Jordan Peterson

There's envy. We could talk about envy.

There's envy. We could talk about envy.

There's envy. We could talk about envy.

You talk about Hezbollah breaking apart and everyone fleeing after the leadership is taken out, right? Well, that's why the 100 men possessed of the proper spirit can defeat 12,000 enemies.

You talk about Hezbollah breaking apart and everyone fleeing after the leadership is taken out, right? Well, that's why the 100 men possessed of the proper spirit can defeat 12,000 enemies.

You talk about Hezbollah breaking apart and everyone fleeing after the leadership is taken out, right? Well, that's why the 100 men possessed of the proper spirit can defeat 12,000 enemies.

Because the enemies aren't united by anything transcendent.

Because the enemies aren't united by anything transcendent.

Because the enemies aren't united by anything transcendent.

And one that's manipulated as well very profoundly by the actors behind the scenes. And all the things that we talked about play into this. The refusal of the West to admit to the existence of malevolence, our inability to understand the difference between a just and an unjust war, our willingness to hide in the shibboleth that war is bad, which is hardly a moral claim at all.

And one that's manipulated as well very profoundly by the actors behind the scenes. And all the things that we talked about play into this. The refusal of the West to admit to the existence of malevolence, our inability to understand the difference between a just and an unjust war, our willingness to hide in the shibboleth that war is bad, which is hardly a moral claim at all.

And one that's manipulated as well very profoundly by the actors behind the scenes. And all the things that we talked about play into this. The refusal of the West to admit to the existence of malevolence, our inability to understand the difference between a just and an unjust war, our willingness to hide in the shibboleth that war is bad, which is hardly a moral claim at all.

Right, right, right. War, yep. Well, and you think about how easy it is to make the moral claim, for example. I've heard many people make this claim. I'm against the death of women and children. As if that's some sort of moral claim. As if that's not the basis of common humanity. No one can capitalize on that. Yes. On that what? On that profession of the morality?

Right, right, right. War, yep. Well, and you think about how easy it is to make the moral claim, for example. I've heard many people make this claim. I'm against the death of women and children. As if that's some sort of moral claim. As if that's not the basis of common humanity. No one can capitalize on that. Yes. On that what? On that profession of the morality?

Right, right, right. War, yep. Well, and you think about how easy it is to make the moral claim, for example. I've heard many people make this claim. I'm against the death of women and children. As if that's some sort of moral claim. As if that's not the basis of common humanity. No one can capitalize on that. Yes. On that what? On that profession of the morality?

Well, and that's that last-ditch attempt to, what would you say, to salvage the oppressor-victim narrative. That's the core, that's the staff in the center of the belief system.

Well, and that's that last-ditch attempt to, what would you say, to salvage the oppressor-victim narrative. That's the core, that's the staff in the center of the belief system.

Well, and that's that last-ditch attempt to, what would you say, to salvage the oppressor-victim narrative. That's the core, that's the staff in the center of the belief system.

Now, your book ends, and we should wrap with this because we're coming near the end. Your book ends, I guess, on a quasi-theological note, right? It seems to me that the underlying conclusion that you drew, having admitted to the existence of evil, let's say, in a theological sense, at least technically, right? Because it's a language that expresses that landscape. It's at least that.

Now, your book ends, and we should wrap with this because we're coming near the end. Your book ends, I guess, on a quasi-theological note, right? It seems to me that the underlying conclusion that you drew, having admitted to the existence of evil, let's say, in a theological sense, at least technically, right? Because it's a language that expresses that landscape. It's at least that.