Why Multiculturalism Isn’t the Enemy—The Truth Behind America’s Identity Crisis

Are you tired of hearing that diverse communities are the problem? In this episode, Dr. Ryan Partovi, JD, NMD, MIFHI, and Mrs. Madi Partovi dive deep into the real battle reshaping America—not left versus right, but cosmopolitan values versus tribal identitarian agendas. You’ll hear how multiculturalism has been hijacked, why assimilation matters, and what YOU can do to reclaim critical thinking and unity. With stories from family, faith, and everyday experience, this is the conversation everyone should be having, but most are afraid to.

It’s not just about politics or headlines—it’s about building a future where pluralism wins over division, and genuine self-expression beats inherited baggage. Listen in for real talk that connects personal stories to national change, with tools you can use to spark new conversations in your own circles.

Important Topics:

• Decoding the real difference between multiculturalism, cosmopolitanism, and identitarian politics—why getting the terms right matters for America’s health.
• How tribalism plays out both on the left and right, from cancel culture to new forms of exclusion and discrimination.
• Why self-reflection and clearing personal baggage lets you live more authentically, and how this translates into healthier families and a stronger society.

We love hearing from you! Do you have questions or want to suggest a future podcast topic? Email us today at office@drpartovi.com — your input helps us create content that serves you best.

Ready to take charge of your family’s health? Visit https://www.aspenwellnessinstitute.com to access personalized wellness solutions, expert guidance, and a community that supports informed, empowered health choices.

The contents of this podcast are for educational purposes only and do not constitute medical advice. Talk to your medical professional before starting any new treatment.

Don’t forget to subscribe for more enriching discussions, and leave a review if you loved the episode!

We love hearing from you! Do you have questions or want to suggest a future podcast topic? Email us today at office@drpartovi.com — your input helps us create content that serves you best.

Ready to take charge of your family’s health? Visit https://www.aspenwellnessinstitute.com to access personalized wellness solutions, expert guidance, and a community that supports informed, empowered health choices.

The contents of this podcast are for educational purposes only and do not constitute medical advice. Talk to your medical professional before starting any new treatment.

Don’t forget to subscribe for more enriching discussions, and leave a review if you loved the episode!

Chapters

• 0:00 Introduction and Birthday Celebration
• 0:48 Parenting Reflections and Critical Thinking
• 7:22 Cultural Conversations and Free Speech
• 11:41 Cosmopolitanism vs. Identitarianism
• 43:56 The Intersection of Multiculturalism and Identitarianism
• 48:39 Examples of Assimilation and Cultural Identity
• 1:00:51 The Influence of Social Media and Foreign Entities
• 1:12:14 Personal Reflections and Concluding Thoughts

Transcript

 

Introduction and Birthday Celebration

 📍 Welcome to this episode of The Partovi Effect. My name is Mrs. Maddie Partovi. 

And I'm Dr. Ryan Partovi, 

and our little one is four years old today. 

Mm-hmm. 

The big four 

we're having a, uh, teenage mutant Ninja Turtle themed birthday party for him the eighties. Teenage me too. Ninja  turtle,  of 

course. Right.

The only teenage meja turtle, as far as I'm concerned. 

He, he insisted that we have matching tattoos. So this is my, the shredder. Tattoos. Yes. 

It's, to be clear, it's the evil shredder attacks tattoo.

Parenting Reflections and Critical Thinking

You know, it, it struck me the, we just had an interview with, uh, Dr. Or a dialogue with Dr. Joel Wars and. Um, you know, I asked him as a daddy Padawan, daddy Jedi, you know, what he would, what he's committed to imparting to his 

6-year-old 

Padawan son. 

Mm-hmm. 

Yeah. Yeah. And so I was, um, being with that myself and what is it that I, I'm committed to, uh, imparting to my sons as a mother.

And critical thinking is one. You know, and the way that I, I work with our now 4-year-old or then 3-year-old on critical thinking is that I'll ask him to, to look at something and I, I'll ask him, what is that, A puppy? Is that actually a puppy? No, it's a picture of a puppy. It's a drawing of a puppy. So he kind of starts thinking, and we were driving just the other day I was driving and then there was a snack, a special snack that he had.

He he bought for himself, right? 

Hmm. I'm trying to wonder what this is. Right. So is it applesauce, dots? 

Oh, there are these, those gluten-free crackers. 

Oh, those gluten-free crackers that he loves. Yes. They're grain-free actually, even, but yeah, 

and we were stopped at a, a stop sign and then he asked me, mommy, what are you doing driving?

Mommy? What are you actually doing? Eating your crackers?

Oh, that's cute. 

I love it. I love it. It's so 

stinky, cute. 

That checks 

out the whole, all of the 3-year-old. Beautiful, lovely, magical things, you know, that he says, and I'm just, he, he falls asleep with his hand on my cheek and you know, he cresses my arm and just puts his hand on my cheek and he falls asleep.

And the other morning I wake up to a hand in my cheek and here he is right in front of my face. We're laying down side by side and I look at him and he says, mommy, you are so pretty.

Oh my gosh, I just being present to you that I get to live. I get to love on little me. You know, I get to provide a space. 

I think that time it was little me. Just so we're clear, 

he is very much a little, you, me, and him, right? Yeah. And. Providing the space for him as a mom to arise into his full self-expression and, um, the beautiful things that he says and how he's so thoughtful and kind and funny.

And I was brushing my teeth last night and he was, came up behind me and, you know, was patting me. And he said, mommy, yeah, Heidi's an an instrument.

It is an instrument. Actually, he 

asked me a question 

now, what did it, what did it, it's an instrument of is a whole nother topic, but it's definitely an instrument. 

And just, and he, we were sitting together and he is looking at me, he says, mommy, what are, what are boobies for? Uh, and I, I asked him, you know, what do you think they're for food?

Mm-hmm. 

Right. 

Oh. Um, my gosh, the child is just so brilliant. Um hmm. 

So today's episode dedicated to him, our new 4-year-old 

Yes, yes. He just says funny. So it's such funny things. I, I'm taken aback by it and I am in awe by it. Um

hmm. Yeah. Yeah.

We have a 4-year-old. We 

do.

He's doing great. 

I need my tissue again. 

You need tissue shoot. I'm doing, do we have any around here? We can pause and I'll go grab some

and. I think he's just starting to really get that he goes to a different school than his brother. 'cause he, he keeps asking me sometimes, where's Ryan? Mm-hmm. 

I said, 

well, Ryan goes to a different school now and you have one more year, uh, before you go to school together. And, um, he, he got excited. He says, one more year.

And then I get to go to school with my sweet Ryan. 

Yep. 

The child is just very expressive. Um, and he's love, like, fully self expressed, you know? Mm-hmm. So to be in the presence of that each day, it's a blessing. 

Yeah.

Okay. Great. Got anything else on your mind today? No. 

Well, you, you, you've, uh. Illuminated just a tiny little bit of what you wanted to talk about today. Mm-hmm. Mm-hmm. And sometimes when you do that, I'm like, huh? What? Why all the, you know, um, and if you, I asked you, is it something that I should care about?

Hmm. 

And I have a, an a suspicion that maybe I should care about it and for the sake of our sons? 

Hmm. Yeah. 

Cultural Conversations and Free Speech

Well, I think that, you know, it's inside a broader cultural conversation on like, what are the boundaries of acceptable? Conversation. Right. And, and this has really been going on a lot lately. You know, there's people on both sides of the political aisle talking a lot about it and sort of where those boundaries are and why those boundaries exist is kind of what this cuts to at the core.

So just to give you a, a background, I would say that that is, you know, are there any limits on what really, you know, as, as, as Eric Weinstein says, what we mustn't talk about or what we mustn't uh, say, you know, because he has this distinction where he says, well, there's things that you legally can't say.

