#465 — More From Sam: Iran, Jihadism, Conspiracism, AI Disruption, the Manosphere, and More

Just to note to say that if you're hearing this, you're not currently on our subscriber

feed, and only be hearing the first part of this conversation.

In order to access full episodes of the Making Sense Podcast, you'll need to subscribe at SamHarris.org. We don't run ads on the podcast, and therefore it's made possible entirely for the support of our subscribers. So if you enjoy what we're doing here, please consider becoming one.

Welcome back to another episode of More From Sam. I just want to remind everybody we are taping this live in front of subscribers and we've had them submit questions and advance of the show, and then we've asked them to provide any follow-ups using the chat feature so that we can try to have Sam, you address their feedback in real time.

Alright, let's get on to our first topic.

I want to start with Iran again, last time we discussed holding two thoughts on our heads at the same time, one you think it was right to get rid of the Iranian regime and two that you were worried that we were being led by an incompetent administration. How are you feeling at this moment?

“I think that, sort of, two-fold impression has only solidified.”

I mean, certainly the incompetence has been on display, and the consequences of the initial incompetence. And the initial incompetence was to have done absolutely nothing to prepare the American people are Congress for this war to have been lurched into it in an authoritarian way, to have given fuel and even seeming evidence to conspiracy theorists who think we were dragged

into it by Israel.

I mean, I acknowledge that Israel and America don't have precisely the same set of concerns

and incentives in this war, so it's rational to differentiate between Israel's needs and America's, and I think that's to some degree that's true, so we can talk about that. Yeah, there's no clear rationale for the war, and Trump has said all manner of thing as a reason for us doing this and has been totally unpersuasive. Strangely, he has a communication problem that's almost at the level of Biden's during

his presence. But Biden's massive failing as a president among his many minor failings is that he couldn't communicate at a certain point, he couldn't communicate at all about anything, and he just simply had to hide from the public for obviously neurological reasons. Well, I don't know what Trump's reasons are, but Trump is totally ineffective in communicating

about this because he either doesn't know anything or he's content to be completely incoherent or doesn't notice that he's incoherent, but he's just the messaging has been terrible. In the run-up to this, we've done nothing, but alienate our allies with tariffs and threats and bullying and authoritarian nonsense. Now that we need allies, as surprisingly, to keep the straight-of-war moves open, apparently

we want our allies to help us do that, that comes as a surprise to many people, I'm not sure it should have, but it seems to have come as a surprise to Trump because at one point, Kear Starmer offered a British ship, I believe, or two, or three, and Trump said, "No, we don't need someone who's coming into late to a war that's already been won." And now he's bullying Starmer to give the ships that he actually needs, right?

So it's just, it is the most unprofessional, slip-shot, shambalic messaging around this. And so one can only hope that the actual dropping of bombs is being executed with real precision and impressive competence, I have no reason to believe it isn't, but it's just, it's totally reasonable to be worried that we could screw this up. I'm not confident we will screw this up, I think I will be unsurprised if this turns out

“to be a success, despite all of these malepropisms, I think it could be a success, right?”

We could wake up one day to realize that there's a secular democracy being born and Iran, because we destroyed this evil regime and it's what the bulk of the Iranian people really wanted all the while, right? And so we could stumble into real success here, and that's certainly to be hoped for, but it could also be a ghastly failure, about we could produce something like a failed state

in Iran, and that will seem to vindicate all the people who were against this war in the first place. And then the one I think I would point out is that most of the people who are against this war are not making the most basic acknowledgment of the evil of the Iranian regime and the needless misery of the Iranian people, right?

So they're not connecting the humanitarian dots that they really should connect to be same critics of this war.

