Transcript of The Parasitic Ideas Threatening the West

Inside every bag of Giprox Skim Coat, you would normally expect to find the finest quality Irish made, Finnish plaster. But for a limited time only, you could also discover a golden trowel worth €10,000, along with other cash prizes. Wouldn't that be grand? So grab a bag of Jip Rock Skim Coat today. Find the trowel and answer a question. Terms and conditions apply. Jip Rock Skim Coat. We value our plasterers. For more information, visit www. Giprock. Ie.

From the Free Press, this is Honestly, and I'm Barry Weis. In the 1940s, it's hard to believe now, there were around 20,000 Jews still living in Lebanon. Just 20 years later, a span of one generation, that number dropped to around 3,000. Our guest today, Dr God Sad, is one of those statistics. God was born in Lebanon in 1964, into one of the last Jewish families to remain in Lebanon. But the country that had once been called the Paris of the Middle East began to turn when he was a child. He remembers being at school one day when a fellow student told the class that he wanted to be a Jew killer when he grew up. The rest of the kids laughed. By 1975, Lebanon had descended into a brutal civil war, and God remembers death awaiting him every millisecond of the day. He spent his childhood years being mindful of which streets had snipers and which didn't when he went outside to play. But even then, even during that situation, his family thought, this will pass. Ultimately, we're going to be fine. That is until someone showed up at their home to kill them, at which point the Sade family fled the country to rebuild their life in Canada.

In 2024, many of us in Western democracies find ourselves saying the exact same things. This will pass over. We'll be fine. We say that even as Hamas flags and I love Hisbala posters, fly in cosmopolitan capitals across the West. I've been asking myself a lot over the past year, how worried should we be? Am I being hysterical? And is there a way to roll back this anti-civilisational impulse that has been let loose? Those are just some of the questions I was eager to put to God sad himself in today's today's conversation. God says that witnessing the Lebanese Civil War gave him a crash course in the extremes of identity politics, tribalism, and illiberalism. And he says that immigrants like himself who have lived without the virtues of the West, virtues like freedom of speech and thought, reason, and liberalism, uniquely understand what is at stake right now in Western cultural and political life. He says it's no coincidence that the most prominent defenders of Western ideals are immigrants like himself. People like Ayyan Hirsi Ali, Salman Rushdie, and Massia Linajad. If you're on Twitter, I suspect you know God's name. Unlike most professors, he has a million Twitter followers and a knack for satire, so much so that Elon Musk seems to be one of his biggest fans.

He has become one of the most insightful and provocative thinkers on the risks of mob rule and extremism on the left. But outside of his Twitter personality, he is a professor of marketing and evolutionary behavioral sciences at Concordia University in Montreal. That's been his home base for the past 30 years. But he's now having second thoughts about his university because Concordia is now widely regarded as one of the most anti-Semitic universities in North America. God is now a visiting professor and a global ambassador at Northwood University in Michigan. He says he can't bear the possibility of returning to Concordia, and maybe even Canada, given the anti-Semitism that's run rampant there. All of this, he argues, constitutes another war, one different but related to the one he witnessed in Lebanon as a child. This one is a war on logic, science, common sense, and reality here in the West. Ideas that he explains in his important book, The Parasitic Mind: How Infectious Ideas are Killing Common Sense. In today's wide-ranging conversation, I ask God where these parasitic ideas came from and how they're being encouraged in the West. I ask how the culture of perpetual offense, victimhood, and self-flagellation have become progressive virtues.

I ask why the rise of anti-Semitism is larger than just a Jewish issue. I ask if progressive illiberalism is waxing or waning, and importantly, if these trends are reversible. Stay with us. This show is sponsored by Better Help. Have there been times when you feel like you couldn't be your full self, like you were hiding behind some mask? October, of course, is the reason for wearing masks and costumes, but some people feel like they wear a mask and hide more often than they want to at work, in social settings, around their families. Therapy can help all of us accept all parts of ourselves. So you can take off the mask because masks, they should be for Halloween, not for your emotions. If you're thinking about starting therapy, consider giving Betterhelp a try. It's entirely online, and it's designed to be convenient, flexible, and suited to your schedule. Just fill out a brief questionnaire to get matched with a licensed therapist. You can switch therapists at any time for no additional charge. Take off the mask with Betterhelp. Visit betterhelp. Com/honestly today to get 10% off your first month. That's Betterhelp. B-e-t-t-e-r-h-e-l-p. Com/honestly. This show is sponsored by Betterhelp.

Have there ever been times where you couldn't be your full self or you felt like you couldn't? Maybe like you were hiding behind a mask? October is the season for costumes and wearing masks, but some people feel like they wear a mask and hide more often than they want to at work, in social settings, around their families. Therapy can help you learn to accept all parts of yourself, so you can take off the mask because those should be for Halloween, not for our emotions. If you're thinking of starting therapy, why not give Betterhelp a try? It's entirely online and it's designed to be convenient, flexible, and suited to your schedule. Just fill out a brief questionnaire to get matched with a licensed therapist. You can switch therapists at any time for no additional charge. Take off the mask with Betterhelp. Visit betterhelp. Com/honestly today to get 10% off your first month. That's Betterhelp. B-e-t-t-e-r-h-e-l-p. Com/honestly. I am really happy to say Dr. Godsad, welcome to Honestly.

Oh, I'm so excited to be with you, Barry. Thank you for having me.

Really happy you're here. I want to start by playing two clips to you that have emerged in the last few days. The first one is by this pretty famous American rapper. Maybe you've never heard of him. His name is Macklemore. He said this when he was playing in front of a huge concert in Seattle.

Straight up.

Say it.

I'm not going to stop you. I'm not going to stop you. Yeah, fuck America.

The second clip comes comes from Tucker Carlson, speaking in front of a huge crowd with Turning Point founder Charlie Kirk in Kansas.

I've never seen any population treated the way Americans are being treated by their leaders now. I'm very worried that at some point, people will be like, I'm not putting up with this. I don't know why anybody pays taxes in this country. For the record, I'm not counseling, not pay your taxes because I don't want to get arrested.

God, I want to start by asking you to respond to those clips, obviously being expressed from people on very different sides of the political spectrum, but echoing each other, I think, in pretty profound ways. What are we hearing when you hear those things?

Well, I guess the first gentleman, I vaguely know who he is, but look, it's part of the noble penchant of being self-loathing, and that becomes a street creds for being a progressive. If at the individual level, you were to go see a clinical psychologist and say to him or her, I have ruminative thinking about self-loathing, then that would be something that you should intervene so that we can stop those ruminative thoughts. You are worthy, you're valuable, we want to increase your self-confidence. But that self-loathing reflex, when it is not applied to the individual, but to the collective, we hate ourselves, we're imperialists, we're colonizers, America sucks, suck the United States. It's sad, but that's become part and parcel of the parlance of the progressives. Now, in the Tucker case, what was What is he saying? He was saying that- He was saying that America treats its citizens worse than any other country in the world. Yeah. One of the things that I've made this point on many shows, and I think you know Ayan Hirsi Ali, it's often immigrants such as myself and Ayan who end up defending most staunchly the Western tradition, the United States, even though I'm Canadian, precisely because we have sampled from the full buffet of societies so that we actually know that the United States is a miracle.

It's a bleep. It's an outlier. It's anomalous. And so it always upsets me and bothers me whenever anyone who grew up taking for granted the magic of the United States or the West in general, doesn't appreciate as much as some of us immigrants do.

The phenomenon, though, of the... I don't want to even call it the far-right, because I think it's increasingly mainstream, but essentially the turn against America from very different political directions that we're seeing. Has that always been there, or is there something particular, God, that's going on in this moment?

I'm more typically focused on leftist self-loathing, not because I'm a person of the right, but because I inhabit the university ecosystem. And the university ecosystem is one that is largely dominated by leftist thought, by leftist professors. I'm certainly a bit more comfortable in speaking about leftist self-loathing. Look, if you teach generations of students that the United States is irrevocably damaged, it's a racist, Islamophobic, transphobic, hateful society that was built on the sweat and blood of others, then it's not surprising that people grow up thinking that it is a noble reflex to hate your society. I see that all the time. I've sat on research grant committees To your point about the first gentleman, is it... What was his name? Maclamour. Maclamour. You have tons of doctoral dissertations and master's thesis where it's always that reflex. There's something innately bad about the Western tradition in general, the United States in particular, and we need to remedy that. I'll give you a quick example from my own university. I'm currently a visiting professor in the United States, but my home university is in Canada, Concordia University. Well, they put out recently the five-year strategic plan. And the number one mission of the five-year strategic plan, and this, I'm not being hyperbolic, I'm being literal, it's to decolonize and indigenize the entire curriculum and pedagogy.

