0:00:07 Do you find it strange at all that so many people still love candles?
0:00:14 I mean, ever since we got electricity, candles have been non-essential, let’s call them, right?
0:00:15 An obsolete technology.
0:00:17 But they have not disappeared.
0:00:20 Every generation seems to rediscover them.
0:00:21 Why do you think that is?
0:00:23 Yeah, it’s a very interesting question.
0:00:30 It’s interesting to think about how the job that candles do has changed over time.
0:00:37 You could go back 5,000 years to the first things that were like candles, and I would describe it as portable fire.
0:00:44 It’s portable fire that lets you find your way or lets you do work when it’s dark.
0:00:47 This might be a little clay lamp with oil in it and a wick or something.
0:00:55 The earliest records that we know about would be in ancient Egypt, a pithy reed just dipped in some animal fat.
0:00:56 I see.
0:00:59 But we see wicked candles maybe 3,000 years ago.
0:01:07 A lot of records that the Romans were using them, it’s wick and wax, and it’s essentially what we still have today.
0:01:11 Especially in the last 50 years, the job is no longer utilitarian.
0:01:16 It might be decor, or even if it is about light, it’s about setting a mood.
0:01:21 And then the other jobs of home fragrancing or self-care, indulgence.
0:01:32 I think all those things together with that primal light experience is just something that really speaks to a lot of people.
0:01:36 I personally feel sort of drawn to the light like I’m a primitive bug.
0:01:40 That was Steve Harenziak.
0:01:43 He’s president of the National Candle Association.
0:01:49 The candle industry does about $10 billion a year in global sales, and that number has been rising fast.
0:01:52 A lot of this increase is driven by scented candles.
0:01:57 But there are also tapers, pillars, tea lights, votives, and more.
0:02:04 I don’t know about you, but to me, this candle boom is somewhat surprising and slightly weird.
0:02:08 The vast majority of the world has access to electricity.
0:02:15 And one of the many advantages of electricity is that it eliminates the need for a live flame in your house.
0:02:17 A flame that can burn down your house.
0:02:22 And yet, for some reason, we still want that portable fire in our homes.
0:02:29 One theory involves a word that is spelled H-Y-G-G-E.
0:02:31 It’s pronounced hygge.
0:02:33 That’s Mike Viking.
0:02:35 He’s a Danish happiness researcher.
0:02:40 You probably know that Denmark is, on average, a very happy place.
0:02:45 I think the best explanation of what hygge is, is the art of creating a nice atmosphere.
0:02:47 It’s about togetherness.
0:02:48 It’s about pleasure.
0:02:50 It’s about warmth.
0:02:50 It’s about relaxation.
0:02:54 And that is a key cornerstone of Danish culture.
0:02:57 To Danes, hygge is what freedom perhaps is to the Americans.
0:03:02 But Americans these days also seem to want their hygge.
0:03:07 Around half of those 10 billion global candle dollars are spent in the U.S.
0:03:12 So, today, on Freakonomics Radio, why do candles still exist?
0:03:16 What other nostalgic technologies do we cling to?
0:03:20 What role does planned obsolescence play in all of this?
0:03:25 And why do we stuff our closets full of antiquated things?
0:03:28 It almost is like a process of psychoanalysis.
0:03:43 This is Freakonomics Radio, the podcast that explores the hidden side of everything,
0:03:45 with your host, Stephen Dubner.
0:03:58 What is the most unusual candle scent you’ve ever encountered?
0:04:02 I’ve seen a lot of things like bacon and beer.
0:04:07 Some of those are just, you know, interesting but not appealing to me.
0:04:11 That, again, is Steve Herensiak of the National Candle Association, or NCA.
0:04:15 The NCA was founded in 1974.
0:04:20 We act as the collective voice of the candle industry, whenever that’s needed.
0:04:22 We promote candle safety.
0:04:27 We are an authority on candle manufacturing and science.
0:04:30 We support scientific research into candles.
0:04:37 When our daughter was younger, my wife and I forbade her from burning candles in her bedroom,
0:04:39 because a couple times she almost burned down the house.
0:04:47 Isn’t it just a little bit strange that we are all allowed and even encouraged to use open flames in our homes?
0:04:53 Yeah, so there is a responsibility of the user to use the candle safely.
0:04:58 So, if I can, I want to tell you the big three and make sure that all the listeners are aware of them.
0:04:58 Please.
0:05:02 First of all, when you burn a candle, always keep it within sight.
0:05:07 Number two, keep it away from anything that can catch fire.
0:05:11 That especially means bedding, but also things like curtains.
0:05:15 And number three, keep them away from children and pets.
0:05:21 If you do those three things, then the chances of starting a candle fire in your home are greatly reduced.
0:05:24 But not everyone is so careful.
0:05:32 According to the nonprofit National Fire Protection Agency, candles are responsible for about 6,000 home fires a year in the U.S.,
0:05:38 resulting in an average of 74 civilian deaths and a quarter of a billion dollars in property damage.
0:05:45 By the way, serving as president of the National Candle Association is not Steve Horensiak’s only job.
0:05:49 In fact, the reason he has that job is because of his other job.
0:05:55 Yeah, my main job is that I am a research fellow at Procter & Gamble.
0:06:02 I work in research and development, focused mainly on our air care business, so brands like Febreze.
0:06:07 Steve, what does it mean to be a research fellow at P&G?
0:06:09 The full title is Senior Director Research Fellow.
0:06:18 What it means is that I am in charge of research programs to improve our products and develop new products.
0:06:29 Unlike an academic where the end goal is just the pursuit of knowledge, our end goal is to make money, to make superior products and create superior experiences for people.
0:06:37 Horensiak has degrees from Michigan Tech and Georgia Tech in chemical engineering and in pulp and paper science, respectively.
0:06:40 He has worked at Procter & Gamble for more than 20 years.
0:06:44 P&G is one of the biggest consumer goods companies in the world.
0:06:50 They make Tide laundry detergent, Pampers diapers, Gillette razors, and many other brands you know.
0:06:59 Their headquarters are in Cincinnati, where the company was founded in the 1830s as a maker of soap and candles.
0:07:02 James Gamble was an Irish-born soap maker.
0:07:05 William Procter was an English-born candle maker.
0:07:07 This was a good time to be a candle maker.
0:07:16 You see the development of automated candle production and molded candles and things like that in 1830 or so.
0:07:20 And then you have the discovery of paraffin wax about 1850.
0:07:24 Paraffin wax is the solid component of crude oil.
0:07:29 And then, in 1880 or so, the electric light bulb comes, right?
0:07:32 And there was a little bit of a decline.
0:07:47 Once we get into the 20th century, the materials that make candles became a lot more widely available as they were byproducts of that increased demand for oil and stare in from increased meatpacking activity.
0:07:58 And candles became a little bit more popular again, but they’re sold more for ceremonies, for traditions like birthdays, novelty candles for holidays.
0:08:04 The market stayed pretty steady until the late 70s and early 1980s.
0:08:14 That’s when you started seeing this shift in the job of candles to more home decor and ambiance in the introduction of scented candles.
0:08:24 That necessitated some innovation as there really wasn’t enough paraffin wax to make up that demand.
0:08:29 So you see the invention of vegetable waxes from soy and from palm.
0:08:38 When I think about the boom in scented candles, I’m wondering if you were involved in the controversy over Yankee candles during COVID.
0:08:40 Could you walk us through that?
0:08:41 I am sorry.
0:08:43 I really don’t know very much about that.
0:08:44 Are you aware of it, though?
0:08:56 People were writing reviews on Amazon and other places saying that the candles that they were buying from the Yankee Candle Company were defective because they were unscented when they were supposed to be scented.
0:09:00 But what it turns out was a lot of people who had gotten COVID had lost their sense of smell.
0:09:04 Now that you say it, I think I do remember something about that.
0:09:10 One of the things that I study and am curious about is just the sense of olfaction in general.
0:09:21 It’s really one of the least understood senses from a biological standpoint, like all the mechanisms that are involved in actually smelling.
0:09:31 It’s, in my opinion, been a little bit overlooked in the medical community, but it is a big, big hit on your quality of life.
0:09:38 I have a slightly different take on that because two members of my immediate family have not had a sense of smell.
0:09:43 One was born without, which is apparently not, you know, wildly rare, and one lost it later.
0:09:44 Wow.
0:09:45 I mean, yes.
0:09:48 My first reaction was like yours, like, it’s a great loss.
0:09:53 On the other hand, you know, we live in New York City, and there are a lot of days when I kind of wish I couldn’t smell.
0:10:00 But that got me to wondering on the flip side, because I know that you, as a scientist, have done a lot of research on odors.
0:10:06 Can you talk about how the world smells on average today compared to the past?
0:10:10 I would assume we are in a relatively wonderful smelling era.
0:10:15 We certainly have a lot of products to keep things smelling better.
0:10:20 But overall, in terms of how the world smells, I think it actually smells worse.
0:10:21 You do.
0:10:25 It really has to do with just a lot of crowding.
0:10:32 You think about a lot of small apartments and your neighbors cooking and you’re in there with your pet in a small space.
0:10:37 But, yes, certainly candles and a lot of other air care products are there to help us with that problem.
0:10:48 I’m going to interrupt here to say that while I like and trust Steve Harenziak, I’m not sure I believe that the world smells worse today than it used to.
0:10:54 Of course, it depends where you were and when, but think about how many seriously stinky things there used to be.
0:11:04 Raw sewage dumped into rivers, horse manure piled up on city streets, factories and refineries spitting smoke and ash into the air.
0:11:07 Then there’s body odor, bad breath.
0:11:09 I could go on, but you get the idea.
0:11:13 So I would think that the present, on average, smells better than the past.
0:11:20 But I do appreciate Harenziak’s point about our olfactory system being underappreciated and important.
0:11:28 Just as a bad smell can ruin your day, a good one can elevate it, which gets us back to the candle craze.
0:11:33 Yankee Candle, one of the biggest candle makers in the U.S., has more than 600 fragrances.
0:11:39 Their candles typically sell for $30 to $40, which puts them in the mid-price range.
0:11:43 You can spend much more than that at Diptyque or Joe Malone.
0:11:47 Trader Joe’s, meanwhile, sells candles for about $4.
0:11:52 Some of their recent fragrances are grapefruit and peach black tea.
0:12:04 Our industry is pretty accessible in that almost anyone can start a candle company without a lot of barriers to entry, a lot of big capital needs.
0:12:09 As a result, our industry is pretty vibrant and pretty inclusive.
0:12:12 Lots of companies are selling candles.
0:12:17 We think that there are about 10,000 different fragrances that you can get in a candle.
0:12:23 Can you just give me a few of your favorites over the years or maybe most memorable?
0:12:27 For me personally, it really depends on what I’m doing.
0:12:31 If it’s the holidays, then maybe I want to get into a holiday mood.
0:12:36 Sometimes it can be pine, like trying to say, like, you know, I’m out cutting down a Christmas tree.
0:12:41 Or, you know, maybe it’s more of a baking, vanilla kind of scent.
0:12:43 How do you feel about cranberry?
0:12:45 Oh, I personally don’t really like cranberry scents.
0:12:47 How do you feel about eucalyptus?
0:12:49 I do like eucalyptus.
0:12:57 That is a scent that actually has some cooling properties, sort of like menthol, and it gives you that fresh air feel.
0:13:04 Some candle makers enlist social media influencers to promote their products.
0:13:10 Here is Sir Candleman, who, between Instagram and TikTok, has more than 400,000 followers.
0:13:12 Nest has some gorgeous new candles.
0:13:13 But are they good?
0:13:15 They sent me one, so let’s try it and rate it.
0:13:17 It’s Saharan Ood and Labdanum.
0:13:21 So you know what I’d say.
0:13:22 A good candle has three things.
0:13:25 Scent, style, and strength.
0:13:26 That smells good, y’all.
0:13:32 That good-smelling candle from Nest, New York, costs $195 plus shipping.
0:13:39 If you go to a friend’s housewarming party and give them a candle like that, you are making a statement.
0:13:41 Here’s Steve Harenziak again.
0:13:43 They come at all price points.
0:13:49 You can find scented candles in the $5 to $10 range all the way up to $100 or more.
0:13:55 I have seen those $100 and more candles, and I’m just curious how that market came about.
0:14:02 I think a lot of consumers are pretty savvy about how much it costs to manufacture something versus how much it sells for.
0:14:12 But I think many consumers are also savvy about, well, once something becomes a kind of object that is beautiful, I understand that that drives prices up.
0:14:18 Was that high end of the candle market created by a particular entrepreneur or company?
0:14:21 Did it come about more grassroots than that?
0:14:21 Tell me what you can.
0:14:32 I would say it mirrors some other industries where you’re seeing consumers want more exclusivity, more unique things.
0:14:35 And that’s part of what drives prices higher.
0:14:49 If you think about a candle on the lower end of the market, you’re probably talking about something which is more mass-produced, using modern manufacturing methods with automation, maybe uses more common fragrance ingredients.
0:15:03 Whereas on the upper end, you’re talking about more custom-made, custom fragrances, fragrances that maybe are in touch with the latest fragrance trends today, maybe that are associated with luxury brands or celebrity spokespeople, and those kind of things.
0:15:09 There is one inescapable and slightly uncomfortable fact about a candle.
0:15:13 The more you use it, the faster you lose it.
0:15:18 To understand product lifetimes, you have to understand the reasons why people buy products.
0:15:22 That is Tim Cooper from Nottingham Trent University in the north of England.
0:15:27 He is an emeritus professor of sustainable design and consumption with a background in economics.
0:15:34 Cooper has found that more and more people, producers and consumers, are thinking about the lifespan of products.
0:15:50 A lot of the interest has come from the electronics sector, not least because that’s an area where products have been criticised by many consumers for not lasting long enough, but also an area where there’s a natural tendency for products to change over time as technology advances.
0:15:58 There’s also been interest from the clothing sector, because clothing technically is what they call a semi-durable product.
0:16:03 They can last for a long period of time, but obviously in the fashion sector, clothing doesn’t last very long.
0:16:07 There’s also been interest in other areas as well, car industry, for example, furniture.
0:16:10 And how does Tim Cooper think about the candle industry?
0:16:18 We rarely need a candle for light, but there’s a large industry in the use of candles for decorative purposes.
0:16:21 And this raises interesting questions.
0:16:28 To what extent are products merely functional, or in the case of candles, functioning as they used to in the past?
0:16:32 Or are there other reasons why people buy products?
0:16:35 In the case of candles, they don’t need them for light.
0:16:37 They need them for emotional satisfaction.
0:16:40 That explains why we buy so much stuff.
0:16:44 It’s not just because we have to have it or we won’t survive.
0:16:48 It’s because we want to have it, because it’s doing different things for us.
0:16:52 What are those different things?
0:16:56 For that, I think we may need an anthropologist.
0:17:01 Whenever the weather gets cold, I feel like I have to buy more candles.
0:17:02 That’s coming up.
0:17:06 After the break, I’m Stephen Dubner, and this is Freakonomics Radio.
0:17:17 The candle, an antiquated mode of lighting technology,
0:17:21 is still used in an estimated 70% of American households.
0:17:23 And we are trying to figure out why.
0:17:27 My name is Gokce Gunal, and I’m an anthropologist.
0:17:28 Hi, Gokce. Nice to meet you.
0:17:30 Nice to meet you, too.
0:17:32 Do you personally burn candles?
0:17:36 Of course. I live in Houston, Texas, where we experience power cuts very often.
0:17:45 Gokce Gunal grew up in Turkey and is now a professor of anthropology at Rice University.
0:17:50 Among her research interests are urban design and energy infrastructure.
0:17:56 My first book was about the construction of renewable energy and clean technology infrastructure in Abu Dhabi,
0:17:59 and it studied the construction of an eco-city called Mazdar City.
0:18:01 What was the intention of Mazdar City?
0:18:06 The intention was to think about if we could build a city that’s zero carbon,
0:18:12 if there could be a way to power a city, only relying on renewable energy technologies.
0:18:15 There was a strong emphasis on the idea of energy transition,
0:18:20 that oil would eventually disappear and renewables would replace oil.
0:18:23 A lot of people called Mazdar City a utopian project.
0:18:26 But the Mazdar City project was a failure.
0:18:31 After the 2008 financial crisis, the master plan was canceled.
0:18:34 This is a common theme in Gunal’s research,
0:18:38 how utopian ideas often fail in the face of reality.
0:18:43 For instance, now I’m writing a book about electricity infrastructure in Ghana.
0:18:48 There’s all these power plants that are being brought into the electric grid there,
0:18:52 gas-powered power plants mostly, or heavy fuel oil-powered power plants.
0:18:57 When these power plants come onto the grid, the people who build them,
0:19:00 they always say, but don’t worry, we’ll become obsolete soon,
0:19:05 and you’ll be able to build renewable energy clean technology.
0:19:06 You sound like you don’t like that idea.
0:19:10 It doesn’t necessarily pan out in that way,
0:19:16 because all of those people who are producing electricity by relying on heavy fuel oil or natural gas
0:19:19 have an interest in extending that period further.
0:19:26 And so all the resources of the country are actually there to maintain that period into the future.
0:19:31 What Gunal is describing here is a blend of two powerful forces,
0:19:36 incumbency and what social scientists call path dependency.
0:19:40 Both ideas are fascinating, and we could talk about them for hours,
0:19:42 but that’s not why we are here today.
0:19:50 So the reason I wanted to speak with you is I had this, it’s not quite an idea,
0:19:53 just something popped into my mind that struck me as odd,
0:20:02 which is that even though we’re well over 100 years past the popularization of electricity,
0:20:05 candles are everywhere.
0:20:12 I see candles being used by many different types of people for many different types of things,
0:20:17 and it kind of astonishes me on the surface because it is an open flame,
0:20:20 and there’s some danger, I guess there’s some pollution,
0:20:22 and it just feels so outdated.
0:20:25 And yet, when I looked at the size of the global candle industry,
0:20:27 it’s not huge, but it’s significant.
0:20:31 It’s a $10 billion industry, and they’re relatively cheap to make.
0:20:32 So that’s a lot of candles.
0:20:37 And I just got to thinking that this was a technology, if you want to call it that,
0:20:40 a lighting technology that I might have thought would disappear,
0:20:42 and yet it didn’t disappear.
0:20:48 I think of it as like a nostalgic technology or some kind of obsolescence that we still love.
0:20:53 So I wanted to talk to you about obsolescence and technologies that get, quote,
0:20:56 replaced, but the old one doesn’t go away.
0:21:04 One reason why we think that things go away is because so much of our understanding of technology
0:21:05 is filtered through innovation.
0:21:10 There’s so much emphasis on innovation around us and on invention,
0:21:12 and newness kind of clouds our vision, I think.
0:21:16 Whereas if we thought about technology through use,
0:21:22 then commodities like candles would become so much more significant to us
0:21:27 because they’re so broadly used for, as you said, so many different kinds of things.
0:21:30 They might not seem inventive to us today,
0:21:35 but actually they’ve gone through cycles of innovation themselves.
0:21:41 I’m curious how you would describe the appeal of a candle as an anthropologist.
0:21:48 I think all of us can imagine that long, long ago campfire in a cave with our, you know,
0:21:54 ancestors sitting around doing whatever they do, eating some meat, playing some games,
0:21:58 making some art on the walls, whatever, and it’s lit by a flickering flame.
0:22:02 We lived under those conditions for a long, long time.
0:22:06 What kind of draw do you think a candle still represents?
0:22:14 I think the biggest draw is the separation of the fuel from the site of combustion.
0:22:21 Once you have the wick and separate the light from the fuel,
0:22:25 then there is, I think, a kind of transformation in the mood somehow.
0:22:28 Think about the light bulb.
0:22:31 The fuel source is somewhere far away.
0:22:36 It’s the result of a massive network of people and things.
0:22:40 Whereas with the candle, you can hold that supply chain in your hand almost.
0:22:43 How about ceremonial or religious purposes?
0:22:49 In the Catholic Church, you have to use beeswax candles still for ceremonial reasons.
0:22:55 The Catholic Church would like to believe that human society parallels a bee colony
0:23:02 because of this relationship to the bee as the producer of a proper society.
0:23:08 And so human society, if it wants the model bee society, maybe needs that link.
0:23:10 I looked it up now.
0:23:11 I see, of course, you’re right.
0:23:15 I did not know that, yes, the Catholic Church has historically compared itself to a beehive.
0:23:20 There’s something about beeswax candles meeting two needs at once,
0:23:23 the need for light and the need for social organization.
0:23:26 What other functions do you see candles serving?
0:23:33 I think maybe having a candle at home makes you feel like you’re still going to be okay
0:23:36 even when the lights go off or if there’s a power cut.
0:23:42 You think, you know what, I’m not dependent on the grid operator of Texas for my lighting needs.
0:23:47 I can actually maybe just use this candle to read my paper book.
0:23:52 Now, why a candle versus a kerosene lantern or some battery-powered something or other?
0:23:54 That’s a good question.
0:23:56 I guess I’d never thought about all the others.
0:24:01 But having a candle maybe has a nicer ambience.
0:24:04 And they’re broadly available.
0:24:06 They’re easy to keep around.
0:24:08 You don’t have to worry about having a battery.
0:24:11 So there’s a real practicality to it.
0:24:16 I think candles satisfy an urge to access good smells easily.
0:24:17 Yeah.
0:24:23 During the pandemic, candle sales in North America increased drastically
0:24:26 because everyone thought candles are going to make them feel better
0:24:29 as they’re facing this world of uncertainty.
0:24:32 That makes sense, doesn’t it?
0:24:36 When the future is uncertain, which, let’s be honest, it always is.
0:24:37 No one really knows the future.
0:24:43 But especially when the future is unsettling or scary, you might want to reach back in time
0:24:48 for something familiar, for something you can hold on to, for something you understand better
0:24:50 than you understand the future.
0:24:56 And since 70 percent of American households are still using candles, I figured a lot of people
0:24:59 are probably using other older technologies.
0:25:03 So we asked you, our listeners, for examples.
0:25:04 Here’s what you had to say.
0:25:11 An obsolete technology that I cannot live without is my clothesline.
0:25:14 I have used a clothesline all my life.
0:25:18 I do own a dryer, but I rarely use it.
0:25:23 I have just not been able to give up handkerchiefs.
0:25:25 I know that’s kind of a throwback thing.
0:25:28 I cannot live without my typewriter.
0:25:37 When it comes to actually writing down events, I still go to a paper diary with a pencil and an eraser.
0:25:40 I still have an original iPod.
0:25:48 I am actually a business owner for the last 25 years online selling mechanical and automatic wristwatches.
0:25:49 It still makes a very good business.
0:25:55 Those listeners were Patrice, Corey, Zach, Sarah, Rich and Mark.
0:25:58 And here again is the anthropologist, Goethe Gunal.
0:26:00 Cassettes are going to make a comeback.
0:26:01 I can tell you that.
0:26:02 Seriously?
0:26:08 I was just in a bookstore in Austin yesterday, and all they had on their shelves were cassettes.
0:26:15 They were importing them from all these places that are not necessarily the main centers of the recording industry.
0:26:18 A lot of people thought books would be obsolete.
0:26:24 I still buy paper copies of books as much as I can, and I love having them.
0:26:30 I think I remember things better if I read them in paper.
0:26:40 Whenever I get a prep for an interview or a script for an episode, the first thing I do is format it the way I want to and then print it.
0:26:46 Only because I, like you, feel like I have a different relationship to the material when it’s on paper.
0:26:52 I also find it easier to organize a long document in my head when it’s on paper because I can remember where things came.
0:26:58 I don’t know if you feel the same when you’re reading something, that you have a better sense of where something lies within the full stream of it.
0:26:59 Definitely.
0:27:08 And actually, when I was writing my first book, I did this exercise where I printed out the manuscript and then cut it into paragraphs.
0:27:17 And then I kind of made a jigsaw puzzle for myself, like moving the paragraphs from one side of the book to the other and trying to see how they would sound.
0:27:17 Did it get better?
0:27:19 I’d like to think so, yeah.
0:27:27 Coming up after the break, there is another reason we sometimes cling to the old.
0:27:30 Can you say planned obsolescence?
0:27:31 I’m Stephen Dubner.
0:27:33 This is Freakonomics Radio.
0:27:34 We’ll be right back.
0:27:49 The definition of the term planned obsolescence is the deliberate curtailment of the lifespan of a product.
0:27:54 That, again, is Tim Cooper, and he is something of an expert on planned obsolescence.
0:28:04 His research started in the early 1990s when he noticed there was a lot of research being done on recycling, which made sense because the recycling boom was underway.
0:28:14 But he didn’t see anyone looking at planned obsolescence, and that didn’t make sense to him, since if it weren’t for planned obsolescence, there would be a lot less stuff that needed to be recycled.
0:28:19 Cooper tells us that it was the journalist Vance Packard who helped popularize the term.
0:28:39 He realized there was a growing interest in just how the consumer society was leading to an economy in which things were thrown away and replaced, and the things that were being thrown away, firstly, could have been designed to last longer, but secondly, and crucially, were often thrown away before the end of their useful life.
0:28:47 Among those who study planned obsolescence, there is one foundational story about what came to be called the Phoebus Cartel.
0:29:00 The Phoebus Cartel was an infamous agreement between manufacturers of incandescent light bulbs in the mid-1920s.
0:29:05 In Greek, Phoebus means bright or radiant, and it was often applied to the god Apollo.
0:29:08 And how did this light bulb cartel work?
0:29:16 Several international companies got together and made an agreement to manufacture bulbs in a particular way.
0:29:21 The problem was that light bulb technology had essentially gotten too good.
0:29:30 The manufacturers were concerned that they were lasting so long that sales would decline, as indeed they did in one or two of the countries.
0:29:39 And so they came to an agreement that they would fix a time threshold, which is to be a thousand hours, for that to last.
0:30:08 These manufacturers included General Electric of the U.S., OZRAM of Germany, and Philips of the Netherlands.
0:30:11 And their collusion was successful.
0:30:17 The average lifetime of the bulbs produced by cartel members dropped by a third.
0:30:21 But World War II intruded, and the cartel broke up.
0:30:25 The idea of planned obsolescence, however, that stuck.
0:30:29 This can be a delicate balance for manufacturers.
0:30:36 You don’t want your product to wear out so fast that it’s seen as cheap, but you do want to sell more stuff.
0:30:46 And so a lot of companies and a lot of industries did embrace planned obsolescence in automobiles, consumer electronics, home appliances.
0:30:47 The list goes on.
0:30:54 The lifetime of the product only really began to be addressed in the past 10 or 20 years.
0:31:01 Governments are still not as engaged as they might be, but there are signs of change.
0:31:04 The French government in particular has taken a lead in this.
0:31:11 It’s almost 10 years now since they introduced the legislation banning planned obsolescence by French manufacturers.
0:31:18 And not long after that, we’re the first country to introduce a repairability label for products.
0:31:24 A repairability label tells the consumer how easy or hard it will be to fix the product they may want to buy.
0:31:28 This runs into the right to repair movement.
0:31:37 That’s a push to allow consumers or independent repair shops to fix a product without the original manufacturer’s permission or parts.
0:31:42 Many manufacturers essentially prohibit self-repair.
0:31:51 When you take that prohibition and add some planned obsolescence, you’ve got a nice recipe for how to sell more and more new stuff.
0:31:55 I think planned obsolescence is such a fascinating thing.
0:32:00 That, again, is the Rice University anthropologist, Goetje Gunal.
0:32:07 I like thinking about planned obsolescence so much because it tells me that obsolescence doesn’t happen unless you plan it.
0:32:10 Do you think that’s really true?
0:32:12 Yeah, I’d like to make an argument for it.
0:32:20 Okay, let’s have your argument because I could imagine that there are things that are perfectly useful and then something else comes along that’s better.
0:32:27 And there is no intention for replacement necessarily, but there’s just a substitute and then the other one goes away without a plan.
0:32:32 But yeah, I want to hear your argument that all obsolescence is planned obsolescence.
0:32:37 Looking at the histories of planned obsolescence, you know, we talk about it so often with tech companies, right?
0:32:43 There’s a lot of activism against planned obsolescence to say, don’t change this charger or don’t change this cable.
0:32:49 Don’t make me keep all of these other cables in my house and take up so much more space.
0:33:07 They want to make sure that their products are constantly circulating, that they’re producing new products that will lead to new revenue streams without necessarily thinking as much about how people’s consumption patterns are affected by that or how…
0:33:10 Well, is it that they don’t think about it or they do think about it?
0:33:10 Or they do think about it.
0:33:11 Yeah, you’re right.
0:33:11 You’re right.
0:33:13 They think about it too much.
0:33:13 Exactly.
0:33:14 Exactly.
0:33:23 I think obsolescence, as we understand it, happens through explicit transformations in policy.
0:33:27 One of the most recent examples of this has been through product pairing.
0:33:31 Let’s say you have a computer and you’re screen broken.
0:33:35 You take it to a repair shop and they have a screen there that would fit your computer.
0:33:38 And you mount that screen, but it doesn’t work.
0:33:45 Because there’s software in your computer that prevents salvaged parts from working on your computer.
0:33:51 And so then you’re forced to go and buy the part that the company now sells to you.
0:33:56 A few years ago, I published a piece in an edited volume on obsolescence.
0:34:00 And they asked me to select an object and write about it.
0:34:03 So I selected the paper airplane ticket.
0:34:08 And I started looking into how it ended.
0:34:13 It actually didn’t end because we all switched to electronic tickets.
0:34:19 It actually ended because the international aviation authorities came up with a policy to say,
0:34:22 we’re no longer accepting paper airline tickets.
0:34:29 Yeah, I haven’t seen a paper ticket in a while, but I still do get a paper boarding pass if I have to check a bag.
0:34:32 I try to avoid checking bags whenever I can.
0:34:38 But if I can’t, and then they give you the stickers that represent your suitcase and you have to keep them somewhere.
0:34:43 And it seems to me like the best place to keep them is on a paper boarding pass, just so it’s all together.
0:34:46 So they haven’t actually gone away.
0:34:53 And I wonder if that’s maybe a more typical path of a so-called obsolete item.
0:34:55 You know, candles are still here.
0:34:57 Paper boarding passes are still here.
0:35:00 Some people still use fax machines and pagers.
0:35:06 We used to rely on horses for all kinds of things, transportation, manufacturing, war, etc.
0:35:09 We don’t use them for anything there, but there are so many horses.
0:35:17 We don’t sail around the world anymore, but there are still sailboats in the Olympics and all kinds of pleasure sailors.
0:35:23 So am I thinking about obsolescence just kind of stupidly and wrong, or at least narrowly, maybe?
0:35:31 No, I think you’re seeing it really accurately because you’re looking at how there are still all these people using these technologies.
0:35:34 They’re not necessarily things that disappear.
0:35:37 So my specialization is in energy.
0:35:45 The biggest example that people discuss when they discuss obsolescence in energy infrastructure is whale oil.
0:35:49 People say, you know, fossil fuels came around and they saved the whales.
0:35:54 This has become such a strong talking point for thinking about energy transition,
0:35:59 to say that renewable energies could come around and replace fossil fuels.
0:36:06 But when you actually look at the history of whale oil, you see that we start using oil in the mid-19th century.
0:36:11 Fossil fuels become more and more pervasive into the 20th, 21st century.
0:36:18 And whale oil, the killing of the whales actually intensified the most in the 1960s.
0:36:23 The introduction of fossil fuels actually led to the killing of more whales.
0:36:24 Why was it?
0:36:30 Because fossil fuel powered ships could go around the world and kill whales in a much more effective way.
0:36:45 It’s fascinating because, for instance, whale oil became its most expensive in the 1970s because people who used it as a lubricant for jet engines realized that, oh, it’s going to be banned soon.
0:36:45 Ah, yeah.
0:36:48 So they started buying it in mass.
0:36:59 I think that example really shows me that obsolescence is not just something that happens when one product appears and one invention just replaces the other.
0:37:02 And we all switch from one thing to the next.
0:37:11 Actually, products and raw materials are always in symbiosis with one another and they support each other’s consumption somehow.
0:37:26 If you take the issue of plant obsolescence, there are people I’ve worked with who would just regard all industry as evil, as only focused on cutting the lifetimes of products for their own interests.
0:37:28 I don’t tend to see it in that way.
0:37:33 That, again, is the sustainable design scholar Tim Cooper.
0:37:39 I’ve met people in the fashion industry, for example, who are very radical in their thinking.
0:37:41 They just need to find solutions.
0:37:49 And the solutions they’re looking at in the clothing sectors, how can we retain a profit by making things that last longer?
0:37:51 They don’t want to lose market share.
0:37:55 If they lose market share, eventually they risk becoming bankrupt.
0:38:05 So the issue for me is how can we help you to do the right thing, to make it commercially beneficial, to do the right thing environmentally?
0:38:10 Similarly with the consumer, there are people who might argue that the consumer is always right.
0:38:11 No, they’re not.
0:38:19 Consumers are themselves facing conflicts in the same way that manufacturers and retailers are.
0:38:22 What should I do as an academic?
0:38:26 I’m not at the top of the income scale, so I actually can’t afford the best of everything.
0:38:40 What I do do is try and minimize any consumption of items that I think aren’t designed to last, even though they might be very cheap for them and they might serve a short-term function.
0:38:43 It’s not always easy to be a conscientious consumer.
0:38:57 But even if you try, like Tim Cooper tries, to not acquire a lot of cheap, disposable stuff, you can still wind up with a lot of things in your drawers and closets.
0:39:01 I went back to Gautier Gunal to talk about this problem.
0:39:16 If you were to come and look in the closet at my office, you would find a small museum of obsolescence, of equipment mostly, that I used heavily for years as a reporter and as a writer and as a musician.
0:39:24 Honestly, I have a very hard time throwing it away, in part because I have an emotional attachment to it.
0:39:27 You know, this is the laptop on which I wrote that book or whatnot.
0:39:31 This is the recording deck I recorded these songs on.
0:39:36 And they’re also beautiful, often, to me at least.
0:39:40 I’m curious if we were to open up your closets, what we find.
0:39:48 Well, I moved around a lot, which means that my closets went through, you know, processes of elimination.
0:40:00 But I definitely have all the cables and all the charging devices and all the different forms of batteries from the last two decades.
0:40:01 Why?
0:40:08 I’m not sure. I don’t know what to do with them, I think. Somehow, you imagine that maybe they’ll be used for something else.
0:40:20 Do you ever think that some future being will come down and really want to listen to the cassette tapes or watch the DVDs that you left behind and that they’ll need the cables to do so?
0:40:22 Is that why you leave them there? That’s why I leave mine there.
0:40:24 I think that might be the reason.
0:40:31 Maybe you and I should get together and you take your closet full of cables and batteries and see how they match up with my closet full of computers and recordings.
0:40:35 I think we can make a collage out of all of that, for sure.
0:40:39 So the most practical output you’re saying is an art project.
0:40:40 For now.
0:40:44 Do you consider yourself a nostalgic person or no?
0:40:48 That’s a good question. I don’t consider myself a nostalgic person, no.
0:41:02 I know a lot of people who are nostalgic and who love keeping things. And I know some people who hate nostalgia and don’t keep anything. Does anthropology have much to say about that split or that spectrum?
0:41:07 Anthropology has things to say about hoarding, for sure, and for exchange relations more broadly.
0:41:14 I don’t know if anthropologists would qualify people as being on one side of that spectrum or the other.
0:41:21 But maybe an anthropologist might ask, what is worth keeping for you and what’s not worth keeping for you?
0:41:34 I mean, I literally ask myself that question about 10 times a day when I’m surrounded by my archives, notes and drafts of books, yada, yada, then all the recording stuff and equipment.
0:41:38 I ask myself that all the time, like what it means to me, what’s it worth to me?
0:41:41 And I can’t get to an answer.
0:41:42 Can you help me?
0:41:47 I think it almost is like a process of psychoanalysis, right?
0:41:49 Not almost.
0:41:52 People don’t keep things only for themselves.
0:41:54 You know, I’m originally from Turkey.
0:42:07 And when I was visiting my parents this past winter break, they showed me this chest that my great-grandmother had used when she moved from Greece to Turkey.
0:42:12 They’ve always had it in the house for now more than 100 years.
0:42:12 Wow.
0:42:16 There is a piece of newspaper stuck onto this chest.
0:42:24 Until now, I mean, no one in my family now reads Greek and no one paid attention to what it said or no one tried to decipher it.
0:42:27 Did you whip out your phone and put Google Translate on?
0:42:28 Exactly.
0:42:29 Exactly.
0:42:33 And it’s a newspaper article that announces the end of the First World War.
0:42:40 And so all of a sudden, that chest has new meaning for everyone in the family.
0:42:43 So anyway, I mean, I think we also keep things for others.
0:42:45 That’s what I was trying to say.
0:42:56 It’s like there’s an imagination that someone else in the family or maybe, you know, a friend or someone else in need might also appreciate whatever object that you kept.
0:43:00 What will happen to that chest eventually when your parents pass?
0:43:02 Will you inherit it?
0:43:09 I think the reason why it was being presented to me this past winter break was to say, here is your responsibility.
0:43:12 And did you accept that responsibility?
0:43:17 I didn’t say anything about it, but I think I implicitly accepted it.
0:43:20 Yes, I prepared myself for it.
0:43:26 If your parents happen to be listening now, do you want to explicitly state your preference?
0:43:29 I don’t want to take it away from my sister, though.
0:43:31 I mean, maybe my sister will want to keep it.
0:43:33 If she doesn’t want to keep it, I’m happy to keep it.
0:43:36 There weren’t any candles in that chest, were there?
0:43:42 I’m sure there were candles when it was first being moved in the early 20th century from Crete to Turkey.
0:43:44 I’m sure there were.
0:43:48 But now in its current iteration, there are no candles in it, unfortunately.
0:43:55 Your story reminded me of something that I hadn’t thought about in years, which is I come from a big family, many siblings.
0:43:56 Both our parents are dead.
0:43:57 They’ve been dead for a while.
0:44:01 And I don’t have many physical possessions of either of theirs.
0:44:04 They could all fit in a big shoebox, basically.
0:44:14 But one of the things I have is a box of Sabbath candles from my mother from when she was a child or a young person.
0:44:20 And I’m hoarding them along with all my recording equipment.
0:44:22 Have you ever burned them?
0:44:22 No.
0:44:29 No, I consider them, I think sacred is not too strong a word, honestly.
0:44:32 I realize that’s kind of idiotic.
0:44:34 Like, I should burn them.
0:44:36 Candles are meant to be burned.
0:44:43 The fact that they represent some emotional memory or nostalgia makes it all the more meaningful to burn them, I would think.
0:44:45 Okay, how about this?
0:44:46 You and I get together.
0:44:53 Next time you’re in New York or next time I’m in Texas, one of us will bring the contents of our obsolescence closet.
0:45:00 And I’ll bring those old candles and we’ll burn the candles and try to make a collage of the old equipment.
0:45:01 How does that sound?
0:45:02 That sounds great to me.
0:45:03 Yeah.
0:45:05 That sounds great to me.
0:45:16 I have to say, this episode did not go exactly where I thought it would go when I first started wondering about why there are still so many candles in the world.
0:45:18 But I’m grateful it went where it did.
0:45:33 My thanks to the anthropologist Goethe Gunal, the obsolescence scholar Tim Cooper, Steve Herenziak of the National Candle Association, and thanks to all the listeners who sent us voice memos about their obsolete obsessions.
0:45:43 Coming up next time on the show, we take a very deep dive into a story that we heard about a little bit in today’s episode, the economics of the whaling industry.
0:45:46 These are majestic creatures.
0:45:53 But as long as our economic welfare depended on whales, no one seemed to take that attitude.
0:45:59 How did whales go from being a valuable commodity to a symbol of the environmental movement?
0:46:01 That’s next time.
0:46:03 Until then, take care of yourself.
0:46:05 And if you can, someone else, too.
0:46:09 Freakonomics Radio is produced by Stitcher and Renbud Radio.
0:46:13 You can find our entire archive on any podcast app.
0:46:17 It’s also at Freakonomics.com, where we publish transcripts and show notes.
0:46:20 This episode was produced by Zach Lipinski.
0:46:24 It was mixed by Eleanor Osborne with help from Jasmine Klinger.
0:46:36 The Freakonomics Radio network staff also includes Alina Coleman, Augusta Chapman, Dalvin Aboaji, Ellen Frankman, Elsa Hernandez, Jeremy Johnston, Gabriel Roth, Greg Rippon, Morgan Levy, Sarah Lilly, and Tao Jacobs.
0:46:40 Our theme song is Mr. Fortune by The Hitchhikers.
0:46:42 And our composer is Luis Guerra.
0:46:53 I was listening to a lecture about virtual reality and how people thought, you know, how can we bring our bodies back into the digital?
0:47:01 And virtual reality was perceived as a way to sort of stitch our bodies and our minds together again.
0:47:02 Oh, interesting.
0:47:03 Do you buy that argument?
0:47:04 Not really.
0:47:13 The Freakonomics Radio Network, the hidden side of everything.

0:00:07 We want to build Google’s and Facebook’s and AI and giant companies, giant cryptocurrencies, and now internet communities.
0:00:11 What they want to do is they want to exert authority over others.
0:00:16 What is the reason for the hostility between media and tech?
0:00:20 So for them, the best thing they can do is to put a man out of work.
0:00:22 And for us, the best thing we can do is we can put a man on the moon.
0:00:35 Today on the podcast, I’m joined by Balaji Srinivasan, entrepreneur, investor, and author of The Network State, to talk about one of our longest-running shared topics, the conflict between tech and legacy media.
0:00:45 We get into the rise of GoDirect, the financial collapse of journalism, the media’s political capture, and how crypto and AI might offer a path to rebuild trust, on-chain, and on our own terms.
0:00:50 Balaji calls for a total rethink of what truth infrastructure looks like and why tech needs to play offense.
0:00:52 Let’s get into it.
0:01:09 As a reminder, the content here is for informational purposes only, should not be taken as legal, business, tax, or investment advice, or be used to evaluate any investment or security, and is not directed at any investors or potential investors in any A16Z fund.
0:01:14 Please note that A16Z and its affiliates may also maintain investments in the companies discussed in this podcast.
0:01:22 For more details, including a link to our investments, please see A16Z.com forward slash disclosures.
0:01:29 Balaji, another day, another journo hit piece.
0:01:46 We were sort of talking offline about Mark and Ben’s Evolution of the Media episode, and let me just more broadly reflect, you and I have been friends and collaborators for the last 10 years, and one of the topics we’ve spent a lot of time talking about is the media, sort of the state of the media, what needs to be fixed about the media, and how to do that.
0:01:51 And we, with your leadership, have actually been a part of that trend and that evolution.
0:01:58 And so I wanted to take the opportunity to talk to you, kind of reflect about that evolution, and talk about where we still need to go.
0:01:59 Yeah.
0:01:59 Well, okay.
0:02:02 So there’s so much I can say on this.
0:02:07 I’m going to show one graph that, of course.
0:02:10 It wouldn’t be a biology podcast if we didn’t start it with a graph.
0:02:12 Yes, exactly.
0:02:17 This shows that, essentially, newspaper revenue rose to, like, $70 billion in the year 2000.
0:02:23 And then, right after the financial crisis, it just suddenly collapsed over the course of, like, four or five years.
0:02:26 And Google went vertical and Facebook went vertical, right?
0:02:32 And the thing about this is, this was the internet disrupting blue America, okay?
0:02:38 There’s a similar graph for manufacturing that shows China disrupting red America, almost at exactly the same time, right?
0:02:47 So just to focus on this one, though, for a second, once you see the internet disrupting blue America, because media is, like, a core thing for them, this is actually what led to wokeness.
0:02:50 Because, you know, you’ve heard the saying, go woke, go broke, right?
0:02:50 Yeah.
0:02:52 But in their case, it was actually go broke, go woke.
0:02:54 Okay?
0:02:57 Not my original coinage, but applied to this graph, it’s relatively original.
0:03:02 Because wokeness was, what happened was, they just fell off a cliff like this.
0:03:06 And from 2008 to 2012, tech was just part of the Democrat Party.
0:03:08 It was like, you know, Steve Jobs is there.
0:03:14 And there’s actually this article from 2012 on The Atlantic, like, the nerds go marching in, but tech helping to reelect Obama.
0:03:15 And Facebook was helping Obama.
0:03:17 Yeah, exactly.
0:03:21 All that stuff was basically solidly on the Democrat side up until 2012.
0:03:26 After the 2012 election, right after Obama’s inauguration, you can date it to right after that.
0:03:31 Because even in 2012, like, New York media and so on was saying there’s no such thing as a brogrammer.
0:03:32 Okay?
0:03:33 You can Google that article.
0:03:38 So 2012, tech was part of the coalition, so there’s no reason to attack them.
0:03:46 After the inauguration 2013, and it’s literally that spring and summer, the knives came out, and media started attacking tech.
0:03:47 Okay?
0:03:54 And there are these articles, you know, would you just look at all these rich people, whereas actually in Slate, that was before they got radicalized.
0:03:59 And they’re saying, oh, it’s actually bad to attack people just for the sake of being rich.
0:04:03 It was before all media had updated to actually tech is our enemy now, right?
0:04:04 Yeah.
0:04:11 But unless you understand the economics of it, I don’t think one can understand why the journos suddenly went crazy.
0:04:14 Now, the thing is, we’re now in 2025, right?
0:04:19 It is now 17 years after the collapse in media revenue, right?
0:04:27 So somebody who was born then, who was 18 years old, you’re playing any, like, multiplayer video games, like Quake or whatever, you know, all the new stuff, you know, MOBAs, right?
0:04:31 You can get spawned into the middle of something where everybody’s shooting at each other, right?
0:04:36 That’s what, like, the Gen Z kid is today.
0:04:37 Okay.
0:04:44 So from the restructuring of someone who’s 18 years old, the war with the journos has basically been a feature of their entire existence, okay?
0:04:59 But it actually wasn’t like that because in the 90s and the 2000s, the journos were secure enough in their economic position because you could write, like, four or six articles for Time Magazine a year and get paid a nice salary and travel around the world.
0:05:00 Did they kill?
0:05:01 Yes, they killed.
0:05:04 But they didn’t feel the need to kill all the time.
0:05:12 It’s funny because of the ways I’m putting it, Nellie Bowles actually did a thing for Barry Weiss a few years ago, and it’s like learning how not to kill, okay?
0:05:14 Well, it’s funny because she’s one of the few converts.
0:05:16 She made the transition.
0:05:17 She was able to get to the other side.
0:05:27 When you look at that, or you look at, there’s another one by Hamilton Nolan at CJR, okay, which is basically like the powerful don’t need the media.
0:05:31 Journalism, particularly at its highest level, is about raw power.
0:05:34 See, they admit it, right?
0:05:35 Go ahead.
0:05:36 I remember you had this old quote.
0:05:40 Was it some journalist who was like, we know our profession is kind of, like, immoral?
0:05:41 That’s an old quote.
0:05:41 Oh, yeah, yeah, yeah.
0:05:42 That’s actually a great one also.
0:05:43 Ready?
0:05:44 That is the journalist.
0:05:46 All right, this is a book report.
0:05:52 Anybody who has read this book cannot look at the journos the same way.
0:06:01 So Janet Malcolm talks about this, and her opening line, this is a great book called The Journalists of the Murderer, and her opening line is this famous, famous thing.
0:06:02 Hold on, let me find this.
0:06:08 Every journalist who is not too stupid or too full of himself to notice what is going on knows the way he does is morally indefensible.
0:06:17 He is a kind of confidence man, preying on people’s vanity, ignorance, or loneliness, gaining their trust and betraying them without remorse, like the credulous widow who wakes up one day to find the charming young man and all her savings on.
0:06:24 So the consenting subject of a piece of nonfiction writing learns when the article or book appears, his hard lesson.
0:06:27 Journalists justify their treachery in various ways according to their temperaments.
0:06:30 The more pompous talk about freedom of speech, the public’s right to know.
0:06:34 The least talented talk about art, the seemliest murmur about earning a living.
0:06:34 Okay?
0:06:41 And now this is actually a very important thing because this is, by the way, rated one of the top 100 nonfiction books of the 20th century by the modern library.
0:06:43 So this is a great book to read.
0:06:46 There’s another book you should also read, The Great Lady Winked by Ashley Rinsberg.
0:06:47 Okay.
0:06:49 So those prerequisites, let’s talk about the specifics.
0:06:53 First is, there’s like 10, 15 things I can say.
0:06:54 Let me just go point by point.
0:06:58 The first is, what is the reason for the hostility between media and tech, right?
0:07:03 It’s actually the master framework on the whole thing is it’s state versus network, right?
0:07:05 This is basically from my book, The Network State.
0:07:11 I think it’s a useful frame, which is like, for example, Elon versus mainstream media is network versus state, right?
0:07:14 Social media versus mainstream media is network versus state.
0:07:18 Or when it says, what is this whole article that is attacking Luke Farreter?
0:07:22 It’s like, why did this programmer attack the institutions of the U.S. government?
0:07:24 Network versus state, right?
0:07:26 Like this tech programmer attacking the state institutions, right?
0:07:34 And it’s the people on social media, the tech people, who are mad at the fact that this state-aligned institution is attacking our tech people.
0:07:36 Once you apply that framework, that applies to everything.
0:07:39 For example, SpaceX is network, NASA is state.
0:07:41 Uber is a network.
0:07:43 Taxi medallions are the state.
0:07:44 Bitcoin is a network.
0:07:45 The Fed is the state.
0:07:46 And so on and so forth, right?
0:07:51 And those are two different organizing principles for how you think about the world.
0:07:56 Basically, the state is someone should pass a law, and the network is someone should write some code, right?
0:08:03 The state is everybody who is directly or indirectly paid by essentially either the U.S. government or a government more generally.
0:08:07 And the network is all those people who are directly or indirectly monetized and make their living on the network.
0:08:14 So when someone goes from NYT to Substack, they’re moving from state to network, right?
0:08:24 And now the network is actually taking parts of the state where all these tech guys are getting into government, getting into politics, getting into media, getting into finance, getting into the traditional niches that were for the state.
0:08:32 That’s why they’re so mad because their share of the global pie and the local and the American pie is shrinking and the network’s pie is expanding, right?
0:08:34 They’re like, stay in your lane.
0:08:35 Why are they saying that?
0:08:42 They’re like, you should just be like hitting keys on computers and being a nerd and making like LED light bulbs that flash.
0:08:47 You should not be like rewriting the code base of how the world works, right?
0:08:52 And as I’ll get to, there’s a deep question of legitimacy, right?
0:08:53 The network is new money.
0:08:54 The state is old money, right?
0:08:58 And when I say the state, by the way, there’s like the literal state in the sense of the U.S. government.
0:09:03 And there’s the unelected institutions that surround the U.S. government in a ring that give it instruction.
0:09:06 Example, the newspapers tell the state what to do.
0:09:09 The universities tell the state what to do.
0:09:14 The philanthropies tell the state what to do and so on and so forth, right?
0:09:16 But they’re also in turn funded by the state.
0:09:18 So universities obviously directly get federal funding, right?
0:09:24 Some of them are literally public colleges, but they’re very dependent on tax exemptions and so on and so forth that the state grants.
0:09:25 So they only exist because of that.
0:09:27 The philanthropies also ditto.
0:09:36 NGOs, they have compounding foundations or their foundation endowment compounds because they’ve got favorable tax treatment, which normal companies don’t get, but they’re state affiliated.
0:09:38 And finally, the media, that’s the least obvious.
0:09:40 How are they upstream of the state?
0:09:44 Well, obviously, they hold somebody accountable by publishing a negative article on them.
0:09:48 Of course, they never hold themselves accountable because they’re always like, we’re speaking truth to power.
0:09:50 I’m like, obviously, they’re not.
0:09:50 Why?
0:09:54 Every journal is so courageous as to attack your boss whenever they’re off.
0:09:56 Okay?
0:10:00 Basically, whenever you’re talking to a journal, you’re not talking to the journal, you’re talking to their boss, right?
0:10:07 Ultimately, for example, Bloomberg, when Bloomberg was running for president, actually, Michael Bloomberg is one of the better of them because he’s actually like a tech entrepreneur.
0:10:10 So I’m not like completely anti-Michael Bloomberg.
0:10:20 But Michael Bloomberg, when he was running for president, Bloomberg News, his pit bulls, they actually posted this amazing thing, which said, we will report on but not investigate Michael Bloomberg.
0:10:25 Amazing, amazing phrase, report on what an amazing phrase.
0:10:30 What it means is, basically, if somebody else says something, we will reprint it in Bloomberg.
0:10:33 So you can’t say we didn’t report on him.
0:10:34 Okay?
0:10:36 But we’re not going to go and dig through his trash.
0:10:38 We’re not going to do it adversarially.
0:10:39 We’re not going to stalk him.
0:10:42 We’re not going to spam his family like they did to our boy, Luke Faraday.
0:10:42 Right?
0:10:43 Massacre our boy.
0:10:44 Well, so that’s the thing.
0:10:46 They didn’t massacre him because he’s got our support.
0:10:46 Right?
0:10:46 Yeah.
0:10:48 But they did attack him.
0:10:49 I’m just referencing the meme.
0:10:49 Yes.
0:10:50 I know.
0:10:50 I know.
0:10:50 I know.
0:10:51 That’s right.
0:10:51 Yeah.
0:10:59 But the thing is, they don’t do that because if you were a Bloomberg journo and you went after Michael Bloomberg, that’s what’s known as a CLM, career-limiting move.
0:11:04 In fact, actually, the entire journo establishment, that’s all nepotous.
0:11:05 That’s all old money.
0:11:06 Right?
0:11:16 They project onto us what their lifestyle is, like Salzberger, who inherited the New York Times, Murdoch, the guy who inherited Fox News now, and the Newhouse’s.
0:11:19 Who inherited Wired and Condé Nast.
0:11:20 Basically, Condé Nast was a parent company of that.
0:11:22 Basically, they’re all heirs.
0:11:23 Right?
0:11:24 They’re not self-made.
0:11:26 And the journos don’t have equity.
0:11:29 See, old money treats the journalists much worse.
0:11:32 Tech people, we treat our employees so much better because we give them equity.
0:11:33 Right?
0:11:33 They level up.
0:11:39 Journos is a completely two-tier system where there’s the publishers, the owners of these papers, and there’s these serfs, the journos.
0:11:40 So how do they compensate them?
0:11:48 They compensate them in status where the journo is made to believe that they’re like some independent, like, freewheeling attack dog.
0:11:52 Of course, they can’t actually attack true power who is their bosses.
0:11:52 Right?
0:11:53 They’ll never even mention them.
0:11:55 That’s the thing is, if I say Zuck, right?
0:11:56 If I say Zuckerberg.
0:12:00 Zuckerberg, whether you like him or not, Zuckerberg deserves our respect because he’s the man.
0:12:01 He really is the man in the radio.
0:12:02 He’s taken the hits for 20 years.
0:12:03 Right?
0:12:10 And he has survived so many things, and crucially, he’s CEO, he’s founder, he’s out there, and you can criticize him by name.
0:12:12 And if I say Zuckerberg, everybody can summon a face to the name.
0:12:14 They can summon all his body and so on.
0:12:17 If I say Sellsberger, it’s a blank.
0:12:19 99% of people don’t even know the guy exists.
0:12:20 Right?
0:12:22 He’s like, you know the usual suspects?
0:12:22 Yeah.
0:12:25 He’s like Kaiser Sosay, Kaiser Sellsberger.
0:12:25 Okay?
0:12:28 Honestly, I’ve heard his name a million times, but I don’t even know what he looks like.
0:12:29 You don’t even know what he looks like.
0:12:37 But this thing is, basically, Zuckerberg is somebody who, again, for better or worse, he runs a major communications channel, and so he’s covered.
0:12:37 Right?
0:12:39 But Sellsberger doesn’t get good coverage.
0:12:42 He gets no coverage.
0:12:42 Yeah.
0:12:43 Right?
0:12:46 That is actually really interesting.
0:12:46 Right?
0:12:48 Who’s holding him accountable?
0:12:48 Right?
0:12:50 Journalism for the privacy for me.
0:12:51 Exactly.
0:12:56 The guy who’s surrounded by thousands of journalists at all times is the only person in the world who has any privacy.
0:12:58 Okay?
0:13:00 Yeah, that’s good.
0:13:01 You’ve never seen this guy’s face.
0:13:01 Right?
0:13:02 Who is this guy?
0:13:03 Yes, he’s on the New York Times.
0:13:05 And people say, oh, my God, he’s on the New York Times.
0:13:05 You’ve never seen his face.
0:13:11 But the point is, if you did word face association, in terms of a number of impressions, it’s a quantitative thing, right?
0:13:13 If I use AI, I could quantify it.
0:13:16 How many people can summon the face of Zuckerberg with a word?
0:13:18 Like millions, billions probably, right?
0:13:18 Yeah.
0:13:20 How many even know that Sellsberger exists?
0:13:20 Basically nobody.
0:13:21 Why?
0:13:22 Because it’s Zuckerberg’s company.
0:13:25 He is considered a person who is in charge of the company.
0:13:28 And people don’t just say, oh, Facebook has some policy issue.
0:13:29 Facebook has this policy issue.
0:13:30 Meta has this policy issue.
0:13:31 They go after Zuck personally.
0:13:40 But the NYT, they’re granted the enormous shield of calling it the NYT, calling it the institution, as opposed to Sellsberger’s paper.
0:13:41 It is just Sellsberger’s paper.
0:13:42 It’s his blog.
0:13:42 Right?
0:13:44 There’s nothing that is printed there without his approval.
0:13:45 Right?
0:13:48 So he inherited it from his father’s father’s father’s father’s father.
0:13:48 Okay?
0:13:49 It’s like five generations.
0:13:50 Here’s a big one.
0:13:51 Okay?
0:13:52 And then let’s get back to poor old Luke.
0:13:53 Okay?
0:13:54 So Durante.
0:13:55 Okay, Walter Durante.
0:13:56 So let me show you.
0:13:59 There’s basically, as I said, journos never hold themselves accountable.
0:14:00 Right?
0:14:04 So here’s a great, great, great tweet by Paul Graham.
0:14:05 And then here’s my reply to it.
0:14:06 So look at Paul.
0:14:09 One of the biggest surprises in my adult life is how unethical reporters are.
0:14:10 And movies are always the good guys.
0:14:12 Everyone in techno stories like this.
0:14:13 Now, by the way, this is actually a deep point.
0:14:13 Why?
0:14:15 Paul is saying this.
0:14:16 In movies, they’re always the good guys.
0:14:19 So this is a concept I call Jurassic Ballpark.
0:14:21 And Paul has said something like this many times.
0:14:21 Right?
0:14:24 Jurassic Ballpark is like, you know, the movie Jurassic Park.
0:14:29 And in it, they are missing some DNA for the dinosaurs.
0:14:30 They use amphibious DNA.
0:14:34 And of course, that leads to issues because then they can reproduce and so on and so forth.
0:14:34 Right?
0:14:34 Okay.
0:14:41 So in the same way, when you have a missing segment of history or culture, you just ballpark
0:14:42 with what comes out of a movie.
0:14:43 Right?
0:14:44 Jurassic Ballpark.
0:14:44 Right?
0:14:45 You just ballpark it.
0:14:49 But that could be really, really wrong or fake because it’s a movie after all.
0:14:49 Right?
0:14:54 Unless you have personal experience of something, your impression of it is the movie version.
0:14:55 And this is a non-obvious point.
0:14:55 Right?
0:14:59 So like, how else could it be because visuals are very persuasive.
0:14:59 Right?
0:15:02 And video is a high bandwidth pathway to the human brain.
0:15:02 Right?
0:15:06 And it’s not like your brain was like built.
0:15:08 Maybe in system two versus system one.
0:15:09 You know, system one is like instinctive.
0:15:11 And system two is like logical thinking.
0:15:11 Right?
0:15:15 Like maybe your system two can distinguish between true and false for the video, but your
0:15:16 system one can’t.
0:15:16 Right?
0:15:17 Okay.
0:15:21 So essentially people see all these things like journals are the good guys and so on.
0:15:23 We just saw the journalist and the murderer.
0:15:23 Right?
0:15:27 We just saw once you actually understand the space, they’re more like Kaiser Soze, Kaiser
0:15:30 Sulzberger, where they are the unreliable narrator.
0:15:30 Right?
0:15:34 They write the story and everybody else dies and they’re the good guys.
0:15:38 And you never actually hear the story of how the story is written, which is actually much
0:15:39 more important than the story.
0:15:42 Like whenever you see the New York Times has obtained, how did they obtain it?
0:15:44 Oh, they got some stolen documents.
0:15:50 Oh, or they told a source, give me this and then I’ll write favorably about you and don’t
0:15:52 give me this and I’m going to name you in the thing and you’re going to lose your job
0:15:53 and get attacked.
0:15:54 They do all that kind of stuff.
0:15:55 And go ahead.
0:16:00 I remember your definition of journalism, invasion of privacy for profit.
0:16:00 Yeah, exactly.
0:16:06 The non-consensual invasion of privacy for profit is what legacy media is.
0:16:07 Let’s take that definition.
0:16:07 Okay.
0:16:09 Non-consensual.
0:16:10 Can you opt out?
0:16:12 Can you say, journo, stop stalking me?
0:16:14 Can you say, journo, stop spamming me?
0:16:17 Can you say, don’t mention my family?
0:16:20 See, the thing is, in normal English, we have words for this.
0:16:24 When journos go through your garbage, like there was somebody who’s like stalking people online
0:16:29 and looking at all their, like Luke Farriter had somebody going and spamming all of his
0:16:30 friends and contacts and whatever.
0:16:34 And they were just like some like drug addict or crazy person.
0:16:37 He could say, okay, that’s stalking, that’s spamming.
0:16:39 You could get a 50 foot restraining order.
0:16:44 I actually want to see, by the way, today’s court system, I want to see people use anti-stalking,
0:16:46 anti-spam kind of things.
0:16:48 Because can’t spam, it’s an unsolicited messages, right?
0:16:52 Like you can try and use that on the journals and maybe there’s a sympathetic court system
0:16:52 now, right?
0:16:55 Like basically they get one warning, go the F away.
0:16:58 And the second is they’ve got money, so go after them on that, right?
0:16:59 Okay, fine.
0:17:03 So now I’m sure there’s some process where basically there’s all New York Times were sold and there’s
0:17:06 various things where, you know, they’ve had historical precedents that protect them.
0:17:11 But basically once you think of them as spammers, as stalkers, as scammers, because they are
0:17:12 scammers, the journalist is a murderer.
0:17:13 What is the definition she used?
0:17:15 A con man, right?
0:17:19 The journalist is a con man because they’ll always write this email to you, which is like
0:17:24 fluffing you up and flattering you and saying how great you are, blah, blah, blah, and pretending
0:17:26 that they come in under flag of parley.
0:17:29 They get their quote if you’re dumb enough to talk to them.
0:17:31 And then they stab you in the article.
0:17:36 That’s why Janet Malcolm said the consenting subject of a piece of nonfiction learns when the article
0:17:41 appears his hard lesson because you talk to this person, they present themselves as a
0:17:44 human being, as like a person you’re having a conversation with, and actually they twisted
0:17:46 every word to try to stab you, right?
0:17:47 Okay, coming back up.
0:17:51 So point being, basically, they’re actually the stalkers, the spammers, the scammers.
0:17:52 That’s what the journos are.
0:17:54 You can’t get them to go away.
0:17:55 So that’s a non-consensual part.
0:17:58 The non-consensual invasion of privacy for profit.
0:18:01 So there’s this saying that sometimes journos use as self-defense saying this is like,
0:18:05 journalism is printing something that someone does not want printed.
0:18:07 Everything else is public relations, right?
0:18:09 Now, what does that mean?
0:18:10 Why does someone not want to print it?
0:18:12 Usually because private information, right?
0:18:17 So the non-consensual invasion of privacy for profit.
0:18:21 Let us not forget that these are multi-billion dollar media corporations, right?
0:18:27 It took a long time in the 2010s for people to finally realize the New York Times, the Journal,
0:18:29 they’re just dot coms, right?
0:18:31 They’re not referees.
0:18:32 They’re not neutrals.
