Category: ai

  • #470 – James Holland: World War II, Hitler, Churchill, Stalin & Biggest Battles

    #470 – James Holland: World War II, Hitler, Churchill, Stalin & Biggest Battles

    AI transcript
    0:00:05 The following is a conversation with James Holland, a historian specializing in World
    0:00:10 War II, who has written a lot of amazing books on the subject, especially covering the Western
    0:00:17 Front, often providing fascinating details at multiple levels of analysis, including strategic,
    0:00:23 operational, tactical, technological, and of course the human side, the personal accounts
    0:00:31 from the war. He also co-hosts a great podcast on World War II called We Have Ways of Making
    0:00:32 You Talk.
    0:00:39 And now, a quick few-second mention of his sponsor. Check them out in the description or at lexfreedman.com
    0:00:44 slash sponsors is the best way to support this podcast. We’ve got Shopify for selling
    0:00:51 stuff, Element for electrolytes, AG1 for multivitamins, and Notion for team collaboration. She was wise
    0:00:56 and my friends. And now, on to the full ad reads. I do them differently than most podcasts
    0:01:01 do. Usually, I barely talk about the sponsors. Instead, just take this moment to talk about
    0:01:06 the things I’m reading or thinking about. A little Bob Ross-like heart-to-heart between
    0:01:12 you and me. Also, unlike most podcasts, I don’t do ads in the middle. So they all are bunched
    0:01:17 up here in one place. You can skip them if you like. But if you do, please still check out
    0:01:21 the sponsors. I enjoy their stuff. Maybe you will too. If you want to get in touch with me
    0:01:27 for whatever reason, go to lexfreedman.com slash contact. All right, let’s go. This episode is
    0:01:34 brought to you by Shopify, a platform designed for anyone to sell anywhere with a great-looking
    0:01:42 online store. Did you know that the legendary Silk Road was not actually a single road, but an extensive
    0:01:49 network of trade routes connecting east and west, spanning over 7,000 miles? In the upcoming episode
    0:01:55 on Genghis Khan and the Mongol Empire, we touch on this. But of course, Silk Road spans much
    0:02:03 wider in time than the rise and the fall of the Mongol Empire. It facilitated trade and cultural
    0:02:14 exchange for over 1,500 years, roughly from 130 BC. It was spices, tea, paper, gunpowder moving west,
    0:02:22 and gold, silver, silver glassware and horses moving east. But I think the fascinating thing again is the
    0:02:28 exchange of culture and the exchange of ideas. Anyway, sign up for a $1 per month trial period at
    0:02:35 shopify.com slash lex, all lowercase. Go to shopify.com slash lex to take your business to the next level today.
    0:02:42 This episode is also brought to you by Element, my daily zero sugar and delicious electrolyte mix.
    0:02:48 Did you know that us humans can lose over two liters of sweat per hour during intense exercise,
    0:02:56 especially in hot conditions? I’ve gotten to study this particular physiological process
    0:03:00 across many, many years of my life when I had to cut a lot of weight.
    0:03:06 Sweat is fascinating, isn’t it? But as you sweat, you’re losing sodium, potassium, magnesium,
    0:03:12 and so you have to replenish it. I think about the ultramarathon runners and the events like the
    0:03:19 Badwater Ultramarathon. I think it’s 135 miles through Death Valley. In my crazier moments,
    0:03:27 I think about doing an ultramarathon like that. Some of the coolest people I know do ultramarathons.
    0:03:33 And some of the especially coolest people I know have done the Badwater Ultramarathon.
    0:03:39 What is it about the human mind and the human heart that pulls towards a challenge like that?
    0:03:46 It’s absolutely nuts, isn’t it? Anyway, get a simple pack of Element for free with any purchase.
    0:03:49 Try it at drinkelement.com slash lex.
    0:03:57 This episode is also brought to you by AG1, an all-in-one daily drink that supports better health
    0:04:02 and peak performance. Peak performance is such a fascinating concept to me because it doesn’t
    0:04:09 only entail the physical, the physiological, it also entails the psychological. Stress,
    0:04:15 lowering stress, optimizing the number of hours in a day that you spend in flow,
    0:04:21 focus doing something you’re passionate about. That’s a tricky one. That’s hard to articulate
    0:04:28 explicitly. So we focus on things that are a little bit easier to articulate like sleep and diet and
    0:04:35 exercise, but I think about Hunter S. Thompson. And sometimes I think the top priority for health
    0:04:38 is hearing and accepting the call to adventure
    0:04:43 and figuring out the rest of the bullshit along the way.
    0:04:49 That said, I think sleep is really important. It’s one of the puzzles I’ve been trying to figure out.
    0:04:55 But at the very least, it’s good to do the low-hanging fruit of health. Just do the basic bullshit.
    0:05:01 Like a good multivitamin. So that brings me to AG1. They’ll give you one month’s supply
    0:05:05 of fish oil when you sign up at drinkag1.com slash lex.
    0:05:11 This episode is also brought to you by Notion, a note-taking and team collaboration tool.
    0:05:17 They integrate AI into the note-taking and collaboration process incredibly well.
    0:05:22 Probably better than any software service I’ve used to date.
    0:05:27 And it’s funny because I just got a notebook for some basic note-taking,
    0:05:33 like a physical notebook with a physical pen. And it feels so limiting.
    0:05:39 And not limiting in a good way, like the constraints are a catalyst for creativity.
    0:05:43 I mean, limiting, like I want to run some algorithms to summarize stuff,
    0:05:46 to generate some more text, to give me ideas, all of that.
    0:05:51 But I just need the notebook because sometimes I don’t have any electronic devices on me.
    0:05:54 And specifically, that is one of the things I like to do for creativity,
    0:05:59 is to remove electronic devices from my life for long stretches of time,
    0:06:01 for many hours in a day, sometimes multiple days.
    0:06:08 And it just forces you to be creative in the way that devices somehow suffocate.
    0:06:13 They too easily get you to be task-switching from one task to the next to the next to the next.
    0:06:17 And that kills the kind of deep focus that’s required.
    0:06:24 First of all, to be truly present for life, for thoughts, for ideas that you’re working through.
    0:06:31 And also to just focus on solving difficult puzzles, whether they’re creative puzzles or engineering puzzles.
    0:06:37 Sometimes I wish I could just use Notion and have everything else removed.
    0:06:45 Yeah, this digital technological life that we’re thrust into is a real puzzle, isn’t it?
    0:06:49 Try Notion AI for free when you go to notion.com slash lex.
    0:06:55 That’s all lowercase, notion.com slash lex, to try the power of Notion AI today.
    0:06:57 This is the Lex Friedman podcast.
    0:07:03 To support it, please check out our sponsors in the description or at lexfriedman.com slash sponsors.
    0:07:07 And now, dear friends, here’s James Holland.
    0:07:31 In Volume 1 of The War in the West, your book series on World War II, you write,
    0:07:39 The Second World War witnessed the deaths of more than 60 million people from over 60 different countries.
    0:07:42 Entire cities were laid waste.
    0:07:45 National borders were redrawn.
    0:07:48 And many millions more people found themselves displaced.
    0:07:54 Over the past couple of decades, many of those living in the Middle East or parts of Africa,
    0:07:59 the Balkans, Afghanistan, and even the United States may feel justifiably
    0:08:05 that these troubled times have already proved the most traumatic in their recent past.
    0:08:13 Yet, globally, the Second World War was and remains the single biggest catastrophe of modern history.
    0:08:17 In terms of human drama, it is unrivaled.
    0:08:23 No other war has affected so many lives in such a large number of countries.
    0:08:29 So, what to you makes World War II the biggest catastrophe in human drama in modern history?
    0:08:34 And maybe from a historian perspective, the most fascinating subject to study?
    0:08:37 The thing about World War II is it really is truly global.
    0:08:39 You know, it’s fought in deserts.
    0:08:40 It’s fought in the Arctic.
    0:08:43 It’s fought across oceans.
    0:08:44 It’s fought in the air.
    0:08:45 It’s in jungle.
    0:08:47 It’s in the hills.
    0:08:49 It is on the beaches.
    0:08:51 It’s also on the Russian steppe.
    0:08:52 And it’s also in Ukraine.
    0:08:57 So, it’s that global nature of it.
    0:09:01 And I just think, you know, where there’s war, there is always incredible human drama.
    0:09:07 And I think for most people, and certainly the true in my case, you get drawn to the human drama of it.
    0:09:11 It’s that thought that, you know, gosh, if I’d been 20 years old, how would I have dealt with it?
    0:09:12 You know, would I have been in the Army?
    0:09:14 Would I have been in the Air Force?
    0:09:17 Would I have been on a, you know, Royal Navy destroyer?
    0:09:18 Or, you know, how would I have coped with it?
    0:09:20 And how would I have dealt with that separation?
    0:09:23 I mean, I’ve interviewed people who were away for four years.
    0:09:29 I remember talking to a tank man from Liverpool in England called Sam Bradshaw.
    0:09:31 And he went away for four years.
    0:09:33 And when he came home, he’d been twice wounded.
    0:09:36 He’d been very badly wounded in North Africa.
    0:09:38 And then he was shot in the neck in Italy.
    0:09:39 Eventually, he got home.
    0:09:41 When he came home, his mother had turned gray.
    0:09:48 His little baby sister, who had been, you know, 13 when he left, was now a young woman.
    0:09:52 His old school had been destroyed by Luftwaffe bombs.
    0:09:53 He didn’t recognize the place.
    0:09:54 And do you know what he did?
    0:09:56 He joined up again.
    0:10:00 Went back out of Europe and was one of the first people in Belsen.
    0:10:01 So, you know.
    0:10:04 What was his justification for that, for joining right back?
    0:10:07 He just felt completely disconnected to home.
    0:10:13 He felt that the gulf of time, his experiences had separated him from all the normalities of life.
    0:10:26 And he felt that the normalities of the life that he had known before he’d gone away to war had just been severed in a really kind of cruel way that he didn’t really feel he was able to confront at that particular point.
    0:10:28 But he decided to rejoin.
    0:10:30 Couldn’t go back to the 3rd Royal Tank Regiment.
    0:10:31 So, it went back to a different unit.
    0:10:35 Went from kind of the Italian campaign to European theatre.
    0:10:38 Didn’t see so much action at the end.
    0:10:44 But, you know, like a lot of British troops, if you were in a certain division at a certain time, you know, you ended up passing very close to Belsen.
    0:10:48 And, you know, you suddenly realized, okay, this was the right thing to do.
    0:10:50 You know, we did have to get rid of Nazism.
    0:10:53 We did have to do this because this is the consequence.
    0:10:54 It’s not just the oppression.
    0:10:56 It’s just not just the secret police.
    0:10:59 It’s not just the expansionism of Nazism.
    0:11:02 It is also, you know, the Holocaust, which hadn’t been given its name at that point.
    0:11:06 But, you know, you’re witnessing this kind of untold cruelty.
    0:11:11 And I always, you know, I’ve always sort of, I think a lot about Sam.
    0:11:12 I mean, he’s no longer with us.
    0:11:15 But he was one of the kind of first people that I interviewed.
    0:11:16 And I interviewed him at great length.
    0:11:19 And I know you like a long interview, Lex.
    0:11:22 And I totally, totally get that.
    0:11:26 Because when you have a long interview, you really start getting to the nuts and bolts of it.
    0:11:37 One of the frustrations for me when I’m looking at oral histories of Second World War vets is usually they’re kind of, you know, they’re put on YouTube or they’re put on a museum website.
    0:11:40 They’re 30 minutes, you know, an hour if you’re lucky.
    0:11:42 And they’re just scratching the surface.
    0:11:44 You never really get to know it.
    0:11:48 You feel that they’re just repeating kind of stuff they’ve read in books themselves after the war and stuff.
    0:11:56 And, you know, I always kind of leave feeling frustrated that I haven’t had a chance to kind of grill them on the kind of stuff that I would grill them on if I was put in front of them.
    0:12:04 So Tank Man, what was maybe the most epic, the most intense, or the most interesting story that he told you?
    0:12:11 Well, I do remember him telling me, funny enough, it’s not really about the conflict.
    0:12:14 I remember him telling me about the importance of letters.
    0:12:22 And there was this guy who literally every few weeks, you know, post would arrive intermittently.
    0:12:24 There was no kind of sort of regular post.
    0:12:26 So it was supposed to be regular, but it didn’t come around regularly.
    0:12:29 So you might suddenly get a flurry of five all in one day.
    0:12:35 But he said there was this guy and his tank, a member of a different tank crew.
    0:12:38 There was a good friend of his in the same squadron.
    0:12:45 He had British have squadrons for their armor, which is Americans would have a company.
    0:12:52 I should say that in your book, one of the wonderful things you do is you use the correct term in the language for the particular army involved.
    0:12:54 It’s the German or the British or the American.
    0:12:56 Well, that’s not to be pretentious.
    0:13:01 That’s really just because you’re dealing with so many numbers and different units.
    0:13:05 And it can go over your head and you can get sort of consumed by the detail if you’re not careful.
    0:13:09 And as a reader, it can be very unsatisfying because you just can’t keep pace with everything.
    0:13:26 So one of the things about writing in the vernacular German or in the American spelling, our more rather than our Mauer, as we Brits would spell it, is it just immediately tells the reader, okay, this is American.
    0:13:27 Okay, I’ve got that.
    0:13:27 Or this is German.
    0:13:29 I’ve got that or Italian or whatever it might be.
    0:13:30 But yeah, to go back to Sam.
    0:13:37 So Sam, there was this guy in his squadron and he’d get his letters from his girlfriend, his wife.
    0:13:40 And he said it was like a soap opera.
    0:13:52 He said, we all just waited for his letters to come in so we could find out, you know, whether his daughter had, you know, got to school okay or something, you know, won the swimming contest or whatever it was.
    0:13:59 Because, you know, the sort of details of this sort of day-to-day kind of banal life was just absolute catnip to these guys.
    0:14:00 They absolutely loved it.
    0:14:07 And then the letter arrived, the Dear John letter, saying, sorry, I found someone else and it’s over.
    0:14:11 And his friend was just absolutely devastated.
    0:14:21 It was the only thing that was keeping him going, this sort of sense of continuity of home, this sort of foundation of his life back at home.
    0:14:27 And Sam said he could see it was in a really, really bad way.
    0:14:30 And he thought, uh-uh, he’s going to do something stupid.
    0:14:34 And he went up to him and he said, look, you know, I know it’s bad and I know it’s terrible.
    0:14:36 I know you’re absolutely devastated, but you’ve got your mates here.
    0:14:38 Just don’t do anything silly.
    0:14:42 Just, you know, maybe, you know, when it’s all over, you can patch things up or sort things out.
    0:14:44 And he said, you know, you’ve got to understand it from her point of view.
    0:14:45 You know, it’s a long way.
    0:14:48 I haven’t seen you for two years, this kind of stuff, you know.
    0:14:50 So just don’t do anything rash.
    0:14:54 And, of course, the next engagement, two days later, he was killed.
    0:14:58 And he said it was just a kind of, he just knew that was going to happen.
    0:15:01 So it was a sort of self-fulfilling prophecy.
    0:15:03 That’s something I’ve never forgotten, that story.
    0:15:07 And I just thought, you know, it’s about human drama.
    0:15:11 You know, that’s the truth of it.
    0:15:16 And how people react to this totally alien situation.
    0:15:23 You know, for the most part, the Second World War is fought by ordinary, everyday people doing extra ordinary things.
    0:15:25 And I think that’s something that’s so fascinating.
    0:15:30 I suspect, I think I, instinctively, I’m quite slapdash, I think.
    0:15:33 So I think I would have, I’d have bought it, literally.
    0:15:36 I don’t think it would have ended well for me.
    0:15:37 I just, I’m just a bit careless.
    0:15:50 I think I also have an element in me where I can believe in the idea of nation and fight for a nation, especially when the conflict is as grand.
    0:15:51 That things worse than death.
    0:15:57 Yes, as the propaganda would explain very clearly, but also in reality, yes.
    0:16:06 So a nation, you know, France, Britain was, you know, maybe facing the prospect of being essentially enslaved.
    0:16:11 The Soviet Union was facing the prospect of being enslaved, literally.
    0:16:14 I mean, it was very, very clearly stated what they’re going to do.
    0:16:18 They’re going to repopulate the land with Germanic people, so.
    0:16:20 Well, they’re not just going to do that.
    0:16:33 They’re also going to starve lots and lots of Soviet individuals to death by the Hunger Plan, for example, which is planned, you know, really very casually and not by the, you know, this is not SS units or anything like this.
    0:16:34 This is the Wehrmacht.
    0:16:42 This is the economic division of the Oberkommando de Wehrmacht, the German combined general staff.
    0:16:52 General Georg Thomas comes up, you know, and Hermann Bakker, they come up with the, who’s the kind of minister for food.
    0:16:53 They come up, you know, what are we going to do?
    0:16:58 You know, we haven’t got enough food, you know, largely because German farming is inefficient.
    0:17:03 They think, well, you know, this is part of Liebenstrom, we’ll go in and we’ll take the food.
    0:17:08 And there’s been this colossal urbanization of the Soviet Union since the revolution in 1917.
    0:17:14 So they’re just not going to get their food, you know, these people in these cities, because we’re going to take it all.
    0:17:17 And that’s going to lead to, that’s going to lead to a lot of deaths, you know.
    0:17:23 Umpteen millions is the phrase that Georg Thomas used.
    0:17:25 So let’s talk about the hunger plan.
    0:17:32 How important was the hunger plan and Liebenstrom to Nazi ideology and to the whole Nazi war machine?
    0:17:34 Essential to the whole thing.
    0:17:50 This is all about this notion that is embedded into Hitler’s mind and into the minds of the Nazi party, right from the word go, is there is a big sort of global conspiracy, the Jewish Bolshevik plot.
    0:17:55 I mean, completely misplaced that Jews and Bolsheviks go hand in hand and somehow dovetail.
    0:17:56 They don’t, obviously.
    0:18:00 And the whole ideology is to crush this.
    0:18:06 You know, part of the way the Nazis think, the way Hitler thinks, is there is a them and there’s us.
    0:18:11 We are the whites, Northern European Aryans.
    0:18:13 We should be the master race.
    0:18:20 We’ve been threatened by a global Jewish Bolshevik plot.
    0:18:24 We’ve been stabbed in the back in 1918 at the end of the First World War.
    0:18:26 We need to have to overcome.
    0:18:30 This is an existential battle for future survival.
    0:18:34 It’s a terrible task that has befallen our generation, but we have to do this.
    0:18:36 We have to overcome this or else we have no future.
    0:18:37 We will be crushed.
    0:18:39 It’s absolutely cut and dry.
    0:18:47 And one of the things about Hitler is that he is a very kind of black and white, them or us, either or kind of person.
    0:18:49 It’s always one thing or the other.
    0:18:51 It’s a thousand-year Reich or it’s Armageddon.
    0:18:53 There is no middle ground.
    0:18:54 There’s no gray area.
    0:18:55 It’s just one or the other.
    0:18:57 And that’s his worldview.
    0:19:10 And the reason he came to the fore was because of the crystal clear clarity of his message, which is, we’ve been stabbed in the back.
    0:19:12 There is a global plot.
    0:19:13 We have to overcome this.
    0:19:17 We are naturally the master race.
    0:19:19 We have to reassert ourselves.
    0:19:21 We have to get rid of global Jewry.
    0:19:23 We have to get rid of global Bolshevism.
    0:19:25 And we have to prevail or else.
    0:19:29 But if we do prevail, what an amazing world it’s going to be.
    0:19:46 So he starts with this, you know, every speech he does always starts the same way, always starts from a kind of negative and always ends with an incredible positive, this sort of rabble-rousing, crescendo of, if you’re in the front row, spittle, halitosis, and gesticulation.
    0:19:48 I mean, you’ve seen pictures of him.
    0:19:49 I mean, I don’t know if you’ve ever seen pictures of him.
    0:19:54 He’s almost, he wants to grab the air and clutch it to him.
    0:20:00 You know, you can see the kind of the venom coming out of his mouth just in a single still photograph.
    0:20:03 I mean, it’s amazing.
    0:20:07 There’s apps you can get now where you can translate his speeches.
    0:20:13 And it just sounds, you know, by today’s standards, you would just think, what a load of absolute wibble.
    0:20:15 I mean, just total nonsense.
    0:20:27 But you have to kind of put yourself back in the shoes of people listening to him in 1922 or 23, or indeed 1933, and see how kind of captivating that is to a certain part of the population.
    0:20:33 So, yeah, so to go back to your original point, Lebensraum is absolutely part of it.
    0:20:42 So what you do is you crush the Bolsheviks, you crush world Jewry, then you expand, you know, Britain has had this incredible empire, global empire.
    0:20:44 You know, Germany needs that too.
    0:20:45 Germany is stuck in Europe.
    0:20:47 It doesn’t have access to the world’s oceans.
    0:20:49 So we’re not going to be a maritime empire.
    0:20:54 We’re going to be a landmass empire, the whole of landmass of Europe and into Asia.
    0:20:55 That’s going to be us.
    0:20:57 And we’re going to take that land.
    0:21:00 We’re going to take the breadbasket of Ukraine.
    0:21:02 We’re going to use that for our own ends.
    0:21:08 We’re going to spread our – we’re going to make ourselves rich, but we’re also going to spread our peoples.
    0:21:15 We’re going to spread the Aryan northern master race throughout Europe and into the traditional Slavic areas.
    0:21:18 And we will prevail and come out on top.
    0:21:32 And so you have to understand that everything about Operation Barbarossa, the planned invasion of the Soviet Union in June 1941, is totally wrapped up in the Nazi ideology.
    0:21:40 And people, you know, I’ve read it that historians sort of go, if only Hitler had realized that, you know, the Ukrainians had been quite happy to kind of fight on his side.
    0:21:47 You know, if only he’d actually brought some of these Jewish scientists and kind of into the Nazi fold, then Germany might have prevailed in World War II.
    0:21:49 And you kind of think, well, you’re missing the entire point.
    0:21:53 That’s just never going to happen because this is an ideological war.
    0:21:58 Yeah, this is not a pragmatic, rational leader.
    0:21:58 No.
    0:22:05 I mean, part of his effectiveness, we should say, is probably this singular belief in this ideology.
    0:22:07 There’s pros and cons.
    0:22:15 For an effective military machine, probably having that singular focus is effective.
    0:22:36 Yes, except that when you’re making military decisions, if those decisions are always being bracketed by an ideology which is fundamentally flawed from a pragmatic point of view, as much as a kind of reasonable point of view, you’re kind of opening yourselves up for trouble.
    0:22:38 I mean, this is a problem he has with Barbarossa.
    0:22:46 You know, they realized very early on in 1941, when they’re wargaming this whole operation, that it’s not going to work.
    0:22:52 And so, you know, there’s people like General Paulus, who’s on the general staff at the time.
    0:22:56 You know, he’s given a kind of, you know, he’s in charge of kind of wargaming this.
    0:22:57 And he goes, this isn’t going to work.
    0:23:04 And Keitel, who is the chief of the OKW, goes, no, no, no, no, no, no.
    0:23:06 Go back and make it work.
    0:23:07 He goes, OK.
    0:23:10 So he comes back to a plan that does work, but it’s focus.
    0:23:15 I mean, it’s just, it doesn’t work because they don’t have enough.
    0:23:16 They don’t have enough motorization.
    0:23:20 You know, they go into Barbarossa with 2,000 different types of vehicle.
    0:23:30 You know, every single one of those vehicles has to have, you know, different distributor caps and different leads and plugs and all sorts of different parts.
    0:23:38 You know, there’s the interoperability of the German mechanized arm is super inefficient.
    0:23:49 And so you’ve got huge problems because they kind of think, well, you know, we took France in 1940, and that’s kind of one of the most modern countries in the world with, you know, one of the greatest armies and armed forces in the world.
    0:23:50 And we did that in six weeks.
    0:23:55 So, you know, Soviet Union, look, they struggled against Finland, for goodness sake.
    0:23:57 I mean, how hard can it be?
    0:24:06 You know, but what you’re failing to understand is that attacking the Soviet Union is over a geographical landmass, 10 times the size of France, just on the frontage.
    0:24:13 And you haven’t really got much more mechanization than you had in May 1940 when they attacked the low countries in France.
    0:24:17 And you’ve actually got less Luftwaffe aircraft to support you.
    0:24:22 And you just do not have the operational mechanics to make it work successfully.
    0:24:30 I mean, it is largely down to incompetence of the Red Army and the Soviet leadership in the summer of 1941 that they get as far as they do.
    0:24:36 I mean, you know, Barbarossa should never have come close to being a victory.
    0:24:37 Let’s talk through it.
    0:24:40 So Operation Barbarossa that you’re mentioning, and we’ll go back.
    0:24:40 Yes.
    0:24:42 We’ve jumped straight into 41.
    0:24:43 Straight into it.
    0:24:45 I’ve eaten off two years of war.
    0:24:48 So this is June 1941.
    0:24:57 Operation Barbarossa, when Hitler invades the Soviet Union with, I think, the largest invading force in history up to that point.
    0:24:58 Collectively, yeah.
    0:25:00 And there’s three prongs.
    0:25:03 Army Group North, Army Group Center, Army Group South.
    0:25:05 North is going to Leningrad.
    0:25:10 Center is going, it’s the strongest group going directly towards Moscow.
    0:25:14 And South is going and targeting Ukraine and the caucus.
    0:25:18 So can you linger on that, on the details of this plan?
    0:25:19 What was the thinking?
    0:25:20 What was the strategy?
    0:25:21 What was the tactics?
    0:25:23 What was the logistics?
    0:25:36 There’s so many things to say, but one of them is to say that you often emphasize the importance of three ways to analyze military conflict, the strategic, the operational, and the tactical.
    0:25:47 And the operational is often not given enough time, attention, and it’s the logistics that make the war machine really work successfully or fail.
    0:25:50 Yeah, that’s absolutely spot on.
    0:26:01 And it’s interesting because the vast majority of general histories of World War II tend to focus on the strategic and the tactical.
    0:26:02 So what do I mean by that?
    0:26:07 Well, the strategic, just for those who don’t know, that’s your overall war aims.
    0:26:09 You know, get to Moscow, whatever it might be.
    0:26:10 Conquer the world.
    0:26:11 That’s your strategy.
    0:26:15 The tactical side of things is that’s the coalface of war.
    0:26:16 That’s the attritional bit.
    0:26:21 That’s the following his Spitfire, the tank crew, the soldier in his foxhole.
    0:26:23 It’s the actual kinetic fighting bit.
    0:26:30 The operational bit is the level of war that links the strategic to the tactical.
    0:26:38 So it is absolutely factories, it’s economics, it’s shipping, it’s supply chains, it’s how you manage your war.
    0:26:48 And one of the things where I think people have been guilty in the past, historians have been guilty in the past, is by judging warfare all on the same level.
    0:26:56 But obviously, every competent nation has a different approach to war because of the nation they are, the size they are, their geographical location.
    0:26:59 So Britain, for example, is an island nation.
    0:27:04 Its priority is the Royal Navy, which is why the Royal Navy is known as the Senior Service.
    0:27:09 And, you know, in 1939, it’s easy to forget it now when you see how depleted Britain is today.
    0:27:14 But in 1939, it has comfortably the world’s largest navy.
    0:27:17 There’s something like 194 destroyers.
    0:27:24 I think it’s 15 battleships, seven aircraft carriers, and another kind of six on the way.
    0:27:30 America, it’s got the Pacific Ocean, it’s got the Atlantic Ocean, it’s got two seaboarders.
    0:27:32 You know, it has the second largest navy in the world.
    0:27:34 But a tiny army.
    0:27:42 I mean, the US army in September 1939 is the 19th largest in the world, sandwiched between Portugal and Uruguay.
    0:27:44 You know, it’s just incredible.
    0:27:51 It’s like 189,000 strong, which might seem reasonably large by today’s standards, but it’s absolutely tiny by 1939 standards.
    0:27:57 You know, whereas, you know, Germany’s got an army of, you know, three and a half million in 1939.
    0:28:00 So, you know, these are big, big, big differences.
    0:28:03 But America’s coming at it from a different perspective.
    0:28:04 Britain’s coming apart from a different perspective.
    0:28:08 You know, Britain’s empire is all about, you know, it’s a shipping.
    0:28:10 It’s a seaborne empire.
    0:28:18 Whereas there’s also another point, which is having large armies is actually inherently impractical and inefficient.
    0:28:25 Because the larger army, the more people you’ve got to feed, the more kind of barracks you’ve got to have, the more space you’ve got to have for training,
    0:28:30 the more people you’re taking out of your workforce to produce tanks and shells and all the rest of it,
    0:28:32 because they’re tramping around with rifles.
    0:28:37 You know, so there’s an argument saying, actually, it’s really not a very good way of doing things.
    0:28:48 So, you know, very much the British way and subsequently the United States way and way of Britain’s dominions and empire is to use kind of steel, not our flesh.
    0:28:57 As a principle, the idea is that you use technology, mechanization, modernity, global reach to do a lot of your hard yards.
    0:29:00 That’s the sort of basic principle behind the strategic air campaign.
    0:29:07 When we talk about the strategic air campaign, we talk about strategic air forces which are operating in isolation from other armed forces.
    0:29:13 So a tactical air force, for example, is an air force which is offering close air support for ground operations.
    0:29:17 A strategic air force has got nothing to do with ground operations.
    0:29:18 It’s just operating on its own.
    0:29:20 So that’s your bomber force or whatever.
    0:29:29 You know, that’s your B-17s and B-24s of the 8th Air Force flying out of East England, bombing the rural industrial complex of Germany or whatever it might be.
    0:29:38 So it’s important to understand that when you compare, you have to have in the back of your mind that Britain, compared to Germany, for example, is coming at it from a completely different perspective.
    0:29:48 And I would say one of the failures of Hitler is that he always views everybody through his own very narrow worldview, which is not particularly helpful.
    0:29:49 You know, you want to get inside the head of your enemy.
    0:29:53 And, you know, he’s sort of guilty of not doing that.
    0:30:08 So when you’re talking about Operation Barbarossa, to go back to your original question next, you’re dealing with an operation on such a vast scale that that operational level of war is absolutely vital to its chances of success or failure.
    0:30:11 It doesn’t matter how good your individual commanders are at the front.
    0:30:14 If you haven’t got the backup, it’s not going to work.
    0:30:24 And the problem that the Germans have is, yes, they’ve got their kind of, you know, three million men on the front, and they’ve got their kind of, you know, 3,000 aircraft and all the rest of it.
    0:30:27 But actually, what you need to do is break it down.
    0:30:29 And who is doing the hard yards of that?
    0:30:35 And the way the German war machine works is that the machine bit is only the spearhead.
    0:30:38 So people always talk about the Nazi war machine.
    0:30:45 In a way, it’s a kind of misnomer because you’re sort of suggesting that it’s highly mechanized and industrialized and all the rest of it.
    0:30:47 And nothing could be further from the truth.
    0:30:50 The spearhead is, but the rest of it is not.
    0:31:00 And this is the kind of fatal flaw of the German armed forces in the whole of World War II, really, but even in this early stage.
    0:31:09 Because in Barbarossa, you’re talking about 17 panzer divisions out of, you know, the 100-odd that are involved in the initial attack.
    0:31:14 Well, 17, and that panzer division is not a division full of panzers, tanks.
    0:31:19 It is a combined arms motorized outfit.
    0:31:33 So scouts on BMWs with sidecars, armored cars, infantry, grenadiers, panzer grenadiers, which are infantry in half tracks and trucks, mechanized.
    0:31:35 It is motorized artillery.
    0:31:37 It is motorized anti-aircraft artillery.
    0:31:39 It is motorized anti-tank artillery.
    0:31:42 And, of course, it is tanks as well, panzers.
    0:31:52 But those are a really, really small proportion of, you know, you’re talking less than 20% of your attacking force are those spearhead forces.
    0:31:56 And inevitably, they are going to be attrited as they go.
    0:31:58 You know, you are going to take casualties.
    0:32:00 And not only that, you’re not going to just take battlefield casualties.
    0:32:04 You’re also going to have mechanical casualties because of the huge spaces involved.
    0:32:05 You just simply can’t function.
    0:32:11 So what you see is in the initial phases of Operation Barbarossa, they surge forward.
    0:32:14 Red Army’s got absolutely no answers to anything.
    0:32:19 Stalin weirdly hasn’t heeded all the warnings that this attack is brewing.
    0:32:21 And there have been plenty, incidentally.
    0:32:26 Smolensk falls on the 15th of July, you know, in less than four weeks.
    0:32:26 It’s just incredible.
    0:32:28 Three and a half weeks, Smolensk has gone.
    0:32:31 You know, they’ve overwhelmed the rest of what had been Poland.
    0:32:36 They’ve surged into what is now Belarus, taken Smolensk, all of, you know, this is Army Group
    0:32:36 Center.
    0:32:40 Army Group North is thrust up into the Baltic.
    0:32:41 It’s all going swimmingly well.
    0:32:45 But then, the next several months, they barely go 100 miles.
    0:32:47 And that’s because they’re running out of steam.
    0:32:54 And the 16th Panzer Division, for example, by the time it’s taken Smolensk, involved in
    0:32:58 taking Smolensk on the 15th of July, 1941, the following day, it’s got 16 tanks left.
    0:33:00 16.
    0:33:03 Out of, you know, should have 180.
    0:33:06 So, it’s just being attributed.
    0:33:08 They can’t sustain it.
    0:33:12 And they can’t sustain it because as the Russians fall back, as the Soviet Red Army falls back,
    0:33:14 they do their own scorched earth policy.
    0:33:18 They also discover that the railway line is kind of a different loading gauge, so they’ve
    0:33:19 got to change it.
    0:33:23 So, it’s slightly, the Russian loading gauge is slightly wider.
    0:33:30 So, every single mile, every yard, every foot, every meter that they’re capturing of Russian
    0:33:38 railway has to be moved a couple of inches to the left to make it fit the German Kriegsloch
    0:33:42 in the standard train of locomotive of the Reichsbahn.
    0:33:44 Just imagine what that’s like.
    0:33:49 And also, Soviet trains are bigger, so they can take more water, which means the water stops
    0:33:52 in between are fewer and far between.
    0:33:55 So, they have to, the Germans, when they come in, their trains, their Kriegsloch are smaller,
    0:33:58 so they have to be re-watered more often and re-colled more often.
    0:34:06 So, they have to, I mean, it’s absolutely boggling just how complicated it is and how badly planned
    0:34:08 it is because they haven’t reckoned on this.
    0:34:10 They’re having to kind of think on their feet.
    0:34:15 I love the logistical details of all of this because, yes, that’s a huge component of this,
    0:34:17 especially when you’re covering that much territory.
    0:34:26 But there is a notion that if Hitler didn’t stop Army Group Center, it could have pushed all
    0:34:26 the way to Moscow.
    0:34:30 It was only maybe 100 miles away from Moscow.
    0:34:32 Is that a possibility?
    0:34:37 Because it had so much success in the early days pushing forward.
    0:34:45 Do you think it’s possible that if Hitler, as we mentioned from a military blunder perspective,
    0:34:50 didn’t make that blunder, that they could have defeated the Soviet Union right there and then?
    0:34:54 Well, my own view is that they should never have got close.
    0:34:59 Red Army has plenty of men to be able to see off anything that the Germans can do.
    0:35:07 The capture of Kiev, for example, in September 1941 was a catastrophe for the Soviet Union.
    0:35:08 It should never have happened.
    0:35:14 I mean, Zhukov is saying to Stalin, we’ve got to pull back across to the Dnieper.
    0:35:17 And Stalin’s going, no, I can’t possibly do that.
    0:35:19 You can’t abandon Kiev.
    0:35:20 It’s like third city in the Soviet Union.
    0:35:21 No way.
    0:35:23 No, absolutely not.
    0:35:25 And he goes, well, we are just going to be overwhelmed.
    0:35:27 You know, we can’t hold this.
    0:35:31 And he says, you know, either back me or far me.
    0:35:32 Back me or sack me.
    0:35:34 So Stalin sacks him.
    0:35:39 Obviously, as we know, Zhukov gets rehabilitated from pretty quick order.
    0:35:44 And Stalin does learn very quickly thereafter to learn the lessons.
    0:35:48 But the opening phase of Barbarossa has been a catastrophe.
    0:35:54 And so as a consequence of Stalin refusing to let his men retreat back across to Dnieper,
    0:36:00 which is a substantial barrier and would be very difficult for the Germans to overwhelm
    0:36:02 had they moved back in time.
    0:36:07 You know, that’s another kind of 700,000 men put in the bag.
    0:36:10 I mean, that’s just staggering numbers.
    0:36:16 But yeah, I mean, there’s so many things wrong with the Barbarossa plan.
    0:36:18 You know, too much over.
    0:36:19 It’s just such a vast area.
    0:36:25 I mean, you’re talking about kind of, you know, 2,500 miles or something, you know, of frontage.
    0:36:30 You know, maybe if you kind of put your panzer groups, which are these spearheads,
    0:36:34 and you put them all in one big thrust and just go hell for leather straight across on a kind of,
    0:36:38 you know, much more narrow front of, let’s say, kind of 400 miles rather than 1,200,
    0:36:44 then they might have got, you know, they might have just sort of burnt away straight through to Moscow.
    0:36:48 They really caught the Red Army unprepared.
    0:36:48 Yeah.
    0:36:55 Is there something to be said about the strategic genius of that?
    0:36:57 Or was it just luck?
    0:36:59 No, I don’t think so.
    0:37:05 I mean, I think what’s happened is you’ve had the Soviet purges of the second half of the 1930s,
    0:37:10 where they’ve, you know, they have executed or imprisoned 22,500 officers,
    0:37:13 of which, you know, three out of five marshals,
    0:37:19 you know, God knows how many army commanders, et cetera, et cetera.
    0:37:25 So, you know, you’ve completely decapitated the Red Army in terms of its command structure.
    0:37:30 Before that, would it be fair to say it was one of, if not the greatest army in the world?
    0:37:31 Well, there was a lot of experience.
    0:37:33 There’s a lot of experience there.
    0:37:36 But also technology, material.
    0:37:36 Yeah.
    0:37:40 The size of the army and the number of people that are mobilized.
    0:37:40 Yeah.
    0:37:44 And they’re the first people to kind of adapt, you know, create airborne troops, for example.
    0:37:47 So, yes, I think there is an argument to say that.
    0:37:51 But the decapitation is absolutely brutal.
    0:37:53 If you’ve decapitated an army, you’ve then got to put new guys in charge.
    0:38:01 And someone who looks on paper like a half-decent peacetime commander might not be a very good wartime commander.
    0:38:04 They’re different disciplines and different skills.
    0:38:07 And what comes to it, you don’t know that until you’re tested.
    0:38:09 It’s very hard to kind of judge.
    0:38:18 And, of course, you know, Stalin is existing in a sort of, you know, a vacuum of paranoia and suspicion all the time, which is unhelpful when you’re trying to develop strong-arm forces.
    0:38:23 So, they go into Finland in the back end of 1939.
    0:38:26 And they get there, you know, they get really badly hammered.
    0:38:30 They do take about, you know, they get the Karelia Peninsula.
    0:38:31 And they do take some ground.
    0:38:32 But at huge cost.
    0:38:35 I mean, the casualties are five times as bad as those of the Finns.
    0:38:36 And it’s humiliation.
    0:38:42 So, Hitler sees that and thinks, okay, they’re not up to much Cobb.
    0:38:44 Then Hitler loses the Battle of Britain.
    0:38:48 And he thinks, I can’t afford to fight a war on two fronts.
    0:38:56 That’s one of the reasons why Germany loses the war in 1914 to 18 is fighting on the Eastern Front, but also fighting on, you know, the Western Front at the same time.
    0:38:57 We’ve got to avoid that.
    0:38:59 But I’ve got to get rid of Britain.
    0:39:00 And Britain hasn’t come out of the fight.
    0:39:04 Britain is still fighting in the back end of 1940, having won the Battle of Britain.
    0:39:09 And so, maybe I’ll go into the Soviet Union now while the Red Army is still weak.
    0:39:13 You know, we’re not 100% ready ourselves, but let’s hurry the whole thing forward.
    0:39:17 Because originally, he’d been thinking of planning an operation in 1943 or 1944.
    0:39:25 So, the idea is, you take Poland out, you take out France and the low countries, you conquer most of Western Europe, you knock out Britain.
    0:39:29 So, therefore, you don’t have to worry so much about the United States because they’re over the other side of the Atlantic.
    0:39:35 That then buys him the time to kind of rebuild up his strength for the all-out thrust on the Soviet Union.
    0:39:43 The failure to subdue Britain in 1940 changes all those plans and makes him think, actually, I’m going to go in early.
    0:39:49 And he’s also been kind of, you know, he’s hoisted by his own petard because he starts to believe his own genius.
    0:39:55 You know, everyone told him that, you know, he wouldn’t be able to beat France and the low countries.
    0:39:58 Everyone told him that, you know, it wouldn’t work out when he went into Poland.
    0:40:00 Everyone was really nervous about it.
    0:40:05 You know, well, go hang, you cautious, awful, aristocratic Prussian generals.
    0:40:06 You know, I’m the best at this.
    0:40:07 I’ve told you.
    0:40:08 I’ve shown you.
    0:40:09 I’m the genius.
    0:40:10 I can do it.
    0:40:11 He starts to believe his own hype.
    0:40:12 And, of course, this is a problem.
    0:40:16 You know, he’s surrounded by sycophants and people who are constantly telling him that he’s this incredible genius.
    0:40:19 So he starts to believe it and he thinks everything is possible.
    0:40:25 And he’s very much into this idea of the will of the German people.
    0:40:26 You know, this is our destiny.
    0:40:27 And I have a will.
    0:40:30 As I say earlier on, you know, it’s the thousand-year Reich or Armageddon.
    0:40:32 But momentum is with us and we need to strike it.
    0:40:37 And only by gambling, only by being bold will the Germans prevail and all this kind of nonsense.
    0:40:44 And so that’s why he goes into Soviet Union in June 1941 rather than, you know, a couple of or even three years later.
    0:40:47 Yeah, he really hated the Prussian generals, huh?
    0:40:49 Yeah, he hated them.
    0:40:54 Is there a case to be made that there he was indeed at times a military genius?
    0:40:55 No.
    0:40:57 I don’t think so.
    0:41:01 Because none of the plan, I mean, even the plan for the invasion of France and the low countries isn’t his.
    0:41:08 The concept is von Manstein’s and the execution is Guderian’s, Heinz Guderian.
    0:41:16 So Heinz Guderian is the kind of – he’s the pioneer of the panzer force, the panzer thrust.
    0:41:23 This idea of the ultra-mechanized combined arms, panzer arms, spearhead, doing this kind of lightning-fast thrust.
    0:41:26 It’s not Hitler’s idea.
    0:41:32 He adopts it and takes it as his own because, you know, he’s a fury.
    0:41:32 He can do what he likes.
    0:41:35 But it isn’t his.
    0:41:46 So it’s not – you know, and up until that point, until that comes into being, until that plan is put forward to Franz Halder, who is the chief of staff of the German army at that time.
    0:41:49 Halder’s just thinking, how do we get out of this mess?
    0:41:52 This is just a nightmare because they know that France has got a larger army.
    0:41:54 They know that France has got more tanks.
    0:41:56 They know that France has got double the number of artillery pieces.
    0:41:59 It’s got parity in terms of air forces.
    0:42:00 Then you add Holland.
    0:42:00 Then you add Belgium.
    0:42:02 Then you add Great Britain.
    0:42:05 And that looks like a very, very tough nut to crack.
    0:42:17 I mean, the reason why France is subdued in 1940 is 50% brilliance of the Germans and their operational art in that particular instance and 50% French failure, really, and incompetence.
    0:42:39 I mean, there is a kind of genius to be able to see and take advantage and set up the world stage in such a way that you have the appeasement from France and Britain, keep the United States out of it, just set up the world stage where you could just plow through everybody with very little resistance.
    0:42:43 I mean, there is a kind of geopolitical genius.
    0:42:47 I don’t know if it works, but it doesn’t, you know, that’s a problem.
    0:42:52 I mean, you know, I mean, he goes into Poland on the assumption that Britain and France will not declare war.
    0:42:57 You know, he is not prepared for Britain and France declaring war on Germany.
    0:42:59 He thinks they won’t.
    0:42:59 That’s right.
    0:43:01 So miscalculation, blunder.
    0:43:04 But then France does, right?
    0:43:13 And then that doesn’t, you know, France does not successfully do anything with this incredible army that it has.
    0:43:17 It has a size, but one of the problems that France has is that it’s very, very top heavy.
    0:43:21 It’s very cumbersome in the way it operates.
    0:43:29 There’s no question that it’s got some brilliant young commanders, but at the top, the commander is very old.
    0:43:32 Most of them are First World War veterans.
    0:43:40 You know, whether, I mean, Wegan, Gamelan, General Georges, these people, they’re all well into their 60s.
    0:43:44 General Georges is the youngest army commander, and he’s 60.
    0:43:47 You know, it’s too old to be an army commander.
    0:43:49 You need to be in your kind of late 40s, early 50s.
    0:43:56 And they’re too just consumed by conservatism and the old ways.
    0:44:00 And what they assume is that any future war will be much like the First World War.
    0:44:06 It will be attritional, long, and drawn out, but static.
    0:44:08 But actually, they’re right on two parts of it.
    0:44:14 It is, as it turns out, it is going to be long and drawn out and attritional, but it’s going to be mobile rather than static.
    0:44:16 And that’s a big miscalculation.
    0:44:17 So here’s my question.
    0:44:20 I think you’re being too nice on France here.
    0:44:31 So when Germany invaded Poland, correct me if I’m wrong, but it feels like France could have just went straight to Berlin.
    0:44:32 Yeah, they absolutely could have.
    0:44:40 And I know you said it’s very top-heavy, and you’re saying all of these things, but they literally did basically nothing.
    0:44:41 Yeah, they were pulling.
    0:44:50 So, like, and I think a part of that, and I think you described this well, maybe you can speak to that,
    0:45:01 is the insanity that is Hitler creating this psychological, with the propaganda, creating this feeling that there’s this Nazi force that’s unstoppable.
    0:45:05 So France just didn’t want to, like, step into that.
    0:45:12 Maybe they were, like, legitimately, I hesitate to say these words, but scared of war.
    0:45:17 A hundred percent they are, you know, because France has been totally traumatized by the First World War.
    0:45:19 It’s fought on their land.
    0:45:21 It’s fought in their industrial heartland.
    0:45:25 You know, they lose three times the amount of people killed that Britain does.
    0:45:29 Britain’s traumatized by it, but not to the same degree that France is.
    0:45:31 You know, there is just no stomach to do that again.
    0:45:34 And so, that makes them risk-averse.
    0:45:37 And by being risk-averse, you’re actually taking a far greater risk.
    0:45:39 That’s the irony of it.
    0:45:41 And the truth is also, there isn’t the political will.
    0:45:47 And a successful military can only be successful if there is a political will at the top.
    0:45:50 And the problem with France in the 1930s is it’s very politically divided.
    0:46:05 It’s a time of multiple governments, multiple prime ministers, coalition governments, really very extreme coalition governments from the sort of drawn from the left and the right as well as the center.
    0:46:09 And, you know, this is not a coalition of two parties.
    0:46:11 This is a coalition of multiple parties.
    0:46:13 No one can ever agree anything.
    0:46:14 I mean, that’s the problem.
    0:46:24 And it’s amazing that the Maginot line has even agreed, you know, this incredibly strong defensive position down the western side of France of border with Germany, which is kind of largely impregnable.
    0:46:36 But the problem is, is the bit that’s not impregnable, which is the hinge where the Maginot line ends and it sort of basically starts turning kind of towards and in a kind of north, northerly direction and the border with Belgium.
    0:46:48 And, you know, what they should have done is built kind of border defenses all along the northern coast of Belgium because Belgium refused to kind of allow any allied troops into into its territory.
    0:46:49 It was neutral.
    0:46:56 And France should have said, OK, fine, well, then we’ll defend our, you know, we’re not going to come to your rescue if you get invaded.
    0:46:59 That’s your, that’s your, that’s your, that’s, that’s the payoff.
    0:47:06 And the consequence of that, we are going to stoppile everything that and we’re not going to be drawn into the neutral territory should Germany invade from the west.
    0:47:13 But they don’t do that because of the psychological damage of having fought a war in exactly that area a generation earlier.
    0:47:15 And that’s the problem.
    0:47:22 So when they, you know, there is, Germany is so weakened by the invasion of Poland, there was literally nothing left.
    0:47:26 You know, the back door from into Western Germany is completely open.
    0:47:29 And so they do what they call the SAR offensive, but it’s not.
    0:47:38 It’s a kind of reconnaissance in force where they kind of go across the border, kind of pick their noses for a few days and then kind of trundle back again.
    0:47:39 And it’s just, it’s embarrassing.
    0:47:57 And that is what you’re seeing there is, is a nation which is just not ready for this, which is scared, which is politically divided, which is then having a knock on effect on the decision making process, and which is just consumed by military complacency.
    0:48:06 And that’s the big problem there is this, you know, the, the commanders at the very top of the French regime are, are complacent.
    0:48:10 They, they, they haven’t bought into kind of modern ways.
    0:48:14 They haven’t looked at how contemporary technology could help them.
    0:48:27 I mean, it is absurd, for example, that there isn’t a single radio in the Chateau de Vincennes, which is, you know, it’s the headquarters of the commander in chief of the French armed forces, which is General Marshal Maurice Gamelan.
    0:48:34 I mean, it’s just unbelievable, but, but that is the case and, and there’s no getting away from that.
    0:48:40 And, and it is all the more ironic when you consider that France is actually the most automotive society in Europe.
    0:48:49 It’s the second most automotive society in the world after the United States, by some margin, it has to be said as well, you know, has a fantastic transportation system.
    0:48:50 Railway network is superb.
    0:48:57 It’s it, it, there are, there are eight people for every motorized vehicle in France, which is way above Germany, which is in 1939.
    0:49:02 That figure is 47, for example, it’s 106 in Italy.
    0:49:03 So France is very mechanized.
    0:49:04 Very mechanized.
    0:49:07 So come on guys, pull your finger out, get it together.
    0:49:10 And they just don’t, they’re, they’re incredibly slow and cumbersome.
    0:49:19 And what they think is when, what will happen is the Germans won’t think of going, you know, they won’t do a pincer movement because you can’t possibly take motorized forces through, through the Ardenne.
    0:49:29 That’s just, it’s not possible, which is the hinge area between the end of the Maginot, the northern part of the Maginot line, which runs down the western, sorry, the eastern border of France and the northern bit.
    0:49:35 And so what we’ll do with that hinge around the town of Sedan, we’ll, we’ll move into, into Belgium.
    0:49:38 We’ll meet the Germans before they get anywhere near France.
    0:49:39 We’ll hold them.
    0:49:44 And while we’re holding them, we will bring up our reserves and then we’ll, we’ll counterattack and crush them.
    0:49:46 That, that’s the idea behind it.
    0:49:53 But the problem is, is they don’t have a means of moving fast and their communication systems are dreadful, absolutely dreadful.
    0:50:01 They’re dependent on conventional telephone lines, which, you know, dive bombers and whatever are just kind of absolutely wrecking.
    0:50:04 Suddenly the streets are clogged with refugees and people can’t move.
    0:50:07 So they’re then, you know, telephone lines are down.
    0:50:08 There’s no radios.
    0:50:18 So you’re then dependent on sending dispatch riders on little motorbikes, you know, general, uh, Maurice Gamelan sends out a dispatch rider at six o’clock in the morning.
    0:50:20 Um, by 12 o’clock, he hasn’t come back.
    0:50:22 So you then send another one.
    0:50:28 Finally, the answer comes back, uh, kind of nine o’clock at night, by which time the kind of Germans advance another 15 miles.
    0:50:33 And the original message that you sent at six o’clock that morning is completely redundant and has passed itself by day.
    0:50:43 And that’s happening every step of the way, you know, so you’ve got, you’ve got overall commander, um, headquarters, then you’ve got army group, then you’ve got army, then you’ve got core, then you’ve got division.
    0:50:46 So the consequence of all that is that French just can’t move.
    0:50:47 They’re just stuck there.
    0:50:52 They’re rabbits in headlights and the Germans are able to kind of move them, uh, destroy them in isolation.
    0:50:59 Meanwhile, they’re able to use their excellent communications, um, it’s a very, very good effect.
    0:51:01 And you were talking about the genius of, of war.
    0:51:02 It’s not Hitler.
    0:51:03 That’s a genius.
    0:51:13 If anyone’s a genius, it’s Goebbels, the propaganda chief, and it is their ability to harness that they are the Kings of messaging.
    0:51:28 You know, they don’t have, they don’t have X, they don’t have social media, um, but they do have new technology and that new technology, that new approach is flooding the airwaves with their singular message, which is always the same.
    0:51:31 And it has been ever since the Nazis coming to power and it is using radios.
    0:51:41 And I think radios are really, really key to the whole story because there is no denser radio network anywhere in the world, including the United States and Germany in 1939.
    0:51:48 So while it’s really behind the times in terms of mechanization, it is absolutely on top of its game in terms of comms.
    0:51:55 So 70% of households in Germany have radios by 1939, which is an unprecedented number.
    0:51:59 That, that is only beaten by United States and only just.
    0:52:03 So it is, it is greater than any other, other nation in Europe.
    0:52:13 And in terms of flooding the airwaves, it is the densest because even for those who, the 30% who don’t have radios, that’s not a problem because we’ll put them in the stairwells of apartment blocks.
    0:52:14 We’ll put them in squares.
    0:52:16 We’ll put them in cafes and bars.
    0:52:30 And the same stuff, the state, the, the, the, the Nazi state controls the radio airwaves as it does the movies, as it does newspapers, all aspects of the media are controlled by, by Goebbels and propaganda ministry.
    0:52:35 And they are putting out the same message over and over again.
    0:52:36 It’s not, it’s not all Hitler’s ranting.
    0:52:40 It’s entertainment, light entertainment, some humorous shows.
    0:52:44 It is also Wagner, of course, and Richard Strauss.
    0:52:49 It’s, it’s a mixture, but the subliminal message is the same.
    0:52:50 We’re the best.
    0:52:51 We’re the top dogs.
    0:52:54 Jewish Bolshevik plot is awful.
    0:52:56 That needs to be, you know, that’s the existential threat to us.
    0:52:58 We have to overcome that.
    0:52:59 We’re the top dogs militarily.
    0:53:00 We’re the best.
    0:53:02 We should feel really good about ourselves.
    0:53:04 We’re going to absolutely win and be the greatest nation in the world ever.
    0:53:05 And Hitler’s the genius.
    0:53:11 And that is just repeated over and over and over and over again.
    0:53:17 And the, you know, for all the modernity of the world in which we live in today, most people
    0:53:19 believe what they’re told repeatedly.
    0:53:21 Yeah, they still do.
    0:53:24 It’s if you just repeat, repeat, repeat over and over again, people will believe it.
    0:53:31 You know, if you’re a, if you’re a diehard Trump supporter, you want to believe that you’ll
    0:53:32 believe everything he says.
    0:53:38 If you are a diehard Bernie Sanders, man, you know, you’re from the left, you’ll believe
    0:53:42 everything he says because it’s reinforcing what you already want to, what you, what you
    0:53:42 already want to believe.
    0:53:48 But the scary thing is, uh, you know, radio is the technology of the day, the technology
    0:53:55 of the day today, which is a terrifying one for me is, uh, uh, I would say AI on social
    0:53:55 media.
    0:54:02 So bots, you can have basically bot farms, which I assume is used by Ukraine, by Russia,
    0:54:08 by U S I, I would love to read the history written about this era, about the information
    0:54:14 wars, who has the biggest bot farms, who has the biggest propaganda machines.
    0:54:22 And when I say bot, I mean, both automated AI bots and humans operating large number of
    0:54:24 smartphones with SIM cards.
    0:54:29 They’re just able to boost messages enough to where they become viral.
    0:54:33 And then real humans with real opinions get excited.
    0:54:36 Also, it’s like this vicious cycle.
    0:54:40 So if you support your nation, all you need is a little boost and then everybody gets
    0:54:41 real excited.
    0:54:47 And then now you’re chanting and now you’re in this mass hysteria and now it’s the 1984,
    0:54:48 two minutes of hate.
    0:54:50 And the message is clear.
    0:54:54 I mean, that’s what propaganda does is it really clarifies the mind.
    0:55:00 That is exactly what, what Hitler and the Nazis and Goebbels are doing in the 1930s while they’re
    0:55:02 doing it in the 1920s as well, but more effectively once they come into power, of course.
    0:55:11 Hitler is so fortunate that he comes, he takes over the chancellorship in January, 1933 at
    0:55:18 a time where the economy is just starting to turn and he’s able to make the most of that.
    0:55:22 And, you know, if you’re Germans and you’ve been through hyperinflation in the early 1920s,
    0:55:28 you’ve been through the humiliation of Versailles Treaty, which was terrible error in retrospect.
    0:55:35 You’ve been through then having got through that, you’ve emerged into a kind of democratic
    0:55:42 Weimar Republic, which is based on manufacturing, you know, Germany’s a traditional genius at
    0:55:48 engineering and manufacturing and production of high quality items.
    0:55:50 They’re merging through that.
    0:55:55 Then you have the Wall Street crash and the loans that are coming in from America, which is
    0:56:00 propping up the entire German economy, suddenly get cut off and you’ve suddenly got depression again
    0:56:02 and, and massive unemployment.
    0:56:10 And suddenly Hitler comes in and everyone’s got jobs and they’re rebuilding and they’re growing
    0:56:10 their military.
    0:56:16 And the message that’s coming out is we’re the greatest, we’re the best, we’re fantastic.
    0:56:21 You know, I was telling you earlier on about, about Hitler’s speeches, starting with the
    0:56:26 dark, starting dark and ending in, in hope and light and the sunlit uplands, you know,
    0:56:26 that’s what you’re getting.
    0:56:28 You’re suddenly getting this vision of hope.
    0:56:31 This is sort of, you know, my God, actually this is really working, you know?
    0:56:32 Okay.
    0:56:37 So, you know, I’m not sure that I particularly buy into the kind of antisemitic thing, but,
    0:56:39 you know, we’ll sweep that under the carpet.
    0:56:43 Cause overall I’ve now got a job, I’ve got money, I’ve got my new radio, you know, and
    0:56:45 then this is a genius about the radios, for example.
    0:56:49 So they have the, uh, they have the, the, the German receiver to start off with the, the
    0:56:54 Deutsche Fanger, and then they have the Deutsche Kleinem Fanger, which is the German little
    0:56:55 receiver, little radio.
    0:56:56 These are geniuses.
    0:57:00 This is, this is as outrageous as the arrival of the iPod.
    0:57:04 I mean, remember that, you know, suddenly you don’t have to have a Sony Walkman anymore.
    0:57:08 You can have something really, really small and miniature and listen to thousands and
    0:57:09 thousands and thousands of songs all at once.
    0:57:10 What an, what an amazing thing.
    0:57:15 And the Deutsche Kleinem Fanger is nine inches by four inches by four inches.
    0:57:19 It’s made of Bakelite and everyone can have one cause it’s super cheap.
    0:57:20 It’s just incredible.
    0:57:25 And no one else said that because up until that point, radios, generally speaking are
    0:57:26 aspirational.
    0:57:29 You know, they’ve got sort of a walnut lacquer at the front and, you know, you have them if
    0:57:33 you’re middle class and you show them off to your neighbors to show how kind of, you
    0:57:35 know, affluent and well to do you are.
    0:57:37 Um, but suddenly everyone can have one.
    0:57:41 And if everyone can have one, then everyone can receive the same message.
    0:57:44 And you can, and you can also, and this is the whole point about the Hitler youth as well.
    0:57:47 You know, the young guys, that’s where they’re, they’re most impressionistic.
    0:57:50 They’re, they’re least risk averse.
    0:57:51 So they’re most gung ho.
    0:57:55 They’re, they’re most full of excitement for the possibilities of life.
    0:57:59 And they’re also, their minds are the most open to suggestion.
    0:58:02 So you get the youth, you hang on, you get them.
    0:58:07 And so a whole generation of young men are brought up thinking about the genius of Hitler and how
    0:58:12 he’s delivering us this much better nation and returning our, um, over, overhauling the
    0:58:17 humiliations of the first world war where overcoming the back, uh, the stab in the back that happened
    0:58:19 in 1918, et cetera, et cetera.
    0:58:25 And, you know, as a young 16, 17 year old German, you’re thinking, yeah, I want a piece of that.
    0:58:27 And, and Hey, guess what?
    0:58:32 They’ve got really cool uniforms and, and, you know, come and join the SS and, you know, get the fro line.
    0:58:36 You know, what’s not to like, you know, you can see why, why it’s so clever.
    0:58:44 Uh, and what’s so interesting is propaganda today is, is still using those, those tenets that Goebbels
    0:58:47 was using back in the 1930s.
    0:58:49 And this is why I would say, say that, you know, history doesn’t repeat itself.
    0:58:50 Of course it doesn’t.
    0:58:54 It can’t possibly repeat itself because we’re always living in a constantly evolving time,
    0:58:56 but patterns of human behavior do.
    0:59:00 And what you always get after economic crisis is political upheaval.
    0:59:01 Always, always, always.
    0:59:04 Because some people are in a worse off position than they were financially before.
    0:59:07 They’re thinking, well, you know, the current system doesn’t work.
    0:59:07 What’s the alternative?
    0:59:13 So, you know, in the case of, of, of now we in the West, you know, we face, first of all,
    0:59:16 we face the crisis of 2008, financial crisis of 2008.
    0:59:18 Then we’ve had the kind of double whammy of COVID.
    0:59:21 And that has been incredibly unsettling.
    0:59:25 And so we’re now in a, a, a situation of, of political turmoil.
    0:59:29 And whether you’re, whether you’re, uh, whether you’re pro-Trump or anti-Trump, what he’s
    0:59:31 offering is something completely different.
    0:59:36 And, you know, it’s say, you know, he, he’s saying the old ways don’t work.
    0:59:38 You know, I’m going to be, I’m just going to say what I think.
    0:59:39 I’m just going to, I’m going to come out.
    0:59:43 I’m not going to bother with all the sheen of diplomacy and kind of, you know, mealy mouth
    0:59:47 words that politicians always use, you know, which, where you can’t trust anyone.
    0:59:48 I’m just going to tell you as it is.
    0:59:50 And obviously people respond to that.
    0:59:53 You know, you, you, you can understand why that has a, has an appeal.
    0:59:58 And if the country already feels broken and here’s someone who is going to be a disruptor
    1:00:03 and going to change the way you go about things, you can see why a, a, a reasonably large proportion
    1:00:06 of the population is going to go, I’ll have a piece of that.
    1:00:07 Thank you very much.
    1:00:13 And especially, uh, when the country is in a economic crisis, like Germany was, I think
    1:00:19 you’ve written that, uh, the treaty of Versailles created Hitler and the, uh, the wall street
    1:00:23 crash and the great depression brought him to power.
    1:00:29 And of course the propaganda machine that you describe is the thing that got everybody
    1:00:30 else in Germany on board.
    1:00:31 Yeah.
    1:00:36 It’s, it’s, it’s amazing how he, he, cause he comes in with 33% of the vote.
    1:00:40 He had 37% of the throat of the vote in July, 1932.
    1:00:44 So again, this is another period of turmoil, just like it is in France where you’re having
    1:00:48 constant different kind of coalitions and, you know, different chancellors, leaders of
    1:00:49 Germany.
    1:00:53 So it’s very possible he, he, he wouldn’t have come to power.
    1:00:57 Well, he said, he said, I will only, uh, you know, the, we will only take our seats if,
    1:01:00 if, if, if I can be chancellor, otherwise forget it, I’m not coming into any coalition.
    1:01:07 So then the, uh, the government falls again in January, 1933, they have the, uh, they have
    1:01:07 the election.
    1:01:14 The Nazi vote is down from where it was the previous summer, but this time they go, okay,
    1:01:18 Peter can be chancellor, but we’ll manipulate him wrong.
    1:01:20 They were, you know, he’s manipulating everyone.
    1:01:24 And then Hindenburg, who is the president dies the following summer.
    1:01:29 And, uh, he’s able to get rid of the presidency.
    1:01:30 There is no more president of Germany.
    1:01:32 There is just the Fuhrer, him.
    1:01:38 And he gets rid of, uh, he has a, in actually enabling act, which is where all other, uh, political
    1:01:40 parties have, uh, disbanded.
    1:01:42 And suddenly you’ve got a totalitarian state just like that.
    1:01:44 I think there’s a lesson there.
    1:01:52 Uh, there’s many lessons there, but one of them is don’t let an extremist into government
    1:01:54 and assume you can control them.
    1:01:54 Yes.
    1:01:58 The arrogance of the existing politicians who just completely screwed it up.
    1:02:01 I mean, there is a real power to an extremist.
    1:02:07 Like there’s, uh, a person who sees the world in, in black and white.
    1:02:15 Can really gain the attention and the support of the populace.
    1:02:21 Especially when there’s a resentment about like treaty of Versailles, when there’s economic
    1:02:29 hardship and if there’s effective modern technology that allows you to do propaganda and sell the
    1:02:32 message, there’s something really compelling about the black and white message.
    1:02:34 It is because it’s simple.
    1:02:40 And what Hitler does throughout the 1920s is he sticks to this.
    1:02:44 There, there is actually, when he comes out of prison in, so he, there’s the Bihl putsch in
    1:02:45 November, 1923.
    1:02:53 He gets, uh, charged with treason, which he has been because he’s attempting a coup and he gets
    1:02:57 sentenced to five years, which is pretty lenient for what he’s done.
    1:03:00 And he then gets let out after nine months.
    1:03:07 The Nazi party is, is, is, is, is banned at that point, but then comes back into being.
    1:03:13 And the year that follows, there is then a substantial debate about where the party should go.
    1:03:19 And there are actually a large number of people who think that actually they should be looking at how
    1:03:24 the Soviets are doing things and taking some of the, some of the things that they consider to be
    1:03:28 positive out of the communist state and applying those to the Nazis.
    1:03:30 And Hitler goes, no, no, no, no, no, no, no.
    1:03:35 We, we, we, we’ve just got to stick to this kind of Jewish Bolshevik thing.
    1:03:36 This is, this is how we’re going to do it.
    1:03:37 This is what we’re going to do it.
    1:03:41 Goebbels, for example, who is, who is very open.
    1:03:46 He’s a, he’s very, very, Joseph Goebbels is a, he’s a, he’s a not very successful, um,
    1:03:47 um, uh, journalist.
    1:03:50 He is, uh, but he does have a PhD in German, German literature.
    1:03:55 He’s very disaffected because he was born with talapes, which is, you know, more commonly known
    1:03:56 as a club foot.
    1:03:57 He’s disabled.
    1:03:58 He can’t fight in the first world war.
    1:04:00 He’s very frustrated by that.
    1:04:05 He’s in a deep despair about, about the state of Germany in the first part of the early
    1:04:05 1920s.
    1:04:14 He’s looking for a, um, a, a, a political messiah, a sort of quasi-religious messiah, thinks it’s
    1:04:20 Hitler, then discovers that Hitler’s not open to any ideas at all, uh, about any deviation,
    1:04:22 but then sees the light.
    1:04:26 Hitler recognizes that this guy is someone that he wants on his side.
    1:04:29 And so then goes to him, makes a real special effort.
    1:04:30 Come on, come to dinner.
    1:04:31 I think you’re great.
    1:04:35 You know, all this kind of stuff wins about over and Goebbels has this complete,
    1:04:39 Walt Fass discards his earlier kind of, yeah, you know, Hitler’s right.
    1:04:40 I was wrong.
    1:04:43 Hitler is the kind of messiah figure that, that I want to follow.
    1:04:45 I want to follow the hero, hero leader.
    1:04:51 And they come on board and they absolutely work out and Hitler completely wins out of all dissenters
    1:04:55 within the, what had been the German Workers’ Party to what becomes the German National Socialist
    1:04:56 Party, becomes the Nazis.
    1:05:05 Um, he comes out, emerges as the absolute undisputed Führer of that leader of that, that party and
    1:05:06 what he says goes.
    1:05:07 And everyone tows him behind it.
    1:05:12 And part of the genius of that, you know, Hitler does have some genius.
    1:05:14 I just don’t think it’s military, but he does have some genius.
    1:05:18 And a question about it is the simplicity of message.
    1:05:21 What he’s doing is, it’s that kind of us and them thing that we were talking about earlier on.
    1:05:25 It’s a kind of either or, it’s kind of, it’s my way or the highway.
    1:05:29 It’s kind of, this is the only way, this is how we get to the sunlit uplands.
    1:05:37 This is how we, we create this amazing master race of the, this unification of German peoples,
    1:05:42 which dominates the world, which is the preeminent power in the world for the next thousand years.
    1:05:48 Or it’s decay and despair and being crushed by our enemies.
    1:05:51 And our enemies are the Jews and the Bolsheviks, the communists.
    1:05:58 And what he taps into as well is Front Gemeinschaft and Volksgemeinschaft.
    1:06:05 And these are, there’s no direct English translation of Volksgemeinschaft or indeed Front Gemeinschaft.
    1:06:13 But, but, but in its most basic form, it’s communities, it’s people community or Front Veterans community.
    1:06:19 So the Front Gemeinschaft is, we are the guys, we’re bonded because we were in the trenches.
    1:06:21 You know, we were in the First World War.
    1:06:26 We were the people who bravely stuck it out, saw our friends being slaughtered and blown to pieces.
    1:06:32 We, we did our duty as proud Germans, but we were let down by the elites.
    1:06:36 And we were let down by the, by this Jewish Bolshevik plot.
    1:06:39 You know, we were stabbed in the back.
    1:06:42 The myth of the stabbing, stabbing in the back is very, very strong.
    1:06:50 So we’re bound, we’re bonded by our experience of the First World War and the fact that we did what we should and what we could.
    1:06:53 And we would, we didn’t fail in what we were doing.
    1:06:57 We were failed by our leaders and by the elites.
    1:07:00 So that’s, that’s Front Gemeinschaft.
    1:07:05 Volksgemeinschaft is this sense of national unity.
    1:07:13 It’s, it’s, it’s a cultural, ethnic bonding of people who speak German, who have a, have a similar outlook on life.
    1:07:17 And again, that just reinforces the us and them.
    1:07:18 Good and evil.
    1:07:21 It reinforces the black and white worldview.
    1:07:28 And then you add that to this very simple message, which Hitler is repeating over and over again.
    1:07:30 Communists are a big threat.
    1:07:32 Jews are a big threat.
    1:07:33 They’re the, they’re the enemy.
    1:07:39 You have to have a, you have to have an opposition in the them and us kind of process.
    1:07:41 And that’s what he’s doing.
    1:07:43 And people just buy into it.
    1:07:44 They go, yeah, we’re together.
    1:07:45 We’re Germans.
    1:07:48 We’re, we’re, we’re, you know, we’re a brotherhood.
    1:07:58 We’ve got a Volksgemeinschaft and so he cleverly ties into that and taps into that, but they’re an irrelevance by the late 1920s.
    1:08:03 You know, by 1928, you know, the, the, he’s not going to get a deal for Mein Kampf part two.
    1:08:06 You know, he, he’s, he’s, he’s impoverished.
    1:08:07 The party’s impoverished.
    1:08:08 Numbers are down.
    1:08:11 They’re, they’re kind of, you know, a best and a, and a relevance.
    1:08:14 We should say he wrote Mein Kampf at this time when he was in prison.
    1:08:18 Well, he writes, he writes most of Mein Kampf in prison, in Landsberg prison.
    1:08:25 And then he writes the rest of it in what becomes known as the Kampfhausel, which is this little wooden hut in the, in the Ober Salzburg.
    1:08:27 And you can still see the remnants of that.
    1:08:33 And unfortunately there’s still little candles there and stuff in the woods and, you know, by, by neo-Nazis and whatnot, what have you.
    1:08:35 But that’s where he wrote, wrote the rest of it.
    1:08:40 I mean, it was Jean-Jacques Rousseau who says man has his greatest force when surrounded by nature.
    1:08:43 That was something that kind of Hitler took very much to heart.
    1:08:46 There was a, there was a mentor of his called Dietrich Eckhart.
    1:08:55 Dietrich Eckhart introduced him to the Ober Salzburg and the beauty of the Southwest, Southeast Bavarian Alps around Berkis Garden.
    1:08:59 And, and that was his favorite place on the planet.
    1:09:04 And that’s where he, that’s where he eventually bought the, the, the Berghof.
    1:09:14 With the royalties, it has to be said from Mein Kampf, which went from being, you know, almost pulp to suddenly being a runaway bestseller, unfortunately.
    1:09:16 Can you actually comment on that?
    1:09:19 It’s a shitty manifesto as far as manifestos goes.
    1:09:26 I think there’s a lot of values to understand from a first person perspective, the words of a dictator, of a person like Hitler.
    1:09:30 But it just feels like that’s just such a shitty.
    1:09:30 Yeah.
    1:09:32 I mean, you know, it’s banned in a number of countries.
    1:09:34 You don’t need to because no one’s going to read it because it’s unreadable.
    1:09:38 I mean, it’s, it’s very untidy.
    1:09:39 It’s, it’s very incoherent.
    1:09:45 It’s, it’s got no, there’s no narrative arc to use the kind of, you know, right, a writer’s phrase.
    1:09:55 I mean, it’s just, it’s, but, but, but it does give you a very clear, you know, the overall impression you get at the end of it is, is, is, is the kind of communists and the Jews are to blame for everything.
    1:09:55 Yeah.
    1:10:01 But there’s also the component of, you know, predicting basically World War II there.
    1:10:03 So it’s not just there to blame for everything.
    1:10:04 Oh, no, he’s, he’s hungry for war.
    1:10:05 Right.
    1:10:09 He, he thinks that this is, this is the natural state that we have to have this terrible conflict.
    1:10:12 And once the conflict’s over, Germany will emerge victorious.
    1:10:14 And then there will be the thousand year Reich.
    1:10:17 I mean, I’m finding myself in, in talking to you.
    1:10:20 I keep saying this kind of, you know, it’s, it’s Armageddon or the thousand year Reich.
    1:10:26 It’s because it comes up, it’s, it’s, it’s, it’s unavoidable because that’s how he’s speaking the whole time.
    1:10:29 It’s just the same message over and over and over and over again.
    1:10:41 It’s a pretty unique way of speaking, sort of allowing violence as a tool in this picture, that there’s a hierarchy, that there’s a superior race and inferior races.
    1:10:44 And it’s okay to destroy the inferior ones.
    1:10:46 Usually politicians will speak that way.
    1:10:50 They just say, well, here’s good and evil.
    1:10:51 We’re the good guys.
    1:10:55 And yeah, maybe we’ll destroy the evil a little bit.
    1:11:03 No, here is like, there’s a complete certainty about a very large number of people, the Slavic people.
    1:11:05 They just need to be removed.
    1:11:06 Well, they need to be made an irrelevance.
    1:11:07 You know, we have to take it.
    1:11:08 We have to take it.
    1:11:12 And in fact, if that kills millions of them, fine, then they can sort of squish their way over to Siberia.
    1:11:12 Right.
    1:11:13 It doesn’t matter where they go.
    1:11:14 Or Kamchatka, whatever they go.
    1:11:14 I don’t care.
    1:11:18 We just need to populate this land that belongs to German people.
    1:11:18 Yeah.
    1:11:20 Because they’re the superior people.
    1:11:22 There’s no question that he glorified violence and war.
    1:11:24 You know, he’s absolutely chomping at the bit.
    1:11:32 And in a way, I think he’s a bit disappointed that in the 1930s, the conquests that he does undertake are also peaceful.
    1:11:36 You know, March 1948 goes straight into Austria.
    1:11:38 There’s the Anschluss, you know, not a shot is fired.
    1:11:47 You know, 1936 goes into the Rhineland, reconquers that, retakes that over that from the occupying allies.
    1:11:48 Not a shot is fired.
    1:11:56 You know, he takes a sedation land, not a shot, barely a shot is fired, and then goes into the rest of Czechoslovakia in March 1939.
    1:11:58 And again, barely a shot is fired.
    1:12:00 And, you know, it’s a bit disappointing.
    1:12:02 You know, he wants to be tested.
    1:12:05 He wants to kind of have the wartime triumph.
    1:12:09 You can see him being frustrated about this in the Munich crisis in 1938.
    1:12:10 He wants to fight.
    1:12:11 He’s absolutely spoiling for it.
    1:12:13 He’s desperate to go in.
    1:12:14 He’s already in gung-ho.
    1:12:15 He’s built his Luftwaffe.
    1:12:18 He’s got his panzers now.
    1:12:21 He’s got his massive armed forces.
    1:12:23 You know, he wants to test them.
    1:12:26 He wants to get this show on the road and prove it.
    1:12:29 You know, he’s an arch gambler, Hitler.
    1:12:44 You make it seem so clear, but all the while, to the rest of the world, to Chamberlain, to France, to Britain, to the rest of the world, he’s saying he doesn’t want that.
    1:12:46 He’s making agreements.
    1:12:48 Everything you just mentioned, you just went through it so quickly.
    1:12:53 But those are agreements that were made that he’s not going to do that.
    1:12:56 And he does it over and over.
    1:12:57 He violates the Treaty of Versailles.
    1:13:02 He violates every single treaty, but he still isn’t doing the meeting.
    1:13:09 So maybe can you go through it, the lead-up to the war, 1939, September 1st?
    1:13:10 What are the different agreements?
    1:13:13 What is the signaling he’s doing?
    1:13:18 What is he doing secretly in terms of building up the military force?
    1:13:18 Yes.
    1:13:26 So he, you know, part of the Treaty of Versailles, you’re not, you know, you’re allowed a very, very limited armed forces.
    1:13:28 There’s restrictions on naval expansion.
    1:13:31 There’s restrictions on the size of the army.
    1:13:34 There’s restrictions on the weapons you can use.
    1:13:38 There are, you’re not allowed an air force.
    1:13:41 But he starts doing this all clandestinely.
    1:13:51 You know, there are people in Krupp has got, for example, which is in the Ruhr, a sort of big armaments manufacturer.
    1:14:00 They are producing tanks and elsewhere and parts elsewhere in, say, the Netherlands, for example, and then shipping them back into Germany.
    1:14:05 They’re doing panzer training exercises, actually, in the Soviet Union at this time.
    1:14:06 There’s all sorts of things going on.
    1:14:13 The Luftwaffe is being announced to the world in 1935, but it’s obviously been in the process of developing long before that.
    1:14:17 The Messerschmitt 109, single-engine fighter plane, for example, is created in 1934.
    1:14:20 So they’re doing all these things against it.
    1:14:24 And the truth is, is he’s just constantly pushing.
    1:14:26 What can I get away with here?
    1:14:35 What will probably, you know, and of course, Britain, France, the rest of the world, the rest of the allies, you know, they’re all reeling from the Wall Street crash and the depression as well.
    1:14:38 So have they got the stomach for this?
    1:14:43 Not really, you know, and perhaps actually on reflection, the terms of Versailles Treaty are a bit harsh anyway.
    1:14:46 So, you know, maybe we don’t need to worry about it.
    1:14:47 And there’s just no political will.
    1:14:51 There’s no political will to kind of fight against what Germany’s doing.
    1:14:52 Then he gets away with it.
    1:15:08 So he suddenly starts realizing that actually he can push this quite a long way because no one’s going to stand up to him, which is why he makes a decision in 1936 to go back into the, you know, into the Rhineland, you know, which has been occupied by French, you know, allied troops.
    1:15:12 At that point, he just walks in, just goes, do your worst.
    1:15:15 And no one’s going to do anything because there isn’t the stomach to do anything.
    1:15:19 That was a big step in 1936, remilitarizing the Rhineland.
    1:15:27 I mean, that that’s a huge, huge step of like, oh, I don’t have to follow anybody’s rules and they’re going to do nothing.
    1:15:31 And he’s looking at his military and he’s and and he’s also looking at response.
    1:15:35 So one of the things they do is they, you know, it’s really very clever.
    1:15:41 So they get over the head of the Army of the Air, Army de l’Air, which is the French Air Force.
    1:15:48 And they invite him over and they have milk, who is the second command of the Luftwaffe, invites him over.
    1:15:50 So come and see what we’re what we’re up to.
    1:15:53 You know, we want to be you’re our European neighbors.
    1:15:54 We’re all friends together.
    1:15:54 This kind of stuff.
    1:15:55 Come and see what we’ve got.
    1:15:58 And he takes him to this airfield.
    1:16:02 There’s a row of Messerschmitt 109s all lined up, like sort of 50 of them.
    1:16:06 And the head of the Army of the Air sort of looks at him and goes, correct, that’s impressive.
    1:16:09 And milk goes, well, let me go and take you to another airfield.
    1:16:15 And they go off the sort of the back route out of the airfield and a long circuitous route in the Mercedes.
    1:16:19 Meanwhile, all the Messerschmitts take off from that airfield, going to land on the next airfield.
    1:16:20 Here’s another.
    1:16:21 And they’re all the same aircraft.
    1:16:26 And the commander in chief of the Army of the Air goes back to France and goes, we’re never going to be able to beat Germany.
    1:16:30 So you would earlier you were you were alluding to this earlier on.
    1:16:41 You know, how much is this sort of this this this justice chutzpah of this ability to kind of portray the mechanized moloch?
    1:16:44 Yeah, it absolutely cows the enemy.
    1:16:56 So they’re increasing the effectiveness of their armed forces purely by propaganda and by by mind games and by talking the talk.
    1:17:03 And, you know, you look at we might all think these military parades that the Nazis have look rather silly by today’s standards.
    1:17:05 But you look what that looks like.
    1:17:11 If you’re the rest of the world, you’re in Britain and you’re still reeling from the depression and you see the triumph of the will.
    1:17:22 You see some of that footage and you see these automatons in their steel helmets and you see the swastikas and you see hundreds of thousands of people all lined up and see Keiling and all the rest of it.
    1:17:24 You’re going to think again before you go to war with people like that.
    1:17:30 It’s also hard to put yourself in the in the mind of those leaders.
    1:17:44 Now, now that we have nuclear weapons, so nuclear weapons have created this kind of cloak of a kind of safety from mutually shared destruction.
    1:17:56 That you think surely you will not do, you know, a million or two million soldier army invading another land, right?
    1:17:59 Just full on gigantic hot war.
    1:18:03 But at that time, that’s the real possibility.
    1:18:05 You remember World War I.
    1:18:06 You remember all of that.
    1:18:12 So, you know, okay, there’s a mad guy with a mustache.
    1:18:20 He’s making statements that this land belongs to Germany anyway because it’s mostly German populated.
    1:18:25 So, and like you said, Treaty of Versailles wasn’t really fair.
    1:18:28 And you can start justifying all kinds of things to yourself.
    1:18:32 And maybe they got a point about the Danzig Corridor, you know, the Armenian Germans, German speaking people there.
    1:18:37 And, you know, it’s disconnected from East Prussia, which is this thing, you know, I can, I sort of get it.
    1:18:38 You know, maybe they’ve got a point.
    1:18:42 You know, and is Poland really a kind of thriving democracy anyway?
    1:18:42 Not really.
    1:18:45 By 1930, late 1930s, it’s not.
    1:18:48 It’s, to all intents and purposes, a dictatorship in Poland at that time.
    1:18:53 I mean, it’s not right that you just go and take someone else’s country.
    1:18:55 Of course, you can’t do that.
    1:19:01 But you can see why in Germany people are thinking they’ve got a point.
    1:19:06 You can also see why in France and Britain they’re thinking, well, you know, do we really care about the Poles?
    1:19:10 I mean, you know, is it worth going to war over?
    1:19:13 But there’s kind of bigger things at play by this point.
    1:19:14 That’s the point.
    1:19:22 Yeah, but before we get to Poland, there is this meeting, September 1938.
    1:19:26 So, Chamberlain made three trips to meet with Hitler.
    1:19:26 Yeah.
    1:19:29 Which culminated in the Munich Conference.
    1:19:31 Yeah, on the 30th of September, yeah.
    1:19:36 Where it was Chamberlain, Hitler, Mussolini, and Delegere, Prime Minister of France.
    1:19:43 They met to discuss, essentially, Czechoslovakia without any of the government officials of Czechoslovakia participating.
    1:19:50 And Hitler promised to make no more territorial conquests and Chamberlain believed him.
    1:19:54 He chose to believe him, I think is the point.
    1:19:55 So, it’s very interesting.
    1:19:57 So, Chamberlain gets a very bad press.
    1:20:07 Well, no, I’m not, no, it’s not really, oh, it’s, it’s, it’s, I just think there’s too much retrospective view on this.
    1:20:21 And that’s fine, because we, the whole point of history is you can look back and you can judge decisions that were made at a certain point through the prism of what subsequently happened, which, of course, the people that are making the decisions at the time can’t.
    1:20:23 Because they’re in that particular moment.
    1:20:32 So, I don’t think Chamberlain did trust Hitler, but he wanted to give him the benefit of the doubt.
    1:20:35 Britain was not obliged to Czechoslovakia at all.
    1:20:36 France was.
    1:20:38 France had signed a treaty with Czechoslovakia in 1924.
    1:20:41 But, but, but, but Britain had not.
    1:20:43 So, there was no obligation at all for Britain to do this.
    1:20:52 The only reason why Britain would go to war over Czechoslovakia is because of the threat of Nazism and what the ramifications of not going to war with him.
    1:20:54 But the problem is, is that Chamberlain is interesting.
    1:20:57 Because in 1935, he was, he was Chancellor of his Czechoslovakia.
    1:21:00 And when they started to sort of think, okay, we really do need to rearm.
    1:21:09 He was very much in favor of, of substantially expanding and rehabilitating the Navy.
    1:21:12 So, updating existing battleships and so on.
    1:21:15 And also developing the Air Force.
    1:21:20 There’s not really much argument for having a large army.
    1:21:22 Because if you have a large army, you’ve got to maintain it.
    1:21:23 Britain is a small place.
    1:21:24 Where do you put them?
    1:21:25 You’ve also got to transport them.
    1:21:26 That’s complicated.
    1:21:28 You’ve got to train them.
    1:21:29 You’ve got to put them in barracks.
    1:21:30 You’ve got to feed them all this kind of stuff.
    1:21:32 There’s a kind of sort of impracticality about having a large army.
    1:21:34 Whereas navies are great.
    1:21:37 Because you can keep them at sea and they can be, you know, on the water.
    1:21:39 Air Force is slightly different.
    1:21:42 Air power is viewed in very much the same way that naval power is viewed.
    1:21:45 That this is, we’re an island nation.
    1:21:47 We have a global, global assets.
    1:21:50 And air power gives us the flexibility that an army doesn’t.
    1:21:57 So, he is all for backing the expansion of the army, of the Air Force and the Navy in 1930.
    1:21:59 Then he subsequently becomes prime minister and sticks to his guns on that.
    1:22:06 It is he that enables the Air Force and the Air Ministry to develop the first fully coordinated
    1:22:08 air defence system anywhere in the world.
    1:22:13 There is not an air defence system in Poland, nor Norway, nor Denmark, nor the Netherlands,
    1:22:14 nor Belgium, nor France.
    1:22:15 There is in Britain.
    1:22:16 Britain is the only one.
    1:22:21 And frankly, it pays off big time in the summer of 1940.
    1:22:23 So, you have to give him credit for that.
    1:22:29 Britain, interestingly, is also the world’s leading armaments exporter in the 1930s.
    1:22:34 Which is amazing, really, when you think everyone complains about the fact that we weren’t rearming
    1:22:34 enough.
    1:22:35 Actually, we were.
    1:22:39 When we had all the infrastructure there and we were expanding that infrastructure dramatically.
    1:22:41 I say we, I’m only saying that because I’m British.
    1:22:44 So, they were doing that.
    1:22:48 But in 1938, Britain wasn’t ready for war.
    1:22:51 Now, you can argue that Germany wasn’t ready for war either.
    1:22:59 But Chamberlain was prime minister in a democracy, a parliamentary democracy, when 92% of the population
    1:23:01 were against going to war in 1938.
    1:23:09 There is not a single democratic leader in the world that would go against the wishes of 92%
    1:23:10 of the population.
    1:23:15 Now, you could say, well, he should have just argued it better and presented his case better
    1:23:16 and all the rest of it.
    1:23:20 But at that point, there was no legal obligation to go to the defense of Czechoslovakia.
    1:23:26 You know, Czechoslovakia was another of these new nations that had been created out of 1919
    1:23:27 and the Versailles Treaty.
    1:23:32 You know, who was to say, you know, we in Britain are able to judge the rights and wrongs of that.
    1:23:39 You know, how fantastic it would be to go to war with a nation a long way away for people
    1:23:41 whom we know very little, et cetera, et cetera.
    1:23:42 I’m paraphrasing his quote.
    1:23:45 But I’m not saying it was the right decision.
    1:23:53 I’m just saying I can see why in September 1938, he is prepared to give him the chance.
    1:23:54 Now, I do think he was a bit naive.
    1:23:58 And what he also does is this really interesting thing.
    1:24:05 He goes over to Hitler’s flat, completely ambushes him, goes to his flat on the afternoon of 30th
    1:24:10 of September and says to Hitler, look, I’ve drawn up this agreement here.
    1:24:14 And this is to continue the naval agreement that we’ve already made.
    1:24:19 And by signing this, you are saying that Germany and Britain should never go to war with one another.
    1:24:23 And he goes, yeah, whatever, you know, signs it.
    1:24:30 Chamberlain comes back, lands at Henn and waves his little piece of paper, you know, and piece in our time
    1:24:32 and all the rest of it, which obviously comes back to bite him in a very big way.
    1:24:41 But it’s interesting that when Hitler then subsequently goes and moves in, you know, that France and Britain decide
    1:24:48 in rather the same way that there’s been discussion about deciding that large portions of Ukraine
    1:24:54 should just be handed back to, handed over to Russia without consulting Ukraine a few weeks ago.
    1:25:02 It is incredible, I think, that France and Britain and Italy with Germany
    1:25:06 deciding that, yes, it’s fine for Germany to go in and take the Sudetenland, you know,
    1:25:08 without really consulting the Czechs.
    1:25:10 It’s a sort of similar kind of scenario, really.
    1:25:12 And it’s equally wrong.
    1:25:19 But when Germany does then go and take over the whole of Czechoslovakia in March 1939,
    1:25:21 that is, that’s the bottom line.
    1:25:25 That is, that’s the point where Chamberlain goes, okay, I’ve given him the benefit of the doubt.
    1:25:26 No more benefits of the doubt.
    1:25:27 That’s it.
    1:25:30 That is, he’s crossed the line.
    1:25:32 And so you reinforce your agreement with Poland.
    1:25:33 You do a formal agreement.
    1:25:36 You go, okay, we will uphold your sovereignty.
    1:25:39 You know, if you are invaded, we will go to war with you.
    1:25:48 You know, and that is, that is a ratcheting up of diplomacy and politics in a very, very big way.
    1:25:59 And it is that decision to make a treaty with the Poles is not heeded by Hitler, but it’s heeded by literally every one of his commanders.
    1:26:14 And it’s also heeded by Goering, who is his number two and who is obviously the commander in chief of the, of, of the Luftwaffe and is president of Prussia and, you know, and all the rest of it.
    1:26:19 And, you know, he’s the second most senior Nazi and, you know, he’s going, this is a catastrophe.
    1:26:24 This is the last thing we want to be doing is going to war against Britain and indeed France.
    1:26:41 The Munich conference is a pretty interesting moment, I would say in all of human history, because you got the leaders of these bigger than life nations and the most dramatic brewing conflict in human history.
    1:26:44 Yeah, Chamberlain, Hitler, Mussolini, Dodger.
    1:26:49 It’s interesting when these bigger than life leaders are in a room together.
    1:26:55 Is there something that you know about, about their interactions?
    1:27:01 Yeah, I think there’s, I think one of the things that’s interesting is, is that Hitler’s got home advantage because it’s on his turf.
    1:27:07 And, you know, to start off with the first meeting is at the Berghof, his beloved place in the Ober Salzburg overlooking Berkusgaden in the Alps.
    1:27:15 So he’s pretty confident because this is my manor, this is my turf, you know, I’m not going to be bossed around by these guys.
    1:27:21 But Chamberlain, for example, is going there thinking, I’ve been around the blocks, no one can teach me anything.
    1:27:27 I’ve been a politician for ages, you know, I’m not going to be kind of capped out by this, this sort of, you know, Austrian upstart.
    1:27:34 So they’re both coming at it with a kind of sort of slight kind of superiority kind of complex.
    1:27:52 Interestingly, when you get to the actual meetings of the Bernabeu in Munich, a couple of weeks later, Chamberlain is cheered by the crowds when his car comes in, when he goes to his hotel, when he’s moving from his hotel to the Bernabeu.
    1:27:56 You know, there are cars cheering him, you know, waving uni jacks, all this kind of stuff.
    1:27:59 Hitler does not like that at all.
    1:28:00 Not at all.
    1:28:01 Puts him on the back foot.
    1:28:06 And that’s because the German people don’t want war.
    1:28:10 In the same way that the British people don’t want war, nor do the German people.
    1:28:18 The difference is that Hitler is a dictator and an autocrat and has the devotion of the people.
    1:28:21 So he can do what he wants in a way that Chamberlain can’t.
    1:28:28 Chamberlain’s hands are tied because he is an elected prime minister, an elected leader, political leader, and he’s not head of state.
    1:28:36 So there is no question that it is Hitler and Chamberlain that are the top dogs in this particular discussion.
    1:28:38 You know, Deladio takes a back seat.
    1:28:41 Even Mussolini, although he’s there, he doesn’t want war either.
    1:28:45 You know, he wants to be left alone to do his own thing without anyone getting in the way.
    1:28:49 But he doesn’t want, he doesn’t want to sort of, it’s not in his interest to have a European war.
    1:28:50 So he’s trying to avoid it.
    1:28:56 So it is really, you see that the kind of alpha males in the room are Chamberlain and Hitler.
    1:29:07 And it’s really interesting because Hitler’s got this sort of slightly garrulous voice and very kind of pale blue eyes and such distinct features, quite a long nose.
    1:29:12 You know, he always says this is why he has the moustaches to kind of, you know, disguise the big nose.
    1:29:17 You know, so I was saying to you earlier on before we started recording, he does have a sense of humor.
    1:29:20 It’s not maybe not one that you and I would kind of tap into, but he does have one.
    1:29:33 Whereas Chamberlain is just sort of, you know, he sounds like a sort of, you know, a bit like an old man, you know, he’s sort of silver haired and he looks like you’re sort of archetypal kind of British gentleman with his rolled up umbrella and his, you know, and his Homburg hat and all the rest of it.
    1:29:36 So they’re both sort of caricatures in a funny sort of way.
    1:29:51 And yet the consequence of these discussions, you know, these, these great events happening, you know, you are, you’re absolutely going, even which way the Munich crisis comes out, you’re taking a step closer to war.
    1:29:55 It’s just whether the war is going to happen kind of next week or whether it’s going to happen a year hence.
    1:30:00 But it’s, you know, the Munich crisis obviously doesn’t stem the inevitability of war at all.
    1:30:01 It just heightens it.
    1:30:11 Do you think there are words that Chamberlain should have said, could have said that put more pressure on Hitler, intimidate Hitler more?
    1:30:14 Yeah, it’s a really tricky one.
    1:30:21 It’s such a difficult one because you’re always looking at it through, you know, the enemy has a vote and you don’t know what,
    1:30:23 that vote is going to be and you don’t know what it’s going to look like.
    1:30:35 There’s no question that the Europe, the rest of Europe is, is, is cowed by the kind of impression of military might that the Germans have put out.
    1:30:38 They certainly fear they are stronger than they actually are.
    1:30:45 And then on the other hand, they’re also going, yeah, but, you know, Germany doesn’t have natural resources, doesn’t have access to the world’s oceans.
    1:30:49 You know, it, it, it’s kind of, you know, it shouldn’t be able to win a war.
    1:31:00 And so, so they’re kind of contradicting themselves at the same time, you know, so one minute they’re sort of going, oh God, you don’t want to take on all those Nazis and all those swastikas and those automaton stormtroopers.
    1:31:08 But on the other hand, they’re then saying, but actually Germany doesn’t have much and it’s kind of, you know, in its basket, you know, it’s got, it’s got actually quite a lot of weaknesses and we should be able to kind of prevail, blah, blah, blah.
    1:31:11 We’ll just impose an economic blockade and then it’ll be stuffed.
    1:31:16 And Britain is not ready to fight a war in, in 1948, but nor is Hitler, you know, nor is Germany.
    1:31:21 So, you know, one is sort of striking out the other, but it’s very easy to say that in hindsight.
    1:31:36 But at the time, you know, with people kind of digging trenches in Hyde Park in the center of London and barrage balloons going up over London and, you know, children being evacuated from the cities and 92% of the population not wanting to go to war, you can see why he takes the course he does.
    1:31:38 I suppose that’s, that’s what I’m saying.
    1:31:42 I’m not saying it’s necessarily the right decision, but I, I, I think it’s an understandable decision.
    1:32:02 But what about even just in the human level, if I go into a room with a British gentleman versus going to a room with Trump, it feels like it’s so much easier to read and manipulate the British gentleman because Trump is like Trump-like characters.
    1:32:03 It seems like Hitler is similar.
    1:32:05 Churchill is similar.
    1:32:07 It’s like this guy can do anything.
    1:32:10 There’s something terrifying about the unpredictability.
    1:32:11 Yeah.
    1:32:14 It feels like there’s something very predictable about Chamberlain.
    1:32:16 Yes, I think that’s true.
    1:32:20 But also one has to take a step back and think about what Britain represents.
    1:32:23 So therefore what Chamberlain represents in 1938.
    1:32:27 Britain has the largest empire the world has ever known.
    1:32:27 Yeah.
    1:32:28 In 1938.
    1:32:29 We shouldn’t forget that.
    1:32:36 You know, the world of the world is pink, as the saying goes, you know, and that saying comes from the kind of atlas of the world where all British territories are kind of colored pink.
    1:32:37 Yeah.
    1:32:41 And on top of that, it has lots of extra imperial territories as well.
    1:32:47 So, you know, if you look at this, there’s this incredible map of global shipping in 1937.
    1:32:50 And there’s these little ant lines of ships going out.
    1:32:55 And one of the strongest ant lines is going down to Argentina and South America from Britain.
    1:32:59 So, down past West Africa and down the Southern Atlantic and there it is.
    1:33:02 And that’s because Britain owns most of Argentina.
    1:33:05 It owns huge, great farming estates and ranches.
    1:33:07 It owns the railway system.
    1:33:08 It owns many of the port facilities.
    1:33:10 So, you don’t even need an empire.
    1:33:16 You just need the, you know, you need the facilities that overseas trade and possessions can give you.
    1:33:31 And Britain not only has the largest navy, it also has the largest merchant navy, has 33% of the world’s merchant shipping and access to a further 50%, you know, Greek, Norwegian, Canadian shipping that it can access.
    1:33:39 So, if you’ve got access to more than, in excess of 80% of the world’s shipping, that puts you in an incredibly strong position.
    1:33:42 And actually, all sorts of other things have been going on.
    1:33:54 While they might not have been creating a huge army or producing enough spitfires that they might want to up until this point, what they have also been doing is stockpiling bauxite and copper and tungsten and huge reserves.
    1:34:02 And because Britain has this huge global reach, because it has its empire and its extra imperial assets, it can strike bargains that no one else can strike.
    1:34:11 So, it can go into various countries around the world and can go, okay, I want you to guarantee me for the next five years, every bit of your rubber supply.
    1:34:15 I will pay over the asking price to secure that.
    1:34:18 And it’s doing that in the 1930s.
    1:34:21 So, when war comes, it’s got everything it possibly needs.
    1:34:27 Now, you always need more, because it’s suddenly turning into a kind of, you know, a proper global, long, drawn-out war.
    1:34:30 But that is a huge advantage.
    1:34:37 So, it is with that mindset that Chamberlain is going into those talks and thinking, okay, well, I’m not going to get a war over the Czechoslovakian.
    1:34:38 Who cares about them?
    1:34:43 But I am going to show Hitler that I mean business.
    1:34:46 Hitler’s going, who’s this stuffy guy with his white hair?
    1:34:47 I don’t give a toss about him.
    1:34:50 You know, and he’s coming at it from a completely different perspective.
    1:35:03 And I think one of the things that’s so interesting from a dramatic point of view and from a historian’s point of view or even a novelist’s point of view in the case of Robert Harris writing his book about these negotiations, which I don’t know if you’ve read it, but it’s really, it’s terrifically good.
    1:35:13 It’s the fact that you’ve got two men, two alpha males, who are going to those negotiations from totally different perspectives and vantage points.
    1:35:21 And I think it’s very easy for people today to forget how elevated Britain was in the late 1930s.
    1:35:25 You know, the gold standard was tied to the pound, not the dollar.
    1:35:32 And so Britain was the number one nation in the world at that time, and it just was.
    1:35:38 And it’s so diminished by comparison today that it’s hard to imagine it.
    1:35:52 And I think one of the interesting things about the historiography, about the narrative of how we tell World War II, is that so much of it has been dictated by the shift in power that took place subsequent to 1945.
    1:36:01 And when people were starting to write these sort of major narratives in the 1970s and 80s and into the 1990s, is through a prism of a very, very different world.
    1:36:11 And so one of the reasons why you have this narrative that, you know, Britain was a bit rubbish and hanging on the shirt tails of the Americans and, you know, all the blood was spelt in Eastern Front.
    1:36:16 And, you know, Germany had the best army in the world and was only defeated because Hitler was mad and blah, blah, blah.
    1:36:31 You know, that kind of sort of traditional narrative, it’s that narrative emerges through the prism of what was going on in the 1970s and what was going on in the 1980s and the changing world rather than looking at it through the prism of the late 1930s or early 1940s.
    1:36:33 So there is this moment of decision.
    1:36:37 When do you think, what lesson do you take from that?
    1:36:53 When is the right time for appeasement, to negotiate, for diplomacy, and when is the right time for military strength, offensive, attacking, for military conflict?
    1:36:56 Where’s that line?
    1:37:00 Well, I kind of think it probably was when it was.
    1:37:03 I mean, Poland.
    1:37:04 Yeah.
    1:37:10 Honestly, I’m not sure it would have been the right decision to go to war in 1938.
    1:37:19 I just, I think it would, I can’t predict because you can’t second guess how things are going to play out because you just don’t know.
    1:37:23 But I’m not sure that Chamberlain made the wrong decision.
    1:37:25 I’m not saying he made the right decision.
    1:37:28 I’m just like, I’m not, I’m being a bit wishy-washy about this.
    1:37:31 You could have threatened it more.
    1:37:34 Imagine Churchill in those same meetings.
    1:37:36 Yeah, but Churchill also appeases.
    1:37:38 I mean, he appeases Stalin all the time.
    1:37:43 I mean, you know, so the idea that Churchill’s this big, strong man and never appeases and, you know, he’s gung-ho for war.
    1:37:46 Churchill’s out of the government at that time.
    1:37:48 He recognizes you can’t trust Hitler.
    1:37:50 He recognizes that Nazism is bad.
    1:37:59 But he, because he’s out of the government, he doesn’t have a window on exactly where Britain is at that particular time in a way that Chamberlain does.
    1:38:13 You know, so I suppose what I’m saying is Chamberlain is better placed to make those decisions than Churchill is, which again doesn’t mean that Chamberlain is right and Churchill is wrong.
    1:38:27 It’s just, that’s a massive pump to go to war in 1938 when you still don’t have, you know, you’ve got a handful of Spitfires, you’ve got a handful of Hurricanes, you haven’t got enough, you know, your air defense system isn’t properly sorted at this point.
    1:38:30 Your Navy is strong.
    1:38:32 But, you know, what’s that going to look like?
    1:38:39 I mean, if you do go to war, because there’s not going to be armies sweeping into Germany.
    1:38:44 It’s just, it’s going to be accelerated industrialization for a year.
    1:38:50 So, you know, even if you go to war in 1938 over Czechoslovakia, Czechoslovakia will not be saved.
    1:38:54 You know, France and Britain will not be going and invading Germany.
    1:38:56 You know, that is absolutely not going to happen.
    1:38:58 So, sort of, what’s the point?
    1:39:07 I mean, you know, if you’re not going to do that, why don’t you accelerate your rearmament thereafter, get your ducks in a row, and then you can consider it.
    1:39:10 I mean, after all, you know, even in September 1939, they don’t really do anything.
    1:39:17 I mean, we talked about the kind of, the SAR offensive, which isn’t really an offensive at all.
    1:39:20 It’s firing one round of machine gun and scuttling back again.
    1:39:23 But, I mean, they don’t even do that then.
    1:39:25 They’re still buying time in 1939.
    1:39:30 And, you know, Britain is only just about ready to take on the onslaught of the Luftwaffe in the summer of 1940.
    1:39:33 Well, nobody is ready for war.
    1:39:37 No, and you always want more than you’ve got at any time, even when you’re winning.
    1:39:40 But, like, really not ready.
    1:39:47 Even, like you mentioned with Barbarossa, the Nazi Germany is really not ready.
    1:39:47 Not ready.
    1:39:50 Nobody’s really, except France.
    1:39:51 I swear.
    1:39:52 France?
    1:39:53 Only France have radios.
    1:39:54 Fine.
    1:39:55 But, come on.
    1:39:56 Come on.
    1:40:01 When, when, when, when Nazi Germany invades Poland, I mean.
    1:40:02 Yeah, it’s terrible.
    1:40:03 It’s terrible.
    1:40:16 Because I’m absolutely, I also do think that had France gone in, in some force, with some British troops as well, had they gone in, what would have happened is, is that would have, that easily could have brought down Hitler.
    1:40:21 Because most of his commanders are, his senior commanders are just thinking, what the hell is going on?
    1:40:22 This is a catastrophe.
    1:40:24 I mean, to a man.
    1:40:26 I mean, even Göring is thinking, this is a terrible idea.
    1:40:29 They are absolutely not convinced.
    1:40:36 And when Hitler does his big talk to his, his, he asks all his senior commanders to come to the Berghof to brief them about the invasion of Poland.
    1:40:42 It’s just after the Ribbentrop-Molotov pact of the 22nd of August.
    1:40:46 He calls them all to Berghof and says, come in, you know, come in mufti, come in civilian suits.
    1:40:49 They all turn up and he gives them this kind of huge, great speech.
    1:40:51 And says, this is the moment.
    1:40:52 This is, this is the time.
    1:40:53 This is what we’re going to do.
    1:40:54 And they’re all going, what?
    1:40:56 You’re kidding me.
    1:40:59 What, we’re going to Poland in, you know, on the 26th of August.
    1:40:59 That’s the plan.
    1:41:00 Like, two days time.
    1:41:02 You know, where’s the plan?
    1:41:12 Where’s the, you know, the whole point is that, you know, they’re emerging and growing militarily, but they were supposed to have all these exercises where they, you know, coordinating ground forces.
    1:41:16 You know, the, you know, the panzer spearhead with operations in the air with the Luftwaffe.
    1:41:18 None of that happens.
    1:41:19 So Poland becomes the proving ground.
    1:41:24 And actually they discover that there’s lots of things that don’t work and lots of things that are wrong.
    1:41:32 But, but, but, you know, it’s flying in the face of all convention, military convention that, that they, you know, he does this without any kind of warning.
    1:41:50 And even by the 1st of September, where there’s been this kind of sort of five-day delay, um, at those last minute negotiations, the last minute negotiations are thrust upon Hitler by people like Goering and by Mussolini and, and the Italians going, God, oh my God, don’t do this.
    1:41:50 Don’t do this.
    1:41:52 You know, there’s got to be a solution.
    1:41:54 Hitler’s absolutely jumping at the bit.
    1:42:01 So in that case, from a dark militaristic perspective, his bet paid off.
    1:42:07 Well, except that it ended in ruins in May, 1945 with the total collapse of Germany.
    1:42:11 So you could say the worst decision he ever made was going into Poland in September, 1939.
    1:42:12 It depends on the way you look at it.
    1:42:14 But I mean, yes, you know, it’s successful.
    1:42:17 And that the, you know, Poland’s overrun in 18 days.
    1:42:20 There’s, there’s so many counterfactuals here.
    1:42:34 But I mean, if you would say to Hitler on the 30th of April, you know, as he’s sort of taking out the pistol from his holster on his sofa in the, in the Fuhrer bunk and going, you know, so out of 1st of September, 1939, still backing yourself on that one.
    1:42:36 I mean, he might, might have a different view.
    1:42:39 The guy’s insane and full of blunder.
    1:42:41 So he probably would have said, yeah, do it all over again.
    1:42:42 Yeah, I’m sure he would have done that as well.
    1:42:44 Conquest.
    1:42:46 Poland was not a mistake.
    1:42:48 Soviet Union was not a mistake.
    1:42:48 No.
    1:42:49 It’s just some of the tactics.
    1:42:51 Other people I was let down by, by people not being strong enough.
    1:42:53 Yeah, the Prussian generals are all.
    1:42:54 Yeah, yeah, of course.
    1:42:55 That’s exactly what he’d say.
    1:42:57 It wasn’t my fault.
    1:43:02 He might have quietly done some different decisions about Barbarossa.
    1:43:05 Maybe the timing would be different.
    1:43:08 Maybe that all out central for us rather than kind of splitting it into three.
    1:43:16 But he was very sure, it seems like, maybe you can correct me, that Britain and France would still carry on with appeasement,
    1:43:18 even after he invaded Poland.
    1:43:19 Absolutely.
    1:43:21 He was completely convinced by it.
    1:43:26 There was clearly a kind of sort of 10 to 15% level of doubt.
    1:43:27 But what the heck?
    1:43:28 I’m going to do it anyway.
    1:43:36 He was just, he ratcheted himself up into such a laver of kind of, this is the moment.
    1:43:37 I have to do it now.
    1:43:38 This is fate.
    1:43:38 I’m 50.
    1:43:42 And, and, you know, I could be taken out by an assassin’s bullet.
    1:43:44 I’ve got this important life work that I’ve got to do.
    1:43:45 We’ve got to get on with it now.
    1:43:47 There could be no more delay.
    1:43:48 This is my mission.
    1:43:50 You know, this is our mission of the German people.
    1:43:54 And either the German people have got the will and the, and the spirit to be able to pull
    1:43:57 it off or, you know, I was wrong.
    1:44:00 And, and therefore, you know, we don’t deserve to be a thousand year, right?
    1:44:02 We don’t deserve to be the master race.
    1:44:07 Black or white, us or them, either or, it’s same all the time.
    1:44:12 So can you tell the story of the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact in 1939?
    1:44:18 So they make an agreement, Nazi Germany, the Soviet Union, and that leads us, just like
    1:44:22 you were mentioning, in a matter of days, how compact everything is.
    1:44:24 It’s just really, really fascinating.
    1:44:27 It’s a beautiful summer in Europe, summer of 1939.
    1:44:31 You know, it’s one of these sort of glorious summers that sort of never rains.
    1:44:35 It’s just sunshine, sunny day after sunny day.
    1:44:40 It’s kind of, you know, it’s like that sort of golden summer of 1914 as well, you know,
    1:44:45 where sky always seems to be blue, fluffy white clouds, everyone’s sort of, you know,
    1:44:49 but this sort of, the storm clouds of war, to use that cliche, are kind of brewing.
    1:44:56 The Russians have reached out to Britain and France and said, come on, come on over, let’s
    1:44:58 negotiate, you know, let’s see what we can do.
    1:45:02 And there is just no stomach for that at all.
    1:45:10 I mean, if ever there is a, I think, a mistake, that’s Britain and France should have been a
    1:45:14 bit more into real politics than they were.
    1:45:21 It’s such an opportunity to ensure that, to snooker the Third Reich, and they don’t take
    1:45:28 it, because, you know, in many ways, they see the westward spread of communism in exactly
    1:45:32 the same way that the Nazis see the threat of the westward spread of communism as something
    1:45:37 that’s every bit as repellent as Nazism, and they don’t want to be getting into bed with
    1:45:38 these guys.
    1:45:46 And, of course, they kind of have to kind of change tack on that one in summer of 1941
    1:45:48 in, you know, very quick order.
    1:45:51 And that’s the whole point about Churchill appeasing Stalin.
    1:45:54 I mean, you know, it’s all very well people saying, well, you know, Churchill wouldn’t have
    1:45:56 appeased Hitler in the 1930s, but he does appease.
    1:45:57 He appeases all the time.
    1:46:01 And they miss that opportunity.
    1:46:07 And the French and British delegation is third-tier commanders, generals going over.
    1:46:10 It’s a, you know, it’s a shit show.
    1:46:15 I mean, yeah, excuse my French, but I mean, it’s just, it’s a nonsense that they’re not
    1:46:15 ready for it.
    1:46:16 They’re not prepared.
    1:46:21 The British guy, Admiral Drax, doesn’t have any authority.
    1:46:23 The whole thing’s a complete joke.
    1:46:25 It’s never going to get anywhere.
    1:46:27 You tell the story of this quite beautifully, actually.
    1:46:30 Uh, again, it’s such a human story.
    1:46:33 I mean, the, it seems like the Stalin and Soviet.
    1:46:35 They’ve already made up their mind.
    1:46:37 But I don’t think they have.
    1:46:37 I think what they.
    1:46:38 Wait, wait, wait, wait, wait.
    1:46:42 I mean, you described quite well that they value in-person meeting.
    1:46:43 Yes.
    1:46:46 So like Chamberlain should have just gone to Moscow.
    1:46:47 Yeah, get on a plane.
    1:46:57 Like it, it’s such a, uh, maybe it’s a simplistic notion, but that could have changed the trajectory
    1:46:58 of human history right there.
    1:46:59 I really think it could have done.
    1:47:04 I think that was, I think that’s, I think that’s much more grievous mistake than, than, than Munich.
    1:47:08 Why are leaders so hesitant to meet?
    1:47:14 I, I, I’m told now by a bunch of diplomats that no, no, no, no, there’s a process.
    1:47:19 You know, at first you have to have these diplomats meet and they have to draft a bunch of stuff.
    1:47:25 And I sometimes have this simplistic notion, like, why not, why not meet?
    1:47:26 Why not meet?
    1:47:29 Like, I think there is a human element there.
    1:47:35 Um, of course, especially when there’s this force that is Hitler.
    1:47:36 Well, yes.
    1:47:43 And because we humans, we like to interact and, and you like to see people in three dimensions.
    1:47:49 And, you know, I’m sure it’s why you always quite rightly insist on doing your podcast face
    1:47:53 to face because you want to get the cut of someone’s jib and you want to be able to see them and you
    1:47:58 want to see the intonation in the expression and the whites of their eyes and all that kind
    1:47:58 of stuff.
    1:48:02 And that just doesn’t make a difference, of course, because, you know, we’re fundamentally
    1:48:07 animals and we kind of, we, we want to be sizing people up and it’s much easier to do that when
    1:48:13 you’re a few feet away from each other than it is on a video screen or through the prism
    1:48:13 of someone else.
    1:48:14 Yeah.
    1:48:18 But there’s also just, you see the, the humanity in, in others.
    1:48:19 It’s so much easier.
    1:48:21 You see this in social media.
    1:48:25 It’s so much easier to talk shit about others when you’re not with them.
    1:48:26 Yes.
    1:48:29 And like military conflict is the extreme version of that.
    1:48:30 Yeah.
    1:48:35 You can construct these narratives that they’re not human, that they’re evil, that they’re,
    1:48:41 you can construct a communist ideology, all of these, you can project onto them the worst
    1:48:46 possible version of what, of a human.
    1:48:49 But when you meet them, you’re like, oh, they are just a person.
    1:48:50 They’re just a person.
    1:48:53 Well, it’s the world’s great tragedy that, that, that it’s only a few people that want to
    1:48:57 go to war and the vast majority want to live happily, contented lives, getting on with their
    1:48:57 neighbors.
    1:48:59 I mean, it has been ever thus.
    1:49:04 It’s just, it is those few that kind of ruin it for everybody else.
    1:49:10 But, but, but anyway, to go back to Leningrad, back in August, 1939, they go half cock.
    1:49:14 They’re disrespectful to Soviet Union as a result of that.
    1:49:16 It gets nowhere.
    1:49:22 Had they been able to put on a really, really firm offer there and then to the Soviet Union,
    1:49:26 Soviet Union would have, would have probably come in.
    1:49:30 I mean, the big thing is, is that the Soviet Union said, this is a big stumbling block.
    1:49:36 The Soviet Union said, yeah, but we want to be able to march through Poland if we get threatened
    1:49:40 by Germany, but if the British and the French just smell a massive rat there, they’re basically
    1:49:46 saying, you know, if they agree to that, what they’re, what they fear is that Soviet Union
    1:49:50 will just march into Poland and go, yeah, but you said we could and take it, which they
    1:49:54 unquestionably would have done, but it would have stopped the world war properly.
    1:49:56 They’re willing to appease Hitler.
    1:49:58 They’re not willing to appease Stalin in that situation.
    1:50:00 Well, they’re not willing to appease anybody by that stage.
    1:50:01 That’s the point.
    1:50:03 Well, they appeased Hitler.
    1:50:08 They did, but there’s a bottom line, you know, which is, which is Poland, you know,
    1:50:09 so it’s changed.
    1:50:10 That’s the point.
    1:50:11 Right, right.
    1:50:15 But anyway, the bottom line is they don’t, you know, there is a, there is a, a reluctance
    1:50:19 on the part of French and British to negotiate with the Soviet Union because they’re communists,
    1:50:24 don’t like them, don’t trust them, worry about what they’re going to do with Poland and
    1:50:28 they’re going to be, you know, jumping out of the fire into the kind of water.
    1:50:30 And it doesn’t come off.
    1:50:36 And as a consequence of that, Soviet Union continued to pursue more hardly, you know,
    1:50:43 more, more vociferously the opportunities that the, that the Germans are offering, which
    1:50:51 is the split of Poland because Soviet Union wants that part of Poland back in its own sphere
    1:50:54 of influence and it doesn’t want to go to war just yet.
    1:50:58 And the agreement that they won’t attack each other, is that right?
    1:50:58 Yeah.
    1:51:01 Do you think Stalin actually believed that?
    1:51:04 No, he believed it in the same way that Hitler believed it, that it was a cynical kind of,
    1:51:07 you know, convenient bit of real politic for now.
    1:51:13 I mean, I think, I think Soviet Union was as determined to get rid of the Nazis as the Nazis
    1:51:14 were determined to get rid of the Soviet Union.
    1:51:20 I think whoever fired first was not, not decided at that point.
    1:51:23 But I do think that from the moment that Hitler takes power in 1933, a conflict between Soviet
    1:51:25 Nazi Germany is inevitable.
    1:51:25 Yeah.
    1:51:28 So either direction, you think it’s inevitable.
    1:51:28 Yeah.
    1:51:31 I think, I think there’s, yeah, there’s a huge amount of evidence for that.
    1:51:35 Stalin probably wanted it, what, like in 42, 43?
    1:51:35 Yeah.
    1:51:36 Something like that.
    1:51:37 Yeah.
    1:51:39 And, and, you know, they’re doing exercises and stuff and building out of it.
    1:51:42 He’s not ready yet because he knows he’s done the purges and he’s got to get his, his army,
    1:51:45 you know, he’s got to get his armed forces back into shape and all the rest of it.
    1:51:48 But, you know, so they have this incredibly cynical agreement.
    1:51:52 But at that point, you know, Hitler’s hands are untied.
    1:51:56 You know, he no longer has to worry about, about the threat from Soviet Union.
    1:52:00 He’s got carte blanche to go into Poland and he doesn’t believe that France and Britain are
    1:52:01 going to go to war over Poland.
    1:52:03 He’s wrong about that, obviously.
    1:52:06 But, but, but France and Britain, despite going to war with him, still do nothing.
    1:52:09 So, you know, he’s got a way of it.
    1:52:14 Who was Churchill and how did Churchill come to power at this moment?
    1:52:19 Well, Churchill is this absolutely towering figure in British politics, you know, who’s
    1:52:24 been, you know, his first minister in the kind of noughties of the 20th century and the
    1:52:26 first years of, of the 20th century.
    1:52:29 Um, first of the liberals, then of the conservatives.
    1:52:33 He’s a former chancellor, um, um, of the exchequer.
    1:52:41 Um, he’s a towering figure, but he’s been in the wilderness because he’s out of favor with
    1:52:43 the Stanley Baldwin government.
    1:52:49 Um, he’s out of favor with, with, with Chamberlain, but he is this towering figure and he has been
    1:52:53 very outspoken as a backbencher, which basically means, you know, you’re not a minister, you’re
    1:52:57 not in the cabinet, you’re just an ordinary member of parliament, but obviously you’re an
    1:53:00 ordinary member of parliament, but you’re also an ordinary member of parliament who has
    1:53:03 had ministries of state and who is this towering figure.
    1:53:06 So he’s listened to in a way that other backbenchers aren’t.
    1:53:09 Um, and he has been saying, you know, we need to stand up to the dictators.
    1:53:10 We need to do this.
    1:53:14 Um, we need to rearm more, more heavily, uh, and blah, blah, blah.
    1:53:20 So when war is declared, he’s brought back into the Admiralty, um, and charge of the Navy,
    1:53:21 which is Britain’s senior service.
    1:53:25 And, um, um, suddenly he’s there.
    1:53:29 And what happens is Britain doesn’t really do anything.
    1:53:33 It’s very difficult working with France because France is so politically fractured that they
    1:53:34 can’t make any decisions.
    1:53:37 When you can’t make any decisions, you’re just impotent.
    1:53:42 Um, and so Churchill first mentions going into Norway, mining the leads.
    1:53:45 So, um, the idea is that you’re making life very difficult for the Germans to get iron ore
    1:53:46 out of Sweden.
    1:53:50 Their main, their main source of iron ore is up in the Northern part of Sweden in the Arctic
    1:53:50 circle.
    1:53:56 It then goes on a railway through Northern tip of Norway and then gets shipped down the,
    1:54:00 um, West coast of Norway into Germany, into the Baltic.
    1:54:06 So, uh, Churchill suggests in September, 1939, why don’t we mine the leads, which are the leads
    1:54:12 are these passageways, um, out of the fjords and the, in the North into the, uh, into the North
    1:54:12 sea.
    1:54:17 Why don’t we mine those and stop the Germans from, from, from, um, um, taking this?
    1:54:19 Everyone goes, well, yeah, that’s quite a good idea, but they can’t decide.
    1:54:23 And French are nervous that if they do that, the Germans retaliate and bomb France and all
    1:54:24 this kind of stuff.
    1:54:30 So no decision is made until kind of April, 19, 1940, they go up to start mining the leads
    1:54:33 on exactly the same day that the Germans invade Denmark and Norway.
    1:54:36 And so they’re, they’re caught off guards.
    1:54:39 And at that moment, really, it’s seen as a failure of Chamberlain’s government.
    1:54:45 And there is a kind of, uh, a mounting realization that no matter how good he was or competent
    1:54:48 he was as a peacetime prime minister, he’s not a wartime prime minister.
    1:54:50 You know, he’s not served in the armed forces himself.
    1:54:52 He doesn’t really understand it.
    1:54:57 It needs a different set of hands and, um, his government falls on the 9th of May.
    1:54:59 It becomes inevitable that he’s going to have to resign.
    1:55:05 And the obvious person to take his place is Lord Halifax, who is in the house of Lords,
    1:55:06 but you can still be a prime minister.
    1:55:11 And, um, he is without question, the most respected politician in the country.
    1:55:15 He’s, um, um, former Viceroy of India.
    1:55:23 He’s seen as incredibly safe pair of hands, man of resolute sound judgment, et cetera, et
    1:55:23 cetera.
    1:55:26 Um, but he doesn’t want to take it.
    1:55:28 He feels physically ill at the prospect.
    1:55:29 Doesn’t want this responsibility.
    1:55:31 He’s also not really a military man.
    1:55:34 He’s got a slightly sort of withered hand, which has prevented him from doing military
    1:55:35 service.
    1:55:38 And he just blanches at this moment.
    1:55:43 And that really leaves only one other figure that could possibly take on this position.
    1:55:43 And that’s Churchill.
    1:55:51 So when Chamberlain resigns on the 9th of May and Halifax says, it’s, it’s not for me.
    1:55:54 Um, the only person who’s going to slip into that position is Churchill.
    1:55:57 And he becomes prime minister and he accepts it gladly.
    1:56:00 He feels like it is his mission in life.
    1:56:01 This is his moment.
    1:56:04 Come of the outcome of the man, but he comes with a huge amount of baggage.
    1:56:08 I mean, you know, he’s known as a man who drinks too much, who’s, whose judgment hasn’t
    1:56:08 always been great.
    1:56:12 You know, he was chancellor during the time of the general strike 1926.
    1:56:17 You know, he backed Edward the eighth over the, uh, monarchy crisis when the King wanted
    1:56:21 to marry Wallace Simpson, the divorcee, Catholic divorcee, et cetera, et cetera.
    1:56:23 So, you know, his judgment has been brought into question.
    1:56:27 You know, he is the man who was, he came up with the idea of the Gallipoli campaign.
    1:56:30 Which was, you know, an ignominious failure, blah, blah, blah.
    1:56:32 So there are issues over him.
    1:56:37 You know, he is seen as a hothead and a man who doesn’t have the kind of sound judgment of
    1:56:37 Halifax.
    1:56:40 So the jury is, is very much out.
    1:56:44 And I think it’s, again, it’s one of those things where you have to put yourself in.
    1:56:48 You have to look at this through the prism of what people were thinking in May, 1940.
    1:56:49 Yes.
    1:56:56 He, he was considered a towering politician, but he is seen also as a loose cannon and by
    1:57:00 no means the right person in this hour of darkness.
    1:57:06 And it is coincidental that the 10th of May, 1940, when he takes over as prime minister, becomes
    1:57:11 prime minister, not for an election, but by default of a new nationalist government.
    1:57:17 So no longer a conservative government, but a nationalist cross-party coalition government
    1:57:23 for the duration of the war, which includes, you know, members of, of the liberal party and
    1:57:31 also the labor party, as well as conservatives, that it is by no means certain that, that he’s
    1:57:32 going to be able to deliver the goods.
    1:57:38 And it is also coincidentally the same day that the Germans launched Case Yellow, Operation
    1:57:41 Yellow, the invasion of the low countries in France.
    1:57:47 So these are tumultuous events, to put it mildly.
    1:57:54 And it is also the case that, you know, only a couple of weeks before, Paul Reynaud has taken
    1:57:59 over as prime minister of yet another coalition government in France from, from Deladier.
    1:58:06 So political turmoil is very much the watchword at this time for the, for the Western democracies,
    1:58:11 just at the moment that the Germans are making their kind of, you know, their hammer strike
    1:58:11 into the West.
    1:58:19 This might be a good moment to bring up this idea that has been circulating recently brought
    1:58:26 up by Darrell Cooper, who hyperbolically stated that Churchill was the, quote, chief villain
    1:58:28 of the Second World War.
    1:58:34 To give a good faith interpretation of that, I believe he meant that Churchill forced Hitler
    1:58:38 to escalate the expansion of Nazi Germany beyond Poland into a global war.
    1:58:48 So Churchill is the one that turned this narrow war, Czechoslovakia, Austria, Poland, into a
    1:58:49 global one.
    1:58:53 Is that accurate?
    1:58:54 No, I don’t think it is.
    1:58:58 I mean, not least because the decisions over Poland were made by Chamberlain’s government,
    1:58:59 not when Churchill was out of government.
    1:59:03 So, you know, Churchill wasn’t even involved in that decision-making process at the time.
    1:59:05 No, I don’t think so.
    1:59:11 I mean, again, I go back to kind of Britain’s position in the world in 1939.
    1:59:20 If you say, we are going to defend the sovereignty of Poland, and then you don’t, that looks really
    1:59:20 bad globally.
    1:59:25 You know, Britain’s prestige would plummet, would lead to all sorts of problems.
    1:59:30 You are saying that you’re giving carte blanche to dictators to just run amok and take whatever
    1:59:31 territory they want.
    1:59:39 You are risking a future upheaval of the global order away from democracies into the hands
    1:59:40 of dictators.
    1:59:47 You know, in the West, people believe in democracy and believe in advancement of freedoms of people.
    1:59:56 To echo the words of Roosevelt in August 1941, you know, they’re responding to a world free
    1:59:57 of want and fear.
    2:00:06 Now, obviously, there’s still some issues with the form that democracy takes in the 1930s.
    2:00:08 It’s not democratic for everyone.
    2:00:15 You know, try saying that if you’re in Nigeria or India or whatever, or if you’re, you know,
    2:00:19 in the black Southern states of the United States, but the aspirations are there.
    2:00:22 And I think that’s, that’s, that’s an important distinction.
    2:00:27 And I think by saying that, that Churchill is the chief warmonger of the Second World War,
    2:00:28 I think is, is ludicrous.
    2:00:33 You know, it’s the same thing about, about the bombing, you know, the, the, the detractors
    2:00:37 of strategic air campaign always go, yeah, but you know, Germans had the Holocaust, but,
    2:00:40 but weren’t the, weren’t the allies just as bad just killing all those civilians?
    2:00:44 It’s like, no, because the moment Hitler stopped the war, the bombing would stop, you
    2:00:49 know, the moment the war stopped in Hitler’s favor, the killing would continue and be accelerated.
    2:00:55 So the, the thing you mentioned initially is the sort of the idealist perspective of, well,
    2:01:05 Britain can’t allow sort of, uh, this warmonger to break all these pacts and be undemocratic,
    2:01:15 you know, um, murder a large number of people and do conquest of territory.
    2:01:16 Okay.
    2:01:17 That’s idealistic.
    2:01:26 But if we look at the realist perspective, what decisions would minimize the amount of suffering
    2:01:28 on the continent in the next 50 years?
    2:01:36 So one of the arguments that he’s making, I happen to disagree with it, to put it mildly,
    2:01:42 is that Churchill increased the amount of suffering.
    2:01:45 So Churchill, Churchill’s presence and decisions.
    2:01:48 So we’re not talking about idealistic perspective.
    2:01:55 We’re talking about realist, like the reality of the war, of Stalin, of, of Hitler, of Churchill,
    2:02:04 of, uh, of France and FDR, did Churchill drag Hitler into a world war?
    2:02:08 Did he force Hitler to invade Soviet Union?
    2:02:15 Did he force Hitler to then invade, uh, attack Britain?
    2:02:19 Well, no, because, because Hitler was always going to invade the Soviet Union if, unless,
    2:02:22 unless the Soviet Union invaded Germany first.
    2:02:23 So that was always going to happen.
    2:02:32 Um, no one asked Hitler to invade the low countries and Norway and Denmark and attack Britain.
    2:02:42 Um, he does that, of course, because he’s not given a free hand in Poland, but there’s
    2:02:47 no question that Hitler would have also wanted to subdue France or certainly turn France from
    2:02:50 a democracy into a totalitarian state as well.
    2:02:51 I’m absolutely certain about that.
    2:02:54 So I think there’s pretty definitive evidence.
    2:02:57 I mean, it’s obvious from everything he said, from everything he’s written, from everything,
    2:03:03 everywhere that he was going to invade the Soviet Union, uh, no matter what.
    2:03:07 And France, most likely, yes.
    2:03:09 Also, he would have done a deal with Britain.
    2:03:10 Britain could have existed.
    2:03:18 So, actually, there is a, is there, there is a possible reality, I don’t know, maybe you
    2:03:22 can correct me on this, where Hitler basically takes all of Europe except Britain.
    2:03:26 Yes, but then he would have got so strong that he would have then turned on Britain as well,
    2:03:31 you know, because he, he would, you know, the fear is that if you let him do this and then,
    2:03:34 then he gets greedy, he wants the next one, then he wants the next one, then he wants the
    2:03:34 next one.
    2:03:36 And, you know, then he wants to take over the whole world.
    2:03:40 And, you know, that is, that is the fear of the British.
    2:03:42 That is the fear of the Americans.
    2:03:46 That’s the fear of President Roosevelt, who’s got a very, we haven’t even touched on this
    2:03:53 yet, but he has a very difficult, uh, um, case on his hands because he’s come into power
    2:04:00 also in January, 1933, um, as President of the United States on an isolationist ticket
    2:04:05 with a retrenching, with a kind of sort of, you know, step away from the European old order.
    2:04:06 It’s time for the Europeans to start on their own.
    2:04:09 Um, it all sounds very familiar right now.
    2:04:16 Um, and, and suddenly he’s got to do this gargantuan political vault fast, um, and prepare
    2:04:21 the nation for war because he also fears, like Churchill fears, like most, like Chamberlain
    2:04:29 feared as well, um, that, that Hitler’s designs are not purely on Eastern Europe and the Liebens
    2:04:31 from there, but would get ever bigger.
    2:04:34 And I don’t, I don’t doubt that they’re right.
    2:04:38 I think if he’d prevailed in the Soviet Union, you know, he’d, he’d always wanted more, you
    2:04:41 know, because his whole concept is the master race, you know?
    2:04:42 Yeah.
    2:04:48 I think, I think it should be said if we, if we measure human suffering, if there was not
    2:04:55 Britain on the other side, if it was not a two front war, that the chances of Hitler succeeding
    2:04:58 in the Soviet Union is much higher or at least a more prolonged war.
    2:05:04 And there would be more dead and more enslaved and more tortured and all of this.
    2:05:05 Yes.
    2:05:09 And, and ditto, if you, you know, if the, if the allies hadn’t gone involved against Imperial
    2:05:12 Japan, you know, it would have been, would have been catastrophic.
    2:05:20 I mean, 20 to 30 million Chinese dead anyway, you know, with American and British intervention.
    2:05:22 And it wasn’t going to be in China without that.
    2:05:29 I mean, and elsewhere, you know, because, because the reason why Japan invades French,
    2:05:38 Indo-China, now Vietnam, um, and Hong Kong and, um, and Malaya and Singapore and, uh, and so
    2:05:44 on and Burma is because it’s not winning in China and it needs more resources because it’s
    2:05:48 resource poor and America has cut off the tap.
    2:05:52 So it’s going into these countries to, to get what it needs.
    2:05:57 It’s rubber and oil and natural resources and oils, precious oils and all the rest of it.
    2:06:01 And if it had been unchecked, it would have done so.
    2:06:06 And then it would have absolutely built up its strength and overrun the whole of China with
    2:06:07 even more deaths.
    2:06:12 So, you know, I, I, I think there is, I think that one of the interesting things about the
    2:06:16 second world war is, is lots of wars and why people get involved in them are extremely
    2:06:23 questionable, but I think there is a moral crusade to, to the allies and what they’re
    2:06:26 doing that I think is entirely justified.
    2:06:33 What I think is interesting also is that as the war progresses, you know, if the allies
    2:06:36 are supposed to be on the force of the good, how come they’re doing so much bad?
    2:06:40 And at what point is doing bad, stopping you from doing good?
    2:06:45 And at what point are you doing good, but also doing bad at the same time, such as destruction
    2:06:52 of cities, um, destruction of monasteries on outcrops in Southern Italy, you know, destruction
    2:06:56 of killing a lot of civilians, et cetera, et cetera.
    2:07:02 You know, these are, these are difficult questions to, to answer sometimes.
    2:07:05 They’re also incredibly interesting.
    2:07:09 And I think that moral component starts to blur a little bit by kind of middle of the
    2:07:10 war by 1943.
    2:07:17 You know, it’s, it’s kind of easy to have a, a fairly, uh, cut and dry, uh, war in North
    2:07:20 Africa and the deserts of North Africa, where, you know, the only people getting in the way
    2:07:22 are, are a few sort of Bedouin tribesmen or something.
    2:07:27 But, but once you start getting into Europe or getting into the kind of the, the meat of highly
    2:07:32 dominated countries in the far East, um, for example, that’s a different kettle of fish
    2:07:39 because the scale of destruction is absolutely immense, but it is also the job of, of political
    2:07:44 leaders, um, to look after and defend their own peoples first and foremost.
    2:07:48 And so what you’re doing is you’re trying to protect your own sovereignty, your own people
    2:07:51 before you’re protecting other people.
    2:07:58 And so that’s what leads to, you know, the whole way in which the allies are the Western
    2:08:04 allies are protracting war is to try and minimize the number of deaths of their own young men as
    2:08:07 much as they possibly can, whilst at the same time winning the war.
    2:08:13 And that means bringing lots of destruction to your enemies, but also trying to minimize it.
    2:08:16 And the way you bring lots of destruction by to your enemies is by using immense firepower
    2:08:21 and this concept of steel, not our flesh, which I mentioned earlier on and technology,
    2:08:26 um, so that you don’t have to bring to bear too many of your young men’s eyes.
    2:08:29 You don’t have a repeat of the slaughter of the first world war.
    2:08:34 So, you know, it is really interesting that, that in, in, in our mind’s eye, when we’re thinking
    2:08:39 of, you know, the Western allies and the second world war, probably the first thing that comes
    2:08:43 into mind is Americans jumping out of landing craft on Omaha beach on D-Day, for example,
    2:08:48 those are infantrymen. They’re the frontline, they are the coal face of that. They’re the first people
    2:08:55 going into the, into the fire of the enemy. And we tend to think about guys in tanks, um, infantrymen
    2:09:01 with their Garand rifles or, you know, machine guns or whatever. That’s, that’s what springs to mind.
    2:09:07 Yet actually they’re a comparatively small proportion of the army. So no more than 14 to 15% of any army
    2:09:14 allied army is infantry. 45% are service corps, service troops, driving trucks and cooks and
    2:09:19 bottle washers and people lugging great big boxes of stuff. You know, and that’s because by that stage,
    2:09:23 you know, the allies have worked out of the way of war, which is, is to, is to use is what I call big
    2:09:30 war. This concept of, of a very long tail logistics, the operational art, making sure that people have
    2:09:36 the absolute best you possibly can, great medical care, huge advances in, in, in first aid and medical
    2:09:41 care of troops, getting them back onto the battlefield. And you’re using firepower and
    2:09:48 technology and mechanization to do a lot of your hard yards. So, you know, that’s the principle behind
    2:09:53 strategic bombing. You know, if you can, if you go over and bomb and you can destroy infrastructure
    2:09:59 and civilians and households that makes it much harder for, for crop to make those pamphlet tanks
    2:10:04 and tiger tanks or whatever it might be and guns, uh, and you know, you’re disrupting the
    2:10:09 transportation system in Germany, you know, you’re making life difficult for them to do what they need
    2:10:14 to do. Then that means it’s going to be easier for those 15, 14, 15% of infantry. And you’ve got to
    2:10:19 jump out of landing craft to do their job. And you’re trying to keep that to a minimum. And you’d have to
    2:10:23 say, broadly speaking, that’s a very sensible policy that makes an awful lot of sense.
    2:10:31 consequence of that is a huge amount of destruction. And maybe that’s what Daryl Cooper’s
    2:10:38 driving at, but no one asked Hitler to invade Poland. I mean, you know, that is the bottom line.
    2:10:42 No one asked Germany to go to war. No one asked Hitler to come up with these ludicrous ideology.
    2:10:49 Yeah. There’s complex ethical discussions here about, uh, uh, just as you described,
    2:10:52 which are fascinating, which are fascinating. And, uh,
    2:11:00 war is how, and there’s many ways in which it is how, uh, just for a little bit, the steel
    2:11:10 man, what, uh, Daryl is where he might be coming from is since world war two, the simplistic
    2:11:19 simplistic veneration of Churchill. So I was saying Churchill, good, Hitler, bad has been used as a
    2:11:29 template to project under other conflicts to justify military, uh, intervention. And so his general,
    2:11:37 his and other people like libertarians, for example, resistance to that overly simplistic veneration of
    2:11:43 somebody like Churchill has to do with the fact that that seems to be by neocons and warmongers
    2:11:50 in the military industrial complex in the United States and elsewhere, using Hitler way too much,
    2:11:54 using Churchill way too much to justify invading everywhere and anywhere.
    2:11:59 Well, I, I, I do agree with that. I think oversimplification of anything is a mistake.
    2:12:06 You know, life is nuanced. The past is nuanced. It’s okay to be proud about certain things and it’s
    2:12:09 okay to be disgusted by other things. That’s absolutely fine. You know, we have a complicated
    2:12:15 relationship with our past. It doesn’t need to be black and white and, um, you know, life is not a
    2:12:19 straight line. And of course there’s the, you know, the allies make plenty of mistakes in, in,
    2:12:23 in world war two overall, I think they made the right calls. And I think one of the things that’s
    2:12:30 really interesting is I think that the allies for the most part use their resources much more
    2:12:40 judiciously and sensibly than the axis powers do. And, you know, good, um, because that means they
    2:12:46 prevail. I think, you know, there are so many lessons, um, from world war two that could have
    2:12:52 been brought into the last history of the last 30 years, which weren’t, you know, such as, you know,
    2:12:57 if you have, if you, if you decapitate an incredibly strong leader, you get a power
    2:13:01 vacuum. And if you don’t have a solution for that power vacuum, lots of bad elements are going to
    2:13:05 sweep into that in very quick order, which of course is exactly what happens in, in, in Iraq.
    2:13:10 So, you know, Dr. Ronson going, we don’t do reconstruction where you’ve freaking well should
    2:13:15 do, you know, this, this, if you’re going to, if you’re going to take on this, this particular
    2:13:19 challenge, you’ve got to see it through, you know, that’s, that’s simply not good enough.
    2:13:22 You know, it’s not good enough to go into Afghanistan and go, okay, we’re going to change
    2:13:26 things around. It’s going to be great. You know, all the women are going to have education. They won’t
    2:13:33 have to wear kind of, you know, uh, um, won’t have to cover up their bodies anymore. Um, anything
    2:13:38 goes, we love liberalism. It’s great. Um, let’s make Kabul into a thriving city once more and then
    2:13:43 suddenly bug out, you know, cause what, what, what’s going to happen? You’re going to undo
    2:13:48 everything. And, and I remember being in, you know, this is a bit of a segue legs, but I remember
    2:13:54 being in, in Northern Helmand province back in, you know, when it was January, 2008 and, uh, British
    2:14:02 troops had just taken over an absolute dump of a town called, um, Musakala. And I remember talking
    2:14:07 to this Afghan guy, he just had all his willow trees chopped down to make room for a helipad that the
    2:14:13 allies wanted, which said, you know, put that kind of surround, you know, those cages with kind
    2:14:18 of rubble in the protective wall. Is it called Hescombe? I think it was called. Anyway, I said to
    2:14:21 him, what do you, what do you think about, about the British being there? And he just went, shrugged
    2:14:25 at me and lifted up his hands and said, well, you know, if they stay great, but they weren’t.
    2:14:32 And, and he said, said, you know, if they stay, then brilliant. But he said, I’ll tell you what,
    2:14:37 he said, Taliban weren’t great. They weren’t fantastic. He said, but I could leave my personal
    2:14:40 wall and no one would touch it. I could leave it on a wall for a week. No one would touch it.
    2:14:45 He said, said, will they bring that kind of order? You know, will, will we have, will we have peace
    2:14:52 here? You know, they’ve just chopped down my, my willow trees. You know, thanks a lot. And you,
    2:15:02 you know, you, you, you’re seeing a total lack of understanding of the culture, ethnic differences.
    2:15:08 You’re trying to impose a kind of Western centric view onto something, which is just some, you know,
    2:15:13 onto, onto, onto a, onto a nation, which isn’t, isn’t ready for that. Now there are ways in which,
    2:15:19 you know, it looked like Afghanistan was starting to kind of emerge and there was a path. And then just
    2:15:28 at the critical moment, the West moves out with catastrophic consequences. What you have to say,
    2:15:35 though, is that in the West post-1945, the rehabilitation of Italy, of Japan, of Western
    2:15:42 Germany was really good. You know, the consequence of, of all that destruction, all that turmoil was
    2:15:52 thriving, high producing democracies, which burst forth into the kind of second half of the 20th
    2:15:59 century and into the 21st century in pretty good order. Um, so the lessons of the previous generation
    2:16:05 for the first world war had, had been, had been learned, even though the scale of destruction,
    2:16:13 the displacement of people is unprecedented in 1945. In 1939, what was the state of the militaries?
    2:16:18 What were the most powerful militaries on the world stage at that time? Well, um, in terms of naval
    2:16:23 power, Britain, as we’ve already discussed and, and, and the United States, um, France has a pretty large
    2:16:29 Navy. Uh, Japan has a pretty large Navy. Italy has a pretty large Navy, but Italy’s Navy is by far and
    2:16:34 away. It’s most modern aspect of its three services, air, land, and sea. Um, but it doesn’t have any
    2:16:39 aircraft carriers and it doesn’t have any radar. So, you know, it’s, it’s, they’ve got modern battleships
    2:16:46 and battle cruisers, but without key modern bits of technology. So Italy is really not ready for.
    2:16:54 Oh, it’s so not, it’s so not. It’s just, again, both Hitler and Mussolini, they, they lack geopolitical
    2:17:00 understanding. You know, that’s because they’re so kind of focused on their narrow worldview and they
    2:17:04 view everything through that prism, but they can’t see that bigger picture. And we should say that
    2:17:10 Mussolini, maybe you can correct me, but I don’t think at any point he wants a war. He doesn’t want
    2:17:15 a war. What he does want is he wants his own new kind of Roman empire, which extends over the
    2:17:19 Mediterranean, the kind of certainly the Eastern part of the meta half of the Mediterranean, North
    2:17:24 Africa, all the way down to kind of East Africa controlling the Suez canal. That, that’s, that’s
    2:17:29 what he wants. And I think you made clear that he was, I mean, there’s always like this little brother
    2:17:36 jealous of Hitler kind of situation because he, he wanted absolute power the way Hitler did, but
    2:17:44 doesn’t have it. Doesn’t have it. Yeah. There’s a monarchy often forgotten. It’s amazing.
    2:17:52 So there’s always this limit and Hitler quite brilliantly. Once he gets some power, he takes
    2:17:54 it all complete.
    2:18:00 He completely emasculates Mussolini and yeah, he likes him though. It’s really weird. Even
    2:18:08 when Mussolini is about to fall in July, 1943 as a meeting at Feltre, um, just literally a few
    2:18:14 days before Mussolini tumbles. And he does that because he likes Mussolini. He likes him as a man
    2:18:19 and thinks he’s been his friend. And, you know, he respects him to a certain extent, even though he’s,
    2:18:25 he, he definitely views himself as top dog. Hitler does that is. Um, so it’s kind of curious
    2:18:29 because I don’t think Hitler particularly likes anyone really, but, but, but he does seem to like
    2:18:34 Mussolini. But anyway, the problem with Mussolini is Mussolini, Mussolini’s Italy is, is very
    2:18:39 impoverished from the first world war, you know, and that of course leads to the rise of fascism and
    2:18:45 the overthrow of parliamentary democracy and, and why Mussolini takes place in the first place.
    2:18:49 You know, again, it’s that kind of, there’s been this terrible disruption. There’s been financial
    2:18:56 crisis. That leads to kind of people looking at an alternative, you know, what’s the alternative?
    2:19:00 Well, Mussolini is going, you know, we can be proud Italians again, lots of chest thumping,
    2:19:03 you know, wearing great uniforms, all the rest of it. And people kind of think, well, you know,
    2:19:08 I’ll have a piece of that. And it kind of works. And, you know, proverbially the trains work on time
    2:19:13 under him and so on and so forth, but he just gets ahead of himself, you know, and, and actually the
    2:19:17 writings on the war in 1935, when he goes into Abyssinia and, and, you know, again, sort of what
    2:19:23 effectively are kind of by first world European standards, primitive tribesmen in, in,
    2:19:28 in Abyssinia, you know, they, they have quite a tough fight there. You know, they, they do prevail,
    2:19:34 but, but it’s not a complete walkover and they get a bit of a bloody nose at times and they shouldn’t
    2:19:39 have done. And they’re just not ready. They don’t have the industry. You know, they’re, they’re tied up
    2:19:43 into the Mediterranean. They don’t have access to the world’s oceans. They do have some merchant shipping,
    2:19:48 but not a huge amount. Um, you know, they just don’t have what is required. They don’t,
    2:19:53 they’re dependent on Britain for coal. Britain is the leading coal exporter in the world in the 1930s.
    2:20:01 universities. So Britain’s approach to fascist Spain and approach to fascist Italy has been very
    2:20:06 much sort of stick and carrot. It’s like, you know, we’ll let you do what you do as long as you kind of
    2:20:13 stay in your box and, and, you know, we’ll continue to provide you with supplies and coal and whatever
    2:20:20 as long as you need, as long as you don’t kind of go too far. And so that’s why Mussolini is very
    2:20:27 anxious in 1938. And again, in 1939 to kind of be the power broker and kind of not let Germany go to
    2:20:33 war, but Germany’s just, you know, they, they signed the axis pact of steel in May, 1939, where they become
    2:20:39 formal allies. This is Hitler and Mussolini, Italy and Germany, but it’s always a very, very unequal
    2:20:44 partnership right from the word go. And one of the reasons Mussolini signs it is because he fears
    2:20:46 that Germany has designs on Italy. Yeah.
    2:20:51 It’s not because he thinks, oh, these guys are great. You know, there are natural bedfellows.
    2:20:59 It’s so that he can, what it’s a mutually convenient pact whereby Germany gets on with whatever it wants
    2:21:04 to do up in Northern Europe and Eastern Europe. Italy is given a free hand to do whatever it wants to do.
    2:21:09 They’ll just kind of watch each other’s backs. They have borders, you know, Austria and Italy border
    2:21:13 one another, and they’ll just do their own thing and they’ll kind of help each other out with supplies
    2:21:20 and stuff. But, but basically they won’t, they’ll, they’ll, they’ll be their own. It’s a kind of marriage
    2:21:24 of convenience. You know, they’re never expected to be fighting alongside each other on the battlefield.
    2:21:30 Not really. There is a kind of obligation to do so, but, but it’s, it’s an obligation with no
    2:21:35 expectation of ever actually happening. And so from Mussolini’s point of view, the pact of steel is,
    2:21:40 is kind of, you know, it’s just sailing your flag to one particular mast and kind of trying to cover
    2:21:46 your, cover your back. And so long as he plays his cards, right, you know, he can, he can still get
    2:21:49 his coal supplies from Britain. He doesn’t have to worry about that. You know, the pact of steel doesn’t
    2:21:57 make any difference to that. The problem for him is, is that in June, 1940, he thinks that France is
    2:22:01 about to be defeated and the Britain will surely follow. And so he thinks, ah, I’ve got some rich
    2:22:07 pickings. I can take Malta or I can take British possessions. I can overrun Egypt. And, you know,
    2:22:11 now is my time, but I, I also need to kind of join the fight before France is completely out of the
    2:22:15 fight. Otherwise it looks like I’m a Johnny come lately and I won’t, I won’t get those spoils because
    2:22:19 the Germans will go, yeah, you can’t have all this stuff. You’ve turned up too late. You need to be in
    2:22:23 the fight. So he does it. What he thinks is the perfect timing. And it turns out to be a
    2:22:26 catastrophic timing because of course, Britain doesn’t exit the fight. You know, Britain is still
    2:22:33 there. And, you know, by February, 1941, a very, very tiny British army in Egypt has overrun, you
    2:22:38 know, two entire Italian armies and taken 133,000 prisoners in North Africa.
    2:22:45 So you mentioned in the sea, uh, who were the dominant armies who were, who was dominant in the air?
    2:22:49 Well, in the air, it has to be the Luftwaffe. Uh, and it is also the Imperial Japanese,
    2:22:54 both in the Imperial Japanese Navy and the Imperial Japanese army that they both have air forces.
    2:23:00 And one of the reasons that is because the quality of the pilots in Japan is extremely high because
    2:23:06 it’s so difficult to get, to get to the top position. You know, you are going to your frontline
    2:23:11 squadrons with at least 500 hours in your log book. To put that into some perspective, you know,
    2:23:17 a British RAF or Luftwaffe pilot would be joining their frontline squadrons with 150 to 170 hours in
    2:23:25 a log book. So it is that these guys are disciplined to within an inch of their lives. Um, they are,
    2:23:30 you know, there are academic tests as well as physical endurance tests. You know, they are the elite of
    2:23:36 the elite and they are extremely good. The problem they have is that there is a good number of them,
    2:23:43 but there’s not that many. The Luftwaffe is, is the largest air force in the world in 1939,
    2:23:50 but it is already at a parity when in, in aircraft production with Britain. Um, and
    2:23:54 the French have a kind of similar size army, but they’re very, very badly organized. So they’re also,
    2:23:58 they’re organized into different regions and they, one region doesn’t really, is not really
    2:24:03 talking to another. And one of the problems that when case yellow, the invasion of German invasion of
    2:24:08 the West starts, France’s army of the air is spread throughout France and has its own little area.
    2:24:14 So you have one bunch of, you know, fighters and bombers in that block in, you know, in the Marseille
    2:24:18 area, you have another block in kind of, you know, on the Brittany coast, and you have another block in
    2:24:22 around Sudan and you have another that. So, so consequently, they’re never be there. They’re
    2:24:27 never able to kind of bring their full strength to bear. So it’s, although, although they’ve both got
    2:24:32 about three and a half thousand aircraft on paper and about two and a half thousand that are fit to
    2:24:39 fly on any one given day, the Luftwaffe, because they’re the aggressor, can choose how they mass
    2:24:45 their aircraft and where they attack and at when. So in other words, you can send, the Luftwaffe can send
    2:24:50 over overwhelming amounts of bombers and fighter planes and pulverize a French airfield and catch
    2:24:55 them napping. And because the French don’t have a defense system, they can’t see whether they’re
    2:24:59 coming. So their only hope is to kind of take off and just hope they stooge around the sky and hope
    2:25:04 they bump into some Luftwaffe. And of course, that’s inherently inefficient and they get, you know,
    2:25:10 they get destroyed and they get destroyed in penny packets rather than en masse. Difference with the
    2:25:17 RAF is, is the RAF is not done on an air force basis where you have each air corps or air fleet has
    2:25:24 a handful of bombers, a handful of fighters, a handful of reconnaissance planes. They have different
    2:25:28 commands. So they have bomber command, fighter command, training command, cursor command, and they
    2:25:32 all have very specific roles. So they’re, they’re structured in a completely different way. And the
    2:25:39 other, and that’s because they’re an island nation, um, and because they see their role militarily in a,
    2:25:44 in a, in a, in a different way. And because the rearming that Britain has done in the 1930s is all
    2:25:49 about defense. It is not about aggression at this point, not about taking it to the enemy. It is,
    2:25:54 it is showing your tough, but also first and foremost, getting your ducks in a row and making
    2:25:59 sure that you don’t get defeated. So this is the principle behind the, the first, the world’s first
    2:26:04 fully coordinated air defense system, which is the radar chain. It is the observer core. It is control
    2:26:11 rooms. It is interesting technology, such as identification, friend or foe, IFF, which is where you have a little
    2:26:17 pulse, which, so you have these control rooms and you have a map table and you have a tote board in front of
    2:26:21 view where you can see what squadrons are airborne, what state of readiness they’re at, you know,
    2:26:24 whether they’re engaging the enemy, little lights come on and show you, you can see weather maps, you
    2:26:29 can see, see the cloud ceiling, you see all that at glance, then you’re on a dais. And then down in
    2:26:35 front of you is a massive, great map of Southern England. You’ve got croupiers, got a moving plots.
    2:26:40 So you can, through a combination of radar, which picks up a kind of a rough idea of what’s coming
    2:26:46 towards you combined with the observer core. You have overlapping observer core stations all over
    2:26:51 Britain, covering every single inch of airspace over Britain, looking up into the air and seeing
    2:26:57 how many aircraft there are and at what height they are. And you have a little thing called a
    2:27:03 pantograph, which is a piece of equipment, which helps you judge altitude. You then ring through that,
    2:27:08 that all comes into the control room, along with the information from the radar stations,
    2:27:13 which is going into a single filter room, fighter command headquarters, which is then being pushed
    2:27:19 straight back out to the sector stations. So this information is being updated all the time. So you
    2:27:26 have a plot and it looks like it might be, you know, enemy bombers, 30 plus, for example, that’s
    2:27:30 constantly being adapted. So as more information comes in, you will change that. And then you can see
    2:27:35 that actually it’s only 20 aircraft or 22 aircraft or whatever. So you’re updating that and that little
    2:27:40 figure is put on the, on your little plot and moved across. And so you can see, and then because you can
    2:27:48 identify your own aircraft, you can then see where they are moving. And you’re also on, um, the guys in the
    2:27:54 air are on the radio to ground controllers who were in these control rooms and they’re saying, okay, well, if you
    2:28:00 proceed at, you know, angels, 18, 18,000 feet, you know, on a vector of, you know, one five O degrees,
    2:28:07 you should be seeing your enemy bombing formation any moment now. And what that means is that you’re
    2:28:12 not on the ground when the enemy are coming towards you with their bombers to hit your airfield,
    2:28:16 which means you’re in the air so that all they’re doing is hitting a grass airfield,
    2:28:22 which you’ve already got bulldozers and diggers and graders and lots of scalpings and earth ready to
    2:28:27 fill in the potholes. And it means you’re good to go. And it means as a consequence of all that,
    2:28:33 when the Germans do, um, launch their all out assault on Adler tag Eagle day on the 13th of
    2:28:38 August, 1940, the British are ready. You know, they’re, they can see them coming. They know what
    2:28:43 to expect and they can anticipate. And it means that they’re not being caught with their trousers down
    2:28:49 on the ground. And as a consequence of that, of the 138 airfields there are in, um, RAF airfields
    2:28:54 there are in Britain, only one of them is knocked out for more than 48 hours in the entire summer of
    2:29:00 1940. And that’s Manston on the tip of the Kent coast, uh, which is abandoned for the duration.
    2:29:02 So these are the two biggest air forces.
    2:29:04 So those are the two biggest air forces.
    2:29:14 Luftwaffe, we should say German. I mean, they’re like the, uh, the legendary, the terrifying air force.
    2:29:20 They are maybe, maybe they’re slightly believing their own hype. There’s no question about it.
    2:29:23 Well, the rest of the world is also right. They’ve just had it too easy. So they don’t have,
    2:29:27 they don’t have ground controllers. They don’t have an air defense system in, in, in Germany,
    2:29:30 because why would you need an air defense system? We’re going to be the aggressor.
    2:29:36 You know, there’s no scenario where we’ll have to defend the airspace of the third Reich because
    2:29:39 we’re on the offensive. So they just haven’t prepared it.
    2:29:45 So there’s that clash, the battle of Britain, the clash of air forces. What explains the
    2:29:48 success of Britain in defending?
    2:29:52 Well, it’s, I mean, you know, and everyone always says, you know, the, the few were the last,
    2:29:56 you know, the last line of defense against the Nazi hordes and all this kind of stuff. And it’s just,
    2:30:02 it’s all rubbish. Uh, they’re the first line of defense. Second line of defense is the Royal Navy,
    2:30:07 which is the world’s largest. And there’s absolutely no chance on earth that a German
    2:30:14 invasion force made up of Rhine river barges. One of, out of every three is motorized and the
    2:30:19 other two aren’t is ever going to get successfully across the English channel. And even if they did,
    2:30:24 they will be repulsed. I mean, they just, it’s just no chance. And it is often forgotten that while
    2:30:29 the Luftwaffe is coming over and bombing Britain every single day, so is the RF going over and bombing
    2:30:34 Germany. And one of the problems that the Germans have is, is that these bombers need
    2:30:40 fighter protection. You know, fighter planes are there to protect the bombers and they don’t have
    2:30:46 much fuel. And the Messerschmitt 109E, the Emil as a model is of 1940 is the mainstay of the German
    2:30:54 fighter force in the summer of 1940. And they don’t have much fuel. So they need to conserve their fuel,
    2:30:58 which means they need to be as close to Britain as they possibly can, which is why the majority of them
    2:31:03 are all in airfields, which are hastily created in July, 1940, following the fall of France in the
    2:31:07 Pas de Calais, which is the closest point, you know, that’s where the channel is, it’s narrowest and all
    2:31:12 the rest of it. And also in the Northern Normandy. And that’s where they’re flying from. But what that means
    2:31:18 is that even if you’re completely rubbish at bombing, which the British are in 1940, they haven’t developed
    2:31:24 those navigational aids that create untold accuracy by the end, end of the war. 1940, they don’t,
    2:31:29 they don’t have that luxury. It’s a target rich environment. I mean, you know, you can barely miss
    2:31:33 if you go over to the Isle of, you know, over to the Palakala. I mean, it’s literally, it’s just like
    2:31:38 one huge, great kind of hub of fighter airfields. And consequently, that means that every single
    2:31:43 German squadron, which only is 12 airplanes strong on, on establishment, and very often even fewer
    2:31:49 than that, always has to leave two airplanes behind to defend their own airfields. And it’s really
    2:31:52 interesting when you look at kind of prisoner of war statements from, from Luftwaffe crown crew that
    2:31:57 have been downed. They’re all bugs at a holding place called Trent Park. You can see the transcripts of
    2:32:00 these conversations. They’re all going about how annoying it was that the RAF were over every night
    2:32:04 and they can’t sleep. And, you know, when they, if only they’d just shut up and leave them alone and
    2:32:08 not bomb them. And, you know, this is just part of the narrative of the Battle of Britain that’s
    2:32:13 completely left out. It’s always the stocky, you know, the plucky few against the kind of the,
    2:32:17 you know, the Nazi hordes and all the rest of it. And it’s just, it’s a complete misnomer. And by
    2:32:24 that time, aircraft production in Britain is massively outpacing the Germans. And the best ratio that the
    2:32:32 Germans achieve in 1940 is July 1940, when the British produced 496 new Hurricanes and Spitfires,
    2:32:38 single engine fighters. And, um, the Germans only produced 240 single engine fighters. That’s the
    2:32:42 best ratio. And of course, you know, that is the British outproducing the Germans two to one.
    2:32:48 And what that means is by the end of October, 1940, when the Battle of Britain is sort of, you know,
    2:32:54 officially designated as being over, um, the single engine fighter force of Luftwaffe is less than 200
    2:33:02 from 750 or whatever it was in beginning of July. Whereas the British fighter force had been 650 or
    2:33:09 whatever. The beginning of July is now well over 750. And Britain is outproducing. Yeah, but to a massive
    2:33:15 degree. And that, that continues. And, you know, that is a ratio that just increases as the war
    2:33:22 progresses. I mean, Britain produces 132 and a half thousand aircraft in the second world war. America
    2:33:30 produces 315,000. So why is there this legend of the Luftwaffe? Well, because it’s the spearhead of the
    2:33:36 Blitzkrieg. So it has to do with the Blitzkrieg. It sort of do with the Blitzkrieg. The Luftwaffe becomes
    2:33:39 the kind of the, the, the bogeyman of the Third Reich, you know, they’re blamed for everything,
    2:33:44 but that’s because they’re completely abused. They’re the only part of, of the Third Reich’s
    2:33:49 armed services. The only part of the Wehrmacht, the Wehrmacht being the Navy, the army, and the air
    2:33:59 force, um, that is in constant use the whole time or constant abuse, I should say. In Britain and America,
    2:34:04 they rotate their, their pilots really, really carefully. By the time that, but the, the, that,
    2:34:09 you know, you’ve got the eight fighter command, for example, part of the mighty eighth, the eighth
    2:34:15 air force operating in Britain by the, by, by the end of 1943, you would have in a squadron that would
    2:34:20 have 60, you would never have more than 16 airborne from a squadron at any one time. You would have 40 to
    2:34:27 45 pilots to serve as 16 in the air and similar number of aircraft, which means you’re not overusing
    2:34:32 these guys. And what would happen is by that stage of the war, by 1943, you know, a young fighter pilot
    2:34:38 coming to a, to a Thunderbolt squadron or a Mustang squadron, for example, um, at the end of 1943,
    2:34:45 beginning of 1944, he’d have 350 hours of consecutive flying because you can train in, in America, in
    2:34:51 Florida or California or Texas or wherever you’ve got, you, you, you can process many, many more people
    2:34:56 because the training is much more intense because you’ve got clear skies. So you’re not, it’s not a
    2:35:00 question of, of, oh, we’d like to take you out, out Fritz this morning, but you know, it’s a bit
    2:35:05 cloudy and, and, oh, the RAF are over or, you know, the air forces are over. So we can’t fly today.
    2:35:11 So in Germany, pilot training is constant. Air crew training is constantly being interrupted by,
    2:35:17 by the war, by shortage of fuel, by inclement weather, et cetera, et cetera. In America, you have
    2:35:21 none of those problems. And Britain, because of its global reach, also has training bases in,
    2:35:27 in what was Rhodesia and Zimbabwe and South Africa, um, in Canada as well. Uh, and so you’re
    2:35:31 able to process these, these guys much better. You’re able to give them more training. So that
    2:35:35 when they come there, the absolute, the finished article is pilots. What they’re not the finished
    2:35:40 article as is say a bomber pilot or, uh, as a fighter pilot, but that’s okay because you join your
    2:35:47 squadron of 40 other guys for 16 airborne and the old hands kind of take you up a few times. So you
    2:35:54 arrive at, I don’t know, let’s say some airfield in, in Suffolk in East Anglia in England. And you know,
    2:35:59 you’ll have 10 days to two weeks acclimatizing, getting used to it. The, you know, the old hands
    2:36:04 will put you through your paces, give you some trips, tips. You can pick their brains during kind
    2:36:09 of while you’re having some chow and listening on some briefings. Then the first mission you do will
    2:36:14 be a milk run over to France where the danger is kind of pretty minimal, you know, and you can build
    2:36:19 up your experience. So that by the time you’re actually sent over on a mission to Berlin or
    2:36:25 Bremen or, you know, the Ruhr or whatever, you’re absolutely the business. So qualitatively and
    2:36:31 quantitatively, you are just vastly superior to anything the Luftwaffe has got. The Luftwaffe by
    2:36:38 that stage, in contrast, 1940 new pilots coming to frontline squadrons with 150, 170 hours on there,
    2:36:43 in their log books, less than a hundred, hundred, 90, 92 hours, something like that.
    2:36:47 It’s not enough. And, and they’re just being flung straight into battle and they’re getting
    2:36:51 absolutely slaughtered. And they’re also, because their machines are quite complicated,
    2:36:57 there’s no two-seaters really. So no two-seater trainers. So the first time you’re flying in your
    2:37:04 Focke-Wulf 190 or your Messerschmitt 109, it’s this horrendous leap of faith, which you as a young,
    2:37:11 bright Luftwaffe fighter pilot, know that you’re not ready for this. And it can bite you. And something
    2:37:17 like a Messerschmitt 109 has a very high wing loading. So it’s very maneuverable in the air,
    2:37:23 but it’s got these tiny wings. It’s got this incredible torque, this Daimler-Benz DB605 engine
    2:37:27 with its huge amount of torque. And it just wants to flip you over. So if you’re not used to it,
    2:37:31 and it’s got a narrow undercarriage as well, if you’re not used to it, you could just crash.
    2:37:38 So in the first couple of months of 1944, they lose something like 2,400 aircraft in the air
    2:37:44 and pilots, and about 3,400 are accidents. So it has to do with training, really?
    2:37:45 Yeah.
    2:37:46 Not training enough.
    2:37:53 It’s training and resources and supply. And the Second World War, more than any other conflict,
    2:38:01 is a war of numbers. There are differences, the decisions that generals can make. There are
    2:38:10 moments where particular brilliance and bravery can seize the day, take the bridge, hold the enemy at bay
    2:38:17 or whatever. But ultimately, you’re talking about differences which might make a month’s difference,
    2:38:21 six months difference, maybe even several years difference. But ultimately, there was a certain
    2:38:27 point in the Second World War where the outcome is absolutely inevitable, because the guys that lose
    2:38:31 can’t compete with the numbers that the guys are going to win at half.
    2:38:37 So in that sense, you could think of World War II as a battle of factories.
    2:38:38 Yes.
    2:38:46 What does it take to win in the battle of factories and out-manufacturing military equipment
    2:38:48 against the Allies?
    2:38:54 It’s efficiency, really. So I always think, let’s take the example of the Sherman tank,
    2:38:59 for example, the mainstay of the Western Allied forces, and a fair number of them sent to the Soviet
    2:39:00 Union as well, for that matter.
    2:39:04 Uh, I think you’ve said it doesn’t get the respect it deserves, maybe?
    2:39:09 It doesn’t get the respect it deserves. So the Sherman tank, the 75-millimeter main battle gun,
    2:39:13 which is a sort of medium velocity, fire a shell around kind of 2,000 feet per second,
    2:39:19 compared to the notorious, infamous German 88-millimeter, which can fire at kind of third
    2:39:27 fast again, like 3,000 feet per second. But on paper, a Tiger tank coming around the corner,
    2:39:34 and a Sherman tank coming around the corner, it should be no match at all. Tiger tank is 58 tons,
    2:39:39 looks scary, is scary. It’s got a massive gun, got really thick armor. Sherman tank doesn’t have
    2:39:44 as thick armor. It doesn’t have a gun that’s as big. It should be an absolute walkover. And yet,
    2:39:51 at about 5:30 PM on Monday, the 26th of June, 1944, a Sherman tank came around the corner of a road
    2:39:56 called a Rue Monsieur, a little village called Fontenay-la-Pesnel in Normandy, came face-to-face
    2:40:01 of a Tiger tank and won. How does this happen? Well, I’ll tell you how it happened, because
    2:40:07 the commander of the Sherman tank was experienced, had one up the spout. So what I mean by that is,
    2:40:11 he had an armor-piercing round already in the breach. As soon as he saw the Tiger tank, he just
    2:40:16 said, “Fire.” That armor-piercing round did not penetrate the Tiger tank. It was never going to.
    2:40:21 But what it did do is it hit the gun mantlet, which is a bit of reinforced steel that you have
    2:40:26 just as the barrel is entering the turret. And that caused spalling, which is the little
    2:40:31 shards of little bits of molten metal, which then hit the driver of the Tiger tank in the head.
    2:40:36 And he was screaming, you know, “Gotton Himmel” or whatever, and, you know, couldn’t really see.
    2:40:43 The moment they got hit, the commander of the Tiger tank retreated into the turret of the Tiger.
    2:40:48 The moment you retreat into a turret, you can’t see. You can see because you’ve got periscopes,
    2:40:52 but your visibility is nothing like as good as it is when you’ve got your head above the turret.
    2:41:00 Immediately after that, the armor-piercing round from the Sherman tank was repeated by a number of
    2:41:04 high explosive rounds, which are rounds which kind of, you know, detonate, have a little minor charge.
    2:41:09 Then there’s a second charge, which creates lots of smoke. And in moments, in the first 30 seconds,
    2:41:15 10 rounds from that Sherman tank had hit the Tiger tank before the Tiger tank had unleashed a single
    2:41:22 round itself. And the crew then surrendered. So you didn’t need to destroy the Tiger tank,
    2:41:27 you just need to stop it operating. If it hasn’t got a crew, it’s just a chunk of metal that’s inoperable.
    2:41:34 So that’s all you need to do. And what that tells you is that experience counts, training counts.
    2:41:41 The agility of the Sherman tank also counts. It’s a smaller shelf, therefore it’s easier to manhandle,
    2:41:46 which means you can put more in a breach quicker. There’s features on a Sherman tank, like it’s the
    2:41:50 first tank to have a gun stabilizing gyro, which means it’s more effective on the move. There’s also
    2:41:53 an override switch on the underside of the turret so that the commander, if he just sees something out
    2:41:57 of the corner of his eye, can immediately start moving the turret before the gunner, who is down in
    2:42:04 the belly of the turret, can react. There’s many different facts of it. But the main fact of all
    2:42:10 is 1,347 Tigers built. There were 49,000 Shermans. So that means there’s 36 Shermans to every single
    2:42:11 Tiger.
    2:42:17 So you actually have an incredible video. You talk about this a lot from different angles,
    2:42:24 about the top five tanks and then the bottom five tanks of World War II. I think, was it the Tiger
    2:42:26 that made both the top five and the bottom five?
    2:42:27 The problem with the Tiger tank is it’s really huge.
    2:42:32 We should say that you keep saying the problem, but one of the pros of the Tiger tank…
    2:42:33 It’s very huge.
    2:42:37 It’s, I mean, the psychological warfare aspect of it, it’s terrifying.
    2:42:37 Yes.
    2:42:43 So I don’t know what the other pros, I mean, I guess, yeah, the 88 millimeter.
    2:42:48 High velocity and all the rest of it. You know, it’s pretty fearsome, but there are pragmatic problems.
    2:42:55 The big problem is the Germans are incapable of mass production on a scale that Americans can do.
    2:42:58 In fact, even the British can do. I mean, they’re just not in that league. The reason they’re not
    2:43:02 in that league is because they’re in the middle of Europe. They don’t have access to the world’s
    2:43:05 oceans. They don’t have a merchant fleet. They can’t get this stuff. It hasn’t gone terribly
    2:43:10 well in the Soviet Union. You know, they can’t process it and they’re being bombed 24 hours a day.
    2:43:15 And so all their factories are, you know, having to split them all up. And that is inherently
    2:43:19 inefficient because you’re then having to kind of move different parts around and, you know,
    2:43:23 you’re then having the whole process of having to travel from one place to another to get stuff.
    2:43:29 You haven’t got much fuel. So the consequence of that is that what you do is you think, okay,
    2:43:34 well, we can’t mass produce. So let’s make really brilliant tanks. But they’ve lost sight of what
    2:43:42 really brilliant is, you know, really brilliant to their eyes is big, scary, big gun, lots of armor.
    2:43:49 But actually what conflict in World War II shows you is that you need more than that. You need
    2:43:54 ease of maintenance. You need reliability. And the problem with having the bigger the tank,
    2:44:00 the more complex the maintenance equipment is. You know, you need a bigger hoist, which then means you
    2:44:05 need a bigger truck, which then uses more fuel. So for example, the Tiger tank is so big that it doesn’t
    2:44:11 fit on the loading gauge of the European railway system. So they have to have different tracks
    2:44:16 to roll onto the wagons that will then transport them from A to B, you know, take them from West
    2:44:21 Germany to Normandy. Then they have to take them off. Then they have to take off the tracks, put on
    2:44:26 combat tracks, then move them into battle and hope that they don’t break down. The problem is when you
    2:44:32 start the war, it’s not very automotive and you’ve only got 47 people for every motorized vehicle in
    2:44:38 Germany compared to three in the United States or eight in France, is that you’ve got lots of people
    2:44:43 who don’t know how to drive. It also means you haven’t got lots of garages and mechanics and
    2:44:51 gas stations and so on. And so you’re then creating an incredibly complex beast, but you want that complex
    2:44:56 thing to be as simple as you possibly can be. And that’s the beauty of the Sherman tank. You know,
    2:45:00 all those guys in America, they’re used to driving stick cars, you know, one of three people for every
    2:45:04 automobile, you know, and that includes, you know, the old and children. So almost, you know,
    2:45:09 every young man knows how to drive. And when you get into a Sherman tank, it’s got a clutch,
    2:45:13 it’s got a throttle, the brakes are the steering mechanism. The clutch is where you would expect the
    2:45:18 clutch to be. It’s got a manual shift. You put your foot on the clutch and you shove it into second
    2:45:23 gear and off you go or reverse or whatever. And it literally can be easier. Anyone who could drive
    2:45:29 a stick car could drive a Sherman tank. Seriously. Not everyone can drive a Tiger tank. It’s incredibly
    2:45:36 complex. Really, really is. And that comes with a whole host of problems. And of course, you don’t have
    2:45:43 the numbers. You don’t have the numbers. You know, you’ve got 1,347 of them. You’ve got 492 King
    2:45:47 Tigers, which are even bigger. And, you know, at a time where you are really short of fuel,
    2:45:52 you’re really short of absolutely everything. And those shells are huge and they’re harder to
    2:45:57 manhandle and weird little things that the Germans do, you know, for all their design genius, the loader
    2:46:04 is always on the right-hand side. Now, in the 1920s and 19 teens and 30s, children were taught to be
    2:46:09 right-handed. You weren’t allowed to be left-handed. So you were right-handed. So you want to be on the
    2:46:15 right-hand, left-hand side of the gun. So you can take the shell from your right and swivel it into
    2:46:21 the breach with your, from your right side. But the loader in a, in a Yag Pamphor or Pamphor or Tiger
    2:46:25 is always on the, on, on the right-hand side of the breach, which is ergonomically makes no sense
    2:46:31 whatsoever. Why do they do this? I’ve never found an answer to this, but you know, so there’s all these
    2:46:36 little things. And, and as a soldier coming up against, you know, you’re an American GI and you’re
    2:46:40 coming up against a, a tiger tank. You don’t care about the fact that it’s difficult to maintain
    2:46:46 or the problems of involved of trying to get it to the battlefield. All you care about is this monster
    2:46:50 coming in front of you. It’s squeaking and clanking away and it’s incredibly scary and it’s about to
    2:46:55 blow you to bits. That’s all you care about. And quite understandably so. But, but those who are
    2:47:00 protracting the war at a higher level and historians that come subsequently and look at all this stuff,
    2:47:06 they do need to worry about all these things. I remember the same Georg Thomas, the architect of
    2:47:11 the hunger plan. Um, I found this, this, this minutes of this meeting, which I think was either
    2:47:16 on the 4th of December or the 5th of December, 1941. So it’s just before the red army counterattacks
    2:47:24 outside Moscow and the winter of 1941. And it’s a meeting about weaponry. And, and I, and this is a
    2:47:30 verbatim quote, he says, we have to stop making such complete and aesthetic weapons.
    2:47:37 In other words, we’ve consciously be building over-engineered and aesthetically pleasing weapons
    2:47:42 up until this point. And they sort of half manage it, but don’t quite.
    2:47:49 We could probably talk for many hours about each of these topics. We could, we could talk for 10 hours
    2:47:57 about tanks and encourage people to, uh, to listen to your podcast, uh, world war two pod. We have ways
    2:47:59 of making you talk. It’s great.
    2:48:05 Yeah, we also do. We’ve got, um, got a new YouTube channel and, um, website called world war two
    2:48:12 headquarters. There are lots of walking the ground and videos of that and all sorts of stuff and little
    2:48:20 explainers of going around tanks and stuff and the weaponry and documents and photographic archives.
    2:48:25 So the idea is to sort of turn it into a kind of real hub of anyone who’s interested in this subject.
    2:48:29 It’s a place where they can go and find out just a whole load more.
    2:48:33 I love it. So, like I said, we could probably talk for many hours at each of these topics,
    2:48:38 but let’s look at some of the battles and maybe you can tell me which jumps out at you. I want to talk
    2:48:46 to you about, uh, the Western front and definitely talk about Normandy, but so there was the battle
    2:48:54 of Midway in, uh, 1942, which is a naval battle. There’s Eastern front Stalingrad, probably the,
    2:49:01 the deadliest battle in human history. Then there’s the battle of Kursk, which is a tank battle,
    2:49:09 the largest tank battle in history, probably the largest battle period in history, 6,000 tanks,
    2:49:15 2 million troops, 4,000 aircraft. And then that takes us also to the battle of the bulge in Normandy,
    2:49:20 the Italian campaign that you talk a lot about. So what do you think is interesting to, uh,
    2:49:29 try to extract some wisdom from before we get to Normandy is, do you find as a historian,
    2:49:35 the battle of Kursk or battle of Stalingrad more interesting? Stalingrad is often seen as the
    2:49:35 attorney.
    2:49:40 Well, I, I, yeah, I think so. Uh, I, I mean, it’s really interesting. Um,
    2:49:47 so they get through, they get through 1941, Bob Ross doesn’t happen as, as the Germans hope it will.
    2:49:51 You know, the whole point is to completely destroy the red army in three months and that just doesn’t
    2:49:56 happen. And I think you can argue and argue convincingly that by, let’s say beginning of
    2:50:06 December, 1941, Germany is just not going to win. It just can’t. And let me tell you what I mean by
    2:50:11 that. So if you take an arbitrary date, let’s say the 15th of June, 1941, Germany at that moment has
    2:50:17 one enemy, which is great Britain, albeit great Britain plus Dominion empire. Fast forward six
    2:50:24 months to let’s say the 16th of December. It’s got three enemies. It’s got great Britain, Dominion
    2:50:32 empire, USSR and the USA. It is just not going to win. You know, for all the talks of wonder weapons
    2:50:37 and all the rest of it, it’s just not going to, you know, it is lost that, that battle. Having said
    2:50:46 that Soviet union is still in a really, really bad, bad situation. It is being helped out a huge amount
    2:50:52 by, um, supplies from the United States and from Britain, you know, just unprecedented amounts of
    2:50:58 material being sent through the Arctic or across Alaska into, into the Soviet union at that time.
    2:51:01 It is absolutely staggering.
    2:51:08 Howe much is committed by Roosevelt and Churchill to, to try and stem the flow in, in the Soviet
    2:51:14 union, because for all the, all the announcements and the pride that the Soviet union has about
    2:51:19 moving factories to the other side of the Urals and stuff, which they do in 1941, huge amounts
    2:51:25 are overrun intact by the Germans in the opening stages of Barbarossa. I mean, really, you know,
    2:51:31 colossal losses, huge amounts. So, you know, the grain has gone, coal has gone, um, entire
    2:51:37 factories have gone. Steel production goes down by kind of, you know, 80% in the Soviet union in 1941
    2:51:43 and into 1942. So in 1942, despite the vast amount of numbers of men that they have at their hands,
    2:51:48 I mean, they, they create 80 new divisions in the second half of 1941, for example. I mean,
    2:51:53 Britain never has 80 divisions in the entire second world war division being about rule of thumb,
    2:52:01 15,000 men. So, you know, despite that, and that is because Stalin’s meddling, the woeful state of
    2:52:07 the Red Army in 1941, et cetera, et cetera, which we’ve already sort of touched upon. So 1942, it’s,
    2:52:12 it’s still in a really bad way, but Germany’s in a really bad way too. It’s the, the, the trition it’s,
    2:52:18 it suffered in 1941. It’s winning itself to death in 1941. So it’s having these huge great
    2:52:23 encirclements like the encirclement of Kiev in September, 1941, you know, capturing the further
    2:52:28 kind of best part of 700,000 Red Army troops, et cetera, et cetera. But in the process of doing
    2:52:33 that, it is constantly being attrited, you know, both, both in battle casualties, but in also mechanical
    2:52:41 casualties too. Just can’t cope. It’s just too, the scale is just too big. And what happens is with
    2:52:51 every moment that the German forces, that ultimate victory slips away, so Hitler’s personal handling of
    2:52:58 the battle increases. And, you know, you can say what you like about him, but he just hasn’t had the
    2:53:02 military training to do that. He might have amazing attention to detail. He might be able to understand,
    2:53:09 you know, have an enormous capacity to remember units and where they are on a map, but he was only a
    2:53:13 half corporal in the First World War. He’s never been to staff college. You know, he might have read
    2:53:17 lots about Frederick the Great. I mean, I’ve read lots of history, but that doesn’t mean to say I’d be
    2:53:24 a competent field marshal. So he is not the right person for the job at all. And he micromanages and
    2:53:28 he looks at stickers and figures and doesn’t understand what it’s like at the actual front,
    2:53:35 the coalface. So he’s stifling the very thing that made the German army effective, which is the ability
    2:53:40 to give commanders at the front the freedom on their leash to be able to make decisions and battle
    2:53:44 command decisions. And he’s taken that away from them. So he’s basically making them go into battle
    2:53:52 with decreasing amounts of supplies and firepower and with one hand behind their back in terms of
    2:53:56 decision-making process. And that is not a good combination. The other problem is that he decides
    2:54:01 rather than going for Moscow in 1942, because basically there’s a kind of cooling off period in the winter
    2:54:06 because of the conditions. But everyone knows the Soviet Union, the Red Army knows that the moment
    2:54:10 springs comes, there’s going to be another offensive, but another major offensive in the summer.
    2:54:14 That is absolutely as certain as, you know, day following night, et cetera.
    2:54:19 The problem that the Germans have is they just don’t have enough. They have less than they had
    2:54:25 when they launched Barbarossa the previous year. The Soviet Union has more. It is better prepared.
    2:54:29 It knows what’s coming now. It’s kind of learning some of the lessons, starting to absorb the lessons.
    2:54:36 Stalin, coincidentally, is pulling back from his very tight leash in the way that Hitler is doing
    2:54:43 the opposite and increasing his micromanagement and control for recovery. And what Hitler decides
    2:54:47 is rather than going for Moscow, he’s going to go for the oil fields. And this is absolutely insane
    2:54:53 because what’s going to happen when they get to the oil fields? I mean, does he think really that the
    2:54:59 Soviet Union are going to let those oil fields come into German hands intact? Even if he does let them
    2:55:06 get in intact, what are they going to do with that oil? I mean, oil needs to be refined. Where are you
    2:55:12 going to refine it? You know, they don’t have many oil refineries. How are you going to ship that oil
    2:55:18 to where you need it to be in the factories and the Third Reich and into your, you know, process it into
    2:55:24 into gasoline and then get it and diesel and get it to your U-boats, get it to your tanks, get it to your
    2:55:29 armoured units? How are you going to do that? How do you transport it from the Caucasus, which is a long,
    2:55:35 long way away from Berlin? How are you going to do that? There’s no pipelines. There’s only some pipelines.
    2:55:39 They’ve been built by American money and American engineering, and they’re going backwards towards the
    2:55:45 Urals, not forwards. They have no more rail capacity whatsoever. They just don’t have the oil tankers.
    2:55:52 So it’s just, it’s, it is absolute la la land. It is incredible that when you look at the detailed
    2:55:58 literature that the Germans have, no one is asking this question in the, in the spring and early summer
    2:56:03 of 1942. The logistics question in part. No one is saying, okay, it’s great that we’re going to go to
    2:56:08 the Caucasus and get all this oil, but then what? No one is asking that question. Nor how do you
    2:56:12 provide resources and feed and the soldiers and all that kind of stuff? I mean, it’s.
    2:56:16 So, so the case blew, first of all, they get distracted by going into Crimea and they go,
    2:56:22 well, we’ve got to do that first. So they have to get Sevastopol and the Crimea, which they do.
    2:56:28 And then they have to push on. And at this point, suddenly looming in front of them is Stalingrad
    2:56:34 on the banks of the Volga, this, this city, this industrial city, which has Stalin’s name.
    2:56:39 And Hitler goes, okay, what I’m going to do now is I’m going to split my forces. So half
    2:56:43 of you can go south towards the Caucasus and the rest of you can confront Stalingrad.
    2:56:49 And on box, just who’s the commando just goes, that’s nuts. That makes no sense whatsoever.
    2:56:55 You know, you’re, you’re, you’re splitting the mission. So Hitler fires him. So suddenly they get,
    2:57:02 get into this assault for Stalingrad. And it becomes this sort of street fight. Street fighting
    2:57:06 is the worst kind of fighting. I mean, the reason why the Israelis have just blown everything
    2:57:10 up in, in Gaza is because otherwise you can’t see, you know, you need a field of fire. This
    2:57:13 is a fighting up in a fighting in a buildup area is, is horrendous.
    2:57:17 Yeah. To clarify, we’re talking about urban warfare, door to door, building to building.
    2:57:23 It’s incredibly difficult. And home advantage is colossal in this, this instance. And of
    2:57:26 course it’s piping hot when they attack in kind of August into early September, and then
    2:57:32 it suddenly gets very, very cold. And at the same time, American mechanization and slightly
    2:57:39 a British mechanization, but primarily American trucks are enabling Zhukov to plan this great
    2:57:45 pincer movement. So it is, you know, and, and Russians will hate me for saying this. Um,
    2:57:48 and I probably will get a whole load of bots on the back of it, but, but, but the truth
    2:57:57 is, is it is not the street fighting that destroys sixth army. It is encirclement, the subsequent
    2:58:02 encirclement. So they’ve, the Germans have been sucked into this street battle in Stalingrad.
    2:58:06 Cannot give up. We cannot give up. We cannot back down. We cannot pull out. We’ve got to,
    2:58:11 we’ve got to destroy this city. Meanwhile, while their backs are turned and while most of their
    2:58:16 forces are going off to the Caucasus on a wild goose chase for absolutely zero oil, incidentally,
    2:58:23 um, and they never get remotely close to Baku, this huge great pincer movement is, is, is being
    2:58:28 planned. And it is only possible through mechanization from the United States.
    2:58:36 And that is the big turning point because from that moment onwards, the Germans are on the back
    2:58:40 foot. They’re basically going backwards. There are little small counterattacks. There is obviously the
    2:58:47 cursed salient, for example. Um, but it, it, it’s game over, you know, the, the catastrophe of the
    2:58:52 surrender of the final. So I mean, the writing is on the wall at the end of 1942, but by November
    2:58:58 1942, when, when the, when the, uh, the two, um, Soviet fronts meet up, then, then, you know,
    2:59:06 there is no possible chance of escape for Sikfami. They are consigned. They are toast. And their final
    2:59:09 surrender obviously happens at the very beginning of February, 1943, but that’s all over. And then
    2:59:16 at the same time that that is happening, disaster is unfolding in North Africa because Hitler has
    2:59:23 insisted on massively resupplying the Mediterranean theater. And the problem there is the amount of
    2:59:28 equipment that is lost in North Africa is greater than it is at Stalingrad. I don’t think you could
    2:59:35 argue that psychologically. Tunisia is a greater loss than Stalingrad. It absolutely isn’t, but you have
    2:59:42 to see them in tandem as this is two fronts. This is Eastern front, Southern Western front. And this is
    2:59:47 the first time that the Americans have been on the ground against access forces and they lose big
    2:59:52 time. The allies become masters of the North African shores on the 13th of May, 1943. And it is a
    2:59:58 catastrophe. And in that time, 2,700 aircraft have been Luftwaffe aircraft have been destroyed over North
    3:00:05 Africa between November 1942 and May 1943. And overall, there’s a subsequent that summer as well.
    3:00:13 It’s really interesting. The Luftwaffe loses between June and October 1943. So this is including the
    3:00:20 Kursk battle, which takes place in July 1943. In that period, the Luftwaffe loses 702 aircraft over the
    3:00:28 Eastern front, but 3,704 aircraft over the Mediterranean. So I think one has to also, one of the lessons about
    3:00:32 the study in the Second World War is one has to be careful not to assign strategic importance to
    3:00:39 boots on the ground. It can be of great strategic importance, but not necessarily. You know, no one
    3:00:46 would argue, for example, that the Guadalcanal is not an absolutely game-changing battle in the Pacific
    3:00:49 War. And yet the number of troops compared to, you know, what’s going on in the Eastern front or even,
    3:00:58 you know, the Western front is tiny in comparison. So it is absolutely true that the most German blood is
    3:01:03 on the Eastern front. But that doesn’t mean to say that it’s more strategically important than
    3:01:06 the Western front. It’s a, it’s, it’s, and it’s not saying that the Western front is more strategic
    3:01:12 either. It’s just, you have to kind of be balanced about this. The psychological blovo of Stalingrad is
    3:01:14 immense and you, you cannot belittle that.
    3:01:19 I mean, there’s the, we went over it really fast, but there is a human drama element.
    3:01:20 Yes.
    3:01:27 But yes, when we’re talking about the operational side, the material loss of a battle is also extremely
    3:01:34 important to the big picture of the war. And we often don’t talk about that because of course,
    3:01:38 with war, the thing to focus on is the human drama of it.
    3:01:38 Yes.
    3:01:44 And I also think that what’s interesting is the, is the Nazi high command’s response to
    3:01:51 Stalingrad, which is not to go, we’re screwed. It’s to double down. It’s, you know, then so,
    3:01:55 so Goebbels, for example, gives his infamous speech in the sports palace and third week of February,
    3:02:01 1943, where he goes, are you ready for this? You know, this is now total war. The war is coming.
    3:02:07 This is a fight for survival. We’re all in it together. You are in this as well. You know,
    3:02:14 every single one, every single German is now, this is a fight for survival. And we are now in total war
    3:02:21 and, and everyone is just so depressed by this. I mean, they realize that there is, that they have,
    3:02:27 they, they will, are going to reap what they have sown, you know, because everyone knows what’s been
    3:02:31 going on in the Eastern front because first part of the war, Germans have loads and loads of cameras.
    3:02:35 They’re really into photographing everything, taking Sydney footage of everything. So part of
    3:02:39 recording the greatness of the Reich and the triumphs of the Reich, they want it recorded. So all this
    3:02:43 stuff is a bit like the radios is made very, very cheap. So lots of having, and people are sending it
    3:02:47 all back. And, you know, the people that are developing this stuff are all seeing it and people
    3:02:50 are talking about it. And then it’s been sent to families and they’re all seeing it and they’re seeing
    3:02:59 pictures of Jews being rounded up and beaten and they’re seeing, um, Ukrainian partisans being
    3:03:08 executed and they’re seeing villages being torched and everyone knows. They all know. Yeah. This whole idea
    3:03:13 is, you know, do they really know what was going on? Yeah, they do. They do know what’s going on, you know,
    3:03:19 to lesser or greater detail. Of course, you know, there’s some people who don’t and, you know, a bit like
    3:03:22 people know about the news today. Some people do, some people don’t. Oh, I never read the newspaper.
    3:03:28 I never listen to the news. You know, so you have that of course, but, but, but it is widely understood
    3:03:35 and widely known that really brutal things have been going on in the Eastern and troops coming back
    3:03:41 utterly traumatized by what they have taken part in, what they have witnessed, the kind of unspeakable
    3:03:46 brutality. This is war on a completely different level to anything that’s been kind of seen in recent
    3:03:51 years. Yeah. We should, we should mention that, you know, the Western front and the Eastern front
    3:03:56 are very different in this regard. Yes. So a lot of the Holocaust by bullets, the Holocaust with the
    3:04:03 concentration camps and extermination camps is not in Germany. It’s not in the Western front. It’s in
    3:04:09 Poland. It’s in the Soviet Union. Yeah. But don’t forget that even Auschwitz, for example, is part of
    3:04:14 the new Reich. It is part of, you know, it is part of an area which has been absorbed into
    3:04:19 Germany. So as far as they’re concerned, this has now got, you know, it’s now no longer got the
    3:04:23 Polish name. It’s now called Auschwitz, which is a German name. It is part of Germany. And there are
    3:04:29 German people moving there into this, you know, air comma model town and they all know exactly what’s
    3:04:36 going on. Yeah. You, by the way, have a nice podcast, uh, series of four episodes on Auschwitz,
    3:04:47 um, the evolution of the dream world town that becomes a camp, a work camp, then becomes an
    3:04:53 extermination camp and a big booner factory for IG Farben, which never produces a single bit of rubber.
    3:05:02 So this for sure is, uh, something I would have to dive deep in. There’s a book you recommended KL.
    3:05:08 Yes. It’s just called KL. It’s about the whole concentration camp system. Um, cause K is
    3:05:16 concentration, um, in German. Lager is a, is a camp. Um, it’s a, it’s an exhaustive book and I’m,
    3:05:21 I’m full of admiration for him for, for writing it just because jeepers, it must’ve been sort of,
    3:05:26 I mean, I, I was very depressed doing that work on Auschwitz, that deep dive. I just found the whole
    3:05:32 thing utterly dispiriting. Um, and I’ve been there a few times and it’s ghastly. Um, so how he wrote a
    3:05:39 whole book on it, I don’t know. I think in the details, there’s, there’s two ways I think to look
    3:05:46 at the Holocaust. One is, uh, man’s search for meaning, but Viktor Frankl sort of this philosophical
    3:05:52 thing about how a human being can confront that and find meaning and what it means. What,
    3:05:59 what, what does the human condition look like in the context of such, uh, evil? And then there is
    3:06:07 the more sort of detailed, okay, well, how, how do you actually implement something like the final
    3:06:14 solution? So you have this ideology of evil implemented. Yes. And at the fine detail of
    3:06:21 what, what are the different technologies used? What are the different humans and the hierarchy of
    3:06:27 humans in a camp? How do they, what’s the actual experience of the individual person who shows up
    3:06:33 at a camp? Yeah. Just get in the details. And in those details, I think there’s some deep, profound
    3:06:40 human truth that can emerge that the, the, the mundane, um, one step at a time is how you can achieve
    3:06:48 evil. Yep. So yeah, you can get lost in the mundane. It’s yes. The banality of evil. It’s, um,
    3:06:55 it’s incredible. I, I think, I think what, what is so, so completely horrific is, is that, you know,
    3:06:59 you know, half the 6 million were killed by kind of bullets to the back of the head.
    3:07:03 And the reason they stopped doing that and they wanted to stop doing that was because
    3:07:09 the guys who, the perpetrators were finding it so traumatic, you know, Himmler goes and visits, uh,
    3:07:14 um, uh, an execution in Ukraine and, or maybe he’s in the Baltic States. I can’t remember where he goes,
    3:07:17 but he, but he, we witnessed some in the, you know, in the summer of 1941, he thinks, oh, that’s
    3:07:21 horrible. You know, I don’t have to do that. I don’t want my men having to do that. I’ve got to find a
    3:07:24 more humane way of doing it. When he’s talking about more humane way of doing it, humane for the,
    3:07:32 for the executors, executioners, not, not for the victims because just me, cyclone B is not a nice
    3:07:36 way to go. You know, it basically, basically it’s bursting all the capillaries in your lungs. It’s
    3:07:42 extremely painful and you, you can no longer breathe and it can take up to 20, 25 minutes. You know,
    3:07:47 some people that can take a couple of minutes, but all of those who are standing naked in that gas
    3:07:53 chamber, first of all, extremely humiliated by this process in the first place. Then there’s a sudden
    3:07:57 realization of the, the, they’re not having a shower. They’re actually being gas and they’re
    3:08:02 all going to die. Imagine what you’re thinking as that processes you, because you might be the first,
    3:08:06 but you’re still going to, even the first person is going to know that I can’t breathe and I’m,
    3:08:11 I’m dying. Everyone else is going to see the first few dying and then going to realize that is what’s
    3:08:17 going to happen to them. And you’ve got those minutes, sometimes many minutes where you’ve got to
    3:08:25 contemplate that, that, and, and that’s, that’s in extreme pain and panic. And just think about how cruel
    3:08:32 that is while being humiliated all the way through, while being humiliated all the way through. And so
    3:08:42 the inverted commas humanity of, of, of the gas chambers is anything, but it’s disgusting. And the fact that
    3:08:47 people could do this is just beyond horrific. And then the fact that you are taking your Jewish
    3:08:55 prisoners and getting them to cut off all the hair, pull out the teeth of the dead before you put them
    3:09:01 on a lift and incinerate them. If you go to Auschwitz now and you go to the collapse, the blown up gas
    3:09:06 chambers, which the Germans destroyed before the Russians overran them in January 45, you can still see
    3:09:11 some of the ash ponds and there are bits of bone there, but still there from the ash. It’s just,
    3:09:19 it is utterly repulsive. And imagine arriving from that train on that incredibly long journey where
    3:09:22 you’ve had no comforts whatsoever. You’ve had, again, you’ve had humiliations and privation,
    3:09:27 you know, the privations you’ve had to suffer as a result of that, you know, having to kind of
    3:09:32 defecate in a bucket in the corner in front of other people. It’s just horrendous. And then you get
    3:09:36 there bewildered and immediately your kids are taken away from you or your, you know, husband and
    3:09:40 wife who’ve been married 20 years, they’re separated just like that, sent off into different groups,
    3:09:47 straight to the gas chambers. I mean, you know, it is, the scale of cruelty is so immense. It’s hard
    3:09:52 to fathom. And the thing that I find really difficult to reconcile, and this is where I think the, you know,
    3:09:58 the warning from history is important, is that Germany is such an amazing nation. You know,
    3:10:05 it’s, it’s, it’s, it’s the, it’s the country of Beethoven and Strauss and, and of Goethe and
    3:10:12 incredible art and culture and, and, and some of the greatest engineers and scientists have ever lived.
    3:10:22 And look how quickly it flipped into the descent of unspeakable inhumanity, which manifests itself in
    3:10:30 the Holocaust and the gas chambers, um, and those executions into pits and tiny places and creeks in
    3:10:38 Lithuania or Ukraine or whatever. I mean, it’s, it’s, it’s just horrendous. And, you know, this is from a
    3:10:41 nation which a decade earlier had been a democracy.
    3:10:46 It seems like as a human civilization, we walked that soldier in instant line between good and evil.
    3:10:51 Uh, it’s, it’s a thin line and we have to walk it carefully.
    3:10:52 Yes.
    3:11:02 So I, one of the great battles in, uh, in World War II on the Western front is Normandy.
    3:11:11 I have to talk to you about Normandy, uh, D-Day, the Normandy landings, the famous on June 6th, 1944.
    3:11:18 This was a allied invasion of Nazi occupied Western Europe. What was the planning? And it was lengthy
    3:11:22 planning. What was the planning? What was the execution of the Normandy landings?
    3:11:27 Well, the decision to finally go in, when the Americans joined the war in December, 1941,
    3:11:32 there’s the Arcadia conference. A few days later, a week later between the British chiefs of staff and
    3:11:38 political leaders, Churchill and Roosevelt and his own chiefs of staff about what the policy should
    3:11:42 be. And the policy is to get American troops over to Europe as quickly as possible, get them over to
    3:11:49 Britain, get them training, um, and get them across the channel ASAP and, and start the liberation of
    3:11:54 Europe. But the reality is that, that, that in 1942, the Americans just aren’t ready. You know,
    3:11:59 they’ve gone from this incredibly tiny army. They’re still growing. They’ve got no battlefield experience.
    3:12:02 The British are still recovering the, you know, they’re, they’re good on the naval power. They’re kind of
    3:12:09 good on air power. Um, but, but, but land power, they’ve had to kind of make up from the loss of
    3:12:15 their ally France and, and expand as well. So kind of ground zero for both America and Britain has been
    3:12:22 kind of June 1940, 1940 when France is out and suddenly that’s the strategic earthquake. And that’s the,
    3:12:26 the issue that needs settling. And they need to just completely realign everything that they’d,
    3:12:31 they’d fought in 1939. They’ve got to start again, but it’s also becomes clear that it’s,
    3:12:36 they’re not really ready in 1943 either. And one of the problems is, is that Molotov,
    3:12:40 who is the Soviet foreign minister has come over to Britain in May, 1942 and said, you know,
    3:12:45 we need you to kind of do your bit and get on the, get on the, on the campaign trail against
    3:12:48 the Germans and fight on the ground. And the British sort of go, well, yeah, but you know,
    3:12:51 across the elevation is not really going to happen. We know we’re doing that in North Africa at the
    3:12:55 moment. And then he goes over to Washington and, and, um, and the Americans go, you know,
    3:12:59 we’re definitely going to go and take on the attack to the, uh, the Germans in 1942. They’ve
    3:13:04 made this promise. So the summer of 1942, it becomes clear that they can’t keep that. So
    3:13:07 Churchill says, well, look, I’ve got, here’s an idea. You know, we’re in, we’ve already got an
    3:13:12 army in, in Egypt. Why don’t we land another one in Northwest Europe? We can Northwest Africa. We
    3:13:19 can, that’s run by Vichy France, which is pro axis French, um, colonies. Um, why don’t we take
    3:13:22 that? And we can do that. And then we can meet in the middle. We can pincer out and we can conquer
    3:13:26 the whole of North Africa. You can kill with two birds with one stone because you can get some
    3:13:31 experience fighting against axis troops, you know, test some of your, your, your, your equipment and
    3:13:35 commanders, you know, what’s not to like, and then we can sort of see how it goes. So this is a kind
    3:13:40 of opportunistic strategy. Whereas Americans are very much sort of, you know, we, we want to draw a
    3:13:43 straight line to Berlin and that’s the quickest way. And let’s do, do it that way. So it’s kind of a
    3:13:49 different viewpoint. And, but Roosevelt kind of gets that and agrees to that. So that’s where the
    3:13:54 whole North Africa Mediterranean campaign comes from. And as a consequence of the huge commitment
    3:13:59 to Tunisia, you know, three and a half thousand aircraft, huge navies, you know, two army allied
    3:14:05 armies, um, in North Africa, by the time Tunisia is won in mid May, 1943, they think, well, we’ve got
    3:14:09 all this here. We might as well kind of really try and get, put the nail into the coffin of Italy’s war,
    3:14:13 get them out of the battle. You know, Sicily is an obvious one. Let’s go in there and then we can
    3:14:19 take a view. But between Sicily happening and the fall of North Africa is the Trident conference in
    3:14:23 Washington. And that is where the decisions made the Americans go, okay, enough of this opportunistic
    3:14:31 stuff. Let’s just, okay, we get it. We buy it, but no more faffing around, you know, May, 1944,
    3:14:36 one year hence, we are going to cross the Atlantic and the British go, okay, fair cop, we’ll do that.
    3:14:41 So, so that is where Operation Overlord, as it becomes, gets given its code name,
    3:14:46 its operational name. That’s when the planning starts. Serious planning starts at the beginning
    3:14:53 of 1944. And one of the lessons from Sicily to Normandy is that you can’t have commanders
    3:14:58 fighting one battle whilst preparing for the next one. So you have to have a separate, um, uh,
    3:15:02 command structure. And that’s okay because by this time we’ve got enough people that have got
    3:15:06 experience of battlefield command that you can actually split it. There are very good reasons
    3:15:10 for going into Italy, not least getting the Foggia airfields so that you can further tighten
    3:15:15 the noose around, around Nazi Germany. And one of the great prerequisites for the Normandy invasion
    3:15:21 is total control of air power of the air, of the airspace, not just over Normandy, but over a large
    3:15:28 swathe of Northwest Europe. Why is that? Because the moment you land in Normandy, the cat is out of the bag
    3:15:33 and it’s then a race between which side can build up men and material quickest. Is it going to be
    3:15:38 the allies? You’ve got to come from Southern England, which is a distance of a slow journey
    3:15:44 across seas and the distance between kind of 80 and 130 miles away. Or is it going to be the Germans
    3:15:48 that are already on the continent? Well, clearly on paper, it’s the Germans. So you have to slow up
    3:15:52 the Germans. Well, how do you do that? We do that by destroying their means of getting there.
    3:15:57 So bridges, destroy all the bridges over the Seine, destroy all the bridges over the Lovar,
    3:16:02 hit the marshalling yards. The German, the glue that keeps the German war machine together is the
    3:16:07 Reichsbahn, the German railway network. So destroy the railway as much as you possibly can and make it
    3:16:13 difficult for the Germans to reinforce the Normandy British head as and when it comes. But the way you do
    3:16:18 that in turn is by very low level precision bombing. And that has to be done by twin engine, faster,
    3:16:25 smaller bombers going in low. But the problem is, is you can’t go low and destroy those bridges if
    3:16:28 you’ve got Fokker, Walser, Messerschmitts hovering above you. So you’ve got to destroy those, which is
    3:16:34 why you need to have air superiority over this large wave of Northwest Europe to do that. The problem is
    3:16:40 that while the industrial heartland of Nazi Germany is in the West, is in the Ruhr era, which is very
    3:16:47 convenient for bombers coming out of Lincolnshire or East Anglia on the east flat east side of Great
    3:16:53 Britain, the aircraft industry is much deeper into the Reich and it is beyond the range of fighter
    3:16:59 escorts for the bombers. And the American daylight bombers who are going over are discovering that despite
    3:17:05 being called flying fortresses, they’re not fortresses, they’re actually getting decimated. And whenever their
    3:17:11 bombers go in strength over to try and hit the aircraft industry in Germany, beyond fighter range, they get
    3:17:17 decimated. First, infamously on the Schweinfeld Reckenburgs raid on the 17th of August 1943, coincidentally the
    3:17:22 same day that Sicily falls to the Allies, and also coincidentally the same day that face-to-face
    3:17:28 negotiations begin with the Italians for an armistice in Lisbon. But on that day, of the 324 heavy
    3:17:33 bombers that the Americans send over to hit Schweinfeld and Reckenburg, where there are a Messerschmitt plant
    3:17:39 and also a ball bearing plant, which is essential for aircraft manufacturing, they lose 60 shot down and a
    3:17:47 further 130 odd, really, really badly damaged. And even for the vast numbers of manpower and bombers that are coming out of
    3:17:53 America, this is too much. So, they can’t sustain it. So, they’ve got to find a fighter escort that’s going to be able to
    3:18:00 escort them all the way into the Reich and the race is on. Because basically, if they haven’t got one airspace by April
    3:18:06 1944, it’s game over. You can’t do a cross-channel invasion. You have to have that control of the airspace
    3:18:11 beforehand. So, the race is on. Unfortunately, they come up with a solution, which is the P-51 Mustang, which has
    3:18:18 originally been commissioned in May 1940 by the British, developed from sketches to reality in 117 days. It’s
    3:18:22 a work of absolute genius. But start off its harness with a really bad engine. The Allison engine is just
    3:18:28 not right for that aircraft. And it’s not until a Rolls-Royce Merlin, which is the same one that powers
    3:18:33 the Lancaster, the Mosquito and Spitfire and Hurricane, is put into the P-51 Mustang that suddenly you’ve got
    3:18:40 your solution. Because that means it can now fly with extra drop tanks and fuel tanks. It’s so aerodynamic
    3:18:45 and it’s so good, the higher it goes with this engine, the more fuel efficient it becomes. It can actually fly
    3:18:50 over 1,400 miles, which gets you not just to Berlin and back, but to Warsaw and back. So, suddenly, you’ve got
    3:18:56 that solution. And actually, by April 1944, they have cleared airspace. And by the end of May 1944, just on the
    3:19:06 eve of the invasion, Operation Overlord, the closest German aircraft that is seen fighting allied aircraft
    3:19:13 is 500 miles from the beachhead. So, it is absolutely job done. Meanwhile, new fighter, comparatively new
    3:19:20 ground attack fighter planes like Typhoons and Tempests and adapted P-47 Thunderbolts are attacking
    3:19:25 the German radar stations all along the coastline, because they now do have an air defense system.
    3:19:32 They’re destroying kind of 90% of their effectiveness. And in the intelligence game,
    3:19:37 they’re winning that one as well. They’re just much better because in Germany, intelligence is power. So,
    3:19:41 people tend to, you know, and Hitler always has this kind of divide and rule thing going on. So,
    3:19:45 you have parallel command structures, which is not conducive to bringing together of intelligence.
    3:19:49 And while much play has been made about the successes of Bletchley and code breaking and all
    3:19:54 the rest of it, actually, what you have to do is you have to see the kind of the decrypts that the
    3:20:01 Bletchley cryptanalysts do as just a cog. And those various cogs together from listening services to
    3:20:07 photo reconnaissance to agents on the ground, the cogs collectively add up to more than some of their
    3:20:11 individual parts. And so, the intelligence picture is a broad picture rather than just
    3:20:17 code breaking. But anyway, they win that particular battle as well. And what you see really with D-Day is,
    3:20:23 I think, is the zenith of coalition warfare. What you’ve got is you’ve got multiple nations who have
    3:20:29 different overall aims, different cultures, different attitudes, different start points,
    3:20:35 but they have all coalesced into one common goal. And until they’ve achieved that common goal,
    3:20:40 they’re going to put differences to one side. Much play has been made about kind of anglophobia amongst
    3:20:47 American commanders and America phobia amongst British commanders. But actually, it’s nothing.
    3:20:52 It’s a marriage made in heaven compared to the way Germany looks after its own allies, for example.
    3:20:58 And what is remarkable about the allies is they’re not actually allies, they’re coalition partners.
    3:21:05 So, there’s no formal alliance at all. And there is a subtle difference there. But what you see them is
    3:21:12 you see them really, really pulling together. And you see that manifest itself on D-Day, I think,
    3:21:22 where you’ve got, you know, 6,939 vessels, of which there are 1,213 warships, 4,127 assault craft,
    3:21:32 12,500 aircraft, you know, 155,000 men landed and dropped from the air in 24-hour period. It is
    3:21:38 phenomenal. It is absolutely phenomenal. And while it is still seen as a predominantly American show,
    3:21:45 all three service commanders are British, it is most of the aircraft, two-thirds of the aircraft are
    3:21:49 British. Two-thirds of the men landed are British in Dominion. You never forget the Canadians who
    3:21:55 consistently punch massively above their weight in the Second World War. In all aspects, it has to be
    3:22:01 said, air, land, and sea. They’re key in the Battle of the Atlantic. They’re key in air power. They’re key
    3:22:05 at D-Day and indeed in the Battle for Italy as well. So, the Canadians should never be forgotten.
    3:22:14 But one of the reasons it is the British Navy that dominates in D-Day is because, of course,
    3:22:20 the incredibly enormous strength of the Royal Navy in the first place, but partly because most of the
    3:22:25 U.S. Navy is by this stage in the Pacific fighting its own fight. So, it’s not slacking by any stretch
    3:22:30 of the imagination. It is because it’s elsewhere doing its bit for the kind of overall ally cause.
    3:22:35 But D-Day is just extraordinary, you know, and despite the terrible weather,
    3:22:40 which is such a debilitating factor in the whole thing. I mean, it puts people off course. It means
    3:22:44 many more people get killed on Omaha Beach than they might have done and on other beaches besides,
    3:22:49 incidentally. And actually, in terms of lives lost, proportionally, it is the Canadians that suffer the
    3:22:57 worst, more so than the Americans. It’s just there’s fewer of them overall. D-Day has to be seen as an
    3:23:01 unqualified success. I mean, it is absolutely extraordinary what they achieve. And while they
    3:23:06 don’t 100% achieve their overall D-Day objectives, you know, the objectives are always going to be
    3:23:14 the outer reach of what can be achieved. And you’d need absolutely perfect conditions for that to
    3:23:18 happen. And they don’t get perfect conditions. But they’re so balanced. They’re so thought of
    3:23:23 absolutely everything. And their logistics apply. And I mean, even things like the minesweeping
    3:23:27 operations, the biggest single minesweeping operation of the entire war, because there’s
    3:23:32 huge minefields off the Normandy coast and ahead of the invasion force, the minesweepers, which amount
    3:23:38 to, I think, something like 242 different minesweepers in five different operations opposite every single
    3:23:44 beach, creating lanes through these minefields through which the invasion force can go. Not a single
    3:23:50 ship is lost to a mine in the actual invasion. That is phenomenal and can only be done with the
    3:23:55 greatest of skill and planning. And all in a period where, you know, there are no computers,
    3:23:59 there’s no GPS, there’s nothing. I mean, it is absolutely astonishing. And the scale of it
    3:24:07 is just, frankly, mind-boggling. Yeah. And that was really the nail in the coffin,
    3:24:15 the beginning of the end for Hitler, for the European theater. Yeah. Once you get the only cause for doubt is,
    3:24:21 will they be able to secure that bridgehead? The moment they get that bridgehead, it is game over.
    3:24:26 There’s only, you know, there is, there is no other way it’s going to be because of the overwhelming
    3:24:30 amount of men and material that the allies have compared to the Germans at this stage of the war.
    3:24:34 And of course, you know, you’re being attacked on three fronts because there’s the Italian front to the
    3:24:39 south. And of course, in a very major way, you’ve also got the Eastern front and Operation Begratian,
    3:24:44 which has launched that, that summer as well is enormous.
    3:24:49 So let’s go to the very end. The Battle of Berlin. Yeah.
    3:24:57 Hitler sitting in his bunker, his suicide, Germany’s surrender. You actually said that
    3:25:01 Downfall, the movie, was a very accurate representation.
    3:25:04 I think it is really. Except that Goebbels took Son, I didn’t shoot himself.
    3:25:13 Oh, details. But I think it’s probably, it might be my favorite World War II movie,
    3:25:16 which is strange to say, because it’s not really about World War II.
    3:25:18 It’s about Hitler in a bunker, but.
    3:25:23 I think it was in a Bruno Gantz, wasn’t it? I think, I think he, he nailed him.
    3:25:24 Yeah.
    3:25:31 That’s, there’s so many accounts of that. There’s so much written about Hitler. There’s so many of,
    3:25:35 there’s millions and millions of Hitler’s words that you can read. You know, there, there are
    3:25:41 translations of many of his conferences. You can see what he’s saying. You can get inside his head in a
    3:25:48 very clear way, much more clearly than you can Stalin or just about any other leader, really. And
    3:25:50 so
    3:25:55 one has a very, very strong impression of what Hitler was like in the bunker in those last,
    3:26:00 last days. There’s just, there’s so many accounts of it. And
    3:26:06 it just feels like they nailed it. It just feels like they’ve got it spot on to me.
    3:26:15 I mean, it’s a fascinating story of, uh, evil maniac. And then, and this, this certainty,
    3:26:23 you know, crumbling, right? Like realizing that this vision of the third thousand year Reich
    3:26:24 is, uh,
    3:26:27 and Hitler says, says, you know, my reputation won’t be good to start off with, but I hope in
    3:26:30 a few years time that people will start to realize that kind of all the good I was trying to bring.
    3:26:37 And that sort of, they’re all the same, aren’t they? You always believe you’re doing good and
    3:26:44 there’s so many deep lessons there. So now you have written so much, you have said so much,
    3:26:51 you have studied this so much. What do you look in a world war two is, uh, the lessons we should take
    3:27:00 away? Well, I suppose it’s, it’s, it’s what happens when you allow these individuals to take hold of
    3:27:04 great power and great authority and make these terrible decisions. If you allow that to happen,
    3:27:09 you know, there are consequences and you have to be, you have to recognize the moments of,
    3:27:15 of trouble when they arise. So when there are financial crisis, you know, that political unrest
    3:27:21 is going to come and you need to be prepared for that. You know, you need to be able to see the
    3:27:28 writing on the wall. You, you can’t, you can’t be complacent. You know, complacency is such a dirty
    3:27:33 word, isn’t it? You know, you’ve got, you’ve got to keep your wits in and you can’t take things for
    3:27:40 granted. You’ve got to recognize, I think, um, that the freedoms we enjoy in the West are,
    3:27:44 you know, they’re not necessarily permanent and
    3:27:52 you need to make the most of them while you’ve got them and cherish them and consider what happens
    3:27:59 if the milk turns sour and what the consequences of that are. I mean, that’s the overriding thing,
    3:28:03 because although I don’t think there’ll ever be a war on the scale of the second world war,
    3:28:08 you’ve only got to look at pictures of those opening days of the war in Ukraine and see sort of knocked
    3:28:14 out Russian tanks and dead bodies, bloated bodies all over the place, put that into black and white.
    3:28:20 And, you know, it could be the road out of Falais in 1944. It could be, you know, any number of
    3:28:27 German battlefields and in the, in World War II and, and the similarities and the trenches and the kind of
    3:28:33 people hiding in foxholes. And, you know, that, that’s, that’s horribly reminiscent as are the huge
    3:28:37 casualties that they’re suffering on both sides, whether they’d be Russian or Ukrainian. And, you know,
    3:28:44 it’s a shock, it’s a shock to see that. Um, and it reminds you of just how quickly I think things
    3:28:48 can descend. I mean, that’s, that’s, uh, that’s the other thing, you know, at that point I was making
    3:28:54 about how quickly Germany descended from this amazing nation of arts and culture and science and
    3:29:03 development and engineering into one of the Holocaust. I mean, life is fragile and, and peace is
    3:29:12 fragile. And, you know, it’s, you take it for granted at your peril and you take for granted at
    3:29:19 our peril that nobody will use nuclear weapons ever again. And that’s not a thing we should take for
    3:29:26 granted. No, sir. What gives you hope about the future of human civilization? We’ve been talking about
    3:29:33 all of this darkness in the 20th century. What’s the source of light?
    3:29:40 is that I think the vast majority of people are good people who want to live peacefully and want to
    3:29:48 live happily and are not filled with hate. And there are some brilliant minds out there. And I think
    3:29:54 the capacity for the human brain to come up with new developments and new answers to problems and
    3:30:00 is, is infinite. And I think that’s what gives me hope.
    3:30:07 James, this is, uh, I’m a big fan. This was an honor to talk to you and please keep
    3:30:14 putting incredible history out there. Um, I can’t wait to see what you do next. Thank you so much for
    3:30:17 talking today. Well, thank you, Lex. It’s been a heart of privilege to talk to you.
    3:30:22 Thanks for listening to this conversation with James Holland. To support this podcast,
    3:30:29 please check out our sponsors in the description or at lexfreedman.com slash sponsors. And now let
    3:30:36 me leave you some words from Winston Churchill. If you’re going through hell, keep going. Thank you
    3:30:39 for listening and hope to see you next time.

    James Holland is a historian specializing in World War II. He hosts a podcast called WW2 Pod: We Have Ways of Making You Talk.
    Thank you for listening ❤ Check out our sponsors: https://lexfridman.com/sponsors/ep470-sc
    See below for timestamps, and to give feedback, submit questions, contact Lex, etc.

    CONTACT LEX:
    Feedback – give feedback to Lex: https://lexfridman.com/survey
    AMA – submit questions, videos or call-in: https://lexfridman.com/ama
    Hiring – join our team: https://lexfridman.com/hiring
    Other – other ways to get in touch: https://lexfridman.com/contact

    EPISODE LINKS:
    James’s Books: https://amzn.to/4caapmt
    James’s X: https://x.com/James1940
    James’s Instagram: https://instagram.com/jamesholland1940
    James’s Substack: https://james1940.substack.com
    WW2 Pod (Podcast – Apple): https://apple.co/4l93Dl3
    WW2 Pod (Podcast – YouTube): https://www.youtube.com/@wehaveways
    WW2 Pod (Podcast – Spotify): https://open.spotify.com/show/34VlAepHmeloDD76RX4jtc
    WW2 Pod (Podcast – X): https://x.com/WeHaveWaysPod

    SPONSORS:
    To support this podcast, check out our sponsors & get discounts:
    Shopify: Sell stuff online.
    Go to https://shopify.com/lex
    LMNT: Zero-sugar electrolyte drink mix.
    Go to https://drinkLMNT.com/lex
    AG1: All-in-one daily nutrition drink.
    Go to https://drinkag1.com/lex
    Notion: Note-taking and team collaboration.
    Go to https://notion.com/lex

    OUTLINE:
    (00:00) – Introduction
    (00:34) – Sponsors, Comments, and Reflections
    (07:25) – World War II
    (17:23) – Lebensraum and Hitler ideology
    (24:36) – Operation Barbarossa
    (40:49) – Hitler vs Europe
    (1:02:35) – Joseph Goebbels
    (1:12:29) – Hitler before WW2
    (1:17:25) – Hitler vs Chamberlain
    (1:39:31) – Invasion of Poland
    (1:44:07) – Molotov–Ribbentrop Pact
    (1:52:09) – Winston Churchill
    (2:16:09) – Most powerful military in WW2
    (2:38:31) – Tanks
    (2:48:30) – Battle of Stalingrad
    (3:01:21) – Concentration camps
    (3:10:53) – Battle of Normandy
    (3:24:45) – Lessons from WW2

    PODCAST LINKS:
    – Podcast Website: https://lexfridman.com/podcast
    – Apple Podcasts: https://apple.co/2lwqZIr
    – Spotify: https://spoti.fi/2nEwCF8
    – RSS: https://lexfridman.com/feed/podcast/
    – Podcast Playlist: https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLrAXtmErZgOdP_8GztsuKi9nrraNbKKp4
    – Clips Channel: https://www.youtube.com/lexclips

  • #469 – Oliver Anthony: Country Music, Blue-Collar America, Fame, Money, and Pain

    #469 – Oliver Anthony: Country Music, Blue-Collar America, Fame, Money, and Pain

    AI transcript
    0:00:05 The following is a conversation with Oliver Anthony, singer-songwriter from Virginia,
    0:00:11 who first gained worldwide fame with his viral hit, Rich Men North of Richmond.
    0:00:18 He became a voice for many who are voiceless, with his songs speaking to the struggle of
    0:00:24 the working class in modern American life. His legal name is Christopher Anthony Lunsford.
    0:00:31 Oliver Anthony was his grandfather’s name. So Chris used this name as a dedication to his
    0:00:36 grandfather and to 1930s Appalachia, where his grandfather was born and raised.
    0:00:44 Dirt floors, seven kids, hard times, as Chris says. He’s happy to be called either one, by the way.
    0:00:50 I’ve gotten to know Chris more since the recording of this conversation. He truly is, as he appears
    0:00:57 online and in his songs. Down to earth, humble, and a good man who deeply feels the pain of the
    0:01:02 downtrodden. And now, a quick few-second mention of each sponsor. Check them out in the description
    0:01:09 or at lexfriedman.com slash sponsors. It’s the best way to support this podcast. We’ve got Masterclass
    0:01:16 for learning, Shopify for selling stuff, Oracle for computing, Tax Network USA for taxes, and
    0:01:22 Element for electrolytes. Choose wisely, my friends. And now, on to the full ad reads. I do them
    0:01:27 differently than most podcasts do. Usually, I barely talk about the sponsor and instead, just
    0:01:34 take this quiet moment to talk about things I’m reading or thinking about. A little Bob Ross-like
    0:01:40 heart to heart between you and me. Also, unlike most podcasts, I don’t do ads in the middle.
    0:01:46 So, uh, they’re all bunched up here in one place. You can skip if you like, but if you do,
    0:01:51 please still check out the sponsors. I enjoy their stuff. Maybe you will too. If you want to get in
    0:01:58 touch with me for whatever reason, go to lexfriedman.com slash contact. All right, on to the ethereal
    0:02:04 realm of sponsorland. Let’s go. This episode is brought to you by Masterclass, where you can
    0:02:08 watch over 200 classes from the best people in the world in their respective disciplines.
    0:02:16 You know, I know so little about filmmaking. The Scorsese Masterclass was instructive. Scorsese
    0:02:26 himself, his approach, his, uh, deliberate, passionate, almost bipolar approach to, uh, filmmaking and to
    0:02:34 editing. It’s inspiring to watch madness manifest into genius. I think about the hand-drawn storyboards
    0:02:42 for Taxi Driver. I haven’t seen them, heard about them. And that, I think, is the birthplace of great
    0:02:48 films, is the storyboards, right? Really, it’s the vision in the mind of somebody like Scorsese
    0:02:54 that then is projected onto the storyboards. So the storyboards is just a slice, but that’s the first
    0:03:03 time they take shape in a visual, physical reality. I should do that more. I should think in the space,
    0:03:08 in the realm of storyboards, especially when I try to do sort of vlog, documentary, filmmaking type of
    0:03:14 stuff. Really inspiring. Anyway, get unlimited access to every Masterclass and get an additional 15%
    0:03:19 off an annual membership at masterclass.com slash lexpod. That’s masterclass.com slash lexpod.
    0:03:26 This episode is also brought to you by Shopify, a platform designed for anyone to sell anywhere with
    0:03:32 a great looking online store. I got a chance to talk to DHH, the creator of Ruby on Rails, for many,
    0:03:41 many, many hours. What a wonderful human being. Genius, but also fun and aggressive in his opinions.
    0:03:49 And holding those opinions, not in a personal kind of way, but in an almost backyard football
    0:03:56 kind of way. Just seeing who wins with a particular idea, just for the explicit purpose of learning
    0:04:02 something from the interaction, from the tension between the ideas, from the debate. Such a fun
    0:04:08 person to talk to. Anyway, I mentioned it because I think about 10,000 or 100,000 times we give a shout
    0:04:20 out to Shopify because Shopify is really an exemplary execution of a system used by a very large number
    0:04:27 of people that is built on Ruby on Rails. That conversation, by the way, is just an homage to
    0:04:33 programming period. And you can think of Shopify as an homage to Ruby on Rails, which DHH really explains
    0:04:38 as well why it’s such a beautiful programming language. Anyway, a lot of love for Shopify to go
    0:04:45 around. Sign up for a $1 per month trial period at shopify.com/lex, all lowercase. Go to shopify.com/lex
    0:04:50 to take your business to take your business to the next level today. This episode was also brought
    0:04:57 to you by Oracle, a company providing fully integrated stack of cloud applications and cloud platform services.
    0:05:08 I was just talking to a friend yesterday about the weather in a way that’s the most generic of topics, but talked about in the least generic of ways.
    0:05:13 And the discussion centered around how much computational power would be required to simulate
    0:05:21 the weather sufficiently to be able to predict it. And I’ve gotten a chance to talk to a few people who chase storms.
    0:05:27 They’re storm chasers. And they actually have to do this kind of weather prediction.
    0:05:34 Obviously, with simulation, you have to always choose a level of abstraction. You can’t get down to the sort of quantum mechanical simulation.
    0:05:42 Or if you do, you’re going to need a large computer, probably as large or larger than the size of the universe if you want to perfectly simulate a thing.
    0:05:45 But sometimes a laptop with a nice GPU will do.
    0:05:54 Anyway, cut your cloud bill in half when you switch to OCI, Oracle Cloud Infrastructure, I believe that stands for.
    0:06:00 Offer is for new US customers with a minimum financial commitment. See if you qualify at oracle.com/lex.
    0:06:04 That’s oracle.com/lex.
    0:06:12 This episode is also brought to you by Tax Network USA, a full service tax firm focused on solving tax problems for individuals
    0:06:19 in small businesses. I think this is the right place to mention Oliver Anthony’s, Chris’s song, “Rich Men, North of Richmond.”
    0:06:25 Boy, does the tax law really fuck over the blue collar worker, the everyday man.
    0:06:41 The more complexity there is, the more loopholes there are for people with many lawyers and accountants and expert explorers of the loopholes, finders of the loopholes.
    0:06:48 It’s nuanced, of course, pros and cons. But really, at the end of the day, I think a simpler tax law is better.
    0:06:50 I don’t know.
    0:07:00 That song hit me hard, hit a lot of people hard. And a lot of Chris’s songs do. Sometimes it feels hopeless.
    0:07:09 But I would say more than probably any country on earth, the United States really puts a lot of power in the hands of individuals.
    0:07:17 But we live in the system we live in. So here we are. That’s why you need these guys. Talk with one of their strategies for free today.
    0:07:25 Call 1-800-958-1000 or go to tnusa.com/lex
    0:07:32 This episode is also brought to you by Element, my daily zero-sugar and delicious electrolyte mix.
    0:07:40 Whenever I think about thirst. Whenever I think about water. Whenever I think about electrolytes.
    0:07:47 Once, I think about my time in the Amazon jungle, I record a bunch of different videos from that time and
    0:07:53 I need to put together a little, like a mini documentary of that time to celebrate really
    0:08:01 the jungle and to celebrate the human being of Paul Rosely. This earth, this civilization creates some
    0:08:10 special humans and he’s one. But anyway, I remember thinking about Element, like a, like a cold,
    0:08:17 a drink of water with some element in it. I remember thinking about that when going through the jungle,
    0:08:23 deeply dehydrated. It’s the little things in life. Anyway, get a sample
    0:08:28 pack for free with any purchase. Try it to drink element.com/lex.
    0:08:34 This is a Lex Friedman podcast. To support it, please check out our sponsors in the description.
    0:08:51 And now, dear friends, here’s Christopher Lunsford, or as many of you know him as Oliver Anthony.
    0:09:06 So I was texting you, uh, last night, uh, sitting at an open mic, listening to a guy perform Great
    0:09:12 Balls of Fire. Uh, like I told you, he was giving everything he got for like five people in the audience,
    0:09:15 plus me. Well, you were there. I’d been, I’d have been doing it too, if you were out there. Like, oh,
    0:09:23 that’s Lex Friedman. No, man. He was, uh, this big dude on a keyboard, just everything. Sweaty, long hair. You could
    0:09:28 tell, like, he was there in his own little world. I love the courage of that, of just giving it
    0:09:33 everything. I don’t think he wants to be famous. I don’t think he wants anything in life except to be
    0:09:39 there and to play like his heart out. That’s why I love open mics. Like some people still aspire to be
    0:09:45 famous when they play open mics, but some people, maybe they’ve given up or maybe they never wanted
    0:09:50 to be famous. They’re just there for the pure artistry of it. So yeah. And you said you started
    0:09:54 out playing open mics at shitty bars. What was that like? Well, yeah, real quick,
    0:09:59 before I forget too, a great example of a, of a guy who had that same mindset and was able to
    0:10:04 maintain it really well as this mandolin player named Johnny Stats in West Virginia. To me,
    0:10:09 he’s one of the best and he’s won all these awards and stuff. And he still works for UPS full time.
    0:10:14 And like, he could go out and tour with it, play mandolin for anybody he wanted to. But he,
    0:10:18 but man, when you meet Johnny, like you can tell he’s just got this, um,
    0:10:26 this joy in him that I don’t think he would have if he, but as far as me with the open mics, um,
    0:10:33 yeah, it was just, it was a lot of them were really, a lot of them were embarrassing. There
    0:10:36 was a couple, I remember there was times where I’d go up and try to do, I do like one song.
    0:10:41 I get like halfway through the next song and I’d be so nervous by that point. I didn’t,
    0:10:43 I couldn’t remember any of the words. And there’s a couple of times I’ve,
    0:10:49 I remember there was one time in particular that I just, I just walked off halfway through the song,
    0:10:53 put my guitar in the case and just, well, I just left. I didn’t even like, couldn’t even stay in
    0:10:58 there. Just total, you know, just total freak out. Just embarrassment. And I never drank in bars
    0:11:03 either. Like I’m not a, I wasn’t really a social drinker. So I was just there to try to do the mic.
    0:11:07 So it was kind of, I was a little out of place anyway. I feel kind of out of place in a bar to
    0:11:11 start with. So yeah, it was back when you could smoke in bars. There’s a whole vibe to it. People
    0:11:17 smoke and drinking and yeah, definitely, you know, bombing in a place like that when the audience
    0:11:24 there’s like five people and they’re bored. Yeah. There was one like that. It was in Motoka. It
    0:11:29 wasn’t that far from where I lived. The place is gone now, but, uh, it was about as big as the room
    0:11:34 we’re in here. If that, you know, like the, the ceiling tiles were yellow from where everybody
    0:11:38 had smoked in it since the beginning of time. And, but like, yeah, that was my little spot.
    0:11:42 Those little type of spots. You did covers. What’d you play? What was your go-to?
    0:11:47 Back then it was like, uh, I don’t know, fishing in the dark, nitty gritty band, or like, um,
    0:11:54 any of those old Hank, like Hank Jr songs, like any of those bar type, um, David Allen Co.,
    0:11:57 like you never call me by my name, any of that kind of stuff. And I haven’t even played any
    0:12:02 of those in forever now, but that was any of those ones where you get people singing along
    0:12:04 and stuff. That’s what I’d always try to do. You know?
    0:12:09 Yeah. That song you performed, take me home, uh, country road and how’s that go? West Virginia.
    0:12:16 Yeah. John Denver was just, uh, one of those guys that it’s who knows where he would have went
    0:12:21 long-term if he wouldn’t have passed, but you know, it’s a fun song that I love. I shouldn’t,
    0:12:25 but I love is, uh, what is it? Uh, like, thank God I’m a country boy.
    0:12:32 I think that’s what I liked about John Denver was he was a little bit like he let himself be a little
    0:12:38 bit corny in the spirit of like having fun with it. Like, um, great example. There’s this old older
    0:12:43 guy that not a lot of people have heard of named Roy Clark, but, um, my farm’s like a mile down the road
    0:12:47 from Roy Clark’s old farm, but he, he used to be on he-haw. I don’t know if you ever heard of that old
    0:12:53 show from like the sixties or whatever, but crazy dude, he could pick any instrument up. Like there’s
    0:12:56 videos on YouTube of them, but he would just sit there and just pick anything up and just rip it to
    0:13:01 death. But he would always just be real silly about it. He never had, he never took it to never took
    0:13:06 himself too seriously. You know, some people go to the fun place. Some people go to the dark place.
    0:13:11 Yeah. There’s a, you know, country can do both. You, you, you more often go to the dark place
    0:13:18 to the, to the pain. Yeah. Well, especially some of the new songs that are coming out that they’ll be
    0:13:24 probably not. I mean, I don’t know what they’ll be. I don’t know what is country anymore. Anyway,
    0:13:28 I don’t know that many people who listen to the type of music that I grew up listening to and probably
    0:13:33 listen to country radio anymore. Anyway, like, I think there’s, there’s quite a lot of people who don’t,
    0:13:39 who’ve sort of disowned that space, you know, in commercialized country, you only really get what
    0:13:45 sells, which in a lot of what sells, isn’t necessarily what matters. Well, you had that
    0:13:50 whole experience where they take what you recorded and polish it, quote unquote, try to make it perfect.
    0:13:55 And then so doing destroy the soul of the thing. And so probably that happens with these big artists.
    0:14:03 They’re so famous. It’s like a machine. And so what the machine does is it over polishes things.
    0:14:10 And so the raw, like power of the person, the uniqueness of the person, the soul of the person
    0:14:14 is gone if you do that. Yeah. Well, I think professionalism in general, like
    0:14:23 applying the tactics of corporate America to anything that is baseline artistic is not going to end well.
    0:14:28 They’re all individually brilliant. But together, this corporate speak comes out.
    0:14:36 Yeah. Just the soul of the people dissipates, it disappears. Why are you all pretending that
    0:14:45 like life is not terrible and beautiful and like, you’re both scared, shitless and excited. And
    0:14:52 this guy’s going through a divorce. This person just fell in love. Like you’re getting the intensity
    0:15:00 of life with this corporate, like nine to five, like, hi, John. It’s great to see you today.
    0:15:08 Oh, you too. You as well. You as well. But when I look at it, I’m like, why am I whining? I feel like
    0:15:14 a Bukowski type character because like, they’re all really nice. They’re all good people. But like,
    0:15:19 something is gone when you have this corporate machine. Well, they’re there to fill a role
    0:15:24 contractually. And if they, I think if they bring too many of their human elements into that, then
    0:15:29 they jeopardize losing their sense of security. And it’s all just out of fear. It’s out of fear of losing
    0:15:34 your job. I mean, it’s the reason why all the songs say Oliver Anthony and not Christopher Lunsford on
    0:15:39 them. You know, like it’s fear of, it’s so difficult to, especially now it seems, I mean, who knows?
    0:15:43 I didn’t, I was never around in the forties or fifties to work a job. I’m sure they were probably
    0:15:48 pretty miserable back then, but you know, they talk about now, like how difficult it is,
    0:15:53 like the, the impossibility of having a single family household or anything else. But like,
    0:15:59 when you find a decent paying job that you can do without it, just torturing you every day, that’s,
    0:16:05 that’s a pretty important thing now, you know, like, and so it, it’s pretty easy to just,
    0:16:10 it’s pretty easy to kind of turn yourself into a robot for eight or 10 hours a day out of fear of,
    0:16:15 it’s like, you don’t want to be yourself too much because maybe part of yourself isn’t something
    0:16:21 that’s accepted in this like dystopian nightmare that you go to work at every day. And so you just
    0:16:26 got to do your best to just not step on any toes or do anything that, that makes you stand out too much,
    0:16:31 you know? And now it’s like, now, like when you scroll through some of these videos of people,
    0:16:35 like the big, even when I was still like, when I was still working my lame job,
    0:16:40 it was like, there was this whole big thing of people talking about quiet quitting or something
    0:16:44 like that, where they were just going to go to work, but not really do anything. But that hurts me so
    0:16:51 much. That hurts me when you just stop when you’re there, but you’re not really there. That makes me so
    0:16:55 sad. Yeah. So then they wonder, these companies just slowly kind of fall apart and disintegrate
    0:17:00 because they’re so worried about structure and, you know, like, I mean, God, man, even in,
    0:17:06 even in America today, our culture has become, because so many big corporations own and manage
    0:17:11 everything that we live under, like food, agriculture, healthcare, like social media,
    0:17:16 it’s all in corporate structures that it’s almost like a lot of the problems we find ourselves in now
    0:17:23 with society, I think are like, it’s just because of, it’s almost like corporate HR has been implemented
    0:17:28 into our whole thought process of everything. You know, it’s like, um, I think that’s kind of what
    0:17:34 you’re touching on though. It’s like, it’s, it’s hard to be, it’s hard to be a human and be a good
    0:17:41 little corporate employee at the same time. Um, and as our whole society moves more into like becoming
    0:17:46 a, like basically one big corporation, it’s like, you don’t want to piss the HR lady off. So it’s a lot
    0:17:51 easier for me to just beep boop. We’re all sort of just turning, we’re all turning into robots,
    0:17:56 you know, and that’s, uh, I’ve talked to great engineers about this. Uh, Jim Keller’s a legendary
    0:18:03 engineer, Elon, Elon Musk is another example that you need that. I don’t know what’s a nice term for,
    0:18:09 but you need the because you want to get to the ground truth of things to the first principle of
    0:18:13 things. Like how do we simplify? How do we make it more efficient? How do we move faster? How do we get
    0:18:21 shit done? And that has no place for this kind of polite speak? And then, you know, other great
    0:18:26 team members swoop in and like repair the damage that the tornado has done.
    0:18:31 Do you think that’s cause I’m not, I’m not super well versed about all this. So I’m probably dumb
    0:18:36 to even mention it, but, um, this guy who’s been helping me with doing a documentary, uh, he’s been
    0:18:43 following me around since the very first show at the August of 23, he, his background was doing,
    0:18:48 um, promotional videos for Boeing, like for on their new spacecraft to pitch it to whoever.
    0:18:53 And so he was, we touched, we touched base a little bit on Boeing. And of course they’re having a lot of
    0:19:00 problems now. It sounds like, and he was comparing that with SpaceX or with, you know, like that,
    0:19:05 that I think it’s that exactly what we touched on with that thought process of that sort of
    0:19:09 dehumanization within companies. I think that’s what ultimately causes maybe, I don’t know if
    0:19:13 there’s a connection there or not, but it seems like Boeing is a very, would be more of that.
    0:19:18 They don’t have that tornado. They’re very like H like he was telling me, even just with his protocols
    0:19:22 and some of the people he worked with, like, everything’s just very, you know, lightly touch
    0:19:25 everything. No one don’t touch anything too hard.
    0:19:32 So it’s not just HR. It’s also, it’s just this managerial class where it’s like Bob from this
    0:19:37 department has to schedule a meeting with John from this department and Debbie, like they have
    0:19:43 to have a meeting two and a half weeks from now. And then there’s paperwork and that, that bureaucracy
    0:19:50 that’s created in the managerial class just slows everything down. And one of the things that slowing
    0:19:57 everything down does is it really demotivates the people that are actually doing the shit. Like the
    0:20:04 people on the ground, the engineers that are building stuff, it’s again, so drenching to like,
    0:20:12 be excited, show up. And now you hit this wall of paperwork. Like you can’t, you have to wait for John and
    0:20:19 Debbie and I forgot the third guy’s name that I imagined in my head to have a meeting. It just,
    0:20:27 and then you kind of slow down and you disappear in terms of that fire, that passion that’s required
    0:20:28 to create big things.
    0:20:31 Yeah. Cause they don’t believe there’s a lack of leadership. And if they don’t believe in,
    0:20:37 if they don’t believe in that leadership, then why the hell would they be motivated? I mean,
    0:20:44 I remember, um, a while back watching a Jocko Wilnick talk about a, um, talk about that when
    0:20:49 he was in leadership, when he was leading his guys, I think he mentions it in his book is probably where
    0:20:56 I remember seeing it. Um, one of his books and he talks about like how important it was for the people
    0:21:01 under him in rank to believe in what he was, the actions he was giving them, even if he necessarily
    0:21:07 didn’t agree with him himself. It was like there, it’s really hard to take orders and go and like to,
    0:21:12 to have human spirit and especially in something that’s innovative and not if you, if you’re working
    0:21:16 for a company where you just think everybody’s dumb. I mean, I can certainly relate with that.
    0:21:20 I mean, God, that’s all at my old job. That’s all we did was we spent half our day just talking about
    0:21:26 how, how dumb we thought everybody was that was above, you know, it’s like, it’s easy to fall into that
    0:21:31 and a corporate world. And so, yeah, the morale gets terrible and, and, and everyone suffers as
    0:21:36 a result of it, you know, like the, the people at the top who are implementing all that dysfunction
    0:21:40 suffer and the people at the bottom, it’s like, it’s not good for anybody. I had thought now that
    0:21:47 I’m doing this, that I could escape away from that, but that exact same mentality and that dysfunction and
    0:21:53 that, um, that inefficiency, like I still battle it every day.
    0:21:58 That’s why it takes, it takes unique characters to lead the way. Such unique characters are very
    0:22:02 much needed in the music industry to revolutionize everything, cut through the bureaucracy, the
    0:22:08 bullshit that ultimately is just a machine that steals money and doesn’t get any, anything done.
    0:22:13 really. Uh, we’ll talk about it. By the way, all the love in the world to Jocko. He’s great. I’ve been
    0:22:20 going through lots of ups and downs in life, lots of low points for myself over the past, uh,
    0:22:29 shit, three years really. But, um, uh, recently, especially, and he always texts in this, in this
    0:22:37 very high testosterone way of like, of like, you good, bro. Just checking in. I mean, he’s a good man.
    0:22:41 He’s a good man. He’s a good man. He’s obviously an inspiration to millions of people, but also just,
    0:22:48 um, he’s a good human being himself. So maybe one, one thing that we felt similarly, I’m just,
    0:22:54 I would imagine you way more than me is just feeling like, like, wow, I have the ability to
    0:23:02 influence or the ability to, to, to, to either bring truth or to improve people’s lives or, or,
    0:23:07 you know, every word that you say sometimes matters so much. And you’re just like, man,
    0:23:11 I’m an idiot. Like, I don’t, like, I don’t know, you know, like I would have never guessed.
    0:23:14 I mean, I, we were kind of talking about that, but before about like, it would have never guessed
    0:23:17 that it would have turned that this would have turned into all this, but it’s, it is a,
    0:23:22 it is a, it is a weight that you bear, whether you really even acknowledge it or not, you know,
    0:23:29 like, um, yeah. And I think it’s like, you know, the, the songs you’ve created,
    0:23:36 they, uh, speak to the human condition, to the struggle of, uh, everyday working people
    0:23:41 in a society that has the elites that tried to take advantage of those working people.
    0:23:52 And you’re just speaking through your music, those truths of how life is. And then that has a huge
    0:23:58 impact on a lot of people. That’s really positive. But then you also get attacked and misrepresented and
    0:24:07 lied about from different angles and just the turmoil, the intense chaos of that. It disorients,
    0:24:16 it disorients me like to be attacked by very large number of people to be lied about, to be just the,
    0:24:24 because I love people and just have, I have a general optimism about humanity. It just disorients me.
    0:24:31 Like, um, it gives me this feeling like I generally, just like you said, think of myself as kind of an
    0:24:39 idiot, not really knowing what I’m doing. And when a lot of people tell you that you’re correct,
    0:24:44 you don’t know what you’re doing. You start to like, want to hide, you want to hide from the world,
    0:24:50 hide from yourself. And then there’s also just the chemistry of the brain. It’s like you shake up the
    0:24:55 brain a little bit. It starts getting, it starts getting weird. And it’s so you can get how many
    0:25:01 fronts. You can get real lonely when getting attacked, when you’re kind of fucking things up
    0:25:10 in many ways and get lonely. Yeah. So it’s been, so you get a text from Jocko, like you good.
    0:25:16 Yeah. Yeah. And then I may have good friends. Andrew Huberman’s been great. Rogan’s been great.
    0:25:25 Well, you know, you, Lex, however many years ago was in a different place in society than Lex is now.
    0:25:29 And so it’s like every conversation you have or every relationship you have is inherently different,
    0:25:34 even if you aren’t any different friends that you had from before maybe, or even just new people you
    0:25:38 meet, your interactions with them are going to be a lot different than if this wasn’t a thing.
    0:25:42 And so it’s like that, that can be tricky too. When you’ve spent your whole life,
    0:25:46 you know, from the time you’re three years old and you’re starting to play with other kids and like
    0:25:51 developmentally learning, like how to share and how to interact. And you’re on the, you’re playing,
    0:25:57 you know, you’re playing on the playground with kids and learning how to like set rules and boundaries and
    0:26:02 how to like basically fit into society. And like, so you have this whole learning pattern up until whatever
    0:26:09 point in time when, when success happens and then it’s like all that shifts pretty dramatically all,
    0:26:14 you know, in a relatively short period of time. And so like, how do you, how do you think like managing
    0:26:19 your previous, like previous friendships or your like, like, you know, how has that been tricky for
    0:26:27 you or like, yeah, it’s been tough. I, you know, I value deep, close, long-term friendships and yeah,
    0:26:32 but I mean, I have amazing friends, but they certainly do treat me a little different. They,
    0:26:39 they bust my balls noticeably less. Yeah. And you need, you need that. So I need, I not sometimes,
    0:26:47 all the time. First of all, it’s how dudes show love is making fun of each other. At least my friends.
    0:26:53 Yeah. Like, you know, we, when you watch, man, I’m going to get in trouble, but when you watch,
    0:26:58 like women interact, they’re often like really positive towards each other. Like, oh, you look
    0:27:06 great. Yeah. We watch dudes interact like close friends. They’re just like, I mean, busting each
    0:27:14 other’s balls. I’ll stop making fun of each other. And so, yes, that has been a little bit harder.
    0:27:20 Or I try, I try to break those walls. Like, but that’s why with the famous friends,
    0:27:23 it’s a little bit easier. Cause they can still like Rogan roast me nonstop.
    0:27:29 So it’s a, and it just feels good. I just sit there and get made fun of. And it’s great.
    0:27:30 Yeah. It’s great.
    0:27:34 And I still do it all the time. I just, it’s just a different experience now, but I,
    0:27:40 I’m like a Goodwill junkie. Like, um, most of, like most of even my clothes were from
    0:27:45 Goodwill, but like, I have this, I have this like addiction with buying paintings from Goodwill,
    0:27:50 like the $8 paintings where it looks like somebody was following along with like a Bob Ross video,
    0:27:54 and it didn’t work out quite right. Like I look, like I buy every one of those. I’ll go in there
    0:27:58 and buy like 10. And so just even, you know, anytime you got into public now, it’s just like,
    0:28:01 you know, it’s going to be a little different than it was, you know, I don’t know if that makes sense
    0:28:05 or not, but yeah, for sure. I mean, I, you know, I’m trying to deal with it, but all of it, when you
    0:28:11 talk to world leaders, when you step into politics a little bit and you apparently stepped into politics,
    0:28:16 even though you never meant to, you’re not a political person that, that world is like,
    0:28:25 what the fuck? It’s very intense, especially at an intense moment in history and in an extremely
    0:28:30 divided country. So. Yeah. Like saying that I’m not in politics, people like, well, of course you’re
    0:28:36 in politics and I don’t know whether I am or not, but just, um, I do think a lot of people in politics,
    0:28:44 politics, like as far as the people who sit on the internet all day and argue about stuff on X or on
    0:28:48 whatever, you know, Facebook and all, like, I do think their heart is in it for the right reasons.
    0:28:53 They observe that there’s a lot of things wrong in the world that they’d like to see different. It’s just,
    0:28:59 how do you get those people out of a, how do you get those people out of this four by four square?
    0:29:05 And like, really like they’re, they’re entrapped in a, in a same kind of box that the people at Boeing
    0:29:11 might be with that struck, you know, it’s too, it’s the tornado metaphor. I mean, it’s a bureau,
    0:29:16 but it applies in politics too. Like there needs to just be a tornado through politics and we need
    0:29:20 to figure, we need to just like lay all this other stuff aside and just figure out what’s really
    0:29:26 pissing everybody off. What’s really affecting our quality of life. A lot of times we’re arguing over
    0:29:30 the symptoms of problems instead of identifying the problems, if that makes any sense. I mean,
    0:29:35 if Jordan Peterson were here, he would tell us about fire and how important that is and burning.
    0:29:39 And like, but it is all the same. Water and fire and ice metaphor. And there would definitely
    0:29:43 be a connection to the Bible and then we would receive a three hour lecture and it would be
    0:29:47 profound. But it’s true, but it’s all true. Like that’s all true. It is all, it’s all a hundred
    0:29:50 percent accurate. Yeah. That’s the crazy thing, but it all ties into that same thing. Like you,
    0:29:56 um, yeah, in politics now, it’s almost like there’s a rule book that you have to follow. And if you,
    0:30:00 you can’t agree with this unless you also agree with that, you know, it’s like,
    0:30:06 and maybe it’s like the places, the way that we receive information about what’s going on in the
    0:30:12 political landscape is always so biased. And it’s like the, well, it’s, it’s contingent upon this
    0:30:18 algorithm, this like algorithmic system that we live under where we’re fed. It’s like, we’re almost fed
    0:30:22 certain subcategories and it’s, and it’s easy to fall into that because you don’t like hearing things
    0:30:27 you disagree with. And so it’s a lot easier to just turn the TV on or go on Facebook and look at
    0:30:30 whatever page posts, things that, you know, you’re going to consistently agree with every day. And
    0:30:35 that’s not going to challenge the way you think in any little way, you know, or, or like expand your
    0:30:41 thinking at all. It’s, it’s easy to just, it’s kind of like a, it’s a cult-like type of thing. It’s like,
    0:30:47 you know, here’s, this is what we all agree with. And if you don’t, then go and get, you know, like,
    0:30:52 but it, it doesn’t, it, we’re far too complicated for it to really work that way.
    0:30:55 Well, this actually relates to one of my favorite things in your conversation with Jordan,
    0:31:02 where you’re just, where you’re just shooting the shit about like, uh, playing live music and he goes
    0:31:11 to Kierkegaard. She’s like Soren Kierkegaard, the philosopher. I love Jordan so much. He just goes
    0:31:18 to Carl Jung and Nietzsche. Um, and there, this idea from Kierkegaard that the crowd is untruth.
    0:31:28 So when you, there’s elements to the crowd that loses the humanity and the honesty of an individual
    0:31:35 that makes up the crowd, because the default incentive of the crowd is to conform to some
    0:31:42 kind of narrative. It’s like, uh, it’s like a distributed system that arrives at a narrative
    0:31:47 and the narrative holds control over that crowd as opposed to the individual humans who are thinking
    0:31:53 for themselves and being honest with their own thoughts and realities and so on. And so that
    0:32:01 he was saying that as a reason from a communication perspective, to speak to individuals in the crowd,
    0:32:07 not to the crowd. So from the performer perspective, the moment you speak to the crowd, you’re speaking
    0:32:12 to the lie that is the crowd according to Soren Kierkegaard. It’s pretty hardcore. Kierkegaard is
    0:32:18 pretty hardcore. Jordan’s pretty hardcore. But that is true. I mean, but specifically in my case,
    0:32:24 I mean, really it applies more than it probably does in a lot of cases with crowds and music,
    0:32:31 you know, talking about Richmond, I wasn’t necessarily even excited that Richmond did as
    0:32:36 well as it did. It was like, in a way it was almost like alarming that it did so well, you know? And so
    0:32:42 those crowds that show up, like maybe they do like my music, but I also think they’re there for
    0:32:48 something. There is something bigger about it. I mean, I, I wish I would have done a better job of
    0:32:54 having people there at shows to capture some of those crowds I had in 24 man. You mean the size,
    0:33:02 the intensity, the intensity, like it was revolutionary almost song of revolution. Yeah. I think a redemption
    0:33:08 song from Bob Marley, like that song, it just connected with people. There’s something there.
    0:33:13 Well, and so many people identified different elements. Like I said, it goes back to when we
    0:33:17 were kind of talking, we first got here, but it was, it was crazy. How it was almost like at the
    0:33:21 beginning with, along with the scrutiny and some of the other things, it was a lot of different people,
    0:33:26 like almost fighting over me or fighting over it. Like, cause it resonated with different,
    0:33:32 it resonated with people who voted differently than each other, which is, which is probably a
    0:33:37 pretty terrifying thing. If you’re, if you’re in the business of keeping people divided and angry at
    0:33:45 each other. So it was, you know, it was a, it was one of the first, one of the only times that I can
    0:33:51 think where there was that, that much of a sense of unity among people who otherwise wouldn’t. I mean,
    0:33:55 like, I mean, I think about nine 11, when I was a kid, I was in fourth grade, but God, man,
    0:34:01 people were just like, people just put everything aside there for a little while. And it was kind of,
    0:34:06 it was kind of like, there’s bigger problems that just aren’t in our face. And if man, if they’re in
    0:34:13 your face for just for a second or two, you realize like it’s, it’s hard to, it’s hard in your mind to
    0:34:17 create a graph. That’s got like all these, but you know, we argue about a lot of these problems,
    0:34:22 but if you were to really look at them, like if you really just stand back and look at all the
    0:34:27 problems we spend time focusing about on the internet versus all the things that are affecting
    0:34:32 us, like that really, and probably at our core even piss us off. It’s, it’s gotta be very
    0:34:37 disproportionate. And like the reason it got the reaction it did is because we all like, no matter
    0:34:41 what it is that we’re upset about or what we think needs to be different in the world or our opinions of
    0:34:46 things or how we’re raised or what our parents taught us. It’s like, I think we all feel a little bit
    0:34:51 out of control in this new society. We all feel like we’re probably, we probably all feel like
    0:34:55 we’re falling into this kind of like corporate power structure where none of us, where we all,
    0:35:02 we all are just robots. We’re all just, we’re not allowed to be ourselves and be human almost,
    0:35:02 you know?
    0:35:09 And there was enough people feeling that. I mean, people on the left feeling like the people in
    0:35:15 power fucking over the working class, people on the right feeling the exact same with different words
    0:35:22 assigned to it, the deep state, you know, fucking over middle America, whatever the narratives are.
    0:35:29 And they’re just, when enough of that is happening, again, with the corporate polite speak, there’s
    0:35:35 something about politeness that’s really dangerous. I feel like there was a lot of politeness in the
    0:35:43 Soviet union underneath that. It’s like Chernobyl, uh, which is this nuclear power plant and melted
    0:35:54 down. Um, I feel like the bureaucracy needs politeness and civility and paperwork to function.
    0:36:01 And then atrocities can happen underneath that. So everybody, people in power with a smile on their
    0:36:10 face can just do horrific things and then give propaganda that look, you know, it’s rainbows and
    0:36:17 sunshine and, and unicorns. Yeah. So people that are rude, I mean, I’m starting to awaken to this a little
    0:36:24 bit. Like you need a little, like Tom way says, uh, I like my Tom little drop of poison. You need some,
    0:36:34 like some poison, some, some swearing, some meanness, some bullshit, some like intensity to shake up a
    0:36:42 system because when it, uh, sort of converges towards this polite bureaucracy, the atrocities can happen
    0:36:48 and hidden away. And what’s probably the most terrifying to me is that that politeness is just
    0:36:53 theatrical. Whereas it, it emulates the respect that we would normally give each other in society
    0:37:00 if we were healthy and functional. What was the process of writing that song? I mean, it really spoke
    0:37:08 to the pain of an anger of millions of people. So there’s magic there. It was a, well, how many,
    0:37:14 how many edits, how many like lines did you write? Were there any lines that you were like
    0:37:19 tormented by haunted by come back? Should I do it this way or this way or that? Do you, do you have a,
    0:37:25 I don’t know. Do you, can you pull tick tock up on this? So if you go to my page, so if you go down
    0:37:32 chickens, go, yeah, go down pre Richmond. You can see the original version of Richmond where I put it up.
    0:37:37 This is so cool to see the evolution. There it is. Okay. So that’s, that’s, if you play that,
    0:37:41 that’s. I have too many unfinished songs. Yeah. Play that, click that and play it.
    0:37:48 I’ve been selling my soul. 724. Oh, wow.
    0:37:50 Bullshit. Wow.
    0:38:00 And if you read through this, it’s so funny. Everybody’s like, you’re about to blow up.
    0:38:13 That’s all I had. So I had, I had just that. You should probably finish this one. Might be real
    0:38:20 popular. That’s a post from a few days later. That was in, that was in July.
    0:38:23 Oh, fuck. That’s so inspiring, man. So that’s what I had.
    0:38:30 That’s so inspiring. That’s what, like a couple of weeks before, uh, you posted the final.
    0:38:34 Well, that’s all I had. Yeah. That’s all I had written at that point. Like that in my mind,
    0:38:38 that’s what, that’s the inspiration for the song was that little bit. And I wrote that just because
    0:38:46 I was on job sites all day and, um, you know, going into like all these just terrible places to work,
    0:38:50 like dealing with different contractors and stuff. You were talking about wanting to go and talk to blue
    0:38:55 collar people and all. It’s like, that’s what I did for work basically for eight years was build
    0:38:59 long-term relationships with people in blue collar. I was in the industrial space. So I would talk
    0:39:04 sometimes I’d talk to 20 different people a day, you know, when you sit in a job site trailer and talk
    0:39:09 to, and talk to a group of dudes, like, and you’re not there with some news camera, you’re just there
    0:39:14 as like a random dude. Like you hear so much about what really goes on behind the scenes of, of the
    0:39:20 structure of what builds, um, what builds this country and keeps it going. And, um, I think that’s
    0:39:25 probably what it was. It was just, uh, it was how I felt, but also how, I guess a lot of other,
    0:39:29 like, you know, it was just, I don’t know. It just seemed like the truth. So.
    0:39:34 So you jotted down even to the details, like in a notebook, like those words.
    0:39:38 No, it’s always just on my phone. I would just keep recording the, I would just keep,
    0:39:46 you know, like, so if you were to go back to Tik TOK, like, and look at any of those original videos,
    0:39:55 um, so like the songs that ended up charting, let’s say, like the ones that were on there that
    0:40:00 charted with Richmond, like this, I’ve got to get sober. So literally, so literally what I did was
    0:40:05 this video, I took it my property. This is my carport where my camper was. And, uh,
    0:40:13 I took this video, I went to some sketchy virus written MP3 to wave file or MP4 to wave file
    0:40:19 transfer thing. I would rip the audio off of this video, put this on Tik TOK and then put that on
    0:40:23 distro kid. And that’s the, that was the song. But basically like this would, this would have been the
    0:40:28 first time I played. I’ve got to get sober all the way through. Like I would just keep writing it and
    0:40:32 working on it and writing it and record myself. And maybe I would record myself 30 times over the
    0:40:36 period of like two months. You know what I mean? Oh, but it’s, when you say writing, you mean in
    0:40:41 your head, not actually typed out or written. Right. It was just mostly just video over and
    0:40:46 over. It’s just videos. I’m just trying to figure out how to make it. Yeah. But that’s what all these,
    0:40:52 all these are like the audio file from all these videos is what’s is what ended up on Spotify and all
    0:40:56 that. You know what I mean? This is, it’s cool to see these videos before you blew up. So this is a
    0:41:03 good song and you’re playing. So what is this at the end? Yeah. Yeah. These were all
    0:41:08 don’t sell your soul brother. This is the best music I’ve heard in a long time.
    0:41:17 That’s a comment before you blew up. Yeah. Yeah. I think I had about 10,000 followers or something.
    0:41:26 What a fucking song. That’s a good one. And you gotta think like this was like, that was my
    0:41:31 that was when I quit drinking. You know what I mean? Like, so that
    0:41:51 that’s coming from, from, from your heart right there. I just imagine the thousands of people you
    0:41:59 helped with that. I don’t know how it’s gonna go. Yeah. But it ain’t gonna happen tonight. So pour
    0:42:14 them down strong. Till I drown. And if I wake up tomorrow. When that sun comes back around. I’ll be
    0:42:26 wishing I was sober. It’s so crazy how those cicadas and stuff come in. Like, I just felt like it was a
    0:42:31 God. I don’t know how to burn. Like, that’s just off my phone. All that stuff’s just there, you know?
    0:43:01 That’s a genius of a song. That’s genius, brother. That’s genius.
    0:43:03 It’s just crazy to think about.
    0:43:13 Yeah. And what’s this one right before? What is this? Oh, yeah. Yeah. So that’s like the private.
    0:43:22 And this is a nice recording. Got it. Yeah. So this video got uploaded and then Draven from Radio WV
    0:43:29 would have gotten ahold of me in between this and that. He watched this and was like, dude, you got,
    0:43:33 he said, we got to record that one. And that like, so I didn’t have it all. I just had whatever was in
    0:43:38 that video is all I had written. It was, I think it was just the chorus in the first verse. Draven
    0:43:43 saw that video. And said, we got to do this one. Reach out to me to record. And he’s like, yeah,
    0:43:48 he’s like, no, we got to do that one. And I was like, dude, that’s all I got. Tell me about that guy.
    0:43:53 Draven. He probably is like, you know, he’s probably like my best friend now. We,
    0:43:57 we hit it off with this and we’re like, we’re like brothers now, I guess.
    0:44:01 Can you talk about like what he’s doing for country, for music in general, for country music,
    0:44:07 for discovering talent, for like, I mean, he’s clearly sees something in people.
    0:44:12 Yeah. He’s just this, he’s a little bit younger than I am. And he’s, he wrote music and played,
    0:44:16 and he’s got some of his, if you look up Draven Rife, he’s going to kill me for even saying this,
    0:44:21 but he’s got some pretty, dude, he can, if he was like a pop singer, he would be like,
    0:44:28 he can write the most catchy stuff ever. Um, let’s go. Yeah. So click on like, I don’t know,
    0:44:32 like, yeah, there you go. All right. That’s him. Yeah.
    0:44:41 Where’s this from? Five years ago.
    0:44:51 I was feeling on my way. I was 10 years old walking underneath the blanket of West Virginia snow.
    0:45:01 Then I walked right by no trespass. I need a grass look green across property line. Bye. Bye. Bye.
    0:45:08 You know, he could probably do, if he does like, he could, he could probably be real famous.
    0:45:12 Well, he’s got a certain look that dude. We’ll sit there and he’ll just like,
    0:45:16 we’ll just be sitting there at like two in the morning and he’ll just all of a sudden do this
    0:45:20 little thing. And he’s got like the most amazing first part of this like song or we just started
    0:45:25 to co-write together, like in the last few months. So I’m really excited for that. But if you go to
    0:45:30 his, this is really funny too. I’m sorry, Draven. I love you, man. So go to videos and go to oldest
    0:45:36 first. This is what’s so awesome about Draven. He was originally working for this lady who was trying
    0:45:40 to develop different types of hair care products, but he thought the market was too saturated. So he was
    0:45:49 going to get into beard oil. So he created Radio WV as like a fake plug page for his burly boy beard
    0:45:54 brand he was working with. So like, like if you look at, um, yeah, like that very first video. Yeah.
    0:46:00 It’s like, it’s got all his beard products. And if you look, there’s a, there’s multiple ones like
    0:46:05 that. So he started it just to do this beard thing with, and then like, I don’t know, he just kind of
    0:46:10 felt called to like, keep going with it. And it, and it just sort of naturally progressed.
    0:46:15 That too is inspiring. Like you start out one way and then you discover something real special. I mean,
    0:46:22 he’s got a, he’s got an eye for how to bring out, I don’t know what it is. Like the, both the audio
    0:46:27 side and the video side, how to bring out the best. He says, he just wants it to sound like the way he
    0:46:31 likes hearing it, which kind of makes sense. You know, like it’s kind of in the same way talking
    0:46:35 about when we were talking about setting the cameras up and a professional would tell you,
    0:46:38 you needed three lights. And you’re like, well, I think it would work with the, he’s just kind of
    0:46:43 like, well, it’ll just work like this. And do it in a way where he likes it. Yeah. Just do it for
    0:46:47 yourself. He does it cause he loves it. And that, and you can see it shows, you know, you can see it
    0:46:51 in there. Um, and there’s some good talent. Like you were showing me this new lady, Gabriel. Yeah.
    0:46:56 She’s got it, but not a lot of people would, uh, record her doing that song. But he’s like,
    0:46:59 I don’t know. It just was different. I just thought people ought to hear it, but he’s man. It was a
    0:47:05 blessing that he came along when he did. It was like, um, it really changed both of our lives.
    0:47:12 We’ve got to talk about that. So you posted the, the song Richmond North of Richmond on August 8th,
    0:47:19 2023. I remember I was at work that day when it went up. Yeah. So it blew the fuck up straight to
    0:47:27 number one on the charts, tens of millions of views and listens. Uh, and a few days later on August 17th,
    0:47:34 he made a post that I thought was pretty gangster. It was beautiful and gangster. Uh, so one, one of
    0:47:40 the things he said is it’s been difficult as I browsed through the 50,000 plus messages and emails I’ve
    0:47:45 received in the last week, the stories that have been shared, paint a brutally honest picture,
    0:47:51 suicide, addiction, unemployment, anxiety, depression, hopelessness, and the list goes on.
    0:47:58 And then you went on to write people in the music industry. Give me blank stares when I brush off
    0:48:05 $8 million offers. I don’t want six tour buses, 15 tractor trailers, and a jet. I don’t want to play
    0:48:12 stadium shows. I don’t want to be in the spotlight. I wrote the music I wrote because I was suffering with
    0:48:17 mental health and depression. These songs have connected with millions of people on such a deep
    0:48:25 level because they’ve been sung by someone feeling the words in the very moment they were being sung.
    0:48:32 No editing, no agent, no bullshit, just some idiot and his guitar. The style of music that we should
    0:48:39 have never gotten away from in the first place. So huge props for that, for walking away from lucrative
    0:48:44 multimillion dollar record deals. And I’m sure the money that was just coming your way,
    0:48:52 huge props, you know, moments happen where, you know, the world tests you and integrity
    0:49:00 is what you do in those moments. So huge props for that. What was your philosophy? What was your
    0:49:01 thinking behind that?
    0:49:05 It was all those messages I got. I mean, you can see it in the comment sections of a lot of the videos
    0:49:11 after everything happened, but people just like felt this spark, like, like, wow, like maybe we
    0:49:16 actually have a chance to like, maybe we actually do have some kind of power, you know, like those
    0:49:22 people put that song there, nobody else. And like gave me the opportunity to make, even without sign
    0:49:27 anything, I was still able to make millions of dollars and have financial freedom. And like, I just,
    0:49:36 I just felt like, I felt like if I was going to do anything like that, that I’d be, I’d be betraying,
    0:49:42 like I would be taking those people and, and almost betraying them somehow, you know, like, uh,
    0:49:49 like they, I hate the big machine just like everybody else. And I, the last thing I’d want to do is be,
    0:49:55 is ever supported or be a part of it. Like, I want to watch it crash and burn, you know, like,
    0:50:01 see, this is the really important thing is whether it was betrayal or not, we’ll never know,
    0:50:06 but you felt like that it was. And to have the integrity to walk away from the bag of money
    0:50:13 when you felt that way, that’s fucking epic.
    0:50:19 It was also, you got to think a couple of months before this, like, of course I had, you know, I had a wife
    0:50:23 and kids that I loved and like, I had a lot of really important things to live for, but I didn’t have a
    0:50:29 whole lot to lose. Like, like none of this was even really real. Like it, I didn’t care about that.
    0:50:33 Like, I didn’t care to lose this just as quick as I got it. Like this didn’t, this was, this didn’t mean
    0:50:39 anything to me. It just meant something to me that like, that I could do something for like, you know,
    0:50:45 you, it’s like, even if I’m not smart enough to figure out how to fix some of my own problems in
    0:50:49 my life, the fact that I felt like I could help fix somebody else is like, that meant a hell of a lot
    0:50:54 more to me than any. That’s what I didn’t want to lose. I didn’t want to lose those people’s trust or
    0:51:00 like feel, you know what I mean? Like, yeah. Yeah. Yeah. And so I’ve just tried to make every decision
    0:51:05 around like as best as I can, like what I think the right thing is to do and who knows what the hell the
    0:51:10 right thing is to do. But I just try to follow, you know, we all have that little voice in us like
    0:51:16 that. We all have some what, and, and I think sometimes we mask, it’s hard for us to listen to
    0:51:22 that little voice, whether, whether it’s like, you know, whether it’s our gluttony or our lust or our,
    0:51:31 or our, you know, we, we numb ourselves with medications or with alcohol or we, we scroll on
    0:51:36 YouTube for four hours a night. And instead of, cause we don’t want to listen to our conscience,
    0:51:40 but there is this like very intelligent discerning thing inside of us. It’s able to tell us what’s
    0:51:47 right and wrong. And it’s, it’s a spiritual thing, I guess. And I just try to, I just try to listen to
    0:51:51 that when I can. I don’t know. I just still feel like I haven’t done enough. I think you, I think you
    0:51:58 did a lot. I think you did a lot. I think you’re an inspiration. You’ve helped a huge number of people
    0:52:03 and you’re also an inspiration to the other side of it, which is the artists and just to humans to
    0:52:12 have integrity. I don’t think people realize how much of a test of integrity, fame, money,
    0:52:21 you know, power also is, you know, uh, Rogan and I talk about this quite a bit. We’ll get to see,
    0:52:26 I mean, Joe, especially, but I haven’t, I’ve had a bit of the same. You get to
    0:52:35 see people become famous and you get to see how they deal with that. And it’s not easy. A lot of
    0:52:42 people will sell themselves a bit, sell the soul a bit, give away a bit of their integrity of the
    0:52:48 spirit that made them who they are. You get caught up in the wave of it, you know? And so to, to keep
    0:52:53 holding onto that, that’s a powerful thing. That’s a really, that’s all I got though. You
    0:52:59 know, when you lose that, what the hell are you like? And you see it, like you see these celebrity
    0:53:04 people that just like fall off the, they fall off this, you know, they go off the deep end. It’s like,
    0:53:10 you got to have, you have to have something in your life to, and to keep you centered and to keep you,
    0:53:15 um, you know, your whole perception of reality and like your just existence in reality as all
    0:53:21 contention upon this sort of like the center that you exist in. And you have to, if you don’t have
    0:53:25 that, then you’re just flying through space, through space. I mean, we’re all just riding on this rock
    0:53:32 that’s going, who knows how fast. You said something, uh, I think to Jocko that I really liked
    0:53:36 everything that has purpose behind it comes with risk.
    0:53:41 So there in that moment, I mean, you’re taking a hell of a risk.
    0:53:46 I was terrified. I talked about this a little bit with him too, but I was terrified to even put the
    0:53:50 song out. Like I knew I was going to be the subject of scrutiny and judgment. And I knew people were
    0:53:55 going to like, you know, I kind of knew all that was going to happen. I was like going back to that,
    0:54:02 talking about crowds, like to stand in front of thousands of people and everybody be in some sense
    0:54:09 unity. Like a lot of times when I end the shows, I’ll always, I’ll always end with this statement
    0:54:16 that just says, you know, no matter what, like no matter how you feel when you go online, you know,
    0:54:23 everyone feels so small and insignificant and, and powerless. But I just say, no matter how they make
    0:54:28 you feel online or when you turn on the TV or when you look at polling numbers or whatever, like when you
    0:54:36 just look at all this trash that we digest every day, like you’re, there’s always, there will always be
    0:54:42 more of us than them and, and all that. And, but like to see the, like, just to see the light in people’s
    0:54:48 eyes when you say that, but the truth is like, and it’s like, who is us and who is them? And it’s like, us just
    0:54:57 represents humanity and like, and, and all the things we talked about so far, like just, you know, the fire and the
    0:55:03 chaos and, but also the, like the love and just, just life. Life is just such a crazy, complicated, beautiful,
    0:55:11 disastrous thing. And then them is like, it is, it’s the power structure. It’s the, it’s that same terrible side of us
    0:55:18 that created things like the Soviet union and, and, and is ultimately what’s created this monster, this like monster
    0:55:23 that we all live under today, which now is not just, doesn’t just exist within the confines of the Soviet union, but
    0:55:31 seems to almost be a global epidemic. And then that song became the rebel call against that,
    0:55:36 against the power structures that creates that. Yeah. It’s like, how much fire am I willing to play
    0:55:41 with? Cause I know at some point I am going to get burned from it. I just pray a lot that God,
    0:55:46 I don’t have a lot of self-worth in myself anyway. So I don’t really care what they say or do to me,
    0:55:52 or I don’t care. Like, I don’t even care if I die, whatever, just don’t let, just, just protect the
    0:55:57 people I love is all, that’s all I ask of God. I have this dream of just creating this parallel
    0:56:02 system that sits beside all of these stupid systems that we live under that are all sort of engulfed in
    0:56:08 this, this thing that we talked about at the beginning, this, this type of structure, you know,
    0:56:14 we’re none of us where we’re all just robots. And it’s like, if we hate, you know, if we hate the
    0:56:19 way music is and all these artists are complaining about the way the venues are monopolized and the
    0:56:23 ticket sales are monopolized and let’s just go find other places to play music. Cause there’s so many
    0:56:28 people hungry for music and places that don’t ever get it. And if you look at it, there’s so many
    0:56:33 passionate people that are fighting all these different causes, like, like just in food, it’s the
    0:56:38 word they use for bait for more or less starvation. It’s a more polite, it’s called food insecurity.
    0:56:42 But if you look up just in Virginia, just where I live in Virginia, in the rural areas, how much food
    0:56:50 insecurity there is and how many empty vacant farms there are. It’s like, this is an obvious problem
    0:56:54 that we should be on Twitter talking about nonstop. Like, this is like, everyone has to eat, you know,
    0:56:59 it don’t matter what you vote for or what, like what you look like or any of that crap you can,
    0:57:07 you know, like, so like, let’s just like, why, why are we living in a country where we have, why are we
    0:57:12 living in a country where half of us are obese and eating shit food and don’t know any better? And then
    0:57:16 the other half of us don’t have like how just, it’s just, it’s lack of leadership that’s caused
    0:57:22 dysfunction. And so if we’re tired of that, then, then let’s just fix it. Like, we don’t need anybody’s
    0:57:26 permission. Like, that’s the whole beauty. Like, that’s the whole beauty of what America is, is like,
    0:57:31 we don’t, we don’t need some greasy haired corporate schmuck to give us permission to go
    0:57:35 fix all these things that are wrong. Let’s just go do it. And if they don’t like it, fuck them,
    0:57:44 you know, in all domains of life from, from food to the music industry, honestly, to education,
    0:57:54 also to government itself, all of it. And that, you know, your music is also just the soundtrack to
    0:58:03 that spirit that makes America great of just constantly trying to revitalize itself. When the
    0:58:08 bullshit piles up a little too high, there’s that revolutionary spirit that says like, we need to
    0:58:13 fix this shit. And, and that inspiration that created this country was from years of people
    0:58:18 living under tyranny. Like we forget the story of the people who really created this country. Like,
    0:58:23 it’s funny. I, one of the statements I made at the very beginning, they got taken way out of context,
    0:58:28 but I wasn’t in a position to like, even begin to have a conversation about, as I made this comment
    0:58:34 early on at one of the shows about, about how, about how our diversity is a strength. But that term
    0:58:38 has been hijacked now to mean something a lot different than what it really means. But it’s
    0:58:42 like, think about how many different people came together just at the founding of this country. Like
    0:58:47 people who spoke different languages, different cultures, religions, ways of thinking, so many
    0:58:51 different people came together to even create this place now. And like, we’ve just forgotten about all
    0:58:57 that. They didn’t all come here because they wanted to ride on some miserable boat ride and risk their
    0:59:01 whole lives to go to live in some crazy jungle, essentially. They had no structure, like no
    0:59:07 infrastructure, no medicine, no, like they didn’t come here for like some glorified camping trip. It’s
    0:59:12 because they were tired of like generations of being persecuted and living under tyranny and not
    0:59:16 being allowed to practice there. You know, it’s not like they wanted freedom of religion and they didn’t
    0:59:19 want separation of church and state because they were a bunch of goody two shoes and they love going to
    0:59:23 church every Sunday. It’s because they weren’t allowed to believe in what they believed in because
    0:59:27 some asshole King or some hierarchy told them they couldn’t and they were just tired of it.
    0:59:31 That’s what we’re losing now. It’s like, we’ve forgotten that we’re those people like the same
    0:59:37 structures that have plagued this country are their multinational corporations and their, and it’s just
    0:59:41 the ideology behind them and their, and their structure is what the problem is.
    0:59:50 Yeah. I mean, it’s a multinational corporations, it’s nation states that, uh, are deeply corrupt and are
    0:59:59 authoritarian and ultimately abused power and yes, create, uh, elements of tyranny. And from that,
    1:00:08 the, the human spirit rises, uh, like I said, with, with, with songs like the ones you write or at the
    1:00:14 founding in this country, you know, that’s why all this diverse outcasts come together and write
    1:00:23 something as crazy as all men are created equal. What a gangster line. I guess not an easy thing to take
    1:00:29 a lot of that stuff for granted now, but that’s not an easy thing to come up with. That’s a really gutsy
    1:00:39 thing to, to see, to see the value in all people equally. And of course they also were, uh, suffering from
    1:00:48 delusion, you know, they didn’t see black people as equal. They didn’t see women as equal, but even that
    1:00:53 first leap of like all men are created equal, that’s like a gigantic fuck you to the past.
    1:00:59 Taking that leap forward really took a lot in an age and a time when, when it probably sounded
    1:01:03 correct. And it’s not like they just made a statement and put it on Twitter. Like they,
    1:01:10 they like, think about how much, just think about the insanity. Like I can’t even conceptualize the
    1:01:16 insanity of what took place from the time that like, even from the revolutionary war until now to try to
    1:01:21 preserve that idea, you know, so like so much has happened and so much sacrifice has been made in just
    1:01:27 so many hours of labor and thought and intensity. Even in the 20th century has got two world wars.
    1:01:33 And, uh, you know, especially in the second world war, the United States played a very crucial role
    1:01:40 and there was a lot of ideological, like battle of ideas going on at that time of the role of war
    1:01:49 and peace of the role of the United States as the, um, as the center place for the ideal of human freedom
    1:01:56 and human rights. Yeah. We continue to innovate. So I’d love to get back to talking to blue collar
    1:02:01 people. You mentioned, um, those are some of my favorite people. So it was actually really cool to
    1:02:09 find out that for many years of your life, basically the way you made a living is talking to blue collar
    1:02:15 people and getting their story. So I’m traveling across the world for a bit, but of course the world
    1:02:23 that I love the most and I’m most curious about is the different subcultures and towns of the United
    1:02:31 States. So I, I took a road trip across the U S in my early twenties for, for several months. And that was like
    1:02:40 a transformative experience for me. And that’s something, um, one of the luxuries I have is to, to, to have the
    1:02:46 freedom to do whatever the hell I want now. And so, uh, I want to take a road trip across the United States for
    1:02:53 several months. And one of the things I wanted to do is to just, to, to talk to, to people in, in small
    1:03:00 towns and middle America. I don’t know what words to put on it, but to talk to the very people that you
    1:03:11 talked about that, that, uh, you know, construction workers, plumbers, waitresses, oil rig workers, just
    1:03:21 people that do something real people that are real, that don’t make much money that struggle,
    1:03:29 but have a, as you talked about, have like a richness to them. That’s not often revealed. That’s not often
    1:03:35 talked about. So maybe can you speak to that, to your, to your time with blue collar folk?
    1:03:40 When I got all those messages at the, we were talking about early on, earlier in this, like so
    1:03:46 many of them. And even now it’s even since I, even like in the last couple of days, I’ve gotten some
    1:03:53 where they start with, Hey, I’m a nobody, but like, that’s how a lot of those start, you know, like the
    1:03:58 nobodies of the world, if you want to call them like that’s, it’s, it’s frustrating that the people who
    1:04:08 literally have, have, have built and preserve and maintain the structure of society that we all
    1:04:14 comfortably live in, those people have the least amount of representation. They’re ignored just
    1:04:20 because of the way the social hierarchy exists, but the, some of the most dimwitted, irrelevant,
    1:04:28 terrible people are put here and are idolized and spotlighted and they’re all over television and
    1:04:33 they’re all over the internet. And we act like they’re, like they’re Kings and Queens and like
    1:04:40 that they’re royalty. And then all these people who do jobs that most of us will be too tariff, either,
    1:04:48 either wouldn’t have the, even the ability to do, we’d be like, like how many people are going to go
    1:04:53 underwater and weld. But if we didn’t have underwater welders, like one of my best friends,
    1:04:57 whose name is also Jocko, funny enough, the dude worked 70, 80 hours every week. He’s on the
    1:05:04 Chesapeake Bay, uh, tunnel job now, but the dude’s gotten up on, gotten on heights that I couldn’t get
    1:05:09 on. He’s went, he’s went underground places. I wouldn’t go. And nobody will ever know, like nobody
    1:05:14 even knows those people’s stories or what they went through or like the kind of lives they lived in.
    1:05:18 And, and they’re the, they’re like the, the people who create the fabric of society and
    1:05:23 even the waitresses and the waiters and like all these factory jobs that I worked in, all those
    1:05:27 people, like the talk about the craziest place I ever worked. And the craziest people ever met was
    1:05:32 this little place called perfect air and Marion, North Carolina. And it was this commercial air
    1:05:36 conditioning factory, which is I think closed now, but they didn’t pay very well. And so everyone they
    1:05:43 hired was either people that had criminal backgrounds who couldn’t get jobs elsewhere or idiots who dropped out of
    1:05:48 and couldn’t work elsewhere like me. And so I was 18 years old working in this place with people who
    1:05:53 are mostly in their fifties and sixties, but you want to talk about being exposed to just a whole
    1:05:58 nother world of people, like, and just the stories and the, just those people are far more interesting
    1:06:03 than, than many of the people that we consider to be celebrities. Like most people who are celebrities
    1:06:07 are just pretty boring and airheaded and don’t really even know what real life is about. They’re pretty
    1:06:11 unrelatable to the rest of the world. And so it would be really cool. I mean, that’s the whole reason
    1:06:14 that I want to go out and do these shows in places that haven’t had music in them in 10 years,
    1:06:19 because those people like that is America to me, you know, how many people in Pittsburgh have been
    1:06:24 an hour outside of Pittsburgh. And even in Virginia, if you lived in Northern Virginia and you drive two
    1:06:29 and a half hours Southwest, you’re in a whole nother planet, like the people, the accents, the culture.
    1:06:35 And so I feel driven in the same way. Like I would love to, I would love to find a way to,
    1:06:41 to try to bridge that cultural gap, to make those people relevant and to make, because they are like
    1:06:45 some of the most, and like, and it’s funny because we emulate a lot of those people, like, you know,
    1:06:51 modern country music is a bunch of people emulating those people, you know?
    1:06:58 And there’s also like, uh, I love people that have a skill and become masters of that skill also.
    1:07:05 So that element is also there, even if it’s like insanely difficult work, like being a minor, like there’s
    1:07:11 skill to that. There’s stories there. There’s like what it takes to do that. So, I mean, some of my
    1:07:17 favorite humans are engineers and all they do is solve really hard problems. So they develop, I mean,
    1:07:19 it’s a pain in the ass job. Yeah.
    1:07:26 Anything in the factories is extremely difficult, but that you learn so much about what it takes to solve
    1:07:34 intricate, like nuanced problems in the physical world. So coal mining, oil rigs, like you mentioned,
    1:07:39 welding, that’s a fascinating line of work. And, and those are trades that are in many cases dying
    1:07:45 because we don’t, because they aren’t popular in culture anymore for everything from agricultural to
    1:07:50 plumbing and electrical. It’s like, those are all areas. I think if you were to go out and talk to some
    1:07:56 of those people and shed light on it, it would like, you could change the, you could change the
    1:08:01 entire landscape in America of how, of how it’s perceived and like, and make it cool, you know?
    1:08:06 Yeah. So thank you for what you’re doing on that front. I want to say, I wrote it down. Please,
    1:08:12 if you know people that would be willing to talk, reach out to me. A good way to do that is
    1:08:14 lexfriedman.com slash contact.
    1:08:19 This was another one of the things early on that I had an idea about, and I thought was getting done and
    1:08:26 it wasn’t that I, I’ve got to go back and try to figure out is doing prison shows and, uh, doing
    1:08:33 rehab shows and all that. But I am really intrigued with like going into those places and trying to
    1:08:41 immerse myself and just the, the mental state that those people are in. And like, it’s not talked about
    1:08:49 a whole lot, but also people who get out ex-convicts. I mean, that, that’s a hard life. That’s just a
    1:08:51 hard life to try to reintegrate back into society.
    1:08:57 Yeah. And a lot of those people at Perfect Air that I worked with, they almost all were in some
    1:09:02 form of legal trouble. Like there was a lady that worked on the assembly line, Maasai, me named Denise
    1:09:08 and, uh, her and her husband had been manufacturing methamphetamine and he took the fall for most of it.
    1:09:13 She only had to go on probation. He was still in prison, but man, like Denise was a very sweet lady.
    1:09:19 And like, aside from the meth manufacturing, like she was like great, you know, like, and just such a
    1:09:24 character, like in such a good way. And so it’s like, yeah, just Denise lexfreeman.com.
    1:09:34 Let’s talk. I mean, yeah, you know, like both, both sort of the plumbers and the coal miners and, uh,
    1:09:43 Denise with the old meth habits. I mean, they’re walking the line of like, you know, surviving is
    1:09:51 hard. Yeah. So you have to do a real hard job. And then you also have to live life, which is in
    1:10:00 general hard, you know, divorce kids, people die, you lose like the medical issues and that, that can
    1:10:06 destroy you completely. All of a sudden something happens. You can’t afford it. The, the, the insurance
    1:10:13 system destroys people, all of that. So you have to somehow navigate life while working your ass off
    1:10:20 and a real hard job. And those people, they have stories. That’s a real pain. And from that pain,
    1:10:27 from that anger, that’s where, uh, Richmond, North of Richmond, that was that, that you could just feel
    1:10:34 their pain come through with that song and with your other work. So that like, there is a landscape of
    1:10:41 suffering. Yeah. It doesn’t have to be that. We don’t all have to be that decentralized either.
    1:10:45 Like if all, if there is that much commonality among people, which I do believe there is
    1:10:52 like just innately in suffering and, and, and, and yeah, like there’s a guy, there’s a guy in West
    1:10:57 Virginia that I talked to that he’s got a piece of property beside a mine that he was interested in
    1:11:03 selling. But the reason he’s, he’s got this dream of opening a, um, like putting some cabins there and
    1:11:07 renting them out for people to come Airbnb. He works at Lowe’s full time, but he’s, his son’s got this,
    1:11:12 his son’s like 19 and has got this heart surgery he’s got to have. And so he’s trying to sell the
    1:11:17 place for that. And just like, just that guy and all, and all you’d ever see him as is the guy that
    1:11:23 works at Lowe’s like pulling lumber or whatever, but he’s got this very insanely complex life.
    1:11:26 He’s trying to manage. He doesn’t want to lose his son. Like he’s just going to sell everything.
    1:11:31 And like at one point in time, maybe the church served that role of like when people really fell
    1:11:35 off track and they didn’t have a support system and they were like on this tiny boat out in the ocean,
    1:11:39 and they figured out some kind of way to rally it. In my mind, that’s like the dream of all this.
    1:11:45 If I, if I die and there’s any like legacy left or anything done, it’s like finding a way to take
    1:11:50 all the people that fill that role and organizing them and empowering them and protecting them.
    1:11:54 It’s rebuilding the community, but in a real way, not in like this fairytale bullshit.
    1:11:58 Everybody’s going to love each other and we’re all just going to be one big happy family. Like
    1:12:01 everybody’s still going to get mad and hate each other in certain ways. And
    1:12:06 that’s good. Like we, we need those tornadoes. Like you said, we need people pissed off and angry
    1:12:11 and we need people to feel like they can be angry and open about things that are wrong. Like people
    1:12:14 should be able to speak their mind and we shouldn’t all just kiss each other’s ass. And we shouldn’t
    1:12:19 all just pretend to be overly polite and say, Hey Debbie, you have a good weekend. Like you said,
    1:12:24 like we need all this controversy and this turmoil. And like, we need the hell of what that side that,
    1:12:28 that the internet brings out in people, but it just needs to be in real life. And it needs to be in a way
    1:12:33 where we’re all like, we all are at least chasing the same common goal, which is probably that we
    1:12:38 don’t want to starve and we want to have decent health. And, and we want to be able to like provide
    1:12:42 a decent life for our kids, or at least we just don’t, you know, we just want to live a decent life.
    1:12:51 Like, um, I think it’s somehow that, that fixes like, that fixes what you describe, like the people
    1:12:56 who, who fall in despair and are isolated and get it, it’s a terrifying world to live in.
    1:13:00 It’s that principle. Again, this is, I need a phone, a friend thing where we can just keep calling
    1:13:05 Jordan for all these things. But like he explains, there’s this principle in the Bible about, about
    1:13:09 those who, about the more you have, the more you’ll receive. And the less you have, the less you’ll,
    1:13:14 the less you’ll receive kind of a thing. And it’s a, it’s just a universal law in society where
    1:13:19 it seems like the lower you get to the bottom, it’s almost like the more, like the less resources you
    1:13:24 have available and the less, the less friends you have. And it’s like, you just, the, the further
    1:13:29 you go snowballs into where it’s like people just hit rock bottom. And then, and then what it’s like,
    1:13:33 when you get out of prison, what do you, what are you supposed to do? Or when you’re a veteran with
    1:13:37 mental health, like, what are you supposed to do? Like, in my mind, that’s what the church is supposed
    1:13:42 to be there for is like, but obviously it doesn’t fill that role anymore.
    1:13:50 To some people, at least religion does a little bit. It gives, uh, it’s at least a foundation of
    1:13:56 community, a foundation of hope for people. And when they’re really struggling.
    1:14:03 Yeah. You got thousands of messages, like you talked about from people, you gotten to talk
    1:14:08 to thousands of people about their pain through your work, through your music. You’ve been an
    1:14:14 inspiration to those people to find a way out of the pain. Can you tell the full story of your own
    1:14:24 lowest point before, before all of this, before the, before the music, before you blew up, uh,
    1:14:32 can you take me through the story of the depression, the drinking, and just the roughest times in your
    1:14:39 life? It’s sometimes it’s not even, you know, it’s funny, but it’s almost not even where you’re at in
    1:14:44 life. It’s where you perceive yourself at in life and what your, what your goals are moving forward.
    1:14:51 And I think like, you know, I was, I dropped out of high school at 17, basically ran away from
    1:14:56 home. I just, I couldn’t, I have always had this authority problem. And so I just didn’t want to
    1:15:01 listen to my parents. I didn’t want to go to college. I just wanted to go moving to the mountains.
    1:15:06 I was running away from responsibility, I guess, is what I was doing, you know? And so got this girl
    1:15:13 pregnant, had my first kid when I was 18 or just about to turn 19. And like I said, I’m working in an air
    1:15:18 conditioning factory with a bunch of convicted felons. And so from there, everything was just
    1:15:22 reactionary. I never really had a plan. I would jump from job to job, just like most everybody else.
    1:15:27 I don’t know. I just, I just got to a point where I guess I just quit believing in myself. And I knew
    1:15:33 that I wasn’t doing, I just knew I wasn’t doing, I wasn’t feeling my purpose and I wasn’t being the
    1:15:38 best version of myself I could be. And so the alternative to like facing yourself in the mirror and accepting
    1:15:45 that, that I’m not a shitty person. I’ve just let myself fall. You know, it’s like, it’s so hard to
    1:15:52 accept when you’ve had that fall that it’s just easier to just, just to get drunk and, you know,
    1:15:58 just do the bare minimum you can to keep everything sort of kind of moving along. But you don’t really
    1:16:01 care if you live or die. You don’t, you don’t really care about much anything like your whole,
    1:16:05 you know, I don’t know. Life is just so beautiful when you’re a child, you’re so imaginative and
    1:16:09 exploratory and you’re learning all these things and you just, you just can’t wait to be an adult
    1:16:15 because you’re just going to go out and do all these incredible, you know, and then you face the
    1:16:20 reality of it. Yeah. And the pressure and the fear of failure. Like I think maybe even my own fear of
    1:16:25 failure is what drew is what drove me. And, uh, but yeah, you just, and you, you think negatively
    1:16:30 about yourself for so many days and weeks and months and you like, you don’t even have a real
    1:16:35 self-awareness of like what you’re doing or how destructive you’ve become, but you always have
    1:16:42 that, that discernment in you that like, that conscious, you know, that little voice in your,
    1:16:48 and your spirit that is letting you know you’re messing up. You know, I was almost like, you know,
    1:16:53 I was wrestling with myself, you know? And so I don’t know. I just got to a point where it was just
    1:17:05 like, yeah, just, just a very, just a very overwhelming sense of numbness. Like, like,
    1:17:10 I don’t like nothing really, nothing that mattered before really matters anymore. Like, I guess
    1:17:14 that’s, that’s probably to me, the definition of depression is when all the things you love and
    1:17:20 care about are just meaningless and you can’t find, you really can’t find meaning or purpose
    1:17:29 or excitement in anything, you know? Like, like, I think, especially with men that commit suicide,
    1:17:36 it’s a, it’s a prolonged period of that. It’s not like they just wake up one day and they have a
    1:17:41 bad day and they kill themselves. It’s like you self-reflect negatively about yourself and your
    1:17:45 life and you don’t do the things that you’re supposed to do every day for a long enough period of time.
    1:17:54 And it’s like, pretty soon you’ve built this whole mountain of, of, of, of mismanaged,
    1:18:01 neglected stuff, for lack of a better word, like this mountain that you have to climb back up in
    1:18:06 order to fix all these things that you should have been doing all along. And then the, and then on
    1:18:10 the other side of it, it’s like, well, I could just die. Like, that seems a lot, like, it’s almost
    1:18:15 like for, I think from a man’s perspective, maybe the friends that I’ve had that I’ve lost,
    1:18:20 it seems like a lot of times you think, you know, you’d never see it coming, you know? Like, I don’t
    1:18:24 know, maybe that’s a general thing with, it seems like a lot of times men mask that better and you
    1:18:31 don’t pick up on it as much. But, um, I think it’s like, you just dig yourself into a point to where
    1:18:36 it’s like, you have a mountain of responsibility in front of you that you haven’t faced that you
    1:18:41 don’t know how to face. And you ha you haven’t been able to do so for a long time, but there’s
    1:18:47 this really easy detour and it’s just, you know, putting your big toe on the trigger. And it’s like,
    1:18:50 which one of those are, I don’t know, like they’re both seen, but at that point, your,
    1:18:58 your perception of reality is so distorted that like, you don’t, all the things that can,
    1:19:04 that would normally compel you to, to move along, like your, like love and joy and like your,
    1:19:11 your draw, you know, your drive to, to be that none of that really, it’s not there for you to even
    1:19:16 contemplate. If that makes sense. It’s like that part is almost like, at least for a little while
    1:19:24 invisible and all you see is fear and responsibility. And just this, like I said, I just, I just envision
    1:19:28 it like a mountain that you don’t, you don’t really know if you’re even able to climb. And then the other
    1:19:36 option is just, so I, I think that’s probably where, that’s probably where a lot of people go. And that’s
    1:19:42 probably where I was, was just like, you know? Yeah. I mean, there is the, it’s not just
    1:19:49 responsibilities to the immensity of it, the mountain. And I think you’re accurately describing
    1:19:54 how it happens, which is gradually. Yeah. Seeing yourself in a negative light over time
    1:20:05 slowly suffocates you. And then the burden of the responsibility that piles up. And unfortunately,
    1:20:13 of course, one of the ways out is to pull the trigger. And the other way out is the Jordan
    1:20:21 Peterson back to Jordan, sort of one gradual step at a time, like make your bed. It’s like,
    1:20:27 start climbing out. Like the responsibilities before you, one at a time, every single day,
    1:20:31 just climbing out and have faith that it will work out.
    1:20:37 That was what was so powerful for me about just beginning to open my mind back up to reading just
    1:20:41 a little bit of stuff, like a little bit of stuff from the new Testament that Jesus said and some
    1:20:48 different perspectives and teachings. But like, you know, an apostle would be in prison, like basically
    1:20:54 being tortured and facing death, but like just overjoyed in writing about talking about, it’s all
    1:20:58 about your perspective of things. Like I said, like, that’s why I never could understand why,
    1:21:04 you know, like celebrities or professional, I mean, giving one example of many, like a Kurt Cobain
    1:21:10 type scenario where you have a guy that’s just immensely talented, just will always be loved by plenty of
    1:21:13 people. Like I never could understand why that guy.
    1:21:22 There’s a ocean of quiet suffering in, uh, in a lot of, and I think it is disproportionately in men,
    1:21:28 in a lot of men and they hide it. Well, that’s why blue collar workers have such a high suicide rate
    1:21:33 and all to, and why it is so important to talk to those people. And yeah, it’s a, no, you could see
    1:21:40 it in the eyes and there, there, there is, there, there is a lot of pain there without like trying to
    1:21:45 get, without like trying to open up too many doors. I think that’s probably the best way I would describe
    1:21:52 it is just a series of really, there’s a series of negligent decisions and also just misperceptions.
    1:21:57 You know, like I think this was an Andrew Huberman thing where he talks about medications and how
    1:22:05 it’s a lot more likely for somebody to keep their dog on their medication schedule, but not themselves.
    1:22:11 You know, you love your dog and your dog, like it’s just this great little thing. And you just, you don’t see
    1:22:19 the flaws and the faults and the sin and the disgust in your dog that you do yourself. So it’s much more
    1:22:23 likely for people to make sure their dog has their medication every day. But like, there’s this alarming
    1:22:29 statistic with just the amount of people that don’t even fill their prescriptions they need filled or take care of
    1:22:33 themselves the way they do. And, and then that also like over time, you know, like if you quit
    1:22:39 taking care of yourself and you’re not in good health and you’re, and you’re, you’re not in a good
    1:22:45 routine, you’re not doing, you’re not like a series, a long series of doing enough of those things. Like
    1:22:49 you do, it’s easier for you to just think that your self-worth is zero. Cause if you’re not even
    1:22:55 willing to like, if you’re not even willing to like have basic hygiene and, and eat decent food and try to
    1:23:01 take care of yourself, it’s like, why, how, like, how on earth are you going to go face all these
    1:23:05 things that you need to face to get your life better? If you can’t, you don’t even care enough
    1:23:10 to do that. It’s just like, Hey, but it is, it’s a, it’s a, it’s a, it’s a long tragic road to get to
    1:23:15 that point. I think, at least in my case, the idea that there was something bigger than me that loved
    1:23:20 me, even despite I had all these flaws and problems and just that I was just such a wretched person.
    1:23:25 That’s what, at least in my situation, that’s what I think helped put, you know,
    1:23:29 more than anything. Like I said, that’s certainly where the motivation to quit the,
    1:23:34 once I quit the drinking, it helped a lot. Cause I was able to, even though it was a pain,
    1:23:38 it was difficult. I was able to actually be able to be honest with myself and reflect on a lot of
    1:23:42 things that were, and you know, you got to think, like I said, I, we watched the, I mean, it was like
    1:23:46 with, of course, in my case, it was a little unfair of an example. Cause within a month, all this stuff
    1:23:53 happened, like after I quit, but you know, um, I see it in my friends that have quit and have tried
    1:23:57 to turn things around and it, you know, it’s like, it’s, it’s, it is the most beautiful thing in the
    1:24:03 world to see somebody like come to life again, after being in one of those, you’re able to like,
    1:24:08 sort of like escape this shell of, of all those terrible things. And even if you are still in a
    1:24:12 bad position and you’re still, you got 30 grand worth of credit card debt and you’re working some
    1:24:17 shit job and your car doesn’t start half the time. And like, you know, your girlfriend left you for
    1:24:22 some other dude and like, don’t matter what it is. Like if at least that little glimmer of hope that
    1:24:28 like that faith that there is a chance, it’s something greater. Like that can, that’ll push
    1:24:32 people. You can put, you can push, you can push them out on the side with that, you know, like you
    1:24:37 can do anything with that. And I think it’s also good. I think it is important to have a good
    1:24:40 support structure. Like when you get to that point, I don’t think you should, I don’t think
    1:24:45 anybody should have to face that stuff by themselves. And there’s plenty of other people
    1:24:49 out there that are in the same position. And I think that’s, again, I think that’s why it’s so
    1:24:54 important for us to try to get reconnected on a personal level and not just through digital
    1:24:58 communication, because like we don’t really, we don’t, all we see of each other online is the good
    1:25:04 stuff. Very rarely are people posting on Facebook talking about, you know, how could you even,
    1:25:08 it’s like, all you see is the best of people, but I don’t think we realize that we’re all going
    1:25:11 through a lot of the same things anyway, you know, the low points and stuff.
    1:25:16 Guess what happens when you either lose your job or can’t quite figure out a good job and you’re
    1:25:22 not making that much money or you’re basically broke and you have a girlfriend that’s not happy
    1:25:28 about you being broke. She’s going to leave you. And if it’s a wife that could face divorce and like
    1:25:34 the, um, breakups and divorce can break a lot of people, even when they’re doing well.
    1:25:41 And now when they’re not doing well, that’s a rough one. And that basically your support system
    1:25:46 for a lot of people is the relationship is the, what is the wife and the, and so like that’s taken
    1:25:52 the support system from underneath you. And I’ve had good friends of mine. I’ve seen get in destructive
    1:25:56 relationships and like, they’ll start to date a girl. And then like within a year, they’re just
    1:26:02 like a shell of what they were. Because sometimes I do think it’s, I do think you have to be careful
    1:26:06 with like your self validation and the way you perceive yourself and making sure that it’s you
    1:26:11 giving yourself that and not somebody else. Cause I do think too, it’s like, yeah, like you’re,
    1:26:17 you know, how are you supposed to, if you can’t even, if you can’t even keep a woman around to love
    1:26:21 you, right? Like, how are you supposed to love yourself? It’s easy to think about that. Like
    1:26:25 I’ve seen a lot of men get wrecked in bad relationships and stuff too. That’s it’s a, it’s tough,
    1:26:32 you know? Yeah. Ultimately I think maybe dark to say, but there is, there is a base layer at which
    1:26:41 we’re, we’re alone in this world. Like you need to be strong by yourself first and foremost,
    1:26:47 sometimes there’ll be times in life where everybody leaves you. Yeah. The wife leaves
    1:26:53 you, the job leaves you. And for some people might even people you thought are friends will backstab
    1:27:00 you. And even then you have to have the strength to find your footing again. Like that, that ultimately
    1:27:05 comes from you. Right. I mean, man, of course, like I said, in all the experiences I’ve been through,
    1:27:11 just, I can’t, I’d be a fool to deny it. But like, I do think there is God there that’s always there if
    1:27:16 you’re, but you certainly can self-isolate yourself too, even from that. If you can find faith in
    1:27:24 yourself, I’ve seen it do wonderful things for human beings. You and God, faith in something bigger than
    1:27:32 you. Yeah. That can give strength to a lot of people, but, uh, allowing yourself to derive strength
    1:27:40 solely from other people can be a dangerous thing because people are complicated and they can betray,
    1:27:47 they can, um, just like they can fill your life with love. They could also destroy you.
    1:27:53 That’s also the beautiful thing about life. Yeah, it is. You make yourself vulnerable to other people,
    1:28:01 you form deep relationships. That means they can also destroy you. So that’s life.
    1:28:06 Beth, that’s what makes this whole thing. That’s what, and then you write really great heartbreak
    1:28:13 songs. Yeah. You know, people, you know, there’s something valuable about people fucking you over and,
    1:28:21 and hardship and all that kind of stuff. Even the best of us have terrible parts of us. Like we are all
    1:28:31 flawed inherently because we’re human. And so there, there’ll never be a, there’ll never be another garden
    1:28:36 of Eden on earth. Like figuratively where, where we all just live harmoniously and everything’s great
    1:28:41 and happy and wonderful, but it is, it’s those basic principles that you talk about, like love and our,
    1:28:44 and those relationships and those connections that we have, they, they make it all. Cause the thing about,
    1:28:48 I mean, like in a lot of cases, it’s like, what even, that’s the position you get in when you get to,
    1:28:52 when you get so depressed and you get so low, it’s like, what’s the point in even doing all this?
    1:28:58 Like it is, it is just for anyone. It’s just so crazy, overly complicated and exhausting to live.
    1:29:04 Isn’t it like, even in this modern society where we have all these wonderful little conveniences and we
    1:29:08 can just have food delivered right to our door if we want and all this kind of crap. It’s like,
    1:29:14 people are still like more depressed now than they’ve ever been. And like all the mental anxiety and all
    1:29:21 the mental health stuff is just probably just as prevalent as it’s ever been. It’s, it’s people talk
    1:29:26 about money, not making you happy. And you know, it’s like easy when you’re, it’s easy when you’re broke
    1:29:30 to think, man, if I had some money, I’ve, and of course, financial freedom is what you’re really
    1:29:34 looking for. Not like an abundance of wealth, but the things that we talk about that make life worth
    1:29:38 living, aren’t things that you can buy. They are things that you obtain through relationships and love
    1:29:49 and life. And so it’s a, it is just an infinitely complex and crazy thing to think about, but it’s
    1:29:58 like, uh, that human component of us is what, is what we, is what’s so important to our, to our long-term
    1:30:04 existence, like our, our ability to, to have connection with each other. And the joy we find in that,
    1:30:10 the purpose we find in that is it’s not, it’s not anything that’s replaceable by with anything,
    1:30:18 you know? Yeah. I’ve seen that with, uh, just seeing the effects of war on the people and
    1:30:27 basically war strips away everything. You lose your home, you, you lose everything and, uh, you get to
    1:30:32 see what’s actually really important. And that’s the other people in your life, uh, friends, family.
    1:30:40 And it’s almost cliche to say, but it’s, uh, it’s the people you love in your life that make up
    1:30:48 the essence of what makes life worth living. It’s not the homes, the material possessions, the,
    1:30:56 even the job and whatever else it’s the, the, the humans. So, yeah. Yeah. Yeah. It’s important to
    1:31:01 remember a lot of us, especially in the United States under a capital system or chasing money.
    1:31:08 Yeah. It’s important to remember what you’re doing it all for. I got to talk to you about your, um,
    1:31:16 your writing process. You’ve written just a bunch of really incredible songs. You say you’re not good at,
    1:31:21 you’re not a good musician, which is hilarious. Dude, I have no, so I have like zero self-confidence
    1:31:26 about any, I mean, just about anything, but I just, when I say that I’m not being funny. Like I’m like,
    1:31:35 you get nervous when you like get on stage. Oh yeah. Yeah. Like I can think about shows coming up
    1:31:41 and my hands will sweat thinking about them. Yeah. You told me that you like, haven’t really played
    1:31:46 the songs for like a couple months, like old songs. Since September. Yeah. Since September.
    1:31:53 Well, dude, like think about how, like, you know, I can’t, I’m not going to sit around and play. I’ve
    1:32:00 got to get sober for fun. Like, and like, you know. So you feel, you feel the songs when you play them.
    1:32:07 Yeah. Yeah, man. That’s rough. That’s, that’s rough. A lot of musicians talk about that kind
    1:32:11 of thing there. Right. Like about this. I don’t know. I’ve heard about that with people like about
    1:32:18 hating to play songs because of that side of it, but. Well, yeah, I’ve, um, uh, become close
    1:32:23 friends with, uh, Dan Reynolds, who’s, uh, the lead singer for Imagine Dragons. Yeah. And he says,
    1:32:27 every time he performs a song, I mean, he has songs that have depression in them and all that kind of
    1:32:34 stuff. And he says like, the only real way to do it is to feel it. You, you, you have to, you can’t
    1:32:40 just fake it. You have to like be in it. You have to like really feel the song as if you’re singing it,
    1:32:46 as if you’re writing it for the first time. So as a performer that, that he says that that’s his duty.
    1:32:53 He has to, to the, to the audience, but then that takes a toll. That’s not easy to do. That’s like,
    1:32:58 that, uh, especially with the songs that you write. I mean, there’s a lot of darkness there
    1:33:05 in your songs. Yeah. And I do have some, I do have some whiter hearted ones too, that, uh,
    1:33:08 that I’ll, you know, I mean, I’ve, the thing is, it’s like, I’ve only put out,
    1:33:11 I I’m a little funny about like, really like,
    1:33:16 God, I don’t know how many songs I have written that I will probably never do anything with.
    1:33:20 Like, I mean, probably at least 20 or 30 of them that are just like,
    1:33:23 they’re just not, I just don’t know why I don’t want to put them out, but just.
    1:33:29 What does it look like? What do you have? Like a notebook with ideas or do you mean you have like
    1:33:35 literal videos of half-baked songs? Yeah. I’ve got my old phone. Well, like even just that old phone
    1:33:39 that I recorded all the stuff for Tik TOK and all on, it’s got loads of like little,
    1:33:44 just like the way that Richmond one was where it was like in the bathroom facing this. And I had
    1:33:48 like that, you know, that’s all that. Even that one I showed you on there, it had been sitting on my
    1:33:52 phone probably a couple months before it. That’s why I said I have too many unfinished songs. It’s
    1:33:57 exactly what I meant. I’ve got all these little snippets of things like a little blip here or there,
    1:34:03 but the writing process is, well, it’s a lot different than I thought most people write. Cause
    1:34:09 like in the, there’s a lot of people that do these writing rooms and stuff and they’ll have,
    1:34:13 or, you know, these co-writes where they’ll have people sit down and they like sit on the couch and
    1:34:17 smoke a joint and they’re like, all right, let’s write this song. And they just like start plugging
    1:34:25 away. And they, to me, that’s like, I can’t do that. I have to just, it’s like almost the, it’s like
    1:34:30 a lot of times the songs come when I’m not prepared for them. You like to be alone.
    1:34:37 Well, alone in my head, I could be out and I could be anywhere in it. Right. You know,
    1:34:41 some of them I’ll just be in the shower and they’ll just like, and I’m like scram because
    1:34:47 the thing is, is like, Hmm, it’s a certain part of your brain, I guess, that creates that stuff or
    1:34:52 picks it up or does whatever, but they come just, they come and they go just as quick as they come.
    1:34:57 It’s like when you wake up, it’s exactly like when you wake up, you’ve had this crazy vivid dream in
    1:35:02 your head and you wake up and it’s all right there. And then you stop thinking about it for like half a
    1:35:06 second and then it all goes away and you’ll never remember it again. You know, like you can’t remember
    1:35:10 your dreams like that. It’s exactly like that. It’s like, it’ll be there. It’s like, perfect.
    1:35:14 Like it’s all right. It’s like, it’s, it’s almost like given to you, like just perfect,
    1:35:19 like parts of it or the whole thing or whatever. And then you get into this flow state to where you just
    1:35:22 like, it’s all there in front of you and you just figure it all out. And it’s like,
    1:35:26 you’ve, it’s like somehow you’ve like unlocked this little part of your brain that you don’t
    1:35:29 even really know how to get to, but you just get to, and it’s all there and you figure it out. But
    1:35:34 man, if you don’t get it, it’s gone. Like you’ll never, you’ll never get it again. Like you’ll never
    1:35:38 even be able to replicate that song ever again. It’s like, it’ll just go away. And typically it’s
    1:35:44 like, it’s only maybe the first half of the first verse is what I’ll get, or it’ll be like the chorus
    1:35:48 line I’ll get. And then I’ll build the rest of the song around that, if that makes sense,
    1:35:52 well, the words or the music or the melody, like what, what pops into your head?
    1:35:57 The emotion, I guess the words, sometimes it’s a phrase like, um,
    1:36:03 like one thing I will do is like, especially out in the country, people say the craziest
    1:36:08 people say the craziest things. And so sometimes I’ll like jot down a little bit of some,
    1:36:12 like I will sometimes on my phone, take a little note. If somebody says something real crazy that I’ve
    1:36:16 never heard before. And then maybe one day it’ll just pop in my head. Like, Oh yeah. You know,
    1:36:21 I don’t know. It’s very random though. Like I don’t sit and just try to write songs. That’s
    1:36:25 why I haven’t put out, like, that’s why I haven’t just been dumping out. Even though I have been
    1:36:29 writing a lot of songs, I haven’t just been like dumping out all this crazy music. I don’t want
    1:36:33 to force it. I don’t want to do truck beer girl songs or like, I, you know, I don’t want to force
    1:36:39 song. I don’t want to like, do you have any truck beer girl songs? Cause that, that would be an
    1:36:43 interesting. Yeah. I’ve got the silly one about this guy in West Virginia that, um,
    1:36:49 he’s like the most, he’s the most laid back. Cause I always get in my head and go over
    1:36:53 analytical about stuff and get real serious sometimes about things. And he’s like, buddy,
    1:36:57 you just got to take a drag off this thing. And he’ll, you know, he was the one he’d always like,
    1:37:02 like peer pressure me into taking a hit off a joint or something and like, just try to cheer.
    1:37:06 And he just didn’t take life so seriously. So I’ve written this song about, it’s called Dr. Dan.
    1:37:10 And it’s about, you know, he’s a doctor, but he’s not like a, he’s not like a conventional doctor.
    1:37:16 That’s a silly one that I’ll put out. So I do have some silly ones like that. Um, I have a couple
    1:37:20 of funny ones that I’ll, that I’ll never, ever, ever probably play to the public, but I did, I played
    1:37:27 him at the mothership. Um, only cause nobody has their phones in there. But, uh, when after, right
    1:37:32 after we did Rogan, I had, I got a chance. I got, somehow I got connected with Tom Segura right after
    1:37:37 Rogan. And we went over to the mothership and I got to meet him. And I love Adam again, you know,
    1:37:41 he, he was on the thing with Norm Macdonald is how I got introduced to him. That show Norm
    1:37:46 Macdonald had, but he’s just, he’s an awesome dude. And so we, we ended up at the mothership.
    1:37:52 Uh, I think it was the evening after the Rogan podcast. And, um, Tom’s like, well, they’ve never
    1:37:56 had, they’ve never had live music in here. He’s like, you could be the first one. And I was
    1:38:03 like, whatever. And so, uh, we only had one guitar and I had my guitarist, Joey with me.
    1:38:09 So Ron White was there. It was Tom Segura and then Ron White that night. And Ron took
    1:38:15 Joey in his car, drove him across town to his, uh, to his house and grabbed another guitar
    1:38:20 and came back. And we got up there and we did like two really silly songs. And then Richmond
    1:38:27 in between, um, in between Tom set and Ron set. And I was like, again, that was one of those
    1:38:31 moments in my life where I was like, what, like, what, what is this? Like, what is this crazy
    1:38:36 reality I’m in? But I do have some funny, I used to, cause a lot of, when I wasn’t playing
    1:38:41 the open mics, you know, the, well, like, you know, Brian that you met, a lot of my guitar
    1:38:44 playing was spent at places like his house and we were all heavy drinkers and we were just
    1:38:48 sitting around at a party playing or whatever, you know? And so I definitely liked the silly
    1:38:53 stuff too, but I was really in my head when we were talking about being low and what I would
    1:38:57 suggest people to do if they’re in that point. But if I was just to like, not to flip this,
    1:39:01 but just, it just popped in my head, but probably what I would tell anybody to do if
    1:39:05 they’re like suicidal and thinking about, like, if they’re to that point is just to go find
    1:39:12 some, go find somewhere outside, like in nature and go, that’s what, you know, that’s, I kind
    1:39:17 of missed this step when we were talking about things, but like selling my house and buying
    1:39:20 that property and putting a camper on it and trying to go into this whole off grid thing
    1:39:25 really like, I don’t know. It, it does a lot of good for you being reconnected to nature
    1:39:31 cause we are a part of it, but. Oh yeah. That’s, I’ve been to the junk. I went to the jungle
    1:39:35 for that reason. Yeah. Being out of nature in every way is just, is beautiful. I saw you
    1:39:40 got some, maybe, maybe that’s what I need to do is get some goats. I saw. I got two. I can
    1:39:46 give you. I have more questions. Why are you giving them so easily? Are there issues I need
    1:39:51 to know about? Well, they’re goats. Yeah. There’s no, there’s no free lunch, man. Hey, what,
    1:39:56 how many, you got goats, you got, you got all kinds of animals. What’s the, so what’s the
    1:40:00 story of you out in the woods? What are you doing out there? Uh, no comment. I’m just kidding.
    1:40:06 Just trying to escape this dystopian nightmare that we’re all living under. Like just, it was
    1:40:11 just a form of escapism, I guess. But you know, my, well, yeah, I think in such a short period
    1:40:17 of time, my grandfather grew up like, you know, they were in a survival estate, like trying to
    1:40:23 make enough money to pay the tax on their land, growing tobacco. And then here I am like in this
    1:40:27 digital world, two generations later. And I’m just like, something’s not, you know, I’ve just felt,
    1:40:32 just felt called to try to figure out, figure all that out and how to get back into that.
    1:40:39 There’s just a, there’s such a purity to, man, if you raise an animal and kill it and eat it,
    1:40:44 like, and I’m not talking about like, like Ted Nugent style, but just like, you know,
    1:40:49 raising meat birds and pigs and stuff and being, having the ability to put those in the freezer
    1:40:53 and cook them for dinner. Like they taste so much better, but it’s just, it feels, it’s just,
    1:40:58 I don’t know how to describe it, but it just brings me joy. Um, being able to grow stuff and
    1:41:04 even just flowers and everything else, just watching stuff that’s alive like that is just
    1:41:09 such a, you know, my, what we’re doing now is I’ve bought this permaculture farm that hadn’t
    1:41:15 been operational in like six or seven years. And, um, they did a lot of herbs. They had a big orchard,
    1:41:22 blueberries, you know, but, um, my dream there is to create this space that, um, it’s like the optimal
    1:41:28 place for humans to go to fix their mind. So like, like what’s the animals and the food that I can
    1:41:32 have there and the trees that I can plant and the certain types of wildlife that I can bring in and
    1:41:37 attract, like the noises and the sounds and the smells that are optimal for a human to be in,
    1:41:43 in order to like fix whatever it is, you know, like, um, I had the opportunity to meet Robert Kennedy
    1:41:48 Jr. Early on with all this. And, um, you know, he actually came out to my property and all we taught
    1:41:53 and we’re still, I think the idea is that we’re going to launch this kind of like healing center thing
    1:41:58 out there. Um, once he gets, once they get through all the mess that like they got their hands full,
    1:42:03 a little bit right now with things, but whether I go that route or not, it’s like, that’s my goal
    1:42:07 is to basically create a place that people can go and like, and fix their mind and find the optimal
    1:42:13 thing. You know, we’ve got laying birds and meat birds. So we have, we get our eggs and meat and
    1:42:18 then, um, we’ve done pigs and sheep and goats. And then I’m going to start with cat. I’m going to get
    1:42:24 cattle in the spring. Um, so we’ll start doing like Wagyu and Angus and playing around with,
    1:42:28 and I want to get some funny stuff too. Like, um, I just large animals have a lot of,
    1:42:32 you know, there’s all these like large animal therapies out there for mental health, like
    1:42:37 with vets and stuff. It’s just something, it’s something really relaxing and rewarding about
    1:42:39 being in that space.
    1:42:44 What do you, uh, what do you find out there in nature that you can’t find anywhere else?
    1:42:50 You can’t find in the, in the, uh, quote civilized world.
    1:42:55 Well, everything in civilization seems so like everything we’ve talked about, it seems so like
    1:43:03 there’s such a level of despair and unorganization and chaos and just like, and all, and all these
    1:43:10 like terrible parts of life that seem like so unstructured and just so uncertain, but in nature,
    1:43:15 everything is certain. Everything has a system. Like even on the microbial level of soil, there’s
    1:43:22 this like intricate system and, you know, soil, soil fixes it. Like the bacteria fixes the soil and like,
    1:43:27 and you can grow certain types of plants to restore certain types of nutrients. And then that can grow
    1:43:31 certain types of trees. And then that can bring in certain types of birds. And it’s like this whole
    1:43:36 big nature is just this whole big, beautiful system. You know, like earth is just such an
    1:43:42 intricate, complex system that is structured. And although there is chaos, there’s literal tornadoes,
    1:43:46 you know, like the metaphor we were using earlier, like there are literal tornadoes in nature and
    1:43:52 other things, but there’s, there’s a piece about observing the structure there. And to me, it like,
    1:43:58 it just helps, it helps remind and restore my faith that there is something bigger than me that
    1:44:04 like, yeah. And there’s a spiritual side to it that I don’t know that I can really correctly
    1:44:10 articulate, but man, sitting out in the woods with some Creek flowing by you and just sitting in
    1:44:15 stillness, like where you, you don’t hear anything. There’s no traffic from a road. There’s no,
    1:44:18 you know, you’re just, you’re just there in stillness and just watching,
    1:44:24 watching the earth do its things. Just I’ve gotten a chance to spend a day and a night
    1:44:29 alone in deep in the Amazon jungle. That’s like my dream, man.
    1:44:37 You basically take the woods and the Creek and the quiet, let’s put that like a three on a scale of
    1:44:42 one to 10. The Amazon jungle is like an 11 because you’re not just listening to the Creek. You’re
    1:44:50 listening to like a lot of different species of animal having sex or, or trying to kill each other.
    1:44:58 And you’re just like birds, monkeys, just everything. And the, the, the, the floor full of insects,
    1:45:05 bigger kinds of ants, murdering smaller kinds of ants. It’s an orchestra of, of insects, but there,
    1:45:11 it’s quiet in the sense that there’s no machinery. The, the really dark thing about the Amazon reinforce
    1:45:18 that sometimes depending on where you are, you’ll sometimes hear in the distance, the sound of a
    1:45:26 chainsaw. You’ll hear like, yeah. And it pierces the day because like, there’s just no machinery
    1:45:36 anywhere around. But once you hear it, it’s, you know, it is like this undeniable symbol of, uh, what
    1:45:43 human civilization does to nature. It pains me seeing woods getting knocked down and residential,
    1:45:50 residential subdivisions taking their place. Like this, like the monkey part of my brain wants to
    1:45:54 just go burn it all down. Like, it’s just like, not good. Like, I don’t know. I just instinctually
    1:45:59 observe it as being not good. And I don’t know exactly how to describe it, but I’m with you.
    1:46:04 Like I, um, that was, like I said, that’s why I felt so compelled. I mean, we had, I had this little
    1:46:10 house that I had maybe a little bit of equity in and I, it was in 2019 and the housing market was up.
    1:46:15 And I was like, I sold our little house and got that. I was able to find 92 acres for like 1100 an
    1:46:20 acre. And so I still had to finance it, but it was at least like within my, barely within my.
    1:46:26 And so that’s what we did. We had a, you know, I was paying 600 a month on the land and I bought a
    1:46:33 little camper for, for $750 off this hunt club in Waverly, Virginia and drug it up there. And that’s,
    1:46:40 that’s what we had. And like went and bought a little, I got a little Kubota tractor for 0%
    1:46:45 financing and was like cutting, like this property was a mile off the road. So I had to cut basically
    1:46:50 like recut in old logging road and stuff. And you want to talk about putting a strain on your marriage?
    1:46:56 That’ll do it, buddy is selling your, selling your modest little rancher and doing that. But
    1:47:00 man, I was, that’s when I really started to live. And I think probably my, that was like the beginning
    1:47:06 point of the restoration of, of, of me, you know, and I feel bad that a lot of people just don’t even
    1:47:12 know what that’s like to be on a farm or be out in nature. And I can’t imagine just living in a
    1:47:16 suburb or a city your whole life and never getting to experience that, you know, it’s good that we have
    1:47:20 all this technology is great. And like the, the science and the innovation is important. And
    1:47:25 even the fact that you can go on YouTube and look how, look up how to do almost anything is important.
    1:47:32 It’s just that there isn’t a clear definitive line between what’s beneficial and educational and what’s
    1:47:38 predatory and harmful. And so it’s like, it happens to me all the time, but I could go on YouTube and
    1:47:44 look up how to change the brake shoes on my truck or something. And if I click on a short of somebody
    1:47:49 doing it, I automatically, like I automatically go to the next video and I may be three or four
    1:47:54 videos deep before I catch, I’m watching like, you know, some lady throw a pie at somebody. And then
    1:47:57 pretty soon I’m like, wait, I’m changing my brake. That’s the only issue.
    1:48:04 And then you’re just doom scrolling. And it, it, it does something to your mind. It just completely
    1:48:06 takes the humanity away.
    1:48:06 Yeah.
    1:48:12 It’s, it’s, it’s, it’s really horrible. Like that dopamine thing does something to my mind
    1:48:18 that I hate, which really is the opposite of nature. Like the feeling I remember being out
    1:48:24 in nature and not just a hike hike is good, but like for prolonged periods of time, several
    1:48:28 days away from the internet, away from all that. What is that? I don’t know what that is, but
    1:48:35 I don’t like what X Twitter are doing. I don’t like what Instagram is doing, whatever that
    1:48:37 is. I don’t think that’s good for the soul.
    1:48:44 Yeah. It’s emulating things that we need to be healthy humans, but it’s just like feeding
    1:48:51 it visually and audibly to us, but it’s not giving us the, it’s giving us the instant gratification
    1:48:55 of it, but it’s not giving us the long-term pleasure or fulfillment of it. Like I said, like,
    1:49:01 and the beauty is we’re in this weird period in time. Like it’s a breath of time that we’re in
    1:49:09 where, where we are able to conceptualize and observe what life was like. And that transition
    1:49:14 point that’s got us up till now. And we also have the, because in order for all this to,
    1:49:20 to continue to evolve, like in order, like even with AI, like it needs us more than we need it right
    1:49:25 now still for a very short period of time. But we have access to nearly all the information that
    1:49:32 the world has theoretically, but we also still have the perception and the, the memory of what
    1:49:38 life was like before it. And so this is like a very short window of time, like a breath of time where
    1:49:45 I think we can find a way to like incorporate this into normal life. But I think like, if that breath
    1:49:50 leaves us, like, I don’t know, I think it’s irreversible, you know, I believe that I truly believe it is
    1:49:55 irreversible. And I think like, and that’s just going to be the end of us. And it, and it could take two or
    1:50:00 three more generations to get to that point. But like, I, I think like, why don’t we find people
    1:50:06 that are way smarter than me and, and look at all the things that trend on social media, like the
    1:50:11 videos that everybody watches, like, I don’t know what it is, if it’s wood splitting and plumbing and
    1:50:17 blacksmithing and doing something with like, let’s find all the things that people are attracted to
    1:50:23 online that they obviously are like interested in and just figure out a way to have them in real life
    1:50:26 for people to immerse themselves in. Yeah. I mean, it’s the transitionary state. And I,
    1:50:32 one of the responsibilities I take very seriously, because I agree with you is I tried to pierce the
    1:50:36 bubble that is San Francisco, that is the Silicon Valley, that is the people that build these
    1:50:42 technologies. They, they often live a bit in a bubble. Yeah. That said, the people that criticize
    1:50:48 tech folks also live in a bubble. Yeah. And to sort of, first of all, piercing bubbles in general is,
    1:50:53 is good for people to get along to understand each other because, uh, people that say all technology is
    1:51:01 evil, unfortunately technology, even if that’s true, which I don’t think it is, uh, you it’s coming,
    1:51:07 uh, it’s going to be built. And so you have to figure out how to do it in a way that preserves our humanity,
    1:51:15 that, that doesn’t drag us into this black hole of like just maximizing engagement, maximizing this
    1:51:20 dopamine thing, or, where instead of reading Dostoevsky, which I should be doing, I’m looking at
    1:51:24 some girl doing the shaking her ass on Instagram and then feeling horrible about myself five minutes
    1:51:31 later, uh, that at scale seems to be happening. And so like reminding ourselves that this is not
    1:51:36 the way to steer human civilization to progress, to flourishing.
    1:51:42 The problem is, is I think we’re wasting a lot of our, our bandwidth, like a lot of the,
    1:51:46 like we only have so many minutes in a day to even use our brains and our brains can only do,
    1:51:53 but so much in a day anyway. And when we’re wasting any of it on just that, it’s like the,
    1:52:00 it’s like, I, I see it in my own professional opinion as the world is becoming just a little more
    1:52:06 in the last decade or two, as the world becomes a little more dreary and dark and more problems
    1:52:12 happen and city streets become more littered and jobs are like all these kinds of problems that we’ve,
    1:52:17 that we all argue about all the time as they become more prevalent. It’s like the internet and,
    1:52:22 and just the visuals of the internet become so much more immersive and video games are so much more,
    1:52:26 everything’s so much better here. Everything’s improving at lightning speed and technology
    1:52:32 and it’s degrading in society and in the real world. And somehow there’s gotta, there’s gotta be
    1:52:35 a way to find a balance there. But right now it seems like as technology becomes more immersive
    1:52:40 and addictive and, and interactive, you know, like the way these algorithms like feed us exactly what
    1:52:45 we want. And there’s so much psychology and just so much research that goes into making them as
    1:52:50 addictive as possible. It’s like the real world kind of sucks. Like, you know, cities that were
    1:52:56 beautiful and thriving are now falling apart, like, and, and, and have all kinds of problems that are
    1:53:00 being unaddressed and lack of leader. It’s like, there’s gotta be some kind of way, but it’s, and so
    1:53:06 it’s easy for us to feel more and more inclined to escape into the digital realm because the digital
    1:53:10 realm is becoming more fun while real life is becoming less fun. And there’s gotta be some kind of
    1:53:15 way to balance between the two. I’m with you. I’m not against technology at all. I think evil most
    1:53:20 certainly existed long before there were computers, like, and, and in even more treacherous ways, like
    1:53:26 now we have the ability to do, we’re, like I said, we’re in a very, we’re in a very temporary state
    1:53:32 right now in 2025 where we have access, where the general public has access to basically all the
    1:53:38 information there is and artificial intelligence and just immense, and the ability that like a guy can
    1:53:42 just set a bunch of cameras up and start doing podcasts and have just the, like, even just the
    1:53:47 fact that this, that your platform could be created is like immensely powerful. It never, probably never
    1:53:52 existed in world history up until now, but we also still have, the problem is, is if we just keep going
    1:54:00 without being careful about, about losing the real world aspect of it, is that like, at some point, we’re just
    1:54:04 going to get so lost and so immersed in this space. We’re not even going to know what we’re, we’re not even
    1:54:08 going to know what we’re missing out on. You know, all there’s going to be is girls on Instagram, like
    1:54:13 all there’s going to be is that. Yeah, I’ve been trying to figure it all out. I just did a super
    1:54:20 long podcast with, uh, Tim Sweeney, the CEO of Epic Games who created Fortnite and created Unreal Engine,
    1:54:25 a lot of interesting video games, like revolutionary video games. So I don’t know if you know, but Fortnite
    1:54:32 is this gigantic video game where people go into, uh, into an online world and they shoot stuff. It’s
    1:54:39 fun. It’s, it’s not like Call of Duty intense, militaristic, like raw, real kind of shooting.
    1:54:44 It’s more fun shooting at each other. But, you know, at first I was skeptical, like, is that a good way to
    1:54:51 have, to hang out with friends? But then I got to do it with people that I’m actually friends with in
    1:54:58 physical reality and you get to hear each other’s voice and you just talk and talk shit about each
    1:55:05 other together. It’s basically a phone call, honestly, with some visuals. You’re not, it’s not
    1:55:09 about the visuals. It’s about the phone call and it just makes it a little more convenient to connect
    1:55:15 regularly. Yeah. But I think you do need to remember that all of that only works if you’re
    1:55:22 consistently returning to physical reality. You know, um, in this case, like taking the quote
    1:55:29 unquote, uh, guy trip, not the Brokeback Mountain style, but just friends, you know, just friends
    1:55:35 trip out in nature together, like, like dudes on a hunting trip or, or just fishing or just hanging
    1:55:40 out in physical reality together. It’s really a fun, like we should not forget the importance of that.
    1:55:44 You talked earlier about loneliness. I think that got brought up at some point, but I do think
    1:55:49 that’s like a big, that’s a problem that’s caused a lot of our symptoms is that we are all like very
    1:55:55 lonely, even though we are all, we all seem to be so well connected digitally. We are all so lonely.
    1:56:00 You got to think, I mean, modern warfare too, was a big thing. I was, I was supposed to be in class of
    1:56:06 2010. So you can think like when I was in whatever grade, eighth grade or whatever, call of duty was like
    1:56:12 the thing, you know, I, I’ve certainly like, trust me, I’m not saying that I, I’m right in this space
    1:56:17 of digital immersion with anybody else. Like I’ve, I’ve, I’ve been there and seen it and done, you know,
    1:56:21 like, but I, I’ve wasted who knows how many hundreds of hours on modern warfare too. And like,
    1:56:28 I really built some great friendships from it. You know, I like, I, there’s, there’s a place for all
    1:56:35 that stuff. It’s just like, we ha like, there is just this, we have this innate responsibility to
    1:56:42 like, to, again, it just goes back to this, goes back to talking about our founding fathers and the
    1:56:47 way this country was created and the importance and the, like the importance of, of what it did for
    1:56:53 the world. Um, you know, and my, my understanding is that it was the first, it was the first time ever
    1:56:57 that people got together and agreed that, like you said, every man was equal because they were created
    1:57:01 in the image of God. They had unalienable rights that no government could take away from them. And
    1:57:06 that’s really important. Like we, there won’t be fortnight if we don’t worry about that. And it,
    1:57:11 and honestly, like just the collapsing in our structure with the mental health, with our youth
    1:57:15 and the suicide rates with our blue collar workers and all these kinds of things we’ve touched and
    1:57:19 talked about, like the, those are all just things. We just need more time together in real life to fix
    1:57:25 those problems. Those are just things, like I said, I make the joke, but like, like there’s never been
    1:57:29 one argument that I’ve, there’s never been one dispute with my wife that I’ve been able to
    1:57:34 figure out how to fix through a text message or like it takes, it takes being in person with people
    1:57:40 and, and like having human connection to fix any problem and heal anything, you know? And so it’s
    1:57:44 difficult. It’s like, I don’t, it’s not anybody’s fault that we’re like that. We’re not even able to
    1:57:48 really get to know each other and understand each other through the internet. Like we almost have to
    1:57:53 be together in person to even just get each other’s point of view and perspectives on things. And
    1:57:59 you know, yeah. Fuck the division that the internet creates, honestly, like the left and the right is,
    1:58:04 it’s been, it’s been, it’s been kind of a nightmare for me just to watch. Cause I see the very simple
    1:58:10 reality that we’re in it together and that there’s a lot more commonality between people. It seems cliche
    1:58:18 to say, but it’s like, no, that needs to be said more than ever. Cause it, when you look on X, it feels
    1:58:20 like everybody’s divided, but we’re not.
    1:58:25 Well, and people are always going to think differently too. Like just in our structure and the way we, you know,
    1:58:29 again, it’s like that, it goes back to that Jordan Peterson lecture about, I think in maps of meaning
    1:58:34 where he talks about people who think more conservatively or more liberally about things like it’s been
    1:58:40 applied to politics, but it is more, it’s based more in psychology than anything. Like some
    1:58:44 people are going to have, some people are going to think more inside the box and some
    1:58:47 people are going to think more outside the box, but we have to have both in order to have a healthy
    1:58:55 society. Like, oh, and also the thing that bothers me, your song, Richmond, North of Richmond, a lot of
    1:59:02 people, so a pretty even split people on the left and the right in terms of, uh, friends of mine.
    1:59:10 And sadly they’ve drifted towards the extremes a bit. Uh, those on the left definitely
    1:59:15 have developed a case of, uh, Trump derangement syndrome. Uh, those on the right seem to think
    1:59:21 that every person on the left is a kind of radical leftist. Yeah. It’s, it’s, it’s like hilarious
    1:59:28 to listen to, to people talk. It’s like everybody’s lost their mind. It feels like, but also on top of
    1:59:37 on top of that, people on the right see Trump as, uh, as a savior, as this figure who is, who could do no
    1:59:43 wrong, who’s going to restore freedom in America and all, you know, continue, you can do a full list of
    1:59:50 really positive things. And to me, he’s yet another rich man, North of Richmond, Biden, Trump, it’s all the
    1:59:56 same thing. Now, some might be able to do more good than others, but ultimately they’re in positions
    2:00:05 of power and power corrupts. And those in, in those positions often forget about the everyday person,
    2:00:11 the working class, and they leave them behind. Ultimately, uh, serve the people that are close to
    2:00:18 them and sometimes serve themselves to maintain power, to grow their power. I think the good thing you can say
    2:00:25 about them is they, I, and I could say that about both Donald Trump and Joe Biden, uh, is that they
    2:00:32 really love their family. As I get, I could say that one of the things that I love about both people
    2:00:40 is that they genuinely love their family. And like, it was always heartwarming to me to see how much
    2:00:46 Joe Biden loves his family. Like, and, and honestly, like just do anything for his family. And this,
    2:00:51 the same is true for Trump. And that just reminds you that they’re human beings. And yeah, all that
    2:00:59 to say is like, we need to see the humanity in each of us. Uh, and to some degree, always distrust the
    2:01:00 people in power.
    2:01:05 The power that people have only exists because we allow it, whether willingly or just through our
    2:01:11 own negligence. But I think that’s the important thing is like, like I said, there’s always more of
    2:01:15 us than there will be a them. There’s always more, there’s always more nobodies than there ever will
    2:01:20 be people at the top. And we just have to figure out what to do with that and how to, and I think
    2:01:25 this is, like I said, a short window of time to, to where we can still figure that out. You know,
    2:01:31 I got to ask you about something before I forget. I think I saw on Instagram, you talked about a
    2:01:36 three-legged cat. Is that a real thing? What’s the story behind the three-legged cat? The reason
    2:01:40 I want to ask you that, first of all, I want to hear this story. And second of all, I want to read
    2:01:45 to you, uh, one of my favorite Bukowski poems afterwards about another cat. All right. What’s
    2:01:54 the story? I had this cat lady neighbor who’s a real sweet lady, but, um, older lady lives in a
    2:02:01 trail, single wide trailer has probably got, I don’t know, 30 or 40 cats that she feeds at her house.
    2:02:05 Nice. It was a rainy Saturday morning. It was pouring down rain. It was going to be like, it was
    2:02:08 like eight o’clock in the morning on Saturday. It was going to be a great day. I was going to,
    2:02:14 and then I hear this lady yelling, there’s this cat stuck in my car. She’s all freaking out and don’t
    2:02:18 know what to do. And like I said, my wife’s a veterinary technician or whatever. So she’s got
    2:02:22 a little bit more sense about animals than any of us, but we go over there and the ladies tried to
    2:02:28 start her car and there’s this kitten that was up under the hood and she started the car and the cat.
    2:02:34 Basically it, it, it basically almost ripped its whole front leg off already. There was just a
    2:02:39 little bit still attached, like some tendon or whatever, but the, the leg was like wrapped up
    2:02:43 under the water pump, like the pulley, the water pump, knock the bell off. There was no way to
    2:02:49 get, there was no way to save this leg on this guy. It was like, and, but the cat was like pinned
    2:02:55 upside down. And so we ended up grabbing a, we asked the lady if she had like a knife in the house.
    2:02:59 So she gave us this like terrible looking knife, but it’s all that we had. You know, I was like,
    2:03:04 we were trying to get this done. So yeah, my wife was the one that did it, but we like got the rest of
    2:03:11 the stuff cut and got the cat out and I’m, and I don’t know. I just like to spend like,
    2:03:18 however, I was like over a grand we spent given like getting this cat’s likes getting it properly
    2:03:23 sutured or whatever to where the cat could have a healthy recovery and all. But I’m one of those
    2:03:26 type of people. Like I’m not going to, I couldn’t just let this little, I’m not going to go. They
    2:03:31 were going to just go put the cat down or whatever the lady, you know? So yeah, it’s my,
    2:03:37 I named her hop. So that’s my little cat and it hops around. And, but it was one of those things
    2:03:42 where, uh, yeah, I don’t know. I just, great example with animals. Uh, I guess it’s the same
    2:03:45 way with people. I just always see the best and I just couldn’t.
    2:03:52 Yeah. I mean, that’s one of the most amazing things about humans. It’s, it’s irrational to
    2:03:57 spend that much money on this cat, right? Because there’s so many other cats that are suffering and
    2:04:02 dying and so on, but that’s what makes humans really special. We see that the, the, the, the,
    2:04:08 the, the person or the creature suffering in front of us and the, we’re, we’re willing to move
    2:04:15 mountains to save that person. Like it’s irrational. Maybe it doesn’t make sense because the
    2:04:20 allocation of money and effort might not be correct, whatever. Uh, we just don’t give a
    2:04:24 shit. The reason that we’re willing to do it for a cat, like I said, it’s just like the thing with
    2:04:29 the dogs about giving the dogs your medication, but not yourself. So we see all the flaws and all the
    2:04:33 problems and all the disagreements and all the anger we have with each other. Just like you said,
    2:04:37 your friends on the right and the left and stuff. And like, we could show that kind of compassion
    2:04:41 and we do. I mean, humanity does from time to time show that kind of compassion, but we could show
    2:04:49 that kind of like just undeserved, just, just love, you know, to each other too. Like, and
    2:04:57 love is like, it’s funny, you know, you talked about how both of those presidents, you could say
    2:05:03 they at least love their family, but love is like, I think everyone’s capable of love. It’s probably the
    2:05:09 most powerful thing there is even beyond hate, I think is, you know, like, but it is crazy with animals.
    2:05:13 So it comes out of us so easily with animals because they, to us, they’re in there, there’s
    2:05:18 these innocent little lives. We don’t have anything against them, you know, like they don’t have,
    2:05:24 they don’t, they don’t, they don’t talk. They don’t have political views. They don’t,
    2:05:29 they’re just little creatures, but the reality is we’re all just, we’re all just creatures like that.
    2:05:35 We do that with human children. Yeah. But we don’t do it enough with adults who are also kinds of
    2:05:42 children. They’re still, we’re still like, we’re still fucking lost in this world. So I gotta, I gotta
    2:05:47 read you, I gotta read you this. It’s gotta be one of my favorite poems. It’s called the history of one
    2:05:54 tough motherfucker by Charles Bukowski. And people should go look at videos. There’s videos of Bukowski doing
    2:06:01 interviews with a cat by his side. And that’s the cat he’s talking about. All right. It goes like this.
    2:06:08 He came to the door one night, wet, thin, beaten, and terrorized. A white, cross-eyed,
    2:06:17 tailless cat. I took him in and fed him and he stayed. Grew to trust me until a friend drove up
    2:06:24 the driveway and ran him over. I took what was left to a vet who said, not much chance. Give him these
    2:06:31 pills. His backbone is crushed, but it was crushed before and somehow mended. If he lives, he’ll never
    2:06:38 walk. Look at these x-rays. He’s been shot. Look here. The pellets are still there. Also, he once had a
    2:06:46 tail. Somebody cut it off. I took the cat back. It was a hot summer, one of the hottest in decades.
    2:06:52 I put him on the bathroom floor, gave him water and pills. He wouldn’t eat. He wouldn’t touch the water.
    2:06:58 I dipped my finger into it and wet his mouth and I talked to him. I didn’t go anywhere. I put in a lot
    2:07:04 of bathroom time and talked to him and gently touched him and he looked back at me with those
    2:07:12 pale blue crossed eyes. And as the days went by, he made his first move, dragging himself forward by his
    2:07:19 front legs. The rear ones wouldn’t work. He made it to the litter box, crawled over and in. It was like
    2:07:25 the trumpet of possible victory blowing in that bathroom and into the city. I related to that cat.
    2:07:34 I had it bad. Not that bad, but bad enough. One morning he got up, stood up, fell back down and just
    2:07:44 looked at me. You can make it, I said to him. He kept trying. Getting up, falling down. Finally, he walked a few
    2:07:50 steps. He was like a drunk. The rear legs just didn’t want to do it and he fell again, rested,
    2:07:58 then got up. You know the rest. Now he’s better than ever. Cross-eyed, almost toothless, but the grace is
    2:08:05 back. And that look in his eyes never left. And now sometimes I’m interviewed. They want to hear about
    2:08:14 life and literature. And I get drunk and hold up my cross-eyed shot, run over a detailed cat. And I say,
    2:08:22 look, look at this. But they don’t understand. They say something like, you say you’ve been influenced by
    2:08:32 Celine. No. I hold the cat up, influenced by what happens, by things like this, by this, by this. I shake the
    2:08:40 cat, hold him up in the smoky and drunken light. He’s relaxed. He knows. It’s then that the interviews
    2:08:48 end. Although I am proud sometimes when I see the pictures later and there I am and there’s the cat
    2:08:56 and we are photographed together. He too knows it’s bullshit, but that somehow it all helps.
    2:09:06 So when you posted about the three-legged cat, there you go. And I think of your music and
    2:09:12 your life story in the same way. It’s just been through some shit, just like Bukowski. Neither of
    2:09:17 you two have been through what that cat’s been through. But you know, that’s kind of life. That’s
    2:09:24 what it’s all about. Uh, I was wondering if you could play a couple songs. Sure. Yeah. Okay. Cool.
    2:09:28 Do you want to take a break or no? Um, no, I’m good. Am I, we might have to take a break just,
    2:09:39 just for me to get this figured out. But of course. Yeah. Where’s, where is the guitar? Like
    2:09:42 where, no, like positionally. I think, yeah, I think this will be fine.
    2:09:45 So ghetto.
    2:09:51 Call Draven and be like, who?
    2:10:02 Well, if you, I guess I’ll do, um, if I was going to do anything on here from the older songs,
    2:10:07 it, that was related both to everything we’ve talked about. It’d probably be, I want to go home.
    2:10:08 So it’s good.
    2:10:34 If you want for my old dogs and the good Lord, they’d have me strung up in the sideboard.
    2:10:45 Cause every day living in this new world is one too many days to me. Son, we’re on the brink
    2:10:56 of the next world war. And I don’t think nobody’s praying no more. And I ain’t saying I know it for
    2:11:07 sure. I’m just down on my knees begging the Lord, take me home. I want to go home.
    2:11:21 I don’t know which road to go. It’s been so long. I just know I didn’t used to wake up feeling this way.
    2:11:32 I just do what the TV say. I want to go home.
    2:11:39 I want to go home.
    2:11:50 I want to go home.
    2:11:51 I want to go home.
    2:12:01 I want to go home.
    2:12:02 I want to go home.
    2:12:02 I want to go home.
    2:12:02 I want to go home.
    2:12:05 The trees go down
    2:12:09 Only got concrete growing around
    2:12:11 And I wanna go home
    2:12:16 I wanna go home
    2:12:21 I don’t know which road to go
    2:12:24 It’s been so long
    2:12:28 I just know I didn’t used to wake up
    2:12:30 Feeling this way
    2:12:34 Cussing myself every damn day
    2:12:38 There’s always some kind of bill to pay
    2:12:43 People just doing what the rich man say
    2:12:45 I wanna go home
    2:13:18 If it weren’t for my old dogs and the good Lord
    2:13:23 They’d have me strung up in the sideboard
    2:13:29 That’s probably one of the first
    2:13:31 I don’t know, it’s not the first song I wrote, but one of them.
    2:13:35 What a song, man, what a song, what a song
    2:13:37 What’s the story of that guitar?
    2:13:49 Well, the guy who made this like saved my butt because everything blew up and I was playing that little Gretsch resonator that’s in all the original videos and my wife had got me that off of Amazon, I think, or something.
    2:13:57 Like three or four hundred bucks, it’s like three or four hundred bucks, it’s like three or four hundred bucks, it’s like a just an entry level like import little Gretsch and the pickup never would work right in it.
    2:14:00 So this string would wouldn’t work when you plug it in.
    2:14:03 So here we are, everything happens all at once.
    2:14:08 And we’re trying to do these shows and like, you know, I think the biggest one I did.
    2:14:17 So basically what I ended up having to do was go, I bought one of these suction cup rigs that sticks right here and the mic goes down under here to pick that string up.
    2:14:28 And I played like, we played like a, I think the biggest show I did with it was like 10,000 people, but it was enough to where I couldn’t be doing a $300 guitar with a, with a rigged up thing on it anymore.
    2:14:29 It just wasn’t going to work.
    2:14:38 So this guy reached out and, um, Gretsch wouldn’t help me with my Gret, like, you know, there’s no way to really get ahold of them because they’re such a big company at the, I,
    2:14:41 I finally did get ahold of Diane Gretsch and she’s like really nice.
    2:14:44 And so it’s nothing personal against Gretsch.
    2:14:45 It’s just at the time I couldn’t get ahold of them.
    2:14:55 I figured I would have been able to, cause like everywhere sold out of those, that Gretsch model when the song blew up, you know, like it was a real pop, but that couldn’t get ahold of them.
    2:15:03 So this guy, Beard Guitar, Paul Beard in Maryland, he reached out, fixed my Gretsch and then, um, gave me one of these and made it with the, but it’s all handmade and all.
    2:15:10 It’s like, yeah, you can like whack somebody over the head with it pretty good.
    2:15:11 Yeah, nice and heavy.
    2:15:15 But yeah, he makes them all by hand, uh, a little family owned place.
    2:15:19 And I know nothing about resonating guitars.
    2:15:23 Is that like, uh, do you play regular acoustic?
    2:15:24 Yeah.
    2:15:25 It’s just basically a regular acoustic.
    2:15:27 It’s just a full step down.
    2:15:27 It’s the only difference.
    2:15:29 I’ve just got it tuned all the way down.
    2:15:29 Is that it?
    2:15:33 Cause there’s also like the, this whole vibe to it.
    2:15:33 Oh yeah.
    2:15:34 Well, the body’s different.
    2:15:40 So you can see it’s got like a, it’s got like a solid core, you know, instead of it being a hollow body, like an acoustic, it’s got that.
    2:15:42 It almost looks like a hubcap, that black.
    2:15:42 And they call the court.
    2:15:44 That’s all the same.
    2:15:45 Yeah.
    2:15:45 It’s just the same.
    2:15:46 Yeah.
    2:15:48 I wouldn’t be smart enough to play anything special.
    2:15:50 Like it’s just a regular old guitar.
    2:15:50 I don’t know.
    2:15:51 There’s a different vibe to it.
    2:15:52 Yeah.
    2:15:53 Well, I like that.
    2:15:53 Cooler.
    2:16:04 Well, the old, I’m real, I’m real fond of like the older music, like, um, so like where all my family’s from, so my dad was adopted.
    2:16:05 So I don’t have any family.
    2:16:07 Like Lunsford’s not really even a real last name to me.
    2:16:11 They’re all just, it was just my grandparents that adopted my dad.
    2:16:16 So all of my family’s Engel is like I-N-G-L-E.
    2:16:18 That’s like my real, that’s all my mom’s side of my family.
    2:16:25 And, um, they’re all from this place about 20 miles from where like the Carter family was from.
    2:16:31 So all that old Virginia, like kind of bluegrass folk music and stuff.
    2:16:33 And so I, I was just always attracted to that.
    2:16:37 And so that’s, I like the, I like the resonator a full step down.
    2:16:40 Cause it, to me, it kind of gives it that old sound.
    2:16:47 Like, um, you know, a lot of the instruments back then had like bad dull strings and they were older and they were out of tune a little bit and stuff.
    2:16:49 And I just, I listened to a lot of that type of music.
    2:16:53 So I like, I like the strings being a little out of tune and dull and not everything.
    2:16:54 And just that.
    2:16:55 Yeah.
    2:16:57 That’s why I was so attracted to it.
    2:17:00 Plus like some of the old blues players, like, you know.
    2:17:03 Playing the dobro and stuff.
    2:17:07 But that was my, that’s why I wanted to get the resonator was just because of that old.
    2:17:23 I mean, that’s even why, like, you know, I had to use my grandpa’s name as an alias, but that Oliver Anthony music is really supposed to represent like old music from like 1930s Virginia or something like, you know, like it’s kind of got that type of feel to it, or at least in its core, you know.
    2:17:27 It feels like from another time, but it also feels timeless.
    2:17:41 It’s also that my music catalog is so limited, like of what I listened to that a lot of what’s in my head, like, cause you think about when you’re writing songs and like coming up with chord progressions and stuff, you’re really, whether you realize it or not, it’s all being influenced off of other songs.
    2:17:48 So when you only have a lot of older music and like some, a little bit of metal and stuff in there, it’s like, there’s not really a whole lot.
    2:17:54 It’s like that, you know, it’s kind of going to sound that way, I guess, just in any way, cause that’s what’s in your head already.
    2:17:57 So you’re going to go out there a little bit this year.
    2:18:02 Well, what, uh, what are some things you’re looking forward to?
    2:18:03 You’re going to travel a bit.
    2:18:04 You’re going to play a bit.
    2:18:18 The idea is, is to go to a town, like let’s just use Iowa as an example, instead of, instead of the big city in Iowa playing at the venue where everybody books, let’s find a farm field, 45 minutes outside of that big city.
    2:18:36 Figure out the ingress, egress, the security, find a good promoter that can like a show organizer, basically that has experience to where it’s still, it’s still professional and it’s done correctly, but establish like a new venue space that can’t be, that can’t be put under contract by a monopoly that any artist can go play.
    2:18:48 Like without, like if, if all these musicians are sick of Ticketmaster and Live Nation, then let’s just, let’s just start playing in fields and on main streets and set these venues up and establish them correctly.
    2:18:50 And professionally to where they exist as their own space.
    2:19:04 And then, and then imagine the economic impact that would provide to a town that otherwise would never have, like, and imagine what you, you want to talk about trying to give blue collar people like some hope or give them some relatability or do anything for them.
    2:19:11 Like bring a big band to their town that they would otherwise have to drive an hour and a half somewhere to see and couldn’t even afford the tickets to start with.
    2:19:17 Like my tour last year, pretty much every show we did that was mine had a $25 ticket option and everybody scoffed at that.
    2:19:22 And I just, I was basically like made fun of for that by people in the professional space.
    2:19:26 Even people I was working with, they just thought it was so stupid, but you know what?
    2:19:33 There were people at my shows that came up and the kids were wearing hand-me-down clothes and, and like, you could tell they didn’t have any money.
    2:19:37 And they, and they said it meant a lot to them that they could come and that there was a $25 option.
    2:19:44 And so, and I’ll continue to do these shows like this to where any band that wants to come play the show, all their expenses are covered.
    2:19:52 And I’m sure there’s some kind of tax write-off component to them for them, but basically they can come in, do the show, help bring in a crowd.
    2:19:56 Like I’m taking the risk, setting the venue up and establishing it.
    2:20:02 The venue will be owned or managed by either the town or the farm or whatever, but it’s, it’s, it’ll be in a nonprofit.
    2:20:05 And then that, that space will always exist for people to rent.
    2:20:16 And the idea is, it’s like, man, imagine if I did, if I could do 20 of these a year, even if that’s, even if that’s all I can get done, like that’s 20 places that will always have music.
    2:20:20 And we’ll always have a center where people can go like, and build this sense of community.
    2:20:29 We talked about, like, it’s almost like a sanctuary if you want to call it that, but it’s like a, it’s just a space that can’t be perverted by, by corporate America.
    2:20:33 And just a place where people can go and like, do all these things that we want to do.
    2:20:35 Um, what are you excited for this year?
    2:20:41 Obviously you’re going to travel overseas and you got, sounds like you got some, some other cool stuff you’re going to do.
    2:20:41 Yeah.
    2:20:47 I’m going to see, uh, I’m going to see some world leaders, hopefully not end up in prison anywhere.
    2:20:57 Um, part, part of that, honestly, I’m excited, you know, like India to see the same humans, but in very different parts of the world.
    2:21:12 I’m not a travel guy, but I love seeing humans that there’s like a lot of us humans all over the place and they’re very different and they have funny accents and just funny way of being, you know, so I’m excited to take it all in.
    2:21:14 Cause I fundamentally love people.
    2:21:15 Yeah, man.
    2:21:24 Like I, I, uh, I would definitely say if you’re ever up, if you’re ever over towards Virginia or West Virginia, either one there, like, yeah.
    2:21:37 It’d be cool to spend a couple of days out in the woods or a day out in the woods and do, I, I haven’t really, I was, I’m really new to the whole psilocybin thing, but I have tried a few smaller doses of it actually to help with being up on stage and all.
    2:21:40 Um, it’s an interesting thing, but it’s great.
    2:21:40 Yeah.
    2:21:43 The dog, definitely the dogs in the woods part.
    2:21:44 I got you on that.
    2:21:46 Uh, I would love to join in.
    2:21:53 I mean, I’ve, I’ve, I’ve taken mushrooms a few times and listen, I usually just love everything anyway, but with mushrooms, you just love it a little bit more.
    2:22:01 Like, especially out of nature, when I’m look out in nature, I’m just in awe of how incredibly beautiful it is.
    2:22:05 And just like a stare at a tree for hours.
    2:22:13 And then you take mushrooms and like that tree starts like having some more dynamism to it.
    2:22:18 So it’s just a little boost, but like, yeah, I get into this crazy, like I said, it’s only been a handful of times.
    2:22:38 Cause I’ve, I don’t know, it’s one of those things where it’s, I’m, it’s still a little unfamiliar to me, but like, like talking about trees and psilocybin, you know, you think about, you start to look in those trees and you think like, in their relative perspective of time, you know, cause they’re constantly moving around and growing and doing all these things.
    2:22:44 And you think about like, in their perspective, maybe we’re just, we’re just moving way faster than their perception.
    2:22:46 And they’re, they’re moving at just a normal speed.
    2:22:51 I don’t, it’s just that you get into all these crazy trains of thought when you sit out in the woods on that stuff, but.
    2:22:52 A hundred percent, man.
    2:22:55 I mean, like maybe that’s the history of, uh, life.
    2:23:11 I mean, humans have some chance of destroying 95, 99% of the population with nuclear weapons and the trees will remain and they will reconstruct the environment of earth and help the few humans that remain to survive.
    2:23:16 And it’ll be the fucking trees that we’d be grateful for their actual deep life.
    2:23:19 ancient, uh, wisdom.
    2:23:22 So maybe they’re the intelligent ones.
    2:23:23 Maybe we’re the idiots.
    2:23:32 When you’re out in nature like that and just reading, but we’re just looking at and studying the way all those systems work with soil and trees and animals and how it all just integrates in together.
    2:23:42 It does give you some sense of peace that maybe there is some, there is some system at place that’s out of our hands that can just help us with our fault, our faults and our repercussions.
    2:23:52 And again, like for me, just, um, yeah, I think just being out there, especially now that now looking at it through the lens of, of God, of their, you know, of, of God, it helps.
    2:24:02 There’s, I’ve found no greater peace than just being out in the woods and, and praying or just, just trying to focus my mind on, on that.
    2:24:04 Like I, but yeah, I would love for you to come out there sometime and.
    2:24:06 I’m 100% will.
    2:24:07 That is it.
    2:24:13 Um, see, like feeling peaceful out in Virginia, in the woods is easy.
    2:24:15 Try doing it in the Amazon jungle when a giant.
    2:24:16 Oh, I’d love, dude.
    2:24:16 I.
    2:24:18 And just bites you.
    2:24:19 Dude, I would do anything to go to the Amazon.
    2:24:21 And all of the peace is, is, is gone.
    2:24:29 You’re like, motherfucker, what do you, what is, and then like a second one joins in, kills the first one and bites you again.
    2:24:32 And then you’re like, okay, nature is not all.
    2:24:33 Yeah, it’s not.
    2:24:39 I mean, there is, uh, there is harmony to it, but part of the harmony is the violence.
    2:24:40 Yeah.
    2:24:42 It’s just the reality of it.
    2:24:45 It’s, um, sex and violence.
    2:24:49 Like, I guess that’s the thing about it though, is like, it has all the same components of humanity.
    2:24:53 Just almost, you know, like almost to a comical level.
    2:24:56 I mean, the real comedy is the monkeys up in the trees.
    2:25:03 They’re just, it’s like, it’s like little humans and they’re arguing, screaming at each other, throwing stuff, getting into fights.
    2:25:11 It’s like, it’s like reality TV, but like more pure, more real, more distilled down to his fundamentals.
    2:25:19 Like we, we are that, you know, we, we put on clothes these days and have a fancy.
    2:25:25 Words that we say to each other and look all sexy on Instagram, but we’re the same monkeys, apes.
    2:25:30 It’s like the old lobsters, you know, but it really is true.
    2:25:38 Like, like, uh, we all, we all, yeah, we’re all on that same kind of same operating system in a way.
    2:25:40 Brother, this was a huge honor.
    2:25:44 I can’t, I don’t have the words to describe how incredible this was.
    2:25:48 And I think, uh, it was just fun.
    2:25:49 It was really fun talking to you.
    2:25:52 Total honor to be able to come on here for me as well.
    2:26:02 And, um, especially just to get to meet you in real life and see like, you know, you are what I, you are what I expected you to be like in a good way.
    2:26:05 Like, you know, you just don’t ever like, yeah, you’re just, you’re a good dude.
    2:26:07 So I appreciate what you’re doing.
    2:26:12 I got to show you the sex dungeon downstairs where I keep sex slaves.
    2:26:13 It’s very different.
    2:26:14 No.
    2:26:15 Yeah, man.
    2:26:16 All right.
    2:26:16 Time to wake up.
    2:26:17 Let’s go back to reality.
    2:26:22 Thanks for listening to this conversation with Oliver Anthony.
    2:26:25 To support this podcast, please check out our sponsors in the description.
    2:26:29 And now, let me leave you with some words from George Orwell.
    2:26:36 Political language is designed to make lies sound truthful and murder respectable.
    2:26:40 And to give an appearance of solidity to pure wind.
    2:26:45 Thank you for listening and hope to see you next time.
    2:26:50 Bye.

