Michael challenged Jordan more than any guest I’ve seen him interview. This was a great conversation. Anytime you are challenged it causes you to think deeper. Adds clarity
There is a very inconvenient pattern that runs throughout the entire phenomenon of communism, and as a result the "sanitization" of communism in America as well (which led to mass ignorance about communist atrocities). Michael and Jordan mentioned several leading communist figures, and most of those names denoted a certain ancestry even though they constituted a tiny minority of the population of what would become the Soviet Union. Yes, we allied with the USSR in WWII to fight "the worst devil." Worse according to who? Patton said we fought the wrong enemy. But of course the Third Reich was the worst according to a certain tribe and those who are controlled by them. National Socialism was their enemy, not ours, and necessarily ours, and communism was actually quite popular amongst them, which is a huge reason why Adolf Hitler was so anti-Semitic. He viewed Marxism as their invention and them as its vanguard, and he wasn't completely wrong. Michael and Jordan mentioned how the cultural institutions in America censored anything that portrayed communism in a negative light even during the Cold War. Who largely runs those cultural institutions in our country and was thus responsible for those pro-communist censorship efforts? Surely, you can connect the dots. I know Michael and Jordan won't, because libertarians are incapable of seeing groups, only individuals. So even if there was a cabal responsible for this phenomenon, they would only be capable of identifying and criticizing the individual components, and not the activities of the group as a whole.
@@theviewbot Oyest of veys, indeed. Your point about collusion is a good one. For me, it's just painful to see Western man mentally shackled to this dogmatic moral code of individualism. I'm not a pure collectivist either, but as Kipling so eloquently put it: "the strength of the Pack is the Wolf, and the strength of the Wolf is the Pack." If our own moral framework discourages us from seeing groups at all, we will ignore the fact that we are a group with shared interests. It will also discourage us from identifying the collaborative efforts of hostile outgroups, leaving us incredibly vulnerable. A group that collaborates based on their group identity (and self-perception as an outgroup at odds with the interests of their host society) can literally get away with anything in a host society where individualist thinking is the norm.
Honestly I've seen the leftist authoritarians say things like "wait until you see him debate something that isn't his area of specialty" and now I have to say I'm thoroughly impressed.
When was the last time you had a conversation where you were able to talk for 5-10 minutes straight without interruption to fully get get your point across? The friends and family in my life NEVER just sit and listen intently and let my point fully come out and truly be formed. What a complete joy it must be to be these men and be able to engage in such a high level patient conversation. Well done gentleman, we’ll done!
The last 20 minutes of this discussion are pure gold. A lesson on how to have an intellectual disagreement without personal attacks or a frustrated walking away. We all just got better for watching it.
I came here to listen to Michael Malice, and the interviewer Jordan Peterson hogs The majority of the time. He’s got to stop doing that. It’s totally annoying. If I wanna listen to Jordan Peterson I will listen to just him. It’s terrible. Michael Malice is great, but this interview get a thumbs down because of Jordan Peterson
@@steveperreira5850 Are you really complaining that Jordan Peterson is talking on his own YT channel? Michael has his own YT channel. If you want to hear Michael without Jordan Peterson, I'd advise not watching the Jordan Peterson channel.
I've listened to about 1000 hours of Jordan and maybe 100 hours of Michael, and this was the most interesting conversation I've heard from either. Jordan is not the best at interviewing others, often interrupting the guest and imposing upon them, but Michael was the perfect guest to counter that personality. The interplay was perfectly balanced.
I agree. In his enthusiasm coupled with his stature, Peterson can probably seem imposing to some guests. But I don’t think that’s intentional but I can see how that could be interpreted as such. To your point, yes those two have great chemistry. Michael wasn’t playing the fool or trolling and Jordan wasn’t able to just do intellectual circles around malic and they both seemed totally engrossed in the ideas and the dissection of each one. Like their brains were fully engaged.
@@stickygrenade I didn't say he wasn't very good, I said he isn't the best. Bari Weiss is better. So is Dave Rubin, and Rogan obviously. I'd rather Peterson lecture than interview others, because his instinct is to lecture, and he turns an interview into that. Malice would cut Peterson off from cutting him off. It was an actual discussion instead of a lecture pretending to be a discussion.
I would pay very good money for these two to have a regular show with each other, and even more to have an occasional 3rd party guest appearance. This talk was stimulating beyond belief and nearly unfathomably impressive. Incredible work by two incredible minds.
@@haroldfarquad6886sir or madame, I believe that if the three of those men regularly meet in the same room and Eric Weinstein or Lex Friedman accidentally come within a mile of that room, we would see the collapse of intellectual space time as if someone had accidentally divided by zero. That being said, let’s make it happen. The rewards far outweigh the risk.
This is one of the best interviews in a long while. Dr Peterson was so animated that I thought his chair was going to collapse. This one definitely goes onto the watch again list.
It was like Peterson knew Malice could mentally keep pace with him so he just let himself go wherever his thoughts lead him. More than once Malice finished Peterson's sentences for him. Nice to see both so comfortable with each other.
I love Jordan and his energy but he is way too eager to cut his guests off and go on very long winded rants. He needs to let his guest finish their point first before he launches into his own. He’s done this in numerous discussions and it’s frustrating
@@brianmeen2158 JP has a very clear weakness (or strength) and that is when his personal values are attacked in anyway (directly or indirectly) he gets agitated (or curious). In his case it's both. Dude is not self-aware (or really self aware). But, in any case a simple solution for his stress is to just know that he has access to all the information in the world (he does not have the answers). The balance on the stress part is weak and that is his biggest weakness, not his very clear weakness from line 1 of the previous paragraph. JP personal values means that he thinks his clear weakness is his weakness. But, this analysis is ironic because I am analysing JP from a purely utilitarian point of view while monetarily and mentally being absolutely broke. Edit: line 1 of the previous*
I can’t express how happy I am about this. Michael Malice’s commentaries on the Soviet Union are some of the most powerful things I have ever heard. With Jordan Peterson’s insight? I couldn’t be happier.
I was in Czech Republic and Slovakia this past summer: They were limiting Air conditioning everywhere during one of the major heat waves of the decade. They proudly explained that they gladly went without and paid higher premiums for fuel and power from Germany if it meant they weren't supplying Russia with money for the Ukraine war. They loved to share stories of shaking off the Soviet Bloc yolk. It was very moving
Jeez, one of the sincerest thinkers with a great sense of humor, having a conversation with a brilliant jester with a profound sense of sincerity. What an incredible conversation. I'm going to have to watch this again.
Michael is the one that put the nail in the coffin of my belief that the state can be used for good. I went from anti gun, pro abortion, male feminist to right leaning pro republican to anti gov libertarian. We need to spread the idea that you don't have to default to a political party that barely shares a belief with you.
@@flameguy3416 I'm not anti abortion. I'm no longer pro abortion. Abortion is a way more complicated subject than simply being pro abortion, anti abortion, pro choice and being libertarian does not necessarily equate to being pro abortion.
@@donnyg1984 if you had met me while I was going through my change, you probably would have gotten an emotional response as well. It was a process that took a couple years for me to go from leftist to libertarian. The first thing was my brother showing me a gun he got as a gift. I looked up gun statistics because I wanted to argue to him that he's more likely to die from that gun then to use it in defense and get rid of the gun and that led me to realize that the politicians on the anti gun Democrats and leftists are either wrong about how their using the stats or are intentionally lying about it. That was a very difficult thing for me to process because I was utterly opposed to gun ownership. Later on I started investigating other aspects of my political beliefs because I knew if I was being lied to about guns, then I was obviously being lied to about other things. One of the major linch pins was realizing how the media lied about Trump. I'm not technically a fan of Trump, but he is by no means the monster he's portrayed. In my realization of the left being liars, I went to the opposite end and just jumped on the republican side. A couple years ago I saw Michael Malice as a guest on another show, I believe it was Tim Pool, and everything he said I instantly recoiled from, but could not argue against. When you adhere to party politics far long enough, it's very hard to not want to latch on to a group identity. Michael gave me that other path
There's a picture Image online that may point out your rebuttal? It's a small group of Local Conservative town Mayor's giving the middle finger, towards non-local Large Federal Washington Republicans. With regards towards the 2016 elections. Again someone correct me if I'm completely wrong about this? There's Local needs and goals and then there's, National needs and goals. Which are two very different things? Nebraska, Omaha
You'll be an anarchist in about 6 months. I was a classical liberal for my entire life until COVID started (March 2020). Voted that year for the first time, felt disillusioned. Became libertarian through people like Eric July and Dave Smith (and then looked at the greats like Ron Paul, Thomas Sowell, Milton Friedman) and then went further into libertarianism and read Rothbard and Hayek. Was a libertarian for maybe a year and then I just decided to declare anarchism, mostly because of how little people understand libertarianism. I got tired of explaining it over and over to the people that don't care to look for themselves.
@@Knitting_aand_knitting_aandIt's Peterson's show! Not Michaels. But funnier still, Michael even admits during this interview that it's Petersons show and he's in control and quite happy to play by the rules and voluntarily enter into the conversation. Just out of curiosity...did you watch the interview? By the way, where is it written that an interview has to be 50/50?
@@Knitting_aand_knitting_aandto each his own.. I thought it flowed fairly well. The whole point of these interviews is for the listener to learn the most they can in the most digestible, enjoyable way possible (no matter who is speaking). I think that was fairly well accomplished.
Peterson is overrated. Like many boomers, people mistake his confidence for being right just because he sounds good, and uses a large vocabulary. Malice is a decent person, but he's got some ideas that just dont add up. I dont care for when he argues emotionally over logically either. Konstantine Kosin, Lex Fridman, Tom Biyeou, and Saifedean Ammous are alot better at using logic to solve problems. But these two are ok to listen to - I just never get much out of it.
I believe this interview should be seen by every person graduating from high school before they go to college. This is one of the most succinct and easy to be understood conversations on the topic of putting groups rights over individuals rights. I'm currently in the process of showing this to my class (I am a teacher) and they are shocked and it is changing lives. Thank you for posting this.
This was a highly impressive discussion. It's rare to see someone engage so effectively and maintain their stance so well in a conversation with Peterson.
I totally agree and part of what struck me about this conversation is that Michael seems to operate much more successfully from a somewhat defensive position. He holds his line and expresses his views much more successfully in my opinion in this scenario than he does when he is delivering a monologue. I often agree with many of his arguments but not with his conclusions when he lays out his views unchallenged.
@@ijustwannaleaveacommentony6511 I always found many of Michael’s views to be overly reliant on wishful thinking to some degree. Like you said, often better in theory than actually being practical. Jordan’s summation at the end, of “alright, so it seems we agree, which is very very annoying” was funny to me in relation to all that.
@@chasedwards9626wow this is actually very similar to my experience with him … I always wondered why I love him as a guest but do not watch his own stuff that regularly. But then again I own both his books and they were some of the best yet must painful reads of my life. He shines light on the worst of the worst of human nature
@@MostlySteve The education system is not teaching critical thinking so take it upon yourself to educate others around you. You can't win them all but each small victory matters. Sometimes you have to get creative but it grows you as well.
A truly fantastic contrast in outer level ideals….that snaked into some logical traps. JP has a thirst for finding the traps in every position, definition and theory….even his own. It cracked me up his mentioning “Big Bang Theory” - what an episode could have been written with Jordan and Sheldon in the same room!
People cannot claim to be good yet still support a system of government. Good people dont coerce or support coercion. Glad Peterson understands anarchism and is morally in line with it.
I fully realize that Dr. Peterson is using his phone for notes and podcast outline. But it’s humorous to imagine that he’s doing something mundane like texting someone or playing a game on his phone while he discusses the horrors of the Russian Revolution in specific detail just off the top of his head.
People pull out their phones for train wrecks; Play Method Actor with Excessive Emotional Outbursts, just for brownie points on social media. It's difficult to discern the real from the fake at times. Hence discernment and discrimination must be made.
As a Gen Xer (born 1975, now 48) we were taught in public schools that communism is an "economic" system when in fact communism is all encompassing of peoples' lives. Had we been taught the WHOLE truth we would've noticed this new cultural Marxism and racialized Marxism much earlier and it wouldn't have gotten this far.
My parents taught me. I’m a little younger, ‘81. My peers laughed at me for calling the current system closer to socialism than capitalism. I’ve been laughed at for calling out authoritarianism my since my second year college. I’ve been vindicated but not recognized for it.
So how is capitalism any different? Its predations encompass all of its residents lives as well. This self serving intellectual dishonesty has to stop. 😢
It’s great to see how well this conversation went compared to the last one. I think Peterson really understands Malice’s conception of anarchy now and the discussion of the Soviet Union was great.
It's hard for JP to converse with someone so low in the Big 5 trait of Agreeableness. I love JP, but it's nice to see him get pushed. I think he learns more this way.
There is a very inconvenient pattern that runs throughout the entire phenomenon of communism, and as a result the "sanitization" of communism in America as well (which led to mass ignorance about communist atrocities). Michael and Jordan mentioned several leading communist figures, and most of those names denoted a certain ancestry even though they constituted a tiny minority of the population of what would become the Soviet Union. Yes, we allied with the USSR in WWII to fight "the worst devil." Worse according to who? Patton said we fought the wrong enemy. But of course the Third Reich was the worst according to a certain tribe and those who are controlled by them. National Socialism was their enemy, not ours, and necessarily ours, and communism was actually quite popular amongst them, which is a huge reason why Adolf Hitler was so anti-Semitic. He viewed Marxism as their invention and them as its vanguard, and he wasn't completely wrong. Michael and Jordan mentioned how the cultural institutions in America censored anything that portrayed communism in a negative light even during the Cold War. Who largely runs those cultural institutions in our country and was thus responsible for those pro-communist censorship efforts? Surely, you can connect the dots. I know Michael and Jordan won't, because libertarians are incapable of seeing groups, only individuals. So even if there was a cabal responsible for this phenomenon, they would only be capable of identifying and criticizing the individual components, and not the activities of the group as a whole.
@googleisskynet7312 just because evil people belong to a group/tribe, doesn't make the whole tribe evil. That tribe succeeds in all fields, so of course the evil among them would be amongst the worst bad people. Quit portraying it as the whole group of people. It's individuals actions.
