Latest / Infidels / The Self-Loathing Westerners Who Celebrated 9/11 | Benedict Beckeld

Transcript

The Self-Loathing Westerners Who Celebrated 9/11 | Benedict Beckeld · Infidels

• Juliana Taimoorazy: Welcome to Infidels, the podcast where we confront the civilizational crisis facing the West and expose the forces seeking to dismantle our heritages. My name is Juliana Taimurazi. I am an Assyrian Christian. I was born in Iran. I was smuggled out of Iran in 1989 and came to the United States in 1990. I started Iraqi Christian Relief Council and Assyrians against Anti Semitism. Today I'm a PhD candidate at the University of University Of Texas at Dallas. Today I have the distinct privilege of being joined by not one but two highly credentialed infidels, Dr. Richard Landis and Dr. Benedict Beckild. Gentlemen, welcome. You are among friends, or perhaps I should say, among fellow infidels. Richard Landes: Thank you. Juliana Taimoorazy: If you may allow me, I will give a brief intro to both of you and then we will dive into our discussion today. Dr. Richard Landis was trained as a medievalist at Princeton University, earning both his MA and PhD there. His work focused on apocalyptic beliefs and millennial movements. His major published works include Heaven on Earth, The Paranoid Apocalypse, and Relics, Apocalypse, and The Seats of History. Dr. Landis is the recipient of the Association for the Study of the Middle East and Africa's 2023 Bernard Lewis Prize for his book. A fantastic book. Can the whole world be wrong? Lethal Journalism, Antisemitism, and Global Jihad. We at UT Dallas studied in depth, Dr. Landis. He made a series of documentaries in 2005-2006 titled According to Palestinian Sources, which document the extensive staging of footage for which he coined the term Pollywood. In 2015, he retired from Boston University and now currently lives in Jerusalem with his wife, where he writes without being pressured to be politically correct. Dr. Benedikt Beckold is philosopher classicist and author of Western Self-Contempt, Oikophobia and the Decline of Civilizations, published by Cornell University Press. Born and raised in Sweden, he immigrated to New York City in his early teens and later earned an MA in Ancient Greek and Latin and a PhD in philosophy, Greek, and Latin from the University of Heidelberg. A former professor of philosophy, Greek and Latin in Europe, and now a full-time writer in the United States, Dr. Beckel draws upon classical history, philosophy, and contemporary culture to examine the rise and the decline of civilizations, political conflict, and some of the most pressing challenges confronting Western civilization today. My friends, September 11, 2001 was more than a terrorist attack. It was a moment that shattered America's sense of security and forced the West to confront difficult questions about ideology, about freedom, and the enemies of an open society. So, gentlemen, with both of you, I'd like to begin with this question. In the aftermath of 9-11, why did some Westerners celebrate this heinous attack? How did we get here as a society? I open the floor to both of you. Maybe we start Richard Landes: Benedict God. Juliana Taimoorazy: with you, Dr. Landis. Go ahead, Dr. Landis. Richard Landes: I was gonna I was gonna say, Benedict, go ahead, but look, I mean it's an astonishing thing that, you know, on on December seventeenth, Bush stood in front of the Muslim community and said, you know, the Muslims here, like the rest of us are shocked and horrified at what happened. Now one of the people standing next to him was a member of the Muslim Brotherhood and was not, but but Americans didn't realize that there were people, very important people around the world in the West and in the United States, who literally celebrated it. I mean, you know, Baudrillard, a great French intellectual philosopher, who considered himself the sort of Alexis de Tocqueville of his Generation because he had visited America and stuff, wrote in the pages of Le Monde that nobody who loves freedom can't be, can't rejoice at this blow to this terrible hegemon, this suffocating hegemon that is the United States. So I you know, and and in the universities, I mean, Phyllis Chessler talks about in feminist circles, it was just absolutely clear that America deserved this. Juliana Taimoorazy: And before Richard, before if I may call you Richard and Benedict, Richard Landes: Yeah, sure. Juliana Taimoorazy: may I may I ask you to define what Muslim Brotherhood is? Maybe our listeners or our viewers are not really familiar with Muslim Brotherhood. Can you briefly Richard Landes: gee okay. Juliana Taimoorazy: discuss that, describe that organization? Richard Landes: Yeah, the I mean, really briefly, the Muslim Brotherhood is an organization that was started in the nineteen twenties by somebody who was a long term thinker who thought in terms of generations of preparation, and was in fact viewed by pretty much every regime in the Arab Muslim world as dangerous because they demanded much greater strictness of Muslim observance and so on. They were kicked out and in nineteen seventy-nine they actually put together in Switzerland a plan to over the course of maybe three generations infiltrate the West and take over. And their presence is strongly felt throughout the democratic world in terms of organizations that are there to protect the rights of Muslims but actually are militating for something far more aggressive. Juliana Taimoorazy: And they're very prevalent here in the United States especially. Thank you, Richard. Benedict, Richard Landes: Yeah. In a thousand years. Juliana Taimoorazy: if please go ahead. Benedict Beckeld: Yeah. Juliana Taimoorazy: How do we get here? Benedict Beckeld: Yeah, so Richard mentioned Le Monde, which is nostalgic for me because I was actually living in France, in Paris, w on nine eleven. so yeah, Richard Landes: really? Benedict Beckeld: I was not in New York, which to my great regret, people said, you're so lucky not to be in New York I said, Well, no, when your own city is attacked, you wanna be there, but but anyway, Richard Landes: Right. Benedict Beckeld: The the for me there are a couple of things why because your question to to specifically say why did so many people celebrate. Well I think we can divide the people who celebrated it into two distinct groups. one of them is Richard of course referred to the Muslim Broth Brotherhood and we had people coming to our country who simp who hate our country. I'm an immigrant myself, as you mentioned in the introduction. but there are different types of immigrants. Of course, there are some who come from countries that are of roughly the same civilization as the United States is, at least of the same Western civilization. And then there are those who come from civilizations that are much more hostile, which of course doesn't mean that necessarily every single individual from that from the from from a different civilization is hostile to the United States. Of course, that's not the case, but Where anti-Americanism is much more widespread than it is in Europe. anti-Americanism in Europe is is much more surface-like. They they secretly sort of like us, but they but they don't they can't stand the fact that they like us. Whereas in other parts Richard Landes: Yeah. Benedict Beckeld: of the world, they they genuinely hate us. so that's one group. the other group is you mentioned the title of my book in the beginning, Orchophobia, the subtitle, in the Klan of Civilization. So people whom I would refer to as Orchophobes. and these are people not immigrants. But Americans who hate their own civilization, orcophobia being just very briefly the phenomenon of self-hate, the opposite extreme of xenophobia. So with xenophobia you hate the foreigners, and with orchophobia you hate your own country, your own civilization, your own fellow citizens. and this is a phenomenon that has grown up in the United States that has grown forth in the United States over the last several decades. It appears earlier in history as well, but here in the US we've had it since roughly the On a mass level, at least we've had it since the sixties, seventies. so that particular group celebrated our our suffering and our loss on nine eleven. And of course, orchophobes are also the ones who will encourage immigration from that part of the world that is hostile to American