0:18:35 For some reason, people give them the imprimatur of like an institution.
0:18:36 We need to save our institution.
0:18:38 But what’s the difference to New York Times and Facebook?
0:18:39 They’re companies.
0:18:40 Exactly.
0:18:41 They’re a corporation.
0:18:43 Fair game, right?
0:18:50 And in fact, that’s why they got so mad at us because we actually believed in what they
0:18:53 said that we had freedom of speech and that free markets existed.
0:18:58 Actually, until really the early 2010s, there’s no actual practical freedom of speech.
0:18:58 You know why?
0:19:02 Because, you know, it’s saying never argue with a man who buys ink by the barrel, right?
0:19:05 Basically, freedom of the press belonged to those who owned one.
0:19:11 So think about how expensive it was to get a radio license, a TV license, to own a newspaper
0:19:15 and send trucks to people’s houses with all the ink and the printing press.
0:19:17 That was like the super high capital cost, right?
0:19:22 These are guys who basically own like essentially factories that cranked out papers and you at
0:19:24 home could say something to your friend, but you didn’t have distribution, right?
0:19:25 And we understand what distribution.
0:19:29 Now, you know, Teal talked about distribution years ago before it was quantified with social
0:19:29 media.
0:19:33 Now, very roughly, distribution is like number of followers, number of people on your email
0:19:34 list, but also quality of them, right?
0:19:37 Not just quantity, but quality and quantity of your follower base is roughly distribution.
0:19:43 So, you didn’t have distribution, and I mentioned this before, but in the early 90s, you know
0:19:44 the Unabomber?
0:19:45 Yeah, of course.
0:19:45 Yeah.
0:19:46 Why’d he kill all those people?
0:19:50 He killed those people so he could get an op-ed in the Washington Post, right?
0:19:51 Now, why?
0:19:57 Because distribution was so scarce back then that he wanted to get his manifesto out, so
0:19:59 he’d literally kill people for the distribution, right?
0:20:01 That was just within our lifetimes, just 30 years ago.
0:20:02 That’s how scarce distribution was.
0:20:05 Today, he’d be a crazy person on the internet, right?
0:20:06 He’d get his message out there.
0:20:10 But if you realize Unabomber is willing to kill to get his message out, you also realize
0:20:14 why there’s some people who are like crazy trolls on X, because they might not be able
0:20:18 to kill, but they’re certainly willing to attack somebody else, attack their character, or reputation
0:20:20 assassination, and now you get to the journos, right?
0:20:25 So, journalism, as the non-consensual invasion of privacy for profit, really captures what it
0:20:26 is that these critters do.
0:20:32 Now, up until about 2020 or so, there was no force that could resist them.
0:20:34 They were just like rampaging, right?
0:20:39 I mean, we could resist them economically, but especially in the 2010s, they were so
0:20:40 mad at us taking their money, right?
0:20:41 And what did that mean, by the way?
0:20:46 It just meant that, like, you refresh NYT.com, you see a Rolex ad or whatever.
0:20:47 You see some car ad.
0:20:48 You see some clothes ad.
0:20:51 And if you refresh meta.com, right?
0:20:53 Facebook.com, Instagram, what do you see?
0:20:56 You see an ad for exactly the same company, right?
0:20:57 Yep.
0:21:03 And so, that means the sales account executives at both of these organizations, right, what
0:21:08 they’re doing is they’re competing for literally the same customer, right?
0:21:15 And obviously, the Facebook, Google, et cetera ad has much more scale.
0:21:16 It has much more analytics.
0:21:18 It’s built internet first and so on and so forth.
0:21:20 So, the NYT just starts bleeding out around you.
0:21:23 But the point being, we’re beating them economically.
0:21:27 They couldn’t code search engines or social networks, but they could write stories and shape
0:21:27 narratives.
0:21:33 I know the difference between a Dropbox product announcement and, you know, NYT story.
0:21:35 Their stories have villains, right?
0:21:39 Our product announcements are all basically really making the world a better place.
0:21:40 It’s like, guess what?
0:21:42 10 gigs more storage or whatever, right?
0:21:43 Guess what?
0:21:48 Now you can, like, do, like, comic book style AI or whatever, right?
0:21:50 All that stuff doesn’t hurt anybody.
0:21:54 That’s just essentially, this is adding cool things to the world.
0:21:55 Oh, here’s a new robot.
0:21:56 Like, that’s what we’re doing.
0:21:58 And what are they doing?
0:22:01 Like, the highest award in journalism, what’s the most prestigious thing you can do?
0:22:02 They want to catch the Theranos.
0:22:04 Well, even higher than that is Watergate.
0:22:05 Right.
0:22:06 Right?
0:22:10 So, basically, whereas for us, it’s like SpaceX, right?
0:22:14 So, for them, the highest, the best thing they can do is to put a man out of work.
0:22:16 And for us, the best thing we can do is we can put a man on the moon.
0:22:18 Okay?
0:22:22 So, literally, the number one thing that they can see, and this, again, state versus network,
0:22:23 right?
0:22:28 We want to build Googles and Facebooks and AI and all this kind of stuff, drones.
0:22:32 And we want to build giant companies, giant cryptocurrencies, and now internet communities.
0:22:36 What they want to do is they want to exert authority over others.
0:22:39 But they want to do so in a deniable way, right?
0:22:42 Because if you go to the Pulitzer website or something like that, and you look at these
0:22:47 prizes, they’ll all say something like, our reporting held, you know, these so-and-so
0:22:50 accountable and led to an FTC investigation, blah, blah, blah, blah.
0:22:58 So, they’re really willing to take credit when their words on the page lead to the state golem
0:23:00 going and animating and smashing somebody, right?
0:23:02 It led to an FTC investigation.
0:23:05 It led to a new FAA regulation, led to this, led to that, right?
0:23:08 Leading to some person getting fired, some program getting set up.
0:23:11 And the ultimate thing, obviously, is to get the president of the United States fired.
0:23:12 That’s why they wanted to get Nixon fired, right?
0:23:13 With Watergate, right?
0:23:18 They were essentially like, think of Wall Street Journal, NYT, and Washington Post as the three
0:23:21 board of director seats on top of the presidency.
0:23:23 The president was like the titular CEO.
0:23:27 But the Journal, the Times, and the Washington Post, if they all put their multi-sig key
0:23:30 in the lock, they did their board of directors vote, they’d get them fired, right?
0:23:32 So, that was actually the state of affairs.
0:23:34 That’s what it meant by holding the government accountable.
0:23:36 Nobody in the government was really in power.
0:23:39 The journalists could write enough negative stories, and they were out of power, right?
0:23:43 So, the thing is that when it comes publisher time, they will admit that their stories led
0:23:44 to something.
0:23:51 But when it comes BLM time, they deny that their stories led to, you know, half America
0:23:52 getting burned down, right?
0:23:57 So, it’s a one-way ratchet where they take all the credit and avoid all the blame.
0:24:02 Because could you actually show the trace of that image coming into somebody’s eye and then
0:24:04 them setting fire to this building?
0:24:06 Once in a while, you might be able to show it, right?
0:24:10 They publish a manifesto saying, I read X, Y, and Z, and that’s why I burned it down.
0:24:14 But that causal effect, right, the cause and effect, and basically demonstrating that,
0:24:19 is, you know, there’s an impression, a page view that comes in over here through the
0:24:20 eyes and the ears.
0:24:23 And then there is a burn down the building kind of action to their side.
0:24:26 It’s funny because they’re quick to use causal in the other direction.
0:24:31 They’re quick to say, hey, Facebook is causing people to be depressed or to whatever, turn
0:24:32 right wing or whatever.
0:24:33 Yes, that’s right.
0:24:35 So, tech, there’s a causal effect for everything negative.
0:24:36 Yeah, I agree.
0:24:38 Cher knows there’s a causal effect for everything positive.
0:24:39 That’s amazing.
0:24:40 Wow, what an amazing, right?
0:24:42 Everything you do is bad.
0:24:43 Everything they do is good.
0:24:43 Amazing flipping.
0:24:47 Once you see this, though, you can basically be like Neo, you know, in the Matrix and just
0:24:49 like block everything like this, right?
0:24:51 And another big piece of this, they stopped doing this.
0:24:55 But one of the things they were doing years ago is they’re like, I’m a guy, everybody in
0:24:58 tech is so white and blah, blah, blah, right?
0:25:03 And obviously, it’s so much more international than the journos.
0:25:07 If you go and take that famous photo of Elon in the conference room and you compare the
0:25:10 people there versus the NYT editorial boat photo, right?
0:25:15 And you’ll see they’re like well-dressed, essentially, mostly European ancestry people.
0:25:19 And again, I’m not the kind of person who thinks like white is an insult, but they do,
0:25:19 right?
0:25:21 So, it’s all projection, right?
0:25:27 The journos themselves have these tyrannical, evil, meritless nepotists as bosses, right?
0:25:29 The journos themselves can never actually make it anywhere.
0:25:33 And it’s all favoritism and glad-handing, and there’s no merit, and it’s all luck and
0:25:34 connections.
0:25:40 And the journos themselves essentially are these envious people who exist to harm you, to increase
0:25:41 their career prospects.
0:25:43 And they project all that out into everybody else, right?
0:25:48 So, once you see that, like every accusation is a confession or whatever, you realize, oh,
0:25:51 this is how the world works in their stupid Brooklyn side of things.
0:25:55 And they think of us as a rival tribe that acts the same way, right?
0:25:55 Okay.
0:25:58 So, now, that’s like part of the macro.
0:26:03 Now, I have bad news for them, which is to say that I have bad news for us and also bad
0:26:03 news for them.
0:26:05 But let’s start with the bad news for them.
0:26:11 The bad news for them is that they, in the gigantic war between the internet and blue America,
0:26:11 right?
0:26:14 And by the way, we didn’t actually intend to start that war.
0:26:15 We were just building great stuff.
0:26:19 And it became so popular that we took away all of the customers of these guys.
0:26:23 But it’s not like you set up Twitter or Facebook or Google to go and blow up the Times and the
0:26:24 posts and the journal, right?
0:26:28 That was just something like Bezos got the post out of petty cash, right?
0:26:32 Like, it was just something where we built a valuable enough business that it generated so
0:26:35 much wealth that, okay, you could just go and acquire this thing, right?
0:26:38 And, of course, I understand why they got mad.
0:26:42 But what they should have just done is rather than try to beat us, join us or whatever, part
0:26:44 of it is also there’s three or four different things.
0:26:50 There’s a scenario where if Steve Jobs had lived, that when Bezos bought the post, Jobs buys
0:26:54 the Times and Larry Page buys the Wall Street Journal and we’d be on Mars by now.
0:26:54 Yep.
0:26:55 Okay.
0:26:59 So, like, the thing is, at the end of the day, there’s actually, as much as I think there
0:27:04 are like evil twin in some ways, there’s a deep sense in which there’s a similarity, which
0:27:08 is we’re all about the collection, dissemination, and presentation of information.
0:27:11 That’s the similarity between tech and media.
0:27:15 The collection of information, like the raw, you know, data, whether it’s a user-generated
0:27:16 content or so on.
0:27:21 Dissemination, which is distribution, the posting, circulation, and presentation, user interface.
0:27:23 They do think about their charts or infographics.
0:27:26 They also obsess about copy and so on and so forth, right?
0:27:30 So, we’re a fork of them in the same way that, like, Yale was a fork of Harvard or America
0:27:31 was a fork of Britain.
0:27:36 The internet’s a fork of the East Coast culture.
0:27:37 And that goes deeper.
0:27:40 People like Paul Graham, Catherine Boyle, Mike Moritz.
0:27:40 Yeah, yeah, yeah.
0:27:41 Exactly.
0:27:42 Exactly.
0:27:42 That’s right.
0:27:43 So, in another life, right?
0:27:43 Yeah.
0:27:46 Mike Moritz was a journalist, became an investor.
0:27:49 Catherine Boyle, also a journalist, became an investor, right?
0:27:53 Peter Thiel would have been, probably, he’d been born 20 years earlier, probably would
0:27:55 have been a Supreme Court jurist, right?
0:27:57 He’d probably have been, like, chief judge of the Supreme Court or something.
0:27:59 Paul Graham would have been a professor.
0:28:00 Larry Page, a professor.
0:28:01 Sergey Brin, a professor.
0:28:04 Mike Solana in Brooklyn, probably.
0:28:04 For sure.
0:28:07 He’d probably be a book publisher or something like that, right?
0:28:09 I probably would have been a professor and so forth.
0:28:13 And that’s true for Andrew Ng, Daphne Kohler, Martine Cassato, right?
0:28:13 Dixon.
0:28:18 Because the thing is, with computer science, there is an amazing connection between the word
0:28:19 and the deed.
0:28:21 Actually, AI makes that even closer.
0:28:22 You write it down and it’s done.
0:28:24 It’s this amazing thing, right?
0:28:28 So, ultimately, what we’re doing is we’re also writing all day, right?
0:28:30 We’re writing all day to see an impact in the world, right?
0:28:35 So, the difference is their impact, because they’re doing it through the state, and a failed
0:28:38 state at that, is almost invariably negative, right?
0:28:42 And because we’re doing it through the network, we have feedback loops where, for example, when
0:28:46 we type something in and it’s actually factually wrong, like, the compiler throws up on it
0:28:47 and it just doesn’t compile.
0:28:50 There’s fact-checking, like, on the page when we type something.
0:28:51 They have no such thing.
0:28:55 Their only fact-check is actually, crucially, not by the world, but by their peers.
0:28:59 That is to say, it’s only when they lose status among other journos that they actually ever
0:29:01 course-correct, right?
0:29:01 Ever.
0:29:03 And that’s, like, very rare, right?
0:29:05 So long as within their tribe, they’re not losing status.
0:29:06 There’s nothing.
0:29:06 Okay.
0:29:12 Now, basically what happened is, once you see this kind of model, by the way, going back
0:29:16 to the original point, the internet disrupting blue America, China disrupting red America,
0:29:20 you can understand essentially the last 18 years in the following way.
0:29:25 Blue America was disrupted by the internet, and so they began wokeness to take a piece of
0:29:30 red America’s pie and the tech clash to try and take back control from the internet.
0:29:35 Red America was disrupted by China, so the trade war was against China and Trump was against
0:29:36 blue America, right?
0:29:40 Because both their pies, they felt they were shrinking, and so they launched two front wars
0:29:45 on blue America and red America and the internet, red America and blue America and China.
0:29:45 Okay?
0:29:47 We’ll do the China bit later.
0:29:47 Okay?
0:29:54 But blue America versus red America and the internet, after a massive push, has lost.
0:29:55 Right?
0:29:59 I mean, it was close, but basically, Elon and X day.
0:30:01 It’s, like, literally D-Day.
0:30:02 This feels like eons ago.
0:30:03 It’s only three years ago.
0:30:05 Literally three years ago, X still hadn’t been acquired.
0:30:06 Twitter was still Twitter.
0:30:08 We are in, like, wartime speed of things happening.
0:30:09 It’s insane how quickly things, right?
0:30:10 Okay.
0:30:14 So, X day was something where, by the way, it wasn’t just Elon.
0:30:16 $44 billion.
0:30:21 Even Elon, as amazing as Elon is, that’s, like, at the right tail of what even Elon was
0:30:23 capable of actually having as a raise.
0:30:24 That’s a big raise for anybody, right?
0:30:25 Yeah.
0:30:29 So, it took, but the richest man in the world, the wealthy, he’s launching rockets, doing
0:30:30 ships.
0:30:34 He has all this other stuff, and he decided to take on this enormous extra thing and somehow
0:30:37 managed it, which is actually crazy to think about, because everything else, Elon is the
0:30:40 end of one, because whenever I talk to a founder, I’m like, focus, focus, focus.
0:30:41 Okay.
0:30:44 After you have your first whatever billion-dollar company, and it’s $10 billion, and it’s $100
0:30:46 billion, then you can do your next or whatever, right?
0:30:46 Fine.
0:30:48 But, so, Elon’s end of one.
0:30:54 Point is, in 2022, where it looked like the free world was just completely on the ropes by
0:30:57 these, like, racially-obsessed woke psychos just having us pinned like this.
0:30:59 You couldn’t even say whether men and women exist.
0:31:02 Like, we’re genuinely talking about, like, a permanent midnight.
0:31:04 Like, descending is really, really bad stuff, right?
0:31:05 How evil they were.
0:31:07 They just burned down half America.
0:31:10 They were just getting psycho, more and more and more psycho, right?
0:31:17 And so, amidst that, basically, all the resources of all the centrist tech and finance guys,
0:31:21 because that’s what the $44 billion, there’s that famous message of Elon to Ellison that’s
0:31:22 being made public or whatever.
0:31:22 He’s like, what are you in for?
0:31:23 Like, one or two.
0:31:26 Okay, but, okay, Ellison could put in one or two.
0:31:30 But, like, so many other people, it was like Avengers Assemble putting a mil, whatever they
0:31:32 could afford, a mil, 10, 20, 50.
0:31:35 I mean, 50 is a big investment for almost anybody, right?
0:31:38 Like, 50 is like, you know, it’s a serious LP meeting.
0:31:45 So, Elon, being Elon, was able to pass the hat and assemble this gigantic coalition of $44
0:31:50 billion, all of our remaining forces, for X day, right?
0:31:54 And so, the landing was extremely contested, right?
0:31:57 They basically wanted whatever the opposite of what he wanted.
0:31:58 Yes, that’s right.
0:32:02 So, she basically, essentially, whether forced to quit her acquisition or not, right?
0:32:07 Or, I think, like, Elon is actually 40 chess, right?
0:32:09 So, he actually is that smart, right?
0:32:14 So, it is possible that Elon just essentially made people think, just reverse psychology,
0:32:18 got the judge who had negated his pay package or, like, forced him through this whole court
0:32:22 process to get it back to say, okay, same judge, now this time we’ll do reverse psychology.
0:32:25 So, net-net, he got Twitter.
0:32:30 So, anyway, point is, X day was the day.
0:32:35 X day was also the liberation of Meta and liberation of YouTube, right?
0:32:40 All the countries that these racial fanatics at the NYT had occupied, right?
0:32:41 The networks they had occupied.
0:32:46 You know how, like, the Nazi empire was at, like, its peak and they thought they were going
0:32:49 to win and then D-Day and then they just collapsed like this, right?
0:32:55 So, Salzburger and Soros, they thought they were going to win and then X day, boom, came
0:33:01 in and just there, like, with X flipping, YouTube uncensored, like, Meta uncensored, everything
0:33:05 uncensored, and so on and so forth because X was upstream of the conversation.
0:33:09 Anyway, point is, it took Elon’s personal intervention in June 2023.
0:33:11 See, his first round of firings hadn’t done it.
0:33:12 His second round hadn’t done it.
0:33:17 It was like the third round of chemo to get rid of the wokes that had just infested Twitter,
0:33:21 right, to actually change things.
0:33:25 And by the way, you know, again, Elon’s intuitive more than a philosopher per se, just his philosophy
0:33:26 is his execution, right?
0:33:30 But there’s actually a real logic to why he renamed it X, you know why?
0:33:32 Among other things, this is one of many reasons.
0:33:33 Why?
0:33:37 I’m not saying this is why he did it, but it is an implicit aspect of how he did it.
0:33:42 It’s just like them renaming all the schools and, like, tearing down the statues and so
0:33:43 on, right?
0:33:49 Every journo had put years of effort into building up their profiles, and all their blue
0:33:54 checks were stripped, and all their profiles got renamed, and it was just X, right?
0:33:55 Another example is fake news, right?
0:34:02 Fake news had actually been used in 2016 for a few weeks in the context of all that social
0:34:04 media news is fake, but the New York Times is real news.
0:34:08 And Trump turned it on them, and it’s like, actually, the NYT is fake news, the fake news
0:34:08 media, right?
0:34:09 Which is perfect, right?
0:34:13 So, in the same way, the blue check went from something that was something that journos
0:34:16 valued to something that just Elon just stripped from all of them, right?
0:34:19 He just stripped their status, stripped their distribution.
0:34:23 I don’t know whether the ban on outbound links, again, whether it’s intentional or not.
0:34:24 I have no personal information.
0:34:25 This is what I just speculate.
0:34:29 Or, again, and even if it wasn’t intentional, this is just, like, part of the effect of it.
0:34:34 The ban on outbound links meant that suddenly X became the place you just go for the information,
0:34:36 and you don’t go to the journos anymore, right?
0:34:37 So, he stripped their status.
0:34:40 He stripped their control over the central stream of media.
0:34:42 He stripped their traffic from links.
0:34:46 He renamed the whole thing to show that he had root control over it.
0:34:48 Because you know what a pain in the ass it is to do a rename, right?
0:34:55 This X.com was, in a sense, tech’s revenge for making every fucking GitHub renamed from
0:34:57 master to main, okay?
0:34:59 Now, is Yale renaming its master’s degree?
0:35:00 No.
0:35:02 Okay, of course not, right?
0:35:04 It’s master class, whatever.
0:35:07 Like, anybody who’s at the New York Times, are they saying, I’ve got a main degree now,
0:35:09 rather than a master’s in journalism?
0:35:12 I think Columbia still has a master’s in journalism, right?
0:35:15 So, the whole point was, again, these journalists have a double standard.
0:35:17 They would impose that on us, right?
0:35:23 You, one million GitHub repos have to be renamed from master to main, whatever, 100 million
0:35:23 GitHub repos.
0:35:25 Do you know what a pain in the ass that was?
0:35:26 It was a huge pain in the ass.
0:35:30 Every single dev had to go through some stupid exercise on this, which was just a
0:35:32 demonstration of their power over us at that time.
0:35:34 That was what renaming means.
0:35:36 It means you cause a massive inconvenience for everybody to show that you have institutional
0:35:37 power.
0:35:39 So, now, Elon returns a favor.
0:35:41 And does it at even greater scale, right?
0:35:42 Okay.
0:35:45 So, now, what that is, is network overstate, where we fought in the domain in which we were
0:35:46 stronger.
0:35:50 And in a sense, also, by the way, taking back X and renaming X, you know, there’s like a
0:35:53 hard-fought city in some countries or some wars.
0:35:56 Gosh, there’s a city, I think, how many times has it sold?
0:35:58 It changed hands during the Korean War.
0:36:00 It was like several times, right?
0:36:02 So, yes.
0:36:05 So, Seoul changed hands for four times, okay?
0:36:06 It went back and forth, right?
0:36:13 And so, you think of X as being like Seoul during the Korean War, okay?
0:36:14 Because it’s a social war.
0:36:15 It’s a digital war.
0:36:16 We’re a blue and red tribe.
0:36:19 And actually, just to make that really explicit, this is a good visual.
0:36:20 All right.
0:36:22 So, this is from 2017.
0:36:26 And the interesting thing is, it’s the same on both Twitter and Facebook, right?
0:36:28 This is from eight years ago.
0:36:32 You can see, they labeled nodes as blue and red based on whether they’d said, I’m voting
0:36:34 for Clinton or Trump, just parsing the text, right?
0:36:36 And they looked at their connections.
0:36:37 And blue people were connected to blues.
0:36:38 And reds were connected to reds.
0:36:41 And the only large red media outlet was Breitbart.
0:36:44 And blue was over here.
0:36:47 And the Hill was one of the very few outlets that both sides tend to link because it just
0:36:49 gave neutral political news.
0:36:50 Like, so-and-so was running.
0:36:51 So-and-so results.
0:36:53 One neutral, truly neutral argument, right?
0:37:00 And so, here you could actually see that this was a social war, right?
0:37:05 And, you know, I’ve made this point in the past that in 1861, like when it was the North
0:37:08 versus the South, we take for granted that the ideological and the geographical coincided,
0:37:09 right?
0:37:14 The North was the Union, and the South had the slaves, and slavery is legal here and illegal
0:37:17 here, and the geographical and ideological coincided, right?
0:37:22 But by 2016, the geographical and ideological did not coincide.
0:37:25 You didn’t have a clean red states and blue states.
0:37:25 It’s very fractal.
0:37:30 Red states and blue states do exist, but it’s a preponderance as opposed to something that’s
0:37:30 as clean as this.
0:37:35 Now, to be clear, if you showed ideology here, it also looked more fractal, but it was more
0:37:37 distinct ideologically back then.
0:37:39 And here, it’s much more geographically overlapping.
0:37:40 With me so far?
0:37:40 Yep.
0:37:41 Okay.
0:37:47 But there is a domain where these two factions are completely distinct, and that is the domain
0:37:48 of the cloud, right?
0:37:52 So, on the land, red and blue are higgledy-piggledy right next to each other.
0:37:54 They can’t invade each other’s territory.
0:37:58 Like, what, you’re going to invade, like, the cities or the cornfields or something.
0:38:00 You can’t invade the lands.
0:38:05 So, instead, the social war is fighting over the mines, invading the mines, right?
0:38:10 Now, once you see this, you can actually understand a lot about the last 10 years, right?
0:38:13 We’ve basically been in the middle of this gigantic social war.
0:38:18 And the goal was, for blue, like, how do you win a social war against red?
0:38:20 Their goal, you ever play the game Othello?
0:38:21 No.
0:38:23 I know the game, but I’ve never played it.
0:38:24 It’s like, you flip tiles.
0:38:29 You’ve got black and white tiles, and you surround other tiles, and you flip them from black to
0:38:29 white or white to black.
0:38:30 Okay?
0:38:37 And so, essentially, the goal for blue was to win ideologically and flip every red node
0:38:37 to blue.
0:38:42 One way of thinking about it is, you know how an ant colony, individual ants, they don’t
0:38:45 actually know what they’re doing, but the colony has an intelligence.
0:38:48 So, even if the ants don’t know what they’re doing, the colony has an intelligence, right?
0:38:53 This is the same for a flock of seagulls or a school of fish, right?
0:38:56 There’s colony intelligence, and insects in particular are like this, right?
0:39:01 So, once you start thinking about ideology, it’s just like that, right?
0:39:04 Think of woke as, like, blue, right?
0:39:06 Or, like, radicalized blue.
0:39:08 It’s like laser eyes, right?
0:39:10 Like, basically, go broke, go woke.
0:39:13 They lost all this money as the internet disrupted them.
0:39:18 Blue laser eyes come online, and they start going to their old religion, because they don’t
0:39:19 have the money anymore.
0:39:22 So, go back to the old civil rights rhetoric and so on.
0:39:26 It’s like, basically, when countries got blown up in the Middle East and other places, when
0:39:30 countries go on hard times, that’s when fundamentalism returns, right?
0:39:32 Because they don’t have the economics anymore.
0:39:35 So, their economics went away, laser eyes glowing blue.
0:39:39 So, the eyes glow blue of these Chernos, and they basically were like, okay, it’s life or
0:39:44 death for us, and they started going and trying to capture as many institutions as possible
0:39:44 in the social war.
0:39:50 So, that’s why they were just going after random seeming nodes and forcing, canceling
0:39:50 them.
0:39:55 Remember how they wanted Amazon to put BLM on its, they did get Amazon to put BLM on its
0:39:55 homepage?
0:39:59 Like, for a long time, you’d load Google and it would have some BLM thing on there, right?
0:40:00 You know what I’m talking about, right?
0:40:01 Yeah, of course.
0:40:05 So, everybody, you know, Brian Armstrong, during the 2020 BLM riots, like, people were, like,
0:40:08 trying to force him to say Black Lives Matter on Twitter.
0:40:09 What was the point of that?
0:40:11 It’s like the Shahada in Islam, right?
0:40:15 The point of that was to show you’re a convert to BLM, right?
0:40:19 To flip a red node BLM, because it’s a checkmark over your head to show you they flipped that
0:40:20 node.
0:40:24 Now that’s part of BLM tribe, and now they can turn attention on the next one, right?
0:40:30 And so, all of the cancellation, all of the censorship, all the deplatforming, all of the
0:40:37 unbanking, all of the insane ideological fervor you can conceptualize as an attempt from BLM
0:40:45 to reunify red versus blue on BLM terms by turning every internet company into something
0:40:50 that was paying tribute to BLM versus worthless DI jobs, and every red into somebody who was
0:40:54 paying tribute to BLM by essentially not just giving up the presidency, but assuming the position.
0:40:57 Like, for example, why do they want to defund the police?
0:40:58 They want to fund their NGOs.
0:40:59 That’s what it’s all about.
0:41:01 They wanted to redirect the budget.
0:41:04 That’s why there’s like 200 homeless NGOs in San Francisco alone.
0:41:10 The homeless industrial complex, that shows that the NGOs, as their budget rises, the homeless
0:41:11 population rises with it.
0:41:14 They’re basically paid to get people addicted to drugs.
0:41:16 It’s the Department of Dependency Department, right?
0:41:23 And so, the point is that basically, all of this stuff with defund the police, defund the
0:41:29 NGOs, all of that can be conceptualized as this broad social war of blue against red to flip
0:41:31 all red nodes blue, right?
0:41:33 And what was their main weapon?
0:41:37 You’re racist, you’re sexist, you’re homophobic, you’re this, you’re that, transphobic, blah,
0:41:37 blah, blah, blah, blah.
0:41:43 And with this language, that same language they could use to force you out of their institution
0:41:47 because they’d fire you for being accused of any of these things, and they’d also say
0:41:52 your institution, they’d bust your borders and they would swarm you with unqualified hires
0:41:54 or else you’d be accused of this.
0:41:59 So, the same language they’d use to strengthen their borders and deport reds, and they’d use
0:42:01 to bust your borders and import blues.
0:42:02 Do you see what I’m saying, right?
0:42:02 Yeah.
0:42:06 Because if you’re a racist, you get fired from a blue organization, and you’re a racist unless
0:42:07 you hire blues.
0:42:08 Yes.
0:42:09 Okay?
0:42:13 Now, of course, today we see they don’t actually care about brown people or black people, only
0:42:14 blue people, right?
0:42:16 So, it’s more clear in 2025, there’s less clear of several years.
0:42:17 Fine.
0:42:17 Okay.
0:42:18 So, now coming back up the stack.
0:42:25 So, once we realized that it was a social war, now we can actually understand why the journos
0:42:26 want to kill you.
0:42:32 Like, basically, you know how, at various times in history, France and Germany have
0:42:35 traded, and France and Germany have fought, and France and Germany have traded, and France
0:42:35 and Germany have fought.
0:42:37 We are in wartime mode with the journos.
0:42:42 So, it is, like, extremely stupid for anybody to, now let’s go to concrete brass tacks.
0:42:45 What should technologists do, and what should we specifically do generally, right?
0:42:48 So, first, just at an individual level, right?
0:42:50 Number one, go direct.
0:42:53 Build your own distribution to avoid distortion.
0:42:54 Okay?
0:42:59 That is to say, any content you have, it should be posted on your feeds.
0:43:01 Why would you go and feed it to some journo?
0:43:02 You’ve got some scoop.
0:43:04 You don’t need them for distribution anymore.
0:43:07 It’s more obvious that they need your content to build up their channel.
0:43:12 And they will distort it in the process because, remember, they get credibility within other
0:43:15 journos by being hostile to tech guys.
0:43:19 If they write a positive story, then it’s like, well, you’re a flack, you’re running a press
0:43:19 release.
0:43:24 Also, by the way, there’s another point, which is conflict is interesting, right?
0:43:29 Like, any movie, if you’re writing a screenplay, and it’s just somebody sitting on the grass
0:43:32 enjoying a fine sunny day, that’s boring, right?
0:43:34 But if a meteor hits, suddenly you’ve got attention, right?
0:43:37 So, what works in a movie setting is not what works in real life, right?
0:43:40 So, the journals want conflict.
0:43:44 And so, our concept of, hey, it’s 10 gigs for Dropbox or whatever, that might be helpful
0:43:47 to the public, but it doesn’t tell a story, and they want a story.
0:43:51 So, they’re always going to take what you do and put it through some distorting lens to
0:43:54 get to the other side, and they will get more page views at the expense of your company that
0:43:55 you worked on so hard, right?
0:43:58 So, number one, go direct.
0:44:01 Number two, build your own distribution to avoid distortion.
0:44:05 Now, the thing about that is, hire creators.
0:44:06 There’s two kinds of creators.
0:44:11 There’s those who are at the storyline level, and you probably only need, like, one of those
0:44:16 per company, because if you have too many very strong-willed personalities in a company, like,
0:44:19 you can only have one Steve Jobs at Apple, basically, right?
0:44:22 However, you can have a lot of people assisting with production, right?
0:44:24 With making content, with scaling that creator, or what have you.
0:44:26 So, usually, you’re going to have a founding creator.
0:44:28 And I’m not saying it’s 100%, by the way.
0:44:32 Sometimes, once you get to a certain scale, it’s good to have, like, some personalities.
0:44:35 For example, actually, Jesse Pollock’s doing a great job at base for Coinbase, right?
0:44:39 He’s got his own distinctive style that’s complementary to Coinbase’s style, and so on.
0:44:43 So, at a certain scale, you can have multiple personalities that are driving certain product
0:44:43 lines, or what have you.
0:44:44 And so, that’s fine, right?
0:44:48 But at least for a startup getting up to a build, you probably only want to have, sort
0:44:49 of, one storyline, one main creator.
0:44:52 And you have a lot of production support behind that, right?
0:44:53 And that can really work.
0:44:55 You can get very far with that.
0:44:57 Video, images, all this kind of stuff, right?
0:44:58 So, A, go direct.
0:45:01 B, build your own distribution to avoid distortion.
0:45:04 And by the way, one way of thinking about that, they call them the media because they mediate your
0:45:05 experience of reality.
0:45:09 When you’re putting anything through a media, it’s like an Instagram filter that makes you
0:45:10 into a villain, okay?
0:45:11 Why would you do that to yourself?
0:45:17 It’s like paying the journo with free content to make yourself look bad and get a permalink
0:45:18 that’s attacking you.
0:45:28 I remember our good friend Flo Crivello was launching his remote office startup during COVID, and he gave TechCrunch the exclusive, and they criticized it.
0:45:29 They basically didn’t make it look good.
0:45:31 And he’s like, why would I give you my launch announcement?
0:45:33 I’m here to advertise my company.
0:45:35 I gave it to you guys.
0:45:38 I gave you the exclusive, and you made me look stupid.
0:45:39 Like, why would I ever do that?
0:45:43 And the fundamental thing is, it’s a business development relationship.
0:45:46 Literally think of it as TechCrunch is a corporation.
0:45:49 Why are you giving them something for free?
0:45:50 Right?
0:45:51 Literally, it’s that.
0:45:56 It’s like, that journo has a spreadsheet, whether it’s them or their manager who’s looking at it.
0:46:03 And there’s a row in the spreadsheet for that URL, and it’s got the number of clicks and the number of conversions and the ad revenue on that article.
0:46:05 And that’s the only thing they care about.
0:46:07 That’s the only thing they care about.
0:46:07 You know what’s not there?
0:46:09 The valuation or health of your company.
0:46:12 Obviously, they don’t care.
0:46:13 They would literally light it on fire.
0:46:15 That’s what they did during BLM.
0:46:18 The journo would light your house on fire and sell tickets to the blaze.
0:46:19 Okay?
0:46:20 That’s their business model.
0:46:21 Right?
0:46:25 And so, obviously, it’s like the dumbest possible deal.
0:46:26 People still do this stuff.
0:46:28 And I’m like, I mean, Elon uncensored Twitter.
0:46:30 You can post whatever you want.
0:46:30 Right?
0:46:31 YouTube’s uncensored.
0:46:32 Like, everything’s uncensored now.
0:46:33 Get good.
0:46:33 Right?
0:46:37 Anybody who’s talking to journos in 2025, hiring public relations, what are you doing?
0:46:38 What are you even doing?
0:46:38 Right?
0:46:39 Okay.
0:46:41 Now, I will say one thing.
0:46:41 This is very important.
0:46:49 Over the last several years, when we’ve done, like, the tech and media kind of ecosystem, there has been something that’s worked, and there’s something that didn’t work.
0:46:50 What worked?
0:46:53 Individual-led projects.
0:46:54 Right?
0:46:55 Mike Salon is PirateWires.
0:46:56 That has a real style to it.
0:46:57 TBPN.
0:46:57 Right?
0:47:03 Which exists to, I think, make Ramp get more conversions, which is very funny.
0:47:03 Right?
0:47:04 It’s very funny.
0:47:06 Of course, Ramp is our main sponsor.
0:47:07 They’ve got them on the hats.
0:47:08 They’ve NASCAR’d it.
0:47:08 It’s funny.
0:47:10 Ramp’s a good product, by the way.
0:47:11 And so, TBPN.
0:47:11 Great.
0:47:12 Right?
0:47:13 Coogan, he stuck with it.
0:47:14 He did a lot, you know.
0:47:16 And, obviously, All In has done very well.
0:47:16 Right?
0:47:18 Obviously, Elon has done very well.
0:47:23 And, you know, I think you did it with Moz, and now, you know, I think that’s right.
0:47:27 But what I think has not done as well is the things that are institutional.
0:47:31 Because if it’s too institutional, you’re playing it safe.
0:47:36 And you’re playing it safe, and there isn’t any conflict, there isn’t any opinion, there
0:47:37 isn’t anything novel.
0:47:38 It’s focus grouped.
0:47:38 Right?
0:47:41 Certain things benefit from averaging.
0:47:41 Right?
0:47:44 For example, the velocity of a plane or something like that.
0:47:45 You don’t want large deviations.
0:47:47 You want it to be within an envelope.
0:47:47 Right?
0:47:50 So, there’s certain kinds of phenomena where you want averaging.
0:47:55 Opinions and theses are usually not like that.
0:47:55 Right?
0:48:01 So, one way of thinking about it is the entire 20th century was the centralized century.
0:48:06 And even the movement from the widescreen to the portrait size, like a phone is like 9×16.
0:48:12 The movement from widescreen to portrait size is visually the movement from institutional to
0:48:13 individual.
0:48:17 Because a portrait kind of thing, a TikTok style thing, doesn’t have room for a panoramic
0:48:18 shot of a huge crowd.
0:48:19 It’s for a person standing there.
0:48:20 Right?
0:48:24 So, it’s amazing that even the screen itself captures that move from institutional to individual.
0:48:24 Right?
0:48:27 And you see this also on X and other platforms.
0:48:30 These journos, I don’t know what they were doing, if they were faking numbers or whatever.
0:48:32 They have like 20 million followers or whatever.
0:48:34 And they have three likes on their tweets now.
0:48:35 Right?
0:48:39 So, something happened there where either it was all fake or there’s just low engagement
0:48:40 or just boring.
0:48:42 But people just don’t trust those institutions anymore.
0:48:42 Right?
0:48:45 So, that’s another really important lesson.
0:48:46 Individual over institutional.
0:48:50 If you’re doing social media, it should be the amplified voice of your
0:48:51 founding creator.
0:48:51 Right?
0:48:51 Yeah.
0:48:55 And the founding creator is as important as the founding engineer.
0:48:58 Because the founding engineer is implementation, but the founding creator is the distribution.
0:49:02 The founding engineer is the how, but the founding creator is the why.
0:49:06 Because the founding creator has a community that they’re tapped into.
0:49:09 And they’re saying, why should this product exist?
0:49:10 Right?
0:49:15 So, you can often start by understanding your community and building a product for them and
0:49:16 then hiring the engineer.
0:49:18 It’s actually like a third kind of person.
0:49:18 Right?
0:49:23 Normally, it’s been like, there’s like the engineering founder and there’s like the business founder.
0:49:24 This is like the content founder.
0:49:25 Right?
0:49:25 Yeah.
0:49:30 And actually, this is where Coulson and Altman have observed where are the Gen Z, where are
0:49:31 the younger founders who are not in tech?
0:49:32 They’re in content.
0:49:33 Yeah.
0:49:34 Right?
0:49:36 Because actually, that’s where extreme leverage is.
0:49:37 That’s the Mr. Beast.
0:49:40 That’s the guy who actually looks like you, Aiden Ross.
0:49:42 Some of the younger guys are there.
0:49:42 Right?
0:49:43 I Show Speed is like that.
0:49:43 Right?
0:49:46 And they’re very talented at what they do.
0:49:50 And it’s just not something that we thought of as a thing because, you know, there’s still
0:49:54 like the startup kind of thing, but that’s actually now a, I shouldn’t say it’s a game
0:49:59 for 30 and 40-somethings, but millennials are good at startups and we’re still good at startups
0:50:02 and we still are, you know, Palmer’s doing a new thing, Altman’s doing a thing, obviously
0:50:03 not a new thing, but you know what I mean?
0:50:05 Like, we keep doing stuff, right?
0:50:10 But the 20-somethings are often very good at content and content is actually upstream of
0:50:10 product.
0:50:13 There’s room for a lot of collaboration there, potentially, where they’re doing the marketing.
0:50:17 It’s kind of like Beats by Dre, but you start with Dre rather than Apple, right?
0:50:22 I’m not saying anything people don’t know, but right now those have been, I think, doing
0:50:29 things that are relatively low-tech, like Mr. Beast Feastables or t-shirts or stuff like
0:50:29 that.
0:50:34 Brian Johnson, I think with Blueprint, is starting to get higher tech where you start with the
0:50:38 creator and then ideally you can distribute like quantified self stuff through that, if
0:50:39 that makes any sense, right?
0:50:41 Huberman could also do something like this if he decides to get into that area.
0:50:47 Any biotech company, genomics company, sequencing company could do deals with Huberman, for example,
0:50:47 for distribution, right?
0:50:48 Okay.
0:50:52 So this, by the way, is starting to make the case for why don’t outsource your creation.
0:50:53 Are you outsourcing your engineering?
0:50:55 Don’t outsource your creating, right?
0:50:57 Don’t outsource your content.
0:50:58 Content’s as key as code.
0:51:00 Content happens in the house, right?
0:51:03 Content, you have to sweat over it.
0:51:07 And actually, so for example, here’s a few things that I’m like half implementing, partially
0:51:10 implementing, or I am implementing, but I want to implement more, right?
0:51:14 It’s the kind of thing you want, obviously, come to ACZ or come to Network School, come
0:51:16 to NS.com, come to Network School, come and work with us.
0:51:20 But for example, GitHub allows a bunch of people to contribute to code at the same time.
0:51:21 We take that for granted.
0:51:24 How do you get a bunch of people to contribute to content at the same time?
0:51:26 Something like frame.io is pretty good.
0:51:27 You know, frame.io.
0:51:31 You can put all these clips in there, all these images in there, and then you have something
0:51:32 for people to work with.
0:51:35 Or CapCut web interface, right?
0:51:38 You can log into that and just basically load stuff in there, and you have a few accounts
0:51:40 that are shared among team members, right?
0:51:44 So now you actually have something where creation was a single-player app.
0:51:48 You start making it a multiplayer app, and now internet connections are good enough that
0:51:51 you can do versioning on big files and reviews of big files and so on and so forth.
0:51:55 Start thinking about your content base like your code base, okay?
0:52:01 And obviously, AI is a big part of that, though it’s not the only thing, since I think, you
0:52:05 know, any new tool, people use a tool, and they overuse a tool, and you bring it back, and
0:52:08 you’re like, okay, it’s a percentage of my thing, but it’s not everything, right?
0:52:11 If we did this whole podcast as AI, and we had, like, computer-generated us, it wouldn’t
0:52:13 be as interesting or what have you, right?
0:52:14 Because it’s generic.
0:52:16 AI is necessarily, it’s almost like a search engine.
0:52:17 It pulls, like, the…
0:52:18 It’s funny, I was saying this the other day.
0:52:21 Midwit writing used to be woke.
0:52:23 Now all Midwit writing is AI.
0:52:25 Like, it’s not this, it’s that, right?
0:52:29 So it’s like a super intelligence, yet Midwit, right?
0:52:32 But that’s because it’s building the average from the whole internet, so it’s useful when
0:52:33 you prompt it.
0:52:36 Anyway, point is, so that’s another piece on media.
0:52:38 So build your own distribution to avoid distortion.
0:52:40 Go direct, if you have something to say.
0:52:42 Hire creators.
0:52:44 You know, no journos, only influencers.
0:52:45 That’s a related point.
0:52:49 Do not bring journalists to your conference.
0:52:52 Do not bring journalists to your event.
0:52:54 Do not bring journalists anywhere.
0:52:58 Just like they would try to unperson you and cancel you on everything.
0:53:03 Like, you need hard borders, no journos, right?
0:53:08 The reason is, because as Janet Malcolm said, they’re like a con man, right?
0:53:11 There’s normal people who’ll talk to you like a normal person.
0:53:15 And there’s a journo who’ll come there with a mic and try to get someone to say something
0:53:16 and then attack them, right?
0:53:19 And the problem is, this is another big piece of it.
0:53:22 Like, a lot of people, you know how the journalists get them, is they get them on ego.
0:53:24 Okay?
0:53:27 So, it’s actually very similar to like the CIA.
0:53:27 Do you know what I’m saying?
0:53:29 Like, yeah, it’s like mission.
0:53:30 Yeah, exactly.
0:53:31 See, most people don’t understand this.
0:53:36 Like, much of what the NYT and what these guys do, and they’re so much weaker than they
0:53:36 used to be.
0:53:38 Like, so, so, so much weaker.
0:53:39 Thank God.
0:53:40 They’ve lost the center, right?
0:53:45 What happened is, they just piled up the subscriptions, and they got all the wine moms
0:53:46 and lost the Andresons.
0:53:48 Amazing trade for us.
0:53:49 Oh, my God.
0:53:50 They lost Glenn Greenwald.
0:53:51 They lost Mark Anderson.
0:53:52 They lost Nate Silver.
0:53:55 They lost Barry Weiss, right?
0:53:57 Amazing trade for us, right?
0:53:58 Like, for the center.
0:54:03 Because they actually got Tech Envy, and they just optimized the money, and they lost actually
0:54:05 all influence and power over the center.
0:54:06 Thank God, right?
0:54:07 Fine.
0:54:11 And actually, that’s a good trade, by the way, to be clear, I actually want everybody
0:54:11 to have a good life.
0:54:15 It’s possible that in some alternate reality, some of the journos would be good people.
0:54:16 Not all.
0:54:19 Some of them are genuinely, like, evil people, like a stalkerish personality.
0:54:23 But a good chunk of them, like, for example, Derek Thompson is not a hater.
0:54:24 Yeah, he’s good.
0:54:24 Yeah.
0:54:26 But that’s why he left the Atlantic, right?
0:54:31 So, all the ones who are not haters eventually leave.
0:54:34 Because you have to have the soul of a hater to be a journo today.
0:54:38 You have to have, like, a soul, which is, like, a stalker, envious kind of person, Gollum-like
0:54:40 personality or whatever, to be a journo, right?
0:54:42 And also, you have to not get it.
0:54:44 You have to be, like, not numerical enough.
0:54:47 Because, you know, the pay is better in tech in general.
0:54:48 The employees are treated better.
0:54:52 So, you have to be, like, a hater of a certain kind, a very specific kind, right?
0:54:57 Anyway, point is, the journos, another key concept when interacting with them, or not
0:54:59 interacting, you shouldn’t interact with them, but let’s say when dealing with them,
0:55:03 is they’re like a private, a for-profit CIA or FBI.
0:55:03 Should I explain this point?
0:55:05 Actually, especially CIA.
0:55:05 Okay.
0:55:08 So, the thing is, most people think from, again, remember the Paul Graham thing about,
0:55:10 you learn from the movies, the Jurassic Ballpark?
0:55:15 So, most people think that what the CIA does is, like, assassination.
0:55:19 But a lot of what it does is actually character assassination.
0:55:20 It plants stories.
0:55:26 Isn’t that much cleaner to just have somebody plant a story, and then they’re discredited?
0:55:29 And it’s so much cleaner than bullets and blood and so forth, right?
0:55:31 In fact, they did this in East Germany as well.
0:55:36 By the way, Wikipedia is actually just as bad as the media, because Wikipedia, it’s garbage
0:55:37 in, garbage out.
0:55:40 What happens is, you can only cite articles from legacy media.
0:55:42 You can’t cite social media directly.
0:55:43 So, Wikipedia’s a rehash.
0:55:46 So, in anything that’s contemporary, anything that’s political, they’re really terrible.
0:55:50 Nevertheless, there’s some articles from when they didn’t get corrupted.
0:55:54 So, a psychological warfare used by the Ministry of State Security, it served to combat alleged
0:55:55 through covert means.
0:56:00 Basically, Zerzetsung was because the communists were also fighting a similar social war.
0:56:01 They had conservatives.
0:56:01 They had libertarians.
0:56:03 They had non-communists on their territory.
0:56:04 They didn’t want to kill them.
0:56:08 They wanted to convert them, just like the blues flipping the reds to convert to blue,
0:56:08 right?
0:56:13 They were targeted to stop activities of political dissent and cultural incorrectness, right?
0:56:15 And what are the kinds of things they did, right?
0:56:20 Like, they do things like go and mess up your sock drawer to make you think you’re insane
0:56:22 or tell people you’re having an affair, right?
0:56:25 So, it’s like subvert and undermine an opponent, right?
0:56:29 So, disrupt the target’s private life so they’re unable to continue their hostile negative
0:56:30 activities toward the state.
0:56:33 This is what they did to Luke Faraday just now.
0:56:35 Exactly this.
0:56:38 The aim was to disrupt the target’s private or family life so they’re unable to continue their
0:56:40 hostile negative activities toward the state.
0:56:41 Do you see that?
0:56:45 What they’re mad is that Luke, they didn’t care when Luke was just analyzing some old,
0:56:48 you know, museum pieces or whatever, right?
0:56:53 But once they’re going after the state, when Doge is going after the state, that’s their bread,
0:56:53 right?
0:56:54 That’s their power center.
0:56:55 That’s their golem.
0:56:58 The FTC investigated this after our articles, right?
0:57:01 So, anything that’s upstream of that, they don’t want us to be upstream of that.
0:57:02 They want to be upstream of that.
0:57:03 Make sense?
0:57:09 So, as there’s that song, you know, like the communists and the journalists are the same,
0:57:10 but I repeat myself, right?
0:57:14 And the reason, by the way I say that is all, I may have mentioned this, but like John Reed,
0:57:21 Walter Durante, Herbert Matthews, like David Halibur, Sam, Edgar Snow, just take all those
0:57:25 names and those are all the journalists who did the PR for the communists.
0:57:27 It’s literally the reason that Castro’s in power.
0:57:31 For example, there’s this book, The Man Who Created Fidel, right?
0:57:36 The Man Who Invented Fidel, Castro, Cuba, and Herbert L. Matthews of the New York Times.
0:57:37 You see that one, right?
0:57:43 Or here’s another one, which is Durante, Ukraine, Amazon, like basically Stalin’s apologist.
0:57:44 Isn’t that amazing?
0:57:46 Stalin’s apologist worked at the New York Times.
0:57:49 Castro’s apologist worked at the New York Times.
0:57:50 Crazy stuff.
0:57:52 Actually, there’s another one, Perfect Spy, right?
0:57:55 Which is the Vietnam one, right?
0:58:00 The incredible story of double life of Pham Zuan An, a Time magazine reporter on Vietnamese
0:58:01 communist station.
0:58:02 Isn’t that interesting?
0:58:06 See, when I say journalists and communists, but I repeat myself, I’m like being completely
0:58:07 literal.
0:58:11 We just pulled up three books in 30 seconds that were about journalists communists.
0:58:15 So, Dylan Matthews from Vox, he’s talking about the Luke Farad argument.
0:58:17 He says, the negative reaction to this is wild.
0:58:22 If you join the government and your primary legacy is helping to kill millions of people
0:58:25 through aid cuts, you can handle some criticism if you can live with yourself.
0:58:29 The Salisbury’s primary legacy is killing, not like through aid cuts, the Salisbury’s primary
0:58:32 legacy is killing millions of Ukrainians.
0:58:33 Where’s their criticism, huh?
0:58:34 Right?
0:58:37 Again, Dylan Matthews is too much of a coward to do that, right?
0:58:38 The logic is just insane.
0:58:43 It’s claiming that by Dylan Matthews not giving all of his money to aid, he’s killing people
0:58:45 or by not making more money, he’s killing people.
0:58:48 I mean, just it’s, you know, he’s his 23-year-old of killing millions of people.
0:58:50 Why are we giving money in the first place?
0:58:53 Every policy, one of the things about it, notice what they’re doing here.
0:58:57 With the Hall of Demore, there’s actually a very clear-cut case where Durante wrote 13
0:59:02 articles that basically said Stalin wasn’t liquidating the Ukrainians.
0:59:04 He just meant it metaphorically.
0:59:07 They’re literally covering up like a murder in progress, okay?
0:59:08 So that was like a very clear-cut case.
0:59:13 Here, you’re talking about, okay, this is the Feed the Pigeon Society argument, by the
0:59:14 way, right?
0:59:20 Like essentially, as the number of the population grows as dependent, any cut to budget whatsoever
0:59:22 for the blues is equated with murdering their dependents.
0:59:24 And they probably believe that, right?
0:59:30 So it grows to the sky and everybody gets alms that, of course, the blues get nice paid non-profit
0:59:31 jobs out of, right?
0:59:32 And of course, you have more and more dependents.
0:59:33 And by the way, guess what?
0:59:35 He’s absolutely completely wrong here as well.
0:59:36 You know why?
0:59:37 Go to Easterly and Levine.
0:59:41 Easterly and Levine said, stop the aid, right?
0:59:42 Why?
0:59:46 Because all the aid is used for these warlords in Africa, right?
0:59:51 Actually, there’s something where in Nigeria, there’s a business plan competition that was
0:59:54 the most successful, quote, aid project ever because they’re making businesses.
0:59:57 Like, the thing is, I saw this myself in India.
1:00:03 Guys like these effective altruists or these guys, they don’t want peers.
1:00:05 They want pawns, right?
1:00:09 Brown people in India were starving in the 80s or whatever.
1:00:11 And they were pawns of these NGOs who sent the aid.
1:00:13 Now, India doesn’t need aid.
1:00:15 India is actually number three in unicorns.
1:00:17 It’s landing on the dark side of the moon.
1:00:19 I’m not saying everything is perfect, but it’s rising.
1:00:23 So, the fundamental premise of his point that aid helps is incorrect.
1:00:29 Aid actually hurts because aid, you know, it’s kind of like testosterone supplementation
1:00:30 of biosynthetic pathway.
1:00:35 If somebody takes too much of an exogenous hormone, it cuts off their natural production,
1:00:36 right?
1:00:40 Like, basically, if people take too much of the way of steroids, you know, it can cut off
1:00:41 your natural hormonal production.
1:00:42 You have to get it exactly right.
1:00:46 The actual charity is investment.
1:00:47 This is actually a deep point.
1:00:48 Should I explain this point?
1:00:53 So, imagine you’ve got two, quote, rich guys, okay?
1:01:00 And one of them is Soros or USAID is kind of like a rich institution or somebody who’s handing
1:01:01 out aid, okay?
1:01:02 Grants, seeming grants.
1:01:04 And another person is an investor.
1:01:11 So, for the people who are queuing up to write those grants to seek aid, okay, they are making
1:01:14 themselves as sympathetic or as pathetic as possible.
1:01:18 And in The Limit, it’s like the movie Slumdog Millionaire, right?
1:01:23 Where you see it’s dramatized, but the limbs of the kid are cut off to make them more sympathetic.
1:01:29 It’s almost learned or caused helplessness to either become, to pretend to, or become as
1:01:32 helpless and pathetic and sympathetic as possible so you get the maximum amount of money.
1:01:37 You win the competition for being the biggest loser, in a sense, the biggest victim, right?
1:01:38 That’s what wokeness is, right?
1:01:43 By contrast, if you think about our culture in tech and VC, right?
1:01:46 What we respect more than anything else is strength, right?
1:01:49 Essentially, you come to us, you come to us for a check.
1:01:54 And what we respect the most, in a sense, is if we didn’t put a check in you, but you still
1:01:57 win and you raise from someone else or you do it on your own, you bootstrap.
1:02:01 And then a year later, we’re like, I respect you.
1:02:01 I was wrong.
1:02:03 You were strong enough on your own.
1:02:06 And one way of talking about this is fake it till you make it, but another way of putting
1:02:10 it is, rather than the Slumdog Millionaire of people chopping off their limbs and thinking
1:02:13 about how depressed and pathetic they are to compete for grants and aid, instead, imagine
1:02:17 a bunch of people who are all running a race, like a mile or whatever, right?
1:02:22 They’re running a mile and 20 people compete, only one wins, but the other 19 at least got
1:02:23 a workout, right?
1:02:28 So everybody who’s in the process of trying to raise venture or, not that you have to raise
1:02:31 money, obviously, you can just totally bootstrap it yourself now.
1:02:33 It’s a single person startup is much easier than it’s been.
1:02:40 But anybody who’s in that process becomes stronger as a consequence of it, because you
1:02:43 constantly want to keep giving updates to the investor on all the stuff you’re shipping.
1:02:48 And that means, like, sometimes the easiest way to do that is to actually just ship.
1:02:49 I mean, most of the time, these, right?
1:02:55 So in the process of proving yourself to others, you prove yourself to yourself, right?
1:03:00 So that’s why a small amount of capital, when 20 people compete for it, strengthens the
1:03:00 whole ecosystem.
1:03:05 But a small amount of aid, when 20 people compete for it, weakens the entire ecosystem.
1:03:11 So, and another way of putting this also is, take these wokes who purport to believe in
1:03:12 equality, okay?
1:03:13 The Soros types or whatever.
1:03:17 Are they walking down the street and they’re saying, oh, here’s some guy in the street.
1:03:18 I’m going to give them half my fortune.
1:03:19 Now we’ve achieved equality.
1:03:21 Are they going to knock it down?
1:03:22 So let’s say they’ve got a billion dollars.
1:03:29 Are they going to find 100,000 people and each give them $1,000 or $10,000 so they’ve all
1:03:32 got $10,000 and they’re down to $10,000 so they’re all equal?
1:03:33 It’s within their power to do so.
1:03:35 They could literally hit a button to do so.
1:03:39 If they actually believe in equality, they could instantly achieve equality right now.
1:03:40 Okay?
1:03:45 And indeed, I actually do believe in redistribution for every self-proclaimed socialist just for
1:03:50 them to take their fortunes and redistribute them, opt in to socialism, we’ll take all their
1:03:52 money, all the wokes, right?
1:03:52 They’d like an example.
1:03:54 Yeah, exactly.
1:03:54 That’s right.
1:03:56 Look, we basically opt into that, right?
1:03:59 What they actually want, of course, is to take your money and do something with it.
1:04:01 But you take them at their word, they actually believe in equality.
1:04:04 What they mean by equality, by the way, is equality between themselves and the people
1:04:05 they’re looking up at.
1:04:08 They’re not thinking about all the people who they’re wealthier than or whatever, and that’s
1:04:08 it, right?
1:04:09 Okay, fine.
1:04:12 And another way of putting it is, if somebody’s walking on the street and they see somebody
1:04:14 and they’re down their luck, they might give them a dollar or $10.
1:04:16 They’re not going to give them half their salary.
1:04:18 So charity decelerates.
1:04:22 The more somebody rises, the less sympathetic and pathetic they are.
1:04:26 And in fact, people have talked about like how once somebody gets out of the total underclass
1:04:30 into the working poor, they actually sometimes make less money from all the grants and stuff
1:04:33 because all those cutoffs is how they’re considered self-sufficient, right?
1:04:37 You actually can earn your way into a local valley before you earn your way out of it.
1:04:39 It’s a disincentive to work.
1:04:39 Okay.
1:04:43 On the other side of things, for example, take Teal and Zuck.
1:04:44 This is a very famous example.
1:04:45 There’s many more like this.
1:04:49 Zuck started out much, in a sense, poorer than Teal.
1:04:51 Teal put in 500K.
1:04:52 Zuck is now much richer than Teal.
1:04:56 But Teal also became much richer in the consumments, right?
1:05:04 So that’s an example of investment actually achieves redistribution of fortunes or creation of fortunes
1:05:08 or greater equality in a way that charity never would, right?
1:05:10 So capitalism is the ultimate social.
1:05:13 In the same way like the phones that got to everybody in the world, the billions of phones,
1:05:14 capitalism did that.
1:05:16 Aid didn’t do that, right?
1:05:20 All this USAID stuff is just aiding blue NGOs.
1:05:22 What he’s actually mad about, go ahead.
1:05:24 I was laughing at the truth of that.
1:05:25 That’s the truth of it, right?
1:05:29 So the fundamental premise of his point is exactly wrong.
1:05:33 And so you’re taking away their pets, you’re taking away their pawns, you’re taking away
1:05:35 their reason for existing.
1:05:37 And of course, they’ll pathologize that, right?
1:05:39 But actually, they’re doing harm to them, right?
1:05:40 They’re not helping them.
1:05:41 Helping is investment.
1:05:46 I mean, it obviously goes to the old saw of like teach a man to fish versus give a man a
1:05:46 fish, right?
1:05:49 But give a man a thousand fish forever, they become completely dependent.
1:05:51 And that’s actually the goal of it.
1:05:54 Really, what’s happening is the cutoff of USAID is rolling up Blue Empire.
1:05:56 So it’s killing the blue business model.
1:05:58 That’s what they’re mad about, Luca.
1:05:59 Okay, keep going.
1:06:02 I think going back to Luke, what’s our advice to him?
1:06:04 Or how do you sort of react or reflect to the situation?
1:06:05 What should he do now?
1:06:06 So I don’t know how they got that photo of him.
1:06:08 Did he sit for that photo?
1:06:08 No, no, no.
1:06:09 I don’t think so.
1:06:09 Yeah.
1:06:13 So point is, I think overall, he didn’t talk to journos, which is good.
1:06:14 Look, Luke will be fine.
1:06:15 Why will Luke be fine?
1:06:17 Because his tribe supports him, right?
1:06:20 And the journos’ ability to impact somebody else.
1:06:25 With that said, the reason they do this stuff now is, and this is the unfortunate part,
1:06:29 they do this stuff, and they post this, take this Dylan thing.
1:06:33 Like, by his logic, oh, then someone would be justified in Luigi type stuff, right?
1:06:37 This is really the very dangerous thing about what these journos are doing.
1:06:40 They’re trying to essentially foment hatred against tech guys.
1:06:44 What have we done besides make things cheaper, faster, better, right?
1:06:48 Wow, I can now communicate with anybody, anywhere, at any time for no money.
1:06:50 I can find all the world’s information at my fingertips.
1:06:53 I can do math and computer science.
1:06:54 I can do simulations.
1:06:55 We can launch rockets.
1:06:56 We’ve got electric cars.
1:06:58 Oh, we’re the bad guys, right?
1:07:02 Versus the people who are just like stalking and spamming everybody all the time, right?
1:07:06 So first thing is just to have incredibly strong moral bedrock frame.
1:07:08 Understand that everything that journos are doing is projection.
1:07:13 I think advice to Luke, the first thing, by the way, is I actually think that had tech
1:07:15 ignored that article, it wouldn’t have gone anywhere, right?
1:07:15 Right.
1:07:16 That’s another piece about it.
1:07:17 Don’t take the bait.
1:07:21 The irony is that this is the opposite of a hit piece for him in that he’s now got
1:07:21 defenders.
1:07:25 We know it’s a puff piece in our circles, like it’s a badge of honor.
1:07:26 Yeah, yeah, that’s right.
1:07:29 So I think what I would say is I think his family and friends should consider going to
1:07:32 Starbase Texas or something like that, right?
1:07:38 Basically, you want to now sort at this point and you want to sort and be amidst communities
1:07:40 of people who share your values, right?
1:07:42 And the sooner you do that, the better.
1:07:46 And the reason is you just don’t want to have crazy blue people around you.
1:07:51 The Tesla terrorists and so on who are blowing things up, the Luigis, so on and so forth,
1:07:51 right?
1:07:53 So that is actually the danger here.
1:07:55 And I don’t say that lightly.
1:07:59 And in fact, if you want, we can just bleep out Luke’s name, you know, and so on and so
1:08:05 because I don’t want to, you know, but basically, I think the issue with this is here’s another
1:08:07 kind of recommendation for tech guys.
1:08:08 There’s a decision rule.
1:08:10 Don’t take the bait.
1:08:14 The journos only get traffic for their articles when they get range views from us.
1:08:14 And guess what?
