Folks, my new graphic novel, Unwanted, a tall tale of the Old Weston New Wave, is out for preorder now.

I've been trying for months to get in the show. He's extremely busy and extremely interesting. Peter Bergogian, Peter you co-authored with James Lindsay, a book which I read and enjoyed called How to Have the Possible Convertations. You also wrote a manual for creating atheists, your former academic who has been very disturbed by the liberal trends in academia. One of the things before we started talking, you asked me how I was doing and I said, that's so hot. Because last week I went to a Maha event here in Austin. Afterwards, I went out to a restaurant.

I got food poisoning, which as far as diseases go, it's one of the better ones to have, because I knew all right a couple of days I'm going to be fine. So as I'm like, napp, wake up, napp, wake up, you know, trots. And then I wake up Saturday and the US's bomb and Israel are bombing Iran. and I'm looking at Delirious, I'm like, I can't deal with this right now.

And I am very concerned with the Iranian situation, even at the same time being very hopeful for the Persian people who are awesome and badass. And I'm like, Peter, I'm not doing so great. And you said, yeah, you're probably talking to the exact wrong person because I'm with you so sir The floor is and by the way we recording this on Friday It's gonna be dated by the time it drops because the news is happening so quickly and every day it's something else It's like yesterday top I don't know people saw this Trump was tweeting out that no General mutilation on children except with the written consent of the parents and it was like oh, I can I can't anymore. I've set it off. I know. You have the floor. I know. So I'm no expert in Iran, but I do think that there are some very nasty elements. And as much as I try to make this a political, there are some very nasty elements on the left who do not have the best interests of the Iranian people in mind. And it's not merely that they object to US military intervention in the region. It's that they have some bizarre support of these pre-Mid-Evil religious maniacs. And so I'm deeply disturbed by that when I see them as all civilized people should be protested on the streets of major cities in the West. Yeah, I hear you, but I'm the major cities in the West currently are not, you know, violent centers. And as something else we were talking about before we started, where I see something that I don't think people have mentioned before, which I'm very terrified about, is President Trump has been very vocal about encouraging people in Iran to step up and overthrow the regime. He also knows perfectly well that this very same regime just recently killed thousands of those people. And the U.S. has a history of Afghanistan being the most recent example of saying, hey, work with us, we're the U.S. we're the good guys, and people do that. And then as soon as they're expendable the curds were left for holding back i think it's twenty nineteen or whatever was uh... as soon as they're expendable it's like alright dooses and not even that sometimes their hand it over as bargaining chips so i think u.s foreign policies often been extremely cynical uh... behind the scenes and that is my just concern is i i it doesn't seem like I that they they know how to stick this landing So the name of that group was Neville Roy Schengham and their funding both of the sides their their funding Pro if you can believe this pro or Iranian regime and and the in the United States. I'm not sure, you know, from one of the hold-olds or the Powell doctrine, overwhelming force, clear-exit strategy. I'm not sure we have a clear-exit strategy. I think that a lot of this is just hope that, and I agree with the hope, and I'm sure you agree with the hope, hope that the Iranians will build their future. I'm not sure, under a monarchies, the way to go, but I'm, again, no expert in this whatsoever. I am deeply disturbed about the possibility of American troops on the ground. I don't know the other, I don't know the option if the Iranian people don't wake up and, and, and reveal. I remember I was just reading something about being on a train and women were not wearing a hijab and one of the religious police came by. And fortunately we struck the main, the main building of the religious police and they, the women shouted at the guy and kicked him off the train. Why did they didn't throw him off of a moving train is utterly beyond me? I would have been, I would have completely thrown him off the train while it was moving. So if they're not even willing to do that, I don't know, but I do know that Iranian Americans who come, Iranians who come to America by and large, incredibly well-educated, lower incarceration rates, higher contributions to the Treasury. They tend to be model citizens. Oh, and just as a parenthetical, every single Iranian I have ever met in my whole life without exception, and that is a considerable number, have been extraordinarily knowledgeable about politics. So, if you ever get in an Uber or something and the driver's Iranian, just start talking about politics. It's really uncanny. But I like you, I wish the Iranian people well, I have no access to the Trump administration. My only hope is that they can overthrow these maniacs as quickly as possible. Actually, I have a hidden hope in that they all swing from lampposts for what they've done to the people for the last decades. But I don't know, I don't want troops on the ground like yourself, but I do think in balance, I'm against military options, but this is probably the right way to go. But I'm also extremely concerned because Iran is now Iran because of regime change, because the argument was the Shah is intolerable. He's a stick tater blah blah blah. Anything's better than that. In 1970 line comes along. And the idea that you can't get worse than what they have now is not at all true. Like the alternative to the itola, you can that dial can get turned up even more. If they were even more violent or fundamentalist or interventionist or who knows what, the idea that we could go to Polpock or something like that. It does often get worse. And if you have a nation that's being bombed, a lot of times you're going to double down in support the people in power because at least those are your people. So this is kind of where my head is at. I'm sure the head is of a lot of people watching us right now. Yeah and again I'm not sure anybody should listen to my unlettered opinion on this. I'm just not an expert. I mean I have a lot of opinions on it but the older I get the more I realize that you know it's funny it's like people will write criticisms of Greta Thonberg or Jank Unger. And I'm always like, you know, Jank is wrong about this. Who gives a fuck about Jank? I mean, they've not written books about it. They have nothing in tell, they're not experts in the area. So why would you even listen to them? And I'm always fascinated when people criticize I