“I mean, the first thing you have to say, if you're going to criticize this war is to acknowledge”

that this is an evil regime that would be better if it didn't exist, and your heart goes out to the Iranian people who don't want to live under this miserable theocracy, but you have these further reasons to worry that this adventure is a very bad idea, and that

I mean, Damon Linker just published a sub-stack article that made that case, and I thought

fairly persuasively, but still, most critics of this war don't do that, and they're just they sound completely delusional to me. Yeah, well, I mean, you just point out the Trump went to war without NATO, and now he's telling them, you know, hey, you guys are the one that needs the oil, so you get in here to the straightaway moves. But worse than that, he's also saying that we need the help,

right? Like we actually couldn't do this on our own, it seems, right? And now it remains to be seen whether that's going to be true, but there's this perception that we we've already gotten in over our heads, despite how much we have pulverized the regime, right? And the evidence

of that is pretty remarkable, but the fact that we either appeared not to have anticipated

how easy it is, and how asymmetrical the threat is in the straightaway moves, and how it's like, well, we have one guy in a fishing boat with a suicide vest, could close the whole

“thing down, you know, or just one, I think it's a little bit more one personally, and mine's”

no, it's very, it's totally asymmetrical apparently. I mean, you really need, you can't let one person with one mind have access to the water, otherwise no one's going to send a ship through, right? And now we're in this awful position of watching the Iranians dictate who can come through the straight, right? So, you know, Iranian oil and in Chinese ships are happily passing through the straight apparently, and we're letting that happen because we don't have control, so it is,

that part appears to be a humiliating failure in the making. I think I would, I would also add that if at the end of all of this, there hasn't been regime change, and the Iranian people are still under the boot of Theocrats, and we're now left to try to negotiate with some religious fanatic who, perhaps, is pretending not to be a fanatic about their, you know, the existing, you know, 400 kilograms of partially enriched uranium that they still have, and their aspirations to

“spin up more, I think that will be just an objective failure, right? It would be better not to”

have, as much as we have degraded the regime, that would be bad for the U.S. I'm not so sure to be bad for Israel in the same way, maybe everything from here forward, no matter what happens, is a success from Israel's point of view. Again, we don't have quite the same interest there, but simply because Iran, you know, nuclear Iran is an existential threat to Israel, there's no question. So, pulverizing the regime to grading their capacity, killing their ballistic missile

regime, if only that, right? That's, that's a good. Has that been confirmed? Has that been confirmed? That the nuclear facilities have been pulverized? I mean, I know they claimed that last time. No, but the ballistic missiles, the conventional missiles are have been either eradicated, or they've shot their last one, it seems. I mean, they really, it really seems that they don't have much capacity left. All of that's good for Israel, that's neither here nor there,

really, for the U.S. I'm just saying that the way we went into this and the incompetence that's surrounded so many features of this from our side, not Israel's side. If at the end of the day, there really is no fundamental reset in Iran, and we're just left still trying to negotiate on some level around their nuclear aspirations. I think that's a terrible outcome, right? So that's to worry, worth worrying about. Yeah. You said you don't want Iran to get a nuke, but you've also said

that you don't want American boots on the ground, if push comes to shove, which are you willing to let go of? The boots on the ground part. I just said that we can't have jihadists with nukes, I mean, that's just that you can boil down the core of a sane foreign policy on this topic to that sentence, right? If it's a jihadist regime that is within reach of nukes, send in the troops,

“right? Do whatever you have to do to stop that from happening, right? So how we do that,”

and again, we should have allies, we should have gone to Congress, we should have made the case for this,

and I think, you know, I've always said, and I think I first got this idea from the Atlantic

writer Mark Bowden, I think, you know, maybe 20 years ago, it seems to me that much of this should be covert, right? I don't know why we ever have to take credit for anything, right? I think we're at war with jihadism, full stop, we will be for the rest of our lives, anyone who doesn't understand how jihadism is different from any other enemy we have, or really have ever had, doesn't understand jihadism. So, I mean, it makes an absolute mockery of any negotiation,

any notion of deterrence, to say nothing of nuclear deterrence, you're dealing with avowedly suicidal people who are not bluffing, and they're not only, it's not only that they're willing to die, the crucial core of them want to die, right? And if you don't believe that, again, you're simply ignorant about jihadism and haven't been paying attention to the last, you know, 25 years at least, of what's been happening in the world. So, it's a total deal breaker.