    Oliver Anthony is singer-songwriter who first gained worldwide fame with his viral hit Rich Men North of Richmond. He became a voice for many who are voiceless, with many of his songs speaking to the struggle of the working class in modern American life.
    Thank you for listening ❤ Check out our sponsors: https://lexfridman.com/sponsors/ep469-sc
    See below for timestamps, transcript, and to give feedback, submit questions, contact Lex, etc.

    Transcript:
    https://lexfridman.com/oliver-anthony-transcript

    CONTACT LEX:
    Feedback – give feedback to Lex: https://lexfridman.com/survey
    AMA – submit questions, videos or call-in: https://lexfridman.com/ama
    Hiring – join our team: https://lexfridman.com/hiring
    Other – other ways to get in touch: https://lexfridman.com/contact

    EPISODE LINKS:
    Oliver’s X: https://x.com/AintGottaDollar
    Oliver’s Instagram: https://instagram.com/oliver_anthony_music_
    Oliver’s YouTube: https://youtube.com/@oliveranthonymusic
    Oliver’s TikTok: https://tiktok.com/@oliveranthonymusic
    Oliver’s Website: https://oliveranthonymusic.com/
    Oliver’s FaceBook: https://facebook.com/OliverAnthonyMusicOfficial/
    Oliver’s Linktree: https://linktr.ee/oliveranthonymusic

    SPONSORS:
    To support this podcast, check out our sponsors & get discounts:
    MasterClass: Online classes from world-class experts.
    Go to https://masterclass.com/lexpod
    Shopify: Sell stuff online.
    Go to https://shopify.com/lex
    Oracle: Cloud infrastructure.
    Go to https://oracle.com/lex
    Tax Network USA: Full-service tax firm.
    Go to https://tnusa.com/lex
    LMNT: Zero-sugar electrolyte drink mix.
    Go to https://drinkLMNT.com/lex

    OUTLINE:
    (00:00) – Introduction
    (09:00) – Open mics
    (13:03) – Mainstream country music
    (22:10) – Fame
    (28:06) – Music vs politics
    (36:56) – Rich Men North of Richmond
    (47:06) – Popularity, money, and integrity
    (1:01:54) – Blue-collar people
    (1:13:57) – Depression
    (1:38:50) – Nature
    (2:01:26) – Three-legged cat
    (2:09:57) – I Want to Go Home (live performance)
    (2:13:36) – Guitar backstory
    (2:17:58) – Playing live this year

    PODCAST LINKS:
    – Podcast Website: https://lexfridman.com/podcast
    – Apple Podcasts: https://apple.co/2lwqZIr
    – Spotify: https://spoti.fi/2nEwCF8
    – RSS: https://lexfridman.com/feed/podcast/
    – Podcast Playlist: https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLrAXtmErZgOdP_8GztsuKi9nrraNbKKp4
    – Clips Channel: https://www.youtube.com/lexclips

  • #468 – Janna Levin: Black Holes, Wormholes, Aliens, Paradoxes & Extra Dimensions

    #468 – Janna Levin: Black Holes, Wormholes, Aliens, Paradoxes & Extra Dimensions

    AI transcript
    0:00:05 The following is a conversation with Jana Levin, a theoretical physicist and cosmologist
    0:00:11 specializing in black holes, cosmology of extra dimensions, topology of the universe,
    0:00:17 and gravitational waves in space-time. She has also written some incredible books,
    0:00:22 including How the Universe Got Its Spots on the topic of the shape and the size of the universe,
    0:00:29 A Madman Dreams of Turing Machines on the topic of genius, madness, and the limits of knowledge.
    0:00:37 Black Hole Blues and other songs from outer space on the topic of LIGO and the detection of
    0:00:48 gravitational waves, and Black Hole Survival Guide, all about black holes. This was a fun and fascinating
    0:00:54 conversation. And now a quick few second mention of each sponsor. Check them out in the description.
    0:01:00 It’s the best way to support this podcast. We’ve got Brain.fm for focus, Better Health for mental
    0:01:07 health, NetSuite for your business, Shopify for selling stuff, and the AG1 for your health.
    0:01:12 Choose wisely, my friends. I do these longer ad reads up in the beginning. I try to make them
    0:01:18 interesting, but I do also make it super easy to skip with timestamps on screen and in the description.
    0:01:24 I do, however, try to make them personal, often related to stuff I’m reading or thinking about.
    0:01:29 Also, if you want to get in touch with me for whatever reason, go to lextreatment.com slash
    0:01:37 contact. And now onto the full ad reads. Let’s go. This episode is brought to you by Brain.fm,
    0:01:45 a platform that offers music specially made for focus. And when I say music, I mean audio experience.
    0:01:54 If you ever see me out in the wild, like a Starbucks, I’m usually either writing or programming deeply in
    0:02:05 focus with headphones. In those headphones are layers of audio. A mixture of some noise, beats, rain,
    0:02:15 layers. Many layers that help me deeply, deeply, deeply focus. Speaking of audio, did you know
    0:02:25 that the Roman Empire used synchronized war drums to coordinate legions? Just imagine the sound of
    0:02:33 those drums. I need to do a lot more episodes on ancient Rome, on ancient Greece, on ancient China.
    0:02:40 Anyway, I’m not listening to war drums. I’m listening to Brain.fm when I’m focusing.
    0:02:46 You too can increase your focus and try Brain.fm free for 30 days by going to brain.fm slash lex.
    0:02:53 That’s brain.fm slash lex for 30 days free. This episode is also brought to you by BetterHelp,
    0:03:02 spelled H-E-L-P, help. It’s raining outside, thunderstorms, like somebody’s knocking on the window.
    0:03:07 If that’s not a metaphor for prodding the subconscious mind, I don’t know what is.
    0:03:13 Alan Turing comes up in this episode. He was crucial in the whole code-breaking effort in World
    0:03:23 War II. I should probably do an episode on that. His work, his person, his mind has been a presence
    0:03:32 in my life. What an incredible human being. But anyway, I think of the human mind, the conscious and the
    0:03:40 subconscious is a kind of code. And therapy is a kind of code-breaking process. I wonder if AI will
    0:03:48 be able to help with that. Not just basic therapy, but ultra deep personalized therapy. Boy, that’s a
    0:03:56 dangerous world. Anyway, check out a human therapist at betterhelp.com slash lex and save in your first
    0:04:03 month. That’s betterhelp.com slash lex. This episode is also brought to you by NetSuite, an all-in-one cloud
    0:04:09 business management system. The more I study war, of course, the more I study business too, but war,
    0:04:17 the more I realize the importance of the organizational layer, of the supply chain, of the logistics,
    0:04:24 stuff that nobody talks about. The stuff that most historians don’t talk about. And actually,
    0:04:30 I’ve read a lot of James Holland recently and spoken with him, had the great honor of speaking with him,
    0:04:36 had the great joy of speaking with him and learning from him. And he’s one of the historians that does
    0:04:43 look at the logistics, does look at the details of how everything is run. And NetSuite in the company
    0:04:49 setting is doing exactly that. The details of how everything is run. Because a business is not just
    0:04:58 a CEO with a bunch of sexy ideas. Or the late night engineer crouching over a table, trying to fix a bug,
    0:05:05 trying to find a breakthrough idea. Nope. It’s also all the other stuff that actually make the thing work,
    0:05:11 make the thing efficient, have great tools to do so. Download the CFO’s guide to AI and machine learning
    0:05:18 at netsuite.com slash lex. That’s netsuite.com slash lex. This episode is also brought to you by Shopify,
    0:05:25 a platform designed for anyone to sell anywhere with a great looking online store. Since I mentioned
    0:05:33 history, the merchant networks were crucially important in ancient Greece, were crucially important
    0:05:42 in the Roman Empire. And of course, Genghis Khan, very, very, very important. Of course, Genghis Khan is well known
    0:05:50 for protecting the merchants. And I think any empires, any civilizations, any state of the global affairs
    0:05:58 that protects the merchants from the friction of geopolitics, of military tensions and military conflicts,
    0:06:05 is a successful empire, successful civilization. Because trade is really, really important.
    0:06:14 It’s a kind of a financial freedom. So it’s nice when in a digital age, we build systems like Shopify
    0:06:21 that allows you to exercise that financial freedom by buying stuff, selling stuff, create the market at
    0:06:28 scale in the digital world. Sign up for a $1 per month trial period at shopify.com slash lex. That’s all
    0:06:36 lowercase. Go to shopify.com slash lex to take your business to the next level today. This episode is also
    0:06:43 brought to you by AG1, an all-in-one daily drink to support better health and peak performance. Because I
    0:06:52 mentioned peak performance, I’m reminded of Nietzsche. And the book I read, maybe freshman, maybe sophomore
    0:07:02 year in college, thus spoke Zarathustra. It’s been forever. I’ve been reading summaries of Nietzsche,
    0:07:12 way more than Nietzsche directly since college. That’s one of the worries I have with AI is the summaries
    0:07:21 the talking about the talking about the talking is so damn efficient and fun and easy and even
    0:07:27 insightful that you don’t want to go to the original sources because it’s a lot of work.
    0:07:35 But you must, of course, if you want to understand. As the meme goes, but have you been there?
    0:07:43 That never gets old. And anyway, I think about that with some of the classics, but even some of
    0:07:50 the 20th century, 19th century works. You know, you want to read Marx directly. You want to read
    0:07:56 Nietzsche directly. You want to read Sigmund Freud and Carl Jung directly. Because of course, there is
    0:08:02 great books about them, about their ideas, summarizing their ideas, elaborating their ideas, putting them in
    0:08:10 the proper context. But there’s nothing quite like reading it directly. But anyway, I brought that up
    0:08:18 because in Thus Spoke Zarathustra, there’s the pursuit of peak human potential. And we in the West,
    0:08:25 on the health front, have at times taken that to an almost ridiculous place. I think it’s still really
    0:08:36 useful. But sometimes it’s also useful to fuck off a bit, to relax a bit, and not care. Funny enough,
    0:08:44 AG1 helps me in a certain kind of way. Relax and not care. I got my nutrition handled. I can do all kinds
    0:08:51 of crazy physical stuff, mental stuff, because I’m drinking AG1. They’ll give you a one-month supply of fish
    0:08:58 oil when you sign up at drinkag1.com slash lex. This is the Lex Friedman Podcast. To support it,
    0:09:04 please check out our sponsors in the description. And now, dear friends, here’s Jenna Levin.
    0:09:26 I should say that you sent me a message about not starting early in the morning. And that made me
    0:09:32 feel like we’re kindred spirits. You wrote to me, when the great physicist Sidney Coleman was asked to
    0:09:37 attend a 9 a.m. meeting, his reply was, I can’t stay up that late.
    0:09:41 Yeah, classic. Sidney was beloved.
    0:09:45 I think all the best thoughts, honestly, maybe the worst thoughts, too, are all come at night.
    0:09:50 There’s something about the night. Maybe it’s the silence. Maybe it’s the peace all around. Maybe
    0:09:55 it’s the darkness. And you just, you can be with yourself and you can think deeply.
    0:10:01 I feel like there’s stolen hours in the middle of the night because it’s not busy. Your gadgets
    0:10:06 aren’t pinging. There’s really no pressure to do anything, but I’m often awake in the middle of
    0:10:12 the night. And so it’s sort of like these extra hours of the day. I think we were exchanging messages
    0:10:16 at four in the morning. Okay. So in that way, many other ways were
    0:10:22 kindred spirits. So let’s go. In one of the coolest objects in the universe, black holes,
    0:10:28 what are they? And maybe even a good way to start is to talk about how are they formed?
    0:10:36 Yeah. In a way, people often confuse how they’re formed with the concept of the black hole in the
    0:10:42 first place. So when black holes were first proposed, Einstein was very surprised that such
    0:10:48 a solution could be found so quickly, but really thought nature would protect us from their formation.
    0:10:52 And then nature thinks of a way. Nature thinks of a way to make these crazy objects, which is to kill
    0:10:58 off a few stars. But then I think that there’s a confusion that dead stars, these very, very massive
    0:11:05 stars that die are synonymous with the phenomenon of black hole. And it’s really not the case. Black
    0:11:12 holes are more general and more fundamental than just the death state of a star. But even the history
    0:11:20 of how people realize that stars could form black holes is quite fascinating because the entire idea
    0:11:26 really just started as a thought experiment. And if you think of, it’s 1915, 1916, when Einstein
    0:11:33 fully describes relativity in a way that’s the canonical formulation. It was a lot of changing back
    0:11:39 and forth before then. And it’s World War I, and he gets a message from the Eastern Front from a friend
    0:11:46 of his, Carl Schwarzschild, who solved Einstein’s equations. You know, between sitting in the trenches and
    0:11:53 like cannon fire, it was joked that he was calculating ballistic trajectories. He’s also
    0:12:00 perusing the proceedings of the Prussian Academy of Sciences, as you do. And he was an astronomer
    0:12:06 who had enlisted in his 40s. And he finds this really remarkable solution to Einstein’s equations. And
    0:12:12 it’s the first exact solution. He doesn’t call it a black hole. It’s not called a black hole for decades.
    0:12:17 But what I love about what Schwarzschild did is it’s a thought experiment. It’s not about observations.
    0:12:24 It’s not about making these things in nature. It’s really just about the idea. He sets up this
    0:12:32 completely untenable situation. He says, imagine I crush all the mass of a star to a point. Don’t ask
    0:12:37 how that’s done, because that’s really absurd. But let’s just pretend. And let’s just imagine that
    0:12:45 that that’s a scenario. And then he wants to decide what happens to spacetime if I set up this confounding,
    0:12:50 but somehow very simple scenario. And really what Einstein’s equations were telling everybody at the
    0:12:57 time was that matter and energy curve space and time. And then curved spacetime tells matter and energy
    0:13:03 how to fall once the spacetime’s shaped. So he finds this beautiful solution. And the most amazing thing
    0:13:10 about a solution is he finds this demarcation, which is the event horizon, which is the region beyond which
    0:13:16 not even light can escape. And if you were to ask me today, all these decades, over a hundred years
    0:13:22 later, I would say that is the black hole. The black hole is not the mass crushed to a point. The black
    0:13:28 hole is the event horizon. And the event horizon is really just a point in spacetime or a region in
    0:13:36 spacetime. It’s actually, in this case, a surface in spacetime. And it marks a separation in events,
    0:13:41 which is why it’s called an event horizon. Everything outside is causally separated from
    0:13:48 the inside insofar as what’s inside the event horizon can’t affect events outside. What’s outside
    0:13:54 can affect events inside. I can throw a probe into a black hole and cause something to happen on the
    0:14:00 inside. But the opposite isn’t true. Somebody who fell in can’t send a probe out. And this one-way
    0:14:07 aspect really is what’s profound about the black hole. Sometimes we talk about the black holes being
    0:14:13 nothing because at the event horizon, there’s really nothing there. Sometimes when we think about black
    0:14:20 holes, we want to imagine a really dense dead star. But if you go up to the event horizon, it’s an empty
    0:14:27 region of spacetime. It’s more of a place than it is a thing. And Einstein found this fascinating. He
    0:14:33 helped get the work published, but he really didn’t think these would form in nature. I doubt Karl
    0:14:41 Schwarzschild did either. I think they thought they were solving theoretical mathematical problems,
    0:14:48 but not describing this, what turned out to be the end state of gravitational collapse.
    0:14:52 And maybe the purpose of the thought experiment was to find the limitations of the theory.
    0:14:59 So you find the most extreme versions in order to understand where it breaks down.
    0:14:59 Yeah.
    0:15:06 And it just so happens in this case, that might actually predict these extreme kinds of objects.
    0:15:13 It does both. So it also describes the sun from far away. So the same solution does a great job
    0:15:19 helping us understand the Earth’s orbit around the sun. It’s incredible. It does a great job. It’s almost
    0:15:26 overkill. You don’t really need to be that precise as relativity. And yes, it predicts the phenomenon of
    0:15:31 black holes, but it doesn’t really explain how nature would form them. But then it also, on top of that,
    0:15:35 does signal the breakdown of the theory. I mean, you’re quite right about that. It actually says,
    0:15:42 oh man, but you go all the way towards the center. And yeah, this doesn’t sound right anymore.
    0:15:49 Sometimes I liken it to, you know, it’s like a dying man marking in the dirt that something’s gone
    0:15:55 wrong here, right? It’s signaling that there’s some culprit, there’s something wrong in the theory.
    0:16:01 And even Roger Penrose, who did this general work trying to understand
    0:16:08 the formation of black holes from gravitational collapse, he thought, oh yeah, there’s a singularity
    0:16:15 that’s inevitable. It’s in every, there’s no way around it once you form a black hole. But he said,
    0:16:20 this is probably just a shortcoming of the fact that we’ve forgotten to include quantum mechanics,
    0:16:25 and that when we do, we’ll understand this differently.
    0:16:29 So according to him, the closer you get to the singularity, the more quantum mechanics comes
    0:16:32 into play and therefore there’s no singularity, there’s something else.
    0:16:37 I think everybody would say that. I think everybody would say the closer you get to the singularity,
    0:16:43 for sure you have to include quantum mechanics. You just can’t consistently talk about magnifying
    0:16:52 such small scales, having such enormous ruptures and curvatures and energy scales and not include
    0:16:55 quantum mechanics, that that’s just inconsistent with the world as we understand it.
    0:17:03 So you’ve described the brain-breaking idea that a black hole is not so much a super dense
    0:17:11 matter as it’s sometimes described, but it’s more akin to a region of space-time, but even more so
    0:17:16 just nothing. It’s nothing. That’s the thing you seem to like to say.
    0:17:21 I do. I do like to say that black holes are no thing. They’re nothing.
    0:17:23 Okay. So what does that mean?
    0:17:28 That’s what I mean. That’s the more profound aspect of the black hole. So you asked originally,
    0:17:36 how do they form? And I think that even when you try to form them in messy astrophysical systems,
    0:17:42 there’s still nothing at the end of the day left behind. And this was a very big surprise,
    0:17:48 even though Einstein accepted that this was a true prediction, he didn’t think that they’d be made.
    0:17:54 And it was quite astounding that people like Oppenheimer, actually it’s probably Oppenheimer’s
    0:18:00 most important theoretical work, who were thinking about nuclear physics and quantum mechanics,
    0:18:07 but in the context of these kind of utopian questions. Why do stars shine? Why is the sun radiant
    0:18:13 and hot and this amazing source of light? And it was people like Oppenheimer who began to ask the question,
    0:18:23 could stars collapse to form black holes? Could they become so dense that eventually not even light
    0:18:30 would escape? And that’s why I think people think that black holes are these dense objects. That’s
    0:18:34 often how it’s described. But actually what happens, these very massive stars, they’re burning
    0:18:41 thermonuclear fuel. You know, they’re earthfuls of thermonuclear fuel they’re burning. And emitting
    0:18:47 energy in E equals MC squared energy. So it’s fusing, it’s a fusion bomb. It’s a constantly going
    0:18:52 thermonuclear bomb. And eventually it’s going to run out of fuel. It’s going to run out of hydrogen,
    0:19:01 helium stuff to fuse. It hits an iron core. Iron, to go past iron with fusion is actually energetically
    0:19:06 expensive. So it’s no longer going to do that so easily. So suddenly it’s run out of fuel.
    0:19:11 And if the star is very, very, very massive, much more massive than our sun, maybe 20, 30 times
    0:19:17 the mass of our sun, it’ll collapse under its own weight. And that collapse is incredibly fast
    0:19:22 and dramatic and it creates a shockwave. So that’s the supernova explosion. So a lot of these,
    0:19:29 they rebound because once they crunch, they’ve reached a new critical capacity where they can
    0:19:37 reignite to higher elements, heavier elements. And that sets off a bomb, essentially. So the star
    0:19:44 explodes, helpfully, because that’s why you and I are here. Because stars send their material back out
    0:19:49 into space and you and I get to be made of carbon and oxygen and all this good stuff. We’re not just
    0:19:57 hydrogen. So the suns do that for us. And then what’s left sometimes ends at a neutron star, which is a very
    0:20:06 cool object, very fascinating object, super dense, but bigger than a black hole, meaning it’s not compact
    0:20:11 enough to become a black hole. It’s an actual thing. A neutron star is a real thing. It’s like a giant
    0:20:17 neutron. Literally, electrons get jammed into the protons and make this giant nucleus in this superconducting
    0:20:25 matter. Very strange, amazing objects. But if it’s heavier than that, the core, and that’s heavier than twice the
    0:20:33 mass of the sun, it will become a black hole. And Oppenheimer wrote this beautiful paper in 1939
    0:20:41 with his student saying that they believed that the end state of gravitational collapse is actually a
    0:20:49 black hole. This is stunning and really a visionary conclusion. Now, the paper is published the same day
    0:20:56 the Nazis advance on Poland. And so it does not get a lot of fanfare in the newspapers.
    0:21:02 Yeah, we think there’s a lot of drama today on social media. Imagine that. Like, here’s a guy who
    0:21:09 predicts how actually in nature would be the formation of this most radical of object that broke even
    0:21:17 Einstein’s brain while one of the most evil, if not the most evil humans in history starting
    0:21:19 the first steps of a global war.
    0:21:23 What I also love about that lesson is how agnostic science is.
    0:21:28 Because he was asking these utopian questions, as were other people of the time, about the nuclear
    0:21:33 physics and stars. You might know this play, Copenhagen, by Michael Frayn. There’s this line that he
    0:21:41 contributes to Bohr. Bohr was the great thinker of early foundations of quantum mechanics, Danish
    0:21:47 physicist, where Bohr says to his wife, “Nobody’s thought of a way to kill people using quantum
    0:21:53 mechanics.” Now, of course, then there’s the nuclear bomb. And what I love about this was the pressure
    0:22:00 scientists were under to do something with this nuclear physics and to enter this race over
    0:22:07 a nuclear weapon. But really, at the same time, 1939, really, Oppenheimer’s thinking about black
    0:22:13 holes. There’s even a small line in Chris Nolan’s film. It’s very hard to catch. There’s a reference
    0:22:17 to it in the film where they’re sort of joking, “Well, I guess nobody’s going to pay attention to your
    0:22:21 paper now.” You know? Because of the Nazi advance on Poland.
    0:22:26 That’s the other remarkable thing about Oppenheimer is he’s also a central figure in the construction of
    0:22:32 the bomb. So it’s theory and experiment clashing together with the geopolitics.
    0:22:37 Exactly. So, of course, Oppenheimer, now known as the father of the atomic bomb,
    0:22:44 he talks about destroyers of worlds. But it’s the same technology. And that’s what I mean by science
    0:22:51 is agnostic, right? It’s the same technology, overcoming a critical mass, igniting thermonuclear
    0:22:55 fusion. Eventually, there was a fission. The original bomb was a fission bomb. And fission
    0:23:02 was first shown by Lise Meitner, who showed that a certain uranium, when you bombarded it with protons,
    0:23:07 broke into smaller pieces that were less than the uranium, right? So some of that mass,
    0:23:14 that E equals mc squared energy, had escaped. And it was the first kind of concrete demonstration of
    0:23:21 this, Einstein’s most famous equation. So all of this comes together. But the story of – they still
    0:23:27 weren’t called black holes. This is 1939. And they had these very long-winded ways of describing the end
    0:23:33 state, the catastrophic end state of gravitational collapse. But what you have to imagine is, as this
    0:23:40 star collapses, so now, so what’s the sun? The sun’s a million and a half kilometers across. So imagine a
    0:23:46 star much bigger than the sun, much bigger radius. And it’s so heavy, it collapses, it’s supernovas,
    0:23:52 what’s left is still maybe 10 times the mass of the sun, just what’s left in that core. And it continues
    0:23:58 to collapse. And when that reaches about 60 kilometers across, like just imagine, 10 times the mass of the
    0:24:05 sun city-sized. That is a really dense object. And now the black hole essentially has begun to form,
    0:24:12 meaning the curve in spacetime is so tremendous that not even light can escape. The event horizon forms,
    0:24:19 but the event horizon is almost imprinted on the spacetime. Because the star can’t sit there in that
    0:24:25 dense state any more than it can race outward at the speed of light. Because even light is forced to rain
    0:24:31 inwards. So the star continues to fall. And that’s the magic part. The star leaves the event horizon
    0:24:39 behind. And it continues to fall. And it falls into the interior of the black hole. Where it goes,
    0:24:47 nobody really knows. But it’s gone from sight. It goes dark. There’s this quote by John Wheeler,
    0:24:51 who’s like granddaddy of American relativity, and he has a line that’s something to the effect.
    0:24:58 The star, like the Cheshire Cat, fades from view. One leaves behind, only its grin. The other,
    0:25:05 only its gravitational attraction. And he was giving a lecture. It’s actually above Tom’s restaurant,
    0:25:12 you know, from Seinfeld near Columbia in New York. There was a place, or there still is a place there,
    0:25:20 where people were giving lectures about astrophysics. And it’s 1967. Wheeler is exhaustively saying this
    0:25:26 loaded term, the end state of catastrophic gravitational collapse. And rumor is that
    0:25:33 someone shouts from the back row, “Well, how about black hole?” And apparently, he then foists this
    0:25:38 term on the world. Wheeler had a way of doing that. Well, I love terms like that. Big bang,
    0:25:44 black hole. There’s some, I mean, it’s just pointing out the elephant in the room and calling
    0:25:51 it an elephant. It is a black hole. That’s a pretty accurate and deep description. I just wanted to
    0:25:56 point out that the, just looking for the first time, it’s a 1939 paper from Oppenheimer. It’s like
    0:26:00 two pages, it’s like three pages. Oh yeah, it’s gorgeous. The simplicity of some of these,
    0:26:07 that’s so gangster. Just revolutionize all of physics with, you know, Einstein did that multiple
    0:26:12 times in a simple year. When all thermonuclear sources of energy are exhausted, a sufficiently
    0:26:19 heavy star will collapse. That’s an opener. Unless fission due to rotation, the radiation of mass or the
    0:26:25 blowing off of mass by radiation reduced the star’s mass to orders of that of the sun, this contraction
    0:26:31 will continue indefinitely. And it goes on that way. Yeah. Now I have to say, Wheeler, who actually
    0:26:37 coins the term black hole, gives Oppenheimer quite a terrible time about this. He thinks he’s wrong.
    0:26:44 And they entered what has sometimes been described as kind of a bitter, I don’t know if you would
    0:26:52 actually say feud, but there were bad feelings. And Wheeler actually spent decades saying Oppenheimer
    0:26:58 was wrong. And eventually with his computer work, that early work that Wheeler was doing with computers,
    0:27:05 when he was also trying to understand nuclear weapons and in peacetime, found themselves returning
    0:27:12 again to these astrophysical questions, decided that actually Oppenheimer had been right. He thought it was
    0:27:18 too simplistic, too idealized to set up that they had used. And that if you, you looked at something that
    0:27:24 was more realistic and more complicated that it, it just simply, it just would go away. And in fact,
    0:27:30 he draws the opposite conclusion. And there’s a story that Oppenheimer was sitting outside of the auditorium
    0:27:37 when Wheeler was coming forth with his declaration that in fact, black holes were the likely end state of
    0:27:43 gravitational collapse for very, very heavy stars. And when asked about it, Oppenheimer sort of said,
    0:27:45 well, I’ve moved on to other things.
    0:27:50 – Because you’ve written in many places about the human beings behind the science.
    0:27:54 I have to ask you about this, about nuclear weapons, where it’s the greatest of physicists
    0:28:01 coming together to create this most terrifying and powerful of a technology. And now I get to talk to
    0:28:09 the world leaders for whom this technology is part of the tools that is used, perhaps implicitly,
    0:28:16 on the chessboard of geopolitics. What can you say, as a person who’s a physicist and who have studied the
    0:28:21 physicists and written about the physicists, the humans behind this, about this moment in human history,
    0:28:30 when physicists came together and created this weapon that’s powerful enough to destroy all of human civilization?
    0:28:39 – I think it’s an excruciating moment in the history of science. And people talk about
    0:28:48 Heisenberg who stayed in Germany and worked for the Nazis in their own attempt to build the bomb. There
    0:28:55 was this kind of hopeful talk that maybe Heisenberg had intentionally derailed the nuclear weapons program,
    0:29:01 but I think that’s been largely discredited, that he would have made the bomb, could he, had he not made some
    0:29:07 really kind of simple errors in his original estimates about how much material would be required or how they
    0:29:16 would get over the energy barriers. And that’s a terrifying thought. I don’t know that any of us can
    0:29:23 really put ourselves in that position of imagining that we’re faced with that quandary, having to take the initiative to
    0:29:29 participate in thinking of a way that quantum mechanics can kill people, and then making the bomb. I think
    0:29:36 overwhelmingly physicists today feel we should not continue in the proliferation of nuclear weapons.
    0:29:40 Very few theoretical physicists want to see this continue.
    0:29:46 – That moment in history, the Soviet Union had incredible scientists, Nazi Germany had incredible
    0:29:52 scientists, and the United States had incredible scientists. And it’s very easy to imagine that
    0:29:57 one of those three would have created the bomb first, not the United States.
    0:29:57 – Yes.
    0:30:03 – And how different would the world be? The game theory of that, I think,
    0:30:11 say it’s the probability is 33% that it was the United States. If the Soviet Union had the bomb,
    0:30:20 I think they would have used it in a much more terrifying way in the European theater and
    0:30:25 maybe turn on the United States. And obviously with Hitler, he would have used it. I think there’s
    0:30:30 no question he would have used it to kill hundreds of millions of people.
    0:30:34 – In the game theory version, this was the least harmful outcome.
    0:30:35 – Yes. – Yes.
    0:30:42 – But there is no outcome with no bomb that any game theorist would, I think, would play.
    0:30:47 – But I think if we just remove the geopolitics and the ideology and the evil dictators,
    0:30:56 all of those people are just scientists. I think they don’t necessarily even think about the ideology.
    0:31:05 And it’s a deep lesson about the connection between great science and the annoying, sometimes evil
    0:31:13 politicians that use that science for means that are either good or bad. And the scientists perhaps don’t,
    0:31:18 boy, do they even have control of how that science is used? It’s hard.
    0:31:24 – They don’t have control, right. Once it’s made, it’s no longer scientific reasoning that dictates the use.
    0:31:35 – Or it’s restraint. But I will say that I do believe that it wasn’t a 31/3 down the line because
    0:31:39 America was different. And I think that’s something we have to think about right now in this particular
    0:31:47 climate. So many scientists fled here. They fled to here. Americans weren’t fleeing to Nazi Germany.
    0:31:59 They came here and they were motivated by… It’s more than a patriotism. I mean, it was a patriotism,
    0:32:04 obviously, but it was sort of more than that. It was really understanding the threat of Europe, what was
    0:32:13 going on in Europe and, and what that life’s, how quickly it turned, how quickly this free-spirited Berlin
    0:32:23 culture, you know, was suddenly in this repressive and terrifying regime. So I think that it was a much
    0:32:25 higher chance that it happened here in America.
    0:32:31 – Yeah, there’s something about the American system. The, you know, it’s cliche to say, but the freedom,
    0:32:36 all the different individual freedoms that enable a very vibrant, at its best, a very vibrant scientific
    0:32:38 community. And that’s really exciting. – Absolutely.
    0:32:42 – To scientists. And it’s very valuable to maintain that. – Right.
    0:32:49 – The vibrancy of the debate of funding those mechanisms. – Absolutely. The world flocked here.
    0:32:54 And that won’t be the case if we no longer have intellectual freedom.
    0:32:59 – Yeah, there’s something interesting to think about. The tension, the Cold War between China
    0:33:03 and the United States in the 21st century. You know, some of those same questions, some of those ideas will
    0:33:10 rise up again. And we want to make sure that there’s a vibrant, free exchange of scientific ideas.
    0:33:14 – Yes. And I believe most Nobel Prizes come from the United States, right?
    0:33:16 – Oh yeah. I don’t have the number.
    0:33:19 – But it’s disproportionately so. – It’s disproportionately so.
    0:33:23 And in fact, a lot of them from particle physics came from the Bronx.
    0:33:28 And they were European immigrants. – How do you explain this?
    0:33:31 – They fled Europe precisely because of the geopolitics we’re describing.
    0:33:34 – Yeah. – And so instead of being Nobel Prize winners
    0:33:38 from the Soviet Union or from the Eastern Bloc, they were from the Bronx.
    0:33:43 – And that’s the thing you write about and we’ll return to it time and time again. You know,
    0:33:47 science is done by humans. And some of those humans are fascinating. There’s tensions, there’s
    0:33:52 battles, there’s some are loners, some are great collaborators, some are tormented,
    0:33:56 some are easy going, all this kind of stuff. And that’s the beautiful thing about it we forget
    0:34:01 sometimes is that it’s humans. And humans are messy and complicated and beautiful and all of that.
    0:34:04 – Yeah. – So what were we talking about?
    0:34:06 – Oh. – The stars collapsing.
    0:34:14 – Okay. So can we just return to the collapse of a star that forms a black hole?
    0:34:22 At which point does the super dense thing become nothing if we can just like linger on this concept?
    0:34:30 – Yeah. So if I were falling into a black hole and I tried really fast, right as I crossed this empty
    0:34:36 region, but this demarcation, I happened to know where it was. I calculated because there’s no line
    0:34:43 there. There’s no sign that it’s there. There’s no signpost. I could emit a little light pulse and try
    0:34:47 to send it outward exactly at the event horizon. So it’s racing outward at the speed of light.
    0:34:53 It can hover there because from my perspective, it’s very strange. The space time is like a waterfall
    0:34:58 raining in and I’m being dragged in with that waterfall. I can’t stop at the event horizon. It comes,
    0:35:04 it goes, it’s behind me really quickly. That light beam can try to sit there because it’s like,
    0:35:09 it’s like a fish swimming against the Niagara, you know, swimming against the waterfall.
    0:35:10 – It’s like stuck there. – But it’s like stuck there.
    0:35:15 And so that’s one way you can have a little signpost. You know, if you fly by, you think
    0:35:19 it’s moving at the speed of light. It flies past you at the speed of light, but it’s sitting right
    0:35:24 there at the event horizon. – So you’re falling back, across the event horizon, right at that point,
    0:35:26 you shoot outwards, a photon. – Yes.
    0:35:29 – And it’s just stuck there. – It just gets stuck there.
    0:35:35 Now it’s very unstable. So the star can’t sit there is the point. It just can’t. So it rains
    0:35:41 inward with this waterfall. But from the outside, all we should ever really care about is the event
    0:35:46 horizon. Because I can’t know what happens to it. It could be pure matter and antimatter thrown
    0:35:52 together, which annihilates into photons on the inside and loses all its mass into the energy of
    0:35:56 light. It won’t matter to me because I can’t know anything about what happened on the inside.
    0:36:01 – Okay. Can we just like linger on this? So what models do we have about what happens on the inside
    0:36:05 of the black hole at that moment? So I guess that one of the intuitions, one of the big reminders
    0:36:12 that you’re giving to us is like, “Hey, we know very little about what can happen on the inside of a
    0:36:17 black hole?” And that’s why we have to be careful about making, it’s better to think about the black
    0:36:25 hole as an event horizon. But what can we know? And what do we know about the physics of space-time
    0:36:30 inside the black hole? – I don’t mind being incautious about thinking about what the math
    0:36:39 tells us. So I’m not such an observer. I am very theoretical in my work. It’s really pen on paper a
    0:36:46 lot. These are thought experiments that I think we can perform and contemplate. Whether or not we’ll
    0:36:53 ever know is another question. And so one of the most beautiful things that we suspect happens on the
    0:37:00 inside of a black hole is that space and time, in some sense, swap places. So while I’m on the outside
    0:37:07 of the black hole, let’s say I’m in a nice comfortable space station, this black hole is maybe 10 times the
    0:37:12 mass of the sun, 60 kilometers across. I could be 100 kilometers out. That’s very, very close.
    0:37:19 Orbiting quite safely. No big deal. You know? Hanging out. I don’t bug the black hole. The black hole
    0:37:26 doesn’t bug me. It won’t suck me up like a vacuum or anything crazy. But my astronaut friend jumps in.
    0:37:33 As they cross the event horizon, what I’m calling space, I’m looking on the outside at this
    0:37:40 spherical shadow of the black hole cast by maybe light around it. It’s a shadow because everything
    0:37:48 gets too close, falls in. It’s just this contrast against a bright sky. I think, oh, there’s a center
    0:37:53 of a sphere. And in the center of the sphere is the singularity. It’s a point in space from my
    0:37:58 perspective. But from the perspective of the astronaut who falls in, it’s actually a point in time.
    0:38:06 So their notions of space and time have rotated so completely that what I’m calling a direction
    0:38:11 in space towards the center of the black hole, like the center of a physical sphere, they’re going to
    0:38:15 tell me what they can’t tell me, but they’re going to come to the conclusion, oh no, that’s not a location
    0:38:24 in space. That’s a location in time. In other words, the singularity ends up in their future. And they can no more
    0:38:31 avoid the singularity than they can avoid time coming their way. So there’s no shenanigans you can do once
    0:38:37 you’re inside the black hole to try to skirt it, the singularity. You can’t set yourself up in orbit
    0:38:44 around it. You can’t try to fire rockets and stay away from it because it’s in your future. And there’s an
    0:38:50 inevitable moment when you will hit it. Usually for a stellar mass black hole, we think it’s microseconds.
    0:38:53 Microseconds to get from the event horizon to the…
    0:38:54 To the singularity.
    0:39:02 To the singularity. Oh boy. Oh boy. So that’s describing from your astronaut friend’s perspective.
    0:39:06 Yes. From their perspective, the singularity’s in their future.
    0:39:12 But from your perspective, what do you see when your friend falls into the black hole and you’re
    0:39:21 chilling outside and watching? So one way to think about this is to think that as you’re approaching
    0:39:29 the black hole, the astronaut’s space time is rotating relative to your space time. So let’s say right
    0:39:36 now, my left is your right. We’re not shocked by the fact that there’s this relativity in left and
    0:39:41 right. It’s completely understood. And I can perform a spatial rotation to align my left with your
    0:39:51 left. Right now, I’ve completely rotated left out. Right. If I just want to draw a kind of
    0:39:55 compass diagram, not a compass diagram, but you know, at the top of maps, there’s a north, south,
    0:40:02 east, west. But now time is up, down, and one direction of space is, let’s say, east, west. As you
    0:40:07 approach the black hole, it’s as though you’re rotating in space time, is one way of thinking about
    0:40:13 that. So what is the effect of that? The effect of that is, as this astronaut gets closer and closer
    0:40:22 to the event horizon, part of their space is rotated into my time, and part of their time is rotated into
    0:40:31 my space. So in other words, their clocks seem to be less aligned with my time. And the overall effect is
    0:40:37 that their time seems to dilate. The spacing between ticks on the clock of their watch,
    0:40:47 let’s say, on the face of their watch, is elongated, dilated, relative to mine. And it seems to me that
    0:40:51 their watches are running slowly, even though they were made in the same factory as mine, they were both
    0:40:57 synchronized beautifully in their excellent Swiss watches. It seems as though time is elapsing
    0:41:04 more slowly for my companion. And likewise, for them, it seems like mine’s going really fast.
    0:41:13 So years could elapse in my space station, my plants come and go, they die, I age faster, I’ve got gray
    0:41:22 hair. And they’re falling in, and it’s been minutes in their frame of reference. Flowers in their little
    0:41:29 rocket ship haven’t rotted, they don’t have gray hair, their biological clocks have slown down relative
    0:41:35 to ours. Eventually, at the event horizon, it’s so extreme, it’s so slow, it’s as though their clocks
    0:41:42 have stopped altogether, from my point of view. And that’s to say that it’s as though their time is
    0:41:48 completely rotated into my space. And this is connected with the idea that inside the black hole
    0:41:57 space and time have switched places. So I might see them hover there for millennia. Other astronauts
    0:42:05 could be born on my space station, generations could be populated there watching this poor astronaut never
    0:42:06 fall in.
    0:42:14 So basically, time almost comes to a standstill. But we still, they do fall in.
    0:42:19 Right, they do fall in eventually. Now that’s because they have some mass of their own.
    0:42:19 Yeah.
    0:42:27 So they’re not a perfectly light particle. And so they deform the event horizon a little bit. You will
    0:42:33 actually see the event horizon bobble and absorb the astronaut. So in some finite time,
    0:42:35 the astronaut will actually fall in.
    0:42:39 So it’s like this weird space-time bubble that we have around us.
    0:42:46 And then there’s a very big space-time curvature bubble thing from the black hole,
    0:42:50 and there’s a nice swirly type situation going on, and that’s how you get sucked up.
    0:42:51 Yeah.
    0:42:55 So if you’re a perfect, like, infinitely small particle, you would just be–
    0:42:56 Take longer and longer.
    0:43:00 And probably just be stuck there or something. But no, there’s quantum mechanics.
    0:43:05 Mm-hmm. Eventually, you’ll fall in. Any perturbation will only go one way. It’s unstable
    0:43:13 in one direction, in one direction only. But it’s really important to remember that,
    0:43:18 from the point of view of the astronaut, not much time has passed at all. You just sail right across,
    0:43:23 as far as you’re concerned. And nothing dramatic happens there. You might not even realize you’ve
    0:43:27 come to the event horizon. You might not even realize you’ve crossed the event horizon,
    0:43:34 because there’s nothing there. Right? This is an empty region of space-time. There’s
    0:43:39 no marker to tell you you’ve reached this very dangerous point of no return. You can fire your
    0:43:46 rockets like hell when you’re on the outside and maybe even escape. Right? But once you get to that
    0:43:53 point, there’s no amount of energy. All the energy in the universe will not save you from this demise.
    0:43:59 You know, there’s different size black holes. And maybe can we talk about the experience that you
    0:44:02 have falling into a black hole, depending on what the size of the black hole is?
    0:44:13 Yeah. Because as I understand, the bigger it is, the less drastic the experience of falling into it.
    0:44:20 Yeah. That might surprise people. The bigger it is, the less noticeable it is that you’ve crossed the
    0:44:28 event horizon. One way to think about it is curvature is less noticeable the bigger it is. So if I’m standing
    0:44:34 on a basketball, I’m very aware I’m balancing on a curved surface. My two feet are in different
    0:44:39 locations and I really notice. But on the earth, you actually have to be kind of clever to deduce that
    0:44:46 the earth is curved. The bigger the planet, the less you’re going to notice the curvature, the global
    0:44:51 curvature. And it’s the same thing with a black hole, a huge, huge black hole. It just kind of feels
    0:44:57 like just flat. You don’t really notice. I’m trying to figure out how the physics, because if you don’t
    0:45:03 notice. And there’s nothing there. But the physics is weird. In your frame of reference.
    0:45:08 No. Well, so another cool thing. So I’d like to dispel myths.
    0:45:16 Yeah. Do you need a minute? You’re holding your head. There’s a sense like you should be able to
    0:45:21 know when you’re inside of a black hole, when you’ve crossed the event horizon. But no, from your frame of
    0:45:27 reference, you might not be able to know. Yeah. At first, at least, you might not realize what’s
    0:45:33 happened. There are some hints. For instance, black holes are dark from the outside, but they’re not
    0:45:42 necessarily dark on the inside. So this is a kind of fascinating that your experience could be that it’s
    0:45:48 quite bright inside the black hole. Because all the light from the galaxy can be shining in behind
    0:45:54 you. And it’s focusing down, because you’re all approaching this really focused region in the
    0:46:00 interior. And so you actually see a bright, white flash of light as you approach the singularity.
    0:46:06 You know, I kind of, I joke that it’s a, you know, it’s like a near-death experience. We see the light
    0:46:11 at the end of the tunnel. So you would see millennia pass on Earth, you could see the evolution of
    0:46:17 the entire galaxy, you know, one big bright flash of light. So it’s like a near-death experience,
    0:46:19 but it’s a definitely a total death experience.
    0:46:24 It goes pretty fast, but you looking out, you looking out, everything’s going super fast.
    0:46:33 Yeah. The clocks, um, on the Earth, on the space station seem to be progressing very rapidly relative
    0:46:39 to yours. The light can catch up to you and you get this bright beam of light as you see the evolution
    0:46:47 of the galaxy unfold. And, um, I mean, it sort of depends on the size of the black hole and how long
    0:46:52 you have to hang around. The bigger the black hole, the longer it takes you to expire in the center.
    0:46:58 Obviously the human, uh, sensory system, we’re not able to process that information correctly.
    0:47:01 Right. It would be a microsecond and a, right, that would be too fast.
    0:47:06 Yeah. But it would be, wow, it would be so cool to get that information.
    0:47:10 But a big black hole, you could actually, you know, hang around for some months.
    0:47:18 So yeah, what’s, uh, how are small black holes or just supermassive, uh, black holes formed?
    0:47:23 It’s just so people can kind of load that in. Are they, are they all, is it always a star?
    0:47:31 No. So this is also why it’s important to think of black holes more abstractly. They are something
    0:47:37 very profound in the universe and there are probably multiple ways to make black holes. Um,
    0:47:43 making them with stars is most plentiful. There could be hundreds of millions, maybe even a billion
    0:47:50 black holes in our Milky Way galaxy alone, that many stars. It’s only about 1% of stars that will, um,
    0:47:57 end their lives in, in, in a death state that is a black hole. But we now see, and this was really
    0:48:05 quite a surprise that there are supermassive black holes. They’re billions or even hundreds of billions
    0:48:12 of times the mass of the sun and, um, uh, millions to tens of billions, maybe even hundreds of billions.
    0:48:19 So extremely massive. We don’t think that the universe has had enough time to make them from stars that just
    0:48:25 merge. We know that two black holes can merge and make a bigger black hole. And then those can merge and make
    0:48:30 a bigger black hole. We don’t think there’s been enough time for that. So it’s suspected that they’re
    0:48:37 formed very early, maybe even a hundred, a hundred, a few hundred million years after the big bang and
    0:48:44 that they’re formed directly by collapsing out of primordial stuff that there’s a direct collapse
    0:48:49 right into the black hole. So like in the, in the very early universe,
    0:48:57 these are primordial black holes from the stars, not quite wait, how, how do you get from that soup
    0:48:58 black holes right away?
    0:49:06 Right. So it’s odd, but it’s weirdly easier to make a big black hole out of something that’s just
    0:49:11 the density of air. If it’s really, really as big as what we’re talking about. So in some sense,
    0:49:15 if they’re just allowed to directly collapse very early in the universe’s history, they can do that
    0:49:23 more easily. Um, and it’s so much so that we think that there’s one of these super massive black holes
    0:49:29 in the center of every galaxy. So they’re not rare and we know where they are. They’re in the nuclei of
    0:49:37 galaxies. So they’re bound to the very early formation of entire galaxies in, um, in a really surprising and
    0:49:39 deeply connected way.
    0:49:46 I wonder if the, like the chicken or the egg, is it, uh, like how critical, how essential are the
    0:49:48 super massive black holes to the formation of galaxies?
    0:49:54 Yeah. I mean, it’s ongoing, right? It’s ongoing. Which came first, the black hole or the galaxy?
    0:50:03 Um, probably, um, big early stars, which were just made out of hydrogen and helium from the big bang.
    0:50:08 Um, there wasn’t anything else, not much of anything else. Um, those early stars were forming and then
    0:50:15 maybe the black holes and kind of the galaxies were like these gassy clouds around them. Um, but there’s
    0:50:23 probably a deep relationship between the black hole powering jets, these jets blowing material out of the
    0:50:32 galaxy that, that shaped galaxies, maybe kind of curbed their growth. Um, and so I think the mechanisms are
    0:50:39 still, are still ongoing attempts to understand exactly the ordering of these things.
    0:50:44 Can we get back to space-time? Just going back to the beginning of the 20th century,
    0:50:49 how do you imagine space-time? How are we as human beings supposed to visualize and think about space-time
    0:50:55 where, you know, time is just another dimension in this 4G space that combines space and time?
    0:50:59 Because we’ve been talking about morphing in all kinds of different ways, the curvature of space-time.
    0:51:04 Like, how do you, how are we supposed to conceive of it? How do you think of it?
    0:51:04 Yeah.
    0:51:06 And time is just another dimension?
    0:51:15 There are different ways we can think about it. We can imagine drawing a map of space and treating time
    0:51:21 as another direction in that map. But we’re limited because as three-dimensional beings,
    0:51:26 we can’t really draw four dimensions, which is what I’d require. Three-spatial, because I’m pretty sure
    0:51:32 there’s at least three. I think there’s probably more. But, um, I’m happy just talking about the large
    0:51:42 dimensions, the three we see up-down, right? East-west, north-south, three-spatial dimensions.
    0:51:51 And time is the fourth. Nobody can really visualize it. But we know mathematically how to unpack it on
    0:51:58 paper. I can mathematically suppress one of the spatial dimensions and then I can draw it pretty well. Now,
    0:52:04 the problem is that we’d call it a Euclidean space-time. Euclidean space-time is when all the
    0:52:10 dimensions are orthogonal and are treated equally. Time is not another Euclidean dimension. It’s
    0:52:18 actually a Minkowskian space-time. But it means that the space-time, we’re misrepresenting it when we draw
    0:52:23 it, but we’re misrepresenting it in a way that we deeply understand. I can give you an example. The Earth,
    0:52:30 Earth, I can project onto a flat sheet of paper. I am now misrepresenting a map of the Earth. And I know
    0:52:36 that, but I understand the rules for how to add distances on this misrepresentation because the Earth
    0:52:42 is not a flat sheet of paper. It’s a sphere. And, um, and as long as I understand the rules for how I get
    0:52:49 from the North Pole to the South Pole that I’m moving along really a great arc and I understand that the
    0:52:54 distance is not the distance I would measure on a flat sheet of paper, then I can do a really great
    0:53:00 job with a map and understanding the rules of addition, multiplication, and the geometries, not
    0:53:04 the geometry of a flat sheet of paper. I can do the same thing with space-time. I can draw it on a flat
    0:53:10 sheet of paper, but I know that it’s not actually a flat Euclidean space. And so my rules for measuring
    0:53:18 distances are different than the rules I would use that, for instance, Cartesian rules of geometry,
    0:53:24 I would know to use the correct rules for Minkowski space-time. And, and that will allow me to, to,
    0:53:34 to, to calculate how long, uh, time has elapsed, which is now a kind of a length, a space-time length on my
    0:53:41 map, um, between two relative observers and I will get the correct answer. Um, but only if I use these
    0:53:42 different rules.
    0:53:50 So then what does, according to general relativity, does, uh, objects with mass do to the space-time?
    0:53:58 Right, exactly. So Einstein struggled for this completely general theory, not a specific solution
    0:54:05 like a black hole or an expanding space-time or galaxies make lenses or, those are all solutions.
    0:54:12 That’s why what he did was so enormous. It’s an entire paradigm that says over here is matter and
    0:54:18 energy. I’m going to call that the right-hand side of the equation. Everything on the right-hand
    0:54:23 side of Einstein’s equations is how matter and energy are distributed in space-time. On the
    0:54:31 left-hand side tells you how space and time deform in response to that matter and energy. And it can be
    0:54:36 impossible to solve some of those equations. What was so amazing about what Schwarzschild did is he
    0:54:43 found this very elegant, simple solution within like a month of reading, um, this final formulation.
    0:54:49 But Einstein didn’t go through and try to find all the solutions. He sort of gave it to us,
    0:54:55 right? He shared this. And then lots of people since have been scrambling to try to,
    0:55:00 ah, I can predict the curvature of the space-time if I tell you how the matter and energy is laid out.
    0:55:07 If it’s all compact in a spherical system like a sun or even a black hole, I can understand the curves in
    0:55:13 the space-time around it. I can solve for the, for the shape of the space-time. I can also say,
    0:55:18 well, what if the universe is full of gas or light and it’s all kind of uniform everywhere,
    0:55:23 and I’ll find a different and equally surprising solution, which is that the universe would expand
    0:55:29 in response to that, that it’s not static, that the distances between galaxies would grow. This was a
    0:55:37 huge surprise, Einstein. Um, so all of these consequences of his theory, you know, came with
    0:55:44 revelations that were not at all obvious when he first wrote down, um, the general theory.
    0:55:49 And he was afraid to take the consequences of that theory seriously, which is a-
    0:55:49 Often.
    0:55:58 The theory itself in its scope and grandeur and power is scary, so I can understand. Then there’s,
    0:56:03 you know, the, um, the edges of the theory where it falls apart, the consequences of the theory that
    0:56:07 are extreme. It’s hard to take seriously. So you can sort of empathize.
    0:56:14 Yeah. He very much resisted the expansion. So if you think about 1905, when he’s writing
    0:56:19 these sequence of unbelievable papers as a 25 year old who can’t get a job, you know,
    0:56:23 as a physicist, and he writes all of these remarkable papers on relativity and quantum mechanics.
    0:56:29 Um, and then even in 1915, 16, he does not know that there are other galaxies out there. This,
    0:56:37 this was not known. People had mused about it. Um, there were these kind of smudges on the sky that
    0:56:43 people contemplated. What if there are other island universes, you know, going back to Kant thought about
    0:56:49 this, but it wasn’t until Hubble. It really wasn’t until the late twenties, um, that it’s confirmed that
    0:56:57 there are other galaxies. Wow. Yeah. He didn’t obviously, there’s so much we think of now that
    0:57:06 he didn’t think of. So there’s no big bang static universe, but these are all connected. Wow. Yeah.
    0:57:13 So he’s operating on very little information, very little information. That’s absolutely true. Actually,
    0:57:19 one of the things I like to point out is the idea of relativity was foisted on people in this
    0:57:24 kind of cultural way, but there’s many ways in which you could call it a theory of absolutism.
    0:57:34 And, um, the way Einstein got there with so little information, um, is by adhering to certain very
    0:57:41 strict absolutes, like the absolute limit of the speed of light and the absolute constancy of the
    0:57:49 speed of light, which was completely bizarre when it was first, uh, discovered really that was observed.
    0:57:56 There were experiments trying to figure out, um, you know, what would the relative speed of light be?
    0:58:01 It’s the only, it’s really only massless particles have this property that they have an absolute speed.
    0:58:02 And if you think about it, it’s incredibly strange.
    0:58:04 Yeah. It’s really, incredibly strange.
    0:58:10 And then so, so from, from theoretical perspective, he, he’s, he takes that seriously.
    0:58:14 He takes it very seriously and everyone else is trying to come up with models to make it go away,
    0:58:19 um, to make, uh, the speed of light be a little bit more reasonable, like everything else in the
    0:58:24 universe. Um, you know, if I run at a car, two cars coming at each other, they’re coming at each other
    0:58:30 faster than if one of them stops. It’s really a basic observation of reality, right? Here, this is
    0:58:37 saying that if I’m racing at a light beam, um, and you’re standing still relative to the source,
    0:58:43 uh, we’ll measure the same exact speed of light. Very strange. And he gets to relativity by saying,
    0:58:51 well, what speed speed is distance. It’s space over time. It’s how far you travel. Um,
    0:58:56 it’s the space you travel in a certain duration of time. And he said, well, I bet something must be
    0:59:03 wrong then with space and time. So this is an enormous leap. He’s willing to give up the absolute
    0:59:09 character of space and time in favor of keeping the speed of light constant.
    0:59:18 how was he able to intuit a world of curved space time? Like, I think it’s like one of the
    0:59:28 most special leaps in human history, right? Cause you’re like, it’s very, very, very difficult to
    0:59:35 make that kind of leap. I’ll tell you, it took me, I think a long time to, I can’t say this is how he
    0:59:43 got there exactly. It’s not as though I studied the historical accounts or, or his description of
    0:59:50 his internal states. This is more having learned the subject, how I try to tell people how to get
    0:59:56 there in a few short steps. Um, one is to start with the equivalence principle, which he called the
    1:00:04 the happiest thought of his life. And the equivalence principle comes pretty early on in his thinking.
    1:00:10 And, and, um, it starts with something like this. Like right now, I think I’m feeling gravity because
    1:00:15 I’m sitting in this chair and I feel the pressure of the chair and it’s stopping me from falling and, um,
    1:00:20 lie down in a bed and I feel heavy on the bed. And I think of that as gravity. And Einstein has a
    1:00:28 beautiful ability to remove all of these extraneous factors, including atoms.
    1:00:34 So let’s imagine instead that you’re in an elevator and you feel heavy on your feet because the floor of
    1:00:40 the elevator is resisting your fall. But I want to remove the elevator. What does the elevator have
    1:00:46 to do with fundamental properties of gravity? So I cut the cable. Now I’m falling, but the elevator
    1:00:53 is falling at the same rate as me. So now I’m floating in the elevator. And if this happened to
    1:01:00 me, if I woke up in this state of falling or floating in the elevator, I might not know if I was an empty
    1:01:06 space, just floating. Um, or if I was falling around the earth, there would actually, they’re equivalent
    1:01:12 situations. I would not be able to tell the difference. I’m actually, when I get rid of the elevator in this
    1:01:20 way by cutting the cable, I’m actually experiencing weightlessness. And that weightlessness is the
    1:01:28 purest experience of gravity. And, um, and so this idea of falling is actually fundamental. It’s how we
    1:01:34 talk about it all the time. The earth is in a free fall around the sun. It’s actually falling. It’s not
    1:01:40 firing engines, right? It’s just, it’s just falling all the time, but it’s just cruising so fast.
    1:01:46 So actually, yeah, God, you said so many profound. So one of them is really one of the ways to
    1:01:53 experience space time is to be falling, to be falling. That is the purest experience of gravity.
    1:02:00 The experience of gravity, uh, unfettered, uninterrupted by atoms is weightlessness.
    1:02:04 Yeah. That observation, no, it has an unhappy ending, the elevator story,
    1:02:11 because of atoms again, that’s the fault of the atoms in your body interacting electromagnetically
    1:02:17 with the crust of the earth or at the bottom of the building or whatever it is. Um, but this period
    1:02:23 of free fall. So the first observation is that that is the purest experience of gravity. Now I can convince
    1:02:29 you that things fall along curved paths because I could take, uh, you know, a pen and if I throw it,
    1:02:36 we both know it’s going to follow an arc and it’s going to follow an arc until atoms interfere again
    1:02:42 and it hits the ground. But while it’s in free fall, experiencing gravity at its purest,
    1:02:51 what the Einsteinian description would say is it is following the natural curve in space time inscribed
    1:03:01 by the earth. So the earth’s mass and shape curves the paths in space. And then those curvatures tell you
    1:03:08 how to fall the paths along which you should fall when you’re falling freely. And so the earth has found
    1:03:15 itself on a free fall that happens to be a closed circle, but it’s, it’s actually falling. The
    1:03:19 International Space Station uses this principle all the time. They get the space station up there
    1:03:23 and then they turn off the engines. Can you imagine how expensive it would be if they had to fuel that
    1:03:28 thing at all times, right? They turn off the engines. They’re just falling. Yeah, they’re falling.
    1:03:33 And they’re not that far up. Um, there, there are certainly people sometimes say, oh,
    1:03:37 they’re so far away. They don’t feel gravity. Oh, absolutely. If you stopped the space
    1:03:44 station, it’s going like 17,500 miles an hour, something like that. If you were to stop that,
    1:03:50 it would drop like a stone right to the earth. So they’re in a state of constant free fall.
    1:03:56 And they’re falling along a curved path. And that curved path is a result of curving space time.
    1:04:02 And, uh, that particular curve path is calculated in such a way that it curves onto itself. So you’re
    1:04:07 orbiting. Right. So it has to be cruising at a certain speed. So once you get it at that
    1:04:13 cruising speed, you turn off the engines. But yeah, to be able to visualize at the beginning of the 20th
    1:04:25 century, that not, you know, that free falling in, in, in curved space time. Boy, the human mind is
    1:04:33 capable of things. I mean, some of that is, um, constructing thought experiments that collide with
    1:04:40 our understanding of reality. Maybe in the collisions and the contradictions, you try to think of extreme
    1:04:46 thought experiments that, that, uh, exacerbate that contradiction and see like, okay, what is
    1:04:52 actually, is there another model that can incorporate this? But to be able to do that, I mean, it’s, it’s
    1:04:59 kind of inspiring because, you know, there’s probably another general relativity out there in all,
    1:05:06 not just in physics, in all lines of work, in all scientific pursuits. There’s certain theories
    1:05:14 where you’re like, okay, I just explained like a big elephant in the room here that everybody just
    1:05:21 kind of didn’t even think about. There could be, uh, for stuff we know about in physics, there could
    1:05:26 be stuff like that for the origin of life on earth. Yeah. Everyone’s like, yeah, okay. Everyone’s like,
    1:05:34 in polite company, it’s like, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah. Somehow it started. Right. Nobody knows.
    1:05:39 I find it wild that that’s so elusive. Yeah. It’s, it’s strange. In the lab, you can’t replicate.
    1:05:42 It’s strange that it’s so elusive. I think it’s a general relativity thing. There’s going to be
    1:05:48 something, it’s going to involve aliens and wormholes and dimensions that we don’t quite understand,
    1:05:56 or some, some field that’s bigger than like, it’s possible, maybe not. It’s possible that it has,
    1:06:02 it’s a field that is different, that will feel fundamentally different from chemistry and biology.
    1:06:08 It’ll be maybe through physics. Again, maybe the key to the origin of life is in physics.
    1:06:14 And the same there, it’s like a weird neighbor is consciousness. It’s like, all right.
    1:06:15 A weird neighbor. Yeah.
    1:06:24 It’s like, okay. So we all know that life started on earth somehow. Nobody knows how. We all know that
    1:06:31 we’re conscious. We have a subjective experience of things. Nobody understands that. The people have
    1:06:38 ideas and so on. Right. But it’s such a dark, sort of, we’re entering a dark room where a bunch of
    1:06:43 people are whispering about like, hey, what’s in this room? But nobody, nobody has a effing clue.
    1:06:49 So, and then somebody comes along with a general relativity kind of conception where like it
    1:06:55 reconceives everything. And you’re like, ah, it’s like a watershed moment. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah.
    1:07:00 It’s there. And until it’s there, we’re living in the, we’re living in a time until that theory comes
    1:07:07 along. And, uh, it would be obvious in retrospect, but right now we’re right. Well, this, it was obvious
    1:07:14 to no one that space time was curved, but even Newton understood something wasn’t right.
    1:07:21 So he knew there was something missing. And I think that’s always fascinating when we’re in a
    1:07:27 situation where we’re pressure testing our own ideas. He did something remarkable, Newton did,
    1:07:33 with his theory of gravity, just understanding that the same phenomenon was at work with the earth around
    1:07:40 the sun as the apple falling from the tree. That’s insane. That’s a huge leap. Understanding that mass,
    1:07:46 inertial mass, what makes something hard to push around is the same thing that feels gravity in,
    1:07:53 at least in the Newtonian picture in that simple way. Unbelievable leap. Absolutely genius. But he
    1:07:58 didn’t like that the apple fell from the tree, even though the earth wasn’t touching it.
    1:08:00 Yeah. The action at a distance thing.
    1:08:02 The action at a distance thing.
    1:08:03 That is weird too.
    1:08:05 Well, but that is a really weird.
    1:08:09 It’s really weird. But see, Einstein solves that. Relativity solves that.
    1:08:18 Because it says, the earth created the curve in space. The apple wants to fall freely along it.
    1:08:24 The problem is the tree’s in the way. The tree’s the problem. The tree’s actually accelerating the
    1:08:30 apple. It’s keeping it away from its natural state of weightlessness in a gravitational field. And as
    1:08:34 soon as the tree lets go of it, the apple will simply fall along the curve that exists.
    1:08:38 I would love it if somebody went back to Newton’s time.
    1:08:40 And told him all this?
    1:08:48 Probably some hippie would be like, “Gravity is just curvature in space-time, man.” I wonder if he
    1:08:55 would be able to… I don’t think… Every idea has its time. He might not even be able to load that in.
    1:09:01 I mean, sometimes even the greatest geniuses, I mean, you can’t…
    1:09:04 Mm. It’s too out of context.
    1:09:09 You need to be standing on the shoulders of giants, and on the shoulders of those giants, and so on.
    1:09:14 I heard that Newton used that as an unkind remark to his competitor, Hook.
    1:09:18 Oh, no. The people talk shit even back then.
    1:09:19 Yeah, trash talking.
    1:09:19 I love it.
    1:09:28 It’s one of the hilarious things about humans in general, but scientists too, like these huge minds.
    1:09:35 There’s these moments in history where you’ll see this in universities, but everywhere else too.
    1:09:43 Like you have gigantic minds, obviously also coupled with everybody has an ego. And like sometimes it’s
    1:09:49 just the same soap opera that played out amongst humans everywhere else. And so you’re thinking
    1:09:56 about the biggest cosmological objects and forces and ideas, and you’re still like jealous and…
    1:09:58 Right. I know.
    1:09:58 It’s fascinating.
    1:10:00 Your office is bigger than my office.
    1:10:00 I know.
    1:10:09 This chair, this… Or maybe you got married to this person that I was always in love with,
    1:10:10 and there’s a betrayal of something.
    1:10:11 Right. The one woman in the department.
    1:10:17 Yeah, the one woman in the department. Yeah. And it’s just, I mean, but that is also the fuel
    1:10:20 of innovation, that jealousy, that tension, that’s…
    1:10:24 Well, you know the expression, I’m sure. The battles are so bitter in academia because
    1:10:25 the stakes are so low.
    1:10:30 That’s a beautiful way to phrase it. But also, like, we shouldn’t forget, I mean,
    1:10:37 that I love seeing that even in academia because it’s humanity. The silliness, it’s… There’s
    1:10:43 a degree to academia where the reason you’re able to think about some of these grand ideas
    1:10:46 is because you still allow yourself to be childlike.
    1:10:47 Oh, yeah.
    1:10:49 There’s a childlike nature to be asked a big question.
    1:10:50 Oh, yeah.
    1:10:51 But children can also be like…
    1:10:52 Children.
    1:10:53 Children.
    1:11:00 Children. So, like, you don’t… I think when in a corporate context and maybe the world
    1:11:05 gets… forces you to behave, you’re supposed to be a certain kind of way, there’s some aspects
    1:11:12 and it’s a really beautiful aspect to preserve and to celebrate in academia is, like, you’re
    1:11:19 just allowed to be childlike in your curiosity and your exploration. You’re just exploring, asking
    1:11:20 the biggest questions, so…
    1:11:26 Mm-hmm. The best scientists I know often ask the simplest questions. They’re really…
    1:11:34 First of all, there’s probably some confidence there. But also, they’re never going to lie to
    1:11:40 themselves that they understand something that they don’t understand. So, even this idea that
    1:11:46 Newton didn’t understand the apple falling from the tree. He… Had he lived another couple hundred
    1:11:50 of years, he would have invented relativity because he never would have lied to himself that he understood
    1:11:57 it. He would have kept asking this very simple question. And I think that there is this childlike
    1:11:59 beauty to that. Absolutely.
    1:12:04 Yeah. Just some of the topics… I don’t know why I’m stuck to those two topics, the origin of life
    1:12:05 and consciousness. But there’s some…
    1:12:05 I’ll talk about those.
    1:12:11 Some of the most brilliant people I know are stuck, just like with Newton and Einstein,
    1:12:16 they’re stuck on that. This doesn’t make sense. I know a bunch of brilliant biologists, physicists,
    1:12:18 chemists that are thinking about the origin of life. They’re like, this doesn’t…
    1:12:26 I know how evolution works. I know how the biological systems work, how genetic information propagates,
    1:12:31 but this part, the singularity at the beginning doesn’t make sense. We don’t understand. We can’t
    1:12:39 create it in a lab. Every single day, they’re bothered by it. And that being bothered by that
    1:12:44 tension, by that gap in knowledge is… Yeah, that’s the catalyst. That’s the fuel for the…
    1:12:44 That’s the catalyst.
    1:12:46 For the…
    1:12:46 Discovery.
    1:12:47 For the discovery.
    1:12:51 Yeah, absolutely. The discovery is going to come because somebody couldn’t sleep at night
    1:12:53 and couldn’t rest.
    1:13:00 So in that way, I think black holes are a kind of portal into some of the biggest mysteries of
    1:13:06 our universe. So it’s a good terrain on which to explore these ideas. So can you speak about some
    1:13:10 of the mysteries that the black holes present us with?
    1:13:17 Yeah, I think it’s important to separate the idea that there are these astrophysical states that become
    1:13:25 black holes from being synonymous with black holes, because black holes are kind of this larger
    1:13:33 idea. And they might have been made primordially when the Big Bang happened. And there’s something
    1:13:43 flawless about black holes that makes them fundamental, unlike anything else. So they’re
    1:13:48 flawless in the sense that you can completely understand a black hole by looking at just its charge,
    1:13:54 electric charge, its mass, and its spin. And every black hole with that charge, mass, and spin is
    1:13:59 identical to every other black hole. You can’t be like, “Oh, that one’s mine. I recognize it.”
    1:14:05 It has this little feature, and that’s how I know it’s mine. They’re featureless. You try to put
    1:14:12 Mount Everest on a black hole and it will shake it off in these gravitational waves. It will radiate away
    1:14:19 this imperfection until it settles down to be a perfect black hole again. So there’s something
    1:14:24 about them that is unlike, and another reason why I don’t like to call them objects in a traditional
    1:14:30 sense, unlike anything else in the universe that’s macroscopic. It’s kind of a little bit more like
    1:14:38 a fundamental particle. So an electron is described by a certain short list of properties: charge, mass,
    1:14:45 spin, maybe some other quantum numbers. That’s what it means to be an electron. There’s no electron
    1:14:50 that’s a little bit different. You can’t recognize your electron. They’re all identical in that sense.
    1:14:59 And so in some very abstract way, black holes share something in common with microscopic fundamental
    1:15:08 particles. And so what they tell us about the fundamental laws of physics can be very profound.
    1:15:17 And it’s why even theoretical physicists, mathematical physicists, not just astronomers who use telescopes,
    1:15:26 they rely on the black hole as a terrain to perform their thought experiments. And it’s because there’s
    1:15:31 something fundamental about them. Yeah. General relativity means quantum
    1:15:37 mechanics, means singularity, and sadly, heartbreakingly so, it’s out of reach for
    1:15:42 experiment at this moment, but it’s within reach for theoretical things.
    1:15:45 It’s in reach for thought experiments. For thought experiments.
    1:15:48 Which are quite beautiful. Well, on that topic, I have to ask you about
    1:15:54 the paradox, the information paradox of black holes. What is it?
    1:16:04 So this is what catapulted Hawking’s fame. When he was a young researcher, he was thinking about black
    1:16:10 holes and wanted to just add a little smidge of quantum mechanics, just a little smidge. I wasn’t
    1:16:17 going for full-blown quantum gravity, but kind of just asking, well, what if I allowed this nothing,
    1:16:23 this vacuum, this empty space around the event horizon, the star’s gone, there’s nothing there,
    1:16:28 what if I allowed it to possess sort of ordinary quantum properties, just a little tiny bit,
    1:16:32 you know, nothing dramatic. Don’t go crazy, you know.
    1:16:36 And one of the properties of the vacuum that
    1:16:42 is intriguing is this idea that you can never see the vacuum’s actually completely empty.
    1:16:46 uncertainty. We talked about Heisenberg, you know, the Heisenberg uncertainty principle really kicked
    1:16:52 off a lot of quantum mechanical thinking. It says that you can never exactly know a particle’s
    1:16:58 position simultaneously with its motion, with its momentum. You can know one or the other pretty
    1:17:04 precisely, but not both precisely. And the uncertainty isn’t a lack of ability that will technologically
    1:17:09 overcome. It’s foundational. It says that there’s, in some sense, when it’s in a precise location,
    1:17:15 it is fundamentally no longer in a precise motion. And that uncertainty principle means I can’t precisely
    1:17:24 say a particle is exactly here, but it also means I can’t say it’s not. Okay. And so it led to this idea
    1:17:32 that what do I mean by a vacuum? Because I can’t 100% precisely know. In fact, there’s not really
    1:17:37 meaningful to say that there’s zero particles here. And so what you can say, however, is you can say,
    1:17:45 well, maybe particles kind of froth around in this seething quantum sea of the vacuum.
    1:17:52 Maybe two particles come into existence and they’re entangled in such a way that they cancel out each
    1:17:57 other’s properties. So they, they have the properties of the vacuum. You know, they don’t,
    1:18:02 they don’t destroy the kind of properties of the vacuum because they cancel out each other’s spin,
    1:18:06 maybe each other’s charge, maybe things like that. But they kind of froth around, they come,
    1:18:12 they go, they come, they go. And that’s what we really think is the best that empty space can do
    1:18:17 in a quantum mechanical universe. Now, if you add an event horizon, which as we said,
    1:18:24 is really fundamentally what a black hole is. That’s the most important feature of a black hole.
    1:18:32 The event horizon, if the particles are created slightly on either side of that event horizon,
    1:18:39 now you have a real problem. Okay. Now the pair has been separated by this event horizon.
    1:18:44 Now they can both fall in. That’s okay. But if one falls in and the other doesn’t,
    1:18:51 it’s stuck. It can’t go back into the vacuum because now it has a charge or it has a spin or it has
    1:18:57 something that is no longer the property of that vacuum it came from. It needs its pair to disappear.
    1:19:05 Now it’s stuck. It exists. It’s like you’ve made it real. So in a sense, the black hole steals one of
    1:19:15 these virtual particles and forces the other to live. And if it’ll escape, radiate out to infinity
    1:19:22 and look like, to an observer far away, that the black hole has actually radiated a particle.
    1:19:29 Now the particle did not emanate from inside. It came from the vacuum. It stole it from empty space,
    1:19:34 from the nothingness that is the black hole. Now the reason why this is very tricky
    1:19:40 is because in the process, because of this separation on either side of the event horizon,
    1:19:45 the particle it absorbs, it has to do with the switching of space and time that we talked about,
    1:19:50 but the particle it absorbs, well, from the outside, you might say, oh, it had negative momentum.
    1:19:54 It was falling in from the inside. You say, well, this is actually motion and time. This is energy.
    1:20:01 It has negative energy. And as it absorbs negative energy, its mass goes down. The black hole gets a
    1:20:07 little lighter. And as it continues to do this, the black hole really begins to evaporate. It does more
    1:20:16 than just radiate. It evaporates away. And it’s intriguing because Hawking said, look,
    1:20:19 this is going to look thermal, meaning featureless. It’s going to have no
    1:20:25 information in it. It’s going to be the most informationless possibility you could possibly
    1:20:29 come up with when you’re radiating particles. It’s just going to look like a thermal distribution of
    1:20:34 particles, like a hot body. And the temperature is going to only tell you about the mass, which
    1:20:38 you could tell from outside the black hole anyway. You know the mass of the black hole from the outside.
    1:20:43 So it’s not telling you anything about the black hole. It’s got no information about the black hole.
    1:20:48 Now you have a real problem. And when he first said it, a lot of people describe that not everyone
    1:20:57 understood how really naughty he was being. He did. But some people who love quantum mechanics
    1:21:03 were really annoyed. Okay. People like Lenny Susskind, Gerard Tzuft, Nobel Prize winner,
    1:21:08 they were mad because it suggested something was fundamentally wrong with quantum mechanics,
    1:21:13 if it was right. And the reason why it says there’s something fundamentally wrong with quantum mechanics
    1:21:19 is because quantum mechanics does not allow this. It does not allow quantum information to simply
    1:21:27 evaporate away and poof out of the universe and cease to exist. It’s a violation of something called unitarity,
    1:21:32 but really the idea is it’s the loss of quantum information that’s intolerable. Quantum mechanics was built
    1:21:37 to preserve information. It’s one of the sacred principles. As sacred as conservation of energy,
    1:21:42 in this example, more sacred. Because you can violate conservation of energy with Heisenberg’s
    1:21:51 uncertainty principle, a little tiny bit. But so sacred that it created what became coined as the black
    1:21:57 hole wars, where people were saying, “Look, general relativity is wrong. Something’s wrong with our
    1:22:04 thinking about the event horizon. Or quantum mechanics isn’t what we think it is, but the two are not
    1:22:10 getting along anymore.” And just to tell you how dramatic it is, so the temperature goes down with the
    1:22:15 mass of the black hole, the heavier a black hole, the cooler it is. So we don’t see black holes evaporate.
    1:22:21 They’re way too big. But as they get smaller and smaller, they get hotter and hotter. So as the black
    1:22:27 hole nears the end of the cycle of evaporating away, it takes a very long time, much longer than the age of
    1:22:33 the universe, it will be as though the curtain, the event horizon is yanked up. Like it’ll literally explode
    1:22:41 away. Just boom. And the event horizon in principle would be yanked up. Everything’s gone. All that
    1:22:47 information that went into the black hole, all that sacred quantum stuff, gone. Poof. Okay? Because it’s
    1:22:56 not in the radiation. Because the radiation has no information. And so it was an incredibly productive
    1:23:04 debate. Because in it are the signs of what will make gravity and quantum mechanics play nice together.
    1:23:10 Some quantum theory of gravity. Whatever these clues are, and they’re hard to assemble,
    1:23:15 if you want a quantum gravity theory, it has to correctly predict the temperature of a black hole,
    1:23:20 the entropy of a black hole. It has to have all of these correct features. The black hole is the place
    1:23:26 on which we can test quantum gravity. But it still has not been resolved. It has not been
    1:23:31 fully resolved. I looked up all the different ideas for the resolution. So there’s the information
    1:23:37 loss, which is what you refer to. It’s perhaps the simplest, yes, most erratic resolution is that
    1:23:41 information is truly a loss. This would mean quantum mechanics, as we currently understand it,
    1:23:47 specifically unitarity is incomplete or incorrect under these extreme gravitational conditions.
    1:23:52 I’m unhappy with that. I would not be happy with information loss. I love that it’s telling us
    1:23:57 that there’s this crisis, because I do think it’s giving us the clues. And we have to take them
    1:23:57 seriously.
    1:24:00 For you, the gut is like…
    1:24:01 Unitary is going to be preserved.
    1:24:04 Preserved. So quantum mechanics is holding strong.
    1:24:08 We have to come to the rescue. As Lenny Susskind in his book, Black Hole War says,
    1:24:13 his subtitle is, “My battle with Stephen Hawking to make the world safe for quantum mechanics.”
    1:24:15 I’m getting… I love it.
    1:24:16 It’s something to that effect.
    1:24:21 So then from string theory, one of the resolutions is called Fuzzballs. I love physicists so much.
    1:24:26 Originating from string theory, this proposal suggests that black holes aren’t singularity
    1:24:31 surrounded by empty space and an event horizon. Instead, they are horizonless,
    1:24:38 complex, tangled objects, aka fuzzballs, made of strings and brains roughly the size of the
    1:24:42 would-be event horizon. There’s no single point of infinite density and no
    1:24:44 true horizon to cross.
    1:24:47 In some sense, it says there’s no interior to the black hole, nothing ever crosses. So
    1:24:51 I gave you this very nice story that there’s no drama. Sometimes that’s how it’s described
    1:24:54 at the event horizon and you fall through and there’s nothing there.
    1:25:00 This other idea says, “Well, hold on a second. If it’s really strings, as I get close to this
    1:25:06 magnifying quality and slowing time down near the event horizon, it is as though I put a magnifying
    1:25:11 glass on things and now the strings aren’t so microscopic, they kind of shmure around and then
    1:25:16 they get caught like a tangle around the event horizon and they just actually never fall through.
    1:25:20 I don’t think that either, but it was interesting.”
    1:25:25 So it’s just adding a very large number of extra complex-
    1:25:26 Degrees of freedom.
    1:25:26 Yeah.
    1:25:29 There are no teeny tiny marbles to fall through.
    1:25:32 But it’s similar to what we already have with quantum mechanics. It’s just
    1:25:33 giving a deeper more complicated-
    1:25:37 But it’s really saying the interior is just not there ever. Nothing falls in.
    1:25:40 So the information gets out because it never went in in the first place.
    1:25:41 Oh, interesting. So there is a strong statement there.
    1:25:43 There’s a strong statement there, yeah.
    1:25:48 Okay. “Soft hair challenges the classical no-hair theorem by suggesting that black
    1:25:53 holes do possess subtle quantum, quote, “hair. This isn’t classical hair-like charge,
    1:26:00 but very low-energy quantum excitations, soft gravitons or photons at the event horizon
    1:26:04 that can store information about what fell in.”
    1:26:11 Worth trying, but I also don’t think that that’s the case. So the no-hair theorems are
    1:26:18 formal proofs that the black hole is this featureless, perfect, fundamental particle that
    1:26:22 we talked about. That all you can ever tell about the black hole is its electrical charge,
    1:26:29 its mass, and its spin. And that it cannot possess other features. It has no hair, is one way of
    1:26:34 describing it. And that those are proven mathematical proofs in the context of general relativity.
    1:26:38 So the idea is, well, therefore, I can know nothing about what goes into the black hole,
    1:26:42 so the information is lost. But if they could have hair, I could say that’s my black hole,
    1:26:47 because it’d have features that I could distinguish, and it could encode the information
    1:26:52 that went in in this way. And the event horizon isn’t so serious. It isn’t such a stark demarcation
    1:26:56 between events inside and outside, where I can’t know what happened inside or outside.
    1:27:00 I don’t think that’s the resolution either, but it was worth a try.
    1:27:05 Okay, the pros and cons of that one. The pros, it works within the framework of quantum field
    1:27:09 theory in curved space-time, potentially requiring less radical modifications than
    1:27:15 fuzzballs or information loss. Recent work by Hawking, Perry, Strominger revitalized this idea.
    1:27:20 The cons is that the precise mechanism by which information is encoded and transferred to the
    1:27:24 radiation is still debated and technically challenging to work out fully. And indeed,
    1:27:30 it needs to store a vast amount of information. Okay, another one, this is a weird one, boy,
    1:27:39 is ER equals EPR. This is probably it, though. Oh, boy. So ER equals EPR is Einstein-Rosen Bridge
    1:27:46 equals Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen Bridge posits a deep connection between quantum entanglement and
    1:27:54 space-time geometry, specifically Einstein-Rosen Bridge, commonly known as wormholes. It suggests that
    1:27:59 entangled particles are connected by a non-traversible wormhole, so tiny wormholes
    1:28:01 connected. Okay.
    1:28:03 I can say that this is not
    1:28:09 a situation where we can follow the chalk. We can’t start at the beginning and calculate to the end.
    1:28:17 So it’s still a conjecture. I think it’s very profound, though. I kind of imagine
    1:28:23 Juan Maldicina, who’s part of this, with Lenny Suskin, they were kind of like, “Oh, it’s like ER equals EPR.”
    1:28:26 They couldn’t even formulate it properly. It was like an intuition that they had kind of
    1:28:34 landed on and now are trying to formalize. But to take a step back, one way of thinking about ER equals
    1:28:40 EPR, you have to talk about holography first. And holography, both Juan Maldicina really formalized it,
    1:28:45 Lenny Suskin suggested it. The idea of a black hole hologram is that all of the information
    1:28:51 in the black hole, whatever it is, whatever entropy as a measure of information, whatever the entropy of
    1:28:55 the black hole is, which is telling you how much information is hidden in there, how much information
    1:29:02 you don’t have direct access to in some sense, is completely encoded in the area of the black
    1:29:09 hole. Meaning as the area grows, the entropy grows. It does not grow as the volume. This actually turns
    1:29:17 out to be really, really important. If I tried to pack a lot of information into a volume, more information
    1:29:22 than I could pack, let’s say, on the surface of a black hole, I would simply make a black hole. And I would
    1:29:28 find out, oh, I can’t have more information than I can fit on the surface. So Lenny coined this a hologram.
    1:29:33 People who take it very seriously say, well, again, maybe the interior of the black hole just doesn’t
    1:29:38 exist. It’s a holographic projection of this two-dimensional surface. In fact, maybe I should
    1:29:44 take it all the way and say, so are we. The whole universe is a holographic projection of a lower
    1:29:50 dimensional surface, right? And so people have struggled, nobody’s really landed it, to find a
    1:29:55 universe version of it. Oh, maybe there’s a boundary to the universe where all the information is encoded.
    1:30:00 And this entire three-dimensional reality is so compelling and so convincing is actually
    1:30:06 just a holographic projection. Juan Maldicina did something absolutely brilliant. It’s the
    1:30:12 most highly cited paper in the history of physics. It was published in the late 90s. It has a very
    1:30:19 opaque title that would not lead you to believe it’s as revelatory as it is. But he was able to show that
    1:30:25 a universe like in a box with gravity in it, it’s not the same universe we observe, doesn’t matter,
    1:30:29 it’s just a hypothetical called an anti-desider space. It’s a universe in a box, it has gravity,
    1:30:38 it has black holes, it has everything gravity can do in it. On its boundary is a theory with no gravity,
    1:30:44 a universe that can be described with no gravity at all, so no black holes, and no information loss
    1:30:51 of the boundary. And they’re equivalent. That the interior universe in a box is a holographic
    1:30:59 projection of this quantum mechanics on the boundary. Pure quantum mechanics, purely unitary,
    1:31:05 no loss of information. None of this stuff could possibly be true. There can’t be loss of information
    1:31:14 if this dictionary really works, if the interior is a hologram, a projection of the boundary. I know that’s
    1:31:15 a lot. Yeah.
    1:31:22 So there’s some mathematics there, there’s physics, and then there’s trying to conceive of what that
    1:31:29 actually means practically for us. Well, what it would mean for us is that information can’t be lost,
    1:31:35 even if we don’t know how to show it in the description in which there are black holes. It
    1:31:42 means it can’t possibly be lost because it’s equivalent to this description with no gravity in
    1:31:50 it at all, no event horizons, no black holes, just quantum mechanics. So it really strongly suggested that
    1:31:56 quantum mechanics was going to win in this battle, but it didn’t show exactly how it was going to win.
    1:32:04 So then comes ER equals EPR. A visual way to imagine what this means. So ER has to do with little wormholes.
    1:32:11 EPR, Einstein, Podolsky, Rosen, has to do with quantum entanglement. The idea was, well,
    1:32:20 maybe the stuff that’s interior to the black hole is quantum entangled, like EPR, quantum entangled,
    1:32:25 with the Hawking radiation outside the black hole that’s escaping. And that quantum entanglement
    1:32:32 entanglement is what allows you to extract the information because it’s not actually physically
    1:32:38 moving from the interior to the exterior. It’s just subtle quantum entanglement. And in fact,
    1:32:46 I can kind of think of the entire black hole. If I look at it, it looks like a solid shadow cast on the
    1:32:52 sky, some region of space time. If I look at it very closely, I will see, oh no, it’s actually sewn from
    1:33:00 these quantum wormholes, like embroidered. And so when I get up close, it’s almost as though the event
    1:33:08 horizon isn’t the fundamental feature on the space time. The fundamental feature is the quantum entanglement
    1:33:15 embroidering, the event horizon. The embroidering is just tiny wormholes. So the quantum entanglement
    1:33:21 is when two particles are connected at arbitrary distances.
    1:33:23 And they’re connected by a wormhole.
    1:33:26 And in this case, they would be connected by a wormhole.
    1:33:31 Mm-hmm. So the reason why that’s helpful, it helps you connect the interior to the exterior
    1:33:35 without trying to pass through the event horizon.
    1:33:42 Now, the cons of this theory is highly conceptual and abstract. The exact mechanism for information
    1:33:49 retrieval via these non-traversable wormholes is not fully understood. Primarily explored in
    1:33:57 theoretical toy models. Whoa, Gemini going hard. Theoretical toy models like the
    1:34:02 anti-desider space, space-time, rather than realistic black holes.
    1:34:06 True. We do what we can do in baby steps.
    1:34:15 So another idea to resolve the information paradox is firewalls proposed by Almeri, Marov,
    1:34:22 Polchinski, and Sully. Amps. This is a more drastic scenario arising from analyzing the entanglement
    1:34:27 requirements of Hawking radiation to preserve unitarity and avoid information
    1:34:33 loss. They argued that the entanglement structure requires the event horizon not to be smooth,
    1:34:39 not to be the smooth and remarkable place predicted by general relativity, the equivalence principle.
    1:34:47 Instead, it must be a highly energetic region, a “firewall” that incinerates anything attempting
    1:34:52 to cross it. Okay, so yeah, that’s a nice solution. Just destroy everything that crosses this.
    1:34:56 Do you find this at all a convincing resolution to the information?
    1:35:02 I would say the firewall papers were fascinating and were very provocative and very important in
    1:35:06 making progress. I don’t even think the authors of those papers thought firewalls were real.
    1:35:13 I think they were saying, “Look, we’ve been brushing too much under the rug, and if you look at the
    1:35:21 evaporation process, it’s even worse than what you thought previously. It’s so bad that I can’t get
    1:35:25 away with some of these prior solutions that I thought I could get away with.” There was a kind of
    1:35:30 duality idea or a complementarity idea that, “Oh, well, maybe one person thinks they fell in and one
    1:35:36 person thinks they never fell in, and that’s okay. You know, no big deal.” They sort of exposed flaws in
    1:35:42 these kind of approaches, and it actually reinvigorated the campaign to find a solution.
    1:35:48 So it stopped it from stalling. I don’t think anyone really believes that the Event Horizon,
    1:35:55 at the Event Horizon you’ll find a firewall. But it did lead to things like the entangled wormholes
    1:36:04 embroidering a black hole, which was born out of an attempt to address the concerns that amps raised.
    1:36:09 So it did lead to progress. So for you, the resolution would-
    1:36:16 I’m going back to the vacuum. The empty space, the beautiful Event Horizon, I’ll give up
    1:36:25 I’ll give up locality, meaning that I will allow things to be connected non-locally by a wormhole.
    1:36:32 So that is the weirdest thing you’re willing to allow for, which is arbitrary distance connection
    1:36:36 of particles through a wormhole. But quantum mechanics must be preserved.
    1:36:42 I’ll entertain pretty weird things. But I think that’s the one that sounds promising.
    1:36:47 The implications are so dramatic, because this is why you start to hear things like, “Wait a minute,
    1:36:54 if the Event Horizon only exists when it’s sewn out of these quantum threads, does that mean that gravity
    1:37:00 is fundamentally quantum mechanics?” Not that gravity and quantum mechanics get along, and I have a quantum
    1:37:04 gravity theory, and I now know how to quantize gravity, actually something much more dramatic.
    1:37:11 Gravity is just kind of emerging from this quantum description, that gravity isn’t fundamental.
    1:37:17 And what is the only thing that we have when we go rock bottom, when we go deeper and deeper,
    1:37:24 smaller and smaller, is quantum mechanics. So all of this, like space-time looks nice and smooth and
    1:37:29 continuous. But if I look at the quantum realm, I’ll see everything sewn together out of quantum threads.
    1:37:37 And that space-time is not a smooth continuum all the way down. Now, people already thought that,
    1:37:42 but they thought it kind of came in chunks of space-time. Instead, maybe it’s just quantum mechanics all
    1:37:49 the way down. Quantum threads. So these entangled particles connected by wormholes.
    1:37:50 Yeah.
    1:37:55 So that’s how you would, how would you even visualize a black hole in that way? So it’s all,
    1:38:03 I mean, it’s all sort of, from our perspective in terms of detecting things, the light goes and
    1:38:07 going in. It’s all still the same. But when you zoom in a lot.
    1:38:12 When you zoom in a lot to the quantum mechanical scale at which you’re seeing the Hawking radiation,
    1:38:19 you would be noticing that there’s some entanglement between the radiation that I could not explain
    1:38:26 before and the interior of the black hole. So it’s now no longer a perfectly thermal spectrum with
    1:38:33 no features that only depends on the mass. It actually has a way to have an imprint of the
    1:38:41 information interior to the black hole in the particles that escape. And so now in principle,
    1:38:45 I could sit there for a very long time. It might take longer than the age of the universe and collect
    1:38:51 all the Hawking radiation and see that it actually had details in it that are going to explain to me
    1:38:55 what was interior to the black hole. So the information is no longer lost.
    1:39:00 So yeah. So information is not being destroyed. So in theory, you should be able to get information.
    1:39:05 Now I can’t do that any more than I can recover the words on that piece of paper once it’s been
    1:39:10 burnt. But that’s a practical limitation, not a fundamental one. It’s just too hard. But when I
    1:39:15 burn a piece of paper, technically the information is all there somewhere. It’s in the smoke, it’s in the
    1:39:22 currents, it’s in the molecules, it’s in the ink molecules. But in principle, if I had took the age of
    1:39:26 the universe, I could probably reconstruct, I should be able to, in principle, reconstruct the piece of
    1:39:27 paper and all the words on it.
    1:39:35 Do you think a theory of everything that unifies general relativity quantum mechanics is possible?
    1:39:37 Yeah. So we’re like skirting around it.
    1:39:40 Yeah, we’re skirting around it. I think that this is the way to find that out.
    1:39:45 It’s going to be on the terrain of black holes that we figure out if that’s possible.
    1:39:52 I think that this is suggesting that there might not be a theory of quantum gravity,
    1:39:57 that gravity will emerge at a macroscopic level out of quantum phenomena. Now,
    1:40:01 we don’t know how to do that yet. But these are all hints.
    1:40:07 Emerge. So a lot of the mathematics of anything that emerges from complex systems is very difficult
    1:40:10 to… The transition is very difficult, right?
    1:40:16 So if that’s the case, there might not be a simple, clean equation that connects everything.
    1:40:20 There are examples of emergent phenomena which are very simple and clean. Like,
    1:40:25 I can just take electromagnetic scattering, which is the law of physics, where particles scatter
    1:40:30 just by electromagnetically, and I have a lot of them, and I have a lot of them in this room,
    1:40:35 and they come to some average. Well, I call that temperature, right? And that one number,
    1:40:41 the fact that there’s one number describing all of these gazillions of particles is an emergent
    1:40:48 quantity. There’s no particle that carries around this fundamental property called temperature,
    1:40:52 right? It emerges from the collective behavior of tons and tons of particles. In some sense,
    1:40:56 temperature is not a fundamental quantity. It’s not a fundamental law of nature,
    1:41:05 right? It’s just what happens from the collective behavior. And that’s what we’d be saying. We’d be
    1:41:13 saying, oh, this emerges from the collective behavior of lots and lots and lots of quantum interactions.
    1:41:21 So when do you think we would have some breakthroughs on the path towards theory of
    1:41:26 everything, showing that it’s impossible or impossible, all that kind of stuff? If you look at the 21st century,
    1:41:32 say you move 100 years into the future and looking back, when do you think the breakthroughs will come?
    1:41:49 I’ll give you some hard problems. I guess my question is, how hard is this problem? What does your gut say? Because finding the origin of life, figuring out consciousness, solving some of the major diseases, then there’s the theory of everything, understanding this, resolving the information paradox.
    1:42:05 So these puzzles that are before us as a human civilization, physics, this feels like really one of the big ones. Of course, there could be other breakthroughs in physics that don’t solve this.
    1:42:20 Yeah. We could discover dark matter, dark energy. We could discover extra spatial dimensions. We could discover that those three things are linked, that there’s like a dark sector to the universe that’s hiding in these extra dimensions. And that’s something that I love to work on. I think it’s really fascinating.
    1:42:27 All of those would also be clues about this question, but they wouldn’t solve this problem.
    1:42:45 I think it’s impossible to predict. There has been real progress. And the progress, as we’ve said, comes from the childlike curiosity of saying, well, I don’t actually understand this. I’m going to keep leaning on it because I don’t understand it. And then suddenly you realize nobody really understood it.
    1:42:58 So I don’t know. Do I think it’s a harder problem than the problem of the origin of life? I think it’s technically a harder problem. But I don’t know. Maybe the breakthrough will come.
    1:43:08 So when you mentioned discovering extra dimensions, what do you mean, what could that possibly mean?
    1:43:21 Well, we know that there are three spatial dimensions. We like to talk about time as a dimension. We can argue about whether that’s the right thing to do. But we don’t know why there are only three.
    1:43:34 It very well could be that there are extra spatial dimensions, that there’s like a little origami of these tightly rolled up dimensions. Not all of them, not all the models require that they’re small, but most do.
    1:43:50 String theory requires extra dimensions to make sense. But even if you feel very hostile towards string theory, there are lots of reasons to consider the viability of extra dimensions.
    1:43:59 And we think that they can trap little quantum energies in such a way that might align with the dark energy.
    1:44:04 I mean, the numerology is not perfect. It’s a little bit subtle. It’s hard to stabilize them.
    1:44:12 It’s possible that there are these kind of quantum excitations that look a lot like dark matter.
    1:44:19 It’s kind of an interesting idea that in the Big Bang, the universe was born with lots of these dimensions.
    1:44:22 They were all kind of wrapped up in the early universe.
    1:44:26 And what we’re really trying to understand is why did three get so big?
    1:44:31 And why did the others stay so small?
    1:44:36 Is it possible to have some kind of natural selection of dimensions kind of situation?
    1:44:39 There is, actually. And people have worked on that.
    1:44:43 Is there a reason why it’s easier to unravel three?
    1:44:52 Some people think about strings and brains wrapping up in the extra dimensions, causing a kind of constriction, but preferentially loosening up in three.
    1:45:05 Sometimes we look at exactly models like that, which have to do with the origami being resistant to change in a certain way that only allows three to unravel and keeps the others really taut.
    1:45:14 But then there are other ideas that we’re actually living on a three-dimensional membrane that moves through these higher dimensions.
    1:45:18 And so the reason we don’t notice them isn’t because they’re small. Maybe they’re not small at all.
    1:45:21 But it’s because we’re stuck to this membrane.
    1:45:24 So we’re unaware of these extra directions.
    1:45:32 Is it possible that there’s other intelligent alien civilizations out there that are operating on a different membrane?
    1:45:37 This is a bit of an out there question, but I ask it more kind of seriously.
    1:45:46 Is it possible, do you think, from a physics perspective, to exist on a slice of what the universe is capable of?
    1:45:57 I think it is certainly mathematically possible on paper to imagine a higher dimensional universe with more than one membrane.
    1:46:03 And if things are mathematically possible, I often wonder if nature will try it out.
    1:46:04 Yeah.
    1:46:10 Just how people get into the strange territory of talking about a multiverse.
    1:46:33 Because if you start to say, one of the aspirations was, in the same way that we identified the law of electroweak theory of matter, that it was a single description and exactly landed on the description that matched observations, people were hoping the same thing would happen for a kind of theory that also incorporated gravity.
    1:46:40 There would be this one beautiful law, but instead they got a proliferation, all of which did okay, or did equally badly.
    1:46:50 And they suddenly had trouble finding, not only finding a single one, but sort of, that would just beg a new question, which is, well, why that one?
    1:46:56 And if nature can do something, won’t she do anything she can try?
    1:47:05 And so maybe we really are just one example in an infinite sea of possible universes with slightly different laws of physics.
    1:47:18 So if I can do some of these things on paper, like imagine a higher dimensional space in which I’m confined to a brain and there’s another brain or maybe a whole array of them, maybe nature’s tried that out somewhere.
    1:47:20 Maybe that’s been tried out here.
    1:47:26 And then, yes, is it possible that there’s life and civilizations on those other brains?
    1:47:29 Yeah, but we can’t communicate with them.
    1:47:31 They’d be like in a shadow space.
    1:47:33 Can you seriously say we can’t communicate with them?
    1:47:35 Well, no, that’s fair.
    1:47:40 I’m limited in my communication because I’m glued to the brain, but some things can move.
    1:47:42 We call the bulk, through the bulk.
    1:47:45 Gravity, for instance, a gravitational wave.
    1:47:52 So I could design a gravitational communicator, communication system, and I could send gravitational waves through the bulk.
    1:48:05 And how SETI’s doing with light into space, I could send signals into the bulk, telling them where we are and what we do and singing songs.
    1:48:07 Of course, sending gravitational waves is very expensive.
    1:48:08 We don’t know how to move.
    1:48:10 Very expensive, very hard to localize.
    1:48:13 They tend to be long wavelength and very hard to do.
    1:48:15 A lot of energy moving around.
    1:48:15 A lot of energy.
    1:48:20 So is it possible that the membranes are, quote-unquote, hairy in other ways?
    1:48:22 Like some kind of weird quantum thing?
    1:48:24 It is possible that there’s other things that live in the bulk.
    1:48:30 I mean, last night I was calculating away, looking at something that lives in the bulk.
    1:48:31 Okay, this is fascinating.
    1:48:35 So, I mean, okay, can we take a little bit more seriously about the whole one?
    1:48:49 When I look out there at the stars, I, from a basic intuition, cannot possibly imagine there’s not just alien civilizations everywhere.
    1:48:52 Life is so damn good.
    1:48:55 Like you said, nature tries stuff out.
    1:48:55 Yeah.
    1:48:57 Nature’s an experimenter.
    1:49:08 And I just can’t, just basic sort of observation, life, you said somewhere that you like extremophiles.
    1:49:11 Life just figures shit out.
    1:49:13 It just finds a way to survive.
    1:49:19 Now, there could be something magical about the origin of life, the first spark, but like I can’t even see that.
    1:49:20 It’s just over and over and over.
    1:49:34 I bet, actually, once the story is fully told and figured out, life originated on earth almost right away and did that so like billions of times in multiple places, just over and over and over and over.
    1:49:48 That seems to be the thing that just whatever is the life force behind this whole thing seems to create life, seems to be a creator of different sorts.
    1:49:49 Mm, yeah.
    1:49:54 The very, from the very original primordial soup of things, it just creates stuff.
    1:49:57 So I just can’t imagine, but we don’t see the aliens, so.
    1:49:58 Right, yeah.
    1:50:02 We don’t even have to go to something as crazy as extra dimensions and brain worlds and all of that.
    1:50:14 What’s happening right now in the past 30 years in astronomy, looking at real objects, is that the number of planets, exoplanets outside our solar system has absolutely proliferated.
    1:50:19 There are probably more planets in the Milky Way galaxy than there are stars.
    1:50:22 And now we have a real quandary.
    1:50:23 Not, I don’t think it’s a quandary.
    1:50:24 I think it’s really exciting.
    1:50:26 It becomes impossible.
    1:50:28 What you just said, I totally agree with.
    1:50:38 It becomes impossible to imagine that life was not sparked somewhere else in our Milky Way galaxy and maybe even in our local neighborhood of the Milky Way galaxy.
    1:50:41 Maybe within a few hundred light years of our solar system.
    1:50:50 So my gut says, like, some crazy amount of solar systems have life.
    1:50:58 Bacterial life somewhere at some point in their history had some bacterial type of life.
    1:51:01 Something like bacterial, maybe it’s totally different kinds of life.
    1:51:09 So then I’m just facing with the question, it’s like, why have we not clearly seen alien civilizations?
    1:51:17 And there, the answer, I don’t find any great filter answer convincing.
    1:51:22 There’s just no way I can imagine an advanced alien civilization not avoiding its own destruction.
    1:51:24 I can see a lot of them getting into trouble.
    1:51:28 I can see how we humans are really like 50-50 here.
    1:51:31 Well, isn’t that kind of appalling?
    1:51:32 I mean, just take that statement.
    1:51:37 We’ve only been around for like, I mean, a couple hundred thousand years tops, you know.
    1:51:40 That is not very long.
    1:51:41 And we’re at a 50-50.
    1:51:43 I mean, that’s unbelievable.
    1:51:50 I mean, it’s indisputable that we have created the means, at least potentially, for our own destruction.
    1:51:52 Will we learn from our mistakes?
    1:51:56 Will we avert course and save ourselves?
    1:51:57 One hopes so, right?
    1:52:03 But even the concept that it’s conceivable, whales have not invented a way to kill themselves,
    1:52:09 to wipe out all whales and Earth and life on Earth.
    1:52:10 That’s one way to see it.
    1:52:14 But I actually see it as a feature, not a bug, when you look at the entirety of the universe.
    1:52:26 Because it does seem that the mechanism of evolution constantly creates, you want to operate on the verge of destruction, it seems like.
    1:52:34 I mean, the predator and prey dynamic is really effective at creating, at accelerating evolution and development.
    1:52:49 It seems like us being able to destroy ourselves is a really powerful way to give us a chance to really get our shit together and to flourish, to develop, to innovate, to go out amongst the stars or, 50-50, destroy ourselves.
    1:52:52 But, like, which I think, me as a human, is a horrible thing.
    1:52:56 But if there’s a lot of other alien civilizations, that’s a pretty cool thing.
    1:52:58 You want to give everybody nuclear weapons.
    1:53:00 Half of them will figure it out.
    1:53:01 Half of them won’t.
    1:53:03 You mean everyone, all these civilizations.
    1:53:04 All these civilizations.
    1:53:11 And then the ones that figure it out will figure out some incredible technologies about how to expand, how to develop, and all that kind of stuff.
    1:53:12 Right.
    1:53:23 You could use a kind of evolutionary Darwinian natural selection on that, where survival isn’t just in a harsh, naturally-induced climate change, but it’s because of a nuclear holocaust.
    1:53:31 And then something will be created that is now impervious to that, that now knows how to survive.
    1:53:32 Yep, exactly.
    1:53:33 So why haven’t we seen them?
    1:53:34 Right.
    1:53:37 Well, because that’s a pretty big bar.
    1:53:43 So if you look at the, just to say, for comparison, dinosaurs, you know, 250 million years.
    1:53:46 I mean, maybe not very bright.
    1:53:50 Didn’t invite fire.
    1:53:51 Didn’t write sonnets.
    1:53:52 Yeah.
    1:53:56 They didn’t contemplate the origin of the universe, but they, they lived.
    1:54:03 And in a benign situation without confronting their own demise at their own hands.
    1:54:04 Paws.
    1:54:05 Hooves.
    1:54:08 So it’s just a sheer numbers game.
    1:54:08 That’s a long time.
    1:54:10 250 million years.
    1:54:16 I do think, though, that life can flourish without wanting to manipulate its environment.
    1:54:29 And that we do see many examples of species on Earth that are very long-lived, very, very long-lived, and have very different states of consciousness.
    1:54:33 They have, the jellyfish does not even have a localized brain.
    1:54:36 I don’t think they have a heart or blood.
    1:54:37 I mean, they’re really different from us.
    1:54:38 Okay.
    1:54:41 And that’s what I think we have to start thinking about when we think about aliens.
    1:54:45 Those species have lived for a very, very long time.
    1:54:47 They even show some evidence of immortality.
    1:54:56 You can wound one badly, and there are certain jellyfish that will go back into a kind of pre-state and start over.
    1:55:03 So I think we’re very attached to imagining creatures like us that manipulate technology.
    1:55:11 And I think we have to be way more imaginative if we’re going to really take seriously life in the universe.
    1:55:15 Yeah, they might not prioritize conquest and expansion.
    1:55:17 They might not be violent.
    1:55:18 Mm-hmm.
    1:55:19 They might not be violent.
    1:55:21 Like us humans.
    1:55:23 They might be solitary.
    1:55:24 They might not be social.
    1:55:25 They might not move in groups.
    1:55:27 They might not want to leave records.
    1:55:34 They might, again, not have a localized brain or have a completely different kind of nervous system.
    1:55:39 I think all we can say about life is it has something to do with moving electrons around.
    1:55:46 And, like, neurologically, we move electrons through our nervous system.
    1:55:48 Our brain has electrical configurations.
    1:55:58 We metabolize food, and that has to do with getting energy, electrical energy in some sense, out of what we’re eating.
    1:56:00 We have organisms on the Earth that can eat rocks.
    1:56:02 It’s quite amazing.
    1:56:02 Minerals.
    1:56:04 I mean, talk about extremophiles.
    1:56:08 They can metabolize things that were impossible to metabolize.
    1:56:18 And so, again, I think we have to kind of open our minds to how strange that could be and how different from us.
    1:56:26 And we are the only example, even here on Earth, that does manipulate its environment in that extreme way.
    1:56:35 I mean, can you think of life as, because you said electrons, is there some degree of information processing required?
    1:56:41 So, like, it does something interesting, in quotes, with information.
    1:56:55 I think there are arguments like that, how entropy is changing from the beginning of the universe to today, how life lowers entropy by organizing things, but it costs more as a whole system.
    1:56:58 So, the whole entropy of the whole system goes up.
    1:57:07 But, of course, I organized things today and reduced the entropy of certain things in order to get up and get here.
    1:57:14 And even having this conversation, organizing thoughts out of the cloud of information.
    1:57:19 But it comes at the cost of the entire system increasing entropy.
    1:57:22 So, I do think there’s probably a very interesting way to talk about life in this way.
    1:57:24 I’m sure somebody has.
    1:57:27 Yeah, it creates local pockets of low entropy.
    1:57:36 And then, the kind of mechanism, the kind of object, the kind of life form that could do that probably could take arbitrary forms.
    1:57:40 And you could think, now, if you could reduce it all to information, now you could start to think about physics.
    1:57:45 And then, the realm of physics was the multiverse and all this kind of stuff.
    1:57:52 You could start to think about, okay, how do I detect those pockets of low entropy?
    1:57:53 Yeah.
    1:57:55 I mean, people have tried to make arguments like that.
    1:58:03 Like, can I look for entropic arguments that might suggest we’ve done this before?
    1:58:07 The Big Bang has happened before.
    1:58:13 So, is it possible that there’s some kind of physics explanation why we haven’t seen the aliens?
    1:58:14 Like we said, membranes.
    1:58:18 I don’t think membranes is going to explain why we don’t see them in the Milky Way.
    1:58:20 I think that is just a problem we’re stuck with.
    1:58:25 Whether or not there are extra dimensions or whether or not there’s life in another membrane.
    1:58:31 I think we know that even just in our galaxy, which is a very small part of the universe,
    1:58:35 300 billion stars, something like that.
    1:58:38 A whole kind of variety of possibilities to be explored.
    1:58:41 By nature, in the same way that we’re describing.
    1:58:43 And I think you’re absolutely right.
    1:58:48 When life was kicked off, first barked here on Earth, it was voracious.
    1:58:53 Now, it took a really long time, though, to get to multicellularity.
    1:58:54 I think that’s interesting.
    1:58:55 That’s weird.
    1:58:55 It’s weird.
    1:58:59 It took a really, really long time to become multicellular.
    1:59:04 But it did not take long just to start.
    1:59:05 Yeah.
    1:59:11 What do you think is the hardest thing on the chain of leaps that got to humans?
    1:59:18 I would say multicellularity, which is strictly an energy problem, I think.
    1:59:23 Again, it’s just like, can electrons flow the right way?
    1:59:32 And is it energetically favorable for multicellularity to exist?
    1:59:34 Because if it’s energetically expensive, it’s not going to succeed.
    1:59:38 And if it’s energetically favorable, it’s going to take off.
    1:59:39 It’s really just…
    1:59:50 And that’s why I also think that going from inanimate to animate is probably gray.
    1:59:53 Like, the transition is gray.
    1:59:57 At what point we call something fully alive.
    2:00:03 Famously, it’s hard to make a nice list of bullet points that need to be met in order
    2:00:04 to declare something alive.
    2:00:06 Is a virus alive?
    2:00:07 I mean, I don’t know.
    2:00:09 Is a prion alive?
    2:00:09 Those are…
    2:00:15 They seem to do some things, but they kind of rely on stealing other DNA and replicating
    2:00:15 and…
    2:00:16 I don’t know.
    2:00:17 I guess they’re not alive.
    2:00:21 But I mean, the point is that it really, at the end of the day, I really think is just…
    2:00:22 You asked if it’s just physics.
    2:00:25 I mean, I think it’s just these rules of energetics.
    2:00:32 And the gray area between the non-living and the living is way simpler just on Earth.
    2:00:35 And you said it’s already complicated on Earth, but it’s probably even more complicated elsewhere
    2:00:37 where the chemistry could be anything.
    2:00:40 Carbon is really cool and really useful.
    2:00:40 Yes, nice.
    2:00:41 Because it finds a lot…
    2:00:42 It’s nice.
    2:00:45 It finds a lot of ways to combine with other things.
    2:00:46 And that’s complexity.
    2:00:50 And complexity is the kind of thing you need for life.
    2:00:53 You can’t have a very simple linear chain and expect to get life.
    2:00:54 But I don’t know.
    2:00:55 Maybe sulfur would do okay.
    2:01:00 Okay, as we get progressively towards crazier and crazier ideas.
    2:01:06 So we talked about these microscopic wormholes, which, you know, my mind is still blown away by that.
    2:01:14 But if we talk about a little bit more seriously about wormholes in general, also called the Einstein-Rosen bridges,
    2:01:35 To what degree do you think they’re actually possible as a thing to study, creeping towards the possibility, maybe centuries from now, of engineering ways of using them, of creating wormholes and using them for transportation of human-like organisms?
    2:01:37 I think wormholes are a perfectly valid construction to consider.
    2:01:39 I think wormholes are a perfectly valid construction to consider.
    2:01:43 They’re just a curve in space-time.
    2:01:56 Topologically, which has to do with the connectedness of the space, is a little tricky because we know that Einstein’s description is completely in terms of local curves and distortions, expansion, contraction.
    2:02:00 But it doesn’t say anything about the global connectedness of the space.
    2:02:05 Because he knew that it could be globally connected on the largest scales.
    2:02:26 This kind of origami that we’re talking about, that you could travel in a straight line through the universe, leave our galaxy behind, watch the Virgo cluster drift behind us, and travel in as straight line as possible, and find ourselves coming back again to the Virgo cluster and eventually the Milky Way and eventually the Earth, that we could find ourselves on a connected, compact space-time.
    2:02:35 And so, topologically, there’s something we know for sure, something beyond Einstein’s theory that has to explain that to us.
    2:02:38 Now, wormholes are a little funky because they’re topological.
    2:02:45 You know, they create these handles and holes in these sneaky, by topological, I mean these connected spaces.
    2:02:48 Yeah, it’s like Swiss cheese or something.
    2:02:49 Like Swiss cheese, right.
    2:02:57 So, I could have, you know, I could have two, like, flat sheets that are connected by a wormhole, but then wrap around on the largest scale.
    2:02:59 You know, all this cool stuff.
    2:03:03 There’s nothing wrong with it, as far as I can see.
    2:03:07 There’s nothing abusive towards the laws about a wormhole.
    2:03:09 But we can reverse engineer.
    2:03:14 We were saying, oh, look, if I know how matter and energy are distributed, I can predict how space-time is curved.
    2:03:15 I can reverse engineer.
    2:03:19 I can say, I want to build a curved space-time like a wormhole.
    2:03:22 What matter and energy do I need to do that?
    2:03:23 It’s a simple process.
    2:03:28 And it’s the kind of thing Kip Thorne worked on, very imaginative, creative person.
    2:03:33 And the problem was that he said, oh, you know, here’s the bummer.
    2:03:39 The matter and energy you need doesn’t seem to be like anything we’ve ever seen before.
    2:03:41 It has to have, like, negative energy.
    2:03:43 That’s not great.
    2:03:51 There are some conjectures that we shouldn’t allow things that have that kind of a property, that have negative energies.
    2:03:57 Only things that have positive energies are going to be stable and long-lived.
    2:04:00 But we actually know of quantum examples of negative energy.
    2:04:01 It’s not that crazy.
    2:04:04 There’s something called the Casimir effect.
    2:04:07 You have two metal plates, and you put them really close together.
    2:04:10 You can see this kind of quantum fluctuation between the plates.
    2:04:11 It’s called a Casimir energy.
    2:04:13 And that can have a negative energy.
    2:04:19 It can actually cause the plates to attract or repel, depending on how they’re configured.
    2:04:28 And so you could kind of imagine doing something like that, like having wormholes propped up by these kinds of quantum energies.
    2:04:34 And people have thought of imaginative configurations to try to keep them propped up.
    2:04:38 Are we at the point of me saying, oh, this is an engineering problem?
    2:04:40 I’m not saying that quite yet.
    2:04:42 But it’s certainly plausible.
    2:04:47 Yeah, so you have to get a lot of this kind of weird matter.
    2:04:50 You need a lot of this weird matter to send a person through.
    2:04:51 Right.
    2:04:53 That’s going to be really challenging.
    2:04:56 So I’m not saying it’s simply an engineering problem.
    2:05:00 But it’s all within the realm of plausible physics, I think.
    2:05:02 I think that’s super interesting.
    2:05:05 And I think it’s obviously intricately and deeply connected to black holes.
    2:05:11 Is it fair to think of wormholes as just two black holes that are connected somehow?
    2:05:12 People have looked at that.
    2:05:15 They tend to be non-traversible wormholes.
    2:05:17 They’re not trying to prop them open.
    2:05:26 But yeah, I mean, some of this ER equals EPR, quantum entanglement, they’re trying to connect black holes.
    2:05:30 You know, it’s really cool.
    2:05:33 It’s not quite, again, it’s not quite following the chalk.
    2:05:38 And by that, I mean, we can’t exactly start at a concrete place, calculate all the way to the end yet.
    2:05:44 So if I may read off some of the ideas that Kip Thorne has had about how to artificially construct wormholes.
    2:05:48 So the first method involves quantum mechanics and the concept of quantum foam.
    2:05:50 And this is the thing we’ve been talking about.
    2:05:57 Now, to create a wormhole, these tiny wormholes would need to be enlarged and stabilized to be useful for travel.
    2:06:01 But the exact method of doing this remains entirely theoretical.
    2:06:02 No shit, you think so?
    2:06:11 So these tiny wormholes that are basically for the quantum entanglement of the particles, somehow enlarged.
    2:06:17 Man, playing with the topology of the Swiss cheese would be so interesting.
    2:06:19 Even to get a hint.
    2:06:26 That would be, like, top three, if not one of the, maybe even number one question for me to ask.
    2:06:27 If I got a chance to ask.
    2:06:29 An omniscient being.
    2:06:32 Omniscient being of, like, a question they can get answered to.
    2:06:34 Maybe with some visualization.
    2:06:38 Like, the shape, the topology of the universe.
    2:06:40 Yeah.
    2:06:42 But, like, I need some details.
    2:06:43 Right.
    2:06:46 Because I’m pushing and I’ll get an answer that I can’t possibly comprehend.
    2:06:47 Right.
    2:06:49 It’s a hyperbolic manifold that’s identified across.
    2:06:50 Yeah, exactly.
    2:06:53 You need to be able to ask a follow-up question.
    2:06:54 Yeah, exactly.
    2:06:56 Yeah, that would be so interesting.
    2:06:58 Anyway, classical quantum strategy.
    2:07:01 The second approach combines classical physics with quantum effects.
    2:07:08 This method would require an advanced civilization to manipulate quantum gravity effects in ways we don’t yet understand.
    2:07:09 There’s a lot of.
    2:07:10 In ways we don’t understand.
    2:07:11 Yeah, there’s a lot of.
    2:07:13 And then there’s exotic matter requirements.
    2:07:14 There’s a lot of.
    2:07:15 But I can tell you.
    2:07:15 Stabilization.
    2:07:22 I’m pretty sure all of them have in common the feature that they’re saying, here’s what I want my wormhole to look like first.
    2:07:25 So, it’s like saying I want to build a building first.
    2:07:32 So, they construct, there’s an architecture of the space-time that they’re after.
    2:07:38 And then they reverse the Einstein equations to say, what must matter in energy?
    2:07:43 What are the conditions that I impose on matter and energy to build this architecture?
    2:07:47 Which is unfortunately a very early step of figuring out things.
    2:07:47 Right.
    2:07:51 But it’s important because it’s how they realized, oh, wow, they have to have these negative energies.
    2:07:56 They have to violate certain energy conditions that we often assume are true.
    2:08:00 And then you either say, oh, well, then all bets are off.
    2:08:01 They’ll never exist.
    2:08:08 Or you look a little harder and you say, well, I can violate that energy condition without it being that big a deal.
    2:08:14 And again, quantum mechanics often does violate those energy conditions.
    2:08:29 So, do you think the studying of black holes and some of the topics we’ve been talking about will allow us to travel faster than the speed of light or travel close to the speed of light or do some kind of really innovative breakthroughs on the propulsion technology we use for traveling in space?
    2:08:29 Yeah.
    2:08:35 I mean, sometimes I assign in an advanced general relativity class the assignment of inventing a warp drive.
    2:08:37 And it’s kind of similar.
    2:08:56 So, the idea is here’s a place you want to get to and can you contract the space-time between you with something antithetical to dark energy, the opposite, and skip across and then push it back out again.
    2:09:00 That’s all – you can do that in the context of general relativity.
    2:09:06 Now, I can’t find the energy that has these properties, but I also can’t find dark energy.
    2:09:11 So, we’ve already been confronted with something that we look at the space-time.
    2:09:14 The space-time is expanding ever faster.
    2:09:17 We say, what could possibly do that?
    2:09:20 We don’t know what it is, but I can tell you about its pressure.
    2:09:22 I can tell you certain features about it.
    2:09:25 And I just call it dark energy, but I actually have no idea.
    2:09:30 It’s just – that name is just a proxy for what this – it should be called invisible because it’s not actually dark.
    2:09:31 It’s in this room.
    2:09:32 It’s not hard to see through.
    2:09:33 It’s not dark.
    2:09:34 It’s literally invisible.
    2:09:37 So, maybe that was a misnomer.
    2:09:40 But the point being, I still don’t fundamentally know what it is.
    2:09:42 That’s not so terrible.
    2:09:44 That’s the state of the world that we’re actually in.
    2:09:47 So, maybe warp drive is just kind of like a version of that.
    2:09:53 I don’t know what form of matter can do that yet, but at least I can identify the features that are needed.
    2:09:57 So, figuring out what dark energy is might land some clues.
    2:09:59 Yeah, actually, it might.
    2:10:08 It is positive energy and a negative pressure, which is kind of like a rubber band sort of quality.
    2:10:17 We think of pressure as pushing things outward, and dark energy has a very strange sort of quality that, as things move outward, you feel more energy as opposed to less energy.
    2:10:18 The energy doesn’t get lower.
    2:10:19 It gets more.
    2:10:25 So, it doesn’t have the right features for the wormhole, but those are some pretty surprising features.
    2:10:33 We, again, can conjecture, like, oh, hey, you know, the quantum energy of the vacuum kind of behaves that way.
    2:10:36 That would be a great resolution to the dark energy problem.
    2:10:39 It’s just the energy of empty space, and it’s the quantum energy of empty space.
    2:10:41 That’s an excellent answer.
    2:10:55 The problem is, is by all our methods and all the understanding we have, that energy is either really, really huge, huge, way bigger than what we see today, or it’s like zero.
    2:10:58 So, that’s a numbers problem.
    2:11:07 We can’t naturally fine-tune the energy of empty space to give us this really weird value so that we just happen to be seeing it today.
    2:11:11 But, again, we can think of a kind of dark energy that exists.
    2:11:22 So, the question is just why is it, it becomes why is it such a weird value, not how is this conceivable, because we can’t conceive of it.
    2:11:25 Yeah, but if it’s a weird value, that means there is a phenomenon we don’t understand.
    2:11:27 Yes, there’s absolutely a phenomenon.
    2:11:29 Nobody’s going to say they’re happy with that.
    2:11:39 We’re all going to say there’s something we don’t understand, which is why we look to the extra dimensions, because then you can say, oh, maybe it has to do with the size of the extra dimensions or the way that they’re wrapped up.
    2:11:47 And so, maybe it’s foisted on us because of the topology, the connectedness of the higher dimensional space.
    2:11:49 These are all things that we’re exploring.
    2:11:55 Nobody’s landed one that’s so compelling that your friends like it as much as you do.
    2:12:01 What do you think would lead to the breakthroughs on dark matter and dark energy?
    2:12:10 I think dark matter might be less peculiar than dark energy.
    2:12:12 My hope is that they’re all tied together.
    2:12:14 That would be very gratifying.
    2:12:20 These aren’t just separate problems coming from different sectors, but that they’re actually connected.
    2:12:32 That the reason the dark matter is where it is in terms of how much it’s contributing to the universe is connected with why the dark energy is showing up right now.
    2:12:33 I would love that.
    2:12:36 That would be a solution like no other, right?
    2:12:42 And like I said, if it revealed something about dark dimensions, you know, that would be a happy day.
    2:12:43 Correct me if I’m wrong.
    2:12:45 So, dark matter could be localized in space.
    2:12:46 Yeah.
    2:12:48 Dark matter is localized in space.
    2:12:48 So, it clumps.
    2:12:52 I mean, it doesn’t clump a lot, you know, but I mean, it’s around the galaxy.
    2:12:54 It’s in a halo around the galaxy.
    2:12:57 So, people get increasingly more confident that it doesn’t thing.
    2:12:59 Oh, it’s really compelling.
    2:12:59 Yeah.
    2:13:08 I mean, you see these images of galaxies that clusters that pass through each other.
    2:13:10 And you can see where the light is.
    2:13:11 The luminous matter is distributed.
    2:13:23 And then by looking at the gravitational lensing, which shows you where the actual mass is distributed, so that light bends around the most massive parts in a particular way.
    2:13:31 So, you can reconstruct where the mass is gravitationally quite separate from looking at the luminous matter, which is not dark.
    2:13:40 And they are separate because the stuff, as they pass through each other, the interacting stuff, the luminous stuff collides and gets stuck.
    2:13:43 And you can see it colliding and lighting up.
    2:13:50 The dark stuff, which by definition, it’s dark because it doesn’t interact, passes right through each other, right?
    2:13:52 And this is, I mean, it’s so compelling.
    2:13:55 And there’s lots of other observations.
    2:14:06 But that one is just, before you just look at it, you can see that the mass is distributed differently than the interacting luminous matter.
    2:14:09 So, dark energy is harder to get a hold of.
    2:14:10 Dark energy is much harder to get a hold of.
    2:14:16 But, you know, I mean, the Higgs field could have also explained dark energy.
    2:14:18 If you’ve heard of the God particle.
    2:14:26 I don’t know if you know the, originally Leon Letterman co-authored a book and he wanted to call it the goddamn particle because they couldn’t find it.
    2:14:30 And his publisher convinced him to call it the God particle.
    2:14:37 And he said, he said, he said they managed to offend two groups, those that believed in God and those that didn’t.
    2:14:40 That’s a good line, too.
    2:14:41 Oh, boy.
    2:14:41 He was very funny.
    2:14:42 He was very witty.
    2:14:45 So, you know, Higgs turned out to be…
    2:14:47 Higgs, great discovery.
    2:14:48 I mean, unbelievable.
    2:14:50 There it was.
    2:14:53 Build this massive collider in CERN and Switzerland.
    2:14:54 And there it is.
    2:14:55 Unbelievable.
    2:14:57 Kind of where you expect it to be.
    2:15:07 Now, the reason I say it could be dark energy is because the Higgs particle, like a particle of light, also has a field, like an electromagnetic field.
    2:15:15 So, light can have this field that’s distributed through all space, electric magnetic field, and you shake it around and it creates little particles.
    2:15:27 So, the Higgs field is actually more important than the Higgs particle, the complement to the Higgs particle, because that’s what you and I connect with to get mass in our atoms.
    2:15:33 So, the idea is that our atoms are interacting with this gooey field that’s everywhere.
    2:15:37 And that’s what’s giving us this experience of inertial mass.
    2:15:39 But we don’t actually enter…
    2:15:40 There’s not a lot of quanta lying around.
    2:15:43 There’s not a lot of Higgs particles lying around, because they decay.
    2:15:45 So, it’s the field that’s really important.
    2:15:48 And that field could act like a dark energy.
    2:15:54 It’s just not in the right place, meaning it’s not at the right…
    2:15:59 The energy’s too high to explain this tiny, tiny value today.
    2:16:01 And, again, we’re back to this mismatch.
    2:16:04 It’s not that we can’t conceive of forms of dark energy.
    2:16:08 It’s that we can’t make one where we’re finding it.
    2:16:12 So, I wonder if you can comment on something that I’ve heard recently.
    2:16:15 There’s some people who say…
    2:16:21 People outside of physics say that, you know, dark matter and dark energy is just something physicists made up.
    2:16:22 Yeah.
    2:16:30 To put a label on the fact that they don’t understand a very large fraction of the universe and how it operates.
    2:16:32 Is there some truth to that?
    2:16:33 What’s your response to that?
    2:16:45 There’s some truth to it, but it’s really missing a huge point, which is that if we did not understand the universe as incredibly precisely as we do, it’s stunning that there’s modern precision cosmology.
    2:16:47 It’s absolutely incredible.
    2:16:56 When COBE, which is an experiment that measured the light left over from the Big Bang in the 80s, first revealed its observations.
    2:16:59 I mean, there was applause, you know?
    2:17:01 People were cheering, right?
    2:17:03 It was unbelievable.
    2:17:07 We had predicted and measured the light left over from the Big Bang.
    2:17:16 And because of all the precision that’s happened since then, that’s how we’re able to confront that there’s things that we don’t know.
    2:17:27 And that’s how we’re able to confront, like, wow, this is really everything everybody has ever seen and ever will see, as far as we understand, makes up less than 5% of what’s out there.
    2:17:33 And so I would say, yes, we’re just giving proxy names to things we don’t understand.
    2:17:38 But to dismiss that as some kind of, oh, they just don’t know, it is actually quite the opposite.
    2:17:51 It is a stunning achievement to be able to stare that down and to have that so precise and so compelling that we’re able to know that there’s dark energy and dark matter.
    2:17:53 I don’t think those are disputed anymore.
    2:17:56 And they were up until, you know, recently.
    2:17:57 They were still disputed.
    2:18:04 I think we’re still at such early stages where we’re not really even at a good explanation, right?
    2:18:05 You’ve mentioned a few.
    2:18:12 Well, I can think of examples of dark matter that exist that we really know for sure are real versions of dark matter, like neutrinos.
    2:18:14 Right now, they’re radiating through us.
    2:18:17 That’s very well confirmed.
    2:18:19 And they’re technically dark.
    2:18:21 They don’t interact with light.
    2:18:22 And so we can’t see them.
    2:18:24 Right now, they’re raining through us.
    2:18:30 If we could see the dark matter in this room and we absolutely know is coming from the sun, it would be wild.
    2:18:33 It would be a rainstorm, you know.
    2:18:34 But they’re just invisible to us.
    2:18:37 Mostly, they pass through our bodies.
    2:18:38 Mostly, they pass through the Earth.
    2:18:46 Occasionally, they get caught in some fancy detector experiment that somebody built specifically to catch solar neutrinos.
    2:18:48 So dark matter is known to exist.
    2:18:52 It’s just, again, there’s not enough of it.
    2:18:58 It’s not the right mass to be the dark matter that makes up this missing component.
    2:19:05 I wanted to say that I’ve been recently fascinated by the flat Earth people because there’s been a split in the community.
    2:19:10 First of all, the community is a fascinating study of human psychology.
    2:19:18 But they did this experiment where I forgot who funded it.
    2:19:24 But they sent, like, physicists and flat Earthers to Antarctica.
    2:19:26 Really?
    2:19:29 And this split happened because half of them got converted into round Earthers.
    2:19:30 Wow.
    2:19:31 Well, good for them.
    2:19:35 But then the other half just went that it was all a sigh out.
    2:19:35 Really?
    2:19:37 That’s fascinating.
    2:19:37 Did somebody film that?
    2:19:38 That would be a great documentary.
    2:19:39 Yeah, it did.
    2:19:39 They did.
    2:19:40 They made a whole thing.
    2:19:42 This is just at the end of last year.
    2:19:55 I think that’s such a clean study of conspiracy theories because, like, there’s so many conspiracy theories have some inkling of truth in them.
    2:20:03 Like, there’s some elements about the way governments operate or human psychology that it’s too messy.
    2:20:06 Flat Earth to me is just clean.
    2:20:07 It’s like spaghetti monster or something.
    2:20:08 Right.
    2:20:16 It’s just a cleanly wrong thing, so it’s a nice way to discuss how a large number of people can believe a thing.
    2:20:19 Yeah, and why do they want to believe a thing?
    2:20:25 What’s very interesting is trying to use rational arguments.
    2:20:28 That makes it even more confounding to me.
    2:20:36 I would understand more somebody who just said, look, I have faith and I believe these things, and it’s not about reason, and it’s not about logic.
    2:20:37 Okay.
    2:20:40 I mean, I don’t relate to it, but okay.
    2:20:52 But to say, I’m going to use reason and logic and to prove to you this completely orthogonal conclusion, that I find really interesting.
    2:20:56 So there’s some kind of romance about reason and logic?
    2:21:00 Yeah, but also there’s questioning of institutions.
    2:21:02 That’s really interesting and important to understand.
    2:21:10 Well, I mean, I actually appreciate the skeptic’s stance.
    2:21:13 I don’t – scientists also have to be skeptics.
    2:21:18 We have to be childlike, naive, and somewhat, in some sense, really open to anything, right?
    2:21:20 Otherwise, you’re not going to be a flexible.
    2:21:21 You’re not going to be at the forefront.
    2:21:23 But also to be skeptical.
    2:21:27 So I have respect for it.
    2:21:41 I guess that’s exactly what I’m saying is more confusing because to invoke skepticism and then to want to use rational argument, what is the other component that’s going into this?
    2:21:43 Because as you said, this is something that’s easily verified.
    2:21:45 I mean, we have people in space.
    2:21:56 So you have to believe a lot more machinery that’s a lot more difficult to justify, explain as a wild conspiracy.
    2:22:00 So there’s something about the conspiracy that stirs a positive emotion.
    2:22:07 I think one of the most incredible things I have to talk to you about this, one of the most incredible things that humans have ever accomplished is LIGO.
    2:22:11 We have to talk about gravitational waves.
    2:22:19 And the very fact that we’re able to detect gravitational waves from the early universe is effing wild.
    2:22:20 It’s crazy.
    2:22:21 Yeah.
    2:22:24 Can you explain what gravitational waves are?
    2:22:30 And we should mention you wrote a book about the humans, about the whole journey of detecting gravitational waves.
    2:22:33 And LIGO, Black Hole Blues is the book.
    2:22:38 But can you talk about gravitational waves and how we’re able to actually do it?
    2:22:40 Let’s just start with the idea of gravitational waves.
    2:22:46 I have to move around a lot of mass to make anything interesting happening in gravity.
    2:22:48 I mean, if you think about it, gravity is incredibly weak.
    2:22:53 I mean, right now the whole Earth is pulling on me and I can still get out of this chair and walk around.
    2:22:54 Like, that’s insane.
    2:22:55 The whole Earth.
    2:22:58 You know, gravity is weak, right?
    2:23:04 So to get something going on in gravity, I need like big objects and things like black holes.
    2:23:11 So the idea is if black holes curve space and time around them in the way that we’ve been describing, things fall along the curves in space.
    2:23:16 If the black holes move around, the curves have to follow them, right?
    2:23:19 But they can’t travel faster than the speed of light either.
    2:23:25 So what happens is as black holes, let’s say, move around, maybe I’ve got two black holes in orbit around each other.
    2:23:26 That can happen.
    2:23:27 It takes a while.
    2:23:30 A wave is created in the actual shape of space.
    2:23:33 And that wave follows the black holes.
    2:23:34 Those black holes are undulating.
    2:23:36 Eventually, those two black holes will merge.
    2:23:43 And as we were talking about, it doesn’t take an infinite time, even though there’s time dilation, because they’re both so big.
    2:23:45 They’re really deforming space-time a lot.
    2:23:48 I don’t have a little tidy marble falling across an event horizon.
    2:23:49 I have two event horizons.
    2:23:55 And in the simulations, you can see it bobble, and they merge together, and they make one bigger black hole.
    2:23:58 And then it radiates in the gravitational waves.
    2:24:06 It radiates away all those imperfections, and it settles down to one quiescent, perfectly silent black hole that’s spinning.
    2:24:07 Beautiful stuff.
    2:24:10 And it emits E equals mc squared energy.
    2:24:16 So the mass of the final black hole will be less than the sum of the two starter black holes.
    2:24:20 And that energy is radiated away in this ringing of space-time.
    2:24:24 It’s really important to emphasize that it’s not light.
    2:24:31 None of this has to do literally with light that we can detect with normal things that detect light.
    2:24:33 X-rays form a light.
    2:24:34 Gamma rays are a form of light.
    2:24:35 Infrared, optical.
    2:24:39 This whole electromagnetic spectrum, none of it is emitted as light.
    2:24:40 It’s completely dark.
    2:24:43 It’s only emitted in the rippling of the shape of space.
    2:24:45 A lot of times, it’s likened closer to sound.
    2:24:47 Technically, we’ve kind of argued.
    2:24:49 I mean, I haven’t done an anatomical calculation.
    2:24:56 But if you’re near enough to two colliding black holes, they actually ring space-time in the human auditory range.
    2:24:59 The frequency is actually in the human auditory range.
    2:25:03 That the shape of space could squeeze and stretch your eardrum, even in vacuum.
    2:25:07 And you could hear, literally hear these waves ringing.
    2:25:28 So, the idea is that they’re closer to something that you would want to map as a sound than as something as a picture.
    2:25:29 Sorry.
    2:25:34 So, what do you think it would feel like to ride the gravitational wave?
    2:25:36 So, like, to be, to exist, to exist.
    2:25:38 Because you mentioned eardrums.
    2:25:40 I mean, it would literally bob around.
    2:25:41 Like, your orbit would change.
    2:25:42 Right?
    2:25:47 If you were orbiting these black holes, two black holes, you’d be on a kind of complicated orbit.
    2:25:47 Yeah.
    2:25:50 But your orbit would get tossed about.
    2:25:51 Well, how would the experience be?
    2:25:53 Because you’re inside space-time.
    2:25:54 Yes, I see.
    2:25:59 So, the black hole is experienced within space-time as a squeezing and stretching.
    2:26:03 So, you would feel it as a sort of squeezing and stretching.
    2:26:05 And you would also find your location change.
    2:26:09 Where you would fall would be redirected.
    2:26:12 So, it’s literally like a squeezing and stretching.
    2:26:12 Yeah.
    2:26:14 That’s the way to think about it.
    2:26:20 And it’s very detailed, the sort of nature of this.
    2:26:27 But for many years, people thought, well, these gravitational waves kind of have to exist for these intuitive reasons I’ve described.
    2:26:28 A space-time’s curved.
    2:26:29 I move the curve.
    2:26:33 The wave has to propagate through that curved space-time.
    2:26:35 But people didn’t know if they really carried energy.
    2:26:41 The arguments went on and back and forth and papers written in decades.
    2:26:49 But I like this sound more than an analogy because I liken the black holes as like mallets on the drum.
    2:26:51 The drum is space-time.
    2:26:56 As they move, they bang on the drum of space-time and it rings.
    2:27:01 Remarkably, those gravitational waves, things don’t interfere with them very much.
    2:27:05 So, they can travel for two billion years, light years, you know, in distance.
    2:27:06 Two billion years in time.
    2:27:11 And get to us, kind of as they were when they were emitted.
    2:27:12 Quieter.
    2:27:13 More diffuse.
    2:27:17 Maybe they’ve stretched out a little bit from the expansion of the universe.
    2:27:19 But they’re pretty preserved.
    2:27:25 And so, the idea of LIGO, this instrument, is to build a gigantic musical instrument.
    2:27:35 It’s kind of like building an electric guitar where the electric guitar is recording the shape of the string and it plays it back to you through an amplifier.
    2:27:38 LIGO is trying to record the shape of the ringing drum.
    2:27:41 And they literally listen to it in the control room.
    2:27:44 Just sort of hums and wobbles.
    2:27:48 And they’re like trying to play this recording drum back to you.
    2:27:49 As opposed to taking a snapshot.
    2:27:51 It’s like in time.
    2:27:53 Yeah, but to construct this guitar.
    2:27:54 Yes.
    2:27:55 It’s a gigantic instrument.
    2:27:59 It has to be very large and extremely precise.
    2:28:00 It’s unbelievable.
    2:28:01 I can’t believe they succeeded.
    2:28:03 Honestly, I can’t believe they succeeded.
    2:28:05 It was so insane.
    2:28:08 It was such a crazy thing to even attempt.
    2:28:10 It took them 50 years.
    2:28:15 Really, it’s people who started in their 30s and 40s who were in their 80s when it succeeded.
    2:28:17 I mean, imagine that tenacity.
    2:28:20 The unbelievable commitment.
    2:28:31 But the sensitivity that we’re talking about is we have this musical instrument, the size, four kilometers, spanning four kilometers in a kind of L shape with these tunnels.
    2:28:37 The largest holes in the Earth’s atmosphere because they pulled a vacuum in these tunnels to build this instrument.
    2:28:56 And they’re measuring, they’re trying to record the wobbling of space-time, right, as it passes, this sort of undulation, that amounts to less than one ten-thousandth the variation in a proton over the four kilometers.
    2:29:00 It’s an insane, insane achievement.
    2:29:02 I love great engineering.
    2:29:03 I don’t know how they did it.
    2:29:07 I followed them around just for fun.
    2:29:08 I’m very theoretical.
    2:29:09 I don’t build things.
    2:29:18 I’m always super impressed that people can translate something on the page, and it looks like wires, and I don’t know how.
    2:29:20 I’m always surprised at what it looks like.
    2:29:28 But I walked the tunnels with Ray Weiss, who won the Nobel Prize, along with Kip Thorne, and Barry Barish, one of the project managers.
    2:29:29 And I walked the tunnels with Ray.
    2:29:30 It was a delight.
    2:29:32 I mean, Ray’s one of the most delightful people.
    2:29:34 Kip is one of the most wonderful people I’ve ever known.
    2:29:45 And Ray said to me, you know, the reason why it was called Black Hole Blues is because about a month before they succeeded, he said to me,
    2:29:48 if we don’t detect black holes, this whole thing’s a failure.
    2:29:53 And we’ve led this country, you know, down this wrong path.
    2:30:01 And he really felt like this tremendous responsibility for this project to succeed, and it weighed on him, you know.
    2:30:09 It was just quite tremendous, what the integrity, right, the scientific integrity.
    2:30:15 And the first instruments he built, he was building outside of MIT on a tabletop.
    2:30:17 And his colleagues said, you’re not going to get tenure.
    2:30:20 You’re never going to succeed.
    2:30:23 And they just kept going.
    2:30:32 People like that, so huge teams, huge collaborations, are just, it’s how the world moves forward because.
    2:30:34 It’s an example.
    2:30:42 It’s, you know, there’s a building cynicism about bureaucracies when a large number of people, especially connected to government, can be productive.
    2:30:44 You know, bureaucracies slow everything down.
    2:30:52 So it’s nice to see an incredibly unlikely, exceptionally difficult engineering project like this succeed.
    2:30:52 Oh, yeah.
    2:31:01 So I understand why there’s this weight on the shoulders, and I’m grateful that there’s great leaders that push it forward like that.
    2:31:03 Yeah, it really is.
    2:31:06 You see so many moments when they could have stumbled.
    2:31:07 Yeah.
    2:31:10 And they built a first-generation machine just after 2000.
    2:31:14 And it wasn’t a surprise to them, but it detected nothing.
    2:31:14 Crickets.
    2:31:15 Mm-hmm.
    2:31:16 Crickets.
    2:31:19 And they just, you know, they have the wherewithal to keep going.
    2:31:21 Second generation.
    2:31:24 They’re about to turn the machine on, quote-unquote.
    2:31:27 You know, it’s a little bit of a simplification, but do their first science run.
    2:31:32 And they decide to postpone because they feel they’re not ready yet.
    2:31:34 It’s September 14th in 2015.
    2:31:37 And the experimentalists are out there.
    2:31:38 They’re in the middle of the night.
    2:31:47 You know, they’re working all night long, and they’re banging on the thing, you know, literally driving trucks, slamming the brakes on to see the noise that it creates.
    2:31:53 And so they’re really messing with the machine, really interfering with it just to kind of calibrate how much noise can this thing tolerate.
    2:31:56 And I guess the story is, is they get tired.
    2:31:59 There’s an instrument in Louisiana, and there’s one in Washington State, and they go home.
    2:32:01 Put their tools down.
    2:32:02 They go home.
    2:32:06 They leave the instrument locked, though, mercifully.
    2:32:17 And it’s something like within the span of an hour of them driving back to their humble abodes that they have in these remote regions where they built these instruments.
    2:32:27 This gravitational wave washes over, I think it hits Louisiana first, and travels across the U.S., brings the instrument in Washington State.
    2:32:34 It began, you know, over a billion and a half years ago, before multicellular organisms had emerged on the Earth.
    2:32:39 Just imagine this from, like, a distant view, this collision course, right?
    2:32:42 And it’s the centenary.
    2:32:46 It’s the year Einstein published general relativity.
    2:32:50 So it was this, you know, a hundred years.
    2:32:59 I mean, just think about where that signal was when Einstein in 1915 wrote down the general theory of relativity.
    2:33:00 It was on its way here.
    2:33:02 It was almost here.
    2:33:10 What do you think is cooler, Einstein’s general relativity or LIGO?
    2:33:18 Well, I can’t disparage my friends, but of course, relativity is just so all-encompassing.
    2:33:19 No, but hold on a second.
    2:33:24 All-encompassing, super powerful leap of a theory.
    2:33:24 Yeah.
    2:33:26 And…
    2:33:27 They built it.
    2:33:28 They built it.
    2:33:28 I don’t know, man.
    2:33:42 Because I don’t know, because, you know, yeah, humans getting together and building the thing, that’s really ultimately what impacts the world, right?
    2:33:43 Yeah.
    2:33:50 I mean, I just, as I said, my admiration for Ray and Kip and the entire team is enormous.
    2:33:54 And, you know, just imagining Ray had been out there on site.
    2:33:59 He had just left to go back home, wakes up in the middle of the night and sees it.
    2:34:00 You know, can you imagine?
    2:34:03 And there’s a signal, you know?
    2:34:05 There’s something in the log.
    2:34:06 He’s like, what the hell is that?
    2:34:13 So speaking of the human story, you also wrote the book, A Madman, Dreams of Turing Machines.
    2:34:17 It connects two geniuses of the 20th century, Alan Turing and Gödel.
    2:34:21 What specific threads connect these two minds?
    2:34:22 Yeah.
    2:34:26 I was really mesmerized by these two characters.
    2:34:37 People know of Alan Turing for having ideated about the computer, being the person to really imagine that.
    2:34:40 But his work began with thinking about Gödel’s work.
    2:34:41 That’s where it began.
    2:34:49 And it began with this phenomenon of undecidable propositions or unprovable propositions.
    2:34:54 So there was something huge that happened in mathematics.
    2:35:00 People imagined that any problem in math could technically be proven to be true.
    2:35:07 It doesn’t mean human beings are going to prove every fact about everything in mathematics, but, you know, it should be provable, right?
    2:35:10 I mean, it seemed kind of, it’s not that wild supposition.
    2:35:13 Everyone believed this, all the great mathematicians.
    2:35:16 Hilbert was a call of his to prove that.
    2:35:19 And Gödel, a very strange character.
    2:35:21 Very unusual.
    2:35:23 He was a Platonist.
    2:35:29 He literally believed that mathematical objects had an existential reality.
    2:35:33 He wasn’t so sure about this reality, this reality he struggled with.
    2:35:42 He was distrustful of physical reality, but he absolutely took very seriously a Platonic reality and often his own way of thinking.
    2:35:49 He believed that there were facts, that there were facts, that there were facts, even among the numbers, that could never be proven to be true.
    2:36:05 To think about that, how wild that is, that even a fact about numbers seems very simple, could be true and unprovable, could never exist as a theorem, for instance, in mathematics, unreachable.
    2:36:10 This incompleteness result was very disturbing.
    2:36:14 Essentially, it’s equivalent to saying there’s no theory of everything for mathematics.
    2:36:17 It was very disturbing to people, but it was very profound.
    2:36:25 Alan Turing got involved in this because he was thinking about uncomputable numbers.
    2:36:31 That led him, what’s an uncomputable number?
    2:36:33 A number like 0.175.
    2:36:35 It just goes on forever with no pattern.
    2:36:39 I can’t even figure out how to generate it.
    2:36:41 There’s no rule for making that number.
    2:36:47 He was able to prove that there were such things as these uncomputable, effectively unknowable numbers.
    2:36:51 That might not sound like a big deal, but it was actually really quite profound.
    2:36:56 He was relating to Godel intellectually, right, in the space of ideas.
    2:37:01 But he goes a very different path, almost philosophically the opposite direction.
    2:37:05 He starts to think about machines.
    2:37:07 He starts to think about mechanizing thought.
    2:37:09 He starts to think, what is a proof?
    2:37:11 How does a mathematician reason?
    2:37:12 What does it mean to reason at all?
    2:37:13 What does it mean to think?
    2:37:24 And he begins to imagine inventing a machine that will execute certain orders, you know, mechanize thought in a specific way.
    2:37:25 Well, maybe I can get a machine.
    2:37:28 I can imagine a machine that does this kind of thinking.
    2:37:34 And that he can prove that even a machine could not compute these uncomputable numbers.
    2:37:45 But where he ends up is the idea of a universal machine that computes, essentially can take different software and execute different jobs, right?
    2:37:49 We don’t have a different computer to connect to the Internet than we do to write papers.
    2:37:58 It’s one machine and one piece of hardware, but it can do all of these, this huge variety of tasks.
    2:38:01 And so he really does invent the computer, essentially.
    2:38:17 And famously, he uses that thinking in a very primitive form in the war effort, where he’s recruited to help break the German Enigma Code, which is heavily encrypted and largely believed to be uncrackable code.
    2:38:32 And people believe that Turing and his very small group actually turned the tide of the war in favor of the Allies precisely by using a combination of this thinking and just sheer ingenuity and some luck.
    2:38:43 But the other profound revelation that Turing has is that, well, maybe we’re just machines, right?
    2:38:45 And just biological machines.
    2:38:47 And this is a huge shift for him.
    2:38:55 It feels very different from Godel, who doesn’t really believe in reality and thinks numbers are platonic realities.
    2:38:59 And Turing kind of thinking, we’re kind of like, we’re actually machines and we could be replicated.
    2:39:05 So, of course, Turing’s influence is still widely felt.
    2:39:06 On many levels.
    2:39:08 On many levels, yeah.
    2:39:15 In complexity theories, in theoretical computer science and mathematics, but also in philosophy with his famous Turing test paper.
    2:39:25 So, like you said, conceiving, like, what is the connection that, I guess, Gerard never really made between mathematics and humanity, Turing did.
    2:39:32 But I think there’s another connection to those two people is that they’re both, in their own way, kind of tormented humans.
    2:39:33 Yeah, they were very tormented.
    2:39:41 What aspect of that contributed to who they are and what ideas they developed?
    2:39:43 I mean, I think so much.
    2:39:55 I don’t want to promote the kind of trite trope of the mad genius, you know, if you’re brilliant, you are insane.
    2:39:56 I don’t think that.
    2:39:58 I don’t think if you’re insane, you’re brilliant.
    2:40:19 But I do think if somebody who’s very brilliant, who also chooses not to go for regular gratification in life, they don’t go for money, they don’t necessarily value creature comforts, they’re not leveraging for fame.
    2:40:21 I mean, they’re really after something different.
    2:40:26 I think that can lead to a kind of runaway instability, actually, sometimes.
    2:40:31 So, they’re already outside of kind of social norms.
    2:40:34 They’re already outside of normal connections with people.
    2:40:36 They’ve already made that break.
    2:40:39 And I think that makes them more vulnerable.
    2:40:54 So, Gödel did have a wife and a strong relationship, as far as I understand, and was a successful mathematician and ended up at the Institute for Advanced Study, where he walked with Einstein to the Institute every day.
    2:40:57 And they talked about it.
    2:40:59 And he proved certain really unusual things in relativity.
    2:41:08 You made reference to these rotating galaxies we were talking, and actually, Gödel had a model of a rotating universe that you could travel backwards in time.
    2:41:10 It was mathematically correct.
    2:41:14 Showed Einstein that within relativity, you could time travel.
    2:41:19 Just an unbelievably influential and brilliant man.
    2:41:22 But he was probably a paranoid schizophrenic.
    2:41:26 He did have breaks with reality.
    2:41:40 He was, I think, quite distrustful and feared the government, feared his food was being poisoned, and ultimately, literally starved himself to death.
    2:41:52 And it’s such an extreme outcome for such a facile mind, for such a brilliant mind.
    2:41:58 I think it’s important not to glorify romanticized madness or suffering.
    2:42:10 But to me, you could flip that around and just be inspired by the peculiar maladies of a human mind, how they can be leveraged and channeled creatively.
    2:42:11 Oh, yeah.
    2:42:16 I think a lot of us, obviously, probably every human has those peculiar qualities.
    2:42:23 You know, I talk to people sometimes about just my own psychology, and I’m extremely self-critical.
    2:42:34 And I’m drawn to the beauty in people, but because I make myself vulnerable to the world, I can really be hurt by people.
    2:42:38 And that thing, okay, okay, you can lay that out, this particular human, okay?
    2:42:46 And, you know, there’s a bunch of people that will say, well, many of those things you don’t want to do.
    2:42:48 Maybe don’t be so self-critical.
    2:42:50 Maybe don’t be so open to the world.
    2:42:56 Maybe have a little bit more reason about how you interact with the outside world.
    2:42:58 It’s like, yeah, maybe.
    2:43:05 Or maybe be that, and be that fully, and channel that into a productive life, into, we’re all going to die.
    2:43:15 In the time we have on this earth, make the best of the particular weirdness that you have.
    2:43:19 And maybe you’ll create something special in this world.
    2:43:21 And in the end, it might destroy you.
    2:43:22 And I think a lot of these stories are that.
    2:43:23 It’s not that.
    2:43:24 Oh, yeah.
    2:43:30 It’s not like saying, oh, because in order to achieve anything great, you have to suffer.
    2:43:41 No, if you’re already suffering, if you’re already weird, if you’re already somehow don’t quite fit in your particular environment,
    2:43:43 in your particular part of society, use that somehow.
    2:43:46 Use the tension of that, the friction of that, to create something.
    2:43:55 I mean, that’s what I, you know, need you who suffered a lot from even, like, stupid stuff like stomach issues.
    2:43:56 Oh, yeah.
    2:43:57 That can be everything.
    2:43:58 Migraines.
    2:44:01 Psychosomatic or psychophysical.
    2:44:10 And all of a sudden, that’s the real, it’s like, that can somehow be channeled into a productive life.
    2:44:11 It should be inspiring.
    2:44:13 A lot of us suffer in different ways.
    2:44:14 Yeah.
    2:44:16 I’m a big believer in the tragic flaw, actually.
    2:44:19 I think the Greeks really had that right.
    2:44:21 You’re describing it.
    2:44:24 What makes us great is ultimately our downfall.
    2:44:25 Maybe that’s just inevitable.
    2:44:28 The choice could be not to be great.
    2:44:41 And I guess I, that’s sort of what I mean by they had already broken from a traditional path because they decided to pursue something so elusive.
    2:44:53 That would isolate them to some extent inevitably and that could fail, right?
    2:45:05 And I do think that all the character traits that went into their accomplishments were the same traits that went into their demise.
    2:45:07 And I think you’re right.
    2:45:11 You could say, well, you know, Lex, maybe you should not be so empathetic.
    2:45:14 Hold yourself, cut yourself off a little bit.
    2:45:14 Protect yourself.
    2:45:15 Right.
    2:45:25 But isn’t that exactly what you’re bringing, one of the elements that you’re bringing that makes something extraordinary in a space that lots of people try to break through.
    2:45:25 Yeah.
    2:45:36 And we should mention that for every girl at all in Turing, there’s millions of people who have tried and who have destroyed themselves and without reason.
    2:45:49 I would find it impossible to not pursue a discovery that I could imagine my way through if I can really see how to get there.
    2:46:00 I cannot imagine abandoning it for some other reason, fear that it would be misused, which is a real fear, right?
    2:46:01 I mean, it’s a real concern.
    2:46:09 I don’t think in my work, since I’m doing extra vengeance in the early universe or black holes, you know, I feel pretty safe.
    2:46:12 But, I mean, who knows, right?
    2:46:15 Bohr couldn’t think of a way to use quantum mechanics to kill people.
    2:46:22 I cannot imagine pulling back and saying, nope, I’m not going to finish this.
    2:46:26 You know, I’ll give you a counter example of an exceptionally brilliant person, Terrence Tao.
    2:46:27 Brilliant.
    2:46:28 Brilliant mathematician.
    2:46:29 Brilliant.
    2:46:43 He is better than, out of all the brilliant people I’ve ever met in the world, he’s better than anybody else at working on a hard problem and then realizing when it’s, for now, a little too hard.
    2:46:44 Oh, that I can do.
    2:46:46 It’s stepping away.
    2:46:47 Yeah.
    2:46:50 And he’s like, okay, this is now a weekend problem.
    2:46:50 Uh-huh.
    2:46:54 Because he has seen too much for him.
    2:46:55 Everybody’s different.
    2:47:04 But Grigori Perlman or Andrew Wiles, who give themselves fully, completely, for many years, over to a problem.
    2:47:04 Yes.
    2:47:06 And for every Grigori Perlman.
    2:47:07 And they might not have cracked it.
    2:47:08 Yep.
    2:47:11 So you choose your life story.
    2:47:11 I totally agree.
    2:47:16 Now, I’m not going to say sometimes I take too long to come to that conclusion.
    2:47:22 But I will proudly say, as most theoretical physicists should, that I kill most of my ideas myself.
    2:47:23 Okay.
    2:47:24 So you’re able to walk away.
    2:47:26 I am absolutely able to say, oh, that’s just not.
    2:47:34 I mean, I’m not going to deny that sometimes I maybe take a while to come to that conclusion longer than I should.
    2:47:35 But I will.
    2:47:36 I absolutely will.
    2:47:37 I will drop it.
    2:47:42 And that is, any self-respecting physicist should be able to do that.
    2:47:49 The problem is with somebody like Andrew Wiles, you were describing, who, to prove Fermat’s last theorem, it took him seven years.
    2:47:50 Was that the number?
    2:47:51 Something like that.
    2:47:56 He went up into his mother’s attic or something and did not emerge for seven years.
    2:47:58 Is that maybe he did.
    2:47:58 He was on the right track.
    2:47:59 He wasn’t wrong.
    2:48:02 But that’s how it could have been interminable.
    2:48:04 He still might not have gotten there.
    2:48:05 In the end.
    2:48:09 And so that’s the really difficult space to be in.
    2:48:11 Where you’re not wrong.
    2:48:13 You are on to something.
    2:48:19 But it’s just asymptotically approaching that solution and you’re never actually going to land it.
    2:48:21 That happens.
    2:48:25 And he had a really, it would break me, straight up break me.
    2:48:27 He had a proof.
    2:48:28 Yes.
    2:48:31 He announced it and somebody found a mistake in it.
    2:48:33 That would just break me.
    2:48:33 Yeah.
    2:48:35 Because now everybody gets excited.
    2:48:36 Right.
    2:48:40 And now you realize that it’s a failure and to go back.
    2:48:42 I mean, it was taking a year for people to check it.
    2:48:44 It’s not the kind of thing you’d look over in an afternoon.
    2:48:49 And then to have the will, to have the confidence and the patience to go back.
    2:48:50 Unbelievable story.
    2:48:51 And to rigorously go through, work through it.
    2:48:52 It’s a great story.
    2:48:53 But then there’s another great story.
    2:48:58 Gregory Perlman, who spent seven years and turned down the Fields Medal.
    2:48:59 He did it all alone.
    2:49:07 And then after he turned down the Fields Medal and the Millennial Prize, proving the Poincare conjecture, he just walked away.
    2:49:07 Yeah.
    2:49:10 Now, that’s a very different psychology.
    2:49:11 That’s wired differently.
    2:49:13 Doesn’t care about money.
    2:49:14 Doesn’t care about fame.
    2:49:15 Doesn’t care about anything else.
    2:49:15 Yep.
    2:49:21 In fact, in St. Petersburg, Russia, trying to get a conversation with him.
    2:49:29 It turns out, when you walk away and you’re a recluse and you enjoy that, you also don’t want to talk to some weird dude in a tie.
    2:49:34 So, it turns out, I’m trying, I’m trying.
    2:49:42 Well, if you look at someone like Turing, his eccentricities were completely different, right?
    2:49:46 It’s not as though there’s some mold, and I really don’t like it when it’s portrayed that way.
    2:49:53 These are really individuals who were still lost in their own minds, but in very different ways.
    2:49:59 And Turing was openly gay, really, during this time.
    2:50:04 You know, he was working during the war, World War II, so we understand the era.
    2:50:10 And it was illegal in Britain at the time.
    2:50:17 And he kind of refused to conceal himself.
    2:50:24 There was a time when the kind of attitude was, well, we’re just going to ignore it.
    2:50:30 But he had been robbed by somebody that he had picked up somewhere.
    2:50:31 I think it was in Manchester.
    2:50:33 And it was such a small thing.
    2:50:34 I don’t know what they took.
    2:50:35 It took like nothing.
    2:50:37 You know, it was nothing.
    2:50:40 But he couldn’t tolerate it.
    2:50:41 He goes to the police.
    2:50:43 And he tells them.
    2:50:45 And then he’s arrested.
    2:50:46 He’s the criminal.
    2:50:49 Because it involved this homosexual act.
    2:50:57 Now, here you have somebody who made a major contribution to the Allies winning the war.
    2:50:59 I mean, it’s just unbelievable.
    2:51:03 Not to mention the genius, mathematical genius.
    2:51:07 I mean, he saved the lives of the people that were doing this to him.
    2:51:13 And they essentially chemically castrated him as a punishment.
    2:51:14 That was his sentence.
    2:51:18 And he became very depressed and suicidal.
    2:51:25 And the story is he was obsessed with Snow White, which was recently released.
    2:51:32 And he used to chant one of the little, I don’t know if you would call them, poem songs.
    2:51:34 Dip the apple in the brew.
    2:51:37 Let the sleeping death seep through.
    2:51:38 It was a chant from Snow White.
    2:51:46 And the belief is that he dipped an apple in cyanide and bit from the poison apple.
    2:51:53 Now, I don’t know if this is apocryphal, but people think that the apple on the Macintosh with the bite out of it is a reference to Turing.
    2:51:54 Now, some people deny this.
    2:51:54 That’s nice.
    2:51:55 That’s nice.
    2:52:01 But some people say he did that so his mother could believe that maybe it was an accident.
    2:52:05 But, yeah, quite a terrible end.
    2:52:09 Yeah, but two of the greatest humans ever.
    2:52:23 I think the reason why I tie them together, not just because ultimately their work is so connected, but because there’s this sort of impossibility of understanding them.
    2:52:28 There’s this sort of impossibility of proving something about their lives.
    2:52:33 That even if you try to write factual biography, there’s something that eludes you.
    2:52:40 And I felt like that’s kind of fundamental to the mathematics, the incompleteness, the undecidable, the uncomputable.
    2:52:49 So, structurally, it was about what we can kind of know and what we can believe to be true but can’t ever really know.
    2:52:56 Limitations of formal systems, limitations of biography, limitations of fiction and nonfiction.
    2:52:57 Limitations.
    2:53:00 So, there’s so many layers to you.
    2:53:06 So, one of which there’s this romantic notion of just understanding humans, exploring humans.
    2:53:13 Then there’s the exploring science, then there’s the exploring the very rigorous, detailed physics and cosmology of things.
    2:53:16 So, there’s the kind of artistry.
    2:53:23 So, I saw that you’re the chief science officer of Pioneer Works, which is mostly like an artist type of situation.
    2:53:24 It’s a place in Brooklyn.
    2:53:30 Can you explain to me what that is and what role does art play in your life?
    2:53:30 Yeah.
    2:53:32 I can start with Pioneer Works.
    2:53:36 Pioneer Works, in some sense, it was inevitable that I would land at Pioneer Works.
    2:53:42 It felt like I was marching there for many years and just it came together again like this collision.
    2:53:46 It was founded by this artist, Dustin Yellen, very utopian idea.
    2:53:51 He bought this building, this old iron works factory called Pioneer Iron Works in Brooklyn.
    2:53:58 It was in complete disrepair, but a beautiful old building from the late 1800s.
    2:54:02 And he wanted to make this kind of collage.
    2:54:13 Dustin’s definitely a collage artist, works in glass, very big pieces, very imaginative and wild and narrative and into nature and consciousness.
    2:54:15 And I think he wanted to do that with people.
    2:54:23 He wanted a place of a collage, a living example of artists and scientists.
    2:54:27 And it was founded by Dustin and Gabriel Florence was the founding artistic director.
    2:54:31 It was started just before Hurricane Sandy.
    2:54:37 I don’t know if people feel as strongly about Hurricane Sandy as New Yorkers do, but it was a real moment around 2012, 2013.
    2:54:44 Sort of paused the project and you can even see the kind of water line on the brick of where Sandy was.
    2:54:51 I came in and collided with these two shortly after that, and it really was like a collision.
    2:54:54 I’m science, you know, they’re art.
    2:54:57 Gabe makes everything, builds everything with his bare hands.
    2:54:58 Dustin’s a dreamer.
    2:55:00 They love science.
    2:55:02 They really wanted science, but science is hard to access.
    2:55:10 I have always loved the translation of science in literature, in art.
    2:55:16 I love fiction writers, like really literary fiction writers who dabble thinking about science.
    2:55:19 And I very firmly believe science is part of culture.
    2:55:21 I just, I know it to be true.
    2:55:25 I don’t think of myself as doing outreach or education.
    2:55:26 I don’t like those labels.
    2:55:39 I’m doing culture and artists in their studio working out problems, understanding materials, building a body of work.
    2:55:44 Nobody says to them when they exhibit, why are you doing outreach or are you doing education?
    2:55:46 You know, it’s the logical extension.
    2:56:01 So I feel that if you’ve had the privilege of knowing some of these people, of seeing a little bit from the summit, if you’ve had a little glimpse yourself, that you bring it back to the world.
    2:56:03 So we, boom, exploded.
    2:56:06 Pioneerics became science and art.
    2:56:10 It’s not artists who all do science or scientists who do art.
    2:56:14 It’s real hardcore scientists talking about science on a lot of live events.
    2:56:21 We have a magazine called Broadcast where we feature all of the disciplines rubbing together, artists working on all kinds of things.
    2:56:27 When I first started doing events there, my first guest, like you, I was talking to people.
    2:56:30 And this was like, I know how to talk to people because I know these guys.
    2:56:34 And I’ve been on the interviewee side so much.
    2:56:35 I know exactly.
    2:56:38 It was like fully formed for me how to do those conversations.
    2:56:40 Yeah, you’re extremely good at that also.
    2:56:40 Yeah, thank you.
    2:56:41 I appreciate that.
    2:56:44 You learn how to do it too, though.
    2:56:46 I mean, I don’t think the first one I did, I think I’ve learned, right?
    2:56:50 And you acquire, you get better, which is really interesting.
    2:56:51 And I love to study.
    2:56:52 I think you do too.
    2:56:55 I really look into the material.
    2:56:57 And I love science.
    2:56:58 I really do.
    2:57:03 I want to talk to a CRISPR biologist because I don’t understand it and I want to understand it.
    2:57:08 And I saw there’s a bunch of cool events and a very, very fascinating variety of humans.
    2:57:09 Yes.
    2:57:12 We have a really fascinating variety of humans.
    2:57:13 That’s a good way of putting it.
    2:57:14 Yeah.
    2:57:20 So you put in my mental map of like, it’s a cool place to go and visit when in New York.
    2:57:21 Yes.
    2:57:22 You have to come see us.
    2:57:24 I think you would love it.
    2:57:25 Also, I should mention fashion.
    2:57:28 I’ve seen you do a bunch of talks and there’s a lot of fashion.
    2:57:29 Oh, yeah.
    2:57:30 Oh, my God.
    2:57:31 Appreciation of fashion going on.
    2:57:38 I am so, you’re giving me an opportunity to give a shout out to Andrea Lauer, who’s a designer
    2:57:43 who makes these amazing jumpsuits that I often wear in a lot of my events.
    2:57:49 She has a jumpsuit design line called Risen Division and she just makes these incredible,
    2:57:50 they’re fantastic.
    2:57:53 We also design patches for all of our events.
    2:57:56 So there are these string theory patches and consciousness patches.
    2:57:58 We should show this as overlays.
    2:57:59 Right.
    2:58:02 Hopefully, there’ll be nice pictures floating about everywhere.
    2:58:06 So, you know, I think all of this is just, I just like to experiment with life.
    2:58:09 I think making the magazine was a big, wild experiment.
    2:58:10 You said with life?
    2:58:11 With life.
    2:58:11 Nice.
    2:58:11 Yeah.
    2:58:19 This kind of idea that we were just describing is, I find it hard to stop the momentum if
    2:58:22 I think something can, I can make something.
    2:58:24 I have to try to make it.
    2:58:30 And to me, this is the closest I come to experimentation and collaboration.
    2:58:35 Because even though I collaborate theoretically, I have great collaborators, Brian Green, Massimo
    2:58:36 Parati, Dan Cabot.
    2:58:38 These are my really close collaborators.
    2:58:44 A lot of theoretical physics is alone and you’re in your mind a lot.
    2:58:52 This is something that really was built, this triad of Dustin, Gabe, and I, and all the amazing
    2:58:54 people who work there on our amazing board.
    2:58:55 We really are doing it together.
    2:59:01 You take one element out and it starts to, it starts to change shape.
    2:59:03 And that’s a very interesting experience, I think.
    2:59:06 And making things is an interesting experience.
    2:59:11 Since you mentioned literature, is there books that had an impact on your life, whether it’s
    2:59:15 literature, fiction, nonfiction?
    2:59:21 I love fiction, which I think people expect me to read a lot of, short of sci-fi or nonfiction.
    2:59:23 I mostly read fiction.
    2:59:28 I had a syllabus of great fiction writers that had science in it.
    2:59:30 And I love that syllabus.
    2:59:33 Can you ever make that public or no?
    2:59:34 Yeah, I suppose I could.
    2:59:36 But I can tell you some of them as they come to mind.
    2:59:41 Katsuya Ishiguro, who won the Nobel Prize, wrote Remains of the Day, probably most famously.
    2:59:44 His book, Never Let Me Go.
    2:59:46 It’s unbelievable.
    2:59:47 Totally devastating.
    2:59:49 Stunning.
    2:59:51 I see, I really love literature.
    2:59:57 So when people can do that with these very abstract themes, it’s sort of my favorite space
    2:59:59 for literature.
    3:00:01 Martin Amos wrote a book that runs backwards, Time’s Arrow.
    3:00:06 I love some of his other books even more, but Time’s Arrow is pretty clever.
    3:00:14 So you like it when these non-traditional mechanisms are applied to tell a story that’s fundamentally
    3:00:17 human, that there’s some dramatic tragic.
    3:00:18 And the beauty of the language.
    3:00:21 Like, I really appreciate that.
    3:00:24 Even Orwell is amazing.
    3:00:26 You know, Hitchens, writing on Orwell is amazing.
    3:00:31 There was some plays on the syllabus.
    3:00:33 I have to think of what else was in there.
    3:00:37 But there was one book that I think was kind of surprising that I think is an absolute masterpiece,
    3:00:38 which is The Road.
    3:00:40 And you might say, in what sense is The Road a science?
    3:00:44 Well, first of all, Cormac McCarthy absolutely loves scientists and science.
    3:00:48 And you can feel this very subtle influence in that book.
    3:00:59 It’s a really remarkable, precise, stunning, ethereal, all of these things at once.
    3:01:02 And there’s no who, what, where, when, or how.
    3:01:07 You might guess it’s a nuclear event that kicks off the book.
    3:01:11 A lot of people know The Road, I think, from the movie, but really the book is magnificent.
    3:01:18 And it’s very, very abstract, but there’s a sense to me in which it is, science is structuring.
    3:01:22 And still, fundamentally, that book is about the human story.
    3:01:23 Yeah, absolutely, the boy.
    3:01:24 Yeah.
    3:01:30 So, the science plays a role in creating the world, and within it, there’s still, really,
    3:01:40 it’s a different way to explore human dynamics in a way that’s maybe land some clarity and depth
    3:01:45 that maybe a more direct telling of the story will not, yeah.
    3:01:52 And even surreal worlds that, I mean, to me, I don’t know why, but I return to Orwell’s Animal Farm a lot.
    3:02:00 And it’s these kind of like, it’s another art form to be able to tell a simple story with some surreal elements.
    3:02:02 Mm-hmm, yeah.
    3:02:03 Well, just simple language.
    3:02:04 Mm-hmm.
    3:02:05 Oh, Animal Farm’s incredible.
    3:02:11 In fact, some of the, I’ve kind of played with, you know, some animals are more equal than others.
    3:02:16 There are, in Godel Turing’s work, there were some infinities that are bigger than others.
    3:02:25 Yeah, there’s certain books just kind of inject themselves into our culture in a way that just reverberates and,
    3:02:31 I don’t know, hasn’t, creates culture, not just, like, influences.
    3:02:32 Oh, yeah.
    3:02:36 It’s just like, it’s quite incredible how writing and literature can do that.
    3:02:37 Yeah.
    3:02:42 If you could have one definitive answer to one single question, this is the thing I mentioned to you.
    3:02:42 Oh, this is so hard.
    3:02:43 Yeah.
    3:02:47 Well, there’s an oracle, and you get to talk to that oracle.
    3:02:51 You can ask multiple questions, but it has to be on that topic.
    3:02:52 So, just clarify.
    3:02:53 Mm-hmm.
    3:02:58 What mystery of the universe would you want that oracle to help you with?
    3:02:59 You know, it’s funny.
    3:03:03 I should say the obvious thing, but I feel like, I almost feel like it would be greedy.
    3:03:06 I think of a complicated response to this.
    3:03:12 The obvious thing for me to say would be, I want to understand quantum gravity, or if gravity’s emergent.
    3:03:15 It’s not even something I work on day to day.
    3:03:23 You know, I mostly just look with interest at what others are doing, and if I think I can jump in, I would, but I’m not jumping into the fray.
    3:03:26 But, obviously, that’s the big, that’s the big one.
    3:03:31 And there is a sort of sense that with that will come the answers to all these other things.
    3:03:39 My complicated relationship is that, well, you know, part of the scientific disposition isn’t having stuff you don’t know the answer to.
    3:03:45 I mean, we’re not going to have all the answers, I hope, because then, sort of, then what?
    3:03:46 Right?
    3:03:47 It’s sort of dystopian.
    3:03:48 I totally agree with you.
    3:03:51 There’s some, I like the mysteries we have.
    3:03:52 Yeah.
    3:03:57 I kind of had this assumption that there will always be mysteries, so you’ll want to keep solving them.
    3:03:57 Right.
    3:03:58 They will lead to more.
    3:04:06 In the same way that relativity led to black holes, black holes led to the information loss paradox, or the Big Bang, or what happened before, or the multiverse.
    3:04:12 It’s because we learned so much, we were able to escalate to the next level of abstraction.
    3:04:19 Yeah, by the way, we should mention that if you’re talking about this oracle, and even if you ask the obvious question about quantum gravity,
    3:04:30 I almost guarantee you with 100% probability that even if all your questions are answered, it’s impossible to get to the end of your questions.
    3:04:31 Right.
    3:04:35 Because it says, you know, the oracle will say, no, you can’t unify.
    3:04:37 Then you say, well, wait.
    3:04:38 Yeah, yeah, yeah.
    3:04:39 And then you say emergent.
    3:04:44 And then the oracle will say, well, everything you think is fundamental is not.
    3:04:45 It’s emergent.
    3:04:49 It’s like, okay, well, this is, we need to, there’s more questions.
    3:04:50 That’s right.
    3:04:54 I mean, it’s been 100 years more since relativity, and we’re still picking it apart.
    3:04:55 Yeah.
    3:04:56 No.
    3:04:59 And there will be, there may be new ones.
    3:04:59 Mm-hmm.
    3:05:04 You write that eventually all our history in this universe will be erased.
    3:05:05 Mm-hmm.
    3:05:06 How does that make you feel?
    3:05:09 Yeah, it’s a tough thought.
    3:05:15 But, again, I think there’s a way in which we can come to terms with that, that that’s kind of poetic.
    3:05:19 You know, you build something in the sand, and then you erase it.
    3:05:23 Yeah.
    3:05:31 So I think it’s just a reminder that we have to be concerned about our immediate experience, too, right?
    3:05:49 how we are to those around us, how they are to us, what we leave behind in the near term, what we leave behind in the long term, how we contributed, and did we, you know, did we contribute overall net positive?
    3:06:09 Eventually, I think it’s kind of hard to imagine, but yes, all of these Nobel Prizes, all of these mathematical proofs, all of these conversations, all of these ideas, all of the influence we have on each other, even the AI, eventually, will expire.
    3:06:15 Well, at the very least, we can focus on drawing something beautiful in the sand.
    3:06:16 Yeah.
    3:06:17 Before it’s washed away.
    3:06:20 Well, this was an incredible conversation.
    3:06:22 I’m truly grateful for the work you do.
    3:06:24 And me for your work.
    3:06:25 Thanks so much for having me.
    3:06:26 Thank you for talking today.
    3:06:26 Yeah.
    3:06:27 Lots of fun.
    3:06:30 Thanks for listening to this conversation with Jan 11.
    3:06:34 To support this podcast, please check out our sponsors in the description.
    3:06:41 And now, let me leave you with some words from Albert Einstein on the topic of relativity.
    3:06:46 When you’re courting a nice girl, an hour seems like a second.
    3:06:51 When you sit on a red-hot cinder, a second seems like an hour.
    3:06:54 That’s relativity.
    3:06:56 Thank you for listening.
    3:06:58 And hope to see you next time.

    Janna Levin is a theoretical physicist and cosmologist specializing in black holes, cosmology of extra dimensions, topology of the universe, and gravitational waves.
    Thank you for listening ❤ Check out our sponsors: https://lexfridman.com/sponsors/ep468-sc
    See below for timestamps, transcript, and to give feedback, submit questions, contact Lex, etc.

    Transcript:
    https://lexfridman.com/janna-levin-transcript

    CONTACT LEX:
    Feedback – give feedback to Lex: https://lexfridman.com/survey
    AMA – submit questions, videos or call-in: https://lexfridman.com/ama
    Hiring – join our team: https://lexfridman.com/hiring
    Other – other ways to get in touch: https://lexfridman.com/contact

    EPISODE LINKS:
    Janna’s X: https://x.com/JannaLevin
    Janna’s Website: https://jannalevin.com
    Janna’s Instagram: https://instagram.com/jannalevin
    Janna’s Substack: https://substack.com/@jannalevin
    Black Hole Survival Guide (book): https://amzn.to/3YkJzT5
    Black Hole Blues (book): https://amzn.to/42Nw7IE
    How the Universe Got Its Spots (book): https://amzn.to/4m5De8k
    A Madman Dreams of Turing Machines (book): https://amzn.to/3GGakvd

    SPONSORS:
    To support this podcast, check out our sponsors & get discounts:
    Brain.fm: Music for focus.
    Go to https://brain.fm/lex
    BetterHelp: Online therapy and counseling.
    Go to https://betterhelp.com/lex
    NetSuite: Business management software.
    Go to http://netsuite.com/lex
    Shopify: Sell stuff online.
    Go to https://shopify.com/lex
    AG1: All-in-one daily nutrition drink.
    Go to https://drinkag1.com/lex

    OUTLINE:
    (00:00) – Introduction
    (00:51) – Sponsors, Comments, and Reflections
    (09:21) – Black holes
    (16:55) – Formation of black holes
    (27:45) – Oppenheimer and the Atomic Bomb
    (34:08) – Inside the black hole
    (47:10) – Supermassive black holes
    (50:39) – Physics of spacetime
    (53:42) – General relativity
    (59:13) – Gravity
    (1:15:47) – Information paradox
    (1:24:17) – Fuzzballs & soft hair
    (1:27:28) – ER = EPR
    (1:34:07) – Firewall
    (1:42:59) – Extra dimensions
    (1:45:24) – Aliens
    (2:01:00) – Wormholes
    (2:11:57) – Dark matter and dark energy
    (2:22:00) – Gravitational waves
    (2:34:08) – Alan Turing and Kurt Godel
    (2:46:23) – Grigori Perelman, Andrew Wiles, and Terence Tao
    (2:52:58) – Art and science
    (3:02:37) – The biggest mystery

    PODCAST LINKS:
    – Podcast Website: https://lexfridman.com/podcast
    – Apple Podcasts: https://apple.co/2lwqZIr
    – Spotify: https://spoti.fi/2nEwCF8
    – RSS: https://lexfridman.com/feed/podcast/
    – Podcast Playlist: https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLrAXtmErZgOdP_8GztsuKi9nrraNbKKp4
    – Clips Channel: https://www.youtube.com/lexclips

  • #467 – Tim Sweeney: Fortnite, Unreal Engine, and the Future of Gaming

    #467 – Tim Sweeney: Fortnite, Unreal Engine, and the Future of Gaming

    AI transcript

    Tim Sweeney is a legendary video game programmer, founder and CEO of Epic Games that created the Unreal Engine, Fortnite, Gears of War, Unreal Tournament, and many other groundbreaking and influential video games.
    Thank you for listening ❤ Check out our sponsors: https://lexfridman.com/sponsors/ep467-sc
    See below for timestamps, and to give feedback, submit questions, contact Lex, etc.

