or separation from the Life Source, separation from being connected.

Infinite love, an externalization of the other. And that's happening across the board, which is why we're seeing polarization.

I can't think of a time in my lifetime—and I'm younger than you, I accept that—I have seen polarization this severe around the world. And that’s because everyone is the victim and everyone else is their oppressor.

We’ll be right back. First, we wanted to give you a sneak peek at Jordan's new series, Exodus. The Hebrews created history as we know it. You don't get away with anything.

And so you might think you can bend the fabric of reality and that you can treat people instrumentally and that you can bow to the tyrant and violate your conscience without cost.

You will pay the piper. It's going to call you out of that slavery into freedom, even if that pulls you into the desert. And we’re going to see that there’s something else going on here that is far more cosmic and deeper than what you can imagine.

The highest ethical spirit to which we’re beholden is presented precisely as that spirit that allies itself with the cause of freedom against tyranny.

There’s—
I want villains to get punished, but do you want the villains to learn before they have to pay the ultimate price?

That’s such a Christian question.

All right, so I would say the most sophisticated metaphysical solution to that problem of the externalized oppressor narrative is it’s this: it's the spiritualization of that.

So let me walk through that very carefully and you tell me what you think about it. So there’s this idea. It’s very difficult to know where to start this. So there’s this idea that’s laid out in the story of Genesis in the story of Adam and Eve that the garden that human beings inhabit is permanently co-inhabited by a serpent, and that serpent is the eternal predator of mankind.

You can look at it biologically, and you can look at it, for example, as reflecting the fact that mammals and reptiles have been in conflict for 60 million years. And you can look at it as a reflection of the fact that snakes themselves have been the enemies of us and our tree-dwelling ancestors since time immemorial.

And you can look at it as a reflection of the fact that human beings are subject to the ravages of predation, and that's particularly true of infants. And so part of our mammalian heritage, as well as our spiritual heritage, is the fact that we can be prey animals and that we always have to contend with that.

Now, the question emerges from that, and this is a very deep metaphysical question. What is the essence of what's predatory? And then what is the best response to the fact of that essence?

And so what happens in the corpus of Christian thought surrounding the story of the serpent in the Book of Genesis is that the serpent there becomes assimilated to the figure of Lucifer and Mephistopheles.

To the figure of Satan. And Satan—this is Milton’s take in particular—Satan is identified with the serpent. And what that means is that the image of Satan symbolically is put forward as the most apt representative of the predator.

And so here’s how it might go psychologically in terms of depth of insight: so you want to protect your children from actual natural predators, and you could throw snakes into that category, and wolves, and just the natural, the animals that would pose a predatory danger.

But then that isn’t the only predator. And it’s not predator as such. It’s a specific predator—a snake or a bear or a wolf. It’s not the concept of predator or predation as such.

And then you might think, well, you need a more global and coherent representation of predator. And that’s what a dragon is. A dragon is a meta-predator. It’s a cat, it’s a snake, it’s fire, it’s a predatory bird; it’s all entangled into one image.

And that’s the image of the predator. And the great mythological stories of the hero confronting the dragon is the human being taking a stance against the predator.

But the greatest dragon isn’t merely a dragon. It’s something metaphysical. And so what does that mean? Well, if you’re a mother and you’re protecting children, your children from snakes and then from predators and then from dragons, you’re also protecting them against the evil in your own house and the evil in your neighbor’s heart, and the evil within the breast of your own children.

And that starts to become something increasingly metaphysical. And the final transmutation of that idea is that the most profound battle against the predator is the battle that’s undertaken within.

So you say, "Well, we shouldn’t other and exclude. We shouldn’t other people and we shouldn’t exclude them. We shouldn’t look for a convenient place to put Satan." That’s the danger that René Girard has pointed to with regards to the idea of scapegoating.

We want to offload the moral burden onto those we regard as essentially demonic in their motivation. We want to be on the side of the good by offloading that. We want to do that without doing any of the work.

And that’s part of the motivation for using exclusionary language when the proper attitude is to take on the apocalyptic nightmare of separating the wheat from the chaff inside our own spirits and to clean ourselves, so to speak, so that we’re no longer unwitting agents possessed by that predatory spirit.

And that makes it into a psychological process rather than something we have to act out in the world. And my sense at the moment is that we’re all making that decision.

We’re either going to undertake this looming transformation as a psychological enterprise or we’re going to play it out as fate in the world. That was Jung’s diagnosis, by the way, at the end of the Second World War.