That's the number one item. Imagine someone like me who's trying to navigate through that ecosystem. So I do research in psychology of decision making, consumer psychology, evolutionary psychology. What does What does it mean to indigenize those fields? I mean, isn't science precisely that that transcends my personal identity? I think that whole orgeastic self-loathing regrettably started in universities and continues to flow unabated.

My friend Konstantin Kissen, who I'm sure you know and follow, I thought had just a really concise take on this. He said, The woke left claimed that America, one of the most racially tolerant countries in the world, was the most racist country ever. The woke right, and here he was describing that Tucker Carlson clip, claims that America, one of the best governed countries in the world, treats its citizens worse than any other. It's true that there are racist in America, and it's true that America has problems when it comes to living up to its ideals on things like free speech. But all of this is just victimhood for cliques, and it's pathetic, unpatriotic, and silly. I think that that is a really nice way of segueing into the thing that you referenced earlier, which is the fact that it's not by chance that some of the most clear-eyed appreciators of what we have in America and the West are people that experienced backgrounds in places that did not have all of the things that we take here for granted. You grew up in Lebanon in the 1960s, a country many will be shocked to hear, given what's going on there now, that was once thought of as the Paris of the Middle East.

You watched as your country descended into brutal civil war in the 1970s, a war that ruined Lebanon, which is basically, I think we would agree, a failed state with a corrupt government, a government or people that is terrorized by the militant group, Hezbollah, which Israel is currently at war with. Part of the reason that I'm interested in talking to you today is because you witnessed firsthand a wealthy, thriving country, okay, not exactly America, but a wealthy, thriving country collapse in very short order. I think a lot of us who are paying attention are wondering if something like that could happen in America and in the West. In order to back us into that conversation, I wonder if you could take us back in time to the 1960s, to Lebanon before the war. You're one of the last of a very small Jewish community living in Lebanon. Take us back to the world you were born into.

I was born in 1964. We were steadfastly, doggedly refusing to leave Lebanon, despite the fact that, yes, you're right, that there was a time when Lebanon was considered progressive, certainly by Middle Eastern standards, the Paris of the Middle East, as you said. But much of my extended family had read the writing on the wall and had left earlier, prior to the Civil War, many of whom left to Israel, and one maternal aunt that left to Montreal, Canada. That's one of the reasons why we ended up emigrating to Canada. But my family, my immediate family, my nuclear family, family had stayed in Lebanon. I'm 10 years younger than the next oldest child. So the other siblings are 10, 11, and almost 14 years older than me. And so I think my parents had realized that there was no future for them in Lebanon. And so bit by bit, each of my siblings had left Lebanon. But I remained because I was a young kid. When the Civil War broke out, I was 10. And notwithstanding the fact that it was supposedly a tolerant place, I describe in one of my books that there was still endemic Jew hatred in progressive Paris of the Middle East, Lebanon.

Just to give your audience a feel of what it was like growing up Jewish in Lebanon, when I was five years old, the President of Syria, who was a Pan-Arabist, Gamal Abdel Nasser, passed away, and he was a hero to the Arab people. And whenever something like that happens in the Middle East, people go out into the street with a lot of fervor, and they start publicly engaging in lamentations, oftentimes religious inclined lamentations. And as these people were proceeding down my street, I couldn't help but hear, this is I'm five years old, death to Jews, death to Jews. And I was wondering, why are they saying death to Jews? Because they're Egyptian. So I turned to my mother to get an explanation, but of course, she couldn't offer me to a five-year-old a satisfactory explanation. A few years later, but also prior to the start of the Lebanon Civil War, I was in a class where the teacher asked us to get up and tell what we'd like to be when we grew up. And so you get the typical professions. I'd like to be a doctor, I'd like to be a police officer, I'd like to be a soccer player.

One kid, who is a kid that knew that I was Jewish, got up and said, When I grow up, I want to be a Jew killer to raqueous applause and laughter. Oh, my God. That's just the typical thing that you would see in the Middle East.

One thing I'm just always interested in is people that go versus people that stay. You guys were really one of the last holdouts. Was that because your parents so strongly believed that the situation could turn itself around? Was it inertia? Why had your family not left by 1975 when the war breaks out?

I'm speaking from the perspective of someone who never asked that specific question to my parents, but I can surmise what it might have been. My parents were very well entrenched in Lebanese society. They were successful business people. So I think from their perspective, it was, We're Lebanese. We're well entrenched here. This hopefully will blow over. There's always friction in the Middle East. But then you realize that they're coming for you and you're about to die, at which point there's nothing to think about anymore. So I think that was probably the pension. Hopefully, this will blow over and we can continue our lives here. By the way, that's one of the reasons why even after we emigrate immigrated to Montreal, they kept returning. So we came to Montreal at the end of 1975. They kept returning to Lebanon in the most brutal civil war that you could imagine until 1980 when they were kidnapped. So that speaks to your question, which is we still had business interests. Their lives had always been there, and so it was very hard for them to acclimatize to a completely new way of living in Montreal, Canada.

So you're 10 or 11 years old. The war breaks out, and of course, your family is forced to flee. Was there a particular moment that you remember knowing that we were going to have to get out of here to save our lives?

There are many, many such moments because death waited you at every millisecond of the day. If it wasn't the sniper. For example, my parents would tell me, You can go out and play outside, but don't pass this particular line because that would open you up to the eyesight of the sniper that are on this building. I'm actually getting goosebumps saying this. So that's the reality we grew up with, whether we jumped to hide ourselves or not, dependent on the whistle signature that you heard of the bomb coming in. So you learn very quickly, oh, this bomb is probably going to drop two streets away. We don't need to hide onto the bed. And so death waited you every second. But to your question, the iconic moment that at least I experience the greatest fear in a truly horrifying childhood. During full on massive, brutal or geistically violent civil war, we get a knock at the door in early evening. I can't remember the exact time, maybe seven, eight o'clock. And usually, if there's a knock at your door at that point, it's usually not going to be a good thing. And so I go to the door and I ask, Who is it?

And the other side of the door, the guy says, oh, I'm the guy who comes and brings you the hand towels. We had this roll of cloth that you would use to dry your hands when you're in the kitchen. And he would change those rolls. He would come every couple of weeks and change the rolls. And he says, Open the door. I've got a gift for you guys. I'm with some friends. Now, luckily for me, I had the intellectual acuity to be hesitant to open the door. I went to get my mother, and then she's starting to engage the guy. He says, Oh, open the door. I've got gifts for you. And he's being more insistent. Well, we ended up calling, so in Arabic, It's called Satash. Satash literally means 16, which is the number of the division of the police that you would call for problems. To our great fortune, in the middle of civil war, they answered the call. They came over, and And when we opened the door, he brought some pomegranates for us. And the police officer says to him, Wait a minute, you're the guy who changes the towels for these people.

You're coming with some of your friends in the middle of massive war to give them pomegranates. If I see you again here, you'll have problems. And then the guy looks at us and in a very chilling tone says, I'll be back for you. Well, he ended up leaving before he came back for us. Now, had I opened the door, I think my life trajectory would have been very different, and I probably wouldn't have had the pleasure of sitting with Barry. So that really captures the banality of what happens in war, where the sliding door, if you go right or left, your life takes a big turn. So that's probably the most diabolically iconic moment of my childhood.

God, for the listener who is only paying attention to Lebanon now because it's in the news, can you briefly explain to us the nature of the civil war so that people don't have to go running to Wikipedia, which is now overtaken by propagandists.

Sure. So the Lebanese Civil War was from 1975 to 1990, officially. And during that time, there are different estimates. But the most common One estimate that I've seen is that roughly 150,000 people were killed. Now, in a country of, say, 3 million people, that gives you a sense that it's pretty sizable. Now, different people will argue that, no, it was a political war, but the reality is that it was very much it had a clear religious timber to it. There were several Christian militias that were fighting several Muslim militias. Now, the Muslim militias themselves, when they're not fighting against the Christians, could turn the guns against each other and fight one another. So it was complete chaos in that, literally, it was house to house. Some, as I said earlier, will argue that it was politically motivated, but the reality is that everything in Lebanon is viewed through the prism of religion. Even your parliament is established based on your religious appartenance, your belonging. So who could be Prime Minister or who could be President, how many seats you get in the parliament is all based on your religion. Now, historically, Lebanon had been a Christian-majority country, and then it very quickly shifted to an Islamic-majority country.