@@googleisskynet7312Hitler hated Jews not because of Communism, but jealousy. It was the Jews that correctly hedged against the German fiat currency that fed their war machine and was responsible for bankrupting its citizenry. The Jews were investing their money out of country in Israel, both because of historical ties and because of viscous persecution. So the Nazis thought they could rob them and destroy their weakness as a united people by denigrating their strongest members. Socialism is ultimately the same evil as Communism, because it leads to a culture of entitlement and jealously confiscates to achieve it.
As a Cuban immigrant who came here at the age of 6 years old and became a citizen at 15 only to go back to Cuba to bring medicine, clothes and other necessities for living to a nation that swore itself to its people yet robbed them of everything including food is the epitome of vengeful nihilism for me personally. In other words, I’d be willing to do a n y thing against them after watching my people starve and wither in silent oppression for over 60 years now. How many more generations? Where is our Human Rights???!!!!!!
Totally agree. A friend of mine went to cuba for half a year to work there. I think he lost about 30% of his body mass during that time. And not by choice.
I always hate these stories about which "ism" is great and which is mean. I honestly don't give a sh*t which "ism" you want to promote, but let's be real. The only thing that matters is what happens when power is grabbed by a smaller group of elites, and that can happen in any "ism" including capitalism. There is no magic free market that will stop that from happening without proper regulations and a way to prevent wealth from accumulating at the top. That doesn't mean we tax all rich people to death. We tax the hell out of wealth that is strangling economic progress. Wealth just for the sake of wealth and power. It also doesn't mean we regulate every aspect of human life like real communism. But that also doesn't mean you let capitalists do what they want. I can make a neverending list of how capitalists have abused the system in the USA to become very wealthy without offering something beneficial to society.
Watching Michael challenge one of the greatest thinkers of our time is amazing. I'm sure there are MANY topics these two gentlemen could (and SHOULD) discuss. I'm far more informed and enlightened after this discussion.
I'm 75% of the way through, and I already wish this conversation could go on for many more hours. Absolutely amazing to be a third set of ears to! Michael and Jordan are both so involved and honestly exploring ideas here! Absolutely love it!
Very interesting and fast-moving conversation. Malice proves more than up to the challenge, putting Dr. Peterson on the spot more than a few times with his interjections and corrections. These two should follow this up with another extended chat.
It's precisely conversations like this that makes it feel so worth it to be an avid book reader. Being able to follow most if not all of the arguments throughout because I've read Solzhenitsyn, I've read The Fountainhead, I've read Camus, I've studied the Bible.. it's such a rewarding feeling to be able to follow along in a high level conversation like this
This is a wonderful example of how discourse should go. Making sure you are on the same page/have the same definition before proceeding the discussion. Providing a preface to let others know they may correct you or step in if they disagree at some point. While also having the patience to allow someone to completely convey their thoughts before interjection. Masterclass. I wish more people could have discussions like this. In relation to behavior, not necessarily subject matter.
Finally! 1:41:46 A deep dive on Michael Malice's anarchy, JPs questioning has been super insightful here. I really, truly enjoyed this whole conversation!
It really was due to JP’s willingness to figure out what MM was defining as “force”. Perhaps MM was encouraging JP to tease out what is the difference between force and self-defense, along the boundary of private property. Without that boundary, many people get into a moral conundrum of confusing all such actions under the umbrella of Force/Violence. Hence, most modern liberals have no response to acts of terrorism / violence except to “be tolerant.” Good on MM for “defending” the line of demarcation to be defined rather than allow the normative views continue to cloud the issue with equivocation. But that is a frustrating process. So good for JP for having the patience to work that out rather than “force” the normative definitions on MM. Great examples of dialogue by both Men.
I asked myself why was this conversation so engaging and expansive yet substantive: it was the willingness of both Dr. Peterson and Malice to play. Spar. Respectfully but to the hilt of skill and substance. THE COMEDY! The Lex call out! The LOLs! It almost veered into OG Sam Harris convo cringe but the play of expansive learning was awesome. Bravo both of you. I've a rooter for you both!
I could have easily listened to another 2 hours of this conversation. It was absolutely fantastic. Jordan really listened to what Michael was expressing and Michael was on his very best behaviour for the most part lol. I'd love a follow up to this for sure.
I have a new level of respect for Malice's ability to be an astute interlocutor. ESPECIALLY being taken to task so vigorously on his anarchist viewpoint. 🤛🏻
Reminds of the non binary T-shirts sold for men and women. Having individually rights is something that has to be protected in an organised way which isn’t individual.
I haven't gotten all the way through this discussion and I'm not as comfortable as you are with his answers. Maybe I need to immerse myself in his ideas a little more and I'm not keeping up with the deeper parts of this conversation. I think he's skirting a fatal flaw though which I like to compare to the problem around a parent correcting a child. The anarchists I'm familiar with seem to think that correcting a child is a form of tyranny yet what parent won't slap a childs hand away from a naked flame or open electrical circuit? As far as I can tell the abstract idea of parenting becomes the crux of the problem when dealing with a child in a dangerous world. I suspect there's a paradox that Michael is missing which is that in essence he's right as far as the ideal state is as he describes it. The issue is that we're maturing at different rates and the dangers we face require protection from ourselves. The bigger issue is in the question "Who decides who's mature enough and when". I don't know if there is an answer. The Republican idea to my understanding begins with a kind of hierarchical structure that puts the individual responsible to the community under the state, under the law, answerable to God. Maybe the layered abstractions are enough to allow some kind of civilisation to flourish because it simply confuses us enough to step in line. Maybe the idea of an incorruptible Godhead is nessesary to circumvent the trauma we hold in our hearts for the correction we receive from the lower layers. I wish I could articulate it better but I suspect that Michael holds just another idealistic view that fails with the same certainty that communism does because he doesn't have a clear understanding of the world we inhabit. Communism as far as I csn tell fails because it requires compulsion over voluntarism with regards to supporting the dispossessed. Anarchy on the other hand seems to me to act like a vacuum for the worst of our nature to manifest freely. So in the same way a Communist might make the claim that if they were in charge the utopia would be able to flourish the anarchist does exactly the same with the benifit of not having to be responsible for the tyranny that flourishes in the absence of a proper parental response to the condition we find ourselves in. In other words it's a bit like the vacuous nature of virtue signalling. You take no responsibility for the calamity that unfolds in the wake of a flawed ideological imperative.
Unless I missed it, Jordan never posited the result of someone who is a bad faith actor AND IS ALSO too strong to be individually taken down. This individual anarchy seems to require the vast majority of people to be Good Kings of a sort; powerful but unwilling to use it to bad ends. This seems inherently contradictory to real world examples.
Michael Malice & Murray Rothbard were the two to push me from a minarchist to anarchist at the beginning of COVID and I hope they can do the same for more people
Anarchism is a bit too utopian and naive in my view. It's the equivalent of looking at a war and saying you now want to live in a world without weapons. It will never happen. There will always be governments as much as we may not like them. The key, I believe is discipline, restraint and courage. It's easy to say, let's just get rid of government, but what is much harder to do, is to cage it and tame it to some degree. Miniarchism, as you mentioned is actually a reasonable position and something that should be talked about more, and is also how America was founded. Minimal government is the way.
rothbard’s free-market libertarian, malice is more anarcho-capitalist (an-cap) than pure anarchist *more authors on anarchy: mikhail bakunin, petr kropotkin, emma goldman, pierre-joseph proudhon, noam chomsky, murray bookchin, david graeber, abdullah ocalan
The only thing about an anarchist society, which my people were (Acadians) is that if you’re doing well for yourselves and a super power likes what you’ve done with the place, you’re so much easier to pick off. Especially if you have nothing else uniting you, like religion. The “I just want to be left alone” people will be at mercy of the people that don’t want to.
@@acaydia2982 If you're small and surrounded by aggressive neighbors, sure. If not...not so much. Also, if you're a small, weak locality, you do what *ALL* small, weak localities have done throughout history: you form alliances with others and actively take steps to correct your deficiencies. But this whole train of thought is known colloquially as the "Warlords" fallacy among nerdy political philosophy types who enjoy argument (not me). Look it up if you're curious. Merry Christmas!
@@wuhaninstituteofvirologyIs there a reason you don't include Berkman, when he was explicitly invoked along with Goldman in this conversation? TBH, without an explicit reason for exclusion, it sort of implies that you didn't actually base your critique of Malice's anarchism on what he says in this conversation... so then you're out of context unless you're willing to provide a reference to back your stated opinion.
This is the most incredible discussion I have listened to for many years. I only pressed play to get a quick idea of what was to be discussed and ended up so engaged that I watched until the very end and didn’t even want it to end at all. Thank you both for such thought-provoking stuff and for making a man who believed his life to be at a desperate and negative point; re-evaluate it and see light sparkle through the pitch black. That may sound melodramatic but it’s absolutely sincere and I’ll never forget this very moment. From the bottom of my heart; thank you to Jordan Peterson and Michael Malice. Incredible!
What a time to be alive where we get to watch discussions like this. Nothing short of amazing. Both of you have been such a huge influence on my thinking over the years!
@@gilil1696 Yes. It is an advantage to be born to parents that teach you self sufficiency. The alternative is to be born to parents that don’t teach you how to take care of yourself and you suffer and/or become dependent until you learn for yourself how to be independent
I listened to Michael malice's white pill book when it first came out. It's his only book I haven't been able to listen through more than once. While the others had heavy topics this hit a new level. I literally cried at work. I can't do it again just yet.
Michael taped himself reading a few chapters, and he himself cried in many parts while reading his own work. I think that's when you know you've written something correctly. When you read it and it drives that much emotion from you, you've written it right.
Lord a'mighty. Listening to two sharp and smart guys talk about this subject matter.....deeply satisfies the intellect. Malice continues to shine. I should get to know him better, though I've never read Rand. Dr. Peterson: one of the only guys around who speaks in entire paragraphs. Makes me think of Professor Northrop Fry. Well done guys.
It tickles me to see "Lord a'mighty" as a response to such a high-level dialogue. I'll bet Peterson and Malice would be pleased as well. Yes, coastal elites, even we bumpkins in flyover country who say things like "Lord a'mighty" can follow such deep ideas. That's because they resonate with the eternal that we intuitively know to be true.
You really should read Rand. Atlas Shrugged is a long read but worth it. It has changed many lives for the better. If 900 pages is too much, start with "The Virtue of Selfishness." I read that in a few hours. Well worth it!
@@GeorgeDoughty-m8e. She has another book called, if I recall correctly, For The New Intellectual It is a sort of overview of her core ideas and beliefs, it gives most of the flavour with a lot less chewing..
The way these two conduct their conversation is refreshing to the point where the subject matter is no longer the reason why I continue to listen. There's no strawmaning. No cutting the other person off. No talking in circles or talking past somebody. They give time to one another to express their ideas and make sure both people can agree on what was said and meant before exploring further. It makes every other form of discussion seem juvenile and the equivalent of junk food devoid of nutrition. There are many others who engage on this level, obviously but this has probably been the best example.
It's because they're both comfortable in their knowledge in their subject matter. Also they're not afraid to learn something new or have a fresh perspective in their views. They are real intellectuals who's goal is to learn as opposed to being right all the time and attacking the other person when they fear their grift of being the expert is challenged. Unfortunately this space is full of these types.
I had the white pill ordered for me on my birthday on November 19th. About a month before that 3 weeks probably...I'm hoping now that it will be one of my Christmas presents. Also Jordan Peterson has been one of the most influential people in my life, someone I have deep admiration for. I'm so excited and excited to see and listen to this interview. Two of my best friends who don't even know I exist.
Usually I occupy myself with something while listening to JP interviews. Now this was rapid fire and unimaginably deep in discussion so I was glued to screen to being able to follow properly. I hope we get more of both this depth and also Mr Malice. Rough with English as a secondary language.
Thank you for working so hard to articulate a clearer understanding of Michael’s concept of anarchism and Michael listened astutely and guided deftly to bring out that clarification. I meanwhile was gifted with this new understanding just for listening. Although I recognise I will have to repeat that several times to grasp and remember. ❤
THIS is my Christmas Present!! BEAUTIFUL!!! Malice is indeed a force and he just continues to get better. I can't hardly wait to see him 5yrs, 10yrs, 15yrs from now.... I enjoyed this discussion immensely and will rewatch as soon as I have to solitude to fully immerse myself and savor every volley. Standing ovation🤗🤗🤗
I love that Michael so nonchalantly tries to keep Jordan grounded in objectivity as such and not to have to rationalize it beyond that (reify it as something in itself). This is the least self assured I have ever seen Jordan. Well done Michael, for being so able to comfortably articulate your philosophy.
It's not (necessarily) a complex philosophy. It's no fun at all to grapple with anarchism, but as with everything, if you can get the premises right, the rest logically (and uncomfortably) follows.
@@dbmail545 Malice moved to the US when he was 2 years old. To act like he has some inherent superiority of knowledge regarding Communism from having "lived through it" is disingenuous at best.
"Least self assured" has a clear, negative connotation to it, I'm not sure if that was the intent , but I think it is unfair. "I prefer clarity over agreement" - Dennis Prager I think that is what Jordan was respectfully and intentionally trying to achieve and it seems its result was understanding and agreement, so to put any negative veil over it is counterproductive and demonstrative of a bias or disdain.
This is a much better format for Peterson than twitter. Malice is a treasure. It was really interesting to see Peterson thinking on his feet and out loud. An expert interlocutor is superior to a book, but we all can't have a conversation with Michael Malice.
This one is pretty good. I really admire Dr Peterson, but in the past I have watched him continually talk over guests that he invited! Looks like he has brought that into order a little bit. Well done, and Malice gave me a newfound respect for this particular school of anarchism.
OH MY GOODNESS! I know who MM is and have seen him on podcasts a couple of times, but to go toe to toe with JBP is no small feat. They were both wonderful and I would love to see these 2 together again. I was so glad to be able to understand MM’s viewpoint in a much deeper way. Folks on other podcasts have asked him to explain them, but JBP just went so deep with no judgement, it was simply beautiful! Thank you, thank you, thank you!
I thank you both for the conversation revolving around some of Rand's ideas. As an amateur objectivist who frankly lacks the sophistication to think about these topics deeply, my brain is stretched in a pleasing fashion upon hearing these ideas challenged and countered.