American interests. So the one group contributes to the increase in the presence of the other group that also celebrates nine eleven. And I think one point that Richard made is also worth emphasizing the idea that they think in terms of generations, some of the Muslim Brotherhood and some of these groups that they have a much longer view of things than we do. We tend to be unfortunately a a bit more short-sighted. and which means that we don't see the threat mounting. because if something happens very slowly over generations, a lot of us here in the United States and in the West will say, well, What's the big deal? Things aren't really changing. We're still walking our streets safely and so on. Everything is more or less fine. And that's because we don't we don't think in terms of decades and centuries as as some others do. Richard Landes: Right, that's like the story which I heard is apocryphal of the frog in the pot of cold water and you slowly heat it and it adjusts and it adjusts and when it realizes it has to get out, it doesn't have the muscle. So yes. Juliana Taimoorazy: I have a question for you, Benedict. you mentioned the the self-hating terminology. And back in 2002, Salman Rushdie actually talked about this and and I have a quote here. He says, an ideological enemy that may turn out to be harder to defeat than militant Islam, anti-Americanism. What what ideology caused this in the nineteen sixties as you mentioned? What ideology caused this self hate to be nurtured in the American hearts, American elites and academics, wouldn't you say? Benedict Beckeld: Yes, except that it has then spread from you're certainly right. It starts it starts with the elite and it starts in academia, but it then spreads to other classes of society as well. This is actually something that is also a bit repetitive because when you have there are certain prerequisites that have to be present for this kind of social self faith to arise, and the more we have of those prerequisites, the larger a segment of the popul of the populace will also become orchophobic. So for Richard Landes: Okay. Benedict Beckeld: example, in ancient Greece, w or in Rome or even later on in, for example, mid 18th century France, not to get too obstrue here, but basically they it was much of a it was kind of an elite phenomenon. because the prerequisites that were that are necessary for orcophobia to arise, they had in some measure a measure of egalitarianism, a measure of democracy a measure of an open intellectual space where intellectuals can come together and criticize and so on, which of course can also be good things. But so because we have those things, also another prerequisite is safety from external enemies or relative safety from external enemies. So that the the sense of of dread, the sense of fear for fear of an external enemy recedes in people's consciousness. and so because we have all of those things even more now than than was the case in the past, it also means that okophobia has spread to more classes. Now it is not just an elite phenomenon, now it it has also become a middle class Richard Landes: Yeah. Benedict Beckeld: phenomenon in in many parts of the country, sometimes even a lower class phenomenon, because through the democratization of knowledge, through the easy availability of information, through social media. Yes, exactly. It's become a fashion. Exactly right. fashion is a good word. Richard Landes: You can make it a fashion. Right. So I have a I have a question for you about this. by the way, the book you wrote is just it's a pleasure to read. Benedict Beckeld: thank you. Richard Landes: many laugh out loud moments. yes, certainly. Benedict Beckeld: There are certain dry widths here and there, yes. Richard Landes: So one of my questions is you frame this as you get a society that allows its intellectuals To gather, speak, that's what academ means, to gather and to speak freely. They criticize their culture. At what point does it flip? I mean, self-criticism, I think, is one of the core features that makes modernity so successful. the ability to hear it, the ability to give it, and at what point does that self criticism, which is a strength, flip into becoming a sort of pathology. Benedict Beckeld: Yeah, it's if you look at historical cases, it's hard to draw a precise line, for when that happens. Because it's also Richard Landes: The tipping point. Benedict Beckeld: Yeah, because it's also a little bit subjective. I mean, if you look at certain points of critique, some some people might say that okay, in that exists in a certain grey air grey area, some people might say, Well, that's that's just healthy self critique and some people might say, Well now it's becoming sort of phobic and and this kind Richard Landes: Right. Right. Benedict Beckeld: of knee-jerk self-hate. So we can't really say where that line draws, but you but you get to a point where any intellectually honest person would have to say, okay, well this is not just self-critique. This is actual this Richard Landes: So Benedict Beckeld: is actual okaphobia or like when in the summer of love as they euphemistically called it they tore down here in the United States statues of our founding fathers. I mean that's not healthy self-critique that's clearly clearly an expression of okay Richard Landes: Was that sixty seven? Benedict Beckeld: Well, they refer to it now during the riots, during COVID also as well. Yes. The the euphemism from from legacy media. Richard Landes: I see. Emphasizing emphasizing their destruction of the language. Right. Okay, so Benedict Beckeld: Yes, exactly. That's right. Let's call it love rather than wanton destruction and barbarism. Richard Landes: but i I mean what you're suggesting is, particularly since you've sketched a number of times in which oichophobia appears, and I gotta say I think you left out the Christian Roman Empire, but we can talk about that. Benedict Beckeld: Yeah, I they the editors asked me to cut twenty thousand rewards from the final version. Richard Landes: no. Benedict Beckeld: They they thought it was a bit too long. So yeah. And and there's so much Richard Landes: I think we need to publish I think we need to publish the rest. Anyway, so Benedict Beckeld: Yeah, yeah, I'd love to. But yeah, it's it's but but it's also because since it was the very first, if I may, pat myself on the shoulder here briefly, book on this like the first systematic monograph study on this subject, Richard Landes: Right. Right. Benedict Beckeld: there's only so much I could cover, unfortunately. But yeah, I did also intend it as an encouragement for fellow academics or fellow thinkers to take it further. But yeah. Richard Landes: okay. Okay. All right. So and maybe we can come back to that, but the the point I was gonna make now was that you've essentially identified a research area which is at what point does it tip from being constructive self criticism into and how you know how how How inexorable is that descent? Once you start on that path, can you pull out? Because we're essentially asking the West to pull out. Pull up, stop, stop dumping on yourselves. You're living in an amazing world that was built by your ancestors. It's got flaws, but you're throwing it away. What are you doing? Benedict Beckeld: Hm. Yeah. No, it's it's it is quite inexorable, unfortunately. at least Richard Landes: Ooh. Benedict Beckeld: if one is to look at historical cases. Excuse me, but yeah. Richard Landes: Yeah, you said something about you you're not a pessimist, but you're I forget. Okay, anyway, go ahead. Benedict Beckeld: Yeah. Yeah, I'm not sure. But it's yeah, it's yeah, I don't I don't really take the I've been I've been accused of being a cultural pessimist and dooms dooms doomsday prophet and so on, but that's not really the case at all. I I always encourage our current society, our compatriots to to struggle against this. I don't think that's something that we have to accept. but but simply describing what has happened in history in this situation, yeah. I mean one has to still in a sober way determine that yeah, it's it's a descent that isn't just stopped, it it continues. But for example, I mean you might say like when Tacitus complains about Romans being barbarian and brutish and and violent and so on, we might say today, actually maybe he had a point. but the point is, from his point of view, is that excessive? is