And so the Lebanon Civil War, notwithstanding that many people say that it wasn't religious-based, it was very much religious-based.

In your book, The Parasitic Mind, you have this pretty unforgettable scene where you're essentially smuggled out of the country. I want you to tell listeners about your escape, and then tell them about What happened when the plane that you were on left Lebanon airspace?

So first, how did we leave? So to my earlier point about having connections and being politically connected, there is no way that you could have escaped Beirut without the PLO being on your side, because around the Beirut international airport were a lot of Palestinian refugee camps that were controlled by the PLO militia. And so what they would do is set up barricades to ask you for your ID card. And in Lebanon, the Arabic term is haweia. That refers to an internal ID. Imagine an internal passport that, say, the cops can ask you for. And what is most conspicuously present on that ID card is your religion. And Jews had Israeli, not Yehudi. Israeli means Israeli. Now, in any case, the point of the story is that there was no way that we would have ever gotten to the international airport if we didn't have militia that would allow us to clear those stops, those barricades. And so we had contracted some PLO militia who came over to our house in the full garp. So everything that you see with ISIS and Fatah and Hamas is my childhood. So they came over and they were very gracious.

They were very polite, very nice. Undoubably, they were paid. And I remember the head guy of the militia that was going to escort us looked at me looking at his machine gun. He said, Oh, do you want to hold it? And as a then 11-year-old boy, I had already turned 11, I was so excited to be holding the machine gun. By the way, our house was very close to the Green Line, which separated East and West Beirut, which was a no man's land because it separated the Christians from the Muslim militia. Anyways, my father remembered, Oh, I forgot my money belt back in the house, to which the PLO guy said, Well, it's too late. We have to keep going. And undoubtedly, he went back and took the money for himself. Now, the interesting thing is I have no recollection of anything until the story that you asked me next about, which is what happened when we got on the plane and we're already flying. But I did find out what happened because many years later, I asked my parents, How come I don't remember anything that happened while we were being driven? Because I have a very good memory.

I can tell you very, very specific details about my childhood in Lebanon, yet I've got a complete memory hole. And my parents explained to me that as we were going through various neighborhoods in Beirut, you would come across neighborhoods that would be hostile to the PLO, right? And therefore, they were engaging in fire, as you would imagine in a Rambo movie, in these neighborhoods to get to where we needed to get. And we had our suitcases, and they had us protected. And I've completely repressed this memory. So I always tell people, Muslims were going to kill us, and it was Muslims who also saved us. So when I criticize the ideology, I'm not criticizing the individual. Now, fast forward to we're on the plane and the captain, announces that we are now outside of Lebanese airspace. At which point my mother takes out a pendant, puts it around my neck. Also, I couldn't remember, but I'm almost certain it was either a Star of David or a high Hebrew symbol for life, but I'm almost certain it was a Star of David, she puts it around my neck and says, Now you can wear this proudly and not have to hide your identity.

The moment that your mom put that necklace, that pendant, around your neck, what do you think that meant to her?

Well, I'm sure it meant a lot because, look, people knew that you were Jewish in Lebanon, right? I mean, it wasn't such a cryptic secret. But what happens in the Middle East is you have to understand the psychology of the dimmi. Dimmi is an Arabic word which refers to when you're living in an Islamic-majority country and you are one of the religious minorities. We can tolerate you as long as you don't advertise yourself too much. So don't wear a big Star of David and demonstrate that you are Jewish. Be quiet, Jew. So we're going to tolerate you. You're a good guy. You're one of the Jews, but just don't shove it in our faces. I think what that story represents for my parents is that we no longer have to be navigating gingerly across the neighborhoods, lest someone who doesn't like Jews finds out and pelts us or shoots us. I think it was a form of existential freeing. I could now be Jewish and not have to hide it anywhere at any time. Now, fast forward to about two, three weeks after October seventh. My son had just returned from a soccer match, and he was almost the exact age that I was when my Star of David story happened.

So he looks at me and he says, Daddy, if you were wearing a Star of David where I was playing soccer match today, you'd be dead. So I call this the full circle of life of the Star of David story. In Lebanon, at the age of 11, I leave and my mother says, wear the of David. 45 plus years later, I could no longer wear a Star of David in Montreal, Canada.

After the break, God tells us how the war on college campuses is reminiscent of the Civil War in Lebanon. Stay with us. You've written that your experience living through the Lebanon Civil War was your first encounter with identity politics. Now, most people that use that phrase in the West don't use it to mean snipers literally shooting at your home. But I want you to explain the connection between the ideology that you began to encounter in the mid 1970s in Lebanon and the identity politics that has subsumed so much of our culture here in the West.

Well, Lebanon is the perfect exemplar of what happens when identity politics are taken to their nefarious limits. Everything is viewed through the lens of which religion you belong to. And so when I see certain political movements, whether it be in the United States or in Canada or in the West in general, that are very much wedded to that idea, right? You are the Jew of color, you are transgender of this, you're Muslim of that, you're Black, watch out, because if you want that perfect instantiation of what identity politics is in terms of how you organize society, Lebanon is the place, Syria is the place, Iraq is the place, Rwanda is the place. So It's never a good idea when people who live under a supposedly unified nations are more tied to whatever identity marker first defines them more so than the country. What made the United States great is that I could be anything, but nothing was superseded by my commitment to American values. Once you erase that, once you eradicate that foundational value, you're going to run into problems. Now, when I tell people you're going to have the Lebanese reality on your streets, I don't mean by next Tuesday, but there is a natural trajectory that I can exactly predict in the same way that a physician who specializes in diabetes can exactly tell you what is progression of diabetes if you don't handle it.

Well, if you maintain many of these reflexes, including a commitment to identity politics over the celebration of individual dignity, you will have Lebanon. It might take 100 years, it might take 500 years, but you will get the exact same final outcome.

Okay, so you have this early, really, really formative childhood experience of the logical conclusion of identity politics. That's what a Civil War is. Then you eventually get to Canada to summarize your academic background. You get a PhD at Cornell where you decide to study marketing, and eventually you decide to study how evolution and how our biology impacts our consumer behavior. To maybe understate the point, you describe the response that you got from your fellow academics, reminded you of what you witnessed in Lebanon. I I want you to draw out the conclusion for us because a brutal civil war in the Middle East and contrarianism, if you can call it that in an academic institution, aren't exactly analogous to most people. So explain what you mean by that. The other aspect And I expect that I'm really interested in, and sorry to lard this with a few questions, is where your ability to be comfortable in disagreement comes from?

I think it is innate. Of course, most phenomena that involve human beings, involve an inextricable mix or mélange of your environment and your genes. And so therefore, yes, of course, my background in the Lebanon Civil War might have affected my ability to be combative. But there are many other people who went through the Lebanon Civil War, and they're not sitting where I'm sitting, right? They're not quite as honey badgers as I am.

I think it's just- What do you mean, honey badger?

So the honey badger, the reason why I use that particular expression, has consistently been ranked is the most fierce and ferocious animal in the animal kingdom, which says a lot. It's the size of a small to medium dog, and yet it can be approached by six adult lions, and yet they'll walk away because it is just so outlandishly fierce and ferocious. It might be small, but it walks as though it is a T-rex. You use a dinosaur.

This is the meme of Honey Badger, Don't Give A Fuck.

Honey Badgers, Don't Give A Fuck. Exactly. Now, when I tell people in the last chapter of the Parasitic Mind, Activate your inner honey badger, I'm not imploring them to be physically violent. But I'm saying, look, if there is a set of foundational principles that you believe in, be a Honey Badger. Defend them. Be galled at the murder and rape of truth. I can support trans rights without saying that men can bear children and can menstruate. I can walk and chew gum at the same time. Pursuing noble goals such as freeing the world of bigotry doesn't have to come at the end of negativism. Dating reality. And so that's what I mean by Honey Badger. But your earlier point, in my terms... I mean, yes, I was housed in a marketing department, but really my work was in cognitive psychology and psychology of decision making. I was looking at studying why is it that people make the types of decisions that they do. And I felt quite surprised to find out that most of the cognitive psychologists who study this field never invoke biology in studying why the human mind has evolved to be the way that it is.