It nukes with jihadists just that cannot happen, right? So, wherever it seems to be happening,

special forces, or some combination of, you know, many things that are just that seem different from our old misadventures, whether that were just boots on the ground, that's fine. But we need, we need a relentlessly intrusive policy with respect to jihadism and nuclear projects. Okay, and trying to read this chat here that just came in, says people in the chat are pushing back on Sam earlier saying that he has no reason to believe the bombs aren't being dropped accurately,

“even though the Trump admin is leading the war. How about the Girl's School of Getting Bonds?”

Well, obviously, obviously, I will not talk about the Girl's School. So, yes, that was a catastrophe, and obviously a mistake, right? I mean, anyone who thinks we did that on purpose is a moron. So, I mean, you literally need not listen to another word out of the mouth of anyone who's speaking as though that was intentional, right? And that that that harms our interests as colossal is as anything we could possibly do. And so, and the same is true of Israel. So, the idea

that that somehow part of our policy to kill the schoolgirls by the hundreds, that's insane. But it's awful that that happened, and it was clearly based on some error of, you know, intelligence or targeting or both. But generally speaking, I mean, we and the Israelis have killed so much of the leadership of the regime. I mean, it's that part sounds like it's out of some unbelievable movie, and it sounds like we are successfully degrading their capacity in all kinds of ways,

but not sufficient to keep the straight-of-form moves open, right? So, that part, if that was surprising to us, that's another sign of our incompetence. Yeah. I just think that the really issue there is,

“I don't think most people really believe we did on purpose, I think it's the mismanagement,”

and just why was so difficult just to say, "Yeah, yeah, we, of course we, what you just said,

we would never have done that on purpose. It was accidental. We, you know, this is tragic."

Well, yeah, the messaging around this, we're in the hands of a moral, you know, truly awful human beings who are running our country, right? And that has a consequence, right? Trump can't credibly step in front of a microphone and say anything compassionate about anything for any purpose, right? Because everyone knows that he's simply, he's at minimum neurologically injured in some ways so that it's not to be a normal person in that regard. And so it is with, you know,

Pete Higgs-Eth and the other cartoon characters who are in our government. So all of that's terrible. There's no, I mean, you're not going to get to the back of me feeling that these are the wrong people to be doing this very important and risky job, but that doesn't suggest that destroying this regime wouldn't be a good thing. And the other thing point out about critics of this war is

that they never seem to reckon with the widespread Iranian support for the war. What are you going to

“say, what can you say to all the Iranians who are urging us onward in destroying this regime?”

Right? I mean, what about their interests? What about the compassion for their loved ones who don't want to live in theocracy, right? Which you, the critic of this war wouldn't want to live under either. People are acting as though we attack a sovereign country. They're, they're acting as a way attacked Greenland, right? Like that's the perception of the ethics here. I mean, this is just a totally unjustifiable, unethical, imperialist adventure by a, you know, country that is now governed

by as a sociopath, right? Now, we may be governed by a sociopath, but all of the previous statements are wrong, right? This is nothing like Russia's invasion of Ukraine. This is nothing like our taking Greenland through use of force. That the Iranian regime was a terrorist regime for as long as most of us have been alive. And some feedback from the chat, if isn't the war just creating

more jihadists? No, I've never bought that. I mean, yes, I'm sure there are some specific individuals

who could tell that story of their radicalization. I mean, I'm not saying that's an impossible way for the dominoes to fall, but generally speaking, that's not how you get jihadism. Right? Do you get jihadism by the indoctrination into a specific, you know, religious beliefs and those beliefs spread? Right? People find those beliefs compelling for a variety of reasons. And if, no, no other reason that they're just, they get drummed into the heads of kids since the moment they can speak, right?