Just think these people are just best ignored and so I think I'm probably in the category of people who should be best ignored

Because I have opinions and I have impulses and I actually have been following the story somewhat

I wouldn't say very closely, but somewhat closely for the last 20 years, but I just don't think I

Just don't think anybody should listen to anything. I have to say on it

Well, that's gonna be kind of tricky for this podcast

Yeah, it's like it's like you shut up to a job interview. You're like yeah, I'm not really looking for work

It's like okay

But I do think there's something really important about figuring out whose voice doesn't matter, right? And if your question was sincere, I can answer it. Why people care what's genuine figure or Greta Thunberg have to say, it's the political, the politics version of sports. So there's a Red Sox fan or a Yankees fan, and you're, you, people, sense of identity was, you know, I got the Yankees jacket on. I'm a Greta fan or I'm a Jank fan. That's how people, that's their lens through which they process information. But every time you do that, you amplify the lens, you like Candace Owens, you increase the voice of somebody whose voice shouldn't be increased. Like every criticism you make, you're just making that person's platform grow. So why would you do that? I just ignore all these people. Because why wouldn't you want the Yankees to win the World Series? Well, because I don't, I think this is where the analogy breaks down. I don't think it's as simple as ranked tribalism. If you really want to, and if you're a thoughtful, reasonable, sane, intelligent person, you would find out. I'm going to cut you off. Because that is the biggest if I've ever heard in my life. The percentage of people who are what you just described is like 2%. So I'm really glad you brought that up because the number of people I've seen criticize Candace Owens or criticize people who not only do they not know what they're talking about, but they're just completely insane and you should never listen to them at all. The number of people who criticized them, it's kind of like, you know, when my dad died, I was at his wake and the people there, this is many years ago, were talking to me about myelionopolis. The only thing that made myelionopolis is the fact that people protested myelionopolis. If nobody ever protested myelionopolis, you'd never know who he was. If nobody ever commented on that lunatic janks, tweets, or I mean, he would just fade into obscurity. So why are you amplifying the voices of people with whom like you think these people are on your other tribe because they have fundamental disagreements with you And you think that they're fools and in many aspects they are But you could gain more traction and be a more serious person if you just advocated for those people who actually knew what they were talking about Like my plan I Don't think that I think you're operating from an enlightenment model that I completely disagree with I I don't think I don't think that I think you're operating from an enlightenment model that I completely disagree with. I don't think that I'm being sure. I don't think human beings are truth-seeking animals. I think they're narrative-seeking animals. And if someone has a narrative that I find preferable to another, it might not be more honest, but it might be more entertaining. And it's much more entertaining for me. I'm, for me, just not me Michael Malz, or someone to think about, oh, does Brigitte Macron have a Wang? And that's a cool interesting story. You're laughing, right? Because it's an interesting story. Then Michael cares who the first lady of France is. So that's a very easy answer by someone might be interested. And the thing is, John Stewart did this very effectively during the Bush years when you have the daily show, clowning George W. Bush every day with good reason, and the other people are miserable, stick in the muds, you're going to go with the guys who are having good time. So, when someone is telling a great compelling story or interesting story or whatever it is, conspiracies especially, the flat earth, my god, that's fascinating. Like every pilot on earth has to be in on it. Like it's really involved. That's going to have a big audience and the internet and the algorithms incentivize that. People don't want boring. They want to feel like they're members of the initiates. This has been a thing since the Greek times, so you're initiated into a faith. Yeah, I want to disagree with you and I want to disagree with you profoundly because the only opportunity for hope is to disagree with you, but I don't disagree with you. I think that's absolutely correct. I mean, if you wanted to be a serious person and take an honest look at ideas, you would read both sides of the issue or at least listen to people on both sides of the issue and then find people who are qualified to speak about those things and then amplify those views. But I do think we're narrative seeking creatures. And I laughed at the Brigitte Macron because we were just in France and I asked many French people if they thought Brigitte Macron had a penis. And many people do when we were in the slums, they did think that Brigitte Macron had a penis. So there is something eluring about that and it's funny and it's interesting. But we're also talking about trafficking in people's lives, trafficking in our fellow Americans lives. And at some point, at some point, it just, it just very, very quickly, there's a difference

between talking about, but, but, but, but, but, but, but, but, but, but, but, but, but, and civilian infrastructure.

But I do think you're right.

I do think we're narrative seeking creatures.

But I also think that it is incumbent upon us

to have more of a call for honesty and sincerity and seriousness when we're dealing with these. And look, this is why we're in the fucking, this is one of the reasons we're in the mess that we're in right now. So I find the whole thing rather disturbing. We've given people social media tools that allow them to amplify the stupidest of people.