And so I can get into the story of how I discovered evolutionary psychology, but I had found the exact niche that I wanted to spend the rest of my scientific career pursuing, which is applying evolutionary biology to study economic and consumer behavior. Now, to me, it seems quite banal to make this statement that, of course, human beings in general and consumers in particular are biological beings. Surely our hormones affect the types of food decision decisions that we make. Who doesn't think that that's true? Who has lived four seconds in the real world? But yet for my academic colleagues, that was pure quackery. I'm speaking as them now. Sure, biology matters for the zebra, for the mosquito and for the dog. But what makes us human, Barry, is that we transcend our biology. We are cultural animals, not biological animals. And so when I talk about the two great wars that I have faced in my life, there's the Lebanese Civil War, but the war on reason that I regrettably encountered for 30 plus years in academia.

What's at stake in the division between, let's say, the camp of your fellow colleagues who say, It's all nurture, Socialization is the key way to understanding human behavior. And broadly, your camp, which is more the nature camp, who says, despite this blazer that I'm wearing, I'm an animal. And evolution impacts everything about the way that we are in the world? Why is it so dangerous to them to admit that nature is powerful?

Great question. In the best case scenario, if you ignore biology, you end up with incomplete explanations of human phenomena. In many cases, that can result in dire, for example, public policy decisions. But in the worst case scenario, you end up with incorrect views of a phenomenon. So it's either an incomplete in the best case and a grossly incorrect. Let me give you a very specific example, not from my own research, but that's how I first got turned into an evolutionary psychologist. If you want to study what is the number one predictor of child abuse in a home, There are a million possible explanations that have been espoused by social scientists because there's alcohol in the home, because you're born on the wrong side of the tracks, because if your parents had been abused, you repeat that pattern. And all All of these may have some explicative element to them. But it turns out, Barry, that the number one factor that is most predictive of having childhood abuse in a home, by a factor of 100 A hundred. Let me explain this to your viewers. Usually in science, if let's say you say you're checking the efficacy of a drug and it has a 1.2 odds ratio, that means if you compare it to a placebo, 1 to 1.2 means there's 20% more efficacy of taking the drug.

This is not 1 to 1.2, which would be considered a big effect. This is 1 to 100. So it is multiple orders of magnitude greater than anything you'd ever typically see in a published scientific paper. Well, the number one factor is if there is a step parent in the home.

Wow.

Actually, this is now known in the evolutionary literature as the umbrella effect. The evil stepmother was not indiscriminately evil. She was very kind to her biological daughters, but was uniquely nasty to her stepdaughter. Now, there is an evolutionary reason for why people may not be as kind to their stepchildren as they might be to their biological children. Now, that doesn't mean, by the way, that when you offer an evolutionary explanation for something that you are justifying it or condoning it. Any more than an oncologist who's explaining pancreatic cancer is is for pancreatic cancer, thinks pancreatic cancer is great. You're just explaining the phenomenon. So now imagine if you are a social scientist that has toiled in studying the causes of childhood abuse, and in your entire career, you've never come across the fundamentally most powerful explanation of what causes child abuse by a factor of 100. So to your earlier question, to summarize everything, having an incorrect view of human nature is devastating. In the purest of sense, you're offering incorrect explanations of human phenomena, but in a very practical sense, you end up implementing public policy that are likely to be perfectly incorrect.

To me, the things that are obviously dangerous about admitting the power that nature has over us is there's a few things that come to mind. One, it forces you to admit that there are differences between individuals certainly, and groups secondarily, which at its outermost limits can lead to very dangerous and scary ideas like eugenics. The second thing is that it's very anti-utopian. If it's all systems, well, then we just haven't tried the right system. Let's go to communa... It's very easy to see how a belief in nature allows you to try all kinds of utopian systems, because if it's all the system, well, we just need to try a better one. I think it also is scary because it forces people to consider how much control they have over their lives or the trajectory of their lives. And so to me, that combination conspires people to ignore what I view as just reality.

That's perfectly stated. If I can add to what you just said. So you just said that you have a two-year-old daughter. Is that what you said? Yes. Okay. Well, isn't it wonderful to think that when you become a new parent, your child is born as a complete tabula raza, blank slate. And I could now, through the proper schedule of reinforcement, I could ensure that my child will be the next Isaac Newton or the next Lionel Messi or the next Michael Jordan. My child has just as much equal potentiality as any other child, and it's only my own interventions that will hopefully lead to him becoming Michael Jordan. To argue that my child may not have the physical ability that would allow him to jump as high as Michael Jordan feels wrong to me as a parent. Therefore, because I prefer to live in unicornia rather than in reality, then, of course, I'm going to jump on the bandwagon of social constructivism. And by the way, one of the founders of what's called the Behaviorist School of Psychology, which is that everything is due to schedules of reinforcement, exactly They argue that, give me any 12 children and I could make any one of them into anything.

That speaks to that reflex that every child is born equal. We're equal under the law. We're not equal in our potentiality. I wish I could have been 6'2, but I am not. And there is nothing that my parents could have intervened that would have caused me to end up being 6'2. So that's one. On a grander level, I love to use this quote by E. O. Wilson. He recently passed away a well-known Harvard biologist who studied social ants. Now, the reason why I say this, Barry, is because social ants have a unique social structure. There is the reproductive queen, and then all of the other ants are perfectly equal and indistinguishable from each other. So he was once asked Professor Wilson, what are your views on communism and socialism? And he paused and said, great idea, wrong species. So it's beautiful for ants to be communistic because they've evolved the social structure to exactly follow that socioeconomic political system. But when you try to impose that system on a species called humans that are not communistic, it's not surprising that everywhere that that system has been tried, it ultimately fails because it is incongruent with human nature.

So to your original question, if you create any policies, if you create any products, any political systems that are incongruent with human nature, they will fail.

So if we were having this conversation, let's say 50 years ago, God, there are a lot of things that we could say that would have been completely benign to anyone's ears at that time living in North America. The idea that men and women are different, the idea that capitalism is better than communism, the idea that demanding equality of outcome will lead to tyranny, and I could list 10 other things. All of those commonsensical statements have now become if not dangerous to talk about, absolutely provocative. I think the question a lot of people have is, how did that happen? Your answer is captured in your book from 2020 that continues to sell out enormous copies, thanks to your number one publicist, Elon Musk. Anyway, we summarize a lot of the argument of how we got to that point in this book, The Parasitic Mind, how infectious ideas are killing common sense. I really recommend people go and read the book, but for the sake of this conversation, can you explain what the parasitic mind is, what you're describing? Because it is the thing, these infectious ideas, that have disallowed us from noticing reality and talking about it in a fearless way.

In the animal kingdom, there's a study of parasitology. Parasitology is the interaction between a host and a parasite in many different ways. So for example, a tape worm is a parasite that goes into your intestinal tract. A neuroparasite wants to get to your brain.

So literally a brain worm.

Literally a brain worm, Barry. And it is trying to alter your behavior to suit, typically, its reproductive interests. So let's take a concrete example. The wood cricket abhors water. It wants nothing to do with water. When it is parasitized by a particular type of brain parasite called a hair worm, the hair worm needs to get the wood cricket to jump into water so that it can complete its reproductive cycle. It does it in water. Therefore, the hair worm is going to zombify. It's going to literally alter the neuronal circuitry of the wood cricket so that it merrily jumps to its demise in the service of the brain parasite. When I read that framework in neuropersonalology, and as I've lectured this a million times, I'm getting goosebumps because I think it really is so powerful as an explanation of what's happening. I said, Aha, I found my framework. I'm going to now argue in this book that human beings can also be parasitized by actual physical brain worms. For example, tuxoplasm, Ghandi is one such example. But human beings, regrettably, can also be paracetized by a second class of brain worms. Those are called ideological brain worms.

I call them paracetic ideas or idea pathogens. And so what I then do for the rest of the book is I discuss many of these ideological brain worms, I explain what they are. And then toward the end of the book, I offer a mind vaccine to hopefully inoculate you against that imbibility.

What is the difference, God, between just a plain old bad idea and a parasitic idea?