And so your attempts right now to engage with me to say, “Well, let’s not use exclusionary language and dump all the moral culpability onto someone else, the Palestinians, for example,” because we’re just playing into the hands of those that are engaging in this conspiratorial possession. I think that’s all true.

It’s murky, and it’s difficult to straighten out, but it’s true. One more thing, and then I’ll—one more thing on one of the points you made.

So you talked about the use of fascist collusion to further what looks like something even more extensive than the woke agenda. I also agree with that. And this is where my thinking, I would say, tilts more towards the classical left.

Is that the left has always been good at pointing out the dangers of corporate gigantism. But what we’re seeing now is an emergence of gigantism that’s not merely corporate.

It’s corporate, governmental, and media all coming together at the utmost levels of the power hierarchy, all devoted towards something like the imposition of stricture and the use of compulsion and force to produce something like this revolutionary change that you've been alluding to, mostly motivated, at least hypothetically, by, you know, the stated desire to save the virginal planet from being ravaged at the hands of the industrial nightmare.

And so that's all going on behind the scenes at the same time. Yeah, well they’re all unfortunately, Jordan, they are all dancing to the same tune.

And this is why I said essentially it comes down to this subject-object problem or dilemma. Because you've got valid critiques on both sides.

I'm not too offended by the communist critique of capitalism, and I’m not too offended by the capitalist critique of communism. My problem is when the communists say we’ve got the solution and you’re going to have to follow it, or when unchecked corporatism says everything's for sale. Everything's a product, and you shouldn’t regulate.

To the extent where these days, as you know, Jordan, if you’ve been following, even trafficked children are for sale. So I think the problem is that there is legitimate critique on both sides of the other.

But because there’s a subject-object problem, the solution each side is proposing is othering of the people that they see as their adversaries, and that’s the classic dilemma.

Let’s put it, whether it’s the political compass you’re going to use or the political horseshoe. Even the symbolism of the cross is this: you got the left and the right and the up and the down.

But that makes the whole—we’ve got to have a way to look at the world by first looking ourselves in a holistic way. So if we can step back from subject-object and the problem really began, I think, with the advent of writing, where this shift in psychology began occurring.

The Kogha period in India, for example, I am an Arabic linguist. I come with a particular love in my heart for the oral tradition of the classical Arabic language, which is the closest language surviving today that has a continuous heritage.

Because Hebrew from the Aramaic family of languages had to be revived. But the closest living language to Yeshua’s Aramaic is Quranic Arabic, and perhaps Amharic as well, you could argue as well.

This is why I reflect on this subject-object issue a lot, because that was a—the Bedouin culture was a very oral tradition. And what you put—what happens is when you put words into letters on a page, I think you engage in that kind of inversion that leads to the subject-object otherization.

Because those words that we—I say are spells. Those words that we use had a context in which they were allocated to the thing they were used to describe or the verb the action that was said to be done. They had that context there.

The minute we put them down on paper and then memorize them and allow the analytical mind to process their meanings, whether we like it or not, it's impossible to ever rediscover the experience that was there in the oral tradition for how the words were used in their proper context.

Now, there's loads of examples for this, but I'll give you one example. In Arabic, often the word "haram" is translated to mean prohibited. Nothing could be further from the truth.

And by the way, as you would know, again from my own history, I include common everyday Muslim translations of the word. You know, I'm not here to say this is an orientalist problem. But the—because translations here in the way I’m using them is psychological translations, not which particular language you choose to translate this into.

It could even be modern usage of Arabic by Arabs. But psychologically they’re translating it wrong. It doesn’t mean prohibited. Haram actually means sacred.

If you go to the Black House of Allah there, that’s called the Sacred House, it’s the same word, right? Why I raise that example is because what is the so-called prohibited?

If you shift into an oral tradition, there was nothing prohibited in that sense. What was prohibited about it was the context around which it occurred.

So sex outside of a sacred partnership, and I use that word again on purpose, and not the word marriage just to drive home a point I’m trying to make, sex outside of a sacred partnership, is the very same act.

But in one context, it’s sacred, i.e. it’s sacred, in the other context, it’s haram, profane.

And that’s why the sacred and the profane are simply the silver and dark side of a mirror. The meaning of the word changes only because of its context.

And again, marriage, to continue that example, why I said sacred partnership and not the word marriage, is because the word in Arabic is "Zawj" for your life partner, your sacred partner.

Zawj means pair; it doesn’t mean wife and it doesn’t mean subservient. It means pair in Arabic. So what we have is, which again is commonly mistranslated as the contract of marriage, means the tying of a pair. "Aq" comes from the word "not."

