第 150 期·中文精讀

邁克爾·馬利斯:白色藥丸、自由、希望與混亂中的幸福

Michael Malice: The White Pill, Freedom, Hope, and Happiness Amidst Chaos

從《白色藥丸》一書談起,討論在混亂時代如何守住自由、希望與幸福,以及樂觀主義的理由。

官方音訊00:00 / --:--
中文精讀由 AI 基於原始訪談改寫,非官方翻譯,可能存在偏差或錯誤;表述以原音訊與官方文稿為準。說明

2020年的某一天,邁克爾·馬利斯(Michael Malice)坐在亞歷克斯·瓊斯(Alex Jones)對面,講敲門笑話。

"咚咚。"

"誰啊?"

"奧利弗。"

"奧利弗是誰?"

"奧利弗你。"

英文裡 Olive you 和 I love you 諧音。對著那個以陰謀論和咆哮聞名全美的男人,說出一句"我愛你",這件事本身就夠離譜。更離譜的是,馬利斯還準備了一個後備笑話,關於桑迪胡克(Sandy Hook)小學槍擊案,藏在背後沒拿出來。

"那是必要時候的匕首。我喜歡一件事能同時在好幾個層面上成立。"(邁克爾·馬利斯)

這場對話發生在2020年12月31日,播客第150期。那一年剛剛過去,疫情、選舉、封鎖、騷亂,幾乎所有東西都在撕裂。馬利斯穿著一身和主持人完全相反的裝束出場:白西裝,黑襯衫。

幽默是一種篩選機制

馬利斯說,瓊斯比他想象中更有自我意識,也更懂幽默。敲門笑話在這類對話裡是一根救命繩。當談話隨時可能滑向失控的深淵時,一句"咚咚"能把溫度硬生生拉回來。

但他做這件事還有另一層目的:篩選觀眾。

總有人會說,這個人怎麼講這麼幼稚的東西。馬利斯的回答是:"如果你因為一個人穿什麼衣服、講什麼笑話就判斷他的想法,你就不配待在我這邊。"他之前上蒂姆·普爾(Tim Pool)節目時戴了個帶馬達的螺旋槳帽子,也收到過同樣的批評。他管這叫"太好了"。

在萊克斯·弗德曼(Lex Fridman)看來,馬利斯身上有好幾副面孔:深沉的思考者、揚言要燒掉權力結構的人、以及一個輕飄飄地嘲弄世界的惡作劇者。哪個才是真的?馬利斯的答案是不必二選一。做一道基輔雞,你需要雞肉、火腿和黃油醬汁,少一樣都不成立。

他把自己定位成"混亂的代理人"。瓊斯在某種意義上也是。而正是這種沒人能預測下一步的對話,讓播客這種媒介顯得有意思。"如果你要出場,就要做一場秀。"

他把二十幾歲的男人當兒子養

馬利斯說,隨著聽眾變多,他產生了一種奇怪的父母本能,一種他完全沒預料到的東西。

二十四到二十七歲這個年紀,對很多聰明、有野心的年輕男人來說是最難熬的一段。同齡人開始結婚、安定,退出了這場比賽。而如果你還在找自己的路,身邊沒有人能給你指方向,那種孤獨是實打實的。

馬利斯現在手裡握著的,就是這群人。他能對他們說的是:"不不不,問題不在你,在別人。你才是英雄,他們才是背景噪音。"

"能站在那個位置上,既受寵若驚,又覺得謙卑。"(邁克爾·馬利斯)

紅藥丸、藍藥丸、黑藥丸

人們熟悉《駭客帝國》裡的紅藥丸和藍藥丸。紅藥丸的意思是:企業媒體和娛樂工業呈現給你的"事實",其實是一套精心構造的敘事,用來讓一群不怎麼體面的人保住權力,讓其餘所有人保持服從。

但馬利斯有一句話:"紅藥丸你只吃一顆,不是把整瓶都吞下去。"吃到某個程度,你會覺得一切都是謊言,於是失去分辨真假的能力。

他看到的現實是,很多吃了紅藥丸的人變得沮喪、憤世嫉俗。他把這種狀態叫黑藥丸:一切都完了,我們只是在等結局。

馬利斯的英雄之一是加繆(Albert Camus)。加繆說過,最糟糕的事情是憤世嫉俗。馬利斯不接受黑藥丸,所以他要寫一本書來正面回應它,書名就叫《白色藥丸》(The White Pill)。

這本新書講的是蘇聯的崛起與崩潰。他發現自己一直在對保守派抱怨:你們從不說冷戰不費一槍一彈贏了這件事。"你不能指望《紐約時報》來講這個故事,因為血就在他們手上。"那不如自己來講。

《白色藥丸》的結構是三幕:第一幕是1930年代,第三幕是1980年代,中間那一幕要做一個假設:如果你是1930年代的人,你會放棄嗎?你會說"我們完了",然後你確實說對了,接下來很長一段時間會很糟。還是你會成為那少數幾個說"我們要做點什麼,哪怕倒下也要揮拳"的人?

西西弗斯必須被想象成幸福的

馬利斯最初打算用加繆的方式重寫《西西弗斯神話》,像他的朋友瑞安·霍利迪(Ryan Holiday)用斯多葛哲學寫當代讀物那樣。但重讀之後他發現,自己記憶裡的那本書完全不是那本書。

《西西弗斯神話》其實只是那本書末尾五到七頁的一個尾聲。整本書講的是加繆的"荒誕"概念和文學裡的"荒誕人"。而西西弗斯這個神話人物,被罰在地獄裡永遠把石頭推上山,每次快到頂的時候石頭又滾下來。加繆從這個故事裡得出的結論是:我們必須想象西西弗斯是幸福的。

馬利斯的解讀是:一旦你接受自己活在一個荒誕的處境裡,一旦你承認你的現實,它就失去了咬人的牙齒。你可以把這個當成基線,在上面生活。

"你可以活得像個衝浪者。你永遠控制不了海洋,但你可以享受那趟衝浪。如果你試圖控制海浪,你就完了。"(邁克爾·馬利斯)

什麼算好人

萊克斯問,那"好人"該怎麼定義?希特勒當年大概也很確信自己帶領的是一群好人。

馬利斯的回答很樸素:如果你想讓世界比你發現它的時候好一點點,你就是好人。問題在於,有太多人的動機根本不是這個。

但光有動機不夠,動機還得和現實對上。你得有足夠的謙卑去檢查自己的動機。如果你要開始干涉別人的生活,你最好真的確定自己知道自己在說什麼。而且你需要洩壓閥:萬一哪裡出錯了,有沒有備用方案,別讓整個系統一起崩塌。

他舉了喬·拜登的例子。拜登說他把伊拉克戰爭視為一個錯誤。馬利斯說,你我這輩子也犯過錯,但我們的錯沒有讓成千上萬人喪命。如果一個廚師因為失誤讓客人吃死了,他會悲痛,但更重要的是,他必須回頭檢查整個系統,搞清楚怎麼走到那一步的,然後確保它再也不會發生。

而拜登身邊的幕僚,還是當年勸他打伊拉克的那批戰爭販子。在馬利斯看來,這就不算好人。這個人對自己導致大量美國人、以及大量伊拉克人喪命這件事,毫無悔意。

萊克斯提到,他當年第一次對奧巴馬產生好感,就是因為奧巴馬在戰前公開反對伊拉克戰爭。說這話的時候他還沒當選,政治風險並不小。很多想往上爬的政客要麼支援戰爭,要麼不敢反對,敢於說出常識的人值得尊重。

馬利斯補充了一個更刺痛的對比:2020年,圖爾西·加巴德(Tulsi Gabbard)是最大的反戰候選人,卻被自己黨內的邊緣化處理,企業媒體盡一切努力假裝她不存在。而在十二年前,喬治·W·布什在紐約開共和黨全國代表大會時,爆發了歷史上規模最大的抗議。伊拉克戰爭讓民主黨在2006和2008年取得壓倒性勝利。到了2020年,反戰這件事居然完全從民主黨內消失了,這既令人震驚,也令人不齒。

出版業是個卡特爾

話題轉到寫書。馬利斯上一本《親愛的讀者》(Dear Reader)是自助出版的,下一本《白色藥丸》也打算這麼做。

萊克斯說他總被人勸著寫書,但自己更想去做產品、去建公司。他覺得寫書有危險:它會把你帶到某個地方,你開始思考這個世界,開始玩想法,然後就變了。馬利斯同意。"寫書就像懷孕,它永遠不會從你腦子裡離開。"

然後是錢的問題。透過聖馬丁出版社(St. Martin's)賣一本書,作者拿到1美元。透過亞馬遜自助出版,比如《親愛的讀者》,作者拿到6美元。差了大概百分之八十七。

但馬利斯說,真正讓他難受的是那種無能。他去上喬·羅根(Joe Rogan)和魯賓 Report 的節目,打電話問出版社有沒有差旅預算,對方說沒有。他自己上的節目,出版社沒幫任何忙。他說,現在一個人能拿到出版合同,唯一的原因是出版社知道這個人能自己把書賣出去。

還有更荒誕的。有個朋友上 CNBC 節目和納西姆·塔勒布(Nassim Taleb)同臺,出版社說塔勒布想要一本樣書,結果那天是週五下午四點,出版社已經關門了,編輯自己走過去,把書拿了兩條街送到。

馬利斯說,這已經越過無能這條線,到了另一個層次。他有兩個朋友因為出版這件事被逼到想自殺。這是他們人生裡巨大的機會,而他們眼睜睜看著自己的孩子在面前被打,馬利斯得在電話裡把他們從懸崖邊拉回來。

他還有一本書《Concierge Confidential》,第一章結尾有個錯字,平裝版都沒改。

那為什麼還要跟這個系統打交道?因為不這麼做,《紐約時報》就會假裝你不存在。這是卡特爾的運作方式:你是圈內人,才有資格上榜單、被評論、被承認。你放棄的是大概一年半的時間,換來的是六倍的版稅和兩個月就能出書的速度。

"如果我知道這套流程背後是那種凌晨兩點還在為你做的事情興奮的人,我認了。但它不是。"(邁克爾·馬利斯)

1930年代的記者們知道,但他們不在乎

萊克斯問了一個他一直思考的問題:當麻煩正在醞釀,需要非常勇敢和深刻的思考才能看清的時候,記者和知識分子該做什麼?1930年代面對斯大林,1937、1938年面對納粹德國,你會怎麼做?

馬利斯推薦了兩本書,都是女性歷史學家寫的傑作。一本是黛博拉·利普斯塔特(Deborah Lipstadt)的《超越信念》(Beyond Belief),講的是納粹德國崛起如何被當時的媒體呈現。

這本書厲害的地方在於,它同情當時的記者,理解他們的處境。張伯倫(Neville Chamberlain)背了綏靖的罵名,但就在不久前,他們剛經歷過一戰,那是人類從未見過的屠宰場。由血肉做成的人撞上工業機器,整形外科就是那場戰爭的副產品。人們回來時面目全非。為了什麼?而且當時還有一整套關於德國人的西方宣傳,關於暴行、關於野蠻。

所以二十年後,當你再次聽到關於希特勒的這套說法,哪怕是事實,你的反應是:這套我們二十年前聽過,全是謊話,省省吧。

而且資訊非常有限。納粹德國對記者來說並不開放,沒法隨便走動。希特勒本人很擅長偶爾漏一點東西,但總體上他讓人看起來像是想要和平。

當時流行的"高見"是:既然這麼多猶太人在街上被打,這恰恰證明希特勒是軟弱的。因為一個政治家控制不住這些流氓,說明他的權力不穩,這一切很快就會過去。

然後發生了"水晶之夜"(Kristallnacht),一場全國性的迫害。所有新聞機構一致的反應是:糟了,我們搞錯了。譴責是普遍的。

利普斯塔特還破除一個迷思:西方不知道大屠殺正在發生。他們知道,但那時他們已經和納粹德國開戰了,到那個地步,除了打仗還能做什麼去救那些猶太人?

另一本是安妮·阿普爾鮑姆(Anne Applebaum)的《紅色饑荒》(Red Famine)。馬利斯說他討厭二元思維的人,把拜登叫馬克思主義者的那種。但阿普爾鮑姆是個硬核左派,這本書卻系統地擺出了斯大林做了什麼。

饑荒是人為的。如果看你的樣子不像在捱餓,就說明你在藏糧,於是他們晚上回來,把你的手指夾在門縫裡,或者燒掉你的房子。你流落街頭,沒有食物,因為你說謊了,這是人民的糧食。而"富農"這個詞,很快就變成了"任何手裡有一塊麵包的人"。

當時有個英國記者,在烏克蘭一個小鎮提前一站下車,走進去,把看到的一切寫了下來。他被嘲笑、被奚落,說他是在搞反俄宣傳。因為在1930年代,這是社會主義結出的果實,是一場高貴的實驗。悉尼·韋布(Sydney Webb)說過那句著名的話:"我看到了未來,它行得通。"

還有一個叫尤金·傑諾維斯(Eugene Genovese)的人寫過一篇出色的文章,討論的問題是:你知道什麼,什麼時候知道的?關於集中營,關於饑荒,關於學校教孩子舉報父母藏了一塊麵包。他的結論是:我們都知道,從一開始就知道,每一件事都知道。我們不在乎,因為我們更想推廣這套意識形態。

馬利斯說,當有人覺得地球上最糟的事情是羅伯特·E·李的雕像被從華盛頓移走時,回頭看看那個資訊遠比今天受限的年代,有多少媒體在說:他們是未來,他們是科學的,市場的不確定性導致了大蕭條。任何覺得現在比歷史上任何時候都糟的人,不是妄想就是無知。

那個投了反對票的女人

馬利斯講了他最喜歡的人物之一:珍妮特·蘭金(Jeannette Rankin)。

她是第一位當選國會議員的女性,1916年在蒙大拿當選,那還在女性投票權寫入憲法修正案之前。她是投票反對美國參加一戰的少數人之一,在當時這是正確的判斷。她還是個和平主義的共和黨人。

她因此丟了席位。1940年再次參選,贏回來了。然後到了二戰,全場只有珍妮特·蘭金一個人投了反對票。她說:"你沒法贏得一場戰爭,就像你沒法贏得一場颶風。"

珍珠港事件之後,頂著那樣的壓力投下唯一一張反對票。當然,很多人沒興趣聽她的觀點,說她瘋了,說她邪惡。馬利斯在推特上提到她,有人回:也許她同情希特勒。他回:是啊,蘭金女士是希特勒的大粉絲,你猜對了。

萊克斯問:有沒有一種論證,說美國本不該捲入二戰?馬利斯說,這是個容易論證的觀點。在網際網路的某些圈子裡,對話拖得越久,就越可能出現"我們本該讓希特勒和斯大林互相殘殺,然後再進去幹掉那個弱的"這種說法。至少從戰略上看,這能摧毀兩個噩夢般的體系,不算難賣。但珍珠港之後就沒法賣了。

至於大屠殺,幾乎沒有哪個情境能避免它,除非你進場早得多。而且希特勒早就說過,如果猶太人再發動一場戰爭,就把他們從地球上抹去。猶太人被希特勒當成了人質。他還有一招很惡毒:為了讓各國無法接收猶太難民,他規定離開德國的猶太人必須一貧如洗。於是來的都是身無分文、語言不通的人,各國接收他們的難度一下子就上去了。

事後諸葛亮是最廉價的東西

馬利斯說,他特別討厭"事後一切都清楚"這種說法。一般來說,我們應該給祖先比我們習慣給的更多的信任。

他舉了個別的領域的例子:避雷針。人們總說信教的人愚蠢迷信,其實他們往往很有邏輯。每年,鎮上最高的建築都是教堂,而它總是被雷劈中、起火。這看起來像巧合,其實是邏輯:它最高,所以吸引電。當避雷針發明出來時,這還引發了爭議:如果閃電打在避雷針上而不是燒掉教堂,上帝還怎麼展示他的不悅?

很多事情的內部邏輯,比我們以為的要連貫得多。張伯倫是一個議會政黨的領袖,他沒有希特勒那樣的自由度,說一句"兄弟們,我們再來一次"就行。

萊克斯說,可他畢竟和希特勒同處一室,面對面。一個偉大的領袖應該能看穿那層偽裝。馬利斯說,你很容易想象他坐在房間裡,那人非常冷靜,非常有魅力,然後你想:那個演講的樣子是表演,是做給他的人民看的,這個才是真的。

問題是,我們其實不知道和希特勒同處一室是什麼感覺。回頭看,我們總覺得一切都該一目瞭然。

金正日能"縮小時間"

馬利斯寫過一本關於朝鮮的書《親愛的讀者》,副標題是"金正日的未經授權自傳"。他的做法是去朝鮮,把他們翻譯成多種語言的宣傳材料全帶回來,因為朝鮮的宣傳前提是:地球上每個人都對他們感興趣,都想分享他們的意識形態。

金正日2011年去世,馬利斯2012年去朝鮮,書2014年出版。在這本書裡,金正日被寫成朝鮮版的阿甘:每當歷史發生什麼,他都在場。透過講他的一生,其實就講了朝鮮的整部歷史。馬利斯想寫的是那種能躺在沙灘上、或者坐在馬桶上讀完的書,一本書讀完,你就掌握了關於朝鮮你需要知道的一切。

人們不瞭解的是,朝鮮變成今天這樣不是一夜之間的事。這個家族一步一步把國家從世界密封起來,不斷升級壓迫,阻止任何資訊進入。他們在操縱和控制上的手法非常有創造力。

所以書裡有一種鬧劇的成分。人們常說金正日第一次打高爾夫就打出十七個一桿進洞。但還有一個更妙的故事。

金正日在開會,有人在發言。他一邊聽,一邊做筆記、處理工作,旁邊有個助手不停打斷他問問題。發言的人不停停下來。金正日問,你為什麼停?發言的人說,因為我看到你在做別的事。他說,不,我可以同時做所有這些事。所有人都震驚了。於是他們解釋說,這就是為什麼金正日看時間不像看一個平面,而像看一個立方體,他能"縮小時間"。

馬利斯的朋友問:他們說的是"多工處理"嗎?是的。金正日是朝鮮唯一有能力"多工處理"的人。為了抬高他,他們把朝鮮其他所有人都設定成了無能的人。

這有實際目的:一旦領袖消失,這個國家會在一夜之間崩潰。

還有那個平壤的方尖碑,長得像華盛頓紀念碑,但頂上有個塑膠火炬。宣傳裡說,所有建築師聚在一起商量,說我們把它建成世界第二高的石方尖碑吧。金正日說,不,建成最高的。他們就說,哦,我們從來沒想過這個。

書裡的東西都是按字面呈現的,有時讀者會說它像一本諷刺小說。馬利斯不認這個說法,他管這叫鬧劇,他其實還把所有東西都往輕裡寫了。

還有一個例子:朝鮮把遊樂場叫"遊樂園"。有一座遊樂園,金正日說,在我親自冒險試過之前,不會讓任何老人和孩子坐這些設施。他們說,可是親愛的領袖,天在下小雨。他說,不行,我必須確保這些設施對每個人都是安全的。哪怕下著小雨。他們說,那我們能和你一起坐嗎?他說,不行不行,我一個人來。然後他坐著所有設施,他們站在旁邊,為他的勇氣流淚。

萊克斯說,可有些遊樂園的設施是真的生鏽、危險的。他扮演反方:這種宣傳確實讓人感到安慰、有用,但它似乎自然會導向權力濫用。沒有一個人有足夠的智力去理解一整個經濟體,更別說每個具體領域。一個領袖可以僱很多專家,可以是個極好的管理者,但一切都在動態變化,他們不會擁有管理所需的資料。

馬利斯說,看起來大多數人都做不到"把自己解僱"。喬治·華盛頓據說是例外。而一個系統如果不能讓人自我解僱、不能知道什麼時候該交出權力,那就是一個明顯的缺陷。朝鮮沒有這個機制,結果就是1990年代他們那裡還有小兒麻痺症。

馬利斯引用了一句他常說的話,出自 H.L. 門肯(H.L. Mencken):"普通人並不想要自由,他只想安全。"

無政府主義對客觀主義

萊克斯提到他和亞龍·布魯克(Yaron Brook)聊過客觀主義,聊到資本主義和無政府主義的區別,核心是暴力:政府擁有暴力的壟斷權,是確保暴力不失控的仲裁者。

馬利斯說,讓他正面論證無政府主義下暴力不會失控,可以。"那些被當成反對無政府主義最強論據的東西,其實無一例外是在描述現狀。"

反方的說法是:無政府狀態下會有軍閥殺人,誰最強誰就佔一個街區。馬利斯說,這個我們現在就有。我們看到警察很樂意解除民眾的武裝,而當民眾試圖自衛時又受到懲罰。他們樂意袖手旁觀。這只有在你擁有壟斷權的時候才可能發生。

他打了個比方:假設有幾家電視臺,CBS 說我們不轉播了,好,你不轉播,我們看別的臺就行。壟斷的問題在於所有人都必須依賴這一個東西。

他說,客觀主義者讓人驚奇的地方在於,他們會論證政府在它做的每一件事上都非常非常糟,所以它必須掌管最重要的東西。

布魯克還說過,歷史上沒有任何政府以他設想的方式運作過。而安·蘭德(Ayn Rand)的哲學建立在客觀現實之上:你觀察、研究自然的規律,那就是現實,然後據此推導。她自認屬於亞里士多德傳統,而非柏拉圖傳統。所以布魯克說的其實是:所有資料都與我的論證矛盾,但我還是要造一個從未存在過、也沒有證據能存在的想象中的政府。

馬利斯說,想想司法系統。你希望發生糾紛時能有一個地方去解決,而政府壟斷之下,它會更貴、更難,窮人更難負擔。請律師比請外科醫生還貴。你沒法板著臉說這是唯一或最好的方式。