Well, the paracetic idea connotes that the one who is paracetized is something nefarious to them is going to happen as a result of being infected by that brain worm. A bad idea could be, I actually think that having indiscriminate sex will bring me happiness, whereas in reality, I might be a lot happier if I were to find the loving arms of one good woman. So there are many ways by Which bad ideas might manifest themselves. Parasitic is a lot worse, right? So it's me slowly walking to the abyss of infinite lunacy, fully zombified. And as I walk off the cliff, I am proud of whatever ideological position I'm holding. It's Anna Epstein, Jewish Anna Epstein, proudly walking on campus. I think it was in Boston University or Boston College, where she is tearing down the photos, the posters of Jewish infants that have been taken as hostages. Because she's simply more progressive and enlightened than nasty Middle Eastern Jews like me that don't understand the nuance of how progressive she is. So there's something quite unique about a parasitically bad idea versus the vanilla bad idea.

So there are several parasitic ideas that you describe in the book, among them, the culture of perpetual offense and victimhood, the idea that criticizing the West is a progressive virtue, radical feminism, the radical feminism that I began to encounter in college that said genital mutilation is just cultural difference. That was one of my original waking up moments. But you argue, I think, very convincingly that the root of all of these parasitic ideas, the trunk of the tree, is postmodernism. What do you mean when you say postmodernism? How has postmodern theory or postmodern ideas so conquered American or let's just say the West today? Why was it such a sticky idea? First, what is postmodernism? Second, why is it so sticky to people?

Yes. So postmodernism at its root simply says that there are no objective truths other than the one objective truth that there are no objective truths, which already the façade is blowing up. So originally, when you applied the framework of postmodernism to certain esthetic movements, okay, people can buy it. Improvisational jazz, where there isn't an exact mathematical algorithm to explain why we like a particular music, is a form, if you'd like, of postmodernism. You have an exhibition of invisible art where you just walk in and you just literally infuse into the empty canvas whatever you want. Because who are we to judge what is beautiful? And why do we simply say that Rembrandt and Chagal are beautiful? Art is in the eye of the beholder. There are no objective esthetic truths. Now there, I do think it's nonsensical, but at least it doesn't have catastrophic consequences. When you apply postmodernism to epistemology, I don't mean to use jargon, but it is important to use that term, which is philosophy of knowledge. What does science purport? Science purports that there is- There's a truth and we can get to it.

We can get to it now. Through the scientific method.

Exactly. Now, it's provisionally true. What we thought was true 300 years ago or three days ago might autocorrect in light of incoming new evidence. That's why we say that science is epistemologically humble. But we do wake up in the morning thinking that there is a truth to be discovered. Well, now, imagine if I tell you that there is no such truth. Up is down, left is right, male is female. Then what's the point of getting out of bed as an academic? Because there is Absolutely no truth. By the way, the postmodernists who go to a postmodernist academic conference, get on a plane that is based on actual physical laws. So they're already violating their tenets by getting on a plane. Now, the reason why I call it the granddaddy of all idea pathogens, because that's the framework, as you correctly set up in your question, from which all of the other nihilistic intellectual terrorism can flourish. If there's no objective truth, who are you to say that cutting off the clitoris of little girls is a bad thing? And so it becomes complete free for all. Now, why is it so sticky, as you said?

Why is it something so alluring? Because remember earlier, I said that all of these idea pathogens free us from the pesky shackles of reality. There you go. Postmodernism frees me from this really shackling and restraining thing called capital T. I'm not defined by my genitalia. I could be anything. I could be a woman that happens to have a nine-inch penis. I'm not going to be bound by reality. How freeing is that? So I think that's the reason why it became so sticky, because, boy, it's so great to be able to navigate the world completely unencumbered by any constraints of reality.

So just to summarize it, these ideas that began among fringe academics, going back, let's say, to the '60s, although I'm sure there's examples from before that, leap beyond the quad over the past half a century and now have led to a very alarming reality where people are marching down Fifth Avenue, exploiting American open-mindedness, tolerance, and liberalism to say, Death to America long live Hamas.

Exactly right. I love that you said it started off with the fringe and then it jumped through the quad because I've been standing on top of the mountain screaming into the wind for nearly three decades. Usually, the response that I would get, Barry. I mean, sure, Professor Sade, there are some esoteric silly ideas, but they're restricted to some small department in the Humanities. Who cares? There's no actionable consequences. No. I said that in the the same way that an actual physical virus will eventually escape from the lab, yes, it starts off in the Humanities Department, but eventually it becomes the walking Prime Minister of Canada. So ideas have consequences. And so you're exactly right. So in terms of the death to US and so on, exactly. Who are you to judge whether Hamas has a perfectly effective, gravity-based conversion therapy for LGBTQ people? Gravity-based because we throw them off buildings. Who are you to impose your imperialistic sensibilities on how they decide to convert noble LGBTQ people? So that's what allows all of this stupidity to happen. It starts with those parasitic ideas.

And just to take a step back for a second, there's a good rule of thumb in general. The more highly educated you are, the better a chance that your mind has been subsumed, paresthetized by these kinds of ideas. And yet then you take a step back and you think, Hold on. The difference between being a gay mom in LA and a gay mom in Beirut or Tehran or Gaza, obviously, those are very different contexts, is a universe apart, and 100% of the time everyone would choose America. Why is that not enough to defeat the parasite?

Because I think the currency that they're seeking to optimize is the incorrect one. Imagine if I now tell you that there is no singular worse thing than to be judgmental against another culture. There is nothing worse. A pedophile is not as bad as a moral crime, let alone an actual crime, than to be, quote, bigoted against another. If I use that as the currency of how I I optimize my personhood, then that answers your question, which is the idea that I would pass a value-laden judgment on another people, especially if I define them as being brown people. By the way, not all Muslims are brown. Albanian Muslims are a lot wider than you are, right? But somehow it has been co-opted into, for example, Islam is a religion of brown people. Then there is nothing worse than I can if I'm speaking as a progressive, than to cast judgment on them. So yes, in the deep recesses of my mind, when I'm alone on my pillow late at night, I know that it is cognitively inconsistent what I'm saying. I know that as a gay woman, I would have a much different trajectory in my life if I'm in Yemen than if I am in New York.

But it just feels icky. It feels gauche to me to criticize the cultural values and religious values in Yemen Yemen. And therefore, since there is nothing worse than to me being judgmental in a bigoted way, then that's the hill that I'm going to die on.

Right. It's successfully put forward, and I think, one, the argument that it's somehow racist to say that not all cultures are created equal.

Exactly right. By the way, and that comes from an idea pathogen called cultural relativism. Earlier, you said many of these idea pathogens might have started in the '60s, but some earlier. While cultural relativism would be an example of an idea pathogen that started with Franz Boas, who was a Columbia University anthropologist who didn't like the idea that there could be human universals, because then to use biology to explain human phenomena might end up leading us down to, for example, eugenics. So he erected a complete new discipline, cultural Anthropology, that negated the possibility that humans are biological beings. And that idea pathogen goes back about 100 years ago. So you're exactly right that if we were to date the ideological parasites, the earliest ones would be about 40, 50 years ago, and the furthest ones would be about 100 years ago.

Part of the reason that campuses, I think, became such hotbeds for these parasitic ideas is because universities, which is really strange when you objectively think about it, are the most homogenous of any culture that I can think of in the West. Right now, and I think that this is understanding it, there are five self-identified liberal professors for every one conservative professor. That's according to one survey. I think it's like 20 to one, maybe 100 to one. It's a gross underestimate. I think it's a gross underestimate. But briefly, how did that happen? Because if you think about universities as being in the pursuit of truth, you would think that an essential ingredient for that would be people that are coming from really diverse perspectives which help you sharpen your own perspective to get to the truth. But they become like breeding grounds for sheep. How did that happen?

I mean, there are several mechanisms that led to that. I mean, in the most mundane way, it happens when you have hiring committees that only wish to have lunch with people who share their values, right? If I am a Trump hater, I simply can't stomach the possibility that a rational human being might have very compelling reasons why they wish to vote for Donald Trump, because I attribute that difference in political orientation to that person being irrational, being bigoted. And so there are several mechanisms that result in the echo chamber. But at the most fundamental, earthly manner, it's that you just end up closing the doors to anyone who is not exactly He liked me. The heartbreaking stories that I receive from people, dear Professor Sad, my supervisor found out that I said something kind or complementary about Donald Trump, and He's now taken off my name from a paper that I've worked on for the past year. I don't think I've got a future in that lab. Are you taking on any doctoral students? What I just said didn't happen in North Korea. It didn't happen in the struggle sessions of Mao Tsé Thun. It happened on a North American campus.

So that's what ends up happening. Liberal people are kind, they're empathetic, they're enlightened, they have the progressive lisp. I am one such academic. I only want people that are similar to me, around me. And therefore, if nothing else, I will never hire anybody that is different from me.