There's things that you really shouldn't say. And there's things that we mustn't say and, you know. Mut is, is he kind of creates the distinction is like these are things which we, um, and I'm, I might mess this up, but basically it's the idea that he, uh, puts forward, uh, and, and there's a recent Pi Morgan interview that he did where it's like, there's certain things where that saying them, the, the, the consequences of saying them are, you know, not worth them being said.

It's not that we should make them illegal. It's not that you can't say them, but more that really you mustn't that, that, that saying them is, does more harm than good. And that is an interesting concept 'cause I kind of think of myself as being a free speech advocate who really is a big believer in free speech and.

Um, and then what's interesting in that interview, which I recommend to everyone where peers really pushes them, okay, well give me some examples of people we've had on and, you know, and, and, and so I can either agree with you or disagree. And, you know, because, and he's, he's, he refuses to do that throughout the almost 45 minute interview because he basically says, if I name these people, they're gonna come after me.

So I'm not gonna do it, but I'm describing them. And they're basically people who are gonna come after you for your ideas. Um, and or for, or for pushing back on their ideas. But I think I have a way to help people identify those people. And it, it is actually, it came out of a conversation that, um, I heard Brett Weinstein, Eric's brother, who is, um, the co-host of the Dark Horse podcast, which is.

You know, my, I guess now second favorite podcast after ours. Right. Um, but has been my favorite for a long time. And, uh, with his wife Heather ing and, um, a conversation he had recently with Jordan Peterson. So, um, you 

left it be. 

Before I get into that, is there anything else you wanted to say? 

I am left in full suspense.

'cause a lot of what you're saying is very conceptual. Okay. So I'm, I'm kind of excited to get into it. Well, 

this is a conceptual conversation on some level, but I would say it is an important concept Okay. That everybody needs to get, because if you can really get this, it's gonna help demystify a lot of the cultural conversation that's going on right now because our society is in the midst of a cultural transition and we have to be really clear on where we want that to go.

You know, do we want to, is it, is it an out with the, out with the old in with the new, and is that new really new? Or is it actually the return of some kind of darker things from the past that maybe are best left in the past? And that's all that's at the root of this conversation is like, what kind of future do we want to create for our lives and for our children's lives and our grandchildren's lives?

And I think if you can root yourself in that, then I think you'll really be coming from a good place. 

Great. Well, I, I intuitively rooted myself in that, in that moment. Good. We have children. 

Yeah. Great. Okay, great. So I'll get started. 

Cosmopolitanism vs. Identitarianism

Um, started, um, you know, um, I, I, first, I just wanna say right off the bat, you know, obviously I really respect Brett Weinstein.

I really admire his courage and the way he insists on clarity and his drive to build better, better models of understanding. And so this. That I'm gonna present this model that I'm gonna present is really in, uh, the same spirit, the same ethos that he presents all of his models of reality, because I think he got something wrong, or at least something that needs some sharpening, you know, some refinement.

Um, so he frames. And I'm gonna play a clip from a recent podcast so you can hear it in his own words. But, um, he frames multiculturalism as kind of a problem, a force that fractures society and he pits it directly against cosmopolitanism or what he calls western cosmopolitanism, which he says this is the solution.

But the issue is I think that's a misdiagnosis, which is something that I have some expertise in, right? Diagnosis. I would argue the problem is not multiculturalism. The problem is identitarianism. And I think if we don't get that distinction right, we're gonna misdiagnose the disease and then prescribe the wrong cure.

So let's get precise, which is something that I know Brit, uh, appreciates. And I'm gonna start by giving him the opportunity to really, uh, state his case in his, uh, own words. Here we 

go. And. I wanna make sure that, oops,

I 

don't know 

why 

it's come to the conclusion that we've been sold a bill of goods and the bill of goods was called multiculturalism. And the problem with multiculturalism is that it sounds like something that those of us who like to interact with people from many different cultures should appreciate.

But it's in fact the opposite of the thing that we, the value that we actually hold, value that we actually hold, I would call western cosmopolitanism. 

Yeah. That's very different. 

It's the opposite. 

Mm-hmm. 

Right. Multiculturalism is the idea that people should, uh, not join our societies, but they should maintain their own traditions, uh, in an isolated pocket and, and that we should.

Effectively reject the idea of becoming one people in the West. Mm-hmm. It's just a reduplicating of the situation that obtains in the world at law. 

All right. So, you know, I think that that's, um, pretty clear what he said. Did you, did you have any thoughts about that before I get into my thoughts about it?

No. Okay. Um, yeah, so I mean, and I, of course. I encourage people to listen to that whole conversation. It's really great. He, it's right after he came back from the Dairy and Gap and I, anyway, I've been thinking about this for the last few months since, since they recorded that podcast. And I think that, you know, one of the things that Dr.

Peterson often talks about is how most disagreements are definitional. So I think it's really important to get at the definition of some of these words before we can really say what's an opposite, what's not right, and, and, and really discern what is at issue in our society right now. So, you know, what I'm gonna offer is the definition of Cosmopolitan, which is at its core is the belief that every human being belongs to a single moral community.

It's about universals, dignity. Human rights, empathy. Uh, cosmopolitan says you can be proud of where you're from, but not at the expense of someone else. So it's the idea that your tribe is humanity itself, and I think that Brett would probably agree with that definition. So cosmopolitanism is this vision of mutual respect, shared responsibility as a society, and you can be cosmopolitan and be on the left or the right and.

Um, I forgot we're mirroring the screen, I should have said, and the left, you can be on the left or the right. Um, and so then that begs the question of what's multiculturalism. So multiculturalism in its classical liberal form, which is, you know, the form that most of us grew up understanding, is just the idea that a healthy society can be composed of different, you know, different people from different cultures, different traditions, different backgrounds, and that should, we should make room at the table for those differences and make room for those different voices.

And so it's about coexistence, it's not about supremacy of any one particular, um, you know, any one background, any one culture, any one tradition. So it's, you know, the idea that all cultures are respected. Um, so what I think when Brett is critiquing multiculturalism, I think what he's really pushing back on is not.

Multiculturalism itself, but a corrupted, you know, kind of a corruption of it, which is one that has been hijacked by Identitarian leftism, but that is not, uh, multiculturalism. It's actually something else entirely. Is, is what I'm gonna, uh, make the case for. So Identitarianism. So this is what actually I think he's seeing.

So Identitarianism says that your identity group, whether defined by race, religion, sexuality, nationality is the most important thing about you. That your group's historical grievances or superiority, give you special moral status that we need to organize society around group identity versus individual rights, which is what we've historically done.

So this idea shows up on both sides of the political spectrum. On the right, you see it as white nationalism. You see it as Christian nationalism. You see it as ethno traditionalism. So the idea that, you know, we need to have states organi organized around ethnic groups, right? Tribe tribes, essentially on the left, you see the same kind of tribalism, but it, it manifests as intersectionality as doctrine.

You know, the idea that, well, someone who's had a, a, a stronger history of oppression needs to be, uh, given more of a voice and have more rights than someone who has less of it. So basically, if you're, you know, a black lesbian, um, you know, who's, uh, only has one leg, your voice should be listened to more than someone who is, uh, uh, white Anglo-Saxon, Protestant, male, you know, cisgender, et cetera.

So, um, this is, you know, that there's like this hierarchy, right? Um, critical race praxis. So this is the idea of critical race theory. Which is basically applying the idea of systemic racism to, um, almost every single societal issue and interaction and problem, and saying like, this is what's animating everything in society.

And if you're not present to the racism and every, and every little bit of everything, then you know you are getting it wrong, or you're blind or you're not sufficiently, you know, woke, um, to the injustices around you. And that's where the term woke originally comes from actually was this, uh, this idea of critical race theory, which is now critical race practice.