還有那個所謂的致命反駁:如果我屬於一家安保公司,你屬於另一家,我們起了糾紛,兩邊都上門了,怎麼辦?馬利斯說,地球上就有這個情況。每個國家相對於其他國家都處於無政府狀態,我們沒有世界政府。一個加拿大人在墨西哥殺了一個美國人,會怎樣?我不知道,但我確信這套流程三個國家之間早就商量好了,不用你我現在重新發明輪子。

就像手機運營商。我在 Sprint,你在 MetroPCS,我打給你,誰付錢?他們怎麼分賬?沒有一種客觀的、唯一正確的方式,但公司之間會解決。車禍也一樣,保險公司之間會仲裁,根本不會到我們桌上。

他還有一個科舍爾食品的類比:遵守潔食的猶太人,食物要按特定方式處理,要符合更高的拉比標準。你看食品包裝上會有認證標誌,甚至有競爭,有寬鬆的 K,也有更嚴格的 U。人們不留意,是因為他們在找。安全認證也一樣。會有公司為不同地點認證安全等級,做一個 App 只要一個小時,像收費公路一樣,告訴你前方是不安全區域,不在我們的覆蓋範圍內。今天就能做。

萊克斯追問尺度的問題:如果無政府主義只在佛蒙特或布魯克林實現,中國打過來怎麼辦?馬利斯說,小國不存在嗎?薩爾瓦多不存在嗎?有的暴力,有的不暴力,但它們都不是隨時會被入侵。科威特被伊拉克入侵,很快所有大國都因為自身利益介入,把他趕了出去。

萊克斯說,可你剛才說我們相對於其他國家正處於無政府狀態,那這不就是我們正在經歷的嗎?馬利斯說,這就是關鍵:你出生在一塊地理區域上,僅僅因為出生,就被迫簽了一堆東西。如果你能更自由地選擇自己認同的觀念空間,那才是真正的無政府狀態。

安·蘭德最好的想法

萊克斯說,那能不能說說蘭德的好話。

馬利斯說,她最好的想法是:你的人生是有意義的,生產性的工作是你最高的價值,你不必為此道歉。你不欠任何陌生人一秒鐘。這一點他非常認同。你在推特和社交媒體上經常看到,有人要求你跟他辯論,要求你按某種方式行事、回應他。你什麼都不欠他。

"安·蘭德沒有所有答案,但她有所有問題。"(邁克爾·馬利斯)

但馬利斯對"自私"這個詞的用法有意見。蘭德談"自私的德性",她說當人們談自私時,指的是"主要關注自我"。馬利斯說,這個解釋站不住腳。人們說自私,指的是那種反社會的、完全只顧自己,比如有人倒在街上,我連浪費一秒鐘去救他都不願意。蘭德設定了一個關於這個詞的漫畫式靶子。

她真正在攻擊的"無私",是那種沒有自我的人:沒有自己的價值,沒有自己的目標,腦子裡的一切都是二手從大眾文化裡拿來的,沒有任何獨特的、值得為之奮鬥的東西。所以她講的"自我",其實是自我發展、自我提升、成就。這個詞選得很糟,既不準確,又毫無必要地讓人反感。

那個發明紅藥丸的人

萊克斯提到門修斯·莫爾布格(Mencius Moldbug),也就是柯蒂斯·雅文(Curtis Yarvin)的筆名。馬利斯採訪過他兩次。

雅文發明了"紅藥丸"這個概念,他的部落格叫"不合格的保留"(Unqualified Reservations)。他寫得非常長,非常囉嗦,也非常聰明。他的視角非常異端:很多我們習以為常的自由民主制度的基礎,他不只認為是錯的,而是荒謬的。他不把很多人視為美國公共話語基礎的東西當作自己思考的起點。

萊克斯唸了維基百科上關於他的"種族觀點"一節,說他的觀點被描述為種族主義,包括認為白人在基因上智商高於黑人。雅文字人則堅持自己不是種族主義者,雖然他懷疑"所有種族同樣聰明",但他認為"智商測試得分高的人在某種意義上是更優越的人"這種說法是"令人毛骨悚然的"。

萊克斯說他讀了幾篇雅文的東西,覺得他是個真誠、有思想的人,但用詞不夠小心。馬利斯說,他也能批評雅文:如果一個人漫不經心地講有爭議的東西,那和故意講有爭議的東西是兩回事。萊克斯說他被雅文的這種漫不經心勸退了,如果跟著他走太久,自己也會染上這種漫不經心。

馬利斯的猜測是,雅文的想法是:我已經在一個和主流完全不同的世界觀裡游泳了,我註定會被叫種族主義者,所以沒必要努力保持細緻,因為反正都會被貼標籤。

萊克斯說這是一種憤世嫉俗的思維方式。他自己反而覺得,一個人漫不經心會失去他這樣的聽眾,而他本該屬於可以被公平對待、可以被爭取的那類人。

馬利斯說他不想替雅文說話,但他能理解那種"反正沒法取悅他們,何必費勁"的思路。

特朗普是水壩,不是河流

話題轉到分裂。馬利斯說,美國從建國起就是一個國家、多種文化。沒有理由讓一個你反對的人來統治你。如果你厭惡特朗普,那是你的權利;如果你覺得拜登是個小丑,那是你的權利。沒有任何理由你必須被一個你不認可的人統治。這個說法本身就站不住腳。我們之所以把它當成一個假設,是因為從幼兒園起就被訓練成相反的想法。

他認為,社交媒體有一件事做得很好,就是讓想法經歷一個進化過程,被推到邏輯終點。你很難在網上保持現代,因為人們會把你的想法推過好幾個迴圈,最後你會落到一個更純粹、或者如果你不喜歡的話,更極端的立場上。不同的人群根本沒法被同一個政府治理,因為世界觀根本不同。

萊克斯問,有沒有可能在不流血的情況下分裂?馬利斯說,有捷克斯洛伐克,有英國脫歐。脫歐就是一次分裂。內戰本來可以不打,那會是一次非暴力的分裂。就算擔心奴隸制,你也可以把奴隸都買下來、送到北方,代價更小,死的人更少,種族關係可能還更好。

他說,有些保守派圈子裡有個神話,說內戰跟奴隸制沒什麼關係,爭的是州權。可你去看每個州脫離時發的宣告,他們白紙黑字寫著,我們這麼做是因為奴隸制。

萊克斯說,特朗普不是歷史的意外。馬利斯說,有人以為特朗普是那條河,其實他是那道水壩。特朗普走了,事情會變得更糟,因為現在一切真的要爆發了。

至於2024,馬利斯說,他很期待看到特德·克魯茲對邁克·彭斯,兩人都很擅長辯論。他還說,2021年會很瘋狂:特朗普第一次會去追究共和黨、對基本盤負責,這是歷史上沒發生過的事。而參議院50比50,眾議院民主黨只多三席,對哪一方來說,這都湊不成執政所需的聯盟,會是一場徹底的混亂。

萊克斯說,他覺得分裂是把人喊過去,而不是讓人去建造。真正在建造的人,像埃隆·馬斯克(Elon Musk),像在讓世界變好的那些技術,在公共話語裡沒得到什麼認可,因為分裂蓋過了這一切。

馬利斯的回答是:能消除分裂的,是分裂(secession)。

火星、外星人和蘑菇

萊克斯興奮地聊到人類踏上火星。馬利斯說,他不太在意火星。如果讓他選,他寧願在深海待一週,看那些生活在那裡的生命形式,因為那些是字面意義上的外星人,是我們難以想象的東西。

不過他把火星當成一個思想實驗:如果你去火星建一個政府,不在舊系統裡,而是在一個從未有過系統的地方,你會怎麼做?馬利斯說,你得靠"有機"的方式,他討厭這個詞,但這個詞用得對。先看這些人是誰,再讓組織去適應他們,別把某種東西強加給他們。美國就是這麼建起來的:詹姆斯敦殖民地試過一次共產主義,徹底失敗,第二批殖民者轉向了更自由的市場體系。

萊克斯問,你覺得外面有外星文明嗎?馬利斯說,當然有。那他們的政府是無政府主義嗎?因為他們是先進的。萊克斯追問 UFO。馬利斯說,他外公是蘇聯的空中交通管制員,說他們經常看到一些東西,運作方式和我們已知的飛行器不一樣。這就夠他相信了。

萊克斯問,政府是不是掌握著某些公眾不知道的資訊?馬利斯說,這是無可爭議的。這麼多目擊者來自飛行員這樣的專業人士,是有信譽的人,他們公開說看到過說不通的東西。而當年美國和蘇聯都以為那是對方。這一點本身就說明問題。

為什麼這不成為更大的新聞、更大的問題?馬利斯說,問題是,如果他們真公佈了,會引發連鎖反應:你們還藏了什麼?到那時你就算說"沒有了,這就是全部",人們也不會信,而且你不能怪他們不信。他們會說,把外星人給我們看。你說,我們沒有外星人,我們只有飛行器。他們會說,你撒謊。

關於迷幻劑,馬利斯說,他不確定我們是否理解它做了什麼。他聽過的解釋是:人腦的很大一部分功能在於遮蔽資訊。每一刻湧入的資料太多,你必須訓練自己只看、只聽你想看的。迷幻劑做的,就是把這層遮蔽撕掉,你突然對周圍的一切更敏感,也會注意到以前沒注意到的模式。

他提到羅根讓 DMT 大眾化了,但沒有人,連研究者也沒有,能對為什麼這種到處都是的藥物會對這麼多人產生如此特定、如此極端的效應給出接近連貫的解釋。有意思的是,CIA 當年開始實驗 LSD,還弄死了自己人,然後一旦這些東西進入主流,他們很快就把它關掉了,儘管它不會上癮,也不會讓人發瘋。

萊克斯提到馬修·約翰遜(Matthew Johnson),霍普金斯大學的教授,研究所謂"英雄劑量"的裸蓋菇素。馬利斯說他想試試。萊克斯說,有意思的是,某些迷幻劑,比如裸蓋菇素,似乎沒有致死劑量。約翰遜教授研究可卡因,說可卡因的問題是,你給長期使用者的劑量對他們來說不算什麼。裸蓋菇素是唯一一種,連日常使用者都會被實驗劑量震住的。

幸福是可以選的

萊克斯問,什麼是愛?馬利斯說,他給 D.L. 休利(D.L. Hughley)寫書時,休利描述過一種輕度的抑鬱。他在機場注意到一個穿紅裙子的女孩,走過去謝謝她。他意識到,自己已經好幾周沒有"登記"過顏色了。愛就像那樣:你看到一個人,眼睛突然睜開了,這是我從沒見過的東西,我想要更多。它會讓人迷失方向,然後重新校準。

馬利斯說,那種能聊上好幾年都聊不完的人很稀有。那種你離開房間也知道他會替你辦好事的人,更稀有。

萊克斯問,在一個世界燒起來、馬利斯站在旁邊拿著火柴、臉上掛著大笑的背景下,怎麼在2021年把更多善意和愛帶進世界?

馬利斯的回答很簡單:坦然地說出"我想要幸福"。如果有人說三道四,就把他推開,去和那些也想幸福的人待在一起。

他舉了朋友克里斯·威廉姆森(Chris Williamson)的例子。威廉姆森最近在迪拜,給他發了張泳池邊的照片,就是在享受生活。馬利斯花了一週才反應過來:換作別人,看到這個內衣模特在泳池邊,會覺得他是在炫耀。但這個念頭從沒進過馬利斯的腦子,他的反應是:真好啊,我這兄弟能過得開心,還把這份開心分享給我。你需要的,就是這種永遠不會心生怨恨、只會分享你的豐盛的人。

什麼讓馬利斯幸福?他說他大部分時候都幸福。他很討厭給建議,因為覺得除非你懂行,否則別給。對他而言,幸福是自我實現:他在事業上可以24小時做自己,永遠不必寒暄,永遠不必和不想要的人打交道。很少有人有這種條件,能擁有它,還能因此被獎勵、被人認為有價值,這讓他非常幸福。

還有當舅舅。他有兩個小外甥,讓他非常幸福。他姐姐用俄語養他們,所以他們說話像移民,他說這沒關係,我們會改過來的。

還有寫完這本書,知道它會給人帶來希望,這讓他感到被認可。

萊克斯問,你今天最感激的是什麼?馬利斯說,他很感激自己走進這裡,不知道要聊什麼,也不用擔心必須保持警惕、必須小心措辭,而萊克斯和他的聽眾都不會對他報以嘲諷。"我在這裡感到安全。"