    CONTACT LEX:
    Feedback – give feedback to Lex: https://lexfridman.com/survey
    AMA – submit questions, videos or call-in: https://lexfridman.com/ama
    Hiring – join our team: https://lexfridman.com/hiring
    Other – other ways to get in touch: https://lexfridman.com/contact

    EPISODE LINKS:
    Tim’s X: https://x.com/timsweeneyepic
    Epic Games: https://epicgames.com/

    SPONSORS:
    To support this podcast, check out our sponsors & get discounts:
    Notion: Note-taking and team collaboration.
    Go to https://notion.com/lex
    MasterClass: Online classes from world-class experts.
    Go to https://masterclass.com/lexpod
    Shopify: Sell stuff online.
    Go to https://shopify.com/lex
    AG1: All-in-one daily nutrition drink.
    Go to https://drinkag1.com/lex
    LMNT: Zero-sugar electrolyte drink mix.
    Go to https://drinkLMNT.com/lex

    OUTLINE:
    (00:00) – Introduction
    (08:25) – 10,000 hours programming
    (11:42) – Advice for young programmers
    (19:54) – Video games in the 80s and 90s
    (22:02) – Epic Games origin story
    (34:40) – Indie game development
    (40:34) – Unreal Engine
    (1:06:30) – Technical details of Unreal Engine
    (1:11:23) – Constructive solid geometry
    (1:17:21) – Dynamic lighting
    (1:21:51) – Volumetric fog
    (1:25:19) – John Carmack
    (1:27:05) – Evolution of Unreal Engine
    (1:33:21) – Unreal Engine 5
    (1:44:32) – Creating realistic humans
    (1:53:41) – Lumen global illumination
    (1:58:11) – Movies
    (2:12:53) – Simulating reality
    (2:25:08) – Metaverse
    (2:27:44) – Fortnite
    (2:31:40) – Scaling
    (2:47:04) – Game economies
    (2:48:33) – Standardizing the Metaverse
    (2:56:46) – Verse programming language
    (3:18:19) – Concurrency
    (3:25:56) – Unreal Engine 6
    (3:30:34) – Indie game developers
    (3:33:32) – Apple
    (3:48:12) – Epic Games Store
    (4:11:03) – Future of gaming
    (4:17:03) – Greatest games ever made
    (4:22:39) – GTA 6 and Rockstar Games
    (4:25:58) – Hope for the future

    PODCAST LINKS:
    – Podcast Website: https://lexfridman.com/podcast
    – Apple Podcasts: https://apple.co/2lwqZIr
    – Spotify: https://spoti.fi/2nEwCF8
    – RSS: https://lexfridman.com/feed/podcast/
    – Podcast Playlist: https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLrAXtmErZgOdP_8GztsuKi9nrraNbKKp4
    – Clips Channel: https://www.youtube.com/lexclips

    SOCIAL LINKS:
    – X: https://x.com/lexfridman
    – Instagram: https://instagram.com/lexfridman
    – TikTok: https://tiktok.com/@lexfridman
    – LinkedIn: https://linkedin.com/in/lexfridman
    – Facebook: https://facebook.com/lexfridman
    – Patreon: https://patreon.com/lexfridman
    – Telegram: https://t.me/lexfridman
    – Reddit: https://reddit.com/r/lexfridman

  • #466 – Jeffrey Wasserstrom: China, Xi Jinping, Trade War, Taiwan, Hong Kong, Mao

    #466 – Jeffrey Wasserstrom: China, Xi Jinping, Trade War, Taiwan, Hong Kong, Mao

    AI transcript
    0:00:03 The following is a conversation with Jeffrey Wasserstrom,
    0:00:05 a historian of modern China.
    0:00:09 And now, a quick few second mention of each sponsor.
    0:00:10 Check them out in the description.
    0:00:12 It’s the best way to support this podcast.
    0:00:15 We got Oracle for cloud computing,
    0:00:18 Tax Network USA for taxes,
    0:00:21 Shopify for selling stuff online,
    0:00:23 Element for electrolytes,
    0:00:26 and AG1 for a daily multivitamin.
    0:00:27 Choose wisely, my friends.
    0:00:31 Let me make the public service announcement
    0:00:34 that I’ve done a few times about these ad reads.
    0:00:35 I do them on RSS.
    0:00:38 I do them on Apple Podcasts, on Spotify.
    0:00:42 Based on the feedback I’ve gotten in the survey,
    0:00:44 lexfriedman.com slash survey.
    0:00:46 Many enjoy it.
    0:00:51 A quick, random, non-sequitur insights
    0:00:55 into whatever is going on in this particular mind.
    0:00:57 I don’t do the ad reads in a normal way.
    0:01:00 Half the time, I don’t really even talk about the sponsor.
    0:01:02 I’m just talking about stuff that I’m thinking about.
    0:01:06 Except maybe for a bit of a shout-out to the sponsor
    0:01:07 for being awesome
    0:01:09 and a quick description of what they do.
    0:01:12 Sometimes the sponsor itself, the topic,
    0:01:15 inspires me to think about certain kinds of topics.
    0:01:16 Anyway, that’s the point,
    0:01:19 to continuously be innovating,
    0:01:20 how to do this podcast thing.
    0:01:23 What is this?
    0:01:24 Who am I?
    0:01:26 And who are you?
    0:01:30 And why is it the connection between the two of us
    0:01:33 is so real?
    0:01:36 Me as a podcast fan,
    0:01:37 I listen to a lot of podcasts,
    0:01:41 and I legitimately feel like I am friends
    0:01:44 with the person I’m listening to.
    0:01:48 I think there’s a real way in which that is fundamentally true.
    0:01:50 I think people mock that.
    0:01:54 I think people say that that’s not a real connection.
    0:01:55 I think it’s a real connection.
    0:01:56 I don’t know.
    0:01:59 My life is fundamentally better for these friendships.
    0:02:02 Real or not real.
    0:02:07 Who’s to say I can’t have some great imaginary friends?
    0:02:11 Anyway, hopefully these ad reads are interesting.
    0:02:14 If you skip them, please still check out the sponsors.
    0:02:17 Sign up, get whatever they’re selling.
    0:02:18 I enjoy their stuff.
    0:02:19 Maybe you will too.
    0:02:23 Also, if you want to get in touch with me for whatever reason,
    0:02:25 go to lexfreeman.com slash contact.
    0:02:27 And now, on to the full ad reads.
    0:02:28 Let’s go.
    0:02:31 This episode is brought to you by Oracle,
    0:02:35 a company providing a fully integrated stack
    0:02:37 of cloud applications and cloud platform services.
    0:02:40 These guys do infrastructure well.
    0:02:43 Single platform for the infrastructure,
    0:02:44 for the database, application development,
    0:02:48 and obviously injecting AI into everything,
    0:02:49 including the pitches.
    0:02:54 These guys do compute infrastructure well
    0:02:56 and have been doing it for many, many years.
    0:02:59 Obviously, this episode about China,
    0:03:04 Taiwan, Hong Kong, trade,
    0:03:06 is very relevant to this topic.
    0:03:10 Boy, I sit back and think about the future of compute
    0:03:16 and how it is inextricably connected to the geopolitics,
    0:03:21 to the bullshit, to the madness of the online world
    0:03:22 where they’re talking shit to each other.
    0:03:27 The individual humans of the individual nations
    0:03:29 and the leaders of those humans
    0:03:32 and the leaders of those nations.
    0:03:34 Anyway, cut your bill in half
    0:03:36 when you switch to OCI,
    0:03:37 Oracle Cloud Infrastructure.
    0:03:40 Offer is for new U.S. customers
    0:03:42 with a minimum financial commitment
    0:03:45 to see if you qualify at oracle.com slash lex.
    0:03:47 That’s oracle.com slash lex.
    0:03:53 This episode is also brought to you by Tax Network, USA,
    0:03:57 a full-service tax firm focused on solving tax problems
    0:04:00 for individuals and small businesses.
    0:04:03 Whenever I see those three letters, USA,
    0:04:05 my heart fills with pride.
    0:04:06 I don’t know.
    0:04:09 I see stuff online where people are talking shit
    0:04:10 about this country,
    0:04:15 where there’s experts and historians
    0:04:17 and scholars and trolls
    0:04:21 talking about the collapsing empire
    0:04:23 that is the United States.
    0:04:26 There may be elements that signal that.
    0:04:28 There may be reasons for concern.
    0:04:30 But let’s not forget
    0:04:32 how incredibly brilliant
    0:04:35 the humans that make up this country are,
    0:04:37 how resourceful they are,
    0:04:40 how vibrant their creativity
    0:04:43 there really is a consequence
    0:04:44 to the freedoms,
    0:04:46 the individual freedoms we experience
    0:04:47 as humans here.
    0:04:50 But anyway, USA, I love this country.
    0:04:53 And yeah, a lot of it does run on taxes.
    0:04:57 The reality is the tax law is complicated.
    0:04:59 And so you have to figure out this mess
    0:05:01 and Tax Network, USA, helps you with the mess.
    0:05:04 If you missed the April 15th deadline,
    0:05:06 yes, I’m talking to you.
    0:05:07 I see you.
    0:05:09 We’re in this together, my friend.
    0:05:11 I’m not very good with deadlines.
    0:05:14 Perhaps you’re not very good at deadlines.
    0:05:16 I’m giving you a virtual hug.
    0:05:18 Let’s get our shit together
    0:05:21 and claw our way out of the whatever bullshit
    0:05:23 we’ve got ourselves into.
    0:05:26 Talk with one of their strategists for free today.
    0:05:34 Call 1-800-958-1000 or go to TNUSA.com slash Lex.
    0:05:37 This episode is also brought to you by Shopify,
    0:05:41 a platform designed for anyone to sell anywhere
    0:05:42 with a great looking online store.
    0:05:45 I don’t know why I said the beginning of that sentence fast.
    0:05:47 Sometimes I speak quickly, sometimes slowly.
    0:05:52 My mind is just not made for speaking.
    0:05:55 I think very fast and speak very slowly.
    0:06:02 And it creates for some really interesting nonlinear dynamics
    0:06:06 of interacting between a brain that’s way ahead of the mouth.
    0:06:08 and the mouth struggles.
    0:06:14 The struggle creates a third-person kind of anxiety
    0:06:17 that the brain has to also deal with
    0:06:19 while it’s thinking about the next thing,
    0:06:22 also coming up with different trajectories of thought.
    0:06:25 And so I’m generating a mess,
    0:06:27 but I’m enjoying it.
    0:06:29 I think I’m supposed to talk about Shopify.
    0:06:32 I’m not doing so well at that right now.
    0:06:36 It’s a website, a platform, where you can sell stuff.
    0:06:39 By the way, a lot of really fascinating discussions
    0:06:43 about the way China thinks about its economy,
    0:06:46 about its politics,
    0:06:50 about the interplay between the government and the entrepreneur.
    0:06:53 I’ll probably do a lot more episodes on that topic.
    0:06:57 Shopify is a really interesting case study.
    0:07:00 China is a really interesting case study.
    0:07:04 So sign up for a $1 per month trial period
    0:07:06 at shopify.com slash lex.
    0:07:07 That’s all lowercase.
    0:07:08 Go to shopify.com slash lex
    0:07:10 and take your business to the next level today.
    0:07:14 This episode is brought to you by Element,
    0:07:18 my daily zero sugar and delicious electrolyte mix.
    0:07:21 I often think about the biochemistry of thirst.
    0:07:25 And no, not the Urban Dictionary definition of thirst,
    0:07:27 although I think about that as well.
    0:07:28 But in this particular topic,
    0:07:30 I’m thinking about the biochemistry
    0:07:36 of your body communicating with you,
    0:07:40 the neurobiology of awareness
    0:07:45 of the malnourishment of the rest of the body
    0:07:48 and how all of that evolved.
    0:07:51 Started as a bacteria, fish, mammal.
    0:07:55 Now we get thirsty, need the salt,
    0:07:57 need the electrolytes, need the water.
    0:07:58 I’m getting that in the brain.
    0:08:01 Sometimes the brain doesn’t tell you that directly.
    0:08:03 Sometimes it tells you that through a headache
    0:08:05 and you feel like shit.
    0:08:07 You wonder what’s going on.
    0:08:11 Well, a lot of that, a lot, a lot of life’s problems
    0:08:14 could be solved with a nap, with a shower,
    0:08:16 and with a drink of water,
    0:08:20 with magnesium, potassium, and sodium.
    0:08:22 It’s fucking ridiculous, really.
    0:08:27 We are just meat vehicles that need to chill out.
    0:08:31 Anyway, I am doing a bunch of interesting conversations
    0:08:33 about Darwinian evolution.
    0:08:35 Darwin, fascinating guy.
    0:08:37 Evolution, fascinating topic.
    0:08:38 I can’t wait.
    0:08:41 Get a sample pack for free with any purchase.
    0:08:43 Try it at drinkelement.com slash lex.
    0:08:46 This episode is also brought to you by
    0:08:50 AG1, an all-in-one daily drink
    0:08:52 to support better health and peak performance.
    0:08:55 I recently got a chance to hang out with my family
    0:08:58 and they’re all fans of AG1.
    0:09:01 And we talked about it and it’s great.
    0:09:03 It’s great how you’re talking to each of them.
    0:09:06 There’s just a different approach to health,
    0:09:09 but they’re all fighting the battle of being healthy
    0:09:10 and winning, honestly.
    0:09:14 I do see health as a kind of individual
    0:09:16 end-of-one puzzle that we all solve.
    0:09:20 We gather a lot of information as best we can.
    0:09:22 We understand the latest state-of-the-art science,
    0:09:24 but really at the end of the day,
    0:09:27 it’s a personal puzzle that has to be solved.
    0:09:31 How does a healthy lifestyle fit into all the rest
    0:09:33 of the anxieties, the psychology,
    0:09:36 the crazy schedule, the motivations,
    0:09:39 the ambitions, the insecurities, all of that?
    0:09:41 How do you figure out that puzzle?
    0:09:44 And do that in a way where it’s stable
    0:09:48 across weeks and months and becomes a ritual.
    0:09:50 And then, of course, the psychology of ritual
    0:09:51 comes into play.
    0:09:52 All that is really fascinating.
    0:09:53 All right.
    0:09:57 AG1 will give you one month’s supply of fish oil
    0:10:01 when you sign up at drinkag1.com slash lex.
    0:10:04 This is the Lex Friedman Podcast.
    0:10:06 To support it, please check out our sponsors
    0:10:07 in the description.
    0:10:09 And now, dear friends,
    0:10:12 here’s Jeffrey Wasserstrom.
    0:10:31 You’ve compared Xi Jinping and Mao Zedong in the past.
    0:10:34 What are the parallels between the two leaders?
    0:10:36 And where do they differ?
    0:10:39 Xi Jinping, of course, is the current leader of China
    0:10:40 for the past 12 years.
    0:10:43 And Mao Zedong was the communist leader of China
    0:10:45 from 1949 to 1976.
    0:10:48 So what are the commonalities?
    0:10:49 What are the differences?
    0:10:52 So the biggest commonality of them
    0:10:56 is that they’re both the subject of personality cults
    0:10:58 and that Mao was the center
    0:11:00 of a very intensely felt one
    0:11:02 from 1949 to 1976.
    0:11:03 And when he died, you know,
    0:11:06 there was tremendous outpouring of grief,
    0:11:09 even among people who had objectively suffered enormously
    0:11:11 because of his policies.
    0:11:15 Xi Jinping is the first leader in China since him
    0:11:19 who has had a sustained personality cult
    0:11:22 of the kind where if you walk into a bookstore in China,
    0:11:25 the first thing you see are books by him,
    0:11:26 collections of speeches.
    0:11:29 And when Mao was alive,
    0:11:31 you might have thought that’s sort of what happened
    0:11:32 with Communist Party leaders in China.
    0:11:34 But after Mao’s death,
    0:11:35 there was such an effort
    0:11:37 to not have that kind of personality cult
    0:11:39 that there was a tendency
    0:11:41 to not publish the speeches of a leader
    0:11:44 until they were done being in power.
    0:11:46 I was first in China in 1986,
    0:11:49 and you could go for days
    0:11:51 without being intensely aware
    0:11:53 of who was in charge of the party.
    0:11:56 But his face wasn’t everywhere.
    0:11:59 The newspaper wasn’t dominated
    0:12:00 with stories about him
    0:12:03 and quotations from his words
    0:12:04 and things like that.
    0:12:05 So with Xi Jinping,
    0:12:07 you’ve had a throwback to that period
    0:12:08 in Communist Party rule,
    0:12:10 which seemed as though it might be
    0:12:12 a part of the past.
    0:12:14 So that’s a key commonality.
    0:12:16 And a key difference
    0:12:19 is that Mao really reveled in chaos,
    0:12:22 in turning things upside down
    0:12:23 in a sense that,
    0:12:26 you know, he talked about class struggle,
    0:12:27 which came out of Marxism,
    0:12:29 but he also really,
    0:12:32 his favorite work of Chinese popular fiction
    0:12:33 was the Monkey King
    0:12:35 about this legendary figure
    0:12:37 who was this Monkey King
    0:12:40 who could turn the heavens upside down.
    0:12:41 So he reveled in disorder
    0:12:44 and thought disorder was a way
    0:12:45 to improve things.
    0:12:46 Xi Jinping is very orderly,
    0:12:48 is very concerned
    0:12:49 with kind of stability
    0:12:50 and predictability.
    0:12:52 So you can see them
    0:12:54 as very, very different that way.
    0:12:56 And Mao also liked to stir things up,
    0:12:57 liked to have people on the streets
    0:12:59 clamoring.
    0:13:00 So Xi Jinping,
    0:13:01 even though he has a personality cult,
    0:13:03 it’s not manifesting itself.
    0:13:05 He doesn’t like the idea
    0:13:06 of people on the streets
    0:13:09 in anything that can’t be controlled.
    0:13:11 So you can, you know,
    0:13:12 there are a lot of ways
    0:13:13 that they’re similar,
    0:13:14 a lot of ways they’re different.
    0:13:15 They’re also different,
    0:13:17 and this fits with this orderliness
    0:13:20 that Xi Jinping talks positively
    0:13:21 about Confucius
    0:13:24 and Confucian traditions in China.
    0:13:27 And Confucian traditions
    0:13:29 are based on kind of stable hierarchies
    0:13:30 for the most part
    0:13:33 and sort of clear categories
    0:13:34 of superior and inferior,
    0:13:36 whereas Mao liked things
    0:13:37 to be turned upside down.
    0:13:38 He thought of Confucianism
    0:13:40 as a futile way of thought
    0:13:42 that it held China back.
    0:13:43 So you can come up with things
    0:13:45 that they’re similar,
    0:13:46 and you can come up with things
    0:13:47 where they’re really opposites.
    0:13:48 But they both clearly
    0:13:50 did want to see China
    0:13:52 under rule by the Communist Party.
    0:13:54 And that’s been a continuity,
    0:13:55 and that connects them
    0:13:56 to the leaders
    0:13:57 in between them too as well.
    0:13:58 So there’s some degree,
    0:13:59 as you said,
    0:14:00 that Xi Jinping espouses
    0:14:01 the ideas of communism
    0:14:04 and the ideas of Confucianism.
    0:14:07 So let’s go all the way back.
    0:14:08 You wrote that in order
    0:14:10 to understand the China of today,
    0:14:12 we have to study its past.
    0:14:15 So the China of today
    0:14:17 celebrates ideas of Confucius,
    0:14:18 a Chinese philosopher
    0:14:20 who lived 2,500 years ago.
    0:14:21 Can you tell me
    0:14:23 about the ideas of Confucius?
    0:14:24 First of all,
    0:14:25 we don’t know that much
    0:14:27 about the historic Confucius.
    0:14:29 He’s around the same time
    0:14:31 as figures like Socrates.
    0:14:34 And like with Socrates,
    0:14:35 we get a lot of
    0:14:36 what we know about him
    0:14:37 or think we know about him
    0:14:39 from what his followers said
    0:14:40 and things that were
    0:14:42 attributed to him
    0:14:43 and dialogues
    0:14:44 that were written afterwards.
    0:14:45 So, you know,
    0:14:47 you can have a lot of fun
    0:14:48 with these sort of
    0:14:50 axial age thinkers
    0:14:51 and what they had in common.
    0:14:52 Another thing
    0:14:53 that connects
    0:14:54 these axial age thinkers
    0:14:56 is they were trying
    0:14:58 to kind of make a case
    0:15:00 for why they should be able
    0:15:00 to educate
    0:15:02 the next generation,
    0:15:02 the elite,
    0:15:04 and sort of had a way
    0:15:05 of promising
    0:15:06 saying that they had
    0:15:07 philosophical ideas
    0:15:09 that helped keep,
    0:15:10 decide how you should
    0:15:11 run a polity.
    0:15:13 Confucius lived in a time
    0:15:13 when there were
    0:15:15 these warring kingdoms
    0:15:16 in a territory
    0:15:19 that later became China.
    0:15:20 But what he said
    0:15:21 was that there had been
    0:15:22 this period of great order
    0:15:23 in the past
    0:15:25 that the lines
    0:15:25 between inferior
    0:15:27 and superior were clear
    0:15:28 and there was a kind
    0:15:29 of synergy
    0:15:30 between superior
    0:15:31 and inferior
    0:15:32 that kept everything
    0:15:32 ticking along
    0:15:33 really nicely.
    0:15:34 he thought that
    0:15:36 hierarchical relationships
    0:15:37 were a good thing
    0:15:38 and that the trick
    0:15:40 was that both sides
    0:15:42 in a hierarchical relationship
    0:15:43 owed something
    0:15:43 to the other.
    0:15:45 So the father
    0:15:48 and son relationship
    0:15:49 was a key one.
    0:15:49 The father
    0:15:51 deserved respect
    0:15:52 from the son
    0:15:54 but owed the son
    0:15:55 care
    0:15:55 and benevolence
    0:15:57 and things would be fine
    0:15:59 as long as both sides
    0:16:00 in a relationship
    0:16:01 held up their end.
    0:16:02 and he had a whole series
    0:16:04 of these relationships.
    0:16:05 The husband
    0:16:05 to the wife
    0:16:06 was again
    0:16:07 an unequal one
    0:16:09 of the husband
    0:16:10 being superior
    0:16:11 to the wife
    0:16:12 but him
    0:16:13 owing the wife
    0:16:14 care
    0:16:14 and her
    0:16:15 owing him
    0:16:16 deference.
    0:16:17 And he had
    0:16:17 the same notion
    0:16:18 that then
    0:16:19 the emperor
    0:16:20 to the ministers
    0:16:20 were,
    0:16:21 these were all parallels
    0:16:23 and there were
    0:16:24 no egalitarian
    0:16:25 relationships
    0:16:26 in Confucianism.
    0:16:27 Even something
    0:16:29 that in the West
    0:16:30 we often think of
    0:16:31 as a kind of
    0:16:33 quintessentially
    0:16:34 egalitarian relationship
    0:16:35 between brothers.
    0:16:38 In the Chinese tradition
    0:16:39 of Confucianism
    0:16:40 there was only
    0:16:41 older brother
    0:16:42 and younger brother.
    0:16:43 There was no,
    0:16:44 brotherhood was not
    0:16:46 an egalitarian relationship.
    0:16:47 It was one
    0:16:48 where the older brother
    0:16:49 took care of the younger brother
    0:16:50 and the younger brother
    0:16:51 showed respect
    0:16:52 for the older brother.
    0:16:53 So stable hierarchy
    0:16:55 was at the core
    0:16:56 of everything in society.
    0:16:57 It permeated everything
    0:16:58 including politics.
    0:16:58 Yeah,
    0:17:00 and there was even
    0:17:01 a sense that it
    0:17:03 connected the natural world
    0:17:04 to the supernatural world.
    0:17:06 So the emperor
    0:17:07 was to heaven
    0:17:08 this kind of
    0:17:10 non-personified
    0:17:12 deity
    0:17:13 like the emperor
    0:17:15 was to the ministers.
    0:17:16 So all of this
    0:17:17 had these relationships.
    0:17:18 So the emperor
    0:17:19 was the son of heaven.
    0:17:20 And
    0:17:21 you know
    0:17:22 for Confucius
    0:17:23 he said
    0:17:24 so we should study
    0:17:25 the text.
    0:17:26 We should study
    0:17:27 how the sages of old
    0:17:29 behaved
    0:17:30 that
    0:17:32 society was becoming
    0:17:32 corrupted
    0:17:33 and was going away
    0:17:35 from that sort of purity
    0:17:36 of the sages
    0:17:37 when
    0:17:38 the relationships
    0:17:39 were all in order.
    0:17:40 So Confucianism
    0:17:42 was a kind of
    0:17:42 conservative
    0:17:43 or even
    0:17:45 backward looking
    0:17:45 thing.
    0:17:46 It wasn’t trying to
    0:17:47 it wasn’t arguing
    0:17:48 for progress.
    0:17:48 It was arguing
    0:17:49 for
    0:17:50 reclaiming
    0:17:50 a pure
    0:17:51 golden age
    0:17:52 in the past.
    0:17:53 So it was also
    0:17:53 a kind of
    0:17:54 conservative.
    0:17:55 So in all kinds
    0:17:55 of ways
    0:17:57 it’s irreconcilable
    0:17:58 to many things
    0:17:59 about Marxism
    0:17:59 and communism
    0:18:01 which is all about
    0:18:01 struggle
    0:18:02 and all about
    0:18:03 actually
    0:18:05 a progressive view
    0:18:05 of history
    0:18:05 moving from
    0:18:06 one stage
    0:18:07 to the next.
    0:18:07 So that’s the
    0:18:08 interesting thing
    0:18:09 about Xi Jinping
    0:18:09 and the China
    0:18:10 of today
    0:18:11 is there is
    0:18:11 that tension
    0:18:12 of Confucianism
    0:18:13 and communism
    0:18:14 where
    0:18:15 communism
    0:18:15 Marxism
    0:18:16 is supposed to
    0:18:17 let go of history
    0:18:19 and Confucianism
    0:18:19 there’s a real
    0:18:20 veneration
    0:18:21 of history
    0:18:22 that’s happening
    0:18:23 in China
    0:18:23 of today.
    0:18:24 So they’re able
    0:18:25 to wear both
    0:18:26 hats
    0:18:27 and balance it.
    0:18:29 Yeah, you could say
    0:18:31 that in many points
    0:18:33 in the 20th century
    0:18:34 there was a kind of
    0:18:36 a kind of struggle
    0:18:37 between different
    0:18:39 competing political groups
    0:18:40 over which part
    0:18:41 of the Chinese past
    0:18:43 to connect with.
    0:18:43 Was it to the
    0:18:45 Confucian tradition
    0:18:46 or to the kind of
    0:18:46 rebellious
    0:18:48 monkey king tradition
    0:18:48 which was what
    0:18:50 Mao connected to?
    0:18:51 Xi Jinping
    0:18:52 and before him
    0:18:53 to some extent
    0:18:54 you know
    0:18:55 Hu Jintao
    0:18:56 we saw this a little bit
    0:18:56 at the Olympics
    0:18:57 there was more
    0:18:57 this kind of
    0:18:59 mix-it-all-together view
    0:19:00 anything that suggested
    0:19:02 greatness in the past
    0:19:03 could be something
    0:19:04 that could be
    0:19:05 fused together.
    0:19:06 So Xi Jinping
    0:19:08 says that
    0:19:08 you know
    0:19:10 Mao is one of his
    0:19:11 heroes
    0:19:11 or one of the people
    0:19:12 he looks to as a model
    0:19:14 but so is Confucius
    0:19:15 and
    0:19:16 there’s really
    0:19:17 you know
    0:19:18 they had so little
    0:19:19 in common
    0:19:19 but
    0:19:21 they both
    0:19:21 in his mind
    0:19:22 and the minds of others
    0:19:23 suggest a kind of
    0:19:25 power and greatness
    0:19:26 of the Chinese past.
    0:19:27 yeah so this
    0:19:29 platonic notion
    0:19:29 of greatness
    0:19:31 and that
    0:19:32 you could say
    0:19:32 connects
    0:19:34 that’s a thread
    0:19:34 that connects
    0:19:35 for Xi Jinping
    0:19:37 the great
    0:19:38 history
    0:19:40 multi-thousand year
    0:19:41 history of China.
    0:19:43 yeah and it involves
    0:19:44 smoothing out
    0:19:45 all kinds of
    0:19:46 internal contradictions
    0:19:47 you had
    0:19:48 you know
    0:19:48 the first emperor
    0:19:49 of China
    0:19:51 jumping forward a bit
    0:19:51 you know
    0:19:52 in 221 BC
    0:19:52 he
    0:19:55 is anti-scholars
    0:19:56 he burns books
    0:19:57 and he
    0:19:58 doesn’t
    0:19:59 venerate
    0:20:00 these kind of
    0:20:00 rituals
    0:20:01 and things
    0:20:03 so he’s very much
    0:20:04 against the things
    0:20:05 that Confucius
    0:20:06 stood for
    0:20:07 but
    0:20:08 and Mao
    0:20:08 in a sense
    0:20:09 of having to choose
    0:20:10 between Confucius
    0:20:11 and the first emperor
    0:20:12 he said
    0:20:12 well
    0:20:13 maybe the first emperor
    0:20:14 had the right idea
    0:20:15 you know
    0:20:16 scholars can be
    0:20:16 can be
    0:20:17 a pain
    0:20:17 so
    0:20:19 he said like
    0:20:20 if you have to choose
    0:20:21 between Confucianism
    0:20:21 and that
    0:20:22 but Xi Jinping
    0:20:23 I think continually
    0:20:25 is kind of
    0:20:25 not choosing
    0:20:26 and if he wants
    0:20:26 to say
    0:20:27 well look at
    0:20:28 the great wall
    0:20:29 look at this
    0:20:29 wonderful
    0:20:30 in fact
    0:20:31 that was a symbol
    0:20:31 of kind of
    0:20:32 strength
    0:20:33 and domination
    0:20:33 related to
    0:20:34 the first emperor
    0:20:36 who by the way
    0:20:36 didn’t build
    0:20:37 anything like
    0:20:38 the great wall
    0:20:39 you see today
    0:20:40 he built walls
    0:20:41 and they were fine
    0:20:41 you know
    0:20:42 they were good
    0:20:43 but the great wall
    0:20:44 itself didn’t come
    0:20:45 into being
    0:20:46 until many centuries
    0:20:47 later
    0:20:48 but still this idea
    0:20:49 of anything
    0:20:49 that suggests
    0:20:50 a kind of
    0:20:51 greatness
    0:20:52 is something
    0:20:53 that as a
    0:20:54 in many ways
    0:20:55 a nationalist
    0:20:56 above all else
    0:20:56 Xi Jinping
    0:20:57 is a
    0:20:59 supporter of the party
    0:21:01 and single party rule
    0:21:01 that’s something
    0:21:02 he clearly believes in
    0:21:04 and he’s
    0:21:06 a nationalist
    0:21:06 he wants
    0:21:08 to see China
    0:21:08 be great
    0:21:10 and acknowledge
    0:21:10 this great
    0:21:11 on the world stage
    0:21:12 boy
    0:21:14 so many contradictions
    0:21:14 always
    0:21:15 with Stalin
    0:21:16 he was a communist
    0:21:18 but also a nationalist
    0:21:19 right
    0:21:20 that contradiction
    0:21:20 is
    0:21:21 is
    0:21:22 is
    0:21:24 also permeates
    0:21:24 through
    0:21:24 through Mao
    0:21:25 and all the way
    0:21:26 to Xi Jinping
    0:21:26 but if you can
    0:21:27 linger on
    0:21:29 Confucius for a little bit
    0:21:30 you write that
    0:21:30 one of the most
    0:21:31 famous statements
    0:21:32 of Confucianism
    0:21:33 is the belief
    0:21:34 that quote
    0:21:35 people are pretty much
    0:21:35 alike at birth
    0:21:36 but become
    0:21:37 differentiated
    0:21:38 via learning
    0:21:39 so this
    0:21:40 sets the tradition
    0:21:41 that China
    0:21:42 places a high value
    0:21:42 on education
    0:21:43 and on meritocracy
    0:21:45 can you speak
    0:21:46 to this
    0:21:49 Confucius’s
    0:21:49 idea
    0:21:50 of education
    0:21:52 and how much
    0:21:53 does it
    0:21:54 permeate
    0:21:54 to the China
    0:21:55 of today
    0:21:56 sure
    0:21:57 so
    0:21:58 there’s an optimism
    0:21:59 to this
    0:22:00 there’s an optimism
    0:22:00 in the sense
    0:22:01 of a
    0:22:02 ability
    0:22:03 that people
    0:22:04 can be good
    0:22:04 and
    0:22:06 when exposed
    0:22:06 to
    0:22:08 exemplary
    0:22:08 figures
    0:22:09 from the past
    0:22:10 they’ll want to be
    0:22:11 like those
    0:22:12 exemplary figures
    0:22:12 so it’s a form
    0:22:13 of education
    0:22:14 through kind
    0:22:15 of emulation
    0:22:16 of models
    0:22:18 and study
    0:22:19 of past
    0:22:19 figures
    0:22:20 and past
    0:22:20 texts
    0:22:21 that were
    0:22:22 exemplary
    0:22:22 and it
    0:22:24 did have
    0:22:25 this idea
    0:22:27 a relatively
    0:22:28 positive view
    0:22:28 of human
    0:22:28 nature
    0:22:29 and the
    0:22:29 sort of
    0:22:31 changeability
    0:22:31 of humans
    0:22:32 through
    0:22:33 education
    0:22:34 and I think
    0:22:35 that shows
    0:22:35 through in
    0:22:36 all kinds
    0:22:37 of things
    0:22:38 even the fact
    0:22:39 that while
    0:22:39 there were
    0:22:39 lots of
    0:22:40 killings
    0:22:40 by the
    0:22:40 Chinese
    0:22:41 Communist
    0:22:41 Party
    0:22:42 and other
    0:22:42 groups
    0:22:43 there was
    0:22:43 often
    0:22:44 an idea
    0:22:45 that
    0:22:46 people
    0:22:47 could be
    0:22:48 could be
    0:22:49 remolded
    0:22:50 potentially
    0:22:51 and China
    0:22:51 was one
    0:22:51 of the few
    0:22:52 places
    0:22:52 where
    0:22:53 they didn’t
    0:22:54 kill
    0:22:54 the
    0:22:55 last
    0:22:56 emperor
    0:22:57 you know
    0:22:57 the last
    0:22:57 emperor
    0:22:58 the idea
    0:22:59 was that
    0:22:59 he could
    0:23:00 become
    0:23:00 anybody
    0:23:01 could be
    0:23:02 kind of
    0:23:03 turned into
    0:23:04 a citizen
    0:23:05 of this
    0:23:06 or a subject
    0:23:07 of this
    0:23:08 a good
    0:23:09 a good
    0:23:10 member
    0:23:10 of this
    0:23:11 polity
    0:23:12 through
    0:23:12 the
    0:23:12 kind
    0:23:13 of
    0:23:14 education
    0:23:14 often
    0:23:14 it
    0:23:14 was
    0:23:14 a very
    0:23:15 kind
    0:23:15 of
    0:23:15 forceful
    0:23:15 form
    0:23:16 of
    0:23:16 education
    0:23:17 but I think
    0:23:18 that’s a
    0:23:18 carryover
    0:23:19 from the
    0:23:20 Confucian
    0:23:20 times
    0:23:22 and
    0:23:24 over time
    0:23:26 this Confucian
    0:23:26 idea led
    0:23:27 to the
    0:23:28 creation of
    0:23:28 one of the
    0:23:29 early great
    0:23:30 civil service
    0:23:31 exams
    0:23:31 an idea
    0:23:31 that
    0:23:32 bureaucracy
    0:23:33 should be
    0:23:33 run
    0:23:34 not by
    0:23:34 people
    0:23:35 who were
    0:23:35 born
    0:23:36 into
    0:23:36 the
    0:23:36 right
    0:23:36 families
    0:23:37 but
    0:23:37 ones
    0:23:37 who
    0:23:37 had
    0:23:38 shown
    0:23:39 their
    0:23:39 ability
    0:23:39 to
    0:23:40 master
    0:23:40 these
    0:23:40 really
    0:23:41 intensive
    0:23:42 kind
    0:23:42 of
    0:23:43 exams
    0:23:43 and
    0:23:43 the
    0:23:44 exams
    0:23:44 were
    0:23:44 things
    0:23:44 that
    0:23:44 could
    0:23:45 make
    0:23:45 or
    0:23:45 break
    0:23:45 your
    0:23:46 career
    0:23:47 a bit
    0:23:47 like
    0:23:47 at
    0:23:47 some
    0:23:48 points
    0:23:48 in the
    0:23:48 American
    0:23:49 past
    0:23:50 passing
    0:23:50 a
    0:23:50 bar
    0:23:50 exam
    0:23:51 a
    0:23:51 really
    0:23:51 intensive
    0:23:52 thing
    0:23:52 could
    0:23:53 set
    0:23:53 you
    0:23:53 on
    0:23:53 the
    0:23:54 road
    0:23:54 to
    0:23:54 a
    0:23:55 good
    0:23:55 career
    0:23:55 in
    0:23:56 China
    0:23:56 you
    0:23:56 had
    0:23:56 the
    0:23:57 civil
    0:23:57 service
    0:23:58 exam
    0:23:58 tradition
    0:23:59 so I
    0:23:59 think
    0:23:59 this
    0:24:00 kind
    0:24:00 of
    0:24:00 emphasis
    0:24:01 on
    0:24:02 education
    0:24:03 and
    0:24:03 on
    0:24:05 valuing
    0:24:05 of
    0:24:06 scholarly
    0:24:06 pursuits
    0:24:08 but
    0:24:09 then
    0:24:09 Chinese
    0:24:10 leaders
    0:24:10 throughout
    0:24:11 history
    0:24:12 including
    0:24:12 up to
    0:24:12 Mao
    0:24:13 and
    0:24:13 Xi Jinping
    0:24:13 have
    0:24:14 also
    0:24:14 found
    0:24:15 scholars
    0:24:16 to be
    0:24:17 tremendously
    0:24:18 difficult
    0:24:18 to
    0:24:18 control
    0:24:19 so there’s
    0:24:20 an ambivalence
    0:24:20 to it
    0:24:21 or contradiction
    0:24:21 again
    0:24:22 there
    0:24:23 but
    0:24:24 to
    0:24:24 which
    0:24:24 degree
    0:24:24 this
    0:24:25 idea
    0:24:25 of
    0:24:25 meritocracy
    0:24:26 that’s
    0:24:27 inherent
    0:24:27 to
    0:24:28 the
    0:24:29 notion
    0:24:29 that
    0:24:29 we’re
    0:24:30 all
    0:24:30 start
    0:24:30 at
    0:24:30 the
    0:24:31 same
    0:24:31 line
    0:24:33 there’s
    0:24:34 a
    0:24:34 meritocratic
    0:24:35 view
    0:24:36 of
    0:24:36 human
    0:24:37 nature
    0:24:37 there
    0:24:38 or
    0:24:38 if
    0:24:38 you
    0:24:38 work
    0:24:39 hard
    0:24:39 and
    0:24:39 you
    0:24:41 learn
    0:24:41 things
    0:24:42 you
    0:24:42 will
    0:24:43 succeed
    0:24:43 and
    0:24:43 so
    0:24:44 the
    0:24:44 reverse
    0:24:44 if
    0:24:44 you
    0:24:45 haven’t
    0:24:45 succeeded
    0:24:45 that
    0:24:46 means
    0:24:46 you
    0:24:46 didn’t
    0:24:46 work
    0:24:46 hard
    0:24:47 and
    0:24:47 afford
    0:24:47 to
    0:24:47 do
    0:24:48 not
    0:24:48 deserve
    0:24:48 the
    0:24:49 spoils
    0:24:49 of
    0:24:49 the
    0:24:50 success
    0:24:52 does
    0:24:52 that
    0:24:53 carry
    0:24:53 over
    0:24:53 to
    0:24:53 the
    0:24:53 China
    0:24:54 of
    0:24:54 today
    0:24:55 there’s
    0:24:55 such
    0:24:55 a
    0:24:55 challenge
    0:24:56 in
    0:24:56 all
    0:24:56 these
    0:24:56 forms
    0:24:56 of
    0:24:57 meritocracy
    0:24:57 because
    0:24:57 you
    0:24:57 know
    0:24:58 you
    0:24:58 had
    0:24:58 the
    0:24:58 civil
    0:24:59 serving
    0:24:59 exams
    0:25:00 but
    0:25:00 the
    0:25:01 question
    0:25:01 was
    0:25:01 who
    0:25:02 if
    0:25:02 you
    0:25:03 had
    0:25:03 a
    0:25:03 really
    0:25:03 good
    0:25:03 tutor
    0:25:04 if
    0:25:04 you
    0:25:04 could
    0:25:04 afford
    0:25:04 a
    0:25:04 really
    0:25:05 good
    0:25:05 tutor
    0:25:05 you
    0:25:05 had
    0:25:05 a
    0:25:05 better
    0:25:06 chance
    0:25:06 of
    0:25:06 passing
    0:25:06 the
    0:25:07 exams
    0:25:09 one
    0:25:09 thing
    0:25:09 that
    0:25:09 happened
    0:25:09 there
    0:25:10 was
    0:25:10 families
    0:25:11 would
    0:25:11 would
    0:25:12 pool
    0:25:12 together
    0:25:13 resources
    0:25:13 to
    0:25:14 try
    0:25:14 to
    0:25:15 help
    0:25:15 the
    0:25:16 brightest
    0:25:17 in
    0:25:17 their
    0:25:17 group
    0:25:18 to
    0:25:18 be
    0:25:19 able
    0:25:19 to
    0:25:19 become
    0:25:20 part
    0:25:20 of
    0:25:20 the
    0:25:21 officialdom
    0:25:21 and
    0:25:22 this
    0:25:23 kind
    0:25:23 of
    0:25:23 pooling
    0:25:23 together
    0:25:24 resources
    0:25:24 to
    0:25:25 help
    0:25:25 as
    0:25:25 a
    0:25:26 family
    0:25:26 was
    0:25:27 an
    0:25:27 important
    0:25:27 part
    0:25:27 of
    0:25:28 that
    0:25:28 structure
    0:25:29 but
    0:25:29 there
    0:25:29 also
    0:25:30 was
    0:25:30 a
    0:25:33 tension
    0:25:34 of
    0:25:34 that
    0:25:35 so
    0:25:35 what
    0:25:36 if
    0:25:36 you
    0:25:36 don’t
    0:25:36 succeed
    0:25:37 some
    0:25:37 of
    0:25:37 the
    0:25:38 leaders
    0:25:38 of
    0:25:39 rebellions
    0:25:39 against
    0:25:41 emperors
    0:25:41 were
    0:25:42 failed
    0:25:42 examination
    0:25:43 candidates
    0:25:46 you
    0:25:48 had
    0:25:48 this
    0:25:48 issue
    0:25:48 and
    0:25:48 then
    0:25:49 it
    0:25:49 became
    0:25:49 something
    0:25:50 well
    0:25:50 the
    0:25:51 system
    0:25:51 was
    0:25:51 out
    0:25:51 of
    0:25:52 whack
    0:25:52 and
    0:25:52 it
    0:25:52 needed
    0:25:53 a
    0:25:53 new
    0:25:54 leader
    0:25:55 and
    0:25:56 also
    0:25:56 there
    0:25:56 was
    0:25:57 something
    0:25:58 built
    0:25:58 in
    0:25:58 that
    0:25:59 was
    0:25:59 not
    0:25:59 so
    0:25:59 much
    0:26:00 Confucius
    0:26:00 himself
    0:26:00 but
    0:26:01 one
    0:26:01 of
    0:26:01 his
    0:26:02 main
    0:26:04 interpreters
    0:26:05 early
    0:26:05 interpreters
    0:26:06 Mencius
    0:26:07 had
    0:26:07 this
    0:26:07 idea
    0:26:08 which
    0:26:08 can
    0:26:08 be
    0:26:08 seen
    0:26:08 as
    0:26:09 a
    0:26:09 crude
    0:26:11 justification
    0:26:11 for
    0:26:12 rebellion
    0:26:12 or
    0:26:12 for
    0:26:13 a
    0:26:13 kind
    0:26:13 of
    0:26:13 democracy
    0:26:14 to
    0:26:14 say
    0:26:14 that
    0:26:15 even
    0:26:15 though
    0:26:15 the
    0:26:16 emperor
    0:26:17 rules
    0:26:18 at
    0:26:18 the
    0:26:19 will
    0:26:19 of
    0:26:19 heaven
    0:26:20 if
    0:26:22 he
    0:26:23 doesn’t
    0:26:23 act
    0:26:24 like
    0:26:24 a
    0:26:24 true
    0:26:24 emperor
    0:26:24 if
    0:26:24 he’s
    0:26:25 not
    0:26:25 morally
    0:26:26 upstanding
    0:26:27 then
    0:26:27 heaven
    0:26:27 will
    0:26:28 remove
    0:26:30 its
    0:26:31 mandate
    0:26:32 to
    0:26:32 him
    0:26:32 and
    0:26:33 then
    0:26:34 there’s
    0:26:34 no
    0:26:35 obligation
    0:26:35 to
    0:26:35 show
    0:26:36 deference
    0:26:36 for a
    0:26:37 ruler
    0:26:37 who’s
    0:26:37 not
    0:26:38 behaving
    0:26:38 like
    0:26:38 a
    0:26:38 true
    0:26:39 ruler
    0:26:39 and
    0:26:39 there
    0:26:40 it
    0:26:40 sort
    0:26:40 of
    0:26:40 justifies
    0:26:41 rebellion
    0:26:42 and
    0:26:42 the idea
    0:26:43 is that
    0:26:44 if
    0:26:45 the
    0:26:45 rebellion
    0:26:45 isn’t
    0:26:46 justified
    0:26:47 then
    0:26:47 heaven
    0:26:47 will
    0:26:48 stop
    0:26:49 the
    0:26:49 ruler
    0:26:49 from
    0:26:50 being
    0:26:50 killed
    0:26:50 but
    0:26:51 if
    0:26:51 heaven
    0:26:52 has
    0:26:52 removed
    0:26:53 his
    0:26:53 support
    0:26:54 then
    0:26:54 the
    0:26:54 rebellion
    0:26:55 will
    0:26:55 succeed
    0:26:55 and
    0:26:56 then
    0:26:56 a
    0:26:56 new
    0:26:58 ruler
    0:26:58 will
    0:26:58 be
    0:26:58 justified
    0:26:59 in
    0:26:59 taking
    0:27:00 power
    0:27:00 so
    0:27:01 it’s
    0:27:01 an
    0:27:02 interesting
    0:27:02 sense
    0:27:02 that
    0:27:03 the
    0:27:03 universe
    0:27:04 in
    0:27:04 this
    0:27:05 Confucian
    0:27:05 view
    0:27:06 has
    0:27:06 a
    0:27:06 kind
    0:27:06 of
    0:27:07 moral
    0:27:08 dimension
    0:27:08 to
    0:27:09 it
    0:27:09 but
    0:27:10 it
    0:27:10 also
    0:27:12 it’s
    0:27:12 when
    0:27:12 things
    0:27:12 actually
    0:27:13 happen
    0:27:13 that
    0:27:13 you
    0:27:14 see
    0:27:14 where
    0:27:14 the
    0:27:14 side
    0:27:15 of
    0:27:15 morality
    0:27:15 is
    0:27:16 okay
    0:27:16 so
    0:27:16 it’s
    0:27:17 meritocracy
    0:27:17 with
    0:27:17 an
    0:27:18 asterix
    0:27:19 it
    0:27:19 does
    0:27:19 seem
    0:27:19 to
    0:27:19 be
    0:27:20 the
    0:27:20 case
    0:27:20 maybe
    0:27:20 you
    0:27:20 can
    0:27:21 speak
    0:27:21 to
    0:27:21 that
    0:27:21 in
    0:27:21 the
    0:27:22 Chinese
    0:27:22 education
    0:27:23 system
    0:27:23 there
    0:27:23 seems
    0:27:23 to
    0:27:23 be
    0:27:23 a
    0:27:24 high
    0:27:24 value
    0:27:24 for
    0:27:25 excellence
    0:27:26 hopefully
    0:27:26 I’m
    0:27:27 not
    0:27:27 generalizing
    0:27:27 too
    0:27:27 much
    0:27:28 but
    0:27:28 from
    0:27:29 the
    0:27:29 things
    0:27:30 I’ve
    0:27:30 seen
    0:27:30 there
    0:27:31 are
    0:27:31 certain
    0:27:31 cultures
    0:27:32 certain
    0:27:32 peoples
    0:27:33 that
    0:27:34 you
    0:27:34 know
    0:27:35 it’s
    0:27:35 just
    0:27:36 part
    0:27:36 of
    0:27:36 the
    0:27:36 value
    0:27:37 system
    0:27:37 of
    0:27:37 the
    0:27:38 culture
    0:27:39 that
    0:27:39 you
    0:27:39 need
    0:27:39 to
    0:27:40 be
    0:27:40 a
    0:27:40 really
    0:27:40 good
    0:27:41 student
    0:27:42 is
    0:27:42 that
    0:27:42 the
    0:27:42 case
    0:27:42 with
    0:27:43 the
    0:27:43 China
    0:27:43 of
    0:27:43 today
    0:27:44 there’s
    0:27:44 been
    0:27:45 a lot
    0:27:45 of
    0:27:45 emphasis
    0:27:46 on
    0:27:47 education
    0:27:48 and
    0:27:48 sort
    0:27:48 of
    0:27:48 working
    0:27:49 really
    0:27:49 hard
    0:27:49 and
    0:27:50 excelling
    0:27:50 at
    0:27:51 some
    0:27:52 subjects
    0:27:52 and
    0:27:52 having
    0:27:54 you know
    0:27:55 there isn’t
    0:27:55 the
    0:27:55 civil
    0:27:55 service
    0:27:56 exam
    0:27:56 but
    0:27:56 there
    0:27:57 is
    0:27:58 the
    0:27:59 gaokao
    0:27:59 exam
    0:27:59 that
    0:28:00 really
    0:28:00 can
    0:28:00 determine
    0:28:01 where
    0:28:01 you
    0:28:02 get
    0:28:02 what
    0:28:02 kind
    0:28:03 of
    0:28:04 institution
    0:28:04 you
    0:28:04 get
    0:28:05 into
    0:28:06 and
    0:28:06 I
    0:28:07 think
    0:28:08 you
    0:28:08 know
    0:28:09 getting
    0:28:09 back
    0:28:09 to
    0:28:09 this
    0:28:10 idea
    0:28:10 of
    0:28:11 meritocracy
    0:28:11 which
    0:28:13 is
    0:28:13 strong
    0:28:14 in a lot
    0:28:14 of
    0:28:16 tradition
    0:28:17 it also
    0:28:18 a kind
    0:28:18 of
    0:28:19 what it
    0:28:19 opens
    0:28:19 you up
    0:28:20 to
    0:28:20 is
    0:28:20 when
    0:28:20 there
    0:28:21 is
    0:28:21 a
    0:28:22 sense
    0:28:23 of
    0:28:23 unfairness
    0:28:24 and
    0:28:24 who’s
    0:28:24 getting
    0:28:24 ahead
    0:28:25 and
    0:28:25 how
    0:28:25 the
    0:28:25 spoils
    0:28:25 are
    0:28:26 being
    0:28:26 divided
    0:28:27 this
    0:28:28 leads
    0:28:28 to
    0:28:28 a
    0:28:28 kind
    0:28:28 of
    0:28:29 outrage
    0:28:30 and
    0:28:30 some
    0:28:30 of
    0:28:31 the
    0:28:31 biggest
    0:28:31 protests
    0:28:32 in
    0:28:32 China
    0:28:33 have
    0:28:33 been
    0:28:33 about
    0:28:33 this
    0:28:34 sense
    0:28:34 of
    0:28:35 nepotism
    0:28:37 which
    0:28:37 really
    0:28:38 seems
    0:28:38 to
    0:28:38 subvert
    0:28:39 this
    0:28:39 whole
    0:28:42 idea
    0:28:42 of
    0:28:43 meritocracy
    0:28:44 and
    0:28:44 the
    0:28:45 1989
    0:28:46 protests
    0:28:46 at
    0:28:47 Tiananmen
    0:28:47 even
    0:28:47 though
    0:28:48 in the
    0:28:48 Western
    0:28:49 press
    0:28:49 in
    0:28:50 particular
    0:28:50 was
    0:28:51 discussed
    0:28:52 as a
    0:28:52 movement
    0:28:52 for
    0:28:53 democracy
    0:28:53 but
    0:28:53 a lot
    0:28:53 of
    0:28:54 the
    0:28:54 first
    0:28:54 posters
    0:28:55 that
    0:28:55 went
    0:28:55 up
    0:28:55 that
    0:28:55 got
    0:28:56 students
    0:28:56 really
    0:28:56 angry
    0:28:57 were
    0:28:57 criticisms
    0:28:58 of
    0:28:58 corruption
    0:28:58 within
    0:28:59 the
    0:28:59 communist
    0:28:59 party
    0:29:00 and
    0:29:00 nepotism
    0:29:01 and
    0:29:01 the
    0:29:02 sense
    0:29:02 that
    0:29:02 people
    0:29:04 despite
    0:29:04 all
    0:29:04 the
    0:29:05 talk
    0:29:05 I
    0:29:05 mean
    0:29:05 despite
    0:29:05 the
    0:29:06 fact
    0:29:06 that
    0:29:07 most
    0:29:07 people
    0:29:07 seem
    0:29:07 to be
    0:29:07 having
    0:29:08 to
    0:29:08 study
    0:29:08 really
    0:29:09 hard
    0:29:09 to pass
    0:29:09 these
    0:29:10 exams
    0:29:10 to get
    0:29:11 good
    0:29:12 positions
    0:29:12 in
    0:29:12 universities
    0:29:12 that
    0:29:13 some
    0:29:13 of
    0:29:13 them
    0:29:13 were
    0:29:13 being
    0:29:14 handed
    0:29:14 out
    0:29:14 via
    0:29:14 the
    0:29:15 back
    0:29:15 door
    0:29:16 and
    0:29:16 that
    0:29:16 led
    0:29:16 to
    0:29:17 a
    0:29:17 kind
    0:29:17 of
    0:29:17 outrage
    0:29:18 that
    0:29:18 that
    0:29:18 that
    0:29:18 is
    0:29:19 true
    0:29:19 in
    0:29:20 many
    0:29:21 places
    0:29:21 but
    0:29:21 I
    0:29:21 think
    0:29:21 it
    0:29:21 gives
    0:29:22 a
    0:29:22 special
    0:29:24 anger
    0:29:25 against
    0:29:25 nepotism
    0:29:26 because
    0:29:26 of
    0:29:26 that
    0:29:28 the
    0:29:28 way
    0:29:28 in
    0:29:28 which
    0:29:28 so
    0:29:29 much
    0:29:29 emphasis
    0:29:29 is
    0:29:30 put
    0:29:30 on
    0:29:30 the
    0:29:31 standard
    0:29:31 exam
    0:29:32 way
    0:29:32 of
    0:29:32 getting
    0:29:33 ahead
    0:29:33 I
    0:29:34 hope
    0:29:34 it’s
    0:29:34 okay
    0:29:34 if
    0:29:34 we
    0:29:35 jump
    0:29:35 around
    0:29:36 through
    0:29:36 history
    0:29:36 a
    0:29:36 bit
    0:29:37 and
    0:29:37 find
    0:29:38 the
    0:29:38 threads
    0:29:38 that
    0:29:38 connect
    0:29:39 everything
    0:29:39 since
    0:29:39 you
    0:29:39 mentioned
    0:29:40 Tiananmen
    0:29:40 Square
    0:29:42 you
    0:29:42 have
    0:29:42 studied
    0:29:43 a lot
    0:29:43 of
    0:29:43 student
    0:29:44 protests
    0:29:44 throughout
    0:29:44 Chinese
    0:29:45 history
    0:29:45 throughout
    0:29:46 history
    0:29:46 in
    0:29:46 general
    0:29:48 what
    0:29:48 happened
    0:29:48 in
    0:29:48 Tiananmen
    0:29:49 Square
    0:29:50 so
    0:29:51 in
    0:29:51 1989
    0:29:52 this
    0:29:52 massive
    0:29:53 movement
    0:29:53 took
    0:29:54 place
    0:29:54 the
    0:29:54 story
    0:29:55 of
    0:29:55 it
    0:29:55 largely
    0:29:56 suppressed
    0:29:57 within
    0:29:57 China
    0:29:57 and
    0:29:58 largely
    0:29:58 misunderstood
    0:29:59 in
    0:30:00 other
    0:30:00 places
    0:30:01 in part
    0:30:01 because
    0:30:01 it
    0:30:01 happened
    0:30:02 around
    0:30:02 the
    0:30:02 same
    0:30:03 time
    0:30:04 that
    0:30:04 communism
    0:30:05 was
    0:30:05 unraveling
    0:30:06 and
    0:30:06 ending
    0:30:06 in
    0:30:07 the
    0:30:07 former
    0:30:07 Soviet
    0:30:08 bloc
    0:30:08 so
    0:30:08 I
    0:30:08 think
    0:30:08 it’s
    0:30:09 often
    0:30:10 conflated
    0:30:10 with
    0:30:11 what
    0:30:11 was
    0:30:11 going
    0:30:11 on
    0:30:11 there
    0:30:13 and
    0:30:13 so
    0:30:14 I
    0:30:14 think
    0:30:14 one
    0:30:14 of
    0:30:14 the
    0:30:14 key
    0:30:15 things
    0:30:15 to
    0:30:15 know
    0:30:16 about
    0:30:16 the
    0:30:16 protests
    0:30:17 in
    0:30:17 1989
    0:30:17 was
    0:30:18 that
    0:30:18 they
    0:30:18 were
    0:30:19 an
    0:30:19 effort
    0:30:20 to
    0:30:20 get
    0:30:20 the
    0:30:21 communist
    0:30:21 party
    0:30:22 in
    0:30:22 China
    0:30:22 to
    0:30:23 do
    0:30:23 a
    0:30:23 better
    0:30:23 job
    0:30:24 of
    0:30:24 living
    0:30:24 up
    0:30:24 to
    0:30:24 its
    0:30:25 own
    0:30:25 stated
    0:30:26 ideals
    0:30:27 and
    0:30:27 to
    0:30:28 try
    0:30:28 to
    0:30:29 support
    0:30:30 the
    0:30:30 trend
    0:30:31 within
    0:30:31 the
    0:30:31 party
    0:30:32 toward
    0:30:32 a
    0:30:32 kind
    0:30:32 of
    0:30:34 liberalizing
    0:30:36 and
    0:30:37 opening
    0:30:37 up
    0:30:38 form
    0:30:39 that
    0:30:40 had
    0:30:40 taken
    0:30:41 shape
    0:30:41 after
    0:30:42 Mao’s
    0:30:42 death
    0:30:43 and
    0:30:43 in
    0:30:44 a
    0:30:44 sense
    0:30:45 the
    0:30:45 student
    0:30:46 generation
    0:30:47 of
    0:30:47 89
    0:30:48 and
    0:30:48 I
    0:30:48 was
    0:30:48 there
    0:30:48 in
    0:30:49 86
    0:30:49 when
    0:30:49 there
    0:30:49 were
    0:30:49 some
    0:30:49 sort
    0:30:50 of
    0:30:50 warm-up
    0:30:51 protests
    0:30:51 there
    0:30:51 was
    0:30:52 a
    0:30:52 kind
    0:30:52 of
    0:30:52 frustration
    0:30:53 with
    0:30:53 what
    0:30:53 they
    0:30:53 felt
    0:30:54 was
    0:30:55 a
    0:30:56 half-assed
    0:30:56 version
    0:30:57 of what
    0:30:58 they
    0:30:58 were
    0:30:58 talking
    0:30:59 about
    0:30:59 that
    0:30:59 the
    0:31:00 government
    0:31:00 was
    0:31:01 saying
    0:31:01 the
    0:31:01 party
    0:31:01 was
    0:31:02 saying
    0:31:02 we
    0:31:03 believe
    0:31:03 in
    0:31:04 reforming
    0:31:04 and
    0:31:04 opening
    0:31:05 up
    0:31:05 we
    0:31:05 need
    0:31:05 to
    0:31:06 liberalize
    0:31:07 we need
    0:31:07 to give
    0:31:07 people
    0:31:08 more
    0:31:09 more
    0:31:10 control
    0:31:10 of
    0:31:10 their
    0:31:11 fate
    0:31:11 and
    0:31:11 the
    0:31:12 students
    0:31:12 felt
    0:31:13 that
    0:31:14 this
    0:31:14 was
    0:31:14 being
    0:31:14 done
    0:31:16 more
    0:31:16 effectively
    0:31:17 in the
    0:31:17 economic
    0:31:17 realm
    0:31:18 than
    0:31:18 in
    0:31:18 the
    0:31:18 political
    0:31:19 realm
    0:31:20 and
    0:31:20 that
    0:31:20 there
    0:31:20 were
    0:31:21 a lot
    0:31:21 of
    0:31:21 sort
    0:31:21 of
    0:31:22 partial
    0:31:22 gestures
    0:31:23 that
    0:31:24 suggested
    0:31:26 the
    0:31:26 party
    0:31:26 needed to
    0:31:26 be
    0:31:27 pressed
    0:31:27 to
    0:31:27 really
    0:31:28 move
    0:31:28 in
    0:31:29 that
    0:31:29 direction
    0:31:29 and
    0:31:29 it
    0:31:30 will
    0:31:30 seem
    0:31:30 like
    0:31:30 a
    0:31:31 very
    0:31:31 trivial
    0:31:31 thing
    0:31:32 but
    0:31:32 I
    0:31:33 found
    0:31:33 it
    0:31:33 fascinating
    0:31:34 in
    0:31:34 86
    0:31:34 when
    0:31:34 I
    0:31:35 was
    0:31:35 there
    0:31:36 in
    0:31:36 Shanghai
    0:31:36 in
    0:31:37 late
    0:31:37 86
    0:31:39 and
    0:31:39 students
    0:31:40 protested
    0:31:40 and
    0:31:40 this
    0:31:40 was
    0:31:40 the
    0:31:40 first
    0:31:41 time
    0:31:42 that
    0:31:42 students
    0:31:43 had been
    0:31:43 really
    0:31:44 on the
    0:31:44 streets
    0:31:44 in
    0:31:45 significant
    0:31:45 numbers
    0:31:46 since
    0:31:46 the
    0:31:46 culture
    0:31:47 revolution
    0:31:47 or at
    0:31:48 least
    0:31:48 since
    0:31:48 76
    0:31:49 and
    0:31:50 the
    0:31:50 students
    0:31:50 were
    0:31:51 inspired
    0:31:51 by
    0:31:52 calls
    0:31:52 for
    0:31:53 democracy
    0:31:53 and
    0:31:53 discussions
    0:31:54 of
    0:31:54 democracy
    0:31:54 by
    0:31:55 this
    0:31:57 physicist
    0:31:57 Fang
    0:31:57 Li
    0:31:58 Juer
    0:31:58 who
    0:31:59 was
    0:31:59 a
    0:31:59 kind
    0:31:59 of
    0:32:01 Chinese
    0:32:02 Sakharov
    0:32:03 he
    0:32:03 was a
    0:32:04 liberalizing
    0:32:04 intellectual
    0:32:05 but
    0:32:06 one
    0:32:06 of
    0:32:06 the
    0:32:06 things
    0:32:06 that
    0:32:07 students
    0:32:07 in
    0:32:07 Shanghai
    0:32:08 which
    0:32:08 were
    0:32:09 some
    0:32:09 of
    0:32:09 the
    0:32:10 most
    0:32:10 intense
    0:32:11 protests
    0:32:11 of
    0:32:11 that
    0:32:11 year
    0:32:11 took
    0:32:12 place
    0:32:12 were
    0:32:13 frustrated
    0:32:13 about
    0:32:13 was
    0:32:13 a
    0:32:14 rock
    0:32:14 concert
    0:32:14 of
    0:32:15 all
    0:32:15 things
    0:32:16 that
    0:32:16 Jan
    0:32:17 and
    0:32:17 Dean
    0:32:18 the
    0:32:18 American
    0:32:19 surf
    0:32:19 rock
    0:32:20 band
    0:32:20 which
    0:32:20 was
    0:32:20 kind
    0:32:20 of
    0:32:21 like
    0:32:21 the
    0:32:21 beach
    0:32:21 boys
    0:32:21 only
    0:32:22 not
    0:32:22 as
    0:32:22 big
    0:32:22 and
    0:32:23 they
    0:32:23 were
    0:32:24 touring
    0:32:24 China
    0:32:24 it
    0:32:25 was
    0:32:25 the
    0:32:25 first
    0:32:25 time
    0:32:26 in
    0:32:26 Shanghai
    0:32:27 that
    0:32:27 there
    0:32:27 had
    0:32:27 been
    0:32:27 a
    0:32:27 rock
    0:32:28 concert
    0:32:28 and
    0:32:28 the
    0:32:28 students
    0:32:28 were
    0:32:29 really
    0:32:29 excited
    0:32:29 about
    0:32:30 this
    0:32:30 because
    0:32:30 this
    0:32:30 fit
    0:32:30 in
    0:32:31 with
    0:32:32 what
    0:32:32 they
    0:32:32 thought
    0:32:33 the
    0:32:33 communist
    0:32:33 party
    0:32:33 was
    0:32:34 moving
    0:32:34 toward
    0:32:34 was
    0:32:35 letting
    0:32:35 them
    0:32:36 be
    0:32:36 more
    0:32:36 part
    0:32:36 of
    0:32:36 the
    0:32:37 world
    0:32:37 and
    0:32:37 for
    0:32:38 them
    0:32:38 that
    0:32:38 meant
    0:32:38 being
    0:32:39 more
    0:32:39 in
    0:32:39 step
    0:32:39 with
    0:32:40 pop
    0:32:40 culture
    0:32:40 around
    0:32:41 the
    0:32:41 world
    0:32:42 and
    0:32:42 at
    0:32:42 the
    0:32:43 concert
    0:32:43 some
    0:32:43 students
    0:32:44 got
    0:32:44 up
    0:32:44 to
    0:32:44 dance
    0:32:45 because
    0:32:45 that’s
    0:32:54 a
    0:32:55 feint
    0:32:55 toward
    0:32:56 openness
    0:32:56 that
    0:32:56 really
    0:32:57 didn’t
    0:32:57 have
    0:32:57 follow
    0:32:57 through
    0:32:58 we’re
    0:32:58 going
    0:32:58 to
    0:32:58 give
    0:32:58 you
    0:32:59 rock
    0:32:59 concerts
    0:32:59 but
    0:32:59 not
    0:33:00 let
    0:33:00 you
    0:33:00 dance
    0:33:01 and
    0:33:02 so
    0:33:02 the
    0:33:02 protests
    0:33:03 went
    0:33:03 on
    0:33:03 for
    0:33:03 a
    0:33:03 little
    0:33:04 while
    0:33:04 in
    0:33:04 86
    0:33:05 and
    0:33:06 posters
    0:33:06 went
    0:33:07 up
    0:33:08 the
    0:33:08 officials
    0:33:09 at
    0:33:10 universities
    0:33:11 said
    0:33:11 no
    0:33:11 this
    0:33:11 is
    0:33:12 out
    0:33:12 of
    0:33:12 hand
    0:33:12 we
    0:33:13 had
    0:33:13 chaos
    0:33:14 on
    0:33:14 the
    0:33:14 streets
    0:33:14 during
    0:33:14 the
    0:33:15 culture
    0:33:15 revolution
    0:33:15 we
    0:33:15 can’t
    0:33:16 go
    0:33:16 back
    0:33:16 to
    0:33:16 that
    0:33:17 and
    0:33:17 nobody
    0:33:18 wanted
    0:33:18 to
    0:33:18 go
    0:33:18 back
    0:33:18 to
    0:33:24 and
    0:33:24 the
    0:33:25 students
    0:33:25 didn’t
    0:33:25 want
    0:33:25 to
    0:33:25 be
    0:33:25 associated
    0:33:26 with
    0:33:26 that
    0:33:26 so
    0:33:27 it
    0:33:27 wound
    0:33:27 down
    0:33:28 pretty
    0:33:28 quickly
    0:33:29 and
    0:33:30 they
    0:33:30 thought
    0:33:32 we’re
    0:33:32 not
    0:33:32 like
    0:33:32 the
    0:33:32 Red
    0:33:33 Guards
    0:33:33 we
    0:33:33 don’t
    0:33:33 want
    0:33:33 to
    0:33:33 make
    0:33:34 chaos
    0:33:34 we
    0:33:34 also
    0:33:34 are
    0:33:35 not
    0:33:35 fervent
    0:33:36 loyalists
    0:33:37 of
    0:33:37 anybody
    0:33:37 in
    0:33:37 power
    0:33:37 the
    0:33:38 Red
    0:33:38 Guards
    0:33:38 had
    0:33:38 been
    0:33:39 passionate
    0:33:39 about
    0:33:40 Mao
    0:33:40 the
    0:33:42 analogy
    0:33:42 partly
    0:33:43 sort
    0:33:43 of
    0:33:43 scared
    0:33:43 them
    0:33:44 and
    0:33:44 also
    0:33:44 it
    0:33:45 meant
    0:33:45 that
    0:33:45 the
    0:33:45 government
    0:33:45 was
    0:33:45 really
    0:33:46 serious
    0:33:46 about
    0:33:47 dealing
    0:33:47 with
    0:33:47 them
    0:33:48 so
    0:33:48 then
    0:33:48 in
    0:33:49 1989
    0:33:50 this
    0:33:50 protest
    0:33:51 restart
    0:33:53 and
    0:33:53 there
    0:33:53 are
    0:33:53 a
    0:33:53 variety
    0:33:54 of
    0:33:54 reasons
    0:33:54 why
    0:33:55 they
    0:33:55 can
    0:33:56 restart
    0:33:57 they
    0:33:58 the
    0:33:58 space
    0:33:58 for
    0:33:58 them
    0:33:59 students
    0:33:59 are
    0:34:00 thinking
    0:34:00 about
    0:34:00 doing
    0:34:01 something
    0:34:01 in
    0:34:01 1989
    0:34:02 it’s
    0:34:02 a
    0:34:02 very
    0:34:02 resonant
    0:34:03 year
    0:34:04 200th
    0:34:04 anniversary
    0:34:05 of the
    0:34:05 French
    0:34:06 revolution
    0:34:07 people
    0:34:07 are
    0:34:07 thinking
    0:34:07 about
    0:34:08 that
    0:34:08 but
    0:34:08 more
    0:34:09 importantly
    0:34:09 it’s
    0:34:09 the
    0:34:10 70th
    0:34:10 anniversary
    0:34:10 of the
    0:34:11 biggest
    0:34:11 student
    0:34:11 movement
    0:34:12 in
    0:34:12 Chinese
    0:34:12 history
    0:34:13 the
    0:34:13 May
    0:34:14 4th
    0:34:14 movement
    0:34:14 of
    0:34:15 1919
    0:34:16 and
    0:34:17 the
    0:34:17 May
    0:34:17 4th
    0:34:17 movement
    0:34:18 had
    0:34:18 helped
    0:34:18 lay
    0:34:18 the
    0:34:19 groundwork
    0:34:19 for
    0:34:19 the
    0:34:19 Chinese
    0:34:20 communist
    0:34:20 party
    0:34:21 some
    0:34:21 member
    0:34:22 leading
    0:34:22 founders
    0:34:22 of
    0:34:23 it
    0:34:23 had
    0:34:23 been
    0:34:24 student
    0:34:24 activists
    0:34:25 then
    0:34:25 it was
    0:34:25 an
    0:34:26 anti-imperialist
    0:34:27 movement
    0:34:27 but it
    0:34:27 was also
    0:34:29 a
    0:34:29 movement
    0:34:30 against
    0:34:30 bad
    0:34:30 government
    0:34:32 and so
    0:34:32 the
    0:34:32 students
    0:34:33 thought
    0:34:34 the
    0:34:34 anniversary
    0:34:35 of that
    0:34:36 movement
    0:34:36 was always
    0:34:37 marked
    0:34:38 commemorated
    0:34:38 in China
    0:34:39 and people
    0:34:39 took the
    0:34:40 history
    0:34:41 seriously
    0:34:42 people
    0:34:42 were reminded
    0:34:43 of what
    0:34:43 students
    0:34:44 did
    0:34:44 in the
    0:34:45 past
    0:34:45 and so
    0:34:46 there
    0:34:46 were sort
    0:34:47 of
    0:34:47 there were
    0:34:47 a lot
    0:34:47 of
    0:34:48 reasons
    0:34:48 why
    0:34:48 people
    0:34:49 were
    0:34:49 itching
    0:34:50 to do
    0:34:50 something
    0:34:51 and then
    0:34:53 a leader
    0:34:54 who
    0:34:56 was
    0:34:56 associated
    0:34:57 with the
    0:34:57 more
    0:34:58 kind of
    0:34:59 reformist
    0:34:59 more
    0:35:00 liberalizing
    0:35:02 group
    0:35:02 within the
    0:35:02 Chinese
    0:35:03 Communist Party
    0:35:04 he had
    0:35:04 been
    0:35:05 stripped of
    0:35:05 a very
    0:35:06 high office
    0:35:07 demoted
    0:35:08 after
    0:35:08 taking
    0:35:09 partly
    0:35:10 taking a
    0:35:11 fairly light
    0:35:11 stance
    0:35:12 toward the
    0:35:13 86-87
    0:35:13 protests
    0:35:14 and so
    0:35:14 he was
    0:35:15 still
    0:35:15 a member
    0:35:15 of the
    0:35:16 government
    0:35:17 but he
    0:35:17 was not
    0:35:17 as high
    0:35:18 up
    0:35:18 in power
    0:35:19 he had
    0:35:19 been
    0:35:19 very high
    0:35:19 up
    0:35:19 he had
    0:35:20 been
    0:35:20 sort of
    0:35:21 Deng Xiaoping’s
    0:35:21 potential
    0:35:22 successor
    0:35:23 and he
    0:35:24 dies
    0:35:25 unexpectedly
    0:35:26 and there
    0:35:26 has to be
    0:35:27 a funeral
    0:35:27 for him
    0:35:28 because he
    0:35:28 dies
    0:35:28 still as
    0:35:29 an
    0:35:29 official
    0:35:30 and the
    0:35:31 students
    0:35:31 take
    0:35:32 advantage
    0:35:32 of the
    0:35:33 opening
    0:35:33 of their
    0:35:33 having to
    0:35:34 be
    0:35:37 commemorations
    0:35:37 of his
    0:35:37 death
    0:35:38 and they
    0:35:39 put up
    0:35:39 posters
    0:35:39 that
    0:35:40 basically
    0:35:40 say
    0:35:40 the
    0:35:40 wrong
    0:35:41 people
    0:35:41 are
    0:35:41 dying
    0:35:42 who
    0:35:42 Yabong
    0:35:42 was
    0:35:43 younger
    0:35:44 than some
    0:35:44 of the
    0:35:44 more
    0:35:45 conservative
    0:35:45 members
    0:35:46 they said
    0:35:46 so
    0:35:47 some
    0:35:47 people
    0:35:47 are
    0:35:47 dying
    0:35:48 too
    0:35:48 young
    0:35:48 some
    0:35:48 people
    0:35:50 don’t
    0:35:50 seem
    0:35:50 like
    0:35:50 they’re
    0:35:51 ever
    0:35:51 going
    0:35:51 to
    0:35:51 die
    0:35:52 and
    0:35:52 they
    0:35:53 so
    0:35:53 they
    0:35:54 begin
    0:35:54 these
    0:35:54 sorts
    0:35:54 of
    0:35:55 protests
    0:35:55 this
    0:35:55 is
    0:35:55 in
    0:35:55 April
    0:35:56 of
    0:35:56 89
    0:35:57 and
    0:35:57 the
    0:35:58 government
    0:35:58 tries
    0:35:59 to
    0:35:59 sort
    0:35:59 of
    0:35:59 get
    0:35:59 the
    0:36:00 protest
    0:36:00 to
    0:36:00 stop
    0:36:01 quickly
    0:36:01 and
    0:36:01 they
    0:36:02 use
    0:36:02 the
    0:36:02 same
    0:36:03 technique
    0:36:03 of
    0:36:04 they
    0:36:09 which
    0:36:10 is
    0:36:10 a
    0:36:10 code
    0:36:10 term
    0:36:10 for
    0:36:11 taking
    0:36:11 us
    0:36:11 back
    0:36:11 to
    0:36:11 the
    0:36:11 cultural
    0:36:12 revolution
    0:36:13 and
    0:36:13 this
    0:36:13 time
    0:36:13 the
    0:36:13 students
    0:36:14 say
    0:36:14 no
    0:36:14 we’re
    0:36:15 just
    0:36:15 trying
    0:36:15 to
    0:36:15 show
    0:36:15 our
    0:36:16 patriotism
    0:36:17 we
    0:36:17 believe
    0:36:18 that
    0:36:19 there’s
    0:36:19 too
    0:36:19 much
    0:36:20 corruption
    0:36:20 and
    0:36:21 nepotism
    0:36:22 there’s
    0:36:22 not
    0:36:23 enough
    0:36:23 support
    0:36:24 for
    0:36:24 the
    0:36:24 more
    0:36:25 liberalizing
    0:36:27 wing
    0:36:27 within
    0:36:27 the
    0:36:27 party
    0:36:28 and
    0:36:28 so
    0:36:28 they
    0:36:29 keep
    0:36:29 up
    0:36:29 the
    0:36:30 protests
    0:36:31 and
    0:36:31 there’s
    0:36:31 a lot
    0:36:31 of
    0:36:32 frustration
    0:36:32 at
    0:36:32 this
    0:36:32 point
    0:36:32 there
    0:36:32 are
    0:36:33 also
    0:36:33 economic
    0:36:34 frustrations
    0:36:34 at
    0:36:34 this
    0:36:39 but
    0:36:40 it
    0:36:40 seems
    0:36:40 that
    0:36:40 people
    0:36:41 with
    0:36:41 good
    0:36:42 government
    0:36:42 connections
    0:36:43 are
    0:36:43 getting
    0:36:44 rich
    0:36:45 too
    0:36:45 easily
    0:36:46 and
    0:36:46 so
    0:36:46 there’s
    0:36:47 sort
    0:36:47 of
    0:36:47 a
    0:36:47 sense
    0:36:47 of
    0:36:48 unfairness
    0:36:49 the
    0:36:49 students
    0:36:49 are
    0:36:49 also
    0:36:50 really
    0:36:50 frustrated
    0:36:51 by
    0:36:51 the
    0:36:51 kind
    0:36:51 of
    0:36:51 macro
    0:36:52 managing
    0:36:52 of
    0:36:52 their
    0:36:53 private
    0:36:53 lives
    0:36:53 on
    0:36:54 campuses
    0:36:54 so
    0:36:55 the
    0:36:56 protests
    0:36:56 at
    0:36:56 Tiananmen
    0:36:57 Square
    0:36:57 and
    0:36:57 in
    0:36:58 plazas
    0:36:58 all
    0:36:59 around
    0:36:59 the
    0:36:59 country
    0:37:00 and
    0:37:00 other
    0:37:00 cities
    0:37:00 as
    0:37:01 well
    0:37:02 become
    0:37:02 this
    0:37:02 mix
    0:37:02 of
    0:37:03 things
    0:37:03 it’s
    0:37:03 an
    0:37:03 anti
    0:37:04 corruption
    0:37:04 movement
    0:37:05 it’s
    0:37:05 a
    0:37:05 call
    0:37:05 for
    0:37:06 more
    0:37:06 democracy
    0:37:06 movement
    0:37:07 it’s
    0:37:07 a
    0:37:07 call
    0:37:07 for
    0:37:07 more
    0:37:07 freedom
    0:37:08 of
    0:37:08 speech
    0:37:08 movement
    0:37:09 but
    0:37:09 it’s
    0:37:09 also
    0:37:09 a
    0:37:10 kind
    0:37:11 of
    0:37:11 has
    0:37:12 some
    0:37:12 counterculture
    0:37:13 elements
    0:37:13 that
    0:37:13 are
    0:37:14 like
    0:37:14 there
    0:37:14 are
    0:37:15 rock
    0:37:15 concerts
    0:37:15 on
    0:37:15 the
    0:37:16 square
    0:37:17 the
    0:37:17 most
    0:37:17 popular
    0:37:18 rock
    0:37:19 musician
    0:37:20 comes
    0:37:20 to
    0:37:20 the
    0:37:21 square
    0:37:21 and
    0:37:21 is
    0:37:23 celebrated
    0:37:23 when
    0:37:23 he’s
    0:37:23 there
    0:37:23 there
    0:37:24 there’s
    0:37:24 a
    0:37:24 sense
    0:37:24 of
    0:37:25 kind
    0:37:25 of
    0:37:25 a
    0:37:26 variety
    0:37:26 of
    0:37:26 things
    0:37:27 rolled
    0:37:27 into
    0:37:27 one
    0:37:29 and
    0:37:30 I
    0:37:30 brought
    0:37:30 up
    0:37:30 how
    0:37:31 it
    0:37:31 sort
    0:37:31 of
    0:37:31 gets
    0:37:32 conflated
    0:37:32 with
    0:37:32 the
    0:37:33 movements
    0:37:33 to
    0:37:33 overthrow
    0:37:34 communism
    0:37:34 and
    0:37:34 the
    0:37:35 Eastern
    0:37:35 Bloc
    0:37:36 it
    0:37:36 was
    0:37:36 actually
    0:37:36 in
    0:37:37 many
    0:37:37 ways
    0:37:37 I
    0:37:37 think
    0:37:38 more
    0:37:38 like
    0:37:38 something
    0:37:38 that
    0:37:39 happened
    0:37:39 in
    0:37:39 the
    0:37:39 Eastern
    0:37:39 Bloc
    0:37:40 20
    0:37:41 years
    0:37:41 earlier
    0:37:41 it
    0:37:41 was
    0:37:42 more
    0:37:42 like
    0:37:42 Prague
    0:37:43 Spring
    0:37:43 and
    0:37:44 other
    0:37:44 1968
    0:37:45 protests
    0:37:45 in
    0:37:46 the
    0:37:46 Communist
    0:37:46 Bloc
    0:37:46 which
    0:37:47 was
    0:37:47 about
    0:37:48 moving
    0:37:49 toward
    0:37:50 socialism
    0:37:50 with
    0:37:50 a
    0:37:51 human
    0:37:51 face
    0:37:51 more
    0:37:52 like
    0:37:52 trying
    0:37:52 to
    0:37:53 get
    0:37:54 the
    0:37:54 parties
    0:37:54 to
    0:37:55 empower
    0:37:55 to
    0:37:56 reform
    0:37:56 rather
    0:37:56 than
    0:37:57 necessarily
    0:37:58 doing
    0:38:21 the
    0:38:22 Communist
    0:38:22 Party
    0:38:22 leadership
    0:38:23 and
    0:38:23 clearly
    0:38:24 the
    0:38:25 people
    0:38:25 who
    0:38:25 are
    0:38:25 more
    0:38:26 political
    0:38:26 conservatives
    0:38:28 even
    0:38:28 if
    0:38:28 they
    0:38:28 believe
    0:38:28 in
    0:38:29 economic
    0:38:29 reform
    0:38:30 are
    0:38:31 clearly
    0:38:31 getting
    0:38:31 the
    0:38:31 upper
    0:38:32 hand
    0:38:32 and
    0:38:33 this
    0:38:33 is
    0:38:33 not
    0:38:33 going
    0:38:33 to
    0:38:33 be
    0:38:34 tolerated
    0:38:35 and
    0:38:35 the
    0:38:36 students
    0:38:36 stay
    0:38:36 on
    0:38:37 the
    0:38:37 square
    0:38:37 when
    0:38:38 signals
    0:38:39 are
    0:38:39 given
    0:38:39 to
    0:38:39 try
    0:38:40 to
    0:38:40 get
    0:38:40 them
    0:38:41 out
    0:38:41 students
    0:38:41 from
    0:38:42 around
    0:38:42 the
    0:38:42 country
    0:38:42 are
    0:38:42 pouring
    0:38:43 into
    0:38:44 Beijing
    0:38:44 to
    0:38:44 join
    0:38:45 this
    0:38:45 movement
    0:38:46 they
    0:38:46 don’t
    0:38:46 want
    0:38:46 to
    0:38:47 end
    0:38:47 the
    0:38:47 movement
    0:38:47 when
    0:38:47 they’ve
    0:38:48 just
    0:38:48 arrived
    0:38:48 so
    0:38:49 it’s
    0:38:49 actually
    0:38:49 one
    0:38:49 thing
    0:38:49 that
    0:38:50 keeps
    0:38:50 it
    0:38:50 going
    0:38:50 is
    0:38:51 new
    0:38:53 participants
    0:38:53 are
    0:38:53 coming
    0:38:53 from
    0:38:53 the
    0:38:54 provinces
    0:38:54 and
    0:38:55 even
    0:39:01 start
    0:39:01 joining
    0:39:02 in
    0:39:02 the
    0:39:02 movement
    0:39:02 as
    0:39:03 well
    0:39:03 and
    0:39:03 form
    0:39:04 an
    0:39:04 independent
    0:39:05 labor
    0:39:05 union
    0:39:06 and
    0:39:06 that
    0:39:07 really
    0:39:08 the
    0:39:09 Chinese
    0:39:09 Communist
    0:39:09 Party
    0:39:10 to a
    0:39:10 certain
    0:39:10 extent
    0:39:11 they might
    0:39:11 put up
    0:39:12 with
    0:39:12 student
    0:39:13 protesters
    0:39:13 but
    0:39:13 they
    0:39:14 know
    0:39:14 from
    0:39:14 past
    0:39:15 experience
    0:39:16 that
    0:39:16 sometimes
    0:39:16 student
    0:39:17 protests
    0:39:17 lead
    0:39:18 to
    0:39:19 members
    0:39:19 of
    0:39:19 other
    0:39:19 social
    0:39:20 classes
    0:39:21 joining
    0:39:21 them
    0:39:21 because
    0:39:21 they
    0:39:21 look
    0:39:22 up
    0:39:22 to
    0:39:22 students
    0:39:23 as
    0:39:24 potential
    0:39:25 intellectual
    0:39:25 leaders
    0:39:26 of the
    0:39:26 country
    0:39:26 and
    0:39:27 admiration
    0:39:27 for
    0:39:28 scholars
    0:39:28 is
    0:39:29 part
    0:39:29 of
    0:39:29 this
    0:39:29 that
    0:39:30 people
    0:39:31 turn
    0:39:31 out
    0:39:31 when
    0:39:31 students
    0:39:32 protest
    0:39:32 something
    0:39:33 very
    0:39:33 different
    0:39:33 from
    0:39:34 the
    0:39:34 American
    0:39:34 case
    0:39:34 where
    0:39:35 there’s
    0:39:35 a
    0:39:35 kind
    0:39:35 of
    0:39:36 often
    0:39:37 suspicion
    0:39:37 of
    0:39:38 student
    0:39:39 activists
    0:39:40 being
    0:39:41 necessarily
    0:39:41 on the
    0:39:41 same
    0:39:41 side
    0:39:42 as
    0:39:43 everybody
    0:39:43 else
    0:39:44 but
    0:39:44 in
    0:39:44 China
    0:39:45 there
    0:39:45 had
    0:39:45 been
    0:39:46 from
    0:39:46 the
    0:39:46 history
    0:39:46 of
    0:39:47 the
    0:39:47 20th
    0:39:47 century
    0:39:48 a
    0:39:48 sense
    0:39:48 of
    0:39:50 students
    0:39:50 as
    0:39:50 potentially
    0:39:50 a
    0:39:51 vanguard
    0:39:52 so
    0:39:52 once
    0:39:53 there
    0:39:53 are
    0:39:54 labor
    0:39:54 activists
    0:39:55 joining
    0:39:55 the
    0:39:55 movement
    0:39:55 then
    0:39:56 troops
    0:39:56 are
    0:39:56 called
    0:39:57 in
    0:39:57 and
    0:39:57 there’s
    0:39:58 a
    0:39:58 massacre
    0:39:59 near
    0:39:59 Tiananmen
    0:39:59 Square
    0:40:02 on the
    0:40:03 middle
    0:40:03 of the
    0:40:03 night
    0:40:04 June
    0:40:04 3rd
    0:40:04 and
    0:40:05 early
    0:40:06 June
    0:40:06 4th
    0:40:07 and
    0:40:08 the
    0:40:09 army
    0:40:09 just
    0:40:09 moves
    0:40:10 in
    0:40:11 and
    0:40:12 begins
    0:40:12 behaving
    0:40:13 very much
    0:40:13 like
    0:40:13 an
    0:40:14 army
    0:40:14 of
    0:40:14 occupation
    0:40:15 which
    0:40:15 is
    0:40:15 something
    0:40:16 the
    0:40:16 people’s
    0:40:16 civilization
    0:40:17 army
    0:40:17 is
    0:40:18 supposed
    0:40:18 to be
    0:40:18 the one
    0:40:19 that saves
    0:40:20 China
    0:40:20 from foreign
    0:40:21 aggression
    0:40:21 and they’re
    0:40:22 acting like
    0:40:23 an invading
    0:40:24 force
    0:40:24 so
    0:40:24 so
    0:40:24 so
    0:40:24 so
    0:40:24 this
    0:40:24 is
    0:40:24 where
    0:40:25 famously
    0:40:25 the
    0:40:25 tanks
    0:40:26 rolling
    0:40:26 the
    0:40:27 tanks
    0:40:27 roll
    0:40:27 in
    0:40:27 and I
    0:40:28 think
    0:40:28 also
    0:40:29 you have
    0:40:30 that
    0:40:30 famous
    0:40:30 image
    0:40:31 of the
    0:40:31 man
    0:40:31 standing
    0:40:32 in front
    0:40:32 of the
    0:40:32 tank
    0:40:33 that’s
    0:40:33 a
    0:40:33 band
    0:40:34 image
    0:40:34 within
    0:40:34 China
    0:40:34 and I
    0:40:35 really
    0:40:35 think
    0:40:36 the
    0:40:37 reason
    0:40:37 why
    0:40:37 it’s
    0:40:37 so
    0:40:38 considered
    0:40:38 so
    0:40:39 toxic
    0:40:39 by
    0:40:39 the
    0:40:40 regime
    0:40:40 is
    0:40:41 because
    0:40:41 it
    0:40:41 just
    0:40:42 shows
    0:40:42 the
    0:40:42 people’s
    0:40:43 liberation
    0:40:43 army
    0:40:44 looking
    0:40:44 like
    0:40:44 an
    0:40:45 invading
    0:40:45 force
    0:40:46 not
    0:40:46 like
    0:40:47 a
    0:40:48 stabilizing
    0:40:48 force
    0:40:49 can we
    0:40:49 talk
    0:40:49 about
    0:40:50 that
    0:40:50 who’s
    0:40:50 now
    0:40:51 called
    0:40:51 the
    0:40:51 tank
    0:40:52 man
    0:40:52 the
    0:40:52 man
    0:40:53 that
    0:40:53 stood
    0:40:54 in
    0:40:54 front
    0:40:54 of
    0:40:54 the
    0:40:54 row
    0:40:54 of
    0:40:55 tanks
    0:40:55 this
    0:40:55 was
    0:40:56 on
    0:40:56 June
    0:40:57 5th
    0:40:57 in
    0:40:57 Tiananmen
    0:40:58 Square
    0:40:59 what do
    0:40:59 we know
    0:41:00 about him
    0:41:00 what do
    0:41:00 you think
    0:41:01 about him
    0:41:02 the
    0:41:02 symbolism
    0:41:03 it’s
    0:41:03 an
    0:41:04 amazing
    0:41:05 symbol
    0:41:05 you know
    0:41:06 he’s
    0:41:06 on this
    0:41:07 boulevard
    0:41:07 near
    0:41:07 the
    0:41:08 square
    0:41:08 with
    0:41:08 this
    0:41:09 long
    0:41:09 line
    0:41:09 of
    0:41:10 tanks
    0:41:10 and
    0:41:11 it’s
    0:41:11 unquestionably
    0:41:12 this act
    0:41:12 of
    0:41:13 incredible
    0:41:13 bravery
    0:41:14 and
    0:41:15 there’s
    0:41:15 some
    0:41:15 interesting
    0:41:16 things
    0:41:16 about
    0:41:16 it
    0:41:16 some
    0:41:16 that
    0:41:16 are
    0:41:17 forgotten
    0:41:17 one
    0:41:17 is
    0:41:17 that
    0:41:18 in
    0:41:18 the
    0:41:19 end
    0:41:19 he
    0:41:19 climbs
    0:41:19 up
    0:41:20 on
    0:41:20 the
    0:41:20 tank
    0:41:21 and
    0:41:22 the
    0:41:22 tank
    0:41:22 swerves
    0:41:23 you know
    0:41:23 it doesn’t
    0:41:23 run
    0:41:23 him
    0:41:24 over
    0:41:25 and
    0:41:25 the
    0:41:25 Chinese
    0:41:25 Communist
    0:41:26 Party
    0:41:26 initially
    0:41:27 showed
    0:41:27 video
    0:41:27 of
    0:41:28 this
    0:41:28 and
    0:41:28 said
    0:41:29 look
    0:41:29 the
    0:41:29 Western
    0:41:30 press
    0:41:30 is
    0:41:30 talking
    0:41:30 about
    0:41:31 how
    0:41:31 vicious
    0:41:31 we
    0:41:31 were
    0:41:31 but
    0:41:32 look
    0:41:32 at
    0:41:32 the
    0:41:32 restraint
    0:41:33 look
    0:41:33 at
    0:41:34 this
    0:41:34 he
    0:41:34 wasn’t
    0:41:35 mowed
    0:41:35 down
    0:41:36 and
    0:41:36 they
    0:41:36 tried
    0:41:37 this
    0:41:37 whole
    0:41:37 story
    0:41:37 with
    0:41:38 Tiananmen
    0:41:38 initially
    0:41:38 of
    0:41:38 saying
    0:41:39 look
    0:41:40 the
    0:41:40 students
    0:41:40 were
    0:41:40 out
    0:41:40 of
    0:41:41 control
    0:41:41 this
    0:41:42 everybody
    0:41:42 should
    0:41:42 remember
    0:41:43 what
    0:41:43 happened
    0:41:43 during
    0:41:43 the
    0:41:43 Cultural
    0:41:44 Revolution
    0:41:44 and
    0:41:45 the
    0:41:46 army
    0:41:47 showed
    0:41:47 restraint
    0:41:48 and
    0:41:48 there
    0:41:48 were
    0:41:48 a
    0:41:50 small
    0:41:50 number
    0:41:50 of
    0:41:50 soldiers
    0:41:51 who
    0:41:51 were
    0:41:51 actually
    0:41:51 burned
    0:41:52 alive
    0:41:52 in
    0:41:52 their
    0:41:53 tanks
    0:41:53 during
    0:41:55 once
    0:41:55 the
    0:41:55 massacre
    0:41:56 began
    0:41:57 people
    0:41:57 got
    0:41:58 outraged
    0:41:58 and
    0:41:58 they
    0:41:59 attacked
    0:41:59 the
    0:42:00 soldiers
    0:42:00 but
    0:42:01 by
    0:42:01 selective
    0:42:02 use
    0:42:02 of
    0:42:03 footage
    0:42:04 the
    0:42:04 Communist
    0:42:05 Party
    0:42:05 could
    0:42:05 say
    0:42:05 look
    0:42:06 actually
    0:42:06 look at
    0:42:07 this
    0:42:07 that
    0:42:07 the
    0:42:08 heroes
    0:42:08 the
    0:42:08 martyrs
    0:42:08 were
    0:42:09 these
    0:42:09 soldiers
    0:42:11 and
    0:42:11 they
    0:42:11 try
    0:42:12 for
    0:42:12 the
    0:42:12 first
    0:42:13 months
    0:42:14 after
    0:42:14 it
    0:42:14 to
    0:42:15 try
    0:42:15 to
    0:42:15 get
    0:42:15 this
    0:42:16 narrative
    0:42:16 to
    0:42:16 stick
    0:42:17 they
    0:42:17 talk
    0:42:17 about
    0:42:17 Tiananmen
    0:42:18 a lot
    0:42:18 they
    0:42:18 talk
    0:42:19 about
    0:42:19 these
    0:42:19 things
    0:42:19 they
    0:42:19 show
    0:42:20 images
    0:42:20 of
    0:42:20 the
    0:42:20 tank
    0:42:20 man
    0:42:21 the
    0:42:22 problem
    0:42:22 with
    0:42:22 it
    0:42:22 is
    0:42:22 that
    0:42:23 lots
    0:42:23 and
    0:42:23 lots
    0:42:23 of
    0:42:23 people
    0:42:24 around
    0:42:24 Beijing
    0:42:24 had
    0:42:25 seen
    0:42:25 what
    0:42:26 happened
    0:42:26 and
    0:42:26 knew
    0:42:27 that
    0:42:27 in
    0:42:27 fact
    0:42:27 there
    0:42:28 first
    0:42:28 been
    0:42:28 the
    0:42:29 firing
    0:42:29 on
    0:42:29 unarmed
    0:42:30 civilians
    0:42:30 with
    0:42:31 automatic
    0:42:31 weapons
    0:42:32 and
    0:42:33 there
    0:42:34 had
    0:42:34 been
    0:42:34 many
    0:42:34 many
    0:42:35 people
    0:42:36 some
    0:42:37 students
    0:42:37 but a lot
    0:42:37 of
    0:42:38 ordinary
    0:42:38 Beijing
    0:42:39 residents
    0:42:40 and workers
    0:42:41 who were
    0:42:41 just
    0:42:41 mowing
    0:42:41 down
    0:42:42 so
    0:42:42 lots
    0:42:42 of
    0:42:42 people
    0:42:43 knew
    0:42:43 somebody
    0:42:44 who
    0:42:44 had
    0:42:44 been
    0:42:44 killed
    0:42:45 so
    0:42:45 that
    0:42:45 story
    0:42:45 just
    0:42:46 didn’t
    0:42:46 work
    0:42:47 and
    0:42:47 then
    0:42:48 I
    0:42:48 think
    0:42:50 the
    0:42:51 claim
    0:42:51 had to
    0:42:52 be
    0:42:52 made
    0:42:52 to
    0:42:52 try
    0:42:53 to
    0:42:54 suppress
    0:42:55 discussion
    0:42:55 of
    0:42:55 the
    0:42:55 event
    0:42:56 and
    0:42:57 particularly
    0:42:57 to
    0:42:59 repress
    0:42:59 that
    0:42:59 visual
    0:43:00 imagery
    0:43:01 that
    0:43:01 was
    0:43:02 that
    0:43:02 image
    0:43:02 of
    0:43:02 the
    0:43:02 man
    0:43:02 in
    0:43:03 front
    0:43:03 of
    0:43:03 the
    0:43:03 line
    0:43:03 of
    0:43:04 tanks
    0:43:04 whatever
    0:43:05 the
    0:43:05 tanks
    0:43:05 did
    0:43:05 do
    0:43:05 him
    0:43:06 or
    0:43:06 not
    0:43:07 the
    0:43:07 main
    0:43:08 takeaway
    0:43:08 from
    0:43:09 it
    0:43:09 would
    0:43:10 be
    0:43:10 this
    0:43:10 idea
    0:43:11 that
    0:43:11 there
    0:43:11 were
    0:43:11 lines
    0:43:12 of
    0:43:12 tanks
    0:43:12 in
    0:43:13 a
    0:43:13 city
    0:43:14 that
    0:43:15 the
    0:43:17 image
    0:43:17 was
    0:43:17 of
    0:43:17 the
    0:43:17 government
    0:43:18 as
    0:43:18 having
    0:43:19 lost
    0:43:19 the
    0:43:19 mandate
    0:43:20 to
    0:43:20 rule
    0:43:21 and
    0:43:21 they
    0:43:21 really
    0:43:22 didn’t
    0:43:22 want
    0:43:22 to
    0:43:22 have
    0:43:22 that
    0:43:23 image
    0:43:24 out
    0:43:24 there
    0:43:24 in
    0:43:24 the
    0:43:25 world
    0:43:27 yeah
    0:43:27 we’re
    0:43:27 watching
    0:43:27 the
    0:43:28 video
    0:43:28 now
    0:43:30 he’s
    0:43:30 got
    0:43:30 what
    0:43:31 like
    0:43:32 grocery
    0:43:32 bags
    0:43:32 in his
    0:43:33 hands
    0:43:33 it’s
    0:43:34 such
    0:43:34 a
    0:43:35 symbolic
    0:43:36 I’ve
    0:43:36 had
    0:43:36 enough
    0:43:38 like
    0:43:39 that
    0:43:39 kind
    0:43:39 of
    0:43:39 statement
    0:43:40 yeah
    0:43:40 and he’s
    0:43:41 probably
    0:43:41 not a
    0:43:41 student
    0:43:42 you know
    0:43:42 it’s
    0:43:42 often
    0:43:42 described
    0:43:43 as a
    0:43:43 student
    0:43:43 but he
    0:43:44 probably
    0:43:44 was
    0:43:46 a
    0:43:46 worker
    0:43:46 and
    0:43:46 it
    0:43:47 is
    0:43:47 it
    0:43:47 is
    0:43:47 a
    0:43:48 powerful
    0:43:48 image
    0:43:49 of
    0:43:49 bravery
    0:43:51 and
    0:43:51 you know
    0:43:52 I brought
    0:43:52 up the
    0:43:53 1968
    0:43:54 parallel
    0:43:54 for
    0:43:55 eastern
    0:43:55 and central
    0:43:55 Europe
    0:43:56 there was
    0:43:56 actually
    0:43:56 a very
    0:43:57 powerful
    0:43:57 photograph
    0:43:58 of a
    0:43:59 man
    0:43:59 bearing
    0:43:59 his
    0:44:00 chest
    0:44:00 in front
    0:44:01 of a
    0:44:01 tank
    0:44:02 in
    0:44:02 Bratislava
    0:44:03 during
    0:44:04 what we think
    0:44:05 of as
    0:44:05 Prague
    0:44:05 spring
    0:44:06 that was
    0:44:06 a
    0:44:07 famous
    0:44:07 image
    0:44:08 of
    0:44:09 bravery
    0:44:09 against
    0:44:10 tanks
    0:44:10 and
    0:44:11 in
    0:44:12 1968
    0:44:13 in
    0:44:14 Czechoslovakia
    0:44:15 then still
    0:44:16 Czechoslovakia
    0:44:17 the tanks
    0:44:17 that rolled
    0:44:17 in were
    0:44:18 Soviet
    0:44:19 tanks
    0:44:19 sent
    0:44:19 down
    0:44:20 there
    0:44:21 and so
    0:44:22 not that
    0:44:23 people
    0:44:23 would
    0:44:23 know
    0:44:24 but that
    0:44:24 was an
    0:44:25 image
    0:44:25 you know
    0:44:26 what was
    0:44:26 so
    0:44:27 powerful
    0:44:27 and that
    0:44:28 was saying
    0:44:28 we’re not
    0:44:28 going to
    0:44:29 put up
    0:44:29 with this
    0:44:29 invasion
    0:44:30 again I
    0:44:31 think you
    0:44:31 have the
    0:44:31 people’s
    0:44:32 liberation
    0:44:32 army
    0:44:34 looking
    0:44:34 like an
    0:44:35 invading
    0:44:35 force
    0:44:36 and that’s
    0:44:36 what
    0:44:38 the Chinese
    0:44:39 Communist Party
    0:44:39 in a sense
    0:44:40 can’t
    0:44:42 deal with
    0:44:42 now
    0:44:43 even though
    0:44:44 sometimes
    0:44:44 they could
    0:44:45 tell a
    0:44:45 story about
    0:44:46 1989
    0:44:48 and they do
    0:44:48 tell a
    0:44:48 version of
    0:44:49 this
    0:44:49 and some
    0:44:50 people
    0:44:50 believe this
    0:44:51 I think
    0:44:52 is that
    0:44:53 in 1989
    0:44:54 China
    0:44:55 went one
    0:44:55 route
    0:44:56 of not
    0:44:58 having the
    0:44:58 Communist Party
    0:45:00 dramatically
    0:45:00 change or
    0:45:01 relinquish
    0:45:01 control
    0:45:03 and the
    0:45:03 Soviet
    0:45:03 Union
    0:45:04 and the
    0:45:04 former
    0:45:04 Soviet
    0:45:04 States
    0:45:05 went
    0:45:05 another
    0:45:06 and you
    0:45:06 could
    0:45:06 say
    0:45:07 well look
    0:45:08 and after
    0:45:09 1989
    0:45:09 the Chinese
    0:45:10 economy
    0:45:10 boomed
    0:45:11 life got
    0:45:12 better for
    0:45:12 people in
    0:45:12 China
    0:45:13 life got
    0:45:13 really
    0:45:14 terrible
    0:45:14 for a lot
    0:45:15 of people
    0:45:15 in the
    0:45:16 former
    0:45:16 Soviet
    0:45:16 blocs
    0:45:17 maybe we
    0:45:18 actually
    0:45:19 maybe this
    0:45:19 was the
    0:45:20 right way
    0:45:20 to go
    0:45:21 and you
    0:45:21 can make
    0:45:22 that kind
    0:45:22 of argument
    0:45:23 but if
    0:45:23 you show
    0:45:24 the tanks
    0:45:25 and the
    0:45:25 man in
    0:45:25 front of
    0:45:26 the tanks
    0:45:27 you just
    0:45:27 have a
    0:45:27 different
    0:45:27 kind of
    0:45:28 image
    0:45:28 of
    0:45:28 heroism
    0:45:29 it’s
    0:45:30 one of
    0:45:30 my
    0:45:30 favorite
    0:45:31 photographs
    0:45:31 or
    0:45:32 snapshots
    0:45:33 ever taken
    0:45:34 videos
    0:45:34 ever taken
    0:45:35 so I
    0:45:36 apologize
    0:45:36 if we
    0:45:37 linger on
    0:45:37 it
    0:45:38 sometimes
    0:45:39 you don’t
    0:45:39 understand
    0:45:40 the
    0:45:41 symbolic
    0:45:41 power
    0:45:41 of an
    0:45:42 image
    0:45:44 until
    0:45:45 afterwards
    0:45:46 and perhaps
    0:45:46 that’s what
    0:45:47 the Chinese
    0:45:47 government
    0:45:48 didn’t quite
    0:45:48 understand
    0:45:49 they lost
    0:45:49 information
    0:45:50 more
    0:45:50 than
    0:45:50 me
    0:45:51 more
    0:45:52 so I
    0:45:52 have to
    0:45:52 ask
    0:45:53 what do
    0:45:53 you think
    0:45:53 was going
    0:45:54 through that
    0:45:54 man’s
    0:45:54 head
    0:45:56 was it
    0:45:57 a heroic
    0:45:57 statement
    0:45:58 was it
    0:45:59 a purely
    0:46:00 primal
    0:46:01 guttural
    0:46:01 like I’ve
    0:46:02 had enough
    0:46:03 it’s so
    0:46:03 interesting
    0:46:04 to just
    0:46:04 speculate
    0:46:04 and we
    0:46:05 just don’t
    0:46:05 know
    0:46:06 because you
    0:46:06 know he
    0:46:06 was never
    0:46:07 able to be
    0:46:07 interviewed
    0:46:07 afterwards
    0:46:08 but I
    0:46:08 think
    0:46:09 your emphasis
    0:46:10 on patriotism
    0:46:10 is really
    0:46:11 important
    0:46:11 because one
    0:46:11 of the
    0:46:12 students
    0:46:12 main
    0:46:13 demands
    0:46:13 was
    0:46:15 then I
    0:46:15 think it
    0:46:15 might have
    0:46:16 been the
    0:46:16 thing that
    0:46:16 would have
    0:46:17 gotten them
    0:46:17 to leave
    0:46:18 the square
    0:46:18 would have
    0:46:19 been to
    0:46:19 say we
    0:46:20 want this
    0:46:20 to be
    0:46:21 acknowledged
    0:46:21 as a
    0:46:22 patriotic
    0:46:22 that our
    0:46:23 goals are
    0:46:24 patriotic
    0:46:25 we’re not
    0:46:25 here to
    0:46:26 take China
    0:46:26 back into
    0:46:27 the cultural
    0:46:27 revolution
    0:46:28 we’re here
    0:46:30 to express
    0:46:31 our love
    0:46:31 for the
    0:46:32 country
    0:46:32 if it
    0:46:33 goes in
    0:46:34 the right
    0:46:34 way
    0:46:35 so will
    0:46:35 you admit
    0:46:35 that
    0:46:36 and you
    0:46:36 mentioned
    0:46:37 about the
    0:46:37 power of
    0:46:38 the image
    0:46:39 and I do
    0:46:39 think the
    0:46:40 Chinese Communist
    0:46:40 Party
    0:46:40 learned
    0:46:41 something
    0:46:42 to have
    0:46:43 taken to
    0:46:43 heart
    0:46:44 the power
    0:46:44 of the
    0:46:44 image
    0:46:45 after that
    0:46:46 because we
    0:46:46 saw this
    0:46:47 in
    0:46:48 but when
    0:46:49 there were
    0:46:49 protests in
    0:46:50 Hong Kong
    0:46:51 the government
    0:46:52 on the
    0:46:53 mainland
    0:46:53 really wanted
    0:46:54 to tell a
    0:46:55 story there
    0:46:56 of you know
    0:46:56 crowds out
    0:46:57 of control
    0:46:58 and initially
    0:46:58 there were
    0:46:59 in 2014
    0:47:00 and again
    0:47:01 initially in
    0:47:01 2019
    0:47:02 there were
    0:47:03 very orderly
    0:47:03 crowds
    0:47:04 and it
    0:47:06 had trouble
    0:47:06 with that
    0:47:07 story
    0:47:07 so they
    0:47:08 tried
    0:47:09 very hard
    0:47:09 to ban
    0:47:09 images
    0:47:10 of peaceful
    0:47:11 protests
    0:47:12 until there
    0:47:12 were some
    0:47:13 incidents
    0:47:14 as there
    0:47:14 almost always
    0:47:15 are
    0:47:16 of
    0:47:17 violence
    0:47:17 by crowds
    0:47:18 and then
    0:47:19 they would
    0:47:19 show those
    0:47:20 images over
    0:47:20 and over
    0:47:21 again
    0:47:22 they also
    0:47:22 worked
    0:47:23 very hard
    0:47:23 when
    0:47:24 Hong Kong
    0:47:25 protests
    0:47:25 began in
    0:47:26 the 2010s
    0:47:27 to try
    0:47:28 very hard
    0:47:29 to avoid
    0:47:29 any use
    0:47:30 of soldiers
    0:47:31 to repress
    0:47:31 them
    0:47:31 it was
    0:47:31 all the
    0:47:32 police
    0:47:33 and they
    0:47:33 tried
    0:47:34 very hard
    0:47:36 and managed
    0:47:36 to success
    0:47:37 because the
    0:47:38 western press
    0:47:39 was often
    0:47:39 saying will
    0:47:40 this be
    0:47:40 another
    0:47:40 Tiananmen
    0:47:41 will there
    0:47:41 be a
    0:47:42 massacre
    0:47:42 will there
    0:47:42 be soldiers
    0:47:43 on the
    0:47:43 streets
    0:47:45 the movements
    0:47:46 in Hong
    0:47:46 Kong
    0:47:47 were suppressed
    0:47:47 without
    0:47:49 the use
    0:47:50 of
    0:47:51 shooting
    0:47:52 to kill
    0:47:52 on the
    0:47:52 streets
    0:47:53 there were
    0:47:53 shooting
    0:47:54 to wound
    0:47:56 there was
    0:47:56 beanbag
    0:47:57 shot
    0:47:57 there were
    0:47:58 rubber
    0:47:58 bullets
    0:47:58 there was
    0:47:59 enormous
    0:47:59 amounts
    0:48:00 of tear
    0:48:00 gas
    0:48:01 there was
    0:48:01 even tear
    0:48:01 gas
    0:48:02 left
    0:48:02 let
    0:48:04 fly
    0:48:04 inside
    0:48:05 subway
    0:48:05 stations
    0:48:05 in
    0:48:06 2019
    0:48:07 and all
    0:48:07 these
    0:48:07 things
    0:48:07 are
    0:48:08 really
    0:48:09 brutalizing
    0:48:10 but they
    0:48:10 don’t make
    0:48:11 the kind
    0:48:11 of images
    0:48:13 that sear
    0:48:14 in the
    0:48:14 mind
    0:48:15 the way
    0:48:15 something
    0:48:16 like
    0:48:17 the Tiananmen
    0:48:18 tank man
    0:48:18 image
    0:48:19 or the
    0:48:19 image
    0:48:20 of
    0:48:20 a
    0:48:21 Vietnamese
    0:48:22 woman
    0:48:22 being
    0:48:23 burned
    0:48:23 by
    0:48:23 napalm
    0:48:24 young
    0:48:24 woman
    0:48:24 that
    0:48:25 became
    0:48:25 another
    0:48:25 of the
    0:48:26 iconic
    0:48:26 images
    0:48:27 during
    0:48:28 Vietnam
    0:48:28 War
    0:48:28 those
    0:48:29 images
    0:48:29 really
    0:48:30 can
    0:48:31 have
    0:48:31 an
    0:48:32 extraordinary
    0:48:32 power
    0:48:33 and I
    0:48:33 think
    0:48:33 the
    0:48:34 Chinese
    0:48:34 Communist Party
    0:48:34 is now
    0:48:35 aware of
    0:48:35 that
    0:48:36 there are
    0:48:36 no
    0:48:37 really
    0:48:38 gripping
    0:48:39 there are
    0:48:39 very few
    0:48:40 photographs
    0:48:40 allowed
    0:48:42 of the
    0:48:42 Xinjiang
    0:48:44 extra legal
    0:48:45 detention
    0:48:45 camps
    0:48:45 there are
    0:48:46 very little
    0:48:48 very little
    0:48:49 there is an
    0:48:50 awareness of
    0:48:50 how much
    0:48:51 power
    0:48:52 a photograph
    0:48:53 of a certain
    0:48:53 type can
    0:48:54 have
    0:48:55 so nobody
    0:48:56 knows what
    0:48:56 happened to
    0:48:57 the tank
    0:48:57 man
    0:48:59 what do
    0:48:59 you think
    0:48:59 happened to
    0:49:00 the tank
    0:49:00 man
    0:49:01 I assume
    0:49:01 he was
    0:49:01 killed
    0:49:03 I assume
    0:49:03 he was
    0:49:04 just
    0:49:05 disappeared
    0:49:05 it’s
    0:49:06 interesting
    0:49:06 because
    0:49:07 very often
    0:49:09 figures are
    0:49:09 made an
    0:49:10 example of
    0:49:10 in one
    0:49:10 way or
    0:49:11 another
    0:49:11 I mean
    0:49:11 Leo
    0:49:12 Xiaobo
    0:49:12 was
    0:49:15 imprisoned
    0:49:16 and not
    0:49:17 allowed to
    0:49:18 get enough
    0:49:19 medical care
    0:49:19 so you can
    0:49:19 talk about
    0:49:20 him having
    0:49:21 died earlier
    0:49:22 than he
    0:49:22 should have
    0:49:23 but there
    0:49:25 there’s been
    0:49:26 relatively few
    0:49:28 of like for
    0:49:29 political crimes
    0:49:30 recently sentencing
    0:49:31 to death and
    0:49:31 things like that
    0:49:32 it’s much
    0:49:33 more just
    0:49:34 remove them
    0:49:34 imprison them
    0:49:36 but the
    0:49:36 tank man
    0:49:37 there was
    0:49:38 never a
    0:49:38 trial
    0:49:39 there was
    0:49:39 never
    0:49:40 even a
    0:49:41 trial that
    0:49:42 was a
    0:49:44 was one
    0:49:44 that you
    0:49:44 knew what
    0:49:45 the result
    0:49:45 would be
    0:49:46 which there
    0:49:46 was for
    0:49:47 Leo Xiaobo
    0:49:48 and others
    0:49:49 not even a
    0:49:49 hidden trial
    0:49:51 but simply
    0:49:52 simply
    0:49:52 disappeared
    0:49:53 and there’s
    0:49:53 been
    0:49:53 somebody
    0:49:54 who’s
    0:49:55 like
    0:49:55 another
    0:49:56 figure
    0:49:56 like
    0:49:56 this
    0:49:57 who’s
    0:49:57 disappeared
    0:49:59 a couple
    0:49:59 of years
    0:49:59 ago
    0:50:00 in Beijing
    0:50:01 there was
    0:50:02 a lone
    0:50:02 man
    0:50:02 who put
    0:50:02 up a
    0:50:03 banner
    0:50:03 on a
    0:50:04 bridge
    0:50:05 Sittong
    0:50:05 bridge
    0:50:05 in Beijing
    0:50:08 and it
    0:50:08 was
    0:50:08 extraordinary
    0:50:09 it was
    0:50:09 it had
    0:50:10 denunciations
    0:50:11 of the
    0:50:11 direction
    0:50:11 Xi Jinping
    0:50:12 was taking
    0:50:12 the country
    0:50:13 it was
    0:50:14 denunciation
    0:50:14 of
    0:50:15 COVID
    0:50:15 policies
    0:50:16 but also
    0:50:17 a
    0:50:17 dictatorial
    0:50:18 rule
    0:50:18 and
    0:50:19 the banner
    0:50:20 somehow
    0:50:21 he managed
    0:50:21 to have
    0:50:21 it up
    0:50:22 and get
    0:50:23 long
    0:50:23 enough
    0:50:24 to be
    0:50:24 filmed
    0:50:25 and to
    0:50:25 draw
    0:50:26 attention
    0:50:26 and the
    0:50:26 film
    0:50:27 to
    0:50:27 circulate
    0:50:27 again
    0:50:28 another
    0:50:28 image
    0:50:28 of
    0:50:28 the
    0:50:29 power
    0:50:29 of
    0:50:30 images
    0:50:31 and he’s
    0:50:32 disappeared
    0:50:33 and there
    0:50:33 hasn’t been a
    0:50:34 show trial
    0:50:35 or even a
    0:50:35 secret trial
    0:50:37 and again
    0:50:37 you know
    0:50:38 we don’t know
    0:50:38 if he’s still
    0:50:39 alive
    0:50:40 but these
    0:50:40 are cases
    0:50:41 where I think
    0:50:41 the Chinese
    0:50:42 Communist Party
    0:50:43 really doesn’t
    0:50:44 want a
    0:50:44 competing story
    0:50:45 out there
    0:50:46 they don’t
    0:50:47 want somebody
    0:50:47 to be able
    0:50:47 to answer
    0:50:48 what he
    0:50:48 was
    0:50:48 thinking
    0:50:50 how much
    0:50:50 censorship
    0:50:51 is there
    0:50:51 in modern
    0:50:52 day China
    0:50:53 by the
    0:50:53 Chinese
    0:50:54 government
    0:50:55 so
    0:50:55 you know
    0:50:56 there’s a lot
    0:50:56 of censorship
    0:50:57 my favorite
    0:50:58 book about
    0:50:58 one of my
    0:50:59 favorite books
    0:50:59 about Chinese
    0:51:00 censorship
    0:51:01 Margaret Roberts
    0:51:01 where she
    0:51:02 talks about
    0:51:03 there are
    0:51:03 three different
    0:51:05 ways that
    0:51:05 the government
    0:51:06 can control
    0:51:08 the stories
    0:51:09 and she says
    0:51:09 there’s fear
    0:51:10 which is this
    0:51:11 kind of direct
    0:51:11 censorship
    0:51:12 thing
    0:51:13 like banning
    0:51:14 things
    0:51:14 but there’s
    0:51:15 also friction
    0:51:16 which she
    0:51:16 says
    0:51:16 she has
    0:51:17 three apps
    0:51:17 fear
    0:51:18 friction
    0:51:19 and flooding
    0:51:20 and she
    0:51:20 says they’re
    0:51:21 all important
    0:51:21 and I think
    0:51:22 this is true
    0:51:22 not just
    0:51:23 of China
    0:51:23 but in
    0:51:23 other
    0:51:23 settings
    0:51:24 too
    0:51:25 so what
    0:51:26 friction
    0:51:26 means
    0:51:27 is
    0:51:28 you just
    0:51:28 make it
    0:51:28 harder
    0:51:29 for people
    0:51:29 to get
    0:51:30 answers
    0:51:30 or get
    0:51:31 information
    0:51:31 that you
    0:51:31 don’t
    0:51:32 want them
    0:51:32 to get
    0:51:33 even though
    0:51:34 you know
    0:51:34 that
    0:51:35 some people
    0:51:36 will get
    0:51:36 it
    0:51:36 you just
    0:51:36 make it
    0:51:37 that the
    0:51:37 easiest
    0:51:38 way
    0:51:38 the first
    0:51:39 answer
    0:51:39 you’ll
    0:51:39 get
    0:51:39 through a
    0:51:40 search
    0:51:41 so
    0:51:42 a lot
    0:51:42 of
    0:51:43 you know
    0:51:44 tech savvy
    0:51:45 or globally
    0:51:45 minded
    0:51:48 tapped in
    0:51:48 Chinese
    0:51:49 will use
    0:51:50 people
    0:51:50 will use
    0:51:51 a VPN
    0:51:52 to jump
    0:51:52 over the
    0:51:52 firewall
    0:51:53 but it’s
    0:51:54 work
    0:51:55 the internet
    0:51:55 moves slower
    0:51:56 you have
    0:51:57 to keep
    0:51:57 updating
    0:51:58 your VPN
    0:51:59 so you
    0:51:59 just create
    0:52:00 friction
    0:52:01 so that
    0:52:01 okay
    0:52:02 some people
    0:52:02 will find
    0:52:03 this out
    0:52:03 and then
    0:52:04 flooding
    0:52:04 you just
    0:52:05 fill the
    0:52:06 airwaves
    0:52:06 and the
    0:52:06 media
    0:52:07 with
    0:52:08 versions
    0:52:08 of the
    0:52:08 stories
    0:52:09 that you
    0:52:09 want the
    0:52:10 people
    0:52:10 to believe
    0:52:11 so all
    0:52:11 those
    0:52:12 kind of
    0:52:12 exist
    0:52:13 and
    0:52:13 in
    0:52:14 operation
    0:52:14 and I
    0:52:14 think
    0:52:15 the
    0:52:16 fear
    0:52:16 is the
    0:52:17 easiest
    0:52:17 side
    0:52:18 to say
    0:52:18 of what’s
    0:52:18 blocked
    0:52:19 so I’m
    0:52:19 always interested
    0:52:20 in things
    0:52:20 that
    0:52:23 things that
    0:52:23 you would
    0:52:23 expect to
    0:52:24 be censored
    0:52:24 that aren’t
    0:52:25 censored
    0:52:27 you can
    0:52:27 read all
    0:52:28 sorts of
    0:52:29 things in
    0:52:29 China
    0:52:31 about
    0:52:32 totalitarian
    0:52:33 you can read
    0:52:34 Hannah Arendt’s
    0:52:35 book on
    0:52:36 totalitarianism
    0:52:37 which would be
    0:52:37 the kind
    0:52:37 of thing
    0:52:37 you just
    0:52:38 you know
    0:52:38 you’re not
    0:52:38 supposed to be
    0:52:39 able to read
    0:52:39 that in
    0:52:41 a somewhat
    0:52:42 totalitarian
    0:52:43 state or a
    0:52:44 dictatorial state
    0:52:44 if anything
    0:52:46 but it’s not
    0:52:46 specifically about
    0:52:47 China
    0:52:49 and so
    0:52:51 censorship is
    0:52:51 most
    0:52:53 most restrictive
    0:52:54 when it’s things
    0:52:54 that are actually
    0:52:55 about China
    0:52:56 things about
    0:52:57 leaders of the
    0:52:58 Chinese Communist
    0:52:58 Party there’s
    0:52:59 intense kind of
    0:53:00 censorship of
    0:53:00 that
    0:53:02 and certain
    0:53:03 events in that
    0:53:04 way but
    0:53:05 a sort
    0:53:05 of like
    0:53:07 something
    0:53:07 through
    0:53:08 allegory
    0:53:08 something
    0:53:09 through
    0:53:11 imagining
    0:53:12 a place
    0:53:13 that looks
    0:53:13 a lot
    0:53:14 like
    0:53:14 a
    0:53:14 Communist
    0:53:15 Party
    0:53:15 ruled
    0:53:16 state
    0:53:16 so that
    0:53:16 people
    0:53:16 are
    0:53:17 going
    0:53:17 to
    0:53:17 read
    0:53:17 it
    0:53:18 there
    0:53:18 were
    0:53:18 things
    0:53:18 that
    0:53:18 were
    0:53:19 banned
    0:53:20 throughout
    0:53:21 up until
    0:53:21 like the
    0:53:22 very last
    0:53:23 period of
    0:53:23 Gorbachev’s
    0:53:23 rule
    0:53:24 things banned
    0:53:24 in the
    0:53:25 Soviet
    0:53:25 Union
    0:53:26 that are
    0:53:26 available
    0:53:27 in
    0:53:27 Chinese
    0:53:27 bookstores
    0:53:28 you can
    0:53:28 buy
    0:53:28 1984
    0:53:29 in a
    0:53:29 Chinese
    0:53:30 bookstore
    0:53:30 you’ve
    0:53:30 been able
    0:53:31 to
    0:53:31 since
    0:53:32 1985
    0:53:34 you can
    0:53:35 buy
    0:53:35 again
    0:53:35 it’s
    0:53:35 not
    0:53:36 about
    0:53:36 China
    0:53:37 and
    0:53:37 actually
    0:53:37 for
    0:53:38 some
    0:53:38 people
    0:53:38 within
    0:53:39 China
    0:53:40 in the
    0:53:41 mid-1980s
    0:53:42 where they
    0:53:42 focused on
    0:53:43 the part
    0:53:43 of 1984
    0:53:44 that’s
    0:53:44 like the
    0:53:44 two minutes
    0:53:45 of hate
    0:53:45 these rituals
    0:53:46 of denunciation
    0:53:47 of people
    0:53:48 for some
    0:53:48 people in
    0:53:48 China
    0:53:49 it seemed
    0:53:49 like it
    0:53:50 was about
    0:53:50 their past
    0:53:51 not about
    0:53:52 their present
    0:53:53 and then
    0:53:53 by the
    0:53:54 90s
    0:53:54 1984
    0:53:55 is a
    0:53:55 very bleak
    0:53:57 culture
    0:53:57 of scarcity
    0:53:58 a place
    0:53:58 where people
    0:53:59 just aren’t
    0:53:59 having fun
    0:54:01 and people
    0:54:02 said like
    0:54:03 some people
    0:54:03 would read
    0:54:04 1984
    0:54:04 and say
    0:54:04 look
    0:54:05 this is
    0:54:05 the world
    0:54:06 we’re living
    0:54:06 in
    0:54:06 it’s a
    0:54:07 big brother
    0:54:07 state
    0:54:08 but others
    0:54:08 said
    0:54:09 well
    0:54:09 that has
    0:54:10 some
    0:54:10 similarities
    0:54:10 to us
    0:54:11 but
    0:54:12 you know
    0:54:13 he wasn’t
    0:54:13 talking about
    0:54:14 a country
    0:54:14 like ours
    0:54:14 look
    0:54:15 we’ve got
    0:54:16 supermarkets
    0:54:17 we’ve got
    0:54:18 McDonald’s
    0:54:18 I mean
    0:54:18 this is not
    0:54:19 you know
    0:54:19 we’ve got
    0:54:20 fast trains
    0:54:21 we’ve got
    0:54:22 things
    0:54:22 we’re living
    0:54:23 so much
    0:54:23 better
    0:54:23 in some
    0:54:24 ways
    0:54:24 than our
    0:54:25 grandparents
    0:54:25 did
    0:54:25 and
    0:54:26 this isn’t
    0:54:27 like that
    0:54:28 bleak world
    0:54:28 he was
    0:54:28 imagining
    0:54:30 yeah
    0:54:30 you’ve
    0:54:30 actually
    0:54:31 spoken about
    0:54:31 and described
    0:54:32 China’s more
    0:54:32 akin to
    0:54:33 the dystopian
    0:54:33 world
    0:54:34 the brave
    0:54:35 new world
    0:54:36 than 1984
    0:54:38 which is really
    0:54:39 interesting to
    0:54:39 think about
    0:54:40 I think about
    0:54:40 that a lot
    0:54:41 I’ve recently
    0:54:42 reread
    0:54:43 over the past
    0:54:43 couple of years
    0:54:44 reread
    0:54:44 brave new world
    0:54:45 a couple of times
    0:54:46 and also 1984
    0:54:48 it does seem
    0:54:48 it does seem
    0:54:50 that the 21st
    0:54:50 century
    0:54:52 might be
    0:54:53 more defined
    0:54:54 to the degree
    0:54:55 it is dystopian
    0:54:56 any of the
    0:54:57 nations are
    0:54:58 by brave new
    0:54:58 world
    0:54:59 than by
    0:55:00 1984
    0:55:01 there are
    0:55:01 mixed elements
    0:55:02 I think
    0:55:02 there are
    0:55:03 moments
    0:55:03 when it
    0:55:04 can seem
    0:55:04 more
    0:55:06 one than
    0:55:06 the other
    0:55:07 and there
    0:55:07 can be
    0:55:07 parts of
    0:55:08 the same
    0:55:08 country
    0:55:09 that seem
    0:55:09 more
    0:55:10 one than
    0:55:11 the other
    0:55:13 and if we
    0:55:14 just think
    0:55:14 about
    0:55:15 control
    0:55:16 through
    0:55:16 distraction
    0:55:18 and
    0:55:20 playing to
    0:55:20 your
    0:55:21 sense of
    0:55:21 pleasure
    0:55:22 one thing
    0:55:22 that people
    0:55:23 forget
    0:55:23 sometimes
    0:55:24 or don’t
    0:55:24 know
    0:55:25 is that
    0:55:26 Aldous Huxley
    0:55:26 who wrote
    0:55:26 brave new
    0:55:27 world
    0:55:27 taught
    0:55:28 Eric Blair
    0:55:29 who became
    0:55:30 George Orwell
    0:55:30 when he was
    0:55:31 a student
    0:55:31 at Eden
    0:55:32 and they
    0:55:33 were sort
    0:55:33 of rivals
    0:55:34 and in
    0:55:34 fact in
    0:55:35 1949
    0:55:37 Orwell
    0:55:38 sent his
    0:55:38 former teacher
    0:55:39 a copy
    0:55:40 of 1984
    0:55:41 and said
    0:55:41 you know
    0:55:42 look
    0:55:42 I’ve
    0:55:42 written
    0:55:43 this
    0:55:43 basically
    0:55:44 it’s
    0:55:44 kind of
    0:55:45 almost
    0:55:45 a little
    0:55:45 Oedipal
    0:55:46 like
    0:55:46 I’ve
    0:55:46 written
    0:55:46 this
    0:55:47 book
    0:55:47 that
    0:55:48 displaces
    0:55:48 yours
    0:55:49 he didn’t
    0:55:49 say that
    0:55:50 he just
    0:55:50 said I
    0:55:50 wanted you
    0:55:51 to have
    0:55:51 this
    0:55:51 but he
    0:55:52 criticized
    0:55:52 brave new
    0:55:52 world
    0:55:53 and
    0:55:54 reviews
    0:55:55 as like
    0:55:57 not having
    0:55:58 having imagined
    0:55:59 a world
    0:56:00 of capitalism
    0:56:00 run wild
    0:56:01 like before
    0:56:02 realizing
    0:56:03 the kind
    0:56:03 of
    0:56:03 totalitarian
    0:56:04 threats
    0:56:04 of the
    0:56:05 middle
    0:56:05 of the
    0:56:05 20th
    0:56:05 century
    0:56:06 but
    0:56:06 Huxley
    0:56:07 wrote
    0:56:07 Orwell
    0:56:08 a letter
    0:56:08 in October
    0:56:09 of 1949
    0:56:10 same month
    0:56:10 the communist
    0:56:11 party
    0:56:12 took control
    0:56:12 in China
    0:56:13 not that he
    0:56:14 mentions China
    0:56:15 and he just
    0:56:15 said you know
    0:56:16 it’s a great
    0:56:16 book and
    0:56:16 everything
    0:56:17 but I think
    0:56:18 the dictators
    0:56:19 of the future
    0:56:20 will find
    0:56:21 less arduous
    0:56:22 ways to keep
    0:56:23 control over
    0:56:23 the population
    0:56:25 basically saying
    0:56:25 more like
    0:56:26 what was in
    0:56:27 my book
    0:56:27 than in
    0:56:27 yours
    0:56:29 I have to
    0:56:30 say I
    0:56:30 think Huxley
    0:56:32 might be
    0:56:33 really onto
    0:56:33 something there
    0:56:34 truly a
    0:56:35 visionary
    0:56:36 although to
    0:56:37 give points
    0:56:37 to Orwell
    0:56:38 I do
    0:56:39 think as
    0:56:39 far as
    0:56:41 just a
    0:56:42 philosophical
    0:56:43 work of
    0:56:44 fiction
    0:56:46 1984 is a
    0:56:46 better book
    0:56:48 because Brave
    0:56:49 New World does
    0:56:49 not quite
    0:56:50 construct the
    0:56:51 philosophical
    0:56:51 message
    0:56:52 thoroughly
    0:56:54 because 1984
    0:56:55 contains many
    0:56:56 very clearly
    0:56:57 very poetically
    0:56:59 defined elements
    0:57:00 of a
    0:57:00 totalitarian
    0:57:01 regime
    0:57:02 oh and the
    0:57:03 dissection of
    0:57:04 language is just
    0:57:04 so amazing
    0:57:05 no I think
    0:57:05 you’ve got a
    0:57:06 point there
    0:57:06 and I went
    0:57:06 back and
    0:57:07 reread
    0:57:08 Brave New
    0:57:08 World and
    0:57:09 it’s it’s
    0:57:10 fascinating but
    0:57:11 it’s very
    0:57:12 it’s very
    0:57:12 messy
    0:57:13 yeah I
    0:57:13 think there’s
    0:57:14 a clarity
    0:57:15 to to
    0:57:16 Orwell’s
    0:57:16 1984
    0:57:17 there’s a
    0:57:18 clarity to
    0:57:19 Margaret Atwood’s
    0:57:20 Handmaid’s Tale
    0:57:21 similarly the
    0:57:22 the construction
    0:57:23 of the
    0:57:24 elements and
    0:57:24 she was a
    0:57:25 big fan of
    0:57:28 both 1984
    0:57:28 and Brave
    0:57:29 New World so
    0:57:30 there’s a way
    0:57:31 they they go
    0:57:32 forward but
    0:57:33 you know there
    0:57:33 was a kind
    0:57:34 of it’s not
    0:57:35 exactly a sequel
    0:57:36 but Huxley
    0:57:37 did write
    0:57:37 something called
    0:57:38 Brave New
    0:57:39 World Revisited
    0:57:39 yes he did
    0:57:40 in the 50s
    0:57:41 and he kind
    0:57:41 of said
    0:57:42 actually
    0:57:43 it seems
    0:57:43 and he
    0:57:43 mentions
    0:57:44 China there
    0:57:45 he says
    0:57:46 that in
    0:57:46 Mao’s
    0:57:46 China
    0:57:47 they’re
    0:57:47 kind of
    0:57:48 combining
    0:57:49 the two
    0:57:49 things of
    0:57:50 this and
    0:57:52 I’m really
    0:57:52 fascinated by
    0:57:53 that because
    0:57:54 they published
    0:57:55 in China
    0:57:57 on the
    0:57:57 Chinese mainland
    0:57:58 it was
    0:57:59 published in
    0:58:00 Taiwan and
    0:58:00 Hong Kong
    0:58:01 too it’s
    0:58:01 called the
    0:58:02 Dystopian
    0:58:03 Trilogy and
    0:58:04 it’s a
    0:58:05 box set
    0:58:05 where you
    0:58:06 have
    0:58:07 Zemiatan
    0:58:07 Zui
    0:58:08 who inspired
    0:58:09 both Orwell
    0:58:10 and Huxley
    0:58:11 to some extent
    0:58:12 that’s one
    0:58:13 book
    0:58:13 and then
    0:58:13 there’s
    0:58:14 Animal Farm
    0:58:15 in 1984
    0:58:16 is the
    0:58:16 second book
    0:58:17 and then
    0:58:18 the third
    0:58:19 volume is
    0:58:20 Huxley’s
    0:58:20 Brave New
    0:58:21 World and
    0:58:21 Brave New
    0:58:22 World Revisited
    0:58:23 and it was
    0:58:24 published in
    0:58:25 complex characters
    0:58:27 you could buy it
    0:58:28 in Hong Kong
    0:58:29 but I compared it
    0:58:30 to the book
    0:58:31 you can buy
    0:58:31 on the mainland
    0:58:33 and it’s all
    0:58:33 the same
    0:58:35 except the
    0:58:36 parts in
    0:58:37 Brave New
    0:58:37 World Revisited
    0:58:38 that refer to
    0:58:39 China are
    0:58:39 scalpeled out
    0:58:41 and this I
    0:58:41 think shows
    0:58:42 the subtlety
    0:58:43 of the
    0:58:44 censorship
    0:58:44 system
    0:58:45 you can
    0:58:46 buy these
    0:58:46 books and
    0:58:47 you can
    0:58:47 read about
    0:58:48 them but
    0:58:48 the parts
    0:58:50 that really
    0:58:50 show you
    0:58:51 how to
    0:58:51 connect the
    0:58:51 dots
    0:58:53 that gets
    0:58:54 taken out
    0:58:55 and I do
    0:58:55 think the
    0:58:56 Brave New
    0:58:57 World side
    0:58:57 of things
    0:58:58 I think
    0:58:59 with China
    0:59:00 I was feeling
    0:59:00 it was
    0:59:00 definitely
    0:59:01 moving
    0:59:02 more toward
    0:59:03 Brave New
    0:59:03 World
    0:59:04 except
    0:59:05 Tibet and
    0:59:05 Xinjiang
    0:59:06 being
    0:59:07 more
    0:59:08 the
    0:59:08 crude
    0:59:08 boot
    0:59:09 on the
    0:59:09 face
    0:59:10 1984
    0:59:10 style
    0:59:11 of
    0:59:11 control
    0:59:12 but
    0:59:12 then
    0:59:12 during
    0:59:13 the
    0:59:13 COVID
    0:59:14 lockdowns
    0:59:14 when
    0:59:14 people
    0:59:14 were
    0:59:15 being
    0:59:15 so
    0:59:16 intensely
    0:59:16 monitored
    0:59:16 and
    0:59:17 controlled
    0:59:18 even
    0:59:18 places
    0:59:19 like
    0:59:19 Shanghai
    0:59:19 that it
    0:59:20 seemed
    0:59:20 much
    0:59:20 more
    0:59:20 the
    0:59:21 Brave
    0:59:21 New
    0:59:21 World
    0:59:21 kind
    0:59:22 of
    0:59:36 what
    0:59:36 it
    0:59:36 could
    0:59:36 give
    0:59:36 a
    0:59:37 sense
    0:59:38 after
    0:59:38 you
    0:59:39 thoroughly
    0:59:40 internalize
    0:59:41 the fear
    0:59:42 that you
    0:59:42 have
    0:59:42 complete
    0:59:43 freedom
    0:59:43 of
    0:59:43 speech
    0:59:44 just
    0:59:45 don’t
    0:59:45 mention
    0:59:45 the
    0:59:46 government
    0:59:47 so you
    0:59:47 could
    0:59:47 talk
    0:59:47 about
    0:59:48 totalitarianism
    0:59:48 you could
    0:59:49 talk
    0:59:49 about
    0:59:50 the
    0:59:50 darkest
    0:59:50 aspects
    0:59:51 of
    0:59:51 human
    0:59:51 nature
    0:59:52 just
    0:59:53 don’t
    0:59:54 you can
    0:59:54 even
    0:59:54 talk
    0:59:55 about
    0:59:55 the
    0:59:55 government
    0:59:56 in a
    0:59:56 sort
    0:59:56 of
    0:59:57 metaphorical
    0:59:58 like
    0:59:58 poetic
    1:00:01 way
    1:00:02 that’s
    1:00:02 not
    1:00:02 directly
    1:00:03 linkable
    1:00:04 but the
    1:00:05 moment you
    1:00:05 mention the
    1:00:05 government
    1:00:05 it’s
    1:00:06 like
    1:00:06 a
    1:00:06 dumb
    1:00:06 keyword
    1:00:07 search
    1:00:08 it’s
    1:00:08 yeah
    1:00:08 it’s
    1:00:09 and
    1:00:09 and
    1:00:09 I
    1:00:09 think
    1:00:09 it’s
    1:00:10 like
    1:00:10 one
    1:00:10 of
    1:00:10 these
    1:00:11 really
    1:00:11 good
    1:00:12 examples
    1:00:12 of
    1:00:12 how
    1:00:13 you
    1:00:13 know
    1:00:14 China’s
    1:00:14 distinctive
    1:00:15 but it’s
    1:00:15 it’s
    1:00:16 not
    1:00:16 unique
    1:00:17 you have
    1:00:17 other
    1:00:17 settings
    1:00:18 where you
    1:00:18 have
    1:00:18 these
    1:00:19 like
    1:00:19 no-go
    1:00:20 zones
    1:00:20 that
    1:00:20 you
    1:00:20 learn
    1:00:20 and
    1:00:21 one
    1:00:22 example
    1:00:22 is
    1:00:22 in
    1:00:22 Singapore
    1:00:23 you
    1:00:23 know
    1:00:23 there
    1:00:24 was
    1:00:24 this
    1:00:25 so
    1:00:26 National
    1:00:26 University
    1:00:26 of
    1:00:27 Singapore
    1:00:27 has
    1:00:27 a
    1:00:28 world-class
    1:00:28 history
    1:00:28 department
    1:00:30 but
    1:00:30 no
    1:00:30 Singapore
    1:00:31 historian
    1:00:32 in it
    1:00:32 nobody
    1:00:32 who
    1:00:33 focuses
    1:00:33 on
    1:00:33 the
    1:00:33 history
    1:00:33 of
    1:00:34 Singapore
    1:00:35 because
    1:00:35 you know
    1:00:35 it’s
    1:00:36 incredibly
    1:00:37 wide-ranging
    1:00:37 what you
    1:00:37 can
    1:00:38 what you
    1:00:38 can
    1:00:39 do
    1:00:40 analyze
    1:00:40 but
    1:00:41 when
    1:00:41 you’re
    1:00:42 actually
    1:00:42 talking
    1:00:42 about
    1:00:43 the
    1:00:43 family
    1:00:43 that’s
    1:00:44 been
    1:00:44 most
    1:00:44 powerful
    1:00:45 in
    1:00:45 Singapore
    1:00:45 then
    1:00:46 it
    1:00:46 gets
    1:00:47 to be
    1:00:47 touchy
    1:00:48 in
    1:00:49 Thailand
    1:00:50 which
    1:00:50 I’ve
    1:00:50 been
    1:00:51 working
    1:00:51 on
    1:00:52 recently
    1:00:52 you
    1:00:53 have
    1:00:53 this
    1:00:54 laws
    1:00:57 that
    1:00:57 make
    1:00:57 it
    1:00:57 very
    1:01:00 dangerous
    1:01:01 to say
    1:01:01 certain
    1:01:01 kinds
    1:01:01 of
    1:01:01 things
    1:01:02 about
    1:01:02 the
    1:01:02 king
    1:01:03 and
    1:01:03 so
    1:01:04 in
    1:01:04 all
    1:01:04 of
    1:01:04 these
    1:01:04 settings
    1:01:05 you
    1:01:05 have
    1:01:05 to
    1:01:05 figure
    1:01:05 out
    1:01:06 ways
    1:01:06 to
    1:01:06 work
    1:01:07 around
    1:01:07 and
    1:01:07 there’s
    1:01:07 a
    1:01:10 way
    1:01:10 in
    1:01:10 which
    1:01:11 you
    1:01:11 can
    1:01:12 say
    1:01:12 at
    1:01:12 the
    1:01:13 foreign
    1:01:14 correspondence
    1:01:14 clubs
    1:01:15 in
    1:01:15 different
    1:01:15 parts
    1:01:15 of
    1:01:16 Asia
    1:01:17 you
    1:01:17 can
    1:01:17 have
    1:01:17 an
    1:01:18 event
    1:01:18 that’s
    1:01:19 about
    1:01:19 the
    1:01:20 country
    1:01:20 won
    1:01:21 over
    1:01:22 that
    1:01:22 you
    1:01:22 can
    1:01:22 say
    1:01:22 basically
    1:01:23 anything
    1:01:23 you
    1:01:23 want
    1:01:23 but
    1:01:24 when
    1:01:24 it
    1:01:24 gets
    1:01:24 to
    1:01:24 the
    1:01:24 things
    1:01:25 in
    1:01:25 the
    1:01:25 place
    1:01:25 where
    1:01:25 you
    1:01:26 are
    1:01:28 you’re
    1:01:29 I should
    1:01:29 give
    1:01:30 credit
    1:01:30 for
    1:01:30 that
    1:01:31 insight
    1:01:32 Shibani
    1:01:32 Matani
    1:01:33 who’s
    1:01:33 written
    1:01:35 co-wrote
    1:01:35 a very
    1:01:35 good
    1:01:35 book
    1:01:35 on
    1:01:36 Hong
    1:01:36 Kong
    1:01:36 Among
    1:01:36 the
    1:01:37 Braves
    1:01:38 she
    1:01:38 was
    1:01:38 talking
    1:01:39 about
    1:01:39 that
    1:01:39 in
    1:01:40 Singapore
    1:01:41 at
    1:01:41 the
    1:01:41 foreign
    1:01:42 correspondents
    1:01:42 club
    1:01:42 you
    1:01:42 could
    1:01:42 have
    1:01:42 an
    1:01:43 event
    1:01:43 on
    1:01:43 Hong
    1:01:48 correspondents
    1:01:48 club
    1:01:49 but
    1:01:49 at
    1:01:49 the
    1:01:49 same
    1:01:49 time
    1:01:49 when
    1:01:50 I
    1:01:50 saw
    1:01:50 her
    1:01:50 in
    1:01:50 Singapore
    1:01:51 she
    1:01:51 said
    1:01:52 there
    1:01:52 was
    1:01:52 a
    1:01:52 Singapore
    1:01:53 refugee
    1:01:55 in
    1:01:56 Hong
    1:01:56 Kong
    1:01:56 who
    1:01:56 was
    1:01:56 giving
    1:01:56 a
    1:01:57 talk
    1:01:57 at
    1:01:57 the
    1:01:57 Hong
    1:01:57 Kong
    1:01:58 foreign
    1:01:58 foreign
    1:01:58 foreign
    1:01:59 correspondents
    1:01:59 club
    1:02:00 saying
    1:02:00 things
    1:02:01 that
    1:02:01 he
    1:02:01 couldn’t
    1:02:01 say
    1:02:01 in
    1:02:02 Singapore
    1:02:03 and
    1:02:03 in
    1:02:04 Thailand
    1:02:04 I
    1:02:04 gave
    1:02:04 a
    1:02:05 talk
    1:02:05 at
    1:02:05 the
    1:02:05 foreign
    1:02:06 correspondents
    1:02:06 club
    1:02:07 and
    1:02:07 then
    1:02:07 I
    1:02:07 went
    1:02:07 to
    1:02:08 hear
    1:02:08 a
    1:02:08 talk
    1:02:08 there
    1:02:09 because
    1:02:09 I
    1:02:09 was
    1:02:09 curious
    1:02:10 about
    1:02:11 what
    1:02:11 the
    1:02:11 culture
    1:02:12 in
    1:02:12 this
    1:02:13 foreign
    1:02:13 correspondents
    1:02:13 club
    1:02:14 and
    1:02:14 there
    1:02:14 was
    1:02:14 somebody
    1:02:15 talking
    1:02:15 about
    1:02:16 human
    1:02:16 rights
    1:02:16 abuses
    1:02:17 in
    1:02:17 different
    1:02:17 parts
    1:02:17 of
    1:02:18 Southeast
    1:02:18 Asia
    1:02:19 saying
    1:02:19 things
    1:02:20 very
    1:02:20 directly
    1:02:20 and
    1:02:21 said
    1:02:22 and
    1:02:22 there
    1:02:22 are
    1:02:22 things
    1:02:29 self
    1:02:29 censorship
    1:02:29 can
    1:02:29 be
    1:02:30 a
    1:02:30 very
    1:02:30 powerful
    1:02:31 thing
    1:02:31 one
    1:02:32 of
    1:02:32 the
    1:02:32 things
    1:02:32 I
    1:02:34 learned
    1:02:34 about
    1:02:34 all
    1:02:34 of
    1:02:35 this
    1:02:35 which
    1:02:35 is
    1:02:35 interesting
    1:02:37 I
    1:02:37 want
    1:02:37 to
    1:02:37 learn
    1:02:38 more
    1:02:38 is
    1:02:38 about
    1:02:39 the
    1:02:39 human
    1:02:39 psychology
    1:02:40 the
    1:02:40 ability
    1:02:40 of
    1:02:40 the
    1:02:41 individual
    1:02:41 mind
    1:02:41 to
    1:02:43 compartmentalize
    1:02:43 things
    1:02:44 it
    1:02:44 does
    1:02:45 seem
    1:02:45 like
    1:02:45 you
    1:02:45 could
    1:02:46 not
    1:02:46 live
    1:02:46 in
    1:02:46 a
    1:02:46 state
    1:02:47 of
    1:02:47 fear
    1:02:48 as
    1:02:48 long
    1:02:48 as
    1:02:48 you
    1:02:48 don’t
    1:02:48 mention
    1:02:49 a
    1:02:49 particular
    1:02:50 topic
    1:02:51 my
    1:02:51 intuition
    1:02:51 would
    1:02:52 be
    1:02:52 about
    1:02:52 the
    1:02:52 human
    1:02:53 mind
    1:02:53 if
    1:02:53 there’s
    1:02:58 fear
    1:02:58 will
    1:02:58 permeate
    1:02:58 through
    1:02:58 everything
    1:02:59 else
    1:03:00 you
    1:03:00 would
    1:03:00 not
    1:03:00 be
    1:03:00 able
    1:03:00 to
    1:03:01 do
    1:03:01 great
    1:03:01 science
    1:03:02 great
    1:03:02 exploration
    1:03:02 great
    1:03:03 technology
    1:03:04 and that
    1:03:05 that idea
    1:03:05 I think
    1:03:06 underpins
    1:03:06 the whole
    1:03:06 idea of
    1:03:06 freedom
    1:03:07 of speech
    1:03:08 why you
    1:03:08 don’t
    1:03:09 want
    1:03:09 in the
    1:03:09 United
    1:03:10 States
    1:03:11 you
    1:03:11 don’t
    1:03:11 want
    1:03:11 to
    1:03:11 censor
    1:03:12 any
    1:03:12 even
    1:03:13 dangerous
    1:03:13 speech
    1:03:14 because
    1:03:15 that
    1:03:15 will
    1:03:16 permeate
    1:03:16 everything
    1:03:16 else
    1:03:17 you
    1:03:17 won’t
    1:03:17 be
    1:03:17 able
    1:03:17 to
    1:03:17 have
    1:03:18 great
    1:03:18 scientists
    1:03:18 you
    1:03:18 won’t
    1:03:18 be
    1:03:19 able
    1:03:19 to
    1:03:19 have
    1:03:19 great
    1:03:19 journalists
    1:03:20 you
    1:03:20 won’t
    1:03:20 be
    1:03:20 able
    1:03:20 to
    1:03:20 have
    1:03:21 I
    1:03:21 don’t
    1:03:21 know
    1:03:22 I’m
    1:03:22 obviously
    1:03:23 biased
    1:03:23 towards
    1:03:24 America
    1:03:24 and I
    1:03:24 think
    1:03:24 you
    1:03:25 do
    1:03:25 need
    1:03:25 to
    1:03:25 have
    1:03:25 that
    1:03:26 full
    1:03:26 on
    1:03:26 freedom
    1:03:26 of
    1:03:27 speech
    1:03:27 but this
    1:03:28 is an
    1:03:28 interesting
    1:03:28 case
    1:03:29 study
    1:03:30 and that’s
    1:03:30 actually
    1:03:30 something
    1:03:31 that you
    1:03:31 speak
    1:03:31 about
    1:03:31 that
    1:03:32 Mao
    1:03:33 if he
    1:03:33 were
    1:03:34 alive
    1:03:34 today
    1:03:34 and
    1:03:34 visited
    1:03:35 China
    1:03:36 would
    1:03:36 be
    1:03:36 quite
    1:03:37 surprised
    1:03:39 and you
    1:03:39 give
    1:03:39 the
    1:03:40 Nanjing
    1:03:41 bookstores
    1:03:41 an example
    1:03:41 can you
    1:03:42 just
    1:03:42 speak
    1:03:42 to
    1:03:42 this
    1:03:43 if
    1:03:43 Mao
    1:03:43 visited
    1:03:44 China
    1:03:44 let’s
    1:03:45 go with
    1:03:45 that
    1:03:45 thought
    1:03:46 experiment
    1:03:47 what
    1:03:47 would
    1:03:47 he
    1:03:48 recognize
    1:03:49 what
    1:03:49 would
    1:03:49 he
    1:03:49 be
    1:03:49 surprised
    1:03:50 by
    1:03:51 so
    1:03:51 I
    1:03:52 wrote
    1:03:52 about
    1:03:53 imagining
    1:03:53 a
    1:03:54 revivified
    1:03:55 Mao
    1:03:56 going
    1:03:56 to
    1:03:56 this
    1:03:57 really
    1:03:58 cool
    1:03:59 Nanjing
    1:03:59 bookstore
    1:04:00 in the
    1:04:00 early
    1:04:01 2000s
    1:04:01 and
    1:04:02 just
    1:04:02 being
    1:04:03 amazed
    1:04:03 at
    1:04:04 what
    1:04:04 you
    1:04:04 could
    1:04:05 read
    1:04:05 there
    1:04:05 and
    1:04:06 what
    1:04:06 books
    1:04:06 were
    1:04:07 for
    1:04:07 sale
    1:04:07 and
    1:04:07 I
    1:04:08 thought
    1:04:08 about
    1:04:08 how
    1:04:09 he’d
    1:04:10 be
    1:04:10 like
    1:04:11 what’s
    1:04:11 going
    1:04:11 on
    1:04:11 you
    1:04:11 know
    1:04:12 is
    1:04:12 the
    1:04:12 Communist
    1:04:12 Party
    1:04:12 not
    1:04:13 in
    1:04:14 control
    1:04:14 I
    1:04:14 mean
    1:04:15 he
    1:04:15 talked
    1:04:16 about
    1:04:16 how
    1:04:16 art
    1:04:16 and
    1:04:18 politics
    1:04:18 needed
    1:04:18 to
    1:04:18 in
    1:04:18 some
    1:04:19 ways
    1:04:19 go
    1:04:19 together
    1:04:19 and
    1:04:19 you’ve
    1:04:20 got
    1:04:20 all
    1:04:20 these
    1:04:20 kind
    1:04:20 of
    1:04:21 things
    1:04:21 he’d
    1:04:21 also
    1:04:21 be
    1:04:22 he
    1:04:22 also
    1:04:22 would
    1:04:23 have
    1:04:23 been
    1:04:23 shocked
    1:04:23 by
    1:04:23 all
    1:04:23 these
    1:04:24 books
    1:04:25 about
    1:04:25 how
    1:04:25 to
    1:04:25 start
    1:04:26 your
    1:04:26 own
    1:04:26 cafe
    1:04:27 and
    1:04:27 bar
    1:04:28 and
    1:04:29 celebrating
    1:04:29 entrepreneurship
    1:04:30 how to
    1:04:30 get
    1:04:30 into
    1:04:30 Harvard
    1:04:32 all of
    1:04:32 these
    1:04:32 things
    1:04:33 wouldn’t
    1:04:33 compute
    1:04:34 from
    1:04:34 his
    1:04:34 time
    1:04:35 although
    1:04:35 I
    1:04:36 said
    1:04:36 it
    1:04:36 would
    1:04:36 actually
    1:04:37 maybe
    1:04:37 make
    1:04:37 him
    1:04:37 nostalgia
    1:04:38 for
    1:04:38 the
    1:04:38 time
    1:04:38 of
    1:04:38 his
    1:04:39 youth
    1:04:39 in
    1:04:39 the
    1:04:39 19
    1:04:40 10s
    1:04:40 he
    1:04:41 was
    1:04:41 a
    1:04:41 participant
    1:04:41 in
    1:04:41 the
    1:04:42 May
    1:04:42 4th
    1:04:42 movement
    1:04:42 which
    1:04:43 was
    1:04:43 a
    1:04:43 time
    1:04:44 of
    1:04:44 reading
    1:04:44 all
    1:04:45 over
    1:04:45 the
    1:04:45 world
    1:04:45 looking
    1:04:46 for
    1:04:46 the
    1:04:46 best
    1:04:47 ideas
    1:04:48 circulating
    1:04:48 so
    1:04:49 he
    1:04:49 might
    1:04:49 say
    1:04:50 well
    1:04:50 the
    1:04:50 teenage
    1:04:51 me
    1:04:51 would
    1:04:51 have
    1:04:51 really
    1:04:53 loved
    1:04:53 this
    1:04:54 so
    1:04:55 some
    1:04:55 of
    1:04:55 the
    1:04:55 coolest
    1:04:56 bookstores
    1:04:57 the
    1:04:57 things
    1:04:57 that
    1:04:57 I
    1:04:58 just
    1:04:58 was
    1:04:58 amazed
    1:04:59 could
    1:04:59 exist
    1:04:59 in
    1:04:59 the
    1:04:59 early
    1:05:00 2000s
    1:05:01 so
    1:05:01 you
    1:05:01 can
    1:05:02 still
    1:05:02 read
    1:05:02 you
    1:05:02 can
    1:05:02 still
    1:05:03 buy
    1:05:03 copies
    1:05:03 in
    1:05:04 1984
    1:05:04 and
    1:05:04 you
    1:05:04 can
    1:05:04 still
    1:05:05 get
    1:05:06 some
    1:05:06 of
    1:05:06 these
    1:05:06 other
    1:05:07 things
    1:05:07 but
    1:05:07 that
    1:05:08 was
    1:05:08 a
    1:05:08 time
    1:05:08 when
    1:05:09 more
    1:05:09 and
    1:05:09 more
    1:05:09 of
    1:05:09 those
    1:05:09 things
    1:05:09 were
    1:05:10 being
    1:05:10 translated
    1:05:11 fresh
    1:05:11 I’m
    1:05:11 not
    1:05:11 sure
    1:05:11 you
    1:05:11 get
    1:05:13 permission
    1:05:13 to
    1:05:13 translate
    1:05:14 some
    1:05:14 of
    1:05:14 those
    1:05:14 things
    1:05:15 now
    1:05:16 there’s
    1:05:16 more
    1:05:16 of
    1:05:16 a
    1:05:16 sense
    1:05:17 of
    1:05:17 caution
    1:05:19 and
    1:05:20 when
    1:05:20 some
    1:05:20 of
    1:05:21 those
    1:05:21 bookstores
    1:05:21 would
    1:05:22 also
    1:05:22 then
    1:05:22 hold
    1:05:23 events
    1:05:23 that
    1:05:23 would
    1:05:23 talk
    1:05:24 about
    1:05:25 the
    1:05:25 kinds
    1:05:26 of
    1:05:26 ideas
    1:05:27 that
    1:05:27 then
    1:05:27 take
    1:05:27 them
    1:05:27 to
    1:05:27 the
    1:05:28 next
    1:05:28 level
    1:05:28 and
    1:05:28 talk
    1:05:29 about
    1:05:29 the
    1:05:30 applicability
    1:05:31 to
    1:05:32 the
    1:05:32 situation
    1:05:32 in
    1:05:33 China
    1:05:34 some
    1:05:34 of
    1:05:34 those
    1:05:34 bookstores
    1:05:35 have
    1:05:35 closed
    1:05:36 or
    1:05:36 have
    1:05:36 had
    1:05:36 to
    1:05:37 become
    1:05:37 kind
    1:05:37 of
    1:05:38 really
    1:05:39 shadows
    1:05:39 of
    1:05:39 what
    1:05:39 they
    1:05:40 were
    1:05:40 and
    1:05:41 one
    1:05:41 of
    1:05:41 the
    1:05:41 best
    1:05:42 ones
    1:05:42 not
    1:05:42 the
    1:05:42 one
    1:05:51 I
    1:05:52 wrote
    1:05:53 freewheeling
    1:05:53 discussions
    1:05:54 of
    1:05:54 liberal
    1:05:55 ideas
    1:05:55 in
    1:05:55 the
    1:05:55 early
    1:05:56 2000s
    1:05:56 and
    1:05:57 early
    1:05:58 2010s
    1:05:58 but
    1:05:58 then
    1:05:59 it
    1:05:59 just
    1:05:59 got
    1:05:59 less
    1:05:59 and
    1:06:00 less
    1:06:00 space
    1:06:00 to
    1:06:01 operate
    1:06:01 under
    1:06:02 Xi
    1:06:02 Jinping
    1:06:03 when
    1:06:03 things
    1:06:04 started
    1:06:04 narrowing
    1:06:06 and
    1:06:06 it
    1:06:06 then
    1:06:06 had
    1:06:06 to
    1:06:07 close
    1:06:07 in
    1:06:07 Shanghai
    1:06:08 and
    1:06:08 it’s
    1:06:08 just
    1:06:08 been
    1:06:09 reopened
    1:06:10 in
    1:06:11 DC
    1:06:12 as
    1:06:12 J.F.
    1:06:12 books
    1:06:13 and
    1:06:13 it’s
    1:06:14 becoming
    1:06:14 this
    1:06:15 really
    1:06:15 interesting
    1:06:16 cultural
    1:06:16 hub
    1:06:16 and
    1:06:17 I’m
    1:06:17 really
    1:06:17 delighted
    1:06:18 it’s
    1:06:18 where
    1:06:18 I’m
    1:06:18 going
    1:06:19 to
    1:06:19 hold
    1:06:20 the
    1:06:20 launch
    1:06:20 for
    1:06:20 my
    1:06:21 next
    1:06:21 book
    1:06:22 when
    1:06:22 it
    1:06:22 comes
    1:06:22 out
    1:06:22 in
    1:06:23 June
    1:06:23 this
    1:06:24 book
    1:06:24 on
    1:06:24 the
    1:06:24 milk
    1:06:24 tea
    1:06:25 alliance
    1:06:26 about
    1:06:27 struggles
    1:06:27 for
    1:06:28 change
    1:06:28 across
    1:06:29 East
    1:06:29 and
    1:06:29 Southeast
    1:06:30 Asia
    1:06:30 including
    1:06:31 in
    1:06:32 places
    1:06:32 that
    1:06:32 are
    1:06:33 worried
    1:06:33 about
    1:06:33 the
    1:06:33 kind
    1:06:33 of
    1:06:34 rising
    1:06:34 influence
    1:06:34 of
    1:06:35 Beijing
    1:06:35 and
    1:06:35 it
    1:06:35 seems
    1:06:35 just
    1:06:36 perfect
    1:06:37 to
    1:06:37 be
    1:06:38 to
    1:06:38 be
    1:06:39 holding
    1:06:39 it
    1:06:43 places
    1:06:43 like
    1:06:44 that
    1:06:44 they
    1:06:45 stop
    1:06:45 being
    1:06:45 able
    1:06:45 to
    1:06:45 exist
    1:06:45 on
    1:06:46 the
    1:06:46 mainland
    1:06:46 then
    1:06:46 they
    1:06:46 could
    1:06:47 still
    1:06:47 exist
    1:06:47 in
    1:06:47 Hong
    1:06:48 Kong
    1:06:49 but
    1:06:49 now
    1:06:49 in
    1:06:49 Hong
    1:06:50 Kong
    1:06:51 one
    1:06:51 of
    1:06:51 the
    1:06:51 coolest
    1:06:52 bookstores
    1:06:52 has had
    1:06:52 to
    1:06:53 close
    1:06:53 up
    1:06:54 it
    1:06:54 just
    1:06:54 didn’t
    1:06:54 feel
    1:06:55 like
    1:06:55 it
    1:06:55 could
    1:06:55 continue
    1:06:56 operating
    1:06:56 and
    1:06:56 tightening
    1:06:57 control
    1:06:57 there
    1:06:57 and
    1:06:57 it’s
    1:06:58 reopened
    1:06:58 in
    1:06:58 upstate
    1:06:58 New
    1:06:59 York
    1:07:00 so
    1:07:00 you
    1:07:00 have
    1:07:00 this
    1:07:01 phenomenon
    1:07:02 of
    1:07:03 bookstores
    1:07:03 there’s
    1:07:03 also
    1:07:04 a few
    1:07:04 bookstores
    1:07:05 called
    1:07:05 the
    1:07:06 Nowhere
    1:07:06 bookstores
    1:07:07 that
    1:07:07 opened
    1:07:07 in
    1:07:08 Chiang Mai
    1:07:09 and
    1:07:09 Taipei
    1:07:10 and
    1:07:11 The Hague
    1:07:11 and I
    1:07:11 heard
    1:07:12 one
    1:07:12 is
    1:07:13 going
    1:07:13 to
    1:07:13 open
    1:07:13 in
    1:07:15 Japan
    1:07:15 too
    1:07:16 my
    1:07:17 sometime
    1:07:18 collaborator
    1:07:18 Amy Hawkins
    1:07:19 who
    1:07:20 covers
    1:07:20 China for
    1:07:21 The Guardian
    1:07:22 wrote a
    1:07:22 great piece
    1:07:23 late last
    1:07:23 year
    1:07:23 about
    1:07:24 this
    1:07:25 overseas
    1:07:25 bookstore
    1:07:26 phenomenon
    1:07:26 sort of
    1:07:28 carrying on
    1:07:28 the
    1:07:28 conversations
    1:07:29 that
    1:07:29 people
    1:07:30 thought
    1:07:31 they
    1:07:31 might
    1:07:31 be
    1:07:31 able
    1:07:31 to
    1:07:31 have
    1:07:32 in
    1:07:32 China
    1:07:32 and
    1:07:32 then
    1:07:33 couldn’t
    1:07:34 and
    1:07:34 imagine
    1:07:35 someday
    1:07:35 being able
    1:07:36 to hold
    1:07:36 in
    1:07:36 China
    1:07:36 but
    1:07:37 maybe
    1:07:38 can’t
    1:07:38 so
    1:07:38 first
    1:07:39 of all
    1:07:40 boy
    1:07:40 do I
    1:07:40 love
    1:07:41 America
    1:07:42 and
    1:07:43 second
    1:07:43 of all
    1:07:43 it makes
    1:07:43 me
    1:07:44 really sad
    1:07:45 because
    1:07:45 there’s
    1:07:45 a very
    1:07:46 large
    1:07:46 number
    1:07:46 of
    1:07:47 incredible
    1:07:47 people
    1:07:47 in
    1:07:47 China
    1:07:49 incredible
    1:07:49 minds
    1:07:50 and
    1:07:52 maybe
    1:07:52 I’m
    1:07:52 romantic
    1:07:53 about
    1:07:53 this
    1:07:53 but
    1:07:53 books
    1:07:55 is
    1:07:55 a
    1:07:55 catalyst
    1:07:56 for
    1:07:57 brilliant
    1:07:57 minds
    1:07:57 to
    1:07:57 flourish
    1:07:58 and
    1:07:58 without
    1:07:59 that
    1:08:00 so
    1:08:00 I
    1:08:00 guess
    1:08:00 maybe
    1:08:01 this
    1:08:01 is
    1:08:01 a
    1:08:01 good
    1:08:01 time
    1:08:01 to
    1:08:02 mention
    1:08:02 something
    1:08:02 that
    1:08:03 I
    1:08:03 do
    1:08:04 think
    1:08:04 about
    1:08:04 and
    1:08:05 sometimes
    1:08:05 people
    1:08:06 will
    1:08:06 think
    1:08:06 because
    1:08:06 of
    1:08:07 censorship
    1:08:07 and
    1:08:07 that
    1:08:08 there’s
    1:08:08 an idea
    1:08:09 of
    1:08:10 brainwashing
    1:08:10 within
    1:08:10 China
    1:08:11 population
    1:08:12 control
    1:08:12 and
    1:08:13 I
    1:08:14 periodically
    1:08:14 will
    1:08:14 get
    1:08:15 students
    1:08:16 from
    1:08:16 the
    1:08:17 mainland
    1:08:18 and
    1:08:18 I
    1:08:19 have
    1:08:19 a lot
    1:08:19 of
    1:08:19 students
    1:08:19 from
    1:08:20 the
    1:08:20 mainland
    1:08:20 in
    1:08:20 my
    1:08:20 classes
    1:08:21 I
    1:08:21 teach
    1:08:21 Chinese
    1:08:21 history
    1:08:22 and
    1:08:22 I
    1:08:22 feel
    1:08:22 like
    1:08:22 okay
    1:08:23 now
    1:08:23 now
    1:08:23 I
    1:08:23 now
    1:08:24 I’m
    1:08:24 contradicting
    1:08:25 the
    1:08:25 version
    1:08:25 of
    1:08:26 the
    1:08:26 past
    1:08:26 that
    1:08:26 they
    1:08:27 that’s
    1:08:27 been
    1:08:27 drumbeat
    1:08:28 into
    1:08:28 them
    1:08:29 but
    1:08:29 I’ll
    1:08:29 still
    1:08:30 get
    1:08:30 students
    1:08:31 who
    1:08:31 are
    1:08:32 incredible
    1:08:32 free
    1:08:32 thinkers
    1:08:33 who
    1:08:33 have
    1:08:33 come
    1:08:33 through
    1:08:34 that
    1:08:34 system
    1:08:34 and
    1:08:34 it
    1:08:35 just
    1:08:36 doesn’t
    1:08:36 hold
    1:08:37 or
    1:08:37 there
    1:08:37 are
    1:08:37 limits
    1:08:37 to
    1:08:38 it
    1:08:39 and
    1:08:40 this
    1:08:40 is
    1:08:41 kind
    1:08:41 of
    1:08:41 I
    1:08:42 mean
    1:08:43 some
    1:08:43 of
    1:08:43 them
    1:08:43 are
    1:08:43 people
    1:08:43 who
    1:08:44 just
    1:08:44 got
    1:08:44 curious
    1:08:45 by
    1:08:45 something
    1:08:45 and
    1:08:46 it
    1:08:46 is
    1:08:46 a
    1:08:47 porous
    1:08:47 system
    1:08:48 even
    1:08:49 it’s
    1:08:50 more
    1:08:50 porous
    1:08:50 than
    1:08:51 North
    1:08:51 Korea
    1:08:52 things
    1:08:52 like
    1:08:52 that
    1:08:53 so
    1:08:53 there
    1:08:53 are
    1:08:54 even
    1:08:54 if
    1:08:54 there’s
    1:08:54 that
    1:08:55 fear
    1:08:56 friction
    1:08:56 and
    1:08:56 flooding
    1:08:57 which
    1:08:59 Roberts
    1:08:59 talks
    1:08:59 about
    1:09:00 that
    1:09:00 ends
    1:09:00 up
    1:09:01 keeping
    1:09:02 lots
    1:09:02 of
    1:09:02 people
    1:09:03 on
    1:09:03 the
    1:09:03 same
    1:09:03 page
    1:09:03 as
    1:09:04 the
    1:09:04 government
    1:09:05 there’s
    1:09:05 still
    1:09:05 people
    1:09:06 who
    1:09:06 take
    1:09:07 the
    1:09:07 time
    1:09:07 to
    1:09:07 go
    1:09:07 over
    1:09:07 the
    1:09:08 firewall
    1:09:08 or
    1:09:08 get
    1:09:09 intrigued
    1:09:09 or
    1:09:09 they
    1:09:10 see
    1:09:11 an
    1:09:12 image
    1:09:14 sent
    1:09:14 by
    1:09:14 a
    1:09:14 friend
    1:09:14 of
    1:09:15 theirs
    1:09:15 on
    1:09:16 social
    1:09:16 media
    1:09:17 will
    1:09:17 share
    1:09:18 them
    1:09:19 something
    1:09:20 on
    1:09:23 WeChat
    1:09:24 that
    1:09:25 it
    1:09:26 doesn’t
    1:09:26 get
    1:09:27 picked
    1:09:27 up
    1:09:27 by
    1:09:27 the
    1:09:28 censors
    1:09:28 but
    1:09:29 they
    1:09:29 look
    1:09:29 at
    1:09:30 it
    1:09:30 carefully
    1:09:30 and
    1:09:30 they
    1:09:31 say
    1:09:31 oh
    1:09:31 well
    1:09:31 wait
    1:09:31 a
    1:09:32 minute
    1:09:32 that
    1:09:33 contradicts
    1:09:33 what
    1:09:34 the
    1:09:34 government
    1:09:35 official
    1:09:35 line
    1:09:36 is
    1:09:36 so
    1:09:36 there
    1:09:37 is
    1:09:38 there’s
    1:09:38 still
    1:09:38 ways
    1:09:38 in
    1:09:39 which
    1:09:39 that
    1:09:40 creativity
    1:09:41 and
    1:09:41 freedom
    1:09:41 of
    1:09:41 thinking
    1:09:42 persists
    1:09:43 I
    1:09:43 mean
    1:09:44 that’s
    1:09:44 that’s
    1:09:45 really
    1:09:45 beautiful
    1:09:45 to
    1:09:45 hear
    1:09:46 I
    1:09:46 mean
    1:09:47 fundamentally
    1:09:47 the
    1:09:48 human
    1:09:48 spirit
    1:09:50 is
    1:09:50 curious
    1:09:51 and
    1:09:51 wants
    1:09:51 to
    1:09:52 understand
    1:09:52 and
    1:09:52 in
    1:09:53 some
    1:09:53 especially
    1:09:53 the
    1:09:54 young
    1:09:54 people
    1:09:54 as
    1:09:54 we
    1:09:55 mentioned
    1:09:56 are
    1:09:57 suspicious
    1:09:57 of
    1:09:57 authority
    1:09:58 in
    1:09:58 the
    1:09:58 best
    1:09:58 kind
    1:09:58 of
    1:09:59 way
    1:09:59 and
    1:09:59 so
    1:09:59 they’re
    1:09:59 always
    1:10:00 asking
    1:10:00 kinds
    1:10:00 of
    1:10:00 questions
    1:10:01 but
    1:10:01 we
    1:10:01 always
    1:10:01 have
    1:10:01 the
    1:10:02 child
    1:10:02 the
    1:10:02 young
    1:10:02 person
    1:10:03 inside
    1:10:03 us
    1:10:03 always
    1:10:04 asking
    1:10:04 like
    1:10:06 that
    1:10:07 maybe
    1:10:08 I’m
    1:10:08 being
    1:10:08 lied
    1:10:08 to
    1:10:08 in
    1:10:09 all
    1:10:09 these
    1:10:09 kinds
    1:10:09 of
    1:10:09 ways
    1:10:10 but
    1:10:10 still
    1:10:11 it’s
    1:10:11 sad
    1:10:11 because
    1:10:12 there
    1:10:12 is
    1:10:14 if
    1:10:14 you’re
    1:10:14 not
    1:10:14 deliberately
    1:10:15 doing
    1:10:15 that
    1:10:15 or
    1:10:15 if
    1:10:15 there’s
    1:10:16 not
    1:10:16 a
    1:10:16 spark
    1:10:17 of
    1:10:18 possibility
    1:10:18 that
    1:10:18 comes
    1:10:19 before
    1:10:19 you
    1:10:19 as
    1:10:19 just
    1:10:19 a
    1:10:20 regular
    1:10:20 citizen
    1:10:20 of
    1:10:21 China
    1:10:21 you
    1:10:21 might
    1:10:21 never
    1:10:22 really
    1:10:23 ask
    1:10:23 maybe
    1:10:23 a whole
    1:10:24 different
    1:10:25 perspective
    1:10:25 on
    1:10:26 world
    1:10:27 history
    1:10:28 to
    1:10:28 to
    1:10:28 be
    1:10:28 fair
    1:10:29 I
    1:10:29 think
    1:10:29 United
    1:10:30 States
    1:10:30 is
    1:10:31 is
    1:10:31 often
    1:10:32 guilty
    1:10:32 of
    1:10:32 this
    1:10:33 very
    1:10:33 United
    1:10:34 States
    1:10:34 centric
    1:10:35 view
    1:10:35 of
    1:10:35 history
    1:10:36 I mean
    1:10:36 similar
    1:10:36 with
    1:10:37 Europe
    1:10:37 Europe
    1:10:37 has a
    1:10:38 very
    1:10:38 Europe
    1:10:39 sense
    1:10:39 of
    1:10:40 history
    1:10:40 I
    1:10:41 often
    1:10:41 enjoy
    1:10:42 talking
    1:10:43 to
    1:10:43 people
    1:10:43 from
    1:10:43 different
    1:10:44 backgrounds
    1:10:44 from
    1:10:44 different
    1:10:45 parts
    1:10:45 of
    1:10:45 the
    1:10:45 world
    1:10:45 talking
    1:10:46 to
    1:10:46 them
    1:10:46 about
    1:10:46 World
    1:10:46 War
    1:10:47 II
    1:10:48 because
    1:10:48 it’s
    1:10:48 like
    1:10:49 it’s
    1:10:50 clear
    1:10:50 that
    1:10:50 the
    1:10:51 emphasis
    1:10:52 you’ve
    1:10:52 read
    1:10:53 certain
    1:10:53 chapters
    1:10:53 of
    1:10:54 the
    1:10:54 story
    1:10:55 a lot
    1:10:55 of
    1:10:57 chapters
    1:10:57 of
    1:10:57 the
    1:10:58 story
    1:10:59 the
    1:10:59 Western
    1:10:59 Front
    1:11:00 in
    1:11:00 Europe
    1:11:00 and
    1:11:00 the
    1:11:00 Eastern
    1:11:01 Front
    1:11:01 in
    1:11:01 Europe
    1:11:01 and
    1:11:02 Japan
    1:11:03 and
    1:11:03 China’s
    1:11:04 role
    1:11:04 in
    1:11:04 World
    1:11:05 War
    1:11:05 II
    1:11:05 and
    1:11:05 the
    1:11:06 history
    1:11:06 around
    1:11:07 that
    1:11:07 before
    1:11:07 and
    1:11:07 after
    1:11:08 World
    1:11:08 War
    1:11:08 II
    1:11:09 of
    1:11:09 China
    1:11:10 is
    1:11:10 not
    1:11:10 often
    1:11:10 talked
    1:11:10 about
    1:11:11 in
    1:11:11 the
    1:11:11 United
    1:11:11 States
    1:11:12 and
    1:11:12 I’m
    1:11:13 sure
    1:11:13 if I
    1:11:13 could
    1:11:14 venture
    1:11:14 a
    1:11:14 guess
    1:11:14 that
    1:11:15 the
    1:11:15 opposite
    1:11:15 is
    1:11:16 true
    1:11:16 in
    1:11:16 China
    1:11:17 I
    1:11:17 certainly
    1:11:17 know
    1:11:17 the
    1:11:18 opposite
    1:11:18 was
    1:11:18 true
    1:11:18 in
    1:11:18 the
    1:11:18 Soviet
    1:11:19 Union
    1:11:19 and
    1:11:20 even
    1:11:20 in
    1:11:20 Europe
    1:11:20 that
    1:11:21 directly
    1:11:22 experienced
    1:11:23 France
    1:11:24 Great
    1:11:24 Britain
    1:11:25 Germany
    1:11:26 Italy
    1:11:26 they
    1:11:27 all
    1:11:27 have
    1:11:27 very
    1:11:28 different
    1:11:29 ways
    1:11:29 of
    1:11:30 speaking
    1:11:30 and
    1:11:30 thinking
    1:11:31 and
    1:11:31 reading
    1:11:31 about
    1:11:32 World
    1:11:32 War
    1:11:32 II
    1:11:33 and
    1:11:33 the
    1:11:33 same
    1:11:33 goes
    1:11:35 across
    1:11:35 all
    1:11:35 of
    1:11:35 history
    1:11:35 and
    1:11:36 all
    1:11:36 of
    1:11:36 culture
    1:11:36 so
    1:11:38 yes
    1:11:38 it’s
    1:11:38 always
    1:11:39 good
    1:11:39 to
    1:11:39 question
    1:11:40 the
    1:11:40 mainstream
    1:11:41 narrative
    1:11:41 in
    1:11:41 your
    1:11:41 country
    1:11:42 and
    1:11:42 looking
    1:11:43 outside
    1:11:43 it’s
    1:11:43 just
    1:11:44 harder
    1:11:44 to
    1:11:44 do
    1:11:44 in
    1:11:44 China
    1:11:45 based
    1:11:45 on
    1:11:46 technological
    1:11:47 based
    1:11:47 on
    1:11:47 all
    1:11:47 the
    1:11:48 reasons
    1:11:48 you
    1:11:48 mentioned
    1:11:49 and
    1:11:49 if
    1:11:49 I
    1:11:49 can
    1:11:49 I
    1:11:49 just
    1:11:50 want
    1:11:50 to
    1:11:50 give
    1:11:50 a
    1:11:50 shout
    1:11:50 out
    1:11:51 thank
    1:11:51 you
    1:11:51 I’ll
    1:11:51 look
    1:11:51 at
    1:11:52 her
    1:11:52 work
    1:11:52 Margaret
    1:11:53 Roberts
    1:11:54 the
    1:11:54 fear
    1:11:55 the
    1:11:55 friction
    1:11:55 and the
    1:11:56 flooding
    1:12:03 involving
    1:12:03 overt
    1:12:04 threats
    1:12:04 and
    1:12:05 punishments
    1:12:05 for
    1:12:06 accessing
    1:12:06 and sharing
    1:12:07 sensitive
    1:12:08 information
    1:12:09 however
    1:12:10 Roberts
    1:12:11 finds
    1:12:11 that
    1:12:11 fear
    1:12:11 based
    1:12:12 censorship
    1:12:12 is
    1:12:12 used
    1:12:13 selectively
    1:12:14 mainly
    1:12:14 targeting
    1:12:14 high
    1:12:15 profile
    1:12:15 individuals
    1:12:16 such as
    1:12:16 journalists
    1:12:16 or
    1:12:17 activists
    1:12:17 for
    1:12:17 the
    1:12:18 average
    1:12:18 citizen
    1:12:19 the
    1:12:19 risk
    1:12:19 of
    1:12:19 punishment
    1:12:20 is
    1:12:20 relatively
    1:12:21 low
    1:12:21 and
    1:12:21 fear
    1:12:22 alone
    1:12:22 is
    1:12:22 not
    1:12:22 the
    1:12:22 main
    1:12:23 deterrent
    1:12:24 she
    1:12:24 goes
    1:12:24 on
    1:12:24 to
    1:12:24 describe
    1:12:25 the
    1:12:26 friction
    1:12:26 and
    1:12:26 the
    1:12:27 flooding
    1:12:28 the
    1:12:28 friction
    1:12:28 is
    1:12:29 attacks
    1:12:29 on
    1:12:30 information
    1:12:31 access
    1:12:32 and
    1:12:32 flooding
    1:12:34 is
    1:12:34 less
    1:12:34 visible
    1:12:35 than
    1:12:35 fear
    1:12:35 or
    1:12:35 friction
    1:12:36 but
    1:12:36 is
    1:12:36 a
    1:12:36 powerful
    1:12:37 tool
    1:12:37 for
    1:12:37 shaping
    1:12:37 the
    1:12:38 information
    1:12:38 environment
    1:12:40 flooding
    1:12:40 one
    1:12:40 scares
    1:12:41 me
    1:12:42 more
    1:12:42 and
    1:12:42 more
    1:12:42 flooding
    1:12:43 one
    1:12:43 is
    1:12:43 the
    1:12:43 brave
    1:12:43 new
    1:12:44 world
    1:12:44 yeah
    1:12:45 it is
    1:12:45 and
    1:12:45 I
    1:12:45 think
    1:12:46 it’s
    1:12:46 a whole
    1:12:47 kind
    1:12:47 of
    1:12:49 the
    1:12:49 world
    1:12:49 of
    1:12:50 short
    1:12:50 attention
    1:12:50 spans
    1:12:51 and
    1:12:51 social
    1:12:51 media
    1:12:52 and
    1:12:52 how
    1:12:52 this
    1:12:52 all
    1:12:53 works
    1:12:53 and
    1:12:54 Chinese
    1:12:54 Communist
    1:12:55 Party
    1:12:55 leaders
    1:12:56 I
    1:12:56 brought
    1:12:56 up
    1:12:56 Singapore
    1:12:57 and
    1:12:58 Deng Xiaoping
    1:12:58 and some
    1:12:59 other leaders
    1:12:59 were like
    1:13:00 looking at
    1:13:00 that
    1:13:00 and
    1:13:00 they’re
    1:13:01 looking
    1:13:01 at
    1:13:01 you know
    1:13:01 there are
    1:13:02 all kinds
    1:13:02 of
    1:13:02 things
    1:13:03 that
    1:13:04 it
    1:13:04 both
    1:13:06 going to
    1:13:07 Singapore
    1:13:09 can
    1:13:09 sometimes
    1:13:10 make you
    1:13:10 feel like
    1:13:11 you’re
    1:13:12 in this
    1:13:12 futuristic
    1:13:13 setting
    1:13:13 in terms
    1:13:14 of a lot
    1:13:14 of things
    1:13:14 that
    1:13:15 eventually
    1:13:16 came
    1:13:17 to other
    1:13:17 parts of
    1:13:18 the world
    1:13:18 would be
    1:13:19 tried out
    1:13:19 there
    1:13:19 and
    1:13:19 and
    1:13:20 and
    1:13:20 I
    1:13:20 think
    1:13:21 the
    1:13:21 seductiveness
    1:13:21 is
    1:13:21 that
    1:13:22 some
    1:13:22 of
    1:13:22 these
    1:13:22 things
    1:13:22 are
    1:13:23 are
    1:13:24 really
    1:13:25 they
    1:13:25 both
    1:13:25 add to
    1:13:26 convenience
    1:13:27 at the
    1:13:27 same
    1:13:27 time
    1:13:28 they
    1:13:28 strip
    1:13:28 away
    1:13:29 they’re
    1:13:30 collecting
    1:13:31 information
    1:13:32 about
    1:13:32 you
    1:13:33 which
    1:13:33 can
    1:13:33 be
    1:13:34 also
    1:13:35 something
    1:13:35 that
    1:13:36 can
    1:13:36 make
    1:13:36 your
    1:13:37 life
    1:13:37 easier
    1:13:38 at the
    1:13:38 same
    1:13:39 times
    1:13:39 it’s
    1:13:39 stripping
    1:13:39 you
    1:13:40 away
    1:13:40 of
    1:13:40 I
    1:13:41 mean
    1:13:41 we
    1:13:41 talk
    1:13:41 about
    1:13:41 the
    1:13:42 siloing
    1:13:42 of
    1:13:43 information
    1:13:43 and
    1:13:44 targeting
    1:13:44 of
    1:13:45 ads
    1:13:45 and
    1:13:45 targeting
    1:13:46 of
    1:13:46 news
    1:13:47 and
    1:13:48 so
    1:13:48 two
    1:13:48 things
    1:13:49 come
    1:13:49 to
    1:13:49 mind
    1:13:49 to
    1:13:50 mention
    1:13:50 one
    1:13:50 is
    1:13:52 Christina
    1:13:53 Larson
    1:13:53 a very
    1:13:54 bright
    1:13:54 journalist
    1:13:55 a friend
    1:13:55 of mine
    1:13:56 who’s
    1:13:56 now
    1:13:57 working
    1:13:57 on
    1:13:57 other
    1:13:57 things
    1:13:57 but
    1:13:57 was
    1:13:58 working
    1:13:58 in
    1:13:58 China
    1:13:58 and
    1:13:58 she
    1:13:59 wrote
    1:13:59 about
    1:13:59 this
    1:13:59 in
    1:14:00 MIT
    1:14:01 technology
    1:14:01 review
    1:14:02 she said
    1:14:02 you need
    1:14:03 to think
    1:14:03 about
    1:14:03 China
    1:14:03 as having
    1:14:04 the
    1:14:04 best
    1:14:04 as well
    1:14:05 as
    1:14:05 the
    1:14:05 worst
    1:14:05 internet
    1:14:06 experience
    1:14:06 in the
    1:14:06 world
    1:14:08 and
    1:14:08 you know
    1:14:08 you think
    1:14:08 about
    1:14:09 it
    1:14:09 with
    1:14:10 you
    1:14:10 think
    1:14:10 of
    1:14:10 the
    1:14:11 worst
    1:14:11 is
    1:14:11 easy
    1:14:12 you know
    1:14:12 the
    1:14:12 great
    1:14:13 firewall
    1:14:13 you
    1:14:13 try to
    1:14:14 search
    1:14:14 for
    1:14:14 what
    1:14:15 happened
    1:14:15 you
    1:14:16 search
    1:14:16 for
    1:14:16 the
    1:14:16 tank
    1:14:17 man
    1:14:17 you
    1:14:17 won’t
    1:14:17 get
    1:14:17 it
    1:14:18 you
    1:14:18 search
    1:14:18 for
    1:14:19 information
    1:14:19 about
    1:14:20 Dalai
    1:14:20 Lama
    1:14:20 and you
    1:14:21 get
    1:14:21 all these
    1:14:21 lies
    1:14:22 about
    1:14:22 him
    1:14:22 search
    1:14:23 for
    1:14:23 things
    1:14:23 about
    1:14:24 Xinjiang
    1:14:24 and it
    1:14:25 makes
    1:14:25 seem like
    1:14:26 it’s a place
    1:14:26 where people
    1:14:26 are happy
    1:14:27 rather than
    1:14:27 massive
    1:14:29 extra legal
    1:14:30 detention
    1:14:31 camps
    1:14:31 and where
    1:14:31 your life
    1:14:31 can be
    1:14:32 ruined
    1:14:32 by
    1:14:34 things
    1:14:34 you have
    1:14:35 no control
    1:14:35 over
    1:14:35 but
    1:14:36 she
    1:14:36 said
    1:14:36 on
    1:14:37 other
    1:14:37 ways
    1:14:37 when
    1:14:37 it
    1:14:37 comes
    1:14:38 to
    1:14:39 consumer
    1:14:40 playing
    1:14:40 to
    1:14:40 your
    1:14:42 pleasures
    1:14:42 and
    1:14:43 things
    1:14:43 it
    1:14:43 was
    1:14:44 really
    1:14:44 advanced
    1:14:44 a lot
    1:14:44 of
    1:14:45 things
    1:14:45 that
    1:14:45 then
    1:14:46 come
    1:14:46 out
    1:14:46 there
    1:14:48 and in
    1:14:48 massive
    1:14:49 numbers
    1:14:49 and I
    1:14:49 remember
    1:14:51 around the
    1:14:51 time that
    1:14:51 I had
    1:14:52 read
    1:14:52 that
    1:14:52 I
    1:14:52 was
    1:14:52 in
    1:14:53 Shanghai
    1:14:53 and
    1:14:54 somebody
    1:14:54 was
    1:14:54 explaining
    1:14:55 it
    1:14:55 to
    1:14:55 me
    1:14:55 they
    1:14:55 were
    1:14:55 talking
    1:14:56 about
    1:14:56 going
    1:14:56 out
    1:14:56 to
    1:14:57 eat
    1:14:57 like
    1:14:57 I
    1:14:57 said
    1:14:58 oh
    1:14:58 we’ve
    1:14:58 got
    1:14:59 such
    1:14:59 and
    1:14:59 such
    1:14:59 and
    1:14:59 I
    1:14:59 said
    1:14:59 oh
    1:15:08 we’ve
    1:15:08 got
    1:15:08 one
    1:15:08 that
    1:15:09 can
    1:15:09 tell
    1:15:09 you
    1:15:10 which
    1:15:10 part
    1:15:10 of
    1:15:10 the
    1:15:11 restaurant
    1:15:11 you
    1:15:11 want
    1:15:11 to
    1:15:11 sit
    1:15:12 in
    1:15:12 because
    1:15:12 there’s
    1:15:12 a
    1:15:13 waiter
    1:15:13 that’s
    1:15:13 in
    1:15:13 a
    1:15:13 really
    1:15:14 bad
    1:15:14 mood
    1:15:14 and
    1:15:14 people
    1:15:15 have
    1:15:15 posted
    1:15:15 enough
    1:15:16 information
    1:15:17 to
    1:15:17 do
    1:15:17 this
    1:15:18 or
    1:15:18 what
    1:15:18 the
    1:15:19 best
    1:15:19 dish
    1:15:19 there
    1:15:20 is
    1:15:20 in
    1:15:21 the
    1:15:21 last
    1:15:21 week
    1:15:22 forget
    1:15:22 about
    1:15:22 these
    1:15:23 slow
    1:15:24 things
    1:15:24 that
    1:15:27 were
    1:15:27 like
    1:15:27 okay
    1:15:28 smart
    1:15:29 city
    1:15:29 and
    1:15:30 controlled
    1:15:30 you
    1:15:30 can
    1:15:31 learn
    1:15:31 things
    1:15:32 about
    1:15:32 ease
    1:15:32 of
    1:15:33 movement
    1:15:33 and
    1:15:33 Singapore
    1:15:34 had
    1:15:34 some
    1:15:34 of
    1:15:34 these
    1:15:35 things
    1:15:35 tested
    1:15:36 too
    1:15:36 you
    1:15:36 had
    1:15:36 way
    1:15:37 before
    1:15:38 you
    1:15:38 move
    1:15:38 you
    1:15:39 go
    1:15:39 into
    1:15:39 an
    1:15:39 underground
    1:15:41 parking
    1:15:42 lot
    1:15:42 now
    1:15:42 in
    1:15:42 the
    1:15:43 US
    1:15:43 and
    1:15:43 you
    1:15:43 find
    1:15:44 out
    1:15:44 whether
    1:15:44 there
    1:15:44 are
    1:15:44 any
    1:15:44 empty
    1:15:45 spaces
    1:15:45 on
    1:15:47 a
    1:15:48 floor
    1:15:48 that
    1:15:48 was
    1:15:49 something
    1:15:49 that
    1:15:49 was
    1:15:49 years
    1:15:50 before
    1:15:51 in
    1:15:51 Singapore
    1:15:52 and
    1:15:53 you
    1:15:53 don’t
    1:15:54 use
    1:15:54 you
    1:15:54 use
    1:15:55 money
    1:15:55 less
    1:15:55 often
    1:15:56 there
    1:15:56 because
    1:15:56 you
    1:15:56 had
    1:15:56 a
    1:15:56 kind
    1:15:57 of
    1:15:57 transponder
    1:15:57 that
    1:15:58 would
    1:15:58 automatically
    1:15:59 pay
    1:15:59 for
    1:15:59 your
    1:16:00 parking
    1:16:00 and
    1:16:00 things
    1:16:01 and
    1:16:01 it
    1:16:01 it
    1:16:02 was
    1:16:02 something
    1:16:02 that
    1:16:02 can
    1:16:02 be
    1:16:03 very
    1:16:03 seductive
    1:16:04 so
    1:16:04 the
    1:16:04 other
    1:16:04 line
    1:16:05 besides
    1:16:05 best
    1:16:05 and
    1:16:05 worst
    1:16:06 internet
    1:16:06 I
    1:16:06 always
    1:16:07 like
    1:16:07 is
    1:16:08 William
    1:16:08 Gibson
    1:16:08 who
    1:16:09 wrote
    1:16:09 one
    1:16:09 one
    1:16:09 of
    1:16:10 the
    1:16:10 other
    1:16:10 important
    1:16:11 dystopian
    1:16:12 novels
    1:16:12 of the
    1:16:12 present
    1:16:13 neuromancer
    1:16:14 he wrote
    1:16:15 a rare
    1:16:15 non
    1:16:15 for him
    1:16:16 non
    1:16:16 fiction
    1:16:17 piece
    1:16:17 about
    1:16:17 Singapore
    1:16:18 where
    1:16:18 he
    1:16:18 referred
    1:16:18 to
    1:16:18 it
    1:16:18 as
    1:16:19 Disneyland
    1:16:19 with
    1:16:19 the
    1:16:19 death
    1:16:20 penalty
    1:16:22 and
    1:16:22 you
    1:16:22 know
    1:16:22 there
    1:16:23 are
    1:16:23 times
    1:16:24 when
    1:16:24 I
    1:16:25 shouldn’t
    1:16:25 laugh
    1:16:25 there
    1:16:26 but
    1:16:27 it is
    1:16:27 it’s
    1:16:27 a
    1:16:27 powerful
    1:16:28 yeah
    1:16:29 he’s
    1:16:29 not
    1:16:30 welcomed
    1:16:30 in
    1:16:30 Singapore
    1:16:31 let’s
    1:16:31 just
    1:16:31 say
    1:16:32 but
    1:16:32 he
    1:16:33 talked
    1:16:33 about
    1:16:33 how
    1:16:34 when
    1:16:34 he
    1:16:34 wanted
    1:16:34 to
    1:16:34 try
    1:16:35 to
    1:16:36 he
    1:16:36 went
    1:16:41 got
    1:16:41 a
    1:16:42 sense
    1:16:42 of
    1:16:42 what
    1:16:42 the
    1:16:43 future
    1:16:43 might
    1:16:44 hold
    1:16:44 so
    1:16:45 the
    1:16:45 dark
    1:16:45 side
    1:16:46 of
    1:16:46 this
    1:16:47 the
    1:16:47 surveillance
    1:16:48 state
    1:16:48 at
    1:16:48 its
    1:16:49 worst
    1:16:49 which
    1:16:49 we
    1:16:50 see
    1:16:50 in
    1:16:51 Xinjiang
    1:16:51 and
    1:16:51 places
    1:16:52 and
    1:16:52 there
    1:16:53 again
    1:16:54 it may
    1:16:54 seem
    1:16:54 like
    1:16:54 I’m
    1:16:54 just
    1:16:55 obsessed
    1:16:55 with
    1:16:56 science
    1:16:57 fiction
    1:16:57 and
    1:16:57 there
    1:16:58 it
    1:16:58 really
    1:16:58 is
    1:16:59 minority
    1:16:59 report
    1:16:59 it’s
    1:17:00 this
    1:17:00 kind
    1:17:00 of
    1:17:00 like
    1:17:02 you
    1:17:02 do
    1:17:02 certain
    1:17:02 kinds
    1:17:02 of
    1:17:03 behaviors
    1:17:03 and
    1:17:03 we’re
    1:17:03 seeing
    1:17:04 this
    1:17:04 other
    1:17:04 places
    1:17:05 too
    1:17:06 we’re
    1:17:06 seeing
    1:17:06 versions
    1:17:07 of it
    1:17:07 in
    1:17:07 the
    1:17:14 so
    1:17:15 in
    1:17:15 Xinjiang
    1:17:16 they
    1:17:16 were
    1:17:17 when
    1:17:17 they
    1:17:17 were
    1:17:17 starting
    1:17:18 to
    1:17:18 round
    1:17:18 people
    1:17:19 up
    1:17:19 there’s
    1:17:19 this
    1:17:20 great
    1:17:20 book
    1:17:21 by
    1:17:21 a
    1:17:22 Uyghur
    1:17:22 poet
    1:17:23 he
    1:17:23 talks
    1:17:23 about
    1:17:24 how
    1:17:25 people
    1:17:25 were
    1:17:25 just
    1:17:25 starting
    1:17:25 to
    1:17:26 disappear
    1:17:26 off
    1:17:26 the
    1:17:26 streets
    1:17:27 and
    1:17:27 they
    1:17:27 were
    1:17:27 being
    1:17:28 accused
    1:17:28 of
    1:17:28 being
    1:17:30 radicalized
    1:17:30 and
    1:17:30 being
    1:17:31 potential
    1:17:32 terrorists
    1:17:32 and
    1:17:33 the
    1:17:34 cues
    1:17:34 could
    1:17:34 be
    1:17:35 something
    1:17:35 like
    1:17:37 somebody
    1:17:37 giving
    1:17:37 up
    1:17:38 smoking
    1:17:39 or
    1:17:39 not
    1:17:39 drinking
    1:17:40 alcohol
    1:17:40 because
    1:17:41 that
    1:17:41 was
    1:17:41 seen
    1:17:42 as
    1:17:42 something
    1:17:42 that
    1:17:43 sometimes
    1:17:43 went
    1:17:43 along
    1:17:44 with
    1:17:44 becoming
    1:17:45 more
    1:17:47 devoted
    1:17:48 to
    1:17:48 Islam
    1:17:48 and
    1:17:49 more
    1:17:49 devoted
    1:17:49 to
    1:17:49 something
    1:17:50 a
    1:17:50 particular
    1:17:50 version
    1:17:51 of
    1:17:51 it
    1:17:51 so
    1:17:51 he
    1:17:52 talked
    1:17:52 about
    1:17:52 how
    1:17:52 a
    1:17:52 group
    1:17:53 of
    1:17:53 the
    1:17:53 poets
    1:17:53 when
    1:17:53 they
    1:17:53 would
    1:17:54 get
    1:17:55 together
    1:17:55 they
    1:17:56 would
    1:17:57 whether
    1:17:57 or
    1:17:57 not
    1:17:57 any
    1:17:57 of
    1:17:57 them
    1:17:58 drank
    1:17:58 they
    1:17:58 would
    1:17:58 make
    1:17:58 sure
    1:17:58 there
    1:17:59 was
    1:17:59 a
    1:17:59 bottle
    1:17:59 of
    1:17:59 alcohol
    1:18:00 on
    1:18:00 their
    1:18:00 table
    1:18:01 because
    1:18:01 it
    1:18:01 was
    1:18:01 simply
    1:18:01 a
    1:18:02 way
    1:18:03 of
    1:18:03 trying
    1:18:03 to
    1:18:04 stay
    1:18:04 ahead
    1:18:04 of
    1:18:04 this
    1:18:05 system
    1:18:05 of
    1:18:06 looking
    1:18:06 for
    1:18:07 these
    1:18:07 kind
    1:18:07 of
    1:18:08 clues
    1:18:08 so
    1:18:08 you
    1:18:08 really
    1:18:08 have
    1:18:09 this
    1:18:09 dark
    1:18:09 side
    1:18:10 of
    1:18:11 Xinjiang
    1:18:11 is
    1:18:12 this
    1:18:12 example
    1:18:12 and
    1:18:13 Tibet
    1:18:14 also
    1:18:14 with
    1:18:15 incredible
    1:18:15 tight
    1:18:16 control
    1:18:17 and
    1:18:17 there’s
    1:18:18 more
    1:18:18 of
    1:18:18 that
    1:18:19 kind
    1:18:19 of
    1:18:20 push
    1:18:20 on
    1:18:21 personal
    1:18:21 life
    1:18:22 in
    1:18:22 other
    1:18:22 parts
    1:18:22 of
    1:18:23 China
    1:18:23 as
    1:18:23 well
    1:18:26 but
    1:18:26 I
    1:18:26 think
    1:18:26 the
    1:18:27 question
    1:18:27 of
    1:18:28 whether
    1:18:28 we
    1:18:28 give
    1:18:29 up
    1:18:29 too
    1:18:29 much
    1:18:29 and
    1:18:30 who
    1:18:30 can
    1:18:30 abuse
    1:18:31 what
    1:18:31 we
    1:18:32 do
    1:18:32 give
    1:18:32 up
    1:18:32 is
    1:18:32 something
    1:18:33 that
    1:18:33 is
    1:18:33 being
    1:18:33 asked
    1:18:33 in
    1:18:33 the
    1:18:34 United
    1:18:34 States
    1:18:34 now
    1:18:35 about
    1:18:35 big
    1:18:35 tech
    1:18:36 companies
    1:18:36 as
    1:18:36 well
    1:18:36 as
    1:18:37 it’s
    1:18:37 asked
    1:18:37 about
    1:18:38 governments
    1:18:38 but
    1:18:38 it’s
    1:18:38 also
    1:18:38 asked
    1:18:39 about
    1:18:40 big
    1:18:41 tech
    1:18:41 and
    1:18:41 what
    1:18:41 you
    1:18:41 have
    1:18:42 as
    1:18:42 a
    1:18:42 trade-off
    1:18:42 but
    1:18:42 I
    1:18:42 hadn’t
    1:18:43 thought
    1:18:43 about
    1:18:43 it
    1:18:43 until
    1:18:44 this
    1:18:44 conversation
    1:18:45 which
    1:18:45 I
    1:18:46 can
    1:18:46 tell
    1:18:46 is
    1:18:46 why
    1:18:47 people
    1:18:47 find
    1:18:47 it
    1:18:48 stimulating
    1:18:49 to
    1:18:49 have
    1:18:50 these
    1:18:51 extended
    1:18:51 conversations
    1:18:52 because
    1:18:53 you
    1:18:54 have
    1:18:54 set
    1:18:55 lines
    1:18:55 but
    1:18:57 the
    1:18:58 conversation
    1:18:58 goes
    1:18:58 and
    1:18:58 you
    1:18:58 think
    1:18:58 in
    1:18:59 a
    1:18:59 different
    1:18:59 way
    1:18:59 so
    1:18:59 what
    1:18:59 I
    1:18:59 used
    1:19:00 to
    1:19:00 always
    1:19:00 say
    1:19:01 about
    1:19:02 China
    1:19:02 after
    1:19:03 1989
    1:19:05 was
    1:19:05 the
    1:19:05 Chinese
    1:19:06 Communist Party
    1:19:06 wanted to
    1:19:07 stay in
    1:19:07 power
    1:19:08 and
    1:19:09 they
    1:19:09 realized
    1:19:09 that
    1:19:09 the
    1:19:09 Soviet
    1:19:10 Union
    1:19:10 Soviet
    1:19:11 Bloc
    1:19:11 was
    1:19:12 falling
    1:19:12 apart
    1:19:14 they
    1:19:14 knew
    1:19:14 that
    1:19:14 one
    1:19:15 reason
    1:19:15 why
    1:19:15 people
    1:19:16 and
    1:19:16 this
    1:19:16 is
    1:19:17 the
    1:19:17 simple
    1:19:18 way
    1:19:18 of
    1:19:19 one
    1:19:19 way
    1:19:19 I
    1:19:20 think
    1:19:20 you
    1:19:20 have
    1:19:20 to
    1:19:20 understand
    1:19:21 why
    1:19:22 communism
    1:19:22 fell
    1:19:22 in
    1:19:22 Eastern
    1:19:23 Europe
    1:19:23 was
    1:19:24 partly
    1:19:24 about
    1:19:25 ideals
    1:19:26 and
    1:19:26 thirst
    1:19:27 for
    1:19:27 freedom
    1:19:27 and
    1:19:27 that
    1:19:28 but
    1:19:28 also
    1:19:28 people
    1:19:28 knew
    1:19:29 that
    1:19:29 people
    1:19:30 East
    1:19:30 Germans
    1:19:30 knew
    1:19:30 that
    1:19:31 West
    1:19:31 Germans
    1:19:32 were
    1:19:32 having
    1:19:32 more
    1:19:33 fun
    1:19:33 and
    1:19:33 getting
    1:19:34 better
    1:19:34 stuff
    1:19:35 and
    1:19:36 when
    1:19:36 some
    1:19:38 over
    1:19:38 the
    1:19:38 wall
    1:19:39 one
    1:19:39 of
    1:19:39 the
    1:19:39 first
    1:19:39 places
    1:19:39 they
    1:19:40 went
    1:19:40 to
    1:19:40 was
    1:19:40 this
    1:19:40 department
    1:19:41 store
    1:19:41 to
    1:19:41 see
    1:19:41 if
    1:19:42 the
    1:19:43 images
    1:19:43 of
    1:19:43 better
    1:19:44 food
    1:19:44 and
    1:19:44 more
    1:19:45 choices
    1:19:45 were
    1:19:46 available
    1:19:46 there
    1:19:46 and
    1:19:47 it
    1:19:47 was
    1:19:47 true
    1:19:48 and
    1:19:48 I
    1:19:48 think
    1:19:48 this
    1:19:48 is
    1:19:48 a
    1:19:49 human
    1:19:49 as
    1:19:50 the
    1:19:50 desire
    1:19:50 for
    1:19:50 more
    1:19:51 freedom
    1:19:52 so
    1:19:52 one
    1:19:52 of
    1:19:52 the
    1:19:52 things
    1:19:52 that
    1:19:53 the
    1:19:53 Chinese
    1:19:53 Communist Party
    1:19:53 they
    1:19:54 never
    1:19:54 articulated
    1:19:55 this
    1:19:55 way
    1:19:55 but
    1:19:55 how
    1:19:56 can
    1:19:56 we
    1:19:57 try
    1:19:57 to
    1:19:57 get
    1:19:58 to
    1:19:58 a
    1:19:58 stage
    1:19:58 where
    1:19:58 we
    1:19:59 don’t
    1:19:59 have
    1:19:59 things
    1:19:59 like
    1:20:00 Tiananmen
    1:20:00 again
    1:20:00 well
    1:20:00 what
    1:20:00 if
    1:20:01 we
    1:20:01 tried
    1:20:01 to
    1:20:01 make
    1:20:01 a
    1:20:02 deal
    1:20:02 with
    1:20:02 people
    1:20:02 we’ll
    1:20:02 give
    1:20:02 them
    1:20:03 more
    1:20:03 choices
    1:20:05 in
    1:20:05 their
    1:20:05 daily
    1:20:06 life
    1:20:07 we’ll
    1:20:07 give
    1:20:07 them
    1:20:07 better
    1:20:08 stuff
    1:20:08 we’ll
    1:20:08 give
    1:20:08 them
    1:20:08 more
    1:20:09 choices
    1:20:09 at
    1:20:09 the
    1:20:10 store
    1:20:10 we’ll
    1:20:10 give
    1:20:10 them
    1:20:10 more
    1:20:11 choices
    1:20:11 about
    1:20:11 what
    1:20:11 to
    1:20:12 read
    1:20:13 too
    1:20:13 because
    1:20:14 we’ll
    1:20:14 give
    1:20:14 them
    1:20:14 more
    1:20:15 choices
    1:20:15 in
    1:20:15 consumer
    1:20:15 goods
    1:20:16 and
    1:20:17 intellectuals
    1:20:17 consumer
    1:20:18 goods
    1:20:18 they
    1:20:18 want
    1:20:18 are
    1:20:19 to
    1:20:19 watch
    1:20:19 the
    1:20:19 movies
    1:20:20 and
    1:20:20 read
    1:20:20 the
    1:20:20 books
    1:20:20 that
    1:20:21 other
    1:20:21 people
    1:20:22 like
    1:20:22 them
    1:20:22 around
    1:20:22 the
    1:20:22 world
    1:20:22 are
    1:20:23 reading
    1:20:23 so
    1:20:23 we’ll
    1:20:23 give
    1:20:24 them
    1:20:24 more
    1:20:24 choices
    1:20:25 we won’t
    1:20:25 open
    1:20:25 the
    1:20:25 floodgates
    1:20:26 completely
    1:20:26 but
    1:20:26 we’ll
    1:20:26 give
    1:20:26 them
    1:20:27 more
    1:20:27 choices
    1:20:28 but
    1:20:28 not
    1:20:28 give
    1:20:29 them
    1:20:29 more
    1:20:29 choices
    1:20:29 at
    1:20:30 the
    1:20:30 ballot
    1:20:42 generation
    1:20:43 in
    1:20:43 terms
    1:20:43 of
    1:20:44 choices
    1:20:44 and
    1:20:45 in
    1:20:45 terms
    1:20:46 of
    1:20:47 material
    1:20:47 goods
    1:20:49 now
    1:20:50 one
    1:20:50 of the
    1:20:50 things
    1:20:51 that’s
    1:20:51 happening
    1:20:51 now
    1:20:52 is
    1:20:52 the
    1:20:52 Chinese
    1:20:53 Communist
    1:20:53 Party
    1:20:54 the
    1:20:54 economy
    1:20:55 isn’t
    1:20:55 booming
    1:20:56 the way
    1:20:56 it was
    1:20:57 before
    1:20:57 the
    1:20:58 sort
    1:20:58 of
    1:20:58 sense
    1:20:59 of
    1:21:00 clearly
    1:21:00 we’re
    1:21:00 living
    1:21:01 better
    1:21:01 materially
    1:21:02 than
    1:21:02 the
    1:21:03 generation
    1:21:03 before
    1:21:04 it’s
    1:21:05 not as
    1:21:05 easy
    1:21:05 an
    1:21:05 argument
    1:21:06 to
    1:21:06 make
    1:21:06 when
    1:21:06 you
    1:21:07 have
    1:21:07 slower
    1:21:07 growth
    1:21:08 rates
    1:21:08 and
    1:21:08 things
    1:21:08 like
    1:21:09 that
    1:21:10 but
    1:21:11 the
    1:21:11 Communist
    1:21:11 Party
    1:21:11 makes
    1:21:12 different
    1:21:12 kinds
    1:21:12 of
    1:21:13 arguments
    1:21:13 now
    1:21:13 about
    1:21:14 the
    1:21:14 rest
    1:21:14 of
    1:21:14 the
    1:21:14 world
    1:21:15 is
    1:21:15 in
    1:21:15 chaos
    1:21:15 and
    1:21:16 we’re
    1:21:16 more
    1:21:17 stable
    1:21:17 but
    1:21:17 the
    1:21:18 thing
    1:21:18 that
    1:21:18 I
    1:21:20 now
    1:21:20 am
    1:21:20 going
    1:21:20 to
    1:21:20 think
    1:21:21 about
    1:21:21 differently
    1:21:22 is
    1:21:22 the
    1:21:23 argument
    1:21:23 was
    1:21:23 we’ll
    1:21:24 give
    1:21:24 you
    1:21:24 more
    1:21:24 choices
    1:21:25 and
    1:21:25 you’ll
    1:21:25 have
    1:21:26 more
    1:21:26 sort
    1:21:26 of
    1:21:26 more
    1:21:27 of
    1:21:27 a
    1:21:27 private
    1:21:27 life
    1:21:28 more
    1:21:28 of
    1:21:28 this
    1:21:29 but
    1:21:30 now
    1:21:30 in
    1:21:30 the
    1:21:30 period
    1:21:30 we
    1:21:31 are
    1:21:32 globally
    1:21:34 now
    1:21:34 there’s
    1:21:34 a new
    1:21:35 kind
    1:21:35 of
    1:21:35 suspicion
    1:21:36 about
    1:21:37 the
    1:21:37 degree
    1:21:37 of
    1:21:38 any
    1:21:38 kind
    1:21:38 of
    1:21:39 private
    1:21:39 choices
    1:21:39 I
    1:21:39 mean
    1:21:40 there
    1:21:40 was
    1:21:40 an
    1:21:40 idea
    1:21:41 that
    1:21:41 the
    1:21:42 post
    1:21:42 Tiananmen
    1:21:43 generation
    1:21:44 was
    1:21:44 promised
    1:21:45 to have
    1:21:45 a little
    1:21:45 bit
    1:21:46 more
    1:21:46 space
    1:21:47 away
    1:21:47 from
    1:21:48 the
    1:21:48 prying
    1:21:48 eyes
    1:21:49 of the
    1:21:49 state
    1:21:51 and
    1:21:51 now
    1:21:52 globally
    1:21:52 we
    1:21:52 worry
    1:21:53 about
    1:21:53 the
    1:21:53 prying
    1:21:54 eyes
    1:21:54 of
    1:21:54 whether
    1:21:54 it’s
    1:21:55 the
    1:21:55 state
    1:21:55 or
    1:21:55 whether
    1:21:56 it’s
    1:21:56 tech
    1:21:57 companies
    1:21:57 it’s
    1:21:58 it’s
    1:21:58 a
    1:21:58 different
    1:21:59 moment
    1:21:59 what does
    1:21:59 it mean
    1:22:00 to say
    1:22:00 you have
    1:22:00 more
    1:22:01 choices
    1:22:01 it’s
    1:22:01 almost
    1:22:02 like
    1:22:02 you have
    1:22:02 two
    1:22:02 knobs
    1:22:03 one is
    1:22:03 1984
    1:22:04 one is
    1:22:04 brave
    1:22:04 new
    1:22:04 world
    1:22:05 at first
    1:22:05 they turned
    1:22:06 up the
    1:22:06 brave
    1:22:06 new
    1:22:06 world
    1:22:07 more
    1:22:07 choices
    1:22:08 and
    1:22:08 now
    1:22:09 they’re
    1:22:10 turning
    1:22:10 up
    1:22:10 the
    1:22:10 1984
    1:22:11 keeping
    1:22:11 the
    1:22:12 choices
    1:22:12 but
    1:22:12 turning
    1:22:13 up
    1:22:13 the
    1:22:13 1984
    1:22:14 with
    1:22:14 more
    1:22:14 surveillance
    1:22:15 so
    1:22:15 the
    1:22:15 choices
    1:22:16 you
    1:22:16 make
    1:22:17 have
    1:22:17 to
    1:22:17 be
    1:22:17 more
    1:22:18 public
    1:22:19 do
    1:22:19 you
    1:22:19 have
    1:22:19 a
    1:22:19 sense
    1:22:20 that
    1:22:21 the
    1:22:21 thing
    1:22:22 we’ve
    1:22:22 been
    1:22:22 talking
    1:22:23 about
    1:22:23 the
    1:22:24 increase
    1:22:24 in
    1:22:24 censorship
    1:22:25 does
    1:22:26 that
    1:22:26 predate
    1:22:27 Xi Jinping
    1:22:28 is
    1:22:29 Xi Jinping
    1:22:29 a part
    1:22:30 of that
    1:22:30 increase
    1:22:30 in
    1:22:31 censorship
    1:22:31 like
    1:22:32 what
    1:22:32 is
    1:22:32 that
    1:22:32 dynamic
    1:22:33 what
    1:22:33 role
    1:22:33 does
    1:22:33 Xi
    1:22:34 Jinping
    1:22:34 play
    1:22:35 in
    1:22:36 what
    1:22:36 China
    1:22:37 has
    1:22:37 gone
    1:22:37 through
    1:22:37 over
    1:22:37 the
    1:22:38 past
    1:22:38 let’s
    1:22:39 say
    1:22:39 a
    1:22:39 decade
    1:22:39 and a
    1:22:40 half
    1:22:40 that’s
    1:22:40 a
    1:22:41 really
    1:22:41 great
    1:22:41 question
    1:22:41 I
    1:22:42 was
    1:22:42 actually
    1:22:42 just
    1:22:43 writing
    1:22:43 a
    1:22:44 review
    1:22:44 of
    1:22:44 two
    1:22:45 books
    1:22:45 one
    1:22:45 is
    1:22:46 called
    1:22:46 the
    1:22:47 Xi
    1:22:47 Jinping
    1:22:47 effect
    1:22:48 which
    1:22:48 was
    1:22:48 just
    1:22:48 a
    1:22:48 bunch
    1:22:48 of
    1:22:49 scholars
    1:22:50 and
    1:22:51 academic
    1:22:51 volumes
    1:22:51 sort
    1:22:51 of
    1:22:52 looking
    1:22:52 at
    1:22:53 take
    1:22:53 this
    1:22:54 topic
    1:22:54 and
    1:22:54 that
    1:22:55 topic
    1:22:55 how
    1:22:55 much
    1:22:55 is
    1:22:55 Xi
    1:22:56 Jinping
    1:22:56 as
    1:22:56 a
    1:22:56 person
    1:22:57 really
    1:22:58 affected
    1:22:58 it
    1:22:59 and
    1:22:59 it
    1:22:59 they
    1:23:00 come
    1:23:00 up
    1:23:00 with
    1:23:00 all
    1:23:00 kinds
    1:23:00 of
    1:23:00 answers
    1:23:01 but
    1:23:02 there’s
    1:23:02 a
    1:23:02 book
    1:23:02 I
    1:23:03 really
    1:23:03 like
    1:23:04 Emily
    1:23:04 Fang
    1:23:05 of
    1:23:05 NPR
    1:23:05 has
    1:23:05 a
    1:23:06 new
    1:23:06 book
    1:23:06 out
    1:23:07 called
    1:23:08 let
    1:23:08 only
    1:23:09 red
    1:23:09 flowers
    1:23:10 bloom
    1:23:11 and
    1:23:12 what
    1:23:12 she
    1:23:12 talks
    1:23:13 about
    1:23:13 the
    1:23:14 changes
    1:23:14 in
    1:23:14 China
    1:23:14 as
    1:23:14 she
    1:23:15 was
    1:23:15 covering
    1:23:15 it
    1:23:15 from
    1:23:15 the
    1:23:16 mid
    1:23:17 2010s
    1:23:17 on
    1:23:18 was
    1:23:18 and
    1:23:18 I
    1:23:19 think
    1:23:19 this
    1:23:20 really
    1:23:21 is
    1:23:21 Xi
    1:23:22 Jinping’s
    1:23:22 one
    1:23:23 of his
    1:23:23 imprimators
    1:23:24 on the
    1:23:24 country
    1:23:25 is
    1:23:25 there’s
    1:23:25 a
    1:23:26 narrowing
    1:23:26 of
    1:23:27 spaces
    1:23:28 available
    1:23:28 for
    1:23:29 variations
    1:23:30 of
    1:23:30 ways
    1:23:30 of
    1:23:31 being
    1:23:32 Chinese
    1:23:32 within
    1:23:32 the
    1:23:32 country
    1:23:34 and
    1:23:35 this
    1:23:35 goes
    1:23:35 against
    1:23:36 the
    1:23:36 grain
    1:23:36 of
    1:23:36 a
    1:23:37 pattern
    1:23:38 in
    1:23:38 the
    1:23:38 sort
    1:23:38 of
    1:23:39 post
    1:23:39 Tiananmen
    1:23:40 period
    1:23:41 of
    1:23:41 allowing
    1:23:42 more
    1:23:42 space
    1:23:42 for
    1:23:42 sort
    1:23:43 of
    1:23:43 civil
    1:23:43 society
    1:23:44 but
    1:23:44 also
    1:23:45 allowing
    1:23:45 sort
    1:23:46 of
    1:23:47 way
    1:23:47 Muslims
    1:23:48 felt
    1:23:48 that
    1:23:48 they
    1:23:48 didn’t
    1:23:49 have
    1:23:49 to
    1:23:49 choose
    1:23:50 between
    1:23:50 being
    1:23:51 their
    1:23:51 Muslim
    1:23:52 identity
    1:23:52 and
    1:23:52 their
    1:23:53 Chinese
    1:23:53 identity
    1:23:53 but
    1:23:53 there’s
    1:23:54 more
    1:23:54 and
    1:23:54 more
    1:23:54 of
    1:23:54 a
    1:23:54 kind
    1:23:55 of
    1:23:56 we
    1:23:57 see
    1:23:57 this
    1:23:57 in
    1:23:57 Xi
    1:23:58 Jinping
    1:23:58 becoming
    1:23:59 impatient
    1:23:59 with
    1:24:00 Hong
    1:24:00 Kong
    1:24:01 where
    1:24:01 there
    1:24:01 was
    1:24:01 a
    1:24:01 way
    1:24:02 of
    1:24:02 which
    1:24:02 okay
    1:24:02 this
    1:24:02 is
    1:24:03 a
    1:24:03 city
    1:24:03 that’s
    1:24:03 part
    1:24:04 of
    1:24:04 the
    1:24:04 PRC
    1:24:05 but
    1:24:05 it
    1:24:05 really
    1:24:06 operates
    1:24:06 very
    1:24:06 differently
    1:24:07 he
    1:24:07 seems
    1:24:07 to
    1:24:08 be
    1:24:10 uncomfortable
    1:24:10 with
    1:24:10 difference
    1:24:11 I guess
    1:24:12 he’s not
    1:24:12 alone
    1:24:12 in
    1:24:13 strong
    1:24:13 men
    1:24:13 this
    1:24:14 way
    1:24:14 of
    1:24:14 sort
    1:24:14 of
    1:24:15 wanting
    1:24:16 to
    1:24:17 impose
    1:24:17 a
    1:24:18 kind
    1:24:18 of
    1:24:18 singular
    1:24:19 vision
    1:24:19 of
    1:24:19 what
    1:24:20 Chinese
    1:24:20 identity
    1:24:21 means
    1:24:21 what
    1:24:22 loyalty
    1:24:23 to
    1:24:23 the
    1:24:24 status
    1:24:24 quo
    1:24:24 means
    1:24:25 and
    1:24:26 so
    1:24:26 there’s
    1:24:26 been
    1:24:26 a
    1:24:26 kind
    1:24:27 of
    1:24:28 tightening
    1:24:28 of
    1:24:28 controls
    1:24:29 over
    1:24:29 all
    1:24:29 the
    1:24:30 borders
    1:24:31 and
    1:24:32 even
    1:24:32 things
    1:24:32 one
    1:24:33 thing
    1:24:33 she
    1:24:33 reported
    1:24:34 on
    1:24:34 was
    1:24:34 Mongolia
    1:24:35 and
    1:24:35 inner
    1:24:36 Mongolia
    1:24:37 it’s
    1:24:37 been
    1:24:37 seen
    1:24:38 as
    1:24:38 an
    1:24:38 unproblematic
    1:24:39 kind
    1:24:39 of
    1:24:39 frontier
    1:24:40 area
    1:24:40 and
    1:24:41 who
    1:24:41 cares
    1:24:41 if
    1:24:41 there
    1:24:41 was
    1:24:42 some
    1:24:43 revival
    1:24:43 of
    1:24:44 Mongolian
    1:24:44 language
    1:24:44 but
    1:24:45 under
    1:24:45 Xi
    1:24:45 there’s
    1:24:45 been
    1:24:46 a
    1:24:47 less
    1:24:48 patience
    1:24:48 with
    1:24:49 those
    1:24:49 kinds
    1:24:50 of
    1:24:50 difference
    1:24:50 he’s
    1:24:51 been
    1:24:53 there’s
    1:24:53 been
    1:24:53 more
    1:24:54 of a
    1:24:54 resurgence
    1:24:55 of
    1:24:55 patriarchy
    1:24:56 all
    1:24:56 kinds
    1:24:56 of
    1:24:56 things
    1:24:56 have
    1:24:57 happened
    1:24:57 under
    1:24:57 him
    1:24:58 but
    1:25:00 how
    1:25:00 much
    1:25:00 is
    1:25:00 it
    1:25:00 just
    1:25:01 him
    1:25:01 or
    1:25:01 how
    1:25:01 much
    1:25:01 is
    1:25:02 it
    1:25:02 also
    1:25:04 a
    1:25:04 kind
    1:25:04 of
    1:25:05 mood
    1:25:05 or
    1:25:05 group
    1:25:06 within
    1:25:06 the
    1:25:06 party
    1:25:07 some
    1:25:07 of
    1:25:07 these
    1:25:08 trends
    1:25:08 I
    1:25:08 think
    1:25:09 began
    1:25:09 before
    1:25:10 he
    1:25:10 took
    1:25:10 power
    1:25:11 in
    1:25:11 late
    1:25:11 2012
    1:25:12 I
    1:25:13 think
    1:25:13 really
    1:25:14 my
    1:25:14 own
    1:25:15 feeling
    1:25:15 going
    1:25:15 to
    1:25:16 China
    1:25:17 fairly
    1:25:17 often
    1:25:18 from
    1:25:18 the
    1:25:19 mid
    1:25:20 1990s
    1:25:20 till
    1:25:20 about
    1:25:21 2018
    1:25:23 was
    1:25:23 that
    1:25:23 until
    1:25:25 2008
    1:25:26 the year
    1:25:26 of the
    1:25:26 Olympics
    1:25:27 year
    1:25:28 each
    1:25:29 trip
    1:25:29 it would
    1:25:29 feel
    1:25:29 like
    1:25:30 oh
    1:25:30 there’s
    1:25:30 just
    1:25:31 more
    1:25:31 space
    1:25:32 there’s
    1:25:32 more
    1:25:32 breathing
    1:25:33 room
    1:25:33 for
    1:25:34 you know
    1:25:34 it’s
    1:25:35 not
    1:25:35 becoming
    1:25:35 a
    1:25:35 liberal
    1:25:36 democracy
    1:25:37 but
    1:25:38 I
    1:25:38 would
    1:25:38 notice
    1:25:39 things
    1:25:39 that
    1:25:39 felt
    1:25:39 like
    1:25:39 I’m
    1:25:40 surprised
    1:25:40 that
    1:25:40 that
    1:25:41 happens
    1:25:42 that
    1:25:42 people
    1:25:44 felt
    1:25:44 less
    1:25:45 worried
    1:25:45 about
    1:25:45 what
    1:25:45 they
    1:25:45 were
    1:25:46 saying
    1:25:46 and
    1:25:46 what
    1:25:46 they
    1:25:46 were
    1:25:47 doing
    1:25:49 that
    1:25:49 kind
    1:25:49 of
    1:25:49 trend
    1:25:50 line
    1:25:50 up
    1:25:50 until
    1:25:50 about
    1:25:51 2008
    1:25:52 but
    1:25:52 from
    1:25:53 the
    1:25:54 Olympics
    1:25:55 and
    1:25:55 then
    1:25:56 the
    1:25:57 financial
    1:25:58 crisis
    1:25:58 after
    1:25:59 that
    1:26:00 the
    1:26:00 Chinese
    1:26:01 Communist
    1:26:01 Party
    1:26:01 felt
    1:26:02 I
    1:26:02 guess
    1:26:02 more
    1:26:03 it’s
    1:26:03 still
    1:26:03 insecure
    1:26:03 but
    1:26:03 it
    1:26:04 felt
    1:26:04 cockier
    1:26:04 in
    1:26:05 some
    1:26:05 ways
    1:26:05 and
    1:26:05 you
    1:26:06 had
    1:26:07 like
    1:26:07 okay
    1:26:08 maybe
    1:26:09 we
    1:26:09 can
    1:26:10 start
    1:26:11 asserting
    1:26:11 more
    1:26:11 control
    1:26:11 over
    1:26:12 things
    1:26:12 so
    1:26:13 I
    1:26:13 think
    1:26:13 that’s
    1:26:13 been
    1:26:14 stronger
    1:26:14 under
    1:26:15 Xi
    1:26:15 Jinping’s
    1:26:15 time
    1:26:15 and
    1:26:16 power
    1:26:16 and
    1:26:16 he
    1:26:16 was
    1:26:17 already
    1:26:17 the
    1:26:17 designated
    1:26:18 successor
    1:26:19 by
    1:26:20 2008
    1:26:20 he
    1:26:20 was
    1:26:21 in
    1:26:21 charge
    1:26:22 of
    1:26:25 security
    1:26:25 for the
    1:26:26 Olympics
    1:26:26 and
    1:26:27 the
    1:26:27 Olympics
    1:26:27 was
    1:26:27 supposed
    1:26:28 to be
    1:26:28 a
    1:26:28 moment
    1:26:30 possibly
    1:26:30 of
    1:26:30 more
    1:26:31 opening
    1:26:31 up
    1:26:32 because
    1:26:32 when
    1:26:33 Seoul
    1:26:33 hosted
    1:26:33 the
    1:26:34 Olympics
    1:26:34 South
    1:26:35 Korea
    1:26:35 became
    1:26:35 a
    1:26:36 less
    1:26:36 tightly
    1:26:37 controlled
    1:26:37 right
    1:26:37 wing
    1:26:39 dictatorship
    1:26:39 and
    1:26:40 moved
    1:26:40 toward
    1:26:40 democracy
    1:26:41 and
    1:26:41 some
    1:26:41 people
    1:26:41 were
    1:26:41 hoping
    1:26:42 the
    1:26:42 Olympics
    1:26:43 might
    1:26:43 move
    1:26:43 China
    1:26:44 that way
    1:26:44 and it
    1:26:44 went
    1:26:44 quite
    1:26:45 the
    1:26:45 opposite
    1:26:46 you
    1:26:46 mentioned
    1:26:46 that
    1:26:47 we
    1:26:47 don’t
    1:26:47 know
    1:26:48 the
    1:26:48 degree
    1:26:49 to
    1:26:50 which
    1:26:50 this
    1:26:51 change
    1:26:51 has to
    1:26:51 do
    1:26:51 with
    1:26:51 Xi
    1:26:52 Jinping
    1:26:52 or
    1:26:52 the
    1:26:53 party
    1:26:53 apparatus
    1:26:54 and
    1:26:54 that
    1:26:56 question
    1:26:57 going
    1:26:57 back to
    1:26:58 Confucius
    1:26:58 of hierarchy
    1:26:59 and how
    1:26:59 does
    1:26:59 the
    1:27:00 power
    1:27:01 within
    1:27:01 this
    1:27:02 very
    1:27:02 strict
    1:27:03 one
    1:27:03 party
    1:27:03 state
    1:27:04 work
    1:27:05 what
    1:27:06 can we
    1:27:06 say
    1:27:06 what do
    1:27:06 we know
    1:27:07 about the
    1:27:07 structure
    1:27:09 of this
    1:27:09 communist
    1:27:09 party
    1:27:10 apparatus
    1:27:11 how much
    1:27:12 internal
    1:27:12 power
    1:27:13 struggle
    1:27:13 is there
    1:27:13 how much
    1:27:14 power
    1:27:14 does
    1:27:14 Xi Jinping
    1:27:15 actually
    1:27:15 have
    1:27:16 is there
    1:27:17 any
    1:27:17 insight
    1:27:18 we have
    1:27:18 into
    1:27:18 the
    1:27:19 system
    1:27:20 so
    1:27:20 james
    1:27:20 james
    1:27:21 paulmer
    1:27:21 who
    1:27:21 worked
    1:27:22 in
    1:27:22 beijing
    1:27:23 as a
    1:27:23 journalist
    1:27:23 and
    1:27:24 now
    1:27:24 is an
    1:27:25 editor
    1:27:25 at
    1:27:25 foreign
    1:27:26 policy
    1:27:26 wrote
    1:27:26 an
    1:27:26 important
    1:27:27 piece
    1:27:28 a few
    1:27:28 years
    1:27:28 ago
    1:27:28 about
    1:27:29 just
    1:27:29 we
    1:27:29 should
    1:27:30 really
    1:27:30 be
    1:27:30 straight
    1:27:31 about
    1:27:31 what a
    1:27:31 black
    1:27:32 box
    1:27:33 the
    1:27:33 Chinese
    1:27:34 elite
    1:27:35 politics
    1:27:35 are
    1:27:35 and
    1:27:36 really
    1:27:37 not
    1:27:37 try to
    1:27:38 pretend
    1:27:38 we know
    1:27:38 more
    1:27:38 than
    1:27:38 we
    1:27:39 do
    1:27:40 we
    1:27:40 did
    1:27:41 used
    1:27:42 to
    1:27:42 have
    1:27:42 more
    1:27:42 of
    1:27:42 a
    1:27:42 sense
    1:27:42 of
    1:27:43 these
    1:27:43 kind
    1:27:43 of
    1:27:44 ideological
    1:27:44 factions
    1:27:45 but
    1:27:46 also
    1:27:46 partly
    1:27:46 about
    1:27:47 different
    1:27:47 views
    1:27:48 of
    1:27:48 how
    1:27:48 much
    1:27:49 tinkering
    1:27:49 there
    1:27:49 should
    1:27:50 be
    1:27:50 with
    1:27:50 the
    1:27:50 economy
    1:27:51 and
    1:27:51 things
    1:27:51 like
    1:27:52 that
    1:27:52 and
    1:27:52 they
    1:27:53 were
    1:27:53 also
    1:27:53 basic
    1:27:54 partly
    1:27:54 based
    1:27:55 on
    1:27:56 personalities
    1:27:56 and
    1:27:57 personal
    1:27:57 ties
    1:27:58 but we
    1:27:58 did
    1:27:58 have
    1:27:59 a
    1:27:59 sense
    1:27:59 you
    1:27:59 could
    1:27:59 sort
    1:28:00 of
    1:28:00 map
    1:28:00 out
    1:28:01 these
    1:28:01 kinds
    1:28:01 of
    1:28:02 rival
    1:28:03 power
    1:28:04 bases
    1:28:04 and
    1:28:05 things
    1:28:05 and
    1:28:06 we
    1:28:06 just
    1:28:06 have
    1:28:06 much
    1:28:06 less
    1:28:06 of
    1:28:07 a
    1:28:07 sense
    1:28:07 of
    1:28:07 that
    1:28:07 under
    1:28:08 Xi
    1:28:08 Jinping
    1:28:08 it’s
    1:28:08 very
    1:28:09 hard
    1:28:09 to
    1:28:09 know
    1:28:09 other
    1:28:10 than
    1:28:10 the
    1:28:11 small
    1:28:11 group
    1:28:12 around
    1:28:12 him
    1:28:13 how
    1:28:13 it
    1:28:13 works
    1:28:13 we
    1:28:14 don’t
    1:28:14 have
    1:28:14 a
    1:28:15 major
    1:28:15 defector
    1:28:16 who
    1:28:16 says
    1:28:16 yeah
    1:28:17 this
    1:28:17 is
    1:28:17 how
    1:28:18 this
    1:28:18 is
    1:28:18 how
    1:28:18 Xi
    1:28:19 Jinping
    1:28:19 we
    1:28:19 have
    1:28:19 Xi
    1:28:20 Jinping
    1:28:20 self
    1:28:21 presentation
    1:28:22 and
    1:28:22 a lot
    1:28:23 of
    1:28:23 things
    1:28:23 that
    1:28:23 are
    1:28:25 said
    1:28:25 about
    1:28:25 him
    1:28:26 there
    1:28:26 were
    1:28:26 some
    1:28:26 false
    1:28:27 expectations
    1:28:27 about
    1:28:28 him
    1:28:28 that
    1:28:28 some
    1:28:28 people
    1:28:28 thought
    1:28:29 oh
    1:28:29 he’s
    1:28:29 going
    1:28:29 to
    1:28:29 be
    1:28:30 reformer
    1:28:30 because
    1:28:31 his
    1:28:32 father
    1:28:32 was a
    1:28:33 liberalizing
    1:28:33 figure
    1:28:34 and
    1:28:34 you know
    1:28:34 that
    1:28:35 doesn’t
    1:28:35 work
    1:28:35 that
    1:28:35 way
    1:28:36 and
    1:28:36 he
    1:28:36 does
    1:28:36 seem
    1:28:37 to
    1:28:37 care
    1:28:37 about
    1:28:38 orderliness
    1:28:38 he does
    1:28:38 seem
    1:28:39 to care
    1:28:39 about
    1:28:40 certain
    1:28:40 things
    1:28:40 he wants
    1:28:41 to present
    1:28:41 himself
    1:28:42 as a
    1:28:42 kind
    1:28:43 of
    1:28:43 scholarly
    1:28:44 figure
    1:28:44 in touch
    1:28:44 with
    1:28:45 China’s
    1:28:45 deep
    1:28:45 past
    1:28:47 we
    1:28:47 know
    1:28:47 he’s
    1:28:47 a
    1:28:48 strong
    1:28:48 nationalist
    1:28:49 and
    1:28:49 a
    1:28:49 kind
    1:28:49 of
    1:28:50 cultural
    1:28:50 nationalist
    1:28:50 as
    1:28:51 well
    1:28:51 as
    1:28:53 political
    1:28:53 nationalist
    1:28:53 but
    1:28:54 beyond
    1:28:54 that
    1:28:54 we
    1:28:55 don’t
    1:28:55 have
    1:28:55 that
    1:28:55 much
    1:28:56 of a
    1:28:56 sense
    1:28:56 of
    1:28:56 what
    1:28:57 makes
    1:28:57 him
    1:28:58 tick
    1:28:59 we
    1:28:59 get
    1:28:59 little
    1:29:00 hints
    1:29:01 you know
    1:29:01 there was
    1:29:02 a
    1:29:02 secret
    1:29:02 speech
    1:29:03 where
    1:29:03 he
    1:29:03 talked
    1:29:03 about
    1:29:04 that
    1:29:04 leaked
    1:29:04 out
    1:29:04 that
    1:29:04 he
    1:29:06 talked
    1:29:06 about
    1:29:06 how
    1:29:07 the
    1:29:07 Soviet
    1:29:07 Union
    1:29:08 had
    1:29:08 collapsed
    1:29:09 because
    1:29:09 people
    1:29:09 didn’t
    1:29:10 the
    1:29:10 leadership
    1:29:11 didn’t
    1:29:11 pay
    1:29:11 enough
    1:29:11 attention
    1:29:12 to
    1:29:12 ideology
    1:29:13 and
    1:29:13 he
    1:29:16 manly
    1:29:16 enough
    1:29:17 to
    1:29:17 keep
    1:29:17 control
    1:29:18 so
    1:29:19 he
    1:29:20 I
    1:29:21 imagine
    1:29:21 if
    1:29:21 he
    1:29:21 and
    1:29:22 Putin
    1:29:22 ever
    1:29:22 have
    1:29:22 a
    1:29:23 kind
    1:29:23 of
    1:29:24 heart
    1:29:24 to
    1:29:24 heart
    1:29:25 conversation
    1:29:25 it’s
    1:29:26 one
    1:29:26 thing
    1:29:26 they’d
    1:29:27 find
    1:29:27 to
    1:29:27 agree
    1:29:27 on
    1:29:27 is
    1:29:28 this
    1:29:28 sort
    1:29:28 of
    1:29:28 distaste
    1:29:29 for
    1:29:29 Gorbachev
    1:29:30 this
    1:29:30 feeling
    1:29:31 that
    1:29:31 Gorbachev
    1:29:31 was
    1:29:32 that
    1:29:32 was
    1:29:32 the
    1:29:32 wrong
    1:29:32 way
    1:29:32 to
    1:29:33 do
    1:29:33 things
    1:29:33 not
    1:29:34 manly
    1:29:34 enough
    1:29:35 yeah
    1:29:35 to
    1:29:36 not
    1:29:37 strong
    1:29:37 enough
    1:29:37 about
    1:29:38 you know
    1:29:38 really
    1:29:39 keeping
    1:29:39 control
    1:29:39 and
    1:29:40 you know
    1:29:40 for
    1:29:40 Putin
    1:29:40 it
    1:29:40 would
    1:29:46 there
    1:29:46 is a
    1:29:47 bit
    1:29:47 of
    1:29:47 being
    1:29:47 haunted
    1:29:48 by
    1:29:48 what
    1:29:48 happened
    1:29:49 to
    1:29:49 the
    1:29:49 Soviet
    1:29:49 Union
    1:29:50 and
    1:29:51 we’re
    1:29:51 not
    1:29:51 I’m
    1:29:52 not
    1:29:52 going
    1:29:52 to
    1:29:52 be
    1:29:52 the
    1:29:52 leader
    1:29:53 who
    1:29:54 sees
    1:29:55 the
    1:29:56 diminishment
    1:29:57 of
    1:29:58 this
    1:30:00 landmass
    1:30:00 that was
    1:30:00 in a
    1:30:00 sense
    1:30:01 rebuilt
    1:30:02 over
    1:30:02 time
    1:30:03 for
    1:30:04 Mao
    1:30:04 and
    1:30:04 then
    1:30:05 Deng Xiaoping
    1:30:06 you know
    1:30:06 you have
    1:30:07 the
    1:30:08 story
    1:30:08 a very
    1:30:09 powerful
    1:30:09 story
    1:30:09 about
    1:30:09 the
    1:30:10 Chinese
    1:30:10 past
    1:30:10 that
    1:30:10 the
    1:30:11 Chinese
    1:30:11 Communist
    1:30:11 Party
    1:30:11 makes
    1:30:12 a lot
    1:30:12 out
    1:30:12 of
    1:30:14 but
    1:30:14 the
    1:30:14 Chiang
    1:30:14 Kai
    1:30:15 Shack
    1:30:15 the
    1:30:16 Nationalist
    1:30:16 Party
    1:30:16 who was
    1:30:17 Mao’s
    1:30:17 great
    1:30:17 rival
    1:30:18 also
    1:30:18 made
    1:30:18 a lot
    1:30:18 out
    1:30:19 of
    1:30:19 and
    1:30:19 it
    1:30:20 has
    1:30:20 a
    1:30:20 partial
    1:30:21 basis
    1:30:21 in
    1:30:21 fact
    1:30:21 was
    1:30:22 that
    1:30:22 from
    1:30:22 the
    1:30:22 middle
    1:30:23 of
    1:30:23 the
    1:30:23 19th
    1:30:23 century
    1:30:23 to
    1:30:24 the
    1:30:24 middle
    1:30:24 of
    1:30:24 the
    1:30:24 20th
    1:30:25 century
    1:30:27 China
    1:30:27 which
    1:30:27 had
    1:30:27 been
    1:30:27 the
    1:30:28 strong
    1:30:28 force
    1:30:28 in
    1:30:28 the
    1:30:29 world
    1:30:29 got
    1:30:29 bullied
    1:30:30 and
    1:30:30 nibbled
    1:30:31 away
    1:30:31 at
    1:30:31 by
    1:30:31 foreign
    1:30:32 powers
    1:30:33 and
    1:30:34 it’s
    1:30:34 important
    1:30:34 to
    1:30:34 realize
    1:30:35 there
    1:30:35 are
    1:30:35 elements
    1:30:42 and
    1:30:43 the
    1:30:43 reason
    1:30:43 why
    1:30:44 my
    1:30:44 party
    1:30:44 deserves
    1:30:45 to
    1:30:45 rule
    1:30:45 is
    1:30:45 because
    1:30:45 it
    1:30:46 can
    1:30:46 reassert
    1:30:47 China’s
    1:30:48 place
    1:30:48 in the
    1:30:49 world
    1:30:49 and both
    1:30:49 the
    1:30:50 Nationalist
    1:30:50 Party
    1:30:51 and the
    1:30:51 Communist
    1:30:52 Party
    1:30:54 predicated
    1:30:54 themselves
    1:30:55 on this
    1:30:55 kind of
    1:30:56 nationalistic
    1:30:56 story
    1:30:57 of
    1:30:58 being
    1:30:59 in a
    1:30:59 position
    1:30:59 to
    1:30:59 prevent
    1:31:00 that
    1:31:00 from
    1:31:00 happening
    1:31:00 again
    1:31:01 this
    1:31:01 is
    1:31:01 a
    1:31:02 bit
    1:31:02 of
    1:31:02 a
    1:31:02 tricky
    1:31:03 question
    1:31:03 but
    1:31:04 is
    1:31:04 it
    1:31:05 safe
    1:31:06 for
    1:31:07 journalists
    1:31:09 for
    1:31:09 folks
    1:31:09 who
    1:31:09 write
    1:31:10 excellent
    1:31:10 books
    1:31:11 about
    1:31:11 the
    1:31:12 topic
    1:31:12 to
    1:31:13 travel
    1:31:13 to
    1:31:14 China
    1:31:14 I
    1:31:15 think
    1:31:15 there
    1:31:15 are
    1:31:15 all
    1:31:15 kinds
    1:31:15 of
    1:31:16 different
    1:31:16 things
    1:31:16 about
    1:31:17 safety
    1:31:17 or
    1:31:17 not
    1:31:17 I
    1:31:18 think
    1:31:18 until
    1:31:19 recently
    1:31:19 at
    1:31:19 least
    1:31:20 the
    1:31:21 people
    1:31:21 who
    1:31:21 were
    1:31:22 most
    1:31:22 vulnerable
    1:31:23 were
    1:31:24 people
    1:31:24 of
    1:31:25 Chinese
    1:31:25 descent
    1:31:27 people
    1:31:27 originally
    1:31:27 from
    1:31:28 China
    1:31:28 who
    1:31:28 had
    1:31:28 gone
    1:31:29 abroad
    1:31:29 or
    1:31:30 even
    1:31:30 people
    1:31:31 who
    1:31:31 were
    1:31:33 Chinese
    1:31:33 Americans
    1:31:33 who
    1:31:34 went
    1:31:34 there
    1:31:34 there
    1:31:34 was
    1:31:35 a
    1:31:36 higher
    1:31:37 expectation
    1:31:38 that
    1:31:38 they
    1:31:38 should
    1:31:39 be
    1:31:39 on
    1:31:40 board
    1:31:40 so
    1:31:40 you
    1:31:40 had
    1:31:41 early
    1:31:42 cases
    1:31:42 my
    1:31:42 friend
    1:31:43 Melissa
    1:31:43 Chan
    1:31:43 was
    1:31:43 an
    1:31:44 early
    1:31:44 person
    1:31:45 kicked
    1:31:45 out
    1:31:45 when
    1:31:46 she
    1:31:46 was
    1:31:46 working
    1:31:46 for
    1:31:47 Al Jazeera
    1:31:48 and
    1:31:48 reporting
    1:31:48 on
    1:31:49 Xinjiang
    1:31:50 so
    1:31:50 that’s
    1:31:50 one
    1:31:50 kind
    1:31:50 of
    1:31:51 person
    1:31:51 who
    1:31:51 was
    1:31:51 vulnerable
    1:31:52 because
    1:31:52 of
    1:31:52 this
    1:31:54 expectation
    1:31:54 that
    1:31:54 they
    1:31:55 should
    1:31:55 be
    1:31:55 somehow
    1:31:56 more
    1:31:56 loyal
    1:31:57 another
    1:31:57 kind
    1:31:58 of
    1:31:58 person
    1:31:58 who
    1:31:58 was
    1:31:59 vulnerable
    1:31:59 or
    1:31:59 this
    1:32:00 case
    1:32:00 more
    1:32:01 likely
    1:32:01 to be
    1:32:01 blocked
    1:32:01 from
    1:32:02 China
    1:32:03 they
    1:32:04 there’s
    1:32:04 a
    1:32:05 the
    1:32:05 communist
    1:32:05 party
    1:32:06 is
    1:32:07 particularly
    1:32:07 concerned
    1:32:08 about
    1:32:08 people
    1:32:09 from
    1:32:09 outside
    1:32:09 of
    1:32:10 China
    1:32:10 who
    1:32:10 are
    1:32:11 amplifying
    1:32:11 the
    1:32:11 voices
    1:32:12 of
    1:32:13 people
    1:32:13 within
    1:32:14 China
    1:32:14 or
    1:32:14 exiles
    1:32:15 from
    1:32:15 China
    1:32:16 who
    1:32:16 the
    1:32:16 government
    1:32:16 would
    1:32:16 like
    1:32:17 to
    1:32:17 silence
    1:32:19 so
    1:32:19 the
    1:32:19 Dalai
    1:32:20 Lama
    1:32:20 you
    1:32:20 had
    1:32:21 scholars
    1:32:21 who
    1:32:21 worked
    1:32:21 on
    1:32:21 Tibet
    1:32:22 and
    1:32:22 had
    1:32:23 connections
    1:32:23 to
    1:32:23 Dalai
    1:32:23 Lama
    1:32:23 where
    1:32:25 early
    1:32:25 people
    1:32:25 to have
    1:32:25 trouble
    1:32:26 going
    1:32:26 to
    1:32:26 the
    1:32:27 PRC
    1:32:27 then
    1:32:28 scholars
    1:32:29 who
    1:32:29 worked
    1:32:29 on
    1:32:30 Xinjiang
    1:32:30 and
    1:32:31 were
    1:32:31 connected
    1:32:32 to
    1:32:32 Uyghurs
    1:32:33 but
    1:32:33 there
    1:32:33 also
    1:32:34 were
    1:32:34 people
    1:32:34 who
    1:32:35 were
    1:32:36 personally
    1:32:36 connected
    1:32:37 to
    1:32:38 dissidents
    1:32:38 or
    1:32:38 exiles
    1:32:39 who
    1:32:39 would
    1:32:41 amplify
    1:32:42 their
    1:32:42 voices
    1:32:42 or
    1:32:43 translate
    1:32:43 their
    1:32:43 work
    1:32:44 would
    1:32:44 promote
    1:32:45 them
    1:32:45 that
    1:32:47 then
    1:32:47 it
    1:32:47 wasn’t
    1:32:48 about
    1:32:49 danger
    1:32:49 if
    1:32:49 you
    1:32:49 got
    1:32:50 in
    1:32:50 China
    1:32:50 but
    1:32:50 you
    1:32:50 were
    1:32:50 more
    1:32:50 likely
    1:32:51 to
    1:32:51 be
    1:32:51 denied
    1:32:51 a
    1:32:51 visa
    1:32:52 if
    1:32:52 you
    1:32:52 were
    1:32:53 the
    1:32:53 kind
    1:32:54 of
    1:32:54 person
    1:32:54 who
    1:32:54 was
    1:32:54 doing
    1:32:55 that
    1:32:56 so
    1:32:56 I
    1:32:57 wrote
    1:32:57 critical
    1:32:59 op-eds
    1:32:59 about
    1:32:59 the
    1:32:59 Chinese
    1:33:00 Communist
    1:33:00 Party
    1:33:01 I
    1:33:01 published
    1:33:02 them
    1:33:02 in
    1:33:02 some
    1:33:02 high
    1:33:03 profile
    1:33:03 places
    1:33:04 I
    1:33:04 read
    1:33:05 a lot
    1:33:05 about
    1:33:05 Tiananmen
    1:33:06 I
    1:33:06 read
    1:33:06 about
    1:33:06 human
    1:33:07 rights
    1:33:07 issues
    1:33:07 all
    1:33:08 that
    1:33:08 and
    1:33:08 I
    1:33:08 kept
    1:33:09 getting
    1:33:09 visas
    1:33:09 to
    1:33:09 go
    1:33:09 to
    1:33:10 China
    1:33:11 I
    1:33:11 testified
    1:33:12 to
    1:33:12 a
    1:33:12 congressional
    1:33:13 executive
    1:33:13 joint
    1:33:14 committee
    1:33:14 on
    1:33:14 China
    1:33:14 about
    1:33:15 the
    1:33:15 Tiananmen
    1:33:16 protests
    1:33:17 on the
    1:33:17 25th
    1:33:18 anniversary
    1:33:18 of it
    1:33:18 and
    1:33:19 some
    1:33:19 people
    1:33:19 said
    1:33:19 that’s
    1:33:19 the
    1:33:20 kind
    1:33:20 of
    1:33:20 thing
    1:33:20 that
    1:33:21 would
    1:33:21 lead
    1:33:21 to
    1:33:21 you
    1:33:21 not
    1:33:22 getting
    1:33:22 a
    1:33:22 visa
    1:33:22 I
    1:33:22 got
    1:33:23 a
    1:33:23 visa
    1:33:23 right
    1:33:23 after
    1:33:24 that
    1:33:25 now
    1:33:25 I
    1:33:25 think
    1:33:25 it
    1:33:25 might
    1:33:26 be
    1:33:26 different
    1:33:26 now
    1:33:27 some
    1:33:27 of
    1:33:27 these
    1:33:28 expectations
    1:33:29 have been
    1:33:29 changed
    1:33:29 there
    1:33:30 have
    1:33:30 been
    1:33:30 people
    1:33:30 who’ve
    1:33:31 been
    1:33:32 very
    1:33:33 surprisingly
    1:33:33 gotten
    1:33:34 in
    1:33:34 trouble
    1:33:35 these
    1:33:35 two
    1:33:36 Canadians
    1:33:36 who
    1:33:36 were
    1:33:37 clearly
    1:33:37 it was a
    1:33:38 tit
    1:33:38 for
    1:33:39 tat
    1:33:39 partly
    1:33:39 because
    1:33:40 of
    1:33:40 tech
    1:33:41 mavens
    1:33:42 relative
    1:33:42 being
    1:33:43 held
    1:33:43 in
    1:33:43 Canada
    1:33:43 so
    1:33:44 it
    1:33:44 was
    1:33:44 there
    1:33:44 it
    1:33:44 was
    1:33:45 also
    1:33:45 not
    1:33:45 picking
    1:33:45 a
    1:33:46 fight
    1:33:46 with
    1:33:47 Americans
    1:33:47 but
    1:33:47 there
    1:33:48 were
    1:33:48 certain
    1:33:48 kinds
    1:33:48 of
    1:33:49 things
    1:33:49 that
    1:33:49 you
    1:33:49 could
    1:33:50 map
    1:33:50 out
    1:33:51 what
    1:33:51 was
    1:33:51 the
    1:33:52 riskiest
    1:33:52 thing
    1:33:52 to
    1:33:52 do
    1:33:53 and
    1:33:53 so
    1:33:53 I
    1:33:53 went
    1:33:54 in
    1:33:54 the
    1:33:54 2010s
    1:33:55 having
    1:33:55 written
    1:33:57 forcefully
    1:33:57 about
    1:33:58 Tiananmen
    1:33:59 and I
    1:33:59 didn’t
    1:33:59 feel
    1:34:00 dangerous
    1:34:00 I
    1:34:01 felt
    1:34:01 there
    1:34:02 was
    1:34:02 an
    1:34:02 awareness
    1:34:02 in
    1:34:03 some
    1:34:03 cases
    1:34:03 of
    1:34:03 what
    1:34:04 if
    1:34:04 I
    1:34:04 was
    1:34:04 giving
    1:34:04 a
    1:34:05 public
    1:34:05 talk
    1:34:05 there
    1:34:05 was
    1:34:06 awareness
    1:34:06 of
    1:34:06 what
    1:34:06 it
    1:34:07 was
    1:34:07 there
    1:34:07 was
    1:34:08 sometimes
    1:34:09 you
    1:34:09 didn’t
    1:34:10 want
    1:34:10 to
    1:34:10 get
    1:34:10 your
    1:34:11 host
    1:34:12 who
    1:34:13 had
    1:34:13 brought
    1:34:13 you
    1:34:13 to
    1:34:13 a
    1:34:14 university
    1:34:14 in
    1:34:14 trouble
    1:34:15 by
    1:34:15 saying
    1:34:16 something
    1:34:16 that
    1:34:16 would
    1:34:16 get
    1:34:16 them
    1:34:16 in
    1:34:17 trouble
    1:34:17 I
    1:34:18 think
    1:34:18 it
    1:34:18 was
    1:34:18 often
    1:34:18 that
    1:34:20 you
    1:34:20 were
    1:34:20 more
    1:34:20 vulnerable
    1:34:21 if
    1:34:21 you
    1:34:21 were
    1:34:21 within
    1:34:21 China
    1:34:22 or
    1:34:22 you
    1:34:22 were
    1:34:23 connected
    1:34:23 to
    1:34:23 China
    1:34:23 in
    1:34:23 different
    1:34:24 ways
    1:34:25 for
    1:34:25 me
    1:34:26 it’s
    1:34:26 been
    1:34:26 confusing
    1:34:27 these
    1:34:27 last
    1:34:27 few
    1:34:28 years
    1:34:28 I
    1:34:28 wrote
    1:34:28 one
    1:34:28 piece
    1:34:29 about
    1:34:29 this
    1:34:29 about
    1:34:29 I’m
    1:34:30 not
    1:34:30 going
    1:34:31 to
    1:34:31 any
    1:34:31 part
    1:34:31 of
    1:34:31 the
    1:34:32 PRC
    1:34:32 for
    1:34:33 the
    1:34:33 time
    1:34:33 being
    1:34:34 but
    1:34:34 I
    1:34:34 always
    1:34:34 thought
    1:34:35 that
    1:34:35 Hong
    1:34:35 Kong
    1:34:35 was
    1:34:35 a
    1:34:36 place
    1:34:36 that
    1:34:36 I’d
    1:34:36 be
    1:34:37 free
    1:34:37 to
    1:34:37 go
    1:34:37 even
    1:34:38 if
    1:34:38 things
    1:34:38 got
    1:34:39 difficult
    1:34:39 I
    1:34:39 didn’t
    1:34:39 get
    1:34:39 a
    1:34:39 visa
    1:34:40 for
    1:34:40 the
    1:34:40 mainland
    1:34:40 you
    1:34:40 didn’t
    1:34:40 need
    1:34:41 a
    1:34:41 visa
    1:34:41 for
    1:34:41 Hong
    1:34:41 Kong
    1:34:43 but
    1:34:44 with
    1:34:45 Hong
    1:34:45 Kong
    1:34:47 with
    1:34:47 the
    1:34:47 mainland
    1:34:47 I
    1:34:48 had
    1:34:48 kept
    1:34:48 a
    1:34:49 distance
    1:34:49 from
    1:34:49 the
    1:34:50 dissidents
    1:34:50 that
    1:34:50 I
    1:34:51 was
    1:34:51 writing
    1:34:51 about
    1:34:52 with
    1:34:52 Hong
    1:34:52 Kong
    1:34:52 I
    1:34:53 felt
    1:34:53 that
    1:34:54 these
    1:34:54 rules
    1:34:55 didn’t
    1:34:55 apply
    1:34:56 and
    1:34:56 I
    1:34:56 was
    1:34:57 more
    1:34:57 connected
    1:34:57 to
    1:34:58 them
    1:34:59 more
    1:35:00 friends
    1:35:00 with
    1:35:00 some
    1:35:00 of
    1:35:01 them
    1:35:02 and
    1:35:03 then
    1:35:03 with
    1:35:04 this
    1:35:04 crackdown
    1:35:05 that’s
    1:35:05 come
    1:35:05 on
    1:35:05 Hong
    1:35:05 Kong
    1:35:06 and
    1:35:06 their
    1:35:07 exiles
    1:35:07 from
    1:35:08 Hong
    1:35:08 Kong
    1:35:08 who
    1:35:08 have
    1:35:09 bounties
    1:35:09 on
    1:35:09 their
    1:35:09 heads
    1:35:10 and
    1:35:11 so
    1:35:11 now
    1:35:11 I
    1:35:11 feel
    1:35:12 that
    1:35:12 it’s
    1:35:13 not
    1:35:13 necessarily
    1:35:13 that
    1:35:13 anything
    1:35:13 would
    1:35:14 happen
    1:35:14 to
    1:35:14 me
    1:35:14 if
    1:35:14 I
    1:35:14 went
    1:35:14 to
    1:35:15 Hong
    1:35:15 but
    1:35:15 I
    1:35:15 feel
    1:35:15 I
    1:35:15 would
    1:35:15 be
    1:35:15 very
    1:35:16 closely
    1:35:16 watched
    1:35:17 and
    1:35:17 so
    1:35:18 I
    1:35:18 wouldn’t
    1:35:18 want
    1:35:18 to
    1:35:18 meet
    1:35:18 with
    1:35:18 some
    1:35:19 of
    1:35:19 my
    1:35:20 friends
    1:35:20 there
    1:35:20 who
    1:35:21 aren’t
    1:35:22 this
    1:35:22 high
    1:35:22 profile
    1:35:23 so
    1:35:23 I
    1:35:23 don’t
    1:35:23 want
    1:35:23 to
    1:35:24 go
    1:35:24 to
    1:35:24 a
    1:35:24 place
    1:35:25 where
    1:35:26 I
    1:35:26 would
    1:35:27 feel
    1:35:27 that
    1:35:27 I
    1:35:27 was
    1:35:28 toxic
    1:35:28 in
    1:35:28 some
    1:35:28 way
    1:35:29 right
    1:35:30 one
    1:35:30 you’re
    1:35:30 walking
    1:35:31 on
    1:35:31 eggshells
    1:35:31 and
    1:35:32 two
    1:35:32 you
    1:35:32 can
    1:35:32 get
    1:35:32 others
    1:35:32 in
    1:35:33 trouble
    1:35:34 that
    1:35:34 kind
    1:35:35 of
    1:35:35 dynamic
    1:35:35 is
    1:35:36 complicated
    1:35:36 so
    1:35:36 it’s
    1:35:36 fascinating
    1:35:37 that
    1:35:37 Hong
    1:35:37 Kong
    1:35:37 is
    1:35:38 now
    1:35:38 part
    1:35:38 of
    1:35:38 that
    1:35:39 calculus
    1:35:40 so
    1:35:40 I’ve
    1:35:40 gotten
    1:35:40 the
    1:35:41 chance
    1:35:41 to
    1:35:42 speak
    1:35:42 to
    1:35:42 a
    1:35:42 bunch
    1:35:42 of
    1:35:42 world
    1:35:43 leaders
    1:35:43 do you
    1:35:44 think
    1:35:44 it’s
    1:35:44 possible
    1:35:44 that
    1:35:44 I
    1:35:45 would
    1:35:45 be
    1:35:45 able
    1:35:45 to
    1:35:46 do
    1:35:46 an
    1:35:46 interview
    1:35:46 with
    1:35:46 Xi
    1:35:47 Jinping
    1:35:49 if
    1:35:49 you
    1:35:49 do
    1:35:49 I
    1:35:50 would
    1:35:50 I
    1:35:50 would
    1:35:51 be
    1:35:51 very
    1:35:52 pleased
    1:35:52 because
    1:35:52 I
    1:35:52 could
    1:35:53 watch
    1:35:53 that
    1:35:53 interview
    1:35:54 and
    1:35:54 get
    1:35:55 some
    1:35:55 insights
    1:35:56 about
    1:35:57 Xi
    1:35:57 which
    1:35:57 have
    1:35:57 been
    1:35:58 very
    1:35:58 hard
    1:35:58 to
    1:35:58 get
    1:35:58 I
    1:35:58 mean
    1:35:59 they’re
    1:36:00 really
    1:36:01 difficult
    1:36:02 there
    1:36:02 have
    1:36:02 been
    1:36:02 very
    1:36:03 few
    1:36:06 discussions
    1:36:07 he
    1:36:07 doesn’t
    1:36:07 give
    1:36:08 press
    1:36:08 conferences
    1:36:09 there’s
    1:36:09 variety
    1:36:09 of
    1:36:10 things
    1:36:10 and
    1:36:10 this
    1:36:10 is
    1:36:11 different
    1:36:11 from
    1:36:12 some
    1:36:12 of
    1:36:12 his
    1:36:12 predecessors
    1:36:14 Jiang
    1:36:14 Zemin
    1:36:16 famously
    1:36:17 was
    1:36:17 interviewed
    1:36:18 by
    1:36:18 Barbara
    1:36:18 Walters
    1:36:19 and
    1:36:20 asked
    1:36:20 about
    1:36:20 Tiananmen
    1:36:21 and
    1:36:21 he
    1:36:21 tried
    1:36:21 to
    1:36:22 make
    1:36:22 out
    1:36:22 that
    1:36:22 it
    1:36:22 wasn’t
    1:36:22 a
    1:36:23 big
    1:36:23 deal
    1:36:23 you
    1:36:23 know
    1:36:24 there
    1:36:24 were
    1:36:24 a
    1:36:24 variety
    1:36:24 of
    1:36:24 things
    1:36:25 but
    1:36:25 he
    1:36:26 had
    1:36:27 relatively
    1:36:27 spontaneous
    1:36:29 conversations
    1:36:29 I was
    1:36:29 going to
    1:36:29 say
    1:36:30 he’s
    1:36:30 the only
    1:36:31 Chinese
    1:36:31 leader
    1:36:31 I’ve
    1:36:32 met
    1:36:33 but
    1:36:33 I
    1:36:33 met
    1:36:33 him
    1:36:33 before
    1:36:34 he
    1:36:34 was
    1:36:34 a
    1:36:34 major
    1:36:35 leader
    1:36:35 he
    1:36:35 was
    1:36:36 the
    1:36:37 party
    1:36:38 secretary
    1:36:38 or
    1:36:38 mayor
    1:36:39 of
    1:36:39 Shanghai
    1:36:40 it
    1:36:40 matters
    1:36:40 because
    1:36:40 the
    1:36:40 party
    1:36:41 secretary
    1:36:41 is
    1:36:41 more
    1:36:41 important
    1:36:42 role
    1:36:43 but
    1:36:43 anyway
    1:36:43 he
    1:36:43 just
    1:36:43 met
    1:36:44 with
    1:36:44 a
    1:36:44 group
    1:36:45 of
    1:36:46 foreign
    1:36:47 scholars
    1:36:47 who
    1:36:47 were
    1:36:47 going
    1:36:47 over
    1:36:48 to
    1:36:48 Shanghai
    1:36:48 in
    1:36:48 88
    1:36:49 for
    1:36:49 a
    1:36:49 conference
    1:36:49 on
    1:36:50 Shanghai
    1:36:50 history
    1:36:51 and
    1:36:51 just
    1:36:52 to
    1:36:52 show
    1:36:52 you
    1:36:52 the
    1:36:53 limits
    1:36:53 of
    1:36:53 anybody
    1:36:53 who
    1:36:54 thinks
    1:36:54 they
    1:36:54 can
    1:36:54 predict
    1:36:54 what’s
    1:36:55 going
    1:36:55 on
    1:36:55 in
    1:36:56 Chinese
    1:36:56 politics
    1:36:57 or
    1:36:57 I
    1:36:57 mean
    1:36:58 predictability
    1:36:58 is
    1:36:58 just
    1:36:58 very
    1:36:59 hard
    1:36:59 in
    1:36:59 general
    1:37:00 in
    1:37:00 the
    1:37:00 world
    1:37:01 but
    1:37:01 I
    1:37:01 think
    1:37:01 the
    1:37:02 consensus
    1:37:02 among
    1:37:03 us
    1:37:03 and
    1:37:04 these
    1:37:04 were
    1:37:04 some
    1:37:04 of
    1:37:04 the
    1:37:04 most
    1:37:05 knowledgeable
    1:37:06 foreign
    1:37:06 scholars
    1:37:06 on
    1:37:07 China
    1:37:08 was
    1:37:08 this
    1:37:08 was
    1:37:08 somebody
    1:37:08 who
    1:37:09 really
    1:37:09 had
    1:37:10 probably
    1:37:10 topped
    1:37:11 out
    1:37:11 because
    1:37:12 he
    1:37:12 was
    1:37:12 meeting
    1:37:12 with
    1:37:12 us
    1:37:13 you
    1:37:13 know
    1:37:13 he
    1:37:13 must
    1:37:14 not
    1:37:14 be
    1:37:15 heading
    1:37:16 anywhere
    1:37:16 up
    1:37:16 and
    1:37:16 then
    1:37:17 after
    1:37:17 Tiananmen
    1:37:17 he
    1:37:18 becomes
    1:37:19 the
    1:37:19 top
    1:37:19 leader
    1:37:20 in
    1:37:20 China
    1:37:20 but
    1:37:20 he
    1:37:21 had
    1:37:22 a
    1:37:22 kind
    1:37:22 of
    1:37:23 you
    1:37:23 could
    1:37:23 pick
    1:37:23 things
    1:37:24 out
    1:37:24 from
    1:37:24 being
    1:37:24 in
    1:37:24 a
    1:37:24 room
    1:37:25 he
    1:37:25 liked
    1:37:26 to
    1:37:26 kind
    1:37:26 of
    1:37:26 show
    1:37:27 off
    1:37:28 his
    1:37:28 kind
    1:37:28 of
    1:37:30 cosmopolitanism
    1:37:31 Xi Jinping
    1:37:31 talks
    1:37:31 gives
    1:37:32 these
    1:37:32 speeches
    1:37:32 about
    1:37:33 all
    1:37:33 the
    1:37:33 foreign
    1:37:34 authors
    1:37:34 he
    1:37:34 likes
    1:37:34 and
    1:37:34 has
    1:37:35 read
    1:37:35 but
    1:37:35 it’s
    1:37:35 all
    1:37:36 very
    1:37:37 kind
    1:37:37 of
    1:37:39 scripted
    1:37:39 at least
    1:37:39 in his
    1:37:40 own
    1:37:40 head
    1:37:40 too
    1:37:43 present
    1:37:44 a
    1:37:44 certain
    1:37:44 image
    1:37:44 of
    1:37:45 himself
    1:37:45 and
    1:37:45 we
    1:37:45 really
    1:37:46 don’t
    1:37:46 get
    1:37:47 many
    1:37:48 senses
    1:37:48 of
    1:37:48 what
    1:37:49 he’s
    1:37:49 like
    1:37:49 in
    1:37:50 unguarded
    1:37:50 moments
    1:37:51 or has
    1:37:51 them
    1:37:51 and
    1:37:53 sometimes
    1:37:53 we get
    1:37:53 the
    1:37:54 illusion
    1:37:54 of
    1:37:54 them
    1:37:54 like
    1:37:54 there
    1:37:55 was
    1:37:55 an
    1:37:55 image
    1:37:55 of
    1:37:56 him
    1:37:57 and
    1:37:58 Obama
    1:37:58 in
    1:37:59 their
    1:37:59 shirt
    1:37:59 sleeves
    1:38:00 at
    1:38:00 the
    1:38:01 Sunnylands
    1:38:01 meeting
    1:38:02 and the
    1:38:02 photo
    1:38:03 would
    1:38:03 show
    1:38:03 them
    1:38:05 walking
    1:38:05 and
    1:38:06 talking
    1:38:06 but
    1:38:07 there’s
    1:38:07 no
    1:38:08 translator
    1:38:08 in
    1:38:08 the
    1:38:09 image
    1:38:09 and
    1:38:09 so
    1:38:09 you’re
    1:38:09 like
    1:38:09 how
    1:38:10 are
    1:38:10 they
    1:38:10 talking
    1:38:11 what
    1:38:16 of
    1:38:17 course
    1:38:17 there
    1:38:17 are
    1:38:17 exchanges
    1:38:18 with
    1:38:18 top
    1:38:18 leaders
    1:38:19 and
    1:38:19 Trump
    1:38:20 will
    1:38:20 say
    1:38:20 they’re
    1:38:21 friends
    1:38:21 or
    1:38:22 these
    1:38:22 kinds
    1:38:22 of
    1:38:22 things
    1:38:22 or
    1:38:23 there’s
    1:38:23 a
    1:38:23 language
    1:38:23 of
    1:38:25 Xi Jinping
    1:38:25 can
    1:38:25 talk
    1:38:25 about
    1:38:26 somebody
    1:38:26 or
    1:38:27 some
    1:38:27 country
    1:38:27 being
    1:38:28 friend
    1:38:28 but
    1:38:28 we
    1:38:29 don’t
    1:38:29 have
    1:38:29 a
    1:38:29 sense
    1:38:30 of
    1:38:31 what
    1:38:32 makes
    1:38:32 him
    1:38:32 tick
    1:38:32 as
    1:38:32 a
    1:38:33 person
    1:38:33 so
    1:38:34 maybe
    1:38:34 you
    1:38:34 should
    1:38:34 ask
    1:38:35 him
    1:38:35 about
    1:38:35 Ernest
    1:38:36 Hemingway
    1:38:36 and
    1:38:37 see
    1:38:37 if
    1:38:37 he
    1:38:37 really
    1:38:38 gets
    1:38:39 excited
    1:38:39 about
    1:38:39 him
    1:38:39 because
    1:38:40 in
    1:38:41 the
    1:38:41 kind
    1:38:41 of
    1:38:50 you
    1:38:50 goes
    1:38:50 off
    1:38:51 these
    1:38:51 set
    1:38:51 things
    1:38:52 but
    1:38:53 Hemingway
    1:38:54 there’s
    1:38:54 some
    1:38:55 sense
    1:38:55 that
    1:38:56 he
    1:38:56 had
    1:38:57 some
    1:38:57 special
    1:38:57 feeling
    1:38:57 which
    1:38:58 fits
    1:38:58 in
    1:38:58 with
    1:38:59 some
    1:38:59 of
    1:38:59 the
    1:38:59 macho
    1:39:00 side
    1:39:01 that
    1:39:01 would
    1:39:01 be
    1:39:02 interestingly
    1:39:02 he
    1:39:03 doesn’t
    1:39:03 mention
    1:39:03 Orwell
    1:39:04 as one
    1:39:04 of his
    1:39:04 favorite
    1:39:05 British
    1:39:06 authors
    1:39:06 as much
    1:39:07 he
    1:39:07 says
    1:39:07 he
    1:39:07 likes
    1:39:08 Victor
    1:39:08 Hugo
    1:39:08 a lot
    1:39:09 and
    1:39:09 that
    1:39:10 became
    1:39:10 a little
    1:39:10 tricky
    1:39:11 because
    1:39:12 do
    1:39:12 you
    1:39:12 hear
    1:39:12 the
    1:39:13 people
    1:39:13 sing
    1:39:13 from
    1:39:13 Les
    1:39:14 Miserables
    1:39:14 became
    1:39:15 one
    1:39:15 of
    1:39:15 the
    1:39:16 protest
    1:39:17 songs
    1:39:17 in
    1:39:18 Hong
    1:39:18 Kong
    1:39:18 and
    1:39:19 how
    1:39:19 do
    1:39:19 you
    1:39:19 get
    1:39:19 in
    1:39:19 this
    1:39:20 position
    1:39:21 where
    1:39:21 you
    1:39:21 you
    1:39:21 know
    1:39:22 you
    1:39:22 and
    1:39:23 actually
    1:39:24 Victor
    1:39:24 Hugo
    1:39:26 is
    1:39:27 a
    1:39:28 rare
    1:39:29 Western
    1:39:29 author
    1:39:30 who’s
    1:39:30 had a
    1:39:30 pretty
    1:39:31 steadily
    1:39:31 positive
    1:39:33 image
    1:39:33 in
    1:39:34 China
    1:39:34 even
    1:39:35 under
    1:39:35 periods
    1:39:36 of
    1:39:37 criticism
    1:39:37 of
    1:39:37 like
    1:39:38 all
    1:39:38 Western
    1:39:39 authors
    1:39:39 problematic
    1:39:41 because
    1:39:41 Victor
    1:39:41 Hugo
    1:39:42 famously
    1:39:43 wrote
    1:39:44 a
    1:39:44 statement
    1:39:45 denouncing
    1:39:46 the
    1:39:46 European
    1:39:48 destruction
    1:39:49 of the
    1:39:49 old
    1:39:49 summer
    1:39:49 palace
    1:39:50 in
    1:39:50 Beijing
    1:39:51 in
    1:39:51 1860
    1:39:52 the
    1:39:52 end
    1:39:52 of
    1:39:52 the
    1:39:53 second
    1:39:53 opium
    1:39:54 war
    1:39:54 he
    1:39:55 said
    1:39:55 how
    1:39:55 can
    1:39:55 we
    1:39:55 claim
    1:39:55 to
    1:39:56 be
    1:39:56 civilized
    1:39:57 when
    1:39:57 we’ve
    1:39:58 destroyed
    1:39:58 one
    1:39:58 of
    1:39:58 the
    1:39:58 great
    1:39:59 creations
    1:39:59 of
    1:40:00 civilization
    1:40:01 so
    1:40:01 that
    1:40:01 kind
    1:40:01 of
    1:40:02 made
    1:40:02 him
    1:40:02 a
    1:40:02 kind
    1:40:02 of
    1:40:03 long
    1:40:03 term
    1:40:04 friend
    1:40:04 to
    1:40:04 the
    1:40:04 Chinese
    1:40:05 nation
    1:40:06 Mark
    1:40:06 Twain
    1:40:07 has
    1:40:07 had a
    1:40:07 pretty
    1:40:07 good
    1:40:08 reputation
    1:40:08 because
    1:40:08 he was
    1:40:08 a
    1:40:08 critic
    1:40:09 of
    1:40:09 American
    1:40:10 imperialism
    1:40:11 so
    1:40:12 but
    1:40:12 anyway
    1:40:12 I think
    1:40:13 if you
    1:40:14 do get
    1:40:14 to talk
    1:40:15 to
    1:40:15 Xi Jinping
    1:40:16 talk to him
    1:40:16 about
    1:40:17 Ernest
    1:40:17 Hemingway
    1:40:18 and
    1:40:20 Victor Hugo
    1:40:20 and I’ll be
    1:40:21 curious to
    1:40:21 see if
    1:40:21 those were
    1:40:22 the ones
    1:40:22 who really
    1:40:23 resonated
    1:40:24 one
    1:40:24 one
    1:40:24 one of
    1:40:24 one of
    1:40:24 the things
    1:40:25 and
    1:40:25 it’s
    1:40:25 a
    1:40:25 strange
    1:40:26 thing
    1:40:26 that
    1:40:26 I’ve
    1:40:26 become
    1:40:26 aware
    1:40:27 of
    1:40:28 having
    1:40:28 spoken
    1:40:28 with
    1:40:29 world
    1:40:29 leaders
    1:40:30 I’m
    1:40:30 distinctly
    1:40:31 aware
    1:40:31 that
    1:40:31 there’s
    1:40:32 a
    1:40:32 real
    1:40:32 possibility
    1:40:34 that
    1:40:34 the
    1:40:34 black
    1:40:35 box
    1:40:35 we
    1:40:36 mentioned
    1:40:38 that
    1:40:38 the
    1:40:38 communist
    1:40:38 party
    1:40:39 of
    1:40:39 China
    1:40:40 will
    1:40:42 listen
    1:40:42 to the
    1:40:42 words
    1:40:42 I’m
    1:40:43 saying
    1:40:43 now
    1:40:44 and
    1:40:44 so
    1:40:44 I
    1:40:44 have
    1:40:44 to
    1:40:45 wonder
    1:40:46 how
    1:40:46 much
    1:40:46 that
    1:40:47 affects
    1:40:50 my
    1:40:50 possible
    1:40:51 tourist
    1:40:52 like
    1:40:52 trip
    1:40:53 to
    1:40:53 China
    1:40:54 because
    1:40:54 there’s
    1:40:54 a
    1:40:55 difference
    1:40:55 between
    1:40:55 sort
    1:40:55 of
    1:40:55 an
    1:40:56 influencer
    1:40:56 that
    1:40:57 does
    1:40:57 fun
    1:40:57 things
    1:40:57 plays
    1:40:58 video
    1:40:58 games
    1:40:59 and
    1:40:59 goes
    1:40:59 over
    1:40:59 to
    1:40:59 China
    1:41:00 and
    1:41:00 somebody
    1:41:00 that
    1:41:01 actually
    1:41:01 covers
    1:41:02 China
    1:41:02 to some
    1:41:03 degree
    1:41:04 whether
    1:41:04 critical
    1:41:05 or
    1:41:05 supportive
    1:41:05 or
    1:41:06 nuanced
    1:41:06 or
    1:41:07 any
    1:41:07 kind
    1:41:07 of
    1:41:07 way
    1:41:08 in
    1:41:08 the
    1:41:08 full
    1:41:09 spectrum
    1:41:09 of
    1:41:09 ideas
    1:41:09 you
    1:41:09 can
    1:41:10 have
    1:41:10 about
    1:41:10 China
    1:41:10 including
    1:41:11 Chinese
    1:41:11 history
    1:41:12 whether
    1:41:13 that’s
    1:41:13 going
    1:41:14 to be
    1:41:14 seen
    1:41:18 carefully
    1:41:18 analyzed
    1:41:19 carefully
    1:41:20 and
    1:41:21 have
    1:41:22 repercussions
    1:41:23 when you
    1:41:23 travel
    1:41:24 and
    1:41:25 because
    1:41:25 of the
    1:41:26 black box
    1:41:26 nature
    1:41:27 and
    1:41:27 because
    1:41:27 it’s
    1:41:28 for me
    1:41:28 personally
    1:41:29 just a
    1:41:29 culture
    1:41:29 that’s
    1:41:29 very
    1:41:30 different
    1:41:30 than
    1:41:30 anything
    1:41:31 I’m
    1:41:31 familiar
    1:41:31 with
    1:41:32 it
    1:41:34 makes
    1:41:34 me a
    1:41:34 bit
    1:41:35 nervous
    1:41:36 it’s
    1:41:36 certainly
    1:41:37 gotten
    1:41:38 harder
    1:41:38 for
    1:41:38 journalists
    1:41:39 to
    1:41:40 operate
    1:41:40 in
    1:41:40 China
    1:41:41 that
    1:41:42 there
    1:41:42 was
    1:41:43 a
    1:41:43 way
    1:41:43 in
    1:41:43 which
    1:41:44 now
    1:41:46 journalists
    1:41:46 will
    1:41:46 look
    1:41:46 back
    1:41:47 to
    1:41:47 the
    1:41:47 early
    1:41:48 2000s
    1:41:48 and
    1:41:48 it
    1:41:49 was
    1:41:49 really
    1:41:50 quite
    1:41:50 extraordinary
    1:41:51 what
    1:41:51 they
    1:41:51 could
    1:41:52 do
    1:41:53 well
    1:41:53 you
    1:41:54 have
    1:41:54 a lot
    1:41:54 of
    1:41:54 you
    1:41:54 have
    1:41:55 a lot
    1:41:55 of
    1:41:55 listeners
    1:41:55 I
    1:41:55 mean
    1:41:56 I
    1:41:56 think
    1:41:56 there
    1:41:57 isn’t
    1:41:57 that
    1:41:58 tight
    1:41:58 a
    1:41:59 watching
    1:41:59 of
    1:42:00 what
    1:42:01 an
    1:42:01 academic
    1:42:02 writes
    1:42:02 about
    1:42:03 the
    1:42:03 Chinese
    1:42:04 Communist
    1:42:04 Party
    1:42:04 but
    1:42:04 there
    1:42:04 are
    1:42:04 certain
    1:42:05 things
    1:42:05 that
    1:42:06 clearly
    1:42:07 are
    1:42:08 kind
    1:42:08 of
    1:42:08 tightly
    1:42:09 policed
    1:42:09 and
    1:42:10 one
    1:42:10 is
    1:42:11 discussions
    1:42:11 of the
    1:42:11 private
    1:42:12 life
    1:42:13 Chinese
    1:42:14 leaders
    1:42:14 and
    1:42:14 their
    1:42:15 families
    1:42:16 and
    1:42:17 issues
    1:42:17 of
    1:42:18 kind
    1:42:18 of
    1:42:18 really
    1:42:20 following
    1:42:20 money
    1:42:20 trails
    1:42:21 for
    1:42:21 corruption
    1:42:21 and
    1:42:22 things
    1:42:22 like
    1:42:22 that
    1:42:23 so
    1:42:24 there
    1:42:24 was
    1:42:24 the
    1:42:24 case
    1:42:25 of
    1:42:25 the
    1:42:26 Hong Kong
    1:42:26 booksellers
    1:42:27 who were
    1:42:28 kidnapped
    1:42:28 and one
    1:42:28 of them
    1:42:29 is still
    1:42:29 in a
    1:42:29 Chinese
    1:42:30 prison
    1:42:30 he would
    1:42:31 be a
    1:42:31 good
    1:42:31 example
    1:42:31 of this
    1:42:32 Gui Minhai
    1:42:32 the kind
    1:42:33 of person
    1:42:33 who was
    1:42:34 vulnerable
    1:42:35 he was
    1:42:36 born in
    1:42:36 China
    1:42:36 he was
    1:42:37 actually
    1:42:37 a Swedish
    1:42:38 he is
    1:42:38 a Swedish
    1:42:39 citizen
    1:42:40 and he
    1:42:40 was spirited
    1:42:41 out of
    1:42:41 Thailand
    1:42:42 into
    1:42:42 the
    1:42:43 mainland
    1:42:44 and the
    1:42:44 reason why
    1:42:45 he was
    1:42:46 on the
    1:42:47 on the
    1:42:47 radar
    1:42:48 of the
    1:42:49 Communist Party
    1:42:49 was because
    1:42:51 the publishing
    1:42:51 house in Hong Kong
    1:42:52 that he was
    1:42:52 connected to
    1:42:53 was publishing
    1:42:55 works about
    1:42:56 the top tier
    1:42:57 of the
    1:42:58 Chinese Communist
    1:42:58 Party
    1:43:00 and contradicting
    1:43:01 the kind
    1:43:01 of vision
    1:43:02 of them
    1:43:02 as a certain
    1:43:03 kind of
    1:43:03 moral
    1:43:04 exemplars
    1:43:05 and that’s
    1:43:06 different from
    1:43:07 writing
    1:43:08 things about
    1:43:09 China has a
    1:43:09 bad human
    1:43:10 rights
    1:43:10 record
    1:43:11 or something
    1:43:11 like that
    1:43:13 in ways
    1:43:13 like I
    1:43:13 did
    1:43:14 these were
    1:43:15 books that
    1:43:15 were
    1:43:16 exposés
    1:43:17 or sort
    1:43:18 of some
    1:43:18 some of
    1:43:19 them kind
    1:43:19 of gossipy
    1:43:20 and lightly
    1:43:20 sourced
    1:43:21 some of
    1:43:21 them much
    1:43:22 more serious
    1:43:23 but they
    1:43:24 were about
    1:43:25 something that
    1:43:26 the Communist
    1:43:26 Party leadership
    1:43:27 wants to
    1:43:27 make a no-go
    1:43:28 zone
    1:43:29 and I’ve
    1:43:29 thought
    1:43:29 sometimes
    1:43:30 that Xi
    1:43:30 Jinping
    1:43:31 seems to
    1:43:31 have
    1:43:32 lais-majeste
    1:43:33 envy
    1:43:34 I don’t
    1:43:34 think it’s
    1:43:35 kind of
    1:43:36 general
    1:43:36 criticisms
    1:43:38 of the
    1:43:39 Chinese
    1:43:39 Communist
    1:43:39 Party
    1:43:40 as a
    1:43:41 authoritarian
    1:43:45 structure
    1:43:46 or place
    1:43:47 that doesn’t
    1:43:47 deserve to
    1:43:48 rule in
    1:43:48 kind of
    1:43:49 very general
    1:43:49 terms
    1:43:49 I don’t
    1:43:50 think that’s
    1:43:51 something that
    1:43:52 they then
    1:43:53 pick you up
    1:43:53 at the border
    1:43:54 and say
    1:43:55 no we can’t
    1:43:55 let that
    1:43:56 person in
    1:43:57 because people
    1:43:57 are let
    1:43:57 in
    1:43:59 and it’s
    1:44:00 not rational
    1:44:01 it’s not
    1:44:01 a rational
    1:44:02 process
    1:44:02 there are
    1:44:02 people who’ve
    1:44:03 been denied
    1:44:04 visas
    1:44:05 it seems
    1:44:05 pretty
    1:44:06 inexplicable
    1:44:07 there are
    1:44:07 things that
    1:44:08 now I think
    1:44:09 the rules
    1:44:10 are changing
    1:44:11 very quickly
    1:44:12 all over
    1:44:12 the world
    1:44:14 for kinds
    1:44:14 of
    1:44:15 what’s
    1:44:16 what’s safe
    1:44:17 to say
    1:44:17 and do
    1:44:18 well either
    1:44:19 way I do
    1:44:20 know that the
    1:44:20 Communist Party
    1:44:21 and likely
    1:44:22 Xi Jinping
    1:44:23 himself watched
    1:44:25 my conversation
    1:44:26 with Prime
    1:44:27 Minister Modi
    1:44:28 they responded
    1:44:28 to it
    1:44:30 and I do
    1:44:30 hope
    1:44:31 and I will
    1:44:32 definitely
    1:44:33 go to China
    1:44:35 and I hope
    1:44:35 to talk to
    1:44:36 Xi Jinping
    1:44:36 it’s a
    1:44:37 fascinating
    1:44:38 historic
    1:44:38 ancient
    1:44:39 culture
    1:44:41 and is
    1:44:42 the major
    1:44:42 player on the
    1:44:43 world stage
    1:44:44 in the 21st
    1:44:44 century
    1:44:46 and it would
    1:44:47 be fascinating
    1:44:48 to understand
    1:44:48 the mind
    1:44:50 of the
    1:44:51 leader
    1:44:52 of that
    1:44:52 great
    1:44:53 superpower
    1:44:54 speaking of
    1:44:55 leaders
    1:44:56 what do we
    1:44:57 understand
    1:44:57 about the
    1:44:58 relationship
    1:44:58 between
    1:44:59 Xi Jinping
    1:44:59 and our
    1:45:00 current
    1:45:00 president
    1:45:01 of the
    1:45:01 United
    1:45:01 States
    1:45:02 Donald
    1:45:02 Trump
    1:45:03 is there
    1:45:03 really a
    1:45:03 human
    1:45:04 connection
    1:45:05 something
    1:45:05 approximating
    1:45:05 a
    1:45:06 friendship
    1:45:07 as they
    1:45:07 spoken
    1:45:07 about
    1:45:08 or is it
    1:45:08 just
    1:45:09 purely
    1:45:11 realpolitik
    1:45:12 maneuvering
    1:45:14 world leaders
    1:45:15 playing a game
    1:45:16 of chess
    1:45:17 or is it a bit
    1:45:17 of both
    1:45:18 there’s a
    1:45:19 degree to
    1:45:19 which I
    1:45:19 think there’s
    1:45:19 some
    1:45:20 confusion
    1:45:20 about a
    1:45:20 couple
    1:45:21 things
    1:45:21 I mean
    1:45:22 one is
    1:45:22 when
    1:45:24 there’s a
    1:45:25 sense
    1:45:25 that
    1:45:28 Trump
    1:45:28 is
    1:45:29 sort of
    1:45:29 uniquely
    1:45:30 tough
    1:45:31 on the
    1:45:31 Chinese
    1:45:32 Communist
    1:45:32 Party
    1:45:33 he has
    1:45:34 periodically
    1:45:34 said
    1:45:35 things
    1:45:35 about
    1:45:36 praising
    1:45:36 Xi Jinping
    1:45:38 as a
    1:45:38 leader
    1:45:38 even
    1:45:39 sort of
    1:45:39 having
    1:45:40 praising
    1:45:41 Xi Jinping’s
    1:45:41 strength
    1:45:42 things
    1:45:42 so I
    1:45:42 think
    1:45:43 for
    1:45:43 some
    1:45:43 ways
    1:45:44 for
    1:45:44 the
    1:45:45 personality
    1:45:45 cult
    1:45:45 of
    1:45:46 Xi
    1:45:46 Jinping
    1:45:47 some
    1:45:47 of
    1:45:47 this
    1:45:48 is
    1:45:48 kind
    1:45:48 of
    1:45:48 useful
    1:45:50 because
    1:45:52 the
    1:45:53 story
    1:45:54 that the
    1:45:54 Chinese
    1:45:54 Communist
    1:45:54 Party
    1:45:55 they need
    1:45:56 to tell
    1:45:56 a story
    1:45:56 about why
    1:45:57 they deserve
    1:45:57 to keep
    1:45:58 ruling
    1:45:58 and one
    1:45:58 of their
    1:45:59 stories
    1:45:59 is that
    1:46:00 because
    1:46:00 the world
    1:46:01 is a
    1:46:01 dangerous
    1:46:01 place
    1:46:02 and there’s
    1:46:02 not a lot
    1:46:03 of
    1:46:03 respect
    1:46:04 enough
    1:46:04 respect
    1:46:04 for
    1:46:04 China
    1:46:06 so when
    1:46:06 there’s
    1:46:06 very tough
    1:46:07 talk
    1:46:08 about
    1:46:08 China
    1:46:09 coming out
    1:46:09 of the
    1:46:09 White
    1:46:10 House
    1:46:11 that’s
    1:46:11 useful
    1:46:12 and then
    1:46:12 the other
    1:46:13 part is
    1:46:13 about
    1:46:13 Xi
    1:46:14 Jinping
    1:46:14 being
    1:46:15 just
    1:46:15 the
    1:46:16 right
    1:46:16 person
    1:46:16 to have
    1:46:17 at the
    1:46:17 helm
    1:46:18 and when
    1:46:19 there are
    1:46:19 discussions
    1:46:20 when there’s
    1:46:20 praise for
    1:46:21 him
    1:46:21 and
    1:46:21 his
    1:46:22 showing
    1:46:23 toughness
    1:46:23 that
    1:46:24 also
    1:46:25 works
    1:46:25 well
    1:46:26 so I
    1:46:26 think
    1:46:28 the
    1:46:29 argument
    1:46:29 among
    1:46:30 at least
    1:46:30 some
    1:46:31 China
    1:46:31 specialists
    1:46:32 is to
    1:46:32 say
    1:46:32 the
    1:46:33 Chinese
    1:46:33 Communist
    1:46:33 Party
    1:46:34 likes
    1:46:35 predictability
    1:46:36 and Xi
    1:46:36 Jinping
    1:46:37 seems to
    1:46:37 like
    1:46:37 predictability
    1:46:38 in
    1:46:38 particular
    1:46:39 and
    1:46:41 Donald
    1:46:42 Trump
    1:46:42 clearly
    1:46:42 isn’t
    1:46:42 a
    1:46:43 predictable
    1:46:44 figure
    1:46:45 so
    1:46:45 there
    1:46:45 might
    1:46:45 be
    1:46:46 a
    1:46:46 way
    1:46:46 in
    1:46:46 which
    1:46:47 this
    1:46:47 is
    1:46:48 unsettling
    1:46:49 but I
    1:46:49 think
    1:46:50 the other
    1:46:50 part
    1:46:50 of it
    1:46:51 is
    1:46:51 the
    1:46:51 Chinese
    1:46:51 Communist
    1:46:52 Party
    1:46:53 wants
    1:46:54 under
    1:46:54 Xi
    1:46:54 Jinping
    1:46:56 wants
    1:46:56 to
    1:46:58 gain
    1:46:58 more
    1:46:59 allies
    1:46:59 around
    1:46:59 the
    1:46:59 world
    1:47:00 to
    1:47:00 be
    1:47:01 seen
    1:47:01 with
    1:47:02 more
    1:47:02 respect
    1:47:02 around
    1:47:02 the
    1:47:03 world
    1:47:03 and
    1:47:04 at
    1:47:04 the
    1:47:04 moment
    1:47:05 is
    1:47:05 in
    1:47:05 a
    1:47:06 position
    1:47:06 where
    1:47:08 he
    1:47:08 can
    1:47:08 say
    1:47:09 he
    1:47:09 can
    1:47:10 present
    1:47:10 himself
    1:47:11 as
    1:47:11 an
    1:47:12 orderly
    1:47:13 thoughtful
    1:47:14 gradualist
    1:47:14 figure
    1:47:15 in
    1:47:16 some
    1:47:16 ways
    1:47:16 I
    1:47:16 think
    1:47:18 as
    1:47:19 much
    1:47:19 as
    1:47:20 there’s
    1:47:20 tension
    1:47:21 between
    1:47:22 the two
    1:47:23 capitals
    1:47:23 there’s
    1:47:23 a
    1:47:23 way
    1:47:24 that
    1:47:25 things
    1:47:25 are
    1:47:25 going
    1:47:26 in
    1:47:26 a
    1:47:26 way
    1:47:26 that
    1:47:27 benefits
    1:47:28 Xi
    1:47:28 Jinping
    1:47:29 and
    1:47:29 can
    1:47:30 see
    1:47:30 but
    1:47:30 that
    1:47:30 doesn’t
    1:47:31 explain
    1:47:31 what
    1:47:31 their
    1:47:32 personal
    1:47:32 relationship
    1:47:33 is
    1:47:33 and
    1:47:34 how
    1:47:34 they
    1:47:34 actually
    1:47:35 see
    1:47:35 each
    1:47:36 other
    1:47:36 when
    1:47:36 they’re
    1:47:36 in
    1:47:36 the
    1:47:36 room
    1:47:37 together
    1:47:37 and
    1:47:37 whether
    1:47:37 that
    1:47:38 matters
    1:47:38 or
    1:47:38 is
    1:47:39 part
    1:47:39 of
    1:47:39 the
    1:47:39 calculus
    1:47:40 at
    1:47:40 all
    1:47:40 because
    1:47:41 after
    1:47:41 all
    1:47:41 they
    1:47:41 are
    1:47:42 leaders
    1:47:42 of
    1:47:43 superpowers
    1:47:43 I
    1:47:43 think
    1:47:44 for
    1:47:44 Trump
    1:47:45 it
    1:47:46 matters
    1:47:47 personal
    1:47:47 relationships
    1:47:48 matter
    1:47:48 but
    1:47:49 of course
    1:47:49 we
    1:47:50 see
    1:47:50 a
    1:47:50 lot
    1:47:51 we
    1:47:51 know
    1:47:52 a lot
    1:47:52 about
    1:47:52 Donald
    1:47:52 Trump
    1:47:53 we
    1:47:53 know
    1:47:53 a lot
    1:47:53 about
    1:47:54 the
    1:47:54 White
    1:47:54 House
    1:47:56 and
    1:47:56 for
    1:47:57 actually
    1:47:57 let me
    1:47:57 just
    1:47:57 say
    1:47:58 as a
    1:47:58 tangent
    1:47:59 for
    1:47:59 whatever
    1:47:59 you
    1:47:59 think
    1:48:00 about
    1:48:00 this
    1:48:00 particular
    1:48:00 White
    1:48:01 House
    1:48:02 one
    1:48:03 of
    1:48:03 the
    1:48:03 things
    1:48:03 I
    1:48:03 really
    1:48:04 like
    1:48:05 is
    1:48:06 that
    1:48:06 every
    1:48:07 single
    1:48:07 member
    1:48:07 of
    1:48:07 the
    1:48:08 cabinet
    1:48:08 is
    1:48:09 willing
    1:48:09 to
    1:48:09 talk
    1:48:09 for
    1:48:10 many
    1:48:10 hours
    1:48:12 every
    1:48:13 single
    1:48:13 week
    1:48:14 talk
    1:48:14 about
    1:48:15 what
    1:48:15 they
    1:48:15 think
    1:48:15 how
    1:48:16 they
    1:48:16 see
    1:48:16 the
    1:48:16 world
    1:48:19 explained
    1:48:19 Donald
    1:48:20 Trump’s
    1:48:21 approach
    1:48:22 you know
    1:48:22 it
    1:48:23 doesn’t
    1:48:23 matter
    1:48:23 if
    1:48:23 you
    1:48:24 disagree
    1:48:24 with
    1:48:24 what
    1:48:24 they’re
    1:48:25 saying
    1:48:25 maybe
    1:48:25 you
    1:48:25 say
    1:48:25 they’re
    1:48:26 dishonest
    1:48:26 maybe
    1:48:26 you’re
    1:48:27 misrepresenting
    1:48:27 but
    1:48:28 there’s
    1:48:28 a lot
    1:48:28 of
    1:48:29 information
    1:48:30 that’s
    1:48:30 something
    1:48:30 we
    1:48:30 don’t
    1:48:31 have
    1:48:31 with
    1:48:31 China
    1:48:32 and
    1:48:32 as a
    1:48:33 fan
    1:48:33 of
    1:48:33 history
    1:48:34 for
    1:48:34 me
    1:48:35 and
    1:48:35 as
    1:48:35 a
    1:48:35 fan
    1:48:36 of
    1:48:36 sort
    1:48:36 of
    1:48:37 deep
    1:48:39 political
    1:48:39 analysis
    1:48:40 of
    1:48:40 the
    1:48:40 world
    1:48:42 it makes
    1:48:42 me sad
    1:48:43 because
    1:48:43 it’s a
    1:48:43 very
    1:48:44 asymmetrical
    1:48:45 amount
    1:48:45 of
    1:48:46 information
    1:48:47 but
    1:48:47 anyway
    1:48:48 let me
    1:48:48 if I
    1:48:49 can
    1:48:50 lay out
    1:48:51 this
    1:48:51 particular
    1:48:53 complexity
    1:48:53 we’re in
    1:48:54 now
    1:48:54 this trade
    1:48:54 war
    1:48:55 between
    1:48:55 US
    1:48:55 and
    1:48:56 China
    1:48:56 now
    1:48:57 you’re
    1:48:57 not
    1:48:57 an
    1:48:58 economist
    1:48:59 in
    1:48:59 fact
    1:49:00 so
    1:49:01 you
    1:49:01 think
    1:49:01 deeply
    1:49:02 about
    1:49:02 history
    1:49:03 of
    1:49:03 peoples
    1:49:03 and
    1:49:04 history
    1:49:04 of
    1:49:04 China
    1:49:05 you
    1:49:05 think
    1:49:05 about
    1:49:05 culture
    1:49:06 you think
    1:49:06 about
    1:49:06 protests
    1:49:07 and the
    1:49:07 movements
    1:49:08 and so on
    1:49:09 and there’s
    1:49:09 some
    1:49:10 degree
    1:49:11 to which
    1:49:12 this trade
    1:49:12 war
    1:49:14 is less
    1:49:14 about the
    1:49:15 economics
    1:49:15 now that
    1:49:16 layer is also
    1:49:17 very important
    1:49:17 and we could
    1:49:18 discuss it
    1:49:19 but there’s
    1:49:20 also
    1:49:22 a deeply
    1:49:24 cultural
    1:49:25 standoff
    1:49:26 almost
    1:49:27 happening
    1:49:27 happening
    1:49:27 happening
    1:49:27 here
    1:49:28 which
    1:49:28 would
    1:49:28 be
    1:49:28 interesting
    1:49:29 so
    1:49:30 in
    1:49:31 April
    1:49:31 as people
    1:49:32 know
    1:49:32 Trump
    1:49:32 escalated
    1:49:33 a trade
    1:49:33 war
    1:49:33 with
    1:49:33 China
    1:49:34 using
    1:49:34 tariffs
    1:49:35 raising
    1:49:35 them
    1:49:36 on
    1:49:36 Chinese
    1:49:37 imports
    1:49:37 to
    1:49:39 145%
    1:49:40 Xi Jinping
    1:49:41 then responded
    1:49:42 by raising
    1:49:42 tariffs on
    1:49:43 US goods
    1:49:44 to
    1:49:46 125%
    1:49:47 and suspending
    1:49:48 exports on
    1:49:48 certain rare
    1:49:49 earth minerals
    1:49:50 and magnets
    1:49:50 to the
    1:49:51 US
    1:49:52 the
    1:49:53 Chinese
    1:49:53 government
    1:49:53 also
    1:49:54 indicated
    1:49:54 it would
    1:49:54 limit
    1:49:54 the
    1:49:55 import
    1:49:55 of
    1:49:55 Hollywood
    1:49:56 films
    1:49:56 and
    1:49:56 restricted
    1:49:57 certain
    1:49:57 American
    1:49:57 companies
    1:49:58 from
    1:49:58 operating
    1:49:58 in
    1:49:59 China
    1:50:00 now
    1:50:01 after
    1:50:01 that
    1:50:01 Xi Jinping
    1:50:02 broke
    1:50:03 silence
    1:50:03 on
    1:50:04 April
    1:50:04 11th
    1:50:05 and again
    1:50:05 on April
    1:50:06 14th
    1:50:07 and since
    1:50:08 basically
    1:50:08 saying that
    1:50:09 China is
    1:50:09 not backing
    1:50:10 down
    1:50:11 and
    1:50:11 positioned
    1:50:12 himself
    1:50:12 in
    1:50:13 China
    1:50:13 as the
    1:50:14 quote
    1:50:14 responsible
    1:50:15 superpower
    1:50:16 that
    1:50:17 promotes
    1:50:17 as you
    1:50:17 were saying
    1:50:19 that promotes
    1:50:19 sort of the
    1:50:20 reasonable
    1:50:20 multilateral
    1:50:21 global
    1:50:21 trading
    1:50:22 framework
    1:50:22 and a
    1:50:22 stable
    1:50:23 global
    1:50:23 supply
    1:50:23 chain
    1:50:25 he said
    1:50:26 quote
    1:50:26 for over
    1:50:27 70 years
    1:50:28 China’s
    1:50:29 progress
    1:50:29 has been
    1:50:29 built on
    1:50:30 self-reliance
    1:50:31 and hard
    1:50:31 work
    1:50:32 never on
    1:50:33 handoffs
    1:50:33 from others
    1:50:34 and it
    1:50:34 remains
    1:50:35 unafraid
    1:50:36 of any
    1:50:36 unjust
    1:50:37 oppression
    1:50:39 also he
    1:50:39 said
    1:50:40 there are
    1:50:40 no winners
    1:50:41 in a
    1:50:41 trade war
    1:50:42 and going
    1:50:42 against
    1:50:43 the world
    1:50:43 will only
    1:50:44 lead to
    1:50:45 self-isolation
    1:50:46 this was
    1:50:47 all said
    1:50:47 as part
    1:50:47 of a
    1:50:48 tour
    1:50:48 of
    1:50:48 Southeast
    1:50:49 Asia
    1:50:50 and he
    1:50:50 was
    1:50:51 calling
    1:50:51 on
    1:50:51 China
    1:50:52 and the
    1:50:52 European
    1:50:53 Union
    1:50:53 to
    1:50:53 defend
    1:50:54 international
    1:50:54 rules
    1:50:55 opposing
    1:50:56 unilateral
    1:50:57 bullying
    1:50:59 at the
    1:51:00 same
    1:51:00 time
    1:51:00 I
    1:51:00 saw
    1:51:00 that
    1:51:01 China
    1:51:01 is
    1:51:01 escalating
    1:51:02 internal
    1:51:02 propaganda
    1:51:03 including
    1:51:04 interestingly
    1:51:20 it
    1:51:21 So I
    1:51:21 think
    1:51:22 one
    1:51:22 persistent
    1:51:24 there’s
    1:51:24 a lot
    1:51:25 to unpack
    1:51:25 there for
    1:51:27 a historian
    1:51:27 too
    1:51:28 I
    1:51:28 mean
    1:51:28 I
    1:51:28 think
    1:51:29 that
    1:51:30 the
    1:51:32 reference
    1:51:32 to
    1:51:34 being
    1:51:34 bullied
    1:51:35 by a
    1:51:35 foreign
    1:51:35 power
    1:51:36 is
    1:51:36 something
    1:51:36 that
    1:51:36 comes
    1:51:37 up
    1:51:38 periodically
    1:51:38 and
    1:51:39 plays
    1:51:39 to
    1:51:40 this
    1:51:40 kind
    1:51:40 of
    1:51:41 notion
    1:51:42 of
    1:51:42 the
    1:51:42 hundred
    1:51:42 years
    1:51:43 of
    1:51:43 national
    1:51:44 humiliation
    1:51:44 that’s
    1:51:44 been
    1:51:45 talked
    1:51:45 about
    1:51:45 by
    1:51:46 generations
    1:51:46 now
    1:51:47 of
    1:51:47 Chinese
    1:51:47 leaders
    1:51:48 to talk
    1:51:48 about
    1:51:49 that
    1:51:49 period
    1:51:49 from
    1:51:50 the
    1:51:50 1840s
    1:51:50 to the
    1:51:51 1940s
    1:51:52 there
    1:51:52 were
    1:51:52 a
    1:51:52 group
    1:51:53 of
    1:51:53 foreign
    1:51:53 powers
    1:51:54 who
    1:51:55 were
    1:51:55 involved
    1:51:55 in
    1:51:56 bullying
    1:51:56 China
    1:51:57 in one
    1:51:57 way
    1:51:57 or
    1:51:57 another
    1:51:57 and you
    1:51:57 can
    1:51:58 selectively
    1:51:58 pick
    1:51:59 one
    1:51:59 or
    1:51:59 another
    1:52:00 so
    1:52:00 there
    1:52:01 is
    1:52:01 a
    1:52:01 way
    1:52:01 in
    1:52:01 which
    1:52:02 this
    1:52:02 can
    1:52:03 be
    1:52:03 and
    1:52:03 if
    1:52:04 Xi Jinping
    1:52:04 gives
    1:52:04 that
    1:52:05 kind
    1:52:05 of
    1:52:05 speech
    1:52:05 in
    1:52:07 Southeast
    1:52:07 Asia
    1:52:08 he’s
    1:52:09 speaking
    1:52:09 to
    1:52:10 a
    1:52:10 place
    1:52:10 where
    1:52:11 there
    1:52:11 is
    1:52:12 knowledge
    1:52:12 of
    1:52:13 times
    1:52:13 of
    1:52:13 the
    1:52:13 past
    1:52:14 when
    1:52:14 the
    1:52:14 United
    1:52:15 States
    1:52:15 was
    1:52:16 aggressive
    1:52:17 force
    1:52:17 there
    1:52:18 it’s
    1:52:18 also
    1:52:19 a
    1:52:19 part
    1:52:19 of
    1:52:19 the
    1:52:19 world
    1:52:20 where
    1:52:20 there
    1:52:20 have
    1:52:20 been
    1:52:21 times
    1:52:21 when
    1:52:21 China
    1:52:21 has
    1:52:22 been
    1:52:23 that
    1:52:24 so
    1:52:24 it’s
    1:52:24 there
    1:52:25 is
    1:52:25 a
    1:52:25 way
    1:52:25 of
    1:52:26 positioning
    1:52:27 vis-a-vis
    1:52:28 other parts
    1:52:28 of the
    1:52:29 world
    1:52:29 that is
    1:52:29 crucial
    1:52:30 part
    1:52:30 of
    1:52:30 this
    1:52:30 that
    1:52:30 I
    1:52:31 think
    1:52:31 I
    1:52:32 guess
    1:52:32 it’s
    1:52:33 circling
    1:52:33 around
    1:52:33 it
    1:52:34 but
    1:52:34 there’s
    1:52:34 a
    1:52:35 tendency
    1:52:35 in
    1:52:36 discussions
    1:52:36 of
    1:52:36 US
    1:52:36 China
    1:52:37 relations
    1:52:38 to
    1:52:39 think
    1:52:39 about
    1:52:39 it
    1:52:40 in
    1:52:40 terms
    1:52:40 of
    1:52:40 a
    1:52:41 bilateral
    1:52:42 discussion
    1:52:43 or
    1:52:43 dispute
    1:52:44 even
    1:52:45 though
    1:52:45 time
    1:52:45 and
    1:52:46 again
    1:52:47 we
    1:52:48 realize
    1:52:49 that
    1:52:50 places
    1:52:50 other
    1:52:50 than
    1:52:51 the
    1:52:51 United
    1:52:51 States
    1:52:51 are
    1:52:51 key
    1:52:52 variables
    1:52:53 in
    1:52:53 these
    1:52:54 things
    1:52:54 so
    1:52:55 the
    1:52:56 US
    1:52:56 and
    1:52:56 China
    1:52:57 being
    1:52:57 at
    1:52:57 odds
    1:52:58 under
    1:52:59 in
    1:52:59 the
    1:52:59 Mao
    1:53:00 era
    1:53:02 what
    1:53:03 changed
    1:53:03 things
    1:53:04 dramatically
    1:53:04 for
    1:53:05 that
    1:53:05 wasn’t
    1:53:06 so
    1:53:06 much
    1:53:06 even
    1:53:07 a
    1:53:07 change
    1:53:07 in
    1:53:08 I
    1:53:09 mean
    1:53:09 yes
    1:53:09 Nixon
    1:53:10 was
    1:53:10 the
    1:53:10 one
    1:53:10 who
    1:53:10 went
    1:53:10 to
    1:53:11 China
    1:53:11 but
    1:53:12 what
    1:53:12 made
    1:53:12 it
    1:53:12 possible
    1:53:13 for
    1:53:13 Nixon
    1:53:13 to
    1:53:13 go
    1:53:13 to
    1:53:14 China
    1:53:14 was
    1:53:14 that
    1:53:14 the
    1:53:15 Sino-Soviet
    1:53:16 split
    1:53:16 happened
    1:53:17 that
    1:53:17 actually
    1:53:17 it
    1:53:17 was
    1:53:18 tensions
    1:53:18 between
    1:53:19 China
    1:53:19 and
    1:53:19 the
    1:53:20 Soviet
    1:53:20 Union
    1:53:21 that
    1:53:22 altered
    1:53:22 equations
    1:53:23 for
    1:53:23 the
    1:53:23 United
    1:53:23 States
    1:53:24 and
    1:53:24 China
    1:53:25 and
    1:53:26 another
    1:53:26 I
    1:53:27 happened
    1:53:27 to be
    1:53:27 in
    1:53:27 China
    1:53:28 in
    1:53:28 1999
    1:53:29 when
    1:53:30 NATO
    1:53:30 bombs
    1:53:31 hit
    1:53:31 the
    1:53:31 Chinese
    1:53:32 embassy
    1:53:32 in
    1:53:32 Belgrade
    1:53:33 and
    1:53:33 three
    1:53:33 Chinese
    1:53:34 citizens
    1:53:34 died
    1:53:34 and
    1:53:35 there
    1:53:35 was
    1:53:36 tremendous
    1:53:37 discontent
    1:53:37 about that
    1:53:38 anger
    1:53:38 about that
    1:53:38 within
    1:53:39 China
    1:53:40 and
    1:53:40 there
    1:53:40 were
    1:53:41 some
    1:53:41 rare
    1:53:42 protests
    1:53:42 that
    1:53:43 the
    1:53:43 government
    1:53:43 allowed
    1:53:43 to
    1:53:44 happen
    1:53:44 but
    1:53:45 students
    1:53:45 were
    1:53:45 worked
    1:53:45 up
    1:53:46 about
    1:53:46 it
    1:53:46 and
    1:53:47 there
    1:53:47 were
    1:53:47 protests
    1:53:47 outside
    1:53:48 the
    1:53:48 American
    1:53:48 embassy
    1:53:49 and
    1:53:49 the
    1:53:49 British
    1:53:49 embassy
    1:53:51 and
    1:53:52 that
    1:53:52 happened
    1:53:53 and
    1:53:53 then in
    1:53:53 2001
    1:53:54 there
    1:53:54 was
    1:53:54 a
    1:53:55 spy
    1:53:55 plane
    1:53:55 incident
    1:53:56 that
    1:53:56 happened
    1:53:56 and
    1:53:57 so
    1:53:57 there
    1:53:57 was
    1:53:57 a lot
    1:53:57 of
    1:53:58 discussion
    1:53:58 that
    1:54:00 the
    1:54:00 next
    1:54:00 decade
    1:54:00 was
    1:54:01 going
    1:54:01 to
    1:54:01 see
    1:54:02 U.S.-China
    1:54:02 tensions
    1:54:04 being
    1:54:04 the
    1:54:04 major
    1:54:05 force
    1:54:05 in
    1:54:05 the
    1:54:05 world
    1:54:07 9-11
    1:54:08 happened
    1:54:09 it was
    1:54:09 a dramatic
    1:54:10 reset
    1:54:11 for
    1:54:12 the
    1:54:12 trajectory
    1:54:12 that
    1:54:12 the
    1:54:13 U.S.
    1:54:13 and
    1:54:13 China
    1:54:13 were
    1:54:14 on
    1:54:14 which
    1:54:14 is
    1:54:15 these
    1:54:15 are
    1:54:15 two
    1:54:15 totally
    1:54:16 different
    1:54:16 things
    1:54:16 the
    1:54:17 Sino-Soviet
    1:54:17 split
    1:54:18 and 9-11
    1:54:18 but in
    1:54:19 both
    1:54:19 cases
    1:54:20 no matter
    1:54:21 how
    1:54:21 careful
    1:54:22 you were
    1:54:22 at
    1:54:22 parsing
    1:54:23 what
    1:54:24 was
    1:54:24 likely
    1:54:25 to be
    1:54:26 the
    1:54:26 next
    1:54:26 five
    1:54:27 years
    1:54:27 for
    1:54:28 U.S.-China
    1:54:28 relations
    1:54:29 get
    1:54:29 dramatically
    1:54:30 changed
    1:54:31 by something
    1:54:32 that happened
    1:54:32 that wasn’t
    1:54:33 the U.S.
    1:54:34 and China
    1:54:35 and
    1:54:35 during
    1:54:35 in
    1:54:36 the
    1:54:36 current
    1:54:36 situation
    1:54:37 the
    1:54:37 trade
    1:54:37 war
    1:54:38 I
    1:54:38 know
    1:54:39 that
    1:54:39 it
    1:54:39 will
    1:54:39 be
    1:54:39 very
    1:54:40 important
    1:54:41 that
    1:54:42 China
    1:54:42 can
    1:54:43 increase
    1:54:43 try to
    1:54:44 increase
    1:54:44 sales
    1:54:44 of
    1:54:45 consumer
    1:54:45 products
    1:54:45 to
    1:54:46 Europe
    1:54:47 this
    1:54:47 is
    1:54:47 something
    1:54:47 and
    1:54:48 that
    1:54:50 Europe’s
    1:54:50 view
    1:54:50 about
    1:54:51 the
    1:54:51 United
    1:54:51 States
    1:54:51 is
    1:54:52 changing
    1:54:52 right
    1:54:53 now
    1:54:53 these
    1:54:53 are
    1:54:53 all
    1:54:53 kinds
    1:54:53 of
    1:54:54 variables
    1:54:54 that
    1:54:54 are
    1:54:55 outside
    1:54:56 of
    1:54:56 simply
    1:54:57 Washington
    1:54:57 and
    1:54:58 Beijing
    1:54:58 as
    1:54:58 being
    1:54:58 the
    1:54:59 two
    1:54:59 actors
    1:54:59 and
    1:55:00 sometimes
    1:55:01 Beijing
    1:55:01 can’t
    1:55:01 control
    1:55:02 what’s
    1:55:02 happening
    1:55:03 outside
    1:55:03 and
    1:55:03 sometimes
    1:55:04 Washington
    1:55:05 can’t
    1:55:06 and
    1:55:06 so
    1:55:07 I
    1:55:07 guess
    1:55:08 this
    1:55:08 is
    1:55:08 simply
    1:55:09 saying
    1:55:09 that
    1:55:09 when
    1:55:09 you’re
    1:55:10 watching
    1:55:10 and
    1:55:11 you’re
    1:55:11 trying
    1:55:11 to
    1:55:11 keep
    1:55:11 the
    1:55:11 eye
    1:55:12 on
    1:55:12 the
    1:55:12 ball
    1:55:12 it
    1:55:13 matters
    1:55:13 a lot
    1:55:14 what
    1:55:15 India’s
    1:55:16 relationship
    1:55:17 to
    1:55:18 China
    1:55:18 and the
    1:55:19 United
    1:55:19 States
    1:55:19 is
    1:55:20 so
    1:55:20 all
    1:55:20 of
    1:55:20 these
    1:55:20 are
    1:55:20 happening
    1:55:21 there
    1:55:22 so
    1:55:22 I
    1:55:22 think
    1:55:22 that’s
    1:55:22 it
    1:55:23 that
    1:55:23 it’s
    1:55:24 it’s
    1:55:24 both
    1:55:24 tremendously
    1:55:25 important
    1:55:27 what’s
    1:55:27 going
    1:55:27 on
    1:55:27 between
    1:55:28 China
    1:55:28 and
    1:55:28 the
    1:55:28 United
    1:55:28 States
    1:55:29 but
    1:55:30 it’s
    1:55:30 important
    1:55:30 to
    1:55:31 remember
    1:55:31 that
    1:55:31 they’re
    1:55:31 not
    1:55:31 the
    1:55:32 only
    1:55:32 players
    1:55:32 in
    1:55:33 this
    1:55:35 dynamic
    1:55:36 also
    1:55:36 on top
    1:55:36 of
    1:55:36 this
    1:55:38 how
    1:55:39 much
    1:55:39 cultural
    1:55:40 will
    1:55:40 is
    1:55:40 there
    1:55:40 to
    1:55:42 not
    1:55:42 surrender
    1:55:42 to
    1:55:43 bullying
    1:55:45 how much
    1:55:45 of that
    1:55:46 is there
    1:55:47 like you
    1:55:47 said
    1:55:47 the
    1:55:48 century
    1:55:48 of
    1:55:49 humiliation
    1:55:50 both
    1:55:50 for
    1:55:50 Xi
    1:55:51 Jinping
    1:55:51 and
    1:55:51 the
    1:55:52 Chinese
    1:55:52 populace
    1:55:53 like
    1:55:53 willingness
    1:55:54 to go
    1:55:54 through
    1:55:54 some
    1:55:55 short-term
    1:55:55 pain
    1:55:56 to
    1:55:57 not
    1:55:57 be
    1:55:58 humiliated
    1:55:58 the
    1:55:59 story
    1:55:59 that’s
    1:55:59 been
    1:56:00 intensively
    1:56:00 told
    1:56:00 about
    1:56:01 the
    1:56:01 past
    1:56:02 is
    1:56:03 something
    1:56:03 that
    1:56:04 that
    1:56:05 provides
    1:56:05 the
    1:56:06 possibility
    1:56:06 for
    1:56:06 this
    1:56:07 for
    1:56:07 this
    1:56:08 to
    1:56:08 matter
    1:56:08 a
    1:56:08 lot
    1:56:09 that
    1:56:09 is
    1:56:10 something
    1:56:10 that’s
    1:56:10 just
    1:56:11 so
    1:56:13 it’s
    1:56:13 so much
    1:56:14 a part
    1:56:14 of
    1:56:14 the
    1:56:15 legitimating
    1:56:16 story
    1:56:17 of
    1:56:17 the
    1:56:18 Chinese
    1:56:18 Communist
    1:56:19 Party
    1:56:20 and
    1:56:20 then
    1:56:20 you
    1:56:20 have
    1:56:20 to
    1:56:20 look
    1:56:20 at
    1:56:21 are
    1:56:21 there
    1:56:21 things
    1:56:21 that
    1:56:21 are
    1:56:22 happening
    1:56:23 that
    1:56:24 aid
    1:56:24 the
    1:56:24 Chinese
    1:56:25 Communist
    1:56:25 Party
    1:56:26 story
    1:56:27 so
    1:56:28 the
    1:56:29 rise
    1:56:30 of
    1:56:32 what
    1:56:33 can
    1:56:33 seem
    1:56:34 like
    1:56:34 or is
    1:56:35 anti-Chinese
    1:56:35 sentiment
    1:56:36 within the
    1:56:36 United
    1:56:36 States
    1:56:37 can
    1:56:38 feed
    1:56:38 that
    1:56:39 propaganda
    1:56:40 story
    1:56:40 and
    1:56:41 so
    1:56:41 certainly
    1:56:42 you know
    1:56:42 during
    1:56:43 COVID
    1:56:44 there was
    1:56:45 a way
    1:56:45 that
    1:56:48 if
    1:56:48 you’re
    1:56:49 the
    1:56:49 Chinese
    1:56:50 Communist
    1:56:50 Party
    1:56:50 and
    1:56:50 you’re
    1:56:51 saying
    1:56:51 we
    1:56:51 get
    1:56:51 a
    1:56:52 disproportionate
    1:56:52 amount
    1:56:53 of
    1:56:53 blame
    1:56:53 for
    1:56:53 whatever
    1:56:54 happens
    1:56:54 in the
    1:56:54 world
    1:56:55 then
    1:56:55 if
    1:56:55 there
    1:56:56 were
    1:56:56 things
    1:56:56 you
    1:56:56 could
    1:56:56 point
    1:56:57 to
    1:56:58 in
    1:56:58 the
    1:56:58 foreign
    1:56:59 media
    1:56:59 or
    1:56:59 from
    1:57:00 foreign
    1:57:00 governments
    1:57:00 then
    1:57:01 that
    1:57:01 helps
    1:57:01 you
    1:57:03 so
    1:57:03 I
    1:57:03 think
    1:57:04 there
    1:57:04 is
    1:57:04 a
    1:57:04 setup
    1:57:05 here
    1:57:05 where
    1:57:06 certainly
    1:57:06 for
    1:57:07 Xi
    1:57:07 Jinping
    1:57:07 I
    1:57:07 think
    1:57:08 the
    1:57:09 desire
    1:57:09 to
    1:57:10 not
    1:57:10 be
    1:57:10 seen
    1:57:11 weak
    1:57:12 is
    1:57:13 crucial
    1:57:13 sometimes
    1:57:14 I
    1:57:14 wonder
    1:57:14 how much
    1:57:14 these
    1:57:15 leaders
    1:57:15 operate
    1:57:16 on
    1:57:16 pure
    1:57:17 ego
    1:57:17 because
    1:57:18 politically
    1:57:19 and on
    1:57:20 the human
    1:57:20 level
    1:57:20 they don’t
    1:57:21 want to
    1:57:21 come off
    1:57:22 as losers
    1:57:24 in a
    1:57:24 standoff
    1:57:26 versus
    1:57:28 coming to
    1:57:29 a
    1:57:29 economic
    1:57:30 win-win
    1:57:31 for both
    1:57:31 nations
    1:57:39 and I
    1:57:39 worry
    1:57:40 that
    1:57:41 there
    1:57:41 is
    1:57:41 a
    1:57:41 real
    1:57:42 pride
    1:57:42 here
    1:57:42 that
    1:57:43 the
    1:57:43 center
    1:57:43 of
    1:57:43 humiliation
    1:57:44 has
    1:57:45 deeply
    1:57:46 saturated
    1:57:47 the
    1:57:48 populace
    1:57:48 the
    1:57:49 communist
    1:57:49 party
    1:57:50 this
    1:57:50 idea
    1:57:52 where
    1:57:52 they’re
    1:57:53 not
    1:57:53 they’re
    1:57:53 just
    1:57:53 not
    1:57:53 going
    1:57:54 to
    1:57:54 back
    1:57:54 down
    1:57:55 and
    1:57:56 that
    1:57:56 I
    1:57:56 think
    1:57:57 will
    1:57:58 cause
    1:57:59 tremendous
    1:57:59 pain
    1:57:59 in the
    1:58:00 short
    1:58:00 term
    1:58:01 for
    1:58:01 United
    1:58:02 States
    1:58:03 I
    1:58:03 think
    1:58:03 for
    1:58:04 China
    1:58:04 and
    1:58:05 the
    1:58:05 world
    1:58:06 because
    1:58:06 it
    1:58:07 completely
    1:58:09 transforms
    1:58:09 the supply
    1:58:09 chain
    1:58:10 of
    1:58:10 everything
    1:58:10 we
    1:58:10 just
    1:58:11 there
    1:58:11 is
    1:58:11 a
    1:58:12 global
    1:58:12 nature
    1:58:12 there
    1:58:12 is
    1:58:13 a
    1:58:14 multilateral
    1:58:14 nature
    1:58:14 of
    1:58:15 all
    1:58:15 the
    1:58:15 economic
    1:58:16 partnerships
    1:58:16 that
    1:58:16 are
    1:58:17 formed
    1:58:17 throughout
    1:58:18 the
    1:58:18 21st
    1:58:18 century
    1:58:18 and
    1:58:19 this
    1:58:20 kind
    1:58:20 of
    1:58:21 protectionist
    1:58:22 nationalistic
    1:58:23 kind
    1:58:23 of
    1:58:24 ideology
    1:58:25 goes
    1:58:25 in the
    1:58:25 face
    1:58:26 of
    1:58:26 all
    1:58:26 of
    1:58:26 that
    1:58:27 and
    1:58:27 it’s
    1:58:27 going
    1:58:28 to
    1:58:28 create
    1:58:28 a
    1:58:28 huge
    1:58:28 amount
    1:58:29 of
    1:58:30 pain
    1:58:30 like
    1:58:30 for
    1:58:31 regular
    1:58:32 Americans
    1:58:33 but
    1:58:34 also
    1:58:34 I
    1:58:34 worry
    1:58:35 that
    1:58:35 this
    1:58:36 increases
    1:58:36 not
    1:58:37 decreases
    1:58:37 the
    1:58:38 chance
    1:58:38 of
    1:58:38 a
    1:58:38 global
    1:58:39 war
    1:58:39 or
    1:58:40 conflict
    1:58:40 of
    1:58:41 different
    1:58:41 kinds
    1:58:43 do you
    1:58:43 see a
    1:58:44 hopeful
    1:58:45 possibility
    1:58:45 for
    1:58:46 resolution
    1:58:46 for
    1:58:47 de-escalation
    1:58:48 here
    1:58:49 it’s
    1:58:49 it’s
    1:58:49 it’s
    1:58:50 it’s
    1:58:50 it’s
    1:58:50 a
    1:58:51 it’s
    1:58:51 a
    1:58:51 hard
    1:58:52 time
    1:58:52 to
    1:58:53 figure
    1:58:53 out
    1:58:53 what
    1:58:54 what
    1:58:54 you
    1:58:54 can
    1:58:55 to
    1:58:56 sort
    1:58:56 of
    1:58:57 hopeful
    1:58:58 angles
    1:58:58 I mean
    1:58:58 I guess
    1:59:01 what’s
    1:59:01 hard to
    1:59:02 even
    1:59:02 balance
    1:59:03 these
    1:59:03 things
    1:59:03 out
    1:59:03 so
    1:59:04 one
    1:59:04 of
    1:59:04 the
    1:59:04 things
    1:59:04 that
    1:59:04 I’ve
    1:59:04 thought
    1:59:05 about
    1:59:05 when
    1:59:05 you
    1:59:05 talk
    1:59:06 about
    1:59:06 rising
    1:59:07 chances
    1:59:07 of
    1:59:07 war
    1:59:08 that
    1:59:09 often
    1:59:09 Taiwan
    1:59:10 comes
    1:59:10 to
    1:59:11 mind
    1:59:11 with
    1:59:12 China
    1:59:12 and
    1:59:12 one
    1:59:12 of
    1:59:12 the
    1:59:12 things
    1:59:12 that
    1:59:13 I’ve
    1:59:13 thought
    1:59:13 of
    1:59:13 is
    1:59:13 that
    1:59:14 for
    1:59:17 Xi
    1:59:17 Jinping
    1:59:18 that
    1:59:19 military
    1:59:20 action
    1:59:20 against
    1:59:20 Taiwan
    1:59:22 would
    1:59:22 be
    1:59:22 increased
    1:59:23 by
    1:59:25 a
    1:59:25 sense
    1:59:25 of
    1:59:26 desperation
    1:59:27 a sense
    1:59:27 of
    1:59:27 losing
    1:59:28 popularity
    1:59:28 or a
    1:59:29 sense
    1:59:29 of
    1:59:31 not
    1:59:31 having
    1:59:31 a good
    1:59:32 story
    1:59:32 to tell
    1:59:33 about
    1:59:34 why
    1:59:34 he
    1:59:35 and
    1:59:35 the
    1:59:35 party
    1:59:35 deserves
    1:59:36 to
    1:59:36 lead
    1:59:36 so
    1:59:37 then
    1:59:37 there’s
    1:59:37 a
    1:59:37 kind
    1:59:37 of
    1:59:38 way
    1:59:38 of
    1:59:38 playing
    1:59:39 to
    1:59:40 the
    1:59:40 national
    1:59:40 sentiments
    1:59:41 of
    1:59:41 some
    1:59:41 part
    1:59:42 of
    1:59:42 the
    1:59:42 population
    1:59:43 so
    1:59:45 then
    1:59:45 in a
    1:59:45 sense
    1:59:46 it’s
    1:59:46 hopeful
    1:59:46 that
    1:59:46 I
    1:59:46 think
    1:59:47 in
    1:59:47 some
    1:59:47 ways
    1:59:47 right
    1:59:48 now
    1:59:48 Xi
    1:59:48 Jinping
    1:59:50 is
    1:59:50 not
    1:59:51 looking
    1:59:52 desperate
    1:59:53 in the
    1:59:53 eyes
    1:59:53 of
    1:59:53 the
    1:59:53 world
    1:59:53 you know
    1:59:54 he
    1:59:54 can
    1:59:55 if he
    1:59:55 can
    1:59:55 focus
    1:59:56 on
    1:59:57 potentially
    1:59:59 being
    2:00:00 seen
    2:00:00 more
    2:00:01 positively
    2:00:02 in
    2:00:02 other
    2:00:02 parts
    2:00:02 of
    2:00:03 the
    2:00:03 world
    2:00:03 by
    2:00:04 seeming
    2:00:04 like
    2:00:04 a
    2:00:05 kind
    2:00:05 of
    2:00:06 force
    2:00:06 for
    2:00:06 stability
    2:00:07 seen
    2:00:07 as
    2:00:08 somebody
    2:00:08 who’s
    2:00:09 supporting
    2:00:10 rather
    2:00:10 than
    2:00:11 challenging
    2:00:11 some
    2:00:12 elements
    2:00:12 of the
    2:00:12 global
    2:00:13 order
    2:00:14 that
    2:00:16 might
    2:00:17 lessen
    2:00:18 the chances
    2:00:19 of a
    2:00:19 rash
    2:00:20 action
    2:00:21 toward Taiwan
    2:00:21 that would
    2:00:21 be a
    2:00:22 kind of
    2:00:22 desperation
    2:00:23 move
    2:00:23 the
    2:00:24 complicated
    2:00:24 thing
    2:00:25 here is
    2:00:27 that
    2:00:27 if he
    2:00:28 gives
    2:00:28 in
    2:00:30 he can
    2:00:31 come off
    2:00:31 as the
    2:00:32 responsible
    2:00:32 person who
    2:00:33 cares about
    2:00:33 the world
    2:00:35 or he
    2:00:35 can come
    2:00:36 off
    2:00:36 weak
    2:00:38 if he
    2:00:38 doesn’t
    2:00:38 give in
    2:00:39 and even
    2:00:40 escalates
    2:00:40 the
    2:00:40 tariffs
    2:00:40 although
    2:00:41 I think
    2:00:41 he said
    2:00:42 no more
    2:00:42 escalation
    2:00:42 on the
    2:00:43 China
    2:00:43 front
    2:00:46 then he
    2:00:46 comes off
    2:00:47 strong
    2:00:48 but also
    2:00:48 the
    2:00:49 equally
    2:00:50 unreasonable
    2:00:51 person
    2:00:52 who doesn’t
    2:00:52 care about
    2:00:52 the world
    2:00:53 who only
    2:00:54 cares about
    2:00:56 his own
    2:00:57 ego
    2:00:58 and maybe
    2:00:58 some
    2:00:59 aspect of
    2:00:59 the
    2:01:00 communist
    2:01:00 party
    2:01:01 maintaining
    2:01:01 power
    2:01:02 because
    2:01:03 just like
    2:01:03 with Tiananmen
    2:01:03 Square
    2:01:04 and the
    2:01:04 tank man
    2:01:05 you don’t
    2:01:05 know
    2:01:06 once
    2:01:07 you make
    2:01:08 the decision
    2:01:09 how the
    2:01:09 world
    2:01:10 will read
    2:01:11 that decision
    2:01:12 what kind
    2:01:13 of things
    2:01:13 will become
    2:01:14 viral memes
    2:01:16 about the
    2:01:16 telling of
    2:01:17 that story
    2:01:18 and of
    2:01:19 course in
    2:01:19 part
    2:01:20 I think
    2:01:21 Donald Trump’s
    2:01:22 reach is
    2:01:22 much wider
    2:01:23 because he’s
    2:01:24 constantly out
    2:01:24 there
    2:01:25 and I think
    2:01:26 there’s a
    2:01:27 more reserved
    2:01:28 less messaging
    2:01:28 out of
    2:01:29 Beijing
    2:01:30 so it’s
    2:01:31 a really
    2:01:31 chaotic
    2:01:32 environment
    2:01:32 in which
    2:01:33 to make
    2:01:33 strong
    2:01:34 decisions
    2:01:36 but since
    2:01:36 you brought
    2:01:37 it up
    2:01:38 we’ll talk
    2:01:38 about
    2:01:38 Hong Kong
    2:01:39 but let’s
    2:01:40 talk about
    2:01:41 Taiwan
    2:01:42 and maybe
    2:01:42 there’s some
    2:01:43 parallels there
    2:01:45 given
    2:01:46 Xi Jinping’s
    2:01:46 emphasis on
    2:01:47 the great
    2:01:47 rejuvenation
    2:01:47 of the
    2:01:48 Chinese
    2:01:48 nation
    2:01:49 and the
    2:01:49 unification
    2:01:50 with Taiwan
    2:01:53 being a
    2:01:54 crucial part
    2:01:54 of his
    2:01:55 vision for
    2:01:55 China
    2:01:57 what do
    2:01:58 you think
    2:01:58 are the
    2:01:58 chances
    2:02:00 and how
    2:02:00 willing is
    2:02:01 he to
    2:02:01 use force
    2:02:02 to
    2:02:03 annex
    2:02:04 to
    2:02:04 forcibly
    2:02:04 gain
    2:02:05 control
    2:02:05 over
    2:02:05 Taiwan
    2:02:06 in the
    2:02:06 coming
    2:02:07 years
    2:02:07 I’ll
    2:02:08 frame it
    2:02:08 in a way
    2:02:09 that I
    2:02:09 think does
    2:02:10 lead into
    2:02:11 talking about
    2:02:11 Hong Kong
    2:02:12 because I
    2:02:12 think these
    2:02:13 are connected
    2:02:13 issues
    2:02:14 in 1984
    2:02:15 when the
    2:02:16 year
    2:02:16 not the
    2:02:17 book this
    2:02:17 time
    2:02:19 that’s when
    2:02:20 a deal
    2:02:20 was struck
    2:02:21 basically
    2:02:21 between
    2:02:22 London
    2:02:23 and Beijing
    2:02:24 over what
    2:02:24 would happen
    2:02:24 to Hong
    2:02:25 Kong
    2:02:25 so Hong
    2:02:26 Kong
    2:02:29 Island
    2:02:30 became a
    2:02:31 British
    2:02:31 colony
    2:02:32 at the
    2:02:32 end of
    2:02:32 the
    2:02:32 first
    2:02:33 opium
    2:02:33 war
    2:02:34 the
    2:02:35 1840s
    2:02:35 and then
    2:02:36 Kowloon
    2:02:36 peninsula
    2:02:37 near there
    2:02:38 became a
    2:02:38 British
    2:02:38 colony
    2:02:40 1860
    2:02:41 after the
    2:02:41 second
    2:02:42 opium
    2:02:42 war
    2:02:43 but then
    2:02:43 there was
    2:02:43 a large
    2:02:44 amount
    2:02:44 of territory
    2:02:45 of what
    2:02:45 we now
    2:02:45 think of
    2:02:45 as
    2:02:46 Hong
    2:02:46 Kong
    2:02:47 called
    2:02:47 the
    2:02:47 new
    2:02:47 territories
    2:02:48 that
    2:02:48 became
    2:02:48 under
    2:02:49 British
    2:02:49 control
    2:02:49 in
    2:02:51 1898
    2:02:52 but was
    2:02:53 not
    2:02:54 a
    2:02:54 colony
    2:02:55 it was
    2:02:55 a
    2:02:55 99
    2:02:56 year
    2:02:56 lease
    2:02:57 so
    2:02:57 1997
    2:02:58 was
    2:02:58 this
    2:02:59 kind
    2:02:59 of
    2:02:59 expiration
    2:03:00 date
    2:03:00 for
    2:03:00 the
    2:03:01 lease
    2:03:01 of
    2:03:01 this
    2:03:02 large
    2:03:02 amount
    2:03:02 of
    2:03:03 territory
    2:03:03 of what
    2:03:03 we now
    2:03:03 think of
    2:03:04 as
    2:03:04 Hong
    2:03:04 Kong
    2:03:05 it’s
    2:03:05 a
    2:03:05 large
    2:03:06 amount
    2:03:06 of
    2:03:06 territory
    2:03:07 that
    2:03:07 the
    2:03:08 rest
    2:03:08 of
    2:03:08 Hong
    2:03:08 Kong
    2:03:08 the
    2:03:08 Hong
    2:03:09 Kong
    2:03:09 Island
    2:03:09 and
    2:03:10 Kowloon
    2:03:10 depend
    2:03:11 on
    2:03:11 for
    2:03:11 energy
    2:03:12 water
    2:03:12 and
    2:03:13 food
    2:03:13 so
    2:03:13 it
    2:03:14 would
    2:03:14 have
    2:03:14 been
    2:03:14 very
    2:03:14 hard
    2:03:15 to
    2:03:16 just
    2:03:16 give
    2:03:17 back
    2:03:17 give
    2:03:17 those
    2:03:18 parts
    2:03:18 transfer
    2:03:18 those
    2:03:19 parts
    2:03:19 to
    2:03:19 the
    2:03:19 People’s
    2:03:20 Republic
    2:03:20 of
    2:03:20 China
    2:03:21 so
    2:03:21 a
    2:03:21 deal
    2:03:22 needed
    2:03:22 to
    2:03:22 be
    2:03:22 struck
    2:03:22 of
    2:03:22 what
    2:03:22 would
    2:03:23 happen
    2:03:23 in
    2:03:24 1997
    2:03:25 and
    2:03:28 the
    2:03:28 deal
    2:03:28 was
    2:03:28 about
    2:03:29 transferring
    2:03:29 sovereignty
    2:03:30 of
    2:03:30 all
    2:03:30 of
    2:03:30 Hong
    2:03:31 Kong
    2:03:32 all
    2:03:32 these
    2:03:32 parts
    2:03:33 to
    2:03:33 the
    2:03:33 People’s
    2:03:33 Republic
    2:03:34 of
    2:03:34 China
    2:03:35 and
    2:03:35 I
    2:03:36 carefully
    2:03:36 say
    2:03:36 transfer
    2:03:37 sovereignty
    2:03:37 not
    2:03:37 give
    2:03:38 it
    2:03:38 back
    2:03:38 to
    2:03:38 the
    2:03:39 People’s
    2:03:39 Republic
    2:03:39 of
    2:03:39 China
    2:03:39 because
    2:03:39 it
    2:03:40 never
    2:03:40 belonged
    2:03:40 to
    2:03:40 the
    2:03:40 People’s
    2:03:41 Republic
    2:03:41 of
    2:03:41 China
    2:03:42 it
    2:03:42 was
    2:03:42 part
    2:03:42 of
    2:03:43 the
    2:03:43 Qing
    2:03:43 Empire
    2:03:44 which
    2:03:44 was
    2:03:45 a
    2:03:45 different
    2:03:46 country
    2:03:46 a
    2:03:46 different
    2:03:47 state
    2:03:47 that
    2:03:47 then
    2:03:48 anyway
    2:03:49 but
    2:03:50 this
    2:03:50 needed
    2:03:50 to be
    2:03:51 transferred
    2:03:52 and
    2:03:52 the
    2:03:56 London
    2:03:56 side
    2:03:57 wanted
    2:03:57 to
    2:03:58 do
    2:03:58 something
    2:03:59 to
    2:03:59 protect
    2:03:59 what
    2:03:59 was
    2:04:00 going
    2:04:00 to
    2:04:00 happen
    2:04:00 to
    2:04:01 the
    2:04:01 people
    2:04:01 there
    2:04:01 and
    2:04:02 remember
    2:04:02 this
    2:04:03 is
    2:04:03 not
    2:04:03 what
    2:04:04 usually
    2:04:04 happens
    2:04:04 to
    2:04:05 colonies
    2:04:06 usually
    2:04:07 go
    2:04:07 from
    2:04:07 being
    2:04:07 part
    2:04:08 of
    2:04:08 an
    2:04:08 empire
    2:04:08 to
    2:04:09 being
    2:04:09 some
    2:04:10 degree
    2:04:10 of
    2:04:10 self
    2:04:10 governed
    2:04:12 and
    2:04:12 because
    2:04:12 of
    2:04:12 that
    2:04:13 the
    2:04:13 Chinese
    2:04:14 representative
    2:04:14 of
    2:04:14 the
    2:04:14 UN
    2:04:15 insisted
    2:04:15 that
    2:04:15 Hong
    2:04:15 Kong
    2:04:16 was
    2:04:16 not
    2:04:16 a
    2:04:16 colony
    2:04:17 and
    2:04:17 Macau
    2:04:17 was
    2:04:17 not
    2:04:17 a
    2:04:18 colony
    2:04:18 because
    2:04:19 then
    2:04:19 they
    2:04:19 would
    2:04:19 have
    2:04:19 to
    2:04:19 be
    2:04:24 an
    2:04:24 understanding
    2:04:25 that
    2:04:25 something
    2:04:25 would
    2:04:25 have
    2:04:25 to
    2:04:26 happen
    2:04:26 in
    2:04:26 1997
    2:04:27 and
    2:04:27 London
    2:04:28 wanted
    2:04:28 some
    2:04:29 protection
    2:04:29 for
    2:04:29 the
    2:04:29 people
    2:04:31 in
    2:04:31 Hong
    2:04:32 Kong
    2:04:32 who
    2:04:32 they
    2:04:33 knew
    2:04:33 were
    2:04:35 living
    2:04:35 in a
    2:04:36 very
    2:04:36 different
    2:04:36 way
    2:04:37 than
    2:04:37 people
    2:04:37 lived
    2:04:37 under
    2:04:38 Communist
    2:04:38 Party
    2:04:38 rule
    2:04:39 there
    2:04:39 was
    2:04:39 a
    2:04:39 different
    2:04:39 kind
    2:04:40 of
    2:04:40 rule
    2:04:40 of
    2:04:40 law
    2:04:42 there
    2:04:42 wasn’t
    2:04:43 democracy
    2:04:44 but
    2:04:44 there
    2:04:44 was
    2:04:44 some
    2:04:45 degree
    2:04:45 of
    2:04:45 input
    2:04:46 in
    2:04:47 governance
    2:04:48 the
    2:04:49 colonial
    2:04:50 authority
    2:04:50 and
    2:04:50 the
    2:04:51 most
    2:04:51 powerful
    2:04:52 person
    2:04:52 in
    2:04:52 Hong
    2:04:52 Kong
    2:04:52 was
    2:04:52 appointed
    2:04:53 by
    2:04:53 London
    2:04:55 after
    2:04:55 1997
    2:04:56 the
    2:04:57 most
    2:04:57 powerful
    2:04:58 person
    2:04:58 would
    2:04:59 probably
    2:04:59 have
    2:04:59 to
    2:05:00 be
    2:05:00 somebody
    2:05:00 who
    2:05:00 could
    2:05:01 work
    2:05:01 with
    2:05:01 Beijing
    2:05:02 but
    2:05:03 in
    2:05:03 this
    2:05:04 negotiation
    2:05:04 something
    2:05:05 was
    2:05:05 come
    2:05:05 up
    2:05:05 with
    2:05:05 called
    2:05:06 one
    2:05:06 country
    2:05:06 two
    2:05:07 systems
    2:05:08 and
    2:05:08 Hong
    2:05:09 Kong
    2:05:09 would
    2:05:09 become
    2:05:09 part
    2:05:09 of
    2:05:09 the
    2:05:10 people’s
    2:05:10 Republic
    2:05:10 of
    2:05:10 China
    2:05:11 in
    2:05:11 diplomatic
    2:05:12 terms
    2:05:13 it
    2:05:13 wouldn’t
    2:05:13 have
    2:05:13 its
    2:05:13 own
    2:05:14 military
    2:05:15 but
    2:05:15 it
    2:05:15 would
    2:05:15 have
    2:05:15 its
    2:05:16 own
    2:05:16 system
    2:05:17 for
    2:05:17 50
    2:05:17 years
    2:05:17 was
    2:05:18 the
    2:05:18 idea
    2:05:18 from
    2:05:19 1997
    2:05:20 until
    2:05:21 2047
    2:05:23 there
    2:05:23 was
    2:05:23 a
    2:05:24 tension
    2:05:24 from
    2:05:24 the
    2:05:25 beginning
    2:05:25 over
    2:05:25 what
    2:05:26 that
    2:05:26 other
    2:05:27 system
    2:05:27 what
    2:05:28 was
    2:05:28 going
    2:05:28 to
    2:05:28 be
    2:05:28 the
    2:05:29 part
    2:05:29 that
    2:05:29 was
    2:05:29 going
    2:05:29 to
    2:05:29 be
    2:05:29 separate
    2:05:30 and
    2:05:31 clearly
    2:05:31 everybody
    2:05:31 agreed
    2:05:31 it would
    2:05:32 need
    2:05:32 to have
    2:05:32 a
    2:05:32 different
    2:05:33 economic
    2:05:33 system
    2:05:34 it
    2:05:34 had
    2:05:34 capitalism
    2:05:36 so
    2:05:36 people
    2:05:36 agreed
    2:05:37 on
    2:05:37 that
    2:05:37 but
    2:05:38 there
    2:05:38 was
    2:05:38 tension
    2:05:38 from
    2:05:39 the
    2:05:39 start
    2:05:39 of
    2:05:40 well
    2:05:40 what
    2:05:40 about
    2:05:40 legal
    2:05:41 what
    2:05:41 about
    2:05:42 cultural
    2:05:42 and
    2:05:42 other
    2:05:43 things
    2:05:43 and
    2:05:44 things
    2:05:44 were
    2:05:44 written
    2:05:44 into
    2:05:44 this
    2:05:45 deal
    2:05:45 which
    2:05:45 would
    2:05:45 be
    2:05:46 over
    2:05:46 time
    2:05:47 Hong
    2:05:47 Kong
    2:05:47 people
    2:05:47 would
    2:05:48 govern
    2:05:48 Hong
    2:05:48 Kong
    2:05:49 but
    2:05:50 Beijing
    2:05:50 thought
    2:05:51 they
    2:05:51 would
    2:05:51 govern
    2:05:52 Hong
    2:05:52 Kong
    2:05:52 but
    2:05:52 it
    2:05:53 would
    2:05:53 be
    2:05:53 a
    2:05:53 Hong
    2:05:53 Kong
    2:05:54 person
    2:05:54 who
    2:05:54 who
    2:05:55 Beijing
    2:05:56 played
    2:05:56 a
    2:05:57 role
    2:05:57 in
    2:05:57 choosing
    2:05:58 but
    2:05:58 the
    2:05:59 reason
    2:05:59 why
    2:05:59 Taiwan
    2:06:00 is
    2:06:00 relevant
    2:06:00 to
    2:06:00 all
    2:06:01 this
    2:06:01 is
    2:06:01 in
    2:06:02 1984
    2:06:03 as
    2:06:03 they
    2:06:03 were
    2:06:04 discussing
    2:06:04 this
    2:06:05 the
    2:06:05 Chinese
    2:06:06 Communist Party
    2:06:06 said
    2:06:06 and
    2:06:07 we’ll
    2:06:07 come up
    2:06:07 with
    2:06:07 this
    2:06:08 arrangement
    2:06:08 and
    2:06:08 people
    2:06:09 in
    2:06:09 Taiwan
    2:06:09 should
    2:06:09 pay
    2:06:10 attention
    2:06:10 to
    2:06:10 it
    2:06:11 because
    2:06:11 it
    2:06:11 could
    2:06:12 provide
    2:06:12 a
    2:06:12 model
    2:06:12 for
    2:06:13 what
    2:06:13 could
    2:06:13 happen
    2:06:14 with
    2:06:14 them
    2:06:15 being
    2:06:16 absorbed
    2:06:16 into
    2:06:16 the
    2:06:16 People’s
    2:06:17 Republic
    2:06:17 of
    2:06:17 China
    2:06:18 so
    2:06:19 the
    2:06:19 idea
    2:06:20 was
    2:06:20 Beijing
    2:06:21 said
    2:06:21 hey
    2:06:25 after 1997
    2:06:25 and
    2:06:26 think
    2:06:26 about
    2:06:26 it
    2:06:26 as
    2:06:26 a
    2:06:27 model
    2:06:27 for
    2:06:28 what
    2:06:28 could
    2:06:28 happen
    2:06:28 with
    2:06:29 you
    2:06:29 saying
    2:06:29 like
    2:06:30 watch
    2:06:30 how
    2:06:31 smoothly
    2:06:31 it
    2:06:31 will
    2:06:31 go
    2:06:34 over
    2:06:34 time
    2:06:35 people
    2:06:35 in
    2:06:35 Hong
    2:06:35 Kong
    2:06:38 started
    2:06:38 saying
    2:06:38 well
    2:06:38 wait
    2:06:39 Beijing
    2:06:39 keeps
    2:06:40 nibbling
    2:06:40 away
    2:06:41 at
    2:06:41 chipping
    2:06:41 away
    2:06:42 at
    2:06:42 these
    2:06:42 things
    2:06:42 that
    2:06:42 make
    2:06:43 us
    2:06:43 separate
    2:06:44 and
    2:06:44 especially
    2:06:44 after
    2:06:45 2008
    2:06:47 especially
    2:06:47 I mean
    2:06:47 there were
    2:06:48 reasons
    2:06:48 why
    2:06:49 Beijing
    2:06:49 went
    2:06:50 especially
    2:06:50 light
    2:06:51 on
    2:06:51 Hong
    2:06:51 Kong
    2:06:52 early
    2:06:53 after
    2:06:53 1997
    2:06:55 they
    2:06:55 wanted
    2:06:55 to
    2:06:56 join
    2:06:56 Beijing
    2:06:56 wanted
    2:06:57 to
    2:06:57 join
    2:06:57 WTO
    2:06:58 they
    2:06:58 wanted
    2:06:58 to
    2:06:58 host
    2:06:58 the
    2:06:59 Olympics
    2:06:59 a big
    2:06:59 move
    2:07:00 against
    2:07:00 Hong
    2:07:00 Kong
    2:07:01 then
    2:07:02 could
    2:07:02 have
    2:07:03 endangered
    2:07:03 those
    2:07:04 things
    2:07:05 also
    2:07:05 at
    2:07:05 that
    2:07:05 point
    2:07:05 the
    2:07:06 PRC
    2:07:06 was
    2:07:07 dependent
    2:07:07 heavily
    2:07:08 dependent
    2:07:08 on
    2:07:09 economics
    2:07:09 in
    2:07:10 Hong
    2:07:10 Kong
    2:07:10 the
    2:07:11 Hong
    2:07:11 Kong
    2:07:11 economy
    2:07:12 also
    2:07:12 just
    2:07:13 something
    2:07:13 because
    2:07:13 I’m
    2:07:13 a
    2:07:14 university
    2:07:15 person
    2:07:16 in
    2:07:16 1997
    2:07:16 when
    2:07:17 Hong
    2:07:17 Kong
    2:07:17 became
    2:07:17 part
    2:07:17 of
    2:07:18 the
    2:07:18 People’s
    2:07:18 Republic
    2:07:18 of
    2:07:19 China
    2:07:20 Hong
    2:07:20 Kong
    2:07:20 then
    2:07:21 Hong
    2:07:21 Kong
    2:07:22 universities
    2:07:22 were the
    2:07:22 only
    2:07:23 universities
    2:07:23 in the
    2:07:24 PRC
    2:07:24 that were
    2:07:24 considered
    2:07:25 totally
    2:07:26 world-class
    2:07:27 Hong Kong
    2:07:27 University
    2:07:28 and Chinese
    2:07:28 University
    2:07:28 of Hong
    2:07:29 Kong
    2:07:29 were
    2:07:29 highly
    2:07:30 rated
    2:07:30 institutions
    2:07:31 and at
    2:07:32 that
    2:07:32 point
    2:07:32 Peking
    2:07:33 University
    2:07:34 Beijing
    2:07:34 Beida
    2:07:35 and
    2:07:35 Tsinghua
    2:07:36 were not
    2:07:36 yet
    2:07:37 considered
    2:07:38 world-class
    2:07:38 institutions
    2:07:39 because they
    2:07:39 didn’t have
    2:07:39 the kind
    2:07:39 of
    2:07:40 academic
    2:07:40 freedom
    2:07:42 and
    2:07:42 humanities
    2:07:43 that was
    2:07:44 at that
    2:07:44 point
    2:07:44 needed
    2:07:45 to be
    2:07:45 higher
    2:07:46 ratings
    2:07:47 over
    2:07:47 time
    2:07:49 that
    2:07:49 difference
    2:07:49 started
    2:07:50 to go
    2:07:50 away
    2:07:51 because
    2:07:51 global
    2:07:51 ratings
    2:07:52 of
    2:07:52 universities
    2:07:53 stopped
    2:07:53 caring
    2:07:53 as much
    2:07:54 about
    2:07:55 academic
    2:07:56 freedom
    2:07:56 and things
    2:07:57 like that
    2:07:57 and Beijing
    2:07:58 universities
    2:07:59 surpassed
    2:07:59 Hong Kong
    2:07:59 once
    2:08:00 so by
    2:08:01 the 2010s
    2:08:02 when you
    2:08:03 started to
    2:08:03 have these
    2:08:03 protests
    2:08:04 in Hong
    2:08:04 Kong
    2:08:05 pushing
    2:08:05 back
    2:08:06 against
    2:08:06 what was
    2:08:06 called
    2:08:08 mainlandization
    2:08:08 and sort
    2:08:08 of clamping
    2:08:09 down
    2:08:11 Hong Kong
    2:08:11 protesters
    2:08:12 in 2014
    2:08:13 put up
    2:08:14 a banner
    2:08:15 at the time
    2:08:16 when Beijing
    2:08:16 was holding
    2:08:17 the line
    2:08:17 against
    2:08:18 Hong Kong
    2:08:19 people wanted
    2:08:19 to have
    2:08:20 real elections
    2:08:22 to choose
    2:08:23 the chief
    2:08:23 executive
    2:08:24 rather than
    2:08:24 a kind
    2:08:25 of one
    2:08:25 where there
    2:08:26 were elections
    2:08:27 but only
    2:08:27 people who
    2:08:28 Beijing
    2:08:29 approved of
    2:08:29 basically
    2:08:30 could run
    2:08:32 Hong Kong
    2:08:32 activists
    2:08:33 put up
    2:08:33 a banner
    2:08:33 saying
    2:08:33 hey
    2:08:34 Taiwan
    2:08:35 look at
    2:08:35 Hong Kong
    2:08:36 Taiwan
    2:08:36 beware
    2:08:38 Hong Kong’s
    2:08:38 today
    2:08:39 could be
    2:08:39 Taiwan’s
    2:08:40 tomorrow
    2:08:41 so basically
    2:08:42 spinning the
    2:08:43 one country
    2:08:43 two systems
    2:08:44 argument
    2:08:44 and saying
    2:08:45 yeah
    2:08:45 Taiwan
    2:08:46 you should
    2:08:47 watch
    2:08:47 what happens
    2:08:48 here
    2:08:49 so
    2:08:51 one way
    2:08:51 to think
    2:08:52 of
    2:08:53 Chinese
    2:08:53 leaders
    2:08:53 since
    2:08:54 Mao
    2:08:54 is
    2:08:55 that Mao
    2:08:56 and
    2:08:56 those
    2:08:57 after him
    2:08:57 wanted
    2:08:57 to
    2:08:59 make
    2:08:59 China
    2:08:59 bigger
    2:09:00 territorially
    2:09:01 than it
    2:09:01 had been
    2:09:01 to try
    2:09:02 to reclaim
    2:09:02 land
    2:09:04 under
    2:09:04 Mao
    2:09:06 Tibet
    2:09:07 which had
    2:09:07 been
    2:09:08 not
    2:09:09 part
    2:09:09 of
    2:09:10 China
    2:09:11 became
    2:09:11 part
    2:09:11 of the
    2:09:12 People’s
    2:09:12 Republic
    2:09:12 of China
    2:09:14 Mao
    2:09:14 offered
    2:09:14 something
    2:09:15 a little
    2:09:15 bit like
    2:09:15 one country
    2:09:16 two systems
    2:09:17 to it
    2:09:19 Isabel
    2:09:19 Hilton
    2:09:20 who writes
    2:09:20 wonderfully
    2:09:20 about
    2:09:21 Tibet
    2:09:21 has talked
    2:09:21 about
    2:09:22 the
    2:09:22 parallels
    2:09:22 with
    2:09:23 the
    2:09:23 Hong
    2:09:23 Kong
    2:09:23 system
    2:09:24 and
    2:09:24 some
    2:09:24 Hong
    2:09:24 Kong
    2:09:25 activists
    2:09:25 saw
    2:09:26 parallels
    2:09:26 as well
    2:09:27 Tibet
    2:09:28 was supposed
    2:09:28 to go
    2:09:29 its own
    2:09:29 way
    2:09:30 as part
    2:09:30 of the
    2:09:30 People’s
    2:09:31 Republic
    2:09:31 of China
    2:09:32 in the
    2:09:32 1950s
    2:09:33 and then
    2:09:33 by 1959
    2:09:35 the center
    2:09:37 got restless
    2:09:37 tried to
    2:09:38 interfere more
    2:09:39 local people
    2:09:40 pushed back
    2:09:41 against it
    2:09:42 and a workable
    2:09:43 what seemed
    2:09:44 like it might
    2:09:45 work out
    2:09:45 somehow
    2:09:46 against all
    2:09:46 odds
    2:09:48 explodes
    2:09:48 and the
    2:09:49 Dalai Lama
    2:09:50 goes into
    2:09:50 exile
    2:09:51 the Dalai Lama
    2:09:51 who before
    2:09:52 that had
    2:09:52 thought maybe
    2:09:52 he and
    2:09:53 Mao could
    2:09:53 work
    2:09:54 together
    2:09:55 that didn’t
    2:09:56 work
    2:09:57 Hong Kong
    2:09:58 a new
    2:09:58 version of
    2:09:59 the experiment
    2:10:00 happens
    2:10:00 and it
    2:10:01 becomes clear
    2:10:01 in the
    2:10:02 2010s
    2:10:02 that it’s
    2:10:03 not really
    2:10:04 workable
    2:10:04 that
    2:10:05 the center
    2:10:06 is less
    2:10:06 patient
    2:10:07 needs Hong
    2:10:07 Kong
    2:10:08 less
    2:10:09 the Hong
    2:10:09 Kong
    2:10:10 people feel
    2:10:10 it’s more
    2:10:11 of a sort
    2:10:11 of now
    2:10:12 or never
    2:10:13 period
    2:10:13 to push
    2:10:14 back
    2:10:14 you could
    2:10:15 say that
    2:10:15 Deng Xiaoping
    2:10:17 oversaw
    2:10:17 the deal
    2:10:18 that got
    2:10:18 Hong Kong
    2:10:19 and Macau
    2:10:20 to become
    2:10:20 part of the
    2:10:21 People’s
    2:10:21 Republic of
    2:10:21 China
    2:10:22 he could
    2:10:23 point to
    2:10:23 that
    2:10:24 even though
    2:10:25 he died
    2:10:26 right before
    2:10:27 during 1997
    2:10:30 but he had
    2:10:31 achieved that
    2:10:32 kind of deal
    2:10:34 Xi Jinping
    2:10:35 could argue
    2:10:36 you could argue
    2:10:38 he finished
    2:10:38 the deal
    2:10:39 of making
    2:10:39 Hong Kong
    2:10:40 fully a part
    2:10:40 of the
    2:10:41 People’s
    2:10:41 Republic of
    2:10:41 China
    2:10:42 doing away
    2:10:43 with this
    2:10:44 degree of
    2:10:44 difference
    2:10:46 and you
    2:10:46 could say
    2:10:47 that that
    2:10:47 is a
    2:10:48 stepping stone
    2:10:48 toward Taiwan
    2:10:50 or you
    2:10:50 could say
    2:10:51 that that
    2:10:51 and the
    2:10:52 South China
    2:10:52 Sea
    2:10:53 islands
    2:10:54 build up
    2:10:56 might be
    2:10:56 enough for
    2:10:57 him to put
    2:10:57 his stamp
    2:10:58 on having
    2:10:59 been the
    2:10:59 kind of
    2:11:00 leader who
    2:11:00 expanded
    2:11:02 Beijing’s
    2:11:02 reach
    2:11:03 he probably
    2:11:04 wants
    2:11:04 but I mean
    2:11:05 you know
    2:11:05 he probably
    2:11:06 to the extent
    2:11:06 he would
    2:11:07 like Taiwan
    2:11:07 to become
    2:11:09 part of the
    2:11:09 People’s
    2:11:10 Republic of
    2:11:10 China
    2:11:10 which
    2:11:10 has never
    2:11:11 been
    2:11:13 but the
    2:11:14 hope was
    2:11:14 it could
    2:11:15 happen
    2:11:15 through a
    2:11:15 kind of
    2:11:16 more gradual
    2:11:17 absorption
    2:11:17 and people
    2:11:19 in Taiwan
    2:11:20 being willing
    2:11:20 to think
    2:11:21 of that
    2:11:21 and yet
    2:11:23 in part
    2:11:23 because of
    2:11:23 what’s
    2:11:24 happened
    2:11:24 to places
    2:11:25 like Hong
    2:11:25 Kong
    2:11:25 there’s a
    2:11:26 fiercer
    2:11:27 a stronger
    2:11:28 sense of
    2:11:28 Taiwan
    2:11:29 identity
    2:11:30 now than
    2:11:31 there was
    2:11:31 at an
    2:11:31 earlier point
    2:11:32 and less
    2:11:33 parties that
    2:11:34 are more
    2:11:35 willing to
    2:11:36 try to
    2:11:38 negotiate
    2:11:38 some kind
    2:11:39 of
    2:11:40 tighter
    2:11:40 connection
    2:11:41 to the
    2:11:41 PRC
    2:11:42 are often
    2:11:43 doing badly
    2:11:44 and elections
    2:11:44 there because
    2:11:46 of this
    2:11:46 of this
    2:11:47 mood
    2:11:50 2047 is
    2:11:50 50 years
    2:11:51 from the
    2:11:52 1997
    2:11:53 handover
    2:11:53 that you
    2:11:53 were talking
    2:11:54 about with
    2:11:54 Hong Kong
    2:11:55 on top
    2:11:55 of that
    2:11:57 2049
    2:11:58 is 100
    2:11:59 years
    2:11:59 from
    2:12:00 outtaking
    2:12:00 power
    2:12:01 it feels
    2:12:02 like at
    2:12:02 that moment
    2:12:03 China could
    2:12:03 take Taiwan
    2:12:04 because it
    2:12:05 does seem
    2:12:05 that there’s
    2:12:06 a kind
    2:12:07 of value
    2:12:08 for history
    2:12:08 in China
    2:12:09 and they
    2:12:10 take these
    2:12:10 days very
    2:12:11 seriously
    2:12:12 on the
    2:12:13 other hand
    2:12:14 as you
    2:12:14 have studied
    2:12:15 there is
    2:12:16 some tensions
    2:12:17 and displeasure
    2:12:18 and protests
    2:12:19 some of the
    2:12:20 biggest in human
    2:12:21 history in
    2:12:22 Hong Kong
    2:12:23 and so like
    2:12:23 put all that
    2:12:24 together
    2:12:26 and so
    2:12:26 many possible
    2:12:27 trajectories of
    2:12:28 human history
    2:12:28 could happen
    2:12:29 here
    2:12:29 yeah
    2:12:30 I mean
    2:12:30 I’m particularly
    2:12:31 interested in
    2:12:32 youth movements
    2:12:32 and
    2:12:34 one of the
    2:12:35 things about
    2:12:35 I think
    2:12:36 generation
    2:12:37 is such
    2:12:37 an important
    2:12:38 factor
    2:12:38 and people
    2:12:39 know that
    2:12:40 generation is
    2:12:40 important
    2:12:41 but somehow
    2:12:44 sometimes
    2:12:45 people think
    2:12:45 that if you
    2:12:46 divide people
    2:12:46 up into
    2:12:47 economic groups
    2:12:48 you divide
    2:12:48 people up
    2:12:49 into racial
    2:12:49 or ethnic
    2:12:49 class
    2:12:50 that that
    2:12:50 groups
    2:12:51 that that
    2:12:51 somehow
    2:12:52 is more
    2:12:52 tangible
    2:12:53 but I think
    2:12:54 with things
    2:12:54 like the
    2:12:54 Hong Kong
    2:12:55 protests
    2:12:55 that there
    2:12:56 was a
    2:12:56 process
    2:12:57 of
    2:13:00 what was
    2:13:00 seen as
    2:13:01 mainlandization
    2:13:02 of Beijing
    2:13:02 just
    2:13:04 moving to
    2:13:06 make the
    2:13:06 things that
    2:13:08 were really
    2:13:08 distinctive about
    2:13:09 Hong Kong
    2:13:09 less distinctive
    2:13:10 and minimizing
    2:13:11 the differences
    2:13:14 and this
    2:13:14 process
    2:13:16 sped up
    2:13:16 dramatically
    2:13:17 after the
    2:13:17 2019
    2:13:18 protests
    2:13:18 and there
    2:13:18 was just
    2:13:19 partly with
    2:13:20 the distraction
    2:13:20 of COVID
    2:13:22 and the
    2:13:22 distraction
    2:13:22 of the
    2:13:23 world
    2:13:23 there was
    2:13:23 this
    2:13:24 imposition
    2:13:24 of this
    2:13:24 national
    2:13:25 security
    2:13:25 law
    2:13:25 that
    2:13:26 basically
    2:13:26 did away
    2:13:27 with the
    2:13:28 differences
    2:13:28 and you
    2:13:29 had some
    2:13:29 people
    2:13:30 in
    2:13:32 the city
    2:13:33 of an
    2:13:33 older
    2:13:34 generation
    2:13:34 saying
    2:13:35 why couldn’t
    2:13:35 they have
    2:13:36 just been
    2:13:36 more patient
    2:13:37 why did
    2:13:38 these protests
    2:13:39 force the
    2:13:40 hand of
    2:13:41 the people
    2:13:42 in power
    2:13:44 but I think
    2:13:46 that age
    2:13:46 has a lot
    2:13:47 to do
    2:13:47 with it
    2:13:47 that if
    2:13:48 there was
    2:13:48 this kind
    2:13:49 of gradual
    2:13:49 erosion
    2:13:50 or there
    2:13:50 was going
    2:13:50 to be
    2:13:51 this process
    2:13:52 of doing
    2:13:52 away with
    2:13:53 the things
    2:13:53 that made
    2:13:54 Hong Kong
    2:13:55 really special
    2:13:56 and that
    2:13:56 people loved
    2:13:57 passionately
    2:13:57 about it
    2:13:58 including
    2:13:59 this sort
    2:13:59 of freer
    2:14:00 press
    2:14:01 or just
    2:14:01 freer
    2:14:03 associational
    2:14:03 life
    2:14:03 and things
    2:14:04 like that
    2:14:05 if you
    2:14:05 were
    2:14:06 17
    2:14:07 in
    2:14:08 2019
    2:14:09 and people
    2:14:09 were saying
    2:14:10 by
    2:14:13 2047
    2:14:13 it will
    2:14:13 all be
    2:14:14 gone
    2:14:15 or maybe
    2:14:15 it will
    2:14:15 even
    2:14:16 all be
    2:14:16 gone
    2:14:16 in 10
    2:14:17 years
    2:14:18 then you’re
    2:14:18 talking about
    2:14:19 living most
    2:14:19 of your
    2:14:19 life
    2:14:20 in a
    2:14:20 Hong Kong
    2:14:21 that isn’t
    2:14:22 the Hong Kong
    2:14:22 you really
    2:14:23 love
    2:14:24 whereas if
    2:14:24 you were
    2:14:25 80
    2:14:26 you were
    2:14:26 like
    2:14:27 why can’t
    2:14:28 be patient
    2:14:28 and people
    2:14:29 in between
    2:14:29 had all
    2:14:30 kinds of
    2:14:30 other things
    2:14:31 this is one
    2:14:31 thing that
    2:14:32 leads to
    2:14:33 often
    2:14:34 kind of
    2:14:34 logically
    2:14:35 there’s a
    2:14:36 rationality
    2:14:37 toward younger
    2:14:38 people being
    2:14:39 more militant
    2:14:39 about certain
    2:14:40 kinds of
    2:14:40 things
    2:14:41 I think
    2:14:41 we see
    2:14:41 the same
    2:14:42 thing
    2:14:42 with
    2:14:43 climate
    2:14:43 change
    2:14:43 with
    2:14:44 climate
    2:14:44 activism
    2:14:45 you’re
    2:14:45 talking
    2:14:46 about
    2:14:46 whatever
    2:14:47 projection
    2:14:47 is of
    2:14:48 when
    2:14:48 things
    2:14:48 are
    2:14:48 going
    2:14:49 to get
    2:14:49 worse
    2:14:50 further
    2:14:50 down
    2:14:51 the
    2:14:51 younger
    2:14:51 you
    2:14:51 are
    2:14:52 the
    2:14:52 more
    2:14:52 of
    2:14:52 your
    2:14:53 life
    2:14:53 is
    2:14:53 going
    2:14:53 to
    2:14:53 live
    2:14:53 in
    2:14:54 that
    2:14:55 scenario
    2:14:55 and
    2:14:55 there’s
    2:14:55 a
    2:14:56 logic
    2:14:56 for
    2:14:57 more
    2:14:57 of
    2:14:58 that
    2:14:58 kind
    2:14:58 of
    2:15:00 impatience
    2:15:00 there’s
    2:15:01 also a
    2:15:01 sense
    2:15:01 of
    2:15:02 frustration
    2:15:03 with
    2:15:04 an
    2:15:04 older
    2:15:04 generation
    2:15:05 not
    2:15:05 having
    2:15:05 done
    2:15:06 enough
    2:15:06 to
    2:15:06 resolve
    2:15:07 issues
    2:15:08 these
    2:15:08 are
    2:15:08 things
    2:15:09 with
    2:15:10 Hong Kong
    2:15:10 with
    2:15:10 climate
    2:15:11 change
    2:15:11 with
    2:15:12 Thailand
    2:15:13 the
    2:15:13 place
    2:15:14 that I’ve
    2:15:14 been
    2:15:14 working
    2:15:14 on
    2:15:15 lately
    2:15:15 one
    2:15:15 of
    2:15:16 the
    2:15:16 slogans
    2:15:16 in
    2:15:17 2020
    2:15:17 when
    2:15:17 there
    2:15:17 was
    2:15:17 a
    2:15:18 push
    2:15:18 for
    2:15:19 democracy
    2:15:19 was
    2:15:20 let
    2:15:20 it
    2:15:20 end
    2:15:20 with
    2:15:21 this
    2:15:21 generation
    2:15:22 which
    2:15:22 again
    2:15:23 expressed
    2:15:23 this
    2:15:23 kind
    2:15:23 of
    2:15:24 sense
    2:15:24 of
    2:15:26 gradual
    2:15:27 solutions
    2:15:27 are
    2:15:28 fine
    2:15:28 but
    2:15:30 we’re
    2:15:30 carrying
    2:15:30 more
    2:15:31 of a
    2:15:31 burden
    2:15:31 of
    2:15:31 what
    2:15:32 we’re
    2:15:32 going
    2:15:32 to
    2:15:32 live
    2:15:32 with
    2:15:32 that
    2:15:34 so
    2:15:34 in
    2:15:35 2019
    2:15:35 also
    2:15:35 the
    2:15:36 protests
    2:15:36 I mean
    2:15:37 some
    2:15:37 of
    2:15:37 the
    2:15:37 things
    2:15:37 that
    2:15:37 were
    2:15:38 being
    2:15:39 chipped
    2:15:39 away
    2:15:40 at
    2:15:40 by
    2:15:40 Beijing
    2:15:41 in
    2:15:41 2012
    2:15:42 there
    2:15:42 was
    2:15:54 an
    2:15:55 protestors
    2:15:55 that
    2:15:56 year
    2:15:56 young
    2:15:56 people
    2:15:57 stood
    2:15:57 up
    2:15:57 and
    2:15:57 actually
    2:15:57 got
    2:15:58 the
    2:15:58 government
    2:15:58 to
    2:15:58 blink
    2:15:59 the
    2:15:59 local
    2:16:00 authorities
    2:16:00 back
    2:16:01 down
    2:16:01 on
    2:16:01 that
    2:16:02 bringing
    2:16:02 in
    2:16:02 mainland
    2:16:02 style
    2:16:03 education
    2:16:04 2014
    2:16:04 the
    2:16:05 protest
    2:16:05 was
    2:16:06 to
    2:16:06 try
    2:16:06 to
    2:16:06 get
    2:16:08 full
    2:16:08 voting
    2:16:08 rights
    2:16:08 for
    2:16:09 the
    2:16:09 chief
    2:16:10 executive
    2:16:11 the
    2:16:11 government
    2:16:11 didn’t
    2:16:12 blink
    2:16:12 on
    2:16:12 that
    2:16:12 that
    2:16:13 was
    2:16:13 something
    2:16:13 where
    2:16:14 they
    2:16:14 held
    2:16:14 the
    2:16:14 line
    2:16:14 it
    2:16:14 was
    2:16:16 big
    2:16:16 colorful
    2:16:17 exciting
    2:16:17 protest
    2:16:18 but
    2:16:18 in
    2:16:18 the
    2:16:19 end
    2:16:19 it
    2:16:19 hit
    2:16:20 a
    2:16:20 dead
    2:16:20 end
    2:16:22 2019
    2:16:22 there
    2:16:22 are
    2:16:22 even
    2:16:23 bigger
    2:16:23 protests
    2:16:23 and
    2:16:24 at
    2:16:24 first
    2:16:24 it
    2:16:25 seems
    2:16:27 surprising
    2:16:27 what
    2:16:27 the
    2:16:27 issue
    2:16:28 was
    2:16:28 the
    2:16:28 issue
    2:16:29 was
    2:16:29 an
    2:16:29 extradition
    2:16:30 law
    2:16:31 that
    2:16:31 would
    2:16:32 have
    2:16:32 people
    2:16:33 potentially
    2:16:33 who
    2:16:33 committed
    2:16:34 crimes
    2:16:34 in
    2:16:34 Hong
    2:16:35 Kong
    2:16:36 being
    2:16:36 tried
    2:16:37 for
    2:16:37 them
    2:16:37 if
    2:16:38 the
    2:16:38 mainland
    2:16:38 wanted
    2:16:38 them
    2:16:39 on
    2:16:39 the
    2:16:39 mainland
    2:16:40 now
    2:16:40 the
    2:16:41 difference
    2:16:41 they’re
    2:16:41 really
    2:16:42 different
    2:16:42 court
    2:16:43 systems
    2:16:43 Hong
    2:16:43 Kong
    2:16:44 never
    2:16:44 had
    2:16:45 democracy
    2:16:46 under
    2:16:46 the
    2:16:46 British
    2:16:47 but
    2:16:47 it
    2:16:47 did
    2:16:47 have
    2:16:47 a
    2:16:48 stronger
    2:16:48 rule
    2:16:48 of
    2:16:49 law
    2:16:49 and
    2:16:49 more
    2:16:50 independent
    2:16:50 courts
    2:16:51 courts
    2:16:51 that
    2:16:51 sometimes
    2:16:52 decided
    2:16:52 things
    2:16:53 that
    2:16:54 went
    2:16:54 the
    2:16:54 other
    2:16:54 way
    2:16:54 than
    2:16:55 what
    2:16:55 the
    2:16:56 government
    2:16:57 wanted
    2:16:58 and
    2:16:59 the
    2:16:59 mainland
    2:16:59 doesn’t
    2:17:00 have
    2:17:00 that
    2:17:00 kind
    2:17:00 of
    2:17:00 court
    2:17:01 system
    2:17:02 98
    2:17:02 99
    2:17:03 percent
    2:17:04 conviction
    2:17:04 rate
    2:17:05 in
    2:17:05 Hong
    2:17:05 Kong
    2:17:05 if
    2:17:06 you’re
    2:17:07 arrested
    2:17:07 even
    2:17:07 for
    2:17:09 before
    2:17:09 2020
    2:17:10 if
    2:17:10 you were
    2:17:11 arrested
    2:17:11 even
    2:17:11 under
    2:17:11 a
    2:17:12 kind
    2:17:12 of
    2:17:12 politically
    2:17:13 related
    2:17:13 charge
    2:17:13 you
    2:17:13 were
    2:17:13 out
    2:17:14 on
    2:17:14 bail
    2:17:14 and
    2:17:14 giving
    2:17:16 interviews
    2:17:16 with
    2:17:16 the
    2:17:16 press
    2:17:17 on
    2:17:17 the
    2:17:17 mainland
    2:17:17 that
    2:17:17 didn’t
    2:17:18 happen
    2:17:19 so
    2:17:19 I
    2:17:19 think
    2:17:20 in
    2:17:20 2019
    2:17:21 having
    2:17:21 even
    2:17:22 having
    2:17:22 lost
    2:17:22 the
    2:17:23 battle
    2:17:23 over
    2:17:24 voting
    2:17:26 this
    2:17:26 idea
    2:17:26 that
    2:17:27 okay
    2:17:28 we’ve
    2:17:28 really
    2:17:28 got to
    2:17:29 take a
    2:17:29 last
    2:17:29 stand
    2:17:29 to
    2:17:30 defend
    2:17:30 the
    2:17:30 rule
    2:17:30 of
    2:17:31 law
    2:17:31 and
    2:17:31 a
    2:17:31 kind
    2:17:31 of
    2:17:32 degree
    2:17:32 of
    2:17:32 separation
    2:17:32 of
    2:17:33 powers
    2:17:34 that
    2:17:34 doesn’t
    2:17:35 sound
    2:17:35 like
    2:17:35 a
    2:17:36 clearly
    2:17:37 obvious
    2:17:37 thing
    2:17:37 for
    2:17:38 slogans
    2:17:38 but
    2:17:38 it
    2:17:38 is
    2:17:39 something
    2:17:39 that
    2:17:39 I
    2:17:39 think
    2:17:39 we’ve
    2:17:40 realized
    2:17:42 in
    2:17:42 this
    2:17:42 country
    2:17:43 and
    2:17:43 in
    2:17:43 other
    2:17:43 countries
    2:17:44 as
    2:17:44 well
    2:17:44 is
    2:17:44 something
    2:17:45 that
    2:17:45 can
    2:17:46 really
    2:17:46 be
    2:17:46 definitive
    2:17:47 about
    2:17:47 where
    2:17:48 things
    2:17:48 are
    2:17:48 going
    2:17:49 politically
    2:17:49 well
    2:17:50 I
    2:17:50 should
    2:17:50 also
    2:17:50 say
    2:17:51 I
    2:17:51 mean
    2:17:51 this
    2:17:52 it’s
    2:17:52 more
    2:17:53 dramatic
    2:17:53 than
    2:17:53 it
    2:17:53 sounds
    2:17:54 with
    2:17:54 extradition
    2:17:54 because
    2:17:55 it
    2:17:55 gives
    2:17:56 power
    2:17:58 to
    2:17:58 mainland
    2:17:59 China
    2:18:00 to
    2:18:02 imprison
    2:18:02 sort of
    2:18:02 political
    2:18:03 activists
    2:18:04 and then
    2:18:05 try them
    2:18:05 in a
    2:18:05 very
    2:18:05 different
    2:18:06 way
    2:18:06 so
    2:18:06 it’s
    2:18:06 not
    2:18:06 just
    2:18:06 even
    2:18:07 a
    2:18:07 different
    2:18:07 system
    2:18:08 it
    2:18:08 gives
    2:18:09 another
    2:18:09 lever
    2:18:10 and a
    2:18:10 powerful
    2:18:10 one
    2:18:11 to
    2:18:11 punish
    2:18:12 people
    2:18:12 that
    2:18:12 speak
    2:18:13 against
    2:18:14 China
    2:18:14 and
    2:18:15 you know
    2:18:15 I
    2:18:16 mentioned
    2:18:16 the
    2:18:16 Hong
    2:18:16 Kong
    2:18:17 booksellers
    2:18:18 who
    2:18:18 were
    2:18:18 spirited
    2:18:19 over
    2:18:19 the
    2:18:19 border
    2:18:19 and
    2:18:20 one
    2:18:20 of
    2:18:20 them
    2:18:20 was
    2:18:20 still
    2:18:20 in
    2:18:21 prison
    2:18:21 for
    2:18:21 having
    2:18:22 published
    2:18:22 things
    2:18:22 in
    2:18:23 Hong
    2:18:23 Kong
    2:18:24 that
    2:18:24 it
    2:18:24 was
    2:18:24 supposed
    2:18:24 to be
    2:18:25 okay
    2:18:25 to
    2:18:25 publish
    2:18:25 in
    2:18:25 Hong
    2:18:26 Kong
    2:18:26 but
    2:18:26 not
    2:18:26 on
    2:18:26 the
    2:18:27 mainland
    2:18:27 and yet
    2:18:28 they
    2:18:28 ended up
    2:18:29 being
    2:18:29 charged
    2:18:30 so
    2:18:30 yeah
    2:18:30 there
    2:18:30 was
    2:18:30 a
    2:18:31 clear
    2:18:31 sense
    2:18:31 that
    2:18:32 if
    2:18:32 if
    2:18:34 they
    2:18:35 didn’t
    2:18:35 protest
    2:18:35 then
    2:18:36 would
    2:18:36 they
    2:18:36 be
    2:18:36 able
    2:18:36 to
    2:18:37 protest
    2:18:37 later
    2:18:38 so
    2:18:38 this
    2:18:38 was
    2:18:39 one
    2:18:39 of
    2:18:40 maybe
    2:18:40 the
    2:18:41 biggest
    2:18:41 protests
    2:18:42 in
    2:18:42 history
    2:18:43 percentage
    2:18:49 a million
    2:18:50 to two
    2:18:50 million
    2:18:50 people
    2:18:51 in the
    2:18:51 biggest
    2:18:52 protests
    2:18:52 and this
    2:18:52 is a
    2:18:53 7.5
    2:18:54 million
    2:18:55 people
    2:18:55 so if
    2:18:56 you think
    2:18:56 about what
    2:18:57 that means
    2:18:57 it’s
    2:18:59 it’s just
    2:18:59 enormous
    2:19:00 I mean
    2:19:00 yeah
    2:19:00 there
    2:19:00 were
    2:19:01 some
    2:19:01 very
    2:19:01 daring
    2:19:02 protests
    2:19:03 around
    2:19:04 that
    2:19:04 period
    2:19:04 the
    2:19:04 Hong
    2:19:05 Kong
    2:19:05 ones
    2:19:05 and
    2:19:05 the
    2:19:06 year
    2:19:06 after
    2:19:06 that
    2:19:07 there
    2:19:07 were
    2:19:08 protests
    2:19:08 in other
    2:19:08 places
    2:19:08 but
    2:19:09 protests
    2:19:09 in
    2:19:09 Belarus
    2:19:10 where
    2:19:10 again
    2:19:11 there
    2:19:11 was
    2:19:13 taking
    2:19:13 big
    2:19:14 risks
    2:19:14 but
    2:19:15 if
    2:19:15 people
    2:19:15 have
    2:19:15 a
    2:19:16 feeling
    2:19:16 that
    2:19:16 it’s
    2:19:16 a
    2:19:16 kind
    2:19:17 of
    2:19:18 last
    2:19:19 moment
    2:19:20 so
    2:19:20 yeah
    2:19:20 these
    2:19:20 were
    2:19:21 giant
    2:19:21 and
    2:19:22 the
    2:19:22 protests
    2:19:22 kept
    2:19:23 growing
    2:19:24 and
    2:19:24 I
    2:19:24 think
    2:19:25 they
    2:19:25 kept
    2:19:26 growing
    2:19:26 in
    2:19:26 part
    2:19:26 and
    2:19:26 this
    2:19:27 happens
    2:19:27 why
    2:19:28 protests
    2:19:28 grow
    2:19:30 it’s
    2:19:30 always
    2:19:30 hard
    2:19:30 to
    2:19:30 figure
    2:19:31 out
    2:19:31 but
    2:19:31 in
    2:19:32 the
    2:19:32 case
    2:19:32 of
    2:19:34 Hong
    2:19:34 Kong
    2:19:36 2019
    2:19:37 if
    2:19:38 people
    2:19:38 feel
    2:19:39 that
    2:19:39 the
    2:19:39 sort
    2:19:39 of
    2:19:40 protesters
    2:19:40 have
    2:19:40 the
    2:19:41 moral
    2:19:41 high
    2:19:42 ground
    2:19:42 in
    2:19:42 one
    2:19:42 way
    2:19:42 or
    2:19:42 another
    2:19:43 and
    2:19:43 what
    2:19:44 tipped
    2:19:44 it
    2:19:44 that
    2:19:44 way
    2:19:44 in
    2:19:44 Hong
    2:19:45 Kong
    2:19:45 I
    2:19:45 think
    2:19:45 was
    2:19:45 really
    2:19:46 that
    2:19:46 the
    2:19:47 police
    2:19:47 were
    2:19:47 using
    2:19:47 really
    2:19:48 strong
    2:19:48 armed
    2:19:49 methods
    2:19:49 and
    2:19:50 the
    2:19:50 government
    2:19:50 was
    2:19:51 never
    2:19:52 apologizing
    2:19:53 or
    2:19:53 never
    2:19:54 saying
    2:19:54 we
    2:19:54 need
    2:19:54 to
    2:19:55 investigate
    2:19:55 that
    2:19:56 and
    2:19:56 I
    2:19:56 think
    2:19:56 what
    2:19:57 really
    2:19:57 kept
    2:19:57 the
    2:19:58 protests
    2:19:58 going
    2:19:58 was
    2:19:58 they
    2:19:59 became
    2:20:00 a
    2:20:01 referendum
    2:20:02 on
    2:20:02 the
    2:20:02 right
    2:20:02 to
    2:20:03 protest
    2:20:03 itself
    2:20:05 and
    2:20:05 the
    2:20:07 what
    2:20:07 I
    2:20:07 think
    2:20:07 the
    2:20:07 government
    2:20:08 hoped
    2:20:08 and
    2:20:08 what
    2:20:09 Beijing
    2:20:09 certainly
    2:20:09 hoped
    2:20:10 was
    2:20:10 that
    2:20:10 some
    2:20:10 of
    2:20:10 the
    2:20:11 protesters
    2:20:11 would
    2:20:11 start
    2:20:12 doing
    2:20:14 militant
    2:20:15 actions
    2:20:15 violent
    2:20:15 actions
    2:20:16 that
    2:20:16 would
    2:20:16 alienate
    2:20:17 the
    2:20:17 populace
    2:20:17 from
    2:20:18 the
    2:20:18 protests
    2:20:20 and
    2:20:20 the
    2:20:20 protesters
    2:20:21 did
    2:20:21 do
    2:20:21 some
    2:20:22 of
    2:20:22 those
    2:20:22 things
    2:20:22 but
    2:20:22 they
    2:20:23 tended
    2:20:23 to
    2:20:23 attack
    2:20:24 the
    2:20:25 violence
    2:20:25 was
    2:20:25 often
    2:20:25 against
    2:20:26 property
    2:20:27 and
    2:20:27 when
    2:20:27 there
    2:20:27 were
    2:20:28 occasionally
    2:20:28 violence
    2:20:29 against
    2:20:29 people
    2:20:30 people
    2:20:30 within
    2:20:31 the
    2:20:31 movement
    2:20:31 would
    2:20:32 apologize
    2:20:32 or try
    2:20:32 to
    2:20:33 distance
    2:20:33 themselves
    2:20:33 from
    2:20:33 that
    2:20:34 meanwhile
    2:20:35 the
    2:20:35 government
    2:20:35 was
    2:20:36 never
    2:20:37 apologizing
    2:20:37 or
    2:20:37 distancing
    2:20:38 itself
    2:20:38 from
    2:20:38 the
    2:20:39 police
    2:20:40 and
    2:20:40 that
    2:20:41 created
    2:20:41 a
    2:20:42 dynamic
    2:20:42 where
    2:20:42 you
    2:20:42 had
    2:20:43 these
    2:20:43 enormous
    2:20:43 numbers
    2:20:44 of
    2:20:44 people
    2:20:44 who
    2:20:45 were
    2:20:46 previously
    2:20:46 on
    2:20:46 the
    2:20:46 fence
    2:20:46 about
    2:20:47 things
    2:20:48 turning
    2:20:48 up
    2:20:48 for
    2:20:49 these
    2:20:49 protests
    2:20:49 and
    2:20:50 leading
    2:20:50 to
    2:20:51 them
    2:20:51 being
    2:20:51 giant
    2:20:52 even
    2:20:52 people
    2:20:52 and
    2:20:53 this
    2:20:53 was
    2:20:53 a
    2:20:53 city
    2:20:53 that
    2:20:55 sometimes
    2:20:55 had
    2:20:55 the
    2:20:56 reputation
    2:20:56 misunderstood
    2:20:57 reputation
    2:20:58 as being
    2:20:58 one that
    2:20:59 where people
    2:20:59 didn’t care
    2:20:59 that much
    2:20:59 that much
    2:21:00 about
    2:21:00 politics
    2:21:00 they
    2:21:01 just
    2:21:01 focused
    2:21:01 on
    2:21:02 living
    2:21:02 a
    2:21:03 good
    2:21:03 life
    2:21:03 but
    2:21:04 there
    2:21:04 was
    2:21:04 a
    2:21:04 sense
    2:21:04 that
    2:21:05 they
    2:21:05 wouldn’t
    2:21:05 have
    2:21:06 that
    2:21:06 possibility
    2:21:07 if
    2:21:08 you
    2:21:08 had
    2:21:08 a
    2:21:08 police
    2:21:08 and
    2:21:08 the
    2:21:09 police
    2:21:09 used
    2:21:09 to
    2:21:09 be
    2:21:10 really
    2:21:10 highly
    2:21:10 respected
    2:21:11 in
    2:21:11 Hong Kong
    2:21:11 but
    2:21:11 it
    2:21:12 lost
    2:21:13 that
    2:21:14 maybe
    2:21:14 you
    2:21:14 can
    2:21:15 speak
    2:21:16 to
    2:21:16 some
    2:21:16 of
    2:21:16 the
    2:21:16 dynamics
    2:21:17 of
    2:21:17 this
    2:21:17 first
    2:21:17 of
    2:21:18 you
    2:21:18 were
    2:21:18 there
    2:21:18 in
    2:21:18 the
    2:21:19 early
    2:21:19 days
    2:21:20 as I
    2:21:20 understand
    2:21:21 how
    2:21:21 does
    2:21:22 the
    2:21:22 protest
    2:21:22 of
    2:21:23 this
    2:21:23 scale
    2:21:26 explode
    2:21:27 as it
    2:21:27 did
    2:21:28 like
    2:21:28 it
    2:21:28 starts
    2:21:29 with
    2:21:29 small
    2:21:30 groups
    2:21:30 of
    2:21:30 students
    2:21:31 of
    2:21:31 the
    2:21:31 youth
    2:21:32 like
    2:21:32 maybe
    2:21:32 you
    2:21:33 can
    2:21:33 speak
    2:21:33 to
    2:21:33 in
    2:21:33 general
    2:21:34 from
    2:21:34 all
    2:21:34 the
    2:21:34 studying
    2:21:34 of
    2:21:35 youth
    2:21:35 protests
    2:21:36 how
    2:21:37 does
    2:21:38 maybe
    2:21:40 anger
    2:21:40 maybe
    2:21:45 ideological
    2:21:46 optimism
    2:21:48 maybe
    2:21:48 the
    2:21:49 desire
    2:21:49 for
    2:21:49 revolution
    2:21:50 for
    2:21:50 better
    2:21:51 times
    2:21:52 amongst
    2:21:52 the
    2:21:52 small
    2:21:52 group
    2:21:53 of
    2:21:53 students
    2:21:53 how
    2:21:53 does
    2:21:54 that
    2:21:54 become
    2:21:54 a
    2:21:55 movement
    2:21:55 and
    2:21:55 how
    2:21:55 does
    2:21:55 that
    2:21:56 become
    2:21:56 a
    2:21:57 gigantic
    2:21:58 protest
    2:21:58 so
    2:21:59 protests
    2:21:59 were
    2:22:00 one
    2:22:00 of
    2:22:00 the
    2:22:00 things
    2:22:00 that
    2:22:03 some
    2:22:03 of
    2:22:04 the
    2:22:04 most
    2:22:05 impressive
    2:22:05 books
    2:22:05 I’ve
    2:22:05 been
    2:22:06 reading
    2:22:06 and
    2:22:07 about
    2:22:07 other
    2:22:07 places
    2:22:07 have
    2:22:08 been
    2:22:08 emphasizing
    2:22:10 is
    2:22:10 that
    2:22:12 protests
    2:22:12 are
    2:22:13 often
    2:22:13 preceded
    2:22:13 by
    2:22:14 other
    2:22:14 protests
    2:22:15 that
    2:22:16 may
    2:22:16 seem
    2:22:16 like
    2:22:16 dead
    2:22:17 ends
    2:22:17 but
    2:22:17 actually
    2:22:18 provide
    2:22:19 people
    2:22:19 with
    2:22:19 the
    2:22:19 kind
    2:22:20 of
    2:22:20 skills
    2:22:20 and
    2:22:21 scripts
    2:22:21 and
    2:22:22 repertoires
    2:22:22 to
    2:22:23 then
    2:22:24 carry
    2:22:24 out
    2:22:25 things
    2:22:25 on a
    2:22:25 larger
    2:22:26 scale
    2:22:26 after
    2:22:26 that
    2:22:27 so
    2:22:27 you
    2:22:27 often
    2:22:28 get
    2:22:30 captivated
    2:22:30 by a
    2:22:31 moment
    2:22:31 that
    2:22:31 seems to
    2:22:32 come out
    2:22:32 of
    2:22:32 nowhere
    2:22:32 but
    2:22:32 it
    2:22:33 often
    2:22:33 doesn’t
    2:22:34 it
    2:22:35 the ground
    2:22:35 has
    2:22:36 laid
    2:22:36 by
    2:22:37 it
    2:22:37 can
    2:22:37 be
    2:22:38 by
    2:22:38 an
    2:22:38 earlier
    2:22:39 generation
    2:22:39 that
    2:22:39 passes
    2:22:39 on
    2:22:39 the
    2:22:40 stories
    2:22:40 about
    2:22:40 it
    2:22:41 or
    2:22:41 it
    2:22:41 can
    2:22:41 be
    2:22:41 just
    2:22:42 a
    2:22:42 few
    2:22:42 years
    2:22:43 before
    2:22:43 and
    2:22:44 sometimes
    2:22:44 a
    2:22:45 new
    2:22:45 generation
    2:22:45 will
    2:22:46 say
    2:22:47 look
    2:22:47 at
    2:22:47 what
    2:22:47 they
    2:22:47 did
    2:22:48 that
    2:22:48 was
    2:22:48 exciting
    2:22:48 but
    2:22:48 we
    2:22:49 want
    2:22:49 to
    2:22:49 put
    2:22:49 our
    2:22:49 mark
    2:22:50 on
    2:22:50 things
    2:22:51 by
    2:22:51 this
    2:22:51 generation
    2:22:52 so
    2:22:53 in
    2:22:53 there
    2:22:53 were
    2:22:54 these
    2:22:54 1986
    2:22:55 protests
    2:22:55 that
    2:22:55 sort
    2:22:55 of
    2:22:56 fizzled
    2:22:56 out
    2:22:57 that
    2:22:57 helped
    2:22:57 lay
    2:22:57 the
    2:22:57 groundwork
    2:23:04 2014
    2:23:05 ones
    2:23:06 that
    2:23:06 laid
    2:23:06 the
    2:23:07 groundwork
    2:23:07 for
    2:23:07 2019
    2:23:08 some
    2:23:08 of
    2:23:08 the
    2:23:08 times
    2:23:08 it
    2:23:08 was
    2:23:09 the
    2:23:09 same
    2:23:10 activists
    2:23:10 out
    2:23:10 on
    2:23:10 the
    2:23:10 streets
    2:23:11 again
    2:23:11 but
    2:23:12 sometimes
    2:23:12 it
    2:23:12 was
    2:23:12 a
    2:23:12 younger
    2:23:13 generation
    2:23:13 said
    2:23:13 yeah
    2:23:14 okay
    2:23:14 but
    2:23:14 that
    2:23:15 failed
    2:23:15 so
    2:23:15 what
    2:23:15 can
    2:23:15 we
    2:23:16 do
    2:23:17 differently
    2:23:18 and
    2:23:18 we
    2:23:18 see
    2:23:19 this
    2:23:19 in
    2:23:20 cases
    2:23:20 in
    2:23:20 the
    2:23:20 US
    2:23:20 and
    2:23:21 we
    2:23:21 see
    2:23:21 it
    2:23:21 around
    2:23:21 the
    2:23:21 world
    2:23:22 of
    2:23:22 this
    2:23:22 kind
    2:23:23 of
    2:23:23 the
    2:23:25 percolating
    2:23:25 of
    2:23:25 things
    2:23:25 that
    2:23:26 happen
    2:23:26 sometimes
    2:23:26 in
    2:23:27 conversations
    2:23:27 that
    2:23:28 continue
    2:23:28 that
    2:23:28 happen
    2:23:30 and
    2:23:31 sometimes
    2:23:32 you know
    2:23:34 failures
    2:23:35 can seem
    2:23:35 like
    2:23:35 dead
    2:23:36 ends
    2:23:36 but
    2:23:36 over
    2:23:36 a
    2:23:36 long
    2:23:37 period
    2:23:37 of
    2:23:37 time
    2:23:38 we
    2:23:38 see
    2:23:38 them
    2:23:39 as
    2:23:42 succeeding
    2:23:42 and
    2:23:44 it
    2:23:44 can
    2:23:44 seem
    2:23:45 irrational
    2:23:47 to try
    2:23:47 to do
    2:23:47 something
    2:23:48 after
    2:23:49 the
    2:23:49 last
    2:23:49 three
    2:23:49 times
    2:23:50 people
    2:23:50 have
    2:23:50 tried
    2:23:50 to
    2:23:50 do
    2:23:50 it
    2:23:51 have
    2:23:51 failed
    2:23:52 but
    2:23:53 then
    2:23:53 occasionally
    2:23:54 history
    2:23:55 shows
    2:23:55 that
    2:23:55 the
    2:23:56 third
    2:23:57 time
    2:23:57 or
    2:23:57 the
    2:23:57 fifth
    2:23:57 time
    2:23:58 or
    2:23:58 the
    2:23:58 20th
    2:23:58 time
    2:24:00 actually
    2:24:00 does
    2:24:00 succeed
    2:24:01 there’s
    2:24:01 enough
    2:24:02 countervailing
    2:24:03 you know
    2:24:04 in
    2:24:04 Eastern
    2:24:04 Europe
    2:24:05 you would
    2:24:05 say
    2:24:05 like
    2:24:05 in
    2:24:06 1956
    2:24:06 there
    2:24:06 was
    2:24:07 a
    2:24:07 rising
    2:24:07 it
    2:24:07 was
    2:24:08 crushed
    2:24:08 in
    2:24:08 1968
    2:24:08 there
    2:24:08 were
    2:24:09 rising
    2:24:09 it
    2:24:09 was
    2:24:09 crushed
    2:24:11 Poland
    2:24:12 1981
    2:24:13 it’s
    2:24:13 martial
    2:24:13 law
    2:24:14 imposed
    2:24:14 in
    2:24:15 1989
    2:24:16 what
    2:24:16 were
    2:24:17 East
    2:24:17 German
    2:24:17 protesters
    2:24:18 thinking
    2:24:18 when
    2:24:18 they
    2:24:18 poured
    2:24:19 out
    2:24:19 onto
    2:24:19 the
    2:24:19 streets
    2:24:21 and
    2:24:21 then
    2:24:21 it
    2:24:21 happened
    2:24:22 and
    2:24:22 then
    2:24:23 but
    2:24:23 this
    2:24:23 time
    2:24:23 it
    2:24:24 wasn’t
    2:24:24 so
    2:24:25 I
    2:24:25 think
    2:24:26 there’s
    2:24:26 a way
    2:24:26 in
    2:24:27 which
    2:24:29 social
    2:24:30 movements
    2:24:30 are
    2:24:30 fundamentally
    2:24:31 unpredictable
    2:24:32 and
    2:24:32 there
    2:24:33 are
    2:24:33 just
    2:24:33 times
    2:24:33 when
    2:24:34 against
    2:24:34 all
    2:24:35 seeming
    2:24:35 odds
    2:24:35 something
    2:24:36 that
    2:24:36 seemed
    2:24:36 like
    2:24:36 it
    2:24:37 would
    2:24:38 be
    2:24:38 there
    2:24:38 forever
    2:24:39 just
    2:24:39 no
    2:24:39 longer
    2:24:40 is
    2:24:40 and
    2:24:40 and
    2:24:40 that
    2:24:41 case
    2:24:41 you
    2:24:41 make
    2:24:41 for
    2:24:42 when
    2:24:43 the
    2:24:43 odds
    2:24:44 seem
    2:24:45 impossible
    2:24:47 it’s
    2:24:47 still
    2:24:48 worthwhile
    2:24:49 you
    2:24:50 know
    2:24:50 it
    2:24:51 doesn’t
    2:24:52 mean
    2:24:52 that
    2:24:52 it
    2:24:52 will
    2:24:53 work
    2:24:54 it
    2:24:54 doesn’t
    2:24:54 mean
    2:24:54 it
    2:24:54 will
    2:24:55 work
    2:24:55 but
    2:24:55 I
    2:24:55 think
    2:24:56 history
    2:24:56 has
    2:24:56 enough
    2:24:57 examples
    2:24:58 of
    2:24:58 things
    2:24:58 that
    2:24:59 you
    2:24:59 thought
    2:25:00 I
    2:25:00 mean
    2:25:00 this
    2:25:00 is
    2:25:01 you
    2:25:01 know
    2:25:01 it
    2:25:03 explains
    2:25:03 why
    2:25:03 certain
    2:25:04 figures
    2:25:05 are
    2:25:05 so
    2:25:06 inspirational
    2:25:07 for
    2:25:07 generations
    2:25:08 of
    2:25:08 activists
    2:25:08 that
    2:25:09 you
    2:25:09 know
    2:25:09 people
    2:25:09 read
    2:25:10 there’s
    2:25:10 a
    2:25:10 reason
    2:25:11 why
    2:25:11 people
    2:25:11 talk
    2:25:11 about
    2:25:12 Vaclav
    2:25:12 Havel
    2:25:13 whereas
    2:25:14 if
    2:25:14 Vaclav
    2:25:14 Havel
    2:25:14 had
    2:25:15 died
    2:25:15 in
    2:25:16 1988
    2:25:18 people
    2:25:18 would
    2:25:18 have
    2:25:18 said
    2:25:19 oh
    2:25:20 maybe
    2:25:20 he
    2:25:20 was
    2:25:20 maybe
    2:25:20 he
    2:25:21 was
    2:25:21 a
    2:25:21 great
    2:25:21 writer
    2:25:22 but
    2:25:22 his
    2:25:23 political
    2:25:24 project
    2:25:24 he
    2:25:24 didn’t
    2:25:25 live
    2:25:25 to
    2:25:25 see
    2:25:27 come
    2:25:27 but
    2:25:27 then
    2:25:27 he
    2:25:27 lives
    2:25:28 to
    2:25:28 89
    2:25:28 and
    2:25:29 becomes
    2:25:29 you
    2:25:29 know
    2:25:30 against
    2:25:31 all
    2:25:31 expectations
    2:25:32 so
    2:25:33 Rebecca
    2:25:34 Solnit
    2:25:34 he’s
    2:25:34 got a
    2:25:34 new
    2:25:34 book
    2:25:35 No
    2:25:35 Straight
    2:25:36 Road
    2:25:36 Takes
    2:25:36 You
    2:25:36 There
    2:25:37 Essays
    2:25:37 for
    2:25:38 Uneven
    2:25:38 Terrain
    2:25:40 and
    2:25:40 she’s
    2:25:41 talking
    2:25:41 about
    2:25:42 taking
    2:25:42 a
    2:25:43 longer
    2:25:43 view
    2:25:44 of
    2:25:44 some
    2:25:44 struggles
    2:25:45 that
    2:25:45 seem
    2:25:47 that
    2:25:49 achieve
    2:25:50 things
    2:25:50 after
    2:25:51 the
    2:25:51 point
    2:25:51 when
    2:25:51 people
    2:25:52 might
    2:25:52 have
    2:25:52 imagined
    2:25:52 that
    2:25:53 they
    2:25:53 had
    2:25:53 run
    2:25:53 into
    2:25:53 dead
    2:25:54 ends
    2:25:55 and
    2:25:55 she’s
    2:25:56 talking
    2:25:56 about
    2:25:57 keeping
    2:25:57 your
    2:25:57 eye
    2:25:57 on
    2:25:57 the
    2:25:58 gains
    2:25:58 that
    2:25:58 happen
    2:25:59 even
    2:26:01 incrementally
    2:26:02 and the
    2:26:02 ways in
    2:26:03 which
    2:26:04 the need
    2:26:04 to take
    2:26:05 a longer
    2:26:05 term
    2:26:06 perspective
    2:26:06 on some
    2:26:07 of these
    2:26:07 things
    2:26:07 and I
    2:26:07 think
    2:26:09 it’s
    2:26:10 a strange
    2:26:11 thing
    2:26:11 because
    2:26:11 there’s
    2:26:11 also
    2:26:12 often
    2:26:12 an
    2:26:12 impatience
    2:26:13 in
    2:26:13 movements
    2:26:13 of
    2:26:14 people
    2:26:14 wanting
    2:26:15 immediate
    2:26:16 results
    2:26:16 but
    2:26:16 as a
    2:26:17 historian
    2:26:17 looking
    2:26:18 at
    2:26:20 situations
    2:26:20 I’ve
    2:26:21 mentioned
    2:26:21 Eastern
    2:26:22 Europe
    2:26:22 and
    2:26:22 Central
    2:26:23 Europe
    2:26:25 Taiwan
    2:26:26 was a
    2:26:27 right-wing
    2:26:28 dictatorship
    2:26:28 under
    2:26:29 sort of
    2:26:30 a version
    2:26:30 of martial
    2:26:30 law
    2:26:31 for decades
    2:26:32 and at
    2:26:33 each
    2:26:34 stage
    2:26:34 it would
    2:26:34 seem
    2:26:35 that
    2:26:35 people
    2:26:36 struggling
    2:26:36 to
    2:26:37 change
    2:26:37 it
    2:26:39 were
    2:26:40 on a
    2:26:40 quixotic
    2:26:41 impossible
    2:26:42 kind of
    2:26:43 mission
    2:26:43 or South
    2:26:44 Korea
    2:26:44 was in
    2:26:44 a similar
    2:26:45 situation
    2:26:46 and then
    2:26:47 in the
    2:26:47 late
    2:26:48 1980s
    2:26:48 you start
    2:26:48 to have
    2:26:49 those
    2:26:49 things
    2:26:49 unravel
    2:26:50 and it’s
    2:26:51 partly
    2:26:51 because
    2:26:52 of a
    2:26:52 kind
    2:26:52 of
    2:26:54 steady
    2:26:55 resistance
    2:26:55 it’s
    2:26:55 partly
    2:26:56 because
    2:26:56 something
    2:26:56 in the
    2:26:56 world
    2:26:57 changes
    2:26:58 but
    2:26:58 there’s
    2:26:58 often
    2:26:58 a
    2:26:59 combination
    2:27:00 of
    2:27:01 those
    2:27:01 things
    2:27:01 so
    2:27:02 I’m
    2:27:02 interested
    2:27:02 in
    2:27:03 that
    2:27:03 whole
    2:27:04 you know
    2:27:04 we
    2:27:05 know
    2:27:05 that
    2:27:05 what
    2:27:06 happened
    2:27:07 in
    2:27:07 Hong
    2:27:08 Kong
    2:27:09 in the
    2:27:09 short
    2:27:09 run
    2:27:10 didn’t
    2:27:11 work
    2:27:11 and I
    2:27:11 don’t
    2:27:12 see a
    2:27:12 way
    2:27:12 in which
    2:27:12 the
    2:27:12 national
    2:27:13 security
    2:27:13 law
    2:27:13 is
    2:27:14 reversed
    2:27:14 or anything
    2:27:14 like
    2:27:15 that
    2:27:16 but
    2:27:17 that
    2:27:18 doesn’t
    2:27:18 mean
    2:27:18 that
    2:27:20 it
    2:27:20 was
    2:27:22 a
    2:27:22 completely
    2:27:23 impossible
    2:27:24 effort
    2:27:24 even
    2:27:25 though
    2:27:25 we
    2:27:25 know
    2:27:26 the
    2:27:26 result
    2:27:26 in
    2:27:26 that
    2:27:27 case
    2:27:27 was
    2:27:29 to
    2:27:29 have
    2:27:29 this
    2:27:30 failure
    2:27:30 so
    2:27:31 the
    2:27:31 protests
    2:27:31 are
    2:27:32 generally
    2:27:33 worthwhile
    2:27:34 I mean
    2:27:34 they
    2:27:34 do
    2:27:35 give
    2:27:37 as
    2:27:37 I
    2:27:37 look
    2:27:37 at
    2:27:38 the
    2:27:38 description
    2:27:38 of
    2:27:38 the
    2:27:39 migratory
    2:27:39 routes
    2:27:40 ideas
    2:27:40 take
    2:27:42 they
    2:27:42 do
    2:27:43 seed
    2:27:43 ideas
    2:27:43 in
    2:27:43 the
    2:27:44 minds
    2:27:44 of
    2:27:45 people
    2:27:46 and
    2:27:46 then
    2:27:46 they
    2:27:46 live
    2:27:47 with
    2:27:47 those
    2:27:47 ideas
    2:27:47 and
    2:27:48 they
    2:27:48 share
    2:27:48 those
    2:27:49 ideas
    2:27:49 they
    2:27:49 deliberate
    2:27:50 through
    2:27:50 those
    2:27:50 ideas
    2:27:51 they
    2:27:52 might
    2:27:52 travel
    2:27:52 to
    2:27:53 different
    2:27:53 places
    2:27:53 of
    2:27:53 the
    2:27:53 world
    2:27:54 and
    2:27:54 then
    2:27:54 those
    2:27:54 ideas
    2:27:55 return
    2:27:56 and
    2:27:57 rise
    2:27:57 up
    2:27:57 again
    2:27:57 and
    2:27:57 again
    2:27:58 and
    2:27:58 again
    2:27:59 there’s
    2:28:00 two
    2:28:00 parts
    2:28:00 of
    2:28:00 the
    2:28:00 world
    2:28:00 that
    2:28:01 I
    2:28:01 think
    2:28:01 are
    2:28:02 fascinating
    2:28:04 and
    2:28:05 unpredictable
    2:28:06 so
    2:28:06 one
    2:28:06 is
    2:28:07 Iran
    2:28:08 which
    2:28:09 the
    2:28:09 trajectory
    2:28:10 that
    2:28:10 place
    2:28:11 takes
    2:28:13 might
    2:28:13 have
    2:28:13 a
    2:28:13 complete
    2:28:14 transformative
    2:28:14 effect
    2:28:15 on the
    2:28:15 Middle
    2:28:15 East
    2:28:16 and
    2:28:16 then
    2:28:16 the
    2:28:16 other
    2:28:17 one
    2:28:17 is
    2:28:17 China
    2:28:18 with
    2:28:18 the
    2:28:19 protests
    2:28:19 whether
    2:28:19 it’s
    2:28:20 in
    2:28:20 Taiwan
    2:28:20 or
    2:28:20 Hong
    2:28:21 Kong
    2:28:22 or
    2:28:22 maybe
    2:28:23 other
    2:28:24 influential
    2:28:25 parts
    2:28:25 of
    2:28:26 China
    2:28:27 those
    2:28:28 ideas
    2:28:28 percolating
    2:28:28 up
    2:28:29 and
    2:28:29 up
    2:28:30 again
    2:28:31 might
    2:28:31 have
    2:28:31 a
    2:28:31 completely
    2:28:32 transformative
    2:28:32 effect
    2:28:33 on the
    2:28:33 world
    2:28:34 so
    2:28:34 maybe
    2:28:34 this
    2:28:34 is
    2:28:35 another
    2:28:35 case
    2:28:35 where
    2:28:36 the
    2:28:37 Chinese
    2:28:38 Communist
    2:28:38 Party
    2:28:38 people
    2:28:39 leaders
    2:28:39 in the
    2:28:40 Chinese
    2:28:40 Communist
    2:28:40 Party
    2:28:41 they
    2:28:41 do
    2:28:41 know
    2:28:41 about
    2:28:41 history
    2:28:42 and
    2:28:42 they
    2:28:42 care
    2:28:42 about
    2:28:43 history
    2:28:43 and
    2:28:44 one
    2:28:44 history
    2:28:44 they
    2:28:45 know
    2:28:45 is
    2:28:45 the
    2:28:45 Chinese
    2:28:46 Communist
    2:28:46 Party
    2:28:46 was
    2:28:46 almost
    2:28:47 destroyed
    2:28:48 in
    2:28:49 1927
    2:28:50 I
    2:28:50 mean
    2:28:50 it
    2:28:50 was
    2:28:51 if
    2:28:51 you
    2:28:51 were
    2:28:52 taking
    2:28:53 odds
    2:28:53 on
    2:28:53 what
    2:28:53 are
    2:28:53 the
    2:28:54 chances
    2:28:54 that
    2:28:54 this
    2:28:55 ragtag
    2:28:55 sort
    2:28:55 of
    2:28:56 group
    2:28:56 that’s
    2:28:56 being
    2:28:57 pursued
    2:28:58 by
    2:28:59 Chiang Kai
    2:28:59 Shek
    2:28:59 to try
    2:28:59 to
    2:29:00 determine
    2:29:00 and
    2:29:00 yet
    2:29:02 over
    2:29:03 time
    2:29:03 they
    2:29:03 somehow
    2:29:04 manage
    2:29:04 to
    2:29:05 ride
    2:29:05 it
    2:29:05 out
    2:29:05 and
    2:29:06 eventually
    2:29:07 come
    2:29:07 to
    2:29:07 power
    2:29:08 there’s
    2:29:08 there’s
    2:29:08 an
    2:29:09 awareness
    2:29:09 of
    2:29:10 the
    2:29:11 ways
    2:29:11 in
    2:29:11 which
    2:29:12 the
    2:29:12 seemingly
    2:29:13 impossible
    2:29:13 can
    2:29:14 happen
    2:29:14 it
    2:29:14 doesn’t
    2:29:14 mean
    2:29:14 it
    2:29:15 will
    2:29:15 I
    2:29:15 mean
    2:29:15 this
    2:29:15 is
    2:29:16 why
    2:29:16 I
    2:29:16 think
    2:29:17 you
    2:29:17 know
    2:29:17 it’s
    2:29:18 and
    2:29:19 one
    2:29:19 of
    2:29:19 the
    2:29:19 really
    2:29:20 kind
    2:29:20 of
    2:29:21 tragic
    2:29:21 or
    2:29:21 heart
    2:29:22 rending
    2:29:22 things
    2:29:22 is
    2:29:22 you
    2:29:23 can
    2:29:23 have
    2:29:24 situations
    2:29:24 in
    2:29:24 which
    2:29:27 movements
    2:29:28 that
    2:29:29 seem
    2:29:29 to be
    2:29:29 pursuing
    2:29:30 an
    2:29:31 impossible
    2:29:32 end
    2:29:33 result
    2:29:33 they
    2:29:34 achieve
    2:29:34 that
    2:29:34 result
    2:29:35 and
    2:29:36 then
    2:29:36 after
    2:29:36 another
    2:29:37 period
    2:29:38 the
    2:29:38 country
    2:29:38 goes
    2:29:39 into
    2:29:39 another
    2:29:40 really
    2:29:41 difficult
    2:29:41 period
    2:29:42 or
    2:29:42 it
    2:29:43 seems
    2:29:43 that
    2:29:43 the
    2:29:44 successes
    2:29:45 are being
    2:29:45 rolled
    2:29:46 back
    2:29:46 and
    2:29:48 my
    2:29:48 new
    2:29:48 milk
    2:29:48 tea
    2:29:49 alliance
    2:29:49 book
    2:29:49 that
    2:29:50 I’ve
    2:29:50 just
    2:29:50 written
    2:29:51 dedicated
    2:29:51 to
    2:29:51 two
    2:29:52 people
    2:29:52 who’ve
    2:29:52 lived
    2:29:53 through
    2:29:53 a
    2:29:54 variety
    2:29:54 of
    2:29:54 these
    2:29:55 things
    2:29:55 one
    2:29:56 is
    2:29:56 a
    2:29:56 Burmese
    2:29:57 activist
    2:29:57 who
    2:29:57 was
    2:29:58 involved
    2:29:58 in
    2:29:58 a
    2:29:59 failed
    2:29:59 uprising
    2:29:59 in
    2:30:00 1988
    2:30:01 he
    2:30:02 then
    2:30:02 was
    2:30:02 an
    2:30:03 exile
    2:30:03 who
    2:30:03 didn’t
    2:30:04 know
    2:30:04 whether
    2:30:04 he
    2:30:04 could
    2:30:05 ever
    2:30:05 see
    2:30:06 his
    2:30:07 brothers
    2:30:07 who
    2:30:07 he
    2:30:08 loves
    2:30:08 back
    2:30:08 in
    2:30:09 Burma
    2:30:09 and
    2:30:10 then
    2:30:10 something
    2:30:10 magical
    2:30:11 kind
    2:30:11 of
    2:30:11 changed
    2:30:12 and
    2:30:12 in
    2:30:12 the
    2:30:13 2010s
    2:30:13 it
    2:30:17 turned
    2:30:17 out
    2:30:17 to
    2:30:17 be
    2:30:17 a
    2:30:17 false
    2:30:17 dawn
    2:30:18 he
    2:30:18 was
    2:30:18 able
    2:30:18 to
    2:30:18 go
    2:30:19 back
    2:30:20 and
    2:30:20 then
    2:30:21 and
    2:30:21 now
    2:30:21 he’s
    2:30:22 again
    2:30:22 when
    2:30:22 there’s
    2:30:22 been
    2:30:23 a
    2:30:23 coup
    2:30:23 and
    2:30:24 a
    2:30:25 crackdown
    2:30:25 he’s
    2:30:25 now
    2:30:25 again
    2:30:26 cut
    2:30:26 off
    2:30:27 and
    2:30:27 at
    2:30:27 one
    2:30:28 point
    2:30:28 I
    2:30:28 was
    2:30:29 asking
    2:30:29 him
    2:30:29 about
    2:30:30 his
    2:30:30 you
    2:30:30 know
    2:30:30 how
    2:30:30 he
    2:30:31 feels
    2:30:31 about
    2:30:31 this
    2:30:31 when
    2:30:31 he’s
    2:30:32 still
    2:30:32 trying
    2:30:32 to
    2:30:33 sort
    2:30:33 of
    2:30:34 raise
    2:30:34 awareness
    2:30:35 globally
    2:30:35 about
    2:30:35 what’s
    2:30:35 happening
    2:30:36 in
    2:30:36 me
    2:30:36 Marnie
    2:30:36 said
    2:30:38 I
    2:30:38 feel
    2:30:39 helpless
    2:30:39 but
    2:30:39 not
    2:30:40 hopeless
    2:30:40 I
    2:30:41 think
    2:30:41 how
    2:30:41 does
    2:30:42 somebody
    2:30:42 maintain
    2:30:42 hope
    2:30:42 in
    2:30:43 that
    2:30:43 and
    2:30:43 the
    2:30:44 other
    2:30:44 person
    2:30:44 I
    2:30:45 dedicated
    2:30:45 to
    2:30:47 as
    2:30:47 a
    2:30:47 Hungarian
    2:30:48 friend
    2:30:48 of
    2:30:48 mine
    2:30:49 who
    2:30:49 was
    2:30:49 an
    2:30:50 activist
    2:30:50 before
    2:30:51 89
    2:30:52 and
    2:30:52 saw
    2:30:53 the
    2:30:54 this
    2:30:57 communist
    2:30:57 party
    2:30:58 rule
    2:30:58 ending
    2:30:59 he
    2:30:59 was
    2:30:59 part
    2:31:00 of
    2:31:00 the
    2:31:00 process
    2:31:00 that
    2:31:01 came
    2:31:01 and
    2:31:01 he
    2:31:01 was
    2:31:02 friends
    2:31:02 with
    2:31:02 Havel
    2:31:02 and
    2:31:03 Havel
    2:31:04 Poland’s
    2:31:05 changing
    2:31:05 and all
    2:31:06 of this
    2:31:06 exhilarating
    2:31:07 moment
    2:31:08 but ends
    2:31:09 up being
    2:31:09 a critic
    2:31:10 of
    2:31:10 Orban
    2:31:11 and following
    2:31:12 a tightening
    2:31:13 of
    2:31:13 control
    2:31:13 of
    2:31:14 rolling
    2:31:15 back
    2:31:15 of many
    2:31:15 of the
    2:31:16 things
    2:31:17 that
    2:31:17 were
    2:31:18 victorious
    2:31:18 then
    2:31:18 but
    2:31:19 this
    2:31:19 kind
    2:31:20 of
    2:31:21 the
    2:31:22 no
    2:31:22 straight
    2:31:23 road
    2:31:23 you know
    2:31:23 that
    2:31:24 actually
    2:31:25 there’s
    2:31:26 something
    2:31:26 about
    2:31:28 it’s
    2:31:28 it can
    2:31:28 be
    2:31:30 disquieting
    2:31:30 when
    2:31:30 these
    2:31:32 unexpected
    2:31:32 things
    2:31:33 are
    2:31:33 blows
    2:31:34 to
    2:31:34 what
    2:31:34 you
    2:31:34 where
    2:31:35 you
    2:31:35 thought
    2:31:35 his
    2:31:36 direction
    2:31:36 history
    2:31:36 was
    2:31:37 going
    2:31:37 but
    2:31:38 history
    2:31:38 shows
    2:31:38 you
    2:31:38 that
    2:31:39 history
    2:31:39 doesn’t
    2:31:39 have
    2:31:40 a
    2:31:40 direction
    2:31:41 that’s
    2:31:41 not
    2:31:42 there
    2:31:42 isn’t
    2:31:43 a
    2:31:43 straight
    2:31:43 road
    2:31:44 yeah
    2:31:44 and
    2:31:44 there’s
    2:31:45 you know
    2:31:46 the
    2:31:47 idealism
    2:31:47 of
    2:31:48 youth
    2:31:48 can
    2:31:48 lead
    2:31:49 to
    2:31:49 things
    2:31:49 like
    2:31:50 the
    2:31:50 Russian
    2:31:51 revolution
    2:31:51 and
    2:31:51 then
    2:31:52 you
    2:31:52 get
    2:31:52 Stalin
    2:31:53 with
    2:31:53 Hall
    2:31:53 more
    2:31:53 and
    2:31:53 the
    2:31:54 purges
    2:31:54 and
    2:31:55 all
    2:31:55 of that
    2:31:56 entailed
    2:31:57 so
    2:31:57 a
    2:31:58 successful
    2:31:59 protest
    2:31:59 and a
    2:32:00 successful
    2:32:01 revolution
    2:32:02 might
    2:32:04 have
    2:32:04 unintended
    2:32:05 consequences
    2:32:06 that
    2:32:07 far
    2:32:07 overshadow
    2:32:08 whatever
    2:32:08 ideals
    2:32:09 and dreams
    2:32:09 you had
    2:32:10 fighting for
    2:32:10 the working
    2:32:11 class
    2:32:11 whatever it
    2:32:12 was
    2:32:12 in that
    2:32:13 particular
    2:32:13 case
    2:32:14 that can
    2:32:14 cause
    2:32:15 immeasurable
    2:32:15 suffering
    2:32:17 so
    2:32:18 there is
    2:32:18 no
    2:32:19 direction
    2:32:19 to
    2:32:19 history
    2:32:20 there’s
    2:32:20 just
    2:32:20 some
    2:32:21 lessons
    2:32:21 we pick
    2:32:21 up
    2:32:22 along
    2:32:22 the
    2:32:22 way
    2:32:22 we
    2:32:22 try
    2:32:23 to
    2:32:24 hopefully
    2:32:25 try
    2:32:26 to
    2:32:27 help
    2:32:27 humanity
    2:32:28 flourish
    2:32:29 and we
    2:32:29 barely know
    2:32:30 what we’re
    2:32:30 doing
    2:32:30 and now
    2:32:31 we have
    2:32:31 nuclear
    2:32:31 weapons
    2:32:32 and some
    2:32:33 of it
    2:32:33 is also
    2:32:34 though
    2:32:34 people
    2:32:35 sometimes
    2:32:36 the people
    2:32:36 who I
    2:32:37 find
    2:32:37 really
    2:32:38 admirable
    2:32:40 it’s not
    2:32:40 about
    2:32:41 trying to
    2:32:41 create
    2:32:42 totalistic
    2:32:43 change
    2:32:43 but they
    2:32:44 focus on
    2:32:44 trying to
    2:32:45 do what
    2:32:45 they can
    2:32:47 for the
    2:32:48 things they
    2:32:48 believe in
    2:32:48 within
    2:32:49 constrained
    2:32:51 circumstances
    2:32:52 and in
    2:32:53 Thailand
    2:32:53 they’ve
    2:32:53 sort of
    2:32:54 hit a
    2:32:55 roadblock
    2:32:55 now
    2:32:56 again
    2:32:56 over
    2:32:56 kind of
    2:32:57 trying to
    2:32:57 bring about
    2:32:57 electoral
    2:32:58 change
    2:32:59 a party
    2:33:00 that did
    2:33:00 really
    2:33:00 well
    2:33:01 was then
    2:33:01 disqualified
    2:33:02 and
    2:33:03 some of
    2:33:03 the activists
    2:33:04 I know
    2:33:04 are focusing
    2:33:05 on
    2:33:07 local
    2:33:07 efforts
    2:33:08 to improve
    2:33:08 a neighborhood
    2:33:09 to keep
    2:33:09 a neighborhood
    2:33:10 from
    2:33:10 suffering
    2:33:11 from a
    2:33:11 kind of
    2:33:12 unthinking
    2:33:12 gentrification
    2:33:13 they’re thinking
    2:33:14 small
    2:33:15 they’re thinking
    2:33:15 sometimes
    2:33:16 about just
    2:33:17 what can
    2:33:17 we do
    2:33:18 to improve
    2:33:19 the life
    2:33:20 of people
    2:33:21 within
    2:33:22 how can
    2:33:22 we build
    2:33:23 how can
    2:33:24 we contribute
    2:33:25 to the
    2:33:26 kinds of
    2:33:27 social groups
    2:33:27 that
    2:33:29 might
    2:33:30 make some
    2:33:30 kind of
    2:33:31 incremental
    2:33:32 improvement
    2:33:33 to being
    2:33:33 the kind
    2:33:33 of
    2:33:34 world
    2:33:34 that we
    2:33:35 want to
    2:33:35 live in
    2:33:36 people do
    2:33:37 that on
    2:33:37 in all
    2:33:38 kinds of
    2:33:39 all kinds
    2:33:39 of ways
    2:33:41 what kind
    2:33:42 of parallels
    2:33:42 can we draw
    2:33:43 between Taiwan
    2:33:43 and Hong
    2:33:44 Kong
    2:33:45 what do
    2:33:45 you think
    2:33:45 the people
    2:33:46 of Taiwan
    2:33:47 are thinking
    2:33:49 looking at
    2:33:49 Hong Kong
    2:33:51 well I
    2:33:51 think
    2:33:52 I think
    2:33:52 the way
    2:33:53 that
    2:33:54 things
    2:33:54 developed
    2:33:55 in Hong Kong
    2:33:55 have
    2:33:56 undermined
    2:33:57 the kind
    2:33:58 of trust
    2:33:59 in any
    2:33:59 kind of
    2:34:00 story
    2:34:00 coming out
    2:34:00 of Beijing
    2:34:01 that
    2:34:03 that there’s
    2:34:04 a place
    2:34:05 within
    2:34:06 sort of
    2:34:06 Xi Jinping’s
    2:34:07 version at least
    2:34:07 of the People’s
    2:34:08 Republic of China
    2:34:09 for a place
    2:34:11 where people
    2:34:11 live very
    2:34:12 different kinds
    2:34:12 of lives
    2:34:13 and I think
    2:34:14 a lot of
    2:34:14 people in
    2:34:15 Taiwan
    2:34:15 think of them
    2:34:16 feel they’re
    2:34:17 living a very
    2:34:17 different kind
    2:34:17 of life
    2:34:19 than on the
    2:34:19 mainland
    2:34:19 so in
    2:34:20 that way
    2:34:21 I think
    2:34:22 Hong Kong
    2:34:22 was an
    2:34:23 important
    2:34:26 example
    2:34:26 that way
    2:34:27 and there
    2:34:28 were connections
    2:34:28 between
    2:34:29 there was a
    2:34:30 Taiwan protest
    2:34:31 in 2014
    2:34:33 before the
    2:34:33 big protests
    2:34:34 in Hong Kong
    2:34:35 by people
    2:34:36 who were
    2:34:37 young people
    2:34:37 who felt
    2:34:38 the government
    2:34:39 then was
    2:34:40 moving toward
    2:34:41 too much
    2:34:42 toward working
    2:34:43 together with
    2:34:43 Beijing
    2:34:44 so there
    2:34:44 is
    2:34:45 they’ve
    2:34:45 been
    2:34:45 interconnected
    2:34:46 stories
    2:34:47 and I
    2:34:47 think we
    2:34:48 sometimes
    2:34:49 miss how
    2:34:51 people within
    2:34:51 a region
    2:34:52 are looking
    2:34:53 at what
    2:34:54 other people
    2:34:54 in the region
    2:34:54 are doing
    2:34:55 and are
    2:34:55 taking
    2:34:57 clues from
    2:34:57 it
    2:34:58 about
    2:34:58 sort of
    2:34:59 how to
    2:35:01 how to
    2:35:01 agitate
    2:35:01 for the
    2:35:02 things they
    2:35:02 care about
    2:35:03 what the
    2:35:04 risks are
    2:35:05 what the
    2:35:05 dangers
    2:35:05 are
    2:35:07 autocrats
    2:35:07 within
    2:35:07 different
    2:35:08 parts of
    2:35:08 a region
    2:35:08 are looking
    2:35:09 at each
    2:35:09 other too
    2:35:10 as well
    2:35:10 as globally
    2:35:12 in part
    2:35:12 because
    2:35:12 there’s
    2:35:12 a great
    2:35:13 dependence
    2:35:13 in the
    2:35:13 United
    2:35:14 States
    2:35:15 on TSMC
    2:35:16 and in
    2:35:16 that way
    2:35:17 on Taiwan
    2:35:17 for different
    2:35:18 supply chains
    2:35:19 for electronics
    2:35:20 for semiconductors
    2:35:21 for a lot
    2:35:22 of our
    2:35:22 economy
    2:35:24 there’s been
    2:35:25 a lot of
    2:35:25 nervousness
    2:35:26 about Taiwan
    2:35:28 what are
    2:35:28 the chances
    2:35:31 that there
    2:35:31 is some
    2:35:32 brewing
    2:35:32 military
    2:35:33 conflict
    2:35:33 over this
    2:35:33 question
    2:35:34 of Taiwan
    2:35:35 in the
    2:35:36 coming decades
    2:35:36 and how
    2:35:37 can we
    2:35:38 avoid it
    2:35:40 it’s a
    2:35:40 it’s one
    2:35:40 of these
    2:35:41 really
    2:35:41 worrisome
    2:35:43 issues
    2:35:43 that there
    2:35:44 isn’t a
    2:35:44 there isn’t
    2:35:45 an easy
    2:35:46 I think
    2:35:46 any
    2:35:47 I think
    2:35:47 experts
    2:35:47 who
    2:35:49 tell you
    2:35:50 they know
    2:35:50 what
    2:35:51 X Y
    2:35:52 and Z
    2:35:52 about this
    2:35:52 is
    2:35:53 are
    2:35:54 deluding
    2:35:55 themselves
    2:35:55 probably
    2:35:56 there’s
    2:35:56 so many
    2:35:57 variables
    2:35:57 maybe you
    2:35:58 could just
    2:35:59 elaborate
    2:35:59 the possible
    2:36:01 possible
    2:36:01 clues
    2:36:02 we have
    2:36:03 so
    2:36:04 with
    2:36:04 talking
    2:36:04 to people
    2:36:06 in Taiwan
    2:36:06 and from
    2:36:07 Taiwan
    2:36:08 there are
    2:36:08 a couple
    2:36:08 things
    2:36:09 that are
    2:36:11 clear
    2:36:11 one is
    2:36:12 that
    2:36:13 daily
    2:36:13 life
    2:36:14 in
    2:36:14 Taiwan
    2:36:14 is
    2:36:15 not
    2:36:16 people
    2:36:16 waking
    2:36:16 up
    2:36:16 each
    2:36:17 morning
    2:36:18 living
    2:36:18 their
    2:36:18 life
    2:36:19 based
    2:36:19 on
    2:36:19 the
    2:36:19 fact
    2:36:20 that
    2:36:20 there’s
    2:36:20 in
    2:36:21 such
    2:36:21 a
    2:36:21 perilous
    2:36:23 kind
    2:36:23 of
    2:36:23 predicament
    2:36:23 that
    2:36:25 it’s
    2:36:25 life
    2:36:26 goes
    2:36:26 on
    2:36:26 and
    2:36:26 a lot
    2:36:26 of
    2:36:27 people
    2:36:30 feel
    2:36:30 very
    2:36:31 fortunate
    2:36:32 to be
    2:36:32 in
    2:36:32 Taiwan
    2:36:33 you
    2:36:33 know
    2:36:33 there
    2:36:33 are
    2:36:33 many
    2:36:34 reasons
    2:36:34 why
    2:36:34 it
    2:36:35 seems
    2:36:35 like
    2:36:36 a
    2:36:36 great
    2:36:37 place
    2:36:38 to
    2:36:38 live
    2:36:39 in
    2:36:39 many
    2:36:39 ways
    2:36:40 so
    2:36:40 even
    2:36:40 though
    2:36:41 this
    2:36:41 is
    2:36:41 hanging
    2:36:41 but
    2:36:42 at the
    2:36:42 same
    2:36:43 time
    2:36:44 there
    2:36:44 is
    2:36:44 an
    2:36:45 awareness
    2:36:46 of
    2:36:47 things
    2:36:47 that
    2:36:48 increase
    2:36:49 precariousness
    2:36:51 and
    2:36:51 there
    2:36:51 was
    2:36:52 a lot
    2:36:52 of
    2:36:53 concern
    2:36:54 with
    2:36:54 the
    2:36:55 invasion
    2:36:55 of
    2:36:56 Ukraine
    2:36:57 and
    2:36:58 watching
    2:36:58 how
    2:37:01 the
    2:37:01 response
    2:37:01 to
    2:37:02 that
    2:37:02 was
    2:37:22 and
    2:37:23 a
    2:37:24 western
    2:37:25 NATO
    2:37:26 including
    2:37:26 the
    2:37:26 United
    2:37:27 States
    2:37:27 response
    2:37:28 and
    2:37:29 then
    2:37:29 there’s
    2:37:29 a
    2:37:30 concern
    2:37:32 about
    2:37:35 the
    2:37:35 Trump
    2:37:35 presidency
    2:37:36 because
    2:37:36 of
    2:37:37 Ukraine
    2:37:38 at
    2:37:38 the
    2:37:38 same
    2:37:38 time
    2:37:39 there
    2:37:39 are
    2:37:39 mixed
    2:37:40 signals
    2:37:40 so
    2:37:40 people
    2:37:41 are
    2:37:41 there
    2:37:42 I’m
    2:37:42 sure
    2:37:42 there
    2:37:42 are
    2:37:43 people
    2:37:43 there
    2:37:43 who
    2:37:44 are
    2:37:44 both
    2:37:45 saying
    2:37:47 Trump
    2:37:47 is
    2:37:47 going
    2:37:48 to
    2:37:48 be
    2:37:48 tough
    2:37:48 toward
    2:37:48 the
    2:37:49 Chinese
    2:37:49 Communist
    2:37:49 Party
    2:37:49 and
    2:37:50 others
    2:37:50 are
    2:37:50 going
    2:37:50 to
    2:37:50 say
    2:37:50 but
    2:37:52 if
    2:37:52 he’s
    2:37:52 not
    2:37:53 as
    2:37:54 supportive
    2:37:54 of
    2:37:55 Ukraine
    2:37:55 what
    2:37:55 does
    2:37:55 that
    2:37:56 say
    2:37:57 for
    2:37:58 the
    2:37:59 defense
    2:37:59 of
    2:38:00 so
    2:38:00 they’re
    2:38:00 not
    2:38:01 the
    2:38:01 same
    2:38:02 situations
    2:38:02 but
    2:38:04 all
    2:38:04 people
    2:38:04 have
    2:38:05 in a
    2:38:05 sense
    2:38:06 sometimes
    2:38:06 with
    2:38:07 unknowable
    2:38:07 situations
    2:38:08 is to
    2:38:08 look at
    2:38:09 things
    2:38:10 that have
    2:38:10 any
    2:38:10 degree
    2:38:10 of
    2:38:11 parallel
    2:38:12 connections
    2:38:13 in other
    2:38:13 places
    2:38:14 do you
    2:38:14 think
    2:38:14 Xi Jinping
    2:38:15 knows
    2:38:16 what
    2:38:16 he’s
    2:38:17 going
    2:38:17 to
    2:38:17 do
    2:38:17 in
    2:38:17 the
    2:38:18 next
    2:38:18 five
    2:38:19 ten
    2:38:19 years
    2:38:20 with
    2:38:21 Taiwan
    2:38:21 or
    2:38:22 is it
    2:38:22 really
    2:38:24 like
    2:38:24 there’s
    2:38:24 a
    2:38:26 there’s
    2:38:26 a
    2:38:26 loose
    2:38:27 historical
    2:38:28 notion
    2:38:28 that
    2:38:29 Taiwan
    2:38:29 should
    2:38:29 be
    2:38:30 part
    2:38:30 of
    2:38:30 China
    2:38:32 with
    2:38:33 Xi Jinping
    2:38:33 and the
    2:38:33 Communist
    2:38:34 Party
    2:38:34 believe
    2:38:34 that
    2:38:35 that
    2:38:35 loose
    2:38:36 idea
    2:38:36 was
    2:38:37 accepted
    2:38:37 Chiang
    2:38:37 Kai-shek
    2:38:38 and
    2:38:38 Mao
    2:38:38 both
    2:38:39 thought
    2:38:40 that
    2:38:40 these
    2:38:40 two
    2:38:40 places
    2:38:41 were
    2:38:42 part
    2:38:42 of
    2:38:43 somehow
    2:38:43 destined
    2:38:43 to be
    2:38:44 the
    2:38:44 same
    2:38:44 was
    2:38:44 just
    2:38:45 under
    2:38:45 that
    2:38:46 period
    2:38:46 Chiang
    2:38:46 Kai-shek
    2:38:47 thought
    2:38:47 how
    2:38:48 long
    2:38:48 until
    2:38:48 I
    2:38:49 take
    2:38:49 over
    2:38:50 the
    2:38:50 mainland
    2:38:50 and
    2:38:50 it
    2:38:51 all
    2:38:51 becomes
    2:38:51 the
    2:38:51 Republic
    2:38:52 of
    2:38:52 China
    2:38:53 this
    2:38:53 is
    2:38:54 not
    2:38:54 now
    2:38:54 something
    2:38:54 that
    2:38:55 any
    2:38:55 leader
    2:38:56 in
    2:38:56 Taiwan
    2:38:56 is
    2:38:57 believing
    2:38:58 there
    2:38:58 is a
    2:38:58 degree
    2:38:58 to
    2:38:59 which
    2:39:01 that
    2:39:02 remains
    2:39:02 a
    2:39:02 kind
    2:39:03 of
    2:39:04 sense
    2:39:04 within
    2:39:05 the
    2:39:05 Chinese
    2:39:05 Communist
    2:39:05 Party
    2:39:06 leadership
    2:39:06 as
    2:39:07 an
    2:39:08 eventuality
    2:39:09 I
    2:39:09 don’t
    2:39:09 think
    2:39:10 there’s
    2:39:10 a set
    2:39:13 plan
    2:39:14 in
    2:39:14 part
    2:39:15 because
    2:39:15 I
    2:39:15 think
    2:39:15 it
    2:39:15 is
    2:39:16 also
    2:39:16 dependent
    2:39:17 on
    2:39:18 what
    2:39:18 the
    2:39:19 costs
    2:39:20 in
    2:39:22 various
    2:39:22 realms
    2:39:23 would be
    2:39:23 of doing
    2:39:23 that
    2:39:24 I
    2:39:25 think
    2:39:25 it
    2:39:25 still
    2:39:26 does
    2:39:31 one
    2:39:32 scenario
    2:39:33 would
    2:39:33 be
    2:39:34 possibly
    2:39:35 a
    2:39:35 sense
    2:39:35 of
    2:39:36 becoming
    2:39:36 strong
    2:39:37 enough
    2:39:37 to
    2:39:37 not
    2:39:37 have
    2:39:37 to
    2:39:37 worry
    2:39:38 about
    2:39:38 consequences
    2:39:39 I
    2:39:39 think
    2:39:41 another
    2:39:41 I
    2:39:41 still
    2:39:41 think
    2:39:42 to
    2:39:42 some
    2:39:42 extent
    2:39:42 more
    2:39:43 would
    2:39:43 be
    2:39:43 a
    2:39:44 sense
    2:39:44 of
    2:39:44 weakness
    2:39:44 or
    2:39:45 precarity
    2:39:46 of
    2:39:47 maintaining
    2:39:48 power
    2:39:48 domestically
    2:39:49 and
    2:39:49 needing
    2:39:49 to do
    2:39:50 something
    2:39:51 to
    2:39:52 distract
    2:39:53 and
    2:39:54 another
    2:39:54 complexity
    2:39:55 about
    2:39:55 this
    2:39:55 is
    2:39:56 it’s
    2:39:56 not
    2:39:56 always
    2:39:57 so
    2:39:57 clear
    2:39:58 the
    2:39:59 line
    2:39:59 between
    2:40:01 no
    2:40:02 conflict
    2:40:02 and
    2:40:02 conflict
    2:40:03 so
    2:40:04 there’s
    2:40:04 a lot
    2:40:04 of
    2:40:04 gray
    2:40:05 zone
    2:40:05 tactics
    2:40:06 of
    2:40:06 non
    2:40:06 violent
    2:40:07 pressure
    2:40:07 that
    2:40:08 China
    2:40:08 could
    2:40:08 exude
    2:40:09 so
    2:40:09 it
    2:40:09 could
    2:40:10 do
    2:40:11 non
    2:40:11 military
    2:40:12 violence
    2:40:14 it
    2:40:14 could
    2:40:14 then
    2:40:15 escalate
    2:40:15 that
    2:40:16 to
    2:40:16 non
    2:40:17 violent
    2:40:18 military
    2:40:19 intimidation
    2:40:20 and
    2:40:21 all of
    2:40:21 this
    2:40:21 has
    2:40:22 consequences
    2:40:22 for
    2:40:22 the
    2:40:22 United
    2:40:23 States
    2:40:23 because
    2:40:23 there’s
    2:40:23 a
    2:40:24 messaging
    2:40:24 thing
    2:40:24 going
    2:40:25 on
    2:40:25 here
    2:40:26 and
    2:40:26 then
    2:40:26 of
    2:40:26 course
    2:40:26 that
    2:40:27 could
    2:40:27 then
    2:40:27 go
    2:40:28 to
    2:40:28 a
    2:40:29 do
    2:40:29 as
    2:40:29 you’re
    2:40:30 told
    2:40:30 actions
    2:40:30 that
    2:40:31 come
    2:40:31 at
    2:40:31 a
    2:40:31 high
    2:40:31 risk
    2:40:31 of
    2:40:31 a
    2:40:32 hot
    2:40:32 military
    2:40:32 conflict
    2:40:33 so
    2:40:33 basically
    2:40:34 just
    2:40:35 don’t
    2:40:35 do
    2:40:36 military
    2:40:37 violence
    2:40:37 but
    2:40:38 just
    2:40:39 full
    2:40:39 on
    2:40:40 pressure
    2:40:41 ordering
    2:40:41 Taiwan
    2:40:41 to
    2:40:41 do
    2:40:42 things
    2:40:43 and
    2:40:43 there
    2:40:45 it’s
    2:40:45 like
    2:40:46 in
    2:40:46 order
    2:40:46 the
    2:40:46 only
    2:40:47 way
    2:40:47 to
    2:40:47 respond
    2:40:47 is
    2:40:47 with
    2:40:48 violence
    2:40:48 you’re
    2:40:49 completely
    2:40:49 trapped
    2:40:50 you’re
    2:40:50 saying
    2:40:50 no
    2:40:51 you have
    2:40:51 to
    2:40:52 say
    2:40:52 no
    2:40:52 with
    2:40:53 a
    2:40:54 military
    2:40:54 force
    2:40:54 behind
    2:40:54 it
    2:40:55 and
    2:40:55 then
    2:40:56 what
    2:40:56 do
    2:40:56 you
    2:40:56 do
    2:40:57 and
    2:40:57 every
    2:40:58 step
    2:40:58 in
    2:40:59 this
    2:40:59 it’s
    2:40:59 such
    2:41:00 an
    2:41:01 unstable
    2:41:02 nonlinear
    2:41:03 dynamical
    2:41:04 system
    2:41:04 where
    2:41:04 anything
    2:41:05 could
    2:41:05 just
    2:41:06 unintended
    2:41:06 consequences
    2:41:07 can
    2:41:07 happen
    2:41:08 and
    2:41:08 it
    2:41:08 could
    2:41:08 just
    2:41:09 escalate
    2:41:09 in a
    2:41:09 matter
    2:41:09 of
    2:41:09 days
    2:41:10 if
    2:41:10 not
    2:41:11 hours
    2:41:12 and
    2:41:12 so
    2:41:13 like
    2:41:13 this
    2:41:13 is
    2:41:13 where
    2:41:16 this
    2:41:16 is
    2:41:17 where
    2:41:17 I
    2:41:17 think
    2:41:18 it’s
    2:41:18 really
    2:41:18 important
    2:41:19 to
    2:41:19 find
    2:41:20 mechanisms
    2:41:20 and
    2:41:21 tactics
    2:41:22 and
    2:41:22 strategies
    2:41:23 for
    2:41:24 de-escalation
    2:41:26 which is
    2:41:27 why
    2:41:27 this trade
    2:41:28 war
    2:41:28 that’s
    2:41:28 happening
    2:41:29 one
    2:41:29 of
    2:41:29 the
    2:41:30 nice
    2:41:30 things
    2:41:30 of
    2:41:31 being
    2:41:31 so
    2:41:32 connected
    2:41:32 by
    2:41:33 trade
    2:41:33 is
    2:41:34 it
    2:41:34 creates
    2:41:34 a
    2:41:35 disincentive
    2:41:36 for
    2:41:37 any
    2:41:37 of
    2:41:37 this
    2:41:37 kind
    2:41:38 of
    2:41:38 posturing
    2:41:39 because
    2:41:40 I do
    2:41:40 agree
    2:41:40 with
    2:41:40 you
    2:41:41 I
    2:41:41 think
    2:41:41 it
    2:41:41 will
    2:41:42 start
    2:41:43 as
    2:41:43 these
    2:41:44 things
    2:41:44 often
    2:41:45 do
    2:41:46 as
    2:41:46 a
    2:41:47 kind
    2:41:47 of
    2:41:49 military
    2:41:50 sort
    2:41:50 of
    2:41:50 early
    2:41:51 steps
    2:41:52 posturing
    2:41:53 in order
    2:41:54 to maintain
    2:41:54 power
    2:41:55 internally
    2:41:57 so
    2:41:58 that’s
    2:41:59 China
    2:41:59 will
    2:41:59 just
    2:42:00 create
    2:42:01 military
    2:42:01 conflict
    2:42:01 conflict
    2:42:02 of
    2:42:02 different
    2:42:02 kinds
    2:42:03 in
    2:42:03 order
    2:42:03 to
    2:42:04 distract
    2:42:05 but
    2:42:05 then
    2:42:05 how
    2:42:05 does
    2:42:06 that
    2:42:06 escalate
    2:42:07 as if
    2:42:07 all that
    2:42:08 wasn’t
    2:42:08 complicated
    2:42:09 enough
    2:42:09 Taiwan
    2:42:09 isn’t
    2:42:09 just
    2:42:10 one
    2:42:10 place
    2:42:10 or
    2:42:11 one
    2:42:11 island
    2:42:11 there
    2:42:12 are
    2:42:12 also
    2:42:12 there
    2:42:12 are
    2:42:13 islands
    2:42:13 that
    2:42:14 are
    2:42:14 closer
    2:42:15 to
    2:42:16 mainland
    2:42:16 Jinmen
    2:42:16 and
    2:42:17 their
    2:42:17 degrees
    2:42:17 of
    2:42:18 integration
    2:42:18 and
    2:42:19 anyway
    2:42:19 so
    2:42:19 it’s
    2:42:20 it’s
    2:42:20 a
    2:42:21 but
    2:42:21 your
    2:42:22 comment
    2:42:22 about
    2:42:25 integration
    2:42:25 of
    2:42:25 trade
    2:42:27 and
    2:42:27 sort
    2:42:27 of
    2:42:29 having
    2:42:30 being
    2:42:31 a check
    2:42:31 on
    2:42:32 kind
    2:42:32 of
    2:42:32 there’s
    2:42:32 a
    2:42:34 there’s
    2:42:34 a
    2:42:34 Chinese
    2:42:35 writer
    2:42:36 who
    2:42:38 fascinating
    2:42:38 guy
    2:42:39 Han Han
    2:42:39 who was
    2:42:40 a race
    2:42:40 car
    2:42:41 driver
    2:42:41 and
    2:42:41 a
    2:42:42 filmmaker
    2:42:42 and
    2:42:43 a
    2:42:43 bad
    2:42:44 boy
    2:42:44 novelist
    2:42:45 anyway
    2:42:45 in his
    2:42:46 heyday
    2:42:47 he was
    2:42:47 an
    2:42:47 interesting
    2:42:47 kind
    2:42:48 of
    2:42:48 blogger
    2:42:48 who
    2:42:48 was
    2:42:49 testing
    2:42:49 the
    2:42:49 edges
    2:42:50 of
    2:42:50 things
    2:42:50 and
    2:42:50 he
    2:42:50 had
    2:42:51 this
    2:42:52 blog
    2:42:52 post
    2:42:53 where
    2:42:53 he
    2:42:53 was
    2:42:53 talking
    2:42:54 about
    2:42:54 this
    2:42:55 was
    2:42:56 in
    2:42:56 the
    2:42:56 early
    2:42:57 2000s
    2:42:58 he
    2:42:58 was
    2:42:58 talking
    2:42:59 about
    2:42:59 how
    2:43:01 China
    2:43:01 was
    2:43:01 building
    2:43:01 the
    2:43:02 massive
    2:43:02 three
    2:43:03 gorges
    2:43:03 dam
    2:43:04 project
    2:43:04 this
    2:43:05 mass
    2:43:05 and
    2:43:06 he
    2:43:06 said
    2:43:06 some
    2:43:07 people
    2:43:07 are
    2:43:08 saying
    2:43:10 building
    2:43:10 these
    2:43:11 dams
    2:43:11 it
    2:43:11 could
    2:43:11 be
    2:43:11 so
    2:43:12 easy
    2:43:12 for
    2:43:12 the
    2:43:12 Americans
    2:43:13 to
    2:43:13 just
    2:43:16 bomb
    2:43:17 them
    2:43:17 and
    2:43:17 destroy
    2:43:18 our
    2:43:18 country
    2:43:20 because
    2:43:20 there
    2:43:20 would
    2:43:20 be
    2:43:20 a
    2:43:20 massive
    2:43:21 flood
    2:43:22 and
    2:43:22 he
    2:43:22 said
    2:43:22 but
    2:43:23 that’s
    2:43:23 really
    2:43:24 silly
    2:43:24 that’s
    2:43:24 a really
    2:43:25 silly
    2:43:25 argument
    2:43:26 because
    2:43:27 Americans
    2:43:28 know
    2:43:28 that
    2:43:28 down
    2:43:28 river
    2:43:29 from
    2:43:29 there
    2:43:29 what
    2:43:29 would
    2:43:29 be
    2:43:29 flooded
    2:43:30 out
    2:43:30 was
    2:43:30 the
    2:43:30 place
    2:43:30 where
    2:43:31 their
    2:43:31 iPhones
    2:43:31 are
    2:43:31 built
    2:43:32 and
    2:43:32 and
    2:43:33 they
    2:43:33 want
    2:43:33 their
    2:43:34 iPhones
    2:43:34 so
    2:43:36 this
    2:43:36 kind
    2:43:36 of
    2:43:37 notion
    2:43:37 he’s
    2:43:38 making
    2:43:38 through
    2:43:39 a
    2:43:39 humorous
    2:43:39 point
    2:43:40 the
    2:43:40 way
    2:43:40 in
    2:43:40 which
    2:43:42 interconnectedness
    2:43:43 can
    2:43:45 be a
    2:43:45 check
    2:43:46 and
    2:43:47 interconnectedness
    2:43:47 can be
    2:43:48 in all
    2:43:48 kinds
    2:43:48 of
    2:43:49 ways
    2:43:49 the
    2:43:49 flows
    2:43:50 people
    2:43:50 between
    2:43:51 places
    2:43:52 and
    2:43:53 having
    2:43:54 people
    2:43:55 from
    2:43:55 one
    2:43:56 place
    2:43:56 living
    2:43:56 in
    2:43:56 another
    2:43:57 traveling
    2:43:57 to
    2:43:57 another
    2:43:58 studying
    2:43:58 in
    2:43:58 another
    2:43:59 that
    2:43:59 can
    2:44:00 actually
    2:44:00 be
    2:44:01 something
    2:44:01 that
    2:44:02 helps
    2:44:03 to
    2:44:04 stabilize
    2:44:04 the
    2:44:05 world
    2:44:05 I
    2:44:05 think
    2:44:05 that’s
    2:44:05 an
    2:44:05 important
    2:44:06 thing
    2:44:06 to
    2:44:06 keep
    2:44:06 in
    2:44:07 mind
    2:44:08 since
    2:44:08 you
    2:44:08 mentioned
    2:44:09 the
    2:44:09 long
    2:44:10 march
    2:44:11 and
    2:44:11 the
    2:44:12 unlikely
    2:44:14 coming
    2:44:14 to
    2:44:14 power
    2:44:14 with
    2:44:14 the
    2:44:14 communist
    2:44:15 party
    2:44:16 let’s
    2:44:16 go
    2:44:16 back
    2:44:17 we began
    2:44:18 comparing
    2:44:18 Xi Jinping
    2:44:18 and
    2:44:19 Mao
    2:44:19 let’s
    2:44:19 go
    2:44:20 back
    2:44:20 to
    2:44:20 Mao
    2:44:21 how
    2:44:21 did
    2:44:21 Mao
    2:44:22 come
    2:44:22 to
    2:44:22 power
    2:44:23 the
    2:44:24 road
    2:44:24 to
    2:44:25 Mao
    2:44:26 coming
    2:44:26 to
    2:44:26 power
    2:44:26 we
    2:44:27 need
    2:44:27 to
    2:44:27 first
    2:44:28 say
    2:44:28 that
    2:44:29 China
    2:44:29 was
    2:44:30 under
    2:44:30 rule
    2:44:30 by
    2:44:31 emperors
    2:44:32 until
    2:44:33 1911
    2:44:34 overthrown
    2:44:35 by
    2:44:35 an
    2:44:35 upheaval
    2:44:36 that
    2:44:37 was
    2:44:37 partly
    2:44:38 by
    2:44:38 people
    2:44:39 who
    2:44:40 wanted
    2:44:41 to
    2:44:41 change
    2:44:41 China
    2:44:42 into
    2:44:42 a
    2:44:42 republic
    2:44:43 but
    2:44:43 also
    2:44:43 some
    2:44:43 people
    2:44:44 who
    2:44:44 wanted
    2:44:44 to
    2:44:44 get
    2:44:44 rid
    2:44:45 of
    2:44:45 the
    2:44:46 last
    2:44:46 dynasty
    2:44:47 was
    2:44:47 a
    2:44:48 group
    2:44:48 of
    2:44:48 Manchu
    2:44:49 ruling
    2:44:49 families
    2:44:50 so they
    2:44:50 saw
    2:44:50 them
    2:44:50 as
    2:44:51 ethnic
    2:44:51 outsiders
    2:44:52 so it
    2:44:53 was a
    2:44:53 strange
    2:44:54 combination
    2:44:54 of
    2:44:55 ethnic
    2:44:56 nationalists
    2:44:56 who
    2:44:57 wanted
    2:44:57 China
    2:44:57 back
    2:44:58 under
    2:44:58 the
    2:44:58 control
    2:44:58 of
    2:44:58 Han
    2:44:59 Chinese
    2:45:00 other
    2:45:00 people
    2:45:00 who
    2:45:01 thought
    2:45:01 the
    2:45:01 time
    2:45:02 for
    2:45:02 rule
    2:45:02 by
    2:45:03 emperors
    2:45:03 was over
    2:45:04 and wanted
    2:45:04 to
    2:45:04 establish
    2:45:05 a
    2:45:05 republic
    2:45:07 and
    2:45:07 Sun Yat-sen
    2:45:09 became
    2:45:10 a first
    2:45:11 president
    2:45:12 provisional
    2:45:12 president
    2:45:13 of this
    2:45:13 newly
    2:45:13 formed
    2:45:14 republic
    2:45:14 of
    2:45:14 China
    2:45:15 but
    2:45:16 then
    2:45:16 he
    2:45:16 got
    2:45:17 nudged
    2:45:17 out of
    2:45:17 power
    2:45:18 by a
    2:45:18 military
    2:45:19 strong
    2:45:19 man
    2:45:20 and
    2:45:20 then
    2:45:20 there
    2:45:21 was
    2:45:21 a
    2:45:21 period
    2:45:22 where
    2:45:24 the
    2:45:24 country
    2:45:24 was really
    2:45:25 divided
    2:45:25 republic
    2:45:25 of
    2:45:26 China
    2:45:26 didn’t
    2:45:26 have
    2:45:26 a
    2:45:27 strong
    2:45:28 government
    2:45:28 but
    2:45:28 there
    2:45:29 were
    2:45:30 then
    2:45:30 two
    2:45:31 groups
    2:45:32 one
    2:45:33 rallied
    2:45:33 around
    2:45:34 Sun Yat-sen
    2:45:35 had founded
    2:45:35 something
    2:45:36 that became
    2:45:36 known as
    2:45:36 the
    2:45:37 nationalist
    2:45:37 party
    2:45:38 and then
    2:45:39 there was
    2:45:39 a small
    2:45:40 group
    2:45:40 of people
    2:45:41 who formed
    2:45:42 a communist
    2:45:42 party
    2:45:43 Mao was
    2:45:43 one of
    2:45:44 them
    2:45:44 these
    2:45:44 were
    2:45:46 intellectuals
    2:45:46 who were
    2:45:47 part of
    2:45:48 the May 4th
    2:45:48 movement
    2:45:49 of 1919
    2:45:49 they were
    2:45:50 inspired by
    2:45:51 Marxist
    2:45:51 ideas but
    2:45:51 they were
    2:45:52 also just
    2:45:52 inspired by
    2:45:53 the Russian
    2:45:53 revolution
    2:45:55 Russia
    2:45:55 was
    2:45:56 nearby
    2:45:56 it
    2:45:56 seemed
    2:45:57 good
    2:45:57 to
    2:45:57 think
    2:45:58 with
    2:45:58 it
    2:45:58 had
    2:45:58 a
    2:45:59 largely
    2:46:00 rural
    2:46:00 population
    2:46:01 and
    2:46:01 somehow
    2:46:03 it
    2:46:03 seemed
    2:46:04 to be
    2:46:05 getting
    2:46:05 strong
    2:46:06 in the
    2:46:06 world
    2:46:06 and
    2:46:06 there
    2:46:07 was
    2:46:07 this
    2:46:07 interest
    2:46:08 in
    2:46:08 how
    2:46:09 China
    2:46:09 could
    2:46:09 do
    2:46:09 that
    2:46:10 and
    2:46:10 the
    2:46:11 newly
    2:46:11 formed
    2:46:12 Soviet
    2:46:12 Union
    2:46:13 did
    2:46:14 something
    2:46:14 very
    2:46:15 important
    2:46:16 there
    2:46:16 were
    2:46:16 a
    2:46:16 group
    2:46:17 of
    2:46:17 foreign
    2:46:17 powers
    2:46:18 including
    2:46:19 Tsarist
    2:46:19 Russia
    2:46:20 that
    2:46:20 had
    2:46:21 gained
    2:46:22 big
    2:46:23 concessions
    2:46:23 out of
    2:46:23 China
    2:46:24 when
    2:46:25 in
    2:46:25 1900
    2:46:26 the
    2:46:26 Boxer
    2:46:26 Uprising
    2:46:27 had
    2:46:27 taken
    2:46:28 place
    2:46:28 and
    2:46:28 then
    2:46:30 been
    2:46:30 crushed
    2:46:31 by a
    2:46:31 consortium
    2:46:31 of
    2:46:31 foreign
    2:46:32 powers
    2:46:32 who
    2:46:32 had
    2:46:32 gotten
    2:46:34 privileges
    2:46:34 and
    2:46:35 indemnities
    2:46:35 out of
    2:46:35 that
    2:46:36 and
    2:46:36 the
    2:46:37 newly
    2:46:37 formed
    2:46:37 Soviet
    2:46:38 Union
    2:46:39 renounced
    2:46:39 those
    2:46:39 said
    2:46:40 you know
    2:46:40 that was
    2:46:41 the old
    2:46:41 order
    2:46:42 that was
    2:46:43 imperialism
    2:46:44 and
    2:46:44 so
    2:46:47 Marx’s
    2:46:47 ideas
    2:46:48 were
    2:46:50 attractive
    2:46:51 to some
    2:46:51 Chinese
    2:46:52 thinkers
    2:46:52 but
    2:46:53 Lenin
    2:46:53 was
    2:46:53 very
    2:46:54 attractive
    2:46:54 because
    2:46:54 of
    2:46:55 his
    2:46:55 combination
    2:46:55 of
    2:46:56 anti-imperialism
    2:46:58 and
    2:46:58 his
    2:46:58 notion
    2:46:58 of
    2:46:58 a
    2:46:59 vanguard
    2:46:59 party
    2:47:00 leading
    2:47:01 a
    2:47:01 country
    2:47:01 forward
    2:47:04 so
    2:47:05 there
    2:47:05 was
    2:47:05 a
    2:47:05 small
    2:47:06 communist
    2:47:06 party
    2:47:06 a
    2:47:06 bigger
    2:47:07 nationalist
    2:47:07 party
    2:47:07 they
    2:47:08 were
    2:47:08 involved
    2:47:08 in
    2:47:08 these
    2:47:09 protests
    2:47:09 against
    2:47:10 warlords
    2:47:10 and
    2:47:10 against
    2:47:11 imperialists
    2:47:12 and
    2:47:13 while
    2:47:13 Sun Yat-sen
    2:47:14 was
    2:47:14 alive
    2:47:15 Sun Yat-sen
    2:47:17 got the
    2:47:17 two
    2:47:17 parties
    2:47:17 to work
    2:47:18 together
    2:47:19 because
    2:47:19 Sun Yat-sen
    2:47:20 wasn’t a
    2:47:20 Marxist
    2:47:20 he didn’t
    2:47:21 believe in
    2:47:21 class
    2:47:21 struggle
    2:47:22 but
    2:47:22 he
    2:47:23 admired
    2:47:23 Lenin
    2:47:24 and
    2:47:24 Leninism
    2:47:25 and
    2:47:26 so
    2:47:26 he
    2:47:26 said
    2:47:26 that
    2:47:27 actually
    2:47:28 the
    2:47:28 communist
    2:47:29 party
    2:47:29 and the
    2:47:29 nationalist
    2:47:29 party
    2:47:30 may have
    2:47:30 had
    2:47:30 different
    2:47:31 views
    2:47:32 of
    2:47:32 the
    2:47:32 path
    2:47:33 forward
    2:47:33 for
    2:47:33 China
    2:47:34 but
    2:47:34 they
    2:47:34 agreed
    2:47:35 on
    2:47:35 who
    2:47:35 the
    2:47:35 enemies
    2:47:36 were
    2:47:36 and
    2:47:36 the
    2:47:37 enemies
    2:47:37 were
    2:47:37 the
    2:47:38 warlords
    2:47:38 who
    2:47:38 were
    2:47:39 keeping
    2:47:39 China
    2:47:40 weak
    2:47:40 and
    2:47:40 too
    2:47:40 willing
    2:47:40 to
    2:47:41 compromise
    2:47:41 with
    2:47:42 Japan
    2:47:43 and
    2:47:44 foreign
    2:47:44 imperialism
    2:47:45 so
    2:47:45 China
    2:47:46 needed
    2:47:46 to get
    2:47:46 rid
    2:47:46 of
    2:47:46 the
    2:47:47 warlords
    2:47:47 and
    2:47:48 become
    2:47:48 a
    2:47:49 stronger
    2:47:50 country
    2:47:50 and
    2:47:50 then
    2:47:50 they
    2:47:50 could
    2:47:50 sort
    2:47:51 it
    2:47:51 out
    2:47:52 of
    2:47:53 what
    2:47:53 road
    2:47:53 to
    2:47:53 take
    2:47:54 Sun Yat-sen
    2:47:55 dies
    2:47:55 in
    2:47:56 1925
    2:47:57 and
    2:47:57 his
    2:47:58 successor
    2:47:59 Chiang Kai-shek
    2:48:01 is
    2:48:01 initially
    2:48:02 keeps
    2:48:02 the
    2:48:03 alliance
    2:48:03 going
    2:48:03 with
    2:48:04 the
    2:48:04 communist
    2:48:04 party
    2:48:04 but
    2:48:05 in
    2:48:05 1927
    2:48:06 he
    2:48:06 turns
    2:48:07 against
    2:48:07 the
    2:48:08 communists
    2:48:08 and
    2:48:08 tries
    2:48:08 to
    2:48:08 carry
    2:48:09 out
    2:48:09 a
    2:48:09 purge
    2:48:09 against
    2:48:10 communist
    2:48:10 party
    2:48:11 members
    2:48:11 he’s
    2:48:11 the
    2:48:12 head
    2:48:12 of
    2:48:12 the
    2:48:13 nationalists
    2:48:13 he’s
    2:48:13 the
    2:48:13 head
    2:48:13 of
    2:48:13 the
    2:48:14 nationalists
    2:48:14 and
    2:48:15 he
    2:48:15 has
    2:48:15 some
    2:48:16 very
    2:48:16 different
    2:48:17 he’s
    2:48:17 he’s
    2:48:17 a
    2:48:17 kind
    2:48:18 of
    2:48:18 culturally
    2:48:19 more
    2:48:19 conservative
    2:48:20 figure
    2:48:22 but
    2:48:22 what’s
    2:48:23 important
    2:48:23 in part
    2:48:23 about
    2:48:24 this
    2:48:24 is
    2:48:25 there
    2:48:25 are
    2:48:25 some
    2:48:26 members
    2:48:26 of
    2:48:26 the
    2:48:26 Chinese
    2:48:26 Communist
    2:48:26 Party
    2:48:27 who
    2:48:28 accept
    2:48:28 the
    2:48:28 basic
    2:48:29 ideas
    2:48:29 of
    2:48:30 Marxism
    2:48:30 of
    2:48:31 revolution
    2:48:31 comes
    2:48:32 from
    2:48:32 the
    2:48:32 cities
    2:48:34 but
    2:48:34 Mao
    2:48:35 has
    2:48:36 this
    2:48:36 idea
    2:48:36 that
    2:48:37 actually
    2:48:38 he’s
    2:48:38 he’s
    2:48:39 partly
    2:48:40 he
    2:48:40 loves
    2:48:40 this
    2:48:41 idea
    2:48:41 of
    2:48:41 peasant
    2:48:42 rebellions
    2:48:42 in
    2:48:42 China’s
    2:48:43 past
    2:48:43 is
    2:48:43 driving
    2:48:44 history
    2:48:44 forward
    2:48:44 and
    2:48:45 he
    2:48:45 starts
    2:48:46 writing
    2:48:46 about
    2:48:47 how
    2:48:48 well
    2:48:48 maybe
    2:48:48 in
    2:48:49 China’s
    2:48:49 case
    2:48:49 actually
    2:48:49 the
    2:48:50 peasantry
    2:48:51 farmers
    2:48:51 can
    2:48:51 be
    2:48:52 a
    2:48:53 radical
    2:48:53 force
    2:48:54 and
    2:48:55 so
    2:48:55 the
    2:48:55 Communist
    2:48:56 Party
    2:48:56 is
    2:48:56 on
    2:48:56 the
    2:48:56 run
    2:48:57 it’s
    2:48:57 being
    2:48:58 pushed
    2:48:58 around
    2:48:59 but
    2:48:59 the
    2:48:59 Nationalists
    2:48:59 are
    2:49:00 trying
    2:49:00 to
    2:49:00 exterminate
    2:49:01 them
    2:49:02 but
    2:49:02 eventually
    2:49:04 and
    2:49:05 the
    2:49:05 Nationalists
    2:49:05 and the
    2:49:06 Communists
    2:49:06 ally
    2:49:07 again
    2:49:08 after
    2:49:08 Japan
    2:49:09 invades
    2:49:09 China
    2:49:09 in the
    2:49:10 1930s
    2:49:10 they
    2:49:10 form
    2:49:11 what’s
    2:49:11 called
    2:49:11 Second
    2:49:12 United
    2:49:12 Front
    2:49:13 but
    2:49:13 during
    2:49:14 this
    2:49:14 period
    2:49:14 Mao
    2:49:15 is
    2:49:15 emerging
    2:49:16 as
    2:49:17 taking
    2:49:18 leadership
    2:49:19 in the
    2:49:19 Chinese
    2:49:19 Communist
    2:49:20 Party
    2:49:21 and
    2:49:21 his
    2:49:21 idea
    2:49:22 of a
    2:49:22 different
    2:49:22 kind
    2:49:23 of
    2:49:23 vision
    2:49:23 of
    2:49:24 Communist
    2:49:24 Revolution
    2:49:25 that
    2:49:26 has
    2:49:27 the
    2:49:27 revolutionary
    2:49:28 vanguard
    2:49:29 somehow
    2:49:29 being
    2:49:31 the
    2:49:31 peasantry
    2:49:33 in
    2:49:34 after World War
    2:49:35 II
    2:49:35 after the
    2:49:35 two
    2:49:36 parties
    2:49:36 have
    2:49:38 brokered
    2:49:38 a truce
    2:49:39 and sort
    2:49:39 of worked
    2:49:39 together
    2:49:40 against
    2:49:40 Japan
    2:49:41 there’s a
    2:49:42 civil war
    2:49:42 between the
    2:49:43 Nationalists
    2:49:43 and the
    2:49:43 Communists
    2:49:45 and against
    2:49:46 all odds
    2:49:46 the Communist
    2:49:47 Party
    2:49:47 wins
    2:49:48 the
    2:49:48 Communist
    2:49:48 Party
    2:49:48 gets
    2:49:49 support
    2:49:49 from
    2:49:49 the
    2:49:50 Soviet
    2:49:50 Union
    2:49:51 the
    2:49:51 Nationalists
    2:49:52 get
    2:49:52 support
    2:49:52 from
    2:49:52 the
    2:49:53 United
    2:49:53 States
    2:49:56 even
    2:49:56 though
    2:49:56 neither
    2:49:57 of them
    2:49:57 are quite
    2:49:57 doing
    2:49:58 things
    2:49:58 the way
    2:49:59 that
    2:49:59 their
    2:50:00 backer
    2:50:00 would
    2:50:00 like
    2:50:00 them
    2:50:01 to
    2:50:01 but
    2:50:02 there
    2:50:02 also
    2:50:02 is
    2:50:02 a
    2:50:03 way
    2:50:03 in
    2:50:03 which
    2:50:04 the
    2:50:04 and
    2:50:04 this
    2:50:04 is
    2:50:04 something
    2:50:05 I
    2:50:05 think
    2:50:05 the
    2:50:05 Communist
    2:50:06 Party
    2:50:06 leaders
    2:50:07 remember
    2:50:08 there’s
    2:50:08 a
    2:50:08 feeling
    2:50:09 that
    2:50:09 the
    2:50:09 Nationalist
    2:50:10 Party
    2:50:10 doesn’t
    2:50:10 really
    2:50:11 believe
    2:50:11 its
    2:50:12 own
    2:50:13 rhetoric
    2:50:13 that
    2:50:13 in fact
    2:50:14 all it
    2:50:14 cares about
    2:50:14 as
    2:50:15 having
    2:50:15 power
    2:50:16 and
    2:50:16 that
    2:50:16 it’s
    2:50:17 internally
    2:50:17 corrupt
    2:50:18 Chiang
    2:50:18 Kai-shek
    2:50:19 himself
    2:50:19 isn’t
    2:50:20 viewed
    2:50:20 as
    2:50:22 personally
    2:50:22 corrupt
    2:50:22 but
    2:50:24 family
    2:50:25 members
    2:50:25 and
    2:50:25 there’s
    2:50:27 an idea
    2:50:27 that
    2:50:27 there’s
    2:50:27 just a
    2:50:28 small
    2:50:28 band
    2:50:28 of
    2:50:29 people
    2:50:29 that
    2:50:29 are
    2:50:30 benefiting
    2:50:31 and
    2:50:32 there’s
    2:50:32 a
    2:50:32 kind
    2:50:33 of
    2:50:33 disgust
    2:50:33 with
    2:50:33 the
    2:50:34 leader
    2:50:34 with
    2:50:35 the
    2:50:35 Nationalists
    2:50:37 end up
    2:50:37 in
    2:50:38 retreat
    2:50:39 in
    2:50:39 Taiwan
    2:50:40 that’s
    2:50:40 why
    2:50:40 Taiwan
    2:50:41 then
    2:50:41 becomes
    2:50:42 the
    2:50:42 Republic
    2:50:42 of
    2:50:43 China
    2:50:44 there’s
    2:50:45 an
    2:50:45 uprising
    2:50:45 there
    2:50:46 that
    2:50:47 Chiang Kai-shek
    2:50:47 people
    2:50:48 the
    2:50:49 Nationalists
    2:50:49 repress
    2:50:51 and there
    2:50:51 starts
    2:50:51 being
    2:50:52 from the
    2:50:52 late
    2:50:53 1940s
    2:50:53 on
    2:50:53 this
    2:50:53 long
    2:50:54 period
    2:50:54 of
    2:50:54 martial
    2:50:54 law
    2:50:55 on
    2:50:56 Taiwan
    2:50:56 and
    2:50:56 there
    2:50:56 becomes
    2:50:57 then
    2:50:57 this
    2:50:58 period
    2:50:58 where
    2:50:59 the
    2:50:59 mainland
    2:50:59 is
    2:50:59 under
    2:51:00 the
    2:51:00 control
    2:51:00 of
    2:51:01 a
    2:51:02 Leninist
    2:51:03 party
    2:51:04 believes
    2:51:04 in
    2:51:04 one
    2:51:05 party
    2:51:05 rule
    2:51:07 and
    2:51:07 believes
    2:51:07 that
    2:51:07 it
    2:51:07 was
    2:51:08 a
    2:51:08 very
    2:51:09 bad
    2:51:09 period
    2:51:09 in
    2:51:09 Chinese
    2:51:10 history
    2:51:11 when
    2:51:13 China
    2:51:13 was
    2:51:14 unable
    2:51:14 to
    2:51:14 stand
    2:51:14 up
    2:51:14 to
    2:51:15 imperialists
    2:51:17 Taiwan
    2:51:17 is
    2:51:17 controlled
    2:51:18 by
    2:51:19 a
    2:51:20 Leninist
    2:51:20 party
    2:51:21 that
    2:51:21 believes
    2:51:21 in
    2:51:22 one
    2:51:22 party
    2:51:22 rule
    2:51:24 limits
    2:51:24 on
    2:51:24 participation
    2:51:25 believes
    2:51:26 that
    2:51:26 it was
    2:51:26 a
    2:51:27 bad
    2:51:27 time
    2:51:27 when
    2:51:28 China
    2:51:28 was
    2:51:28 being
    2:51:29 bullied
    2:51:29 by
    2:51:29 imperialists
    2:51:30 what
    2:51:31 distinguishes
    2:51:31 Chiang Kai
    2:51:32 Shek has
    2:51:33 a personality
    2:51:33 cult
    2:51:34 Mao
    2:51:34 has a
    2:51:34 personality
    2:51:35 cult
    2:51:36 they have
    2:51:36 a lot
    2:51:36 in
    2:51:37 common
    2:51:37 but
    2:51:37 one
    2:51:38 clear
    2:51:38 thing
    2:51:39 that
    2:51:39 makes
    2:51:39 them
    2:51:40 different
    2:51:40 is
    2:51:40 Chiang Kai
    2:51:41 Shek
    2:51:41 says
    2:51:41 that
    2:51:41 what’s
    2:51:42 wrong
    2:51:42 with
    2:51:42 the
    2:51:43 communist
    2:51:43 party
    2:51:43 is
    2:51:43 they’ve
    2:51:44 abandoned
    2:51:45 Chinese
    2:51:46 traditional
    2:51:46 values
    2:51:47 of
    2:51:48 Confucianism
    2:51:49 and
    2:51:50 Mao
    2:51:50 says
    2:51:50 that
    2:51:51 on
    2:51:51 the
    2:51:52 nationalists
    2:51:53 what’s
    2:51:53 really
    2:51:54 bad
    2:51:54 as
    2:51:54 they
    2:51:54 are
    2:51:55 still
    2:51:55 wedded
    2:51:56 to
    2:51:56 these
    2:51:56 traditional
    2:51:57 Chinese
    2:51:58 values
    2:51:58 of
    2:51:59 Confucianism
    2:51:59 so
    2:52:00 cycling
    2:52:00 back
    2:52:01 to where
    2:52:01 we began
    2:52:02 with
    2:52:03 Mao
    2:52:03 and
    2:52:03 Xi
    2:52:04 you could
    2:52:04 actually
    2:52:05 say
    2:52:05 Xi
    2:52:06 Jinping
    2:52:06 in some
    2:52:07 ways
    2:52:07 is
    2:52:08 like
    2:52:09 living
    2:52:09 out
    2:52:09 the
    2:52:10 dream
    2:52:10 that
    2:52:10 Chiang Kai
    2:52:11 had
    2:52:11 had
    2:52:11 of
    2:52:12 one
    2:52:12 party
    2:52:13 rule
    2:52:14 and
    2:52:15 also
    2:52:15 kind
    2:52:15 of
    2:52:16 celebrating
    2:52:17 Confucianism
    2:52:18 yeah
    2:52:18 there’s
    2:52:18 elements
    2:52:20 you’ve
    2:52:20 spoken
    2:52:20 about
    2:52:20 the
    2:52:21 elements
    2:52:21 of
    2:52:21 Chi
    2:52:21 Kai
    2:52:22 Shek
    2:52:22 and
    2:52:23 Mao
    2:52:23 that
    2:52:24 Xi
    2:52:24 Jinping
    2:52:24 kind
    2:52:25 of
    2:52:25 combines
    2:52:26 you’ve
    2:52:26 also
    2:52:26 mentioned
    2:52:27 an
    2:52:27 interesting
    2:52:28 you know
    2:52:29 if we
    2:52:29 had
    2:52:30 you know
    2:52:30 a hundred
    2:52:30 hours
    2:52:31 to talk
    2:52:31 about
    2:52:31 there’s
    2:52:31 another
    2:52:32 interesting
    2:52:32 side
    2:52:32 effect
    2:52:34 similarity
    2:52:35 that
    2:52:35 you
    2:52:35 talk
    2:52:35 about
    2:52:36 where
    2:52:37 Xi
    2:52:37 Jinping’s
    2:52:38 wife
    2:52:40 is
    2:52:40 out
    2:52:40 there
    2:52:40 a
    2:52:41 known
    2:52:41 entity
    2:52:42 a
    2:52:42 part
    2:52:42 of
    2:52:42 his
    2:52:43 public
    2:52:43 image
    2:52:44 and
    2:52:44 same
    2:52:44 was
    2:52:44 the
    2:52:45 case
    2:52:45 with
    2:52:46 Chi
    2:52:46 Kai
    2:52:47 Shek
    2:52:47 yes
    2:52:47 and
    2:52:48 both
    2:52:48 of
    2:52:49 them
    2:52:49 right
    2:52:49 they
    2:52:49 had
    2:52:49 high
    2:52:50 profile
    2:52:51 wives
    2:52:51 who
    2:52:51 were
    2:52:53 sort
    2:52:53 of
    2:52:54 celebrity
    2:52:54 figures
    2:52:55 and
    2:52:55 and
    2:52:56 made
    2:52:58 a
    2:52:58 good
    2:52:58 impression
    2:52:59 globally
    2:52:59 and
    2:52:59 were
    2:52:59 more
    2:53:00 like
    2:53:00 kind
    2:53:00 of
    2:53:00 first
    2:53:02 first
    2:53:02 ladies
    2:53:04 but
    2:53:04 both
    2:53:05 shang kai
    2:53:05 shek
    2:53:06 and
    2:53:06 xi jin
    2:53:06 ping
    2:53:08 were
    2:53:08 oversaw
    2:53:09 a period
    2:53:09 of
    2:53:10 emphasizing
    2:53:10 more
    2:53:11 traditional
    2:53:12 patriarchal
    2:53:12 values
    2:53:13 in
    2:53:13 china
    2:53:14 and
    2:53:14 one
    2:53:14 of
    2:53:14 the
    2:53:14 things
    2:53:15 i
    2:53:15 didn’t
    2:53:15 mention
    2:53:15 before
    2:53:16 xi
    2:53:16 jin
    2:53:16 ping
    2:53:16 has
    2:53:16 been
    2:53:17 very
    2:53:19 in
    2:53:19 this
    2:53:20 idea
    2:53:20 of
    2:53:20 trying
    2:53:21 to
    2:53:21 do
    2:53:21 away
    2:53:22 with
    2:53:22 difference
    2:53:22 within
    2:53:24 prc
    2:53:24 he’s
    2:53:25 been
    2:53:26 pushing
    2:53:26 against
    2:53:26 feminists
    2:53:27 of
    2:53:27 any
    2:53:27 kinds
    2:53:27 of
    2:53:28 feminist
    2:53:28 movements
    2:53:28 so
    2:53:29 going
    2:53:29 back
    2:53:29 to
    2:53:30 confucius
    2:53:30 yeah
    2:53:31 yeah
    2:53:32 in
    2:53:32 some
    2:53:32 way
    2:53:33 i mean
    2:53:33 there
    2:53:33 are
    2:53:34 people
    2:53:34 who
    2:53:34 will
    2:53:34 argue
    2:53:35 for
    2:53:35 a
    2:53:35 less
    2:53:36 patriarchal
    2:53:37 confucius
    2:53:37 but it
    2:53:38 fits
    2:53:38 with
    2:53:38 that
    2:53:39 mode
    2:53:39 so
    2:53:40 now
    2:53:40 that
    2:53:40 gets
    2:53:40 us
    2:53:41 close
    2:53:41 to
    2:53:41 mao
    2:53:42 consolidating
    2:53:43 power
    2:53:44 then
    2:53:44 then
    2:53:44 the
    2:53:45 story
    2:53:45 after
    2:53:46 1949
    2:53:46 with
    2:53:47 mao
    2:53:47 is
    2:53:48 there
    2:53:49 were
    2:53:51 divisions
    2:53:51 within
    2:53:55 the
    2:53:55 communist
    2:53:55 party
    2:53:56 over
    2:53:57 sort
    2:53:57 of
    2:53:58 mao
    2:53:58 was
    2:53:59 impatient
    2:53:59 he
    2:53:59 wanted
    2:54:00 to
    2:54:00 transform
    2:54:01 the
    2:54:01 country
    2:54:01 quickly
    2:54:02 he
    2:54:02 had
    2:54:02 a
    2:54:03 utopian
    2:54:03 streak
    2:54:04 he
    2:54:04 thought
    2:54:05 just as
    2:54:05 the
    2:54:06 peasantry
    2:54:06 could
    2:54:06 sort
    2:54:06 of
    2:54:07 you
    2:54:07 didn’t
    2:54:07 have
    2:54:07 to
    2:54:08 stick
    2:54:08 to
    2:54:08 the
    2:54:08 traditional
    2:54:09 pattern
    2:54:10 of
    2:54:10 moving
    2:54:11 slowly
    2:54:11 to
    2:54:12 socialism
    2:54:12 and
    2:54:12 then
    2:54:12 to
    2:54:13 communism
    2:54:13 he
    2:54:13 tried
    2:54:13 to
    2:54:14 the
    2:54:14 great
    2:54:14 leap
    2:54:14 forward
    2:54:15 was
    2:54:15 this
    2:54:16 disastrous
    2:54:17 policy
    2:54:17 of his
    2:54:18 that
    2:54:18 imagined
    2:54:19 China
    2:54:20 outdoing
    2:54:21 the
    2:54:22 West
    2:54:22 in a
    2:54:23 quick
    2:54:25 industrialization
    2:54:25 and move
    2:54:25 like this
    2:54:26 and it
    2:54:27 just
    2:54:28 didn’t
    2:54:29 work
    2:54:29 and all
    2:54:29 kinds
    2:54:29 of
    2:54:30 things
    2:54:30 were
    2:54:30 wrong
    2:54:30 and
    2:54:30 that
    2:54:30 would
    2:54:30 be
    2:54:33 a
    2:54:33 whole
    2:54:33 other
    2:54:34 session
    2:54:34 to do
    2:54:34 the
    2:54:35 great
    2:54:35 leap
    2:54:36 forward
    2:54:36 and
    2:54:36 the
    2:54:36 cultural
    2:54:37 revolution
    2:54:37 but one
    2:54:37 of the
    2:54:38 simple
    2:54:38 ways
    2:54:38 to
    2:54:38 think
    2:54:39 about
    2:54:39 it
    2:54:39 is
    2:54:40 Mao
    2:54:40 made
    2:54:41 these
    2:54:41 kind
    2:54:41 of
    2:54:42 disastrous
    2:54:43 moves
    2:54:43 and
    2:54:44 then
    2:54:44 was
    2:54:44 partially
    2:54:45 sidelined
    2:54:46 and
    2:54:46 then
    2:54:46 wanted
    2:54:46 to
    2:54:46 get
    2:54:47 back
    2:54:47 to
    2:54:48 power
    2:54:49 and
    2:54:49 there
    2:54:49 was
    2:54:50 this
    2:54:50 struggle
    2:54:50 between
    2:54:51 people
    2:54:51 who
    2:54:51 are
    2:54:51 more
    2:54:52 gradualist
    2:54:53 more
    2:54:54 let’s
    2:54:54 try to
    2:54:55 work
    2:54:55 more
    2:54:55 kind
    2:54:55 of
    2:54:56 rationally
    2:54:56 and
    2:54:57 the
    2:54:57 more
    2:54:58 utopian
    2:54:58 side
    2:54:59 with
    2:54:59 Mao
    2:55:00 and
    2:55:00 both
    2:55:00 the
    2:55:01 great
    2:55:01 leap
    2:55:01 forward
    2:55:02 and
    2:55:02 then
    2:55:02 later
    2:55:02 the
    2:55:03 cultural
    2:55:03 revolution
    2:55:04 were
    2:55:05 Mao’s
    2:55:05 efforts
    2:55:06 to
    2:55:09 to do
    2:55:09 things
    2:55:10 dramatically
    2:55:11 even at the
    2:55:11 risk of
    2:55:12 chaos
    2:55:12 even at the
    2:55:13 risk of
    2:55:16 undoing a
    2:55:16 lot of the
    2:55:17 kind of slow
    2:55:18 building of
    2:55:20 state building
    2:55:21 going on
    2:55:21 and then there
    2:55:22 were other
    2:55:23 figures who
    2:55:24 were more
    2:55:25 concerned with
    2:55:27 kind of
    2:55:27 incremental
    2:55:28 moves and
    2:55:29 then after
    2:55:30 Mao’s death
    2:55:31 one of
    2:55:31 those
    2:55:31 figures
    2:55:32 Deng Xiaoping
    2:55:33 ends up
    2:55:34 being the
    2:55:35 next
    2:55:36 long-term
    2:55:37 paramount
    2:55:37 leader
    2:55:38 he led to
    2:55:39 decades of
    2:55:40 economic
    2:55:40 progress
    2:55:41 his economic
    2:55:41 reforms
    2:55:42 led to
    2:55:43 record-breaking
    2:55:43 growth for
    2:55:44 China and
    2:55:44 so on
    2:55:45 but I
    2:55:45 gotta linger
    2:55:46 on
    2:55:47 the great
    2:55:48 leap
    2:55:48 forward
    2:55:49 a bit
    2:55:50 enough to
    2:55:50 understand
    2:55:51 modern-day
    2:55:51 China
    2:55:52 so
    2:55:54 as people
    2:55:55 know
    2:55:55 as I’ll
    2:55:56 talk about
    2:55:57 in other
    2:55:57 episodes
    2:55:59 the great
    2:56:00 leap forward
    2:56:00 this
    2:56:01 agricultural
    2:56:02 collectivization
    2:56:03 and rapid
    2:56:04 attempt to
    2:56:05 industrialize
    2:56:07 has killed
    2:56:08 30 to
    2:56:09 45 million
    2:56:10 people
    2:56:11 it’s
    2:56:11 one of
    2:56:12 the greatest
    2:56:13 atrocities in
    2:56:13 human history
    2:56:15 how could
    2:56:16 Mao
    2:56:18 be so
    2:56:19 catastrophically
    2:56:19 wrong on
    2:56:20 the policy of
    2:56:21 collectivization
    2:56:23 and be
    2:56:24 so
    2:56:25 unwilling
    2:56:25 to see
    2:56:26 the atrocity
    2:56:27 and the
    2:56:27 suffering he’s
    2:56:28 causing
    2:56:29 enough to
    2:56:30 change course
    2:56:31 so with
    2:56:32 the great
    2:56:32 leap forward
    2:56:33 it’s caused
    2:56:34 this incredible
    2:56:35 famine
    2:56:36 the just
    2:56:36 incredible
    2:56:37 devastation
    2:56:38 one of the
    2:56:40 one of the
    2:56:40 things that
    2:56:41 happened was
    2:56:42 getting very
    2:56:43 bad information
    2:56:43 there was a
    2:56:44 sense that
    2:56:46 there was
    2:56:46 people
    2:56:47 officials were
    2:56:48 afraid that
    2:56:49 if they gave
    2:56:49 bad news
    2:56:50 if they
    2:56:50 if they
    2:56:52 if they
    2:56:53 admitted that
    2:56:53 they were
    2:56:53 failing to
    2:56:54 meet these
    2:56:56 giant targets
    2:56:56 that were being
    2:56:56 set
    2:56:57 that would
    2:56:58 be seen
    2:56:58 as a
    2:56:58 political
    2:56:59 mistake
    2:56:59 so it
    2:57:00 got
    2:57:01 it got
    2:57:02 to be
    2:57:03 a survival
    2:57:03 mechanism
    2:57:04 to pass
    2:57:04 on
    2:57:06 unrealistic
    2:57:06 reports
    2:57:07 on what
    2:57:07 was going
    2:57:08 so some
    2:57:08 of it
    2:57:08 was
    2:57:10 a culture
    2:57:11 of fear
    2:57:11 around a
    2:57:12 great
    2:57:12 leader
    2:57:13 that led
    2:57:14 to
    2:57:15 not getting
    2:57:17 not getting
    2:57:17 accurate
    2:57:18 information
    2:57:19 so that was
    2:57:19 one part
    2:57:19 of the
    2:57:20 dynamic
    2:57:21 ego
    2:57:21 was a
    2:57:21 big part
    2:57:22 of it
    2:57:23 there were
    2:57:23 all kinds
    2:57:24 of things
    2:57:24 that were
    2:57:25 unmoored
    2:57:27 when
    2:57:28 early in
    2:57:28 the Chinese
    2:57:29 Communist Party
    2:57:30 history
    2:57:31 and power
    2:57:32 there was
    2:57:33 the connection
    2:57:33 to the
    2:57:34 Soviet Union
    2:57:35 and Mao
    2:57:36 and Stalin
    2:57:36 had a
    2:57:36 connection
    2:57:38 after Stalin’s
    2:57:38 death
    2:57:40 Mao was
    2:57:40 haunted
    2:57:41 by the
    2:57:42 move toward
    2:57:43 de-Stalinization
    2:57:44 and the moves
    2:57:45 by Khrushchev
    2:57:46 and thus
    2:57:47 laid the groundwork
    2:57:48 for the
    2:57:49 Sino-Soviet
    2:57:50 split
    2:57:50 but there
    2:57:51 was also
    2:57:51 this kind
    2:57:52 of
    2:57:53 obsession
    2:57:54 with doing
    2:57:54 things
    2:57:55 differently
    2:57:57 that Mao
    2:57:58 had in that
    2:57:58 case as
    2:57:58 well
    2:58:00 and you
    2:58:00 have
    2:58:00 factional
    2:58:01 struggles
    2:58:01 you have
    2:58:02 all kinds
    2:58:02 of things
    2:58:02 that are
    2:58:03 happening
    2:58:04 simultaneously
    2:58:06 there’s
    2:58:06 something I
    2:58:07 learned about
    2:58:07 called
    2:58:08 Gray’s
    2:58:08 Law
    2:58:10 which states
    2:58:10 any
    2:58:11 sufficiently
    2:58:12 advanced
    2:58:12 incompetence
    2:58:13 is
    2:58:14 indistinguishable
    2:58:14 from malice
    2:58:15 so I
    2:58:16 would say
    2:58:16 when
    2:58:18 30 to
    2:58:18 45 million
    2:58:19 people die
    2:58:20 it doesn’t
    2:58:20 really matter
    2:58:21 what the
    2:58:21 explanation
    2:58:22 is
    2:58:23 that’s a
    2:58:24 longer
    2:58:24 discussion
    2:58:26 but the
    2:58:26 interesting
    2:58:27 discussion
    2:58:27 that connects
    2:58:28 to everything
    2:58:28 we’ve been
    2:58:29 talking about
    2:58:29 is
    2:58:30 how is
    2:58:31 Mao
    2:58:32 seen
    2:58:33 in modern
    2:58:33 day China
    2:58:34 what has
    2:58:35 Xi Jinping
    2:58:37 said
    2:58:38 about
    2:58:38 Mao
    2:58:39 so
    2:58:40 before
    2:58:41 Xi Jinping
    2:58:42 there was
    2:58:42 this
    2:58:43 kind of
    2:58:45 assessment
    2:58:45 of
    2:58:46 Mao
    2:58:46 as
    2:58:47 having
    2:58:47 been
    2:58:48 early
    2:58:48 in the
    2:58:49 early
    2:58:49 80s
    2:58:50 of being
    2:58:51 70%
    2:58:51 right
    2:58:52 30%
    2:58:53 wrong
    2:58:53 I guess
    2:58:53 Mao’s
    2:58:54 own
    2:58:54 analysis
    2:58:54 of
    2:58:55 Stalin
    2:58:56 was
    2:58:57 that
    2:58:57 Stalin
    2:58:57 was
    2:58:58 70%
    2:58:58 right
    2:58:59 and
    2:58:59 30%
    2:58:59 wrong
    2:59:01 so they
    2:59:01 applied
    2:59:02 the same
    2:59:02 kind of
    2:59:03 logic
    2:59:03 there
    2:59:04 mathematical
    2:59:05 analysis
    2:59:05 to
    2:59:06 Mao
    2:59:06 yeah
    2:59:07 but
    2:59:08 Xi Jinping
    2:59:09 has had
    2:59:09 a different
    2:59:10 way of
    2:59:10 talking
    2:59:11 about
    2:59:11 this
    2:59:11 and
    2:59:11 he’s
    2:59:12 talked
    2:59:12 about
    2:59:12 the
    2:59:12 first
    2:59:13 30
    2:59:13 years
    2:59:13 of
    2:59:13 the
    2:59:14 people’s
    2:59:14 republic
    2:59:14 of
    2:59:14 China
    2:59:14 and
    2:59:15 the
    2:59:15 second
    2:59:15 30
    2:59:16 years
    2:59:17 and
    2:59:17 says
    2:59:17 that
    2:59:17 we
    2:59:17 should
    2:59:18 not
    2:59:19 use
    2:59:19 the
    2:59:20 successes
    2:59:20 of
    2:59:20 one
    2:59:21 to
    2:59:21 criticize
    2:59:21 the
    2:59:22 other
    2:59:22 that
    2:59:22 we
    2:59:22 need
    2:59:22 to
    2:59:23 see
    2:59:24 where
    2:59:24 we
    2:59:24 are
    2:59:25 today
    2:59:26 as
    2:59:28 benefiting
    2:59:28 from
    2:59:28 both
    2:59:29 those
    2:59:29 first
    2:59:29 30
    2:59:29 years
    2:59:30 and
    2:59:30 those
    2:59:30 second
    2:59:30 30
    2:59:31 years
    2:59:32 which
    2:59:33 implicitly
    2:59:33 or
    2:59:33 he
    2:59:33 sometimes
    2:59:34 talks
    2:59:34 about
    2:59:34 a
    2:59:34 new
    2:59:34 era
    2:59:35 suggests
    2:59:35 that
    2:59:36 in
    2:59:36 many
    2:59:37 ways
    2:59:37 he
    2:59:38 sees
    2:59:38 China
    2:59:38 as
    2:59:39 now
    2:59:39 in
    2:59:39 a
    2:59:40 post
    2:59:41 reform
    2:59:41 era
    2:59:42 we
    2:59:42 can
    2:59:42 think
    2:59:43 about
    2:59:43 a
    2:59:44 third
    2:59:44 stage
    2:59:44 and
    2:59:45 there
    2:59:45 are
    2:59:45 people
    2:59:45 who
    2:59:45 write
    2:59:45 about
    2:59:46 it
    2:59:46 in
    2:59:46 that
    2:59:46 way
    2:59:48 and
    2:59:48 so
    2:59:48 he
    2:59:49 clearly
    2:59:51 there’s
    2:59:51 always
    2:59:52 been a
    2:59:52 way
    2:59:52 of
    2:59:52 trying
    2:59:53 to
    2:59:54 separate
    2:59:55 out
    2:59:55 a
    2:59:55 kind
    2:59:55 of
    2:59:56 Mao
    2:59:56 of
    2:59:56 the
    2:59:57 periods
    2:59:57 when
    2:59:57 things
    2:59:57 were
    2:59:58 not
    2:59:59 going
    2:59:59 horribly
    3:00:01 and
    3:00:02 I
    3:00:02 think
    3:00:02 Xi
    3:00:02 Jinping
    3:00:03 would
    3:00:03 think
    3:00:03 that
    3:00:04 Mao
    3:00:05 having
    3:00:06 managed
    3:00:06 to
    3:00:06 fight
    3:00:07 the
    3:00:07 Korean
    3:00:07 War
    3:00:07 to
    3:00:08 a
    3:00:08 standstill
    3:00:09 which
    3:00:09 is
    3:00:09 how
    3:00:10 things
    3:00:11 are
    3:00:11 how
    3:00:12 the
    3:00:12 history
    3:00:12 of
    3:00:13 that
    3:00:13 period
    3:00:13 is
    3:00:14 described
    3:00:15 in
    3:00:15 the
    3:00:15 PRC
    3:00:15 and said
    3:00:16 look
    3:00:16 you had
    3:00:18 so many
    3:00:18 different
    3:00:18 forces
    3:00:19 of the
    3:00:19 more
    3:00:19 developed
    3:00:20 world
    3:00:21 fighting
    3:00:21 on one
    3:00:22 side
    3:00:22 and
    3:00:22 that
    3:00:23 war
    3:00:23 did
    3:00:23 not
    3:00:24 end
    3:00:24 in
    3:00:24 a
    3:00:24 defeat
    3:00:25 for
    3:00:26 North
    3:00:27 Korea
    3:00:27 and
    3:00:27 for
    3:00:27 the
    3:00:28 Chinese
    3:00:28 side
    3:00:30 so
    3:00:30 yeah
    3:00:31 Xi
    3:00:31 Jinping
    3:00:31 I
    3:00:31 think
    3:00:32 wants
    3:00:32 to
    3:00:32 be
    3:00:32 seen
    3:00:32 as
    3:00:33 an
    3:00:33 inheritor
    3:00:36 of
    3:00:36 Mao
    3:00:37 continue
    3:00:38 of
    3:00:38 one
    3:00:39 side
    3:00:39 of
    3:00:39 the
    3:00:39 Mao
    3:00:40 legacy
    3:00:41 but
    3:00:41 clearly
    3:00:42 circling
    3:00:42 back
    3:00:42 to
    3:00:43 where
    3:00:43 we
    3:00:43 began
    3:00:44 not
    3:00:44 the
    3:00:45 Mao
    3:00:45 who
    3:00:45 liked
    3:00:45 to
    3:00:46 stir
    3:00:46 things
    3:00:46 up
    3:00:47 not
    3:00:47 the
    3:00:47 Mao
    3:00:47 who
    3:00:48 believed
    3:00:48 in
    3:00:49 mobilizing
    3:00:50 youth
    3:00:50 on
    3:00:51 the
    3:00:51 streets
    3:00:52 Jews
    3:00:52 not
    3:00:52 the
    3:00:52 Mao
    3:00:53 who
    3:00:53 let
    3:00:53 things
    3:00:53 get
    3:00:54 out
    3:00:54 of
    3:00:54 control
    3:00:55 but
    3:00:55 the
    3:00:55 Mao
    3:00:56 who
    3:00:56 was
    3:00:57 responsible
    3:00:57 for
    3:00:58 strengthening
    3:00:58 the
    3:00:58 nation
    3:01:00 can
    3:01:00 I
    3:01:00 ask
    3:01:00 you
    3:01:00 about
    3:01:00 the
    3:01:01 1953
    3:01:02 speech
    3:01:02 can you
    3:01:03 just watch
    3:01:03 it real
    3:01:04 quick
    3:01:04 this
    3:01:04 particular
    3:01:05 speech
    3:01:06 is about
    3:01:08 in 1953
    3:01:09 at the
    3:01:09 end of
    3:01:09 the Korean
    3:01:10 war
    3:01:11 saying
    3:01:11 China
    3:01:11 will
    3:01:11 not
    3:01:12 surrender
    3:01:13 well
    3:01:14 let’s
    3:01:14 actually
    3:01:14 just
    3:01:14 listen
    3:01:15 to
    3:01:15 it
    3:01:15 the
    3:01:16 speech
    3:01:16 reads
    3:01:17 as
    3:01:17 to
    3:01:18 how
    3:01:18 long
    3:01:18 this
    3:01:19 war
    3:01:19 will
    3:01:19 last
    3:01:19 we’re
    3:01:20 not
    3:01:20 the
    3:01:20 ones
    3:01:20 who
    3:01:21 can
    3:01:21 decide
    3:01:22 it
    3:01:23 used
    3:01:23 to
    3:01:23 depend
    3:01:23 on
    3:01:24 President
    3:01:24 Truman
    3:01:25 it
    3:01:25 will
    3:01:25 depend
    3:01:25 on
    3:01:26 President
    3:01:26 Eisenhower
    3:01:27 or
    3:01:28 whoever
    3:01:28 will
    3:01:28 become
    3:01:28 the
    3:01:29 next
    3:01:29 U.S.
    3:01:29 president
    3:01:30 it’s
    3:01:30 up
    3:01:30 to
    3:01:30 them
    3:01:31 but
    3:01:31 no
    3:01:31 matter
    3:01:32 how
    3:01:32 long
    3:01:32 this
    3:01:33 war
    3:01:33 is
    3:01:33 going
    3:01:33 to
    3:01:34 last
    3:01:34 we
    3:01:35 will
    3:01:35 never
    3:01:36 yield
    3:01:45 we’ll
    3:01:45 fight
    3:01:46 until
    3:01:46 we
    3:01:46 completely
    3:01:47 triumph
    3:01:49 yeah
    3:01:49 so
    3:01:49 this
    3:01:50 is
    3:01:52 the
    3:01:52 version
    3:01:52 of
    3:01:52 Mao
    3:01:52 that
    3:01:53 you’re
    3:01:53 speaking
    3:01:53 to
    3:01:54 that
    3:01:55 is
    3:01:55 still
    3:01:56 celebrated
    3:01:57 today
    3:01:58 and
    3:01:59 from
    3:01:59 the
    3:02:00 Chinese
    3:02:00 perspective
    3:02:01 I guess
    3:02:01 they could
    3:02:01 tell the
    3:02:01 story
    3:02:02 about
    3:02:02 that
    3:02:02 particular
    3:02:03 proxy
    3:02:03 war
    3:02:03 that
    3:02:03 they
    3:02:05 triumphed
    3:02:06 now
    3:02:07 what do
    3:02:07 you think
    3:02:07 about that
    3:02:08 speech
    3:02:08 about
    3:02:08 these
    3:02:09 performances
    3:02:09 I
    3:02:16 well
    3:02:16 he
    3:02:16 had
    3:02:17 a
    3:02:17 really
    3:02:18 difficult
    3:02:18 accent
    3:02:19 to
    3:02:20 make
    3:02:20 sense
    3:02:20 of
    3:02:20 and
    3:02:21 people
    3:02:22 native
    3:02:23 speakers
    3:02:23 of
    3:02:23 Chinese
    3:02:24 can
    3:02:24 have
    3:02:24 trouble
    3:02:24 with
    3:02:26 his
    3:02:28 speech
    3:02:29 that
    3:02:29 one
    3:02:29 was
    3:02:29 less
    3:02:31 hard
    3:02:31 to
    3:02:31 follow
    3:02:31 than
    3:02:33 some
    3:02:33 of
    3:02:33 them
    3:02:33 what
    3:02:34 explains
    3:02:34 the
    3:02:34 accent
    3:02:35 well
    3:02:35 he’s
    3:02:35 just
    3:02:35 from
    3:02:36 Hunan
    3:02:37 and
    3:02:37 he
    3:02:37 had
    3:02:38 a
    3:02:38 heavy
    3:02:39 accent
    3:02:40 this
    3:02:41 is
    3:02:42 another
    3:02:42 complicated
    3:02:43 side
    3:02:43 of
    3:02:44 Mao
    3:02:44 he
    3:02:45 was
    3:02:47 both
    3:02:48 anti-intellectual
    3:02:48 and very
    3:02:49 intellectual
    3:02:50 he liked
    3:02:50 to
    3:02:51 write
    3:02:52 poetry
    3:02:52 and to
    3:02:52 fashion
    3:02:53 himself
    3:02:53 as that
    3:02:54 but he
    3:02:54 also liked
    3:02:55 to be
    3:02:55 seen as
    3:02:56 incredibly
    3:02:56 earthy
    3:02:58 and
    3:02:59 critical
    3:02:59 of
    3:03:02 intellectuals
    3:03:02 and
    3:03:03 if he
    3:03:03 had an
    3:03:04 animus
    3:03:04 toward
    3:03:04 you know
    3:03:05 wanting
    3:03:06 to
    3:03:06 even
    3:03:06 though
    3:03:06 he
    3:03:07 was
    3:03:09 intellectual
    3:03:09 he had
    3:03:09 that
    3:03:10 anti-intellectualism
    3:03:11 but no
    3:03:11 I think
    3:03:11 what’s
    3:03:12 interesting
    3:03:12 about that
    3:03:13 speech
    3:03:13 in part
    3:03:14 is
    3:03:14 how
    3:03:17 in
    3:03:17 even
    3:03:17 the
    3:03:18 depiction
    3:03:18 of
    3:03:19 the
    3:03:20 Korean
    3:03:20 War
    3:03:20 as
    3:03:21 being
    3:03:21 the
    3:03:22 war
    3:03:22 against
    3:03:23 America
    3:03:23 and
    3:03:23 resist
    3:03:24 America
    3:03:24 and
    3:03:25 support
    3:03:25 Korea
    3:03:26 I
    3:03:27 think
    3:03:27 it
    3:03:27 fit
    3:03:27 with
    3:03:28 his
    3:03:28 idea
    3:03:29 that
    3:03:30 it
    3:03:31 wasn’t
    3:03:31 just
    3:03:31 about
    3:03:32 China
    3:03:34 working
    3:03:35 in
    3:03:35 self
    3:03:36 interest
    3:03:36 but
    3:03:36 siding
    3:03:37 with
    3:03:39 the
    3:03:40 underdog
    3:03:41 countries
    3:03:42 against
    3:03:43 the
    3:03:43 hegemonic
    3:03:44 ones
    3:03:45 and
    3:03:45 that
    3:03:45 was
    3:03:46 another
    3:03:46 part
    3:03:46 of
    3:03:47 Mao’s
    3:03:49 desire
    3:03:49 to
    3:03:50 see
    3:03:50 China
    3:03:50 as
    3:03:51 representing
    3:03:52 the
    3:03:52 kind
    3:03:53 of
    3:03:56 third
    3:03:56 world
    3:03:56 and
    3:03:57 the
    3:04:00 countries
    3:04:00 that had
    3:04:01 felt the
    3:04:01 brunt
    3:04:02 of
    3:04:03 imperialism
    3:04:05 Western
    3:04:05 imperialism
    3:04:05 and
    3:04:06 Japanese
    3:04:07 imperialism
    3:04:07 and
    3:04:08 trying to
    3:04:08 find
    3:04:09 one or
    3:04:09 another
    3:04:13 country’s
    3:04:14 imperialism
    3:04:14 to focus
    3:04:15 on
    3:04:15 and that
    3:04:15 point
    3:04:16 he was
    3:04:16 focusing
    3:04:16 on
    3:04:17 America
    3:04:17 which
    3:04:17 is
    3:04:17 something
    3:04:18 that
    3:04:18 can
    3:04:18 have
    3:04:19 particular
    3:04:20 resonances
    3:04:21 now
    3:04:23 Mao
    3:04:23 could
    3:04:24 alternate
    3:04:24 that
    3:04:25 certain
    3:04:25 points
    3:04:25 he
    3:04:25 thought
    3:04:26 there
    3:04:26 should
    3:04:26 be
    3:04:27 an
    3:04:27 alliance
    3:04:27 with
    3:04:28 where
    3:04:28 he
    3:04:28 said
    3:04:29 that
    3:04:29 China
    3:04:29 should
    3:04:29 be
    3:04:30 able
    3:04:30 to
    3:04:30 work
    3:04:30 with
    3:04:31 Japan
    3:04:32 because
    3:04:35 at one
    3:04:35 point
    3:04:35 he said
    3:04:36 well
    3:04:36 without
    3:04:36 Japanese
    3:04:37 imperialism
    3:04:37 the
    3:04:37 Communist
    3:04:38 Party
    3:04:38 wouldn’t
    3:04:38 have
    3:04:38 risen
    3:04:39 because
    3:04:39 we
    3:04:40 wouldn’t
    3:04:40 have
    3:04:40 had
    3:04:40 this
    3:04:41 ability
    3:04:41 to
    3:04:41 unite
    3:04:42 the
    3:04:42 people
    3:04:44 we
    3:04:45 have
    3:04:45 seen
    3:04:45 in
    3:04:47 the
    3:04:47 post
    3:04:47 Mao
    3:04:48 period
    3:04:48 some
    3:04:49 leaders
    3:04:49 playing
    3:04:49 on
    3:04:51 anti-Japanese
    3:04:51 sentiment
    3:04:52 because
    3:04:52 of the
    3:04:52 history
    3:04:53 of
    3:04:54 Japanese
    3:04:54 aggression
    3:04:55 or
    3:04:56 there
    3:04:56 can
    3:04:57 be
    3:04:57 anti-American
    3:04:58 sentiment
    3:04:58 because
    3:04:58 of
    3:05:00 the
    3:05:01 history
    3:05:01 of
    3:05:01 American
    3:05:02 roles
    3:05:02 in
    3:05:03 imperialism
    3:05:04 or
    3:05:04 it
    3:05:04 can
    3:05:04 be
    3:05:04 played
    3:05:05 in
    3:05:05 a
    3:05:05 different
    3:05:05 way
    3:05:05 the
    3:05:05 United
    3:05:06 States
    3:05:06 certainly
    3:05:07 tried
    3:05:07 that
    3:05:07 the
    3:05:07 United
    3:05:08 States
    3:05:08 didn’t
    3:05:08 have
    3:05:08 formal
    3:05:09 colonies
    3:05:10 in
    3:05:12 Asia
    3:05:13 the way
    3:05:13 that
    3:05:14 Britain
    3:05:15 and France
    3:05:15 did
    3:05:15 and tried
    3:05:16 to present
    3:05:16 itself
    3:05:17 differently
    3:05:17 so
    3:05:17 these
    3:05:18 things
    3:05:18 are
    3:05:19 but
    3:05:19 these
    3:05:19 things
    3:05:19 are
    3:05:20 also
    3:05:20 kind
    3:05:20 of
    3:05:20 in
    3:05:21 flux
    3:05:21 and
    3:05:21 now
    3:05:21 we’re
    3:05:22 in
    3:05:22 this
    3:05:22 very
    3:05:23 unusual
    3:05:24 influx
    3:05:24 period
    3:05:25 at
    3:05:25 the
    3:05:25 beginning
    3:05:25 of
    3:05:26 the
    3:05:27 imposition
    3:05:27 of
    3:05:28 tariffs
    3:05:28 there
    3:05:28 were
    3:05:29 leaders
    3:05:30 of
    3:05:30 China
    3:05:31 Japan
    3:05:31 and
    3:05:32 Korea
    3:05:32 all
    3:05:33 to
    3:05:33 South
    3:05:33 Korea
    3:05:34 all
    3:05:34 together
    3:05:35 in
    3:05:36 photo ops
    3:05:36 which
    3:05:37 was not
    3:05:37 something
    3:05:38 that
    3:05:39 I mean
    3:05:40 being on
    3:05:40 the same
    3:05:40 side
    3:05:41 so
    3:05:41 so
    3:05:41 I think
    3:05:41 this
    3:05:42 is
    3:05:42 also
    3:05:42 just
    3:05:42 a
    3:05:43 broader
    3:05:43 lesson
    3:05:44 to
    3:05:44 not
    3:05:46 assume
    3:05:46 that
    3:05:46 configurations
    3:05:47 will
    3:05:47 always
    3:05:48 stay
    3:05:49 if
    3:05:49 you
    3:05:49 look
    3:05:50 out
    3:05:50 into
    3:05:50 the
    3:05:51 21st
    3:05:51 century
    3:05:53 what
    3:05:53 are
    3:05:53 some
    3:05:53 of
    3:05:54 the
    3:05:54 best
    3:05:54 possible
    3:05:55 things
    3:05:55 that
    3:05:55 could
    3:05:55 happen
    3:05:55 in
    3:05:55 the
    3:05:56 region
    3:05:57 and
    3:05:57 globally
    3:05:59 with
    3:05:59 China
    3:06:00 at the
    3:06:00 center
    3:06:01 of the
    3:06:01 world
    3:06:01 stage
    3:06:02 what
    3:06:02 are
    3:06:02 the
    3:06:03 possible
    3:06:03 trajectories
    3:06:04 you
    3:06:04 could
    3:06:04 see
    3:06:05 culturally
    3:06:07 economically
    3:06:08 politically
    3:06:09 in
    3:06:09 terms
    3:06:10 of
    3:06:10 partnerships
    3:06:10 and
    3:06:11 all
    3:06:11 this
    3:06:11 kind
    3:06:11 of
    3:06:11 stuff
    3:06:14 it’s
    3:06:14 such a
    3:06:15 such a
    3:06:15 such a
    3:06:16 hard
    3:06:16 moment
    3:06:17 to be
    3:06:17 imagining
    3:06:18 these
    3:06:18 things
    3:06:19 I mean
    3:06:19 I’ve
    3:06:20 long
    3:06:20 wanted
    3:06:21 to see
    3:06:23 a
    3:06:23 return
    3:06:24 of
    3:06:24 China
    3:06:25 to
    3:06:26 this
    3:06:26 path
    3:06:26 toward
    3:06:27 a
    3:06:27 more
    3:06:27 kind
    3:06:28 of
    3:06:30 yeah
    3:06:30 it wasn’t
    3:06:30 one of
    3:06:31 the people
    3:06:31 who
    3:06:32 imagined
    3:06:32 that
    3:06:34 there
    3:06:35 would be
    3:06:35 this
    3:06:35 convergence
    3:06:36 of
    3:06:37 sort
    3:06:37 of
    3:06:37 where
    3:06:37 China’s
    3:06:38 emergence
    3:06:38 into
    3:06:39 evolution
    3:06:39 into
    3:06:40 a
    3:06:40 liberal
    3:06:41 capitalist
    3:06:42 kind
    3:06:42 of
    3:06:42 country
    3:06:43 but
    3:06:44 I’d
    3:06:44 love
    3:06:44 to
    3:06:45 see
    3:06:45 a
    3:06:45 return
    3:06:45 to
    3:06:46 that
    3:06:46 more
    3:06:47 kind
    3:06:47 of
    3:06:48 tolerance
    3:06:48 of
    3:06:49 diversity
    3:06:49 within
    3:06:49 China
    3:06:50 variations
    3:06:51 within
    3:06:51 China
    3:06:52 more
    3:06:52 space
    3:06:52 for
    3:06:53 civil
    3:06:53 society
    3:06:55 and
    3:06:56 it’s
    3:06:56 a hard
    3:06:57 time to
    3:06:57 even
    3:06:57 imagine
    3:06:58 that
    3:06:58 because
    3:06:58 Hong Kong
    3:06:58 kind
    3:06:59 of
    3:06:59 represented
    3:07:01 that
    3:07:03 place
    3:07:03 that
    3:07:03 was
    3:07:03 somehow
    3:07:04 within
    3:07:04 it
    3:07:04 was
    3:07:04 an
    3:07:05 amazing
    3:07:05 thing
    3:07:05 I think
    3:07:06 looking
    3:07:06 backward
    3:07:08 rather than
    3:07:08 forward
    3:07:09 I think
    3:07:09 it’s
    3:07:10 really
    3:07:10 extraordinary
    3:07:11 how much
    3:07:13 leeway was
    3:07:13 given to
    3:07:14 Hong Kong
    3:07:14 for a
    3:07:15 period
    3:07:15 there
    3:07:16 that was
    3:07:16 really
    3:07:16 special
    3:07:17 no
    3:07:17 communist
    3:07:18 party
    3:07:18 run
    3:07:19 country
    3:07:19 had ever
    3:07:20 had a
    3:07:20 city
    3:07:20 within
    3:07:20 it
    3:07:21 that had
    3:07:22 as free
    3:07:23 a press
    3:07:23 as Hong Kong
    3:07:24 had then
    3:07:24 as much
    3:07:25 tolerance
    3:07:25 for
    3:07:27 protests
    3:07:28 and
    3:07:28 and
    3:07:28 and
    3:07:29 I
    3:07:29 think
    3:07:29 it
    3:07:30 was
    3:07:31 I
    3:07:31 mean
    3:07:32 I
    3:07:33 hope
    3:07:33 it
    3:07:33 can
    3:07:33 be
    3:07:34 seen
    3:07:34 by
    3:07:34 some
    3:07:35 at least
    3:07:35 within
    3:07:35 Beijing
    3:07:36 as a
    3:07:36 miscalculation
    3:07:37 too
    3:07:38 the
    3:07:38 people
    3:07:39 trying to
    3:07:39 wanted
    3:07:40 soft
    3:07:40 power
    3:07:41 and
    3:07:41 Hong Kong
    3:07:42 films
    3:07:43 were admired
    3:07:43 around the
    3:07:43 world
    3:07:44 this industry
    3:07:45 it was
    3:07:46 there was a
    3:07:46 way in which
    3:07:47 creativity
    3:07:48 flourishing
    3:07:49 so I
    3:07:49 guess
    3:07:49 it
    3:07:49 would
    3:07:49 be
    3:07:49 just
    3:07:49 the
    3:07:50 hope
    3:07:51 for
    3:07:51 more
    3:07:53 more
    3:07:54 spaces
    3:07:54 where
    3:07:55 that
    3:07:55 kind
    3:07:56 of
    3:07:57 creativity
    3:07:58 and
    3:07:58 openness
    3:07:59 debate
    3:07:59 where things
    3:08:00 can
    3:08:00 flourish
    3:08:00 I
    3:08:02 love to
    3:08:02 think
    3:08:02 that
    3:08:02 there
    3:08:03 actually
    3:08:03 are
    3:08:04 variety
    3:08:04 of
    3:08:04 things
    3:08:04 in
    3:08:05 Taiwan
    3:08:06 that
    3:08:06 if
    3:08:06 those
    3:08:06 could
    3:08:07 become
    3:08:08 broader
    3:08:09 norms
    3:08:11 not
    3:08:11 that
    3:08:12 Taiwan’s
    3:08:12 perfect
    3:08:12 it
    3:08:13 has
    3:08:13 its
    3:08:13 own
    3:08:14 internal
    3:08:15 problems
    3:08:15 but
    3:08:15 there
    3:08:16 are
    3:08:16 many
    3:08:17 really
    3:08:17 attractive
    3:08:18 things
    3:08:18 about
    3:08:18 it
    3:08:19 right
    3:08:19 now
    3:08:20 different
    3:08:20 kinds
    3:08:20 of
    3:08:21 things
    3:08:21 that
    3:08:21 flourish
    3:08:23 so
    3:08:24 maybe
    3:08:25 a
    3:08:27 setting
    3:08:27 in which
    3:08:27 Taiwan
    3:08:28 and
    3:08:29 in
    3:08:29 its
    3:08:30 post
    3:08:32 martial
    3:08:32 law
    3:08:33 post
    3:08:34 Leninist
    3:08:35 incarnation
    3:08:38 would be
    3:08:38 something
    3:08:39 that we
    3:08:39 could
    3:08:39 think
    3:08:39 of
    3:08:39 more
    3:08:41 yeah
    3:08:41 and
    3:08:41 you’re
    3:08:41 right
    3:08:42 Taiwan
    3:08:42 and
    3:08:43 especially
    3:08:43 Hong
    3:08:44 Kong
    3:08:44 are
    3:08:45 these
    3:08:45 it’s
    3:08:46 a truly
    3:08:46 special
    3:08:47 place
    3:08:47 it’s
    3:08:48 a case
    3:08:49 study
    3:08:50 it
    3:08:50 doesn’t
    3:08:50 make
    3:08:51 sense
    3:08:51 that
    3:08:51 that
    3:08:51 would
    3:08:51 happen
    3:08:52 but
    3:08:52 it
    3:08:52 happened
    3:08:53 history
    3:08:53 is
    3:08:53 full
    3:08:53 of
    3:08:54 wonderful
    3:08:54 things
    3:08:54 like
    3:08:54 this
    3:08:56 and
    3:08:56 I
    3:08:56 guess
    3:08:57 can you
    3:08:57 clarify
    3:08:58 you think
    3:08:58 the protests
    3:08:59 of 2019
    3:09:00 like the protests
    3:09:01 in 20
    3:09:03 they’re mostly
    3:09:04 a failure
    3:09:05 is there still
    3:09:06 a possibility
    3:09:07 that Hong Kong
    3:09:08 like rises
    3:09:09 and
    3:09:11 its
    3:09:12 way of
    3:09:13 life
    3:09:13 its way
    3:09:14 of being
    3:09:14 the
    3:09:14 democratic
    3:09:16 ideals
    3:09:17 not
    3:09:17 necessarily
    3:09:17 full
    3:09:18 on
    3:09:18 democracy
    3:09:18 or
    3:09:19 this
    3:09:19 kind
    3:09:19 of
    3:09:19 thing
    3:09:20 but
    3:09:20 would
    3:09:21 actually
    3:09:22 in a
    3:09:23 sense
    3:09:25 permeate
    3:09:26 China
    3:09:27 not the
    3:09:27 other way
    3:09:27 around
    3:09:28 so that
    3:09:29 was a hope
    3:09:29 early on
    3:09:30 and there
    3:09:30 were ways
    3:09:31 in which
    3:09:31 some
    3:09:32 parts
    3:09:32 of Hong
    3:09:32 Kong
    3:09:33 style
    3:09:33 even
    3:09:34 sort of
    3:09:35 permeated
    3:09:35 across
    3:09:35 the border
    3:09:36 I think
    3:09:37 it’s hard
    3:09:38 to see
    3:09:38 it
    3:09:39 now
    3:09:39 with how
    3:09:40 Hong
    3:09:40 Kong
    3:09:40 has
    3:09:40 changed
    3:09:41 but
    3:09:42 I
    3:09:42 hesitate
    3:09:43 to
    3:09:43 I
    3:09:43 mean
    3:09:44 an
    3:09:44 awareness
    3:09:44 of
    3:09:45 the
    3:09:46 unpredictability
    3:09:46 of
    3:09:47 things
    3:09:47 there’s
    3:09:48 no way
    3:09:48 to know
    3:09:48 what
    3:09:48 kind
    3:09:48 of
    3:09:49 thing
    3:09:49 there
    3:09:49 would
    3:09:49 be
    3:09:49 for
    3:09:50 Hong
    3:09:50 Kong
    3:09:50 later
    3:09:51 I
    3:09:51 do
    3:09:51 think
    3:09:51 there
    3:09:51 are
    3:09:52 things
    3:09:52 about
    3:09:53 Hong
    3:09:53 Kong
    3:09:54 that
    3:09:54 even
    3:09:54 in
    3:09:55 the
    3:09:55 failure
    3:09:55 of
    3:09:56 the
    3:09:56 movement
    3:09:57 have
    3:09:57 been
    3:09:58 have
    3:09:58 had
    3:10:01 repercussions
    3:10:01 that are
    3:10:01 not
    3:10:03 all
    3:10:03 negative
    3:10:03 I
    3:10:04 think
    3:10:05 the
    3:10:05 Hong
    3:10:05 Kong
    3:10:06 spirit
    3:10:06 which
    3:10:06 is
    3:10:07 being
    3:10:07 kept
    3:10:07 alive
    3:10:08 in
    3:10:08 diaspora
    3:10:09 communities
    3:10:10 around
    3:10:10 the
    3:10:11 world
    3:10:11 is
    3:10:11 really
    3:10:11 interesting
    3:10:12 there
    3:10:13 are
    3:10:13 things
    3:10:13 that
    3:10:14 are
    3:10:15 spreading
    3:10:16 I
    3:10:16 think
    3:10:16 Hong
    3:10:17 Kong
    3:10:17 represented
    3:10:18 a
    3:10:19 vision
    3:10:19 of a
    3:10:19 different
    3:10:20 way
    3:10:20 of
    3:10:21 being
    3:10:21 Chinese
    3:10:21 a
    3:10:21 different
    3:10:22 notion
    3:10:22 of
    3:10:23 Chineseness
    3:10:24 and I
    3:10:24 think
    3:10:24 that
    3:10:25 is
    3:10:25 something
    3:10:25 that
    3:10:26 exists
    3:10:28 and
    3:10:28 there
    3:10:28 have
    3:10:29 been
    3:10:29 protesters
    3:10:29 in
    3:10:30 a lot
    3:10:30 of
    3:10:30 other
    3:10:30 parts
    3:10:31 of
    3:10:31 the
    3:10:31 world
    3:10:31 Belarus
    3:10:32 to
    3:10:33 I
    3:10:33 used
    3:10:33 to
    3:10:33 say
    3:10:34 from
    3:10:35 Minneapolis
    3:10:35 to
    3:10:36 Minsk
    3:10:37 because
    3:10:37 in
    3:10:37 2020
    3:10:37 there
    3:10:38 were
    3:10:38 protests
    3:10:38 in
    3:10:38 the
    3:10:39 U.S.
    3:10:39 and
    3:10:39 in
    3:10:40 Belarus
    3:10:40 where
    3:10:40 there
    3:10:41 were
    3:10:41 activists
    3:10:42 who
    3:10:42 were
    3:10:42 talking
    3:10:42 about
    3:10:43 the
    3:10:43 Hong
    3:10:43 Kong
    3:10:44 idea
    3:10:44 of
    3:10:46 trying
    3:10:46 to
    3:10:47 focus
    3:10:47 on
    3:10:48 more
    3:10:49 flexible
    3:10:50 protest
    3:10:51 tactics
    3:10:51 something
    3:10:52 and
    3:10:52 clearly
    3:10:53 in
    3:10:53 Thailand
    3:10:54 there
    3:10:54 were
    3:10:54 people
    3:10:54 who
    3:10:55 looked
    3:10:56 at
    3:10:56 things
    3:10:56 to
    3:10:57 learn
    3:10:57 from
    3:10:57 Hong
    3:10:57 Kong
    3:10:58 even
    3:10:58 in
    3:10:58 defeat
    3:10:59 there
    3:10:59 there
    3:10:59 there
    3:11:00 is
    3:11:00 a
    3:11:00 New
    3:11:01 Zealand
    3:11:01 based
    3:11:01 China
    3:11:02 specialist
    3:11:02 Jeremy
    3:11:03 Barmé
    3:11:03 who
    3:11:03 talks
    3:11:04 about
    3:11:04 the
    3:11:04 other
    3:11:05 China
    3:11:05 which
    3:11:06 can
    3:11:06 exist
    3:11:06 within
    3:11:07 China
    3:11:08 physical
    3:11:08 China
    3:11:08 or
    3:11:09 elsewhere
    3:11:09 which
    3:11:09 is
    3:11:10 this
    3:11:12 equally
    3:11:13 attached
    3:11:13 to
    3:11:14 Chinese
    3:11:14 traditions
    3:11:15 but
    3:11:15 thinking
    3:11:15 of
    3:11:15 those
    3:11:16 traditions
    3:11:16 as
    3:11:16 including
    3:11:17 not
    3:11:17 just
    3:11:18 Confucianism
    3:11:18 but
    3:11:19 Taoism
    3:11:20 not
    3:11:20 just
    3:11:21 hierarchy
    3:11:22 but
    3:11:22 also
    3:11:23 openness
    3:11:23 to
    3:11:24 cosmopolitanism
    3:11:24 not
    3:11:25 just
    3:11:25 nationalism
    3:11:25 but
    3:11:26 cosmopolitanism
    3:11:27 and
    3:11:27 I
    3:11:28 think
    3:11:28 there
    3:11:28 are
    3:11:28 some
    3:11:31 elements
    3:11:31 of
    3:11:32 that
    3:11:32 that
    3:11:32 even
    3:11:32 in
    3:11:33 failure
    3:11:34 the
    3:11:34 Hong
    3:11:34 Kong
    3:11:35 movements
    3:11:35 the
    3:11:35 Hong
    3:11:35 Kong
    3:11:36 protests
    3:11:36 of
    3:11:36 the
    3:11:37 2020s
    3:11:37 were
    3:11:37 a
    3:11:37 last
    3:11:38 flourishing
    3:11:39 of
    3:11:39 that
    3:11:39 and
    3:11:39 we
    3:11:40 can
    3:11:40 see
    3:11:40 some
    3:11:40 elements
    3:11:40 of
    3:11:41 that
    3:11:42 in
    3:11:43 we
    3:11:43 can
    3:11:44 think
    3:11:44 of
    3:11:44 Taiwan
    3:11:45 elements
    3:11:45 of
    3:11:45 that
    3:11:46 as
    3:11:46 another
    3:11:46 China
    3:11:47 as
    3:11:47 well
    3:11:49 and
    3:11:49 I
    3:11:50 think
    3:11:50 recovering
    3:11:51 not
    3:11:52 allowing
    3:11:53 the
    3:11:53 particular
    3:11:54 version
    3:11:54 of
    3:11:55 Chineseness
    3:11:55 that
    3:11:55 the
    3:11:56 Chinese
    3:11:57 Communist Party
    3:11:57 under
    3:11:57 Xi Jinping
    3:11:58 wants
    3:11:59 to
    3:11:59 make
    3:12:00 people
    3:12:00 think
    3:12:01 of
    3:12:01 as
    3:12:02 the
    3:12:02 essence
    3:12:02 of
    3:12:03 Chinese
    3:12:03 Chinese
    3:12:04 China
    3:12:05 has
    3:12:05 multiple
    3:12:06 cultural
    3:12:07 strands
    3:12:07 multiple
    3:12:08 traditions
    3:12:09 that
    3:12:09 people
    3:12:10 can
    3:12:10 tap
    3:12:11 into
    3:12:12 and
    3:12:12 it’s
    3:12:12 something
    3:12:13 richer
    3:12:15 and
    3:12:16 more
    3:12:16 admirable
    3:12:17 I think
    3:12:17 than this
    3:12:18 narrowed
    3:12:18 down
    3:12:18 version
    3:12:19 and
    3:12:19 I
    3:12:19 hope
    3:12:20 for
    3:12:20 a
    3:12:20 future
    3:12:21 where
    3:12:21 both
    3:12:21 Hong
    3:12:22 Kong
    3:12:22 and
    3:12:23 Beijing
    3:12:24 have
    3:12:25 bookstores
    3:12:26 that
    3:12:26 carry
    3:12:27 1984
    3:12:27 Brave
    3:12:28 New
    3:12:28 World
    3:12:28 and
    3:12:29 all
    3:12:29 of
    3:12:29 your
    3:12:29 books
    3:12:32 and
    3:12:32 I
    3:12:32 can’t
    3:12:33 wait
    3:12:33 to
    3:12:33 visit
    3:12:33 them
    3:12:35 and
    3:12:35 enjoy
    3:12:36 the
    3:12:36 intellectual
    3:12:37 flourishing
    3:12:37 of
    3:12:38 incredible
    3:12:39 people
    3:12:39 what a
    3:12:40 beautiful
    3:12:40 world
    3:12:40 to live
    3:12:41 in
    3:12:41 the
    3:12:41 Chinese
    3:12:42 people
    3:12:42 all the
    3:12:43 people
    3:12:43 I’ve
    3:12:43 met
    3:12:43 it’s
    3:12:43 just
    3:12:44 so
    3:12:45 great
    3:12:46 to
    3:12:47 interact
    3:12:48 with
    3:12:49 totally
    3:12:50 different
    3:12:50 culture
    3:12:50 you
    3:12:50 can
    3:12:51 feel
    3:12:51 the
    3:12:51 roots
    3:12:52 run
    3:12:52 deep
    3:12:53 through
    3:12:53 ancient
    3:12:54 history
    3:12:54 that
    3:12:54 are
    3:12:55 very
    3:12:55 different
    3:12:57 and
    3:12:57 it’s
    3:12:57 amazing
    3:12:58 it’s
    3:12:58 amazing
    3:12:59 that
    3:12:59 earth
    3:12:59 produced
    3:13:01 Chinese
    3:13:01 people
    3:13:03 Indian
    3:13:03 people
    3:13:04 the
    3:13:05 Slavic
    3:13:05 people
    3:13:06 there’s
    3:13:06 just
    3:13:06 all
    3:13:07 kinds
    3:13:07 of
    3:13:07 variants
    3:13:08 and
    3:13:08 we
    3:13:09 all
    3:13:09 have
    3:13:09 our
    3:13:09 own
    3:13:10 weirdnesses
    3:13:11 and quirks
    3:13:11 and so
    3:13:11 on
    3:13:12 everybody
    3:13:12 has
    3:13:13 brilliant
    3:13:13 people
    3:13:14 we
    3:13:14 all
    3:13:14 start
    3:13:15 shit
    3:13:15 with
    3:13:15 each
    3:13:15 other
    3:13:15 every
    3:13:16 once
    3:13:16 in
    3:13:16 a
    3:13:16 while
    3:13:16 but
    3:13:17 I
    3:13:17 hope
    3:13:17 now
    3:13:17 that
    3:13:17 we
    3:13:18 have
    3:13:18 nuclear
    3:13:18 weapons
    3:13:19 and I
    3:13:19 hope
    3:13:20 now
    3:13:20 that
    3:13:20 we
    3:13:20 have
    3:13:21 technology
    3:13:21 that
    3:13:21 connects
    3:13:22 us
    3:13:22 we’ll
    3:13:22 actually
    3:13:25 collaborate
    3:13:26 more
    3:13:27 than we
    3:13:27 fight
    3:13:28 each
    3:13:28 other
    3:13:29 and
    3:13:29 thank
    3:13:29 you
    3:13:29 for
    3:13:30 being
    3:13:30 one
    3:13:30 of
    3:13:30 the
    3:13:30 people
    3:13:30 that
    3:13:31 shows
    3:13:31 off
    3:13:31 the
    3:13:32 beauty
    3:13:32 of
    3:13:32 this
    3:13:32 particular
    3:13:33 peoples
    3:13:34 of
    3:13:35 the
    3:13:35 entire
    3:13:36 region
    3:13:36 really
    3:13:36 of
    3:13:36 Southeast
    3:13:37 Asia
    3:13:38 and it’s
    3:13:39 an honor
    3:13:39 to talk
    3:13:39 to you
    3:13:39 thank you
    3:13:40 so
    3:13:40 much
    3:13:41 thanks
    3:13:41 for
    3:13:41 having
    3:13:41 me
    3:13:41 on
    3:13:43 thanks
    3:13:43 for
    3:13:43 listening
    3:13:43 to
    3:13:44 this
    3:13:44 conversation
    3:13:44 with
    3:13:45 Jeffrey
    3:13:45 Wasserstrom
    3:13:46 to support
    3:13:46 this
    3:13:47 podcast
    3:13:47 please check
    3:13:48 out our
    3:13:48 sponsors
    3:13:48 in the
    3:13:49 description
    3:13:50 and now
    3:13:51 let me
    3:13:51 leave you
    3:13:51 with some
    3:13:52 words
    3:13:52 from
    3:13:53 Confucius
    3:13:54 when
    3:13:55 anger
    3:13:56 rises
    3:13:57 think
    3:13:58 of the
    3:13:59 consequences
    3:14:01 thank you
    3:14:01 for listening
    3:14:02 and hope
    3:14:03 to see
    3:14:03 you
    3:14:04 next
    3:14:04 time
    3:14:11 bye