1:08:19 They got 700K views or whatever for this tweet and they got conversions because they sold
1:08:20 ads, right?
1:08:24 And so that’s a dub for them in a sense, right?
1:08:27 I mean, look, it’s not like a total dub because it’s certainly not getting anybody fired or anything
1:08:28 like that.
1:08:30 It’s much less of a dub, but it’s some kind of dub.
1:08:35 So, okay, a while ago, there was some journo who was like doing some like cover story or
1:08:36 something like that.
1:08:40 And they put people on a tech guy for like 15 months or something.
1:08:43 And he just completely ignored the entire thing.
1:08:46 And it got no clicks and it got no views or anything.
1:08:49 The opposite of love isn’t hate, it’s indifference, right?
1:08:56 The fact that, like, another way of putting it is, so we’ve built up much of the supply chain,
1:08:57 but not all of it, right?
1:09:01 So, the most important thing is we’ve gotten X and we’ve reestablished control over the
1:09:07 platform because they had gone deep into our territory and actually had crazy blue stuff
1:09:08 in some of our citadels, right?
1:09:09 Like our VC firms.
1:09:12 So, one of the things they were doing is they’re trying to target the stuff that’s upstream,
1:09:16 the platforms, the venture capitalists and so on to try to hit the, you know, why they
1:09:17 go after Uber, right?
1:09:20 They didn’t want to know the trillion dollar company, certainly not the libertarian one.
1:09:21 Why they go after VCs?
1:09:23 They’re the ones distributing capital.
1:09:27 If they go after these nexus points, these critical nodes, they could try to hit those
1:09:28 if you’re in a social war.
1:09:30 It’s like taking a capital city or a town.
1:09:32 These are important nexus points, right?
1:09:33 You don’t want to go after a desert.
1:09:34 You go after nexus points, right?
1:09:36 So, they were deep in our territory.
1:09:37 So, now we took back the platform.
1:09:38 That’s good.
1:09:44 And we’re flanking mainstream media with tweets and podcasts, right?
1:09:48 Ultra short form and ultra long form content where they don’t have as much establishment
1:09:49 oomph, right?
1:09:52 We figured out the formula that works, which is individual over institutional.
1:09:59 Now, the next step, and this is the big story for the next five years or so, the ledger of
1:10:00 record, right?
1:10:02 Ultimately, you can’t be a critic.
1:10:04 You have to be a constructive critic, right?
1:10:09 Like, like, Ron Paul said, end the Fed, and Satoshi implemented Bitcoin, right?
1:10:11 So, you have the criticism, then you have the construction.
1:10:13 So, we actually have to build something better.
1:10:15 We have to build internet-first media, right?
1:10:18 So, that is that whole talk I gave on the ledger of record.
1:10:21 And that, by the way, that talk was originally from, like, 2020.
1:10:25 And I actually feel pretty good about that, essentially predicting that GPT-3, the next version
1:10:27 of it, would be able to summarize things.
1:10:30 It happened faster than I thought, but, like, I think the projection was correct, right?
1:10:31 And the fundamental…
1:10:31 The box scores.
1:10:32 The box scores.
1:10:33 Exactly.
1:10:40 The fundamental premise is, if you think about a sports article, it’s essentially, now we’d
1:10:45 use it, and I phrased it slightly differently then, but it’s essentially a wrapper around
1:10:46 a box score.
1:10:50 Or if you take a financial article, it’s essentially a wrapper around stock ticker symbols.
1:10:53 And you take a political article, it’s a wrapper around tweets.
1:10:54 That’s a raw feed.
1:10:57 It’s the numbers that underpin the letters, right?
1:11:01 So, now, if you think about what a blockchain is, it’s a cryptographically verifiable feed.
1:11:03 That’s, in a sense, what Bitcoin is, right?
1:11:07 What a blockchain is, it’s a stream of events similar to Twitter or any other event-based
1:11:10 feed, except it’s got much harder cryptographically verifiable guarantees.
1:11:12 Proof of what, when, and where, right?
1:11:14 Or proof of what, when, and who.
1:11:15 What is the hash?
1:11:16 When is the timestamp?
1:11:18 Who is the digital signature?
1:11:21 You can also do, like, proof of location, proof of where, and other kinds of proofs, right?
1:11:28 So, that stream of cryptographic proof is, like, a better Twitter in that sense, like, cryptographically
1:11:28 verifiable Twitter.
1:11:32 Then you have AI referencing that to create articles, right?
1:11:36 That’s a high-level concept of the ledger of record that replaces the paper record.
1:11:38 We have to play to win.
1:11:45 And so, we have to essentially realize that that is the center of the whole thing, right?
1:11:46 Truth.
1:11:49 And, actually, we have a better form of truth.
1:11:49 You know what that is?
1:11:51 It’s a form that is native to us.
1:11:52 Crypto.
1:11:53 Yes.
1:11:58 And, specifically, there is a good book, actually, by a reformed journo, or two somewhat
1:11:59 reformed journos.
1:12:01 These are, like, the ones who are not haters, right?
1:12:03 Vigni and Casey, they’re okay.
1:12:06 But the truth machine, the blockchain, the future, everything, this is, like, seven years
1:12:06 ago.
1:12:11 And the thing is, this just basically puts in book form a concept that existed for a long
1:12:11 time.
1:12:13 So, I’ve just got a citation for the concept, right?
1:12:18 So, essentially, the point is that Bitcoin is decentralized cryptographic truth.
1:12:22 Like, essentially, the whole thing about Bitcoin that’s so hard is, how do you get
1:12:26 global consensus on who owns what BTC?
1:12:32 And we have something now where, whether you’re a Democrat or Republican, Japanese or Chinese,
1:12:35 Indian or Pakistani, everybody agrees on the state of the Bitcoin blockchain.
1:12:39 They have global consensus on this thing, which is worth trillions of dollars.
1:12:41 People fight wars over billions of dollars, millions of dollars.
1:12:43 They kill people over thousands of dollars sometimes.
1:12:47 So, to have global consensus on this with no policemen or no military backing it, right?
1:12:51 You know that saying, like, how many divisions has the Pope, which Stalin would say, right?
1:12:54 How many long divisions has the New York Times, right?
1:12:56 They don’t have any, right?
1:12:57 Bitcoin has, right?
1:13:00 So, we actually have truth on our side.
1:13:04 A more powerful form of decentralized cryptographic truth.
1:13:06 It’s not headquartered in downtown Manhattan.
1:13:08 It’s on the internet.
1:13:12 Let me weigh in for a second, because this all sounds compelling, but I also just want to
1:13:16 celebrate right now we have John Coogan and Mike Solana and us and lots of other folks doing
1:13:19 such great work without sort of the crypto elements.
1:13:20 And so, why is that necessary?
1:13:21 Like, what’s missing?
1:13:21 Yes.
1:13:22 Great question.
1:13:28 So, what we’re doing with all the commentary is necessary but not sufficient, right?
1:13:33 Because commentary, it’s humorous, it’s opinion, right?
1:13:34 We need reporting.
1:13:34 We need news.
1:13:35 You need reporting.
1:13:36 Exactly.
1:13:36 That’s right.
1:13:40 So, commentary and summarization, right, is over here.
1:13:42 But news is the update.
1:13:47 Now, the thing is, Twitter is obviously a feed of raw facts that people are putting out there
1:13:47 in decentralized way.
1:13:54 Bitcoin increases that because it actually says, once you can get consensus on who owns
1:13:58 what BTC, you can also get consensus on who owns what stocks, what bonds, what Ethereum,
1:13:59 smart contracts.
1:14:02 And actually, as I did an article the other day, all property becomes cryptography.
1:14:03 We can do that in a different session.
1:14:06 You basically have consensus on who owns what property.
1:14:09 So, all valuable things you can get cryptographic consensus on, right?
1:14:16 And Chainlink and stuff like that, they built essentially armored cars for information, sending
1:14:17 it up and down to the blockchain.
1:14:22 Polymarket, armored cars for information, where information on the internet that’s commercially
1:14:24 valuable can be protected by cryptography and set there.
1:14:27 So, let’s take the case of PirateWires and TPN.
1:14:28 That’s great.
1:14:32 But let’s say there’s some dispute over whether a photo is real or not, right?
1:14:38 Like, a great example is, The Atlantic published this crazy piece calling for invading Brazil
1:14:43 because they saw a photo of the Brazilian fires, okay?
1:14:45 And it’s like, here, it’s like this crazy piece.
1:14:47 And was the photo not real?
1:14:49 Yes, exactly, right?
1:14:51 That’s a very clear example, okay?
1:14:55 The Amazon fires are more dangerous than WMD, okay?
1:14:59 This is a great example of, when I said, they’ll literally kill you for clicks, right?
1:15:03 This is something they’re calling for the invasion of Brazil on this basis, right?
1:15:06 Because they’re like, oh, the Amazon fires are burning.
1:15:12 And it was all on the basis of a fake photo that actually Macron had tweeted out, which
1:15:16 turned out to be a photo that was taken by a photojournalist who died years ago.
1:15:17 So, it’s from like some stock.
1:15:23 So, there was a timestamp that showed that that photo existed many years ago, right?
1:15:26 So, it wasn’t of a current event, okay?
1:15:29 And so, is that amazing, right?
1:15:29 Yeah.
1:15:32 That’s something where etiology, right?
1:15:33 In a sense, cryptographic.
1:15:33 Why?
1:15:38 Because you load the website, you see that it’s HTTPS, right?
1:15:42 That means there’s actually a cryptographic authentication that it’s like Getty Images or
1:15:42 wherever it was.
1:15:44 It was basically at some stock photo thing.
1:15:45 So, we could see the old timestamp.
1:15:47 You might hit archive.is, right?
1:15:52 So, you have implicit cryptographic verification of the timestamp of that image that was going
1:15:54 to be used to cause a war, right?
1:16:01 So, that’s a concrete example of why control over truth is so important to them.
1:16:02 Why did they put up the billboards there?
1:16:07 Because once you determine what is true and false, did Russia collude with Trump, right?
1:16:08 No.
1:16:10 It’s all fake, right?
1:16:13 It took a massive court process to adjudicate that.
1:16:17 And fortunately, the court system wasn’t corrupted enough that it went through.
1:16:22 But the New York Times collected all these politcers for this for basically false information, right?
1:16:25 One way that’s interesting, though, and this actually helps give some insight into it.
1:16:29 There’s a tech person who’s a lib, okay, who I won’t name.
1:16:33 But basically, during the whole Russiagate thing, said, oh, yeah, I know this is just as
1:16:35 good as Game of Thrones or something.
1:16:36 And I realized, oh, wow.
1:16:38 Remember that Paul Graham thing about the movies?
1:16:45 These people were treating this as if it was like an entertainment show with Trump as a villain
1:16:48 with the Times or with any legacy media.
1:16:50 And this is a very obvious thing, but, you know, it was obvious in the past.
1:16:54 You can predict what they’re going to say about somebody before they say it.
1:16:57 They have very low information content on each thing, right?
1:17:00 It’s Trump bad, blue America good.
1:17:05 And it’s like a cast of characters, almost like Seinfeld, where the same cast of characters,
1:17:08 the good guy and bad guy appears on the page, and you can just auto do it, right?
1:17:12 In fact, did I show you the robo journo from three years ago?
1:17:12 I don’t know.
1:17:13 I’m trying to remember.
1:17:14 Oh, yeah.
1:17:15 So this was a bounty.
1:17:21 I just put up a prize I put up where as soon as AI came out, and we can do a lot more with this, by the way,
1:17:21 but I’ll show you this.
1:17:26 So I put out a call to use AI to generate NYT tier clickbait from tweets.
1:17:27 Remember my thing?
1:17:27 Oh, yeah.
1:17:33 Yeah, I put out the theoretical article was in 2020, where I’m like, you know what?
1:17:38 We could have a feed of data, and all of these journos are just a wrapper around that feed.
1:17:43 And the reason I knew GPT-3 might get there is there’s a company called Narrative Science, actually.
1:17:44 Have you ever seen them?
1:17:45 No.
1:17:47 So Narrative Science, it went bust.
1:17:49 It was a good company, just a little too early, okay?
1:17:54 So this was a few years before the ChatGPT moment, okay?
1:18:02 And Narrative Science, what it did, which at the time was really cool, is it took your financial reports, right?
1:18:06 And it would say, revenue is high in the Northeastern segment, 65K, 40K, you know.
1:18:10 So it would basically generate a narrative from your raw data.
1:18:11 So it was like a readable narrative.
1:18:12 Make sense?
1:18:12 Yep.
1:18:18 So because I saw that, I knew that it was probably possible as this technology advanced to take raw feeds of data
1:18:21 and summarize them in essentially story form, right?
1:18:22 With me so far?
1:18:23 Yep.
1:18:23 Okay.
1:18:26 So that was the kind of theory in 2020.
1:18:32 And then the practice by 2022 was once ChatGPT came out, right?
1:18:36 I put out a call to use AI to generate NYTT or clickbait from tweets.
1:18:38 One brave engineer answered a call.
1:18:39 A student who learned how to code and replet is starting to state it.
1:18:41 His app takes a tweet, generates an article.
1:18:42 It’s already in the ballpark.
1:18:45 And you can see from this video, the GPT times, right?
1:18:46 You see this, right?
1:18:47 Yep.
1:18:47 Okay.
1:18:49 See, let me just, I’ll rewind this, okay?
1:18:51 So here it takes the Elon thing, right?
1:18:52 Elon tweet.
1:18:54 It goes here.
1:18:55 Paste it in.
1:18:56 It churns a little bit.
1:18:57 Okay.
1:18:58 It calculates.
1:19:00 He’s showing all the other articles.
1:19:01 He looked, he generated with the aesthetics.
1:19:03 It looks like NYT, right?
1:19:04 Yeah, so good.
1:19:04 Oh my God.
1:19:05 All right.
1:19:06 This was three years ago.
1:19:08 We can do so much more with this.
1:19:08 All right.
1:19:12 Now, boom, putting the cocaine back in Coca-Cola.
1:19:16 And look, it looks exactly like NYT or clickbait, right?
1:19:19 No journo, only robo.
1:19:22 Okay.
1:19:23 No journo, only crypto.
1:19:27 Because we can also have these be, look, see, there’s a code and so on and so forth.
1:19:30 There’s a saying system administrators have, be careful,
1:19:32 we’ll replace you with a very tiny shell script.
1:19:35 We can just automate, right?
1:19:37 Automate and completely obviate.
1:19:42 And the thing is, actually, all the journos have these unions where they’re against AI.
1:19:44 They’re against AI, they’re against AI.
1:19:48 This is, by the way, similar to, I think, the U.S. imposing tariffs or the Red America
1:19:49 imposing tariffs on China.
1:19:51 It’s like Blue America imposing tariffs on AI.
1:19:52 I don’t think it’s going to work.
1:19:58 But basically, Blue America imposing tariffs on AI is a protectionist late-breaking thing
1:20:01 where they think, okay, we can protect our revenue from this and there won’t be any
1:20:02 AI-based disruptors of us.
1:20:04 But there will be.
1:20:07 And they’re going to be internet first because there’s a lot of English speakers online
1:20:09 and most of them don’t live in the U.S.
1:20:11 And so there’s a lot of talent out online.
1:20:16 And so one piece of this is what I just showed.
1:20:22 And the crucial thing about that is those stories there can have all the backlinks and citations,
1:20:23 right?
1:20:25 So they show the raw tweets that are underpinning it.
1:20:28 And if you click, you can just change the style.
1:20:29 I want this conservative.
1:20:30 I want this liberal.
1:20:36 You essentially now have turned all of the massaging and Russell conjugation.
1:20:40 Russell conjugation is you’re doing a bad thing, but I’m doing a good thing.
1:20:41 Like Zuckerberg has another great one.
1:20:44 They attack Zuck for having dual-class stock.
1:20:46 Just to show you how just evil these guys are.
1:20:48 You can’t fire Mark Zuckerberg’s kids.
1:20:51 That’s the problem with tech companies using dual-class stock schemes, right?
1:20:54 So it’s all like presidents are not kings, right?
1:20:57 So now this, maybe you’d believe this argument on its own, okay?
1:20:59 But the next day, what do they do?
1:21:03 Or the previous article, it’s like how punch protected the times, right?
1:21:06 So here, the solution was to give that.
1:21:12 So dual-class is good when they do it, and it’s bad when tech does it, right?
1:21:15 Now, the thing is, you have to have a long context window.
1:21:18 Like I have a long context window because I remember this article from 2012,
1:21:20 and I remember this one from 2019, right?
1:21:22 So you have to have a long context window.
1:21:25 And until recently, I didn’t know how to show somebody else
1:21:26 to find all these internal contradictions.
1:21:27 But guess what?
1:21:29 AI can do that.
1:21:30 AI can do that.
1:21:35 AI can find every internal contradiction to NYT ever, okay?
1:21:38 And so you could just have them, NYT versus NYT.
1:21:41 They’re enslaving people, and then they’re pretending they’re unsaid.
1:21:43 There’s just so many things like that, right?
1:21:44 The Ukraine pro and con, right?
1:21:46 Okay, so coming back to your point.
1:21:50 We need to have a stronger form of truth
1:21:55 because if we don’t have that, you’re essentially accepting their premise
1:21:57 that this event happened, right?
1:21:58 Right.
1:22:00 The crypto stuff I buy, but even before that, we haven’t been able,
1:22:02 we’ve been able to build commentary, but we haven’t, to your point,
1:22:04 had enough sort of pro-tech reporters.
1:22:06 So the ecosystem had to be there, right?
1:22:07 The ecosystem had to be there.
1:22:08 Things had to work.
1:22:09 Block space had to get there.
1:22:10 AI had to get there.
1:22:14 Like, we needed to feel clear for what we’re going to do,
1:22:19 which is decentralized cryptographic truth, right?
1:22:21 Decentralized cryptographic truth, where it’s free,
1:22:25 it’s verifiable on your computer, right?
1:22:27 That’s the thing about the Bitcoin blockchain, you can verify it.
1:22:30 Now, one of the things, I should be more clear about exactly what I mean by true or whatever.
1:22:36 When a statement is posted on chain, what you can verify is the metadata, right?
1:22:40 You can say, it’s very hard to falsify the time at which this was posted.
1:22:44 It’s very hard to falsify the hash because of properties of cryptographic caches.
1:22:50 And it’s very hard to falsify the digital signature of what entity posted it, right?
1:22:53 Each of those three things has certain cryptographic guarantees that I can get into why they’re hard.
1:22:55 But they’re hard to falsify that.
1:22:59 That doesn’t mean that it could be an AI image that you posted on chain.
1:23:04 But it would have been hard to, five years later,
1:23:07 to say that AI image never existed before when I can see proof of it.
1:23:09 It’s like the Brazilian fires photo is a great example of that, right?
1:23:12 Another example, in a Chinese court, actually,
1:23:18 blockchain evidence was used to show that someone had a patent that was invalid
1:23:21 because somebody had posted something very similar to it many years ago
1:23:23 so they could use the hash to show they had priority.
1:23:24 Does that make sense, right?
1:23:28 So, there’s enough stuff that we’ve done in crypto
1:23:32 with proof of location, proof of this, proof of that, proof of solvency.
1:23:35 There’s many kinds of attestations and proofs
1:23:37 that you can put on chain that are pretty hard to fake
1:23:39 that is a fundamentally new set of primitives
1:23:42 that journos aren’t equipped to deal with
1:23:44 because we’re talking about math, right?
1:23:46 And they can’t do math.
1:23:47 They’re anti-selective.
1:23:49 If they could do math, they’d be in tech, usually, right?
1:23:51 But math is a universal property of humans.
1:23:53 You don’t need a subscription to the New York Times to do math.
1:23:56 I don’t need to pay Salzberger to do math, right?
1:23:57 Someone in India, someone in the Philippines,
1:23:59 someone in the South, someone in the North, wherever,
1:24:00 you can do math.
1:24:03 You don’t have to subscribe here for the truth, right?
1:24:06 Like, the truth is actually everybody’s thing, right?
1:24:07 Everybody should have access to the truth.
1:24:08 You shouldn’t have to pay the Salzburgers for the truth.
1:24:11 And in fact, I refuse to pay the Salzburgers for the truth, right?
1:24:14 I don’t allow them to centrally determine what truth is.
1:24:16 That’s exactly the same thing as Pravda and the Soviet Union, right?
1:24:18 So it gets a very fundamental thing
1:24:21 where tech guys are sensing there’s something here,
1:24:23 but ultimately the network has to supplant the state
1:24:25 as the form of truth.
1:24:27 That’s what Bitcoin represents, the truth machine.
1:24:30 And it gives a set of primitives, as I mentioned,
1:24:31 the who, the what, the when,
1:24:33 and then with other things, we can send that to the where,
1:24:36 that we can actually have a feed of facts, right?
1:24:38 So once you have the root feed of facts,
1:24:40 and think of it as like Twitter,
1:24:42 but with decentralized cryptographic verification.
1:24:43 That’s one way of thinking about it, right?
1:24:45 Imagine you have a bunch of checks, community notes,
1:24:47 but a bunch of check marks at the bottom,
1:24:49 like a continuous integration with GitHub, right?
1:24:51 Where you have a bunch of checks that’s green or red
1:24:53 if the site is deploying properly.
1:24:54 You have a bunch of assertions on it.
1:24:56 Think of it as Trugle, right?
1:24:58 It’s like Google, but for truths.
1:25:00 And you just run every assert,
1:25:01 and all these models are saying
1:25:03 whether something is true or not, right?
1:25:05 And there’s some computation there,
1:25:07 but if it’s valuable enough,
1:25:09 I should put out a prize just for this, by the way.
1:25:09 You know what?
1:25:12 Actually, at ns.com, I’ll put out a prize.
1:25:13 Go to ns.com for a session to earn.
1:25:15 Actually, we’ll put that up on screen.
1:25:16 I’ll send that link to you right after this.
1:25:19 I’ll put out a prize for decentralized cryptographic truth
1:25:20 and Farcaster, right?
1:25:24 Where essentially, you can maybe pay a little bit of crypto
1:25:26 for model evaluations to just fact check something.
1:25:28 It’s sort of like, at Grok, do this.
1:25:29 But I think a better way of doing it
1:25:30 is have multiple models do it,
1:25:32 give like the premises,
1:25:33 give the backlinks and so on and so forth.
1:25:34 And then eventually,
1:25:36 those things should be on chain where it links to.
1:25:38 And by the way, you know who agrees with me so much,
1:25:39 I think on this is Solana,
1:25:41 where he’s like, needs to do more reporting,
1:25:42 not just commentary and so on.
1:25:43 And a good version of that
1:25:46 is Nick Carter’s work on Operation Chokepoint, right?
1:25:46 That’s great.
1:25:49 So that’s a great example of something which is reporting
1:25:52 and not just summary, right?
1:25:53 Not just commentary.
1:25:55 Another example of this,
1:25:56 and what’s interesting, by the way,
1:25:59 is notice that our first-party testimony,
1:26:01 see, when we give first-party testimony,
1:26:02 in aggregate, that’s actually reporting.
1:26:04 So we’re doing things,
1:26:07 like, you know how someone who has like raw talent
1:26:10 in basketball or football or something
1:26:11 can do things,
1:26:12 and they don’t necessarily have great form,
1:26:14 but they can just somehow get it done
1:26:15 with just raw athletic talent there.
1:26:18 There’s a lot of things we’re doing that are good,
1:26:20 that are done on raw, like intuition.
1:26:21 Because when you have a bunch of people
1:26:24 who are posting on X and not talking to journalists,
1:26:26 then the quotes get pulled,
1:26:27 because people would use to say,
1:26:28 I’m canceling my subscription.
1:26:30 And that was always fake and stupid, right?
1:26:32 Because who cares?
1:26:33 They’ve got a million subscribers.
1:26:35 That doesn’t do anything, really, except on Moss.
1:26:37 See, they can get another subscriber,
1:26:40 but they can’t get another quoter, right?
1:26:44 They can’t get another supplier of quotes, right?
1:26:46 Because there’s only one A, six, and Z.
1:26:47 There’s only one Elon.
1:26:49 What is Elon when you email, like, PR, Tesla, or something?
1:26:51 He just replies back with a poop emoji.
1:26:52 What do you reply back to the Washington Post?
1:26:55 He’s like, send my regards to your puppet master, right?
1:26:57 Because he knows, right?
1:26:59 He knows that basically, like,
1:27:01 that they won’t criticize their boss, only yours, right?
1:27:04 So we did this thing intuitively
1:27:07 by freezing them out, of quotes,
1:27:08 not talking to them,
1:27:09 and posting the stuff ourselves.
1:27:11 Now they’re just reduced to bloggers.
1:27:13 Now they’re not sourced.
1:27:14 See, that’s another thing, by the way.
1:27:17 Like, an important concept is,
1:27:19 like, how do the good journalists operate?
1:27:20 You’ll see some of them,
1:27:22 they are almost like a CIA station chief.
1:27:23 They’ll post in their Twitter,
1:27:25 for tips, email, you know,
1:27:27 message me at Signal, this, that, and the other, right?
1:27:28 They’re literally saying,
1:27:29 it’s like a CIA bureau chief
1:27:32 who’s set up their office there in this country,
1:27:34 and, like, some weak country
1:27:35 can’t do anything about that, right?
1:27:38 It’s like a KGB officer who’s there in the country,
1:27:40 and they can’t be deported or whatever
1:27:41 because they’re, like, some embassy rights, right?
1:27:43 So they’re, like, spying on Facebook.
1:27:44 They’re spying on Meta.
1:27:45 They’re trying to solicit leaks.
1:27:48 And why do people leak at these companies
1:27:49 if they leak at these companies?
1:27:50 For the same reasons, you know,
1:27:52 I think it’s, like, M-I-C-E,
1:27:54 you know what that is in the CIA?
1:27:57 Money, ideology, compromise, and ego, right?
1:28:00 So why do people leak to journos?
1:28:02 Why do people talk to journos?
1:28:04 Sometimes it’s money where there’s,
1:28:05 for example, at Uber,
1:28:08 like, the VCs there wanted money,
1:28:10 and Travis didn’t want to sell or IPO,
1:28:12 so that’s why they did it, in part.
1:28:14 Ideology, why?
1:28:16 Because sometimes they’re far left within an organization
1:28:19 and they want to attack that organization.
1:28:22 Compromise, well, that’s interesting.
1:28:25 That’s often, sometimes the journo will have something on somebody
1:28:27 and they’ll say, I won’t print this if you give something else.
1:28:29 That’s not an economic transaction,
1:28:31 but that’s a very dastardly thing.
1:28:33 So it’s like, yeah, don’t talk to journos.
1:28:35 Everybody, what happens is,
1:28:37 the NYT or WHA or whatever,
1:28:40 they’ll message you and they’ll put on their nicest kind of thing.
1:28:43 They’re taught to flatter and sympathize in the email.
1:28:43 You know what it’s like?
1:28:44 Actually, you know what it’s exactly like?
1:28:50 Our SDRs, our sales development guys, our sales guys, right?
1:28:53 They send out emails that are really crafted,
1:28:55 cold email, blah, blah, blah, things, right?
1:28:55 To make the sale.
1:28:58 And it’s a completely calculated thing, okay?
1:29:01 Go and look at, I don’t know, Mark Craney stuff on sales.
1:29:04 If you need a filter, an analogy to understand the journos,
1:29:06 the journos are sending you sales emails.
1:29:09 The difference is, they’re scam sales emails.
1:29:12 It’s like a Nigerian, whatever, it’s like a scammer email, right?
1:29:14 So at least when we’re doing enterprise sales,
1:29:16 maybe it’s an aggressive sale at times,
1:29:16 or whatever, someone’s doing it,
1:29:18 but the product has to work.
1:29:19 They can cancel subscription or whatever.
1:29:22 It’s not, ha, you bought the product.
1:29:23 Now we got malware on your property.
1:29:24 We’re going to destroy your company.
1:29:27 That’s actually what the journos sales email is like, okay?
1:29:29 So there’s an analogy, you can only go so far, right?
1:29:33 And the point being that the ego part, M-I-C-E,
1:29:35 just like the CIA, the bureau chief,
1:29:38 people will do it to get their name in the press.
1:29:41 They’ll do it because they think, oh, it’ll work for me.
1:29:42 I’ll be the one.
1:29:43 I can charm them.
1:29:47 Everybody has to, you know, learn this lesson somehow, right?
1:29:49 I do want to call it that there are some, you know,
1:29:51 we named some of them, but there’s some other new media folks
1:29:52 who are sub-stackers, et cetera,
1:29:56 who are doing journalism, but are not the same journal.
1:29:56 Okay, okay, so all right.
1:29:59 So now let me get to a very, very, very, very,
1:30:00 very important point, okay?
1:30:04 Many words have been corrupted in a certain way.
1:30:08 So when I say journalism, I mean blue journalism, okay?
1:30:11 Because if you were to ask some journo,
1:30:14 is Ben Shapiro a journalist?
1:30:16 They’d say, no, of course not, right?
1:30:19 If you ask them, is Nate Silber still a journalist?
1:30:20 Is Glenn Greenwald still a journalist?
1:30:21 Barry White, I don’t know.
1:30:22 Yeah, Barry.
1:30:25 Are they still, no, they’re just running a blog, right?
1:30:26 Obviously, NYT is Silber’s blog,
1:30:29 in the same way Free Press is Barry Weiss’s outlet, right?
1:30:31 Okay, so this is a very important point.
1:30:34 Let’s say that Zuck competes with TikTok, right?
1:30:38 Zuck would never say TikTok’s not doing technology, right?
1:30:41 Yeah, that’s Chinese technology versus American technology,
1:30:42 but they’re still doing technology.
1:30:44 They’re recognizingly playing the same sport.
1:30:45 You might say they’re like,
1:30:48 it’s under the Communist Party surveillance, whatever.
1:30:50 You can make all those points and argue all that,
1:30:51 and Trump is flipped on, whatever.
1:30:53 Leading that aside, the point is that
1:30:54 you wouldn’t say they’re not doing technology
1:30:55 just because they’re adversarial.
1:30:56 They are doing technology.
1:30:59 They’re just doing it on the Chinese side, right?
1:31:03 Versus the blue journalist will actually deny
1:31:06 that Substack is journalism, right?
1:31:08 That Ben Shapiro is journalism.
1:31:12 Because even if Ben Shapiro has like millions more followers
1:31:14 than they do in a much larger audience and so on and so forth,
1:31:17 even if he’s smarter than they are in many ways,
1:31:18 and, you know, and like a better comp,
1:31:20 certainly he’s better than like their opinion editors and so on.
1:31:22 And he used the Substack,
1:31:24 which by the way are doing original reporting.
1:31:26 What they say, when they say journalism,
1:31:29 they mean he’s not in the club, right?
1:31:31 So remember the social network thing with the blue and the red?
1:31:34 Once you think about it as a network, right,
1:31:37 where the borders are fuzzy, but no less real for being fuzzy,
1:31:38 a network of blues, right?
1:31:42 So like Glenn Greenwald is on the boundary of that, right?
1:31:44 Seymour Hersh maybe arguably is on the boundary
1:31:46 because he’s on Substack and so on and so forth.
1:31:48 Like Barry Weiss arguably is on the boundary in some ways
1:31:50 because she was formerly in the club and so on and so forth.
1:31:54 So it’s a little bit like being an MD or a JD
1:31:57 where you have a formal state license.
1:32:01 To be a blue journo is to have an informal state license, right?
1:32:02 Why is it informal?
1:32:05 Because if they were formally state licensed,
1:32:08 they could say that it’s a state-controlled press.
1:32:13 So instead, what they get is a White House press pass.
1:32:14 It’s a press-controlled state.
1:32:18 The point about that is that once you see that it’s a network,
1:32:22 it’s a club, right, that’s when you realize,
1:32:28 oh, don’t talk to blue journalists is actually really what I’m saying, right?
1:32:28 Yeah.
1:32:30 And when I say tech journalist doesn’t count either,
1:32:32 just tech journalists, like TechCrunch is on,
1:32:35 that word has been, the problem is words have been tortured
1:32:37 to mean the opposite of what they mean, right?
1:32:38 Yeah, it’s anti-tech journalists.
1:32:39 Like science.
1:32:41 Yeah, it’s anti-tech journalists, right?
1:32:41 Exactly.
1:32:45 Like science got tortured to mean masks don’t work before they do, right?
1:32:47 So you actually have to have some prefix or something,
1:32:51 which is like science in the form of independent replication,
1:32:52 not procedure citation, right?
1:32:55 We’re trying to coin new media, something new.
1:32:55 That’s right.
1:32:57 And another example of this is democracy.
1:33:01 Like for the Democrats, it means California is a one-party state, right?
1:33:03 Here, let me show you this, just to show you.
1:33:06 So Democrats and communists have both built one-party states, right?
1:33:10 So here is Newsom taking lessons from Xi,
1:33:18 and he’s explaining how this is an amazing, amazing visual, right?
1:33:21 Where total Democrat Party control, right?
1:33:24 Democrats and communists have both built one-party states, right?
1:33:26 This is more than just like a one-liner.
1:33:27 It’s a deep point.
1:33:32 Just like when they said science and they turned to the opposite of science, right?
1:33:35 Which was masks don’t work before they do.
1:33:40 Just like they said media or they said journalism and they turned to the opposite of journalism,
1:33:44 which is basically it’s not neutral reporting on anything.
1:33:47 It’s reporting on the enemies of blues and protecting blues, right?
1:33:53 Here, they turned democracy into the opposite of democracy where they destroyed competitive multi-party elections, right?
1:33:58 In California, elections are held, but the party always wins, exactly like China, okay?
1:34:01 Democrats destroyed democracy in California.
1:34:02 Deep point.
1:34:05 This is why things got so bad there.
1:34:12 Because with no Republican check, with no multi-party competition, this is when the California train of $100 billion,
1:34:17 this is when the graft really got underway, the homeless industrial and complex explosion,
1:34:22 because there was no accountability at government level for all the Democrat abuses.
1:34:27 They built a one-party state and started looting it, just like the communists did, but I repeat myself, right?
1:34:31 When a Republican is elected, that’s a threat to democracy.
1:34:37 But when a Democrat surveils or sanctions or deplatforms or unbanks, that’s just democracy, right?
1:34:44 Now, the thing is, to be fair, it is true that many Republicans in response to this have started to build Florida,
1:34:46 especially into their own one-party states.
1:34:53 So the problem is that you have Democrats, Republicans, and communists that have all created basically one-party states,
1:34:58 where the only democracy then is going to be the right to exit, to vote with your feet, right?
1:34:59 Go ahead.
1:35:03 Yeah, that’s the perfect place to wrap this episode in terms of it gets to the network state.
1:35:03 The network state.
1:35:07 Now you can vote with your feet and go to California or go to Florida or go to wherever.
1:35:08 That’s right.
1:35:12 And we want to combine these because Starbase shows that you can combine all threes.
1:35:13 And I’ll end with just two things.
1:35:16 So essentially, this is a really important point.
1:35:18 We reclaim free speech.
1:35:20 We need to reclaim democracy, right?
1:35:22 We cannot give up on democracy.
1:35:26 Democracy is actually, first of all, that’s an important interpretation of what I just said.
1:35:31 It was not an abundance but a deficit of democracy that resulted in California’s downfall
1:35:34 because the Democrats built a one-party state, destroyed all multi-party competition,
1:35:37 they gerrymandered it, and that’s how they started all the looting,
1:35:39 the hundreds of billions of dollars in looting, right?
1:35:41 But we can have a rebirth of democracy.
1:35:43 And maybe we can do our next talk.
1:35:45 Democracy is creating startup cities, right?
1:35:45 Why?
1:35:48 They voted, people voted with their feet to move to Starbase.
1:35:50 They voted with their wallet to build up Starbase.
1:35:53 And then finally, they incorporated Starbase by voting with their ballot.
1:35:54 That’s the future of democracy.
1:35:57 Not a two-party system with the illusion of choice,
1:36:00 but a thousand-city system with the reality of choice.
1:36:02 97% for Elon, right?
1:36:05 This is essentially a precursor to what’s coming next,
1:36:09 where you vote with your feet, your wallet, and your ballot at the same time.
1:36:13 And that’s the only way that you can vote against the Democrats or the communists.
1:36:15 The only remaining vote is that vote.
1:36:18 That’s where the true vote is.
1:36:20 And what we need to do is reduce the barrier to exit
1:36:24 to give everybody that practical franchise, right?
1:36:28 Reduce lock-in, make it possible for people to actually have choice
1:36:31 over the government that rules them, right?
1:36:34 And this is also, of course, basically,
1:36:36 we need to become the largest funders in the world
1:36:39 of media, of democracy, of science.
1:36:42 And we actually mean it in the uncorrupted versions,
1:36:44 because I actually do believe in those things unironically, right?
1:36:47 I do believe in media, in books, in writing, and all this kind of stuff.
1:36:51 As I said, remember, we’re a fork of the East Coast, right?
1:36:52 We’re a fork of that establishment.
1:36:55 So we basically, with technology,
1:37:00 we can have a new birth of media, science, democracy, equality on the internet,
1:37:01 because that’s what the internet is, is a peer-to-peer network.
1:37:02 We’re all equal on the internet.
1:37:04 And truth is everybody’s property.
1:37:06 It is not Selsberg’s property.
1:37:07 It’s cryptography.
1:37:10 That’s a great place to wrap.
1:37:11 Balaji, always a pleasure.
1:37:13 Thank you so much for coming on the podcast.
1:37:13 Thanks.
1:37:18 Thanks for listening to the A16Z podcast.
1:37:20 If you enjoyed the episode,
1:37:24 let us know by leaving a review at ratethispodcast.com slash A16Z.
1:37:27 We’ve got more great conversations coming your way.
1:37:28 See you next time.

0:00:23 Megan Rapinoe here. This week on A Touch More, we’re joined by Nafisa Collier to talk about her phenomenal season so far, predictions for the WNBA’s second half, and what’s next for Unrivaled. Plus, Sue and I recap our trip to see the Eurofinals and how England dominated on and off the field. Check out the latest episode of A Touch More wherever you get your podcasts and on YouTube.
0:00:42 Imagine for a moment that we have the ability to rewind time, back through the age of the dinosaurs, all the way back to around 500 million years ago, when our ancestors’ ancestors’ ancestors were crawling around in the muck along with other animals.
0:00:50 If we started over from that point, would we end up with the same world that we have today?
0:00:59 This week on Unexplainable, some scientists are trying to answer that question. So listen, wherever you get your podcasts.
0:01:27 How the AI industry is shaping the world. Listen wherever you get your podcasts or watch on youtube.com slash yourrichbff.
0:01:35 Hey everyone, Scott Galloway here. It’s Scott Free August, which means we’re bringing you something special.
0:01:43 The Lost Boys, a series of conversations we hosted with Anthony Scaramucci about one of the most overlooked issues of our time, the crisis facing young men.
0:01:54 In this first episode, we speak with Richard Reeves, author of the book of Boys and Men, and also just a real mentor of mine and role model to unpack the data and explore why young men are falling behind.
0:02:12 Thanks for joining us for this new limited edition podcast we’re calling Lost Boys.
0:02:19 I’m Anthony Scaramucci, and I’ve been really concerned about what’s happening to young people, specifically young men today.
0:02:22 I grew up in a blue-collar family with a very tough father.
0:02:30 He wasn’t always easy, but still there were a lot of adult men in my life that served as real role models for me and a lot of men like me.
0:02:44 We knew what men were supposed to be and supposed to do, but I worry that today, between the morass of social media, the confusion about pronoun usage, and the whole change in the culture, it’s a lot harder for young men to thrive.
0:02:48 Young men are just doing much worse than ever before.
0:02:53 Last summer, I started talking to my good friend, Professor Scott Galloway, about all this.
0:03:03 Many of you know him as the professor, businessman, entrepreneur, and podcaster, and it turns out he is very passionate about this issue.
0:03:07 And the more we talked, the more we both felt, let’s see if we can do something about it.
0:03:16 So together, we’re starting this podcast, Lost Boys, to talk about what the problem is and then figure out what we can do about it.
0:03:21 In our first couple of episodes, we’re going to talk with the author and researcher, Richard Reeves,
0:03:26 who has probably done more to shine a light on this problem than anyone else.
0:03:29 I’m sure you’ll find this as interesting as I do.
0:03:34 Here’s part one of my conversation with Scott Galloway and Richard Reeves.
0:03:43 I’d like to introduce now my good friend, my dear friend, Scott Galloway, who will introduce Richard Reeves.
0:03:45 But guys, thank you so much for joining me.
0:03:46 I have a lot of questions.
0:03:49 I have a lot of moms that are going to tune into this podcast.
0:03:54 Trust me, I’ve been all over the speaking circuit talking to moms about this very issue.
0:03:56 So take it away, Scott.
0:03:56 Yeah.
0:03:58 So first off, Anthony, thanks.
0:03:59 This is Anthony’s vision.
0:04:02 And I was an easy yes.
0:04:09 I think Anthony is having a, for lack of a better term, a moment as sort of an interesting kind of thought leader or commentator on the state of the U.S.
0:04:13 So I wanted to be supportive of anything that brought attention to the issue.
0:04:15 And the issue is pretty straightforward.
0:04:19 I would argue that no group has ascended faster globally than women.
0:04:20 And by the way, that’s a wonderful thing.
0:04:24 The number of women elected to parliament has doubled in the last 30 years.
0:04:27 More women seeking globally tertiary education than men.
0:04:31 And no group has fallen further, faster in America than young men.
0:04:35 And Richard will go into some greater detail as he’s my Yoda around this stuff.
0:04:43 But effectively, you have, if you go into a morgue and there’s five young people who’ve died by suicide, four of them are men.
0:04:47 Three times as likely to be addicted, 12 times as likely to be incarcerated.
0:04:52 And I relate to this on a personal level because I was one of those men when I was younger.
0:04:58 I didn’t have a lot of economic or romantic prospects, living with my mother and kind of lost.
0:05:08 But America sort of loved me and picked me up by the scruff of my neck and flung me forward in the form of the University of California, assistance and welfare for my mother.
0:05:16 And I don’t find that some of those same programs and some of the same opportunities are the way society operates.
0:05:21 Had I been that kid today, I worry that outcomes would have been different.
0:05:33 And so this is something that’s a passion project and immediately found the person to kind of, I don’t know, serve again as my sensei, if you will, or my Jedi master is Richard Reeves.
0:05:44 Richard is the president of the American Institute for Boys and Men, born in Petersburg, United Kingdom, educated in geography at Wadham College.
0:05:45 Am I saying that correctly?
0:05:46 Yeah, you are. Amazing.
0:05:47 Crazy, right?
0:05:47 Right.
0:05:59 And has a PhD from the University of Warwick and has had several pretty high level positions, including joining the office of Deputy Prime Minister Nick Clegg.
0:06:03 He’s also was at, was it the Hoover Institute?
0:06:03 Where were you?
0:06:04 Demos.
0:06:04 Demos.
0:06:06 There you go.
0:06:06 IPPR, yeah.
0:06:11 And has, and not only that, is not just a bureaucrat.
0:06:21 One of the things I respect most about Richard, he not only wrote kind of this landmark book, or David Brooks described it as a landmark book of Boys and Men, but he’s an entrepreneur.
0:06:25 And that is, he went out and started a foundation or a research think tank.
0:06:26 What do you call this?
0:06:27 A think tank?
0:06:30 A think tank is probably the best term, yeah, I guess.
0:06:32 Sounds important, though, doesn’t it?
0:06:36 The American Institute for Boys and Men immediately was able to raise a lot of capital.
0:06:43 People have a ton of respect for him, his research, his kind of thoughtful, almost sort of nonpartisan approach to this and saw the need.
0:06:50 And just one, just to do some name dropping, I believe you received a $10 million grant from the Melinda French Gates Foundation.
0:06:51 Is that accurate?
0:06:55 Pivotal Ventures, there was 20, most of which I had to give away, which is great.
0:06:56 There you go.
0:06:57 Well, we can help.
0:07:00 Anyways, with that, Richard Reeves.
0:07:03 So, Anthony, do you want to kick us off with a couple of questions for Richard?
0:07:04 I think so.
0:07:10 I want to start out by making a statement, Richard, if you don’t mind, and get you to react to it.
0:07:16 I feel like things were more easily defined when we were growing up.
0:07:23 Scott and I are contemporaries, both born around 1964, and I feel like we had some definition to our lives.
0:07:25 You know, there were certain things that boys did.
0:07:27 There were certain things that girls did.
0:07:29 And again, I’m not trying to be overly parochial.
0:07:36 And I understand that we want to be accepting in our culture for varying lifestyles and so on and so forth.
0:07:41 But, you know, Scott said something to me that really penetrated a few months back.
0:07:44 He said, you know, there’s no advocacy for white males.
0:07:51 There’s maybe 75 different affinity groups at NYU, but there’s no white male affinity group.
0:07:53 And not necessarily saying that there should be, sir.
0:08:02 But I guess I’d like to ask you first, the statistic that Scott’s giving, what happened in our sociology?
0:08:07 What happened in our world, our culture that’s led to this problem that we’re all facing?
0:08:17 Well, the first thing to say is that I think Scott has been a real leader in terms of elevating this as a cultural conversation.
0:08:22 So there’s a danger now that you just get some praise inflation between me and me and Scott now.
0:08:24 But let’s get that over with.
0:08:27 But he was really leading on this before I wrote the book.
0:08:27 He’s one of the people who helped.
0:08:29 I want the praise inflation, Richard.
0:08:32 I mean, you don’t know me, but I need it.
0:08:34 I have a very fragile ego.
0:08:36 So don’t focus on Galloway.
0:08:39 Just like find subtle, subtle ways to praise me.
0:08:39 I’m sorry.
0:08:40 Continue, Richard.
0:08:41 Anthony, please.
0:08:45 So, so far, Anthony, I have no reason to object to you.
0:08:45 How about that?
0:08:46 All right.
0:08:46 Sounds good.
0:08:51 So someone sort of said like he’s a friend in the sense that he didn’t mean me active ill will.
0:08:52 Let’s start with that, Anthony.
0:08:54 I’m thrilled you’re doing this.
0:08:55 So, yeah, I think that’s right.
0:09:05 And it’s interesting the way this is both like a factual problem in the sense that like we’ve got all these facts, some of which Scott’s referred to, but like in education.
0:09:08 And wages and employment.
0:09:09 And that’s my background, right?
0:09:10 I’m a fact guy.
0:09:12 I’m a researcher, policy guy.
0:09:19 But I think there’s something behind that, which is what you’re both talking about, which is this identity question.
0:09:22 So beneath the surface of facts, there’s this question about identity.
0:09:27 And I do think that there was a clearer script.
0:09:33 That’s the way I like to think about this is that there was the old script was for women, wife and mother.
0:09:35 You’re going to raise the kids.
0:09:36 You’re going to, et cetera.
0:09:42 And the old script for men was you’re going to be the economic provider, head of household breadwinner, right?
0:09:44 That was a script my parents had.
0:09:46 And I had a great upbringing.
0:09:47 I’m very lucky, et cetera.
0:09:51 But there wasn’t like a question that they had to ask us about how they’re going to divide it.
0:09:53 And we tore those scripts up, I think, Anthony.
0:09:55 I see how you both react to this.
0:10:00 I think we tore them up and we said to women, your script is no longer housewife, mother.
0:10:02 It’s anything you want it to be.
0:10:03 It’s CEO.
0:10:04 It’s leader.
0:10:05 It’s you go, girl.
0:10:06 It’s amazing.
0:10:09 And as Scott said, that’s arguably the biggest economic liberation in human history.
0:10:10 Amazing.
0:10:16 So the script that girls and young women get now is around autonomy, of independence, assertiveness.
0:10:17 It’s all uplift.
0:10:18 It’s incredibly empowering.
0:10:24 We tore up the old script for men, which was breadwinner, head of household, et cetera.
0:10:26 And we didn’t replace it with anything.
0:10:29 We just tore up the old script.
0:10:32 And so what that means is a lot of men now feel like they’re basically improvising.
0:10:35 They basically don’t have a script.
0:10:37 Or if they do, it’s a negative script.
0:10:42 I really feel that one of the problems now is that the script around what men, you know,
0:10:44 what men treat is more defined negatively.
0:10:45 It’s don’t be toxic.
0:10:46 Don’t mansplain.
0:10:50 So there’s a long list of don’ts now for men, most of which we would probably agree with.
0:10:52 But what about the do’s?
0:10:56 What’s the to-do list for a 24-year-old man now?
0:10:58 And we don’t have a good answer to that question.
0:11:02 That’s created a massive vacuum, I think, in our culture and our politics.
0:11:08 But, Scott, what Richard is saying happened for what reason?
0:11:13 Through osmosis, a backlash to masculinity or male toxic masculinity?
0:11:16 What caused this to happen?
0:11:18 Or did it just happen naturally?
0:11:28 And I’m going to do like a rich little version of Richard here, and he can correct me where I got it wrong or where I got it right.
0:11:37 But the right will claim that it was, if you tell men that they’re idiots and predators for four or five decades, they start to believe you.
0:11:51 I think that’s part of it, but I would argue that it’s much more nuanced and that the primary culprits, if there is a culprit, are much harder to solve and less political.
0:12:02 The on-ramps into a middle class were, you know, for someone who wasn’t cut out for college or education, a lot of those on-ramps have been taken away.
0:12:06 Simply put, we’ve outsourced a lot of our manufacturing jobs.
0:12:08 One-third of jobs used to require a college degree.
0:12:09 Now it’s two-thirds.
0:12:12 What happened to wood shop, metal shop, auto shop?
0:12:16 There is a bias.
0:12:22 Now that we’ve leveled the playing field in education in my industry, women have just blown by, men.
0:12:29 You know, the attributes to be a good student just come more easily to a woman.
0:12:32 You know, at NYU, we don’t like to talk, we don’t say this out loud.
0:12:38 There are certain graduate schools in NYU where if we were admissions blind, they not only would be 70% women, they’d be 70% Asian women.
0:12:46 And so there’s just the natural attributes of a woman lend themselves better to education.
0:12:57 I also think economically, we’ve passed a lot of legislation that has transferred money from young people to old people, people over the age of 70 or 72% wealthier than they were 40 years ago, people under the age of 40 or 24% less wealthy.
0:12:59 Well, that affects men and women.
0:13:02 Yes, but when men don’t have money, quite frankly, they’re just less attractive.
0:13:06 That is more of a hit to them than it is a hit to women.
0:13:10 So you have an education system that’s biased against them.
0:13:16 You have, Richard can speak to the actual biological reasons, prefrontal cortex, societal, economic.
0:13:19 I think those are the primary culprits.
0:13:21 I think it’s a little bit, and Richard, I’m curious to get your opinion.
0:13:28 I think it’s a little bit lazy to say that it’s people not respecting men.
0:13:32 I think that’s part of it, but I think it’s a more complicated.
0:13:39 There’s a bunch of dimensions here that are probably bigger contributors to the fall of young men.
0:13:41 But I’m open to pushback here, Richard.
0:13:52 Yeah, I think, in some ways, I think that the discourse around men and the toxic masculinity, what that’s done is put fuel on the fire.
0:13:58 There are all these more structural, longer-term problems, as you say, Scott, around education.
0:14:03 The labor market has really turned against particularly men with less skill.
0:14:08 I mean, the fact that men without a college degree are earning no more today than they were half a century ago.
0:14:13 Like, stagnant male wages for most men.
0:14:17 That is a massive economic fact, and therefore a cultural fact.
0:14:25 But I do think that the fuel on the fire has been to say, if men are struggling, it’s sort of their fault.
0:14:34 One of my criticisms of more progressive-leaning people is that they can’t accept that men have problems, because they’re still convinced that men are the problem.
0:14:43 And that’s created a blindness to the reality of these problems of men, or a tendency sometimes to say, if men are struggling, it must be their fault.
0:14:48 So if men are committing suicide or having mental health problems, that’s because they won’t get help.
0:14:51 If men are dying of COVID, it’s because they wouldn’t get the vaccine.
0:14:56 If men are not doing well in school, it’s because they can’t be bothered to crack a book, etc.
0:15:05 And so there’s this weird sort of blame thing that happens with men, but only men now, rather than saying, well, maybe the education system’s not working very well for men.
0:15:07 Maybe the workplace has changed.
0:15:12 And so I think you’re right, Scott, that these are deeper challenges.
0:15:23 But I also think you’re right, Anthony, that it does make things worse if we actually then not only say men aren’t having problems, but also point to them as the problem.
0:15:25 So it’s a really unfortunate set of circumstances.
0:15:32 You know, the reason men are struggling is not because people are being mean to them, but that doesn’t mean people being mean to them doesn’t make things worse.
0:15:43 And I certainly think it makes them open to much more reactionary voices who can then credibly claim that mainstream institutions and people don’t care about them because they’re too busy pathologizing them.
0:15:51 And I do think if you want someone to really kind of feel threatened and alone, then threaten their identity, that we do know that.
0:15:53 And masculinity has become part of that problem.
0:15:57 We’ll be right back after a quick break.
0:16:28 SoFi matches you with vetted providers for your business in just minutes.
0:16:31 You can discover options to meet your specific needs.
0:16:35 And if you find a quote that works for you, you may receive funds as soon as the same day you’re approved.
0:16:40 Say it’s working capital you need or a line of credit or an SBA loan or equipment financing.
0:16:43 SoFi’s marketplace can help you find all of the above.
0:16:47 It’s already helped thousands of small businesses find the funding they need.
0:16:56 SoFi also offers business owners curated tools, vetted business bank accounts, business credit card recommendations, and a ton of resources to help you scale your business like a boss.
0:16:59 SoFi, now helping you get your business right.
0:17:04 Visit SoFi.com slash PropGPod and see your options in minutes.
0:17:12 Hunter Biden’s three-hour interview with Andrew Callahan started out normally enough.
0:17:13 Lore.
0:17:16 So you’re born here in Delaware or born here in Pennsylvania?
0:17:17 In Delaware.
0:17:18 Okay, in Delaware.
0:17:19 Yeah, Wilmington.
0:17:20 Small talk.
0:17:21 What are your thoughts on Wilmington, Delaware?
0:17:22 Nice place?
0:17:23 Oh, yeah.
0:17:25 Work, family, addiction.
0:17:28 Anyway, I don’t want to tell people how to make crack cocaine.
0:17:29 He did.
0:17:31 Then came the crash out.
0:17:34 I hear Rahm Emanuel is going to run for president.
0:17:36 Like, oh, boy, there’s the answer.
0:17:37 There’s the f***ing answer.
0:17:42 You have the Pod Save America saying, you know, I don’t think South Carolina, that’s only there is no Biden.
0:17:43 What the f***?
0:17:45 I mean, are they out of their f***ing minds?
0:17:46 I don’t have to be f***ing nice.
0:17:49 Number one, I agree with Quentin Tarantino.
0:17:50 George Clooney is not f***ing.
0:17:52 I don’t know what he is.
0:17:53 He’s a brand.
0:17:55 And by the way, and God bless him.
0:17:56 We’re not picking on him.
0:17:57 Keep coming back, Hunter.
0:18:00 No, in fact, everybody has been crashing out lately.
0:18:04 And today on Today Explained from Vox, we’re going to ask, what’s up?
0:18:13 Basically everyone except Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu appears to be gravely concerned about starvation in Gaza.
0:18:21 More than 108 organizations like Doctors Without Borders and Oxfam just signed a letter saying that
0:18:29 restrictions, delays, and fragmentation under Israel’s total siege have created chaos, starvation, and death.
0:18:45 30-ish countries, including a bunch of Israel’s own allies, have issued a statement condemning the drip feeding of aid and the inhumane killing of civilians, including children seeking to meet their most basic needs of water and food.
0:18:48 Even President Trump is balking.
0:18:52 Here’s a bit of what he said on Monday from Scotland.
0:18:56 We have to help on a humanitarian basis before we do anything.
0:18:57 We have to get the kids fed.
0:19:00 Gaza’s breaking point on Today Explained.
0:19:09 But to Anthony, to your point around misandry, you never hear the word.
0:19:11 You hear misogyny all the time.
0:19:12 You never hear misandry.
0:19:18 You know, I went on Theo Vaughn and I was talking about Struggling Young Men.
0:19:19 And I get what I always get.
0:19:26 Dozens, if not hundreds of comments along the lines of, well, if young men just got their act together.
0:19:30 Now, imagine me saying that about the black community.
0:19:35 Well, if black people just got their act together, what would be the response?
0:19:38 Well, if women were just in touch with their emotions.
0:19:48 I mean, it is open season on, if you’re at a conference and you say, well, women are better managers.
0:19:49 They’re more thoughtful.
0:19:50 They’re more nuanced.
0:19:51 They make better doctors.
0:19:52 They’re more nurturing.
0:19:54 Everyone just kind of claps politely and nods their head.
0:20:02 If I were to say men are more risk aggressive and on average make better entrepreneurs, what would the response be?
0:20:19 So it feels like we can’t even have an open, honest conversation because it’s open season on one gender and the other from just even if you’re trying to have a science-based conversation, it’s a third rail.
0:20:35 You can’t say anything that might imply that women are, you know, might be contributing or the role women play that this might be part of the, you know, they might be part of not only the solution, but also part of the problem.
0:20:36 You can’t even go there.
0:20:38 It’s really interesting, Scott.
0:20:52 If you look, there is some really interesting research where if you show people evidence on sex differences, if you say there are some on average differences between men and women, say on risk taking or conscientiousness or something.
0:21:01 If you say, and that makes women better, people are much more likely to accept that there are sex differences than if you say it the other way around.
0:21:10 And so there’s this real asymmetry here, which is that people are much more willing to accept sex differences when women come out better from them than they are the other way around.
0:21:12 And that’s just intellectually bankrupt.
0:21:22 And you understand why it’s happened, but it also, you understand why if we literally have nothing positive to say about masculinity and men, then no wonder so many of them feel under siege.
0:21:26 And it means that we don’t get to tackle these serious problems that Scott and I are both so exercised by.
0:21:35 I want you both to react to this because this is something I see in my children, which I’m trying to combat and maybe you could offer me some advice on how to do it.
0:21:44 But I feel everything that you said is true, and I feel that there is an undercurrent of this lack of advocacy for men.
0:21:46 They can’t advocate for themselves.
0:21:54 And the other thing is they can’t express that they feel the way that you guys are suggesting, meaning you can’t have a 15-year-old say,
0:22:03 Professor Galloway, you know, I feel left out of the equation or I feel one way, but if I assert myself and say X, Y, Z, I’m not heard.
0:22:06 Or people come down on me like a ton of bricks.
0:22:16 I guess where I’m getting to is a lot of these guys, my children included, they’ll find recluse in the Internet.
0:22:17 They’ll go on the Internet.
0:22:19 They fall prey to some conspiracy theories.
0:22:21 Some of these guys think the moon landing didn’t happen.
0:22:25 I’ve got to listen to all this sort of nonsense that goes on on the Internet.
0:22:35 And I feel like they’re falling into a trap of despair without the tools necessary to stand up for themselves.
0:22:37 Do I have that wrong?
0:22:38 And if I do, tell me what I have wrong.
0:22:41 And if I have it right, is there a solution?
0:22:42 Richard?
0:22:51 Yeah, so I think you have it right, that the question of what am I supposed to do today as a man, right?
0:22:52 How am I supposed to date?
0:22:53 What about money?
0:22:55 What about sex?
0:22:56 What about fitness?
0:22:57 All those questions.
0:22:59 Like, what’s the script?
0:23:01 What’s the story?
0:23:03 How am I supposed to be today?
0:23:08 That question is on the lips and the minds of almost all young men today.
0:23:10 So the question is not, is there a question?
0:23:13 It’s who’s providing answers.
0:23:26 And you’re right that if they’re not getting answers in the classroom, from their fathers, from their scout groups, from their churches, from wherever, and they don’t have that conversation, those role models, of course, they’ll go and look online.
0:23:36 And so the solution is to have this kind of conversation, is for us to be having a conversation, to be having a good faith conversation about advocating for our boys and men.
0:23:45 I mean, Scott already mentioned the suicide statistics, but just to put a sharp point up, we lose 40,000 men a year to suicide now.
0:23:50 And since 2010, almost all of the rise has been among young men.
0:23:56 So the rise in suicide among men under the age of 30 has been 30% just since 2010.
0:24:02 We have a crisis of loss of male lives in this country.
0:24:05 And if we can’t, and by the way, it’s higher among white men.
0:24:08 There are lots of other issues that go the other way.
0:24:15 But if we can’t have that conversation honestly and openly and tackle it, someone else is going to have that conversation.
0:24:17 The question is not, are we having this conversation?
0:24:18 The question is, who’s having it?
0:24:21 Scott, how low have you gotten in your life, Scott?
0:24:28 Oh, you know, I’ve often said that my worst days are better than most people’s best days.
0:24:32 But I was never, I’m pretty blessed, Anthony.
0:24:36 I’ve had, you know, I’ve lost, like most people, I’ve lost people I’ve loved.
0:24:37 I’ve had a business go out of business.
0:24:42 You know, some big business failures, personal failures, been divorced.
0:25:02 But never got to the point where I think some of these young men get, where they feel as if, I mean, the saddest thing I saw, I read, was that with young men in suicide, a lot of it is depression, drunkenness, addiction related.
0:25:09 And that the most rattling information thing I read was that with men our age who kill themselves.
0:25:13 I had a, I read a psychiatrist said that it’s a rational decision.
0:25:17 That this is an individual who does the math.
0:25:26 It typically, like the path to suicide for them, or a very common path, is they have a financial, they have financial strain.
0:25:26 They lose a business.
0:25:28 They go broke.
0:25:30 They are no longer a provider.
0:25:37 Their wife, who no longer sees them as a provider, is less attracted to them and divorces them.
0:25:39 Seventy percent of divorce filings are from women.
0:25:44 And we all like to pretend that all women are Lisa Simpson or Marge and high-character people.
0:25:48 I can prove statistically there’s a lot of good women, some not so good women.
0:25:51 There’s a lot of good men, some not so good men.
0:25:57 And then the man, so the man loses his wife, his primary relationship.
0:25:59 He oftentimes loses access to his kids.
0:26:01 I’m going through this with a lot of my friends right now.
0:26:05 They have teenage girls or kids and they get divorced.
0:26:07 And quite frankly, the kids want nothing to do with them.
0:26:09 It’s like dad shows up.
0:26:10 He doesn’t live here.
0:26:12 He’s not part of my ecosystem.
0:26:18 And all of a sudden the dad goes from having all this great kind of what I call garbage time,
0:26:21 hanging out with his kids, and he’s no longer in the same house.
0:26:24 Family court is sometimes biased against men.
0:26:33 And then he just has no role, no purpose, and he makes a conscious decision to check out.
0:26:40 And that to me was just the most devastating that it’s a quote-unquote rational decision.
0:26:46 And what Richard was saying about the conversation, I think it’s gotten remarkably more productive
0:26:49 in large part because of some of Richard’s work and research.
0:26:57 But American households, millions of them, felt this and saw it happening for the last two decades.
0:27:00 And no one was talking about it.
0:27:08 And unfortunately, into that void slipped some unproductive voices that said, be proud of yourself.
0:27:11 And the problem with these unproductive voices is it starts positive.
0:27:12 Be fit.
0:27:14 Be action-oriented.
0:27:15 Take control.
0:27:17 Go up and approach a woman.
0:27:19 And then it comes off the rails.
0:27:22 Then it’s like, now invest in crypto.
0:27:26 And don’t let that bitch go to the club with her friends.
0:27:28 You know, put your foot down.
0:27:30 It turns into thinly veiled misogyny.
0:27:34 And so right away, the dialogue got a really bad rap.
0:27:38 And the moment, and I’m sure I imagine you experienced this, Richard.
0:27:42 I know I did when I just even started modely advocating for men are talking about this problems.
0:27:45 They’re like, oh, you’re one of those guys.
0:27:47 You’re one of those misogynists.
0:27:49 And people just shut off.
0:27:55 And the good news is, I think the conversation has got a lot more productive because the people
0:27:59 now driving this conversation or the afterburners are mothers.
0:28:02 We’re like, guys, I am not political.