So, which is the idea of, hey, let's take this in into practice. Let's put it in academia, let's put it in schools, let's have everyone, um, basically. Listen to the voices again, of the people that are, uh, historically oppressed and relate to them as being historically oppressed. And that, that all of social interactions come down to oppressor and oppressed.

Um, and then the kind of, and I have to kind of define these terms because a lot of people, you know, everybody kind of has a sense of what Christian nationalism is, right? It's the idea that people want a Christian country that, you know, we're all the laws and basically give special status to Christian people, right?

And everybody else has second tier status. So those are pretty commonly understood. But not everybody knows, you know, what, what we mean when we say intersectionality or critical race praxis. So, you know, on the left, ident, identitarianism often looks like that kind of, you know, identity politics that says only certain voices count, or at least that certain voices count way more than other voices or should be listened to or heard more because of, uh, historical.

Either being underprivileged or, you know, privileged that was given to other voices. So now we need to give, you know, we need to give greater privilege to voices that historically haven't been heard in order to compensate for that. So, but at the end of the day, whether we're talking about white nationalism or that we're talking about critical race praxis, it's fundamentally the same structure.

And this is something that, um, James Lindsay talks a lot about, and I respect James. He's, I've met him in person. I think he's a great guy. Um, and, but I think he has a hard time conveying what, what is this sort of woke right and woke left, and what is it that they have in common? And I would say that the answer is, um, that they have identitarianism in common, because fundamentally, that's really what.

Is the essence of this whole conversation. It's the idea of group identity above shared humanity. And that's really the true opposite of cosmopolitanism, which is the, the point I would make to Brett. So instead of setting up this false dichotomy between cosmopolitanism and multiculturalism, I want offer a better model, which I call the cosmopolitan ident identitarian axis.

Um, so we're gonna look at a grid, which, um, I created for this purpose. Two, two. Two. Okay. There's the grid. Okay, great. Um, so let's kind of go through the, the four grids and then we'll talk more about this whole concept. So, um, top left, you've got your cosmopolitan. So this is, you know, most people would think of this as like the traditional left.

And I think that frankly, Brett and Heather, and, you know, I certainly would identify with this cosmopolitan left, and this is the left where you find things, ideas like pluralism, um, you know, specifically the idea of multiculturalism and, and liberalism, which is very consistent with, for example, Montessori philosophy.

Um, universal human rights. Um, and being inclusive. So, you know, great examples of left cosmopolitanism are people like f uh, Frederick Douglass, who fought for the inclusion of black Americans in the American constitutional tradition. George Orwell, who condemned the totalitarianism, but ret retained that universal moral concern, even while critiquing his own society through his fiction.

And of course, Martin Luther King Jr. Uh, especially in his appeal to content of character over color of skin, which emphasized that universal moral worth of the individual. So these are people who are standing for everyone's dignity, not just their particular groups On the right cosmopolitan side, um, you have, um, I think, you know, equally solid ideas.

You've got classical liberalism, civic nationalism, so not. You know, ethnic nationalism, but instead the idea that by sort of learning shared values and learning the importance of civics and working together as a society, we're gonna have a better, more flourishing society in general. And the idea of religious pluralism, like we can all be under the same umbrella and we can all have our beliefs respected and honored, but not have to establish a particular, uh, you know, church as the official religion of the, of the country.

So some, uh, famous examples of of right cosmopolitans would be Frederick Hayek, who, you know, of course defended spontaneous order and warned against collectivism in general. Um, Milton Friedman, who championed individual freedom from, you know, above any kind of group categories. Um, very much a classical liberal.

On the right. And Ronald Reagan, of course, um, who really at his best when he spoke of America as the Shining hi on city, on a hill open to all who believed in freedom, not just one culture or creed. So again, the common theme is universal dignity, voluntary association, individual freedom. So now we get into the identitarian, um, you know, the Identitarian ideas and kind of seeing how those are a little bit distinct from, um, the cosmopolitan ideas.

So the on the left identitarian side, you get in the realm of, you know, the woke identity politics, critical race practice or critical race theory in practice, it's not just critical race theory. I mean, there's critical gender theory and there's other types of critical theory, but we'll just say critical theory in general.

Um, and, and putting that in practice and their worldview that increasingly centers on power, oppression, and grievance. A lot of people call that neo Marxism. I think that's reasonable as the lens through which we have to view all human interactions and interpret everything. So, you know, classic examples of left identitarianism are gonna be Robin DeAngelo, who reduces all white people to unconscious racism and treats guilt as a virtue, right?

Ebra makes Kendi who defines anti-racism as the pursuit of racial discrimination in reverse. So it's like we need to, we need to have reverse discrimination, uh, as long as it flips the historical, historical hierarchy, that's a good thing. Um, and then, uh, a, a more traditional example would be like the Nation of Islam, which combines.

Leftist racial grievance with religious and ethnic supremacism. And you see that that racial ethnic supremacism, frankly, on both sides of the identitarian aisle. Um, and all three of those examples share a belief in group guilt group virtue and this moral asymmetry based on identity. And then finally, we have in the bottom right here, the white, uh, nationalism.

So the identitarian, right? White nationalism, um, which is basically white identity politics, uh, Christian nationalism, again, Christian identity, politics and blood and soil style thinking. So that's that, you know, ethno, traditionalism, uh, which is very common in the history of like Eastern Europe and, and you know, obviously Nazi Germany.

Um. So modern examples of that in in, in our culture today. Nick Fuentes, I think is probably one of the most commonly discussed about examples who's, you know, his, his America first rhetoric kind of starts to get into that white ethno-nationalism, and he's comfortable talking about that. Um, another very well known example would be Steve Bannon, who talks about Judeo-Christian civilization in like civilizational war terms, and he elevates the West as a, a radicalized, racialized identity.

Uh, and then third is a, a Russian theorist named, uh, Alexander Dugan, who is, you know, one of Putin's closest advisors who believes nations really should be built on ethnic and religious identity. And he envisions. Global conflict between distant distinct civilizations. He shared all this in a, a recent interview with Tucker Carlson, if anybody's interested in learning more about Alexander Dugan, and he is seen by many as sort of like the chief architect of modern right identitarian thought.

So again, this is really not conservatism, this is tribalism that's sort of dressed up in the clothing of patriotism. Um, one of the things you're gonna see, and on both sides of this is, and, and is in common with all identitarianism, is cancel culture. So if you think cancel culture is just a woke phenomenon, you know, a a a a woke left phenomenon, you think, again, you know, yes, on the left you do get Twitter mobs, purity, spirals, you know you're canceled unless you pair the narrative.

Absolutely. We've experienced that personally. On the right, you get litmus tests on religion, you get litmus tests on immigration or even the 2020 election, say the wrong thing, you're out. So cosmopolitans. As a rule are not canceling people for thinking differently. Identitarian do. So that's a big, big dividing line.

Big indication of like, if you're canceling people, 

eh, 

okay, maybe you need to take a step back and um, and, and maybe make a, a u-turn. Um, and I guess I think this, this is a crucial point because it bears stating that my goal here is not to cancel identitarian, but to point out that the risk and the danger of identitarian belief, so that as a society we can listen to people carefully.

And when we hear Identitarian ideas start to surface, we say, well, maybe I wanna downregulate my listening of that particular individual. Or at least when they talk about those issues, I'm gonna push back or disagree or, you know, um, not. Just assume that, well, because I agree with them on maybe some other issues, I'm gonna agree with everything they have to say, including some of their more Identitarian ideas.