節目最後,萊克斯引用了埃瑪·戈德曼(Emma Goldman)關於無政府主義的一句話:人們擁有的自由,只等於他們有智慧去渴望、有勇氣去爭取的那一部分。

可以帶走的東西

這場對話看起來散,從敲門笑話一路聊到金正日和迷幻劑,但裡面有幾條線一直沒斷。

  • 把幽默當工具用,不當裝飾。它能給失控的對話降溫,也能幫你篩掉不該留在身邊的人。如果你因為一個人講什麼笑話、穿什麼衣服就判斷他的想法,那是你自己的問題。
  • 紅藥丸只吃一顆。看到敘事的構造是好事,但別把整瓶吞下去,否則你會失去分辨真假的能力,掉進"一切都是謊言"的黑藥丸裡。
  • 用"世界有沒有變好一點點"來定義好人,但別隻停在動機上。回頭檢查你的系統,找到出錯的那一步,確保它不會再發生。做不到這一點的領導人,無論說得多動聽,都不算好人。
  • 給祖先多一些信任。張伯倫和1930年代的記者並不蠢,他們面對的是一戰剛過、資訊受限、宣傳早已透支的處境。事後諸葛亮是最廉價的東西。
  • 想清楚你的資訊來自哪裡。1930年代西方知道烏克蘭在餓死人、知道大屠殺在發生,很多人只是不在乎,因為意識形態比事實更誘人。這個陷阱今天還在。
  • 做一個有"洩壓閥"的人或組織。萬一你錯了、你的資訊有限,有沒有機制不讓整個系統跟著崩掉。朝鮮沒有這個機制,代價是小麻痺症重新出現。
  • 你不欠任何陌生人一秒鐘。不必接受每一次辯論邀約,不必回應每一次挑釁。你被激怒,恰恰說明對方贏了。
  • 坦然說出"我想要幸福",然後和那些也想幸福、會分享你的豐盛、不會嫉妒你豐盛的人待在一起。這才是對抗"世界在燒"最實際的做法。
文稿由本站用語音識別模型(基於官方釋出音訊)機器轉寫,可能有識別錯誤,人名與數字請以音訊為準。
[00:00:00] The following is a conversation with Michael Mallis, his second time on the podcast. He's an anarchist political thinker podcast or an author. He wrote Dear Reader, which is a book on North Korea and the new write, a book on the various ideological movements at the fringe of American politics. He hosts the podcast called Your Welcome spelled y o u r. And in general, there's a lot of live shows on YouTube that are at times profoundly absurd and other times absurdly profound and always full of humor and wisdom. [00:00:38] He is the joker to my Batman and the Caviare to my vodka. His masterful dance between dark humor and difficult, even dangerous ideas challenges me to think deeply about this world. And when that fails, at least smile and have a good laugh at the absurdity of it all. This episode has much of that. His outfit, for example, the exact inverse of mine with a white suit and a black shirt is just one example of that, of the humor, trolling and brilliance that is Michael Malice. [00:01:18] Quick mention of our sponsors, NetSuite, business management software, athletic greens, all in one nutrition, drink, sun basket meal delivery service and Kashyap. So the choice is success, health, food or money, choose wisely, my friends, and if you wish, click the sponsored links below to get a discount and to support this podcast. As a side note, let me say that Michael is in many ways a man of radical ideas, but also a man with kindness in his heart. [00:01:55] Those two things are great ingredients for a fascinating conversation. I hope to have several such people on this podcast this upcoming year who also have radical ideas about politics, science, technology and life at times. Often, perhaps, I might fail at asking the challenging questions that should be asked, but I will try my best to do so and hope to keep improving every time. Mostly I come to these conversations with an open mind and with love. [00:02:25] Unfortunately, that kind of approach can be taken advantage of in many ways. It can be used by reporters or just people online later to highlight how or why. Ignore it or worse, I'm generally not a good human being. In the context of this. I have two options. I could either be cautious and afraid or second, be kind, thoughtful and fearless. I choose the latter, hopefully, while still being open, fragile and empathetic again. I strive to be like the main character of the idiot, but just the Yassky. [00:02:59] That's my New Year's resolution behind and do difficult things, difficult conversations, difficult research projects and difficult entrepreneurial adventures. Enjoy this thing. Subscribe on YouTube, review and Apple podcast. Follow on Spotify, support on, feature on or connect with me on Twitter. Àlex Friedemann, as usual. I do a few minutes of ads now and no ads in the middle. I tried to make this interesting, but I give you time stamps. So if you skip please to check out the sponsors by clicking the links in the description. [00:03:32] It's the best way to support this podcast. This show is sponsored by NetSuite. This one's for the business owners out there. Running a business is hard. [00:03:42] Spoiler alert if you own a business, don't like quick books and spreadsheets, make it even harder than it needs to. [00:03:49] You should consider upgrading to NetSuite. It allows you to manage financials, HRR, inventory, e-commerce and many more business related details all in one place. As a small side note, let me say that I dislike the bureaucracy that companies sometimes build up around all of these different tasks. NetSuite and probably help from sheer bureaucracies can still flourish. They always find a way if you let them. To me, efficiency and excellence are essential, NetSuite or not, anyway, whether you're doing a million or hundreds of millions in revenue, save time and money with NetSuite. [00:04:30] Twenty four thousand companies use it like NetSuite. Show you how they'll benefit your business with a free product for free in all caps. That's how you know they mean it. And NetSuite dotcom strategy. You might be wondering why the code words strategy and not the usual code word Lexy's used was because this one, friends, is hot off the presses. New sponsor, it's a trial run. So if you want to support this podcast and you own a business, now's the time to try NetSuite. [00:05:03] They'll probably change it to Leks from strategy soon. But for now, its strategy. Schedule your free product tour right now. And NetSuite accounts for a strategy NetSuite dotcom slash strategy that is the cheesiest and the worst code word they could have used strategy. But I did read a bunch of reviews of NetSuite and people really do love it. All right. Onto the next one. This show is also sponsored by Athleta Greens, the only one daily drink to support better health and peak performance. [00:05:37] I can't say enough positive things about these guys. I love them. It replaced the multivitamin for me and went far beyond that was 75 vitamins and minerals. I do intermittent fasting of 16 to 24 hours every day and I always break my fast with athletic greens. It helps me not worry whether I'm getting all the nutrients I need, one of the many reasons I'm a fan of these guys is that they keep iterating on their formula. I love continuous improvement. [00:06:05] That's what makes engineering super fun. Life is not about reaching perfection. It's about constantly striving for it and making sure each iteration is a positive delta. The other thing I've taken for a long time outside of athletic greens is fish oil. Some especially excited now that they're selling fish oil and are offering listeners of this here podcast free one month supply of wild caught omega three fish oil. [00:06:32] When you go to a flooded Greenstar councillor's LAX to claim the special offer, click the athletic Greenstar cast Flashlight's link in the description to get the fish oil, and the only one supplement I rely on every day for the nutritional foundation of my physical and mental performance. [00:06:55] This show is also sponsored by Sunbake Some Baskett delivers fresh, healthy, delicious meals straight to your door. As you may know, my dad is pretty minimalist, so it's nice to get some healthy variety into the mix. [00:07:09] They make it easy and convenient to do so with everything proportioned and ready to prep and cook. Even I somehow managed to figure it out. [00:07:19] You can enjoy delicious, healthy dinner in as little as 15 minutes. I've enjoyed a bunch of meals from their menu that fit my what they call carb conscious. [00:07:28] With some items on the menu today are Black Angus rib eye steaks with broccoli and radishes, Italian sausages and vegetable skewers with two or Maskell's Mediterranean lemon chicken with baby broccoli, artichokes and olives. It goes on. The menus is ridiculously delicious and healthy. [00:07:49] Right now, son Baskett is offering 35 dollars off your order when you go to some basket diecast flex and enter promo code LACHSA. Check out again. [00:07:59] That's a lot of blacks visit some Baskette that last legs and Scolex to get 35 bucks off your order. Good luck. You won't regret it. [00:08:08] It's delicious. Finally, the show presented by Kashyap, the number one finance app in the App Store, when you get it, you called podcast, catch up with you, send money to friends, buy Bitcoin and invest in the stock market with as little as one dollar. I'm thinking of doing conversations with folks who work in and around the cryptocurrency space. Similar to I. There are a lot of charlatans in the space, but there are also a lot of free thinkers and technical geniuses. [00:08:38] From my perspective, it's actually sometimes difficult to figure out the difference between the charlatans and the geniuses, but I do my best anyway. If I do make mistakes in selecting the guests I speak with or just the details of various things I say in their conversations, as I'm sure I often do, I will keep trying to improve. I promise you this correct things where I can afterwards and also keep following my curiosity wherever it takes me. Please be patient. [00:09:07] I'm doing my best here. So again, if you get Kasher from the App Store or Google Play and use the Kolchak's podcast, you get ten bucks in cash. I will also donate and ask the first an organization that is helping to advance robotics and stem education for young people around the world. And now here's my conversation with Michael Balas. Knock, knock. You're stealing like that. I'll kill your family. Knock, knock, joke works. Knock, knock. [00:09:57] Michael, you don't do a knock knock joke with the Russians. Knock at the door Turned out the TV. You got to sit quiet. They go away. You know that back. You know it's trigger there. I can't even do it now. Knock, knock. Who's there? [00:10:18] Leon. Leon who? Leon me. When you're not strong, Michael. [00:10:23] Well, that will never happen. I stole elegantly, eloquently that joke from you. The lie detector test. [00:10:31] That was a lie elegantly and eloquently. No, no. Yeah. You crossed it on a sheet of paper. That means it's real. The reason I bring it up is because you had the guts, the brilliance to to do a knock knock joke not once, but three times with Alex Jones. I think it was like six. I had a runner. OK, maybe I just they started to sort of melt together in this beautiful art form that you've created, which is like these kind, loving knock knock jokes with Alex Jones. [00:11:03] So you got the chance to meet them and talk to them twice with temper. Yeah, in long form conversation. [00:11:11] What was it like talking to Alex Jones both on the deep philosophical intellectual level and staring the man in his eyes and doing a knock knock joke about Olive? [00:11:26] Knock, knock, who's there? Olive? I love you, Alex. Yeah, well, there's a lot to explain. [00:11:33] Where do you start? [00:11:34] I've been on his show Infowars a few times when I was researching my book, The New Right. So I had had conversations with him before. One of the things that I appreciate about Alex is he is a lot more self-aware than people think and has a good sense of humor. And I also like a good twist ending. So if you set people up and all these jokes, are these kind of vapid, you know, all of you jokes and the last one is about building seven, they're not going to see that one coming, nor will he see that one coming. [00:12:05] I even had another one about Sandy Hook, which I didn't do on the air because he was being like a good sport. But that was the dagger that was kind of behind my back, if necessary. But it was a good mechanism toward I like it when things work on several levels. It was also a good mechanism to keep kind of the conversation guarded. And this every so often this is kind of hitting the control delete and bring it down to a certain point of calmness. [00:12:32] What about the love thing? I mean, you're saying that that was a build up to the dagger, but it was also somehow really refreshing to get that little jolt like that pause. You don't get that in conversations often. Like I'm a huge fan of Rogen and you have a three hour conversation, but at some point just pause and be like. I love you, man. I think it's in the cheesiest way possible, because there seems to be it's somehow hits the hardest then. [00:13:05] I don't know. I don't know. You didn't intend it that way. But with Alex Jones, sit there and to say I love you. That was like that, I just have never heard that before, and so it struck me as like not just funny for what you're doing, but just like, whoa, we just took because conversations are all about like this ranting, especially with Alex Jones, just like ranting about this or that. This part of the world, like, can you believe this shit, that kind of thing, but like to pause and be like, this is awesome. [00:13:35] I don't know if you felt that way, but. [00:13:36] Oh, I definitely felt that way. So it's actually very fun. I'll give you the back story of how that happened. It was it was it was silly because Tim calls me up and there's this expression in marketing, don't go past the sale. Right? So if you're trying to sell someone a car and you're like it's got this feature, this feature in that picture and they're like, you know what? I'm going to buy the car. If you keep talking, you can only make them lose the sale. [00:13:59] You just get them to sign and get get out of Dodge. So Tim calls me up and he goes, OK, here's what we're thinking. This is top secret. Alex is going to be on the show. We want you on as well. And I've never said yes to anything as quickly in my life. And then he keeps talking and I'm like this. You don't have to sell it. I interrupted him. I go, you don't have to sell it. [00:14:21] Why you, by the way? I think because I am kind of an agent of chaos and Alex is in his own way, an agent of chaos. And what is provides an opportunity in this kind of new media space that you and I travel in. It's the kind of things where none of us three, you know, as we said on the show, knew what it would be like if you you know, to certain within certain parameters what you know, Megan Kelly or Wolf Blitzer or any of these corporate figures are going to be like in a conversation to some extent. [00:14:55] None of us had any idea. I knew they didn't know I was bringing knock knock jokes. Yeah. So that was kind of what was so so I said at one point, I'm kind of envious of the audience because this is there's so many exciting things that are happening and that the Internet and podcasting provides people an opportunity to do that. It was great. Yeah, that was the greatest pairing with Alex Jones that I've ever seen by far. So, like, OK, so I immediately knew. [00:15:26] Now this isn't a knock on Tim, but I don't even know if Tim was prepared. [00:15:32] Tim was not prepared for this. Could he be prepared? Well, so I mean, I don't know if Tim is used to that. I think Joe Rogan is more equipped, prepared for the chaos, just the years he's been in it. Like I immediately thought this is the right pairing for Joe Rogan because Alex Jones has been on Joe Rogan a few times. Yeah, three times. My favorite so far was with Tim doing right. Yeah. But Tim was clearly Tim Gunn was also kind of a genius in his own right, but he was kind of a fan and he was back and he was stepping away. [00:16:09] He was almost like in awe of Alex Jones, where you were both you were in all of the experience that's being created and at the same time fearlessly just trolling the situation. I mean, to do a knock knock joke to stop. I mean, it just shows that you're in control of the experience and you're like riding the experience that immediately was like this needs to be on Rogen. So I hope that happens as well. You're on your own, of course, on Rogen, but just you. [00:16:43] That's an experience. That's the whatever discovery. A good name for it. Like Jimi Hendrix Experience. [00:16:48] There's nothing like going out because I was a band. It's taken that well. I don't know how many years you can you can restart the experience because I feel sorry for you. [00:16:58] I feel a very big responsibility, especially in 2020, to provide fun and something cool and something unique that hasn't been done before for the audience. I think this has been a very rough year on our audiences psychologically and in other aspects of their lives. So I feel if I'm going to be there, I'm going to put on a show and it's also going to be great because it also alienates the people you don't want. [00:17:27] Right. So there's a lot of people who sit there and be like, oh, he's telling people who are too cool for school. We're like, oh, he's telling knock knock jokes. This is stupid. I'm like, good. If you have an issue with having eaten cotton candy or doing a puzzle with the kid or that, you know, by yourself that's on you. And it's something very I something I think is the enemy is cynicism. And this idea that like, oh, this is too silly and it's like we need that kind of childlike aspect in our lives. [00:17:58] I think it's something we could use more of. It's very much an aspect of our media culture that to kind of be condemnatory about that or to do it in a certain very corporate fake way. So it is something I encourage a lot, something I enjoy doing. And again, like the first time I was on Tim, I had a propeller bignone, you know, with the motorized and a lot of people were like, I can't take anyone seriously who dresses like this. [00:18:23] I go, good. If you judge someone's ideas by how they appear instead of the ideas themselves, you're not someone I want on my team. [00:18:32] Are we going to address the outfit you're wearing? We got dresses. Sure. [00:18:38] You know, for those who are colorblind, what Michael's wearing the or just listening to this, Michael is wearing the exact opposite universe from from another dimension outfit, which is a white suit. Black shirt. So genius. [00:18:56] OK, so you just see the next two looks like bland. Oh no. Yeah, they're great. Well, obviously, this is going to play out over the audience there. OK, is there some deep philosophy to the humor? [00:19:12] Is this goes to a trolling discussion? Is there some. Is there like chapters to this genius or is this just what makes you smile in the morning? [00:19:24] Well, I mean, I think you're honestly, in this case, use the word genius a little loosely. This is particularly genius. But I do think it is fun. It is exuberant. It is joyous. I think the bigger my audience has gotten and the more I actually communicate with the fans, I do feel it kind of kicks in these paternal maternal instincts, which is very, very odd. I did not expect to have the women. Who's the dad? [00:19:54] I'm the dad and the mom. I remember. [00:19:56] And it may have been similar for you. I'm curious to hear it for young, smart, like ambitious men like twenty four to twenty seven for me was a very rough period because that's the window where a lot of people get married and they kind of check out. And if you're very much kind of finding your own road, you don't know what's happening. No one's in a position to really guide you or help you. And it's it's it's tough. It's a very tough window. [00:20:20] And what I'm finding now is having these kids who are in that position. But now, instead of them stumbling along for some of them, I'm the one who could be like, no, no, no, no, it's not you. It's everybody else. And to be able to give them that semblance of feeling, seen to use a cliched expression to feel normal and that no, no, you're you're you're the heroes here. They're the background noise. [00:20:47] It's just really very flattering and humbling to be in that position. [00:20:52] You have many minds, right? There's the thoughtful kind, Michael. There's like I'm going to burn down the powerful. Yeah. My God. They like. Yeah. [00:21:02] And then there's like, I'm going to have this just light hearted trolling of the world. Yeah. Which and which of those are most important to the twenty four. To the twenty seven demographic. [00:21:16] I think it is the combination. You know, it's like if you're making a meal, you know, chicken Kiev, you need the chicken, you need the ham, you need the butter sauce. Because I think people when you're young you need to see someone who's fought the fight for you and who's won. So it's very easy to be defeatist. [00:21:40] So this is what winning looks like. This is not this is most assuredly what winning does not look like, but in my normal clothes. Yeah, I love it more. [00:21:51] This is a good time to mention the clothes wise. You're wearing shoes, underwear and people should buy shoes, underwear, use code Mallee's twenty. [00:22:00] If you go to see Thunder Road. I come from a good man. I was twenty. What I love about why I'm glad to promote the product and wear it. It's the most comfortable underwear I've ever worn and you have a separate pouch for both parts of your genitals. That's that's what I thought. There was like a punch line coming. No, it's a very nice aspect of the product. Yeah, but I think what here's something else just goes back to we're just talking about there are so many and this is going to segway into this. [00:22:24] There are so many small companies who have been devastated this year. We have not seen a sustained attack on mom and pop shops like we've seen in twenty twenty who are innovators and making something happen. And when you're just like one dude who's producing a product, they're sponsored by and I'm happy to first of all, it's funny that I'm pitching underwear, but I'm pitching. But it's also something I enjoy says small business. [00:22:52] Yeah, yeah. It's microscopic, like a thimble. So this isn't a sponsor of mine, but this is a good Segway. So this is the Russians. We celebrate New Year's. It's nothing them we have Jetmir, as he comes down, puts a present under your pillow. So this is a company called Jail Austin. He's a fan of yours. He's a metal worker. And he said, can I give you something to give to Lex? I have one of his worry coins. [00:23:14] I'll tell you what it is. He's not a sponsor. This is not I'm not getting paid for this. So what a worry coin is. I carry around in my butt. If you have raw denim, it's great because it brings you face. So you carry it around with you all the time. [00:23:25] It says worrying is like paying a debt you don't owe. Right, and I carry this around and it's been like a year. Next time you're worrying and this is good advice, if you don't have a word coined, go think about 10 years ago. Yes. And what you were worried about then and then think about did any of those things pan out? And some of them did, but you were able to handle it. And that's a good way to maintain perspective. [00:23:50] So JLR, since the company he sent me this present, I said, let me give it to Leks on the air. So enjoy. So I open it up. Yeah. [00:23:59] J.L Lawson and Co two legs from Anthony. Yeah. And I said make something mathematical for Lex. I don't even know what's in there. You don't know what's in it. And it got through a TSA could be a bomb, it could be just like this episode. Make sure you unwrap it close to Micah's address for crazy. That's really the best part. Yeah. [00:24:24] Or is this what unboxing video looks like, this conversation going to be a big hit on the Internet boxing community? I need to have an excited look on my face to make sure that the reaction video is being unboxing and a reaction video like streaming. [00:24:42] We have another box. It's a box. [00:24:46] It big fan. Since hearing you on Rogel months ago, most of your guests are over my head, but still enjoyable. [00:24:55] Oh, like this episode, Michael was kind enough to want to share my work with you. Keep doing what you do, Anthony Lawson. Thanks, Anthony. There's a lot in there. What is it to give you some idea if it's OK? Right. I should show it to the camera and then make sure you look excited or not or disappoint. Oh, this is cool. [00:25:19] This is a word coined like I was showing you. Oh, so you hold it in your hand. And when you can do this with your thumbs, if people are have anxiety or whatever, there's a lot of cool stuff in your Fibonacci coin. [00:25:29] Now, see, that's the math stuff. That's really awesome. This is really cool where you've got a big one in there, too. [00:25:38] That's what she said. I'm telling you, last time you found me saying, I don't have humor, so I. The spin tray, micro glass and copper, bronze, by the way, the packagings epic. [00:25:58] I think that his thought he makes top's cool. You spent in there and two different bronze and copper. I think he's the only one who makes these machine stops and he's sitting here, I guess. Yeah, but you could spin him in that section, got a call. [00:26:23] Was the was the worry thing you used the word. Anyway, I wasn't listening. What were you worried about 10 years ago, 10 years ago, 2010? What would I have been worried about the government? No, I'm not. That's not a worry. [00:26:35] I was in North Korea, a book that came out in 2000 and 14. I went there in 2012, came out January 2014. It's still paying my rent with the royalties. [00:26:49] So to North Korea. [00:26:50] But, yeah, this is this is why it's so much better to go to talk to you about self publishing, because you brought that up. And I'm doing the next book is also going to be self published. [00:27:01] Can we talk about self publishing? What was that was the whole idea of publishing like having a publisher and an agent? This is a bunch of people have been reaching out to me, trying to get me to write a book, which is ridiculous. [00:27:14] Why there's people who are brilliant, folks like you, like Jordan Peterson that I think have a lot of knowledge to share with the world. OK, I think what I feel I can contribute to the world in terms of impact is to build something. OK, meaning like engineering stuff, OK, like a book to be engineered, and I'm not using it loosely yet, the engineer book, it would not for sure. [00:27:40] What I mean is like literally a product with programming and artificial intelligence that's I want to build the company. I want to because I have a few ideas that I feel I'm equipped. [00:27:50] And it has to do with your, like, intuition about the way you can build a better world. [00:27:56] You individually like what can you add to the world? That's a positive thing. And for me, I feel like the maximal thing I can add to the world is at least to attempt to build products that would add more love in the world. And so I want to focus on that. [00:28:12] The danger of the book for me or any kind of writing and even this podcast is a little bit dangerous for me, is like it's fine for sure. [00:28:23] It's it's fun. It's like it takes you to this place where you start thinking about the world. You start enjoying and playing with ideas. [00:28:30] You start it like just your book on a dear reader, but also then you write like clearly you and I probably think similarly in the sense that you did a lot of work. [00:28:44] Yes. This next book is Killing Me. [00:28:47] Yeah. [00:28:47] As you mentioned, often it's clear like in your YouTube channel, which I'm a fan of, you often it just comes out like you mention, all of these books that you're reading, it just comes through you that you're suffering through this and it changes you. [00:29:05] And it's clear that you're thinking deeply about the world because of this book. [00:29:10] And I feel like if you do that, that's like when I was when I first came to this country, I read the book to give, had to read it again. [00:29:19] It's like it the red pill thing is it changes you in where you can never be the same person again. Sure. I feel I feel about a book in that same way. The moment you write a book, the way of course it depends on the book. I could also just write, like in my field, a very technical book. [00:29:37] No, that's a terrible idea. Yes, but that that's OK. [00:29:41] That doesn't really change you. That's just like sharing information, but like something where you're like, how do I think about this world? Can you just leave that behind you? I get it. [00:29:51] It's it's being pregnant. It never escapes your brain. I'm telling you, you're absolutely right. [00:29:55] Yeah. I don't know. It it does seem to change. But the reason I bring that up is because there's this whole industry. Of people that seem to not really contribute much to the publication process, but they they make themselves seem necessary for like if you want to be in The New York Times bestseller list kind of thing, but also just being, like, reputable. [00:30:18] Yeah. Which I'm allergic to the whole concept, but it does. Do you think it's possible to be on the New York Times bestseller list and be a reputable author and still be self published? Not what you would want to do, like people like Marxists. [00:30:33] And I think it's his name he wrote, like the primal blueprints, the like if I'm getting the names correct. He's the first paleo guy. Right. So he published it. It's not gangbusters. But that would be OK on their health chart, I believe. And it's a little bit of a different situation. [00:30:49] You would be reaching much more for the mainstream. [00:30:52] You'd be giving up a lot if you go through a publisher, especially financially. But yeah, you are not going to have the cred because they're publishing is a cartel. The New York Times is part of this cartel. And if you don't publish within this cartel, they will do what they can, as any cartel has to do by necessity of being cartel to pretend you don't exist. So they will. I was, I think, the first one to have an hour on book TV for Dear Reader because I was a kick start a book. [00:31:25] But this is something