Your book came out at the end of 2020. We're now four years since then. And since that time period, two things have happened. One is that there has been an explosion of anti-Semitism everywhere, but most intensely on college campuses. Just to choose the past three weeks, and I could spend the next hour talking about different incidents, but I'll just choose a few. At Harvard, a mazuzza was ripped from a dorm room. At the University of Michigan, several Jewish students were physically assaulted at the University of Pittsburgh, which is where I grew up. Jewish students were assaulted with a glass bottle. Hamas flags were paraded in New York City days after the execution of the American citizen, Hirsch Goldberg pulled in in Gaza. That's one thing that has happened. To my question earlier, where we were talking about your upbringing in Lebanon, a lot of people then said, this will just blow over. The major conversation happening in the American Jewish community right now is, how bad has it gotten? Is it coming more from the right or the left? Is America not uniquely immune to the maybe oldest mind virus, which is that of anti-Semitism?

You've experienced a culture where this started to bubble up and then came into a full boil, which forced your family to leave. From your vantage point, given that experience, and I think given your particular instinct for danger, one that maybe many Americans, and certainly many American Jews who do not have a background like you have in Lebanon, how do you see where we are right now? How do you diagnose it?

It's very dark, and I'm not being hyperbolic. Look, people don't have the capacity to have the imagination to extrapolate. One of the reasons why I often joke, although I'm being literal in the sense that my satire is prophetic, it's because I take an insane idea or reality and I push it to its boundary condition. I then satirize it and I cross my hands and I wait for reality to catch up to my hyperbolic satire. For most people, they're busy in the myopia of their daily lives. I mean, yes, there seems to be some growing problems over there, but I'm busy. I have to buy the tomatoes tonight. Tomorrow, it's my daughter's wedding. Let somebody else worry about it. And hence that's why in the paracetic mind, I talk about ostrich parasitic syndrome. The ostrage doesn't It's literally bury its head in the sand, but it's become a metaphor of ignoring reality. So to your question, I think the writing on the wall is not a good one. Now, there are several reasons for that. One of them is ideological, the other one is demographic. The ideological one is very much what we've been talking about so far, right?

These parasitic ideas that are allowed to flourish on campuses. The Jews are white colonialists engaging in a daily genocide of noble Brown people. And this is what I learn in my near least political science degree at Columbia, and that's why I start to ape it when I go on the Hamas marches. So there's an ideological component to the dark clouds that have engulfed us. But there's also a demographic one. The adage demography is destiny couldn't be more apt, right? A society is not some magical culture. It is the encapsulation of what are the foundational values in that society. Well, in the United States, in Canada, historically, certainly in the last 40, 50, 60 years, it was viewed as inappropriate in polite society to openly and brazenly engage in Jew hatred. Things have changed now. I've seen it. The current University University I'm at is Northwood University. I'm a visiting professor there. The reason, by the way, I'm a visiting professor there is because I couldn't bear the possibility after my sabbatical leave to return to my home university, which is Concordia University, which makes all of the American schools that are facing anti-Semitism seem like child's play.

Concordia University has been referred to colloquially as Gaza University for over 20 years. You can't begin to imagine what it's like for the typical Jewish student or faculty to go to Concordia. Now, most students, you don't see it on their face that they're Jewish. They're anonymous, and they're feeling afraid to go to campus. So now imagine someone with my profile walking walking into campus. And so I decided that it was time for me to take a leave of absence. Well, what could be more of a canary in the coal mine?

Well, I just want to pause on this. You're saying that you're leaving Montreal or leaving your camp Fisc, Concordia, Montreal, because of anti-Semitism?

100 %. Now, there are other reasons why. Look, it's invigorating to go somewhere else. Even if there wasn't any of that anti-Semitism, it's nice to try a new trajectory. It invigorates you. So I I've taken leaves of absence in the past, but overwhelmingly, the main reason why I did not go back is because I don't really like the idea of being potentially knifeed. My wife, who's 5'3, hardly the most ominous-looking person, after October seventh, while I was still at Concordia, I was still teaching then before my sabbatical, would refuse to not come to campus with me because she at least wanted to be walking behind me lest someone might come and knife me. Now, if that's happening in the 21st century in Montreal, Canada, I think the canaries are singing really loudly, and it takes an imbecile to ignore those signs. So the typical American Jew to your earlier question that says, Oh, but it's not going to get so bad. Look, Bill Ockman, I've gotten to know him now. He's now very active, but it took for the problem to personally affect him for him to speak, right? It It came to his beloved Harvard.

It was a Jew, or geastic Jew-hating scenario that led him to wake up. But how come he didn't wake up three months earlier?

Well, this is a psychological question that I have been thinking about for at least the past 10 years, but probably 20, which is why are human beings not able to extrapolate when they watch the consequences of an idea or a set of ideologies until it's literally at their doorstep, and sometimes not even then? What is it about our species that prevents us from doing that?

Yeah, that's beautiful. I've actually exactly argued that, that the architecture of the human mind is regrettably structured, that there is no such thing as diabetes until diabetes enters my home. Until then, there is no such thing as diabetes. Well, why? It's because it allows us to navigate through an otherwise very scary world. I mean, Why is it that religion is such a infectious concept? Because if you have high cholesterol, and if you think that cholesterol harms you, well, then I can go to my physician. He or she can give me a pill that reduces my LDL scores, my bad cholesterol. But my fear of mortality, there is no pill for that. We're all on a death sentence, and there is one pill that I can take. I can choose different religious narratives, but all of them promise me that the party will go on forever. And that's why for most people, it is a lot more comforting to be a believer than to be an atheist. To be an atheist, you're a glutton for punishment because it allows me much letter ability to navigate through the ugly vagaries and stochastic vagaries of the world. So it's tough for me to imagine that all of these looming dangers exist.

It's better for me to go la, la, la and only worry about it when it comes to bite my behind. And so That's just part of the architecture of cowardice of the human brain.

Explain to me how anti-Semitism, a topic I've thought a lot about, is often the expression of these parasitic ideas. In other words, why is it that it's coming first or maybe primarily for Jews? Because most people who aren't Jewish, either these incidences that our community is understandably so alarmed by, they either don't rate for them, like they literally aren't even coming on their radar because they're not making news, or they hear about them and say, It's a pity, but it's not affecting me. Explain two things. One, why is it relevant to everyone that this is happening to people like you and happening in cities like Montreal? Two, how does anti-Semitism and these parasitic ideologies, how do they intersect or connect?

So there are several mechanisms, some of which, you're right, are due to parasitic ideas. But let me start with a different explanation for why anti-Semitism is so alluring to so many people. So in psychology, there is something called the fundamental attribution error. So for example, do you attribute successes or self-serving bias? Do you attribute successes or failures internally or externally? Now, for most people, they attribute successes internally. I did well on the exam because I'm very smart. And they attribute failures externally. I did poorly on the exam because Professor Saad is a Jew asshole, and he's unfair. And for most people, that's a very comforting way to navigate through the world because it's an ego defensive strategy. It protects my ego. Now, imagine if I can find an external culprit for all of my failures, and it is the diabolical Jew. You You just got diabetes. It's because Jews are holding on to the cure for diabetes, but because they're greedy, for whatever reason, they're not distributing it. Your wife just cheated on you. Who created pornography and hence infused her with these lascivious ideas. It was the Jew because she probably consumed porn. And so that's why, by the way, I created, Barry, this game I call sixth Degree of Jew.

For any calamity around the world, I will challenge you to find 6 causal degrees by which you then ultimately arrive to, how do we blame the Jew for it? I think beyond these parasitic ideas that we've been talking about, it's something that is innately part of the architecture of the human mind. I need to protect my ego. What better way to attribute all of my failures to some cause? And in this case, it's the Jew. Now, your next question could be, but why the Jew? Why do we use the Jew? And so here I'm going to borrow a term from Professor Amy Chua, who's a professor of law at Yale, who was the mentor of JD Vance.

Otherwise known as Tiger Mom.