And I see that a lot right now. It's sort of like, well, I see that a lot right now. I think especially on the right, which I think is just beginning to grapple with right Identitarianism in a way that the left has been dealing with now for quite some time. Where you have people that are, you know, historically have been core, honest actors that are loved and beloved by the community that are starting to express more and more right identitarian views.

And it's sort of like, well, I've agreed with this person up until now, I think I should just kind of keep sticking with them out of loyalty and, you know, sort of this, uh, parapsychological, um, friendship that I've developed. Not a, not an actual friendship, but just because I listen to them all the time. Um, and, and there's a tendency to want to accept.

These ideas wholesale without really analyzing them and saying, well, gee, do I really agree with this? Is this really what I believe? So, you know, at the end of the day, this divide between cosmopolitanism and Identitarian does derive from a deeper source, and that is the enlightenment versus postmodernism.

Okay? And this is really where we get into that, you know, postmodern neo-Marxist, which Dr. Peterson likes to talk about all the time. So cosmopolitanism is fundamentally descends from the enlightenment, and it's the shared enlightenment values, philosophers like John Locke cot. The belief in reason and individual dignity, which really formed the foundation of, you know, western democracy and, uh, you know, what we call liberal democracy.

But basically, traditionally traditional liberal ideas all come from this idea of the enlightenment, that we all have a shared belief in reason and logic and individual dignity. Identitarianism, on the other hand, is rooted in predominantly, um, in its modern form, certainly rooted in postmodernism, postmodernism.

And a lot of it is, is, you know, neo-Marxist fixation on power. So people like, uh, f Olt, deida, you know, the idea that truth is just a mask for power, so that there is no real truth. And although really what's underneath everything is this quest for power, and power is really all that there is at the end of the day.

So the cosmopolitan worldview, which I believe is obviously worth protecting and defending, sees shared truth as possible. And the Identitarian only sees narrative. It's like everything is just a story. There is no fundamental truths about about reality. It's just all made up. And you can believe whatever you want to believe.

And it's no, no one person is more correct than anyone else. So, you know, wh where do I think, where do I see us going from here? What do I really am? What am I advocating in this conversation? So to me, the positive vision that I see is really a post identitarian pluralism, a return to the values that really founded our country and make our country great.

And, and that way forward is this post Identitarian pluralism. So it's one that really affirms that the left and the right can coexist in one moral community, which you know, they have for our entire country's history. Um, that protects individual rights regardless of what group they're affiliated with.

So equal rights for everyone celebrates cultural richness, multiculturalism, right? And the true original meaning of the word without moral asymmetry saying, oh, one group is better than the other. Or, you know, one group. Because our ideas, you know, and this is where I think Brett has a valid point, where you have little insular groups that stay with just their people and don't assimilate.

You know, it's, it's, it's really out of a sense of like, we are better. And you see that a lot in some of the interviews. If you watch interviews with people who are. Um, part of some of these insular groups, that's the way they talk. They're like, we, you know, we're coming to basically take over because we think our ideas are better and, you know, everyone else should sort of conform to our ideas.

And that is fundamentally, in my view, anti-American and is an example of moral asymmetry, which is to say that, you know, because of your ethnicity or because your, your religion or your, you know, uh, color of your skin, that you're somehow superior. And I think that that is fundamentally destructive to our basic principles of, of Western democracy.

And I think, uh, or democracy in general. And I think that, uh, a post identitarian pluralism would also reject guilt by association and virtue by category. So this idea that, well, because you are a particular skin color. Or particular religion, you know, you're guilty, uh, or because you know you are a particular skin color or you know, gender identity or um, uh, sexual orientation, you know, you are virtuous.

Um, you know, really virtue is individual. It's not categorical, it's not identity based. So we need to reclaim that space where disagreement is allowed. And this is, you know, partovi effect is definitely one of those spaces. Freedom is preserved and dignity is for everyone, not just for us. Whatever us means, right.

Whatever group US falls into. Um, and you know that space. Yes. I think at the end of the day, I think Brett is right. That space is cosmopolitanism and he's right in many ways about that. But I would say that why he's right is sort of. Not why he thinks he's right. So hopefully I've laid that out and made the case for it.

Um, do you have anything that you wanted to add to it or 

I have 

questions or, 

so this seems like, um, I, I get everything that you're saying, but the bone that you have to pick with Brett, is it a, a war, a war of semantics or? 

Definitions. I would say precision of language. Precision of language is a big part of it.

And I think the reason why that matters is because if we get rid of, so thank you for asking that or bringing that up, because I think the reason why that matters is because if you get rid of multiculturalism in an, in an, in an attempt to rid ourselves of the, the wokeness of the identitarianism, we get rid of multiculturalism.

Then we start to attack some of the cosmo, the actual found fundamental pillars of cosmopolitanism that he claims he wants to, to preserve and, and nourish and revitalize, because I think that you have to have a fundamental respect for other cultures. If you are going to have a true pluralistic, egalitarian, multicultural, again society.

And I think that that is part of the vision of, again, people like Maria Montessori, who, you know, we really value and respect and we send our children to Montessori school because we value and respect that worldview. And I think that that worldview is frankly one of the best things that the left has ever come up with.

Um, and I think to, to say, well, because it's been twisted and I see that, I see how it, aspects of it have been twisted by those on the identitarian left, we just have to throw the baby out with the bath water and get rid of multiculturalism, I think would be a grave error. Um, and, and I think if we root it in its original Cosmopolitan foundation, which is a cosmopolitan left foundation of.

You know, on the same axis, again, as traditional liberalism, then you see that, oh, multiculturalism is fine. You know, there's not a problem here. We can all have different cultures. We can respect each other's cultures, learn about each other's cultures, you know, when people are worshiping different, uh, you know, having different faiths.

And, you know, like for example, there was our, our now 4-year-old, just, uh, last week came home with a little cookie and it from one of his friends who's, uh, you know, of, of Indian background, east Indian, uh, and it says Happy Ali. So, you know, and he created a little, was the, is the candle artwork part of that too?

Yeah. So he created a little candle thing, and you know, so he, he's learning about the different cultures, learning about, you know, uh, Diwali, which is, uh, east Indian, um, you know, presumably Hindu Festival of Lights. So. You know, to me that is about cultural awareness. It's about cultural competency. It's about understanding that there's different, different ways of thinking, different beliefs out there.

Not that, you know, our belief is the only way and that other people are all inherently wrong, but rather that, um, that there are other, there are other ways of viewing reality, other ways of viewing the world. And that those are, um, you know, those are useful and may even teach us something. And that those are all part of like a, a, a tapestry or maybe a quilt would be a good analogy, uh, of society.

So, does that make sense? 

Yes. 

Does, does it make sense why it's important that we don't throw the baby out with the bath water? Like, why we don't want to actually get rid of multiculturalism just to push back on left Identitarianism. 

Absolutely 

right, 

because I, I, I'm just thinking about. How it applies to me and how I grew up and what my, um, perception around multiculturalism, um, is and like what it looks like on the court and as lived.

And

I think it was a, it was a very positive, uh, driving force like in, in our community, which is very multicultural. Mm-hmm. I mean, our church, you know, there, there's, um, um, Latinos and Vietnamese people and, um, Eastern European, Eastern European people. And, um, and

yeah, so my view of it, my view of it was also always very positive. That's definitely not something to get rid of. You know? I think, I mean, Brett as a Caucasian man, maybe speaking from a different lens. 

Well, I think he's coming from the lens of seeing that, seeing where the idea of we need to welcome other, all other cultures has led to a place where we have allowed a new status quo to emerge.

And this is where I do think he has a valid critique, which is we've allowed insular groups to form, you know, essentially. Little, and, and I think historically it hasn't been a big deal. Right? Because I think historically, you know, you always had Chinatown, for example, you always had, you know, little Saigon, you always had little Manila, and you still do in a lot of the, you know, cities in California.