that people do. It was a Kickstarter book. Yeah. This is something people would have to be aware of. So you would be giving up a lot, but you'd also be giving a lot to work with a publisher because you're losing like a year and a half of your life because they're glacial and they don't care. [00:31:43] Well, that's my problem. It's not the money. I mean, the money is whatever percent they take, 10, 20, 30, 50 percent, they're taking a huge chunk. [00:31:51] So if I sell a book through St. Martin's, it's a dollar. If I sell a book through Amazon, which is Dear Reader, that's six dollars. So that's what. Eighty seven percent. It's something crazy. [00:32:02] But for me, what bothers me is the money that that for me personally, for me, what bothers me is incompetents like whenever I go to the DMV or something like that and I can interrupt you. [00:32:12] Yeah. [00:32:13] Let's talk in confidence. New right comes out last year. Yes, I get on Rogan. Get on Reuben. I call them and I said I got in these shows, is there money in the budget for travel? And they say we don't have the budget fine, by the way, you got on those shows with no help from them. That's not even a question. [00:32:38] The reason they would want you to do a book is because they know you could get the only reason people get book deals nowadays, literally. It's because they know that person can market their own book. That's the only way. And I got to Reuben, I got a Rogan and they don't have the money for travel, which is fair. They can do Skype. They told me this in writing, and I'm like, OK, and they can financially cover Skype, but it's like, Hey Joe, yeah, we're on the budget but you're going to Skype. [00:33:09] So there is another friend of mine was on a show on CNBC with Nassim Taleb. And they said Nessim wants a copy of the book and they're like, oh yeah, it's like four o'clock on Friday, so we're close so that he's like he went there, picked it up and walked it the two blocks. [00:33:32] So there is it's almost cartoonish. Yeah. And it's not incompetence. It's. It's past that it's something almost you can't really believe that I've had two friends who have been literally rendered suicidal because this is such a huge opportunity for them and they were like watching their kid get beaten in front of them. And I had to talk to them off the ledge. So it's people do not appreciate how bad. [00:34:00] Here's another example. The apathy of bureaucracy, something like that. I did this book, Concierge Confidential. There's a typo in the first chapter ends with I'm about to tell. Well, they didn't fix it for the paperback. It's just like, wow, OK. Yeah, great book, by the way. Got it, got it, one of the books there, so that was good. So why participate in this? Because otherwise New York Times is going to pretend you don't exist. [00:34:29] Getting book and booked on some shows might be more difficult, although I think that's collapsing in real time. You're not going to get reviewed necessarily in places like P.W. or some others, so the new book you're working on, your title, your pill, The Apple. Are you saw publishing that? Oh, yeah, for sure. And what's the thinking behind that? Just because you already have a huge following and a big platform and it's six times the cash. [00:35:00] If I finish the book in December, I could have it out in February. If I finish the book in December with the publisher, it's going to be out in December at the earliest 2021. Why am I giving up 10 months of my life? Well, this is a big one. Do you have any leverage like do do authors have leverage to say, if you like, can you just say, what do you mean? Just look meaning like I want to release this book in two months. [00:35:28] Oh no, no. [00:35:29] I mean, you'll have a contract and then you you can fight it, but they don't have the they don't have the capacity to rush things through. Yeah, I guess if the because I've heard, like the big authors, I don't know Sam Harris, all those folks talk about like they've accepted it actually they've accepted. They're like, yeah, it takes a long time to. I'm not accepting it. But but you're kind of implying that a human being like me should, like I'm saying, these are your options, right? [00:35:58] So I just I just hate it. I hate waiting because it's incompetence. It's not that it's not necessarily the way if I knew it wasn't, you know, if it was the kind of people that are up at 2:00 a.m. at night on a Friday and they love what you're doing in there, helping create something special. [00:36:18] That's the sense I get with some of the Netflix folks, for example, that work with people. I just I don't know anything about this world. But you get like Netflix folks who who help with shows, you could tell that they're obsessed with those shows. Yeah. Yeah. [00:36:33] You're not gonna get a publishing if you hand like I hand in the book in I think it was July. I didn't hear anything from my editor until December. Well, can we actually talk about. [00:36:44] The suffering, sure, the darkest parts of writing a book, so the scores go to the phone, Michael Moore, Stephen King mode of what are the darkest moments of writing this book and what is it? Maybe start the white pill. What's the idea? What's the hope? And what are your darkest moments around writing this book? [00:37:04] So people are familiar with the red pill and the blue pill. Therefore, the matrix, the red pill is the idea that what is presented as fact by the corporate press entertainment industry is in fact a carefully constructed narrative designed to keep some very unpleasant people in power and everyone else under control. And one of my expressions is you take one red pill, not the whole bottle. Yes, because at a certain point you think everything's a lie and that you kind of no capacity for distinguishing truth. [00:37:33] You're full of good one liners. Well, thank you. Yeah, I'm full of something, that's for sure. And what I saw in this space is a lot of these red pill people got very disheartened and cynical. And one of my big heroes is Albert Camu. And he said the worst thing is cynicism. And that's something called the black pill, which is the idea that, you know, it's all it's it's it's just we're waiting for the end. [00:38:02] It's hopeless. And I don't see it that way at all. And I'm like, all right, I have to address this. And not just with some kind of cheerleading. Everything is you make great guys. Here is why I am positive. And not that I'm positive the good guys are going to win, but I'm positive the good guys can win and that's all you need, because if you're, God forbid, kid is kidnapped and there's a 10 percent chance that you can save them, you're not going to be like, wow, I don't like those odds. [00:38:39] This is your country. This is your values. This is your family. And I don't think it's much more than 10 percent. And even if you lose, you will take pride in that. You did everything in your power to win. [00:38:53] So is there a good definition of good guys in the sense the ones who were white, there's layers to this. [00:39:01] You're like modern day Shakespeare. [00:39:05] Is there a danger in thinking? Adolf Hitler was probably pretty confident that he led a group of good guys. Listen, if Hitler did anything wrong, why isn't he in jail? [00:39:21] I check for thought of that, he actually said that his accent goes so bad, why isn't he in jail? [00:39:30] That's a good point. [00:39:31] He's probably still alive. Right. And look. Yeah, hopefully. [00:39:36] Oh, boy. [00:39:38] Two of the three people listening to this are very upset right now. [00:39:42] Uh, what were you even talk about or how do you how do you know the what is good? [00:39:47] There's lots of standards of good. But if you're for me to be a good guy is if you want to leave the world a little bit better than you found it. That, to me is the definition of a good guy. And I think there are many people that that that's not their motivation at all. [00:40:05] It's about your motivation. [00:40:07] Well, it's also about if your motivation is at all correlated to reality. You know, one thinks we're the bad guys. That's correct. But are you taking steps to check your motivations? And also, it takes a certain amount of humility, because if you're going to start interfering in other people's lives, you really better be sure you know what you're talking about, the control of others if you do have centralized control or any kind of. [00:40:36] You become a leader of a group, you better know, you better do so humbly and cautiously and also have steam valves, right. [00:40:46] So if in case things go wrong, let's have I'm sure this is a lot happening with I would ever work with computers, like, OK, if something goes wrong here, how do we have a workaround to make sure it doesn't cause everything to collapse? Yeah. [00:40:59] The going wrong thing. I mean the whole the feedback mechanism. Yeah. Like, I wonder if people in Congress think that things are really wrong. It's working for them. I, I sure because I'm not sure because I, I'd like to believe that the people that at least when they got into politics actually wanted some of it is ego, but some of it is like wanting to be the kind of person that builds a better world. Sure. I also think it's a diverse some who are going to have different motivations than others. [00:41:37] But like once you're in the system and trying to build a better world, how do you know that it's not working? Like how do you take the basic feedback mechanisms and like and actually productively change? I mean, that's what it means to be a good guy is like something is wrong here. And that's why I like the Elon Musk. I think from first principles like, OK, let's ask the big question, like, can this be one? Is this working at all? [00:42:06] Like the way we're solving this particular problem of government? Is this working at all? And then like stepping away and saying like as opposed to modifying this bill or that bill or like this little strategy, like increase the tax by this march or decrease the tax by this, much like why do we have a democracy at all or why do we have any kind of representative democracy? Shouldn't it be a pure democracy or why do we have states like representation, states and federal government, so on? [00:42:42] Why do we have this kind of separation of powers? Is this different? Why why don't we have term limits or not like big things? Like how do you actually make that happen? And is that what it means to be a good guy? It's like. Taking big revolutionary steps as opposed to incremental steps. Well, I don't know that you can be a politician to be a good guy, to be honest. And let me give you a counterexample. [00:43:06] Someone who you could tell is not being a good guy. Joe Biden said he was he regards the Iraq war as a mistake. You and I have made mistakes in our lives. I'm sure none of our mistakes have caused tens of thousands of people to die. If let's suppose I speak for yourself. [00:43:21] That's fair. OK, I'll take that. I don't build the kill. [00:43:23] But if I were a chef, let's take it out of politics. And in my restaurant, somehow, accidentally, someone ate something. They died a I would feel horrible. But more importantly, I would be like, we need to look through the system and figure out how it got to the point where someone lost their life, because that can never happen again. And we need to figure out step by step there's I'm not a gun person, but there's like this checklist of like if you're holding a gun, there's five things to do. [00:43:57] And if you if you get you wrong, you're going to be it's like assume every gun is loaded, only pointed at something that you want to kill. And there's like three other things, and it's like to make sure that nothing goes wrong. So if I made it, if I'm not chef and I would have to not only feel guilt, but take preventative action to make sure this has no possibility of happening again. If you look at the staff is putting in, it's the same warmongers that would have advised him to get into the Iraq war on the first time. [00:44:31] That is to me is not a good guy. That to me is someone who does not feel remorse for their responsibility in killing not only many Americans, but some of us think that dead Iraqis is necessarily ideal either. [00:44:45] OK, let's talk a bit about war. Maybe you can also correct me on something. The first time I found myself into Barack Obama was I don't know how many years ago this was, but when I maybe heard a speech of his about him speaking out against the war. Yeah. And him, I think it's on record saying he was against the war before it was happening. [00:45:14] Now, he wasn't insane at the time. So it's very easy for him to say this, because I see like people say that people say that. People say like it was easy and it was some people say it's like strategically the wise thing to do given some kind of calculus, whatever. [00:45:29] But I to this day, give him that's the reason I've always given him props in my mind, like, OK, this is a man of character he makes. I also personally really value great speeches. I think speeches are really important for leaders because they inspire the world. I think that's one of the most best things you can contribute to. The world is great, like through intellect, mould, ideas in a way that's communicable to like a huge number of people. [00:45:56] It's better to persuade them to force in every instance. That's where I disagree with Chomsky said. Like, if you're a just this whole idea was that like if you're really eloquent speaker, that means your ideas aren't that good. It's nonsense. Yeah. So I think that's a way for him to describe. Like, I speak in a very boring way. That's the pitch for this podcast. I speak boring so that the ideas are the things you value. [00:46:22] And it's also useful to go the but the that's that's why I really liked Obama throughout his life. I still do. But when I first like saw this is for some reason you can disagree. I thought he's a man of character is the one most politicians, most people who are trying to calculate and rise in power I think were for the war or too afraid to be against the war. Yeah, that's why I liked Bernie Sanders. And that's why I liked, like in the early days of Obama for speaking out against the war and not like in this weird activist way. [00:46:58] Not weird, but not not saying I'm an activist. This is but like just saying the common sense thing and being brave enough to say the common sense thing without like having a big sign and saying, I'm going to be the anti-war candidate, something like that. But just saying this is not a good idea. Yeah. [00:47:18] And I think it's it's for those of us who are old enough to remember, it's pretty despicable what happened with Tulsi in twenty twenty. She was the biggest anti-war candidate and she was marginalized within her own party, which I guess you can make sense. She's just a congresswoman from Hawaii. But the corporate press did everything in their power to diminish her and pretend she didn't existed. And for those of us who remember were twelve years prior, you know, when George W. [00:47:46] Bush had the Republican National Convention in New York. And it was like the biggest protest in history. And the Iraq war led to Democratic landslides in twin. Six in 2008, to have that completely not part of the Democratic Party in 2020 is both shocking and reprehensible. And Michael, how is it that you don't have to say, Michael, you just say knock, knock? No, it's not like that. OK, what did the volcano say to his true love? [00:48:19] What? I love you. I just a veteran, you know how to speak English. I was actually in Russian, I did a Google Translate. OK, back to your book. [00:48:36] In The Suffering, you you somehow turn it positive. And as as one who's wearing who's the representative of the black people in this conversation, what are some of the darker moments? [00:48:47] What are the some of the hardest challenges of putting together this book to wipe out content, content, content? So if I'm having a page. In about Reagan taking on Gerald Ford in the 1976 presidential primaries, I'm going to have to read like 20. So and it's the thing like if there'll be sometimes I'll remember some quotes somewhere and then I have to spend an hour trying to find it because I want it to be as dense with information as possible. [00:49:18] How do you structure the the main philosophical ideas you want to convey? Is that already planned out? [00:49:24] No, the book changed entirely from its conception. So my buddy Ryan Holladay had a series of books. So does where he takes the ideas of the Stoics and he applies them to contemporary terms. He has a whole cottage industry that he's doing very well with. And I'd asked him years ago if I could do that with Camu. And he's like, sure, go for it. And I was going to rework Camus The Myth of Sisyphus. And I read it recently. [00:49:51] I reread it and this was in the book. I remember it at all. And I'm like, OK, I'm going to write the book that I remembered. [00:49:57] But the more I was writing it, I one of the things I always yell at conservatives about there's a long list is they don't talk about the great victory of conservatism, which was the winning of the Cold War without firing a shot. And I said, you can't expect The New York Times to tell the story because the blood is on their hands. And I'm like, well, Michael, instead of complaining about it, why don't you do it? Why don't you talk? [00:50:24] That is a great example of the good guys winning over the bad guys. And that's become a it's the victory is beautiful. But also pointing out when people are like, oh, things are worse than they've ever been. They don't appreciate how bad things were in the 30s, what Stalin was doing overseas and how people in the West were advocating to bring that here. So that's kind of pointing out how bad things were and how good they became. And you don't have to be Republican or conservative to be delighted at the collapse of totalitarianism and the peaceful liberation of the world. [00:51:00] So that's a picture of the good guys winning. Oh, how does that connect to surface and maybe dig deeper to life and whatever the hell this thing is, which is what I remember the Mathias's office being about. So where does the threat of Comeaux sort of lie in the work that you're doing? So the myth of Sisyphus, which I had remembered incorrectly, is actually just a five like seven five to seven page like coda to the whole book at the very end. [00:51:34] Like, you only need to read that little essay called The Myth of this is the broader work is about Camus concept of the absurd and the absurd man within literature. And he goes and it's just like, I don't really care about the character Dostoyevsky and also the stuff that you're talking about. It's of no relevance. But what he the myth of Sisyphus, the myth itself, not the book or the or the essay of his, is this Greek character. [00:51:56] And Sisyphus is forced in hell to roll a rock up a hill for eternity. [00:52:01] At the very last moment, the rock falls away. And Camus take away from the story is that we have to we must imagine Sisyphus happy. And there are several interpretations of this. But one is once you accept. That you are living and absurdist existence, once you own your reality, it loses its bite and you can start with that as your kind of baseline and bite is suffering and hopelessness. [00:52:32] So I think when people look at how much ridiculousness is happening in America and it's escalating, you can either think, oh, all is lost or you can. And I think you and I have lived our lives like this. You can live life more like a surfer, whereas you're never going to control the ocean. But you can sure enjoy that ride and stop if you're trying to control the waves. Yeah, you're done. But if you're like, all right, I've got my board. [00:53:00] I'm going to see where this takes me. Surfing from what I understand is a pretty fun activity and also sometimes dangerous. But you have to ask Chelsea about that. [00:53:10] So we were offline talking about Stalin and the evils of the Soviet regime. Yeah, one of the things I mentioned, I watched the movie Mr. Jones, but it's about the 1930s Holodomor. The what would you say, the torture of the Ukrainian people. Yeah, by Stalin. [00:53:34] One interesting thing to me that I'd love to hear your opinion about the role of journalism in all of this and also about 1930s Germany. [00:53:47] So what's the role of journalists and intellectuals in a time when trouble is brewing? But it requires a really sort of brave and deep thinking to understand that trouble is brewing, like if you were a journalist or if you were just like an intellectual, a thinker, but also a voice of in the space of public discourse. What would you do in the 1930s about Stalin, about how the more and what would you do about Nazi Germany in nineteen thirty seven, thirty eight. [00:54:25] So that's really funny that you ask that, because currently how the book is structured, it's like, you know, books often follow three act structure. Right. So Act three is the 80s, Act one is the thirties and Act two is going to be like, all right, let's suppose you were in the thirties. Are you just going to give up? Like, are you just going to be like, well, we're screwed. And you'd be right to say things are going to be very bad for a long time? [00:54:47] Or are you going to be one of those few who are like, we're going to do something about this and, you know, we're going to go down swinging? There are two books I can recommend which are just. Masterpieces that that are written by women, that just historians that are superb. There's a book called Beyond Belief by Deborah Lipstadt. She talks about the rise of Nazi Germany as seen through the press and what was amazing. And she does a great job empathizing with the press and understand that perspective is we remember and Chamberlain gets a bad rap, Neville Chamberlain, for kind of appeasing Hitler, because not that long ago they had the Great War, they had World War One, and they had the carnage that the Earth had never seen before. [00:55:28] And when you had people made out of meat meeting industrial machines and plastic surgery was invented as a consequence of this, they're coming back mangled and disfigured. And for what? And this was a world where the Kaiser was the most evil person who ever lived. And we all had the Western propaganda about the huhn and all the rapes and all this barbarism and blah, blah, blah. So not that long later, when you hear all this propaganda, which was factual about Hitler, it's like we heard this we heard this 20 years ago. [00:55:59] This was all lies. Give us give us a break. And she has all the quotes from the different agencies in how they addressed it. Plus they had very limited information. It's not like Nazi Germany was an open society where reporters can walk around and they were under a lot of pressure as well, you know, in those areas. [00:56:18] And Hitler himself was pretty good at he let some stuff slip, but usually he made it seem like he wants peace. He wants world peace. [00:56:27] This was amazing. They were making the argument that because all these Jews were being beaten up on the street, this proved this was the hot take of the day, that Hitler was weak, because since Hitler is a statesman and he can't control these hooligans, that shows his control and power is tenuous. And this is all going to go away, by the way. I mean, Hitler thought that, too. He was kind of afraid of the branches, whatever, like he was afraid of these hooligans a little bit like they were useful to him. [00:56:56] But like at a certain point, like, yeah, they can get in the way. Yeah. That's why he wanted to get control of the military. The army, like the regiment. Like if you want to take over the world, you can't do it with hooligans. Right. You have to do it with an actual army. [00:57:08] And then you had Kristallnacht, which was a nationwide pogrom, and then all the news agencies universally were like, oh, crap, we we got this wrong. And the condemnation was universal. So that book traces the West's reaction to what's going on there and including the reaction to the incipient Holocaust as people were being, you know, what they knew? When did they know there was not ambiguity about it? People I think there's this myth that she dispels that that they didn't know the Holocaust was happening or they didn't care. [00:57:43] They were aware, but they were already at war with Nazi Germany. Like, literally, what else could they do at that point, you know, to to rescue all these Jews? So that's the Superbook and Anne Applebaum, I think the book is called Red Famine came out fairly recently. [00:58:00] And she brings the receipts and she's a you know, this is something I really hate with binary thinkers where people think, oh, you know, if you're a Democrat, you're basically a communist. They call Joe Biden a Marxist. It's just like, you know, she's a hard lefty. She's, you know, has TDRS. But this book just systemically lays out what Stalin did. [00:58:21] By the way, I'm triggered by the binary thinkers. And for those who don't know, TDRS zero zero one one is Trump derangement syndrome. Yes. [00:58:29] So they, you know, force the starvation and the entire population. And they it's not only that. It's like they knew if you weren't starving by looking at you, that you were hiding food so they'd come back to your house at night and break your fingers in the door or take burn down your house and now you're on the street without food because you lied, because this is the people's food, your Kulluk, your landlord. And very quickly, Coolac, which meant like peasant landowner, became anyone who had a piece of bread. [00:58:59] And it was systemic and ongoing. And many people in the press did not believe it. There was a a British journalist, I believe, who got out of the train, Ukraine, like one town earlier and walked. And he described all this and he was mocked and derided. And this is just anti Russian propaganda, because at the time in the 30s, this was socialism come to fruition. This was a noble experiment. I'd seen the future and it works is I think that's Sydney Webb was the guy who said that. [00:59:29] And the premise was. Let's see what happens, we've never tried something like that, and they were perfectly happy to have this experiment happen overseas at the price of the Russian people, because it's like, you know what? Maybe this will be paradise on Earth. And there's addressed this in my book as well. There's a superb essay, I think, by Eugene Genovese. [00:59:51] And he talks about the question, the question being, what did you know and when did you know it? What did you know about the concentration camps? What did you know about the starvation, what you know about children being taught at school to turn in? Their parents were, you know, having some extra bread. And his conclusion is we all knew and we all knew from the beginning, every bit of it. And we didn't care because we were more interested in promoting this ideology. [01:00:15] So when people are kind of thinking the worst thing on Earth is like Robert E. Lee statue being taken down to Washington, D.C., we were being told on an especially a much more limited news information world where now you have literally anyone have a Twitter. But how many outlets were there that this is we're backwards. They're the future. They're scientific. We have the vagaries of the market which led to the Great Depression. And when you see what was being put over on the American public at the time, anyone who thinks things are as bad now as they have ever been is simply delusional or ignorant. [01:00:53] Yeah, I would say, just as a small aside, that's why I'm reading as I'm almost done with the rise and fall of the Third Reich. [01:01:01] Oh, yeah. Is it's refreshers the resets, the palate of your understanding what is good and evil in the world that I think is it really useful. Now, like, you know what helps me be really positive and almost naive on Twitter and in the world is by just studying history. Yeah. And and comparing it to how amazing things are today. But in that time, what. Would you do what does the brave mind do and not just acts of bravery, but how do you be effective in that? [01:01:51] That's something I often think about sometimes easy to be an activist in terms of just saying stuff. It's hard to be effective. [01:02:01] Your activism, one of the big questions historians have constantly is how did this happen to make sure it doesn't happen again? But this is Germany. This is not some kind of weirdo cult nation. They're very advanced, very land of poets and philosophers. How did it get to that point that they're just shooting children and everyone's cheering for this? [01:02:23] And specifically on the anti-Semitism in the Holocaust is not totalitarianism, the cult of Hitler and just this whole kind of thing and the something to draw. But there's two sides. I don't know if you want to separate that. One is the totalitarianism and the entire the entirety of the Nazi regime. And then there's the Holocaust, which is like, you know, going I would say. Like, very specifically, as I think you're about to describe, it's like, you know, targeting Jews very much so I don't know if you see those as two separate things. [01:02:58] I think they're very interconnected. But I think if you look