Now that word "not," which today is again mated to mean contact— which takes all the spirit and love out of that.

Yeah, which is why you have these prenuptial agreements, as well. Actually means tie—to tie a knot. So the Zawj, the tying of a pair—they don’t have to be married. They have to be in a sacred relationship.

That knot that you're tying there happens to be the word for, again, commonly mis-translated to doctrine, is from the same root there, which means, again, to have a knot with Allah. So you see how the context around those words are fundamentally different.

We've lost that context because we've lost that oral tradition, which is why you and I agree that traditionalism can go a long way to restoring and healing those wounds that the overly analytical mind has inflicted upon itself by what we lost when we lost the oral tradition.

Why is all of that relevant? Because, and forgive me for the long anecdote there, linguistic anecdote or hermeneutic anecdote, why all of that in my view is relevant is because it comes back to the problem we’re speaking of.

Once we take words out of their context and put them on paper, and I'm no Lite, so I'm not saying the written word should never have been invented.

The Prophet Muhammad, may blessings be upon Him, didn’t write the Quran down. It was never written down during his lifetime. It was actually collected on stones and leaves. And it was the third Caliph, Uthman, who collected it in one book, which is why today, what everyone sees as the Quran is the Mas'ah, that was only brought about and collected during the third Caliph during the caliphate of, or the successorship, again a word very mistranslated.

"Khalif" means successor to Allah and his messenger. That's all it means in the temporal sense because no one can succeed him in the prophethood.

So that successor, Abu Bakr, and then after him, Omar, they did not collate the Quran for the very same reason, instead, it was memorized in the hearts. Because people didn’t want to lose the context of the words around them.

That tradition, by the way, of memorizing, as you know, carries on till today. I’ve memorized half of it myself, though I am a bit rusty.

But it was the third Caliph that then put that. So I'm not against putting things down in writing. What I'm saying is we've got to be cognizant of what we lose when we do that so that we can try and maintain the connection that we lose when we do that.

And it's that connection, or the knot, that I'm saying has been lost today. And you, with your advocacy for a deeper appreciation of traditional mythologies and wisdom, I think, hopefully, would understand when I say that connection.

If we can strengthen that connection, probe object, recognize that we’re all a point on a sphere, in other words, we’re all part of an indivisible whole, then the othering is declined.

Of course it’s always a struggle because that connection can be weak sometimes. But that’s why you engage in spiritual practice to strengthen it. And whatever way that is, personally, my teacher is Al-Adab. I’m of the Sufi way, yeah.

But the Sufi way, by definition, would say that listen, I'm not going to say to you you have to follow me, right? This is like the Shar'ah, it means the path to water in the desert. You go to water for life, and then you carry on traveling. That's all Shar'ah means, by the way. The path to water.

So if we can understand what we've lost when we put words down in writing, we’ve lost the relational aspect of the technology. Writing was technology.

Yeah, why all of that is relevant, I believe, is because today, as I mentioned in my conversation a year ago with Joe Rogan, today the version of writing today is big tech, is social media. It’s taking us to that next stage of separation in the name of togetherness, in the name of community.

It’s actually pulling us apart. And as you see with your own concerns on anonymity on Twitter, it’s psychologically allowing people to abuse others and speak to them in an otherizing tone, which is precisely what your concern was with anonymous people on Twitter.

I don’t think, by the way, the solution is anonymity, but that’s another topic, you know.

Yeah, well, there’s something there that you're pointing to. I'm going to go in a couple directions on this. You’re pointing to the dangers of what I would say it’s a formalized abstraction.

I mean, as we build conceptual systems that are linguistic, they get more and more distant from the embodied experience that contextualized embodied experience that you were referring to. And they lose their connection with what’s most real.

And we could define what’s most real as the domain of the sacred. I want to give you an analogy. This is something extraordinarily interesting. I had a couple of months ago, there was a paper published in the journal Nature about the nature of genetic mutation.

Okay, so it’s been thought for a long time that genetic mutations are essentially random. And the reason for that is that the molecular structure, the atomic structure of a given strand of DNA can be detrimentally affected by all sorts of environmental assaults, including radiation.

Cosmic radiation will knock pieces of the genetic code out, and that produces a mutation. There are other ways that can happen. And then those mutations are part of what produces natural variation and natural selection draws on that natural variation to further evolution.