Yeah. Um, but I think that's, a lot of that is for like, first generation people who are just coming here and need to kind of have a place where they feel comfortable. But I think what you see is that over time the children, and especially the grandchildren, like more and more assimilate into the culture where they are and become more cosmopolitan.

And yes, they have that root in the, you know, holidays and the food and the traditions of the mother culture, but then they've also adopted and adapted and taken on a lot of the cult, you know, the, the elements of the. The common elements of American culture, and I think that's healthy. I think that his concern is that there are perhaps certain subgroups where multiple generations go by and we don't see that same level of assimilation.

And I can point to two examples in particular, which I agree with him on, and I think they're concerning. I see it in areas where there's especially high percentage of population of one particular ethnicity and it's, and there's not a push to go out and. Get educated, for example, and you see that predominantly.

And I think those, those both, I think probably both of those things have to be present first. You have to have a large insular community, and second, you have to have not a strong push to go out and get educated and learn about other, you know, it's actually an absence of multiculturalism on behalf of some of the, the immigrants that have come to this country.

I think that you see it most predominantly, I would argue amongst some of the, um, you know, Muslim Arab immigrants to, um, Michigan. You see that in, you know, the Dearborn area where, and I mean, this has been in the news a lot lately. So for those who don't know what I'm talking about, I would say, you know, maybe did, are you familiar with the, some of the I am.

Yeah. So maybe you could speak to that a little bit 

before that. 

Okay. 

Um, I can see now why, um, you're, you are saying don't throw the baby out with. Bath water, um, and get my thoughts together. 

The Intersection of Multiculturalism and Identitarianism

Yeah. While you're getting your thoughts together, I mean, I can, I can touch briefly on some things that I've heard.

Right. So I heard, for example, that, um, that as a show of trying to be more inclusive, a lot of the people on the Democrat side voted for some of some, uh, city council members in Dearborn who were Muslim. And that as a result of them having sort of put their faith in this idea of, of what they thought was pluralism, right.

Uh, and, and giving the, giving a Muslim majority to the city council, they now have banned the display of the pride flag, right? Which is sort of frankly very consistent with Muslim ideas. But the question is, do we want to have a society that is founded on a particular religion's ideas or do we want to have a society.

That is founded on religious tolerance and acceptance, and even the woke religion. You know, even, uh, to me the idea that that these, we, you know, I don't think we should demonize people who are identitarian left or identitarian, right? I mean, we have a tendency to, but I would say, I would just say that I'd prefer, we say, well, that's not really the direction we want to go, you know?

Um, and, and as a American society, we, we know better. And it gets back to, you know, this idea of there's things that maybe we can't do because it's against the law. Maybe things we shouldn't do 'cause it's not in our best interest and maybe things we mustn't do, because to do so undermines the fabric of our society.

And I think that that's a lot of what we're faced with here. 

Say, so what I'm hearing is that there's, there's nothing inherently insidious. About multiculturalism. There's, there's, it's almost as if there's some kind of other presence, like other entity dis disrupting, um, the, the piece, 

well, they're using some of this, the mechanisms by which multiculturalism has sort of served our society and saying, well, gee, I can take advantage of that.

You know, they're gaming the system, right? Mm-hmm. And I think that that's what Brett is responding to, and I think that that's a valid concern. But I think that the way that they're gaming it is through a fundamentally identitarian lens. I think that you see in that example from Dearborn where it's like, well, you know, now that we have been able to game the system through multiculturalism, we're now going to bring our identitarian.

You know, Muslim, um, Arab ideology to the fore and basically say, well, no more pride flags. Right? And look, I mean, you can believe whatever you wanna believe about the pride flags, and maybe it's not what you would put in front of your house. But again, I would say, well, but how would you like it if somebody told you that you can't fly the flag that you believe in, in front of your house?

Right? Which is a problem going on right now in the UK where the St George flag, which is the traditional flag of, of, of England, you know, is being taken down or people are being, um, you know, told that they can't fly the flag because Oh, it's a sign of what the, of ethnonationalism or something. Right? But it's on the other side, right?

So the question is it like, do we really want to say that you can't do these things? I would say no, but I would say. Do we wanna say that you're highly discouraged or maybe that you mustn't do these things? I think that's a valid point. You know, and I think that's how we, you know, that's how the correct way to police it, the correct way to police it is not to say, oh well you know, we have to ban multiculturalism or we have to ban identitarianism even, you know, I think that they tried to ban the Nazi party in Germany and all it did was make them stronger.

They arrested Hitler and they imprisoned him for like, I think over a year. And all it did was make him stronger. You know, we had, there's a saying we have in the personal development work we've done through Landmark, which is that which you resist persists. And I think we seeing a lot of that resistance coming from both ident sides of the identitarian aisle right now.

Um, and. I think it's just making those, both of those identitarian sides stronger and creating more division and more canceling, trying to cancel each other. 

Yeah. So I, I will speak to, um, I will pause it a question. Uh, where else is it cropping up besides Dearborn? 

Yeah, that's a good question. 

Examples of Assimilation and Cultural Identity

So we see that also in England, you know, the, the same issue with, uh, a lot of the, um, predominantly I think Muslim Arab population there, although there's also some comments I've heard about the, you know, Muslim, Pakistani group there as well.

So, but it's, it's predominantly, you see that in the, um, you see that in a lot of the insular communities that are created around Islam because there's like a separate. Um, and, and we have a lot of beautiful Muslim people in our, you know, orbit. And we have a lot of, um, beautiful Muslim people in our neighborhood, frankly.

And there where the level of assimilation has been extremely high. And so there's no issue. And I think that's really what I'm pointing to here, is it's not, I'm not trying to pick on them. I'm trying to say, look, if the level of assimilation is low, you're gonna have problems. So I'll give you another example that's got nothing to do with Arabs or Muslims.

So the, um, there was a, uh, guy who used to mow our yard when I was a kid, and then at some point, who's Hispanic, I forget exactly from what country, you know, somewhere in Latin America, you know, his Hispanic America. Um, and you know, when his son got to be a certain age, his son joined him again, mowing yards.

And there's nothing wrong with mowing yards, but I would just say that. I remember, I always was always struck by that. I was like, Hmm, interesting. You know, like that his son basically, you know, and his son spoke some English, right? But it was like a very slow progression of generation to generation, which is not typical in my experience in that community.

I would say typically in the Hispanic community, you see a more rapid assimilation. But my concern was maybe there's certain pockets that I don't know about where that's not happening or not happening as quickly as I'd like it to see. Because, you know, this is a, this is the son who had access to the US educational system, had access to, you know, not all the same things I had growing up, but some of the same things I had growing up and that you had grown up and yet, you know, was still kind of following in his dad's foot, dad's footsteps doing, you know, the mowing.

And again, nothing wrong with mowing, but I would just say that. It struck me as kind of like, interesting and a little bit odd, and I, I, you know, I must have been maybe in my early twenties, late teens, early twenties when, when I noticed this, but I was like, hmm, you know, interesting that he wasn't able to kind of, you know, break out and do something and, and really, because I've seen so many examples of people doing that, you know?

Mm-hmm. So I just, I wonder if there aren't, there's like a certain maybe critical mass of insularity that happens where people get fixated on their identity, whether it be, you know, Hispanic, whether it be a particular country in this, you know, whether it be Mexican or Colombian or Peruvian or whatever.

Whether it be, you know, again, with Islam, whether it be, um, you know, I mean, there's some of that even, I would say the thing is, one of the things I've noticed about Persian culture, which, you know, I'm half Persian on my dad's side from, you know. Uh, he was originally born in Iran, and I would say that, um, he's now an American citizen, has been for many decades.