    Jeffrey Wasserstrom is a historian of modern China.
    Thank you for listening ❤ Check out our sponsors: https://lexfridman.com/sponsors/ep466-sc
    See below for timestamps, transcript, and to give feedback, submit questions, contact Lex, etc.

    Transcript:
    https://lexfridman.com/jeffrey-wasserstrom-transcript

    CONTACT LEX:
    Feedback – give feedback to Lex: https://lexfridman.com/survey
    AMA – submit questions, videos or call-in: https://lexfridman.com/ama
    Hiring – join our team: https://lexfridman.com/hiring
    Other – other ways to get in touch: https://lexfridman.com/contact

    EPISODE LINKS:
    Jeffrey Wasserstrom’s Books:
    China in the 21st Century: https://amzn.to/3GnayXT
    Vigil: Hong Kong on the Brink: https://amzn.to/4jmxWmT
    Oxford History of Modern China: https://amzn.to/3RAJ9nI
    The Milk Tea Alliance: https://amzn.to/42DLapH

    SPONSORS:
    To support this podcast, check out our sponsors & get discounts:
    Oracle: Cloud infrastructure.
    Go to https://oracle.com/lex
    Tax Network USA: Full-service tax firm.
    Go to https://tnusa.com/lex
    Shopify: Sell stuff online.
    Go to https://shopify.com/lex
    LMNT: Zero-sugar electrolyte drink mix.
    Go to https://drinkLMNT.com/lex
    AG1: All-in-one daily nutrition drink.
    Go to https://drinkag1.com/lex

    OUTLINE:
    (00:00) – Introduction
    (00:06) – Sponsors, Comments, and Reflections
    (10:29) – Xi Jinping and Mao Zedong
    (13:57) – Confucius
    (21:27) – Education
    (29:33) – Tiananmen Square
    (40:49) – Tank Man
    (50:49) – Censorship
    (1:26:45) – Xi Jinping
    (1:44:53) – Donald Trump
    (1:48:47) – Trade war
    (2:01:35) – Taiwan
    (2:11:48) – Protests in Hong Kong
    (2:44:07) – Mao Zedong
    (3:05:48) – Future of China

    PODCAST LINKS:
    – Podcast Website: https://lexfridman.com/podcast
    – Apple Podcasts: https://apple.co/2lwqZIr
    – Spotify: https://spoti.fi/2nEwCF8
    – RSS: https://lexfridman.com/feed/podcast/
    – Podcast Playlist: https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLrAXtmErZgOdP_8GztsuKi9nrraNbKKp4
    – Clips Channel: https://www.youtube.com/lexclips

    SOCIAL LINKS:
    – X: https://x.com/lexfridman
    – Instagram: https://instagram.com/lexfridman
    – TikTok: https://tiktok.com/@lexfridman
    – LinkedIn: https://linkedin.com/in/lexfridman
    – Facebook: https://facebook.com/lexfridman
    – Patreon: https://patreon.com/lexfridman
    – Telegram: https://t.me/lexfridman
    – Reddit: https://reddit.com/r/lexfridman

  • #465 – Robert Rodriguez: Sin City, Desperado, El Mariachi, Alita, and Filmmaking