If only more of us on the internet assessed our intellect with the same humility as yourself. That being said I recommend listening to the podcasts that Micheal Malice has done with Lex Fridman, I’m sure you’ll find them equally enjoyable.
The Gulag Archipelago is an epic story of my grandfather's hell and other millions like him. It took me six months to read it in small portions so my heart wouldn't break. I knew very little from my grandfather. After he was released in 1947, he had to agree he would never talk about it. He said very little: six years there, only 20% survived, spit froze before falling on the ground, food rations of half-pound of bread and one herring a day while 12-hour hard labor days, burying dead only in summer when the ground wasn't frozen. He wouldn't dare tell much, but he screamed in his sleep often. Only after he died, my grandmother said they ate dead people there. His greatest hope for us? Never to be starving. I would never dare to say I am starving. I understood his Gulag punishment as a warning for ignorant people around me. Under such a regime, you can't trust anyone, not even your family members. Anyone has a potential to send you to hell and feel heroic about it. Anyone can turn into a regime collaborator and an unpaid police just as we all witnessed after 2020. Reading Gulag Archipelago could wake up the privileged generations who never experienced what humans can do to one another. Maybe then, gratitude, respect, grace, kindness, and generosity could finally grow replacing aggression, fear, ignorance and an unearned victimhood claims.
@@architektura204 the book Gulag Archipelago is literally fiction as its advertised by the author himself. You should read it as fiction, not real events in real world. Its fantasy. God bless you son.
Well that was an eye-opening, informative, perspective changing, sickening, saddening, but much-needed conversation about the horrors of communism!! Thank you gentlemen!! Both of you are some of the greatest minds of our time!!
This was a truly vital conversation that every high school student should study. Protect these men and sing their praises, and share this video. Whether or not you believe we are at the precipice, share it with everyone.
Wow what a mouth full for 2 hours loved every second. I feel like I'm back in class re-learning everything new & old information. Keep sharing & introducing everyone always excited to see who's next or what topic will be next ❤ many blessings to you & everyone watching in this new Year
Larken Rose was the first person who made me question. Michael Malice was the one who gave me the cold nasty dose I needed. All of this happened during "two weeks to slow the spread". I went into house arrest a liberal, immerged two months later a conservative and now I am 100% an anarchist
started as social-democrat, moved further left to "aggressive-progressive", (then briefly "green"), then skipped right past communism to anarchism (all-the-way-left + all-the-way-down > opposing everything at the top including all authoritarianisms: communism/fascism/feudalism/technocracy/theocracy/monarchy/autocracy, etc.)
@@wuhaninstituteofvirology LOL WOW LOL ya took the long route here but hey nice to meet ya lol and welcome to truth sanity and do t trust anyone or thing but YOU
@@flameguy3416 Which is what makes his critique of them so scathing. He was devoted to the idea, but saw how many of its supporters drove away the very people, the proletariat for whom they pretended to care. If you’ve never read it, you should.
I love the dynamic here and was glad to see the conversation finally break after so much tension in the air ... with Michael cheering and Jordan's brain exploding, it was beautiful ... and what a glorious ending for both ... though I would ultimately chalk it up as a win for Malice ... turning Jordan into the voluntary troll by the end of it?? Brilliantly done!!! Bravo, a real treat for fans of both. Please do it again soon!
|"Curiosity"| Rarely have I been able to detect in Peterson's reactions and words such an impetus for knowing the logic and/or structure behind his interlocutor's thoughts and ideas. |"Fascination"| This seems to have automatically taken the conversation to a kind of "intellectual sublimation" stage, a "state-of-the-art" rarely reached in an exchange of ideas like this. |Result?| As I saw this video on Christmas Day, I can only thank these two for everything I ended up absorbing and learning from having the pleasure of watching every minute of this conversation. Thank you both very much for this wonderful gift!
Fascinating conversation! One thing Jordan and Michael spoke about was these lazy intellectuals who never succeeded in life because they skated through their educational years and expected they would be a success because of their “intellectual superiority “. I’m 62 and in my life I’ve seen more success from people with average intelligence who simple worked very hard throughout their lives. Most of them had a lot of common sense and learned from their mistakes. There is no substitute for hard work.
Nobody tells university students that intelligence is not a substitute for wisdom. In fact, their professors tell them to hate everything that's not rational. Like the fools they are.
Wow, at 37 minutes that was ME! I was the “intelligent” kid that could show up to class and get an A, highest scores on all the standardized tests without trying. Luckily I went into chemical engineering and got a 37% on my first calculus 2 exam and had to spend ~60hrs a week figuring out how to actually learn… I’m sure many have sought paths without real challenge to completely tear them down and humble them. I am unbelievably grateful for the hell hole that I put myself in and crawled out of.
Damn someone else exactly the same story. I nearly lost my academic scholarship in Calc 2 while pursuing my chem engineering degree. It was the semester when i figured out profs didn’t care if you showed up and put in work. But you would suffer consequences.
@@spudkelly I did lose my academic scholarship, I was also a Pole Vaulter and couldn’t get off the ground for over a month. I made a plan to take my life, did a walk-through, and scheduled it the day before my 2nd exam. By some stupid fucking luck, a friend convinced me to try psilocybin mushrooms the weekend before. I can’t explain it, but I was able to see my problems from about 100 new perspectives. Monday, I cleared a new personal record in pole vault 6 times in a row, decided to try my second Calc 2 exam. I got an 88%… I haven’t made a plan since. Plus I was able to make up for the academic scholarship loss by earning more athletic scholarship by placing at conference that year. Idk if I’d recommend it to everyone, but it somehow changed my life.
You’re is the plight of the intelligent in schools. Schools (particularly public hs) teach to the lowest common denominator thus shortchanging it stifling the intelligent
@tylerfraker9304 I wish my sister could have pulled herself out of her own misery the way you did, but unfortunately she didn't make it. If you live and succeed for those who can't, it's very comforting to me
Peterson can try my patience because he’s so relentless and so pedantic but he’s also unfailingly honest, which, when combined with good faith makes for an unusual but good interview. Malice barely got a word in as Peterson worked out his own doubts about Randian Libertarianism, but Malice answered every single query competently. It ends up being a fascinating interview despite Peterson’s irritating pushiness and also because of it! I have to hear more Malice.
Considering Peterson did about 70% of the talking this was not a conversation in any sense of the word. Definitely a display of someone who'd rather hear their own musings we've all heard time and again over his "guest's", if you could call him that.
@@dominickbisozio The fundamental principle, or foundation of all governments is the claimed right to the initiation of the use of force against all people within a geographical boundary. In fact, what I just said here is the best definition of the word government. So, the foundation is the same for the government of North Korea and Norway and the United States. I used the word "form" to indicate the common principle or foundation of all governments. What gets built on top of that foundation is what varies, not the foundation.
@@furyofbongos thank you for clarifying that makes sense. You seem to be very intelligent and are very good at articulating your thoughts via writing 👍🏼
He didn't melt his brain. The issues he was grappling with is that the anarchists cloak their meaning in miss attributed definitions. This makes getting to the bottom of what is smoke screen and what is intent difficult. In fact I would go so far as to posit that anarchism is inherently flawed and deeply suspect in intented out come, as evidenced by their blatant refusal to speak plainly and define their intentions clearly. Though I presonally have other structural concerns about anarchism for example if we are willing to take it in the most positive light (something that it would be clearly wrong to do as they cloak their intent), their posited social structure doesn't work with human nature. If it just worked we would see it succeeding on its own merits. Among the many issues it suffers is an inability to properly manage parasites and skarks (as Jordan rightly brought up), people who will intentionally destroy the system in service of their own goals or short sighted interest.
@@deathtdow I always think of The Walking Dead in these scenarios. Once the zombie outbreak happens, the whole country becomes an anarchist state by default, and honey, it sure doesn't stay that way. You got groups of people forming loose associations that all eventually run into either a cult leader or a warlord and those both end up having the largest communities. The warlord in particular has the largest "community" because he rounds up everyone's guns so they have no choice but to do what he says. He then "redistributes" what he takes from everyone to his top goons to ensure their loyalties, AND he makes their wives live with him as collateral. The major problem with anarchism is that it has zero preventative measures OR reactionary measures it can take against bad actors. It advocates for no government, so there isn't an ounce of centralization or regulation that can catch a wannabe warlord before he gains too much power, so by the time such an actor DOES appear, because everyone is only loosely associated with each other and only by pure choice, there is now no collective allegiance big enough to topple the warlord that has his own private army. The only thing that can take him out is another army, and once they take over, they're likely to just establish an actual government that they run with the reasoning of "well that didn't go great, so we'll just stick around long enough to make sure this doesn't happen again" but then they never leave, so the government just keeps going and growing and....oh shit, I just described the history of human association. Whoops. Turns out we already tried anarchism thousands of years ago and every single time it led to the formation of a government to ensure stability. But sure, let's tear it all down one more time and see what happens this time.
Hahahaha are you trying to impress someone in the comments? It's a bold move to express an opinion on something without watching or listening but if it works for you then who am I to judge?
@@Tohlemiach People didn't have decentralized distributed information back then. Nowadays most people have easy access to almost infinite (in comparison to a few decades ago) knowledge as long as they want to search for it. Also, with decentralization of content creation, anyone has a potential to reach lots of people with their ideas. The individual has much more power to resist certain types of tyranny/manipulation today than ever before, starting by the ideological domain. In a sense, society is migrating towards anarchy in many little ways - not because they believe in this ideology necessarily, but because it's what works best for them. Like the EBay example he gave in the video.
@@geekley you can communicate good ideas all you want, but the moment that plan falls through and a warlord arises, you now have no system to bring him down. That’s the point. There is NO contingency plan. It relies entirely on the assumption that we’ll have no more ultra violent charismatic psychopaths which is such an absurd idea it’s laughable.
This conversation embodies good faith discussion in my opinion. It's difficult to find anyone willing or able to have these conversations. Much appreciated.
Great conversation Michael & Jordan. Especially, talking about people who intentionally create havoc for others whilst virtue signalling to be moral. I have experienced many, many things on Canada, over many years. Not at all feeling sorry for my self but it makes me happy, people are starting to wake up to the truth of the divide and conquer in Canada. All we can do is to scold them whilst being heart centred and create firm boundaries, hoping, they would stop the nonsense. Shine On!✨✨✨
This discussion is a delightful. As a person who lived during communism in Eastern Europe (Bulgaria), I can share with you from personal experience. One of the most terrifying illusions was that if you didn't do wrong things, you wouldn't be punished. That was a total lie. Due to the militarized hierarchical totalitarian system in which there was a constant shortage of basic necessities, the only medium of exchange was debt service. For example, if someone was building a house but could not find even two bags of cement because of the shortage, then I, working in a certain position in a cement factory, could easily provide him with a truckload of cement in exchange for a future service. That's how the system worked under socialism. With this in mind, it was relatively easy to destroy another person, for whatever reason, by demanding a favor from the relevant local government or party official in a position of power. Anyone who thinks that if he does nothing wrong, he will never be accused and punished, meets head-on with the interpretation in the service of those in power. The one in power expresses his interpretation, it is accepted as fact, and the finger pointed is punished, and severely. There are not few cases when a person was sent to a concentration camp (yes, there were such in Eastern Europe. In Bulgaria, the last one was closed somewhere in the late 70s) just because he was reported by an informer, for telling a joke against the authorities. Life was not very happy. People lived in constant fear of what exactly they had done wrong on a daily basis. This inevitably changes them mentally forever. I'm telling all this because those times remind me a lot of what I see now in Western Europe/USA, about this gender nonsense. A small crowd of irrational individuals terrorizes the majority of people simply because the majority does not support their insane demands. Just as the people of Eastern Europe were terrorized by the Kremlin's puppet regimes.
You might be shocked at how few people in the West really understand that Socialism was essentially a giant return to slavery in the concentration camps and gulags, and the absolutely arbitrary power that gave to people in even the least important government positions.
@@JanicePhillips im not quick learner by any stretch of the imagination and so for that reason id have to rewatch this to properly remember what exactly the both sides were here. From what i can guess (butchered guess at that) Jordan is for meaning and mainly others responsibility while Malice stands for no real intrinsic meaning and self responsibility mainly, does that sound right..in a nutshell as they say??
@@Joshuarcade if you follow what malice said about camus, the intrinsic meaning he sees is basically the inherently meaningless of camus where as he pointed out and I believe he agrees with, the real intrinsic meaning of life is having this unique chance to be whoever you want to be (mainly morally since its what we're always individually "free" to pursue) and finding meaning in your individuality voluntarily through that self-interest related to a profound sense and investigation of who you are and your true self (not the illusion of self through the eyes of others)
congratulations Michael, keeping your seat while listening for hours to Jordan Peterson... sorry I went away not having the chance to hear from you much.
Thanks to Dr Jordan Peterson and Michael Malice for such a fascinating, absorbing discussion. I've missed Dr Peterson's You Tube interviews whilst away for the festive season. There's nothing like a high level intellectual discussion like this one to bring light to a dark January evening. Much appreciated, gentlemen.
This conversation could have gone on for 8 hours, and i would still want more of it. It is also the most interesting conversation I've heard either of them in. I call for more of this!! 😅
Jordan is so excited about Michael's book. You can see the enthusiasm mounting higher and higher with each exchange between them. Until Jordan must speak more and more quickly as the ideas that the conversation generates are tumbling out of his head faster than he can verbalizes them. And Malice is like the stoker, laying down truth after truth, feeding the coal into Jordan's furnace.
What a wonderful interview. I'm an anarchist, and Michael's "anarchism without adjectives" description fits me as well. I appreciate the honest attempt to understand the philosophy. Admittedly, it's so heterogeneous, it's very difficult to grasp the uniting principles. Asking what he means, to define terms, was the exact right move.
@@sonnylambert4893 well too bad for all of you then...pay better attention, you'll learn something. How does it make you feel that JP said, at the conclusion, "I think we agree"? Was it also "annoying" for you? Notice how JP handled it, and how you do. Maybe learn from that as well. Philosophy is not about your snowflake offense...it's about the pursuit of truth. Be prepared to be offended, or confess you are, in essence, a snowflake. No one cares about what annoys you.