But the point is, in fact, he hates being called Iranian American. He'd say, call me an American. That's what I am. So he's a big believer in cosmopolitanism. It's absolutely like, you know, like he lives and breathed. So I grew up with a father who was like 100% dedicated to cosmopolitan worldview, but I also really enjoyed the, like, expression of Persian culture that I got to have through that side of my family.

And it, it, it was very enriching for me growing up. And I felt like it's created, uh, you know, it's, it's become part of who I am on like a, just a, just a very organic level. Um, but one of the things I will say about Persians, and this is not me patting myself on my back, it's really just something I've noticed is that the Persian immigrants that I have met have been very committed not only to their Persian culture.

But like, go out, get educated, assimilate, become part of the society, you know, get as much education as possible. So there is, it's like, it's both of those. It's like, yes, you must sort of adhere to the Persian cultural norms that we think are the most important, which are mostly around social events and food, and sometimes religious observance, depending on how religious your family is.

But my family was not super religious growing up. Um, and um, the other half, which is the education piece and going out in the world and making a name for yourself and doing all the things that, that you're capable of. And I think that both of those are crucial. And I think that what I see is missing amongst some of the cultures.

The group, the cultural groups that I think Brett is reacting to is that second part, which is. Go out, experience other cultures, get educated, you know,

does that, does that make sense or does that kind of resonate? It 

does. I just, I'm, um, I'm thinking about Amish people. Like what about them? 

Right. Well they obviously are kind of in, in, yeah, that's such, such a great question. 'cause so they're insular by design, right? And yet they give their children the choice when they turn 18.

But obviously if they do choose to leave, they're leaving their whole family. So that's really a tough choice. It's not like they're making it easy on them. 'cause it's not like, oh, you go back and, you know, you can come and then you can come back for Christmas. It's not like that. So it, it's, it probably doesn't occur as a choice to very many Amish youth, you know?

Um, but I would say that what's super interesting about that point is that the Amish. Are really growing as a, as an electorate. In fact, some people feel that it was the Amish vote that actually got Trump elected because of the Pennsylvania, and they had, there's a lot of Pennsylvania Amish. And so the, the thought is, is that that vote was able to swing the Pennsylvania, you know, by a percentage or two.

And that won Pennsylvania for Trump, which, you know, arguably won the whole election, although he won all the other swing states too. But, yeah, I mean, I think that that's such a good point because that is, they're one of the rapidly growing, most rapidly growing ethnic groups in this country. And I heard, I forget who this was, but I heard somebody say something like, you know, 200 years in the future, the, the, this, this country is gonna look a lot more Amish than anything else if the current reproduction trends continue.

Right. And I think that that is. Really fascinating to think about. And yeah, I mean, I would say that the Amish are absolutely identitarian and absolutely, you know, identitarian, right? And so that, that brings up a really good point of like, you know, if if everybody else decides to stop having kids and the Amish keep doing what they're doing, then yeah, that's the direction we're likely to head as a country, unless there's some major changes.

So we have to keep that in mind too, when people are like, oh, I don't want to have kids, or, oh, you know, I only want to have one or two. It's like, well, what kind of future do you want those kids to have? You know? Um, 

I, I, I will also add that, um, I know that fertility, uh, is very much optimized, you know, in homage communities versus, uh, because of their natural living and.

The food that they consume and 

yeah, there's a lot we can learn from Amish, right? I'm not saying, yeah, I'm not saying the Amish are bad or even mostly bad. I'm just saying that, um, I was just 

saying that they're gonna have no problems having more kids. They're gonna have, yeah, they're gonna have 

no problem having more kids and the rest of society obviously.

And you know, some people would say, oh, well that's just natural selection, that's just evolution. I'd love to hear Brett's comments on this. But, um, you know, that's just the process working its way out, you know, and the survival of the fittest, so to speak. But, uh, he, he doesn't love that particular, uh, he doesn't like everything's getting reduced to that, I think.

But, uh, it does make one wonder. I think it's, it's an interesting point. 

I'm also thinking about the 12 tribes of Israel. I mean, if, if anybody's ever been to a yellow deli or consumed yerba mate, you know, that's like, they're, they're like, they're such a huge entrepreneurial conglomeration. Mm-hmm. You know, it's very much, uh, I think I would say similar, you know, to the Amish people.

So, just to be clear, when you say 12 Tribes of Israel, you're not talking about the original 12 tribes of Israel from Israel. You're talking about the modern revival in this country. It's like a sort of a Messianic Jewish, uh, communal living. 

Yes. 

Just talk a little bit about it. 

Uh, well, they're, they're, they're everywhere.

They're in Vista. 

Mm-hmm. 

Vista, California. 

Yeah. 

Um, I dunno 

about everywhere. But they're growing. 

Yes. They're growing. Sure. 

Yes. 

So thank you for checking my precision of, precision of language and, um, I, I think it's also another community, identitarian community that's, um, that's rapidly growing. 

Yeah, that's a good point.

That's a good point. So really, I mean, it's not that I would say again, that what you resist persists. So I would be careful to say, oh, we need to combat identitarianism, right? We need to resist identitarian. It's like, no, we need to offer a vision of the future, which is consistent with our values of pluralism, egalitarianism, and yes, cosmopolitan multiculturalism.

Because where does, where does, where's the dividing line or the fine line, you know, where identitarianism becomes, um, exclusion and it becomes, um, this ah.

This monster of judgment, you know, and, and like this is a shield wall and there's no openness. 

Well, not only just judgment, but I would say judgment taken to the extreme, which is Right. Which is discrimination, which is racism. 

Ions of, yeah. Which is, 

um, religious intolerance. You know, we see it in the form of, um, you know, I don't like to use the term antisemitism because it's not precise.

It's because, you know, technically Arabs are also Semitic. And so I always say anti anti Judaism. I feel like we're seeing that in the rise of, you know, anti Judaism and, and you know, people's opposition to, um, a lot of the, um, or frankly a lot of smearing of Jewish people. That's been going on more and more.

There's been a revival of that. You see, um, you know, there, there are some, I would say legitimate and illegitimate concerns about Islam and how it, it is, um, seen in society. And I think that same is true of Christianity. Same is true of, you know, probably most of the world's religions. Um, and I think that, um, speaking of which, um, well, no, I, I'm, I'm not gonna say anything about that, but more to, more, more to come on, on the topic of, of religion from, from me in particular.

Um, but not in this episode. 

The Influence of Social Media and Foreign Entities

How, how different is it that, um, identitarianism with an agenda? I mean, you, you have these demographics of people popping up, right? Um, how different is that than, um, let's say. Uh, Chinese, the Chinese Identitarianism, um, being flooded through the, like the internet. 

So you're talking about in China?

No, I mean, TikTok and you know, how, how, how it's being infiltrated. How, how people are being, how the minds of people in, in the USA are being, uh,

influenced. 

So you're talking about how the minds of people in the USA are being influenced via social media and algorithms coming from China. 

Mm-hmm. 

Well, there was a whole recent, um, um, Twitter, or, no, not Twitter, um, TikTok. Sort of settlement that they reached where basically the, um, I think it's what ance is that the name of the, the Chinese company that's gonna, they're gonna retain some minority ownership of it, but the United States investors are gonna get the majority of it so that it becomes a United States company.

Um, which is good. I mean, I think there, it needs to be a United States company that's under United States control, if it's gonna be essentially propagandizing our people because we have laws about propagandizing our own people, which are not always adhered to, but we do have them. Um, and there's actually a movement to strengthen those laws right now, which I'm in personally in favor of.