at it, everyone thinks that they'd be the ones putting up and Frank. But if you look at the numbers, they'd be the ones calling the Stasi on her or whoever the people were at the time and not the Stasi, obviously, and patting themselves on the back for it. So sort of porzel. [01:03:17] That's a really important thing if you're listening to this. That and you were not you were in Germany at the time, you would have likely been willing to commit or at least keep a blind eye to the violence against Jews. Like you have to really sit with that idea that you would have been somebody who just sees this and is not bothered by it and also very likely kind of understand this as a necessary evil or even unnecessary good. [01:03:48] Yeah, and I think people think that would be the abolitionists are marching on Selma. The numbers don't add that up to that at all. And I think the question would be like, what? My friend was on tender. My friend Matt is a great dude. And the question was, what's the most controversial opinion you have? This is New York. And the girl wrote, I hate Trump and what people perceive themselves as being courageous in saying and doing. [01:04:17] And what is the actual social costs of you saying or doing? This are two very disconnected things. And we're also trained by corporate media to have completely vapid, uninteresting, banal ideas and yet regard ourselves as revolutionaries. You know, there are people who still in New York will take pride because they have a gay friend. And it's like, first of all, who cares? But second of all, you are not a hero. And that person is not your prop, by the way, that's another big problem, which is why I'd like to give Richard Wolf a shout out for being an intellectual who talks about communism. [01:04:56] I think it takes kind of a heroic intellectual right now to speak about communism. Seriously, there's difficult waters to tread that the expression there's difficult path to walk. I love watching a robot try to use it, even a language. [01:05:12] Zero zero one one. I'm quite deeply hurt by the binary comment. [01:05:19] Are you your feeling has got one to zero. Yeah. What is my buffer's overflown though. But there's difficult. [01:05:30] I feel like communism is like universally seen as a bad thing currently in intellectual circles. Yes, actually maybe some people disagree with that. People say like far, far left people are trying to you know, some people argue the the BLM movement is some kind of Marxist. I mean, I don't I don't really follow the deep logic in that whatever. [01:05:54] But, you know, it's just. Well, they said they before by Marxism, the founder goes on, you know, but stating that it's different than there's Marx, that the totalitarian there's also marks the revolutionary. [01:06:06] And I think they're talking about more like we're revolutionaries. They're going to overthrow the status quo. Yeah, right. But they we can have that further discussion. But I just don't think they speak deeply about political systems and saying communism is is going to be the righteous system. You know, there's not a deep intellectual discourse that I mean, but if you were to try to be on stage with the Jordan Peterson. Like, to me, the brave thing now, like it would be to argue for communism. [01:06:35] It'd be interesting to see not many people do it. I certainly would be willing to do it. I don't have enough. I don't. First of all, I don't believe it. But second of all, it's a very difficult argument to make because you get so much fire, which is why I like Richard Wolf. He's one of the people who is quite rigorously showing that there's some good ideas within the system of communism, specifically saying that attacking more the the negative sides of capitalism. [01:07:04] So saying that there is that capitalism potentially is more dangerous than communism. I mean, it's I disagree with that. But I think it's a I love how something it's like we've got a body count of 60 million. But this everything is put to potentially, you know, like water can drown everyone on Earth. So this is incoherent. [01:07:23] Well, I think nuclear weapons are bad, but nuclear energy is good. Sure. Nuclear weapons are also can be good. You can easily make the argument, which I don't know that I subscribe to, that nuclear weapons prevented boots on the ground war at all costs and to be much more contained. And they're also quite effective at changing the direction of an asteroid that's about to hit Earth, as I've learned from our target. [01:07:47] And they're actually useful, as Elon Musk has claimed, for for applications for prior to colonizing Mars, making it more habitable. Oh, OK. [01:07:58] So it's something else. But yes. But I guess what I'm saying is there's the place for nuance and there's some topics so hot, like communism, where nuance is very difficult to have. And that I feel like with Nazi Germany, it was a similar thing at the time. [01:08:20] Tell you want to talk about Jeannette Rankin, who one of my favorite people. So Jeannette Rankin was the first woman elected to Congress. She was elected before women's suffrage was a constitutional amendment for Montana. She was elected in 1916. She was one of a handful of people to vote against the US going into the Great War, which was the right call at the time. She's a pacifist Republican as well. [01:08:47] Coincidentally, she lost her seat. Ran again in was in 1940, got the seat again and was the only person to vote against getting into World War Two. It was not a unanimous choice. Jeannette Rankin was the one person and she said, you can no more win a war than you can win a hurricane. So she's one of these interesting talk about bravery. You're the one vote after Pearl Harbor to say we're not doing this. And I mean, the pressure she must have been under at the time is and of course, many people aren't interested in hearing her perspective. [01:09:24] She's crazy. She's evil. It's also funny, someone on my Twitter when I talked about her goes maybe she had Hitler's sympathies, like, yeah, Miss Rankin was a big fan of Hitler. That's you figured it out. [01:09:35] Guys, do you think there's an argument to be made that the United States should not have gotten involved in World War two? [01:09:42] Oh, easy. An easy argument. The argument there's a I talk about this in the new right. So on Internet circles, there's something called Godwin's Law, which means the longer the Internet conversation goes on, the probability someone gets compared to Hitler becomes one in certain new right circles. The longer the conversation goes on, the more likelihood that the argument will come. [01:10:05] We should have ended. World War Two also becomes one. And the argument is at the very least, stay back, let Hitler and Stalin kill each other off and then go in and knock off the weaker one. And you're going to be saving, destroying two nightmare systems. And I think that's an easy argument to make. Now, it's hard to pull off after Pearl Harbor, but in terms of strategy, I don't think that's a that's a tough sell. [01:10:29] What about after Pearl Harbor? [01:10:30] I mean, that's not saying after Pearl Harbor, how are you going to sell it to the people? The argument is bubble of the Holocaust, the Holocaust. There's no scenario where that doesn't happen, really, if you're unless you're going in way earlier. But even so, Hitler had said if the Jews launch another war, you know, we're going to wipe them from the face of the earth. So the Jews are being held hostage by Hitler as an argument for this. [01:10:49] Another thing he did, which was, you know, diabolical, is in order to make it that people could not accept Jews as refugees if they were going to leave Germany, they had to be penniless. So now you have it's not like they're coming over with money and they could take care of themselves. No, no. They're going to be completely destitute. Makes it harder to accept them. Yeah. Millions of destitute people who don't speak the language. [01:11:10] It's it's a tough sell. [01:11:12] So speaking of good ones law, what do you make of this condition, Trump Derangement Syndrome. Yeah. And the idea of comparing Trump to Hitler, I think it's despicable. And I'll give you an example, something parallel that I think more people should be regarded regarding as despicable. [01:11:33] Earlier in twenty twenty, we were all told that unless we were in Syria immediately, the Kurds were going to be exterminated. They invoke the Holocaust. This is going to be another genocide. And if you are not for this, you should you're basically forcing another Holocaust. None of the people who use this argument, we didn't go to Syria. The Kurds were exterminated. They just vanished. The news had any consequences for using this kind of a comparison. [01:12:01] So I think it's it's really kind of fatuous. And I think it's amazing that people think Hitler is the only tyrant who ever lived like everyone who's bad is specifically Hitler. You know how you know he's not Hitler because you can tweet at him and no one comes to your house to kill your family. Like, that's kind of a big difference. Also between Trump and many of his critics is that his grandchildren will be raised as Jews. So that's also kind of. [01:12:29] And then and Deborah Lipstadt talks about this a lot. The New York Times at the time, there's another book called Buried by The Times, which talks with The New York Times and the World War Two, because the idea that Jews weren't white was the Hitler idea. [01:12:46] The New York Times at the time, Sulzberger wanted to be against this idea. So they specifically downplayed the anti-Semitism as opposed to the Nazis are being oppressive. So the argument that you can separate Nazism from anti-Semitism is a historical debate people have. And my perspective is I think it's I do not find it convincing that you can separate those two. I think anti-Semitism was essential to Nazism. I think Nazism and Mussolini's fascism have very big differences. [01:13:21] And do you think do you think anti-Semitism is fundamental to who Hitler was or was it just that? So this is the interesting thing is like it was a tool that he saw as being effective. He believed it. So why do you see those as intricately connected? Could Hitler have accomplished the same amount or more without the Holocaust? [01:13:45] Yeah, because think about how many resources you had to divert at a time where you have operation. Barbarossa with Stalin. So why are they connect, why are they so connected? Is it because Hitler was insane or is he a bad strategist or was obviously the best strategist he took? He had no need to open a second front. His generals, my understanding, told him, this is crazy. It didn't work out for him at all. I mean, to draw Russia and her resources into that war, it makes absolutely no sense in retrospect. [01:14:16] There's a book about I forget what it's called or talked about him at that point was just high all the time on amphetamines. And that could have affected his thinking. [01:14:23] Yeah, there's a really good book on drugs. Yeah, I forget what it's called, but yeah, it's a good one. [01:14:28] But it was I mean, scapegoating is a big part and parcel of the Nazi mythology and this kind of one universal figure to explain this kind of, you know, skeleton key. [01:14:42] But it could have been the communists. I mean, that could have been the source of the hatred. [01:14:46] So the communists didn't get Germany into World War One like he said the Jews did. [01:14:50] It seems to me that the atrocity of the Holocaust is the reason we see Hitler's evil. [01:14:58] No reason we see Hitler is evil is because of World War Two propaganda. Still, because we don't see Stalin as evil right now, as evil to that extent. I think that why like why would you say, you know, because of their propaganda? [01:15:11] Because I think a lot of the problem for a certain type of mentality is Hitler didn't mass murder equally. [01:15:18] So as long as you're killing just one group, it's a problem. But if you're murdering everyone equally, all of a sudden it's like, what are you going to do? So the fact like you were saying, the whole damn war is not common knowledge. The fact that Mao's 50 million dead and not common knowledge and Richard Nixon can be raising a glass to him in China, these are things that I think the West has not done a good job reconciling. [01:15:40] Knock, knock, who's there, Frank? Frank. [01:15:45] Frank, you for being my friend, my coat and the heart of to say Frank you for being my friend, you got to do like that. [01:15:55] Yeah, OK. Now back to Hitler. Do you think Hitler could have been stopped? We kind of talked about it a little bit in terms of how to what is the brave thing to do in the time of Nazi Germany. But do you think I mean, I'm not even going to ask about Stalin in terms of Stalin or been stopped because the probably the answer is there's no but on the Hitler side, because Hitler had been stopped. I think a lot of these things, a lot of luck has to play with it. [01:16:31] He was almost assassinated. If you mean by like the West, it's very hard. I mean, yeah. [01:16:37] Where the German people to I mean, could like if politically speaking, there was a rise to power through the 30s, through the 20s, really. I mean, like, can whoever it's not about Hitler. It's about that kind of way of thinking that totalitarian control that always leads to trouble and sometimes a mass scale. Could that have been stopped in Germany or maybe in the Soviet Union? [01:17:06] I think this is one of the best arguments against radicalization in the states, which is how do you engage when you have like 30 percent of the population who are members of a party which is dedicated to systemically overthrowing the existing democracy? Stalin gave orders that the communists, who had a pretty sizable population in the Reichstag, that their target shouldn't be the Nazis, but the liberals and the Social Democrats. [01:17:36] And they invented the term social fascist for them. So instead of they're just like like jihadis, instead of setting their sights on Naziism, they set their sights on the moderates because they wanted they figured the choice between Hitler and us, we're going to win. [01:17:50] And this was a huge gamble. And they were all killed or had to flee. And the ones who fled were killed also by Stalin. So that's my understanding. So this is the easy way where he could have been certainly heavily mitigated. [01:18:02] What about France and England? That it was obvious that Hitler was lying and they wanted peace so bad that they were willing to put up with it even after Czechoslovakia? Like like this is the anti pacifist argument, which is like they should have. Threaten military force more, but then the other a. a. a. pacifist argument is, if you're going to remember Barack Obama had that the red line, if you crossed this red line in Syria, we're going to go in and Assad like, cool. [01:18:37] And he's like, oh, OK. Well, sorry. So if you were threatening force, there's the great song lyric. Don't show your guns unless you intend to fight. Right. So it's very clear with free countries through what's in the press, whether the institutional will is there to follow through on these threats. So I think we have been very hard for Chamberlain to rally the British people to take on Hitler just after the great I mean, the suffering that Britons took, the Great War, they still, you know, obviously, I mean, so much more of them than it does to us in the West. [01:19:12] What about what do you make of Churchill then? Like why was Churchill able to rally the British people? Why was he like do give much credit to Churchill for being one of the. [01:19:26] Great forces in stopping Hitler in World War Two, I don't think that's really in dispute. I think he was very much regarded as this kind of the right man at the right time. And I think Chamberlain took a gamble. He the expression peace in our time was Neville Chamberlain when he signed the appeasement with Hitler. And he goes, we now have peace in our time. Now go home and get a good night's sleep. That's what he said, because he's like, all right, you know, he's going to stop here. [01:19:55] And it's not impossible that if you just like if you gave Saddam Hussein Kuwait, it's not impossible that he's not going to invade Saudi Arabia next, something like that. [01:20:07] See, OK, but everything I've read. It's like. Of course, there's there's it's not impossible. But when you're in the room with Hitler. You should be able to see, like, man to man. They like to me, a great leader should be able to see past the facade and see like like, yes, everything in life is a risk, but it seems like the right risk to take with Hitler. Like it is surprising to me. [01:20:40] I know there's charisma, but surprising to me people did not see through this facade. [01:20:45] I really hate the idea of hindsight and everything being 20/20. And I think it's a very good idea, generally speaking, generally, not this specific instance, to give our ancestors more credit than they then then we tend to give them. Because people often here's a great example from another context, which is lightning rods. People always talk about religious people being stupid and superstitious, and they weren't they often were very well reasoned. And an example of this is lightning rods, which is every year, whatever town, the church was the tallest building. [01:21:17] And that's the one that always got hit by lightning and got caught on fire. Now, it's a coincidence that it's always the church like that makes logical sense that they didn't realize, well, it's because it's the tallest and therefore that attracts the electricity. And in fact, when they invented lightning rods, this is a controversy because it's like, well, how is God going to show his displeasure if now it's striking this lightning rod not burning down the church? [01:21:42] So a lot of times things are a lot more coherent than we give them credit for. And again, Chamberlain didn't. He's the head of a parliamentary party. So he does not have the freedom in a sense that Hitler would to be like, all right, we're doing this again, boys. We don't know what it's like in a room with Hitler. Come on. That's that's we really have no idea. [01:22:05] But I think you have to think about that, right? [01:22:07] Yeah, I can very easily see him in the room being very calm and charming. And then you think, OK, the guy with the speeches is the act and he's putting on a show for his people. And this is the real one. [01:22:21] OK, so let's take somebody as an example. Let's take our mutual friend, Vladimir Putin. Yes. OK, I don't know why he's saying his name makes my voice crack, gets you scared or you think Beetlejuice. Yeah. So there is a lot of people. [01:22:43] Let's do the one who built you know, that was that was a collaboration. [01:22:50] But it's a double blind engineering effort where I was not told of who my maker was. [01:23:01] There's a back story, but there's a talking cricket. Pinocchio, hmm, the real boy, I talk about him quite a bit because I find him fascinating. Now, there's there's a really important line that people say, like, why does Lex admire Putin? I do not admire Putin. I find the man fascinating. I find Hitler fascinating. I find a lot of figures in history fascinating, both good and bad. And the figures, just as you said. [01:23:42] That are with us today, like Vladimir Putin, like Donald Trump, like Barack Obama, is difficult to place him on the spectrum of good and evil, because that's only really applies to like when you see the consequences of their actions in historical context. So there's some people who say that Vladimir Putin is evil. And. Based on our discussion about Hitler, that's something I think about a lot, which is in the room with Putin and there's also a lot of historical descriptions of what it's like to be in the room with Hitler in the 1930s. [01:24:19] There is a lot of charisma in the same way. [01:24:21] I find Putin to be very charismatic in his own way. The humor, the with the brilliance, the there's. There's a simplicity of the way he thinks that really, if taken at face value, looks like a very intelligent, honest man. [01:24:45] Thinking practically about how to build a better Russia constantly, almost like like an executive, like he loves you, he looks like a man who loves his job in a way that Trump, for example, doesn't write, meaning like he loves laws and rules and how to no adversarial press. [01:25:09] So that's going to help. Yes. And he's popular with his people. That's also going to help enormously. [01:25:13] I'm talking about strictly the man directly, the words coming out of his mouth. [01:25:19] But all the videos, interviews are watched based on that. Not the press, not the reporting. You can just see that here's a man who's able to display a charisma that's not like I can see. That's why I love Joe Rogan. That is like you could tell the guy is genuine and is a good person. And you could tell immediately that, like, once you meet Joe that he's going to be offline. Also, good person. You could tell there's like signals that we send that are like difficult to kind of describe. [01:25:50] In the same way, you can tell Putin is like he genuinely loves his job and wants to build a better Russia. [01:25:59] There's the argument that he is an evil man behind that charisma or is able to, you know, assassinate people of, you know, limit free press, all those kinds of things. Like, that's. What do we do with that? So what do human beings like journalists or what do other leaders, when they're in the room with Putin, do with those kinds of notions? In deciding how to act in this world, in deciding what policy to enact all those kinds of things, just like with Hitler, when chairman was in the room with Hitler, how does he decide how to act? [01:26:44] Let's go back to my wheelhouse, which is North Korea. Right. So when your entire world is based on being against Trump and everything Trump does is buffoonery or counterproductive, the conclusion of your reporting is going to be pretty much given. I was very hopeful that there would be some positive outlooks or outcomes, rather, of Trump's meeting with Kim Jong un. It looked like there was a space for things to go a bit better. I talked about a lot at the time and. [01:27:21] A Trump was under no illusions about who he was dealing with, people pretend that he was kind of naive. He had one of the refugees that a State of the Union, you know, lifting up his crotch. The first thing he sat down and talked to jumping about in Mar a Lago right after he became inaugurated was North Korea. Barack Obama said that when he sat down Trump in the White House during transfer of power, he said North Korea is the biggest issue. [01:27:48] So I think a good leader, whether or not you consider Trump a good leader, has to be aware of. All right. I'm going to have to have relationships of some kind, even if it's adversarial with some really evil, evil, horrible people, which Kim Jong un clearly is. [01:28:09] Well, but I don't think there's anybody that has a perspective that no North Korean Kim Jong un or ill are not evil. Right? Correct. But with in 1930s Germany, isn't it a little bit more nuanced? [01:28:28] Yeah, because Hitler hasn't done anything yet and he's just a blowhard and he's an anti-Semite. Sure. But he's. [01:28:33] What about like before the war breaks out? What about the basic actionable anti-Semitism when you're like just attacking, hurting, which is Kristallnacht, the night of long knives, Kristallnacht, the night of the broken glass wall. [01:28:50] The long knives is when he assassinated a bunch of his people. That was something different. Yeah. [01:28:54] So like when you're actually attacking your own citizenry. Yeah. That was universally condemned Kristallnacht. And that was very shocking. Its level of barbarism to the West, because I think I think we still want to believe understandably that things aren't as bad as they seem. We would rather this is why, you know, the North Korea book I did, Dear Reader, is used in a humorous framework, because if you have to look, it's like looking to the sun. [01:29:31] If you stare at it straight on, it's very hard to do. So you have to kind of look at it obliquely and then you're kind of realizing the enormity of the depravity. And again, pogroms in Russia had been a thing for a very long time. And there is a difference between, OK, you know, we're going to sack these villages and persecute people and we're going to systematically exterminate them. That's there's still levels of evil and depravity. [01:30:00] So you did write the book, Dear Reader, on Kim Jong Il. Yeah. Dear Reader, the unauthorized autobiography of Kim Jong Il. Yeah. So that's the previous leader of North Korea, correct? Current one is the UN Jungleland. No, no creativity on the naming. Well, no, this is intentional because it's a throwback to the dead. [01:30:23] So there's been only three leaders in North Korea. So we've talked about the history of Hitler and Stalin. Then like these. I think it's important to understand that the history of those kinds of humans, there's the history of North Korea is not well written about or understood, which is why your book is exceptionally powerful and important. So maybe in a big broad. [01:30:47] Where can you say who was who is Kim Jong Il? And as a as a man, as a leader, as a historical figure, that we should understand and why should we understand them? [01:31:00] So I wrote, Dear Reader, by going to North Korea and getting all their propaganda, which is translated into several languages, because the conceit is everyone on Earth is interested in them and wants to share their ideology. [01:31:13] And he died in 2011, 2011. And you wrote the book in 2012? I went there in 2012. I wrote the book came out in 2014. So Kim Jong Il is not an intellect, North Korea's version of Forrest Gump in that when they write their history, whenever something appeared happens, he's there. And by telling his life story, it's in the first person he's telling the history of North Korea. So I wanted to write the kind of book where in one book and it's the kind of reading you could do in the beach or the bathroom, you're going to get the entire history and know everything you need to know about North Korea in one accessible outlet. [01:31:48] And it's it's what people don't appreciate about North Korea, the several things, how bad it is. And this didn't happen overnight. This was very systemic that what this family did to that country where piece by piece they did everything in their power to hermetically seal it from the rest of the world, ramp up the oppression, keep any information from coming in. And, you know, they're very creative and innovative in their style of manipulation and control. [01:32:22] So there is a farcical element. [01:32:24] Let me give you an example. So people in the West kind of get it wrong. They talk about how they talk about when Kim Jong Il played golf for the first time, he gets 17 holes in one. [01:32:33] There is this one story about Kim Jong Il shrinking time. And this is a story and it sounds supernatural, but it's not. So Kim Jong Il is at a conference, the Dear Leader, and someone is giving a talk. And while that person is giving a talk, Kim Jong Il is taking notes and working on his work. And he has an aide who keeps interrupting him with questions. And the speaker keeps stopping. And Kim Jong Il says, why are you stopping? [01:32:59] Because I see you're doing other things. And it goes, no, no, he can I can do all these things at once. Everyone's shocked. And they said, this is why Kim Jong Il looks at time not like a plane, but like a cube. And he can shrink time. And my friend goes, do they mean multitasking? And yes, Kim Jong Il is the only person in North Korea who's capable of multitasking. So in order to elevate him, they basically make everyone else in North Korea completely, you know, incompetent. [01:33:31] And that has a purpose because should the leader go away, this country is going to collapse overnight. So this with a laugh in the West about all these newspapers. Show him, you know, at the factory and he's at the fish hatchery at the paper plant. They say the difference in North Korea is that the leader goes among the people and does what he called field guidance. So he will go in that farm and be like, this is what you need to do. [01:33:56] And he'll go here. And he's so smart. He's good at everything. And thanks to him for sharing his wisdom with us. And he's not removed from the people like in every other country. [01:34:05] Why does that seem to go wrong with humans, do you think? This kind of the structure where there's this one figure, this authoritarian, it's a totalitarian. Structure where there's one figure that's a source of comfort, knowledge. Kim Jong Il is not good at farming. Kim Jong Il is not good at the machinery. It's all a complete lie or the things he'll point out, only things that are completely obvious. So here's another example that they use in North Korea. [01:34:35] They have something called the Tao of the Jewish idea, which is that obelisk, which looks like the Washington Monument. But it's completely different because it's got this like plastic torch at the top. And they talk about in the propaganda how all the architects got together and they said, oh, we should make this the second