@@tonypalmentera7752not many things are more childish and snowflake ideology the anarchists. Government will always exist. Power will always collect itself in the hands of a few. There will always be good and evil and both will try to win control. Without a government the people will be ruled by violence. With no recourse for their greivences against the ones im power. I think the idea that you become what you hate is appropriate for his stance.
@@droyal18able now replace "government"with "slavery", and you sound like a naysayer in 1850 when anarchists were calling for the end of that institution too. Saying extortion (taxation), on the threat of (g)rape cages, will always exist legally for some minority of humans, as to maintain things we empirically know pre-existed the state, like law, roads, trade, defense, etc., is foolish statement. They have not existed for most of human history. Look it up. 6000 years ago the first states formed. There is little dispute, give or take a couple thousand years. We have existed for hundreds of thousands of years in pretty much our same biological form as a species. We have good evidence of all those things I mentioned existing for a lot longer than governments...yet you think we require one to have those things? What kept slavery alive was people saying it would never end, "how will we pick the cotton?", etc...and yet, it did inevitably end, as all oppression of the innocent does. The state will likely not always exist...governance can performed more efficiently and justly without government. The verb doesn't disappear with the noun. Also, you said "always". Always is an infinite sample size. Any non-zero probability is guaranteed as you approach an infinite sample size. By the proposition of your statement, you pretty much guarantee you will be wrong. Try "most likely" next time. Then I'd be forced to agree in the short term, like my lifetime...but I highly doubt the state survives the Ai revolution.
This conversation is so important. I've been struggling (both conceptually as well as IRL) with the same issues Jordan and Michael were talking about; and by listening to this conversation, well, they eloquently led me through a bunch of problems I couldn't come up with a solution to on my own. Sending love to you both from Israel
@@richwiedeman3128 How to detect and deal with Narcissists and/or ASPD's (Psychopaths). It was this conversation that led me to other interviews Malice had with other RUclipsrs like Lex and Chris, and I learned very important lessons while listening to these podcasts.
I own a book from each of these gentlemen and am very glad they sat down together for this long form conversation. Thank you to everyone who made this content possible. God speed and good journey!
Jordan really tries to see the other viewpoint as objectively as he can in spite of his own views/ understanding. His interviews are the essence of civilized free speech, bravo! I have learned so much from his honest examination of difficult and controversial subjects.
What a lively discussion! I was on the edge of my seat at times. Michael holds up his end, volley after volley. Thankful for the fly on the wall POV here. More, more, more!
Hilariously awesome and excellent at the same time. Poor malice, Jordan was running in circles in excitement that someone actually listens and enjoys deeper conversation
Liz Schwartz: Wouldnt a soviet ice cream just be an empty container? Like, you open the lid and there's an instruction note on an old piece of rotten fabric that says, "Pretend there's icecream in here."
Kinda blows my mind seeing these two getting along, Plus a double whammy is seeing Jordan being corrected but at the same time he himself being open to being corrected, that in itself takes a better man , Im very proud of you Mr Peterson, you truly are a great man as is you Mr Malice 😊Great talk😊
As an immigrant from Eastern Europe old enough to remember communism I thank God for JBP and others who speak about that unspeakable evil. Give me liberty or you know what. 🇺🇸
One of the examples of tragic events during Communism in Poland. Today, while passing by the msin train station in Gdansk, I saw plaques commemorating the events before Christmas 1970. The communist militia shot at protesting workers from the Pomeranian region who took to the streets and went on strike against a very large price increases, frozen wages& unbearable cost of living. The economy was already in a bad condition in Poland at that time & they fought for their and their families diginty. Dozens of people were shot, the number of victims was underestimated, and funerals took place at night without the participation of the victims' relatives. People associated with the strikes were persecuted for years. Tragic event was wiped out of the history as if has never happened. In the 1980s, the Solidarity revolution began, and mass strikes of workers and students began, despite repressions. These people are heroes. They deserve the honor of memory of their heroism. Countless examples like that on how Communism backfired and much more atrocities. There is so much heroism in Poland ❤.
Absolutely fantastic, fellas! This is EXACTLY the conversation I wanted the two of you to have after your last one. Drilling down on Rand's very broad, inclusive, long-term conception of "self-interest" as a coherent, objective guiding principle for both individual action and social organisation. Well done! I would ad, that Camus' "What kind of a person do you want to be?", while helpful for explaining this conception, would have been way too subjective for Rand. I think Rand would have insisted - correctly, imo - that the highest goal of personal develoment is actually objectively based in our human potential. Rand asks the question of what it means for a being like us to flourish. So she would ask something like "what does it mean to be a human being?" And, individual differences not withstanding - there is A LOT that we can say objectively about that. Rand makes use of an Aristotlian list of virtues here - reason, integrity, honesty, justice - and most importantly for Rand: productivity. Because she defines productivity as a reflection of man voluntarily/consciously facing reality/nature and using his mind (and all of his virtues) to produce the values necessary for his own flourishing (i.e. long-term survival as the kind of being he is). Reality contains the ressources, but those are menaingless without man learning to acquire them and turning them into actual goods that can be used to improve his own life. All the oil in the world is pointless, after all, as long as it stays under the ground and you don't know what it is, or what to do with it. And her belief in the central role of productivity is what makes Rand a radical for free markets.
@@The_Isaiahnator Thanks! I first came across her ideas in 2003, I think, devoured all her writings in a couple of years thereafter, and have been going back to and reflecting on them ever since and also through the lens of every other philosopher's work that I've come across since. From Aristole to SpinoZa, so to speak.;) I never understood where some people got the notion that her ideas were shallow, but I've come to the conclusion that you need to be in a particularly receptive state of mind when reading Rand, otherwise you get hung up on her polemical tone, or you mistake her stark focus on certain aspects as a lack of complexity in her thought. I was VERY lucky that my own first introduction to her philosophy occured through Peikoff's book "Objectivism from A to Z". He does a phnomenal job of communicating the systemic nature of her philosophy in a clear, methodical, erudite way. Highest recommendation!
2:06:00 "it turns out that we agree. That's very, very annoying." - Dr. Peterson lol that was funny I enjoyed this a lot. I def learned some things from both people. We're blessed to have these 2 great minds to learn from in this era. TY
Wow. I am well aware of how deep a thinker Michael actually is. But the Uber troll talking with Jordan Peterson is kinda surreal. Both of them have expanded the horizons of my thinking in the past. This was a fantastic conversation. Following along with it was both enjoyable and gave me more to contemplate. Bravo.
There seems to be no way of out- maneuvering Dr Peterson when it comes to these kind of discussions. Clinicians like him disect every strand of belief down to some kind of established analysis to reveal a comprehensible outcome. I believe that it is his aim to unpack each interviewee and their differing histories, experiences and approaches, into an answer for us all to the challenges of life in some way.
He is VERY good at both dissecting and getting to the bottom of any kind of belief, claim, argument, etc, as well as remembering and getting back to all the various parts of some belief, argument, etc. It makes conversations with him VERY interesting and informative. I do wish he would push Malice on some things more, as if he did, I think Malices arguments on Voluntarism/Anarchy would eventually fall apart, but its interesting and informative anyways.
I am glad those topics are being talked about. Being a Wolga German" myself, m family has (as most in de UDSSR) experienced basically all those atrocities. Great Grandfather was shot, half the family staved on their way to siberia or froze to death. About half of the deported people who actually made it to siberia froze and starved in the beginning because they had to dig holes with their bare hands to have some kind of makeshift shelter. This ideology is every bit as diabolical as facism.
Very entertaining to watch .. Jordan going from comfortable to the edge of his seat with excitement as he is working it out .. and Michael sitting calm like a stone, already knowing that this path of reasoning will only end at one conclusion, so long as the participant remains honest with themselves. I think I saw the moment that Mr. Peterson realized that he was not going to become an anarchist .. because he had been one the whole time. He has a lot to process now - oh, the discovery of truth!
I'm reading a book now called "On resistance to evil by force," by Ivan Ilyin, it's a biblical argument for violence against evil, written in 1925 Russia. I didn't realize Tolstoy was a pacifist, which highly influenced Russian culture within 18th and 19th century. Where areas Solzhenitsyn said that if people would have started attacking the policemen during the night raids, it might have made a difference.
The 20th century was actually a very long scientific experiment to test if socialism/communism can work. We tried in giant Asian countries (China), small Asian countries (Cambodia), snowy European countries, paradise Caribbean island (Cuba), multiple African countries, etc. It basically resulted in the same thing all over the place: tyranny, corruption and chaos. I guess we can really close the topic and not try again. (But Venezuela still wanted to show us that it still wouldn't work in an oil country)
Agreed! Jordan Peterson mentioned the intellectual narcissism of those who acknowledge the consistent failures of communism but say "Ah, but *I* could make it work!" There is democratic socialism but are there any examples of such states with a fully state-controlled economy which did not collapse into dictatorship? The Scandinavian countries are often classed as democratic socialist, but they are really just larger welfare states as we see in many western countries. They all have a thriving private economy, in fact the private economy is a necessity to fund the welfare programs.
I suspect the reason that its tried multiple times is because there is no ancient ideology (such as religion) that states clearly the disadvantages of centralization. Some people believe that there exists a moral absolute (aka God) and its their duty to proselytize to it. But unfortunately, they are gullible enough to further believe that such a system can be replicated by a human individual/group, and they hence proselytize to them instead (this is not a criticism of religion - but of a subset of its followers). Its not just communists that do that, there also such people as race-zealots (e.g. keep XYZ country white/brown/black), people concerned with political correctness (e.g. all criticism is bad and diversity is the highest ideal), etc. The pattern is the same, but the motif is large and exquisite.
Michael challenged Jordan more than any guest I’ve seen him interview.
This was a great conversation. Anytime you are challenged it causes you to think deeper. Adds clarity
Eric Metaxas is the only other guest I’ve seen put up such meaty, genuinely challenging arguments.
There is a very inconvenient pattern that runs throughout the entire phenomenon of communism, and as a result the "sanitization" of communism in America as well (which led to mass ignorance about communist atrocities). Michael and Jordan mentioned several leading communist figures, and most of those names denoted a certain ancestry even though they constituted a tiny minority of the population of what would become the Soviet Union. Yes, we allied with the USSR in WWII to fight "the worst devil." Worse according to who? Patton said we fought the wrong enemy. But of course the Third Reich was the worst according to a certain tribe and those who are controlled by them. National Socialism was their enemy, not ours, and necessarily ours, and communism was actually quite popular amongst them, which is a huge reason why Adolf Hitler was so anti-Semitic. He viewed Marxism as their invention and them as its vanguard, and he wasn't completely wrong. Michael and Jordan mentioned how the cultural institutions in America censored anything that portrayed communism in a negative light even during the Cold War. Who largely runs those cultural institutions in our country and was thus responsible for those pro-communist censorship efforts? Surely, you can connect the dots. I know Michael and Jordan won't, because libertarians are incapable of seeing groups, only individuals. So even if there was a cabal responsible for this phenomenon, they would only be capable of identifying and criticizing the individual components, and not the activities of the group as a whole.
left and right politics both killed 100M people. the right through religion
@@theviewbot Oyest of veys, indeed. Your point about collusion is a good one. For me, it's just painful to see Western man mentally shackled to this dogmatic moral code of individualism. I'm not a pure collectivist either, but as Kipling so eloquently put it: "the strength of the Pack is the Wolf, and the strength of the Wolf is the Pack." If our own moral framework discourages us from seeing groups at all, we will ignore the fact that we are a group with shared interests. It will also discourage us from identifying the collaborative efforts of hostile outgroups, leaving us incredibly vulnerable. A group that collaborates based on their group identity (and self-perception as an outgroup at odds with the interests of their host society) can literally get away with anything in a host society where individualist thinking is the norm.
Honestly I've seen the leftist authoritarians say things like "wait until you see him debate something that isn't his area of specialty" and now I have to say I'm thoroughly impressed.
When was the last time you had a conversation where you were able to talk for 5-10 minutes straight without interruption to fully get get your point across? The friends and family in my life NEVER just sit and listen intently and let my point fully come out and truly be formed. What a complete joy it must be to be these men and be able to engage in such a high level patient conversation. Well done gentleman, we’ll done!
Oh, God, not once in my life. Except when I was paying the person across the table.
Probably because you’re hard to listen to and a bad conversationalist, if it’s everyone around you it’s probably you not then
@@kellfarley4711 - 🤦🏻♂️😂
Been there, done that...
Most family members want agreement and not contentious speech.
/
It shouldn't take a 10 minute monologue to get your point across
The last 20 minutes of this discussion are pure gold. A lesson on how to have an intellectual disagreement without personal attacks or a frustrated walking away. We all just got better for watching it.
left and right politics both killed 100M people. the right through religion
for me was the whole conversation magic
I came here to listen to Michael Malice, and the interviewer Jordan Peterson hogs The majority of the time. He’s got to stop doing that. It’s totally annoying. If I wanna listen to Jordan Peterson I will listen to just him. It’s terrible. Michael Malice is great, but this interview get a thumbs down because of Jordan Peterson
@@steveperreira5850its jordans show
@@steveperreira5850 Are you really complaining that Jordan Peterson is talking on his own YT channel? Michael has his own YT channel. If you want to hear Michael without Jordan Peterson, I'd advise not watching the Jordan Peterson channel.
I've listened to about 1000 hours of Jordan and maybe 100 hours of Michael, and this was the most interesting conversation I've heard from either. Jordan is not the best at interviewing others, often interrupting the guest and imposing upon them, but Michael was the perfect guest to counter that personality. The interplay was perfectly balanced.
Gaaaayyyyy
Whhaat?? He's literally a paragon of interviewing other people
I agree. In his enthusiasm coupled with his stature, Peterson can probably seem imposing to some guests. But I don’t think that’s intentional but I can see how that could be interpreted as such. To your point, yes those two have great chemistry. Michael wasn’t playing the fool or trolling and Jordan wasn’t able to just do intellectual circles around malic and they both seemed totally engrossed in the ideas and the dissection of each one. Like their brains were fully engaged.
@@stickygrenade
I didn't say he wasn't very good, I said he isn't the best. Bari Weiss is better. So is Dave Rubin, and Rogan obviously.