    #465 – Robert Rodriguez: Sin City, Desperado, El Mariachi, Alita, and Filmmaking

    AI transcript
    0:00:02 The following is a conversation with Robert Rodriguez,
    0:00:09 a legendary filmmaker and creator of Sin City, El Mariachi, Desperado, Spy Kids,
    0:00:14 Machete, From Dusk Till Dawn, Alita, Battle Angel, The Faculty, and many more.
    0:00:21 Robert inspired a generation of independent filmmakers with his first film, El Mariachi,
    0:00:24 that he famously made for just $7,000.
    0:00:29 On that film, and many since, he was not only the director,
    0:00:35 he was also the writer, producer, cinematographer, editor, visual effects supervisor,
    0:00:40 sound designer, composer, basically the full stack of filmmaking.
    0:00:48 He has shown incredible versatility across genres, including action, horror, family films, and sci-fi,
    0:00:53 with some epic collaborations with Quentin Tarantino, James Cameron,
    0:00:56 and many other legendary actors and filmmakers.
    0:01:02 He has often operated at the technological cutting edge, pioneering using HD filmmaking,
    0:01:07 digital backlots, and 3D tech, and always, through all of that,
    0:01:12 he’s been a champion of independent filmmaking, running his own studio here in Austin, Texas,
    0:01:16 which, in many ways, is very far away from Hollywood.
    0:01:21 He’s building a new thing now, called Brass Knuckle Films,
    0:01:26 where he’s opening up the filmmaking process so that fans can be a part of it,
    0:01:29 as he creates his next four action films.
    0:01:34 I’ll probably go hang out at his film studio a bunch, as this is all coming to life.
    0:01:40 His work has inspired a very large number of people, including me,
    0:01:44 to be more creative in whatever pursuit you take on in life,
    0:01:46 and have fun doing it.
    0:01:49 And now, a quick few second-mentions to be sponsored.
    0:01:51 Check them out in the description.
    0:01:53 It’s the best way to support this podcast.
    0:01:56 We’ve got InVideo AI for video generation,
    0:01:58 Brain.fm for focus,
    0:01:59 NetSuite for business,
    0:02:01 Shopify for e-commerce,
    0:02:03 and Element for hydration.
    0:02:05 Choose wisely, my friends.
    0:02:09 I do try to make these ad reads interesting and personal,
    0:02:11 often related to stuff I’m reading or thinking about,
    0:02:13 but if you must skip them,
    0:02:15 please still check out the sponsors,
    0:02:16 sign up,
    0:02:18 buy whatever they’re selling.
    0:02:20 I enjoy their stuff.
    0:02:21 Maybe you will too.
    0:02:24 Also, if you want to get in touch with me for whatever reason,
    0:02:26 go to lexiumin.com slash contact.
    0:02:29 And now, on to the full ad reads.
    0:02:29 Let’s go.
    0:02:33 This episode is brought to you by InVideo AI,
    0:02:37 a video-generating app that allows you to create full-length videos
    0:02:39 using just text prompts.
    0:02:43 Perhaps, obviously, InVideo is the perfect sponsor
    0:02:47 for this conversation with Robert Rodriguez.
    0:02:49 He has been, for decades,
    0:02:52 the guy willing to use cutting-edge technology.
    0:02:56 Digital HD, VR, 3D.
    0:02:58 And now we’re in a time and a space
    0:03:00 where it is not quite used by the big filmmakers
    0:03:02 because they’re not really sure
    0:03:04 how to leverage its power.
    0:03:06 And so I think it’s really the role
    0:03:07 of the independent filmmakers
    0:03:10 to start playing with video generation.
    0:03:13 Start playing five seconds,
    0:03:14 ten seconds at a time,
    0:03:15 seeing what you can do
    0:03:17 in a storytelling art form.
    0:03:19 I do think it’s a skill
    0:03:21 I’ve used in video a lot.
    0:03:22 There’s some aspect of it
    0:03:24 you have to kind of nudge the system
    0:03:25 into that direction.
    0:03:27 I mean, it really is like having two directors.
    0:03:30 And there’s things that humans are really good at,
    0:03:31 and there’s things that AI is really good at,
    0:03:33 and the dance between the two
    0:03:34 is where the art form is.
    0:03:37 Anyway, you can try InVideo AI for free,
    0:03:39 saving you lots of time and money
    0:03:41 you’d otherwise spend on editing,
    0:03:42 animating, and other production costs.
    0:03:45 Go to invideo.io slash lexpod.
    0:03:48 That’s invideo.io slash lexpod.
    0:03:50 This episode is also brought to you
    0:03:52 by brain.fm,
    0:03:53 a platform that offers music
    0:03:56 specifically made for focus.
    0:03:58 I remember thinking that focus,
    0:03:59 or the lack of focus,
    0:04:03 was 100% the consequence
    0:04:05 of your mind and nothing else.
    0:04:08 That you should be able to shut off the world
    0:04:12 and deeply focus on a particular thought,
    0:04:13 or line of thought,
    0:04:14 or on nothingness,
    0:04:14 or on your breath,
    0:04:15 you know,
    0:04:17 like you do in meditation.
    0:04:18 You should be able to do that
    0:04:19 just with the power of your mind.
    0:04:21 And in some sense,
    0:04:23 I still believe that.
    0:04:26 But I think there’s just some things
    0:04:27 that make it easier.
    0:04:30 I first discovered that,
    0:04:31 I don’t know how long ago now,
    0:04:34 but listening to different kinds of noise,
    0:04:35 white noise, brown noise,
    0:04:36 and realizing,
    0:04:38 whoa, something is happening here.
    0:04:42 The mind is just much more naturally,
    0:04:43 much quicker,
    0:04:44 much more efficiently,
    0:04:47 able to achieve that state of focus
    0:04:49 where you shut off the rest of the world.
    0:04:52 And so brain.fm takes it just to another level.
    0:04:54 There’s just so much variety
    0:04:56 for any working environment
    0:04:57 where you want to optimize
    0:05:00 the kind of audio landscape.
    0:05:03 Increase your focus and try brain.fm free
    0:05:04 for 30 days
    0:05:05 by going to brain.fm slash lex.
    0:05:09 That’s brain.fm slash lex for 30 days free.
    0:05:12 This episode is also brought to you by NetSuite,
    0:05:15 an all-in-one cloud business management system.
    0:05:19 Boy, are we really getting to understand
    0:05:22 the inner workings of individual businesses
    0:05:24 and the interaction between those businesses
    0:05:27 within the supply chain domestically
    0:05:29 and internationally now
    0:05:32 with the new evolving trade policy.
    0:05:35 I’ll probably have several conversations
    0:05:37 with the top leadership on this topic soon.
    0:05:40 The economy is both an incredibly resilient
    0:05:41 and a fragile system.
    0:05:45 Whenever you have these centralized,
    0:05:48 big, giant hammer type policies,
    0:05:51 they can have an impact that reverberates
    0:05:54 not just through the direct consequences
    0:05:55 of those policies,
    0:06:00 but just second, third, fourth order effects.
    0:06:04 Plus, they create the psychological effects
    0:06:05 within human minds
    0:06:08 of uncertainty, of fear.
    0:06:10 And based on that,
    0:06:11 they make decisions
    0:06:13 which are often suboptimal for the economy.
    0:06:15 So you get to see
    0:06:16 the inner workings of businesses
    0:06:19 and how they function in response to those,
    0:06:20 almost like an immune system
    0:06:21 within each business
    0:06:23 to see how can we survive,
    0:06:26 how can we turn a profit still.
    0:06:28 And all of that comes into play,
    0:06:29 all the HR,
    0:06:30 all the inventory,
    0:06:31 all of that.
    0:06:32 I’m deeply grateful
    0:06:33 for the wisdom
    0:06:34 and the power of the market.
    0:06:36 We should be careful
    0:06:38 not to mess with it too much.
    0:06:40 Download the CFO’s Guide
    0:06:42 to AI and Machine Learning
    0:06:43 at netsuite.com slash lex.
    0:06:46 That’s netsuite.com slash lex.
    0:06:48 This episode is also brought to you
    0:06:49 by Shopify,
    0:06:50 a platform designed
    0:06:52 for anyone to sell anywhere
    0:06:53 with a great-looking online store.
    0:06:55 Speaking of capitalism,
    0:06:56 I’ve also been reading
    0:06:59 a large amount of literature on China
    0:07:00 to understand
    0:07:01 the culture,
    0:07:02 the peoples,
    0:07:05 the mechanism used by the government.
    0:07:07 All that to help me understand
    0:07:09 and break through
    0:07:10 some of the propaganda
    0:07:11 of the Western perspective.
    0:07:12 Of course,
    0:07:13 there’s truth to it,
    0:07:15 the skepticism
    0:07:15 and the caution
    0:07:16 that the West has.
    0:07:18 But I think there’s a lot
    0:07:20 of interest at play here
    0:07:21 and a lot of warmongers
    0:07:23 that want to wage war
    0:07:24 instead of make peace.
    0:07:27 I do think that the economy
    0:07:29 and economic relationships
    0:07:30 and trading and buying
    0:07:31 and selling,
    0:07:32 all of that
    0:07:35 is a fundamentally peaceful action
    0:07:36 that protects us
    0:07:37 from escalating
    0:07:38 military conflict
    0:07:39 and otherwise.
    0:07:40 I continue to hope
    0:07:41 we’re past all that
    0:07:42 military conflict.
    0:07:43 But anyway,
    0:07:44 the thing I love about America
    0:07:46 is the companies,
    0:07:48 the huge number
    0:07:49 of entrepreneurs
    0:07:50 building stuff,
    0:07:51 creating stuff,
    0:07:51 dreaming,
    0:07:53 buying and selling
    0:07:54 from each other.
    0:07:55 I don’t know.
    0:07:57 That just fills me with hope
    0:07:59 that individuals can dream
    0:08:00 and have the power
    0:08:01 to bring that dream
    0:08:02 to a reality.
    0:08:04 Anyway,
    0:08:06 sign up for a $1 per month
    0:08:07 trial period
    0:08:08 at shopify.com
    0:08:08 slash lex.
    0:08:09 That’s all lowercase.
    0:08:11 Go to shopify.com
    0:08:11 slash lex
    0:08:12 to take your business
    0:08:14 to the next level today.
    0:08:16 This episode was brought to you
    0:08:16 by Element,
    0:08:18 my daily zero sugar
    0:08:19 and delicious electrolyte mix
    0:08:20 that I’m drinking now
    0:08:22 as I’m traveling
    0:08:23 in the middle of nowhere.
    0:08:25 Barely know where I am.
    0:08:26 Barely know who I am.
    0:08:28 Barely know what time it is.
    0:08:30 I’ve been feeling lost
    0:08:31 and out of balance
    0:08:32 for many reasons.
    0:08:34 hoping there will be
    0:08:35 a sign of some sort.
    0:08:37 Some sort of
    0:08:39 little miracle
    0:08:40 that will help me
    0:08:40 find my way.
    0:08:42 This conversation
    0:08:42 with Robert
    0:08:44 was an inspiring one.
    0:08:47 He really did
    0:08:48 everything he’s done
    0:08:50 against all odds.
    0:08:52 Fearless and bold.
    0:08:55 When shit goes wrong,
    0:08:56 he just figures it out.
    0:08:58 There’s something about him.
    0:09:00 Just being around him,
    0:09:01 the energy
    0:09:04 of urgency
    0:09:06 of creative excitement
    0:09:07 to just
    0:09:09 take on the problems
    0:09:09 of the day.
    0:09:11 It’s not like
    0:09:13 excitement to create.
    0:09:14 It’s excitement
    0:09:15 to take on
    0:09:16 the problems
    0:09:17 that will for sure
    0:09:18 come when you try
    0:09:18 to create.
    0:09:19 The different angle
    0:09:21 is a more honest one.
    0:09:23 It’s a more inspiring one.
    0:09:24 More energizing one.
    0:09:26 Yeah.
    0:09:27 Anyway,
    0:09:28 while we’re talking
    0:09:29 about Element,
    0:09:30 watermelon salt,
    0:09:31 get a sample pack
    0:09:32 for free
    0:09:33 with any purchase.
    0:09:34 Try it at
    0:09:35 drinkelement.com
    0:09:36 slash Lex.
    0:09:38 This is the Lex Friedman
    0:09:39 podcast.
    0:09:40 To support it,
    0:09:41 please check out
    0:09:41 our sponsors
    0:09:42 in the description.
    0:09:43 And now,
    0:09:44 dear friends,
    0:09:46 here’s Robert
    0:09:47 Rodriguez.
    0:10:05 has there been
    0:10:07 a time when
    0:10:07 there was like
    0:10:08 one take
    0:10:08 and you only have
    0:10:09 one take
    0:10:09 to get it right?
    0:10:10 Oh,
    0:10:11 all the time
    0:10:11 where you’re just like,
    0:10:12 or just you know
    0:10:13 how long it’ll take
    0:10:14 to reset
    0:10:14 and you’re just,
    0:10:16 but then you know
    0:10:16 what you,
    0:10:17 you got to just
    0:10:18 work with what you got.
    0:10:18 You know,
    0:10:19 you got to work
    0:10:20 with your results.
    0:10:21 You get nervous
    0:10:22 or no in that moment?
    0:10:23 Oh yeah,
    0:10:24 you’re nervous
    0:10:24 going like,
    0:10:26 just I hope it goes off
    0:10:26 because then
    0:10:27 to fix it,
    0:10:28 I’ll have to go do
    0:10:28 a bunch of other steps
    0:10:29 which we don’t have
    0:10:30 time for.
    0:10:31 But a lot of times,
    0:10:31 you know,
    0:10:32 I’ve just learned
    0:10:33 that if something happens,
    0:10:34 it’s just meant
    0:10:34 to be that way.
    0:10:37 And I got used
    0:10:37 to doing things
    0:10:38 in one take
    0:10:39 and just living with it
    0:10:39 didn’t bother me.
    0:10:40 One movie,
    0:10:42 it was even a low budget movie,
    0:10:44 they had rigged a car
    0:10:46 to implode
    0:10:46 because I was going
    0:10:47 to throw a guy at it.
    0:10:47 So we needed a car
    0:10:48 to implode
    0:10:48 and then we’re going
    0:10:49 to throw them
    0:10:50 and marry it together,
    0:10:50 right?
    0:10:54 And the car guy goes,
    0:10:55 yeah,
    0:10:55 we’re going to have
    0:10:56 three cars rigged.
    0:10:57 Three cars?
    0:10:57 Why do you have to
    0:10:58 Well,
    0:10:59 in case one doesn’t work
    0:11:00 and then we have
    0:11:00 a second,
    0:11:01 we have a third one.
    0:11:01 We don’t have all night
    0:11:02 to go shoot
    0:11:03 take after take.
    0:11:03 We’re doing just
    0:11:04 get one car
    0:11:05 and if it doesn’t work,
    0:11:06 we’ll figure it out.
    0:11:07 You don’t have time
    0:11:08 to do it again sometimes.
    0:11:10 It’s such a long setup.
    0:11:11 So I go,
    0:11:11 no,
    0:11:12 I’m good with just going.
    0:11:13 In a grindhouse movie,
    0:11:14 they only had one take,
    0:11:16 so that’ll make it
    0:11:16 more authentic.
    0:11:19 When it all goes to shit,
    0:11:19 when it fails,
    0:11:20 you just,
    0:11:21 what’s the next thought?
    0:11:22 So I’ll tell you,
    0:11:23 two things happened
    0:11:23 on Just Till Done.
    0:11:25 First was,
    0:11:26 okay,
    0:11:26 you know how those
    0:11:27 explosions,
    0:11:28 when somebody walks away
    0:11:29 in slow motion
    0:11:29 from an explosion
    0:11:30 that’s become kind of,
    0:11:31 you know that started
    0:11:32 with Desperado?
    0:11:33 Desperado’s the first.
    0:11:35 If you look at all the montages,
    0:11:35 Desperado’s the first.
    0:11:36 That’s right.
    0:11:37 That is the meme.
    0:11:38 Because it was an accident,
    0:11:39 it was just supposed to be,
    0:11:40 it was just two grenades,
    0:11:41 not a nuclear bomb.
    0:11:42 He throws them over the side
    0:11:42 and I just want to like
    0:11:43 some body parts
    0:11:44 or something to fly up,
    0:11:45 some shrapnel.
    0:11:46 It literally says shrapnel.
    0:11:47 And my effects guy
    0:11:48 was so ragged,
    0:11:49 running so ragged.
    0:11:50 We get to there
    0:11:50 and I go,
    0:11:52 do you have any body parts
    0:11:53 of stuff we can throw up
    0:11:55 or something you can shoot up?
    0:11:56 I didn’t realize it’s so high
    0:11:58 to get past that second floor.
    0:11:58 He’s like,
    0:11:59 no, I don’t.
    0:12:00 I can give you a fireball.
    0:12:01 I can give you a nice,
    0:12:02 you know,
    0:12:03 fireball with propane.
    0:12:05 But it burns away really quick.
    0:12:06 Like, how fast?
    0:12:07 Like that,
    0:12:08 but it’ll be big and orange.
    0:12:09 Okay, we’ll shoot it in slow motion
    0:12:11 so it lasts a little longer
    0:12:12 because it just goes poof.
    0:12:13 So I told the actors,
    0:12:15 I know how big this fireball
    0:12:15 is going to be,
    0:12:17 but just walk really fast
    0:12:18 and just look real determined
    0:12:20 and then just keep walking.
    0:12:21 Don’t stop and turn around
    0:12:21 because you might get
    0:12:23 your eyebrows singed.
    0:12:24 So they take off
    0:12:24 and boom,
    0:12:25 it goes.
    0:12:26 And in slow motion,
    0:12:27 it looks great, right?
    0:12:29 I remember showing to Jim Cameron
    0:12:31 before it came out
    0:12:32 and his hand went up like,
    0:12:33 you’ve never seen that before,
    0:12:33 you know.
    0:12:34 Six months later,
    0:12:35 Dusk Till Dawn came out.
    0:12:38 So I liked how much it looked so much
    0:12:39 that in Dusk Till Dawn,
    0:12:40 I did it again.
    0:12:41 So those movies came out
    0:12:43 within six months of each other.
    0:12:44 That’s why it turned into a thing
    0:12:45 because people saw it.
    0:12:46 And so I thought,
    0:12:47 how about for the opening
    0:12:50 of George Clooney and Quentin
    0:12:53 walking out of the gas station
    0:12:55 that we have the whole place
    0:12:55 just blowing up
    0:12:56 and they just keep talking
    0:12:57 like it’s not happening.
    0:12:59 take it another step further
    0:12:59 so I’m not just doing
    0:13:00 the same thing.
    0:13:01 Okay, that one,
    0:13:02 it’s like,
    0:13:03 okay, you’re going to walk out
    0:13:05 and it’s all in one take.
    0:13:06 So we only can do one take.
    0:13:08 We’re going to blow the thing up.
    0:13:09 We’re going to start
    0:13:10 with just some smaller explosions
    0:13:11 and then when they’re further away
    0:13:12 and it’s safer,
    0:13:13 then we’ll do the big fireballs.
    0:13:15 So we’re going
    0:13:16 and you’re nervous
    0:13:17 because if one of them
    0:13:18 trips up a line
    0:13:19 and the pressure’s on them,
    0:13:21 it’s not just you that’s nervous.
    0:13:21 You’re nervous for them.
    0:13:22 They’re the ones
    0:13:23 who got to walk out,
    0:13:25 do that whole speech,
    0:13:26 get in the car
    0:13:27 and drive away.
    0:13:28 what if the car doesn’t start?
    0:13:28 What do you know?
    0:13:29 There’s a lot of things
    0:13:29 that could happen.
    0:13:31 Well, guess what happens?
    0:13:33 The thing you would not expect,
    0:13:35 they go in,
    0:13:37 they come out,
    0:13:38 they start talking,
    0:13:39 shoot it,
    0:13:40 it’s perfect,
    0:13:40 great,
    0:13:41 we can move on
    0:13:41 and the camera guy goes,
    0:13:43 I don’t know what happened,
    0:13:44 but just like you had
    0:13:45 a little snafu here,
    0:13:45 he goes,
    0:13:48 we have an autofocus
    0:13:49 on the steadicam,
    0:13:50 we have a focus thing,
    0:13:52 it just went like this.
    0:13:55 I felt it go whack all the way
    0:13:55 out of focus
    0:13:57 and whack for a second
    0:13:57 back,
    0:13:59 like it just reset itself.
    0:14:00 I don’t know why it did that,
    0:14:00 you know,
    0:14:01 because it’s radio controlled
    0:14:02 and we can’t tell
    0:14:03 because we’re shooting film,
    0:14:04 you know,
    0:14:04 so we’re like,
    0:14:05 oh shit,
    0:14:06 let’s watch the dailies,
    0:14:06 sure enough,
    0:14:07 let’s see if we can get,
    0:14:09 maybe I can scratch the film
    0:14:09 right there.
    0:14:10 No,
    0:14:11 it goes completely out of focus
    0:14:12 and back in focus
    0:14:13 within a second.
    0:14:14 now we got to reshoot it.
    0:14:16 So we had to wait
    0:14:17 till we’re back
    0:14:18 in that location.
    0:14:19 We rigged it
    0:14:20 for two more takes
    0:14:20 just in case.
    0:14:21 So that thing
    0:14:22 that was supposed to be
    0:14:22 the one take
    0:14:23 is three takes.
    0:14:25 The other thing
    0:14:25 that happened
    0:14:27 was the front
    0:14:29 of the Dust Till Dawn bar.
    0:14:31 That same guy
    0:14:32 that did those explosions,
    0:14:34 he packed a bunch
    0:14:34 of explosives
    0:14:35 behind the actors.
    0:14:36 When the actors
    0:14:37 come running out
    0:14:39 of the bar
    0:14:40 at the end of the movie
    0:14:42 and there’s an explosion
    0:14:42 through the door
    0:14:43 because all the vampires
    0:14:44 are blowing up,
    0:14:45 he didn’t just,
    0:14:47 he put like 10 times
    0:14:47 in that stuff.
    0:14:49 It blew,
    0:14:50 you see it in the movie,
    0:14:51 you see this huge fireball
    0:14:51 going up
    0:14:52 and if you watch closely
    0:14:53 you see it already
    0:14:54 start to catch
    0:14:55 the whole place on fire.
    0:14:56 The whole front of that
    0:14:57 which is foam
    0:14:59 is catching on fire
    0:15:00 and I cut
    0:15:01 just before you see
    0:15:01 that it’s on fire
    0:15:03 and we,
    0:15:05 that was the first shot
    0:15:05 at that bar
    0:15:06 because we weren’t
    0:15:07 going to start shooting
    0:15:07 the other stuff
    0:15:08 till night.
    0:15:10 So the first shot
    0:15:11 is that
    0:15:12 and the set’s ruined.
    0:15:13 burned to a crisp.
    0:15:16 The neon lights
    0:15:17 blew up
    0:15:18 so we couldn’t even shoot.
    0:15:19 Cheech goes,
    0:15:20 well I guess
    0:15:20 I’m not doing
    0:15:21 my speech tonight.
    0:15:23 And,
    0:15:24 but right away
    0:15:24 this is what,
    0:15:25 this is what happens.
    0:15:26 My first AD,
    0:15:27 Doug Arnachowski
    0:15:28 comes over to me
    0:15:30 and I go over to him.
    0:15:31 The guys came out
    0:15:32 with the fire hoses.
    0:15:33 The fire hoses
    0:15:34 weren’t even adding
    0:15:34 any water.
    0:15:34 It was like,
    0:15:36 the thing was just scorching.
    0:15:37 The whole production design team
    0:15:38 was in tears
    0:15:39 because they had just
    0:15:40 spent weeks
    0:15:40 building this thing
    0:15:42 and it was up in smoke
    0:15:42 and charred.
    0:15:44 I said,
    0:15:45 let’s just keep shooting.
    0:15:46 Let’s just keep shooting
    0:15:47 because
    0:15:48 it looks
    0:15:49 really kind of cool
    0:15:49 like this.
    0:15:50 Yeah,
    0:15:50 they’re going to have
    0:15:51 to come repair it
    0:15:52 and we’ll have to come back
    0:15:53 but it’s all black
    0:15:54 and charred.
    0:15:54 That’s why
    0:15:54 that whole scene
    0:15:55 with George Clooney
    0:15:56 and Cheech
    0:15:57 and that the building’s black.
    0:15:58 We didn’t go over there
    0:15:59 and touch that up.
    0:15:59 That’s real flame
    0:16:00 that burned
    0:16:01 and it ended up
    0:16:02 looking great.
    0:16:03 So then the next week
    0:16:04 when we came back
    0:16:05 to shoot that other shot
    0:16:05 that didn’t work
    0:16:06 we came back
    0:16:07 and they had repaired it
    0:16:08 and we shot
    0:16:09 all the night stuff
    0:16:10 which is the majority
    0:16:11 of the stuff
    0:16:12 in front of it.
    0:16:13 So sometimes
    0:16:14 you got to roll with it
    0:16:15 and look at the blessing
    0:16:16 you get
    0:16:17 because of this mistake.
    0:16:18 You probably actually
    0:16:19 got a better take
    0:16:19 by doing it
    0:16:20 later with them
    0:16:21 and then you had
    0:16:22 this incredible look
    0:16:23 for the end of the movie
    0:16:24 that looked apocalyptic.
    0:16:25 If it had looked just clean
    0:16:27 you would have actually seen
    0:16:28 that it was kind of
    0:16:29 a foam set.
    0:16:29 This made it look better.
    0:16:31 So I kind of
    0:16:31 let the universe
    0:16:32 push you
    0:16:33 where you’re supposed to go.
    0:16:33 Just roll with it.
    0:16:34 You got to roll with it
    0:16:35 because you don’t know
    0:16:36 what the grand plan is.
    0:16:37 You have your plan
    0:16:38 just know it’s probably
    0:16:39 all going to fall apart.
    0:16:40 It’s just like the movies.
    0:16:42 You come up with your plan
    0:16:42 of what you want to accomplish.
    0:16:43 That’s like your script.
    0:16:45 Then you go
    0:16:46 scout your location
    0:16:47 and figure out
    0:16:48 what your project’s going to be
    0:16:49 and you go try to make it
    0:16:50 as bulletproof as possible.
    0:16:52 Then you go to do your project
    0:16:53 and just like with our movies
    0:16:54 you watch it all fall apart.
    0:16:55 You watch this thing blow up.
    0:16:56 You watch this thing not work.
    0:16:59 Everything just falls apart
    0:16:59 in front of your face.
    0:17:01 Then that’s when you roll up
    0:17:01 your sleeves
    0:17:03 and creatively figure out
    0:17:04 a way around it.
    0:17:05 You turn chicken shit
    0:17:06 into chicken salad
    0:17:07 and by the end
    0:17:08 you have a result
    0:17:08 that’s better than
    0:17:10 what you sought out.
    0:17:10 But that’s the process
    0:17:11 and that’s life
    0:17:13 and that’s wash, rinse, repeat.
    0:17:13 The rest of your life
    0:17:14 that’s what everything’s
    0:17:15 going to be like.
    0:17:16 It’s just like a movie
    0:17:17 because when you think about it
    0:17:19 you’re writing a story
    0:17:20 for a film
    0:17:22 and you’re also writing
    0:17:23 the story of your life
    0:17:23 at the same time.
    0:17:25 How are you going to react
    0:17:25 to things?
    0:17:26 How do you make your character
    0:17:27 react to things?
    0:17:28 You make him kind of superhuman.
    0:17:29 Why don’t you just
    0:17:30 make yourself that way?
    0:17:31 You’re writing your own story
    0:17:32 and you start really seeing
    0:17:34 the more you get into storytelling
    0:17:36 that life imitates art
    0:17:37 and art limitates life
    0:17:37 but the process
    0:17:38 is also the same.
    0:17:40 So you write the story
    0:17:41 the script
    0:17:42 and then you have it
    0:17:43 collide with the chaos
    0:17:44 of reality
    0:17:45 and in that moment
    0:17:46 when you said
    0:17:47 you see the chicken shit
    0:17:48 like you have to
    0:17:49 be able to keep
    0:17:50 your eyes open
    0:17:51 and notice
    0:17:53 you have to do that.
    0:17:54 Wait a minute.
    0:17:54 Okay.
    0:17:55 Stuff change.
    0:17:55 Discipline.
    0:17:56 Where’s the
    0:17:57 not to be cliche about it
    0:17:58 but where’s the silver lining
    0:17:58 of this?
    0:17:59 Where’s the path
    0:18:00 to actually make something
    0:18:01 good out of this?
    0:18:02 And that’s a skill, right?
    0:18:03 I call it
    0:18:04 and it’s one of my favorite
    0:18:05 stories.
    0:18:06 I was doing one of these talks
    0:18:07 and they said
    0:18:08 come talk about creativity.
    0:18:08 I go
    0:18:09 I understand
    0:18:10 because a lot of people
    0:18:10 read my book
    0:18:11 Rebels Had a Crew
    0:18:11 and told me
    0:18:13 oh it made me be a filmmaker
    0:18:14 but a lot of people said
    0:18:15 it helped me start my own business
    0:18:16 because they just see
    0:18:17 how you can go
    0:18:18 be entrepreneurial like that
    0:18:19 and go where
    0:18:20 no one else is going
    0:18:21 and I’m giving all this talk
    0:18:23 about this kind of positive stuff
    0:18:23 and this one woman goes
    0:18:25 you’re real positive
    0:18:26 but what do I tell myself
    0:18:27 when I just wasted
    0:18:28 a year and a half of my life
    0:18:29 doing something
    0:18:29 that didn’t work?
    0:18:30 And I was like
    0:18:32 that’s a real negative way
    0:18:32 to ask that.
    0:18:33 Can you just rephrase
    0:18:34 the question a little more positively
    0:18:35 before I even attempt
    0:18:36 to answer it
    0:18:37 because already
    0:18:37 her point of view
    0:18:39 is exactly what you’re saying.
    0:18:40 She’s not looking
    0:18:40 at all.
    0:18:41 She’s just concentrating
    0:18:42 on what
    0:18:44 didn’t follow her plan
    0:18:46 and not seeing
    0:18:46 the gift of everything
    0:18:47 else that’s there.
    0:18:48 So she goes
    0:18:50 very reluctant
    0:18:51 it was so perfect
    0:18:52 I wish we had filmed it.
    0:18:52 She goes
    0:18:54 I learned a good lesson
    0:18:55 the hard way
    0:18:56 and I said
    0:18:57 that still sucks.
    0:18:58 And I say
    0:19:00 when you follow your instinct
    0:19:00 like if you follow
    0:19:01 your own instinct
    0:19:02 to go start a business
    0:19:03 or go make this movie
    0:19:03 or whatever
    0:19:04 it wasn’t someone saying
    0:19:05 go over there
    0:19:06 and you’ll make a million dollars
    0:19:06 you know
    0:19:07 it was your instinct
    0:19:08 and you fail.
    0:19:09 Sometimes the only way
    0:19:10 across the river
    0:19:12 is to slip on the first two rocks.
    0:19:13 You fail
    0:19:14 you have to really
    0:19:15 sift through
    0:19:16 it’s like the silver lining
    0:19:17 but I call it
    0:19:18 sift through the ashes
    0:19:19 of your failure
    0:19:20 and you’ll find
    0:19:21 the key to your next success
    0:19:22 is in there
    0:19:23 but if you’re not looking for it
    0:19:23 you don’t find it.
    0:19:24 I’m going to tell you one
    0:19:25 and I tell them
    0:19:26 the four room story.
    0:19:27 I said
    0:19:27 I made a movie
    0:19:28 called Four Rooms.
    0:19:29 I
    0:19:32 didn’t make any money
    0:19:32 right?
    0:19:33 When Quentin asked me
    0:19:33 hey
    0:19:34 do you want to make a movie
    0:19:35 with me
    0:19:36 and two other filmmakers?
    0:19:37 It’s an anthology
    0:19:39 it’s on New Year’s Eve
    0:19:40 it’s in a hotel
    0:19:41 you have to use the bill hop
    0:19:41 we’re not going to know
    0:19:42 what each other’s making
    0:19:43 and we make it
    0:19:44 we put it together.
    0:19:45 My hand went up right away
    0:19:46 just instinctually
    0:19:48 yeah I’ll do that
    0:19:49 I’ll go make that with you.
    0:19:51 Now should I ask the audience
    0:19:53 I like to throw it to the audience
    0:19:54 and her
    0:19:56 should I have not raised my hand
    0:19:56 that quick?
    0:19:57 Shouldn’t I have done
    0:19:58 a little studying first
    0:19:59 or should I just go
    0:20:00 blind instinct
    0:20:01 or should you do
    0:20:03 instinct with some studying?
    0:20:05 Okay well
    0:20:06 I could have gone and studied
    0:20:07 and I would have found
    0:20:08 that anthologies never work
    0:20:10 like even when it’s Coppola
    0:20:11 Scorsese
    0:20:12 Woody Allen
    0:20:12 they bomb
    0:20:13 because people can’t
    0:20:14 quite rip their hand
    0:20:14 what is this
    0:20:15 Twilight Zone?
    0:20:15 I don’t want to go see that
    0:20:17 but that’s not
    0:20:18 I still said yeah
    0:20:19 I think I should still
    0:20:20 go by instinct
    0:20:21 so my instinct was
    0:20:21 to raise my hand
    0:20:22 we’re going to make that movie
    0:20:24 because I love short films
    0:20:26 I made like bedhead
    0:20:27 in short films
    0:20:27 and I thought
    0:20:28 oh here’s a way
    0:20:28 if this works
    0:20:29 I can make short films
    0:20:30 in anthologies
    0:20:31 and I can have the best
    0:20:32 of both worlds
    0:20:33 and by the way
    0:20:34 anthologies is when
    0:20:34 there’s multiple
    0:20:35 more than multiple
    0:20:35 one story
    0:20:36 in one movie
    0:20:37 yeah one movie
    0:20:38 so if you did the research
    0:20:39 you would know that
    0:20:40 very few people
    0:20:41 ever got that to work
    0:20:43 yeah the audience
    0:20:44 can’t quite wrap their end
    0:20:45 and it feels like
    0:20:45 the movie’s starting
    0:20:46 three times
    0:20:46 you know
    0:20:48 so I make that movie
    0:20:50 it bombs
    0:20:52 now I could feel
    0:20:53 real bad about that
    0:20:54 but if you really
    0:20:54 think about it
    0:20:55 you go well
    0:20:57 why did I sign up
    0:20:57 for it?
    0:20:58 Did I raise my hand
    0:20:58 because I thought
    0:20:59 it was going to go be
    0:21:00 this big financial success?
    0:21:01 No I did it
    0:21:02 to work with my friends
    0:21:03 to do something creative
    0:21:04 to try something
    0:21:05 but that’s still
    0:21:05 not good enough
    0:21:06 I need to really
    0:21:07 sift through the ashes
    0:21:07 and if I look
    0:21:08 through the ashes
    0:21:08 of that failure
    0:21:10 I find two keys
    0:21:11 to my biggest successes
    0:21:12 in there
    0:21:14 while I was on the set
    0:21:16 they said it has to be
    0:21:16 New Year’s
    0:21:17 so I thought
    0:21:18 I’m just going to do
    0:21:19 like bedhead
    0:21:19 I’m going to have
    0:21:20 two little kids
    0:21:21 that are running around
    0:21:21 in this room
    0:21:23 and we have to use
    0:21:23 the bellhop
    0:21:24 as a babysitter
    0:21:24 well it’s New Year’s
    0:21:25 let’s dress everybody
    0:21:26 in tuxedos
    0:21:27 because it’s New Year’s
    0:21:28 they’re all going to go out
    0:21:28 but the parents
    0:21:29 leave without them
    0:21:30 when I saw Antonio
    0:21:31 and his wife
    0:21:32 I thought
    0:21:33 wow they look like
    0:21:34 a really cool
    0:21:35 international spy couple
    0:21:37 what if they were spies
    0:21:38 and these two little kids
    0:21:38 one of them
    0:21:39 keeps falling asleep
    0:21:39 on the set
    0:21:40 he’s so young
    0:21:41 they barely tie their shoes
    0:21:42 they don’t know
    0:21:42 parents are spies
    0:21:43 they have to go save them
    0:21:44 okay there’s five
    0:21:45 of those movies now
    0:21:45 right
    0:21:46 the other one
    0:21:47 was
    0:21:49 I really love
    0:21:49 making short films
    0:21:51 I really want
    0:21:52 this anthology thing
    0:21:52 to work
    0:21:53 what if it’s
    0:21:54 three stories
    0:21:54 like a three extra
    0:21:55 not four
    0:21:57 same director
    0:21:58 not four different directors
    0:21:59 I’m going to try it again
    0:22:01 why on earth
    0:22:02 would I try it again
    0:22:03 well because
    0:22:04 I had already done
    0:22:05 one and figured out
    0:22:06 how I could do it better
    0:22:06 and that’s Sin City
    0:22:07 those are by far
    0:22:09 two of my biggest successes
    0:22:10 that came directly
    0:22:11 from that failure
    0:22:12 so I always say
    0:22:13 follow your instinct
    0:22:14 if it doesn’t work
    0:22:15 just go
    0:22:17 sometimes the only way
    0:22:17 across the river
    0:22:19 is to slip on the first two rocks
    0:22:19 so what is
    0:22:20 where’s the key
    0:22:21 in that
    0:22:22 in the ashes of the failure
    0:22:23 because if I had an instinct
    0:22:25 that means I was on the right track
    0:22:26 I didn’t get the result I want
    0:22:27 that’s because the result
    0:22:29 might be something way bigger
    0:22:31 that I don’t have the vision for
    0:22:31 and the universe
    0:22:32 is pushing me that way
    0:22:33 by the way
    0:22:33 a lot of people
    0:22:35 that look back to four rooms
    0:22:37 see a lot of creative genius in there
    0:22:38 so you say it flopped
    0:22:39 it flopped financially
    0:22:39 financially
    0:22:40 but you know
    0:22:42 there’s so many ways
    0:22:43 to measure
    0:22:44 totally
    0:22:45 but like I said
    0:22:46 like I would say
    0:22:47 well it was successful
    0:22:48 because you know
    0:22:49 even Roger Ubert said
    0:22:49 hey you furnished
    0:22:50 my favorite room
    0:22:51 you know
    0:22:51 I was like hey
    0:22:52 I could take that
    0:22:53 but now I think
    0:22:54 there’s something else
    0:22:54 still there
    0:22:55 I keep sifting
    0:22:55 and it’s like
    0:22:56 oh yeah
    0:22:57 two big successes
    0:22:58 came from that
    0:22:59 that’s an amazing lesson
    0:23:00 to have
    0:23:01 because it makes you
    0:23:02 feel better about
    0:23:03 failure
    0:23:03 think of like
    0:23:04 The Thing
    0:23:05 by John Carpenter
    0:23:06 he put that movie
    0:23:07 out the same weekend
    0:23:07 as E.T.
    0:23:08 that thing bombed
    0:23:09 critics were calling it
    0:23:10 pornography
    0:23:10 you know
    0:23:11 because of all the
    0:23:13 all the weird
    0:23:14 special effects
    0:23:14 and audiences
    0:23:15 didn’t go either
    0:23:17 and he thought
    0:23:18 he made a great movie
    0:23:18 so you know
    0:23:19 it makes you question
    0:23:20 your instincts
    0:23:21 well 10 years later
    0:23:22 turns out
    0:23:23 oh it’s a classic
    0:23:24 so sometimes
    0:23:25 it takes the audience
    0:23:25 a while
    0:23:26 so if you
    0:23:28 have some kind
    0:23:28 of failure
    0:23:29 on something
    0:23:29 you
    0:23:30 don’t let it
    0:23:30 knock you down
    0:23:31 just go
    0:23:32 maybe in 10 years
    0:23:33 they’ll think it’s great
    0:23:34 I’m just gonna commit
    0:23:35 to making a body
    0:23:36 of work
    0:23:37 a body of work
    0:23:39 some will succeed
    0:23:40 some will overperform
    0:23:41 some will underperform
    0:23:42 it’s not your job
    0:23:43 you just want to be
    0:23:44 a creative person
    0:23:45 just create
    0:23:46 I tell me
    0:23:46 just create
    0:23:48 stop thinking about
    0:23:48 movie per movie
    0:23:49 and worrying so much
    0:23:50 about each one
    0:23:52 or project to project
    0:23:52 if you’re a business person
    0:23:53 just commit
    0:23:54 to making a body
    0:23:55 of work
    0:23:55 like an artist
    0:23:56 would do
    0:23:57 and you don’t
    0:23:57 you don’t know
    0:23:58 what the masterpieces
    0:23:59 are gonna be
    0:23:59 or which
    0:24:00 you know
    0:24:00 someone’s gonna come
    0:24:01 and say
    0:24:01 oh that one
    0:24:02 that bombed
    0:24:03 there is some
    0:24:04 really creative
    0:24:04 stuff in there
    0:24:05 and it’s not
    0:24:06 for you to decide
    0:24:07 you just go
    0:24:07 and do it
    0:24:08 sometimes I think
    0:24:10 it takes some time
    0:24:10 to process
    0:24:11 the failure
    0:24:12 to make sense
    0:24:12 of it
    0:24:12 like
    0:24:14 at least for me
    0:24:15 don’t rush
    0:24:16 making sense
    0:24:17 of what
    0:24:17 didn’t work
    0:24:19 what lessons
    0:24:19 do I
    0:24:21 take from it
    0:24:22 how do I
    0:24:22 sift through the ashes
    0:24:23 as you said
    0:24:24 yeah
    0:24:25 like it takes time
    0:24:25 you have to sleep
    0:24:26 on it
    0:24:27 sometimes it’s right there
    0:24:28 and then sometimes
    0:24:29 you come back
    0:24:30 revisit it
    0:24:31 you know later
    0:24:32 because you might not
    0:24:33 have had some information
    0:24:34 you have now
    0:24:34 that makes you look
    0:24:35 at it a lot differently
    0:24:37 like when I did
    0:24:38 I just did the audio book
    0:24:40 for Rebel Without a Crew
    0:24:41 yeah thank you for that
    0:24:41 by the way
    0:24:42 I hadn’t read it
    0:24:43 since I wrote it
    0:24:44 so I didn’t remember
    0:24:45 a lot of the details
    0:24:46 and you actually
    0:24:47 it’s voiced by you
    0:24:48 I voiced it
    0:24:49 so I was reading it
    0:24:49 real time
    0:24:50 yeah I highly
    0:24:51 recommend people
    0:24:51 because you comment
    0:24:52 you add additional
    0:24:53 comments to it
    0:24:54 it’s great
    0:24:54 most of the time
    0:24:55 I’m laughing
    0:24:56 I can’t believe
    0:24:57 how crazy that story
    0:24:58 is I forgot a lot
    0:24:58 of details
    0:24:59 and when you’re younger
    0:25:00 you know when you’re
    0:25:00 21 22
    0:25:02 six months feels
    0:25:02 like six years
    0:25:03 I didn’t realize
    0:25:04 how short that window
    0:25:05 was until I reread it
    0:25:07 and how impossible
    0:25:07 most that is
    0:25:08 but you see some places
    0:25:10 where a setup
    0:25:11 falls in my lap
    0:25:12 and then pays off
    0:25:13 immediately in a big way
    0:25:13 like magic
    0:25:14 over and over again
    0:25:15 it’s clear
    0:25:15 I don’t know
    0:25:16 what I’m doing
    0:25:17 it’s clear the universe
    0:25:18 is just pushing you places
    0:25:20 so you can’t fight it
    0:25:20 because I remember
    0:25:22 I was really disappointed
    0:25:23 and it says in the diary
    0:25:24 I’m really bummed
    0:25:25 that I go home
    0:25:25 that Christmas
    0:25:26 not having sold it
    0:25:28 to the Spanish home
    0:25:28 video market
    0:25:29 which was my goal
    0:25:30 I walked home
    0:25:31 penniless
    0:25:32 and I was like
    0:25:33 Merry Christmas
    0:25:35 I feel like a freaking failure
    0:25:37 good thing I didn’t sell it
    0:25:37 then
    0:25:38 you know
    0:25:39 with time
    0:25:39 you look back
    0:25:40 and you go
    0:25:40 wow
    0:25:41 I got an agent
    0:25:42 the next month
    0:25:43 he wasn’t even
    0:25:43 going to help me sell it
    0:25:44 he said
    0:25:44 if you can get
    0:25:45 $20,000 for it
    0:25:45 take it
    0:25:47 I chased those people down
    0:25:48 for those contracts
    0:25:50 the Spanish market
    0:25:51 for months
    0:25:53 and they never answered me back
    0:25:55 and then Columbia
    0:25:55 ended up buying it
    0:25:56 for like 10 times as much
    0:25:57 and we made it
    0:25:58 we released it
    0:26:00 and did a sequel
    0:26:01 and did another sequel
    0:26:03 if you look back in time
    0:26:05 good thing I didn’t get my way
    0:26:07 my way had this for a vision
    0:26:09 and it needed to do that
    0:26:11 which you would never know
    0:26:11 you know
    0:26:12 you don’t know that going through
    0:26:12 so just
    0:26:14 if you don’t have the answer
    0:26:14 right away
    0:26:15 or even in 10 years
    0:26:16 go
    0:26:17 maybe it’s coming in 20 years
    0:26:18 don’t let anything slow you down
    0:26:20 just keep plowing forward
    0:26:21 committing to making
    0:26:22 your thing happen
    0:26:24 don’t get shook up
    0:26:26 by something that you might not
    0:26:27 have an answer for
    0:26:27 yeah
    0:26:28 every aspect of your journey
    0:26:29 is super inspiring
    0:26:30 we’ll talk about it
    0:26:31 let’s go to the beginning
    0:26:32 because there’s a few technical things
    0:26:33 that are fascinating
    0:26:34 about your beginning
    0:26:36 so you started making films
    0:26:37 when you were very young
    0:26:38 yeah
    0:26:39 with an old Super 8 camera
    0:26:41 and you were editing on a VCR
    0:26:42 you see
    0:26:43 I’ve met a lot of filmmakers
    0:26:44 who you know
    0:26:45 they start a certain way
    0:26:47 but then they finish another way
    0:26:48 they get to be big filmmakers
    0:26:48 and all that
    0:26:50 I still do it that way
    0:26:51 like I still
    0:26:53 I like doing things that way
    0:26:54 I have a new company
    0:26:55 called Brass Knuckle Films
    0:26:56 where the audience
    0:26:57 can actually participate
    0:26:58 by investing
    0:26:59 in this movie
    0:27:00 being investors in these movies
    0:27:01 that are done the same way
    0:27:02 they’re action films
    0:27:03 like we did with Mariachi
    0:27:05 but 10 to 30 million
    0:27:06 it doesn’t take a lot of money
    0:27:08 to start a billion dollar franchise
    0:27:09 you know like
    0:27:10 John Wick only cost 20 million
    0:27:11 the first one
    0:27:13 second one was 40
    0:27:13 third one was 80
    0:27:15 fourth one was 100
    0:27:16 because the audience
    0:27:17 kept growing and growing
    0:27:17 by the way
    0:27:18 you say
    0:27:19 you know
    0:27:19 20 million
    0:27:20 like it’s not a lot of money
    0:27:21 we should mention
    0:27:22 it’s not for an action film
    0:27:22 yeah
    0:27:22 that’s right
    0:27:23 but also
    0:27:24 we should say
    0:27:25 that El Mariachi
    0:27:26 the film
    0:27:27 on which the book
    0:27:29 Rebel Without a Crew
    0:27:30 is $7,000 movie
    0:27:31 so let’s put it all
    0:27:32 in context
    0:27:32 but you know
    0:27:34 you’re gonna hire bigger actors
    0:27:35 you can get a big actor
    0:27:36 like Tiana Reeves
    0:27:37 for a $20 million movie
    0:27:37 you know
    0:27:38 I asked Jim
    0:27:39 I said
    0:27:39 Jim Cameron
    0:27:40 I said
    0:27:40 you know like
    0:27:42 Terminator costs $5 million
    0:27:42 and he goes
    0:27:43 I wish we had that much
    0:27:45 he had less than $5 million
    0:27:45 for that
    0:27:46 so you can start
    0:27:47 a billion dollar franchise
    0:27:49 using these methods
    0:27:51 and with the audience
    0:27:52 investing
    0:27:52 they get to make
    0:27:53 money on them
    0:27:55 and that’s what I’m gonna say now
    0:27:56 about how I started
    0:27:57 you see that DNA
    0:27:59 of how I give out
    0:27:59 you know
    0:28:00 I want people to know
    0:28:01 how I did things
    0:28:02 with Rebel Without a Crew
    0:28:03 or with these methods
    0:28:04 that I started with
    0:28:05 you see that’s how
    0:28:06 we kept going
    0:28:07 Hollywood spends way too much
    0:28:08 and when you can make
    0:28:09 stuff for less
    0:28:10 your profit margin
    0:28:11 is much better
    0:28:13 so when I first started
    0:28:14 I didn’t have any money
    0:28:15 so I still play
    0:28:16 like I don’t have money
    0:28:18 so I had Super 8
    0:28:19 my dad had a Super 8 camera
    0:28:20 but I couldn’t afford it
    0:28:22 I shot two roles
    0:28:23 that you had to get
    0:28:25 you had to buy the film
    0:28:27 shoot two minutes
    0:28:28 I shot two roles of that
    0:28:29 it’s another
    0:28:30 same amount of money
    0:28:31 that it cost to buy it
    0:28:32 whatever that was
    0:28:32 12 bucks or whatever
    0:28:34 to develop it
    0:28:34 you get it
    0:28:35 there’s no sound
    0:28:37 most of the shit’s
    0:28:38 out of focus
    0:28:38 you know
    0:28:39 but then my dad
    0:28:40 who sold cookware
    0:28:41 had a VCR
    0:28:43 one of the first VCRs
    0:28:44 home VCRs for the market
    0:28:45 that he would play
    0:28:46 his sales tapes
    0:28:46 to his salesman
    0:28:48 and it came with
    0:28:49 a camera attached
    0:28:50 like this cable
    0:28:51 you got coming out
    0:28:51 imagine if that
    0:28:53 had to go into your VCR
    0:28:54 for you to even
    0:28:55 see what it’s shooting
    0:28:57 this is old camera
    0:28:58 manual focus
    0:28:59 manual iris
    0:29:00 and 12 foot cable
    0:29:01 and I would start
    0:29:02 making movies with that
    0:29:03 instead now I have
    0:29:03 for $8
    0:29:05 I have a two hour
    0:29:06 erasable tape
    0:29:07 of sound and picture
    0:29:09 so I got into digital
    0:29:10 basically really early
    0:29:11 I was doing
    0:29:13 which was really frowned
    0:29:14 upon back then
    0:29:16 and continued to be
    0:29:16 all the way to
    0:29:17 when I was using it
    0:29:17 for real
    0:29:19 in the early 2000s
    0:29:20 before everyone realized
    0:29:21 oh that’s the future
    0:29:22 yeah that’s fascinating
    0:29:22 because you were
    0:29:23 rebel in that way
    0:29:24 too using digital
    0:29:25 yeah well because
    0:29:26 of the means
    0:29:27 and the democratizing
    0:29:28 of that
    0:29:30 the elite didn’t like
    0:29:30 that you could just
    0:29:31 go make a movie
    0:29:32 like that
    0:29:34 but I started practicing
    0:29:35 and it’s much easier
    0:29:36 to practice
    0:29:36 when it doesn’t
    0:29:37 cost any money
    0:29:38 like if you want
    0:29:39 to be a rock star
    0:29:40 right if you want
    0:29:40 to learn how to play
    0:29:41 guitar really well
    0:29:41 you’re not going
    0:29:42 to just jump on stage
    0:29:43 and suddenly be able
    0:29:43 to play you have
    0:29:44 to practice
    0:29:45 till your fingers
    0:29:45 bleed
    0:29:46 well the same
    0:29:46 with movies
    0:29:47 you got to keep
    0:29:47 telling stories
    0:29:48 and cut them
    0:29:48 together
    0:29:49 and you just
    0:29:49 can’t afford
    0:29:49 that on film
    0:29:50 nobody can
    0:29:51 with a two minute
    0:29:51 roll
    0:29:52 costing as much
    0:29:53 as a two hour
    0:29:53 tape
    0:29:54 so I was
    0:29:55 moving all these
    0:29:55 doing all these
    0:29:56 movies
    0:29:56 first I would
    0:29:57 cut in camera
    0:29:58 and that VCR
    0:29:59 that old VCR
    0:30:00 had a really great
    0:30:00 pause button
    0:30:01 that they stopped
    0:30:01 making
    0:30:02 that when you
    0:30:03 hit pause
    0:30:03 it stopped
    0:30:04 right there
    0:30:05 and it stopped
    0:30:05 with a clean cut
    0:30:06 it didn’t have
    0:30:06 all this
    0:30:08 color bars
    0:30:08 like the later
    0:30:09 ones had
    0:30:10 so I
    0:30:10 that was my
    0:30:11 and it had
    0:30:11 an audio
    0:30:12 dub feature
    0:30:13 where you could
    0:30:14 add another
    0:30:15 second soundtrack
    0:30:15 to it
    0:30:16 so if I
    0:30:16 have people
    0:30:17 talking
    0:30:17 I could hit
    0:30:18 audio dub
    0:30:19 and add sound
    0:30:19 effects
    0:30:20 so I could
    0:30:21 have two tracks
    0:30:21 on the same
    0:30:21 one
    0:30:22 so I
    0:30:23 that was my
    0:30:23 filmmaking
    0:30:25 kit for a while
    0:30:26 until I needed
    0:30:27 to start doing
    0:30:27 real editing
    0:30:29 and my dad
    0:30:30 bought a second
    0:30:31 VCR for his
    0:30:31 business
    0:30:32 because I stole
    0:30:33 his other one
    0:30:34 and I found
    0:30:34 that if I
    0:30:34 hooked them
    0:30:35 together
    0:30:36 I could play
    0:30:36 on one
    0:30:38 and use that
    0:30:38 pause button
    0:30:39 on the second
    0:30:40 and this was
    0:30:41 the limitation
    0:30:41 this is what
    0:30:42 taught me
    0:30:42 how to edit
    0:30:43 in my head
    0:30:44 is that
    0:30:45 if I shot
    0:30:45 a bunch
    0:30:45 of footage
    0:30:46 I needed
    0:30:47 to shoot
    0:30:47 very little
    0:30:47 footage
    0:30:48 so I could
    0:30:48 find it
    0:30:49 sometimes you
    0:30:49 shoot out
    0:30:50 of order
    0:30:50 so when I
    0:30:51 cut it
    0:30:51 I have to
    0:30:51 cut in
    0:30:52 linear order
    0:30:53 because if you
    0:30:54 push pause
    0:30:54 it’s a nice
    0:30:55 clean cut
    0:30:55 but only
    0:30:56 it only holds
    0:30:56 for five minutes
    0:30:57 you have five
    0:30:58 minutes before
    0:30:58 the machine
    0:30:59 shuts off
    0:31:00 so you got
    0:31:00 to find your
    0:31:01 next shot
    0:31:01 within five
    0:31:01 minutes
    0:31:03 and do that
    0:31:03 otherwise
    0:31:03 if you have
    0:31:04 to start
    0:31:04 the machine
    0:31:05 over
    0:31:05 it added
    0:31:06 all these
    0:31:06 color bars
    0:31:07 and it would
    0:31:07 be all
    0:31:08 screwed up
    0:31:09 so I’d
    0:31:09 have to sit
    0:31:09 there and
    0:31:10 not move
    0:31:11 for like
    0:31:11 all day
    0:31:12 while I
    0:31:12 cut
    0:31:13 knowing
    0:31:13 what the
    0:31:14 next shot
    0:31:14 was
    0:31:15 and once
    0:31:15 I had
    0:31:16 it cut
    0:31:17 I would
    0:31:18 then add
    0:31:19 some sound
    0:31:19 effects to it
    0:31:20 remember
    0:31:20 because I have
    0:31:20 the audio
    0:31:21 dub function
    0:31:21 but now
    0:31:22 if I want
    0:31:22 to add
    0:31:23 music
    0:31:23 I take
    0:31:24 that tape
    0:31:24 which has
    0:31:25 two tracks
    0:31:25 now
    0:31:25 into the
    0:31:26 first deck
    0:31:28 and put
    0:31:28 it into
    0:31:29 the VCR
    0:31:29 again
    0:31:30 one generation
    0:31:30 of loss
    0:31:31 but I have
    0:31:31 a little
    0:31:32 cassette tape
    0:31:32 player
    0:31:33 with the
    0:31:33 music
    0:31:34 and I do
    0:31:34 a Y
    0:31:35 splitter
    0:31:36 so I can
    0:31:36 add the
    0:31:36 music
    0:31:39 that’s
    0:31:39 like being
    0:31:40 resourceful
    0:31:41 with what
    0:31:41 you have
    0:31:43 and I
    0:31:43 made a
    0:31:44 award winning
    0:31:44 short films
    0:31:44 that way
    0:31:45 on video
    0:31:45 there were
    0:31:46 some festivals
    0:31:47 that would
    0:31:47 allow video
    0:31:48 not many
    0:31:49 but they
    0:31:49 would always
    0:31:49 win
    0:31:50 and they
    0:31:50 were always
    0:31:51 funny
    0:31:52 as I
    0:31:53 stumbled
    0:31:53 upon
    0:31:54 spy kids
    0:31:55 that way
    0:31:55 like I
    0:31:56 wanted to
    0:31:56 make these
    0:31:57 action movies
    0:31:57 in my
    0:31:57 backyard
    0:31:58 but when
    0:31:58 you’re a
    0:31:59 teenager
    0:31:59 you don’t
    0:32:00 know anybody
    0:32:00 who can
    0:32:00 come be
    0:32:01 your action
    0:32:01 star
    0:32:02 and if
    0:32:02 you just
    0:32:02 bring your
    0:32:03 high school
    0:32:03 buddies
    0:32:03 well they
    0:32:04 just look
    0:32:04 like high
    0:32:05 school kids
    0:32:06 so I
    0:32:06 used my
    0:32:06 little
    0:32:07 brothers
    0:32:07 and sisters
    0:32:07 because I’m
    0:32:08 one of
    0:32:08 ten
    0:32:09 they’re
    0:32:11 just sitting
    0:32:11 around watching
    0:32:12 cartoons anyway
    0:32:12 and I
    0:32:12 made them
    0:32:13 the action
    0:32:14 stars just
    0:32:14 to like
    0:32:15 learn
    0:32:15 and I
    0:32:16 found those
    0:32:16 things would
    0:32:17 be a winning
    0:32:17 formula
    0:32:18 they’d win
    0:32:18 every festival
    0:32:19 I’d send
    0:32:19 them to
    0:32:21 so bedhead
    0:32:22 was my
    0:32:22 first time
    0:32:22 using a
    0:32:23 film camera
    0:32:24 it was a
    0:32:24 wind up
    0:32:25 film camera
    0:32:25 I got in
    0:32:26 film school
    0:32:26 I went to
    0:32:26 film school
    0:32:27 for one
    0:32:27 semester
    0:32:28 and realized
    0:32:29 I already
    0:32:30 knew more
    0:32:30 than the
    0:32:31 film students
    0:32:31 because they
    0:32:32 taught you a
    0:32:32 whole other
    0:32:33 outdated way
    0:32:34 of doing it
    0:32:34 so I thought
    0:32:35 I’m just
    0:32:35 going to use
    0:32:35 that film
    0:32:36 camera to
    0:32:37 make a
    0:32:38 low budget
    0:32:39 movie
    0:32:40 a definitive
    0:32:41 film version
    0:32:41 that I can
    0:32:42 send to all
    0:32:42 film festivals
    0:32:43 of these
    0:32:44 action kids
    0:32:44 which is a
    0:32:45 precursor to
    0:32:45 spy kids
    0:32:46 bedhead’s a
    0:32:47 precursor to
    0:32:47 spy kids
    0:32:48 and we should
    0:32:48 say that
    0:32:48 bedhead was an
    0:32:49 award winning
    0:32:50 short film
    0:32:51 that was probably
    0:32:52 a big sort of
    0:32:53 leap for you
    0:32:54 that probably
    0:32:54 opened the door
    0:32:55 to you to
    0:32:55 then make
    0:32:56 tell me
    0:32:57 your brain
    0:32:58 especially
    0:32:59 because those
    0:33:00 video festivals
    0:33:01 I would win
    0:33:01 like a trip
    0:33:02 to New York
    0:33:03 and a director’s
    0:33:03 chair with a
    0:33:04 video shorts
    0:33:04 that I would
    0:33:05 put in festivals
    0:33:06 but I knew
    0:33:07 the film festival
    0:33:07 if I could get
    0:33:08 into film festivals
    0:33:08 I could send
    0:33:09 that all over
    0:33:09 the world
    0:33:10 so I made
    0:33:11 that little
    0:33:11 short film
    0:33:13 sent it
    0:33:13 and was winning
    0:33:14 all the festivals
    0:33:14 and I thought
    0:33:15 wow I made
    0:33:15 that with a
    0:33:16 wind up
    0:33:17 camera
    0:33:18 film camera
    0:33:19 filming
    0:33:20 just one
    0:33:21 take
    0:33:22 each shot
    0:33:24 just
    0:33:25 no slates
    0:33:25 because I’m
    0:33:26 the editor
    0:33:27 and that
    0:33:28 cost 800 bucks
    0:33:30 and it was
    0:33:30 eight minutes
    0:33:32 I bet I can
    0:33:32 make
    0:33:34 an 80 minute
    0:33:34 movie
    0:33:35 for $8,000
    0:33:36 if I’d use
    0:33:36 the same method
    0:33:37 so that movie
    0:33:38 I did
    0:33:39 six months
    0:33:40 later I was
    0:33:40 making mariachi
    0:33:41 because it
    0:33:41 opened up my
    0:33:42 mind that I
    0:33:42 could try it
    0:33:43 in a feature
    0:33:44 can we actually
    0:33:44 pause on that
    0:33:45 because I think
    0:33:46 bedhead has a
    0:33:47 really great
    0:33:48 really unique
    0:33:48 story
    0:33:49 shot in a
    0:33:49 really unique
    0:33:50 way
    0:33:50 I think what
    0:33:51 I’m trying
    0:33:51 to say is
    0:33:52 it’s very
    0:33:52 important to
    0:33:54 write the
    0:33:55 right script
    0:33:57 write the
    0:33:58 right story
    0:33:58 let me tell
    0:33:59 you the trick
    0:33:59 to that
    0:34:00 and mariachi
    0:34:00 is the same
    0:34:01 way
    0:34:03 this really
    0:34:03 helped people
    0:34:04 even Kevin
    0:34:05 Smith from
    0:34:05 Clerks said
    0:34:06 wow Robert
    0:34:07 said when
    0:34:08 mariachi was
    0:34:09 success I
    0:34:09 talked about
    0:34:09 how I did
    0:34:10 it I said
    0:34:11 I looked at
    0:34:11 everything I
    0:34:13 had what do
    0:34:13 I have we
    0:34:14 have a pit bull
    0:34:15 we have a
    0:34:16 turtle we’ve
    0:34:16 got a bus
    0:34:17 that Carlos
    0:34:18 his cousin
    0:34:18 owns his
    0:34:19 cousin is a
    0:34:20 brother as a
    0:34:20 brother-in-law
    0:34:21 has a bar
    0:34:22 and he
    0:34:22 owns a ranch
    0:34:23 so the bad
    0:34:24 guy lives at
    0:34:24 the ranch
    0:34:25 the fight scene
    0:34:26 is going to
    0:34:26 be in the
    0:34:27 bar he’s
    0:34:27 going to hit
    0:34:27 a bus at
    0:34:28 one point
    0:34:29 he’s going to
    0:34:29 the girl’s going
    0:34:30 to have a dog
    0:34:31 and a turtle’s
    0:34:31 going to cross
    0:34:32 the road
    0:34:32 it gives you all
    0:34:33 this production
    0:34:33 value so you
    0:34:34 write backwards
    0:34:36 so for bedhead
    0:34:37 I even did that
    0:34:37 with a camera
    0:34:38 so I’ve been
    0:34:38 shooting video
    0:34:39 all this time
    0:34:39 and one thing
    0:34:40 I wished I
    0:34:40 could do on
    0:34:41 video I never
    0:34:41 could was slow
    0:34:43 motion or stop
    0:34:44 motion even so
    0:34:45 when I got that
    0:34:46 crappy world war
    0:34:46 two camera they
    0:34:48 gave us in film
    0:34:48 school I mean
    0:34:49 I was so pissed
    0:34:50 like this is the
    0:34:50 camera I’ve been
    0:34:51 trying to get my
    0:34:51 hands I could have
    0:34:52 bought this for 50
    0:34:53 bucks at a bond
    0:34:54 shop old Bill
    0:34:55 and how wind up
    0:34:55 you couldn’t even
    0:34:56 see through the
    0:34:57 lens you were
    0:34:58 seeing through an
    0:34:59 approximation of the
    0:35:01 lens but you
    0:35:01 could shoot slow
    0:35:03 motion I could do
    0:35:04 reverse photography
    0:35:05 if I filmed
    0:35:06 upside down I
    0:35:07 could do because
    0:35:08 if I do a fast
    0:35:09 push into her I’ll
    0:35:10 never get the
    0:35:11 focus in right so
    0:35:12 I started with it
    0:35:13 in focus went
    0:35:14 back pulled
    0:35:15 backwards on a
    0:35:17 chair and then
    0:35:17 reversed it
    0:35:18 flipped it and
    0:35:19 now it looks like
    0:35:20 it stops on a
    0:35:21 diamond focus
    0:35:21 the number of
    0:35:22 times I’ve seen
    0:35:22 you shoot
    0:35:23 backwards is
    0:35:24 incredible like to
    0:35:25 achieve a certain
    0:35:26 feeling a certain
    0:35:27 experience a certain
    0:35:30 effect sometimes
    0:35:31 shooting in reverse
    0:35:33 plus the sound
    0:35:35 effect layer you
    0:35:37 can create this
    0:35:38 reality that’s
    0:35:39 surreal that then
    0:35:40 results in the
    0:35:41 story that you
    0:35:42 wanted like you
    0:35:43 have to be
    0:35:44 functioning some
    0:35:45 kind of different
    0:35:45 space-time
    0:35:46 continuums
    0:35:48 start putting it
    0:35:49 together right so
    0:35:50 I’ve got this
    0:35:50 different camera
    0:35:51 well what now I
    0:35:52 go like I don’t
    0:35:53 want to shoot the
    0:35:54 same kind of movie
    0:35:54 if I got a camera
    0:35:55 now that can do
    0:35:56 that I can do
    0:35:56 stop motion so
    0:35:57 that’s why there’s
    0:35:58 an animated title
    0:35:59 sequence at the
    0:35:59 beginning because I
    0:36:00 go wow I’m a
    0:36:02 cartoonist if I set
    0:36:03 the camera up here
    0:36:04 I can slow it down
    0:36:06 enough it’s not it’s
    0:36:06 not a frame by
    0:36:07 frame but if I get
    0:36:08 it down like two
    0:36:09 frames a second I
    0:36:11 can just tap it and
    0:36:12 it’ll maybe get one
    0:36:13 frame off so I did
    0:36:14 300 drawings by
    0:36:15 hand for that
    0:36:16 opening title
    0:36:17 sequence holy
    0:36:18 shit that was that
    0:36:19 was you doing it
    0:36:20 by hand yeah so
    0:36:21 you watch that and
    0:36:22 this is a throwaway
    0:36:24 title sequence but I
    0:36:25 really want this thing
    0:36:26 to win awards okay
    0:36:27 hold on a second
    0:36:27 how long does that
    0:36:28 take to draw that
    0:36:29 that’s a lot that’s
    0:36:30 a lot of work I
    0:36:32 drew it I drew it
    0:36:33 over well I was a
    0:36:34 daily cartoonist by
    0:36:34 then so I was pretty
    0:36:35 fast but still it’s
    0:36:36 that’s why it’s only
    0:36:37 penciled it’s not
    0:36:37 inked but it looks
    0:36:38 great I mean it’s
    0:36:39 the cameras going
    0:36:40 around and all kinds
    0:36:41 of crazy stuff but
    0:36:43 it’s just all fake
    0:36:44 by paper it took
    0:36:45 me all night to
    0:36:46 shoot it because I
    0:36:46 remember I walked
    0:36:47 into the film school
    0:36:50 the next day you
    0:36:50 know like all
    0:36:51 sleeping I told one
    0:36:51 of the fellow
    0:36:52 students you know
    0:36:53 wow I was up all
    0:36:54 night doing this
    0:36:54 animated title
    0:36:55 sequence and he
    0:36:56 went why are you
    0:36:56 putting so much
    0:36:57 work in this they’re
    0:36:57 not gonna they’re
    0:36:58 not gonna grade you
    0:36:59 any differently and
    0:37:01 I was like grades get
    0:37:02 an A walking in
    0:37:03 here I’m trying to
    0:37:04 get out of this town
    0:37:05 I’m not doing this
    0:37:07 for fucking grades I
    0:37:07 got I want people to
    0:37:08 see what I can do
    0:37:10 now and I want to
    0:37:11 see what I can do
    0:37:12 now with this so a
    0:37:14 lot of the story came
    0:37:15 from the limitations
    0:37:16 or actually the
    0:37:16 freedoms of that
    0:37:17 camera I couldn’t
    0:37:18 have done that story
    0:37:20 on video so when I
    0:37:21 saw wow okay I can
    0:37:22 do reverse photography
    0:37:23 I can do stop
    0:37:25 motion she has to
    0:37:26 have special powers
    0:37:27 because if she has
    0:37:28 special powers and I
    0:37:29 can utilize I can
    0:37:30 really milk this
    0:37:31 camera for all it
    0:37:31 can get there’s one
    0:37:32 of my shots I love
    0:37:33 the most is where
    0:37:35 she’s standing there
    0:37:36 and the and the
    0:37:39 chair she makes a
    0:37:40 chair come all the
    0:37:41 way up to her and it
    0:37:41 goes all the way up
    0:37:43 to her face now if I
    0:37:44 do that normally where
    0:37:45 would I even put the
    0:37:47 strings for that right
    0:37:49 to pull the chair so I
    0:37:50 start here with the
    0:37:51 camera upside down I
    0:37:52 have the strings in the
    0:37:52 back you’re not going
    0:37:53 to be looking at the
    0:37:54 back and as it goes
    0:37:56 back you pull it back
    0:37:57 and then when you
    0:37:59 reverse it it goes and
    0:38:00 it looks so good you
    0:38:01 can’t spot this if you
    0:38:02 look close you see the
    0:38:02 strings are in the
    0:38:03 back but your eyes
    0:38:05 so I did stuff like
    0:38:06 that and then just
    0:38:07 her like getting the
    0:38:08 hose and then I just
    0:38:09 do stop motion for the
    0:38:10 hose turning on you
    0:38:11 know the faucet that’s
    0:38:12 why I gave her special
    0:38:13 powers so that and it
    0:38:14 made the story better so
    0:38:16 sometimes the limitations
    0:38:17 you have with equipment
    0:38:19 or location you can use
    0:38:20 it to make you know
    0:38:21 take chicken shit turn
    0:38:23 in chicken salad take
    0:38:23 this camera that
    0:38:24 everyone was like what’s
    0:38:26 this and I go I can do
    0:38:29 so much with this but I
    0:38:30 tell you today I look at
    0:38:31 that camera I can’t
    0:38:31 believe I ever made a
    0:38:32 movie with that thing
    0:38:34 it’s so ridiculously
    0:38:35 primitive I’m just like
    0:38:36 how did I even think I
    0:38:38 could get anything done
    0:38:39 with this and it even
    0:38:40 exposed and mariachi the
    0:38:41 same way you have to
    0:38:42 think about it I shot
    0:38:43 mariachi on film and
    0:38:45 with a bar 16 millimeter
    0:38:46 camera I didn’t know
    0:38:48 how to use it I called up
    0:38:49 a place in Dallas that
    0:38:49 rented that kind of
    0:38:51 equipment and I said I
    0:38:53 have an airy 16s here
    0:38:57 two motor looking things
    0:38:59 one has a 24 yeah and
    0:39:00 one has a bunch of
    0:39:01 numbers oh that’s a
    0:39:02 variable speed motor that
    0:39:03 means you can do a
    0:39:04 different speed I can
    0:39:04 shoot slow motion with
    0:39:06 this oh wow do you have a
    0:39:07 torque motor I don’t know
    0:39:08 what is that is there
    0:39:09 something on the side of
    0:39:10 the magazine like it does
    0:39:13 yeah now you can just look
    0:39:14 up on YouTube and it shows
    0:39:15 you how I was doing it by
    0:39:17 phone that way and then I
    0:39:17 went and shot the movie
    0:39:19 right then yeah and I
    0:39:21 didn’t know if any of it
    0:39:23 was exposing or if the film
    0:39:25 camera was working until I
    0:39:26 finished the whole movie so
    0:39:27 imagine you have to go
    0:39:28 down to Mexico shoot for
    0:39:30 two weeks come back send
    0:39:31 it off to the lab you
    0:39:32 want to talk about being
    0:39:35 nervous yeah just hoping
    0:39:37 something exposed and when
    0:39:39 I saw it come back and the
    0:39:40 tape you know they
    0:39:41 transferred it to a tape so
    0:39:42 I could edit it deck to
    0:39:44 deck again I was so
    0:39:45 relieved some things didn’t
    0:39:46 come out but I can cut
    0:39:47 around that it’s like oh
    0:39:48 yeah because I’m doing
    0:39:49 everything like right here
    0:39:50 you’re doing everything
    0:39:51 imagine if you forgot to
    0:39:52 stop down and it’s open
    0:39:53 all the way and one shot
    0:39:54 is blown out you know I’d
    0:39:56 have stuff like that because
    0:39:56 I’m moving fast and I’m
    0:39:57 doing it wait a minute
    0:39:59 you shot I’m gonna actually
    0:40:01 the whole thing without
    0:40:02 knowing if some of the
    0:40:03 footage is damaged wrong
    0:40:05 without any of it that’s
    0:40:06 why I only did one take
    0:40:09 so my idea was this how
    0:40:10 gangster is that well it
    0:40:13 was a test film right right
    0:40:14 I thought it was I thought
    0:40:15 it was going to be a test
    0:40:16 film yeah it’s the only
    0:40:17 movie in history ever made
    0:40:20 where the filmmaker did not
    0:40:22 think anyone would see it
    0:40:24 and expect it and even set
    0:40:25 it up that way I mean why
    0:40:25 would I make an action
    0:40:26 movie for the Spanish
    0:40:28 market called basically the
    0:40:29 guitar player promises no
    0:40:30 action no one’s gonna watch
    0:40:32 it but I thought if someone
    0:40:33 actually picks it up and has
    0:40:34 the balls to watch this
    0:40:35 thing they’re gonna be
    0:40:35 surprised I put a lot of
    0:40:37 action it was just to learn
    0:40:38 from I just needed to make
    0:40:39 it for as little as
    0:40:40 possible see how much I
    0:40:42 could sell it for if I
    0:40:43 could double my money great
    0:40:44 I can make another one and
    0:40:45 just get more practice it
    0:40:47 was just I was so intrigued
    0:40:49 by this idea because you’ve
    0:40:50 heard advice about screen
    0:40:52 writing I heard advice back
    0:40:53 then that I thought was
    0:40:54 ridiculous it said it’s
    0:40:55 gonna take you a long
    0:40:56 time to be a good
    0:40:57 screenwriter so write three
    0:40:58 scripts and throw them
    0:41:00 away the fourth script will
    0:41:00 be the good one I was
    0:41:02 like it’s so hard to write
    0:41:03 a script who’s gonna write
    0:41:05 three full scripts knowing
    0:41:05 they throw them away
    0:41:07 wouldn’t it be better if
    0:41:08 you write three scripts and
    0:41:10 then shoot each one and be
    0:41:11 the cameraman be the sound
    0:41:13 guy be everything because
    0:41:13 that way you’re learning not
    0:41:14 just writing you’re
    0:41:15 learning how to make a
    0:41:17 movie so that was my idea
    0:41:18 I’m gonna make three of
    0:41:20 these hide it on Spanish
    0:41:21 video but make money back
    0:41:22 that’s like my own film
    0:41:24 school paying me paying me to
    0:41:26 learn so the first one I
    0:41:27 thought let me just shoot
    0:41:30 it one take each because my
    0:41:31 friend Carlos lives in
    0:41:33 Mexico if we shoot two
    0:41:34 takes most of the cost is to
    0:41:35 film I’ve just doubled my
    0:41:37 budget so let me just shoot
    0:41:39 one take some of it’s gonna
    0:41:40 not come out but I’m not
    0:41:40 gonna know what I’m not
    0:41:42 gonna shoot a safety one
    0:41:43 that doubles my let me let
    0:41:44 me see some things might come
    0:41:47 out I expected like 70% of
    0:41:49 it to maybe be okay but 30% I
    0:41:50 might have to come reshoot
    0:41:51 which is fine I just drive
    0:41:52 back there and then I just
    0:41:53 reshoot just those shots
    0:41:56 right so I just went let’s
    0:41:58 shoot we stop we come back
    0:41:59 then I send it off to
    0:42:01 develop because we’re
    0:42:02 shooting two weeks
    0:42:03 consecutively to get film
    0:42:05 shipped back and forth from
    0:42:06 Mexico to see if it came out
    0:42:07 you just couldn’t do it I
    0:42:09 just had to you know double
    0:42:11 down on it do it one take
    0:42:12 everything I remember one
    0:42:12 time I was still an actor
    0:42:14 man I told you to run
    0:42:15 through that shot and you
    0:42:16 and you go oh let me do it
    0:42:18 no one take dude just think
    0:42:19 about next time do what I
    0:42:20 say I didn’t think anyone
    0:42:21 was gonna see it so you and
    0:42:22 because you don’t think
    0:42:24 anyone’s gonna see it you end
    0:42:25 up doing something remarkable
    0:42:26 which is well I’m just gonna
    0:42:27 make something for myself
    0:42:28 because if I was making a
    0:42:29 movie that was gonna go to
    0:42:31 Sundance I wouldn’t have
    0:42:32 made that movie I would have
    0:42:33 thought okay I gotta get
    0:42:34 serious but because I made
    0:42:35 this movie that was just
    0:42:36 entertaining myself like
    0:42:38 bedhead it entertained
    0:42:42 audiences so that naivete is
    0:42:43 really important when you’re
    0:42:44 starting out or at any point
    0:42:46 in your life be naive about
    0:42:47 what things gonna and just do
    0:42:48 something for yourself that
    0:42:49 taught me a very valuable
    0:42:50 lesson because I didn’t
    0:42:51 want anybody to see it I
    0:42:53 just thought one take one
    0:42:55 take when I got back home a
    0:42:56 bunch of stuff didn’t come
    0:42:57 out but I’m like I’m not
    0:42:59 going back to Mexico I’ll
    0:43:00 figure out a way to edit
    0:43:01 around it and make the movie
    0:43:04 shorter and that’s just gonna
    0:43:05 be the movie and then that’s
    0:43:06 the one that went one
    0:43:08 Sundance that was your first
    0:43:09 feature film that’s one you
    0:43:09 made for seven thousand
    0:43:10 dollars you mentioned your
    0:43:12 friend Carlos there’s the
    0:43:13 star of the movie everything
    0:43:16 one take and you know I
    0:43:17 highly recommend people go
    0:43:18 back and watch that movie it’s
    0:43:20 it’s just incredible movie it’s
    0:43:22 fun and it’s it’s an action
    0:43:24 film moves really fast the
    0:43:26 story is really interesting so
    0:43:26 the script is really
    0:43:28 interesting all the actors you
    0:43:30 could tell they all kind of
    0:43:32 stepped up and played their own
    0:43:33 they weren’t actors that’s
    0:43:36 right friends of ours which is
    0:43:38 why and because and this is
    0:43:40 the magic of not having a crew
    0:43:41 they didn’t feel like they’re
    0:43:44 making a movie it’s like this you
    0:43:45 know we’re we’re just here yeah
    0:43:48 me with my one camera in fact
    0:43:52 the gal uh carl said this one
    0:43:53 girl i forgot she’s in town maybe
    0:43:54 she would work because we try to
    0:43:56 get a soap star she backed out so
    0:43:58 we got this gal over she goes but i
    0:43:59 don’t know how to act and i said
    0:44:00 here let’s watch i want to show you
    0:44:02 some on mexican tv a telenovela was
    0:44:05 on and you see someone you know all
    0:44:07 over over i said that’s acting i don’t
    0:44:09 want you to do that i want you to just
    0:44:12 talk like you’re that the love
    0:44:14 interest the woman in that that’s
    0:44:15 you’re talking about that’s what
    0:44:16 you’re talking about she’s amazing
    0:44:18 she’s amazing because i got a video
    0:44:20 of her i said i want you to just do
    0:44:22 this one line pretend like you’re just
    0:44:24 talking to your boyfriend yeah and i
    0:44:26 showed her i showed her the video that
    0:44:27 was cool because i couldn’t show her
    0:44:29 the film because we have to develop it
    0:44:31 but i showed her a video test of
    0:44:32 herself doing it and she saw herself
    0:44:34 doing it she suddenly had the
    0:44:35 confidence we went through her
    0:44:37 closet this red dress you can wear
    0:44:38 that and everyone just brought their
    0:44:40 own clothes she really had like a
    0:44:42 sexuality attention like a romantic
    0:44:44 tension that was real those isn’t it
    0:44:46 was a it was in part a great love
    0:44:48 story that i mean as ridiculous as it
    0:44:51 is to say yeah and yeah in part like a
    0:44:53 dramatic love story yeah the idea was
    0:44:55 that you know i thought a guitar player
    0:44:57 you know originally what i wanted to do
    0:44:59 was like road warrior i said i want a
    0:45:00 guy with a guitar case full of weapons
    0:45:02 going from town to town like road
    0:45:03 warrior but i don’t have enough money
    0:45:05 for the first one to do that that’ll
    0:45:08 be the second movie i do how we do a
    0:45:10 genesis story how he became that guy
    0:45:12 so let’s do mad max basically how he
    0:45:14 becomes that guy so maybe he is a
    0:45:16 guitar player so that you start writing
    0:45:17 it out i was going to show you my
    0:45:20 writing method i write on on index cards
    0:45:23 and i carry one of these a little
    0:45:25 packet of index cards i keep one always
    0:45:28 in my bag and i smile when i run across
    0:45:30 it because i go i’ve made a million
    0:45:32 dollars one of these before you know
    0:45:35 it’s like this is the key to your next
    0:45:37 success cards because you know when you
    0:45:39 go see a therapist you’re not going to
    0:45:40 them for the answers you’re going to
    0:45:42 them for the questions you got the
    0:45:44 answers inside which you don’t have
    0:45:45 other questions a lot of times we ask
    0:45:47 ourselves very unempowering questions
    0:45:49 like why am i such a loser you know i
    0:45:51 can think of 10 answers right now but if
    0:45:53 you could but if you go what three
    0:45:54 things can i do today that’ll not just
    0:45:56 change my life but everyone around me
    0:45:59 take steps to that take out your cards
    0:46:01 you start writing them down you won’t
    0:46:02 come up with three you’ll come up with
    0:46:05 15 like wow because you’re asking
    0:46:07 yourself and you’ll see him so when i was
    0:46:09 doing that movie i thought okay he’s a
    0:46:13 guitar player for real and he gets mixed
    0:46:16 up with the guy with a case so how about
    0:46:18 he walks into a bar so right down there
    0:46:21 he walks into a bar bar trying to get
    0:46:24 work bartender looks at him we don’t
    0:46:25 hire maria she’s get the hell out of
    0:46:29 here so he leaves after that whole scene
    0:46:30 explaining who he is and what his story
    0:46:32 is then the shooter comes in with a
    0:46:34 guitar case full of weapons he’s also
    0:46:35 dressed in black and he shoots the
    0:46:38 place up now that was a short film
    0:46:40 that’s how you start a short film but
    0:46:42 this is a feature movie so shit i gotta
    0:46:44 figure out how to tell a feature i’m
    0:46:46 gonna need a few more cards before that
    0:46:50 so i’m gonna need well who’s this bad
    0:46:51 guy how about he’s in jail i’d read a
    0:46:54 story it’s a crazy story about a guy who
    0:46:56 was in jail mexico and he was running his
    0:46:58 drug business from the jail his protection
    0:46:59 he could walk out anytime but he was it
    0:47:01 was to have the cops be his enforcers
    0:47:04 basically so introduce that guy he’s in
    0:47:08 jail making phone calls and someone puts a
    0:47:09 hit on him so we have action right away
    0:47:12 there’s a hit on him he kills those guys
    0:47:15 because it’s his operation he’s not in
    0:47:18 jail all the cops are working for him and
    0:47:20 he tells that guy on the phone the main
    0:47:22 bad guy i’m gonna come to town i’m gonna
    0:47:24 kill all your guys i’m gonna come kill
    0:47:27 you so then he gets in his truck and you
    0:47:30 see them bring him a guitar case full of
    0:47:35 weapons he passes the mariachi on the way
    0:47:37 to town and now it’s his story the baton
    0:47:40 gets turned to mariachi mariachi’s doing a
    0:47:42 voiceover easy to shoot we can do the
    0:47:44 voice later we don’t have to sing sound
    0:47:47 there was even a scene when he walks into
    0:47:49 town where we saw these coconuts a guy
    0:47:50 cutting coconuts and we go let’s go film
    0:47:52 over there so we film the guy giving him
    0:47:55 a coconut with a straw in it and he walks
    0:47:56 out i’m like shit man you forgot to pay
    0:47:59 the guy well let’s shoot that no there’s
    0:48:01 one take i’ll just put in the voiceover
    0:48:02 that they give away free coconuts in this
    0:48:05 town and for years people in other
    0:48:06 countries would go they really give away
    0:48:08 free coconuts no it’s because we forgot
    0:48:09 to show him pain you know little happy
    0:48:11 accidents so now look you’re already
    0:48:13 building a movie so it’s like now he
    0:48:15 goes in the bar now he’s mixed up and
    0:48:17 the bad guy says find the guy with a
    0:48:19 guitar case full of weapons then he goes
    0:48:22 it meets the girl so you just start your
    0:48:24 movie visually you can start seeing your
    0:48:26 movie and i’ve used this for business
    0:48:28 things i’ve used this for ideas for
    0:48:30 manifesting stuff it’s brilliant are you
    0:48:33 doing this alone usually are you it’s
    0:48:35 coming and it comes so fast it’s like
    0:48:36 free association maybe i have the ending
    0:48:38 oh i know i want his hand shot he’s
    0:48:41 gonna get his hand shot because he’s a
    0:48:43 musician and those ballads are always
    0:48:47 really tragic so the girl has to die the
    0:48:48 girl has to die because if it’s a it’s
    0:48:50 going to be a tragic song for his song
    0:48:52 book each movie should be like a tragedy
    0:48:56 that’s going to be over here you know
    0:48:57 you know you got the ending and then
    0:48:59 your brain starts filling in the rest
    0:49:00 because you’re asking yourself these
    0:49:03 prompt questions that you already have
    0:49:05 answers for from a past life from a vision
    0:49:06 you had that you don’t even know are
    0:49:09 there this prompts it it’s kind of a
    0:49:10 puzzle that you’re figuring out what
    0:49:12 happens if you get stuck like this
    0:49:14 doesn’t make sense like some aspect of
    0:49:17 structure doesn’t make sense all there
    0:49:18 you won’t yeah you just start you just
    0:49:19 start writing in the ones you do know
    0:49:22 yeah like okay i know i know at some
    0:49:25 point she’s going to betray him or he’s
    0:49:28 going to think she does she betrays him
    0:49:31 okay that’s in the middle somewhere uh
    0:49:32 the other ones will come yeah those are
    0:49:34 all like crossroads for the story
    0:49:35 doesn’t that like how do you know she
    0:49:37 has to die can that can you change your
    0:49:39 mind about that i can yeah but for now i
    0:49:43 felt like if i really want the story’s
    0:49:44 telling me now what it is i didn’t know
    0:49:46 i was going to make a genesis story i
    0:49:48 wanted to do the road warrior guy but the
    0:49:50 road warrior he lost his family so
    0:49:52 really to propel him to become a guy who
    0:49:54 has a guitar case full of weapons he has
    0:49:57 to lose everything so that he needs a
    0:50:00 ghost so this is a genesis story of a
    0:50:01 character well look bruce wayne lost his
    0:50:02 parents you could say well does the
    0:50:04 parents have to die well no but it’s not
    0:50:06 going to propel him like it’s not going
    0:50:08 to it’s not going to drive him like that
    0:50:10 thing so it just kept it’s just coming to
    0:50:13 me so this is my other trick and this is
    0:50:14 the main thing you got to learn about
    0:50:17 if you take any way this isn’t me doing
    0:50:19 it i totally believe that because when
    0:50:22 you start doing this you go where are
    0:50:24 these answers coming from i’m asking the
    0:50:25 right question but why how come the
    0:50:27 answers just keep coming like this
    0:50:30 i believe because i do so many different
    0:50:32 jobs i’ve learned this over the years
    0:50:35 america when it was in 2002 i was like
    0:50:38 how is it that i’m the production
    0:50:40 designer the composer which i don’t even
    0:50:42 know how to read or write music and i’m
    0:50:44 writing orchestral score and i’m doing
    0:50:45 the editing and i’m doing the
    0:50:48 cinematography i haven’t been trained for
    0:50:49 any i never went to school for these
    0:50:52 specifically must be something about
    0:50:54 creativity so i went on amazon it’s
    0:50:59 2002 i look up creative books anything
    0:51:01 that has creativity in the title i just
    0:51:03 ordered it and i’ve got a bunch of books
    0:51:06 on creativity and i was reading them
    0:51:08 through one of them was like really
    0:51:09 speaking to me yeah that’s that’s it
    0:51:11 that’s the process is it and then it says
    0:51:13 gels and mediums and i’m like oh this is a
    0:51:17 book specifically about painting but it
    0:51:20 applies to music editing cinematography
    0:51:23 writing it’s all the same so that’s when i
    0:51:27 realized that creativity is 90 of any of
    0:51:30 those jobs the technical part of setting
    0:51:33 up the cameras of writing a script in
    0:51:35 format or reading or writing music that’s
    0:51:38 10 of that how many musicians you know
    0:51:39 don’t read or write music and they’re
    0:51:42 fantastic because 90 what they do is
    0:51:44 creative now i believe that that same
    0:51:47 person even if they only do music could
    0:51:49 literally jump from job to job
    0:51:52 creatively and do a superior job than
    0:51:54 most technicians and there’s also
    0:51:55 something to say there about the
    0:51:58 learning the technical aspects of an
    0:52:01 art you you collide with the uh
    0:52:06 uh with the experts what happens is i’ve
    0:52:07 experienced this a lot with like with
    0:52:09 using cameras and so on i don’t know
    0:52:11 shit about cameras and that you roll in
    0:52:13 and then there’s all the experts almost
    0:52:16 talking down to you and telling you how
    0:52:17 things are supposed to be everything is
    0:52:19 wrong i talked to somebody about like
    0:52:22 soundproofing a room and they said they
    0:52:25 gave me prices they’re insane and like
    0:52:26 the amount of effort is insane and this
    0:52:29 the the i’m telling you something the
    0:52:30 dynamics of this room are all wrong i’m
    0:52:32 like why can’t i just fucking hang up
    0:52:34 some curtains like what it seems like
    0:52:36 that kills most of the echo like i don’t
    0:52:37 i don’t understand and they’re like no
    0:52:39 this is all wrong is there’s corn the
    0:52:41 corners are gonna have some so and i’m
    0:52:43 like fuck it i’m just gonna try i’m
    0:52:44 gonna see what it sounds like a and b
    0:52:47 okay here’s audio with curtains here’s
    0:52:48 audio without curtains seems like this is
    0:52:50 fine as a move on to the next thing
    0:52:53 i think that when you say creativity
    0:52:57 some of that is being a rebel like not
    0:52:59 listening to the experts yeah well you’re
    0:53:00 going on your creativity which is what
    0:53:02 is that that’s like an do you consider
    0:53:04 yourself a creative person i think you
    0:53:06 play guitar yeah guitar piano yeah
    0:53:07 everything piano okay but you could be
    0:53:08 would you call yourself a creative
    0:53:09 person
    0:53:12 yeah i think so good you should i think
    0:53:14 that’s a positive i would just suggest
    0:53:16 to anybody is just own it own it and
    0:53:19 just say i like when i do so many
    0:53:21 different jobs it sounds crazy when
    0:53:23 they would introduce me hey robert he
    0:53:24 does this blah blah blah blah and i was
    0:53:26 like i get tired just hearing that list
    0:53:27 but when i think about it there’s really
    0:53:29 only one thing i do and i live a
    0:53:30 creative life and when you live a
    0:53:32 creative life that means anything that
    0:53:33 has to do with creativity whether it’s
    0:53:36 filming or piano guitar sculpting or you
    0:53:38 can just you can do it you can take it
    0:53:39 on and do it because it teaches you more
    0:53:41 about your main job i become a better
    0:53:43 director by doing all those jobs because
    0:53:45 when somebody just does one job they
    0:53:47 barely know that job you have to do
    0:53:49 more to learn about creativity and this
    0:53:51 is the main thing i learned was that
    0:53:54 i’m writing music you know for an
    0:53:56 orchestra i’m like how did i i don’t
    0:53:57 even know what i’m doing why is that
    0:53:59 coming out i don’t feel like i’m doing
    0:54:02 it i feel like i picked up the pen i feel
    0:54:05 like i had the idea to do the cards but
    0:54:06 then when everything just starts coming
    0:54:08 out so quickly like that’s how fast i
    0:54:12 wrote that movie i go i really feel like
    0:54:13 something else has taken over so this
    0:54:16 is what my belief is and because i hear
    0:54:17 it in different realms like you ask
    0:54:18 keith reggie how do you come up with
    0:54:19 these riffs because i don’t i don’t
    0:54:21 they’re floating around the sky and i
    0:54:23 pull them out first you know yes as you
    0:54:24 know jimmy vaughn how do you play
    0:54:26 guitar those solos goes it’s like a
    0:54:28 radio you know once you get a tune just
    0:54:29 right you can’t even believe what’s
    0:54:32 coming through so i believe i call it
    0:54:33 the creative spirit there’s a spirit
    0:54:35 assigned to all of us it’s creative
    0:54:38 that doesn’t have hands it needs you to
    0:54:40 pick up the pen pull out the cards
    0:54:42 and then when you start getting in the
    0:54:44 flow and you’re like whoa it’s writing
    0:54:46 it’s that’s that and if you can have
    0:54:49 that mindset you take your ego out of
    0:54:51 it and go all i need to do is be a good
    0:54:53 conduit for this thing be a good pipe and
    0:54:55 it’s going to come through so you don’t
    0:54:57 ever have to get hung up on that question
    0:54:59 you had well well what happens when you
    0:55:00 can’t come up it wasn’t me to begin
    0:55:03 with if it’s not coming out it’s because
    0:55:05 i’m blocking it and if i were to do
    0:55:08 this and i’m flowing and if i were to
    0:55:11 say wow i just wrote 10 cards i don’t
    0:55:12 know if i can write more how did i do
    0:55:14 that you just shut the pipe because your
    0:55:16 ego got in the way you just clogged it
    0:55:18 because it gets pissed off that you think
    0:55:20 it’s you it’s not you it’s like dude just
    0:55:22 open up let me through pick up the
    0:55:25 fucking pen and i learned this in uh when
    0:55:27 i was 19 when i had a daily cartoon
    0:55:29 strip i had to draw a comic strip every
    0:55:33 day to get paid and i would be like i’d
    0:55:35 have to draw like one drawing draw
    0:55:36 another drawing then it’s like okay
    0:55:38 these kind of go together it was a
    0:55:40 process you know and sometimes i just
    0:55:42 felt like i wish i could just envision
    0:55:44 it sit back i’m gonna try that method i
    0:55:46 went home and i would sit back and just
    0:55:49 try to get in my sofa try the sofa method
    0:55:50 i’m just gonna try a picture the comic
    0:55:51 strip and then as soon as i got one i
    0:55:53 think it’s funny then i’ll just go draw
    0:55:55 that right doesn’t be done in a half
    0:55:58 hour why why it’s three hours i’d sit
    0:55:59 there and sit there and sit there my
    0:56:00 deadline be coming up got like 30
    0:56:02 minutes like oh shit gotta go sit and
    0:56:04 draw it out it’s like okay i got this
    0:56:06 drawings kind of oh this kind of goes
    0:56:08 with that if i make another drawing i have
    0:56:10 my strip that’s the only way to do it
    0:56:12 if you don’t get up the creative spirit
    0:56:13 ain’t gonna come visit you if you’re
    0:56:17 doing this yeah it needs your hands and
    0:56:19 it’s not gonna reward you for sitting
    0:56:21 there waiting for you have to jump in and
    0:56:23 do it and people when they say oh well
    0:56:26 i’m not ready how pissed off is that
    0:56:29 it’s waiting for you to feel like you’re
    0:56:31 ready it’s not you just start doing the
    0:56:33 action and it’s gonna come through and
    0:56:35 the ideas will come and the answers will
    0:56:36 come because it’s not you and if you can
    0:56:38 take your ego out of like you’ll be
    0:56:40 blessed with this never-ending flow of
    0:56:43 ideas because don’t take ownership for
    0:56:44 it and know that you’re if it’s not
    0:56:46 coming out because you’re just clogging
    0:56:47 it because this thing’s got endless
    0:56:50 ideas and you give that same advice for
    0:56:52 for making films which is you know don’t
    0:56:54 plan if you want to be a filmmaker don’t
    0:56:56 plan like the movie don’t think about
    0:56:58 making them would just go in and start
    0:56:59 yeah i would meet a lot of people who
    0:57:02 introduce themselves as aspiring i’m an
    0:57:04 aspiring filmmaker and i wonder how what
    0:57:05 would you tell an aspiring filmmaker i
    0:57:08 said stop aspiring because if you call
    0:57:11 yourself that you are that and you’re
    0:57:12 always going to feel like you’re not
    0:57:14 ready and you don’t you just jump in
    0:57:16 before you’re ready you don’t feel like
    0:57:17 you’re ready till i didn’t feel like i
    0:57:19 was ready to do mariachi till i was
    0:57:20 probably in my last few days of filming
    0:57:22 you became ready as you went you didn’t
    0:57:23 know all that stuff i couldn’t have
    0:57:26 figured all that out in advance when my
    0:57:27 kids worked with me on a project that
    0:57:30 we did similar by the end they realized
    0:57:31 they did an interview with my son who
    0:57:33 after just two weeks of doing one of
    0:57:34 those projects you’re a different
    0:57:36 person he’s suddenly waxing
    0:57:38 philosophical about the creative
    0:57:39 process and going i never knew how my
    0:57:41 dad did mariachi until we did this
    0:57:43 project together and i realized he
    0:57:44 didn’t know either he didn’t know i
    0:57:45 was going to do it he figured it out
    0:57:47 day by day every challenge that got
    0:57:50 thrown at him he had to figure it out
    0:57:52 and that’s the biggest lesson most
    0:57:55 people never start and that’s the
    0:57:56 biggest thing don’t wait till you’re
    0:57:57 ready or they’ll be on your tombstone
    0:57:59 here lies so-and-so he was never ready
    0:58:01 and you don’t want to be that guy jump
    0:58:04 in no it’s not you you just got to be
    0:58:06 the hands and that that that relieves a
    0:58:07 lot of pressure from you because then
    0:58:09 you don’t have to ever have to do
    0:58:11 anything really you just have to be the
    0:58:12 hands can you talk through some of the
    0:58:14 hats some of the many hats you wore
    0:58:16 with the el mariachi it’s that’s an
    0:58:18 interesting case study and you’ve done
    0:58:19 the same thing over and over in
    0:58:21 completely different innovative ways
    0:58:23 in all the films but el mariachi is such
    0:58:27 a radical leap for you i was crazy i
    0:58:28 was that thing’s held together with
    0:58:30 scotch tape rubber bands because of the
    0:58:33 camera i borrowed you directed you did
    0:58:37 cinematography you did the sound it’s
    0:58:38 better to just say what i didn’t do i
    0:58:39 didn’t act in front of the camera
    0:58:42 everything else i did everything else i
    0:58:44 was the whole crew yeah it’s just like
    0:58:47 you’re doing here except you’ve got
    0:58:50 sound recording um right onto the
    0:58:52 cameras right or do you have it to the
    0:58:54 system uh separately but it’s synced i
    0:58:56 mean all the modern technology i didn’t
    0:58:58 have sync camera yep so i had a camera
    0:59:01 that yep it was not it was not a sync
    0:59:04 camera and the thing was it was so loud i
    0:59:05 would have had to blimp the shit out of
    0:59:07 it i didn’t have a blimp and then i
    0:59:08 would have needed a sound guy just to be
    0:59:10 clear so people don’t understand this
    0:59:12 you’re shooting basically no sound
    0:59:14 because the camera sounds like this
    0:59:18 it’s like it sounds like all your
    0:59:19 money’s going away first of all so i
    0:59:20 would go like this
    0:59:24 action you start running yeah and i shoot
    0:59:24 my edit
    0:59:30 yep you know they’re still running you
    0:59:31 know like i’m only using this part
    0:59:34 and there’s no slates there’s no nut
    0:59:35 there’s there’s guys holding up their
    0:59:36 fingers at the beginning of roll like
    0:59:38 this is real seven yeah for just a few
    0:59:39 frames so i know which real it is
    0:59:41 and then that 10 minutes of film
    0:59:45 is just one shot after another and i
    0:59:47 use almost every frame of those shots
    0:59:50 i was cutting in the camera now after i
    0:59:52 shoot like let’s say you know tell me
    0:59:53 your name
    0:59:55 lex what’s your last name
    0:59:57 friedman where do you live
    1:00:00 austin texas i would do the whole scene
    1:00:02 then i’ll get the sound bring the mic in
    1:00:04 close like that say it again lex
    1:00:07 friedman austin texas that’ll probably
    1:00:11 now if you were going on and on there’s a
    1:00:13 place where it’d go out of sync i hate
    1:00:16 rubbery lips so i would cut away to the
    1:00:19 dog or to the knife or to the girl and
    1:00:21 then i cut back when you’re back in sync
    1:00:23 and since these were non-actors they say
    1:00:25 everything the same way each time they
    1:00:27 would say their line just like they
    1:00:28 weren’t they weren’t performing it to
    1:00:29 where they didn’t remember how they
    1:00:30 performed the thing before they were just
    1:00:32 talking in their own rhythm so a lot of
    1:00:34 times it’s anytime you see anyone on
    1:00:36 camera talking they’re in sync with
    1:00:38 themselves and as soon as it cuts away
    1:00:40 they’re out of sync and it created this
    1:00:42 really fast cutting style that i probably
    1:00:44 wouldn’t have had on such a low budget
    1:00:45 movie but it was the only way to keep
    1:00:46 things in sync so when i would shoot two
    1:00:48 people talking i would make sure i’d
    1:00:51 film a couple shots of like the dog or a
    1:00:53 stuffed cat or something just so i’d have
    1:00:54 something to cut away to to get them
    1:00:56 back in sync that’s so brilliant it’s
    1:00:58 that i call it it’s just resourceful it’s
    1:01:00 just being very resourceful you allow it to
    1:01:02 get maybe a little bit out of sync
    1:01:03 sometimes i didn’t allow it but oh
    1:01:05 yeah i would let it if i just didn’t
    1:01:07 have a way to cut away right and i would
    1:01:09 try to sync it as best i could but we as
    1:01:11 the audience like do you understand
    1:01:13 where the threshold is where we notice
    1:01:15 something yeah it seems like you can get
    1:01:17 away with a lot you can get away with i
    1:01:19 just don’t i’m just particular about
    1:01:22 that i just don’t like seeing a dub movie
    1:01:24 where it just feels canned it makes you
    1:01:26 not believe in it anymore so i just cut
    1:01:29 away where the lips are just way off i
    1:01:31 just didn’t want any of that i just
    1:01:33 felt like i wanted it to just be
    1:01:35 believable and there they could be
    1:01:37 really believable if they’re in sync but
    1:01:39 i didn’t shoot two takes of film or even
    1:01:41 two takes of audio but just one take we
    1:01:43 just went to the and what’s cool is that
    1:01:45 because i just had them go through the
    1:01:48 whole scene again so i would go ahead and
    1:01:49 record them like grabbing the bottle or
    1:01:51 any action they did opening the suitcase i
    1:01:52 have all the sound effects too i just
    1:01:54 have to sync it by hand that’s a lot of
    1:01:57 work for me but i got great sound that
    1:01:59 way because if i had had a sync camera
    1:02:02 the mic would have been so far we wouldn’t
    1:02:04 have we would have had to go get new sound
    1:02:06 effects but because the camera is off i
    1:02:08 could record everything close up so there
    1:02:11 was some blessing to that you uh and
    1:02:13 quentin tarantino had a great conversation
    1:02:14 about a lot of topics but one of them is
    1:02:16 how to bring out the best in the actors
    1:02:18 like what in that el mariachi how do you
    1:02:21 bring out the best in these non-actors
    1:02:23 and then maybe what’s the thread that
    1:02:25 connects to your future work too
    1:02:28 what really helped for those non-actors
    1:02:30 was that they just look across and and
    1:02:32 it’s me filming they didn’t feel like
    1:02:33 they’re so they’re being so natural
    1:02:35 when i think i who played the bad guy i
    1:02:37 met him in the research hospital where i
    1:02:39 was sold my body to science he was my
    1:02:41 bunk mate and i said dude you look kind
    1:02:42 of like rudger howard and then it’s like
    1:02:44 we saw another movie man you look like
    1:02:45 james spader shit you should be the bad
    1:02:47 guy in my movie and it’d be cool to have
    1:02:48 you as the bad guy he goes but i don’t
    1:02:50 speak spanish well that’s okay all right
    1:02:52 and i’ll teach you phonetically and
    1:02:54 you’re going to wear sunglasses and if
    1:02:56 you look close he’s holding the he’s
    1:02:57 holding the lines here and he’s
    1:02:59 looking at the lines like that and just
    1:03:01 smiling so can’t believe he’s getting
    1:03:03 away with this he’s smiling and he’s
    1:03:05 got the sunglasses on i read that
    1:03:06 somewhere in the pool there’s like a
    1:03:08 scene in the pool he’s like with the
    1:03:11 sunglasses on with an oh man but but he
    1:03:13 was doing it phonetically and i tell you
    1:03:15 what he was so great that guy right
    1:03:17 yeah when we do desperado i brought him
    1:03:19 back didn’t even have to do any
    1:03:21 dialogue watch that movie when he
    1:03:22 shows up in the opening scene when
    1:03:25 desperado he’s playing the guitar and the
    1:03:27 opening with the credits to tie it into
    1:03:30 the first movie he shows up again and all
    1:03:31 he has to do is light a cigarette and you
    1:03:32 see this
    1:03:35 yeah because he’s so nervous because now
    1:03:37 there’s a crew behind me now it’s real
    1:03:40 before it was just me and him and it
    1:03:41 didn’t feel like a real movie so everyone
    1:03:44 gave a great performance so how do you
    1:03:46 recreate that later on a big movie is
    1:03:48 just building a report making a safe
    1:03:51 zone for your actors quentin once told
    1:03:52 me sometimes being you know we’re
    1:03:52 talking about directing is yeah
    1:03:54 sometimes being a great director is
    1:03:55 just being a great audience you know
    1:03:56 being a great audience for them
    1:03:58 because you’re you’re the you’re
    1:03:59 taking the place of the audience for
    1:04:01 the actor they try something if you’re
    1:04:02 enjoying it they know that the
    1:04:04 audience is going to enjoy it or if
    1:04:06 you’re you know makes you cry you
    1:04:07 know so sometimes you just you don’t
    1:04:09 have to tell them a lot sometimes and if
    1:04:11 you do have something very specific to
    1:04:13 tell them they usually you know go
    1:04:15 with it but I always just like to see
    1:04:17 what they do and a lot of times they
    1:04:19 just are in the zone because again
    1:04:21 they’re getting that flow to you create
    1:04:22 the right environment everyone’s
    1:04:24 getting this inspiration that’s all
    1:04:26 tied together that you never could have
    1:04:27 directed it’s just like you just
    1:04:29 create that space where we’re all
    1:04:31 going to be open to it and it’s going
    1:04:32 to drop in our lap and I’m going to
    1:04:35 point it out when it does because you
    1:04:36 may not feel like you know how to play
    1:04:40 this role yet but I say not knowing is
    1:04:41 the other half of the battle and the
    1:04:42 more important part and part that’s
    1:04:44 the part we’re going to discover and
    1:04:45 when it happens I’m going to point it
    1:04:46 out and it’s going to be like magic
    1:04:47 and we’re just going to go okay we’re
    1:04:48 accepting it and we do it and it gets
    1:04:50 people in that kind of headspace and
    1:04:52 then we’re all open to it to where the
    1:04:54 character is supposed to go with the
    1:04:55 what it’s supposed to sound like
    1:04:57 instead of me being very you know
    1:04:59 manipulative to get a certain thing I
    1:05:00 don’t know it’s it’s just whatever
    1:05:02 feels good yeah there’s such an
    1:05:03 intimate connection between the actor
    1:05:04 and the director I’ve seen some of
    1:05:05 the behind-the-scenes footage with
    1:05:08 you you are just a fan enjoying the
    1:05:10 scene when it’s done well but I
    1:05:11 think there’s an aspect if I were to
    1:05:13 put myself in the headspace of the
    1:05:15 actor they want you as the audience
    1:05:17 like to earn that happiness you know
    1:05:19 because when a director approves yeah
    1:05:21 well you’re a performer and you want
    1:05:22 and there’s no other you know it’s not
    1:05:23 like a live show where you get the
    1:05:25 approval of the audience and you’re
    1:05:26 like oh wow they they like that joke
    1:05:28 let me do more you know really the
    1:05:30 director is it and a lot of times the
    1:05:31 director’s way behind a monitor
    1:05:32 somewhere that’s why I still like to
    1:05:34 operate the camera so I’m operating the
    1:05:36 camera it’s like this we can have a
    1:05:37 hundred people here we wouldn’t
    1:05:38 know because they go away it’s just
    1:05:41 us they just disappear when it’s the
    1:05:43 camera guy is the director and we’re
    1:05:45 going let’s do that again so there’s a
    1:05:47 shot and I’m lighting sensitivity
    1:05:48 myself there’s all about my crew
    1:05:51 setting lights and I have this great
    1:05:53 shot of Clive Owen where he’s holding
    1:05:54 down Benicio’s head in the toilet you
    1:05:55 know Benicio’s not there it’s just a
    1:05:58 close-up of him at this point and I’m
    1:05:59 practicing my shot I’m zooming and
    1:06:01 slow in his face and people are still
    1:06:02 walking behind him on the green screen
    1:06:04 setting lights and I’m like I’m
    1:06:05 rolling we’re ready to go we’re
    1:06:06 getting this I can already tell we’re
    1:06:08 already in the moment what you’re
    1:06:09 doing right now just keep holding that
    1:06:11 look now one jolt like you’re like
    1:06:13 he’s starting to fight back but you
    1:06:15 don’t even flinch cut okay never mind
    1:06:16 you guys can stop moving that shit we
    1:06:18 already got holy shit it’s like that
    1:06:20 wow yeah it’s like that because you’re
    1:06:22 so that’s a great scene by the way
    1:06:25 great right and it’s holy shit if I
    1:06:26 wait for these guys this moment will be
    1:06:28 gone and then another one was Mickey
    1:06:30 Rourke you know he had so much
    1:06:32 freaking dialogue he had just done this
    1:06:33 whole big dialogue scene he had
    1:06:35 another one it said let’s go ahead
    1:06:38 and start with a wide shot where the
    1:06:40 two actors if I’m the camera you know
    1:06:42 Mickey and Elijah are here let’s get a
    1:06:43 two-shot and we’ll come around on
    1:06:45 Mickey close-up we don’t we’ll turn
    1:06:47 Mickey around for the close-up let’s
    1:06:48 start with the wide thing get used to
    1:06:50 the lines and most of it’s going to be
    1:06:51 sold in the close-up we sit down Mickey
    1:06:54 starts delivering the take hold on hold
    1:06:56 a second I brought my camera over zoom
    1:06:57 in just adjust that light real quick
    1:06:58 because I’m the DP because if I had
    1:07:00 another director of photography
    1:07:01 they’re like oh no no we have to
    1:07:02 relight and all this stuff it’s like
    1:07:04 no no let’s just do this this let’s go
    1:07:06 he’s doing it right now and I go and
    1:07:09 that performance is just right then and
    1:07:12 so you can feel that when you’re also
    1:07:14 you’re operating and you’re the camera
    1:07:17 guy and you’re the DP it’s like high-tech
    1:07:18 guerrilla filmmaking yeah we’re on a
    1:07:20 green screen but it’s like all the crew
    1:07:23 needs or you know marching orders just
    1:07:26 put a light back there hitting them harder
    1:07:28 like that’s a this is a 5k make that a
    1:07:29 10k it’s got to be stronger they don’t
    1:07:30 need to know that I’m going to make that
    1:07:32 a lamppost later they just need it
    1:07:34 marching orders for the moment so I can
    1:07:35 just kind of tell people do this do this
    1:07:37 do that and then I know what I can
    1:07:38 accomplish with the actor and then
    1:07:40 everything else falls into place later
    1:07:41 because I’m going to put all that in
    1:07:43 later you know things once you know how
    1:07:45 to do a lot of jobs like that you can
    1:07:46 just move at the speed of thought which
    1:07:48 is where the actors love being
    1:07:51 creatively because they nobody knew what
    1:07:52 green screen was back then they’re like
    1:07:54 what is this again so I explained it as
    1:07:56 well it’s kind of like doing theater
    1:07:58 but instead of a black curtain behind
    1:07:59 you with a prop it’ll be a green
    1:08:02 curtain and you might just have a cup
    1:08:04 or just a steering wheel but it’s just
    1:08:06 you and the other actors just like this
    1:08:08 and everything else will be painted in
    1:08:10 later we’re just talking we’re locked
    1:08:12 in if we stay locked in we’ll look great
    1:08:13 when there’s rain coming down and we’re
    1:08:16 on a ship later but it comes down to
    1:08:19 this right and the more it was so fun to
    1:08:20 do those kind of movies to this day you
    1:08:22 try to be close to the action
    1:08:24 connected with the actor that’s because
    1:08:27 it’s like a dance you end up that’s so
    1:08:29 like here I remember on dust till dawn
    1:08:31 Michael Parks in the opening scene he’s
    1:08:34 talking about the two guys that are
    1:08:36 running around killing people just before
    1:08:38 he gets shot and there’s a I just start
    1:08:40 doing this slow zoom I remember this take
    1:08:43 eight start doing the slow zoom on him
    1:08:46 and I’m like I hope I get all the way up
    1:08:48 to where it stops zooming when he finishes
    1:08:50 that speech because there’s no set way and
    1:08:52 I don’t know how he’s gonna say but
    1:08:54 you’re just locked almost telepathically
    1:08:56 and as he’s delivered there’s no edits
    1:08:58 he’s just going yeah they killed four
    1:09:02 rangers two hostages it’s just like wow
    1:09:04 and you’re just so pulled in I’m just
    1:09:06 like oh my god and then it stopped it’s
    1:09:07 like I ran out of zoom right as he
    1:09:09 finished that speech so how can a
    1:09:11 director because there’s a lot of great
    1:09:13 directors that stay in the in the bag I
    1:09:15 know it’s back you know they just trust
    1:09:16 that whatever they get from their crew
    1:09:18 they just you accept it just like you
    1:09:19 know you would get a take there’s so
    1:09:21 much I like I like that intimate
    1:09:24 connection because I could not be behind
    1:09:27 a monitor even if I had communication
    1:09:28 with my cameraman okay now start zooming
    1:09:31 in you’re not gonna know you have to
    1:09:32 feel it you have to be in there it’s
    1:09:33 like a dance it’s like trying to do a
    1:09:35 dance with a partner and you’re across
    1:09:36 the room you know it’s like no you got
    1:09:39 to be there up close feeling the energy
    1:09:41 and and it’s the the creative spirits
    1:09:43 whispering to your both you know it’s
    1:09:45 not your own idea it’s you’re
    1:09:46 capturing a moment that’s magic and
    1:09:48 there’s true magic that happens on a
    1:09:49 set and that’s what brings you back
    1:09:52 because you know I didn’t direct that
    1:09:54 and they didn’t act that that came
    1:09:56 through us and we just had the cameras
    1:09:59 rolling and we captured a ghost it’s
    1:10:00 like you said though you had a pen in
    1:10:02 hand and you were you were there like
    1:10:05 that crazy all right your friendship
    1:10:07 with Tarantino is just fascinating and
    1:10:09 just the whole timeline of the history
    1:10:11 of movies and the two of you collided and
    1:10:13 met is is just a fascinating part of the
    1:10:17 story you first met him in 1992 at the
    1:10:19 Toronto Film Festival can you just talk
    1:10:21 about meeting Tarantino and we both had
    1:10:24 films at the same time with first films
    1:10:29 guys in black action violence in fact I
    1:10:31 had seen this movie already my first film
    1:10:32 festival was a few months before that
    1:10:34 the Telluride Film Festival and Reservoir
    1:10:35 Dogs was there but Quentin couldn’t be
    1:10:36 there he was at Sundance earlier that
    1:10:39 year and the guy who became my agent he
    1:10:40 saw it he said hey you’re gonna like
    1:10:41 this guy Quentin Tarantino I told him
    1:10:43 about you you’re gonna meet him he’s
    1:10:45 gonna be in Toronto oh cool cool okay and
    1:10:46 so I went ahead and saw his movie and
    1:10:48 tell you right and I was like holy shit
    1:10:50 guys in black again just like the
    1:10:53 mariachis dressed in black and action I
    1:10:54 said oh we’re gonna like each other
    1:10:56 he’s gonna like me when he sees so then
    1:10:58 in Toronto we met and we met first on
    1:11:00 because I knew I was gonna be doing a
    1:11:02 panel discussion with him they asked us
    1:11:04 to do a panel discussion about violence
    1:11:06 and movies in the 90s even though it was
    1:11:09 only 92 so we’re on a panel together
    1:11:11 that’s where I met him and he’s like
    1:11:13 hey Robert Rodriguez told me about you
    1:11:14 and I was like yeah I saw your movie
    1:11:16 Reservoir Dogs and he goes oh you gotta
    1:11:18 come to my screening and I’m gonna come
    1:11:20 see yours so he came to mariachi and I
    1:11:22 videotaped the audience reactions
    1:11:24 because they were insane insane
    1:11:27 reactions to it but I have the first
    1:11:30 screening he saw mariachi sitting next
    1:11:32 to me laughing he’s laughing and
    1:11:34 everything he was just the best audience
    1:11:35 I have his recording of the first time
    1:11:37 he saw mariachi oh no really yeah
    1:11:40 because I tape it and he’s so loud
    1:11:41 because he’s right next to me well just
    1:11:43 like you but even probably even more
    1:11:47 than you he’s a fan he watches he just
    1:11:50 loves movies he loves movies in fact I the
    1:11:52 next time I heard him laugh that way was
    1:11:55 it that his own premiere for Kill Bill we’re
    1:11:57 watching Kill Bill and he’s laughing like
    1:11:59 it’s somebody else’s movie he still enjoys
    1:12:01 the movies it’s so he loves but all the
    1:12:03 actors did and it’s like that’s the kind
    1:12:05 energy you really love but I tell you
    1:12:08 what what what happened I’m not a very
    1:12:09 shy person you know very shy I’d have to
    1:12:11 go talk I’m sure you probably feel like
    1:12:13 you’re not an orator or anything you know
    1:12:16 just have to go do it I thought well man
    1:12:17 I’m gonna have to introduce my film and
    1:12:19 talk about it afterwards I’m afraid of
    1:12:20 that what am I gonna do I don’t remember
    1:12:22 talking in front of more than five people
    1:12:24 before so I went to see this other movie
    1:12:27 and it was good and I was watching and
    1:12:30 and then the director comes up at the
    1:12:32 end goes yeah well that was my movie and
    1:12:35 you know you know here’s the writer and
    1:12:37 it’s like I don’t like the movie anymore
    1:12:39 this guy’s kind of a dick so I cannot do
    1:12:43 that I’m gonna have to go be who they
    1:12:46 imagine made that movie so I wrote out my
    1:12:48 whole intro it was like a 20-minute
    1:12:50 intro because no one had ever heard of
    1:12:52 anybody making a movie for no money much
    1:12:56 less without a crew much less you know
    1:12:58 the way I did it was just very new nobody
    1:13:01 knew it was possible so my whole intro
    1:13:04 is like you’ll see the Columbia logo
    1:13:06 slapped in front it’s probably cost more
    1:13:08 than the whole movie and then I go
    1:13:09 through this is how I made it with a
    1:13:11 wheelchair for a dolly a turtle you know
    1:13:13 I wrote around things I had I mentioned
    1:13:16 the turtle the pit bull the bus the ranch
    1:13:18 all that stuff right so that when they see
    1:13:20 the movie in fact I think my wife was in
    1:13:22 the audience she said at Sundance people
    1:13:24 are laughing so much at your intro they
    1:13:26 just wanted to hear a story like this
    1:13:27 so badly I heard someone next to me say
    1:13:29 I’m gonna vote for his movie they
    1:13:31 hadn’t even seen the movie just because
    1:13:33 the story was so good they wanted that
    1:13:35 movie to be great and when they see the
    1:13:39 turtle big cheers when they see the pit
    1:13:41 bull big cheers when they see the school
    1:13:43 bus cheers but then when they see how we
    1:13:45 use it and he slams into it and falls in
    1:13:47 it they freaking lose their minds because
    1:13:49 they know how I put it together they
    1:13:50 know that the rubber bands and the
    1:13:54 popsicle sticks I already set it up and so
    1:13:56 that’s why that audience I just hate the
    1:13:59 reaction they’re so with it the context
    1:14:01 is so key like you can watch mariachi and
    1:14:04 go hey yeah this looks like a $7,000
    1:14:06 movie but if you know the story behind it
    1:14:08 suddenly I was curious I hadn’t seen it a
    1:14:10 long time I was watching it for the 20th
    1:14:13 anniversary we did a screening and the
    1:14:14 first few shots come up and I’m like oh
    1:14:17 yeah well it looks like a $7,000 movie and
    1:14:19 then it keeps going and it’s in the once
    1:14:20 we’re in the jail cell and the shootings
    1:14:22 happening and I realized oh my god we had
    1:14:26 these blanks that only fired one shot and
    1:14:31 it would jam so I had to show it going use
    1:14:32 the sound effect cut to the other guy cut
    1:14:35 back to have another one go I had to do
    1:14:36 these editing tricks to make it look like
    1:14:37 and then repeat a few frames so it goes
    1:14:40 so it looks like a machine gun all this
    1:14:42 stuff that I’m start sweating as I’m
    1:14:44 watching it going I can’t believe I made
    1:14:46 this movie with that freaking camera I
    1:14:47 don’t know how I did I couldn’t even
    1:14:49 see I’m there with this long lens
    1:14:51 pulling my own focus when I finally had
    1:14:54 to do a real movie I was operating the
    1:14:56 camera on my first real movie with a
    1:14:58 crew I get the camera and a guy comes
    1:15:02 over and he focuses for you that’s your
    1:15:04 job you focus shit I had to do my own
    1:15:06 focusing on the last movie I didn’t have
    1:15:08 so hard you’re trying to focus on a guy
    1:15:10 while you’re filming you don’t know
    1:15:13 where you are and it’s just I was
    1:15:14 couldn’t believe how much easier it is
    1:15:16 when you have a crew it’s extremely
    1:15:18 valuable to know that the pain of that
    1:15:21 the the spectrum of creativity that’s
    1:15:23 allowed within that even just the
    1:15:25 focusing yeah like how focusing fucks up
    1:15:27 on all the cameras on your cameras what
    1:15:29 what are the different artifacts that
    1:15:30 come off just to know yeah the
    1:15:32 battlefield in order to be a great
    1:15:34 general you have to know how to be a
    1:15:35 soldier on the battlefield yeah yeah it’s
    1:15:37 good to know all that stuff but you know
    1:15:39 it’s like the end of the day you could
    1:15:41 shoot something on a phone if you have a
    1:15:43 great story no one’s gonna even notice
    1:15:44 I’ll be oh we shut that on a phone I
    1:15:45 didn’t notice you know so sometimes
    1:15:47 people get caught up on what kind of
    1:15:48 camera should I have it’s like it’s not
    1:15:50 the camera that’s just the tool that’s
    1:15:52 just the pen that’s just like yeah you
    1:15:54 can have different paint brushes but you
    1:15:55 can go I’m gonna I’m gonna limit my
    1:15:57 palette I’m only gonna use a fan brush
    1:16:00 and a detail brush and I’m gonna make a
    1:16:01 painting do you think that painting is
    1:16:03 gonna suffer no it’s gonna take on an
    1:16:04 identity that you wouldn’t have had if
    1:16:06 you had all the other tools so
    1:16:07 sometimes the limitations help you
    1:16:10 because when you can do anything you
    1:16:12 come it can be crippling when I knew I
    1:16:13 could only use those things for
    1:16:14 mariachi it’s like all right well it’s
    1:16:16 very it’s very simple now let me show
    1:16:18 you how cheapskate I was like I did not
    1:16:20 spend on anything so when you see him
    1:16:22 walking around with a guitar case it’s a
    1:16:24 shitty cardboard one you know like I got
    1:16:27 from home I had to get a heavier one to
    1:16:31 put the guns in so we borrowed one but it
    1:16:34 had this material ripped off the top so
    1:16:35 you could see the wood it’s just the
    1:16:37 wood on top so didn’t match the other
    1:16:38 one because it wasn’t all black and I
    1:16:40 was too cheap to paint it black I didn’t
    1:16:43 want to spend money on paint so you see
    1:16:46 that cardboard case he puts it down and
    1:16:48 when he goes to open it I cut to the
    1:16:51 other one once the wood is is yeah watch
    1:16:53 the edits you’ll see it all but now it’s
    1:16:54 a completely different case for the guns
    1:16:57 and when he goes to cut it when close it
    1:16:59 it cuts to the other one and he goes oh
    1:17:01 that’s how I did that whole movie again
    1:17:02 it was a practice film I don’t want to
    1:17:04 waste any money on it I don’t know if
    1:17:05 it’s going to be even I won’t be able
    1:17:07 to make five bucks from it yeah but
    1:17:10 this you’re one of the one of the few
    1:17:12 great directors where both the movies
    1:17:15 genius and the process of making it is
    1:17:17 creative genius it’s like fun to watch
    1:17:19 both to know of both you know what I
    1:17:21 believe right it’s like it’s from
    1:17:23 somewhere else I have to say you’re just
    1:17:26 that thing is freaking I didn’t get in
    1:17:28 its way this basically would help and
    1:17:30 people say that you know don’t get in
    1:17:32 your own way this is a little bit easier
    1:17:34 to understand it’s like keep the pipe
    1:17:37 clear don’t block it with your ego don’t
    1:17:38 say you’re gonna be shocked but don’t
    1:17:41 ever say oh shit how do I do that I don’t
    1:17:42 know if I can do that you didn’t do it to
    1:17:44 begin with except that it just came through
    1:17:46 you and try to get back into that head
    1:17:47 space especially when you go to make a
    1:17:49 second film or a third film or follow up a
    1:17:52 success that’s when artists get really
    1:17:54 crippled because sometimes they start
    1:17:55 tiptoeing around as an artist going like
    1:17:57 oh shit now it’s my second film my first
    1:17:59 one did really well they might not like
    1:18:02 my second one so much that’s not the
    1:18:03 headspace you were in when you made the
    1:18:06 first one you weren’t hesitant like that
    1:18:07 you’re just so try to keep that very
    1:18:10 naive and and that’s why I say commit to
    1:18:11 a body of work because I know a lot of
    1:18:13 filmmakers get stuck on their second one
    1:18:14 and then go further because they get
    1:18:16 crippled by the success of the first one
    1:18:18 and they start asking oh shit how did I
    1:18:20 do that how can I do that again and you
    1:18:22 get deeper and deeper in a hole you
    1:18:23 can’t get out of I think you’ve spoken
    1:18:25 about that filmmakers especially early on
    1:18:28 on their journey critics and the audience
    1:18:31 can destroy them meaning like it creates
    1:18:35 too much of a burden too much just wear
    1:18:37 them down to where they’re almost scared
    1:18:39 to be creative can you just speak to that
    1:18:40 how to ignore the critic I’ll tell you
    1:18:42 something that my best advice ever got
    1:18:46 early on I was so fortunate from an
    1:18:50 unlikely place because he’s such a
    1:18:51 he sounded like Clint Eastwood when he
    1:18:54 said it was funny when you said that but I
    1:18:57 got uh the desperado and had Antonio
    1:18:59 banderas I brought Antonio to be in it
    1:19:02 from Europe big action movie and so
    1:19:05 Spielberg saw it and he said um hey I
    1:19:08 want you to do Zorro with Antonio so we’re
    1:19:10 working on it for a while I did I was
    1:19:11 working on the pre-production got to work
    1:19:13 with Spielberg doing that it ended up
    1:19:15 stalling me as the there was like two
    1:19:16 studios involved and ambling was moving
    1:19:19 or it was some weird thing where but I
    1:19:20 got to work with him for about five
    1:19:22 months you know and I started getting
    1:19:24 really nervous because it’s like oh shit
    1:19:26 you start thinking about even movies of
    1:19:28 his that people would say oh you know
    1:19:29 Temple of Doom’s not as good as Raiders
    1:19:31 have you seen Temple of Doom I’d been
    1:19:33 killed if I can do that movie yeah if I
    1:19:35 can make Zorro as good as that one the
    1:19:37 one that people said it’s like people
    1:19:38 don’t know how good they had it with
    1:19:41 that guy but I started thinking I even
    1:19:43 said man I just re-watched Temple of
    1:19:44 Doom last night I don’t know how I’m
    1:19:46 gonna do this Zorro movie like I’ve just
    1:19:48 never done anything like that you start
    1:19:50 getting you know afraid because you go
    1:19:53 the second thing he said all right just
    1:19:56 just you’re gonna do fine but then I
    1:19:59 started thinking this guy at that time
    1:20:01 you don’t know the era but this was like
    1:20:06 mid-90s he was making the biggest best
    1:20:07 movies of all and people would shit all
    1:20:09 over this guy they would throw so much
    1:20:12 they were so jealous press audience
    1:20:14 everyone was just like hits at him just
    1:20:15 throwing rocks at him for everything
    1:20:18 Spielberg yeah you can’t imagine it now
    1:20:21 you had to been at that time now
    1:20:23 everyone has respect for him but they
    1:20:25 made him run a fucking gauntlet and
    1:20:28 they were like drastic park yeah you can’t
    1:20:29 even imagine it now but you should have
    1:20:31 seen the climate it freaked me out
    1:20:34 because I’m like maybe I should just stay
    1:20:36 under the radar where I’ve been you know
    1:20:38 not poke my head out so much yeah
    1:20:39 because this guy has a head out and
    1:20:43 they’re unwarranted just you can’t even
    1:20:44 fathom it now because you weren’t here
    1:20:46 at that time it was crazy you would
    1:20:48 never even think of him that way I’m
    1:20:49 glad it changed because back then it
    1:20:51 was just it made people not want to be
    1:20:55 successful and I made me be worried like
    1:20:56 maybe I shouldn’t be go making a movie
    1:20:58 that has his name on it that’s going to
    1:20:59 put my head out in a whole different
    1:21:01 realm of filmmaking at a studio level
    1:21:04 because if I make it even if I make a
    1:21:06 good movie if I make a great movie he’s
    1:21:07 making great movies he’s getting this
    1:21:10 dog shit I don’t know if I could take
    1:21:12 it you know so I asked him because you
    1:21:15 don’t know how resilient you can be so I
    1:21:18 said damn and pan how do you do it how
    1:21:20 do you how do you what do you do when
    1:21:23 people just throw rocks at you all day
    1:21:26 long he goes oh Robert you just don’t
    1:21:31 blink and I was like whoa now I see how
    1:21:34 he got through it just don’t blink just
    1:21:38 like you know it’s coming don’t blink and
    1:21:39 to him say it’s like a Clint Eastwood line
    1:21:42 right but it was like you could see he
    1:21:44 was telling the truth and you could see
    1:21:48 that’s how he did it he just avoided all
    1:21:51 criticism by just not blinking it’s like
    1:21:53 it’s designed to make you blink and you’re
    1:21:54 just not going to blink because you’re
    1:21:55 committing to a body of work he just
    1:21:57 keeps cranking out movies whatever he
    1:22:00 feels like doing he does and that was
    1:22:01 like the most pop and it never bothered
    1:22:03 me again I just like always kept in mind I
    1:22:05 tell that to my actors I tell that people
    1:22:08 that story has traveled I even had some
    1:22:10 little actors who were like starting to
    1:22:12 get up and I said remember tell you a
    1:22:14 couple of things some people have told
    1:22:15 me you’re never as good as people say you
    1:22:17 are and you’re never as bad either
    1:22:20 so I remember that and then the second
    1:22:26 one Spielberg don’t blink don’t blink but
    1:22:27 there has to be a kind of vision for
    1:22:31 yourself of what what you’re reaching for
    1:22:35 what you’re trying to do again yeah sort
    1:22:38 of sort of like I think if you told me
    1:22:39 what would be my vision for the future
    1:22:41 just committing to a body of work which
    1:22:43 I’ve just kept doing like that’s it’s
    1:22:44 about as far as you can see do you have
    1:22:47 a sense do you have a vision of the body
    1:22:49 of work you’ll make in the next 20 years
    1:22:51 like yeah or is it just like I wasn’t
    1:22:53 sure because you don’t always know what
    1:22:54 the you might not have the vision yet
    1:22:56 because you don’t have the information yet
    1:22:57 so you just commit to a body of work
    1:22:59 you’ll start figuring out more reasons
    1:23:01 to keep doing that body of work so when
    1:23:05 I turned 50 I was like I guess I could
    1:23:07 just keep making movies I mean I guess
    1:23:09 that’s been good for me yes I guess I
    1:23:11 could just make more I kind of done that
    1:23:13 already but it’s always fun and it’s
    1:23:16 always new and I guess I can make but it
    1:23:17 wasn’t a lot of drive right it’s like
    1:23:19 that’s not it’s like well I guess I
    1:23:20 could just keep doing the body you know
    1:23:22 that’s not as much as I can’t wait to
    1:23:25 keep doing another season but I know
    1:23:28 how to get to that point so I said you
    1:23:30 know what I got to this job so early I
    1:23:33 was in the early 20s I bet there’s some
    1:23:34 other job out there that exists that I
    1:23:35 don’t even know about because I don’t
    1:23:37 know other jobs so I looked up you
    1:23:39 don’t believe it but I literally bought
    1:23:42 jobs for dummies nice it was just like I
    1:23:43 don’t even know what I just have a basic
    1:23:45 jobs we’ve been out there turning the
    1:23:46 page oh yeah don’t want that job don’t
    1:23:48 want that job don’t want that job just
    1:23:50 going through and it gets to filmmaker
    1:23:52 there’s a little icon behind these job
    1:23:55 this icon is a guy like this literally
    1:23:57 you look it up it’s a and it says this
    1:23:59 is the best job ever you get to just be
    1:24:02 creative with your friends sit back watch
    1:24:05 the money roll in across the desk and I
    1:24:08 said but 99% of film students don’t get
    1:24:11 this job so give up that dream I guess I
    1:24:13 got the best job but then I started
    1:24:17 working with my kids when we did I had a
    1:24:19 TV show called Rebel Without a Crew based
    1:24:21 on that right I found filmmakers who had
    1:24:22 only made a short film they hadn’t made
    1:24:24 a feature I picked this diverse group of
    1:24:27 filmmakers gave them $7,000 and we
    1:24:29 documented them making a feature two
    1:24:31 weeks like I did you can bring one
    1:24:32 person like I had Carlos guy out of the
    1:24:35 producer and star of Mariachi bring one
    1:24:36 person be your cameraman we can be your
    1:24:38 sound guy whatever but it’s only that for
    1:24:39 the shoot and you’d have to do the
    1:24:43 whole thing and I saw those guys by the
    1:24:44 time they’re they’re like I don’t know
    1:24:45 how we’re going to make this movie by
    1:24:46 the first week of shooting they’re
    1:24:48 already talking about their next feature
    1:24:50 they became so confident because their
    1:24:52 idea of what impossible is drops really
    1:24:55 quick when you yeah anyone interested in
    1:24:57 unlocking their creativities they’re not
    1:24:58 even just filmmaking I highly recommend
    1:25:00 that show and I highly recommend the
    1:25:04 kind of the follow-on show which is
    1:25:06 where you make red 11 yes that’s the
    1:25:07 one I did so then it came time for me to
    1:25:09 do one so I made a movie called red 11
    1:25:11 based on my experiences in the medical
    1:25:14 hospital but I’ll turn it into a sci-fi
    1:25:15 thriller just to use that as so that I
    1:25:18 can use like somebody getting stabbed in
    1:25:19 the eye so I can still gonna have more
    1:25:21 elements to show how you can do camera
    1:25:23 tricks and stuff with no money and the
    1:25:24 old days make it for less than seven
    1:25:26 thousand dollars which I think we’re
    1:25:28 like five thousand dollars many because
    1:25:29 you know had a lot of actors I wanted
    1:25:32 to pay but the movie itself can make it
    1:25:34 for nothing but I brought my son aboard
    1:25:36 as my number one who hadn’t been
    1:25:38 working with me in a while I mean he
    1:25:39 wrote Sharkboy and Lava Girl when he was
    1:25:40 seven but then he hadn’t really been
    1:25:42 working on my crew so he didn’t know
    1:25:44 how to operate the sound equipment the
    1:25:45 separate sound system and all that I
    1:25:47 didn’t show him until the day of
    1:25:48 filming because I knew we’re
    1:25:49 documenting it would make a better
    1:25:52 tutorial so by getting them working on
    1:25:55 the movies together they came to be
    1:25:56 super excited by the end of the day I
    1:25:57 thought for sure oh they’re gonna hate
    1:25:59 this even though it’s only two weeks
    1:26:01 they’ve got other interests they don’t
    1:26:03 want to be filmmakers I thought they
    1:26:05 were gonna be like all right I’m out
    1:26:07 of here after one day but instead he
    1:26:08 came to me and his brother who acted
    1:26:12 in it and he went dad the actor didn’t
    1:26:14 show up after the first day the
    1:26:16 location didn’t match the script at all
    1:26:19 we asked you how we’re gonna solve the
    1:26:20 problems and you’re like I don’t know
    1:26:23 figure it out we thought dad stumped for
    1:26:25 once he’s he stumped finally but then by
    1:26:27 the end of the day his eyes were all
    1:26:30 white we figured it out I went oh they
    1:26:31 don’t realize this is the creative
    1:26:33 process every day is like that and in
    1:26:35 life too every day you don’t know
    1:26:37 your machine’s gonna not work or you’re
    1:26:39 gonna get a flat tire or you get fired
    1:26:43 that day so life is very unpredictable
    1:26:45 just like a movie set so I realized I’m
    1:26:47 gonna make them all work on my movies
    1:26:49 now because it’s teaching them about
    1:26:50 life I’m teaching them very little
    1:26:54 about the film make it’s about life
    1:26:55 lessons about how you take on something
    1:26:57 impossible turn chicken shit to chicken
    1:27:00 salad and make it work and that’s the
    1:27:01 strong that’s life that’s the process of
    1:27:03 life so many people say well I’m not
    1:27:05 ready to make my projects like you’re
    1:27:06 not ready for life either you’re like
    1:27:08 this all day you’re you’re dodging
    1:27:11 shit that’s going on how come art has to
    1:27:12 be perfect it’s like it should be the
    1:27:14 same life and art should be the same
    1:27:16 and I think filmmaking in general is full
    1:27:20 of unpredictable things and in a short
    1:27:22 little microcosm to within one project
    1:27:24 you got a whole blueprint for how you’re
    1:27:25 going to solve life because you’ve just
    1:27:27 done it on a creative level I think of
    1:27:29 all the art forms of all the art
    1:27:31 mediums like that it just has so many
    1:27:32 different components a lot of
    1:27:34 components to it and so like there’s so
    1:27:35 many ways to fuck things up yeah to
    1:27:38 learn from but any of the disciplines if
    1:27:40 you add those to it like I teach my
    1:27:44 actors to paint in between takes we’ll go
    1:27:46 and we’ll I’ll take a picture of them
    1:27:48 and character I show them a canvas I show
    1:27:49 them paint you don’t need to know how to
    1:27:52 paint this is to show you the brush is
    1:27:53 going to know where to go you just got
    1:27:55 to pick it up pick the colors you want
    1:27:56 no matter how crazy they are whatever
    1:27:58 speaking to you you lay it down I’ll
    1:27:59 show you some of the pictures you’re
    1:28:01 not gonna believe the masterworks these
    1:28:04 actors did like in a day they just start
    1:28:06 doing it Lady Gaga had her fingernails in
    1:28:07 there you know Josh Brolin’s doing his
    1:28:09 thing then I take a picture of them in
    1:28:10 character do a line drawing of it we
    1:28:12 project it on top and mostly it’s the
    1:28:13 painting coming through their line
    1:28:14 drawing with a little bit of their eyes
    1:28:15 painted in you’re not gonna believe
    1:28:17 these things they couldn’t believe it
    1:28:19 but it teaches them that that thing
    1:28:21 about that the creativity is gonna come
    1:28:23 through so even though they’re already
    1:28:24 acting they’re already being creative
    1:28:26 we’re already making a movie like you
    1:28:27 said that’s already a really great
    1:28:29 creative endeavor when we would sneak
    1:28:31 off and paint you could tell it’s
    1:28:33 firing a whole other part of their
    1:28:37 brain it was funny I think Josh Brolin’s
    1:28:40 girlfriend said Josh say hey my
    1:28:42 girlfriend just said she said his wife
    1:28:46 now but time are you guys doing drugs
    1:28:49 leave the set and you come back and
    1:28:51 you’re all like no we’re painting we’re
    1:28:53 painting but that makes sense that you
    1:28:54 say that because it creates when you get
    1:28:56 your creativity firing is more powerful
    1:28:58 than any drug and we would come back
    1:29:01 and and he’d be on the set going is it
    1:29:02 bad that I’m still thinking about the
    1:29:03 painting and I’m like no I think it’s
    1:29:05 good I think it’s all good but it’s you
    1:29:07 can tell it’s opening a whole other
    1:29:08 part of their creative brain so you can
    1:29:11 be doing acting in a movie and the
    1:29:12 painting’s still gonna tap it shows how
    1:29:14 much untapped potential your creative
    1:29:17 brain has so the more you can do the
    1:29:19 more you’re firing off and them and it
    1:29:21 was so cool like I remember we did one
    1:29:23 Joseph Gordon Levitt was painting we came
    1:29:24 in and the table was like this and they
    1:29:26 said we have a problem you want them to
    1:29:28 throw the cards out the playing cards out
    1:29:31 but it’s so slick they go sliding off the
    1:29:33 table and we both look at it and we both
    1:29:34 got the solution at the same time oh we
    1:29:37 just just just have them just have them
    1:29:39 throw them wherever they go and then we’ll
    1:29:43 place them and then digitally it’s even
    1:29:45 better that he looks like he gets them all
    1:29:47 perfectly laid out to show what a card
    1:29:49 shark is that’s but that’s what we have to do
    1:29:51 we’re not gonna we can’t we’ll be here
    1:29:53 all day we’re trying to get if we’re
    1:29:55 gonna worry about where they go just go
    1:29:56 bump bump bump bump bump bump and then
    1:29:58 we’ll place the cards down and everyone
    1:30:01 will pick them up and then we’ll marry
    1:30:03 the two in post you know you’re just you
    1:30:04 just come up with creative solutions
    1:30:06 better easier because you were just
    1:30:09 solving crazy creative solutions in the
    1:30:10 other one like what paint medium do I
    1:30:12 use what kind of gel am I gonna use so
    1:30:14 when you come back to your main job
    1:30:16 which is filmmaking you’re like oh I
    1:30:18 can figure this out in two seconds you
    1:30:19 know so it helps you creative problem
    1:30:21 solve so that basically working with my
    1:30:22 kids made me realize oh now I know
    1:30:24 exactly what I want to do for the next
    1:30:25 10 years I only want to make movies with
    1:30:27 my kids because I’m mentoring them but
    1:30:29 they’re teaching me shit because they’re
    1:30:31 the age I was when I made mariachi and
    1:30:34 desperado and their their ideas are really
    1:30:36 sharp so the mentoring goes both ways and
    1:30:38 it’s like the greatest parenting you can
    1:30:40 do because you’re building a project
    1:30:41 together and in the same boat together
    1:30:44 figuring it out and it’s family time
    1:30:45 you’re like checking all the boxes so I
    1:30:48 thought my filmmaking going forward is
    1:30:49 going to be checking all the boxes in
    1:30:51 life so I’m not not spending time with
    1:30:53 my family we’re actually giving them
    1:30:55 lessons that they can go do anything
    1:30:56 they want in life because they’re going
    1:30:58 to have different interests but now it’s
    1:30:59 kind of like going to college and this
    1:31:01 college is like the best college because
    1:31:03 it pays you to learn you get to do these
    1:31:06 crazy skills like my son is you know
    1:31:09 conducting the orchestra the James Bond
    1:31:11 orchestra in London for the spy kids score
    1:31:13 and a score he wrote because I can’t
    1:31:14 write at his level because he was always
    1:31:18 our best piano player and they get you get
    1:31:20 the charge out of working with them and
    1:31:23 then and by making a label there’s a
    1:31:26 there’s a weird phenomenon that happens if
    1:31:27 you guys want to take your game to
    1:31:30 another level I stumbled upon this idea my
    1:31:34 son that was my counterpart on that movie
    1:31:36 racer he was my sound guy like I said
    1:31:37 came up with shark point lava girl when
    1:31:40 he’s little he became my writer co-writer
    1:31:42 co-producer he’d come to me and said I want
    1:31:48 to do vr type movie I said oh let me show
    1:31:50 you as an example of creativity and
    1:31:51 manifesting I said let me show you how it
    1:31:54 works let’s let’s make a company we’ll
    1:31:57 make a company called double r double r
    1:31:58 productions because we all have double r
    1:32:00 names all the kids so if anyone ever
    1:32:01 wants to do anything we can use our
    1:32:04 company so let’s make a logo and I’ll
    1:32:05 make t-shirts and notepads and stuff
    1:32:08 because once you have a company you have
    1:32:10 now have to make things for that
    1:32:12 company just like the advice I gave to
    1:32:13 people stop aspiring make a business card
    1:32:16 that says writer director cinematographer
    1:32:18 I did editor because then now you have to
    1:32:20 conform to that identity so now if I
    1:32:22 create a label like double r we’re going
    1:32:24 to come up with ideas we’ll call up vr
    1:32:26 companies and say hey we have a company a
    1:32:28 vr company would you like us to make you a
    1:32:31 film for your soul your headset so yeah
    1:32:33 they gave us a budget they’re dying for
    1:32:35 content they gave us a budget we shot a
    1:32:37 20 minute action movie called the limit
    1:32:39 with michelle rodriguez and norman
    1:32:40 read us where you’re in an action movie
    1:32:42 with them and it was killer we they made
    1:32:45 us a big double r logo animated logo
    1:32:49 later that year we did red 11 same logo
    1:32:52 that movie went to directors fortnight and
    1:32:55 can festivals were paying us to come talk
    1:32:57 about how we made that movie that’s when
    1:32:58 we’re doing the cards throwing the cards
    1:33:01 out because they wanted their audiences
    1:33:03 they knew they would love that so we
    1:33:05 could have had a whole gig just continuing
    1:33:07 to get paid to go to the fed usually pay
    1:33:08 to feds go to feds you don’t get paid
    1:33:11 that’s how what a success that was but
    1:33:13 then we had to make we can be heroes so
    1:33:15 we had to stop but we can be heroes was
    1:33:18 a netflix movie where they asked me to
    1:33:20 make a spy kids type thing and so I
    1:33:21 thought oh okay I’ll just do it with
    1:33:24 superheroes that’s there I wrote it with
    1:33:26 my kids based it on some of their
    1:33:29 personalities it’s the most watched and
    1:33:31 re-watched movie in netflix history like
    1:33:33 nothing in touch because kids just keep
    1:33:35 watching it over because this kids with
    1:33:36 superpowers no one’s ever done that
    1:33:38 before and they can’t they couldn’t
    1:33:40 believe it like I’d heard anecdotally
    1:33:42 that’s how the spy kids people said oh
    1:33:43 that kids watch it over and over on
    1:33:45 video but you can’t keep track of that
    1:33:47 you can’t on netflix because their
    1:33:48 biggest thing is people completing a
    1:33:49 movie a lot of people don’t complete a
    1:33:51 movie and it still counts as a view they
    1:33:52 may watch five minutes and change the
    1:33:55 channel so do you complete a movie
    1:33:56 that’s really where they you know
    1:33:59 really value not only to complete but
    1:34:01 re-watched re-watched re-watched per
    1:34:02 household so many times and
    1:34:06 that one has a double r logo as well
    1:34:07 and my kids are like dad
    1:34:10 it really worked I was like I know
    1:34:12 better than I thought I didn’t know I
    1:34:14 didn’t know that me manifesting that
    1:34:16 company was gonna turn into that and
    1:34:18 we just keep making stuff so I want to
    1:34:19 do that with brass knuckle films now with
    1:34:22 the audience because it works so I said
    1:34:25 as soon as you have a logo and a
    1:34:27 company your brain starts coming up with
    1:34:29 all kinds of ideas and it’s a filter
    1:34:32 like like I said sometimes the freedom
    1:34:36 of limitations is all freeing when I
    1:34:37 had to do four rooms and it’s like we
    1:34:39 have to use one hotel room oh well then
    1:34:40 there’s gonna be a dead body there’s
    1:34:42 gonna be you can do a lot with
    1:34:43 limitations if they said you could use
    1:34:45 the whole city would have been harder to
    1:34:47 come up with something well brass
    1:34:49 knuckle films has a filter only action
    1:34:51 action movies because that’s the stuff
    1:34:54 that there’s always an appetite for if
    1:34:55 you ask Netflix right now what do you
    1:34:57 need more of they’ll say action action
    1:34:59 action we don’t have enough action the
    1:35:00 last regime didn’t leave us enough
    1:35:01 action we need action they’ll pay a
    1:35:03 premium for an action film that we can
    1:35:05 make at a lower cost a 20 million
    1:35:07 dollar action film is very cheap
    1:35:09 studios don’t know how to make them
    1:35:11 that cheap that’s why they’ll pay for an
    1:35:13 independent to go do it and right now
    1:35:14 that’s the key is to be independent
    1:35:15 because a lot of studios that can’t
    1:35:17 even green light anything things are so
    1:35:18 expensive they don’t want to lose their
    1:35:21 ass but they need action films so let’s
    1:35:23 make something that everybody needs and
    1:35:25 let’s make it at a price we’ll make it in
    1:35:26 my studio because I got my own studio
    1:35:27 and I can keep all the costs down
    1:35:29 because we have all the costumes and
    1:35:32 props and sets from 25 years of
    1:35:35 filmmaking to keep the cost down and
    1:35:37 we’ll have the audience gets to invest
    1:35:40 it’s not crowdfunding or kickstarter
    1:35:42 you’re actually an investor anyone who
    1:35:45 puts money in can pitch their idea for
    1:35:48 an action film to me and I’m gonna make
    1:35:51 one of the four films in that slate from
    1:35:52 one of those ideas because I want the
    1:35:54 audience to win I want the audience to
    1:35:55 win and be a part of it because the
    1:35:56 audience is an afterthought in
    1:35:59 Hollywood they make a movie they show
    1:36:00 the audience the movie go tell your
    1:36:02 friends now so y’all spend money on our
    1:36:04 movie where’s your cut of that so I want
    1:36:05 them to be successful so if any of the
    1:36:07 movies in the slate do well they make
    1:36:10 money off that one and then sequels or
    1:36:12 anything but they’re all gonna do well
    1:36:14 because everyone needs an action movie
    1:36:15 we’re gonna keep the cost down can I
    1:36:18 actually ask you just to focus in on
    1:36:20 action you’ve created a lot of epic
    1:36:23 action films what makes for a great
    1:36:25 action film it comes down to the
    1:36:27 character you know like if you think
    1:36:29 about what are the best action films
    1:36:31 what are your favorite films like die
    1:36:34 hard he’s a cop so he’s still capable but
    1:36:36 he’s not Superman the fact that he’s like
    1:36:38 in over his head and you’re rooting for
    1:36:41 him that’s a great character you know
    1:36:44 John Wick he is Superman but he’s retired
    1:36:47 and now he’s pissed off and he’s going
    1:36:48 back into a job you know so the care is
    1:36:50 comes down to the character really being
    1:36:52 very important because the action will
    1:36:55 then have a character to it I think
    1:36:57 Leon the professional does what’s a
    1:37:00 character I mean that’s all now that
    1:37:01 when I say we’re gonna do action movies
    1:37:02 I mean movies that are really action
    1:37:04 first like there’s some movies that are
    1:37:06 more dramas that have action where’s the
    1:37:09 boundary so John Wick is action that’s
    1:37:11 more action but it has character in it but
    1:37:13 it’s action driven what about like
    1:37:16 predator predator is the sci-fi action
    1:37:17 film so that’s kind of a hybrid which I
    1:37:19 like yeah but sometimes it’s hard for
    1:37:21 the audience to know what they’re buying
    1:37:23 into but like they focused a lot on the
    1:37:25 action in the trailer you know and then
    1:37:26 they felt there was some other worldly
    1:37:27 thing but you didn’t really know but it’s
    1:37:29 a great movie so die hard is a is a good
    1:37:31 example it was a good example right I
    1:37:32 can think of right off where there’s a
    1:37:33 character that really made the difference
    1:37:35 and then everyone repeated that you know
    1:37:37 for a while there’s like under siege
    1:37:39 I was like a regular guy who’s really
    1:37:41 actually has some training on a ship
    1:37:44 now and then on the bus you got a cop
    1:37:46 he’s a cop but he’s not super cop yeah
    1:37:47 so that’s why you root for him you know
    1:37:49 that became a an element that people
    1:37:51 repeated a lot uh what about taken that’s
    1:37:53 a great one that’s a great character who
    1:37:56 is superhuman yeah who’s also retired you
    1:37:59 know so there’s like a superhero type
    1:38:01 character in an extraordinary circumstance
    1:38:03 like that’s now his daughter’s taken
    1:38:06 right and then there’s ordinary people like
    1:38:08 the Terminator that’s a great character not
    1:38:09 the Terminator he’s a villain but Sarah
    1:38:12 Connor who is a waitress doesn’t think
    1:38:14 her life’s going anywhere and she finds
    1:38:15 out she’s the mother of the guy who’s
    1:38:19 going to save the human race and she’s
    1:38:20 got to train him you know suddenly she
    1:38:21 has to become someone else those are
    1:38:23 cool movies because it’s a genesis of a
    1:38:26 character and you see a character go from
    1:38:29 waitress to revolutionary step up yeah
    1:38:32 what about mob movies I mean some of
    1:38:33 them like Godfather is really not about
    1:38:35 it’s not actually not an action movie
    1:38:37 drama that has some action right I mean
    1:38:39 John Wick is a mob film in some sense
    1:38:40 Goodfellas I mean there’s a lot of
    1:38:43 dynamic action but there’s really not
    1:38:44 action first that’s really a character
    1:38:47 type piece great freaking amazing and it
    1:38:49 feels like action by the way he does it
    1:38:51 it’s just like that it’s like fast pace
    1:38:54 fast talking fast moving like escape from
    1:38:55 New York’s one of my favorites since I was
    1:38:58 a kid because every movie you’ll notice
    1:39:00 this now that I tell you even like a
    1:39:03 romantic comedy there’s a timeline every
    1:39:05 movie has to have like a ticking clock so
    1:39:06 the audience knows the stories are not
    1:39:08 just going to take over a period of years
    1:39:09 though suddenly someone in the movie
    1:39:13 around 20 or 30 minutes in will say we’ve
    1:39:16 got to go find the groom before the
    1:39:17 wedding this weekend you know it’ll be
    1:39:19 just like that escape New York has the
    1:39:21 best example of a ticking time clock
    1:39:23 because he’s literally got bombs in his
    1:39:25 neck and he’s got a watch that shows
    1:39:27 him he’s constantly clocking it how
    1:39:29 little time he has and he gets you so
    1:39:32 like oh my god is he gonna make it that’s
    1:39:34 like the best use of that and no one’s
    1:39:37 ever top that ticking time clock all the
    1:39:39 other ones seem artificial in comparison
    1:39:42 you know aliens you know we got to get
    1:39:44 off this planet now because this whole
    1:39:47 thing’s gonna blow up you know they like
    1:39:48 there’s a timeline you’re it’s already
    1:39:50 urgent enough but now there’s an extra
    1:39:52 timeline on it yeah this is what happens
    1:39:54 you mean as you’re talking you’re just
    1:39:56 making me fall in love more and more with
    1:39:59 action films I I sometimes you forget how
    1:40:01 much you love actually a really good action
    1:40:04 film yeah fact like the Terminator the
    1:40:06 original Terminator just came out in 4k
    1:40:07 I’m watching it again it looks like
    1:40:08 better than most movies look today and
    1:40:10 that’s a four million dollar movie it
    1:40:12 looks incredible you can see every beat
    1:40:15 of sweat in this movie I was watching it
    1:40:17 again with somebody a female and there’s
    1:40:19 always a point when you’re watching that
    1:40:22 movie where she’ll turn and say I love
    1:40:25 this movie you know a point that is it’s
    1:40:28 a point where Michael Bean tells her I
    1:40:30 came across time for you Sarah I love
    1:40:33 you which is you know I always have and
    1:40:34 you’re just like oh my god there’s like a
    1:40:37 real emotional love story there that he
    1:40:39 put into Titanic that he put into
    1:40:43 Avatar he figured out that thing that
    1:40:44 makes those movies work by the way I
    1:40:47 should say that I mean there is an
    1:40:50 aspect of El Mirachi that is a love
    1:40:52 story to me yeah there was a rough I
    1:40:53 don’t know you see it that way but I got
    1:40:56 when I yeah just rewatched it I was a
    1:40:57 tragic love story but I was like
    1:40:59 heartbroken that she’s dead I got
    1:41:01 heartbroken twice let me tell you the
    1:41:03 second time and I haven’t one that you’re
    1:41:04 making that and you go okay this is how
    1:41:05 it has to go but then now you’re
    1:41:06 invested in this person you go man she
    1:41:08 has to die it’s gonna be really sad in
    1:41:11 fact the studio even when they said
    1:41:13 they were gonna remake it a good thing I
    1:41:15 put that ending on that’s the only
    1:41:17 reason they showed it to an audience we
    1:41:18 were gonna remake it they weren’t gonna
    1:41:21 put that movie out they showed it said
    1:41:22 we need to show this movie to an
    1:41:24 audience because they might not like the
    1:41:26 fact that we kill the girl before we
    1:41:28 remake it all right it showed to an
    1:41:29 audience audience liked it the way it
    1:41:31 was so they said we’re gonna take this
    1:41:33 movie to some film festivals and I was
    1:41:36 like no not this movie this is my
    1:41:38 practice movie no one’s supposed to see
    1:41:40 this movie yeah and they go no no that
    1:41:42 you got something no no dude if I knew
    1:41:43 anyone was gonna see this I would have
    1:41:44 shot it completely give me two
    1:41:46 thousand dollars I’ll go reshoot half
    1:41:48 of it just knowing people are gonna see
    1:41:49 it I want something and the head of the
    1:41:51 studio is really smart he said um you
    1:41:52 don’t know what you have here it’s
    1:41:53 there’s something real special let’s
    1:41:54 just take it tell you right see what
    1:41:56 happened tell you right Toronto did
    1:41:59 great like I said in one Sundance so now
    1:42:01 we had to put it out but I was like I
    1:42:03 would have said don’t show that movie
    1:42:06 but they also questioned the ending and
    1:42:07 didn’t come into play because we ended
    1:42:09 up making Desperado and the girl in
    1:42:10 Desperado doesn’t die you know we
    1:42:11 didn’t do that we didn’t kill Salma
    1:42:13 but that’s what needed to happen to
    1:42:15 Mariachi I’m quitting call me one time
    1:42:17 people would always say like oh
    1:42:19 Reservoir Dogs he he borrowed from this
    1:42:21 movie Hong Kong action film called City
    1:42:23 on Fire about these guys they’re all
    1:42:24 criminals and they kill each other
    1:42:27 whatever and he said hey they’re
    1:42:28 showing a double feature called East
    1:42:30 Looks West and West Looks East they’re
    1:42:32 showing Reservoir Dogs with City on
    1:42:34 Fire the one they say I borrowed from and
    1:42:37 they’re showing Mariachi with a Hong Kong
    1:42:39 film called Run where they ripped off
    1:42:40 Mariachi like they just took the whole
    1:42:42 story it had two you know Chinese
    1:42:44 actors in Mexico with the guitar cases
    1:42:46 ones like they just followed it beat by
    1:42:49 beat so we’re watching it and it was
    1:42:50 like scene by scene they just they
    1:42:52 just rebate it without even getting the
    1:42:54 rights or anything it was so fun to
    1:42:55 watch so we saw Mariachi first then we
    1:42:57 watched that one and I’m like what’s
    1:42:59 this big brothel scene though this is in
    1:43:02 my movie oh the back oh there’s a scene
    1:43:04 in my movie where the bad guy has two
    1:43:05 girls in bed with him and they figured
    1:43:07 that was a whorehouse but it was just
    1:43:08 this apartment yeah so they got this
    1:43:10 whorehouse and they’re reinterpreted
    1:43:13 and they have helicopter shots and all
    1:43:14 kinds of big thing and the action was
    1:43:17 awesome yeah but then and the girl’s
    1:43:18 really good and then midway through the
    1:43:20 movie I’m like oh shit she’s gonna die
    1:43:23 because I killed her in mine I don’t want
    1:43:25 her to die I like this actress is really
    1:43:26 great and they have a really great love
    1:43:28 story I go I hope they change that part
    1:43:31 no they kill her so I felt bad twice
    1:43:34 because I sealed I feel I sealed her fate
    1:43:37 I sealed her fate because yeah I have a
    1:43:39 line in spite kids too because I started
    1:43:41 thinking when you create stuff you start
    1:43:44 thinking I wonder if that’s how our
    1:43:47 creator is he’s like oh shit I just kind
    1:43:49 of threw that in a memo and now that
    1:43:52 whole town’s gonna get wiped out yeah you
    1:43:53 know I didn’t even think about the
    1:43:56 implications of that because there’s a
    1:43:59 line I was making a character that
    1:44:01 Steve Buscemi plays in spy kids too and
    1:44:02 he’s a creator he just wanted to make a
    1:44:06 little miniature zoo for kids and then he
    1:44:07 thought well what if I put some together
    1:44:11 like a lizard with a snake and it’s a
    1:44:13 slizzard or you have a spider monkey
    1:44:15 which is like literally spider legs and a
    1:44:18 monkey top so he makes that and then he
    1:44:20 thought hey why don’t I make make him a
    1:44:21 little bit bigger for kids that have big
    1:44:24 hands and it got out of control and they
    1:44:25 turn into these huge creatures and now
    1:44:28 they’re trying to eat him so he’s hiding
    1:44:30 the kids find him hiding and he says this
    1:44:32 one line that people keep coming it’s on
    1:44:34 the internet a lot this meme about this
    1:44:37 why is this line this movie it’s so
    1:44:40 wild I thought I wanted Steve to come
    1:44:42 up to the camera and like he’s just he’s
    1:44:45 lost in his own creative world and he
    1:44:48 says I can’t even go outside because my
    1:44:50 own creations are gonna eat me then he
    1:44:52 comes up to the camera he goes do you
    1:44:54 think God hides in heaven because he too
    1:44:57 lives in fear of what he created here on
    1:45:00 earth it’s like really just for a moment
    1:45:02 this thing and it’s like because you feel
    1:45:03 like that way when you’re when you’re
    1:45:05 creating stuff like you’re creating
    1:45:06 something and then now it’s taking on a
    1:45:08 life on its own and like oh no now this
    1:45:09 character has to die I didn’t want that
    1:45:11 you know this this domino effect of
    1:45:14 creation and you start thinking well
    1:45:16 that must be what creation maybe he is
    1:45:18 hiding up there because look at he didn’t
    1:45:20 expect all this shit to happen giving us
    1:45:23 free will and all that I mean this
    1:45:25 particular context that you are the
    1:45:27 creator of the story and it for some
    1:45:29 reason makes me feel good to know that
    1:45:30 you feel the pain of this character
    1:45:33 dying yeah absolutely because like if
    1:45:36 I’m I’m writing it but if it’s not
    1:45:38 coming from me I’m as surprised
    1:45:41 sometimes and Quentin would say that you
    1:45:41 know he’d say you just get two
    1:45:43 characters talking when I’m writing my
    1:45:45 script and then suddenly they’re just
    1:45:46 talking to each other and I was like
    1:45:47 what does that mean and now I know what
    1:45:49 that means it’s like he just gave them
    1:45:52 life and now now the dialogue’s coming
    1:45:54 through him let me just ask you you’re
    1:45:56 the perfect person to ask about the
    1:45:58 genius of Quentin Tarantino what makes
    1:45:59 him special as a director as a creative
    1:46:03 mind what do you see in him that’s
    1:46:04 beautiful that’s brilliant
    1:46:08 since I met him he was just like this
    1:46:15 brilliant ball of energy and you know
    1:46:17 like if you see him I walk around his
    1:46:20 house and I’ll see like a few sheets of
    1:46:22 paper all handwritten out like what’s
    1:46:24 that he goes oh that was something I was
    1:46:25 starting to write and I you know not
    1:46:28 going to finish I’m like can I take
    1:46:31 these and go turn it into like a whole
    1:46:33 trilogy of films you know like what he
    1:46:34 throws away all this mortal men would
    1:46:37 kill for you meet people like that I tell
    1:46:40 people you know your parents say watch
    1:46:42 out who your peers are you know when
    1:46:43 you’re younger that means one thing but
    1:46:45 once you get older surround yourself
    1:46:48 around people who swing much farther than
    1:46:50 you you know that’s just like but that’s
    1:46:54 really true I mean just by being around
    1:46:57 him and working with him you get by
    1:47:00 osmosis you learn stuff and it just ups
    1:47:02 your game because they’re just swing way
    1:47:05 beyond you Jim Cameron was like that so
    1:47:06 like when I first met him I was trying
    1:47:07 to impress the hell out of him you know
    1:47:09 because I was such a big fan I was about
    1:47:11 to go do the Esperado and I went hey I
    1:47:12 just took a three-day Steadicam course
    1:47:14 because I can’t afford a Steadicam
    1:47:15 operator so I’m gonna operate Steadicam
    1:47:18 myself on Desperado now if he was just my
    1:47:20 peer he’d say oh I did the same thing
    1:47:22 and I’m gonna do the same thing that that
    1:47:23 would be like hanging out with somebody
    1:47:25 of your ilk but you don’t you want
    1:47:26 somebody who’s above that you know what
    1:47:29 he said he goes I bought a Steadicam but
    1:47:31 not to operate it I’m gonna take it apart
    1:47:35 and design a better one us mere mortals
    1:47:37 trying to learn how to operate the camera
    1:47:40 he’s designing all new systems that’s the
    1:47:41 guy you want to hang out with not
    1:47:42 someone who’s doing what you’re doing
    1:47:45 so surround yourself by those kind of
    1:47:46 people and that’s when you learn things
    1:47:48 like don’t blink you know like somebody
    1:47:51 who’s like really swinging for the fences
    1:47:53 and accomplishing so much and Quentin was
    1:47:56 like that so I met him at the festivals
    1:47:59 he saw Mariachi he loved it we came up we
    1:48:00 talked and he said you don’t like my next
    1:48:01 film I’m writing right now Pulp Fiction
    1:48:05 so I thought man I’m gonna put this guy
    1:48:06 he’s so he’s so fun I’m gonna put him in
    1:48:08 I’m gonna write him in my Desperado
    1:48:09 script which I was writing so that was
    1:48:11 before Pulp Fiction and all that when I
    1:48:13 cast him I didn’t know he was gonna go
    1:48:15 become such a household name I just was
    1:48:17 drawn to his energy and I’d already
    1:48:19 written him in and I met Steve Buscemi
    1:48:21 there and I was like I’m writing a
    1:48:22 character for Steve Buscemi but then I
    1:48:24 went back to the Sony lot where I was
    1:48:26 working on Desperado and Quentin and I
    1:48:28 ended up having offices right next to
    1:48:29 each other on the Sony lot by accident
    1:48:31 I didn’t even know that I just met him
    1:48:33 and I go back and he just because
    1:48:35 originally Pulp Fiction was for TriStar
    1:48:37 because Danny DeVito was a producer and
    1:48:38 he was gonna make it for TriStar so he
    1:48:40 was there writing Pulp Fiction and I
    1:48:42 was writing Desperado so I’d go show
    1:48:43 him like storyboards from Desperado
    1:48:45 he’d come act out scenes of Pulp
    1:48:47 Fiction and we got to be really good
    1:48:48 friends that way we’d go eat lunch at
    1:48:51 Versailles across the street the Sony
    1:48:55 lot and then Sony passed on Pulp
    1:48:58 Fiction it’s too weird too long eight
    1:49:01 million dollar movie or seven million
    1:49:02 they’re like yeah we’re gonna go make
    1:49:03 the next Pauly Shore movie instead you
    1:49:04 know like we don’t understand this
    1:49:07 thing and Miramax got it and they’d
    1:49:08 just been bought by Disney so they
    1:49:09 produced their first film was Pulp
    1:49:11 Fiction and so and then that thing
    1:49:13 went to Cannes and it was a whole
    1:49:17 thing but what I loved about his story
    1:49:20 is that when he made Pulp Fiction he
    1:49:22 had a director screening he showed it to
    1:49:23 some directors and I wasn’t able to go
    1:49:25 but anyway I had dinner with him once
    1:49:26 and it was in my journal because I keep
    1:49:29 a journal at 2 40 a.m. when after he
    1:49:31 had dropped I dropped him off at his
    1:49:33 house I said oh wait how did your movie
    1:49:35 come out you know Pulp Fiction he
    1:49:38 just finished it anyway it’s still still
    1:49:40 feels like a movie Quentin would make
    1:49:42 doesn’t feel like a real movie and I was
    1:49:45 like that’s fine what does it mean it
    1:49:46 feels like one of those movies I would
    1:49:48 make like Reservoir Dogs and it doesn’t
    1:49:50 feel like a real movie and I was trying
    1:49:51 to be the supportive friend going oh man
    1:49:53 he was so excited about this movie now
    1:49:55 he’s bummed about it and I was like
    1:49:57 well it should be different should be
    1:50:01 like he’s like wouldn’t have it drove
    1:50:02 off so I don’t know I guess that wasn’t
    1:50:04 the one so I went home and I called some
    1:50:05 of the directors that were at the
    1:50:07 screening and they go yeah this isn’t
    1:50:09 the one for him it’s not they had none
    1:50:12 of them saw it none of them saw it but
    1:50:13 that I know you’re like surprised yeah
    1:50:15 but that happened with George Lucas too
    1:50:18 with Star Wars everybody saw that movie
    1:50:19 and was like poor George they showed it
    1:50:21 to all his director friends for George
    1:50:22 what he’s wasting all this time with
    1:50:24 this for only Spielberg was the one who
    1:50:26 said it’s naive and it’s gonna do
    1:50:28 really good because it’s naive and kids
    1:50:30 will like it but everyone else was like
    1:50:32 what’s he doing we’re artists we’re
    1:50:33 making our film what’s he doing this
    1:50:35 garbage for because nobody knows it shows
    1:50:37 no one knows anything not even the
    1:50:38 filmmaker when you’re being
    1:50:39 groundbreaking you don’t know what
    1:50:41 groundbreaking is not you or anyone
    1:50:43 around you except maybe one or two
    1:50:44 people so he said there’s one person
    1:50:46 like oh yeah who is your Spielberg
    1:50:48 goes Catherine Bigelow without a doubt
    1:50:50 she’s the only one who said there’s
    1:50:51 something here no one else was seen
    1:50:53 was saying that he said in fact because
    1:50:55 he remembered suddenly he’d forgotten
    1:50:57 the story but it wasn’t in my journal I
    1:50:59 would have forgot it too because in fact
    1:51:01 one of my friends Simon said I want to
    1:51:03 sit you down and tell you all the
    1:51:04 things that are wrong with your movie
    1:51:06 but I’ll wait till you get back from the
    1:51:08 Cannes Film Festival and he goes and he
    1:51:09 wins the Palme d’Or then his friend’s
    1:51:11 like oh what the hell do I know I’ve only
    1:51:12 made one movie myself so I never mind I
    1:51:15 guess I guess we’re all wrong so even he
    1:51:17 didn’t expect that at all so that was a
    1:51:21 shock you know even to him so think
    1:51:23 about that yeah that means what do you
    1:51:25 do commit to a body of work just do that
    1:51:27 you don’t know you don’t know what’s
    1:51:28 gonna be a Pulp Fiction what’s gonna be
    1:51:30 a Jackie Brown what’s gonna be you know
    1:51:32 you don’t know and they and you’d like
    1:51:34 to think they know but they don’t know
    1:51:35 either they feel it like I asked Jim
    1:51:37 Cameron I said do you see your movie
    1:51:40 really clearly like can you see it like
    1:51:42 with hyper focus because it seems like
    1:51:45 that he goes it’s like really far it’s
    1:51:47 out of focus as you work on it you work
    1:51:49 on it starts coming that’s okay good so
    1:51:51 that’s that’s normal I thought maybe he
    1:51:53 had laser vision or something but no even
    1:51:55 him he doesn’t really know but he feels
    1:51:57 that he can make decisions and he
    1:52:00 understands what a creative drive is and
    1:52:02 how to just keep being relentless about
    1:52:04 it but it’s not like they have all the
    1:52:11 proximity is huge proximity will change
    1:52:13 your life did for me just being around
    1:52:16 those guys they didn’t teach me hey I’m
    1:52:17 gonna teach you how to make a movie just
    1:52:19 being next to them being in their world
    1:52:23 just ups your game and you just you’re
    1:52:24 able to do things you weren’t able to do
    1:52:26 before you get ideas you didn’t get to do
    1:52:28 before I did I’ll show you uh one of my
    1:52:31 painting things you’re not gonna believe
    1:52:33 this freaking thing I had a painter friend
    1:52:36 in Germany Sebastian Kruger he gives a
    1:52:38 workshop once a year that I’m gonna go
    1:52:40 there and I bet I’ll learn more about
    1:52:42 directing by watching this guy paint than I
    1:52:44 will by watching another director because
    1:52:45 that’s just now I know how creativity
    1:52:48 works you’re gonna learn lessons outside
    1:52:51 of the box by doing that and I try to
    1:52:53 practice before going out there I was
    1:52:54 doing a Danny Trejo I’ll show you the
    1:52:55 before and after you’re not gonna
    1:52:57 freaking believe what you see but this is
    1:53:00 a it really tells a story of how
    1:53:03 important proximity is so I’m I do this
    1:53:06 painting it’s like ah it looks garbage I’ll
    1:53:08 show you it looks like garbage I’m not
    1:53:11 used I can’t do paintings that are just
    1:53:13 like see I never should say I can’t you
    1:53:15 just cut your leg off but I couldn’t at
    1:53:18 the time paint just paintbrush into paint
    1:53:19 and then right on the canvas like that
    1:53:22 without using some kind of medium which
    1:53:24 this guy Sebastian Kruger would do so
    1:53:26 first I did a digital painting of Danny
    1:53:28 Trejo like just to get the framing and
    1:53:30 all that and then I created that’s just
    1:53:31 like that’s like on a Wacom tablet but
    1:53:33 then I did it with paint and it’s like
    1:53:35 oh it’s all cruddy and it’s too thick
    1:53:38 the paint and it just looks it looks and I
    1:53:40 just gave up right away I went I was
    1:53:41 trying to pre-practice I wouldn’t be a
    1:53:43 total buffoon there because I was going
    1:53:45 the next week and I thought he’s using a
    1:53:47 different brush obviously he’s using a
    1:53:49 better paint the stuff just is clogging
    1:53:51 up and it’s crap I’m sure when I get
    1:53:54 there so I get there and he’s doing a
    1:53:57 Mick Jagger and he starts with a mid
    1:53:59 tone he starts blocking in the face with
    1:54:01 a little tiny drawing of where the face
    1:54:04 goes he starts doing that he starts
    1:54:06 adding some highlights there’s the photo
    1:54:09 his reference and I’m like why why you
    1:54:12 why are you concentrating so much on the
    1:54:15 cheek first and he’s like Stefan every
    1:54:19 time and go why do you what what paints
    1:54:21 are you using and he’s like it was
    1:54:23 regular acrylic paint what brushes do you
    1:54:25 have regular brushes I’m like how come
    1:54:27 mine doesn’t look like yours let me try
    1:54:29 what he’s doing I mean you start with a
    1:54:30 midtone I’m gonna do that Danny again
    1:54:32 yeah start with a midtone I’ll start
    1:54:36 adding some highlights and I did that and
    1:54:38 everybody kept coming over going like did
    1:54:39 you just do that and I was like yeah I
    1:54:41 don’t know how but it’s very cartoony
    1:54:44 still he’s doing a very realistic Mick
    1:54:49 Jagger look how real that is and you’re
    1:54:50 just watching and he doesn’t teach you
    1:54:54 anything so he just starts painting so
    1:54:55 this is the photo he had as a reference
    1:54:59 but then this is his painting right yeah
    1:55:01 because I’m there he’s not teaching you
    1:55:03 how to paint through osmosis you’re like
    1:55:05 learning somehow you’re seeing there isn’t
    1:55:07 a trick yeah I thought he had a trick and
    1:55:10 that’s why I couldn’t get any further he’s
    1:55:11 using the same brush and the same paint
    1:55:14 well how come I can’t do that and you go
    1:55:15 you do it I’m gonna try and do something
    1:55:17 realistic I’ve never done realistic before
    1:55:19 because I’m a cartoonist and everything I
    1:55:21 was cartoony and that was just easier
    1:55:24 for me because I thought I would need too
    1:55:26 much training I did another trejo I
    1:55:28 started doing a realistic I finished out
    1:55:31 just one section of his face and put the
    1:55:33 pen down because I did that yeah the same
    1:55:36 day nice I got out of my way because
    1:55:40 seeing him get out of his own way I think
    1:55:42 that’s why sometimes people need to go to
    1:55:44 school for stuff like that because then
    1:55:46 now well I just did four years of school so
    1:55:48 now I must know now you’re giving yourself
    1:55:50 permission but you could give yourself
    1:55:51 permission right away and it’s gonna come
    1:55:53 through and drawing Danny Trejo of all
    1:55:55 people it’s like there’s so much going on
    1:55:57 there it’s like he’s so expressive
    1:56:00 I mean you’ve worked with him a lot and
    1:56:03 you’ve I mean he’s one of those badass
    1:56:05 humans on the screen you’ve created
    1:56:07 that can you just talk about what it’s
    1:56:10 like creating those characters what was
    1:56:12 exciting about desperados I went to go
    1:56:14 make it and there were no Latin actors
    1:56:15 working in Hollywood because no one was
    1:56:17 creating roles for them so I thought wow I
    1:56:20 gotta go create my own stars we’ll bring
    1:56:22 Antonio from Europe because they kind of
    1:56:25 know his name from the Almodovar movies and
    1:56:27 I saw him in tie me up tie me down when I
    1:56:29 was in the hospital riding mariachi we’re
    1:56:32 watching TV while I was a patient and
    1:56:34 there’s a scene where he like headbutts
    1:56:36 Victoria Abril you know he just like
    1:56:38 gives her headbutt he goes like that I
    1:56:40 was like whoa I bet that guy would want
    1:56:42 to be in an action movie he’s got
    1:56:43 something inside so I called him when
    1:56:45 we were doing desperado and I said would
    1:56:47 you ever consider doing an action oh man
    1:56:50 I’d love to do action so I said I got a
    1:56:51 movie for you I got a movie for you it was
    1:56:56 sequel to mariachi and so Salma I found
    1:56:59 Mexico television you know doing she
    1:57:01 couldn’t get work in the US because of
    1:57:04 the roles in her I mean this is one of the
    1:57:05 greatest actors in the world one of the
    1:57:07 best stories I was really determined to
    1:57:10 hire a real Latin especially Hispanic and
    1:57:12 then she’s Mexican actress to be the
    1:57:15 Mexican character that’s like as
    1:57:16 authentic as you can get and there was
    1:57:18 no one who was getting any jobs because
    1:57:20 no one was creating any so there was no
    1:57:21 one that had any movies be under their
    1:57:23 name because there was no one it was a
    1:57:25 whole systemic problem right this was
    1:57:31 94 93 so I was watching a Paul Rodriguez
    1:57:34 show on Univision because he I was trying
    1:57:36 to practice my Spanish because I was
    1:57:37 having to do all these Spanish interviews
    1:57:38 because mariachi was in Spanish that was
    1:57:40 the other part I didn’t tell you I didn’t
    1:57:42 speak Spanish when I made that movie we
    1:57:44 didn’t grow up with it so I never I left
    1:57:46 that part out of the mariachi story
    1:57:47 because I thought people already didn’t
    1:57:49 believe I made the movie by myself they
    1:57:50 knew I made it in a language I didn’t
    1:57:52 speak I should have said it because it’d be
    1:57:55 even more inspiring like now you have no
    1:57:57 excuse yeah I would wrote the English
    1:57:59 subtitles basically yeah I wrote the
    1:58:02 titles what became the subtitles and then
    1:58:04 we take it to the actors and the actor
    1:58:07 would translate it for me and I was like
    1:58:09 that is so inspiring I’d be like holy I
    1:58:11 would try to speak Spanish and say vamos a
    1:58:13 recordar like let’s record and they’d be
    1:58:15 looking at me like that means let’s
    1:58:18 remember the record doesn’t mean record
    1:58:20 that means can I’m out now I know back
    1:58:23 that I know so I’m watching Univision and
    1:58:26 then there’s Salma as a guest and she’s a
    1:58:29 big soap star down there in Mexico and she
    1:58:30 comes out she’s beautiful she’s funny
    1:58:32 everyone’s laughing she’s Salma everyone
    1:58:35 that we know now and she starts talking
    1:58:37 about you know what I gather from what
    1:58:39 she’s saying that she’s having trouble
    1:58:40 finding any work in the U.S. because of
    1:58:41 her accent and then
    1:58:44 Barbara Juga said well say something in
    1:58:45 English and then she says then she
    1:58:47 sounds just like she does now and he
    1:58:49 goes that’s great she goes I know I know
    1:58:52 and I went I think this is the girl so I
    1:58:54 called her in my office and I videotaped
    1:58:56 our first meeting together so I have that
    1:58:58 somewhere that’s awesome telling me about
    1:59:01 it’s Salma it’s Salma yeah her with her
    1:59:04 energy with her passion is funny she
    1:59:05 became instant friends with my wife you
    1:59:07 know before they walked over your wife
    1:59:08 and I are best friends she already was
    1:59:10 like part of the family she’s godmother to
    1:59:15 my kids and I thought I’m gonna help you
    1:59:16 you’re gonna help me I need to have a
    1:59:18 Mexican actress in this and you’re gonna
    1:59:20 be phenomenal the studio didn’t see it
    1:59:23 they were like what she hasn’t done
    1:59:24 anything why don’t you just hire somebody
    1:59:28 else who you know already has a name so
    1:59:30 if we just give her one movie then she’ll
    1:59:31 be someone who’s in a movie and then you
    1:59:33 can keep casting so I made a whole other
    1:59:35 movie with her in English called Road
    1:59:36 Racers it was my second film for Showtime
    1:59:39 really cool little rebel without a cause
    1:59:42 type movie and she’s and I gave her a role
    1:59:43 and that’s we have an example of her doing
    1:59:46 English and they still were like we need
    1:59:48 a screen test we need to have a screen
    1:59:51 test with a bunch of other actresses you
    1:59:54 know so I said sure let’s do that so I
    1:59:55 went over to her house the night before
    2:00:00 before the screen test and we worked on the
    2:00:02 scene which is the best scene where she’s
    2:00:04 operating on his arm and they’ve got all
    2:00:05 this chemistry and I was just directing her
    2:00:08 through it like completely down to when you
    2:00:09 pick up the water and you hand him the
    2:00:12 water don’t scream oh hot water just be
    2:00:14 like hot water and while he’s spitting it
    2:00:15 out and it’s gonna be a big dramatic
    2:00:18 action with like a very light delivery and
    2:00:20 so we got it down to a science the next
    2:00:23 day we show up Antonio does a scene with
    2:00:26 all the girls come in he does it with her
    2:00:31 clearly they’ve got amazing chemistry she
    2:00:34 just nails it he’s great he loves her too
    2:00:38 studios like okay you can hire reluctantly
    2:00:41 like that right but once they saw the
    2:00:43 footage come as we’re shooting and they
    2:00:44 saw it on the big screen when they’re
    2:00:46 watching the dailies then they were like
    2:00:49 oh my god then they saw it then they saw
    2:00:51 what I saw when I met her but they it
    2:00:53 sometimes you like you say what do you do
    2:00:55 when people are like hey why come you’re
    2:00:57 using this just know that not everyone’s
    2:00:59 gonna see it you may have the only vision
    2:01:02 just keep going there’s an instinct that
    2:01:04 tells you to keep going that way you’ll
    2:01:05 get proved right or wrong or maybe you’re
    2:01:07 slipping on the first two rocks or
    2:01:09 whatever but follow your instinct because
    2:01:11 you can everyone’s going to have an
    2:01:13 opinion and it’s not necessarily the right
    2:01:14 one and when you’re an independent
    2:01:17 filmmaker you can make those decisions
    2:01:19 to change people’s career that changes the
    2:01:21 world and that’s why you want to remain
    2:01:23 independent that’s why what’s happening
    2:01:25 now in the industry is great because I
    2:01:27 have to make movies like the way I started
    2:01:29 which is what I’ve always liked to do
    2:01:31 which is just doing it where we create
    2:01:32 our own destiny we go hey we’re going to
    2:01:33 make a movie we’re going to make it for
    2:01:35 this budget so we can make it and the
    2:01:37 story is going to be so character driven
    2:01:38 and cool we’re going to get big actors to
    2:01:39 be in it because they’re going to want to
    2:01:41 be in it so Danny Trejo you asked me about
    2:01:43 Danny Trejo yes yes yes yes okay Danny
    2:01:46 Trejo we’re doing Desperado now I’m
    2:01:48 casting all kinds of people now I have
    2:01:49 this character that I want to have a
    2:01:51 bunch of knives he opens up his vest and
    2:01:54 there’s a bunch of knives so bring me all
    2:01:55 the coolest looking you know Latin
    2:01:58 actors we can find and before he even
    2:02:00 walked in there’s a picture of him he
    2:02:02 already looked like the guy but he was
    2:02:04 younger he always just played prison
    2:02:06 inmates it was a picture of him as an
    2:02:08 inmate in a prison I want to give him a
    2:02:09 cool role you know this wherever this
    2:02:11 actor is he walks in and I see him
    2:02:14 Danny Trejo he sits down and I had the
    2:02:17 prop knife already made and I say you
    2:02:19 need to have this in your hand and look
    2:02:21 like you sleep with it like just practice
    2:02:23 flipping it around your hand and I gave
    2:02:25 it to him you got the role just start
    2:02:26 practicing with that he gets up and
    2:02:27 walks out you don’t have to say anything
    2:02:31 there’s no dialogue he walks out we get
    2:02:33 to the set he kept saying put me a coach
    2:02:35 give me a line give me a line say no no
    2:02:36 you’re such a nice guy you’re gonna blow
    2:02:37 the whole mystique I want this guy to
    2:02:40 feel like the most evil scary guy of all
    2:02:42 and you’re such a nice guy I didn’t let
    2:02:44 him talk till dusk till dawn but one thing
    2:02:47 I noticed was that the town we’re shot in
    2:02:49 the Mexican town which is the same town I
    2:02:51 shot Mariachi we went back there because
    2:02:53 I wanted to pay back the city and so we
    2:02:56 had this big movie there and they didn’t
    2:02:58 really know Antonio because he was in
    2:03:00 European movies Salma hadn’t come to the
    2:03:02 set yet but they saw Danny Trejo there in
    2:03:05 his vest looking like a Mexican icon they
    2:03:08 would go like this everyone thought he
    2:03:12 was the star and I just know magnetism when
    2:03:14 I see it and I went this guy’s got
    2:03:17 something so I went to him and I said I
    2:03:19 got a movie we’re gonna do someday this
    2:03:21 was 94 we didn’t make this movie for 15
    2:03:26 years machete you’re gonna be machete I
    2:03:28 had I had an idea for machete then it
    2:03:30 wasn’t the same story I’d seen a story
    2:03:33 actually Mariachi there a guy from our
    2:03:34 send me this funny story say hey look at
    2:03:39 this story that the USDA and FBI sometimes
    2:03:41 would hire a Mexican federale to come do a
    2:03:43 job for 25 grand that they didn’t want to
    2:03:46 get their own guys killed on I said that’s
    2:03:50 machete the guy that they pay but he’s not
    2:03:51 doing it for the money it turns out he
    2:03:53 has to get this guy that escaped Mexico
    2:03:55 and that’s the twist so that was the
    2:03:56 original story I had so we’re gonna do
    2:03:58 this someday and we talked about it for
    2:04:00 years and never did it never had it got
    2:04:02 around to doing it so when I did spy kids
    2:04:05 I put him in spy kids and I said hey
    2:04:06 let’s pay tribute to that character we
    2:04:08 never got to make and you’ll be uncle
    2:04:10 machete he’s a gadget guy but he’s got a
    2:04:13 mysterious past but then a few years
    2:04:14 later Quentin and I were doing grindhouse
    2:04:17 and he’d already done industrial dom with
    2:04:19 me you know I was building my own Latin
    2:04:21 star system Salma showed up in a bunch of
    2:04:22 my movies Cheech shows up in every movie
    2:04:24 Danny shows up there I brought Cheech out
    2:04:26 of retirement put him in my movie I needed
    2:04:28 to create my own Latin star system because
    2:04:29 all my scripts because when you write in
    2:04:31 your own voice you’re gonna write
    2:04:33 probably somebody that’s Latin you know so
    2:04:35 you need to have a star system that
    2:04:36 matches that so that you don’t have
    2:04:38 trouble casting and people are like well
    2:04:39 you can’t hire this person so I built up
    2:04:41 my own star system so Danny was one of
    2:04:44 my stars so after we’re doing grindhouse
    2:04:46 we had to do fake trailers for grindhouse
    2:04:50 and I told Quentin I know what trailer
    2:04:52 I’m gonna do for the movie I never got to
    2:04:54 make with Danny Coleman Shetty that’ll be
    2:04:56 so fun finally get that out of our system
    2:04:58 and doing a trailer is so fun it’s two
    2:05:00 days of shooting just still being that
    2:05:03 resourceful guy we asked this company
    2:05:05 that had a digital camera we wanted to
    2:05:06 use can you let us send it to us for a
    2:05:08 couple of day screen test I mean camera
    2:05:10 test instead of shooting a camera test
    2:05:11 we shot the trailer so we got a free
    2:05:14 camera shot the trailer with him it’s
    2:05:15 just the money shots him opening his
    2:05:17 vest full of machetes you know him
    2:05:19 aiming that gun him in a waterfall with
    2:05:22 two gals and I just came up with this
    2:05:25 really funny trailer and we shot it people
    2:05:27 were screaming at the premiere you
    2:05:29 couldn’t even hear it they just wanted
    2:05:32 that movie so badly because there was
    2:05:33 blaxploitation in the 70s there was
    2:05:35 never exploitation it felt like this
    2:05:37 should have existed but it didn’t it’s
    2:05:39 Mexican superhero they just never seen
    2:05:40 anything like that you know now you
    2:05:42 know but like even his mom calls him
    2:05:45 machete like he just became this guy and
    2:05:47 about 250 movies that he’s been in
    2:05:51 machetes is most famous one so for five
    2:05:55 years five years people would come up to
    2:05:58 us and say where’s machete why aren’t
    2:06:00 you where’s the when’s that movie coming
    2:06:02 out we’re like it’s not a real movie
    2:06:03 but when it looks real we want to see
    2:06:05 that movie so we finally made the movie
    2:06:08 because people just asked for it and I
    2:06:10 used I wanted to I was adamant about
    2:06:12 being resourceful again all those shots
    2:06:13 that are in the trailer are really
    2:06:15 great I got a reverse engineer the
    2:06:17 trailer into a movie so that I can use
    2:06:20 that shot that’s in the trailer like
    2:06:21 this girl in the waterfall why would
    2:06:22 this girl be in the waterfall don’t
    2:06:23 have a really clever way that he gets
    2:06:25 the bad guy her hair’s kind of her face
    2:06:26 is kind of covered by this hair we’ll
    2:06:29 cast Lindsay Lohan there or the
    2:06:30 senator will switch it out for Robert
    2:06:33 De Niro well I just reverse engineer it
    2:06:34 so every time there’s a shot in the
    2:06:37 trailer it’s in the movie but I shot
    2:06:38 all the footage around to lead up to it
    2:06:40 that’s another fun creative exercise is
    2:06:42 to reverse engineer something you just
    2:06:44 did like this on the day you just threw
    2:06:46 a bunch of cards out basically with that
    2:06:47 trailer and now you got to go make a
    2:06:49 movie using all those cards that’s like
    2:06:52 a creative exercise that I thought so
    2:06:54 satisfying so fun yeah that was
    2:06:57 beautiful you’re actually known in part
    2:06:59 maybe you can correct me but do pretty
    2:07:00 unexpected surprising kind of
    2:07:03 interesting casting so Robert De Niro
    2:07:05 is an example of that and that’s just a
    2:07:07 great role the second aspect of that I
    2:07:09 heard the story that you can just get an
    2:07:11 actor in and out in just a few days
    2:07:14 really fast the Robert Rodriguez
    2:07:15 experience as they call it how do you
    2:07:17 make that happen can you just tell the
    2:07:19 story I’m the editor I’m the cameraman
    2:07:23 I’m the DP and so when I call him and
    2:07:27 say I’ve got you as the villain in this
    2:07:29 whole movie but I’m gonna shoot I swear
    2:07:31 I’m gonna shoot you on four days you come
    2:07:32 down four days like there’s a scene where
    2:07:34 he’s in the hospital he’s just smiling
    2:07:36 he’s having such a good time because he
    2:07:37 couldn’t believe I said guess what when
    2:07:39 you wake up from your hotel room at the
    2:07:41 Stephen F Austin you just cross the
    2:07:43 hallway that’s the set the room the room
    2:07:44 next to yours we’ve turned into the
    2:07:46 hospital set so you’re just gonna come
    2:07:48 laying there in your pajamas really
    2:07:49 that’s what you did yeah we had to save
    2:07:51 time we only have four days so everything
    2:07:53 had to be very thought out to be like
    2:07:54 boom boom boom let’s shoot the money
    2:07:55 get him out of this we don’t have to
    2:07:57 spend a lot of money on him book a room
    2:07:59 in a hotel set up to look like a
    2:08:01 hospital yeah that’s their scent it’s
    2:08:02 real you don’t have to dress it and
    2:08:03 it’s just right there all you do is
    2:08:05 put like a little tube there you know
    2:08:07 like a for his IV and then you have a
    2:08:09 couple of nurses and it looks like
    2:08:11 just genius it was Robert De Niro
    2:08:14 resourceful resourceful next door but I
    2:08:15 said you’re gonna think about me when
    2:08:17 you’re on your next meet the fuckers
    2:08:18 movie and you’re on there for six
    2:08:20 months but they have you sitting in a
    2:08:22 trailer I don’t like to do that so you
    2:08:23 know I gave Lady Gaga her first two
    2:08:27 movies because after Machete she said
    2:08:30 publicly she said I saw Machete and my
    2:08:32 song Americano should have been in
    2:08:34 Machete I thought she saw Machete so I
    2:08:36 called her up and I said hey I’m making
    2:08:38 a sequel and I would certainly use your
    2:08:39 music but have you ever thought about
    2:08:40 acting because you’re an amazing
    2:08:42 performer I think I’ve worked with a lot
    2:08:43 of actors who are also musicians and
    2:08:44 they’re always great because I already
    2:08:46 know how to be a persona be on stage
    2:08:47 be in front of a bunch of people which
    2:08:49 most actors can’t do and she said
    2:08:51 actually I studied acting before I
    2:08:53 became a singer so well you’ll never be
    2:08:54 able to be in a movie because you
    2:08:55 know what they don’t know how to shoot
    2:08:58 people out they want six months of your
    2:09:00 time and you’ve got and you’re always
    2:09:02 on tour but if you come be here I have a
    2:09:05 part for you I can shoot you out in half
    2:09:07 a day this whole section of a movie and
    2:09:09 I’ll shoot your movie poster she’s like
    2:09:11 okay so she shows up I had all the sets
    2:09:12 like a conveyor belt right next to each
    2:09:14 other shoot shoot shoot shoot she’s in
    2:09:16 the car that’s why she had me do her
    2:09:18 music video for rain on me later she
    2:09:19 said we should just go to Austin Robert
    2:09:21 put me on a grease I was throughout that
    2:09:23 whole movie I don’t know how we did
    2:09:25 that it was half a day she was there
    2:09:27 half a day I did the same for Sin City
    2:09:29 too I was like I have a set here
    2:09:31 waiting for you if you’re on tour in
    2:09:32 Houston just driving to Austin I’ll
    2:09:34 shoot you out in half a day you could be
    2:09:35 in a scene with Joseph Gordon-Levitt
    2:09:36 sure she came down so wait how do you
    2:09:38 take Robert and you know how do you take
    2:09:41 Lady Gaga and like solve the puzzle of
    2:09:43 all the scenes that have to be in how do
    2:09:45 we shoot them quickly efficiently
    2:09:48 conveniently you have to edit your own
    2:09:51 movie I have this analogy a food analogy
    2:09:54 that works really well script is like
    2:09:57 your grocery list filming it’s like
    2:09:58 grocery shopping getting the best
    2:10:00 performances getting the best beat
    2:10:01 getting the best ingredients right
    2:10:06 editing is like the cooking too much of
    2:10:08 this and not enough that you fuck the
    2:10:09 whole thing up so there’s so many
    2:10:12 filmmakers do not edit yeah and they give
    2:10:14 it to some other guy who might look at
    2:10:15 all your ingredients and go this is all
    2:10:17 great but I’m gonna go make a fucking
    2:10:20 souffle and he makes something else so
    2:10:23 by doing that job I mean like I’ve
    2:10:25 worked on some big stuff and I realized
    2:10:26 finally after many years because I’ve
    2:10:28 always edited I realized this is why
    2:10:31 movies cost so much there could be 150
    2:10:33 200 people on the crew but I swear not
    2:10:36 one of them knows how to edit not one so
    2:10:38 they’re getting the wrong stuff they’re
    2:10:40 having to reshoot shit the editor is in a
    2:10:42 room somewhere useless calling after the
    2:10:44 fact we still need to get this close-up
    2:10:45 you got to reshoot that because it
    2:10:47 doesn’t match because no one knows
    2:10:52 editing so if you just know that you’re
    2:10:54 already miles ahead of 99% of Hollywood
    2:10:57 but that’s just how I learned by accident
    2:11:00 so I kind of stumbled upon it but and I
    2:11:01 realized that’s what the problem is
    2:11:03 because across the board I’m watching
    2:11:05 them going that’s not gonna match you
    2:11:07 guys are just spending money sending
    2:11:09 crews out shooting stuff for this it’s
    2:11:11 just it’s a clusterfuck let me show you
    2:11:14 and that’s how it’s in city Bruce Willis
    2:11:16 nine days well Brittany Murphy’s and all
    2:11:19 three stories one day Benicio La Toro three
    2:11:22 days it’s just like you’re just shooting
    2:11:24 this stuff Mickey Rourke is in a sequence
    2:11:26 with Redgar Hauer we shot eight months
    2:11:29 apart I didn’t have Redgar Hauer so I was
    2:11:31 doing Sharkboy Lavagirl so I just shot
    2:11:32 Mickey acting with me and then it’s not
    2:11:33 regular acting with me and I just come
    2:11:36 together what’s weird is like editing
    2:11:37 exercises or like I used to do these
    2:11:39 editing exercises where I went to my
    2:11:41 VCRs together and I would cut my movies
    2:11:42 but sometimes I would just cut a music
    2:11:44 video and I cut a music video once because
    2:11:46 I was a big fan of Redgar Hauer and a big
    2:11:48 fan of Mickey Rourke so I said I want to
    2:11:49 make it look like they’re in a movie
    2:11:50 together so I cut this music video
    2:11:52 together but and so it shows like
    2:11:55 lightning on Redgar and the hitcher and
    2:11:58 lightning on Mickey from Rumblefish but
    2:12:00 Rumblefish is black and white so I made
    2:12:01 the whole thing black and white I was
    2:12:04 like 19 I was 19 years old and then
    2:12:06 years later I’m making Sin City I shot
    2:12:08 Mickey not knowing who the other actor
    2:12:09 was gonna be until I cast him eight
    2:12:11 months later and it was Redgar I’m
    2:12:12 cutting them together to look like
    2:12:13 they’re in the same movie and it’s in
    2:12:16 black and white I’m like I’ve done this
    2:12:20 before oh my god I found that old video
    2:12:21 it’s like oh my god I already made a
    2:12:22 movie then in black and white that’s
    2:12:25 weird shit right that’s the magic of
    2:12:27 creativity it’s like sometimes when you
    2:12:30 have a vision it’s not clear but it’s
    2:12:32 coming to you from the future so you
    2:12:34 gotta just follow the voice no matter
    2:12:35 what anyone says about your curtains
    2:12:38 just follow the voice you got in your
    2:12:40 head because you don’t know and you’re
    2:12:43 not smart enough to know and you don’t
    2:12:45 need to know you just need to do you
    2:12:47 just need to be the hands so this is
    2:12:50 like what you can do with no time or
    2:12:52 money when you know all those jobs it’s
    2:12:53 the benefit of knowing those jobs like I
    2:12:56 said the more you know those jobs the
    2:12:58 more you know your main job which is
    2:13:00 being creative but on the day thinking
    2:13:02 on your feet so I’m going to show you
    2:13:06 this um this test okay so for dustled on
    2:13:07 the TV series I would always shoot the
    2:13:09 first episode and the last episode of
    2:13:11 like a seven or eight episode season
    2:13:14 there’s three seasons by the time we got
    2:13:16 to the third season I was doing Alita so
    2:13:19 I couldn’t do the big finale episode in
    2:13:21 my actor who plays the George Clooney
    2:13:23 character DJ Katrona he’s somebody who
    2:13:25 fucking wanted to be a writer was
    2:13:27 writing he’s wrote fight and flight is
    2:13:28 this movie that’s gonna come out with
    2:13:30 Josh Arnett that’s his he wrote it
    2:13:32 after doing this he was like man hearing
    2:13:34 you talk you know what I got this is what
    2:13:36 I love about you inspire people the
    2:13:38 feedback loop inspires you back he said
    2:13:41 man hearing your talk for red 11 and the
    2:13:43 cards and I’ve got a script that’s
    2:13:45 partially written I’m just gonna go I’m
    2:13:47 gonna go crank it out in 3d I’m gonna
    2:13:48 cut off the phone in 3d I’m gonna finish
    2:13:50 that thing in three fucking days and he
    2:13:52 came back and he said I finished the
    2:13:54 script and I read it I go when you read
    2:13:56 it in three days and oh I wrote something
    2:13:59 before but I just kept thinking I wasn’t
    2:14:00 ready and then you told me the thing
    2:14:01 about not being ready and you said that
    2:14:03 really resonated I went and I finished it
    2:14:05 in three days I go man I’m gonna do that
    2:14:06 I’m gonna go do the DJ method I call the
    2:14:08 DJ method I have a bunch of half-baked
    2:14:10 ideas that I’m just gonna go turn off the
    2:14:12 phone and finish the thing in three days
    2:14:15 and I’ll fix it later but does three
    2:14:17 days it’s gonna be pure pipe it’s just
    2:14:18 gonna be coming through because you’re
    2:14:20 just gonna be picking up the pen so
    2:14:21 anyway he once he came to me with this
    2:14:23 idea he said oh man I was hoping you’d
    2:14:25 do the last episode of dust till dawn
    2:14:26 because I had this great idea for a
    2:14:28 scene we’re in a zombie town western
    2:14:30 town we have those ones those guns
    2:14:32 where you have to pull the trigger you
    2:14:33 know the hammer back before you can
    2:14:35 fire so I thought what if I have a gun
    2:14:37 that’s empty and I got bullets in the
    2:14:39 other hand and I bump into a zombie the
    2:14:41 bullets go flying I jump and I catch all
    2:14:43 the bullets and shoot the guy before I
    2:14:45 hit the ground okay that’s kind of a
    2:14:47 real cool like desperado type thing but
    2:14:50 dude this is a seven-day shoot for
    2:14:53 these episodes every one of the crew
    2:14:54 will have a different idea on how to do
    2:14:57 that stunt guy will put you on wires
    2:14:59 because you have to do all that action
    2:15:02 or the DP isn’t even operating the
    2:15:04 camera it’s a camera guy the director
    2:15:05 doesn’t know how to shoot he’s not
    2:15:08 operating the camera your editors in a
    2:15:12 room somewhere VFX guys aren’t there
    2:15:13 you’re not gonna be able to ask them how
    2:15:16 to do it but I and my own VFX I came
    2:15:17 up with how we did all the shots in
    2:15:18 Sin City and all this bike and we thought
    2:15:22 we need one guy to come do it I’ll come
    2:15:24 do it for you I’ll come do it because
    2:15:26 I’m already gonna be there because I
    2:15:27 have to shoot a second unit fight scene
    2:15:28 for the other actor who wanted a cool
    2:15:30 fight scene so I was already doing that
    2:15:32 when it comes to your scene we’ll switch
    2:15:33 places because it’s got to be done
    2:15:34 quick because you’ve got you got to
    2:15:36 shoot it in 20 minutes because you got
    2:15:37 a ton of other shit you got to shoot
    2:15:39 and you’ll just never get it you won’t
    2:15:41 even get it in a film schedule you
    2:15:42 know in a regular movie schedule it’s
    2:15:45 just too crazy you need somebody with a
    2:15:47 vision to do the whole thing so this
    2:15:49 is what it would look like if you’re on
    2:15:50 the set I’m gonna show you the footage
    2:15:52 and I’m gonna show you the scene I have
    2:15:53 to show it to you a couple of times
    2:15:54 you’re not gonna believe what you’re
    2:15:58 about to see so if you were on the set
    2:15:59 this is what it would look like so I get
    2:16:01 there they said we’re ready for that
    2:16:02 scene so I get over there to the set and
    2:16:04 I go okay where where are you coming
    2:16:07 out of this building where are you
    2:16:09 getting the bullets from that body okay
    2:16:12 bring that body closer okay stunt guy
    2:16:14 bring a pad over I want to see you just
    2:16:16 jump and start to twist as if you’re
    2:16:17 turning I just want to see how much
    2:16:19 airtime you can get to get any action
    2:16:22 before you hit the pad he starts to jump
    2:16:23 he’s barely starts jumping he’s already
    2:16:24 hitting the pad so I was like okay that
    2:16:25 ain’t gonna work you get out of here
    2:16:28 DJ you’re gonna do it I have no idea I’m
    2:16:29 gonna do this I hadn’t thought about it
    2:16:30 before but now you’re there so awesome
    2:16:32 and now the options are very limited
    2:16:34 yeah you’re very look at the sun you’re
    2:16:35 gonna see the sun not move you see
    2:16:36 that’s the point where the sun starts
    2:16:38 getting lost I have to shoot this in 20
    2:16:41 minutes you’re gonna do three jumps and
    2:16:43 I’m gonna cut it to look like one jump
    2:16:45 all the bullets are gonna miss only one’s
    2:16:48 gonna go in so here just follow what I’m
    2:16:49 saying is gonna have time what cameras do
    2:16:51 we have what’s on the a camera a long
    2:16:53 lens oh yeah that’s my camera I’ll
    2:16:54 operate that what’s on the b camera
    2:16:56 steady cam leave it on steady cam no
    2:16:59 chance no time to convert it at one
    2:17:02 point I want to lower it so just flip
    2:17:04 it upside down we’ll flop it later give
    2:17:05 me the main camera okay DJ start running
    2:17:08 towards that bullets and grab it and
    2:17:09 pretend like it gets shot out of your
    2:17:10 hand I shoot it in slow motion but I’m
    2:17:12 showing you how it would look on the set
    2:17:14 okay now the bullets are flying I’m
    2:17:15 gonna add those digitally I’m gonna hold
    2:17:17 the bullets up to the light and each
    2:17:19 angle so that they know what it’s
    2:17:20 supposed to look like so they can match
    2:17:22 that otherwise it’ll look phony now
    2:17:25 first jump I just want you to commit to
    2:17:28 just jumping out and just look at the
    2:17:30 barrel just look at the barrel on your
    2:17:32 hands when you’re jumping because that’ll
    2:17:33 look like you’re looking at the bullets
    2:17:36 and just don’t even think about that
    2:17:37 you’re gonna catch a bullet don’t think
    2:17:39 about that you’re gonna start turning
    2:17:41 just stretch your body out get a really
    2:17:44 graphic look how cool that looks and
    2:17:45 then the side view it’s shot this at the
    2:17:50 same time you can already tell it’s gonna
    2:17:52 look like bullets are missing right okay
    2:17:55 now I need now I need this part though I
    2:17:57 need the part where he’s catching the
    2:18:00 bullet this little window there how am I
    2:18:04 gonna do that with a lens that long it’s
    2:18:05 gonna be all out of focus it’s not gonna
    2:18:08 be slow motion enough he even knows me and
    2:18:08 he’s like what the hell am I doing so I
    2:18:11 just lay on the pad and rock up and down
    2:18:13 and as you’re coming down that’ll look
    2:18:16 like you’re falling as I’m zooming in
    2:18:17 because I’m operating the camera and I’m
    2:18:20 cutting this in my head yeah and I’m
    2:18:21 saying just do it again he’s like what
    2:18:23 is it rock up and then as you go down
    2:18:25 it’s gonna look like you’re falling well like
    2:18:27 done bullets okay well done you’ve
    2:18:29 caught a bullet one went in now second
    2:18:33 jump when you do the next jump as if we
    2:18:34 just passed those other moments you’ve
    2:18:36 caught a bullet already so now you’re
    2:18:38 gonna snap it closed and start your turn
    2:18:40 it’s all you’ll get before you hit the
    2:18:44 pad snap turn right so like okay this is I
    2:18:46 want the cameras to feel like they’re
    2:18:48 dropping with them that’ll give you more
    2:18:49 of the sensation so let’s actually lower
    2:18:52 that steady cam shot flip it upside down
    2:18:54 and get a low angle so yeah look at the
    2:18:55 sun’s right there hasn’t gone behind
    2:18:57 the building yet that and then my
    2:18:59 camera I lowered my camera down and I
    2:19:03 got that angle right okay now last jump
    2:19:06 I bury a thin I said just bear me bring me
    2:19:08 a thin mattress because I want him to do
    2:19:09 all the stuns I don’t want a stunt guy
    2:19:12 because he does this himself he just did
    2:19:13 it in three jumps but the audience will
    2:19:15 know they’ll just be like we believe that
    2:19:18 this guy can do anything I want you just
    2:19:22 to finish by turning and cocking the
    2:19:23 hammer back and firing before you hit the
    2:19:25 ground I’ll give you two takes for that
    2:19:29 almost gets it there then we do a second
    2:19:31 take boom down there that other one was
    2:19:32 probably a little better even though you
    2:19:34 don’t really see it I’ve got to go do
    2:19:36 everything now I got to cut it I got to
    2:19:37 add the sound effects myself I got to put
    2:19:38 the music in myself because music guys
    2:19:40 would just end up filling it with music
    2:19:42 and ruin it sound effects guys would just
    2:19:43 fill it full of sound effects and ruin it I
    2:19:46 want all the sound to drop out so as he’s
    2:19:48 jumping all you hear is the wind in his
    2:19:51 jacket the clinking of the bullets as
    2:19:53 they’re bouncing off so you have this
    2:19:55 breathless moment no music cut the music
    2:19:58 and that moment you cut it so that you’re
    2:19:59 like I wonder if he’s going to make it
    2:20:03 right so I go home I cut it before I even
    2:20:05 have the visual effects in I just cut it
    2:20:07 that night because I cut my own sound
    2:20:09 effects I cut my sound effects in you can
    2:20:10 already tell it’s going to work you can
    2:20:12 already see even with the bullets not
    2:20:14 there you can tell by the sound where
    2:20:16 they’re going to be it’s going to work
    2:20:18 I call him up said dude this is going
    2:20:19 to work great so then I go to the effects
    2:20:22 guys and I go okay there’s bullet in
    2:20:23 this frame and the next frame is here
    2:20:24 because I used to animate in the next
    2:20:26 frame it’s there then it hits the barrel
    2:20:28 and then it starts bouncing this way I
    2:20:30 want it that clear so we can follow that
    2:20:31 a bullet was supposed to go in and that
    2:20:33 it bounced way over there and then this
    2:20:35 bullet bounced way over there and then
    2:20:37 they send it back and a bunch of
    2:20:38 bullets come down now guys listen to
    2:20:39 what I say I’m gonna show you again
    2:20:42 I’m gonna draw it to you again just the
    2:20:44 sound will play like there’s multiple
    2:20:46 bullets flying I don’t need to see all
    2:20:47 those bullets or the eyes not going to
    2:20:49 know where to go so then they got it
    2:20:51 right brilliant yeah and then check this
    2:20:52 out I’m gonna show it to you twice
    2:20:53 because you’re gonna believe
    2:21:18 wow changes direction wow wow crazy well done you
    2:21:20 don’t even see that in a feature film much
    2:21:22 that’s a tv show just as a director well
    2:21:24 done oh thank you here just one more
    2:21:26 time and I’ll show you something you
    2:21:27 didn’t notice both times
    2:21:49 that’s amazing just those decisions coming
    2:21:51 together perfectly coming together and like
    2:21:55 this you got you got minutes just uh moving
    2:21:57 the camera like you decided to do really
    2:21:58 worked really well the balancing of the
    2:22:00 mattress whatever and it’s not like you
    2:22:01 have this whole plan figured out ahead
    2:22:02 you’re literally in the moment you’re
    2:22:04 it’s coming through you but you’re
    2:22:06 seeing it right I’m seeing it because
    2:22:07 I’ve done it enough that’s why you
    2:22:09 really want to learn all those jobs
    2:22:10 because it come you come to a moment
    2:22:12 like this when the shit’s fucking in the
    2:22:14 fan you got to know how to pull it out
    2:22:15 you could have gotten all those people
    2:22:16 together and they never would have
    2:22:18 figured that out you had one person had
    2:22:19 to see it all the way through you’re
    2:22:21 seeing the bullet how it’s gonna go in
    2:22:22 the in the result I’ve done enough
    2:22:23 times to know that if you don’t do it
    2:22:25 just right you’re gonna you’re gonna
    2:22:27 lose the image you’re not gonna know
    2:22:28 where to follow and you’ll miss the
    2:22:30 point and also yeah I love that you’re
    2:22:32 thinking about where the the eyes of the
    2:22:34 audience will go and that’s like you
    2:22:37 like I feel like too many people might
    2:22:41 think about some more general concept of a
    2:22:44 scene versus like the audience where’s
    2:22:45 their eye is their eye well you’re
    2:22:47 drawing you’re drawing it through sound
    2:22:49 to picture I’m gonna show you if you
    2:22:51 notice without the sound you don’t
    2:22:53 really see him click that thing back
    2:22:55 the sound is so central here watch this
    2:22:58 you you don’t really right I thought I
    2:23:00 saw it you think you saw it but you hear
    2:23:01 it so you feel like see but watch it’s
    2:23:04 actually he’s already finished you don’t
    2:23:06 really see him do it you know but you
    2:23:08 swear you saw it in a close-up because
    2:23:09 the sound is in a close-up I put the
    2:23:11 sound in a close-up now here’s another
    2:23:13 thing you didn’t notice he hits this
    2:23:16 ground in the first shot watch one two
    2:23:20 three four five six seven eight you
    2:23:21 didn’t notice it because I didn’t play
    2:23:23 the sound there so if you don’t hear it
    2:23:25 you don’t see it and if you don’t see it
    2:23:28 but you play a sound you hear it then
    2:23:30 you see it in your mind right so check
    2:23:32 that out now with the sound on and
    2:23:34 you’ll see both those parts play
    2:23:35 completely different now
    2:23:47 now you hear it like I know you can
    2:23:48 get away with that because I know
    2:23:50 editing and I like if I don’t play the
    2:23:51 sound I can go ahead and milk that shot
    2:23:53 as long as I want I’ll make him be in
    2:23:55 the air longer even though he’s
    2:23:56 actually touching the ground by not
    2:23:58 playing the sound and that comes from you
    2:23:59 said directing but it’s not directing
    2:24:01 like people can direct and say this is
    2:24:04 what I want but to actually execute it
    2:24:07 you need to be a craftsman and to be a
    2:24:08 craftsman you have to learn all those
    2:24:10 crafts and not just with the visuals but
    2:24:13 with the sound the sound is so important
    2:24:16 sound is half the picture sound and if
    2:24:18 you cut sound you realize how important
    2:24:20 sound is I would learn so much by doing
    2:24:22 those movies like Desperado action
    2:24:24 movies where you go wow the sound I can
    2:24:25 add an extra sound effect of an extra
    2:24:27 punch he didn’t even throw and it
    2:24:29 sounds like he’s beating the shit out
    2:24:31 of this guy and you only need to see one
    2:24:32 or two hits and you can hear five you
    2:24:33 know you know you know where you can
    2:24:35 push your limits because you’ve done it
    2:24:36 you’ve done it and you’ve got the
    2:24:38 experience it’s so amazing that you can
    2:24:40 use sound to make a person believe they
    2:24:43 saw something that wasn’t actually there
    2:24:45 on the screen yeah your brain fills it in
    2:24:46 that’s crazy and that’s why that’s so
    2:24:48 important because if you don’t know that
    2:24:50 you’ll be on the set shooting 10 takes
    2:24:52 of that because you’re like no he didn’t
    2:24:53 you know I didn’t see him click it back
    2:24:55 I didn’t see I didn’t see him click it
    2:24:57 back it’s that’s really needed I can do
    2:24:59 that with sound let’s just go let’s just
    2:25:00 keep moving when you say sound close up
    2:25:02 was I so like the sound all the other
    2:25:04 sound dropped away and all you hear is
    2:25:06 like the sound like the mics right on
    2:25:09 that thing so that you hear it so big in
    2:25:12 your ear that you swear it was in close
    2:25:14 up too but just the sound was close how
    2:25:16 do you sorry just to give an insight into
    2:25:19 like that process of sound design what are
    2:25:23 you like listening to the sound and just
    2:25:26 like experiencing the feeling that creates
    2:25:27 and then you’re like that’s just right
    2:25:29 playing and post a lot so I have a whole
    2:25:31 library of sound effects from all my movies
    2:25:34 so I can pull up like the gun sound we
    2:25:35 created for Bruce Willis and Sensity and
    2:25:38 use that and mix it with Antonio’s gun
    2:25:40 from Desperado you know I remember in
    2:25:42 four rooms there’s a scene where the
    2:25:45 bellhop goes into the hotel room jams his
    2:25:48 key into it and clicks it and I used all
    2:25:49 gun sounds for the sound of the key
    2:25:51 instead of key sounds because it wasn’t
    2:25:53 sound close up enough so if you listen to
    2:25:56 you hear you hear like all these sounds
    2:25:58 from gun to do the key is it’s like that
    2:26:00 conveys the sound better you know I’ll use
    2:26:01 different kinds of sounds that just have
    2:26:04 impact and put it somewhere like when he
    2:26:06 hits the ground or so I like playing with
    2:26:09 all that in post when I’m editing because
    2:26:11 it makes my editing job easier sometimes
    2:26:13 it’s like oh the sound is covering me I
    2:26:15 don’t I don’t need to keep trying to
    2:26:16 massage this the sound is actually selling
    2:26:19 it and so I keep those sound effects into
    2:26:21 the final movie so it’s just all part
    2:26:22 necessary it’s like it’s like being a
    2:26:23 chef you’re there cooking and you’re
    2:26:25 going like I know the recipe says this
    2:26:27 but I think it really could use
    2:26:29 jalapenos and some extra pepper or maybe
    2:26:31 a little more salt and then it needs an
    2:26:32 acid of some kind so I’m gonna add some
    2:26:34 lemon juice yeah you made me realize I’m
    2:26:35 not sure where I saw that but you were
    2:26:37 you were talking about making sort of
    2:26:40 almost like home films for fun and I
    2:26:43 think you mentioned how exciting you can
    2:26:45 make a very mundane scene by just adding
    2:26:47 sound oh yeah there was I think there was
    2:26:50 like a little kid for this car you have
    2:26:52 one of those little and but I added a
    2:26:54 motor sound to it and it’s like wow it
    2:26:56 sounds realistic somehow like I don’t
    2:26:57 and then we’re playing doing and then
    2:26:59 we’re playing with these little cars
    2:27:00 filming ourselves playing with the cars
    2:27:03 but then I replace it with real car
    2:27:08 sounds and it just your brain links the
    2:27:10 reality of the real thing crazy you
    2:27:12 realize how unimportant the visual is and
    2:27:15 how important the sound is actually sound
    2:27:16 is everything that’s what I was really
    2:27:18 lucky in mariachi that my camera didn’t
    2:27:20 work for sound because then I got really
    2:27:22 good sound that I would have gotten with a
    2:27:24 shitty mic out of frame because that’s
    2:27:26 the first telltale sign of a low-budget
    2:27:28 movie is bad sound bad sound right away
    2:27:29 you can already hear all this hiss and
    2:27:32 all this mic was too far and you’re like
    2:27:34 low-budget movie before your eyes even
    2:27:36 tell you the sound gives it away isn’t
    2:27:39 that amazing the audio is first sound is
    2:27:41 first really even though it’s a visual
    2:27:46 medium that’s so crazy just on the what’s
    2:27:49 the plan with the with the four action
    2:27:51 films like what what what are the next
    2:27:53 steps I’ll probably direct more than one
    2:27:54 because there’s already several that I
    2:27:56 want to do but I was I’m going to direct
    2:27:57 at least one but I’m producing all three
    2:28:00 all four and they’re at my studio it does
    2:28:02 draw you in it draws you in and it makes
    2:28:03 you go now think of ideas you never
    2:28:05 would have thought of for mainly because
    2:28:07 it has a filter well now I don’t have to
    2:28:10 think of all these ideas I can only I
    2:28:12 actually have like that like me on that
    2:28:14 set there’s only very few things I can
    2:28:15 actually come up with that are just
    2:28:16 action driven first when they have a
    2:28:18 great character you’ll get to it a lot
    2:28:20 faster with a filter that’s the beauty of
    2:28:22 a filter is that now you’ve just shrunk
    2:28:26 your your target and now you can hit that
    2:28:28 target and people are coming up with ideas
    2:28:30 because now they’ve got proximity and
    2:28:31 they’ve got a reason to come up with the
    2:28:33 idea and they’ve got a deadline which is
    2:28:35 the best thing you can do is have a
    2:28:37 deadline because when you have a deadline
    2:28:39 you can freaking move mountains you know
    2:28:41 I had a spike is in the theater every
    2:28:44 year three years in a row not being
    2:28:45 pre-planned every year there was a spike
    2:28:48 is now the third one was the biggest
    2:28:51 one biggest cast mostly green screen video
    2:28:53 game and the first digital 3d movie ever
    2:28:56 so getting visual effects companies to
    2:28:58 make that we realized oh I shot it with
    2:29:01 two cameras that means each effect shot
    2:29:02 has to be done twice from a different
    2:29:05 angle so I went to the studio midway
    2:29:07 through that and said there’s not going to
    2:29:09 be a movie in the theaters in time
    2:29:11 you’re going to have to push the date
    2:29:13 back and they said okay we’ve never
    2:29:15 heard you panic we’ll push the date back
    2:29:17 for you they called back 10 minutes
    2:29:19 later I was like oh thank god because
    2:29:20 it’s really complicated I know it’s gonna
    2:29:22 be this complicated but I wanted a
    2:29:25 challenge and they said McDonald’s will
    2:29:26 sue us for 20 million dollars if you
    2:29:28 move the date you have to have a movie
    2:29:30 in the theater we started shooting that
    2:29:34 movie in January of 2003 it was in 3d in
    2:29:38 theaters by July that’s the fastest any
    2:29:41 effects movie has ever been done that’s
    2:29:43 insane because you had no choice so
    2:29:46 deadline makes you do things and make
    2:29:47 decisions really quickly and it was the
    2:29:50 biggest of the three deadlines are good
    2:29:52 and it’s hard for us to self-impose a
    2:29:54 deadline sometimes because we know it’s a
    2:29:55 bullshit deadline and your brain knows
    2:29:58 it’s bullshit but why do deadlines work
    2:30:00 because when the deadline’s coming up what
    2:30:05 do you do you can’t you start you start to
    2:30:07 put the pen to the paper and it starts
    2:30:10 just flowing you have no choice you have
    2:30:11 to get out of the way and open the pipe
    2:30:14 and it just comes out and you’re shocked
    2:30:15 you’re like oh my god I should do
    2:30:16 everything at the last minute well no you
    2:30:18 don’t have to but if you just learn how
    2:30:21 to open that pipe earlier you wouldn’t be
    2:30:23 in a rush but you had to get out of your
    2:30:25 way because your deadline was up and you
    2:30:27 had to come up with it so many people are
    2:30:28 going to come up with all these extra
    2:30:30 great ideas at the last minute they’ve
    2:30:32 already but I looks like everyone who’s
    2:30:35 already signing on because they didn’t
    2:30:36 it’s cool they don’t know when the
    2:30:37 deadline is they keep writing in saying
    2:30:39 when is the deadline for this and we say
    2:30:41 well when when we close the funding in
    2:30:44 May but we didn’t say when still so I
    2:30:46 think that gives them like a sense of a
    2:30:48 deadline like shit it might be May 1st
    2:30:49 or maybe May 2nd so we better get my
    2:30:51 idea going so I think it works in your
    2:30:52 favor because then you come up with
    2:30:54 stuff and you’re going to feel so
    2:30:56 enriched by doing the idea that you’re
    2:30:57 not going to care if it gets picked or
    2:30:59 not you’re going to love this idea so
    2:31:01 much it could turn into 10 other
    2:31:02 things you never even thought about
    2:31:04 that’s the beauty of doing a project
    2:31:06 nothing ever goes to waste so many
    2:31:08 ideas that were sitting around that I
    2:31:09 come up with and put a lot of time in
    2:31:12 are now like oh I can do these now I
    2:31:15 have I know how to finish it now I have
    2:31:17 to ask you about Alita so you’ve done so
    2:31:19 many incredibly innovative projects this
    2:31:21 is one of them it turned out to be this
    2:31:23 visual masterpiece there’s a bunch of
    2:31:26 complexity beautiful complexity about it
    2:31:28 in that it started out as a film that
    2:31:30 James Cameron was supposed to make yeah and
    2:31:32 then you started to collaborate with him
    2:31:35 on it and these two I would say brilliant
    2:31:36 directors but with different styles like
    2:31:39 you were talking about and so plus there’s
    2:31:41 the complexity of for people haven’t seen
    2:31:45 it you’re putting this artificial creation
    2:31:49 this beautiful photorealistic artificial
    2:31:53 creation of a human being into a real world so you
    2:31:56 have to capture the the performance not just
    2:31:58 the motion but the performance of this
    2:32:01 actor put them into this with the power of
    2:32:03 technology into the real world to convey all
    2:32:06 the emotion the richness of the human face
    2:32:08 can you just speak to the process of bringing
    2:32:10 that world to life sure I mean one I never
    2:32:12 would have attempted if it wasn’t Jim because
    2:32:15 Jim has has figured all this out so just to
    2:32:17 get you again remember like I said hey Jim I’m
    2:32:19 operating a study can what do you think of
    2:32:21 that well I’m designing a new system that’s
    2:32:23 always how it is between him and I so when I
    2:32:24 went to show him Desperado when it was done
    2:32:28 he said you might not want to sit through if
    2:32:29 you don’t want to sit through it while I’m
    2:32:30 watching it it’s fine do you want to read any
    2:32:33 of my scriptments my treatment treatment scripts
    2:32:35 you know called scriptments that sure it
    2:32:38 goes I have spider-man and I got avatar so this
    2:32:42 was in 95 he was showing me the scriptment for
    2:32:45 avatar which there was no technology for that he
    2:32:50 was already doing stuff that didn’t exist yeah
    2:32:52 and I was reading it going like it’s a great
    2:32:54 story and he’s like I don’t know how the fuck’s
    2:32:57 gonna do this it’s impossible it’s not even he’d
    2:32:59 just done you know Terminator 2 a few years
    2:33:01 before it’s like that was thing of the art
    2:33:05 so Alita was going to be the movie he did
    2:33:08 first to prepare for avatar and so he had
    2:33:11 already done some prep work on it it was based
    2:33:14 on a manga but before they did that they just
    2:33:17 started doing some tests for avatar and then
    2:33:18 as they got deeper into the test for avatar to
    2:33:21 prepare for Alita they went I guess we’re making
    2:33:25 avatar first so Alita got kind of pushed to the
    2:33:27 side and they ended up doing it which ended up
    2:33:29 becoming such a journey to make that movie to
    2:33:32 get the technology to build it to make it because
    2:33:33 I remember visiting him on the set I mean I’ve
    2:33:35 known him so long I was on the set of Titanic
    2:33:38 that’s how long I’ve been around this guy I was
    2:33:39 on the set of Titanic I was on the set with
    2:33:42 Sarah Connor and Arnold Schwarzenegger and Eddie
    2:33:45 Furlong for the 3d ride he made for Universal a
    2:33:48 few years later so I mean I feel like I’ve been
    2:33:52 around him a lot of his career and to be able to
    2:33:55 visit the set you know of avatar and remember him
    2:33:59 showing me like artwork they did very photo
    2:34:02 realistic and he goes curious to see how photo
    2:34:05 real it’ll be when we’re finally done with this
    2:34:06 process because you don’t get to see it till
    2:34:09 it’s almost done and I was like wow he’s just
    2:34:12 shooting blind he’s really talk about me
    2:34:14 shooting mariachi not seeing the footage he’s
    2:34:16 making this whole movie not even knowing what the
    2:34:18 end result’s gonna look like at all because
    2:34:20 you’re not gonna know till you get there and when
    2:34:22 you get there if you don’t like it there’s not a
    2:34:26 lot you can do so it’s just seeing him do that and
    2:34:28 have that success really made it easier for me to
    2:34:30 do Alita because then it’s like okay we don’t
    2:34:33 know again we don’t need to know we know we’ll get
    2:34:36 there but we don’t know how we’re gonna do it we’re
    2:34:39 gonna start and anything that I would come up with on
    2:34:41 this movie and his team because he had all his
    2:34:43 weather people working on it he had them all working
    2:34:48 on it too I do a fast version of his process because
    2:34:51 it’s a lot of live action avatars mostly CG I have
    2:34:54 live action sets you have to come to my studio because I
    2:34:57 still have the whole Alita city in my back lot well here
    2:35:00 the troublemaker studio yeah that’s where it was yeah it was
    2:35:03 shot here so when you go see my city I built it very
    2:35:06 resourceful this is weird it looks just like the town
    2:35:09 for mariachi it’s in my backyard I’m like it looks
    2:35:12 better than the town for mariachi yeah 90,000 it’s the
    2:35:14 biggest largest standing set in the country because
    2:35:17 sets are always mowed down for the next movie but I just
    2:35:19 kept it there so we should shoot it all the time for
    2:35:22 Mexico or South America or Europe or whatever it’s
    2:35:25 seven streets and we add it digitally above it the
    2:35:29 ceilings are 20 feet high you got to come see you don’t
    2:35:32 believe that it’s here it’s unbelievable where is it
    2:35:34 north of Austin it’s where the old airport was so it’s
    2:35:37 like on 51st street you know it’s like really close to
    2:35:39 town I would love to you gotta come see you’re not gonna
    2:35:42 believe it all my props all my stuff from all my movies so
    2:35:45 people who are you know investing in brass knuckle that’s why
    2:35:48 they say it’s like a Willy Wonka movie because they’re gonna
    2:35:51 get to come check out all that stuff and and and be in
    2:35:55 proximity and see oh like me with that painter it’s not a
    2:35:58 trick he’s just doing it I can then you realize you can do
    2:36:02 it too but um we thought let’s shoot mostly live
    2:36:05 action and we’ll just replace her but we still have to figure
    2:36:08 her out you have to cast the right actress and when I saw
    2:36:10 Rosa Salazar she was just amazing she made me cry in
    2:36:13 audition for the first time I was like oh my god this person
    2:36:16 has some if we can capture even a a fourth of her facial
    2:36:20 expression it’ll bring so much life and they got it one to
    2:36:27 one and uh it really helped Jim on the next Avatar and Weta because
    2:36:30 they got to try out a bunch of things that’s why Avatar the
    2:36:34 second Avatar Way of Water looks so much more refined than the
    2:36:37 first Avatar because of that middle step of doing Alita it was
    2:36:39 training ground for them can you actually educate me on the Weta
    2:36:43 process is this like a performance capture technology where I have
    2:36:48 her in a suit for capturing her body movements but also facial
    2:36:51 facial capture it’s a performance capture of all her performance all
    2:36:55 her emoting and we have witness cameras around everywhere to pick
    2:36:58 up where she is and everything else is real and we’re just replacing
    2:37:02 her but with someone even smaller in size so you have to erase everything
    2:37:05 behind her there’s like a bunch of technical things you need to do but the
    2:37:09 idea is to whatever performance she gives she’s such a great actress is to
    2:37:13 capture all of that because then this character that doesn’t even exist will
    2:37:17 feel very emotional and you have to you have to be tied to it you have to feel
    2:37:21 it’s hard she was the heartbeat of it so she’s acting with all this acting with
    2:37:23 all that but it just disappeared you know she’s not even it’s like it’s not
    2:37:27 even there like we don’t notice this year it’s like that she can just perform
    2:37:31 through it what was some interesting unique challenging things about you
    2:37:37 directing her performance in this in this kind of world I just I just knew she
    2:37:40 had to be her it was gonna be just so easy with her she’s just so great she
    2:37:44 everything was just so real and everything was like she’s that character she
    2:37:48 becomes that character who’s seen this world for the first time no special
    2:37:51 effects gonna help you with that if the performance isn’t there so it was all
    2:37:54 about getting the performance and casting the right actors that’s why you get
    2:38:01 Christoph Waltz there and you get Jennifer Connelly you know these masters are all in
    2:38:07 on the set Mahershala Ali you know you’ve got an amazing cast of people and that’s really
    2:38:12 the heart the heart of it so that the technology kind of goes away how hard is it to get the
    2:38:20 actors to act when like the full world is not around you we put so much of the world around
    2:38:24 them like when you see the city we put like a blue screen way in the back to just make the
    2:38:29 city keep going but we built the sets there the town we built the real set so everything was
    2:38:34 very tangible and real and that way she had to fit into that world and be as real as that
    2:38:40 because if it was all done in CG well then now you can fudge everything but if you put her in a real
    2:38:44 environment that’s a real challenge and that really helps them on avatar because that whole place is
    2:38:48 created an avatar you could get away with a lot but they wanted to commit to that kind of detail
    2:38:51 and on the next avatar that’s why it just feels like you’re really there
    2:38:57 it’s just stunning and you get there by having something to work on like this to take the
    2:39:02 technology to the next level so it was cool to be able to help you know uh knowing they should be
    2:39:07 helpful to him in his process and not just distracting him but then also he liked that his
    2:39:13 artist had something else to work on besides just avatar to just work on something you know different
    2:39:19 to freshen up their perspective on things and methodology and so yeah that was a really exciting
    2:39:23 movie to work on and that we got to shoot it here a jim cameron movie here in austin that was the best
    2:39:29 having him here and that my whole crew who’s worked with me 25 30 years everyone had an extra spring in
    2:39:34 this step because they’re like we’re working on a jim cameron movie i mean that’s just like a high bar
    2:39:38 of achievement for everybody you know working on it since we talked about a few other directors can you
    2:39:43 speak to the genius of james cameron like what what makes him special you talked about some of the
    2:39:49 difference in your approach in his uh he’s created some of the most special movies ever also what’s
    2:39:55 behind that what would you say is interesting about the way his creative mind works i think any of those
    2:40:02 guys george lucas you know him you know john lassner when he did pixar it’s a mix of and this is i got
    2:40:07 really lucky my first job was a photoshop because my dad had a friend who owned a photoshop he said
    2:40:13 your summer job when i was 16 go work for my friend mario so i go to mario’s photoshop and i’m you know
    2:40:19 developing pictures or you know think you develop photos from film and he said here take this camera
    2:40:23 home give me one of his cameras take this camera home and some film i need you to learn how to use the
    2:40:27 camera so you can help me sell the cameras yeah so i went home and you know i have a bunch of siblings
    2:40:32 so like well the stars are bedhead taking all these pictures of everybody i take it back and he looks at
    2:40:37 the pictures when he develops he’s like whoa these are really creative you’re a creative person
    2:40:44 sometimes people tell you something yeah that don’t you can’t unhear and he goes that’s a gift
    2:40:50 which you need to know now now you need to become technical because most creative people need
    2:40:52 technicians and technicians always need creative people because they’re not usually the same
    2:40:59 you’re born with creativity it’s against your nature to be technical but you can learn if you
    2:41:05 apply yourself and if you’re both technical and creative you’ll be unstoppable and i was like
    2:41:11 stop wow so here i want you to learn zone photography you know like i want you to learn this this the
    2:41:16 technical part of it so that’s why i didn’t take a crew mariachi because i knew if i’m just a creative
    2:41:23 person and i i need a crew to go actually technically make the movie i’ll always need something and when
    2:41:31 you want to really change your life you want to get your i need list down to little as possible
    2:41:35 because if you’re like well i want to shoot my movie but i need a cameraman and i need somebody
    2:41:40 who knows how to light it your i need list keeps growing that’s further and further and further you
    2:41:46 will be from what you need to accomplish so i kind of went down there without any help so that remember
    2:41:51 that script analogy where the guy said throw away three scripts i said no i’m gonna write three scripts
    2:41:55 and then shoot each one so i get better at each one of those jobs so i can learn to be technical
    2:42:01 my technical capability was so little like i’m literally calling the guy on the phone how do i
    2:42:06 use this camera you know that’s how little i knew about it but i knew by doing the job i would learn
    2:42:12 by being both that’s really the key so jim cameron is like that jim cameron when you think of those guys
    2:42:17 george lucas very technical and very creative john lastner very technical but very creative pixar
    2:42:23 jim cameron very technical very creative putting those two things together is really what sets you
    2:42:28 apart from other technicians and other creative people and it’s very very powerful a lot of creative
    2:42:32 people again it’s against their nature to be technical they don’t want to do it make yourself
    2:42:38 do it read the manuals take the lessons it frees you up because then you can go do like you know i just
    2:42:43 showed you in that demo you’re able to now be a technical person and creative and then you’re
    2:42:48 unstoppable he’s one of the best at it and he just knows how to craft a story he’s very analytical
    2:42:55 as well like we we bounce off each other in a funny way he goes man he came down to visit my studio
    2:43:03 before he did alita and he went you only surround yourself with people for like you like you exude
    2:43:08 creativity you know from every pore and so does everyone at your studio and i go yeah and everything
    2:43:11 i didn’t hire them that way on purpose but i think if you’re not that way you kind of know you don’t
    2:43:16 belong there and you kind of leave yeah and then i went to his studio and there are a bunch of jim
    2:43:22 camerons there they’re like oh my god they’re all very technical yeah you can’t get all kind of fuzzy
    2:43:27 with the with the logic or the you can’t get you can’t get really creative with the physics or anything
    2:43:33 they’re like no that’s not how it would work it would be like and they’re just wow super great at
    2:43:39 what they do bar is sky high and they’re all like that because yeah if you’re not part of it if you’re
    2:43:45 not like that you can’t hang with those guys you can’t hang with him very long i heard a story where
    2:43:50 the guitar case being a rocket launcher where to you you create this real world where everything is
    2:43:55 possible the magic feels real and for james cameron he has to know how a guitar case would work that
    2:43:59 would actually be able to double as a rocket launcher when i show him the trailer for greenhouse and he
    2:44:05 sees the machine gun laying all that he just goes whoa that’s unbridled filmmaking from the id it makes
    2:44:09 sense only the second you’re watching it not a second after but the second you’re watching and you
    2:44:16 believe it yeah but he’s uh he’s really interesting in that he’s so prolific i walked into his writing
    2:44:23 studio and it’d be like on one of the tables like do you have those papers there imagine them that thick
    2:44:29 that thick that thick all scripts scripts what are these he goes this is a whole you know space opera
    2:44:33 version of this movie we’re not making that one it’s like he’s just cranking out stuff like again
    2:44:40 can i take this and go yeah right yeah we bounced off each other because i loved his analytical part
    2:44:44 of his brain i’m not that analytical i’m just kind of like hey i’m really creative feeling i’m like
    2:44:50 whoo i’ll go this way and then we will go that way and he likes that about me but i like i put it i
    2:44:56 i want to because i think about things too much like you think about things like what makes a movie
    2:45:02 a billion dollar hit what are the elements that you need and i’m going to analyze that and i’m going to
    2:45:09 make sure my movie does that and he engineers a submarine that can break the world record he
    2:45:13 engineers a movie that can break the world record you know he’s like he has that engineering mind but
    2:45:19 the creative part that’s very rare so that’s very rare and he’s capitalized on both he had this submarine
    2:45:25 model like this big on his desk the one that he broke the world record for going and just seeing
    2:45:31 it and knowing him have kids and stuff and wife and i’m like weren’t you afraid going down there with
    2:45:38 you know something could happen it’s like no i wasn’t afraid like why not because i designed the
    2:45:43 escape vehicle yeah if it was any other bozo i’d be afraid but he designed the escape that kind of
    2:45:49 confidence that’s him he just knows if some other bozo had designed the escape vehicle i would be
    2:45:55 afraid but total confidence because he did it the confidence of extreme competence is brilliant just
    2:46:01 to get you like excited about how creative this stuff is so desperado was the only movie on the sony lot
    2:46:09 being edited digitally not only was i editing on a computer i was editing in my house which in 1994 was
    2:46:13 just unheard of so i’m there in my house and they made me cut in la because they were because at first
    2:46:17 i told the studio i want to edit desperado myself because it’s important that i edit it they go no you
    2:46:25 can’t why not we’ve never had a director edit his own movie here so we don’t want to set a precedent
    2:46:32 case they thought it would give you too much power so this is the power of precedent i said well you
    2:46:38 bought mariachi and i edited that so i said okay but you’re gonna have to edit in la so we can watch
    2:46:43 we don’t think you know what you’re doing we saw the footage and the shots are really short it’s too
    2:46:48 short i was like shots are too short oh because i was shooting my cuts you know like they’re used to
    2:46:52 seeing footage of antonio walks into the bar and it’s going to be a dialogue scene they expect the
    2:46:56 whole thing done from a wide shot i would shoot the wide shot he walks in cut move the camera let’s
    2:47:00 get over here because we wanted to because i’m not going to use it for the rest of the scene i know
    2:47:02 we’re going to get into coverage because i’ve already cut it so i was like huh that’s interesting
    2:47:06 so i cut the first scene if you’ve ever seen desperado the first scene is the best scene
    2:47:08 steve was telling the story he’s talking about the myth of the mariachi
    2:47:12 he’s doing oh yeah it’s crazy it’s crazy great scene so then they come over i say you come see
    2:47:19 my first scene so they come over to my house they watch it okay you know what you’re doing but i was
    2:47:23 cutting desperado in my house that i rented there and then we shot dusk till dawn at the same time so i
    2:47:27 was cutting desperado four rooms and dusk till dawn myself i’m the editor i don’t have an editing team
    2:47:33 other than the ones who import it into the machine so del toro came over soderberg came over
    2:47:38 can i borrow it for schizophilus that no one had heard of somebody having an avid in their living
    2:47:44 room jim comes over and he goes i hear you have an avid in your living room and i go yeah come check it
    2:47:49 out i’m just like i roll out of bed it’s like something’s unremarkable because that’s what you
    2:47:55 do right now but back in 94 it was unheard of i’m cutting three movies at the same time myself i roll out
    2:48:01 bed i come here i can cut desperado and cut dust till then he went that’s it i hate working with
    2:48:06 editors you know when i was doing terminator 2 they wouldn’t even let me put the bad to the bone song
    2:48:10 in terminator 2 because they didn’t think it would work and i had to sneak into the edit room at night
    2:48:15 on the weekend to cut it in then show them the next day it’s like that’s your own movie you can’t give
    2:48:19 that kind of power to people he said i hate working with editors i’m gonna i’m gonna do this i’m gonna
    2:48:23 tear down a wall in my house i’m gonna put it in avid i’m gonna cut my next movie yeah and he did he
    2:48:27 got an oscar for editing titanic can’t do other editors but now no one ever took him for a ride
    2:48:32 like that again he edits on every movie he has other editors but he can go do his own cuts when
    2:48:38 he shows me like footage he’s showing me himself on his own machine and it’s like again it gives you
    2:48:43 all those tools to be able to really find your vision that you’re looking for because you can’t
    2:48:47 always explain it to somebody because you don’t always know yourself it’s part you kind of come up
    2:48:51 with it as you do the process it’s just a small tangent about the different software and the
    2:48:55 technologies involved so you mentioned avid as premiere pro premiere was still in its early
    2:49:00 stages then i think soderberg looked at it and it said yeah i can’t afford an avid for this movie i’m
    2:49:05 gonna go do it i think he started cutting on premiere but um i’m sure it’s all better now i just have
    2:49:10 always used an avid because i just always read it back to the same production i think i’ve just i i don’t
    2:49:13 have to buy a new one but there’s lots of goods i’ve heard about all kinds of systems i just use the
    2:49:18 same one i guess that’s the question i have for you it’s just interesting for people it’s very
    2:49:22 interesting to me just the the details use avid like what do you like multiple monitors one
    2:49:27 monitor i have a couple monitors and then one big monitor to watch it if i’m watching the scene back
    2:49:31 because the monitors are still a little wacky i mean if i were to design my own system i’d probably
    2:49:37 design it differently but i’m literally i’ve worked on that thing since 94 i still don’t know all the
    2:49:43 shortcuts and all this shit i still use it like my tape deck play rewind pause and i can cut so fast
    2:49:49 with that just i don’t use the mouse for shortcuts i’m just like so you found your way yeah preferred
    2:49:55 way the workflow of using it and now you can sort of let go of the technical and then be creative
    2:49:58 yeah just be creative it’s just a tool it’s just a tool and it’s like it doesn’t matter which system
    2:50:03 it is it’s like if you can get it to work for you great like there’s a lot of problems i have with it
    2:50:06 that i would i know are probably fixed on another system but that they’ll have a whole other set of
    2:50:11 problems so it’s like well why bother with that you know there’s limitations i think that it has that
    2:50:16 would need to be fixed but not for what i’m doing i mean i can still do what i need it feels like
    2:50:21 part of the artistry is every system has limitations and you learn how to work around those limitations
    2:50:28 i mean oh yeah well every single thing my first vcrs like those things those things were i was always
    2:50:33 known for taking what little basic equipment and milking the shit out of it what it could pushing the
    2:50:39 boundaries of what it can do and now it’s flipped now you’re working on a program and you can spend 10
    2:50:43 years on this thing and you’re scratching the surface of what it’s capable of it’s totally
    2:50:48 flipped the other way i’m not milking anything anymore i’m i’m barely getting you know the smallest
    2:50:54 capability of it because i would have to spend a lot of time to figure out all the stuff that it can
    2:50:58 possibly do and i’m sure it’s all great fantastic stuff but what a different world than when i grew up
    2:51:04 where it was like okay let me splice these two sound things together and it was so hard to get
    2:51:08 it to do where people would be like you got that movie out of that equipment where now it’s the other
    2:51:13 way around you know it’s like all this equipment is great so when people come to me and say i’ve got
    2:51:18 well i’ve only got this camera i was like that camera’s 10 times better than anything i had for my
    2:51:24 first 15 years of filmmaking so you have no complaints this is like you can just start now and just start
    2:51:29 making stuff uh i have a lot of friends who are huge fans of your uh movies so one of them asked
    2:51:34 me that i absolutely must ask you do you know if there’s a sequel of elita coming we’re working on it
    2:51:39 we’re definitely working on it jim and i both want to make it that’s usually when we meet we talk about
    2:51:45 it um i gave him something to read you know he’s a little busy with his avatar movie but i’m gonna get
    2:51:49 i’m gonna see him again soon and we’ll see where it’s at but we would love to make another one we have
    2:51:54 ideas on how to do it because it was always built to be a trilogy and uh he sees that there’s a lot
    2:52:00 of love for it it was just weird because it was fox movie and they got bought by disney you know and
    2:52:04 then so they weren’t really making fox movies because they had enough disney had enough work
    2:52:08 with their disney movies but now they’re starting to make some fox movies like they did deadpool and
    2:52:15 some fox movies are starting to get made so time might be right for us to come back and do it alita
    2:52:22 no i hope you do soon it’s uh but it is i mean you do so many different kinds of movies that’s a whole
    2:52:26 different kind of puzzle right yeah no but it’s not a bad one it’s a good it’s a cool it’s one
    2:52:32 one of the few like usually i made kids family kids kids movies or r-rated action horror movies and that
    2:52:36 was the first time i got to do a pg-13 movie which was kind of like it had a lot of action but it was for
    2:52:41 families could watch it too and it’s kind of like the best of all worlds have to ask you about sin
    2:52:47 city one of my favorite films of all time it was a visually stunning world what are some maybe
    2:52:54 interesting detailed aspects about you creating that world this is why you just got to follow your
    2:52:58 nose and go do something you know jim and i were both into 3d early on like i visited his set for the
    2:53:05 terminator 3d ride just till dawn i wanted to be 3d actually when they got to the bar if you watch from
    2:53:08 that point on everything’s kind of set up for 3d everything was shooting into the camera and all
    2:53:14 this but the cameras they had for 3d and film were those old shitty ones that were so bad that i went
    2:53:18 okay we can’t do it but i really wanted people to have to put on glasses when they got into the bar
    2:53:23 and it was going to turn into a 3d different movie i got to do that on spike it’s 3d
    2:53:30 so when i did spike it’s 3d i thought oh if i get jim’s cameras that he’s done for these underwater
    2:53:39 3d you know documentaries i can make the first digital 3d film for theaters and so i did and it
    2:53:43 seemed like the easiest way was to utilize that when you put on the glasses when you go into a game
    2:53:47 world so there’s a green screen and we shot all the actors on green screen for all the game stuff and
    2:53:53 we can do a lot of 3d stuff coming at kids faces when they’re reaching my 3d is is not like the kind
    2:53:58 they have in theaters where it’s very polite mine’s like theme park 3d where kids are doing
    2:54:03 like that trying to grab that’s why it was such a big hit nobody does 3d like that but i wanted that
    2:54:07 i want shit falling in people’s laps you know so you remember so you go okay this is why i’m wearing
    2:54:13 the glasses and i’m wondering why and when i went to go make my next movie so this is how crazy is what
    2:54:19 we shot spike is 3d remember actually how fast they came out that was in the summer of 2003 a few
    2:54:24 months later once upon a time mexico came out two number one movies both were finishing
    2:54:32 trilogies of mine and each one starred antonio danny trejo cheech marin when i was editing those
    2:54:35 at the same time you’d be like whoa they’re killing people and the other ones are like with the kids
    2:54:41 going like hey family so it was really you know fun it was fun to it’s easier to do very different
    2:54:45 things than to do like two action movies or two family movies at the same time but i was like okay
    2:54:51 what’s my next movie going to be oh shit how crazy is this okay so antonio is on the set i’m going to
    2:54:57 shoot him out in half a day for spike is 3d because he’s only in the last scenes on the green screen
    2:55:01 shoot him till lunch okay now go away put on your desperado outfit because we owed some shots for once
    2:55:06 upon a time mexico on the green screen he finished two trilogies in the same day that’s gotta be a
    2:55:12 first if ever no one’s ever finished two trilogies in the same day and it’s just kismet you know it’s
    2:55:18 just how it happened to happen that day was just luck or the universe or whatever but i needed to
    2:55:24 make something new now so i was looking through my bookshelves of inspiration and i picked up my sin
    2:55:29 city books which i’ve had i used to be a cartoonist and i always loved how he drew that every time i’d
    2:55:33 see a different edition i’d buy it go home and go oh i already have this i got like three copies of this
    2:55:38 already it would just always grab me by the throat and i liked that he was a writer director in a way
    2:55:42 because he would not just wrote the comic but he drew it too a lot of times it’s a different writer
    2:55:47 or different comic artist he’s like a real like a kinship you know this is someone who writes and
    2:55:52 directs his own thing but i was looking at it and i went oh shit i know how to do this now i just did
    2:55:56 it on the green screen if i shoot this on green screen the actors on green screen i can make the
    2:56:01 backgrounds look just like this and i can contrast up the actors and i could get this very graphic look
    2:56:06 which sometimes for a window it’s just a white box so it’s even got a sliding scale for budget
    2:56:11 if i run out of money just put the actors in black and white just put like a white dot behind him for
    2:56:18 street light and that looks just like the book so i’m going to bring the book to life so i’ll show you
    2:56:25 how fast we go from development at troublemaker it was october once upon a time mexico would come out
    2:56:32 i was like oh shit i know how to do this now sin city i’m gonna do a test i went to my green screen
    2:56:34 here in my studio you’ll see my green screen where i shot all these movies
    2:56:39 and i shot you know my sister myself put it black and white
    2:56:46 looks just like the comic but it’s moving so i i call a a comic book artist friend of mine
    2:56:51 mike allred and i said uh do you have frank miller’s number and he goes yeah i do okay i’m gonna call
    2:56:56 whoops i call frank miller hey it’s rob rodriguez i have a test i’m gonna show you for sin city i’m
    2:57:01 gonna be in new york tomorrow he’s like tomorrow okay yeah sure come by meet me at this bar okay
    2:57:08 book a flight for new york i fly up there i have my laptop just like this yeah that’s good i go to the
    2:57:15 bar i show him what looks like an image from his comic and it starts moving and he’s like wow how did
    2:57:19 you do that i said i got my own studio and all this and then i started telling man let’s make this movie
    2:57:25 because no one had the rights to it he never gave the rights to a studio a lot of comics oh wonder
    2:57:30 brothers bought this a while back you know or then you got to go through the studio he still owned his
    2:57:35 own rights in fact he’d gotten burned by hollywood so many times as a screenwriter that he said fuck
    2:57:40 it i’m gonna go back and draw a comic that’s so raw that can never be made into a movie so of course i
    2:57:45 call him hey let’s make a great movie so i show him how we can do it and i go i know you don’t know
    2:57:49 me and you’re not gonna you’re gonna have to earn i have to earn your trust for you to give me your
    2:57:57 baby uh but we can make this right away and he’s like uh he’s all excited for about two seconds and
    2:58:03 then he goes oh no then we gotta write a script and the studio’s gonna have notes all that shit he’s
    2:58:07 been through before and it’s not like that i have a whole different setup i got my own studio in austin
    2:58:12 this is how it’s gonna be if you like this idea i’m gonna you’re not gonna have to take any risk
    2:58:18 let me take all the risk i’m gonna go write the script myself next month it’s gonna be unremarkable
    2:58:20 because i’m gonna write it right out of your book i’m gonna just go to i’m gonna edit three of the
    2:58:24 stories down i’m gonna just take stuff out really it might add a few things to connect it but i’ll
    2:58:29 write the script in december myself no money involved then we’ll call some actor friends of mine
    2:58:34 we’ll have them come to my green screen we’ll shoot the opening scene as a test but it’s also the
    2:58:40 opening scene i’ll do the effects myself i’ll do the sound do the music i’ll do fake credits
    2:58:46 we’ll watch it together if you like what you see we’ll make the movie you give me the rights then
    2:58:50 if you don’t like it keep it it’s a short film to show your friends
    2:58:56 let’s be really cool so he’s like all right there’s nothing on him to do it’s all on me i write the script
    2:59:03 in december january josh harnett marley shelton come down fly frank in shooting for 10 hours on my
    2:59:08 green screen we shoot that opening sequence incredible opening sequence record his voice
    2:59:13 over right then in my little voiceover booth marley shelton comes up why did i hire him to kill me
    2:59:18 i don’t know let’s go ask frank he’s right here let’s go ask frank i want to know myself so he tells
    2:59:24 her and he’s like i want to do this movie he’s already as i tell you frank i used to be a cartoonist
    2:59:29 it’s the same thing you’re already a director you’re just using a pen instead of a camera the performances
    2:59:35 you get out of your paper actors are phenomenal the shots you do are like beyond any dps ever done
    2:59:40 and the visual look we’ve never seen that i want to just take this and make it move i just want the
    2:59:45 comic to move any other studio would just go make it look like any gritty crime movie and they would
    2:59:49 they would miss the point that it’s the visual is half of it i want it to look just like this because
    2:59:53 it would be the boldest movie anyone’s seen because that’s how it reads when i read the book it’s like
    2:59:59 if this was moving it would be the most phenomenal movie in fact i asked him do you ever feel like
    3:00:03 directing any any of these short ones i thought about directing the big fat kill maybe as a short
    3:00:07 film you should come direct that one shit you should direct all of them with me because i’m really copying
    3:00:11 it right out of the book you should direct it with me all right let’s go so then uh january okay so
    3:00:17 remember i met him in november i wrote it in december january we shoot the test took me a couple weeks
    3:00:23 to do the effects he loves it i make a meeting with bruce willis show it to bruce willis what’s so
    3:00:28 cool about doing that opening scene is that any actor i show it to now i show him the book which is
    3:00:33 awesome you’d be playing this character but look at this test let me show you the book what it looked
    3:00:41 like before i turned this test into a test watches it josh arnett voiceover music titles come on
    3:00:46 first name on the screen bruce willis and i go hey look you’re in the credits you have to do it now
    3:00:53 manifesting it right he’s like shit man this is great i’m in he’s in wow go get everyone else from
    3:01:03 that was just easy to get and we were filming the movie so february right building the few little sets
    3:01:06 we had like the bar i told frank we don’t need to build a bar but i’m gonna go ahead and build a bar
    3:01:09 so we have a place to go have script meetings everything else will be green screen we’ll build
    3:01:14 fake steps and things out of green so we’re doing that and i’m casting the first one we’re shooting the
    3:01:18 movie by march the beginning of march and i remember because my son was born march 3rd
    3:01:27 and i was in la for his birth because i was also recording the orchestra for the score i wrote
    3:01:34 somehow in the past few months for kill bill 2 that’s how much stuff was going on yeah yeah you know
    3:01:41 that’s like when you just let it flow you’re just riding the wave you’re not doing any of that
    3:01:48 so that’s what’s by staying in that like urgent there’s always the deadlines are just pushing you
    3:01:53 to create stuff and we shot the movie so fast in record time now not only that i shot a whole other
    3:01:58 movie that year i shot the adventures of shark boy and lava girl with kids that came out two months
    3:02:02 after sin city the next year within less than a year sin city was out you’re shooting that and then
    3:02:05 parallel with sin city that’s hilarious that great yeah like sometimes we’d be shooting with the kids
    3:02:09 and then the afternoon rudger howard would come and some of the sin city girls to finish you know
    3:02:14 shooting stuff that we needed to film it was just insane how fast we had to move i was doing it in my
    3:02:23 i was editing i just edited it and then i would scan the uh artwork into the uh computer and i would edit
    3:02:28 the storyboards with the sound effects and i would do the voiceover i would imitate mickey and i would
    3:02:33 imitate bruce and lay out the how fast it was going to move and you were like wow so now we have a
    3:02:38 template with the real drawings and the lighting on how we’re going to do it as funny as i i could do
    3:02:42 pretty good in bruce willis because i know in his career so long if you’re doing his voiceover and he
    3:02:47 would hear my guide voice for the timing and be like is that me is that you can’t tell
    3:02:55 that was me but just do that man it sounds like me first of all why haven’t films like that been
    3:03:01 made well it’s a very specific look because it went to that comic the first piece of music i wrote for
    3:03:04 that was the main title and i called it descent i wanted the notes to descend because it felt like
    3:03:08 you were descending into this dark world and you don’t come out to the end of the movie you’re just
    3:03:14 like in this world where all these layers of unreality like water doesn’t photograph that
    3:03:18 way snow doesn’t but it’s there and you’re seeing and you’re seeing the actors so you’re just really
    3:03:24 it’s like a dream world yeah so i was really into it and i did tests for the most difficult shots first
    3:03:30 like how do i get his his tape to glow in the dark like in the comics what’s still in the shadow and i
    3:03:35 realized oh use fluorescent tape and a fluorescent light that way i can keep it we can still key it like i
    3:03:41 started just doing my own visual effects like that early on because i knew technology was changing so
    3:03:48 fast that i would need to just know how to do it like i’m like a magician shooting digital nobody wanted
    3:03:52 to touch digital back then dps were all afraid of digital they didn’t have to learn something new so i
    3:03:59 had to dp it so me photographing it i’m like it’s so fun to cut because i mean to to light like you have
    3:04:03 to have that light out of frame right now but i could bring the lights in right here as long as it was
    3:04:08 they’re not crossing it i’m just going to take it out of the green anyway so i could have the
    3:04:12 coolest light on everybody cool edge lights you can have an edge light back here an edge light back
    3:04:17 here a fill light here but you don’t erase them i just take him out can you educate me and people
    3:04:23 curious about this like what is the power of light when you’re telling a story when you’re creating a
    3:04:28 feeling and experience like what’s the artistry of that well if you look at the drawings too sometimes
    3:04:33 it’s the absence of light like you would see this face but then this would be completely black but
    3:04:37 you would still see my eye yeah which is like impossible right but you believe it when you see
    3:04:42 it because it’s there so things like that were a lot of the tricks i tried first because i like that about
    3:04:47 it it’s like you have a guy completely backlit so there’s no light on his face but yet his glasses
    3:04:51 are glowing white yeah so we’d put fluorescent tape in there hit that with a light then we could turn it
    3:04:57 white later the black and white really helps and then just upping the contrast but i mean it’s just
    3:05:01 something that you have a feeling for but you’re able to try it in fact when i took it to george
    3:05:06 lucas who george lucas said this to me early on because i was we’re the only guy shooting digital
    3:05:13 he said man it’s so good you live in austin that’s why i’m in marin county because when you live outside of
    3:05:18 this box of la hollywood you think outside of the box automatically you’re just going to stumble
    3:05:22 upon innovations and he was right it was like yeah what’s this why why aren’t we shooting digital
    3:05:25 let’s shoot digital why are we shooting digital 3d let’s do that why don’t we just use green screen
    3:05:30 for the background you just start innovating because you’re away from anyone saying hey you can’t do it
    3:05:35 that way which they would say if i was in la so we just came up with a whole other method so i took
    3:05:41 him sin city to check out the first thing i was going to show at comic-con he said um now this will
    3:05:46 really show people what digital is capable of this really shows how avant-garde you can get with that
    3:05:53 that you could never have done that on film you know and so by me versing myself in that technology
    3:05:57 early i was able to make a movie like that and then everyone had to play catch-up you know so
    3:06:02 you should always just follow your that’s why if people say don’t use those curtains as i’m gonna work
    3:06:06 just blow past those guys go innovate your own thing because
    3:06:13 sometimes not knowing is better you know being too naive to like don’t you know you shouldn’t have
    3:06:17 been able to make that movie that way people with people would say like that how did you make
    3:06:21 march for seven thousand dollars just you know it’s impossible it’s like why do you keep using
    3:06:26 that word because it can’t be impossible if i did it because i’m not that smart and it’s like saying
    3:06:32 how did you get to the top of mount everest it’s impossible well i just kept walking i didn’t realize
    3:06:36 it was kind of at a slope i didn’t really realize it was going up that high yeah you you’ve talked about
    3:06:42 like a big part of your approach to filmmaking to life is manifesting manifesting the reality you want
    3:06:49 in fact i should sort of comment and i’d love to ask you about manifesting that you asked me at the
    3:06:54 beginning of this conversation do you consider yourself a creative person i should just sort of
    3:06:58 reflect on that because i was very uncomfortable answering that yeah i noticed a little bit and i was
    3:07:03 like i’m gonna i’m gonna free you up so that you’re never uncomfortable again it’s scary to say that
    3:07:07 about about yourself because you think there’s a lot of there’s a lot of people who go well you’re
    3:07:10 not an artist you’re not a creative but no you’re not saying i’m an artist i’m saying i’m a creative
    3:07:15 person but that’s an artist too isn’t it no you artist isn’t necessarily a guy with a the french
    3:07:19 mustache and the funny hat that’s not necessarily what art artists are regular people yeah and regular
    3:07:23 people relate to art that’s imperfect if you can make art that’s perfect don’t want to relate to it
    3:07:29 so when you think about it like that you go well i can make imperfect art so yeah i’m an artist and if
    3:07:33 you have doubt you’re an artist that’s an artist real artists always wonder if they’re good enough
    3:07:39 so you are an artist just by the fact that you had uncomfortable saying it you’re a real artist
    3:07:45 yeah and there’s some degree i don’t know if you could speak to this but um you know there’s a fear of
    3:07:52 creating shitty things you know i’ve created a lot of really shitty things in my life and it always feels
    3:07:58 like that’s really important to do okay but you’re judging something that that you have no business
    3:08:04 judging right like i have so many people that’s why i like making movies on purpose that have less
    3:08:10 money and less time on purpose like the biggest movie i said all time on netflix is we can be heroes i
    3:08:13 told them i don’t want to spend more than 50 million dollars i know you all want to give me 80
    3:08:18 but i want to be a hero and come in at 50 because one it’ll make it better and then two you’ll make
    3:08:22 three of them instead of just one i don’t want to just go spend the farm and how many filmmakers
    3:08:26 that do that don’t try to get as much money as they can but when you’re spending less it’s a win-win
    3:08:30 situation and you have more creative freedom because they’re going to leave you alone you can do whatever
    3:08:35 you want so i i like the creative limitations that come from less money that’s why i like brass knuckle
    3:08:40 films like we’re going to make them for less so that they are better not because they’re not to make
    3:08:46 them shitty so many people have come up to me and said um you know what part i love in your movie
    3:08:51 you know tell me some scene i’m like oh well that’s because we ran out of sun and we had to like
    3:08:57 do that jump with just him jumping on a pad three times or whatever it is it’s something that you fumbled
    3:09:02 together and that’s what they’re drawn to they’re drawn to that imperfect thing and so i wouldn’t judge
    3:09:07 it because somebody’s you know if you called your movie shitty that’s like john carpenter saying yeah
    3:09:13 nobody liked the thing and it’s a shitty movie and everyone hated it so it must not be good
    3:09:18 and then 10 years later it’s a masterpiece so don’t judge it because if you words we use on
    3:09:26 ourselves are very powerful so if you say well you know i’m kind of an artist sometimes i make a lot
    3:09:31 of shitty stuff well that’s gonna that’s gonna be your lot in life you know i i’m pretty good shape
    3:09:36 for a director it’s not because i’m operating the camera because i work out right but i always hated
    3:09:44 working out i was not into sports i was a filmmaker i was a cartoonist in high school i was really tall
    3:09:48 they would say come work come be in our team we need it’s a small school we need you and i don’t
    3:09:53 know how to play any of these things i’m an artist there’s a line in the faculty that was my line to
    3:09:56 my coaches when they would say you got to come run with everybody i would say i don’t think a person
    3:10:01 should run unless he’s being chased i get that to the to the elijah wood character because that’s the guy
    3:10:07 i identified with he’s there with this camera and that was me so i hated it and then because i had i
    3:10:12 was a cartoonist you know drawing like this for hours four hours my back would go out like out for a
    3:10:16 month it would just go out from being so tall and crunched over and then when i started making movies
    3:10:21 operating the camera doing steady cam every year would go out to where i would need cortisone shots
    3:10:28 to get up again if i’m filming or just be out for a month and on spy kids 2 ricardo montalban
    3:10:33 had bad back surgery that that went wrong and he was in a wheelchair so he’s in a wheelchair and i’m
    3:10:41 in a walker and he’s like i’m 84 what’s your excuse and i was like i i don’t know i just was operating
    3:10:45 steady goes you have to work out robert you have to work out i was like yeah okay yeah i know i know
    3:10:50 and so then i thought okay next year i’m working with stallone last stallone last stallone
    3:10:55 how do you get in shape because i need to get in shape my back’s always going out he goes get the
    3:11:00 trainer anyone who ever saw in hollywood got in shape they had a trainer i say even you everybody
    3:11:05 oh i need a trainer he has a trainer so no i need a trainer i can’t train it’s like well shit if
    3:11:10 you can’t even train on your own then what what do us mortal men have so i got a trainer and guess
    3:11:14 what happened hated it i would feel sick when he’s coming over because i hate i hate working it
    3:11:21 and then um some years of doing that i just i can’t stand it but i know it’s good for my health so
    3:11:25 the desire is there so if you can’t accomplish something in your life it’s not a lack of desire
    3:11:31 like if you want to be more creative it’s not a lack of desire it’s a lack of identity like you’re like
    3:11:35 the fact that you went you were comfortable about saying creative it’s because there’s a lack of
    3:11:40 identity there you have lots of desire you got to get the identity up and then suddenly you’re you’re
    3:11:45 making you’re making shit so i a friend of mine from mexico she comes over i have to stop smoking
    3:11:51 my doctor said i have to stop smoking for my health so i have to i’m not smoking right now so i’ve been
    3:11:55 smoking since i was eight years old he said well you’re gonna go back to smoking because you just
    3:12:00 told me your identity is a smoker so right now you’re a smoker who’s not smoking what’s gonna happen
    3:12:06 eventually you have to say i’m a non-smoker you know like just that that lesson i’ve forgotten
    3:12:11 you have to say i’m a non-smoker i’m a non-smoker it’s what does a non-smoker do if you believe you’re
    3:12:16 a non-smoker you hate smoke start choking at the smell of smoke okay i’ll try that she walks off
    3:12:23 i go shit i forgot about my own i wonder where in my life i could apply that working out of course my
    3:12:28 god i hate working out no wonder i am so miserable i’ll tell my trainer and anyone who will listen
    3:12:35 i can’t stand working out i don’t understand sports so that day i said i’m an athlete i’m an
    3:12:41 athlete yeah that’s the last thing i would ever call myself all through my entire life this was 2012
    3:12:49 i’m an athlete by the next day not only did my life completely change and it’s easier if it’s opposite
    3:12:54 day like if you’re just doing it by degrees that’s bullshit you got to go complete opposite
    3:13:00 because if there’s like a donut you know if you say well i’m gonna only half of it you got to go
    3:13:06 no i’m gonna get an apple opposite day much easier not only did i change my life working out i didn’t
    3:13:11 ever needed a trainer i have not had a trainer since all those years because i’m an athlete i’ll just do
    3:13:17 what does an athlete do an athlete loves working out an athlete will make time to work out and they’ll
    3:13:22 eat right i was i would never be the person that would call themselves an athlete but that’s how much
    3:13:28 it can change your life by changing your identity so if you want to be more creative you’ve you’ve
    3:13:32 already got that in your that desire you’ve got enough of that you don’t need more desire you need
    3:13:38 more identity so you got to say i’m a creative person with a straight face with a straight face so
    3:13:42 when i say hey are you going to be are you a creative person you go yeah because then if you say
    3:13:46 that what do you do you’re going to do more creative stuff because that’s what a creative person does
    3:13:50 it doesn’t make sense to me how manifesting works but it does seem to work like basically
    3:13:56 visualizing visualizing a path towards a certain kind of future i guess everything around you
    3:14:02 everything within you kind of makes way for that makes way for the possibility of that it’s weird
    3:14:06 it’s weird but it kind of it’s a kind of a nice to know that you can do that but you have to just
    3:14:14 have that conviction and just say start with a label yeah the r yeah the double r or the label you just
    3:14:19 give yourself like i changed my label my label was i hate working out i’m an athlete i’m an athlete i’m
    3:14:24 not a non-athlete anymore i’m changing my label and you get so inspired because now you know what to do
    3:14:29 because you can’t help but conform to your identity you’re always going to conform to your identity so
    3:14:33 just change your identity and you’ll change your life but and it’s not that hard i didn’t have to go
    3:14:38 get hypnotized or anything it was literally i just told myself if i could do that go from a guy who
    3:14:43 doesn’t want to work out hates it hates it i had the desire i was already hiring the guy
    3:14:48 i lacked the identity as soon as i changed my identity boom well one of the things for me like
    3:14:52 that is probably music just playing guitar are you a musician yeah music
    3:15:00 i would definitely not i mean i’m i’m going along with it now but if we’re honestly if we’re just
    3:15:04 you wouldn’t have said i wouldn’t have said but i heard you rip on fucking guitar and i’ve heard you
    3:15:09 play it kind of amazing in all different kinds of contexts oh but i i should be like freaking
    3:15:13 santana by now because i’ve had a guitar in my hands since i was a kid but since i’m not a full-time
    3:15:21 musician i don’t get to play it that often so i’m not as good as i should be but you know when you
    3:15:26 apply yourself to just rehearse for you know a couple shows you book some shows look at this this is me
    3:15:32 just like playing our first arena show opening for george lopez that was crazy to be on the stages
    3:15:37 where you’re heroes that you saw them now you’re seeing what their point of view was it blows your
    3:15:41 mind you need to just get on stage you get on stage once and you’ll see that it’s not as bad as you
    3:15:45 think you’re not you’re not like terrified because you’re playing pretty complicated things i’ve seen
    3:15:50 you play live yeah and i mess up a bunch of times but you don’t want to focus on that and you just go
    3:15:54 like okay i got it through because when you’re up there it’s not that you’re like screaming nervous but
    3:15:58 your hands will just won’t work anymore something will happen but that happens to everybody if you
    3:16:03 really watch even the best in their live performances watch really close and you see they screw up a
    3:16:07 couple things but you just want to notice they just go right through it it’s like it’s about the live
    3:16:14 performance and that’s how you know it’s real so i think if you can really just lean into it more
    3:16:18 change really work on the identity part because you’ve got the desire you want to play guitar
    3:16:25 but as soon as you say yeah but i can’t play live you just chopped off your leg at the start of the
    3:16:32 race if you say i i don’t know you just chopped off your you’re doing this to yourself yeah you’re
    3:16:37 literally doing this to yourself i mean just you i mean anybody who’s just like who pauses who hesitates
    3:16:42 you don’t have to have doubts why would you have a doubt because you know the process now it’s like
    3:16:46 if i don’t know how to do something i know how to figure it out like i didn’t know how i was going to do
    3:16:52 that scene with him jumping and flipping i didn’t know that but do i have doubt that i’m going to go
    3:16:57 in there and be able to do it if you if you say that you do you now you’re a doubtful person that’s
    3:17:01 how powerful that is but if you say no i don’t have any doubt because i know i’m going to figure it out
    3:17:07 when i get there somehow it’ll fall in my lap i trust the process you don’t have to you don’t have
    3:17:12 to know so if you trust the process that you’ll figure it out but here’s the thing like sometimes
    3:17:18 you fail and there’s audience yeah then you get four rooms yeah yeah and then what happens
    3:17:22 right don’t blink is the don’t blink and then you go sift through the failure yeah exactly you go wait
    3:17:27 a minute what did i get out of that yeah i’ve done that a bunch it’s great look what’s the worst that
    3:17:32 can happen you go on a stage and you bomb it’s not going to be the first stage and it’s one of those you
    3:17:36 can talk about so that when you do the next one and it all sometimes they all go right i’ve had a
    3:17:42 couple shows we did we did a couple shows where we had video cameras set up for the second day let’s
    3:17:46 say let’s not film the first day because we’re going to be freaking just finding our feet let’s film the
    3:17:54 second day first day it was fucking flawless flawless because no cameras it’s like you just go second day
    3:17:59 we’re we weren’t as into it as we had just done it it felt like the second take you know it just didn’t
    3:18:04 have magic and that’s the one that’s recorded and we’re like oh kicking ourselves we didn’t film
    3:18:11 both nights we should have filmed both nights i love how much of a mess this human existence life
    3:18:18 is yeah uh you’ve talked about the importance of journaling because so living is reliving i love
    3:18:23 that phrase i came up with that because it’s like wow i see so many people who get after you for like
    3:18:29 filming a concert and they go live in the moment i’m like dude counterintuitive the moment goes by like
    3:18:35 this yeah we’re not gonna remember any of this the fact that we taped it thank god because later on
    3:18:39 it’s gonna be a file photo of me remembering you three pound me computer all i’m gonna have is a file
    3:18:46 photo you may be in a suit and you picturing me and maybe a black t-shirt and the metadata narrative is
    3:18:52 gonna say had a great talk about if we remember creativity you know like your brain doesn’t remember
    3:18:59 but when i pull up old home movies like show my kids that i just found and they’re like they don’t
    3:19:05 remember it i don’t remember filming it and it’s like new adventures of it becomes iconic and it sticks
    3:19:09 in our head and all our jokes are based on old things that we used to do and say so reliving living is
    3:19:13 reliving so keeping a journal is very important because i found that anything that passed 15 years
    3:19:17 on it’s like i’m reading someone else’s journal i’m like i didn’t even know that’s where i got that
    3:19:22 i thought i bought that guitar it was given to me it’s like a ten thousand dollars santana it was
    3:19:27 given to me my birthday by the studio that i made that movie how did i not remember that it’s like
    3:19:32 crazy what you don’t remember and it’s the brain is very it’s not a it’s not a very you know reliable
    3:19:38 computer it’s it’s made out of freaking butter that’s a really profound idea that so much of our life
    3:19:45 is lived through replaying our memories and then watching stuff is a one of the ways to sort of
    3:19:52 refresh give some more you know texture and details makes it iconic it makes it iconic in
    3:19:57 your life and part of your life otherwise it just went by it went by like i’ll ask people like we
    3:20:02 just had a really what did we do last week what did we do last wednesday i can tell you because i wrote
    3:20:07 it down but i’m gonna remember and and then when you see when you go through your journal like i go
    3:20:14 back and i find wow life-changing thing happened friday another life-changing thing i didn’t know at the
    3:20:20 time until now i know that that really set me on him happened saturday and another big freaking thing
    3:20:25 happened on sunday like they come in threes sometime you start being able to predict the future a little
    3:20:31 bit because you you see the patterns and it’s pretty wild to do that and i i’ve i’ve talked to people
    3:20:35 big group of people 500 people how many people hear journal
    3:20:41 two hands three hands i couldn’t believe it it’s like man you guys if there’s anything i’m going to
    3:20:45 part on you is journal your life is way more interesting than you think because it’s not going
    3:20:49 to feel like anything while it’s going by but in retrospect you look back like i can just go through
    3:20:57 i keep a journal one file per year so i started a new one in 2025 if i want to look up like i’m going
    3:21:02 to do a director’s chair episode i look up michael man michael man michael man all the conversations
    3:21:07 we had since 94 that i wrote down that i felt and it’s like oh my god i can’t believe we said that
    3:21:11 that’s how i knew about that thing with quentin i had forgotten about that story with quentin saying
    3:21:16 ah pulp fiction i had forgotten that because from the moment i asked him that question to the success
    3:21:22 at can was very quick so it was a lost moment in time where i had it recorded down to the time down
    3:21:26 of the hour when i asked him that question he thought it wasn’t he didn’t think that was the
    3:21:33 one for him yeah and there’s a i don’t know when it when it’s private journaling there’s an honesty
    3:21:37 there’s an innocence that about like the dreams you have about the future the conceptions you have
    3:21:42 about the future i mean that’s what this thing is journal is a journal it’s just a journalist like
    3:21:47 but the profundity like comes out of it’s crazy yeah you didn’t and so much i figured out then i was
    3:21:51 i’m talking like a professor by the end of that like i have people come up to me and they’re
    3:21:55 asking me all these questions about stuff i wrote in there and i’m like i wrote that in that book
    3:22:01 shit i was smart back then what happened i don’t remember half of that but i think that it’s the
    3:22:07 same thing when you go to teach someone your mouth opens and stuff comes out i i’m always taping myself
    3:22:13 like when i go to give a talk because that’s also the pipe working someone else is talking to you
    3:22:18 sometimes so the act of sharing that’s why i’ve always liked to share information because the feedback
    3:22:24 loop is insane like me inspiring daisy dj to go right he writes the script in three days comes
    3:22:29 back tells me now i’m doing that method and it’s like wow people come back with their version and i
    3:22:36 love telling my kids stuff that i learned that i wish i could tell myself but i can’t take a time
    3:22:40 tell your kid because then they can take that information and process so many times they’ve come
    3:22:46 back and said wow dad that lesson you taught us about this is really it’s really become big in our minds
    3:22:52 yeah what was that and they tell me i’m like i never told you that they said yeah you told us well i told you
    3:22:57 maybe 10 of that all the rest you added oh yeah well we embellished it over like they turned it into
    3:23:04 something else and it’s like wow that’s so cool but yeah that thing about reliving like that was a
    3:23:10 one of my favorite was just yeah my mom turning 75 and not wanting to do anything for her 75th birthday
    3:23:14 i said why not she goes the whole family’s gonna you have 10 kids they’re all gonna want to do something
    3:23:19 for your 75th birthday nothing can top my 65th i was like what are we doing your fifth 65th i didn’t
    3:23:24 remember even i’m the one who orchestrated it all she goes oh you flew everyone in from all over the
    3:23:32 country you gave me a car i gotta have a journal of that so i’m sure i have video i go back 10 years
    3:23:39 i see what tape i had it on find the tape pop the tape in forgot about all this stuff so i cut together
    3:23:45 a 10 minute version of it showed it at her 75th birthday just watching the old one everybody was like
    3:23:51 oh my god look how young everybody was like how small the nieces and nephews were she starts bawling
    3:23:56 as soon as she gets the key the gift of the key in the video because she realizes now what it’s going
    3:24:02 to mean that she’s going to get this car and so it’s like wow let’s just play the old tapes we don’t
    3:24:09 even have to do anything anymore we banked so much amazing stuff that we’ve all forgotten that you know my
    3:24:14 kids just love watching their old home movies they they hardly remember any of it but
    3:24:22 even a vhs to them is virtual reality because compared to our memories it is virtual reality
    3:24:26 they’re like leaning into the screen to see what’s around the corner and they’re remembering the place
    3:24:32 and the sounds and they say oh we left the we left the living room it’s like we’re there
    3:24:37 it’s like wow i was always afraid they would see this old footage and go ah that dog shit
    3:24:41 kind of camera was that this is the limitations of you know you put up one of those files on your
    3:24:46 screen it’s like this big on your laptop now that’s how low res shit was back then but that
    3:24:51 didn’t matter it’s like compared to our memories that stuff living is reliving like pull up that
    3:24:56 shoot as much as you can take as many pictures but write the journal because you’ll have a picture
    3:24:59 swear you’re not going to know what it’s from even 10 years from now you want to know what that picture
    3:25:04 is from you read the diary oh that’s what that is oh my god you can piece together all these things
    3:25:09 that are important to you or that become more important with time actually and uh you know
    3:25:14 what’s important later compared to what’s happening at the time to add on top of that so journaling is
    3:25:20 a kind of raw or like home films is a raw projection of what’s going on in the moment i think it’s also
    3:25:26 really powerful because i’ve done that is to do a high effort description of where your life is for
    3:25:31 you just for yourself so sometimes journaling is like low effort yeah sometimes it’s just i just want
    3:25:34 to mark that you know we had this conversation i had to go do something at five i did that
    3:25:38 met somebody that i know last night i met somebody that’s going to be life changing i’m going to write
    3:25:43 a little bit more on that because i could just now i know but i’m going to just record it so later if i
    3:25:48 look it up so one of the cool things you could do is you know like for example somebody uh uh jamie mr
    3:25:53 beast does does these videos which are great i think i think it’s a great exercise to do for yourself
    3:25:59 which is a video he records uh for himself that he doesn’t look at to be published 20 years from now
    3:26:04 this is a message to myself 20 years from now here’s where i hope you end up
    3:26:09 you’re basically a younger version of yourself speaking to an older version yeah and then you
    3:26:14 get you know time flies and like you get to a point where it’s like holy shit it has been 10 years has
    3:26:20 been 20 years you get to listen to a younger version of yourself like you it would have been hilarious if
    3:26:25 you shot videos like that to yourself because it was just like the incredible journey your career has
    3:26:32 been on and just to think about that like the delta the difference between what your dreams were where you
    3:26:38 ended up usually you outdo yourself in many ways sometimes your life goes in a totally different
    3:26:47 trajectory that’s um and the result is kind of funny it’s a it’s a nice it’s a nice illustration of the
    3:26:52 non-linearity of life i i would film stuff like that with my kids i couldn’t do it but i would film my
    3:26:58 kids saying hey turn to the camera now and say hey rebel it’s me rebel rebel in the future yeah
    3:27:03 so you have shots like that yeah and then they show them like cool like that 10 years later and they’re
    3:27:09 like whoa just to see it talking to them and saying yeah and uh i would do this thing where
    3:27:17 i would film them watching it and then pan off so that 10 years later i could get
    3:27:22 hey rebel him reacting pan off to the new rebel watching it it’s just like keeps going so i have
    3:27:26 one like that where it just keeps panning and they’re watching themselves within the movie within
    3:27:30 the movie within the movie it’s like an ongoing project you know it’s just so fun to just play with
    3:27:40 memory and make you realize how fast time moves and to go they go like i kind of remember that but i
    3:27:46 don’t remember being that tiny yeah i had that memory it’s like wild how time moves and it makes
    3:27:53 them feel much more precious about how quick time moves and how important every little moment is
    3:27:58 because you see the fragility of it too you know does it make you sad break your heart that you know
    3:28:04 the number of memories we get to create is finite that this life ends eventually the story is over
    3:28:10 i had this theory i’m gonna put this in a movie i don’t think i’ve ever seen this before because i
    3:28:14 was woke up from a dream and it was like trying to remember it you know you’re like god it’s so
    3:28:21 so real if you don’t write it down right away right it kind of fades away but you while you’re
    3:28:27 dreaming it it’s really real it’s like you can almost see the walls by the time i went to go tell
    3:28:31 somebody it’s like shit i forgot most of it but i wonder if that’s what it’s like when you wake up
    3:28:36 in your consciousness after you die you wake up in your next consciousness getting ready to move
    3:28:42 into whatever your next body is and you’re like wow i was a filmmaker had five kids
    3:28:50 and oh well i’m gonna be a fish now it’s like it’s like a dream it’s like that gone that way
    3:28:55 and it’s like that’s what past lives are they’re like distant memories like a dream that’s faded away
    3:29:00 that’s why you barely feel remnants of it do i feel sad about that when i tell people they flip out
    3:29:05 when i tell them that yeah like i said i want a character to be like that like he’s dying he’s
    3:29:09 like i don’t want to forget this dream i don’t want to forget don’t let me wake up don’t let me wake
    3:29:14 up but you forget especially the moment you try to tell somebody yeah until the next fish yeah the
    3:29:21 next is there’ll be a fish next but uh uh yeah yeah like it feels like i’m a little sad about it but
    3:29:25 then it just makes you even more double down to be precious about the life you’re in now
    3:29:28 what do you think is the meaning recorded recorded what do you think is the meaning of this
    3:29:37 whole thing of life why are we here i mean i really feel like uh my kids and i were just
    3:29:42 talking about this last night we were just blown away we did this asterian astrology thing was the
    3:29:50 oldest form of astrology just nails each person and it’s like yeah because when you have a kid
    3:29:55 you realize right away this isn’t my kid this is not my i’m just in charge of him it’s a completely
    3:30:00 different soul he’s a different soul that ended up in my hands it’s not there’s physical characteristics
    3:30:06 that get passed on because of just how biology works even sometimes posture and movement is the same
    3:30:11 but the actual person is somebody else and all the kids i have five kids and i had nine brothers and
    3:30:18 sisters they’re all different and you realize we made a pact in a past life to gather together
    3:30:25 because every time it’s like so good you were born in this family because you were given free reign to
    3:30:30 go find who you’re really supposed to be and you and you find out everyone is doing what they were supposed
    3:30:37 to be doing but what’s cool almost like this clarity you get by just saying it they now know that they were
    3:30:41 always supposed to be like this creative person or that and now they can double down on it because they know
    3:30:45 that’s who they were supposed to be they don’t have to have any doubt anymore they don’t have to wonder well
    3:30:50 am i supposed to be more business minded or can i be creative isn’t that some kind of frivolous is that
    3:30:55 a real job can i do that um now they realize no you’re supposed to be doing that for these these these
    3:31:00 these reasons and now they can double down you can skip all that and just decide i feel like i want to be
    3:31:06 that person so i’m just going to declare i am that person and as soon as you say it you are that
    3:31:15 and tomorrow your your activities will conform to that that’s how powerful that decision is so when
    3:31:21 you walk out of here it’s going to be with a complete commitment i’m a technical and creative
    3:31:27 person like my first boss i’m unstoppable because my boss told me that and he was right
    3:31:32 i became technical and creative and you’re just unstoppable you can just keep going and just go
    3:31:37 i’m unstoppable that’s me you’re going to use your powers for bad but you’ve just changed your
    3:31:43 life by just declaring that and i’m also a creative person who lives his life creatively i’m going to find
    3:31:49 creative ways to use that technology if somebody says you’re not the same kind of artist i was expecting
    3:31:55 that’s their own opinion don’t blink just keep going you know all these things that you’ve learned
    3:32:00 that people were supposed to tell you along the way they’re telling you for a reason anytime you got
    3:32:05 pushed like if you go back to your life at your really critical moments in your life
    3:32:10 where you went that way instead of that way there was probably somebody there who said something to
    3:32:17 you that kind of pushed you i there was a there was one guy when i was in high school it was like
    3:32:23 senior year i wrote a paper and i wasn’t a great writer at all i wrote a paper for a latin american
    3:32:30 studies class gave it to the teacher and uh he said wow you you’re going to be rich and famous in four
    3:32:39 years based on what i read because i really flight home like 17 or 18 four years later i’ve done
    3:32:44 mariachi and i went to him later at a reunion and i said you called it you said i was gonna be why did
    3:32:48 you say that and he’s like i said that i don’t say it looked like he would never say that to somebody
    3:32:53 you think he would own it and say oh yeah i knew and i told you no he was like you look like he didn’t
    3:32:58 even know who that was asking i feel like he never would have said that in a million years so again
    3:33:02 sometimes things come out of our mouth that’s not us that comes through us so if you think of it that
    3:33:09 way why are we here we’re here for a reason we’re gonna get nudged along listen to the signs own who
    3:33:13 you’re supposed to be because you’re you are that person don’t let your human doubt get in the way
    3:33:17 that’s like the guy closing the pipe i don’t know if i’m really creative i don’t know if i’m really a
    3:33:23 businessman and you’re just closing the pipe you’re not gonna let it flow just be a good pipe just say i just
    3:33:29 want to be a i just want to be a good pipe clean open and then that’s when the magic happens and no
    3:33:35 matter what don’t blink don’t blink no matter how many that dude was getting so much shit thrown at
    3:33:39 him i wish you knew that time period because then you would you would go like yeah that’s right it’s
    3:33:43 incredible it was unbelievable i can’t even convey there was no internet and stuff back then this was
    3:33:51 like literal press reviews public it was like why are they targeting this guy you know they just did not
    3:33:58 like he just had unprecedented success and was a really great guy and was making amazing shit so it was
    3:34:05 the the triple threat of make people jealous you know pissed off well he’s one of the great artists of all time
    3:34:11 so are you it’s a huge honor to talk to you thank you for everything you’re doing in the world for creating
    3:34:16 the world and for inspiring millions of people to also be creators in the world and for your new project that’s
    3:34:21 bringing people in robert i’m as i told you i’m a huge fan i appreciate that honor to talk to you
    3:34:26 brother so great talking with you great questions you’re gonna change your life thank you a million
    3:34:32 dollars yeah right there thank you for listening to this conversation with robert rodriguez to support
    3:34:37 this podcast please check out our sponsors in the description and now let me leave you with some
    3:34:47 words from alfred hitchcock in feature films the director is god in documentary films god is the director
    3:34:51 thank you for listening and hope to see you next time
    3:35:21 Thank you.

    Robert Rodriguez is a legendary filmmaker and creator of Sin City, El Mariachi, Desperado, Spy Kids, Machete, From Dusk Till Dawn, Alita: Battle Angel, The Faculty, and his newest venture Brass Knuckle Films.
    Thank you for listening ❤ Check out our sponsors: https://lexfridman.com/sponsors/ep465-sc
    See below for timestamps, transcript, and to give feedback, submit questions, contact Lex, etc.

    Transcript:
    https://lexfridman.com/robert-rodriguez-transcript

    CONTACT LEX:
    Feedback – give feedback to Lex: https://lexfridman.com/survey
    AMA – submit questions, videos or call-in: https://lexfridman.com/ama
    Hiring – join our team: https://lexfridman.com/hiring
    Other – other ways to get in touch: https://lexfridman.com/contact

    EPISODE LINKS:
    Robert’s X: https://x.com/rodriguez
    Robert’s Instagram: https://instagram.com/rodriguez/
    Brass Knuckle Films: https://brassknucklefilms.com/
    Rebel without a Crew (book): https://amzn.to/3G7gtQJ
    Rebel without a Crew (audiobook): https://amzn.to/3Ri5wyc

    SPONSORS:
    To support this podcast, check out our sponsors & get discounts:
    Invideo AI: AI video generator.
    Go to https://invideo.io/i/lexpod
    Brain.fm: Music for focus.
    Go to https://brain.fm/lex
    NetSuite: Business management software.
    Go to http://netsuite.com/lex
    Shopify: Sell stuff online.
    Go to https://shopify.com/lex
    LMNT: Zero-sugar electrolyte drink mix.
    Go to https://drinkLMNT.com/lex

    OUTLINE:
    (00:00) – Introduction
    (10:04) – Explosions and having only one take
    (17:39) – Success and failure
    (26:28) – Filmmaking on a low budget
    (38:41) – El Mariachi
    (50:10) – Creativity
    (1:12:06) – Limitations
    (1:18:22) – Handling criticism
    (1:34:32) – Action films
    (1:45:53) – Quentin Tarantino
    (1:55:52) – Desperado
    (1:56:54) – Salma Hayek
    (2:01:40) – Danny Trejo
    (2:06:55) – Filming in Austin
    (2:13:05) – Editing
    (2:22:35) – Sound design
    (2:27:43) – Deadlines
    (2:31:14) – Alita: Battle Angel
    (2:39:36) – James Cameron
    (2:52:39) – Sin City
    (3:06:48) – Manifesting
    (3:18:12) – Memories and journaling
    (3:27:56) – Mortality

    PODCAST LINKS:
    – Podcast Website: https://lexfridman.com/podcast
    – Apple Podcasts: https://apple.co/2lwqZIr
    – Spotify: https://spoti.fi/2nEwCF8
    – RSS: https://lexfridman.com/feed/podcast/
    – Podcast Playlist: https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLrAXtmErZgOdP_8GztsuKi9nrraNbKKp4
    – Clips Channel: https://www.youtube.com/lexclips

  • #464 – Dave Smith: Israel, Ukraine, Epstein, Mossad, Conspiracies & Antisemitism