0:28:10 Something, I have three kids, two girls, one boy, one’s in the girls in PR, one’s in Carnegie
0:28:14 Mellon, and my son is in the basement playing video games and vaping.
0:28:18 So I think that the evolution of this conversation has gotten a lot better.
0:28:23 But be clear, that void got filled by some very unproductive voices that have kind of delayed
0:28:24 a productive conversation.
0:28:32 Yeah, I just want to add a data point to Scott’s point about being needed, like feeling unneeded.
0:28:36 Not useful to the tribe or to the family is literally fatal.
0:28:42 And so we both mentioned that there’s a four times higher suicide rate among men of all
0:28:44 ages than women.
0:28:50 But among divorced men and women, it’s eight times higher because it shoots up for men, but
0:28:55 not so for women, for exactly the reasons that Scott’s talked about, which is you don’t have
0:28:55 these connections.
0:28:58 You don’t have these ties and these tethers.
0:29:04 And I think the conversation’s moved on a little bit as well, but it’s taken a while.
0:29:10 And the problem is that for too long, people like Scott were breaking the ice around this,
0:29:14 was people said, in order to advocate for men, you have to somehow go against women.
0:29:19 We’ve actually, our institute’s published a piece on zero-sum thinking.
0:29:23 In other words, the idea that for one group to do better, another group has to do worse.
0:29:29 And zero-sum thinking is the enemy of a flourishing family, a flourishing community.
0:29:34 But we have been trapped in zero-sum around this, which is that somehow to advocate for
0:29:39 men, care about men, means to care less about women.
0:29:43 Which is like saying to a parent, you’re only allowed to care about your son or your daughter.
0:29:44 Like, which one are you going to choose?
0:29:46 It’s batshit crazy.
0:29:50 But it is the way that the gender debate has played out on both sides, because you
0:29:54 now get reactionaries saying, in order for men to do better, we need women to go back.
0:29:58 We need to go back to the 1950s, women back in the home.
0:30:01 And that’s only true of the reactionary fringes.
0:30:06 But unless we get to this idea that we have to rise together, which is what mums want, Scott’s
0:30:11 right, then we’ll continue to have this vacuum that other voices can fill.
0:30:20 So, Richard, do you think it’s possible to insert this more broadly into the educational
0:30:26 system, whether it’s here in the United States or in the UK or more broadly, the Western liberal
0:30:27 democracies?
0:30:32 Is there something that we could insert in the curriculum that you could get buy-in from
0:30:39 teachers’ unions, women, progressives, that provide some more awareness?
0:30:43 Like, listen, I know when I was in elementary school, they told me not to smoke.
0:30:46 Some of us listened and some of us did the very opposite.
0:30:50 But just the awareness of the health issue probably slowed people down.
0:30:51 Yeah.
0:30:54 Well, I think the tide is turning a little bit on this.
0:30:59 Some of the ideas that I’ve had is to actually give parents the choice to start their boys in
0:31:04 school a year later or at least a few months later, because they do mature a bit later on
0:31:04 average.
0:31:08 So just having that option would be good in public schools as well as private schools, where
0:31:09 a lot of them do it.
0:31:13 Scott and I have both written and talked a lot about the need for more apprenticeships.
0:31:16 Technical high schools are amazing for boys.
0:31:18 Just a bit more applied, a bit more hands-on.
0:31:24 Boys, when they’re learning, need to know the why and the who before they care about the what.
0:31:26 So they need to know, why am I learning this?
0:31:30 And who are you anyway with the teacher in order to care about the what?
0:31:34 Girls are a little bit better at doing the work anyway, even if they don’t see the why.
0:31:35 So technical schools.
0:31:39 But the thing that I feel perhaps most strongly about of all is more male teachers.
0:31:45 And that should be something that should not be controversial, at least in theory it isn’t.
0:31:48 So in the 1980s, 33% of our teachers were male.
0:31:50 Now it’s 23% and falling.
0:31:56 And there’s a way in which the teaching profession has become very gendered.
0:32:00 My own son just started teaching fifth grade in Baltimore City.
0:32:05 And I asked some people for advice about, you know, a man in teaching.
0:32:08 And they said, make sure that his door has a window.
0:32:12 Which most schools do anyway.
0:32:16 But if you’re a male teacher, never teach in a classroom where there isn’t a window in the door.
0:32:20 There’s a trust issue, which is understandable.
0:32:28 But it’s gone so far now that we’ve become suspicious of men having a role in the lives of boys, unless it’s their own sons.
0:32:30 And I think, you know, credit to Scott here.
0:32:32 He’s been very outspoken on this.
0:32:37 But the decline in the share of men in, like, the Scouts is not Boy Scouts anymore.
0:32:38 This might have passed you by.
0:32:41 But Boy Scouts of America no longer exists.
0:32:44 It is now Scouting for America and co-ed.
0:32:50 Big Brothers, Big Sisters has much longer waiting times for boys than girls because they don’t have male volunteers.
0:32:55 The YMCA, the YMCA, is now staffed by mostly female volunteers.
0:33:01 And so there’s this huge absence of men in the lives of boys.
0:33:04 And one way that public policy can address that is through schools.
0:33:15 Like, if we can’t increase the share of male teachers with all kinds of scholarship programs and incentives and better pay, which would be good for everybody, then I don’t know what else we could do.
0:33:17 And I’m seeing more people open to that argument.
0:33:19 We do not want an all-female teaching profession.
0:33:23 And so that’s an example where you should be able to get more support.
0:33:37 And, Richard, I think it was your study that showed that if you try to reverse engineer to a single point of failure for when a boy kind of comes off the tracks, it’s when he loses a male role model.
0:33:54 And I’m not sure, Richard, and correct me if I’m wrong here, but the data on when, quote-unquote, mom and dad get divorced 92% of the time and ends up being a household headed by a single parent who’s the mom, the outcomes are reasonably similar for girls.
0:33:57 But they’re much worse for boys.
0:34:09 And the fascinating summary or conclusion is that while boys are physically stronger, and I’m pretty sure I got this from your study, they’re mentally and emotionally much weaker.
0:34:17 And just educating, just parents who are going through divorce knowing you really got to keep an eye on the boy.
0:34:24 Because as much as we think, okay, they’re bigger and they’re stronger, they’re actually weaker as humans.
0:34:26 Richard, did I get that right?
0:34:27 Yeah, you did.
0:34:34 Yeah, there’s this really nice image in psychology where they compare orchids to dandelions.
0:34:37 And the idea is that orchids are just a bit more fragile.
0:34:41 They do well when you take care of them, but they die quickly if you don’t.
0:34:43 And dandelions are more resilient, right?
0:34:45 They can grow in the cracks in the sidewalk or whatever.
0:34:49 And it turns out that boys are a bit more orchid and girls are a bit more dandelion.
0:34:57 And so family breakdown, neighborhood poverty, poor schooling, all of those things affect boys much more than girls.
0:35:00 Boys are much more sensitive than girls are.
0:35:01 Scott’s exactly right.
0:35:13 That idea that boys are more fragile than girls is one of those counterintuitive ideas that we need to consider if we want to help young men today.
0:35:24 In the next episode of Lost Boys, we’ll continue the conversation with Richard Reeves and talk about why it’s so difficult to even get people to talk about this problem.
0:35:26 Can we help boys without hurting girls?
0:35:29 The short answer is yes, of course.
0:35:33 Why aren’t the problems of boys a bigger political issue?
0:35:38 Why is it hard for some groups like Democrats to even talk about these problems?
0:35:44 And we’ll talk about a secret army of women who are demanding we do better by young men.
0:35:52 Thanks for joining me and Scott Galloway for this premiere episode of Lost Boys.
0:35:55 I hope you’ll join us as we continue this conversation.
0:36:02 If you’d like more information, please go to our website, www.lostboys.men.
0:36:07 That’s www.lostboys.men.
0:36:09 Before we go, let me ask you a little favor.
0:36:11 This issue is so important.
0:36:15 Please share it with someone who cares about it or who should care about this.
0:36:17 And let’s spread the word.
0:36:22 And please like, follow, subscribe, and rate Lost Boys wherever you get your podcasts.
0:36:27 Lost Boys is a production of Salt Media and Casablanca Strategy Group.
0:36:31 Barbara Fadita and Keith Summer are executive producers.
0:36:32 Tanya Salati is our researcher.
0:36:36 And Holly Duncan Quinn and Stanley Goldberg are editors.
0:36:42 Special thanks to Christina Cassese and Mary-Jean Rivas and Drew Burrows.
0:36:49 Hi, I’m Teffy.
0:36:50 Maybe you’ve seen me on TikTok.
0:36:52 Or TV.
0:36:54 Or interviewing celebrities on the red carpet.
0:36:57 But before all that, I was just another girl.
0:36:59 Running late to her desk job.
0:37:01 Transferring calls.
0:37:02 Ordering printer ink.
0:37:03 I don’t miss that.
0:37:07 But I do miss not working at work.
0:37:10 Gossiping with my co-workers about celebrities.
0:37:11 What’s the latest with Bieber?
0:37:12 Where’s Britney?
0:37:14 And which Jonas brother is which?
0:37:18 That’s what I want my new podcast to feel like.
0:37:20 Like you and I are work besties.
0:37:22 We’ll chat about celebrities we’re obsessed with.
0:37:25 How could you be registered to vote and not know who Jennifer Aniston is?
0:37:27 Look up their star charts.
0:37:30 Meditarius and a Capricorn.
0:37:34 They do clash and have so much fun avoiding real work together.
0:37:37 I’m having a silly goose of a time.
0:37:38 Teffy runs.
0:37:39 Teffy laughs.
0:37:40 Teffy over shares.
0:37:42 Teffy explains.
0:37:44 But most of all, Teffy talks.
0:37:48 From me, The Cut and Vox Media Podcast.
0:37:51 This is Teffy Talks.
0:37:53 Let’s go.
0:38:00 The Cut and Vox Media Podcast.

0:00:07 How do you summarize the work that you do and why you do it?
0:00:09 And who are you really doing it for?
0:00:17 I am obsessed with correcting what I view as mistranslations of scientific research about human development.
0:00:20 And so that is the core of my work.
0:00:28 And I think I’m doing it for everyone who is curious, but either doesn’t have a scientific background or doesn’t have that particular scientific background.
0:00:36 Curious, but interested in self-improvement, but doesn’t either have the time or the means to go sifting through this evidence themselves.
0:00:41 And what is the sort of realms of self-improvement that you have focused on thus far in your career?
0:00:45 Well, earlier on, I was focused in physical skill acquisition, like in athletics.
0:00:54 But increasingly, I’ve moved into career and personal development generally and looking at that with a very, very kind of long lens.
0:01:05 So one of the most important things to me, one of the most important messages that I’ve been working on the last few years is the fact that sometimes optimizing for short-term development will undermine your long-term development.
0:01:11 So let’s say if we’re thinking about sports or music or something like that, the obvious thing to do is to get a head start in whatever you’re doing.
0:01:22 Pick something, stick with it, don’t switch things because then you’ve lost time, focus very narrowly, and do as much of it as you possibly can to the exclusion of other things.
0:01:24 That’s such an obvious way, right?
0:01:27 And you will jump out to a lead, right?
0:01:29 We see that in sports and music.
0:01:33 We see that in school with certain head start programs that give people an advantage in some academic skills.
0:01:43 The problem is that kind of narrow focus creates short-term results but undermines this broader toolbox that you need for long-term development.
0:01:49 And so you’ll see what scientists call fade-out in these advantages, which isn’t necessarily actually anything going away.
0:01:55 It’s the fact that people with this broader base will catch up and surpass what appears to be a fade-out.
0:01:56 Okay.
0:02:06 So if you take more time to get a broader understanding of something, whether it’s in sports, if you’re sort of a child prodigy, over the long term, that’s going to benefit you better and help sustain your development.
0:02:20 But in the short term, you might lose out because there’s some kid who is doing, you know, really deliberate practice obsessively, and he’s going to have a – it’s kind of like the tortoise and the hare analogy where, you know, the tortoise eventually wins the race.
0:02:21 Yeah.
0:02:29 I mean, there’s a big body of research in psychology that can be summarized with the phrase breadth of training predicts breadth of transfer.
0:02:39 Transfer is the ability of someone to take skills and knowledge and use it to solve a problem they haven’t seen before, right?
0:02:41 You transfer it to a new situation.
0:02:46 And what predicts your ability to do that is the breadth of problems you’ve been exposed to in practice.
0:02:55 If you’re exposed to, like, a broader set of problems, you’re forced to build these generalizable, flexible models that you’ll be able to apply to new things going forward.
0:03:04 Across all of your work, at the very heart of what people are trying to achieve in their lives, what is that at the very, very heart of what they’re trying to achieve that you’re speaking to?
0:03:05 Getting better.
0:03:06 Getting better at things, right?
0:03:07 Obviously, people want success.
0:03:16 But I think there’s pretty significant research showing that people are often actually reacting to their trajectory as much as their actual absolute performance level.
0:03:21 That the feeling of improvement, the feeling of moving on, it gives them some sense of fulfillment, right?
0:03:24 And eventually, obviously, will get them to a higher level.
0:03:36 And so I think, really, this is for people who are interested in how do I get off sort of my plateaus going forward and viewing it as a lifelong journey as opposed to trying to peak when they’re 12, right?
0:03:41 It turns out that the way to make the best 20-year-old, 30-year-old, 40-year-old is not the same as the way to make the best 10-year-old.
0:03:46 Is there sort of a tie-in here with the subject of just happiness and how to live a happy life?
0:03:47 Fulfillment, for sure.
0:03:48 Yeah.
0:03:51 Those aren’t exactly the same, but they’re important.
0:03:54 So to think about this in a career development perspective, right?
0:04:02 I think probably the most interesting research on fulfillment in careers was this project at Harvard called the Dark Horse Project.
0:04:11 And this was looking at how do people find – a lot of these people were very financially successful and all that stuff, but the dependent variable was fulfillment.
0:04:12 Okay.
0:04:12 A sense of fulfillment.
0:04:24 And when people would come in for sort of an orientation in this study, they would say things to the researchers like, you know, I started off doing this one thing.
0:04:25 Yeah, it was medical school, whatever.
0:04:31 Didn’t really fit me, so I went over to this other thing, and I learned I was good at something I didn’t expect, so then I went this other direction.
0:04:35 And, you know, I came – don’t tell people to do what I did, because, like, I came out of nowhere.
0:04:39 And the large majority of people, that was their story.
0:04:41 That’s why I became named the Dark Horse Project.
0:04:44 Dark Horse is this expression that means coming out of nowhere.
0:04:51 And that the norm in this day and age was that people who found fulfillment would travel this kind of zigzagging path where they would learn,
0:04:56 maybe I’m good at something or bad at something that I didn’t expect, maybe I’m interested in something I didn’t expect.
0:04:58 And they would keep pivoting.
0:05:05 And they would say, instead of saying, you know, here’s this person younger than me who has more than me, they’d say, here’s who I am right now.
0:05:07 Here are my skills and interests.
0:05:09 Here are the opportunities in front of me.
0:05:13 I’m going to try this one and maybe I’ll change a year from now because I will have learned something about myself.
0:05:15 And they keep doing those pivots.
0:05:16 Throughout their career?
0:05:19 Throughout their career until they achieve what economists call better match quality.
0:05:23 That’s the degree of fit between someone’s interests and abilities and the work that they do.
0:05:28 It turns out to be extremely important for both your performance and sense of fulfillment.
0:05:31 And your apparent grit, if you want to talk about that.
0:05:51 So just on that, before we move on to grit, what advice does that then mean you would give to a young person at the start of their career that’s thinking about how to navigate their way to being both really competent, really good at something and successful in any sort of monetary way, but also maintaining fulfillment throughout their life?
0:05:53 I think there are two main things to take away from that.
0:05:56 One is to not over-focus on long-term planning.
0:06:00 Like I think we lionize having long-term goals and that’s okay.
0:06:02 There’s nothing wrong with having long-term goals.
0:06:06 But those aren’t necessarily always so useful for you in the moment, right?
0:06:12 When I think about myself, when I was a competitive 800-meter runner, I could have a time goal for the end of the race, but that didn’t help me actually do anything.
0:06:16 That just, you see the clock when you’re done and you’re either happy or sad.
0:06:21 Having goals that are, let me try moving with 300 meters to go, that gives you an actionable experiment.
0:06:25 So short-term planning, I think, is one of the takeaways.
0:06:29 And creating what’s called a self-regulatory practice.
0:06:38 So self-regulatory learning means basically thinking about your own thinking, taking accountability for your own learning.
0:06:51 And some of the coolest studies in self-regulatory learning actually came out of soccer, football, done in the Netherlands, where this woman named Rai Elfrink-Gemzer was following kids from the age of 12, right?
0:06:56 Up through, some of them went on to teams that, you know, were runners-up in the World Cup.
0:07:03 And what she’d see in the kids who got off performance plateaus, there were certain physiological measures someone had to have.
0:07:08 Like if a kid couldn’t hit at least seven meters a second sprinting, which isn’t that fast, but if they couldn’t hit it, they weren’t making it to the top.
0:07:10 So there were physiological parameters.
0:07:19 But also the kids who would get off performance plateaus were the ones where if you look at them in video when they’re younger, they’re saying, going to the trainer, like, why are we doing this drill?
0:07:20 I think I can do this already.
0:07:22 Like, I think I need to work on this other thing.
0:07:26 And, you know, sometimes a trainer might be like, oh, man, just get back in line, you know?
0:07:31 But these are the kids that are thinking about what they need to work on, what they’re good at.
0:07:33 They’re making this cycle.
0:07:35 The self-regulatory cycle is reflect.
0:07:36 What are you good or bad at?
0:07:37 What do you need to work on?
0:07:38 How do you need to do that?
0:07:38 Plan.
0:07:41 Come up with an experiment for how you can work on that.
0:07:42 Monitor.
0:07:44 A way to try to measure whether objectively or subjectively.
0:07:46 And then evaluate.
0:07:50 Did that experiment that I ran work in making me better at this thing or not?
0:07:53 And people who do that repeatedly, they just keep improving.
0:07:57 And I think that’s what the dark horses are doing in their careers.
0:07:59 They’re saying, I’m reflecting on what I’ve got.
0:08:01 I’m planning a way to test something that will fit me.
0:08:04 I monitor it, maybe subjectively, maybe objectively.
0:08:07 And then I evaluate what that tells me to do for the next step.
0:08:09 And you just get better and better and better over time.
0:08:20 So if I’m, say, I’m in my early 20s in my career, how do I take that and then implement that within my life to make sure that I’m going to get to the World Cup, metaphorically speaking?
0:08:20 Yeah.
0:08:28 So, and there’s something interesting about the 20s that I think is worth saying, which is there’s this finding in psychology called the end of history illusion.
0:08:34 And this is the finding that we always underestimate how much we will change.
0:08:39 What we think we’re good at, what we think we’re bad at, how we want to spend our time, what we prioritize in friends, et cetera.
0:08:46 And at every step in life, people underestimate how much they’ll change in the future.
0:08:47 Change continues for your whole life.
0:08:48 It does slow down.
0:08:51 So we’re constantly works in progress claiming to be finished constantly through life.
0:08:55 The fastest time of personality change is about 18 to about 28.
0:08:58 When you’re telling, but it never stops.
0:09:02 But that’s about the fastest time when we’re telling people, hey, now you have to have it figured out, right?
0:09:04 And that’s when they’re changing like crazy.
0:09:07 And so I think it’s even more important to have this self-regulatory practice.
0:09:10 In a journal, I would say, I mean, I do it.
0:09:11 These questions can be basic.
0:09:13 What am I trying to do?
0:09:13 Why?
0:09:15 What do I need to learn to do it?
0:09:16 Who do I need to help me learn that?
0:09:18 How am I going to make sure that person is there to help me?
0:09:20 What experiment can I set up to try it?
0:09:24 And then come back and evaluate the experiment and pick a next one.
0:09:32 Being a scientist of your own development, I think, it’s counterintuitive because you would think that we would just internalize this stuff just from doing things.
0:09:39 But the science is pretty clear that we don’t get everything we can out of our experiences from a learning perspective unless we’re doing it more explicitly.
0:09:43 So I would recommend for someone in their 20s to start this self-regulatory practice.
0:09:47 What got you into the work that you do and how do you define your profession?
0:09:51 Okay, so in my past life, I was training to be a scientist, environmental scientist.
0:09:54 I was, like, living up in the Arctic studying the carbon cycle, like, in a tent.
0:09:57 And I had been a competitive runner.
0:10:03 I had a training partner who was one of the top-ranked guys in the 800 meters in his age group in the country.
0:10:11 First family of Jamaican immigrants, was going to be the first one to graduate college, dropped dead a few steps after a race.
0:10:16 And our sort of hometown paper said, well, he had a heart attack.
0:10:20 Well, I don’t even know what that means for someone of that age and health, right?
0:10:23 And I got curious.
0:10:28 And eventually, I kind of worked up the courage or whatever.
0:10:29 That sounds silly to say it that way.
0:10:31 But was nervous about it.
0:10:34 To ask his family to sign a waiver allowing me to gather up his medical records.
0:10:36 Did that.
0:10:40 Turned out he had, like, a textbook case of this disease caused by a single genetic mutation.
0:10:42 It’s almost always the cause of young athletes dropping dead.
0:10:46 And I said, we can save some people from this with more awareness.
0:10:49 And I decided to merge my interests in sports and science.
0:10:54 I said, I want to write about sudden cardiac death in athletes for Sports Illustrated, which I grew up with.
0:10:56 So I got off the science track.
0:10:57 I left after my master’s.
0:11:00 Kind of weaved my way to Sports Illustrated.
0:11:01 I got in there as a temp.
0:11:04 Pitched this story about sudden cardiac death in athletes.
0:11:05 They’re like, temp, sit down, right?
0:11:10 And then the Olympic marathon trials for 2008 U.S. team came to Central Park.
0:11:13 And the guy ranked fifth in the country dropped dead, like, 10 blocks from our office.
0:11:17 And then they said, don’t you know something about this?
0:11:23 And so, you know, in a week, I was able to write a cover story making it look like we had done, like, two years of research in a week.
0:11:27 And I became the science writer at Sports Illustrated.
0:11:37 It was an interesting, you know, I came in there as a temp six, seven years behind people who were younger than me, doing sort of more remedial work for them.
0:11:41 But I realized pretty soon that my oddball background, right?
0:11:44 I think I was shaping up to be like a typical average scientist.
0:11:49 But you take those average science skills and you bring them to sports magazines, like, you’re like a Nobel laureate, you know?
0:11:54 And so I realized I could just make my own ground instead of having to compete with anybody.
0:11:58 But the initial impetus for getting into this merger of sports and science was a personal tragedy.
0:12:01 And how do you define yourself from a career perspective?
0:12:02 Are you a writer?
0:12:03 Are you a scientist?
0:12:04 How do you?
0:12:08 I view myself as this merger between a science writer and an investigative reporter.
0:12:16 Because what really fires me up is when I view that there’s a really popular misconception about something really important to human development.
0:12:19 And that’s what led to range.
0:12:21 I mean, I was at Sports Illustrated.
0:12:32 The 10,000 hours rule work was the most famous science in human development perhaps ever in terms of popular consumption.
0:12:35 And I said, well, I want to write about it.
0:12:39 And then I started reading the research and saying, this is wrong.
0:12:41 It’s the most popular finding in our field.
0:12:45 It’s maybe the most popular skill acquisition human development research ever done.
0:12:46 And it is not right.
0:12:52 And so those, you know, these things kind of stick in my brain and I have to do something about it.
0:12:54 10,000 hours.
0:12:56 What is that for someone that’s never heard about it before?
0:12:56 Yeah.
0:12:57 Yeah.
0:13:00 And what people think about it probably depends where they have heard of it, if they’ve heard of it.
0:13:00 But it’s the idea.
0:13:03 And scientists really call it the deliberate practice framework.
0:13:17 But it’s this idea that the only route to true expertise is through 10,000 hours of so-called deliberate practice, which is this effortful, cognitively engaged, like not just swatting balls at the driving range.
0:13:23 You’re focusing on correcting errors kind of practice and that there is no such thing as talent differences.
0:13:30 It’s really just the manifestation of 10,000 hours of, you know, of differences in your amount of hours of deliberate practice.
0:13:31 So you should start as early as possible.
0:13:33 And there’s something underlying it.
0:13:36 This is a little nerdy, but called the monotonic benefits assumption.
0:13:48 I know scientists not going to win any marketing competitions, but that basically means that the idea that two people at the same level of performance will progress the same amount for the same unit of deliberate practice.
0:13:49 Also false.
0:13:52 And it’s one of the underlying premises of the 10,000 hour rule.
0:13:54 Yeah, because I’ve always heard that.
0:14:00 I mean, it’s become a bit of a colloquial phrase to say you’ve not put your 10,000 hours in, which means you’ve not put enough practice to become a master.
0:14:05 I mean, I was told that if you do 10,000 hours in anything, you become a master in it.
0:14:06 That’s the kind of narrative, right?
0:14:17 Well, to take some chess research, for example, there’s people have been tracked and it takes about 11,053 hours on average to reach international master status in chess.
0:14:19 So that’s one level down from grandmaster.
0:14:22 So first of all, 10,000 hours in that case would be a little low.
0:14:26 But some people made it in 3,000 hours because they learn a little bit more quickly.
0:14:30 Other people were continuing to be tracked past 20,000 hours and they still hadn’t made it.
0:14:35 So you can have an 11,053 hours rule on the average.
0:14:38 It doesn’t actually tell you anything about the breadth of human skill development.
0:14:41 So why is that so important for me to understand?
0:14:46 How does that liberate me from wasting my time or aiming at the wrong thing?
0:14:48 Well, fit turns out to be really important.
0:14:50 So people learn at different rates and different things.
0:14:54 So finding where you learn better is really important if you want to maximize your advantages.
0:14:59 And I think that goes back to one of the reasons why people need to try a bunch of different things.
0:15:05 Because your insight into yourself is really like limited by your roster of experiences, right?
0:15:10 And so you kind of need to figure out where you have comparative advantages.
0:15:19 But for a lot of people, that’s so-called skill stacking, where instead of doing the one thing for 10,000 hours, you get proficient at a number of things and overlap them in a way that makes you very unique.
0:15:22 And so I think this idea of just head down doing the same thing.
0:15:27 I mean, should we go back all the way and talk about the research underlying the 10,000-hour rule?
0:15:27 Please.
0:15:29 Because that’s where I first got onto this.
0:15:33 I wanted to—so I was a walk-on, meaning I wasn’t good enough to get recruited as an 800-meter runner in college.
0:15:37 And I ended up being part of a university record-holding relay.
0:15:41 So I went from being, you know, a nobody to being quite good.
0:15:44 And so I was inclined to believe this 10,000 hours.
0:15:46 Like, yeah, just, you know, just my hard work.
0:15:52 And then when I started reading the research, and I’m looking through the original paper written in 1993.
0:15:59 And the original paper was done on 30 violinists, 3-0, violinists at a world-class music academy, okay?
0:16:02 So let’s start dissecting the problems here.
0:16:07 The first problem was what’s called a restriction of range.
0:16:11 These people were already in a world-class music academy, already highly pre-selected.
0:16:18 Pre-selected for something, again, for the stat heads here, that is correlated with your dependent variable, which is skill.
0:16:22 That’s a problem if you’re trying to develop a general skill development framework.
0:16:26 That would be like, to give an analogy, if I did a study of what causes basketball skill,
0:16:30 and I used it as my subjects only centers in the NBA.
0:16:35 And I said, well, height has no effect on skill in the NBA because they’re all seven feet tall.
0:16:37 So I’ve squashed the variation in that variable.
0:16:45 So in my first book, I actually did an analytics project where I took height among American male adults and height in the NBA.
0:16:52 As you might imagine, there’s a very high positive correlation between the height of an American male and their chance of scoring points in the NBA.
0:17:02 But if you restrict the range to only players already in the NBA, the correlation turns negative because guards score more points than other positions.
0:17:10 So if you didn’t know that, if you just did that study with only NBA players, you would tell parents to have shorter children, to have them score more points in the NBA.
0:17:17 So when you don’t bring some sense of what’s going on to your research and you restrict range that way, you can end up with the wrong message.
0:17:19 Aside from that…
0:17:20 Guards score more points or less points?
0:17:22 They score more points and they’re shorter.
0:17:23 Ah, okay.
0:17:31 So if you don’t look at the whole population and you just look at people who are so highly pre-screened that are already at the top, you can end up with these sort of backward advice.
0:17:36 The other issue that caught my eye when I first read the study was that there was…
0:17:37 They only reported the average.
0:17:44 10,000 hours was the average number of hours of deliberate practice by the 10 best violinists by the age of 20.
0:17:47 And then there was a second group and a lower group.
0:17:54 And they said there was complete correspondence, meaning nobody who had practiced fewer hours was better than anyone who had practiced more hours.
0:17:57 But they only included the average, so I couldn’t tell that.
0:17:59 So I said, oh, I would like to know if that’s true.
0:18:02 Can I see the data to see if that’s true?
0:18:11 And so I contacted the, you know, Anders Ericsson, a wonderful guy who was the father of the 10,000-hour rule, although he hated that moniker, actually.
0:18:19 And I said, you know, can I see the data or the measures of variance to know how much variation there was between individuals?
0:18:26 And he said, well, you know, people were inconsistent on the repeated accounts of their practice, so we don’t think that’s important.
0:18:29 And I said, well, everyone has trouble with getting good data.
0:18:32 That doesn’t mean they don’t report the measure of variance.
0:18:40 So after I started criticizing this research, 20 years after the study came out, they did a paper updating it with some of the actual data.
0:18:42 And you could see the original conclusion was wrong.
0:18:44 There was not complete correspondence.
0:18:47 Some people who had practiced less were better than some people who had practiced more.
0:18:50 Some people had gone way over 10,000 hours.
0:18:51 Some people were way under and had done better.
0:18:53 There were all sorts of other factors that mattered, right?
0:18:59 Like, I like to call it the 625,000 hours of sleep study because the top-tier group got a lot more sleep.
0:19:02 They were sleeping like 60 hours a week on average compared to the lower groups.
0:19:06 And that was a huge difference in the study, how much they were sleeping.
0:19:07 So it could have just been sleep.
0:19:08 Sleep.
0:19:10 But there was just tremendous individual variation.
0:19:11 Yeah, yeah, yeah.
0:19:20 So this idea of an average completely obscured the real story, which was that there were actually people who were practicing less and doing better than people who had practiced more.
0:19:25 So there were all—one problem after another, I just said, you know, I’m getting youth sports pitches.
0:19:26 I’m getting investment pitches.
0:19:30 Like, citing the 10,000 hours rule, it’s not right.
0:19:37 And it’s giving the wrong impression of how humans develop and this idea that you need to just pick something and stick with it.
0:19:41 And that sampling to try to figure out where you have your best shot is worthless, and that’s wrong.
0:19:44 And so I became kind of obsessed with getting after that.
0:19:51 I really want to become successful in the things that I’m applying myself to in this season of my life.
0:20:03 So whether that’s podcasting or starting businesses, my business portfolio is quite varied of sort of different industries from everything from sort of psychedelics to SpaceX to whatever it might be.
0:20:09 And so when I was, you know, thinking about sitting down with you today, I thought, maybe I’ll just tell them where I’m trying to get to in my life.
0:20:13 I’m a 30-year-old man, so, you know, I’m not in the early phases of my career.
0:20:17 Does that mean, for example, that I can’t make ground now?
0:20:18 What phase of your career are you in?
0:20:22 I don’t know, because I had this 18 to 28 thing, so I thought maybe I’m a little bit more rigid.
0:20:31 You know, there was research a few years ago from MIT and Northwestern and the U.S. Census Bureau that found the average age of a founder of a fast-growing tech startup, top one in 10,000.
0:20:33 Guess what the average age was on the day of founding?
0:20:34 Guess.
0:20:35 25?
0:20:36 45.
0:20:39 And a 50-year-old had a better chance than a 30-year-old.
0:20:44 But we never hear, just like we never hear the story of these, like, zigzaggers, we only hear the Tiger Woods story.
0:20:48 We only hear, like, Mark Zuckerberg famously said, young people are just smarter.
0:20:51 When he was 22, do you hear him saying that anymore?
0:20:52 No, surprise, surprise.
0:20:57 But we just, we never, we, like, valorize precocity.
0:21:01 So I would not say that you’re not in the early stages of your career.
0:21:03 You’re certainly not by, by that metric.
0:21:10 And that’s not to say that there aren’t tremendous companies, or if you know, you measure by market cap that some, that there are these amazing young founders.
0:21:13 But they get outsized attention compared to what’s the norm.
0:21:16 That’s another thing that’s really important to me.
0:21:21 It’s not to say there aren’t exceptions, because there are as many different ways to the top as there are human beings.
0:21:25 But I think we’re constantly focusing on the exception, when people should at least be aware of the norm.
0:21:30 So the average, so the fastest growing, did you say tech founders?
0:21:30 Tech startups.
0:21:34 But tech in this context also included things in agriculture, right?
0:21:34 Yeah, yeah, yeah.
0:21:37 It’s not just photo sharing apps, like tech, broadly speaking.
0:21:49 Which I think is important, because I think it’s fair to say that it’s less likely a 55-year-old would understand some of the more emerging platforms that are native to, say, you know, like a Mark Zuckerberg at 22.
0:21:50 I think that’s…
0:21:52 He’s messing around in his dorm room with computers and the internet.
0:21:54 Yeah, I think that’s fair.
0:22:04 But technology touches a lot of other areas of the, you know, it’s like, yesterday on the way here, there was a, I was learning about a software that I had never heard of, because all of the computers were down in the airport, right?
0:22:11 Technology is in all these places that are not as kind of, don’t have the sort of figurehead that’s publicly profiled the same way.
0:22:19 So if I do want to become, okay, so I understand that this season of my life I can do whatever I want, in terms of I can aim at whatever I want, doesn’t mean I’m going to be good at it.
0:22:24 But if I just want to be more productive in the goals that I am aiming at, so say, you know, this podcast means a lot to me.
0:22:33 So I want to be more productive when it comes to figuring out how to move this podcast forward, how to innovate, how to solve some of the problems and challenges that we face.
0:22:39 What are the first things that spring to mind when I start speaking about productivity with a very focused task?
0:22:52 I mean, I think a challenge for you is going to be that this podcast has gotten so big and you’ve gotten so competent at it that you’re going to be in what a rut of competence or what economist Russ Roberts told me, a hammock of competence.
0:22:59 You’re in an area where you’re so comfortable and so successful that getting better is going to be harder because there’s disincentive from changing anything that you’re doing, right?
0:23:01 You have to take some risk.
0:23:01 I mean, you know that.
0:23:02 You’re an entrepreneur.
0:23:04 If you’re going to want to get better, you’re going to have to take some risk.
0:23:09 I think that’s going to be a difficult thing to do because, you know, there are people in this room that depend on you.
0:23:11 Risk for you is risk for them too.
0:23:16 And so I think you have to start thinking about what would be some smart risks if you want to innovate with the podcast.
0:23:17 What might that look like?
0:23:20 And finding ways to run small experiments.
0:23:23 I’m a huge fan of low stakes practice, right?
0:23:27 How can you set up some low stakes practice for what might be a worthwhile larger experiment?
0:23:31 And I think that’s the same for individuals progressing in their career.
0:23:32 Like, I love this phrase.
0:23:40 My favorite, my absolute favorite phrase in range was, is a paraphrase from this woman named Herminia Ibarra, who’s a professor at the London Business School.
0:23:42 And she studies how people make work transitions.
0:23:47 So her phrase was, we learn who we are in practice, not in theory.
0:23:53 So the thesis of her work is that there’s this idea that you can just introspect and go forth and know what you should be doing.
0:23:57 You know, like Clark Kent running into a phone booth and ripping off his and becoming, comes out as Superman.
0:24:00 But work is part of identity.
0:24:02 And it doesn’t change like that from introspect.
0:24:06 You actually have to go try something, see how it went, what was unexpected?
0:24:10 What did you learn that you might be interested in or that you’re better at that you didn’t?
0:24:13 What’s something that you’re good at that you realize you’re not using?
0:24:17 And then you make your next step based on that, right?
0:24:22 And I think when you’re so competent and successful and getting only, you know, tons of positive feedback for something,
0:24:24 it becomes hard to take risk.
0:24:26 And so I think that’ll be a challenge for you.
0:24:32 Because if you take a sufficient amount of risk, right, you want to be in your zone of optimal push.
0:24:37 So for anything you’re doing, if you’re doing, practicing whatever, physical skill, anything,
0:24:43 if you’re not at least like 15, 20% of the time failing, then you’re not in your zone of optimal push,
0:24:45 where you’re getting as much better as you possibly can.
0:24:50 And I think when you have something that’s very successful, that’s hard.
0:24:53 And so I would start thinking about what risks you’re willing to take.
0:24:56 And it doesn’t mean it’s a failure if something goes backward, right?
0:24:59 If the views go down or whatever metric you’re measuring on.
0:25:04 What you just listened to was a most replayed moment from a previous episode.
0:25:08 If you want to listen to that full episode, I’ve linked it down below.
0:25:09 Check the description.
0:25:10 Thank you.

0:00:02 The following is a conversation with Jack Weatherford,
0:00:08 anthropologist and historian specializing in Genghis Khan and the Mongol Empire.
0:00:14 He has written a legendary book on this topic titled Genghis Khan and the Making of the Modern
0:00:20 World. And he has written many other books, including Emperor of the Seas, Kublai Khan,
0:00:25 and the Making of China, Genghis Khan and the Quest for God, The Secret History of the Mongol
0:00:31 Queens and other excellent books. I’ve gotten to know Jack more after this conversation,
0:00:38 and I cannot speak highly enough about him. He’s a truly brilliant, thoughtful, and kind soul.
0:00:46 This was a huge honor and pleasure for me. And now a quick few second mention of each sponsor.
0:00:51 Check them out in the description or at lexfriedman.com slash sponsors. It’s the best
0:00:57 way to support this podcast. We got Alio Capital for investment, ZocDoc for finding a medical
0:01:04 professional, Finn for AI customer service, Oracle for cloud computing, Shopify for selling stuff online,
0:01:11 Masterclass for learning, and Element for your daily electrolytes. Choose wisely, my friends.
0:01:16 And now onto the full ad reads. They’re all here in one place. I do try to make them interesting by
0:01:21 talking about some random things I’m reading or thinking about. But if you skip, please still
0:01:26 check out the sponsors. I enjoy their stuff. Maybe you will too. And it is truly the best
0:01:31 way to support this podcast. To get in touch with me for whatever reason, go to lexfriedman.com
0:01:39 slash contact. All right, let’s go. This episode is brought to you by Alio Capital, an investment
0:01:47 platform leveraging AI and macroeconomic insights to help you invest. They’re a new sponsor, a very
0:01:54 interesting sponsor. The idea there, when you’re talking about macroeconomic decisions, is leveraging
0:01:59 everything that’s going on, not just in the United States, but globally, and understanding that deeply,
0:02:05 and then leveraging AI tools to make decisions based on what is going on in the world.
0:02:12 I personally am always wondering, trying to figure out exactly what to do with the ever-quickening
0:02:20 turmoil of the world, whether that’s from military conflicts, tariffs, the tearing and stretching of
0:02:27 different ways the fabric of our various nations and our global humanity. On a human level, of course,
0:02:35 it hurts my heart. And that is a level at which I try to understand, explore ideas, and have different
0:02:42 guests that explore different perspectives on those ideas. But in terms of finances, and how to invest,
0:02:48 given that the ground underneath is constantly shifting, that’s really challenging, I think.
0:02:55 So I support what Allio Capital are doing with their effort to understand and leverage the global
0:03:01 macroeconomic system in order to help you invest. Download their app in the App Store, Google Play, or
0:03:12 text LEX to 511-511. That’s A-L-L-I-O Capital. Text LEX to 511-511. It’s important to say that investing
0:03:19 involves risk, including the potential loss of principle. Past performance does not guarantee results. See terms
0:03:27 and conditions. Text fees may apply. This episode is also brought to you by ZocDoc, a new sponsor. It’s a really
0:03:33 interesting platform that connects people, patients, with top-rated healthcare providers. I have to admit that I’m
0:03:39 terrible at this thing, of remembering to schedule doctor’s appointments, of remembering to go to the doctor, so
0:03:46 anything and everyone and whatever tools can help me get that done, I’m all for. ZocDoc is definitely
0:03:53 that. ZocDoc is the easiest way I found to be able to find a doctor online super quickly. The right doctor
0:03:59 for your thing and book an appointment super quickly. Super easy. Nice interface. Easy to do. There’s no
0:04:05 excuses. I’m also saying this out loud to myself because there really is no excuses. I need to go to the doctor
0:04:12 more often. I don’t have any particular maladies at the moment, but it’s always good to go to the doctor
0:04:21 when nothing is wrong versus when everything is wrong, which is oftentimes foolish folks like me
0:04:29 approach the system. So anyway, go to ZocDoc.com slash Lex to find and book a top-rated doctor today.
0:04:41 ZocDoc.com slash Lex. This episode is also brought to you by Finn, the number one AI agent for customer
0:04:48 service. In head-to-head comparisons with competitors, Finn wins every time. It’s used and trusted by over
0:04:55 5,000 customer service leaders, including top AI companies like Anthropic and Synthesia.
0:05:03 These guys are legit. Their whole system continuously improves based on the analysis training test deploy
0:05:09 loop. So it gets better and better and better and better based on your needs, based on your customer
0:05:17 needs. Creating a system that gives a high rate of resolution, meaning when a customer comes with a
0:05:24 problem, start talking to the agent and what percent of the time that is resolved automatically with the AI
0:05:30 system and they achieve a 59% average resolution rate, which is very high and very impressive for
0:05:36 the industry. Anyway, go to fin.ai slash Lex to learn more about transforming your customer service
0:05:44 and scaling your support team. That’s fin.ai slash Lex. This episode is also brought to you by Oracle,
0:05:51 a legendary company providing a fully integrated stack of cloud applications and cloud platforming
0:05:58 services. They got the OCI, which is the Oracle cloud infrastructure. It’s a single platform for your
0:06:03 infrastructure, database, application development, and of course, AI. How can we forget about artificial
0:06:09 intelligence? But yeah, on many fronts, actually, Oracle is doing incredible work on providing tools for large
0:06:20 companies to deploy AI at scale. On average, it’s 50% less money for compute, 70% less for storage, and 80% less for
0:06:26 for networking. Obviously, as AI and machine learning systems continue to need more and more processing
0:06:33 power, making those systems efficient and accurate becomes super vital. Cut your cloud bill in half
0:06:38 when you switch to OCI. Offer is for new U.S. customers with a minimal financial commitment.
0:06:47 See if you qualify at oracle.com slash Lex. That’s oracle.com slash Lex. This episode is also brought to you by
0:06:51 Shopify, Shopify, a platform designed for anyone to sell anywhere with a great looking online store.
0:07:01 Obviously, with a conversation with GHH, six hours, of which a long time we spent saying how incredible
0:07:09 Toby, the CEO of Shopify is and how incredible Shopify is at being one of the company, one of many companies
0:07:15 that show that Ruby on Rails can scale. I don’t think I’ve ever heard anybody celebrate a programming
0:07:22 language as thoroughly and as beautifully and as convincingly as DHH does. So that was wonderful to
0:07:31 just sit back and enjoy listening to a super technical person elucidate the full range of beauty that he
0:07:37 discovered in the tools that he uses. Anyway, that’s some of the tech behind Shopify. But the actual
0:07:44 thing, connecting customers with people that want to sell stuff at an incredibly large scale, they do
0:07:50 this extremely well. So even I have a store, lexfreedman.com slash store. Sign up for a $1 per month trial
0:07:56 period at shopify.com slash lex. That’s all lowercase. Go to shopify.com slash lex to take your business
0:08:04 to the next level today. This episode is also brought to you by Masterclass. I have loved Masterclass for a
0:08:09 very long time. You can watch over 200 classes there from the best people in the world in their
0:08:14 respective disciplines. I’m going to talk to many directors on the podcast. I’m going to talk to many
0:08:19 musicians on the podcast. And one of the inspirations for that is Martin Scorsese on filmmaking.
0:08:28 What a great Masterclass. Another one is Carlos Santana on guitar. I really hope to publish more
0:08:37 videos of me playing guitar. Some Hendrix, some Guns N’ Roses. And yes, Carlos Santana, Europa. I think
0:08:45 it’s one of the most beautiful melodic solos ever created. So anyway, you get to explore the minds
0:08:52 behind some of these beautiful creations with Masterclass. They do just all around really,
0:08:58 really nice job at condensing the wisdom of these folks into one place. Get unlimited access to every
0:09:04 Masterclass and get an additional 15% off an annual membership at masterclass.com slash lexpod.
0:09:10 That’s masterclass.com slash lexpod. This episode is also brought to you by Element,
0:09:19 my daily zero sugar and delicious electrolyte mix. Whenever you see me sipping something on the
0:09:25 podcast table in a mug, that’s usually water with some element in it. It tastes delicious. It brings
0:09:30 me joy. It makes me feel healthy. Make sure I never get a headache if I’m doing all kinds of fasting or
0:09:36 doing carnivore diet. All of that. Making sure that the electrolytes are in check. Sodium, potassium,
0:09:43 magnesium. And of course, friends, watermelon salt is still my favorite by far flavor. It’s the only
0:09:49 one I stick to. I know a bunch of people like different flavors, but for me, I’m in a long-term
0:09:55 monogamous relationship with watermelon salt. Get a free eight-count sample pack for free with any
0:10:02 purchase. Try it at drinkelement.com slash lex. This is the Lex Friedman Podcast. To support it,
0:10:08 please check out our sponsors in the description or at lexfriedman.com slash sponsors. And consider
0:10:14 subscribing, commenting, and sharing the podcast with folks who might find it interesting. I promise
0:10:21 to work extremely hard to always bring you nuanced, long-form conversations with a wide variety of
0:10:28 interesting people from all walks of life. And now, dear friends, here’s Jack Weatherford.
0:10:52 Cenghis Khan, born in approximately 1162, became the conqueror of the largest contiguous empire in
0:11:00 history. But before that, he was a boy named Temujin, who at nine years old, lost everything.
0:11:06 His father, his tribe, living in poverty, abandoned to the harshness of the Mongolian steppe, from a boy
0:11:13 with nothing to the conqueror of the world. So tell me about this boy, his childhood and the Mongolian
0:11:15 steppe from which he came from.
0:11:23 The story of Cenghis Khan, like the story I think of all of us, it doesn’t begin at birth. That’s the
0:11:29 beginning of life. The story begins long before birth. And sometimes it can be many generations
0:11:35 before, and sometimes only shortly before. But I think with Cenghis Khan, a crucial thing is to
0:11:42 understand how his parents met and then how he was conceived. And that is that one day
0:11:51 a cart was coming across the Mongol territory, and only women drove carts. Men rode horses. Women also
0:11:58 rode horses. But women owned the houses, which were called gears, the tents. They owned all the household
0:12:03 equipment, and so they had to have carts for moving back and forth. And the fact that a cart was moving
0:12:09 meant that some woman was moving from one place to another. And in fact, her husband was with her.
0:12:19 She was a new bride, and her husband was on a horse close to her. So what happened was a man named
0:12:27 Yasuke. Yasuke, the future father of Cenghis Khan. Yasuke was up on a hill. He was hunting with his falcon.
0:12:31 And the words of the secret history of the Mongols were very clear. And he looked down,
0:12:35 and he saw her, and he could barely glimpse her, but he knew she was young,
0:12:40 and she was a new bride. And he rode back to camp. He got his two brothers,
0:12:44 and they came racing down. And they came,
0:12:47 and first the husband
0:12:56 of the woman looked around, and he decided to flee. Not because he was a coward, but he figured he would
0:13:02 probably pull the men after him. They would chase him. And they did. They chased him. He went far away.
0:13:09 He circled around. He came back. He arrived back at the cart where his wife was. Her name was Erlun.
0:13:17 And Erlun had time to think while he was riding around, being chased by the Mongols. And she decided
0:13:25 that it’s more important for him to live. And she told him when he came back, “You must flee. If you stay
0:13:31 here, they will kill you, and they will take me. But if you flee, they will take me. But you will have
0:13:36 the chance to find another wife. There are many women in the world. You find one, and you call her
0:13:43 Hulun, after my name. And you remember me when you’re with her.” It was a very dramatic moment.
0:13:51 And he rode away. And he looked back and forth. And it said that the pigtails or the braids that were
0:13:58 hanging down were whipping back and forth from his chest to his back. He was divided, obviously,
0:14:03 and whether he should go or stay. But the three men were approaching again. And they were headed
0:14:13 straight for the cart this time. And they came in and they took Erlun. She didn’t say a word until
0:14:19 her husband was over the ridge. And when he was over the ridge and she could no longer see him,
0:14:25 she began to scream and wail. And one of the brothers said to her, “It doesn’t matter if you
0:14:31 shake the waters out of the river, and if you shake the mountains with your screaming, you will never
0:14:40 see this man again.” And he was right. That was the moment that Genghis Khan’s mother and father met.
0:14:46 That’s the beginning of his story in this kidnapping. And it’s going to reverberate
0:14:52 every detail of it. It will come back again and again, not only throughout the story of the life
0:14:58 of Genghis Khan, but it’s going to continue on with the feuds and the issues caused by it
0:15:04 all the way into the future. And to some extent, in certain parts of the world, you could say it still exists.
0:15:15 So the meeting is fundamentally sort of a mixture of heartbreak and dark criminal type of kidnapping.
0:15:16 Yes.
0:15:23 And from that is conceived this conqueror of the biggest contiguous empire in history.
0:15:32 What I was really interested in was how did this happen? Who was this person? As Wordsworth wrote in
0:15:39 his poem, you know, “The Child is Father of the Man.” And it’s the childhood that created him. And it’s
0:15:44 that episode that was before he was born, but all the things that happened throughout his childhood
0:15:56 made him into the man that he became. And so he was now suddenly, this unusual situation was created
0:16:04 where a child is going to be born to a kidnapped woman who is being held by strange people, the Mongols.
0:16:12 They were not her people. And he already had another wife or husband. He had a wife named Sochigal. He had
0:16:19 at that time already one son. Later, he had another son with her. It was a very odd situation. And in fact,
0:16:27 the father, Yasuke wasn’t even there when Temujin was born. He was off fighting the Tatars. And doing
0:16:34 this campaign against the Tatars, he killed two Tatars. One of them was named Temujin Uge, which is sort of
0:16:42 “person of iron,” is what it means, from the Turkic. But today, a part of also Mongolian language.
0:16:51 So he came back, he had a baby, and he decided to name him Temujin, the person of iron, or Iron Man,
0:16:52 we might call him.
0:16:53 After the man he killed.
0:17:02 After the man he killed. So he’s a kidnapped mother. She’s a second wife now. Not a legal wife,
0:17:11 but just a second kidnapped wife. And he’s named for someone his father just killed. It was not an auspicious
0:17:21 time. And in fact, just episode after episode in his childhood was inauspicious. The father and mother
0:17:28 moved camp one time when he was quite young, and somehow they overlooked him and forgot him. He was
0:17:33 left behind. So here’s this young child. We don’t know what age, but it could be around four or five,
0:17:40 I think. He was left behind. And as it turned out, some other people, the Taichut, found him. And then
0:17:48 they kept him for a while, and eventually he was reunited with his father and mother. And it’s very
0:17:56 odd to me that I never have any inkling of a spark of relationship much between the father and the son.
0:18:05 Because then when Temujin is eight years old, his father decides to take him off to find a wife.
0:18:10 Which finding a wife in the Mongolian terms means you give the child to that family, or you give the boy to
0:18:15 that family. And he will live with them, and they will raise him up, and they will train him the way
0:18:23 they want before he can marry their daughter. And so he’s taking him off at age eight. But he didn’t take
0:18:30 the other son from the other wife, Bechter. He was keeping him. There was something about Temujin having
0:18:37 been lost once and found by the Taichut and reunited with the family. And now his father takes him off at
0:18:45 age eight. And he was going to take him to Erlund’s family, but he never made it. He stopped with another
0:18:51 family. It’s sort of like the first family he came across. And in the words of the secret history,
0:18:57 it’s sort of like instant love, that there was fire in his eyes and fire in her eyes. And he saw this
0:19:04 girl, Bechter, who was about nine years old, a little older, and he wanted to stay there with that family,
0:19:11 according to the story. And so the father left him there with that family. But on the way home,
0:19:22 the father decided he saw a drinking party, and he decided to join them. They were Tatars. He hid his
0:19:29 identity. On the step, everybody kind of figures out who everybody is, and they figured out who he was.
0:19:38 And supposedly, they poisoned him. He got on his horse and was able to ride back home. But within
0:19:50 a few days, he died. So now Temujin is off living with another family. And somebody comes from his
0:19:56 family, a family, not a relative, but a close person named Mongluk, comes to get him, take him back.
0:20:04 And they make it through the winter. They make it through the winter. Mother Erlum, by now, she has
0:20:10 four sons and one daughter. I think the daughter had already been born, or the daughter was going to be
0:20:18 born not too long after that. But they make it through the winter. The spring comes, and of course,
0:20:24 the clan is going to move to a new camp. They go to spring camp from winter camp. And they have a
0:20:29 ceremony for the ancestors. And they started the ceremony, but they did not tell Erlun.
0:20:38 And so she came, and she was angry that she had been left out. The old women said, “You’re the
0:20:45 one for whom we do not have to call. We will feed you if you come, but we do not have to take care of you.”
0:20:50 Letting her know that as a captive woman, she was not a real wife in their view.
0:20:57 And that was really the signal that when they moved camp, they were not taking her with them.
0:21:05 And they packed up, and they took her animals. They took the animals. But she, at that moment,
0:21:10 she still had one horse for a moment. And she jumped on the horse, and she took the banner of
0:21:16 her husband. And she raced around the people. And the banner after death contains the soul of the
0:21:22 person. And so she raced around, and they were a little bit nervous. And so they camped for one night,
0:21:31 and they waited until it was dark. Then they took off. And this time, one of the friends of the family
0:21:39 came running out to try to stop them. And they killed him. And Temujin cried. He was a little boy,
0:21:45 eight years old. There was nothing he could do. He was just a little boy. And now that family is left there,
0:21:54 on the step, four children, possibly five already. Suchigal, the other woman with two children,
0:22:01 they’re all left there to die on the step. When the winter comes, they will surely all die.
0:22:04 How do they make it to the winter?
0:22:11 Mother Erlun, in the words of the Secret History, she pulled her hat down over her head.
0:22:18 She took her black stick, and she ran up and down the banks of the river, digging out roots
0:22:26 to feed the gullet of her brood. She fed them through the winter. She found foods,
0:22:34 digging up whatever she could, finding whatever she could, everything she could. And even at this young
0:22:41 age, Temujin was already beginning to go out to collect things. He could get fish. He could do a
0:22:50 few tasks to help feed the family. It was an extremely awful struggle at this point. But she saved every
0:22:50 one of the children.
0:22:59 So, Temujin’s early years were marked by loneliness, abandonment, and struggle?
0:23:11 Yes. Even after this, he was kidnapped at one point by Taichut people. He was kidnapped. And we would
0:23:19 say, I think the correct word would be “enslaved.” They put him into a kank, a yoke, like an ox would
0:23:25 wear. And so his two arms are in it, and his head is in it, and he’s trapped in this thing.
0:23:33 And every night he would be taken to a different gear to be guarded by that family. And one night,
0:23:38 there was a little celebration, so most of the people are drinking, and he’s left with a boy who’s
0:23:47 not very smart. And Temujin managed to take the kank, the wooden yoke that he’s trapped in, and use it as a
0:23:53 weapon by turning it around very quickly and hitting the boy in the head, knocking him out. That was one of
0:24:00 the first lessons for the Mongols that anything that moves is a weapon. This is going to go on for
0:24:07 generations, very important for the Mongols. If it moves, it’s a weapon. He did that, he raced off in the
0:24:16 night, and he jumped into the river to hide. He’s still got a kank on him. He’s still trapped under there. The
0:24:22 people are looking for him. They come out, they’re up and down the river, and he’s hiding underneath the
0:24:27 water for the most part, trying to breathe as best he can. But it’s dark, and it protects him a little
0:24:32 bit. They give up, and they say, “Okay, we’ll come back tomorrow. He can’t possibly escape.” But
0:24:41 the next day, he knew one family that he thought he could go to, and he was right. He went to that family,
0:24:53 and at great risk to themselves, and at great risk to themselves, they managed to saw off the kank and then
0:25:00 burn it in their fire, and they gave him food to escape. And then he had to go find his family again.
0:25:06 So this is the kind of life that this boy Temujin had.
0:25:12 So he, just to be clear, the neck is trapped, and the hands are trapped?
0:25:18 We think that’s how it is. We just have the word. They don’t say the head and the hands. We know
0:25:24 that his body is trapped in it. But from all evidence we have, it’s the hands and the head.
0:25:28 And he’s running around deeply alone with this thing.
0:25:33 Yes. Yes. And then he has to go out and find wherever his family is.
0:25:41 So this, in part, was the foundation of his breaking with Mongol tradition that kinship is
0:25:48 the most important thing above all else. Because here’s his life story where he’s abandoned over
0:25:48 and over and over.
0:25:53 Yes. By his father’s own brothers. See, the men who kidnapped her,
0:26:00 they had an obligation under the Mongol law and custom to marry her when her husband died.
0:26:07 They did not. They should take care of her and her children, because her children are the children
0:26:13 of their brother. They count as the sons of the clan, or they should. But no, they had all deserted,
0:26:17 all betrayed him. He learned very early on that you cannot trust family.
0:26:29 You mentioned that Genghis Khan’s childhood, Timurjin was marked by extreme tribal violence. Can you describe
0:26:36 sort of the state of affairs in the steppe? How much violence is there? How much kidnapping is there?
0:26:46 The story of Timurjin is not a unique story for that time. Now, as an isolated family of outcasts,
0:26:53 of course, he’s not participating in the various feuds and the raids of the people around him. But they are
0:26:59 constantly raiding in the winter. And for women, and for horses, and for any kind of valuables that they
0:27:06 can find, it’s almost like their way of getting trade goods from China, that one group raids the other in
0:27:14 order to find out whatever they have for textiles or for metal. Mongols produced nothing. They could
0:27:20 produce felt to make their tents, but they were not craftsmen. And so they had to get these items from
0:27:28 somewhere and it was through raiding. And so even in the genealogy of Timurjin, you see going back
0:27:34 generation after generation of women having been kidnapped, children born who are not necessarily
0:27:41 the father’s child, and it’s unclear who the father was. And all of these issues go back for a long time.
0:27:48 Later, Chinggis Khan will realize, once he becomes Chinggis Khan, he will realize that the true source of
0:27:56 most of the feuding on the steppe is over women. And later he will outlaw the kidnapping of women and
0:28:02 the sale of women. In part, not only because of what had happened to his mother, but what happened to him
0:28:03 next in his life.
0:28:12 And this is one of the things you talk about this, in some ways, the love story with his wife was
0:28:20 her kidnapping was the defining. If you could point to one place where Genghis Khan, the conqueror was
0:28:28 created, it’s that point, his wife being kidnapped. Can you describe, first of all, his love for this
0:28:33 woman and what that means and what the kidnapping of her meant?
0:28:41 At age 16, Berta, the girl he had met when he was eight years old and she was nine,
0:28:44 she’s now 17, and she and her mother come.
0:28:56 It’s hard to even imagine what it was like for this 16-year-old boy who has suffered these indignities
0:29:04 of life in every way that you can imagine. And suddenly, here is the love of his life who’s
0:29:10 going to be living with him, making him happy. He has somebody who loves him. It’s not just his
0:29:15 mother running around getting food and trying to feed the five children and plus the other wife and
0:29:23 her two children. No, he has somebody who loves him. And it’s all the excitement that you can imagine,
0:29:29 with the fire in the eyes and the excitement. And then it only lasts a few months.
0:29:36 And so there they are. And there’s a lady visiting them. We don’t know exactly who she is, but just
0:29:42 they called her grandmother Kowakshin. Granny Kowakshin is there. Granny Kowakshin is sleeping,
0:29:49 of course, on the floor of the gear, the tent. And early in the morning, she feels the vibrations in the earth.
0:29:58 And she knows that horsemen are coming. She rouses the family. And Mother Erlun is in charge. Mother
0:30:04 Erlun is still in charge, even though Temujin is now married. She puts all of her children on a horse.
0:30:13 She takes the baby girl, Temulin, in her own lap. And she has one extra horse.
0:30:21 But she won’t take Bursta. Because she knows, she doesn’t know who the men are. She has no idea.
0:30:26 But they’re coming. They’re coming in the dark. They’re coming for a woman. They know there’s a
0:30:33 girl there. This family of outcasts has acquired a wife. And they know that they’re coming for that.
0:30:39 And so she leaves Sochigal, the other wife. She leaves this old lady, Granny Kowakshin, who actually
0:30:48 has her own cart. And she leaves Bursta. They pile into Granny’s cart. And it’s only an ox to pull it,
0:30:55 so they don’t get too far before the attackers get there. But Mother Erlun is right. She’s able to get
0:31:00 her children off to the mountain, into Burkhart Khaldun, to the mountainside, away from them,
0:31:06 because the men are so focused on this cart and finding out how many women are in there and who they are.
0:31:21 So Mother Erlun saved her family. But at a cost, suddenly, Temujin realizes he has obeyed his mother,
0:31:27 but he’s lost the most important thing in his life. And I do think this is the defining moment of his life.
0:31:33 The story began back when his mother was kidnapped. But now the kidnapping of his wife,
0:31:38 I think it’s the defining moment. What will he do? What should he do? What can he do?
0:31:46 Is he going to just resign himself to it? Is he going to go out and look for another wife?
0:31:54 And he decides that life is not worth living without Bursta. He has found something good in this life.
0:32:01 And if he has to die trying to get her back, he will die trying to get her back.
0:32:10 And this is the early steps of the military genius born. Because in order to get her back requires
0:32:13 an actual organization of troops.
0:32:26 He needs allies.
0:32:39 He goes to a man who ruled the Karyat people in central Mongolia, on the Toll River about where the capital Ulaanbaatar is today. He goes there because that Vong Han is his name, or Torgal Han. He goes there because Vong Han had been the lord over his father at one point. And his father had gone on raids for him. And so he went there.
0:32:51 And actually, he took a gift. And actually, he took a gift. That’s because Vong Han had brought a sable coat as a gift for Mother Erlun at that time of the marriage.
0:33:06 And so he took the coat, and he took it, and he gave it as a gift to Vong Han and asked for his help. And Vong Han said, “Yes.” And he said, “I will send some troops, but we need more. And you need to ask Jamukha.
0:33:16 Jamukha. You need to ask him to come also.” He said, “I will send a message to him to get troops.”
0:33:26 You have to tell the story of Jamukha. Because the story of Genghis Khan is one of people abandoning him, being disloyal.
0:33:35 And here is a person who’s not of his kin, but becomes his, in a way, brother, in a way, loyal.
0:33:46 And as you’ve described, he’s both the best thing that has happened to Genghis Khan, and one of the biggest challenges in the later years to Genghis Khan.
0:33:48 So who was Jamukha?
0:34:00 Jamukha was a boy about the same age as Timu Jin. And his family had winter camp close to where Mother Erlun was living with her children.
0:34:10 And so the two boys met during the wintertime. In fact, they both claimed descent from the same woman about four generations earlier, or five, it’s a little unclear.
0:34:21 She was an Urihanghai woman who herself was kidnapped. And actually, Jamukha was the descendant of her from the fact that she was pregnant at the moment of kidnapping.
0:34:27 And then Timu Jin is descended from her through the new kidnapper, Botanchar, his ancestor.
0:34:35 So they’re both through the, as the Mongols would say, from the same womb. They come from the same historic origin.
0:34:42 However, their lives were similar, and they both lost their fathers very early. But Jamukha also lost a mother.
0:34:51 So he grew up in the household of his grandfather. He had no siblings, unlike Timu Jin, with a whole household of siblings.
0:35:01 He grew up with his grandfather, and his grandfather had several wives. So he grew up with a bunch of old women, which later he said he thought was an influence on his life.