Um, and I forget, do you remember the name of the, of the law that was. Modified, I think under the Obama administration that historically was like a flat prohibition against propaganda, propagandizing our own people, and they claim that it was being modernized. Um, do you remember what that was? Yeah. I mean, we could look it up, but basically, um, I'm curious to look it up actually, just so we can Yeah.

So the, that's the Smith Mut Act and the Smith Mutt Act, um, basically said, well, it's okay to propagandize other countries, but you can't propagandize our own country. Um, and it was essentially telling the federal government that, and that was apparently rolled back during Obama, and now we're wanting to restore that.

And I think that that's a good idea. Um, but yeah, I think, um, specifically I'm, I'm trying to. I'm trying to position what your question was in, in this larger framework of this conversation. Um, I don't know whether I see Propagandizing as inherently identitarian. I think it can be. Oh, I think I see maybe an angle in what you're saying.

Yeah. 

Which is that perhaps China through social media specifically, TikTok has been stirring up and stoking up this identitarian worldview, perhaps both on the right and the left as a way to divide Americans. Mm-hmm. Right. That's what you're getting at. Okay. So I agree with that, and I think this is one of the biggest problems in this whole conversation is that identitarianism divides people by definition, right?

Because we, we don't, we don't all have the same identities. We have differing identities, whereas cosmopolitanism. Unites people. So the degree to which our media focuses on identity is the degree to which we are then divided as a species, as a society. The degree to which we focus on cosmopolitanism and our shared humanity, the easier it is for society to have a shared vision and shared values and work together.

So I think, 

I guess what I'm saying with what I, because I know that you're talking about groups of people that are actually, uh, you know, on us soil and, um, imagine if, if that kind of presence, like the, that kind of Chinese presence were here, like actually physically here and building large communities, you know, that 

Oh, that's, yeah, that's another layer.

Yeah. So you're, you're talking about like Chinese immigrants? 

Mm-hmm. 

That are forming communities, kind of like we talked about with the era Muslims and Dearborn that are, you know, forming those communities potentially to have like a Chinese ETHNONATIONALIST identity. Yeah. Well, I mean I think that that's something that actually, it's so interesting if you go back and watch that full interview that Brett does with Dr.

Peterson, um, he, part of what he's sharing is his trip down to the Darien gap and he, one of the things he talks about is that these are people that were coming across the border. This is before, uh, before Trump closed the border. Um. There were, there was a camp there were separate, there were two separate camps.

And Brett gets into all of this in this conversation where he says, in one camp it was a bunch of different cultures, mostly Spanish speaking, and everyone was basically trying to flee from difficult conditions and come to have a better life. And then there was a second camp that was like all Chinese and all like young Chinese men and that were also trying to get in the United States.

And then apparently when you went to talk with them, they wouldn't talk to you. They wouldn't tell you why they were there or what they were doing. And they wouldn't really let people interview them. And. I think when he was talking about how, uh, uh, I think it was either a guide or a friend that he was with was able to understand Mandarin and was able to overhear them.

And, you know, when he kind of called them out in their own language, they got upset and basically kicked them outta the camp. So I may be misremembering that slightly, but that's, that's vaguely what I remember. And then the concern was, well, what are these young Chinese men doing when they get to this country?

And I think that's a very valid question, you know, because we have a lot of vulnerable infrastructure in this country, uh, especially to internal sabotage, you know, and not just, not just physical infrastructure, but also I would argue, you know, mental, emotional, spiritual infrastructure that is also vulnerable to sabotage as we saw during COVID.

What, what do you think is the contributing factor to, uh, the rise of, just, 

just one more thing before you ask me that question. Okay. I think that. It's important to note that when you have, and this is gets back to Za, the sun Zu, most people call him the correct pronunciation is Za. But it gets back to the idea that if you have an overwhelming adversary that you cannot defeat militarily, which China's not gonna defeat us militarily, the best way you can defeat them is if you can get them to start attacking themselves and have them defeat themselves from within.

And I think that's, that's a big part of what we're seeing with regard vis-a-vis China today. But go ahead. 

Um, what do you think is a contributing factor to the rise of Identitarianism with an agenda specifically targeted towards the us? 

Well, I think that's, that what I just said is actually the answer to your question.

I think it's because they want to undermine our society because it's the, they know that the only way they can possibly defeat us is if we are basically eating each other. If we're, if we're at each other's throats, if we have some civil war and, you know, half the country gets wiped out, or you know, our borders become vulnerable as a result, uh, then, then our, we will no longer be the number one country in the world.

You know, we will, we'll, we will expend our resources. I mean, this is what Rome did. Why do you think Rome fell? If you study the Roman Empire, you know, this Rome fell because it failed to deal with the issue of succession effectively. That's the fundamental reason. All the other reasons are like, okay, but tangential.

The real reason why Rome fell is because there was not a clear method by which one Emperor suss s. Succeeded. Succeeded, succeeded, succeeded. Another Rome, another Roman empire. 

Okay? 

Molly fixed this. But there, there was not a method by which, a clear method by which one Emperor succeeded another Roman emperor, uh, through time.

And so you often had civil war every time an emperor died. And that is not sustainable, right? So civil war is fundamentally what destroys empires, the truly great empires. Um, and realistically that's probably what will get us in the end of the day if we're not careful. So I think that, um, that's their goal.

Their goal is to destroy the American empire. And their goal, their goal is to do it within, because they, they know that's their only chance. Excuse me. That's essentially, by the way, it's not like we don't, it's not like we as a country are not to some degree aware of that. That is, that was the Biden administration's whole rationale for getting embroiled in this whole Ukraine, Russia debacle is the idea that we're gonna weaken them, you know, we're gonna weaken Russia by having them embroiled in this forever war with Ukraine.

And I think that to some degree that has worked. But, uh, my question to the Biden administration people would be, well then what? Right? You want to, you want China to, to conquer Siberia. Is that your goal? Is that, is that healthy for the long term health of, well, a, not only Russia, but also Europe and therefore, you know, our allies.

So I think sometimes people, even in policy circles are thinking, you know, one or two steps ahead and not necessarily. Seven steps ahead, which is really what you have to be thinking if you're thinking about, you know, world affairs and what's likely to be the downstream consequences of your actions. And I think if you study history, that becomes easier.

By the way, I think that the, the biggest problem in politics is that people do not study enough history. And as somebody who is a history major and undergrad, I, and I love history and I keep studying history. I mean, it's one of my sort of hobbies in a way, um, is to study history. Um, the best way to be able to understand what's coming is to understand, you know, where we've been, what's happened before, and what are the cycles that repeat, uh, over time that show us what is likely to happen.

Again, not guaranteed, but what's likely.

Personal Reflections and Concluding Thoughts

Beautifully said. And I also, um, there's, there may be a little bit of mystery to what I'm inviting our audience to take a look at, but also just take that and also take,

apply it internally, like to your life personally and internally to your life.

Yeah. Well, I think it's the same idea I have about environmentalism, right? If you start thinking, I always say start with reading labels and thinking about what you're putting in your body, because the moment you do that, you're gonna start realizing that when you put things in the garbage can or pour things down the drain or throw things out outside that.

Eventually that comes back into your body, right? It's, it's all part of what you, yourself are getting exposed to and your own health. So to be an environmentalist is really just to be somebody who cares about their own health. And if you tell me, well, I'm really a healthcare fanatic, but f the environment, I'm like, well, you're not quite there yet.

You know, because you have to think about how all these things are interconnected and the interconnectedness of all life is fundamental to Montessori education. We've talked about that a lot today just in, in passing. But it's, you know, one of the core principles that we believe in and are, are something that we teach our children.

And I think that, um, you know, that's one of the reasons why I advocate for Montessori education and, you know, for those who don't have a good Montessori school around them, um, Montessori homeschool, in fact, we should actually probably interview, uh, the Montessori homeschool lady. That would be a good, a good conversation.

