That’s Isaac Newton in William Blake’s painting, one of the major villains in Blake’s philosophy. Why? Because Newton was a modeler, a proponent of Science with a capital S, the most repressive force in the modern age.
I think Blake was absolutely right.
Our narratives of COVID-19 are all lies.
They are lies of a particular sort, political narratives that have a nugget of truth within them, but are told with bad intent. They are told this way because it works. Because the nugget of truth hides a deeper, unpleasant truth. And a Big Lie.
Some are narratives of the political left. Some are narratives of the political right.
They are all narratives of betrayal, meaning that they seek to excuse or promote policies designed for institutional advantage rather than the common good.
Clockwise from Donald Trump, that’s Fox’s Sean Hannity, the CDC’s Robert Redfield, Surgeon General Jerome Adams, Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi, Harvard President Larry Bacow, the White House’s Larry Kudlow, and Vox co-founder Ezra Klein. They all get their moment of shame in our magnum opus on the ubiquitous institutional betrayals here in the early days of the pandemic age – First the People.
How do you recognize a political narrative of betrayal?
It’s always based on a model.
A political narrative of betrayal is always a top-down application of social abstraction, where a behavioral model is treated as the thing unto itself, falsely elevated as the subject and object of policy, rather than relegated to the analytical toolbox where it belongs. A political narrative of betrayal will always use “model” as a noun rather than “model” as a verb. A political narrative of betrayal always BEGINS with a prescriptive model of mass behavior – a model that by the most amazing coincidence serves the institutional advantage of the narrative creator – and ENDS with a forced fit to the individual citizen.
All political narratives of betrayal start like this, with a disembodied, modeled abstraction like
“the American way of life” or
“the economy” or
“the market” or
“public health” or
“national security”.
An abstraction that is then defined for you in such a way as to logically require the willing abdication of your individual rights, first as an American and ultimately as a human being.
A political lie always starts by establishing a disembodied, modeled abstraction like “the economy”. From there, the political lie will then start talking about the “sacrifices” that we citizens need to make for this disembodied, modeled abstraction.
Nothing makes me angrier.
Nothing makes me angrier than a politician like Chris Christie, a man whose idea of personal sacrifice is a regular order of fries, shaking his finger at us and telling us how reopening the local Arby’s is just like fighting Nazi Germany, how OUR deaths then and now are a “necessary sacrifice” in order to “stand up for the American way of life.”
The American Way of Life™ does not exist. It’s not a thing.
What exists is the way of life of Americans.
Start with the individual American. Start with their political rights. Start with the citizens themselves. This is how a legitimate government acts in both words and deeds.
The government’s job – its ONE JOB – is to protect our individual rights in ways that we cannot do ourselves. That’s not an easy job. At all. There are trade-offs and gray areas, and clear-eyed/full-hearted people can disagree on how to accomplish that job. But it is the job.
Its job is NOT to create “alternative” facts like modeled seasonal flu deaths or modeled herd immunity or modeled COVID-19 deaths in nudging service to institutional goals. Its job is NOT to champion the rights of the politically-connected few and ignore the rights of the politically-unconnected many. Its job is NOT to deny the rights of any citizen in service to a politically convenient abstraction like “the American way of life” or “the economy” or “public health”.
When individual rights conflict in unavoidable ways or we are faced with an immediate and overwhelming threat to our system of individual rights, a legitimate government based on the consent of the governed may be forced to decide which citizens’ rights must be temporarily suspended. This is a legitimate government’s last resort.
Today it is our government’s first resort.
Today it is the first choice of our political leaders – White House and statehouse, Democrat and Republican – to decide which rights to prioritize and which rights to deny in service to THEIR conception of what society should look like. All wrapped up in a nugget of truth told with bad intent.
This is how an illegitimate government acts.
Like this:
Model-driven Narrative #1
Whatabout the Flu?
Dr. Sanjay “minor compared to the flu” Gupta
Rush “it’s just the common cold, folks” Limbaugh
Political goal: COVID-19 threat minimization.
Truth nugget: The seasonal flu is a nasty (and mitigatable) disease.
Deep Truth nugget: We are shockingly blasé about all sorts of largely preventable deaths, and we warehouse our elderly parents in horrible places.
Big Lie: This isn’t a big deal.
Policy prescription: Wash your hands, boys and girls!
Embedded model: Laughably inaccurate models of seasonal flu deaths, designed to nudge popular adoption of annual vaccinations.
As the US death toll mounts, this narrative fades farther and farther into the background of our collective memory, but “Whatabout the Flu?” dominated the early weeks of American policy debates. And while it’s easy to find examples of this narrative from the political right, let’s not forget that CNN and Vox were beating this drum as hard as they could when Trump was shutting down some flights from China.
People don’t believe me when I tell them that we don’t actually count flu deaths, that the numbers thrown around by the Dr. Guptas and the Rush Limbaughs are taken from CDC models of pneumonia deaths. But it’s true. Basically we count pediatric flu deaths and hospitalized adult flu deaths, multiply by six, and intentionally generate an inflated flu death total. Why intentional? Because you need to be nudged into taking your annual flu vaccine.