tallest stone obelisk in the world. And Kim Jong Il says, no, let's make it the tallest. They're like, oh, we never thought of this before. [01:35:03] And the way it's presented as it. And like he's the first person to think of this. Like these architects are having a brainstorming session at the time. That idea, they're like, all right, we got to do something innovative to put North Korea on the map. What can we do? [01:35:16] How about second biggest? He's going to go for this and then he's like, oh, we never thought of this. It's it's so because I presented at face value, people sometimes say the book's a satire. It's not a satire. I downplayed all this stuff. It's a farce. He's another example. North Korea is very big. And I think Russia is to some extent to an amusement parks funfair, as they call them, the British style, because this is a chance for the people to get together. [01:35:42] And there was this amusement park. [01:35:44] It's almost like South Park Cartman, where there's all these rides and Kim Jong Il is like, I'm not going to let any elderly or children take these rides until I put myself in danger and ride them myself. And they go, But dear leader, it's drizzling. And he goes, no, I have to make sure these rides are going to be safe for everyone. Even during the light rain, they go, well, can we go on these rides with you? [01:36:13] No, no, no. I mean, the courageous one. And he's riding all the rides and they're standing there crying at his courage. Yeah, but that's what's and you ask all the things when power it's like, listen, I'm quite confident that those fun fair engineers are in a position to ride Modest Mouse River. It's called by themselves and be like, yeah, OK, this is good for the kids. [01:36:33] Although to be fair, some of those amusement parks are not are pretty rusty and dangerous that that that kind of propaganda. I guess what I'm playing a devil's advocate is like it's comforting and it's useful, but it does seem that that naturally leads to an abuse of power. [01:36:54] It's not how can it be used correctly? No one person has the intellect or the mind to understand the entirety of an economy, let alone every individual field of interest. [01:37:05] Well, for example, you can have an artificial intelligence system that understands the entire universe, just completely let the mask slip. You could have an artificial intelligence. [01:37:17] But like the question is, can that mean, like, the human version of that is like you can hire a lot of experts, right? You can be an extremely good manager. [01:37:29] And since everything is dynamic, it's not going to they're not going to have the data to kind of manage it. [01:37:34] Well, it seems that there's a lot like what George Washington allegedly did. It seems like most humans are not able to fire themselves. You're not able to like, yeah, you're right, I'll be checking your power. [01:37:47] But that's not if I was like if I was creating a human is that's not an obvious bug of the system that we would not be able to fire ourselves to to know when we have. I mean, it seems like that's something you have to know always like there's something I often wonder is like, am I wrong about this? But this is all we talked about earlier. What are the safety valves to make sure that, OK, if I am incorrect or my knowledge is finite, Plato's cave kind of thing, what mechanisms are in place that my mistake or limited information is going to have the deleterious consequences if North Korea does not really have that? [01:38:29] And as a result, they had polio in the 90s. [01:38:32] So there is your you write about it straight, but there's a humor to it because it's an absurdly evil place, I suppose. Yeah. A bunch of people. I asked I asked, I said that I'm talking to you and a bunch of questions we got here from the plebs, you asked me before we start recording, I specifically said, no, it was in my contract. [01:38:58] Yeah. And you gave I gave you all the pink Skittles or whatever, but they still think, you know, think I'm trolling. [01:39:06] Michael, let me explain to you how that works. [01:39:09] If people should go Malus, that local Starcom and sign up and pay, I think the membership fee, several thousand dollars. It's very it's it's not it's not for the layman. Yeah. But the service is there, so you get a coat with it. But yeah, I went there, posted a lot of really brilliant people that appeals to during that community. If you find Michael interesting or if you just want to go and say why he's wrong, it's a great place to have that. [01:39:39] For that, I show you a lot of really kind people. [01:39:44] So anyway, the there's a bunch of people asked that we should talk about humor. [01:39:50] OK, so pretend, hypothetically speaking, that I'm a robot asking you to explain humor to me. What so dear reader, I mean, there's a humor. There's just so. [01:40:07] A wonderfully dance between serious dark topics and then. Seriously, dark humor, can you try to if you were to write like a, I don't know, Wikipedia article, maybe a book about your philosophy of humor? What do you think is the role of humor in all of this? [01:40:27] A joke is like a baby. You can't dissect it and then put it back together and expect it to work. Trust me on this one, this fight, no matter how you carve that thing up, it's not going to be working the next day. And you needed to saw those little sneakers with those hands. Oh, I don't know. That humor is something that is a very explainable people. There's something called Klapper where this is like the worst kind of humor, where people applaud because they agree with what you're saying as opposed to laughter. [01:40:57] That's that's that's the kind of support you're reading. Yeah. And the drag queens do that, too. [01:41:03] I think because of the nails you laugh. It's a visceral reaction when someone on Twitter is insisting, you know, that's not funny. You're not in a position to make that claim. And let's let's let's go back to North Korea. I had a refugee I knew and he went to high school here and he was talking to his buddies and they said, hey, remember when we were kids, we had Pokemon. [01:41:27] And he goes, Oh, yeah, except instead of Pokemon, I watched my dad starve to death, which is the truth now. Who are who are any of us to tell him not to make that joke? I don't know what it's like watching anyone, including my dad, starve to death at my dad's fatty. So he's not going hungry anytime soon. So it's very bizarre to me when people feel comfortable precluding others from making jokes, especially. And I think this is a very Jewish thing, like this kind of gallows humor, especially when it's laughing about a personal loss or experience that they've had. [01:42:05] Humor is a great way to mitigate pain and suffering. [01:42:11] But it's also I think this is why it's a Jewish thing. It's it's a black thing. [01:42:15] When you are marginalized community or poorer, it's free telling stories, telling jokes or songs. You don't have to have money, but you can have joy and happiness. And I think that's why you find it so much more in kind of lower status communities than you would find it like wasps who are notoriously humorless, which is strange because people pay a lot of money for the jokes you do. [01:42:39] So it's not really free. [01:42:42] Yeah, well, no, they don't have to pay me. It's appreciated, but not expected. [01:42:47] I find my voice cracking every time I try to make a joke like I failed miserably at this. [01:42:53] So some people are still in beta alpha think enough was like being a lady. If you have to tell people you are, you aren't. [01:43:02] No, I meant alpha version. Oh, OK. I don't I don't know your robot gobbledygook. I'm not going to. OK, it's OK. It's in my own head. [01:43:14] I'm talking to myself in my own head. OK, speaking of North Korea, some people say that, you know, I've read that comedy is about timing. First of all, do you agree? And second of all, no, I'm serious. [01:43:31] It's just that you saying, yes, the timing is funny, isn't it? [01:43:36] Comedy is tragedy. Plus, timing is not that is not the full reference. What is it interrupting. Oh, knock, knock joke. I'm not going to do it. [01:43:43] But that's not a timing thing. That's more of a repetition. And then the twist ending the movie. Oh yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah. [01:43:51] INTERRUPTING How are you thinking of the banana one anyway. Uh I'm not, I'm not going there yet. You're fucking right. Look, I just wondered, is Dad sleeping in a wardrobe. Yeah. [01:44:10] So British. But yet you're very I want to stay in a closet because that has connotations. [01:44:16] Let's let's both come out of the closet for a second. I love you. Let's talk about you. [01:44:21] Like I wasn't saying I love you, Alex. I would say I love you. Lex. [01:44:26] Oh, you're talking to me. Yes. There's a screen. [01:44:29] So when you see you think about me when you're over with another man, I watch you when you're sleeping. OK, you're Danielsson really active on Twitter. [01:44:40] Yeah. And somebody else asked on your overly expensive membership. [01:44:45] Say what? Like grifts. [01:44:50] How do you find humor different in writing on Twitter versus spoken humor? So it is a great question. If humor is about timing, how do you capture the timing and the brilliance of the whatever is underlying humor in the context of Twitter, like, in other words, say it is, or how do you be funny and yet thoughtful on Twitter? [01:45:16] So. With Twitter, you have to be the first one to the punch line. So when Ron Paul had a stroke, I was immediately being like, he's still the most articulate libertarian. He's doing a great Joe Biden impression right now. All the libertarians got mad and people like too soon or like when someone dies, you're making the jokes about them. It's like, when do you want to make the jokes about someone just died a week later. It doesn't make any sense now. [01:45:38] You might soon perfect timing. Or you could say it's not appropriate ever. But too soon does not make sense in this context. So that is something that I enjoy doing. It's also fun ruffling people's feathers, something I enjoy doing. I think spoken versus writing is very different because when you are having good banter with someone for me as the audience, knowing that it is on the spot, really adds an element of humor because then it's like, wow, this is fun. [01:46:13] It's like a ping pong match or something. Whereas in writing it's you're losing the tone, you're losing the relationship of a dynamic conversation. And a lot of times the joke is just kind of a different type of joke. Well, it's funny, but Twitter, there's a sense, especially your Twitter, that. [01:46:35] You're you just thought of that and you just wrote it. Yes, like there's is a there's a feeling like it's literally you talking as opposed to what I imagine is there are some editing, but it doesn't look like it. [01:46:49] Where were you editors should be fired into? [01:46:54] There's an interesting effect, actually, if I want to say something I don't know about. About the something that's bothering me about the presidential election or something like that, like what are what is the actual central idea that I'm trying to convey to myself, like sales, having a hypothetical conversation with myself, like, why am I putting my pants back on this way? Provoke not malice to sheath the word dotcom. OK, that's she's what is what's the website she Thunderer dot com. [01:47:35] She's on the dotcom promo code, MALLIS 20 and I forgot. Why is that underwear really nice? [01:47:41] Because it has a dual pouched technology to keep your MANPAD separate. They've also got woman stuff, but I don't know how that works. Is the thing worth going somewhere? And the material is really refreshing. I mean, it's really a guy. It makes your ass look good. [01:47:53] That's promo code MALS 20 and it's made by it's made by a former vet because he was in Iraq. So that's why I like promoting it. [01:48:02] Yeah, but what I'm writing the the, the tweet I like to it forces me to think deeply about the core of the message. OK, but what I found this really interesting effect, like I don't really do much editing and the tweet, like I just like think and then I'll write it and then when I post it, like submit like I immediately see the two very differently than it was in my mind. [01:48:28] I often delete like I delete some percentage of tweets about like two, five seconds after. Wow. I don't know something. [01:48:36] Well you once you send it it's why the Gmail send features I which is really nice. It's like, it just changes the way I see the thing. So it's very interesting. It's but I really love it that you can delete it because. When I say stuff out in the wild, like to other humans, like others, spoken, spoken word is like you can't delete what you just said. And I often regret the things I say, like in in on the spot. [01:49:06] Like, I shouldn't have said that. Really? [01:49:08] Yeah, I don't have that. [01:49:11] Well, again, whoever your editor is, what is it at this? Know, I could you're your fantasies about as your English. [01:49:21] Um, I don't have any tweets I regret because if I sent a tweet that I regretted, I would make amends. I would make it a point if I was a needlessly offensive to somebody or hurtful or accidentally, I would make sure to fix it and go out of my way to make sure that person feels vindicated and validated by accepting my apology. That has never happened, had to happen. [01:49:51] Thankfully, I'm also someone who is not big on taking the bait us some recently some people have come after me pretty hard. And my perspective is that it's not really about me. It's either I represent something to them. I'm just a jackass with a Twitter. So if you're getting this riled up over me, it's not really about me. Maybe I'm delusional. That's how I look at it. So if they are trying to provoke me into this kind of heated exchange, I will never do it, because that's not I'm not interested in it. [01:50:25] And it's I don't think there's going to be. And it's like Jeannette Rankin, you can't win. It's just going to be like trying to win a hurricane. There's no hero here. [01:50:34] Well, let me ask you about this, because some of you also asked that on your overly expensive membership's like that, like they were saying that they're an academic. They wonder because I'm an academic, I'm not an academic, but I do still have an affiliation with MIT. [01:50:48] I the word academic is dirty. It's I guess, which is the problem that needs to change. Just like the word nerd is dirty. [01:50:56] No academic needs is going to be the next front to open and they're going to be very vilified. We're coming for them and it's going to be very, very ugly. And I cannot wait. [01:51:05] No, but there needs to be a place and a different term for people who love research and knowledge and input. Like you have to be right 100 percent. You're right. So there you have to you have to clarify what you mean by academic. And right now, the word academic means a verse in the intellectual public discourse. It means the enemy. And there's a lot of people that perhaps deserve that targeted vilification. But like a lot that don't they're just curious people. [01:51:35] They're just you're absolutely right. [01:51:36] Building building robots will one day destroy voice cracks. [01:51:40] Every time I make a joke, you know, I can't do this. It's OK. It's like I'm editing and I can't delete that joke. [01:51:50] OK, that's not even a joke. Robots building robots will one day kill us. [01:51:56] Oh, God willing humans are the joke. [01:52:00] That's why I'm cracking my voice cracking. [01:52:03] And what were even what was even fucking saying academics. But why I local someone had a question. [01:52:11] They're not academic, they're academic. [01:52:13] They're saying like, are you worried that, you know, in academia associating yourself with a sort of somebody who has who can be misconstrued to have radical ideas like the two examples they gave is Michael Mouse and Joe Rogan is you'll have any radical. [01:52:33] I wouldn't consider him radical at all. Well, we can talk about it. Oh, I think a bad example is why quite centrist to me. [01:52:41] Well, he could have, for example, like, what has Joe been attacked on is, for example, on the topic of like transgender, like athletes, athletes in sports. [01:52:54] There's what else? I mean, he's been pro Bernie Sanders and that's pro Trump or like giving Trump a pass not by Trump, not anti Trump. [01:53:08] Oh, what else? Just but of these are red meat, meat stuff being pro meat versus anti vegan. Yeah. Of know all those kinds of things. [01:53:19] But it could be misconstrued and and saying there's I think a highlight in my mom actually wrote to me about this, which is hilarious. [01:53:27] Thank you. At like he jotted down its words. That important. Well that's say your mom wrote to you. Just think that's that's a sign. [01:53:34] My voice cracks are silent when Michael Malice makes the funny jokes, when he does something that and then he writes it and then the next time he crosses it out, just put. Yeah, it's like. Joe Biden at the debates. OK? It also just crapped my pants so much. There is a I mean, he's a comedian. [01:54:04] You have a comedian side to you, right? I mean, you're you've talked about the humor side. Humorous is so you can misconstrue, like Joe as being somehow a radical thinker. And the same could be done with you. [01:54:16] And his question was, how are you worried about associating yourself with folks like that? [01:54:22] Am I or you? I mean me. Yeah. And is that something do you see yourself as somebody? Who's dangerous that I shouldn't be talking to and in the same way you do, you do you ever think about guests on your podcast or people you talk to publicly associate yourself with publicly and think that there is somebody that crosses that line that you shouldn't? [01:54:53] So I interviewed in the new right, I interviewed up to full blown Nazis. The last chapter is about Chris Kentwell. But that was in the context of that book. Right. So there's lots of people who people want me to have on my show. And the way I look at it is like you have a table and tablecloth. Right. And let's suppose the table is of three feet wide. The tablecloth is two feet wide. So if I move the tablecloth to the right, I'm going to lose people on the left. [01:55:20] I can only cover so much space. And the further you go on the fringe in one direction, the more mainstream you're going to lose and the other direction. So I'm very much making a conscious choice not to talk to being. People will say I'm cowardly and that's absolutely true. I'm being fearful here. I would prefer not to talk to some of those who would alienate some of the more mainstream people. And here's a perfect example of why. On my birthday last year, I woke up seven o'clock in the morning to go pee and I checked Twitter, whatever, and Jeb Bush had followed me. [01:55:54] Jeb and I did seven a.m.. You're not really awake. You're like, wait, what? And then I thought maybe it's a fake account, but it's in the verified tab. You don't have this because you're not verified on Twitter. That's a shame. So people who are matter on Twitter, Twitter does not respect robots. [01:56:11] They then bots. You're lucky, zero one zero zero zero zero zero. [01:56:17] Those are my pronouns. [01:56:22] So it was Jeb, Jeb, Governor Bush and I corresponded with him and I asked him on the show and he decided not to, for various reasons, very politely, like just politics is still bad right now. I want to talk about it and I respect that for him. [01:56:36] If I am in a spirit, if I'm creating my show where he's going to get heat for who I get canceled. Oh, you can't be on the show. He has his other guests. I don't want to lose that opportunity because as we were talking about earlier, I mean, Alex Jones and Tim Pool, I think a lot of people would be very excited to see me sit down with Jeb Bush. And I told him in writing and I meant this, I wouldn't be clowning him. [01:57:01] I wouldn't be disrespectful. It would be a lot of fun. There's a goofball side to him that comes out sometimes. And I would do my best to bring that out and talk about what it's like being a blueblood to be born into. His grandfather, Prescott Bush was a senator from Connecticut. Marrying a woman, didn't speak English. How does that work when your family's royalty and things like that? So I had a lot of fun questions for him. [01:57:21] And that's kind of you going to have to choose one or the other. [01:57:24] Well, you do a really good job of that. Like Ben Shapiro does a good job of that, too, which is you can have multiple you can have a trolly side humor side where you tear down the power structures and so on. But you can also have a serious side and it's a safe space for people from all walks of life to walk in. And yes, not you're not adversarial. Never. Abdirahim, I take the word guest seriously. [01:57:47] If they're going to be on my show, I'm not going to have them have negative consequences as a result of being on my show. [01:57:54] That said, I mean, maybe in my case, I'll be honest and say that I find Alex Jones outside of the conspiracy stuff for some reason. Maybe you can explain, maybe you can psychoanalyze me, but I find him hilarious. Yeah. [01:58:10] Listen to me. He's a performer. He's very performative. But there's a lot of people that don't see the humor of it and they see the serious consequences of spreading conspiracy theories of different kinds. And, yeah, they see the danger of it, you know, and I personally. I'm often tempted to to talk to Alex in a podcast format, but I think I'm trying to convince myself that I never will. For me, I feel unsafe talking to Alex because. [01:58:45] I can't truly be myself, which is like that, you'd have to be on naive and honest. Yeah, and like and actually I generally when I talk to humans, I want to see the best in them. And I think that's like I often think about if I talk to Hitler in 1935, 1938, you got to list the names to give him. [01:59:09] Well, yeah, I mean, that's how you get the interview. Come on, let's be honest. Who who are we kidding? I would you have to give away one of your. [01:59:20] I would probably get along with my brother. [01:59:21] So how many brothers there was one too many. What I want to know is the older brother used to pick on me. Payback. You know, it's only he a good life. You should think of it more. Stalin, I interrupt you because Hitler, you're Jewish, so you're already getting to have very adversarial. It's not going to be normal. He's not going to perceive you as a as a human in a sense. Right. Right. So it's all in you, right? [01:59:44] Yeah. That would be much easier work. Kim Jong un or something like that. I guess you think, OK, this is a good question is in that and that's. [01:59:52] But why don't you judge something if you are. All right, we'll cross it out in a second. I think this is a really good example of a difficult figure that's controversial that people bring up to me a lot. And you interviewed twice, which is courtesy of an apartment just like Mencius Mall, a.k.a. Mensches Small Bug, which is his pseudonym, that he goes by his book. Can you tell me about who he is? Sure. Why is the interesting one of his ideas very interesting? [02:00:28] Well, he briefly he invented the concept, the red pill. So Curtis Mencius milblog had a blog called Unqualified Reservations. You can still find it online. It's very verbose. He writes at length, very, very bright. His perspective is very heretical. So a lot of things that we take for granted in our liberal democracy, he regards as not only incorrect, which is downright absurd and does not he does not take what many people view as the basis of American public discourse, as the basis for his thought so. [02:01:08] When you're starting with someone who is basically repudiating kind of the Western world view, we're not the Western world, you like the American media, a lot of people are going to, of course, regard him as dangerous or someone who is verboten. He's a very bright person. [02:01:27] Why is this such a toxic figure? Because if you are blue pills, if you are the guardians of what is acceptable discourse, then you have to make sure your thoughts are secured and that any figure outside of this acceptable discourse has to be marginalized and regarded as radioactive as possible. You don't want to let in these kind of ideas that would be destructive to your hegemony. [02:01:56] Well, so let's dig into it. So the key I've read a few things by him, but then I hear that in a bunch of places, him being called the racist, a white supremacist, neo fascist. [02:02:10] So on I go to Wikipedia. Yeah, there's a view on race section. Let me read it, OK? Javins opinions have been described as racist, with his writings interpreted as support of slavery, including the belief that whites have higher IQ than blacks for genetic reasons. Javin himself maintains that he's not a racist because while he doubts that, quote, all races are equally smart. The notion, quote, that people who score higher on IQ tests are in some sense superior human beings is, quote, creepy. [02:02:45] He also disputes being an outspoken advocate for slavery, though he has argued that some races are more suited for slavery than others. Quote, It should be obvious that although I'm not always a white nationalist, I am not exactly allergic to the stuff you even wrote in a post that linked approvingly of, I don't know, these people. Steve Sailer, this area from Jared Gaoler and other racialists. Yeah. [02:03:11] So, OK, so one of my questions is let me just say one sentence in the same way that you had. [02:03:20] You mentioned that guy earlier who was defending some aspects of communism and that is in some contexts acceptable. When you think about it's like this should be radioactive. Right. The fact that he is engaging with these ideas in anything other than this has to be refuted at all costs is what renders him, to a large extent, racist. That's really interesting. So there are some topics you can be nuanced, nuanced and some not. And communism is still a topic that you can be nuanced about. [02:03:50] It's difficult, but you can be raised in this like talk about slavery and IQ differences based on race is a topic that I guess is radioactive to a degree where you can't even say anything, even if it's like nuanced or not, even like making a point. It's like touching it as you make another point. [02:04:13] And understandably, you can understand that I'm going to steal their point because you can understand the point like you're just talking about Hitler once this foot gets in the door that some people are inherently slaves or some people are inherently better than others, it really quickly collapses. [02:04:30] So that would be their perspective. But that's what I like if I were to give criticism of his. But let me just say one more thing. Racist is also used to describe Alex Jones. Alex doesn't talk about race. Racist is a shorthand for a certain percentage of the population to let you know, do not bother investigating this person any further. They're off limits are definitely racism. [02:04:52] And sexism is a thing that's now used to shut down conversation. That's quite absurd. But by a small percentage of the point, Jared Taylor and Steve Sailer, Jared Taylor interviewed him for my book. He would be regarded in any sense as a racist. [02:05:05] What's the difference in racist and racialists? So, racialists, I mean, this is splitting hairs and now I'm going to be all radioactive. Jared Taylor runs something called Amron. And this is I mean, his perspective is that there are inherent differences for the races and you cannot live side by side. Well, whites and blacks should not be living. [02:05:24] And by the way, for people who don't know, this is out of context. You have written a great book that includes some of these concepts called The New Right, which does not include these concepts, but talks about. Yeah, well, it's more about the growth of the the community around that. That's the right. And all those kinds of the world. Right. [02:05:45] So and his point about IQ, it's like if you had a population, the Dutch I think they're the tallest people on Earth. And if you said, well, the Dutch are the best people on earth. Why? Because they're the tallest. It's like you're a crazy person. So if someone is scoring low, an individual on an IQ test, that means there's somehow a lower quality person. [02:06:06] Well, maybe one very specific aspect, but I mean, if they're a good human being, I've got friends who are low IQ. All my friends are low IQ, frankly, compared to me. Sound like Trump. [02:06:14] They're for how you choose. Well, I don't have any other choices. No one can be at my level. You're the you're the smartest person since Abraham Lincoln that I've that I've ever seen. [02:06:23] Unlike him, I actually am honest. [02:06:25] So. So he is someone who very much swims in heretical ideas. Aristotle. Here's another thing. Like if you bring up that Aristotle said that some people are born to be slaves. He wasn't speaking about race. You just meant people's souls. H.L. Mencken, who was a great heretic and early 20th century figure of his quotes that I say all the time, which people have seen a