So, this was happened among the Palestinians, right? And the Palestinians are a highly radicalized culture because they have taught more than one generation of kids that this is the way the world is. Right? And you literally have four year olds being raised to aspire to be martyrs. You know, this is in the curriculum and in UN funded schools in the Palestinian territory. So it's just, it's a cultural problem. It's a religious problem. It's a theological problem. It's a problem

that the Muslim world has to sort out. I mean, because the real problem is jihadism is not a distortion of the faith. It's just, it's at the core of the faith. I'm not saying that all Muslims

by its roots and still sound like you are an orthodox Muslim. I mean, it's not an easy project.

I'm not even sure it's a viable project in the end. So I'm not, I'm definitely worried about this slow-moving collision. We're going to keep having with with Islamic orthodoxy. But we should point out that fairly doctrine air, Muslims are still trying to do it. Even in states that are not at all democratic are open. You know, the UAE and Saudi Arabia, they're disavowing their

“hard-line clerics. And I believe, ceasing to export jihadism the way they were. It was funding”

jihadists, inspired mosques all over the world for the longest time. I believe they have rain that in, at least that's been reported. All of those changes are good. And those changes are possible. And it's pretty clear that the UAE doesn't want to become an ISIS-like society.

And all of that's good. The problem is there's a very obvious place to stand within Islam

to look at the UAE project and say, well, this is all just worldlyness and corruption and apostasy. And the real Islam teaches exactly what the Islamic state has been saying all along. And we have to deal with that. Speaking of that, is it true information that is it the UAE that no longer is funding college education to the UAE for fear of randomization? Yeah, they're afraid that their students will be radicalized by the Muslims at Oxford and Cambridge and the London School

of Economics, which tells you just how far this problem has spread. So, you know, convict the UAE of Islamophobia, if you like, that will be a reason. Yeah. It seems many on the right and left

“are united against this war for different reasons, obviously, but which sides reasons or you more?”

I think the left, frankly. I mean, the right, the America first dogmatism of the right

and the anti-Semitism, the anti-Israel position of the right is, it is what it is. I mean, it's easier for me to take the measure of what's on the left is just fundamental moral confusion about everything I just said, right? I mean, they won't acknowledge that jihadism is even a problem. I mean, everything I just said is just pure Islamophobia and racism is so that charge made any sense. I mean, the left is the left has been gold by Islamists. The left has, the left, I mean, we've

got people who jihadists would actually massacre if they had a chance, essentially championing the cause of jihadists, right? On our most elite university campuses, you know, in wide variety organizations, you know, the left of center in the west, but the level of moral confusion is just astounding. So these are the useful idiots are on the left. I guess there's some useful idiots on the right for other reasons, but not into the, just again, the asymmetry here is worth noting.

On the right, you know, the cultural capture on the left has been of our most elite institutions, right? The moral confusion you see is in places like the New York Times and at Harvard University and, you know, foundations and, you know, it's just the employees of, you know, all high status companies. I mean, this is that it's not, we're not talking about Breitbart and Fox News and organs of culture that advertise their confusion with, you know, with every breath. These are our

best institutions that have been initiated by this form of antisemitism, this form of moral confusion, this form of apology for a theocracy and atrocity. I mean, if you walk through the front door of a mainstream liberal organization and start arguing for the rights of women and girls in the Muslim world, you are immediately painted as a racist Islamophob, right? I mean, that's the center of gravity left of center and, you know, again, are most elite institutions. So that's just,

that's got awful. I didn't explain that. What, I mean, what do you think they would say if you just

“pointed that out to them and said, let me just explain to you what life is like under that rule,”

does that bother you? Well, I've been in this situation before. I've been for 25 years. I've found myself in these conversations face to face every since September 11th. It's been a long time since I've submitted to one in person, but no, I mean, I would be at academic conferences and I would say something disparaging of the Taliban and that proved controversial, right? I mean, it's just you literally meet. And if you tried to walk somebody on the other side through this logic,

yeah, you get just an utter stonewalling and and kind of malfunctioning of the human brain. I mean, it becomes impossible to have the conversation. They just, yeah, it's just, there's a double standard etched into this pseudo morality, which is, it's like there's the utility function is here, I think, see everything in terms of white supremacy and and oppressor oppressed relationships