0:35:08 But the two boys meet. So they come from different backgrounds. And Jamukha is not as deprived by any means as the life of Timu Jin.
0:35:16 But he has a certain emotional deprivation, I think, having not had mother, father, siblings. And he lives with these old, old people.
0:35:37 So the two boys meet, they become good friends, playing on the ice. And so they’re playing on the ice. And then very early on, I think when they’re about 10 or 11 years old, they decide to make a pact. It’s called coming Anda. Anda is more than a friend. A friend is like Nukhr in the language.
0:35:45 And there are several different types of friendship. And there are several different types of friendship. But Anda is a friendship that’s beyond a friendship. It’s something for life.
0:36:00 And they swore that they would be there forever to protect each other, to help each other in every moment. And they exchanged knuckle bones. So each one of them had the knuckle bone of a roebuck, a deer.
0:36:17 Knuckle bones are used in these games that they play. But it’s also used to forecast the future. You can roll them around and all. And it’s very strange. On the ice, I will say, in the wintertime in Mongolia, it can be up to 50 degrees below zero.
0:36:41 And it doesn’t really matter at that point whether it’s either Celsius or Fahrenheit or what it is. But you slide something across the ice, and it’s just absolutely smooth like silk. And it goes on for a long way. And if you put your ear down to the ice, you hear this celestial sound that is unlike any sound on the earth. It’s just like the angels are singing under the ice.
0:37:05 So once they’ve sworn this relationship of Anda, then a couple years later, they swear it again. But this time, they’re slightly older boys, and they have bows and arrows. And so they exchange arrows with each other. In fact, the text is very specific that Jamukha took the horn, cut it off of a two-year-old calf, and he whittled it down.
0:37:17 And then he drilled a hole into it in order to make a whistling arrow, which is used for several purposes among the Mongols. It’s used for signals, for one thing, from one person to another.
0:37:28 But also, when you’re hunting, if you want to move the animal in a certain direction, you send a whistling arrow in the opposite direction to make the animal move. So it had a lot of uses.
0:37:41 So the boys had exchanged roebuck knuckles. This time, they exchanged—and so they had been close friends. And Wang Han said, okay, Jamukha should raise some troops and go with you. And he did.
0:37:55 So the three set out. Some troops from Wang Han. He himself did not go. He was too old. But he sent some troops. And then Jamukha and his troops. And then basically just Temujin and his family. He just had his brothers. That’s all.
0:38:19 They set off to find the Merkut people up the Seleng River, which flows into Siberia and on into Lake Baikal. They had to go through some extremely rough territory. And you see in this episode, though, Jamukha is already a little bit fierce without necessarily thinking it through carefully.
0:38:38 He gives this long speech about all the things they’re going to do to the Merkut people. We’re going to jump through the tunnel, the smoke hole in the top of the gear. We’re going to jump in there, and we’re going to kill them all. We’re going to kill the men and the women and the children. We will destroy these people forever.
0:39:01 He has extremely militant rhetoric, at least. And he’s also rather critical of the elder people. Wang Han’s people came late, and he gave them this long lecture about, we are Mongols. And if we give our word, our word is our promise forever. And rain or sleet or snow, it doesn’t matter. We be there on time.
0:39:30 So he’s dressing down his superiors. He’s very aggressive, but he’s very helpful. So these troops, they move in on the Merkut camp. They also come in at night. And so there’s a small amount of warning because some men are out hunting sables, the Merkut men, and they race back to the camp and they tell the people, and the people are getting ready to get out as fast as possible.
0:39:36 So Berkut has no idea who’s coming. She doesn’t want to be kidnapped again. It’s just somebody.
0:40:00 So she and the grandmother go auction again, and they’re loaded into a cart to go away. So Temujin comes in, and there’s a full moon that night, so they could see what they’re doing. And he’s really searching for her. He’s not paying too much attention to the battle. And he’s calling for her, and she hears his voice.
0:40:18 She knows who it is. She jumps off the cart, and she runs to him. And they’re reunited, and he grabs her, embraces her. And then he said, this is the goal. This is why we are here. We don’t need anything else. He was very clear about that.
0:40:24 And that was his first full-on military engagement.
0:40:39 Yes, aside from the things, yes, his first full-on military engagement. Now, along the way, in addition to escaping all these horrors, he had killed his older half-brother, Bechter.
0:40:50 And that, too, was a deeply formative experience. So what was that about? Can you explain in Mongol society the role of the older brother and the power struggle there?
0:41:00 And, you know, not to moralize, but there’s also, you know, the ethical foundation behind the murder.
0:41:06 The killing of Bechter, that’s one of the things that’s totally unknown outside of the secret history of the Mongols.
0:41:16 None of the Persian chronicles, none of the Chinese chronicles, none of them knew about this until the secret history was deciphered and translated.
0:41:27 But Bechter was the older child of Xochikl, and the older brother has complete authority over the younger siblings in Mongolian society.
0:41:34 They have to refer to him with a special pronoun all the time, Ta, and he refers to them as Chi.
0:41:40 It’s like a formality. And his word goes, he is the father in the absence of the father.
0:41:52 But also, it’s quite common that if a man dies and his brothers, he has no brothers, or his brothers do not marry his widow,
0:41:58 then if he has a son by another wife, she will become his wife.
0:42:07 So it would have been common that Bechter eventually, when he passed through puberty, would then perhaps marry Mother Erlund.
0:42:18 Now, I don’t know that that happened, but I think either it did, or Temujin was trying to prevent it,
0:42:23 because it was bad enough that he was the older brother, but he becomes the older brother and a stepfather.
0:42:25 I think Temujin just couldn’t handle that.
0:42:34 And he was already, Bechter was ordering him around, so he would take things like a fish or a bird that Temujin had caught,
0:42:39 and that’s perfectly acceptable in the Mongol hierarchy.
0:42:44 So Temujin would catch a fish, and Bechter would take the fish.
0:42:47 Yes. It’s only recorded once, but perhaps it happened several times.
0:42:52 So that’s an okay thing to do for an older brother, just take stuff.
0:42:56 Yes. He can do anything he wants, just about, with his younger siblings.
0:42:57 That’s, yeah.
0:43:01 And, but Temujin is not going to stand for it.
0:43:06 So, mostly in the record, they kind of put the blame on this fish,
0:43:09 which I’m not so sure that’s really the blame.
0:43:13 And the boys had actually taken the sewing needles from their mother.
0:43:15 They were using them for fishing.
0:43:19 And I think it was more complicated than that.
0:43:25 But for whatever reason, he and his next brother, Hassar, decided to kill him.
0:43:26 And they did.
0:43:29 Why, to you, is it more complicated than that?
0:43:33 It feels to me like stealing of a fish is like the final straw.
0:43:35 Here, he’s being abused.
0:43:37 Yes.
0:43:38 Over and over and over.
0:43:40 And the fish is a symbol of that.
0:43:41 Yes.
0:43:44 And so, here he takes matters into his own hands.
0:43:46 I think it is the symbol of that.
0:43:49 And it can be the thing that pushes him over the edge.
0:43:53 But it’s all these other tensions of what’s going on with the family.
0:43:56 Because they shoot him with arrows.
0:43:57 They kill him.
0:44:03 But what happens afterwards is also interesting for the dynamics of what was going on before.
0:44:05 Because we hear nothing from Sochigo.
0:44:10 She and her younger son, Belgetai, they stay with the family.
0:44:11 They don’t go away.
0:44:15 But the one who is outraged is Mother Erlun, his mother.
0:44:21 She screams and hollers at him in the longest kind of tirade you can imagine.
0:44:26 About, you will never have anybody in your life except your own shadow.
0:44:32 And, you know, you are worse than everything that she could name that could be worse than.
0:44:35 She was outraged and went on and on and on about it.
0:44:40 So, she was obviously extremely distressed about it.
0:44:44 Whereas Sochigo, the mother of the boy, she may have been distressed.
0:44:45 I don’t know.
0:44:47 But nothing has shown up in the record.
0:44:51 So, he does have this episode of having killed off his brother.
0:44:59 But I don’t think it was a deeply meaningful, I think it was important, but I don’t think it was a mostly deeply meaningful for Temujin.
0:45:13 But it does show, in fact, it’s interesting if it’s not a big deal for him.
0:45:22 It does show that he’s willing to resort to murder to take care of a bad situation.
0:45:23 Yes.
0:45:29 He is capable of doing anything that needs to be done to resolve what he sees as a problem.
0:45:31 Bechter was a problem.
0:45:35 He resolved it at a very young age.
0:45:38 So, he’d had that experience behind him.
0:45:46 But now, Bechter’s younger brother, Belgatai, is on a raid with him and with Jamukha when they go to capture Burstabak.
0:45:54 So, he has both loyalty and Belgatai stays loyal to him his entire life.
0:45:56 His entire life.
0:45:58 It was very interesting.
0:46:06 So, actually, if we return to Burstabak, is it normal to have such a love story across many years when you’re separated?
0:46:09 And sort of having that kind of loyalty?
0:46:16 Because it was two-way loyalty from Burstabak to Temujin and Temujin to Burstabak.
0:46:19 And this is like before he was Genghis Khan.
0:46:31 I think as children, he was too preoccupied with staying alive and trying to find fish and roots to eat and things like that to really be pining for her all the time.
0:46:34 But for whatever reason, she came in.
0:46:43 It could be that her family liked him in some way or that she remembered him or that she had no other suitors.
0:46:46 Because at 17, she should have been married, actually.
0:46:49 So, I can’t explain why.
0:46:53 But it was certainly a strong love story after the fact, if not before.
0:46:58 I mean, those two were loyal to each other throughout their lives.
0:47:04 She was, I would say, the most important person to him after that.
0:47:08 He went to literal war to get her back.
0:47:09 He risked everything.
0:47:10 He was willing to die.
0:47:12 He was willing to kill.
0:47:15 He was willing to die in order to get her back.
0:47:18 And he got her back.
0:47:23 And now, he’s re-established his relationship with Jamukha.
0:47:27 And so, they decide to stay together.
0:47:30 And they all go off to the Horonok Valley.
0:47:35 And she is pregnant.
0:47:40 This becomes a huge issue forever.
0:47:48 It’s one of those things that, to this day, almost, it’s an issue in what happens.
0:47:57 But as he says, much later in life, when his own sons rebel against him, and they call that first child a mercant bastard,
0:48:04 he defends his wife viciously to his own sons.
0:48:06 He says, you were not there.
0:48:08 You do not know who loved who and who did not.
0:48:11 You did not see the sky turning around.
0:48:13 You did not see the stars falling.
0:48:15 You did not see the earth turn over.
0:48:17 You don’t know what was happening.
0:48:20 And if I say he is my son, he is my son.
0:48:22 Who are you to say otherwise?
0:48:23 You were not there.
0:48:25 You come from the same warm womb.
0:48:32 And if your mother could hear your words, her warm womb would turn to cold stone.
0:48:35 So, he defended her forever.
0:48:37 But he’s off now.
0:48:39 We go back to the beginning.
0:48:39 She’s pregnant.
0:48:42 They’re in the Hotanak Valley.
0:48:50 And he and Jamuk decide to renew their vows of being Anda to each other.
0:48:54 So, this time, it’s more serious.
0:49:01 And it’s a ceremony in front of the whole, we can’t say tribe.
0:49:05 It’s not big enough yet for a tribe, but the whole clan that’s there.
0:49:12 And then Jamuk takes off a gold belt, which actually he had stolen from the market at some point.
0:49:15 And where on earth they got a gold belt?
0:49:15 I don’t know.
0:49:19 He took off a gold belt, and he put it on Temujin.
0:49:27 And then Temujin gave him a mare who had never had a fold, had never given birth.
0:49:32 And it was an unusual mare who had a little growth on the front of her head, which they called a horn.
0:49:34 So, it was an unusual gift.
0:49:38 And I don’t—it has meaning, but I don’t know all the meanings behind it.
0:49:39 You know, it’s sort of odd to me.
0:49:44 But the golden belt, you can kind of sort of think about it in different ways.
0:49:49 But the golden belt, the belt for the Mongol man is really the sign of manhood.
0:49:58 And in fact, this belt of pus, a woman was often then and even now called a person without a belt,
0:50:00 because that’s how they were at that time.
0:50:02 Today, women wear belts, of course.
0:50:06 But they still use the word pusqui, pusqui, with no belt.
0:50:09 So, it’s a very important symbol of manhood.
0:50:13 So, he gave that to Temujin, and they celebrated.
0:50:20 And in the words of the secret history, they slept apart under the same blanket, apart from the other group.
0:50:22 And they were happy together.
0:50:32 And then when the baby was born, Temujin named the baby Tzuch, which means visitor.
0:50:38 And some people say, well, it’s because the child was really the market child.
0:50:43 Other people say, no, it’s because he was a visitor on the territory of Jamuk at that time.
0:50:50 And other people can say, well, but Jamukha’s ancestor, who had been born from the kidnapped woman who was pregnant,
0:50:55 that they had named that Jharigadai, which meant foreigner.
0:50:58 So, it’s kind of like a parallel, the visitor, the foreigner.
0:51:02 And so, Jamukha’s clan took the name from him.
0:51:03 They were called Jharan, Jharan.
0:51:15 So, there are all these things that sometimes we can’t quite understand, because we don’t have the total mentality of that time, and we’re not there.
0:51:24 But we should say that, I mean, it’s a pretty powerful part of this love story, is that the child is likely not his.
0:51:35 And he accepted that child as his own without, and defended it as it becomes much more important later, as his first child.
0:51:35 Yes.
0:51:38 He defends this child through his entire life.
0:51:52 And, but not long after the birth, he and Jamukha break apart, or really it’s Temujin breaks apart, at the urging of Erste.
0:51:57 She said, he lords it over you too much.
0:51:59 He orders you around too much.
0:52:01 You need to be free.
0:52:02 We need to break away.
0:52:06 And she urged him, and he loved his wife more than anything.
0:52:18 I think that, in a certain way, the most important other character in his life, adult life, would be the Anda relationship, which gets up being severely tested in the future years.
0:52:20 But they run away through the night.
0:52:23 They go all night long to escape from him.
0:52:30 But he obviously loved Bertha the most and took the baby, of course, with him as well.
0:52:33 So, here’s this breaking point of the Anda.
0:52:36 How did that relationship evolve?
0:52:39 The two of them never claimed to break it.
0:52:41 They had just separated.
0:52:53 And now we have the Bang Han, the most powerful ruler on the steppe, who’s ruling out of central Mongolia of the Karyat people.
0:52:59 And so, Jamukha remains loyal to him, but at first so does Temujin.
0:53:04 They’re both loyal to him, but they’re fighting in different kinds of campaigns and all.
0:53:07 So, for a while, they’re not fighting each other.
0:53:13 But eventually, some things happened that separate Temujin.
0:53:18 Temujin was making all of these great victories for Wang Han.
0:53:25 And he even got the title Wang, which means, from Chinese, meaning prince or king.
0:53:32 Wang Han received that from the Jin dynasty because of all of these conquests against the Tatar people.
0:53:40 So, Temujin was rising up, and then he wanted his son to marry the daughter of Wang Han.
0:53:42 And Wang Han said no.
0:53:48 His own son, Singham, told the father, no, no, no, no.
0:53:49 We don’t marry those little people.
0:53:50 They’re Mongols.
0:53:51 They’re not like us.
0:53:53 You know, we are Karyat people.
0:53:55 We’re not going to marry them.
0:53:59 And so then, now war, you could say, breaks out.
0:54:00 Or a feud, really.
0:54:01 It’s more of a feud.
0:54:07 And Temujin has to flee far away into the east to a place called Baljuna.
0:54:18 And he goes to Baljuna, and at this time, then, Jammuqa is going to fight on behalf of his lord, Bang Han.
0:54:24 The two of them do not meet in combat, but now their forces are fighting each other.
0:54:27 And they didn’t see that.
0:54:30 I mean, there’s an obvious tension there.
0:54:34 There’s an obvious, if slight, breaking of loyalty, right?
0:54:38 Yes, it’s hard to know what’s going through their mind at that point.
0:54:46 We only have it later on, when the relationship is being resolved in unfortunate ways,
0:54:53 that they claim that neither one of them ever truly broke it, because they never harmed each other directly.
0:54:58 And in fact, then, Temujin eventually defeats Bang Han.
0:55:01 So he takes over central Mongolia.
0:55:03 He’s starting to really rise up now.
0:55:06 And he has the title from his own people of Chinggis Khan.
0:55:12 They give him that at Blackheart Mountain by the Blue Lake.
0:55:14 It’s a very beautiful, special place.
0:55:16 But he takes that title.
0:55:20 That’s not a title that anyone had ever held that we know of.
0:55:20 Chinggis Khan.
0:55:30 It was a new title that he just thought up, or somebody thought up, or somebody thought it had auspicious meaning behind it.
0:55:33 It’s very close to the word tinggis, which means the sea.
0:55:36 It could have had something to do with that.
0:55:42 Mongolians really like, we might say, puns of, they like words with multiple meanings.
0:55:44 And that’s very important to them.
0:55:48 The more meanings a word has, the more power that word has.
0:55:50 So if it has different meaning in different languages.
0:55:55 So in Mongolian, it sounds like strong, chin, chinggis.
0:56:00 But in Turkic, and there are many Turkic people, including the Merkit themselves, are mostly Turkic people.
0:56:04 It sounds like the sea, tinggis, tinggis.
0:56:08 So it’s exciting to them when there’s this double meaning.
0:56:09 Yes.
0:56:13 And the double meaning plays with each other, and that excites them.
0:56:14 Especially with names.
0:56:15 Yeah.
0:56:19 I’m like, today in Mongolia, or, well, I’ve been there so long, I think the fad has passed now.
0:56:30 But about 20 years ago, it was popular to name children Michelle, girls, because it’s a French name, an American name, and it means smile in Mongolia.
0:56:34 So it’s the power of three great languages and three great civilizations.
0:56:37 And so many names are like that.
0:56:39 And so I think chinggis, it doesn’t have one meaning.
0:56:40 I think it means powerful.
0:56:41 It means the sea.
0:56:43 I think it means many different things.
0:56:45 But so he had become a Khan.
0:56:47 And he was ruling over him.
0:56:54 And so Jamukha now switched loyalties to the next kingdom over, called the Naiman people, who are farther west.
0:57:02 And he becomes the protégé, I could say, of the Naiman people.
0:57:10 But when Genghis Khan attacks the Naiman, Jamukha deserts the Naiman.
0:57:18 He tells them, these people have snouts of steel, and they eat humans alive.
0:57:23 And he was telling them all these horrible things about the Mongols, you know.
0:57:29 And Tayang Han, the leader of the Naimans, he was rightfully scared about him.
0:57:31 And he was left there.
0:57:35 And he, in fact, was very quickly also defeated.
0:57:40 So Jamukha has not fought against Temujin in this campaign.
0:57:46 And he’s off with some of his people, Jadagan clan people.
0:57:55 He’s off with them, and they see the turning of the tide, you know.
0:57:59 But he now wants to become the great Khan of the steppe.
0:58:01 He has very few followers.
0:58:07 But he takes the title Gurkhan, which is a very old, ancient, important title.
0:58:17 But because Wang Khan is gone, Torgulhan gone, that he can take this title and pretend to be the great Khan of the steppe.
0:58:19 And all.
0:58:22 But his own people turn against him.
0:58:24 And they capture him.
0:58:27 And they think they will take him to Genghis Khan.
0:58:29 It’s not Genghis Khan.
0:58:33 They’ll take him, and they’ll be rewarded, perhaps, for turning him in.
0:58:37 And Genghis Khan does reward them immediately.
0:58:38 He kills them all.
0:58:46 Because they have betrayed their leader, who is his Anda.
0:58:51 It’s a very strange encounter.
0:58:56 And so, supposedly, Genghis Khan says to him,
0:58:57 Come back to me.
0:58:59 Save me.
0:59:00 Be beside me.
0:59:01 Protect me.
0:59:01 Be my shadow.
0:59:05 Be my safety guard in life.
0:59:10 And supposedly, Genghis Khan says,
0:59:15 But I did betray you when my people fought against you.
0:59:17 And you will always know that.
0:59:20 And you will never completely trust me.
0:59:25 I will be like a louse underneath the collar of your tunic.
0:59:31 I will be like a thorn in the lapel of your dell.
0:59:35 He said, Kill me without shedding my blood.
0:59:37 Let me die.
0:59:44 And if you do, take my remains up to a high place and bury me.
0:59:47 And I will be the guard.
0:59:51 I will be the protector for you and your people forever.
0:59:54 So, they…
1:00:00 Obviously, Temujin did not participate in the killing, but he ordered the killing.
1:00:05 And he was either…
1:00:08 It’s not specified how he was killed without shedding the blood.
1:00:10 But the Mongols had several ways.
1:00:13 Because the most honorable way to die was without shedding blood.
1:00:15 The blood contains part of the soul.
1:00:17 And if you lose it, you’re losing your soul before you die.
1:00:25 So, they usually wrapped them up in felt carpets and then beat them to death or trampled them to death with horses.
1:00:26 Something like that.
1:00:31 There are a couple other methods, but I think that’s probably the method by which Jamukha was killed.
1:00:33 And so, he was killed.
1:00:34 And then Temujin had…
1:00:39 Or Chinggis Khan had his remains taken up and buried in a high place.
1:00:43 This is over near Tuva, which is today part of Russia.
1:00:48 But until the 20th century, it was a part of Mongolia.
1:00:51 The Tuvan people, very, very close culturally to the Mongols.
1:01:00 It seems that both of them, under the relationship, had a deep value for loyalty.
1:01:08 And so, the way, you know, it’s not worth living after you’ve been disloyal, which is the Jamukha perspective, right?
1:01:11 He had become very practical at this point.
1:01:19 And he understood that you needed complete, total loyalty and trust with everybody around you.
1:01:28 And I think for this reason, he was willing either to accept the plea of Jamukha.
1:01:43 And when Chinggis Khan was asking him to come back and to be his shadow and to be his safety guard again, maybe that was just a formality that he knew would be rejected.
1:01:53 Or maybe when Jamukha offered to be killed without shedding blood, that was a formality that he thought would not be followed through.
1:02:07 Nevertheless, to me, just reading your work and understanding this history, this relationship seems like a really, really important relationship that defines the nature of loyalty for Chinggis.
1:02:16 I would say, in both negative and positive ways, it was the most important relationship of his adulthood aside from Bursa.
1:02:21 But that relationship really did not seem to have many negative aspects.
1:02:23 They sometimes disagreed on things, but small things.
1:02:29 So she was by him, and she was positive in every regard, so far as we know, forever.
1:02:33 Although she was not submissive, but she was always on his side.
1:02:39 And Jamukha, it was just a little too hot-headed for me, you know.
1:02:49 I mean, in my evaluation of him, that these things like, oh, we’re going to drop down on the market, and we’re going to come through the smoke hole, kill everybody, and all.
1:02:56 And he had a flair for the dramatic, even in a way giving the gold belt to Temujin.
1:03:00 But Jamukha also, he explained himself at the end of life.
1:03:10 And he said, you know, we both lost our father, but I also lost my mother, and you had a strong mother to raise you.
1:03:12 I did not.
1:03:14 And he said, you had Bursa.
1:03:18 You have a very strong wife to help you.
1:03:28 And my wife, he just used a word like prattler, like she just sort of complains and prattles along, and we did not have a relationship.
1:03:37 So, I think something about that rings true, that there were some elements of that that were true.
1:03:50 But he, Jamukha certainly didn’t have the intelligence and the real genius for dealing with people, dealing with soldiers, especially, and warfare that Temujin had.
1:04:04 Yeah, there’s, in that relationship, there’s a contrast, because Genghis Khan did not accumulate riches or accumulate power in a way that was for the sake of the riches or for the sake of the power.
1:04:12 It was always very practical in what is the way to maximize the success of this operation.
1:04:13 Yes.
1:04:14 Yes.
1:04:17 He, I often wonder, what happened to the gold belt?
1:04:19 It disappeared from the story, you know.
1:04:22 And a gold belt doesn’t just disappear, you know.
1:04:24 What happened to that?
1:04:29 It’s so interesting, because Temujin was never interested in material goods.
1:04:38 And when Genghis Khan is the ruler, he, in some ways, you could say, became the richest man in the world, because he controlled the most wealth flowing through him.
1:04:49 But he always dressed simply, he always lived in the tent, and he said, I eat what my soldiers eat, I dress the way my soldiers dress, I live the way my soldiers live.
1:04:50 We are the same.
1:04:53 So, he had no interest in the wealth.
1:05:03 He had sided before with Vang Han, which was very advantageous, because they had more trade goods and wealthier people and all.
1:05:10 But he just didn’t have the temperament, I think, that was going to be helpful for Genghis Khan’s continued rise.
1:05:14 That is one of the powerful things about the Genghis Khan stories.
1:05:15 He came from nothing.
1:05:17 From absolute nothing.
1:05:24 And he didn’t, from what I see and understand, become sort of corrupted by the riches or change.
1:05:30 He fundamentally remained the same person who does not have value for material things.
1:05:35 He changed and matured in various ways over life, as we all do, or we hope we do.
1:05:39 But he never became avaricious in any way.
1:05:40 He was never greedy.
1:05:41 He was never acquisitive.
1:05:43 He kept the simple life.
1:05:48 And part of the simple life for him meant that no one was allowed to write about him.
1:05:50 No one was allowed to make his likeness.
1:05:52 They couldn’t paint a picture of him.
1:05:55 They couldn’t make a statue of him.
1:05:58 No building could be built dedicated to him.
1:05:58 No palace.
1:05:59 No tomb.
1:06:01 No temple of any sort.
1:06:05 Not even, at the point of death, the simplest gravestone.
1:06:06 Nothing.
1:06:07 Nothing.
1:06:13 It’s fascinating that a kid, like a boy, that doesn’t know the world would have the intelligence
1:06:15 to understand how corrupting that is.
1:06:22 Like the moment somebody builds a statue of you, it’s like a slippery slope towards becoming,
1:06:23 not seeing the world clearly.
1:06:30 Not seeing, surrounding yourself with sycophants that don’t tell you the right, the information.
1:06:37 Not being able to select the right people to lead the armies or to lead the territories
1:06:38 that you conquer.
1:06:45 So it’s interesting that he had that foresight of don’t record, don’t worship.
1:06:48 That’s because that’s a dangerous road to go down for a leader.
1:06:53 And it’s very hard to explain how he stuck to that, how he got it.
1:07:04 You’re so easily corrupted by power, and yet he maintained this very fierce attitude towards
1:07:11 his relationship was with the people around him, his guard mostly, or his private part of
1:07:14 the army, you know, that went with him, the central part of the army.
1:07:17 That was his relationship, his family.
1:07:18 He had four wives.
1:07:20 This was what was important to him.
1:07:23 And in fact, no portrait was painted until 1278.
1:07:26 Well, by then, he’d already been dead for 51 years.
1:07:33 And then no statue until the 21st century.
1:07:35 Just incredible.
1:07:40 But let’s go to the document that you referenced several times, the Secret History.
1:07:46 The Secret History is a very unusual document, and I happen to love it very much.
1:07:50 But I said, you know, Chinggis Khan allowed nothing to be written about him.
1:07:54 In his lifetime, people couldn’t take notes.
1:07:55 Even the army wasn’t.
1:08:00 He, Chinggis Khan, ordered the invention of the alphabet for the Mongol people, and it was
1:08:02 adapted from the Uyghur people.
1:08:07 And so to this day, it’s often called the Uyghur alphabet, the Uyghur alphabet.
1:08:12 So he had ordered that, and he’d ordered his children to learn to read and write, and some
1:08:12 did.
1:08:15 I think most did not, but some did.
1:08:22 But one of the things he did with every campaign, even the one at the market when he rescued
1:08:27 Berta, was he always adopted one orphan.
1:08:35 And that child became a full member of the Mongol nation in his household.
1:08:37 His mother, Erlun, would raise the child.
1:08:45 So she eventually had a whole household full of boys of different tribes, but they all became
1:08:47 very high-ranking members of the government.
1:08:55 And one was a sitar boy who turned out not to be so great as a soldier, but he could read
1:08:55 and write.
1:08:57 He was the best.
1:09:01 And later, eventually, he became the supreme judge, appointed by Chinggis Khan, of course.
1:09:07 And so when Chinggis Khan died, he recognized it was important not just to write down the
1:09:08 law.
1:09:12 That’s all Chinggis Khan allowed to be written in blue books, only the law, nothing about
1:09:15 him or campaigns or military, anything.
1:09:18 But Shigihutuk was his name.
1:09:23 Shigihutuk realized that this was going to be lost, that this is a great historic thing that
1:09:24 has happened.
1:09:26 So he compiled the work.
1:09:30 Part of it, I don’t know, other people contributed, helped him, but it’s a little bit unclear.
1:09:32 The Mongols, they don’t specify that.
1:09:35 They always tell you exactly where something happens.
1:09:38 So we know exactly where it happened in Mongolia.
1:09:40 You can still go to that spot where he wrote it.
1:09:42 That’s very important to the Mongols.
1:09:47 And we also know it’s the year of the Mao, so it was 1228.
1:09:48 Chinggis Khan had died in 27.
1:09:55 So he wrote down, it begins with what we would say are the myths.
1:09:57 Although I’m not sure they’re myths, but the origins of the myths.
1:10:01 It begins with the marriage of a gray-blue wolf with a tawny deer.
1:10:05 Then some people say, well, that’s some kind of myth.
1:10:05 It’s totemic.
1:10:08 And Mongols mostly, they look at me.
1:10:09 I ask them about this.
1:10:10 They say, what?
1:10:14 He was named blue-gray wolf.
1:10:16 She was named tawny deer.
1:10:17 They married.
1:10:20 You know, they’re very practical about it.
1:10:21 And they think they’re real people.
1:10:23 Maybe they were or not.
1:10:23 I don’t know.
1:10:29 But so this earlier history is just the genealogy as it should be.
1:10:30 Who knows?
1:10:35 But it’s also in there because like Bodin Char, they call him Bodin Char the Fool, the ancestor
1:10:35 of Temujin.
1:10:39 He’s cast out because he’s just so dumb.
1:10:40 The rest of the family doesn’t want him.
1:10:43 And his father is undetermined who he was.
1:10:45 He kidnapped the Urihanghai woman.
1:10:48 She has the child who becomes the ancestor of Temujin.
1:10:50 So it’s a confusing mess.
1:10:53 But I tend to think it’s probably accurate.
1:10:54 He has a lot of good information.
1:11:00 And by the time you get to the life of Temujin, the reason we know these intimate things is
1:11:05 because that person, Shigihutuk, he was there sleeping in the same gear with the people.
1:11:12 So we even see in there, he will record instances where Bursta sits up in bed and tells her husband,
1:11:17 okay, you’ve got to do this, you’ve got to do that, you can’t do this anymore, we can’t think of, you know,
1:11:18 it’s all recorded, right?
1:11:20 So it’s a very intimate document.
1:11:22 And this is one reason that it was secret.
1:11:24 It was only for the family.
1:11:30 They were trying to uphold Tsingis-Han’s prohibition against putting out information about the family.
1:11:33 So it was secret for a very long time.
1:11:37 So much so that scholars began to think it didn’t exist.
1:11:46 And then in the 19th century, a Russian academic who was working in China at the time, in Beijing,
1:11:52 he discovered a manuscript, which was very, very odd, that people didn’t think was anything,
1:11:58 because it’s all Chinese characters, but it makes no sense in Chinese.
1:12:05 But he recognized, but if you read it, pronounce it, it makes sense in Mongolian.
1:12:11 And so it was in this code that had been used to record the information in Chinese.
1:12:13 So they’re recording the sounds.
1:12:15 The sounds, correct.
1:12:22 They use Chinese characters to record sounds, which is always problematic in some little areas.
1:12:25 Not exactly sure what the name is or something like that.
1:12:27 But it was a very unusual document.
1:12:35 And then once they found it, they realized that some of the Persian documents had incorporated part of that already.
1:12:41 So that was very helpful to me, because some of the Persians I trust very much, and I like their work very much.
1:12:51 And so it was helpful that it already existed, and all of it, some of it existed in Mongolian, other Mongolian sources that were written later.
1:12:54 Some of it was just incorporated.
1:12:59 So it seemed to be fairly genuine, but it wasn’t 100% pure.
1:13:03 It had, little things had happened to it along the way.
1:13:08 Some things had been stipped here and there, and a few words changed.
1:13:10 Like sometimes for Temujin, they call him Chinggis Khan.
1:13:12 Well, he wasn’t the Khan then.
1:13:17 And sometimes they call him Han, which is like chief, and other times Han, which is emperor.
1:13:19 Well, in Mongolia, it’s a big difference, you know.
1:13:24 So there are little things like this that move around that you’re not sure why.
1:13:27 But it’s a document that I have great faith in.
1:13:35 It was not published in English until 1982, but Francis Woodman Cleaves at Harvard University translated it in the 50s.
1:13:43 It was ready for publication, and he was having trouble with the publisher, and so it didn’t appear for nearly 30 years.
1:13:44 It was supposed to be two volumes.
1:13:46 The first volume is the translation.
1:13:52 The second volume was going to be the notes, and the second volume was lost.
1:13:57 To this day, it hasn’t been found.
1:13:58 I would love to see that.
1:14:01 But anyway, now it’s in all languages.
1:14:02 It’s just about in the world.
1:14:03 Can you clarify?
1:14:05 So there’s two volumes.
1:14:10 The 19th century Chinese manuscript covers the first volume.
1:14:15 Yes, that was translated and then published by Harvard University.
1:14:19 But the notes were just the notes from the scholar Francis Woodman Cleaves.
1:14:22 Those were his notes, not Mongolian notes.
1:14:22 I got it.
1:14:29 There are Chinese notes that went with it because the Chinese had trouble understanding a lot of things in it.
1:14:34 And they also, they disapproved of some things, so they would try to put their own notes in the margins
1:14:43 to kind of correct the story and explain away why the Mongols’ women would be often marrying their stepson.
1:14:47 It just did not match with Confucian ethics.
1:14:51 You know, so there’s several things like that that they try to skip around.
1:14:57 But so it’s interesting just to read the Ming dynasty notes that are attached to it.
1:15:03 But the document itself, Mongoli Nutshtupcho, it’s just so important.
1:15:05 And for me, it was the guiding document.
1:15:09 I didn’t want to be guided by anything else first.
1:15:13 Everything else, I would check to correlate and fill in blanks and give more information.
1:15:22 But I went to Mongolia to travel around to those places because they are so exact in there and to feel it.
1:15:27 And it’s so important, I think, because history does not live in books.
1:15:33 History does not live in archives or even libraries as much as I need them for my work.
1:15:35 But history lives in the people.
1:15:39 History lives in the memory of the people and the culture.
1:15:43 And for example, the episode with the kidnapping of Berta.
1:15:48 So I went to that place and I didn’t know when it happened, what season it happened.
1:15:54 It was very important for figuring out the births that came afterwards and other events that were being correlated.
1:15:56 Very important to me.
1:16:00 And so I’m just talking to the people who live in that valley, the nomads there.
1:16:03 They said, oh, it’s clear.
1:16:04 It was the winter.
1:16:06 I said, oh, where did you read that?
1:16:07 I said, no.
1:16:11 Granny Kaukson was on the ground and she could feel the vibrations.
1:16:13 She said, look, this is summertime now.
1:16:15 You’re not going to feel any vibrations.
1:16:17 The ground here is so soft.
1:16:30 Suddenly, a whole important piece that I’ve been searching for just came together from some nomad sitting there next to his horse.
1:16:34 And he was absolutely right.
1:16:36 It could only happen in the winter.
1:16:39 And that also correlates with the time that raiding was done.
1:16:41 So it correlates with other historic factors.
1:16:45 But then that gave me the time basis for figuring out a lot of other things.
1:16:47 History lives in the people.
1:16:55 Just to link on that point, you visited different places that were important to the story of Genghis Khan.
1:16:58 What did it feel like?
1:17:04 What are some memorable things about just the experience of standing there?
1:17:10 I really sat out mostly to visit the cities he had conquered across Central Asia and all.
1:17:13 And there was so little to learn.
1:17:16 I mean, everything was kind of known of whatever the chroniclers had recorded.
1:17:19 The archaeologists had found whatever they had found.
1:17:23 And I get there and he hadn’t spent much time there.
1:17:24 He didn’t identify with it.
1:17:25 I wasn’t feeling anything.
1:17:33 But in Mongolia, I would go to these places and I would know if Genghis Khan came back today, he would know exactly where he is.
1:17:35 There’s no road.
1:17:36 There’s no sign.
1:17:37 There’s no building.
1:17:40 There’s no power line going.
1:17:41 Nothing.
1:17:50 And just to smell the air, to feel it, to see the animals and to see what kind of animals live here, what kind of plants are growing here.
1:17:54 You begin to get a feeling for how he was thinking.
1:17:58 And then you begin to see, ah, I know which direction they came from.
1:18:00 The only direction they could come from was that way.
1:18:02 You begin to see it.
1:18:07 And his life starts to unfold in a very dramatic way.
1:18:14 That I have the text, but the text is like it has no scenery, no props, nothing like that.
1:18:16 The Mongols all understand their way of life.
1:18:18 They don’t need to explain anything.
1:18:21 They know which way the Gere faces with the sun.
1:18:22 They know all these things.
1:18:25 But for me, that’s how I learned it.
1:18:26 It was from being with the people.
1:18:29 It was the most important thing.
1:18:32 And this was starting in the 1990s.
1:18:40 And the people, they were, at this time, they were amazed that I would come.
1:18:41 The Soviet era had just ended.
1:18:44 Socialism was just ending.
1:18:45 Democracy was starting.
1:18:50 And Genghis Khan had been forbidden to them for almost the entire century.
1:18:54 And every known descendant of Genghis Khan was killed in Mongolia.
1:19:00 Following the secret history, that became the key to writing what I wrote.
1:19:03 Take the history, which is difficult to understand.
1:19:05 You have to go over.
1:19:08 And I often never understand different parts.
1:19:12 Or I change my mind and think it was yes, now it’s no.
1:19:15 But the secret history is a valuable document.
1:19:21 And to me, also, it’s the opening document of Mongolian written language.
1:19:28 And I think it’s very important how do people begin their written language.
1:19:32 And they begin it with the words,
1:19:40 Dere Thinges, from highest heaven came the destiny of the blue wolf
1:19:45 who was married to the tawny deer and their descendants
1:19:49 who came from the Great Sea to live at the base of Mount Burkhan Khaldun.
1:19:55 And then integrating the spiritual elements of nature,
1:19:57 the mountains and the Great Sea,
1:20:02 and this kind of deep connection to nature that they have.
1:20:06 Mongolia is a world that, for the most part,
1:20:08 is the same as when Genghis Khan was there.
1:20:11 We cannot say that for hardly any other place in the world.
1:20:14 I mean, certainly not for America,
1:20:16 but just a few hundred years ago,
1:20:18 it was entirely different.
1:20:20 People, languages, everything.
1:20:25 But you can’t say it for London or Moscow or Istanbul,
1:20:26 Constantinople.
1:20:29 All of these things have changed so much.
1:20:31 But Mongolia is still Mongolia.
1:20:33 It’s one of the largest countries in the world,
1:20:35 in space,
1:20:38 with the fewest number of people,
1:20:39 about today 3.3 million.
1:20:41 And they’re spread out,
1:20:45 and they live in their environment in such an intimate way.
1:20:49 This was important for learning about Genghis Khan,
1:20:50 how he thought,
1:20:51 how he hunted,
1:20:53 how he strategized for war.
1:20:55 You learn that from the people today,
1:20:56 because they are still there.
1:20:58 They’re still living.
1:21:01 What’s the open Mongolian steppe like?
1:21:06 As we return to the feeling of Timur Jun and Genghis Khan,
1:21:10 what’s it like looking at this place that has not changed since his time?
1:21:13 The first thing I think about this steppe is that
1:21:16 you can see forever in every direction.
1:21:19 There’s no building,
1:21:21 nothing to stop your line of view.
1:21:25 And it’s like being in the ocean in many ways.
1:21:27 So you have this extremely open space,
1:21:30 and the wind is usually blowing through it.
1:21:31 But it’s extremely fresh.
1:21:33 It’s coming out of Siberia.
1:21:34 It’s coming out of the Arctic.
1:21:36 It sweeps down across Mongolia.
1:21:39 Cold is the ticket sometimes,
1:21:40 but it’s always fresh,
1:21:42 always fresh.
1:21:45 So you have the wind coming in.
1:21:47 You have the smell of the wind,
1:21:50 but also then there’s grass.
1:21:52 The smell of grass becomes very important.
1:21:57 Now, because of the particular location,
1:21:58 from one year to another,
1:22:00 one area may have grass one year,
1:22:02 and then drought the next year,
1:22:03 another area has grass.
1:22:04 So you don’t always know.
1:22:06 If it’s not grass, it’s dust.
1:22:08 You have dust going in.
1:22:10 The dust doesn’t smell so good.
1:22:11 It doesn’t feel so good.
1:22:15 But that’s just one more part of the country.
1:22:18 The waters are mostly pure.
1:22:23 Now, unfortunately, there has been pollution in this century
1:22:26 from mining in several areas.
1:22:28 But even when I was there,
1:22:30 even today,
1:22:32 when we go to some place like the Selink River,
1:22:33 where we talk about the Merkit-lift.
1:22:36 So it’s a place of pure waters.
1:22:41 And that’s how Mongolians define their world,
1:22:42 is by the water.
1:22:43 They don’t,
1:22:46 Chinggis Khan does not give lands
1:22:48 to his sons to rule.
1:22:52 He gives waters and people to rule.
1:22:54 They do not refer to the earth as land.
1:22:57 They refer to the earth as Dalai,
1:22:59 ocean, the sea.
1:23:01 And so water is very important.
1:23:05 And to learn the rules about water,
1:23:07 you don’t camp by water.
1:23:08 If you camp by water,
1:23:11 your animals and you are going to be polluting it,
1:23:11 messing it up.
1:23:12 So they’re back,
1:23:14 maybe in our modern terms,
1:23:15 about a kilometer back.
1:23:19 You take the animals to the river to drink,
1:23:20 and then you take them away.
1:23:22 You do not bathe in that river.
1:23:25 You take the water away from the river,
1:23:27 and you bathe away from the river,
1:23:29 so you do not pollute the river.
1:23:32 The rules are very strict and very clear,
1:23:34 and they’re from the time of Chinggis Khan,
1:23:36 about how to deal with…
1:23:38 Well, also, it’s dangerous to live close to the river
1:23:40 because there are flash floods in the summertime.
1:23:41 You could suddenly have it.
1:23:43 And it could wipe away
1:23:45 if your camp is right there by the water.
1:23:48 So the people,
1:23:50 they live with nature in a way
1:23:53 that I don’t see anywhere else in the world.
1:23:55 And even today,
1:23:56 with the changes with the cell phone
1:23:59 and with solar panels,
1:24:02 and they could get TV out in the middle of the step,
1:24:04 still, they’re living a similar life.
1:24:06 The young people, of course,
1:24:08 want to drive a motorbike,
1:24:11 but they’re still herding cows and yaks and camels.
1:24:12 If it’s on a motorbike, okay.
1:24:15 They’re still doing it the Mongol way.
1:24:21 But then, if we go to the time of Timurjin,
1:24:22 of Genghis Khan,
1:24:24 another component is the horses.
1:24:27 Can we talk about their relationship with the horse?
1:24:29 Thinking about this open step,
1:24:31 from a young age,
1:24:32 they’ve been,
1:24:34 all Mongols are trained
1:24:36 to master
1:24:38 riding horses.
1:24:39 As you write,
1:24:41 while standing on the horse.
1:24:42 So they learn how to
1:24:45 ride while standing on the horse
1:24:46 from a young age.
1:24:47 While standing on the horse,
1:24:49 they often jousted with one another
1:24:51 to see who could knock the other off.
1:24:54 When their legs grew long enough
1:24:55 to reach the stirrups,
1:24:58 they were also taught to shoot arrows
1:25:00 and to lasso on horseback,
1:25:02 making targets out of leather pouches
1:25:04 that they would dangle from poles
1:25:06 so that they would blow in the wind.
1:25:08 The youngster’s practice
1:25:09 hitting the targets from horseback
1:25:11 at varying distances and speeds,
1:25:12 the skills of such play
1:25:13 proved invaluable
1:25:16 to horsemanships later in life.
1:25:18 Can you speak to
1:25:20 the relationship of Genghis Khan
1:25:22 and the Mongols to horses?
1:25:25 The Mongol and the horse
1:25:26 are inseparable.
1:25:28 I wrote one line in a book
1:25:29 that the editor removed
1:25:30 because that was insulting.
1:25:31 I said,
1:25:32 the Mongol and the horse,
1:25:33 they live together,
1:25:34 they know each other
1:25:35 with every twitch of the muscle
1:25:37 and they smell the same.
1:25:39 Well, I was saying it
1:25:41 just not to be insulting
1:25:42 about anything,
1:25:44 but they have that deep intimacy
1:25:45 and the horses do know
1:25:47 their owner from the smell.
1:25:48 This is very important.
1:25:49 It’s also important
1:25:50 for Genghis Khan
1:25:52 because they made the flags,
1:25:53 what they call the sult,
1:25:56 out of the horse hair
1:25:57 from their own horses.
1:25:59 And so in battle,
1:25:59 they used it
1:26:01 for a very practical purpose
1:26:02 and that is
1:26:03 the horses
1:26:04 would return
1:26:05 to their source
1:26:07 because they knew
1:26:08 the smell of their flag.
1:26:10 It was other members
1:26:11 of their own herd.
1:26:13 So the language itself,
1:26:14 I have never,
1:26:15 ever mastered
1:26:16 all the words
1:26:18 just for the colors
1:26:18 of horses,
1:26:20 much less for all
1:26:21 the other things about it.
1:26:22 I can remember
1:26:23 Mongolians
1:26:24 being out there
1:26:25 in the countryside
1:26:25 and they say,
1:26:26 oh,
1:26:27 I want to learn English.
1:26:28 I say,
1:26:28 okay,
1:26:28 yeah,
1:26:29 that’s nice.
1:26:30 You teach me some words
1:26:31 in Mongolian.
1:26:32 I teach you some words.
1:26:32 Okay,
1:26:33 say,
1:26:34 what color is that horse?
1:26:34 I say,
1:26:35 brown.
1:26:36 They would say,
1:26:37 brown.
1:26:38 I say,
1:26:38 yes,
1:26:38 okay,
1:26:39 what color is that horse?
1:26:41 Brown.
1:26:43 But you said,
1:26:44 this color was brown.
1:26:45 What color is this?
1:26:46 So,
1:26:47 well,
1:26:48 I mean,
1:26:51 it’s just amazing.
1:26:51 I mean,
1:26:52 they have words
1:26:53 based on sort of
1:26:55 how smooth the coloring is
1:26:56 and the variation
1:26:57 and the texture
1:26:58 and all the different,
1:26:59 today in English,
1:27:01 sometimes you can put them together.
1:27:01 We say like yellow,
1:27:02 brown or brown,
1:27:03 brown or,
1:27:04 you know,
1:27:06 but the words for horses
1:27:07 by,
1:27:08 of course,
1:27:08 by sex
1:27:10 and then they have three
1:27:11 because they have geldings
1:27:12 and so they’re very important too
1:27:14 and by age
1:27:15 and by whether or not
1:27:16 they’ve reproduced
1:27:17 in the case of the females,
1:27:18 all these things
1:27:19 are important parts
1:27:20 of the horse
1:27:21 and the horse,
1:27:23 a few years ago,
1:27:25 a presidential candidate
1:27:26 ran under the slogan,
1:27:28 raised in the dust
1:27:30 of many fast horses.
1:27:32 It just resonates
1:27:33 with the Mongolian spirit
1:27:35 and the dust itself
1:27:36 is important.
1:27:37 The Mongolians,
1:27:39 they will wipe the sweat
1:27:40 and the dust
1:27:40 off the horse
1:27:42 and wipe it onto
1:27:43 their own forehead,
1:27:44 which is the most sacred
1:27:45 part of the body
1:27:47 where the soul resides.
1:27:49 This is how intimate
1:27:50 a relationship is
1:27:51 with the horses
1:27:52 and
1:27:54 they’re hard on them
1:27:55 in some ways.
1:27:56 They train them
1:27:56 very well.
1:27:57 They ride them
1:27:58 very hard
1:27:59 but
1:28:00 the horses
1:28:01 are also trained
1:28:01 for that.
1:28:03 They use
1:28:04 a very small crop
1:28:06 that’s a little bit
1:28:06 like a stick
1:28:07 with a slight whip
1:28:08 at the end of the day.
1:28:09 They hit the rump
1:28:10 of the horse.
1:28:11 Never anything else.
1:28:12 They’re horrified
1:28:13 at Western people
1:28:15 who use metal spurs
1:28:17 and metal
1:28:19 to harm the horse
1:28:20 in the stomach
1:28:22 and to harm
1:28:23 the head of a horse.
1:28:24 They say it’s
1:28:25 a capital crime.
1:28:25 I mean,
1:28:26 I don’t know anyone
1:28:27 who’s ever executed
1:28:27 for it.
1:28:28 But you never,
1:28:29 ever harm
1:28:30 a horse’s head.
1:28:32 So horses are
1:28:34 important in every way,
1:28:36 even religiously important
1:28:37 with the making
1:28:38 of the fermented
1:28:39 horse’s milk
1:28:41 that the mother
1:28:42 goes out every morning
1:28:44 and she throws some
1:28:45 to each of the four directions
1:28:47 to start the day.
1:28:48 And they use it
1:28:50 for every kind of thing.
1:28:51 But, you know,
1:28:53 some things puzzled me
1:28:55 that in my watching,
1:28:56 I remember one day
1:28:57 being with a very nice family.
1:28:58 It happened to be
1:28:59 on a gelding day
1:28:59 when they were
1:29:00 out there gelding
1:29:03 the would-be stallions
1:29:04 who don’t get
1:29:04 to be stallions.
1:29:06 But one of the,
1:29:08 this family,
1:29:08 they had a bunch of boys
1:29:10 and I only think
1:29:11 about one or two girls
1:29:11 were like four
1:29:12 or five boys.
1:29:13 And one boy
1:29:13 was maybe
1:29:15 11 years old.
1:29:16 He fell from the horse.
1:29:17 You could see it.
1:29:18 Not so far away.
1:29:19 He fell from the horse.
1:29:20 He didn’t get up.
1:29:21 No one moved.
1:29:23 In fact,
1:29:24 they all kind of
1:29:25 turned attention away.
1:29:26 And I thought,
1:29:28 what am I supposed to say?
1:29:29 This boy fell down.
1:29:30 Somebody go get him.
1:29:31 No.
1:29:33 And then the boy
1:29:35 was trying to hobble back.
1:29:36 He still had the reins
1:29:36 to his horse.
1:29:37 He was,
1:29:38 but he couldn’t remount.
1:29:39 And he was trying
1:29:40 to hobble back.
1:29:41 So his little brother
1:29:42 went out to help him
1:29:42 come in.
1:29:44 And they came
1:29:44 into the gear
1:29:45 and they sat down.
1:29:46 The mother just
1:29:47 turned her back.
1:29:48 And I’m thinking,
1:29:50 how on earth
1:29:50 can you do this?
1:29:51 This is a child.
1:29:52 This is your child.
1:29:53 You know,
1:29:55 but two weeks later,
1:29:56 by chance,
1:29:58 another boy
1:29:59 who is practicing
1:29:59 for Nadam,
1:30:01 the annual races,
1:30:02 like this boy
1:30:03 had been doing,
1:30:04 he was off
1:30:04 in an area
1:30:05 right close
1:30:06 to the forested
1:30:07 mountain area.
1:30:07 and the horse
1:30:08 bolted,
1:30:09 took off
1:30:10 through the woods.
1:30:11 He was knocked
1:30:12 off by a tree
1:30:13 and then the horse
1:30:13 went deeper
1:30:14 into the woods.
1:30:15 The boy followed him.
1:30:16 The boy became lost.
1:30:18 The boy was 12 years old.
1:30:19 He was lost
1:30:20 for two weeks
1:30:22 and he lived.
1:30:24 I would have died
1:30:25 in 48 hours.
1:30:25 He lived.
1:30:26 He said,
1:30:26 well,
1:30:27 he slept in the daytime
1:30:28 when it was warm.
1:30:28 He walked at night
1:30:29 when it was cold.
1:30:30 Even though
1:30:31 this was the summertime,
1:30:32 the nights can be
1:30:33 quite cold,
1:30:34 especially on a mountain.
1:30:35 and he sang loudly
1:30:36 all night long
1:30:38 to keep the wolves away
1:30:39 and he knew
1:30:39 what to eat
1:30:41 and then he walked
1:30:41 until he found
1:30:42 water moving
1:30:42 and then he would
1:30:43 follow that water
1:30:44 down to the next.
1:30:46 He lived
1:30:47 and I realized
1:30:49 the boy falls
1:30:50 from the horse,
1:30:50 his mother’s not
1:30:51 going to be there.
1:30:53 She knows that
1:30:54 and it’s probably
1:30:55 hard for her too
1:30:57 to see her boy suffer
1:30:59 but she knows.
1:31:03 Just a small tangent.
1:31:04 there’s a wrestler
1:31:05 named Kerry Collat
1:31:07 and he tells
1:31:08 this story
1:31:10 about mental toughness
1:31:13 that the first time
1:31:14 he saw truly
1:31:16 mentally tough people
1:31:17 was when he visited
1:31:18 Mongolia
1:31:19 for a wrestling tournament
1:31:20 and he remembered
1:31:21 that they were
1:31:22 taking showers
1:31:23 in ice cold water
1:31:26 and all the other wrestlers,
1:31:27 they would take the shower
1:31:28 and when the water
1:31:29 hits them,
1:31:29 you could see
1:31:30 a little grimace.
1:31:32 With the Mongols,
1:31:34 there was just nothing,
1:31:35 it was emotionless.
1:31:36 Sort of like
1:31:38 ice cold water
1:31:40 or any other
1:31:40 kind of hardship.
1:31:41 Yes.
1:31:43 You build a hardness
1:31:44 to that
1:31:46 and I suppose
1:31:47 that falling
1:31:47 from the horse
1:31:48 is just an example
1:31:48 of that.
1:31:50 There’s a mental hardness
1:31:51 and a mental toughness.
1:31:52 You have to be able
1:31:53 to take care
1:31:54 of yourself
1:31:55 and with the weather,
1:31:56 for example,
1:31:58 often in that time
1:31:58 and still today,
1:31:59 some people,
1:32:00 if they can have
1:32:01 the privacy to do it,
1:32:04 the men will strip naked
1:32:05 in the first heavy snow
1:32:05 and roll around
1:32:06 in the snow
1:32:07 in order to prepare
1:32:09 for the coming winter.
1:32:12 And the valley
1:32:13 where I live,
1:32:14 a lot of wrestlers
1:32:15 come there
1:32:15 to train
1:32:16 in the summertime
1:32:17 for the competition
1:32:19 and the water
1:32:20 is very cold
1:32:20 coming down
1:32:21 from the mountain
1:32:23 and every day
1:32:25 when there’s a break,
1:32:25 they go down,
1:32:26 they take,
1:32:26 again,
1:32:27 they do not get
1:32:27 in the water,
1:32:27 never,
1:32:29 but they take the water
1:32:30 and they pour
1:32:30 the cold water
1:32:31 over themselves
1:32:33 and yes,
1:32:34 that’s refreshing
1:32:35 to them,
1:32:36 refreshing.
1:32:37 Well then,
1:32:38 getting back
1:32:39 to the horses,
1:32:40 the value they had
1:32:41 for the horses
1:32:42 and the horse riding
1:32:44 skill they developed
1:32:45 throughout their life
1:32:45 created
1:32:47 one of the most
1:32:48 unstoppable military
1:32:49 forces in history.
1:32:50 So if we just talk
1:32:51 about the mounted
1:32:52 archery
1:32:53 that they’ve employed
1:32:54 in war,
1:32:56 the Mongols
1:32:58 were able to do
1:32:59 targeted shooting
1:33:00 accurately
1:33:02 at 200 meters
1:33:03 or more
1:33:05 while riding fast,
1:33:06 you know,
1:33:07 up to speeds
1:33:08 of 60 kilometers
1:33:08 an hour,
1:33:09 I read.
1:33:10 So,
1:33:12 there’s a lot to say.
1:33:13 Like,
1:33:13 you know,
1:33:14 you have to time
1:33:16 and just watching
1:33:16 some of the videos
1:33:17 just incredible
1:33:18 how stable
1:33:18 you could be
1:33:19 on top of a horse
1:33:20 and I guess
1:33:21 you’re supposed
1:33:21 to be shooting
1:33:23 at a moment
1:33:23 of the gallop
1:33:24 when all four
1:33:25 of the feet
1:33:25 of the horse
1:33:27 are off the ground
1:33:27 and so you have
1:33:29 to time all of that,
1:33:30 you have to position
1:33:30 your body
1:33:31 to maintain balance
1:33:32 and then there’s
1:33:33 the skill
1:33:33 of the actual
1:33:34 holding and shooting
1:33:35 the bow accurately
1:33:36 and there’s
1:33:38 obviously the technology
1:33:38 of the bow,
1:33:39 the composite bow,
1:33:40 the recurve bow.
1:33:41 They’ve also,
1:33:41 I read,
1:33:43 used crossbows later.
1:33:44 They’ve adapted
1:33:45 the technology
1:33:46 and there’s
1:33:46 a particular kind
1:33:47 of thumb draw
1:33:48 that you use
1:33:49 for shooting
1:33:51 with the composite bow
1:33:52 that works
1:33:52 for a horse
1:33:54 because the thing
1:33:54 is bouncing
1:33:55 up and down,
1:33:56 right?
1:33:56 So,
1:33:57 you have to like
1:33:58 not drop the arrow.
1:33:59 It’s just incredible
1:34:00 to be able to shoot
1:34:01 while the horse
1:34:02 is going 60 kilometers
1:34:02 an hour.
1:34:03 Anyway,
1:34:04 can you speak
1:34:05 to this kind
1:34:07 of exceptional excellence
1:34:09 that the Genghis Khan
1:34:09 and the Mongols
1:34:13 had for riding horses
1:34:16 and engaging in war
1:34:18 off of the horse?
1:34:20 The Mongol,
1:34:20 the horse
1:34:21 and the bow
1:34:23 were a perfect combination
1:34:24 and it was
1:34:25 the most lethal weapon
1:34:27 known to the world
1:34:29 before the modern era.
1:34:30 It was incredible
1:34:32 the synchronization
1:34:33 and the timing
1:34:34 of the movements
1:34:35 and also
1:34:36 the years of skill,
1:34:37 the fact that
1:34:39 from absolute birth
1:34:40 the Mongols
1:34:41 would be on a horse
1:34:43 and by three years old
1:34:44 they would probably
1:34:45 be riding alone
1:34:46 on the horse.
1:34:47 Now,
1:34:47 when I first went
1:34:48 to Mongolia
1:34:50 in the 1990s,
1:34:51 at that time
1:34:53 all jockeys
1:34:54 on horses
1:34:54 for races
1:34:55 had to be
1:34:56 under six years old.
1:34:59 That was the age limit
1:35:00 where the cutoff
1:35:01 was six years old.
1:35:02 at that time
1:35:03 and so you had
1:35:04 Thomas three years old
1:35:05 racing out there.
1:35:07 It’s absolutely incredible
1:35:07 and of course
1:35:08 at that age
1:35:09 they can’t even
1:35:10 have a saddle
1:35:10 because it can’t
1:35:11 even be used
1:35:12 so they’re just
1:35:13 all they’re doing
1:35:14 is staying on the horse.
1:35:14 The horse has been
1:35:15 trained to do
1:35:16 what it has to do
1:35:17 and they just stay on it
1:35:18 but by staying on it
1:35:19 they learn the horse
1:35:20 they become one
1:35:23 and not just one horse
1:35:23 with one rider
1:35:24 but one rider
1:35:25 with several horses.
1:35:27 usually five
1:35:27 is the number
1:35:28 that you should have
1:35:29 for you
1:35:30 when you go off
1:35:30 to battle
1:35:32 and this ability
1:35:32 that is shoot.
1:35:34 You have to defend
1:35:34 your animals
1:35:35 there are wolves
1:35:35 around
1:35:36 there are foxes
1:35:37 and other things
1:35:38 in some areas
1:35:39 there were even tigers
1:35:41 and other animals
1:35:42 that would come in
1:35:43 and you had to be able
1:35:44 to shoot
1:35:44 to defend it
1:35:45 against other people
1:35:47 who might be raiding you.
1:35:48 so they became
1:35:50 excellent archers
1:35:53 they had composite bows
1:35:55 that were very powerful
1:35:56 much more powerful
1:35:57 than those
1:35:58 of most sedentary people.
1:36:00 Now I say all that
1:36:01 because it’s very important
1:36:04 but those are all
1:36:06 sort of nomadic traits
1:36:08 of the great steppe anyway.
1:36:10 I mean in an earlier version
1:36:11 you had the Huns
1:36:12 who came out of Mongolia
1:36:13 and Hun
1:36:15 is just the Mongolian word
1:36:15 for human.
1:36:16 Hun
1:36:18 that’s to this day
1:36:19 that’s what they say
1:36:19 for a human being.
1:36:21 So they came out of Mongolia
1:36:24 and all the early Turkic groups
1:36:25 came out of Mongolia
1:36:26 and they had
1:36:27 the similar skills.
1:36:28 So
1:36:31 you have this perfect weapon
1:36:31 but also
1:36:32 you have to have
1:36:33 perfect strategy
1:36:35 and how to coordinate it
1:36:37 and organize it
1:36:38 and use it.
1:36:39 And this is where
1:36:40 the genius
1:36:42 that I cannot explain
1:36:42 at all
1:36:43 but the genius
1:36:44 of Genghis Khan
1:36:44 came in.
1:36:46 Other people
1:36:46 I think
1:36:47 had been very good
1:36:48 in earlier times
1:36:50 a number of Turkic leaders
1:36:51 and also
1:36:52 or even
1:36:53 Attila the Hun
1:36:54 who of course
1:36:55 was actually born
1:36:56 in the west
1:36:56 but
1:36:58 they were charismatic
1:36:59 leaders
1:37:00 and very dramatic leaders
1:37:01 and it wasn’t
1:37:02 that they were so excellent
1:37:03 in their
1:37:05 strategy
1:37:06 they were very good
1:37:06 in warfare
1:37:07 and that’s what
1:37:08 carried them through.
1:37:09 Genghis Khan’s army
1:37:10 was extremely good
1:37:11 in warfare
1:37:11 but small.
1:37:13 he never got
1:37:14 probably above
1:37:15 100,000
1:37:16 at the most
1:37:18 110,000
1:37:19 that is small
1:37:20 when you’re going
1:37:21 against China
1:37:24 that has millions
1:37:26 just in the army
1:37:27 not to count
1:37:28 in the country
1:37:28 and you’re going
1:37:29 against Russia
1:37:30 and you’re going
1:37:31 against the Middle East
1:37:32 and Persia
1:37:33 and Afghanistan
1:37:34 and these areas
1:37:37 your whole army
1:37:37 has to be
1:37:38 as finely tuned
1:37:40 as each rider
1:37:41 each bow
1:37:42 and each horse
1:37:43 that’s the weapon
1:37:44 but the army
1:37:46 becomes the super weapon
1:37:47 of Genghis Khan
1:37:49 how he organized it
1:37:50 and how he used it
1:37:51 and the strategies
1:37:52 that he put together.
1:37:53 Yeah, when you have
1:37:54 a small army
1:37:56 just think about that
1:37:58 a small army
1:37:58 that conquered
1:38:00 the world.
1:38:02 It would fit
1:38:03 in a stadium
1:38:04 today in America
1:38:07 So there’s
1:38:08 extreme
1:38:09 efficient
1:38:10 coordination
1:38:11 of units
1:38:12 mostly cavalry
1:38:12 right?