lot in this past year, that the average man does not want to be free, he merely wants to be safe. [02:06:56] That, I think, is I don't know. [02:06:58] I am not familiar with what Mahlberg saying about slavery because his writing is ponderous. But that certainly is something I think that it's undeniable that I think more people are realizing there's a large percent of the population that is actively disinterested in freedom and the more responsibilities that entails. [02:07:14] Well, I mean, really just the word slavery. If you want to make some kind of point or even think about the topic. Outside the context of this is a horrible thing that happened in the United States history and other countries history, us. Let's be clear, this is very important in their slavery going on today. [02:07:32] And there are a lot of people argue that sex trafficking and all those kinds of things, I mean, there's atrocities going on today that, you know, talking about it in a way that's not immediately saying this is the most horrible thing that happened ever. You know, it's something I think about a lot is like if I want to say something controversial. I should do so with skill, with care, and only about things I care about. [02:08:02] Well, here's where I would disagree. I'm not when I say things, I often say things that are controversial or I will say uncontroversial things in a controversial way because it's a useful mechanism to alienate people you don't want around you, because if there are people who are going to be shocked by certain topics, like we shouldn't have entered World War Two, like even as a hypothesis, they just clutch their payrolls. They're like, oh, you want the Holocaust to happen? [02:08:28] I can't discuss most things with you because you're not interested in having a conversation, interested in your emotional response. I think I see things differently. Maybe this is a bit of a devil's advocate, but what in at least the modern discourse of like Twitter and social media and so on, I find that if you do that, you're not actually. Removing the people that are not thoughtful and kind and so on, you're actually attracting loud people like a small number of them, they come over and start yelling at you, start yelling. [02:08:58] They're basically ruining the party by showing up and just screaming. And so all the thoughtful people leave. [02:09:05] Well, that's why you have to be a very heavy blogger. You have to block people on Twitter because you have to cultivate your audience and have them. Like a lot of times people come at me, I don't care. Then they'll start attacking members of my audience and then I'm like, dang, I got to block them because they've won this one because I can't have that. [02:09:22] Yeah, I don't know. [02:09:24] On necessarily provoking people feels. It's it's it's this is beta testing, you try to break the system and see what works, you put as much pressure as possible. This is very much computer stuff that you should be able to appreciate. The point being, when you have a program, you're trying to intentionally sit there and do as many mistakes go wrong. Right. Is that not common? Yeah. Yeah. [02:09:51] So you're saying that's that's a way to see communication with the world, as you say, something uncontroversial in a controversial way and that blocks people that or does it trigger them? [02:10:03] Do they roll their eyes? You know what? It's going to be the emotional response or they start yelling. [02:10:08] The problem is the reason I can't think like this or I can't because I'm not sure about the points I'm trying to make always like I'm not always 100 percent sure that I'm right about things like so I'm being thoughtful. I'm afraid that I'll turn off with an inelegantly phrased or even incorrect statement. I will do damage that can't be undone in terms of. Having a good conversation about a topic so I want to be very careful about, like, I'm nothing afraid. [02:10:44] Fear is not what I'm talking about. I think fear is is like not saying something out of fear is at the core of many of the problems of the world today. But I'm just saying be safe stuff with care. If I'm going to touch race a topic, it feels like you really should be deeply first have a point to make, like you really care about a point you want to make. And second, think deeply about how to see that point in a way that communicates the best and and touching. [02:11:18] I would say, listen, I've I've on your show, which is which is great. I mean, I'd like to say thank you for having Mencius Mobile. You are welcome. That's the that's the name of the show. [02:11:35] Thank you for having a couple of times. It's great to sort of get him to in this loose way to talk about different kinds of stuff. [02:11:42] I don't think we talk about race at all, so. No, no, no. I'm just bringing it back to what you were asking, which is if you read the Wikipedia, the perspective is going to be this guy talks about slavery constantly where it's completely disproportionate to his work. But even on your show, you can tell even outside of the very stuff that he's not ultra careful about. He's not. Nuanced. Yeah, he's not afraid to say something, just like I would say, let me just criticize him. [02:12:10] If it does not use me carelessly, say something controversial, right? Like I'm not saying he doesn't go. You know, that makes him it's a very different thing than somebody who on purpose says something controversial, stuff like Milo Anapolis. Sorry, I forgot Milo, whatever his name is. Yeah. Which is really nice to see that he's a genuine person who's thoughtful. He doesn't mean shit, but he just cares carelessly. Seems to say things that I feel like damage the rest of his body of work. [02:12:46] I can't really speak for him. But I would guess his point is once you're swimming in this kind of worldview, you're going to be anathema already. So there's no pleasing these people. So why bother trying? [02:12:58] Yeah, I think that's a deeply that's a that's a black pill way of seeing the world. It's not Blackfield at all because it's a cynical way that these people. So it's it's saying that you're it's a very kind of way of thinking. Like, I'll say whatever I want, whoever comes along with me. [02:13:16] No, you just earlier said yourself that race, racism has been weaponized as a way to shut down conversation. So I think his perspective would be I am so outside the mainstream in my worldview that I know I'm going to be called racism racist. So there's no point in trying to be nuanced because I'm already going to get the Scarlet Letter. Yeah, I just disagree with that because, for example, I'm one I am one person that he turned off by his carelessness. [02:13:44] And I think I should be a good target. I should be somebody that's fair. And I'm just like he it's very convenient to think that there's ridiculous people out there which there are who call every racist and sexist currently, and then you can't please them. So I'm not even going to try. No, but there is like this gray area of people that I don't listen to the outrage culture, whatever. I don't this Wikipedia article means nothing to me. [02:14:11] Like, I'm not going to write what I'm more I'm just seeing this careless person. And if he's going to be careless about, like, race like this, I feel like if I walk along with him long enough, I'm going to catch the carelessness. [02:14:28] I'm going to lose. Like, I'll defend your perspective better than you can. [02:14:33] Yeah. This is this is good. I'm taking notes. [02:14:36] I talked to Eric Weinstein after you guys talked about me on your show last Wednesday. We had a good conversation. He invited me on his show. There'll be an amazing conversation. [02:14:44] And we got on the phone and his concern fairly. [02:14:48] He goes, I don't want you to come on my show for the purposes of clowning me. And I would never do that. It would never happen. He might not be aware of. [02:14:58] That's why he wants to feel me out. He's like, you know, when he hears trouble, it can mean a lot of different things. And I we had a very conversation and very much was very clear that that's not where the conversation will go. But I think when you are going to be on someone's show, there is a responsibility that they're not going to have to pay a cost for having you as their guests. So if you're if you were put off by how he was in that live stream or two, I did like I understand where you're coming from. [02:15:23] I think he's very, very bright. But you have a very you have a different audience than I do when you're going for something different than I am. [02:15:29] No, no. Like in my in just the sense of you wouldn't feel safe with him. Yeah, I wouldn't feel safe with them. But he's he's borderline life for me. I think I would like to actually talk to him one day. Alex Jones is cross the other line for me as well. [02:15:44] You could do it with me. Tape the episode. [02:15:46] They never release it. Now, it's one of those things will be when there's finally the Atomic History Channel documentary about you and I and how it all went wrong, like the cult that we started in that everybody killed themselves. And there's a will release that then because it'll be like unseen footage. [02:16:11] This is how it started. It'll be black and white in a basement somewhere in New York. Yeah. Yeah. [02:16:19] Well, this explains so much. OK, so I spoke to Yaron Brooke about Objectivism and I and Rand. [02:16:32] He he kind of argued he highlighted the difference between capitalism and anarchism as around the topic of violence and the idea that having government. Be the sort of the the the negative way to say it is like having a monopoly on violence, but basically being the arbiter of or the the people that are making sure that violence doesn't get out of hand, that, you know, any studies show that the government is great at that. [02:17:07] Well, what would be OK without this system with a straight face making that argument good right there on. [02:17:15] All right. [02:17:15] Well, can you with a straight face argue for the idea that in anarchism, violence would not get out of hand? Sure. [02:17:26] For one thing, if your worst argument against that, one of my little quotes is what are presented as the strongest arguments against anarchism are inevitably descriptions of the status quo. So the argument is under anarchism, you know, you'd have warlords, you know, killing people and then you'd have, you know, whoever's strongest gets to just take over a neighborhood. [02:17:47] Well, we have that now. We saw that the police are perfectly comfortable disarming the population and then when they try to protect themselves, are punished. They were happy to stand down. You can't you can only have that happen if you have a monopoly. If they're like, let's suppose you had television stations, right? And CBS said, you know what, we're not going to broadcast cool. You don't broadcast. We're going to watch any of these other channels. [02:18:14] So the problem with having a monopoly is everyone has to be dependent on this issue. [02:18:19] What's amazing about anarchism, which Objectivists are, is they will argue that government is really, really bad at everything it does and it touches. Therefore, it has to be in charge of the most important stuff. [02:18:32] But it's not. Therefore, but but there is a thing that's fundamentally different than all the other things. [02:18:39] Yaron Brook also said that no government has this is on your show has ever worked in the way he's proposing now, objectivism. Ayn Rand's philosophy is based on objective reality. And what she posited is you look and study the facts of nature. So that's the reality and deduce things accordingly. And she very much regards herself as part of the Aristotelian tradition, as opposed to the Platonist tradition, where the idea precedes reality and the idea is more real than what we see around us. [02:19:12] So what he's saying is all the data, according to him, contradicts his argument. But still, he's going to make this imaginary government that has never existed and there's no evidence that it can exist. Let's talk about objective law to have access to the legal system, which is something we want even justice from selling disputes. When you have a government nappily, it's going to be more expensive, more difficult for poor people. The cost of hiring a lawyer is more expensive than hiring a surgeon. [02:19:45] You can't say with a straight face this is the only way or the best way. OK, so and the other thing is the argument for objectivism they have to do against anarchism, they have this stupid claim. It's like, what if, you know, you're a member of one security company and I'm a member of another and we have a dispute and one shows up the door, what happens now as if this is some insuperable argument? Well, we have that on Earth. [02:20:12] Every country is in a state of anarchism regarding every other country, but don't have a world government. [02:20:17] So what happens if a Canadian kills an American in Mexico? I have no idea. I bet you don't have an idea. What I'm sure of is that system has been worked out ahead of time between the three countries and it's been worked out in such a way that you and I don't have to reinvent the wheel. Same thing with cell phone companies. If I'm on Sprint and MetroPCS and I call you, who pays the sprint pay you? Do they split the difference? [02:20:44] First of all, there's no objective way that one has to work. But the thing is, companies who have auto accidents, they have arbitrage all the time. Like if I run into you, they work it out and it never reaches our desk. So the only thing that cops are good at is keeping at any government monopoly is forcing people to be their customers by keeping them unsafe. [02:21:07] OK, there's a few things I'd like to say there that just explore some of these ideas. So one is in terms of Canadian and Mexican, so on, that it does something has been worked out. [02:21:19] Perhaps not. Perhaps don't don't say perhaps you know for sure that there's a point I'm trying to make. [02:21:25] So let's say for sure it's been worked out. There is a there was a point in history where it wasn't worked out, like, to to to work to come to a place of stability. [02:21:36] There has to be some instability. [02:21:38] So when you first like for every kind of situation in there, like dispute over space, like who gets to own Mars, that kind of thing, there's a first for it. And then then these different competing institutions will have to figure it out. And so there's the concern with anarchism, I think, or with any kind of interaction. What you said the brilliantly that there's an anarchism relative to the there's no one world government. Right. Alex Jones enters the chat. [02:22:09] But the there's the fear is that there's going to be an instability that that that doesn't converge towards some stable place. [02:22:20] That is not the fear. That is the goal. Under Ayn Rand's philosophy, markets have something that they always talk about is being creatively destructive, which means you look at something that's been happening for a very long time. Every generation, every innovator starts chipping away at it. He finds better ways, marginal improvement or marginal and or doesn't work, and he goes broke. When government tries to implement improvement, we all have to suffer the consequences. [02:22:47] When an innovator does, it's a huge asymmetry. If it hurts, it only hurts him. If it succeeds, he becomes rich and we all profit as a consequence. [02:22:56] But the fear of anarchism, I think, is that. It will be noncreative destruction, it'll be just destruction. Right. It's not like the instability. Let's give you there's no stability is one of these words that sounds objective but has no real meaning. What field has stability? If you let's suppose you want stability relationships. Yeah. Let's talk about medicine. Stability means we're not going to invent new diseases or new treatments. Right. If you mean stability in terms of a baseline of security, we have that already. [02:23:30] Very few relationships turn violent under an anarchist system. Look at it right now where if you look at a bar full of drunken young males full of testosterone, if you look at a hotel where everyone is not native to the area, those are both far safer than the places that the government has taken upon itself to protect you. The parks, the alleyways, the streets, the subways we have right now a comparison of which is better at keeping people safe. [02:24:02] And it's very obvious that when it's something, it's private and under someone's control and there would be layers of there'd be more police, but there wouldn't be a government monopoly. The store would have someone on the street would have someone and you'd have your own personal security that would be attached to your phone. [02:24:18] Having security is a function of geography as opposed to a function of you as an individual is a landline technology cell phone world. So you think it's possible to have, psychologically speaking, as an individual among the masses, to have a sense of security, even there's even though there's not a centralized thing at the bottom of the whole thing. So, like, there's not a set of laws that are enforced based on geography, like we have nations now. [02:24:46] You can have a set of laws that are enforced in some kind of emergent agreed upon way. [02:24:52] So basically, I want to go to a hotel and trust that I'll be able to get a room and nobody's going to break down the door and. [02:25:00] I don't know, but you have to call my vidler. Let's let's take a different way. If you were worried about a hotel having bedbugs. Not a sign that governments involved in what mechanist. And that's not an unrealistic concern. Are there mechanisms right now that you can undertake to make sure that's not the case? Yes. So it would be the same thing with I want to make sure I go to a hotel that has security. It be exactly the same thing. [02:25:24] And here's another example. Kosher food. People who keep kosher, Jews who keep kosher, their food has to be repaired in a certain way. It has to meet higher rabbinical standards. Right. If you look at food, it will have that certification, the K and there's even competition there. There's the K and there's a stricter you letter. People don't notice because they're looking for it. You would have companies certifying different locales for their level of security and it would take an hour to have an app that just like when you have toll roads, right. [02:25:56] That would tell you you're approaching an unsafe area, you're not going to be covered by us or and you could have it color coded very easily. We could do this today. [02:26:05] But the thing is, you're exactly correct. But there's an assumption of you're already in a you can give me a different word and stability, but you're already in a place where the forces of the market or whatever can operate the worries. Like initially you might not have enough the ability to where you can choose one place over the other based on the security that they provide. [02:26:31] We already have different types of security here because we have federal government, we have state governments and we have local governments. So and these often contradict each other. [02:26:42] So the idea of the implausibility of having different security companies and having it be unstable or impossible, we already have a very rough example of it happening in real life. [02:26:53] But all of it started. It's like the idea of special Yaroun is like it all started with government monopoly of violence, saying, like, now kids don't let violence get out of hand. [02:27:08] So like civil war where half the country was slaughtered, that's the display of the government not having a monopoly on the violence. [02:27:18] Right. [02:27:18] It's like it had it had such a monopoly in the violence in the north that it could draft people to fight others that they didn't even cover. [02:27:25] There's a south. So it's a it's a it's the government splitting. OK, so because this is a giant iceberg, like splitting is it's the argument is that you would have something like a civil war much more often under anarchism. [02:27:41] But that's that's that's first of all, if you had a civil war much more often, we don't have that with car companies. Right. There's no car company that says I refuse to pay or whatever. It's not violent. [02:27:54] Sorry to interrupt, but like and I'm playing it is that it is violence because if I'm a company and I'm saying that my cars can run over yours with no consequences, this is a rough analogue. That's why has that not happened now in terms of having security system, if I am free, just like switching cell phone to go from one provider to another and this one company is part of its payment, doesn't want fifty dollars a month. A hundred dollars a month. [02:28:22] Once my son, I'm not going to be a member of the security company unless in that case we're dealing with something like a Pearl Harbor or foreign invasion where it's like all hands on deck. [02:28:33] Let's go by evidence, how many places do have evidence of that? There you can have it a large scale. Was that a large scale, because it feels like once you don't know the person, what about eBay? [02:28:47] eBay is an example of anarchism in practice. I am selling something to someone whose name I don't even know in a country that is nowhere proximate to me and eBay acts as the arbiter. Sometimes I don't get the money after I get screwed over. But that's far less than the taxation that I have to give to the federal government. That's a great point, but it's a nice piece of finance. If I could if on eBay you could also commit violence, theft is violence. [02:29:12] No, if yeah. [02:29:14] If you give me 10 grand for a car and I don't deliver anything, you've stolen 10 grand from me. [02:29:19] Yes, but there's something uniquely problematic to being stabbed or shot. [02:29:28] The recent stabbed or shot is because the government, despite its contract, is refusing to allow Second Amendment rights to be implemented among the citizenry. And the people who are making that the case are the cops. They are the ones who are the traitors of the Constitution and should be regarded as such, whereas private companies are far more amenable to market pressures than the state is. [02:29:52] It's a strong argument. But let's actually just briefly mention the scale thing. Why why don't you think we should talk about scale? [02:30:01] Like because if you had anarchism just in Vermont or just in Brooklyn, well, find the people, make the argument you need anarchism, China's going to invade. But that's like saying what? Like do these little countries don't exist? San Salvador not exist? Some of them are violent. Some of them are not. But the point is they're not all at a moment's notice about to be invaded. Kuwait is an example of this. Kuwait was invaded by Iraq. [02:30:24] And very quickly, all the big countries were interested in having your stability safe space, got involved and kicked him out of Kuwait. If you had this company that was waging war on the population, it seems quite likely that the other organization would get together, put a stop to this, because they're not in a position to provide the service security to their customers. OK, this is brilliant. [02:30:47] But didn't you just say that we are actually in a state of anarchism relative to other countries? Yes. So isn't this what emerges? This is this is what aren't we actually living in a state of anarchism where we all have agreed? I haven't agreed to anything. So like the basic criticism you have is like you're born on a land, geographical land area, geographical area, and you're forced to have signed a bunch of stuff just by being born. Right. [02:31:18] Good place. So. So really, you could if you could, just much easier to choose, right, which space of ideas you associate with. Right. That would be actually a state of anarchism. [02:31:32] Yes. And you could have like a military you sign up with, sure. And you're certainly not putting people in prison to get raped because they're selling drugs. Yeah. And you're certainly not allowing everyone else on the street who wants to be there, can we say something nice about Ayn Rand? [02:31:54] I can talk about nice things about her all day. I own a copy of The Fountainhead. Yet what to you is Ayn Rand's best idea, one that you find impactful, insightful, useful for us in modern society that you think about that your life has meaning and productive work is your highest value and that you shouldn't apologize. And this something I despise. You shouldn't apologize for saying I want to be happy and I'm going to work toward that and that a few others that you owe nobody else some random stranger a second of your time. [02:32:34] You see this a lot on Twitter and social media. People like demanding a debate or demanding you act a certain way and engage with them. You don't owe them anything. So I think those are some of her. Best ideas actually teach you how to think Ayn Rand does not have all the answers, but she has all the questions, do you think what do you think about the whole selfishness thing? I mean, do you are you triggered by the word selfish? [02:32:58] So it's really unfortunate what she does, because you were just talking about earlier about Mooroolbark being carelessly she this is indefensible, in my opinion. So she talks about the virtue of selfishness and she claims that when people talk about selfishness, think they mean concerned primarily with the self, they don't. When people talk about selfishness, they mean in a sociopathic way concern exclusively with one's self. Right. They mean like, oh, if someone is dying on the street, I'm not going to, you know, even waste the second saving them because I'm selfish. [02:33:33] So she sets up this complete caricature of the term. What she when she's attacking selflessness in her best sense is when there are people who have no sense of self, they have no values of their own, they have no goals of their own. Everything that's in their mind, it's gotten second hand from the culture at large. And there's nothing unique or special from their perspective worth fighting for. So when she attacks, which she advocates for the self, she basically means self development, self improvement and achievement. [02:34:06] So I think that word choice is really it false and needlessly off-putting. [02:34:14] Yeah, controversial, perhaps for the purpose of being controversial enough. [02:34:18] But it's just it's not accurate. That's not what people mean by selfishness. [02:34:23] Yeah, I would say it's one of the one of the reasons probably her philosophy is not as much adopted. Your thought about is like it's funny. Like the use of words means something exactly as you said. That's my criticism. It's Jazzmobile, which could be incorrect criticism, by the way. So I'm not exactly sure. Can we talk about. Some modern day chaos and politics. Yes, please. US speaking of your hatred for chaos, let's talk about secession. [02:34:55] Oh, yeah, I was the first one on this trip. Yeah, you were. Well, the Civil War beat you to it, but sure. In contemporary times. [02:35:03] In contemporary times, you are you're on this. Can you talk about what is the idea of secession? What are the odds that it might happen? What does it mean for the United States in some way for different states to secede? Sure. America has been one country with several cultures since the beginning. There's absolutely no reason for someone. This goes back to the anarchist idea. If you despise Donald Trump, which is your prerogative, if you think Joe Biden is a clown, which is your prerogative, there's absolutely no reason for you to be governed by someone you disapprove of. [02:35:40] This is an incoherent, nonsensical concept. The only reason we even take it as a hypothesis is that we're trained to the contrary since kindergarten, a secession, I don't know. Along what lines. But increasingly it's becoming harder and harder for people to have conversations. I think social media and this is something people despise social media for. [02:36:01] I think this is something that social media has done well, which I'm advocating for is it tends to kind of run through ideas through like an evolutionary process and drive them to the logical conclusion. So it's very hard to be a modern online because it's going to be people, you know, pushing through your ideas through several cycles and then you're going to end up at some kind of more pure or if you want to dislike it, extreme perspective, having these different pockets. [02:36:26] It's not really governable because people fundamentally have different worldviews. So I don't know what secession would look like. I think the number is really increasing at exponential rate. I do not a number of support and supporters. I think the claim that this can only be accomplished to violence is false. It's a lie. Just like any divorce doesn't have to involve beating your ex-husband or ex-wife. [02:36:51] So and I'm very much looking forward to this becoming a reality far quicker than I ever expected. Well, do you think there's a value of. [02:37:04] Competing world views being forced to be in the same yes space in a context, so we can agree if Group One thinks A, B and C are the fundamental aspects of their worldview and argue within