that an excessive critique. He also expresses Richard Landes: Right, right. Benedict Beckeld: disgust over Roman baths and and and other various Richard Landes: Yeah. Benedict Beckeld: Roman institutions. So the question is, yeah, we might have some sympathy with certain expressions of this kind of self-critique or even agree with it. But the Richard Landes: Right. Benedict Beckeld: point is that there is this transformation that takes place and that this kind of attitude, whether we agree with a specific instance of it or not, would Richard Landes: Right. Benedict Beckeld: not have taken place at an earlier phase of of this social development Richard Landes: Right. Benedict Beckeld: where these things did not exist, where these prerequisites did not exist. But so in in our today in in our modern iteration and and since Juliana asked about maybe phil movements that led to the modern iteration, I mean I can certainly point to to Marxism to kind of draw a line from Marxism through the Frankfurt School through French theory in the fifties and sixties in Paris. Richard Landes: Right. Right. Right. Benedict Beckeld: that all kind of coalesced to contribute at least philosophically and in academia to the rise of ocophobia here. Richard Landes: Right. Juliana Taimoorazy: Can I interject for a moment? I think the immigrants who love the West, people like myself and my community that come to the safety of the West. Richard Landes: And Benedict. Juliana Taimoorazy: and Benedict, absolutely. but we were persecuted, you know, we fled persecution and and Islamization of of our cultures there in the Middle East. We come here and we value the Western values, the Western society so much. And we could contribute, we should be listened to as migrants. That's why I think people like like you, Benedict, like myself, that come from outside, especially to the United States, we want to have the opportunity to platforms to say, look, look at where we've come from, look at where the Middle Eastern Richard Landes: Right. Juliana Taimoorazy: Christians and Jews, for example, have suffered through, and we're and and Muslims who are not thirsty for the Western blood, right? We come Richard Landes: Right. Juliana Taimoorazy: here, we want to be a p good citizens, we want to build our societies here. Richard Landes: In a sense you may be more American than the Americans at this point, or certainly than the English. Yeah. Yeah, yeah, yeah. No. Yeah. Juliana Taimoorazy: It I mean it breaks my heart to hear this. I it breaks my heart and and and as an American citizen, it breaks my heart to see my country is Richard Landes: Yeah, yeah. Juliana Taimoorazy: literally falling through falling falling imploding. Richard Landes: All right. Benedict, one of the things that I got the distinct sense you were arguing is that to some extent this kind of self loathing comes from the emergence of an elite which considers itself so superior intellectually, maybe emotionally, to the rest of the culture that it despises the culture out of which it has arisen. Is that Benedict Beckeld: Yes. Yeah, I think that's no, I think that's certainly right and that's how it starts. And Richard Landes: So it's kind of elitist poison. Benedict Beckeld: it is, yes. But then again spreads from the because people want to imitate the elite and want to rise to the elite and Richard Landes: Right. Benedict Beckeld: so it becomes kind of de rigueur to to have this kind of attitude Richard Landes: Yeah, yeah. Benedict Beckeld: in lots of I mean, I live right here in New York City and I meet people all the time who are not cannot be said to be part of the intellectual elite and who yet just automatically assume that whatever is Richard Landes: Right. Benedict Beckeld: wrong in the world is America's fault. or the West's Richard Landes: Thanks. Benedict Beckeld: fault. So so that's a very common thing, yeah. And and I think what do you call them? right, yes, yeah, exactly. Yeah. They yeah, it's a not a lot of independent thought there. I would Richard Landes: I think we call them sheeple. Sheeple. Right, right, right. Benedict Beckeld: agree. And and that and that's kind of part also what makes it phobic, because if one has a very genuine, valid critique of a particular aspect of one's own culture, for example, then one can usually defend it through evidence, through through arguments and so on, historical Richard Landes: Right. Right. Benedict Beckeld: considerations, but a lot of these people, if you there are exceptions, of course, there are people whose orchophobia is informed, even if it's even if it's mistaken, Richard Landes: Right. So yeah. Benedict Beckeld: but it's a knee jerk reaction in a lot of cases. Richard Landes: All right. So let me ask you about because maybe this is one of those flipping points. you included the Frankfurt School and critical theory. I at least somebody like Eric Fromm, who was a member of that school, I think his stuff is not oikophobic in any way, shape, or form. I see him as one of the great ideologues of a free society. Benedict Beckeld: Yeah. No, so yeah, by so I don't mean every member of the Frankfurt school Richard Landes: Yeah. Benedict Beckeld: and not a and also not every member of the of the of well the French postmodernists to use a a broad term. Richard Landes: Right. Right. Benedict Beckeld: of the three movements that I mentioned, I guess probably Marxism is the only one where I would say that, yeah, pretty much every member or or every Marxist is actually Richard Landes: Ha ha ha Benedict Beckeld: think does think in this way. No, so specifically when it comes to the Frankfurt School, I would I would point more to somebody like Mark Hughes, for example, Richard Landes: Yeah, for sure. Benedict Beckeld: and who of cour and the thing is a lot of these people, and the same is true to a lesser extent of the French postmodernists came to the United States. I mean, in tr in in the Frankfurt Richard Landes: Yes, yes. New school. Benedict Beckeld: school a lot of them escaped from Hitler, of course, and came to the United States. Yeah. Richard Landes: Right, ironically. Juliana Taimoorazy: And Benedicts, can you may I ask you, can you describe briefly what Frankfurt School is? Benedict Beckeld: Yeah, so it was basically a school of thought that arose in the city of that name, as as an academic institution. And it's it's a lot of things. you can't and and as Richard suggested also that you can't say that they're all kind of thinking the same thing. But it's it's a school of thought that emphasizes the it draws it they tend to be Marxists, first of all, probably the to use a term with which more people would be familiar. so they tend to they're influenced by Marx, they tend to think of society in terms of class struggle and so on. but now and now it depends on which Frankfurt school which scholar you're talking about. But exactly. But if you take Richard Landes: Right. Which which mutation, right? Benedict Beckeld: somebody like Marcuse or Marcus, some people pronounce it, whom I mentioned, a core idea, for example, is that Western society has an excess of oppression and that basically the way we live is one in which we are overly controlled by the state, and which stops us from thinking freely, which stops us from developing our personality, our persons and our talents and so on. Exactly, yeah. It's kind of warmed yeah, it's Richard Landes: Joy Benedict Beckeld: sort of warmed over Marxism. A lot of Marcusa boils down to, you know, free love and and and a sort of communism Richard Landes: All right, right. Benedict Beckeld: light. Richard Landes: Right. So this brings up the comment you made about how you thought it was the sixties, seventies where the West's latest episode of Oikophobia first started. So what's interesting to me about that is that in my study of millennial apocalyptic movements, the sixties, late sixties, seventies, early seventies was a sort of peak moment where really globally it wasn't. all the globe, but it it went around the globe, there was this sort of moment where people thought that there would be a dramatic change and, you know, as I forget who it was, Crosby Stills and Nash sang in their song to Woodstock, I dreamed I saw the bomber jet planes turning shotgun in the sky, turning into w butterflies across our nation. So is it possible that one expression or that the the the matrix in which