I'd rather Peterson lecture than interview others, because his instinct is to lecture, and he turns an interview into that. Malice would cut Peterson off from cutting him off. It was an actual discussion instead of a lecture pretending to be a discussion.
@@drbennyboombatz9195
That severely constricts your pool of eligible suitors, but don't give up.
I would pay very good money for these two to have a regular show with each other, and even more to have an occasional 3rd party guest appearance. This talk was stimulating beyond belief and nearly unfathomably impressive. Incredible work by two incredible minds.
I nominate James Lindsay for third person.
There is a tiny handful of people who could keep up with both these guys at once.
@@haroldfarquad6886sir or madame, I believe that if the three of those men regularly meet in the same room and Eric Weinstein or Lex Friedman accidentally come within a mile of that room, we would see the collapse of intellectual space time as if someone had accidentally divided by zero.
That being said, let’s make it happen. The rewards far outweigh the risk.
@@haroldfarquad6886 yes! three in many ways very different personalities that bring something different to the table, that would be great,
@@haroldfarquad6886 very very good choice!
This is one of the best interviews in a long while. Dr Peterson was so animated that I thought his chair was going to collapse. This one definitely goes onto the watch again list.
It was like Peterson knew Malice could mentally keep pace with him so he just let himself go wherever his thoughts lead him. More than once Malice finished Peterson's sentences for him. Nice to see both so comfortable with each other.
Agreed
Hundo. Loved it
I love Jordan and his energy but he is way too eager to cut his guests off and go on very long winded rants. He needs to let his guest finish their point first before he launches into his own. He’s done this in numerous discussions and it’s frustrating
@@brianmeen2158 JP has a very clear weakness (or strength) and that is when his personal values are attacked in anyway (directly or indirectly) he gets agitated (or curious). In his case it's both. Dude is not self-aware (or really self aware). But, in any case a simple solution for his stress is to just know that he has access to all the information in the world (he does not have the answers).
The balance on the stress part is weak and that is his biggest weakness, not his very clear weakness from line 1 of the previous paragraph. JP personal values means that he thinks his clear weakness is his weakness. But, this analysis is ironic because I am analysing JP from a purely utilitarian point of view while monetarily and mentally being absolutely broke. Edit: line 1 of the previous*
I can’t express how happy I am about this. Michael Malice’s commentaries on the Soviet Union are some of the most powerful things I have ever heard. With Jordan Peterson’s insight? I couldn’t be happier.
read the white pill!!!!!
good read, very sad.
I was in Czech Republic and Slovakia this past summer: They were limiting Air conditioning everywhere during one of the major heat waves of the decade. They proudly explained that they gladly went without and paid higher premiums for fuel and power from Germany if it meant they weren't supplying Russia with money for the Ukraine war. They loved to share stories of shaking off the Soviet Bloc yolk. It was very moving
Jeez, one of the sincerest thinkers with a great sense of humor, having a conversation with a brilliant jester with a profound sense of sincerity. What an incredible conversation. I'm going to have to watch this again.
Michael Malice is Hoid 😉
@@Shoutinthewind dude, totally!
Michael is the one that put the nail in the coffin of my belief that the state can be used for good. I went from anti gun, pro abortion, male feminist to right leaning pro republican to anti gov libertarian. We need to spread the idea that you don't have to default to a political party that barely shares a belief with you.
@@flameguy3416 I'm not anti abortion. I'm no longer pro abortion. Abortion is a way more complicated subject than simply being pro abortion, anti abortion, pro choice and being libertarian does not necessarily equate to being pro abortion.
@@donnyg1984 if you had met me while I was going through my change, you probably would have gotten an emotional response as well. It was a process that took a couple years for me to go from leftist to libertarian. The first thing was my brother showing me a gun he got as a gift. I looked up gun statistics because I wanted to argue to him that he's more likely to die from that gun then to use it in defense and get rid of the gun and that led me to realize that the politicians on the anti gun Democrats and leftists are either wrong about how their using the stats or are intentionally lying about it. That was a very difficult thing for me to process because I was utterly opposed to gun ownership. Later on I started investigating other aspects of my political beliefs because I knew if I was being lied to about guns, then I was obviously being lied to about other things. One of the major linch pins was realizing how the media lied about Trump. I'm not technically a fan of Trump, but he is by no means the monster he's portrayed. In my realization of the left being liars, I went to the opposite end and just jumped on the republican side. A couple years ago I saw Michael Malice as a guest on another show, I believe it was Tim Pool, and everything he said I instantly recoiled from, but could not argue against. When you adhere to party politics far long enough, it's very hard to not want to latch on to a group identity. Michael gave me that other path
So in other words you came full circle.
There's a picture Image online that may point out your rebuttal? It's a small group of Local Conservative town Mayor's giving the middle finger, towards non-local Large Federal Washington Republicans. With regards towards the 2016 elections.
Again someone correct me if I'm completely wrong about this? There's Local needs and goals and then there's, National needs and goals. Which are two very different things?
Nebraska, Omaha
You'll be an anarchist in about 6 months.
I was a classical liberal for my entire life until COVID started (March 2020). Voted that year for the first time, felt disillusioned. Became libertarian through people like Eric July and Dave Smith (and then looked at the greats like Ron Paul, Thomas Sowell, Milton Friedman) and then went further into libertarianism and read Rothbard and Hayek. Was a libertarian for maybe a year and then I just decided to declare anarchism, mostly because of how little people understand libertarianism. I got tired of explaining it over and over to the people that don't care to look for themselves.
I haven't seen Dr Peterson EVER wrestle ideas with any other guest quite like this... awesome discussion. 🤩
Yeah, hearing a host talk 3/1 over a guest who has to stop him to even get a single point in is just spectacular!
@@Knitting_aand_knitting_aandIt's Peterson's show! Not Michaels. But funnier still, Michael even admits during this interview that it's Petersons show and he's in control and quite happy to play by the rules and voluntarily enter into the conversation. Just out of curiosity...did you watch the interview? By the way, where is it written that an interview has to be 50/50?
@@Knitting_aand_knitting_aand he is talking through the idea with him if you are looking for a malice interview go find one lol
@@Knitting_aand_knitting_aandlike it’s literally in the title “discussing” Jesus
@@Knitting_aand_knitting_aandto each his own.. I thought it flowed fairly well. The whole point of these interviews is for the listener to learn the most they can in the most digestible, enjoyable way possible (no matter who is speaking). I think that was fairly well accomplished.
There's really nothing like these 2 men having a conversation. This should be a weekly show.
Sometimes I think his entire podcast should just be Michael Malice every other week, and Douglas Murray the other week.
Peterson is overrated. Like many boomers, people mistake his confidence for being right just because he sounds good, and uses a large vocabulary.
Malice is a decent person, but he's got some ideas that just dont add up. I dont care for when he argues emotionally over logically either.
Konstantine Kosin, Lex Fridman, Tom Biyeou, and Saifedean Ammous are alot better at using logic to solve problems.
But these two are ok to listen to - I just never get much out of it.
@Scorch428 I'm glad at least one person knows what perfection is. Go listen to Raz0rfist you doomer lol.
Agreed. I could listen to these two on philosophical societal issues a lot more
here here
I believe this interview should be seen by every person graduating from high school before they go to college. This is one of the most succinct and easy to be understood conversations on the topic of putting groups rights over individuals rights. I'm currently in the process of showing this to my class (I am a teacher) and they are shocked and it is changing lives. Thank you for posting this.
Good luck man hope you don’t lose your job 👏🏼😐
Yes!!!!!!
We need more professors like yoruself!!
I’m not sure it’s as simple as class…., class………., CLASS,SHUT UP, thank you. Empathy and emotional intelligence please.
Yes. Also, every American no matter what age, faith, race.
This was a highly impressive discussion. It's rare to see someone engage so effectively and maintain their stance so well in a conversation with Peterson.
I totally agree and part of what struck me about this conversation is that Michael seems to operate much more successfully from a somewhat defensive position. He holds his line and expresses his views much more successfully in my opinion in this scenario than he does when he is delivering a monologue.
I often agree with many of his arguments but not with his conclusions when he lays out his views unchallenged.
@@ijustwannaleaveacommentony6511 I always found many of Michael’s views to be overly reliant on wishful thinking to some degree. Like you said, often better in theory than actually being practical.
Jordan’s summation at the end, of “alright, so it seems we agree, which is very very annoying” was funny to me in relation to all that.
@@chasedwards9626wow this is actually very similar to my experience with him … I always wondered why I love him as a guest but do not watch his own stuff that regularly. But then again I own both his books and they were some of the best yet must painful reads of my life. He shines light on the worst of the worst of human nature
It's times like this when I think that we need to spend like 5 years not talking; only observing. And smiling. :)❤
impractical? this is basic property law and its literally the most effective law there is. @@ijustwannaleaveacommentony6511
Michael Mallice's JRE appearances are always top tier. Seeing him on JP's podcast hits like a fever dream.
His appearances on Lex Fridman podcasts are so great as well
These two are two of the most glorious minds on Earth right now IMHO.
His show 'Your Welcome' is great too. He has great guests all the time.
@@DelbzyI think Lex and Malice will probably get married
He appeared once already.
"It turns out that we agree... and that's very annoying..." Absolute gold ... this is probably the best discussion I have witnessed - TY!
@@MostlySteve The education system is not teaching critical thinking so take it upon yourself to educate others around you. You can't win them all but each small victory matters. Sometimes you have to get creative but it grows you as well.
A truly fantastic contrast in outer level ideals….that snaked into some logical traps.
JP has a thirst for finding the traps in every position, definition and theory….even his own.
It cracked me up his mentioning “Big Bang Theory” - what an episode could have been written with Jordan and Sheldon in the same room!
And The USA is quite the opposite. It turns out we disagree, now I can pontificate.
Michael Malice is the best! And, of course, JP is a beast 💪🏻
People cannot claim to be good yet still support a system of government. Good people dont coerce or support coercion. Glad Peterson understands anarchism and is morally in line with it.
I fully realize that Dr. Peterson is using his phone for notes and podcast outline. But it’s humorous to imagine that he’s doing something mundane like texting someone or playing a game on his phone while he discusses the horrors of the Russian Revolution in specific detail just off the top of his head.
This is actually hilarious. You should have many more likes for this
@@benjaminschimpf421 thank you for acknowledging the great injustice. Haha
People pull out their phones for train wrecks; Play Method Actor with Excessive Emotional Outbursts, just for brownie points on social media.
It's difficult to discern the real from the fake at times. Hence discernment and discrimination must be made.
Dr. Peterson plays doodle jump during these conversations, it’s symbolic
Candy crush addiction?
As a Gen Xer (born 1975, now 48) we were taught in public schools that communism is an "economic" system when in fact communism is all encompassing of peoples' lives. Had we been taught the WHOLE truth we would've noticed this new cultural Marxism and racialized Marxism much earlier and it wouldn't have gotten this far.
Communists always go after the education systems for indoctrination purposes.
Lies by omission
yep
My parents taught me. I’m a little younger, ‘81. My peers laughed at me for calling the current system closer to socialism than capitalism. I’ve been laughed at for calling out authoritarianism my since my second year college. I’ve been vindicated but not recognized for it.
So how is capitalism any different? Its predations encompass all of its residents lives as well.
This self serving intellectual dishonesty has to stop. 😢
It’s great to see how well this conversation went compared to the last one. I think Peterson really understands Malice’s conception of anarchy now and the discussion of the Soviet Union was great.
It's hard for JP to converse with someone so low in the Big 5 trait of Agreeableness. I love JP, but it's nice to see him get pushed. I think he learns more this way.
There is a very inconvenient pattern that runs throughout the entire phenomenon of communism, and as a result the "sanitization" of communism in America as well (which led to mass ignorance about communist atrocities). Michael and Jordan mentioned several leading communist figures, and most of those names denoted a certain ancestry even though they constituted a tiny minority of the population of what would become the Soviet Union. Yes, we allied with the USSR in WWII to fight "the worst devil." Worse according to who? Patton said we fought the wrong enemy. But of course the Third Reich was the worst according to a certain tribe and those who are controlled by them. National Socialism was their enemy, not ours, and necessarily ours, and communism was actually quite popular amongst them, which is a huge reason why Adolf Hitler was so anti-Semitic. He viewed Marxism as their invention and them as its vanguard, and he wasn't completely wrong. Michael and Jordan mentioned how the cultural institutions in America censored anything that portrayed communism in a negative light even during the Cold War. Who largely runs those cultural institutions in our country and was thus responsible for those pro-communist censorship efforts? Surely, you can connect the dots. I know Michael and Jordan won't, because libertarians are incapable of seeing groups, only individuals. So even if there was a cabal responsible for this phenomenon, they would only be capable of identifying and criticizing the individual components, and not the activities of the group as a whole.
@googleisskynet7312 just because evil people belong to a group/tribe, doesn't make the whole tribe evil. That tribe succeeds in all fields, so of course the evil among them would be amongst the worst bad people. Quit portraying it as the whole group of people. It's individuals actions.
@@googleisskynet7312Hitler hated Jews not because of Communism, but jealousy. It was the Jews that correctly hedged against the German fiat currency that fed their war machine and was responsible for bankrupting its citizenry. The Jews were investing their money out of country in Israel, both because of historical ties and because of viscous persecution. So the Nazis thought they could rob them and destroy their weakness as a united people by denigrating their strongest members. Socialism is ultimately the same evil as Communism, because it leads to a culture of entitlement and jealously confiscates to achieve it.
left and right politics both killed 100M people. the right through religion
As a Cuban immigrant who came here at the age of 6 years old and became a citizen at 15 only to go back to Cuba to bring medicine, clothes and other necessities for living to a nation that swore itself to its people yet robbed them of everything including food is the epitome of vengeful nihilism for me personally. In other words, I’d be willing to do a n y thing against them after watching my people starve and wither in silent oppression for over 60 years now. How many more generations? Where is our Human Rights???!!!!!!
100%
Totally agree.
A friend of mine went to cuba for half a year to work there. I think he lost about 30% of his body mass during that time. And not by choice.
Hey dude! That's the fault of your adopted country's EMBARGO!!!!!