that. And World Group two thinks DNF and argues in that. So you're going to have a lot of argument within the space. But if there's fundamental differences in Worldview, there's no reason to be, especially when each views the other is completely coherent and reasonable. [02:37:37] Do you think there's a line of fundamentally different world views that. Along with secession will happen in the United States. Is there something that emerges to you as a set of ideas that are like. [02:37:56] Would you call that like you can't come to you can't come to an agreement over? I yeah, I think it's already happening like with the masks. I think there's just two fundamental perspective. And each one thinks the other is insane and also deadly and destructive. And I don't see how there's any discourse on this topic. So on the left, I wouldn't say it's left versus right. I think it's people who are pro risk versus people who are risk averse. [02:38:27] Yes, so risk averse and then there's like a hope for the comfort of the sort of centralized science giving the truth, and then everybody must follow the truth of the proper way to behave. And then there's on the other side a distrust of any kind of centralized institutions of anybody who might use, like control to try to gain greater and greater power and masks a symbol of that. And even if masks are not a effective way of of stopping the virus, which is really unfortunate to me as a from a perspective, I happen to be in a survey paper about masks, like people don't seem to care about the data or so on this. [02:39:19] This has become just a nice point on which to then highlight the difference between the two the two sides. Yeah, it's really I mean, I it's it sounds kind of on the face kind of ridiculous that this obsession would occur over it. But I'm saying it's an example of something where there's a clean break. Yes. And risk averse versus, you know, someone who's risk seeking. These are just two fundamentally different perspectives. Do you want to have an NHS or do you have a one of a market based health care system? [02:39:51] You can make very valid arguments for both. There's no reason for everyone to be under one. But you think that's not something that's that you think that's irreconcilable? If that's the word. Yeah. That that's not in the space of ideas that you can have in the same room together and they fight each other and ultimately make progress like that. Secession is the more effective way to proceed forward. Yes. [02:40:15] What do you see? A possible world knows the answer. [02:40:23] Meaning I know you say yes because you kind of lean on the side of freedom and anarchism. Yes. Like you make you want to make. Let me make an argument in terms of divorce, which is in your world view or your intuition is you want to make succession as frictionless as possible, of course, along all not just states or whatever, just like you want to choose. You want to be free. Yeah, and peaceful. [02:40:52] Let me make my authoritarian Russian style argument in terms of relationships like when she goes wrong in a relationship, it's not your language. [02:41:08] OK, there's only one place for one star at this table. [02:41:12] OK, ok, I'll get you let him know you get to be like Merkel as our previous discussion with Putin. [02:41:18] OK, don't let me unleash the hounds. [02:41:22] You know, you want to work through some of the troubles before you get a divorce. [02:41:27] Like you want to do the work and relationships, like it goes up and down. It's been two hundred plus years. It's it's done. [02:41:34] But in the listen, OK, so it's not a one night stand. But, you know, look at Trump this I don't see the middle ground. [02:41:42] He's either a complete calamity buffoon or he's been the first great president we've had in like many, many years. So you think that there's something different now than it was 20 years ago? Yes. Social media and access to information. And the division will only increase, do you think? Oh, yes, so Trump is not an accident of history. So they thought Trump was the river, but he was the dam. [02:42:08] Trump was the dam, they thought he was the river, so not analogy. Trump being gone makes things worse. Yes, for that perspective, because now things are really going to hit the fan. So what are the odds of secession? I don't know. And my desperate hope is that it's peaceful. But I think the number of people who are becoming very comfortable with the violence is making me very unsettled. Well, I see words as violence in your Twitter. [02:42:43] It's like Hiroshima, a million. [02:42:48] Sometimes I curl up in the corner crying after I check your Twitter feed, so. [02:42:55] But, you know, in all seriousness, do you think it's possible to do nonviolent secession? [02:43:01] It's a good Czechoslovakia. Look at Brexit. Brexit was the secession. Right, right, so you can have civil war did not need to be fought, that would have been a non-violent secession. And if even worried about slavery, you could have bought off all the slaves and brought them to the north. It still would have been cheaper and less loss of life and probably better for race relations. [02:43:23] Yeah, I don't know enough history to wonder about, like how the civil war could have been avoided, but that's how is well, conversation. So like, no, no. [02:43:33] If they want to secede, say, look, here's what we're going to do, we're going to let you secede, but you have to end up you have to end slavery. They seceded because of slavery. Here's the other thing. This is like this. Some circles of conservatism have this myth that wasn't about slavery, about states rights. Well, if you go back every state when they seceded, release the press release and they said explicitly, we're doing this because slavery. [02:43:52] So that is an abomination that needs to be taken care of. But the way other countries have, you know, ended slavery peacefully, one of the ways to do it is pay them back. And we end up doing this after the war. I think the South people got reparations. The slave owners, it was just insane. [02:44:09] Bring the North want to go to Cannes or whatever. And you agree. And that's our peace treaty. Because the people who died weren't the slave owners, it was white trash and it was always and I hate that that's the term, I can't think of a better one, but that's who always ends up fighting these wars, often disproportionately. It's poor people and uneducated people. And I don't I don't I do not regard them as cannon fodder. I think it's horrible. [02:44:34] So what would it look like? There would be two founding documents. Yeah, they had they had their constitution. I don't know the history of the they had a constitution, but it was much more decentralized. If secession doesn't happen, yeah. You said that Donald Trump was the dam, not the river. Yeah. That sounds like Walt Whitman or something, isn't it, poetry? OK, and you flirting with me, I don't you know, we don't we don't flirt. [02:45:07] We just go to the club and drag you into the hammock. [02:45:12] We have friends that go and you don't want to know about the good cop, bad cop, bad cop. [02:45:18] Worse. Yeah. [02:45:21] What do you think twenty, twenty four looks like in terms of the candidates and it's going to be Kamala Harris as the Democratic candidate. I'm really looking forward to Ted Cruz versus Mike Pence because they're both very good at debate. That would be interesting to see how they differentiate themselves. But honestly, I don't I mean, things are going to get really ugly really soon. [02:45:46] What about Donald Trump coming back? He's not going to do it. [02:45:50] So things in my opinion, I think things are going to be really, really crazy in twenty, twenty one. And talk about the dad being gone like I'm only twenty one. [02:45:57] So this year coming up. Oh yeah. It's going to be complete. It's going to be complete mayhem. [02:46:01] What do you think of like prediction wise and this is empirical. What do you think Donald Trump's Twitter feed looks like in twenty twenty one at the end of twenty, twenty one, we'll look back and see like what was the, you know, Obama gay exclamation points or we one, he is going to be, for the first time in history, holding the Republican Party accountable to the the base. [02:46:31] We've never had that happen before. I I think he's going to be holding their feet to the fire, radicalizing them. And given that they have the Senate where it's going to be 50 50, the Democrats have a three seat majority in the House. This is not a governing coalition for either. It's going to be a complete mayhem. [02:46:50] What does that actually look like? So what are the key values, do you think, that he's he's going to try to push? [02:46:55] I think it's just going to be very contrarian. It's he's going to be holding them accountable in terms of budgeting, even though he never did that as president. I think in terms of some kind of nominations, here's the thing. This is the first time since Nixon 50 years and things weren't as politicized then where an incoming president doesn't have control of the Senate. The Senate has the vote over Cabinet positions. I do not see a possibility of them not trying to pick a fight on one or two of these nominations. [02:47:29] And that's going to and especially as revenge for Cavener. This is going to get a very bloody very quickly. And I think Mitch McConnell, there's a sadistic side to him. He revels in being the brakes on the car. And I think the base, it's just going to be throwing just they're going to want somebody. And it's like, oh, yeah, we eliminated this one person. So that's going to get really ugly really quickly. [02:47:49] You see it being quite diverse, like division increasing, not stabilizing or decreasing. [02:47:57] And I'll be doing my part. I know you'll be doing my part, but I'm trying to do my part. And they try to be like to me, the division is shouting over people like Elon Musk, people who are actually building stuff and like accomplishing things in this world. In terms of, like Elon said, he took the red pill. [02:48:19] Now you're talking about the I'm talking about forget Elon, SpaceX and Tesla and actually the good size of, like, some of the things that Google is doing, it's like actually building things, like making the world's information searchable, all that kind of stuff. I call the stuff the making actually the world a better place. There's a bunch of technologies that are increasing our quality of life, almost all that kind of stuff. I feel like they get like not much credit or in our public discourse because of the division divisions, just like like it's clouding our ability to concentrate on what's awesome about this world. [02:48:58] Well, you know what would eliminate the division, right? [02:49:01] Secession. Yeah, see, I don't. I know it's hard for me to disagree. It's hard for me to disagree because but at the same time, secession. I'm a romantic at heart, you want a divorce breaks my heart cool, but you want to live in a country. Yeah. What do you want to live in a country where Joe Rogan is regarded as an example of someone who is spreading white supremacy? I don't. [02:49:31] Well, but see, I feel like that's not the country we live in. That's just The New York Times did it. The cathedral does it on a regular basis. Well, the cathedral is OK. The cathedral, I guess you can maybe define the cathedral, but it's like the centralized institutions that have like a story that they're trying to sell. So this is my box concept. But, yeah, they basically are set the limits of permissible discourse and create a narrative for the population to follow. [02:49:57] But to me, that's a minority of people, minorities, always controlling everything in any country. [02:50:02] The vast majority, the masses have no thought. But minorities can be overthrown and assure the circulation of elites the way the land. And that's what the progress looks like is ridiculous. People take power. Yes. And then they get annoying and new ridiculous people that are a little bit better overthrow the previous. [02:50:21] No, I think progress happens despite the people who are in power, not because of them. Right. [02:50:26] And so why is secession? So is it always about overthrowing the powerful? Is that how progress happens? No, I think progress happens despite the powerful, the powerful are going to do what's in their power to maintain their power. And they're going to fight innovation because it's a threat to their control. [02:50:43] There's always going to be The New York Times of the world. There's always going to be those the let them have their own country. [02:50:50] So it's two countries, one has Georgia and the other one is The New York Times. That's basically what's happening right now. It's just geographically this map out very well. But culturally, yes. But that's just cultural stuff, like there's a layer of public discourse. OK, I don't mean like that's what we're operating under now, but there's actually progress being made, like roads being built, hospitals being run, all those kinds of things, like the different innovations. [02:51:16] That seems like secession is counter productive to that. [02:51:20] Right. Because one country would have all the roads and the other would have all the hospitals. That's a great point. [02:51:25] No, that's not that's not the point I'm trying to make, because just like it just feels like the division that we're experiencing in the space of ideas could be constructive and productive for for building better roads and better hospitals as opposed to like using that division to separate the countries. They're all going to have to solve the same problems. [02:51:45] It feels like they're sure, but they can solve them differently and compete that way. Market sample. Yeah, we're seeing that right now. Different countries have different mass mandates and things like this. [02:51:56] And the competition within the same structure, within the same founding documents and same institutions is not a fact that you think is as effective as separate and it is effective. [02:52:06] But there is a certain point which I think we have long past, where there is not a consensus, a governing consensus, ideologically or culturally. Let me ask you a fine question, OK? Knock, knock. [02:52:17] Who's there? Mars. [02:52:23] God of war, the other one. The planet. Yeah, so there is a kind of captivating notion that we might I'm excited by the human beings stepping foot on Mars. That to me is like one of those things that feels. Like, it's why do we want to engage in space exploration, but I'm a little bit with Elon Musk on this, which is. It's obvious that eventually, if human species is to survive, it's going to have to innovate in ways that includes the space, OK, like there is a lot of things we're not able to predict yet that if we push ourselves to the limits of space, like new ideas will come, they'll be obvious 100 years from now. [02:53:20] And we're not even imagining and colonizing Mars. That idea that seems ridiculous, exceptionally difficult, impossibly expensive is something that is actually going to be seen as obvious in retrospect and that we should engage in. OK, that's just to contextualize things. The fun idea and experiment from a philosophical political science is what kind of government how do you orchestrate a government when you go to Mars? Like we don't get too many chances like this, but how do you build new systems not in place of old ones, but in a place with no system previous have existed? [02:54:03] I think organically. I hate that word, but that's the correct word you would have to figure out. I mean, that's how America was built. You had that was a Jamestown colony and they tried to communism here and it completely failed. And they went to a more free market system with the second wave of colonists. My understanding from Mars, I mean, it depends on the population, who the population was, the number of people I don't know. [02:54:27] These are all kind of hypotheticals that I don't really have any good insight in whatsoever. I'm not a space person. I hate astronomy like I hate it. [02:54:36] So a lot of people look up to the stars and they're filled with on wonder about the mystery of the universe. And you you look up to the stars and you feel, what? [02:54:44] I'm not looking up. I'm looking at the earth. If you if you look at what's I'd much rather given a choice between Mars and the deep sea, I'd much rather spend a week at the deep sea and all the life forms that are down there because there are literal aliens. It's like things that are not literal, but they're unimaginable to us. Some of the things down there. [02:55:04] Yeah, it's true to me. It's an interesting thought experiment to see when you have ten people and you have one hundred people. Right. [02:55:11] How do you build an effective you know, this is actually really useful for a company, right? Like horrible. In fact, a company that does things. It's not an obvious despite everybody being really certain about everything that's in this modern world. To me, it's not obvious. Like how do you run successfully as a group of people? [02:55:30] I, i that's what I'm saying. It all organic means you have to look at who the people are and tailor the organization to them as opposed to try to impose something. But you get to also select people. Right, because it's not going to open borders on Mars. All right, I was going to say, when you have one country, it's all open borders. Yeah, you're right. Them from from outer space, right. [02:55:53] Some say they're aliens already there, so you're going to have to negotiate that or we're aliens, so we're aliens to somebody with illegal aliens. Do you think there's alien civilizations out there? Yes, of course. What do you think is their system of government anarchism? Because they're advanced? Do you honestly think there's intelligent life forms out there? Of course, is the math that it's impossible? There isn't. So what do you make of all the all the stories of UFO sightings, all that kind of stuff? [02:56:24] Do you think that visited Earth? [02:56:27] Yes, my grandfather was an air traffic controller in the Soviet Union and he said they would often see these things that were not operating the way we new vehicles operate. So that's good enough for me. [02:56:40] So, I mean, do you think government is in possession of some like what do you think government is doing with this kind of information? Do you think somebody has any understanding of. UFO sightings or any kind of information about extraterrestrial life forms that are not known to the public? [02:57:03] Yes, that's indisputably true. I think the fact that so many of these sightings are from aerodynamic professionals like pilots and things of that nature, there are people who've seen it all who are reputable, if they are on record saying, I've seen things that don't make sense. And both the Russians and the Americans thought it was the other one that says something. [02:57:24] Shouldn't that be a bigger problem? Shouldn't that be bigger news? And a bigger problem of government is, in fact, hiding it, I guess. [02:57:32] But what are they going to do with that information? It's a good question, like if a UFO, if extraterrestrial spacecraft, which most likely would be like a crappy space, like it wouldn't be the actual aliens, it would be like some drone probes. Yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah. So if that looked like, what would you do with that information as somebody that's in charge of, you know, like you see how badly the WHL fumbled the discussion of masks. [02:58:04] Masks. Yeah. Masks is one of them. But everything really in terms of communicating with the public honestly about what they know, what they don't know. And that's a trivial one. [02:58:14] Right. [02:58:15] I don't I don't I don't know, they're certainly feel incompetent and being able to communicate effectively with the public about something much more difficult, much more fodder for mystery, like a of a thing, a piece of material that's out of the earth. [02:58:35] Forget like. Organic material. I don't I don't know to me so from a scientific perspective, would be beautiful. [02:58:44] It would be inspiring to reveal this to the world. Here's a mystery and make it completely public. Share it with China. Share it with everybody. [02:58:52] I think there is a domino effect where the concern would be what else are you hiding from us? And at that point, if you said no, no, no, this is everything, people wouldn't believe you and they would you can't blame them for not believing them. [02:59:05] Yeah. And then it'll be like, show us the aliens. They'd be like, we don't have them. We just have the craft. Your lying. Speaking of aliens offline, you mention elves, yeah, and psychedelics. Yeah, what do you think about psychedelics? In terms of the kind of places they can take. Your mind. The kind of journey you can take you on, Mike, what do you think what is what do you think the psychedelics do to the human mind? [02:59:39] And what does that say about the capacity of the human mind? And just in general, like the mysteries of all this out there? [02:59:45] I don't know that we understand what they do. The way I heard it explained to me is that much of the human mind isn't about receiving information, but blocking information. Right. Because we're so there's so much data coming in any moment that you basically have to train yourself to see and to hear only what you want to see and to hear. And that what psychedelics do is they tear that away and suddenly you're much more aware of what's out there. And also you're going to be noticing patterns that you hadn't noticed before. [03:00:11] And you had that researcher on the show and he can discuss this at some length. [03:00:18] I mean, Rogen is the person who popularized DMT more than obviously the person DMC more than anything. I don't know anyone who has even researchers who have anything close to a coherent explanation of why this drug, which is exists everywhere, would have this very specific, very extreme effect on so many people who are going to be experiencing such bizarre consequences as a result of it. I think it's very interesting that this is about the government. You know, the CIA start experimenting with LSD. [03:00:51] They killed one of their own people, drug the suicide. And there was a lot of research into Terence McKenna talking about this into this field. And then very quickly, once they got into the mainstream, they shut it down, even though it's not addictive, doesn't cause you to go crazy or anything like that. And there was a lot of propaganda against its use, which I think thankfully is now somewhat receding. I think Colorado just legalized mushrooms, something like that. [03:01:17] And I think it'll be very interesting to see what happens as a result of this. Yeah. [03:01:20] And the interesting thing is there doesn't seem to be for certain psychedelics, like psilocybin, like mushrooms. There doesn't seem to be a lethal dose, which is fascinating. Like Matthew Johnson, the the the Hopkins professor, the mentioned. I'm definitely going to do one of the studies. [03:01:40] It's it's a really cool way to do what he calls a heroic dose of sideburn. [03:01:47] Oh, I want to do it, but I have to do it. Let's let you know. So he's he is a heroic dose. [03:01:52] Holy crap. Yeah, but it's safe. [03:01:56] What's the how many grams are we talking? I don't know, but it's just as big. He's he says that is going to have a kick. Yeah. [03:02:07] So he says that, I mean he also studies cocaine, he studies all kinds of drugs and he's like the psilocybin is the heroic dose of cocaine kills or heat. [03:02:17] You can't. You can't. So you can't even come close. So he says, like, the problem with studying cocaine is you have like people who are addicted to cocaine. Yeah. Or so on. You give them the kind of doses that we can in part of the study is like it's nothing to them. Right. Psilocybin is the only one where like even like daily users are like regular users like are blown away by the dose they give them off. [03:02:46] So you can go to Russia in your mind. [03:02:52] Yeah, you could go to outer space, maybe maybe you'll become an astronaut or astronomer after all. [03:03:01] Maybe I'll be your guy. I'll let people look that one up. Holy crap. [03:03:06] Wow. What is love, what do you think this thing is like, our attachment to other human beings, and is it something that we should give to just a few people? Yes, that's for sure. [03:03:23] When I was working with D.L. Hughley in his book, he didn't use the term, but he was describing like low key depression. And he talked about how he was in the airport and he noticed a girl had a red dress and he went up and thanked her. And she is a great thing for and he had realized he hadn't registered color in, like, weeks. And I think love is like that when you see someone and you just like, oh, like like your eyes are open, like this is something I've never seen before. [03:03:54] I want more of this, that kind of thing. It's really it really disorients and reorients. [03:04:01] You're thinking, don't you find that like the world is full of that, like nonstop. It's not just like a person either. It's like but yes. [03:04:10] But when it's in a person, it's a whole other level because it's like I could have this is going to be great for years. It's like, you know, every day it's something new. I mean, that is and that is rare. [03:04:22] Do you think it's rare to find someone who you could talk to them for years and not run out of things to talk? [03:04:27] That's true. For years. Yes, that's rare. [03:04:31] And know that they really if you leave the room, they will do right by you. That's really rare. Well, from a Russian perspective, you just don't give them another choice. For this is the whorish New Year, New Year's Eve. Uh. So you talked about secession in the world burning down and you holding the match at the end, you're standing with a big smile on your face. Yes. Why so serious? [03:05:09] But let me ask you. If it doesn't include flame and secession and destruction and laughing malice and make up in a white suit at the end, how do we bring more kindness and love to the world than twenty twenty one? Oh, easy. [03:05:26] Be comfortable saying I want to be happy. And if there's someone who interjects and gives you attitude arm's length them surround yourself with people who also want to be happy. Here's a great example. My buddy Chris Williamson, who I mentioned before, he's a podcast or does modern wisdom. He's he's an awesome dude. And we became very close friends this past year. And he was in Dubai recently and he sent me picture of Dubai by the pool, just loving life. [03:05:57] And it took me a week and then it clicked in my head. And I'm like, you know what? For some other people, if they saw him, underwear model. At the pool, they would think this is him bragging or humble bragging, and that never entered my head, I'm like, Oh man, I'm so glad my boy can be having a good time and is sharing his joy with me. That's the kind of people you need to surround yourself with where never enters their head to be resentful or anything other than sharing in your bounty. [03:06:32] What makes you happy? I'm happy all the time, and one of the points I made my life is like, I really hate it. [03:06:40] I really did not like to give advice because I feel don't give advice until you know what you're talking about. And to me, what makes me happy is being self actualized. I am in a position with my career where I could be myself 24/7, where I never have to engage in small talk, where I never have to interact with someone I don't want to. And I'm very blessed to have that. Very few people have that. And to have that be not only to have it be rewarded and having people find that something of value to them makes me very, very happy. [03:07:16] But also being an uncle, you know, I have two little nephews. They make me very, very happy. Sure. My sister's raising them Russian, so they talk like immigrants. But that's OK. We're going to change that. We have to dismember her. That's fine. That makes me happy. [03:07:31] And to be able to be able to finish this book and know it's going to give people a sense of hope that's really validating. [03:07:41] What are you most grateful for, for our conversation today? You're stealing my bet. What am I most grateful for? I am very grateful. That I can come in here not knowing what we're going to talk about and no, it's not going to be something I have to be on guard about or I have to watch my words and that neither you or your audience is going to be responding derisively. [03:08:14] I feel safe here. You're welcome. Perceiver, thanks for talking to Michael Huzzahs. [03:08:23] Thank you for listening to this conversation with Michael Mallis and thank you to our sponsors, NetSuite business management software, Athletic Greens, All-In-One Nutrition Drink. Sun Baskette, mail delivery service and cash up, so the choice, success, health food, our money, she's wisely, my friends and if you wish, click the sponsor links below to get a discount to support this podcast. And now let me leave you with some words from Emma Goldman on anarchism. People have only as much liberty as they have the intelligence to want and the courage to take, thank you for listening and hope to see you next time.

本集資源與出處