this oikophobia takes hold is disappointed apocalyptic expectation, messianic expectation. We thought we were on the verge of a new world and when it wasn't, in the bitterness of disappointment, we turned on the very culture that gave us the dream. Benedict Beckeld: Yeah. Very interesting question. I would say may that could be I probably not so much in terms of well not in not in ancient forms of okaphobia. certainly Richard Landes: Mm. Benedict Beckeld: n not in pagan forms, also because I suppose you could also say that they're less prone to this kind of apoc apocalyptic thing. So yeah, exactly. So Richard Landes: Yeah, they're less messy in it, right? Benedict Beckeld: so I wouldn't say it for them. in modern times, it's interesting. maybe Apocalyptic w is putting it a bit strongly is my hunch, but you could certainly say that since and and this is the part of the internal contradiction of Okophobia, is that it requires success in order to there Richard Landes: Yeah. Benedict Beckeld: there needs to be success in order for there to be self repudiation. and so it's it's a bit Richard Landes: Okay. Benedict Beckeld: it's you could say that, okay, well, now that we have achieved this great this wonderful condition, what's next? There needs to be something else. and we need to to rise to some higher level, to some higher level of existence in order to. Yeah, exactly. Richard Landes: Right. Well it's a form of perfectionism. Yeah, it's a form of perfectionism. Benedict Beckeld: So and I do trace in the book the the kind of positivistic, philosophically positivistic, movement toward striving toward an ever moral perfection of humankind that contributes to orchophobia. Richard Landes: Yeah. Benedict Beckeld: so the but yeah the apocalyptic movement I'd have to think a little more about it to Richard Landes: Yeah. Benedict Beckeld: see what if there is more kind of evidence that can be tied there, but it's an interesting thought. Yeah. Richard Landes: Yeah, I'd be happy to talk to you about it. There's a great book by Arthur Mandel called Vision and Violence. And he's Benedict Beckeld: Mm-hmm. Mm-hmm. Richard Landes: got some very good passages. I it's a brilliant book all the way throughout, but he's got some very good passages on the sixties as a millennial Benedict Beckeld: Yeah, excellent. Richard Landes: moment. Benedict Beckeld: good, yeah. I'll definitely check it out. Juliana Taimoorazy: Richard, can I ask you a question about we talked about Marxism a little bit in the the Frankfurt school. When did the the Islamic movement in the US, especially in the US, converge with this Marxist ideology to give birth to what we're dealing with? Richard Landes: w it's it wasn't in the United States, it was actually at Durban in three days before nine eleven, the Durban Conference ended. And that was a we we call it the mar the Red Green Alliance or the marriage. I call it the marriage of pre modern sadism and postmodern masochism. because it's a kind of so you get this union and it's not, you know, like the progressives who are there, the NGOs, the human rights NGOs who are at Durban, they don't they're they don't have anywhere near they have the opposite values of the Muslims of the I call them caliphaters, people who want a global caliphate, who want all the world to be Dar al Islam. they don't share either in their future visions or in their daily practice and relations with others, including women, share the same values at all. The only thing they shared was hatred. And it was hatred of the United States and it was hatred of Israel. And and you have this sort of astonishing phenomenon which was described back in back in nineteen fifties by Eric Hoffer. Where he said a a mass movement does not need a god to succeed, but it does need a devil. And they had two devils. And that's where I see that that marriage happening. What's so bizarre is that and this is what I I'd like Benjamin to to address Benedict to address, i is that in All this edgy behavior, all this revolutionary stuff, all this you know, I'm cutting edge whatever, was actually and has proven to be over the last 25 years, consistently, the behavior of the submissive Vimi, the the infidel who lives under Muslim rule and who has to follow a whole set of rules, including the main one. never criticized Muslims or Islam. and so what appears on our screens to be revolutionary, cutting edge, you know, take Judith Butler, you know, she's she's this sort of heroine of the most cutting-edge revolutionary abstract thinking in the school of of Frankfurt and and yet What she's doing is there she is saying Hezbollah and Hamas are part of the global progressive left because we're anti-imperialist and they're anti-imperialists. And she doesn't even realize that they're the worst imperialists on the planet and that the only thing they share is anti-American imperialist. Juliana Taimoorazy: Benedict, would you r like to respond to that? Benedict Beckeld: Yeah, no, I mean I agree with everything Richard said, as you can imagine. And yeah, the this is the I think the important point that yeah, you need a devil. And and I mean if you look at totalit various totalitarian movements, what is one of the first things that they need in order to define themselves? They need an enemy in order to define themselves. something against which to rally. so yeah, I think that makes perfect sense. Richard Landes: So so the question I have for you is, basically, when when Baudrillard writes in Le Monde that and gets reprinted repeatedly in collections and so on, writes in Le Monde that anybody who loves freedom has to cheer at this blow to this suffocating hegemon. He's actually Cheering on his enemies. I mean, Islamic hegemony is gonna be a hell of a lot more suffocating than American hegemony. So and i is this just not accessible to him? Is it Baudriar? Right. Benedict Beckeld: Yeah, I missed the name. Whom are you referring to? Bautouill. okay. yeah, well, that's he's an ex yeah. I don't Richard Landes: Yeah. Benedict Beckeld: I think there's a certain naivete. I mean, he's not the only one Richard Landes: No. Benedict Beckeld: who who suffers who has this problem. there are some people who say that so there I think there are two schools of thought on this particular question. Basically that I yes. One is that yes, they are indeed so naive, and don't realize that that they're going to be next on the chopping block themselves. and that they're so blinded by hatred of of their own civilization that that this is the only thing they notice. And then there is the other school of thought which has that, well actually they are aware, or at least some of them are aware, of the incompatibility between themselves and the Islamic movements that they support, but that they consider the the nearer enemy their own civilization to be their to be the more to be the more Richard Landes: What else? Benedict Beckeld: immediate target and that they don't think that even though they know that yes they themselves would fare very poorly in Gaza, for instance, they understand that, okay, well, they're never going to be in Gaza, and they don't believe that that our own societies are Richard Landes: It's coming to them. Benedict Beckeld: going to turn into Gaza so quickly. So I think the probably I think there's probably truth to both of those schools of thought. I think depends on w which person we're talking about exactly. Richard Landes: Right. So if if I could if I could rename them, the first category is aggressive naivete. I don't Benedict Beckeld: Yeah. Richard Landes: believe that they're bad, and certainly not as bad as America is. I would never say that Islam is systemically supremacist, but I would say that America is systemically racist. So there's that school. The aggress and the other school is is basically, you know, I'm gonna get grandfather. You know, and and my grandchildren, I'm not thinking about them. Benedict Beckeld: Yeah. Or maybe think yeah, if one is try would try to be charitable, difficult sometimes, but but one should try. Then yeah, they think about their grandchildren perhaps, but they well, many of them of course wouldn't don't care about family that much anyway, so maybe they don't have children or grandchildren, but they Right, exactly. Yes, Richard Landes: Right. But they think about their grandchildren, they r ring their hands, you know. Benedict Beckeld: exactly. But they would still care that they would still not believe that it's going to come to that. And also because they tend to and I think I mean this is probably the more educated ones that we're talking about who are then of the second school of thought, I would say, and it's kind of more the naive masses who are of the first school of thought. But Richard Landes: Mm-hmm. Benedict Beckeld: but I would say that latter group, the the slightly more intelligent or educated ones, they look at numbers and say that okay, well, Muslims are one point three percent or so of the population in the Richard Landes: Yeah, yeah. Benedict Beckeld: United States, it's less than ten percent in in Germany and so on, and you know, those numbers aren't so aren't s aren't critical and of course they don't realize that a sufficiently stubborn minority can achieve wonders if if they believe in themselves. Yeah. Yeah, I Richard Landes: Absolutely. And they're they're thinking in democratic terms. Yeah. Benedict Beckeld: mean a man who believes in his own gods is as strong as ten men who don't believe in their gods. So that's something they don't consider. Richard Landes: Yeah, that's also the argument that Bat Ye'or makes in Eurabia, that the Europeans invited these people in thinking they're no threat to us, we'll just bring in and have them work for us. And then they'll go home. And and it never occurred it they had no I don't know if the right word is respect or they had no appreciation of what they were dealing with. Benedict Beckeld: Yeah. Yeah, no, there I mean w one looks at their at from their point of view, it makes perfect sense. I mean, if you come from Syria to Germany, are you going to go back to Syria or are you going to stay in Germany? The answer is obvious, yeah. Richard Landes: Yeah. Juliana Taimoorazy: Richard, you earlier you mentioned not being able to say anything, criticize Islam, which brings to mind the term Islamophobia. what is where is the genesis of it? Where did it come from? How has it put handcuffs on our hands so quickly since its inception? Richard Landes: Yeah, we we are actually have two different days dedicated to that. We'll be speaking with Dan Burmawi. And one of the things that Burmawi points out is that the real phobia here is not our fear of Islam, which is not a phobia, it's perfectly irrational. the real phobia is the Muslim fear of criticism and the violence that they project and you can see it in the Salman Rushdie affair and the and the cartoons affair, right? Those are the that's the behavior of people who are deeply insecure and who find any form of satire or criticism I mean they're not in danger of voikophobia because it there's no there's no opening for self-criticism. So In that sense, you know, they have what they've done is to say to us, don't you dare upset us. That's Islamophobia. And what I don't understand is how Islamophobia became such a powerful weapon that it could cancel careers, that in England, and that's going to be part of the discussion for a a second day on Islamophobia, David Collier is going to talk about the fact that, you know, for two days. Decades and more officials, parents, school teachers, you name it, journalists in England refused to deal with the fact that their daughters were being systematically raped because they didn't want to be seen to be pointing the finger at the people who were doing it. You know, I that's paral that's paralyzing. Juliana Taimoorazy: Indeed. And what I'm noticing here in the US, this this handcuffs that have been placed on our hands, is not allowing us to really engage with the Muslims because the if so called moderate Muslims or those who are not jihadists They will be afraid, they're afraid of stepping up and being critical of their own faith. And I think ultimate reformation must come from within. Because if I as a Christian go out there and try to change anything, I would be viewed as a crusader. So that reformation has to come from within their Richard Landes: Right, right. Juliana Taimoorazy: own cultures. so how where do we go from here? Yes, go ahead, Richard. Richard Landes: Right, so well, I mean you you just opened up an interesting angle because I would one of my definitions of a neighborly Muslim is a Muslim who can hear criticism without you know. I I remember going to a a it was a dialogue religious dialogue groups in the early aughts after nine eleven. And there were Muslims here. I was sitting next to one, it was all about peace and tolerance and stuff. And afterwards, my friend who was with me said, What do you think about the Rushdie affair? He says, he deserves death. You know, so it's like two different worlds in terms of tolerance of the ability to tolerate rebuke, to give rebuke and to take rebuke. You can't have a civil society that doesn't have the the ability for that to happen. I think academia up until the 21st century, you know, its great strength was this culture of dispute in which people could criticize each other and not feel that they had to go out to the field and and duel it out. so in that sense I think that one of the things, and this is something that our media could do, and they systematically refuse to do it, is they could be critical. You know, you don't hear a word of criticism of Hamas. It's of course Hamas does war crimes and we're against it and so on, but you don't hear anything about what they're doing in the Gaza Strip. You don't hear about when they shoot up Gazans who dissent. You don't hear when they hoard food. All you hear about is Israeli forced mass starvation. Juliana Taimoorazy: And on on many occasions, media has portrayed these terrorists as freedom fighters. And Richard Landes: Well, that was a big thing around nine eleven, because BBC and Reuters, both British, refused to use the word terrorism for the attack. And now it's spread to everybody. Now it's the standard. We we we don't talk about terrorists because it's an emotionally laden word, and and it is an emotionally laden word, and it should be an emotionally laden word. And what they're afraid of is that it's criticized it's built in criticism. of Muslims and they won't tolerate it, so our journalists pretend that they're being high minded and objective when they're actually giving in to demands. Juliana Taimoorazy: Exactly. And two things come to mind as you said this. earlier, Benedict, you were speaking of briefly you mentioned language. And Richard, you mentioned evil. we see in academia and among the elites, we cannot call the situation name it. We cannot call it what it is, and we they refuse to call an act a heinous act evil. Where is this coming from? How have we fallen so far to the bottom of this entire situation where we cannot call it what it is? Benedict, this is for you. Yes. Benedict Beckeld: Should I maybe jump in here? yeah, so I I'll comment you briefly on and then get to your question. The I think when Richard, when you were talking about neighborly Muslims, I think it's something that's worth pointing out. One hears this a lot that, well, you know, I know lots of Muslims and and they're perfectly nice and assimilated and so on. And of course they do exist. it's not not to be denied, but a lot of the seemingly assimilated and America loving and so on Muslims that are your neighbors. When push comes to shove, they will in fact turn against the tribal the old tribal instinct will kick in and they will turn against your own against your civilization when against the West and against the United States when when again when push comes to shove. That's worth pointing out. People will be surprised how many of their friendly Muslim neighbors in fact turn out to harbor these views, if they're pressed on it. it's something that we need to understand. when it comes to the to reform and so on within Islam, there I maybe there it's maybe there I would accept the label of a pessimist. because there there have been I mean no also not to be denied, there have been times and places in history where where milder versions of Islam were a norm, at least relatively speaking, that has ha that has existed. But Islam would have to start to be almost something completely different in order to in order to become a milder version of itself. So much of so many of the core tenets of Islam would have to be discarded for that to be the case. So so I'm not very optimistic. I believe more in Richard Landes: Ha ha Benedict Beckeld: a in a kind of a a screening off of the West from that part of the world, at least when it comes to demographic and in questions of demographics and migration and so on. Not necessarily geopolitically, but but that to me that is the one that makes more sense to have that sense of polarity. Richard Landes: But geopol geopolitical is necessarily involved there. I mean the oil that they have still has a surprise. It's less okay, okay. Benedict Beckeld: Right, exactly. Although that's b becoming less important than it is, thankfully. part p in part due to the energy politics of the of the pa energy policies of the of the current administration, thankfully, although they could do even more, but here in the US I mean. But Richard Landes: Right. Good night. Benedict Beckeld: yeah, no, but when it comes to the Juliana you were asking about sorry, I just wanted to catch up on on those couple of comments, but you were asking about the remind me again Juliana Taimoorazy: The language. The langu the language. The fact that we don't call yes. Benedict Beckeld: Right. yes, thank you. Right. Yeah, thank you. So yeah, I I think that's a lot of that comes from I mean of course you see that in Europe as well, this kind of excessive sense of egalitarianism and this assumption, very naive and and quite arrogant assumption really, that everybody else in the world are more or less the way we are. That goes back to a great extent to the French Enlightenment. You have gentlemen like Voltaire and Rousseau and Condorcet and so on in the mid seventeen hundreds in France. Who literally say expressly that, look at all these other civilizations, the the Tartars, the the the Indians, the Chinese, we're all the same morally speaking, we're different in outward custom, but deep down inside the human heart believes what it believes and so on. Absolute rubbish, of course. they they were many of the French so called philosophers were very they may have known France, well, they may have known Europe, but they were woefully ignorant of other cultures in the world. which perhaps they can't be blamed for considering the availability of the of the information at the time, but they can be blamed for their arrogance in assuming that they knew other civilizations so well. And that has that attitude has stuck has stayed with us since then. This idea that, well, deep down inside, all religions are kind of the same, love thy neighbor and so on. And then, you know, just there's some fanatics on the fringes who who Richard Landes: Yeah. Benedict Beckeld: do these horrible things. So so that's that leads us then to say that Islamophobia is of course that word is an expression of this kind of attitude as is Islamism, the this the idea the desire to want to distinguish between Islam and Islamism. The word Islamism has existed for centuries, but it used to be used synonymously with Islam. If you look at the the the same French writers, for example, in the seventeen hundreds to whom I referred. They use Islamism as a synonym of Islam, Muhammadanism, right, is another word that is also used synonymously. The idea that Islamism is purely a political dimension is something separate from a proper from proper quote unquote Islam is something is an invention of the latter third of the previous century. and it is done in order to protect Islam because we Richard Landes: Right. Right. Benedict Beckeld: say that bec and also because we have this kind of Protestant understanding of what religion is, something that is a private Richard Landes: Mm. Benedict Beckeld: communion between me, between the believer and God, and anything else beyond that isn't proper religion. That's just a political dimension, not understanding that other cultures have a completely different understanding of what religion is. And Richard Landes: Right. Benedict Beckeld: that that, yeah, that understanding often does not accord at all with a Christian and specifically a Richard Landes: Right. Benedict Beckeld: Protestant and and even more specifically Lutheran understanding of what religion should be. And we have to understand that Islam already contains this political dimension. Richard Landes: Right. So one of the Juliana Taimoorazy: Go ahead, Richard. Richard Landes: things that we want the one of the ways we want to rephrase it is that it's the problem is the supremacism. That is, the belief that the religion is so vastly superior to all other religions that they literally have warrant to conquer the world and either kill or subdue or convert all non-Muslims. Now the level of I mean, you know, if it were about color instead of religion, it it would be racism. The the level of contempt for the non-Muslim in the supremacist Muslim view is kind of staggering, certainly by modern standards of a civil society. You can't have a civil society with people who carry around that kind of contempt and hostility. towards their neighbors. d is that a good approach to talk about supremacism as rather than Islamism or that the problem is supremacist Islam, which, at least historically, has been supremacist. Benedict Beckeld: Well, I think your last the very last thing you said there, I think, is the key thing. So this is why maybe this is a slight would be a rare case of maybe a slight difference in our views, Richard, but you'll correct me if I'm wrong or if I correct me if I misunderstand you. But the reason you can certainly describe it as supremacist. The reason I don't I'm not crazy about the idea of prefacing the word Islam with the word supremacist, because that suggests that A bit similar to s to the idea, at least in my mind. Right, exa exactly. It's a tautology and it kind of suggests that okay, well, we have Islamism and then we have supremacist Richard Landes: You're saying it's a tautology. Right. Benedict Beckeld: Islam, which are kind of these side fringe phenomena, and then there's regular Islam, which is fine. And I think it's a mistake to convey the impression Richard Landes: Good. Okay. Benedict Beckeld: that mainstream Islam, if you will, is non supremacist. And I think a lot of people would take it that way. I don't I c as you said yourself toward the end, that's not really how you mean it yourself. So so I we probably agree, but I would maybe I would maybe feel Richard Landes: Well Benedict Beckeld: that the strategy of calling it supremacist Islam could be could be su could could serve as a defense for mainstream Islam. Now there are milder versions of Islam, as I mentioned Richard Landes: I Right, right. Benedict Beckeld: before, but they're the ones who are the exceptions. It's mainstream Islam itself, which is supremacist. Richard Landes: And and they're the ones and they're the ones who are considered infidel by the supremacists. But Benedict Beckeld: Right. Yeah, no, sure. Richard Landes: but okay, so let's move it to a slightly larger historical framework. Really, up until the seventeenth century, and the famous date in Western history is sixteen forty-eight, up until then, Christians were as supremacist as well, maybe not as but close. I mean, they were in They were religious imperialists and they believed in using everything from torture and execution, and and you know, armies of spies and so on and so forth, in order to maintain their supremacist version of Christianity, and Christianity managed to get out of it. You don't think it would Benedict Beckeld: They managed to get out of it because they weren't in it in the beginning, and this is a crucial distinction. When Christians acted in this way, they were in many cases. Now obviously you talk Richard Landes: Yeah. Okay. Benedict Beckeld: about Christianity, it's a massive thing, and so we have Richard Landes: Right. Benedict Beckeld: to talk in in in broad brushstrokes here. But when Christians acted in this way, they it must be said that they were very often acting in contravention of genuine Christian philosophy, but that when Muslims act this way, they are not acting in contravention of Islamic philosophy. Now Richard Landes: Right, and and the right, right, right, right, right, right, right. Benedict Beckeld: If you were to look at the two figures of Muhammad and Jesus, Jesus himself, I mean, nebulous figures, of course, but based on whatever evidence we have textually and so on, Jesus would have been appalled by much of what the Christians subsequently did. Muhammad would not have