I always hate these stories about which "ism" is great and which is mean. I honestly don't give a sh*t which "ism" you want to promote, but let's be real. The only thing that matters is what happens when power is grabbed by a smaller group of elites, and that can happen in any "ism" including capitalism. There is no magic free market that will stop that from happening without proper regulations and a way to prevent wealth from accumulating at the top. That doesn't mean we tax all rich people to death. We tax the hell out of wealth that is strangling economic progress. Wealth just for the sake of wealth and power. It also doesn't mean we regulate every aspect of human life like real communism. But that also doesn't mean you let capitalists do what they want. I can make a neverending list of how capitalists have abused the system in the USA to become very wealthy without offering something beneficial to society.
@@henrythegreatamerican8136 There are anti-trust laws in place. Time to start enforcing laws meant to protect the people.
Watching Michael challenge one of the greatest thinkers of our time is amazing. I'm sure there are MANY topics these two gentlemen could (and SHOULD) discuss. I'm far more informed and enlightened after this discussion.
Michael is the reason I don't trust the government and a big reason I'm Libertarian. Thank you Michael!
YAYAYYA! NH Free State Project- look us up
I always wondered, pardon my English, what is the main difference between libertarian and anarchy? Just curious where you draw the line.
@nickschwaller3154 everyone will have a different answer. Its kinda the point.
@@victorygarden556 Oh alright, thanks for clearing that up for me.
@@victorygarden556 Well... Tom Woods described Anarchy as "No 'archy'. No arbitrary rule."
I'm 75% of the way through, and I already wish this conversation could go on for many more hours. Absolutely amazing to be a third set of ears to! Michael and Jordan are both so involved and honestly exploring ideas here! Absolutely love it!
Very interesting and fast-moving conversation. Malice proves more than up to the challenge, putting Dr. Peterson on the spot more than a few times with his interjections and corrections. These two should follow this up with another extended chat.
left and right politics both killed 100M people. the right through religion
It's precisely conversations like this that makes it feel so worth it to be an avid book reader. Being able to follow most if not all of the arguments throughout because I've read Solzhenitsyn, I've read The Fountainhead, I've read Camus, I've studied the Bible.. it's such a rewarding feeling to be able to follow along in a high level conversation like this
So rewarding that you felt the need to post it in a YT comment section to brag.
This is a wonderful example of how discourse should go. Making sure you are on the same page/have the same definition before proceeding the discussion. Providing a preface to let others know they may correct you or step in if they disagree at some point. While also having the patience to allow someone to completely convey their thoughts before interjection. Masterclass. I wish more people could have discussions like this. In relation to behavior, not necessarily subject matter.
Michael Eric Dyson should take note of how to compose an intellectual debate from this after his grotesque display during the Munk talks.
Check out Eric Weinstein and Chris Williamson "Why Can No One Agree on the Truth Anymore?" . Also a very good example.
Finally! 1:41:46 A deep dive on Michael Malice's anarchy, JPs questioning has been super insightful here. I really, truly enjoyed this whole conversation!
It really was due to JP’s willingness to figure out what MM was defining as “force”. Perhaps MM was encouraging JP to tease out what is the difference between force and self-defense, along the boundary of private property. Without that boundary, many people get into a moral conundrum of confusing all such actions under the umbrella of Force/Violence. Hence, most modern liberals have no response to acts of terrorism / violence except to “be tolerant.” Good on MM for “defending” the line of demarcation to be defined rather than allow the normative views continue to cloud the issue with equivocation. But that is a frustrating process. So good for JP for having the patience to work that out rather than “force” the normative definitions on MM. Great examples of dialogue by both Men.
I could listen to these two students of history talk all day, INCREDIBLE.
I asked myself why was this conversation so engaging and expansive yet substantive: it was the willingness of both Dr. Peterson and Malice to play. Spar. Respectfully but to the hilt of skill and substance. THE COMEDY! The Lex call out! The LOLs! It almost veered into OG Sam Harris convo cringe but the play of expansive learning was awesome. Bravo both of you. I've a rooter for you both!
I could have easily listened to another 2 hours of this conversation. It was absolutely fantastic. Jordan really listened to what Michael was expressing and Michael was on his very best behaviour for the most part lol. I'd love a follow up to this for sure.
I love your comment about Michael’s best behavior. Jordan really is bringing out the best in him.
I have a new level of respect for Malice's ability to be an astute interlocutor. ESPECIALLY being taken to task so vigorously on his anarchist viewpoint. 🤛🏻
Reminds of the non binary T-shirts sold for men and women.
Having individually rights is something that has to be protected in an organised way which isn’t individual.
I haven't gotten all the way through this discussion and I'm not as comfortable as you are with his answers.
Maybe I need to immerse myself in his ideas a little more and I'm not keeping up with the deeper parts of this conversation. I think he's skirting a fatal flaw though which I like to compare to the problem around a parent correcting a child.
The anarchists I'm familiar with seem to think that correcting a child is a form of tyranny yet what parent won't slap a childs hand away from a naked flame or open electrical circuit?
As far as I can tell the abstract idea of parenting becomes the crux of the problem when dealing with a child in a dangerous world. I suspect there's a paradox that Michael is missing which is that in essence he's right as far as the ideal state is as he describes it. The issue is that we're maturing at different rates and the dangers we face require protection from ourselves. The bigger issue is in the question "Who decides who's mature enough and when".
I don't know if there is an answer. The Republican idea to my understanding begins with a kind of hierarchical structure that puts the individual responsible to the community under the state, under the law, answerable to God.
Maybe the layered abstractions are enough to allow some kind of civilisation to flourish because it simply confuses us enough to step in line. Maybe the idea of an incorruptible Godhead is nessesary to circumvent the trauma we hold in our hearts for the correction we receive from the lower layers.
I wish I could articulate it better but I suspect that Michael holds just another idealistic view that fails with the same certainty that communism does because he doesn't have a clear understanding of the world we inhabit.
Communism as far as I csn tell fails because it requires compulsion over voluntarism with regards to supporting the dispossessed.
Anarchy on the other hand seems to me to act like a vacuum for the worst of our nature to manifest freely.
So in the same way a Communist might make the claim that if they were in charge the utopia would be able to flourish the anarchist does exactly the same with the benifit of not having to be responsible for the tyranny that flourishes in the absence of a proper parental response to the condition we find ourselves in.
In other words it's a bit like the vacuous nature of virtue signalling. You take no responsibility for the calamity that unfolds in the wake of a flawed ideological imperative.
Unless I missed it, Jordan never posited the result of someone who is a bad faith actor AND IS ALSO too strong to be individually taken down. This individual anarchy seems to require the vast majority of people to be Good Kings of a sort; powerful but unwilling to use it to bad ends. This seems inherently contradictory to real world examples.
Bro don't be throwing words out I've never seen before. Making me google shit
@@stargate525i am curious what you mean by a "too powerful bad actor" Samuel colt made all men equal if you recall 😉
Michael Malice & Murray Rothbard were the two to push me from a minarchist to anarchist at the beginning of COVID and I hope they can do the same for more people
Anarchism is a bit too utopian and naive in my view. It's the equivalent of looking at a war and saying you now want to live in a world without weapons. It will never happen. There will always be governments as much as we may not like them. The key, I believe is discipline, restraint and courage. It's easy to say, let's just get rid of government, but what is much harder to do, is to cage it and tame it to some degree. Miniarchism, as you mentioned is actually a reasonable position and something that should be talked about more, and is also how America was founded. Minimal government is the way.
rothbard’s free-market libertarian, malice is more anarcho-capitalist (an-cap) than pure anarchist *more authors on anarchy: mikhail bakunin, petr kropotkin, emma goldman, pierre-joseph proudhon, noam chomsky, murray bookchin, david graeber, abdullah ocalan
The only thing about an anarchist society, which my people were (Acadians) is that if you’re doing well for yourselves and a super power likes what you’ve done with the place, you’re so much easier to pick off. Especially if you have nothing else uniting you, like religion.
The “I just want to be left alone” people will be at mercy of the people that don’t want to.
@@acaydia2982 If you're small and surrounded by aggressive neighbors, sure. If not...not so much. Also, if you're a small, weak locality, you do what *ALL* small, weak localities have done throughout history: you form alliances with others and actively take steps to correct your deficiencies. But this whole train of thought is known colloquially as the "Warlords" fallacy among nerdy political philosophy types who enjoy argument (not me). Look it up if you're curious. Merry Christmas!
@@wuhaninstituteofvirologyIs there a reason you don't include Berkman, when he was explicitly invoked along with Goldman in this conversation?
TBH, without an explicit reason for exclusion, it sort of implies that you didn't actually base your critique of Malice's anarchism on what he says in this conversation... so then you're out of context unless you're willing to provide a reference to back your stated opinion.
This is the most incredible discussion I have listened to for many years.
I only pressed play to get a quick idea of what was to be discussed and ended up so engaged that I watched until the very end and didn’t even want it to end at all.
Thank you both for such thought-provoking stuff and for making a man who believed his life to be at a desperate and negative point; re-evaluate it and see light sparkle through the pitch black.
That may sound melodramatic but it’s absolutely sincere and I’ll never forget this very moment.
From the bottom of my heart; thank you to Jordan Peterson and Michael Malice.
Incredible!
What a time to be alive where we get to watch discussions like this. Nothing short of amazing. Both of you have been such a huge influence on my thinking over the years!
It’s almost a privilege to be raised raised by people who make you take personal responsibility. It’s the gift of freedom.
My parenting style isn't laziness, it's benevolent neglect.
"The worst thing you can do for someone is that which they should - and must - do for themselves."
Almost a privilege?
@@gilil1696 Yes. It is an advantage to be born to parents that teach you self sufficiency. The alternative is to be born to parents that don’t teach you how to take care of yourself and you suffer and/or become dependent until you learn for yourself how to be independent
Agreed.
I listened to Michael malice's white pill book when it first came out. It's his only book I haven't been able to listen through more than once. While the others had heavy topics this hit a new level. I literally cried at work. I can't do it again just yet.
The story about the girl dying in the bread line just on this show is very emotional
Michael taped himself reading a few chapters, and he himself cried in many parts while reading his own work. I think that's when you know you've written something correctly. When you read it and it drives that much emotion from you, you've written it right.
I bought Michael's book after hearing him talk about it on podcasts. I have not been able to bring myself to listen to it for the same reason.
Iol... No Crybabies
Lord a'mighty. Listening to two sharp and smart guys talk about this subject matter.....deeply satisfies the intellect. Malice continues to shine. I should get to know him better, though I've never read Rand. Dr. Peterson: one of the only guys around who speaks in entire paragraphs. Makes me think of Professor Northrop Fry.
Well done guys.
It tickles me to see "Lord a'mighty" as a response to such a high-level dialogue. I'll bet Peterson and Malice would be pleased as well.
Yes, coastal elites, even we bumpkins in flyover country who say things like "Lord a'mighty" can follow such deep ideas. That's because they resonate with the eternal that we intuitively know to be true.
You really should read Rand. Atlas Shrugged is a long read but worth it. It has changed many lives for the better. If 900 pages is too much, start with "The Virtue of Selfishness." I read that in a few hours. Well worth it!
@@GeorgeDoughty-m8e. She has another book called, if I recall correctly, For The New Intellectual
It is a sort of overview of her core ideas and beliefs, it gives most of the flavour with a lot less chewing..
The way these two conduct their conversation is refreshing to the point where the subject matter is no longer the reason why I continue to listen.
There's no strawmaning. No cutting the other person off. No talking in circles or talking past somebody. They give time to one another to express their ideas and make sure both people can agree on what was said and meant before exploring further. It makes every other form of discussion seem juvenile and the equivalent of junk food devoid of nutrition. There are many others who engage on this level, obviously but this has probably been the best example.
Yes, I couldn’t agree more. I loved the cadence of their conversation and the way they conducted it.
Watch Mike with Lex. Gold. They dress up.
It's because they're both comfortable in their knowledge in their subject matter. Also they're not afraid to learn something new or have a fresh perspective in their views. They are real intellectuals who's goal is to learn as opposed to being right all the time and attacking the other person when they fear their grift of being the expert is challenged. Unfortunately this space is full of these types.
I had the white pill ordered for me on my birthday on November 19th. About a month before that 3 weeks probably...I'm hoping now that it will be one of my Christmas presents. Also Jordan Peterson has been one of the most influential people in my life, someone I have deep admiration for. I'm so excited and excited to see and listen to this interview. Two of my best friends who don't even know I exist.
Usually I occupy myself with something while listening to JP interviews. Now this was rapid fire and unimaginably deep in discussion so I was glued to screen to being able to follow properly. I hope we get more of both this depth and also Mr Malice. Rough with English as a secondary language.
This is one of the episode’s that I have watched over and over. Always getting more revelation each time. Fascinating.
JP & MM are intellectual giants who make complex issues digestable. Plus, they fight for Truth. Thanks!
Peterson is barely digestable. He over thinks and thinks too quickly. Slow down bro.
@@davejoe75l don't think he thinks too quickly 🤔. All is perfectly understandable.
@@87stevanvinci wasn’t that important in the scheme of things
@@davejoe75it’s ok just say you can’t comprehend basic English and move on
And yet MM claims to despise intellectuals
Thank you for working so hard to articulate a clearer understanding of Michael’s concept of anarchism and Michael listened astutely and guided deftly to bring out that clarification. I meanwhile was gifted with this new understanding just for listening. Although I recognise I will have to repeat that several times to grasp and remember. ❤
THIS is my Christmas Present!! BEAUTIFUL!!! Malice is indeed a force and he just continues to get better. I can't hardly wait to see him 5yrs, 10yrs, 15yrs from now....
I enjoyed this discussion immensely and will rewatch as soon as I have to solitude to fully immerse myself and savor every volley.
Standing ovation🤗🤗🤗
After just the first 10 minutes I wish I could "like" this video a hundred times! Thank you for making and sharing with us!!
I love that Michael so nonchalantly tries to keep Jordan grounded in objectivity as such and not to have to rationalize it beyond that (reify it as something in itself).
This is the least self assured I have ever seen Jordan. Well done Michael, for being so able to comfortably articulate your philosophy.
The podcast with lex fridman and micheal are epic!
@@01BouwhuisI'd ask which one but all of them are great.