    #464 – Dave Smith: Israel, Ukraine, Epstein, Mossad, Conspiracies & Antisemitism

    AI transcript
    0:00:05 The following is a conversation with Dave Smith, an outspoken and at times controversial anti-war
    0:00:13 libertarian, comedian, and podcast host. And now a quick few second mention of each sponsor.
    0:00:18 Check them out in the description. It’s the best way to support this podcast. We got Call of Duty
    0:00:27 for Video Game Fun, Tax Network USA for figuring out your tax problems, Notion for collaborating
    0:00:32 with your mates, and integrating AI in the whole process. Shopify for selling stuff online and
    0:00:39 BetterHelp for figuring out the problems of your mind. Choose wisely, my friends. If you’re watching
    0:00:44 or listening to this on Spotify, I decided to start putting the same ad reads for me at the
    0:00:49 beginnings I do on Apple Podcasts and the RSS feed, since a lot of folks in the survey said
    0:00:57 that they actually like the random non-sequitur, weird, strange, chaotic things I talk about.
    0:01:02 In these ad reads. And they said that they would be happy to skip when they don’t feel like
    0:01:09 listening. I do make it easy to skip with timestamps on screen and in the description. And I’m not
    0:01:15 adding ads in the middle. So hopefully this whole thing works for you. Let’s see. I do try to make
    0:01:20 the ad reads interesting and personal, often related to stuff I’m reading or thinking about. But if you
    0:01:26 skip them, please still check out our sponsors. I’m grateful for them. Sign up. Buy their stuff.
    0:01:33 Whatever it is. I enjoy it. Maybe you will too. Also, if you want to get in touch with me for
    0:01:38 whatever reason, go to lexfuman.com slash contact. And now, onto the full ad reads. Let’s go.
    0:01:48 This episode is brought to you by Call of Duty, Warzone, Cue Music, and the return of the iconic
    0:01:56 Verdansk map. It is out now. The wait is over. Verdansk is back. This reminds me of how much I like
    0:02:03 Schwarzenegger movies. I’ve been talking back and forth with Robert Rodriguez, who is a legendary
    0:02:12 filmmaker, in part for the action movies he creates, in part for the improvisational genius
    0:02:17 that he has. Anyway, talking to him, learning about him, thinking about his work, and watching
    0:02:25 his work reminded me how much I love action films. And I think of Call of Duty, given its realism.
    0:02:33 As an action movie, I can be a part of. I can be inside of. I can participate in. I can tell the
    0:02:38 story of the movie with my own actions. You can download Call of Duty, Warzone for free, and drop
    0:02:45 into the Verdansk map now. Rated M for Mature. I don’t know why I’m doing the movie announcer voice,
    0:02:50 but let’s keep going with it. This episode is brought to you by Tax Network USA, a new sponsor.
    0:02:58 An awesome sponsor. A full-service tax firm focused on solving tax problems for individuals and small
    0:03:06 businesses. I just did a really, really, really deep dive on theoretical computer science. I shouldn’t
    0:03:12 say with who. One of the most brilliant people I’ve ever met. Super technical episodes. Super long
    0:03:17 episode. Anyway, P versus MP came out briefly. It’s not their thing, but it is a thing I’ve thought
    0:03:25 about for many years. Of course, it’s the elephant in the room of theoretical computer science. So
    0:03:31 I took a lot of courses on complexity and always loved the puzzles of algorithms, of data structures,
    0:03:37 of proving various things about algorithms. I love that field. Anyway, I mentioned that because when I
    0:03:46 think about the United States tax code, what I think about is complexity. And I wonder there’ll be a
    0:03:55 future when AI will be unleashed on that tax code and will be used to simplify it. There’s nothing that
    0:04:04 brings more joy to me than taking a complicated thing that makes a lot of people’s lives super painful
    0:04:12 and simplifying it. And therefore, helping those people have less pain in their lives. And I think
    0:04:18 the US tax code is the source of probably more pain in the United States than anything else. Anyway,
    0:04:25 you want to have really great people to help you deal with that pain, essentially, to relieve you of that
    0:04:32 pain, to relieve you of that stress. That burden can be the heaviest of burdens. Anything financial
    0:04:39 related could just break you. So great professionals that work on taxes are really a gift to the world.
    0:04:51 Anyway, talk with one of their strategists for free today. Call 1-800-958-1000 or go to tmusa.com
    0:04:57 slash lex. This episode is also brought to you by Notion, a note-taking and team collaboration tool.
    0:05:04 They have been integrating AI better than basically any company I’ve seen. Always at the cutting edge,
    0:05:09 always thinking how AI could be actually used to solve practical problems. Not for a prototype,
    0:05:15 not for a demo, not for a thing to post on X, look at the cool thing I did, but actually make you
    0:05:20 productive at the thing you do at the individual level and at the team collaboration level. This
    0:05:27 really is the problem. AI should not just be a thing that makes you dream of the possibilities of what’s
    0:05:33 to come. It should be a thing that just makes your life easier every single day. And despite what
    0:05:38 people think, it’s actually not that easy to integrate AI in this kind of way because human
    0:05:44 intelligence, human ingenuity, the speed at which we’re able to figure out a puzzle and know the next
    0:05:54 hop from the puzzle, you know, the tab, tab, tab, tab vibe coding thing, but applied to document
    0:05:59 collaboration, document development, document summarization, all that kind of stuff. That’s
    0:06:04 what Notion is incredible at. You could try Notion AI for free when you go to notion.com slash lex. That’s
    0:06:12 all lowercase notion.com slash lex to try the power of Notion AI today. This episode is also brought to
    0:06:19 you by Shopify, a platform designed for anyone to sell anywhere with a great looking online store.
    0:06:28 I’ve recently returned to Nietzsche. And I wonder, what is the Nietzschean concept that explains the
    0:06:38 will of the entrepreneur? What is that? Is that trying to reach for power? Is it trying to reach for
    0:06:48 immortality? Is it trying to find the meaning of existence in the creative act? There is something
    0:06:55 deeply creative, of course, to the entrepreneurial pursuit. It is fundamentally creative. It feels
    0:07:04 like pain, right? It feels like risk. It feels like chasing money. It feels like chasing impact or having a
    0:07:13 positive influence on people’s lives. But when you’re in it, I think about Johnny Ive, when you’re in it, at your
    0:07:19 best, what you’re doing is you’re creating. And that’s probably what Nietzsche would say. It probably is
    0:07:27 the creative act is the drug, the joy, the will that pulls at the entrepreneurial heart.
    0:07:36 Sign up for a $1 per month trial period at shopify.com slash lex. All lowercase, go to shopify.com slash lex to
    0:07:42 and take your business to the next level today. This episode is also brought to you by BetterHelp,
    0:07:53 spelled H-E-L-P, help. Since we mentioned Nietzsche, I must go to maybe another intellect called Jung and
    0:08:02 the shadow, the archetypes. I wonder how much of our existence is trying to contend with the
    0:08:12 uniqueness of the person we see in the mirror. And the bin society puts us in. There is something
    0:08:20 about especially the American spirit that resists categorization, the binning process. And in that
    0:08:33 tension, I think a lot of dark stuff can emerge. Resentment, regret, depression, the gap between
    0:08:43 expectation and reality. Added with some neurotransmitter malfunctioning sprinkled on top.
    0:08:53 Boy, is the human mind wonderful and a terrifying machine that can destroy itself. Anyway, BetterHelp
    0:09:02 is a nice first step to try to avert the coming storm. Check them out at betterhelp.com slash lex and
    0:09:09 save on your first month. That’s betterhelp.com slash lex. This is the Lex Friedman podcast. To support it,
    0:09:15 please check out our sponsors in the description. And now, dear friends, here’s Dave Smith.
    0:09:39 You are a longtime libertarian, perhaps an anarcho-capitalist. We can talk about that. Can you
    0:09:46 explain the different variants, flavors of libertarianism and where you stand among those
    0:09:46 variants?
    0:09:52 Yeah. So there’s almost like anything like with left-wing schools of thought or right-wing schools
    0:09:58 of thought, there’s many different camps and different thinkers. And so within the kind of broader
    0:10:05 theme of libertarianism, there was a lot of influence from people like Ayn Rand, Milton Friedman, Thomas
    0:10:11 Soule. Those were, I think, some of the more mainstream figures. And then there’s kind of like the Ron
    0:10:16 Paul brand of libertarianism, which is kind of distinct from that other camp where they’re much more of an
    0:10:24 emphasis on foreign policy. All of them kind of fall into the radical minarchist points of view. And then
    0:10:31 there’s Rothbardian anarcho-capitalist. Then there’s also like David Friedman, who’s an anarcho-capitalist,
    0:10:36 but from a completely different perspective than Murray Rothbard. I would probably be most, I’m most
    0:10:42 closely like with the Rothbard school, which is very similar to Ron Paul, but even maybe a little bit
    0:10:47 further in that, you know, the very little bit of government that Ron Paul might support.
    0:10:50 You’ve been a big fan of Ron Paul. Can you explain what you admire about him?
    0:10:55 A big fan is an understatement. I think Ron Paul is like the greatest living American hero.
    0:11:04 I revere him on the level of the founding fathers, Thomas Jefferson or George Washington.
    0:11:13 Number one, I mean, all of the major issues that he was correct in his understanding of them,
    0:11:20 his diagnosis of what caused these problems and his solutions. And in hindsight, there’s just like
    0:11:25 a million different examples of where almost everybody today would agree, even though his
    0:11:29 ideas were very controversial at the time, be like, Oh my God, if we had just listened to Ron Paul
    0:11:34 about that, we’d be so much better off. But I think there’s something almost deeper than that about
    0:11:58 why, so why Ron Paul inspires so much love from so many people is okay. So number one, the guy, he was a champion of these views for decades when there was no payoff for it at all, where he was just kind of alone in the woods being, you know, they used to call him Dr. No, because, well, he was a medical doctor.
    0:12:12 And then he was, he would be the lone, no vote in Congress, like all the time, like on the bills that the entire Congress bipartisan agreement, everything is. And there’s one vote against it, you know? And that he would be that guy.
    0:12:38 He clearly kept doing what he was doing simply because he believed it was right, not because there was any benefit for him. In fact, he dealt with a lot of headaches for the views that he had. And then he was just a genuine person of integrity. You know, he’s the only, uh, congressman who I’ve ever heard this about. And, and like DC insiders, people on the Hill will say this. He was the only congressman of my lifetime who the lobbyists simply stopped visiting.
    0:12:56 He was the only one who they just stopped going to his office because they were just like, there’s just no getting through to this guy. He was just not playing politics like that. And he was, you know, you, you imagine what it must’ve been like from like the lobbyist perspective when they first tried to go there, you know, and they’d be like, all right, listen, we really need you to, you know, vote yes on this or that.
    0:13:16 And he was like, the constitution doesn’t authorize us to do that. And they’re like, what? Like who, who in this town even talks like that? You know? And so there was just, he’s also just, I’ve, I’ve met him, uh, many times at this point. And he is just genuinely, he’s like one of those guys who’s just from like an older, better generation.
    0:13:32 Just, just, he’s the sweetest guy, but he’s like, uh, but he’s not a pushover. Like he was a tough guy in his day and he was an athlete and he was in the air force and is married to the same woman for, I think over 60 years at this point has like a big, beautiful family.
    0:13:56 He was a country doctor. He was a baby doctor who delivered thousands of babies. Like he’s just, it is, he’s like this kind of classic American figure. And, um, you know, I just think, uh, you know, at the risk of, of falling into like hero worship or something like that, I do think he’s a, I think he’s a genuinely great man. And I think great men are to be revered.
    0:14:10 Yeah. As you said, there’s integrity there. Can you speak to the ideas that Ron Paul represents? Like he says, some of the things he’s been right about, maybe can you speak about the economics, the fed and maybe war and being anti-military intervention?
    0:14:26 Well, I think it comes, it all came from kind of the same central thesis, which is that the highest political value ought to be liberty. Um, and, and that, you know, the government by its very nature is an instrument of force and tyranny.
    0:14:41 And that therefore the more government you have, the less liberty you have. Um, I think he also was, he was way ahead of his time in, in like really calling out the corruption in DC.
    0:15:04 And I think that’s one of the things that’s kind of, that it’s a common through line between the federal reserve and, um, government spending. And of course this crazy war industry that our country has, um, there, so there, there’s a lot of components to that, but essentially Ron Paul was talking about draining the swamp way before it was like this dominant mass message.
    0:15:29 And I think Ron Paul in many ways laid down, he laid the groundwork in his 2008 and 2012 presidential campaigns for not, not saying that he leads to Donald Trump, but he laid the groundwork for Donald Trump to be able to get up at the South Carolina Republican primary debate and look at Jeb Bush and say, your brother lied us into war.
    0:15:45 And you know what I mean? And, and, and, and to have the Republicans agree with him, you know, the same, these were a lot of the same people who had voted for George W. Bush twice and supported the war and even mocked their liberal, you know, fellow countrymen for not being on board with it.
    0:16:07 And, and, and a lot of that was the work that Ron Paul did and people waking up to, um, the, how, how messed up all these wars were. And I think that at least from, there were a couple of major things for me. Okay. At the time. So I was like a, I was a young man when I first found Ron Paul. I was, I was in a 2007 was when I first saw him and then started obsessively reading all of his books.
    0:16:24 And so I, I was young. I’m born in 83. So what would that mean? 23, 24, uh, when I first found him. So I was a young guy. And at least for me at the time, there were like kind of two categories in my, you know, naive mind where, okay.
    0:16:43 There were like the liberals who supported big government at home, but were skeptical about, you know, big government abroad or they’re skeptical about wars. And then there were the conservatives who said that they supported small government, limited government at home, but we’re always on the side of whatever the next war is.
    0:16:58 And at least for me, and I think for a lot of people of my generation, Ron Paul was the first guy who came along and said like, no, I’m for limited government here and abroad. And it was kind of like a portal where you could like access a different perspective on the world.
    0:17:11 And then once you saw that, you were like, wait, that’s actually what makes sense. It makes it, it doesn’t make sense to like, what are, what is it exactly that? Like, um, all the Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush and, and even like Milton Friedman and guys like that.
    0:17:32 And Thomas Sowell and the, it’s like, you want a constitutionally limited world empire. Like that’s what you guys stand for. Cause that doesn’t, that doesn’t fit together at all. And so why is it that we took, we were taking this as a given. And then of course, the more you, you look into it, you realize that like, okay, there, those two things do make sense together.
    0:17:51 And then also that kind of like the, in the initial wave of like the original progressives, you know, look, people like Woodrow Wilson or FDR, these were people who were pushing big government at home and big government abroad. And that actually made much more sense as a cohesive worldview. And to oppose that would be the Ron Paul worldview.
    0:18:21 And then the other thing for me, and this was actually, this was my introduction to Ron Paul and this too, to me was like kind of a portal in a way it was, it was a way, at least in my naive, not fully functioned brain or fully developed brain at 24 years old or whatever. Um, it was a way for me to kind of get like, like I tapped into something that was outside the empire and I had, um, I had heard a lot, you know, I was already against George W. Bush and I didn’t like the war. I could, I, I,
    0:18:51 I had already figured out, you know, I think this, I think this war in Iraq is bullshit. And I think that we were lied into it. And so I kind of got that. And then there were, there were liberals and, and left-wingers who I knew I grew up in New York city. So I was very familiar with the left-wing perspective and who are critical of, of George W. Bush and, and for fighting the war and, and, you know, signing the Patriot Act into law and things like that. But I had never really heard anybody break it down the way Ron Paul did when he was, when he,
    0:19:10 basically was like, look, there’s a reason why these terrorists hate us. And it’s not what they’re telling you. They don’t hate us for our freedom. It’s not as if I remember the way Pat Buchanan put it, which I always loved was he goes, uh, he’s a Dick Cheney makes it sound like Osama bin Laden stumbled on, like in the deserts of Afghanistan.
    0:19:29 He stumbled onto a copy of our bill of rights somewhere. And he was like, Oh my God, they’re free to look at this speedy trial. Are you kidding me? Like this is like, what is going on here? They can own guns and their women can wear mini skirts. And that, and that just made people so angry that they were ready to, you know, like suicide bomb themselves.
    0:19:48 Like that makes no sense at all. And then Ron Paul was just like, no, look, here’s the thing. If we think we can just go around the world, killing people, propping up dictatorships, putting our military bases and the, the Muslims, holy land and not engender hatred from that. Then we do that at our own peril.
    0:20:07 And I thought that was, it was such an interesting kind of, you know, it had always been, I’m an eighties and nineties kid. And to me, it was always kind of a given that like America’s number one, we’re the force for good in the world. And we’re, and it was like an interesting introduction to the idea that there are people outside of that.
    0:20:32 Who are dominated by that, who don’t care for it very much. And like that, that’s what nine 11 was actually about. And for me, you know, I was living in New York city. I was 18. I think when nine 11 happened and that was like the moment of my childhood was a huge thing to live through. I mean, we were attacked. This seemed like something that could only happen in a history book that didn’t happen to America in the nineties. 2001 was basically the nineties.
    0:20:50 Um, and, uh, and it was just like, Oh, finally it clicked. It was like, that makes sense. It’s a first time I had ever heard like an explanation and an understanding of this whole thing that we’re involved in now from nine 11 to the terror wars that actually just made perfect sense.
    0:21:03 Yeah. We should also say that there’s some degree of truth that the battle is not just militaristic. It’s also cultural. And then many of those parts of the world don’t want.
    0:21:18 Other people’s values forced onto them, right. But the way that George W. Bush and Dick Cheney and every right wing host in America and Sean Hannity and Bill O’Reilly and like everybody, what they were saying is that they hate that we’re free.
    0:21:37 Whereas it was much closer to saying like, they don’t like us imposing on them. Even like all the hardcore neocons, Brett Stevens, the New York times. He wrote this piece on the 20th anniversary of the invasion of Iraq. So, uh, 2023 to cheerlead the war in Iraq.
    0:22:06 And he goes through the whole piece and there’s not one mention of the million people who died in the war. You know, he literally just goes, the pieces just measure life under Saddam Hussein versus life under the Shiite parliamentary system that they have now. Which one’s better? And I, he’s arguing this one’s better. Therefore it was worth it. But there’s like no mention. It’s like, okay, but what about the 20 plus million people who were displaced? What about the million people who were killed? What about all the millions of people who were injured?
    0:22:33 What about the tens of thousands of our soldiers who have blown their brains out in the aftermath of the thing? Like, it’s like so, so many times this true and with government policy in general, people talk about like the end result that they want, but you’re like, yeah, but what about the process by which you get there and how much hatred, you know, could you, I mean, like I, you know, it’s, it’s not that hard for me to like put myself in, in other people’s shoes. And like, I have two little kids and a wife.
    0:22:49 And if anybody were to ever try to argue to me that they have to be the eggs that get broken to make some bigger omelet, like it’s, it’s okay. Like, you know, we’re ultimately going to impose something on your society. That’s better than what you have right there. It sure does suck that your wife and kids got to be the one who get taken out.
    0:22:59 I mean, I’m, as I’m just saying this to myself and this is not real, this is just a thought experiment I’m making up. I’m already pretty close to being a terrorist.
    0:23:11 Like my next thought is kind of like, well, okay, well, I hope you’re going to like it when you watch your family die in front of you, you know, no, I’m not, hopefully, even if that happened to me, I wouldn’t go kill that guy’s family.
    0:23:24 Like maybe I’d just go after him or something, but I could understand. And I think most people who have kids could understand go going to a level of like the, the most evil, dark place.
    0:23:29 You could imagine if something ever, everyone ever threatened or actually did something to your kids.
    0:23:36 Yeah. We’ll have to remember the thing that’s difficult to measure that you just mentioned, which is the hate that’s created by every bomb that’s dropped.
    0:23:50 It was a general McChrystal who, you know, was the general running the war in Afghanistan. He wasn’t like, he wasn’t Ron Paul. You know what I mean? Like he was a sir. Yes, sir. How do we fight and win this war general?
    0:24:05 And he’s the one who coined the term insurgent math, but 10 minus two equals 20. You know, it’s like the more, the more you keep, I was just reading, I was rereading about this the other day, um, because of the, uh, you know, Trump’s been bombing, uh, the Houthis in Yemen.
    0:24:17 And, you know, it was like when, when we first, I think it was in, in, at least in 2009 is when Obama really stepped up the drone campaign with the then secret drone bombing campaign.
    0:24:34 And the Yemen was one of the major theaters. And even back then, when it really was just a, it was a war on terrorism. Like the main targets were always Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula and their presence in Yemen, even then, like, so before the Saudis invaded.
    0:24:47 So like from 2009 through 2015, AQAP just kept growing. It was doing all these targeted bombing campaigns, or they call them targeted. 96% of the people are innocent who get killed, but they call them targeted drone bombings.
    0:25:08 And they, and, and Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula just kept getting bigger and bigger because, you know, it’s like, yeah, every time you go in there, it’s like, okay, you took out one target and then you took out three little girls and, you know, a few, and every one of those little girls had brothers and uncles and fathers and, you know, and, and all of them just signed up to join the fight now.
    0:25:20 Cause you know, and, and I found Ron Paul was the first one who really made this click for me, but it’s in a way. And I’m not like, I’m not a leftist. I’m not an egalitarian. I’m not a cultural relativist.
    0:25:32 I’m not saying that all cultures are the same or that we all look at the world the same way. There’s enormous differences between all of us. And I personally think some are better than others, but there are things that unite all of us.
    0:25:48 And in a weird way, it’s, I remember one time I was arguing with a Democrat guy on a S E cup show. I used to be a contributor on, on her show and we were arguing and it was after, it was after a terrorist attack here in New York, a fairly minor one.
    0:26:15 It was like a guy like, I think he hit someone with his car and then jumped out with a gun and then the cops lit him up and killed him. Um, this is like back in 2017, I think. And he, he claimed to be ISIS inspired. I don’t, I don’t remember if there was like a direct connection or not, but they were at the time they were like, doesn’t this mean we got to step up the war in Iraq or in Syria where ISIS is stronghold is. And I remember the guy saying to me, he goes, uh, you know, I went off on how these wars have been disasters.
    0:26:45 And he goes, yeah, but Dave, what you’re saying here is we’re supposed to do nothing like this just happened. And now we’re supposed to do nothing. And so like, even though this guy had a suit and tie on and we’re in a cable news studio and we’re in a first world country, we’re in the United States of America. And we’re having that. The basic thing that he’s saying is like, what do you say? You’re saying we’re not going to go kill some motherfuckers. You know, like, I mean, he’s, he was just putting it as like, do something, but what’s something, something is dropping bombs on human beings, you know, when like, yeah, some innocent people are going to die, but okay.
    0:27:15 That, but it’s the same thing. It’s the same after nine 11, we’re like, we got to go fucking invade some countries right now. That’s the same impulse. It’s like they killed some of our people. You think we’re not going to show them who the real killers are. You think there’s a chance that you could come here and, and that is like the most human instinct ever. It’s like some other tribe just came in here and killed some people in our tribe. So what do you want to do about that? Well, I don’t know. It’s not going to take me too long to figure out. We’re going to go kill a bunch of people in their tribe. And I do think that like.
    0:27:37 That is, I think that’s the major motivating factor for both sides of the Israel Palestine conflict. I think that’s the major motivator for both sides of the war on terror conflict. And it’s like, that’s, it’s in a way, when you look at it like that, there’s something, even though it’s so dark and tragic, there’s something almost beautiful about it where you’re like, Oh, we’re all caught in this same cycle.
    0:27:53 Yeah. It’s deeply human. The, the warring between tribes, but you know, especially in the recent years, but more and more through human history, there’s almost like a third party, which is this military industrial complex, which is making money from the two tribes.
    0:28:08 So if you just have two tribes, one, I’ve been reading a lot about Genghis Khan. If, uh, and this is why Genghis Khan banned this. It was very common in, uh, in Mongolia before Genghis Khan to steal people’s wives. Like you’re my wife now.
    0:28:12 Right. And he, he realized that that creates a lot of conflict.
    0:28:13 Yeah, it sure does.
    0:28:29 That seems natural and human, that kind of conflict. But when, whenever you, uh, third party rolls in and starts making money on the whole thing and then driving that forward, then the escalation of the conflict comes with this whole machine that makes de-escalation really difficult.
    0:28:55 Yeah. The military industrial complex in America. It’s so big and it’s so sophisticated and it’s so, so it’s not just that there’s, you know, um, you know, there’s this, there’s the intelligence agencies, there’s the weapons manufacturers, then there’s the like people in the media who are either directly or indirectly just parroting, you know what I mean? All of their talking points.
    0:29:21 And so it’s not just that you can kind of like, like you make money when there’s a conflict, but you have this entire apparatus to like create the conflict and then create the public sentiment for that. And then we’re, and it’s interesting. We’re, we’re in an interesting place. Cause we’re kind of in this like new frontier of now where shows like this can happen. And, and there’s a lot of them and a lot of them are humongous like yours.
    0:29:41 Um, but for so long it, this just didn’t exist. And it was just like, Oh, like for so long, it was the case that like the New York times and NBC and CBS and ABC and the Washington post and the associated press, I guess they could just move the nation.
    0:29:59 I mean, if they wanted to be like, Hey, there is the, the idea that forget even like after nine 11, the idea that in 1990, 1991, that there was any organic movement from the American people going, you know, we really got to see about the Saddam Hussein guy.
    0:30:25 You know, uh, the, uh, dictator in Iraq is having a slant drilling dispute with the, uh, Amir of Kuwait. We really got to do something about that. Like that is not something that organically came from any, that was not like a few soccer moms hanging out, you know, watching their kids game being like, I really do think, I think in a couple of years, we’re going to have to send these boys over to Iraq to get like, that’s not, they just from the top down.
    0:30:54 We’re able to create this feeling that like, Hey, there’s a new Adolf Hitler on the rise over here in Iraq. We got to go see about this. There are these poor people in Kuwait. We have to do that. You know, like there’s, they were able to create this desire for war. Um, that was, it’s, it’s really incredible when you think about it, because there’s for, I think for the most part in human history, you would have had to have some type of plausible threat.
    0:31:12 some type of plausible reality to convince people that we actually have to go to war, um, in, in order to deal with this. Whereas like, you know, the United, the idea that in 1991, the United States of America would feel threatened by Iraq was just ridiculous. And yet they were able to do it.
    0:31:36 Well, so to push back a little bit throughout human history, there was also a thing. You look at the Roman empire where just the cultural values are different, where military conquest was seen as a good thing. So like, we just almost assume in the United States, war has been framed in the defensive sense, like where offensive war, we’re not doing that anymore.
    0:31:49 You make a fair point. It’s certainly true that throughout human history, there’s been, um, there’s been like overt, um, empire building and wars of conquest and things like that.
    0:32:10 But I guess I’m just saying at least even there, you would have some type of sell of like, why we’re going to go take these resources and why that will be good for us. Whereas the idea that they’re like Kuwait just needed to be defended by the Americans seems so, it seems so hard to convince anybody. And yet they were able to do it.
    0:32:36 If you read like neocon writing in the nineties is very interesting, um, because they would, they would tell the truth a lot more. Uh, and they were essentially, I think there was the Soviet union had just collapsed. It was what, what Charles Krattenhammer dubbed the unipolar moment. There was like a lot of, there was excitement. There was a feeling of invincibility. Um, and also the neocons weren’t in power.
    0:33:05 And after 92, really, I mean, they had a little, they were in the George HW Bush administration, but after 92, they really weren’t. So they’re just writing at these think tanks and it just didn’t seem as, you know, like they weren’t as guarded. There weren’t like these accusations of Euro war criminal or something like that. But what he said, uh, with Jonah Goldberg agreed with was that every, uh, I think the statement was every 10 years or so, America’s got to find a puny little country and put them up against the wall just to let the rest of the world know that we mean business.
    0:33:08 And that was actually their mentality.
    0:33:17 I’m sure there’s people that agree with that. I happen to disagree with that, but the, the drums of war beating a little bit over Taiwan and China more than a little bit. Yeah.
    0:33:35 But there, I can’t even see a justification of a just war. What is the longterm benefit to society? If you do military intervention, I, well, I also think this, and I’ve, I’ve been saying this for a while, but I do think there is this, like, um, there, there’s like this empire mentality that Americans have.
    0:33:52 got to shake off, like, as if it’s even a question of whether we should allow it or not. Like, are we in a position to allow or not allow that? Why do we, it’s, it’s almost like if you were, um, you know, like I, I don’t, I hope China doesn’t invade Taiwan.
    0:34:12 I hope Taiwan remains as free as possible. I hope China becomes free. I root for freedom and prosperity for everyone, you know, but I also root for like everybody to have a healthy marriage. But if you were like, if you were talking to me and you were like, Hey, the guy down the street is cheating on his wife. Like, I don’t think we can allow this.
    0:34:24 I’d immediately be like, that’s really not my place. And then on top of that, I also have no power. I have no authority over what they do in their marriage. Like I have to be concerned with my marriage and the idea that like, imagine.
    0:34:41 Imagine if there were the political will to, uh, invade Mexico. Like if DC decided we’re taking Mexico city, like that’s what that’s going to be part of America now. And we’re taking it by force. And then China was like, we’re not sure if we can allow this.
    0:34:58 I think immediately most Americans would be like allow like, how the fuck do you think you’re going to stop us from taking Mexico city? What are you going to do? China? You’re going to send your Navy ships over here to fight us off the coast of Mexico. Good luck with that.
    0:35:21 And at least from my understanding in almost all the war games that they’ve run, if we did militarily, even if it doesn’t come to nuclear weapons being used, in which case the whole world gets blown up. But even if we go to militarily try to stop China from invading Taiwan and no one, everyone agrees to not use nukes. And we just fight a conventional war. We lose that war every time.
    0:35:31 I think what you said applies to a lot of the wars we’ve been involved in, but China and Taiwan is a little bit different because, because of TSMC, right? Because there’s an economic dependence.
    0:35:50 If that was the concern, then the response would be, we need some type of Manhattan project. And I’m not supporting a government project here, but there would be, we need some type of Manhattan project to say, we’re going to make these things here. We can’t. And look, I was running that experiment before saying like, what if we all pinky promise not to use nuclear weapons or something like that?
    0:36:14 But that’s not the reality of the situation. The more reality, look, even in, in Ukraine, everybody, the biggest talks, the biggest pushers of this policy and Joe Biden and a policy to fund Ukraine. No one’s suggesting we send in the 82nd airborne, which is really the only thing that could repel the Russians right now and restore, you know, Ukrainian, the, the original sovereignty of the Ukrainian borders.
    0:36:35 But no one’s suggesting we send in the 82nd airborne because we all know, well, we can’t have a direct war with Russia. That’s the end of the world. And same thing with China. So, you know, I’m not saying microchips or whatever aren’t important, but there’s, we can find other ways to, Taiwan is not magical. Like we can produce these things in other places. No.
    0:36:48 So you have the humility to say that you don’t really know much about the situation. It sounds ridiculous to say, but there’s something magical about not Taiwan, but DSMC. It’s incredibly difficult to manage the supply chain and manufacture at such a low cost that they are.
    0:37:10 And to add to that, China has been signaling about the one China policy, but you’re absolutely right that you shouldn’t be doing the, the Washington thing of beating the drums of war. That’s like completely the counterproductive thing. There should, you should actually try to find partnerships with China, build friendships and cooperation. Like India is doing a good job of this, like build friendships.
    0:37:26 This is the 21st century conflict. This cold war thinking is going to be destructive to the economy, destructive to humanity, to the flourishing of the individual nations of the world. There’s just nothing positive except making money for the military.
    0:37:43 Well, yeah. And, and it was totally destructive during the original cold war too. Um, and almost led to nuclear war on a couple of different occasions. But look, I would just say, and I, I really, I’m no defender of the Chinese regime. I hate communism and fascism, whatever they are. Some hybrid mix of, of the two.
    0:37:45 They’re paying you, aren’t they?
    0:38:06 Yeah. No, fuck them. I don’t care. By the way, I get a lot of people speculate online, but I am not, I’m not getting any of these checks, man. And I’d really like them to start coming in. Um, but there’s like, even when it’s like China, you say China’s asserting the one China policy, but the one China policy is the policy of the United States of America and has been for 50 years now. Right.
    0:38:28 So it’s not, I think what’s happening there a lot of times is that essentially, even though officially the one China policy is the policy of the United States of America, all of these American politicians, um, and, and, you know, different figureheads across powerful centers in America are, are saying that China doesn’t have the right to go into Taiwan.
    0:38:52 And then China’s in the position of being like, well, Hey, wait a minute. No, that’s not actually the policy. We maintain this one China policy, but we allow them to kind of do what they want to do. And, you know, the, the most obvious example of this was when Joe Biden actually said like, Oh, we wouldn’t allow that. And we would militarily intervene if they went into China. And then, and this was so bizarre.
    0:39:15 Then the white house, whoever that was came out to correct the president of the United States and say, no, the policy of the white house is the one China policy, which look, I mean, again, I think the whole point of this is that the reason why whoever the hell was able to overrule Joe Biden and his administration, I don’t know who that is.
    0:39:38 Um, but the whole point is that if you say, and this is why there is some wisdom in America, accepting the one China policy is that if you tell China that we recognize, uh, uh, Taiwan’s independence and that they’re not a part of China, that might be the type of thing that would make China invade and say, no, we’re not accepting that.
    0:39:57 And so at least right now it’s like, kind of like, okay, here’s look, this is the reality. It’s something that you kind of run up against with the war in Ukraine a lot. And, and with the situation in China and Taiwan is that there are, um, there are constraints placed on us by reality.
    0:40:25 It’s not all just, how would you like the world to be? How would you like it to work? Obviously, I think we would all like that bigger countries don’t invade smaller countries and bigger countries don’t bully smaller countries around. That is not the way of the world. We are a big country. That is the biggest bully in the world. So we’re in no position to let, but what we’re kind of in the position is just like, you’re like, Hey, we’d sure love if you don’t do that, you know, you can do it and you can get away with it, but we would sure love it if you don’t.
    0:40:53 And so the goal would be to do everything we can to make sure that doesn’t happen. When Vladimir Putin starts talking about like, Hey, if you keep pushing the idea of Ukraine, joining your military lines, I’m going to invade that country. The goal there that, or the move there would be to be like, okay, we’ll stop talking about that. Is there something else that we can agree on? You know, like, is there, is there a way that we, you, we, you will promise you won’t do anything to them. And okay. And we’ll promise we won’t bring them in our military. Like, that’s the goal.
    0:41:00 You don’t just go like, no, fuck you. We’re doing it anyway, over and over and over again until they do the thing.
    0:41:17 I think we got to this discussion from the military industrial complex and military intervention. And Ron Paul, before that, if you can like rewind a little bit, uh, is there any amount according to you and according to various flavors of libertarianism? Is there any amount of military intervention?
    0:41:46 That’s justified. That’s justified. That’s okay. Um, well, I would say, okay. So at least to me in, in terms of like pure libertarian theory, or just in, in terms of like what I think is right or wrong, like there is such thing as a just war. Um, the most obvious, uh, example of that would be like, you’re invaded by a military and fighting them off. Um, so in, in that sense, also, like, even if you want to,
    0:42:05 if you want to kind of isolate from everything else, uh, from, you know, all of the awful us policy toward Russia, post, uh, Soviet union to all of the, you know, NATO expansion and color coded revolutions and all of these things. If you want to, you know, Vladimir Putin invades Ukraine.
    0:42:26 I do think the Ukrainians have a right to fight and protect their, their land. Like there, the, there’s an aggressive, there’s an aggressor there and you have a right to defend yourself. Uh, so certainly in that sense, I think, um, the American revolution was a just war. Uh, I think there are, you know, there, there can be just wars in terms of pure libertarian theory.
    0:42:56 I think I would say that, look, you, you don’t, you never have a right to kill innocent people. That’s never morally. Okay. Now there could be a scenario just like, this is true in life in general, right? Like there’s lots of things that you don’t have the right to do, but you could come up with some scenario where you might be in a position where you have to do it because there were all of these extenuating circumstances, you know, like for, you know, you could think of something where like, you remember the, uh,
    0:43:21 the saw movies where they used to, you know, these crazy, like horror scenarios, but it’s like, um, okay. So there’s a person, you know, uh, uh, evil bad guy has buried a key inside this person. And you have to kill that person in order to get the key in order to unlock these 20 people to let them out of a cage. Now, look, you still don’t have a right to kill people. It’s horrible and wrong. And what you did there was still evil.
    0:43:48 but if you were taken to trial over it, you could probably explain to a judge and a jury, be like, I know, but the situation I was in was either these 20 people were going to die or this one person was going to die. And under that situation, I chose to save the 20. So like, in other words, by perfect theory, no, you never have the right to kill innocent people. There could be a scenario where you were like, look, we had to take this military action. And some innocent people did die.
    0:44:01 And it’s so tragic and awful that we had to do this, but we are certain that many more people would have died had we not done this. Now, in that case, I would look at that as like, um,
    0:44:10 number one, it’s much like killing the one person to save the 20. It’s still wrong. It’s still an immoral thing that you were forced into doing. It’s not justified.
    0:44:24 I would say that the overwhelming onus should have to be on you to demonstrate that you absolutely needed to do that. And that’s how I feel about all these, these wars, you know, it’s not like, um,
    0:44:37 you know, I think that like, let’s just say like, if you could make world war two, like you could reduce it down to the simplest caricature of what world war two is and say, there’s no Joseph Stalin. We’re not even partnering with him.
    0:44:48 Like there was a good guy in Russia who we were partnering with and there’s, and, and the British empire had never done anything wrong. They were just nothing but good guys. And of course, FDR was nothing but a good guy. And Hitler was even worse than the real Hitler. You know what I mean?
    0:45:07 And in order to stop them, we had to go on this bombing campaign and we only got Nazis. We only killed the bad guys and we were able to take out the third Reich, but one eight year old girl died. And you did this thing that stopped the whole world from falling into subjugation. So I think almost everybody would agree.
    0:45:29 Jesus, man, you have to do that. Okay. This is, um, you have to do that because the whole world’s going to be subjugated. There’s nothing but good guys here. The Nazis are so evil. And there’s one, I still would say that every single time world war two came up, we should all just be somber. And we should all just think about that little eight year old girl who died and what a horrible thing it is that we had to do that, you know?
    0:45:58 And so that like, when there are these campaigns where like, you know, like where tens of millions of people are killed, the fact that anybody’s ever like spiking the football or this kind of like rah, rah, we were the good ones. And then also when you add in all those other complicated factors like that, this wasn’t the scenario at all. Um, but I do. So, so I guess essentially I’d say, no, you don’t ever have a right to kill innocent people. It’s never self-defense to be killing innocent people. I mean, short of like,
    0:46:28 you know, some type of scenario where like, you know, if you’re holding a baby and coming at me shooting and I shoot back at you and okay, I was acting in self-defense and it happened to kill a baby, but I’m, I’m talking about like what the scenarios where you’re dropping bombs on cities. Um, it’s never justified. And the overwhelming onus should be on you to demonstrate that you absolutely have to do it. And that that should be the standard. Cause there’s so many other standards that I see thrown out that I just think are make no moral sense at all.
    0:46:54 You know, people will argue about like, uh, in Gaza, they’ll argue about, um, the civilian to combatant ratio, which I like that to me doesn’t really, that’s not what counts. That’s not the measure that’s important. Um, and also no one knows what the numbers are. They are all just kind of like pretend to. Uh, and then the other thing will be, um, that people who says someone just recently argued with me about, they’ll say like, uh, well, Hamas has to go.
    0:47:20 That’s the starting point. Hamas has to go. And I’m like, no, I don’t think you get to say that because the truth is that. Look, you can make an argument that Hamas has to go. Sure. You can make an argument that the Lakutniks have to go. You can make an argument that Kim Jong-un has to go or that G has to go or that Putin has to go or that Zelensky has to go. Or certainly I would make an argument that Joe Biden had to go. But just because a government has to go, that doesn’t mean you could just go kill all their people.
    0:47:25 Yeah. That should not be at the starting point. Like the assumption, the axiom of the discussion. Yeah.
    0:47:41 The, the question is, is it, is there no other option than doing it this way? It’s like, okay, like October 7th happened. We can all agree. This was like a horrific tragedy. Um, and a, you know, an indefensible act of terrorism. Like, okay.
    0:47:59 Can, is it guaranteed that another one of those is going to happen tomorrow? Or was this the biggest security failure in, in, you know, Israeli history? Okay. Well, if it’s the biggest security failure, let’s just say not even going down the inside job rabbit hole or anything like that, but just saying is a giant security failure. Okay. Then put a bunch more men at that fence.
    0:48:08 And now you got to go. And now you got to go. And now you got to talk about how can you achieve your goal while inflicting the minimum amount of devastation on innocent people.
    0:48:18 Let’s talk about it since you brought it up October 7th. So what exactly do you think about the October 7th attack by Hamas on Israel?
    0:48:31 Um, well, I mean, like what I just said that it was, uh, horrible and, you know, uh, it’s always by the same logic that I’m giving you now. It’s always, it’s always evil to target innocent civilians.
    0:48:45 I don’t believe, uh, you know, civilians can be held responsible for the, uh, the crimes of their government. Um, this was by the way, the Osama bin Laden logic, which I think would also be the logic of like Bill Clinton or George W. Bush or Barack Obama.
    0:49:08 But Osama bin Laden very explicitly said when he was asked, like, well, are you just going to target like U S military sites or are you targeting U S civilians? It was an interview in the nineties before nine 11. Um, and he goes, no civilians are fair game too, because you guys have regular elections and you guys vote for your government and therefore you’re responsible for the crimes that they commit.
    0:49:32 Now I think that’s the logic of a fanatic like Osama bin Laden. And that’s not the logic that any of us should follow. It doesn’t make any sense. And it’s not true that people are responsible for the crimes of their government. Um, I think that that same argument is used quite a bit by people on the pro Israeli side when they say like, oh, they, they had an election in 2005 and Hamas won a plurality.
    0:50:02 And therefore 20 years later, they have no rights. I think that’s insane. So, okay. So Hamas had no right to go after, um, civilians. Uh, you know, it’s horrible. And you see, you know, the, um, these, you know, teenagers being killed and the people, uh, um, you know, you see the images of people, uh, who were, who were held hostage for all this time. So it’s like your heart breaks for those people. It’s truly tragic. Um, I, I do think.
    0:50:26 That it was in many ways, an indictment of so many different things, you know, like October 7th happening was an indictment of, um, the entire occupation slash siege of, of Gaza and the West Bank, you know, for that matter. Um, it was, I think, um,
    0:50:47 should have probably forever destroyed the legacy of Benjamin Netanyahu, um, who is, you know, I mean, this isn’t like George W. Bush, you know, was, I mean, he was on the job for almost a year when nine 11 happened, but it was still kind of new, you know, like it was still kind of in his first year of being president.
    0:50:58 Benjamin Netanyahu was the longest serving prime minister in Israeli history and had explicitly been like, I’m the tough right winger who’s going to be tough on these Palestinians.
    0:51:12 Who’s going to like move away from the idea of coming to us to state solution, because this is what we need to keep us safe. Like the justification is like, I’m going to be hard on these motherfuckers. Cause that’s, cause I know what it takes to keep us safe.
    0:51:26 And that culminates in the, the worst massacre in, in Israeli history. Um, and then, I mean, the other big one is that, I mean, and it’s not like a, I wouldn’t even say an open secret at this point. It’s just out in the open.
    0:51:48 And he had this strategy of propping up Hamas for years. And so he had this strategy of propping up Hamas, um, for a myriad of reasons. Um, but a major part of it was that, look, man, as long as there’s terrorists in power there, there’s never going to be any pressure on us to give the Palestinians a state because look, what are you telling me? I got to negotiate with them.
    0:51:54 He was allowing Qatar money to float, insisting that Qatar money float to them.
    0:52:24 When the Qatar money dried up, sent the Mossad in to insist that it gets back to them. Hundreds of millions of dollars, briefcases in cash. And he said in his own words that the reason for doing this was to keep to his words were prop up Hamas, bolster Hamas to keep them in power so that the West Bank and the, and the Gazans were divided and that the international community, as well as the liberal Jewish community in Israel, wouldn’t be able to put pressure on them to make a deal.
    0:52:38 But what are the options? So if he doesn’t allow the money in, it also looks really bad for him because if he’s not allowing the money in, that means he’s not allowing the quote unquote aid in to help the Palestinians.
    0:52:59 Yeah. But Lex, I mean, the, the dynamic here, right, is from 2007 to today, Israel’s had a full blockade around the country. They won’t let potatoes in. They won’t let sugar in. They won’t, they, they, they, and the, the justification is because they’re dual use.
    0:53:25 You know, they, they can, they can be used to make rockets as well as they can be used to, you know, feed starving children. So we can’t let that in because it’s dual use, but cash to Hamas, does that not have dual usage? Like, is there, is there nothing else that they can? So yeah, it’s like, yes, when you have a full blockade around the country, you take on certain responsibilities.
    0:53:47 And I think this is, you know, this is the, the essence of really the, the whole struggle here, which is very tough, I think, for the pro Israel side to grapple with. But the bottom line is that Israel hasn’t occupied Palestine for like a few months after a war, or even a couple of years after a war while they’re figuring out what we’re going to do with them. It’s been over 60 years.
    0:54:05 We’re talking about a, a one week long war or a day short of a week long war in 1967. Israel’s had control of them ever since. And much like in the same way that like, if you kidnap someone and you lock them in your basement and you don’t feed them, you murdered that person.
    0:54:22 So in other words, uh, um, stated differently, you’re not allowed to kidnap people and lock them in your basement. But once you do, you take on a responsibility to feed those people. You know what I mean? Like you can’t, you’re not allowed to keep someone and not feed them. That is a worse charge than just keeping them.
    0:54:38 And so yet, anyway, I guess my point is the solution to that. If, if you go like, well, I’m a bad guy. If I fund Tomas, I’m a bad guy. If I don’t let the aid in was to let the reputable international aid organizations bring aid in to the people of Gaza.
    0:55:08 Don’t have, uh, don’t, don’t, don’t pressure the Qataris to send in briefcases full of cash, allow internationally recognized, reputable human rights organizations who are lining up, trying to do it. Stop turning them away and let them in. And, and, and this is just, it’s so long past due. I mean, like it’s, it’s just, I’m not like defending, uh, Arab terrorism. It’s, uh, I think it’s really, it’s, it’s a tragedy that the Arabs embraced terrorism.
    0:55:38 Uh, I don’t think it’s unique to them. And in fact, you know, I think it was the, um, the Zionist militias who introduced terrorism to that part of the world. But there was also like there look, terrorism persists because it works. And this is true with state terrorism and with non-state terrorism. You know, it’s like there, the terrorism has often worked for people. The, I think the thing like early, I think early Yasser Arafat, I know was very influenced by, um,
    0:55:57 the Algerians who, you know, successfully kicked the French out at embracing terrorism. And it was almost like the major miscalculation of the, the, those Palestinian Arabs who did embrace terrorism was that this isn’t the French.
    0:56:14 This isn’t the French hanging out in some colony with their home country back home, where maybe a few acts of violence could work enough to, you know, your, the liberal population back home is like, oh, I really didn’t like the response to that terrorism. We killed so many people. Forget it. This is too much of a headache. Let’s get out of here.
    0:56:27 The Zionist settlers were there to stay. They weren’t going anywhere. They weren’t going back to Eastern Europe. You know what I mean? They weren’t, they were just that. And so it’s a tragedy that this whole thing went the way it did.
    0:56:46 But you always, whenever you’re talking about like a conflict like this, the person who has the, or the party who has the power is the one who needs to make concessions, you know? And the, the, it’s just indefensible that the status quo of the Palestinian people having no rights,
    0:57:00 literally no rights being ruled by a government that they do not get to vote, uh, for or against, um, no right to do commerce with the outside world, no freedom of travel, no freedom of movement, no basic property rights can be kicked out of your home at any time.
    0:57:13 No right to a fair trial, uh, no right to a lawyer, no right to a jury of your peers. I mean, the fact that that has been the status quo since 1967 is just indefensible.
    0:57:32 And if, and, and then in the context that that has been the status quo, I guess I’m just not, even though I’m against it, it’s kind of like when you’re just lecturing about the way in which they resist this, I think it’s very tough to be on a strong moral footing, you know?
    0:57:38 Yeah. You have to, you have to really empathize with, uh, decades of suffering in the region.
    0:57:45 I suppose my question was grounded in, um, how can the Israeli government, how can the world help the Palestinian people flourish?
    0:57:59 So you suggested, uh, allowing reputable aid organizations in, but, you know, that’s kind of almost, uh, patching.
    0:58:06 It’s just helping humans who are suffering, but that’s not how you have a nation flourish.
    0:58:07 You have to build up the infrastructure.
    0:58:17 You have to build up a culture of the education system, the, the, you know, democratic processes of electing and regular elections.
    0:58:32 And so that they’re, the people are represented and you have to have foreign partnerships, friendships, normalization of relations with the Arab world, with Israel, you can travel back and forth, um, and lessen the chokehold.
    0:58:43 Like the security chokehold, you know, that you could say is justified in a militaristic situation, but why is it a military situation?
    0:58:47 The question is, they’re like, where do we go from, from here?
    0:58:51 If we, you know, we’ll talk about Netanyahu some more.
    0:58:56 Um, he is, uh, you know, he’s very criticized inside Israel as well.
    0:58:57 Yeah, for sure.
    0:59:13 Maybe less so after October 7th, because the, you know, again, in the same way you can empathize with the Palestinian people, you can empathize with Israelis where October 7th touched just like it is for Americans with 9-11.
    0:59:18 It touched some kind of primal thing of fear of like, holy shit.
    0:59:32 Oh yeah, and like the same, the same thing I said before, like I could also very easily go if my, if one of my kids was like at that rave or something like that and just got gunned down or kidnapped by, I could understand being like level the whole goddamn place.
    0:59:35 And I’m sure I would feel that way if that was one of my kids, you know?
    0:59:38 Um, so yeah, no, that’s, that’s exactly right.
    0:59:48 I mean, there’s lots of examples in the world of, uh, you know, like France and Germany are right next to each other and Ireland and England are right next to each other.
    0:59:50 And they’re just totally living in harmony right now.
    0:59:57 Like there is just no, the thought of them going to war is like inconceivable right now.
    1:00:01 Not saying it could never happen in the future, but it seemed, it seems pretty hard to imagine.
    1:00:07 And that being the case would have been very hard to imagine for a very long time.
    1:00:18 You know, like there, I mean, there’s some serious levels of brutality between those two societies and even more directly involved, uh, you know, Egypt and Israel went to war.
    1:00:22 Four times in a couple decades, they went to war.
    1:00:28 And then in the late seventies, they made a land for peace deal and they haven’t been to war since, you know?
    1:00:38 And like, I do at least try to hold out that, like, that is pot, you know, it’s not like Egypt is, you’re not going to say they don’t have a, an issue with radical Islam in Egypt.
    1:00:39 You know what I mean?
    1:00:40 Like there’s, that’s not the answer.
    1:00:42 It’s just that they made a land for peace deal.
    1:00:49 And once there wasn’t, you know, once that wasn’t the, that was solved, it was kind of easier to avoid the war.
    1:01:04 And I do like to think that there, there could be a solution to the, the Israel Palestine question, but the, it’s going to have to, it’s going to have to involve Israel taking their boot off of the Palestinians neck.
    1:01:05 And I know that that’s scary.
    1:01:08 And I understand that there are like legitimate concerns about that.
    1:01:23 There’s, um, it was a great, uh, Thomas Jefferson quote about slavery, which was, um, we, we have the wolf by the tail and we can neither afford to hold on to him nor risk letting them go.
    1:01:38 Um, which is like, you could see where that would have been like a real concern of people like right toward the end of slavery or, or, you know, whatever in the early 1800s or the first half of the 19th century, where you’d be like, okay, okay, okay.
    1:01:44 We recognize this is wrong now, but we’ve had these millions of people enslaved for all these years.
    1:01:46 If we let them go, they’re going to fucking kill us.
    1:01:47 And what are you saying?
    1:01:55 They’re citizens now, meaning the second amendment applies to them, meaning that the guy who I enslaved now can get a gun.
    1:01:55 You know what?
    1:01:59 And, and so, okay, there are the, but I think in hindsight, looking back at it, we would all just go.
    1:02:03 Yeah, but you can’t enslave people.
    1:02:13 So like whatever risks come with the next phase of this, unfortunately, you know, like you’re going to have to just deal with that and, and move.
    1:02:15 You have to start with abolishing slavery.
    1:02:22 And it is good to also remember in the hopeful message you send, like at any day you can make a deal.
    1:02:28 That’s one of the frustrating things I had with a, I hosted a debate on Israel and I was like, it just felt hopeless.
    1:02:36 And a lot of people I talked to, it feels hopeless, but like I have a lot of, I, I maybe naively see a lot of possibilities of peace there.
    1:02:42 I see, for example, normalization of relations with Saudi Arabia and Israel, and then Saudi Arabia taking some ownership over Gaza.
    1:02:44 Something like that.
    1:02:54 Some interesting, uh, where a big major player in that region takes ownership and steps as the middleman.
    1:02:54 Yeah.
    1:02:57 I like, I, I agree with you and you’re 100% right that.
    1:03:04 I mean, even before October 7th, I think many steps had been taken away from, you know, the peace process and the feeling of that.
    1:03:11 I mean, really, I think since the second intifada, uh, is when like the, the appetite for peace, I think in Israel was greatly diminished.
    1:03:24 Um, there, but to your point, I mean, it’s going to take really painful concessions on all sides in, in order to get there.
    1:03:42 Um, and I think that the, the, the, personally, I think, and I don’t know if I say this for the, not necessarily like the Arab world, um, but at least the nation states, like their, their governments, I think are, are pretty much there.
    1:03:53 Like, like Saudi Arabia and UAE and Jordan and Egypt, like if the Israelis, they’re almost like, look, these are American sock puppets, you know, for the most part.
    1:03:53 Right.
    1:04:04 And so their, their thing is that like, okay, 100% of my population is completely opposed to what Israel is doing to Palestine right now.
    1:04:13 And they just hate that Israel, that the nation was created at all, that all the, the Arabs were kicked out of what is, you know, very important land to them religiously.
    1:04:21 And, um, and so the governments there are like, look, we want to continue to have us tax dollars flooding in here.
    1:04:25 We’d love to make a deal with Israel, but like, you gotta stop doing this to the Palestinians.
    1:04:29 So my own people don’t up, you know, rise up against me.
    1:04:33 So I think as long as the Israelis were like, fine, we’ll do a two state solution or something like that.
    1:04:36 I think Saudi Arabia couldn’t wait to broker.
    1:04:39 In fact, they proposed a two state solution just a few years ago.
    1:04:46 I mean, they’re, they would love to be a part of that and normalize relations, um, amongst the Palestinians.
    1:04:53 Like, which again, I think this, I think this had been accepted multiple times, at least by their leadership.
    1:04:59 It’s like, yeah, you’re going to have to accept that like you lost in 48, you know, you’re going to have to accept that you lost in 47.
    1:05:02 You’re going to have to accept that the state of Israel does exist.
    1:05:10 And you’re going to have to accept that like the right of return is not going to literally mean that everybody can go back to where they were.
    1:05:24 And what Israel is going to have to concede is that it was awfully fucked up that they kicked a lot of people out of their land and that the whole, um, a land for people for a people without land was never true.
    1:05:28 That was just a slogan that made, that felt good to avoid what you guys actually did.
    1:05:34 And the fact that you, it was inexcusable that you guys occupied these people for 60 years and that has to end immediately.
    1:05:38 I interviewed Douglas Murray recently.
    1:05:43 He just wrote a book on Israel and Hamas called on democracies and death cults.
    1:06:05 He makes what I think is a strong pro-Israel case focusing on Hamas as a, an evil organization, you know, evil for its corrupt leadership, who’s essentially stealing money, uh, from the Palestinian people and allocating the money that is there towards terrorist militaristic operations versus like building up, um, Gaza.
    1:06:21 Uh, can you steal man the case for, and then against this perspective sort of centering, we’ve been talking about the people about, uh, centering around Hamas, which is like this extremist religious organization.
    1:06:28 Uh, the perspective being like, they need to be, as you mentioned before, eliminated before any progress can be made.
    1:06:29 Um, okay.
    1:06:35 So if I were to steal man Douglas Murray’s case, um, I would say.
    1:06:38 Well, I guess the case is right.
    1:06:47 Look, Hamas is a fanatical death cult, essentially, which I do think is a fair, uh, description of them.
    1:06:51 There is no question that they have pursued.
    1:06:59 They have, they have pursued a path that was just devastating to their own people.
    1:07:01 And there’s no question.
    1:07:07 They have not spent the resources they have on their priority has not been uplifting their own people.
    1:07:16 Their priority has been, I think, essentially antagonizing Israel into this overreaction so that they can turn world opinion against Israel.
    1:07:19 I think they’ve been very effective at doing that.
    1:07:28 Um, and, and okay, again, I think the argument would come back to something like, and the people kind of voted for this in 2005 and the people sure do.
    1:07:33 We sure do see a lot of people cheering when Hamas is doing some pretty horrific stuff.
    1:07:43 And so, hey, you got that on one side and you have a kind of, uh, a country that’s much more similar to Western societies on the other side.
    1:07:50 If we can just like linger on that steel, man, what do you, what do you make of the celebrations in, in, uh, Gaza after October 7th?
    1:07:53 I think it’s sickening and incredibly disturbing.
    1:08:10 Um, I just, I guess the way I look at it, I always, uh, and maybe there is a degree of like naivete to this, or perhaps it’s just that I just don’t want to allow myself to go down a certain path because I think it leads to such dark outcomes.
    1:08:19 But I just always, uh, I always try to be kind of like against the government for the people against the powerful sympathetic to the powerless.
    1:08:23 Um, I think that, look, it’s, it’s sickening.
    1:08:33 You see big crowds cheering on, you know, people who have been, you know, that with these people who have been in captivity for, for, uh, I think some of them for over a year and a half.
    1:08:44 Um, I also thought when Nikki Haley and other Israeli politicians are signing the bombs before they’re launched into Gaza, I found that sickening.
    1:08:49 Um, I think there’s all types, I think like mission accomplished banners and flying on jet.
    1:08:55 I mean, I think all of the, I think having Bob hope specials at the end of the Persian Gulf war was sickening.
    1:08:58 I just think all of it is like horrific.
    1:09:10 Um, I just, I look at it and I try to say to myself, okay, we had one nine 11 in this country and we all like collectively, we lost our minds as a society.
    1:09:17 You know, um, we were ready to go bomb whoever the hell our politicians told us to bomb and we didn’t care how many people it killed.
    1:09:23 And we killed a lot more than, than a lot more than Israel or Hamas has killed doing it.
    1:09:34 Um, and I try to, I try to think to myself, okay, imagine being trapped in what is it, you know, people can call it whatever they want to.
    1:09:44 I do think Pat Buchanan and these guys were right to call it a concentration camp, but you’re trapped in a five mile by 25 mile area where you cannot leave.
    1:09:46 You are stuck there.
    1:09:48 You don’t have an airport cause the Israelis bombed it.
    1:09:50 You don’t have a seaport cause they won’t allow you.
    1:09:55 You have no access to trade with the outside world and you’re not suffering through a nine 11.
    1:09:59 You’re suffering through a thousand nine 11s.
    1:10:00 Your whole life is bad.
    1:10:06 These people, the, the people in Gaza are, their entire life has been being refugees.
    1:10:06 You know what I mean?
    1:10:11 Their entire life, there there’s generations of people have been in this status now.
    1:10:23 And so, you know, if my society lost its mind after one nine 11, I just have a tough time, like judging the people who, who came up in this environment, but there’s no question.
    1:10:23 It is.
    1:10:40 I mean, it’s, you know, profoundly disturbing, but I wonder how much of the indoctrination is really made, uh, the software of their mind permanently anti peace.
    1:10:41 Yeah.
    1:10:50 Like extremify them and that, you know, it doesn’t justify anything, but it’s more, uh, concerning for the prospects of peace.
    1:10:52 Well, I’d say I get your point.
    1:11:10 I get it’s an interesting question that I don’t, I don’t know if any of us know exactly the answer to, but I would say that like, um, you know, even after was 80 years of the Soviet union, you know, it’s like, and there, there were real debates back then about like the new communist man.
    1:11:20 And whether the minds had been so warped of people that they would never even want, they would never even care about these things like liberty or national identity or independence.
    1:11:28 And, and then yet at the end, it was all still there, you know, it was, it was very repressed and it went underground and people weren’t allowed to talk about it, but they all still had it.
    1:11:36 Um, and in fact, I was just listening the other day to this Murray Rothbard, uh, speech from like the early nineties.
    1:11:47 And he was talking about how there was something where there was like a, like a, a camera crew interviewed, like a Chinese family under, uh, um, like, uh, real deal Chinese communism.
    1:11:55 Um, I believe it was before Mao Zedong died and they were like, uh, they were just saying all these cr this crazy shit to the camera.
    1:12:04 Like they were like, would you rather, you know, your, your sons are like healthy and live good lives, or would you rather they suffer, but be loyal obedience to the state?
    1:12:07 And they were like, we would rather they be obedient to the state and blah, blah, blah, and all these things.
    1:12:13 And the Murray Rothbard was saying, he saw this interview and he, uh, he, he was talking to his friend.
    1:12:14 He was like, Oh my God, this is horrible.
    1:12:15 Like it’s hopeless.
    1:12:17 These people’s minds have been warped.
    1:12:18 And then he was talking to his friend.
    1:12:20 Who’s like a China expert who had been there a lot.
    1:12:21 And he was like, no, they’re not.
    1:12:25 That’s what they say when the cameras are around soon as the cameras go like that.
    1:12:34 So anyway, I’m just making the point there that like there, there is like, look, even in the situation with Israel and Gaza, specifically Gaza.
    1:12:35 Not even the West bank.
    1:12:50 Um, when you could look at it, when the peace talks were going on support for Hamas plummeted, when the peace talks fell apart, support for Hamas went way back up, you know, and every time there’s an aggressive military campaign support for Hamas goes back up.
    1:13:03 So I just think that like, I’m more hopeful than not that, like, you could get to a place where like, but it, it requires, like, you have to like, if you do understand the Ron Paul point.
    1:13:17 about blowback, the general McChrystal point about insurgent math that you just realize that it’s like, you’re, you’re like, you’re, you’re fighting in a way that produces more of the thing that you’re fighting.
    1:13:20 And so the first step is to stop doing that.
    1:13:23 Like your, your cure is making the patient more sick.
    1:13:25 So stop doing that.
    1:13:27 And then let’s see if maybe we could heal.
    1:13:36 And what about the case against the, the, the Douglas Murray case of the death cults and that a fundamental part of this process, Hamas needs to be eliminated.
    1:13:43 Well, I mean, first of all, I would just say that, and I’m not, I’m not saying this as a fan of democracy.
    1:13:46 Um, I’m not like a big believer in democracy.
    1:13:47 I believe in Liberty.
    1:13:54 And I think, uh, democracy is often, um, uh, not in line with Liberty.
    1:13:57 The Chinese government paid you to say that as well.
    1:14:00 They, that was, that’s literally all I had to get out.
    1:14:03 I get to say that what I want the rest of the podcast, but there’s just that I had that.
    1:14:08 No, I’m well, I don’t, well, no, I mean, my beef with the Chinese government would not be that they don’t hold regular elections.
    1:14:15 My beef with them would be that they silence speech, that they, that they put people in camps and things like that, the surveillance, that stuff.
    1:14:24 Um, I think, look, when you call Israel a democracy, which I guess is right in the title of his book.
    1:14:31 Um, and I, you know, full disclosure, I haven’t read the book, but I have, I have listened to some of his thoughts on this stuff.
    1:14:46 I think you’ve run up against a real problem, which is that the creation of the state of Israel, even though he tried to walk away from those comments as Norm Finkelstein called out Benny Morris, uh, for writing in his book, 1948, which is a great book.
    1:14:51 His words were the Zionist project always knew it was going to involve transfer.
    1:14:53 That was Benny Morris’s words.
    1:14:59 Now, when, when Finkelstein was grilling him on this, on your podcast, he kind of said like, yeah, but that doesn’t mean ethnic cleansing.
    1:15:01 That could be voluntary transfer that.
    1:15:01 You know what I mean?
    1:15:07 I’m like, but the point is the Zionist settlers and they all, they spoke about this openly.
    1:15:17 They all knew they had a major problem, which is like, well, you can’t create a Jewish state if it’s like 50, 50, which is, and in all of Israel, it was much less than 50, 50.
    1:15:24 But even in like the, the Israeli portion of the partition recommendation, it was very close to 50, 50.
    1:15:32 Now you can’t really have a Jewish state with a 50, 50 voter base because now you’re just kind of in a breeding war for the next generation.
    1:15:45 And, or, you know, like, or like who, who turns out the vote any more than we could hope it would be the prospect right now of making America in official Republican state or an official Democrat state.
    1:15:47 Well, how are you going to do that, man?
    1:15:48 It’s like 50, 50 between the two.
    1:16:03 So, and so I think what Benny Morris was saying was that they always knew some of these Arabs are going to have to get moved out of here so that we could have more of something, which ultimately where they got to like an 80, 20, which is pretty much what Israel’s maintained the whole time.
    1:16:08 Now, Benny Morris could quarrel about whether that necessarily meant voluntary, but when it happened, it wasn’t voluntary.
    1:16:08 Okay.
    1:16:18 So like when it actually happened in effect, it involved a massive amount, something somewhere between 700 and 800,000 Arabs being forcefully evicted out of this area.
    1:16:22 Now that’s one thing, you know, a lot of nations are started on some things like that.
    1:16:34 I suppose if you just did that and then you were left with your 80, 20 split and you go, but we have elections from here on out, I guess you could claim it’s a democracy still seems like kind of gaming the democratic system a little bit.
    1:16:34 You know what I mean?
    1:16:43 Like, like if I just, if I just deported 80% of Democrats and then say, look, Republicans win every election, you might be like, yeah, dude, but you didn’t exactly get there democratically.
    1:16:46 You got there through force, but forget that.
    1:16:49 I’ll let that one go and just say, I’ll call you a democracy.
    1:16:52 If you just kept being a democracy like that, moving forward.
    1:17:06 The real problem is the occupation that starts in 1967, because what, look, when you’ve occupied an area since 1967, you can’t even really call it an occupation anymore.
    1:17:14 It’s an annexation, you know, you took these lands, you have control that you are what the definition of the government is.
    1:17:18 And you could call Hamas the government all you want to, but they’re not the sovereigns.
    1:17:20 They’re not the final decision makers.
    1:17:22 Israel’s the final decision maker.
    1:17:26 Hamas does not meaningfully in any way decide the biggest questions about Gaza.
    1:17:30 I’m talking before this war, not, not even, you know, pre-October 7th.
    1:17:42 And so the problem Israel has in order to call themselves a democracy is that there’s somewhere between five and six million people less now because they’ve killed a lot of them.
    1:17:49 But there’s somewhere between five and six million people who live under Israeli control who do not have voting rights.
    1:17:58 And I just, by any other, like, reasonable, commonly held standard of democracy, we would not call that a democracy.
    1:18:03 I mean, like, I’m not, again, I’m not even saying this to try to be inflammatory or try to pick on the Israelis.
    1:18:05 There’s things about Israeli society I like.
    1:18:06 I don’t hate the people there.
    1:18:07 I’m Jewish.
    1:18:08 I love Jewish people.
    1:18:08 It’s not.
    1:18:13 But the fact is, that’s not a democracy.
    1:18:14 That’s an apartheid state.
    1:18:18 Like, and that’s just, I’m not even trying to be inflammatory when I say this.
    1:18:20 It’s just literally describing what’s in front of you.
    1:18:30 If we in America right now said black people no longer get to vote and black people can only live in these few neighborhoods, we don’t get to call ourselves a democracy anymore then.
    1:18:34 You know, and like, I’m not even coming at this from a pro-democracy point of view.
    1:18:39 I’m just saying, like, if your defense of them is like, well, we’re a democracy, which seems to be the case so much.
    1:18:41 Well, no, you’re really not.
    1:18:42 You’re really not.
    1:18:48 As long as you got millions of people who have no say in their own government, like, then you’re really not a democracy.
    1:18:55 And so, again, so you could frame it as democracy versus death cult was his language for Hamas.
    1:19:05 It’s like, all right, you know, it’s a little bit difficult to accuse another group of being a death cult when the group you’re supporting has killed so many more people than them.
    1:19:09 Now, I’m not saying that’s the only metric, like, there’s other things that are factors, too.
    1:19:17 But the fact is that, like, you have, I mean, I don’t know to look over the numbers for the whole history of the conflict.
    1:19:27 But the amount killed by the Israelis on the Palestinian side versus the amount killed by the Palestinians is 20 to 1 in Israel’s, you know, killing more people.
    1:19:28 Maybe more than that.
    1:19:30 I don’t exactly, you know, I’d have to look at the numbers.
    1:19:34 But Israel’s killed far, far, far more Palestinians than Palestinians have ever killed Israelis.
    1:19:39 And so it just, it rings a little hollow to me to just call them a death cult.
    1:19:45 Like, we’re the democracy, even though none of, you know, there’s millions of people who can’t vote over, you know, who rules them.
    1:19:46 But they’re the death cult.
    1:19:52 I mean, look, they kill people in a more primitive, barbaric way, I guess you could say.
    1:19:56 You know, there’s something a little bit cleaner about, like, you know, when it’s done by a government.
    1:20:00 Um, and it’s collateral damage.
    1:20:04 And it was done with sophisticated weaponry, you know, okay.
    1:20:06 Still innocent people on the end of those bombs.
    1:20:07 Absolutely.
    1:20:15 But there, there is, I think, a powerful ethical difference when, uh, you mentioned about the eight-year-old girl, right?
    1:20:27 If you’re in your stated goals of the war is to do everything you can to avoid the death of that girl versus saying, you know, we love death more than we love life.
    1:20:33 And Israelis’ democracy or not are pro-life, for life.
    1:20:38 There’s a little, I mean, okay, I don’t, I don’t 100% disagree with you.
    1:20:51 But I think if I would say, like, the degree to which that matters, you know, like, at a murder trial, after somebody’s been convicted, and before sentencing sometimes, the judge will allow them to give a statement.
    1:20:56 And, like, if their statement is, like, I’m very sorry for what I did, and I’m so sorry to the family, and this or that or that.
    1:21:01 Like, that might be, like, life without parole rather than the death penalty.
    1:21:02 You know what I mean?
    1:21:04 Like, it might make that bit of difference in that.
    1:21:07 And if you get up there and you’re like, hey, I’m happy for what I did.
    1:21:08 Screw the family.
    1:21:08 Blow that.
    1:21:13 That might make a judge who was going to give you life without parole, give you the death penalty or something.
    1:21:15 Like, it’s like that type of margin around the edge.
    1:21:26 Let’s say, like, you’re a really bad guy, and I want to kill you, and you’re at home with a bunch of women and children, and I know there’s women and children there.
    1:21:31 Like, I know for a fact that if I blow up this building, it’s going to kill all those babies.
    1:21:37 But, you know, what I would be charged with is murder in the first degree.
    1:21:43 And the fact that I went in there and said, like, well, listen, hold on, it’s a shame that I had to kill those babies.
    1:21:46 I really just wanted to kill that one guy.
    1:21:47 I wish the babies weren’t there.
    1:21:50 And they’ll be like, yeah, but you knew they were there, and you did it anyway.
    1:21:52 You get murder in the first degree.
    1:22:01 Maybe it would make some little difference tinkering around with the sentencing at the end of it, but it doesn’t, like, in kind change what the crime is there.
    1:22:15 And so I just think at a certain point, when you’re, if you’re doing something like, you know, look, I’ll say maybe with a little bit of an edge, you know, let’s say Barack Obama wants to drone bomb, you know, this place to kill a terrorist.
    1:22:18 And he thinks he can do it without killing any innocent civilians.
    1:22:21 Does it, and then it ends up killing some innocent civilians.
    1:22:21 That’s one thing.
    1:22:33 But once you’ve done it over and over and over again, and every single time it kills innocent civilians, and then there’s a wedding and you order a drone bomb strike on a wedding, like, no, you murdered those people.
    1:22:35 That’s murder in the first degree.
    1:22:36 Like, I just don’t.
    1:22:45 And so, yes, like, you know, like whether you say out loud, oh, it sure is a shame that we got to kill all these kids.
    1:22:55 When you’re doing it over and over and you know, the action you’re taking is going to kill more kids, I just don’t think it like it’s, yeah, it’s a little bit different, but really not that much.
    1:22:56 It’s still pretty much.
    1:23:05 And then also when you mix in with that, the fact that like, you know, I mean, if you go and I’m not taking an opinion on the word genocide, I don’t even like to get into that conversation.
    1:23:07 I feel like it just derails it anyway.
    1:23:13 What Israel is doing, whether you think it’s a genocide or not, it’s certainly not what most people envision when they hear the word genocide.
    1:23:22 But, you know, if you look at South Africa’s case that they promoted at the International Court of Justice, the whole thing is just quotes from Israeli leaders.
    1:23:29 And I’m just saying, like, by the way, it’s not like they’re always saying, oh, it sure is a shame that we had to kill that eight-year-old girl.
    1:23:32 They’re like half the time they say that when they’re talking to the international community.
    1:23:37 And then the other half the time, they seem to basically be saying there’s no such thing as an innocent eight-year-old girl.
    1:23:44 And so I just, I guess I just don’t find that argument to be very compelling, especially when the thing has been going on for so long.
    1:23:47 There is some disagreement I have with you there.
    1:23:55 I think the thing you’re implying is whenever they state it, it’s not quite genuine to some degree.
    1:23:56 No, I’m saying it might be.
    1:23:58 It might be genuine by some people.
    1:24:00 I’m not saying it’s necessarily not.
    1:24:10 I’m saying that when there’s a lot of people who are saying the opposite, it doesn’t seem like it’s consistently genuine from the entire, you know, Israeli leadership class.
    1:24:26 And that even if it is genuine, when some people say it, that that’s kind of not enough to get away from the fact that it’s, you know, when Tucker was on Pierce Morgan, he said the thing, he goes, you know, I don’t like my tax dollars being used to intentionally kill children.
    1:24:34 And a lot of people really objected to that word intentionally, because I think so many of the defenders of Israel fall behind this, like, no, no, no, that’s not intentional.
    1:24:36 We’re just trying to kill Hamas.
    1:24:42 But again, like I said, we would never accept that standard in like a domestic murder case.
    1:24:49 It’s like, no, like the thing is that if you know there are kids there and you know they’re going to die, then that’s intent.
    1:24:56 I think I agree with you fundamentally because war is hell and that’s why I’m against war.
    1:24:58 But there is a difference.
    1:25:02 So like, I think you’re, we’re like mixing in a lot of things.
    1:25:06 I think you’re fundamentally against war.
    1:25:09 And that’s why to you, it really doesn’t, doesn’t matter.
    1:25:11 It is murder.
    1:25:13 It’s just murder and we shouldn’t do murder.
    1:25:24 And there’s a lot of democracies with colorful flags and that justify murder because they’re trying very hard not to kill civilians.
    1:25:33 And then when you say, you look at the reality of the Obama administration, the entirety of the war in Iraq and Afghanistan, you’re, you’re, you’re murdering civilians.
    1:25:34 Yes.
    1:25:36 You’re trying to kill bad guys, but you’re murdering civilians.
    1:25:59 That said, on a, on a ethical consideration on which kind of ideals, ideologies you can build a society after the war, one that even on the surface level states that the value of every life, of every civilian life is equal and high in value.
    1:26:00 That’s a good society.
    1:26:10 That’s the concern with extremist ideology that, uh, that basically is very difficult to build a flourishing society on.
    1:26:19 But then the argument against that is the one you said, which is like, yeah, well, Hamas is really supported now because of the war.
    1:26:23 But by the way, I don’t disagree with the first part of your statement there.
    1:26:25 I just don’t think it’s in conflict with what I’m stating.
    1:26:42 It’s like, look, I understand, first of all, that like, um, there is a difference between the way you’re going to say prosecute crime domestically within your own country and the way you can prosecute crime or whatever, a war between two different countries.
    1:26:42 Right.
    1:26:44 Like maybe it’s, it’s not exactly the same.
    1:26:46 You don’t have cops that you can just send in.
    1:26:48 You can’t arrest somebody and put them on trial.
    1:26:49 It’s not the same.
    1:26:57 So like, fine, you could say, but the point I’m making is more like, I’m just saying how we would think about these things in a domestic setting.
    1:27:07 We’re talking about like morality here and morality by its very nature is something that rises above, you know, the, um, it rises above logistics.
    1:27:14 It rises above like nationalities or governments or borders or any of those things, like what’s right or wrong.
    1:27:20 Like if it’s, if it’s wrong to rape somebody in New Jersey, it’s also wrong to rape somebody in Central Africa.
    1:27:21 Like it does.
    1:27:26 And so I’m just saying you’re committing the same act that we would consider murder in the first degree here.
    1:27:42 And then just to go one step further, I think particularly like part of the reasons why people have different attitudes about the way two nations fight, like what, what we think of as war versus what we think as, as like, say like a policing issue.
    1:27:56 Like we would never accept the idea that like, you know, if, um, if, if whatever the same, the logic that’s used in wars, used in world war two, even used in Iraq and Afghanistan, especially used in the war in Gaza.
    1:28:08 If, if, you know, if there was a bad guy, even a guy who had done something like October 7th, you know, at which we have school shooters and things like that here, you know, if there was an active duty school shooter and he’s in a school shooting people.
    1:28:13 And we know he’s already killed like 25 people, he’s, Hey, he’s using them as human shields.
    1:28:15 No, it’s not our fault.
    1:28:22 You see, listen, those deaths, those deaths, Lex, while tragic were the school shooters fault because he used all these people as human shields.
    1:28:24 We would never for a goddamn second.
    1:28:28 If those were our kids in there, we’d never accept that excuse by what?
    1:28:30 Yeah, that guy was bad.
    1:28:38 You still had an obligation to do something else that was never except now that we may look at things differently in the context of a war.
    1:28:50 But also, by the way, I’m not sure I completely do, but typically speaking, when people think of wars, they’re thinking of this government versus this government, this military versus this military.
    1:28:52 That’s not the situation here.
    1:28:55 You know, so like while Israel is saying, Hey, they’re using human shields.
    1:28:58 It’s also like, and that is true.
    1:29:04 I think to some degree, I think the Israelis overplay it a little bit, but there have been, I think, clear instances where Hamas is using human shields.
    1:29:11 But it’s kind of a flip side of a different point.
    1:29:16 And like the other point is like, oh, well, why aren’t they using their army or their air force or their navy?
    1:29:17 Oh, right.
    1:29:18 Because they don’t have any of those.
    1:29:19 Oh, that’s right.
    1:29:27 So you’re fighting a war against a people that don’t have a government because you’ve denied them their right to have one.
    1:29:40 And so that’s that’s the thing where I do think if you’ve occupied the place since 1967, you almost now take on an obligation that you kind of have to almost conduct this as a police matter.
    1:29:45 You know, you’re not allowed to just because otherwise because now we are getting awfully close to the scenario that we just laid out.
    1:29:47 We’re like, oh, there’s a school shooter.
    1:29:48 Blow up the school.
    1:29:53 It’s difficult to have a discussion about ethics when you’re talking about war.
    1:29:55 It’s really at the core of it.
    1:29:57 All war is immoral.
    1:29:58 Yeah.
    1:30:02 I mean, by its very definition, it’s innocent people dying almost always.
    1:30:02 Right.
    1:30:06 It’s difficult to pick which is the just war.
    1:30:11 And even World War Two, because of the complexities that you mentioned, is difficult.
    1:30:11 Yeah.
    1:30:12 Because it’s Stalin.
    1:30:21 Well, as my as my buddy Daryl Cooper demonstrated, I think we can have a reasonable civil discussion about these things without anybody blowing their lid.
    1:30:22 We can all just talk.
    1:30:25 No, but like, I mean, look, there’s so many.
    1:30:31 World War Two is just it’s the third rail like nothing else.
    1:30:50 I really World War Two and the civil rights movement, I think, are the like third rails of American politics that if you like if you have any type of view that is not the the approved, authorized view of how these events went, you’re in a lot of trouble.
    1:31:00 If you wanted to compare Hitler to Stalin’s body count at that time, Stalin was already a genocidal maniac and Hitler had not gone genocidal yet.
    1:31:12 So there is a weird dynamic that now, in hindsight, it looks a little bit better because you go, yeah, but he went so genocidal at the end there, you know, but like that’s a weird decision at the time to ally with with Joseph Stalin.
    1:31:20 When he had already done the worst things that Joseph Stalin had done, or at least a lot of the worst things he had done.
    1:31:23 I guess there were a lot more in the war as well, but.
    1:31:25 I was curious, though, you didn’t mention Mao.
    1:31:29 It’s that funding again, because he did even worse than Stalin.
    1:31:30 So is that the second?
    1:31:32 I’m not sure that’s officially known.
    1:31:34 Do we actually know that Mao killed anybody?
    1:31:35 I mean, all right, I’ll come.
    1:31:36 I’ll say it.
    1:31:37 Here we go.
    1:31:38 I’m going to blow my funding.
    1:31:40 Bad guy, that Mao Zedong.
    1:31:41 Do not care for him.
    1:31:48 I think the Chinese government officially says they have like an actual percentage that he was 70% correct.
    1:31:49 Is that true?
    1:31:51 They actually broke it down to that 70%?
    1:31:55 But the 30% was being the worst mass murderer in human history.
    1:31:57 That’s such a communist thing to do.
    1:31:58 Yeah, we measured it.
    1:32:01 We measured it and perfectly scientifically figured it out.
    1:32:05 Since you mentioned Daryl Cooper, you’re friends with him.
    1:32:10 Can you tell me about him and tell me about the whole saga about where he got attacked after the Tucker interview?
    1:32:11 Yeah, yeah.
    1:32:16 So, well, Daryl, I was just a big fan.
    1:32:18 And still, I’m really just a big fan of him.
    1:32:24 We chatted like a few times, and I interviewed him on my podcast.
    1:32:26 And I consider us friends.
    1:32:29 The Martyr Maid Podcast is his show, and it’s just phenomenal.
    1:32:37 I found out about him from my guy is Scott Horton, who is a very close friend of mine.
    1:32:45 And I think the best person on war in the country.
    1:32:46 He’s just a genius.
    1:32:53 He runs the Libertarian Institute, and he’s also been the editor at Antiwar.com for many years now.
    1:33:02 So, he first told me about Daryl, and what I knew of Daryl was just that he did a podcast with Jocko.
    1:33:04 And so, they did their show together.
    1:33:07 And I listened to a couple episodes of it and really enjoyed it.
    1:33:12 And then, it was Scott, who was like, dude, you gotta check out his podcast, Martyr Maid.
    1:33:13 It’s like the best history podcast.
    1:33:20 And I ended up listening to his—the first thing I listened to of his was the Fear and Loathing in the New Jerusalem.
    1:33:24 He’s done a few things on Twitter where he’s kind of like shitposting and stuff like that.
    1:33:29 But when you listen to his work, like when he lays down, like, I’m going to put together this—this thing.
    1:33:35 I’m going to take years to put together like a long presentation on the history of this conflict or the history of this.
    1:33:43 He is—has like the utmost responsibility in the way that he tells the story and the way he presents it.
    1:33:53 I cannot understand how anyone would listen to his work and come away with the feeling that this guy is any type of, like, Jew hater or Nazi apologist or anything like that.
    1:33:54 It’s just not who he is.
    1:34:05 What Daryl said on Tucker’s show was that he goes, you know, I’ll say this to be provocative sometimes to kind of rib my buddy Jocko, who’s like Anglo-Saxon, so this kind of gets to him.
    1:34:13 He goes, and I’m being a bit hyperbolic when I say this, but I’ll sometimes say that Winston Churchill was the chief villain of World War II.
    1:34:14 Now, he didn’t commit the most atrocities.
    1:34:16 He wasn’t, like, the worst person there.
    1:34:25 But he was a guy who was hell-bent on kind of this thing becoming what it ultimately became, whereas, like, this might have just been an invasion of Poland.
    1:34:29 This may not have been this whole cascade of, like, the worst thing that ever happened in human history.
    1:34:34 Now, the retelling of that is always people go, he said Churchill was the chief villain of the war.
    1:34:37 But it’s like, no, not exactly.
    1:34:38 Like, you know what I mean?
    1:34:44 He’s making a point, and I think he’s putting out right now a long series on World War II.
    1:34:47 He just put the prologue to it out, which was excellent, by the way.
    1:34:56 And I really just have, you know, listen, after it’s out, maybe I’ll come back and regret saying this, but I don’t think I will.
    1:35:01 I really have, like, trust that Darrell will handle this, like, responsibly.
    1:35:11 And, in fact, I think that he might be, and not because he’s, like, involved at, like, this is his angle or what he’s attempting to do.
    1:35:15 I think just that he’s going to tell the truth, and the truth will take you where it takes you.
    1:35:34 I think he’s actually going to probably serve a function of bringing a lot of those types kind of back to reality and bringing them back to being, like, like, if you think he’s going to be excusing the atrocities of the Nazis in this thing, I just don’t, I don’t think you’re going to be happy with the end product if that’s what you are coming into it for.
    1:35:41 Okay, one thing I want to say is I think calling Darrell a Nazi, a Nazi sympathizer is just wrong, and it does a lot of damage.
    1:35:44 I think he’s, he has a lot of value to his podcast.
    1:35:49 I think we’re, like, there’s several things to sort of make very clear.
    1:35:59 I think as a really interesting guy, I’m sure I’ll talk to him in the future, but I just want to lay on the table that I think what he’s saying about Churchill is just dead wrong.
    1:36:07 I think legitimately that statement, removing the trolling from it, is a revisionist history statement that I think is wrong.
    1:36:15 The invasion of the Soviet Union would have happened no matter what, and possibly, which I’m actually learning a lot more, Stalin could have gone the other way as well.
    1:36:27 That, that was going to be a global war no matter what Churchill, the role of Churchill we can debate, and I still don’t think he was a main instigator of that expansion there.
    1:36:29 There’s a lot of historical documentation of that.
    1:36:34 Well, look, that’s a, that’s a fair debate to have, and it’d be interesting to see you two kind of talk about that.
    1:36:37 Or maybe not even debate it, but just, like, have a conversation about that.
    1:36:49 I think the broader point you’re making is a lot of, I mean, there’s just a lot of trivialization of the World War II that happens in the West, in the United States especially, and that’s used by neocons, by.
    1:36:50 Oh, yeah.
    1:36:52 By warmongers, the sort of.
    1:37:00 Oh, I constantly, I mean, I’ve never, I don’t think, I’ve done a bunch of, like, Israel-Palestine debates.
    1:37:10 I don’t think I’ve ever done one where World War II wasn’t invoked, and where that wasn’t, like, the, well, I mean, Dresden, Hiroshima, Nagasaki, so you’re going to tell me it’s not okay?
    1:37:20 And immediately, just, if you just look at it like that, like, let’s say the official narrative is 100% true in World War II, let’s even say every aspect of the official narrative is really true.
    1:37:32 Like, the lesson of World War II is that we should have gone to war sooner, which is essentially, right, like, the dominant mainstream narrative that Chamberlain is the failure, that was the problem, the appeasement.
    1:37:34 Churchill was the solution.
    1:37:43 If only Chamberlain had been Churchill, or if only we had gone to war with Germany and, you know, whatever, in 1933, we would have just, it would have been better.
    1:37:44 But, okay, let’s say all of that’s true.
    1:37:51 It still doesn’t follow from that, that, therefore, in every situation, appeasement is wrong and aggression is good.
    1:37:56 It doesn’t follow from that that that’s the only lesson of history, and that now it’s just okay to slaughter civilians.
    1:38:02 Like, it’s okay to go to total war against a civilian population because this one time it was necessary.
    1:38:11 Like, it’s, and the idea that, like, Bobby Kennedy said this to me, again, somebody who I really do love and admire in many ways, and I’m glad he’s the health secretary.
    1:38:20 I remember him saying this, evoking the Nazis and making a comparison between Hamas and the Nazis, and you’re like, dude, Hamas doesn’t even control Gaza, really.
    1:38:23 The Nazis had most of Europe at one point.
    1:38:26 This is just not an apples-to-apples conversation.
    1:38:32 This is not, you can’t even compare the two in terms of what type of menace or threat they are to the world.
    1:38:40 I mean, like, sure, maybe if Hamas had a lot of power, they’d use it in a bad way, but, like, that’s true with, like, some homeless guy on the street, too.
    1:38:43 But he doesn’t have that power, so, like, what are we talking about here?
    1:39:00 And so the way, I do think that the way the World War II narrative is weaponized has been, even if World War II itself was necessary and just, the way that that’s been weaponized over the years has led to just, like, countless catastrophes.
    1:39:13 And, like, you know, and it’s always, it’s not just, like, you know, I mean, I guess it’s just, in some ways, there might be something positive about the fact that everybody’s always called Hitler if they’re bad, you know what I mean?
    1:39:19 Because we make Hitler the, you know, the face of what is evil eternally or something.
    1:39:23 He really does play the role of the devil in our society in a strange way.
    1:39:33 But there is, like, you know, Saddam was the next Hitler and Gaddafi was the next Hitler and Bashar al-Assad was the next Hitler.
    1:39:38 Trump is Hitler, Hamas is Hitler, except the problem is that, like, none of them are Hitler.
    1:39:40 None of them are even close.
    1:39:42 It’s just totally different.
    1:39:44 Yeah, and the amount of power is really important.
    1:39:48 Like, it matters how much destructive power you have within you, the capabilities.
    1:39:55 But, like, every major superpower with nuclear weapons has the potential to be that destructive.
    1:39:56 It’s just unproductive.
    1:39:59 And yet the only ones who ever have dropped them are us.
    1:40:00 Yeah.
    1:40:04 I was arguing with one guy on a podcast, and he said that.
    1:40:07 He goes, you can’t allow dictators to have nuclear weapons because they might use them.
    1:40:10 And I was like, but we are the only ones who ever used them.
    1:40:13 And he goes, ah, come on, that’s naive or something.
    1:40:14 Like, wait, what?
    1:40:16 Why shouldn’t that be pointed out?
    1:40:18 And I don’t know.
    1:40:21 I mean, I’d prefer Iran not get nuclear weapons.
    1:40:28 I, you know, I think we’re pushing them to probably want to pursue that.
    1:40:34 And I also think there’s been a lot of propaganda about the nuclear program in Iran.
    1:40:39 I know at least since the 90s, according to Netanyahu, they’ve been five years away.
    1:40:44 Yeah, I think there’s a lot of warmongering going on about all parts of the world, Iran especially.
    1:40:48 I do, I have a lot of friends in Iran, from Iran.
    1:40:54 It’s one of the most beautiful cultures in the world, like, there’s just super power of intellect and culture.
    1:41:00 And it’s really sad and disappointing that the regime is basically suppressing that culture.
    1:41:00 Yeah.
    1:41:11 You have to always remember, like, there’s parts of the world where the people are beautiful, and we don’t get to see it because of the suppression, the lack of freedom.
    1:41:11 Yeah.
    1:41:12 No, absolutely.
    1:41:20 So all that said, there does seem to be a lot of hatred of Jews on X.
    1:41:21 Yeah.
    1:41:35 How much of it do you think is actual hate of Jews, and how much of it is just trolls and grifters and conspiracy nerds just, you know, cosplaying as Nazis?
    1:41:38 It’s really hard to tell.
    1:41:39 I mean, I don’t know.
    1:41:42 I don’t know how you even figure it out.
    1:41:48 And I think this is one of the problems with outrage culture.
    1:42:01 It’s kind of one of the unintended consequences of it, is that now you just have no way of knowing who’s saying this just to get a rise out of you, or who really sincerely means it, or who’s some version of both.
    1:42:08 Um, then there’s also, it’s like there’s so many weird dynamics, because there’s no question, like, I see it all the time.
    1:42:15 I mean, I see a level of, like, Jew hatred on Twitter that I’ve never seen before in my own replies and other people’s things.
    1:42:18 Like, it’s, and that’s interesting.
    1:42:21 Like, first off, you’re like, okay, what’s going on here?
    1:42:23 Interesting sociological phenomenon, yeah.
    1:42:28 Right, you know, um, yeah, concerning and troubling and all of that stuff.
    1:42:36 But then you also see people who will be asking, like, completely legitimate questions or making completely legitimate points that are called anti-Semitic.
    1:42:51 And then that, I think, does not help the dynamic at all, because now you’re almost like, oh, there’s, number one, you just kind of, you make the word meaningless, you take away the disincentive for anybody else to actually be a Jew hater.
    1:43:06 Um, I mean, I think there’s a lot going on, you know, one of the things is that for young white men in America today, they’ve lived through the years of, of real insane progressive wokeism.
    1:43:11 And so, you know, which is something like my, like I’m 42, it’s just a different thing for me.
    1:43:28 Like I come from a different culture and a different time that is just simply was not the case that when I was a teenager or when I was in college or when I was in my early twenties, that the school, the faculty, the politicians, Hollywood, all of them embraced racialism.
    1:43:41 You know, they all said we’re playing identity politics and it is okay to dice people up along these racial lines and have that first and foremost in your mind, you know, and there is this weird feeling over this last year.
    1:43:46 And now with Trump being reelected that like we snapped our fingers and wokeism went away or something like that.
    1:43:51 But these guys still came up in this, in this era.
    1:44:04 And there was, it was always the case that like one of the, the dangerous elements of playing this game was like, well, you think you’re going to play this and that like young straight white men aren’t going to start playing this game too.
    1:44:06 Why the hell would they not?
    1:44:08 Like, why, why would they just accept?
    1:44:13 We’ll just sit here while everybody else is allowed to have a racial identity and a grievance about it.
    1:44:17 And yet we’ll be the one group who you could just stomp all over us.
    1:44:19 We’re the bad guys.
    1:44:23 And that’s part of the reason why I always opposed the woke insanity.
    1:44:25 I mean, first and foremost, just cause I think it’s wrong.
    1:44:29 I think it’s wrong to like be shitty to people based on their racial group.
    1:44:30 And that includes white people too.
    1:44:34 Um, but then also you’re like, you don’t see that this is going to result in something bad.
    1:44:36 So there’s, there’s that.
    1:44:48 Um, but I mean, I, you know, clearly, and, and it was weird to me is that I guess it’s because a lot of the people who are the most upset about the antisemitism also happen to be supporting.
    1:44:49 Israel.
    1:44:54 Like there’s a big correlation between that, but clearly that’s a huge factor in this.
    1:45:02 Like it’s, it’s not a coincidence that all of this rose up while Israel is just conducting this brutal campaign with our weapons and money.
    1:45:13 And so I always think with these things, whether it’s with Putin or with Al Qaeda or with whoever, and I’m not saying like the guy who posts like Jew Haiti stuff on Twitter is the same as them.
    1:45:22 I’m just saying in all of these situations, you always kind of got to separate like what are legitimate grievances and what are like, okay, that’s you’re wrong on that.
    1:45:23 And you shouldn’t be doing that.
    1:45:32 You know, like, so it’s, it’s pretty easy for me to like, if I listened to like the Putin interview with Tucker, I thought his whole 30 minute opening thing was like horrible.
    1:45:45 And it’s just like kind of stupid, especially when you’re talking to Tucker Carlson, you know, this is like for an American audience, you know, how much that does not resonate with Americans being like, we have a historic claim over another.
    1:45:50 Our entire society is founded on, we think that’s bullshit.
    1:45:53 Like that’s the entire history of our society is like, nah, it doesn’t matter.
    1:45:53 Sorry.
    1:45:56 Like literally read the declaration of independence.
    1:45:59 It just refutes everything Vladimir Putin said in the first 30 minutes.
    1:46:05 Like our view of the world is that God wants us to be free and we get to overthrow governments if they’re infringing on our rights.
    1:46:07 Like that’s, so that was stupid.
    1:46:15 But then when he’s talking about like NATO enlargement and bringing Ukraine into the American military alliance, you’re like, I, okay, he’s got a legitimate.
    1:46:21 There we would not allow one of our neighbors to be brought into China or Russia’s military alliance.
    1:46:29 And so likewise, when it comes to those guys, I do think that like you almost look, it is, it is just true.
    1:46:43 It is the case that America has fought many wars over the last seven years with Israel playing a very influential role in us fighting those wars.
    1:46:51 And, you know, these were, uh, this was like a scheme that was cooked up by the neoconservatives and the Likudniks in Israel that we would go through this path.
    1:46:54 But there’s been confirmed by four star general Wesley Clark.
    1:47:01 He literally said it was a study paid for by the Israelis that we were going to topple seven countries in five years.
    1:47:05 And we didn’t get there in five years, but we’ve been made attempts to topple all of those countries since then.
    1:47:11 You know, you see Trump’s bombing the Houthis because they’re pissed off about Israel’s treatment of the Palestinians.
    1:47:14 And so they’re trying to shut down their straits or whatever.
    1:47:17 And it’s like, so we’re just bombing another group on behalf of Israel.
    1:47:30 And if you really are concerned about the rise of Jew hatred, I would say like, look, it’s much like, you know, sometimes people argue where, you know, the thing I said in the beginning about the terrorists don’t hate us for our freedom.
    1:47:31 They hate us because we’re over there.
    1:47:34 And people would say, that’s just what Osama bin Laden says.
    1:47:39 He just says he hates us for our military, but he really just hates us because he’s an Islamist and we’re free people or whatever.
    1:47:43 And he’d be like, OK, well, even if that’s what’s in his heart, that sure is his recruiting stick.
    1:47:47 That sure is how he gets other people to blow themselves up.
    1:47:55 And so even if you want to say, which is which might very well be the case, that some of these people just hate Jews and it wouldn’t matter if Israel was at war with Gaza or not.
    1:47:58 It’s like, OK, but that sure is their recruiting stick.
    1:48:02 That sure is how they get other people to go look at what these Jews are doing in our foreign policy.
    1:48:04 So I would I don’t know.
    1:48:05 There’s a lot going on.
    1:48:14 I do think I think racialism of all different forms is stupid and wrong.
    1:48:18 It always just leads to sloppy thinking and bad results.
    1:48:19 It’s always kind of ugly.
    1:48:22 And then weirdly, it also always ends up hurting the person.
    1:48:23 Like, it’s not good for you.
    1:48:25 It’s not good for your soul.
    1:48:27 So I don’t like seeing that stuff.
    1:48:36 But then I also think, you know, like I was saying before about there’s like this hierarchy of outrages that you got to have in order to think and act.
    1:48:38 You have to kind of put these together.
    1:48:40 And, you know, I just hear a little bit.
    1:48:45 It’s something that I’m, you know, despite being described as a self-hating Jew, I am really not.
    1:48:46 I love Jewish people.
    1:48:47 I love Jewish culture.
    1:48:49 I’ve benefited a lot from it.
    1:48:52 It’s it’s in many ways made me the person I am.
    1:48:56 And I think made I think it’s influenced some of the best parts of me.
    1:49:04 But there is like a whininess and a hysteria about this stuff that I think is just like not healthy.
    1:49:06 I think it’s not good.
    1:49:14 I’ve told many Jewish friends and family this privately, but it’s like the way I look at it is like I’m an American.
    1:49:17 This has been a wonderful country to be Jewish.
    1:49:20 Jews are doing exceptionally well in this country.
    1:49:25 We are two percent of the population or so, and we are thriving by any metric.
    1:49:36 And if mean stuff on Twitter is our great burden to bear, I don’t think we should be talking about it like we’re in the middle of Nazi Germany or something like that.
    1:49:39 So I do think people get hysterical about it.
    1:49:40 In a way, that’s completely not productive.
    1:49:50 But to me, I think I think of the Jew hating nerds and trolls on Twitter is just the other side of the woke.
    1:49:52 I kind of get that.
    1:49:53 Yeah, it’s almost like a response.
    1:50:00 Like you were saying, it’s just that the woke weren’t censored and the response to the woke was censored.
    1:50:06 And now that on X, they’re less censored or not censored, you just get to see it.
    1:50:08 And they’re both annoying.
    1:50:10 I agree with that.
    1:50:12 They don’t really help the discussion on Israel.
    1:50:14 They don’t help the discussion on anything.
    1:50:23 In fact, I one of the reasons I stay away from that discussion of Israel, which I think is nuanced and really complicated in the way that we’ve been discussing.
    1:50:31 In order to have an intellectual like exploration of ideas, you have to be able to misstep and try ideas for size.
    1:50:36 And if I’m going to be punished severely by these, I’m okay being criticized.
    1:50:49 But when there’s like low brain takes that are just lying about me on mass, like you get a huge amount of engagement just because you’re like thinking out loud and reading history.
    1:50:51 And it’s just annoying.
    1:50:58 And by the way, I’m really interested about World War II, probably in the way that Dan Carlin and Daryl Cooper are interested.
    1:51:07 Because it’s such an interesting stage on which human nature was explored in all its forms, the geopolitics of it.
    1:51:10 Everybody on that stage was complicated.
    1:51:19 Also, there’s a lot of fascinating military tactics and strategy and military technology, plus the nuclear bomb, all of that.
    1:51:21 That’s like a moment in human history.
    1:51:25 Listen, I love Genghis Khan, Roman Empire, Alexander the Great.
    1:51:32 Those are all interesting studies of human history of military tactics, of brutality, of human nature, all of that.
    1:51:34 That’s why I want to be able to discuss that.
    1:51:38 It’s fascinating that humans are able to do that kind of thing.
    1:51:40 What causes them to do it?
    1:51:42 What were the dynamics involved?
    1:51:47 The propaganda on all sides could have been avoided or not?
    1:51:50 Plus, Stalin is part of this picture.
    1:51:51 Yeah.
    1:51:52 It’s like, what the fuck?
    1:51:55 You don’t get characters.
    1:51:59 After the nuclear bomb, you’re just not going to get characters like that.
    1:52:01 You’re not going to get a global war of that kind.
    1:52:04 It might be a different one, maybe a cyber war or maybe a war in space.
    1:52:07 But we’re not going to get this kind of war ever again.
    1:52:11 That was the last, the biggest and the last global war we’re going to get.
    1:52:14 So I want to be able to like mouth off and explore.
    1:52:18 And yeah, argue with Daryl Cooper, Bob Churchill and say stupid shit in the process.
    1:52:20 And Daryl says stupid shit in the process too.
    1:52:26 So anyway, the trolls on the left and the right just make everything worse.
    1:52:26 And it’s annoying.
    1:52:28 No, I agree with that.
    1:52:36 And I’m sure I’m not without my own bias in this because I like…
    1:52:43 But from my own self-interested perspective, I’m not saying this is the main reason to be
    1:52:44 annoyed with them or anything like that.
    1:52:51 But I, what I personally get is all types of like self-hating Jew, Nazi apologists, all this.
    1:52:56 Literally just because I criticize the way Israel’s conducting this war.
    1:52:58 So I think that’s like insane.
    1:53:02 But then I also feel like, and I’m not, Liz, I don’t want to be clear and disclaim this.
    1:53:06 I’m not saying this is the worst thing about people who are Jew haters on Twitter.
    1:53:12 But just from a personal perspective, I’m like, guys, you are not helping me, man.
    1:53:17 Like, it’s like, I’ll get people in my comments who I think are trying to like catch my back
    1:53:18 who just don’t know I’m Jewish.
    1:53:20 And they’re like, I’ll say something critical of Israel.
    1:53:25 And then someone will argue with me and they’ll be like, oh, look, a Jew came in here to defend
    1:53:25 Israel.
    1:53:31 And I’m like, dude, first of all, do you, you’re like, literally, you might as well be working
    1:53:32 for Mossad.
    1:53:38 You literally make the entire, you make the movement who’s criticizing Israel look terrible,
    1:53:39 dude.
    1:53:43 Like you are literally the enemy that they would like to have.
    1:53:49 And so it’s, it, there’s a very weird dynamic in the Israel-Palestine conflict where all of
    1:53:56 there’s so many of the loons on both sides who almost seem like they’re secretly working for
    1:53:57 the other side.
    1:54:03 Like if you, when you see the, the Palestinian protests and they’re chanting death to America
    1:54:06 and all this stuff, you’re like, what are you, what are you doing?
    1:54:09 Are you trying to make people more sympathetic to Israel?
    1:54:16 Cause that’s the, if, if Rabbi Shmuley was working for Adolf Hitler or something like that,
    1:54:18 it would all make perfect sense.
    1:54:19 You were like, oh, I get it.
    1:54:22 You sent this guy out to make everyone hate Jewish people.
    1:54:27 And then like, it’s just, there’s just a very, and then with the, um, with the, the
    1:54:32 Jew hating post too, it’s just, yeah, it’s, it just feeds right into the, the opposition
    1:54:38 side of how to caricature, you know, it’s like, oh, so their game is they’ll smear everybody
    1:54:41 who’s a critic of Israel as, as being a Jew hater.
    1:54:44 So your answer is to just really be a Jew hater.
    1:54:46 Like, all right, I don’t think that’s helping.
    1:54:52 Uh, so maybe this is a good time to ask for your advice because these folks are the reason
    1:54:53 why I’m hesitant.
    1:54:58 Uh, so I’ve interviewed several world leaders recently.
    1:55:07 Uh, it’s looking likely that I’ll interview Vladimir Putin and several other similar level
    1:55:08 major world leaders.
    1:55:12 I’ve previously interviewed Benjamin Netanyahu for an hour.
    1:55:16 one of the biggest regrets I have about that interview is it was only an hour.
    1:55:24 I realized that, uh, I mean, I learned a lot, but I think he’s a really important historical
    1:55:24 figure.
    1:55:29 And I think it’s impossible to have a, an effective conversation with him.
    1:55:31 That’s shorter than three hours.
    1:55:39 So, uh, it looks like he’s interested now to do round two with me for three or more hours.
    1:55:46 And I’ve personally, uh, so this is a bit of a therapy session, but I’ve personally been
    1:55:48 leaning against doing it.
    1:55:54 And I hate that I’m leaning against doing it because the reason I’m leaning against doing
    1:55:59 it is because the very people you’re talking about, because I just don’t want them to on
    1:56:04 either side, pro is there a pro it doesn’t really matter, but the chanting sheep of animal
    1:56:10 animal farm, Jew hating or otherwise just make your life.
    1:56:16 They follow you around everywhere on online and make it, uh, difficult to think.
    1:56:23 I think whenever I come across these crowds, the woke left or the, whatever you call the
    1:56:31 Jew haters, the woke right, let’s call them, uh, they just like decrease the quality of
    1:56:34 my thoughts for the rest of the day.
    1:56:35 Like I feel dumber.
    1:56:40 It’s like Rogan talks about when he hears a bad comedian, he feels like nothing is funny
    1:56:40 anymore.
    1:56:43 This is what I feel like when I read their thoughts.
    1:56:46 It’s like, I can’t, I’m going to go read a book now.
    1:56:52 Cause I need to like recover my brain dangerous kind of poison to let in your mind because then
    1:56:57 you’re like, uh, it’s like, Hey, I can’t be thinking about you when I’m doing what I
    1:56:57 want to do.
    1:57:00 Like, I can’t be thinking about what your reaction to this is going to be.
    1:57:06 The way I always thought about it was like, when I get like, you know, hate online, which
    1:57:12 I’m, you know, always get, um, it’s always just kind of like, I look at it like this.
    1:57:20 Like I got, um, I got a great family and a great career and I really love what I do.
    1:57:23 I make really good money at what I do.
    1:57:25 And I go, I do shows all the time.
    1:57:28 I get crowds of people who love what I do.
    1:57:31 I got a lot of people who listen to my podcast who love what I do.
    1:57:35 And it’s like, so if I get all that and then the price that comes along with that, is there
    1:57:37 some people who are talk shit online?
    1:57:42 It’s like, that’s a very, that’s a very good price to pay for all of this.
    1:57:46 It’s like, it’s just, and I just like, I just kind of made a decision at a certain point
    1:57:49 that it’s like, I’m just going to accept that that’s the price of business here.
    1:57:50 That’s what it costs.
    1:57:52 And then, okay, fine.
    1:57:57 And then sometimes I try to have fun with it or mock them or whatever to go back.
    1:58:02 But to me now, again, I, I can never tell you what to do because this is a, it’s a very
    1:58:04 personal price that you have to pay.
    1:58:07 And it’s a very weird psychological dynamic.
    1:58:10 I mean, it’s just not, it’s almost something like that.
    1:58:15 We, we were not evolved to deal with and is very artificial and it’s very, you know, like
    1:58:20 if you’re, if there’s a group of like thousands of people who hate your guts and are furious
    1:58:25 at you, we’re almost like hardwired to be like, well, I’m going to be killed now.
    1:58:27 Like, that’s the next thing that happens.
    1:58:32 You know, you, you’re not supposed to get to know what just someone in Arkansas thinks
    1:58:33 about you right now, you know?
    1:58:42 But so that’s a very personal like decision to make, but I kind of feel like guys like me
    1:58:48 and you have already made the decision that we’re in the arena and we’re going to deal with
    1:58:49 that, that price.
    1:58:54 And so I just, from my perspective, I’m like, yeah, but how could you turn down getting
    1:58:56 three hours with Netanyahu?
    1:58:58 Like that would just be so interesting.
    1:59:02 And I’m not even saying, you know, like I hate the guy, but I’m not saying you should
    1:59:02 interview him.
    1:59:06 Like you hate the guy, or I’m not saying you even have to like grill it, but just if you
    1:59:11 get three hours with somebody, something interesting is going to be revealed there.
    1:59:13 There’ll be a benefit to that.
    1:59:15 It’ll be interesting to just see him talk that way.
    1:59:21 There’s also something about, as we kind of saw with, with Trump doing the podcasts and
    1:59:26 even with JD Vance doing some of the podcasts, there is something really interesting about
    1:59:34 this format, the long form podcast where it just gets people to let down their guard and
    1:59:36 reveal themselves a little bit more.
    1:59:38 Like it is, it’s not just the time factor.
    1:59:39 Like that’s a big one.
    1:59:44 It’s a huge, huge one, but it’s like, there’s something about like, if me and you were just
    1:59:44 like.
    1:59:50 If you, we were having this conversation right now, but in back of us was like a cable news,
    1:59:54 you know, background of red and blue and sparks and a ticker at the bottom of the show.
    1:59:56 And then you just start interviewing someone.
    1:59:58 It’s just a different thing.
    2:00:04 Whereas this, you just kind of like fall into conversation mode and I’d be interested to see
    2:00:06 him fall into that Putin too.
    2:00:08 Like, I just think it’s great.
    2:00:11 First of all, thank you for the encouragement.
    2:00:18 But to push back on the complexity of a little bit, I think everything you said about your
    2:00:20 life is also true about my life, except family.
    2:00:21 I want to have a family.
    2:00:22 You son of a bitch, you bragging.
    2:00:27 But on the podcast side, I can have a lot of incredible conversations.
    2:00:35 Some of my favorites is talking to programmers or video game designers or to you about Netanyahu
    2:00:39 versus talking to a world leader is a very specific thing.
    2:00:43 And people don’t understand that, for example, you and I can mouth off.
    2:00:48 We can be super supportive of Netanyahu, super critical in a way that you can’t do in front
    2:00:48 of the guy.
    2:00:50 Yeah, that’s true.
    2:00:54 You can’t, you have, there’s a, if you want to reveal something about that person, there’s
    2:01:00 a different skill involved there in order to reveal how they think, who they are as a human
    2:01:00 being.
    2:01:05 You have to, just like we said with Daryl Cooper, you have to humanize the person to a degree
    2:01:13 in order to let their mind flourish in front of you, in order for them to break, to let down
    2:01:18 the barriers they’ve, they’ve put up and Benjamin Netanyahu has put up a lot of barriers that
    2:01:21 internally in Israel, he gets attacked insanely.
    2:01:25 There’s a, there’s a game of thrones constantly going on.
    2:01:27 And this guy has maintained power for a very long time.
    2:01:29 So he’s very good at putting up those barriers.
    2:01:32 Plus, you know, globally gets attacked a lot.
    2:01:34 So the task there is difficult.
    2:01:38 And so each one is a puzzle and you have to make a decision.
    2:01:43 Do you want to take this on as a project, which might become a lifelong project because
    2:01:47 of the consequences and you don’t need to.
    2:01:49 It’s, it’s, there’s a calculation there.
    2:01:54 I’m not saying it’s not so like self evident that there is a correct and incorrect answer.
    2:02:01 Um, and I do think that we’ve probably all had things like certain type of ventures in life
    2:02:03 where you’re like, all right, no, I don’t want to do that.
    2:02:06 But then you have to have a moment and be like, well, why is it you don’t want it?
    2:02:08 Oh, is it just because it’s going to be a lot of work?
    2:02:09 Is it just because you’re scared of it?
    2:02:14 Is it just because this, and those typically are not good reasons to not do something like
    2:02:15 to, you know what I mean?
    2:02:20 And then now there might be, there is a reasonable, I think point that you made in there where
    2:02:24 it’s like, when it is a different game to interview a world leader, that is a very different
    2:02:25 thing.
    2:02:30 Like talking to some, uh, comedian about his thoughts on all this stuff is a very different
    2:02:34 thing than talking to a world leader and especially one who’s conducting a brutal war
    2:02:38 as you’re talking to them, you know, like that’s a, and I don’t know exactly.
    2:02:39 What the way to navigate that is.
    2:02:40 I agree with you.
    2:02:44 It’s not just to be like hostile and be like, I’ve got you here for three hours.
    2:02:45 I’m going to grill the shit.
    2:02:48 It’s like, eh, probably not the best way to do it.
    2:02:53 There’s probably to like, have a conversation to talk to the guy, probably try to get some
    2:02:58 important questions in, but also give him a chance to breathe and be a person.
    2:03:03 Um, I just, from my perspective, but again, it’s a very personal thing for me.
    2:03:07 I just do think that I like, I’m going, I hope you do it.
    2:03:08 Cause I’d love to see that podcast.
    2:03:13 Well, see, this is why it’s part of the reason I asked you is cause I get a Dave Smith endorsement
    2:03:20 on the, um, on, so that when this completely ruined, at least there’s another guy who thought
    2:03:21 there’s a chance.
    2:03:23 might be a good idea because I don’t know.
    2:03:25 I see that’s the cool thing about the things we do.
    2:03:28 You’ve been through a lot of battles.
    2:03:31 You, you walked into a lot of tough debates and it’s like, you don’t know.
    2:03:34 This could be the conversation that like ends you.
    2:03:35 I know.
    2:03:40 I, well, I’ll say that’s, I think that’s one of the things that I love about doing debates.
    2:03:46 Um, and there is something about that where it’s, I, I do kind of feel this, like I’m a little
    2:03:49 bit of, of like an adrenaline junkie.
    2:03:53 I mean, not like really, you know, I don’t like skydive or do stuff like that, but like
    2:03:56 doing standup is kind of like, you know, there’s always something about that.
    2:03:59 That’s like, you’re risking a lot by doing it.
    2:04:03 You’re like, you feel alive, you know, like not, and not like the way you do when you first
    2:04:05 start, but there is something about that.
    2:04:09 And there’s something about, well, first of all, I just kind of, I feel there’s kind of
    2:04:09 two things.
    2:04:16 Like number one, I feel like I’m obligated and I wouldn’t say this for you, but I think this
    2:04:16 is true for me.
    2:04:21 I think I’m obligated to do like at least several debates a year.
    2:04:25 Um, and I think that, I think that if I’m going to go on shows like your show and Rogan
    2:04:30 show and, and Tucker’s show and, you know, Candace or whoever else, you know, Patrick, but David
    2:04:31 and Tim pool.
    2:04:36 And I go on these big shows for long form things and I’m sitting there and I’m being like, okay,
    2:04:39 it’s like this, like, and this is, and I think it’s like this and that, then if I’m going
    2:04:44 to do that, I kind of have an obligation to like test myself against someone being like,
    2:04:46 no, it’s not like that.
    2:04:52 And then, you know, like showing that I think I can stand up to these, these kind of challenges.
    2:04:56 So I feel like I’m kind of obligated, but then I do like, there is a feeling to it where you’re
    2:05:00 like, Hey man, like, this is not, my career is not a joke.
    2:05:03 Like I got little kids, this is how I support them, you know?
    2:05:09 And like, I am kind of taking my career in my hands every time I go do one of these debates.
    2:05:15 Like if I just get smoked and this guy’s just totally beats me up, it’s like, I don’t know.
    2:05:15 I don’t know.
    2:05:18 How are you, how is anyone going to look at me again after that?
    2:05:21 You’d be like, Oh, you, you acted like you had such a good point.
    2:05:23 And then this guy just totally destroyed your point.
    2:05:31 So, but that then kind of motivates me to be like, okay, I got to really be on point.
    2:05:33 I got to really make sure I’ve done my homework.
    2:05:35 I got to make sure my argument’s really tight.
    2:05:37 I got to think about this thing from all ends.
    2:05:41 And then on the other level, it’s like, if someone can do that to me, then kind of, that’s
    2:05:43 the way the movie is supposed to end.
    2:05:48 You know, like if you, if I, if there is some hole in my argument that I’m just not thinking
    2:05:52 of, and then someone else can point it out to me and I got no response to it, then I kind
    2:05:55 of deserve to be humiliated publicly for that.
    2:05:56 So, all right.
    2:05:57 I don’t know.
    2:05:58 That’s, it’s kind of exciting in a way.
    2:06:00 Because the movie ends at some point.
    2:06:01 Well, that’s true.
    2:06:06 Unless you and your genius friends can figure out how to, you know, give us eternal life
    2:06:06 or something.
    2:06:07 I don’t think I want to live.
    2:06:09 I don’t think I want to live forever.
    2:06:14 I think, I think flirting with that idea too much is dangerous.
    2:06:18 This kind of a transhumanism kind of idea.
    2:06:18 Yeah.
    2:06:21 It’s, it’s, it’s, it’s not a good way of thinking.
    2:06:29 Now, of course I do, um, want to heal diseases and extend human life, especially high quality
    2:06:30 of human life.
    2:06:35 But yeah, if we could live, if we could be in like much better shape and much healthier and
    2:06:39 like extend life by a few decades, I think that would be great.
    2:06:40 But I agree with you.
    2:06:43 I think there’s supposed to be an expiration date on it.
    2:06:48 I think we’re supposed to, we’re supposed to, um, there’s something about like, uh, scarcity
    2:06:52 being a necessary component in a lot of different fields.
    2:06:53 You know what I mean?
    2:07:00 Where it’s like, uh, the life itself having a finite amount of time on it, I think makes
    2:07:01 it more precious.
    2:07:02 Yeah.
    2:07:03 At the individual level.
    2:07:09 And then at the societal level, it just does seem like death is the way you get new ideas.
    2:07:14 It’s like people kind of solidify their ideas and are unwilling to change their mind.
    2:07:17 And the only way you get new ideas, right?
    2:07:19 The next generation has to take them over.
    2:07:19 Yeah.
    2:07:20 You have to keep churning.
    2:07:22 All right.
    2:07:26 Speaking of the trolls and, uh, Israel, I got to ask you about this.
    2:07:27 Let’s talk about Jeffrey Epstein.
    2:07:28 Hmm.
    2:07:33 I recently got attacked, uh, because of conversation, a couple of conversations I had with Tim Dillon
    2:07:35 three and four years ago.
    2:07:36 I love Tim Dillon.
    2:07:38 He’s hilarious.
    2:07:39 I love Tim too.
    2:07:42 I’ve known, I’ve known Tim for many years.
    2:07:43 Love that guy.
    2:07:43 Yeah.
    2:07:50 So we, I bring up Jeffrey Epstein often because, uh, there’s a, it’s a fascinating study of evil
    2:07:53 to me, uh, whichever angle you take on it.
    2:08:00 And I think they’re partially the talk shit, but, uh, I showed some skepticism that he’s
    2:08:02 connected to Mossad.
    2:08:07 Uh, so to me, there’s three and I’ve evolved on that since then.
    2:08:11 Uh, by the way, I’m not actually sure it’s Mossad.
    2:08:12 It could be any intelligence agency.
    2:08:15 It could be CIA, but I was wondering if you could educate me.
    2:08:17 I did a little research on this last night.
    2:08:18 I looked into it a little more.
    2:08:20 And then I saw that you said he’s definitely Mossad.
    2:08:23 Well, I don’t know if I’d say, I didn’t say he was definitely Mossad.
    2:08:28 I don’t know my, my exact, I mean, I made one kind of jokey post as is the case with
    2:08:33 almost any, um, intelligence operation.
    2:08:40 It look, I don’t want to like poo poo anybody’s hopes here because I guess like the JFK files,
    2:08:44 uh, just got released and supposedly the rest of the Epstein files are coming out.
    2:08:50 And there’s a lot of, um, there’s a, a major yearning right now to get to the end of the
    2:08:55 movie where we find out everything that happened, you know, and that I think it’s great that people
    2:08:58 have that desire and I hope more and more does come out.
    2:09:03 I think the truth is that with any intelligence operations, we’re probably never going to know
    2:09:06 all of the details of exactly what happened.
    2:09:11 the funny thing about intelligence agencies, and I’ve been a regularly accused of being CIA,
    2:09:14 FSB or Mossad, depending on the group that’s attacking me.
    2:09:20 Uh, but I think it’s a fascinating topic and it’s very difficult to know somebody’s intelligence,
    2:09:28 but if you have any nuance, I want to discuss the nuances, then the, the, the, the, the comment is going to be that guy for sure.
    2:09:33 If we’re talking about Mossad or so on, but yeah, I, that’s one of the things I didn’t know.
    2:09:35 And I saw the, what is it?
    2:09:40 Alex Acosta said that, uh, best you can mention that Epstein is intelligence.
    2:09:44 That to me is like, okay, that’s the piece of evidence.
    2:09:46 That’s a really valuable piece of evidence that he’s intelligence.
    2:09:53 And that was very, uh, not just intelligence, but Mossad because that, before that I thought it might be CIA.
    2:09:58 Cause that’s, I kind of heard and it’s quite possible that he was working with elements of both.
    2:10:03 I mean, as I think is, is often the case, I also think that’s something that people get a little bit wrong.
    2:10:07 Like when they think like, okay, this guy was CIA or this guy was Mossad.
    2:10:12 And then there’s also, I think there’s the possibility that there are rogue elements within those organizations.
    2:10:19 Like this is not necessarily coming from the director or, or what, you know, I don’t know, but you look at the guy,
    2:10:28 the way his, his career trajectory tracks is like completely unexplainable outside of being connected to intelligence.
    2:10:31 Like, it’s not just like the one or two people saying that he’s intelligence.
    2:10:37 It’s like the, dude, the idea that you’re just like, you have no experience and you’re a teacher at Dalton,
    2:10:42 which is like this incredibly elite, uh, New York city private school.
    2:10:49 And then all of a sudden you’re at Bayer Stearns and like within two years, you’ve like made partner and you’ve made you’re worth hundreds of millions of dollars.
    2:10:52 And nobody knows where you made your money for this just doesn’t happen.
    2:11:00 And then you’re just in, you’re just inserted into this world with all of the most like highest level political leaders and cultural figures and stuff.
    2:11:12 But the thing that’s amazing about the Jeffrey Epstein story is that it’s like the level of evil and the level of corruption that it exposes no matter what the answer is.
    2:11:29 Like, no matter what the answer is, it’s, you’re going to, you’re going to tell me that there was a pedophile ring in our country that involved, I mean, listen, dude, if you had said this shit before it came out, this would have been the wildest conspiracy theory.
    2:11:41 But a pedophile ring that involves the most powerful people in the United States of America and in the world, to some degree, touching the Royal family, the Clintons, like all these people.
    2:11:47 And that this was known and covered up and then allowed to continue.
    2:11:55 I mean, like the, there’s a blackmail operation that relies on raping American children.
    2:12:04 And, and like, if this is, uh, you know, whether it’s CIA or Mossad doesn’t make one less, you know, it’s equally horrible.
    2:12:16 But then there’s like these elements where like, you’re like, okay, so when it, when he first got arrested and then he was given a slap on the wrist, a slap on the wrist.
    2:12:22 And then the prosecutor says, well, I was told by the intelligence community that he’s intelligence and to go easy on him.
    2:12:23 It’s like, oh, okay.
    2:12:23 Okay.
    2:12:27 And, and you didn’t resign and discussed that day.
    2:12:28 You know what I mean?
    2:12:30 Like, I don’t think that’s too much to ask for.
    2:12:34 You know, there was the, um, the ABC reporter who said that she had the whole story.
    2:12:36 She was on the hot mic saying she had the whole story.
    2:12:38 And then the network told her to squash it.
    2:12:40 It’s like, and you stayed working there.
    2:12:41 Like that’s, I’m sorry.
    2:12:54 Like, I’m not asking for, I’m not saying like, we’re all imperfect and none of us are heroes, but like you’re in a news network and you uncovered a child raping ring that implicated the most powerful people in our society.
    2:13:02 And your news network told you, yeah.
    2:13:10 And you did not resign in disgust that day and take this story to every single independent, independent, you know, outlet that would maybe publish it.
    2:13:11 I’m sorry.
    2:13:22 It’s like the thing it’s so damning to the entire apparatus that we did not see at the very least see mass resignations of this forget.
    2:13:25 Even like at the very least expect that it would have been prosecuted and shut down.
    2:13:37 And then, you know, still to this day, you know, even it’s like, and I think Tucker Carlson just said this recently, but like, and I guess it’s a little bit of a weird area when you’re filming people raping children.
    2:13:40 But what, where are the tapes?
    2:13:43 Why is everyone talking about the flight logs and the files?
    2:13:45 Where are the tapes?
    2:13:48 This guy was clearly taping people to blackmail them.
    2:13:54 Where are there is, is, I don’t know what the legal process of this is, but like, cause I think technically it’s child porn.
    2:13:55 So like, yeah, okay.
    2:13:57 You can’t just like distribute it out and let everybody watch it.
    2:14:05 But isn’t there a way that like somebody has to sit down and watch it and see who is implicated in this and see who would like, I just don’t.
    2:14:15 And there seems to be, there’s even, I think there’s a lot of LARPing with this administration going on right now on this topic, but does anybody really expect that we’re actually going to get to the bottom of this?
    2:14:16 Cause I don’t.
    2:14:21 And that in itself just tells you what a sham this whole goddamn system is.
    2:14:24 One of the things that’s so amazing about the Jeffrey Epstein story, right.
    2:14:25 I mean, you have all of that.
    2:14:28 And then of course the end of it, which is just like, wait a minute.
    2:14:29 Wait, what?
    2:14:29 Hold on.
    2:14:33 He’s in like the most secure, like prison.
    2:14:41 And then he gets this, the cameras go out and the correctional officers don’t fill out the log and he’s found dead.
    2:14:51 I mean, it’s the most, like, it’s just, but when you look at it in totality, there’s just like no getting around the, the huge indictment it is of this entire, like everything.
    2:15:03 And I, I mean, even the, the fact that even the Trump administration, when Pam Bondi goes, we’re going to release all of this information, we’ve only redacted what needs to be redacted for national security.
    2:15:07 Like, why does anything need to be redacted for national security?
    2:15:13 Like, I’m sorry, you’re telling me there’s a pedophile ring and we can’t tell you everything about it for national security.
    2:15:15 Why would that be related to national security?
    2:15:31 I mean, there’s just, it’s like, and, and I do think there’s something, and it’s very interesting because, you know, like we talked briefly, was that on air before we were talking about, we were talking about Sam Harris kind of like criticized me a little bit for not having the credentials to talk about some of this stuff, which, you know, like I even said, okay, he’s got a point.
    2:15:40 But it’s like, one of the things that like guys like Sam Harris will talk about a lot is, uh, that like, look, we need trust in institutions.
    2:15:46 And this, this is his big thing where he goes, you know, these people like Joe Rogan and Dave Smith are just tearing down the institutions.
    2:15:49 And while I recognize that’s an issue, I also think we need trust in these institutions.
    2:16:00 It’s like, well, it’s like, yeah, but what, yeah, well, if you talk in that tone, then it means you’re not being emotional and you’re only being logical and rational, which is like, I actually don’t think is appropriate when you’re talking about a child rapist ring.
    2:16:07 But whatever, um, that’s my take on it, but it’s like, okay, so where, where are these institutions I’m supposed to trust, man?
    2:16:13 You’re telling me there’s a pedophile ring that is at least in some degree associated with national security.
    2:16:17 Like what the, and, and how could you possibly have this story?
    2:16:26 Like if you did care about, um, the trust in institutions, then you should be even louder than me talking about like, you got to tell the truth on this story.
    2:16:28 Otherwise we’ll never have trust in these institutions.
    2:16:28 I’m the same.
    2:16:30 Actually, I believe in institutions.
    2:16:35 Like I, I think they have, so this is where you and I probably disagree on the libertarian side.
    2:16:41 I think it’s, I think institutions, if they’re run efficiently can, right.
    2:16:42 Who’s the utopian now?
    2:16:43 That’s right.
    2:16:45 I mean, there is a utopian notion to it for sure.
    2:16:50 But, uh, because it’s very possible that bureaucracies always destroy the productivity and the effectiveness of institutions.
    2:16:51 It’s possible.
    2:16:54 It’s a Lord Atkin kind of power corrupts type deal.
    2:16:56 And it’s, you’re absolutely right.
    2:17:00 If you believe in institutions, you should be, you should want to release everything about Epstein.
    2:17:04 You should want to be transparent, uh, as much as possible.
    2:17:05 Yeah.
    2:17:08 I, but the one thing I’m, and it is very suspicious.
    2:17:14 So I’m more and more becoming convinced that there’s some intelligence agency connected to it.
    2:17:29 But I also want to like setting that aside, just comment on one thing where, again, it’s super entertaining, but people say about me that I came out of nowhere and that’s proof that I’m intelligence.
    2:17:40 So first of all, there is a track record of where I came from, quote unquote, it’s just people are too lazy and there is something sexy about like just saying fucking Mossad.
    2:17:42 Oh, he’s denying it.
    2:17:43 Fucking Mossad.
    2:17:44 Yeah.
    2:17:45 By the way, the Mossad thing is a new thing.
    2:17:47 It used to be, uh, FSB and CIA.
    2:17:51 Uh, what do I want to say about that?
    2:17:51 Oh yeah.
    2:17:57 I’ve, uh, been gradually growing in popularity over the past 10 years.
    2:18:04 I’ve been doing, uh, interviews, lectures, podcasts, and they’ve been just, it’s actually very gradual.
    2:18:07 And I don’t know what else to say.
    2:18:09 There’s something, I know I’ve experienced this too, right?
    2:18:20 Like there’s such a difference in perspective because like if somebody, like if somebody just found me and they just found out who I am and they go, this guy’s brand new and he’s doing like all these shows.
    2:18:24 But you’re like, yeah, well, I don’t know, dude, not from my perspective, I’m not brand new.
    2:18:30 Like, dude, I’ve been doing, I’ve been doing standup comedy for 19 years and I’ve been podcasting for like 15 years.
    2:18:34 And you’re like, and then when it like starts taking off, everybody’s like, oh, this guy just came out of nowhere.
    2:18:49 And you’re like, I mean, all right, I wish, I wish I had been aware that it was all this quick, but look, a lot of this stuff with, with so much of this too, it’s just laziness and people searching for confirmation bias and people searching for a simpler story.
    2:18:58 So if you’re, if they believe that Epstein was Mossad and there’s a clip of you where you’re like, ah, I don’t know about that.
    2:19:00 Then they go, see, he’s Mossad too.
    2:19:02 And now that fits perfectly into my little story.
    2:19:03 I don’t know.
    2:19:07 The truth is that it’s quite possible that people just aren’t convinced.
    2:19:11 However, given enough time, Tim Dillon is always right about everything.
    2:19:14 So you got to eventually you’ll have to admit that he got it right.
    2:19:26 And, you know, not to say the cliche cheesy thing, but it is true that the comedians sometimes say, say the obvious thing that people are a little resistant to say.
    2:19:28 It ends up being, uh, being true.
    2:19:32 Now we just landed some more credibility to Tim Dillon’s insanity.
    2:19:33 Great.
    2:19:39 Now I do want to comment on the, there’s the other aspect of me that came out of nowhere.
    2:19:40 Fine.
    2:19:46 But I do get to talk to world leaders, which I have to really admit, I don’t understand why.
    2:19:54 So the experience I’ve had is you basically gain a reputation.
    2:20:04 Like I talked to a lot of scientists early on, you get a reputation like this is, this is a interesting person to talk to and that travels.
    2:20:11 And then over time, you just, you get fans and world leaders are humans too.
    2:20:15 Like they listen to the stuff and sometimes it’s their family that listen.
    2:20:15 Yeah.
    2:20:16 Oftentimes, right.
    2:20:18 Like their kids, it seems to be a big one.
    2:20:20 And so that’s just how it happens.
    2:20:22 And so you sent an email, Hey, you want to talk?
    2:20:28 And then the, their team or them directly in several cases, they just respond.
    2:20:28 Yeah.
    2:20:29 And that’s it.
    2:20:31 It’s as simple as that.
    2:20:33 And they’re like, they’re, they’re human beings.
    2:20:40 And I think a lot of them as human beings are exhausted by journalists, but shitty journalists, I should say that.
    2:20:45 And it’s hard for them to know, which is the good journalist by good.
    2:20:47 There’s the cynical view that they want.
    2:20:53 They want somebody who’s just going to spot propaganda that aligned with their propaganda.
    2:20:55 No, they just want a good faith person in front of them.
    2:21:01 Now, like, and I should also say that there, no single world leader has told me which questions to ask.
    2:21:07 There’s no, uh, there’s this meme about my conversation with Modi that’s like scripted.
    2:21:08 Nope.
    2:21:09 There was zero oversight.
    2:21:11 I have full control.
    2:21:22 Well, it’s also like, there’s, uh, I mean, obviously one of the major dynamics, which is just like one of the, um, most interesting kind of themes in the world, I think right now.
    2:21:31 But it’s particularly true in America, um, is that like the corporate media is just shrinking and shrinking and shrinking.
    2:21:41 And this whatever this is, um, which is so weird that we still all call them podcasts because that’s just not the right name for them at all.
    2:21:44 And none of us have had an iPod in quite a long time.
    2:21:47 And like, I don’t know, it’s just such a, like the first thing person came up with it.
    2:21:49 It’s a cast on an iPod.
    2:21:56 And it’s a podcast and we all still use that term, even though it’s a, but whatever these, these shows on the internet have the audience.
    2:21:59 And so that’s a big factor, just that it’s like, oh, this is where you can go to the audience.
    2:22:03 And then I would say, and I don’t know exactly, like, I have no idea.
    2:22:13 I should say the motivations inside any individual’s heads, but I would say like in the case of Vladimir Putin, he is completely blacked out in American media.
    2:22:18 And to the point that even RT has been blocked out, they, they never play any of his speeches.
    2:22:23 They never allow you to hear like, look, this is what this guy’s perspective is.
    2:22:31 It’s a, it’s very interesting in the same way that they kind of all flipped out when Osama bin Laden’s letter to America went viral on, on Tik TOK.
    2:22:36 And, um, you know, then all the talks of banning Tik TOK increased and stuff.
    2:22:44 So for him, say like when he did the Tucker interview, or if he does an interview with you, well, that’s a way for him to do an end around and allow his perspective to be heard.
    2:22:49 Which I personally think is like, obviously a good thing.
    2:22:57 Like if you’re going to go in a war and we’re kind of at a war with Russia right now, you should know what is the other guy’s perspective is not that you should take it as gospel.
    2:23:14 But, and then from Netanyahu’s perspective, I would imagine, you know, they, Israel has a lot of control in a lot of different areas, but they have been losing the internet battle very, very badly.
    2:23:16 And it’s a major problem for Israel.
    2:23:17 I mean, I don’t know.
    2:23:21 I, I still think, I think, you know, very strange way.
    2:23:30 Everybody seems to be underestimating how grave the implications of all of this are, but Israel, the view of Israel from the world is never going to be the same.
    2:23:41 What it was before the entire, and the generational divide on it is so stark, like everybody, you know, 40 and under who very quickly, you know, the time goes by quickly, pretty soon.
    2:23:45 That’s, you know, the 40 and over crowd gets aged out pretty quickly.
    2:23:52 And this is just, it’s never going to be the perception of Israel that my parents’ generation had ever again because of this war.
    2:24:04 And, you know, I’m sure to some degree, at least Netanyahu is like, feels like he has to try to get his perspective into that internet conversation area.
    2:24:10 And so I think a lot of different people, you know, obviously it was Donald Trump’s, it’s, in a way, it’s kind of shocking.
    2:24:20 And, and I guess kind of, um, Bobby Kennedy, when he was running for president and Vivek Ramaswamy, when he was running for president, they kind of were doing some of it even before Donald Trump was.
    2:24:29 But it is kind of crazy in a way that it took this long for politicians to figure out that it’s like, oh, well, I guess we got to go where the audience is.
    2:24:30 That’s the point of doing shows.
    2:24:31 Right.
    2:24:37 I mean, like, would you rather do a show, you know, like with a million people or with 10 million people?
    2:24:40 It’s like, well, okay, you guys do CNN all the time.
    2:24:42 Why wouldn’t you do Joe Rogan’s podcast?
    2:24:44 It’s just a bigger audience.
    2:24:45 And those people get to vote too.
    2:25:03 You reminded me with Netanyahu that one of the goals I have with the podcast is to have the kind of conversation that a historian would find useful 20 years from now, which is tough to do because you’re going to get punished for it.
    2:25:11 Because it’s mostly I want to reveal as much information as possible without the signaling, without the you just want to know who was this person.
    2:25:14 Yeah, no, I think I think that’s that’s exactly right.
    2:25:16 And I think this was kind of what Daryl was saying.
    2:25:31 I think that the part of the the awful thing of always using World War Two as the next example for the next war is that it’s almost like you’re never this is, you know, they hate us for our freedom or Vladimir Putin’s just mad.
    2:25:34 And he wants to reconstitute the Soviet Union.
    2:25:41 It’s like you they always insist that we can never treat our enemies as people and be like, this is a real person with real grievances.
    2:25:43 And even they might be a fanatic also.
    2:25:49 Like, I’m not saying they’re not, but it’s just like that there are these like human qualities to it.
    2:25:59 And it’s always like, you know, whatever, even when they were going before they did the Obama and Hillary Clinton did the regime change war in Libya, it was like all this propaganda.
    2:26:04 He’s buying up Viagra to rape all the women and he’s going to go genocide.
    2:26:05 This guy would have been in power for decades.
    2:26:06 You know what I mean?
    2:26:07 Like it hadn’t done that.
    2:26:15 And it’s just like, oh, it’s like the way you’re supposed to think about war is almost like these people have been possessed by pure evil.
    2:26:19 They are monsters and there’s no talking to them.
    2:26:20 There’s no dealing with them.
    2:26:21 It’s just simply this.
    2:26:34 But look, a good example, just this recent conflict with the Houthis, where you have the Houthis in Yemen, which Saudi Arabia invaded in 2015 with the full backing of the United States of America.
    2:26:37 The Houthis maintained power for eight years through that.
    2:26:40 They maintained power until this until the Saudis finally gave up.
    2:26:44 And it was literally like the Saudis were just killing hundreds of thousands of people.
    2:26:49 And then the Houthis would like get like a drone off at one of their oil refineries or something like that.
    2:26:52 And that eventually they were just doing enough damage that it was like, ah, shit.
    2:26:53 All right.
    2:26:54 This isn’t worth it anymore.
    2:26:55 And so they end it.
    2:27:06 And so anyway, you have this thing, you’re like, OK, so if they did, if they went through a total war for eight years, we think Trump sending a few Tomahawk missiles over there is going to stop them from doing this.
    2:27:06 OK.
    2:27:10 But then they didn’t do anything.
    2:27:12 And there’s according to all reporting on it.
    2:27:14 They didn’t do anything during the ceasefire.
    2:27:19 It was only once the ceasefire broke down that they went back to attacking ships again that were coming through.
    2:27:24 So you just see this thing where you’re like, it’s not saying right or wrong or who’s good or bad.
    2:27:29 It’s like, look, sometimes there’s a diplomatic solution and there’s not a military solution.
    2:27:34 And like, in this case, you’re like, it just shows you, OK, if there was a ceasefire here, these guys will chill out.
    2:27:35 What do you want to do?
    2:27:37 Again, do you want to go to total war with it?
    2:27:42 Because like, OK, we could overthrow the Houthis if the U.S. invades Yemen.
    2:27:44 Like, that’s kind of what it would take.
    2:27:51 It’s like, does anyone here really have the appetite for another catastrophic war in the Middle East against the poorest country in the Middle East?
    2:28:02 You know, or we could pursue this diplomatic route, which seemed at least I mean, I’m just saying based on the evidence that they weren’t attacking ships during the ceasefire, seems like there could be a diplomatic solution here.
    2:28:03 And so there’s just like a lot.
    2:28:06 And the problem is when you don’t like.
    2:28:13 If you make everybody monsters and they’re not human beings, well, you can’t do diplomacy with monsters.
    2:28:14 You can’t make it.
    2:28:18 You can’t negotiate with monsters, but you can with humans.
    2:28:27 And like, you know, I’m sure there are, you know, like to our earlier discussion, like maybe there are times where you’re not you shouldn’t negotiate or you can’t negotiate with humans, but it’s better if you can.
    2:28:32 And we could use a lot more of that thinking.
    2:28:35 Can we take that idea and move to the war in Ukraine?
    2:28:36 Sure.
    2:28:38 What do you think is the path for peace there?
    2:28:46 Well, I think what Trump is pursuing is like infinitely preferable to what Biden was doing.
    2:28:51 You know, what puts Donald Trump and I don’t think everything he’s done has been perfect.
    2:28:57 And I really did not like that mineral deal that he was floating out for a while there.
    2:29:04 And I think maybe that might be the best thing that came out of that Oval Office thing is that maybe that, you know, Donald Trump was going to be very tough to do business like this.
    2:29:07 And it’s like, yeah, we shouldn’t be doing this business deal anyway.
    2:29:12 But and by the way, I don’t think we should do it on a few.
    2:29:17 Number one, principally, I think it is kind of like bullying Ukraine out of resources.
    2:29:21 And from what I understand, they don’t even have that many like fine minerals, but whatever.
    2:29:32 But it’s also like, well, look, if he’s he was selling it to the Lenski is that’s kind of a security guarantee, you know, because like, hey, if we’re in business, then if Putin messes with you, he’s messing with us.
    2:29:38 But from my perspective, like, that’s the whole point is you don’t want to get into the business of giving out security guarantees.
    2:29:42 I mean, this is a real this is why George Washington was against entangling alliances.
    2:29:44 Like you give out war guarantees to too many places.
    2:29:47 You might have to fight a lot more wars than you otherwise would have fought.
    2:29:53 And also, like there’s simply we’re in this weird position where America postures like they’re so tough.
    2:29:57 But really, when it comes down to it, we’re not going to war in Ukraine.
    2:29:58 There’s no political will here.
    2:29:59 Like, I’m sorry.
    2:30:07 Try to convince the American people we should send our boys to get like I understand you’re from the region, but like for you or you have roots from there.
    2:30:14 But like to the average American, the idea of going to war over whether Luhansk is ruled by Kiev or Moscow is just.
    2:30:18 They don’t even know what Luhansk is.
    2:30:20 And if they met someone from there, would probably just assume they were Russian.
    2:30:21 You know what I mean?
    2:30:22 Like there and they might be, but whatever.
    2:30:27 I think the first step to a path to peace is that you have to want to get a path to peace.
    2:30:30 So I think Trump’s doing a good job in that.
    2:30:32 Do you think all three sides want peace from what you understand?
    2:30:37 Obviously, Trump legitimately fully with an urgency wants peace.
    2:30:39 I think for sure Trump wants peace.
    2:30:43 I also think Putin wants to wrap the conflict up.
    2:30:52 And I think that Putin has Putin has been willing to deal for the entire lead up to the war and pretty much throughout the war.
    2:30:55 And there’s been a lot of solid reporting on this.
    2:30:57 And I mean, the sources on it are pretty impeccable.
    2:31:11 The head of NATO, Strautenberg, I always mess up his name, but he literally said that in late 2021, that Vladimir Putin actually sent a draft agreement to NATO.
    2:31:17 And that his condition for not invading is like, I will not invade, but you have to put it in writing.
    2:31:19 Like he sent a draft treaty to them.
    2:31:23 You have to put in writing that Ukraine will not join NATO.
    2:31:32 And then Strautenberg bragged about how he said, no, because we won’t let Vladimir Putin dictate to us whether we can expand NATO or not.
    2:31:33 And then he was bragging.
    2:31:34 He was like, and look what he got.
    2:31:37 More NATO expansion, Finland and this and that.
    2:31:38 So look at that.
    2:31:40 And it didn’t even seem to notice like that.
    2:31:41 Wait a minute.
    2:31:47 You’re admitting that you could have just promised not to bring Ukraine into NATO and saved hundreds of thousands of lives.
    2:31:49 Seems like it would have been a much better deal.
    2:31:52 It’s going to be a much better deal than what Ukraine will ultimately end up getting.
    2:32:05 So I do think, I think also the Joe Biden’s CIA director, who was a CIA director’s whole four years, William Burns, when he was ambassador to Russia, he wrote the yet means yet.
    2:32:08 And in the memo, and again, this was dumped by Julian Assange.
    2:32:10 This wasn’t for the public.
    2:32:14 This was just him writing to Condoleezza Rice to tell the secretary of state his assessment.
    2:32:20 And he said that his exact words were a decision Russia does not want to have to make.
    2:32:23 And this was the decision about whether to invade Ukraine or not.
    2:32:30 And he was like, they say, if you keep pushing for Ukrainian entry into NATO, this could lead to a civil war and even worse.
    2:32:37 And in that situation, Russia would have to decide whether or not to intervene a decision Russia does not want to have to make.
    2:32:43 So essentially, it’s like, I think it’s pretty clear from all sides that Putin didn’t want it to come to this.
    2:32:51 And look, I mean, even after the coup in 2014, he took Crimea, but he didn’t invade the country.
    2:32:59 I mean, he sent, he may have sent special forces in, but I mean, not the full scale 2022 invasion and even the civil war going all that, you know, he did.
    2:33:02 It seemed like he, I’m not defending the decision.
    2:33:13 I’m just saying it seemed like he reluctantly debate, you know, what was it in 2014 or 15 when they had the plebiscites in Crimea and in the Donbass region?
    2:33:15 And they voted to be independent.
    2:33:17 He didn’t take him then.
    2:33:22 I mean, he could have used that as a pretense for like, hey, they voted to be with us and he didn’t.
    2:33:24 I think he wants to end the war.
    2:33:39 Zelensky from everything he said publicly seems like he still feels like, uh, I mean, I’m just taking him at his word here that it’s like, well, no, look like we could end the war, but we got to end the war.
    2:33:53 It seems like he’s moved from his position being like, no, we have to reclaim reclaim all of our territory to now his position is kind of like, all right, maybe we don’t reclaim all of it, but we got to be given some type of security guarantee in the future.
    2:33:56 I think the problem with that is just again, like.
    2:34:05 I don’t mean to be cruel about this because like, it sucks that there’s little countries that are next to big countries that kind of get bullied around about them.
    2:34:09 But there also is a bit of an entitlement to demanding a security guarantee.
    2:34:13 Like, what exactly do you mean from America?
    2:34:16 What that will go to war if you’re invaded?
    2:34:18 Why are, why do we owe that to anybody?
    2:34:19 Like, that’s crazy.
    2:34:20 I’m sorry.
    2:34:24 You can just sign up to say that we’ll go to war if anybody invades anybody.
    2:34:29 I mean, I hope nobody invades anybody, but that I don’t want us to get dragged into that.
    2:34:32 That’s a recipe for always being at war, you know?
    2:34:35 And I don’t think that’s right for our country.
    2:34:38 So essentially, I think Trump and Putin want peace.
    2:34:41 And if that’s the case, I think we’ll ultimately get to an end of this war.
    2:34:44 So there’s a lot of stuff to say here.
    2:34:47 Let’s think you started at the beginning of the foundation of this.
    2:34:58 I think the thing that we left unsaid that’s important to say is that Putin invaded Ukraine in February 24, 2022.
    2:35:05 And I think he is, at least from my perspective, the person who started the war.
    2:35:08 You could talk about NATO expansion.
    2:35:13 You could talk about any other thing that led to it.
    2:35:16 You could start at the collapse of the Soviet Union.
    2:35:19 You can go all the way back as he did, a thousand years.
    2:35:24 The reality is, and this goes to our deep discussion about the morality of war.
    2:35:34 No matter the reasons, the guy that pulls the trigger first, non-accidentally, and keeps pulling the trigger, that’s the guy who’s at fault.
    2:35:35 Oh, I agree.
    2:35:37 I’ll say one standard.
    2:35:39 Like, one standard for everybody.
    2:35:42 The standard that I laid out before is the same one I said.
    2:35:44 It’s like, did you absolutely have to do that?
    2:35:49 You know, once you start killing people by the hundreds of thousands, it’s like, was there any other option?
    2:35:52 Are you telling me, like, you absolutely had to do this?
    2:35:54 And I don’t think that’s right.
    2:36:04 You know, my friend Scott Horton, who I was talking to you about, who’s just a totally brilliant guy, even in his book, there’s a whole chapter of all the other options of what Vladimir Putin could do.
    2:36:05 So you’re absolutely right.
    2:36:17 And there’s a weird thing where, like, people say, like, if you say that the West provoked this conflict, that is a very different thing than saying that this conflict is, that this invasion was justified.
    2:36:30 And in the same way that, like, you know, if you if you were at a bar and someone goes and spits in another guy’s face and then he pulls out a gun and murders them right there, like he’s not justified in doing that.
    2:36:31 That is not OK.
    2:36:34 You don’t get to murder someone because they spit in your face.
    2:36:38 Also, if you were talking about, like, why did he murder that guy?
    2:36:40 I’d be like, oh, because he walked up and spit in his face.
    2:36:41 That’s why it happened.
    2:36:44 And that that is essentially my contention about this war.
    2:36:48 And it is I think it’s just crystal clear that that’s why it happened.
    2:36:50 Listen, it may be right or it may be wrong.
    2:37:10 But if China or Russia ever, like, backed a street push to overthrow the democratically elected government in Mexico and then install a pro Chinese or a pro Russian government and then started pumping arms in to that conflict.
    2:37:14 And then kept floating out the idea that they were going to bring them into their military alliance.
    2:37:16 D.C. would simply not allow that.
    2:37:18 You cannot do that.
    2:37:21 It’s any more than the Soviet Union could put nukes in Cuba.
    2:37:22 Like, sorry.
    2:37:26 That should be said that that’s really Cold War 20th century neocon thinking, right?
    2:37:28 It is the way the world works.
    2:37:31 But like, that’s I don’t think you should still punish.
    2:37:43 I don’t think outside of the neoconservatives, listen, whether you’re talking about the neoconservatives or going way before the any other group that has ever had control of U.S.
    2:37:53 foreign policy, going back to the the Cold Warriors, the Truman administration, the Eisenhower administration.
    2:37:55 I think you could take this back to Thomas Jefferson.
    2:38:09 If this happened in 1801, there is simply no way that they would allow a foreign great power to come bring our neighbor, overthrow their government and then bring our neighbor into their military alliance.
    2:38:11 I think there’s no great power that would ever tolerate that.
    2:38:13 First of all, we’re in a post nuclear world, right?
    2:38:16 So meaning post there’s nuclear weapons.
    2:38:25 So the threat of somebody being on your border is just not the same kind of threat when you’re in nuclear power, which is why, you know, you look at Finland.
    2:38:28 No, I think in some ways it’s more it’s more of a threat in some ways.
    2:38:33 Well, he’s not there’s Putin is not upset about Finland joining NATO nearly as much.
    2:38:42 I’m just saying to Vladimir Putin in his own words, what his issue always was, was the military hardware that comes along with NATO membership.
    2:38:46 So it’s not just that you get into NATO, but then you get all that military hardware there.
    2:38:52 And he made a huge deal about the dual use rocket launchers in Poland, which George W.
    2:38:54 Bush put there after 9-11.
    2:38:57 So I think all of those things are factors.
    2:39:02 I think Ukraine, the Crimea being their only year long warm water port.
    2:39:05 I think there’s like several, you know, like elements to it.
    2:39:11 But I do think a huge part of it is that there also the country’s been invaded through Ukraine multiple times.
    2:39:21 And so there’s just, yeah, it’s he, I think, very reasonably within the grading on a curve of how reasonable governments are.
    2:39:23 He saw that as a security threat.
    2:39:32 But we should make very clear, because the way that comes across, the full responsibility of the invasion of Ukraine lays at the hands of Vladimir Putin.
    2:39:34 I completely agree with that.
    2:39:42 Vladimir Putin is Vladimir Putin launched a war where, again, I don’t know exactly what the numbers are.
    2:39:44 I’ve read a whole bunch of estimates, some that contradict each other.
    2:39:51 But the consensus seems to be it’s at least in the hundreds of thousands, possibly well north of a million.
    2:39:56 If you’re talking about the casualties on both sides and Vladimir Putin launched a war that led to that.
    2:39:58 And he’s responsible for that.
    2:40:12 That being said, you can also point out that the, you know, really what we’re talking about here is the George H.W. Bush administration, the Clintons, Bush again, Obama, and then Trump.
    2:40:21 And the people who were in charge of the foreign policy in that, in those administrations, the same ones who gave us Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, Syria, Somalia, Yemen.
    2:40:27 They were also in charge of our European foreign policy, and they had the most reckless far.
    2:40:42 The most reckless policy of all was their NATO policy and that they drove up to this conflict with Russia with nothing but off ramp after off ramp after off ramp and consciously decided that we’re not going to take any of those.
    2:40:44 We’re going to drive it all the way up to this point.
    2:40:59 And Thomas Friedman for the New York Times interviewed George Kennan in 1998, and this is George Kennan was the, the, um, like the cold warrior he was, he’s, he’s credited as founding the containment strategy in the cold war.
    2:41:07 And he was talking about, uh, the first round of NATO expansion, which he, and many other foreign policy gray beards opposed.
    2:41:19 And he was talking and he was like, this is the worst thing we could possibly do after the fall of the Soviet union to now say that we had this alliance in NATO that was an anti-Russian military alliance.
    2:41:27 And now that the Soviet union isn’t there anymore, and it’s Boris Yeltsin’s Russia that now we’re going to expand NATO because of that.
    2:41:35 And he literally said in 1998, he goes, the people advocating that we expand NATO are going to continue advocating it and advocating it and advocating it.
    2:41:38 And then there will be a Russian reaction.
    2:41:43 And then they’ll say, see, that’s why we were right to expand NATO, but they’ll get this completely wrong.
    2:41:46 When do you think a deal is reached?
    2:41:49 I really have no idea what the timeline is going to look like.
    2:41:51 I’m hoping sooner rather than later.
    2:42:04 I think like, um, I think Donald Trump would love nothing more than to have some type of like big spectacle of ending this war, some type of big press conference or some type of, you know what I mean?
    2:42:12 And so I’m sure like, if I, my guess would be, that’s where Trump’s mind is, is how to do this in the best way that sells him the best.
    2:42:32 And, and, you know, um, but I, I think that already we’re in a position where Donald Trump has put a lot of political capital chips into the middle of the table that I can end this war, you know, and he’s going to look very, very bad if he can’t.
    2:42:36 So he’s very highly incentivized to get this thing done as quick as possible.
    2:42:41 And so hopefully, um, that can, that can happen soon.
    2:42:43 It would be great if it could happen in the next month.
    2:42:44 Yeah.
    2:42:49 People on both sides, outside of Donald Trump are telling me that it’s a, it’s a process.
    2:42:50 Yeah.
    2:42:54 There’s the kind of implication that’s going to, is going to take a while, which I really hate.
    2:42:56 I really love, love Donald Trump’s urgency.
    2:42:58 Well, it’s also terrible.
    2:43:07 There’s something really awful, like, you know, look when innocent people dying in war at any time is, is terrible, but there is something profoundly awful.
    2:43:12 And I’ve, I’m old enough now that I’ve seen this a few times happen or I’ve lived through it a few times.
    2:43:19 I’ve read about it happening earlier, but it’s like, once you’ve kind of already decided the war’s over and people still die, you know what I mean?
    2:43:21 There’s something almost like sad or about that.
    2:43:28 Cause it’s always like, come on, you already know, you know, like when there’d be like a big, you know, there’d be like a bombing campaign in, in, uh,
    2:43:33 in Afghanistan, like when we all already knew we were a few months away from ending the war.
    2:43:35 You’re like, you got to kill more people.
    2:43:37 Like on the way out, we already know we’re leaving.
    2:43:47 We already know that cause there’s something, at least in the beginning, they could kind of hide behind this justification or they could be like, listen, we’re going to overthrow the Taliban and we’re going to install our new government.
    2:43:48 They’re going to be a democracy.
    2:43:49 It’s going really good.
    2:43:51 We have to do this in order to do this bigger project.
    2:43:56 But then by the end, you’re like, we’re not even pretending anymore that we’re doing anything more positive.
    2:43:58 It’s just someone dying in a senseless thing.
    2:43:59 We never should have been in.
    2:44:09 Well, in the spirit of that, that’s why I traveled to Moscow and will travel to Moscow again in the near future to likely interview Vladimir Putin and, uh, hopefully travel back to Ukraine.
    2:44:19 Which I did to, uh, talk again with, with, uh, Volodymyr Zelensky or, uh, with whoever the future president is.
    2:44:23 You’ll be the only guy who’s interviewed both of them, I think.
    2:44:23 Yeah.
    2:44:24 During this war, right?
    2:44:28 And I have to say the border crossing is getting increasingly more intense.
    2:44:32 Like, yeah, I wouldn’t, I went to Canada last week and I didn’t care for that.
    2:44:33 So I’m sure.
    2:44:36 Primarily it’s the nations of war as it was in Ukraine.
    2:44:40 And it’s fucking, it’s like, it’s dangerous to do both.
    2:44:56 It’s also like, I think something that, um, I think something that’s a little bit foreign, no pun intended to America is, you know, like we’ve fought in a lot of wars over the last, say 25 years, you know, 50 years, whatever.
    2:45:11 But all of them, um, including in a way the, the world wars even in the 20th century was like, but it’s been since 1812 that we fought one on our shores and none of the other ones.
    2:45:20 I mean, I guess Pearl Harbor, but even Pearl Harbor, that was a one-off and it was only kind, you know, it was America technically, but it wasn’t mainland America, you know?
    2:45:29 And so we’re fighting wars, like halfway across the world, but it’s a very different thing for two neighboring countries to fight.
    2:45:39 And even though most of the fighting has been done on the Ukrainian side, not all of it, like there have, you know, there, I think there still are areas in Russia, like inside Russia’s borders where there’s action.
    2:45:43 And so it’s just like, there’s something so much more real about that.
    2:45:52 That’s not just like, you know, the wars we’re used to are we, we send a military that is a hundred thousand times more sophisticated than anything.
    2:45:56 It’ll be meeting on the ground over to a third world country to go do that.
    2:46:00 Now, as we’ve found out over the years, there’s still a lot of challenges to that.
    2:46:05 Even when your side has night vision goggles and the other one doesn’t, and your side can call in airstrikes and the other one can’t.
    2:46:13 And your side has all the sophisticated training and the other side’s practicing on monkey bars, still very hard to occupy a people and dominate them and defeat an insurgency.
    2:46:21 But that’s very different than like two nation states on right next to each other on the border.
    2:46:25 Like there’s just a real feeling of like survival in that moment.
    2:46:29 And I, I do think that probably I don’t understand this as well as you do.
    2:46:37 And probably you don’t even understand it as well as maybe like an older generation, um, of, of Russians and Ukrainians would.
    2:46:56 But like, there’s also something about like both Russia and Ukraine in their own ways got so absolutely fucked over in the 20th century, multiple times in a way that Americans just, it is just too foreign to us to even understand anything like that.
    2:47:05 Like millions of people starving to death, being invaded, the entire nation collapsing and the Russian, uh, government collapsed twice in a hundred years.
    2:47:06 Right.
    2:47:06 Right.
    2:47:11 And that’s, that’s pretty like, that’s traumatic and we just simply have never been through anything like that.
    2:47:23 And so if you, when you have that kind of like trauma as a society and then there’s a war on your border, I’m sure there’s a whole lot of different kind of feelings that we just can’t relate to.
    2:47:29 I can’t relate to plus a history in both nations of super sophisticated and expansive intelligence agencies.
    2:47:30 Right, right, right.
    2:47:31 Yeah.
    2:47:31 That’s a very good point.
    2:47:32 Yeah.
    2:47:37 You host a podcast called part of the problem.
    2:47:38 Yes.
    2:47:48 What have you learned through that whole process of, um, interviewing some interesting people and are there topics you cover that make you sweat still to this day?
    2:47:50 It feels like going into the fire.
    2:48:01 What I, what I’ve learned just from the podcast is that there is, um, there, there’s something, there, there’s an interesting like relationship that you build with your audience.
    2:48:06 Um, and you know, I, I travel a lot and I do shows a lot.
    2:48:12 So like, um, I meet people who listen to the show and I know, like, I’ve had this experience before.
    2:48:21 I kind of had this experience with you, um, where like me, you know, me and you met once, I think before today we were me, me and you actually met on a very interesting night.
    2:48:27 I don’t know if you remember this, but we were at, um, it was before the comedy mothership was built.
    2:48:32 You came by a Joe Rogan and friends show at the vulture.
    2:48:32 Yeah.
    2:48:37 And it was the, it was while Joe was going through the shit storm of cancel culture.
    2:48:40 And he was on the phone with Dana white and stuff in the back.
    2:48:44 And it was a wild night, then at the same time, right?
    2:48:49 Like, even though we just kind of met that one time and then we talked on the phone and now we’re doing this show.
    2:48:50 I kind of, I know you already.
    2:48:50 Yeah.
    2:48:51 Like I already know you.
    2:48:56 And it’s not just that we have friends of friends, but I’ve just like seen so much of your stuff that it’s like, I know who you are.
    2:48:57 And then, and then it’s weird.
    2:48:59 Cause people come up to you and they’re like that.
    2:49:00 It’s like, they know you.
    2:49:01 And I’ve had this experience.
    2:49:02 I had this experience with, with Joe.
    2:49:04 Like I, I knew him before I knew him.
    2:49:09 And so that was kind of like one of the things that I really learned from doing the podcast over the years was like,
    2:49:11 how much that’s actually a relationship.
    2:49:22 Like you actually have a relationship with your listeners and, and almost like in the same way, in the same way that like, you know, you can’t lie to people like in your life.
    2:49:25 You also can’t lie to your, like, they’re a relationship too.
    2:49:27 Like you can’t lie to your, your audience.
    2:49:39 And that I think that there’s like, there’s, there’s often almost like kind of shortcuts that are presented before you, but there is a payoff to not taking the short.
    2:49:42 shortcuts and to like, kind of doing it the way you want to do it.
    2:49:46 What do you think is the number of hours it takes to form a relationship?
    2:49:48 Cause I absolutely agree with you.
    2:49:50 First of all, I should say, I’m a huge podcast fan.
    2:49:53 I’ve listened to you as a guest and your own show a lot.
    2:50:02 So yeah, there’s, I think with you, I’ve already crossed the threshold of hours where like, I feel like we’re friends one way.
    2:50:06 And I guess because you listen to me, it’s the other way, which are like separate parallel.
    2:50:06 It’s very weird.
    2:50:08 It’s very strange in a way.
    2:50:08 It’s very interesting.
    2:50:16 And it’s also, there’s something there, which is more your area of expertise than mine, but there’s something there where like technology is playing this wild role.
    2:50:24 Like we could have two, a two way friendship without actually having to meet each other, all facilitated by the machines that we built.
    2:50:25 It’s very trippy.
    2:50:34 I think it’s probably like, I’ll say it’s like 50 hours, maybe 20, 20 to 50 hour ranges when you’re like, okay, it’s kind of interesting in a way.
    2:50:34 Right.
    2:50:54 Because like the, the thing before like the Joe Rogan experience and what was like kind of the thing that made comedians big, the things before that used to be like a letterman and Leno and Conan, like comedians would get like a seven minute set on there.
    2:51:00 And even if you do great, like if you’re just like you killed and someone watching, it’s like, I love that comedian.
    2:51:01 That comedian’s amazing.
    2:51:05 First of all, unless they were like on social media and then went and like, shoot you out.
    2:51:08 There was no, um, there was no way to connect.
    2:51:10 It’d just be like, love that guy.
    2:51:11 Anyway, back to my life.
    2:51:14 And then maybe you’ll remember him.
    2:51:20 And maybe when he’s coming to town, you’d see, oh, that same guy I saw on Conan is going to be at the local comedy club or something.
    2:51:24 Maybe, but, but then like Rogan became the main thing.
    2:51:28 And now they didn’t just see you do seven minutes of standup.
    2:51:30 They sat and listened to you for three hours.
    2:51:38 So even let’s just say, even off that one off the one, three hour podcast, you come away knowing a lot more about that person.
    2:51:48 It’s not like just a little taste, you know, a lot about it, but there is, I probably would put the threshold at, at 40 to 50 hours.
    2:52:00 Like if you’ve consumed 40 to 50 hours of somebody, especially when they’re doing what we do on these shows where you’re just, you’re speaking very, um, you’re speaking in a very unguarded manner.
    2:52:08 Uh, even though like, this is your show and, and you asked like a lot of questions, you don’t know exactly where this is going to go.
    2:52:12 You know, you’re, you’re, uh, then, then you’re seeing what I say and then go, huh?
    2:52:12 Okay.
    2:52:14 Well, let me ask something based off that.
    2:52:17 Let me make a point based off that we’re both kind of like unguarded.
    2:52:22 And when you consume somebody like that for, for like 40, 50 hours, you do see into their soul.
    2:52:26 I think there’s almost no way, there’s no way to avoid that.
    2:52:31 And, and also I would say if they’re not letting you see into your, their soul, you’ll notice that.
    2:52:32 And you know that about them.
    2:52:34 You know, this is a guarded person.
    2:52:36 This, this was ultimately Kamala Harris’s issue, right?
    2:52:45 And this is why she was probably, you know, correct not to do Rogan, even though everyone looks back at that and says like, no, no, no, this is, this was the big disaster of her campaign.
    2:52:52 And it’s like, I don’t know, you know, she was so guarded in every single interview that she ever did.
    2:52:56 She was always constantly not trying to let you see who she really was.
    2:53:04 And if she was going to try that on Rogan, that would have, that would have been so apparent to everybody involved.
    2:53:07 So you’ve had a lot of intense conversations on Jerry.
    2:53:13 Uh, what do you appreciate most about Joe as a human being, as a conversation partner?
    2:53:21 I can’t overstate how, how much I love Joe and how much, uh, I admire him.
    2:53:22 Not as much as Ron Paul.
    2:53:24 Just let’s be clear.
    2:53:25 There’s like a hierarchy here.
    2:53:26 It’s right.
    2:53:28 He’s, he’s close.
    2:53:29 Holy shit.
    2:53:33 They’re both like, they’re both like, you know, there’s like very few.
    2:53:33 That means a lot.
    2:53:37 Well, there’s Ron, like Ron Paul and Joe Rogan.
    2:53:39 I’d like our, those are like my generals.
    2:53:39 Yeah.
    2:53:40 Like, and I’m a soldier.
    2:53:42 And those are my, those are my guys.
    2:53:46 Like if, if Joe Rogan pointed to some guy and said, you got to go fight that guy right
    2:53:50 now, I’d be like, all right, I got to go fight that guy or what, you know, Ron Paul too.
    2:53:54 I just think it’s both very personally for me, you know, like Ron Paul, like introduced me
    2:53:57 to like a set of ideas that like changed my life.
    2:54:01 And, um, and I’m just enormously grateful for that.
    2:54:06 Joe Rogan was like, I was a huge Joe Rogan fan before the Joe Rogan experience.
    2:54:09 Like I’m an old school Joe Rogan head.
    2:54:14 I used to go on Joe Rogan.net before the, when websites used to end with that.
    2:54:18 Jerry, before like whatever it is for everything, I remember, I mean, I was a fan of his before
    2:54:22 he confronted Carlos Mencia and the day he confronted Carlos Mencia, I watched the video
    2:54:26 on his website and was like, Oh shit, Joe Rogan called him out too.
    2:54:27 This is the craziest thing ever.
    2:54:33 And then, and then what I, I was a fan that like when he started the podcast, I remember
    2:54:37 going, this is going to be big because he’s going to be so good at this because he’s got
    2:54:39 so much interesting shit to say.
    2:54:43 And, um, I didn’t realize it was going to be quite what it became, but I did think like,
    2:54:45 Oh, this is going to be an awesome thing.
    2:54:47 And then, so there’s like that.
    2:54:50 So like, I always really admired him and I was always a huge fan of his.
    2:54:58 And then he literally, not only did he like change my life, but he changed like all of my
    2:54:59 friends’ lives.
    2:55:01 Like it’s like a very weird situation.
    2:55:05 Like he’s like the, he’s the Santa Claus of my world.
    2:55:09 Like he’s literally just, and, and there was something like, I don’t know, man.
    2:55:13 He’s just, he’s just a very like genuine person.
    2:55:20 And he’s really loves, I think he really, um, derives a lot of pleasure out of the fact that
    2:55:27 he gets to help the people who he sees as like the good guys, like the guys worth helping.
    2:55:30 And I just think that’s like such an unbelievable thing.
    2:55:36 You know, I had the first time Rogan had me on his podcast was, I believe in 2016.
    2:55:43 And I had like, I might’ve had like 5,000 followers or something like that.
    2:55:45 Like I was really completely unknown.
    2:55:48 And like, it was like, I did nothing for him.
    2:55:52 It was just the fact that he heard me on Ari’s show and he was like, Oh, I like what this guy’s
    2:55:52 got to say.
    2:55:53 I think this is cool.
    2:55:55 Like, let’s talk about it.
    2:56:00 And, um, yeah, I mean, he’s just like, you know, like I, again, he’s just been such a great
    2:56:01 guy to me.
    2:56:06 Um, and, and, and at every little angle, like everything, you know, you open for him, he takes
    2:56:08 care of you better than anybody else does.
    2:56:11 You’d work his club, his club pays better than anybody else does.
    2:56:16 He, you know, like just everything is always like it, he’s always great to the people who
    2:56:17 are around him.
    2:56:18 And.
    2:56:24 You know, again, like this is, it’s, it’s just hard to over, like, you know, again, I have
    2:56:26 a wife, I have two little kids.
    2:56:30 Like he’s put me in a situation where I can like provide a great life for them.
    2:56:31 And like, don’t get me wrong.
    2:56:33 I mean, you know, like I did something with the opportunity.
    2:56:37 It’s not like he just gave me, you know, like, it’s like he gave me the opportunity
    2:56:41 and I did something with it, but still, I mean, he didn’t have to give me that opportunity.
    2:56:46 And I, I will always, I will go to my grave being enormously grateful for his friendship
    2:56:50 and his, um, his, you know, the platform that he’s given me.
    2:56:56 And also just, he is like, and I try not to abuse this, but there’s been like a few points
    2:57:00 like over the years where I was like, I really need advice on this.
    2:57:05 And I’ve gone to him and he’s been like the absolute best at literally every single
    2:57:09 time I’ve followed it a few times, a few times I didn’t follow his advice and I really regret
    2:57:14 not following his advice, but he was the absolute best light guy to be like, all right, let’s
    2:57:15 talk about this.
    2:57:18 Um, which, and, and the last thing I’ll say is that it was freaking crazy.
    2:57:23 Is that cause I, he’s like, you know, got more shit going on than anybody else in the world.
    2:57:28 And it’s still very interested to take time out to like discuss some thing that I’m asking
    2:57:31 him about, which is a really, really great quality.
    2:57:31 Yeah.
    2:57:32 Always takes a phone call.
    2:57:33 Yeah.
    2:57:34 You’re right about the advice.
    2:57:37 He’s, uh, he’s, his advice is spot on.
    2:57:45 And it’s, um, it’s often the ones for me personally, uh, what’s needed is like, he’s been through
    2:57:46 so many fires.
    2:57:47 Yeah.
    2:57:50 That he’s really good at like making you feel like, don’t fucking worry about it.
    2:57:52 And just, just like move on.
    2:57:55 It’s the, don’t read the comments thing, but generally.
    2:57:56 Yeah, that’s right.
    2:57:56 Yeah.
    2:57:58 Just like, fuck it.
    2:58:04 And there’s, he has a whole, that whole vibe, which kind of looks effortless.
    2:58:11 But I think when you look at it seriously, especially in contrast with journalists, there’s a fearlessness
    2:58:12 there.
    2:58:15 100% like that, not giving a fuck.
    2:58:20 I mean, he says it’s like fuck because of fucking money or any of that.
    2:58:21 I don’t, I don’t think so.
    2:58:22 I think it’s more than that.
    2:58:25 It’s, I mean, I’m sure that’s a component of it, but there’s people who have that, who
    2:58:27 still don’t have this fearlessness.
    2:58:31 Most people who have money, a lot of money are actually become more scared.
    2:58:31 Yeah.
    2:58:35 Cause they like the comfort of just like normal life.
    2:58:39 Cause when you’re taking risks, you’re going to pay for it.
    2:58:43 Even if you have money, not just financially, just like it’s going to, it’s going to hurt.
    2:58:44 It’s going to disturb your life.
    2:58:45 It’s going to create turbulence.
    2:58:46 Yeah.
    2:58:50 The guy is fearless and follows just his genuine curiosity.
    2:58:52 It’s like an inspiration to me.
    2:58:57 Friendships aside, just inspiration of how great of a conversationalist he is.
    2:59:03 And not, he legitimately didn’t give a fuck if like, if he talks to any of the presidential
    2:59:09 candidates or not, if he, he’ll just talk to friends just cause he wants to.
    2:59:11 And there’s no like clickbaitiness to it.
    2:59:15 There’s no like giving a shit about views or likes or any of that.
    2:59:21 I mean, during the COVID stuff, man, I mean, he was like interviewing Dr. McCullough and
    2:59:21 who’s the other one?
    2:59:25 Malone, Dr. Malone and had Bobby Kennedy, all these people.
    2:59:30 Like at this time when it was like, so, and he’s had it with me before too, like talking
    2:59:35 about Ukraine and Israel, like at the times when it’s really white hot, you know what I
    2:59:35 mean?
    2:59:40 And like, there’s this huge penalty on not going along with the regime’s talking points.
    2:59:43 And he’s like, like, it’s really hard to overstate it.
    2:59:47 I mean, there was, there used to be nothing like this.
    2:59:52 It used to be that if, if CNN and Fox news agreed, well then that was it, that was the
    2:59:53 line now.
    2:59:58 And now we got the biggest show in the country will actually allow the other perspective on
    3:00:00 and allow people to like challenge the regime.
    3:00:01 I think it’s been historic.
    3:00:06 I think also there are shows, there are people that just are constantly conspiracy theorists,
    3:00:08 which is fine also.
    3:00:12 But I sometimes feel that those lack genuineness.
    3:00:16 They kind of put themselves in a bin or everything.
    3:00:21 Like you question everything to a point where like, I don’t know, I feel like you’re not getting
    3:00:23 closer to the truth when you question everything.
    3:00:30 There is something that some people in the conspiracy world do, which is like, they, they
    3:00:34 speak about something with certainty when they’re really not certain about it.
    3:00:39 And it’s like, um, it’s, it’s fine to like ask questions and it’s fine to speculate about
    3:00:43 things, but you also have to like, um, you just, it’s true in general in life.
    3:00:49 You got to be really careful about like presuming your conclusion and then working backward from
    3:00:49 there.
    3:00:53 And then sometimes when you have one or like, it’s just, it’s a matter of being sloppy versus
    3:00:54 not being sloppy.
    3:00:59 And like, sometimes people like, I remember for a long time back in the day in the, in
    3:01:04 the nine 11 truth movement, there was this, one of the huge smoking guns that they would
    3:01:08 point to was that in the nineties, there was this one document, I’m blanking on the title
    3:01:12 of it, but it was from PNAC, the project for a new American century.
    3:01:15 And this was the think tank or one of the think tanks of the neoconservatives.
    3:01:20 Um, like all the big neoconservatives were involved in PNAC from Dick Cheney to Rumsfeld,
    3:01:23 uh, Richard Pearl, David Worms are all the big neocons.
    3:01:28 And there was this one document where they basically, they were like, you know, their, their project
    3:01:33 for the new American century was how we’re going to have hegemony for another hundred years.
    3:01:36 Now that we won the 20th century, how are we going to win the 21st century?
    3:01:37 And they were like, okay, well, here’s what we want to do.
    3:01:41 We want to start multiple wars in the middle East and we want to like go, like all the
    3:01:44 plans that they had NATO expansion in Europe was a big part of it too.
    3:01:50 And then there was one line where they said, um, it’s going to be tough to work up popular,
    3:01:54 uh, uh, support for these multiple wars.
    3:01:58 We want to fight in the middle East short of another Pearl Harbor style event.
    3:02:03 And the nine 11 truthers would point to this and go, see, clearly they did it.
    3:02:04 They did nine 11.
    3:02:09 They even say in their own words here that they want another Pearl Harbor event so they
    3:02:09 can do this.
    3:02:13 And it’s like, well, look, that doesn’t actually prove anything.
    3:02:18 I mean, it’s, it’s, it might just be the case that they were like, oh, we wouldn’t get this
    3:02:19 without a pro.
    3:02:22 And then when nine 11 happened, they went, Hey, we got our Pearl Harbor style event.
    3:02:27 And, you know, and, and even if you like that story of nine 11 was an inside job, you
    3:02:30 know, cause it’s kind of sexy and exciting and like, oh my God, what a crazy world we’re
    3:02:31 living in.
    3:02:31 If that’s true.
    3:02:33 Um, and I’m not even saying it’s not true.
    3:02:37 I’m just saying if you’re not sloppy and you’re scrupulous, you go, that’s not really
    3:02:38 evidence.
    3:02:43 It’s, it sounds like evidence it’s evidencey, you know, but it’s not actually a piece of
    3:02:47 evidence because that doesn’t in any way demonstrate that they actually were in on the
    3:02:47 thing.
    3:02:49 And there’s just a lot of things like that.
    3:02:52 There’s a lot of things I even see like, uh, cause it’s a very popular
    3:02:59 conspiracy theory online now that, um, that Israel did nine 11 and I’m like, uh, I’m
    3:03:00 open, you know, what do you got?
    3:03:01 What’s the evidence?
    3:03:05 And they’ll be like, well, did you see that Larry Silverstein took out a huge insurance
    3:03:07 policy on the world trade center?
    3:03:08 How did he know?
    3:03:12 And you’re like, how did he know that the number one terrorist target in the world might
    3:03:14 need a big insurance policy on it?
    3:03:18 You realize that the same guys attempted to knock those towers down in 1993, right?
    3:03:21 And so there’s just little things like that where like, if you’re being sloppy and you
    3:03:26 already really want this conclusion, I see where you could see these things as, as evidence.
    3:03:29 But if you’re just being a little, if you’re critically thinking about them, it’s actually,
    3:03:32 it’s not as strong a case as you think it is.
    3:03:37 And I, I like to, again, I’ll speculate every now and again on things, but I like to take on
    3:03:39 something where I feel like I can prove this case.
    3:03:42 Like I really have enough evidence that I think I can prove this.
    3:03:46 I think I can prove that the neocons didn’t invade Iraq because they were worried about
    3:03:47 weapons of mass destruction.
    3:03:53 And they actually had this agenda for at least a decade before the war broke out.
    3:03:56 You know, like there’s, there’s strong tangible evidence for that.
    3:04:02 It’s just sometimes the, the constant conspiracy guys, not always, but sometimes they just get
    3:04:07 sloppy when it comes to actually analyzing how strong the case is.
    3:04:09 I mean, there’s several psychological effects.
    3:04:13 I think there’s a certain drug to the dogmatic certainty that you were mentioning.
    3:04:20 It, it, you know, it really annoys me that there’s something about human psychology, uh, because
    3:04:30 I usually, when I say stuff, I usually, uh, show doubt and show the humility that I might not
    3:04:31 have the right answer.
    3:04:40 And I sometimes look at multiple perspectives and that’s seen as weakness and lack of intelligence
    3:04:40 often.
    3:04:43 It just sounds like when I even like listen back to people that do that kind of thing,
    3:04:48 that certainty sounds like intelligence to people.
    3:04:55 Like if you say something with a lot of certainty, it sounds like this, this is smart motherfucker.
    3:05:00 And I hate that about myself and about human psyche, that that’s seems to be the case because
    3:05:08 then like the, the dumb dogmatists are going to be like the ones that are driving agenda.
    3:05:09 It is true.
    3:05:11 I’ve noticed that for a long time though.
    3:05:17 It’s almost like in a weird way, it’s kind of like a prerequisite for leadership in a way
    3:05:21 you kind of have to be certain about things, but then there, there’s a real problem with
    3:05:25 that, which is that a lot of times you’re just bullshitting or you’re just, or you’re,
    3:05:26 or you’re not right.
    3:05:28 You’re not correct to be this certain about this.
    3:05:30 It’s at least debatable.
    3:05:32 And, you know, so you always try.
    3:05:37 And then the thing like, I feel like at least for me is which I try to do, I’m sure I fail
    3:05:43 at the, at this a ton, but you try to at least go like, you got to almost, you got to work
    3:05:47 on training your brain and you have to be conscious about it.
    3:05:54 And so you have to go like, Hey, if there’s something here that is confirming my bias that
    3:05:57 I get that, you know, you start getting that little sense of pleasure of like, Oh, great.
    3:06:00 Here’s another point that proves the thing I want to be true.
    3:06:08 Then you have to like be 10 times as, you know, like, uh, you know, uh, skeptical about this.
    3:06:13 You have to really examine this one and be like, okay, am I sure that this one, you know, because
    3:06:17 sometimes you’ll hear people even throw out things where it’s like, Oh, I know you liked
    3:06:20 that cause it was helping your case, but come on, think about this.
    3:06:21 This doesn’t even make sense.
    3:06:23 It’s like, okay, I want to make this argument.
    3:06:27 And then everything that would support that just gets sucked in like a, like a force of
    3:06:28 gravity or something.
    3:06:31 And you’re like, you have a half of these are bad data points.
    3:06:36 I mean, like for me, there’s something definitely about my brain that is attracted to conspiracy
    3:06:36 theories.
    3:06:43 So I’m very well aware that that gravitational pull is there.
    3:06:46 Well, it’s, it’s, if nothing else, it’s a crazy story.
    3:06:46 Yeah.
    3:06:47 It’s like a movie.
    3:06:49 So it’s like, Oh, that’s crazy.
    3:06:49 Yeah.
    3:06:51 Every fucking, you don’t need to work on Epstein.
    3:06:52 I don’t understand.
    3:06:59 I don’t, that’s one of the big mysteries of like our modern era is like, how the fuck did
    3:07:10 this guy get an Island, this pedophile and got like smart, smart, I think really smart people
    3:07:11 to like hang out with them.
    3:07:12 Yeah.
    3:07:13 And what the fuck?
    3:07:21 And has anybody, I mean, obviously, uh, uh, just lane, however you say her name, Ghislaine
    3:07:21 Maxwell.
    3:07:22 Okay.
    3:07:23 She went, she went to jail.
    3:07:26 It’s like, is anybody else?
    3:07:31 Has anybody, has anybody anywhere been forced to resign?
    3:07:35 I mean, like, just even like, say like, I don’t know, like at the FBI or something just
    3:07:37 for not like catching the thing sooner.
    3:07:41 Like, even if you weren’t in on it, it was like, no, there’s a real problem with the American
    3:07:41 system.
    3:07:48 And, and it’s that, that like, that I think this just went on for too long before, like
    3:07:50 the American people just wouldn’t put up with it anymore.
    3:07:54 And this is why trust in every institution and the corporate media and the Congress and
    3:07:58 all of it is evaporated is that it’s like, is he just saying of all the people who sold
    3:08:05 the war in Iraq, no one’s so much as like got kicked out of polite society.
    3:08:09 You know, like, I’m not even saying like, Oh, they went to jail for war crimes for life,
    3:08:13 but was just like, yeah, you can’t, we’re not looking to you for advice on the next war.
    3:08:15 Thanks go home.
    3:08:16 Like none of that.
    3:08:18 And it’s like all these like crazy things.
    3:08:19 Nobody goes down for it.
    3:08:24 I mean, like they freaking, they lied us into war after a war.
    3:08:27 They’ve bankrupted the country, damn near destroyed the dollar.
    3:08:32 They locked down the country on the basis of pseudoscience.
    3:08:37 Then, then lied through their teeth about what this vaccine would do as they were forcing
    3:08:38 it on people.
    3:08:40 And like, no one loses their job.
    3:08:43 No one even gets in trouble over any of this.
    3:08:52 And look in any, in any area of life, a business or a relationship or whatever, you can’t, you
    3:08:58 cannot screw up that catastrophically and face no repercussions for it and think that your
    3:09:01 business or relationship isn’t going to fail as a result of that.
    3:09:06 I think ultimately there’s been a lot of wake up calls and I think we’re going to build a
    3:09:07 better society from it.
    3:09:08 Like better institution.
    3:09:09 I believe.
    3:09:10 I hope you’re right.
    3:09:13 My, you know, more transparency, more like authenticity.
    3:09:17 I think also the democratic party has learned the lesson of like, you have to have candidates
    3:09:23 that do, I don’t give a shit about podcasts, but do podcasts like things, meaning reveal
    3:09:25 themselves as human beings.
    3:09:29 I think it’s one of the best things that happened in this last, uh, election.
    3:09:33 And I’m not saying like, I did think they were great, but I’m not saying that like any
    3:09:37 of the Trump podcasts were perfect or like, maybe there, there’d be a better way that they
    3:09:38 could be done.
    3:09:46 But I will say that I always, I used to say this for a while, um, like as of, you know, like the last
    3:09:55 few years, but I’d be like, so it’s like, so I’m, I’m me, you know, and for me to do what I do, it’s
    3:10:05 kind of expected that I’ll probably like, I don’t know, I get like, at least like maybe 15, 10 to 15
    3:10:13 times a year, I’ll come do a show like this, like a, a long form show on a big platform where I’m
    3:10:18 going to, you know, like my ideas will be poked and prodded and tested and there’ll be pushback
    3:10:22 questions and there’ll be that sometimes they’re more, you know, adversarial, sometimes they’re more
    3:10:28 friendly, but like you’re going to, and then yet our standard for who is the commander in chief was
    3:10:34 like, you show up to these debates that are like 90 minutes long with these really, really stupid
    3:10:40 questions and you give a 92nd answer to it or blah. And at least for the first time now, it does seem
    3:10:45 like, Oh, the standard is kind of, you’re going to have to do a long form show where people, you
    3:10:52 really have to have, you know, and, and that, that I think is long-term, a real positive development,
    3:10:56 you know, like you, you just kind of know going forward, the Democrats, right. Which I think is
    3:11:00 kind of what you were saying, right. You can’t run a Kamala Harris. If she can’t do a long form
    3:11:05 interview, you got to run somebody who’s able to sit down and express themselves and have real
    3:11:08 genuine thoughts, or at least try to convince people they have real genuine thoughts, at least,
    3:11:13 you know, and it’s, that’s very different in a way than, you know, I look back at some, like the most
    3:11:18 talented politicians of my lifetime, which I’d have to say the two were, were Bill Clinton and Barack
    3:11:23 Obama, just like the most talented traditional politicians. Trump’s like the anti-politician, but like
    3:11:28 they were like the traditional and just unbelievably, but they never had to do that.
    3:11:32 It was just a different time. Bill Clinton had to walk up and like, you know, be like, oh, it’s a
    3:11:37 beautiful baby. I have here. They go back and then play the sax and then have a couple of good answers
    3:11:42 to a small, I’m from a little town called Hope. You know, like that, that’s not the game anymore.
    3:11:48 Now the game is like, can you sit down and actually, you know, have some ideas in a long form? And I think
    3:11:52 that’s so much better because it’s so much more revealing of, you know, kind of like what we were saying
    3:11:57 before you reveal a little bit, it’s not 50 hours, but in those, in those three hours, you reveal a
    3:12:01 little bit of your soul. Yeah. And I think that process makes you actually a better person. I,
    3:12:07 I ultimately think that Barack Obama was a fascinating human being and there was a choice made early on
    3:12:15 to be more, to do like less interviews, be more behind the wall, I think. And that, that’s,
    3:12:19 that’s a disservice because I think it’s a skill to be an authentic person like that you build,
    3:12:25 like to, to be able to allow yourself to be yourself. Like it’s very possible that Kamala Harris
    3:12:31 is a fascinating person. Like she just never gotten to meet her. And I don’t know if she has gotten to
    3:12:39 meet her by, you know, it’s a practice thing to like reveal yourself as a tricky thing. I think it’s just
    3:12:45 good for the candidate. I think she, well, I think she, what she did, you know, I’m a critic. I don’t
    3:12:51 think she’s a good candidate, but what she does pretty fricking incredible. Meaning like in that,
    3:12:56 to raise that much money in that short amount of time, I think it was a terrible thing for the
    3:13:03 democratic party to do. I think she’s a terrible candidate, but still with the tools, you got like
    3:13:09 use Tik TOK, use whatever. I’ll say the fact that she came as close as she did to being president is
    3:13:14 pretty goddamn insane if you ask me, but yeah, the Democrats are a mess. They’re a mess. Like I’ve
    3:13:21 never seen a political party before, but that in itself is, is I think a very good thing. And what
    3:13:27 comes from here is there’s a lot of possibilities now. And you know, there’s never been like, I don’t
    3:13:33 know who the person is. I don’t see anyone out there that I could think of that would fill this
    3:13:40 role, but there’s never been a more ripe time for someone to Donald Trump, the democratic party.
    3:13:46 Now, you know, like somebody to what Donald Trump did, people tend to forget this because now, like
    3:13:52 it’s also because the accusation from the Democrats is that, you know, the, the Republican parties are
    3:13:58 all a bunch of Trump cultists or something like that. But like, I’m, I’m old enough to remember 2016
    3:14:05 and what actually happened was that Donald Trump came in and just really resonated with the voters
    3:14:13 and the establishment of the Republican party hated it. They were openly talking about changing the rules
    3:14:20 at the Republican national convention to deny him the nomination in 2016. What they were saying is that
    3:14:25 they were going to raise the number of delegates required so high that nobody could hit it and
    3:14:29 then say, Hey, since nobody hit it, we select Mitt Romney again, and we’re going to run Mitt Romney
    3:14:35 get like they were openly, openly conspiring to steal the thing from him. And eventually he just had so
    3:14:40 much support on the ground that they couldn’t do it right now. Someone could totally do that to the
    3:14:45 Democrats. But the thing is, it would have to be somebody outside of the three letter agency control
    3:14:50 because that’s what everyone’s rejecting right now. But if you were to actually sit there and go like the,
    3:14:54 and even policies, I don’t necessarily agree with, but there are a lot of policies that if it was
    3:15:00 actually like a pro labor working class party, you could, you could, you know, Bernie Sanders showed
    3:15:04 you a little bit of what’s possible. And this was from like an 80 year old socialist who didn’t really
    3:15:08 have the balls to go through with it at the end of the day. You know, like if somebody younger and,
    3:15:15 a little bit more, um, more with the current zeitgeist, we’re able to do that, that could happen.
    3:15:20 I mean, I legitimately think that AOC can develop into that candidate. Uh, she might not be there yet,
    3:15:25 but I think she can develop into that. It could be out there. It could be, I don’t know. I don’t see AOC
    3:15:32 being the one to do it, but I could be wrong about that. She’s got some qualities, unlike almost all the other
    3:15:39 ones you could think of. Um, I just, you know, I don’t see, I don’t see anyone right now who I think
    3:15:45 could be that person, but I never would have said, I mean, if you had asked me in 2014, who’s going to
    3:15:49 come take over the Republican, I never would have guessed Donald Trump was going to come do what he
    3:15:53 did. So it might be the person we’re seeing who we’re not even thinking of, or it might just be some
    3:15:58 unknown, you know, same with Obama was an unknown. I mean, obviously he had, he had
    3:16:04 very powerful people behind his presidential run. It’s not like he was a true, just like grassroots
    3:16:08 guy, but he wasn’t anyone we would have been necessarily thinking. I mean, he gave that big
    3:16:14 speech at the 2004 DNC, but that was it. That was the thing he was known for. He gave one great speech
    3:16:18 at the third, besides that he was a state Senator and then a junior Senator. No one was thinking he
    3:16:21 was going to be the next president. It could be like a Jon Stewart type character. Of course,
    3:16:25 I don’t think he would ever, I honestly don’t think a comedian will ever run, but I never thought
    3:16:34 Trump would ever run. There is something about Jon Stewart that is, he’s, and obviously I disagree
    3:16:40 with him on a lot of stuff too, but he is an authentic person. And there’s something about
    3:16:46 that that gives you a huge advantage, particularly in our current political climate. People are so
    3:16:53 sick of the phoniness. And it’s like, and they’re right to be, because you could only, you know,
    3:16:57 so you can lie to some of the people, some of the time, like this, you can only lie so much
    3:17:02 before eventually nobody wants to hear you in that phony voice, telling the same phony lies anymore.
    3:17:08 And at least Jon Stewart is, I will say, I think he’s, I think Jon Stewart is telling the truth
    3:17:13 the way he sees it. Like, I don’t think he’s necessarily right about a lot of things. He is
    3:17:17 right about a lot of things, but I think he’s wrong about a lot of other things, but he,
    3:17:21 I just get the impression that he believes what he’s saying. And there’s something powerful about
    3:17:22 that.
    3:17:26 Especially when he’s surrounded by people that disagree with him. He’s still willing to say it.
    3:17:26 Yeah.
    3:17:26 Yeah.
    3:17:33 That takes a certain kind of courage. Yeah. And be funny doing it, but he’s not going to run.
    3:17:34 No, I don’t think so.
    3:17:39 This is annoying. Nobody like, you have to be fucking crazy to run.
    3:17:44 That is one of the real problems, you know? And then like people like attack Donald Trump
    3:17:49 for being like a narcissist and it’s like, yeah, but who the hell else is going to ever do
    3:17:49 this?
    3:17:54 Yeah. All right. What gives you hope about this whole thing we got going on?
    3:17:59 America and human civilization.
    3:18:08 Okay. So this is not mine, but this is a Gene Epstein, who’s like a, is a really brilliant
    3:18:13 economist and a great guy. And he told me this once and I just always loved it. And he,
    3:18:18 and so I call it Epstein’s, Epstein’s case, not that different Epstein, Gene Epstein,
    3:18:25 no relation. I want to be clear on that. Okay. This is genes. Let’s call it genes case for radical
    3:18:33 optimism. And the way he put it was, he goes, uh, he goes, so imagine you were sitting around
    3:18:44 in, um, 1845 and like, you’re at the height of, you know, the slavery and you were like, Hey,
    3:18:51 in 20 years, slavery is going to be abolished across the West. And like, if you told that to someone,
    3:18:56 they’d be like, dude, slavery has existed for all of human history. Slavery is look around. It’s not
    3:19:02 going anywhere. You’d have to be out of your mind to think we’re 20 years away from abolishing
    3:19:08 slavery. And yet we were, I mean, it’s, it’s just like the greatest thing in the history of the world
    3:19:12 and not, and unfortunately America had to fight a bloody civil war to get there, but many other
    3:19:20 countries didn’t. And they just walked away from what had been the status quo forever, you know,
    3:19:25 and just stop doing it. And now look, you can argue there’s slavery by other names and things like
    3:19:30 that. And like, you know, to some degree paying an income taxes, some degree of slavery, but there is
    3:19:37 not chattel slavery in the way that there used to be. And that is like an incredible advance for
    3:19:44 humanity. And then the other example he would give is he goes, uh, he was talking about how at the
    3:19:50 beginning of the Reagan administration, like in 1981, that the neocons, because when he was trying
    3:19:55 to have detente with Russia, the neocons were in the press being like, he just guaranteed another
    3:19:59 hundred years of Soviet dominance, you know? And if someone had just been to you like, Hey, listen,
    3:20:06 calm down in 10 years, there won’t be a Soviet union. It’s just been like, what are you like? Okay. Nice
    3:20:11 idea, but you’re out of your fucking mind. And yet that was true too. And so there is even when,
    3:20:18 you know, and you can see some dynamics, even in our politics today, where like, you know, three years
    3:20:25 ago, I was really concerned about whether they’d shut the whole thing down, uh, us, I mean, you know,
    3:20:30 like when it was during the COVID times and during times where it was like, everyone I knew was just
    3:20:35 getting strikes on all their channels. And if you just even wanted to like, talk about how, like,
    3:20:40 there are people being vaccine injured, you’d like lose your YouTube channel, get people getting kicked
    3:20:45 off Twitter left and right. And I just saw it. And I was like, dude, the, the grasp is just getting
    3:20:49 tighter and tighter and tighter. The regime is not going to allow these alternative voices,
    3:20:53 you know, in here, and they’re just getting too big and they’re going to shut this whole thing down.
    3:20:58 And I’m going to have to figure out what I’m going to do, uh, after that. And I was totally wrong.
    3:21:03 It just, the trend totally went in the other direction and things are now at a point where
    3:21:07 it’s like, I couldn’t even imagine it. I never would have envisioned Elon Musk was going to get
    3:21:11 $44 billion together and buy Twitter. And then he was, you know, it’s like, and so I just think that
    3:21:20 if you kind of like zoom out, I think that the regime has lost their monopoly on propaganda and this
    3:21:31 opens up enormous possibilities for what, you know, I, I remember so vividly 2002 and, and 2002,
    3:21:39 you know, nine 11 happened in late 2001. We invaded Iraq in 2003, but all of 2002 was a massive
    3:21:45 propaganda campaign, just constantly laying down the blueprints for this war that we knew was George
    3:21:49 W. Bush was about to launch. And it was, you know, they have weapons of mass destruction. They were in
    3:21:53 on nine 11, they’re friends with Al Qaeda. They’re going to hand this weapon that they don’t have off
    3:21:56 to the terrorists. They’re not friends with, and then they’re going to nuke Kansas and, and every
    3:22:00 right winger, by the way, this is also sorry for rambling a little here, but this is also one of the
    3:22:06 reasons why when, when the Jew haters will say things like, they’ll be like, Oh, look, all of the Jews
    3:22:11 support Israel or 70% of the Jews vote this way, or the 70% of the Jews support this war. It’s like,
    3:22:18 listen, I don’t like blaming or even when the, the Palestine haters will say 70% of Gazans support
    3:22:23 Hamas or whatever. It’s like, okay, look, I remember a time in this country. I know I’m going back 20 years,
    3:22:30 but every right winger in this country was completely convinced that we have to go invade Iraq because he
    3:22:34 has weapons of mass destruction. And you’re some type of leftist homo. If you don’t agree with that,
    3:22:39 it was the entire culture in this country. And it was the one thing that the New York times and Bill
    3:22:43 O’Reilly and CNN and the Washington post all agreed on. They were all on board selling this war.
    3:22:50 You could not do that today. They could not get away with that today because if they did,
    3:22:56 how do you control this entire problem? You tell me, how do you control Joe Rogan and Tucker Carlson?
    3:23:00 You know, how do you get these guys to go? They’re not going to go along with it. And in fact,
    3:23:04 they’re almost definitely going to have people on their show who are just tearing it apart.
    3:23:10 And so I just look at that and I go like, yo, I mean, we’re at a place now where we have this world
    3:23:16 of possibilities that, that would have seemed impossible just so recently. And so just thinking
    3:23:24 like all of that rambling stew, whatever all that was, that leaves me feeling very, very hopeful for the
    3:23:30 future. Yeah. There’s a lot of social and political progress in that rambling stew over the, over the
    3:23:35 decades and the centuries. For me, probably some of the technological progress is really exciting.
    3:23:42 Me personally, it just fills me with hope whenever I see the, the rockets go up to clarify.
    3:23:49 Not the ones going into Gaza, the ones going into outer space. I assume you had to clarify the Epstein
    3:23:57 thing, the Epstein rule to clarify exactly which rockets, SpaceX and blue origin rockets.
    3:24:06 So taking humans out to space and yeah, for us to be among the stars, like it makes me feel like we’re
    3:24:12 going to make it because the bleaker times throughout human history, you think, I mean,
    3:24:17 there’s just a sense you’re right. And during COVID, there’s a sense of like, for many reasons,
    3:24:25 maybe just a simple psychological human reason. It felt like bleak, like, fuck, I don’t think we,
    3:24:31 as a civilization are right. If we can’t handle this pandemic from a policy perspective, from a human
    3:24:37 perspective, economic perspective, like this is like pandemic light. There’s going to be other bigger
    3:24:43 troubles coming our way. And then now you have this kind of, again, the rockets are going up.
    3:24:50 It’s like, we, you know, first of all, we’ll colonize space and other planets and we like,
    3:24:53 we’re an inventive motherfuckers. We’ll figure it out.
    3:24:59 Yeah. And then certainly, you know, like for me, just personally, because this is like really
    3:25:06 touched my life, but, um, you know, like the, the innovations in medical technology are just
    3:25:13 done. And, you know, my, my, uh, son, um, had a congenital heart defect at open heart surgery when
    3:25:19 he was three days old. And, um, I mean, this is like something that 20 years ago, I would have lost
    3:25:25 my child, you know, and he’s fine. Just absolutely fine. Cause it’s just amazing what these surgeons and
    3:25:30 cardiologists and, you know, neonatologists and all of them, what they do now is like goddamn magic.
    3:25:35 And so there was always something about that, that would, it was almost like that inoculated me
    3:25:42 against ever having a sense of like, well, I wish it was a previous time. Cause like now, sorry. In a
    3:25:47 previous time I lose my kids. So I don’t get whatever other challenges there are out here. Like I’ll take
    3:25:54 that trade off where this baby survives and gets a shot at having a life. And there is a lot of that stuff
    3:25:58 is, is just kind of easy to take for granted. And it’s like, you know, when it touches your life,
    3:26:02 it’s, you don’t take it for granted as much, but it’s just like, no, it really is. It is. There are
    3:26:08 miracles going on all over the place now that like everybody in human history did not have access to.
    3:26:11 All right, brother. It’s great to finally meet a friend and have a conversation.
    3:26:13 Yeah. I really enjoyed this.
    3:26:16 And, uh, I can’t wait to talk to you again, brother.
    3:26:17 Absolutely. Thanks for having me.
    3:26:22 Thanks for listening to this conversation with Dave Smith to support this podcast.
    3:26:28 please check out our sponsors in the description. And now let me leave you some words from Ron Paul.
    3:26:34 Real patriotism is a willingness to challenge the government when it’s wrong.
    3:26:38 Thank you for listening and hope to see you next time.
    3:26:55 Thanks for listening and hope to see you next time.

    Dave Smith is a comedian, libertarian, political commentator, and the host of Part of the Problem podcast.
    Thank you for listening ❤ Check out our sponsors: https://lexfridman.com/sponsors/ep464-sc
    See below for timestamps, and to give feedback, submit questions, contact Lex, etc.

    CONTACT LEX:
    Feedback – give feedback to Lex: https://lexfridman.com/survey
    AMA – submit questions, videos or call-in: https://lexfridman.com/ama
    Hiring – join our team: https://lexfridman.com/hiring
    Other – other ways to get in touch: https://lexfridman.com/contact

    EPISODE LINKS:
    Dave’s X: https://x.com/ComicDaveSmith
    Dave’s YouTube: https://youtube.com/DSmithcomic
    Dave’s Instagram: https://instagram.com/theproblemdavesmith
    Dave’s Website: https://comicdavesmith.com/
    Part of the Problem Podcast: https://partoftheproblem.com/

    SPONSORS:
    To support this podcast, check out our sponsors & get discounts:
    Call of Duty: First-person shooter video game.
    Go to https://callofduty.com/warzone
    Tax Network USA: Full-service tax firm.
    Go to https://tnusa.com/lex
    Notion: Note-taking and team collaboration.
    Go to https://notion.com/lex
    Shopify: Sell stuff online.
    Go to https://shopify.com/lex
    BetterHelp: Online therapy and counseling.
    Go to https://betterhelp.com/lex

    OUTLINE:
    (00:00) – Introduction
    (00:10) – Sponsors, Comments, and Reflections
    (09:32) – Libertarianism
    (10:47) – Ron Paul
    (13:59) – Military–industrial complex
    (20:53) – War on Terror
    (33:12) – China and Taiwan
    (41:00) – Just war theory
    (48:09) – Israel and Gaza
    (1:05:35) – Douglas Murray
    (1:13:29) – Hamas
    (1:29:48) – Hitler and Stalin
    (1:32:01) – Darryl Cooper
    (1:41:13) – Antisemitism
    (1:54:46) – World leaders
    (2:07:21) – Jeffrey Epstein
    (2:15:24) – Sam Harris
    (2:28:07) – Ukraine and Russia
    (2:47:32) – Joe Rogan
    (3:00:01) – Conspiracy theories
    (3:17:52) – Hope

    PODCAST LINKS:
    – Podcast Website: https://lexfridman.com/podcast
    – Apple Podcasts: https://apple.co/2lwqZIr
    – Spotify: https://spoti.fi/2nEwCF8
    – RSS: https://lexfridman.com/feed/podcast/
    – Podcast Playlist: https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLrAXtmErZgOdP_8GztsuKi9nrraNbKKp4
    – Clips Channel: https://www.youtube.com/lexclips

  • #463 – Douglas Murray: Putin, Zelenskyy, Trump, Israel, Netanyahu, Hamas & Gaza

    #463 – Douglas Murray: Putin, Zelenskyy, Trump, Israel, Netanyahu, Hamas & Gaza

    AI transcript
    0:00:05 The following is a conversation with Douglas Murray, author of The War in the West, The
    0:00:10 Madness of Crowds, and his new book on democracies and death cults.
    0:00:15 We talk about Russia and Ukraine, and about Israel and Gaza.
    0:00:22 Douglas has very strong views on these topics, and he defends them brilliantly and fearlessly.
    0:00:28 As I always try to do for all topics, I will also talk to people who have different views
    0:00:31 from Douglas, including on the next episode of this podcast.
    0:00:39 We live in an era of online discourse where grifters, drama farmers, liars, bots, sycophants,
    0:00:44 and sociopaths roam the vast, beautiful, dark land of the internet.
    0:00:47 It’s hard to know who to trust.
    0:00:54 I believe no one is in possession of the entire truth, but some are more correct than others.
    0:00:59 Some are insightful, and some are delusional.
    0:01:06 The problem is it’s hard to tell which is which, unless you use your mind with intellectual
    0:01:08 humility and with rigor.
    0:01:14 I recommend you listen to many sources who disagree with each other and try to pick up
    0:01:15 wisdom from each.
    0:01:23 Also, I recommend you visit the places in question, as Douglas has, as I have, or at least talk
    0:01:28 face-to-face with people who have spent most of their lives living there, whether it’s Israel,
    0:01:30 Palestine, Ukraine, or Russia.
    0:01:39 Let’s try, together, to not be cogs in the machine of outrage, and instead to reach toward reason
    0:01:40 and compassion.
    0:01:45 There is no Hitler, Stalin, or Mao on the world stage today.
    0:01:49 Plus, there are thousands of nuclear weapons ready to fire.
    0:01:53 Human civilization hangs in the balance.
    0:02:00 The 21st century is a new geopolitical puzzle all of us are tasked with solving.
    0:02:02 Let’s not mess it up.
    0:02:09 And now, ladies and gentlemen, a quick few-second mention of each sponsor.
    0:02:09 Check them out.
    0:02:13 In the description, it’s the best way to support this podcast.
    0:02:19 We’ve got Call of Duty for video game fun, Oracle for cloud computing, Element for electrolytes,
    0:02:25 and AG1 for multivitamin deliciousness.
    0:02:26 Choose wisely, my friends.
    0:02:32 Also, if you happen to be watching or listening to this on Spotify, I decided to start putting
    0:02:39 the same ad reads from me at the beginning as I do on Apple Podcasts and the RSS feed.
    0:02:45 Since a lot of folks in the survey, lexfieberman.com slash survey, said they actually like the random
    0:02:49 non-sequitur things I talk about, to my great surprise.
    0:02:54 And they’ve also said that they’re happy to just skip when they felt like it.
    0:02:59 Some folks are some-timers, meaning they listen to these ads sometimes.
    0:03:01 Some folks are every-timers.
    0:03:02 They listen to all the ads.
    0:03:09 I do try to make the ad reads interesting and personal, often related to stuff I’m reading
    0:03:10 or thinking about.
    0:03:16 But if you skip them, and I do make it easy to skip by providing the timestamps on the screen
    0:03:18 and in the description.
    0:03:21 So if you skip them, please still check out the sponsors.
    0:03:23 Sign up and get their stuff.
    0:03:24 I enjoy it.
    0:03:25 Maybe you will too.
    0:03:31 Also, if you want to get in touch with me for whatever reason, go to lexfieberman.com slash
    0:03:31 contact.
    0:03:34 And now, on to the full ad reads.
    0:03:35 Let’s go.
    0:03:42 This episode is brought to you by Call of Duty Warzone and the return of the iconic Vordansk
    0:03:42 map.
    0:03:44 I have a long history with Call of Duty.
    0:03:46 I’ve been a fan for a long time.
    0:03:49 I’ve been a fan of video games for a long, long time.
    0:03:55 And I’m actually looking forward to doing many, many podcasts with video game designers, with
    0:03:55 engineers.
    0:03:57 It just brings me so much joy.
    0:04:03 And there’s technical, philosophical things to explore with video games.
    0:04:09 How do you create immersive worlds that can be ultra-realistic or ultra-non-realistic and
    0:04:16 super fun or super dark or terrifying or exciting or hopeful or dreamlike?
    0:04:18 All of those worlds.
    0:04:22 The geniuses behind those worlds inspire me.
    0:04:28 I admire, I respect, I’m a big fan of the worlds that Call of Duty franchise has created.
    0:04:31 And the Vordansk map looks incredible.
    0:04:38 You can download Call of Duty Warzone for free and drop into the Vordansk map on April 3rd.
    0:04:39 Rated M for Mature.
    0:04:46 This episode is also brought to you by Oracle, a company providing a fully integrated stack of
    0:04:48 cloud applications and cloud platform services.
    0:04:54 I think compute is going to be one of the resources that are most prized in the 21st century.
    0:05:03 Whatever physical form, whatever cyber software form that compute takes, we do not know yet.
    0:05:06 Of course, there’s folks like Oracle that are pioneering that.
    0:05:15 But it’s very possible in a century, we’re going to be surrounded by some orb where the computation
    0:05:19 is done, maybe in deep space that’s orbiting Earth, something like this.
    0:05:29 Maybe because of the heat and the energy requirements, it’s going to be impossible to host it on Earth without destroying Earth.
    0:05:45 Of course, Earth is such a priceless planet for us humans, but I actually believe, maybe not in our galaxy, but certainly in our vicinity, it’s going to be very, very difficult to colonize other planets.
    0:05:50 Of course, humans are incredible to do the difficult thing, but we should protect this Earth.
    0:05:54 Anyway, props to Oracle for constantly innovating and building in this space.
    0:05:58 Cut your cloud bill in half when you switch to OCI.
    0:06:02 Offer is for new U.S. customers with a minimum financial commitment.
    0:06:04 See if you qualify at oracle.com slash lex.
    0:06:07 That’s oracle.com slash lex.
    0:06:14 This episode is brought to you by Element, my daily zero sugar and delicious electrolyte mix that I’m drinking now,
    0:06:21 because after I say the words I’m saying to you right now, I’m going for a long, long run along the river.
    0:06:24 And I’m listening to an audiobook by James Holland.
    0:06:30 It’s volume one of his trilogy called The War in the West.
    0:06:33 I believe it’s focusing on 1939 to 1941.
    0:06:39 It’s just an extremely well-written perspective on those years.
    0:06:41 So it’s the Western front.
    0:06:43 I think those years are really important to understand.
    0:06:55 The years leading up to 1939 and 39, 40, 41 themselves, because there’s a lot of, let’s say, geopolitical negotiations, meetings,
    0:07:01 carrots and sticks that could have been done, a lot of insights, a lot of mistakes avoided.
    0:07:03 It’s such an important moment to understand.
    0:07:11 Probably the most destructive, the most terrifying, the most earth-shattering war this world has ever seen.
    0:07:23 With the bigger-than-life personalities of Hitler, Stalin, Churchill, FDR, I think James Holland calls it the most dramatic set of events in human history.
    0:07:27 And anyway, element before, element after, it brings me joy.
    0:07:32 Watermelon salt is still and forever the flavor of choice for me.
    0:07:36 Get a sample pack for free with any purchase tried at drinkelement.com slash flex.
    0:07:45 This episode is brought to you by AG1, an all-in-one daily drink to support better health and peak performance.
    0:07:51 My daily companion, again, after the run, I’m going to make an AG1, put it in the freezer.
    0:07:55 Then I’ll go take a quick shower, come back, drink the AG1.
    0:07:57 It’s going to be chill, refreshing.
    0:08:03 I’m going to reflect on the things I’ve read, let my thoughts go to wherever they may go,
    0:08:08 and then get my lazy ass back to work, deeply focused.
    0:08:14 A productive life is built on a foundation of rituals, habits.
    0:08:16 It’s kind of incredible how fleeting life is.
    0:08:19 You know, the days go by, the months go by, the years go by.
    0:08:23 But when you look at the individual day, there’s just a lot of time.
    0:08:31 And if you have the patience to believe in the long-term effects of daily rituals and daily habits,
    0:08:33 you’d be surprised.
    0:08:35 I am constantly surprised.
    0:08:41 If I do a thing every day and I wake up two, three months after and just see how good I got at that thing,
    0:08:42 it’s kind of incredible.
    0:08:45 And then you, of course, have to protect that habit.
    0:08:50 It gets harder and harder every year with all the fascinating stuff going on online.
    0:08:55 You just have to shut it all off and do the thing, do the habit every day.
    0:09:04 Anyway, they’ll give you a one-month supply of fish oil when you sign up at drinkag1.com slash lex.
    0:09:06 This is the Lex Friedman Podcast.
    0:09:10 To support it, please check out our sponsors in the description.
    0:09:36 What have you understood about the war in Ukraine from your visits there?
    0:09:43 Just looking at the big picture of your understanding of the invasion of February 24th, 2022, and the war in the three years since.
    0:09:45 Well, I mean, several things.
    0:09:49 There’s political angles which are forever changing.
    0:10:00 But on the human level, as you know, if you visit troops, frontline troops, you have that admiration for people defending their country,
    0:10:02 defending their homes, defending their families.
    0:10:12 I’m struck by the way in which that is at a remove from the sort of political noise and the media noise and much more.
    0:10:20 It’s very easy to get caught up in the twos and froes of today’s news.
    0:10:25 But that, to my mind, that’s the single thing that struck me most in my visits there.
    0:10:37 It’s just the people I’ve met who are fighting for a cause which, at that level, is unavoidable, undeniable.
    0:10:44 So, the thing that struck you that’s different from the media turmoil is just the reality of war?
    0:10:45 Yeah, of course.
    0:10:57 I mean, you know, people who have either lived under Russian occupation from invading armies and then come back out into the world,
    0:11:00 having been liberated as in late 2022,
    0:11:11 or the people now organized most recently there in recent weeks who were just getting on with their job as soldiers whilst the world was talking about them.
    0:11:13 When were you there?
    0:11:17 Early on in this escalated war of 22?
    0:11:24 Yes, first time I was with the Ukrainian armed forces when they retook Kurson.
    0:11:31 And I was back in recent weeks and was there when the Trump-Zelensky blow-up happened.
    0:11:37 In fact, I was in a Ukrainian dugout at the front lines when I was watching it.
    0:11:50 How’s the morale, how’s the way, the content of the conversations you’ve heard different from the two visits separated by, I guess, two years?
    0:11:55 At one level, I mean, nothing has changed much.
    0:12:04 You know, it’s a sort of, it’s not a total standoff because intermittently each side gains territory from the others,
    0:12:11 but it’s not, I mean, there’d be no very significant military gains by either side in the interim period.
    0:12:16 I think my experience of the soldiers, the people of Ukraine early on in the war,
    0:12:22 there’s a intense optimism about the outcomes of the war.
    0:12:25 There’s a sense that they’re going to win.
    0:12:34 And the definition of what win means was like, all the territory is going to be won back.
    0:12:45 Yeah, I certainly, on the front lines facing Crimea, became quite familiar with people who thought that the Ukrainians in late 2022 would even be able to get Crimea back.
    0:12:47 And that struck me even at the time.
    0:12:50 And I said, I thought that that was an overreach.
    0:13:02 And now, I think the people, the soldiers, at least in my experience when I visited a second time, are more exhausted.
    0:13:14 The morale, the dreams, the certainty of victory has maybe faded from the forefront of their minds.
    0:13:16 Well, three years of war will tire out anyone.
    0:13:23 What did you think of the blow up between Zelensky and Trump as you’re sitting there in the dugout?
    0:13:28 Well, it was a very disturbing place to watch it from.
    0:13:30 Perhaps anywhere would have been.
    0:13:37 And, I mean, obviously, it was a meeting that shouldn’t have happened.
    0:13:38 It was far too early.
    0:13:39 Why do you think so?
    0:13:43 There’s not enough actual pathways to peace on the table?
    0:13:50 Well, I think the mineral deal, I mean, I love the fact that everyone’s now an expert in Eastern Ukrainian mineral deposits.
    0:13:58 But I think, as I’ve learned, and we’ll talk about Israel and Palestine, I’m learning that everybody’s an expert on geopolitics and history of war on the internet.
    0:14:00 And now mineral deposits, obviously.
    0:14:06 And I’m really speaking at the edge of my mineral deposit knowledge here.
    0:14:19 No, I mean, what I could see, the deal that the American administration was trying to get the Ukrainian government to sign was sort of too early, too forced.
    0:14:24 Because the Ukrainians weren’t, were ready to sign a deal, but were obviously under intense pressure.
    0:14:32 And I think, certainly, Zelensky wasn’t expecting to, actually wasn’t expecting to go until pretty much the day before.
    0:14:42 Was obviously visibly tired and exhausted again, as you are, after that amount of pressure for that long a time.
    0:14:56 And, no, I mean, the thing that struck me, and I said this in my column in the New York Post from there, that the thing that struck me was I said to some of the soldiers I was with, you know, what do you make of this?
    0:15:06 And, you know, one of them just said to me, well, you know, we’re advised not to follow too closely the ins and outs of the politics of this, you know.
    0:15:17 And, but of course, everyone has Instagram or scrolls and among dog pictures and, you know, the hot women or whatever is, you know, what happened in the Oval.
    0:15:23 And, but what struck me was this same guy and saying, I’ve got a job to do.
    0:15:24 Right.
    0:15:29 And there’s a clarity and a wisdom to that.
    0:15:36 But your job is, is, is bigger than that, right?
    0:15:39 It’s to understand the politics as well.
    0:15:41 And what do you think about the politics of that moment?
    0:15:47 Because that was a real opportunity to come together and make progress on peace, right?
    0:15:52 And it, by all accounts, was not a successful step forward.
    0:16:06 I don’t think by any account, it was a successful step forward, unless to some extent it was a play, but from DC to say to Putin, look, we’ve duffed off Zelensky and, you know, now give us something.
    0:16:14 That’s the only remedial idea I have about what might have been behind it.
    0:16:22 But I think it was just one of those extremely, I mean, just awful political moments.
    0:16:34 Zelensky was obviously deeply irritated by the, the, the interpretation of the war that he was hearing from Washington.
    0:16:40 Uh, it was only a week after the Trump comments about Zelensky being a dictator.
    0:16:48 Um, and people in the administration implying that Ukraine has started the war.
    0:16:56 And I think that’s, that must be for Zelensky, a pretty Alice in Wonderland situation to be in.
    0:17:05 And, uh, I had significant sympathy for him in finding it bewildering because it would be bewildering.
    0:17:14 I think the sad thing to me also on the mundane details of that meeting and just the unfortunate way that meetings happen.
    0:17:17 I think it’s true that he was also exhausted.
    0:17:17 Yes.
    0:17:28 There was a dickhead of a, of a reporter that was asked the question about outfit in a way that, listen, Zelensky, everybody has their strengths and weaknesses.
    0:17:31 He’s an emotional being for better or for worse.
    0:17:35 And there’s a dumb dickhead of a reporter.
    0:17:37 Marjorie Taylor Greene’s boyfriend.
    0:17:38 Oh, right.
    0:17:38 He is.
    0:17:39 Yeah.
    0:17:42 The things, you know, see, you’re a real journalist.
    0:17:47 He’s, he’s from one of the, the new, I’m all for opening up the White House press pool and all that sort of thing.
    0:17:57 But it means that you get some people in who are sort of, yeah, from a blog land is, there’s nothing wrong with that, but it, it means that you get somebody who will do something like that.
    0:18:04 The problem with that interaction, as I saw it was the, that guy asked that more disrespectful question.
    0:18:11 And, uh, I, I think it was disrespectful out of very quickly to say why.
    0:18:25 I mean, I think that, I think that when a man comes from the realm of war into the realm of peace, the people in the realm of peace should have some respect or at least concession that the other man has come from the realm of war.
    0:18:50 And that if you’re sitting in a political environment where you talk about people being destroyed and decimated and defenestrated and much more to a man who’s, for whom none of that is metaphorical, I think that’s extremely hard to, to accept.
    0:19:04 Um, and I think that probably also at that moment, there was a sort of sense of, you know, Zelensky is being disrespected by being asked about what he’s wearing.
    0:19:11 When, as everyone knows, you know, Churchill during World War II used to wear his fatigues, uh, on foreign visits.
    0:19:15 And it’s sort of just that, it’s to remind people that you’re coming from the realm of war.
    0:19:30 And I think that probably in that, uh, in that moment, one of the things that would have been going through his head would be, but I mean, if, if, if this was Putin sitting here being assaulted by a journalist, you know, you’d, you’d hope, hope your host stepped in and defended you.
    0:19:33 I mean, if, let me try this one out.
    0:19:44 I mean, if, if, if, if a, if a journalist in the Oval Office, if Putin was sitting there or a putative journalist said to Putin, you know, um, everyone knows you’ve had a lot of facial work done.
    0:19:48 And, uh, word is you’ve used the same guy that Berlusconi used to use.
    0:19:52 Um, can you comment on, on that?
    0:20:00 You, you’d, you’d, you’d say, well, that’s a kind of disrespectful question for journalists to ask.
    0:20:05 And it’s a little bit, um, off, off what needs to be gone over.
    0:20:09 Uh, and it’s the same thing with Zelensky with the outfit.
    0:20:13 I think it was just petty and, and, and, and threw things off in a bad way.
    0:20:23 Yeah, and it was probably research because I think Zelensky was explained this like three years ago at the beginning of the war, why he wears what he wears and he’s been consistent wearing the same thing.
    0:20:31 It’s also, by the way, it’s, it’s an example of the frivolity of a lot of the, of the attempts to, attempts to understand what’s going on.
    0:20:38 I mean, my view is that, is that since actually most people, in fact, everybody cannot be an expert on everything.
    0:20:45 One of the things that we always do is to seize on minor and really quite unimportant things.
    0:20:48 I mean, for, I mean, every side does it.
    0:20:55 Look at the way in which the American right for years talked about the Churchill bust leaving the White House Oval Office in the Obama years.
    0:21:08 I, I didn’t want to hear another darn thing about the Churchill bust after eight years because it just, it was in lieu of trying to understand and actually critique Obama’s foreign policy.
    0:21:10 It was just an easy shorthand.
    0:21:13 I think it’s the same, we’re, we’re, we’re, we’re always tempted to that.
    0:21:26 But the thing is, I think you mentioned Putin, I think Putin would have been able to, uh, respond himself to that journalist effectively and he would have done it in Russian.
    0:21:27 Oh yeah.
    0:21:28 The language thing.
    0:21:28 Yeah.
    0:21:35 So I wanted to sort of lay out several just unfortunate things that happen in these situations.
    0:21:40 And I think it happens in all peace negotiations and it’s funny how history can turn in moments like this.
    0:21:48 I do think there was a dickhead reporter combined with the fact that the, you know, with all due respect, but Zelensky’s English sometimes is not very good.
    0:21:49 Yes.
    0:21:55 And apart from anything else, if he had agreed to not done it in English, he would have bought himself the extra seconds in some of his replies that he needed.
    0:21:55 Yeah.
    0:21:55 Yeah.
    0:22:00 And have the wit, the guy is funny, witty, intelligent.
    0:22:08 You know, he could do that in the native language of whether it’s Ukrainian or Russian to be able to respond and get the interpreter.
    0:22:17 So all of that is really unfortunate because I think on those little moments, it’s, it’s a dance and there’s an opportunity there.
    0:22:28 You know, the Republicans, the, the right wing in the United States have a general kind of skepticism of Zelensky and, uh, and, but that doesn’t mean it has to be that way.
    0:22:30 It can turn, it can change, it can evolve.
    0:22:32 It’s very interesting why it has happened.
    0:22:33 Why do you think it’s happened?
    0:22:50 I think the politics in the United States is so dumb that at the very beginning, it could just be reduced to, well, the left went Putin bad, Zelensky good, rah, rah, Ukrainian flags.
    0:22:52 Therefore the right must go the opposite.
    0:22:52 Yeah.
    0:22:54 It’s sometimes as literally as dumb as that.
    0:22:57 Let’s each pick a side and call the other dumb.
    0:23:06 I had a line I used recently with, um, the necessity of people who live too long online to try to wade their way out of the means.
    0:23:08 It is so like that, isn’t it?
    0:23:22 Because yes, I mean, I can understand the people who find it very irritating that so many people who would put BLM flags or pride flags or, you know, trans flags in their bio, then put Ukrainian flags in their bio, despite almost certainly not knowing where Ukraine was.
    0:23:31 And, uh, if that happens, the inevitable instinct of a lot of people who aren’t really thinking is to say, that’s really annoying.
    0:23:32 These people are really annoying.
    0:23:33 I’ll sock it to them.
    0:23:42 But that’s why you’ve got to try to rise above that and say, actually, funnily enough, the fate of a country doesn’t depend on my tolerance for memes online today.
    0:23:43 Yeah.
    0:23:51 So, I think the memes can be broken through in meetings like the one that happened between Zelensky and Trump.
    0:23:53 There could have been real camaraderie.
    0:24:01 I’ve seen the skill of that just recently having researched deeply and interacted with Narendra Modi.
    0:24:18 Here’s somebody who has the skill of, you know, for his country, for his situation, being able to somehow be friends with Putin and friends with Zelensky and friends with Trump and friends with Biden and friends with Obama.
    0:24:19 That’s very skillful.
    0:24:38 And that, while still being strong for his country and, like, fundamentally a nationalist figure who’s, like, you know, very non-globalist, not anything but pro-India, India first, nation first.
    0:24:44 In fact, nation first with a very specific idea what that nation represents.
    0:24:45 Cool.
    0:24:54 And that, you know, Zelensky could do all of those things, but have the skill of navigating the Trump room.
    0:24:59 Because every single leader has their own peculiar quirks that need to be navigated.
    0:24:59 Yes.
    0:25:13 The obvious one, I mean, I don’t want to make it sound like it was all Zelensky’s fault, but, I mean, the obvious one was at the beginning of the meeting to say yet again, as he has done for three years, thank you to America and the American people and American politicians across the aisle for your support for my country and its hour of need.
    0:25:16 We’re deeply grateful.
    0:25:19 And because he, for once, forgot to say that.
    0:25:21 I think it’s not that simple.
    0:25:22 I think there’s a…
    0:25:23 It’s not that simple.
    0:25:23 It’s one reason.
    0:25:26 I think saying thank you, he didn’t need to say thank you.
    0:25:29 That was why Vance, that was what Vance leapt in on.
    0:25:32 He’s just picking a thing to leap on.
    0:25:33 There’s a whole energy.
    0:25:44 You have to acknowledge in your way of being that you have been very Biden, buddy, buddy with the left for the last four years.
    0:25:46 There’s ways to fix that.
    0:25:51 Listen, these people are complicated narcissists, all of them, Biden, Trump.
    0:25:54 You have to navigate the complexity of that.
    0:26:03 And you basically have to say a kind word to Trump, which is like showing there’s many ways of doing that.
    0:26:10 But one of them is saying feeding the ego by acknowledging that he is one of the world’s greatest negotiators, right?
    0:26:22 I’m glad we’re able to come to the table and negotiate together because I believe you are the great negotiator, mediator that can actually bring a successful resolution to it.
    0:26:22 Yeah, yeah, yeah.
    0:26:31 As opposed to have an energy of like, it should be obvious to everybody that Ukraine are the good guys and Russia is the bad guys.
    0:26:33 There’s this whole energy of entitlement that he brought.
    0:26:35 He forgot that there’s a new guy.
    0:26:58 You got to like convince the new guy that this global mission that this nation is on, this war that is in many ways, the West versus the East, that there’s ideals, there’s whole histories here, that this is a war worth winning.
    0:27:00 You have to convince them, right?
    0:27:00 Yeah, no, sure.
    0:27:02 And they obviously failed on that occasion.
    0:27:15 But as I say, it must be bewildering to have landed in a place where people were seriously talking about Ukraine starting the war and Zelensky not Putin being the dictator.
    0:27:27 I did the front page of the New York Post the day after the president’s comments on that, saying that the big picture of Putin just saying, right, this is a dictator.
    0:27:40 And, you know, I think that people can be alive enough to be able to recognize that, you know, you can make criticisms of Zelensky or the Ukrainians, but it doesn’t mean you have to fall full Putin.
    0:27:46 And, again, unfortunately, a lot of people in our time don’t have that capability.
    0:27:49 Can we go right into it?
    0:27:52 What is your strongest criticism of Putin?
    0:28:00 He’s a dictator who’s very bloody, as repressive as you can be of political opposition, internal opposition.
    0:28:11 He’s kleptomaniac of his country’s resources, has enriched himself as much as he could, as he has with the cronies around him.
    0:28:30 He’s not just acted to destroy internal opposition in Russia, but has gone to other countries, including my own country of birth, and killed people on their, our soil, using, as it happens, weapons of mass destruction.
    0:28:36 The use of polonium in the centre of London, not good.
    0:28:45 The use of incredibly dangerous nerve agents that could kill tens of thousands of people in a charming cathedral city like Salisbury, not good.
    0:28:51 If the sort of apologists of Putin would say, well, he’s just a sort of tough man who’s looking after his house business.
    0:29:06 Well, I don’t think, even if you think he has the right to do that, that he should be doing it in third countries, deliberately using weapons that are meant to show that you could take out tens of thousands of British citizens.
    0:29:10 Yeah, I mean, that’s just for starters.
    0:29:14 What do you make for, do you think he’s actually popularly elected?
    0:29:15 No.
    0:29:20 Do you think the, the results of the elections are fraudulent?
    0:29:22 Yes.
    0:29:23 I mean.
    0:29:31 Do you think it’s possible that it’s just that the opposition has been eliminated and he’s legitimately popularly elected?
    0:29:34 It definitely helps a chap if he’s killed all of his opponents.
    0:29:39 Something about using the term chap in that context is just marvelous.
    0:29:53 But, you know, I know, I mean, but I mean, seriously, you, you, if, if, if people are worried about, this is another of the sort of slightly Alice in Wonderland things recently about Zelensky is people are saying, well, why hasn’t he’s a dictator?
    0:29:56 Because he hasn’t held elections during a total war of self-defense.
    0:30:11 And it’s like, well, you know, if you’re really, really passionate about free and fair elections in that neck of the woods, you’d at least notice that Russian elections are not free and fair in any meaningful sense.
    0:30:23 But this doesn’t mean that you have to say that, therefore, they should have Western style elections and, and, and freedom that Russia is, is ready to go and become a Western liberal democracy.
    0:30:24 It doesn’t mean any of that at all.
    0:30:25 It’s just at least note.
    0:30:28 That this is what Putin is.
    0:30:33 What do you think is the motivation for his invasion of Ukraine in 22?
    0:30:39 It’s what he’s said for years, which is the, the basic, the reconstitution of the Soviet Union.
    0:30:45 Do you think there is, uh, empire building components to that motivation?
    0:31:00 I would trust most my friends in Eastern Central Europe who certainly do think that there’s a reason why the Baltic countries are the countries that are spending highest in percentage of GDP on defense.
    0:31:02 And it’s because they’re very worried.
    0:31:05 I don’t think they’re faking it.
    0:31:08 I don’t think they’re faking it for me or for anyone else.
    0:31:16 I think the Lithuanians, Latvians, the Estonians, and others are genuinely worried for the first time in some decades.
    0:31:27 Do you think there’s a possibility that, uh, the war continues indefinitely, even if there’s a ceasefire and the peace reached, the war will resume.
    0:31:28 Yeah.
    0:31:31 He will seek expansion even beyond Ukraine.
    0:31:31 Yes.
    0:31:40 And, uh, the most obvious thing is that if Trump manages to negotiate a ceasefire, it’ll be a temporary pause.
    0:31:47 And whoever comes in as president after Trump, uh, Putin will use the opportunity to advance again.
    0:31:49 Uh, yes.
    0:31:56 Again, one of the things that I have heard from parts of the American right and others is that all he wants is Ukraine.
    0:32:05 That that’s all he wants and that he has no history or of rhetoric or actions that suggest anything else.
    0:32:11 And again, it’s one of the reasons why it’s useful traveling to places and seeing things with your own eyes.
    0:32:18 Cause I very much remember being in the country of Georgia, uh, after Putin tried to invade in 2008.
    0:32:34 So I just, again, people don’t have to be the greatest supporters of the Ukrainian cause just to recognize that, that it doesn’t seem to be the case that, that Ukraine is the only thing in Putin’s vision.
    0:32:47 Do you see value and, uh, maybe depth and power to the realist perspective of all this, you know, somebody like, uh, John Mearsheimer’s formulation of all this, that, uh, in these invasions of Georgia.
    0:32:59 Uh, Ukraine, it’s using military power to expand the sphere of influence in the region in a cold calculation of geopolitics.
    0:33:00 It’s interesting.
    0:33:18 One of the, one of the fascinating things about the last few years is there’s been an act of sort of necromancy of certain figures were totally, totally debunked, uh, um, in the area of Ukraine, Mearsheimer and, uh, in the case of Israel, people like Finkelstein and, uh,
    0:33:26 it’s been interesting because these are people that one hadn’t heard of for some years because, um, they were not listened to for usually for good reason.
    0:33:39 But by the way, first of all, I’m very skeptical of the term realist in foreign policy because most people to some extent will say that they are a realist in foreign policy.
    0:33:43 Very few people are surrealists in foreign policy.
    0:33:46 Very few people are unrealists.
    0:33:47 I would like to meet them.
    0:33:49 Surrealist foreign policy analyst.
    0:33:52 We did mention Alice in Wonderland.
    0:33:52 Yeah.
    0:34:03 I mean, maybe we should introduce the term, but I mean, if you want to say, if you want to look gimlet out, eyed out across the world, you you’re, you’re a realist.
    0:34:16 I think the steel man of their argument would be Russia has or believes it has a sphere of influence and is regrettable, but there’s very little we can do about that.
    0:34:23 That would be about the best version of that argument that you can make.
    0:34:32 Well, to expand on that steel man, isn’t this how superpowers operate in the dark realist slash surrealist way?
    0:34:41 Meaning the United States uses military power to, uh, have a sphere influence over the whole globe, really.
    0:34:48 China appears to be willing to use military power to expand its sphere of influence.
    0:34:49 And political power.
    0:34:49 Yeah.
    0:34:50 More importantly, in the case of China.
    0:34:52 Political power.
    0:34:56 Non-kinetic warfare to take over areas.
    0:34:58 Hong Kong being the obvious one.
    0:35:02 Behind that, isn’t there always a kinetic threat?
    0:35:03 Oh yeah, of course.
    0:35:03 Yeah.
    0:35:10 I mean, you disappear some booksellers and, uh, and, uh, students who are protesting, of course.
    0:35:12 I just, but, but to go back to this, yeah, of course.
    0:35:13 Okay.
    0:35:17 Countries believe they have, or, or would like to have spheres of influence.
    0:35:29 I do think at some point that the so-called realists on that have to try to decide how much leeway that allows you to give to a fairly rapacious, uh, regime.
    0:35:36 Uh, and it’s not, I mean, it’s, it’s not the easiest calculation always to make.
    0:35:51 You have to work out whether or not, for instance, it is true that if, if Russia had, if Putin had managed to go all the way to Kiev in the first weeks of the war in 22, he would have gone straight on to other places.
    0:35:56 And, you know, maybe he would have done, maybe he would have taken his time, maybe he wouldn’t have done.
    0:36:03 And this is a very fine calculation that changes every week, let alone every year.
    0:36:16 You know, my friends in Georgia, I thought were, um, wildly off the mark when they were believing that after 2008, they could get, for instance, either NATO membership or EU membership.
    0:36:35 And I thought, I thought that was completely unlikely and I still think it’s unlikely and almost suddenly undesirable for Europe and for NATO because you, you’ve got to be very careful as, and obviously this is one of the issues with Ukraine and has been since the nineties is, you know, are you going to set up a trip wire to start world war three?
    0:36:49 So what do you think the, uh, the peace deal might look like and what does the path to peace look like in Ukraine in, in the coming weeks and months?
    0:37:06 I just thought it would be, uh, regrettably the Ukrainians ceding some territory in the east and then, um, making sure they rearm, uh, during whatever peace period comes afterwards.
    0:37:15 And probably all four territories of, uh, Donetsk-Lukhan’s separation or son.
    0:37:19 You couldn’t lay any of that out because it has to be negotiated on.
    0:37:41 But I, I mean, I think that, and I think the ease with which non-Ukrainians are currently speaking about the Ukrainian ceding territory is, is concerning because these territories include hundreds of thousands of Ukrainian citizens who do not want to live under Putin’s rule and people who have families in the rest of Ukraine and, and, and much more.
    0:38:01 And, um, uh, you know, uh, you know, I, I recently interviewed children who had managed to get out of the Russian occupied areas and, um, it’s, it’s, it’s brutal for the Ukrainian to be growing up in that territory.
    0:38:15 So I, when people say, well, obviously, you know, Donetsk has to be given to Putin, I think that that is not as easy a thing if you’re in Ukraine as it is if you’re sitting in New York, say.
    0:38:30 Um, and by the way, I think that on the issue of, there is a school of thought that, that is, that obviously president Trump to some extent was, was floating in recent weeks, which is that if, if a deal is done, a business deal.
    0:38:47 You know, in relation to minerals or anything else, you get this great, you get a kind of buffer zone of American businesses and investment and therefore American business people in the region, which would effectively warn Putin not to invade.
    0:38:56 I don’t, uh, follow that idea because not least there were Americans in the regions that were invaded in 22 and they left fast.
    0:39:09 And we know from Hong Kong and other places, just because there are international financial interests in the region does not mean that a dictatorship will not either, um, militarily or covertly take over.
    0:39:17 I don’t, I don’t see American miners as being an effective buffer zone against Putin.
    0:39:24 By the way, what did you, um, learn from talking to the children, Ukrainian children from those regions?
    0:39:41 Well, I mean, it’s, it’s, it’s, it’s heartbreaking because the only schooling is, uh, Russian schooling, uh, obviously teaching the Russian language, Putin’s view of history and effectively indoctrination.
    0:39:55 And, and, and people can quibble with that term, but it’s Putin-esque indoctrination schools and any children or families that do not want that effectively have to hide and, um, not go out.
    0:40:09 And there were, I spoke to children and parents who’d had school friends who’d had, for instance, the Russians set up in 22 and 23, uh, uh, summer camps, uh, for the children of some of the areas that have been occupied.
    0:40:14 And the children went off to the camps and then they didn’t come back, but they were just stolen.
    0:40:19 Um, I mean, it’s thought that around 20,000 Ukrainian children have been stolen in this fashion.
    0:40:20 That’s not a small thing.
    0:40:26 It’s not got very much attention, but, um, yes.
    0:40:39 I mean, uh, children who would hide whenever the Russian troops came to the door, uh, one teenage boy who described to me how, when his mother was out, a, a woman came around the house, knocked on the door.
    0:40:49 Um, and, uh, gave him his papers, uh, and said that he had to attend the next week to sign up for the Russian army.
    0:40:54 This is, I mean, this is, this is, this is, this is not good.
    0:41:00 And that’s obviously what life is like for thousands of people behind the Russian lines in Ukraine.
    0:41:07 I just, I just have it in mind when people say things like, you know, well, obviously these regions have to be handed over.
    0:41:12 It’s not, it’s, it’s very, very hard if you’re Ukrainian to concede to that.
    0:41:13 Yeah.
    0:41:23 And even if they are, as part of the negotiation handed over, I think it’ll probably be generations or never that that could be accepted by Ukrainian people.
    0:41:24 Absolutely.
    0:41:25 And I would have thought never.
    0:41:30 What do we know about this kidnapping of children?
    0:41:34 The stories of the thousands of children that, uh, the Russian forces kidnapped.
    0:41:41 Um, some of them were in orphanages in Eastern Ukraine, not all by any means, but some were.
    0:41:47 And it’s a very complicated story actually, because many children were taken from their families.
    0:41:52 Uh, many, the Russians said, well, look at these Ukrainians.
    0:41:53 They don’t even look after their children.
    0:41:54 Therefore we will look after them.
    0:42:03 And I was, I was recently, when I was there looking into this story, because it’s, it’s a very interesting question as to why it hasn’t had more attention.
    0:42:11 You know, one thinks of, for instance, the abduction of the Chibok school girls some 12 years ago now in Northern Nigeria.
    0:42:19 And, uh, uh, appalling abduction of 300 girls by Boko Haram, uh, completely gained the world’s attention.
    0:42:25 And I was very interested into why the Ukrainian children who’d been taken by the Russians had not gained similar attention.
    0:42:30 There’s a slight similarity with the war in Israel, which I’m sure we’ll come on to.
    0:42:53 But, uh, I do think that one reason is that they were effectively hostages and the Ukrainians knew, this is, this is my estimation of the terrain on it, is that the Ukrainians knew that if they made a great deal about this, or was it more than they did, that the, the, the children would effectively be the most effective bargaining chip.
    0:43:19 And I do think there’s considerable truth in that, because if you look at, for instance, the way in which, um, pressure has been put on the Israeli government by the Israeli population about the kidnapped Israelis, you’ll see that it’s, it’s a pretty effective tactic for, uh, any, uh, totalitarian regime or terrorist group.
    0:43:32 But to operate in a way that means that the population of the country you’re attacking pressure their government to do something in terms of concession, it’s, it’s a, it’s, it’s a very effective tool.
    0:43:38 And I think that story was partly played down, not just outside of Ukraine, but also within Ukraine, partly for that reason.
    0:43:50 But as a truth seeker, as a journalist, how do you operate in that world where, at least to me, it’s obvious that there’s just a flood of propaganda on both sides.
    0:43:59 Now, of course, when you go there and directly experience it and talk to people, uh, but those people are still also swimming in the propaganda.
    0:44:03 So unless you witness stuff directly, sometimes it’s hard to know.
    0:44:13 Like I, I speak to people on the Russian side and there’s, they’re clearly, first of all, hilariously enough, they almost always say there’s, that there’s no propaganda in Russia.
    0:44:14 Of course.
    0:44:25 Uh, which makes me realize, I mean, you, you can be completely lied to, maybe I am in the United States as well, and just be unaware.
    0:44:31 Um, maybe earth is run by aliens, maybe the earth is flat.
    0:44:31 So I don’t know.
    0:44:33 Maybe you’ve taken mushrooms.
    0:44:34 I have before this.
    0:44:37 And I finally see the truth.
    0:44:40 And it’s you that are deluded, Douglas.
    0:44:41 Okay.
    0:44:48 But, uh, back to the, our round earth discussion, round earth shills that we are, uh, how do you know what is true?
    0:44:55 You, you can tell it when the bare facts become not true.
    0:45:08 Like you can tell it when somebody is willing to claim that everything caused the invasion of 2022, except for Vladimir Putin invading Ukraine.
    0:45:09 Yeah.
    0:45:11 There’s a, there’s a hilarious thing that happens.
    0:45:19 And I think you’ve actually speak about this, that, uh, people are generally just much more willing to criticize the democratically elected leader.
    0:45:29 So the interesting thing that happens is these wise sages that do the narratives of like NATO started the war, right?
    0:45:38 Which there is some interesting geopolitical depth and truth to that, like that NATO expansion created a complicated geopolitical context, whatever.
    0:45:39 Sure.
    0:45:43 But they forget to say like other parts of that story.
    0:45:44 Well, yes, of course.
    0:45:56 I mean, and I mean, of course, to some extent it’s, it’s rather, you know, there’s a, there’s a very, the most irritating type of question asker at any event is the person who says, I was disappointed that in your 30 minute talk, you didn’t address X.
    0:46:02 And I tend to say, well, looking forward to coming to your next talk where in 30 minutes, you’ll cover everything that could possibly be covered.
    0:46:06 Um, there’s always stuff that’s going to be left on the sides.
    0:46:08 There’s always going to be stuff that’s left unaddressed.
    0:46:09 There’s always going to be other angles.
    0:46:14 There’s always going to be somebody else who, who, who, who has this interesting perspective and you can’t cover it.
    0:46:21 Nevertheless, if you cover everything other than the central things, then it’s suspicious.
    0:46:44 Many years ago, I was at a debate in London, uh, and there was a debate about the origins of World War II and, uh, Pat Buchanan talking of necromancy was one of the, the, the, the speakers and, um, Andrew Roberts historian was one of the people on the other side.
    0:46:55 And at one point, you know, they got so completely stuck into issues of iron ore mining in Poland, in the, you know, something like this.
    0:46:58 And the moderator, I remember it was just, it was just a melee.
    0:47:04 And the moderator turns to Andrew Roberts and says, Andrew Roberts, why did World War II begin?
    0:47:08 And he says, World War II began because Hitler invaded Poland.
    0:47:15 And it was a magnificent moment because everything had been a mush.
    0:47:27 They were just so lost in all the intricate and clever and interesting things that you can talk about, about the origins of a war that you’ve, you, you forget to mention the thing that’s most important.
    0:47:45 And certainly my experience as a journalist and writer is that one of the reasons why you need to go and see things with your own eyes is because people are certain to tell you that what you’ve seen with your own eyes didn’t happen or hasn’t happened.
    0:47:50 And it helps to steal you for that moment.
    0:47:59 It’s a gradual thing that happens where the obvious thing starts being taken for granted and people stop saying it because it’s like the boring thing to say at a party.
    0:48:09 And then all of a sudden, over time, you just almost start questioning whether, whether, you know, like the obvious thing is even true.
    0:48:13 I don’t know what that, how that happens in human psychology, but it does.
    0:48:14 I think it does.
    0:48:19 I’ve observed it in a lot of different places, which is the important thing is the only thing you do forget.
    0:48:21 Everything else is what you remember.
    0:48:27 And some of us are, for some reason, wired in a way where we, we don’t, we try not to forget the important thing.
    0:48:28 Remember the obvious thing.
    0:48:28 Yeah.
    0:48:28 Yes.
    0:48:33 And as you say, no, I’m not wanting to be the boring guy at the party who reiterates what is true.
    0:48:37 Because what a douchebag you’d be if you were that guy.
    0:48:40 Nobody likes Captain Obvious at a party.
    0:48:40 Okay.
    0:48:51 Is it possible that Donald Trump is a mediator, a successful negotiator that brings a stable peace to Ukraine?
    0:48:51 It’s possible.
    0:48:52 We’ll have to see.
    0:48:57 I think it’s just too early and complicated to tell.
    0:49:00 That he wants to bring a peace seems to me to be obvious.
    0:49:02 He’s stated it a lot of times.
    0:49:07 Whether he can, we’re just going to have to see.
    0:49:11 It’s extremely hard to see some of the parameters of the peace deal.
    0:49:24 And I would suggest that the most, one, not the most difficult, but one of the most difficult is that there is no peace guarantee on paper that the Ukrainians can possibly believe.
    0:49:37 I just, it doesn’t matter because we in the West, we, some of the countries in the West have said it before that we’d secure their, their peace.
    0:49:38 And we haven’t.
    0:49:53 And so what other than NATO membership, which is not possible in my view, what other than NATO membership would reassure the Ukrainians that they are going to have their borders secured and the peace of Ukraine secured?
    0:49:55 I can’t see.
    0:50:01 I think there’s not going to be ever a guarantee that you can trust.
    0:50:10 I think the way you have a guarantee, implicit guarantees by having military and economic partnerships with as many partners as possible.
    0:50:20 So you have partnerships with the Middle East, you have partnerships with India, perhaps even with China, with the United States, with many nations in Europe.
    0:50:31 All of which still suggests that if there’s enough financial interests in Ukraine, they would prevent another Russian invasion.
    0:50:33 There would be financial pressure.
    0:50:44 Yeah, there would be, you know, Russia needs to be friends with somebody, either China or the West.
    0:50:53 I think a world that’s flourishing, it would have Russia trading and being friends with the West and the East.
    0:50:54 It would be ideal.
    0:51:07 It would be ideal if, if, if they were, if the regime in Moscow wanted it, but that’s that not, I mean, again, you get into the thing of, you know, people accuse of Russophobia.
    0:51:21 But, I mean, I do believe that after the fall of the wall, Russia was ill-treated by the West, not treated with the, some of the courtesy that it required.
    0:51:22 I do think that.
    0:51:30 And at the same time, that doesn’t justify the actions of Russia in the last 20 years.
    0:51:31 Right.
    0:51:52 But let’s descend from the surrealist to the realist, it’s very possible for Russia to be on the verge of military invasion of these nations and that being wrong, while also not doing it because they’re afraid to hurt the partnerships with the West and with China.
    0:52:10 It’s possible, but the alliance they formed with this sort of rogue alliance with China to a considerable extent, North Korea, not useful, and Iran is something they seem to find bearable.
    0:52:15 It’s not a very, it’s not a very good alliance in most people’s analysis, but it’s an alliance.
    0:52:27 It’s bearable, but I don’t think, maybe you disagree with this, I don’t think the Russian people, or even Putin wants to be isolated from the West.
    0:52:35 I think it wants to be friends with the West, and with the East, and with everybody, he just also wants Ukraine, right?
    0:52:39 And there’s, well, how does the Rolling Stones song go?
    0:52:41 Which one?
    0:52:45 Not the satisfaction one.
    0:52:46 Sympathy with the devil?
    0:52:48 That’s the one.
    0:52:49 You got me on that one.
    0:52:56 No, like there’s interests, whether it’s expanding the sphere and influence, that’s one thing on the table.
    0:53:01 But that can be put aside if you want to maintain the partnerships with these nations.
    0:53:10 And if Ukraine has strong economic partnerships with those nations, then that prevents Russia from invading.
    0:53:13 I think the premise is one that I’ve seen before.
    0:53:17 There was a famous, what was his name?
    0:53:20 Norman Angle.
    0:53:34 He wrote this book, which was a fantastic bestseller in his day, where he believed that Europe would be in a period of endless Canty and peace, because the prospect of European powers going to war was so economically unviable.
    0:53:45 The book was reissued after World War I, and I never got the second edition, but I assume it was significantly rewritten.
    0:53:49 That’s a very kind of cynical take that just because the book is wrong.
    0:53:50 I’m not saying just the book is wrong.
    0:54:09 I’m saying that the idea that cooperation on an economic and other levels is any significant preventative device to madness breaking out is not something I see.
    0:54:23 It could deter some people, but it could deter some very, very rational, economically driven actors, but it fails to take into account all of the other things that motivate people to go to war and to invade and to go mad.
    0:54:24 Okay.
    0:54:36 Well, I would argue that in the 21st century, one of the reasons we have much fewer wars is because of the much more, well, so there’s a few tools here on the geopolitical stage.
    0:54:48 One of them is that you were just much more interconnected economically, globally interconnected, and that is always a present pressure on the world to keep peace.
    0:54:50 There’s a lot of money to be made from peace.
    0:54:53 There’s also a lot of money to be made from war.
    0:55:00 There’s a lot of interest attention, and I’m just presenting one of the tools that a leader should be using.
    0:55:03 The alternative is what?
    0:55:05 Military force?
    0:55:12 That is an interesting one, sometimes a useful one, but unfortunately, it has its downsides also.
    0:55:21 And after three years of war and the hundreds of thousands dead, you have to start wondering what are the options on the table.
    0:55:21 I agree.
    0:55:47 I’m obviously for economic cooperation, but my only caveat is not to think that that is something which is of ultimate interest, or even at the top of the list of interests, of despots, tyrants, extremists who want something else.
    0:55:53 Yeah, but can you read the mind of Vladimir Putin?
    0:55:53 No.
    0:56:06 A lot of the ideas I hear about peace is Putin bad, victory must be achieved, NATO membership required.
    0:56:24 There’s this kind of like, but you have to come to the table to end the killing, that’s one, and two, have different ideas of how to have a non-zero chance of peace.
    0:56:35 So that, you know, the options are, it seems to me, the only option, not the only option, but the likeliest option is a lot of strong economic partnerships.
    0:56:37 There’s, of course, other radical options.
    0:56:51 There’s Russia joining NATO or something like this, or there’s giving, you know, flirting with World War III, essentially, giving nukes to Ukraine or something like this.
    0:57:08 There’s like crazy stuff, or a totally new military alliance with France and Britain and Germany and European nations and Ukraine, or some weird network of military power that threatens Russia in some way.
    0:57:19 Or maybe some big breakthrough partnership between India, China and Ukraine, something like this, just some really out there ideas.
    0:57:26 And I think that’s how the world, that’s how the world finds a balance and realigns itself in interesting ways.
    0:57:31 Look, it could be, I hope you’re, I hope your idea is right.
    0:57:39 I think it’s about the, well, it’s certainly the most peaceful way for this to be resolved.
    0:57:50 My only caveat, as I say, is, and also never forget to factor in, that people want different things in this world.
    0:57:54 And some people don’t dream as you dream.
    0:57:58 I think we’ll talk about this in your new book, Death Cults.
    0:58:04 That one is an easier one for me to understand to the story that you’re describing.
    0:58:12 I am more hesitant to assign psychopathy to leaders of major nations.
    0:58:13 Sure.
    0:58:14 Yeah, yeah, yeah.
    0:58:22 I’m not by any means urging you to regard Vladimir Putin as a millinarian madman who cannot be in any way understood.
    0:58:27 I think he could be negotiated and reasoned with.
    0:58:30 From your lips to God’s ears.
    0:58:36 Can you steal me on the case for and then against Zelensky as the right leader for Ukraine at this moment?
    0:58:41 Is he the right person to take it to the point of peace?
    0:58:42 We’ll see.
    0:58:46 If he can, then of course he is.
    0:59:04 You know, he deserves enormous respect for galvanizing his people, for being elected in the first place, for galvanizing his nation at a time of incredible peril, for playing the international game of getting support for his country well.
    0:59:13 And sometimes the person who does that, not that there are many people like that, can be the person who also brings about a peace deal and sometimes not.
    0:59:33 I think there’s a degree to which he may have seen too much suffering of the people, the land he loves, to be able to sit down at a table with a world leader who did the destruction and to be able to compromise on anything.
    0:59:45 I think that’s possible again, it puts the onus on him, though, sort of slightly presupposes that Putin doesn’t have the same human instinct on that.
    0:59:47 It is extremely hard.
    0:59:49 I’ve noticed this in a lot of conflicts.
    1:00:05 It’s extremely hard the way in which outsiders come in and others who haven’t seen what you’ve seen or gone through what you’ve gone through and say, you know, it’s time to get around the negotiating table and just, you know, you think you didn’t see what I saw.
    1:00:14 You didn’t go through what I went through, who are you to tell me, goes back to that thing of the visitor from the land of war and the visitor from the land of peace.
    1:00:38 The visitor from the land of peace can easily talk about getting around negotiating tables, but the visitor from the land of war has seen other things, and it’s very hard for somebody who hasn’t seen it to tell the person who has that they should act differently.
    1:00:48 And the sad thing about humanity is both the person from the land of peace and the person from the land of war are right.
    1:00:50 Yes, that’s a struggle.
    1:00:52 That’s definitely a struggle.
    1:00:56 It’s like asking somebody to forgive.
    1:00:59 I’ve seen that at a lot of ends of conflicts.
    1:01:03 People say, you know, the important thing is that we forgive and move on.
    1:01:11 And then the other person says, you know, your child didn’t die of shrapnel wounds.
    1:01:15 Yeah, this is, you know, I got a lot of heat for an interview I did with Zelensky.
    1:01:20 By the way, people privately, the people that message me, it’s all love and support.
    1:01:24 And the people that disagree in Ukraine, soldiers, people online are ruthless.
    1:01:26 They’re misrepresenting me.
    1:01:27 They’re lying.
    1:01:29 People online are ruthless and misrepresenting and lying.
    1:01:30 Yeah.
    1:01:34 Good God, Lex, you’ve discovered a new phenomenon.
    1:01:37 I’m a real radical intellectual.
    1:01:41 Nothing misses your eye.
    1:01:45 I see the truth and I’m unafraid to point it out.
    1:02:01 No, there’s a degree, this idea that you need to compromise with the person, with the leader of a nation you’re at war with.
    1:02:05 And in so doing, to some degree are forgiving their actions.
    1:02:11 Because the actual feeling you have is you want it to be fair.
    1:02:23 And the definition of fair, when you’ve seen that much suffering, is for him and everybody around him, and maybe even all of the people on the other side to just die, because you’ve seen too much suffering.
    1:02:32 But the other side of that is, yes, there’s children that have died, but you coming to the negotiation table.
    1:02:34 Will stop other children from dying, yes, of course.
    1:02:44 And so, like, there is just, you had this kind of way of speaking about it, embodying that perspective, that it’s naive to say to come to the negotiation table.
    1:03:04 And it is, for a person from the land of war, but the very smart, intelligent, and not naive person from the land of peace, that is often right in some deep sense about the long arc of history, for them, it does, it is the right thing to come to the negotiation table, to end the war killing.
    1:03:12 The one thing I would add to that, though, is, you know, don’t forget that it also depends on whether or not there’s a clear shot of winning.
    1:03:14 Sure.
    1:03:24 If there’s a clear shot of winning, and that’s the most important, the most important thing in wars is not final negotiations or anything like that, it’s simply winning and losing.
    1:03:40 And if you have a clear shot of winning, and you can take it, and you’re near it, then having somebody else come in and saying, why not stop just before victory is very hard.
    1:03:44 That’s one of the many, many complexities of the conflict we’re talking about.
    1:03:46 You know what’s the other big complexity of that?
    1:03:51 Because the clear shot of winning is like a man walking through the desert seeing water.
    1:03:55 It could be, during war, it really is an illusion.
    1:03:57 So here’s what happens.
    1:04:10 The really complicated aspect of negotiation is in order to negotiate peace from a place of strength, you have to have victory in sight.
    1:04:11 Yes.
    1:04:19 And so the temptation from that position is to not negotiate, is to keep pushing forward to achieve victory.
    1:04:34 And this, I would say, hindsight is 20-20, but this is the failure in 22 and two occasions to achieve, to negotiate a ceasefire in peace.
    1:04:46 One, in the spring, because there was a, Ukraine was in a real big, I would say, position of strength, having fended off the Russian forces around Kiev.
    1:04:48 That’s one.
    1:04:55 And then, as you mentioned, in the fall of 22, with Harsan and Kharkiv, had a lot of military success.
    1:04:57 They were in a place of strength.
    1:05:02 And from that place, they’ve decided to keep going because victory was in sight.
    1:05:05 But that was also an opportunity to make peace.
    1:05:07 It’s perfectly possible, yes.
    1:05:08 That’s the hard thing.
    1:05:09 It’s very hard.
    1:05:09 It’s all hard.
    1:05:16 But I’m just, again, it’s, victory can be won in wars and is often won in wars.
    1:05:18 And you’re right.
    1:05:24 They can also grind on because nobody has the capability to make a breakthrough.
    1:05:37 It’s a case, I mean, the wisdom about civil wars tends to be that they sort of burn out after about 10 years or so for similar reasons.
    1:05:41 When you’re in the war, can you actually know that a victory can be won?
    1:05:43 It’s a very good question.
    1:05:49 And you mean troops on the battlefield or military leaders or political leaders?
    1:05:50 Military and political leaders.
    1:05:55 It just feels like, like I said, man in the desert seeing water.
    1:05:59 I think there’s a sense that victory is so close.
    1:06:04 There’s times in a war when you feel like victory is close.
    1:06:05 No, you’re right.
    1:06:07 And then it just slips away.
    1:06:09 Yes, it’s an interesting insight.
    1:06:23 It’s like the way in which there’s a force in nature, which is that if you amass an army, amassing it will pull you in to using it.
    1:06:24 Yeah.
    1:06:29 It’s extremely hard to amass an army somewhere and then say, let’s go back.
    1:06:31 Yes, you’re right.
    1:06:34 No, it’s one of many, many interesting aspects to warfare.
    1:06:53 I think the sad thing about successful wars, at least in the modern day, is it takes a great military leader, which I would argue that Zelensky really unified Ukraine in this fight in the beginning of the war.
    1:07:03 So you have to be that, you have to be that and, like you said, after you amass the army and have military success, to be able to step back and make peace.
    1:07:18 Those two just don’t often go hand-in-hand because, again, as a wartime leader, especially one who has seen the suffering firsthand, walking away is tough.
    1:07:29 Especially also, combined with that, just the realities of war, where there is probably corruption, that there is things, you know, once the war ends, there has to be investigations.
    1:07:36 Because the war wasn’t won, you might not turn out to be, when history looks at it, the good guy.
    1:07:41 And a leader doesn’t want to, a leader always wants to be the good guy.
    1:08:00 So there’s just all psychological complexities that are, and you look at this whole picture, in the basic sense, if you want Ukraine to flourish, if you want humanity to flourish, you just ask the question, okay, so what is the thing I would like to see?
    1:08:26 There’s so many historical analogies you can give, but just surely not rewarding Putin’s actions in any way would be a good way to deter him and other dictators from trying to grab land in the future.
    1:08:42 So, yeah, but this, it’s nuanced, because, like, you, it’s very probably good to be the boring person at the party that says, dictatorships are bad, democracies are good, many of the ideals of the West are good.
    1:08:43 Democracies are better.
    1:08:44 Better?
    1:08:44 Yes.
    1:08:45 Yeah.
    1:08:49 That sounds like Animal Farm, but yes, two legs, better.
    1:08:51 But yes, democracy is better.
    1:08:53 And invading countries is bad.
    1:08:59 But World War III is bad, too.
    1:09:04 So, after you say something is bad, what’s the next step?
    1:09:07 Because military intervention in a lot of these conflicts.
    1:09:09 It’ll be about deterrence.
    1:09:12 Yeah, but what’s effective deterrence?
    1:09:15 That we’re going to have to keep going over for a long time to come.
    1:09:21 My question is, how can we achieve peace in April?
    1:09:24 In May, right?
    1:09:36 Not like, the adults at the table all seem to tell me, well, it’s a process, it’s complicated, you know, it just feels like this is a thing that might go into the next winter.
    1:09:43 And there’s still maybe initial ceasefire, and the ceasefire is broken, and there’s more people dying.
    1:09:45 And it’s that mess.
    1:09:52 It seems like civility and politeness ignores the fact that people are dying every single day.
    1:09:58 I mean, of course, like, we were all, almost everybody, not everybody, but almost everyone would like the killing to stop immediately.
    1:09:59 Of course.
    1:10:02 No, like, I think that is the boring thing at the party.
    1:10:04 Yes, but they don’t say it often enough.
    1:10:05 Not often.
    1:10:06 Okay, they should say it more.
    1:10:07 There has to be a frustration.
    1:10:15 I don’t understand why Putin, Zelensky, and Trump can’t just meet in a room together without signing anything.
    1:10:20 Leaders meeting and discussing, and like, the human connection.
    1:10:23 There’s so many layers of diplomats.
    1:10:25 It’s the problem I have with the managerial class.
    1:10:27 I don’t, they schedule meetings really well.
    1:10:28 Sure.
    1:10:29 They don’t get shit done.
    1:10:32 And I would love it if people got shit done.
    1:10:35 So, the soldiers get shit done.
    1:10:39 They’re fighting the reality of the war.
    1:10:45 And then, the leaders have the capacity to get shit done on the scale of nations and geopolitics.
    1:10:48 But like, these diplomatic meetings and…
    1:10:49 No, I agree.
    1:10:51 Look, I share your frustration about it at the same time.
    1:10:59 I think, well, I share your frustration because I’ve seen it all, a lot of it, you know, in my own eyes.
    1:11:04 I mean, there was a battalion I was with the other week and they were hit just after I left their base.
    1:11:09 And you wouldn’t believe what a thermobaric bomb can do to the human body.
    1:11:16 And I share your frustration with that.
    1:11:30 But at the same time, one of the things that happens if you are rushing is that you do, and I’ve seen this elsewhere, you will put pressure on the people you can pressurize.
    1:11:34 And you will not put enough pressure on the people you can’t pressurize.
    1:11:40 And that is one of the worrying things that could happen with this.
    1:11:54 America can put extraordinary diplomatic, financial, intelligence, military pressure on Ukraine.
    1:12:03 And it can put significant pressure on Putin, but it’s much easier to pressure Zelensky.
    1:12:09 And that’s one of the many things that makes it harder, is that the temptation to rush for peace,
    1:12:16 accepting that peace is the most desirable thing, accepting the horrors of war, which, you know, we can linger on.
    1:12:23 Accepting all that, if somebody says, we’ve got to get peace today, and the three of them are around a table,
    1:12:28 the most likely thing is that it’ll be the person who you can pressure most easily,
    1:12:34 who will be the person that you pressure, and as a result, have an outcome which, yes,
    1:12:37 might stop the killing as soon as possible,
    1:12:45 but might also set up a situation which rewards the aggressor and effectively punishes the victim.
    1:12:49 And that’s an extremely ugly and common thing to happen.
    1:12:50 Yeah.
    1:12:52 And that’s the other boring thing to say.
    1:12:59 The boring truth that the easy shortcut here is to punish Ukraine.
    1:13:02 And you just have to not do it.
    1:13:04 Let’s keep being the boring people of the party.
    1:13:05 Yeah.
    1:13:07 Well, nobody’s going to invite us.
    1:13:10 All right.
    1:13:19 Let’s go from one complicated conflict to perhaps an even more complicated one.
    1:13:22 Israel and Palestine.
    1:13:33 Can you take me through what happened on October 7th, as you understand it,
    1:13:36 and as you outline at the beginning of the book?
    1:13:42 Well, the book on democracies and death cults is a mixture of firsthand reporting and observation
    1:13:51 interviews and a wider reflection, not just on the war that’s been going on since the 7th of October,
    1:13:53 but the war that’s been going on a lot longer.
    1:14:01 And also, I suppose, what for me is one of the overwhelming questions, which I’m sure we’ll get to, which is the reaction in the rest of the world.
    1:14:10 Obviously, on the 7th itself, it was a brigade-sized attack on Israel from Gaza.
    1:14:29 They ran through the attack on Israel from Israel from Israel from Israel from Israel from Israel from Israel from Israel from Israel.
    1:14:43 They ran through the south, very peaceful, peaceful communities, and murdered and raped and burned and kidnapped.
    1:15:02 Of course, they, from their point of view, had the great good fortune of also coming across hundreds of young people dancing in the early hours of the morning at a dance party and rampaged through that with RPGs and Kalashnikovs and grenades and hammers and more.
    1:15:17 And got within, well, 20 kilometers into Israel on places like Ofakim and Sterat, important towns, and carried out their massacres there as well.
    1:15:24 We now know that the plan was that Hezbollah did the same thing from the north.
    1:15:33 Hezbollah joined in the war within 24 hours by starting firing rockets again in very large numbers into northern Israel from southern Lebanon.
    1:15:44 But the plan was that they would do the same thing from the north and carry out similar massacres there and effectively be able to meet in the middle and garrot Israel from the center.
    1:15:58 The interesting reason why, I think, it’ll be found out in the future, but why they didn’t coordinate better was Hamas didn’t trust any line of communication to Hezbollah to let them know exactly when they were going to do it that wouldn’t be intercepted.
    1:16:07 The Iranian revolutionary government in Tehran, which obviously funds Hamas and Hezbollah and trains and arms, knew of the plan.
    1:16:19 And it was a very successful attempt to annihilate the state, but they didn’t get close to that, but they got worryingly closer than people might have thought they were capable of.
    1:16:30 I think from the Israeli side, it was obviously one of the most, if not the most catastrophic, intelligence and military failures since the foundation of the state.
    1:16:59 What a lot of military commanders and others described to me is the conception, the conception that had prevailed in Israel for some years and security military establishment was that Hamas were content with being corrupt and governing Gaza and, you know, lining their pockets and living in.
    1:17:18 In Qatar and becoming billionaires, but that like many other terrorist groups and, you know, cults that they would end up becoming just corrupt and not losing their ideology, but the ideology becomes secondary.
    1:17:25 And that’s the first thing was that there was just a massive error of the conception in Israel.
    1:17:34 And then there were the multiple manifold security and military failures of the day and leading up to the day.
    1:17:44 And there will be a, there already have been quite a lot of people held to account for that and there doubtless will be in the future as well.
    1:18:03 Um, the, the single, uh, thing I heard, which I heard most and which was most distressing in a way was the number of people who described to me, you know, who survived the massacres in the South, who said that, you know, they’d said to their children,
    1:18:13 and don’t worry, the army will be here in minutes and they weren’t, you know, in many places it was many hours till the army got there.
    1:18:16 Um, and there are reasons for that.
    1:18:22 There are some reasons that will be military failings, leadership failings.
    1:18:28 Other things were very, I discovered were very human failings.
    1:18:35 I don’t want to overstress the failure of the army because actually certain units and things got down very fast.
    1:18:46 There’s a unit of Devan who got down to the junction, you know, by within about an hour, 90 minutes of the massacres starting and joined in the fight.
    1:18:56 And then there were self-starters who I write about in the book, extraordinary people who just, like, broke orders and just realized the magnitude of what was happening and said, we’re needed in the South.
    1:19:07 We’re not going to go and fought very hard for hours, days, in some cases, but the complexities on the ground were unbelievable.
    1:19:13 I mean, as, as usually happens in warfare, but what they call the fog of war is a very real thing.
    1:19:19 You, you, you, you know, what it’s, you can see it in hindsight, but you can’t see when you’re in it.
    1:19:39 And one of the things that made it very complicated was, for instance, Hamas coming in, uh, taking uniforms off dead Israelis, uh, wearing them, uh, coming in with Israeli style, um, apparatus on them.
    1:19:51 There’s a Muslim doctor I quote in the book who I interviewed who describes how he was going to his, he’s an Israeli Muslim Arab and he was going to, he’s a doctor.
    1:19:59 He was going to his shift at the hospital at six 30 in the morning, the rockets start coming in because the rockets started first and then the full invasion.
    1:20:08 And he described to me how, um, you know, he’s one of the members of this group, the United Hatsala, which is a first responders group.
    1:20:19 And, um, they sort of, you know, they get an alert and it tells them that, you know, a car has crashed nearby and they, they, they put on their, uh, you know, first aid kit and so on and go.
    1:20:31 And he got one of those alerts, one of the junctions and, uh, realized there was a car that something had happened and there were some dead bodies and he, he stops and he sees these men dressed as soldiers.
    1:20:40 Uh, and they start, uh, and he’s wearing his Hatsala gear and they start firing at him and he just thinks, what the hell, what the hell is going on?
    1:20:46 And, uh, and, uh, they turned out to be Hamas dressed as Israeli soldiers.
    1:20:51 They, uh, used him as a human shield to try to protect from any air assault.
    1:20:56 And, uh, in the end, they shot him and left him and he survived.
    1:20:58 He’s a very, very brave man.
    1:21:02 Um, so there was a lot of confusion like that.
    1:21:09 There was a girl whose father, uh, I interviewed, she was at the Nova party.
    1:21:18 And, uh, I met him at one of the reunions of the party and the weeks after and the reunions of the survivors and the family and so on.
    1:21:25 And he described how in the last moments of his daughter’s life, she phoned him on her phone.
    1:21:28 Like a lot of people, you know, he reassured her that army would get there and so on.
    1:21:33 And, uh, her boyfriend was shot in the head and was lying on her lap.
    1:21:37 And she was obviously panicked and they’d managed to get into a car and escape the party.
    1:21:42 But they went to a, uh, a community where they thought they’d be safe in the South of Israel.
    1:21:47 And they were told to stay where they were by somebody who she said was a policeman.
    1:21:48 And he wasn’t a policeman.
    1:21:50 He was Hamas dressed as a police.
    1:21:54 And, uh, she died as she was shot and, and killed as well.
    1:21:59 And, um, so there was a lot of confusion like that.
    1:22:09 Uh, it, it, it, hopefully we’re, we’re, you know, the world will find out exactly what went wrong.
    1:22:12 Israel will find out exactly what went wrong that led to this catastrophe.
    1:22:16 But I mean, it, it, it was a complete catastrophe.
    1:22:20 Do you have a sense of how such an intelligence failure could have happened?
    1:22:27 So there’s a bit of a temptation to go into conspiracy land because it’s such a giant intelligence failure.
    1:22:34 It seems that there is, um, some manipulation on the inside for political reasons or for.
    1:22:35 You don’t need to go into conspiracy land.
    1:22:44 I mean, I think there are people who say that there were parts of the intelligence network and so on that were trying, that were withholding the information.
    1:23:01 I don’t know, again, people will find out, um, there’s an awful lot of politics inside Israel and, uh, it’s, it’s, it’s hard to know that at this stage, I think that most people are sort of still Israeli and not Israeli, including people.
    1:23:15 They’re anti-Israel who just believe that, you know, Israeli military and particularly intelligence dominance is so, so strong that there must have been some kind of conspiracy.
    1:23:16 Otherwise, how could this have happened?
    1:23:19 I don’t think you need to go into that.
    1:23:26 I think that, I mean, for instance, some of the young women at the observation base are on the record.
    1:23:41 And they’ve said, I spoke to myself and they, who said that they had been warning in the weeks running up to the seventh that they were seeing, uh, maneuvers and training by the border, which suggested that Hamas was, was going to do something like this.
    1:23:49 And, and they say that they were ignored, though you speak to some of the more senior commanders about that.
    1:23:52 And they say, the thing is that this stuff was happening all the time.
    1:23:56 So it’s very hard to, it’s very hard to know at the moment.
    1:24:07 Can you talk through your understanding of who and what Hamas is, its history and, uh, the governing ideology of this group?
    1:24:15 Well, Hamas in a way, quite easy to understand because they, they say what their ambitions are.
    1:24:17 They say what their beliefs are.
    1:24:20 They’ve said it, said it from their governing charter onwards.
    1:24:30 And you also have the advantage with Hamas that they, as it were, in trying to understand them is that they, they tend to do what they say and, um, act on what they believe.
    1:24:35 The primary aim of Hamas is to destroy the state of Israel and then see.
    1:24:38 They’re not an unusual group, sadly.
    1:24:51 The, the bit of it that is hard for some people to understand, I think, is that, is that they really do mean what they say and that they really do mean what they say they want to do.
    1:25:10 And I give a number of examples in the book of this, but I mean, the most, uh, obvious is the case of Yahya Sinwar, the Hamas leader, who is generally regarded as having orchestrated and, and, um, arranged the 7th of October.
    1:25:21 He, uh, he, uh, we know a fair amount about him because he was in prison in Israel in the 2000s for murdering Palestinians in Gaza.
    1:25:37 And, uh, he was released in the prisoner swap for the, he’s one of the more than 1,000, uh, Palestinian prisoners inside Israel who was released in his, in a swap for Gilad Shalit, the abducted Israeli soldier.
    1:25:51 And, uh, Yahya Sinwar in prison in Israel, um, talked to, among others, a, a dentist who ended up saving his life because Yahya Sinwar had a brain tumor.
    1:26:02 And, uh, this, this dentist identified this and, uh, actually sent him to the hospital and the Israelis famously, uh, removed the tumor and, and, and saved Sinwar’s life.
    1:26:12 But this dentist used to speak to him in, in prison, not fairly regularly, and, and has related, not least to the New York Times, his conversations with Sinwar.
    1:26:27 And, uh, Sinwar said in one of those conversations, he said, you know, he said, uh, at the moment, you Israel are strong, um, but one day you’ll be weak and then I’ll come.
    1:26:31 And, uh, that’s, that’s what he did.
    1:26:38 Is it a hatred of Israel or is it a hatred of Jews?
    1:26:41 Is it on the level of nations or the level of, uh, religion?
    1:26:42 Both.
    1:26:44 It’s both.
    1:26:49 I mean, it, it, it, it originates from a religious mindset, but it’s of course, political as well.
    1:26:57 Um, I mean, the Hamas charter, of course, some people sort of think the Hamas charter is of no significance.
    1:27:03 And I often notice this sleight of hand that, that, that people do, again, it goes back to what I was saying earlier.
    1:27:18 Um, forget everything other than the most important basic things, but the Hamas charter, uh, among other things, quotes the Hadith that, you know, the end times will not come until all of the, the, the, the, the rocks and the trees shout out.
    1:27:21 So, uh, oh, Muslim, there’s a Jew behind me, come and kill him.
    1:27:24 And, uh, that, that is.
    1:27:31 So Hamas is both obviously anti-Israeli, obviously, and anti-Jewish, obviously.
    1:27:47 Um, it’s, it’s, uh, and by the way, I mean, um, one of the many painful stories I tell in the book is of the fact that so many of the people in the communities that they attacked,
    1:28:00 it’s not as if there’d be a right community to attack and a wrong community to attack, but the many of the communities they attacked were communities which deeply, deeply dreamed of the idea of living in peace with their Palestinian neighbors.
    1:28:24 Uh, there’s a woman who, whose name has become relatively famous since, certainly is famous inside Israel, Vivian Silva, who was a peace activist who spent every weekend, um, driving Gazan children from, uh, the border to, if, if they had very rare medical needs that could not be seen attention to within, inside Gaza, would drive them to Israeli hospitals.
    1:28:29 And she spent every weekend doing that, worked for all of the sort of left-wing peacenet organizations in Israel.
    1:28:49 And, you know, for a while after the 7th, uh, her neighbors and others thought that, uh, she had been taken captive into Gaza and that she, there was a hostage poster for her and there were appeals by the various peacenet organizations for Hamas to hand her over, but it turned out she’d been burned alive in her home.
    1:28:58 Um, and, um, and this wasn’t discovered for quite a long time because there was so little DNA left of her that it was very hard to identify the remains as being hers.
    1:29:17 Um, so there were, there were, there were a lot of, just a lot of people in the Gaza envelope as it’s, it’s called in Israel in the area around Gaza who, who would have been the people who, you know, wanted to live peacefully with, uh, the Gazans someday.
    1:29:32 And those, there’s a certain among the many, it’s not an irony, but just among the sort of pains of the day is that, is that so, so overwhelmingly, these, these are the people that, that Hamas brought hell to.
    1:29:40 The response to October 7th by Israel, can you steel man, the case that Israel went too far?
    1:30:01 Well, the case that, that started from very early on that, that critics of Israel had was the, the claim that, I mean, I think I first heard it on about the 8th of October before Israel had done anything in response was the claim that, uh, Israel must act proportionately in response.
    1:30:09 And I, I have a critique of this that I’ve often expressed, which is that there is such a thing as proportionality in warfare.
    1:30:30 Um, and at the same time, Israel is always accused of acting disproportionately and the proportionality of the rest of the, much of the rest of the world seems to think Israel should express in warfare is to, is to have an equal, um, an equal level of suffering or killing on both sides.
    1:30:45 Uh, I don’t think there’s any, um, uh, law of war that says that, you know, if you kill 1200 people and you kidnap another 250, that as it were, the other side’s allowed to do the same back.
    1:30:47 But that, that’s what a lot of people think.
    1:30:57 And then when they see the death toll escalating on the Gazan side, they say Israel has acted disproportionately and has overreacted.
    1:31:14 That one is a, is a, is a, is, is tricky because, you know, it’s, it’s, it’s, it’s my belief that, I mean, again, this is a basic thing, but it has to be stated that 9 million citizens of Israel, if you extrapolate that out to what the 7th of October would have meant in American terms.
    1:31:29 You’d be talking about, uh, a day on which, if, if the, if the attack had happened in America where 44,000 Americans were killed in one day and 10,000 American citizens taken hostage.
    1:31:46 Nobody can tell me that if such an atrocity occurred, that America would not do whatever it needed to destroy the groups that had done that and to retrieve the hostages who’d been taken.
    1:31:49 So just on that point, I agree with you a hundred percent.
    1:31:52 America would do, would hit hard back.
    1:31:55 And I think a lot of Americans would feel justified in that.
    1:32:22 But it’s also possible that, uh, the military industrial complex and the politicians would do something like the war in Iraq and Afghanistan, which means extend far beyond hitting back and actually do a thing that’s destructive to everybody, including America financially and the flourishing of America and the flourishing of humanity broadly and the region and the stability and the war on terrorism.
    1:32:36 Uh, if, uh, if that’s a real thing, uh, the war in Iraq and Afghanistan did not maybe succeed in defeating terrorism or even making progress, it probably made more terrorists than not.
    1:32:44 So there’s a justified feeling of hitting back and, uh, going out to somebody like bin Laden in the case of 9-11.
    1:33:01 Um, and then there’s just the actual implementation and it seems like the implementation can sometimes, um, unintended or unintended have consequences that are bordering on war crimes, if not downright war crimes.
    1:33:04 Now this, um, this is a general statement.
    1:33:10 And now we’ll look at Israel where things are small land.
    1:33:13 Everything is very compact.
    1:33:18 There’s a lot of complexities that are well studied that we’ve talked about extensively.
    1:33:26 Well, the two stated aims of the Israelis after the seventh were, uh, to get the hostages back and to destroy Hamas.
    1:33:30 Uh, many people said that you could do one, but not both.
    1:33:38 Um, and, uh, I actually think they’ve gone a long way to doing both by no means everything.
    1:33:43 There are still hostages as we’re speaking, held in Gaza, including a young American.
    1:33:47 Um, and Hamas is not completely destroyed.
    1:33:51 It’s very, very significantly degraded, but it’s not completely destroyed.
    1:33:53 But those are the two aims.
    1:34:03 Um, I believe that, I mean, I’ve seen as much of the war as any outside observer.
    1:34:14 I don’t know, there might be some exceptions maybe, but, and so I think I can say with considerable certainty what the Israelis have and haven’t done.
    1:34:26 Um, the, the opera, there were various operations at the beginning, various, uh, plans which didn’t happen.
    1:34:37 Like storming straight in and getting, for instance, as many hostages as possible out of the Shifa complex, which is called a hospital, but also at the very least the Hamas command headquarters.
    1:34:50 And, um, there was a, there was a plan to maybe go and, uh, um, do that fast, but it was, it was avoided because of the number of deaths on all sides that would be likely to happen.
    1:34:53 The Israelis did actually hold back at the beginning.
    1:35:01 There was a period of making sure that when they went into Gaza, they didn’t do so in any way blind.
    1:35:09 Um, but Gaza is a very built up area and population wise is, is, is, um, is, um, is densely populated.
    1:35:22 Something by the way, which the people who, who claim frivolously that Israel has been committing genocide never take account of, which is the fact that the garden population has boomed since the Israeli withdrawal in 2005.
    1:35:23 It’s almost doubled.
    1:35:32 Um, but yes, it’s, it’s a densely populated area and it’s an incredibly difficult place for the train of war.
    1:35:39 Well, because of one thing in particular, which is that Hamas goes back a bit to our conversation earlier, but this is a much more extreme example.
    1:35:42 I mean, Hamas really don’t play by the rules.
    1:35:48 In fact, they, they use the rules of war, the laws of war completely to their own advantage.
    1:35:52 You know, it has to be reiterated.
    1:35:58 You are not meant to, uh, disguise your army as civilians.
    1:36:08 You’re not meant to use places of, uh, care like hospitals as bases for your military operations.
    1:36:16 You’re not meant to use schools and places of worship as operating centers of war.
    1:36:22 And Hamas does all of these things and has always done so.
    1:36:30 And it does so with the very obvious reason that for them, the whole thing is a two for one offer.
    1:36:33 You, you, you, you get to operate everywhere.
    1:36:45 And if the Israelis operate anywhere, you claim that this is a war crime because how could they attack this group of civilians?
    1:36:52 These people who are dressed as civilians, these people merely fighting from a mosque and so on.
    1:37:10 And that’s why, that’s why everybody who’s been to Gaza, who’s seen the fighting knows the same thing, which is, this is just incredibly difficult, difficult warfare of a kind that, that American troops have seen in the last 20 years.
    1:37:28 In Fallujah and elsewhere, uh, uh, Kurdish, uh, militia, the Peshmerga saw when they were fighting as our frontline troops in the war against ISIS, similar house to house, but by no means with the same entrenched, uh, uh, bases.
    1:37:39 And, uh, you know, again, it can’t be stressed enough that Hamas has used the years since his ready withdrawal from 2005 to build this vast underground tunnel network.
    1:37:52 And again, it’s obvious, but it has to be remembered when is, and I quote one of the Hamas leaders in the book saying this in an interview, when they build their tunnels, they do so.
    1:38:02 In order that their tunnels are used by them, Hamas, to store their weaponry, to secure their fighters and to hold hostages.
    1:38:10 They do not build their underground tunnel networks for the safety of Gazan civilians, avoiding aerial bombardment.
    1:38:29 And, you know, the, the, every difference in the world seems to me to exist between a country which does build, uh, bomb shelters for its citizens and, um, a government which builds bomb shelters for its bombs.
    1:38:34 Can you discuss the flow of money here?
    1:38:40 So how does Hamas, how does Hamas, the leadership, use the money?
    1:38:43 So you started to talk about the tunnels, but how much corruption is there?
    1:38:45 Can you just lay it all out?
    1:38:49 Uh, because I think that’s an, that’s an important part of the picture here.
    1:38:51 It’s totally corrupt.
    1:38:58 Every Hamas leader who’s, uh, now dead died a billionaire.
    1:39:00 With a B.
    1:39:02 With a B.
    1:39:16 To say that they used Gaza’s resources or the, the, the resources that came into Gaza for their own ends is to just vastly understate matters.
    1:39:29 Um, Hamas used everything that came in to build the infrastructure of terror that allowed them to do the seventh and everything since.
    1:39:44 Um, they, um, they, um, they, um, by the estimations of troops I’ve been with there, they, every second to third house had weaponry stashed there.
    1:39:59 Bombs, RPGs, Krasnokovs, rockets, tunnel entrances, uh, the network that they just embedded all these years was, was total.
    1:40:17 They, they, they, they, they, you know, one of the many, many tragedies of this is that whatever you’re reading of the rights and wrongs of the Israeli withdrawal in 2005, it was an opportunity for the Gaza to become something else.
    1:40:25 It could have become a thriving, it could have been a thriving Palestinian state.
    1:40:36 It’s just that Hamas, like the PLO before them, decided that they wanted to destroy Israel more than they wanted to create a Palestinian state.
    1:40:44 And that is to the great, great detriment of the Palestinians of Gaza, to put it at its mildest.
    1:40:50 So just to outline here, leadership of Hamas are stealing the money that gets sent by Qatar, by everybody.
    1:40:56 So they’re putting in their pocket and then by the American taxpayer and by the European taxpayer as well.
    1:40:56 Yeah.
    1:40:56 Yeah.
    1:40:59 Well, yeah, but I mean, it’s not just about the stealing of money.
    1:41:04 It’s, it’s about using the money and the infrastructure to annihilate your neighbor.
    1:41:20 I mean, those, those, those two things, but the corruption is, uh, a signal from an economic perspective, but it’s also a signal of deep moral corruption because they’re screwing over the Palestinian people.
    1:41:21 Yeah, it’s a cynicism, certainly, yeah.
    1:41:22 Okay.
    1:41:31 And then with the money they do spend on the Palestinian cause, they’re not doing that to, uh, build up Gaza.
    1:41:36 They’re doing it to, uh, strengthen the militaristic capabilities.
    1:41:36 Yes.
    1:41:39 Of the terrorist organization of Hamas.
    1:41:48 You have, maybe you can correct me on this, um, have said that.
    1:41:56 The people of Gaza have some significant responsibility for the actions of Hamas.
    1:41:56 Yes.
    1:41:57 Because they’ve elected them.
    1:41:58 They elected them.
    1:42:07 The what-ifs are endless, but very unwise of the George W. Bush administration to push for elections in Gaza, um, after 05.
    1:42:26 But Hamas were elected and they then, in 2007, killed the other Palestinian faction that was their main challenger, Fatah, uh, killed them, threw them off rooftops, dragged their bodies behind motorbikes through the Gaza.
    1:42:41 And, uh, you know, this is difficult because you, you can get into the realm of being accused of advocating or in any way justifying collective punishment.
    1:43:02 Uh, if you talk about this, but it should be borne in mind that, you know, Hamas had effectively 18 years to run the Gaza and that’s, that’s the time that it takes from the birth of a child to the end of their formal education.
    1:43:23 And in 18 years, they could have presided over and produced a generation of young Gazans who were productive, productive for their people, for their society, for their neighbors, for the rest of the world.
    1:43:48 And they didn’t, they spent 18 years indoctrinating the children of Gaza into a death cult and into a genocidal hatred, which obviously is, was most dangerous to the Israelis, but it was obviously disastrous for the people of Gaza.
    1:44:17 And, you know, there is, um, there’s just, if you speak to soldiers who were there in 2014, when Hamas started a war again, um, one of a set of rounds of war since 2005, if you speak to the soldiers who were there in 2014, going house to house, and who were also involved in the war since 2003, they all say the same thing, which is the marked radicalization of the Gazan population.
    1:44:34 The marked increase in just, I mean, the most, I mean, it’s so banal in a way to even, you know, like the numbers of copies of Mein Kampf in Arabic in an average Gazan household, the protocols of the learned elders of Zion.
    1:44:40 There are so many what ifs and other paths that Hamas could have taken, but that was the one they took.
    1:44:53 They decided to take the path of using their time in power to build up their infrastructure, radicalize the population, and encourage them to believe that they could destroy the state of Israel.
    1:44:58 And then on October the 7th, they gave it their best shot.
    1:45:05 Uh, and by the way, there is no organized collective punishment of the citizens of Gaza.
    1:45:13 Collective punishment would just be dropping bombs with no purpose across civilian areas, carpet bombing, this sort of thing.
    1:45:17 This is simply not what the IAF and the IDF have done since the 7th.
    1:45:25 Um, they have been fighting a house-to-house war against this terrorist group.
    1:45:27 They do do aerial strikes.
    1:45:31 Gaza is, is, is very, very badly beaten up.
    1:45:50 Uh, the buildings, I mean, the, the, the, the, the infrastructure that, that existed, um, it’s, uh, there aren’t many buildings standing, um, but this is not the result of just wild and imprecise bombing by the Israelis.
    1:45:53 It’s been extremely, uh, concerted.
    1:46:01 It’s extremely, uh, difficult, but when people say, well, this must be collective punishment, I think that the people who say that,
    1:46:18 simultaneously, that’s not true, and also, you know, there is not a hostage who’s come out, who Donald Trump made this, President Trump made this point recently.
    1:46:32 There is not a hostage who’s come out, who I’ve spoken with, who found any Gazan, Palestinian, who expressed even the slightest human kindness to them.
    1:46:53 If you, if you, if you look at the footage from the 7th, the Hamas recorded themselves, of them taking young Jewish women into Gaza and so on, you will notice that the trucks and the motorbikes and so on are not stopped by horrified Gazan civilians saying,
    1:47:00 why have you got this, why have you got this Israeli girl who you’ve, whose tendons you’ve cut, and why are you bringing her here?
    1:47:02 It’s all celebration.
    1:47:04 It’s all celebration.
    1:47:13 And it’s the same with those, a couple of cases of hostages who managed to escape from the civilian houses they were being held in,
    1:47:17 who were immediately returned by the citizens they met.
    1:47:26 Yeah, the celebration, I do wonder what percent of the population they represent, but there’s something really dark.
    1:47:29 There’s several ways to explain the celebration.
    1:47:35 It could be that there’s a deep indoctrination where you do legitimately hate Jews.
    1:47:40 And there also could be a place of just deep desperation.
    1:47:50 And it’s, it’s a kind of relief that you have to convince yourself that you’re on the side of fighting for freedom
    1:47:58 in order to justify to yourself that this is the right way to fight out of desperation
    1:48:01 out of extremely harsh conditions.
    1:48:04 Because the way we’re kind of speaking about this with the celebration,
    1:48:11 it’s very easy to project a kind of evil on the populace that I just,
    1:48:16 I’m very hesitant to project, especially on the general populace.
    1:48:18 You don’t have to project it onto them.
    1:48:20 You can just listen to their own words.
    1:48:27 Well, I’m sure you’ve heard the, one of many audio recordings you hear from the morning,
    1:48:30 but I’m sure you’ve heard the audio recording of the young man who
    1:48:37 ends up in one of the communities in the south of Israel and calls home, calls back home.
    1:48:38 Have you heard that?
    1:48:39 Yes, I’ve heard it.
    1:48:46 I quoted in the first chapter of the book, he, he calls back home and he says, uh, to
    1:48:50 his father who picks up it’s on what’s, I think he’s, he’s, he’s on the phone.
    1:48:52 He’s saying, turn onto WhatsApp because I can show you.
    1:48:56 He says, um, I’ve killed 10 Jews in my own hands.
    1:48:58 Oh father, your son has killed 10 Jews.
    1:49:02 And his father is, is saying, where are you?
    1:49:02 Where are you?
    1:49:03 I want to show you dad.
    1:49:04 I want to show you.
    1:49:05 I’ve killed Jews in my own hands.
    1:49:09 Your son put mother on the phone.
    1:49:10 Mother comes on the phone.
    1:49:12 The brother comes on the phone.
    1:49:28 Um, this is, um, one of many, many stories from the day that suggest, uh, something which
    1:49:32 I would say is not just indoctrination, but yes, evil.
    1:49:40 First of all, those phone calls are somehow uniquely horrific, but I’ve also heard recordings
    1:49:45 of phone calls made by Ukrainian soldiers to their parents and Russian soldiers to their
    1:49:46 parents.
    1:49:55 And they have not as intense and not as horrific, but they have a similar nature to them, which
    1:50:02 there’s an aspect of war where you, uh, dehumanize the other side, right?
    1:50:03 Sure.
    1:50:04 In order to fight that war.
    1:50:12 So we have to remember that that element is going to be there in a time of war, in a time
    1:50:13 of desperation.
    1:50:24 It would be a strange type of, um, uh, simple sort of, I don’t know, pride in war to go into
    1:50:37 an 80 year old woman’s house and kill her on her floor and then film her dead body and her
    1:50:42 body in its final moments and send it round to all of that woman’s friends on her phone,
    1:50:43 on her Instagram account.
    1:50:51 Um, it’s, it’s, you may have heard different things from me, but I mean, I, I would be surprised
    1:51:00 if there were even the most vociferous of Russian soldiers phoning back home to Moscow and saying,
    1:51:02 mom, you won’t believe my luck.
    1:51:04 I managed to rape and kill this 80 year old woman.
    1:51:10 it’s that’s, that’s, that’s quite unusual even in warfare.
    1:51:19 Um, and, and that’s one of the things about Hamas and the, what I describe as the death cult
    1:51:23 types, which makes them different from other people.
    1:51:31 Um, but that’s the channeling of evil and hatred and anger in the human spirit, but that doesn’t
    1:51:32 make that person evil.
    1:51:34 No, I disagree.
    1:51:38 I think that once, I think that there is such a force as evil in the world.
    1:51:42 And I think it, uh, it can descend and it can be used.
    1:51:49 And it’s very hard to find a non-theological way to talk about this, but, uh, of everything I’ve
    1:51:57 seen, um, there are actions that people like Hamas committed on the seventh that cannot be
    1:51:59 described as anything other than evil.
    1:52:06 The things that happened at the Nova party were especially appalling.
    1:52:11 I mean, it was all appalling, but it was especially appalling because first of all, it’s a sort
    1:52:15 of party which people like you and I, or at least you and I, when we were younger, might’ve
    1:52:15 been at.
    1:52:23 And so everyone knows, you know, the, the world of a dance party and all night, you know, rave
    1:52:30 in the desert to commune with nature and the universe and to take some psychedelics and to,
    1:52:35 you know, expand your consciousness and your love and all of that sort of thing.
    1:52:46 the, the fact that people doing that at six 30 in the morning, then encountered people
    1:52:55 coming in to the party on trucks and military vehicles and just massacring them and raping
    1:52:55 them.
    1:53:00 And I mean, I, I give examples of the firsthand accounts of people who survived, but I mean,
    1:53:08 it’s beyond belief of almost anything else I’ve covered in war.
    1:53:19 And it’s because it seems so, I mean, an arm, an army facing another army is one thing.
    1:53:37 A terrorist group facing a group of young people at a dance, unarmed and doing what they did
    1:53:45 is, is, is pretty hard to comprehend unless you use the lexicon of evil somewhere.
    1:53:57 So that stated, can you empathize with the suffering of, uh, Palestinians in Gaza with the destruction
    1:53:59 that resulted as a response?
    1:54:05 Um, what has happened in response is terrible, terrible for the citizens of Gaza.
    1:54:14 I was there in, um, uh, on the first time a couple of days early and into the, the ground
    1:54:20 invasion, uh, when the citizens of Gaza were coming South, I was in the middle of the strip
    1:54:28 and the, um, the, um, the humanitarian corridor had been set up to try to stop the hostages
    1:54:33 being taken South deeper into Gaza and to try to stop them as leadership from making it South.
    1:54:39 It actually, it didn’t really work because they just, they’d already got a lot of the hostages
    1:54:39 South.
    1:54:44 It was an attempt to keep Hamas there and fight them in the North.
    1:54:49 So as not to be dragged all the way in, in the end of the, dragged all the way in anyway.
    1:54:51 But, uh, yes.
    1:54:56 And I mean, watching the, the citizens of Gaza moving through the humanitarian corridor and,
    1:55:02 you know, everyone was being checked for, for bombs, suicide vests checked for, you know,
    1:55:04 particularly young men of military age.
    1:55:12 Um, and, uh, you know, I mean, you look at this tide of human misery and you think this
    1:55:18 is terrible, but this is a terrible thing that had been brought upon them by the people had
    1:55:21 been misgoverning the place that they lived in.
    1:55:30 And of course, on a human level, you feel terrible that these people are going through this at the
    1:55:43 same time, human empathy for them can coexist beside an unspeakable anger that they had come
    1:55:50 to this point because of the, of the fact that they elected a terror group to run their territory.
    1:55:55 And one of the things obviously is that, you know, a lot of people like to say, and it’s true,
    1:55:59 of course, that, that, you know, this didn’t all start on October the 7th.
    1:56:00 Absolutely true.
    1:56:06 Uh, this particular round, this particularly intense round of war started on October the
    1:56:07 7th, without doubt.
    1:56:11 Hamas did not have to attack on October the 7th.
    1:56:17 It wasn’t, it wasn’t like they were forced to liberate themselves or something as some of
    1:56:18 the defenders of Hamas claim.
    1:56:26 Uh, but the conflict of course goes back a lot earlier, but it, you, you will have to
    1:56:34 always keep on contending with this fact that there is one central issue to the paradigm of
    1:56:36 that conflict.
    1:56:43 What used to be called the Arab Israeli conflict, and now has become interestingly rebranded the
    1:56:44 Israeli Palestinian conflict.
    1:56:50 But there is one absolutely essential issue to this, which cannot be forgotten, which is
    1:56:59 do the Palestinians want a state or do they want to destroy the Jewish state?
    1:57:07 And if they want to destroy the Jewish state, as they’ve tried many times, it’s a disaster for
    1:57:07 them.
    1:57:10 It’s a total disaster for them.
    1:57:16 If they want to create their own state, they’ve already had several very good shots at it.
    1:57:19 One of which is Gaza post 2005.
    1:57:28 But they’ve never shown in their leadership, the desire to live with a Jewish state.
    1:57:32 And that’s a catastrophe for the Palestinians.
    1:57:39 Can you still imagine the case of the lived experience of Palestinians and pro-Palestinian
    1:57:47 voices that describe the Gaza situation as a occupation, the West Bank too, and, uh, in the case of
    1:57:48 Gaza, open air prison?
    1:57:55 The, to take them in order, um, there’s nothing about Gaza that was an open air prison.
    1:57:58 They had, uh, ability to trade.
    1:58:02 They had the ability to, um, to move in and out in increasing numbers.
    1:58:08 Egypt wasn’t so keen on allowing Palestinians, uh, from Gaza into Egypt, still isn’t.
    1:58:14 But, uh, at the time, the seventh, there was actually an interesting, one of the things the
    1:58:18 international community was pushing for was for more Palestinians to be coming into Israel
    1:58:23 every day through the Eretz crossing and others to work in Israel because they can make a better
    1:58:25 living in Israel than they can in Gaza.
    1:58:33 And, uh, this, the, the, as it were, normalization route was slowly being attempted.
    1:58:37 It was being pushed on Israel by the international community a little bit too fast for Israel’s,
    1:58:39 uh, comfort, but it happened.
    1:58:47 That completely came to an end and that, that dream is done, gone since the seventh of October.
    1:58:52 Can you clarify the dream, the normalization, the normalization dream between Gaza and Israel gone?
    1:58:56 Uh, there will be really, yeah, no normalization.
    1:58:57 No, not after that.
    1:59:03 And one of the reasons is the number of people, again, who I’ve spoken with, who employed Palestinians,
    1:59:10 worked with Palestinians, worked alongside Palestinians, encouraged more Palestinians to be coming from
    1:59:12 Gaza in order to work in Israel.
    1:59:14 And these were their brothers and sisters and so on and so forth.
    1:59:20 One of the reasons why the massacres of the seventh were so successful in the kibbutz sim, the communities in the south,
    1:59:28 was because of the number of the terrorists who came in with detailed house-to-house maps of those communities.
    1:59:41 I spoke with, uh, with one man who, his community, they had a security officer, chief, and, uh, Hamas came in.
    1:59:44 They knew to go and kill him and his family first and then which families.
    1:59:47 It was just, I’ve seen the maps myself.
    1:59:54 They were, they came in with incredibly, um, accurate information about these communities.
    1:59:55 How did they have them?
    2:00:02 Because it was given to them by the, by the brothers, by the workers, by the people of Gaza who were coming in and out.
    2:00:06 So there is nobody that will trust that ever again.
    2:00:10 There’s a lot of Palestinians that have lived and flourished inside Israel.
    2:00:14 Uh, what are they saying?
    2:00:15 What are they feeling?
    2:00:18 And what are the Israelis feeling about them?
    2:00:24 Is there still camaraderie to some degree or is it completely destroyed?
    2:00:28 My observation at the beginning was that everyone was extremely wary.
    2:00:37 Uh, I mean, you know, if, if you’ve worked beside somebody and then found out they sold out your family,
    2:00:40 you, you will never trust again.
    2:00:45 And that, particularly in a small country like Israel, the word of that happening goes out very fast.
    2:00:53 The very beginning, there was intense, intense fear about that, including of the, you know,
    2:00:57 20% or so of the population who are Arab, um, Israelis.
    2:01:07 I actually think one of the few sort of positive news stories of the period is that that population within Israel has,
    2:01:10 has by and large held.
    2:01:13 It’s not, there hasn’t been an intifada.
    2:01:20 Um, one of the reasons why there hasn’t been more activity,
    2:01:26 terrorist activity in the West Bank and Judea and Samaria is because the Israelis have been very careful,
    2:01:30 along with the Palestinian Authority to some extent cooperating to keep that down.
    2:01:36 But, you know, there wasn’t a, a war on, a full war on three fronts, for instance,
    2:01:38 which was at risk of happening.
    2:01:45 Um, so I think that the sort of coexistence within Israel has pretty much held.
    2:01:53 There are some terrible examples, far too regular, but not as regular as it could happen,
    2:02:00 of, um, Muslim Arab Israelis carrying out acts of terror in, as it were, sympathy with Hamas.
    2:02:05 I was in the middle of one such attack myself, uh, uh, uh, late last year.
    2:02:10 Um, and, uh, in a town called Hedera.
    2:02:18 And those things have happened, but they, it’s, it’s not, that, that particular catastrophe has not occurred.
    2:02:21 Can we talk about, uh, Benjamin Netanyahu?
    2:02:26 For a lot of people who spoke of evil, they refer to him as evil.
    2:02:31 On the spectrum between good and evil, as a leader, where does Netanyahu fall?
    2:02:33 Well, he’s certainly not evil.
    2:02:41 Uh, interesting if people, uh, looking at this conflict were to be reluctant to use the word evil of Hamas
    2:02:46 and eager to use it of the Israeli prime minister, it would be sort of, uh, telling, I would say.
    2:02:48 Can we just actually linger on that point?
    2:02:54 There is a point you’ve made, uh, multiple times, which is we’re more eager to, to criticize
    2:03:02 and maybe even, uh, over-exaggerate the criticism of democratically elected leaders.
    2:03:02 Yes.
    2:03:11 It’s a dark, weird, other quality of, uh, discourse at parties, aforementioned parties.
    2:03:15 Isn’t it also, I mean, not to be flippant for a moment, it’s a little bit like,
    2:03:20 who do you show your worst sides to?
    2:03:22 The people you love.
    2:03:32 You, it’s like, you know, my intense irritability is something that tends to be felt most by people
    2:03:38 who are closest to me because I, um, um, if I express it to absolutely everybody I met at the
    2:03:40 party or a social setting, it would be, it’d be hard.
    2:03:45 I mean, there’s a tendency to lean heavily on the people who are closest to you, the people who
    2:03:55 will put up with it, um, and something similar happens in international politics.
    2:03:58 You, you pressure the people who will listen.
    2:04:02 I mean, it’s, it’s one of the, I mean, one of the things you hear a lot in the last years,
    2:04:08 you know, people sort of ignoramuses and the governments in places like Britain, you know,
    2:04:14 we’ll say we need to put more pressure on the Israelis to do X.
    2:04:20 And you go, well, you know, in part that’s because they will listen.
    2:04:25 If you go, we need to put more pressure on the Ayatollahs in Iran to, to persuade them
    2:04:29 that Hamas are really bad and they shouldn’t be doing this.
    2:04:30 Right.
    2:04:31 What the hell do you think they’re going to do?
    2:04:35 They’re going to listen to you thinking, you give a damn, you’re talking totally different
    2:04:38 worlds, not just a different language, it’s a different world.
    2:04:40 And by the way, that happens in Israel.
    2:04:47 I mentioned it earlier, but it happens in Israel when the hostage families forum came about,
    2:04:51 uh, I spent a lot of time there, a lot, we’ve got to know a lot of the families and, um,
    2:04:56 the remarkable, but one of the things you did notice from them as well was that a lot of
    2:05:03 them, oh, they protest outside Netanyahu’s house, they use klaxon horns to make sure he
    2:05:04 doesn’t can never sleep.
    2:05:10 They, uh, will, you know, put up great big posters by his house of him with bloodied hands
    2:05:12 and, uh, and so on.
    2:05:20 And I have, you know, I think as much sympathy as you can for these families, the plight of
    2:05:26 knowing that your child is sitting in a tunnel in Gaza for a year.
    2:05:35 A day, an hour is intolerable, but there’s a reason why the families protested Netanyahu.
    2:05:42 And that’s because Sinwar didn’t care.
    2:05:49 That wouldn’t work if you said, are you, you know, understand my plight.
    2:05:52 I’m a Jewish mother and my daughter is thing.
    2:05:55 You think Sinwar and the heads of Hamas care?
    2:06:00 You think the leaders in Qatar who host them care?
    2:06:06 The Qatari emir’s mother, when Sinwar was killed, praised Sinwar.
    2:06:12 You couldn’t talk that language to these people, but you can talk that language to the elected
    2:06:19 prime minister of Israel because that, first of all, he’s somebody who might listen to your
    2:06:21 pressure, could be pressured.
    2:06:24 And secondly, it’s simply the only person you can pressure.
    2:06:25 There’s no one else.
    2:06:26 Hamas doesn’t care.
    2:06:27 Hezbollah doesn’t care.
    2:06:29 The Iranian Revolutionary government doesn’t care.
    2:06:30 Yeah.
    2:06:36 So let’s just sort of say once again, the, uh, the obvious thing that, uh, what, while it
    2:06:46 is possible to discuss, uh, Hamas, uh, soldiers as freedom fighters, I’m not one of the folks
    2:06:47 that can take that perspective.
    2:06:48 It’s a tough one to take.
    2:06:50 I don’t see how you can call them freedom fighters.
    2:06:56 So this goes to the man from the land of peace and the man from the land of war.
    2:06:59 There is a lived experience of what it means to grow up in Gaza.
    2:07:08 And if you fully load that into your brain in a, in a real way, not in, not using the words
    2:07:13 of good and evil, but in a, in a very deep human sense from that place, from that place
    2:07:18 of desperation, from your home and your family’s destroyed, doesn’t matter why.
    2:07:22 It doesn’t matter if there’s evil all around you that caused it.
    2:07:22 It doesn’t matter.
    2:07:24 The, the facts are the facts.
    2:07:32 And from that place, somebody who’s fighting for you can feel like a freedom fighter.
    2:07:38 I think it should be called out that, yes, it can feel that way from the lived experience.
    2:07:45 But Hamas is very clearly, since we’re talking about Netanyahu, Hamas is evil.
    2:07:47 Okay.
    2:07:54 Now you can still, in that context, discuss the degree to which Netanyahu is the right
    2:08:02 leader for this moment and whether he goes too far, whether he’s too politically selfish
    2:08:09 in the decisions he makes, whether he’s too much a warmonger, whether he’s utilizing the
    2:08:18 war, uh, for his own political gains and is, uh, not caring about the death of civilians
    2:08:24 in Gaza, for example, but more caring about his own political, uh, maintaining power.
    2:08:27 That’s a perspective that I could steal, man.
    2:08:29 And that’s a perspective worth discussing.
    2:08:33 And that’s a perspective many in Israel hold when they criticize Netanyahu.
    2:08:36 He’s increasingly less and less popular.
    2:08:37 That’s wrong.
    2:08:40 The opinion polls last month was in Washington and showed him at an all time high.
    2:08:41 You know, but you were saying.
    2:08:48 I, I make my own poll and according to my poll, um, I’m the greatest, I’m the nicest and the
    2:08:49 coolest person in the world.
    2:08:52 A hundred percent of people agree.
    2:08:54 So I didn’t mean to laugh that much.
    2:08:54 Yeah.
    2:08:57 You laughed a little too much.
    2:08:57 Too long.
    2:08:58 It’s more than the joke.
    2:08:58 Yeah.
    2:09:00 But you were saying, I mean, the, yeah.
    2:09:01 Okay.
    2:09:03 Let’s steal, man, the criticism of Netanyahu.
    2:09:08 Can you, and then steal, man, the case for him that he’s the right leader actually.
    2:09:13 Well, the, the, the most devastating thing that anyone could come up against Netanyahu is,
    2:09:16 is, uh, that the seventh happened on his watch.
    2:09:26 Um, after the Yom Kippur war in 1973, Golda Meir, who is a very distinguished prime minister
    2:09:33 of Israel and a remarkable woman, but she effectively took the, the political hit for the Yom Kippur
    2:09:37 invasion, um, by Israel’s Arab neighbors happening on her watch.
    2:09:46 And, um, and I just thought that most critics, fair-minded critics of Netanyahu inside Israel
    2:09:49 and without would always hold that against him.
    2:09:59 Um, the, uh, I suppose that the, one of the criticisms you hear a lot as well is this thing
    2:10:03 of Israel being divided in the year before the seventh because of the judicial reforms.
    2:10:11 Um, um, I think there’s a strong case for judicial reforms in Israel, but, um, it’s a sort of niche
    2:10:15 Israeli governance issue, which we don’t have to get into.
    2:10:19 The point is, is that Netanyahu and his government were pushing these reforms through judicial reforms.
    2:10:28 And, uh, it was very divisive and on the streets of Tel Aviv and other cities every weekend, there were protests
    2:10:36 and the, uh, police were tired because they’d spent week after week on overtime policing these protests,
    2:10:42 which often turned raucous, not to say violent, but sometimes violent.
    2:10:48 And, uh, you could say, well, if you see that something is dividing your country this much,
    2:10:49 mightn’t you stop?
    2:10:54 There is a claim by some people that one, one of the things that prompted the seventh was that
    2:11:02 Hamas and its backers in Qatar and Iran saw the division in Israeli society, saw the Israeli population,
    2:11:07 you know, a significant chunk of it every week on the streets, shutting down highways,
    2:11:11 shutting down services and so on, and thought, good, now’s the time.
    2:11:17 In other words, what I quoted Sinwar as saying earlier when he was in, um, in, uh, prison in
    2:11:21 Israel was, you know, this thing, one day you’ll be weak and then I’ll strike.
    2:11:28 Maybe that is one of the things that Sinwar thought.
    2:11:29 Israel was very weak.
    2:11:31 It had been divided and therefore the time strike.
    2:11:36 There’s an argument against that, which is that the seventh was in preparation and being
    2:11:40 planned before the judicial reform process in Israel began.
    2:11:46 So you can look at it several ways, but you could use that.
    2:11:49 You could say, look, this is, you know, if you, if your, your, your nation was divided,
    2:11:51 don’t push through anymore on that.
    2:11:53 There’s, there’s lots of things like that.
    2:11:59 You could say that, that Netanyahu was one of the people responsible for the conception.
    2:12:05 You could, uh, there are critics of his, including critics who were in the war cabinet, who thought
    2:12:10 that he was too focused on, on, uh, Hamas and not focused enough on Hezbollah.
    2:12:13 Other people think he was too focused on Hezbollah and not enough on Hamas.
    2:12:22 Um, so I, there’s them and many other criticisms that people make of him.
    2:12:26 I would say I’ve interviewed, I think every political leader in Israel from right to left
    2:12:27 pretty much.
    2:12:34 And, um, I have to say, I don’t think there’s any of them that wouldn’t have responded similarly
    2:12:37 to the 7th of October to the way he has.
    2:12:38 Can we, okay.
    2:12:45 So that’s inside Israel, outside of Israel, you know, uh, despite what he said, uh, he
    2:12:51 is one of the most hated people in the world, just the raw quantity and that relative he’s
    2:12:56 loved by a lot of people, but there’s a lot of people that, you know, there’s a lot of psychological
    2:12:57 effects that might explain that.
    2:13:03 I mean, it’s sort of strange to, to, to, if, if, if, if there is a widespread global loathing
    2:13:07 of the prime minister of a country of eight, nine million people.
    2:13:07 Yeah.
    2:13:13 That might mean something more than, uh, a hatred of the, the military actions and the
    2:13:14 policies of the one person.
    2:13:15 Yeah.
    2:13:19 I mean, you know, there’s a, there’s an awful lot of people to hate in the world.
    2:13:20 There’s a lot of wars in the world.
    2:13:23 It’s, it’s always of interest to me.
    2:13:27 And obviously it’s one of the things I go into on, on democracies and death cults is this question
    2:13:32 of why is this so galvanizing for so many people?
    2:13:36 And I think that is a very, very interesting question.
    2:13:41 Like why, by the way, let me do a quick addendum to that.
    2:13:47 You can notice something else that that, when people talk about the Republican failures in
    2:13:51 foreign policy in the last 30 years or so, it’s very interesting.
    2:13:56 There’s a certain type of person who will immediately mention Paul Wolfowitz.
    2:13:59 Yeah.
    2:14:06 Um, and they all say, well, you know, Wolfowitz, you mean deputy under secretary of defense
    2:14:12 under George W. Bush, you think he guided everything?
    2:14:20 Why would that be other than the fact that his name, as Mark Stein once said, starts with a
    2:14:22 nasty animal and ends Jewish?
    2:14:34 I mean, so I do, and I do, so I do think that the, there are very deep things at play.
    2:14:46 Netanyahu, irrespective of anything he does for a lot of people is a kind of devil.
    2:14:49 And you have to say, well, why is that now?
    2:14:54 Of course, some people will say, well, that’s because he, uh, his terrible hawkishness and
    2:14:55 his actions and so on and so forth.
    2:15:04 The case for Netanyahu is that he sees it as his historic purpose to defend the,
    2:15:09 the only homeland of the Jewish people and that that’s his life’s mission.
    2:15:17 And on that basis, I think he’s been, by any measure, a historic leader.
    2:15:25 He has warned the world about the threat from the mullahs in Tehran.
    2:15:34 He warned about Iranian revolutionary expansionism across the region, across Iraq, Lebanon, Syria,
    2:15:35 Yemen.
    2:15:43 And after the seventh, he has held together a very, very difficult set of challenges
    2:15:53 to keep, um, international pressure at a tolerable level to do all sorts of things.
    2:15:59 But most importantly, to oversee the two war aims that he set out at the beginning.
    2:16:02 I thought, let me just express this to you.
    2:16:10 I thought, like a lot of people, when I heard about the hostages, my immediate instinct was
    2:16:11 they’re all dead.
    2:16:12 They’re all going to be dead.
    2:16:14 We’ll never see them again.
    2:16:18 And that was the attitude of a lot of Israelis.
    2:16:25 But, although there are still hostages being held, and as I’ve always said, the war could end tomorrow
    2:16:31 if they were handed back, um, or at least the beginning of the end of the war could begin tomorrow
    2:16:32 if they were handed back.
    2:16:39 Uh, nevertheless, because of the actions of not just Netanyahu, but the Israeli government,
    2:16:49 um, most of the hostages have been returned, did not expect this to happen.
    2:16:57 And Hamas has not been completely destroyed, but it has been very, very significantly degraded.
    2:17:02 And you end up in the definition of what a total destruction of Hamas would look like.
    2:17:13 But they are not anywhere near the capability they were in November of 2023.
    2:17:17 Their leadership has almost all been killed.
    2:17:23 Uh, the second tier of leadership, almost all gone.
    2:17:31 And, um, this is a just response to what Hamas did.
    2:17:40 And the moment, Netanyahu’s reputation in Israel was a little low early on because of what had happened.
    2:17:46 But, and there’s no doubt, and as I, I say in the final chapter of the book, I mean,
    2:17:50 there’s General Slim had this phrase, uh, you know, from defeat into victory.
    2:17:54 Israel isn’t at victory yet in this conflict.
    2:18:02 But, uh, when in September last year, there were a set of operational successes so extraordinary
    2:18:10 that, I mean, it was just like every day’s news was, there was one day I remember when
    2:18:15 after the, um, after the Assad regime fell, when, um, the Israeli air force took out the
    2:18:21 entirety of the Syrian air force, uh, in a day because they didn’t want it falling into the
    2:18:23 hands of the new jihadist administration in Syria.
    2:18:26 It was story number four on the BBC News website.
    2:18:33 Um, the leadership of Hezbollah, gone, gone.
    2:18:41 The, the, the second and third tiers of Hezbollah, gone or wounded.
    2:18:45 Uh, Iran’s Rolls Royce destroyed.
    2:18:58 Um, these are very, very significant military achievements and are, in my mind, a just response
    2:19:04 to the attempts by Hezbollah, Hamas and other Iranian proxies to destroy the Jewish state.
    2:19:14 Um, would another Israeli leader have been able to hold firm as Netanyahu has?
    2:19:20 Um, I don’t know, but I do know that any of them would have done something similar or would
    2:19:25 have tried to do something similar because there’s no country on earth, no democracy on earth, which
    2:19:28 could possibly not respond to such an atrocity.
    2:19:39 To the point, the underlying point you made of why do so many people want to call him evil?
    2:19:44 And so the implication is, it’s not just a hatred of Israel.
    2:19:47 There’s an ocean of hatred for the Jews.
    2:19:47 Yes.
    2:19:53 Why is there so much hatred for Jews in the world?
    2:19:55 I would say there’s one reason in particular.
    2:19:58 It’s a stupid and gullible person’s easy answer.
    2:20:04 Why is, why do certain things happen in the world?
    2:20:12 What is, what is our explanation of chance or unfairness or
    2:20:15 any number of things?
    2:20:23 Easiest, easiest, stupidest person’s explanation is there’s a small group of people doing it.
    2:20:28 Let’s not say stupidest, because there’s something in the human mind that craves a nice,
    2:20:30 clean theory of everything, right?
    2:20:31 That explains all the problems.
    2:20:33 It’s not just stupidest.
    2:20:33 Okay, let me rewrite.
    2:20:35 Lowest grade.
    2:20:35 Right.
    2:20:40 Because I have that desire, too, to simplify everything.
    2:20:41 Be a bit anti-Semitic, what?
    2:20:49 We’ve all been anti-Semitic here and there, just get a few vodkas.
    2:20:50 I mean, no.
    2:20:56 To find, I mean, maybe as a mathematician in me, to find a simple explanation for everything.
    2:20:56 Right.
    2:21:00 Actually, that’s nice for historians do this.
    2:21:01 Absolutely.
    2:21:01 I agree.
    2:21:04 Analyzing why the Roman Empire collapsed.
    2:21:10 It’s so nice to have one, especially if it’s a counterintuitive explanation, it’s one of
    2:21:12 the favorite go-tos, right?
    2:21:14 It’s an explanation for all the problems in the world.
    2:21:17 It’s the lowest resolution analysis imaginable.
    2:21:18 Why is there traffic?
    2:21:20 Why did my wife leave me?
    2:21:22 Why did my wife cheating on me?
    2:21:23 Why did I lose my job?
    2:21:25 Why did I not get the job?
    2:21:27 Because even on the personal level-
    2:21:30 Oh, especially on the personal level, why did I not get everything?
    2:21:32 Somebody must have held me back.
    2:21:33 Yeah.
    2:21:39 And it’s just that hatred of Jews has been such a popular go-to throughout history, you
    2:21:41 just always return back to the hits, I guess.
    2:21:46 And what is it special about the Jews as a group that people love to hate?
    2:21:48 Is it just because it’s a small number of people?
    2:21:50 I think it’s several things.
    2:21:51 Successful.
    2:22:00 One is small and without by any means saying this is a general rule, but disproportionately
    2:22:04 highly accomplished in certain fields at certain times.
    2:22:08 Prominent is a word I would use.
    2:22:12 Prominent slightly beyond their numbers in certain places.
    2:22:15 It’s not a full explanation.
    2:22:20 I mean, you know, all sorts of historic reasons why Jews were involved in banking.
    2:22:25 But then there are lots of historic reasons why the Scottish people, my own, were involved
    2:22:26 in banking.
    2:22:32 And to this day, you don’t find many people who blame all international finance problems on
    2:22:32 the Scots.
    2:22:38 So there are just like easy grooves for people to fall into, it seems to me.
    2:22:41 We should also mention, you know, banking for some reason.
    2:22:43 Money is a thing that people go to.
    2:22:50 But Jews have been disproportionately successful in the sciences and engineering, mathematics.
    2:22:51 Yes.
    2:22:52 And the arts and so on.
    2:22:56 A sensible person would try to work out why that is and see what is replicable.
    2:23:05 A, I don’t want to use the word stupid again now, a different type of person.
    2:23:05 I’m triggered already.
    2:23:10 A different type of person would look at that and say, that must mean they took something
    2:23:10 from me.
    2:23:15 And that’s, you know, the most zero-sum game there is.
    2:23:21 It’s an endlessly fascinating subject because it seems to me that anti-Semitism is almost
    2:23:31 certainly a sort of ineradicable temptation of the human spirit at its ugliest and cheapest.
    2:23:41 But because it’s back in our day, it bears some analysis again.
    2:23:45 And I would say two things about it.
    2:23:53 One is, as I and others have said many times in the past, one of the fascinating things
    2:23:57 about anti-Semitism is that it can cover everything at once.
    2:24:06 So the Jews get hated for being rich and for being poor, both for being the Rothschilds and
    2:24:10 for being Eastern European Jews escaping the pogroms.
    2:24:18 They can be hated for being religious and for being anti-religious and producing Marxism,
    2:24:19 for instance.
    2:24:22 Hated for religiosity and secularism.
    2:24:33 They can be hated for, most recently, not having a state and therefore being rootless cosmopolitans
    2:24:36 and also hated for having a state.
    2:24:45 And that makes it something very unusual, actually, in the history of human bigotry and,
    2:24:49 you know, bias and ugliness.
    2:24:56 But the real thing is, one of my great heroes, Vasily Grossman, says at the center of life
    2:25:03 and fate, almost everything that’s worth saying about anti-Semitism is Grossman’s genius that
    2:25:09 he could say in three to four pages what most people couldn’t say in an entire life, even after
    2:25:10 a life of study.
    2:25:17 But there’s this passage in Life and Fate that I quote in my book, which just bowled me
    2:25:19 over when I read it some years ago.
    2:25:23 When he says, you know, the interesting thing about anti-Semitism, he says you can meet it
    2:25:31 everywhere in the Academy of Sciences and in the games that children play in the yard.
    2:25:37 But Grossman’s great insight is, he says, everywhere it tells you, not about the Jews, but about
    2:25:39 the person making the claim.
    2:25:46 And the most important gift he gives in his analysis is when he says, describes it as a
    2:25:53 mirror to the person who is making the claims, culminating in this phrase I’ve been trying to
    2:25:59 make popular, which is he says, tell me what you accuse the Jews of, I’ll tell you what you’re
    2:25:59 guilty of.
    2:26:03 It’s a searingly brilliant insight.
    2:26:13 The Iranian revolutionary government accuses Israel of being a colonial power.
    2:26:22 The Iranian revolutionary government has been colonizing the Middle East throughout our lifetimes.
    2:26:32 The Turkish government accuses the Jewish state of being guilty of occupation.
    2:26:35 Do you know northern Cyprus?
    2:26:42 The Turks have been occupying half of Cyprus since the 1970s.
    2:26:47 Cyprus is an EU member state and Turkey is in NATO.
    2:26:53 So, you can do this on and on.
    2:26:59 The people who accuse the Jewish state, like the people who accuse Jews of something, almost
    2:27:02 without fail, is the thing they’re guilty of.
    2:27:08 Look at the supporters of Hamas and Hamas.
    2:27:14 One of the things they say is that Israel is guilty of indiscriminate killing.
    2:27:18 Hamas?
    2:27:20 Hello?
    2:27:23 What were you doing on the 7th?
    2:27:29 You see, there are these crazy guys online who claim, repeatedly claim, that for some reason,
    2:27:37 Israeli soldiers will rape Palestinians when they meet them, whether in a prison or on the
    2:27:39 battlefield, or in a hospital.
    2:27:41 It just erupts occasionally.
    2:27:46 These people go around and say, oh my God, the IDF are rapists.
    2:27:48 Excuse me?
    2:27:58 You’re the ones who spent the years after 2016 saying, believe all women.
    2:28:03 Then from the 7th of October said, believe all women, except for Jewish women who say they’ve
    2:28:05 been raped or seen their friends raped.
    2:28:08 And then you say, aha, the Jews are rapists.
    2:28:14 You’ve been carrying water for rapists and then go and accuse the Jews of rape.
    2:28:16 I mean, it just works.
    2:28:18 Every way you do it, it works.
    2:28:25 I do think the thing of psychological projection in the case of Israel is wild.
    2:28:28 I mean, it is wild.
    2:28:33 By the way, there’s an interesting thing on this that I try to get into in the book, which
    2:28:37 is this thing of, why did so much of the world respond the way it did?
    2:28:38 I mean, we’re sitting in New York.
    2:28:45 There was not one protest against Hamas in New York after the 7th of October.
    2:28:49 The believe all women crowd didn’t come out against Hamas’ rapes.
    2:28:56 The Black Lives Matter movement did not turn their attention to the killing of Israeli children
    2:28:56 or anything.
    2:28:59 Nobody did it.
    2:29:00 Nobody did it.
    2:29:07 The one thing that did happen very prominently was that people came out to attack the people
    2:29:08 who’d been attacked.
    2:29:12 And as I say in the opening of the book, I saw that myself down the road from here in
    2:29:14 Times Square on October the 8th.
    2:29:16 October the frigging 8th.
    2:29:21 The protests are in Times Square against Israel, justifying the attacks that were still going
    2:29:22 on.
    2:29:30 And this is something that deserves deep self-examination on behalf of people in the West who’ve seen
    2:29:34 this movement overwhelm parts of our society.
    2:29:38 I mean, degraded parts, but parts, bits of the universities and so on.
    2:29:44 And I think there’s an explanation for it, by the way, which again goes back to that issue
    2:29:44 of projection.
    2:29:49 When you and I last talked on camera, we were talking about my last book, The War on the
    2:29:50 West.
    2:29:55 And I remember saying to you there that one of the things I was talking about in that book
    2:30:04 was the deeply, deeply, wildly biased, unfair, and inaccurate estimation of the Western past,
    2:30:11 whereby, you know, America’s original sin had to be identified, and the original sin is
    2:30:11 slavery.
    2:30:13 So America has an original sin.
    2:30:16 Does Ghana have an original sin?
    2:30:17 No one knows.
    2:30:19 No one really would think it polite to point one out.
    2:30:26 And, you know, you go on and on with these things that I identified in the War on the
    2:30:29 West, these sins of the West.
    2:30:36 And they have, in recent years, been reduced to the claim that countries like the one we’re
    2:30:38 sitting in are guilty of what?
    2:30:41 Colonialism.
    2:30:42 Settler colonialism.
    2:30:44 White supremacy.
    2:30:46 Slavery.
    2:30:48 Genocide.
    2:30:51 And a couple of others you can throw in, probably.
    2:31:00 One of the things I remember saying to you when we spoke about that was that one of the deep
    2:31:06 problems of setting up that system of thought, pseudothought, non-thought, would-be thought,
    2:31:10 is that there’s nothing you can do about it.
    2:31:13 Even if it was true, there’s nothing you can do about it.
    2:31:22 If it turned out that your ancestors in the 18th century once owned a slave, what are you
    2:31:22 going to do?
    2:31:29 There’s no mechanism to forgive or be forgiven because you didn’t do it, and there’s no one
    2:31:30 in life who could accept the apology.
    2:31:33 And I remember setting it up there in the War on the West.
    2:31:44 set up by this very, very risky, dangerous, unforgivable, unforgiving thing that had been
    2:31:46 set up about our societies.
    2:31:55 But I would say that since October the 7th, there has been an answer for a certain type of
    2:32:03 person, which is, I am from a society where I have been told I am guilty of settler colonialism,
    2:32:09 white supremacy, genocide, ethnic cleansing, and more.
    2:32:11 I’ve been told all of these things.
    2:32:23 I have been put in an un-get-outable of situation of moral burden that can never be relieved because
    2:32:25 I can’t ask anyone’s forgiveness and nobody can forgive me.
    2:32:37 But ah, here’s a country which I can accuse of all of these things in the here and now.
    2:32:49 load my energies, my guilts, my burdens onto, and what’s more, I might be able to end it.
    2:32:53 And by doing so, would relieve myself.
    2:33:01 And in other words, to slight, just, to, I quote, I tweak Grossman with the people in
    2:33:04 America and elsewhere who’ve fallen into this trap.
    2:33:12 I tweak him by saying, on this occasion, tell me what you accuse the Jews of, and I’ll tell
    2:33:14 you what you’ve been told you’re guilty of.
    2:33:18 Yeah, it’s an interesting kind of projection.
    2:33:28 Just to observe some of the sociological phenomena here on top of all this, it does seem that hatred
    2:33:31 of Jews gets a lot of engagement online.
    2:33:38 Is this, so I watch it like a curiosity, like I’m an alien observing Earth.
    2:33:47 Is this dangerous to you, or is it just a bunch of trolls and grifters, you know, let’s say,
    2:33:48 cosplaying as Nazis?
    2:33:52 It’s just fun to trigger the libs.
    2:33:55 It could be all of those, I think it is, and a lot more.
    2:34:04 I mean, taboos, you know, taboos can be fun to break, I suppose.
    2:34:11 And I suppose there are some people online who have grown up knowing that, you know, since
    2:34:14 the Holocaust, anti-Semitism was taboo.
    2:34:21 And they’ve run out of, it goes back to what we were saying earlier a bit, you know, they
    2:34:26 sort of run out of, they’ve got bored of that, you know, Holocaust, schmoller course, they’d
    2:34:30 say, you know, I’ve heard enough about that.
    2:34:36 And maybe those people have gone off in a funny direction as a result, but I don’t think that’s
    2:34:41 the main, I think that’s like a detail compared to the real thing.
    2:34:48 The real thing is that anti-Semitism is back, and there is a certain type of person who’s
    2:34:48 loving it.
    2:34:50 Is it really back?
    2:34:51 So I watch a lot.
    2:34:52 Well, it never goes away.
    2:34:58 It’s just that it’s since the 7th, I think, that it’s had a great resurgence.
    2:35:02 And this isn’t to say, and I’m just a steel man, that doesn’t mean that any criticism of
    2:35:04 Israel is anti-Semitic.
    2:35:05 No, it doesn’t.
    2:35:13 But as I have often said, if you don’t ever express any interest in the murder of Muslims
    2:35:22 in Syria, not any interest in genocide in Sudan, killing of hundreds of thousands of people
    2:35:26 in Yemen, but on the 8th of October, you’re on the street with a placard attacking Israel.
    2:35:28 I’m sorry, you’re an anti-Semite, for sure.
    2:35:32 You may not know you are, but that’s what’s motivating you.
    2:35:34 It gets a lot of engagement.
    2:35:35 It does.
    2:35:36 I watch it.
    2:35:42 I mean, it’s one of several things you can always see get huge engagement.
    2:35:49 I mean, if you say that there’s a massive pedophile ring run by prominent politicians, it might
    2:35:54 be total horse shit, likely to be total horse shit, but it’ll also get a hell of a lot of
    2:35:54 engagement.
    2:35:59 Yeah, but that’s still, so the pedophile ring, like Epstein Island, that kind of stuff.
    2:36:01 Yeah, which is very interesting.
    2:36:03 Yeah, and it’s like, great, all right, cool.
    2:36:05 Let’s get behind that conspiracy.
    2:36:13 But the Jews thing, the hatred of Jews is still, that’s the greatest hits still.
    2:36:14 It is.
    2:36:18 And I mean, you see it with, I mean, some of the people who’ve made minor celebrities of
    2:36:26 themselves with a sort of made-up version of history with a smattering of this and a little
    2:36:33 bit of that, and then the just asking questions and, you know, I’m not saying, but there are
    2:36:37 certain, you know, rhetorical sleights of hand that have helped this along.
    2:36:44 But as I said earlier, it’s just the lowest grade explanation of a certain type of mind
    2:36:47 looking for a pattern and looking for meaning.
    2:36:55 And I mean, I can give you just one quick example of why that in the case of Israel is so extraordinary
    2:37:03 is the number of otherwise semi-intelligent people who will tell you that the problem is
    2:37:17 simply that the Israelis need to give the Palestinians another state and that if they do, it will solve
    2:37:19 the problems of the region and the wider world.
    2:37:25 And irrespective of the fact that the Palestinians are being given to several states,
    2:37:39 the claim that this particular land dispute would unlock every other injustice in the world
    2:37:42 should be seen on its face to be preposterous.
    2:37:51 There is no reason why if the Palestinians got another state, either in Gaza or in parts of Judea
    2:37:58 and Samaria, the West Bank, there is no reason why we should expect the economy of Yemen to
    2:37:59 boom.
    2:38:10 It would not inevitably lead to the mullahs in Tehran giving equal rights to women or anything
    2:38:10 else.
    2:38:20 It would solve the most likely thing is you simply have another failed Arab state run by a sort
    2:38:22 of proxy of Tehran.
    2:38:23 That’s the best case scenario.
    2:38:27 And by the way, even lifelong defenders of the Palestinian cause like Salman Rushdie,
    2:38:32 he said recently, he said, he said, I’ve always been a supporter of the Palestinian people on their
    2:38:37 cause, but it is an unavoidable fact that if another state was given to the Palestinians,
    2:38:42 it would simply be at best another front for the Iranian regime in Iran.
    2:38:43 The best.
    2:38:49 So why the passion about the, why the unbelievable wild passion about this?
    2:38:56 Why the, and I say some of it can be, should be argued out and so on.
    2:39:02 And some of it can be explained, but, but there’s definitely a realm of it, a layer of it, which
    2:39:07 is simply at that level of this excites something within me.
    2:39:10 This excites something within me.
    2:39:10 Yeah.
    2:39:14 There’s some, there’s some, there’s something compelling to people about hating Jews.
    2:39:19 Look at the, look at the prominence of, of, or, you know, semi-prominent people who are willing
    2:39:23 to play around with the idea that 9-11 was an inside job and somehow it was done by the Israelis.
    2:39:31 I mean, all the Jews, I mean, I mean, look at the, like this, this shit is going around.
    2:39:36 I have to admit, you know, I’m, I, there’s a part of my brain that’s pulled towards conspiracies.
    2:39:41 There’s something compelling and fun about a simple explanation for things.
    2:39:47 What’s really going on behind the scenes, because the real world, when you don’t look at the
    2:39:48 conspiracies, first of all, it’s complicated.
    2:39:50 And second of all, it’s kind of boring.
    2:39:52 It’s a bunch of incompetent people.
    2:39:54 Usually opening up Pandora’s boxes.
    2:39:55 They don’t understand.
    2:39:55 Yeah.
    2:39:56 It’s pushing buffoons.
    2:40:03 And I’ve been, uh, I mean, I’ve, I’ve, uh, walked around and hung around with a lot of
    2:40:04 powerful and rich people.
    2:40:07 And like, the thing I learned is they’re just human beings.
    2:40:16 There’s not, I’ve yet to be in a room where exceptionally brilliant psychopaths are plotting.
    2:40:20 You never got that invite?
    2:40:20 No.
    2:40:25 In fact, like a lot of people in the positions of power, there’s just not good.
    2:40:30 I mean, I’m just continuously disappointed that they’re not ultra, I love competence.
    2:40:38 The places where I’ve seen competence, inklings of it is in a low level, like soldiers, like
    2:40:40 low level, uh, what do you call that?
    2:40:41 People that do stuff with their hands.
    2:40:46 So, uh, builders of different kinds, like engineering, like craftsmen, like I’ve seen.
    2:40:46 Yes.
    2:40:51 Because you’ve got, because you’ve got a very specific task that could be highly complicated,
    2:40:54 but you get to apply yourself to, and to solve.
    2:40:54 Yeah.
    2:40:56 Over years, you’ve mastered it.
    2:41:02 It’s passed across generations and so on, but like states, craft and like that, that kind
    2:41:02 of stuff.
    2:41:05 Well, it’s because there’s so many variables.
    2:41:10 I mean, this is, this is one of the reasons when you were trying to lure me on to prognostications
    2:41:10 on Ukraine.
    2:41:13 I was saying, I just, I’ve seen enough to know that.
    2:41:17 I just don’t know because I know of the amount of things that can change all the time.
    2:41:23 I was some years ago, I was talking to a, uh, uh, a former public servant in the UK when,
    2:41:29 um, uh, uh, Boris Johnson was prime minister and COVID started.
    2:41:35 And I mentioned to this friend, I said, well, you know, it’s, it’s pretty bad luck for Boris
    2:41:39 that, you know, he came in to do one thing, which was Brexit.
    2:41:45 And then there’s a global pandemic from Wuhan, you know, and he’s got to like mug up on that
    2:41:47 and then gets it really wrong.
    2:41:53 But anyway, and I was really struck by the fact this man, a man of great insight who happened
    2:41:58 to disagree politically, but said to me, but Douglas is always like this.
    2:42:06 And he said, you know, I mean, look at Tony Blair came into power in 1997, wanting to reform
    2:42:11 education in the UK, ends up trying to remake the Middle East.
    2:42:20 And I do, I mean, as I say, one of the reasons why I am scornful of conspiracy theorists and
    2:42:24 most conspiracy theories, not to say that there aren’t some that do actually turn out to be,
    2:42:26 you know, to have something in them.
    2:42:27 And that happens.
    2:42:30 A lot of things are called conspiracy theories that turn out to be true.
    2:42:32 Lab league.
    2:42:41 But in general, the suspicion and the scorn I have for people who fall into this is, as
    2:42:46 I say, it’s a very low grade, low resolution look at the world by people who clearly have
    2:42:57 never seen the wildness of actions in the world and the way that they reverberate and the number
    2:42:58 of events.
    2:43:03 I mean, I once spoke some years ago to a politician who literally said to me, I won’t
    2:43:12 name the country, but said to me, can you help us out with just how to cope with the data and
    2:43:18 understand the day-to-day struggle we’re having with the cycle?
    2:43:20 And I said, well, what are you talking about?
    2:43:27 And they said, our experience in government is that every day something comes up, which
    2:43:28 we have to firefight.
    2:43:31 And that’s what we do that day.
    2:43:35 And then the next day, something else comes up, which we have to firefight.
    2:43:40 And we’re not getting our policies done.
    2:43:47 And I just thought, for me, that rings an awful lot truer than that that country gets the odd
    2:43:56 phone call from a member of a Jewish family telling them, I just, you know, it’s like, come
    2:43:56 on.
    2:44:00 So, you know, that’s…
    2:44:03 I do, before I forget, when I ask you about Iran, what role do they play in this conflict?
    2:44:06 It’s such a…
    2:44:15 It’s fascinating how it seems like Iran is fingerprints everywhere in the Middle East.
    2:44:21 And it’s also fascinating that, you know, I have a lot of friends, my best friend is Iranian.
    2:44:26 It’s fascinating that the Islamic revolution in Iran took the country from the leadership
    2:44:32 perspective backwards in such a drastic way, and that they’re still in power.
    2:44:36 That confuses me because I know…
    2:44:38 Now, it’s possible I don’t know the people of Iran.
    2:44:42 Sorry to make the obvious statement, but I just have a lot of friends in Iran.
    2:44:49 And a lot of them, everybody I know there opposes the regime.
    2:44:56 And they’re brilliant, educated, thoughtful, worldly people.
    2:45:04 And it confuses me that there’s this, this is one of the, I would say, one of the greatest
    2:45:05 nations on Earth.
    2:45:07 Certainly one of the great cultures of Earth.
    2:45:09 Cultures, the peoples of Iran.
    2:45:10 Yeah, I agree.
    2:45:15 And then you look at that, and then you look at the leadership, when they’re behind most of
    2:45:18 the terror groups in the region, certainly.
    2:45:21 Can you just speak to that?
    2:45:25 And how is it still the same regime since 1979?
    2:45:26 I know.
    2:45:31 As you know, I start on Democracy’s Death Cults with the flight taking the Ayatollah Khomeini
    2:45:34 from Paris to Tehran.
    2:45:37 The flight that you say you wish never happened.
    2:45:41 I think it’s one of the two worst journeys of the 20th century.
    2:45:43 What’s the other one?
    2:45:46 Was it Lenin’s train getting to Petrograd?
    2:45:47 Yeah.
    2:45:50 It’s also about the transportation.
    2:45:51 Yes, I know.
    2:45:52 I’m really a transport guy.
    2:45:58 No, I wait till my book of 10 best journeys.
    2:46:00 Across the world.
    2:46:08 No, just as the train to the Finland station brought the basilisks of Bolshevism into Russia,
    2:46:17 so the flight coming from Paris, bringing the Ayatollah Khomeini to Tehran, brought the basilisks
    2:46:24 of Khomeiniism, the most radical form of Shiite Islam, to Tehran and to Iran.
    2:46:31 And it’s one of the great tragedies of the modern era, what happened there.
    2:46:37 Like you, actually, I have a lot of Persian friends and I had the great good fortune early
    2:46:43 in my life to have a very close late friend who had grown up in pre-revolutionary Iran.
    2:46:46 I was very fond of the Shah and so on.
    2:46:50 Her father had been an Ayatollah before the overthrow of the Shah.
    2:46:54 And, you know, everyone had criticisms of him.
    2:47:02 But when you saw what came after him, it just, it was among other things, what I learned from
    2:47:08 her and other friends from that region was that, I suppose, two things.
    2:47:12 One is, of course, is that it’s a sort of central conservative insight.
    2:47:13 You know, things can always be worse.
    2:47:15 They can always be worse.
    2:47:24 Never say this is rock bottom because, you know, like you might have a Shah with hundreds
    2:47:31 or even thousands of political prisoners in cells, but you could always have Ayatollah Khomeini
    2:47:32 butchering them all.
    2:47:38 And including the people who helped him get to power, like the communists and the trade unionists
    2:47:43 who simply were fighting against the Shah and then were very useful for the Ayatollah until
    2:47:44 he didn’t need them anymore.
    2:47:54 But the other thing I learned from that particular friend and others was that, was this thing that,
    2:47:59 and again, it’s very hard for the Western mindset, very hard for the American mindset in particular,
    2:48:06 that there is such a thing as fanaticism, real fanaticism and real ideological and real religious
    2:48:12 fanaticism and the thing that I described leads to the death cult mindset, that fanaticism is
    2:48:16 something which is very easy for the West to forget because we haven’t seen it in a while.
    2:48:25 You know, we get very distant echoes of it in our own societies, really, and we’re highly
    2:48:28 attuned to hear them, which is good in some ways.
    2:48:42 That Khomeiniism not only vastly set back the Persian people, the Iranian nation, but has managed
    2:48:44 to keep it in subjugation since 1979.
    2:48:55 And your question of why gets to one of the really, the biggest questions, really, that has to be
    2:49:00 understood, the answer to which has to be understood, which is, it’s what Solzhenitsyn says at one
    2:49:05 point in Gulag Archipelago, and that passage where he describes, when we heard the footsteps
    2:49:14 on the staircase, and the knock was on our neighbor’s door, and we knew our neighbor was being taken
    2:49:18 away, why did we not stop them?
    2:49:31 And in the case of the revolutionary government in Iran, you know, it’s the same answer as,
    2:49:36 whether it’s Hamas governing Gaza with the people, whoever the people in Gaza are who would have
    2:49:37 liked to have seen them overthrown.
    2:49:50 People don’t realize that despite the rhetoric and everything else, everything changes if the
    2:49:52 other guy might kill you.
    2:50:04 And that, you know, when the Green Revolution in 2009 started in Iran, why was it put down?
    2:50:05 Why didn’t it work?
    2:50:14 Why, like you, the sort of Iranians who I really hope one day get their country back, why did
    2:50:19 all these smart young students and others, why after they came out, why was it put down?
    2:50:27 It was put down because the Bashish militia will shoot you in the head, and they’ll take you to a
    2:50:31 prison, as they did with the Iranian students, and they’ll rape you with bottles and kill you.
    2:50:41 And even a little bit of that goes an awfully long way to tell the rest of society not to do it again.
    2:50:49 You know, we know it happens like that from films, but too few people understand.
    2:50:58 understand that regimes like that in Tehran operate like that on a grand scale, on the biggest of
    2:51:00 scales, and with the ultimate of brutality.
    2:51:03 And that’s how they stay in power.
    2:51:09 And one other thing on that, by the way, which is, I was reminded of this the other day, but,
    2:51:14 you know, thinking about this sort of, you know, what I’ve just described as a sort of a problem
    2:51:19 in democracies, is that we just, you know, we like to think everyone thinks like us, and you know,
    2:51:24 we’d like everyone to sort of be like us. And we, we believe fictions that were taught in films,
    2:51:31 like, you know, everyone basically wants the same things as us. And you go, you haven’t stepped outside
    2:51:37 the walls of the city, if you think that. But the second thing is this thing of the death cults,
    2:51:43 of why, why we sort of sing, singly fail to understand that this is possible.
    2:51:45 And
    2:51:48 homenism is
    2:51:49 both
    2:51:51 very specific
    2:51:53 and also very strongly linked
    2:51:57 to totalitarian and radical and extremist death cult movements
    2:52:00 that are not that far in our past.
    2:52:10 I mean, you know, there’s a moment in, uh, um, when Oriana Falaci interviewed the idol of Khomeini
    2:52:17 in 1979, one of the very few Western journalists to do so. She says to him, these people in the
    2:52:25 street, this movement, this revolution you’ve begun, it’s guided by hate. It’s hate. It’s all hate.
    2:52:31 And Khomeini says, no, no, it’s love. It’s love.
    2:52:33 And
    2:52:40 and it’s actually a scene that, that, that appears in the satanic verses of Rushdie, where that exact same
    2:52:44 thing happens. But I was thinking about this recently because I was thinking, but how can you
    2:52:50 explain to a Western mindset that that’s, that’s something that’s going on? There are people directed
    2:53:01 by this hate that calls itself love this, this, and I was reminded of a book I haven’t read since I was
    2:53:05 probably a teenager or something. It made a great impression on me then. Did you ever read the tragic
    2:53:13 sense of life? Uh, Miguel de Unamuno, a great Spanish existentialist philosopher who died in the thirties.
    2:53:18 Unamuno had a encounter with students at the university in the thirties when he realized, I mean,
    2:53:24 this is the, the, the, the early period of the Francoists, the Rivera and all those people,
    2:53:32 you know, is at this meeting and the chant goes up from the eager students who have fallen into this
    2:53:34 sort of phalangist
    2:53:43 Francoist ideology already. They end up chanting in front of us. He’s trying to defend the principles by
    2:53:51 which he has lived his life. They end up chanting in front of him. Viva la muerte. Long live death.
    2:54:01 Long live death. And he tries to explain to them this is, this is a necrophilic chant.
    2:54:10 Yeah. But those young men in free Francoist Spain shouting long live death. They have their
    2:54:19 counterparts today. They are the people who, who taunt Americans, Westerners, Israelis, and others with
    2:54:24 lines like, we love death more than you love life.
    2:54:30 Yeah. That’s the line you return to. That’s a really difficult line to load in.
    2:54:35 Because if you base your whole existence on that notion,
    2:54:41 then, um, well, you’re a danger to the world.
    2:54:46 That’s a good foundation for committing evil.
    2:54:51 Um, I have to ask because you mentioned that interview.
    2:54:57 You had a good interview with Benjamin Netanyahu after October 7th.
    2:55:02 And I’ve been very fortunate to get the opportunity to interview a few world leaders.
    2:55:06 It looks like I’ll interview Vladimir Putin and others.
    2:55:11 One, I have a general question about how do you interview people like this?
    2:55:19 Maybe to put your historian hat on of like, how do you approach the interview of world leaders
    2:55:28 such that you can gain a deeper understanding in the hope that that adds to the compassion in the world?
    2:55:39 So, I have, I have a deep sense that understanding people you might hate helps in the long arc of history add compassion to the world.
    2:55:45 But even just to add understanding is difficult in those kinds of contexts.
    2:56:02 And, you know, maybe it’s more useful to think about from a historian perspective of how you need to interview somebody like Hitler or Stalin or Churchill, FDR during World War II.
    2:56:12 It’s not, you know, I think about this a lot, especially if it’s, uh, you know, two, three, four, five hour conversation.
    2:56:17 Well, there’s a lot of, uh, weight on you when you do those conversations, isn’t there?
    2:56:18 From where?
    2:56:20 So, like, where, who’s watching?
    2:56:22 Is it historians 20 years from then?
    2:56:24 Who knows?
    2:56:26 I mean, the whole data might be wiped.
    2:56:37 I, I, I suspect there’s a weight on you because every major world leader you interview, and you’ve done some amazing ones.
    2:56:43 But, I mean, you, you, you, presumably, you have a set of people saying, you’ve got to ask him about this.
    2:56:46 You’ve, you, you can’t not address this.
    2:56:56 And, and that’s a very challenging one because, of course, although in, in, in, an interview with a politician should not, it should not be supine.
    2:57:09 Nor can it be endlessly interrogative because, like, you’re not the prosecutor and they don’t have to be the guilty party answering to you.
    2:57:19 And I’ve noticed the number of people who interview people, world leaders and others, who go in with a set of sort of those things.
    2:57:24 And, and they, and, and at some point the other party can just, just, I don’t need this.
    2:57:27 And people criticizing you don’t realize that.
    2:57:27 You just can’t do that.
    2:57:28 Yeah.
    2:57:37 I suppose why journalists behave the way they do, although I have increasingly less and less respect for the journalists, the average journalist.
    2:57:49 I have more and more respect for the gray journalists as my respect for the average journalist decreases because a lot of the journalists seem to be signaling to their own in, in, in group.
    2:57:58 But there is a lot of pressure on people in that situation to ask the, what I would say is the dumb question.
    2:57:59 Why is it the dumb question?
    2:58:07 The adversarial question that the, the world leader, the person is ready for.
    2:58:10 They’ve answered that question.
    2:58:17 And what you’re trying to do is, I guess, one, to signal that you’ve asked the question and to push them.
    2:58:18 Yes.
    2:58:22 Two, you’re trying to, like, just create drama.
    2:58:29 Because really what people that ask you to ask that question, they want you to embarrass that person.
    2:58:36 They hate them and they want you to, like, make them piss their pants or something or just start crying and run out.
    2:58:36 Walk out.
    2:58:37 Yeah.
    2:58:40 Walk out in a way that it’s embarrassing for them.
    2:58:42 They could be like, look at that pathetic person.
    2:58:55 And that reveals to me nothing except maybe the weakness of the interviewee that they can’t stand up to a tough question.
    2:58:55 Yes.
    2:59:09 But mostly, like, I’m starting, I have to do a lot of thinking because you get attacked a lot if you ask questions from a place of curiosity that actually have a chance to reveal who the person is.
    2:59:20 There’s a very interesting line that Robin Day, who was a very distinguished interviewer back in the day, said about Jeremy Paxman, who was a very interrogative interviewer in the UK.
    2:59:31 Robin Day, who was quite good at being rude to politicians but carefully, said the problem with the new approach, as he saw it from the 90s of political interviewing, was he said,
    2:59:36 If you think the person you’re speaking to is a liar, you should get them to reveal that they’re a liar.
    2:59:38 Don’t just call them a liar.
    2:59:38 Yeah.
    2:59:54 And I think that is, again, it’s something that a lot of people sitting on the other side of the screen don’t realize, is that it may satisfy them that you call a person a liar to their face.
    2:59:58 But it doesn’t do anything, and it actually reveals nothing.
    3:00:03 If somebody is a liar and they reveal themselves to be a liar, then that’s something else.
    3:00:06 But yes, I mean, I hear you.
    3:00:12 Obviously, you have a lot of different voices telling you what to do.
    3:00:20 It’s also difficult because one of the things that I don’t think anyone really understands is that in the end, it’s just you.
    3:00:24 I’m sure you have this about Putin.
    3:00:28 People say, I know exactly how you can do that.
    3:00:29 They could give endless advice.
    3:00:32 In the end, it’s you sitting down talking to him.
    3:00:41 It’s like everybody knows how to behave on the presidential debate stage, but only a few people have done it.
    3:00:43 In person, it’s actually pretty difficult.
    3:00:47 It’s very difficult because you’ve got all this weird behind-the-scenes stuff as well.
    3:00:49 You’ve got all of the games that people play.
    3:00:52 I mean, yeah, I interviewed Zelensky.
    3:00:59 I’m pretty fearless in general, and he was a very human and fascinating human.
    3:01:01 But there are soldiers with guns standing all around.
    3:01:04 And you didn’t have anyone?
    3:01:06 No one was packing on your side?
    3:01:11 I had one friend, a security person, who’s also in Ukrainian, so you never know.
    3:01:11 You could turn on.
    3:01:14 You’ve been infiltrated.
    3:01:15 Yeah, exactly.
    3:01:17 No, I mean, that doesn’t have any effect.
    3:01:27 And by the way, I should mention that because it’s hilarious to me, but process-wise, with Narendra Modi and with anyone,
    3:01:34 they said it was scripted and all this kind of stuff, I would never do anything scripted.
    3:01:37 They don’t get to have a say in anything.
    3:01:38 I have to have complete freedom.
    3:01:45 Sometimes you’ll have people on the team very politely nudge, like, hey, can you?
    3:01:48 And I’ll very politely say, thank you.
    3:01:49 You know, like, smile.
    3:01:52 But that doesn’t mean I have to fucking do it.
    3:01:53 I can do whatever the hell I want.
    3:01:57 The comm, this actually, by the way, with world leaders, it doesn’t happen.
    3:02:02 It happens more with CEOs because they have, like, usually PR and comms people.
    3:02:13 They’ll just be, like, very politely, hey, you know that thing about, you know, when they, that sexual assault, harassment charges they’ve had?
    3:02:16 Could we just, there’s no reason to really linger on that.
    3:02:18 You don’t have to do that.
    3:02:19 Yeah.
    3:02:25 One of my favorite things anyone has ever said, or it’s only ever happening, I know a couple of cases of this happening in private.
    3:02:36 Some friends, a friend of mine once years ago was debating against the, this is before the war, the civil war in Syria, was debating something to do with the Middle East.
    3:02:40 And one of the people on the other side was the then Syrian ambassador in London.
    3:02:45 The then Syrian ambassador in London says something about the Israeli treatment of the Palestinians.
    3:02:54 And my friend stands up and starts talking about Assad senior’s massacre of the Palestinians in Hama, where they killed, like, 10,000 Palestinians in a day.
    3:03:00 And my friend starts talking about the Hama massacre by Assad senior.
    3:03:05 And the big fat Syrian ambassador, like, stands up to respond.
    3:03:09 And he says, that is, that is none of your business.
    3:03:13 And my friend was like, oh, I thought we were going to get into denial.
    3:03:16 Let me just ask you one more thing about Netanyahu.
    3:03:24 Because I also have the opportunity to do a three-hour interview with him at this stage.
    3:03:29 And I’ve been, if I’m just being honest, very hesitant to do it.
    3:03:40 And I just don’t know how a conversation there could help add compassion to the world.
    3:03:54 And that particular topic, no matter how well you do it, you do take on a very large number of people that will just make it their daily activity to hate you.
    3:03:59 And to write about it, and to post about it, and to accuse you of things.
    3:04:04 In some sense, I don’t want to lose the part of me that’s vulnerable to the world.
    3:04:20 People have very little understanding of things if they’re willing to say that because you’re sitting down and talking with somebody, you are ergo-platforming them, advancing their cause, being used, being a shill, or whatever like that.
    3:04:25 You might be actually just finding some things out, which I think is something you do expertly.
    3:04:32 And another thing your critics wouldn’t realize is that, you know, life is long.
    3:04:37 And, you know, hopefully, God willing, we’re both around for a long time.
    3:04:43 And therefore, you don’t blow everything up at the request of some twat online.
    3:04:52 But I do think that a superpower of a kind is to identify the people whose opinion you care for and worry about their opinion and no one else’s, really.
    3:04:55 And you just keep your own guiding light.
    3:05:05 That’s what’s always done it for me, is that I’ve always said I just don’t really, I wouldn’t care if I was the only person with my opinion and billions of people disagreed.
    3:05:12 I mean, I might be curious if the whole planet disagreed with me, but it doesn’t fundamentally, that’s not why.
    3:05:16 I’ll send you Churchill’s great speech on the death of Chamberlain.
    3:05:19 I mean it.
    3:05:24 He says one of the most wise and brilliant things.
    3:05:28 I was thinking about it slightly earlier when you were talking about Zelensky,
    3:05:34 because one of Churchill’s greatnesses was his magnanimity.
    3:05:43 And when his great political opponent, Chamberlain, died in 1940,
    3:05:46 and Churchill had just taken over as prime minister,
    3:05:48 he could have used the opportunity.
    3:05:52 And we might even say that some politicians in our day won’t be able to resist the opportunity.
    3:05:54 He could have used the opportunity to say,
    3:05:56 you see, I was right.
    3:05:59 And Chamberlain didn’t know what the hell he was doing.
    3:06:00 And he’s led us into this mess.
    3:06:01 And you should have all listened to me.
    3:06:04 Because that would have been a good time.
    3:06:05 Yeah.
    3:06:09 It would have been a good time to say that that would have been one for the win, as they say.
    3:06:13 But Churchill doesn’t do that in his great eulogy for Chamberlain.
    3:06:20 He talks about how hard it is for mankind to operate in the world.
    3:06:23 And how you can do it successfully.
    3:06:26 He very movingly says, he doesn’t even mention the name of Hitler.
    3:06:28 He says, what would never change his flaws?
    3:06:32 He says, desiring of human peace, to be seeking peace.
    3:06:37 And he says, and the curse that he had was he was led astray by a very wicked man.
    3:06:42 But then he has this great passage where he,
    3:06:47 Churchill says, beautiful resonant passage,
    3:06:52 about how he says, it’s not given to men happily for them.
    3:06:58 For otherwise, life would prove intolerable to foresee or to predict to any great extent the unfolding course of events.
    3:07:02 And he says, in one phase, men seem to have been right.
    3:07:03 And in another, they’re proved wrong.
    3:07:07 And then there’s a different scale of values emerges.
    3:07:11 And he says, what is the worth of all this?
    3:07:14 He says, the only guide to a man is his conscience.
    3:07:19 The only shield to his memory is the rectitude and the sincerity of his actions.
    3:07:24 And in fact, he says, it doesn’t matter what happens.
    3:07:30 If you have this, he finishes it, he says, however the fates may play,
    3:07:38 that if you have this shield to guard you, he says, you march always in the ranks of honor.
    3:07:45 All that can guide a man is that.
    3:07:51 If you lose sight of it, and some people do, and maybe everyone does at some point,
    3:07:52 then it’s a challenge.
    3:07:57 And then you get buffeted by the tos and froes of the waves of popular opinion.
    3:08:00 And that’s dangerous.
    3:08:06 But if you keep sight and hold on to what you believe,
    3:08:10 a million, billion foes don’t matter.
    3:08:12 Yeah, that is the path.
    3:08:15 We were talking offline about a great biography of Churchill.
    3:08:20 Churchill himself made mistakes and admitted the mistakes.
    3:08:23 And we can even say was proud of the mistakes.
    3:08:25 Learned from them.
    3:08:26 Learned from them.
    3:08:28 That’s all the best you could do.
    3:08:31 The worst you could probably do is being afraid of making mistakes.
    3:08:33 That’s what T.R.
    3:08:36 Femme said about them in the man in the arena speech.
    3:08:37 T.R.
    3:08:39 Yeah.
    3:08:41 Ah, the old T.R.
    3:08:44 Those two have made quite a few mistakes.
    3:08:50 But in the end, some of the greatest humans ever created.
    3:08:56 Norm MacDonald, Churchill, and Teddy Russell.
    3:08:56 Did we do Norm?
    3:08:59 I think we did it before coming on air.
    3:09:01 Oh, before coming on air, yeah.
    3:09:06 Well, he’s always and everywhere in the air around us.
    3:09:09 One of the great comedians.
    3:09:12 All right.
    3:09:14 What gives you hope about this whole thing we have going on?
    3:09:17 Human civilization.
    3:09:26 You’ve been covering some of the darker aspects, the madness of crowds, the madness of geopolitics, the madness of wars.
    3:09:34 Sometimes when the sun shines through the clouds and there’s a smile on Douglas Murray’s face, what’s the source of the smile?
    3:09:47 I mean, I get enormous encouragement from smart young people, actually.
    3:09:50 That’s just the best thing ever.
    3:09:59 I was in Kiev the other week and I was asked to speak to students at the university.
    3:10:17 And irrespective of the rather tricky situation that they are in, it’s just great to, as you know, to speak to a room full of students about things and then hang around afterwards and just,
    3:10:30 answer all the questions you can hear from them about their lives and what they want to do and remembering what you were like at their age and how goofy you were and how much you were going to get wrong.
    3:10:41 And how much, you know, you had to learn and how much you were going to enjoy it and seeing the opportunities they have in front of them if things go right.
    3:10:46 And just smart young people give me enormous encouragement all the time.
    3:10:47 That’s the best thing.
    3:10:48 I mean, it’s just.
    3:11:00 Yeah, they’re, you can see endless possibility in their eyes and there’s, they’re not like burdened by, let’s say, the cynicism that builds up.
    3:11:03 Even the cynicism, I mean, you can resist that.
    3:11:13 I mean, I’ve got quite a deep wellspring of it, but I mean, you can’t only fall into that because there’s so much else it doesn’t cover.
    3:11:16 It’d be like spending your life being ironic, you know.
    3:11:28 So that said, you have seen a lot of war, especially recently and directly.
    3:11:35 Ukraine, Israel, has that changed you?
    3:11:41 Has that dimmed some of that warmth and light?
    3:11:45 That’s a very difficult question to answer.
    3:11:48 I don’t know.
    3:11:50 Differs day to day.
    3:11:55 So sometimes there’s a heaviness there because of the things you’ve seen.
    3:11:57 Yeah, at times, at times.
    3:12:02 You regret some going as much as you have to the front lines?
    3:12:05 No, no.
    3:12:21 One of the reasons why war is, for a writer, kind of the ultimate subject, is because you see life, weirdly, at its ultimate.
    3:12:26 A very, very strange, strange thing.
    3:12:30 But, you know, it is the truth.
    3:12:41 Death, when it’s in front of you, is something which gives a terrible clarity to everything.
    3:12:51 And you see how people will love and even sometimes laugh more.
    3:13:02 There’s an essay by Montaigne that’s always on my mind, why we weep and laugh at the same time.
    3:13:06 Everything’s just more.
    3:13:17 And people, the real thing is the people, you see the very, very best of people and the very worst.
    3:13:18 And they’re beside each other.
    3:13:25 There’s some, so I’ve gotten a bunch of chances to interact with soldiers on the front line in Ukraine.
    3:13:33 And there is some level of, like, all the bullshit niceties or whatever it is of civilian life is all stripped away.
    3:13:34 Yes.
    3:13:35 It just seems more honest somehow.
    3:13:36 Yes, absolutely.
    3:13:38 Absolutely.
    3:13:41 Well, I mean, I couldn’t agree more.
    3:14:00 And there’s the wild clarity about things, not because of enemies or anything like that, but because of the, of, I joked, I think I mentioned, I joked about this to some Ukrainian soldiers in 22 because they wanted a cigarette and we stepped outside.
    3:14:09 And I accompanied them outside because they weren’t allowed to smoke indoors in this hotel, which there were rockets forming.
    3:14:11 Yeah.
    3:14:12 Yeah.
    3:14:26 And I said to him, isn’t it strange that fear of secondhand smoke has superseded this, but I don’t know.
    3:14:35 And seeing the humor in that, when you’re on the front line, when you’re fighting in a war, the humor of that is somehow just perfectly delicious.
    3:14:38 You could just laugh all day about that.
    3:14:38 Yeah.
    3:14:40 And the absurdity of life is just.
    3:14:40 Yes.
    3:14:41 Right there.
    3:14:42 That’s right.
    3:14:43 And it’s so honest and it’s so beautiful.
    3:14:46 And that’s why a lot of soldiers are traumatized.
    3:14:49 They’re destroyed by war, but they also miss it.
    3:14:50 That’s right.
    3:14:50 That’s right.
    3:14:51 Absolutely.
    3:14:51 Oh my God.
    3:14:52 Yes, yes, yes, yes, yes.
    3:14:54 There’s an intimacy to the whole thing.
    3:14:54 Absolutely.
    3:14:55 Well, that’s right.
    3:14:59 I mean, everyone says, you know, I never felt more alive, you know.
    3:15:01 Yeah.
    3:15:03 And I wouldn’t, I wouldn’t do anything different.
    3:15:13 Well, I hope just like Churchill, you keep fighting the good fight and not listening to anybody.
    3:15:16 And I’ll try to learn to do the same.
    3:15:18 Douglas, I’m a huge fan.
    3:15:19 Thank you for doing this.
    3:15:20 Been a great pleasure.
    3:15:21 And right back at you.
    3:15:22 Thank you.
    3:15:25 Thanks for listening to this conversation with Douglas Murray.
    3:15:29 To support this podcast, please check out our sponsors in the description.
    3:15:33 And now, let me leave you with some words from Bertrand Russell.
    3:15:44 The problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves and wiser people so full of doubts.
    3:15:49 Thank you for listening and hope to see you next time.
    3:15:50 Thank you.
    3:15:50 Thank you.
    3:15:51 Thank you.

    Douglas Murray is the author of On Democracies and Death Cults, The War on The West, and The Madness of Crowds.
    Thank you for listening ❤ Check out our sponsors: https://lexfridman.com/sponsors/ep463-sc
    See below for timestamps, and to give feedback, submit questions, contact Lex, etc.