Islam, even of theacrats, even of theacrats who are killing women for showing their hair, even

“theacrats are performing, you know, genital mutilation on girls, if you criticize them, you are”

at minimum risking being racist, again, that makes no sense, that claim. And certainly, Islamophobic, right? So that's where the conversation stops. We can't care about those girls. We can't care about those women. Your pretension to care about those girls and women is just to cover for your racism and Islamophobia. And as a white guy, you can't be talking about this at all, anyway, right? So the conversations over before it starts and these are the most madening encounters

I've ever had in my life. Literally had conversations with women who have PhDs who are, you know, who live happily in the West, who are open-minded about, you know, female genital mutilation and the life of women in Berkhus in Afghanistan. It's just, it's mind-boggling. Okay, so you're getting pushback from the chat, mainstream progressives do not believe that. I've met them face to face with the extreme left.

Okay, so, well, then we're just talking about words. So then show me your mainstream progressive who isn't going to think the last 15 minutes was just an irritation of Islamophobia, and then I'll grant that person's saying. But just in the ledger of your imagination, I imagine all the people who think that what I just expressed was white identity politics, or racism, or Islamophobia, right? Anyone who who who check any of those boxes,

“that's what I'm talking about, are those mainstream progressives or not?”

Yeah, I don't know. So we, let's just pause for a second.

Just do we want to see if that person would like to lay out the view a little bit more clearly, so that you can respond to it? Oh, yeah, I would love any follow-up on that. I mean, I just, it's like either you're going to understand what Jihadism is, and you're going to understand the complicity of confused leftists and Muslim apologists, who are not themselves Jihadists, but many of whom are Islamists or many of whom are just

sufficiently conservative and identified with their religious sectarianism such that they're going to criticize the Danish cartoonists who are being hunted by maniacs, not the maniacs, who are hunting them, right? They're going to, you know, when the Charlie Hebdo cartoonists get slaughtered

in their conference room, their first question is going to be, "Well, what were those cartoons?

What did they draw?" Right? Yeah, so I'm talking about people like Lem Greenwald. It's a very large footprint in our culture of confused people. All right, well, unfortunately the person has decided that they do not want to impersonate everybody else in the audience. Yeah, and then anybody else in the audience, you'd be helping us here, actually, if you could represent that viewpoint. Well, so there's no way I can satisfy everyone in the audience

on this point, because I recognize that on some level it's not about rational argument, because we're not going to agree about what is real in the world. Right? So if I, the moment I say, okay, Jihadists can't get nuclear weapons, and here's why, what I'm dealing with with the significant percentage of the audience is people think that Jihadists only exist in my imagination, right? Like, there's no, there really are no people who think they're going to get to paradise

by blowing themselves up on an airplane. That's not real. These people are either mentally ill, or they have other motives. They've been so mistreated by these railies or by Western powers, or there's some other explanation. It's not religion. It's not sincere belief in paradise.

So in so far as I can't land that argument with some number of people, those people will never

accept anything else I have to say on this topic, but those people are delusional. They're not in contact with what's really happening in our world. And this has been obvious. At least since September 11th, but it was obviously obvious long before that. Well, while we're waiting to see if we're going to get any feedback, speaking of delusional, I want you to play. I'm sorry, I want you to watch a clip of a meme video released from the White House. I don't know if you've seen these

Kirby, can you load that first to watch? [Music] Have you seen this? I haven't seen this one, but I've seen ones like this. Yeah. This is obviously a pollen. All right, we don't need to keep watching any further. You get it.

So I mean, so this is the kind of thing that totally discredits us morally. And that that wasn't even the worst one. I've seen ones that were even more offensive than that. But I mean, what I mean,

“how does that look alongside our inadvertently killing over a hundred kids in school?”