It's not (necessarily) a complex philosophy. It's no fun at all to grapple with anarchism, but as with everything, if you can get the premises right, the rest logically (and uncomfortably) follows.
@@dbmail545 Malice moved to the US when he was 2 years old. To act like he has some inherent superiority of knowledge regarding Communism from having "lived through it" is disingenuous at best.
"Least self assured" has a clear, negative connotation to it, I'm not sure if that was the intent , but I think it is unfair.
"I prefer clarity over agreement" - Dennis Prager
I think that is what Jordan was respectfully and intentionally trying to achieve and it seems its result was understanding and agreement, so to put any negative veil over it is counterproductive and demonstrative of a bias or disdain.
This is a much better format for Peterson than twitter.
Malice is a treasure.
It was really interesting to see Peterson thinking on his feet and out loud. An expert interlocutor is superior to a book, but we all can't have a conversation with Michael Malice.
This one is pretty good. I really admire Dr Peterson, but in the past I have watched him continually talk over guests that he invited! Looks like he has brought that into order a little bit. Well done, and Malice gave me a newfound respect for this particular school of anarchism.
Thank you Dr Peterson and Michael, that was a thoroughly enjoyable and robust conversation.
OH MY GOODNESS! I know who MM is and have seen him on podcasts a couple of times, but to go toe to toe with JBP is no small feat. They were both wonderful and I would love to see these 2 together again. I was so glad to be able to understand MM’s viewpoint in a much deeper way. Folks on other podcasts have asked him to explain them, but JBP just went so deep with no judgement, it was simply beautiful! Thank you, thank you, thank you!
I thank you both for the conversation revolving around some of Rand's ideas. As an amateur objectivist who frankly lacks the sophistication to think about these topics deeply, my brain is stretched in a pleasing fashion upon hearing these ideas challenged and countered.
If only more of us on the internet assessed our intellect with the same humility as yourself. That being said I recommend listening to the podcasts that Micheal Malice has done with Lex Fridman, I’m sure you’ll find them equally enjoyable.
The Gulag Archipelago is an epic story of my grandfather's hell and other millions like him. It took me six months to read it in small portions so my heart wouldn't break. I knew very little from my grandfather. After he was released in 1947, he had to agree he would never talk about it. He said very little: six years there, only 20% survived, spit froze before falling on the ground, food rations of half-pound of bread and one herring a day while 12-hour hard labor days, burying dead only in summer when the ground wasn't frozen. He wouldn't dare tell much, but he screamed in his sleep often. Only after he died, my grandmother said they ate dead people there. His greatest hope for us? Never to be starving. I would never dare to say I am starving.
I understood his Gulag punishment as a warning for ignorant people around me. Under such a regime, you can't trust anyone, not even your family members. Anyone has a potential to send you to hell and feel heroic about it. Anyone can turn into a regime collaborator and an unpaid police just as we all witnessed after 2020. Reading Gulag Archipelago could wake up the privileged generations who never experienced what humans can do to one another. Maybe then, gratitude, respect, grace, kindness, and generosity could finally grow replacing aggression, fear, ignorance and an unearned victimhood claims.
Gulag Archipelago is fiction, are you aware of that right?
@@shurochka771 if you were not there, don't make statements.
@@architektura204 the book Gulag Archipelago is literally fiction as its advertised by the author himself. You should read it as fiction, not real events in real world. Its fantasy. God bless you son.
It is a real story!
@@cathyw7067 as much as captain america is
It's beautiful watching them discuss, correct, and critique each other in a spirit of honest searching.
Well that was an eye-opening, informative, perspective changing, sickening, saddening, but much-needed conversation about the horrors of communism!! Thank you gentlemen!! Both of you are some of the greatest minds of our time!!
This was a truly vital conversation that every high school student should study. Protect these men and sing their praises, and share this video. Whether or not you believe we are at the precipice, share it with everyone.
Most high school students couldn’t follow this conversation let alone 30+ adults. Most people don’t have the iq to understand or engage meaningfully
Wow what a mouth full for 2 hours loved every second. I feel like I'm back in class re-learning everything new & old information. Keep sharing & introducing everyone always excited to see who's next or what topic will be next ❤ many blessings to you & everyone watching in this new Year
Larken Rose was the first person who made me question. Michael Malice was the one who gave me the cold nasty dose I needed. All of this happened during "two weeks to slow the spread". I went into house arrest a liberal, immerged two months later a conservative and now I am 100% an anarchist
LoL I feel ya
started as social-democrat, moved further left to "aggressive-progressive", (then briefly "green"), then skipped right past communism to anarchism (all-the-way-left + all-the-way-down > opposing everything at the top including all authoritarianisms: communism/fascism/feudalism/technocracy/theocracy/monarchy/autocracy, etc.)
@@wuhaninstituteofvirology LOL WOW LOL ya took the long route here but hey nice to meet ya lol and welcome to truth sanity and do t trust anyone or thing but YOU
“The worst thing about socialism is socialists.”
-George Orwell - Road to Wigan Pier
@@flameguy3416 Which is what makes his critique of them so scathing. He was devoted to the idea, but saw how many of its supporters drove away the very people, the proletariat for whom they pretended to care. If you’ve never read it, you should.
2 hours for these two is not, I REPEAT, IS NOT ENOUGH TIME to listen to these two. I enjoyed this talk so much and i want more!
I love the dynamic here and was glad to see the conversation finally break after so much tension in the air ... with Michael cheering and Jordan's brain exploding, it was beautiful ... and what a glorious ending for both ... though I would ultimately chalk it up as a win for Malice ... turning Jordan into the voluntary troll by the end of it?? Brilliantly done!!! Bravo, a real treat for fans of both. Please do it again soon!
|"Curiosity"| Rarely have I been able to detect in Peterson's reactions and words such an impetus for knowing the logic and/or structure behind his interlocutor's thoughts and ideas. |"Fascination"| This seems to have automatically taken the conversation to a kind of "intellectual sublimation" stage, a "state-of-the-art" rarely reached in an exchange of ideas like this. |Result?| As I saw this video on Christmas Day, I can only thank these two for everything I ended up absorbing and learning from having the pleasure of watching every minute of this conversation. Thank you both very much for this wonderful gift!
Fascinating conversation! One thing Jordan and Michael spoke about was these lazy intellectuals who never succeeded in life because they skated through their educational years and expected they would be a success because of their “intellectual superiority “. I’m 62 and in my life I’ve seen more success from people with average intelligence who simple worked very hard throughout their lives. Most of them had a lot of common sense and learned from their mistakes. There is no substitute for hard work.
what purpose would be served with having superior intellect, with no corresponding virtues?
Humility - the ability or desire to learn from one's mistakes - is greatly under-rated.
Nobody tells university students that intelligence is not a substitute for wisdom.
In fact, their professors tell them to hate everything that's not rational. Like the fools they are.
Wow, at 37 minutes that was ME! I was the “intelligent” kid that could show up to class and get an A, highest scores on all the standardized tests without trying. Luckily I went into chemical engineering and got a 37% on my first calculus 2 exam and had to spend ~60hrs a week figuring out how to actually learn… I’m sure many have sought paths without real challenge to completely tear them down and humble them. I am unbelievably grateful for the hell hole that I put myself in and crawled out of.
Damn someone else exactly the same story. I nearly lost my academic scholarship in Calc 2 while pursuing my chem engineering degree. It was the semester when i figured out profs didn’t care if you showed up and put in work. But you would suffer consequences.
@@spudkelly I did lose my academic scholarship, I was also a Pole Vaulter and couldn’t get off the ground for over a month. I made a plan to take my life, did a walk-through, and scheduled it the day before my 2nd exam. By some stupid fucking luck, a friend convinced me to try psilocybin mushrooms the weekend before. I can’t explain it, but I was able to see my problems from about 100 new perspectives. Monday, I cleared a new personal record in pole vault 6 times in a row, decided to try my second Calc 2 exam. I got an 88%… I haven’t made a plan since. Plus I was able to make up for the academic scholarship loss by earning more athletic scholarship by placing at conference that year. Idk if I’d recommend it to everyone, but it somehow changed my life.
You’re is the plight of the intelligent in schools. Schools (particularly public hs) teach to the lowest common denominator thus shortchanging it stifling the intelligent
@tylerfraker9304
I wish my sister could have pulled herself out of her own misery the way you did, but unfortunately she didn't make it. If you live and succeed for those who can't, it's very comforting to me
Peterson can try my patience because he’s so relentless and so pedantic but he’s also unfailingly honest, which, when combined with good faith makes for an unusual but good interview.
Malice barely got a word in as Peterson worked out his own doubts about Randian Libertarianism, but Malice answered every single query competently.
It ends up being a fascinating interview despite Peterson’s irritating pushiness and also because of it!
I have to hear more Malice.
Considering Peterson did about 70% of the talking this was not a conversation in any sense of the word. Definitely a display of someone who'd rather hear their own musings we've all heard time and again over his "guest's", if you could call him that.
@@saintmarkspicturesllc3592 I still say Peterson’s an honest person, Malice was the hostile witness under a barrage. And Malice won.
This 100%
Malice did incredibly well with the short amount of time he was allowed to speak.
haha, he kinda did get bowled over a bit
Malice gets it right, he's an anarchist because he knows that the differences between all governments are by degree, not form.
What do you mean by this exactly?
@@dominickbisozio The fundamental principle, or foundation of all governments is the claimed right to the initiation of the use of force against all people within a geographical boundary.
In fact, what I just said here is the best definition of the word government. So, the foundation is the same for the government of North Korea and Norway and the United States. I used the word "form" to indicate the common principle or foundation of all governments. What gets built on top of that foundation is what varies, not the foundation.
@@furyofbongos thank you for clarifying that makes sense. You seem to be very intelligent and are very good at articulating your thoughts via writing 👍🏼
@@dominickbisozio "You Are Welcome!"
Watching Jordan confront anarchy? AND melt his brain? WAS PURE GOLD!
He didn't melt his brain. The issues he was grappling with is that the anarchists cloak their meaning in miss attributed definitions. This makes getting to the bottom of what is smoke screen and what is intent difficult.
In fact I would go so far as to posit that anarchism is inherently flawed and deeply suspect in intented out come, as evidenced by their blatant refusal to speak plainly and define their intentions clearly.
Though I presonally have other structural concerns about anarchism for example if we are willing to take it in the most positive light (something that it would be clearly wrong to do as they cloak their intent), their posited social structure doesn't work with human nature. If it just worked we would see it succeeding on its own merits. Among the many issues it suffers is an inability to properly manage parasites and skarks (as Jordan rightly brought up), people who will intentionally destroy the system in service of their own goals or short sighted interest.
@@deathtdow I always think of The Walking Dead in these scenarios. Once the zombie outbreak happens, the whole country becomes an anarchist state by default, and honey, it sure doesn't stay that way. You got groups of people forming loose associations that all eventually run into either a cult leader or a warlord and those both end up having the largest communities. The warlord in particular has the largest "community" because he rounds up everyone's guns so they have no choice but to do what he says. He then "redistributes" what he takes from everyone to his top goons to ensure their loyalties, AND he makes their wives live with him as collateral.
The major problem with anarchism is that it has zero preventative measures OR reactionary measures it can take against bad actors. It advocates for no government, so there isn't an ounce of centralization or regulation that can catch a wannabe warlord before he gains too much power, so by the time such an actor DOES appear, because everyone is only loosely associated with each other and only by pure choice, there is now no collective allegiance big enough to topple the warlord that has his own private army. The only thing that can take him out is another army, and once they take over, they're likely to just establish an actual government that they run with the reasoning of "well that didn't go great, so we'll just stick around long enough to make sure this doesn't happen again" but then they never leave, so the government just keeps going and growing and....oh shit, I just described the history of human association. Whoops. Turns out we already tried anarchism thousands of years ago and every single time it led to the formation of a government to ensure stability. But sure, let's tear it all down one more time and see what happens this time.
Hahahaha are you trying to impress someone in the comments? It's a bold move to express an opinion on something without watching or listening but if it works for you then who am I to judge?
@@Tohlemiach People didn't have decentralized distributed information back then. Nowadays most people have easy access to almost infinite (in comparison to a few decades ago) knowledge as long as they want to search for it. Also, with decentralization of content creation, anyone has a potential to reach lots of people with their ideas. The individual has much more power to resist certain types of tyranny/manipulation today than ever before, starting by the ideological domain. In a sense, society is migrating towards anarchy in many little ways - not because they believe in this ideology necessarily, but because it's what works best for them. Like the EBay example he gave in the video.
@@geekley you can communicate good ideas all you want, but the moment that plan falls through and a warlord arises, you now have no system to bring him down. That’s the point. There is NO contingency plan. It relies entirely on the assumption that we’ll have no more ultra violent charismatic psychopaths which is such an absurd idea it’s laughable.
This conversation embodies good faith discussion in my opinion. It's difficult to find anyone willing or able to have these conversations. Much appreciated.
Great conversation Michael & Jordan. Especially, talking about people who intentionally create havoc for others whilst virtue signalling to be moral. I have experienced many, many things on Canada, over many years. Not at all feeling sorry for my self but it makes me happy, people are starting to wake up to the truth of the divide and conquer in Canada. All we can do is to scold them whilst being heart centred and create firm boundaries, hoping, they would stop the nonsense. Shine On!✨✨✨
This discussion is a delightful.
As a person who lived during communism in Eastern Europe (Bulgaria), I can share with you from personal experience.
One of the most terrifying illusions was that if you didn't do wrong things, you wouldn't be punished.
That was a total lie.
Due to the militarized hierarchical totalitarian system in which there was a constant shortage of basic necessities, the only medium of exchange was debt service.
For example, if someone was building a house but could not find even two bags of cement because of the shortage, then I, working in a certain position in a cement factory, could easily provide him with a truckload of cement in exchange for a future service.
That's how the system worked under socialism.
With this in mind, it was relatively easy to destroy another person, for whatever reason, by demanding a favor from the relevant local government or party official in a position of power.
Anyone who thinks that if he does nothing wrong, he will never be accused and punished, meets head-on with the interpretation in the service of those in power.
The one in power expresses his interpretation, it is accepted as fact, and the finger pointed is punished, and severely.