Otherwise known as Tiger Mom, who basically argued that market dominant minorities is a phenomenon that you see in many cultures, where you go to Malaysia or Indonesia, where there is a very small minority that controls 60% of the commerce in that society. Well, for better or worse, the history of the Jews is that they are defined by being a market dominant minority. By the way, that's one of the reasons why you want to have the land of Israel, because that's one place where they're not market dominant minorities. And for better or worse, Jews end up dominating in many places, in philosophy, in music, in academia, in medicine, in law. Imagine from the perspective of the non-Jew in those societies, there are these few assholes that Or every time I go to my lawyer, he's a Jew, and the physician is a Jew, and the professor in the classroom is a Jew. I'm not successful. There must be some grand machination that causes these people to lead. Frankly, I think that's arguably... I mean, yes, we could talk theological reasons why Islam hates the Jews and why Christians hate the Jews. But from a deep psychological level, I think that that's the primary reason.

Would you agree, though, that the thing that we sometimes sloppily call wokeness, for lack of a better term, is fundamentally anti-Semitic?

Not every manifestation of a parasitic idea that falls under wokeism is related to anti-Semitism, but it's easy for it to lead there. So for example, if you view the world through the lens of the binary of colonial settler and victim, and if wrongly so, you attribute the Jew to being the aggressive settler who's the white guy who comes from Vienna because Jews have absolutely no historical ancestral connection to Israel, they truly are colonial monsters of genocide. If that's what you're taught in university as a parasitic idea, then it's not difficult to imagine why Greta Thunberg walks around with her k'fee'ah. So there is an element of Jew hatred that is tied to wokeism, but Jew hatred has existed way before anybody had ever uttered the word wokeism. It's the ugliest and oldest form of existential bigotry that one can imagine.

I want to entertain two reactions that I'm hearing a lot recently. One is this, wokeness has peaked. The SAT is coming back. Companies are rolling back their DEI policies. University professors and some of these university presidents who embarrassed themselves so unbelievably in Washington are being forced to step down. Notable alumni, including people like Bill Ackman, are pulling their donation money. Jamal Bowman and Cory Bush lost their races. The pendulum is swinging back to the center. That's one argument that I hear. The other argument that I hear is we're in a pre war period and something like what happened in Lebanon in our American context, the stage has been set for that. On the one hand, I'm hearing things are going back to normal. On the other hand, I'm hearing we're in a pre-civil war period. Engage with both of those arguments for me, God, and tell me where you fall.

To the first one, it's better. Yes, there is some autocorrection that is happening so that the pendulum is slightly autocorrecting, but at a very slow rate. So for example, I decided for many years now to no longer apply for research grants because the research grants require you to fill out what I call a die statement. I put the acronyms in the right order, diversity, inclusion, equity. So I would think it is grotesquely inauthentic for me to write the parasitic mind where I rail against this reality. But then when nobody is watching to play along for careerist purposes. So I have literally, I have no research funds right now to conduct my research because I'm unwilling to play the game. So yes, there are small microscopic autocorrections that we can all feel good about. But I hate I hate to say it, and I never want to be pessimistic. I think that depending on what happens in the United States in a few weeks, we could be facing the second darker scenario, right? Because, and I don't know if you want me to get political on your show or not, and I'm Canadian, so I don't have a direct dog in that fight.

But in my view, Kamala Harris represents all of the possible violations of the deontological principles that made the United States.

God, I think a lot of listeners who will have been nodding along up until this point are going to hear you say, Wait, wait, wait, hold on. This guy's telling me he prefers that Donald Trump wins. So let's slow down for a second. Sure. I want to explain how someone like you who's committed their life as you write about to reason in the pursuit of truth, prefers Donald Trump, someone with such a history of lying and such a compromised character, if I can put it diplomatically, why you prefer him to come Harris, I want you to make the case for that to the listener who probably finds themselves somewhat shocked that that's where you've landed.

Sure. My doctoral dissertation was in psychology of decision making. One of the things that we do as behavioral decision theorists is we study the cognitive processes that people use to arrive at a decision. Let me give you an example of such a cognitive rule. There is something called the lexicographic rule, forgive the jargon, that basically says when you're making a decision, you only look at your most important attribute and you choose the alternative that scores higher on that important attribute. Or if you are using the language of, say, politics, it's a one-issue voter. For example, if I'm buying toothpaste, if all I care about is the price of the toothpaste, I will choose the brand that is most on sale today. And so for many decisions, people end up using these simplifying heuristics when they're making decisions. Now, let's apply that to Donald Trump. Let's I suppose that I'm a one-issue voter. I singularly care most about immigration. Now, rightly or wrongly, but I think it is rightly so, I believe that Donald Trump would have a better hand on open border policies than Kamala. So if I'm a lexicographic rule user, then it would be perfectly rational for me to choose Donald Trump.

I mean, literally, that's the definition of rationality using that psychology of decision making process. But let me give you more examples. Earlier, we talked about E. O. Wilson saying, great idea, wrong species when it came to communism. When Kamala Harris proposes price controls as an economic policy, I won't bore your listeners in telling how astoundingly wrong that is. Remember, I'm a professor at a business school, so I know one or two things about what price controls do. So when I hear her say that, I am seeing a foundational violation of capitalistic principles. That's number two. When Kamala Harris is part of a political party where the non Germany to the Supreme Court, the last justice, doesn't have the epistemological confidence to answer the question, What is a woman? Then who is on the right side of truth? Donald Trump, who could answer this Very difficult question. Until 15 minutes ago, we had 117 billion people who've ever existed on Earth who knew exactly how to define men and women. But in the last 15 minutes, we no longer are able to navigate through this very difficult minefield. And that's why she wasn't able to offer it because she's not a biologist.

So it would be grossly, grotesquely incorrect to think that voting for Donald Trump is a vote against truth and rationality and voting for Kamala is the opposite. That's simply not true. Now, I could give you many more examples, but I hope that I've offered somewhat of a convincing argument.

What is your singular issue?

I'm not a singular issue voter. So for me, what would be most important would be- But in the decision making framework. Yeah, it would be immigration policy. It would be economic policies that are consistent with capitalism. And another one that I didn't mention, earlier, you referred to equality of outcomes, which Which, of course, Kamala is into, which is the emphasis of a meritocracy, which is the opposite of individual dignity. Well, I believe that the ethos of meritocracy is foundational to the United States. The ethos of equality of outcomes is a cancer to individual dignity. So it's probably be those three things. So there is almost nothing that comes out of Kamala Harris's mouth that I would support in a deontological sense.

You're so committed to truth. In your work and reality. Trump denying that he lost the 2020 elections seems like a big lapse in commitment to reality and the truth.

So it depends what your standard here is. In chapter one, I talk about me living in a purity bubble, right? And actually my mother telling me, Hey, God, the quicker you realize that the world doesn't abide to your purity bubble, the better you'll be able to navigate the world. So in that sense, then any lie would be a fatal flaw in a candidate. But I also live in the real world where I know that the way that you know that a politician is lying is if their lips move. So there is almost no politician that I could ever think of where I couldn't find an endless number of spewed lies from that person. So yes, it is true that Donald Trump lies. By the way, he lies about things typically that are ego defensive, which, by the way, Kamala Harris was able to to pick at him. I have the biggest penis. That's settled science. There's the biggest number of people who come to my gatherings, because his ego is fragile. So does he fib? Does he lie? Absolutely. Is he narcissistic? Absolutely.

And in your view, how does she lie differently? What does she lie about?

She actually rejects the possibility that there is an epistemology of truth. There is no truth. She is part of the camp that espouses This is postmodernism. So what's better- To just to steal man that God, give us an example.

Where do you see her doing that?

When I am such a rejecter of reality, if I can put it that way, in arguing that it is absolutely It's not going to be necessary to say that men, too, can menstruate and that men, too, can bear children. That's why her running mate, that's why they call him tampon Tim, right? That's why it's a great public policy idea to mandate that there should be tampons in boys' restroom. That's what I mean by a rejection of truth, because there is no truth. There is no biological truth. There is no such thing as chromosomes. Your gender, even in some cases, they argue your biological sex is pliable, it's malleable, it's not fixed. That's called an antiquated binary form of thinking.

Well, Donald Trump has survived two assassination attempts in the past two months. You've said this, this is what happens when people in power power engage in such unhinged hysteria about Trump. A society cannot survive such unmodulated irrationality. You've also said this recently, For many years now, I've warned that the path that the West is taking will result in civil war. It might take five years, 50 years, or 100 years, but it is inevitable. Have you become more concerned about that since July 13th, which was the first assassination attempt on Trump? I I have to say I've been pretty shocked by how quickly it faded from the news. The one that happened the other day on the golf course almost didn't seem to last a single day. Are we numb to it? Are we American sleep walking? Are we doing the thing that our species does, which is to deny the danger and be able to ignore it until it's right at our doorstep with the knock? What's going on here?