But the idea was that the mutations were random. And they have to be in some sense because cosmic rays don’t care what part of the DNA chain they affect. But it’s been recently discovered that although the mutations themselves may be random, the repair process isn’t.

And so DNA, when it replicates, it error-corrects. And if there are parts of the DNA strand that have been damaged and are no longer viable, they will be corrected. But there’s a hierarchy of correction.

And so the more fundamental a DNA code is to the basic necessary morphology of the organism, the higher the probability that the error correction will be 100%.

And so what happens is that evolution tinkers on the fringes and not at the core. And the core, in this hierarchy of DNA importance, is analogous to the sacred.

So you imagine in a conceptual structure there are some presuppositions that are fundamental and presuppositions, that many other presuppositions depend upon. They’re fundamental, and those fundamental presuppositions are sacred.

Now, the question is, what’s valid sacred? Now the Enlightenment types would say everything’s equally up for grabs. But they don’t even abide by that principle in their own investigations because, for example, someone like Richard Dawkins holds it as holy.

The notion that the truth will set you free and that the cosmos has a logos whose investigation will enlighten and further our struggle forward. And those are sacred religious presuppositions that underlie the practice of science, just like they underlie the practice of any religious tradition.

There is a hierarchy of presumption, and the presumptions at the deepest level are the sacred presumptions. Now, you talked about marriage and the ability of a sacred bond to render sex sacred instead of profane.

And I think that is one of the sacred realizations of mankind—that the sexual act has to be sanctified, has to be placed in a domain of fundamental relationship before it can act as anything other than a destructive impulse of hedonistic force.

And I think that that's as true as anything is true. Now, part of what’s ripping us apart on the international landscape and psychologically at the moment is that it’s very difficult for us, number one, to agree that there are such things as sacred propositions.

And second, to agree on what those are. And this is part of what’s also making it difficult for the Islamic, Christian, and Jewish faith to come together.

So one example of that, for example, would be, well, would be continued debate about the centrality of the figure of Christ. And so perhaps we can delve into that to some degree, but I’d love that that elucidates the landscape that we’re dealing with in a little bit more detail.

May I say, on your first challenge, what is sacred as opposed to—what is it? I think that there is a way, a gentle way forward on that one.

And actually, that would help even if we could, like the other point about language I was trying to make, that if we can at least agree that our language shouldn't be exclusionary, we at least have a way to try and have a conversation.

I think, likewise, if we can at least agree that there should be, that there is a sacred, then the next level challenge is what is that sacred? And I think there is a way forward here because, back to the relationship between words and their context and why I believe when you put words down, again, I’m not a light.

And again, so in today’s context, why this is relevant again just for everyone, and I know you’re following me, Jordan, but why this is relevant for everyone is the equivalent of inventing writing today is, you know, social media, big tech, and it’s a new invention that’s forcing us to cognitively evolve in a certain way.

And that’s what we’re seeing—all these challenges. It’s like the Thirty Years War. I made this point with Rogan a year ago. So I think there is a way forward to say that there should be a sacred, and why that is is back to the invention of writing to serve as the case study for or as the symbol for today’s big tech and its impact on us and its consequences we’re having to live with.

When they put writing down, what it did is it made us believe our future is ahead of us and our past is behind us.

When in truth, our future is behind us and our past is ahead of us. And I need to unpack that. When you write history down in a book, you’re going in chronology, in chronological order because that's the inherent capabilities that we have.

And how we write and whether it’s in Arabic from right to left, in Hebrew from right to left, in Aramaic family of languages, or from left to right in English. You’re writing in a certain timeline. It’s his story, right?

It’s the story of the author. And they cannot but either write from their perspective or from the perspective of the king they serve, or from their perspective being a culmination of the efforts to gather the people's perspectives.

But it will still always be their perspective on the people's perspective of what happened in history. So we cannot but help try and write in a chronological order.

Now, what that leads to is another illusion: that our past is behind us, and our future is ahead of us. The written word psychologically does that to us.

I believe the truth is: why is our past ahead of us and our future behind us? Because actually, if you look at it, if you look at it from the oral tradition, if you look at it from the Aramaic family of languages, people that lived for that connection.

They were all about survival of their genes. You brought up DNA. It was about survival of their family. If they lost a child in that context, I mean, that means more than losing a child today, if you get my drift. Because it meant cutting off their entire ability to exist.

That child could well have been the one that continued the future of that tribe. Your child is therefore your future, even though it comes after you, which is what I meant by the past is ahead of us.

Your child is your future. The things you leave behind are the future. The things you've done, you know, it doesn't matter. What matters is if you build it for your future, which is a thing you left behind—are your children.