Candace Owens is just insane. And then we've given people tools like again, social media, I'm taking Nick Fuentes. We've given Nick Fuentes and it's interesting. Who's we? Who's we? This is where I think you and I disagree. Well, there are many countries, France, New Zealand, Australia, who either want to or in the process of banning social media. But for kids, not entirely. For kids, correct. Yeah, for kids. Sure. Okay. In the case of Australia, just as an aside, they want to ban all social media, but not Blue Sky. So I'll let you think about that. But I also, Peter, I think you and I are both old enough to know that every, I bet you a significant amount of money that every kid is going to be able to in five seconds find workarounds for that. And there's not going to be prosecutable because they're kids. Yeah, maybe, but that's the we, right? So we is the we've enabled people to amplify the voices of the stupidest people as opposed to enable them to amplify the voices of people who've given the idea lifetime of scholarly consideration and experience in those countries and who speak the language. Like when we go around the world and we talk about the Israel-Israelis Palestinian conflict, for example, I'm amazed how many people don't even know the rudiments or couldn't even don't even know from the river to the sea, what river, what sea. So I just think we need to be more mindful about how we approach it given the existential stakes. And we're literally talking about something life and death. So why would we want to amplify the voices of people who are fools? Jank is a fool. Why would we want to amplify his voice? Well, okay, I point taken, but I just really don't like that word we because I don't think there is this community, even if you're just gonna say Americans that is interested in truth or goodness or whatever has been. I think when you're saying what I'm saying that there's no hope, I think if you if you're complaining that like a tree can't read, that's kind of on you. This is the human condition in my view and it always has been the human condition. I guess that's a fundamental disagreement we should explore. Way back to Aristotle's metaphysics, I think the first line is something like all people desire to know.

That's not what I think we do. I think we know. I mean, everybody wants to know. It's just that everybody is. You don't think that's true? No, that's insane. Have you left your house? What what you don't so you don't think people want to know what's true? I want people desperately want to avoid knowing what's true. they want to know what is the utility for them to put food in the table.

And if they have to smile and nod and say,

absurdities, they'll they'll they'll say so long they grow up. They'll get horse Yeah, but that doesn't mean they don't want to know it's true That just means that they're performing something to satisfy their Whatever their material needs are it's easy to put on the honest performance if you don't know what the truth is. That's the evolutionary psychology perspective. I don't think that that's true. I mean, I'm thinking of the, I'm thinking of the Terra Museum in Budapest in which, I mean, there were just so many examples and I've spent, been spending a lot of time in Eastern Europe and the terrible suffering of those people under the communist. That book's not, I mean, you can't see, but the book behind me, the white pill, is about the rise of all the Soviet Union. Yeah, so there's some horrific things there. And people, even then, in the most extreme of circumstances through torture, et cetera, they wanted to know what's true. They wanted to figure out, you know, some of them. You think people have been their own delusions. Some of them wanted to know what's true. And others were perfectly happy to turn in their neighbors for that extra loaf of bread. I don't think those things are mutually exclusive. So I guess the disagreement boils down to, you think people don't want to know it's true, they want to believe things that yield them utility. And I think people want both. I think if people know what's true, it's easier for them to figure out what yields utility than just shutting off their brain. It's hard. I've literally talked to just at this point, not even tens, but hundreds of thousands of people. And I think that there are impediments for people to figure out what's true, like morality or belonging or that they want to belong more than they want to know what's true or they want to virtue signal, et cetera. And so there is a kind of self deception in which people convince themselves that a man is a woman or whatever arrangement they want to convince themselves. But when they convince themselves of that, they're also convincing themselves of something that they believe is true. Right, right? So I don't, I can, I'm trying to think of an example. So in the literature, this is called Doxastic Volunteerism in the Philosophy Literature. And the idea is that you can willingly choose your beliefs. So if I may give it a couple of examples. Please. So, so, because I think that this speaks to the nature of our disagreement. So, let's say that you and your girlfriend are going to go, so you're, are you in Austin now? Yes, sir. Okay. So you call me, sir, I work for a living. It's the gray here, I get the sir. So you guys want to go to Houston for a vacation, right? You want to go to Houston for a vacation. And so you're getting your car and and your drive and When you're 60% of the way to Houston your girlfriend says to you, oh shit Michael. Did we turn off the stove? And you're thinking you're thinking you're thinking but there's something in and you don't know if you turn off the stove But you don't want to drive 60% of the way back So you you kind of convince yourself you you didn't really choose the belief, that the ducks are from the Greek as a belief. You convince yourself that you shut off the stove, so you can have a happy vacation with your girlfriend. So I mean, there are numerous examples of people who choose to believe something. I'm actually kind of making your point for you, but there are new examples of, but that's what happens when you talk to someone you're interested in truth, right? So I'm not waiting to, I believe. You could be totally right. This makes, I'm sorry, I'm not trying to be that guy, but I have to be that guy because this analogy makes zero sense for me. First of all, this is one, one data, one stove or not is life or death. And it is something that has no point broader than that's something that's happening today. This doesn't affect my job, doesn't affect my philosophy. This is something that no one disagrees with that it's good not to have the stove. Second of all, let me give you another example of that. Let me give you another example. Sure. Yeah, I'll tell you an example.

I'll give you an example.

...