    CONTACT LEX:
    Feedback – give feedback to Lex: https://lexfridman.com/survey
    AMA – submit questions, videos or call-in: https://lexfridman.com/ama
    Hiring – join our team: https://lexfridman.com/hiring
    Other – other ways to get in touch: https://lexfridman.com/contact

    EPISODE LINKS:
    Douglas’s X: https://x.com/DouglasKMurray
    Douglas’s YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/@douglasmurray
    Douglas’s Instagram: https://instagram.com/douglaskmurray
    Douglas’s Website: https://douglasmurray.net
    On Democracies and Death Cults (book): https://amzn.to/4jahsxL
    The War on the West (book): https://amzn.to/38L7B36

    SPONSORS:
    To support this podcast, check out our sponsors & get discounts:
    Call of Duty: First-person shooter video game.
    Go to https://callofduty.com/warzone
    Oracle: Cloud infrastructure.
    Go to https://oracle.com/lex
    LMNT: Zero-sugar electrolyte drink mix.
    Go to https://drinkLMNT.com/lex
    AG1: All-in-one daily nutrition drink.
    Go to https://drinkag1.com/lex

    OUTLINE:
    (00:00) – Introduction
    (02:04) – Sponsors, Comments, and Reflections
    (09:31) – War in Ukraine
    (13:17) – Trump and Zelenskyy
    (27:47) – Putin
    (48:40) – Peace
    (59:25) – Zelenskyy
    (1:13:11) – Israel-Palestine
    (1:23:57) – Hamas
    (1:38:30) – Corruption
    (1:41:40) – Gaza
    (2:02:18) – Benjamin Netanyahu
    (2:19:29) – Hate
    (2:43:59) – Iran
    (2:54:48) – Interview advice
    (3:09:12) – War

    PODCAST LINKS:
    – Podcast Website: https://lexfridman.com/podcast
    – Apple Podcasts: https://apple.co/2lwqZIr
    – Spotify: https://spoti.fi/2nEwCF8
    – RSS: https://lexfridman.com/feed/podcast/
    – Podcast Playlist: https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLrAXtmErZgOdP_8GztsuKi9nrraNbKKp4
    – Clips Channel: https://www.youtube.com/lexclips

    SOCIAL LINKS:
    – X: https://x.com/lexfridman
    – Instagram: https://instagram.com/lexfridman
    – TikTok: https://tiktok.com/@lexfridman
    – LinkedIn: https://linkedin.com/in/lexfridman
    – Facebook: https://facebook.com/lexfridman
    – Patreon: https://patreon.com/lexfridman
    – Telegram: https://t.me/lexfridman
    – Reddit: https://reddit.com/r/lexfridman

  • #462 – Ezra Klein and Derek Thompson: Politics, Trump, AOC, Elon & DOGE

    #462 – Ezra Klein and Derek Thompson: Politics, Trump, AOC, Elon & DOGE

    AI transcript
    0:00:04 The following is a conversation with Ezra Klein and Derek Thompson.
    0:00:10 Ezra is one of the most influential voices representing the left wing of American politics.
    0:00:17 He is a columnist for the New York Times, author of Why We’re Polarized, and host of
    0:00:18 the Ezra Klein Show.
    0:00:26 Derek is a writer at The Atlantic, author of Hitmakers and On Work, and host of the Plain
    0:00:27 English podcast.
    0:00:34 Together, they’ve written a new book, simply titled Abundance, that lays out a kind of
    0:00:35 manifesto for the left.
    0:00:41 It is already a controversial, widely debated book, but I think it puts forward a powerful
    0:00:46 vision for what the Democratic Party could stand for in the coming election.
    0:00:53 If I may, let me comment on the fact that sometimes in this podcast, I delve into the dark realm
    0:00:54 of politics.
    0:01:01 Indeed, politics often divides us, and frankly, brings out the worst in some very smart people.
    0:01:07 Plus, to me, it is frustrating how much of the political discourse is drama and how little
    0:01:11 of it is rigorous, empathetic discussion of policy.
    0:01:15 I hate this, but I guess I understand why.
    0:01:21 If the other side is called either Hitler or Stalin online by swarms of chanting mobs, it’s
    0:01:29 hard to carry out a nuanced discussion about immigration, healthcare, housing, education, foreign policy, and so on.
    0:01:35 On top of that, anytime I talk about politics, half the audience is pissed off at me.
    0:01:37 And no, there is no audience capture.
    0:01:43 I get shit on equally by different groups across the political spectrum, depending on the guest.
    0:01:48 Why, I don’t know, but I’m slowly coming to accept that this is the way of the world.
    0:01:58 I try to maintain my cool, return hate with compassion, and learn from the criticism and the general madness of it all.
    0:02:02 Still, I think it’s valuable to sometimes talk about politics.
    0:02:09 It’s an important part to the big picture of human civilization, but indeed, it is only still a small part.
    0:02:19 My happy place is talking to scientists, engineers, programmers, video game designers, historians, philosophers, musicians, athletes, filmmakers, and so on.
    0:02:24 So, I apologize for the occasional detour into politics, especially over the past few months.
    0:02:30 I did a few conversations with world leaders, and I have a few more coming up.
    0:02:41 So, there will be a few more political podcasts coming out, in part so I can be better prepared to deeply understand the mind, the life, and the perspective of each world leader.
    0:02:46 I hope you come along with me on this journey into the darkness of politics.
    0:02:56 As I try to shine a light on the complex human mess of it all, hoping to understand us humans better, always backed, of course, by deep, rigorous research and by empathy.
    0:03:02 Long term, I hope for political discussions to be only a small percentage of this podcast.
    0:03:12 If it’s not your thing, please just skip these episodes, or maybe come along anyway, since both you and I are reluctant travelers on this road trip.
    0:03:17 But who knows what we’ll learn together about the world and about ourselves.
    0:03:20 And now, a quick few second mention of each sponsor.
    0:03:22 Check them out in the description.
    0:03:24 It is, in fact, the best way to support this podcast.
    0:03:29 We’ve got Call of Duty for video game fun, Element for electrolytes,
    0:03:34 AG1 for a multivitamin drink, and Shopify for selling stuff online.
    0:03:36 Choose Wizen, my friends.
    0:03:47 If you’re watching or listening to this on Spotify, I decided to start putting the same ad reads from me at the beginnings as I do on Apple Podcasts and the RSS feed.
    0:03:57 Since a lot of folks in the survey, LexGerman.com survey, said they actually like the random non sequitur things I talk about, to my great surprise.
    0:04:03 And the rest said they were happy to just skip when they felt like it.
    0:04:08 I do, in fact, make it easy to skip with timestamps on screen and in the description.
    0:04:12 And I’m not adding ads in the middle, so hopefully this works for everybody.
    0:04:13 Let’s see.
    0:04:19 I do try to make the ad reads interesting and personal, often related to stuff I’m reading or thinking about.
    0:04:24 But if you must skip them, please do check out the sponsors, sign up, get their stuff.
    0:04:25 I enjoy it.
    0:04:26 Maybe you will too.
    0:04:30 Also, if you want to get in touch with me for whatever reason, go to lexfreedman.com slash contact.
    0:04:33 And now, on to the full ad reads.
    0:04:34 Let’s go.
    0:04:44 This episode is brought to you by a new sponsor, Call of Duty Warzone, and the return of the iconic Verdansk map.
    0:04:47 I’ve been a Call of Duty fan for a long, long time.
    0:04:51 It’s definitely one of my favorite shooters, the ultra-realism.
    0:05:04 Combined with my fascination of history, you can kind of project whatever book you’re reading about human history, whether it’s World War II or modern warfare, on to the battlefield that they represent.
    0:05:10 Verdansk was originally introduced, I believe, in March of 2020 during COVID.
    0:05:16 And it was just a great map that the entire Call of Duty community sort of bonded over.
    0:05:21 So a little bit of this map is just nostalgia of it being brought back.
    0:05:27 I have a lot of nostalgia about the conversations, the experiences I had during that time.
    0:05:31 There really is an intimacy in voice communication during that time.
    0:05:34 Perhaps you know this about me, perhaps you don’t.
    0:05:41 But I’m a huge fan of video games, and I’m going to be doing a bunch of conversations with video game designers this year.
    0:05:43 I love the artistry of games.
    0:05:46 I love the engineering challenges of games.
    0:05:56 I love the high-stakes deadlines that games create, because it’s so difficult to create a beautiful, complex, deep world with stories, with narratives, with characters.
    0:05:58 Anyway, if you want to try it, it’ll be out on April 3rd.
    0:06:04 You can download Call of Duty Warzone for free, and then drop into the Verdansk map on April 3rd.
    0:06:06 Rated M for Mature.
    0:06:13 This episode is also brought to you by Element, my daily zero-sugar and delicious electrolyte mix.
    0:06:24 I just had a tough jiu-jitsu session, and I have to say it’s good to be back on the mat, because I sprained my ACL a while back, and I was trying to be smart.
    0:06:28 I was being smart by staying off the mat, and I think it’s back to 100%.
    0:06:31 It felt close to 100% today.
    0:06:40 I was able to go hard with a bunch of, you know, 200-plus-pound meatheads, and I didn’t tell them of any injuries and all that kind of stuff, so they’re just going wild.
    0:06:46 Of all ranks, white belt, blue belt, purple, brown, black, all of it.
    0:06:57 I was able to do well, sort of, in terms of timing, in terms of movement, in terms of structural strength, you know, that injuries can sometimes compromise, so it felt really good.
    0:07:18 But anyway, I was on the way back, that ride back, on the way from jiu-jitsu, I was sipping an Element drink, and listening to country music, and just had this deep sense of gratitude to be able to train hard, still, you know, many, many years into my training journey.
    0:07:21 Anyway, I was sipping that Element and enjoying life.
    0:07:24 Get a sample pack for free with any purchase.
    0:07:27 Try it at drinkelement.com slash lex.
    0:07:34 This episode is also brought to you by AG1, an all-in-one daily drink to support better health and peak performance.
    0:07:40 When I was traveling in India, one of the things I missed was AG1.
    0:07:43 I brought a few travel packs with me, but I quickly ran out.
    0:07:47 Well, in some sense, I packed to be gone for months, for years, really.
    0:07:48 I was ready.
    0:08:04 I think in order to have a real possibility of adventure, you have to allow yourself mentally, physically, in every way, the possibility of just being gone, maybe forever from your home, including death, you know, accepting the fact that today might be my last day.
    0:08:16 So all of it taken together, you know, I just threw stuff in the bag, not overthinking it, but also prepared for whatever eventualities the world drew me toward.
    0:08:19 I had a few travel packs, enjoyed them, but they were gone quickly.
    0:08:29 And so one of the things that makes me feel like home is when I’m able to make a cold drink, fill it with AG1, put it in the freezer for maybe 10, 20 minutes.
    0:08:38 It’s got that like almost slushy-like consistency, and I could just, in the Texas heat, sit back and just enjoy AG1.
    0:08:39 That makes me feel like home.
    0:08:44 They’ll give you one month’s supply of fish oil when you sign up at drinkAG1.com slash Lex.
    0:08:46 Texas heat not included.
    0:08:53 This episode is also brought to you by Shopify, a platform designed for anyone to sell anywhere with a great-looking online store.
    0:08:59 I believe at the beginning of this conversation, we tried to take initial steps.
    0:09:12 Of course, it’s very difficult to do thoroughly, but initial steps in trying to define what is liberalism, what is progressivism, what is conservatism, what is the current state of the left and the right in American politics.
    0:09:15 I think one of the things he mentioned briefly was capitalism.
    0:09:24 There’s a bit more sort of a skeptical eye towards the excesses and the negative aspects of capitalism.
    0:09:28 And of course, I think to some degree that’s valuable.
    0:09:37 You don’t want to run away toward that direction or any direction really too far, being too skeptical of capitalism or too rah-rah, absolute free market.
    0:09:39 Capitalism will save us.
    0:09:41 Capitalism can do no wrong.
    0:09:42 All of it.
    0:09:46 Extreme variations of any ideology, I think, can get us into trouble.
    0:09:49 But all of it is a beautiful experiment we’ll get to learn from.
    0:09:55 And I think Shopify, to me, in a small sort of philosophical way, represents distributed capitalism where anyone could sell to anyone.
    0:09:59 One of the troubles you can get into with capitalism is monopolies.
    0:10:05 And to make it accessible and easy for people to create their own store and sell to anyone, that’s a beautiful thing.
    0:10:10 Sign up for a $1 per month trial period at shopify.com slash Lex.
    0:10:11 That’s all lowercase.
    0:10:17 Go to shopify.com slash Lex to take your business to the next level today.
    0:10:23 Like I said, if you’re listening or watching this on Spotify, I hope this kind of ad read is okay by you.
    0:10:24 All right.
    0:10:27 This is the Lex Friedman podcast.
    0:10:32 And now, dear friends, here’s Ezra Klein and Derek Thompson.
    0:10:38 You are both firmly on the left of the U.S. political spectrum.
    0:10:40 Ezra, I’ve been a fan of yours for a long time.
    0:10:46 You’re often referred to, at least I think of you as one of the most intellectually rigorous voices on the left.
    0:10:52 Can you try to define, can you define the ideals and the vision of the American left?
    0:10:52 Oh, good.
    0:10:53 We’re starting small here.
    0:10:56 And maybe contrast them with the American right.
    0:10:56 Sure.
    0:11:01 So, the thing I should say here is that you can define the left in different ways.
    0:11:03 I think the left has a couple fundamental views.
    0:11:05 One is that life is unfair.
    0:11:09 We are born with different talents.
    0:11:11 We are born into different nations, right?
    0:11:16 The luck of being born into America is very different than the luck of being born into Venezuela.
    0:11:19 We are born into different families.
    0:11:25 We have luck operating as an omnipresence across our entire lives.
    0:11:32 And as such, the people for whom it works out well, we don’t deserve all of that.
    0:11:33 We got lucky.
    0:11:37 I mean, we also worked hard and we also had talent and we also applied that talent.
    0:11:43 But at a very fundamental level, that we are sitting here is unfair and that so many other
    0:11:50 people are in conditions that are much worse, much more precarious, much more exploited is
    0:11:51 unfair.
    0:11:57 And one of the fundamental roles of government should not necessarily be to turn that unfairness
    0:12:03 into perfect equality, but to rectify that unfairness into a kind of universal dignity,
    0:12:03 right?
    0:12:05 So people can have lives of flourishing.
    0:12:06 So I’d say that’s one thing.
    0:12:10 The left is fundamentally more skeptical of capitalism and particularly unchecked forms
    0:12:12 of capitalism than the right.
    0:12:16 I always think this is hard to talk about because what we call unchecked capitalism is nevertheless
    0:12:18 very much supported by government.
    0:12:20 So I think in a way, you have both.
    0:12:25 Like markets are things that are enforced by government, whether they are, you know, how
    0:12:27 you set the rules of them is what ends up differing between the left and the right.
    0:12:34 But the left tends to be more worried about the fact that you could get rich building coal-fired
    0:12:40 power plants belching pollution into the air and you could get rich laying down solar panels
    0:12:43 and the market doesn’t know the difference between the two.
    0:12:50 And so there’s a set of goals about regulating the unchecked potential of capitalism.
    0:12:53 That also relates to sort of exploitation of workers.
    0:12:59 There’s like very fundamental questions about how much people get paid, how much power they
    0:12:59 have.
    0:13:04 Again, the rectification of economic and other forms of power is very fundamental to the left.
    0:13:09 When you think about what the minimum wage is, I am a successful podcast host.
    0:13:13 When I go into a negotiation with the New York Times, I have a certain amount of market power
    0:13:15 in that negotiation because other firms want to hire me.
    0:13:22 When you are a minimum wage worker, the reason we have a minimum wage is in part to rectify
    0:13:23 a power problem.
    0:13:25 A lot of workers do not have market power.
    0:13:27 They do not have a bunch of job opportunities.
    0:13:29 They are not working with firms.
    0:13:34 And by the way, without certain kinds of regulation, those firms will cartelize and make it so they
    0:13:35 can hold down wages anyway.
    0:13:39 So trying to rectify power imbalances is, I think, another thing folks on the left take more
    0:13:40 seriously.
    0:13:44 That would be a start of things that I think broadly unite the, maybe let’s call it the
    0:13:45 intuitions.
    0:13:48 I want to say that’s a podcast answer, not a book.
    0:13:52 I’m sure I left a million things out here, but I’ll start there.
    0:13:54 I mean, there’s a lot of fascinating things there.
    0:13:59 On the unfairness of life, that could be the inter-person unfairness.
    0:14:04 So one person getting more money than another person, more skills or more natural abilities
    0:14:05 than another person.
    0:14:09 And then there’s the general unfairness of the environment, the luck of the draw, the
    0:14:10 things that happen.
    0:14:15 All of a sudden, you cross a street and the car runs a red light and runs you over and you’re
    0:14:16 in the hospital.
    0:14:17 So that unfairness of life.
    0:14:23 And in general, I guess the left sees there’s some role or a lot of role for government to
    0:14:25 help you when that unfairness strikes.
    0:14:31 And then maybe there’s also a general notion of the size of government.
    0:14:36 And I think the left is more comfortable with a larger government, as long as it’s effective
    0:14:38 and efficient, at least in this idea.
    0:14:40 That’s certainly true in the last 100 years.
    0:14:45 It was New Deal liberals who enlarged the government in the 1930s.
    0:14:49 It was Republicans who acquiesced to that larger government in the 1950s.
    0:14:54 And then starting in the 1970s, 1980s, it’s typically been conservatives who’ve tried to constrict
    0:14:55 governments.
    0:14:56 Sometimes they failed.
    0:15:00 While liberals have typically tried to expand, certainly, taxing and spending.
    0:15:03 Well, one thing that I was thinking as Ezra was talking, and I was just writing this down
    0:15:05 because I thought Ezra’s answer was really lovely.
    0:15:09 But like at a really high level, I thought, maybe disagree with this.
    0:15:14 I thought about distinguishing between liberals and conservatives based on three factors.
    0:15:19 What each side fears, what each side values, and what each side tolerates.
    0:15:29 I think liberals fear injustice and conservatives often fear cultural radicalism or the destruction
    0:15:30 of society.
    0:15:32 And as a result, they value different things.
    0:15:35 Liberals, I think, tend to value change.
    0:15:40 And at the level of government, that can mean change in terms of creating new programs that
    0:15:41 don’t previously exist.
    0:15:45 It’s typically been liberals, for example, who’ve been trying to expand health coverage while
    0:15:46 conservatives have tried to cut it back.
    0:15:50 Just in the last few years, it was Biden who tried to add a bunch of programs, whether
    0:15:55 it was infrastructure, the Chips and Science Act, the IRA, and then Trump comes into office
    0:15:57 and is unwinding it.
    0:16:00 And then I also think they tolerate different things.
    0:16:05 I think liberals are more likely to tolerate a little bit of overreach, a little bit of radicalism
    0:16:08 in terms of trying to push society into a world where it hasn’t been.
    0:16:12 Well, I think conservatives are more likely to tolerate injustice.
    0:16:18 They’re more likely to say there’s a kind of natural inequality in the nature of the world,
    0:16:21 and we’re not going to try to overcorrect for it with our policies.
    0:16:29 And so I think that even at a layer above what Ezra was articulating with the policy differences
    0:16:34 between liberals and conservatives, there’s almost like an archetypal difference between what
    0:16:37 they fear and value and tolerate.
    0:16:43 Liberals fearing injustice, seeking change, tolerating sometimes a bit of what people might
    0:16:48 think of as overreach, while conservatives fear that overreach, value tradition, and often
    0:16:49 tolerate injustice.
    0:16:54 The only thing I would say is that I do think this sort of the left likes big government, the
    0:16:57 right likes small government, oversimplifies.
    0:17:03 The left is pretty comfortable with an expansive government that is trying to correct for some
    0:17:07 of the imbalances of power and injustices and imbalances of luck I talked about earlier.
    0:17:12 The right is very comfortable with a very powerful police and surveillance and national
    0:17:13 security state.
    0:17:19 I always think about the sort of George W. Bush era, although right now with ICE agents hassling
    0:17:22 all kinds of green card holders, you can think about this moment too.
    0:17:27 But the right’s view that on the one hand, the government is incompetent, and on the other
    0:17:34 hand, we could send our army across oceans, invade Afghanistan and Iraq, and then rebuild
    0:17:38 these societies we don’t understand into fully functioning liberal democracies that will be
    0:17:42 our allies, was an extraordinary level of trust in a very big government.
    0:17:44 I mean, that was expensive.
    0:17:45 That took manpower.
    0:17:49 That was, compared to, we’re going to set up, you know, the Affordable Care Act in America,
    0:17:52 that took a lot more faith in the U.S.
    0:17:56 government being able to do something that was extraordinarily difficult.
    0:18:00 But the left has more confidence in the government of the Czech, and the right has more confidence
    0:18:01 in the government of the gun.
    0:18:02 You’re right.
    0:18:08 There’s some degree to which what the right, when the right speaks about the size of government,
    0:18:15 it’s a little bit rhetoric, and not actual policy, because they seem to always grow the size of
    0:18:15 government anyway.
    0:18:21 They just kind of say small government, but they don’t, it’s, you know, in the surveillance
    0:18:30 state, in the foreign policy in terms of military involvement abroad, and really in every program,
    0:18:32 they’re not very good at cutting either.
    0:18:34 They just kind of like to say it.
    0:18:35 Cutting is really hard.
    0:18:41 If you, government spends trillions of dollars, and if you cut billions of dollars, someone is
    0:18:42 going to feel that pain, and they’re going to scream.
    0:18:47 And so you look at defense spending under Reagan, you look at overall spending under Reagan,
    0:18:53 Reagan might be one of the most archetypally conservative presidents of the last 40, 50 years.
    0:18:57 He utterly failed in his attempt to shrink government.
    0:18:59 Government grew under Reagan.
    0:19:01 Defense grew, all sorts of programs grew.
    0:19:07 So I think that one thing we’re sort of scrambling around in our answers is that at a really high
    0:19:12 level, there are differences between liberalism and conservatism in American history, but often
    0:19:15 at the level of implementation, it can be a little bit messy.
    0:19:21 Even Bush’s foreign policy that Ezra was describing, sort of from a big sense of American history,
    0:19:22 is very like Wilsonian, right?
    0:19:26 This sense of like, it’s America’s duty to go out and change the world.
    0:19:28 Or to use a current example, McKinleyan.
    0:19:29 Or McKinleyan, right.
    0:19:36 And a lot of people compare Donald Trump’s foreign policy to Andrew Jackson, this sense
    0:19:40 of we need to pull back from the world, America first, we need to care about what’s inside
    0:19:43 of our borders and care much less about what’s outside of our borders.
    0:19:48 Sometimes the differences between Republican and Democrat administrations don’t fall cleanly
    0:19:53 into the lines of liberal versus conservative, because those definitions can be mushy.
    0:19:59 All right, so to descend down from the platonic ideals of the left and the right, who is
    0:20:03 actually running the show on the right and the left?
    0:20:04 Who are the dominant forces?
    0:20:11 Maybe you could describe, and you mentioned democratic socialists, the progressives, maybe liberals,
    0:20:19 maybe more sort of mainstream left, and the same on the right with Trump and Trumpism.
    0:20:22 So on the right, it’s pretty straightforward at the moment.
    0:20:25 And the right is composed differently than it was 10 years ago.
    0:20:31 But the right is run by Donald Trump and the people who have been given the nod of power
    0:20:32 by Donald Trump.
    0:20:34 So that is right now Elon Musk.
    0:20:36 But Elon Musk’s power is coming from Donald Trump.
    0:20:39 That is, you know, maybe in some degrees, J.D.
    0:20:43 Vance, maybe in some degrees, Russ Vought, maybe sometimes, you know,
    0:20:45 Homans over at DHS.
    0:20:51 The right beneath that, the Republicans in Congress are extraordinarily disempowered compared
    0:20:52 to in other administrations.
    0:20:56 They are sort of being told what to do, and they are doing what they are told.
    0:21:00 Republicans in Congress, Senate Republicans, they didn’t want Pete Hegseth.
    0:21:02 They didn’t want Kash Patel.
    0:21:04 They didn’t want Tulsi Gabbard.
    0:21:06 They didn’t want RFK Jr.
    0:21:10 Nobody got elected to be a Republican in the Senate, hoping that they would confirm Robert F.
    0:21:14 Kennedy Jr., a member of the Kennedys, a Democrat who was pro-choice and running as a Democrat
    0:21:16 two years ago for HHS.
    0:21:18 But Donald Trump told them to do it, and they did.
    0:21:21 So the right has developed a very, very top-down structure.
    0:21:26 And one of Trump’s talents, one of the things that makes him a disruptive force in politics
    0:21:32 is his ability to upend the sort of coalitional structure, the interest group structure that
    0:21:34 used to prevail.
    0:21:39 You know, the Koch brothers were the big enemy of the left, you know, 10, 15 years ago.
    0:21:41 The view is that in many ways they set the agenda of the right.
    0:21:46 The Koch brother network is much less powerful under Donald Trump because he just disagrees
    0:21:47 with them and has disempowered them.
    0:21:50 Not to say none of their people or none of their groups are meaningful at all.
    0:21:51 They are.
    0:21:55 But you wouldn’t put them at the forefront in the way that you might have at another time.
    0:22:02 Right this second, we’re using the left, but Democrats are in fundamental disarray.
    0:22:03 There is no leader.
    0:22:08 Democrats, Senate Democrats decided to vote for the continuing resolution avoiding a shutdown
    0:22:09 or a critical mass of them did.
    0:22:15 Hakeem Jeffries, the leader of the House Democrats, and Chuck Schumer, the leader of the Senate
    0:22:18 Democrats, are in bitter disagreement over whether or not they should have done that.
    0:22:23 Democratic leadership isn’t even united on the single biggest point of leverage they might
    0:22:24 have had.
    0:22:26 They disagree over whether or not it was even a point of leverage.
    0:22:32 Outside of them, the party is no leader, which is fairly normal after a pretty crushing defeat.
    0:22:35 But there isn’t the next in line.
    0:22:38 So, you know, you go back, right?
    0:22:42 And it was pretty clear that, you know, after Barack Obama, it was going to be Hillary Clinton.
    0:22:46 After Hillary Clinton, it was either going to be Joe Biden or Bernie Sanders.
    0:22:48 Bernie Sanders had come in second in the primary.
    0:22:49 Joe Biden had been the vice president.
    0:22:55 You often have a presumptive next nominee who the party can look to for a kind of leadership.
    0:22:59 Even after 2000, Al Gore was still giving big speeches.
    0:23:01 There was a question about Al Gore running again.
    0:23:04 There is no presumptive in the Democratic Party right now.
    0:23:08 You can’t turn around and say, oh, it’s going to be Pete Buttigieg.
    0:23:09 It’s going to be Josh Shapiro.
    0:23:10 It’s going to be Gretchen Whitmer.
    0:23:17 Absent parties are given force, modern parties, which are quite weak by historical standards.
    0:23:20 Modern parties tend to be given force by a centralizing personality.
    0:23:23 Donald Trump being a very strong example of that on the right.
    0:23:27 But Barack Obama was the person who held together the Democratic Party for a long time.
    0:23:39 In my lifetime, the Democratic Party has never been as internally fragmented and weak, leaderless, rudderless as it is right now.
    0:23:41 Now, it won’t stay that way.
    0:23:43 There’s a rhythm to these things.
    0:23:44 There’ll be a midterm.
    0:23:46 They’re probably going to pick up a bunch of seats in the midterm.
    0:23:53 If that means Hakeem Jeffries becomes speaker after the midterm, he’s going to have a much louder voice because he’s going to have power.
    0:23:57 It’s going to be a harder road for Schumer to get back to the majority because of the Senate map.
    0:24:00 And then we’ll start having a primary on the left.
    0:24:04 And you’ll begin to see voices emerge out of that.
    0:24:09 But right now, the Democratic Party, it doesn’t have points of power.
    0:24:19 There’s simply outside of, you know, at the national level, there is no Democrat who wields control over a branch of government, right?
    0:24:19 They don’t have the Supreme Court.
    0:24:20 They don’t have the House.
    0:24:21 They don’t have the Senate.
    0:24:22 They don’t have the presidency.
    0:24:24 And they don’t have a next in line.
    0:24:30 So you’re looking at an organization without any of the people in a position to structure it.
    0:24:33 And the head of the DNC, the new head, Ken Martin, doesn’t have power in that way.
    0:24:36 So they’re pretty fractured.
    0:24:44 You got a lot of criticism for this, but you were one of the people that early on said that Biden should step down.
    0:24:52 Why is the Democratic Party at this stage in its history so bad at generating the truly inspiring person?
    0:24:59 To me personally, you know, AOC is an example of a person that might be that person.
    0:25:00 You should have her on the show.
    0:25:02 I would watch that.
    0:25:03 Definitely.
    0:25:13 You know, I really try to, and we’ll talk about this, I try to do like two, three hours, and there’s a hesitancy on the left, especially to do these kinds of long programs.
    0:25:14 I think it’s a trust issue.
    0:25:16 I’m not exactly sure what it is.
    0:25:20 80% of the people on the show are left wing.
    0:25:24 I’m pretty good faith, and I try to bring out the best in people.
    0:25:25 Have you invited her?
    0:25:25 Is that what you’re saying?
    0:25:26 Yeah, yeah.
    0:25:29 We’ll see what happens when people get closer to 2028.
    0:25:30 Sure.
    0:25:32 Maybe people begin taking that kind of risk.
    0:25:32 I hope so.
    0:25:36 You know, Bernie’s up there in A, so he can’t, you know, he can’t do it anymore.
    0:25:38 Why is the Democratic Party so bad at generating this kind of talent?
    0:25:41 I don’t think it’s so bad at generating them.
    0:25:45 I think that it turned out to be bad at generating them this year.
    0:25:51 Look, like, I, yeah, as you mentioned, you know, back in February 2023, I was somebody who came out and said, like, Biden can’t run again.
    0:25:52 This isn’t going to work.
    0:26:05 And my view, and that was really what that set of pieces was about, was about the argument that even though Biden was clearly going to win the primary, there was still time for Democrats to do something the parties had done in the past and have an open convention.
    0:26:10 And you could structure the lead up to an open convention in a number of different ways, right?
    0:26:20 You could have something like a mini primary, but but basically you’d have Democrats out in the media out giving speeches and their ultimate audience would be the delegates, the delegates at the Democratic National Convention.
    0:26:24 And my hope was through that you would find the person for this moment.
    0:26:29 The thing for Kamala Harris that was really difficult was she was for another moment.
    0:26:42 She was picked by Joe Biden in 2020 amidst just a very different political equilibrium, a sense that you had a transitionary moment between two versions of the Democratic Party.
    0:26:47 Maybe Joe Biden reaching a little bit back to the past, to these sort of lunch pail, you know, blue collar Democrats.
    0:26:50 Joe from Scranton was a big a big part of the Joe Biden appeal.
    0:26:55 But also Biden never has a chance if he’s not Barack Obama’s vice president.
    0:27:00 And so you have this sort of weird set of historical factors like operating at the same time.
    0:27:05 There’s a desire for stability and experience amidst the chaos of Donald Trump and the pandemic.
    0:27:12 There is Biden as Obama’s vice president, who nevertheless did not run in the election after Obama.
    0:27:20 I think a lot of people look back at 2016 and think, you know what, if Biden had been the candidate, he would have beaten Trump and we would live in a different reality.
    0:27:27 And then Biden chose Harris as an effort to shore up his own at least assumed weaknesses.
    0:27:31 Right. He’s a white man in the Democratic Party at a time when the Democratic Party is diversifying.
    0:27:39 And when the view of how you win elections is you put is you put back together the Obama coalition and the Obama coalition is young people.
    0:27:47 It’s, you know, voters of color and it’s enough working class white voters and then college educated white voters.
    0:27:48 Right. That’s the Obama coalition.
    0:27:52 And so Biden picks Harris, you know, for different reasons.
    0:27:56 My view at that time was I was sort of a Tammy Duckworth person and thought I should have picked Tammy Duckworth.
    0:27:59 But but there are different people out there.
    0:28:04 And then the kind of moment that Harris was running in just sort of dissipates.
    0:28:10 First, she has a particular background from California where she’s a tough on crime.
    0:28:16 Her book is called Smart on Crime Prosecutor, but she runs in the Democratic Party at a time when it’s turned on that kind of politics.
    0:28:24 People want a lot from her personally, but they don’t want a sort of prosecutorial character.
    0:28:32 So she sort of abandons that and never, I think, really finds another political identity, certainly before she begins running, you know, in 2024 that works.
    0:28:33 But she’s a talented debater.
    0:28:41 She’s a very talented performer on The Stump, but she doesn’t really have a theory of politics and policy that she’s identified with.
    0:28:51 But she’s a way for Biden to signal that he understands that him being, you know, in 2020, a 78 year old white guy, he understands the future is not him or at least not just him.
    0:28:57 And he’s sort of trying to make a coalitional pick that speaks to his own potential weaknesses.
    0:29:00 I think by 2024, you have two problems, right?
    0:29:03 But once he only steps down, what is it, June?
    0:29:07 Like they are weeks from the DNC.
    0:29:09 They don’t have time anymore for an open convention.
    0:29:15 You now have the Biden administration is very unpopular for a number of reasons, but particularly inflation and cost of living.
    0:29:20 So now you have Kamala Harris running with a sort of anvil of being associated.
    0:29:22 I mean, it’s a Biden-Harris administration.
    0:29:25 She doesn’t really have a lane on cost of living.
    0:29:27 It’s not something she’s known for working on in the Senate.
    0:29:31 It’s not something she has a bunch of great ideas about, not something she’s great at talking about.
    0:29:35 It’s probably not the candidate you would pick for a cost of living election.
    0:29:38 And she’s had no time to build that out, right?
    0:29:45 Maybe if she had been running in a primary for, you know, a year and a half, having to fend off Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders and Pete Buttigieg and whomever else,
    0:29:47 she either would have figured out how to do it, right?
    0:29:51 Primaries are periods of education and learning for the candidates, too.
    0:29:53 Or they would have found somebody else who could do it.
    0:29:55 But she doesn’t get any of that, right?
    0:29:57 She’s thrown into the game with three months to go.
    0:30:01 So, you know, they picked the candidate in 2020 who won.
    0:30:05 Whether you think Biden’s inspiring or not, he was probably he was a reasonable pick for that moment.
    0:30:07 He should have never run for a second term.
    0:30:09 And he sort of implied to a lot of people that he wouldn’t.
    0:30:19 And then the handover to Harris was a very difficult handover to a candidate who didn’t go through any kind of selection process for the moment in which he was running.
    0:30:21 We’ll see what they do in 2028.
    0:30:24 But the consequences of what they did in 2024 have been severe.
    0:30:29 There’s two really big questions on the table that I think click together in an interesting way.
    0:30:32 You asked, one, why did Trump win?
    0:30:41 And two, why do Democrats have this certain communication style that might make them less interested in coming on to an unstructured three-hour conversation with you?
    0:30:43 Let me try to tell a story that connects them.
    0:30:46 I think Trump’s victory in 2024 was overdetermined.
    0:30:48 There are a lot of factors here.
    0:30:52 Number one, if you look internationally, incumbents lost all over the world.
    0:30:54 They lost in the U.S.
    0:30:54 They lost in Europe.
    0:31:00 They lost in pretty much every developed country at rates that we really haven’t seen in 50 years.
    0:31:07 And that’s largely because the inflation crisis that came after COVID created an absolute disaster for incumbent establishment power.
    0:31:09 People couldn’t bring prices down.
    0:31:10 Voters were furious.
    0:31:13 And they were destroying establishment orders all over the world.
    0:31:14 Democrats happened to be in power.
    0:31:16 And as a result, they got the brunt of it.
    0:31:16 That’s number one.
    0:31:21 Number two, if you look at elections over the 21st century, two things are true.
    0:31:27 One, almost every election is unbelievably close for reasons that I’m not sure I entirely understand.
    0:31:39 The parties have gotten really good, historically, bizarrely good at getting each group to come to the polls with about 48 percent, such that every election is a battle over the next 1.5 percent.
    0:31:44 And in a world like that, little thermostatic swings are very important.
    0:31:55 And what we’ve seen over the last few years, and there’s this theory about thermostatic public opinion in American politics that says that what often happens in politics is one party has a very compelling message of change.
    0:32:06 They become the establishment, and then they become the victims of exactly the weapon that they marshaled, that then the next outgroup party says we have a theory of change and we’re going to throw out the bums.
    0:32:08 And the next party comes in and they overreach and then they lose.
    0:32:14 In a world where you have thermostatic change and every election is very close, you tend to have elections swinging back and forth.
    0:32:27 So I think that also explains why Democrats and Republicans have struggled to hold onto power for six-year, eight-year, 12-year terms the same way they did, say, in the 1930s or 1960s.
    0:32:33 But finally, you have to look at what kind of character Donald Trump is and what kind of a media figure he is.
    0:32:46 We were just talking off camera about how every age of communications technology revolution clicks into focus a new skill that is suddenly in critical demand for the electorate, right?
    0:32:53 The world of radio technology is a world in which Franklin Delano Roosevelt can be powerful in a way that he can’t be in the 1890s.
    0:32:55 And then you have the 1950s.
    0:33:00 Dwight Eisenhower, 1956, I believe, was the first televised national convention.
    0:33:16 Famously, the 1960 presidential debates between JFK and Richard Nixon take an election that is leaning toward Nixon and make an election that’s leaning toward JFK because he’s so damn handsome and also just electrically compelling on a screen.
    0:33:21 We have a new screened technology right now, which is not just television on steroids.
    0:33:22 It’s a different species entirely.
    0:33:37 And it seems to favor, it seems to provide value for individuals, influencers, and even celebrities and politicians who are good at something like live wire authenticity.
    0:33:41 They’re good at performing authenticity, as paradoxical as that sounds.
    0:33:50 Trump is an absolute marvel at performing authenticity, even when the audience somehow acknowledges that he might be bullshitting.
    0:33:53 He’s just an amazing performer for this age.
    0:34:01 And it speaks to the fact that he seems to be, to borrow Ezra’s term, remarkably disinhibited in front of every single audience.
    0:34:08 There doesn’t seem to be this sort of background algorithm in his head calculating exactly how to craft his message to different audiences.
    0:34:11 He just seems to be like a live wire animal in front of every audience.
    0:34:21 And I think that compares very distinctly to the democratic character of bureaucratic caution in our age.
    0:34:32 And there is a really important distinction between this vibe of the Trumpian ruler and the vibe of the rule follower.
    0:34:46 And the vibe of the bureaucratic rule follower is a little bit afraid of unstructured conversation, is always performing the background algorithm of how do I communicate in a way that balances all of the coalitions on my side.
    0:34:53 Because if you look at the Democratic Party right now to compare to the Republican Party, I mean, in 2015, I think there were four political parties in America.
    0:34:59 There was MAGA, there was a center right, there was the Bernie wing, and there was the Biden-Clinton-Obama wing.
    0:35:05 And what happened is that Trump killed and skinned the center right and is now wearing it as a hat.
    0:35:11 The entire Republican Party is Donald Trump wearing the skins of the old center right, the Romney wing.
    0:35:13 And the Democratic Party is still a fight.
    0:35:15 It’s exactly what Ezra described.
    0:35:16 It’s a jungle.
    0:35:26 And maybe there’s something about that jungle nature of the Democratic Party that is making some of its leaders perform this sort of coalitional calculation when they’re communicating.
    0:35:38 Such that it makes them less interested in appearing in settings that might cost them, that might not benefit them in exactly the sort of pre-calculated way they have to get their message across.
    0:35:42 And so there’s not necessarily a whole lot of empirics to that theory.
    0:35:45 I’m a little bit going on vibes here, and maybe Ezra sees some flaws to the theory.
    0:35:46 It’s an age of the vibe.
    0:35:47 It’s an age of the vibe.
    0:35:48 Yeah, exactly.
    0:35:50 I’m trying to perform the live wire authenticity that I’m describing.
    0:36:11 But I do think that might begin to explain why you, Lex, might be picking up on a difference between the political vibes, an eagerness and a willingness on the one hand to have kind of unstructured and even chaotic conversations, and a care on the other side about not letting conversations become too unstructured or too careless.
    0:36:12 Can I build on that?
    0:36:15 I know we’re supposed to talk about abundance, but I want to talk about this.
    0:36:18 There’s an abundance of time.
    0:36:19 An abundance of time.
    0:36:20 We’re on the Lex Friedman Show.
    0:36:23 So two or three things.
    0:36:29 One is Democrats still think the currency of politics is money and the currency of politics is attention.
    0:36:32 And that’s a huge difference between the two sides right now.
    0:36:34 So what did Kamala Harris come in and do?
    0:36:39 She came in and raised a shit ton of money, right?
    0:36:42 Like a billion dollars in record time, basically.
    0:36:46 She had more money than Donald Trump did and used it to try to buy attention.
    0:36:51 What it meant for Democrats to be good at social media is to have a good social media team.
    0:36:59 People in your office somewhere, in your campaign headquarters, who put out cool things on social media, good memes and, you know, good advertisements and so on.
    0:37:04 What it means on the right to be good at social media is to be you personally good at social media.
    0:37:05 You’re Vivek Ramaswamy.
    0:37:07 You’re J.D. Vance.
    0:37:08 You’re Donald Trump.
    0:37:09 You’re Elon Musk.
    0:37:13 And what you understand is you are the product.
    0:37:16 What it means to be good at attention is you are good at attention.
    0:37:20 Now, Harris, I think, was actually better at some dimensions of this.
    0:37:22 They were just slightly older dimensions than people always gave her credit for.
    0:37:24 Hell of a performer on the stump.
    0:37:27 She was way better on the stump than people realized she would be.
    0:37:28 And a good debater.
    0:37:29 She’d always been a good debater.
    0:37:30 She trashed Donald Trump in that debate.
    0:37:35 But she does not do social media herself at any level, right?
    0:37:36 Because she’s not going to take risk.
    0:37:41 Democrats, most Democrats still live in a world where the thing that they are optimizing
    0:37:44 for in attention is to not get negative attention.
    0:37:49 And what the Trumpist wing of the Republican Party understands, and this is truer for them
    0:37:53 than it probably would be for Democrats, because for them, the media is the enemy or at least
    0:37:54 mainstream media is, et cetera.
    0:38:02 But is that attention, a volume of attention is itself good and you can only get a critical
    0:38:04 mass of it if you’re willing to accept negative attention.
    0:38:07 Agenda control doesn’t come from positive attention.
    0:38:09 It comes from conflict.
    0:38:13 You get agenda control by doing things the other side disagrees with.
    0:38:17 So they enter into functioning agreement with you to keep the thing you’re doing at the
    0:38:18 front.
    0:38:20 Now, that doesn’t make you highly popular.
    0:38:24 Donald Trump is the most unpopular modern president at this stage of his presidency, except
    0:38:25 for Donald Trump’s first term.
    0:38:32 It took, I think Nate Silver said it was 221 days for Joe Biden’s net favorability to go
    0:38:32 negative.
    0:38:35 It’s taken something like 55 days for Donald Trump to do the same.
    0:38:39 So what Donald Trump is doing does not optimize for favorability.
    0:38:42 It does not optimize, by the way, for big wins.
    0:38:46 Democrats feel like they got trashed in 2024 and in a way they did.
    0:38:53 But Trump’s popular vote victory was the smallest popular vote victory since 2000 when Al Gore beat
    0:38:57 George W. Bush by 17 dogs and three old men or whatever it was.
    0:39:00 And so attention works really differently.
    0:39:05 And while I don’t, I think some of the like, you know, the Rogan of the left discourse has
    0:39:12 been frankly overstated because honestly, the most parsimonious model of 2024 and 2020 is
    0:39:15 in 2020, you have a 48-48 nation, something like that.
    0:39:18 Or maybe you have something that’s more like a 49 Democrat, 47 Republican nation.
    0:39:26 And in 2020, because of the pandemic, Donald Trump suffered a, let’s call it a 2.5 point
    0:39:27 incumbent penalty.
    0:39:28 People are mad about the pandemic.
    0:39:30 They’re mad about things being chaotic.
    0:39:32 So he loses 2.5 points.
    0:39:38 That gives, given the natural split of the electorate, Joe Biden, a 4.5 point popular vote victory.
    0:39:41 In 2024, people are mad about inflation.
    0:39:43 They’re somewhat mad about the border.
    0:39:47 You have a 2.5 point penalty applied to the incumbent administration.
    0:39:48 Now it’s Harris.
    0:39:51 And you get a 1.5 point popular vote victory for Donald Trump.
    0:39:55 I genuinely don’t think, and this held internationally too, right?
    0:39:58 I genuinely don’t think you need a lot more to explain the election right now than that.
    0:40:01 But you do need something more than that to explain.
    0:40:08 Donald Trump’s now, since 2016, almost decade-long dominance of all attention in American politics.
    0:40:16 Starting when he came down the golden escalator in 2015, American politics from 2015 to 2020,
    0:40:18 when Joe Biden won, was about Donald Trump.
    0:40:22 Then from 2020 to 2024, when Joe Biden was president, it was about Donald Trump.
    0:40:26 And then from 2024 on, it’s about Donald Trump.
    0:40:31 Joe Biden was an intentional void, be it his age, be it their strategy.
    0:40:36 They agreed that the topic of the nation should be Donald Trump, right?
    0:40:41 When he went back to begin his campaign in 2024, he goes to Valley Forge and gives a speech about
    0:40:42 January 6th and Donald Trump, right?
    0:40:44 It wasn’t about his own achievements.
    0:40:45 It was about Donald Trump.
    0:40:48 Joe Biden didn’t do the Super Bowl interview, right, in 2023.
    0:40:51 That’s when I did my thing about, this is not going to work.
    0:40:57 Like, probably because at that point, he was not capable of good extemporaneous, you know,
    0:40:57 interviews.
    0:41:00 I mean, I think that was my view of them, right?
    0:41:03 That the revealed thing here was that they didn’t trust him to do interviews.
    0:41:05 I didn’t have some inside information about anything.
    0:41:08 I just looked at what they were doing, what they weren’t doing.
    0:41:08 They’re behind in the polls.
    0:41:10 They weren’t doing things like the Super Bowl interview.
    0:41:15 If you can’t turn your candidate into the product, if you don’t trust your candidate to be the
    0:41:18 product, in an election, you’re fucked, right?
    0:41:20 And so that was, that was to me, the tell.
    0:41:23 But attention is the coin of the realm.
    0:41:25 Now, there are better and worse ways of doing it.
    0:41:28 I don’t think Donald Trump is doing himself huge favors right now.
    0:41:32 I think they had, there was a path they could have walked to be a majority party.
    0:41:37 I think that if he was more restrained, more inhibited, if he was able to not do a bunch
    0:41:41 of things that are mobilizing opposition to him, you know, you could talk about what they
    0:41:43 would or wouldn’t achieve that way.
    0:41:46 But I think they could be in a much stronger political position that would make them stronger
    0:41:47 for the midterms.
    0:41:48 It would eventually make, you know, J.D.
    0:41:49 Vance stronger as a successor.
    0:41:55 I think they’re running a very high risk strategy that has a very reasonable chance
    0:41:58 of, you know, if they don’t make a, you know, what I would call like an autocratic breakthrough,
    0:42:01 they might, yeah, they might completely blow up their own movement, right?
    0:42:03 It’s all very high risk.
    0:42:08 So for them, like for everybody, for everything, what makes them good at politics is also what
    0:42:09 makes them bad at politics.
    0:42:15 But for Democrats, the caution, the sort of bureaucratic culture, the fear of saying anything
    0:42:20 that will make anybody mad, it is optimized for a different attentional era.
    0:42:23 And one of the things I am watching when you’re saying about leaders, one of the things I’m
    0:42:29 watching in the people coming up, the ones who want to run in 2028, is who seems like they
    0:42:33 have adapted to this era, not in the way Trump did or Vance did or Musk did.
    0:42:35 I think they’re going to need something different.
    0:42:38 They fully represent the Twitter era of politics.
    0:42:39 I mean, Musk bought Twitter.
    0:42:44 They’re sort of all in on what politics right now, what online politics feels like.
    0:42:48 I think the thing that will come next is someone who’s able to
    0:42:52 synthesize both the lessons of it and the
    0:42:57 feeling that we all have that it’s kind of sick and poisoned, right?
    0:42:58 That Twitter is not a good place.
    0:42:59 X is not a good place.
    0:43:01 TikTok politics is not a good place.
    0:43:03 That we’re all being turned on each other.
    0:43:05 Somehow you need to be authentic and authentically
    0:43:10 angry at what we’ve all become in the way that Obama ran as a political reformer who hated
    0:43:13 the red and blue cut of America, who hated what political consultants and pollsters were
    0:43:14 doing to us.
    0:43:16 You’re not going to have somebody who just echoes.
    0:43:19 There’s not going to be there’ll be no Joe Rogan of the left.
    0:43:22 There’ll be no Donald Trump of the left because the left is different than the right.
    0:43:27 But it will have to be something authentically of this era, but also authentic to the backlash
    0:43:32 to it, which I think as we enter into this period where the president and everybody around
    0:43:38 him fully embraces this attentional economy, I think people are going to want something different
    0:43:40 from this attentional economy in four years.
    0:43:44 And be okay with a negative attention that comes with being authentic.
    0:43:46 You’re going to have to have some of it, right?
    0:43:48 You cannot change American politics.
    0:43:53 You can’t change the Democratic Party if you’re not willing to upset people.
    0:43:57 Donald Trump reformed the Republican Party by willing to be able to fight Republicans.
    0:44:02 He ran against George W. Bush, against Jeb Bush, against Mitt Romney, against the trade
    0:44:06 deals, against a bunch of things that were understood to be sacred cows.
    0:44:11 Somehow this guy ran like right after Mitt Romney and John McCain while attacking Mitt Romney
    0:44:13 and John McCain, right?
    0:44:17 If you are not like the Democratic Party does need to change, it needs to attain a different
    0:44:19 form because the Obama coalition is exhausted.
    0:44:19 It’s done.
    0:44:22 It’s not going to be able to do that if it doesn’t have standard bears who are willing
    0:44:25 to say we were wrong about some things.
    0:44:27 We have to change our views on some things.
    0:44:29 We have to act differently and speak differently.
    0:44:40 Is there a degree to which the left uniquely attacks its own more intensely than maybe other
    0:44:41 parts of the political spectrum?
    0:44:43 It’s possible.
    0:44:48 You go back to the model that I gave you of 2015, where there used to be these four large
    0:44:51 parties, MAGA, center-right, center-left, and left.
    0:44:56 Right now the Republican Party is all MAGA, so there is no coalitional fight to be had.
    0:44:57 It’s all Donald Trump.
    0:45:04 And if Donald Trump wants to name a former left-wing environmentalist to be the HHS secretary,
    0:45:06 everyone says, okay, that sounds like a fantastic idea.
    0:45:08 That’s exactly who we were going to nominate to.
    0:45:08 Thank you, Donald.
    0:45:09 That’s wonderful.
    0:45:10 Tip of my tongue.
    0:45:17 On the Democratic side, there is a fight, and it’s happening right now.
    0:45:26 And our book is trying to win a certain intra-left coalitional fight about defining the future
    0:45:27 of liberalism in the Democratic Party.
    0:45:30 So I’m not of the left.
    0:45:31 I’m certainly not of the far left.
    0:45:38 I have center-left politics and maybe even like a center-left personality style, if we
    0:45:39 can even call it that.
    0:45:45 But I do not begrudge the left for fighting because there’s a fight to be had.
    0:45:49 In many ways, I think sometimes they see—I’m not endorsing this.
    0:45:50 I’m describing it.
    0:45:59 I think they see their near-term opposition as not always the Republican Party, but as
    0:46:04 the forces of the Democratic Party that are in the way for them controlling one of the
    0:46:05 two major parties in this country.
    0:46:10 And so they do have an oppositional style, and maybe that’s personality-based.
    0:46:12 They are fighting the center-left.
    0:46:14 They are criticizing the center-left consistently.
    0:46:19 But I want to be good faith about this, even though I don’t share their politics, and say
    0:46:24 that they’re doing it because they’re trying to win power on the left of center.
    0:46:27 And so that’s why they’re criticizing the way they are.
    0:46:35 Now, our book and much of my writing is an attempt to do a little bit of a very specific
    0:46:35 dance.
    0:46:37 Ezra touched on this, I think, really beautifully.
    0:46:44 We’re in an era right now of anti-institution politics, anti-establishment politics, and
    0:46:50 Democrats are at risk right now as being seen as the party that always defends institutions,
    0:46:53 the party that always defends the establishment status quo.
    0:47:00 And that is an absolute death knell, I think, for this century’s angry anti-establishment politics.
    0:47:05 So what we’re trying to do is essentially say, here’s a way to channel the anger that people
    0:47:08 have at the establishment, but toward our own ends, right?
    0:47:14 We believe that we have answers on housing and energy and high-quality governance and science
    0:47:21 and technology, really good answers that are fiercely critical of the status quo in Democrat-led
    0:47:22 cities and Democrat-led states.
    0:47:29 We’re trying to be oppositional in a way that’s constructive rather than just destructive.
    0:47:34 Just to put a nice, pretty bowtie on the whole thing, let me ask for advice.
    0:47:43 What do I need to do for AOC to do a three-hour interview with you, Ezra, from your throne of
    0:47:43 wisdom?
    0:47:47 I don’t think I know how you get AOC herself to do it.
    0:47:54 I would not pretend to know her offices or her particular views on this.
    0:48:01 I do think, though, that you can see different Democrats taking on different kinds of risks.
    0:48:05 Right now, we’re sort of in the age of Gavin Newsom starting a podcast.
    0:48:08 I mean, Gavin Newsom is the governor of California, and he’s spending some percentage of his time
    0:48:13 doing a podcast with Charlie Cook and Michael Savage and Steve Bannon.
    0:48:20 Gavin Newsom realizes that one lane for a Democrat is to be high risk and talking to virtually everybody.
    0:48:25 I think Pete Buttigieg, in a different way, is somebody who wants to take media risks.
    0:48:29 Now, I think he’s going to—my gut on him is he’s going to hold his powder a little bit.
    0:48:34 So he’ll probably want to do the Lex Frubin podcast, assuming he runs in 2028, in 2027.
    0:48:35 Pete Buttigieg.
    0:48:36 Buttigieg, right.
    0:48:41 I think a lot of them are trying to figure out what is the lane for right now.
    0:48:44 And there’s a lane for the next two years, and there’s a lane for the two years after
    0:48:44 that.
    0:48:48 And you’re going to see a lot of people begin to blanket media in the two years after that.
    0:48:50 Now, it’d be interesting.
    0:48:52 I would be curious to know, would Hakeem Jeffries come on to do your show right now?
    0:48:53 That’d be interesting.
    0:48:55 I mean, would he do it for four hours?
    0:48:55 I don’t know.
    0:49:00 The four-hour ask, the three- to four-hour ask of somebody who also books politicians is
    0:49:01 hard.
    0:49:07 I have trouble—I like to book people for 90 minutes to two hours, and I tend to get negotiated
    0:49:13 down to—I try not to go under 75 or 65, but even to somebody, I think, well-regarded
    0:49:18 in that world, you know, it’s very, very, very hard for me to get politicians to sit for
    0:49:18 two hours.
    0:49:23 I don’t have the sense that the three-hour ask is a big ask because of scheduling.
    0:49:27 I think it still is grounded in the fear of saying the wrong thing.
    0:49:29 I just think they’re used to something else, right?
    0:49:33 I think that when you talk—I mean, they are scheduled by schedulers, right?
    0:49:37 If you talk to them yourself, if you end up having a personal relationship with Wes Moore
    0:49:43 of Maryland, and he wants to do your show, he will tell his scheduler, I want three to
    0:49:44 four hours to do the show.
    0:49:46 But the scheduler is used to a world.
    0:49:49 The staff is used to a world where nobody gets three to four hours for the boss.
    0:49:51 Reporters don’t.
    0:49:52 Donors don’t.
    0:49:54 Policy staffers don’t.
    0:49:58 So then when some interview comes in and they say, hey, I want three to four hours,
    0:50:01 the answer is no, because culturally it’s not done.
    0:50:08 You need Donald Trump himself, Pete Buttigieg himself, AOC herself, to say to their staff,
    0:50:10 no, no, no, we’re making time for this.
    0:50:10 Right.
    0:50:12 Because it’s not how they make time for things normally.
    0:50:14 I don’t know how much it is fear.
    0:50:18 I do think they’re unused to it, but I suspect a lot of it is simply booking culture.
    0:50:20 Like, I run into it, too.
    0:50:22 They’re not used to saying yes to three to four hours for anything.
    0:50:24 It’s not that they don’t have it.
    0:50:27 They have three to four hours if their kid is having a graduation, right?
    0:50:28 I mean, they’re human beings.
    0:50:29 They can make time.
    0:50:33 But it would have to come in a way from them.
    0:50:35 My sense is this is part of the Rogan.
    0:50:39 It’s very unclear because there are very differing stories on what happened in the Rogan-Harris
    0:50:39 negotiations.
    0:50:43 But it does seem that time was one of the sticking points.
    0:50:47 It’s also possible that you’re going to find, as you try to interview Democratic politicians,
    0:50:51 that the exact same thing that happened with tech CEOs is going to happen among Democratic
    0:50:52 politicians.
    0:50:57 You interviewed some tech CEOs, and then they did a great job.
    0:51:00 And their friends were like, you were fantastic on the Lex Friedman podcast.
    0:51:04 That was such a great thing that you said in, you know, minute 97.
    0:51:08 And then there becomes a bit of a meme that you can create really high value moments for
    0:51:10 yourself if you appear on Lex’s podcast.
    0:51:14 And then it becomes less risky for the next marginal CEO to say yes.
    0:51:18 And I think right now, what we’re talking about fundamentally is not physics.
    0:51:19 It’s culture.
    0:51:20 It’s just norms.
    0:51:25 I think there’s a fear of low expected value if you’re a high-ranking Democratic politician
    0:51:27 and maybe you do a podcast like this.
    0:51:32 What if I say the wrong thing and it goes viral and my bookers and my agenda people and myself
    0:51:37 just feel terrible for the next few weeks because all we see on Blue Sky and X is just people
    0:51:37 hating.
    0:51:44 But if you get one interview that goes well, if you talk to Wes Moore, let’s say, and there
    0:51:50 is a five-minute segment where he articulates some vision of liberalism in the 2020s that
    0:51:54 everyone says, my gosh, that is the best possible articulation of what the Democratic Party can
    0:51:56 stand for the next four years that I’ve ever heard.
    0:52:01 Suddenly what’s happened is that appearing on the show becomes massively de-risked.
    0:52:03 And in fact, the risk valence entirely switches.
    0:52:08 We are leaving dollars on the floor by not appearing on this guy’s podcast because I’m
    0:52:09 AOC.
    0:52:11 I’m a sensational communicator.
    0:52:14 If Wes Moore can do it, I can do it even better.
    0:52:19 And so I think to a certain extent, there’s a little bit like of a riot theory phenomenon
    0:52:19 here.
    0:52:22 The person who throws the first stone in a riot has to be very courageous.
    0:52:26 The person who throws the hundredth and first stone in a riot doesn’t need to be courageous
    0:52:27 at all.
    0:52:32 And there might be a little bit of that going on that people need to see proof of high expected
    0:52:39 value before it breaks what we’re acknowledging to be a bit of a communications norm on the
    0:52:39 left.
    0:52:42 That’s a really convincing and powerful theory.
    0:52:48 I think I want to push back on it because so what’s what’s going to happen, for example,
    0:52:51 this very conversation, you’re both going to come off brilliant.
    0:52:55 Well, we’re barely like 50 minutes into a four hour.
    0:52:56 Let’s see what happens.
    0:52:57 I have no more material.
    0:52:58 It’s all straight down.
    0:53:03 But what people will get tired, they’ll listen to this and they’re like, well, that’s Ezra.
    0:53:05 Like, he’s brilliant.
    0:53:09 They’re going to be worried about their own candidate if AOC comes off brilliant.
    0:53:13 They’re not going to be thinking, oh, this is a place to be brilliant.
    0:53:15 They’re going to be like, well, that’s because AOC is brilliant.
    0:53:17 But my candidate is not.
    0:53:19 It still boils down to the caution.
    0:53:23 I’ve had a lot of Republican, high profile Republican people reach out to me.
    0:53:25 They don’t give a shit.
    0:53:26 They’re just like, whatever.
    0:53:27 I’ll come.
    0:53:40 People on the left, I’ve had two people who I respect deeply and admire express caution about the previous people I’ve interviewed and not wanting to come on.
    0:53:42 Well, that’s the thing the left has to get over.
    0:53:42 Yeah.
    0:53:45 Like that’s a very important cultural.
    0:53:51 They began to do a thing where spaces were verboten because it had platformed so and so.
    0:53:54 And I think that culture is changing.
    0:54:03 I think they realized, I mean, that they abandoned huge, vast swaths of significant culture because like they wouldn’t go places.
    0:54:04 It’s crazy.
    0:54:09 Like you have to, the idea that you only go where people agree with you is genuine lunacy.
    0:54:11 I don’t want to act as your booker here.
    0:54:16 And 20, you know, 2020 candidates are what they are and they each have their own press strategy.
    0:54:19 But I would say like I’m doing this myself on my show.
    0:54:29 I like, I don’t think the best people to get right now in the Democratic Party are the seven people who lead the polls.
    0:54:31 Like I’m looking for people who will think out loud.
    0:54:33 Like I just had Jake Auchincloss on.
    0:54:36 He’s like a not that well-known House member from Massachusetts.
    0:54:38 I just think he’s a guy who thinks out loud.
    0:54:44 I am booking someone else right now like that.
    0:54:46 Two more people like that, frankly, who are neither of them.
    0:54:47 They’re like the net.
    0:54:49 Like I could get like a bigger name.
    0:54:52 I’m more interested in people who are thinking.
    0:54:56 Like one reason I think Bernie Sanders always did everything is to him.
    0:54:59 The thing he was really doing was he had something to say.
    0:55:05 The point of almost everything for Bernie Sanders is to be in a place where people can hear the thing he has to say.
    0:55:08 And a lot of politicians don’t have that.
    0:55:08 Right.
    0:55:13 The point of anything is what it does for them in the polls, what it does for them with the donors, how it repositions them.
    0:55:17 I’m interested right now at this moment because it’s not 2028.
    0:55:18 It’s not 2027.
    0:55:21 There’s no Democratic primary happening right now.
    0:55:24 The idea that you can like pre-run the Democratic Party is stupid or primary is stupid.
    0:55:26 We don’t even know what the like we might be in World War Three.
    0:55:27 Right.
    0:55:29 We have no idea what, you know, we might have, you know, AGI.
    0:55:37 Like the things that the 2027 primary might be about, the kinds of scandals that might have erupted by them are totally different.
    0:55:41 Whereas, you know, the reason to have people on is because they are saying something.
    0:55:48 They’re a live mind in the moment that has a perspective on this that you want to hear.
    0:55:51 And so I would look for that.
    0:56:01 And I think a lot of people who are not, you know, there are people who are trying to protect something, protect a standing in the polls, protect a sort of coalitional set of allies they currently have.
    0:56:05 And then there are people who are, you know, trying to just be heard.
    0:56:12 Again, a lot of Bernie Sanders’ culture, the way he does media, is now Bernie Sanders is Bernie Sanders.
    0:56:14 He didn’t used to be.
    0:56:16 He wasn’t in 2015 even.
    0:56:21 Like when Bernie Sanders ran for president in 2015, it wasn’t initially a big deal.
    0:56:24 It was like, oh, bummer, Elizabeth Warren didn’t run for president.
    0:56:25 It was a feeling of most people on the left.
    0:56:32 And so Bernie Sanders was a guy who’s been saying the same thing for decades, but in the wilderness and nobody was listening.
    0:56:43 And now he still has the instincts of somebody who understood that, like, the most important thing was to find a place where people were listening, where they would let you talk and even better let you talk for a while.
    0:56:48 I think the candidate who’s going to do well in 2028 is going to have an instinct like that.
    0:57:06 But even right now, I think the question is, one of my big questions as I’m booking for my show is just, I want someone who has a perspective on this moment, who feels like they have had a thought that is about right now and who we are right now and what the story of America is right now.
    0:57:08 I think what’s really important is what Ezra said.
    0:57:09 It’s about having something to say.
    0:57:16 We wanted to talk to you and talk together about how much we wanted to talk to you because we got something to say.
    0:57:19 You know, we wrote a 300-page book about how much we have to say.
    0:57:27 We love going on podcasts and television shows and radio and then doing live events to tell people what we have to say.
    0:57:34 We think this idea of abundance isn’t just important for redefining what the American left means.
    0:57:42 We think that the outcome of thinking abundantly about housing and energy and science and technology is what politics is all about.
    0:57:45 It’s about giving people the good life, and we think this is the path toward it.
    0:57:54 So certainly one thing that’s profoundly motivated us is having something very concrete that we just want to get out there in the world.
    0:58:02 Like, my sense as a writer, as a thinker, is I want my software running on as many pieces of hardware as possible.
    0:58:05 I want to get my ideas out there as much as possible.
    0:58:10 And who gets credit for them and where the idea goes, and that’s all secondary.
    0:58:12 I believe in ideas because they’re important.
    0:58:19 And so I want to talk to people who have large platforms about those ideas because how else does the idea get into the mainstream except through those large platforms?
    0:58:22 That’s how broadcast technology works in the first place.
    0:58:28 So maybe one thing that you’re touching on is a little bit of ideological ambiguity.
    0:58:34 Maybe a part of this is this sense that people don’t know exactly what it is they have to say for three hours.
    0:58:37 All I can say for sure is that we know.
    0:58:41 There’s also a reality, and I mean, the book is trying to enter into this reality.
    0:58:44 I think one thing you’re saying is that people have coded you.
    0:58:49 And so Donald Trump is really excited to do it and maybe loving politicians or not.
    0:58:55 One thing that we think is that we’re in a period of realignment.
    0:59:02 The last chapter of the book, we talk about an idea that is picked up from a historian named Gary Garstle, which is an idea of political orders.
    0:59:12 And political orders are periods that have a sort of structure of consensus and a structure of a zone of conflict.
    0:59:16 But it’s more or less agreed on by the two sides, even if only tacitly.
    0:59:18 So you have a New Deal order.
    0:59:20 New Deal order is founded by FDR.
    0:59:31 It is entrenched when Dwight Eisenhower accepts the New Deal as part of the U.S. proving that it can treat workers better than the Soviet Union.
    0:59:35 So those are sort of right there, the three ingredients typically of an order.
    0:59:41 You have a party that starts it, opposition party that accepts key premises, right?
    0:59:44 Dwight Eisenhower doesn’t come in and say, we’re going to roll back the whole New Deal.
    0:59:48 And it’s often held in place by an external antagonist, in that case, the Soviet Union.
    0:59:55 You have then, you have in the 70s, stagflation, the Vietnam War, a series of problems that the New Deal order no longer seems able to handle.
    0:59:58 So you have the rise of what he calls the neoliberal order.
    1:00:03 And the neoliberal order is, if you’re going to choose a founder, it’s going to be Reagan on that one, right?
    1:00:04 It’s much more about markets.
    1:00:06 It is very concerned with things like inflation.
    1:00:09 And it really is entrenched by Bill Clinton.
    1:00:11 You know, the era of big government is over.
    1:00:15 And partially, it’s entrenched also by the fall of the Soviet Union, right?
    1:00:24 The fall of the Soviet Union is like this proof point that the sort of capitalists are right, that markets are the way of the future.
    1:00:26 Government does not know what it’s doing.
    1:00:30 And that becomes like the governing set of assumptions.
    1:00:32 And so there are arguments about what the markets should be doing, right?
    1:00:35 You know, Obamacare is about creating sort of markets and health insurance, right?
    1:00:37 You can use markets for very progressive ends.
    1:00:40 We want to use markets for lots of progressive ends.
    1:00:47 But the neoliberal order basically collapses amidst a financial crisis and climate change and China.
    1:00:52 And those are the three things that sort of girth a little bit, but also separately, we think, kill it.
    1:00:55 Which is the neoliberal order does not have an answer to the financial crisis.
    1:00:58 And it botches, in many ways, the answer to the financial crisis.
    1:01:05 This puts too little demand into the economy, lets a sort of recession linger and a very slow recovery linger for too long.
    1:01:07 It doesn’t know what to say, really, about climate change.
    1:01:15 Markets have made a lot of people rich by, you know, doing a lot of things that are very, very damaging for the environment, very damaging for the future of the human race, potentially.
    1:01:17 And you have the rise of China.
    1:01:21 And the neoliberal order said, you integrate China into the global economy.
    1:01:23 You bring them into the WTO.
    1:01:24 You trade with them.
    1:01:26 You help them build their industrial base.
    1:01:28 You help them pull their people out of poverty, which that part is good.
    1:01:31 And they will become more like the West.
    1:01:33 They will liberalize.
    1:01:34 They will have a free press.
    1:01:39 They will, the richer we make China, the more China is going to become like us.
    1:01:42 And that proves totally wrong, right?
    1:01:44 China becomes more authoritarian over time.
    1:01:46 But it also sort of develops an industrial base.
    1:01:51 It becomes, as it does not become more like us, it becomes dangerous, you know, at least in our view, right?
    1:01:58 You don’t want to ever have a conflict with another country who you’ve outsourced your key industrial base to.
    1:02:01 And so you have the sort of fall of that order.
    1:02:08 And then, again, here, things that would have been ridiculous at one point in American politics had become possible.
    1:02:10 Bernie Sanders is one of them, right?
    1:02:15 The idea that you would have somebody, a self-described socialist, running for president and coming anywhere near the Democratic nomination.
    1:02:17 That was unthinkable in 2004.
    1:02:19 And by 2016, it almost happened.
    1:02:21 And Donald Trump is another thing.
    1:02:27 Donald Trump runs, like, headlong into the failures of neoliberalism in the Republican Party.
    1:02:28 He runs against trade.
    1:02:32 He runs against a sort of Paul Ryan, more open to immigration.
    1:02:36 George W. Bush and John McCain were both very big on liberalizing immigration policy.
    1:02:41 He runs against the Iraq War and, you know, sort of foreign adventurism.
    1:02:48 And there’s a sort of isolationist instinct that coexists very awkwardly now within a territorial expansionist instinct.
    1:02:50 But at least to 2016, it was more isolationist.
    1:03:08 And so Donald Trump, in his sort of reimagining of the Republican Party as a right-wing populist, more like sort of some Christian Democratic parties in other countries, you know, up in that quadrant of socially conservative, economically populist, that becomes something that’s possible.
    1:03:12 But nothing has found an equilibrium, right?
    1:03:15 Nobody’s agreed to the other side’s premises.
    1:03:17 There are certain ones that people are agreeing on.
    1:03:21 Both the Republican and Democratic parties have a very different view on China now, right?
    1:03:25 Like Biden kept a lot of Trump’s policies on China and actually strengthened them.
    1:03:28 And now Trump is building on that aggressively again.
    1:03:33 But in terms of the other things, there isn’t agreement about what the next period in American politics should look like.
    1:03:43 And that’s one reason I think it’s very dangerous, both as a question of media strategy, but also as a question of politics, to code people, places, platforms too tightly.
    1:03:46 Republicans and Democrats aren’t going to get along in Congress.
    1:03:49 That has to do with, I think, the incentives of Congress.
    1:03:51 My first book is called Why We’re Polarized.
    1:03:54 It’s about those almost hydraulic incentives for partisanship.
    1:04:12 But in terms of what is the meaning of my podcast, of Derek’s, of yours, of Joe Rogan, of Theo Vaughn, of Call Her Daddy, of a million different places that are not well-coded, that’s, I think, very up for grabs.
    1:04:14 I mean, Elon Musk was an Obama-era liberal in 2012.
    1:04:19 I mean, I think his personal process of radicalization is not going to unwind itself.
    1:04:22 But a lot of the people who Democrats are like, all these billionaires are right-wing now.
    1:04:25 No, people are just uncertain.
    1:04:27 I mean, some of them are a little bit afraid, but people are uncertain.
    1:04:29 They’re moving back and forth.
    1:04:31 The sort of texture of it is unsettled.
    1:04:34 And it’s going to take time.
    1:04:38 These transitionary periods, I mean, they can go very badly, too.
    1:04:40 But they take time.
    1:04:55 And I think people who are clinging to old certainties about what tells you which side folks are on, my sense is a lot of people who are very open to MAGA in 2025 are going to feel very differently about it in 2028, depending on how they do.
    1:04:55 Right.
    1:04:57 If they do great, then they’re going to entrench.
    1:05:02 But if they don’t, then a lot of people who became MAGA curious are not going to be MAGA curious anymore.
    1:05:05 But they’re not going to want the last Democratic Party either.
    1:05:15 I was making this point to someone the other day about why the Democratic Party’s embrace of the Liz Cheney-style independent didn’t work.
    1:05:18 Liz Cheney, of course, being Dick Cheney’s daughter, a Republican.
    1:05:25 But what Liz Cheney, the never-Trumpers were, were a way of reaching out to who the Democratic Party thought the independents were.
    1:05:33 But the key thing about an independent to a political party is not that they don’t like the other party.
    1:05:36 It’s that they’re an independent because they also don’t like your party.
    1:05:42 And so finding a bunch of people who are meant to be messengers to them about why they shouldn’t like the other party, it’s fine.
    1:05:46 But what you need to do is explain why they should like your party.
    1:05:48 You need to have some message.
    1:05:49 You need to accept some fault.
    1:05:53 You need to think about what it was about you that drove them away.
    1:06:00 One of our deep views about politics right now, and not politics, policy, the texture of the economy of the country,
    1:06:05 is that the last period in American politics, in the economy, was about demand.
    1:06:09 The fundamental problem coming out of the financial crisis was demand.
    1:06:11 We had too little demand in the economy.
    1:06:18 Behind that too little demand in the economy was this other thing that was building up, which was a cost-of-living crisis.
    1:06:20 Housing was getting super expensive.
    1:06:21 Health care.
    1:06:25 In certain ways, energy, but energy is more complicated in ways we can talk about.
    1:06:26 Elder care.
    1:06:28 Child care.
    1:06:29 Higher education.
    1:06:29 Right?
    1:06:30 This is a point.
    1:06:33 My wife is a journalist at The Atlantic, Annie Lowry with Derek.
    1:06:39 And she wrote this piece in 2020, early 2020, right before the pandemic, that went very viral, called the affordability crisis.
    1:06:44 And it sticks in my head because she’s writing at a time when people were saying, the economy’s great.
    1:06:45 Everything’s great.
    1:06:48 Like, you looked at measures of consumer confidence in 2020, February of 2020.
    1:06:49 Terrific.
    1:06:53 She’s like, so how come if the economy is so great, everybody I talked to is so upset?
    1:07:01 And she’s like, look, like, people are making more money than ever, but it’s getting eaten up and eaten up and eaten up by these things they really need.
    1:07:04 They keep getting more expensive, even as consumer goods get cheaper.
    1:07:06 Then the pandemic hits.
    1:07:07 The problem becomes COVID.
    1:07:13 But then you have inflation and inflation moves a problem of the economy.
    1:07:17 The fundamental problem everybody’s paying attention to from the demand side.
    1:07:18 How do we get more people at work?
    1:07:21 How do we get them to spend more money to the supply side?
    1:07:22 We don’t have enough.
    1:07:23 Right.
    1:07:28 We have a constriction of semiconductors, of used cars, and then eventually everything.
    1:07:28 Right.
    1:07:29 Everything is getting more expensive.
    1:07:32 And we do get, I mean, we’ll see what happens with tariffs.
    1:07:37 We do get, you know, by 2024, the rate of inflation under control.
    1:07:39 But prices are still much higher.
    1:07:41 And now people are paying real attention to prices.
    1:07:49 And the affordability crisis, which, again, is a cost of living crisis, which had been growing for a very long time, is now at crisis levels.
    1:07:51 And it becomes the substance of politics.
    1:07:54 People, you know, you had all these Democrats saying, I don’t know what the problem is.
    1:07:57 Like, inflation has come down to whatever it was, three to four percent in 2024.
    1:07:59 And they’re right about that.
    1:08:00 But one, the price level of everything remained high.
    1:08:04 But two, people were now like, the fuck is housing so expensive for?
    1:08:06 Like, I’m never going to be able to afford a home.
    1:08:10 Like, my parents went to public university debt free.
    1:08:11 I could never do that.
    1:08:14 And what we’ve done is fail.
    1:08:17 I mean, Democrats in this case, Republicans haven’t done that great on it either.
    1:08:20 But in blue states, Democrats have failed on cost of living.
    1:08:27 The reason California, Illinois, New York are losing hundreds of thousands of people to Florida, Texas, Arizona, Colorado.
    1:08:28 Is that they’ve failed on cost of living.
    1:08:31 It is too expensive to live there.
    1:08:33 And the reason they failed at cost of living is supply.
    1:08:35 We they did not make enough.
    1:08:38 They actually made it too hard in many cases to make enough of the things people needed.
    1:08:41 Some of those are straightforward, like we didn’t let people build enough homes.
    1:08:47 Some of them are more like we’ve made it too expensive to build public infrastructure, like high speed rail or the second avenue subway.
    1:08:53 Some of it has to do, I think, in the long run with with innovation and the relationship between Democrats and technology.
    1:08:57 But one of our views is that there are other things in politics that will matter, too.
    1:09:03 But we are in a period where the cost of living supply affordability is the fundamental economic question.
    1:09:07 Donald Trump himself has said he won because of the price of groceries.
    1:09:14 He’s got this very funny quote where he’s like, nobody said I don’t have a Donald Trump impression, but he’s like nobody ever used the word groceries in politics before I I did.
    1:09:16 Well, it’d be good if he then wasn’t making it more expensive.
    1:09:18 But Democrats believe his weakness is cost of living.
    1:09:19 They’re probably right.
    1:09:21 But they don’t have a strength on it.
    1:09:29 And the key question our book is trying to refocus politics on is how do we make more of what we need?
    1:09:35 How does the government either organize itself or organize markets to create more of what we need?
    1:09:42 And how do we admit as liberals times when we’ve put that we’ve made it so the government makes it too hard to make more of what we need?
    1:09:44 I’ll say one last thing in this pretty long answer.
    1:09:54 I thought one of the most important things that has come out recently is a piece in Foreign Affairs by Brian Deese, who’s a former head of Joe Biden’s National Economics Council.
    1:09:57 And Deese helped negotiate every major bill Biden passed.
    1:10:06 It’s a very straightforward piece about what it is Democrats have not done to make it possible to build at the level of their goals.
    1:10:13 And he says things like we should just remove federal funding from cities that have highly restrictive home zoning codes.
    1:10:17 He says we should have a goal for how much nuclear we build in the next 10 years.
    1:10:20 We should be trying to reach a goal of new nuclear capacity.
    1:10:24 It’s a very, very important piece because Deese is right at the center of democratic policy.
    1:10:27 Instead of retrenching, he’s like, OK, we didn’t get there.
    1:10:31 What do we do now to make it possible to get to the place we promised you we can go?
    1:10:40 And we should say that the book you’ve mentioned, which I’ve gotten a chance to read, and I think it’s incredible, highly recommend, it’s called Abundance.
    1:10:50 I think of it as a kind of manifesto for what the left would represent in the coming years.
    1:10:55 So I think people should read it from that angle.
    1:11:00 And both of you have been writing about this topic sort of from different angles for a while.
    1:11:11 I think in 22, Derek, you wrote an article on this topic of abundance titled The Simple Plan to Solve All of America’s Problems.
    1:11:20 And Ezra, you wrote an article in 21 on Supply Side Progressivism titled The Economic Mistake the Left is Finally Confronting.
    1:11:28 And you’ve just described, laid out this more progressive perspective on supply side economics that you’re presenting in abundance.
    1:11:39 I was wondering if you could kind of give the broad, high level explanation of this idea of supply side progressivism.
    1:11:48 Well, my piece about the abundance agenda, which I wrote in 2022, started with me standing outside waiting for a COVID test.
    1:11:53 And this was a period where two years after the pandemic started, COVID tests were still being rationed.
    1:11:55 And it was like 21 degrees outside.
    1:12:00 And I was getting very, very frustrated about the fact that still we seem to have a scarcity of COVID tests.
    1:12:05 And as I’m sitting outside, just, you know, freezing my ass off and just getting really mad, I’m thinking, you know, it’s not just COVID tests.
    1:12:06 We’ve had scarcity.
    1:12:15 We also had a scarcity of COVID vaccines early on in the rollout, which created this really discombobulated scheme for distributing the early COVID vaccines.
    1:12:25 And then also you go earlier into March and May of 2020, and we had a shortage of PPE equipment for our doctors to remain safe as they were taking care of a pandemic.
    1:12:32 And I thought, you know, it’s interesting that this entire experience of the pandemic has essentially been defined by this concept of scarcity.
    1:12:36 And as I zoomed out a little bit, I thought, you know, it’s not just the pandemic.
    1:12:41 It’s really so much the 21st century economy that’s been defined by scarcity.
    1:12:49 Ezra beautifully described the degree to which housing unaffordability has become the economic problem of our time.
    1:12:57 You know, in the history of political orders, each political order is in part defined by the internal crisis.
    1:13:00 The Great Depression springs New Deal liberalism.
    1:13:03 Stagflation springs neoliberalism.
    1:13:08 Now we’re in this molten moment where we’re waiting for the new political order to emerge.
    1:13:14 And it’s going to emerge because of the lever, because of the power of housing affordability.
    1:13:19 You have to solve that problem if you want to solve the problem of American anger about prices.
    1:13:21 And part of this is just pure arithmetic.
    1:13:29 If you look at any family’s budget, the biggest part of their budget in any given year is the part that goes to rent or mortgage.
    1:13:30 It’s housing, housing, housing.
    1:13:33 And housing connects to everything else.
    1:13:34 It connects to innovation.
    1:13:38 You want cities to agglomerate, to bring smart people together.
    1:13:40 Housing relates to all sorts of other affordability.
    1:13:50 Like if you care about the cost of child care or elder care, you want to make it cheaper to house institutions, buildings that can care for children, which means you want to bring those rents down.
    1:13:58 And so I thought as I’m zooming out on this concept of scarcity in the 21st century, we have chosen to make housing scarce.
    1:14:18 In some of the most productive cities and states often run by Democrats, we have rules, zoning rules, historic preservation rules, permitting processes, environmental reviews, laws that we created that have gotten in the way of making abundant the most important material good there is, which is housing.
    1:14:24 And as I kept sort of working myself into a lather and getting mad about the world, I thought, you know, it’s actually not just housing.
    1:14:26 It’s clean energy, too.
    1:14:42 There’s lots of environmentalists who are on my side and believing very fervently in climate change who’ve made it very difficult to site solar panels or site solar farms or to raise wind turbines or to advance geothermal or to accept nuclear power.
    1:14:49 We have chosen to make clean energy scarce as well.
    1:14:56 And then finally, the ultimate boss of scarcity was the pandemic itself, which constricted the supply of all sorts of goods around the world, setting the price of everything to the moon.
    1:15:01 And that’s why inflation wasn’t just an American phenomenon, not just a North American phenomenon.
    1:15:02 It was a global phenomenon.
    1:15:15 And I thought what we need to solve for this crisis of penumbral scarcity is an abundance agenda, an approach towards solving America’s problems that puts abundance first.
    1:15:19 And Ezra and I have a very focused definition of abundance.
    1:15:26 We believe we say in the first page of the book, America needs to build and invent more of the things it needs.
    1:15:29 We believe that housing is critical.
    1:15:30 We believe energy is critical.
    1:15:32 We talk a lot about science and technology.
    1:15:50 But we really put government effectiveness at the heart of this because one really deep vein of our book is a criticism of where liberalism has gone wrong in the last 50 years, where liberalism has gone from, in the New Deal era, a politics of building things.
    1:16:00 I mean, FDR and the progressives transformed the physical world, not just with infrastructure projects, but with building roads, the highway system under Dwight Eisenhower.
    1:16:05 We changed the physical world during the decades of the 1930s to the 1950s.
    1:16:12 But in the last half century, liberalism has become very good at the politics of blocking rather than the politics of building.
    1:16:26 And if you look at the way that liberals define success in the last few decades, it’s often about success defined by how much money you can spend rather than how much money, rather than how many things you can actually build.
    1:16:36 I mean, you look at the fact that, for example, in the book, we have so many examples, California authorizes more than $30 billion to build a high speed rail system, which basically doesn’t exist.
    1:16:44 I mean, just last week, the mayor of Chicago bragged that they spent $11 billion building 10,000 affordable housing units.
    1:16:48 That’s $1.1 million per affordable housing unit.
    1:16:49 That’s absolutely pathetic.
    1:16:55 We have a story in the book about a $1.7 million public toilet built in San Francisco.
    1:17:05 $1.7 million for a toilet because of all of the rules that get in the way and raise the price of building public infrastructure like public bathrooms in San Francisco and California.
    1:17:24 So liberalism, I’m worried over the last 50 years, has become so good at the politics of blocking and the politics of associating the money authorized as success rather than what you build in the physical world that we’ve lost sense of material abundance of how important outcomes are and not just processes.
    1:17:39 And so this is a book that’s trying to nudge the Democratic Party back to what we think are, in a way, historically its roots, thinking about what Americans need and making it easier for government to act efficiently to provide them.
    1:17:42 And that really does, I think, begin with housing and energy.
    1:18:03 Is there a tension between kind of the left, the progressive wealth redistribution kind of ideas with the idea of building that’s primarily sort of getting out of the way and letting the market get the job done?
    1:18:05 Let’s say two things on that.
    1:18:13 So, one, we think there’s a real tension between equality, redistribution, and constricting the supply of specifically housing.
    1:18:17 So housing, by the way, I would love to understand this.
    1:18:19 That’s the big problem of our era.
    1:18:23 Housing and energy, I think, are the two most significant that we focus on in the book, right?
    1:18:24 Housing and clean energy.
    1:18:25 We don’t have housing.
    1:18:26 We don’t have enough clean energy.
    1:18:28 I would add things to that.
    1:18:30 Public infrastructure.
    1:18:35 We don’t really focus that much on education, but we could, and we could talk about that.
    1:18:39 Immigration is probably there for me, too, and we talk about that a little bit in the book.
    1:18:42 And we do talk a lot about how to pull innovation forward from the future.
    1:18:50 But when you ask about sort of redistribution, I really think this is an important point because there’s a great new paper by David Schleicher, and I’m so sorry because I’m forgetting his co-author.
    1:18:51 They’re law professors.
    1:18:58 So when they talk about the victory of gentry law, we used to have a law that was very dynamic when it came to property and land.
    1:19:00 It was very different than how things were in Britain.
    1:19:07 And over time, you know, sort of back half of the 20th century, we moved American law to be much more for what they call the gentry.
    1:19:11 We moved it much more towards protecting those who currently have things, right?
    1:19:18 And we do that through a million things, covenants and HOAs and all these sort of contracts who make people enter into so they can’t even build on their own land.
    1:19:27 But one of the things that just happens when you constrict the supply of housing is that people who got in when the getting was good, you know, I mean, it’s a classic story in New York and L.A.
    1:19:39 And in SF, you know, you bought a place in 1977 for $220,000 and now it’s worth $2.7 million and maybe you’ll pass it on to your kids or you’ll sell it.
    1:19:42 But the working class families can’t afford to live there anymore, right?
    1:19:44 So that’s not even a question of redistribution.
    1:19:51 Sometimes what you need in order to create the possibilities for opportunity and mobility is enough supply of the thing.
    1:19:55 At the same time, we don’t think like that redistribution is the problem here.
    1:19:56 I’m pro redistribution.
    1:19:58 I’m pro more redistribution than we currently do.
    1:20:01 But to give one example, the way these can be great days that go together.
    1:20:06 Derek tells in the book at some great length the story of Operation Warp Speed.
    1:20:16 And here you have in the mRNA vaccines technology that was critically funded by public money, specifically DARPA at different points.
    1:20:27 Then, hastened, you know, after COVID, government through Operation Warp Speed under Donald Trump, you know, really tried to clear out regulatory cruft, move these things really fast.
    1:20:35 But the demand on the side of the public for having funded so much of this or having made so much possible was that when these vaccines hit, they were going to be free.
    1:20:45 Maybe the most important medical advance of that entire era, and it wasn’t going to be like Ozempic, say, where it’s, you know, $15,000 for a year of doses, right?
    1:20:48 It wasn’t going to be only available to the richest people at the beginning.
    1:20:53 We were going to try to give it to everybody sorted by need to the best that we could, and it would be free.
    1:20:55 Now, you’re not going to do that with everything, right?
    1:21:00 There are places for the price signal to actually function and where it can function to then bring on more supply later.
    1:21:09 And, you know, there’s all the econ 101 stuff that we all know, but there are a lot of places where redistribution and supply increases go hand in hand.
    1:21:15 Another good example, I’ve done over the course of my career a huge amount of work on health insurance reform and universal health care.
    1:21:29 And let’s say you got, you know, Bernie Sanders had become president in 2016 and had swept in a huge Democratic majority, and they passed Bernie’s single-payer-for-all plan, which was, by the way, much more expansive than any existing single-payer plan in the world, right?
    1:21:32 It covered much more than Canada’s or the UK’s or anybody else.
    1:21:39 If you had done that, what you would have needed immediately was a huge supply increase in health care because you would have had a huge demand increase.
    1:21:41 What happens if you make health care free?
    1:21:42 People are going to use more of it.
    1:21:45 If you make insurance much more widespread, people are going to go to the doctor more often.
    1:21:50 Well, if you don’t have enough doctors, you don’t have enough nurses, you don’t have enough surgeons, you need more.
    1:22:02 We constrict the supply of all those things using residency rules, using, you know, nursing rules, immigration rules, who can practice as a nurse practitioner, what can a nurse practitioner actually do?
    1:22:06 You have to be attentive to the supply side, even if what you’re doing is aggressive redistribution.
    1:22:08 Now, there are places where these things don’t conflict.
    1:22:15 Like, I’d like to see a much expanded child tax credit, and I don’t think that has, like, I don’t think that has a big supply side implication one way or the other.
    1:22:28 But on a lot of the things we’re talking about, even if what you want to do, and it is often what we want to do, to do more redistribution, if you’re redistributing some kind of thing that gives you access to a good or a service, you need to expand the good or the service.
    1:22:29 We do rental vouchers.
    1:22:42 Giving people rental vouchers in the San Francisco housing market, unless you build more housing, just creates something that our friends at the Niskanen Center call cost-disease socialism, where you are increasing demand for good at which you’ve constricted supply.
    1:22:44 If you do that, you’re just going to drive the price up.
    1:22:48 To some degree, that’s at least part of the story of higher education.
    1:22:58 We give people Pell grants, we give people all kinds of subsidies for higher ed, but we have not done nearly enough to increase supply or regulate the way in which college is just in pocket part of that money.
    1:23:04 And so they’re building these fancy gyms, and they’re competing with each other, but they’re not actually increasing the supply of slots.
    1:23:07 It’s certainly not the level we want them to.
    1:23:11 So there’s a lot here where I think it scrambles traditional categories.
    1:23:21 You cannot do effective redistribution in ways that we would like to see them done, and many people on the left would like to see them done, if you’re not taking supply of the thing that you’re subsidizing seriously.
    1:23:33 If you think about it from a first principle standpoint, what if what you wanted to do was to bring American poverty as close to 0.0% as you possibly could?
    1:23:35 You got a bunch of smart people into a room.
    1:23:37 You said, what can we possibly do?
    1:23:48 Well, in my opinion, the answer would include a lot of what are sometimes called demand-side policies, a lot of redistribution of income.
    1:23:51 The child tax credit, I think, would be essential.
    1:23:54 Expanding the earned income tax credit would be essential.
    1:23:58 Expanding cash welfare might be essential.
    1:24:03 Certainly redistributing income from the rich to the poor would be essential.
    1:24:05 These are demand-side policies.
    1:24:07 They’re tax and spending policies.
    1:24:14 But if you only approach this subject through the demand-side, you will utterly and categorically fail.
    1:24:18 Because like we said, housing is the biggest part of a typical family’s budget.
    1:24:29 And if your only policy on housing is to increase housing vouchers without increasing the supply of housing, macroeconomically speaking, there’s only one direction for housing prices to go, and it’s straight up to the moon.
    1:24:53 And one of the conceptual scoops that Ezra and I are trying to work out for the left, for liberals in America, is to get people to ask the question, how do we solve this problem with supply?
    1:24:55 Housing is a crisis.
    1:24:56 How do we solve it with supply?
    1:24:58 Energy is a crisis.
    1:24:59 How do we solve it with supply?
    1:25:04 Medical innovation, scientific discovery is a massively interesting phenomenon.
    1:25:07 We don’t even understand how it exists, really.
    1:25:09 Like, how do great discoveries actually happen?
    1:25:12 Is there a supply-side policy for that as well?
    1:25:15 That’s the question we’re asking over and over in the book.
    1:25:22 So at the end of the day, demand-side progressivism and what Ezra calls supply-side progressivism really are peanut butter and chocolate.
    1:25:24 They are two flavors that go beautifully well together.
    1:25:28 But here’s the problem that I think your question was putting your finger on.
    1:25:41 I think a lot of Americans don’t believe that these things work together because what they see is a liberalism that just taxes and spends, and Americans don’t see the benefits of that spending.
    1:25:46 The Biden administration authorized $42 billion to build rural broadband in America.
    1:25:47 Practically none of it was built.
    1:25:52 Authorized $7.5 billion to build EV charger stations in America.
    1:25:53 Practically none of it was built.
    1:25:57 How many tens of billions of dollars have been authorized to build high-speed rail in California?
    1:25:58 Practically none of it exists.
    1:25:59 You can’t write it.
    1:26:08 So the problem is when the reputation of a tax-and-spend liberal makes contact with the fact that people don’t see the results in the physical world.
    1:26:10 Like, where’s my money going?
    1:26:16 I have in my head something like this idea of what I call equinox liberalism.
    1:26:21 We used to say there’s some forms of liberalism where it’s very expensive, but you see what you’re getting.
    1:26:25 Like, when you spend $270 to go to equinox for the month, right?
    1:26:28 It’s a really expensive gym bill, but people who go there seem to love it.
    1:26:30 They’re like, the equipment is always free.
    1:26:31 Everything is clean.
    1:26:32 I go into the locker room.
    1:26:36 There’s a bunch of Kiehl’s lotions to, like, put on my face after I shower.
    1:26:38 I am getting exactly what I’m paying for.
    1:26:43 Yes, I’ll pay out the nose for a gym because I love seeing that money going to work.
    1:26:47 And in places like Sweden, Denmark, citizens seem very happy.
    1:26:52 They’re paying much higher taxes than people are in America, but they’re seeing where the money is going to work.
    1:26:58 The problem with a liberalism that blocks rather than builds is that people don’t see the money going to work.
    1:27:08 All they see are the dollar signs being spent by government, and then they walk out of their house, and they see collapsing infrastructure, and they see crime, and they see housing prices going to the moon.
    1:27:12 And so they think, wait, this social contract is broken down.
    1:27:20 You’re asking for Equinox prices, but you’re giving me a shit-ass gym, and that’s unfair.
    1:27:25 And so what we’re trying to say is, I mean, in a very serious way, because I’m not trying to be flippant about gyms.
    1:27:36 In a very serious way, what we’re trying to say is a part of this problem is that you Democrats have looked so hard at the demand side of the ledger that you’ve forgotten how powerful the levers are on the supply side.
    1:27:50 And if we can just pull those levers on housing in particular, we can bring down the cost of living, and people might even support the tax and spend model more because they’ll feel like they’re participating in Equinox liberalism and not its opposite.
    1:28:07 Can we zoom in on the housing problem? Can you explain the housing problem, and what’s the importance of housing in the quality of life, in the flourishing of the nation, of the United States in general, and what is broken about it?
    1:28:10 Let’s take the second part of the question first. What’s so important about housing?
    1:28:15 We’re talking about life. And even at a higher level, we’re kind of talking about freedom.
    1:28:26 The freedom to live where you want to live, the freedom to feel like the good and achievable life is actually good and achievable, this is profoundly a question of housing.
    1:28:34 There’s this great paper that was written several years ago called The Housing Theory of Everything by Bauman, Southwood, and I forget the other guy’s name.
    1:28:41 But they made this really beautiful point that no matter what you care about in terms of public policy or politics, housing probably makes contact with it.
    1:28:47 If you care about innovation, innovation, as I said, it’s about getting people together in a city where they can work together.
    1:28:52 That’s about housing density. If you care about child care costs, that’s about bringing down the cost of buildings.
    1:29:00 That’s also about housing. If you care about being able to live near your friends and family, this is also profoundly a question of housing.
    1:29:08 So when we talk about housing over and over, we’re not just talking about the four walls and roof and floor.
    1:29:11 We’re talking about what housing means to people because housing is life.
    1:29:19 And right now, what we very clearly see in the data is that Americans are leaving expensive cities and states that tend to be run by Democrats.
    1:29:25 And they’re moving to areas that are sunnier, that are cheaper, and are often more likely to be run by Republicans.
    1:29:35 And this is, I think, because starting in the 1960s, 1970s, you had this era of blockage points in housing.
    1:29:37 We started seeing zoning regulations.
    1:29:40 We started seeing historic preservation rules.
    1:29:46 We started seeing laws that made it easier for citizens to sue to stop a new development from going up.
    1:29:52 Essentially, new tools were invented to empower people’s natural conservatism.
    1:29:56 You know, for hundreds of years, people might have always felt like, I kind of want my neighborhood to stay the same.
    1:29:59 Like, that might have been something that, like, the Neanderthals were feeling.
    1:30:12 But only in the last 50 years have we really outfitted human beings with a weapon to go along with their biological preference for the familiar, such that they can utilize it to stop the change of the physical world around them.
    1:30:21 And so we’ve seen the rise of what is commonly called nimbyism, not in my backyard, the rise of a movement to stop the development of new housing around where they live.
    1:30:37 And so what you see in the data is, according to one study that was reported on by Yoni Applebaum, my colleague at The Atlantic, if there’s a city with a 10% increase in the progressive vote share, there’s a 30% decline in the number of houses that are permitted.
    1:30:45 For some reason, it does tend to be these areas that are more populated by progressives that have more of these choke points.
    1:31:00 Some of this is just historical quirk, but some of it is, I think, maybe the character of a certain kind of liberal, maybe often an older liberal, who believes that preserving the physical environment is the good.
    1:31:06 That the best thing you can do for the planet is to stop things from changing around you, stop things from being built.
    1:31:13 And that’s an old-fashioned version of environmentalism that we’re trying to turn the liberals against.
    1:31:19 Because really, we see the challenge with climate change is not how do we get everybody to stop using electricity?
    1:31:26 How do we get people to stop using any power or joules or electrons that come from natural gas and oil?
    1:31:38 We want people to recognize that if the people want to lead modern lives, and they’re going to continue to demand modern lives, and so we have to use clean energy technology to allow them to live those lives.
    1:31:47 That means you have to build an absolute shit ton of new clean energy, solar and wind and geothermal and nuclear, and maybe in the near future, even fusion.
    1:31:59 It requires an attitude of being excited about building new things, rather than a liberalism that seeks always to block changes to the physical environment around them.
    1:32:07 So I think that what we’re trying to do is to allow people, in a way, to meet processes and outcomes.
    1:32:14 I think liberals want housing abundance in some part of their brains, in some part of their hearts.
    1:32:30 I think they want the price of housing to go down, but there hasn’t quite been a really clean articulation of a mindset or paradigm-shifting argument that gets them to see how the processes that we’ve created go so dramatically against the outcomes that liberals want.
    1:32:32 And we’re trying to say, here’s a new process.
    1:32:34 Here’s a new question you can ask yourself.
    1:32:36 How can we solve the housing problem on the supply side?
    1:32:42 And also, solving the housing problem is one of the mechanisms to lift people out of poverty.
    1:32:46 So there’s a lot of goals that align well with liberals.
    1:32:48 You write about cities.
    1:32:51 Cities are where wealth is created, not just where it is displayed.
    1:32:56 They are meant to be escalators into the middle class, not penthouses for the upper class.
    1:33:01 So the housing problem we’re talking about specifically, or most importantly, is in urban areas.
    1:33:05 Yeah, this is something that we spend a lot of time thinking about for the book.
    1:33:09 There’s a lot of land in the United States.
    1:33:14 And sometimes you’ll hear people say something like, I’ve heard this a lot.
    1:33:22 Well, not everybody can live in San Francisco or Venice in Los Angeles or, you know, Manhattan or Brooklyn or whatever.
    1:33:25 And fine, right?
    1:33:26 Not everybody can.
    1:33:26 That’s true.
    1:33:35 The problem is that cities are engines of opportunity and economic dynamism.
    1:33:48 I mean, as you know better than we do, the frontier AI labs in the U.S., basically all of them outside of China, exist in 50 square miles in the Bay Area.
    1:33:50 There’s not one in New York.
    1:33:51 There’s not one in Dallas.
    1:33:53 There’s not one in Chicago.
    1:33:54 There’s not one in Austin.
    1:33:56 There’s not one anywhere but in the Bay Area.
    1:34:08 But the key thing is that there is huge spillover from these hyperdynamic industries, be it finance in New York, be it tech in San Francisco, be it culture in Los Angeles.
    1:34:18 You make a lot more money being a barber near Google than you do being a barber in, you know, rural Arkansas.
    1:34:22 And this is the ancient pathway to mobility.
    1:34:34 People who are poor and work in the service sector, they move to richer areas where the productivity is higher and thus the sort of money spreads around.
    1:34:46 And if you look at American mobility and opportunity over the 20th century, about a third, roughly, on some calculations, just comes from this people moving to richer areas.
    1:34:59 And if you look in like the last 20-ish years, 30-ish years, you see this extremely steady process of income convergence as people move towards richer areas begin to throw itself into reverse.
    1:35:04 Because it used to make sense for the janitor and the lawyer to move to New York City.
    1:35:16 But now it only makes sense for the lawyer to and the janitor leaves because you can’t support yourself and your family and live in a home and have a reasonable commute being a, you know, a janitor working in Manhattan.
    1:35:19 Now, obviously, some people do it and it’s often very tough and they live very far.
    1:35:21 It’s very hard in San Francisco.
    1:35:28 You can’t look at cities as, well, that’s just where the rich people are.
    1:35:31 And that’s a problem that many Democrats now have.
    1:35:37 I mean, Michael Bloomberg famously described New York City as a luxury good and luxury goods cost luxury prices.
    1:35:41 And that’s true in the sense that New York became a luxury good.
    1:35:42 But that’s a problem.
    1:35:46 Like that is a terrible, prominent inversion of what the city is.
    1:35:55 You know, there’s this famous advice, possibly apocryphally, from Horace Greeley, who’s a kind of, you know, early American newspaper publisher and political candidate.
    1:35:58 But he says, like, go West, young man, go West, right?
    1:36:01 The opportunity is out in the West where the lands are open.
    1:36:03 It’s never been true, including for him.
    1:36:05 That guy moved from a rural area to New York City.
    1:36:07 And that’s how he became famous.
    1:36:11 And he ran a newspaper and he ran against Ulysses S. Grant in a presidential election.
    1:36:13 The cities are the frontier.
    1:36:16 The cities have always been the frontier, not of the land, but of the economy.
    1:36:19 Because the frontier of the economy is where ideas are produced.
    1:36:23 And ideas even now, even in the age of remote work, are produced in the big cities where people live together.
    1:36:27 And they compete with each other and they cooperate with each other.
    1:36:38 And so if you gate the cities, if you make it impossible for someone making $50,000 with two kids to live in the city, then what you’ve done is you’ve actually closed the American frontier.
    1:36:41 You force them into lower productivity places.
    1:36:45 Their children are less likely to grow up around, you know, the sort of inventors in the cities.
    1:36:59 There’s really amazing research from Raj Chetty and others basically showing that kids, no matter what they are, no matter what income class they’re in, they are likelier to grow up innovating and patenting in the innovations of the place around them, right?
    1:37:01 Smart kids don’t just grow up and innovate in anything.
    1:37:06 You know, if they grew up in the Bay Area, they innovate in technology, as Steve Jobs did and Wozniak did, right?
    1:37:08 Because they just, like, lived around those people.
    1:37:11 And that is true in many, many, many different things.
    1:37:16 And so when you gate the cities, it’s not, housing is almost too small of a thing for what we’re talking about.
    1:37:20 We’re talking about if you can live next to economic opportunity.
    1:37:27 We are talking also about if you can put the people together who will create the next era of economic opportunity.
    1:37:31 You know, right now, the Bay Area is still in some ways drafting off the back when it was cheap.
    1:37:38 A lot of the people we’re talking about who have made amazing things there, they started in the Bay Area when you could afford to live there.
    1:37:39 It wasn’t always like this.
    1:37:41 And it wasn’t that long ago that it wasn’t like this.
    1:37:46 And now, fine, you can go there if you have money or you have a great job offer from Google or Apple or whomever.
    1:37:49 But over time, you need the ferment.
    1:37:55 I have, like, a personal interest in reading memoirs and noticing if the memoir is really a housing story.
    1:38:03 One of the ones I like about this, Moby, the electronic musician, his first memoir, which is great, it’s a memoir of a certain era in New York.
    1:38:05 It’s a housing story.
    1:38:08 He was just living next to a bunch of other musicians in cheap-ass housing.
    1:38:15 I just read Meet Me in the Bathroom by Lizzie Goodman, a sort of oral history of the arts rock revival in New York City.
    1:38:16 A housing story.
    1:38:17 They could afford to live here.
    1:38:18 Right?
    1:38:23 I’ve read a bunch of these in San Francisco, too, where people are just like, they’re functionally squatting.
    1:38:23 Right?
    1:38:31 Like, the San Francisco ferment, its queerness, its openness and tolerance of new ideas.
    1:38:37 It’s sort of like, it’s home of the psychedelic counterculture that intermixed with the defense culture that created Silicon Valley.
    1:38:37 Right?
    1:38:42 You’ve read probably, is it Frederick Turner’s, from counterculture to cyberculture.
    1:38:44 That was a story of cheap housing.
    1:38:49 You need to allow people to be around each other, to mix each other.
    1:38:54 If only one type of person can afford to be there, it becomes a monocultural over time.
    1:38:57 And so, it’s not just housing.
    1:39:01 This is about the geography of economic innovation and opportunity.
    1:39:02 That’s why it’s so fucking important.
    1:39:03 Yeah.
    1:39:17 I mean, that’s so brilliantly put, that, you know, the economic dynamism and the intellectual dynamism that makes America, I think, the greatest nation on earth, is, at the core, housing story.
    1:39:25 It’s like, you have to live near the place where there is turmoil and turbulence, intellectually and economically speaking.
    1:39:31 And so, like, you want to be able to move there and, like, be part of that culture, part of that economy.
    1:39:38 And part of that, like, how you raise your kids and culturally what you want them to study, what you want them to do.
    1:39:38 Yeah.
    1:39:39 That’s fascinating.
    1:39:42 So, what, how do we solve the housing problem?
    1:39:45 Is it just remove as much regulation as possible?
    1:39:46 Like, get out of the way?
    1:39:48 There’s certainly a lot of regulation that you want to get out of the way.
    1:39:50 I mean, you look at California, for example.
    1:39:55 You were just giving a beautiful summary of just how important it is for people to be able to move next to economic opportunity.
    1:40:03 If you look at the number of houses that have been permitted in the state of California, over the last 40 years, it’s basically just a squiggle line down.
    1:40:12 The tragedy here, just to put a really fine point on it, is that the city wasn’t gated by geography or by destiny.
    1:40:13 Or by technology.
    1:40:14 We know how to build apartment buildings.
    1:40:15 Yeah, yeah.
    1:40:17 Elijah Otis invented the elevator in, like, the 1850s.
    1:40:19 This is not exactly a breaking technology.
    1:40:21 We chose to do this.
    1:40:23 We wrote these laws.
    1:40:25 We are, we, people, are filing these lawsuits.
    1:40:30 We, judges, are accepting these lawsuits and determining that this building can’t be built.
    1:40:38 This is entirely self-inflicted, and it’s why over and over again in this book, we call it a manufactured scarcity, which is like a little bit of a funny term.
    1:40:40 How do you manufacture the absence of something?
    1:40:44 No, a manufactured scarcity means you didn’t have to do this.
    1:40:52 This is a human-made rule whose purposeful goal was to make it harder to add to the supply of something.
    1:40:59 And in this case, especially since the 1960s, we have made it purposefully difficult to add housing supply.
    1:41:01 And the outcome just followed the process.
    1:41:09 You see housing supply decline, often in the richest cities and these states that are governed too often by progressives.
    1:41:11 How do we undo it?
    1:41:15 Yes, a huge part of it exists at the layer of law, right?
    1:41:18 California is already trying to change its laws, right?
    1:41:24 End single-family zoning, make it easier to add accessory dwelling units called ADUs.
    1:41:26 We’re changing this at the level of law.
    1:41:38 But one thing I’m very fixated on is making sure that we also communicate to people that it has to be changed at the level of mindset and even at the level of political courage.
    1:41:41 Because here’s like a model of what often happens.
    1:41:47 You’re the mayor of some city, and you want to add a housing development of, let’s say, 500 units, right?
    1:41:51 500 apartment unit building is going to be set up by some developer.
    1:41:56 And there’s a city council meeting to determine whether or not this apartment building is going to be built.
    1:42:12 Because of law subversion and because the people who tend to go to city council meetings are older and richer and homeowners, guess what the overwhelming volume of reaction is in those city council meetings?
    1:42:17 It’s a lot of people who feel like they have something to lose saying, you cannot put up this building.
    1:42:18 You cannot add these apartments.
    1:42:20 It’s going to ruin the character of the neighborhood.
    1:42:21 It’s going to create traffic.
    1:42:26 It’s going to be like an eyesore because I don’t like buildings that are that tall.
    1:42:30 Any number of excuses can come out of like the Pez dispenser of excuses.
    1:42:32 You take care of one, there’s going to be another that comes to the surface.
    1:42:39 And so what often happens is that these mayors or these people sitting in the city council will look out into this room of 50 people saying no, no, no.
    1:42:49 And they’ll say, I’m going to represent the feedback that I see and I’m going to vote no on the addition of this housing building, on the addition of these housing units, the addition of this apartment building.
    1:42:57 Where political courage comes into play is the ability to say, you know what, I want everyone here to know that I hear you.
    1:43:00 I’m listening to you and I represent you.
    1:43:02 And so I’m grateful that you showed up to the city council meeting.
    1:43:16 But for every one person here who says they see a benefit to adding a new apartment building, I know that there are 10,000 people in the city that didn’t have the wealth or the knowledge to be here at this meeting.
    1:43:21 And they’re going to benefit from more housing because that’s going to bring down their housing costs.
    1:43:23 And I represent them as well.
    1:43:28 I don’t just represent, you could say, the circle of care that I can see right now.
    1:43:33 I also represent the circle of voters that we can’t see right now.
    1:43:43 We’re in the city or we’re in the state or might even want to move to the state, but currently can’t because housing prices are too high on account of housing supply being restricted.
    1:43:57 And so one thing we’re trying to get liberals to have is a sense of political courage to stand up against this very visible NIMBYism and say, we represent interests that aren’t necessarily visible at this city council meeting.
    1:44:00 We represent the larger interest of housing abundance.
    1:44:09 So we’re going to always default to saying yes rather than default to saying no just because the people who happen to come to these meetings are NIMBYs.
    1:44:12 I want to add a wrinkle on regulation and deregulation.
    1:44:14 So we were talking about coding earlier.
    1:44:16 Who gets coded as right wing?
    1:44:17 Who gets coded as left wing?
    1:44:20 Deregulation is a word that is highly coded as right wing.
    1:44:22 The right wing wants it to deregulate, right?
    1:44:24 They want the government to stop regulating the market.
    1:44:25 It’s fine.
    1:44:28 In many cases, the government should deregulate parts of the market.
    1:44:30 In many cases, it should regulate parts of the market more.
    1:44:39 What we don’t talk about enough is how much the government regulates the government and how badly it needs to deregulate the government.
    1:44:42 So I have many more left friends and they’ll come to me.
    1:44:45 Or they’ll critique me and they’ll say, this all is fine.
    1:44:49 But what we really need in this country is public housing or it’s been rebranded social housing.
    1:44:50 It’s fine.
    1:44:53 Singapore, huge amount of social housing, right?
    1:44:54 They do a great job with it.
    1:45:08 One of the things we go into, and this book is a manifesto on some level, but something we really try to do is take you into the gritty, grimy, frustrating details of how policy plays out on the ground.
    1:45:11 What actually happens after a bill passes and why we get the outcomes we do.
    1:45:16 Because often it’s like a bunch of decisions made after everybody stopped paying attention.
    1:45:26 So one of the things we pay some real attention to is the kind of housing that people on the left all agree on is affordable housing through government grants.
    1:45:33 The government says, oh, we’re not just going to have market rate developers coming in, building more luxury condos for the children of the upper class.
    1:45:41 We’re going to build affordable housing for, you know, people who should be in this city, but otherwise couldn’t pay enough to be here.
    1:45:46 California, I can give you two different examples, but let’s look at Los Angeles.
    1:45:48 I’m from outside LA and they have something.
    1:45:58 I always forget if it’s measure H or measure HHH, but California, LA voters pass a bond measure, about a billion dollars, a little bit more, I think it was, to build affordable housing.
    1:46:08 Six years later, when I’m writing about this, they have built a couple thousand units at an average cost of six to seven hundred thousand dollars a unit.
    1:46:19 So it’s like it’s costing more to build housing under this affordable housing bond measure, which they have agreed to pay for, than it is to buy a home market rate in Denver.
    1:46:21 Denver is a nice place to live.
    1:46:22 So why?
    1:46:22 What had happened?
    1:46:35 Well, it turns out that when you trigger the public money in California, in various cities, these are city ordinances often, but not always, and you use these public grants and you cobble together the different grants you need to build an affordable housing complex.
    1:46:41 It’s what you’ve done is layer onto yourself a huge number of rules that the market rate developers don’t have to follow.
    1:46:44 You’re either using union labor or paying prevailing wage.
    1:46:47 You’re building to hire green building codes.
    1:46:52 Oftentimes, by the way, to get through the kind of planning board meetings that Derek is talking about, you’ve made a bunch of concessions on the design.
    1:46:55 You know, is there going to be parking in it?
    1:46:57 You know, security, things like that.
    1:47:01 You have to often agree to who’s going to be in the home.
    1:47:07 So you’re getting, you know, there’s a thing in the Measure H stuff where, well, they wanted it to not just be the taxpayer money.
    1:47:09 They also wanted nonprofit grants so the money would go further.
    1:47:13 So you’re trying to get these other grants, but these grants are to house homeless veterans.
    1:47:15 So now to open the thing, you need to find these homeless veterans.
    1:47:18 You need to go through extra disability accessibility reviews.
    1:47:23 And of course, we all want these things to be accessible, but they already had to comply with the American Disability Act.
    1:47:26 But now you’re doing another Disability Act review in the city.
    1:47:30 And they come in, they say, well, you know, your doors are a little bit not as wide as we think.
    1:47:32 So you’ve got to make all your doors three inches wider before you can open up.
    1:47:34 And that adds time and that adds cost.
    1:47:36 You have these subcontractor rules, right?
    1:47:42 This is now I’m using an example from San Francisco, but you had a preference initially for minority-based subcontractors.
    1:47:43 That became illegal.
    1:47:48 It became small businesses, but that meant it had a preference against the bigger contractors who are more efficient.
    1:48:01 In order to use public money, and then very much in order to build public housing directly, it ends up being more expensive and slower than market rate.
    1:48:03 And that is a choice.
    1:48:09 We do not have to try to solve every problem in society through an individual housing project.
    1:48:11 Building affordable housing is hard enough.
    1:48:13 It’s not impossible, but it’s difficult to do.
    1:48:14 You do have to talk with the neighbors, right?
    1:48:24 It’s never going to be trivial to build a 500-unit apartment building, but instead we layer on all these external and additional agenda items.
    1:48:34 I call this everything-bagel liberalism because, like, you know, you sprinkle just enough on the bagel and it’s great, but if you saw everything everywhere all at once, you put everything on the everything bagel and it becomes a black hole from which nothing can escape.
    1:48:38 And so the need to deregulate government, right?
    1:48:45 I saw some of Elon Musk’s marathon appearance on your show, and he talks about high-speed rail in California.
    1:48:50 And the thing he says there that it’s functionally illegal to build high-speed rail in California.
    1:48:53 I got a hundred disagreements with Elon Musk right now.
    1:48:54 That’s not one of them.
    1:48:56 It’s functionally illegal to build high-speed rail in California.
    1:48:59 Like, I went out, I toured the high-speed rail.
    1:49:00 I’ve done a lot of reporting on that.
    1:49:02 You can’t build it affordably.
    1:49:04 You just can’t on time.
    1:49:06 Like, they have no way to get the money to build the rest of it.
    1:49:07 It’s not going to happen.
    1:49:10 And it’s not going to happen not because you can’t build high-speed rail.
    1:49:12 Europe builds high-speed rail.
    1:49:13 Japan builds high-speed rail.
    1:49:14 China builds high-speed rail.
    1:49:18 And it’s not because of the private market, like, we’ll only build luxury high-speed rail.
    1:49:24 It’s because we have so heavily regulated a public project that you can’t finish it.
    1:49:27 And you definitely can’t bring it in on time and affordably.
    1:49:32 And so I really would like to, like, uncode deregulation.
    1:49:34 Because, yeah, there’s places where I would like to regulate more.
    1:49:37 I don’t want you to be able to build a coal-fired power plant in America.
    1:49:38 I just don’t want it to be possible.
    1:49:39 I think it’s bad.
    1:49:44 But I do want it to be possible to build high-speed rail and affordable housing, including through the
    1:49:45 public market.
    1:49:49 And one thing my friends on the left, I think, really underrate is how hard they’ve made it
    1:49:50 for the government to act.
    1:49:51 They believe in government.
    1:49:55 But if you believe in government, then you have to make it possible for government to complete
    1:49:56 projects.
    1:50:01 You have to make it possible for the people who work for government to apply their own
    1:50:02 genius and initiative.
    1:50:04 They have to have agency.
    1:50:09 I always say that, like, we’re sort of trapped right now between a party that wants government
    1:50:12 to fail and a party that won’t make government work.
    1:50:18 And, like, we are trying to push this idea that the thing we want is a capable government,
    1:50:21 a strong government, a government that when it promises it will do something, it actually
    1:50:22 doesn’t and gets it done.
    1:50:26 And that requires not just deregulation of the private sector, though sometimes it does
    1:50:26 require that.
    1:50:29 It requires deregulation of the government itself.
    1:50:32 I love this question of deregulation.
    1:50:36 But I also sometimes find it very frustrating because sometimes I find that people’s sense of
    1:50:39 regulation is so specifically coded.
    1:50:41 Regulation is just rules.
    1:50:46 If you change the word from regulation to rules, I think it’d be easier for people to
    1:50:49 see some rules are good and some rules are stupid.
    1:50:51 We all understand that in life.
    1:50:52 That’s what regulations are.
    1:50:53 They’re just rules.
    1:50:57 And sometimes they give us exactly the outcomes we want and sometimes they give us the outcomes
    1:50:59 we would never hope for.
    1:51:00 And here’s a good example.
    1:51:03 You go back to the 1940s, 1950s.
    1:51:05 America was fucking disgusting.
    1:51:07 Disgusting.
    1:51:10 The air and the water was horrifying.
    1:51:17 In 1943, residents of Los Angeles woke up to a smog that was so black they thought the
    1:51:19 Japanese had launched a chemical attack against America.
    1:51:24 In New Hampshire, in the rivers next to textile mills, sometimes the rivers themselves would
    1:51:28 run green and purple and red depending on what textile colors were being dumped into the
    1:51:29 river.
    1:51:33 You had the Ohio River on fire in the 1960s, 1970s.
    1:51:39 The world of mid-1900s America was truly sickening and it made people sick.
    1:51:44 And so we passed a raft of environmental rules and some of them achieved exactly what we wanted.
    1:51:50 The air we breathe and the water we drink is cleaner because of the Clean Air and Water
    1:51:50 Acts.
    1:51:54 We did extraordinary things with this era of regulation.
    1:51:57 Some of these regulations were about outcomes.
    1:52:02 The Clean Air and Water Act regulates specific pollution levels in the air and the water or the
    1:52:03 emissions coming out of tailpipes.
    1:52:06 Some of the regulations, though, were about process.
    1:52:13 NEPA is the National Environmental Protection Act and it, among many other things, empowered
    1:52:19 individuals and citizens to sue the government and organizations, businesses to stop construction
    1:52:25 or fill out environmental reviews to prove that their construction would meet muster, wouldn’t
    1:52:28 degrade the environment too severely.
    1:52:36 This opened the door to an infinitude of lawsuits to wrap up any effort to build anything in red
    1:52:37 tape forever.
    1:52:45 So fast forward to 2021, the year or sorry, the month after Newsom signs, Gavin Newsom,
    1:52:50 governor of California, signs the law to end single family zoning in California.
    1:52:54 Seems like a massive win for the pro-housing YIMBYs of California.
    1:53:01 The month after that law was passed, the Board of Supervisors in San Francisco decided to rule
    1:53:07 against an apartment building that would have added 500 total units and 100 below market
    1:53:12 rent units, so something like public or social housing, that was going to be built on a Nordstrom
    1:53:16 parking lot, just about the best possible place you could add housing in the world, a Nordstrom
    1:53:23 parking lot, because the builders, the developers, didn’t file the appropriate paperwork under
    1:53:23 environmental review.
    1:53:29 So this is a world in which the most housing-starved city in America is being starved even more of
    1:53:36 housing because of the expression of or the power of the instrumentalization of a rule past
    1:53:41 the 1970s that has allowed people to sue to stop the physical world from being changed.
    1:53:48 And I think it goes back to this idea that, like, sometimes the solutions of one era can become the
    1:53:50 problems of the next generation, right?
    1:53:57 It was really good to pass the set of environmental bills that we did in the 1960s and 1970s because
    1:54:03 it addressed the extremely real problem of air and water and land being degraded by industry.
    1:54:08 But we’re in a new world, and the problem environmentalism today is in part a problem of global warming,
    1:54:12 and we have to build not only dense housing but also clean energy.
    1:54:18 And the same rules that were designed to help the environment in the 1960s and 1970s are sometimes
    1:54:22 ironically used in a way that hurt the environment in the 2020s.
    1:54:27 And that’s one reason why we, as liberals, need a paradigm shift.
    1:54:30 Okay, you said a lot of really interesting insights there.
    1:54:39 So one, if I understood correctly, that regulation of outcomes is more a good idea than regulation
    1:54:45 of process because regulation of process is where you can breed a lot of basically the lawyers
    1:54:45 show up.
    1:54:49 The other insight is if we get rid of 99% of lawyers, the world would be a better place.
    1:54:51 There’s a lot of jokes around that.
    1:54:51 I don’t know.
    1:54:53 I don’t know if you agree, but that-
    1:54:54 I definitely wouldn’t say 99%.
    1:54:55 98.
    1:54:56 Yeah, yeah.
    1:54:57 82.3.
    1:54:57 82.
    1:54:58 In the 80s.
    1:54:58 No.
    1:55:00 Majority of them.
    1:55:00 No.
    1:55:05 They’re simply there to take advantage of the rules.
    1:55:07 We talk a lot about a book.
    1:55:11 I don’t know if you’ve run into this one, but it’s by Mansur Olson, who’s sort of a founder
    1:55:12 of public interest economics.
    1:55:15 And it’s called The Rise and Decline of Nations.
    1:55:17 This is like a very famous book.
    1:55:18 Libertarians love this book.
    1:55:20 And I love this book.
    1:55:26 It’s not right about everything, but its fundamental question is, how come after World War II did
    1:55:30 the completely destroyed, bombed out countries of Germany and Japan?
    1:55:33 You would have thought they would be just screwed.
    1:55:35 Instead, they both become growth miracles.
    1:55:38 They both do much better than the UK, which, you know, was on the winning side of the war.
    1:55:39 Why?
    1:55:46 And Olson’s argument is that affluent, stable societies over long periods of time develop
    1:55:50 something that is very difficult to develop and very important to develop, which is bargaining
    1:55:51 organizations, right?
    1:55:52 Collective action is hard.
    1:55:54 It is hard to form an organization.
    1:55:56 It is hard to make that organization persist.
    1:56:01 But if you can do that in an atmosphere of stability, then over time, that organization
    1:56:03 will tend to entrench its power, right?
    1:56:11 Think about AARP or the Chamber of Commerce or certain unions or, you know, the National
    1:56:13 Manufacturing Council, et cetera, the Business Roundtable.
    1:56:17 You know, they’re not that powerful when they start, but over long periods of time, they’ve
    1:56:20 become really powerful and they start to pass laws and make themselves more powerful and
    1:56:21 so on.
    1:56:23 There’s a lot you can say about this insight.
    1:56:27 But my favorite part of Olson’s book and one that I don’t think people emphasize enough
    1:56:32 is this insight he has, which is that over time, countries will begin, every country has
    1:56:35 a kind of form of natural selection within it.
    1:56:40 And that form of natural selection will select for people with the skills to navigate, best
    1:56:42 navigate the kind of economy that country has.
    1:56:47 So if you’re in China right now and China is in its developmentalism phase, you really want
    1:56:49 to be in civil infrastructure, right?
    1:56:54 It is great to be a civil engineer in China, great to be working on semiconductors in China,
    1:56:56 great to be doing all this stuff in the physical world.
    1:57:03 But America, you know, as a kind of price of our affluence and our success, we’ve become
    1:57:07 a country, and this happens for a lot of countries, where negotiation is really important.
    1:57:12 And a country in which negotiation is really important is going to, over time, start developing
    1:57:19 a preference for lots of lawyers, people in finance, management consultants, because it
    1:57:22 is a society that requires continuous, what he calls complex bargaining.
    1:57:24 And I think this actually explains a lot.
    1:57:29 Patrick Collison, we quote him, who’s the CEO of Stripe, you know, brilliant tech guy.
    1:57:34 Here’s this point that he made in an interview with Noah Smith, who’s a blogger and economist,
    1:57:39 where they were talking about high-speed rail, and sort of Patrick makes this point, he’s
    1:57:43 like, it’s just tough to be a high-speed rail engineer in America.
    1:57:47 You’re going to have a much easier time working in the digital space, and so the digital space
    1:57:49 becomes a kind of frontier of last resort.
    1:57:55 And so people want to build things, go into bits and bytes, not into atoms, right, to use
    1:57:56 the old kind of Peter Thiel cut.
    1:57:58 And I think there’s something to that.
    1:58:00 It’s not that lawyers are bad.
    1:58:04 Some of the people I love most in this world are lawyers, and many lawyers do amazing,
    1:58:04 amazing work.
    1:58:10 But one reason we’ve selected for so many lawyers, and America has a lot of lawyers, is
    1:58:14 we became a society that needs a lot of lawyers, because we are a society that is stable, affluent,
    1:58:15 and have become, like, very into bargaining.
    1:58:18 You know, Donald Trump is a real estate developer.
    1:58:20 That’s a relational business.
    1:58:23 The way real estate development works in this country, the reason you don’t have all that
    1:58:28 many huge firms building housing in many, many states simultaneously, is it requires a
    1:58:30 lot of relationships in the individual city you’re in.
    1:58:34 And so, you know, if you read, say, Maggie Haberman’s great biography of Donald Trump,
    1:58:39 Confidence Man, which focuses a lot on his time as a real estate magnet in New York, you
    1:58:43 see, like, Donald Trump doesn’t build a ton of stuff in other states.
    1:58:46 He actually builds in other countries sometimes, or more to the point, he puts his name on things
    1:58:47 built in other countries.
    1:58:49 But really, what he did was built here.
    1:58:53 And he built here through his relationships with the New York political system.
    1:59:00 And so, over time, societies that make building and construction and creation something that
    1:59:05 is the output of negotiations, rather than, like, very clear standards and rules where if
    1:59:06 you’ve done it, you can just do it.
    1:59:07 You get a lot of lawyers.
    1:59:09 You get a lot of management consultants.
    1:59:13 You get a lot of finance people, because that’s what society is selecting for.
    1:59:16 That’s what you’ve made it possible to have agency and freedom in.
    1:59:18 That’s what you need to do to do big things.
    1:59:22 This is coming from Nick Bagley, who’s a University of Michigan law professor.
    1:59:29 But between Walter Mondale and Tim Walls, there’s not a single person on a Democratic presidential
    1:59:30 ticket who didn’t go to law school.
    1:59:31 Not one.
    1:59:34 Like, the Democratic Party in particular is a party of lawyers.
    1:59:36 And lawyers look at things from the legal perspective.
    1:59:40 And the legal perspective is that government is legitimate by following process.
    1:59:45 And Bagley’s point is that government attains legitimacy, at least in part,
    1:59:47 through outcomes.
    1:59:51 And when you prize process so high over outcomes, you think you’re acting legitimately.
    1:59:54 But actually, it would have made you legitimate in the view of the people.
    1:59:57 Is it you built the thing you told them you were going to build?
    1:59:59 You made it possible to live affordably in the city.
    2:00:02 And so you have this sort of movement then over time to populist strongmen who say,
    2:00:06 I alone can fix it, because they’ve kind of given up on this procedural liberalism.
    2:00:08 Like, they didn’t deliver for them.
    2:00:11 So you keep telling them, you know, we’re the ones who know how to run government and they
    2:00:12 don’t see it.
    2:00:15 And eventually somebody else comes and says, I’m going to bust through the walls of this
    2:00:16 thing like the Kool-Aid Man.
    2:00:17 And they win.
    2:00:19 So speaking of the Kool-Aid Man.
    2:00:22 I see what you’re about to do.
    2:00:26 Yeah.
    2:00:27 I’m so transparent.
    2:00:32 It makes me think I’m a robot built in a lab somewhere.
    2:00:38 Sam Altman once said to me, he said, well, aren’t you just a reinforcement learning system
    2:00:39 with energy running through it?
    2:00:39 Yeah.
    2:00:42 It’s like, I’d like to think not, but maybe.
    2:00:53 So on the Kool-Aid Man, I was wondering if you could maybe steel man the case for and against
    2:00:54 Elon Musk and Doge.
    2:01:01 Because you mentioned all of these regulations, all of the complexities that get in the way
    2:01:09 of building, it seems like a bold human like Elon is required to break through the regulation.
    2:01:11 Put that on one side.
    2:01:16 And the other side, I read somewhere that abundance is kind of the anti-Doge.
    2:01:25 So, which to me, it seems like there is conflicting ideas, but there’s also alignment.
    2:01:27 So maybe can we break all that?
    2:01:29 I think the steel man is very easy to make here.
    2:01:31 Department of Government Efficiency.
    2:01:35 That sounds like an organization that’s needed if government is inefficient.
    2:01:40 And one of the themes of our book is just how inefficient government can be.
    2:01:45 Not only at building houses, building energy, often at achieving its own ends.
    2:01:48 Building high-speed rail when it wants to build high-speed rail.
    2:01:52 Adding affordable housing units when it wants to add affordable housing units.
    2:01:56 You know, I love Ezra’s line that we don’t just need to think about, you know, deregulating
    2:01:57 the market.
    2:01:59 We need to think about deregulating government itself.
    2:02:05 Getting the rules out of the way that keep government from achieving the democratic outcomes
    2:02:06 that it’s trying to achieve.
    2:02:12 This is a world in which a department of government efficiency is a godsend.
    2:02:18 We should be absolutely obsessed with making government work well, especially if we’re going to be
    2:02:21 the kind of liberals who believe that government is important in the first place.
    2:02:27 So that, to me, is the sort of pillbox version of a steel case for a Department of Government
    2:02:27 Efficiency.
    2:02:30 Wait, before you do the anti-case, can I offer a different steel man?
    2:02:30 Please.
    2:02:35 I think the steel man case for what Doge is, right?
    2:02:41 Rather than what it pretended to be, is that the government is an interest.
    2:02:45 The bureaucracy, the deep state, the rules, the regulations.
    2:02:47 And it’s not about efficiency.
    2:02:48 Never was.
    2:02:49 You wouldn’t do this if it was about efficiency.
    2:02:52 That it’s zero-based budgeting.
    2:02:55 That you’re breaking the thing.
    2:02:57 You’re turning it on and off.
    2:02:59 You’re firing massive parts of it.
    2:03:05 Because the only way to make change within it possible is to delete what currently exists.
    2:03:06 Whether it was efficient or not.
    2:03:08 You would never actually know.
    2:03:11 That if you had it all come and present its case for efficiency or something, you’d never
    2:03:12 know.
    2:03:13 You’d get turned around.
    2:03:14 Whatever.
    2:03:17 That the only way…
    2:03:20 Like, the problem with the government is there is no actual competition.
    2:03:25 The Department of Education doesn’t get out-competed by the, you know, the Agency of Education,
    2:03:28 which has started up, you know, three years ago or something.
    2:03:36 And because of that, the only way to make possible radical change is to bulldoze the thing that
    2:03:37 currently exists.
    2:03:41 And then once that is done, you can begin to rebuild.
    2:03:45 You can, you know, if you’ve fired half of the Department of Education, then you can start
    2:03:48 rehiring your people and they will actually do what you want.
    2:03:52 If you have shown that you can delete every regulation or just not follow it, then you can
    2:03:54 begin deciding which ones to actually follow.
    2:03:58 If there is no Department of USAID and you’ve moved it back under state, then you can
    2:04:01 tell state what really to fund in terms of foreign aid, right?
    2:04:04 There’s a theory here, I think, that was never about efficiency.
    2:04:06 It was about deletion.
    2:04:09 He’s not trying to make things run a little bit better.
    2:04:12 He’s not trying to lower the overhead cost of government.
    2:04:18 That the theory is that in the first term, the bureaucracy impeded Donald Trump.
    2:04:19 It didn’t listen to him.
    2:04:21 Bureaucracy is supposed to be limbs of the president.
    2:04:27 The only way to make the federal government a neural link of Donald Trump himself is to destroy
    2:04:28 the federal government.
    2:04:30 And then rebuild it as that thing.
    2:04:35 I think if you talk to people at Doge or talk to people who are authors of the project of
    2:04:39 Project 2025, who are at Heritage, who are chiefs of staff of the people working for Heritage,
    2:04:45 if you have a truth serum conversation with these folks and you say, defend what’s happening.
    2:04:48 This is what they’re saying.
    2:04:54 They’re saying something metastatic has grown inside of government, not just over the last few
    2:04:59 years under Joe Biden, but over the last few decades, maybe going all the way back to FDR
    2:05:00 and even Woodrow Wilson.
    2:05:06 We have allowed an administrative state to accumulate like barnacles on a ship around the executive
    2:05:07 branch.
    2:05:12 And it’s keeping the executive branch from being able to translate the democratic will into policy,
    2:05:16 because there’s never any president who is purely elected by the people.
    2:05:21 They’re elected into an office that is already pre-contaminated by the bureaucracy itself.
    2:05:24 And we’re trying to take all of that away.
    2:05:29 We’re trying to I mean, this is this is very just explicitly the case they’re going to make
    2:05:36 trying to make government more democratic, not less by allowing the democratic, the elected
    2:05:39 president guide in a lead in a pure way.
    2:05:41 OK, so as you said, two things.
    2:05:42 One is the steel man.
    2:05:45 And then at the end there, there was a non steel man.
    2:05:52 So the first part is cutting, removing as much as possible to see what’s actually needed.
    2:05:58 This seems like one of the ways to figure out what’s actually needed is by removing it.
    2:06:04 And then there’s the second thing is that you mentioned so that you can install the people
    2:06:07 that follow your policy.
    2:06:09 Well, I disagree with you that that wasn’t the steel man.
    2:06:12 I mean, I think you have to listen to them to do the steel man, right?
    2:06:14 I don’t think the steel man is imaginary.
    2:06:22 If you read the the OMB regulation that froze funding, it said explicitly that the government
    2:06:28 has to reflect the will of the people as expressed through their choice of president.
    2:06:33 If you read anything Russ Vought has ever said, they have the unitary executive theory.
    2:06:34 I’m not saying it’s right or wrong.
    2:06:39 I if you ask me to do the non steel man, which I would love to do, too, it is not my view that
    2:06:44 the steel man case of this is to make the federal government fully responsive to Donald
    2:06:44 Trump.
    2:06:48 But the steel man case for what they are doing as expressed by them.
    2:06:52 And I think like a steel man reflects like I mean, I have talked to these people, right?
    2:06:54 Like I’m telling you what they tell me on some level.
    2:07:00 The steel man cases, they believe, like as Derek said a minute ago, this has become non-democratically
    2:07:00 responsive.
    2:07:06 Like and the way it becomes democratically responsive is deeply responsive to the president.
    2:07:10 The president represents a different politics than Joe Biden’s politics.
    2:07:14 And so if you have a state filled with liberal civil servants who don’t want to do what he
    2:07:19 says, that is a violation of small democratic principles of how the government should be
    2:07:20 run.
    2:07:22 I think if you don’t like it, that’s fine.
    2:07:26 But I do want to say, like, I actually think that is that is the steel man.
    2:07:28 He’s not they’re not doing this for no reason.
    2:07:29 They have an intention here.
    2:07:33 And I think, you know, the whether you like it or not sort of depends on whether or not
    2:07:35 you like their view.
    2:07:40 OK, well, I don’t like it because it cuts my ear in a certain way that one of the criticisms
    2:07:46 I have for Donald Trump and and the Trump administration is there’s a natural circles of
    2:07:51 sycophancy that forms and very, you know, every president has their personality and psychological
    2:07:51 quirks.
    2:07:57 And and I think he is one of the people where favoritism is more likely to develop.
    2:08:01 So when you choose who to install as the head of whatever organization.
    2:08:08 So if you fire everybody and rehire, the rehiring process is more likely to have people that just
    2:08:15 said nice things about about Donald Trump in the past versus a meritocracy based system that
    2:08:16 these people are really good.
    2:08:18 Alex, AOC should definitely come on the show.
    2:08:29 Well, but the ideal the steel man to me about not maybe what Elon is doing is in order to
    2:08:37 have the best people in the world doing a great job at every part of government, you have to
    2:08:41 figure out, I mean, his first email of like, what have you done this week?
    2:08:46 There’s the if we just steel man everything he’s been doing, which is like, let’s
    2:08:50 find the productive people that show up to work that love what they’re doing, that are
    2:08:53 actually sort of amazing at what they’re doing.
    2:08:56 I mean, how would you solve that problem from his experience in business?
    2:09:04 It’s painful, but effective to just fire almost everybody and then rebuild from there and
    2:09:05 continuously do that.
    2:09:12 And as a result, as long as everybody’s aligned in a mission is you simplifying over and over
    2:09:13 the system.
    2:09:15 So it’s more and more and more effective.
    2:09:20 Now, like, how would you, how else would you approach?
    2:09:23 We could start now criticizing.
    2:09:30 How, how would you make government more efficient if not by the way that they’re doing it?
    2:09:30 Yeah.
    2:09:31 Can I steel man to the other side now?
    2:09:31 Sure.
    2:09:33 Um, okay.
    2:09:36 You wouldn’t do this.
    2:09:38 You wouldn’t do this.
    2:09:39 So let me say a couple of things.
    2:09:46 One is that efficiency only makes sense when yoked to a goal.
    2:09:52 So when, if Elon Musk came in and did this to Tesla, Musk had a goal for Tesla.
    2:09:55 It was to build the electric vehicle of the future.
    2:09:57 SpaceX, he had a goal for SpaceX.
    2:10:02 We know what the goal for SpaceX is in some long-term way, go to Mars, but in some short-term
    2:10:08 way, you know, cheaper orbital travel, you know, cheaper orbital shipping, reusable rockets,
    2:10:09 et cetera.
    2:10:11 We know what the goal for SolarCity was.
    2:10:16 In a way, and I do think sort of the purchase of Twitter is late Elon, which becomes a much
    2:10:21 more political set of goals, but, but nevertheless, um, in a way, at least there’s an expressed
    2:10:21 idea at Twitter, right?
    2:10:23 Which is the, the return of free expression.
    2:10:29 I think it’s really important if you are steel manning or any kind of manning is, is being,
    2:10:34 is really asking and like listening to what people are saying their goal is because efficiency
    2:10:36 does not exist in a vacuum, right?
    2:10:41 The, uh, a state that is efficient at building dirty energy in a state that are, is efficient
    2:10:42 at burning clean energy.
    2:10:45 They’re, they’re sort of, they can be opposite versions of each other, right?
    2:10:47 You have to be, you have to be optimizing towards something.
    2:10:48 You’re an AI guy.
    2:10:50 You have to optimize towards something.
    2:10:58 And the goal, I, I find myself really consistently frustrated by conversations about Doge, that
    2:11:02 treat efficiency as some free floating thing, or I sometimes will hear people say to me, very
    2:11:06 smart people have said to me, oh, what Doge is really doing is stripping the government
    2:11:11 down to studs so it can put AI into it because Elon believes in AGI is coming soon.
    2:11:13 You need to make a government capable of using AGI.
    2:11:16 And I always say to them, okay, AI towards what?
    2:11:18 Towards what value function?
    2:11:20 Towards what prompt are you inserting at the, at the base level?
    2:11:21 Sorry about that.
    2:11:25 Um, and I think a few things become very clear.
    2:11:28 One is that it is towards Donald Trump.
    2:11:29 It is his movement.
    2:11:31 Elon Musk serves at his pleasure.
    2:11:36 Elon Musk has said that he would like to himself chisel Donald Trump’s face into Mount Rushmore.
    2:11:41 He said he loves Donald Trump as much as a man can love any other man.
    2:11:43 He believes in Trump, right?
    2:11:45 I think you have to take him at his word.
    2:11:48 Or maybe you think he’s very cynical and he’s saying all that to curry favor in a sycophantic
    2:11:49 way with Trump.
    2:11:53 But at some point, Elon Musk does not serve with any kind of independence.
    2:11:55 If Trump says your power is gone, his power is gone.
    2:11:57 He’s an outside, he’s functionally an outside advisor to the government.
    2:12:01 So then you, you really do, I think, have to listen to what Donald Trump has said, what
    2:12:02 Russ Vought has said.
    2:12:05 And they believe that Trump represents something fundamental.
    2:12:08 His movement represents something fundamental that has been suppressed in American life.
    2:12:08 Okay.
    2:12:13 I think if you were doing something, the best cases I’ve seen for Elon are a zero-based budgeting
    2:12:13 case.
    2:12:18 You’re trying to break everything down to studs and then it needs to re-justify.
    2:12:24 So if he did this at Twitter, the engineers had to come in and justify to that, to his people
    2:12:25 what they were actually doing.
    2:12:27 But that wasn’t how those emails worked.
    2:12:28 We all know this, right?
    2:12:35 He doesn’t have a staff capable of seriously working through and then following up on emails
    2:12:39 from two-some million government employees about what they did that week and then really
    2:12:41 checking, well, did they do it well?
    2:12:43 Like, was the thing accomplished, right?
    2:12:44 Like, that’s not how you do that.
    2:12:46 Like, what, he’s got 50 people at Doge?
    2:12:46 Nothing.
    2:12:52 If you want to do zero-based budgeting, it has to be against your criteria.
    2:12:53 So coming in and gutting USAID.
    2:12:58 Some of the things USAID does are just extraordinary, right?
    2:12:58 PEPFAR.
    2:13:02 Nobody anywhere thought PEPFAR was not an efficient program.
    2:13:07 PEPFAR is maybe the highest value thing that we have ever done in the U.S. government to
    2:13:09 save human life through foreign aid.
    2:13:12 I mean, just bluntly, it’s a George W. Bush program.
    2:13:14 It saved a generation of people from dying of HIV-AIDS.
    2:13:19 They just turned it off and they didn’t have somebody come in and justify the PEPFAR funding.
    2:13:23 They just turned it off as they turned all these different things off and have never given
    2:13:26 people a serious effort to come back in and say, this is what we do.
    2:13:28 They just fired half of the people at DOE.
    2:13:35 DOE is, if you look at it, DOE has the lowest staffing level of any agency, but the fourth
    2:13:36 highest appropriation.
    2:13:41 And it administers the more than $1 trillion higher ed.
    2:13:46 It is, in overhead terms, one of the leanest of all the agencies, alongside Social Security
    2:13:46 Agency.
    2:13:51 They didn’t tell those people, like, what they wanted out of a DOE of half the size.
    2:13:54 They didn’t let those people come in and argue for their jobs.
    2:13:59 They’re just cutting things and they’re not explaining at any point, at any level, what
    2:14:00 they want to do with them.
    2:14:04 I’m, and then I will also say what they’re doing is probably illegal, right?
    2:14:09 Just this week or last week, a judge said that about 26,000 people need to be rehired by
    2:14:11 the federal government because their firings were illegal.
    2:14:15 And now that’s going to go up to the Supreme Court and we’ll see what John Roberts and Amy
    2:14:16 Coney Barrett say, right?
    2:14:18 That game is not done yet.
    2:14:21 But they have Congress.
    2:14:26 I am a person who believes we needed civil service reform.
    2:14:30 Too hard to hire, too hard to fire, too hard to manage.
    2:14:33 And they could have gone to Congress.
    2:14:36 And frankly, at the beginning, Ro Khanna and a bunch of Democrats that they wanted to work
    2:14:38 with DOE, Democrats were defeated.
    2:14:43 If you had wanted to build some amount of like political, you know, bipartisanship, it
    2:14:44 was there to do, right?
    2:14:47 Like the Democrats voted for the Lake and Riley bill, the hardcore immigration bill.
    2:14:49 They were ready to deal.
    2:14:53 But they didn’t want to do that because it is fundamentally for them about political control.
    2:14:55 And this is my steelman case for the action.
    2:14:56 This is a case I believe.
    2:14:59 What Elon did at Twitter was not make Twitter more efficient.
    2:15:01 It’s not like a better product now.
    2:15:02 It’s a different product.
    2:15:04 But what he did was he made it controllable.
    2:15:08 What he did at Twitter was he went into something that he thought the people disagreed with him.
    2:15:11 And he broke it until he had actual operational control of the thing.
    2:15:13 And they would do what he wanted them to do.
    2:15:15 And then he can move it in his direction.
    2:15:19 What they’re doing in the federal government, and this is what Chris Rufo wanted to do.
    2:15:22 It’s what Russ Vought wanted to do, is make the thing controllable.
    2:15:25 And what they want to do with that control, I don’t even think they fully know.
    2:15:31 But their view was that the federal government is like a – it is the capital city that they have conquered.
    2:15:36 And now they need to turn it into something that they can actually use.
    2:15:41 And in order to do that, I mean, Russ Vought has said you need to traumatize the civil servants, right?
    2:15:43 That was his word, traumatize the civil servants.
    2:15:47 When, you know, Elon Musk talked about USAID, said it’s all worms, no apple.
    2:15:49 We’re going to feed it to the wood chipper.
    2:15:53 This isn’t the language of let’s see who’s really doing a good job here and who’s not.
    2:15:55 This is the language of conquering.
    2:15:56 This is the language of destruction.
    2:16:01 And they have not articulated new, better goals for it.
    2:16:04 And nor are they starting with the parts of the government where I think you would start with.
    2:16:07 Like, what do they want the education department to do?
    2:16:09 Like, I’m a professional political journalist.
    2:16:11 I talk to people in the Trump administration.
    2:16:14 I can’t tell you what they want out of it, aside from the fact that they don’t like it.
    2:16:17 And they think it’s like a hotbed of other people’s power.
    2:16:23 I can tell you what some conservatives have written about it, but the administration itself has not articulated goals.
    2:16:31 So what I think their view is right now is they’re breaking the thing and trying to make the people who would be oppositional either, like, leave or go into hiding.
    2:16:33 And then they’re going to figure out what they want to do with it.
    2:16:36 But, like, right now, they’re in the period where you have to sack.
    2:16:42 And then, like, later on, you can build yourself your monuments and turn the civil service to your own ends.
    2:16:47 That is my, like, I don’t think it’s still, I just, that is what I think is going on.
    2:16:54 I think that’s, from a certain perspective, an accurate and insightful description.
    2:17:01 If we just look at Twitter, you said that he didn’t make it more efficient.
    2:17:03 He made it more controllable.
    2:17:12 Let me just describe, just because I know the engineers inside Twitter well, which we could argue that the government is very different than a company.
    2:17:14 That’s an important argument there.
    2:17:23 With Twitter, the culture that’s there now, people are really excited to work there and to be productive there.
    2:17:24 Engineers.
    2:17:32 Elon is really good at finding people that are there, extremely good at what they do and are there to give everything.
    2:17:39 And the resulting thing, this machine that is created, all barriers removed, you create beautiful stuff.
    2:17:45 It’s not like, move fast and break things, this very cynical perspective on it.
    2:17:53 No, you, everybody loves what they do, are good at it, and are really rapidly figuring out all the multitude of problems that arise in that.
    2:17:58 And so, it just creates a, it’s a different culture, a culture of productivity.
    2:18:07 And it’s not like some negative boys club or this, there’s all kinds of negative perspectives you can take on those things.
    2:18:09 No, it’s, it’s a positive culture of productivity.
    2:18:19 The controllable side, also really important to understand, and that could be taken advantage of in a really negative way, especially in government.
    2:18:28 But, you should say, on some of the most successful software projects, there is a level of control required to, like, open source projects.
    2:18:33 Linus Torvald, the head of the, that heads up the Linux kernel.
    2:18:38 There has to be what’s often called the benevolent dictator for life.
    2:18:46 There has to be a controllability to the machine of this extremely productive, efficient team to work together.
    2:18:55 Now, those are engineering projects, and the problem with government is you get elected new benevolent dictators for life that come.
    2:18:56 They’re often not benevolent.
    2:19:00 And they’re often not benevolent, and they all convince themselves they’re benevolent.
    2:19:06 You know, I’m sure Hitler thought he’s doing the right thing, the good thing, the benevolent thing, in his worldview.
    2:19:08 Every single dictator does that.
    2:19:10 Yes, so that’s a problem.
    2:19:23 But, in order to be efficient, there has to be some level of controllability, and there has to be, I think, to go back to the steel man, you have to have a culture of productivity.
    2:19:31 That I’m not sure, I’ve had quite a bit of experience with DOD and DARPA from the academic side.
    2:19:33 Just everything is so bureaucratic and slow.
    2:19:35 That’s a different culture.
    2:19:44 So, you know, part of the destruction is in reestablishing a culture, and yes, make it more controllable so you can be efficient.
    2:19:47 We still need to define what the outcome is.
    2:19:47 Yes.
    2:19:49 Productivity in service of what?
    2:19:50 In service of what?
    2:19:51 Efficiency in service of what?
    2:19:55 And I think the juxtaposition of the private and public sectors is really useful here.
    2:20:04 Private companies, publicly traded companies, have the benefit of tight and quantifiable feedback loops.
    2:20:08 Are you making more money this quarter than you were last quarter, or less?
    2:20:09 How’s consumer feedback?
    2:20:11 Do people say they like the product more?
    2:20:14 Are you getting 4.8 on your reviews, or 4.6?
    2:20:18 The feedback loops are very quantifiable, and they’re also very, very quick.
    2:20:27 You know exactly when you’re doing a good and bad job, and so the KPIs are so cleanly drawn that people are aligned in their sense of we are moving forward or moving back, right?
    2:20:30 I don’t think government has done this at all under Doge.
    2:20:37 In fact, I think in some ways, goals that you could clearly identify as being good are being torn down.
    2:20:44 And this is why, again, it’s so useful to be able to articulate goals in politics, because without an articulation of goals, you don’t know whether,
    2:20:49 the job to be done is to take something away or to add something.
    2:20:54 And right now, the answer from Doge is to take away, take away, subtract everything, break down to studs, as Ezra said.
    2:20:57 But let’s take a really, really concrete example here.
    2:20:59 The FDA, right?
    2:21:02 Doge just laid off dozens of probationary employees.
    2:21:11 So upwardly mobile, recently hired, often very young, nicely credentialed employees at the FDA as a part of its slashing of the federal workforce.
    2:21:17 One of the big problems of the FDA is slow approval of phase three clinical trial drugs, right?
    2:21:27 Everyone in this country who believes in science and technology wants the most life-saving drugs to be brought into the public marketplace as soon as possible and competed against with other drugs.
    2:21:31 The price comes down and helps to extend people’s lives and health spans.
    2:21:34 I think everyone agrees that that is an outcome worth fighting for.
    2:21:37 And if they don’t, certainly, Ezra and I are willing to say, that’s an outcome that we want.
    2:21:39 That is, that’s what we want from our science policy.
    2:21:44 What happens if you cut probationary employees at the FDA?
    2:21:46 The FDA doesn’t become more efficient.
    2:22:00 It becomes less efficient because the same amount of work spread over fewer people means longer delays in terms of approving phase three clinical trial drugs and deciding whether or not to approve them for public consumption.
    2:22:07 So in this really, really clear and very specific example, I think we can see the problem with not having articulated goals.
    2:22:12 You don’t know whether the job to be done is to take away employees or to add them.
    2:22:23 I think if instead what Doge had done is come in and say, you know what, Elon Musk and a bunch of other people from Silicon Valley, one thing we take very seriously is the importance of scientific and technological progress.
    2:22:32 Because if you look back over decades and centuries, what distinguishes our generation from every other generation in terms of its health and its power is science and technology.
    2:22:37 And we want to infuse government with a sense of science and technological progress.
    2:22:44 And to that end, one thing we want to do is to have a smarter and more efficient FDA so that people can experience life-saving medicines.
    2:23:01 I think what you would do is research the bottlenecks that exist to American science and pharmaceutical policy and say we should hire more people at the FDA to accelerate drug approval, decide which drugs are to be rejected and which drugs are to get the FDA label.
    2:23:04 That is the opposite of the Doge approach.
    2:23:11 And this really, I think, puts a fine point to the problem of a Doge without goals.
    2:23:23 When Elon takes over Tesla, when Elon is at SpaceX, when Elon’s at X, I would imagine, and you know this better than me because you know him, and maybe most importantly, for the purposes of this part of the conversation, you know the people who work for him.
    2:23:30 I’ll bet if you ask the people who work under Elon at X, Tesla, SpaceX, they say, I know exactly what Elon wants.
    2:23:33 This is his goal for the super heavy rocket.
    2:23:36 This is his goal in terms of humanoid robots.
    2:23:43 This is his goal in terms of profitability of Twitter and the growth of our subscription business and how we’re going to integrate new features.
    2:23:45 There’s probably a really clear mind meld.
    2:23:48 Right now, I have no sense that there’s a mind meld.
    2:23:57 And in fact, I have the exact opposite sense that rather than an example of creative destruction, which would be a mitzvah of entrepreneurship, we have an act of destruction, destruction.
    2:24:00 We have destruction for the sake of destruction.
    2:24:19 It’s much cleaner to me from an interpretive standpoint to describe Doge as an ideological purge of progressivism, performing an act of or performing the job of efficiency rather than a department of actual efficiency itself.
    2:24:21 I want to say, because I really want to emphasize that it has goals.
    2:24:26 The goals are clear on some level, and they have to do with centralizing power.
    2:24:32 So let me take out something that’s not Doge, because I think an important place where you see what the effort is.
    2:24:35 What is Congress for?
    2:24:39 Not just Democrats in Congress who are in theory right now the opposition party, but Republicans in Congress.
    2:24:49 Congress is this aggregation of information from different places in the country who’ve chosen representatives to represent them in Washington, right?
    2:24:50 That’s how the system works.
    2:25:00 One of the things that has really cowed congressional Republicans, it is a huge sun-like gravitational force now on Capitol Hill,
    2:25:11 is that Elon has made it known that any House or Senate Republican who defies Trump on a key vote, cabinet nominees, the CR, that kind of thing,
    2:25:15 he will dump $50 to $100 million into a primary.
    2:25:16 It’s no money at all for him.
    2:25:19 It’s lethal for them, right?
    2:25:20 This is well-known.
    2:25:22 He has said this personally to some of them, right?
    2:25:23 It’s been well-reported.
    2:25:27 This is probably why Jody Ernst voted for Pete Hegseth.
    2:25:29 Well, what’s achieved by this?
    2:25:33 I think it’s an interesting question because Republicans, in theory, are allied to Donald Trump, right?
    2:25:36 He’s the nominee of their party, and they don’t have literally the same view of him.
    2:25:43 But I think you might say from one perspective, there is a value in the system in there being checks and balances.
    2:25:47 There’s a value in the system in the system having to absorb other kinds of information.
    2:25:51 Now, we already don’t have the checks and balances we once had or thought we would have in this country
    2:25:58 because we have nationalized political parties instead of branches of government that sort of compete with ambition,
    2:26:02 checking ambition, and I’ve done whole shows on this, and we can talk about that if we want.
    2:26:14 But we do have political parties, and political parties are themselves institutions that aggregate different kinds of information in order to try to come to some outcome that is a better outcome because more information has surfaced.
    2:26:29 I think Donald Trump would be in a stronger position for him if Senate Republicans could have done what they actually wanted to do and not confirm RFK Jr., not confirm Tulsi Gabbard, not confirm Pete Hegseth, not confirm Kash Patel and Don Bogino.
    2:26:33 That’s actually a huge amount of risk the Trump administration has taken on.
    2:26:39 If they had named a sort of normal figure to HHS and then there’s a measles outbreak.
    2:26:40 Well, measles outbreaks are tough.
    2:26:41 Like, that’s a hard thing.
    2:26:48 If you name RFK Jr. and there’s a huge measles outbreak, you’re really going to get blamed for that because people are ready to blame you.
    2:27:06 If there is a domestic terror attack after you’ve put Kash Patel, who’s quite unqualified, in charge of the FBI, and they sort of launched a war internally against the FBI, which they see as a hotbed of anti-Trump sentiment, and the FBI in the sort of internal chaos misses some things and you have deaths on Americans, so that’s a huge amount of risk you’ve taken on.
    2:27:10 I mean, the guy they fired, Chris Wray, he was Trump’s appointee.
    2:27:11 It wasn’t some Democrat.
    2:27:12 Trump named him in his first term.
    2:27:18 But Elon, right, what he did here was he created a kind of death star of primary money.
    2:27:23 And he has said that, like, if you cross Trump in Congress, even as a Republican, you’re done.
    2:27:29 Like, between Trump’s control of attention and loyalty and my ability to outspend you, like, you’re toast.
    2:27:35 I think what that reveals is that what he wants is for power to be centralized under Trump.
    2:27:38 We’ve been talking about through bureaucracy, but he also wants it to be true in Congress.
    2:27:43 I am not a Donald Trump fan, but obviously other people are Donald Trump fans, right?
    2:27:48 Obviously, I think at this point Elon Musk is a Donald Trump fan, but much of the country thinks this guy is great.
    2:27:52 And I think we should take what they are doing at word and deed.
    2:27:57 The point of Donald Trump is that Donald Trump is right about things.
    2:27:59 We should give him power, and he should use that power.
    2:28:02 My sense is you have some mixed feelings about him, but not everybody does.
    2:28:08 And this sort of very consistent application of authority across the people he’s named.
    2:28:20 J.D. Vance, the difference between Mike Pence and J.D. Vance is J.D. Vance said explicitly in the whole run-up to the vice presidential sweepstakes that his view of what went wrong in the first administration is between the bureaucracy and the staff.
    2:28:30 Too many people are trying to inhibit Donald Trump and that what he would do is tell Trump that, like, he’s got to get rid of these generals and he’s got to get people who will do what Trump actually said.
    2:28:46 The view of Trump’s fans, the view of his allies, is that the first term didn’t go well enough because they had too much opposition from Republicans in Congress who talked Trump into things they shouldn’t have talked him into, and too much opposition from the civil service and even from Trump’s own staff.
    2:28:56 I think a very simple heuristic of why these terms are so different is that the most important member of the Trump family, Trump aside, in the first term was Jared Kushner and maybe Ivanka.
    2:29:00 And the most important member of the family in the second is Don Trump Jr., right?
    2:29:02 Kushner brought in a bunch of inhibitors.
    2:29:12 He brought in mainstream figures like Gary Cohn and, you know, Kushner represented other parts of society that, you know, were sort of mixed on Trump and they wanted him to do certain things and not others.
    2:29:14 And there was maybe a productive tension.
    2:29:16 McConnell, you know, was majority leader.
    2:29:18 He was more powerful than Thune is.
    2:29:19 Paul Ryan was speaker.
    2:29:21 He’s more powerful than Mike Johnson is.
    2:29:25 In the second term, you have Don Trump Jr., who brings in much more right-wing figures.
    2:29:27 They’re accelerators, not inhibitors.
    2:29:29 Accelerationists, in many cases, explicitly.
    2:29:34 You have Elon Musk, who believes, like, the likeliest problem is Trump doesn’t go far enough fast enough.
    2:29:38 And you have a weak Republican Congress that is further cowed by Musk’s money.
    2:29:46 It could be good or it could be bad, but the Curtis-Yarvin take that we need a more monarch-like figure is clearly being tested out.
    2:29:52 Like, the view, just as you said, about software engineering things is that you often need a benevolent dictator.
    2:29:54 Now, I don’t think Trump is benevolent.
    2:29:55 Other people do.
    2:30:03 But the view that what is being attempted here is something much more centralized in its power, I think is actually a shared view of what’s going on.
    2:30:07 It’s like a consensus reality we have, not like an argument over reality we’re having.
    2:30:19 Do you think there’s some degree to where, if you trust in the system of democracy, which I do, and there’s some people, and we’ll talk about them, one of the main criticisms and concerns of Donald Trump is he’s going to break democracy.
    2:30:43 But if you trust that democracy holds, isn’t this an interesting experiment of how, when everybody’s aligned, aggressive cutting of regulation and the number of people is an experiment of like, okay, let’s see what this does to a really over-bloated bureaucracy that’s become extremely inefficient.
    2:31:02 And by the way, so I have an optimism about it that matches the vision of abundance in the book, that once you do the creative destruction, then you start to really be able to step in and have a clear vision of like, okay, housing.
    2:31:06 How do we, what are the policies to solve housing?
    2:31:09 But I do think the first step that’s needed is the destruction.
    2:31:14 As we’ve said, we’re sort of speed running a particular experiment here.
    2:31:15 Yeah.
    2:31:20 Of what does executive power look like if we do away as much as possible with checks and balances?
    2:31:27 And I would submit that we’re already starting to get some feedback loops from the market.
    2:31:33 The stock market is not the economy, but it is a very clear voting mechanism.
    2:31:44 And what’s clear is that many institutional and retail investors think that the current economic regime is pushing us toward a recession that we don’t have to have.
    2:31:44 Right.
    2:31:56 Donald Trump has insulated himself from any feedback loop or any sense of criticism that his tariff policy might not be the best course of strategy for American industry or global relations.
    2:32:03 And as a result, what we have is, I think, fairly described as a kind of purposeful chaos.
    2:32:07 I mean, what other term can you use if a tariff is being announced at 9 a.m.
    2:32:09 and then taken away at 3.30 p.m.
    2:32:14 and then 10 days later announced at 9.37 and then renegotiated at 2.45?
    2:32:22 This is not a principled theory of the perfect tariff level on international trade.
    2:32:28 This is, I think, much more parsimoniously explained by just an expression of Donald Trump’s personality.
    2:32:31 This is a New York real estate guy.
    2:32:45 He loves making big, awesome pronouncements and then using those big, awesome pronouncements in order to negotiate little one-on-one dealings where he can rest for himself a personal sense of power or money or pride.
    2:32:55 But announcing these tariffs in a sort of chaotic way forces world leaders to get on the phone with him and say, Donald, what can I give you to bring down the tariff, right?
    2:33:04 This is personality standing in for politics in a way that’s totally unmolested by anybody else’s sense of, hey, that’ll maybe chill it on the tariff policy.
    2:33:05 Hey, let’s maybe slow down on the deportations.
    2:33:08 I’m not so sure about this particular move over here.
    2:33:13 Instead, you have an executive branch that’s just a full manifestation of Donald Trump’s mind.
    2:33:35 And I do think that the early returns, if you look at consumer sentiment, if you look at the stock market, if you look at the 10-year yield, you have a range of, let’s call them, aggregated economic information telling us that the economy, consumers, employers, investors do not like what’s happening now, which is going to be a really interesting test case.
    2:33:43 Donald Trump’s first four years in office, right, love him or hate him, were four rather successful years of economic growth.
    2:33:49 Low unemployment, steady growth, low inflation, pretty much every economic indicator in the green.
    2:33:55 We’re already in the red in many of the economic indicators that never even blinked yellow under his first administration.
    2:34:08 And I personally don’t think it’s a coincidence that you’re getting these red indicators at a time when Donald Trump is having an entirely different experience of being president, where there is no Mnuchin to tell him, hey, maybe let’s cool it off in the tariffs.
    2:34:18 The one more thing I would add here is you said, you know, maybe, maybe Trump’s presidency is a kind of right-wing abundance, right?
    2:34:21 And I think that’s a worthy question, right?
    2:34:24 Is Donald Trump just doing his own version of abundance?
    2:34:31 And we should, even if we disagree with his process ideologically, sort of root for the outcomes that are likely under it.
    2:34:32 Here’s why I don’t think so.
    2:34:40 Let’s say that you, or just someone as a conservative, shares our view that they want housing to be abundant.
    2:34:47 I think what they should really root for is to reduce the tax for building and make it easier to add housing units cheaply.
    2:34:50 Well, houses are made out of materials.
    2:34:56 Two of the most important materials in home building are soft lumber and drywall.
    2:34:59 Soft lumber we import from Canada.
    2:35:02 Drywall, one of the key ingredients, we import from Mexico.
    2:35:10 One of the first things that’s going to happen if you raise a 25% tariff on lumber from Canada and drywall from Mexico is that the cost of housing is going to go straight up.
    2:35:12 And this isn’t my personal opinion.
    2:35:21 This was a March 7th memo sent by the National Association of Home Builders, essentially in a kind of controlled panic, saying, please don’t do a tariff policy like this.
    2:35:30 You’re going to screw over home builders, you’re going to screw over home builders, even though, ironically, you, Donald Trump, were elected by Biden to Trump voters who were mad about the price of housing.
    2:35:40 So I am not in the moment optimistic that his centralizing style is going to be economically useful for Americans, whatever their interests.
    2:35:48 My sense of the early feedback and of the early returns is that he, in fact, does not have a very clear and beneficial economic agenda.
    2:35:50 He has a personal agenda.
    2:35:57 He likes taking phone calls from international leaders and working out little deals with them.
    2:36:04 I don’t think that’s in the larger interest of economic growth, and certainly I don’t think it’s in the specific interest of reducing housing prices.
    2:36:06 Okay, there’s a lot to say there.
    2:36:12 So, first of all, can we separate the sort of abundance and those efforts from tariffs?
    2:36:17 Because I don’t know who agrees with tariffs.
    2:36:19 Tariffs don’t make sense to me economically.
    2:36:26 Maybe you can explain who agrees or likes the tariffs on the right or the left or anybody.
    2:36:27 Do you see my point that…
    2:36:38 Well, that point also, to comment on it, I mean, one of the mechanisms by which bureaucracy forms is a kind of polite civility and a structure and a process.
    2:36:46 There is an argument to be made, and I’m not saying Donald Trump is that person, but there’s some qualities there of picking up the phone and calling Putin.
    2:36:49 That goes against all the process.
    2:36:56 Some of the most successful peace negotiations throughout history broke process.
    2:36:58 I just spoke with Narendra Modi.
    2:36:59 You know, there’s a process.
    2:37:02 You’re not supposed to meet with Pakistan or whatever for India.
    2:37:04 You just screw it.
    2:37:07 I’m going to go to a wedding, a Pakistan wedding of a high-up official.
    2:37:10 I’m going to do these things that are very Trumpian.
    2:37:11 Break the rules.
    2:37:24 Now, that, you know, in a perfect world, some of that is good matched with principled policy that’s surrounded by a large number of experts that actually understand that policy.
    2:37:24 Okay.
    2:37:26 I can criticize Trump all day.
    2:37:35 But I’m just saying that there is some degree to picking up the phone and talking to leaders and playing in the morning, say one thing, in the evening, another.
    2:37:38 That could be part of a principled chaos.
    2:37:42 I think the important part of madman theory is that you’re not actually a madman.
    2:37:44 You just got to convince people you are.
    2:37:44 Yes, yes.
    2:37:47 Look, I don’t think I am in agreement that we should talk to everybody.
    2:37:53 People, I don’t know how many, yeah, I don’t know how many people followed the 2008 election closely who are watching this.
    2:37:59 There’s a big fight in that election between Clinton and Obama about should you negotiate with your enemies?
    2:38:01 And Obama’s view is we should.
    2:38:02 We should talk to anybody.
    2:38:06 And Clinton’s view was more nuanced than that, right?
    2:38:07 Certainly we shouldn’t at this juncture.
    2:38:13 And during his presidency, Obama did a deal with Iran on the nuclear question.
    2:38:15 He negotiated with Cuba, right?
    2:38:17 He had very direct negotiations with Russia.
    2:38:24 He did it, importantly, unlike Donald Trump, without alienating all of our traditional allies.
    2:38:35 One of the things that I think is important to say about Trump is that the difference between Trump and, say, Biden or Trump and Obama is not that Trump will negotiate with Putin and Obama wouldn’t.
    2:38:39 It’s that Trump is realigning our alliances.
    2:38:45 He doesn’t really seem to want to negotiate with the Europeans, or at least he wants to do it from a more hostile position.
    2:38:50 He wants to make Canada the 51st state, not treat it as a longtime ally.
    2:38:54 The thing here is not that Trump is negotiating with our perceived enemies.
    2:38:57 These are his perceived allies.
    2:39:00 And he’s turning our traditional allies into perceived enemies.
    2:39:02 So with him, I think it’s important.
    2:39:05 Like, I am very much on the view of you talk to everybody.
    2:39:13 And it was my view going back, you know, for some years that, like, that it was clear that the Biden administration needed to be pushing for negotiations over Ukraine.
    2:39:17 There was not going to be some endgame here where Ukraine got all of its territory back.
    2:39:29 But, but, but, but, I don’t think it is reasonable to look at what he is doing and say that is the norm that he has broken.
    2:39:31 The idea that we should have negotiations.
    2:39:33 I mean, many different presidents have done many surprising things.
    2:39:35 And he’s rolled back a bunch of those things.
    2:39:40 You know, Republicans have been very unfriendly to the opening that began with Cuba.
    2:39:41 Right.
    2:39:43 And that was like a big deal in American foreign policy.
    2:39:46 Something Obama did against very heavy criticism.
    2:39:51 Something that cost him and cost Democrats in Florida and among Cuban voters in the following election.
    2:39:55 So when I, I just don’t think that that’s that unusual thing with Trump.
    2:40:01 I also just want to say with the tariffs, you sort of wanted to cut the tariffs off from Doge and cut the tariffs off from this broader agenda.
    2:40:08 And one reason I don’t is that I think the way to understand tariffs, look, you can be accomplishing many different things with tariffs.
    2:40:25 One thing, which was a theory that, that you heard from some people around Trump and, and, and sort of fit what he said on the campaign trail, which was Trump’s position on the campaign trail was that he was going to lay down 10 to 20% tariffs on all imported goods and 65% tariffs on imported goods from China.
    2:40:28 So I think that’s a bad idea for a bunch of different reasons.
    2:40:33 But what that is, is a stable change in the cost structure for all corporations and all trade.
    2:40:39 And then different players can make different investment decisions in the longterm based on this new cost structure.
    2:40:46 What he’s doing is, as Derek said, and I’ve had these funny experiences where I’m literally doing a podcast with a tariffs expert.
    2:40:49 And I’ll be talking about like the auto parts problem.
    2:40:54 And then my producer would be like, uh, he just, you know, delayed the tariff on the auto parts.
    2:41:00 What he’s doing with these tariffs that you move on and you move off and you negotiate over endlessly.
    2:41:06 And I’ve been told this again, by people around him is their view is that America had leverage.
    2:41:10 It wasn’t using and tariffs in particular are a form of executive control.
    2:41:14 Trade deals need to be negotiated and ratified with Congress.
    2:41:20 Trade deals are, are, are something you have to do with the rest of the system, but tariffs are something Trump can do unilaterally.
    2:41:22 And one thing Trump wants is control.
    2:41:25 That is the through line of virtually everything in his politics.
    2:41:28 Tariffs are a leverage-based form of foreign policy.
    2:41:37 They are, America has the biggest economy in the world that anybody who’s going to get into a trade war with us is going to suffer worse than we will.
    2:41:43 And there’s something where the president can use the tariffs because of authority granted by Congress some time ago for other purposes.
    2:41:46 He can use them with a huge amount of discretion.
    2:41:53 So you can use them on the one hand to say, well, I think that we’ve lost too much manufacturing and the dollar is undervalued in other places and so are overvalued rather.
    2:42:02 And so we want to use tariffs to, to, to, to make the cost structure differently so that people to locate more of the supply chains and the intermediate manufacturing in the United States.
    2:42:07 But you can also use a tariff to say Columbia has to take the people we’re deporting and they have to take them in chains.
    2:42:08 Right.
    2:42:09 And Donald Trump is doing both things.
    2:42:13 And the reason I think it’s important to keep those in mind is that what Donald Trump wants,
    2:42:16 what connects a lot of different things is that he wants leverage over things.
    2:42:20 He wants, I think it connects to Eric Adams and you were sitting here talking in New York City.
    2:42:24 Eric Adams is a democratic mayor, right?
    2:42:27 Donald Trump is no truck with Eric, Eric Adams, right?
    2:42:28 He did not support Eric Adams.
    2:42:38 Eric Adams is not his natural ally, but what he had over Eric Adams, he realized was a leverage that he could get the, the cases off of Eric Adams and then get Eric Adams in his pocket.
    2:42:53 So Donald Trump stepped in to save like the, like the Democrat, the corrupt democratic mayor of New York City, because not because they have a deep ideological alliance, but because then Donald Trump would have power over New York City and its policy that he wouldn’t otherwise have.
    2:42:57 And the thing that connects Trump, Trump is a very old school politician.
    2:42:58 He’s very relational.
    2:42:59 He’s very 19th century.
    2:43:01 He’s looking for the angle.
    2:43:02 He’s very zero sum.
    2:43:04 He’s looking for things to give him power.
    2:43:06 Doge is a way of getting power over the bureaucracy.
    2:43:12 Tariffs are a way of getting power over the international financial system and foreign policy and breaking sort of traditional alliances.
    2:43:23 Maybe in his mind, even getting Canada to become the 51st state, maybe getting Mexico to change its immigration policy, use trying to weaponize the Justice Department against Eric Adams as a way of getting power over a democratic mayor.
    2:43:29 Some of what they’re doing with grants and money is a way of getting power over sort of other institutions in American life.
    2:43:34 Again, you could think it’s bad or you could think it’s good, but it is coherent, right?
    2:43:36 I think it’s bad, but it is coherent.
    2:43:39 And the people who think it’s good, think it’s good for Trump to have power.
    2:43:42 Again, with the Eric Adams thing, they were very explicit about this, right?
    2:43:52 They said that it is worthwhile for the president to negotiate over his policy objectives and to trade things to get his policy objectives more fully carried out.
    2:43:57 And so Eric Adams went from saying New York City would be a sanctuary city to they’d aggressively carry out deportations.
    2:44:00 You can think that kind of transactionalism is fine.
    2:44:04 I think in this case, given that it’s about corruption, it wasn’t.
    2:44:14 But the idea, Trump’s idea, that the problem is that the president doesn’t wield enough power here the way he does in Russia, the way he might in India, the way he might in China.
    2:44:18 Trump has spoken very openly of envying some of the powers these other people have.
    2:44:23 I think it’s a consistent governing philosophy that needs to be taken as that, right?
    2:44:34 I think sometimes you describe one of the difficulties Trump poses is sometimes if you just describe what he’s doing, I think, quite neutrally, people say, oh, you’re criticizing him.
    2:44:34 You’re anti-Trump.
    2:44:38 But I I’m just describing what he’s doing.
    2:44:39 You can think it’s good or it’s bad.
    2:44:47 But like the fact that he wants to arrogate power and find points of leverage and tariffs are one, what he’s doing through Doge is another, what he did with the DOJ is another.
    2:44:49 It’s all very consistent.
    2:44:56 The question is really then just whether or not you have what your normative view is on Trump having that much power.
    2:45:15 Yeah, I have a question about DOJ, but before that, I’ll just say that I don’t think Donald Trump should have that much power because I think to this day, my biggest criticism and concern is that he is a person that denied the results of the election.
    2:45:44 And so I’m unwilling, you know, like George Washington, I like people that have the skill, the ability, the track record to walk away from power and a person who’s unwilling to accept reality and is willing to bend reality to maintain a grip on power, even if what they’re trying to do is really good, maybe making a government more efficient makes me very concerned.
    2:45:48 But on the topic of DOJ is more on the Elon side.
    2:45:52 If we can sort of combine DOJ and abundance as a topic.
    2:45:54 If DOJ succeeds.
    2:46:04 The effort, let’s just forget DOJ, but the effort of making government more efficient, what does that look like before the next election and after the next election?
    2:46:07 If we can just look at success.
    2:46:10 I know I’m jumping again, but I’ll do something quick and then pass to you.
    2:46:25 I’m not a huge fan of the experiment framing because amidst this experiment, people are, through USAID, as my colleague Nick Kristof has documented, and potentially further in other ways will die, lose homes, be scammed by things.
    2:46:28 So I feel like experimenting with the government at that level is very dangerous.
    2:46:42 But if assuming democracy survives, Democrats, if they’re going to make the government work again, are going to have to become less rule bound than they were.
    2:46:47 I have this line that the problem with the personality type of the right is it’s autocratic now.
    2:46:49 And the problem with the personality type of the left is it’s bureaucratic.
    2:46:58 And I don’t want to see things going either to where DOJ is in terms of I think there’s a fundamental lawlessness to it, but I also don’t like the aims of it.
    2:47:09 But I don’t want to see things where Democrats were, which is such unfathomably, which is such respect for process that they will put the process ahead of getting their own things done.
    2:47:16 They will listen to any lawyer with any super intense interpretation of any law, and that’ll turn them all the way back.
    2:47:27 What DOJ has demonstrated is that the room for movement inside the American government, inside the state, is much wider than anybody gave it credit for, both Republican and Democratic administrations.
    2:47:29 It may not be as wide.
    2:47:33 It probably isn’t legally as wide as what DOJ is trying to do, and that’s why they’re losing all these court cases.
    2:47:36 But it is wide, and you could also use Congress, right?
    2:47:39 You could pass statute to make it wider, and you should.
    2:47:50 There is no abundance agenda that works if the Democratic Party is as rule-bound and as process-obsessed as it was in the last 10 years.
    2:47:52 It doesn’t work flatly, right?
    2:47:55 That is why so many of the stories we tell in the book are about process gone.
    2:48:05 It’s not process gone wrong because it’s doing exactly what it was intended to do, but it is process that has become antagonistic to the promised outcomes.
    2:48:10 And so I do hope there’s a kind of, you know, thesis, right?
    2:48:12 All the institutions are great.
    2:48:13 Democrats are the defenders of government.
    2:48:17 Antithesis, the government is a corrupt cesspool.
    2:48:25 It’s a, you know, it’s a ball of worms, and it has to be destroyed and taken over by a benevolent or non-benevolent dictator.
    2:48:32 And synthesis, which is that the government’s process has made it not a functional state.
    2:48:35 It’s non-responsive in many important ways.
    2:48:51 And it needs to be, like, reformed at a quite fundamental level, but in a way that is lawful, in a way that is thoughtful, in a way that is running experiments that gathers information and then can make adjustments, in a way that is respectful of the human lives that it touches and affects.
    2:49:02 In a way that is not hostile to the goals of good government, but is more committed to them than it is committed to the process the government has erected and evolved over time.
    2:49:13 Andrew articulated the principle beautifully, and just to put some meat on the bones, abundance is about being incredibly concrete about what you want to accomplish in the world.
    2:49:20 Then it’s about understanding how to accomplish that, a stage of the process that I think Doge has entirely skipped.
    2:49:23 I don’t think we’ve reached the stage of understanding.
    2:49:28 We’ve destroyed, and then maybe it’s sometimes promised to understand the thing that we’ve destroyed after the fact.
    2:49:33 You want to set goals, you want to understand how to meet those goals, and then you want to meet them.
    2:49:40 And the problem with liberalism of the last few years and last few decades is that we’ve become disconnected from outcomes.
    2:49:42 Really, really crystal clear example.
    2:49:50 So Joe Biden in 2021 signs the bipartisan infrastructure law, and he and Pete Buttigieg call it, truthfully,
    2:49:53 one of the most important infrastructure bills passed in the last few decades.
    2:49:59 $1.2 trillion to do exactly what Ezra and I want to do, to build in the world.
    2:50:07 There’s a piece of that law that’s a $42 billion program called BEAD, which stands for Broadband Equity Access and Deployment, I think.
    2:50:10 $42 billion to build rural broadband.
    2:50:14 Fast forward to 2024, practically none of it is built.
    2:50:16 We’re now four calendar years after it was passed.
    2:50:21 And the program is, at this point, it seems like it’s going to die, and they’re just going to transfer the whole thing to Starlink.
    2:50:22 So why?
    2:50:31 We want to understand why does government fail to achieve its outcomes, and how can we learn from those failures to allow government to succeed at its outcomes?
    2:50:37 Well, you look into it, and it turns out that in order to take these $42 billion and send it to the states,
    2:50:42 the states had to go through a 14-stage process in order to get the money.
    2:50:47 First, the FCC had to draw a map of the places where America needed more rural broadband.
    2:50:50 And then there was a challenge period where people could question the map.
    2:50:55 And the FCC would remake the map, and then the challengers would re-sue them to change the map again.
    2:51:01 Then the states had to file a letter of intent and a five-year action plan and a funding program,
    2:51:04 all of which could be subject to their own challenge periods.
    2:51:08 And in each of these challenge periods, the Commerce Department is going back to the states and saying,
    2:51:14 we really like your five-year plan, but your workforce development program didn’t pass this matrix of equity,
    2:51:16 and you didn’t reach out to the right bidders over here.
    2:51:20 And if you try harder to reach out to more people who just aren’t white men to be your employees,
    2:51:25 that would be fantastic if you could put that into the new edit that you submit to us.
    2:51:28 And of course, there are delays because every state has to do its own programs.
    2:51:29 The Commerce Department is backed up.
    2:51:30 Yada, yada, yada.
    2:51:39 You get to a point where out of 56 states and jurisdictions that have applied to begin the 14-stage process,
    2:51:43 by the time the Democrats lose the election in November 2024,
    2:51:48 three out of the 56 have passed all 14 stages,
    2:51:52 and very little of the money has actually been spent because of all the problems that Ezra and I discussed
    2:51:54 about how hard it is to build in the physical world.
    2:52:00 $42 billion, therefore, dies upon contact with planet Earth.
    2:52:03 That’s not government achieving its goals.
    2:52:05 And a doge that we were sort of, you know,
    2:52:07 du-umvrits of in this parallel universe
    2:52:12 is one that would try very clearly to, A, articulate a goal.
    2:52:13 What are we trying to do here?
    2:52:15 We’re trying to build rural broadband.
    2:52:19 Why? Because we think connectivity is incredibly important to the economy of the future.
    2:52:20 It helps people’s health.
    2:52:22 It helps the economy of rural areas.
    2:52:24 Let’s build rural broadband.
    2:52:25 Two, what are the roadblocks?
    2:52:27 What are the bottlenecks?
    2:52:31 What’s hard about taking a pot of money that exists in Washington
    2:52:36 and actually creating broadband networks in rural Kentucky?
    2:52:39 Let’s understand what those roadblocks are so that we can do two things.
    2:52:42 We can take away the things that need to be taken away to accelerate the program,
    2:52:46 and maybe we can add new policies that will accelerate the spending.
    2:52:49 Because bottom line, we want to make a difference in the world.
    2:52:54 That’s a world where government is, to borrow Ezra’s language, deregulated itself.
    2:52:57 It’s easier for the government to achieve its goals.
    2:53:05 I think that it’s really important at the level of principle here that liberals fall out of love
    2:53:10 with this procedural fetish that has dominated the left over the last half century
    2:53:12 and fall back in love with outcomes,
    2:53:17 to be ruthlessly obsessed with how liberalism has failed
    2:53:21 and how these kind of failures aren’t just technocratic stories to tell in a podcast.
    2:53:28 I think this is fundamental to why Democrats are losing the communications war
    2:53:30 in an era of anti-establishment and anti-institution.
    2:53:35 We find ourselves in a reflexive position of having all the cranks, so to speak,
    2:53:39 having left the Democratic Party, and we’re the ones who defend all institutions.
    2:53:40 We’re the ones who defend the establishments.
    2:53:42 We’re the ones saying government can only do good.
    2:53:48 But as a result, we lose the ability to talk to people about how government fails
    2:53:50 and how they can see that failure
    2:53:54 and how sometimes they’re literally leaving cities and states run by Democrats
    2:53:57 because that failure is so effing obvious to them.
    2:54:00 So this isn’t just about the Bede program.
    2:54:02 It’s not just about 14-step programs.
    2:54:03 It’s not just about rural broadband.
    2:54:07 It really is about a higher-level principle of political communication.
    2:54:12 How do you develop a liberalism that in an age of anti-establishment anger,
    2:54:17 both reflects that anger and channels it for proactive purposes
    2:54:20 by not just doing destruction-destruction, but creative destruction?
    2:54:22 So first of all, beautifully put.
    2:54:28 And second, the big thing that Doge did is make this a sexy topic to discuss,
    2:54:31 and then you can tear down Doge with the way they’re doing it,
    2:54:33 say it’s wrong, criticize, but then people are all of a sudden
    2:54:37 more and more caring about the efficiency of government
    2:54:39 and educating themselves, learning about it.
    2:54:42 And it’s creating a culture of transparency to the whole thing.
    2:54:45 So now you can swoop in with a book like Abundance
    2:54:48 and describe, here’s how to do actually,
    2:54:50 how to have a clear mission and metrics,
    2:54:51 how to solve these problems.
    2:54:56 But that allows, as opposed to have this culture of process,
    2:55:02 me personally, one of the things that really frustrates me about this world
    2:55:07 is that the bureaucracy of that kind of process,
    2:55:10 especially because everybody, at least in the United States,
    2:55:14 is just all so fucking polite everywhere about the whole thing.
    2:55:17 They’re all so nice to you as they’re doing the process.
    2:55:19 about every single thing.
    2:55:23 They’re just like, this is, and then you have to call from nine to five.
    2:55:27 There’s hours and let’s schedule a meeting in three weeks from now
    2:55:29 to discuss this document so we can have another document.
    2:55:32 And all of a sudden, the big dreams and the visions,
    2:55:36 the hopes that people have invested in building a project
    2:55:38 that’s an incredible project dies.
    2:55:40 It’s not just the waste of money.
    2:55:44 It’s the possibility of a beautiful thing that could have been built
    2:55:44 never gets built.
    2:55:49 You’re retracing Ezra’s lovely line about how the character of the right
    2:55:51 these days is autocratic and the character of the left
    2:55:52 can be overly bureaucratic.
    2:55:55 I hope there’s a middle synthesis lane here
    2:56:00 where there’s a political identity that believes in efficient bureaucracies.
    2:56:03 Sometimes it actually does take a lot of people to get certain things done.
    2:56:08 But you really, I think, need to have an eye toward institutional reform.
    2:56:10 This is a theme of our book that we haven’t talked about as much yet,
    2:56:12 but I think it’s so important for abundance
    2:56:18 to believe that each generation adopts, is passed down,
    2:56:20 institutions that were created for different eras,
    2:56:22 different decades, to solve different problems.
    2:56:26 That’s how you get an environmental revolution in the 1960s
    2:56:29 that solves the problem of dirty air and dirty water,
    2:56:31 but leaves us with a set of norms like NEPA
    2:56:35 that make it impossible to add clean energy in our generation.
    2:56:38 Just a tragedy of unintended outcomes.
    2:56:42 And to narrow this down to, you know, a world that I know you care a lot about,
    2:56:47 there’s a chapter in our book about science policy and the history of the NIH.
    2:56:51 The NIH really comes into its own after World War II.
    2:56:57 And it is immediately this beautifully funded crown jewel of biomedical research.
    2:57:02 Just the federal government irrigating university researchers studying cancer and heart disease
    2:57:04 and brain science and everything else.
    2:57:09 I mean, practically every single scientific breakthrough in the U.S. in the last 70 years
    2:57:12 at least bears the fingerprints of NIH.
    2:57:14 But the NIH is also a bureaucracy.
    2:57:19 And like every bureaucracy, it has accumulated a set of processes and habits
    2:57:23 that it’s the people most affected by it, scientists in America told us
    2:57:26 and will tell anybody else who’s listening, has flaws.
    2:57:32 According to some surveys, 40% of the time that scientists are working today in America,
    2:57:37 they are filling out grants and doing paperwork, not doing science.
    2:57:38 That is astonishing.
    2:57:44 I mean, as we say in the book, imagine if we discovered that one year there was a virus
    2:57:50 that broke out in the American academic scene such that our scientists suffered from chronic
    2:57:54 fatigue disorder between January and June every single year.
    2:57:55 They just couldn’t work.
    2:57:57 We’d be like, this is an absolute shonda.
    2:57:58 We have to fix this problem.
    2:57:59 This problem exists.
    2:58:01 It’s our own bureaucratic rules.
    2:58:04 It’s the rules that we wrote that’s slowing down science.
    2:58:05 So what should we do?
    2:58:07 I don’t think we should tear down the NIH.
    2:58:12 I don’t think we should slash and burn grants as we’re currently doing in the administration.
    2:58:17 I think we should understand what’s broken and be clear about our desired outcomes.
    2:58:23 My desired outcome for science is that we produce and pursue high-risk, high-reward science
    2:58:29 under the theory that almost no important breakthrough is going to be obvious before you discovered it.
    2:58:31 If it’s obvious, you probably already knew it.
    2:58:32 So why is it some new science?
    2:58:37 You should want to incentivize scientists to ask their biggest, most curious questions
    2:58:39 in a high-risk, high-reward environment.
    2:58:41 And right now, the NIH doesn’t do that.
    2:58:46 The NIH, for a variety of reasons, whether it’s aspects of the peer review process or
    2:58:49 just assumptions that scientists have of the system, is too incrementalist.
    2:58:55 It funds older researchers, and it wastes a lot of scientists’ time with bureaucratic paperwork
    2:58:55 and kludge.
    2:58:57 We’d love to reform it.
    2:58:58 We have ideas for reforming it.
    2:59:07 But if liberals don’t use the language of and act on institutional reform, we will allow institutions
    2:59:14 to grow old and sclerotic and piss off Americans, and they’ll vote for people who come in with
    2:59:15 a wrecking ball to tear it down.
    2:59:16 Right?
    2:59:22 So that’s why I think it’s so important for abundance liberals like us to be very clear
    2:59:26 about our goals, our outcomes, and exactly what we want to accomplish, because I think
    2:59:31 that’s the only way to really see how and why institutions that are all around us truly do
    2:59:32 need reform.
    2:59:36 Listen, I hope your book becomes the manifesto of the Democratic Party.
    2:59:37 It’s a beautiful vision.
    2:59:44 I’m a little bit skeptical because of the momentum of bureaucratic thought, but I nevertheless remain
    2:59:44 hopeful.
    2:59:53 I have to ask, because I’m a fan of both of you in the interest of time, Ezra, you had
    2:59:58 an intense debate many years ago with Sam Harris.
    2:59:59 Okay.
    3:00:03 So you’re, I would say, like I said, I’m a fan of both of you.
    3:00:05 You’re both intellectually rigorous people.
    3:00:14 So it was the debate, the contentiousness of it was both sad to me, but also just a fan of
    3:00:18 you and, and, uh, since I admire your intellects, it’s just fun to watch.
    3:00:20 What is it?
    3:00:22 Uh, Godzilla and King Kong fight.
    3:00:25 Uh, I wish there was more of it.
    3:00:29 I wish you would do this podcast again and debate it more on some other topic and argue
    3:00:30 is just great.
    3:00:36 Anyway, uh, you know, in some time has passed in the, in, what was this eight years ago now?
    3:00:38 Yeah.
    3:00:38 Yeah.
    3:00:39 Something there.
    3:00:40 Yeah.
    3:00:42 The battles you have fought over the years.
    3:00:44 That’s just a lot of chapters.
    3:00:45 A lot of chapters.
    3:00:45 Yeah.
    3:00:47 This is like several chapters ago.
    3:00:55 Um, but you know, uh, in the interest of camaraderie, what do you admire, uh, most about
    3:00:55 Sam Harris?
    3:00:57 Oh, that’s not a hard question.
    3:01:01 If you go back, if you listen to that debate on my show at box, I intro that debate by saying,
    3:01:07 look, I disagree with Harris on like this specific conversation he had with Charles Murray about
    3:01:09 race and IQ, but he’s good on meditation.
    3:01:11 He’s good on psychedelics.
    3:01:12 He’s good on consciousness.
    3:01:13 He’s good.
    3:01:14 I don’t know if I said AI back then, though.
    3:01:15 I think he’s good on AI.
    3:01:22 I always felt in that without going like back into the way back machine that Sam really
    3:01:25 thought like he really somehow got where I was wrong.
    3:01:29 And I thought I offered like a lot of like tries for deescalation.
    3:01:33 And you can, he did me weirdly the favor of publishing our whole email correspondence.
    3:01:36 I think if you read that, you can see that like, I was not angling for a fight here.
    3:01:41 Um, what I admired about him since, I think the thing that he’s been good on is he’s been
    3:01:42 very independent.
    3:01:47 So Sam at that time, there was sort of the emergence around then of this thing that people
    3:01:49 then called the intellectual dark web.
    3:01:53 And it was like Sam and the Weinstein brothers and Ben Shapiro.
    3:01:55 And, um, I forget who was part of it.
    3:02:02 And as a bunch of those people, I think, I mean, it kind of split up over time, but Harris
    3:02:10 has done a good job not falling into conspiracy as the Weinstein brothers did, not letting,
    3:02:14 um, his anger at the left blind him to the failures of the right.
    3:02:19 He’s a guy, you know, I guess both for better and for worse as we all are, but he is perfectly
    3:02:20 willing to stand alone in a crowd.
    3:02:24 Like I haven’t listened to that much of his stuff lately, but my sense is he’s been like
    3:02:27 quite clear eyed from my perspective on Donald Trump.
    3:02:31 So like, I don’t think Sam, I, my view is not that Sam Harris is in general a bad actor.
    3:02:32 It just isn’t.
    3:02:32 Yeah.
    3:02:38 He’s been like, uh, difficult to categorize and fearless about it.
    3:02:44 Meaning like it doesn’t, um, he deliberately resists audience, audience capture.
    3:02:45 So yeah, which is a hard thing to do.
    3:02:46 It’s quite difficult.
    3:02:49 I think I saw a clip of him on this show, sort of like going after Trump and it became
    3:02:50 like a big whole thing.
    3:02:51 Yeah.
    3:02:53 I mean, he’s been very consistent on that.
    3:02:56 Let’s, let’s try to find the interesting, uh, thing here.
    3:03:00 I actually had a while back, uh, a podcast with Richard Heyer.
    3:03:09 He studies intelligence and it was a very detailed non-policy, uh, discussion about IQ tests and
    3:03:10 all that kind of stuff.
    3:03:17 And there I did, uh, I tried extremely hard to be very nuanced because that felt like an
    3:03:19 uncomfortable topic back then.
    3:03:21 It doesn’t feel so uncomfortable now.
    3:03:24 Do you think the Overton window has expanded?
    3:03:27 Do you think the kind of things we’re willing to talk about now?
    3:03:30 I mean, this has to do with the Trump moment also.
    3:03:36 I think the place where the topic seems to me to have changed in my ambient awareness of
    3:03:38 it is two things.
    3:03:42 One is a sense that the Flynn effect, which is, yeah, it’s hard to individually change
    3:03:45 your IQ, but there is a very well-documented effect.
    3:03:47 And I talked to James Flynn before I talked to Sam.
    3:03:52 Um, there is a very well-documented effect where IQs have been rising over time.
    3:03:54 There’s good evidence now that that has stopped.
    3:03:59 Um, again, this is ambiently my sense, right?
    3:04:01 I’ve read some things like in passing.
    3:04:05 I have not, I did not come to this podcast preparing to talk about IQ, or I would have prepared
    3:04:05 very carefully.
    3:04:08 And then there was an interesting FT article just the other day.
    3:04:11 It was like, have we passed peak human intelligence?
    3:04:14 And my sense is not, is it that that wasn’t about IQ?
    3:04:16 Although again, like I don’t remember exactly what was in it.
    3:04:21 I kind of glanced at it and put it aside to read more later, but that literacy scores are
    3:04:23 going down and a number of test scores are going down.
    3:04:29 And the sort of sense of the piece was that we are making ourselves stupider by endlessly
    3:04:32 staring at screens and social media, which I think is probably right.
    3:04:38 And I’ve had this sort of line since becoming aware of that piece of my head that, uh, we
    3:04:42 spend a lot of time talking about how to get smarter and not enough time talking about how
    3:04:43 to avoid getting dumber.
    3:04:47 But we do a lot of things that a lot of things that we think make us smarter.
    3:04:50 Like I would say having social media on our phones, cause like, oh, you’re getting all
    3:04:55 this information all the time that in fact make us dumber, uh, because it’s not just that
    3:05:00 the information is bad, but the lack of concentration, the constant distraction, the sort of lack of
    3:05:00 focus.
    3:05:05 And so my sense is that there is a different kind of conversation here.
    3:05:11 I’m not sure it’s really an IQ conversation, but that there is a sense that we are inflicting
    3:05:18 a possibly global, certainly societal cognitive wound on ourselves, right?
    3:05:20 That’s what John Haidt’s book is a little bit about, right?
    3:05:24 That’s sort of more coming at it from a behavioral standpoint, but we have, you know,
    3:05:26 the Flynn effect reflects, right?
    3:05:28 This is how James Flynn would, uh, describe it.
    3:05:35 The Flynn effect reflects society’s putting on, as he, I think, put it the scientific spectacles.
    3:05:40 You create societies where we prize things like reading, abstract intelligence, symbolic
    3:05:44 logic, you teach people in them a lot and we get better and better and better at doing
    3:05:45 it.
    3:05:47 And I mean, reading changes the brain.
    3:05:49 It changes the physical structure of the brain.
    3:05:53 You’re hijacking parts of the mind meant for other purposes to, to do this kind of interpretive
    3:05:59 work, but it’s of course possible just as we became societally connected and then made more
    3:06:04 and more widespread technologies like literacy that changed our brains and led to the increase
    3:06:06 in this thing we call G, right?
    3:06:08 G intelligence and decreases in other things, right?
    3:06:12 Like I’m really shitty at knowing which direction I’m going into this sort of part of my brain
    3:06:18 that does navigation is terribly atrophied compared to somebody in a, in a more, um, in a society
    3:06:20 that did not have Google maps.
    3:06:24 Uh, it’s entirely possible to go too far in that, right?
    3:06:27 It’s entirely possible to move on to technologies to begin to, to, to weaken that.
    3:06:33 I have this concern very profoundly about AI, by the way, which obviously you have a lot of
    3:06:37 your roots in and I have a, there are parts of AI I’m very optimistic about, but my biggest
    3:06:41 concern about AI is we’re going to make ourselves much stupider without realizing it because
    3:06:46 the things that are easy to automate in AI, which is like getting the AI to summarize the
    3:06:50 reading of something or getting AI to write the first draft of something.
    3:06:53 That’s where all the intelligence happens in my view.
    3:06:58 Um, I think, you know, one advantage I have over a lot of other podcast hosts who superficially
    3:07:02 do what I do, probably this is true for you, I’m sure this is true for you, I know, is that
    3:07:03 I really do do the reading.
    3:07:08 No summary is equivalent to me doing the reading and sitting there and making the associations
    3:07:10 myself and spending the time in the book.
    3:07:14 And then like sort of thinking about what it brought up in me, I write the first draft.
    3:07:17 ChatGPT cannot write the first draft of my book.
    3:07:20 The first draft is fucking hard to write.
    3:07:24 And it’s often hard because like it’s completely wrong, but not because it’s narrowly wrong,
    3:07:24 right?
    3:07:28 ChatGPT will never tell you the problem with what you’re trying to do is that you’re just
    3:07:29 trying to do the wrong thing.
    3:07:33 It’ll never tell you if you tell it to write a first draft, that’s the wrong direction for
    3:07:34 this draft.
    3:07:36 Some part of you has to know it.
    3:07:40 And often the problem is you just haven’t done enough reporting, haven’t done enough research.
    3:07:42 And ChatGPT can’t tell you that either.
    3:07:49 And my worry for my kids, my worry for society is creating technologies that make it incredibly
    3:07:58 alluring to automate the part of creation that is most difficult, most laborious, and most
    3:08:02 likely to lead to genuine insight and the sort of sharpening of your own mental acuity.
    3:08:07 I mean, we better fucking hope the AIs can autonomously make innovations because we’re going to stop.
    3:08:09 I really worry we’re going to stop being able to.
    3:08:15 Yeah, I definitely think, and all that is brilliant to put, I definitely think that social media
    3:08:16 is making me dumber.
    3:08:25 Like I, if I spend a week checking social media versus reading books, I’m just distinctly the
    3:08:26 quality of my thoughts.
    3:08:28 Even the same content.
    3:08:29 Yeah.
    3:08:32 I don’t read things anymore as much as I can on like a screen.
    3:08:35 I print everything out and I sit at a table and I read it.
    3:08:39 I can read on my iPad, I can read it on my laptop, I print it all out because my attention is different.
    3:08:51 And the same goes for AI, whether we’re talking about this kind of research, it’s more distinct and rigorous in the other space that I do every single day is programming.
    3:08:59 I’m definitely becoming a worse programmer by using AI offloading because it actually works really well there.
    3:09:14 I’m becoming worse at creative thinking at what you’re saying, writing the first draft, which required that skill, that first little leap, that little mini leap into the creative genius that we all do every single day.
    3:09:19 AI is not able to do that and it’s definitely dulling that.
    3:09:20 All right.
    3:09:22 We covered a lot of ground today.
    3:09:42 What, on the note of optimism, what gives you hope about the future of this great nation of ours, the future of America looking out in the next few years, in the next few decades, centuries, when we colonize the solar system and beyond?
    3:09:44 Or we could just stick to the next couple of decades.
    3:09:45 Sure.
    3:09:58 You know, despite the fact that our book is a deep diagnosis of modern liberalism with a ton of criticism of the last half decade in politics, I am at root a profound optimist about everything.
    3:10:02 Like, just at a general personality sense, right?
    3:10:14 Like, to a certain extent, a question like this is attempting to elicit a little bit of what can be considered analysis of the world, but you’re also eliciting what is fundamentally like personality, right?
    3:10:16 Like, what makes you optimistic?
    3:10:19 I’ve just always been a real optimist.
    3:10:29 I’m optimistic about science and technology, especially in the realm of biomedical science in a big way.
    3:10:53 I think if you look at what’s happening right now in mRNA cancer vaccines, in CAR T-cell therapy for, you know, redesigning T-cells to attack cancers, if you look at the GLP-1 drug revolution and some of these studies that have been done on the fact that GLP-1 drugs, while they were initially synthesized from lizard venom to help people with type 2 diabetes, turn out to have these effects that seem to reduce body-wide inflammation.
    3:11:05 That not only rewires our mind and makes it easier for people’s desired sense of moderation to be actualized, so people who want to eat more fruits and vegetables seem to find it easier to eat more fruits and vegetables when they’re on GLP-1 drugs.
    3:11:21 But also because there’s probably a lot of neurological issues that are fundamentally issues of inflammation, including maybe dementia and Alzheimer’s, we might have accidentally, from the tongue of a lizard, a partial medicine for Alzheimer’s disease.
    3:11:34 The ability of science to connect these dots in the cosmos just absolutely thrills and fascinates me, and I hope that we get better at making those connections.
    3:11:49 And while I have a lot of fears about AI, many of them shared by Ezra, I am really interested in the possibility of AI being useful for synthesizing large bodies of knowledge to allow people to make cross-domain comparisons.
    3:11:57 I think a lot of inventions in tech history are essentially ingenious recombinations of ideas.
    3:12:03 Like, to a certain extent, you look at something as fundamental or archetypal as Thomas Edison inventing the incandescent light bulb.
    3:12:03 What did he do?
    3:12:11 He just tested 10,000 different materials and figured out that actually it was like a very special kind of bamboo that burned for the right amount of time and said, boom, I did it.
    3:12:13 I made the incandescent light bulb.
    3:12:41 The ability to have a machine or accelerate the degree to which we understand what those 10,000 materials can do or synthesize knowledge so people can combine it and say, we’re going to take a little bit of CRISPR over here and a little bit of cancer science over here to develop a gene therapy that targets a particular inhibitor that allows the immune system to attack a protein that is explicitly related to pancreatic cancer.
    3:12:45 I do absolutely believe that we might be on the doorstep of those kind of breakthroughs.
    3:12:52 And that makes me incredibly optimistic because I think at base, it’s like, you know, what’s life about, right?
    3:12:53 What’s abundance about?
    3:12:54 Why housing and energy?
    3:12:56 Well, because we think they’re fundamental to living a good life.
    3:13:01 You need a place to live and people deserve the freedom to live where they want to live.
    3:13:03 Energy is what powers the entire economy.
    3:13:19 And more energy would power technologies that we can’t even imagine or just be getting to, whether it’s supersonic flight powered by clean fuel or fusion technology that basically gives us infinite solar energy, the sun’s actual energy in a particular location.
    3:13:23 I mean, these, these are beautiful things that can happen.
    3:13:26 Um, but also I think the good life is about, is about health.
    3:13:35 It’s about health and it’s about the wealth that comes and the freedom that comes from, from finding health in your own life.
    3:13:48 And I do, I am incredibly optimistic that we might be at the cusp of a real golden age in taking all these little ingredients that we’ve spent decades on, whether it’s genomics and proteomics and a little bit of AI.
    3:14:01 We’re at the, at a moment right now, I hope we can have this explosion of combinatorial intelligence and that hopefully in an optimistic way, AI could be useful in accelerating us toward that future.
    3:14:05 But I also think to the point of this book, we have to get institutions right too.
    3:14:19 These are discoveries that are going to happen inside of institutions and how those institutions work and how they’re funded and the incentives that are created by law or by technology really matter in terms of the world that we build.
    3:14:27 And so that’s why I think it’s really important to not only be obsessed with what the technology can do, but how it’s instantiated in the institutions that we have.
    3:14:32 Because it’s, it ultimately is institutions and individuals that build the world, not technology acting on its own.
    3:14:38 Yeah. And I should say that you make a really great case for investing in weird science, meaning stuff that doesn’t on the surface make sense.
    3:14:46 We said lizard venom, you know, there’s all this popular criticism of scientific projects that sound like a waste of money.
    3:15:01 When in reality, when in reality, at least in the scientific realm, projects that seem like they don’t have any positive effect might actually end up being the ones that transform human civilization as we know it because of the unintended discoveries that happen.
    3:15:13 And all the eureka moments, all the special discoveries happen truly, uh, when you’re just passionately pursuing a cool thing in science, that’s how scientific minds work.
    3:15:22 And so it makes sense to invest in things that, uh, in, in, in, uh, exploring weird shit, the weird mysteries of the universe.
    3:15:25 So anyway, uh, Ezra, what gives you hope?
    3:15:30 I’m a less temperamentally honest person than Derek by a lot actually.
    3:15:36 And I would usually give a pretty similar answer to this question that Derek gave, which is, you know, technological advancement, right?
    3:15:38 We, we live in an age of, of marvels.
    3:15:44 I guess I’ll say from the realist perspective that we live in a more liquid moment than many.
    3:15:57 That, you know, if one of the advantages of the nineties of, you know, part, much of the life that I have grown up in is that much of the structure of technology of global governance was fairly stable.
    3:16:05 We could sort of like look at it and there were certain, not certainties, but, but, but fairly reliable guardrails of what was and what wasn’t going to happen.
    3:16:09 And there were disruptions like nine 11 and the financial crisis.
    3:16:12 They weren’t small and slowly they broke that entire system.
    3:16:21 But there, you know, there, I think one of the things people sort of miss sort of feel about the way history is accelerated is that things have just all gotten faster and less predictable.
    3:16:23 And they really have, I think, gotten faster and less predictable.
    3:16:31 We’re in an age, it seems to be more like the early 20th century, late 19th century than, um, than like the 1990s.
    3:16:37 And that means the possibilities range very widely, right?
    3:16:50 When you think about AI, when you think about biotech advances, when you think about energetic advances, when you think about the sort of shifting nature of global alliances of the technological and political systems, the rain, we are in the most high variance period.
    3:16:54 That I think has happened in a very, very, very long time.
    3:16:57 And that carries tremendous peril.
    3:17:02 Things could go terribly and it carries tremendous possibility, right?
    3:17:05 What if AI is an incredible boon for humanity?
    3:17:11 What if we do invent and deploy the clean energy technologies that deliver energy abundance?
    3:17:16 Not just a kind of answer to the worst of climate change, but genuine energy abundance.
    3:17:18 Unlocking new things like mass desalination.
    3:17:23 And, um, you know, all like, what if we do, like, I’m an animal suffering person.
    3:17:23 I’m a vegetarian.
    3:17:25 I care a lot about animal suffering.
    3:17:28 What if we did figure out, um, cultivated meat, right?
    3:17:36 That we grow in, in, you know, breweries and on scaffolds and we don’t have to kill tens of billions of animals that we’ve raised in unimaginable suffering every single year, right?
    3:17:41 Like, you know, what if we do figure out how to make government better and more responsive, right?
    3:17:44 What if that thesis, antithesis, synthesis thing does work out?
    3:17:46 But it’s not hope.
    3:17:53 It’s like, that’s a future you have to create, a future you have to call into being, a future you’ll have to fight for.
    3:17:59 So it isn’t so much that I found myself hopeful about what America or the world would be like in 2030 or 2040.
    3:18:09 But I find that I believe in the possibility of enough remarkable outcomes that it makes, like, the present really worth being engaged in.
    3:18:20 And, you know, really worth trying to, you know, do your small part to bend the arc of, uh, of, of, of the time in the direction that you find more just.
    3:18:38 Well, thank you to both of you for fighting, uh, for abundance and writing this manifesto for abundance and, um, for all the writing and the work you do in the podcasts and just being, um, incredible minds in this world, uh, that I’m a fan of.
    3:18:40 So, uh, thank you for talking today.
    3:18:41 Thanks very much, Lex.
    3:18:42 Thanks so much.
    3:18:46 Thanks for listening to this conversation with Ezra Klein and Derek Thompson.
    3:18:50 To support this podcast, please check out our sponsors in the description.
    3:18:54 And now let me leave you with some words from Napoleon Bonaparte.
    3:18:59 In politics, stupidity is not a handicap.
    3:19:04 Thank you for listening and hope to see you next time.

    Ezra Klein is one of the most influential voices representing the left-wing of American politics. He is a columnist for the NY Times and host of The Ezra Klein Show. Derek Thompson is a writer at The Atlantic and host of the Plain English podcast. Together they have written a new book titled Abundance that lays out a set of ideas for the future of the Democratic party.
    Thank you for listening ❤ Check out our sponsors: https://lexfridman.com/sponsors/ep462-sc
    See below for timestamps, transcript, and to give feedback, submit questions, contact Lex, etc.

    Transcript:
    https://lexfridman.com/ezra-klein-and-derek-thompson-transcript

    CONTACT LEX:
    Feedback – give feedback to Lex: https://lexfridman.com/survey
    AMA – submit questions, videos or call-in: https://lexfridman.com/ama
    Hiring – join our team: https://lexfridman.com/hiring
    Other – other ways to get in touch: https://lexfridman.com/contact

    EPISODE LINKS:
    Abundance (new book): https://amzn.to/4iZ1S8J
    Ezra’s X: https://x.com/ezraklein/
    Ezra’s Instagram: https://instagram.com/ezraklein
    Ezra’s YouTube: https://youtube.com/EzraKleinShow
    The New York Times: https://nytimes.com/by/ezra-klein
    Derek’s X: https://x.com/dkthomp
    Plain English (podcast): https://www.theringer.com/podcasts/plain-english-with-derek-thompson
    The Atlantic: https://theatlantic.com/author/derek-thompson/

    SPONSORS:
    To support this podcast, check out our sponsors & get discounts:
    Call of Duty: First-person shooter video game.
    Go to https://callofduty.com/warzone
    LMNT: Zero-sugar electrolyte drink mix.
    Go to https://drinkLMNT.com/lex
    AG1: All-in-one daily nutrition drinks.
    Go to https://drinkag1.com/lex
    Shopify: Sell stuff online.
    Go to https://shopify.com/lex

    OUTLINE:
    (00:00) – Introduction
    (03:17) – Sponsors, Comments, and Reflections
    (10:33) – Left-wing vs right-wing politics
    (19:54) – Political leaders on the left and the right
    (44:29) – Internal political divisions
    (47:29) – AOC
    (58:50) – Political realignment
    (1:10:32) – Supply-side progressivism
    (1:17:42) – Wealth redistribution
    (1:27:50) – Housing problem
    (1:44:09) – Regulation and deregulation
    (2:00:43) – DOGE, Elon, and Trump
    (2:59:46) – Sam Harris
    (3:09:24) – Future of America

    PODCAST LINKS:
    – Podcast Website: https://lexfridman.com/podcast
    – Apple Podcasts: https://apple.co/2lwqZIr
    – Spotify: https://spoti.fi/2nEwCF8
    – RSS: https://lexfridman.com/feed/podcast/
    – Podcast Playlist: https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLrAXtmErZgOdP_8GztsuKi9nrraNbKKp4
    – Clips Channel: https://www.youtube.com/lexclips