been appalled at at what the the many Muslims did subsequently. So that's a crucial difference. Richard Landes: Yes. Yeah, so that's that's right. Benedict Beckeld: Islam started as a war as a warlike tribal religion and has continued to be that in many respects. Richard Landes: So wait, y you Benedict Beckeld: Christianity started as a pacifistic as a pacifist movement Richard Landes: Right, right. Benedict Beckeld: and it only became it only became political and and consequently violent once it had been wedded to the state under Constantine and the late Roman Empire. And then Richard Landes: Right. Right. Benedict Beckeld: some Christian philosophers realize, okay, well, if we are a state religion, obviously the state has enemies, so we have to come up with certain theories about how when war can be justified and so on. But so it's worth pointing out when people say Christianity went through reform, so Islam has to go through reform. What's missed is that Christianity, in order to have this reform, kind of just had to go back to its earlier roots, whereas there are Richard Landes: Okay. Benedict Beckeld: no such roots for Islam. Richard Landes: Okay, so there are two possibilities here. One is that the roots are in the early Meccan period, which was the period that Muhammad was preaching. He had no coercive powers whatsoever. It was only voluntary conversions. And what he was using was the threat of judgment day as a way to and that that the morality in that period. is not it's not as as rich as the Benedict Beckeld: Yeah. Richard Landes: Christian, but it's it's not bad. And and it's yeah, Benedict Beckeld: But that's a develop sorry, go ahead. Richard Landes: and it's the Medina period where, you know, in a sense the Muslims decide that they're tired of waiting for God to come and punish the infidels, so they'll do it. and and I think that what One of the ways and spoke with somebody about this recently, interesting idea. One of the ways to deal with this problem is to say, look, you can have whatever fantasies you want about the rightness of your religion and the wrongness of our religion, but at least have the modesty to let God decide and not you. Benedict Beckeld: Yeah, no, I mean that that modesty is not Richard Landes: So that's a hudna until until the day of judgment and judging by how long it's taken, we can count on another couple of thousand years. Benedict Beckeld: Yeah, I mean I Juliana Taimoorazy: And you know what? Benedict Beckeld: was sorry, no. yeah, I would just say Juliana Taimoorazy: Go ahead. Benedict Beckeld: that I think the I mean first of all, the development to which you're referring, I mean, took place within the same generation. Whereas the whereas it was yeah, whereas the first several centuries of Christianity was pacifist. Richard Landes: Yes, w couple of years. Yeah, no, there's no right. Benedict Beckeld: And I would also say that through the principle of abrogation, a lot of the Medinan surahs abrogate the Meccan surahs, and so Richard Landes: Yes, yes, yes. Benedict Beckeld: it's not the case that we could just say that, well That you could just take the Meccan source and say, Well, this is proper Islam. so Richard Landes: Right. Right. Okay. Agreed. But the one thing that the Muslims have, which the Christians didn't, unless you want to consider the Jews as an example, the Muslims have the example of a people who have in fact overcome the supremacism, been able to found productive democratic states where people are free, including Muslims, and that's you know, that's something that that's a form of religious i i I'm almost arguing this isn't religious, it is, but ultimately I'm saying it's not so much a religious set of theological beliefs so much as it is a sort of style of I I guess I call it insecure dominance, in which I a I hide my insecurities by kicking the crap. out of anybody who pushes my buttons. Benedict Beckeld: But that is part of yeah. Juliana Taimoorazy: Benedict, before you before you answer that, I just want to highlight that Islam is not simply a religion. It's a form of governing. And Richard Landes: Yeah, no, we understand that. Juliana Taimoorazy: d Benedict Beckeld: But that's what I was referring to before when I was talking about how we misunderstand Islamic religion by thinking about it in a more Protestant kind of way. Richard Landes: Right. Right. Benedict Beckeld: saying that that it's just this kind of relationship between me and God. And in fact, whereas whereas Islam is a much more holistic system, and so when we distinguish between religion and politics We don't actually do justice to Islam because that very distinction between religion and politics doesn't Richard Landes: Right. Doesn't exist. There is no Benedict Beckeld: exist to them. Now, of course, within Islam there are more political aspects, worldly aspects, and more theological aspects, but they still both of these aspects still fall within the broader umbrella of the religion. and so it is more political, but that but that which we call political is still a part of the religion, and that's part of what makes it so dangerous. Richard Landes: All right, so let me ask let me ask one of the Yeah, okay. Juliana Taimoorazy: And the the concept go ahead, Richard, go ahead. I I was gonna I was gonna ask both of you actually this question. within the frame frame work of Islam, there's this concept called taqiyya takiya, where I believe many of the terrorists of nine eleven terrorists practiced while they were here. living within the United States. do you do you see that also in in the war in works here nowadays? Because there's I I see a lot of prison prisoners are being evangelized to become Muslims, to be taught how to perform or how to practice Tariyah while out there outside until the call of jihad comes. What are your thoughts, Richard, first for to you and then to Benedict? Richard Landes: Well, i w there's no doubt in my mind that the people I call caliphaters, the ones working for the global caliphate, will use takia and will use any form of dissemblance. And in fact their favorite ploy is to pretend that they're progressives, like the mayor of New York. so I there's no doubt in my mind that Takiya is a perfectly legitimate form of lying to infidels, in order to To advance the cause. And one of the elements that we're going to look at it during this Infidel Awareness Month is what I dub Pollywood, which is just, you know, you outright lie, fabricate footage, stage scenes, and then tell the West Western journalists that this actually happened. And the Western journalists are stupid enough to take it on and run it as news. So yeah, there's no doubt about that. What I'm interested in is what I think. is a different form of taquia and that is a form of taquia on the part of infidels who are actually already behaving like thimi And they're not letting anybody know it. They're presenting themselves as independent thinkers who push back against American power, Israeli power, whatever. But in fact, what they're doing is systematically subjecting their agency to the demands of the caliphate. Juliana Taimoorazy: Would you define what Demi is for our audience, please? Richard Landes: Vimy is the status it's the status of the non-Muslim who isn't killed. the pagans are killed, but the Christians and the the Jews and eventually the Zoroastrians and the Hindus were allowed to keep their religion, but they had it's an apartheid law. They don't have the same standing before the law, they can't bear t bear witness, they a whole bunch of of debilitating statuses for them. and one of the most important is if they were to criticize a Muslim or Islam, the prophet, you name it, the the the protection that they get is gone. And and so a lot of times by apologists we're told that thimi, D H I I, that thimi are that they're a protected group. They just don't mention that they're protected from Muslim violence. Juliana Taimoorazy: Thank you for that explanation. Benedite, did you want to respond to the Benedict Beckeld: yeah, I don't have that much to add. But I mean Richard mentioned the mayor of my city. and I think of Tachia when when I listen to him and a number of other politicians in the United States as well. I mean now we have Al Sayyed, who may be the next senator from Michigan, for example. Let's hope that doesn't happen, but and when they when you see how they respond to