I, yeah. Uh, let's do that. 

I was gonna say that was a very thoughtful, um, uh, on the court, like example, real example, living of my invitation. 

Yeah. 

But you took on like right then. 

Yeah. Well, and I, because I do think that history is absolutely, you know.

So it's two things. History can inform the present, but also understanding that hi, because history is often what's driving the present. And also knowing that allows us to get that history out of the future that we're living into and put it back in the past where it belongs, so that we can truly create a future.

You know, that's where anything is possible. 

Yes, 

which is another thing that we believe is possible, but it's not possible. If you don't, you're not able to know and identify your history that's actually driving you, and that actually is giving you who you're being in the present, because it's not, it's not, you know, it's not your present.

It's not your, you know, your, your past is not giving you who you are in the present. Right. It's actually the fu the, the past that's in your future. That is, oh, that's gonna happen again because it happened to me yesterday. That's driving your behavior today in the present. So does that, did you, do you wanna talk more about that or, 

I'll give you an example.

I'll give an example so it really communicates Yeah. So it 

lands. Yeah, absolutely. 

Yeah. Um, uh, in third grade, I had a crush on Nathan Esther line. You know, he is a blonde-haired brown, brown eyed kid. Um, so I, I wrote, wrote a note like, I, I like you, do you like me? Yes. No, 

very cute. 

And then I, I pat, you know, the friends passed it to him and, uh, he looked at it and picked his nose and put booger in it and crumpled it up.

Was I, was I ever going to express, you know, that I liked a boy again? 

No. So, 

you know, 

that's so funny. I had a similar, I had a similar experience. Hold on. That's so funny. So 

that was my Nathan Esther line experience. Right. This, this deck of cards. 

Mm-hmm. 

And then, you know, something else happened, you know, I, I got there in, uh, when, first day of kindergarten, um, I had a bowl cut and I was dressed like a little boy.

And I had these couple, um, older kids staring at me and I overheard them say, is that a girl, girl, boy, she must, must be a girl because look, she has earrings. Okay, so boom, right there. Would I make that mean? Oh my gosh. You know, people can't tell whether I'm a boy or girl, you know? So, and then more experiences, um, accumulated that had me just, oh my gosh, you know, I'm just, I am, I'm weird.

I'm weird. I'm not, I'm dumb, you know, people think I'm dumb. Um, and then in also in grade school, I spoke perfect English. My teachers didn't know because I was, they, they judged me as quiet. So they put me in English as a second language with one other brown, you know, Asian kid. So I was excluded from people.

So here's, you know, here's that baggage, you know? And then, and then, um, my boyfriend in grade school, Danny Alvarado, of like three days, called me on the phone and said, um, I don't think we should be boyfriend and girlfriend anymore. Okay. Like, what did I do? I did something wrong. So here's all of that, right?

And you come to a point in your life where

you have all these blind spots revealed to you through, whether it be personal development work, inner work, some people call it shadow work, and they say, oh, I made up a huge story about myself

that I wasn't lovable. Oh my gosh. I made such a huge story of that. I was weird. I made such a huge story of about myself that I can't really be feminine, you know, because I look like a boy.

Oh my gosh. I made up a story that, you know, I can't really tell a man what I really, really want because he'll be rejected me not down.

You know, I, I made a story that my mom called me a name, so she doesn't love me. I don't have any value as a woman. I made that up and pushed her away for like, 17 years of my life. I can put that away.

I, you know, just all the stuff that I made up. And so when I let go of all of that stuff. Who am I? Nothing in the past. Like I have a clear slate upon which to create anything within the, within the rules of God. So

here I am. I am vulnerable. I am authentic. I am fully self-expressed,

and that is what I am from each moment now and now, and now and now. And that is what I choose to because I have full informed consent about my life and it's not run by all that stuff,

and that's what I choose to impart. In my daily life when I'm, when I'm with people and I'm, when I'm with you and I'm, when I'm with our sons

and we're blessed by it. 

And imagine if everybody had that, that opportunity to do that kind of work, to really look internally and to, you know, clear the slate of, and, and take, uh, full self responsibility. They would really arrive at their basic goodness. And I think the world would look very different.

Well. I think that that's actually a very, uh, multicultural, egalitarian, pluralistic view that we all have a basic goodness. And I think that that is certainly what I believe is possible for humanity. And I think that, um, if we, if we live into that future, and if we, we work toward that future, then we can absolutely get there.

Yeah. Where, where that is able to take flourish. You know, we're, we're able to take root and flourish. Um, you know,

I think that's possible. I mean, you know, there's. Countervailing theories, which if you follow Dr. Jordan Peterson, you know, his, his take on that is that maybe that's possible for like 97 to 99% of people, but you're always gonna have one to 3% that are kind of incorrigible psychopaths. But, you know, I don't know.

I wonder, in my own mind, if someone had really loved those people as babies and, you know, cared for them and also provided them with strong limits from a very early age, you know, but, but lots of love and lots of control, you know, authoritative parenting, which we know is what works the best from all the research.

Um. If that might not have shifted the needle for them. I mean, I feel like, and also with optimal nutrition and all the other things, you know, like I think that I, I just think that we have maybe some genetic predispositions, but I don't ever think genetics is destiny. I don't think that the blueprint dictates the individual.

I think that the, the blueprint provides a framework and then all the environmental exposures and experiences and, 

um, you know, really give us who we become. 

Yeah, I mean, one single, one single deck alone, you know, about expressing what it is that I, uh, wanted for, for my life. You remember, I stood up in that room and then I said, my name is Maddie.

And I wanna get married and have kids, like, simple as that. Whereas, whereas I would not have ever said that in a public setting. 

Right. 

Yeah. And then you were in that room? 

I was, yeah. I took notes. I, I 

was like, okay, I can help you with that.

And then as we got to know each other, I provided you a list of, I think, at least 20 things and, uh, of what I really desired in a relationship. And you told me that there's nothing on this list, um, that. I can't, uh, I, I don't, there is nothing on this list 

that I'm not willing to be. Cause in the matter of Yes.

Which is a way of saying be responsible for, um, yeah. So anyway, that's mostly been true, 

largely been true, largely been true. 

Um, but yeah, I mean, and I would say that's really good advice actually for women to provide that kind of, uh, information to a man upfront. I would say maybe by around the third to fifth date would be good because that way a guy can really see, like, do I see myself in this list?

Or am I like, no way am I gonna want to fulfill on this list. You're, I would not on the other hand, recommend that any man give such a list to a woman within the first few dates. That's something that I waited to give her my list literally on the day that I proposed. And it was, I think five or six things.

And uh, basically it was inside the context of you're already all these things and I just want to make sure you continue to generate all of these things and it's inside of that request that I'm putting a ring on your finger. 

So I think we're bleeding into our, you know, our a possible relationship episode.

And 

it's coming. Yes. Sooner or later. 

Yes.

Anything else for today though? 

No, I am, I'm complete. And I, oh, I, I did wanna acknowledge you for I engaging me in a conversation, um, that I would usually, uh, avoid, you know, the whole, the politics and the, um, there's a certain uncomfortability that I have with it, you know, and so thank you for providing that space where, uh, I could spontaneously contribute, um, and explore the questions for myself and really take a look at, uh, how this affects not only our.

Um, our, our nation, um, our community, but also our family 

and our family's future. 

Yes. 

You know? Absolutely. And all of the families in the country's future presumably. So yeah. Great.   📍 Thanks for engaging with it. Even, even though you had like an initial, I don't know about that. 

Yeah.

My name is Mrs. Maddie Partovi. 

And I'm Dr. Ryan Partovi. And thank you for joining us on today's episode of The Partovi Effect. Till next time, be well.