Yeah. Here, forgive me, I'm going to use a few technical terms, but I'll explain So in ethics, there is a distinction between two types of ethical systems. And I've used the term in our conversation often, but I haven't explained it. Deontological ethics is when you have an absolute truth. So for example, if I say it is never okay to lie, that's a deontological statement. That's to be contrasted with consequentialism, which says it's okay to lie if you wish to spare someone's feelings. So I often joke that if you want to have a long lasting marriage, if you hear the question, do I look fat in those jeans, put the consequentialist hat on because you want to modulate your answers so that you don't hurt your spouse's feelings. Now, for many things, we're all consequentialists, and that makes perfect sense. But there is a set of foundational principles that by definition have to be deontological. I'm setting up this conversation to answer your question. So for example, when people say, of course, I believe in freedom of speech, but not for existential threat, Donald Trump, you're engaging in consequentialism when it should have been a deontological principle.

I am Jewish with my own personal history, yet I support the right of Holocaust deniers to spew the most offensive, insulting speech humanly possible, which is the rejection of a basic historical reality called the Holocaust. That's the price you pay to live in a free society. So now I'm going to answer your question. I think many people push aside what happened to Trump because they have their consequentialist hat on. In the grand scheme of things, if that bullet had actually been successful, then we could have averted the existential threat. I mean, there is no distinguishable difference between Donald Trump and Himmler, Goebbels, and Hitler in the minds of some of those people. So from that perspective, why should I worry so much about whether there's an assassination attempt on him? He's literally Hitler. No. Protecting our political leaders, even if we despise them, is such a fundamental deontological principle for a well-functioning democracy that even if you are the most ardent fan of the Democratic Party, you should be deeply concerned. But people are not because they have consequentialist hat on, not the ontological.

Professor Saat, are you ready for a lightning round?

I'm never nervous, but I'm a bit nervous, but go. Let's see if I can pull it off.

Don't be nervous. You wrote a whole book about leading a happy life. You say it all boils down to your choice of spouse and your choice of career. I know I made a good choice with Nelly. Did I make a good choice in journalism?

You did because you navigate in the world of ideas. There's nothing more beautiful than the creative process. You're creating content right now. Every time you do a show, you're creating something that people consume that enriches people. So yes, Dr. Sad has granted you his imprimatur of having chosen the right profession.

Thank you so much. Is happiness something that we should actually aspire to?

No, it should be a consequence of hopefully making right decisions and adopting proper mindset. So I use at the end of the Happiness Book, I rework a quote from Viktor Frankl who said that you don't seek success. It comes to you if you make, I'm paraphrasing, if you make the right decision. So I don't wake up in the morning and say, what are the four steps I need to do today to be happy? But rather, if I have adopted a set of fundamental mindsets, creative impulse, choosing the right wife, if the person that I wake up next to is someone that I go, yes, then I'm well on my way to being happy.

So go for meaning and purpose and happiness will follow.

Absolutely.

Okay. What is the best parenting advice you can offer as an evolutionary psychologist?

Oh, that's such a good question. Treat your children with the full dignity of them being little persons. They have full person. I'm very, very loving. I'm very much of a doting father, but I don't do gucci gucci. I abhor that. So I can literally sit with my son and talk about governmental intrusion and the power of libertarianism using the language that is appropriate for a six, seven, eight-year world. And so I think that has led, I'd like to think, to a very enriching intellectual life in the sad household.

Okay. Best dating advice as an evolutionary psychologist.

The physical attraction is very, very important. Of course, that's what draws us in. But try to find those little cues that suggests that this person is worth investing a second, third, fourth, fifth date or not. Don't get mired in how tall they are, if they're a man or how beautiful they are. Those are nice, but those fade. What's important are those cues that suggest that they are kind, they are caring, they listen, they're compassionate. Look for those cues. Unless you're looking for short term meeting, in which case look at their physicality. But if you're looking for long term, those things fade.

Best marriage advice.

This I'm going to borrow a quote from, I think it was Charles Murray who came on my show, the political scientist who said, The secret to a good marriage is to marry your best friend who you also happen to be sexually attracted to. I don't think you could say it better than that.

What advice would you give someone listening to this in Gen Z who feels lonely right now?

Just get out there and open yourself to the world. Every single day, I have these impromptu random meetings with people, not necessarily fans coming up. Just I'm sitting at a cafe, I see someone reading a book, I go, Oh, I read that book. What do you think of it? So find those little snippets in your daily lives to hopefully have a meaningful exchange with another human being. That's the right cure for loneliness.

Can AI companions cure loneliness? And would you let your kids have an AI friend?

Wow, what an amazing question. First time I've ever been asked that question ever. No, I think there is something quite unique about interacting with a flesh and blood human being. Yes, I think there are many ways by which we can have our brains kept entertained by interacting with all sorts of technology. But that special bond that you get with interacting with another person, there's nothing like it. By the way, towards the end the happiness book, I quote some research that shows that even more so than what your cholesterol score is when you're 50, the quality of the social relationships that you have is a better protector for your heart than the things that you typically would think of. So just establish meaningful contacts with other human beings.

You mentioned cafés. What's the best café in Montreal?

The best café in Montreal is probably De Mercante.

Coffee or tea?

Oh, my goodness. Tea is something that I only ever think about if I have a cold, a cough, or bronchitis. Otherwise, you have to be an animal to drink tea.

You recently lost a lot of weight. How did you do it?

Actually, it was during COVID, I wanted to flip a negative into a positive. I made sure to eat no more than about 1,500 calories a day. And because I have a wonderful wife who is pretty much a culinary Nazi, she keeps track of every single calorie that goes into this glutinous mouth. So at the end of the day, she could tell me, Okay, you're at 1,462. Don't have popcorn. So keeping track of my calories and making sure to do 15 to 20,000 steps a day. One day, you get on the scale and you go, Oh, my God, I lost 86 pounds.

Is that how much you lost?

From my heaviest weight to my lightest, I'm about eight pounds heavier now than my lightest. But that difference was 86 pounds, Barry.

What has had the biggest impact on your life?

Oh, by far, the number one book, because it traced the trajectory of my academic career, was a book that I read by two of the pioneers of evolutionary psychology, Margot Wilson and Martin Daly, the book is titled Homicide, where they study patterns of criminality using an evolutionary lens. That's the epiphany I had to then apply evolutionary psychology to consumer behavior.

You tweet a lot. Is there something you've publicly said or tweeted that you regret and which you could take back?

So sometimes I have tweeted something and then later found out that it was a false information or whatever. Usually, I never delete it because I want there to be a public record of me having made that mistake. So I will usually issue an edit where I say, Oh, it has now come to my attention that that... So the only thing I regret is when I was too quick in sharing something that turns out to be false. But in terms of positions that I've taken, absolutely not, precisely because because the values that I espouse are deontological ones, so I don't regret any of the principles that I defend.

You write a lot about sex and mating, something we can cover in another conversation. Was the sexual revolution a net positive or a net negative?

It It makes sense if you ask men or women, and I talk about that in the happiness book. Telling women, burn your proverbial bras and anything that a man wants is exactly what you want. It then turns out that when you do a longitudinal study of women's happiness over the past 40 years, there's been a precipitous drop. Well, why? Because that which makes men happy in the sexual arena need not be exactly the same as women. So from a male perspective, having women that want to have unencumbered one-time sex is a great idea. I'm not sure it's as good an idea for women.

Who do you think is going to win in the 2024 presidential election?

I'm starting to think that Kamala has a real chance, but I'm still going to go out on a limb and say, Trump will pull it off.

You're a marketing professor, among other things. How can I get more subscribers at the Free Press?

I should be asking you this question. You're the marketing expert who has a lot bigger platform. Hopefully, by having guests, continuing to have guests that people say, Oh, my God, I love these conversations. I love the content. You're doing well. You don't need my advice.

Well, maybe I do. Anyway, Dr. Godsad, thank you so much for making the time and coming on, honestly. I really appreciate it.

Such a delight talking Thank you for having me.

Thanks for listening. If you like this episode, if it made you think differently about the ideas that we discussed or about which presidential candidate is better to preserve liberalism, and I suspect lots of people disagree with God, that's the point. Share this episode with your friends and family and use it to have an honest conversation of your own. Last but not least, if you want to support Honestly, there's just one way to do it. It's by going to the Free Press's website at thefp. Com and becoming a subscriber today. We'll see you next time.