1:38:13 All cavalry
1:38:14 It’s all cavalry
1:38:15 He had no infantry
1:38:17 and he had no
1:38:18 baggage train
1:38:19 he had no
1:38:21 backup commissary
1:38:23 early on
1:38:24 no engineer corps
1:38:25 later one was added
1:38:26 much later
1:38:27 but no
1:38:28 all cavalry
1:38:30 And so there’s
1:38:30 light cavalry
1:38:31 and heavy cavalry
1:38:32 and
1:38:34 breaking down
1:38:34 units
1:38:35 using the decimal
1:38:35 system
1:38:36 ten
1:38:36 hundred
1:38:37 a thousand
1:38:38 so
1:38:40 there’s a kind
1:38:41 of hierarchy
1:38:43 where you
1:38:44 delegate
1:38:45 authority
1:38:46 but
1:38:47 to the degree
1:38:48 there’s commands
1:38:50 they must be
1:38:51 followed strictly
1:38:51 Yes
1:38:52 So for like
1:38:54 extremely efficient
1:38:54 accurate
1:38:56 precise
1:38:57 deployment
1:38:58 of these
1:39:00 troops
1:39:01 in the battlefield
1:39:02 and the dynamic
1:39:03 movement of the troops
1:39:04 including all the
1:39:05 interesting tactics
1:39:05 that were
1:39:06 utilized
1:39:07 you have to have
1:39:07 really good
1:39:08 communication
1:39:09 and coordination
1:39:10 and for that
1:39:11 orders must be
1:39:11 followed
1:39:12 Yes
1:39:14 Is there something
1:39:15 to speak to that
1:39:15 like how do you
1:39:16 tune this kind
1:39:17 of system
1:39:17 to where
1:39:18 everybody is
1:39:19 working together
1:39:19 so well
1:39:20 I think
1:39:20 the first
1:39:21 point is
1:39:21 the extreme
1:39:22 loyalty
1:39:23 of the people
1:39:24 whom Chinggis
1:39:24 Han chose
1:39:26 his kinsmen
1:39:26 as we said
1:39:27 had deserted
1:39:27 him
1:39:29 his anda
1:39:30 was a
1:39:31 Christian relationship
1:39:33 but all the
1:39:34 others that he
1:39:34 found were just
1:39:35 common people
1:39:37 herders or
1:39:37 hunters
1:39:38 very common
1:39:39 and they were
1:39:40 loyal to him
1:39:40 and never
1:39:42 ever revolted
1:39:42 against him
1:39:43 never betrayed
1:39:43 him
1:39:44 so he
1:39:45 had extreme
1:39:45 loyalty
1:39:46 and then
1:39:47 as you mentioned
1:39:48 he organized
1:39:48 his decimal
1:39:49 system
1:39:49 so the
1:39:50 smallest unit
1:39:51 of the army
1:39:52 was the
1:39:52 ARFT
1:39:53 the ten
1:39:54 the squad
1:39:55 of ten
1:39:55 men
1:39:57 they were put
1:39:57 together
1:39:58 and then the
1:39:58 head of that
1:39:58 squad
1:39:59 he had total
1:40:00 control over
1:40:00 it
1:40:01 but the men
1:40:02 knew that
1:40:02 they were going
1:40:03 to protect
1:40:04 each other
1:40:04 and they
1:40:05 had to come
1:40:06 back
1:40:07 with every
1:40:08 member
1:40:08 or everybody
1:40:10 you don’t
1:40:10 leave anybody
1:40:11 behind
1:40:12 so this
1:40:12 was extremely
1:40:13 important
1:40:14 so if you
1:40:16 submit to the
1:40:16 orders of the
1:40:17 man in charge
1:40:18 you know
1:40:19 that he’s risking
1:40:20 his own life
1:40:20 for you also
1:40:22 and you know
1:40:23 that your brother
1:40:23 on the left
1:40:24 and on the right
1:40:25 is risking
1:40:26 his life for you
1:40:27 the army was
1:40:29 they were organized
1:40:30 with five horses
1:40:30 each man
1:40:31 they had their
1:40:32 bow and they had
1:40:33 a lot of arrows
1:40:34 as many as they
1:40:34 could have
1:40:35 but they also
1:40:36 retrieved arrows
1:40:37 at the end
1:40:38 of their battle
1:40:39 and they also
1:40:40 would retrieve
1:40:40 the enemy
1:40:41 arrows
1:40:42 this was a
1:40:42 great advantage
1:40:43 by the way
1:40:43 when they hit
1:40:44 Russia
1:40:45 because the
1:40:45 Russians
1:40:46 could not
1:40:47 use Mongolian
1:40:47 arrows
1:40:48 they could
1:40:48 knock them
1:40:49 in their
1:40:50 bow
1:40:51 but the
1:40:51 Mongols
1:40:51 could use
1:40:52 Russian
1:40:52 arrows
1:40:54 so all
1:40:54 these little
1:40:55 things
1:40:56 but it’s
1:40:56 not even
1:40:57 just the
1:40:57 arrow
1:40:58 also they
1:40:58 had to
1:40:58 carry
1:41:00 needle
1:41:01 and thread
1:41:03 every soldier
1:41:03 had to be
1:41:04 able to
1:41:04 sew
1:41:06 and sometimes
1:41:06 that could
1:41:06 be a torn
1:41:07 garment
1:41:08 it could
1:41:09 be a piece
1:41:09 of skin
1:41:10 or a wound
1:41:11 that somebody
1:41:11 has
1:41:12 it was a
1:41:12 very odd
1:41:13 thing
1:41:13 when you
1:41:13 think about
1:41:14 the army
1:41:14 of Chinggis
1:41:14 Han
1:41:15 and they’re
1:41:15 carrying
1:41:16 everything
1:41:16 themselves
1:41:17 they don’t
1:41:17 have any
1:41:18 pack train
1:41:18 behind them
1:41:19 and that one
1:41:20 of the things
1:41:20 they have to
1:41:21 carry is needle
1:41:21 and thread
1:41:23 in order to
1:41:23 sew up
1:41:24 things
1:41:24 so complete
1:41:25 self-reliance
1:41:25 so complete self-reliance
1:41:26 in that regard
1:41:26 yes
1:41:27 they also
1:41:28 carried
1:41:29 dry dairy
1:41:29 products
1:41:30 adult
1:41:31 it’s called
1:41:31 where they
1:41:32 dry curd
1:41:34 and they can
1:41:34 keep it
1:41:34 for a couple
1:41:35 of years
1:41:35 even
1:41:36 but you
1:41:36 dry it
1:41:37 and then
1:41:37 when you
1:41:38 need it
1:41:38 you can
1:41:38 put it
1:41:39 in a
1:41:39 flask
1:41:40 of water
1:41:41 you ride
1:41:41 all day
1:41:42 it joggles
1:41:42 up and down
1:41:43 boom boom boom
1:41:44 and turns
1:41:44 into kind
1:41:45 of thick
1:41:45 protein
1:41:47 it said
1:41:47 that the
1:41:47 mongols
1:41:48 could easily
1:41:48 go three
1:41:49 to five
1:41:49 days
1:41:49 without
1:41:50 ever
1:41:50 building
1:41:50 a fire
1:41:51 they had
1:41:52 enough
1:41:52 food
1:41:52 there
1:41:52 with
1:41:53 so all
1:41:53 these
1:41:54 little
1:41:54 things
1:41:54 at the
1:41:54 lowest
1:41:55 level
1:41:55 were
1:41:55 important
1:41:56 as well
1:41:56 at the
1:41:57 highest
1:41:57 level
1:41:58 of his
1:41:59 loyalty
1:41:59 of his
1:42:00 men
1:42:00 to him
1:42:01 and it
1:42:01 went
1:42:01 all the
1:42:01 way
1:42:02 down
1:42:02 loyalty
1:42:03 was
1:42:03 extremely
1:42:04 important
1:42:05 and he
1:42:05 organized
1:42:05 the army
1:42:06 into
1:42:07 left wing
1:42:07 right wing
1:42:09 or east
1:42:09 and west
1:42:10 mongols
1:42:11 the word
1:42:12 for left
1:42:13 is east
1:42:13 the word
1:42:14 for right
1:42:15 is west
1:42:16 so those
1:42:17 two wings
1:42:17 and then
1:42:17 in the
1:42:18 middle
1:42:18 was the
1:42:18 goal
1:42:19 the center
1:42:20 this moving
1:42:20 center
1:42:21 that was
1:42:22 his
1:42:24 bodyguard
1:42:25 and his
1:42:25 unit
1:42:26 in the
1:42:26 middle
1:42:28 then usually
1:42:28 they’d have
1:42:28 a vanguard
1:42:29 and a rear
1:42:29 guard
1:42:31 sometimes the
1:42:32 vanguard
1:42:32 would go out
1:42:32 as much
1:42:33 as two
1:42:33 years in
1:42:34 advance
1:42:35 to clear
1:42:35 the land
1:42:36 run the
1:42:36 people away
1:42:37 scare them
1:42:37 make them
1:42:38 go away
1:42:39 so that the
1:42:39 grass is left
1:42:40 there for the
1:42:41 army when it
1:42:41 moves through
1:42:43 and they
1:42:43 never marched
1:42:44 the way
1:42:45 other armies
1:42:45 do
1:42:46 in a line
1:42:47 of one
1:42:48 following the
1:42:48 other
1:42:49 that would
1:42:49 always go
1:42:50 and long
1:42:51 lines spread
1:42:51 out in
1:42:52 wings
1:42:53 so that
1:42:53 each horse
1:42:54 is on its
1:42:56 own path
1:42:56 you can say
1:42:57 but all
1:42:58 parallel
1:42:58 together
1:42:59 so they
1:43:00 had very
1:43:01 precise ways
1:43:02 of doing
1:43:02 things
1:43:03 and
1:43:05 this
1:43:06 I think
1:43:06 was the
1:43:07 secret
1:43:07 with him
1:43:08 and he
1:43:09 used the
1:43:10 best people
1:43:11 but
1:43:12 he
1:43:14 was willing
1:43:15 to train
1:43:15 them as
1:43:16 much as
1:43:16 possible
1:43:17 he never
1:43:17 punished
1:43:18 them
1:43:19 for what
1:43:19 happened
1:43:20 so
1:43:20 Shiki
1:43:20 Hutuk
1:43:21 for example
1:43:21 the
1:43:22 supreme
1:43:22 judge
1:43:23 he was
1:43:23 in command
1:43:24 one time
1:43:24 of a
1:43:25 group
1:43:25 in a
1:43:25 battle
1:43:25 in
1:43:27 Afghanistan
1:43:27 and he
1:43:28 lost
1:43:28 the battle
1:43:29 which is
1:43:29 very
1:43:30 unusual
1:43:30 for
1:43:31 Mongols
1:43:32 so
1:43:32 Chinggis
1:43:32 Han
1:43:34 went out
1:43:34 with him
1:43:35 said okay
1:43:35 let’s go
1:43:35 to the
1:43:36 battlefield
1:43:37 together
1:43:37 and look
1:43:38 it over
1:43:39 and you
1:43:39 explain to
1:43:40 me what
1:43:40 you did
1:43:41 and then
1:43:42 we will
1:43:42 talk about
1:43:42 it
1:43:43 so he
1:43:44 was very
1:43:44 thoughtful
1:43:45 in the way
1:43:45 that he
1:43:46 was training
1:43:46 the people
1:43:47 around him
1:43:48 and they
1:43:48 knew they
1:43:48 weren’t
1:43:48 going to
1:43:48 be
1:43:48 punished
1:43:49 it’s
1:43:49 not like
1:43:49 these
1:43:49 countries
1:43:50 where the
1:43:50 general
1:43:50 comes
1:43:51 back
1:43:51 and gets
1:43:52 executed
1:43:52 because he
1:43:52 lost
1:43:53 no
1:43:53 Chinggis
1:43:54 Han
1:43:54 knows
1:43:54 every
1:43:55 general
1:43:55 is going
1:43:55 to try
1:43:56 100%
1:43:57 and if
1:43:57 they retreat
1:43:58 fine
1:43:59 they’re saving
1:44:01 he respects
1:44:02 that
1:44:03 so all
1:44:03 these
1:44:04 things like
1:44:04 that fit
1:44:05 together
1:44:06 but I
1:44:07 think a
1:44:07 part of
1:44:08 it that
1:44:08 was important
1:44:09 for him
1:44:10 so he
1:44:11 had this
1:44:11 base from
1:44:12 step warfare
1:44:12 already
1:44:13 the horse
1:44:15 the archery
1:44:16 and how
1:44:16 that all
1:44:17 fit together
1:44:18 but he
1:44:19 was very
1:44:20 quick
1:44:22 to embrace
1:44:23 any kind
1:44:23 of other
1:44:24 technology
1:44:24 that he
1:44:25 saw
1:44:26 I think
1:44:27 that sedentary
1:44:28 armies like
1:44:29 sedentary
1:44:30 civilizations
1:44:30 that get
1:44:31 stuck
1:44:31 in
1:44:31 their
1:44:31 ways
1:44:32 this
1:44:32 is
1:44:33 how
1:44:33 we
1:44:33 do
1:44:33 it
1:44:34 and
1:44:34 we’re
1:44:34 going
1:44:34 to
1:44:34 make
1:44:34 it
1:44:35 a little
1:44:35 faster
1:44:36 we’re
1:44:36 going
1:44:36 to
1:44:36 make
1:44:36 it
1:44:36 a little
1:44:36 bigger
1:44:37 a little
1:44:37 stronger
1:44:38 but this
1:44:38 is how
1:44:38 we
1:44:39 think
1:44:40 Chinggis
1:44:40 Han
1:44:41 had no
1:44:41 set
1:44:41 way
1:44:41 to
1:44:42 think
1:44:42 and
1:44:42 when
1:44:43 he
1:44:43 encountered
1:44:43 the
1:44:44 first
1:44:44 walled
1:44:44 cities
1:44:45 around
1:44:46 1209
1:44:46 after
1:44:47 founding
1:44:47 his
1:44:47 nation
1:44:48 in
1:44:48 1206
1:44:49 he
1:44:49 went
1:44:50 out
1:44:50 on
1:44:50 these
1:44:50 raids
1:44:51 and
1:44:51 I
1:44:51 really
1:44:51 think
1:44:51 they
1:44:52 were
1:44:52 raids
1:44:52 not
1:44:53 wars
1:45:01 there
1:45:01 and
1:45:01 of
1:45:01 course
1:45:01 the
1:45:02 cities
1:45:02 have
1:45:02 walls
1:45:02 around
1:45:03 them
1:45:03 this
1:45:03 is a
1:45:03 man
1:45:04 who’s
1:45:04 never
1:45:04 encountered
1:45:05 a wall
1:45:05 in his
1:45:05 life
1:45:07 well
1:45:07 he
1:45:07 did
1:45:07 but
1:45:07 they
1:45:07 were
1:45:08 made
1:45:08 out
1:45:08 of
1:45:08 felt
1:45:09 the walls
1:45:09 around
1:45:10 his
1:45:10 tent
1:45:10 are
1:45:10 you know
1:45:11 felt
1:45:11 walls
1:45:11 yeah
1:45:12 just
1:45:12 imagine
1:45:12 what
1:45:12 it’s
1:45:13 like
1:45:15 for
1:45:15 the
1:45:15 first
1:45:15 time
1:45:16 in
1:45:16 your
1:45:16 life
1:45:16 seeing
1:45:16 a
1:45:17 wall
1:45:18 when
1:45:19 you
1:45:19 come
1:45:19 from
1:45:19 the
1:45:20 Mongolian
1:45:20 steppe
1:45:20 where
1:45:21 there’s
1:45:21 no
1:45:22 there’s
1:45:22 very few
1:45:23 even
1:45:23 natural
1:45:24 wall
1:45:24 like
1:45:25 things
1:45:25 right
1:45:26 well
1:45:26 they
1:45:26 have
1:45:26 like
1:45:27 the
1:45:27 wall
1:45:27 cliffs
1:45:27 in
1:45:28 some
1:45:28 places
1:45:28 they’re
1:45:28 familiar
1:45:29 with
1:45:29 that
1:45:29 and
1:45:29 they
1:45:29 can
1:45:29 climb
1:45:30 them
1:45:30 but
1:45:31 they
1:45:31 don’t
1:45:31 have
1:45:31 people
1:45:31 at
1:45:31 the
1:45:32 top
1:45:32 shooting
1:45:32 down
1:45:33 the
1:45:33 mountain
1:45:35 so he
1:45:35 looked
1:45:36 at
1:45:36 everything
1:45:36 around
1:45:37 him
1:45:37 and
1:45:37 he
1:45:37 saw
1:45:38 okay
1:45:38 they
1:45:38 have
1:45:39 this
1:45:39 river
1:45:39 and
1:45:39 they
1:45:39 have
1:45:40 all
1:45:40 these
1:45:40 channels
1:45:40 and
1:45:41 they’re
1:45:41 always
1:45:41 moving
1:45:42 water
1:45:42 around
1:45:43 and
1:45:43 like
1:45:44 we
1:45:44 said
1:45:45 for a
1:45:45 Mongol
1:45:46 anything
1:45:46 that
1:45:46 moves
1:45:47 is a
1:45:47 potential
1:45:48 weapon
1:45:48 anything
1:45:48 that
1:45:49 doesn’t
1:45:49 move
1:45:50 is a
1:45:50 target
1:45:51 you’ve
1:45:51 got
1:45:51 moving
1:45:52 water
1:45:52 you’ve
1:45:52 got
1:45:53 a
1:45:53 standing
1:45:54 non
1:45:54 moving
1:45:54 wall
1:45:56 so
1:45:56 he
1:45:56 said
1:45:57 okay
1:45:58 the
1:45:58 men
1:45:58 are
1:45:58 going
1:45:58 to
1:45:59 dig
1:46:01 channel
1:46:02 and
1:46:02 they’re
1:46:02 going
1:46:02 to
1:46:02 bring
1:46:02 down
1:46:03 the
1:46:03 wall
1:46:03 of
1:46:03 the
1:46:04 Tangut
1:46:04 city
1:46:05 well
1:46:05 they
1:46:05 did
1:46:05 it
1:46:06 and
1:46:07 they
1:46:07 didn’t
1:46:07 know
1:46:07 exactly
1:46:08 what
1:46:08 they
1:46:08 were
1:46:08 doing
1:46:09 and
1:46:09 the
1:46:10 embankments
1:46:10 weren’t
1:46:10 high
1:46:10 enough
1:46:11 and
1:46:12 too
1:46:12 much
1:46:12 water
1:46:12 came
1:46:13 in
1:46:13 from
1:46:13 the
1:46:13 yellow
1:46:13 river
1:46:14 and
1:46:14 actually
1:46:15 flooded
1:46:15 out
1:46:15 the
1:46:15 Mongol
1:46:16 camp
1:46:17 but
1:46:18 okay
1:46:18 it
1:46:18 happened
1:46:19 we
1:46:19 learned
1:46:19 that
1:46:20 lesson
1:46:20 so
1:46:20 we’re
1:46:21 going
1:46:21 to
1:46:21 improve
1:46:21 it
1:46:22 and
1:46:22 that
1:46:22 became
1:46:22 a
1:46:23 strategy
1:46:23 that
1:46:23 actually
1:46:24 worked
1:46:24 for
1:46:24 the
1:46:25 Mongols
1:46:26 for
1:46:26 the
1:46:32 58
1:46:33 so
1:46:34 this
1:46:34 is
1:46:35 this
1:46:36 ability
1:46:36 to
1:46:37 see
1:46:37 things
1:46:38 and
1:46:38 to
1:46:38 try
1:46:39 them
1:46:39 and
1:46:39 if
1:46:39 they
1:46:39 fail
1:46:39 to
1:46:40 try
1:46:40 them
1:46:40 in
1:46:40 a
1:46:41 different
1:46:41 way
1:46:41 but
1:46:41 a
1:46:42 better
1:46:42 way
1:46:42 we
1:46:42 all
1:46:43 think
1:46:43 we learn
1:46:43 from
1:46:43 our
1:46:44 mistakes
1:46:44 mistakes
1:46:44 we
1:46:45 all
1:46:45 yeah
1:46:46 yeah
1:46:46 I
1:46:46 learned
1:46:47 from
1:46:47 that
1:46:47 and
1:46:47 what
1:46:47 do
1:46:48 we
1:46:48 do
1:46:48 we
1:46:49 repeat
1:46:49 the
1:46:49 mistake
1:46:50 I
1:46:50 think
1:46:50 it’s
1:46:50 just
1:46:51 a
1:46:51 part
1:46:51 of
1:46:51 human
1:46:51 nature
1:46:52 well
1:46:52 it
1:46:52 didn’t
1:46:53 work
1:46:53 the
1:46:53 first
1:46:53 eight
1:46:54 times
1:46:54 but
1:46:54 I’m
1:46:54 going
1:46:54 to
1:46:54 do
1:46:54 it
1:46:55 one
1:46:55 more
1:46:55 time
1:46:55 I
1:46:55 think
1:46:56 it’s
1:46:56 going
1:46:56 to
1:46:56 work
1:46:57 I
1:46:57 know
1:46:57 I’m
1:46:57 going to
1:46:57 win
1:46:58 the
1:46:58 lottery
1:46:58 this
1:46:59 time
1:46:59 because
1:46:59 I
1:46:59 got
1:46:59 the
1:47:00 right
1:47:01 that’s
1:47:01 how
1:47:01 we
1:47:01 think
1:47:02 but
1:47:03 he
1:47:03 had
1:47:15 he
1:47:15 could
1:47:15 understand
1:47:16 it
1:47:16 in
1:47:16 his
1:47:16 own
1:47:17 way
1:47:17 and
1:47:17 he
1:47:18 did
1:47:18 over
1:47:18 and
1:47:19 over
1:47:19 the
1:47:19 Mongols
1:47:19 were
1:47:20 excellent
1:47:20 at
1:47:21 putting
1:47:21 together
1:47:22 new
1:47:22 things
1:47:22 in
1:47:22 new
1:47:23 ways
1:47:23 and
1:47:24 using
1:47:24 them
1:47:25 against
1:47:25 their
1:47:25 enemies
1:47:26 so
1:47:28 rapid
1:47:28 extreme
1:47:29 continued
1:47:29 innovation
1:47:30 so you
1:47:31 couple
1:47:31 that
1:47:31 with
1:47:32 a
1:47:34 I
1:47:34 mean
1:47:35 you
1:47:35 have
1:47:35 to
1:47:35 say
1:47:36 a
1:47:36 revolutionary
1:47:37 idea
1:47:37 that
1:47:38 promotion
1:47:40 should
1:47:40 be
1:47:41 based
1:47:41 on
1:47:41 merit
1:47:42 that
1:47:43 idea
1:47:44 combined
1:47:44 with
1:47:44 the
1:47:45 innovative
1:47:46 approach
1:47:46 to
1:47:46 the
1:47:47 military
1:47:48 it
1:47:49 just
1:47:50 feeds
1:47:50 on
1:47:50 itself
1:47:51 because
1:47:51 the
1:47:52 people
1:47:52 who
1:47:52 are
1:47:52 learning
1:47:52 from
1:47:53 their
1:47:53 mistakes
1:47:53 and
1:47:54 constantly
1:47:54 improving
1:47:54 are the
1:47:55 ones
1:47:55 that
1:47:55 get
1:47:56 promoted
1:47:56 in the
1:47:57 positions
1:47:57 of
1:47:57 power
1:47:57 and
1:47:57 then
1:47:58 they
1:47:58 inspire
1:47:59 everybody
1:47:59 else
1:47:59 to do
1:47:59 the
1:47:59 same
1:48:00 and
1:48:00 so
1:48:01 if
1:48:02 every
1:48:02 action
1:48:02 is
1:48:03 judged
1:48:03 based
1:48:03 on
1:48:04 the
1:48:04 excellence
1:48:04 of
1:48:04 that
1:48:05 action
1:48:06 then
1:48:06 over
1:48:07 time
1:48:07 repeated
1:48:08 iteration
1:48:08 in
1:48:08 war
1:48:10 creates
1:48:10 a
1:48:11 more
1:48:11 and
1:48:11 more
1:48:12 powerful
1:48:12 army
1:48:13 yes
1:48:14 yes
1:48:15 and
1:48:16 they
1:48:16 were
1:48:16 able
1:48:16 to do
1:48:17 that
1:48:17 for
1:48:17 three
1:48:18 generations
1:48:19 to
1:48:19 create
1:48:20 an
1:48:20 army
1:48:20 that
1:48:20 was
1:48:21 ever
1:48:21 expanding
1:48:22 ever
1:48:23 changing
1:48:23 its
1:48:23 tactics
1:48:24 and
1:48:24 its
1:48:25 technology
1:48:25 and
1:48:27 they
1:48:27 got
1:48:27 worse
1:48:27 at
1:48:27 it
1:48:28 over
1:48:28 time
1:48:29 but
1:48:30 Chinggis
1:48:30 Hahn
1:48:30 was
1:48:30 the
1:48:31 one
1:48:31 who
1:48:31 innovated
1:48:32 it
1:48:32 he
1:48:32 was
1:48:32 the
1:48:33 best
1:48:33 with
1:48:33 it
1:48:33 and
1:48:34 he
1:48:34 used
1:48:35 it
1:48:35 throughout
1:48:35 his
1:48:36 lifetime
1:48:36 and
1:48:36 he
1:48:37 was
1:48:37 getting
1:48:37 better
1:48:38 over
1:48:38 his
1:48:39 lifetime
1:48:39 with
1:48:40 using
1:48:40 foreign
1:48:41 information
1:48:41 foreign
1:48:42 technology
1:48:42 foreign
1:48:43 ideas
1:48:46 he
1:48:46 just
1:48:46 had
1:48:46 a
1:48:47 genius
1:48:47 for
1:48:47 that
1:48:49 if
1:48:49 we
1:48:49 can
1:48:50 go
1:48:50 back
1:48:50 to
1:48:50 the
1:48:50 horses
1:48:51 you
1:48:51 mentioned
1:48:51 every
1:48:52 soldier
1:48:52 had
1:48:52 five
1:48:52 horses
1:48:53 the
1:48:53 reason
1:48:54 for
1:48:54 that
1:48:54 is
1:48:54 the
1:48:54 horses
1:48:55 get
1:48:55 tired
1:48:55 yes
1:48:56 and
1:48:56 so
1:48:56 you
1:48:57 can
1:48:57 cover
1:48:58 a lot
1:48:58 of
1:48:59 ground
1:48:59 in a
1:48:59 single
1:48:59 day
1:49:00 yes
1:49:01 usually
1:49:01 the
1:49:01 way
1:49:01 the
1:49:02 rotation
1:49:02 of
1:49:02 the
1:49:02 horses
1:49:03 would
1:49:04 usually
1:49:04 ride
1:49:04 for
1:49:05 one
1:49:05 day
1:49:05 and
1:49:06 then
1:49:06 rest
1:49:06 for
1:49:06 the
1:49:06 next
1:49:07 four
1:49:07 to
1:49:07 five
1:49:08 days
1:49:08 and
1:49:09 then
1:49:09 another
1:49:09 horse
1:49:09 would
1:49:10 be
1:49:10 riding
1:49:10 the
1:49:10 next
1:49:11 day
1:49:11 one
1:49:11 way
1:49:12 to
1:49:12 measure
1:49:12 it
1:49:12 is
1:49:12 that
1:49:13 later
1:49:13 at
1:49:13 the
1:49:13 time
1:49:13 of
1:49:14 the
1:49:14 death
1:49:14 of
1:49:14 a
1:49:14 good
1:49:14 day
1:49:15 Han
1:49:16 the
1:49:16 word
1:49:16 went
1:49:17 from
1:49:17 Mongolia
1:49:18 to
1:49:19 Hungary
1:49:20 in
1:49:20 six
1:49:21 weeks
1:49:22 Mongolia
1:49:22 to
1:49:23 Hungary
1:49:23 in
1:49:23 six
1:49:23 weeks
1:49:24 so
1:49:24 let’s
1:49:24 just
1:49:25 imagine
1:49:25 this
1:49:25 army
1:49:25 that’s
1:49:26 able
1:49:26 to
1:49:27 move
1:49:27 at
1:49:27 such
1:49:28 high
1:49:28 speeds
1:49:29 does
1:49:29 not
1:49:29 need
1:49:30 to
1:49:30 follow
1:49:30 roads
1:49:32 because
1:49:32 it’s
1:49:32 used
1:49:32 to
1:49:33 riding
1:49:33 in
1:49:33 the
1:49:33 open
1:49:33 step
1:49:34 so
1:49:34 you
1:49:35 can
1:49:35 do
1:49:36 all
1:49:36 kinds
1:49:37 of
1:49:37 dynamic
1:49:38 movements
1:49:38 in
1:49:39 encircling
1:49:39 a
1:49:39 place
1:49:41 and
1:49:41 then
1:49:42 also
1:49:42 one
1:49:42 of
1:49:42 the
1:49:42 other
1:49:43 famous
1:49:43 things
1:49:43 is
1:49:43 the
1:49:44 feigned
1:49:44 retreat
1:49:45 that
1:49:45 was
1:49:45 used
1:49:46 continuously
1:49:46 can you
1:49:47 explain
1:49:47 how
1:49:47 that
1:49:47 worked
1:49:48 the
1:49:49 Mongols
1:49:49 did
1:49:49 not
1:49:50 fight
1:49:51 for
1:49:51 honor
1:49:52 the
1:49:52 way
1:49:53 we
1:49:53 often
1:49:53 think
1:49:54 of
1:49:55 brave
1:49:55 soldiers
1:49:56 Achilles
1:49:57 and
1:49:57 the
1:49:57 Iliad
1:49:58 and
1:49:58 things
1:49:58 like
1:49:58 that
1:49:59 they
1:49:59 fought
1:49:59 for
1:50:00 victory
1:50:01 that
1:50:01 was
1:50:01 the
1:50:01 one
1:50:01 thing
1:50:02 so
1:50:03 to
1:50:03 retreat
1:50:04 to
1:50:05 save
1:50:05 lives
1:50:05 and all
1:50:05 there’s
1:50:06 no
1:50:06 shame
1:50:06 in
1:50:08 Mongols
1:50:08 would
1:50:09 often
1:50:09 retreat
1:50:10 and
1:50:10 Chinggis
1:50:10 Han
1:50:11 basically
1:50:12 he
1:50:12 himself
1:50:13 never
1:50:13 fought
1:50:13 a
1:50:14 battle
1:50:15 that
1:50:16 he
1:50:16 thought
1:50:16 he
1:50:17 could
1:50:17 lose
1:50:18 and
1:50:18 he
1:50:18 won
1:50:18 every
1:50:19 battle
1:50:19 he
1:50:19 fought
1:50:20 that
1:50:20 wasn’t
1:50:20 true
1:50:20 for
1:50:20 every
1:50:21 general
1:50:21 under
1:50:21 him
1:50:22 as
1:50:22 we
1:50:22 said
1:50:22 for
1:50:23 Shigihutuk
1:50:23 for
1:50:23 example
1:50:24 but
1:50:24 he
1:50:24 won
1:50:25 every
1:50:25 battle
1:50:25 because
1:50:26 there
1:50:26 was
1:50:26 no
1:50:27 shame
1:50:27 in
1:50:28 retreating
1:50:28 and
1:50:28 in
1:50:28 not
1:50:29 fighting
1:50:29 not
1:50:29 engaging
1:50:29 the
1:50:30 enemy
1:50:30 however
1:50:31 that
1:50:31 also
1:50:32 becomes
1:50:32 a
1:50:32 tactic
1:50:33 and
1:50:33 that
1:50:33 they
1:50:34 would
1:50:34 send
1:50:34 in
1:50:34 a
1:50:35 small
1:50:35 group
1:50:35 of
1:50:35 soldiers
1:50:36 to
1:50:36 attack
1:50:37 and
1:50:37 the
1:50:38 Mongols
1:50:38 were able
1:50:39 to fire
1:50:39 of course
1:50:40 going forward
1:50:40 on the
1:50:41 horse
1:50:42 they were
1:50:42 able to
1:50:43 then
1:50:44 act like
1:50:45 they were
1:50:46 defeated
1:50:48 and turn
1:50:49 but they
1:50:49 could still
1:50:50 fire
1:50:51 backwards
1:50:51 which was
1:50:52 the Parthian
1:50:52 shot
1:50:53 which is
1:50:53 unusual
1:50:53 in the
1:50:54 world
1:50:54 not
1:50:54 totally
1:50:55 unique
1:50:55 but unusual
1:50:56 to fire
1:50:57 backwards
1:50:57 but the
1:50:58 Mongols
1:50:58 also could
1:50:59 lean down
1:50:59 and fire
1:51:00 under the
1:51:00 neck
1:51:00 of the
1:51:01 horse
1:51:01 so they
1:51:02 protected
1:51:02 they had
1:51:02 many
1:51:03 different
1:51:03 ways
1:51:04 so they’re
1:51:04 firing
1:51:05 coming
1:51:05 they’re
1:51:05 firing
1:51:06 going
1:51:06 but
1:51:07 usually
1:51:08 the
1:51:08 soldiers
1:51:09 who
1:51:09 were
1:51:09 against
1:51:09 them
1:51:10 would
1:51:10 break
1:51:10 ranks
1:51:11 to
1:51:11 chase
1:51:11 them
1:51:12 they want
1:51:12 to go
1:51:13 they want
1:51:13 to get
1:51:13 their weapons
1:51:14 they want
1:51:14 to kill
1:51:15 the Mongols
1:51:15 and if
1:51:16 they didn’t
1:51:16 immediately
1:51:17 break
1:51:17 ranks
1:51:18 the Mongols
1:51:18 would often
1:51:19 start
1:51:20 throwing
1:51:20 things
1:51:20 out
1:51:21 like
1:51:21 loot
1:51:21 from
1:51:22 some
1:51:22 place
1:51:22 and
1:51:23 valuables
1:51:23 around
1:51:24 and
1:51:25 soldiers
1:51:25 usually
1:51:25 couldn’t
1:51:26 resist
1:51:26 it
1:51:27 so they’d
1:51:27 come
1:51:27 chasing
1:51:28 out
1:51:28 after the
1:51:29 Mongols
1:51:29 sort
1:51:30 of
1:51:32 direction
1:51:33 and then
1:51:33 they would
1:51:34 get to
1:51:34 a certain
1:51:35 point
1:51:35 and from
1:51:36 behind
1:51:36 the
1:51:37 two
1:51:37 hills
1:51:38 the
1:51:38 Mongol
1:51:39 army
1:51:39 would
1:51:39 come
1:51:40 and
1:51:40 slaughter
1:51:41 them
1:51:42 over
1:51:43 and over
1:51:43 this
1:51:44 tactic
1:51:44 worked
1:51:45 it’s
1:51:45 like
1:51:45 the
1:51:45 one
1:51:45 with
1:51:46 the
1:51:46 water
1:51:46 I’m
1:51:46 thinking
1:51:47 to
1:51:47 people
1:51:48 how
1:51:48 can
1:51:49 they
1:51:49 not
1:51:49 know
1:51:49 this
1:51:50 is
1:51:50 what
1:51:50 the
1:51:50 Mongols
1:51:50 are
1:51:51 doing
1:51:51 how
1:51:51 can
1:51:51 they
1:51:51 not
1:51:52 know
1:51:52 that
1:51:53 human
1:51:53 nature
1:51:53 there
1:51:53 is
1:51:54 something
1:51:54 that
1:51:55 when
1:51:55 the
1:51:55 forces
1:51:55 are
1:51:56 retreating
1:51:56 you
1:51:57 want
1:51:57 to
1:51:57 follow
1:51:57 them
1:51:58 you
1:51:59 can’t
1:51:59 help
1:51:59 it
1:52:00 I don’t
1:52:00 know
1:52:01 what
1:52:01 that
1:52:01 is
1:52:01 that’s
1:52:02 maybe
1:52:02 the
1:52:03 animalistic
1:52:03 but
1:52:04 take
1:52:04 that
1:52:05 with
1:52:05 the
1:52:06 ability
1:52:07 at
1:52:07 high
1:52:08 speeds
1:52:08 for
1:52:08 the
1:52:08 Mongols
1:52:09 to
1:52:10 encircle
1:52:10 and
1:52:11 attack
1:52:11 the
1:52:11 flanks
1:52:12 which
1:52:15 there
1:52:15 has
1:52:15 been
1:52:16 many
1:52:16 great
1:52:17 military
1:52:17 historians
1:52:18 who
1:52:18 have
1:52:18 written
1:52:19 about
1:52:19 the
1:52:20 great
1:52:21 military
1:52:22 forces
1:52:22 throughout
1:52:22 history
1:52:23 and
1:52:24 one
1:52:24 of the
1:52:24 things
1:52:25 you
1:52:25 write
1:52:25 about
1:52:25 in
1:52:26 general
1:52:27 is
1:52:27 the
1:52:28 Mongols
1:52:28 don’t
1:52:29 get
1:52:30 written
1:52:30 about
1:52:30 almost
1:52:31 at
1:52:31 all
1:52:32 and
1:52:32 don’t
1:52:32 get
1:52:32 credit
1:52:34 for
1:52:35 the
1:52:35 military
1:52:36 tactics
1:52:36 and
1:52:37 the
1:52:37 military
1:52:38 genius
1:52:39 exhibited
1:52:39 through
1:52:39 the
1:52:39 different
1:52:40 strategies
1:52:41 this
1:52:41 kind
1:52:41 of
1:52:42 idea
1:52:42 of
1:52:42 the
1:52:42 feigned
1:52:43 retreat
1:52:43 and
1:52:43 then
1:52:43 attacking
1:52:44 the
1:52:44 flanks
1:52:46 that’s
1:52:46 you know
1:52:47 been
1:52:48 if not
1:52:48 invented
1:52:48 and
1:52:49 perfected
1:52:50 by
1:52:52 Genghis
1:52:52 he really
1:52:52 was a
1:52:53 military
1:52:53 genius
1:52:54 but
1:52:54 there
1:52:54 were
1:52:54 other
1:52:55 things
1:52:55 too
1:52:55 you know
1:52:55 they
1:52:56 didn’t
1:52:56 like
1:52:56 roads
1:52:57 you know
1:52:58 they
1:52:58 just
1:52:58 didn’t
1:52:58 like
1:52:58 the
1:52:59 roads
1:52:59 so
1:52:59 they
1:52:59 would
1:53:00 often
1:53:00 be
1:53:00 coming
1:53:00 from
1:53:01 some
1:53:01 direction
1:53:01 that
1:53:02 nobody
1:53:02 ever
1:53:02 came
1:53:03 from
1:53:03 and
1:53:03 the
1:53:04 people
1:53:04 would
1:53:04 be
1:53:05 unprepared
1:53:05 for
1:53:05 that
1:53:06 the
1:53:06 most
1:53:06 famous
1:53:07 example
1:53:07 is
1:53:07 probably
1:53:08 in
1:53:08 Bukhara
1:53:09 this
1:53:10 is a
1:53:10 beautiful
1:53:11 wonderful
1:53:11 old
1:53:11 city
1:53:12 great
1:53:13 place
1:53:13 in
1:53:13 the
1:53:13 world
1:53:14 to
1:53:14 this
1:53:14 day
1:53:15 and
1:53:15 they
1:53:15 came
1:53:16 across
1:53:16 the
1:53:17 desert
1:53:19 well
1:53:19 nobody
1:53:19 had
1:53:19 ever
1:53:20 attacked
1:53:20 across
1:53:20 the
1:53:21 desert
1:53:21 so
1:53:21 people
1:53:21 see
1:53:22 dust
1:53:22 coming
1:53:23 they think
1:53:23 well
1:53:23 caravan
1:53:24 they don’t
1:53:25 even know
1:53:25 what’s
1:53:25 going on
1:53:26 but
1:53:26 it was
1:53:26 the
1:53:27 direction
1:53:28 there was
1:53:28 a
1:53:28 surprise
1:53:29 element
1:53:29 in that
1:53:29 particular
1:53:30 case
1:53:31 so
1:53:31 he
1:53:31 was
1:53:31 able
1:53:31 to
1:53:32 think
1:53:32 in
1:53:32 ways
1:53:32 that
1:53:33 the
1:53:33 other
1:53:33 people
1:53:33 were
1:53:34 not
1:53:34 thinking
1:53:34 yet
1:53:35 and
1:53:35 to
1:53:35 be
1:53:35 able
1:53:35 to
1:53:36 surprise
1:53:36 them
1:53:37 what
1:53:37 do
1:53:37 you
1:53:37 think
1:53:37 it
1:53:38 again
1:53:39 felt
1:53:39 like
1:53:39 to
1:53:40 have
1:53:40 this
1:53:41 Mongol
1:53:42 armada
1:53:42 the
1:53:43 horses
1:53:44 it
1:53:44 must
1:53:44 have
1:53:45 the
1:53:45 ground
1:53:45 must
1:53:46 shake
1:53:46 when
1:53:46 you
1:53:46 have
1:53:46 that
1:53:47 many
1:53:47 horses
1:53:48 what
1:53:48 do
1:53:48 you
1:53:48 think
1:53:48 it
1:53:48 feels
1:53:49 like
1:53:49 to
1:53:49 be
1:53:49 in
1:53:49 a
1:53:50 town
1:53:51 when
1:53:52 Genghis
1:53:52 Khan
1:53:52 is
1:53:52 approaching
1:53:54 I
1:53:54 think
1:53:54 the
1:53:55 terror
1:53:56 was
1:53:56 one
1:53:56 of
1:53:56 the
1:53:57 greatest
1:53:57 weapons
1:53:57 that
1:53:57 he
1:53:58 had
1:53:59 that
1:54:00 he
1:54:01 cultivated
1:54:01 this
1:54:02 reputation
1:54:02 of
1:54:03 ferocity
1:54:03 not
1:54:04 only
1:54:04 did
1:54:04 he
1:54:04 win
1:54:05 battles
1:54:05 but
1:54:06 he
1:54:07 didn’t
1:54:07 allow
1:54:07 people
1:54:07 to
1:54:07 write
1:54:07 about
1:54:08 him
1:54:08 as
1:54:08 we
1:54:08 said
1:54:09 but
1:54:09 he
1:54:10 encouraged
1:54:11 refugees
1:54:11 and
1:54:12 when
1:54:12 he
1:54:12 conquered
1:54:12 a
1:54:12 city
1:54:13 he
1:54:13 always
1:54:13 made
1:54:13 sure
1:54:14 there
1:54:14 are
1:54:14 plenty
1:54:14 of
1:54:15 refugees
1:54:15 to
1:54:15 go
1:54:15 to
1:54:15 the
1:54:16 next
1:54:16 city
1:54:16 because
1:54:16 it’s
1:54:16 going
1:54:16 to
1:54:17 weaken
1:54:18 their
1:54:19 food
1:54:19 supply
1:54:20 and
1:54:20 they’re
1:54:20 going
1:54:20 to
1:54:21 terrorize
1:54:21 the
1:54:21 people
1:54:22 with
1:54:22 tales
1:54:22 of
1:54:23 the
1:54:23 millions
1:54:23 of
1:54:23 people
1:54:24 that
1:54:24 the
1:54:24 Mongols
1:54:24 killed
1:54:25 with
1:54:25 their
1:54:26 steel
1:54:26 chiseled
1:54:27 teeth
1:54:34 terrorism
1:54:35 of a
1:54:35 mental
1:54:36 sort
1:54:36 to
1:54:37 weaken
1:54:37 the
1:54:37 enemy
1:54:38 and
1:54:38 so
1:54:38 when
1:54:39 you
1:54:39 hear
1:54:40 or
1:54:41 even
1:54:41 if
1:54:41 you
1:54:41 know
1:54:41 they’re
1:54:41 coming
1:54:42 you see
1:54:42 the dust
1:54:43 you hear
1:54:43 the
1:54:44 kind of
1:54:45 roar
1:54:45 that comes
1:54:45 with
1:54:46 all those
1:54:46 horses
1:54:47 and the
1:54:47 trembling
1:54:47 of
1:54:48 the
1:54:48 earth
1:54:48 it
1:54:49 must
1:54:49 have
1:54:49 been
1:54:49 truly
1:54:50 terrifying
1:54:51 so
1:54:52 psychological
1:54:52 warfare
1:54:53 was
1:54:53 a
1:54:54 part
1:54:54 of
1:54:54 the
1:54:54 whole
1:54:55 process
1:54:56 but
1:54:56 as
1:54:56 I
1:54:57 understand
1:54:58 there
1:54:58 was
1:54:58 always
1:54:58 an
1:54:59 offer
1:54:59 for
1:54:59 the
1:55:00 towns
1:55:00 and
1:55:00 territories
1:55:01 being
1:55:01 attacked
1:55:02 for
1:55:03 them
1:55:03 to
1:55:03 surrender
1:55:04 peacefully
1:55:05 without
1:55:05 the
1:55:05 loss
1:55:05 of
1:55:06 life
1:55:07 and
1:55:08 the
1:55:09 alternative
1:55:09 would
1:55:09 be
1:55:10 the
1:55:10 near
1:55:11 complete
1:55:11 loss
1:55:11 of
1:55:12 life
1:55:12 can
1:55:13 you
1:55:13 speak
1:55:13 to
1:55:13 that
1:55:14 Chinggis Khan
1:55:15 had a
1:55:15 precise
1:55:16 system
1:55:17 exactly
1:55:18 he sent
1:55:18 in
1:55:18 envoys
1:55:19 first
1:55:19 to
1:55:19 explain
1:55:20 to
1:55:20 the
1:55:20 people
1:55:20 a little
1:55:20 bit
1:55:21 about
1:55:21 the
1:55:21 Mongols
1:55:22 already
1:55:23 much
1:55:23 was
1:55:23 known
1:55:24 but
1:55:24 to
1:55:24 explain
1:55:24 to
1:55:25 them
1:55:25 that
1:55:25 if
1:55:26 they
1:55:26 surrendered
1:55:27 all
1:55:27 the
1:55:27 lives
1:55:28 would
1:55:28 be
1:55:28 spared
1:55:29 and
1:55:29 they
1:55:29 could
1:55:30 continue
1:55:30 in
1:55:30 their
1:55:31 professions
1:55:32 it’s
1:55:32 just
1:55:32 that
1:55:32 now
1:55:33 the
1:55:33 rulers
1:55:33 would
1:55:33 be
1:55:33 the
1:55:34 Mongols
1:55:34 they
1:55:34 would
1:55:34 have
1:55:35 to
1:55:35 pay
1:55:35 the
1:55:35 taxes
1:55:36 and
1:55:36 usually
1:55:36 be
1:55:36 the
1:55:36 same
1:55:37 taxes
1:55:37 they
1:55:37 paid
1:55:43 1000
1:55:44 soldiers
1:55:44 you
1:55:45 can’t
1:55:45 leave
1:55:45 a
1:55:45 detachment
1:55:46 there
1:55:47 so
1:55:47 you’re
1:55:48 going
1:55:48 to
1:55:48 leave
1:55:48 the
1:55:48 local
1:55:49 people
1:55:49 in
1:55:49 charge
1:55:50 to
1:55:50 run
1:55:50 their
1:55:51 country
1:55:52 or their
1:55:52 city
1:55:52 or their
1:55:53 area
1:55:53 the way
1:55:53 they
1:55:53 have
1:55:54 done
1:55:54 in
1:55:54 the
1:55:54 past
1:55:55 he
1:55:56 was
1:55:56 absolutely
1:55:57 faithful
1:55:57 to
1:55:57 that
1:55:58 in
1:55:58 one
1:55:59 episode
1:55:59 in
1:55:59 the
1:55:59 north
1:56:00 of
1:56:00 Persia
1:56:01 modern
1:56:01 Iran
1:56:02 his
1:56:03 son-in-law
1:56:03 Togchar
1:56:04 he
1:56:05 violated
1:56:06 that
1:56:06 and was
1:56:06 stealing
1:56:07 and looting
1:56:07 from the
1:56:07 people
1:56:08 who had
1:56:08 surrendered
1:56:10 Chinggis Khan
1:56:11 called him
1:56:11 in
1:56:13 and he
1:56:13 stripped him
1:56:13 of his
1:56:14 rank
1:56:15 and he
1:56:15 said
1:56:16 the next
1:56:17 city
1:56:18 you go
1:56:18 first
1:56:20 as a
1:56:20 common
1:56:21 soldier
1:56:21 and of course
1:56:21 he was
1:56:21 killed
1:56:22 in the
1:56:22 next
1:56:22 battle
1:56:23 I don’t
1:56:23 know
1:56:24 the name
1:56:24 of the
1:56:24 daughter
1:56:25 unfortunately
1:56:25 I’ve
1:56:25 tried to
1:56:26 figure
1:56:26 that
1:56:26 out
1:56:26 but
1:56:26 anyway
1:56:27 it
1:56:27 was
1:56:27 a
1:56:27 close
1:56:28 relative
1:56:28 to
1:56:28 him
1:56:29 and
1:56:29 he
1:56:29 was
1:56:30 killed
1:56:30 in
1:56:30 the
1:56:30 next
1:56:30 by
1:56:31 violating
1:56:31 this
1:56:31 law
1:56:32 so
1:56:32 that
1:56:32 was
1:56:32 the
1:56:33 law
1:56:34 so
1:56:34 then
1:56:34 if
1:56:34 the
1:56:35 city
1:56:35 fought
1:56:36 and
1:56:36 the
1:56:37 mongols
1:56:37 won
1:56:38 they
1:56:38 did
1:56:38 not
1:56:38 kill
1:56:39 everyone
1:56:39 what
1:56:39 they
1:56:39 did
1:56:40 was
1:56:40 they
1:56:40 killed
1:56:41 all
1:56:41 the
1:56:41 leaders
1:56:42 they
1:56:43 felt
1:56:43 like
1:56:43 the
1:56:43 elite
1:56:43 had
1:56:44 not
1:56:44 served
1:56:44 them
1:56:44 well
1:56:45 and
1:56:45 they
1:56:45 usually
1:56:46 killed
1:56:46 the
1:56:46 army
1:56:47 because
1:56:47 they
1:56:47 couldn’t
1:56:48 incorporate
1:56:48 the
1:56:48 army
1:56:48 into
1:56:48 their
1:56:49 own
1:56:49 the
1:56:50 army
1:56:50 had
1:56:50 failed
1:56:51 but
1:56:52 the
1:56:52 one
1:56:52 thing
1:56:52 that
1:56:52 they
1:56:53 valued
1:56:53 were
1:56:54 all
1:56:54 the
1:56:55 artisans
1:56:55 everybody
1:56:55 who
1:56:56 had
1:56:56 a
1:56:56 skill
1:56:57 and
1:56:57 that
1:56:57 skill
1:56:57 could
1:56:58 be
1:56:58 making
1:56:58 a
1:56:58 pot
1:56:59 it
1:56:59 can
1:56:59 be
1:57:00 hammering
1:57:00 out
1:57:00 a
1:57:01 metal
1:57:01 plate
1:57:02 it
1:57:02 can
1:57:02 be
1:57:03 weaving
1:57:03 carpets
1:57:04 it
1:57:04 can
1:57:04 be
1:57:05 translating
1:57:05 or
1:57:05 just
1:57:06 reading
1:57:06 and
1:57:06 writing
1:57:07 every
1:57:08 person
1:57:08 with
1:57:08 a
1:57:08 skill
1:57:09 was
1:57:09 spared
1:57:11 so
1:57:12 the
1:57:12 killing
1:57:12 of
1:57:12 the
1:57:13 people
1:57:13 who
1:57:13 were
1:57:14 defeated
1:57:14 wasn’t
1:57:14 so
1:57:15 severe
1:57:16 what
1:57:16 was
1:57:16 truly
1:57:17 severe
1:57:17 was
1:57:18 if
1:57:18 you
1:57:18 surrendered
1:57:19 and
1:57:20 many
1:57:20 of
1:57:20 them
1:57:20 did
1:57:21 and
1:57:21 they
1:57:21 knew
1:57:21 they
1:57:21 would
1:57:22 not
1:57:22 be
1:57:22 harmed
1:57:23 so
1:57:23 they’re
1:57:23 not
1:57:23 harmed
1:57:23 the
1:57:24 Mongols
1:57:24 go on
1:57:24 the
1:57:25 Mongols
1:57:25 are
1:57:25 hundreds
1:57:25 of
1:57:25 miles
1:57:26 away
1:57:27 and
1:57:27 forget
1:57:28 about
1:57:28 the
1:57:29 Mongols
1:57:29 Jacob
1:57:29 Han
1:57:29 said
1:57:30 word
1:57:30 that
1:57:30 we’re
1:57:30 supposed
1:57:30 to
1:57:31 send
1:57:31 so
1:57:31 many
1:57:31 cows
1:57:32 or
1:57:32 sheep
1:57:32 to
1:57:32 help
1:57:33 forget
1:57:33 about
1:57:33 the
1:57:39 returned
1:57:40 he
1:57:41 conquered
1:57:41 the
1:57:41 city
1:57:42 and
1:57:42 he
1:57:42 killed
1:57:43 everyone
1:57:44 that’s
1:57:44 the
1:57:44 way
1:57:44 it
1:57:45 worked
1:57:45 so
1:57:46 the
1:57:46 most
1:57:47 drastic
1:57:47 slaughter
1:57:48 happens
1:57:49 when
1:57:49 there’s
1:57:49 an
1:57:50 agreement
1:57:51 and
1:57:51 betrayal
1:57:52 yes
1:57:53 and
1:57:54 as it
1:57:54 turned
1:57:54 out
1:57:54 I
1:57:55 would
1:57:55 say
1:57:55 it
1:57:55 was
1:57:55 more
1:57:55 the
1:57:56 Middle
1:57:56 East
1:57:57 around
1:57:58 Iran
1:57:58 and
1:57:59 Afghanistan
1:58:00 where
1:58:00 these
1:58:00 were
1:58:00 the
1:58:01 worst
1:58:01 cases
1:58:02 and
1:58:04 I
1:58:05 would
1:58:05 say
1:58:05 only
1:58:06 in
1:58:06 Afghanistan
1:58:07 did
1:58:07 sometimes
1:58:07 the
1:58:08 emotion
1:58:08 of
1:58:08 the
1:58:09 slaughter
1:58:11 take
1:58:12 over
1:58:12 in
1:58:12 an
1:58:12 unfortunate
1:58:13 way
1:58:13 but
1:58:14 he
1:58:14 had
1:58:15 a
1:58:15 grandson
1:58:15 whom
1:58:16 he
1:58:16 loved
1:58:16 very
1:58:16 much
1:58:17 and
1:58:17 that
1:58:18 grandson
1:58:18 traveled
1:58:19 with
1:58:19 him
1:58:19 and
1:58:20 he
1:58:20 had
1:58:21 the
1:58:21 happy
1:58:21 childhood
1:58:22 that
1:58:22 Temujin
1:58:23 had
1:58:23 not
1:58:23 had
1:58:24 and
1:58:24 I
1:58:24 think
1:58:25 Chinggis
1:58:25 Han
1:58:25 just
1:58:26 loved
1:58:26 that
1:58:26 about
1:58:27 him
1:58:27 but
1:58:28 in
1:58:28 Afghanistan
1:58:29 he
1:58:29 was
1:58:29 sent
1:58:29 off
1:58:30 to
1:58:31 conquer
1:58:31 the
1:58:31 valley
1:58:31 of
1:58:32 Bamiyan
1:58:32 where
1:58:33 the
1:58:33 great
1:58:33 Buddhas
1:58:33 are
1:58:34 actually
1:58:35 he
1:58:35 was
1:58:35 sent
1:58:35 to
1:58:36 Bamiyan
1:58:36 and
1:58:38 as it
1:58:38 says in
1:58:39 history
1:58:40 the
1:58:41 thumb
1:58:41 of
1:58:42 fate
1:58:44 fired
1:58:44 the
1:58:45 arrow
1:58:46 that
1:58:47 shot
1:58:47 him
1:58:47 down
1:58:48 he
1:58:48 was
1:58:49 killed
1:58:51 and
1:58:51 for
1:58:52 Chinggis
1:58:52 Han
1:58:53 he
1:58:53 had
1:58:54 never
1:58:54 lost
1:58:54 a
1:58:54 family
1:58:55 member
1:58:56 not
1:58:56 one
1:58:57 none
1:58:57 of his
1:58:57 sons
1:58:57 none
1:58:58 of his
1:58:58 grandsons
1:58:58 in
1:58:59 battle
1:58:59 he
1:58:59 had
1:59:00 not
1:59:00 lost
1:59:00 them
1:59:01 and
1:59:01 now
1:59:01 to
1:59:01 lose
1:59:01 the
1:59:02 most
1:59:02 valuable
1:59:03 grandson
1:59:03 you
1:59:04 have
1:59:04 the
1:59:04 one
1:59:05 that
1:59:05 your
1:59:05 pride
1:59:06 and
1:59:06 joy
1:59:06 in
1:59:06 so
1:59:07 many
1:59:07 ways
1:59:08 and
1:59:08 so
1:59:09 he
1:59:09 called
1:59:09 the
1:59:09 father
1:59:10 his
1:59:10 own
1:59:11 son
1:59:11 to
1:59:11 him
1:59:13 and
1:59:13 did
1:59:13 not
1:59:14 tell
1:59:14 him
1:59:14 he
1:59:14 did
1:59:14 not
1:59:15 announce
1:59:15 it
1:59:15 to
1:59:15 the
1:59:16 public
1:59:17 and
1:59:17 the
1:59:17 son
1:59:18 came
1:59:18 and
1:59:19 the
1:59:19 son
1:59:19 didn’t
1:59:19 know
1:59:19 why
1:59:19 he
1:59:20 was
1:59:20 being
1:59:20 summoned
1:59:21 and
1:59:21 Chinggis
1:59:21 Han
1:59:22 said
1:59:24 you
1:59:24 have
1:59:25 to
1:59:25 tell
1:59:25 me
1:59:25 that
1:59:27 you
1:59:27 will
1:59:27 not
1:59:29 cry
1:59:30 or
1:59:30 moan
1:59:32 when
1:59:32 I
1:59:32 tell
1:59:32 you
1:59:32 this
1:59:34 but
1:59:35 your
1:59:35 son
1:59:35 is
1:59:35 no
1:59:36 more
1:59:39 and
1:59:39 the
1:59:39 father
1:59:39 was
1:59:40 no
1:59:40 one
1:59:40 was
1:59:40 allowed
1:59:41 to
1:59:41 moan
1:59:42 no
1:59:42 one
1:59:42 was
1:59:42 allowed
1:59:43 to
1:59:43 cry
1:59:43 no
1:59:44 one
1:59:44 was
1:59:44 allowed
1:59:44 to
1:59:44 do
1:59:45 anything
1:59:46 you
1:59:46 just
1:59:48 he
1:59:48 said
1:59:49 make
1:59:50 them
1:59:50 cry
1:59:52 you
1:59:53 know
1:59:53 he
1:59:54 came
1:59:54 down
1:59:54 on
1:59:54 the
1:59:55 people
1:59:55 of
1:59:56 Afghanistan
1:59:58 so
1:59:59 harshly
2:00:00 and
2:00:00 it
2:00:00 went
2:00:00 on
2:00:01 for
2:00:01 weeks
2:00:01 and
2:00:02 weeks
2:00:02 the
2:00:02 killing
2:00:02 in
2:00:03 Afghanistan
2:00:05 and
2:00:05 then
2:00:06 it
2:00:06 just
2:00:07 kind
2:00:07 of
2:00:07 wore
2:00:07 itself
2:00:08 out
2:00:08 he
2:00:09 recognized
2:00:09 that
2:00:10 he
2:00:10 had
2:00:10 allowed
2:00:11 his
2:00:11 emotions
2:00:11 to
2:00:12 overcome
2:00:13 practicality
2:00:14 and
2:00:14 the
2:00:15 slaughtering
2:00:15 of
2:00:15 these
2:00:15 people
2:00:15 should
2:00:16 stop
2:00:17 and
2:00:17 so
2:00:17 he
2:00:18 did
2:00:18 but
2:00:18 that’s
2:00:18 the
2:00:18 only
2:00:19 time
2:00:19 I
2:00:19 know
2:00:19 of
2:00:19 that
2:00:19 he
2:00:20 really
2:00:20 kind
2:00:20 of
2:00:21 lost
2:00:21 control
2:00:21 of
2:00:22 his
2:00:22 own
2:00:22 emotions
2:00:24 and
2:00:24 it’s
2:00:25 something
2:00:25 we can
2:00:25 all
2:00:26 understand
2:00:26 but
2:00:26 his
2:00:27 response
2:00:27 was
2:00:28 truly
2:00:29 extreme
2:00:29 of
2:00:30 we
2:00:30 will
2:00:30 not
2:00:31 cry
2:00:31 we
2:00:31 will
2:00:32 not
2:00:32 mourn
2:00:32 they
2:00:33 will
2:00:33 cry
2:00:33 they
2:00:34 will
2:00:34 mourn
2:00:35 so
2:00:35 so
2:00:35 so
2:00:35 so
2:00:35 so
2:00:35 that
2:00:36 so
2:00:36 that
2:00:37 goes
2:00:37 against
2:00:39 the
2:00:40 cold
2:00:41 rational
2:00:41 way
2:00:42 he
2:00:42 approached
2:00:44 war
2:00:45 which
2:00:45 is
2:00:45 peace
2:00:45 is
2:00:46 offered
2:00:48 and
2:00:48 then
2:00:48 betrayal
2:00:49 is
2:00:49 punished
2:00:50 I
2:00:50 I
2:00:50 said
2:00:50 he
2:00:51 did
2:00:51 not
2:00:51 slaughter
2:00:51 the
2:00:51 people
2:00:52 in
2:00:52 peaceful
2:00:53 towns
2:00:53 what
2:00:54 happened
2:00:54 was
2:00:55 the
2:00:56 killing
2:00:56 of
2:00:56 the
2:00:57 what
2:00:57 people
2:00:57 thought
2:00:57 was the
2:00:58 heir
2:00:58 and he
2:00:58 well may
2:00:58 have
2:00:59 been
2:00:59 of
2:01:00 Chinggis
2:01:00 Han
2:01:00 the
2:01:01 killing
2:01:01 of him
2:01:02 revitalized
2:01:03 a lot
2:01:03 of people’s
2:01:03 hopes
2:01:04 and a lot
2:01:05 of cities
2:01:05 revolted
2:01:06 the ones
2:01:06 who did
2:01:07 not revolt
2:01:07 were not
2:01:08 killed
2:01:08 but the
2:01:09 cities
2:01:10 who revolted
2:01:10 he killed
2:01:11 them all
2:01:11 there was
2:01:12 a mass
2:01:12 slaughter
2:01:13 there are
2:01:14 estimates
2:01:14 that
2:01:15 Genghis
2:01:15 Khan
2:01:16 and his
2:01:16 Mongol
2:01:16 empire
2:01:17 were
2:01:18 responsible
2:01:18 for an
2:01:19 estimated
2:01:21 40 million
2:01:21 deaths
2:01:22 approximately
2:01:23 10%
2:01:23 of the
2:01:23 world’s
2:01:24 population
2:01:25 so to
2:01:26 put this
2:01:26 number
2:01:26 in the
2:01:27 perspective
2:01:27 of the
2:01:27 modern
2:01:28 day
2:01:28 that
2:01:28 would
2:01:29 be
2:01:29 equivalent
2:01:30 to
2:01:30 killing
2:01:30 about
2:01:31 800
2:01:31 million
2:01:31 people
2:01:31 in
2:01:32 today’s
2:01:32 population
2:01:34 so
2:01:34 how
2:01:34 should
2:01:35 we
2:01:35 think
2:01:35 about
2:01:35 the
2:01:36 brutality
2:01:36 of
2:01:37 numbers
2:01:38 like
2:01:38 these
2:01:39 the
2:01:39 number
2:01:40 itself
2:01:40 is
2:01:40 difficult
2:01:41 to deal
2:01:41 with
2:01:42 millions
2:01:42 of
2:01:42 people
2:01:42 were
2:01:43 killed
2:01:44 for
2:01:44 every
2:01:45 family
2:01:45 that
2:01:46 lost
2:01:46 someone
2:01:48 it’s
2:01:48 a
2:01:48 total
2:01:49 loss
2:01:49 there’s
2:01:50 no
2:01:50 it doesn’t
2:01:50 matter
2:01:51 what the
2:01:51 number
2:01:51 is
2:01:51 it’s
2:01:52 a
2:01:52 tremendous
2:01:52 loss
2:01:53 and
2:01:53 there
2:01:53 was
2:01:54 tremendous
2:01:54 loss
2:01:55 of
2:01:55 life
2:01:56 as
2:01:56 in
2:01:56 every
2:01:57 war
2:01:58 I
2:01:58 don’t
2:01:58 think
2:01:58 we
2:01:58 should
2:01:59 judge
2:02:00 him
2:02:01 any
2:02:01 differently
2:02:02 than
2:02:02 other
2:02:03 conquerors
2:02:03 in
2:02:04 history
2:02:04 and
2:02:05 other
2:02:06 countries
2:02:06 today
2:02:06 that
2:02:07 fight
2:02:07 wars
2:02:08 including
2:02:08 our
2:02:08 own
2:02:09 country
2:02:10 if
2:02:10 we
2:02:10 whatever
2:02:11 we are
2:02:11 willing to
2:02:12 permit
2:02:12 our
2:02:12 country
2:02:13 to
2:02:13 do
2:02:14 we
2:02:14 should
2:02:14 be able
2:02:14 to
2:02:15 understand
2:02:15 why
2:02:16 Genghis
2:02:17 Han or
2:02:17 the
2:02:17 Mongols
2:02:18 did it
2:02:19 you look
2:02:20 today
2:02:21 in the
2:02:21 world
2:02:21 people are
2:02:22 killing
2:02:24 children
2:02:25 women
2:02:26 civilians
2:02:27 every day
2:02:29 every day
2:02:29 and it’s
2:02:30 always in the name
2:02:31 of something
2:02:31 in the name
2:02:32 of peace
2:02:33 or in the name
2:02:33 of God
2:02:34 or in the name
2:02:35 of our nation
2:02:36 there are always
2:02:37 reasons for the
2:02:38 killing
2:02:38 and the
2:02:39 United States
2:02:40 is certainly
2:02:42 involved with
2:02:43 that
2:02:44 supplying the
2:02:44 weapons for
2:02:45 bombing people
2:02:45 invading
2:02:46 Afghanistan
2:02:47 invading
2:02:48 fighting
2:02:50 in Iraq
2:02:50 fighting
2:02:52 in Syria
2:02:54 the United States
2:02:54 is very involved
2:02:55 in that
2:02:55 and it’s always
2:02:56 oh but we’re
2:02:56 defending democracy
2:02:57 and yeah
2:02:58 we brought a
2:02:58 hell of a lot
2:02:59 of democracy
2:03:00 to Afghanistan
2:03:02 we killed
2:03:02 a lot of
2:03:03 people
2:03:06 you can even
2:03:07 look back to
2:03:08 World War II
2:03:08 our great
2:03:09 moment of
2:03:10 democracy
2:03:10 and bringing
2:03:11 freedom and
2:03:11 democracy
2:03:12 to Germany
2:03:13 we dropped
2:03:15 atomic bombs
2:03:15 on Hiroshima
2:03:16 and Nagasaki
2:03:17 those were not
2:03:18 military targets
2:03:19 we were not
2:03:19 doing anything
2:03:20 strategic
2:03:22 against the
2:03:22 country
2:03:22 other than
2:03:23 terrorizing
2:03:24 the country
2:03:25 by killing
2:03:26 women and
2:03:26 children
2:03:28 that’s America
2:03:29 that’s us
2:03:30 my father
2:03:31 fought in that
2:03:31 war
2:03:32 in fact he
2:03:32 fought in all
2:03:32 he fought in
2:03:33 Vietnam
2:03:33 he fought
2:03:34 in that war
2:03:34 and he fought
2:03:35 in Korea
2:03:37 and he was a
2:03:39 good American
2:03:39 I mean there’s
2:03:39 nothing wrong
2:03:40 with it
2:03:41 and I’m not
2:03:42 I don’t even
2:03:42 condemn
2:03:44 America
2:03:44 but I’m saying
2:03:45 how can we
2:03:46 condemn one
2:03:47 set of people
2:03:48 for doing it
2:03:49 and then excuse
2:03:50 it in ourselves
2:03:51 but we tend
2:03:52 to do that
2:03:53 we especially
2:03:54 barbarian people
2:03:55 people from
2:03:55 the steppe
2:03:56 for example
2:03:57 we tend to
2:03:58 demonize them
2:03:59 or any enemy
2:04:00 we have
2:04:01 we tend to
2:04:02 demonize them
2:04:03 you said a lot
2:04:03 of interesting
2:04:04 things there
2:04:05 so one
2:04:06 is just
2:04:07 the very nature
2:04:08 of war
2:04:08 that war is
2:04:09 hell
2:04:13 that sometimes
2:04:13 things like
2:04:14 dropping the
2:04:15 atomic bomb
2:04:16 which is
2:04:17 an act of
2:04:19 essentially terror
2:04:20 in the same
2:04:21 style as
2:04:21 Genghis Khan
2:04:24 in an attempt
2:04:25 to prevent
2:04:25 further
2:04:27 war
2:04:28 it’s a
2:04:29 justification
2:04:30 people are
2:04:30 always fighting
2:04:31 for peace
2:04:32 always fighting
2:04:33 for peace
2:04:34 World War I
2:04:34 was to make
2:04:35 the world
2:04:35 safe for
2:04:35 democracy
2:04:36 and peace
2:04:37 and then World War II
2:04:38 but what happened
2:04:39 we went to war
2:04:40 in Korea
2:04:41 we went to war
2:04:41 in Vietnam
2:04:42 we bombed
2:04:43 Cambodia
2:04:43 we bombed
2:04:44 Laos
2:04:45 we bombed
2:04:45 Afghanistan
2:04:46 we bombed
2:04:46 Syria
2:04:48 we bombed
2:04:48 Iraq
2:04:49 we’re always
2:04:50 fighting for
2:04:50 you know
2:04:51 and I’m not
2:04:52 a pacifist
2:04:53 I am not
2:04:54 I grew up
2:04:55 surrounded with
2:04:56 soldiers
2:04:57 and I’m not
2:04:57 a pacifist
2:04:59 but I try to be
2:05:00 a realist
2:05:01 that all nations
2:05:02 kill
2:05:03 it happens
2:05:04 everywhere
2:05:05 so can we
2:05:06 universally also
2:05:07 then
2:05:07 in the way
2:05:08 you’re passionately
2:05:09 criticizing
2:05:10 wars of the
2:05:10 20th century
2:05:11 can we also
2:05:12 criticize
2:05:13 Genghis Khan
2:05:13 and Alexander
2:05:14 the Great
2:05:15 and the wars
2:05:16 fought by Caesar
2:05:17 and others
2:05:18 in the Roman
2:05:18 Empire
2:05:19 that they’re
2:05:20 essentially
2:05:22 wars of
2:05:23 conquest
2:05:25 and in
2:05:25 some
2:05:26 human way
2:05:27 were not
2:05:27 necessary
2:05:29 or were not
2:05:30 defensive
2:05:31 they’re just
2:05:31 part of this
2:05:32 human drive
2:05:33 to expand
2:05:34 to explore
2:05:35 and to
2:05:36 accumulate
2:05:36 power
2:05:37 maybe this
2:05:38 is a good
2:05:38 place to also
2:05:39 talk about
2:05:40 somebody I
2:05:41 respect a lot
2:05:41 Dan Carlin
2:05:43 of Hardcore
2:05:44 History Podcast
2:05:45 he did an
2:05:46 amazing series
2:05:47 on Genghis Khan
2:05:48 and the Mongols
2:05:49 called Wrath
2:05:50 of the Khans
2:05:50 I recommend
2:05:51 people go
2:05:51 listen to it
2:05:53 so he had
2:05:54 a lot of
2:05:55 interesting ideas
2:05:55 there
2:05:55 one of them
2:05:56 he presented
2:05:56 the idea
2:05:57 of historical
2:05:59 arsonists
2:06:00 so referring
2:06:00 to figures
2:06:01 who cause
2:06:02 immense destruction
2:06:02 but also
2:06:03 paved the way
2:06:03 for new
2:06:04 developments
2:06:05 and progress
2:06:07 basically
2:06:08 making this
2:06:09 complicated case
2:06:10 that destruction
2:06:11 often in history
2:06:11 paves the way
2:06:12 for progress
2:06:13 so what do you
2:06:13 think about
2:06:14 this idea
2:06:15 creative
2:06:15 destruction
2:06:16 it certainly
2:06:17 works in some
2:06:18 aspects of life
2:06:19 even with
2:06:19 ourselves
2:06:20 for example
2:06:20 if we can
2:06:21 creatively
2:06:22 destroy some
2:06:22 of our
2:06:22 habits
2:06:23 and build
2:06:24 new ones
2:06:24 it sometimes
2:06:25 works
2:06:26 or we can
2:06:26 destroy
2:06:27 relationships
2:06:28 that we’re
2:06:28 in
2:06:29 in order to
2:06:30 create new
2:06:30 ones
2:06:30 it can work
2:06:31 when you start
2:06:32 applying it
2:06:33 to world
2:06:33 history
2:06:34 it does
2:06:35 become
2:06:36 a little bit
2:06:36 more difficult
2:06:37 world
2:06:38 i certainly
2:06:39 think that
2:06:40 these episodes
2:06:41 create great
2:06:41 changes
2:06:42 you can see
2:06:43 great changes
2:06:43 that happen
2:06:44 because of
2:06:44 the mongol
2:06:45 empire
2:06:47 now whether
2:06:48 or not
2:06:48 that’s a good
2:06:49 reason for
2:06:50 the mongol
2:06:50 empire having
2:06:51 happened
2:06:53 it seems like
2:06:53 a bit of a
2:06:54 stretch
2:06:55 for me
2:06:56 you know
2:06:58 the mongols
2:06:58 helped to
2:06:59 unify many
2:07:00 countries
2:07:01 you can think
2:07:02 korea had been
2:07:03 three basically
2:07:04 kingdoms
2:07:04 pushed them
2:07:04 together
2:07:06 everything
2:07:06 that you see
2:07:07 in china
2:07:07 today was a
2:07:08 part of
2:07:08 the mongol
2:07:09 empire
2:07:09 they put
2:07:10 together
2:07:10 north china
2:07:11 south china
2:07:13 tibet manchuria
2:07:15 and it was
2:07:15 a little bit
2:07:16 larger under
2:07:16 the mongols
2:07:18 even russia
2:07:18 with so many
2:07:20 little kingdoms
2:07:21 and duchies
2:07:22 and dukedoms
2:07:23 and the center
2:07:23 had been into
2:07:24 ukraine
2:07:25 and kiev
2:07:26 and they
2:07:26 shifted the
2:07:27 focus out
2:07:28 of ukraine
2:07:28 and more
2:07:28 towards into
2:07:29 what we
2:07:29 call russia
2:07:30 now
2:07:30 and they
2:07:31 began the
2:07:31 process of
2:07:32 the unification
2:07:33 it had a
2:07:34 great impact
2:07:34 on the
2:07:35 country
2:07:36 so in a
2:07:37 way it’s a
2:07:38 new creation
2:07:39 yes it does
2:07:39 arrive out of
2:07:40 the destruction
2:07:41 but also i think
2:07:42 we need to look
2:07:42 where does the
2:07:43 destruction come
2:07:44 from and it
2:07:44 often comes
2:07:45 because the
2:07:46 powers around
2:07:47 them have been
2:07:49 so debilitated
2:07:50 and so corrupted
2:07:52 and so decayed
2:07:53 of their own
2:07:55 lack of moral
2:07:57 fiber that
2:07:58 it was easy
2:07:59 to conquer
2:07:59 them
2:08:00 case of
2:08:01 kubla khan
2:08:01 finally conquered
2:08:02 all of china
2:08:03 he was
2:08:04 conquering
2:08:05 a decayed
2:08:06 dynasty
2:08:07 when the
2:08:08 mongols
2:08:08 conquered
2:08:09 baghdad
2:08:09 and overthrew
2:08:10 the caliph
2:08:11 they were
2:08:12 conquering a
2:08:13 very decayed
2:08:13 institution
2:08:15 no one likes
2:08:16 war and i
2:08:16 certainly don’t
2:08:17 like war but
2:08:18 i’m not a hundred
2:08:18 percent against it
2:08:19 i think that there
2:08:20 are times
2:08:23 that people are
2:08:24 going to do it
2:08:24 for their own
2:08:26 protection if
2:08:27 nothing else
2:08:28 or their of
2:08:28 their family
2:08:29 and it’s
2:08:30 justified in
2:08:30 that sense
2:08:31 to themselves
2:08:32 it may not
2:08:32 be justified
2:08:33 in a world
2:08:34 sense but i
2:08:36 just i just
2:08:36 make the case
2:08:37 for being
2:08:38 tolerant of
2:08:39 what the
2:08:39 mongols did
2:08:40 if we can
2:08:41 tolerate what
2:08:41 the americans
2:08:42 did and i
2:08:43 am american
2:08:43 true and
2:08:44 true there’s
2:08:44 no question
2:08:45 about that
2:08:47 but we
2:08:48 overlook all
2:08:48 of our things
2:08:49 that we did
2:08:50 that’s interesting
2:08:51 for example
2:08:52 in afghanistan
2:08:53 we were there
2:08:54 for some 20
2:08:55 years we had
2:08:55 made the
2:08:56 taliban stronger
2:08:57 before when
2:08:58 they were
2:08:58 fighting against
2:08:58 the russians
2:08:59 and then we
2:09:00 kicked them
2:09:00 out and
2:09:00 then they
2:09:01 kicked us
2:09:02 out but
2:09:03 some of the
2:09:03 taliban leaders
2:09:04 are from the
2:09:05 jadran clan
2:09:06 the descended
2:09:08 from jamuk
2:09:10 family from
2:09:11 his clan
2:09:12 this is what i
2:09:13 mean when i
2:09:14 say that the
2:09:16 ramifications from
2:09:17 that time are
2:09:18 still with us
2:09:19 and we don’t
2:09:20 even see it
2:09:21 and when
2:09:23 saddam hussein
2:09:23 went on television
2:09:24 for the last
2:09:25 time in iraq
2:09:26 to plead with
2:09:27 his people
2:09:28 he said
2:09:29 the mongols
2:09:31 many americans
2:09:31 the mongols
2:09:32 have returned
2:09:34 the mongols
2:09:34 have returned
2:09:36 and he said
2:09:36 the americans
2:09:37 are just the
2:09:37 new mongols
2:09:40 and i can see
2:09:41 it i don’t
2:09:42 accept it
2:09:43 but i can see
2:09:44 how people
2:09:46 think if we
2:09:46 can be honest
2:09:47 with ourselves
2:09:48 and strip away
2:09:49 our own lies
2:09:50 about ourselves
2:09:51 then perhaps
2:09:51 we will be
2:09:52 more ethical
2:09:53 in our dealings
2:09:53 with other
2:09:54 people
2:09:55 uh and
2:09:56 and there’s
2:09:56 effects that
2:09:57 you could
2:09:57 talk about
2:09:58 i mean the
2:09:58 unification of
2:09:59 china
2:10:00 mongols or
2:10:00 otherwise is a
2:10:01 very important
2:10:01 step in the
2:10:02 history of china
2:10:04 that permeates
2:10:05 to today
2:10:07 and then there’s
2:10:07 a lot of stuff
2:10:08 that we’ll talk
2:10:09 about the
2:10:09 ideas of
2:10:10 religious freedom
2:10:11 the the
2:10:12 postal network
2:10:12 the the
2:10:13 trade routes
2:10:14 all of this
2:10:15 there’s a lot
2:10:16 of progressive
2:10:17 consequences
2:10:18 of the mongol
2:10:20 um conquest
2:10:21 in the mongol
2:10:21 empire
2:10:22 we’ll talk about
2:10:23 that but let’s
2:10:24 linger on the
2:10:25 on the heavier
2:10:25 topic for a little
2:10:26 bit longer
2:10:27 like we were
2:10:27 talking about
2:10:28 dan carlin
2:10:31 he was uh
2:10:34 critical of your
2:10:34 work a little
2:10:35 bit showing it
2:10:36 respect but also
2:10:36 a little bit
2:10:37 critical as
2:10:38 being a bit
2:10:40 to um
2:10:42 um
2:10:43 emphasizing and
2:10:45 focusing a lot
2:10:46 on the positive
2:10:47 impacts correctly
2:10:48 and accurately
2:10:50 but not giving
2:10:51 enough air time
2:10:52 or describing
2:10:53 the the
2:10:55 brutality of the
2:10:55 killing
2:10:57 the the hell
2:10:57 that is war
2:10:59 so can you
2:11:00 understand his
2:11:00 criticism
2:11:01 guilty
2:11:02 i’m guilty
2:11:03 steel manna
2:11:06 carlin’s a very
2:11:07 smart man i
2:11:07 respect him very
2:11:08 much and i like
2:11:09 him tremendously
2:11:10 and and and
2:11:11 he’s right but
2:11:13 that is not what i
2:11:14 want to stress it’s
2:11:15 not that i want to
2:11:16 deny the the
2:11:17 killing it’s not
2:11:18 that i want to
2:11:19 deny the warfare
2:11:20 but that’s a pretty
2:11:21 much the same
2:11:21 everywhere in the
2:11:22 world and how
2:11:23 much do we need
2:11:24 to say about
2:11:27 how the wall
2:11:27 was broken
2:11:29 down how
2:11:30 this unit was
2:11:31 defeated and
2:11:32 no it’s what
2:11:33 comes afterwards
2:11:35 you know just as
2:11:35 the story of our
2:11:37 life begins far
2:11:38 earlier than we
2:11:39 are born the
2:11:39 story of our
2:11:40 life goes on for
2:11:41 a long time
2:11:43 afterwards if you
2:11:44 have a nation of
2:11:45 one million people
2:11:47 and you are ruling
2:11:49 over hundreds of
2:11:50 millions of people
2:11:52 hundreds of millions
2:11:53 of people
2:11:55 china russia the
2:11:56 middle east you
2:11:57 do not do that
2:11:59 through warfare you
2:12:00 conquer them initially
2:12:01 through warfare but
2:12:02 you do not rule them
2:12:03 through warfare you’ve
2:12:04 got to be offering
2:12:05 something that they
2:12:06 want something that
2:12:08 they like and all
2:12:09 the things you you’ve
2:12:10 mentioned from the
2:12:11 the trading system the
2:12:12 postal system the
2:12:13 religious freedom the
2:12:14 rights of women the
2:12:15 rights of minorities
2:12:17 these were things
2:12:18 that people responded
2:12:20 to and so the
2:12:21 world benefited
2:12:24 tremendously from the
2:12:25 life of chingis
2:12:26 han but all we want
2:12:27 to talk about and i
2:12:28 don’t deny it is the
2:12:30 conquest part okay
2:12:32 that’s 20 years if it
2:12:33 went on for another
2:12:36 150 years there’s more
2:12:37 to the story than just
2:12:39 conquest and uh there
2:12:40 is a point that you
2:12:42 correctly identify and
2:12:43 you’ve also written about
2:12:44 native americans and so
2:12:47 on that history does
2:12:48 seem to be written by
2:12:50 the non-barbarians but
2:12:52 in reality history is
2:12:53 not divided in this
2:12:54 kind of way and the
2:12:55 barbarians are not
2:12:57 these crude brutal
2:12:59 plain simple people
2:13:00 that there is a
2:13:02 sophisticated deep
2:13:03 culture within them as
2:13:04 well yes all the
2:13:07 different uh kinds of
2:13:07 peoples that came from
2:13:09 the step yes i guess
2:13:10 if there’s one thing
2:13:11 that i try to do in
2:13:13 my career of writing it
2:13:14 is to get us to
2:13:16 recognize the
2:13:17 importance of tribal
2:13:18 people in the history
2:13:19 of the world we tend
2:13:20 to have two categories
2:13:21 for them there are
2:13:22 barbarians who kill
2:13:23 people and eat one
2:13:25 another or they’re
2:13:26 victims and we should
2:13:27 feel sorry from them
2:13:28 and nostalgic about
2:13:29 everything about them
2:13:30 and maybe wear some of
2:13:31 their beads or some of
2:13:33 their clothing to show
2:13:35 how much we sympathize
2:13:35 with their suffering
2:13:37 that’s the two roles for
2:13:39 tribal people but i’m
2:13:40 trying to show them in a
2:13:41 different light that
2:13:43 they conquered yes
2:13:44 there were conquerors
2:13:45 but they also created
2:13:46 great things in the
2:13:47 history of the world
2:13:49 and that the mongol
2:13:51 empire was really the
2:13:52 first modern empire in
2:13:54 the way that i’m putting
2:13:56 together that story and
2:13:57 chingis han was the
2:13:59 genius behind that who
2:14:01 created this and this
2:14:02 idea that there could
2:14:04 be one world in which
2:14:05 there would be one set
2:14:06 of supreme law but all
2:14:07 people could follow their
2:14:08 own law you could have
2:14:10 any religion you wanted
2:14:11 but ultimately you had
2:14:13 to obey kind of the
2:14:14 great ethics of the sky
2:14:16 and there were things
2:14:17 like that about his
2:14:19 vision that i think
2:14:20 very few people in
2:14:23 history had a vision
2:14:24 and i look around the
2:14:26 world today and in my
2:14:30 lifetime since the time
2:14:32 of roosebel’s death i
2:14:34 look around i don’t see
2:14:36 much vision i see lots of
2:14:38 slogans lots of talks
2:14:40 policy papers oh my
2:14:42 god we can produce it
2:14:45 where’s the vision it’s
2:14:46 always we’re going to
2:14:47 have peace and we’re
2:14:47 going to have a better
2:14:49 life and you know vote
2:14:50 for me or vote for my
2:14:51 party and we’re we’re
2:14:53 really for the people and
2:14:55 we’re what the heck are
2:14:57 they talking about there
2:14:59 is no vision there so
2:15:00 what is this country what
2:15:01 should this country be what
2:15:03 is this world how should
2:15:05 we know no vision well
2:15:06 those figures i mean
2:15:07 they’re rare through
2:15:08 history the legendary
2:15:09 figures that come along
2:15:11 that have vision but are
2:15:15 able to uh capture the
2:15:16 public imagination and
2:15:17 heart and mind with the
2:15:19 vision but also have the
2:15:22 skill to uh execute and
2:15:23 implement it and all of
2:15:26 those things combined and
2:15:28 have the mental fortitude not
2:15:30 to be corrupted by success
2:15:32 along the way all of those
2:15:33 things that’s very rare in
2:15:35 history and when they come
2:15:36 along they change the
2:15:38 direction of history if we
2:15:39 could linger on some of
2:15:42 these world defining ideas
2:15:46 religious freedom is it’s
2:15:48 just surprising and
2:15:51 incredible that genghis khan
2:15:54 was able to enforce uh
2:15:57 inspire the value of
2:15:58 religious freedom throughout
2:15:59 all of these disparate lands
2:16:01 from religion was a very
2:16:03 powerful force so can you
2:16:06 speak to that some empires in
2:16:07 history and some rulers have
2:16:09 been a tolerant of various
2:16:10 groups i mean rome to some
2:16:11 extent was reasonably
2:16:13 tolerant of different sects and
2:16:14 religions not of the
2:16:17 christians but reasonably but
2:16:19 what happened with chingis
2:16:22 khan the first campaign he had
2:16:25 outside of mongolia was for the
2:16:26 uigur people who lived in western
2:16:28 china they at that time were
2:16:31 being ruled by actually we had
2:16:32 mentioned before the naiman king
2:16:35 tai yang han his son guthluk had
2:16:40 fled no good worthless son but
2:16:44 guthluk had fled into what is today
2:16:49 the area around kyrgyzstan and they
2:16:51 ruled over the uigur people he had
2:16:53 been a christian the naiman had been a
2:16:55 christian tribe but he converted to
2:16:56 buddhism well his subjects were
2:16:59 muslim and he outlawed the muslim
2:17:01 religion and he made all kinds of
2:17:03 things happen so the uigurs sent a
2:17:05 delegation to chingis han at this
2:17:07 time they all they knew that the
2:17:08 emperors of china were too weak to
2:17:10 protect them so they sent delegation
2:17:12 to chingis han and asked him to come
2:17:15 and save them from him and he did he
2:17:17 sent down a detachment he didn’t
2:17:19 actually go himself he sent detachment
2:17:21 down there they drove guthluk from
2:17:24 power guthluk fed down towards pakistan
2:17:26 in that direction they caught up with
2:17:28 him they killed him that’s that’s what
2:17:31 the mongols did you know and then chingis
2:17:34 han made the first law that he ever made
2:17:36 for people outside of mongolia so up to
2:17:39 this point it’s been tribal law and he
2:17:42 saw as we mentioned before that for the
2:17:44 tribes were mostly fighting over women so
2:17:46 you outlaw the kidnapping of women you
2:17:49 outlaw the sale of women and you cut down
2:17:51 on a lot of the feuding but he saw that
2:17:55 civilized quote-unquote people fought a
2:17:57 lot over religion they weren’t fighting
2:18:00 over women they fight over religion and
2:18:02 so he made the law now this was a very
2:18:04 interesting talk about religious freedom
2:18:06 religious freedom comes in many forms
2:18:11 one form is to allow institutions to do
2:18:13 what they want so we’re going to allow