  • #461 – ThePrimeagen: Programming, AI, ADHD, Productivity, Addiction, and God

    #461 – ThePrimeagen: Programming, AI, ADHD, Productivity, Addiction, and God

    AI transcript
    0:00:05 The following is a conversation with Michael Paulson, better known online as The Primogen.
    0:00:11 He is a programmer who has entertained and inspired millions of people to have fun building
    0:00:19 stuff with software, whether you’re a newbie or a seasoned developer who has been battling it out
    0:00:26 in the software engineering trenches for decades. In short, The Primogen is a legendary programmer
    0:00:31 and a great human being with an inspiring rollercoaster of a life story.
    0:00:37 And now, a quick few-second mention of each sponsor. Check them out in the description.
    0:00:43 It is, in fact, the best way to support this podcast. We got InVideo AI for video generation,
    0:00:49 Shopify for selling stuff online, NetSuite for your business, BetterHelp for your health,
    0:00:58 and AG1 for delicious nutrition. Choose wisely, my friends. Also, if you want to work with our
    0:01:03 amazing team or get in touch with me for whatever reason, go to lexfreedman.com slash contact.
    0:01:08 And now, on to the full ad reads. As always, no ads in the middle. I try to make this interesting,
    0:01:15 but if you must skip them, please still check out the sponsors. I enjoy their stuff. Maybe you will,
    0:01:23 too. This episode is brought to you by InVideo AI, a video-generating app that allows you to create
    0:01:29 full-length videos using just text prompts. I have been using it more and more myself in trying to
    0:01:36 figure out how can I integrate it into the visual presentation of the podcast or some of the other
    0:01:46 videos so that we can kind of add to the experience of what the person is talking about. It’s a real challenge
    0:01:53 because when you generate, even in a simple overlay image, you know, you don’t want to interfere with the
    0:02:00 imagination of the listener. Me as a fan of a bunch of podcasts and obviously a fan of film, I think part of the
    0:02:11 experience is the Hitchcock thing. Say less, show less, and allow the viewer, the listener, to fill in the gaps
    0:02:21 with their imagination. For me, I think imagination is such a limitless world that somehow has deep roots
    0:02:26 in the subconscious of the individual person that I think you don’t want to rob them of the chance to use
    0:02:34 their imagination. And so the challenge with AI and the possibility with AI is to be a catalyst for the
    0:02:42 imagination, to add material for the imagination to flourish versus a thing that adds constraints and
    0:02:49 reduces it down to where it’s an interference to the imagination. Anyway, you can try InVideo AI for free,
    0:02:54 saving you lots of time and money you’d otherwise spend on editing, animating, and other production costs.
    0:03:02 go to invideo.io slash i slash lexpod. That’s invideo.io slash i slash lexpod.
    0:03:08 This episode is also brought to you by Shopify, a platform designed for anyone to sell anywhere with a
    0:03:16 great looking online store. I think of the digital marketplace that Shopify creates as a kind of
    0:03:22 cognitive interface between the seller and the buyer, economic interface too. It’s a mind meld,
    0:03:30 a network plugged in into the collective intelligence of our species. The wants and desires fueling the
    0:03:38 network. In theoretical computer science, it’s a multi-commodity optimization problem. So sometimes I like to
    0:03:46 visualize that network lighting up people selling, buying, thinking of what they want, looking for
    0:03:51 things they want and finding it. In fact, the process of search and discovery in itself is fascinating.
    0:03:58 It’s a technical problem. It’s a psychological problem. It’s a social problem. It can be abused.
    0:04:06 It can be used. And with the right tools, it can significantly increase the quality of life of an
    0:04:14 individual. That’s why ads can be abusive or ads can make a person’s life better. When ads are done well,
    0:04:19 they legitimately connect you with a thing that will spark your life full of joy.
    0:04:26 Anyway, I set up a store on there, I think. Lexfreemy.com slash store. It has a couple of t-shirts.
    0:04:33 Nothing fancy. It was super easy to do. Sign up for a $1 per month trial period at
    0:04:38 shopify.com slash lex. That’s all lowercase. Go to shopify.com slash lex to take your business to the
    0:04:46 next level today. This episode is brought to you by NetSuite, an all-in-one cloud business management
    0:04:53 system. That was one of the fascinating things that Jeff Bezos said, that all businesses eventually
    0:05:00 die. And it’s true, of course. All empires eventually fall. And so the task of a business,
    0:05:09 I think it’s the day one thinking that he’s referring to, is to delay the inevitable death of a company
    0:05:18 for as long as possible. Much like the heat death of the universe. There’s a heat death of a business,
    0:05:25 and that’s the point. What you’re trying to do in your life, in your business, is to delay the inevitable
    0:05:33 and have fun doing it. So yeah, NetSuite is a good tool for that, for all kinds of messy things
    0:05:38 that you need to do to make a business run. That kind of sounds like I’m talking about the mob,
    0:05:45 but it’s not the mob. Everything’s legal. That’s the point. Download the CFO’s guide to AI and machine
    0:05:52 learning at netsuite.com slash lex. That’s netsuite.com slash lex. This episode is brought to you by
    0:06:01 BetterHelp, spelled H-E-L-P, help. Boy, have I been going through a mental rollercoaster over the past
    0:06:07 few months and certainly over the past few weeks. This may not be the right place to talk about that,
    0:06:17 but the point is talking helps. It’s the paradox that in order to fortify the castle of your mind,
    0:06:27 you have to first be vulnerable enough to reveal the fears, the anxieties, the weaknesses of the castle.
    0:06:33 Although referring to the mind as a castle seems like a very douchey thing to say.
    0:06:40 Which, by the way, the whole castle world was my favorite Lego world. I think there’s a bunch of
    0:06:46 worlds. This is how I knew. I wasn’t a sci-fi Lego person. I didn’t care about the spaceships and all
    0:06:55 that kind of stuff. I wanted knights and I wanted dragons and I wanted castles and pirates and boats
    0:07:04 with cannons and just war when face-to-face combat was the way that war was conducted.
    0:07:20 Technology made military conflict less personal, less human, cold, and somehow, in doing so, makes it too easy to slide in the deeply immoral.
    0:07:30 Anyway, talking helps and BetterHelp makes it easy and accessible to get a licensed therapist that you can talk to.
    0:07:35 Check them out at betterhelp.com slash lex and save on your first month. That’s betterhelp.com slash lex.
    0:07:43 This episode is brought to you by AG1 and all in one daily drink to support better health and peak performance.
    0:07:53 I need to get back to jiu-jitsu. I tweaked my knee, ACL, not torn, just sprained, white belt going crazy on me.
    0:07:59 Oh, life. Life is full of adventure, of surprises.
    0:08:07 Of turns and twists. And all of a sudden, an excited white belt takes you on a detour because of a minor injury.
    0:08:16 Anyway, it takes time to heal, you know. And I’m very cautious with things that prevent me from moving about this world.
    0:08:20 And actually prevent me from exercising because, you know, I have fun running.
    0:08:23 And by fun, I mean it’s torture, but I enjoy it.
    0:08:32 But, you know, running as part of my regular daily life is, yeah, it overall makes me feel good.
    0:08:34 I can push my body limit. I can push my mind to the limit.
    0:08:39 It’s an escape from the intellectual world into the natural world.
    0:08:42 I run outside and really enjoy the fresh air and all that.
    0:08:45 And so, if I get injured in jiu-jitsu, it affects that.
    0:08:53 But then, of course, I love the chess, the puzzle, the complexity of jiu-jitsu and all the combat sports, judo, boxing.
    0:08:59 And so, yeah, I need to get back to jiu-jitsu because I think I’m getting close to that 100%.
    0:09:05 And I need to also talk to John Donahar soon.
    0:09:10 We’ve talked 17 times, so this is going to be the 18th time.
    0:09:10 No, I don’t know.
    0:09:12 I don’t know how many times we’ve talked, but it’s never enough.
    0:09:14 The man is brilliant.
    0:09:21 And there’s the Craig Jones CGI 2 coming up where there’s going to be a lot of athletes clashing,
    0:09:24 a lot of ridiculous humor from Craig.
    0:09:27 I can’t wait to see the spectacle of it all.
    0:09:30 And, of course, I think John is participating.
    0:09:34 That would be a good super fight, Craig Jones versus John Donahar.
    0:09:36 But not jiu-jitsu.
    0:09:36 It would be slap fighting.
    0:09:40 Anyway, I can’t wait to talk to John.
    0:09:44 It’s been a while, and there’s a lot of interesting philosophical things to discuss.
    0:09:48 This all somehow has to do with AG1 because of health.
    0:09:51 And let’s see, jiu-jitsu health equals AG1.
    0:09:52 Let’s go.
    0:09:59 They’ll give you one month’s supply of fish oil when you sign up at drinkag1.com slash lex.
    0:10:03 This is the Lex Friedman podcast.
    0:10:06 To support it, please check out our sponsors in the description.
    0:10:10 And now, dear friends, here’s the Primogen.
    0:10:29 What do you love most about programming?
    0:10:31 What brings you joy when you program?
    0:10:39 I can tell you the first time that I ever felt love in programming or felt that joy or that excitement, which was in college.
    0:10:42 It was the second class data structures.
    0:10:46 And the teacher that was teaching, Ray Babcock, he was talking about linked lists.
    0:10:51 Now, you have to learn Java at Montana State University when I went.
    0:10:55 And so he’s off there kind of explaining this whole linked list thing and all that.
    0:10:56 And then he shows code.
    0:10:59 And in the code, it’s like abstract class node or whatever it was.
    0:11:00 I can’t remember what it was.
    0:11:02 And then it had a private member.
    0:11:04 And that private member was of type node.
    0:11:06 And I’ve never seen that before.
    0:11:09 It is a class that is called node with a member that is of itself.
    0:11:13 And for the first time ever, I was like, oh, my gosh.
    0:11:15 Like, there’s no end.
    0:11:16 There’s no way to iterate.
    0:11:18 This is not like a set of 10 items.
    0:11:21 This is a set of infinite items.
    0:11:24 And so, like, my mind kind of, like, exploded in that moment.
    0:11:27 Like, there’s actually, like, what you can express is huge.
    0:11:29 I can see what memory looks like.
    0:11:32 Like, I can see this kind of hopping through space.
    0:11:35 And I just remember being just so blown away because up until that point, everything was just,
    0:11:37 all right, I have a list of 10 items.
    0:11:39 I have a list of 20 items, right?
    0:11:41 It was very rigid and small.
    0:11:43 And the things I built were really small and trivial.
    0:11:48 And all of a sudden, I felt like I could build, like, anything in that one moment.
    0:11:49 And it was so amazing.
    0:11:53 I just remember sitting in class for what, I don’t even remember how long those classes
    0:11:58 were or anything, but I just remember being just completely, like, profoundly impacted by
    0:11:58 this notion.
    0:12:03 And so, I just sat there and I watched and I had the exact same experience in Heaven’s
    0:12:07 Forbid by a software engineering class when we talked about the decorator pattern, where
    0:12:09 you can keep on constructing these objects in this recursive way.
    0:12:13 Not that I think that’s actually a good idea to do, but just watching that and realizing,
    0:12:16 like, there’s so many weird and unique ways you can solve problems.
    0:12:20 And, like, you can just, anything your mind can think of, you can just create that.
    0:12:26 And I just remember getting just so excited about the possibility that anything is possible.
    0:12:29 Yeah, let’s wax philosophical about a linked list.
    0:12:32 It is pretty profound for people who don’t know.
    0:12:36 A node in a linked list doesn’t know anything about the world it’s in.
    0:12:40 It only knows about the thing it’s linked to its neighbor.
    0:12:42 Maybe that’s symbolic.
    0:12:45 It’s a metaphor for all of us humans.
    0:12:47 There’s billions of us on this planet.
    0:12:49 We only know about our local little network.
    0:12:51 And it’s kind of beautiful.
    0:12:57 And you realize, like, in that little simple data structure, you can construct arbitrarily
    0:12:58 large systems.
    0:13:01 And they’re like roots that go through memory.
    0:13:06 And then, of course, that’s where you get all the programming languages that allow you to
    0:13:10 dump junk into memory and have memory leaks.
    0:13:19 And therefore, create infinite pain as you try to figure out where that unfreed memory is.
    0:13:24 For me, yeah, probably, it’s so beautiful the way you put that.
    0:13:26 Link lists are indeed beautiful.
    0:13:34 Recursion, also for me, when I finally wrap my brain around what it means to write a recursive function.
    0:13:35 What was the thing?
    0:13:38 What was the, like, the one that taught you?
    0:13:41 Because I think we all probably, you probably did factorial where you, like, you know, just
    0:13:43 do, like, a quick factorial of it.
    0:13:44 It just doesn’t hit home.
    0:13:46 What was the thing that kind of made it hit home?
    0:13:48 I don’t remember the first.
    0:13:51 I remember my first.
    0:13:53 How do you not remember your first?
    0:13:53 It was magic.
    0:13:56 I’ve had so many that just…
    0:13:57 I mean, you are a lisp guy.
    0:13:58 You’re probably pretty used to the recursion.
    0:13:59 Yeah.
    0:14:03 All I remember is just surrounded by a sea of parentheses.
    0:14:10 I mean, that’s, that’s really probably when I, uh, in high school, I think it was either Java or C++.
    0:14:11 Wow.
    0:14:12 How do I not remember that?
    0:14:13 It must’ve been C++.
    0:14:22 And then college, it was the generic bullshit software engineering classes were, uh, Java.
    0:14:27 But then the, uh, the renegades, the cool kids were all using lisp.
    0:14:32 That’s, that’s when you’re doing the AI, the quote unquote AI at that time.
    0:14:33 That’s, that was lisp.
    0:14:37 If you want to write a chess engine, you would use lisp.
    0:14:51 And so for me, probably the moment I really fell in love with programming was, was lisp and writing like Othello programs and, uh, chess engines, all kinds of engines that play a game.
    0:14:55 And then I could play against that thing and that thing would beat me.
    0:15:03 The joy of being destroyed by the thing you’ve created and, oh, um, game of life too, a cellular automata.
    0:15:07 That’s when I, I built that, you know, all kinds of programming languages.
    0:15:10 That’s less about programming languages and more about the system you create.
    0:15:26 And that just filled me with infinite joy, uh, having, uh, similar to the linked list situation, creating a system where each individual cell only knows about its neighbors and operates in a very simple rules.
    0:15:32 But when you take that system as a whole and allow it to evolve over time, it can create infinite complexity.
    0:15:42 So I, I just, man, those are many pothead moments where I’m just like looking at the beautiful complexity that can be created with cellular automata.
    0:15:46 That’s, that filled me with just infinite joy for sure.
    0:15:48 But yeah, the print, all I remember is parentheses.
    0:15:55 So my first memories of my first are drowned in a sea of parentheses.
    0:16:00 Oh man, mine is, I have, well, first off mine was in Java.
    0:16:05 So my first was a little bit more rigid, kind of a corporate, you know, a corporate experience, but.
    0:16:07 Cold, meaningless.
    0:16:08 Yeah.
    0:16:09 I was in a lab.
    0:16:14 Everyone was using CentOS at that or CentOS or however you say, I always call that CentOS, the fresh maker.
    0:16:15 Yeah.
    0:16:17 And so it’s just like, I’m in this very cold.
    0:16:17 That’s nice.
    0:16:18 Thank you.
    0:16:24 I’m in like this cold, rigid environment, uh, with my Microsoft keyboard programming away in Java.
    0:16:30 And I still, I have just such this memory of despair because I love programming.
    0:16:35 This was after the linked list and I cannot figure out recursion.
    0:16:41 And so I go to, you know, the university store and I buy a book and it’s die, tell, and die, tell, learn Java.
    0:16:42 And it has a section recursion.
    0:16:45 So I opened it up and I start reading it and it just doesn’t hit home.
    0:16:49 And I’m like, I’m spiraling into this, like kind of, I, maybe I’m not a programmer.
    0:16:55 Maybe I’m not worthy enough to enter into this circle of people who can figure out what, what the heck recursion means.
    0:17:04 And so die, tell, and die, tell us like, I still remember this, their phrase, their exact phrase was every young budding developer solves this recursion program.
    0:17:05 And it was the tower of Hanoi.
    0:17:07 And guess what?
    0:17:09 I don’t know if I can solve the tower of Hanoi to this day.
    0:17:13 It’s, it’s like a very hard recursive problem.
    0:17:18 And I just sat there and thought, oh my gosh, I’m not going to make it.
    0:17:22 And I sat there in the lab for eight hours, 10 hours doing these things.
    0:17:24 So worried.
    0:17:25 It’s the week of recursion.
    0:17:26 We have to do a lab assignment.
    0:17:28 I’m not going to be able to do it.
    0:17:30 And I just remember being like genuinely worried about that.
    0:17:35 And then, because I always, my big problem was, is like, okay, do factorial.
    0:17:36 Why not just use a for loop?
    0:17:37 Okay.
    0:17:38 What about Fibonacci sequence?
    0:17:40 Why not use a for loop?
    0:17:42 Like, I don’t understand what’s the purpose of recursion.
    0:17:43 I don’t understand it yet.
    0:17:44 It’s so powerful.
    0:17:45 Why?
    0:17:47 It looks like a really complicated for loop.
    0:17:49 And so I just could not understand it.
    0:17:54 And then lab came that day and it was, I’m going to give you a 2d array.
    0:17:55 You have to read from a file.
    0:17:58 This is what a starting position looks like.
    0:18:00 This is what an ending position looks like.
    0:18:01 This is what a wall looks like.
    0:18:03 I want you to find me a path through the maze.
    0:18:05 And so I just sat there.
    0:18:09 I go like, okay, well, I guess I can just go up and I can create a, like a visited grid
    0:18:12 that, so I know not to visit these places anymore.
    0:18:13 And then all of a sudden just started clicking.
    0:18:14 I’m like, well, wait a second.
    0:18:19 I don’t know the maze, but if I just go up, right, down and left and hop back every time
    0:18:21 I’ve been to that square, don’t visit it.
    0:18:23 Like I can just, it will just go forever.
    0:18:26 And I realized in that moment, I’m like, I actually understand recur.
    0:18:28 I’ve understood recursion this whole time.
    0:18:31 I just never had a problem in which it actually made sense to use.
    0:18:37 And that was like my big downfall is that I was measuring my understanding with the problems
    0:18:42 that I had available, which were just, you know, list traversal, which is not a good use
    0:18:42 of recursion.
    0:18:45 And so I just, I just remember that freeing, oh man, recursion.
    0:18:46 It was a great moment in my life.
    0:18:49 I mean, it does require, to be fair, a leap of faith.
    0:19:00 Like, because people will tell you those conformist, dogmatic Java instructors will tell you that
    0:19:08 this is, you know, this is important to understand recursion, but it takes a leap of faith that this
    0:19:11 is something, this is a different way of looking at the world.
    0:19:13 And it’s a powerful way of looking at the world.
    0:19:21 I actually remembered when I think I first, I think I remember my first now.
    0:19:22 All right.
    0:19:32 I think it was Deb’s first search for one of the games, maybe Othello, something like that.
    0:19:34 And for that, implementing recursion.
    0:19:41 Understand that you can search trajectories through the space of states and do that recursively.
    0:19:42 That was mind-blowing.
    0:19:45 Just imagining, like, the possibilities.
    0:19:46 You could just see it all.
    0:19:48 Yeah, just like numbers flying.
    0:19:50 It was like the beautiful mind.
    0:19:54 And then, and that’s when I also discovered conspiracy theories.
    0:19:57 And I just saw, I saw the truth.
    0:19:59 Okay, yeah.
    0:20:00 So what were we talking about?
    0:20:03 Oh, what was the most painful aspect of programming for you?
    0:20:11 Like, what memories do you have of deep, profound suffering in terms of programming in the early days?
    0:20:19 I would say the biggest one that I can really hold on to had to be one of two experiences.
    0:20:23 The first experience was when I was at a place called Schedulicity.
    0:20:27 And am I not allowed to say the place?
    0:20:28 Oh, you’re allowed.
    0:20:31 I’m not sure if they’re even operating still at this point.
    0:20:32 But they’re in both.
    0:20:33 There’s something funny about the name.
    0:20:33 I’m sorry.
    0:20:34 Oh, Schedulicity.
    0:20:42 Yeah, they actually, the name was so bad that when you looked at their like paid for Google ad terms that they would make sure that they’re at the top of the list.
    0:20:46 The spellings were just insane because no one knew how to spell the word Schedulicity.
    0:20:51 And so it was just like the Google optimizing for that is just hilarious.
    0:20:53 But okay, go back to the thing.
    0:21:01 And the thing that kills me the most about programming, what I actually considered the worst aspect of programming is when you know everything.
    0:21:07 And so when I was at this job, it’s just every single day I’d come in, there were no surprises.
    0:21:09 There was no questions.
    0:21:10 I didn’t understand the code base.
    0:21:11 Sure, that’s fair.
    0:21:13 I didn’t understand all the things about the code base.
    0:21:14 But I knew I was going to go in.
    0:21:17 I was going to generate some sort of object from the database.
    0:21:21 I was going to take that object from the database and I was just going to map it over and just display it on the web page.
    0:21:22 There’s no creativity.
    0:21:23 There’s nothing to it.
    0:21:26 It’s very like almost factory line kind of work.
    0:21:34 And that was a very kind of difficult moment for me, which is I didn’t enjoy programming because I knew everything about it.
    0:21:36 I already knew exactly what I was going to do that day.
    0:21:39 I knew all the hurdles I was going to have to go over.
    0:21:41 There was no unknown unknowns, if you will.
    0:21:45 It was just knowns at all times.
    0:21:54 For me, that is the worst part about programming is when you already know the solution and it’s just a matter of how fast you can type and get it out from your head to your hands.
    0:21:59 So the absence of uncertainty, the absence of challenge was the pain.
    0:21:59 Yeah.
    0:22:02 That’s pretty profound, Brian.
    0:22:04 I’m more than just good looks.
    0:22:05 I want you to know that.
    0:22:07 It’s a low bar.
    0:22:10 What do you identify as?
    0:22:12 I’m enjoying asking the general question.
    0:22:13 38 male.
    0:22:14 Male.
    0:22:15 Husband of beautiful wife.
    0:22:16 Okay.
    0:22:22 You stream about all kinds of programming, but what kind of programmer are you?
    0:22:25 Are you a full stack developer, web programming?
    0:22:34 And maybe can you lay out all the different kinds of programming and then place yourself in that in terms of your identity, sexual identity as well?
    0:22:34 Yeah.
    0:22:35 I can get it.
    0:22:36 We can put it all in there.
    0:22:36 Okay.
    0:22:40 Plus, I mean, obviously those two are very, very tightly coupled.
    0:22:44 I have seen you like on the borders sexually aroused by certain languages.
    0:22:48 I think you got real excited about OCaml or…
    0:22:50 OCaml, let’s go.
    0:22:52 Thank you, Dylan Mulroy.
    0:22:53 Okay.
    0:22:53 Wow.
    0:22:54 Yeah.
    0:22:55 I did not expect that.
    0:22:57 That escalated quickly.
    0:22:58 Anyway, what do you identify as?
    0:22:59 Okay.
    0:23:05 So, first, let’s do the previous or the in-between question first, which is the different kind of archetypes.
    0:23:13 I think that’s a really interesting kind of question because if you go on Twitter or you’re new, your thoughts are probably that there is just web programming.
    0:23:18 And maybe there’s some other stuff, yeah, like game programming, but you’d be like game programming in JavaScript and on the web.
    0:23:23 You know, like there’s this very kind of very myopic view of the programming world.
    0:23:29 And I bet if you ask a lot of people these days, like what is the most popular form of programming, they’d probably say web.
    0:23:34 If you said what contains the most amount of repos, how many percentage of repos on GitHub are web-based?
    0:23:36 They’d probably say 90% or some huge number.
    0:23:41 But the reality is that there’s an entire embedded robotics world.
    0:23:44 You know, you’re familiar with the ML side of things.
    0:23:45 There’s networking.
    0:23:48 There’s going to be just like performance operating systems, compilers.
    0:23:53 There’s just huge amounts of variation of all these different type of programming verticals that you can be.
    0:23:58 And so we often talk about programming in perspective of web or something that’s pretty narrow.
    0:24:07 And I think that’s just a social construct of Twitter more than anything else that it’s actually I don’t believe it’s that representative of the entire kind of programming world out there.
    0:24:10 And I think a lot of programming is really, really fun.
    0:24:11 There’s some really great stuff.
    0:24:14 Building your own language is just a very fun experience to do.
    0:24:21 Every programmer should just do that once just to have a completely different, you know, perspective on how things work in life.
    0:24:25 But as far as what do I do, I’ve always looked at myself as a tools engineer.
    0:24:33 So at my time at my my jobs, typically I would start off on the UI and then they’d be like, OK, well, hey, we need a library for this thing.
    0:24:35 So then I’d be the one writing like the library.
    0:24:42 So in 2012, 2013, I was writing a UI library for the web that can behave just like an iPad.
    0:24:43 So you can pinch and zoom on it.
    0:24:46 But it’s still a web page because we didn’t have any of that stuff back then.
    0:24:54 It was a canvas had to do all the like matrices operations and all that stuff to kind of, you know, it felt like you’re on an iPad, but it actually wasn’t on an iPad.
    0:24:56 And this was iPad, too, by the way.
    0:24:57 So this is a long time ago.
    0:25:02 And so every single time I got into a job, it’s like, OK, hey, we need to do a library.
    0:25:04 Hey, can you work on a build system?
    0:25:06 So back then there was no grunt.
    0:25:07 There was no gulp.
    0:25:08 There was no any of those things.
    0:25:11 So I had to hand roll my own JavaScript build system.
    0:25:15 And so I always fell into these positions of building tools for developers to be successful.
    0:25:18 And I’ve always really enjoyed that region.
    0:25:30 So as I went on to, say, Netflix, spent 10 years there, I’d say the majority of my 10 years were building things for developers to use that they could be successful at their job.
    0:25:36 And so I just I’ve always really enjoyed that aspect because your share your stakeholders and the people that use your program understand programming.
    0:25:39 And they’re going to say, like, hey, I need this.
    0:25:42 And typically the thing that they need, they actually want.
    0:25:45 Whereas with people, people want stuff.
    0:25:50 But what they actually need versus what they actually want often are kind of like this weird separation.
    0:25:53 People, you know, that’s like the old Henry Ford quote.
    0:25:54 I just want a faster horse.
    0:25:55 And he’s like, no, what you actually want is a car.
    0:26:00 And so it’s like this, like you have to play this game of trying to really figure it out.
    0:26:02 Whereas developers, it’s like, I know you know what I’m doing.
    0:26:03 I know what you want.
    0:26:04 Let’s figure it out together.
    0:26:09 That’s actually that gives you a really nice big picture view of programming in general.
    0:26:13 So I love the idea of just kind of starting at the interface.
    0:26:15 Like you need to pinch and all that kind of stuff.
    0:26:25 And then figure out the entire thing that requires to make that happen, including maybe the side quest tooling, how to make it more productive and efficient, all that kind of stuff.
    0:26:27 So the entirety, the entirety of the thing, that’s really cool.
    0:26:28 Okay.
    0:26:30 So I mean, that would be full stack.
    0:26:34 By the general definition of full stack, meaning like.
    0:26:35 Perhaps, yeah.
    0:26:46 Versus like systems engineering, like starting at the bottom and trying to optimize a certain kind of specific thing without seeing the big picture of like what the resulting interface would look like.
    0:26:52 And a lot of people, you know, in web programming, they never go beyond the front end of how the thing looks.
    0:27:02 They kind of always assume there’ll be somebody, some grunt in the shadows, in the darkness of the basement that will implement the back end.
    0:27:04 Some gill foil out there will be doing the back end.
    0:27:04 Yeah.
    0:27:13 Like I like to call myself a generalist just to kind of give some ideas is, you know, at one point at Netflix, I built the WebSocket connection.
    0:27:16 And so for TVs, how WebSocket works is code I just wrote.
    0:27:18 And so I, you know, built the framing thing.
    0:27:19 And before that, I was doing stuff with memory.
    0:27:21 And before that, I built the UI for a tool.
    0:27:23 It’s just like, I can just do the thing.
    0:27:25 You just tell me the thing to do and I’ll just go do the thing.
    0:27:27 I don’t worry too.
    0:27:31 I don’t try to get super good at one specific activity.
    0:27:34 Like I don’t want to be a Kubernetes engineer who’s the world’s greatest deployer.
    0:27:42 But if I had to go learn Kubernetes, I’d go learn it and learn how to deploy some things and then hopefully move on to like the next thing, if that makes sense.
    0:27:47 I posted about the fact that I’m talking to you on Reddit and there’s a lot of wonderful questions.
    0:27:50 Somebody mentioned that I should ask you about DevOps.
    0:27:52 Can you explain what DevOps is?
    0:27:54 Is it a kind of special ops of programmers?
    0:27:56 Is it still Team 6 of developers?
    0:27:56 What’s DevOps?
    0:27:58 Can you define what?
    0:27:59 Are you a DevOps engineer?
    0:28:01 Well, people keep telling me DevOps isn’t real.
    0:28:05 There’s actually you want platform engineers, cloud engineers, infra engineers.
    0:28:17 I just often think I think the easiest way if we’re doing like just kind of like some basic nomenclature, it’s just DevOps are the people that make sure that when you launch a service and all of that, it doesn’t just disappear.
    0:28:18 Right.
    0:28:21 It’s all the kind of backbone of being able to operate something at scale.
    0:28:29 Like you really don’t, if you think about it, if you’re just writing a mom and pa like website, people that do PHP, that are doing WordPress and all that, they’re going to build something.
    0:28:33 They’re going to hand it off to, I don’t know, Leno, DigitalOcean, some company.
    0:28:38 They don’t really need a really complicated build, deployment, all this.
    0:28:41 It’s just someone with a simple website so they can sell their goods.
    0:28:43 And so they don’t really need that.
    0:28:49 And so that’s kind of how I think of a DevOps is when things need to scale, that’s kind of the person you hire.
    0:28:50 Yeah.
    0:28:51 Those people are actually amazing.
    0:28:51 Yeah.
    0:28:57 Of the time I spent at Google, it’s like, oh, yeah, yeah, there’s all these fancy machine learning people.
    0:29:07 But the folks that are running the compute, the infrastructure, basically that make sure the shit doesn’t go down, they’re like wizards.
    0:29:08 And they’re essential.
    0:29:10 It’s a very incredible like vertical of job.
    0:29:16 And obviously, I’m using a very broad term to describe, I’m sure, like a bunch, you know, because making sure stuff doesn’t go down.
    0:29:18 You could also say that’s like an SRE, right?
    0:29:22 Site reliability engineer, whatever, you know, the ones that wear the bomber jackets at Google.
    0:29:28 And so when we say DevOps, I think people get very particular about terms specifically in this category.
    0:29:32 They’re like, well, actually, you’re mentioning infrastructure engineer versus, you know, versus site reliability engineer.
    0:29:33 It’s just like, okay, yes, I hear you.
    0:29:39 But generally, when someone thinks DevOps, they think somebody that manages the servers and their life cycles and the reliability.
    0:29:42 There’s DevOps.
    0:29:42 Is it real?
    0:29:43 I’m not sure.
    0:29:44 Okay.
    0:29:46 Did Vercel kill DevOps?
    0:29:48 Question mark?
    0:29:48 Question mark?
    0:29:51 Wow, that’s, you’re almost a journalist.
    0:29:52 That’s a headline.
    0:29:55 Let’s go back to the beginning.
    0:29:56 All right.
    0:29:56 Baby Prime.
    0:29:58 So you mentioned Netflix.
    0:30:01 You’ve probably worked at Netflix, by the way.
    0:30:14 For people who don’t know who the Primogen is, he mentions the fact that he has been very successful and has worked at Netflix and basically every other sentence.
    0:30:15 Correct.
    0:30:18 Almost as much as I mentioned NeoVim.
    0:30:19 Oh, great.
    0:30:20 Tell me more about NeoVim.
    0:30:22 No, please don’t.
    0:30:24 So, Baby Prime.
    0:30:27 At the very beginning, you’ve had one hell of a life.
    0:30:30 And I think it’s inspiring to a lot of people.
    0:30:35 You’ve gone through a lot of painful low points, including meth addiction, loss.
    0:30:49 And like you mentioned, you’ve come out of that to become a successful programmer and a person that inspires a huge number of people to get into programming and just to find success in life.
    0:30:54 So, maybe I would love it if you laid out just your whole life journey from the beginning.
    0:31:01 So, I guess if we’re going to start with this whole journey, I think it’s probably best to start when I was about four or five years old.
    0:31:04 That was the first time I was ever exposed to pornography.
    0:31:09 And it’s kind of just earwormed me for a large portion of my life.
    0:31:19 And so, I don’t think there was a day that didn’t go by from when I was a very young lad all the way up until I was 20-some years old where I didn’t think about porn on the daily basis.
    0:31:23 And so, it’s just like every single day, even at that young.
    0:31:32 And so, it’s just a very mind-consuming, time-consuming, thought-consuming thing that kind of plagued me from starting at a very young age.
    0:31:33 When I was seven years old, my dad died.
    0:31:37 That was kind of a really tough period of life.
    0:31:47 I still think about this time that I went over to China, and there’s kind of some rules that we were given.
    0:31:51 And one of the rules was just like, hey, don’t talk about God.
    0:31:53 And if you do, use the word dad instead.
    0:31:56 And I was just like, okay, dad.
    0:31:59 It was like the first time I said that word in like 17 years or something.
    0:32:02 It was like so weird to say that phrase.
    0:32:07 And I was just like, oh, that was just the strangest thing I’ve ever said in my entire lifetime.
    0:32:08 It just felt so weird.
    0:32:10 So, kind of rewind.
    0:32:14 As I got older, obviously, was very good at computers.
    0:32:15 Good at accessing porn, of course.
    0:32:18 Played video games on the internet.
    0:32:21 Fun, fun kind of like side quest story.
    0:32:24 I think the guy’s name is Lord Talk on Twitch.
    0:32:28 I can’t quite remember his name, but he built this game called Graal.
    0:32:29 G-R-A-A-L.
    0:32:31 And Grail Online.
    0:32:36 And when I was a young lad, that it was just like Zelda, except for it also had a level editor.
    0:32:38 And it had like a C-like language.
    0:32:39 And that’s how I discovered how to program.
    0:32:42 Is I looked at these symbols and figured out what they meant.
    0:32:45 And then I was able to make things happen in the game.
    0:32:48 And that was like a, that’s my introduction into programming.
    0:32:49 So, thank you, that guy.
    0:32:51 Whatever your Twitch name was.
    0:32:52 But, all right.
    0:32:53 So, keep on going.
    0:32:57 As I got older, I was super bad socially.
    0:32:59 I was not a very great social person.
    0:33:01 High school was brutal.
    0:33:03 Got made fun of a lot.
    0:33:04 Really didn’t enjoy.
    0:33:07 I wouldn’t say I had a great time during high school.
    0:33:12 Definitely felt very out of place or offset or maybe misplaced, if you will.
    0:33:14 I’m not sure what the right word is.
    0:33:20 And so, of course, at that point, I just always wanted to, I wanted to be accepted to fit in and all that.
    0:33:23 I did forget to say one side story after my dad died.
    0:33:26 My brother, older brother, he got and I started getting into drugs.
    0:33:29 And along with that, he exposed me to pot.
    0:33:36 So, at eight years old, I was smoking some marijuana for a while there until like maybe 11 or 12 and took a break.
    0:33:40 And then, again, did a lot of that as I got a little bit older.
    0:33:43 But, so I kind of got a lot of these exposures fairly young.
    0:33:49 16, 15 through 18, a lot of drinking and all that.
    0:33:56 When I graduated or as I was graduating high school, it’s just like I had such sadness, if you will.
    0:33:58 I was very sad about how everything went.
    0:34:00 Tried to commit suicide.
    0:34:02 Obviously, it was a very poor attempt.
    0:34:04 And I’m still here today.
    0:34:06 I’m very happy about that aspect.
    0:34:08 I’m glad that I didn’t follow through with anything.
    0:34:10 Had to go to the hospital and all that.
    0:34:14 And when I was done, I just still remember kind of coming out of the hospital.
    0:34:17 And at like that moment, it’s kind of like something broken you.
    0:34:18 Have you ever read the book Wheel of Time?
    0:34:21 It’s 14,000 pages or something like that.
    0:34:26 But right around page 12,000, Rand has to intentionally kill a girl, the main character.
    0:34:29 And that’s like the moment he breaks and he gets into like hard Rand.
    0:34:32 Gwendolyn ran, if you will.
    0:34:34 For those that know Wheel of Time, I will appreciate all that.
    0:34:37 For those that don’t, it’s very confusing and I understand.
    0:34:40 Not the Amazon movie show.
    0:34:41 Not that Wheel of Time.
    0:34:46 So now that we kind of go back onto it, at that point, it’s just like something kind of broke in me.
    0:34:48 And it’s just like, I just didn’t care anymore.
    0:34:53 So all the kind of social awkwardness, if you will, all that kind of just died away with me.
    0:34:55 But also, so did everything else.
    0:35:03 And so I started using a bunch of drugs, LSD, mushrooms, meth.
    0:35:05 Did a bunch of meth, did a bunch of that stuff.
    0:35:09 And then went off to college and continued to do a bunch of stuff.
    0:35:14 I took too much acid to where for like quite a few years, I had like little squigglies on the side of my eyes.
    0:35:16 Whenever I’d walk by high contrast objects.
    0:35:24 And so it’s just like that whole period of life was just kind of marked by just poor decisions.
    0:35:35 And then sometime when I was about 19 years old, somewhere in that range, I just had this one evening where it’s just I felt the very dramatic and real presence of God.
    0:35:42 And it’s just like I kind of had this choice like Frodo on a razor where it’s like, if I go either way, I’m going to fall off.
    0:35:44 And I need to change my life.
    0:35:46 You just you get to make the choice now.
    0:35:48 Do you want to do that or not?
    0:35:50 And so I remember going, okay, I do.
    0:35:51 I do want to change my life.
    0:35:53 Like, I don’t like this experience.
    0:35:53 I don’t like what I’m living.
    0:35:55 I am still very sad.
    0:35:56 I still feel very desperate.
    0:35:57 I still feel all those things.
    0:36:00 I’m just like pretending to be this other person.
    0:36:05 And then I just went to sleep that night.
    0:36:07 Nothing changed in my life.
    0:36:08 Everything was still the way it was.
    0:36:10 I woke up the next day, the same person.
    0:36:14 And I was just like, oh, that’s just like such a strange, weird kind of experience.
    0:36:16 And I just went about my day.
    0:36:20 And then I remember, I think that evening, I looked at porn.
    0:36:23 And all of a sudden, I just had a conscious.
    0:36:26 I just like this deep, profound, like shame.
    0:36:28 And I was like, I’ve never felt shame in my life.
    0:36:29 Right?
    0:36:31 Like, I have no idea what’s happening now.
    0:36:34 And then all of a sudden, when I smoked pot, I just felt deep shame.
    0:36:37 And when I hurt somebody or did something wrong, also, it’s just like I got a conscious from
    0:36:38 that evening.
    0:36:40 That’s what kind of my gift was, if you will.
    0:36:44 And it’s just like, at that point, I didn’t even have a choice.
    0:36:46 I had to change my life.
    0:36:49 Because for whatever reason, I’ve kind of been changed in a moment.
    0:36:52 And so from there, I started actually trying in school.
    0:36:55 I always kind of joke around that I got 2.14 in high school.
    0:36:58 I had a teacher handwrite me a note saying I was the worst student she’s ever had.
    0:36:59 All that kind of stuff.
    0:37:01 I was not a really great student.
    0:37:06 And then in that moment, it’s just like, okay, now life’s changed.
    0:37:08 And I start trying to learn.
    0:37:10 And I try to become a good student.
    0:37:11 And it turns out it’s really hard.
    0:37:13 Like, I was really bad.
    0:37:14 I still got C’s.
    0:37:17 I went and took pre-calculus and failed pre-calculus.
    0:37:20 And I’m like, oh, my gosh, I used to be the smart math guy.
    0:37:22 And now I’m kind of the idiot failing.
    0:37:25 And so it’s like, I’m just questioning myself and all that.
    0:37:31 And I spend hours upon hours in a studying math learning center.
    0:37:36 And then just at some point, years into this journey, I’m like a year and a half into this
    0:37:38 journey at this point, it’s just like something clicks.
    0:37:43 And I go from being the worst person to just immediately becoming the best.
    0:37:46 Everything after that, it’s just, I don’t know what happened.
    0:37:48 All of a sudden, I was the best person at math.
    0:37:51 I started going into my computer science classes.
    0:37:52 I just really got everything.
    0:37:57 It’s just like everything at just years after trying, just all of a sudden became easier.
    0:38:02 And I’m not sure if it happened over the course of weeks or when the easier started, but it
    0:38:05 was just first predicated by just a huge amount of difficulty.
    0:38:10 And then this is kind of where I started really desiring and loving the process of learning was
    0:38:13 when things started getting easier after all those years, because I just was motivated by
    0:38:19 this desire to do something, not thinking it was going to get any easier.
    0:38:22 And then all of a sudden, it just started getting easier.
    0:38:22 And it was great.
    0:38:27 And that’s kind of really where I guess I started having the biggest parts of my life change.
    0:38:33 At that point, I started really, really, really wanting to never look at porn again, because
    0:38:34 every single time just such shame.
    0:38:35 And I really wanted to stop.
    0:38:37 And that was by far the hardest addiction to quit.
    0:38:40 Like smoking cigarettes was also a really hard addiction to quit.
    0:38:42 Shockingly hard addiction to quit.
    0:38:45 But porn by far was just the worst of them all.
    0:38:52 And then I think about 22, I was finally done with all kind of addictions, if you will.
    0:38:54 And then for a year, I just I just worked in all that.
    0:38:59 And I think right around maybe is 21 and three quarters, somewhere in that range.
    0:39:04 I’m not really sure where I I stopped all the addictions part, but or at least the outwardly
    0:39:04 addictions.
    0:39:09 And then at some point, six months later, a year later, met my beautiful wife.
    0:39:12 Things just started falling more and more into place.
    0:39:14 I loved more and more work.
    0:39:15 I loved programming.
    0:39:17 I started programming like 12 hours a day.
    0:39:18 I watched the social network movie.
    0:39:21 And after that, I was just like, I’m doing a startup.
    0:39:23 And it’s like that night I started my first startup.
    0:39:26 And I was just like, so it was in PHP, by the way.
    0:39:29 Yeah, 5.2 or something like that.
    0:39:30 It was great, great times.
    0:39:33 And I was just so motivated to do that.
    0:39:37 And I would just program for sometimes I’d program for 24, 36 hours straight.
    0:39:41 And I just like, nonstop, just that’s all I wanted to do at all points.
    0:39:43 I think my wife got a little sick of me.
    0:39:45 I wouldn’t, she would be like, can you drop me off at school?
    0:39:46 And I’d be like, no, I’m programming.
    0:39:49 I was not a very nice, you know, I didn’t think through things that well.
    0:39:51 And I was just so into it.
    0:39:53 And I just did it nonstop.
    0:39:58 And that’s kind of like how I became me is that story, if that makes sense.
    0:40:01 Let’s try to reverse engineer some of the pain and some of the triumph.
    0:40:04 You made it sound easy at times.
    0:40:06 Let’s try to understand it better.
    0:40:13 Maybe when you were seven years old, what do you think about the pain you’ve experienced there, losing your dad?
    0:40:16 What do you think, what kind of impact did it have on you?
    0:40:18 What kind of memories do you have of that time?
    0:40:22 The best way I can kind of put it is that I just never knew what a dad was.
    0:40:28 I was young enough that I could kind of maybe repress or just even have the capability of remembering things long term.
    0:40:30 Because I know most people don’t remember a lot from when they’re young.
    0:40:42 And so I’m not exactly sure I probably as at one of the best possible ages, if I’m going to lose a dad to lose a dad, you know, if you’re going to lose one, if you’re 11 or 12, it’s like a terrible age.
    0:40:43 That’s what my brother was.
    0:40:45 And he fell into drug addiction and never got back out.
    0:40:53 And so I just kind of have more of like a fuzziness and just kind of a longing that I just wish I had a dad.
    0:41:00 What impact did that have on your evolution, on your life, sort of having that longing?
    0:41:08 I think that’s why I was so bad socially in the sense that I was looking for approval, right?
    0:41:10 Like something I needed to prove.
    0:41:13 I think a lot of people kind of desire that approval or that loving figure.
    0:41:15 And I just didn’t have that.
    0:41:17 And so I think I just looked for it in everything else, right?
    0:41:23 Like if I were to psychoanalyze my actions during the time, it’s not like I was actively thinking that.
    0:41:29 But yeah, I just always wanted something to fill in, whatever that was I felt.
    0:41:39 I think a lot of people listening to this will resonate with your experience in high school, like being the outsider, being picked on, struggling through a lot of different complexities at home.
    0:41:41 What advice would you give to them?
    0:41:49 The worst part about high school is that you’re surrounded by a bunch of people your age, and it feels eternal.
    0:41:56 You don’t think, like the people that are around you, you feel like are the people that will be there for the rest of your life.
    0:41:58 At least that’s what I kind of like I thought.
    0:42:06 And I didn’t really even realize this until many years later, that they are going to be some of the least consequential people in your life.
    0:42:12 Which is very shocking to kind of think about, especially if you’re in it right now, right?
    0:42:16 Like right now, they are the everything that you’re experiencing, your whole reality.
    0:42:18 And then one day, it all stops.
    0:42:21 And then real life starts to begin.
    0:42:21 Yeah.
    0:42:24 And it’s just, that’s such a shocking thing.
    0:42:27 And if I could just tell myself that, maybe I would have been a bunch of different person.
    0:42:29 That’s so beautifully put.
    0:42:34 I mean, it is a, it’s like a trial run, you know, like at the beginning of video games, there’s a little tutorial.
    0:42:35 That’s what that is.
    0:42:36 Yeah.
    0:42:48 And actually, that should be a chance to try shit out, to take risks, because real life will begin when there is more consequences after that.
    0:42:53 Here you can, you know, if you’re like a girl, ask her out, try, try shit.
    0:42:56 If you get picked on, hit that guy back, try shit out.
    0:42:58 I’m not going to condone punching another person.
    0:42:58 I will.
    0:43:00 Beat the shit out of him.
    0:43:03 And take some jujitsu and learn how to take him down.
    0:43:08 And then, and then, and then, and then that girl that rejected you will be like, hmm, maybe I’ll give that guy a second chance.
    0:43:10 Be a bad motherfucker.
    0:43:12 It’s a chance to try stuff out.
    0:43:16 This is a very motivational speech for kicking ass.
    0:43:17 It is true there.
    0:43:23 I mean, there is something very true about that, that I think, especially, I mean, I have no idea what the girls experience of high school would be like.
    0:43:27 But as a guy, there’s definitely a lot of like physical requirements in high school.
    0:43:30 There’s a lot of physical measurement, at least where I grew up.
    0:43:35 I think that might not be true in all high schools, but if they’re filled with boys, it’s probably true.
    0:43:42 And so it’s just like, yeah, it probably does help to do those things, to go to BJJ, to do any of these activities.
    0:43:48 Because even if you don’t ever kick someone’s ass, just having some level of confidence in yourself is probably a very valuable thing.
    0:43:57 But just remembering that this is such a short, tiny moment in your life is just like a huge help.
    0:44:00 I mean, the way you phrased it is exactly right.
    0:44:05 That’s what it feels like, that this is, these are the people that will be with you for the rest of your life.
    0:44:07 And this is the whole world.
    0:44:24 And so that means that there’ll be just tremendous amount of impact if somebody picks on you or if you fall somewhere low in the hierarchy, in the status hierarchy of this high school, that means you’ll be low in the status hierarchy of the world and you’re fucked for the rest of your life.
    0:44:27 And that carries a tremendous amount of weight.
    0:44:30 It’s just why psychologically it’s extremely difficult to be.
    0:44:44 I think it’s understated often by parents, by society, how difficult it is to be a high schooler, how difficult psychologically it is, how it actually makes sense that some people would suffer from depression and be on the verge of suicide.
    0:44:46 It’s very, very difficult.
    0:44:46 Yeah.
    0:44:50 I think it’s even, you know, people always say back in my day, you know, blah, blah, blah.
    0:44:57 I think it’s genuinely harder today than it’s ever been in the sense that when I was a kid, there was a qualification to people.
    0:44:58 I mean, this is a cool guy.
    0:44:59 This is not a cool guy.
    0:45:02 Today, there’s a quantification of people.
    0:45:05 You have 32,514 people following you.
    0:45:06 You have 12.
    0:45:13 Like, people can visually, they can inspect your exact social value on whatever platform you’re on.
    0:45:16 And that has to be just so much harder.
    0:45:29 And I can imagine that there’s a lot of just so much weight to put on that, that it’s just, it feels probably way worse and way more damning to be uncool because you have an exact number of how uncool you are.
    0:45:30 Yeah.
    0:45:31 Yeah, the challenge there.
    0:45:48 And the task, the quest, is to remember that just because your social circle on social media and in high school thinks you’re uncool, it actually might mean you are cool.
    0:45:49 Yeah.
    0:46:00 And you need to find that cool and grow it and let it flourish so that when real life begins, you can fucking come out of the gate firing on all cylinders.
    0:46:01 That’s a great way to put it.
    0:46:08 I think, if anything, high school is really bad at picking out the cool people.
    0:46:14 That, like, whatever the system, the hierarchy that forms, it is so, it’s such a basic bitch hierarchy.
    0:46:17 Like, you’re good at very generic shit.
    0:46:17 Yeah.
    0:46:18 That’s how you rise.
    0:46:20 Your parents bought you an expensive car.
    0:46:20 Expensive car.
    0:46:21 Right.
    0:46:21 Just ridiculous.
    0:46:22 Materialistic shit.
    0:46:23 Yeah, exactly.
    0:46:24 It’s a greedy search.
    0:46:26 See, they didn’t have a proper search, so they’re just hitting that local optima.
    0:46:42 But even the objective function for that greedy search is just a really shitty one where those people that win the game of high school are very often not going to be the people that win the much more exciting, beautiful game of life.
    0:46:46 So do epic shit and try stuff out.
    0:46:48 The weirdos are the ones that are going to succeed.
    0:47:01 The weirdos in high school, probably because they also get bullied and they get to be tormented more psychologically and get to explore their own mind and think through what it means to be a human being more.
    0:47:05 Because if you’re winning in high school, you’re not being challenged.
    0:47:06 Yeah.
    0:47:07 You’re not self-reflecting.
    0:47:09 You’re not trying shit out.
    0:47:14 So there is some degree to, like, being tormented as long as it doesn’t break you.
    0:47:16 The porn addiction.
    0:47:22 That’s another powerful one that I think will probably resonate with a lot of people.
    0:47:28 And it’s interesting that you say that’s one of the hardest addictions to overcome.
    0:47:29 Let me say it this way.
    0:47:32 Some addictions have a much bigger societal look.
    0:47:35 And porn is just not one of them, which makes it super hard.
    0:47:37 None of your friends are going to cheer you on.
    0:47:41 If you go on Twitter and say, I quit porn, they’re going to be like, well, that’s good for you, but not everybody.
    0:47:44 You know, no one makes that argument with meth, right?
    0:47:46 No one’s going to be like, well, not everyone has to quit meth.
    0:47:48 Okay, it’s actually a fine industry.
    0:47:51 And people who, you know, are the ones producing it, they’re good also, right?
    0:47:53 No one’s going to make that kind of argument.
    0:47:56 Whereas with porn, you’re going to have, like, a whole thing.
    0:48:00 And friends are going to think you’re dumb for doing it or whatever.
    0:48:04 It’s like, you have, it’s a much more difficult one in just like that.
    0:48:05 So it feels accepted.
    0:48:12 And I think it’s also an addiction you can practice, participate in privately and hide it from the world.
    0:48:15 There’s certain addictions that are harder to hide from the world for prolonged periods of time.
    0:48:16 Yeah.
    0:48:20 And porn addiction is probably one you can just have for many years and then it can deepen.
    0:48:22 That’s probably like a serious issue.
    0:48:33 Boy, am I glad I grew up before the internet because porn is so accessible, so easy to go deep into that addiction.
    0:48:37 I mean, what can you speak about what impact it had on your life?
    0:48:40 Maybe some of the low points, but also how to overcome it.
    0:48:48 But I’d say, as far as impact goes, is that you will have such a long and broken look at women.
    0:48:52 By the very, like, I can, again, I’m only speaking from a male’s perspective.
    0:49:03 That porn in its just, like, most basic thing is that you use another person for your own desire or your own want.
    0:49:05 It’s not something that is deeply needed.
    0:49:08 There’s no need, there’s no, like, need for porn.
    0:49:12 It’s purely a want-based activity or a lust, however you want, whatever word you can fill in there.
    0:49:16 And it is purely an objectifying activity.
    0:49:19 Like, someone else is on display for your own enjoyment.
    0:49:22 And so I think you carry this around.
    0:49:29 Like, I do think that the women that I dated during high school or the women after high school and college, like, I looked at them as a means to an end.
    0:49:36 I think porn greatly kind of shifted that kind of perspective in my head that I did not give the value that was desired to another person.
    0:49:42 It really devalues humanity just in general, is my perspective of it.
    0:49:43 And then it makes people into commodities.
    0:49:45 And I don’t think people are commodities.
    0:49:46 I think everyone has value.
    0:49:54 And so during that, for me, that’s kind of like the great effect of porn is that, you know, it’s just consumerism gone wild.
    0:49:58 Or materialism, maybe, you could ask, argue, gone wild.
    0:50:04 It’s extremely hard to quit, just like you said, because I can look at porn and then I can go out to lunch.
    0:50:06 You know, no one’s going to know.
    0:50:07 No one’s going to have any ideas.
    0:50:09 Like, it’s a very private.
    0:50:11 It can be very short session.
    0:50:15 It doesn’t have to be something that takes, like, you know, you can’t take acid and go out to lunch, right?
    0:50:18 You’re going to be, you’re going to, your whole day is going to be a very different day.
    0:50:22 And so there’s, it’s very quick, easy, accessible.
    0:50:30 And then obviously there’s like all the, like the science and, you know, statistics, like men make worse decisions for some period of time after looking or being exposed to sexualized images.
    0:50:32 There’s the whole dopamine effect.
    0:50:35 That’s just like, you’re constantly need more and more dopamine.
    0:50:39 That’s why people typically don’t just watch five minutes of porn and call it a day.
    0:50:42 There’s like, you know, the hundred tab joke that’s always made on the internet.
    0:50:46 It’s because you, it’s just this, this constant dopamine cycle you’re constantly doing.
    0:50:49 And all that stuff is great to say.
    0:50:54 And I’m sure statistics and science and all that stuff is really great arguments for some amount of people.
    0:50:59 But for me, it just comes down to like, is it really a good thing to do?
    0:51:06 Like, is it really actually something we want is to value people in such a profane or kind of just like disregarding way?
    0:51:09 Like, I just really think it’s just bad for the soul.
    0:51:14 Even if all the stats said it was great for you, I still say it’s actually bad.
    0:51:21 Yeah, you have to look at the long-term, big picture, psychological impact it has on your relationships with human beings in general.
    0:51:35 That’s my, more generally than just porn, my problem with the quote-unquote sort of manosphere is I think sleeping with a bunch of women is great, wonderful.
    0:51:47 But the problem is making that the primary objective of your life, similar with porn, is you devalue one of the most awesome things, which is intimacy.
    0:51:49 That’s true for deep friendship.
    0:51:50 That’s true for relationships.
    0:52:01 And I think porn does that like in its purest, darkest form, which is like the thing that matters is the sex, not the like the deep connection with another human being.
    0:52:15 And I think, again, going back to high school and the manosphere, the objective function, if it’s to get laid, which helps with status and confidence and all that is wonderful, I think.
    0:52:17 Again, it can be an addiction.
    0:52:25 But the thing that’s even more awesome for a lot of people is a deep friendship or deep intimacy with a romantic partner.
    0:52:27 Like that’s also fucking awesome.
    0:52:30 And both of those are great.
    0:52:43 It’s subjectively better to have like I would say that there’s no universe that exists or there should be no argument possible that exists that a guy who has meaningless sex has a better or a more meaningful life than, say, me and my wife have been together for 15 years.
    0:52:53 We have a very like I can depend on her in all circumstances, whereas if you live that other life, it sure could be it could feel great, but there’s no meaning to it.
    0:52:53 There’s no value.
    0:52:55 There’s no actual real value to it.
    0:52:56 That’s absolutely correct.
    0:53:03 I do think that getting laid can have a tremendous positive impact on the confidence of a young man.
    0:53:19 I think just there’s a certain number of sexual partners from which you can collect a lot of data and you can free you about like not to be so nervous about the opposite sex, not to be so nervous about human interaction.
    0:53:38 And that will allow you to see the world more clearly and to actually find that one partner that with whom you can be deeply intimate with sometimes like the nervousness around like this societally constructed like value in getting laid can cloud your judgment.
    0:53:58 And if you just release that by getting laid a bunch of times, then like you could see that the world clearly that getting laid is not as nearly as important, as you said, as finding the right human, including I should put in that pile, not just like a romantic partner, but like friendships, like deep lasting friendships.
    0:54:07 Well, I mean, I think you’re right that our society puts a lot of emphasis on getting laid, and I’m sure that’s true among any group of males throughout any point in history.
    0:54:12 I’m sure that’s a very common joke that’s never actually like never stopped at any point.
    0:54:23 So I’m sure that exists, but and there’s probably some truth to the sense that after you’ve, you know, who was it, Jim Carrey, I hope that everyone can get rich so they realize that money solves none of your problems.
    0:54:32 Yeah, like the realization that this thing that society told you is hyper important is actually not the important part, like it is a very important, it’s a great sign that your relationship is healthy.
    0:54:48 Like if me and my wife were to have no sex at all for months on end, like something’s gone wrong, which means what you know, we are no longer like on the same plane, something, you know, but it’s not also a good identifier, just because you’re having a lot of sex doesn’t mean you’re having a good relationship.
    0:55:01 And so it’s kind of like a unique kind of, I forget the right term here, but it’s a unique way at looking at the problems and our society puts so much emphasis and maybe that’s why porn was so hard to quit.
    0:55:04 But I, my guess is just all the dopamine effect that it is.
    0:55:21 But for me, like the most important part, and the thing that actually has real reward is having that, having just my wife, I do not look at I try, I desperately try not to look at any other woman, I’m hopefully not going to get caught Mark Zuckerberg at the White House like that.
    0:55:29 You know, like I don’t look at porn, my wife has complete confidence in me that there is not going to be a situation in which she has to question me in any kind of sense.
    0:55:37 And that builds a much more deeply, I would argue a very deep relationship because the trust is that much bigger.
    0:55:41 I think the deepness of the relationship is probably proportional to the trust you have in each other.
    0:55:44 It’s very hard to have a deep relationship with no trust.
    0:55:57 Yeah, and a, probably a prerequisite, maybe a component of trust is vulnerability to where you like take the leap of being vulnerable with another human being.
    0:56:05 And that vulnerability, when reciprocated, builds this really strong trust and it’s a beautiful thing.
    0:56:16 Yeah, I personally just given my position, that’s even more challenging, you know, being vulnerable with the world and there’s a bunch of people out there that want to hurt you for it.
    0:56:21 And, but I think it’s worthwhile anyway, to be vulnerable.
    0:56:22 It’s always worth it.
    0:56:23 The risk is always worth it.
    0:56:30 And in some sense, like, obviously, everyone has a different kind of life they have to filter through their actions with, right?
    0:56:38 Because the person that has no, say, social following or anything, their risk-reward profile could just be local impact, which could be just as, you know, damning or harming to them.
    0:56:48 And so, it’s always worth the risk, though, in my personal opinion, because, like, finding my wife has been, obviously, the most impactful or changing thing in my life.
    0:56:56 So, or second most, I’d argue that one night with God would probably be the most impactful thing that led to everything else, but then the wife would be the next most impactful.
    0:56:59 I mean, I’m, like, cleaning up after myself and stuff now.
    0:57:00 Changed man.
    0:57:01 I’m a changed man.
    0:57:06 Can we try to reverse engineer that moment of you finding God?
    0:57:07 What is it, 19?
    0:57:18 Because it feels like that was a big leap for you to escape, to escape the pain, to escape the addiction, or the beginning of that journey.
    0:57:21 What do you think, what do you think happened there?
    0:57:26 I think it just felt like I just, there was no line that I wasn’t willing to cross.
    0:57:38 Like, everything was fine, and just, like, it just all of a sudden, just in that moment, it’s just like I had a, I guess, some sort of deep fear and understanding, like, I am going down a path.
    0:57:41 Is this really the path you want to go down?
    0:57:45 And I don’t know what the result of that path would be or anything like that.
    0:57:49 I don’t tend to speculate on things I don’t understand.
    0:57:53 I just know that in that moment, I had the option.
    0:57:57 And I just chose, I didn’t want it anymore, right?
    0:58:00 It’s kind of mixed in this whole thing where it’s just like I had no value.
    0:58:04 I wrapped up all my meaning or value in having sex or getting laid.
    0:58:09 I had, you know, all that stuff, all the things we just talked about, like, that was where all my worth was.
    0:58:12 And that was just such a, like, a terrible place to have your worth.
    0:58:15 And it was just, like, kind of all came to a point.
    0:58:17 And I can’t tell you the day of the week.
    0:58:20 I can’t tell you anything other than it was nighttime.
    0:58:23 And I was in South Hedges in Montana State University.
    0:58:24 Go Bobcats!
    0:58:28 That’s about, yeah, that’s the sign that we do at football games.
    0:58:29 Don’t worry about it.
    0:58:32 But, like, that’s all I can really, that’s all I can really tell you.
    0:58:36 Because the night, that night was no more or less special than some other night.
    0:58:42 It’s just the specialness was, I got at least a chance to make a choice.
    0:58:48 Because you find in that advice that you can give to others who are probably,
    0:58:54 there’s probably just an endless amount of people that are struggling with porn addiction now, young people.
    0:58:56 What advice could you give to them?
    0:58:57 How to overcome it?
    0:59:05 For me to overcome it, I had to realize that I was taking something away from my future wife.
    0:59:09 Some people would be like, oh, well, you just, you know, once you get a girlfriend, then you can stop.
    0:59:11 And it’s just like, no, because you never stopped the problem.
    0:59:14 You don’t stop a problem by replacing it.
    0:59:17 And so I didn’t have a girlfriend, didn’t have all that.
    0:59:21 I just realized that I was truly taking away from something from my future wife.
    0:59:23 And I didn’t even know my current wife at that time.
    0:59:25 I didn’t, she was not in the picture.
    0:59:27 I’m not even sure if she was at Montana State University at that point.
    0:59:37 And so it’s just, that’s, once I made that realization, I think it went from my head to my heart, which they say is the greatest distance in the universe.
    0:59:39 I finally, like, got it.
    0:59:41 And that’s really where things change.
    0:59:49 So if the ability to say, like, what’s going to help you change and all that, I don’t know if there’s, I don’t think there’s silver bullets.
    0:59:50 Right.
    0:59:58 If someone could offer you a drug, I forget who says this phrase, but there’s this really interesting phrase that goes something like, he was a very depressed man.
    1:00:07 And he was struggling with suicide and he kind of writes about this in this memoir and he goes to these doctors and the doctors effectively say, well, here’s antidepressants.
    1:00:08 It’s going to help you.
    1:00:14 And he says that, well, the problem was, is that scientists told me that I could just touch my brain and make myself happy.
    1:00:15 And that’s it.
    1:00:17 Like they could reach in, they could configure some stuff and I’ll be happy.
    1:00:23 He’s like, for me, it was a lot like going out into a field and being able to take a drug to see the rain.
    1:00:25 I could look out, see the rain.
    1:00:26 It would fall down.
    1:00:26 It’d be silvery.
    1:00:27 It’d be beautiful.
    1:00:30 But all the crop would still die because there’s not actually any rain.
    1:00:33 I had to discover how to be happy myself.
    1:00:37 And so for me, it’s like the reason why I looked at porn is because I was unhappy.
    1:00:38 I was trying to find meaning.
    1:00:41 I was trying to find value in something, right?
    1:00:43 Something that was supposed to finally give me this ultimate satisfaction.
    1:00:50 And it just does not, no matter how hard and no matter how much you think it will, there is no escapade.
    1:00:55 There is no pornography that will ever give you that satisfaction you’re looking for.
    1:00:56 That’s the reason why it’s addicting.
    1:01:00 And that’s kind of like my call to why you shouldn’t do it.
    1:01:04 But how to get out of it, I only got out of it by realizing.
    1:01:16 I think that’s really brilliantly described you knew that this thing you’re doing is preventing you from finding your future wife.
    1:01:27 And future wife could mean more, even broadly, this path to a flourishing, to a beautiful life.
    1:01:34 I think there’s a lot of choices we make that are just preventing us from opening the door to whatever future.
    1:01:47 I think what’s really nice to do is to imagine, just like we said with high school, that there are a bunch of trajectories in life where you’ll be truly happy.
    1:01:52 And you need to construct your life in a way where you have the chance to travel down those paths.
    1:01:57 And there’s a bunch of addictions, there’s a bunch of choices that prevent us from traveling down those paths.
    1:02:09 So just believe that you’re going to have an awesome life and remove from your life the things that are preventing you from walking down that path, which is essentially what you did.
    1:02:16 It’s a leap of faith that, like, if you let go of porn, that a better life is waiting for you on the other end.
    1:02:17 Yeah.
    1:02:28 I definitely can’t say how long it will take a better life, but for me, there’s no way in the universe I could have had the relationship that I have without first making those steps.
    1:02:36 Because I couldn’t value, like, I couldn’t value my wife in the way that was proper for who she was.
    1:02:41 I would have valued her through the index or the lens that I currently was looking through.
    1:02:44 Gotta ask.
    1:02:46 So, I’ve never done meth.
    1:02:48 I’ve never done meth.
    1:02:50 That was a great segue, by the way.
    1:02:53 Oh, man.
    1:02:56 I don’t know what the fuck I’m doing, honestly, with this interviewing thing.
    1:02:58 But, yeah, meth and LSD.
    1:03:00 You know, I did ayahuasca.
    1:03:02 I did shrooms a bunch of times.
    1:03:12 Oh, and this topic, I should say that, like, there’s a lot of, on Twitter and on tech, in the tech community in general, sort of people speaking negatively about ayahuasca.
    1:03:13 And some positively.
    1:03:17 I don’t, I think it’s such a roll of the dice.
    1:03:22 Like, I had incredible experiences, but I don’t think I want to recommend it to anyone.
    1:03:24 It’s a risk.
    1:03:25 It’s a serious risk.
    1:03:27 It really is a roll of the dice.
    1:03:30 Like, you could meet your demons and they could destroy you.
    1:03:32 Or you can meet your demons and let go of them.
    1:03:37 Or you could have experiences like I did, which is, like, never, apparently I don’t have demons.
    1:03:42 I’m pretty sure they’re somewhere in the basement, but, like, I’ve never met them on drugs.
    1:03:43 Yeah.
    1:03:45 I’m always really happy.
    1:03:46 I’m a happy drunk.
    1:03:50 I’m a super happy an ayahuasca, just full of love.
    1:03:51 I don’t understand.
    1:03:55 I don’t understand where the demons are, but that’s my biochemistry, whatever that is.
    1:04:02 And for some others, you know, one trip could be amazing and the next one could just completely destroy you and wreck your life.
    1:04:05 So I don’t know what the recommendation from that is.
    1:04:11 Maybe avoid it, but then all of us die and life, you know, I tend to lean into adventure.
    1:04:23 But drugs is a, it’s, if you fuck with the biochemistry of your brain, you can really destroy yourself in a way that it’s going to torment you.
    1:04:31 So I would generally recommend that people avoid drugs altogether, probably.
    1:04:34 Unless you’re a crazy motherfucker.
    1:04:36 Hunter S. Thompson.
    1:04:39 What an intro to this topic.
    1:04:40 I’m sorry.
    1:04:41 What’s meth like?
    1:04:43 That’s a great intro.
    1:04:52 I like, you are very correct in the sense that there is, at least when it comes to hallucinogens, there is a wild variance to what you’re going to experience.
    1:04:53 And there is no guarantee.
    1:04:58 There’s no, you know, just because you buy the product doesn’t mean you’re going to have a good time.
    1:04:58 Right.
    1:05:05 There’s a lot of, uh, personally, I find that stuff, uh, to be very, I believe in the spiritual realm.
    1:05:06 Right.
    1:05:08 Like I believe demons and angels exist.
    1:05:09 I believe God exists.
    1:05:15 And that kind of whole realm is like, I don’t know what it opens you up to, but it’s much, much different experience.
    1:05:17 Now, some people will be like, Oh, it’s just a bunch of chemicals in your brain.
    1:05:17 They all get mixed up.
    1:05:22 LSD just takes all of your pathways and they all go, you know, they all get kind of scrambled up in your brain.
    1:05:25 And it’s just like, yeah, the experiences are profound.
    1:05:29 I had some really bizarre, very cool, very awful.
    1:05:31 I’ve had all the experiences in the mall.
    1:05:35 I can just tell you that I, like, I personally always say the same thing.
    1:05:36 It’s like choices that I made.
    1:05:37 I can never take back.
    1:05:43 I would never take that away from myself because I don’t know if I would be who I am today without all those experiences going up to it.
    1:05:48 But if you have not had that experience, I’m on your team, or at least partially on your team, maybe more severely.
    1:05:50 I don’t think you need those experiences.
    1:05:58 I don’t think they’re going to, you don’t have to put yourself through that to make a good decisions or to realize that, uh, people have value, right?
    1:06:01 You can, you, you don’t have to do that.
    1:06:06 So as far as like, what is meth like meth is like, if you’ve ever done cocaine, cocaine starts off with like a 15 minute dance party.
    1:06:09 Just, like, it’s just so intense.
    1:06:10 It’s like so great.
    1:06:14 And then it just followed up by like, like a five hour, like just feeling wiggly, right?
    1:06:15 I don’t know how else to describe it.
    1:06:24 A meth is like that, except for, I didn’t get as much dance party or any dance party, but instead I just got that part for like 12 hours.
    1:06:25 Yeah.
    1:06:28 So did a lot of skateboarding.
    1:06:31 Did a lot of, you know, running around.
    1:06:35 Would you say it’s a pleasant feeling or is it more like an escape?
    1:06:39 From the loneliness of life.
    1:06:46 Well, is it pleasant or negative in the actual moment, not the consequences, but in the moment.
    1:06:54 So there, I mean, this is, this is just like a very interesting kind of area, which is that not universally, you can’t say that.
    1:07:00 Often you’ll find that there’s kind of these two groups of drug addicts.
    1:07:03 There’s those that like the, the opioids and those that like the uppers.
    1:07:08 They typically don’t like, there’s, there’s very few people in the drug world that do both.
    1:07:10 They’re really just kind of like find their side and they go for it.
    1:07:14 So will is meth a thing that everybody’s going to enjoy.
    1:07:17 Well, categorically, as you can see, and just like how people experience drug addiction.
    1:07:18 No.
    1:07:26 But for me, it’s just like, I had a really, it kind of like feeds into like the ADHD nature of like this, like, cause you know, you’re kind of high energy.
    1:07:27 You’re kind of like always in the moment.
    1:07:30 So it’s just like, you’re in the moment, but it’s just like, Oh, I’m in the moment.
    1:07:35 You know, like, it’s like, everything’s just so intense, you know, like you just want to really be in the moment.
    1:07:38 And so it’s just experiencing that constantly.
    1:07:41 And so was that great?
    1:07:52 Well, some people, you know, my wife always tells me this, like being like nervous or I forget the anxiety of a situation can also be the same thing as like thrill.
    1:07:53 I forget the exact way.
    1:07:55 She’s probably super disappointed that I messed this up.
    1:07:58 But it’s like, you could perceive those two experiences in very different lights.
    1:08:01 Some people, you know, get in front of a crowd.
    1:08:02 It’s like thrilling.
    1:08:05 Some people get in front of it and it’s just like the worst experience of their lifetime.
    1:08:10 They would actually literally rather die, which is a crazy thing to think about than stand up and speak.
    1:08:13 And so for me, meth was that kind of thrilling side.
    1:08:22 But at the same time is it didn’t, it still didn’t like quite give me that thing I wanted, whatever I was looking for.
    1:08:27 I’d use it to help try to get that thing I want, but it was never giving me that thing I wanted.
    1:08:28 Yeah.
    1:08:31 For me, I’ve had all really wonderful experiences.
    1:08:33 Do not recommend them.
    1:08:34 But like with Shroom…
    1:08:39 That’s like a YouTube policy, by the way, that you have to say, by the way, do whatever you do, do not do a legal activity.
    1:08:39 I…
    1:08:42 But I had great experience, but don’t have whatever you do, don’t do it.
    1:08:45 Mr. The Primogen, I have no master.
    1:08:47 I don’t have YouTube or whatever.
    1:08:49 I’ll say whatever the fuck I want.
    1:08:51 I’m just…
    1:08:52 But seriously, you do.
    1:08:54 No, I don’t…
    1:08:57 No, I don’t give a shit about YouTube or anybody, honestly.
    1:09:08 I’m just kind of careful about the words I say because just because I had positive experiences, I don’t want young people listening to this think they should try the experience.
    1:09:13 I think the much more powerful message is that life is awesome even without that.
    1:09:19 That’s something I definitely experiment with on the alcohol side.
    1:09:22 So for me, you know, I’m an introvert.
    1:09:23 I’m afraid of the world.
    1:09:25 Social interaction fills me with anxiety.
    1:09:28 Alcohol is definitely a thing that helps with that sometimes.
    1:09:32 But I think honestly, like it’s not even the alcohol.
    1:09:36 It’s like having to do something while a person is talking to me.
    1:09:37 I could just like drink a liquid.
    1:09:39 Yeah.
    1:09:41 There’s like a social thing with a beer.
    1:09:43 It’s like, yeah, uh-huh.
    1:09:44 Yeah, we’re having fun.
    1:09:46 And I think it’s…
    1:09:47 It worked…
    1:09:49 For me, it works the same as…
    1:09:58 If the liquid actually looks like alcohol, it does the same purpose often because like alcohol from…
    1:10:05 Like if you have a whiskey or a beer looking thing, it kind of sends a signal that we should be having fun.
    1:10:07 So we’re socializing, right?
    1:10:08 We’re fucking getting crazy.
    1:10:11 And then that means you don’t actually need the alcohol.
    1:10:15 You can get fucking crazy without the alcohol substance.
    1:10:15 Yeah.
    1:10:23 But there is some kind of like social signaling that happens when you have a drink in your hand.
    1:10:29 So I’ve been to get-togethers where I’m not drinking, but just doing like a fake drink situation.
    1:10:31 And I can also have fun.
    1:10:32 So I’ve been…
    1:10:38 But that said, you know, traveling across the world, there are times when you need to be able to don a bottle of vodka.
    1:10:40 That’s very essential for my line of work.
    1:10:50 But that’s almost like a cultural experience versus like a necessary component of a successful social interaction and one that brings you happiness.
    1:10:54 So not drinking, I think you can have fun and not drink too.
    1:11:11 So all of this, man, I’m so careful saying drugs have had a good effect on my life because I think for most people, no, for majority of people, they will in the long term have a negative effect.
    1:11:23 So I think if you were to choose one or the other, just no drugs and no drinking means one day you can be the president of the United States, kids.
    1:11:26 And I should say, oh, man.
    1:11:28 That is his funniest line.
    1:11:30 Diet Coke is great.
    1:11:35 That’s his funniest line, which is you would hate me if I drank, which I just like to me, that tickles me like to no end.
    1:11:37 Just like, oh, my gosh, that is such a funny line.
    1:11:39 Self-awareness and humor is wonderful there.
    1:11:44 But I am on your team like all of the reasons why I used drugs and all that was a form.
    1:11:46 It’s some level of escapism.
    1:11:54 I’m sure that’s like would be the archetype or the box I’d put that into or the pursuit of trying to feel something that cannot come from them.
    1:11:56 It’s like trying to find a meaning in your job.
    1:11:58 You can find satisfaction in what you do.
    1:12:00 Like that is a very good thing.
    1:12:02 You can find satisfaction and be happy with what you’ve created.
    1:12:08 You can be, you know, thrilled by the experience, but you cannot find I doubt you can find purpose.
    1:12:13 You know, maybe some people in specific jobs, you know, like this obviously have very broad strokes I’m painting with.
    1:12:18 Like if you’re an EMT and you save someone’s life, maybe, you know, there can be purpose in that whole experience.
    1:12:18 Right.
    1:12:19 So I’m not saying all things.
    1:12:23 But like as programming goes, most programmers, you cannot just simply find your purpose.
    1:12:30 And same with drugs, like you cannot find that thing you’re looking for, but they are a very great distraction.
    1:12:34 And then at some point that distraction comes with a heavy cost.
    1:12:39 I think Dr. Faust would probably know the best about the heavy costs, but it’s just you’re making one trade for another.
    1:12:43 And at some point that the bill comes due and that bill can be very, very large.
    1:12:51 The other moment you mentioned that I think is really inspiring is that, you know, you failed pre-calculus.
    1:12:52 You really struggle in school.
    1:12:54 Like you realize that school is really hard.
    1:13:04 And then eventually you’re able to sort of persevere and, I don’t know, break through that wall of struggle.
    1:13:10 Can you, by way of advice, figure out what happened and what kind of advice you can give to people who are struggling?
    1:13:11 Yeah.
    1:13:13 I’ll paint it in kind of a more clear picture.
    1:13:17 A very fast speed run of it is that I took pre-calculus, failed.
    1:13:19 I took pre-calculus again, failed.
    1:13:20 Took pre-calculus again and got a C.
    1:13:22 So I took it three times.
    1:13:25 Then I took calc over the summer.
    1:13:26 So calc won.
    1:13:32 In that one, at the end, the final, the final was a two-hour final.
    1:13:35 I finished it in 30 minutes and that is the highest score in all of the school.
    1:13:39 And I proceeded to be the highest score in all calculus and Diffy Q.
    1:13:42 I was the only person out of 400 people to finish the Diffy Q final.
    1:13:44 And I got the highest grade.
    1:13:46 And so I was like, I got really good.
    1:13:48 So I somehow went from really bad to really good.
    1:13:53 And so my only, the thing that I did is that I had to win.
    1:13:55 It was not a option.
    1:13:56 It was not like, oh, you know, this would be really great.
    1:13:58 It’s like, I will not graduate.
    1:14:00 I will not finish my stuff if I cannot do this.
    1:14:07 And so every single day I got up, I went to my, whatever, however many hour class it was.
    1:14:10 Right after that, I went straight to the math learning center, did those problems.
    1:14:14 When I got home, I just got the book and it had the odd answers in the back.
    1:14:18 And I would try to walk through the problems over and over and over and over again until
    1:14:19 I absolutely got it.
    1:14:26 And it just became this thing where it’s just, I just simple rote memory took over and the
    1:14:30 ability to just effectively have the times table, but for calculus all stuck in my head, inverse
    1:14:33 trig substitution, trig substitution, doing Taylor McLaren series, like all those things
    1:14:38 kind of just over and over and over and over again, eventually they became easy.
    1:14:40 They became very easy.
    1:14:42 It’s just that I had to cram it in there.
    1:14:46 And some people, you know, you hear these stories where they barely show up to class and they get
    1:14:47 A’s.
    1:14:48 I’ve never been that person.
    1:14:51 I’ve always been the person that has to sit down, read through everything.
    1:14:53 And I’m bad at abstract concepts.
    1:14:58 I like the concrete into the abstract, not the abstract into the concrete.
    1:15:01 Very bad at talking about things theoretically, then trying to apply them.
    1:15:05 But if I can do it once, literally, then it’s really easy for me to go into the abstract.
    1:15:10 And so it’s just like, for me, it just, I had, there’s no substitute for the hours.
    1:15:16 So if you, if I were to give advice, it’s just that you have to have time in the saddle.
    1:15:19 Hour after hour will make you slowly better.
    1:15:24 And at first it’s crushing, it’s defeating, and it’s not fun because you were bad at it.
    1:15:27 But then at some point it, you’re just not bad at it.
    1:15:30 If you can just do it long enough and you’ll start getting okay at it.
    1:15:33 And then at some point you might even get good at it.
    1:15:35 And when you get good at something, it feels amazing.
    1:15:37 There’s like an exploratory thing.
    1:15:43 Like if you’re, if you’ve ever played a musical instrument, you stop having to think about all
    1:15:46 the little teeny things you have to do to be able to play something correctly.
    1:15:49 And you start thinking about how you can explore that space.
    1:15:51 It’s like a completely different problem.
    1:15:52 And same with programming.
    1:15:55 Programming has an identical kind of feel to it.
    1:15:59 It’s just like you’ll cross that barrier and it becomes magical as opposed to a chore.
    1:16:00 Yeah.
    1:16:03 Once you cross that barrier, it’s somehow other things become easier.
    1:16:08 But then if you want to have a truly successful life, then you find the next barrier.
    1:16:08 Yeah.
    1:16:09 The next barrier.
    1:16:09 Yeah.
    1:16:10 I’ve always been the same.
    1:16:12 It’s, everything’s come really hard.
    1:16:12 Yeah.
    1:16:13 I do not.
    1:16:15 I had, I’ve had no free lunches.
    1:16:18 Everything’s just been a lot of, a lot of pain and struggle.
    1:16:29 I think somebody said that on this topic that you think work smarter, not harder is a phrase
    1:16:30 that you dislike.
    1:16:31 Yeah.
    1:16:32 Somebody on Reddit told me this.
    1:16:33 Yeah.
    1:16:33 I don’t just dislike it.
    1:16:34 I hate that phrase.
    1:16:35 Okay.
    1:16:38 Tell me, tell me, tell me about your hatred.
    1:16:39 How do you feel?
    1:16:45 The reason why I dislike that is that there is a kind of a, a hidden suggestion there, which
    1:16:47 is that you already know what smarter is.
    1:16:51 So just do that, that actually things should be easy.
    1:16:53 You should just not have to like try that hard.
    1:16:56 You should just do the quick, easy, obvious path and boom, it’s done.
    1:17:00 It’s like, I’ve never experienced that in anything I’ve done.
    1:17:02 Everything is actually really hard.
    1:17:05 And most of the time I don’t even know what I’m doing.
    1:17:07 So therefore I don’t even know what smart looks like.
    1:17:13 And so for me, the only way I can learn how to work smart is by working very, very hard
    1:17:15 and knowing that there’s no shortcuts.
    1:17:23 And then when I finally figure out what smart is, when I work smart and work hard, it is that
    1:17:23 much better.
    1:17:26 I think there’s a deep, profound truth to that.
    1:17:30 There’s a lot of these phrases that just drive me nuts in our society.
    1:17:32 But that one is, sorry, that one is really accepted.
    1:17:36 If we can just linger on it, because it really bothers me as well.
    1:17:41 So one, which is a really nice thing you said, the presumption there is things should be easy
    1:17:46 and you’re a failure if you don’t see the easy path.
    1:17:47 That’s kind of the implied thing.
    1:17:47 Just work smart, dog.
    1:17:49 Why are you putting in all those hours?
    1:17:53 And so it makes a lot of people that struggle feel like they’re a failure.
    1:17:54 Yeah.
    1:17:56 Because like, I don’t see it.
    1:18:01 And then the choice they have, well, I’ll just go with the, I’ll just be lazy.
    1:18:04 And then maybe the profound truth will come to me somehow.
    1:18:10 And yeah, I think, I don’t think I’ve ever, and I don’t think I’ve met great engineers
    1:18:16 that find the smart way without the extremely hard work.
    1:18:22 The annoying thing about those great engineers is then looking back, they forget the hard work
    1:18:27 because they remember all the joy they now are experiencing from all the efficient smart
    1:18:29 work they’ve figured out how to do.
    1:18:30 They forget.
    1:18:36 So when they give advice, they give the stupid fucking advice of, well, just do it like, you
    1:18:37 know, the easy way.
    1:18:38 Yeah.
    1:18:39 And here’s the easy way.
    1:18:40 But no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no.
    1:18:42 You have to put in the hours.
    1:18:47 Like, you know, the musical instrument is a beautiful example of guitar and piano.
    1:18:50 I’ve put in, I don’t know how many thousands of hours.
    1:18:58 And now when I’m explaining stuff, jujitsu as well, I’m, I sound like, I sound like one
    1:19:02 of those people, like, just, you know, just relax, you know, in jujitsu.
    1:19:07 By the way, just relax is a really wonderful thing for physical endeavors like piano and so
    1:19:16 on, but to learn how to relax your hand, how to relax your mind, your body, and use the,
    1:19:21 the, whatever, the biomechanics of your body to apply the correct kind of leverage and the
    1:19:25 timing and all that, that takes thousands of hours of learning.
    1:19:28 Just to learn how to relax takes a lot of really hard work.
    1:19:36 In jujitsu, that takes many months of getting your ass beat over and over until you, like,
    1:19:44 you know, ride the bus home crying, your, your ego completely shattered and destroyed.
    1:19:52 And then like a little element is figured out late that night or next morning.
    1:19:59 And from the depression, there’s this little plant that grows this flower of insight.
    1:20:05 And you use that insight to then get your ass kicked again, all next fucking month and year.
    1:20:07 And then you grow and grow and grow.
    1:20:13 And from that, you discover how beautifully simple jujitsu is or judo is, just speaking for
    1:20:15 myself or piano or guitar.
    1:20:24 And then, yes, the, the profound truth or the mastery of a skill feels simple when you
    1:20:25 finally arrive to it.
    1:20:30 But the path is for most people is, uh, is going to be a hard one.
    1:20:33 Can I, can I, I think I should make an addendum to the phrase.
    1:20:35 I think the phrase should be work hard, get smart.
    1:20:36 Nice.
    1:20:37 That’s a t-shirt.
    1:20:38 That’s what it should be.
    1:20:39 Yeah.
    1:20:40 Agreed.
    1:20:40 Okay.
    1:20:42 That was a tangent of a tangent.
    1:20:44 Can I say one more phrase, cultural phrase that I absolutely hate?
    1:20:45 Yes.
    1:20:48 Uh, the journey is better than the destination.
    1:20:50 Right.
    1:20:51 Everyone’s heard this, right?
    1:20:51 Mm-hmm.
    1:20:54 Just take one second to apply what that means.
    1:20:59 That means forever, starting from now, you are only going towards a place that’s worse.
    1:21:01 Right?
    1:21:03 Like that, that literally is what it means.
    1:21:04 Right?
    1:21:05 Yeah.
    1:21:07 Enjoy the journey, celebrate the destination.
    1:21:09 That’s like, that should be what it would be.
    1:21:11 But no, people say these phrases are everywhere.
    1:21:15 There’s these very shallow phrases that have no logical bounds to them.
    1:21:19 You’re just like, what does that, why would the journey ever be better than the destination?
    1:21:23 Cause you’re always, this is, I think this might even be a C.S. Lewis, uh, quote is that
    1:21:25 C.S. Lewis was like, nope, this is terrible.
    1:21:27 The journey is not in fact better than the destination.
    1:21:36 I love the demotivational posters, uh, progress moving forward is better than moving backwards.
    1:21:37 Even if you’re still going nowhere.
    1:21:45 I feel that one so, so much being in California for a few years, that is, that is painful.
    1:21:45 Positivity.
    1:21:48 If it doesn’t break you today, don’t worry.
    1:21:49 It will try again tomorrow.
    1:21:52 It’s just a lot of really great posters.
    1:21:54 I didn’t even know this was a thing.
    1:21:55 This is a thing.
    1:21:55 Oh my gosh.
    1:21:56 I want that.
    1:21:57 Yeah.
    1:21:59 Hey, hi, this is the Primogen.
    1:22:04 You know, one thing that I forgot to mention in this podcast, which feels just so foolish
    1:22:08 to me for forgetting is just what a big role my mom played in my life.
    1:22:11 She had to work 18 hours a day after my dad died.
    1:22:14 She really made her house be able to survive.
    1:22:16 I always looked up to her and I always thought her amazing.
    1:22:22 And she really was the reason why when I decided to get my butt kicked back in gear, she’s just
    1:22:26 someone who I looked to as like an internal kind of inspiration for me to continue to keep
    1:22:28 on going because I really wanted to make her proud.
    1:22:34 And all those years of just high energy effort, I really wanted to make sure that she knew that
    1:22:36 I was just so dang appreciative for it.
    1:22:39 So, hey, I just wanted to say thank you.
    1:22:40 Love you, mom.
    1:22:46 So, for people who don’t know, you worked in Netflix, by the way, by the way.
    1:22:52 Now, how did you go from there, from the hardship that we mentioned, from the struggle, from the
    1:23:00 addictions and so on to a place where you were working at this incredible engineering company
    1:23:03 and building cool shit there.
    1:23:05 So, tell the Netflix story.
    1:23:10 Yeah, so, you know, I kind of alluded to it earlier that I wanted to do my own startup.
    1:23:16 So, for, I forget how long it was, one or two years or two and a half years, built a startup,
    1:23:19 PHP, jQuery, everyone’s favorite languages all put together.
    1:23:22 You can solve math stuff with jQuery.
    1:23:25 So, I just was like totally into just nonstop doing that.
    1:23:27 This is like the height of Stack Overflow.
    1:23:31 I was asking really dumb questions on Stack Overflow, like what is more Pythonic?
    1:23:34 And then you get a bunch of upvotes and try to steal a bunch of karma away.
    1:23:36 Like all the fun stuff to do.
    1:23:38 Good times.
    1:23:40 And I was just like so into it, breathing.
    1:23:43 And I just breathe it in, breathe it out.
    1:23:44 And that’s what I do all day, every day.
    1:23:47 And so, it’s just like nonstop building of a startup.
    1:23:49 Ultimately, that startup failed.
    1:23:51 And so, I had to go get a real job.
    1:23:53 Can you say what a startup was?
    1:23:55 It is so wild thinking about it in the past.
    1:23:59 Before I tell you what it is, I want to tell one quick thing about my dad.
    1:24:09 My dad, in the early 90s, like 91, 92, was building kind of like a phone card company where you’d be able to pre-purchase long-distance minutes.
    1:24:17 Now, if you remember the 90s, about like what, 97, 98, 99, 10, 10, 2, 20, all those different things, dial down the center, right?
    1:24:23 Like all those companies where you can pre-purchase long-distance minutes kind of came out and were very, very big.
    1:24:26 And so, my dad was like six years early to that notion.
    1:24:28 And ultimately, his startup failed.
    1:24:36 But he was just really early to something that would catch on really, really big, specifically in the telecommunication space.
    1:24:40 Me, as I grew up and did my own startup, I did a startup where it was text message marketing.
    1:24:46 This was in 2010, where you could receive, say, texts about various deals, all that kind of stuff.
    1:24:53 And, of course, 10 years later, now you don’t stop receiving texts and text message marketing is all the rage.
    1:25:00 And so, I also, much like my father, had a startup in the telemarketing space in which was just like a half decade too early.
    1:25:05 So, is it fair to say you’re almost always ahead of your time and you’re a visionary of sorts?
    1:25:05 No.
    1:25:07 In fact, I am not ahead of my time.
    1:25:11 I just got, some would say I got unlucky on that situation.
    1:25:13 But I did see, it seemed so obvious to me.
    1:25:17 At that time, when I was doing it, 80% of phones were dumb phones.
    1:25:19 Most people had flip phones.
    1:25:23 When I went and sold via text is what the name was of that specific product.
    1:25:26 It was, and we had the short code via text too.
    1:25:28 So, it was pretty, you know, pretty clever, right?
    1:25:29 Six digits.
    1:25:33 When I went out and sold it, I only had a flip phone during that time.
    1:25:34 I didn’t even have a smartphone.
    1:25:35 Right?
    1:25:38 Because they were kind of untenable for a lot of people.
    1:25:41 So, you know, it’s kind of just wild times to think about.
    1:25:44 But then after that, obviously, I had to get a real job.
    1:25:49 We were living in an apartment in right next to campus, Bozeman, Montana.
    1:25:53 And the guy below us must have been on some amount of drugs.
    1:25:58 He threatened to kill us several times with just like scream and just lose his marbles all the time.
    1:25:59 Very unhinged man.
    1:26:01 Angry downstairs man is what we called him.
    1:26:03 One time my wife had dropped a battery.
    1:26:04 Double A.
    1:26:04 Okay.
    1:26:07 So, it’s not like a big, we’re not talking about like a B battery or D battery.
    1:26:08 We’re just talking about a double A.
    1:26:09 Drop it.
    1:26:10 Pow.
    1:26:10 Land on the gun.
    1:26:12 I’m going to kill you.
    1:26:13 Like crazy, right?
    1:26:15 Absolutely unhinged behavior down there.
    1:26:17 So, I had to go get a real job.
    1:26:18 We need to move out of there.
    1:26:19 We’re going to start our life.
    1:26:24 And so, I worked at a small place, Schedulicity, which I kind of talked about the boredom there.
    1:26:28 Got to go to a place called Web Filings where I’m working just tons and tons of hours during all that time.
    1:26:30 I’m still trying to figure out startups.
    1:26:33 Did one where you could pre-wish your friend’s birthday messages.
    1:26:38 And then it would automatically send it via Facebook beforehand.
    1:26:39 We called it greet feed.
    1:26:40 It was pretty clever.
    1:26:58 Nonetheless, that story, I say all that story because everything that I was doing was exploring, building, finishing things, working, learning about corporate life, learning how to communicate in corporate life, being able to be successful at a job, learning about a bunch of kind of technologies that we’re about.
    1:27:02 And one of the big technologies during that day, specifically 2013, was RxJS.
    1:27:09 If you remember that one, RxJS, that’s a link from C Sharp, kind of ported over to JavaScript.
    1:27:14 And for people who don’t know, I guess C Sharp, what is its closest neighbor, Java?
    1:27:15 Is Java-like?
    1:27:17 They obviously just took Java and ripped it off at one point.
    1:27:17 Yeah.
    1:27:25 But now it’s such a dynamic, interesting language that it seems like it could be a really cool, like, bounds of practical versus not practical.
    1:27:29 It’s just, I’m not really into wearing pleated pants and programming at a Microsoft house, so.
    1:27:31 Is pleated pants a requirement?
    1:27:32 I think so.
    1:27:32 Okay.
    1:27:34 We’ll get back to this.
    1:27:34 Can we just get back?
    1:27:35 Okay, come on.
    1:27:36 All right.
    1:27:36 All right.
    1:27:37 Triggering me here.
    1:27:38 Web Filings.
    1:27:45 Okay, so anyways, what Filings was, that’s where I had to do, like, all the matrices stuff and build systems and just kind of all that.
    1:27:48 And it really pushed me because they also wanted me to do, like, 60 hours a week.
    1:27:52 It was not very healthy work-life balance.
    1:28:02 It was very hard work and kind of like that, really hard work, going to cutting-edge stuff, really understanding the world, really made it so that I was able to just be able to talk about stuff very commandingly.
    1:28:06 Because, you know, we had to build really complex state machines for the UI for what we’re building.
    1:28:20 And so, when I went and started getting a LinkedIn and all that, inevitably, just due to the fact that I’ve touched all these technologies and I had some sort of paper trail saying I’ve touched these technologies, Microsoft, or Microsoft, dang it, Lex.
    1:28:21 Pleated pants.
    1:28:22 Pleated pants reached out.
    1:28:27 No, Netflix reached out and said, hey, like, I see you’ve done RxJS.
    1:28:29 You know, we do a lot of it.
    1:28:32 You want to come and interview with us.
    1:28:39 And, you know, I was always told that you should never reject a kind of like a handwritten personal invitation to interview.
    1:28:43 This was way before bots, and even the bots were pretty obvious to tell that we’re bots.
    1:28:47 This was a manager at Netflix, Jeff Wagner, first manager ever.
    1:28:51 And he just wrote a really nice note and just like, hey, I see you’re doing a lot of these things.
    1:28:52 We really need help with JavaScript.
    1:28:55 I would love for you to come interview.
    1:28:57 We’re even using a lot of RxJS if you’re interested in that.
    1:29:00 And so I was like, all right, you know, I can come and I’ll interview.
    1:29:03 And lo and behold, interview went on.
    1:29:07 And I called my wife, I think, halfway through the interview.
    1:29:09 And I was just like defeated.
    1:29:11 Absolutely crushed.
    1:29:17 Because I said, she might remember this, but I said, we now have to make a decision.
    1:29:19 Are we actually going to move to California or not?
    1:29:20 Because I already knew I had the job at that point.
    1:29:24 Like, I just was just knocking them out of the park.
    1:29:25 I was doing a great job on that.
    1:29:28 And so I just knew for a fact, I’m getting a job at Netflix.
    1:29:32 I, you know, all the things, there’s this thing that people always get so freaked out
    1:29:33 about when it comes to interviews and all that.
    1:29:36 And I luckily somehow avoided this.
    1:29:37 I don’t get test anxiety.
    1:29:38 I don’t get any of that.
    1:29:43 Because when I go into these situations, my only goal is to show the things I already know.
    1:29:46 And so it’s like, I walked into this situation.
    1:29:50 I’ve been preparing for this 80 hours a week for the last like five years.
    1:29:53 So I just walk in and I’m just showing the things I know.
    1:29:59 And it was perfectly fitting for Netflix at that time period in the 2013 early JavaScript days on television.
    1:30:01 And so it was just awesome.
    1:30:02 Just worked out perfectly.
    1:30:04 Got hired there.
    1:30:06 So we’re in California with Netflix.
    1:30:07 This is San Francisco.
    1:30:07 Los Gatos.
    1:30:15 So if you’re familiar, so classic symbol people do, which is this is San Francisco.
    1:30:15 Yep.
    1:30:19 Oakland, San Jose, Los Gatos is just like a little bit.
    1:30:19 Yep.
    1:30:22 Kind of a little bit below, a little bit south of San Jose.
    1:30:24 Same mega contiguous city.
    1:30:25 Yellowstone is in Montana.
    1:30:26 Yellowstone is in the show.
    1:30:27 Yeah.
    1:30:27 Yeah.
    1:30:27 Yeah.
    1:30:29 So is it basically like that?
    1:30:30 Kevin Costner riding on a horse?
    1:30:31 No.
    1:30:33 Were you riding on a horse to campus or?
    1:30:34 No, no.
    1:30:36 But I mean, I love those stereotypes.
    1:30:42 Actually, I mean, to be completely fair, when I was 15 years old, I was driving around on what
    1:30:48 is now a very busy, populated street, shooting gophers out the window of our car with a 22.
    1:30:51 So it’s like Montana was a different place at one point than it is today.
    1:30:56 And there’s plenty of parts of Montana that’s still very rural, still kind of more of that
    1:30:57 old world.
    1:31:00 So, yeah, a little bit, you know, you can kind of get whatever you want from Montana.
    1:31:05 As far as like culturally goes, I’m not really sure the best way to put the difference between
    1:31:07 California and Montana.
    1:31:09 It’s just different expectations.
    1:31:14 Like one thing I can really appreciate about California, or at least when I say California,
    1:31:19 I mean the Silicon Valley, because obviously LA and California and the Silicon Valley, very
    1:31:21 different attitudes, very different mindsets.
    1:31:22 You can’t really compare one to the other.
    1:31:28 One thing I can say that’s really positive about the Valley is that everybody is operating
    1:31:31 on this idea of like trying to build or create something.
    1:31:33 And there’s an energy to it that’s like very exciting.
    1:31:37 Like you meet somebody and they have a startup and they’re working on the startup and it’s
    1:31:38 very exciting.
    1:31:41 And, you know, there’s a lot of negative aspects to that.
    1:31:46 And we can all agree that our entire life being commercialized has probably not been that
    1:31:46 great.
    1:31:50 But the kind of the experience of being there and everyone’s excited to build something.
    1:31:51 It’s a really cool experience.
    1:31:52 Yeah, it’s great.
    1:31:53 It’s really great.
    1:31:54 The excitement, the energy.
    1:31:54 Yeah.
    1:31:55 Montana doesn’t have that.
    1:32:00 I have an admiration, a romantic admiration for like for the shows like Yellowstone being
    1:32:01 out in nature.
    1:32:02 It’s beautiful.
    1:32:06 Somebody also said Reddit is full of wisdom about you.
    1:32:10 Some of it could be fake news, but something about horses and this kind of thing.
    1:32:13 Like you write, you like horses, you like riding horses.
    1:32:17 We have horses on our, our neighbor had much more hilly land.
    1:32:17 Yeah.
    1:32:20 And one of their horses broke its leg.
    1:32:21 So they had to put it down.
    1:32:21 Yeah.
    1:32:23 And so we just said, Hey, we’re on much flatter land.
    1:32:25 Like you can just have your horses in our property.
    1:32:31 And so we just have horses that run around on our, what about milking cows?
    1:32:33 Somebody asked about cattle and, and cow.
    1:32:37 And so I’ve only had open, open cows.
    1:32:42 So if you don’t, cow means girl, open means that, Hey, they’ve tried to get the cow pregnant.
    1:32:44 The cow did not get pregnant first try.
    1:32:45 And so they’re calling that gene.
    1:32:46 They’re getting rid of that gene.
    1:32:50 The cow’s going to now, or the open cow is going to now go out to pasture, pasture for
    1:32:54 the year, and then get turned into delicious T-bone steaks and various things.
    1:32:58 And so we would house open cows on our property.
    1:33:00 So no, there’s no milking of open cows.
    1:33:01 Okay.
    1:33:06 They’d be very upset if you tried to milk an open cow because they’re not, they’re not
    1:33:06 milking cows, right?
    1:33:08 You have to get like that cow pregnant.
    1:33:10 And then once you get a pregnant, you have to kind of put it into this permanent state of
    1:33:12 milking and all that.
    1:33:18 And it’s a little bit more complicated than say what we did, which was just cows on eating
    1:33:18 grass.
    1:33:19 And I didn’t have to touch them.
    1:33:20 Okay.
    1:33:21 Well, that’s wonderful.
    1:33:24 Reddit is not a great place for wisdom about me.
    1:33:25 They’re going to give you the craziest answers.
    1:33:29 Oh, we will return to Reddit time and time again, my friend.
    1:33:33 So yeah, you took the leap into Netflix.
    1:33:34 So what was that like?
    1:33:41 It was, you know, this is one of those things where when you talk about it, people love to
    1:33:45 trivialize this because it’s like, oh, you’re taking a leap of faith by going into a fang
    1:33:48 company in like 2013 sounds super risky.
    1:33:50 My wife was 36 weeks pregnant.
    1:33:53 We had to travel to a place where we knew not a soul.
    1:33:55 We were about to have our first kid.
    1:33:56 We didn’t even have a doctor.
    1:34:00 If you don’t know, having a baby does like kind of, you kind of want a relationship with
    1:34:01 a doctor.
    1:34:03 There’s like a whole thing that goes on there.
    1:34:08 So it was kind of, it was a really hard and great experience.
    1:34:10 So I went to a job in which their culture deck.
    1:34:15 So during this time, this is where Netflix still had like kind of that old generation
    1:34:16 X feel to it.
    1:34:19 Their culture deck was hire fast, fire fast.
    1:34:22 You know, it was, it was very in your face about like, Hey, this is how we operate.
    1:34:23 You don’t meet the standards.
    1:34:24 We kick you out.
    1:34:28 So it’s like, I’m going, I’m leaving a place where it’s more secure to go to a place.
    1:34:34 I don’t know anybody to a job that’s bold in its claims about firing everybody with a wife
    1:34:35 that’s just about to have a baby.
    1:34:41 And so it’s like, and I’m from Montana and you’re born every Montanans born with a natural
    1:34:42 dislike of California.
    1:34:45 So there’s like all these things kind of flowing into it where it’s just going to be like,
    1:34:48 wow, this is going to be, this is a very intense experience.
    1:34:51 And it was hard for sure.
    1:34:56 Like it wasn’t just some easy, simple experience that we were just like, Oh, I work now at
    1:34:58 Fang, you know, we had to kind of work through that.
    1:35:00 Having a kid was very difficult.
    1:35:04 Our first kid was very difficult, you know, not having any family around to ever help you
    1:35:08 like, you know, took a much larger toll on my wife than me for sure.
    1:35:11 What was the technical learning curve for you?
    1:35:13 You showed up in your plaid pants, like dressed up.
    1:35:14 Yeah.
    1:35:15 And what was it?
    1:35:17 Well, what did you have to learn about the stack?
    1:35:23 Because Netflix, I imagine is a, is this incredible infrastructure has to deliver just a huge
    1:35:24 amount of data.
    1:35:33 I’m just blown away by Netflix, but also like YouTube, these companies that have to deliver,
    1:35:39 like serve a huge amount of like bits.
    1:35:44 Netflix has an easiest out of all the companies Netflix buy, even though we have, you could
    1:35:47 say, maybe we have, maybe we beat YouTube and view hours.
    1:35:52 I’m not sure if we do, but let’s just pretend Netflix has five X more view hours than, than
    1:35:53 YouTube, whatever it is.
    1:35:57 Netflix has a fundamentally easier problem than all other companies.
    1:35:58 And let’s get back to that.
    1:36:00 I’m going to first tell you about the stack, but I’ll tell you why it has a fundamentally
    1:36:01 easier problem.
    1:36:07 So when I first got there, they gave me my PlayStation three, my boss said, go learn
    1:36:10 some code, come back to me in a couple of days and tell me what you’ve learned.
    1:36:12 And then I’m going to start giving you bugs to fix.
    1:36:13 Wait, wait, PlayStation three.
    1:36:14 What are you talking about?
    1:36:15 Well, I was on the TV team.
    1:36:20 I had to go plug in a PlayStation and start launching programs onto the PlayStation three
    1:36:23 and figure out how to work Netflix on a television device.
    1:36:26 Oh, so like you have different kinds of device.
    1:36:27 Why PlayStation three is other different.
    1:36:28 It’s just 2013.
    1:36:30 Any devices that plug into the TV.
    1:36:31 Okay, cool.
    1:36:36 Yeah, not many, not as many TVs had Netflix, let alone what they called their Darwin app,
    1:36:37 which is their new application.
    1:36:40 So if you bought a Vizio earlier that year, you’d get their older one there.
    1:36:41 It’s called Plus UI.
    1:36:43 You get their older version.
    1:36:45 And so not many had the newer version.
    1:36:48 We no longer supported Plus or we never actively developed on Plus.
    1:36:49 We only did stuff on Darwin.
    1:36:52 And so I had to learn that whole stack.
    1:36:57 The back end or the middle end, the middle layer between the actual back end and the front
    1:36:58 end was written in Groovy.
    1:37:04 And as I went around, Groovy is, if you’re not familiar with Jenkins, then you’ve probably never interacted with Groovy.
    1:37:07 But Groovy is a JVM language.
    1:37:11 It’s a very interesting language.
    1:37:15 But here’s how it got started at Netflix.
    1:37:16 Oh, it’s Apache.
    1:37:22 Apache Groovy is a powerful object-oriented programming language that runs on the Java virtual machine released in 2007.
    1:37:27 It has evolved to become a versatile language that combines both static and dynamic typing capabilities.
    1:37:28 All right.
    1:37:29 So the AI is kind of lying to you.
    1:37:32 Groovy is not a powerful, great language.
    1:37:33 Nothing.
    1:37:35 That statement makes it seem way cooler than it actually is.
    1:37:40 You will meet one out of 100 people that have touched Groovy that said, oh, yeah, Groovy is great.
    1:37:41 Yeah.
    1:37:44 The other 99 will be like, heavens forbid you ever have to touch that language.
    1:37:45 Yeah.
    1:37:54 So when I got there, nobody, not a single soul at Netflix, there’s 40-some engineers, had any idea how Groovy pretty much worked.
    1:38:03 Somehow people just hacked together these scripts and put them all on there, and it worked, and it was all – this was before there was a Groovy Rx port.
    1:38:06 We wrote our own version called WX.
    1:38:07 It was a nightmare.
    1:38:09 Observables, all these things.
    1:38:13 I remember one time they told me that, oh, yeah, you know, with Rx, it’s really easy.
    1:38:14 You just say what you need to do.
    1:38:16 It maps out, and boom, boom, boom, boom.
    1:38:17 Everything will run multithread and all that.
    1:38:18 And I was like, oh, wow, really?
    1:38:25 So all I did was go, like, observable.sleep1 because I just wanted to see it sleep and then do the next thing.
    1:38:33 And it turns out when a thread sleeps itself, no thread can wake it up, and I just turned off all of staging because I ran it, like, 10 times, like, oh, it’s not responding.
    1:38:34 Oh, it’s not responding.
    1:38:36 Oh, now it’s not even coming back.
    1:38:44 Broke all of staging for everybody so no developer could work for the rest of the afternoon because I locked up all the instances because it turns out, no, it was, in fact, not multithreaded.
    1:38:46 Every assumption we’ve been told is a lie.
    1:38:48 No one had any idea what they were doing.
    1:38:51 It was a wild time.
    1:38:55 And so I just simply naturally gravitated towards that because I’m good at printf debugging.
    1:38:57 I’m good at doing those things.
    1:38:58 So I was like, here, I’ll just figure this out.
    1:38:59 Here, I will do this.
    1:39:11 So I had to rewrite how we do the data structure on the front end for the TV from what is called a LoloMo, list of list of movies, into LoloRomo, which is a list of list of recommendation objects for a movie.
    1:39:13 Why would we need to do that?
    1:39:13 Think about this.
    1:39:14 You have two lists.
    1:39:18 One has Live Free, Die Hard, Bruce Willis, because you love Bruce Willis.
    1:39:22 The other one has Live Free, Die Hard, because you want tough men doing tough jobs.
    1:39:26 Well, during those days, we’d only have one way we could show evidence why you wanted it.
    1:39:28 So we couldn’t say, oh, because you liked this other movie.
    1:39:30 You’d go to that one and say the same thing.
    1:39:37 So we had to kind of add one level of indirection where we could decorate the video with the recommendation information.
    1:39:41 Okay, so you can abstract away into the space of recommendation versus the space of movie.
    1:39:46 Yeah, so you can’t hang it off the video because obviously then it would be the same for everything that shows that same video.
    1:39:47 That’s amazing.
    1:39:51 I had to do all this and I wrote it in Groovy and I just did it.
    1:39:54 And people were like, how did you write this in Groovy?
    1:40:00 And it’s just like, well, I read the language reference for a day and then programmed it well.
    1:40:00 What do you mean?
    1:40:04 It was a very radical language, shall we say.
    1:40:07 And so I just simply became the person that knew these things.
    1:40:09 So they just give me more and more jobs at that.
    1:40:12 And so that’s kind of how I excelled, being the person that was willing to do the thing that no one else was.
    1:40:15 Yeah, can you actually speak to the print-of-debugging?
    1:40:19 Like you walk into a system, and there’s a lot of systems in the world like this.
    1:40:30 Like Twitter was like this when Elon acquired Twitter and it rolls in and there’s this old, janky code base that’s just like a giant mess.
    1:40:32 And you have to basically do print-of-debugging.
    1:40:36 Like what’s the process of going into a code base and figuring out like, what the fuck?
    1:40:36 How does this work?
    1:40:37 What are the flaws?
    1:40:38 What are the assumptions?
    1:40:45 You have to like reverse engineer what all these other engineers did in the past and the mess across, you know, the space of months and years.
    1:40:49 And you have to figure out how all that works in order to make improvements.
    1:40:57 The thing, the reason why I’ve always just been good at print-of-debugging, because one of my first kind of side quest jobs that I got was writing robots for the government when I was still at school.
    1:41:03 And so I’d kind of do this contractually for so many hours, so many hours a week.
    1:41:09 And my boss, Hunter Lloyd, great professor, by the way, he just said, hey, here’s your computer.
    1:41:10 Here’s the robot.
    1:41:11 Here’s how you plug it in.
    1:41:12 Here’s how you run the code.
    1:41:14 Can you write the flash driver, the ethernet driver?
    1:41:16 Can you write the planetary pancake motor?
    1:41:18 Here’s some manuals.
    1:41:19 I’m missing some.
    1:41:20 Just figure it out.
    1:41:20 I’ll be back.
    1:41:22 So that was government work for me.
    1:41:24 So I was like, okay, I’ll figure all these things out.
    1:41:25 And I figured them all out.
    1:41:29 And the only way to really get anything out of the machine was to print.
    1:41:34 And so it’s like I had to become really good at printing my way through problems.
    1:41:41 And so that kind of became this like skill I guess I adopted is that I can just kind of print-of-debug my way through a lot of these problems.
    1:41:42 Obviously, I’m not a game developer.
    1:41:43 Probably a different world.
    1:41:44 Probably should use.
    1:41:47 I think John Carmack was on here and talked how great the debugger is.
    1:41:47 Different world.
    1:41:53 Because when I was at Netflix, there’s machines that exist somewhere where on AWS, I’m not logged into them.
    1:41:54 I don’t even know how to log into them.
    1:41:56 I’m not even sure if I have credentials to log into them.
    1:41:58 They run once somewhere.
    1:42:00 And I have to figure out what happened and why it’s happening.
    1:42:04 So it’s like I’m going to become this is like this is what I’ve trained for.
    1:42:05 I’m a print-of-debugging champion.
    1:42:11 So it’s just like I could just run through these things really quickly and figure out why they’re happening the way they’re happening.
    1:42:12 You’re a special human.
    1:42:19 I think that’s an incredible skill set to have to be able to drop in into any code base, to drop into any situation and do print-of-debugging.
    1:42:24 Meaning like, you know, you’re in a dark room and you’re feeling around that room to try to figure out what the room is.
    1:42:26 Well, I had the code.
    1:42:28 So it’s like I can kind of blueprint what’s happening.
    1:42:30 Like I don’t understand the services or anything that’s happening.
    1:42:33 But you can start guessing pretty quick as to what’s going wrong.
    1:42:43 Right, but then the print side of that helps you confirm your intuitions, test your intuitions, and build up more and more information.
    1:42:50 And then you start to accumulate like this bigger picture from that, what the edge cases are that break the system and not.
    1:42:59 I mean, I think that just that kind of space, like that kind of situation is intimidating for a lot of engineers.
    1:43:01 Like they break down at that point.
    1:43:05 I think it really is a powerful thing to be able to come into a code base.
    1:43:10 That’s generally a skill set of like very few of us start from scratch.
    1:43:11 Yeah.
    1:43:19 And actually, this is the fundamental problem of web development and in general, where they’re like, I don’t know what’s going on.
    1:43:22 I’m going to write my own thing from scratch, right?
    1:43:35 As opposed to like actually doing printout debugging on the space of languages, on the space of problems, because there’s a lot of wisdom and solved problems already in this code base.
    1:43:49 It’s a much more important skill set to understand, to learn from the mistakes and the wisdom of the past of the ancestors that came before and build on them as opposed to throw it all out and start from scratch.
    1:43:54 This is something obviously you see a lot with a JavaScript framework that comes out and you win every single day.
    1:43:56 I have a very great story about that.
    1:44:00 This is what like I think has shaped me the most about my perspective of other devs.
    1:44:06 There’s this dev and he always just wrote things in just what I thought was such a bizarre and weird way.
    1:44:11 And this had to do with Falcor, so our data fetching library for Netflix.
    1:44:14 This would run on mobile, so I had to write in Objective-C.
    1:44:18 It had to run on television and it had to also run on web.
    1:44:19 So it ran on everything.
    1:44:22 And me and one other person were responsible for this thing working.
    1:44:30 And the request side where we’d had to de-dupe the information that we already have, the requests that were pending, and the new data.
    1:44:36 So I had to figure all that out based on what someone’s requesting and then just only optimally request the stuff that we don’t have.
    1:44:42 He wrote it in such a goofy way and I’m thinking, man, this guy is just, what a goofball.
    1:44:46 So I delete it all and I start writing and I’m like, look at how much nicer this is.
    1:44:47 It’s looking so good.
    1:44:50 I’m like, ooh, there’s that one edge case.
    1:44:52 Okay, I can see why he wrote it this one way.
    1:44:53 That’s not a big deal, though.
    1:44:54 The rest of my code is really great.
    1:44:59 By the end of it, I’m like, I literally almost line for line just reproduced what he already wrote.
    1:45:03 It’s like slightly different towards my style, but I just wrote the same code.
    1:45:05 And I’m like, I’m an idiot.
    1:45:09 I am the idiot in this situation because it was already a solved problem.
    1:45:11 I just didn’t take the time to learn what he did.
    1:45:14 Instead, I relearned what he did by rewriting the entire thing.
    1:45:17 I think that’s a skill set that is extremely important for people to learn.
    1:45:19 I see that in myself.
    1:45:20 That’s a constant struggle for myself.
    1:45:26 When facing a code base, for example, but this applies generally in life,
    1:45:29 where somebody did a lot of work to do a thing,
    1:45:35 you should invest a huge amount of time and get really good at figuring out what they did,
    1:45:40 why they did it, do a lot of print-out debugging to understand what they did.
    1:45:45 It’s a much more efficient way to understand a problem deeply than to start from scratch,
    1:45:49 even though there’s a constant temptation to start from scratch.
    1:45:51 Because starting from scratch is fun.
    1:45:54 You do get the puzzle solving, all that kind of stuff.
    1:45:59 It’s just not going to be the right thing to do.
    1:46:02 Usually pain is the right thing to do,
    1:46:05 and it is, for most people, painful to understand other people’s code bases.
    1:46:10 I highly recommend starting from scratch if you want to understand a concept.
    1:46:12 You don’t know how an HTTP server works?
    1:46:14 Create a TCP socket.
    1:46:16 Learn how to parse HTTP.
    1:46:18 It’ll become very easy, and you’ll go,
    1:46:23 this is the reason why, whenever I get a request, I have to await the text.
    1:46:27 I now understand why the text is, for whatever reason, not there.
    1:46:28 I get it.
    1:46:29 I now understand it.
    1:46:33 And so you kind of gain these new perspectives just by simply parsing something out.
    1:46:37 All right, back to the wisdom of Reddit.
    1:46:42 Apparently, there are memes and legends about your programming arc in Netflix.
    1:46:48 This Falcor system you mentioned, somebody, I think it was Teej.
    1:46:49 How do you pronounce his name, by the way?
    1:46:49 Teej.
    1:46:50 Teej.
    1:46:51 Okay, Teej.
    1:46:54 It’s TJ would be his name, but we call him Teej.
    1:46:54 Teej.
    1:46:55 Or Telescopic Johnson.
    1:46:56 Oh, wow.
    1:46:57 So many names.
    1:47:03 You know, DDoS, Distributed Denial of Service Attacks, you apparently were able to accomplish
    1:47:05 the simplified version of that, of just DDoS.
    1:47:07 That’s a legend.
    1:47:10 So you basically broke down the system somehow.
    1:47:11 Yeah, yeah.
    1:47:12 Can you tell the story of that?
    1:47:13 I’d be glad to.
    1:47:16 So this Falcor, so there’s this Falcor business, right?
    1:47:21 And I kind of, A, I did discover the bug before anybody else, and I did report it to
    1:47:24 security, and it was so bad.
    1:47:27 It actually got its own name, Repulsive Grizzly Attack.
    1:47:27 Yeah.
    1:47:30 And they even give examples of how to do it.
    1:47:35 Effectively, what it means is that there is a request that targets both memory and CPU
    1:47:36 and will destroy it.
    1:47:36 There you go.
    1:47:40 Look at how Netflix, the next one down was the article that was actually written.
    1:47:44 I don’t get mentioned, which is a little bit upsetting, considering I was the one that
    1:47:46 discovered it and told everybody how bad it was.
    1:47:49 Anyways, N had to write the fix for it, or the first fix.
    1:47:57 So this is how it works, is that you can do something pretty similar, I believe, with GraphQL
    1:47:57 as well.
    1:47:59 It has the same kind of danger.
    1:48:04 Any of these kind of RPC requests as much or as little of the data as you would like frameworks
    1:48:07 are vulnerable to this kind of attack.
    1:48:10 So with Falcor, what you do is you give it an array.
    1:48:12 An array is called a path, and that’s the path to the data.
    1:48:19 But sometimes you don’t want to have to write out, I want movie, I want row zero or list
    1:48:21 zero or row zero, column zero, title.
    1:48:24 I want row zero, column zero, description.
    1:48:26 You don’t want to have to write out all that.
    1:48:34 So instead, you could just be like, I want rows zero through 10, columns zero through 10,
    1:48:36 titles and descriptions.
    1:48:40 So you can write it in a very compact, nice little format, and it’ll give you all that
    1:48:40 data.
    1:48:43 It’ll go to the server, the server will fill that all in and give it to you.
    1:48:44 Oh, dang it.
    1:48:47 List three, it only had three videos in it.
    1:48:50 So what happens when I try to re-request the data?
    1:48:55 Well, I need a way to be able to tell my system that you’d have requested the data, and there’s
    1:48:56 nothing there.
    1:48:59 So this is called like a, they call this like a boxed value.
    1:49:03 So it’s going to be like type something, value, there’s nothing there.
    1:49:04 We’ve already requested it, and there’s nothing there.
    1:49:07 They call, you know, it’s like a sentinel value, if you will, a boxed value.
    1:49:14 And we have this little special flag we’d pass called materialize, meaning that when you ask
    1:49:18 for a path, we will make sure we fill it out so we don’t accidentally erase anything.
    1:49:22 And at the very end, we’ll say, okay, the thing does, the request you’ve made has already
    1:49:23 been made, and there’s nothing there.
    1:49:30 Well, what happens if I request rows zero through 10,000, columns through 10,000, one more item
    1:49:34 through 10,000, and then a whole bunch of properties, and then ask it to materialize?
    1:49:40 Well, I’m about to go create billions of objects in the JVM, and what happens to the machine?
    1:49:42 It stops running.
    1:49:47 And then if we try to JSON, even if it could create them all, we then ask it to JSON serialize.
    1:49:49 It’s not going to do it, right?
    1:49:50 Like, it’s impossible.
    1:49:56 And so that was the attack vector, is a simple while loop would have taken down and held down
    1:50:03 Netflix for a very long time, because one request would kill one machine on AWS.
    1:50:05 And so that means it would just turn it all off.
    1:50:07 And this was on the website.
    1:50:10 This was on TV.
    1:50:11 This was on mobile.
    1:50:12 Like, this was profound.
    1:50:13 And here’s the worst part.
    1:50:17 It was in production for years, so we couldn’t even roll it back.
    1:50:19 There was no, like, oh, crap.
    1:50:22 Let’s just roll back to two weeks ago, and we’ll kind of fix forward and figure out.
    1:50:24 No, it’s like, we could roll back to 2011.
    1:50:26 Like, that’s our option.
    1:50:27 It’s 2011, and that’s it.
    1:50:30 So we had to figure out a way forward and all that.
    1:50:37 And so it was like, the amount of problems that would have happened if someone would have
    1:50:39 discovered this is unstatable.
    1:50:45 Just to be clear, the infrastructure that’s serving the videos would shut down.
    1:50:46 Yeah, the UI.
    1:50:48 Like, you couldn’t perform any actions in the UI.
    1:50:49 You surprisingly could still stream video.
    1:50:53 But you would never be able to get to a video to stream, because every action you would take
    1:50:54 would be completely shut down.
    1:50:59 And so it wasn’t a DDoS, because you didn’t need a bunch of computers to try to overwhelm the
    1:51:00 system by making a bunch of requests.
    1:51:02 One request, one machine.
    1:51:07 If we had 50 machines serving the millions of requests, it’d only take 50 requests to
    1:51:08 shut down the entire UI.
    1:51:13 Isn’t it possible to do DDoS or DDoS on basically any software system?
    1:51:18 Like, defending against all the, you know, closing all those attack vectors is probably
    1:51:19 really difficult.
    1:51:26 If you take any sufficiently complicated software system, there’s probably so many ways to
    1:51:27 overwhelm it.
    1:51:28 Yeah.
    1:51:30 I mean, this is why people use Cloudflare.
    1:51:35 I think DHH said it best, which is like, we have our website, and we have a strong bodyguard
    1:51:36 on the outside.
    1:51:40 So Cloudflare has a bunch of utilities all built in, because, you know, obviously, this
    1:51:45 is why everyone hates all these Bluetooth devices that connect to the internet, because
    1:51:49 they just turn into attack vectors, where people use those to DDoS or DDoS other sites.
    1:51:52 And so you don’t need something sophisticated, you just need a bunch of requests to come in,
    1:51:54 and you can take down websites.
    1:51:58 And so that’s why these fronts are really good at kind of discovering where these problems
    1:51:58 are.
    1:52:03 But DOS is a bit different, because it doesn’t have to be overwhelming by using resources
    1:52:04 with a whole bunch of requests.
    1:52:08 It really just means simply that there’s a denial of service attack.
    1:52:12 One of them could be, there’s a regex attack that existed where Cloudflare actually did it
    1:52:17 to itself and shut itself down, which is there’s a regex expansion attack, where given the right
    1:52:21 kind of regex, if you know someone’s running a specific regex, you can actually provide input
    1:52:23 that is maximally bad.
    1:52:28 And that thing goes to like, super processing, it takes 10 seconds to process a single request,
    1:52:31 then you only need to make hundreds of requests, and you shut down the whole service.
    1:52:36 It’s not like you need some giant machinery to make one trillion requests, you only need just
    1:52:38 some small amount to completely destroy a service.
    1:52:43 And so there’s, the web is an extremely difficult place to do it correct.
    1:52:45 This is super fascinating.
    1:52:54 I do also wonder how many ultra competent, what is it, black hat hackers there are, versus
    1:53:02 sort of the good guys versus the bad guys, how many bad guys there are, and what is the average,
    1:53:07 what is the distribution of skill set on the bad guy side that are constantly trying to attack?
    1:53:11 I assume there’s probably a huge number of just really simple ones, script kitties, right?
    1:53:13 Just people trying to just do things.
    1:53:17 And then there’s a huge amount of like social engineering that just goes in where hacking
    1:53:21 is done, not with a computer, but just by, you know, one of the classic ones, Kevin Mitnick
    1:53:26 had this one in his book, which was, you’d call up somebody pretending to be like, Charlene,
    1:53:28 we’re doing some auditing.
    1:53:31 And I think your pin’s out of date on file.
    1:53:33 Is it 2323 still?
    1:53:35 And they’re like, no, it’s 4747.
    1:53:36 You’re like, oh, thanks, Sharon.
    1:53:38 You know, boom, you just hacked them, right?
    1:53:42 Like the classic, people love correcting bad information.
    1:53:43 This is like a standard.
    1:53:45 So like, there’s all these ways people hack.
    1:53:49 And so my assumption is that there are really great white hat hackers.
    1:53:51 There’s really great black hat hackers.
    1:53:57 But the vulnerability space, the harp, the thing is, is that discovering a vulnerability
    1:54:02 and you don’t let anyone know the white hat hacker still has to make that same discovery.
    1:54:03 Yeah.
    1:54:07 And that’s where I think the real thing is, is that black hat hacking in some sense has
    1:54:11 a fundamentally easier job, or at least a job in which they can take advantage of for much
    1:54:12 longer periods of time.
    1:54:16 One’s the process of discovering who’s breaking the system.
    1:54:18 The other one’s trying to figure out how to break the system.
    1:54:22 And it seems like most software is held together by toothpicks and glue.
    1:54:22 Yeah.
    1:54:25 And there is a lot of dangers in every piece.
    1:54:27 And also the social engineering aspect.
    1:54:30 That’s a real attack factor.
    1:54:33 I think that’s the attack factor that will do in the long term the most damage in the world.
    1:54:39 Especially as AI tooling becomes easier and easier to convince people at scale.
    1:54:42 So do that kind of email grandma.
    1:54:47 I think that’s a really serious attack factor, like human psychology and all that.
    1:54:51 I kind of assume whenever there’s a girl that approaches me, it’s kind of some kind of social
    1:54:56 engineering project, some attack factor, some intelligence agency.
    1:54:57 In fact, I’m pretty sure.
    1:54:59 We’re back to a beautiful mind, aren’t we?
    1:55:00 Beautiful mind.
    1:55:00 Yeah.
    1:55:05 I have a whiteboard upstairs that I calculate everything, everybody’s trajectory and move.
    1:55:08 You’re not wrong, though, with the attack factor, especially in the day of AI.
    1:55:12 One thing that I don’t think a lot of people are talking about as we integrate more and more
    1:55:20 AI is that prompt injection is like an extremely hard thing to defend against because it’s not
    1:55:22 really clear how you defend against it.
    1:55:26 If it’s just a, you know, at the end of the day, word calculator, make word come out.
    1:55:31 If you can figure out the proper word calculator input, it might just break its bounds and start
    1:55:32 doing something it’s not supposed to do.
    1:55:36 And there’s a whole future where there’s all these products that are going to be vulnerable
    1:55:38 to things they never thought about.
    1:55:41 Like you, it’s one thing where you forget an edge case while you’re programming.
    1:55:46 Now you have to guess what people might be able to think of making something that has
    1:55:48 access to a system be able to do, right?
    1:55:49 And you don’t have a way to reason about it.
    1:55:54 It’s reasoning came from Reddit and other words that it’s read and how to put things together.
    1:55:58 Like this is a very, it’s a massive space that’s going to be happening.
    1:56:01 It’s why I’m personally thinking, don’t give too many powers yet.
    1:56:04 Like we don’t know the attacks that are about to happen.
    1:56:09 Yeah, the more power we give to software systems, the more damage they can do.
    1:56:10 That certainly is the case.
    1:56:11 But the more awesome they could do.
    1:56:17 And that’s the knife’s edge that we all walk along as a human civilization together, hand
    1:56:18 in hand.
    1:56:20 Will we flourish or destroy ourselves?
    1:56:21 Question mark.
    1:56:28 Folks on Reddit, the good folks on Reddit, demanded that I ask you about the time you
    1:56:29 broke production.
    1:56:31 Is this related to Falcor?
    1:56:32 Did you break production?
    1:56:34 I broke production quite a few times.
    1:56:36 I’ve broken productions for so many stupid reasons.
    1:56:43 One time I broke production because I came up in the PHP and PHP static means static for the
    1:56:47 lifetime of the PHP and PHP was the lifetime of every request, right?
    1:56:51 That’s why PHP was so inefficient was that every request was its own like instance.
    1:56:53 And therefore static memory was for the lifetime.
    1:56:55 I guess I never put that together.
    1:56:59 And so I had some objects that I made static because I was like, oh, I just need this for
    1:57:00 the lifetime of the request.
    1:57:02 And lo and behold, those weren’t lifetime.
    1:57:05 A whole bunch of bad data got all over the place.
    1:57:08 People were showing up saying they were from all these different countries and everything
    1:57:10 was all wrong because I just whoopsie daisies.
    1:57:12 I just made a whole conundrum with that.
    1:57:13 So that was one time I did it.
    1:57:15 Another time is I took down.
    1:57:21 If you were on the homepage on the website waiting for Lady Gaga’s video to come out
    1:57:27 and you are watching the countdown go down, if it reached zero, the billboard would freeze
    1:57:28 and it wouldn’t work.
    1:57:30 If you refreshed, it would work.
    1:57:36 But the reveal, the big reveal, I screwed that up and my boss got real upset.
    1:57:38 And so did other people in Hollywood got upset about that one.
    1:57:40 That was like a my bad.
    1:57:41 Sorry, Jeff Wagner again.
    1:57:43 I remember that one.
    1:57:44 I remember that one specifically.
    1:57:48 One time I released a bug where, again, on the billboard, if you pressed add to my list,
    1:57:56 I accidentally programmed in an infinite loop and it just, your whole webpage would just freeze.
    1:58:00 Are some of these bugs difficult to discover until you sort of run?
    1:58:01 That one seems really easy looking back on it.
    1:58:02 Infinite loop, yeah.
    1:58:06 And there was, we actually, during those days, we had manual QA that are supposed to go through
    1:58:07 everything.
    1:58:12 So I didn’t feel as bad because my manual QA counterpart also missed it.
    1:58:14 Like we all missed it, but it was just so simple.
    1:58:15 Just press that button.
    1:58:15 Boom.
    1:58:17 It just completely freezes the website.
    1:58:24 Polluting the code with sort of global variables that are holding values as PHP, I think, allows
    1:58:25 you to do.
    1:58:31 That’s a tricky one to discover because you rely on it, but then there could be somebody else
    1:58:32 assigns a value to it.
    1:58:34 Yeah, just data races everywhere.
    1:58:38 And I just didn’t understand, like, in my head, static was like, oh, this is for the
    1:58:38 life.
    1:58:44 Like, I was just so locked into the PHP world at that time that I just made a, just a, just
    1:58:46 such a, like, looking back on it, it’s so obvious.
    1:58:49 But during the time, it was, it’s hard.
    1:58:52 So in general, pushing to production, I talked to Peter Levels about this.
    1:58:59 He, I mean, obviously he’s operating as a, mostly a solo developer, but he often on the
    1:59:05 websites that thousands, not hundreds of thousands of people use, he, he often ships to production,
    1:59:12 uh, uh, pushes to production, meaning like just no testing, just like push to fix.
    1:59:15 Um, what are the pros and cons of that approach in general to you?
    1:59:15 What do you think?
    1:59:17 It’s obviously much easier.
    1:59:19 The smaller your organization is.
    1:59:24 I think everyone, I think no one would argue that, that sentiment, if it’s just you working
    1:59:29 on a singular project, it is obviously much easier for you to push directly to production
    1:59:32 because you are the only one working, you know, all the ins and outs.
    1:59:34 And if something were to break, you would discover it.
    1:59:36 So to me, that makes sense.
    1:59:38 Like, I think the way he operates is perfect for what he does.
    1:59:43 You couldn’t take what he does and move it to say Microsoft or Netflix or Google, because
    1:59:47 that would obviously, it would just be a disaster just due to the amount of people all pushing
    1:59:47 to production.
    1:59:51 And so I, I mean, I personally love that.
    1:59:56 I think that you have to, you have to gauge both the application you’re building and its
    2:00:00 complexity and what you’re pushing and how many people are working on it.
    2:00:04 I think those all go into how you can kind of do that because not all applications are
    2:00:04 created equal either.
    2:00:09 Like that application I was making was zooming and scrolling where we had all of our own
    2:00:09 everything.
    2:00:13 It was a very deep logic, like heavy logic app.
    2:00:15 And that was regardless of what was happening on the website.
    2:00:17 Most of the code was library code.
    2:00:22 And that becomes way harder if you don’t have a good test suite and stuff to kind of run before
    2:00:23 you push it out.
    2:00:28 Because when you squeeze that ball, you know, different things come popping out in different
    2:00:29 areas.
    2:00:33 And that’s like, that’s very, that’s a very harder problem than say, if you’re doing more
    2:00:37 of like a heavy visual one, because a heavy visual one, you’re, you’re affecting just
    2:00:39 this one areas, visual stuff, and you can test it.
    2:00:42 And like, that’s normally the end of it.
    2:00:45 Whereas, you know, so it depends on like the coupling and everything.
    2:00:50 So I mean, I love his approach, by the way, I have such mad respect for anyone that operates
    2:00:52 that way, because it I think is a great way.
    2:00:57 It just is so good, because it kind of breaks this notion that tech Twitter has that, oh,
    2:01:01 we got to use all these expensive services, you need to use all these kind of things.
    2:01:03 Because if you don’t use all this kind of stuff, if you’re not using the latest version of react,
    2:01:07 if you’re not using the latest version of this, you’re going to simply, you know, you’re simply
    2:01:08 not going to make it as a startup, it’s impossible.
    2:01:11 And it’s just like, no, no, that’s not software.
    2:01:13 Like most of software isn’t the new stuff.
    2:01:17 Most of software is old, crappy software that someone has to maintain.
    2:01:20 And it actually is really, really great and has lots of really hard problems.
    2:01:22 And if you look at it differently, it’s actually fantastic.
    2:01:30 For people who don’t know his tech stack, in terms of web development is PHP, jQuery, and SQLite.
    2:01:31 Yeah, all great stuff.
    2:01:36 I’m just surprised he still uses jQuery, just given the fact that at this point on the modern
    2:01:41 web, everything is, I mean, you have document query selector, and add event listener click,
    2:01:43 right, it pretty much has everything you already need.
    2:01:48 It had DOM content load, like all the reasons I use jQuery back in the day was adding a click
    2:01:49 on a button was like hard.
    2:01:56 You had the deal with IE7, IE8, IE9, right, like those are hard differences, whereas now it’s
    2:01:56 just so easy.
    2:01:57 I’m just surprised it’s even that.
    2:01:59 I mean, that’s definitely a trade off.
    2:02:05 I have, I still use the exact same stack, PHP, jQuery, and different flavors of SQL.
    2:02:12 But the question there is, you know, you keep using jQuery because you can get the job done
    2:02:17 really fast, and there’s no significant performance hit that you detect.
    2:02:19 So like, why switch to something else?
    2:02:24 But it’s always probably, as we’ll talk about, good to explore and to learn.
    2:02:27 Not all tools are great at solving all problems.
    2:02:32 And so what you think is really, like, the problem is, is you run into this kind of trade
    2:02:39 off, which is you have some tool belt that you’re very adept with, you know, all the ins
    2:02:39 and outs.
    2:02:40 There’s no unknown unknowns.
    2:02:43 But there’s no surprises in this.
    2:02:47 You know what you’re building, you know what you’re getting into, you will go through and
    2:02:50 you will be able to solve the problem.
    2:02:55 But if you ever use a different language or a different experience, you can find that some
    2:02:59 things are able to represent states way easier in a way more efficient way.
    2:03:03 And you can solve problems really efficiently in some versus the other.
    2:03:07 And so it’s like, if you don’t take the time to explore as well, you could be missing out
    2:03:10 on something that makes you twice as good on this one specific problem, like subset.
    2:03:13 And so I kind of value being able to look at all problems.
    2:03:17 And so I don’t want to get stuck on one thing, though I see why people do, which is for the
    2:03:18 efficiency sake.
    2:03:23 Let’s just return to the infrastructure, the platform of Netflix and speak more generally
    2:03:24 Netflix, Twitch, YouTube.
    2:03:32 Anytime I use any of these services, I’m just blown away by the infrastructure it takes to
    2:03:33 deliver this service.
    2:03:38 YouTube and Twitch are unique versus Netflix, where the creators can roll in themselves
    2:03:39 and upload stuff.
    2:03:40 Yeah.
    2:03:46 So on the consumption side, YouTube has over 100 billion views a day, over 1 billion hours
    2:03:47 watch time.
    2:03:53 But on the sort of creator side, 1 million hours of videos are uploaded every day.
    2:03:54 1 million hours.
    2:03:59 It’s like you have to service both and you have to deliver everything.
    2:04:04 It’s incredible to me.
    2:04:08 Can you maybe speak to your own intuition, just zooming out on it, what it takes to deliver
    2:04:09 that kind of infrastructure?
    2:04:17 For me, the thing that I find vastly complicated and I can’t imagine the engineering hours is
    2:04:20 how do you even create an edge in that situation?
    2:04:25 And what I mean by an edge, I mean like, when people say this phrase, if you’re unexperienced,
    2:04:29 an edge is where you deliver data to be, you want that edge to be as close to the customer
    2:04:30 as possible, because that’s where the data lives.
    2:04:34 And then the communication between the customer and what you’re doing is really, really small.
    2:04:37 Obviously, the speed of light adds up, the amount of hops adds up, the amount of services
    2:04:39 that you have to remotely call adds up.
    2:04:42 They all add up and they all add inefficiencies to the system.
    2:04:46 So something like YouTube, they want to be able to serve that data as quick as possible,
    2:04:53 but their data changes constantly and relevance is almost directly tied with the newness of
    2:04:54 the item.
    2:04:56 So it’s like, how do you even cash these things out?
    2:04:57 How are you doing this?
    2:05:02 So they must have such an incredible caching network that I can’t even, I can’t even fathom
    2:05:03 what it takes to do that.
    2:05:04 That just to me, it’s just so impressive.
    2:05:09 A million view hours in how many different resolutions with how much data, what is a million
    2:05:10 view hours?
    2:05:16 Is it 4K million view hours along with 1080p, along with 720p, along with 1440p?
    2:05:18 Like that number is an insane number.
    2:05:25 Actually, it is brilliant what you said, which is for YouTube, often the new thing is extremely
    2:05:27 important to show to everybody.
    2:05:32 And so you can’t rely on caching or trivial kind of caching.
    2:05:36 You have to like deliver the new thing as quickly as possible.
    2:05:37 Yeah.
    2:05:38 I mean, it’s incredible.
    2:05:46 So there’s the entire system, the recommendation system that knows each individual human watching
    2:05:53 YouTube, and it has to integrate into that the new thing while also caching this incredible
    2:05:57 cluster of possible videos that you’re potentially interested in.
    2:06:02 So, and integrate into that ads, right?
    2:06:02 Yeah.
    2:06:04 In the case of YouTube and Twitch and so on.
    2:06:09 It’s a really tough problem because you have to think like, what is the cache hit rate on
    2:06:09 this?
    2:06:12 Because there’s so much, because the problem now actually comes down to space.
    2:06:14 Like space actually becomes a real problem.
    2:06:14 Yeah.
    2:06:19 Like how many hundreds of petabytes do they have that they have to like, okay, what do we
    2:06:20 cache?
    2:06:21 And where do we cache this?
    2:06:21 Right?
    2:06:26 Like the number, I mean, I think in the terms of like gigabytes or maybe megabytes, like
    2:06:29 they have to think in, in probably versions of bytes.
    2:06:30 I don’t even know the name for, right?
    2:06:32 Like it’s like such a different problem.
    2:06:36 And that’s why I said, Netflix, Netflix has a much easier job when it comes to caching.
    2:06:41 So if you’ve never looked it up, it’s called the OCA and that we know what videos we’re
    2:06:42 releasing.
    2:06:44 We know what videos are hot in specific areas.
    2:06:46 It’s a very limited set.
    2:06:48 We’re not going to all of a sudden get oopsies.
    2:06:50 We got a million new view hours, right?
    2:06:51 We don’t even have to worry about that as a problem.
    2:06:55 And so it’s like, okay, we know stranger things season five is about to drop.
    2:07:00 We’re going to pre cache strange stranger things season five and every single OCA across the
    2:07:03 world, because that thing’s about to get hammered.
    2:07:03 Right?
    2:07:07 And so it’s like, it’s able to do such a different kind of decision-making than what
    2:07:09 you have to do with something like YouTube.
    2:07:14 And then Twitch is even more wild because now you’re actually ingesting video and trying to
    2:07:16 make it go out all at the exact same time for all video.
    2:07:22 And you have to transform that video from whatever format and whatever the bit rate is into something
    2:07:26 that’s more efficient in a system like that hats off to Twitch engineering.
    2:07:28 Like, cause that is like some, that’s some serious work.
    2:07:34 And here’s some asshole Lex coming out and tweeting about YouTube features.
    2:07:40 So like there’s a, I listen, you’re not wrong on the features you’re asked for though.
    2:07:47 Uh, I think there’s, this is, this is an engineering problem of how do you allow fast iteration and
    2:07:53 addition of features that shouldn’t have to be integrated or impact the whole code base.
    2:08:00 So at the edges of the code base sort of improve on certain features without like having to
    2:08:03 consult the mothership, uh, of the code.
    2:08:05 It’s the large team, right?
    2:08:07 That’s, that’s the fundamental problem.
    2:08:12 When you get into YouTube size, there is the team slash organization that deals with data
    2:08:13 warehousing.
    2:08:16 There’s the team slash organization that deals with delivery.
    2:08:18 There’s a team slash organization.
    2:08:21 That’s like the middle layer, how you even, you know, they’re going to be like the little
    2:08:23 microsurfaces to talk to these places.
    2:08:24 Then you have this front end engineer.
    2:08:29 So like for, for a small feature, you have to get middle team.
    2:08:30 You have to get backend team.
    2:08:31 You have to get all these things.
    2:08:32 Quick example, Netflix.
    2:08:36 Um, are you familiar with, uh, the dystopian Black Mirror?
    2:08:36 Yeah.
    2:08:37 Okay.
    2:08:38 Season one, episode one.
    2:08:39 Do you know season one, episode one?
    2:08:41 Everyone who watches Black Mirror typically knows this episode.
    2:08:42 Okay.
    2:08:42 Yeah.
    2:08:46 I don’t remember what it is, but forgive my language, but they call it the pig fucker episode.
    2:08:47 Oh yeah.
    2:08:47 Right.
    2:08:47 Of course.
    2:08:51 Once you’ve seen the episode, you will then know this episode.
    2:08:53 Well, when Netflix adopted it, I got pulled into a room.
    2:08:56 There’s like a VP, a VP, a product designer, a VP.
    2:09:01 And they said, Hey, we’re about to release our own version of Black Mirror season, uh, season
    2:09:07 three, I think at that time, we need episode one, season one to not be the first thing people
    2:09:08 see.
    2:09:11 So let’s just reverse the season order.
    2:09:13 That required me.
    2:09:15 I had like 20 engineers.
    2:09:18 I had to gather together to be able to have this happen.
    2:09:23 And that’s just the problem of big companies is that eventually every little thing has to
    2:09:24 become its own team.
    2:09:27 And so even small, there’s no such thing as a small feature.
    2:09:33 Versing the order of the drop down that selects the seasons is, uh, a meeting with a bunch
    2:09:34 of VPs and engineers.
    2:09:35 That’s really interesting.
    2:09:37 There’s gotta be a way to accelerate that.
    2:09:43 The natural scaling of a company and the bureaucracy that grows, yes, slows that down, but just having
    2:09:49 seen Elon work a lot, his teams are able to like still keep it very fast, even as the company
    2:09:49 grows.
    2:09:59 There’s gotta be a, like a process doing that, especially for, uh, yeah, for the pig
    2:09:59 fucker episode.
    2:10:05 Like, uh, I don’t know where that’s in the priority list, but like for important things
    2:10:07 like that, you should be able to do that quickly.
    2:10:07 I don’t know.
    2:10:09 Can you speak to like, how would you do that?
    2:10:12 Well, I can tell first how it was done.
    2:10:12 Remember.
    2:10:16 So at a place like Netflix, there would be, I think that at that point is called a product
    2:10:17 called Dexter.
    2:10:18 I can’t remember.
    2:10:22 There’s our actual like movie metadata warehouse.
    2:10:24 That’s going to be highly integrated with Hollywood.
    2:10:27 That’s going to be, you know, where that side is able to manage all that.
    2:10:31 So I’m like, Hey, you need the ability to mark things that need to be reversed because
    2:10:32 we’re going to run into this a bunch.
    2:10:36 And we did, we ran into quite a few topical shows that all need to be reversed and all that.
    2:10:39 And so it’s like, we need to be able to reverse episode numbers, season numbers.
    2:10:42 We need to be able to hide season or episode numbers.
    2:10:46 Like in the case of the Chelsea Handler show, it was like a daily show.
    2:10:48 So it’s like, you don’t, you don’t need episode numbers.
    2:10:49 You just need the latest one.
    2:10:51 And so like, there’s this whole problem that exists.
    2:10:55 And so it’s like, okay, you need to work on that for your UI over there.
    2:10:56 Then you need to be able to store that data.
    2:11:00 Then we need to be able to go to the, like the people that can actually get the video data
    2:11:04 out of that and provide it to our, our, uh, our service layer.
    2:11:06 I need to go talk to them and convince them they need to be able to
    2:11:08 give me the new methods and everything to do that.
    2:11:11 Then I need to be able to go write the methods to get it down.
    2:11:13 And then I need to go to the UI and make that accessible.
    2:11:14 Now I need to go to website people.
    2:11:15 I need to go to mobile people.
    2:11:16 I need to go to the TV people.
    2:11:19 And so it’s like, you can see this thing like snowballing.
    2:11:22 And for us, the big thing that Netflix did that was so well
    2:11:27 is after I met with these people that were high level, I was then, I was the captain.
    2:11:28 I’m the captain now.
    2:11:28 Yeah.
    2:11:32 So I went to all these teams and said, Hey manager, I need an engineer.
    2:11:33 We need to get this done within the next couple of months.
    2:11:35 Cause we got black mirror coming out.
    2:11:37 So she would go, okay, here you go.
    2:11:38 The map team.
    2:11:42 I need someone to help me with being able to get data out of the Lola mo for this.
    2:11:44 And so it’s like, all right, you’re working with this engineer.
    2:11:46 I’d go to the BMS team.
    2:11:46 Okay.
    2:11:46 I need this engineer.
    2:11:48 I’d go to the billboard team.
    2:11:49 I need this engineer.
    2:11:52 Go to all these little places to get all these little pieces of data.
    2:11:53 And then I was the captain.
    2:11:54 So I was like, you’re working on this.
    2:11:55 You’re doing this.
    2:11:55 You’re doing this.
    2:11:56 You’re doing this.
    2:11:56 I’m doing this.
    2:11:57 Let’s go.
    2:11:57 Right.
    2:12:02 And so it’s like that worked and we were able to go pretty fast for a big company.
    2:12:06 And the fact that it required like 20 engineers to do such a simple task, we were able to do
    2:12:09 it in like, gosh, I’d say about like three weeks worth of effort.
    2:12:14 But that was still, I thought that was amazing comparatively to how many people move.
    2:12:16 Well, because you have the freedom of the agency to do it.
    2:12:19 You said the captain of the ship, that’s really powerful for big companies.
    2:12:21 That’s a risk because you can fuck it up.
    2:12:28 You might not see the bigger context legally or any, and you just sort of the bigger context
    2:12:31 of the impact on the industry or all the contracts that are made, all that.
    2:12:32 So it’s a risk.
    2:12:34 It’s a risk, but it’s a risk you have to keep taking.
    2:12:39 And then if, when you fuck up, you fix, and then maybe pay the cost legally for that
    2:12:39 and whatever.
    2:12:46 But the long term, that risk pays off because you’re going to keep creating a better and
    2:12:51 better and product, evolving where the industry is going, constantly innovating ahead of where
    2:12:53 the industry is going and so on.
    2:12:53 Yeah.
    2:12:58 And not only that, I think one thing that is just so important is that, yes, the product
    2:13:03 will get better, but the people that you hire and the people that you keep around are better
    2:13:05 because they’re the ones that show maturity.
    2:13:09 They’re the ones that can just, you give them something and they can rally the troops and
    2:13:09 make something happen.
    2:13:13 Like that’s a very great group of people to hire.
    2:13:17 And so you also naturally select out great engineers that aren’t just simply good at
    2:13:17 coding.
    2:13:21 They’re good at coding and they’re good at explaining and they’re good at convincing and
    2:13:24 they’re good, you know, like you have to, you have to create a very lean audience that
    2:13:25 can move fast.
    2:13:33 And I think for great engineers having to wait for like, okay, let’s schedule a meeting for
    2:13:38 next Wednesday with the, with the VPs and that destroys their soul.
    2:13:40 And they either don’t want to contribute anymore.
    2:13:44 They leave the companies or they just kind of tune out and take the golden handcuffs and
    2:13:49 just, you know, buy a nice house and focus on a family.
    2:13:50 And I feel like I would die under that.
    2:13:55 So like, honestly, like that is, that is my death sentence is where it’s just that there’s
    2:13:56 no reason to try.
    2:13:57 There’s no reason to do anything.
    2:14:02 I’m just going to go in there like effectively zombie through my day and call it like, I don’t
    2:14:03 want to live like that.
    2:14:05 I want to feel like I’m trying to do something.
    2:14:12 I should also mention on top of that, so you’ve brilliantly laid out how incredible
    2:14:17 the challenge that Netflix has to solve on top of that with YouTube, you know, the metadata
    2:14:24 thing, because users are able to upload video and there’s an API where they can upload automatically
    2:14:26 and change all this kind of stuff automatically.
    2:14:32 Every one of those things is an attack vector, as we mentioned, that’s something they have to
    2:14:37 consider seriously on the engineering side and on the sort of the legal side, they can
    2:14:38 get into trouble in all kinds of ways.
    2:14:41 So they have to consider all of that.
    2:14:43 So it’s just fascinating.
    2:14:49 The legal side is obvious, but it’s not really like I would never have initially thought someone
    2:14:53 would say upload images that you’re not allowed to own or have, but that guarantee you that
    2:14:54 happens.
    2:14:55 Then you have the whole kid side, right?
    2:15:00 I think about when you mark something as kid friendly, how many times have they snuck porn
    2:15:02 into a Taylor Swift video or whatever it was?
    2:15:03 That was like a few years back.
    2:15:04 There was that whole Taylor Swift or whatever.
    2:15:05 I forget what it was.
    2:15:09 I thought it was Taylor Swift, but there’d be these mock videos that come up and then boom.
    2:15:12 It’s like, that’s a, that is such an awful problem.
    2:15:15 And I’m so happy that is not a problem I have to try to figure out.
    2:15:16 Yep.
    2:15:17 Okay.
    2:15:22 So yes, YouTube and, uh, and Twitch and Netflix are doing an incredible job.
    2:15:31 You eventually, uh, chose the madman you are to leave Netflix and to start in a new journey
    2:15:34 of being a wolf pack of one, start streaming.
    2:15:34 What was that?
    2:15:36 What was the story of that?
    2:15:41 So I was streaming for almost seven years now.
    2:15:42 It started actually at Netflix.
    2:15:46 We did a charity, uh, extra life shout out extra life for starting my streaming career
    2:15:47 effectively.
    2:15:51 It’s just you stream and whatever money you raise, it goes to kids with cancer research.
    2:15:56 They are a great charity in the sense that they take no overhead and they raise their own
    2:15:58 donations for their website and everything.
    2:16:01 And so it’s like a very great, straightforward charity, really love like what they’ve done.
    2:16:07 Um, it was super cool because I live in South Dakota now, but I actually could choose a hospital
    2:16:08 directly where the money goes to.
    2:16:12 So there’s like a direct impact from A to B.
    2:16:14 So it’s like, it’s a pretty cool organization.
    2:16:18 And so my friend, Guy Serino, uh, nice try guys, what I like to call him.
    2:16:22 He was probably the single greatest engineer I’ve ever met in my lifetime.
    2:16:24 And he was just like, Hey, come do this.
    2:16:24 We’re going to all do this.
    2:16:25 And so I played Fortnite.
    2:16:29 And so before I did that, I was like, Oh, I better learn how to stream first.
    2:16:32 I better get, you know, affiliated so I can like take subscriptions.
    2:16:35 And then if anyone gives me a subscription, I’ll also pay that forward.
    2:16:42 And so June, 2018 or something like that, I start, I start, uh, streaming and I start
    2:16:46 streaming some Fortnite, end up getting affiliated, end up doing the whole extra life thing.
    2:16:48 I ended up really enjoying it.
    2:16:49 I’m like, this is a lot of fun.
    2:16:50 I’m playing Fortnite at that point.
    2:16:50 Okay.
    2:16:52 So mind you, I’m a Fortnite streamer at that point.
    2:16:55 Uh, and I start really enjoying it and I keep doing it.
    2:16:59 And then one day I decide I’m going to do some programming because I really love Vim.
    2:17:01 And I think I’m kind of fast at Vim.
    2:17:05 And maybe people think programming is kind of cool because there was no really programming
    2:17:06 section at that point.
    2:17:12 Uh, and I did it and, uh, I had like 30 people show up, which was just like, and it felt like
    2:17:13 incredible numbers at that point.
    2:17:17 So I was like, Oh my gosh, there’s like 30 people watching me program.
    2:17:21 And so it just kept on going and it kept on happening and it just kept on growing.
    2:17:23 And I did it for year after year.
    2:17:26 I would do my job.
    2:17:26 I would come home.
    2:17:28 I’d eat dinner with the kiddos.
    2:17:31 I would read them Lord of the Rings and the Hobbit during that time.
    2:17:33 I’d read to them for a half an hour.
    2:17:34 Then I’d set that down.
    2:17:37 And then three nights a week, I would program until like two in the morning or play video
    2:17:40 games until two in the morning streaming and building up this like whole side thing.
    2:17:43 And I did this for a long, long time.
    2:17:46 And then eventually it just kept working out so well.
    2:17:49 And I started making YouTube videos and then that started getting better.
    2:17:53 And it was just like a long, long grind until April of last year.
    2:17:58 I went to the streamer awards and I got to like announce the programming category and pirate
    2:17:59 software one.
    2:18:00 It was awesome.
    2:18:00 It was a great time.
    2:18:05 And during that time, he gave me a challenge coin and just said like, you just got to go
    2:18:05 for it.
    2:18:06 Just go full time.
    2:18:10 And so I just sat there and my wife can attest to it.
    2:18:13 It was kind of like an emotional turmoil thing.
    2:18:21 And it just took a lot of, it was, it was pretty awful, you know, cause I didn’t, Netflix
    2:18:22 is very safe option.
    2:18:23 It was both very fun.
    2:18:24 It was challenging.
    2:18:26 I liked a lot of the people I worked with.
    2:18:28 It was overall a really great thing.
    2:18:29 I had a really great boss.
    2:18:31 Um, really appreciated him.
    2:18:34 I still ever text him now and then he’s really great guy.
    2:18:37 So it’s just like, I’m leaving all these things for something that’s unsure.
    2:18:43 And the reality is, is that streaming and all these things, you know, people love you one
    2:18:44 day, they could hate you the next day.
    2:18:49 There’s like all this stuff that goes into being on the public side.
    2:18:50 And I had Netflix as the backing.
    2:18:53 So it’s like, if public hated me the next day, I’d be like, deuces, I’m out.
    2:18:55 Like, I don’t care now.
    2:18:56 It’s like, now I’m going to do this as a job.
    2:19:01 And so there’s like a whole huge turmoil to this whole thing that kind of went through
    2:19:01 it.
    2:19:05 And eventually I just said, okay, I’m going to make this.
    2:19:09 It kind of, it resonated with me when I first made the decision to join Netflix.
    2:19:11 I’m getting older.
    2:19:15 There’s not a lot of chances to do something unusual like that.
    2:19:17 Those chances go down constantly as you get older.
    2:19:20 This might be the last crazy thing I get to do.
    2:19:22 Let’s just try it.
    2:19:24 So in April, I went full time.
    2:19:27 And I have, I guess I haven’t looked back.
    2:19:31 I’m only not even a year into doing this as a full time gig.
    2:19:32 And it’s just been a lot of fun.
    2:19:37 And the biggest thing is just being, you know, just being able to really explore and do these
    2:19:42 things on stream where people really enjoy watching and engaging has just been, it’s been
    2:19:46 a great, hard, fun, amazing, difficult experience.
    2:19:48 I mean, it’s a really inspiring leap.
    2:19:54 It’s a really hard one to take for many reasons like you outlined, but also like the loneliness
    2:19:54 of it.
    2:19:59 I think, I think it’s a pretty lonely pursuit.
    2:19:59 It is.
    2:20:00 Yeah.
    2:20:04 Just you and the camera and the audience and the ups and downs of that.
    2:20:06 And it’s not, there’s not really a team.
    2:20:10 I do have one lucky thing I’d say that my editor Flip, shout out Flip.
    2:20:13 He was, he said it would mean the world to him if I said, shout out Flip.
    2:20:15 But I love you, Flip.
    2:20:15 I love you, Flip.
    2:20:16 We all love you.
    2:20:16 Oh man.
    2:20:21 He, uh, he had, you know, as he would say, he had nothing going for him.
    2:20:23 He, he had a really hard growing up.
    2:20:28 A lot of, a lot of rough life decisions have gone into his life and he’s kind of crawling
    2:20:29 back out of it.
    2:20:31 And he just said, Hey, I will edit full time for you.
    2:20:35 So I just said, all right, like 50, 50, whatever I make on YouTube, you get, we’re going to do
    2:20:35 this together.
    2:20:39 And we did that for years, making $0 a month, pretty much, you know?
    2:20:42 And so it’s just like, that was an incredible jump.
    2:20:46 And now like we get to work together so that I do get that one team aspect that I think is
    2:20:51 really nice, but there’s, it’s not like it was at Netflix where I could hear about stuff
    2:20:52 people are building.
    2:20:53 I don’t have a team.
    2:20:55 I don’t have like product or cycles.
    2:20:57 I don’t have a manager that I have to try to make happy.
    2:21:02 It’s just like, it is very lonely and I don’t think a lot of people realize how lonely it
    2:21:03 actually can be.
    2:21:04 Yeah.
    2:21:09 So combine that loneliness with, uh, in my case, I don’t know how many people attack you.
    2:21:13 I have, you know, I have a shockingly low amount of attack rate.
    2:21:18 I feel like, yeah, you’re people generally, I mean, it’s sometimes fun sort of teasing
    2:21:22 that kind of thing, but it’s mostly just really, I mean, you, you give so much love to the world
    2:21:26 and inspire so many people, even when you’re like making fun of stuff.
    2:21:32 But with, with me sort of taking the loneliness of it combined with just really intense attacks,
    2:21:32 it’s tough.
    2:21:33 It can be rough.
    2:21:36 Psychologically really a tough journey.
    2:21:43 Uh, you miss working with a team just from even a software engineering side, like where
    2:21:47 you can share code or talk over code or yeah.
    2:21:49 The collaborative aspect of it.
    2:21:50 Yeah.
    2:21:52 Um, multiple things there.
    2:21:54 Uh, one, Hey, we love you, Lex.
    2:21:56 So don’t let the, don’t let the things get you down.
    2:21:58 Um, thank you, but thank you.
    2:21:59 I love you too.
    2:22:00 Thank you.
    2:22:05 Hey, well, a little bonding moment here going on, but, uh, you know what I, one thing I really
    2:22:08 miss, not in a sexual way, just to be clear, the tension is a little, a little tense.
    2:22:14 I’m getting uncomfortable, but anyway, team, um, it’s just the one thing I really miss is
    2:22:19 just even when I hated how people did it, just seeing how other people solved things, right?
    2:22:21 Like it’s really amazing.
    2:22:23 Just, just like the raw creative power.
    2:22:26 So many people have and just being like, Oh wow.
    2:22:28 Like I would have never done it this way.
    2:22:30 Crazy, right?
    2:22:31 Like, Oh wow.
    2:22:32 I just, this is awesome.
    2:22:36 And then you kind of internally process this and you’re like, Oh, I now have a new little
    2:22:38 tool in my tool belt, you know?
    2:22:42 Because at some point it’s really hard to find a mentor when you’re first young and you’re
    2:22:43 just starting out programming.
    2:22:48 I mean, anyone with a couple of years of experience will be not just a little bit better
    2:22:50 than you, but like infinitely better than you.
    2:22:52 It’s like, it feels like crazy how much better people are.
    2:22:55 And so you have to like get mentors and you learn from people.
    2:22:59 And then as you get better, that amount of availability gets really small.
    2:23:03 And so it’s something that I really do miss is the kind of like forced hard problem solving
    2:23:04 together.
    2:23:09 I think there’s also a skill to sort of mining the wisdom from other people.
    2:23:17 Like I generally try to approach even like junior people, young folks, just mentally, at least
    2:23:23 for me, it works as a hack to assume they’re like the smartest person in the world, like
    2:23:24 way smarter than me.
    2:23:29 And so like I take every single word they say as potential wisdom and that helps me as sort
    2:23:31 of mind for potential wisdom there.
    2:23:37 Because it’s so easy when you get older to sort of judge, to be like, oh, yeah, okay,
    2:23:37 okay.
    2:23:38 I’ve been through that.
    2:23:39 I remember feeling like that.
    2:23:41 I remember thinking that that’s incorrect, whatever.
    2:23:45 But just kind of assume that you don’t know, that I don’t know what the fuck I’m doing.
    2:23:47 And the other person is this like sage.
    2:23:52 And from that, in that kind of interaction, I think you could actually learn a lot.
    2:23:56 And my favorite interactions is when we both think that way.
    2:24:03 From there, I think that’s a catalyst for a great, great collaboration and interaction.
    2:24:06 It just also makes everything much nicer.
    2:24:10 You know, it really stinks to work with someone that’s combative and negative.
    2:24:16 Like I don’t mind combativeness if it’s like I’m trying to figure out what’s best to do right
    2:24:21 now versus combativeness just because you’re a negative person and things have to be this
    2:24:22 one particular way.
    2:24:24 Because if they’re not this one particular way, it’s the end of the world.
    2:24:28 And like, that’s actually really hard for me to work with.
    2:24:32 What’s the origin story of the Primogen name?
    2:24:38 The origin story of the Primogen name was, are you familiar with a video game called Turok?
    2:24:40 Nintendo 64.
    2:24:43 So Turok had Turok 1 and then Turok 2.
    2:24:46 Turok 2 was a brutally hard game.
    2:24:51 This is back when first person shooters, they would only give you a certain amount of health
    2:24:54 and you had to go discover health and get that health.
    2:24:57 And you had to beat the whole game without effectively dying.
    2:24:59 That’s an old, that’s like the first version right there.
    2:25:01 That’s like Turok 1 and Turok 2.
    2:25:07 Turok is a renowned first person shooter video game series featuring dinosaurs, action and sci-fi
    2:25:08 elements.
    2:25:12 The franchise has evolved significantly since its inception in 1997.
    2:25:13 Yep, there you go.
    2:25:14 So in 1998, there you can see it right there.
    2:25:21 Turok 2, Seed of Evil followed in 1998 featuring larger levels, more challenging puzzles and
    2:25:22 deadlier enemies.
    2:25:25 The notable difficulty, it was very, very, very difficult.
    2:25:26 Okay.
    2:25:30 And so I spent, when I got it, it came in a black cartridge, not like your standard gray
    2:25:34 Nintendo 64, the black cartridge, it was a badass game, right?
    2:25:35 And I got it.
    2:25:42 And I put it in and I played and I played every day for like 10 hours a day for a month straight
    2:25:43 and I beat it.
    2:25:46 And it was like such an incredible, great experience.
    2:25:48 And the last leader of Turok 2 is called the Primogen.
    2:25:53 And so when I was a kid, when you’re in like fifth grade, that’s like super cool, like
    2:25:54 named after the bad guy.
    2:25:59 And so like for a long time on any internet thing, like Grail Online that I mentioned earlier,
    2:26:00 the new was the Primogen.
    2:26:01 It was great.
    2:26:03 And then, you know, I became an adult eventually.
    2:26:05 And it’s just like, okay, you know, I’m an adult.
    2:26:07 My name is Michael Paulson, underscore, you know.
    2:26:10 That’s what I was on the internet for a long time, was that.
    2:26:18 And I remember it was like 2017, 2018, somewhere in there, um,
    2:26:25 I remember just how bad the tech world had kind of become.
    2:26:31 It was just like this super pretentious place, tons of dick measuring, just everything that
    2:26:32 just was the worst.
    2:26:35 Ken Wheeler got canceled over playing the circle game.
    2:26:41 It was just like, it, it’s so hard to describe to people that weren’t there, but it was just
    2:26:42 the worst place to be.
    2:26:44 Tech was extremely unfun.
    2:26:46 It was extremely awful.
    2:26:49 Everything was just so, it wasn’t academic.
    2:26:50 because it was research.
    2:26:54 It was like, we’re building the most sophisticated things.
    2:26:55 And this is for the smart people.
    2:26:57 And you’re, everyone else is the dumb people.
    2:26:57 Don’t worry.
    2:26:58 We’ll design for you, dummy.
    2:26:58 We got that.
    2:27:00 We’ll, we’ll show you how to make the perfect architecture.
    2:27:03 And I remember changing my Twitter handle.
    2:27:06 Cause I got so upset and just went back to my video game name.
    2:27:08 Cause I was like, I want things to be fun.
    2:27:10 I want this to stop.
    2:27:17 And so while I started, when I started streaming tech, my goal became to destroy whatever that
    2:27:20 tech mentality was, because it includes nobody.
    2:27:23 Everyone thinks that they’re the smart people and they design for the dummies.
    2:27:28 And it’s just like, no, like I want tech to be this place where people feel like they can
    2:27:31 be creative and excited and actually build something.
    2:27:35 And if you’re new, like it’s okay to be dumb and ask dumb questions, like learn from your
    2:27:36 dumbness.
    2:27:37 No one’s expecting you to be smart.
    2:27:42 Pick whatever you want, like actually do something and have fun and build like your crazy ideas.
    2:27:45 Oh, you’re going to reinvent the wheel, reinvent the wheel, understand what you’re doing,
    2:27:47 learn it really good.
    2:27:48 And like interact and stuff.
    2:27:51 And it’s just so different than what was out there.
    2:27:56 And that the name Arnold Schwarzenegger talks about this thing where when he first started
    2:27:59 acting, his name was like the thing that people hated.
    2:28:04 As he once said, you have a strange voice, you have a strange body and your name, your name’s
    2:28:04 unpronounceable.
    2:28:06 No one’s going to schneitzenfnitzel.
    2:28:07 No one’s going to remember that.
    2:28:11 And he said, but now the name is the strong part.
    2:28:13 And for me, I just, I’ve always felt akin to that though.
    2:28:14 My name’s not nearly as cool.
    2:28:15 Norma is as popular as Arnold.
    2:28:21 Norma is tough or good looking or successful, but nonetheless, it’s just the name represented
    2:28:26 this like counterculture, like movement within myself in which I just hated what was there
    2:28:28 and I wanted to defeat it.
    2:28:29 And so this is like been the thing.
    2:28:33 And now people remember me so well because of how weird my name is.
    2:28:38 And so it’s just like I, for whatever reason, it became its own thing.
    2:28:42 And so that’s kind of the, now I would never change it.
    2:28:45 And back then I would never change it because it was my rage against the machine moment.
    2:28:46 If you will.
    2:28:47 Yeah.
    2:28:52 I love that as a symbol of rage against the machine and the rage being fun.
    2:28:52 Yeah.
    2:28:55 I just want people to like be creative and have fun again.
    2:28:56 It’s okay.
    2:28:57 What about the mustache?
    2:28:59 It’s an epic mustache.
    2:29:00 It’s an epic stache.
    2:29:02 It has a life of its own.
    2:29:02 Yeah.
    2:29:06 Is there an origin story or did you guys discover each other at some point?
    2:29:14 Or was it, did it emerge from the darkness of the struggle that is your life or where, where does it come from?
    2:29:20 Well, the original, original mustache is that it was no shave November back before it became Movember.
    2:29:22 It was no shave November back in the day.
    2:29:25 And after no shave November, you had all this hair.
    2:29:27 And so what’s the natural thing you got to do?
    2:29:28 You got to sport a mustache for a day, right?
    2:29:35 So whenever I’d forget to, you know, not shave for a long time and then I’d let it start growing out really big, I’d just go, oh, this is kind of funny.
    2:29:36 I’ll have a mustache.
    2:29:44 And so one day when I was streaming, it’s just one of those times I just didn’t shave and then I started just letting it go and then I got kind of a beard and then I just had a mustache.
    2:29:49 And when I did it, people were just like, okay, it’s mustache time.
    2:29:52 And I was just like, okay, it feels like it’s like a lifestyle decision, right?
    2:29:53 It’s like, this is the fun times.
    2:29:56 And so all of a sudden it was just like exciting to have a mustache.
    2:29:58 And I shaved it off and I was like, oh, okay.
    2:30:03 But then, you know, part of me is like, you know, there’s this weird energy that comes from just having a mustache.
    2:30:05 So I was like, I’m going back.
    2:30:07 Told my wife, forgive her.
    2:30:14 She was very not as thrilled about my decisions to have a mustache long-term, but I just decided to have it back.
    2:30:17 And it just is, it’s just like, it was the right thing.
    2:30:21 It’s like part of, it’s always been the energy that I had with the mustache.
    2:30:22 It was always been there.
    2:30:24 It just never was visible until later on, it feels like.
    2:30:29 Yeah, we’re chatting offline how one of the components of a successful relationship is sacrifice.
    2:30:33 And your wife was willing to take the sacrifice of allowing you to have a mustache.
    2:30:36 I clearly was not willing to sacrifice not having one, so.
    2:30:44 You do this incredible thing where you try a bunch of different programming languages when you stream.
    2:30:56 You have like, you go all out on certain programming languages, like Rust and then Go and then try to pick a new one, but also are like experimenting constantly.
    2:31:01 And maybe one question I could ask is about learning.
    2:31:05 What’s your approach to learning a new programming language?
    2:31:10 And maybe what’s your advice on learning a new programming language when you begin that journey?
    2:31:16 So I’ve kind of done a bunch of different ways to go through this learning process.
    2:31:17 And I’ve tried a lot of different ones.
    2:31:23 Something that is obviously successful is just start building something.
    2:31:24 Just put your hands on the keyboard.
    2:31:30 You know, like, especially if you already know how to program, you’re like, okay, I’m now using Zig.
    2:31:32 How do I do a main function so I can just run the program?
    2:31:33 Okay, I now know how to build.
    2:31:35 Okay, how do I do an if statement?
    2:31:36 What does it look like?
    2:31:37 Okay, how do I do declare my own functions?
    2:31:38 How do I do modules, right?
    2:31:42 You just kind of like Google your way through it, if you will, to get to the end product and build something.
    2:31:49 It’s a great way to do things because I find that repetition, like rote learning is obviously the best way to do this.
    2:31:51 You have to kind of go over it a bunch.
    2:31:54 And you can definitely get out and build a lot of stuff with that.
    2:31:57 I like that initial kind of get used to things.
    2:32:02 But on top of it, I find that by doing that, you also fall into like traps.
    2:32:09 You kind of Google and you try to solve a problem in the language based on all of your previous experience.
    2:32:13 And so you don’t have what makes that language special.
    2:32:15 You kind of have what all the other languages make special.
    2:32:19 And so you end up kind of not really being able to use it very effectively.
    2:32:22 But you can certainly kind of learn it and get kind of good at it.
    2:32:26 And so the second approach I’ve been doing lately, and this has been inspired by the creator of Ghosty, Mitchell Hashimoto,
    2:32:29 is to just start by reading the language reference, the whole thing.
    2:32:35 And so lately, I’ve been just kind of going through and just reading the entire manual for these languages.
    2:32:37 Like Zig, I’m almost done with that one.
    2:32:39 You know, it’s like eight to 10 hours of just sitting down reading.
    2:32:42 And I’ll whip out my computer and kind of practice a couple of the things.
    2:32:43 from the actual docs.
    2:32:46 And that way I can learn all the things.
    2:32:50 So then when I start building again, I remember, okay, I know there’s a thing over here.
    2:32:55 Let me go reread about it because now I have it indexed in my brain somewhere that will kind of remember.
    2:32:58 And so I don’t think there’s like a right or wrong way.
    2:33:01 I mean, at the end of the day, the right way is always that you have to build something.
    2:33:03 Eventually, you cannot just read about it.
    2:33:04 You have to put your hands on the keyboard.
    2:33:06 You have to build something out.
    2:33:10 And then once you do that, that’s where you really discover what makes it painful or what makes it great.
    2:33:15 And if you don’t have the breadth of what the language offers, you just may make it painful by simply being bad at it.
    2:33:17 What exactly are you reading?
    2:33:19 Like the language reference?
    2:33:21 The language reference.
    2:33:23 So it just goes through like every feature top to bottom, right?
    2:33:26 Every way it’s described, all the different things.
    2:33:32 Like I think Ziggs is, you know, it’s a decent size, but it’s not just simply read the words.
    2:33:34 You want to internalize each concept as well.
    2:33:35 So it takes a long time.
    2:33:36 So I’m a slow reader.
    2:33:50 So you’re like building in AI terms, like a background model, like I’ll just, because I don’t think you can just start building once you’re done reading, because you probably forgot, you know, how to do a for loop.
    2:33:53 Like you kind of forget the specifics.
    2:34:00 You just are building up the design choices, the set of features available, what are the strengths and weaknesses, all that kind of stuff.
    2:34:01 And then you start building.
    2:34:02 That’s really interesting.
    2:34:09 Probably not the thing you would recommend to a junior developer, somebody who’s just starting out at first.
    2:34:11 If you don’t know what an if statement is, that’s not a good way to learn.
    2:34:18 Like to me, the best way to learn that is really hands on the keyboard and building extremely simple things and slowly growing in complexity.
    2:34:25 Because understanding what a class and methods and instances versus the blueprint, which is the class versus functions versus modules versus all that stuff.
    2:34:27 Like that’s, that just takes time to learn.
    2:34:29 And so that’s a completely different style of learning.
    2:34:38 I wonder, because for me, learning right now, AI is a huge help, but I already have a lot of experience.
    2:34:43 I wonder if you’re starting from scratch, whether that’s a good idea, but I still think it’s probably a really good idea.
    2:34:52 But basically, generate some code using AI and figure out what it’s doing by playing with different parts.
    2:34:59 Maybe can you comment on that aspect, like the use of AI as part of the learning process?
    2:35:03 This is where I have both the hopeful and the doomer take at the exact same time.
    2:35:03 Yeah.
    2:35:08 And it’s the same thing with Google or Stack Overflow.
    2:35:14 Like this, it’s, it’s all the same kind of take, which is, it’s just making things more democratized.
    2:35:21 In some sense, I get to ask questions in probably the most personal possible way with my own voice in my own words.
    2:35:25 And it’s able to produce out answers and kind of hopefully help guide me.
    2:35:36 Now, regardless of just say the errors and the incorrectnesses of it, like ultimately just using it as a learning, you know, tool and being able to just, you know, formulate and read answers in your own voice, I think is super powerful.
    2:35:49 And I think it’s, it’s super amazing, but the part that I think is going to be really difficult is that we don’t value remembering things anymore as a society.
    2:35:52 Like since the internet came about, I can just look that up.
    2:35:54 I can just look that up.
    2:35:57 No need to like, you don’t need to memorize your times tables, right?
    2:35:58 You can just use a calculator.
    2:35:59 You can just do all that.
    2:36:06 I remember I just was sitting on the airplane and I watched someone do the world’s most simple addition and subtraction, like 10 times on their phone.
    2:36:12 And like, why are you not just like, you should already know these, that you should be able to do these things.
    2:36:14 And I realized that we kind of offload our brains, right?
    2:36:17 Oh, I don’t need to know these things because I can look them up.
    2:36:18 And that’s not a bad answer.
    2:36:20 In some sense, I can understand that.
    2:36:22 Like, I don’t need to remember every last thing.
    2:36:29 But then it also makes me realize that you kind of develop this learned helplessness, that a new error comes up.
    2:36:30 I’ll just ask the AI.
    2:36:32 AI says, oh, okay, I got to fix this line.
    2:36:33 I fixed the line.
    2:36:34 You didn’t actually learn anything.
    2:36:37 You kind of just used it as a quick means to get something out and move on.
    2:36:41 And so you sacrifice knowledge for speed, which is a great thing.
    2:36:45 And some like you, we have to make those trade-offs all the time in engineering.
    2:36:48 Sometimes you have to move fast at the sacrifice of knowledge.
    2:36:50 And I’m totally on board for that.
    2:36:59 But I worry that what we’ll create is an entire generation of incompetent programmers who can do some amount of things well.
    2:37:06 But anything that is unique, bespoke, or requires some extra like little elbow grease might become very difficult.
    2:37:10 It might cause a whole chasm where juniors remain juniors forever.
    2:37:12 And I don’t want to see that.
    2:37:13 I want to see people grow.
    2:37:17 I want to see people, you know, actually be able to take this as a craftsmanship thing.
    2:37:24 And so that’s kind of what I, that’s like both my hope and my worry is, is that AI, I think, can do both, really.
    2:37:29 Because if you could ask whatever question you want, and you don’t have to rely on, say, a book to give you that exact answer.
    2:37:33 And if the book just said it wrong, and you can’t understand, it’s just like, sorry, you don’t get to learn what this is.
    2:37:34 Like recursion for me.
    2:37:38 I spent way too much time until someone gave me the right problem to understand recursion.
    2:37:43 You could imagine AI could have solved that for me way faster, because it could have gave me the right problem and walked me through much better.
    2:37:48 But what happened if I just always have recursion solved by them and not actually learn it myself?
    2:37:59 So if I ask AI to generate code to do a certain thing, some actually large percentage of time, most of what AI generates is going to be correct for me.
    2:38:04 But some percent of time, it’s not, like fundamentally not.
    2:38:08 And for me to recognize the difference between those two, I think it takes a lot of experience.
    2:38:19 Like I think to learn that skill of knowing like, no, no, no, a different new out-of-the-box solution is needed here than the one you’re providing.
    2:38:21 You’re missing the point.
    2:38:23 That’s a skill.
    2:38:25 And how do you learn that?
    2:38:26 You learn that by building from scratch.
    2:38:28 So both are probably really necessary.
    2:38:29 Yeah.
    2:38:38 But I think as a first step of learning how to program, it’s pretty nice to generate a function, to generate for loops and all that kind of stuff.
    2:38:45 And then just fuck with the different lines and like modify them to try to adjust the behavior of the program.
    2:38:56 And from the way the behavior of the program adjusts or bugs are created, you learn about the syntax of the language, the behavior of the language, all that kind of stuff.
    2:38:59 So I think it’s a super powerful way to learn.
    2:39:02 But yeah, you need to also write from scratch.
    2:39:09 At some point, you have to take off the training wheels because I think what you’re really spotting is the difference between reading and writing code.
    2:39:12 Like I can read a lot of languages very well.
    2:39:13 I can see what’s happening.
    2:39:14 I can understand it.
    2:39:16 But like I would not be very good at writing it.
    2:39:19 I can understand a lot of things about C++ and I can read it.
    2:39:22 But I’m just not that because I just don’t I haven’t done it in so long.
    2:39:31 I can’t remember all or all the semicolons and colons and like, you know, you do public and private and how you should you do naming convey like, you know, all those things kind of add all together.
    2:39:34 And then you’re just like, oh, I’m really bad at writing it, though I can read it.
    2:39:40 And so there’s like this there’s a skill gap chasm that exists between those two.
    2:39:41 All right.
    2:39:43 Well, let me talk about the various languages.
    2:39:47 The cheesy, ridiculous question.
    2:39:51 Oh, what’s the what’s the best programming language?
    2:39:55 Let’s say what’s the best programming language that everybody should learn?
    2:39:57 Maybe let’s go with the top five.
    2:40:04 I’m going to pull up the Stack Overflow developer survey because I think you don’t like them.
    2:40:05 No, no, those aren’t.
    2:40:07 You got to remember because, I mean, you’re a data guy.
    2:40:09 You know about biases and data.
    2:40:12 What does what is Stack Overflow naturally biased towards?
    2:40:18 Well, they have the different slices of professional developers, junior developers.
    2:40:19 They have different slices.
    2:40:21 Okay, what’s the what is the bias?
    2:40:21 I hear you.
    2:40:23 But who fills out a Stack Overflow survey?
    2:40:25 Someone who participates on Stack Overflow.
    2:40:27 Who’s participating on Stack Overflow?
    2:40:29 Largely very, very new people.
    2:40:31 And that one guy that loves answering questions.
    2:40:34 And so I’m not sure if that like if Stack Overflow is a great place to get data.
    2:40:37 It could be a very biased set of data.
    2:40:39 Is it really only new people?
    2:40:42 I mean, that’s who’s using Stack Overflow.
    2:40:43 All right.
    2:40:46 Most popular technologies on this.
    2:40:49 JavaScript, HTML, Python, SQL.
    2:40:52 SQL is one of the more general kind of.
    2:40:57 I’m sure they’re not doing the individual sort of flavors of SQL.
    2:41:00 By the way, pronounce SQL versus SQL.
    2:41:01 It’s squeal.
    2:41:02 Squeal?
    2:41:03 You squeal.
    2:41:03 Squeal.
    2:41:04 That’s what I think is the correct way.
    2:41:05 Squeal.
    2:41:07 I did SQL because I didn’t, you know, I didn’t know the audience.
    2:41:09 I don’t know if they can handle the truth.
    2:41:09 Okay.
    2:41:10 Which is it’s squeal.
    2:41:11 Squeal of joy.
    2:41:12 Squeal.
    2:41:13 Squeal light.
    2:41:14 My squeal.
    2:41:15 Postgres squeal.
    2:41:19 By the way, I had a lot of joy from earlier saying pig fucker for some reason.
    2:41:20 It’s such a ridiculous.
    2:41:23 I mean, can you believe that that was a real conversation that I had?
    2:41:24 Yeah, that was.
    2:41:30 TypeScript, Bash, Java, C Sharp, C++, CPH.
    2:41:32 It largely kind of aligns with the world you’d expect.
    2:41:33 But like Assembly.
    2:41:35 Why is Assembly more popular than Ruby?
    2:41:38 Who is writing just Assembly by?
    2:41:46 No one writes Assembly by hand other than like maybe that one guy that’s developing TLS 1.3 and hand rolling a cryptography algorithm to be the fastest possible algorithm.
    2:41:48 Right?
    2:41:48 Yeah.
    2:41:49 Assembly is a weird one.
    2:41:58 Maybe people write it maybe in school, but even in school now for like a operating systems course or something like that or systems engineering.
    2:42:00 I don’t know if they write Assembly anymore.
    2:42:02 They, I don’t think so.
    2:42:02 Yeah.
    2:42:03 Anyway.
    2:42:07 And Swift and Ruby being less popular than Assembly seems ridiculous.
    2:42:11 But nonetheless, okay, so you get my ideas behind that.
    2:42:14 But as far as top five languages go, that’s probably too broad because you could just name so many.
    2:42:17 I think you should probably archetype it by what do you want to do.
    2:42:24 So if you want to get into game development, perhaps C Sharp, C++ could be good choices.
    2:42:27 Or JavaScript and doing Canvas games.
    2:42:35 I could see that also working, but you know, you got to, you’re limited by doing JavaScript, obviously, because you can’t do as much because the language is just not fast enough to do as much.
    2:42:37 So it’s like a good thing to remember.
    2:42:49 If you’re going to be doing backend stuff, you know, if you want a job, if you’re looking for a job, maybe C Sharp slash Java or JavaScript or Go would be great choices.
    2:42:55 If you’re looking to do embedded, you probably want to do C, C++, like that would probably be a good choice.
    2:42:59 And so you kind of have to, I think you have to first determine what do you really want to get out.
    2:43:07 If you’re just curious about programming, which I talked to a lot of people who are, yeah, you can consider jobs, but basically their question is, okay, what’s the first language I should learn?
    2:43:12 And maybe what are the several languages I should explore?
    2:43:15 Can I say something that’s going to make a lot of people angry?
    2:43:15 Yeah, sure.
    2:43:19 I think the first language people should learn if they have no idea about anything is JavaScript.
    2:43:20 Yeah.
    2:43:22 Why would that make people angry?
    2:43:26 Oh, because people just, I’m, first off, I’m not supposed to say anything nice about JavaScript.
    2:43:26 Yeah.
    2:43:29 Usually that’s the meme that you hate JavaScript.
    2:43:33 Yeah, no, JavaScript is a beautiful language and it has a lot of things that are very great for it.
    2:43:36 And one of them is that you can express anything with very little effort.
    2:43:43 And so someone that’s new, I think it’s really great to be able to draw a box and move a box.
    2:43:45 Like that’s great.
    2:43:46 You get to see it visually.
    2:43:49 I think that’s one thing that’s really great about JavaScript is that you can do that.
    2:43:52 Then you can go, okay, I want to learn about the backend.
    2:43:53 I’m going to make a request.
    2:43:56 Now you can write a quick backend and now you’re starting to get familiar with programming a little bit.
    2:43:58 I can save this to a database.
    2:43:59 I can bring it down.
    2:44:04 I can put it on a screen and I can animate it all around and I can even put it on a canvas and render it in 2D or 3D.
    2:44:08 So it’s like, there’s so much variety of what you can do with JavaScript.
    2:44:11 It’s a great way to get introduced into programming.
    2:44:16 But then at some point you have to go, okay, I now need to learn more about this whole thing.
    2:44:22 I mean, yeah, just like you said, you can make games, you can do frontend, backend for web development.
    2:44:23 You can even do embedded.
    2:44:34 They actually have, like there’s, Wes Boss is building his Roomba or something and programming it with JavaScript and React, which is just the world’s worst language to choose from embedded, but you can still do it.
    2:44:45 Also, we mentioned sort of in terms of applications, anything that relates to data or machine learning, Python is the sort of the leader there.
    2:44:45 Yeah.
    2:44:46 So that’s a great one.
    2:44:55 It seems like Python, CUDA stuff and C++ would be a dynamite in that because a lot of these Python libraries are assumed are just, you’re just smuggling in C++ underneath the hood or C.
    2:44:59 Okay, so JavaScript, I would say Python.
    2:45:00 Python’s a great one too.
    2:45:03 You can get quite far with it, but you can’t write the frontend.
    2:45:05 So what happened if you love the frontend, right?
    2:45:08 What happened if you really just want to design things and you just didn’t know that?
    2:45:10 Well, it’s okay.
    2:45:11 So for that, JavaScript.
    2:45:15 But Python’s a good choice because you can’t do the ML stuff in JavaScript nearly as easy.
    2:45:18 Do we count HTML and CSS as programming languages?
    2:45:22 I think there’s like some technical definition that it is if you put it up.
    2:45:26 If you use this certain amalgamation of CSS plus HTML, it actually has, like,
    2:45:27 it can be a Turing complete language.
    2:45:28 Yeah.
    2:45:30 But I mean, for practical purposes, no.
    2:45:31 HTML is not a language.
    2:45:36 You know, for me, yes, the Turing test is a good one.
    2:45:48 But for those that are just not wanting to be as academic, if I can’t write a function in an if statement, I don’t feel like that’s a, I don’t, if I can’t loop if and function, I don’t feel like that’s a good, that’s a programming language.
    2:45:50 Although modern HTML has a lot of features.
    2:45:54 It’s crazy how much it has, but it’s more of a specification than anything else.
    2:45:56 I specify it to be a pop-up.
    2:46:05 I specify it to have this kind of, like, accessibility, this kind of look, this kind of, you know, under these conditions, look like this, transform like this, move down here.
    2:46:06 I don’t know.
    2:46:08 I kind of like these popular programming languages in this list.
    2:46:09 I like JavaScript.
    2:46:10 You like Bash?
    2:46:12 Well, yeah, I like Bash a lot.
    2:46:13 Yeah.
    2:46:13 Why?
    2:46:14 Okay.
    2:46:18 Bash is kind of one of those ones where it’s like, do you really like it?
    2:46:19 I like it up until I need an array.
    2:46:22 Oh, as a programming language, just no.
    2:46:24 But I like the command line.
    2:46:24 Okay.
    2:46:26 Do you like Bash?
    2:46:27 No, nobody likes Bash.
    2:46:32 Someone is so offended right now.
    2:46:35 It means do you use it a lot?
    2:46:35 Yes.
    2:46:38 It’s good to, I mean, it’s good to learn, right?
    2:46:43 It’s good to be comfortable on the command line because it’s a bit of a superpower.
    2:46:47 It’s like, I think I follow on Twitter, FFmpeg.
    2:46:48 Great account.
    2:46:52 Like, there’s certain Twitter accounts that are just, like, legit.
    2:46:52 Yeah.
    2:47:00 And, you know, I think FFmpeg, like, they have all these sort of parameters that you can add
    2:47:06 on the command line that it’s like one of those cryptic languages that only very few wizards
    2:47:07 understand.
    2:47:12 But once you begin to slowly understand, and I’m only at the very sort of beginning stage of
    2:47:18 that journey to mastery, the powers you gain at every step is, like, it grows exponentially,
    2:47:19 it feels like.
    2:47:23 I mean, FFmpeg is just this incredible, like, what would you call a library system?
    2:47:28 There’s just the people behind them must be just brilliant masterminds because they have
    2:47:34 to work with all these codecs, with all these containers, with all this, the mysteries of
    2:47:38 the media codec universe, they’re, like, masters of.
    2:47:44 And I understand compression, which is another super fascinating technical set of problems
    2:47:45 that, I don’t know.
    2:47:49 I just, FFmpeg just fills me with joy that it exists.
    2:47:55 But you need kind of bash type comfort, command line comfort to work with it, to really unlock
    2:47:56 its power.
    2:47:56 Yeah.
    2:48:02 I think FFmpeg is probably one of the most consequential libraries of our day.
    2:48:06 And the Twitter account is so unhinged.
    2:48:12 It is, it’s the most amazing thing to see because I think FFmpeg does not get the love it deserves.
    2:48:12 Yeah.
    2:48:15 Every single application, OBS, probably FFmpeg underneath the hood.
    2:48:18 All the, everything, FFmpeg underneath the hood.
    2:48:23 And then, and yet, you know, they do not get the love they deserve.
    2:48:23 I just love it.
    2:48:24 I just think they’re the best.
    2:48:25 Yeah.
    2:48:28 I would say JavaScript, HTML, CSS, Python, SQL.
    2:48:33 I mean, that is, SQL squeal is a programming language.
    2:48:33 Yeah.
    2:48:36 It’s an incredibly sophisticated programming language.
    2:48:36 Yeah.
    2:48:38 SQL is interesting.
    2:48:42 I, I would, I believe you can classify it as a programming language.
    2:48:45 It does have like, if you have case statements and it’s pretty crazy what you can do with it.
    2:48:46 You can do functions.
    2:48:47 You can do all that.
    2:48:47 Yeah.
    2:48:48 It’s, you should, restored procedures.
    2:48:50 That’s how you make your life hell.
    2:49:01 Um, I will say that all the top languages right there are, none of them are like strict, uh, static type languages.
    2:49:04 And so even TypeScript, you can, you know, I don’t like this any.
    2:49:08 And so for people that are learning, doing something that’s much more strict would be great.
    2:49:17 Something like Go, Rust, um, even, I mean, even C Sharp, C++, like anything that kind of changes your perspective of types.
    2:49:19 I think it’s really helpful to kind of go through.
    2:49:23 They’re not getting nearly as much love on this most popular language list, but I think they’re very fantastic.
    2:49:24 All right.
    2:49:28 Well, if I put a gun to your head, five top five languages, let’s, let’s list them all.
    2:49:34 There’s a bright eyed 20 year old asking you, what are the top languages to, five languages to learn?
    2:49:42 Um, if I were to pick five languages that I think people should learn, or at least, uh, let’s restate it this way.
    2:49:46 I’m going to say a couple languages and you should at least explore some of them.
    2:49:49 I think you should explore, explore a Lucy language.
    2:49:57 So, uh, Python slash JavaScript, where there is truly only one type, which is a boxed value, which is a multivariant, different types underneath the hood.
    2:49:57 Right.
    2:49:58 What’d you call it?
    2:49:59 A Lucy language?
    2:50:00 A Lucy goosey language, right?
    2:50:01 It’s a dynamic language.
    2:50:02 Okay.
    2:50:04 Um, and so I think it’s really good to explore one of those two.
    2:50:06 So I’d put Python or JavaScript right there.
    2:50:08 Even Lua, throw Lua in the bunch.
    2:50:10 I think you should explore a strict language.
    2:50:13 Uh, so I’d do something like Rust, Go.
    2:50:16 Um, I think those are both really, really great.
    2:50:16 C++?
    2:50:18 You can do C++.
    2:50:20 You can do some type erasure in C++.
    2:50:24 You can do it with Go as well, but it’s, for the most part, that’s, it’s a great language to do that in.
    2:50:25 Um, it can get a little wild.
    2:50:26 New C++ seems great.
    2:50:28 Everyone keeps telling me new C++ is great.
    2:50:32 Um, it has every feature you’ve ever wanted and all the features you don’t want.
    2:50:33 Yeah, exactly.
    2:50:37 I mean, there’s smart pointers, there’s dump pointers, there’s all kinds of pointers.
    2:50:39 There’s no memory leaks.
    2:50:40 That’s not an issue.
    2:50:42 Face guns, soft beds.
    2:50:42 There’s everything in there.
    2:50:45 Unless you like memory leaks that it has that too.
    2:50:47 If you want that kind of thing, it’s great.
    2:50:47 Okay, how about this one?
    2:50:54 Languages that I actually want to really learn, that at least sit in my curiosity bank.
    2:51:00 There’s three languages, which is going to be Swift, Elixir, OCaml.
    2:51:04 And then I’m going to throw Odin in there, just to, just because ginger bell is great.
    2:51:08 But Elixir and OCaml, I don’t have a strong functional language underneath my belt.
    2:51:10 That’s something that I just genuinely lack.
    2:51:14 Yeah, I’ve heard incredible things about Elixir, about Odin, about OCaml.
    2:51:18 Obviously, I’m a person, as you know, who loves Lisp.
    2:51:19 I have never done Lisp.
    2:51:22 Lisp could be in that category too, just like learn or closure.
    2:51:24 I think at this point is what everyone tells you to use.
    2:51:32 So in the case of Lisp, I don’t want to speak negatively about Lisp, but it’s important about like modern community, what the community looks like.
    2:51:37 And it seems like there’s an excited, maybe small, but an excited community around Elixir, Odin, and OCaml.
    2:51:38 So that helps.
    2:51:39 Yeah.
    2:51:44 So you can post shit on Twitter that you’re like, I accomplished this and people get excited and it’s nice.
    2:51:45 It’s a good feeling.
    2:51:50 You can post like something on Twitter and you’ll get like a thousand likes if you do something cool on Elixir.
    2:51:50 Yeah.
    2:51:50 Okay.
    2:51:56 Like, which is a pretty big, that’s like a pretty big amount of people to like a post for such a niche topic.
    2:51:56 Yeah.
    2:51:58 Programming is already a pretty small topic.
    2:51:59 Then you get into functional program.
    2:52:01 That’s a small topic in a small topic.
    2:52:02 Yeah.
    2:52:03 I don’t get that much.
    2:52:06 If I post something about Emacs, I’ll get crickets.
    2:52:12 If I post something, if I proudly use NeoVim, there’d be a lot of people like, good job.
    2:52:13 Because it is the best editor.
    2:52:15 Yeah.
    2:52:16 Maybe it’s just hype.
    2:52:18 Come back to the civil war, Wax.
    2:52:19 Yeah.
    2:52:26 Sometimes you have to sacrifice and go from the superior editor that is Emacs and choose NeoVim just to be popular.
    2:52:30 You sacrifice integrity and values and quality for just popularity.
    2:52:31 So that’s a choice you made.
    2:52:33 I love how you put it.
    2:52:33 Okay.
    2:52:36 Anyway, what were we talking about?
    2:52:37 I like how you’re doing this in bunches.
    2:52:38 That’s great.
    2:52:42 Right now, my kind of side honeys that I’m exploring is…
    2:52:42 Side honeys.
    2:52:43 Yeah, side honeys.
    2:52:44 They’re not my mainstay.
    2:52:48 Right now, Go is kind of my favorite one to build a web app in.
    2:52:53 Like, if I’m going to build some sort of backend with a lot of complicated logic, Go is just so convenient.
    2:52:57 But I get really frustrated with its ability to express everything that I need.
    2:53:01 Like, if you have a list, a heterogeneous list, a list that contains two types.
    2:53:04 Go is just really not that fun to use.
    2:53:06 And so I could see…
    2:53:13 So the ones I’m exploring is Jai, or J, or the language, as Jonathan Blow says, and Zig.
    2:53:15 And both of them have a lot of power to them.
    2:53:16 They’re both very interesting.
    2:53:18 They definitely have foot guns in them.
    2:53:20 They’re definitely more, you know…
    2:53:22 They don’t take it easy on you.
    2:53:26 Zig seems like it’s a really amazing language, and so does Jai.
    2:53:27 They’re both very cool.
    2:53:35 Yeah, actually, I saw Dave Plummer’s testing of close to 100 languages for speed, and Zig came out on top.
    2:53:36 Yeah, that was a mistake.
    2:53:39 I mean, when I say mistake, nothing against Dave Plummer.
    2:53:40 He’s an extremely talented engineer.
    2:53:47 It’s just that Zig, C, C++, all those languages that were being tested, they’re all LLVM backends, right?
    2:53:50 That’s the one that actually turns the thing into the executable part.
    2:53:56 And if there’s a variation in speed, it just means in one language, you didn’t quite express what you’re supposed to correctly.
    2:53:59 Like, there’s the language ball test that’s been bouncing around on Twitter.
    2:54:02 Zig was like sixth or seventh below.
    2:54:03 I forget what language is.
    2:54:15 I played around with the example, added the word no alias to the argument, which means that the piece of memory that’s coming into this function, there’s no global pointers, there’s nothing to it.
    2:54:20 And so the compiler can make these really cool optimizations, and I made it faster than the C version.
    2:54:24 So it just means that it’s just not correctly specified, is all that means.
    2:54:26 Yeah, but it’s still exciting.
    2:54:31 To me, the competition between Zig, Rust, and C++ is really interesting.
    2:54:36 Like, part of it’s for speed, part of it’s for how easy it is to write performant code.
    2:54:43 I’ll say something that’s, the reason why I think Zig is so interesting, comparatively to, say, C or Rust, C is like the ultimate language.
    2:54:46 It can do anything, you have pre-processor macros, you can do quite a bit with it.
    2:54:51 But it’s also really difficult, and it’s also really simple, and you can learn it.
    2:54:52 So it’s kind of its own unique beast.
    2:54:59 And when you get really good at C, C is a magical language, and people are really great at it, and people speak very highly of it.
    2:55:01 Rust is like this ultra-safe language.
    2:55:03 What you can do in C, you just can’t even express in Rust.
    2:55:07 Rust is going to be the safe man that holds you at night, keeping you warm, right?
    2:55:08 It’s going to be just the greatest.
    2:55:10 But somewhere in the middle lies Zig.
    2:55:11 Zig has optionals.
    2:55:18 If you’re not familiar with optionals, that just simply means there’s a value here, or there’s not, but you first have to check that before you can use it.
    2:55:21 So it prevents that whole null pointer dereferencing segfault problem.
    2:55:23 And that’s not available in C.
    2:55:25 Just by default, you have to kind of build that thing in.
    2:55:28 It is the only option in Rust.
    2:55:33 But Zig says, hey, if you have a pointer, you can’t express it as null unless if you mark it that it can be null.
    2:55:34 There’s ways around it.
    2:55:36 There’s other types of pointers and stuff like that that can do that.
    2:55:41 But for the most part, Zig will give you safety for the most part, right?
    2:55:43 So it’s like a little bit of safety, but more like C.
    2:55:49 So it kind of gives you everything you kind of want in that region where you can express safe code and unsafe code.
    2:55:50 It’s very easy to write.
    2:55:55 It’s very pretty, or at least the idea behind it is very pretty.
    2:55:56 The language itself is bland, but.
    2:55:58 Wow, there’s beauty in everything.
    2:55:58 Yeah.
    2:55:59 Prime.
    2:56:02 You’ve programmed in Rust a lot.
    2:56:04 What do you love about Rust?
    2:56:05 What are the strengths?
    2:56:06 What are the weaknesses?
    2:56:09 Maybe you can speak about memory management that you already mentioned.
    2:56:10 Yeah.
    2:56:13 The challenge of memory management that several of these languages address.
    2:56:15 But yeah, what do you love about Rust?
    2:56:24 What I love about Rust, I love that it’s that the ability to free the memory that you’re using is directly tied to the stack.
    2:56:31 So whenever you create something, there’s a stack variable or there’s some amount of stack memory, whether it’s a pointer off to the heap,
    2:56:32 a pointer and a length.
    2:56:39 So, you know, some amount of memory on the stack and then some memory on the heap, because like a string is not all on the stack.
    2:56:40 It’s some on the heap, some on the stack.
    2:56:46 And when that stack variable goes out of scope and gets cleaned up, it also cleans up what’s on the heap.
    2:56:51 So it kind of simplifies this whole idea of, whoops, I forgot to free my memory.
    2:56:52 It just does it for you.
    2:56:55 So it’s not a garbage collector, which we’ll do it sometime later.
    2:56:58 It’s not like C where you have to call it yourself.
    2:56:59 It’s somewhere in between.
    2:57:05 Now, there’s a lot of strategies people use, arenas and all that, that make that C part much easier.
    2:57:07 I’m just not even mentioning it, but it just makes it a lot easier.
    2:57:09 But Russ does that really beautifully.
    2:57:12 And it’s just like a really cool idea about it.
    2:57:13 And I really like that.
    2:57:23 And the second thing that I think Russ does really like is such a good thing is that mutability of something is you have to specify it.
    2:57:26 So you don’t just create a variable and then mutate it.
    2:57:29 You have to say, this is not only a variable, it’s a mutable variable.
    2:57:33 And I think that just makes code really readable and really understandable.
    2:57:37 Because anything that does not have the word mute next to it, you know for a fact it cannot change.
    2:57:42 So there’s some rules around that, but you get the general idea.
    2:57:46 Unlike most programming languages, you have to explicitly state that this is going to be changed.
    2:57:47 This is going to be changed.
    2:57:48 Yeah.
    2:57:49 Yeah, that’s really interesting.
    2:57:50 I mean, it’s safe.
    2:57:56 It’s trying to be – and the safety might be – it’s create limitations.
    2:57:59 Let us consult the AI overlords.
    2:58:06 Russ is a blazing fast memory-efficient systems programming language that emphasizes performance, type safety, and concurrency.
    2:58:14 The language enforces memory safety without using a garbage collector, as you said.
    2:58:20 Instead, utilizing the unique, quote, borrow checker that tracks object lifetimes at compile time.
    2:58:26 This prevents common programming errors like non-pointer, dereferencing, and memory leaks, and so on.
    2:58:27 Yeah.
    2:58:30 So you’ve also spoken about metaprogramming.
    2:58:34 Which of these languages do you like for the metaprogramming?
    2:58:37 I love metaprogramming in C++, but it’s a giant mess.
    2:58:41 At least when I program C++, C++17 standard, I believe.
    2:58:44 It’s just a mess, especially a mess to debug.
    2:58:45 Yeah.
    2:58:48 I would consider myself kind of a metaprogramming newbie.
    2:58:51 I have only solved some amount of problems with it.
    2:58:58 That’s kind of like what this year is for, is for me to really – I want to see where the ends can go in that, so I don’t have a strong opinion on this one.
    2:59:07 Zig, one thing I really like about Zig is that the metaprogramming is also the language itself, so you don’t have to – like, there’s not an alternative.
    2:59:09 So with Rust, there’s an alternative.
    2:59:12 When you create a macro, you have to do the macro syntax.
    2:59:14 With Zig, it’s just – it is the thing.
    2:59:17 You just program it, and you add the word comp time if you want it to be a compile time only.
    2:59:26 So you can do, like – you can create the list of prime numbers at compile time in Zig, which is kind of an interesting, unique thing.
    2:59:31 So you have code that executes that compile time, and then you can take advantage of the result of it at runtime.
    2:59:33 So, neat, right?
    2:59:34 Like, that’s how I’d look at it.
    2:59:40 But again, I haven’t used it to the point where I feel like I can super authoritatively talk about it.
    2:59:42 You have been undecided.
    2:59:44 What language are you going for this year?
    2:59:46 I’m going to keep Go as my mainstay.
    2:59:58 My two-side honeys, Jai and Zig, I’m going to explore and try to build out a service in them that can do a bunch of talking to, say, Chad Chippity and Eleven Labs and send stuff down to client and work with WebSockets.
    3:00:03 And I want to make sure that – I just want to see kind of how do they perform in this realm.
    3:00:05 And, you know, I may be using the language incorrectly.
    3:00:08 Like, Jai, I’m not exactly – it’s not really been designed for the web world.
    3:00:14 I just got done writing the ability to read Twitch chat, and it required me to do Berkeley Sockets.
    3:00:17 So if you’re unfamiliar with Berkeley Sockets, it’s like the old way of doing it.
    3:00:18 It’s how you do it in C.
    3:00:23 So you have to kind of go through the whole nine yards of creating your own connection.
    3:00:24 I have to create my own connection.
    3:00:25 I have to read from the socket.
    3:00:27 Then I have to parse out all the IRC, right?
    3:00:29 Like, you have to kind of build it from scratch.
    3:00:32 There’s not like a new TCP connection to this server.
    3:00:33 You have to be like, I’m creating a socket.
    3:00:37 You’re going to be of the IPv4 family and TCP.
    3:00:44 And you’re going to do – you know, I’m going to now have to take your address and go look up your address with DNS, get that address back, and then connect it to a TCP.
    3:00:45 So it’s a lot more manual still.
    3:00:48 It’s a lot more raw in that area, but it’s fun.
    3:00:53 What are some epic projects you’ve built on stream that jump to memory?
    3:00:56 My most favorite – sorry for interrupting you.
    3:00:58 Sorry, I’m getting – I’m really jazzed right now.
    3:00:59 Let’s go.
    3:00:59 Okay.
    3:01:00 So jazzed.
    3:01:01 Jazz hands.
    3:01:05 My most favorite project was the one I did last year.
    3:01:11 Someone built a Doom ASCII port so you could play Doom with ASCII.
    3:01:13 So that means you could play it in your terminal.
    3:01:14 Very, very fun.
    3:01:15 Very exciting.
    3:01:19 So I made a Go program that could spawn out the Doom ASCII.
    3:01:25 Then I took that Doom ASCII and I sent it to the browser so that people could play Doom ASCII in the browser.
    3:01:36 But then I made it so that Twitch chat could control that instance of Doom ASCII by piping in Twitch chat, taking the average of the movements over so much time, and replaying it as if it was a controller.
    3:01:40 And I had Twitch chat beat level one by spamming it.
    3:01:43 But the fun part was I used a bunch of fun encoding techniques.
    3:01:50 I used, like, quad trees to be able to take smaller amounts, to use run length and coding, tried to create my own compression algorithm.
    3:01:55 Because if you’re sending out a bunch of ASCII stuff, it’s still pretty expensive because you have to represent color.
    3:01:56 Color’s not cheap.
    3:01:59 On top of it, you have to represent what does it look like?
    3:02:00 What does the ASCII look like?
    3:02:03 Well, I realized, you know, there’s all these fun techniques you can do for compression.
    3:02:12 Like, the shape of the ASCII you send down is, in a lot of these engines, are actually just proportional to the lumosity of that pixel.
    3:02:16 So, like, you’d use an 8 to represent, or a pound sign to represent, like, white.
    3:02:21 But black, you’re going to want to do, like, a period, or a comma, or a bar, you know, something smaller.
    3:02:29 So, it’s like, I then developed all these different compression algorithms to turn a bunch of data, which would take, you know, I forget how much it would take.
    3:02:36 It could take gigabytes upon gigabytes to be able to send out to thousands of people to all see the same image at the same time, to all be able to interact with Doom at the same time.
    3:02:42 I turned it from gigabytes into kilobytes by just trying to figure out how to, like, make it as small as possible and send it all out.
    3:02:43 It was super fun.
    3:02:44 Absolutely had a great time.
    3:02:48 So, you’re actually sending it to all the people in chat.
    3:02:54 So, where’s that pipeline, how chat is able to control the Doom thing?
    3:02:55 Twitch chat.
    3:02:58 Yeah, so they would go, people would span W.
    3:03:06 And if you said W, it would hold down W for 150 milliseconds if the majority of people during that time period said W.
    3:03:07 Nice.
    3:03:07 Okay.
    3:03:11 And how are they getting the input of where you are on screen?
    3:03:15 So, originally, I was going to send that through Twitch, but Twitch is, like, five seconds behind.
    3:03:17 So, that’s why I piped it out to a website.
    3:03:18 Nice.
    3:03:24 So, everybody could see from my computer to the website, and typical lag was right around 70 milliseconds.
    3:03:28 So, it’s like they could mostly see what was happening in that short period of time.
    3:03:30 It was pretty exciting.
    3:03:38 So, we had 1,000 people, or I had somewhere between 1,000 to 1,400 people smashing Ws and pressing F to fire and turning, and we killed some zombies.
    3:03:39 Yeah, yeah.
    3:03:42 We blew up the barrel at the very end of level 1 to kill the imp.
    3:03:45 How are you getting the Ws from the Twitch chat?
    3:03:45 Is there an API?
    3:03:46 IRC.
    3:03:47 I was using IRC.
    3:03:50 So, just a little TCP socket, and then you just parse out IRC.
    3:03:51 Okay.
    3:03:53 And there’s very little lag there.
    3:03:53 Okay.
    3:03:55 Yeah, I think it’s a couple hundred milliseconds, though.
    3:04:02 It’s enough that it actually made it a little bit difficult, because people would often overturn and then go forward and, like, miss the door, and then they had to go back.
    3:04:04 That’s awesome.
    3:04:05 It was awesome.
    3:04:10 So, that was my favorite, I think, project of all time, just because I never got to do, like, a lot of encoding.
    3:04:14 Encoding is kind of like, you know, what do you normally do?
    3:04:15 Okay, I need to send something down.
    3:04:15 I don’t know.
    3:04:16 Gzip it.
    3:04:17 Server will just do it.
    3:04:18 Server just does the right thing.
    3:04:19 I don’t need to think about it.
    3:04:20 So, instead, it’s like, I think about it.
    3:04:22 I’m going to send the right thing.
    3:04:24 Yeah, you have to think about the compression.
    3:04:24 Yeah.
    3:04:25 And there you go.
    3:04:29 That’s some more love towards FFmpeg, because they have to think about that a lot.
    3:04:32 Ultimately inspired by FFmpeg and their awesomeness.
    3:04:37 So, can you speak to just the chat community in general?
    3:04:46 Like, a big part of what you do in terms of streaming is the humans that are communicating with you live.
    3:04:50 Can you talk to the different chat communities?
    3:04:53 First of all, which is the best chat community?
    3:04:55 YouTube, Twitch, or X?
    3:04:57 This is where I feel bad for YouTube.
    3:05:02 Because I do think it’s technically the worst, but it’s not YouTube’s fault.
    3:05:03 And let me kind of explain why.
    3:05:06 And then I will explain why you’re wrong, but go ahead.
    3:05:09 Yeah, I know you love YouTube, but let me explain why.
    3:05:25 Is that when you go on Twitch, you go to anyone’s channel, they have this, like, cultural human centipede thing that’s happening where, as the memes flow in, all of Twitch kind of reacts and morphs to all those memes.
    3:05:27 So, every channel you go to, every channel you go to, every channel you go to, every channel you go to has this, like, same culture.
    3:05:32 And there’s a lot of similar emotes and everything, so it’s very tight-knit.
    3:05:42 So, when I stream, I get all the same jokes that you would pretty much see if you saw, I don’t know, Soda Poppin or some big streamer, Asmongold, whoever, Protate Software Streaming.
    3:05:46 All the same memes would all flow through the exact same kind of pipe.
    3:05:49 And so, it’s a very holistic kind of community.
    3:05:52 So, every time you’re making jokes, you’re making jokes that are, like, in the ether.
    3:05:54 Twitter kind of has that, too.
    3:05:56 Tech Twitter kind of has, like, a set of jokes.
    3:05:58 And so, you can kind of see it.
    3:06:01 The problem with Twitter chat is that there’s just nobody there right now.
    3:06:12 You know, typically, like, just to put it into perspective, I have somewhere between, like, 1,500 to 3,000 people on Twitch.
    3:06:14 Somewhere between 800 to 2,000 on YouTube.
    3:06:16 And, like, 50 people on Twitter.
    3:06:19 So, it’s, like, the difference is massive.
    3:06:25 But they all kind of, Twitter has that same thing that’s developing where there’s, like, memes that are constantly flowing through it.
    3:06:27 And so, they’re very highly connected.
    3:06:29 YouTube just doesn’t seem to have that.
    3:06:31 They’re just a bunch of people.
    3:06:33 And people go to YouTube for various reasons.
    3:06:34 I’m going to YouTube to learn.
    3:06:36 So, they come in and they want to learn.
    3:06:38 So, they’re not, like, on the meme train.
    3:06:40 They’re not in this, like, cultural zeitgeist train.
    3:06:44 They’re just like, but why would you use this if statement to win a switch statement in this one particular case?
    3:06:47 And you’re just like, well, that’s not what I’m trying to do here.
    3:06:47 Yeah.
    3:06:49 You want to captain the meme train.
    3:06:52 Or you want to ride on the meme train.
    3:06:52 Yeah.
    3:06:56 Or you just want to be able to, like, create a culture on your chat.
    3:07:00 Because your chat’s going to be some variation of that kind of zeitgeist that’s flowing through Twitch.
    3:07:04 And it kind of is very contiguous between X and Twitch.
    3:07:06 It just feels really out of sync with YouTube.
    3:07:08 And then YouTube particularly does a bad job.
    3:07:10 And some people would argue a good job.
    3:07:12 Because you can swim.
    3:07:14 Swim being you can actually change what timestamp you’re at.
    3:07:21 So all of a sudden you’ll be like, oh, yeah, you know, I, you know, something about, like, driving to soccer in my minivan.
    3:07:24 And then 20 minutes later, you’ll be talking about Zig.
    3:07:27 And someone’s like, I personally use whatever to drive to soccer.
    3:07:29 And you’re like, what are we talking about?
    3:07:32 Like, so YouTube is a very disjointed chat as well.
    3:07:34 Because it depends on where they’re at within the video.
    3:07:36 Swim comes from Netflix, by the way.
    3:07:37 It’s called Swim.
    3:07:38 Swim.
    3:07:39 The term.
    3:07:42 Yeah, that’s, that’s, that we, people said swim.
    3:07:44 Oh, so you’re, you’re, okay.
    3:07:45 Swimming through the.
    3:07:47 Yeah, so you’re not just making up the term.
    3:07:47 Thank you.
    3:07:47 Wow.
    3:07:50 Yeah, but it’s probably made up and probably only 10 people said it at Netflix.
    3:07:51 And so no one’s going to know it.
    3:07:52 And they’re going to be like, yeah, right.
    3:07:53 That’s all happens on Netflix.
    3:07:56 So, guys, going back to projects.
    3:07:59 What, what projects on stream or in general?
    3:08:02 No, you need to answer why YouTube chat’s the best chat.
    3:08:04 Well, you kind of convinced me.
    3:08:06 Okay, why YouTube is the best chat.
    3:08:10 Well, I think I’m just a hater.
    3:08:12 That’s, that’s basically what it boils down to.
    3:08:13 And I’m just talking shit.
    3:08:18 And I’m probably just like from the outside shooting, you know, shooting in because Twitch
    3:08:22 is such a fun culture, you know, of memes.
    3:08:28 And so it’s just fun to shoot from the outside to like, to like egg the house of Twitch.
    3:08:35 And then I just sit back on my lawn chair and with a small YouTube community, just talking
    3:08:35 shit.
    3:08:37 No, you’re, you’re absolutely right.
    3:08:41 There is a, there’s a real sort of sense of community that Twitch can, can form.
    3:08:43 But I just like the openness of YouTube.
    3:08:47 It’s just better at opening to the world.
    3:08:48 It’s more accessible.
    3:08:51 It’s easier to share.
    3:08:53 It’s just a more established platform.
    3:08:53 That’s all.
    3:08:54 Fully on that.
    3:08:59 For, for the non, uh, for the open world.
    3:09:04 Like I can send it to people that don’t usually watch video game streaming or that kind of stuff.
    3:09:04 Yeah.
    3:09:07 If you send a Twitch link, they’re like, I don’t like video games.
    3:09:09 And you’re like, well, actually it’s not video.
    3:09:13 Like there’s, there’s, that talk happens every single time you mentioned Twitch.
    3:09:16 Cause Twitch does have a perspective about it that YouTube does not.
    3:09:22 I was just on, uh, uh, Joe Rogan’s podcast and I think it came up.
    3:09:25 He asked something like, is Twitch still a thing?
    3:09:28 So that just gives you an example.
    3:09:33 Uh, and then, and then Jamie, uh, said, yeah, yeah, it’s definitely still a thing.
    3:09:34 It’s still like growing and so on.
    3:09:43 And so, yeah, there’s just a big slice of humans that don’t dissipate in the Twitch, uh, Twitch sphere.
    3:09:43 Yeah.
    3:09:44 I just like talking shit.
    3:09:45 So yeah.
    3:09:46 That’s a beautiful answer.
    3:09:54 But it’s cool that you sort of make it accessible on all these different platforms and have high hopes for X, but yeah, it’s feature wise.
    3:09:56 It still has a lot of growing up to do.
    3:09:59 And, and just like, why do people use X?
    3:10:03 You typically are going there for like a text-based interaction you want to look through.
    3:10:08 So I also think they just have like a user expectation change that needs to happen.
    3:10:09 And that, that just takes a while.
    3:10:11 You know, that’s going to take a little bit before people get to it.
    3:10:17 I think their idea of audio first is a great first step where people can kind of listen to it and have the phone away.
    3:10:21 Maybe there’s a lot of like changes that have to happen before X can be successful.
    3:10:24 I mean, X is this incredible comment section.
    3:10:26 Just like Reddit, right?
    3:10:28 So it’s like, no, no, no, you said incredible.
    3:10:31 That’s not Reddit, uh, comment section.
    3:10:31 Correct.
    3:10:32 Comment.
    3:10:32 Yeah.
    3:10:38 Incredibly dynamic and vibrant, even if it’s, uh, yeah.
    3:10:43 What is the, what is the technological platform?
    3:10:50 Like how does the, the interface and the technology shape the discourse?
    3:10:54 It’s fascinating because X is a different style than Reddit.
    3:10:59 Different style than like Facebook, different style than Instagram.
    3:11:01 It’s interesting.
    3:11:04 And all those comment sections are different technologically.
    3:11:12 Like how the sorting is done, how easy it is to sort of, uh, uh, build a community around it.
    3:11:15 You know, cause YouTube is not really a community.
    3:11:18 Every single video on YouTube has its own mini community.
    3:11:21 You’re like all talking shit on just that one video.
    3:11:22 Yeah.
    3:11:24 Like you’re not, you can’t jump across.
    3:11:26 There’s no like, Hey Bill.
    3:11:26 Hey George.
    3:11:29 You know, there’s no cross talk that happens in multiple videos.
    3:11:30 Yeah.
    3:11:32 But community is awesome.
    3:11:33 I love community.
    3:11:34 I love the feeling of community.
    3:11:36 And I guess that’s what Twitch really provides.
    3:11:38 YouTube also does have it though.
    3:11:42 Like they have an aggregate community, you know, there’s a lot of fun comments and all
    3:11:44 that on the videos and a lot of thumbs up.
    3:11:47 And then you see that fun discourse that happens.
    3:11:48 And it’s like, that’s the community.
    3:11:50 It’s just only a certain slice sees it.
    3:11:54 I think that’s even more so on YouTube for live streaming.
    3:11:58 All the same folks show up and they talk shit.
    3:11:59 They celebrate.
    3:12:01 They all like the, the meme train arise.
    3:12:01 Yeah.
    3:12:02 Okay.
    3:12:06 So now what projects shape you as a programmer?
    3:12:11 What are the ones you streamed or offline?
    3:12:16 For me, I don’t know if there’s like a one project I can point to, but I can, I can point
    3:12:20 to a specific spot where I think it happens and where I think you can learn a lot from.
    3:12:25 Any small program you write will be somewhere between like a thousand to 5,000 lines of code.
    3:12:27 I consider like a pretty dang small project.
    3:12:31 You can kind of correlate this to any feature within a larger system as well.
    3:12:36 You know, a specific feature on a website could be a thousand lines, a couple thousand
    3:12:36 lines.
    3:12:40 There’s a point in which all of your choices add up.
    3:12:45 And that’s, I typically find that right around five to 10,000 lines of code, the choices you’ve
    3:12:47 made either weigh you down or kind of free you up.
    3:12:52 And so it’s right in that, that I feel like I learned the most is because I love getting
    3:12:56 to that point in a project or in some small part of the code base.
    3:13:01 Because at that point I get a test a, how good were my initial gut decisions about how
    3:13:05 I designed software, but B, now I need to go back and think about like, how am I going
    3:13:07 to do testing across this in a more effective way?
    3:13:09 How can I scale this out to 20,000 lines of code?
    3:13:12 How can I do all these things with what I’ve got?
    3:13:13 Or do I need to kind of rethink it?
    3:13:18 And I find that that’s really where the best learning happens is that everybody has probably
    3:13:20 a different number that exists.
    3:13:26 And as you go to each one of these numbers, or how well or holistic you want your project
    3:13:29 to be, I think that you’ll come up with different numbers.
    3:13:32 And I think that number should just get bigger as you get more experienced.
    3:13:35 Because, you know, there’s like, there’s projects that are a million lines of code, but they’re
    3:13:37 most certainly not holistic, right?
    3:13:42 Like every part of the code base is some age at some capsule of time with some sort of programming
    3:13:43 style.
    3:13:48 Some is more functional, more class based, more God help your soul for its pre processor
    3:13:50 macros and C++, right?
    3:13:53 Like there’s like all these different kind of things you’ll find throughout time.
    3:13:58 And so that’s why I kind of try to think about it as like the feature or the thing you’re
    3:13:58 working on.
    3:14:04 It’s usually about 5,000 lines is where I find that things get kind of, did I make good or
    3:14:04 bad decisions?
    3:14:07 And that’s where I do all my learning is right on that phase.
    3:14:10 I’m trying to get it to the point where I should be able to shoot from the hip and do 20,000
    3:14:11 lines and not be upset about it.
    3:14:17 So first of all, on the just enjoying the thing you create part, yeah, about there, you
    3:14:21 can sit back and see all the parts dancing together.
    3:14:29 For me also, debugging, you get to see the choices you make materializes, like how easy
    3:14:29 it is to debug.
    3:14:31 Like I’m a big proponent.
    3:14:33 I think you’ve mentioned this in the past.
    3:14:36 I put asserts everywhere.
    3:14:38 No, you are the reason why I do that.
    3:14:39 Yeah.
    3:14:40 You’re like the first one.
    3:14:40 Keep on going.
    3:14:40 Sorry.
    3:14:41 Really?
    3:14:41 Okay.
    3:14:49 So for me, one of the joys, whether it’s a try catch box, whether it’s a cert, whether
    3:15:00 it’s a testing, I get to see the payoff of all the minefield of asserts I’ve laid out before
    3:15:07 and me in my kingdom by how quickly I can debug a system as it grows larger and I can, first
    3:15:13 of all, discover errors before they become real bugs and also how quickly I can solve those
    3:15:14 errors.
    3:15:15 And that brings me joy.
    3:15:23 So for me, a lot of the joys of programming is creating powerful systems that don’t break
    3:15:27 down, that work correctly, that work correctly in majority of the cases.
    3:15:34 And they’re sort of the stress testing the system and getting all of the signals from that system
    3:15:41 that everything is working correctly is something that fills me with joy and makes sure that the
    3:15:42 system actually works.
    3:15:45 So yeah, that, I don’t know if it’s five, 10,000 lines of code.
    3:15:48 If it’s Java or C++, it’s millions lines of code.
    3:15:53 But yeah, in Python, yeah, I would say 10,000 lines of code.
    3:15:55 That’s when you first get to see the magic.
    3:15:56 But anyway, you were saying.
    3:15:59 Okay, so you and John Carmack had a conversation about asserts.
    3:15:59 Yes.
    3:16:03 You talked about this idea of putting asserts everywhere that effectively crashed the program
    3:16:09 when you have some state in your program that should not be represented and you have made
    3:16:10 this choice actively.
    3:16:13 And so I’ve never done that before.
    3:16:17 And I know this is like an old technique and I obviously must be too young or too dumb to
    3:16:19 know that this was a thing people did.
    3:16:22 I grew up in Java and I think that’s probably why I didn’t run into this.
    3:16:26 So I saw that and I was like, I’m curious about how to use asserts more.
    3:16:28 And then I ran into a person named Yoran.
    3:16:30 He’s the CEO and creator of Tiger Beetle.
    3:16:34 It’s like the world’s fastest, greatest financial database.
    3:16:37 And it was spawned out of a company that needed to do a bunch of financial transactions.
    3:16:38 And it’s written in Zig.
    3:16:42 And what they do is they do deterministic simulation testing.
    3:16:48 And they just use NASA’s kind of guarantee for creating really great software.
    3:16:52 So like don’t use use size, specify your exact size of int you expect everywhere.
    3:16:55 All these kind of like things they do to be very specific.
    3:17:01 And one of them is that every function should contain two asserts, whether it’s positive
    3:17:04 space, like, you know, these things should happen or negative space.
    3:17:08 Like you should, this pointer should never be null.
    3:17:10 You’re programming into things that should never happen.
    3:17:12 Normally you just never specify that.
    3:17:13 You’d never think about that.
    3:17:17 So every single function everywhere has all these asserts and these asserts run both in
    3:17:19 production and in testing.
    3:17:20 They’re always on.
    3:17:25 And then they take determination simulation test, deterministic simulation testing and
    3:17:31 run like 200 years of just random data, just complete slop going through the system and
    3:17:32 seeing how far it goes.
    3:17:35 And when an assert happens, they’re like, here’s the input that caused it.
    3:17:37 Here’s every last little bit that happened.
    3:17:39 And now you can identify where this went wrong.
    3:17:40 And it was so cool.
    3:17:45 So between you, John Carmack and you’re on, that’s where I like, okay, I got a real and
    3:17:47 NASA, I’ll throw NASA bone as well.
    3:17:48 NASA can join in on that one.
    3:17:51 I was like, okay, I want to try this.
    3:17:51 And I did try it.
    3:17:55 I built a kind of like this big reverse proxy for me trying to do some game development stuff.
    3:17:58 And I just went ham on the asserts.
    3:18:02 And then I built a whole simulation testing thing that could do everything deterministically.
    3:18:06 So, you know, even the result of requests would all come in specific orders.
    3:18:08 And I found a bunch of bugs that I just would never have found.
    3:18:10 And then I did it for a game I was making.
    3:18:12 I found some bugs where my cursor went off screen.
    3:18:15 It would cause all these different problems because I just never tested them.
    3:18:16 And it was super fun.
    3:18:18 And it’s like a really great way to program.
    3:18:19 Yeah, I think it’s a skill set.
    3:18:20 You go over time.
    3:18:26 It’s not just that you have to specify the preconditions, like everything that has to be true.
    3:18:33 It’s also adding things that are like you might not even think about.
    3:18:37 You have to sort of anticipate really weird things.
    3:18:46 And if you add asserts, especially in complicated functions or in complicated classes that are able
    3:18:50 to catch really weird things, that’s going to save you so many headaches.
    3:18:54 And it’s going to help you learn about your own code.
    3:18:56 This is one of the things.
    3:19:04 I think it was Jonathan Blow that either in conversation with you or was it in presentation,
    3:19:12 he said that when he’s starting on a project, he usually doesn’t know what, like how to implement it,
    3:19:15 like what, how it’s going to work.
    3:19:20 And I think he was saying that he wants to program a language.
    3:19:24 This might have been a criticism of C++, I’m not sure, where he wants to program a language
    3:19:31 that makes it as painless as possible for him to not know what he’s doing, how he’s going
    3:19:34 to implement it, and to quickly get to a place where he figures it out.
    3:19:44 I think there’s a fundamental part of programming is building stuff while not really knowing what
    3:19:46 the next thing you’re doing is.
    3:19:51 You kind of have a loose design, maybe a strict design, but really you’re solving puzzles that
    3:19:55 are not, it is a dark room in a fundamental sense.
    3:20:02 And there you have to anticipate the kind of weirdnesses that might emerge while not really
    3:20:07 knowing everything, just this full like fog, fog of war.
    3:20:14 And there, that’s a real skill to anticipate the kind of issues that might arise and put
    3:20:15 asserts on top of them.
    3:20:23 And it’s also like spiritually, for me, been a really nice way of programming, of building,
    3:20:32 of living life is having like very strict asserts that say like, you’re going to fix this problem
    3:20:33 if it ever arises.
    3:20:34 You can’t just look the other way.
    3:20:39 Like this idea of treating warnings as errors, like make sure your code compiles without any
    3:20:40 warnings.
    3:20:41 That was a big leap for me.
    3:20:45 It’s like, but there’s so many of them and it’s not really that important.
    3:20:48 It’s like, no, no, no warnings.
    3:20:56 Like make sure you treat every single problem, even like fuzzy problems seriously, because that’s
    3:21:02 actually long-term is going to create code that’s much easier to work with, much more fun to
    3:21:06 work with, much more robust, resilient to all kinds of weirdnesses, all that kind of stuff.
    3:21:14 So it’s a different way of approaching coding, probably more NASA-like versus like web programming
    3:21:14 style.
    3:21:19 But yeah, it has made programming for me personally, much more fun.
    3:21:25 Because one of the most painful things about programming is creating when you get past 10,000,
    3:21:29 20,000 lines of code, and you have to find a bug.
    3:21:33 And that bug can take hours.
    3:21:34 It could take days to find.
    3:21:35 And that’s torture.
    3:21:36 Yeah.
    3:21:40 When your system gets sufficiently large, some of these bugs are just, they’re very difficult.
    3:21:45 I, you know, bless anyone’s soul that’s working on million line code bases, because it does.
    3:21:49 It just, I can’t tell you how many times I’ve spent multiple days just trying to figure out
    3:21:53 the root cause of the bug, not even the fix, just like, why does this happen?
    3:21:54 And that’s hard.
    3:21:55 So I love that.
    3:21:58 I just love the asserts because I’m not good at them.
    3:22:03 I can see it’s definitely a skill that I don’t, I don’t put into practice constantly, which
    3:22:05 means it’s just not like a muscle memory type thing.
    3:22:07 And so it’s just one of those things I just love.
    3:22:10 It’s just, it’s such a fascinating way to approach a problem.
    3:22:13 Cause I would have never thought, you know what I’m going to do?
    3:22:15 If I’m wrong, I’m going to crash this thing.
    3:22:18 I’m going to crash it right here because I should never be wrong.
    3:22:21 But instead you’re like, oh, actually that makes perfect sense.
    3:22:22 I should crash this thing.
    3:22:23 I’ve done something terribly wrong here.
    3:22:24 Why would this ever exist?
    3:22:27 And then you’re like, this is going to solve a whole class of problems.
    3:22:28 Yeah.
    3:22:31 And especially if it’s in production, it’s like, well, users are going to see this crash.
    3:22:38 It’s like, yeah, well, you should minimize the number of times any user ever sees the crash,
    3:22:45 not by like having a nice blue screen or whatever the fuck, but like actually stopping everything.
    3:22:50 And that’s going to be, uh, and that’s going to create an incentive for you to never have that
    3:22:51 happen.
    3:22:54 You’re actually going to put in the time to make sure it never happens.
    3:22:57 And the nice part is like with the web and all that, you can always
    3:23:00 pop up something and say, Hey, things have gone very, very wrong.
    3:23:01 We’re unable to recover.
    3:23:04 You can like give them a nice message and then log it off so you can see it and then measure
    3:23:06 how often are you doing it?
    3:23:11 You know, I, I understand that there’s a bit of interestingness to a, um, to a web project.
    3:23:13 Like, do you want to always crash a server?
    3:23:18 There’s a bit of a gamble if you release a bad version and you crash all your servers constantly,
    3:23:21 you know, like that’s a, that’s a pain you’re going to have to accept.
    3:23:26 I think this is more applicable for a single systems like robots and so on.
    3:23:29 You, uh, have struggled with ADHD.
    3:23:35 I think, uh, a lot of people are really inspired by the fact that you’re able to be productive
    3:23:41 and flourish, uh, while having ADHD, how’d you overcome it?
    3:23:44 Well, there’s a lot of things that ADHD affects.
    3:23:51 And so I’ll start with some of the easiest things because there’s like directly applicable
    3:23:54 than like these kinds of collateral damage, applicable things that happen.
    3:24:00 So one thing that has really helped me with ADHD is maturity.
    3:24:04 I think that’s just like a, just a thing that everyone needs more of.
    3:24:09 Meaning that I found myself getting so wiggly and so out of control when I would try to sit
    3:24:11 down and read and I just, I just couldn’t handle it.
    3:24:13 I just felt like I’d read a page and didn’t read anything.
    3:24:17 Uh, the part of me that just went, Oh man, gosh, I just can’t even do this.
    3:24:20 I had to quit, just simply quit listening to it and said, Nope, I’m rereading this page.
    3:24:26 I’m re I remember reading some pages in college, like 18 times in a row, just like I’m going
    3:24:28 to force myself to just do this the correct way.
    3:24:33 And so there’s an aspect of maturity that really helps no matter what I will do the
    3:24:35 thing I’m going to do and I’m going to do it well.
    3:24:38 And maybe it takes me a lot longer and that’s okay.
    3:24:39 That’s not the point of it.
    3:24:41 It’s that I’m doing it and that’s the point.
    3:24:44 And so that’s kind of like one thing that I think just generally helps in it.
    3:24:51 ADHD, no ADHD, you know, the resilience, emotional resilience is just like a really important
    3:24:52 aspect that just helps.
    3:24:55 And so I think that has been a large part that really helps me.
    3:25:02 There’s things that I still obviously struggle with, like it’s clear where I’m really bad
    3:25:12 at stuff and just trying to like think through all the different things that I’m bad at.
    3:25:14 There’s more things I’m bad at than I’m good at.
    3:25:18 And so programming obviously has something that just allows me to remain focused and it’s like
    3:25:19 a strength of mine.
    3:25:24 And so I started off where I could just do it for a little bit and then just through kind
    3:25:26 of that emotional resilience, I was able to start doing it more and more.
    3:25:30 And so now I can just do it for like 10, 12, 15 hours at a time.
    3:25:32 And I absolutely love it.
    3:25:34 And so it’s become kind of like a joy.
    3:25:35 It’s like playing a musical instrument.
    3:25:36 I’m really into it.
    3:25:42 But then if it came down to, hey, you need to go schedule your own, you know, dentistry
    3:25:46 and go do all these other things or make sure the kids have this type of stuff ready
    3:25:53 for, you know, the meals you need to pack throughout the week, I’m historically very bad at that
    3:25:55 and will probably continue to be very bad at that.
    3:26:01 And so I must say that one of the reasons why I excel so much is because I also have a wife
    3:26:03 who is so good to me.
    3:26:09 And she helps clear out a lot of the things in my life that cause a lot of like me kind
    3:26:13 of getting snowballed into a weird spot where I’m just like distracted, getting nothing done.
    3:26:15 And so she’s really helped me.
    3:26:18 So it’d be foolish of me to claim that I’ve defeated ADHD by myself.
    3:26:25 But instead, I find that the places that I can really control, I’ve done a very good job at.
    3:26:29 And the things that I obviously need to do much better at, my wife has helped me a whole bunch.
    3:26:30 And so I’ve kind of cheated.
    3:26:35 Maybe I found a cheat code, a loving wife, but that has been the thing that has really helped.
    3:26:37 You said a lot of interesting things.
    3:26:40 So on the reading and the, for me, it’s also audio book side.
    3:26:47 I do the same thing and I’ve gotten much better at it, which is like, you know, I tune out mentally
    3:26:52 and I, you know, I’ll, yeah, there’s, you know, read a page and you don’t understand anything
    3:26:52 on the page.
    3:26:54 You, you, you, you didn’t actually read it.
    3:27:01 And yeah, you, I, I forced myself to just reread it or re-listen to an audio book, which is much
    3:27:02 more common problem for me now.
    3:27:08 And forcing myself to really pay attention because I, I listened to audio books often when I run
    3:27:10 and it’s so easy to just tune out.
    3:27:10 Yeah.
    3:27:12 It’s a skill.
    3:27:16 Like I didn’t realize how much of a skill listening to an audio book is, especially when there’s
    3:27:19 other sensory inputs, like when you run.
    3:27:23 So I have to force myself to like really pay attention to every single word.
    3:27:29 And if I don’t like tune out and don’t remember what I just listened to in the past 30 seconds,
    3:27:31 I forced myself to re-listen to it.
    3:27:36 And sometimes that means like five times until I like, it’s like punishing myself to like,
    3:27:40 you’re going to listen to this boring shit over and over until you, you get good at that
    3:27:43 little skill of like zoom in.
    3:27:47 And you’re like, yeah, there’s people that are like doing stuff.
    3:27:47 There’s nature.
    3:27:48 It doesn’t matter.
    3:27:52 You’re listening to every single word and loading it in and trying to stay focused.
    3:27:55 Even there’s just so many distractions all around you.
    3:27:55 Yeah.
    3:27:58 It’s definitely a learned skill and it takes a lot of time.
    3:28:01 And when I say, you know, oh, I was able to do from here to here.
    3:28:04 I’m speaking over the course of like five years of doing this every day.
    3:28:09 Like it’s not some small, there’s no, you could, the nice part about that decision though,
    3:28:11 is you can make that decision today.
    3:28:13 You can make it right now.
    3:28:15 You’re gonna be like from here on out, I’ll never make that mistake again.
    3:28:17 I will say I’m going to read 50 pages.
    3:28:19 I will sit down and read 50 pages.
    3:28:22 And when I get distracted, I’ll go back to the last place I remember and I’ll start again.
    3:28:24 And like, that’s a decision you can make.
    3:28:27 That’s a mature, you know, non-emotional decision to make.
    3:28:28 And you can do that.
    3:28:33 It just may be really painful for the first couple of years of making said decisions.
    3:28:35 And then it gets easier and then it gets easier.
    3:28:38 And then it just, it becomes more natural to change yourself.
    3:28:39 Yeah.
    3:28:43 And with every medium, with every platform, I think it’s like a new skill.
    3:28:47 For me, like using social media has been that.
    3:28:52 Just like I ended up like doom scrolling too easily on platforms.
    3:28:58 So, and one solution is not to look at all, which is kind of what I lean on mostly.
    3:29:02 These days, but I feel like I should be able to check, just read.
    3:29:03 Okay.
    3:29:06 Feel a thing, learn a thing, and then put it down.
    3:29:06 Yeah.
    3:29:15 Versus like this glazed look over your eye and you’re not really paying attention anymore and you’re dead inside and you feel horrible afterwards.
    3:29:16 I don’t understand.
    3:29:19 The horrible afterwards is real serious.
    3:29:25 I’ve, I’ve definitely, I can 100% notice that I am a more anxious person the more time I spend scrolling.
    3:29:26 Yeah.
    3:29:27 Yeah.
    3:29:28 I can just feel it.
    3:29:33 It’s like something inside of me that’s kind of, I don’t know how to say it other than it like wants to get out, but I don’t really know what that is.
    3:29:37 It’s, it’s not anger, but it’s not, you know, it’s, it’s very anxious.
    3:29:49 It’s like the opposite of the feeling I have when I wake up in the morning and I’m feeling good and I look out in nature and like look at the sun and just, and it’s like a bird chirping and this kind of thing.
    3:29:56 Like scrolling through social media, even if it’s like super positive stuff or whatever, it’s still not the same feeling as the bird chirping.
    3:30:01 Bird chirping on Instagram is a different bird chirping than in real life.
    3:30:08 Like, cause bird chirping on Instagram, I’ll start swiping until like, there’s like demons of different types fighting inside my head.
    3:30:18 And then I, you know, yeah, different anxiety, insecurity, whatever the hell, just the mixture of chaos versus the bird chirping in real life.
    3:30:19 That is beautiful.
    3:30:22 But again, that’s the same thing as with the audio book.
    3:30:28 It boils down to like, man, these people that talk about meditation, I think that’s probably, they’re onto something.
    3:30:42 It’s like the, that’s what, that’s what it is, is be able to like focus calmly and deliberately on a thing, whether it’s reading or audio book or existence.
    3:30:49 When they sort of observe the breath, you’re able to silent out everything else, remove everything else from focus.
    3:30:50 Yeah, that’s a skill.
    3:30:59 I heard it put really beautifully, which is that we in America really have misunderstood liberty because we typically have liberty as just the freedom to do whatever you want.
    3:31:02 And the argument was that it’s not the freedom to do whatever you want.
    3:31:05 It’s the freedom to be able to do what you will.
    3:31:13 And how often is what you, you actually want to do, you don’t do because you get trapped doing something that you’ve convinced yourself in this quick moment you want to do.
    3:31:15 And so it’s like, I want liberty.
    3:31:25 I want the ability to control my energy and to be able to like do the thing I want to do, not to get distracted and destroyed in all the millions of distractions.
    3:31:32 And some of us get, you know, handed a worse deck of cards, some of us get a better deck of cards, but I don’t think there’s anybody that doesn’t struggle with it in the technological age.
    3:31:34 Yeah, that’s the skill.
    3:31:38 What can you say to the skill of achieving focus and programming?
    3:31:45 Like, do you have a process of how you sit down and try to sort of approach a problem?
    3:31:56 So all the different, not just distractions, but the challenges of starting a project, of thinking through like the design, how to maintain like real focus.
    3:31:59 Because it’s a really difficult intellectual endeavor.
    3:32:01 I guess at this point, I’m lucky.
    3:32:09 But when I first started, I can remember that every last part of programming, I had to go look up.
    3:32:09 I had to go read.
    3:32:12 I had side quests at all time.
    3:32:13 Like every step was a side quest.
    3:32:16 Why is my screen blinking when I’m trying to render this thing out?
    3:32:17 Oh, I didn’t know about double buffering.
    3:32:18 Why is this happening?
    3:32:19 How do I even write to the screen?
    3:32:21 How do you know, like everything was a question.
    3:32:23 I had more questions than answers.
    3:32:26 And so I constantly had this, like the problem of side quests.
    3:32:28 And I find that to be a very exhausting thing.
    3:32:34 But as I learned my instrument very, very well, I don’t have as many side quests.
    3:32:38 I become more and more able to just focus on the thing I want to do.
    3:32:42 And I find that to be something that is just super, super useful.
    3:32:52 So when I say I’m kind of lucky, meaning that I’ve spent so much of my life preparing for this moment, that now when I have the opportunity to do something, I can just do that thing.
    3:32:55 And I don’t like I can be just on an airplane and I can just program for hours.
    3:32:56 I don’t have to look up a single thing.
    3:32:57 I don’t have to do anything.
    3:32:58 I don’t even have to test the code.
    3:33:01 I can write a thousand lines of code on an airplane.
    3:33:04 And I’m very confident that it’s going to be 98% pretty dang good.
    3:33:10 And I’m very happy about that because that allows me just to be in the moment solving the problem I’m trying to solve.
    3:33:14 Then I have 100% of my brain power solving a problem.
    3:33:26 And this is why I also it’s the same reason why I recommend learning how to type and learning your editor so well, you don’t even have to think about the action because the people that have to even if you just look down, that’s still mental processing power.
    3:33:35 You have to spend looking at a keyboard in which you already know where the key is like you do, you know, at this point, if you’ve been typing for thousands of hours, you know, where the key is, just stop looking down.
    3:33:36 You’ll learn really quickly.
    3:33:44 And so it’s like this thing where it’s like, I’m not going to spend all that time and all that mental effort, like looking up the thing.
    3:33:49 I’m going to just memorize, you know, I’m just going to get it in me and then I can go fast and it feels good.
    3:33:55 And so that’s how I’d kind of defeat that is because now I get to do something where it’s like, there’s no more questions.
    3:34:00 It’s now me just expressing myself into this medium and it feels really good.
    3:34:11 I’m sure there’s still like things that pull at you, like curiosities, distractions, like, ooh, I wonder how, you know, anytime I guess you have access to the internet, you’re going to like.
    3:34:13 Twitter’s a big one on that one, yeah.
    3:34:21 You’re going to get curious about stuff, including, I guess you’re speaking about everything in the editor is optimized, but you can always improve stuff.
    3:34:26 You can always find better sort of plugins and macros and, oh, let me, you know what?
    3:34:43 This thing that took, uh, this pain point I just found, this tiny pain point, let me spend the next five days creating a plugin for my editor or whatever the fuck, uh, to, uh, remove that one pain point when you should have just kept going, uh, as opposed to taking the side quest.
    3:34:50 So I have a rule, which is I do not edit my RC other than some kind of cataclysmic thing.
    3:34:51 Like someone updates a plugin.
    3:34:52 I didn’t know they updated it.
    3:34:55 Now there’s like a hard error in my editor and I have to like move forward.
    3:35:03 Um, but I have a rule where I will edit my RC, my Neo Vim RC or anything once a year, something that bothers me.
    3:35:05 I will write it down.
    3:35:06 I’ll remember it.
    3:35:09 I’ll be like, okay, I want to change that, but I will just not go back to it.
    3:35:11 Now every now and then I, I’ll, I’ll break that rule.
    3:35:14 If I know it’s like, oh, I want a new remap to be able to do this one command.
    3:35:18 And that takes like literally 13 seconds, like copy, paste, do this, bop, bop, bop, done.
    3:35:18 Okay.
    3:35:19 I have this new remap.
    3:35:22 It made perfect sense in this situation, but I don’t go plugin exploring.
    3:35:24 I don’t try to solve every problem.
    3:35:28 I don’t want a perfect editor because that is a pursuit that will never stop.
    3:35:31 I just go, this is good, good break point.
    3:35:32 I won’t do it again.
    3:35:38 So I spent last month, I probably spent a hundred hours just like editing every possible thing
    3:35:45 I could about how I start up my system and make, I can have a computer from zero to 60 in
    3:35:45 almost no time.
    3:35:51 Now, everything, the way I exactly want it, Neo Vim, everything all perfectly set up happy enough.
    3:35:52 I’m not going to touch that system again.
    3:35:53 Maybe I’ll touch it next year.
    3:35:54 Maybe I’ll take a year off.
    3:35:56 You know, it’s just, I’m fine with that.
    3:35:58 I’m fine with not being perfect.
    3:35:58 All right.
    3:35:59 Zero to 60.
    3:36:00 Let’s talk about the perfect setup.
    3:36:05 What’s your perfect programming setup?
    3:36:09 Keyboard, operating system, how many screens, chair?
    3:36:10 All right.
    3:36:11 I like all these.
    3:36:13 IDE.
    3:36:14 Let’s go.
    3:36:16 So keyboard, you’re using my favorite keyboard right there.
    3:36:17 The Kinesis Advantage.
    3:36:19 Saved my career.
    3:36:20 Beautiful keyboard.
    3:36:23 Concavity and thumb clusters are just so important.
    3:36:28 Because if you really think about it, especially if you’re using QWERTY, when you’re pressing
    3:36:31 the symbols, like on a standard keyboard, you’re just doing this the whole time.
    3:36:31 Backspace.
    3:36:32 Enter.
    3:36:33 Symbols.
    3:36:34 Like you’re just doing this.
    3:36:36 It just screws up your wrist constantly doing this.
    3:36:38 And this one, you’re constantly doing like control and shift.
    3:36:39 It’s just like messing you up.
    3:36:41 So it’s just like right here.
    3:36:42 That’s so much nicer in life.
    3:36:46 So keyboard, most important, I’d say, get that one done.
    3:36:52 For people who don’t know, Kinesis keyboard, I think the thing that you experience the most
    3:36:57 is exactly the thing you just said now, which is the backspace is really easy to press.
    3:36:57 Yeah.
    3:36:59 Versus what it is on normal keyboards.
    3:37:06 So backspace in general symbolizes, like you’re deleting a thing, it symbolizes a mistake.
    3:37:09 It not symbolizes, it usually means a mistake.
    3:37:15 And so not only did you just make a mistake in what you were typing, you also have to take
    3:37:18 a physically painful action, annoying action.
    3:37:19 Yeah.
    3:37:21 To fix that mistake.
    3:37:23 And for most of us, we make a lot of mistakes.
    3:37:30 So Kinesis just makes it pleasant and fast and easy physically to correct the mistake.
    3:37:33 That’s probably for me, the number one reason on Kinesis.
    3:37:34 Everything else.
    3:37:34 Yeah.
    3:37:39 Super plus with the mackerels and the position, the concavity, like you mentioned, but their
    3:37:42 mistakes are pleasant.
    3:37:43 Yeah.
    3:37:44 I’m on that team.
    3:37:44 That’s why.
    3:37:45 So that’s why I love that.
    3:37:48 So that’s, I would say that’s one of the most important things.
    3:37:52 The next thing that I find to be very, very important is that one monitor.
    3:37:54 I’m a one monitor kind of guy.
    3:37:54 What?
    3:37:55 Really?
    3:37:58 So when I program, when I do anything, now when I stream, I obviously have a second computer
    3:38:01 that runs the stream because, you know, I sometimes crash my computer at the restart or whatever.
    3:38:04 So I do have a second screen there that, that I put stuff up.
    3:38:09 But most of the time you’ll notice that even when I’m streaming, you’ve been there, I have
    3:38:13 to physically switch to the streaming chat channel for me to read it.
    3:38:15 And that’s because I’m operating off of one screen.
    3:38:22 And so I have this whole style in which I like to navigate inspired by StarCraft.
    3:38:26 is that I believe in the press one key, go where you want to be mentality.
    3:38:29 And so everything about my setup is press one key.
    3:38:33 So when I want to go to Twitch chat, alt two, Twitch chat.
    3:38:35 When I go on and go to my browser, alt one, that’s my browser.
    3:38:37 Alt three, that’s where I go to my programming.
    3:38:38 That’s power finger, obviously.
    3:38:40 A big middle finger right there.
    3:38:41 Just smash it down.
    3:38:43 Alt six is going to be GIMP.
    3:38:45 So my GNU image manipulation program.
    3:38:47 So if I want to draw, I go there.
    3:38:49 When I used to have Slack, it was alt five.
    3:38:53 If I have a spare terminal where I need to run some extra things, that’s alt four.
    3:38:57 I had all these kind of, everything is perfectly mapped out to single key.
    3:39:02 And then when it comes down to using, say, TMUX, I have all my terminals into one single
    3:39:03 terminal.
    3:39:06 And now I’m able to kind of switch between their prefix.
    3:39:09 One goes to my VIM editor, whatever project I’m in.
    3:39:12 It’s always the first TMUX tab, if you will.
    3:39:13 I’m not sure.
    3:39:15 They call it a session, but I’m not sure how to describe it.
    3:39:17 If you’re not familiar with TMUX, a tab.
    3:39:20 Second one is like my spare terminal.
    3:39:22 Third one is my long running process terminal.
    3:39:24 My fourth one is a long running process terminal.
    3:39:25 So I have it all set up.
    3:39:30 So every project I go to automatically spawns session one, VIM, session two, spare terminal,
    3:39:32 session three will also open it.
    3:39:34 So it’s like, everything’s just ready to rock.
    3:39:36 Everything has been optimized to where I do that.
    3:39:41 If I want to go to a project, it’s control F and any terminal will bring up a fuzzy find list
    3:39:45 of every one of my folders on my operating system in which I can go to with just a couple
    3:39:47 keystrokes and boom, I’m in that one now.
    3:39:51 And so it’s like very oriented to find where I need to be as quickly as possible.
    3:39:52 Via keyboard.
    3:39:53 Via keyboard.
    3:40:00 Then in VIM, I developed a plugin called Harpoon, which is I press one button and I can pin one
    3:40:02 of the files to like a temporary buffer.
    3:40:06 I think a projectile is potentially close to this in Emacs.
    3:40:08 I can’t remember projectile.
    3:40:11 I think projectile is closer to my sessionizing script.
    3:40:17 Anyways, so now I can, I have four pinned files in which I can go to any of those pinned
    3:40:18 files with just a single keystroke.
    3:40:22 And so now it’s just like, because every time you develop a feature, usually you have like
    3:40:26 three files you’re kind of primarily working in, and I can fuzzy find for the other files.
    3:40:27 And that’s that.
    3:40:31 But usually I just have like these three power files that I’m always swapping in between.
    3:40:34 And so it’s like, now everything is just, I want to go to the browser.
    3:40:35 That’s one press.
    3:40:36 I want to go to my workstation.
    3:40:36 That’s one press.
    3:40:38 I want to go to a specific folder.
    3:40:39 I need to change folders.
    3:40:42 Sometimes you work between two different projects.
    3:40:47 So in Tmux, that’s prefix capital L will swap between your last two.
    3:40:48 So I have alternate projects.
    3:40:51 I can even swap between projects and pretty much one key.
    3:40:54 So it’s just like, dude, dude, dude, just trying to optimize it.
    3:40:59 So I don’t think as much because I think search fatigue is a massive fail where you have to
    3:40:59 look for it.
    3:41:05 Like when I see people on a Mac do this and then explode all the different ones, that gives
    3:41:06 me anxiety.
    3:41:08 I’m like, why are you using your eyeballs to search for what you want to do?
    3:41:12 Like make it into a key press and never think about it again.
    3:41:12 Yeah.
    3:41:17 You’re making me think a lot, whether I can live with your system, whether it’s better
    3:41:18 because it feels better.
    3:41:20 At least intellectually feels better.
    3:41:21 It may not be great for some people.
    3:41:27 There’s a few profound things you said, which is like really what you’re the, the, the number
    3:41:31 of windows or tasks you’re switching between, whether it’s programming, the number of files
    3:41:37 you’re working on is small at any one time, at any one like space of like 20 minutes or
    3:41:38 something like that.
    3:41:39 So, okay.
    3:41:40 That’s, that’s a profound truth.
    3:41:45 Sometimes we think like, oh, I need the full freedom to search, but you don’t.
    3:41:51 You usually work on a very small slice, but I guess the trade-off there, like I always have
    3:41:56 three monitors, not, not when I’m traveling, but my, my happy place is three monitors.
    3:42:00 It’s like, do you really need all of them to be present there?
    3:42:02 So you’re turning your head.
    3:42:08 Now the, the monitors I have is two vertical ones, which is just better for certain kinds
    3:42:09 of content.
    3:42:14 I mean, they’re positioned vertically so you can read, you can use your eyes to scan quickly.
    3:42:14 Interesting.
    3:42:15 So I don’t even do that.
    3:42:20 I even have it so zoomed in that I probably only have like maybe 25 lines of code at any
    3:42:21 one time on my 27 inch monitor.
    3:42:22 Yeah.
    3:42:23 I think that’s okay.
    3:42:29 I think I feel fundamentally constrained when I can’t see more.
    3:42:34 Cause you’re, your eyes are just good at jumping.
    3:42:35 Like, okay.
    3:42:38 Like you could like, why not search?
    3:42:39 Why not press a couple of keystrokes?
    3:42:43 Control U, control D jump down by up and up and down by half page.
    3:42:48 Because the APE visual system was designed to like, you’re loading a lot of information.
    3:42:55 Like what, if every time you had to investigate this table, what’s on this table, you had to
    3:43:01 press a keystroke, you, you could develop the skill set that integrates that information.
    3:43:07 But like, it’s really, there is an effective thing where you, if you have a sheet of paper
    3:43:18 like this, and I’m looking at it, my eyes will be able to load in the structure of the information,
    3:43:21 the, the topics of the information.
    3:43:22 Like you just can do it faster.
    3:43:27 I think there’s a big cost because you, you know, it’s an extra monitor, but there is some
    3:43:32 stuff that’s vertical when vertically positioned code.
    3:43:36 See code is an iffy one because code, you really, you do 25 lines at a time.
    3:43:37 I think you can do a lot.
    3:43:46 This is more for like articles and especially with visual information in them or documentation.
    3:43:51 You can just jump faster, but I’m trying to, as you were speaking, uh, so eloquently, I was
    3:43:57 like wondering, am I just like deceiving myself that I need that?
    3:44:03 Can I just keyboard shortcutify everything and just have everything on one monitor?
    3:44:04 That’s something I should probably try.
    3:44:09 Cause I’m a big proponent of just automating everything with the keyboard because you could
    3:44:10 just move really, really fast.
    3:44:11 You don’t have to think.
    3:44:18 Uh, one of my, you know, cause I also do, um, creative stuff like, uh, whether it’s recording
    3:44:24 music or, um, video editing, it’s, it’s hard, you know, some of these programs don’t make
    3:44:27 it’s super easy for you on windows with auto hockey.
    3:44:31 You can do quite a lot, but still there’s limitations on how much you could do with the keyboard.
    3:44:36 And so that’s, it really is a pain in the ass to have to use the mouse, but man, you’re really
    3:44:37 making me think.
    3:44:42 It’s, you know, the, even the text one with the reading one, I like fundamentally, I think
    3:44:45 I agree with you that you can, you can see a lot more and you can kind of look up and
    3:44:46 down and see those two things.
    3:44:51 And probably in articles or things like that, I could, you know, if there’s like a graph down
    3:44:54 here, that’s really big that take up your whole screen plus text, I could see why that
    3:44:57 would be very beneficial to zoom out to be able to have all that information.
    3:45:02 But for me, I can only look at like a square inch, like really, that’s all my eyes can actually
    3:45:02 focus on.
    3:45:06 So when I’m reading, I’m right here, then I have to like structurally try to pattern match
    3:45:08 what I think the information looks like.
    3:45:09 Then I just have to start reading it.
    3:45:14 So I’m not exactly sure if I actually get any real benefit of having a lot of stuff on screen,
    3:45:17 as opposed to, I can relax my eyes so much.
    3:45:21 I don’t even have to focus, the words are so big, like I actually program pretty zoomed
    3:45:21 in.
    3:45:24 My text is bigger than this when I, when I program.
    3:45:27 And so it’s, it’s just that it’s so comfortable.
    3:45:30 I don’t even have to exert any effort to read the code.
    3:45:37 But you have to kind of train your brain to know that you can navigate in the like spatially
    3:45:37 using keys.
    3:45:39 Yeah.
    3:45:39 Yeah.
    3:45:40 NeoVim, by the way.
    3:45:43 Oh, maybe it has everything to do with NeoVim.
    3:45:43 Okay.
    3:45:44 All right.
    3:45:46 And then NeoVim is obviously the next big one.
    3:45:50 I love NeoVim reason being is that I think you can make all the arguments that you want
    3:45:52 about which editor is the best.
    3:45:54 I do not think you can make an argument that Vim motions aren’t superior.
    3:45:55 Here we go.
    3:45:57 Can you explain Vim motions?
    3:45:57 Okay.
    3:45:58 What is this?
    3:46:01 So NeoVim, Vim is a old school editor.
    3:46:02 NeoVim.
    3:46:04 It’s a modern take on an old school editor.
    3:46:04 Yeah.
    3:46:09 And what’s E-L-I-5?
    3:46:14 What, like, what does it take to work with NeoVim?
    3:46:14 Okay.
    3:46:16 I thought you were talking about a Vim motion there.
    3:46:20 That’s how, you know that, you know that, I know, but you know that meme that’s just like,
    3:46:22 hey, Jarvis, can I tell you about Vim motions?
    3:46:25 Because they can’t fit anything else in their head because they only have Vim motions.
    3:46:27 You said E-L-5, like explain it like a five.
    3:46:27 Yeah.
    3:46:31 But in my head, it’s like, okay, E’s jumped to the end of the word, L’s one more word.
    3:46:32 It’s like, dude, I’m so like broken.
    3:46:34 I’m like, okay, Vim motions when I hear letters.
    3:46:36 Yeah.
    3:46:43 So you can think of it like this, is that Vim has a language to describe movements in text
    3:46:48 because its primary mode of operation is manipulating or editing text.
    3:46:54 So it is a well thought through set of movements, deleting, yanking, pasting, copying, all that
    3:46:59 kind of stuff that goes in motions that are optimized for working with pretty much code.
    3:47:01 Good example.
    3:47:03 Say you have three lines of code you want to delete.
    3:47:08 If you’re in VS code, take your little beautiful mouse, highlight those things, press the backspace.
    3:47:09 That’s lovely.
    3:47:10 Your hand left the keyboard.
    3:47:11 Very simple to do though.
    3:47:12 It’s very beginner friendly.
    3:47:15 I was a huge Vim hater, by the way.
    3:47:18 So I just want you to know that before we go into this, I was probably the biggest Vim hater.
    3:47:24 If there isn’t like Saul to Apostle Paul, I am like the Saul to Apostle Paul of Vim.
    3:47:27 So you see how big the gap was.
    3:47:31 Or you can do something that’s like, I don’t know what the VS code shortcut is, but I’m sure
    3:47:34 there’s some keys you can press to delete the current line you’re on.
    3:47:35 Delete, delete, delete.
    3:47:35 Right.
    3:47:36 You can just do that.
    3:47:41 In Vim, I can go DAP, delete around paragraph, all contiguous code in that thing.
    3:47:41 I’m going to delete.
    3:47:46 So D, then I can choose my motion I want to take, AP, around paragraph.
    3:47:51 Or maybe I want to D, F, mean jump up to the next character that matches the next character
    3:47:52 I’m going to press.
    3:47:57 So D, F, opening parenthesis, will delete everything from your cursor up to the first opening parenthesis.
    3:48:00 So you get to describe your motion in these little keystrokes.
    3:48:03 And as you get really good, you know, you’ve seen people that can master Fortnite.
    3:48:05 It’s the same thing with mastering Vim motions.
    3:48:09 When you get so good, you no longer think about each individual movement.
    3:48:12 And instead, you’re just like, get rid of the paragraph, jump here, jump this, highlight
    3:48:13 this, yank this, do this.
    3:48:18 You know, it becomes so fast that you can superiorly edit text at a very fast rate.
    3:48:22 And there comes a point where you, when you know your language really well, you know, the
    3:48:26 problem you’re really working on really well, where editing text and getting code out actually
    3:48:28 becomes one of the many bottlenecks.
    3:48:31 People always talk about, well, most of the time I think most of the time I’m not thinking
    3:48:32 I’m programming.
    3:48:33 I know what I want to do.
    3:48:36 I want to go as fast as possible because I’ve been just doing it for so long.
    3:48:40 And I’m so familiar with kind of the general space that it becomes a huge problem for me.
    3:48:44 I cannot tell you how many times that I’ve been purely bottlenecked by the fact that I just
    3:48:46 can’t type fast enough.
    3:48:49 I just need to get the, I just need to get it out of my head onto the, you know, onto the
    3:48:49 text editor.
    3:48:54 And so that’s why I think Vim motions are superior in all aspects.
    3:48:58 Keep your hands on the keyboard, on the home row, and it can manipulate text in very wide
    3:48:59 and fast ways.
    3:49:01 So this is not just about writing text.
    3:49:02 This is about modifying text.
    3:49:04 It’s primarily about modifying text.
    3:49:04 Yes.
    3:49:10 And I’m sure that most editors, including Emacs, including VS Code can do all those same things,
    3:49:15 but there is something that just don’t encourage you to discover those things.
    3:49:16 Yeah.
    3:49:21 That’s like an important thing about a lot of technologies that, and programming languages,
    3:49:25 that a lot of them can do a lot of the stuff.
    3:49:26 Yeah.
    3:49:30 But it’s something about whether it’s the community or the style of the language or anything
    3:49:37 like this that encourages you to not be lazy in the beginning and learn the fast way to edit
    3:49:39 text in this particular example.
    3:49:40 Yeah.
    3:49:41 How to use the keyboard.
    3:49:46 That’s a fascinating sort of just reality of how technology is used.
    3:49:51 You want to be encouraged to find the fast thing as quickly as possible so that long-term,
    3:49:54 it’s efficient and fun to use the thing.
    3:49:57 It takes a long time for dividends, like a long time.
    3:49:59 But on top of that, notice I didn’t say Vim.
    3:50:01 I’m not saying go use Vim.
    3:50:02 I’m saying Vim motions.
    3:50:04 Let me give you one more example.
    3:50:04 Okay.
    3:50:05 I’m a big fan.
    3:50:06 Okay.
    3:50:11 Let’s say you have a line that contains some variable, some function you’re calling something
    3:50:12 that takes in a string.
    3:50:14 And you need to do that again.
    3:50:17 So you would typically copy that line.
    3:50:19 You’d paste that line below.
    3:50:22 You’d go into the string and you’d change the string.
    3:50:24 Let’s say it’s calling some sort of configuration.
    3:50:26 You need to call it three times with three different configuring strings.
    3:50:31 In Vim, I like to do shift V to highlight the whole line, then Y.
    3:50:33 Some people do YY, but I don’t like to do double ones.
    3:50:37 I like to be able to do two different fingers because you can do that way faster than one
    3:50:37 finger twice.
    3:50:42 Just a little optimization for me because you can’t press that as fast.
    3:50:44 So anyways, very optimized in my approach.
    3:50:49 So I yank the line, paste the line, CI double quotes will delete everything inside the first
    3:50:50 occurring string.
    3:50:53 Then I can type the string, escape, save.
    3:50:57 And so it’s like so optimized that I can just jump so fast in between that.
    3:51:00 Whereas the copying and pasting line is probably the same speed.
    3:51:05 But the navigating to the string, deleting what’s currently in the string, and then,
    3:51:07 you know, like that’s such a fast motion in Vim.
    3:51:08 And I just do that all the time.
    3:51:15 To backtrack, really dumb question, CI, what’s the difference between typing the letters and
    3:51:17 using the letters to navigate in that?
    3:51:19 How do you switch between the two modes?
    3:51:21 Okay, so insert mode means that you’re just putting in text.
    3:51:21 Yeah.
    3:51:25 And then normal mode means that you’re moving your cursor.
    3:51:26 And how do you switch between the two?
    3:51:27 Escape.
    3:51:30 Escape goes from insert mode into normal mode.
    3:51:35 And to go into insert mode, press I to take your current cursor and go to the beginning,
    3:51:38 A to go to the end of the year cursor, capital A to go to the end of the line, capital I to
    3:51:42 go to the beginning line, O to put a new line below, and then put your cursor at the proper
    3:51:46 intended for the language, shift O to shift your current line down, and then put a new line
    3:51:47 in.
    3:51:50 So you’re pressing escape a lot.
    3:51:51 Yeah, I mapped mine.
    3:51:52 I do control C.
    3:51:55 Control C does the same thing except for in one edge case.
    3:51:56 People hate that.
    3:52:00 I got used to it just due to the fact that I was using IntelliJ, and I really hate pressing
    3:52:01 the escape key.
    3:52:02 So I just got used to pressing escape.
    3:52:07 So that seems like an essential thing to do if you’re using NeoVim to map escape to something.
    3:52:09 CapLock would be like your standard go-to.
    3:52:10 Oh, yeah.
    3:52:10 I’m happy to.
    3:52:11 Cool.
    3:52:12 I got you.
    3:52:12 Yeah.
    3:52:14 So then it’s just really easy to press in.
    3:52:15 Boom, boom, boom.
    3:52:16 Not a big deal at all.
    3:52:20 But yeah, I think that if you’re willing to learn it, the emotions are superior.
    3:52:22 But if you’re not willing to learn it, then they’re not superior.
    3:52:24 You should just not do it.
    3:52:24 Right?
    3:52:26 If you’re willing to endure pain, it’s good.
    3:52:28 If you’re not, it’s actually way worse.
    3:52:29 It’s 100 times worse.
    3:52:30 Right.
    3:52:32 So if you like pain, you use NeoVim.
    3:52:33 Totally.
    3:52:34 Yeah, you’re totally on board.
    3:52:35 See, now you get it.
    3:52:37 If you like joy, you use Emacs.
    3:52:38 Oh, sorry, sorry.
    3:52:40 Did Emacs ever get a good text editor?
    3:52:44 I know they’re a great operating system, but I never caught up if they got a good text editor.
    3:52:45 Operating system.
    3:52:49 I think you’ve been miseducated, my friend.
    3:52:54 So at least 30 minutes on Emacs versus NeoVim is what Reddit requested.
    3:52:58 Have you actually used Emacs in order to be able to talk so much shit or no?
    3:53:00 I used it for a year.
    3:53:01 You used it for a year.
    3:53:01 Yeah, yeah.
    3:53:03 Doom Max, Space Max, and regular Emacs.
    3:53:05 But you don’t know Lisp.
    3:53:06 So did you really use it?
    3:53:10 I kind of hacked my way through kind of like, okay, so this is how to configure.
    3:53:13 You know, like you can kind of get your way through and do all that.
    3:53:18 So you recommend to sort of master NeoVim and really learn the depths of it.
    3:53:21 But Emacs is okay to just kind of use before making a judgment.
    3:53:23 I think everybody…
    3:53:24 You got me on that one.
    3:53:24 Yeah.
    3:53:25 No.
    3:53:27 And what’s NeoVim written?
    3:53:28 It’s Lua?
    3:53:28 Yeah.
    3:53:30 So Lua would be the configuration language.
    3:53:31 But you have…
    3:53:33 It’s written in C, but you have Lua for…
    3:53:34 And Lua is just a dead simple language.
    3:53:36 Anyone can program Lua.
    3:53:37 I actually don’t know why.
    3:53:40 I think it’s because my love for Lisp that I went with Emacs.
    3:53:44 I think you just choose a path and you walk down that path.
    3:53:45 Mm-hmm.
    3:53:52 Because there’s just such a vibrant, intense battle between the two communities.
    3:53:56 You just start fighting just because everybody else is fighting.
    3:54:02 And then one day you’re like an old warrior, like on a horse, and you’re wondering, what was this all for?
    3:54:10 And I mean, it’s quite sad, in all seriousness, that I haven’t to this day tried NeoVim.
    3:54:16 I think because there is a learning curve, there’s a learning curve to a lot of these editors.
    3:54:17 Yeah.
    3:54:19 To really learn it.
    3:54:19 To really learn it.
    3:54:31 And I think this is some of the criticism of maybe VS Code or Sublime or Atom, that it’s so easy to not learn it, to just kind of half-ass use it.
    3:54:44 And there is a big benefit to having editors that, like, force you to have some learning curve where you, like, take the art, the science, the procedure of editing seriously.
    3:54:46 Because, like, you spend so much time in it.
    3:54:50 You might as well, like, learn, like, how to use the thing.
    3:54:58 My big takeaway, really, like, what I’m trying to say with all these words is that I honestly don’t actually think that the editor obviously does not make the programmer.
    3:55:05 But I think it says a lot about your character as a programmer if you don’t know how to use your editor well.
    3:55:20 There’s something about a person who’s willing to commit their life to programming and spending literally 50,000 hours doing an activity over the course of their lifetime and never take the time to learn their editor through and through.
    3:55:21 It just seems strange.
    3:55:32 It’s like, right, you’d never see that in another world where people would be able to build something or do something and just completely forget how these things work and only just focus on one part of, like, their craft.
    3:55:35 And so, to me, it’s just like, it doesn’t matter how you use it.
    3:55:39 I want to see the person that just knows how to use it.
    3:55:40 And they know how to use it well.
    3:55:44 When there’s a problem, they can say why the problem exists and then go and fix the problem.
    3:55:45 To me, that’s like, there you go.
    3:55:45 You’ve done it.
    3:55:46 You now know your tool.
    3:55:49 Go forth and conquer with said tool.
    3:55:52 Especially for tools you use a lot.
    3:56:00 You have to look at, like, your whole life, your life, whatever, if you’re a developer or anything, like, what is the thing you do a lot?
    3:56:02 Meetings.
    3:56:03 Yeah.
    3:56:04 Yeah.
    3:56:09 I mean, ask a question, like, how can this be done a lot better?
    3:56:19 Because every single day you do this, for hours a day, how many hours did you spend on thinking how to do this better?
    3:56:22 Or whether to do it at all, in the case of meetings.
    3:56:26 That’s, people surprisingly just don’t do this enough.
    3:56:28 I see this, just to go back to jiu-jitsu.
    3:56:35 There’s a lot of people that show up and do jiu-jitsu or martial arts, and they do it the same way over and over and over.
    3:56:42 They invest a tremendous amount of energy, and they don’t ask, like, how do I do it differently to improve faster?
    3:56:44 In the case of jiu-jitsu or any kind of sport.
    3:56:46 Same with practicing the piano or the guitar.
    3:56:55 They just religiously put in a lot of time and derive a lot of joy from getting better.
    3:56:59 They don’t enough ask the meta question of, like, how can I do this better?
    3:57:04 And with editors, it’s surprisingly how often people do just that.
    3:57:05 Yeah.
    3:57:08 With typing, it’s surprising how many people do just that.
    3:57:13 Like you said, they’re pecking or looking down.
    3:57:21 It’s like the quality of life improvement you can have by learning to touch type, by just, like, typing without looking.
    3:57:24 It’s, like, it’s, like, immeasurable.
    3:57:27 You bring a lot of joy to your life because all of us are typing a lot.
    3:57:28 Yeah.
    3:57:33 And, yeah, I mean, the reason, by the way, I was extremely efficient with Emacs.
    3:57:47 I’m sure, you know, all jokes aside, it feels like NeoVim has more room for the kind of efficiency I’ve had with Emacs to be able to move really fast, as you described me, to edit.
    3:57:49 There is a real joy.
    3:57:50 It’s not just efficiency.
    3:57:56 It’s like, yeah, it’s a freedom that you can get when you get really good with an editor.
    3:58:13 The reason I chose to go with VS Code is it felt like there’s going to be an acceleration of features to which NeoVim or Emacs will not be able to catch up in the, and I don’t mean in the next five years, I mean in the next 30 years.
    3:58:14 Yeah.
    3:58:23 And it felt like I almost wanted to take the pain of learning new editors constantly and just switching and learning that because I was getting so comfortable in Emacs.
    3:58:27 You know, this keyboard, everything, all the shortcuts, I know how to program.
    3:58:32 And it felt like this is not, you know, NeoVim will not be here in 50 years.
    3:58:34 Possibly might be, I don’t know.
    3:58:39 But it felt like you want to learn these constant sort of different technologies.
    3:58:42 You know, Cursor is a great example of that.
    3:58:44 I’ve primarily been using Cursor now.
    3:58:46 I’ll go back to VS Code and Cursor.
    3:58:51 Just the skill of using AI is a real skill.
    3:59:04 You know, from the shortcuts to the timing, to the layout of the windows, to how I think about where, when, and how to use the AI that doesn’t distract me, that it empowers me.
    3:59:09 Not just for the fuck of it or for the fun of it, for the actual measure of productivity.
    3:59:10 It’s a skill.
    3:59:17 And I feel like I would be stuck in a local maximum of comfort if I stayed with Emacs.
    3:59:21 And maybe the same should be true for me with NeoVim.
    3:59:22 I should try it seriously.
    3:59:27 I’m sure there’s a plug-in, like a co-pilot type of situation that you could set up with NeoVim.
    3:59:30 I should possibly consider that.
    3:59:34 But, like, Cursor is doing a lot of really fascinating stuff on the IDE side.
    3:59:41 Not just sort of generate code and, like, edit that code manually.
    3:59:45 It’s, like, continuously be able to rewrite code.
    3:59:47 It’s, like, the idea of tab, tab, tab, tab.
    3:59:53 Move the Cursor around, but also modify parts of code and do the diff really nicely.
    3:59:58 That, whether it’s Cursor or VS Code that wins that battle out with co-pilot, I don’t know.
    4:00:05 But, like, that feels like a fun with a different experience than the really efficient, joyful experience that you just described.
    4:00:08 And you’re selling me on this as NeoVim.
    4:00:13 That doesn’t have AI in the picture, obviously, immediately, but you can.
    4:00:14 Yeah, absolutely.
    4:00:20 I would 100% agree that Cursor seems like such a cool product.
    4:00:24 Like, I actually think there’s, like, a lot of really neat things coming down with all that.
    4:00:27 And I could, you know, I could change from NeoVim.
    4:00:29 I don’t use NeoVim because I love NeoVim.
    4:00:32 I use NeoVim because I love the instrument I play.
    4:00:36 And so it’s, like, if Cursor can meet those needs, I could see myself moving over.
    4:00:39 I don’t have some sort of obsessed attachment with it.
    4:00:45 I am curious, though, that, you know, every time I use AI, I think I just have skill issues.
    4:00:48 I think I’m just so riddled with skill issues when it comes to using AI.
    4:00:51 I’ve yet to be able to use it in a way that I really love it.
    4:00:53 We’ll talk about it before then.
    4:00:54 Oh, ball to sit on.
    4:00:55 I forgot to say that.
    4:00:56 Ball to sit on.
    4:00:56 Yeah.
    4:00:58 Desk needs to be properly hided.
    4:00:59 One monitor.
    4:01:01 I should be two-thirds way up the screen.
    4:01:02 I don’t like to turn my head.
    4:01:08 I prefer my hands in kind of like a pistol-neutral position.
    4:01:09 And there you go.
    4:01:11 A ball to sit on.
    4:01:11 Yoga ball.
    4:01:12 Yoga ball.
    4:01:12 What’s that about?
    4:01:15 It just helps just maintain good posture.
    4:01:17 Because when I have something to lean against, I do this.
    4:01:21 So you’re for hours sitting without…
    4:01:22 Wait, what are you doing?
    4:01:23 I sit on a ball and then I bounce.
    4:01:26 Is your back leaning on a thing?
    4:01:27 No.
    4:01:28 What the fuck?
    4:01:29 Well, how else do you like…
    4:01:30 How else do you…
    4:01:36 You’re the only person in the world sitting on a yoga ball as you program for hours.
    4:01:37 You do realize this, right?
    4:01:38 It feels great.
    4:01:39 I mean…
    4:01:39 Okay.
    4:01:43 The problem is, is whenever I get a back, I just slouch.
    4:01:45 And I find myself just getting uncomfortable.
    4:01:46 And I’m like, why am I…
    4:01:47 I’m uncomfortable.
    4:01:50 Like, my shoulders are kind of getting goofed up.
    4:01:51 I just like…
    4:01:53 I’m chicken-necking, like, constantly.
    4:01:54 Like, you know, it’s just like…
    4:01:57 But you’re able to keep your posture for hours on a yoga ball?
    4:01:57 Yeah.
    4:01:59 And so I can just do that.
    4:02:01 And then I find myself, if I slouch, I’m like, okay, nope.
    4:02:02 Gotta get back, you know?
    4:02:04 You have, like, incredible back muscles or what?
    4:02:08 No, I don’t think it takes incredible back muscles to…
    4:02:09 Keep posture.
    4:02:10 Remain upright.
    4:02:11 Yeah, I think that’s a pretty basic human function.
    4:02:14 I would not consider myself a strong person.
    4:02:14 Yeah.
    4:02:16 Basic human function.
    4:02:16 I don’t know.
    4:02:18 Facts and logic.
    4:02:20 Okay, cool.
    4:02:26 With one screen, NeoVim, with operating system.
    4:02:27 Linux.
    4:02:30 Just because I want a good window manager.
    4:02:34 That’s the whole press one button, bring up Chrome.
    4:02:35 I just use i3.
    4:02:38 I’m sure I could use something better than i3.
    4:02:41 People always tell me all these window managers are really great, but I just want…
    4:02:44 I just have, like, those three screens I switch between, so it doesn’t really…
    4:02:47 I don’t really care what I use, just as long as I can press one button and go.
    4:02:47 Yeah, I’m the same.
    4:02:49 So, half and half.
    4:02:50 So, half Linux.
    4:02:52 The other half, Windows with Linux.
    4:02:54 Meaning, uh…
    4:02:55 WSL.
    4:02:56 What’s that?
    4:02:57 Windows subsystem for Linux.
    4:02:57 Weasel.
    4:02:59 Weasel.
    4:03:03 See, no, there’s got to be a better one that’s more positive.
    4:03:04 Weasel just sounds…
    4:03:06 Seems right up Microsoft’s alley.
    4:03:07 That seems perfect.
    4:03:12 Uh, so, people often accuse me of being a shill for somebody.
    4:03:14 Uh, sometimes dictators.
    4:03:16 If I’m a shill for anybody, it’s for Windows.
    4:03:17 There you go.
    4:03:19 I get paychecks every, every week.
    4:03:20 From, uh…
    4:03:21 Bought by Bill Gates.
    4:03:23 Well, he’s not Microsoft anymore.
    4:03:23 I know.
    4:03:24 A ball…
    4:03:26 Developers, developers, developers.
    4:03:27 No, I’m just joking.
    4:03:28 I think, uh…
    4:03:29 Man, I need to try Mac.
    4:03:30 I need to…
    4:03:31 I need to try.
    4:03:33 I’m surrounded.
    4:03:36 I’m surrounded by people with iPhones.
    4:03:37 I use Android.
    4:03:38 I use Android.
    4:03:38 Yeah.
    4:03:40 There you go.
    4:03:40 See, oh…
    4:03:41 We’re losers together.
    4:03:43 Losers on a sinking ship.
    4:03:46 Um, okay.
    4:03:53 So, uh, just to stay on you for a sec and, uh, to give love and a shout out to your friend,
    4:03:54 Teej.
    4:03:55 He streams, by the way.
    4:04:00 He’s a streamer, and I’m, I subscribed, and I’ve been enjoying it.
    4:04:03 My allegiance is slowly shifting from you to him.
    4:04:06 It’s, um, the quality is far superior with him.
    4:04:12 Uh, the, the looks, the intelligence, the skill set, everything, just far superior.
    4:04:12 No.
    4:04:13 Okay.
    4:04:14 So, he, uh…
    4:04:16 You know you’re making his day.
    4:04:18 All right.
    4:04:18 All right.
    4:04:25 So, uh, he mentioned that he loves NeoVim because it gives him the ability to eliminate
    4:04:26 having to do things he doesn’t like.
    4:04:34 It’s just a nice way to, to frame sort of what this, the automation process that you described
    4:04:41 of automating away, assigning shortcuts to things that are painful.
    4:04:43 So, that, that, that procedure.
    4:04:45 I mean, I wonder if you agree with that.
    4:04:46 Fully agree.
    4:04:51 We have very similar mentalities when it comes to usage of NeoVim, why people should use it,
    4:04:52 all that kind of stuff, and how to even use it well.
    4:04:55 He definitely takes it probably to a further degree.
    4:04:57 He spends more time automating and all that.
    4:05:02 Um, I don’t necessarily derive a lot of joy from getting the perfect setup.
    4:05:05 And so, but a lot to learn from him.
    4:05:06 He’s, he’s very, very good at what he does.
    4:05:11 He is by far probably one of these, he’s 30 years old, been programming for not too many
    4:05:14 years, and he is one of the most talented developers for sure.
    4:05:17 It’s very shocking to see how smart someone can be.
    4:05:21 So, uh, people should check him out at T-E-E-J underscore D-V.
    4:05:22 Yep.
    4:05:23 T-E-J.
    4:05:23 D-V.
    4:05:25 His name, his last name is DeVries, DeVries.
    4:05:27 Oh, it’s not a developer.
    4:05:27 Okay, cool.
    4:05:28 Yeah, yeah.
    4:05:28 So, it’s just T-E-J.
    4:05:30 That’s just his name.
    4:05:31 Just spelt kind of fun.
    4:05:32 What do you love about him?
    4:05:33 Wow.
    4:05:36 How much did he pay you to ask these questions?
    4:05:37 Thousands of dollars.
    4:05:39 Just so many dollars.
    4:05:42 I can’t even count that many dollars.
    4:05:44 He is, uh, trust.
    4:05:50 Obviously, trust is the biggest thing, especially in the quote unquote streaming YouTube kind
    4:05:51 of world, if you will.
    4:05:56 It’s very easy to find people that will want to, like, be a part of stuff.
    4:06:00 People tend to latch onto things, and it’s very hard to find someone that you can really,
    4:06:00 really trust.
    4:06:04 And so, he’s just somebody whom I can genuinely trust.
    4:06:05 He’ll always tell the truth.
    4:06:09 He’s all, he’s all the right things for a good friend in this kind of endeavor.
    4:06:15 So, as a good friend, he told me, um, questions I could backstab you with.
    4:06:16 Okay, I hate him.
    4:06:16 I forgot.
    4:06:18 I forgot how much I don’t trust him.
    4:06:22 Uh, so, speaking of Harpoon, you mentioned it.
    4:06:30 Um, he said, you know, to, to ask you about, uh, whether, basically how many years or decades
    4:06:34 it’s going to take to transition to Harpoon 2, to actually release it, develop it, and so
    4:06:35 on.
    4:06:42 Can you describe what Harpoon is, and why you seem to be incapable of finishing a single project?
    4:06:42 Okay.
    4:06:44 That was a lovely framed question.
    4:06:46 So, Harpoon 2 is actually done.
    4:06:47 This is what I did.
    4:06:51 To avoid the swirl and the thousands of questions I will inevitably get.
    4:06:55 I kept the master branch as Harpoon 1, and I’ve kept Harpoon 2 as Harpoon 2 branch.
    4:07:01 And people that don’t read the readme to say that I just use Harpoon 2 now, that’s, that’s
    4:07:01 their fault.
    4:07:03 Uh, that’s it.
    4:07:08 I just don’t want, I, I really don’t like answering hundreds of questions about open source stuff.
    4:07:12 Uh, I used to love doing open source and all that, but I kind of got my soul crushed during
    4:07:12 the Falcor years.
    4:07:17 And so I, I guess I’m just kind of allergic to being a really active maintainer.
    4:07:19 Um, I build everything just for me.
    4:07:21 Like Harpoon’s just literally just built for me.
    4:07:26 It’s just what I, I spent three months trying to figure out the most optimal navigation for
    4:07:27 files.
    4:07:28 And that’s what I came up with.
    4:07:31 So Harpoon, um, it’s a take on alternate file.
    4:07:34 If you’re familiar with alternate file, uh, typically you’ll have this in all editors where
    4:07:37 you can go back to the file you were just in.
    4:07:41 And so that means you can have effectively two files you swap back and forth and you
    4:07:43 probably used it a bunch really fast way to navigate.
    4:07:44 Pretty nice thing to do.
    4:07:49 Um, I wanted something with, I want alternate file, but like three of them or four of them.
    4:07:52 And so that’s all Harpoon is, is just being able to pin a file.
    4:07:55 And so I have one button to press to go to a file, another for another, another for another.
    4:07:56 And so I can have up to four.
    4:07:59 So I just had my four power fingers, uh, for Dvorak.
    4:07:59 What is that?
    4:08:01 That’s H T N S.
    4:08:05 So if I go control H T N or S, it goes to one of the four files and that’s it.
    4:08:06 That’s all it is.
    4:08:09 And you could technically make it so you can add in functions and be able to execute
    4:08:10 things externally.
    4:08:12 So you can open up, uh, terminals.
    4:08:13 You can send requests off to servers.
    4:08:15 You can do anything you want with it.
    4:08:18 I just have it primarily designed for opening files.
    4:08:20 Since you mentioned what keyboard layout do you use?
    4:08:21 You use Dvorak.
    4:08:24 I use Dvorak, but I used a custom version of Dvorak.
    4:08:29 The reason why I used it is in 2017, we were just having my second kid.
    4:08:34 It was Christmas and I’m having so much pain in my arm and I’m sitting there freaking out
    4:08:36 like, Oh my gosh, is this the end of my career?
    4:08:37 Am I done programming?
    4:08:38 Is this all over?
    4:08:43 And so I decided that I was going to create my own keyboard layout optimized to prevent the
    4:08:44 pain that I’m experiencing.
    4:08:49 So I used to Dvorak as the base and then laid out the symbols in a symmetrical, reasonable
    4:08:54 way so that it’s opening, closing, opening, closing, opening, closing, right?
    4:08:56 And so it’s, and they all are right here.
    4:08:58 I actually have to hold shift to press a number.
    4:09:01 So symbols are actually my first thing I get to press.
    4:09:06 And so it’s very optimized for a, um, laptop keyboard layout.
    4:09:08 So I can use my laptop in a very efficient, nice way.
    4:09:11 That’s how I got started on Dvorak and all that.
    4:09:15 I wouldn’t actually recommend it if you, cause I didn’t have a Kinesis at the time.
    4:09:17 I didn’t even know Kinesis existed at that time.
    4:09:22 And so when I discovered Kinesis and also 2017, that’s when I was like, Oh, okay.
    4:09:24 Would you recommend Kinesis to people?
    4:09:28 I am technically sponsored by Kinesis.
    4:09:32 So, uh, people, you know, it’s hard for someone to believe someone that’s sponsored by it, but
    4:09:33 I did use it before I ever became sponsored.
    4:09:37 They’re the only sponsor that I reached out to and said, I need a sponsorship from you.
    4:09:38 You are the key.
    4:09:39 I’m going to use you either way.
    4:09:42 You don’t, you can say no, but I really love it.
    4:09:47 And for the first three years of using Kinesis, they gave me free Kinesises, Kinesi, as my
    4:09:48 sponsorship.
    4:09:49 Kinesi.
    4:09:50 Yeah.
    4:09:51 I’m always torn.
    4:09:53 I tried to leave so many times.
    4:09:54 You can’t.
    4:09:55 It’s too good.
    4:10:00 But see, I have this absurd situation of like traveling with it.
    4:10:02 I relate.
    4:10:03 Yeah.
    4:10:07 I mean, I’m literally, you know, going to the war zone in Ukraine, I have a Kinesis
    4:10:15 keyboard, a laptop, and like just a few other small things and that’s it.
    4:10:20 And it’s like, is Kinesis keyboard really going to be 30% of volume that you’re bringing to
    4:10:21 a war zone?
    4:10:22 You know?
    4:10:23 Looks like the answer is yes.
    4:10:24 Yeah.
    4:10:27 Like, do you really derive that much value?
    4:10:30 I think it’s probably spiritual or psychological for me.
    4:10:31 It feels like home.
    4:10:33 There’s a comfort associated with it.
    4:10:33 Yeah.
    4:10:35 I try to leave.
    4:10:37 And I love this experience.
    4:10:40 You just are, it’s like a relationship you have with the thing.
    4:10:41 It is.
    4:10:44 It’s, uh, is it, but I’m trying to figure out if it’s a toxic relationship or not.
    4:10:47 Um, I think it’s mostly love.
    4:10:47 I think it’s love.
    4:10:51 Like all relationship, there’s some, you know, push and pull complications, but.
    4:10:53 They say that distance makes the heart grow fonder.
    4:10:58 So maybe sometimes the Kinesis keyboard needs to stay at home and the laptop keyboard can be
    4:11:03 the one so that your heart grows even more fond and that connection grows even deeper.
    4:11:04 I already miss it.
    4:11:05 As you said, so I don’t know.
    4:11:08 I think it’s coming, coming along to all the trips.
    4:11:12 If it breaks down though, you know, I was worried that Kinesis was shut down as a company.
    4:11:14 I’m like, what’s the business model here?
    4:11:15 Who actually uses these keyboards?
    4:11:16 Right.
    4:11:18 But apparently it’s still going strong.
    4:11:22 Uh, who uses these keyboards as you use the keyboard?
    4:11:24 Like I have to take it with me everywhere.
    4:11:24 Yeah.
    4:11:27 I wonder who uses these keyboards.
    4:11:27 Yep.
    4:11:34 I should mention that one of the things, when I first became a fan of yours, I heard you talk
    4:11:36 about coffee and terminal.
    4:11:40 I still don’t, by the way, understand what you’ve been talking about.
    4:11:46 I need to actually use it, but you are, you run amongst many things, a coffee company.
    4:11:49 Uh, man, this smells so good.
    4:11:53 Uh, so this one is dark mode, dark roast, whole coffee beans.
    4:11:58 There is a seg origin dash dash location.
    4:12:01 There’s a bunch of stuff on there.
    4:12:06 Stuff on there that’s very devy, shop, server, web.
    4:12:10 Can you legit order coffee via SSH?
    4:12:14 So as of right now, it’s the only way you can get the coffee is via SSH.
    4:12:16 That was kind of, okay.
    4:12:18 So can I just origin story you?
    4:12:19 Yeah, yeah.
    4:12:20 Uh, yeah, right.
    4:12:24 I was going to do some kind of, um, command line command to request or like dash dash help
    4:12:26 or something or like man.
    4:12:26 Yeah.
    4:12:27 Man coffee.
    4:12:28 Man coffee.
    4:12:29 Okay.
    4:12:36 So TJ and I, again, same teach, teach TV about, by the way, very amazing designs done by
    4:12:37 David Hill.
    4:12:38 They’re very, very good.
    4:12:38 Yeah.
    4:12:40 Um, so let me kind of give the basic ideas.
    4:12:45 Like it must’ve been about a year, a year and a half ago, TJ and I were talking like, Hey,
    4:12:50 you know, every one of these people that have like some sort of following, some sort of online
    4:12:52 presence, they’re always like selling a thing.
    4:12:53 I got nothing to sell.
    4:12:54 I don’t really want to do merch.
    4:12:56 I’ve never really enjoyed doing merch.
    4:12:59 I just find that, I don’t know, it’s just not as much fun for me.
    4:13:00 Don’t want to have a tequila.
    4:13:02 I don’t want a tequila.
    4:13:07 I want something that, and I also want something that I really don’t feel bad about selling.
    4:13:11 You know, there’s like a lot of people that will go on the internet and they’ll show for
    4:13:13 a whole bunch of products like, Oh, okay, try this, try this.
    4:13:17 And this is why I’ve only ever really done kinesis is because it’s like, well, I can point
    4:13:19 to something that was really bad in my life.
    4:13:21 I was very scared and now it’s not bad anymore.
    4:13:25 So it’s like, okay, that one made sense, but everything else always has been, you know,
    4:13:26 it’s harder for me.
    4:13:29 And so we just talked for so long and, and we love NeoVim.
    4:13:32 So we’re just like, Oh, why don’t we could do something from NeoVim?
    4:13:34 And we’re kind of like laughing about that.
    4:13:36 Like ordering from NeoVim is just so ridiculous.
    4:13:40 And then at some point we’re just like, well, what, wait a second.
    4:13:42 And maybe we could do like coffee.
    4:13:44 Like every developer loves coffee.
    4:13:46 Maybe we could figure out this coffee business.
    4:13:52 And so I have a good friend named Dax, uh, T-H-D-X-R Dax.
    4:13:52 Yeah.
    4:13:52 Dax.
    4:13:56 Uh, he, the most sassiest man alive.
    4:13:56 Sassiest?
    4:13:57 Oh yeah.
    4:13:58 He has a lot of sass.
    4:13:58 Beard.
    4:13:59 Yep.
    4:13:59 He has a beard.
    4:14:03 Very, uh, very, he does, uh, SST.
    4:14:07 He does a lot of stuff, very, very talented, uh, we’ll call him DevOps engineer.
    4:14:12 He’s more than that, but, um, very talented guy, him and another person named Adam.dev,
    4:14:14 vegan, by the way, great guy.
    4:14:17 We make, we take them to Korean barbecue all the time.
    4:14:17 He eats nothing.
    4:14:24 Um, and Liz, she has been super important to the terminal coffee company.
    4:14:27 I think without her, we would not have been able to do what we have done.
    4:14:28 And then also David Hill designer.
    4:14:30 He does, uh, uh, Laravel.
    4:14:32 He designs for Laravel, very talented designer.
    4:14:37 And so we all kind of came together and we are just laughing about how can we like,
    4:14:39 could we do something that’s just ridiculous?
    4:14:42 And that’s kind of what we came up with.
    4:14:42 Yeah.
    4:14:43 You like, there you go.
    4:14:44 You just opened the website.
    4:14:46 You actually, you literally cannot order.
    4:14:49 We, we actually do not allow you to order.
    4:14:55 The website is something that kind of looks like the terminal use command below to order
    4:14:58 your delicious whole coffee bean, ssh terminal.shop.
    4:14:59 Yeah.
    4:15:01 So you can only SSH into it.
    4:15:03 So you have to copy that command and throw it in there.
    4:15:07 If you want to add it in the little terminal shop for your known hosts, you could do that.
    4:15:08 How do you handle payment?
    4:15:09 Uh, through Stripe.
    4:15:13 And so one of the things we’re, we’ll be adding a mobile checkout to where I’ll show
    4:15:16 a QR code in the terminal and you can just like check out on your phone.
    4:15:18 But right now you enter in your credentials.
    4:15:19 It goes to Stripe.
    4:15:21 Via all terminal.
    4:15:21 Like SSH.
    4:15:21 Yeah.
    4:15:24 SSH is obviously, it stands for secure shell.
    4:15:29 It uses elliptical, you know, uh, quantum safe algorithms to ensure that your data is not
    4:15:30 being intercepted.
    4:15:30 Yeah.
    4:15:31 But does he use AI?
    4:15:34 I’m, I’m pretty sure Dax uses AI.
    4:15:36 So that you said quantum.
    4:15:37 So I don’t know.
    4:15:38 Quantum AI.
    4:15:40 Can this fusion quantum AI?
    4:15:43 Can this even be a company if it’s not using AI?
    4:15:48 We have some crypto chains with some quantum AI that’s great, you know, powered by fusion.
    4:15:49 So that’s pretty, it’s pretty wild.
    4:15:50 Anyway.
    4:15:53 So yeah, we just kind of came together where we thought, what is the, that was from the
    4:15:54 Mike Tyson fight.
    4:15:54 All right.
    4:15:56 Mike, it was literally that night.
    4:16:01 Mike Tyson kissed the reporter and then walked out without any, uh, close.
    4:16:05 We did an ad for somebody, but we decided to make a coffee shop.
    4:16:10 And then we thought, instead of just making it NeoVim, what if we made it from SSH?
    4:16:12 Cause everybody has SSH.
    4:16:14 You have VS code, launch VS code.
    4:16:17 You can order coffee from within VS code, right?
    4:16:20 Cause your little bottom terminal that has access to SSH, bada bing, bada boom.
    4:16:21 It’s kind of fun.
    4:16:24 And so we kind of really, I love it.
    4:16:29 We just wanted to do something where there’s no level and there’s no world that makes me
    4:16:31 feel bad about selling this and people buying it.
    4:16:33 It’s good, ethical coffee.
    4:16:36 We, we developed the entire supply chain and everything.
    4:16:37 It’s all packaged.
    4:16:38 It’s all boutique.
    4:16:41 It’s all really like, it’s pretty high end coffee.
    4:16:43 It tastes really, really good.
    4:16:44 At this point, I don’t like drinking other coffee.
    4:16:46 I get kind of upset about it cause it’s not as good.
    4:16:49 And so it’s kind of funny that I’ve, I’ve fallen for my own stuff.
    4:16:51 I’m high on my own supply pretty hard right now.
    4:16:56 I just got done ordering 16 bags and gave it out to my family to try to convince them.
    4:17:01 But it’s just something where it’s like, I didn’t sell you a software product.
    4:17:04 That’s going to influence your startup that could potentially lead to disaster.
    4:17:08 I didn’t convince you to do a bunch of stuff that’s going to change your career.
    4:17:10 I just said, Hey, here’s some coffee.
    4:17:12 And it just like, it’s, it’s like a fun experience.
    4:17:13 Yeah.
    4:17:13 It’s fun.
    4:17:14 Everything, the humor around is great.
    4:17:15 Yeah.
    4:17:17 People should go to terminal.shop.
    4:17:30 I was speaking to people that don’t know what SSH is and there you can read the command and then figure out how to use SSH in order to, I mean, it’s a kind of documentation, right?
    4:17:36 If you can’t use SSH, you probably should just not worry about buying our coffee.
    4:17:38 Like that’s the whole, you can learn, you can learn.
    4:17:42 If you are active and you’re a computer person, you’d like to launch the terminal and feel like a hacker.
    4:17:42 Go for it.
    4:17:44 We even have subscriptions.
    4:17:47 What I would love to see this, this is how it came up.
    4:17:58 I think on the, on the cursor conversation is that I would love it if an AI agent, you know, did this like Anthropics computer use or something like that.
    4:18:02 It actually took the action of ordering the coffee while it was programming.
    4:18:02 Yeah.
    4:18:04 Like, Hey, order me some coffee.
    4:18:05 And it’d actually go off.
    4:18:06 Give me dark roast, order coffee.
    4:18:08 It could actually go through the whole flow of order.
    4:18:09 Yeah.
    4:18:10 The whole flow.
    4:18:14 But even better, if you didn’t ask it to order coffee, you asked it to do something.
    4:18:20 And as a tangent, as a side quest, it did that, which is computer use does that, right?
    4:18:28 They showed off that it’s able to go to, I think, uh, uh, like Google for some images, take a pause and then continue doing.
    4:18:29 You know, doing other stuff.
    4:18:30 Anyway.
    4:18:30 Yeah.
    4:18:31 Super cool idea.
    4:18:32 Love it.
    4:18:34 Speaking of which, let’s talk about AI.
    4:18:35 All right.
    4:18:42 You’ve been both sort of positive and negative on, uh, on the role of AI in the, in the whole programming, software engineering experience.
    4:18:45 As it stands today, what do you think?
    4:18:47 Uh, what’s your general view about AI?
    4:18:49 Uh, what is it effective at?
    4:18:50 What is it not so good at?
    4:18:51 Okay.
    4:19:04 So my general view is it comes down to something that’s pretty simple, which is that if you’re doing something in which is very predictable, AI is really nice.
    4:19:11 When you’re doing something that is just not predictable, AI is not very nice to use.
    4:19:15 If you’re using anything that’s more cutting edge, AI will not be using it.
    4:19:18 Our AI won’t be very good at doing stuff with it.
    4:19:22 Like it’s, it’s not great at Zig because Zig is just like, say less documented.
    4:19:23 It’s really great at TypeScript.
    4:19:34 Uh, I think there’s a lot of, there’s a lot of interesting things that are going to come down through AI that I think a lot of people aren’t really prepared for or thinking through.
    4:19:47 Uh, TJ is kind of the genesis of this idea, but the idea that, uh, I think there’s going to be a lot of kind of market manipulation, if you will, through AI, meaning like, Hey, you want to research, say best woodworking tools.
    4:19:49 Someone’s going to be buying an ad spot.
    4:19:52 Someone’s going to be buying premium trade training data, right?
    4:20:00 They’re the ones that get the, uh, the big boosts in the LLMs, but LLMs don’t really have the market as an advertisement because it’s not really directly an advertisement.
    4:20:05 They just had a more premium spot per se in the training data, a little bit extra learning to it.
    4:20:09 You know, it’s like, there’s a lot of things about AI that I, I fear upcoming.
    4:20:16 Uh, a lot of it just comes down to people not, uh, learning or making the trade-off where productivity is the only thing that matters.
    4:20:19 And I don’t think productivity is the only thing that matters.
    4:20:27 If you want to build something complex and difficult, productivity is not the only thing you actually are going to have to do deep learning and kind of pursue it beyond the basics.
    4:20:32 And so I see AI as kind of like this really cool thing.
    4:20:33 It feels like a magic trick.
    4:20:37 I remember the first time I used it, I got early access to GitHub co-pilot.
    4:20:42 Nat, in fact, Nat Friedman saw my Twitch clip of me asking GitHub for it.
    4:20:44 And he sent me early access himself.
    4:20:44 It was awesome.
    4:20:48 And when I used it, it predicted an if statement correct.
    4:20:52 And my mind was just absolutely blown because I had nothing before then.
    4:20:54 And now it’s just like first time ever.
    4:20:57 And I just remember thinking, man, this is going to change programming so much.
    4:21:02 And then the more I used it, the more I just, for me personally, I kept introducing bugs.
    4:21:05 And I couldn’t figure out why.
    4:21:09 And what I realized is that I kind of developed, I wasn’t co-piloting well.
    4:21:10 I was autopiloting much better.
    4:21:16 And my ability to read code versus my ability to critically think and write code, they’re definitely different sets of skill levels.
    4:21:21 I don’t consider as well when I just read code as opposed to when I write code.
    4:21:22 And so I struggled there.
    4:21:25 I do think that’s the skill set.
    4:21:25 Yeah.
    4:21:26 Skill issue for sure.
    4:21:27 Skill issue.
    4:21:32 For people who are not aware, that’s like a hashtag thing sometimes used mockingly.
    4:21:37 In this case, there’s like several layers, mockingly, but also seriously.
    4:21:37 Yeah.
    4:21:44 Meaning like the criticism is grounded in the fact that you lack the skill versus some kind of fundamental truth.
    4:21:45 Yes.
    4:21:52 I think that that’s the reason I use actually co-pilot cursor a lot.
    4:21:55 It’s for developing the skill of editing AI.
    4:21:59 So I can just learn how to do that better and better.
    4:22:05 Because I think as I do that better and better, I start to utilize AI better.
    4:22:10 At this time, it is a bit of a boilerplate code thing.
    4:22:19 But you can do out of the box kind of novel design decisions or tricky design decisions from scratch.
    4:22:28 But fill out stuff using AI and then just learn the skill of modifying.
    4:22:34 I personally just, it’s more fun to program with AI.
    4:22:37 Even when I delete a lot of the code, it’s more fun.
    4:22:39 It’s less lonely.
    4:22:45 It’s more, it’s what I imagine like pair programming to be.
    4:22:46 But I’ve never done it.
    4:22:55 But it just feels like that friction that you get when you’re like staring at an empty thing is not there.
    4:22:59 Like empty function, empty class.
    4:23:03 It’s just more fun, less lonely.
    4:23:10 And I do think that a lot of the easier type of coding, it really helps with.
    4:23:11 Like interacting with APIs.
    4:23:19 Basic things that I would usually have to look up to Stack Overflow for.
    4:23:21 It’s just really fast at that.
    4:23:22 Yeah.
    4:23:25 As an example, just interacting with the YouTube API.
    4:23:29 The YouTube API documentation is not very good.
    4:23:43 And you can just load it all in there and ask it to generate a set of functions that access the API, do all kinds of read and write operations, and it figures it all out.
    4:23:46 And then you can just, well, you do have to read.
    4:23:48 You have to read and check everything.
    4:23:55 And you start to develop the skill of understanding where it misinterpreted the task.
    4:23:58 So you’re, what is that skill?
    4:23:59 I don’t even know.
    4:24:06 You have to kind of be empathic about what the AI is, what its limitations are.
    4:24:13 A lot of the times that has to do with prompt engineering.
    4:24:23 You have to like, at the same time, understand what the AI is aware of.
    4:24:29 Like, what did you actually give it as data to be able to generate the code?
    4:24:33 A lot of times we don’t realize that we’re not giving it enough information.
    4:24:35 So you have to like, actually, okay, okay, all right.
    4:24:37 You have to like be empathic.
    4:24:42 Be like, okay, these are the code, the files it’s aware of.
    4:24:45 This is the specifics of the question you asked it.
    4:24:53 Like, you have to like, imagine you’re an intern that doesn’t know anything else.
    4:24:59 Like, oftentimes we want the AI to like figure out the things that’s left unspoken, but you
    4:25:00 can’t know those things.
    4:25:02 You have to like specify those things.
    4:25:08 And so you have to actually be much more deliberate and rigorous in the things you specify.
    4:25:09 It’s a spell it out.
    4:25:14 And so I just have this like sea of prompts that I have saved up.
    4:25:18 And I’m building these like library of different templates for prompts.
    4:25:19 And it’s a mess.
    4:25:23 And I’m sure there’s a lot of developers that have this similar kind of mess.
    4:25:27 So a lot of it has to do long term with the tooling that’s going to improve that.
    4:25:29 One, the systems are going to get much more intelligent.
    4:25:31 Well, you don’t need the nuance.
    4:25:36 And two, there’s going to be the tooling that allows you to specify those things and load
    4:25:41 it in correctly and give all the context that the system needs in order to make the good
    4:25:41 decisions.
    4:25:44 And maybe the system asks you follow up questions.
    4:25:47 Wait, here’s things you didn’t make clear, all that kind of stuff.
    4:25:51 A lot of that has to do with the interface, with the actual design of the tools, like we
    4:25:52 said with cursor.
    4:25:54 It’s going to keep getting better and better and better.
    4:26:03 So my sense is like developers in general should be learning this to see, to not be left behind,
    4:26:12 to see how that can be used as a superpower to boost their productivity, their effectiveness,
    4:26:17 their joy of programming versus like be seen as a competitor to them or something like that.
    4:26:28 So, but I, you know, I, for me already, it’s been, it’s, it’s been a big boost of productivity.
    4:26:34 Like actual, like if you measure the actual, how quickly you’re able to get a thing done.
    4:26:39 It’s been a big, and measured not across minutes and hours, but days also.
    4:26:45 Like sometimes there’s things I have to do that are not that important that I’ll just like out
    4:26:49 of procrastination will push off and AI helps me actually get it done.
    4:26:56 Like actually, cause like that thing, the empty page, like I mentioned before, it helps me write
    4:27:00 the thing, get it done, get it tested, like ship the thing.
    4:27:03 Maybe it’s just because it’s just less lonely to work with an AI.
    4:27:03 I don’t know.
    4:27:07 I don’t know if any of that made sense, but.
    4:27:08 It all made perfect sense.
    4:27:09 I really do like that phrase.
    4:27:10 It makes it less lonely.
    4:27:14 I think there’s something to that that’s kind of interesting, having just some level of interaction
    4:27:16 that’s not just like an LSP autocomplete.
    4:27:16 Yeah.
    4:27:20 Like having something that’s actually a little bit more than just that, where it actually
    4:27:23 is kind of thinking through and you can see a different thought and you’re like, oh, wow,
    4:27:26 that’s like, that’s a way different approach than I would have taken.
    4:27:27 Hey, that’s kind of cool.
    4:27:28 I like these kinds of things.
    4:27:31 And the thing is, I’m not like a AI negative person.
    4:27:35 I, I can see why people really, really like it.
    4:27:40 Um, I just haven’t like, I just, every time I, I used copilot for, from when Nat gave me
    4:27:44 the, uh, access all the way up until about six months ago.
    4:27:45 Like that’s how I used it for quite some time.
    4:27:48 And I really, I really did enjoy the things I used out of it.
    4:27:51 It just never, it kind of did the opposite for me.
    4:27:53 I felt like I was more reviewing than writing.
    4:27:59 And I felt like I was more kind of just letting things slide where I just didn’t really think
    4:28:00 too heavily about stuff.
    4:28:03 And it just, I wasn’t as engaged.
    4:28:05 And so I’m like, okay, so something’s kind of wrong here.
    4:28:07 And that’s just like a me personal thing.
    4:28:10 So I recognize that is not how someone should approach these things.
    4:28:12 That’s not a good reason for why you should or should not use AI.
    4:28:14 Like, I just don’t think that that’s right.
    4:28:16 Cause I could probably correct that and figure out a better way to do it.
    4:28:19 I’ve been meaning to have another AI round.
    4:28:23 And so I’ve been thinking about like, maybe I just need to spend like two weeks in cursor
    4:28:25 and just like fully embrace.
    4:28:27 What does it mean to be somebody like this?
    4:28:29 And, and God, what can I do with this?
    4:28:33 Like these new powers, have they improved to the point where they’re actually good?
    4:28:37 And I mean, for me, cause like a lot of the decisions I make, a lot of the little functions
    4:28:40 I’m writing, it’s not cause I’m trying to write this function to solve this problem.
    4:28:44 It’s cause I’m writing these functions or this set, not just to solve this problem, but because
    4:28:48 I know in about another 2000 lines of code of building all these other things, I’m going to need
    4:28:50 to start doing this next activity.
    4:28:53 So it’s like, I’m trying to like really try to chest move.
    4:28:58 myself into the exact things that as I let things go faster, I kind of fall apart on
    4:28:59 that chest move.
    4:29:02 And again, skill issues for, on my behalf.
    4:29:06 And I mean, in the truest sense of the word, where it’s like, I’m making a critique because
    4:29:08 I don’t use it well enough.
    4:29:09 The better you are programming.
    4:29:10 I don’t know if this is a general rule.
    4:29:11 This is my anecdotal data.
    4:29:16 The better you are programming, the less you want to use the AI, the more gets in the way.
    4:29:17 Like the good programmers.
    4:29:18 Fair enough.
    4:29:19 As far as I can tell.
    4:29:23 So like the more sort of beginner programmers are much more happy to use AI.
    4:29:30 You know, I, when I use AI for basic, like for just like, I don’t know if there’s a better
    4:29:30 term.
    4:29:33 It’s not boilerplate, but it’s like pretty easy programming.
    4:29:33 Yeah.
    4:29:36 And that kind of programming is much easier to do.
    4:29:42 Like the sort of the 10 X, not to use the meme, sort of programmers that I know that are ultra
    4:29:44 productive and brilliant people.
    4:29:45 They just, they hate AI.
    4:29:48 They’re like, this is not, nowhere close to what’s needed.
    4:29:50 So that there’s something to that.
    4:29:55 I still think they should be using AI just for the learning.
    4:29:55 Yeah.
    4:29:56 Because it’s going to get smarter.
    4:29:57 It’s going to get better.
    4:30:00 And it’s the same thing.
    4:30:06 It’s like when you, when you super optimize NeoVim or super optimize Emacs, you may not
    4:30:09 discover the new things that are in the pipeline.
    4:30:11 So it’s, it’s always good to be sort of training in that way.
    4:30:14 Let me ask you a question here, just kind of from my understanding, you talked about this
    4:30:19 idea that you have all these kind of LLM kind of prompts, all like this big backlog of
    4:30:23 messy LL prompts that you kind of have these templates for that you can do various actions.
    4:30:26 You probably, you have these strategies of making it self-explain itself and then do
    4:30:27 the right thing, right?
    4:30:31 Like you have, as far as I can tell, that’s, that’s really built into a lot of people.
    4:30:35 Well, then you make this phrase where you’re like, but then at some point the interface is
    4:30:37 going to get better and maybe it can do a lot of these things better where I won’t need
    4:30:38 that.
    4:30:45 Then my question is, well, is anyone actually falling behind for not using AI then?
    4:30:48 Because if the interface is going to change so greatly that all of your habits need to
    4:30:52 fundamentally change and it will be able to clarify and make all those statements, have
    4:30:53 I actually fallen behind at all?
    4:30:58 Or will the next gen like actually just be so different from the current one that it’s
    4:31:02 kind of like, yeah, you’re, you’re over there like actually doing punch card AI right now.
    4:31:07 I’m going to come in at compiler time AI so different that it’s like, what’s a, what’s
    4:31:07 a punch card?
    4:31:10 Uh, so obviously open question.
    4:31:11 It’s a fascinating one.
    4:31:18 I personally think, yes, you’re, you’re falling behind, not you, but if you’re not, if you’re
    4:31:22 not playing with it, you’re falling behind because the thing I’m doing with the prompts
    4:31:31 is you’re learning, you’re building up like this intuition about how AI works.
    4:31:37 You’re understanding like what is its strengths and weaknesses, not even the current version,
    4:31:39 but the next version and so on.
    4:31:44 Like what, uh, what does it mean to teach an AI system about the world?
    4:31:50 Like what kind of, uh, information does it need to make effective decisions?
    4:31:54 I think that does transfer to smarter and smarter models.
    4:32:01 You’ll need to make, uh, less rigorous and specific and detailed instructions over time,
    4:32:05 but you still have to have that kind of thing.
    4:32:06 Yeah.
    4:32:11 I think it’s a skill of almost empathy with an AI system because it doesn’t know the, uh,
    4:32:12 you know what it’s missing?
    4:32:13 It’s missing like common sense.
    4:32:15 It’s missing long-term memory.
    4:32:22 A lot of things, when we talk to other humans, they have a basic common sense about reality.
    4:32:27 Like, and AI systems often lack that kind of common sense.
    4:32:29 And they also don’t remember things.
    4:32:36 So you have to like realize there’s a constant blank, uh, blank slate happening.
    4:32:43 So it’s almost like a, just a skill of talking to an AI system that, uh, that I’m training.
    4:32:48 And by having to write all those prompts and communicating back and forth to understand
    4:32:51 what kind of prompts work better or not, you build up that intuition.
    4:32:57 And also just raw, the skill of reading somebody else’s code, maybe for people who work on large
    4:33:01 teams, that’s a skill that’s already developed for me, not so much.
    4:33:07 So learning how to modify the code that somebody else written is, uh, is a real skill.
    4:33:14 And also the other thing you mentioned, which is like considering another perspective on a
    4:33:20 piece of code is really nice, but it is also a skill to understand, okay, this is what you
    4:33:20 did.
    4:33:29 There’s a skill to asking a question about that code that’s been generated, uh, such that
    4:33:31 you can have a conversation about the approach that was taken.
    4:33:39 I think there’s just a lot of subtle little skills involved in a cooperative endeavor to
    4:33:39 code.
    4:33:45 Um, kind of like if there was a real skill issue between you and Teej when you guys did the
    4:33:47 video of 280S1 keyboard, right?
    4:33:52 Uh, people should go watch that video where like you guys obviously sucked at it.
    4:33:52 Yeah.
    4:33:53 Co-using.
    4:33:59 That was pretty cool, which you guys did, which is controlling one Neovim interface from two
    4:33:59 different keyboards.
    4:34:00 Yeah.
    4:34:03 And then we each get an allowance of certain characters or motions we could perform.
    4:34:04 Yeah.
    4:34:07 And so you both had to like communicate together that that’s a real skill.
    4:34:10 I’m sure you can get super like super efficient with that.
    4:34:11 Yeah.
    4:34:13 But it takes, it just takes time to learn that kind of thing.
    4:34:18 So yeah, I think, uh, there’s some value to it, but I think there’s a learning curve.
    4:34:21 So I have, so I, I want it.
    4:34:24 I do want one thing to be pretty clear is that I actually use AI quite a bit.
    4:34:26 I just don’t use it for programming.
    4:34:30 And so one thing I’ve been trying to get it to is to be able to have like a long interview
    4:34:34 or understand what Twitch chat is saying and become Twitch chat and be able to speak as
    4:34:35 if it is Twitch chat.
    4:34:38 Try to like learn how to prompt it in different ways.
    4:34:41 And so I think those things for me are just really fun.
    4:34:43 I tried to get it to learn how to play tower defense.
    4:34:46 I made a tower defense game in Zig and then made it play tower defense and then played a
    4:34:49 clod 3.5 against open AI.
    4:34:53 Clod 3.5 would do better during the daytimes and open AI did better during the nighttimes.
    4:34:54 I don’t know why.
    4:34:58 I don’t, I have no idea what was going on there, but just one would just start winning and the
    4:34:59 other one would start losing.
    4:35:00 It was just very strange.
    4:35:05 And so it’s just this, you know, I’m learning to prompt well, but I’m learning to prompt in a
    4:35:06 very different axie.
    4:35:08 I just don’t find it very useful yet in programming.
    4:35:09 In programming.
    4:35:17 And I should also say that I’m using it in, yeah, in every walk of life, in every context,
    4:35:22 I use that same kind of exploration about prompts and so on I’m using and learning.
    4:35:26 I think it legit is a whole field in itself.
    4:35:27 Yeah.
    4:35:31 Prompt engineering and how to interact with AI systems, I think it’s worth the investment.
    4:35:33 Can you actually speak to that?
    4:35:42 Because you, I saw you’re, you’re basically pulling from Twitch chat and having an LLM speak.
    4:35:48 I didn’t realize, I thought you’re, so you’re not reading the exact chat messages.
    4:35:49 Yeah.
    4:35:51 You’re, you’re doing kind of some kind of summarization.
    4:35:52 Yeah.
    4:35:56 So what I, I try to go through like a, I ended up making like eight queries off to open AI
    4:36:00 where it’s just like, the first thing is like, I have it, have it like a default personality.
    4:36:05 Hey, you’re Randall, the manager, you’re a software engineering manager, kind of explain
    4:36:07 their position, what they like, what they don’t like.
    4:36:10 And then be like, these are the list of thoughts you have in your head.
    4:36:13 And you need to talk to this person and ask them a question.
    4:36:13 This is amazing.
    4:36:18 Give me 10 of these responses that you think are probably thoughts that you have and you
    4:36:19 want to ask.
    4:36:19 Yeah.
    4:36:23 You know, like make it kind of give you a list and then be like, okay, then reprompt and
    4:36:24 be like, Hey, you’re Randall.
    4:36:25 You’re this, this, this, this, this, this, this.
    4:36:31 You have these 10 questions before you, and now you need to select one of them and reword
    4:36:34 it in a way that sounds more like you, the engineering manager, you know?
    4:36:38 And so you’re like, you know, I’m constantly trying to make it like iterate on itself as
    4:36:40 opposed to just like one shotting it.
    4:36:44 And I found if I iterate too much, it becomes like, it loses the value, it like loses what
    4:36:47 it was originally trying to ask if I don’t do it enough.
    4:36:49 And it’s just too degenerate from Twitch chat.
    4:36:52 And so it’s like, I, I have a lot of improvement to do with this idea.
    4:36:57 Just to clarify, you’re feeding in Twitch chat.
    4:37:00 These are the thoughts you’re, you’re a manager.
    4:37:02 These are the thoughts you have in your head.
    4:37:05 Pick out some of the most profound thoughts.
    4:37:06 Effectively.
    4:37:09 It’s like, depending on what I want it to do, I’m trying to work on a better system still
    4:37:10 for it.
    4:37:12 And so it’s like, how can I give voice to Twitch chat?
    4:37:17 Can I make it so that I can get, create adversarial characters against Twitch chat or
    4:37:18 for Twitch chat?
    4:37:19 Can I incorporate YouTube, all that kind of stuff?
    4:37:23 And like, how do you describe to an LLM to role play into its position?
    4:37:28 And so, you know, just thinking through those kinds of things, you know, so maybe I am having
    4:37:31 some prompt skills, but just, you know, it’s just not in the coding world yet.
    4:37:33 One day, one day I’ll get there.
    4:37:37 I saw that you were having, like, playing with different voices.
    4:37:39 There was like a sexy voice.
    4:37:41 That started off as a French voice.
    4:37:44 And then it turns out Eleven Labs just cannot do a French lady.
    4:37:50 And when you do multilingual French lady, she starts talking.
    4:37:51 Yeah.
    4:37:52 I was like, what?
    4:37:54 I tuned into one of your streams.
    4:37:55 What is this?
    4:38:01 And there’s just this lady, like, in a sexualized way.
    4:38:02 It became too funny.
    4:38:05 And so we call her not French Stormy Daniels.
    4:38:06 Oh, nice.
    4:38:06 Yeah.
    4:38:07 But hold on.
    4:38:09 I want to go back to the AI and some of the aspects.
    4:38:10 Sure.
    4:38:13 And so, like, my big gripe with AI has nothing to do with its capabilities.
    4:38:17 It’s exactly capable as it should be capable because that’s what people programmed it as.
    4:38:22 The things that I really dislike is, A, there’s a whole group of people that are just, like, the end is nigh.
    4:38:23 AI is here.
    4:38:24 You just need to stop programming.
    4:38:26 Like, I cannot see.
    4:38:27 I cannot tell you.
    4:38:28 Even on, like, you mentioned Peter Levels earlier.
    4:38:30 He made some sort of tweet.
    4:38:38 And one of the person’s responses was, yeah, no one in this, like, in 2025 or whatever should be acquiring hard skills.
    4:38:40 You should rely on everything for the AI, effectively.
    4:38:45 And it’s just, like, these are really damning pieces of advice for young people.
    4:38:48 Like, young people are being told that you should never become an expert in anything.
    4:38:49 You should always offload.
    4:38:57 And the problem is, is that anyone worth any of their salt will tell you that AI, though can produce code, is going to get it wrong in a huge number of cases.
    4:39:04 And as the code becomes bigger or more complex or more input, it’s going to just start kind of sloshing back and forth between bugs.
    4:39:12 And so, if you don’t have those hard skills and you’re not ultimately the driver at the end of the day, like, you’re going to really find some hard times.
    4:39:17 And your ability to progress will be directly bound to how good the LLMs are.
    4:39:22 So, if you believe that the LLMs will be vastly superior to humans in the next year, maybe that’s a good bet.
    4:39:26 But if they aren’t, then your skill ceiling is bound to whatever they are.
    4:39:40 And even beyond that, there’s just like a whole, there’s just like a level of information problem, which is like, can the thing actually navigate larger, like, do we even have enough compute power to be able to solve things at this real scale?
    4:39:45 And even if we did, if everybody started using it right now, do we even have the compute power for everybody to use it right now?
    4:39:47 There’s like a lot of kind of bounding questions.
    4:39:48 There’s privacy concerns.
    4:39:56 And I just don’t want people to make the immediate or what appears to be the obvious choice where you don’t need hard skills.
    4:39:56 You don’t need these things.
    4:39:59 Our life is already going to be, we just need to only think creatively.
    4:40:01 It’s like, no, I don’t think so.
    4:40:06 I think these hard skills are going to be around for quite some time, even with a massive improvement in the AI.
    4:40:12 Like, you’re going to really be needed to step in regularly for quite some time, as far as I can tell.
    4:40:26 But I also think, even on top of that, just even acquiring the hard skills or whether that means programming from scratch, for example, in the context of programming, that’s going to make you better at steering the AI.
    4:40:29 Not just correcting the AI, but steering the AI.
    4:40:35 I think there is some kind of, if you know how a computer works, you can program Python better.
    4:40:46 It’s maybe counterintuitive, but you can, if you know the low level abstractions, like some intuition around that, you can steer the high level abstractions better.
    4:40:47 Yeah.
    4:40:48 That just seems to be the case.
    4:40:56 Unless, of course, AI becomes like truly super intelligent, like many levels above, but it’s very unlikely in the short term.
    4:41:04 And in the long term, it’s still good as it gets better and better and better to be able to steer, to ride the wave of the improvement.
    4:41:04 Yeah.
    4:41:05 I’m on that team very much so.
    4:41:18 A lot of people have written to me, I think a lot of developers, programmers, are really concerned about the future of their profession in the context of quickly improving AI systems.
    4:41:21 So, do you think AI will eventually replace programmers?
    4:41:25 The hard part about that phrase is you use the term eventually.
    4:41:31 I mean, do I think in five years, 10 years, 100 years, like what does that term actually mean?
    4:41:41 I think at some point, if we were able to scale, if all things continue at the current rate of improvement, there does come a point where programming as a hard skill does become unnecessary.
    4:41:42 Right.
    4:41:45 At some eventual point, way, way down the road.
    4:41:46 Yes.
    4:41:47 I don’t know what that point looks like.
    4:41:49 I don’t know when it’s going to happen.
    4:41:51 I don’t even attempt to make predictions about that.
    4:42:02 But there are still some like leaps and bounds we need to make just, I mean, even just like societally, like there’s plenty of companies that don’t even allow you to use AI, right?
    4:42:02 Like that.
    4:42:04 I mean, there’s just practical problems that exist.
    4:42:08 So, that’s like a question I just try not to answer in the direct sense.
    4:42:19 There will come a day if humanity continues and all things continue in a good positive direction where a lot of skills will go out the window due to immense computing systems.
    4:42:20 So, yeah, I’ll give you that one.
    4:42:30 But it’s just like if I don’t think it has anything in the near term, there’s been no computer improvement up to this date that did not result in more jobs.
    4:42:31 Yeah, absolutely.
    4:42:53 We should say that I think it depends how you define programming also because, you know, when the community moves from assembly to C, from C to, I don’t know, Python and JavaScript, like that’s evolution.
    4:43:00 That’s really painful for a lot of people who are used to programming that lower level language.
    4:43:12 So, there’s going to be a continuous evolution and maybe that means with AI there’s going to be more and more evolution towards natural language as part of the tool chain, like being able to learn how to write proper prompts.
    4:43:18 Yeah, that might, you know, because natural language is still a language.
    4:43:24 And in the long term, it’s possible that a large percentage of programming is natural language.
    4:43:28 There are probably still going to be some percentage, just not.
    4:43:30 That’s going to be extremely structured language.
    4:43:35 Right now, I don’t think we are anywhere near natural language being possible because it’s ambiguous.
    4:43:47 And I think what we’ll end up seeing as people push really hard into this, you’re going to see some sort of like pseudo-lang, which is going to be a language for AIs in which you prompt, which is going to be less ambiguous, right?
    4:43:50 People keep striving towards the less ambiguous state.
    4:43:52 And at that point, you’re just programming.
    4:43:55 You’re just programming yet another evolution into a higher order language.
    4:43:59 And perhaps that is a future in which people will have a more terse language.
    4:44:02 I’m just not sure how much more terse it can get.
    4:44:21 Yeah, I mean, all I see is that if you say natural language can be used in the pipeline, you’ve just made that many more people can become programmers, which means that much more software will eventually be created, which means there’s that much more software that will need to be maintained and just becomes a real big snowballing effect.
    4:44:26 But, you know, there’s just people who are programmers who are worried about their jobs.
    4:44:27 Yeah.
    4:44:31 Not a complete replacement, but maybe a rapid evolution of what it means to be a programmer.
    4:44:45 Like you mentioned, if natural language becomes a way that you can communicate or you can program, that means the pool of people who can get programming jobs changes rapidly.
    4:44:46 So they’re really concerned.
    4:44:48 And to some extent, right?
    4:45:01 Because no matter how much we want to say how good AI is, there comes a point where there exists a bug, there exists a large piece of software in which to describe the change requires resources.
    4:45:08 It’s just like pages and pages of description to the point where it is significantly just faster or easier for someone to just whip something out.
    4:45:10 Like there’s definitely a balance there.
    4:45:12 It’s not like a perfect trade-off.
    4:45:20 And so I still don’t, I think people need to quit worrying and think about how they can integrate it and try, like prove it to themselves.
    4:45:22 Do they actually make themselves irrelevant?
    4:45:31 And if you truly make yourself irrelevant, I would challenge you that you’re already, like, you’re just doing something that was just slightly too complicated to automate.
    4:45:41 Like if you’re only writing just straight up CRUD apps from back end to front end and like simple table displays, like, yeah, maybe we just couldn’t quite automate that away.
    4:45:44 And now we just have something that can just do that a little bit better.
    4:45:48 So now that’s automated the way, but that’s not really programming.
    4:45:52 That’s almost like building Legos at that point, where the design’s already set.
    4:45:55 You just simply have to move piece from bag into correct position.
    4:45:56 Yeah.
    4:46:07 Is there something you recommend how a developer programmer could avoid a situation where AI can automate them away?
    4:46:19 I think that the bigger the project you can manage, the bigger the thing you can build, the more understanding both down and up the stack you can go, the more value valuable you become.
    4:46:27 Because if you understand how to build something in the front end, okay, well, now you kick off some LLM task of some sort that’s going to go off and make a change to the front end.
    4:46:33 Okay, while it’s doing that, you can go and kick off something in the CLI tool, you can go and you can go kick off something somewhere else.
    4:46:38 And as these things come back with results, you can review the results, make sure it’s the way you want it, change it, commit it, go to the next.
    4:46:45 Like, you only become more, you know, as you said in the end, more productive if we reach this state where it’s truly able to do that.
    4:46:53 I think there is like a skill to working together with AI, which is why I’m kind of excited to watch you keep trying to do it.
    4:47:01 It’s like, we don’t know how it fits exactly, but it feels like AI should be a boost to productivity.
    4:47:06 And I definitely think it’s a boost to just the joy of programming.
    4:47:13 I think there’s a lot of people, yeah, it’s a job, but it’s also a source of meaning, a source of joy.
    4:47:15 Like, programming is fun.
    4:47:16 You’re creating something cool.
    4:47:19 And also potentially that a lot of people use.
    4:47:26 There’s this one thing that just really frustrates me, and this is kind of going into the Devon category, which is that I want an intern that cares.
    4:47:27 Yeah.
    4:47:29 You don’t get that out of an LL.
    4:47:29 It does not care.
    4:47:35 Meaning that I don’t want it just to make a UI for me that displays these icons, like I asked.
    4:47:36 I want it to care.
    4:47:37 I want it to think about it.
    4:47:41 I want it to present to me and me be like, oh, yeah, yeah, that’s great.
    4:47:42 And then me to make changes.
    4:47:44 And then later on, it’s like, actually, you know what?
    4:47:45 I really rethought about this.
    4:47:46 And actually, it’d be way better if we change.
    4:47:49 You know, like, it doesn’t actually care about the craft, you know?
    4:47:53 But when you work with an intern or you work with somebody else, they care.
    4:47:56 When they factor something, they actually go over and go, ah, yeah, this is actually kind of bad.
    4:47:57 I’m going to come back to that.
    4:47:58 They finish this.
    4:48:00 They go back over and they make this even better, right?
    4:48:02 They, like, actually care about the thing itself.
    4:48:04 It’s a completely different experience.
    4:48:08 I just want something that also cares, that wants to make the thing better, not just simply
    4:48:09 accomplish the task.
    4:48:11 And I know I’m asking way too much.
    4:48:14 That’s not, you know, now we’re getting into, like, Blade Runner’s level AI.
    4:48:19 I just want something that’s, it just feels like I’m missing that, where it’s just like,
    4:48:24 it will complete the task to whatever level it understood what I was prompting, but it just
    4:48:27 doesn’t, it doesn’t actually care about it.
    4:48:30 I mean, there’s so many.
    4:48:35 There’s so many aspects to caring, but sort of the trivial version of that is the kind
    4:48:39 of restlessness where you want to keep improving.
    4:48:42 And I think that is very much AI could do.
    4:48:43 Yeah.
    4:48:45 Where it constantly just asks itself, can I make this better?
    4:48:51 And if it keeps doing that, it probably is going to take it to some ridiculous place.
    4:48:55 So actually it’s, it’s also knowing when to stop.
    4:48:55 Yeah.
    4:49:03 I think developing something you can call it taste, which is like trying, working extremely
    4:49:07 hard, constantly improving until it just feels right.
    4:49:08 This is it.
    4:49:11 And I think that is a thing that AI is not good at.
    4:49:13 It was just like, yes, this is it.
    4:49:15 I’ve iterated three times and three was the.
    4:49:16 That’s it.
    4:49:17 We’re now there.
    4:49:26 And that, I think ultimately that is what humans are amazing at, which is like knowing when something
    4:49:26 is right.
    4:49:27 Like this is it.
    4:49:33 This is, especially as you understand, as you develop taste in the particular industry, in
    4:49:36 the particular context application, knowing like this is it.
    4:49:41 Like, yeah, this, the rounded corners on this button, that’s exactly that.
    4:49:42 That’s beautiful.
    4:49:48 So it’s just a sense of beauty, a sense of function and efficiency and so on.
    4:49:48 Yeah.
    4:49:53 That, but that, you know, humans could do almost like supervision of AI systems in that context.
    4:49:53 Yeah.
    4:49:54 Yeah.
    4:49:59 You’ve ranted about Devin, just full of rage.
    4:50:02 I mean, first off, the people that run Devin are extremely nice.
    4:50:04 I want that to be understood.
    4:50:07 I don’t have some sort of upsetness against them or anything like that.
    4:50:13 Second, Devin is just, it’s, it’s kind of like the full, it’s like the full package when
    4:50:14 it comes to programming.
    4:50:19 So it’s going to have, you’re going to give it a task and a repo, and it’s going to go
    4:50:23 through, it’s going to try to understand the repo and the task, make the change to the repo
    4:50:28 by exploring it, then actually make a commit to GitHub and explain what it did so that you
    4:50:32 can have like, you know, so hopefully you have this whole offline thing, which is the other
    4:50:38 part of this AI part that I actually really like, or it’s just like, go fix this thing.
    4:50:41 Then I can just go and unbroken fix this one thing and come back and go, okay, good enough
    4:50:42 merge.
    4:50:42 Boom.
    4:50:45 You know, like I want that kind of running, being able to complete things.
    4:50:49 I think the ideal solution is that you can start giving it small bugs and it goes and
    4:50:50 fixes these bugs.
    4:50:53 And you can just come back to these backlog tickets that no one ever does.
    4:50:56 And it actually starts going through these backlog tickets.
    4:50:57 And it’s actually a really amazing experience.
    4:50:59 So I love the idea, right?
    4:51:01 I think we can all agree that that sounds great.
    4:51:02 Yeah.
    4:51:07 But every time I’ve done it and I’ve, I’ve asked it for many, and I try to keep narrowing
    4:51:07 down the problems.
    4:51:09 The more narrow the problem, the better it does.
    4:51:14 So if I’m like, just add one singular icon and when it gets clicked, I want you to do
    4:51:14 this.
    4:51:15 Just, just console.
    4:51:16 Click me.
    4:51:19 Like just at least create me an SVG and place it.
    4:51:20 So it’s nicely placed.
    4:51:23 The more narrow the task, the more likely it’s to be successful.
    4:51:27 There’s like a certain level of specifying where you specify too much.
    4:51:28 It just like, can’t do it.
    4:51:30 If you specify too little, it just does weird things.
    4:51:35 So it’s kind of like this very kind of fun, unique way you have to play the balance game.
    4:51:39 But so far, every time I do these things, I always end up going, gosh, you know what?
    4:51:41 I should just get better at Tailwind and write it myself.
    4:51:43 Because I always go back and I just rewrite it.
    4:51:44 And then it’s just like, dang it.
    4:51:46 What, what am I saving at the end?
    4:51:48 I feel like I’m not saving anything yet.
    4:51:49 And you know, it’s just like this.
    4:51:51 I want it so bad.
    4:51:54 Like I actually want AI to be great because then I can really go fast.
    4:52:01 I mean, I can go amazing fast, but then I always just go, gosh, I should just learn Tailwind myself to the, like the nth degree and just go fast.
    4:52:02 Yeah.
    4:52:11 We should also mention that debugging, this might be intuitive or counterintuitive, is AI is really bad at.
    4:52:12 Yeah.
    4:52:13 Like that is one of the hardest.
    4:52:19 It actually makes you realize how special humans are and how difficult the task of debugging is.
    4:52:36 Obviously for trivial debugging, maybe you can find bugs, but like that is the real art of programming is the bug is finding bugs, logical bugs, like extremely complicated, rare bugs, edge cases.
    4:52:50 AI can assist, but man, the hard ones are really require so much context, so much experience, so much intuition from, again, operating in a fog full of uncertainty.
    4:52:51 It’s hard.
    4:52:52 Yeah.
    4:53:05 Of course, AI could maybe create like logs and do traces and do some kind of load in a huge amount of data that humans can’t.
    4:53:05 Yeah.
    4:53:12 But ultimately that just means it could be a better assistant in debugging versus the actual lead debugger.
    4:53:12 Yeah.
    4:53:13 I mean, it’d be great if they could.
    4:53:16 I mean, the more it can do that, the better, right?
    4:53:30 Because as far as I can tell, I mean, correct me where I’m wrong on this, current state debugging is really, it looks at the code, it looks at the bug problem, it just kind of tries to text predict where it’s most likely accurate and then just tries to fix that spot.
    4:53:31 And so it’s like, it’s likely this spot.
    4:53:34 You said admin panel, it’s slightly off, this, this, this.
    4:53:37 It’s probably this location, which could actually be a really great way to do search, right?
    4:53:51 Let me do semantic searching, point to me where this is, because maybe that is a really great way to navigate large code bases is like smart, intelligent search, as opposed to trying to make it do the thing, ask it to just help you do the thing in like pinpointing problems.
    4:53:56 I’d love to see more of that, because that’s for me is like the exciting part.
    4:53:59 And there’s this really great article by creator or maintainer of curl.
    4:54:02 It’s the I and LLM stands for intelligence.
    4:54:06 And he writes curl and maintains curl.
    4:54:09 curl has been inundated with security problems and all this.
    4:54:12 And it’s all from LLMs being like, Oh, I found a security flaw.
    4:54:15 Here’s the security flaw details it out in the code.
    4:54:22 And he’s just like, Okay, how did you reproduce that show me because if you look at the code right here, that’s actually an impossible situation you’re speaking of.
    4:54:26 And it’s just like going in these circles and security right now is being inundated.
    4:54:36 These bug bounty programs are being inundated by LLM submitted responses, because they can’t actually, you know, analyze the code beyond just like basic text prediction.
    4:54:41 Oh, this is a stir copy, stir copies commonly referred, you know, blah, blah, blah, blah, boom, there you go.
    4:54:41 Here’s the bug.
    4:54:43 And it’s just like, No, that’s actually impossible.
    4:54:47 Because the if statement right beforehand, leaves the function if the string is too long.
    4:54:49 So it’s like, we don’t even run into this case.
    4:54:50 It’s impossible what you’re saying.
    4:54:53 So the bugging is very interesting.
    4:55:03 Yeah, I mean, that for me would be the big if it can solve that, not solve that, but improve that, that would be huge, whether it’s Asians, or just LLMs integrated into, into IDs.
    4:55:07 I think there’s this whole idea, I call a denial of attention.
    4:55:10 I think there’s an entire attack vector that’s going to be happening.
    4:55:23 We’re using LLMs to generate fake bug reports, fake all these things to just actually effectively to demotivate and hurt open source maintainers.
    4:55:32 Polykill was the first bug that kind of had this experience is this denial of attention where I active malicious maintainer just hounded the owner.
    4:55:37 And then a white knight came out and offered to buy this, you know, buy some stuff from under them.
    4:55:41 And when they bought it, they actually replaced it with a malicious piece of code and then used it.
    4:55:48 So there’s like this whole security world that’s developing around using these in a very aggressive format.
    4:55:56 I mean, it’s a fascinating world we’re entering into, but I do agree with you that humans, human developers will be a huge part of that world.
    4:56:00 This is not, the job might evolve, but it’s going to be there.
    4:56:03 If I can, I didn’t really look at this page.
    4:56:05 I thought it would be cool to go over with you.
    4:56:07 This is, again, the…
    4:56:07 Stack Overflow, my favorite.
    4:56:14 Stack Overflow developer survey talking about their sentiment and usage of AI systems.
    4:56:21 The general sentiment of yes, 61% say yes, they use it.
    4:56:25 And 25% say no, don’t plan to.
    4:56:26 So majority use it.
    4:56:33 Majority have a favorable sentiment over it, favorable or very favorable or indifferent.
    4:56:37 That’s like, it looks like over 90%.
    4:56:41 That’s really surprising that that many people just have no plan in looking into AI.
    4:56:45 Like as much as I don’t like using it for coding, I hope one day I can use it more.
    4:56:45 Right.
    4:56:49 And so it’s like, to me, I’m always looking for the next thing.
    4:56:52 I’m just surprised that people are that, I guess, obstinate for it.
    4:57:02 Obviously, the second one, the AI tool sentiment, it must be only the users who responded to the top two of that first one, just given the amount of respondents.
    4:57:10 I wonder if no and don’t plan to are people who have tried it and quickly built up the intuition, like, this really sucks.
    4:57:10 Yeah.
    4:57:15 So, you know, we could be like experienced programmers.
    4:57:17 They’re like, no, this is not making me more productive.
    4:57:24 81% agree that increasing productivity is the biggest benefit that developers identify for AI tools.
    4:57:25 Okay.
    4:57:27 So this is what are the benefits?
    4:57:34 Increase productivity, speed up learning, greater efficiency, improve accuracy in coding, make workload more manageable, improve collaborate.
    4:57:35 Where’s the fun?
    4:57:37 Increased fun.
    4:57:40 I would say that’s like number one for me.
    4:57:44 Maybe speed up learning is like a subcategory of fun, right?
    4:57:49 If you’re able to learn more and be able to become better, to me, that sounds good.
    4:57:51 Yeah, I don’t know.
    4:57:53 It’s different because like productivity is part of fun, too.
    4:57:59 There is just the lightness, I mean, maybe improve collaboration, all of these elements, for sure.
    4:58:06 My time using Copilot, there was certainly a level of wonder that would happen for quite some time where it’s just like,
    4:58:08 it’s just amazing what it can do.
    4:58:08 Yeah.
    4:58:11 I’m just super impressed by what it can do, even though I don’t use it.
    4:58:15 Like, it’s amazing to me that we have something that can even get that close.
    4:58:22 In terms of accuracy of AI tools, only 2.7% highly trust.
    4:58:26 I would say that you have to be very green to think that you should highly trust an AI output.
    4:58:26 Yeah.
    4:58:28 You should be very skeptical.
    4:58:29 Yeah, I don’t know where I stand.
    4:58:30 Probably somewhat distrust.
    4:58:32 Highly distrust seems aggressive.
    4:58:34 It does seem a little true.
    4:58:35 Like, you should definitely be in the somewhat.
    4:58:41 Like, you should always assume that there’s something wrong, and then from there you can go and challenge it.
    4:58:46 And then estimation of whether AI can handle complex tasks.
    4:58:49 Most people don’t think it can handle complex tasks.
    4:58:52 I mean, it seems like people have a good sense of what it’s able to handle or not.
    4:58:56 I would argue that people don’t have a good grasp of what complex is in programming.
    4:58:57 Sure, yeah.
    4:59:01 If you say, write to me, you know, write me Quicksort, some people will think Quicksort’s super complex.
    4:59:06 But I would argue that that’s actually probably the simplest thing you could ask an AI to do, right?
    4:59:08 Things that are so well documented.
    4:59:10 It’s going to do a great job at that.
    4:59:16 Yeah, probably high-level design decisions, which people don’t even use AI for right now.
    4:59:18 I guess agents are supposed to be doing that kind of stuff.
    4:59:23 That’s probably the most difficult thing or the most impactful thing.
    4:59:26 Well, the most difficult thing is finding bugs.
    4:59:27 Yeah.
    4:59:31 AI tools next year, writing code, and so on.
    4:59:37 Now, this one, the ethics part, I’m actually super curious your take on the ethics.
    4:59:40 Will we see Europe laying down some new regulations?
    4:59:41 Oh, boy.
    4:59:43 What about artists, right?
    4:59:45 What about people that are really…
    4:59:48 Because the difference between coding and artists is very, very simple.
    4:59:51 If you gave me a sheet of paper, I could draw you a crab.
    4:59:53 You’d go, that’s a crab.
    4:59:55 But you can’t do that with coding.
    4:59:57 It’s like, it’s right or it’s wrong.
    5:00:00 There’s not a variation of interpretation for what a crab is.
    5:00:02 It’s like, no, that statement’s just, you cannot make that statement.
    5:00:05 You know, it’s very bounded in what it can express.
    5:00:10 And I could see why artists, like, that’s a very frustrating point.
    5:00:11 And then who gets rewarded for all that?
    5:00:13 You know, obviously.
    5:00:15 And then there’s like the whole thing with coding and licenses.
    5:00:19 How much of it is GPL licenses do you think they have scraped and used as training data?
    5:00:20 GPL forces open source.
    5:00:21 Yeah.
    5:00:22 What are you going to do with that one?
    5:00:25 Like, that means your model might need to be open source.
    5:00:28 Like, open AI may have to get forced open.
    5:00:28 Yeah.
    5:00:29 All their previous stuff.
    5:00:32 If there’s any hint of GPL.
    5:00:34 Yeah, that’s a weird one.
    5:00:35 That’s a really weird one.
    5:00:40 Because most of these models, I think, are training on data they don’t technically have rights to be training on.
    5:00:42 Yeah, there’s a lot of questions.
    5:00:45 There’s an unspoken, it’s a real wild west.
    5:00:53 Because, like, you could imagine that, what happened if, you know, I always use Europe because they tend to have, like, maybe the most consumer protection laws out there.
    5:01:02 You could imagine, what happened if a law came down that said that if you used a model that produced GPL potential code, you have to open source.
    5:01:04 Like, how many companies are going to be like, oh, my gosh.
    5:01:05 Right?
    5:01:09 Like, you have one year to get rid of all code that was generated that’s potentially GPL sourced from a model.
    5:01:12 Like, that could, you could imagine just the sheer panic that’s going to happen.
    5:01:15 It’d be a fire sale of code.
    5:01:20 So, given all that, what, can you give advice to young programmers?
    5:01:26 Like, this is another question from Reddit, the infinite wisdom of Reddit.
    5:01:31 What should a person in their early 20s do to move forward in the tech industry?
    5:01:37 And this is an interesting addition to the question.
    5:01:41 And by doing it, will this be walking on someone else’s path?
    5:01:49 I am going to try to answer that question, I guess, the best I can.
    5:02:02 Which I think that if you’re entering into the tech world, one of the hardest pieces of advice that I took a long time to learn was I became enamored and addicted.
    5:02:05 Obviously, we talked about that program for way too many hours.
    5:02:12 Forgetting to spend the time I needed with my wife, with my friends, all that stuff.
    5:02:15 Like, totally wrapping myself up into one activity.
    5:02:21 I think, though it made me who I am, it was probably an unhealthy activity and probably not a wise activity.
    5:02:26 And so, the best advice I can give is that you’ve got to develop the love, the skill, the desire for it.
    5:02:31 Whether that’s just only using AI agents, programming yourself, using Zig or programming JavaScript.
    5:02:35 Whatever, you know, that flavor is that’s going to get you coming back every single day.
    5:02:48 Getting the reps in the gym, if you will, for programming, but also knowing how to value what is valuable and not getting lost in the sauce where you’re just so stuck on trying to make the next greatest startup that you sacrifice your health.
    5:02:58 You sacrifice your relationships or, even worse, you sacrifice your own morals to take certain shortcuts that you probably shouldn’t be taking in life to be able to achieve these things.
    5:03:06 Because, you know, I’m sure there’s hundreds of horror stories you could hear where people definitely shortcutted their morals for, you know, monetary success.
    5:03:13 Yeah, I mean, the golden handcuffs comfort can destroy the soul in some sense.
    5:03:22 Yeah, so that’s, yeah, I mean, that’s really important to remember, but would you, you know, there’s young people kind of thinking, do I even want to be a programmer now?
    5:03:27 It seems like AI is getting better and better and better at these, at programming.
    5:03:35 If they were trying to make that decision, would you still say, yeah, if this is something that fills you with joy?
    5:03:47 I still want my kids to learn how to program, if I can answer that, if that can, if that’s a good enough answer, in a sense that my kids are, are a decade younger than a young person trying to learn how to program right now.
    5:03:52 And so if I want, you know, I’m hoping that my kid can run and build whatever he wants in Roblox.
    5:03:55 I’m showing him Chad Jippity and be like, all right, let’s ask questions.
    5:03:55 How do we do this?
    5:03:59 It’s still extremely confusing for him to do all these things.
    5:04:01 And so it’s like, let’s do this.
    5:04:02 I want him to learn and be effective.
    5:04:14 And maybe one day he has to throw away all those skills in 20 years, but I bet you that whatever skills he threw away or whatever hard skills he had to throw away, an entirely new field that none of us have thought about.
    5:04:20 Just like if you would have asked somebody in the seventies, you know, about social networks, they’d be like, what the heck are you even talking about?
    5:04:25 Like things will exist in the future that are going to be massively different and crazy and exciting.
    5:04:26 Maybe in virtual reality.
    5:04:27 There you go.
    5:04:31 Maybe all of us actually down the line would just be building video games.
    5:04:35 Just entertainment for all the brave new world of our world.
    5:04:44 Well, I think, I think entertainment is a kind of trivialized version of what a video game could be.
    5:04:47 It’s like, what, what is the purpose of life anyway?
    5:04:50 I mean, it could be, it could be a deeply fulfilling video game.
    5:04:53 It doesn’t have to be just like dopamine rush.
    5:05:07 It could be educational, it could be scary, it could be challenging, forcing an evolution, the leap into adventure that it makes up a fulfilling life.
    5:05:09 That could be video games.
    5:05:09 Who knows?
    5:05:11 Especially in virtual reality.
    5:05:14 I tend to, that’s the other thing.
    5:05:17 I, I play a lot of video games.
    5:05:23 I think, I think, I think there’s a lot of room to make video games deeply fulfilling.
    5:05:26 Like there’s a lot of space where that can go.
    5:05:33 I didn’t know you played a lot of video games because when I asked you specifically, should I play World of Warcraft or do Advent of Code?
    5:05:35 You’re like Advent of Code, Advent of Code.
    5:05:41 Oh, well that, that might mean I’ve never played World of Warcraft because there’s certain games I avoid, Fortnite by the way.
    5:05:45 I think was one of them because I was worried to become too addicted.
    5:05:46 Yeah.
    5:05:46 Yeah.
    5:05:49 So there’s certain games I just know I won’t get super addicted to.
    5:05:52 Like for example, I’m terrified of Civilization.
    5:05:56 Like I have never played a Civs game because I’m worried.
    5:06:02 I’m worried, the dark path in my lead because there’s some games just really pull you in.
    5:06:05 I’m much better with, that’s why I play Skyrim.
    5:06:13 I can play these games or Baldur’s Gate and moderate my, how much I play.
    5:06:20 And they could be like a lifelong companion versus an addiction where I’m like, it’s like sunrise and you’re like, what’s happening with my life?
    5:06:24 And I find myself naked behind a dumpster somewhere just wondering what happened.
    5:06:26 Yeah.
    5:06:28 So that’s how I choose my video games.
    5:06:33 You’re not the first person who has specifically called out Civilization.
    5:06:33 Yeah.
    5:06:38 I’ve had more than one person also very high up in the tech world be like, Civilization is my downfall.
    5:06:40 If I get near that game, I’m done.
    5:06:41 Yep.
    5:06:42 So.
    5:06:43 I’ve never even played the game now.
    5:06:45 It makes me be like, dude, I gotta give this a try.
    5:06:46 That sounds crazy.
    5:06:47 Yeah.
    5:06:49 And the new one is actually supposed to be really, really good.
    5:06:51 What were we talking about?
    5:06:51 Yes.
    5:06:54 For that same young developer, is there a trajectory through jobs?
    5:06:58 That you could give advice on?
    5:07:01 So you started out with Schedulicity.
    5:07:02 Yeah.
    5:07:06 That was my first full-time when I had the government contracting one before that.
    5:07:07 That wasn’t quite full-time.
    5:07:08 It was in C.
    5:07:09 It was a lot of fun.
    5:07:11 And then building my own startup for quite some time.
    5:07:14 So if you count either of those as full-time, then those would be the full-time.
    5:07:17 But Schedulicity was the official on the docs.
    5:07:26 So is there some value to jumping around, like, working in one company and another to try to figure out, like, what brings you joy?
    5:07:32 I think there’s a lot to that because not every job you’re going to get is going to be great.
    5:07:35 Now, your first job you could get could make you think you hate programming.
    5:07:38 It happened.
    5:07:39 I did an internship at a place.
    5:07:42 I keep on, like, surprising you with more kind of things I did in the past.
    5:07:44 Did an internship at a…
    5:07:45 Fuck.
    5:07:46 You did so many things.
    5:07:46 It’s incredible.
    5:07:49 At a place called, like, Total Information Management System.
    5:07:54 Remember when I talked about that hours ago about healthcare and that and industrial shipping and all that?
    5:07:55 It was a C-sharp shop.
    5:08:01 It was so bad that after I did that, I went and changed my major to mechanical engineering for a semester in college.
    5:08:02 Oh, boy.
    5:08:04 I thought, okay, actually, I like computer science.
    5:08:05 I hate programming.
    5:08:10 So, you know, just because you’ve had a job doesn’t mean it’s going to be the one.
    5:08:12 And the thing is, here’s the best part, though.
    5:08:17 If you get a job and you like it and you want to do it and it’s exciting, you don’t need to change.
    5:08:19 Right?
    5:08:21 I think a lot of people are like, ooh, I’ve got to find the next thing.
    5:08:22 I’ve been here for two years.
    5:08:24 Like, there’s kind of this, like, you’ve got to move around mindset.
    5:08:26 I don’t think you have to move around.
    5:08:28 I don’t think it hurts your career.
    5:08:32 Because if anything, you’ll gain more responsibility and you’ll be able to talk with way more authority.
    5:08:38 And the next time you interview, you’re going to be way more into, like, oh, yeah, I had to get these ex-people and these ex-people to be able to do all this stuff.
    5:08:41 And it’s like you can talk with much more authority if you stay at a place longer.
    5:08:43 And that’s nothing but benefits in my book.
    5:08:50 It’s only if you stay at a place because you’re afraid or you don’t want to, you know, you already have something that works for you and you just never want to change.
    5:08:53 And you’re just like, I get to go in and just be completely mindless.
    5:08:56 I think if you go mindless for a couple years, you’ll find yourself.
    5:08:57 That’s, like, the only real danger.
    5:09:00 You just come out with nothing at all.
    5:09:02 Yeah, especially when you’re younger.
    5:09:02 That’s the whole point.
    5:09:04 Take the risk.
    5:09:06 Take the leap out to the next thing, to the next thing.
    5:09:09 And not for money, but for just personal, like, joy.
    5:09:09 Joy.
    5:09:11 And money could get at the end.
    5:09:14 That’s the best part is when you don’t strive for the money, sometimes the money just shows up anyways.
    5:09:14 Yep.
    5:09:20 And some of the what makes life worth living is the people you work with, like, a good team.
    5:09:25 Some of it’s, like, not to be generic, but, you know, culture matters.
    5:09:28 It’s whatever makes you happy.
    5:09:41 Like, for example, I just had, won’t call out places, but, you know, there’s certain companies where everybody is very nine to five and it’s very, even if the work is exciting, they’re not, they don’t work hard enough, I would say.
    5:09:46 I’m one of those people that likes to go all out, like, likes to be surrounded by people who are, like, super passionate.
    5:09:51 Now, to be fair, a lot of them don’t have families or don’t.
    5:09:52 Yeah.
    5:09:53 It’s a fascinating choice.
    5:09:58 I really don’t want to talk down on any choice, like, work-life balance or not.
    5:10:00 I think both are beautiful paths.
    5:10:12 And, like, if you really derive a lot of value from joy from your work, going all in, at least for some stretch of your life, is a beautiful thing to do.
    5:10:21 Just all out, full-on passion, sacrifice a lot of social life, all that kind of stuff.
    5:10:22 I don’t know.
    5:10:23 That could also be beautiful.
    5:10:28 There could be something very, very exciting about that in some sense, especially if you’re building your own thing.
    5:10:30 I can imagine that would be very exciting.
    5:10:36 Like, if I was Amazon, Jeff Bezos building Amazon, one could imagine that those early years were probably very rough.
    5:10:39 And the amount of hours he probably put in were very, very rough.
    5:10:47 But I will say that there’s this kind of unique aspect in our culture where we kind of make this as an equal tradeoff between family or work.
    5:10:50 Like, oh, you do or you don’t have to have kids.
    5:10:58 And my only kind of real notion with that one is that you will never know your capacity for love.
    5:11:00 Until you have kids.
    5:11:01 Like, you just don’t know.
    5:11:04 And some people are like, oh, yeah, but I, like, love my dog.
    5:11:06 It’s just like, I loved my dogs, too.
    5:11:08 And then I had kids.
    5:11:10 And now my dogs are, they’re all right.
    5:11:11 Like, I like them.
    5:11:11 Yeah.
    5:11:13 I could come home and I pet Indy.
    5:11:13 And I’m like, oh, Indy.
    5:11:15 And then I’m just like, okay, bye, Indy.
    5:11:15 Right?
    5:11:18 Like, it’s just, I can’t even describe the difference between the two.
    5:11:18 Yeah.
    5:11:20 Because they’re not, it’s not even the same.
    5:11:25 And so, it’s very, that tradeoff you’re making is no one can tell you what it’s like.
    5:11:28 Because there’s a real reality that’s right now.
    5:11:32 And I’m sure, I’m 100% positive this is with my wife as well.
    5:11:39 Where if right now we got news that said, you have some medical procedure where if we do this, you will die, but your kid will live.
    5:11:42 There’s not a question in my soul that I wouldn’t do that.
    5:11:42 Right?
    5:11:49 If I was given, if I could look into the future and if I had to die right now, knowing that my kids would have a better life, they would be happier, they’d be more fulfilled and all those things.
    5:11:53 I guarantee you, either my wife or I would take that every single time.
    5:11:56 It’s just like, you will never be able to say that about most things.
    5:11:58 People will jokingly say that until it’s actually on the line.
    5:12:02 But it’s like, with that, you just have this ferociousness.
    5:12:06 I can break out and sweat thinking about somebody fictionally pushing my kid to the ground.
    5:12:12 Like, I actually get, you know, real adrenal responses flowing through my body.
    5:12:14 So it’s just like such a different world and it’s hard to explain.
    5:12:17 And you could never have convinced me when I was young that it’d be this big.
    5:12:17 Yeah.
    5:12:18 Yeah.
    5:12:19 I thought I knew.
    5:12:20 I didn’t know.
    5:12:27 But to add on top of that, some of the most successful people I know, some of the most productive people I know have kids.
    5:12:30 So like, I don’t know if it’s even a trade-off.
    5:12:40 Like, that love you feel, it seems to be a catalyst for like, to make sure you have less time, but you’re going to use that time better to be productive.
    5:12:48 I would argue that I’m, it definitely changed a lot of my life and how I approach problems and everything in a very different way.
    5:12:51 Let me ask some random questions from Reddit.
    5:12:58 On a scale of one to 10, how much do you hate every product Microsoft has ever created and why is it a 10?
    5:12:59 Okay.
    5:13:00 I think we covered that.
    5:13:02 We haven’t technically covered it.
    5:13:03 There you go.
    5:13:04 All right.
    5:13:04 Go ahead.
    5:13:05 Go ahead.
    5:13:05 Okay.
    5:13:10 The only thing I’ll say is that I don’t like that Microsoft pretends to be the good guy.
    5:13:10 Yeah.
    5:13:16 When what they really wanted to get you addicted to their products, to get you to use their products as much as possible so they can extract as much money out of you.
    5:13:20 Well, in this world, are there really good guys?
    5:13:21 That’s a great point.
    5:13:23 I would argue NeoVim is a great guy.
    5:13:25 There’s no way they can make money.
    5:13:30 Justin Keyes is the benevolent dictator and he thinks deeply about the product and tries to make it the best as possible.
    5:13:34 Whereas something like Microsoft, they made VS Code as a loss leader.
    5:13:38 Copilot’s probably operating on a loss leader.
    5:13:44 These things are all getting you so tied into GitHub, remote workspaces, CI, Copilot.
    5:13:47 You’ve become this trapped in permanent person.
    5:13:52 And if that price rises, the switching cost is so great at some point that you’ll never be able to switch.
    5:13:57 That’s my only fear is that Microsoft was once accused of EEE and it feels like they’re EEEing again.
    5:13:58 Yeah.
    5:14:04 I’m nervous about criticizing a good thing because you could see an incentive to do that good thing.
    5:14:08 Like Google creating all these services that don’t make money like Gmail, for example.
    5:14:19 You can sort of cynically say like they’re only doing that to tie you into an ecosystem so they can like basically keep you for life.
    5:14:24 But also it’s awesome that they created Gmail and they create an incredible product, right?
    5:14:26 So I can side with you on that one.
    5:14:27 It is a good product.
    5:14:29 VS Code is a good product.
    5:14:29 Yeah.
    5:14:33 Don’t put that on the, but it’s fine.
    5:14:35 You know, they did a great job.
    5:14:35 Yeah.
    5:14:39 So like it, you know, there is going to be financial incentives behind some of these companies.
    5:14:45 And by the way, me defending, not defending, but saying positive things about Microsoft is just so I could talk shit to Prime.
    5:14:46 But that’s.
    5:14:48 I love that, by the way.
    5:14:48 Yeah.
    5:14:50 Linux is my first and last love.
    5:14:54 It definitely, the spirit of Linux and open source is a beautiful thing.
    5:15:09 So I, I do think that when you have these large corporations, even when they try to do good, oftentimes the, the profit imperative just takes over and they, they can, they can corrupt themselves.
    5:15:12 And Microsoft has a long history of doing just that to themselves.
    5:15:13 Yeah.
    5:15:23 That said, they’ve done, you know, they have, you could say for cynical reasons, because they want to see, seem like the good guy amongst developers, but they’ve done a lot to support open source.
    5:15:28 It’s just like, same with Meta, they’ve, Meta has done like insane amount.
    5:15:28 Yeah.
    5:15:29 To support open source.
    5:15:40 And you can say, actually for that one, I don’t even, I don’t know if I can even make a financial or cynical case for why Meta is open sourcing Llama and like these.
    5:15:40 Yeah.
    5:15:41 That one’s confusing.
    5:15:41 It just seems great.
    5:15:49 Maybe for hiring, but no, I think that’s legit, just an ethical, really powerful decision.
    5:15:58 And sometimes these companies, because they have a lot of cash, can make the right, do the right thing.
    5:15:58 Yeah.
    5:16:00 It’s a really positive way to look at it.
    5:16:02 And I think that’s, that’s really nice.
    5:16:03 Well, we should always be skeptical.
    5:16:04 Yeah.
    5:16:06 I mean, because at the end of the day, companies, they’re not good.
    5:16:07 They’re not bad, right?
    5:16:08 They’re, they’re morally neutral.
    5:16:12 It’s the people that are running them, the decisions those people make that are really where the bad or the good comes from.
    5:16:16 Another question, asking if he knows how to milk a cow.
    5:16:17 I’ve already asked that.
    5:16:19 The answer is no.
    5:16:20 Oh, no, you don’t know.
    5:16:21 I’ve never milked a cow.
    5:16:22 Never milked a cow.
    5:16:24 Almost been killed by a cow, but never milked a cow.
    5:16:26 Did you ever ride a bull?
    5:16:27 No.
    5:16:28 All right.
    5:16:31 Why male models?
    5:16:33 Okay, so I can explain that one.
    5:16:40 I will say something like, I really dislike the color purple because the color purple makes me upset.
    5:16:42 I don’t know, just something very benign.
    5:16:47 But then someone right afterwards will be like, but why don’t you like the color purple, right?
    5:16:50 And it’s just be like, it’s just like Derek Zoolander.
    5:16:53 It’s just like, I get done on a, on a five minute talk about it.
    5:16:55 And then the next question is like, but seriously, why though?
    5:16:57 It’s just like, why male models?
    5:16:57 Yeah.
    5:17:00 So that’s the Zoolander reference when there’s a long explanation.
    5:17:02 Why male models?
    5:17:05 And he, he agrees and then forgets.
    5:17:05 Yep.
    5:17:09 What is Ligma?
    5:17:13 You know, I’ve died by Ligma quite a few times.
    5:17:13 Ligma.
    5:17:15 So do you know the origin story of Ligma?
    5:17:16 No.
    5:17:19 So Ninja, famous streamer, someone got him with Ligma.
    5:17:21 Said like, oh, something like, have you heard about Ligma?
    5:17:22 And he was like, no.
    5:17:24 And he’s like, oh, Ligma balls.
    5:17:24 Right.
    5:17:29 And then after that, Ninja got like so hurt by getting had by that,
    5:17:33 he started banning anyone in chat who said the word Ligma or something like that.
    5:17:36 And so then it’d be, you know, if you don’t embrace the meme, you get destroyed.
    5:17:38 No, of course, gets destroyed.
    5:17:41 And so then the whole goal is that can people get me with Ligma?
    5:17:43 TJ did iLadies.
    5:17:45 He’s like, oh, did you hear that eGirls got renamed to iLadies?
    5:17:47 And I just didn’t even see it coming.
    5:17:48 And I was just like, what?
    5:17:50 And he’s like, iLadies, nuts on your face.
    5:17:51 And then it’s just like, oh my gosh.
    5:17:55 And then a pirate software has also got me like, oh, have you heard about Google SEMA?
    5:17:56 Which SEMA is a real product by Google.
    5:17:58 And I’m like, oh, yeah, I’ve heard about this.
    5:17:59 What is this again?
    5:18:00 He’s like, yeah, SEMA balls, right?
    5:18:01 It’s just like, dang it.
    5:18:02 How do I keep it?
    5:18:06 So I’ve just had it happen live on stream many, many times.
    5:18:09 I’ve died by Ligma the most.
    5:18:12 Please ask him about the size of his dict.
    5:18:16 Okay, so that’s D-I-C-T.
    5:18:17 That’s dictionary in Python.
    5:18:18 Who doesn’t love dicts?
    5:18:20 Yeah, that’s a great question.
    5:18:22 Just a dict party when you use Python.
    5:18:24 I love dicts.
    5:18:25 That should be a t-shirt.
    5:18:28 That’s actually a hilarious t-shirt.
    5:18:32 But so on Stack Overflow, you can ask any question you want.
    5:18:37 And I decided to craft a question one day on Stack Overflow that says,
    5:18:39 how to measure your dict in bytes.
    5:18:44 And then I proceeded to really go to town and explain all the different things.
    5:18:46 Like, well, what about the cost of the strings and the references?
    5:18:50 And when you really get both hands on your dict and really go after it,
    5:18:51 it’s very hard done.
    5:18:53 It really threw in some innuendos.
    5:18:56 The Stack Overflow team deleted the question.
    5:19:02 And then someone hand wrote me an email explaining why they deleted the question
    5:19:06 and complimented me on how thoroughly and thoughtful the question was
    5:19:10 just to weave in innuendos and that the entire team was impressed,
    5:19:13 but it’s inappropriate and it had to be deleted.
    5:19:15 And don’t do it again or we’re going to ban your account.
    5:19:17 And so it’s like a very funny moment.
    5:19:19 And so I was like, oh, that’s funny.
    5:19:19 You know what that happened?
    5:19:23 That was about six years ago.
    5:19:29 Last year, I was at a conference and there was a guy wearing a Stack Overflow name tag.
    5:19:30 And I was like, oh, you work at Stack Overflow?
    5:19:32 He’s like, oh, yeah, I do.
    5:19:33 I’m like, do I got a story for you?
    5:19:34 And he goes, no, wait a second.
    5:19:36 Are you the dict guy?
    5:19:36 Yeah.
    5:19:39 Like that was his only question was that.
    5:19:41 And I was just like, let’s go.
    5:19:42 I didn’t even say anything about me.
    5:19:45 And he already knew immediately I was the dict guy.
    5:19:48 I should say in all seriousness, I think I’ve had a bunch of conversations
    5:19:53 in the Python world where I would have to mention the name of this data structure.
    5:19:55 It makes me uncomfortable every time.
    5:19:58 You know, it’s a very unfortunate shortening of a word.
    5:19:58 Dict.
    5:20:02 It’s just like when I go to the hardware store and ask for caulk.
    5:20:03 Yeah.
    5:20:08 And there’s always a nice old lady and I ask her where to find.
    5:20:10 And it’s very uncomfortable.
    5:20:12 I try to pronounce it as hard as I can.
    5:20:13 Really get that L in there?
    5:20:14 Like caulk.
    5:20:15 Caulk.
    5:20:19 Just to be clear and try to avoid eye contact the whole time.
    5:20:25 You said that God was a big part of your life.
    5:20:27 Can you speak to that a little bit more?
    5:20:31 Who is God and what effect, what role do you play in your life?
    5:20:37 So I did talk about that one important evening where I, for whatever reason,
    5:20:40 gained my conscious that moment.
    5:20:47 So obviously for me that I grew up with a life where I would probably argue myself as
    5:20:48 a functional atheist.
    5:20:49 I went to church a handful of times.
    5:20:54 I can’t quite really remember actually going to church as a family in any sort of sense.
    5:20:58 So there wasn’t like some super strong tie or anything like that to it.
    5:21:02 Like pretty much anyone else growing up in America in the 90s, you had some sort of impact
    5:21:06 or intersection with church at some point in your life.
    5:21:09 That was just a very normal thing, I would probably say.
    5:21:14 And so when that happened, it was a fairly big surprise for me.
    5:21:18 I wasn’t necessarily going that direction or deciding to do any of those things.
    5:21:22 And so for me, it’s obviously the turning point of my entire life.
    5:21:28 I cannot speak to who I would be now without that.
    5:21:30 I can just tell you that I wouldn’t have had the drive.
    5:21:32 I probably would not have completed college.
    5:21:34 I would not have found my wife or had my kids.
    5:21:36 I wouldn’t know how to value people.
    5:21:42 I don’t think without that whole thing, my value for people would have been very, very
    5:21:45 small because I would have continued to just objectifying in the way I was.
    5:21:50 And then probably the biggest thing is there’s this one verse.
    5:21:51 I don’t even know where it’s at.
    5:21:54 It effectively says that we love because he first loved us.
    5:22:03 And so for me, it’s like, I don’t think I would have ever lived a life that was happy without this.
    5:22:06 And I just didn’t even know that that was an option for me.
    5:22:11 And I never really, you know, it was a very tough set of years for me.
    5:22:16 And I was very, very sad and just always kind of just constantly looking for something to fulfill me.
    5:22:19 And so it’s like, I didn’t have any confidence.
    5:22:20 I didn’t have any joy.
    5:22:23 I was, I was, I felt very sad.
    5:22:34 And so that was kind of this moment where for the first time ever, I didn’t, all of a sudden, I just felt like I didn’t have to live up to a standard.
    5:22:36 All right.
    5:22:37 Like my, the standards have already been paid for.
    5:22:39 Like everything’s already like that.
    5:22:40 That’s the free gift.
    5:22:41 That’s the, that’s the exchange.
    5:22:45 And so it’s just like, for the first time, I didn’t have to be the cool guy.
    5:22:46 I didn’t have to have all the right words.
    5:22:51 I didn’t have to feel, you know, I didn’t have to go on the conquest, the sexual conquest to find validation.
    5:22:53 Like I didn’t have to do any of those things.
    5:22:56 And it was exceptionally liberating.
    5:22:58 And so who is God?
    5:23:00 That’s more of like a catechism question, perhaps.
    5:23:02 What is man?
    5:23:02 Who is God?
    5:23:03 Right?
    5:23:05 Like those are, those are much, much harder questions.
    5:23:11 I believe that anytime you tried to get too deep into describing who God is, you typically fall into Christian heresy.
    5:23:15 But for you, he gave you a chance to be happy.
    5:23:16 Yeah.
    5:23:26 He gave me a chance, not just to be happy, but also, uh, made it so that like the first time I can, I can actually feel forgiven, I guess, in some sense.
    5:23:29 And able to forgive people that hurt me.
    5:23:35 Like for a long time, I, I had this like weight I’d carry around from like the things I hated about high school and all that kind of stuff.
    5:23:42 And through that experience, I just wrote down every last person’s name and actually held them with me for quite some time.
    5:23:45 And this was the list of people I, I forgave.
    5:23:51 And I read it a few times because like, I couldn’t let myself be angry or consumed by that kind of stuff.
    5:23:54 Cause like hate is so sticky, right?
    5:23:55 It’s, it sticks for a lifetime.
    5:23:59 And there really is only one cure for hate, which is forgiveness.
    5:24:01 Like, I just don’t think you can get rid of it without that.
    5:24:05 And so I just had choose to forgive these people and to move on.
    5:24:07 And it really kind of freed me.
    5:24:11 And I would never have thought forgiveness as a means for that change.
    5:24:23 If I didn’t first experience it myself, what’s the role of love in the human condition to go to the philosophical and what’s been the role of love in your life?
    5:24:31 It’s very obvious that every person wants or desires love.
    5:24:38 My wife has recently convinced me to watch love is blind with her one time and you watch the show.
    5:24:45 And if you’re not familiar with it, it’s just feels like a, just a disaster of an experiment to, to just cause crazy filming.
    5:24:51 But anyways, the idea is that if you just don’t see somebody, you can fall in love with somebody and want to marry them after like 10 days or some very small period of time.
    5:24:59 And what you really end up seeing is all these people who are just desperate for actually love.
    5:25:00 And there’s like some part of it.
    5:25:03 I always, I told my wife, it’s like love gladiators.
    5:25:07 We’re watching people battle it out for drama and really what they want is love.
    5:25:09 And it’s like, they’re fighting to the, the death and love, if you will.
    5:25:12 And it’s this almost kind of sad aspect to watch.
    5:25:19 And so I think that it’s, it’s, it’s hard to call like, what is its role in the human experience?
    5:25:26 Because I don’t think, I think it’s just something that we all naturally not just want, but need.
    5:25:30 And I don’t think that you can really progress.
    5:25:35 And when I say the word love, I would like to kind of narrow it down maybe a bit more.
    5:25:38 And I don’t mean like Eros, the Greek word, like sexy love.
    5:25:42 I think that paternal and friendship love are extremely important.
    5:25:46 And I think agape, like God love is also very important.
    5:25:49 Agape love is the one that is superior to them all, but obviously different.
    5:25:53 And also, you know, co-needed with the parental ones and all that.
    5:25:55 And so you kind of need this mixture of them all.
    5:25:59 And each one is different for each reason and where it’s applied.
    5:26:13 And so I don’t think, I just don’t see a world in which is good of any kind without that as like a very foundational piece.
    5:26:14 Right.
    5:26:22 Because, you know, again, not, you know, I didn’t, I didn’t come here trying to quote any sort of scripture, but it says that it’s not the nails that hung on there.
    5:26:22 It’s love.
    5:26:24 That’s the reason why these things happen.
    5:26:33 And so it’s, if forgiveness is the requirement to kind of pay off hate in some sense, then love has to be the motivation for forgiveness.
    5:26:36 Yeah, that’s the tragic aspect of life.
    5:26:46 I think we’re all, there’s like a deep loneliness in all of us and a longing, longing to be a part of this, of this bigger thing.
    5:26:56 And that longing is, is, is a love and it has many names, but yeah, that the love aspect of it is the beautiful aspect of life.
    5:27:04 The tragedies, the loneliness and the unfortunate suffering that is a fundamental part of life.
    5:27:06 And the beautiful aspect is the love.
    5:27:07 Yeah.
    5:27:16 Which I think is a good time to mention more Reddit, the, the, the, the place for everlasting positivity and love.
    5:27:28 Somebody wrote, please thank him, you, for his everlasting positivity and give him a big hug for me.
    5:27:35 So I won’t give you a big hug on camera because I’m afraid I’ll get a boner and that’ll be very unfortunate.
    5:27:38 Hey, let’s not bring Dixon to this again.
    5:27:40 It’s my favorite data structure.
    5:27:46 Like I said, I love dicks, uh, all kinds of dicks, ordered dicks, unordered, unordered dicks.
    5:27:48 I don’t discriminate.
    5:28:06 Uh, and yeah, uh, but just that to say like, big thank you, uh, for me, like I listened to you a lot just, and I just really enjoy, um, I’ve been going through a lot of shit myself and just the positivity.
    5:28:15 You, even when you’re building the stupidest shit, it’s just the positivity radiates from you and it, you inspire me to be a good person.
    5:28:17 You inspire me to build stuff.
    5:28:18 So thank you.
    5:28:21 And I’m sure there’s many, many others who listen to you for the same reason.
    5:28:22 So thank you for your positivity.
    5:28:26 Thank you for, uh, being the light in many people’s lives.
    5:28:28 And thank you for talking to me, brother.
    5:28:28 Dang.
    5:28:30 That was very, very kind.
    5:28:33 I really do appreciate all those extremely nice words, even from Reddit.
    5:28:36 That’s very surprising, but yeah, thank you.
    5:28:48 I mean, I know, you know, that there’s many people’s lives and I’m sure you’ve received the letters that have been changed from, from actions and things you’ve said and things you’ve done.
    5:29:00 And so it’s one of the best parts about doing this side is that you get a chance to potentially improve somebody’s life, you know, and you getting to interview a lot of people.
    5:29:12 Like there’s a lot of people that listened to Chris Lattner and saw his excitement for Swift and probably went and learned Swift and then got really amazing jobs and it can be all origin to back to you and that interview.
    5:29:14 And so it’s, you know, those are amazing things.
    5:29:17 And so same goes back to you.
    5:29:19 You’ve done a lot of, a lot of good stuff.
    5:29:21 Uh, right back at you, brother.
    5:29:22 Thank you for talking today.
    5:29:27 Thanks for listening to this conversation with Michael Paulson, AKA the private gen.
    5:29:31 To support this podcast, please check out our sponsors in the description.
    5:29:35 And now let me leave you with some words from Paulo Coelho.
    5:29:42 When we strive to become better than we are, everything around us becomes better too.
    5:29:46 Thank you for listening and hope to see you next time.
    5:29:58 Bye.

    ThePrimeagen (aka Michael Paulson) is a programmer who has educated, entertained, and inspired millions of people to build software and have fun doing it.
    Thank you for listening ❤ Check out our sponsors: https://lexfridman.com/sponsors/ep461-sc
    See below for timestamps, and to give feedback, submit questions, contact Lex, etc.

    CONTACT LEX:
    Feedback – give feedback to Lex: https://lexfridman.com/survey
    AMA – submit questions, videos or call-in: https://lexfridman.com/ama
    Hiring – join our team: https://lexfridman.com/hiring
    Other – other ways to get in touch: https://lexfridman.com/contact

    EPISODE LINKS:
    ThePrimeagen’s X: https://twitter.com/ThePrimeagen
    ThePrimeagen’s YouTube: https://youtube.com/ThePrimeTimeagen
    ThePrimeagen’s Twitch: https://twitch.tv/ThePrimeagen
    ThePrimeagen’s GitHub: https://github.com/theprimeagen
    ThePrimeagen’s TikTok: https://tiktok.com/@theprimeagen
    ThePrimeagen’s Coffee: https://www.terminal.shop/

    SPONSORS:
    To support this podcast, check out our sponsors & get discounts:
    Invideo AI: AI video generator.
    Go to https://invideo.io/i/lexpod
    Shopify: Sell stuff online.
    Go to https://shopify.com/lex
    NetSuite: Business management software.
    Go to http://netsuite.com/lex
    BetterHelp: Online therapy and counseling.
    Go to https://betterhelp.com/lex
    AG1: All-in-one daily nutrition drinks.
    Go to https://drinkag1.com/lex

    OUTLINE:
    (00:00) – Introduction
    (10:27) – Love for programming
    (20:00) – Hardest part of programming
    (22:16) – Types of programming
    (29:54) – Life story
    (39:58) – Hardship
    (41:29) – High school
    (47:15) – Porn addiction
    (57:01) – God
    (1:12:44) – Perseverance
    (1:22:40) – Netflix
    (1:35:08) – Groovy
    (1:40:13) – Printf() debugging
    (1:46:35) – Falcor
    (1:56:05) – Breaking production
    (1:58:49) – Pieter Levels
    (2:03:19) – Netflix, Twitch, and YouTube infrastructure
    (2:15:22) – ThePrimeagen origin story
    (2:30:37) – Learning programming languages
    (2:39:40) – Best programming languages in 2025
    (2:44:35) – Python
    (2:45:15) – HTML & CSS
    (2:46:05) – Bash
    (2:46:45) – FFmpeg
    (2:53:28) – Performance
    (2:56:00) – Rust
    (3:00:48) – Epic projects
    (3:14:12) – Asserts
    (3:23:26) – ADHD
    (3:31:34) – Productivity
    (3:35:58) – Programming setup
    (4:11:28) – Coffee
    (4:18:32) – Programming with AI
    (5:01:16) – Advice for young programmers
    (5:12:48) – Reddit questions
    (5:20:20) – God

    PODCAST LINKS:
    – Podcast Website: https://lexfridman.com/podcast
    – Apple Podcasts: https://apple.co/2lwqZIr
    – Spotify: https://spoti.fi/2nEwCF8
    – RSS: https://lexfridman.com/feed/podcast/
    – Podcast Playlist: https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLrAXtmErZgOdP_8GztsuKi9nrraNbKKp4
    – Clips Channel: https://www.youtube.com/lexclips