I mean, there's no apology adequate for this behavior. These people belong in prison. I mean,

I can't believe this is our country, right? I mean, that's the official White House X feed. There's no, there's no forgiveness for this. I mean, this is just an absolute

desecration of our country on the world stage. I mean, this is a Trump and basically all

of the loyalists who at this point who are in his administration have just set fire to our reputation, to American soft power and to our influence in the world, to our moral standing, such as it was. I mean, it's just, I don't how long it'll take us to get back to zero on this front, but it might not happen in the lifetime of anyone listening to us.

“Yeah. Well, and in replacement for that comment that I've been waiting on. I think I've selected”

a question from earlier, so we can just jump to that, which I think might address some of it. I've often appreciated the way you bring nuance and moral clarity to difficult topics, which is why I've been surprised by what seems to me like a lack of similar nuance in your analysis

of the Israel Palestine conflict and the broader regional escalation with Iran.

You argue that groups like Hamas and regimes like Iran represent a uniquely dangerous ideology that may justify extraordinary measures to stop them. What principle in your moral framework actually limits the violence that can be used against such an enemy? And at what point would you say the response itself has become morally unacceptable, regardless of the ideology of the opponent? Well, there's a certain amount of collateral damage that is unacceptable,

clearly. In the limit, I don't advocate that we blow up the entire world so as to kill all the jihadists. There's some place between the snipers round targeted into the head of the appropriate target and killing everyone on earth that I'm going to land as, okay, this is starting to seem like too much collateral damage in our efforts to purge our world or any given society of its

“jihadists threat. I don't know what the algorithm is to decide that in advance, right?”

I mean, I think we have to be as careful as we can possibly be while still successfully defeating our enemies when we're at war. One can only hope that better technology is going to make us more and more careful and more and more precise and that the previous degrees of collateral damage will begin to seem less and less consumable in current and future wars because again, it becomes possible to be more careful and more precise. I mean, I don't think we could fight a war

the way we fought World War II now, because it would be wrong. I mean, it was in retrospect, it would much of what we did, at least by some accounts, it looks wrong. But, I mean, I could imagine under a certain case of emergency, we could stumble into even a less surgical type of war because of the nature of the enemy. I mean, this is what's so troublesome about nuclear weapons, and the logic of mutually assured destruction. I mean, we're living in a world where we're pretending

that it's thinkable because it is actually policy that if we find that Russia has launched a first

strike against us, we are going to return fire, killing, you know, whatever, tens of millions of people at a minimum, perhaps hundreds of millions of people, for no purpose. That's the deterrence. That is the nature of our deterrence doctrine. We will launch, if launched upon,

“it doesn't make any moral sense to me, actually. I don't see that, but it's the only thing”

that gives deterrence its reality psychologically. The fact that the suspicion, or at least the uncertainty is to whether or not we'll do that, right? The claim that we will do it and the uncertainty is to whether or not we're bluffing. All of this goes completely out the window in a world where jihadists have nukes, by the way. All the only reason why nuclear deterrence is a thing at all, is because all parties who have nukes, in fact, don't want to die,

and don't want to see their children die. That's what makes mutually assured destruction, a doctrine that plausibly kept us perched on the brink, not having a nuclear war, which is in fact, what has happened so far, and probably not having a conventional war because of the risk of escalation to nuclear war. So you could even argue that this awful circumstance where this sort of dameckly is hanging over everybody's head kept us out of a conventional version of

World War III so far. And that's a good thing. It only makes sense if your enemy doesn't want to die and your convinced your enemy doesn't want to die. And in the case of even crazy enemies, like the various autocrats who have ruled North Korea, each of the three I can think of, seem to be nuts. They weren't nuts in the way that suggested that they want to die, right? But the moment we're in the presence of someone who can reach us with nukes who were convinced

really does want to die, right? And he's surrounded by people who want to die because they are,

So we can't let ourselves get into that situation. And crucially, the Muslim world has to recognize

that they can't let the world get into that situation. I mean, no one has a greater appreciation of this than Muslims, right? So it's not going to be news to real Muslims who understand the doctrine, that jihadism is a thing. And a sincere belief in martyrdom and paradise is a thing, right? This is only confusing to Western secular liberals who think that, you know, even suicide bombers

“on some level may be ploughing. No, so we have to foresee this and avoid it. And the only way to”

avoid it is to ensure that jihadists continue to lose. And this goes back to the question earlier MIA Frey, that we simply make more jihadists every time we intrude into a Muslim society and kill them. Well, no, I think the thing that really makes jihadists is the perception of jihadists success, right? The thing that really created a lot of jihadists was the rise of ISIS and the birth of the Islamic state. I mean, the announcement that there was a caliphate, right?