2:18:17 the the the the mormons and the catholics
2:18:19 and the jews and the muslims each to do
2:18:21 what they want and the organized churches
2:18:24 that they have his law was not that it
2:18:26 presumed that it allowed that but he said
2:18:30 every person has the right to choose their
2:18:34 religion no one can stop them no one can
2:18:37 force them the idea that it was individual
2:18:39 choice no one in history had ever thought
2:18:42 of that that it belonged to the person i mean
2:18:44 that’s a really really powerful statement yes
2:18:46 that alone i mean that’s why you talk about
2:18:49 thomas jefferson being deeply inspired by
2:18:54 genghis khan that religious freedom yes of
2:18:57 the individual but it’s like such a powerful
2:19:01 illustration manifestation of just individual
2:19:05 freedom period yes if if you in the in the
2:19:10 world in history are allowed to practice any
2:19:16 religion you want that’s a i mean that is
2:19:18 like one of the biggest way to say that the
2:19:20 individual is fundamentally free in this
2:19:24 society yes it was a great source of power
2:19:26 for him also you know i don’t say that he
2:19:29 did this because of some ideological reason
2:19:31 just like he didn’t outlaw the kidnapping of
2:19:34 women for ideological reasons he didn’t come to
2:19:36 it through studying ideas of moral right he
2:19:38 came to it through practical experience of
2:19:41 life his mother was kidnapped his wife was
2:19:44 kidnapped he knew that that was a crime
2:19:46 against every ethics that you can think of
2:19:49 in every form of morality that’s why he did
2:19:51 it not for ideological reasons but practical
2:19:54 reasons it hurt people it hurt people it was
2:19:57 the same with religion he gave this right to
2:20:00 everybody because it was going to be their
2:20:03 own personal right to keep them from being hurt and
2:20:06 then that gave him tremendous support from
2:20:10 minorities of many types and so they flocked to
2:20:13 him minorities after that this was a minority
2:20:16 effort of the muslim uigurs to come to him many
2:20:19 people flocked to him for the same reason for
2:20:21 that kind of religious freedom so that religious
2:20:23 freedom and also the other things you mentioned
2:20:27 they create a stable society and that allows
2:20:32 him with a small army to administer a large empire
2:20:37 and also i will say in a more more practical political sort of way of
2:20:42 thinking he recognized the power of having a balance of power of like
2:20:45 shiite and sunni that both
2:20:51 are going to be allowed equal rights one is not dominant over the other and
2:20:54 christians and jews they all have well
2:20:59 that keeps the society from fragmenting against him
2:21:03 or uniting against him and it’s a kind of fragmentation
2:21:07 that he’s taken advantage of i don’t think that was his main reason but i do
2:21:11 think he was quite aware of that that you give every religion the right
2:21:18 and unfortunately he the only religion he didn’t recognize as a religion was
2:21:24 confucianism he said what do they do you know the taoists can do magic on the
2:21:29 earth and they can give people magic formulas and to cure it or they have all
2:21:32 this kind of stuff going on well what do the confucianists do so
2:21:35 still the people could be confucianists that was okay
2:21:38 but he didn’t expend all the tax-free rights
2:21:43 see that was another thing he dropped all taxes on religious institutions
2:21:48 all types but uh since the confucianists were not necessarily
2:21:50 classified but then of course eventually that was
2:21:54 that was abused so much because the religions were then
2:21:58 again everybody to donate property you can still use it you can still farm your
2:22:02 land but it’s ours and now you don’t have to pay taxes on it you just give us some
2:22:05 money you know got abused but it started off as a good idea
2:22:10 um and and genuinely as i understand maybe you can correct me
2:22:16 of course there’s the practical aspect of the those those policies but he himself was
2:22:19 just curious about the different religions as well
2:22:26 uh as i understand so he never chose any religion except the one from which he
2:22:26 no
2:22:33 came i guess i mean can you describe what he believed spiritually himself
2:22:38 it’s interesting you know we said after the the death of shirimon his grandson in bamayan
2:22:44 and the slaughter that followed that he went through a new phase in which he summoned
2:22:53 religious scholars of all sorts of famous chong chang from china who uh despised but anyway
2:22:59 he came and with all of his magic formulas for things and then a bunch of various muslim leaders came
2:23:06 so ching ishan was exploring all these different religions and not just in a simple way he had
2:23:14 organized public lectures from these people and public debates not antagonistic debates but discussions
2:23:20 among groups of people who hated each other would never discuss anything and suddenly this powerful man
2:23:27 summons them and he has to say okay well explain your religion explain yours and even sometimes you
2:23:33 can’t just explain it in terms of your own scripture what do you say to the people who believe it so he
2:23:40 was exploring but no he never changed at all he was an animist we would say that’s not the only term
2:23:47 we know to use early in life he worshiped that mountain where he took refuge several times
2:23:54 burhan haldun burhan haldun was the great refuge of his life he would go to the top he would pray he
2:24:00 would take off his hat he would take off his belt he would stand there before the sky and pray also
2:24:05 later on actually this became rather dramatic he would sometimes go away to pray should we invade
2:24:11 these people and so all of the subjects are waiting to hear what’s god going to tell ching ishan when
2:24:17 he goes up the mountain you know so there are episodes like that but he was very sincere but i think
2:24:23 what happened the mongols have so many spirits in the water the mountains everything around them and you
2:24:31 have to know them personally and pray to them know what they like and don’t like and should you sing to
2:24:37 them or should you offer some milk products or what do you do you have to know them well you get away
2:24:43 from mongolia and this was a problem in china they didn’t know the spirits this caused great consternation
2:24:48 for the mongols you’ve got a land here and the spirits don’t like us they’re hostile lands we don’t even
2:24:54 know who they are we don’t know these spirits in china it took a long time and so gradually ching ishan
2:25:03 he’s kind of moved from just the spirit of the mountain that he worshiped which remained his main focus of
2:25:09 worship his whole life he removed that to the sky that was the one universal spirit it was everywhere
2:25:15 in the world the sky was the same for every people and so for the mongolians in their language
2:25:23 the word for sky and the word for heaven and the word for god and the word for weather are all the
2:25:31 same tingr tingr and so or mongkhoch tingr in the case of the eternal sky when they’re talking about in
2:25:41 their religious terms the eternal blue sky so he he became more universalistic in this animist vision
2:25:48 of the world and so then the sky could embrace all religions all religions and all people were trying
2:25:55 to attain the same form of enlightenment well enlightenment is too specific a word but the same
2:26:03 form of moral life and guidance from the sky he felt that each person knew morality each person could
2:26:08 communicate and know morality within themselves they didn’t have to just be taught it by somebody from
2:26:16 a book and in fact as one of his uh grandson monkhan said you know you people talking to all the others
2:26:22 to the christians the jews the muslims the taoists said you people have your scriptures and you don’t live by
2:26:29 them we have our spirits and our shamans and our drums and we live by them and i think it’s true
2:26:36 it’s just as throughout this conversation it’s just blowing my mind that the the kid from the mongol step
2:26:43 that lost everything right lost just had the hardest of lives is is now
2:26:55 yes a military genius but also this kind of sage type character to understand the value of religious
2:27:01 freedom i mean there is a cynical way to see all these things because he he did awfully a lot of
2:27:08 things that look like he’s a feminist yeah and you’re saying well the cynical way to see that
2:27:13 is what he saw the value of promoting women in positions of power because they create a more
2:27:18 stable society and you know there’s less power struggles all that but the reality is
2:27:24 there’s a lot of things that look awfully progressive about the things he’s implemented and they stayed i’m
2:27:30 not trying to say it in modern terms you know when you have one million people you’ve got to use every
2:27:35 one and the men are fighting and so he left women to administer a lot of things inside the country the
2:27:42 economy in particular and then in and some of the ancillary turkic kingdoms around the mongols such
2:27:49 as the ongut the tar harlek and different mong and the uyghur even were administered by his daughters
2:27:55 primarily and then his his wives were in charge of administering the land of mongolia itself and
2:28:03 handling the economy so he was using the women but uh in a very practical way but it wasn’t necessarily in
2:28:09 our ideological way i think it’s the same with the environment i’m not trying to say he was
2:28:16 environmentalist in our modern way but he passed very strict laws about the use of water and also
2:28:23 about not using water that you couldn’t move water into an area to irrigate it that was violating the
2:28:28 earth and violating the water so they think a lot of the historians they think the mongols are so stupid
2:28:34 they let the irrigation system be destroyed no it takes more work to destroy an irrigation system than
2:28:39 it does to create it they destroyed those systems out of a policy and that was this is going to return
2:28:47 to pasture land this lasted a kubla khan was the one who changed that actually and then started allowing
2:28:53 going for more irrigation and the movement of water and things but but chingis khan we can’t use these
2:28:59 modern terms of uh like a human rights crusader or that i’m trying to say is that the democrat the
2:29:05 modern sense or environmentalist or a feminist but all of this was a part of it another part was the
2:29:14 protection of envoys he said every envoy every ambassador every messenger is protected from arrest from torture
2:29:25 and from killing and if you kill one of ours we will wipe you out and in 1240 that was the destruction
2:29:32 of kiev i mean this is after chingis khan already you know there’s a good day khan his son uh the happy happy
2:29:38 drunk a good day khan his army had come there under subadai great great the greatest general of the
2:29:43 history of the world i would say subadai a person who’s not so that was chingis khan who was for the
2:29:48 military part he was the greatest strategist for organizing everything together but the military
2:29:53 part was subadai so subadai had been there and they sent in an ambassador who happened to be a woman
2:30:00 now some of the western sources say a daughter of chingis khan i have no evidence of that and i don’t
2:30:05 quite believe it but maybe she was kin to him or something some say she was a daughter of chingis
2:30:10 khan others say she was a witch the people of kiev decided she was a witch and killed her
2:30:22 okay that’s it that’s it kiev was destroyed for killing a mongol envoy the envoy is a method of
2:30:28 communication yes in diplomacy yes and so if you destroy that method of communication or disrespect it
2:30:36 right in any way exactly and that sends a signal to everybody else yes send an envoy you respect it
2:30:42 that’s why these these plans i say that the making of the modern world most of the ideas have we accept
2:30:48 the idea we don’t do the practice all of us except today diplomatic freedom diplomats are killed around
2:30:55 the world yearly we accept the idea of female equality and emancipation of every way but in fact
2:31:02 they’re enslaved in many parts of the world today uh we we accept the idea of religious freedom oh but
2:31:08 not those people that’s not theirs isn’t good their religion isn’t right but but our religion we will
2:31:15 tolerate them but they got to be more like no we only say these things but the world still hasn’t achieved
2:31:23 some and he did achieve these within his empire in his time he achieved those so one of the things we’ve
2:31:32 mentioned but i think is really really fascinating and maybe an immeasurable impact uh that jenghis khan had
2:31:38 is on trade and uh you know you could say a lot of stuff but basically establishing a unified trade network
2:31:46 that spanned i don’t know how many thousands of kilometers uh and there’s a lot of interesting
2:31:54 things that were done to enable that trade one is providing uh safety and security of not just the
2:32:01 envoys like we mentioned for communication in the military context but for the merchants can you speak
2:32:09 to the what jenghis khan did for the trade network connected to the silk road as an example nomads in
2:32:14 general are are interested in trade and throughout most of history they have been the traders who carried the
2:32:21 goods from one city to another one oasis to another and so the mongols were also extremely interested in
2:32:26 and extremely dependent they could create very little in their home country they couldn’t grow hardly
2:32:32 anything and they didn’t have the technological skills for most of the crafts so they’re very dependent
2:32:40 on trade well they raised the status of merchants very high this was particularly a problem in the chinese
2:32:46 world it wasn’t so much in the christian or the or the muslim world but certainly in the chinese world
2:32:52 where merchants were considered extremely low and all of a sudden he raises them up above scholars
2:32:58 they’re going to have certain rights for example they get to be taxed one time whatever the national
2:33:05 taxes that’s it they’re not taxed every time they stop in some new town and he he created a set of
2:33:13 what we would call rest houses or or um recuperation centers where they could get fresh horses
2:33:21 they could get food they could deposit their money and get paper receipts that could be used anywhere in
2:33:27 the empire they were guaranteed protection if they had to pass to an area where it might be dangerous
2:33:35 then uh a small group a squad of men and uh horses would go with them so trade was extremely important
2:33:42 and then the mongols they also they supported trade in a very odd way and that is the merchants would come in
2:33:48 and then they would ask for an outrageous price for some goods you know much more than they should get
2:33:56 waiting for the mongols to bargain them down and the mongols would say i’ll give you much more than that
2:34:03 it was just and as his grandson or his son a good day han was once asked why do you do that you’ve got to
2:34:08 stop doing this this was a muslim financial advisor he’d called in he told him well you’ve got to stop
2:34:16 paying more than people ask and he said where’s the money gonna go it’s still in my empire it’s gonna
2:34:21 come back eventually you know and so they had a much different attitude with great respect and
2:34:27 i think a symbol of that is in the time of kublai khan when we see that his uncle and father went to
2:34:34 china and came back from china and then on the second trip marco polo went with him to china and back
2:34:39 they were safe the whole way their goods were safe they came back with tremendous amount of wealth
2:34:44 they were never harassed and the mere fact that they could cross it took two years but the mere fact
2:34:51 that they could cross the whole continent safely and come back that was unprecedented
2:34:56 we really don’t have any well-documented case of anybody say from china visiting europe or europe
2:35:03 visiting china before the mongols but since genghis khan there’s never been a year without contact
2:35:08 between east and west it was permanent once he created it it was permanent i don’t think it’s
2:35:14 possible to measure the positive impact of that because it wasn’t just trade of goods it was also
2:35:21 exchange explicit or implicit along the way exchange of ideas whether that’s exchange of
2:35:30 technologies exchange of like philosophical ideas scientific ideas um technical mathematical ideas all
2:35:38 of this spread throughout and constantly circulating um can you speak to that aspect of it
2:35:47 yes it was the exchange of ideas on every level ideas technology uh ideologies beliefs
2:35:54 scientific information everything was being exchanged and include even agricultural goods of new crops for
2:36:02 new areas but but cenghis khan he had a a part of his genius of organization was knowing what skill
2:36:08 people had that would contribute towards his empire for example the muslims were very good with arithmetic
2:36:14 in fact he conquered the the little empire of khan from which we get the word algorithm
2:36:21 because there was a mathematician there who invented algorithms and so a khan he conquered it very
2:36:27 quickly very easily no problem but it belonged to him but the muslims were using the zero
2:36:34 the mongols were absolutely impressed with that the chinese less so they’re very suspicious about the zero
2:36:40 but the mongols were very impressed because herders numbers are important to them for keeping up with
2:36:47 their animals in fact the mongols have a simple system they reduce all animals to the number of
2:36:53 horses you can ask somebody how many animals you can have and they can say well 100 horses and it doesn’t mean
2:37:03 they have 100 horses it’s going to be um like uh five cows count as four horses five sheep or five goats
2:37:11 count as one horse you know um four camels count as five horses so they reduce it all down like that
2:37:16 the mongols take a census of everything and that’s one of the first things singhis khan did and that was
2:37:22 one of the demands he made of every place he went is a complete census of your people and every house
2:37:28 had to post outside how many people how many animals what did they do the occupations all this information
2:37:36 so they needed good mathematics for this the muslims provided it so they took the muslims to china these
2:37:42 middle eastern scholars and all unfortunately they were rather ruthless sometimes when it came to
2:37:51 implementing the tax policies but they became the financial advisors to him uh other groups of people
2:37:58 had other roles like that and he was moving them around constantly and so you had a combination as i
2:38:06 said he himself had that genius for combining new bits of technology but it created a new kind of cultural
2:38:12 spiritual spirit in which other people were also combining technology at other levels and being
2:38:18 encouraged it was no longer heresy or the devil’s work to bring in this thing so we had the spread of
2:38:26 printing for example we had the partial spread of something something such as print money for example but we had
2:38:32 almanacs being created now through printing that combined different calendars and different information
2:38:40 it was coming along but one simple but lethal form of technology was that for example chinese had gunpowder
2:38:47 mostly it was used for fireworks religious things and then sometimes in warfare was used for a kind
2:38:53 of primitive hand grenade or primitive bomb that could be thrown with a trebuchet and this is in the time
2:39:00 of kubla khan more the grandson but so they had that the middle eastern the muslims they had and the byzantines
2:39:08 especially they had uh uh naphtha what we call greek greek fire flamethrowers that could set things on fire
2:39:15 you know the europeans did not expel excel very much in technology they were behind in almost everything but
2:39:23 they could cast bells for churches okay let’s take that bell and we’re going to turn it on its side
2:39:31 and we’re going to use some principles of the flamethrower and we’re going to use the gunpowder
2:39:38 from china and you’ve got a cannon so the mongols even early on by the time they got to the siege of
2:39:45 baghdad but not i think in the lifetime of chingis han but soon thereafter and his uh sons and grandsons
2:39:53 they were using some very primitive forms of cannon and uh even some something like firing rods we can’t
2:39:59 even call it anything like a rifle but it could fire a very small uh ballistic device you know so this
2:40:07 combination of metal urgy gunpowder flamethrowers you put it all together and you come up with something
2:40:16 incredibly different so if we jump around a little bit sort of on the topic of a canon what are some
2:40:25 technological developments that uh jengis khan and his son and kubla kai were using so how much
2:40:30 gunpowder were they using in general what was their approach to the siege warfare for example
2:40:34 what are some different ideas there if we switch to the grandson kubla khan
2:40:42 he first of all he changed a lot of the strategies they were no longer working the mongols system
2:40:48 worked perfectly on the grassland but by the time you get to hungary the grassland starts to give out
2:40:52 by the time you get to poland it’s so many farms it’s hard for horses to get through the farms and
2:40:58 they don’t want to go on the roads by the time you get to the indus river it’s too hot too humid the
2:41:05 bows are beginning to wilt the horses are exhausted it’s it’s not working so to conquer south china kubla
2:41:13 khan had to come up with new things one thing the south chinese had built a great wall it was called
2:41:19 the great wall of the sea this is before the wall that we know is a great wall which is really the ming
2:41:25 wall of the ming dynasty was built but the great wall of the sea and they used it as a defensive navy
2:41:32 that the largest navy in the world it was defensive and it was most literally defensive and that came time
2:41:37 for warfare they would chain the ships together across the mouth of a harbor to protect the city
2:41:40 and so it became a wall
2:41:48 so actually if we rewind kublai khan who was he and what was the state of china at that time that
2:41:53 kind of sets up this idea of uh ships and siege warfare
2:42:00 in 1215 chingis khan conquered the city we now know as beijing it was the capital of the jin dynasty of
2:42:07 northern china and at that time southern china was ruled by the song dynasty or usually called the southern
2:42:15 song he had already conquered the shishia kingdom of the tangut people and so most of northern china was
2:42:21 under the control of the mongols from about 1215 and then he conquered middle later his uh
2:42:27 his descendants conquered middle and then kublai khan was the one to take on the south but kublai khan was
2:42:34 born that year in 1215 about three months after the the capture of beijing and he was nobody
2:42:42 he was the second son of the fourth son of chingis khan well he’s got lots of cousins out there who’ve
2:42:48 been riding around they’re conquering russia and they’ve already burned down kiev and they’ve conquered
2:42:54 different places in the world they’re real mongols that’s their whole life and he’s born and he doesn’t
2:42:59 meet uh chingis khan until he’s about seven years old because chingis khan was away on a conquest in
2:43:07 in central asia and chingis khan came back and he met him and he said oh he doesn’t look like a mongol
2:43:12 he looks like his mother’s people his mother was a sorachthani who was actually a part of the royal
2:43:19 family of the merkit people whom he had conquered sometime earlier and so it looks like his mother’s
2:43:24 people who was a little bit more tawny mongols tend to be very white with very right bright red
2:43:32 cheeks and have a certain very round face and so on and uh so he looked different and for whatever
2:43:38 reason his mother i think she recognized the difference and treated him differently her oldest son was called
2:43:49 munk later mong khan munk and she wanted him to become even though her husband was drunk who died out on
2:43:57 campaign drunk and she took over northern china and she began to put it together and she wanted her son
2:44:03 to become the great han the emperor of the mongol empire and this wasn’t in line this wasn’t going to
2:44:10 happen because he’s the fourth son out of three others are way in line way ahead of her but she calls
2:44:18 the revolution she made it happen she put her son in mong khan in 1251 he became great han he only
2:44:24 lived till 1259 he died of something it could have been cholera or or they’re different stories and i
2:44:31 don’t know the truth of it but he died on campaign in china trying to conquer southern china well up to this
2:44:38 point kubla khan had not been distinguishing himself his mother was uh she was a christian woman but she
2:44:45 had a buddhist nurse for him and she had chinese scholars come in to tutor him she had a very good
2:44:51 education for him and i think that she planned that he was going to be a great administrator under his
2:44:57 older brother and he was going to administer the lands in china and so he was learning all this stuff for
2:45:03 it but the older brother he insisted on sending him out on campaign oh but he was overweight he
2:45:09 was fat he had gout he needed to go rest there was always some excuse and the brother was assigning
2:45:15 people ori hangdai who was the son of subodai the great general he assigned him to teach him warfare
2:45:24 he wasn’t great on the battlefield he really was not but he was very smart and at first a little bit
2:45:30 lazy like talking about the religion sitting around go hunting as long as he had many with him to do
2:45:39 the shooting and uh and then to prepare the food and all and and his territory northern china was just
2:45:45 being run in the dirt by these administrators the mongols had brought in they were just overtaxing
2:45:51 the people cheating the people doing everything wrong and his mother basically just pulled his chain and
2:45:57 she said go to your land this is your land you have to administer this land you go there you live there
2:46:04 you take charge and everybody was terrified of the mother and so he ran off to china and he started
2:46:10 administering his land and he started learning how to do it well when his brother died in 1259 he was
2:46:16 down on the yellow uh the yangtze river on a campaign that he was sent by his brother he was having no success at
2:46:23 all but he thought okay the brother’s dead i should finish the campaign meanwhile his youngest brother
2:46:30 arikbukh arikbukh was another hothead mongol like their father tolu he was rather hot-headed and he was
2:46:36 back in mongolia and his tolerance for religions he was had to oversee the debate one time between the
2:46:42 taoists and the buddhists because the mongols thought the taoists were overtaxing everybody the buddhists
2:46:47 and so he had to oversee it he got mad and he picked up a statue of the buddha and beat the taoist
2:46:55 representative to death so he just wasn’t good for moderating debates you know so he was going to be
2:47:03 the new great khan so he was declared the great khan in mongolia but this was a turning life for
2:47:11 kublai khan who had never achieved much of anything other than talking to people so his wife chabi sent
2:47:18 him some coded messages basically telling him forget about southern china it’s going to always be there
2:47:25 you can conquer that some other time right now your brother is taking over the empire you should be the
2:47:34 new emperor you are the next son after mong khan and somehow she invigorated him and he came back and
2:47:40 even though he didn’t have all the military strategy he had northern china the resources were immense he
2:47:47 could cut off mongolia mongolia was very dependent on northern china for food all the mongols supported
2:47:55 arikbok all the ones in central asia uh all of them were supporting arikbok and so he went to get food
2:48:01 from them and then they didn’t want to give up their food yeah we want to support you for great han but
2:48:09 we’re not giving up our food so he was basically kind of starved into submission in 1262 and then he was
2:48:20 taken prisoner into china and then he mysteriously passed away in 1264 while a legal case was being
2:48:27 brought against him for trial but he never made it to trial uh he was gone so kublai khan
2:48:36 not really distinguished himself very much but he didn’t have the genius of his grandfather i won’t
2:48:42 say that but he was smart and clever he understood more about china than most mongols did and he
2:48:49 understood most more about mongols than most chinese did so the great thing left that chingis
2:48:56 han said on his deathbed finish conquering china you know that was the great objective so
2:49:03 kublai was going to fulfill this and they didn’t know how the great wall of ships
2:49:11 was protecting the southern song this huge yangtze river was so bad wide the ocean on the side all of
2:49:20 these things were protecting them so he had one of his very smart generals named adju who was a real mongol
2:49:26 but he was also able to think in innovative way he was the grandson of subodai and he went with his father
2:49:33 on the conquest of the red river of northern vietnam against the dai viet people
2:49:41 they went down the river they were trying to surround the chinese territory so we’re going to hit them from
2:49:47 the north from the west and from the south so they went down the red river and to conquer the dai viet the
2:49:52 the dai viet moved their army up on the other side by boat and then they had a whole corps of
2:49:58 elephants so you have the mongols on one side the river and the dai viet forces on the other side
2:50:05 or hankadai was a smart man not a genius but smart and he already knew from campaigns in burma that the
2:50:13 only way to route the elephants was with flaming arrows to defeat that was it but he recognized that they came
2:50:20 up on boats mongols didn’t like boats it just they crossed the river on a goat skin they wanted to do
2:50:25 something organic a boat was like a cart a cart belonged to a woman it was a floating cart
2:50:30 i am not going over on a floating cart i’m going to ride a goat skin across the river
2:50:37 so he’s assigned one detachment you have to burn the boats so the
2:50:46 dai viet cannot escape when we route the elephants well the war battle i mean got started the elephants
2:50:52 are running wild all kinds of chaos is going on the the group that’s sent to burn the boats they’re
2:50:58 mongols they want to go to war i mean why burn a bunch of women’s carts it’s just not you know
2:51:04 floating so they go and join the battle they leave the boats well the mongols won the battle but the
2:51:09 diviet forces got on the boats and sailed back to what’s now hanoi and then they evacuated the city
2:51:14 took all the food everything out of the city and they disappeared into the delta the mongols arrived
2:51:23 they conquered quote unquote hanoi the capital city and they had nothing they had nothing they won every
2:51:31 battle they lost the war they retreated adju was the son of hungadai and he saw all this happen
2:51:39 and he recognized the importance of water and boats and so he knew and he spent his time studying
2:51:45 the yangtze river and every little river around it and the cities and the crucial thing he saw was the
2:51:52 cities are heavily heavily fortified on the land side because invasion comes from the land and they expect
2:51:59 this little line of boats to protect them on the water and so the city walls are weak the defenses are weak
2:52:07 on that side that’s where we have to attack so how they sent off to the ilkhanate to persia where chingis
2:52:13 khan his uncle was now dead and his cousins were ruling there are his nephews we would say a cousin’s nephew
2:52:21 so uh they sent over engineers to build a special kind of trebuchet or catapult and they had to play
2:52:26 around with it to adapt it for a boat because they were usually made for stable ground but they adapted
2:52:33 it for the boat and for throwing heavy things and also for some uh incendiary bombs that they developed it
2:52:40 and they attacked the first city it fell they attacked the next it fell they had something that was working
2:52:49 they worked their way down the yangtze river destroying city after city with this navy and then the army would move in
2:52:56 after the navy had broken down so this is a a catapult on a ship catapult on a ship but it’s yeah we call
2:53:03 it type of shape for this type of catapult so this is an engineering solution for peoples who are deeply
2:53:11 uncomfortable with boats yes and they’ve accepted it yes now it’s a great weapon it’s like it’s not it’s no
2:53:17 longer a woman’s cart it’s a bow and arrow it is a giant bow and arrow yeah it’s fascinating so that
2:53:24 they go they hit them hard on the walls on the weak side yes where there’s no the army protection yes
2:53:31 and they conquer their way down to hangzhou the capital of the southern song
2:53:40 they’ve been in power for a long time since 970 and now we’re already into the 1270s that’s a long time
2:53:46 they’re dissipated they’ve been had child emperor they’ve had imbeciles ruling all kinds of things
2:53:50 going on and at this point we have a child in command
2:53:59 but kubelai makes a very strange move he says okay let’s invade japan now
2:54:09 what we’re fighting against the song dynasty and most people ascribe it to all kinds of things but
2:54:16 actually i think there was a great logic to it one was he had abolished his grandfather’s policy of
2:54:22 defeat and destroy until they are no more that was the phrase that was used for their enemies and he
2:54:28 had replaced it with a kind of mercy policy try to incorporate them into your army if possible but be
2:54:34 merciful he did not want to destroy and he was not he was had a lot of defectors coming in and because
2:54:41 the mongols prized people with skills a lot of very clever people with shipbuilding and engineers and
2:54:47 these people were flocking to the mongols whereas the scholars were all hanging out in
2:54:55 wangzhou doing calligraphy and poetry and having contests over who could sing or paint or i don’t know what
2:55:02 scholars do but they were they were being scholars yes but they’re actually i think there’s a very very good
2:55:11 reason for invading japan several the main one was to cut off the supply of sulfur they needed it for
2:55:17 gunpowder in south song they lost their sources in northern china when they were driven out they got
2:55:23 it from japan it was a great source but i think there were other reasons if they could trade they could
2:55:30 also perhaps flee to japan and they didn’t want that to happen and then there’s this idea of you know like
2:55:35 kill the chicken to scare the monkey it’s like okay we’ll go do this and then maybe they’ll just
2:55:41 surrender down there if they see us conquer japan well it was a total failure you’ve got a bunch of
2:55:47 ships that are mainly great on the river and right along the coast and you’re crossing some treacherous
2:55:53 water there and and you the mongols basically just did not know what they were doing okay you can
2:55:58 arrive with the trebuchet and you can throw grenades at the beach it’s not really going to do a lot of
2:56:05 damage it might scare a few horses but you’re not destroying cities and the japanese cities were more
2:56:11 in they weren’t there on the beach waiting for mongols to come invade so he failed in that invasion so we
2:56:18 so we should say that this is the the time of the samurai right yeah in japan right so uh so there was
2:56:25 never a real test of like no there was some fighting and the samurai learned some very valuable things the
2:56:31 samurai had a such a ritualized way of it’s like the knights of europe yes coming out with armor that had
2:56:37 to be lifted up on a crane onto a horse and i mean it was just craziness craziness the samurai almost at that
2:56:42 point you ride out in front of your enemy and you recite the story of your genealogy
2:56:49 oh what you know mongols they have no use for that they’re there to fight they’re there to win
2:56:56 but on the other hand this was a unknown territory to them and the weather did turn against them but i don’t
2:57:01 want to give too much credit to the weather i really think that the japanese defeated them
2:57:08 the mongols weren’t well prepared their ships were not very good they were defeated in the first invasion
2:57:14 could they get off the ships onto the beach oh they did they had some skirmishes or small battles on land
2:57:21 yes they did but they didn’t successfully complete them no no so they couldn’t do their usual mongol
2:57:27 thing you’re right well see they don’t have enough horses for one thing yeah you know and uh there were
2:57:32 many tactical things that they had done incorrectly it’s the first time anybody had ever tried to have
2:57:37 such a massive invasion yeah so they’re just learning the basics of what it means to have a navy
2:57:45 so he has failed to conquer and he’s thinking like a mongol that you rule the those waters and lands but
2:57:54 he ruled the ocean he stopped the trade he stopped the supply he cut off the possibility of the song
2:58:02 dynasty fleeing to japan he won in a certain way he lost but he had won his objective of cutting off
2:58:10 southern china also it gave him navy some experience with the ocean and now they were ready to move out
2:58:19 into the ocean around southern china so they were closing in then aju was in command but actually the
2:58:26 head command was a man named bayan who was a mongol who had been raised more in central asia he was
2:58:32 perhaps born close to the fargana valley in that area we’re not exactly sure where he was born but he grew
2:58:40 up over there and then he eventually was living in uh what’s now iran but he came and he took over command
2:58:48 of the army he was very cosmopolitan sophisticated intelligent aju should have been in command but bayan
2:58:56 recognized that and he and aju worked together very well aju knew how to fight the war bayan was able
2:59:03 to negotiate things back with the capital city and handle things so bayan is in command and so the
2:59:09 generals are deserting the south song right and left the artisans are all coming up to join the mongols
2:59:16 they paid the generals are loading up the boats with all the jewels and they grab a couple of uh
2:59:20 brothers to the little five-year-old emperor and they put them on a boat and they’re fleeing
2:59:29 they even deserted their own their own families the generals were corrupt cowards who fled the person left in
2:59:36 and they put them in charge was the dowager empress an old lady she had no children she was her name
2:59:44 the dowager empress she they said she was missing an eye she was ugly they called her ugly she that’s what
2:59:51 they called her at that time she was in charge and she offered the mongols everything i’ll give you
2:59:56 everything please let the emperor stay okay even if you demote him to just being a king please let him
3:00:05 stay bayan said no total surrender total surrender so she decided to surrender once she said yes we will
3:00:11 surrender the capital so bayan came in with a small group of soldiers they looked around and she invited
3:00:19 him to come to come to the palace to surrender and he said no i didn’t win this war in the palace my
3:00:25 soldiers won this war in the field you have to come with the emperor in front of my soldiers
3:00:34 to surrender but he did not harm her he respected her and there was no looting of the city now later they
3:00:40 take everything in a very systematic way they take the archives and all this kind of stuff away but there
3:00:46 was no wholesale looting and killing of people nothing like that so they’ve taken the capital
3:00:54 and she comes out she surrenders she bows on the ground towards beijing and then she takes the child
3:01:01 emperor and they slowly make their way uh she was a little bit sick it took her longer time to beijing
3:01:07 and they surrender again in a public ceremony bowing to the kubla khan he gives each of them a palace he
3:01:15 gives them a new uh new uh uh title he protect he’s trying to show the world this is the new face of
3:01:20 mongols we don’t kill off the old people anymore who are ruling we’re going to give them a palace
3:01:30 treat them nicely and all but the navy that had fled did not defend the city those cowardly generals
3:01:39 they made the new little boy seven-year-old brother half-brother to the emperor gong was his name they
3:01:51 made him the emperor well they’re just floating around on the ocean losing all support from city after
3:01:58 city the muslims who were controlling the trade and controlling many of the ships of that area they were
3:02:04 chinese muslims but they were still muslims they switched sides to the mongols because of the
3:02:09 religious freedom thing and because they were merchants and their status would be raised so the
3:02:15 the mongol uh the muslims were switching over the the fleet was kind of a fleet lost without a country out
3:02:23 there they had some loyal supporters some places uh they dropped the emperor in the ocean
3:02:30 how do you drop the emperor into ocean they accidentally spilled him into ocean and then
3:02:36 they fished him out but he died so fortunately they had one more seven-year-old half-brother
3:02:43 so on lantau island exactly where the hong kong airport is today the new well it’s not so new
3:02:49 anymore but i still think it was the new airport on lantau island uh so they went there and they had a big
3:02:55 coronation ceremony and all but the people there were not supportive enough it certainly wasn’t hong kong
3:03:02 then anyway at the delta of the pearl river but so they they sailed out farther south to another island
3:03:07 and then they took it over and of course the first thing they did was well we have to build a palace
3:03:14 what the mongols are chasing you and you’re going to stop and build a palace so these are like the
3:03:21 remains of the chinese yes the generals and the general army and the navy and there was a real competence
3:03:29 issue yes okay so we’re going to protect it with a great wall of the sea they chained together the
3:03:35 boats across the entrance to the harbor and they put the palace boat so-called in the middle
3:03:42 the generals didn’t trust their own soldiers enough so they made all of them leave the island and go to the
3:03:48 boats to fight the mongols so mongols arrived and over and over and over they asked them to surrender
3:03:55 you won’t be harmed all this kind of stuff and all and but the mongols now took over the land so they had
3:04:03 the water all around them and they had the land and once the fighting started they could just shoot down from
3:04:10 the highland right on to the ships and they’ve cut the ships off from the fresh supply of of wood and water
3:04:17 so they can’t boil rice they have to try to eat rice and drink seawater they’re all sick as dogs out there and
3:04:27 the leaders refused to surrender the little boy is their seven-year-old emperor bing was his name with his pet
3:04:35 parrot that’s the only thing he had left in life was his pet parrot and then the mongols they offered
3:04:44 every opportunity but the prime minister so-called coward that he is although he’s treated as a hero
3:04:52 today in china and throughout their history but coward that he was he said we will not disgrace the country
3:04:57 by letting them capture the emperor so first he threw his own wife and children into the water to drown
3:05:05 and then he took the emperor and held him the seven-year-old he was seven years and one month he
3:05:13 had just turned seven years old and jumped into the water with this child a child murderer he’s a child
3:05:20 murderer to do that somehow in the whole ruckus the cage came undone with the parrot and the parrot fell in
3:05:28 the water too so the seven-year-old boy and the parrot died in the water that was the end of one of
3:05:36 the greatest dynasties in the history of the world the song dynasty they were intellectually great they were
3:05:42 artistically great they were technologically great they were just one of the greatest moments of world history
3:05:49 and it ends with this coward killing a child and his pet parrot in order to save the honor
3:05:56 that was betrayed by this woman the men lost the war the men lost the war who’s to blame
3:06:05 an old one-eyed ugly lady empress shee well the bigger picture there is probably is is become the institutions
3:06:12 became corrupt and stale and the the army weakened and the the politician the politician class
3:06:19 probably has have have lost their skill and competence at ruling and all that kind of stuff and all that
3:06:24 is true and the and the chinese summarize that with losing the mandate of heaven right i mean everybody
3:06:34 has their perspective maybe if um the way you told the story has a very kind of objective
3:06:41 sort of way of revealing the absurdity and the cowardice of it but you know there’s probably the chinese
3:06:48 perspective that they tell the story in some kind of like maintained honor to the last yes to the last
3:06:54 moment they very often most scholars depict emperor shio as the traitor to the country
3:06:59 and i say no that boy lived on for another 45 years
3:07:06 and so she did not betray the country she protected her emperor that she was supposed to protect
3:07:11 it was the man who killed the child emperor who killed young bing
3:07:21 so what was the lasting impact of uh kublai khan unifying china well yes first of all he had unified
3:07:27 china in the largest sense of the word with korea tibet manchuria mongolia part of central asia
3:07:35 he had unified it but he did so at the expense of his empire they didn’t recognize him as the great emperor
3:07:42 and there was great opposition from the golden horde of russia and also from the the central region which
3:07:49 is called the the chagatayid those descendants of sagade the second son the chagatai empire and then
3:07:54 from the ill khanate of persia these are the different sort of fracturings of the mongol
3:08:02 the sons of jenghis khan yeah and only the ill khanate was still loyal to him but they’re so far away
3:08:09 yeah but now he has a navy but this is i mean even the four pieces the whole thing is gigantic and even
3:08:17 the pieces are gigantic so i mean it’s very hard to keep an empire of this size together yes but he had
3:08:26 china it was unified under him and then he he sent out the first expedition to sail directly to persia
3:08:33 there had been trade all throughout thousands of years but it was usually port to port you know
3:08:40 different merchants trading goods no he organized a great fleet to send a uh a queen or princess to
3:08:48 become a queen in the ill khanate to marry the the ill khan of persia it’s persia and azerbaijan and uh
3:08:56 armenia and iraq and part of syria all of that area so he said organized this and it so happened that
3:09:03 marco polo was ready to go home because they knew kublai khan was about to die and in fact he only had
3:09:07 about one year left to live and they wanted to get their riches out before they didn’t know what’s
3:09:12 going to happen this is a new dynasty they’ve been in total control of china for one generation
3:09:18 and they didn’t know what was going to happen and also just before that there had been a bad
3:09:24 sign because kublai khan had tried to invade japan a second time and he had failed a second time
3:09:33 and the second time i think again he had a practical purpose and that was he had this whole huge song army
3:09:38 that now he’s the new enlightened mongol who doesn’t slaughter so he’s got what is he going to do they’re not
3:09:45 reliable they’re not safe so he sends a bunch of them up into the amur river of what’s now the
3:09:52 russian far east or we call siberian english but the russian far east the amur river uh he sent expeditions
3:09:58 up into tibet exploring options up there but there wasn’t enough room or enough agricultural area for a huge
3:10:07 military colony but most of his ships were loaded with former prisoners of the war from the song dynasty
3:10:14 and they were not armed they had hose and implements for farming he wanted to create obviously
3:10:21 on agricultural military agricultural farm in japan to help feed northern china because it was very
3:10:26 important just as they were doing with the amur river but it was more complicated so
3:10:34 again they lost they didn’t have it and part of the reason is that the exhibition was massive
3:10:41 and they organized it in the mongol principles of left wing right wing this didn’t work at sea
3:10:49 because the left wing is from korea there’s korean ships built up there the right wing is from southern
3:10:54 china mostly with ships built down there they’re not the same they have a head but there’s no center
3:11:01 point chengiz khan always had the goal they called it g-o-l the goal the center or q-o-l actually
3:11:09 called but he had the center in command no he sent the two without a clear and they were arguing with
3:11:14 each other not cooperating not helping each other sabotaging each other they get there and once again
3:11:20 they have the same problems even though they’ve come with lots of grenades this time again the grenades
3:11:26 are exploding they’re they’re scaring the horses you know it’s impressive and a lot of silk screens are made
3:11:34 later showing these impressive battles and all but they lost and again a typhoon happened to be the
3:11:43 final the final destruction of the navy but i think it’s japan had defeated the mongols i would say
3:11:53 japanese deserve credit for that victory and then the the sinking of the ships was more caused by the
3:11:59 by the typhoon but already the japanese had developed good strategies while the mongols had been away they
3:12:05 knew how the mongols fought and they knew that at night they could fire flaming arrows at the ship set
3:12:13 them on fire and they were doing great damage so again kubla khan lost the invasion of japan
3:12:23 but the soldiers were gone but the soldiers were gone they drowned he didn’t kill them off it was his
3:12:32 deliberate plan but the problem was solved it’s one of those ironies of history that it’s hard to
3:12:40 quite understand so this had happened but then kubla khan was coming to the near the end of life and
3:12:46 marco polo and those wanted to get out they’re ready to go and kubla khan allowed them to sail
3:12:54 on this expedition with hokshin was her name the princess hokshin to go to a hormuz
3:13:03 and so they went and that began a whole system of trade back and forth back and forth kubla khan died
3:13:09 soon after that his grandson who’s not so well respected in history because he’s often called a
3:13:17 drunk but his name was timur timur and jetu but he was a drunk when he was young but his grandfather had
3:13:26 him caned a couple times in public and he cured him of drinking and actually he was not a drunk later on
3:13:33 khan and he was first he knew reassembled the mongol empire he did the golden horde declared loyalty to
3:13:40 him recognize him as great han is emperor of the whole empire the chagatayid of central uh asia they
3:13:47 declared loyalty to him the il khanate was already loyal to him they all declared loyalty he had reassembled
3:13:53 the empire and he had the greatest navy in the world and he sent out envoys to every place they had
3:14:00 attacked or traded with to say that era is over we’re no longer attacking anybody we’re changing from
3:14:09 conquest to commerce we want to trade with you come to china bring your goods we’re going to trade with
3:14:17 you he instituted it was short unfortunately didn’t last forever i wish it could have but it was a great
3:14:24 era of the exchange of all kinds of things going back and forth all the way actually all the way to
3:14:30 africa because from hormuz they had connection to somaliland and some people say kenya already at
3:14:39 that time i’m not sure but very wide very wide so technically he ruled over the the largest size
3:14:46 the mongol empire ever had yes but although actually the golden horde of russia they were quite independent
3:14:52 by now and he let them be independent but they were loyal to him and they were still exchanging back and
3:15:01 forth all kinds of things so there were ocetian soldiers in china they had a whole contingent of
3:15:09 ocetian soldiers there and from russia from the caucus areas of russia and how do they communicate
3:15:14 are they using like the postal service like you have to like you have to literally deliver the letters
3:15:22 over time those groups started intermarrying with they were allowed to intermarry the chinese were not
3:15:28 but they were intermarrying with mongols and they were switching to mongolian language slowly
3:15:36 at first i don’t know it’s not clear but again kubla khan thinking in this internationalist way said okay we
3:15:43 need a new alphabet for the world everybody in the world writes with one alphabet chinese mongolian russian
3:15:50 arabic everything it didn’t work but he tried it for a while and some inscriptions are still there to this
3:15:57 day and we should maybe uh briefly mention marco polo that you talked about so he is this
3:16:07 now famous explorer that traversed the continent the silk road and then stayed with kubla khan for a while
3:16:13 and i guess one is one of the primary documenters of everything that’s been going on uh is there
3:16:20 something else interesting to say about about marco polo and about their his interaction with kubla khan
3:16:21 i like marco polo
3:16:30 i use his work a lot i find him very reliable and the areas where he’s not reliable you can kind of tell
3:16:38 because he didn’t he wasn’t there but the places he was he reported a lot of stuff and so i’m very
3:16:45 much indebted to him for a lot of things because with something like the princess hukjin and also another
3:16:52 fighting princess from central asia named hutulu he wrote about that but i also needed other sources so
3:16:59 i found if i could find chinese sources or arab sources or something else or persian to support it then i really
3:17:05 felt a lot of confidence with him over time but pieces were romanticized and you have to always
3:17:09 discount it but it’s very good however
3:17:17 i believe the best work written about marco polo aside from his own book which was actually written
3:17:25 by rusticello dictated in prison in genoa you know in the 20th century eugene o’neill wrote a play that
3:17:34 became a comedy on broadway called marco millions that was both a play on what he was called el
3:17:42 milioni the million one because he had talked about cities of millions of people and about uh money in
3:17:47 the millions and things that people in europe just couldn’t believe could happen he then published his
3:17:55 whole play as a book to show people what he really meant and it was an ironic look at capitalism
3:18:03 because this is 20th century already versus the idea of like a philosopher king which he saw
3:18:11 in kubla khan and so marco polo becomes a symbol of capitalism not at its worst but at its most
3:18:20 basic and that is like the princess in this story this is not in real life but this is in the play
3:18:26 written by eugene o’neill but i think it captures a lot the princess hochshin says marco is an excellent
3:18:36 judge of quantity and there were things like that and then in the play bayon the great general
3:18:44 he talks with kubla khan and he said look these people are dangerous from the west we should go
3:18:52 conquer them now while we can kubla khan tells bayon again in the play this is fiction but he tells bayon
3:18:59 they are not worth conquering and if we conquer them we will become like them and he said marco
3:19:06 polo has been in our land he has seen everything he has learned nothing he has seen everything he
3:19:14 understands nothing for me this was such an important moment in the history of the world symbolically
3:19:19 with marco polo and kubla khan the coming together of two worlds
3:19:24 it could have gone a different way it could have gone a different way
3:19:31 and i am it’s not that i’m anti-capitalist i’m pro-capitalist but the way so many things worked out
3:19:40 it was a misstep in history maybe we took the wrong step at that moment and we could have learned more from
3:19:45 cooperation they didn’t quite integrate successfully
3:19:54 no but today we’ve returned to that i think the east and the west are confronting each other again
3:20:01 on more equal terms for a long time the west was so dominant and the east was so downtrodden by
3:20:09 colonialism and other things and internal rot and other things but today there’s not necessarily
3:20:13 equality but there’s more of a balance and which way will we go
3:20:23 and again there’s uh a lot of room and a lot of energy for division for misunderstanding
3:20:34 uh so versus integration like uh the the east is demonized in the west and one one of the great
3:20:43 regrets i have that i hope to alleviate is just how little i like understand china in the east
3:20:52 yes it’s just sort of not not just from kind of economics politics you know reading a few books but
3:20:58 like the way you’ve understood and felt the mongolian step like understand the chinese people in that way
3:21:06 because it does feel like from that understanding there could be integration of ideas you know my work is
3:21:12 it’s often classified as chinese history which i think is ironic because for me it’s always a mongolian history
3:21:19 but for the last book i wrote which dealt a lot more with china because it’s about kubla khan
3:21:25 then in that book i deliberately did not go to china i’d been there numerous times before i deliberately did not
3:21:32 i’m an outsider i do not speak chinese i’m not a chinese scholar i never even had a course in chinese
3:21:38 art or calligraphy or anything and i wanted to be very clear mine is an outside perspective
3:21:47 but i think it’s possible as an outsider to still have respect for that culture even if i disagree that
3:21:52 they appoint this one as a hero and that one’s as the villain i disagree and they’ll say oh i’m wrong
3:21:59 i don’t understand their history and they’re probably right that’s quite possible but there’s an outside view
3:22:04 that is different and tries to be respectful of what happens in that part of the world just as i’m
3:22:13 respectful towards chengiz han in the mongol empire i respect china very much i’m an american i love the
3:22:21 ideals of my country i love so many aspects of our culture and there are many aspects i don’t of course because
3:22:28 it’s impossible to love everything even about the members of your own family you know and yeah i do hope
3:22:34 that through understanding one another or just making the effort to understand even if we
3:22:41 understand wrongly and we’re incorrect in it just to make the effort to understand will help us a lot
3:22:49 and the west has had a long couple of centuries of extreme arrogance that they are there to teach the
3:22:59 world and i sometimes dismayed i meet these young people all over the world who’ve come to help
3:23:05 they’re an ngo and they’re going to teach the people how to take care of the environment they’re going to
3:23:13 teach the women how to exercise their rights they’re going to bring in micro financing to help liberate
3:23:24 people we are arrogant beyond words and we need to be a little bit more humble and try to put ourselves on an
3:23:34 equal basis with some of these people not a superior basis beautifully put how did the mongol empire come
3:23:36 to an end how did it fall
3:23:47 the mongol had united the mongol had united the empire at least symbolically all of it and they had the
3:23:56 trade going on the mongols never adapted well to china and they began having problems in different
3:24:02 areas so in some areas of the world they became more like the local people so in central asia they became
3:24:09 muslim and they got more absorbed into that world and broke away from the mongol examples from before
3:24:16 russia lingered on longer under mongol domination but it got weaker and weaker over time and it was
3:24:23 based around the volga river but they weakened to the point that they just became a tributary people
3:24:29 minority within a russian empire but the mongols had left kind of the framework for empire for russia
3:24:35 that’s something the russians don’t want to hear any more than they want to hear me criticize the
3:24:42 end of the song dynasty but it is true that even yam yam is the word that was used for this postal
3:24:47 system and that’s the ministries today in in russia and there are many many other things
3:24:55 in russia it’s just even malchik malchin is a herder mal is a person as an animal and chin is a person
3:25:00 a person who takes care of animals you know it’s all kinds of influences in russia that some people
3:25:08 want to deny but there’s always a great powerful uh strand of of uh research and scholarship in russia
3:25:15 that supports this understanding of the mongols and i depend on them tremendously it’s not just uh
3:25:21 gomelyov is one of the famous ones but he was a little bit too romantic with his ideas and all but i
3:25:29 depend upon a lot of the research done by russian scholars and by early german scholars in the 19th
3:25:39 century under sponsorship of the tsar so i i depend on that work so you had a great influence there but it was
3:25:48 weakening so bit by bit 1368 the mongols have become so weak within china that they were overthrown
3:25:56 but they weren’t absorbed into china but the mongols have been there since 1215 to 1368
3:26:03 they packed up went back to mongolia it was just another seasonal migration yeah
3:26:10 you know it was just amazing and they said okay we’re still the yuan dynasty we’re not giving you
3:26:15 the seals we’re not acknowledging the ming and they never did throughout the whole of the ming in fact
3:26:20 they went down one time and captured the ming emperor took him back to mongolia and then they tried to
3:26:26 ransom him and the chinese said no we’re going to appoint another emperor so the mongols decided okay
3:26:34 the worst thing we can do to the chinese is give them back the old emperor so you had two
3:26:41 emperors you know back okay let them work it out you know and the empire just weakened from internal
3:26:46 reasons for the mongols but some external things from nature and i think that was the great plague
3:26:52 you know everything in history everything that’s good comes with something underneath it that’s bad
3:26:57 and everything that’s bad seems to have something underneath that’s sometimes works out good in a
3:27:06 way but uh this great system that united it’s called the yam or ortoh ortoh that united everything