There are not few cases when a person was sent to a concentration camp (yes, there were such in Eastern Europe. In Bulgaria, the last one was closed somewhere in the late 70s) just because he was reported by an informer, for telling a joke against the authorities.
Life was not very happy. People lived in constant fear of what exactly they had done wrong on a daily basis.
This inevitably changes them mentally forever.
I'm telling all this because those times remind me a lot of what I see now in Western Europe/USA, about this gender nonsense.
A small crowd of irrational individuals terrorizes the majority of people simply because the majority does not support their insane demands.
Just as the people of Eastern Europe were terrorized by the Kremlin's puppet regimes.
You might be shocked at how few people in the West really understand that Socialism was essentially a giant return to slavery in the concentration camps and gulags, and the absolutely arbitrary power that gave to people in even the least important government positions.
This Michael guy is like Hawkeye in an intellectual debate/discussion 😂 love this so much 👏
Malice is amazing! 10 years ago, I thought he was a kooky quirk. Now that my mind has matured, I've realized he's had the right of it all along.
@@JanicePhillips im not quick learner by any stretch of the imagination and so for that reason id have to rewatch this to properly remember what exactly the both sides were here. From what i can guess (butchered guess at that) Jordan is for meaning and mainly others responsibility while Malice stands for no real intrinsic meaning and self responsibility mainly, does that sound right..in a nutshell as they say??
Hawkeye pierce??
@@Joshuarcade if you follow what malice said about camus, the intrinsic meaning he sees is basically the inherently meaningless of camus where as he pointed out and I believe he agrees with, the real intrinsic meaning of life is having this unique chance to be whoever you want to be (mainly morally since its what we're always individually "free" to pursue) and finding meaning in your individuality voluntarily through that self-interest related to a profound sense and investigation of who you are and your true self (not the illusion of self through the eyes of others)
congratulations Michael, keeping your seat while listening for hours to Jordan Peterson... sorry I went away not having the chance to hear from you much.
Michael malice and JP are easily my favorite public intellectuals. I need to find two hours to watch this whole thing.
YAYAYAYAYA!
I could listen to these two for days on end. Love Michael Malice
The playfulness you both had when dissecting these different ideologies elicits pure joy within me. Thanks for the conversation.
Thanks to Dr Jordan Peterson and Michael Malice for such a fascinating, absorbing discussion. I've missed Dr Peterson's You Tube interviews whilst away for the festive season. There's nothing like a high level intellectual discussion like this one to bring light to a dark January evening. Much appreciated, gentlemen.
This conversation could have gone on for 8 hours, and i would still want more of it. It is also the most interesting conversation I've heard either of them in.
I call for more of this!! 😅
Jordan is so excited about Michael's book. You can see the enthusiasm mounting higher and higher with each exchange between them. Until Jordan must speak more and more quickly as the ideas that the conversation generates are tumbling out of his head faster than he can verbalizes them. And Malice is like the stoker, laying down truth after truth, feeding the coal into Jordan's furnace.
What a wonderful interview. I'm an anarchist, and Michael's "anarchism without adjectives" description fits me as well. I appreciate the honest attempt to understand the philosophy. Admittedly, it's so heterogeneous, it's very difficult to grasp the uniting principles. Asking what he means, to define terms, was the exact right move.
@@sonnylambert4893 well too bad for all of you then...pay better attention, you'll learn something. How does it make you feel that JP said, at the conclusion, "I think we agree"? Was it also "annoying" for you? Notice how JP handled it, and how you do. Maybe learn from that as well.
Philosophy is not about your snowflake offense...it's about the pursuit of truth. Be prepared to be offended, or confess you are, in essence, a snowflake. No one cares about what annoys you.
@@tonypalmentera7752not many things are more childish and snowflake ideology the anarchists. Government will always exist. Power will always collect itself in the hands of a few. There will always be good and evil and both will try to win control. Without a government the people will be ruled by violence. With no recourse for their greivences against the ones im power. I think the idea that you become what you hate is appropriate for his stance.
@@droyal18able now replace "government"with "slavery", and you sound like a naysayer in 1850 when anarchists were calling for the end of that institution too. Saying extortion (taxation), on the threat of (g)rape cages, will always exist legally for some minority of humans, as to maintain things we empirically know pre-existed the state, like law, roads, trade, defense, etc., is foolish statement. They have not existed for most of human history. Look it up. 6000 years ago the first states formed. There is little dispute, give or take a couple thousand years. We have existed for hundreds of thousands of years in pretty much our same biological form as a species. We have good evidence of all those things I mentioned existing for a lot longer than governments...yet you think we require one to have those things?
What kept slavery alive was people saying it would never end, "how will we pick the cotton?", etc...and yet, it did inevitably end, as all oppression of the innocent does.
The state will likely not always exist...governance can performed more efficiently and justly without government. The verb doesn't disappear with the noun.
Also, you said "always". Always is an infinite sample size. Any non-zero probability is guaranteed as you approach an infinite sample size. By the proposition of your statement, you pretty much guarantee you will be wrong. Try "most likely" next time. Then I'd be forced to agree in the short term, like my lifetime...but I highly doubt the state survives the Ai revolution.
This conversation is so important. I've been struggling (both conceptually as well as IRL) with the same issues Jordan and Michael were talking about; and by listening to this conversation, well, they eloquently led me through a bunch of problems I couldn't come up with a solution to on my own.
Sending love to you both from Israel
Could you please specify the issues you were struggling with that they guided you through?
Gay
@@wetpoopoo9412seriously. This whole comment section is so dorky
@@frankienorthtroptriton4771 on par with lex fridman's comment section
@@richwiedeman3128 How to detect and deal with Narcissists and/or ASPD's (Psychopaths). It was this conversation that led me to other interviews Malice had with other RUclipsrs like Lex and Chris, and I learned very important lessons while listening to these podcasts.
I own a book from each of these gentlemen and am very glad they sat down together for this long form conversation.
Thank you to everyone who made this content possible.
God speed and good journey!
Jordan really tries to see the other viewpoint as objectively as he can in spite of his own views/ understanding. His interviews are the essence of civilized free speech, bravo! I have learned so much from his honest examination of difficult and controversial subjects.
What a lively discussion! I was on the edge of my seat at times. Michael holds up his end, volley after volley. Thankful for the fly on the wall POV here. More, more, more!
The "You are welcome" at the end was perfect. This was a fantastic voluntary agreement to watch.
Hilariously awesome and excellent at the same time.
Poor malice, Jordan was running in circles in excitement that someone actually listens and enjoys deeper conversation
Perfectly stated!
Liz Schwartz: Wouldnt a soviet ice cream just be an empty container? Like, you open the lid and there's an instruction note on an old piece of rotten fabric that says, "Pretend there's icecream in here."
Kinda blows my mind seeing these two getting along, Plus a double whammy is seeing Jordan being corrected but at the same time he himself being open to being corrected, that in itself takes a better man , Im very proud of you Mr Peterson, you truly are a great man as is you Mr Malice 😊Great talk😊
As an immigrant from Eastern Europe old enough to remember communism I thank God for JBP and others who speak about that unspeakable evil.
Give me liberty or you know what. 🇺🇸
One of the examples of tragic events during Communism in Poland. Today, while passing by the msin train station in Gdansk, I saw plaques commemorating the events before Christmas 1970. The communist militia shot at protesting workers from the Pomeranian region who took to the streets and went on strike against a very large price increases, frozen wages& unbearable cost of living. The economy was already in a bad condition in Poland at that time & they fought for their and their families diginty.
Dozens of people were shot, the number of victims was underestimated, and funerals took place at night without the participation of the victims' relatives.
People associated with the strikes were persecuted for years.
Tragic event was wiped out of the history as if has never happened.
In the 1980s, the Solidarity revolution began, and mass strikes of workers and students began, despite repressions.
These people are heroes. They deserve the honor of memory of their heroism.
Countless examples like that on how Communism backfired and much more atrocities. There is so much heroism in Poland ❤.
Absolutely fantastic, fellas! This is EXACTLY the conversation I wanted the two of you to have after your last one. Drilling down on Rand's very broad, inclusive, long-term conception of "self-interest" as a coherent, objective guiding principle for both individual action and social organisation. Well done!
I would ad, that Camus' "What kind of a person do you want to be?", while helpful for explaining this conception, would have been way too subjective for Rand. I think Rand would have insisted - correctly, imo - that the highest goal of personal develoment is actually objectively based in our human potential. Rand asks the question of what it means for a being like us to flourish. So she would ask something like "what does it mean to be a human being?" And, individual differences not withstanding - there is A LOT that we can say objectively about that. Rand makes use of an Aristotlian list of virtues here - reason, integrity, honesty, justice - and most importantly for Rand: productivity. Because she defines productivity as a reflection of man voluntarily/consciously facing reality/nature and using his mind (and all of his virtues) to produce the values necessary for his own flourishing (i.e. long-term survival as the kind of being he is). Reality contains the ressources, but those are menaingless without man learning to acquire them and turning them into actual goods that can be used to improve his own life. All the oil in the world is pointless, after all, as long as it stays under the ground and you don't know what it is, or what to do with it.
And her belief in the central role of productivity is what makes Rand a radical for free markets.
It's always refreshing to come across a concise (and accurate) summation of Rand's ideas as presented in your post.
Exactly! Rand's works are demanding since they are very consistent, and that's an effort most people can't make due to laziness
@@The_Isaiahnator Thanks! I first came across her ideas in 2003, I think, devoured all her writings in a couple of years thereafter, and have been going back to and reflecting on them ever since and also through the lens of every other philosopher's work that I've come across since. From Aristole to SpinoZa, so to speak.;) I never understood where some people got the notion that her ideas were shallow, but I've come to the conclusion that you need to be in a particularly receptive state of mind when reading Rand, otherwise you get hung up on her polemical tone, or you mistake her stark focus on certain aspects as a lack of complexity in her thought. I was VERY lucky that my own first introduction to her philosophy occured through Peikoff's book "Objectivism from A to Z". He does a phnomenal job of communicating the systemic nature of her philosophy in a clear, methodical, erudite way. Highest recommendation!
2:06:00 "it turns out that we agree. That's very, very annoying." - Dr. Peterson
lol that was funny
I enjoyed this a lot. I def learned some things from both people. We're blessed to have these 2 great minds to learn from in this era. TY
Wow. I am well aware of how deep a thinker Michael actually is. But the Uber troll talking with Jordan Peterson is kinda surreal. Both of them have expanded the horizons of my thinking in the past. This was a fantastic conversation. Following along with it was both enjoyable and gave me more to contemplate. Bravo.
There seems to be no way of out- maneuvering Dr Peterson when it comes to these kind of discussions. Clinicians like him disect every strand of belief down to some kind of established analysis to reveal a comprehensible outcome. I believe that it is his aim to unpack each interviewee and their differing histories, experiences and approaches, into an answer for us all to the challenges of life in some way.
He is VERY good at both dissecting and getting to the bottom of any kind of belief, claim, argument, etc, as well as remembering and getting back to all the various parts of some belief, argument, etc. It makes conversations with him VERY interesting and informative.
I do wish he would push Malice on some things more, as if he did, I think Malices arguments on Voluntarism/Anarchy would eventually fall apart, but its interesting and informative anyways.
Really enjoyed this. Malice is such a genuine guy and great to listen to with yourself.
I am glad those topics are being talked about. Being a Wolga German" myself, m family has (as most in de UDSSR) experienced basically all those atrocities.
Great Grandfather was shot, half the family staved on their way to siberia or froze to death. About half of the deported people who actually made it to siberia froze and starved in the beginning because they had to dig holes with their bare hands to have some kind of makeshift shelter. This ideology is every bit as diabolical as facism.
Words can't express how much I enjoyed this conversation, that and the ones with Lex and Malice
Very good interaction between the two of you. The world needs more healthy discord like this. Really thought provoking.
OCD kicking in. I think you mean discourse, as this convo was not discordant.
Very entertaining to watch .. Jordan going from comfortable to the edge of his seat with excitement as he is working it out .. and Michael sitting calm like a stone, already knowing that this path of reasoning will only end at one conclusion, so long as the participant remains honest with themselves. I think I saw the moment that Mr. Peterson realized that he was not going to become an anarchist .. because he had been one the whole time. He has a lot to process now - oh, the discovery of truth!
I'm reading a book now called "On resistance to evil by force," by Ivan Ilyin, it's a biblical argument for violence against evil, written in 1925 Russia. I didn't realize Tolstoy was a pacifist, which highly influenced Russian culture within 18th and 19th century. Where areas Solzhenitsyn said that if people would have started attacking the policemen during the night raids, it might have made a difference.
Within 5 minutes of this...he describes perfectly our situation here in America.
🙄
Hardly
The 20th century was actually a very long scientific experiment to test if socialism/communism can work.
We tried in giant Asian countries (China), small Asian countries (Cambodia), snowy European countries, paradise Caribbean island (Cuba), multiple African countries, etc.
It basically resulted in the same thing all over the place: tyranny, corruption and chaos.
I guess we can really close the topic and not try again. (But Venezuela still wanted to show us that it still wouldn't work in an oil country)
Agreed!
Jordan Peterson mentioned the intellectual narcissism of those who acknowledge the consistent failures of communism but say "Ah, but *I* could make it work!"
There is democratic socialism but are there any examples of such states with a fully state-controlled economy which did not collapse into dictatorship?
The Scandinavian countries are often classed as democratic socialist, but they are really just larger welfare states as we see in many western countries. They all have a thriving private economy, in fact the private economy is a necessity to fund the welfare programs.
@@johndalzell904 It requires an infallible arbiter and dissolution of greed as a motivator neither of which are possible.
I suspect the reason that its tried multiple times is because there is no ancient ideology (such as religion) that states clearly the disadvantages of centralization. Some people believe that there exists a moral absolute (aka God) and its their duty to proselytize to it. But unfortunately, they are gullible enough to further believe that such a system can be replicated by a human individual/group, and they hence proselytize to them instead (this is not a criticism of religion - but of a subset of its followers). Its not just communists that do that, there also such people as race-zealots (e.g. keep XYZ country white/brown/black), people concerned with political correctness (e.g. all criticism is bad and diversity is the highest ideal), etc.
The pattern is the same, but the motif is large and exquisite.