I mean, there you saw that jihadists and aspiring jihadists come out of the woodwork and some tens of thousands of them flocked to Syria and Iraq to join the party, even from Western countries, right? Islamic triumphalism gives you jihadism, right? So jihadists have to lose, right? They have to be, it has to be obviously a failed project. And the only people that can make it truly in the limit, a failed project are other Muslims, right? I mean, this is why, you know, honestly, we need a civil war

in the Muslim world against jihadism. That's the thing that will have to happen ultimately.

We need a version of Islam that will not tolerate this species of fanaticism. And that may,

“that may be coming. I mean, I'm certainly hopeful that that is coming because that's the only thing”

that is not, that doesn't have, I mean, I'll grant you that having a Western face on this, a non-Muslim face on this, having the infittals show up and start killing your fellow Muslims, that's provocative for obvious religious reasons. So in the end, it has to be other Muslims who are fighting jihadists. You don't think there's any safety in, you're thinking around, you know, the higher up these guys get the less likely they are to want to die and maybe they're just sending their underlings. But

I mean, is there any example of anybody at the highest levels wanting to die and, and exhibiting that? Well, yeah, I mean, I think even in this case that many of these people haven't taken the kind of precautions they would take if they cared about whether they were dying or not. I mean, this is, you know, I assume Warren, the leader of Hamas, he clearly had the courage of his convictions. I mean, he's not, he's not somebody who's maximizing his chances of, you know, he wasn't, he wasn't

taking a plane out so they could sit in a villa somewhere and write it out. We overestimate the pleasure of being rich and gluttonous and safe if we think that in every case, you know, having

“access to a good life is a remedy for jihadism. It's just not. I mean, people, these are some”

sheer religious beliefs and sincere concerns about the existential peril of not being right with God. Right. And this is what this will one way to get into paradise directly and bypass a day of judgment if you're Muslim. It's to be a martyr. This is not a trivial thing within Islam. And yeah, so I mean, just, you know, you have to price in the sincerity of these beliefs. People really believe this stuff. That's it. Now, can you find a jihadist who's actually mentally ill? Of course. Can you find

a jihadist who was, was only led there because, you know, someone said they were going to kill his mom if he didn't, didn't, you know, strap on a suicide vest? Sure. I'm sure those cases exist. But jihadism is real. It's a real religious movement. You know, if you say, if you want to separate it from mainstream Islam, fine, then call it what it is. It's a legitimate death cult. You know, that has extreme extreme set of beliefs about the moral structure of this universe and

how to live within it and what happens after death and what's going to happen, you know, at the end of

days and what you have to do in the meantime to be right with all of that. I mean, this is always

heavily prescriptive, and it's sincerely believed by we don't know how many numbers of people, but an non-trivial number. Okay. I want to get to an next question. I and many of the other commenters want to hear an intelligent and in-depth nuanced conversation about the Israel Palestine issue and intellectually honest conversation, even if very challenging for you and for the listeners. Someone's to go and a code to do an episode, Jeremy Griffin, strongly and respectfully,

argued for having a guest who could speak from a deep well of understanding about the Israel Palestine issue. You agreed to look for a guest who has extensive understanding of the issue and it was also aware of the danger since you got us. How is that search going there? A number of

you'll need to subscribe with SamHarris.org. Once you do, you'll get access to all full length episodes of the making sense podcast. The making sense podcast is ad-free and relies entirely on listeners' support. And you can subscribe now at SamHarris.org.