If we understand it like that, and that comes from the Bedouin collective kind of—and when I say collective, I don't mean in the communist Soviet sense. I hope you understand.

I mean in that every point on a sphere is the center of the sphere, and yet it's still a point. When you understand it in that context, you understand that sacred, if it were to mean anything at all, would be to be doing actions as an individual and as a community that don't harm that child.

What we’ve come to today, because of the ways in which psychologically we have inverted, everything’s up for sale again. Back to subject-object. The minute we separate from that connection, the minute we cause that separation, which in metaphysical terms would be, or let’s call them in, let’s say, you know, in Sufi terms, that’s “without” as opposed to “with.”

So the minute we are, or there is no idol, rather than ill-except the one indivisible whole of infinite love, infinite power, 99 names, whichever attribute we choose, they’re all serving the same purpose.

The minute we cause that disassociative state, the psychosis, the separation from that Source, we are in subject-object. When you’re in subject-object, everything is for sale.

When everything is for sale, there is no reason not to include children. And that’s where we find ourselves today. Now, whether it’s the trafficking I raised earlier, which, by the way, is not just—I mean, it's everywhere.

You know, the reason I say not just because it's also in Kabul—the war that we are, so arrogantly, supporting. You know, so the problem is it’s not just the trafficking, as you know, Jordan, with the decision that underage, prepubescent children have the right to consent to their genital mutilation without parental involvement at all. Again, is a profane stance to take.

It’s unforgivable, yeah. But that demonstrates the subject-object problem. We have commodified everything, and that can only—that’s only possible because of separation.

And I’ve come to these conclusions, Jordan, not—I don’t—don’t get me wrong. This is the evolution of my own thinking on this because it began with the Uyghur genocide. I was pre-cancellation on LBC.

The Uyghur situation shocked me to my core, and I saw a coming technocracy and how it can enslave an entire people. And then when COVID hit, I had already been shocked to a point where I left my work.

I was on a live show, and I went on a four-day silent hunger strike, risking being cancelled at that point. But thankfully that isn't what got me cancelled.

But by the time COVID came, I was already primed, and my own experiences had started on a new journey post—not just from post-prison, but post even everything I’ve done in the last ten years. That evolution had to carry on because I had to look at myself and see what things have I participated in in my own last ten years of campaigning that could have perhaps helped that technocratic train along its tracks.

Whether unwittingly or not, and I really realized, for example, I’ve said things like, “You know, these nations are undemocratic; they don't have democracy inherent to their culture or traditions,” which is probably true.

And I say, these here referring to any non-democratic nation, not singling anyone out here, probably true that they didn't have. But then I realized that during COVID, if the very people that were peddling this myth that we are in charge of our own destiny, those very people locked roughly 70% of the world into their homes until they consented to a forced injection.

Those very same people could turn off your money supply just because you are protesting out on the streets of Ottawa. And I really—it’s that I’ve noticed that.

We’ve noticed that in Canada. They can do that. Half of Canadians think that’s a good idea, by the way. Crazy, right?

But I realized that I had been unwittingly participating in the problem. It’s why I’m explaining it in this way, to say I also had been on a journey in that way to realize that I had been participating in a problem.

Because my belief up until that point was that there were certain countries in the world that were under tyranny and others that were free, and the truth is there are certain countries in the world that are under the illusion of freedom and the rest of the world is under tyranny.

And the illusion of freedom is still okay, comfortable. But you better bet that when they want to turn off your food supply, your money, your ability to trade and buy and sell, Agenda 2030, Jordan, have a look at it, their ideal is zero meat consumption by 2030, no cars.

Yeah, I know, I know! So I realized that I had become an unwitting tool for advocating for certain civilizational values that I still hold dear to.

And by the way, I have sacrificed for, and the people I thought that were my allies in advocating for those values are actually my enemy.

But enemy, in a—I don’t mean in a warlike sense. I mean intellectually, you know, my adversary, to be politer about the situation. They don’t subscribe to these values whatsoever.

And so then I realized what was wrong in me to be unable to see that. And I realized that I had also fallen prey to this problem I was describing. One half of the dualism I referred to earlier.

I was in the yin and not the yang or the yang not the yin and not realizing if you zoom out that entire atom—and if we understand that we cannot but approach it with love.

And you mentioned you wanted to talk about Yeshua, but this is the same. I want to comment on your circle on your sphere metaphor.

Okay, so I read a very interesting description of God once,