certain questions, one really does get the impression that yes. I mean, obviously that one tells journalists or one tells the people what they want to hear or what what what one thinks they want to hear. That's nothing new, obviously in politics, politicians lie for a living, but there is there is a distinct feeling that now, for example, with nine eleven coming up, that when they talk about the horrible terrorist attacks and our innocent Americ American compatriots who died and so on, there's a lot of techie, I think, going on there. and they know what they have to say in order to to get elected, in order to get into power. Juliana Taimoorazy: So as we are drawing to the end of our wonderful conversation, where do we go from here? What are your final thoughts on how Richard Landes: Yeah. Juliana Taimoorazy: how do we redeem our Western civilization? How do we bring things back? Richard, I'll start with you. Richard Landes: As a friend of mine said before this conversation, I can't wait to see you and Benedict save the West. Juliana Taimoorazy: That's that's a very, very big big and heavy exactly ask. Benedict, what do you think? Richard Landes: Big ask. All right, so Benedict, you don't have to save the West, but show us a path. Benedict Beckeld: Thankfully, yes. yeah, Juliana Taimoorazy: Yes. Benedict Beckeld: so I I take a a tragic view of history, so so say you know, and and kind of reject this messianism that we've been talking about. So yeah, there's no such thing as ultimate salvation, but at least we can stave off demise, as as far as possible. and and and even after the demise there's going to be a reawakening and and and things that appeared lost will rise again. so I I take a somewhat more Greek view of of of historical cycles and spirals and so on. But anyway, so the Richard Landes: Yeah, you you've been spending a lot of time with the Greeks. Benedict Beckeld: Yeah, indeed. This is this is true. So but at least more immediate things that would be salutary for us to do. there is I guess I would distinguish I would say the pol political, geopolitical level, and then the more cultural level. So on the political, geopolitical level, as I mentioned before, the I as I mentioned, I take a a more polar view of the matter. So Immigration from Islamic countries should be stopped completely. This is even true of you for Europe, of course. in Europe it's actually even more extreme, not only to stop migration, immigration from Islamic countries completely, but also mass deportations will be necessary for Europe, for many countries in Western and Northern Europe. here in the United States, thankfully, things have not gone that far. I don't think we need mass deportations of Muslims, but we need to stop immigration from Muslim countries completely. that's politically. culturally, in terms of what do we do ourselves in order to appreciate what we have, I mean having children, having lots of children is part of the answer. because even people who are shall we say, not necessarily conservative or who don't think a lot about these things. when they have children, they tend to develop a sense of wanting to hand something down to their children. The sense of tradition becomes important, more important in new parents. So I think encouraging children, this is actually a political discussion going on right now with the government here in the US actually trying to promote Richard Landes: Interesting interest. Benedict Beckeld: child and more childbearing. We'll see w if that's successful. I have my doubts, but we'll see. So that's part of it. And also religion is extremely important. I say this as a non-religious person myself, but the fact that we need to understand, even if people even if if you believe in God and you believe in religion, that's wonderful. That's that's the most important thing. But even if you don't, I would tell those people who do not believe in religion, including myself, or do not believe in God anyway, shall we say, that they need to understand the beauty of religion. There is a certain tendency on among many public intellectuals on the left and the left in general. To not understand what religion is, to think that it's just the belief, very childish view of religion, including by some famous public intellectuals who should know better, that religion is just a belief in some magical man in the sky. And of course, religion is so much more than just a theological aspect. Richard Landes: Right. Right. Benedict Beckeld: Religion is a sense of community, religion is a sense of the sacred. being able to distinguish between the sacred and the profane, understanding that there is something sacred in life that we all need, community, family, and so Richard Landes: Yeah. Benedict Beckeld: on. The aesthetics of religion as well. When I lived in Richard Landes: You Benedict Beckeld: Germany, I used to go to sometimes I went to Latin mass on Sundays just because I loved listening to the to the hymns in Latin, the just the beauty of it. So to understand the beauty that religion brings us, would come a long way, even for people who are not necessarily very conservative minded, to understanding that okay, there is something beautiful here for that we need to take care of and that we need to pass down. So I think those are two things that are very important. Richard Landes: Uh-huh. Uh-huh. Yeah. you did a masterful job of taking Dawkins to the to the woodshed in your book. Benedict Beckeld: Dawkins, Steven Pinker, a few others. I'm friendly with one or two of them, so maybe a couple of names I'll I'll I'll avoid mentioning just to Richard Landes: Ha ha ha. Benedict Beckeld: be tactful. But yeah, in in Western self contempt, my book that I mentioned in the beginning, Dawkins and Stephen Pinker, who it's embarrassing. I mean they they may be good in certain things that they do, but public intellectuals don't know how Richard Landes: Right. Benedict Beckeld: to stay in their lanes. And it's when they talk about religion it's it's it's it's embarrassing. It's it's below the level of a high school essay, yeah. Richard Landes: Gotcha. Gotcha. Juliana Taimoorazy: Any final words, Richard? Richard Landes: Well look, I mean that's why we've decided to open this infidel awareness month, because I think that only once we acknowledge what's happening can we begin to think clearly about where to go. I think a lot of people would say, I don't want to go there because it will lead to deportations and I don't want my country deporting people. at some point when it's a question of does the country survive or does it deport. And there are humane ways to deport. It doesn't mean that you have to do it the way, for instance, the Muslims did it to either the Armenians or the Jews earlier in the 20th century. So so the idea of the month is the first thing that has to happen is people need to understand how a supremacist looks at them, what an infidel means to a Muslim who believes that his religion is so vastly superior to everything else that it gives him warrant to wage war on infidels. So just to come become aware of that changes many things. And I think one of the things that it changes is when you understand what an infidel is in the eyes of Muslims. And you understand that they want non-Muslims to either convert or to become subject. How many people in our public sphere today are behaving like subject Muslims, even as they strut along, either with their virtue signaling or with their, you know, rough, cool, edgy revolutionary rhetoric? Juliana Taimoorazy: Indeed, and as a former refugee. I see the hallmark. I see the writing on the wall if we don't wake up and take action, really. so thank you, gentlemen, both of you. This was a very exciting conversation. the website for our audience to go to is infidel awareness.com. Infidel awareness.com. Please join us next time for yet another exciting conversation at the Infidels Podcast. And also, especially we welcome the Neighborly Muslims who want to come and join us in our Infidels community. Thank you, everybody. God bless you all. Richard Landes: And Benedict Benedict, I'm looking forward. We're gonna pick up this discussion on the day we discuss the failure of academia. Looking forward. All Benedict Beckeld: Yes, I'd love to. As a as am I. Thank you. Richard Landes: right. Bye. Thank you so much, Juliana. Juliana Taimoorazy: Wonderful. Bye bye everybody. Thank you.