3:27:12 people could move back and forth quickly then it could also take the plague out of southern china
3:27:20 into all parts of the world and i do think that’s what happened and uh the plague destroyed the mongol
3:27:26 system and if all of these people are ruled by mongols because they’re benefiting so much from this system
3:27:36 and now the system collapses yeah you don’t need the empire anymore yeah so it just fell apart after 1368
3:27:46 the empire just fell apart and most of them stay stayed in uh persia and iran and uh afghanistan the
3:27:54 hazara people are still descended from the army there and then in russia some of them stayed but then
3:28:00 finally in the time of catherine the great a lot of them returned a little bit they had been there for
3:28:10 hundreds of years and then they returned to mongolia uh in the 1700s and so many mongols came home they were
3:28:17 still mongols despite hundreds of years of exposure to other cultures they came back to their tent and
3:28:24 squatting around the fire and drinking fermented milk and eating dried curds it’s interesting that the
3:28:34 the mongolian spirit is so strong that it uh persists yes through centuries yes and they just return right back
3:28:41 on the horse riding in the open step yeah well it was actually very difficult because they were a little
3:28:49 bit lazy and they weren’t so good with doing the task and so uh it became difficult actually to support so many
3:28:56 people coming home uh and eating up all the animals the mongols in china had been used to just eating they
3:29:04 they hadn’t been producing much for 150 years so just to return to genghis khan and we talked about
3:29:14 dan carlin and dan carlin said that genghis khan’s army was the greatest military force in history
3:29:23 and many other historians agree that before rifles came into popular use genghis khan would basically beat
3:29:31 every single army including napoleon and you mentioned the samurai the whole formal setup same with
3:29:37 napoleon there’s this there’s a whole you know like you know several hours to set up the chess pieces
3:29:46 on the military board i mean you can just imagine what genghis khan and the the dynamism the the speed of
3:29:53 everything what that would do to napoleon so uh i guess the question is where uh do you agree with
3:30:00 that uh notion that genghis khan’s army is the greatest military force in history short answer is yes
3:30:11 absolutely no other power in the history of the world has conquered russia and china and persia and central
3:30:22 asia and turkey and korea no power in the world has done that not alexander not the romans nobody will
3:30:28 ever do it again nobody’s going to conquer china and russia again and rule both countries it’s just
3:30:35 not going to happen what lessons i mean can you take from that’s applicable to modern warfare
3:30:44 oh i think there’s a very good lesson and the mongols took iraq they took baghdad they held it
3:30:53 the americans we followed the exact opposite strategy of the mongols mongol strategy is first you take
3:30:58 the countryside they’re country people they think in terms of countryside you take the countryside you
3:31:05 occupy the countryside and you cut off the city it cannot live without the countryside and that’s how
3:31:10 they did it every time they would come in as i say in some cases two two years in advance to clear
3:31:15 people out so they would have room for their horses and have pasture for their horses and all and you take
3:31:21 the small towns and then the small cities and then the last one is the big city americans they said no
3:31:26 we’re going to take baghdad we’re going to bomb baghdad we’re going to have this shock and awe we’re
3:31:31 going to go in we conquer the country from baghdad so they go in they get trapped in their little tiny
3:31:39 green zone they never conquer iraq the strongest army in the world you know this is something that
3:31:44 worked in europe world war ii yes we bombed the cities and we took the city because that was a city
3:31:51 the center of production for the modern era but the countryside is the place that produces the food
3:31:56 the mongols were very aware of that and supplies the water you cut off the water from the city you
3:31:59 cut off the food from the city what’s the city going to do they’re going to surrender
3:32:05 the americans were applying something that worked in western europe to conquer germany
3:32:15 it did not work to conquer iraq or vietnam or even northern korea or cambodia or laos or syria
3:32:20 or god no it worked only in grenada i think that’s the only in my lifetime that’s the only successful
3:32:28 war we had lasted a couple of hours we went in conquered the little tiny island otherwise we’ve
3:32:36 been chased out of every country we’ve lost it tail between our legs we dropped more bombs on cambodia
3:32:38 then we dropped on germany
3:32:50 it’s hard to believe hard to believe we dropped more bombs on cambodia than on germany we did nothing
3:32:55 because germany you destroy the cities the people surrender dresden’s gone frankfurt
3:33:03 fritzburg berlin uh in cambodia you can bomb the countryside forever you can kill the people and they did you
3:33:10 can use chemical warfare and they did and you could still go into the eastern part of cambodia and
3:33:18 you could go to large areas where you don’t hear birds singing because of their chemical warfare in
3:33:26 america of american bombs so we still do it but we don’t want to admit it and we don’t want to go in
3:33:33 to win when world war ii the americans did have unconditional surrender well i mean you can support the war
3:33:38 not support the war we did it right we did it wrong these are all issues that people can argue but we
3:33:45 had a clear policy we go into afghanistan we’re fighting terror we’re going to bring democracy we’re
3:33:53 going to free the women what i mean it’s absolute sheer insanity the things that we did and we kill
3:34:02 people not only did we use chemical warfare and kill a lot of people in vietnam and laos and cambodia we killed
3:34:11 american soldiers we killed american soldiers and my father was one he died from agent orange disease
3:34:19 oh but that doesn’t count he didn’t die on the battlefield and we didn’t mean to kill him it doesn’t
3:34:32 count modern warfare is brutal and we just paper over it sometimes you know can you explain agent orange it was designed to kill all vegetation
3:34:38 this is going to be a humane way we’re going to kill all the vegetation in the jungle and that way they can stop
3:34:44 moving the army through the jungle and they can stop the supplies from coming that was the american strategy
3:34:52 yeah henry kissinger nobel prize winner he is now resting in hell is exactly where he belongs for what
3:35:01 he did to vietnam laos and cambodia the bombing was just absolutely horrendous so agent orange comes in they defoliated
3:35:07 which means they wiped out the crops so people are starving literally in the case of cambodia starving to death
3:35:13 the animals are being killed and deformed children are being born to this day and american
3:35:22 soldiers died by the thousands not immediately not on the or not on the battlefield not right there they go
3:35:28 home they have the disease they linger they take the whole family down with them in an emotional
3:35:37 trauma of becoming slowly paralyzed and dying we did that to our own people so yeah warfare
3:35:43 i don’t think we’re any more humane with it any better today than in the past
3:35:51 it’s just we can hide parts of it more easily and deny it more easily if you’re killed by a mongol it’s very
3:35:57 clear you’re killed by a mongol you’re killed by friendly fire in american war it’s a different matter
3:36:07 it seems that um what people mean when they say that war is hell that in some deep sense everybody
3:36:15 loses no matter the narrative you put on top of it yes yes i’m not a pacifist again but i
3:36:23 i think war is acceptable in some situations but the more controlled it is the better and my
3:36:32 my effort is not to do away with all the things that happened under chingis han with the brutality
3:36:38 and all like that but it’s to measure it against what goes on today in the world today and we have
3:36:44 different images there are two images of chingis han one is our image he’s a barbarian on a horseback
3:36:49 killing people and raping women all the time the other image is the mongolian image and when they
3:36:57 finally built an official statue of him in the in this century for the uh 800th anniversary of his
3:37:03 founding of mongolia they had to think about how to present him to the world and to themselves
3:37:12 and they chose the lincoln memorial as the model he was the late great log river of the mongol nation and
3:37:19 and so he’s seated there in front of the mongolian parliament there’s another statue that’s better
3:37:25 known but it was a private enterprise that created him on horseback but not with a weapon but he’s on
3:37:32 horseback out in the countryside but the official one from the government is chingis han seated
3:37:39 like abraham lincoln and they issued stamps to show that he is the great law giver and uh
3:37:48 the truth is somewhere in between well or depending on where you are and how you want to see it you
3:37:54 know yeah there are many things that happened that were terrible and horrible and for people who lose
3:38:01 a war it’s going to always be terrible and horrible yeah uh let’s return back to genghis khan’s life
3:38:05 and the end of it how and where did he die
3:38:13 after conquering the hoanism empire in central asia chingis han returned and then they had a great
3:38:18 what they called nadam a great celebration that went on for a whole summer just about and they had so much
3:38:24 wealth to distribute to everybody and everybody is being given all kinds of things you know for
3:38:30 what they have done and including the people who helped saved him when he was in the in the kank and
3:38:36 in the in the ox yoke uh they were rewarded with everybody was rewarded it was a great time but
3:38:43 the first place he had attacked outside was the tangut nation and they had sworn allegiance to him
3:38:46 and then when he went off to the middle east they refused to send troops
3:38:54 he didn’t forget that he’s going back to the tangut nation and he’s going to conquer them again
3:39:02 as he was crossing the gobi which takes a while and you’re crossing the gobi he’s
3:39:06 oh it was distracted a little bit by hunting the hulan which is the wild we say the wild ass or
3:39:13 i used to say wild horse it sounds a little better but uh the hulan to say hulan of the gobi he was
3:39:20 off hunting hulan he fell from his horse and he injured his leg very badly and he seemed to decline
3:39:28 from that point and it took some number of months before august of 1227 he was very much near the end
3:39:35 of life uh you can read online the exact date and it’s all very specific but the truth is we don’t
3:39:43 know exactly which day he died in that time because his one of his wives was running the camp and they
3:39:52 were keeping it secret until the defeat of the tangut was completed and the tangut offered all kinds of
3:39:58 things to for the mongols to go away again the second time and uh chingis han had told his family no
3:40:06 except nothing and then when they surrender you kill the royal family kill them all so that the idea they
3:40:13 they were they were buddhist people and the tanguts were buddhist and uh the idea was usually you can
3:40:19 be reborn into your own family but he said no you kill off the whole family so they can’t be reborn
3:40:31 so he died there how was his successor chosen oh the succession issue was always difficult he did not have
3:40:42 the right to appoint a successor that was not the mongol way he could nominate somebody so before he set off
3:40:49 for the middle eastern campaign one of his wives said to him you know even the biggest tree falls
3:40:58 you’ve got to make a plan and talk to your sons about the future so he did he called the sons together
3:41:07 so this is zuch the oldest boy who was born while the father was allied with his anda jammuk and he was
3:41:17 named visitor zuch and then uh the next one was chagadai and the next one was a good day and uh
3:41:22 the next one was tala the father of of kubla khan but he was still alive at this point
3:41:28 so all four of them came so chingis khan explained to them he wanted to talk about the succession
3:41:35 and to get some consensus from them about the succession and so he said the mongols always
3:41:41 call on people to speak by order of age they also serve tea or food anything by order of age it’s always
3:41:47 done that way from then till now so he called first on zuch and he said what do you say zuch
3:41:54 chingis khan favored zuch this is the one who is questionable paternity but he always favored him
3:42:02 you know the youngest tala was too hot-headed a good day was a heavy drinker chagadai was very rigid
3:42:08 about the law of the mongols and all you know but he thought he seemed to favor zuch as a more reasonable
3:42:16 good warrior but reasonable person but he called on zuch my son speak speak the second one who
3:42:24 believes in mongol law supposedly he jumped up and he said this is when he accused his father of all
3:42:30 kinds he said how can you call on this mongol this market bastard if you call on him first that means
3:42:35 you want him to be the great khan he should not be the great khan of the mongol empire is this mongol
3:42:41 empire number on and on you know you can imagine kind of scene well chingis khan is the greatest
3:42:50 ruler in the world he’s sitting there being lectured by his second son and this is when he gave that
3:42:57 impassioned speech to his now in the actually the way the secret history it makes it look like it was his
3:43:05 assistant speaker who said it because very often the great power doesn’t say the words directly they let
3:43:09 let somebody else say them for him have a spokesperson but anyway i i think it was his words and i think he
3:43:15 said them on that day that’s what i think of this business of you do not know you were not there you
3:43:20 know the stars were moving in the sky the head was heaven was turning around the earth was turning over
3:43:25 you do not know who loved whom you do not know who your mother loved you do not know what your mother
3:43:33 mother did and if i say he is my son who are you to say he is not my son by the way pretty just
3:43:43 really high integrity really respectable to do that to have that respect and honor his uh
3:43:51 uh wife in this way yes and his son in this way it’s really powerful i believe that i don’t know if
3:43:56 she was alive at this point or not we do not have the death recorded mongols are not good at recording
3:44:03 death they don’t they usually just say somebody finished their age or they have some euphemism for it
3:44:12 but he made that impassioned speech and so god they had to submit and he said yes you are our father and we
3:44:22 accept what you say but a deer shot with words cannot be loaded on a horse a deer shot with words cannot be eaten
3:44:33 so singus han knew so he said to the boys the boys i mean these are middle-aged men they’re not
3:44:40 boys but he said to the men what do you want to do what do you want to do and he said i don’t favor
3:44:52 tsakade because of his attitude and the situation and talo is still hot-headed and he actually ended up being
3:44:58 drunk and dying early so but the other guys they said well a good day they chose him because he was
3:45:06 the most uh the most generous and the bon vivant and he was for every party and drinking every time and
3:45:13 yeah one time shiggy hutuk the great judge who wrote the secret history shiggy hutuk was sleeping in a
3:45:19 cart one time uh for whatever reason i don’t know what i think he also had passed out drunk perhaps
3:45:24 but a good day came out drunk and grabbed him up and pulled him back into the party and a good day
3:45:32 was a party guy and uh so he was chosen as the next great han of the mongol empire but fortunately
3:45:40 there was sort of a plan b and that chingas khan had set up very powerful women his daughters
3:45:49 but also he had chosen wives for each of his son very very capable wives and for a good day uh he
3:45:55 had a wife it wasn’t even his first wife the first wife would usually be somebody closer by a certain
3:46:02 clan or something but he had a very intelligent woman made dorchin and then uh she was more or less ruling in
3:46:11 his last few years and then after he died she ruled empire uh in her own name she was the ruler of the
3:46:19 greatest empire in world ever ruled by a woman it’s incredible the genius of jang is to set it up that way
3:46:29 yes and to not you know there’s probably uh very widespread discrimination of women at that time
3:46:34 and to have not care about any of that and just making the right decision
3:46:37 yes for like what it will keep the empire together
3:46:44 and dorchin was actually there was peace she stopped all campaigns there was peace during her time and the
3:46:51 women like such as dorchin and others were extremely into economics and trade and running these they
3:46:56 had these private corporations called ortok she was running her ortok and everything so she became much more
3:47:02 interested in the economics of the trade and running the empire and it was a time of peace and she recognized
3:47:10 that peace was better for trade it was better and so it was a peaceful time but like all of us you know we
3:47:19 we have our weak points and she favored a worthless son to become the successor and
3:47:25 none of the sons actually were great but a good they had favored another but anyway she favored
3:47:35 her son and uh so she arranged to have him made the great emperor while she was still alive and she had a
3:47:44 her primary minister was also a woman named fatima from the middle east and unfortunately they organized
3:47:51 a purge of her court and killed off a lot of these people who had been supporting her and a lot of them
3:47:56 were muslims and he killed off a lot and then he was going to march against the golden horde because
3:48:03 they weren’t supporting him so he set off and he died he was only in office for 18 months
3:48:13 and uh he was gone and then his wife took over ogal khamish unfortunately she was not capable as her
3:48:21 mother-in-law dorajan ogal khamish was a bit greedy and uh she didn’t start any new wars but she just kind of
3:48:26 messed up things and she didn’t rule for too long and this is why kubla khan’s mother sorakhtani
3:48:33 was able to have a revolution she united with the golden horde she was on one end on china she had
3:48:39 northern china the golden horde had russia the two of them united against the center and they overthrew
3:48:47 ogal khamish and she put her son mon khan in who was succeeded by kublai khan and we should say probably
3:48:52 that you know this whole succession by kin probably goes against the initial spirit
3:49:01 of of what genghis khan stood for yes yes in the end he was a father and he favored his sons
3:49:06 even knowing they were not so capable and he had lost a grandson that he loved
3:49:18 but but but but he organized it though as what we call today almost a corporation all lands belong to
3:49:25 everybody in the family everybody so kublai khan that’s why he had had soldiers there were christian
3:49:33 soldiers uh osetian soldiers and kipchak soldiers he had 10 000 of each come in and then they owned the
3:49:39 the russians would own silk factories in china the ilkhana would own silk factories in jade
3:49:47 mines in china of the people in uh china the mongols they would own villages in persia and in ira so he
3:49:54 organized it all as everything was owned by the entire clan it didn’t last too long
3:50:01 i like that because of the divisions that developed so the great khan was primarily in charge
3:50:08 of conquering and expanding the land so they had more lands to own that was going to be the job
3:50:15 and kublai khan fulfilled it monk khan to some extent fulfilled it a good day did guik did not
3:50:24 this family ruling the land all the different territories yeah and they weakened with every
3:50:33 generation yeah every generation but that reminds me of a a very popular idea about genghis khan
3:50:44 um articulated in the 2003 paper titled the genetic legacy of the mongols so that paper has a finding
3:50:50 that estimates that 0.5 of the world’s male population is descended direct descendants
3:50:57 of genghis khan i’ve heard you kind of be a little bit skeptical of this paper but i actually really
3:51:05 like its findings i talked to a good friend of mine manolis kellis who’s a biologist computational
3:51:10 biologist and geneticist and he he likes the paper as well i i find it really convincing but i think your
3:51:18 skepticism has to do not necessarily with the paper’s contents but more the implication that it speaks to
3:51:24 like the thing that maybe the people who think of genghis khan as a brutal barbarian
3:51:34 uh assume that the reason is 0.5 of the population is because of some institutionalized mass rape
3:51:40 conducted by genghis khan but to me and we actually spoke about this you can’t get those kinds of
3:51:51 numbers with with rape um if you want for the empire uh to propagate the gene if you if you were a person
3:51:58 that wanted to propagate the genes you would make sure that all the lands you conquer are stable flourishing
3:52:05 and happy and so actually what this is this is much better explained in the paper indicates this um is
3:52:14 better explained by it was of high value like social status value to be associated with the lineage of
3:52:24 genghis khan and so that means that for many generations people loved the great khan the genghis khan and so in that
3:52:33 sense given how vast the land was all the transformational effects it has on on trade on
3:52:40 culture and so on uh it makes total sense and in fact the 0.5 percent just so people understand
3:52:50 is just male descendants the the way it works that means if this paper is at all correct in its estimate
3:52:57 that the number of people descendant not direct male descendants but you know the way trees work is like
3:53:05 there’s women on each step so they’re the number of descendants could be much larger than that so i i
3:53:11 think that’s pretty interesting and i think there’s singular figures like this in history but uh none
3:53:20 like genghis it’s interesting it’s fun where did they get the dna from genghis khan oh yes so one of the
3:53:26 criticism you have is like well they don’t have one shred of scientific they’re supposed to be
3:53:32 scientific no they found that the bunch of people are connected yes and then they no no no to one
3:53:38 person to one person yes but they choose genghis khan right there’s no evidence that it was from him
3:53:45 no evidence it’s from that time it’s one person but from that time or 200 years before it could be 200
3:53:52 years before yes yes see i mean actually i i would like for it to be true in a certain way i would and
3:53:58 i do think there is a truth there yeah i think that by attaching it to the name of genghis khan they’ve
3:54:03 done a disservice to themselves but it gets a lot of publicity a lot more funding and it’s exciting
3:54:09 and so on but i think it’s to that mongol experience but chinghis khan’s descendants were almost
3:54:16 everyone categorized and and recorded i mean he’s the largest conqueror in the world you do not have
3:54:23 just children popping up all over the place he had four wives all the time he had children with two of
3:54:28 them just not a lot of descendants we know mostly who they are for many generations
3:54:35 his brother haser had many more children than he did many more and they caused a lot of problems
3:54:41 later on for the empire too by by rivaling the power so it could be that one of these other people
3:54:48 boden char the fool could have been the origin of this uh it could have been back well before chinghis
3:54:57 khan i just don’t believe and in mongolia today we have nobody who claims descent from chinghis khan
3:55:03 well claims is a different thing than biology right so this yes so the reason i say this is
3:55:11 this methodology is pretty solid oh he’s i believe that they found some connection of people
3:55:17 yeah but it’s they have no evidence that it’s really connected to chinghis khan i think it may
3:55:23 be tangentially to connect it to him yeah but it’s somebody from the mongolia region yeah i think
3:55:29 that’s quite possible but we’ve already had the hans come through we’ve had all the turks
3:55:34 every one of the turkic nations is descended from mongolia yeah they all came out of mongolia
3:55:39 i mean you’re right you’re right on the other hand i wish they could get
3:55:45 some proof i mean i wish it could be true yeah i just can’t believe it the way it is
3:55:52 we have no dna nobody knows where he went they don’t so they don’t know where he’s buried
3:56:02 okay chinghis khan said let my body go let my nation live and he chose to be buried in an unmarked grave
3:56:09 and the mongols believe very strongly it should always be that way most of the khans who followed him
3:56:16 were also buried in a similar way the chinese emperors you know are buried in very elaborate tombs
3:56:25 but not the yuan dynasty no and so kubla khan was buried back with his grandfather in an anonymous grave
3:56:31 and um not everyone like going died when he was on campaign towards russia he was died out there i
3:56:36 mean he was buried out there i think his uh i think his father good they was also buried out there
3:56:42 that was more their homeland but uh many of them were buried with him and uh
3:56:56 it’s known and not known at the same time you know it’s uh officially you you should not know it you
3:57:02 cannot know it uh it should never be disturbed he should never be disturbed we’re not going to have a tour
3:57:09 group coming in but you’re saying like the people of mongolia they have a sense they believe he’s in
3:57:16 a certain place yes and they believe they know where the place is but they it’s sacred you can do nothing
3:57:26 nothing just leave it as it is that’s no no roads no buildings no killing of animals no chopping of trees
3:57:36 nothing can be done it’s a holy land dedicated to him and his family it’s pretty amazing unmarked grave
3:57:45 yes for the the greatest conqueror in the history of humanity yeah uh for good and for bad the most
3:57:50 impactful one of the most impactful humans in history yes i believe in his thing about let my nation live
3:57:56 and and i say to people what they asked me well what did he look like and i say well that portrait
3:58:01 was painted 50 years later by somebody who never saw him and actually if you look at the portrait of
3:58:08 kubla khan and jengis khan they look alike except one’s old and one’s younger and i think that’s because
3:58:15 kubla was trying to establish he wanted to establish his legitimacy as a real mongol that they looked
3:58:20 alike but his grandfather said he didn’t and then okodeh khan and okodeh khan and monk khan looked
3:58:24 different they looked so there was nothing but i say if you want to see the face of jengis khan walk in
3:58:30 any gear in mongolia the first child you see that’s the face of jengis khan it’s his nation he created that
3:58:38 nation that’s his face does that make you sad that he that there’s no
3:58:48 you know from his time capturing of his image that he really made himself sort of disappear into the
3:58:57 land does that make you sad no not at all no because he’s everywhere you know when you have
3:59:03 these clans that are still operating in afghanistan and the russians are still using the yam system
3:59:11 uh there are many aspects of him that are out there in the world and i think there i i find
3:59:16 personal inspiration the same way that thomas jefferson did he found so much inspiration in
3:59:22 the life of jengis khan and the books of jengis khan that you can still read he gave copy bought so many
3:59:28 copies and gave like to the library of congress to the library of virginia the university of virginia and
3:59:36 to his granddaughter you know these ideas live on and we still have not fulfilled them we do not have
3:59:42 religious freedom we do not have the protections for women we do not have the protections for envoys and
3:59:50 ambassadors uh the ideas live on and the rulers do not live as the common people to eat the same food
3:59:59 wear the same clothes sleep in the same but not a bed in his case but sleep in the same uh situation
4:00:11 and simple home no i have tremendous respect for leaders that live just as the people who they lead
4:00:20 yes it’s yeah mostly not done um but when it is i have just infinite respect for that that is the way
4:00:26 uh what lessons can you can we learn from jengis khan that applied to the modern world you’ve already
4:00:33 said religious freedom some of these ideas well i think those his policy ideas i think are important
4:00:38 we can still learn from that about protection of diplomats uh not buying and selling women not
4:00:46 kidnapping women and uh having religious freedom of individuals but also he had interesting things
4:00:54 he had tax-free status for all religions all physicians and all teachers they didn’t pay taxes
4:01:03 in his empire uh as a former teacher i i embraced that idea out of pure greed and self-interest
4:01:10 yes but it’s it’s not to me the idea of saving the money it’s the idea of focusing on that as something
4:01:18 important for the society he didn’t say tax-free for any other category of people as i recall but just for
4:01:23 those and that’s he’s highlighting the health of the people the education of the people and the spirit of
4:01:32 the people their spiritual that’s very important that’s a a profound approach to life and so these are
4:01:37 policies and i’m not advocating so much to policies but i think some of the general principles of
4:01:45 being willing to learn from our mistakes admit your mistake to yourself correct it and go on with your
4:01:53 life then all of us say it’s important but we don’t do it for the most part we don’t learn from our
4:02:02 failures as much as we think the other idea of promoting people on ability i think that’s certainly
4:02:08 an idea that is very valuable not in the simple way of meritocracy that we’ve done it with oh if you
4:02:14 pass the exam with this score you get this or that but really evaluating people and their ability i think
4:02:21 it’s a very good thing not the only thing but i think it’s very important and even though he failed
4:02:28 in the end in his own life and he turned power over to his sons and his family it’s a principle that he
4:02:35 lived by most of his life and we can learn from that principle the other thing i think is just his global
4:02:42 feel for the world his global understanding here was a man who had had no education any formal sense
4:02:49 and he had this sense that the world should be united we should have things that unite all people
4:02:56 everybody should have their own law but there should be a higher law of heaven that governs people you
4:03:00 know and this later was translated everybody should have their own language but they all write the same
4:03:08 alphabet by kubla khan it didn’t work or his idea he tried to impose the use of paper currency in iran
4:03:15 the persian ilkhanate chinese paper money it didn’t work the people there weren’t used to do so there but
4:03:24 all this international spirit of their empire i think that we need today we talk about oh globalization
4:03:32 we’re all connected it’s just incredible and we’re more provincial than ever we are just so provincial and and
4:03:39 sometimes we use all this technology to help preserve our provincialism and we can’t think in global
4:03:48 terms we can’t think about the world it’s just amazing to me how narrow-minded we are i also uh
4:03:57 saw the mongol proverb of if you’re afraid don’t do it if you do it don’t be afraid yes that you uh
4:04:03 uh especially celebrate i mean there is something to that this uh in many ways
4:04:07 jenghis khan is a representation of a
4:04:14 of a person like of a self-made man that person from nothing yes
4:04:22 willed an entire empire into existence yes and everything against him that you can think of
4:04:30 your own family deserting you your father dying at an early age all these things like that but
4:04:33 as jamukha said he had a good mother and he had a good wife
4:04:42 and there were many crucial points at which it was either his mother or his wife
4:04:51 who made the deciding point his wife bush to was the one who caused the first break with uh
4:04:59 jamukha to go away later on when the shamans had become too powerful and they had humiliated his
4:05:07 younger brother she was the one who said he had to clamp down on the shamans who were exercising too much
4:05:14 power and uh she guided him a lot it cannot be understated how important
4:05:22 critical women are in the story of the mongol empire it’s fascinating sometimes you know we could
4:05:27 say they’re not behind the scenes because they’re always out front in the mongol court they always sat up
4:05:33 front they were always out front and this this horrified the chinese who are very good confused it
4:05:40 horrified the muslims it horrified the christians they didn’t know what they said the women even drink
4:05:49 in public okay yeah they drink in public you know uh they do what with it so sometimes it was like
4:05:54 that but other times well as with durjin she’s actually the ruler or the case of his daughters
4:06:01 such as um alakai beck who ruled over a part of northern china called the angut people and the
4:06:08 other daughters who ruled over different they ruled in their own names and he’s very this is something
4:06:13 about the secret history that upset me i get the chapter there all the sections are numbered i get to
4:06:22 chapter or number or section 215 and there’s only half a sentence left in 214 he’s just awarded a
4:06:26 a girl he calls his daughter so she’s probably a clan daughter but she lives with his mother at this
4:06:35 point his youngest son talo is only four years old a tatar comes and mother heirloom gives him food
4:06:40 because you food everybody he realized this is the mother of chingis han and that’s the child of chingis
4:06:46 han he grabs him up and kidnaps him and runs out and he’s holding the child in one hand and he’s pulling
4:06:53 out a knife with another hand altani raced out and she grabbed his arm and held it down and two men
4:07:00 uh jeb and jen they were back behind the gear slaughtering an ox with an axe because that’s
4:07:04 you have to do it in the shade behind the gear that’s you don’t do it in the light and so they
4:07:10 were back there doing that and so they raced out with axe and they killed the man and so then chingis
4:07:16 han is rewarding everybody for all their great deeds and gentlemen and jib they wanted to be rewarded for
4:07:24 saving the life of talo he said no you killed the tatar altani saved his life because she held the hand
4:07:31 that had the the knife until you got there to kill him she saved it and now we reward her so he’s finished
4:07:39 that story in 214 we get to 215 he says now let us reward our daughters it’s actually only a phrase
4:07:46 of that’s i said it’s a complete sentence but it’s not quite complete the rest is gone cut out
4:07:55 it’s missing and i i was just so and i looked at all these different translations of how to different
4:08:07 language and most often they translated as and now let us marry our daughters oh no oh no he was very
4:08:15 clear in his wedding speeches to his daughters i give these people to you to rule you have three husbands
4:08:22 you have your honor you have your nation and you have the man that i give to you
4:08:30 but the man i give to you goes in the army with me and brings his soldiers you stay here and rule to
4:08:35 people brilliant the chinese when they arrived in the court of altani they didn’t know what to think
4:08:40 there she is ruling this area to all good people and they said well she can read and write and she’s
4:08:48 the supreme judge and she doesn’t allow any death sentence without her permission and uh but they
4:08:53 didn’t say which languages she could read and write that has really puzzled me a lot so you’re
4:09:02 saying the secret history as we have gotten access to has been edited to to remove the significance of
4:09:09 women even though they’re still there in that case i mean other cases with his mother they did not and
4:09:17 all but i think in that case because what happened is most of these women had few offsprings because
4:09:24 her husband was gone to war and altani of course she married several times sometimes all the sons of
4:09:30 the last one you know but they were going off to war and they weren’t reproducing very only one tsetsegan
4:09:37 who was ruling in siberia uh she was the one who had a whole bunch of daughters they wouldn’t be going
4:09:41 off to war and so they actually spread out through the empire and did a lot of i had a lot of power
4:09:48 uh later but what happened was the area for for all uh alakai beck for example was then taken over
4:09:54 by kubla khan and then the areas all the turkey areas one by one were taken over by
4:10:02 their nephews as they died out not in their own lifetime they didn’t kill the women off but as
4:10:08 they they died out the men uh took it over and so then they just wanted to kind of erase it it’s
4:10:15 like no northern china even though it was ruled by sora tani uh it always was mongol she was ruling
4:10:19 because of her husband was mongol and her sons were mongol therefore they had the right to rule it
4:10:26 so they cut out the women for those reasons i think any time it threatened the power of a particular man
4:10:30 then there were other little things that are added in there sometimes you can find a phrase and
4:10:39 it’s like that phrase was not in the original yeah in studying human history what have you learned
4:10:46 about human nature and just the trajectory of humanity throughout the past several millennia
4:10:54 i tend to have a certain love for individuals and persons but not a love for people in general and
4:11:02 especially not for institutions i have i tend to have a great suspicion about almost everything and
4:11:10 mistrust in institutions over and over and i think that’s my own prejudice and then i find reasons to
4:11:17 support that and chinghis han was very good at destroying a lot of uh institutions or bringing
4:11:23 them to heel within this empire so then i like that and i stress that and i i see those things
4:11:30 things i think that’s one thing but other things that i learned from the mongol people in general not
4:11:36 just about their history and all but how it’s possible to live for thousands of years in a place
4:11:44 that for many people it’s not the most beautiful in the world it’s austere you have a band of mountains
4:11:52 and with some trees and then big band of step and then a big band of sand gravel desert the gobi and for
4:11:56 many people it wouldn’t it’s not appealing it’s just open there’s too much space it’s like we need to
4:12:01 build something over here boy you could have a condo right there we could have a building we could sell
4:12:09 them off and but i you know they haven’t given into that they really value their country they protect
4:12:17 their country even now only one percent is privately owned they keep it down and in the mongolian records
4:12:23 farm and city count as one category it’s just because it’s settled people it doesn’t matter
4:12:27 you settle on a farm you settle in the city settled people one category and
4:12:35 they lived there in this land that chingis han would return to and love
4:12:41 if he returned to the capital city he would not know where he was he would have no idea and all the
4:12:47 people would say i’ll be mongol ho and i’m mongolia yeah i’m mongol i have the hat i have the bell buckle
4:12:53 i have the all the dell that’s all embroidered you know yeah i’m mongol and uh
4:12:58 chingis han would say where’s your horse i’ll keep it in the countryside you know but
4:13:07 he wouldn’t recognize the city but it’s still his country his people they worship him in a literal
4:13:14 sense not the way we would worship god asking for favors but in the sense of worshiping him with praise
4:13:20 they have so many songs to praise him and about half of the hip-hop in the country is in praise of
4:13:26 chingis khan you know it’s something we can’t understand because when we pray we’re usually
4:13:30 saying you know oh thank you god for this and that and the other and you’re so wonderful and i love you
4:13:36 so would you please give me and would you please do this would you please stop this pain in my knee
4:13:42 we’re asking for things all over the place but chingis han no no no one ever asked for anything
4:13:50 they just honor him they just praise him and honor him if i wanted to visit mongolia what what would you
4:13:56 recommend what’s what’s the right way well start with my home let’s start there you come over there
4:14:01 it’s a nice valley i’m gonna have a nice valley there and uh
4:14:08 i think almost any direction you go outside of the city is going to be interesting
4:14:15 it kind of depends a little bit on on your purpose most people go south to the gobi and they do a
4:14:21 loop to the gobi and around to karakoram hakhor in the old capital from a good day han but it was
4:14:27 abandoned by kubla khan and then they circle back to the city and they may stop off to see the
4:14:35 what we call prezwalski though the wild horse but they talk to see the tachi or they may go up
4:14:42 to hufsko lake a big beautiful lake somewhat like baikal but much smaller so that’s a beautiful
4:14:48 trip if you want to see the more turkic area where they hunt with eagles the far west is where the
4:14:55 kazakh people live and the mountains are absolutely incredibly beautiful most mountains in mongolia
4:15:02 are gentle beautiful but gentle the farther west you go the more dramatic they become the more pointed and
4:15:10 peaked and snow covered then if you go to the eastern mongolia it’s tend to be very flat there are massive
4:15:16 massive flocks of cranes that come in every year millions and millions of cranes there are also
4:15:25 tundra swans that come in and golden ducks and all kinds of beautiful birds out there and so each area
4:15:32 has something special if you want particularly the history of chingis han uh the mongolians love him
4:15:40 they worship him but they don’t do too much to capitalize on his home area the hinti you can go to the
4:15:47 hinti there are areas you cannot go to large large areas it’s forbidden but you can go but they don’t
4:15:54 capitalize like this is the place no they they go there themselves out of respect
4:16:03 but the only one place they built this statue of him which is the largest equestrian statue in the
4:16:10 world but it’s the place where they say he found his whip which is when he was coming back from
4:16:18 being at the camp of asking orgal han or torgal han or bang han to support him and he’s coming back
4:16:24 to his family and on the way he supposedly found a whip there which is just a small stick with a couple
4:16:31 of strands of rawhide at the end of it that’s used but for the mongolians it’s a symbolic thing
4:16:39 because obviously it’s used for a horse but for the mongols your destiny your yourself your real is your
4:16:48 himor your wind horse that lives inside of you your wind horse that guides you and gives you opportunities
4:16:56 but it’s up to you to ride that wind horse it’s up to you to use the wind horse not to just go wild
4:17:05 with the wind horse and so i think it’s that crucial moment he’s on his way back home and to go with
4:17:12 jamukkah and the other soldiers to the market to rescue burstah and so symbolically he found a whip
4:17:21 there but i think it it means that he found the way to control his destiny his fate that’s very
4:17:29 important very important and that he did that was the beginning of yes yes and it’s symbolized in that
4:17:34 statue some people think that he’s holding this stick that it’s a baton or something like that but no
4:17:42 it’s that what they call the whip or to shoot we’ve talked a lot about the past if we look
4:17:51 out into the future what gives you hope for human civilization for us humans well almost every day
4:17:59 i’m totally dissatisfied with everything on earth you know it’s just that kind of old man blah blah blah blah
4:18:04 blah blah what are they talking about my grandchildren are talking to me i don’t understand a word they say what
4:18:10 are they what and who are they talking about i never heard of this you know it’s kind of like that and
4:18:17 who’s running for office oh my god oh my god you know it’s everything like that but then almost every
4:18:26 day i meet somebody just one person you know who gives you some kind of hope you just see somebody doing
4:18:33 doing something nice and or or are they do something nice for you and i do find in asia that happens a lot
4:18:39 you know that people just do nice things for old people every day and
4:18:49 so then my dissatisfaction with all the big things in the world and the way my grandchildren talk and the way
4:18:57 young people are and then i see something like that and often it’s something with the young people
4:19:04 something that the young people do and in an asia they’re always bringing me things they bring me dried
4:19:11 courage they bring me strawberries that they picked in the forest in the summer or or they bring the
4:19:20 pine nuts that they found or they bring me to the milk in various forms or yogurt oh yeah everybody
4:19:25 thinks you got to eat the yogurt this is from my grandmother and all the other yogurt in the world
4:19:30 is not good but my grandmother she knows how to make the best yogurt ever
4:19:39 you know and so over and over and over i find despite my all intentions to be in a bad mood
4:19:48 you know somebody spoils you with these little nice acts that are really very touching very touching
4:19:53 yeah and it reminds you that there’s that little flame of goodness that burns in everybody i i believe
4:20:03 that that on the whole will keep humanity flourishing keep keep you know evolving and changing towards
4:20:10 something better with every generation yes you know i’ve the people in mongolia take such good care
4:20:18 of me all the time all the time and i think my wife had ms i’ve talked about this before sometimes she
4:20:25 had ms and slowly declined for many years becoming paralyzed not able to speak not able to control her
4:20:32 movements or anything and we lived half the year still in mongolia part of it was because the climate
4:20:39 and the altitude were better for her situation uh it was very helpful for her but also the people
4:20:46 there was a poor country the sidewalks are broken everything’s not working but i would go out with
4:20:53 with her in a wheelchair alone and i knew that every bump some arm would pick her up and pick up the
4:20:58 wheelchair and lift her over that and not make me do it we could go to the opera and you had to go up
4:21:05 this magnificent set of soviet stairs to get to the opera you know we would go and i had no worries i knew
4:21:10 two guys would come from one side two guys from the other side they would carry up and they do not say
4:21:16 excuse me may i help you they do not wait for you to say thank you nothing they just do it and they walk
4:21:24 away they have such respect singers would come there all the time to sing to warm up the house for my
4:21:33 wife and they even dancers would come sometimes to dance or play the horsehead fiddle morin hur to play that
4:21:39 to warm up the house for her to see how they treated a totally disabled person
4:21:45 you know and if i was feeding my wife and somebody anyone anybody saw it they would come and immediately
4:21:50 take over and start feeding her in their place children would come up to her in america
4:21:53 they’re often afraid that she’s somebody in a wheelchair
4:21:58 you know they just kind of look they don’t know what to do but over there the children would always
4:22:05 come to her always they were very it you just learn something about the people and living there in a
4:22:12 country where you out in the countryside you come to a gear you never ask for permission to go in
4:22:19 you certainly don’t knock on the door frame that’s no that’s hugely offensive and you ask it’s like
4:22:24 insulting the people like what you’re not good hospital people i have to ask you for something
4:22:33 no you walk in and you sit down and they fix food for you it’s an incredible thing and these are the
4:22:40 things that give me hope it’s no institution in the world no not the big things and not the pop
4:22:47 culture and not all the platitudes oh my god save us from the platitudes of modern life you know
4:22:53 yeah it’s true it’s the family that will fix tea for you and two in the morning because
4:22:59 there was a flash flood and you got stuck and now you’re cold and wet and they build a fire and take
4:23:05 care of you or you just show up and you make camp somewhere if you have your own tent and i swear
4:23:11 within one hour some child is going to be there with water and milk you think where did you come from
4:23:17 but the mother sends them over oh there’s somebody over there in the forest they believe that they’re
4:23:24 we’re obligated to take care of one another anybody in your area you take care of them and things like
4:23:33 that individuals do give me hope people one by one or a few at a time even though i’m lost in the modern
4:23:44 world uh well i’m glad you find your way you mentioned that your wife is no longer with us
4:23:49 what’s a favorite memory you have with her
4:23:55 well i could say a favorite picture is a lake we used to go to called um
4:24:04 uh in the middle and somebody a very nice friend uh took a picture of us
4:24:08 towards the end we’re just sitting there watching the sunset over the lake that we’ve
4:24:16 been to many many times in life and you know she’s holding she we’re holding hands she’s in the chair
4:24:23 paralyzed and we’re just sitting there staring off in the distance you know and that’s one of my favorites but
4:24:30 with my wife i was just blessed with a good wife that
4:24:37 was exciting she was the most beautiful woman i had ever met my whole life she was smart she would
4:24:43 talk to people about anything she talked about jazz or physics or art i mean i my life is so small and
4:24:53 narrow but my wife she’s the one who gave me a life she the truth is a very odd people don’t believe
4:25:00 sometimes i failed english in college i barely got in college nobody in my family i’d grown up with my
4:25:05 grandparents mostly countryside and they had third grade education my father had seventh grade i went to
4:25:12 live with him uh after the grandparents died and and my mother there was no big education there in the
4:25:18 family but i somehow got to college my father told me to go he didn’t want me to go to the war in vietnam
4:25:24 so he volunteered to go because there was the the rule that they they couldn’t send two people from one
4:25:29 family against their will that was mainly designed to protect brothers but he could go as the father and
4:25:35 then i could go to college you know so i got to college and i can’t say oh i was drinking and having
4:25:42 a party and not serious no i was trying like hell to pass that course i failed english i failed it
4:25:48 and this was just a huge shame to me in fact after one year i was put on probation to be kicked out of
4:25:55 the school my grades were so low overall you know and then so it took me a long time to confess this to
4:26:02 my wife after we met you know i met her i’d briefly had known her in high school but just
4:26:08 not well or anything but anyway we met later and and i told her and she just looked at me she said
4:26:15 what does a professor know it’s just a professor you can write anything you want yeah and she had
4:26:20 the power to make me believe everything she said i don’t care what she said i would believe it and i
4:26:27 always said yeah that’s right that’s just a professor yeah what you know and she inspired
4:26:34 me but she also she supported me all the way through graduate school she was taking some courses of her
4:26:41 own and she was doing graduate work but but she inspired me but she told me i said i want to write
4:26:47 for more people than just for other scholars i’ve done this dissertation a phd and it’s just dry as
4:26:54 the sargoby desert you know and and i didn’t know what to do and she said
4:27:02 just tell the story to me but i can’t see you while you tell it you’re on the radio and i’m listening in
4:27:10 my car driving somewhere just tell the story to me and to this day almost every word i write
4:27:18 it’s always just tell the story to her the way that she would like it and i always read the books to
4:27:26 her even she couldn’t comprehend too much you know but she just loved hearing the book because
4:27:35 it was mine and you know in the last years of her life i gave up the teaching and we we went back to our
4:27:41 original home in south carolina and i said okay we’re just going to live here and watch the ocean
4:27:48 and do things like that and just be worthless teenagers and my wife used to have episodes of
4:27:54 clarity i i have no idea what what caused i mean it might be two hours it might be seven or eight hours
4:28:01 and what and we would talk a lot and so one time she said to me she said
4:28:11 this disease is going to take my life but it’s taking your life she said you gave up teaching
4:28:19 and you gave up writing and she said how do you expect me to die in peace if i know that you gave
4:28:30 up everything to this disease she said you should write and so every single day we sat together by the
4:28:37 water oh i mean by the window i moved it into the dining room overlooking the water we sat there at the
4:28:43 desk and she sat in her wheelchair next to me and sometimes we would play a little soft music in the
4:28:48 background a little bit and for the most part she couldn’t talk but she liked to just sit there
4:28:57 beside me working and she knew that she was inspiration she knew she was the battery that kept me going you
4:29:07 know i how on earth i ever had a wife like that i don’t know that’s beautiful jack
4:29:15 that’s really beautiful you know i i just hit the jackpot with her and i see so many people that get
4:29:23 by and they even like each other or they’re friends or something but in my life there was one person i
4:29:30 love my children i still do i love my grandchildren even i don’t understand them but yeah but there’s one
4:29:39 one person in my life and that was my wife for 44 years and her funeral was on our anniversary
4:29:45 i mean that’s just the way life works out you know but i was very lucky very lucky
4:29:55 if uh the two of you lived and met a few centuries ago i might be reading a history book about you
4:30:02 concrete no no no and if she said you know you should uh you should do this maybe she said it i
4:30:10 probably would have believed exactly exactly she was too busy enjoying the world you know and you know
4:30:17 in her final i i could not ask her questions and i would not say oh you remember that no i never would
4:30:24 say that because i knew she could remember but when she was being restless or something in the night or
4:30:32 i used to recite scenes from our life and just give the scene without saying do you remember but the last
4:30:39 night i certainly didn’t know that she was going but it was a rough night and we went back to
4:30:49 the first night that we had in moscow we came in december in the winter and the snow was so beautiful and white
4:30:56 and the yellow lights shining on it and then the most beautiful night we went to the bolshoi
4:31:05 and she had this elegant blue wool coat from her grandmother from the 1920s with a huge
4:31:15 it’s so ironic it was a a blue wolf but it’s gray blue like the mongrel handsome gray blue collar this
4:31:21 huge collar she just looked like a movie star from the 20s or something and we went to see
4:31:29 maya plesetskaya and it was one of the most beautiful nights but her last night
4:31:37 i told her that story again you know of all the details i’d gone through it many times but her
4:31:43 coat from her grandmother whom she loved very much and the snow and the yellow lights and we arrived at
4:31:49 night because of course the flight was late and um uh then the next night going to the bolshoi and
4:31:52 all those beautiful things from russia
4:32:02 that was it she was an inspiration i have many many nights or many days of great memories you know
4:32:07 you’re gonna make me cry jack oh no that was beautiful you’re a beautiful human being um
4:32:15 it’s uh it’s really an honor to talk to you this was such a fascinating journey through human history
4:32:21 about one of the most impactful humans in human history well i thank you very much and the amount of
4:32:27 research when i realized how much research you had done i felt like you’re gonna know things i don’t
4:32:31 know and you’re gonna trick me and pull something out and i’m gonna be shamed in front of the whole
4:32:37 world there’s only one piece of research left is me going to mongrel and and and riding there
4:32:43 on the step that would be uh that would be incredible so come come i will thank you so much for talking
4:32:50 today jack thank you thanks for listening to this conversation with jack weatherford to support this
4:32:55 podcast please check out our sponsors in the description and consider subscribing to this
4:33:01 channel and now let me answer some questions and try to articulate some things i’ve been thinking about
4:33:07 if you would like to submit questions including in audio and video form go to lexfriedman.com
4:33:15 slash ama or if you want to contact me for other reasons go to lexfriedman.com contact and now
4:33:23 allow me to make a few comments on the ever-evolving moral landscape of human civilization throughout our
4:33:29 10 000 year history i was listening to dan carlin’s excellent eye-opening five and a half hour episode
4:33:37 of hardcore history titled human resources it covered the topic of slavery the atlantic slave trade
4:33:44 to be exact one of the lessons i took from this episode is that the long arc of history is full of
4:33:51 atrocities as we modern day humans understand them with the wisdom of time and moral progress
4:33:58 but during each period of history as dan documents it was difficult for the majority of people to see
4:34:05 just where the line between good and evil is we humans after all forever like to weave a story
4:34:13 in which we are the good guys listening to dan discuss and later myself reading first-hand accounts of
4:34:20 slaves of torture of rape of separation of families is incomprehensibly heartbreaking
4:34:26 by the way in this topic first-hand accounts of slavery can be read in slave narratives a folk history of
4:34:32 slavery in the united states from interviews with former slaves i can recommend the book that i’ve been
4:34:39 reading which is voices from slavery a hundred authentic slave narratives it all seems deeply and
4:34:46 obviously wrong by today’s standards but slavery was seen as normal through most of human history
4:34:53 thomas jefferson the man who wrote all men are created equal which i think is one of the most powerful
4:34:59 things that’s important in the most powerful ways of human history he himself was a slave owner making
4:35:05 him a fascinating case study of contradictions in fact there’s evidence that thomas jefferson drew from
4:35:13 genghis khan’s ideas about the importance of religious freedom pulling as he did foundational ideas of human
4:35:21 freedom from the jaws of deep history and dan in his episode documents these contradictions and complexities quite well
4:35:28 the full range of human psychology involved including how violations of basic human rights breed
4:35:36 generational hatred this i think is an important lesson to understand the consequences of our moral failings
4:35:42 can reverberate through decades even centuries and that is perhaps one of the values of studying history
4:35:51 it is laden with atrocities but it also contains people who while flawed dare to rise in some way
4:35:57 about the moral decrepitude of the day to try to build a foundation of a slightly better future world
4:36:04 as mlk jr put it the arc of moral universe is long but it bends towards justice
4:36:14 and now please allow me to say a few words about gaza israel and palestine i’m not sure i’m eloquent
4:36:22 enough or know quite the right words to express what i’m feeling but let me try i think what is happening
4:36:31 in gaza is an atrocity and i think that the israeli government is directly responsible for it and to the
4:36:37 degree the us government is assisting the israeli government in this which i believe it currently is
4:36:46 it needs to stop immediately for me as an american makes me sick to know that my government has any role
4:36:57 in this atrocity this needs to stop yes there’s geopolitical and military complexity nuance and
4:37:05 historical context that i’m told by some so-called experts that one must understand and perhaps they
4:37:12 are smarter than me but like mentioned before unlike the moral complexity of deep history that i’ve often
4:37:21 spoken about from the roman empire to the atlantic slave trade this is the 21st century this is today
4:37:30 in this the 21st century i see things quite simply and clearly to me the death of a child is a tragedy
4:37:38 it doesn’t matter what their skin color is what their religion is or what plot of land they call home
4:37:46 in my view they are all equal and the death of each child is a tragedy
4:37:55 hamas did a definitively evil act on october 7th brutally murdering over 1 000 civilians
4:38:04 but now the acts of war conducted by the israeli government have led to the death of over 60 000 people in gaza
4:38:12 likely over 80 000 people of which at least 17 000 are children 17 000
4:38:22 17 000 i’m not smart enough to know the path to peace and flourishing of all the peoples in the region
4:38:31 but i do know that what has been happening in gaza cannot be the way suffering at this kind of scale
4:38:42 breeds generational hate that leads to more evil in the world not less to more destruction to more suffering
4:38:52 this has to stop two years ago i spoke with many palestinians in the west bank on camera and off
4:38:59 there’s a video of it up if you want to hear their voices for yourselves it was a deeply moving experience
4:39:06 for me and i’m grateful for it in the future i hope to find a way to talk to people in gaza
4:39:12 i still think it’s valuable to talk to leaders historians soldiers activists from all perspectives
4:39:20 but the most powerful and moving conversations for me on mic and off have always been with everyday people
4:39:29 this always felt like where the truth is the deeper truth of life of pain fear of hope
4:39:39 and i still have hope i believe we humans are good at the core and i know we’ll find our way thank
4:39:53 you for listening i love you all