If we compare, for instance, the number of people who died in the United States from COVID-19 in the second full week of April to the number of people who died from influenza during the worst week of the past seven flu seasons (as reported to dethe CDC), we find that the novel coronavirus killed between 9.5 and 44 times more people than seasonal flu. In other words, the coronavirus is not anything like the flu: It is much, much worse. – Scientific American (April 28, 2020)
On an apples-to-apples, counted deaths versus counted deaths basis, there is no comparison between COVID-19 and the flu. It’s pure narrative. Pure hokum. All based on a laughably inaccurate model. All geared towards the political lie of COVID-19 minimization.
Model-driven Narrative #2
Herd Immunity!
Anders “the death toll surprised us” Tegnell of Sweden
Dan “more important things than living” Patrick of Texas
Political goal: Preservation of economic status quo.
Truth nugget: Massive unemployment is devastating.
Deep Truth nugget: Massive unemployment is particularly devastating to incumbent politicians.
Big Lie: In the meantime, we can protect the olds and the sicks.
Policy prescription: Hey, you’ll probably be fine! I mean … probably.
Embedded model: Laughably inaccurate models of COVID-19 infection spread and severity, designed to nudge fantasies of V-shaped recoveries in the stock market and commercial real estate prices.
Again, it’s easy to find examples of this narrative from the political right, but let’s not forget that the most prominent national example of “Herd Immunity!” policy is driven by the leftwing Social Democrats – Green Party coalition in Sweden. Again, the politicization of these narratives is not a left/right thing, it’s a power thing.
It’s a high-functioning sociopath thing.
What do I mean by sociopathy and division?
I mean the way our political and economic leaders beat the narrative drum about how this virus prefers to kill the old rather than the young, as if that matters for our policy choices, as if older Americans are lesser Americans, as if we should think of them differently – with less empathy – than Americans who are more like “us”.
I mean the way our political and economic leaders beat the narrative drum about how this virus prefers to kill those with “pre-existing conditions”, as if that matters for our policy choices, as if chronically ill Americans are lesser Americans, as if we should think of them differently – with less empathy – than Americans who are more like “us”.
I mean the way our political and economic leaders beat the narrative drum about how this virus hits certain “hotspot” regions, as if that matters for our policy choices, as if hotspot regions are lesser regions, as if we should think of Americans who live there differently – with less empathy – than Americans who are in “our” region.
And once you stop thinking in terms of trade offs, once you stop thinking in terms of probabilities and projected mortality rates and cost/benefit analysis and this expected utility model versus that expected utility model … once you start thinking in terms of empathy and Minimax Regret … everything will change for you. – Once In A Lifetime
Model-driven Narrative #3
Flatten the Curve!
Gov. Andrew “we need 40,000 ventilators” Cuomo
Dr. Deborah “Trump is so attentive to the data” Birx
Political goal: COVID-19 threat maximization.
Truth nugget: Lockdowns prevent a surge in cases which can overwhelm the healthcare system.
Deep Truth nugget: When we’ve got everyone freaked out about staying alive, there’s no end to the crazy authoritarian stuff we can get away with.
Big Lie: We can get R-0 down to zero.
Policy prescription: You’ll find these ankle monitors to be surprisingly light and comfortable to wear!
Embedded model: Laughably inaccurate models of COVID-19 deaths, malleable enough to serve the political aspirations of both the White House and their opponents.
Of the three politicized narratives, “Flatten the Curve!” has morphed the most from its original form, as its early success in convincing even Donald Trump that lockdowns were necessary to prevent a healthcare system meltdown gave both its White House missionaries and its state house missionaries free rein to use this narrative to fill a wide range of policy vacuums.
The original goals of “Flatten the Curve!” – to prevent a surge in COVID-19 cases with the potential to overwhelm the healthcare system – were achieved. The flood in New York City crested … and fell. Other cities that seemed as if they might follow in NYC’s footsteps … did not. Mission accomplished! But in the grand tradition of other initially successful emergency government interventions (“Quantitative Easing!”, anyone?) “Flatten the Curve!” is well on its way to becoming a permanent government program.
Today, “Flatten the Curve!” has become the narrative rationale for a range of extraordinary executive actions – on both the left AND the right – that would make Lincoln blush. This is the narrative that will propel the Surveillance State into a permanent feature of American life. This is the narrative that will propel the final transformation of capital markets into a political utility. This is the narrative that will propel us into a war with China. If we let it.
If we let it.
Okay, Ben, how do we stop it? How do we turn this misbegotten process of political lying on its head? How do we reject top-down, model-derived policies and their narratives? How do we BEGIN with the biology of this virus and the rights of individual citizens and build a policy framework from THAT?
This virus is 2-6x more contagious/infectious than the seasonal flu (depending on environment), and 10-20x more deadly/debilitating (depending on whether or not your local healthcare system is overwhelmed). It hits men harder than women, and the old harder than the young. Those are the facts. They’ve been the facts since January when we first studied this virus. The facts have not changed.
Knowing these biological facts, what social policies would you design around THAT?
As a 56 year-old man in just ok physical condition, I figure I have a 1% chance of death or disability if I catch COVID-19 when my local healthcare system is in good shape, maybe 4% if my healthcare system is overwhelmed. Both of those odds are completely unacceptable. To me. Other 56 year-old citizens may feel differently. Other 25 year-old citizens may feel the same. Each of us has a right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, and the legitimacy of our government is predicated on preserving those rights for each of us. Liberty and justice for ALL … imagine that.
Knowing these foundational rights, what social policies would you design around THAT?
If you’ve read notes like Inception and The Long Now: Make, Protect, Teach and Things Fall Apart: Politics, you know that I am a full-hearted believer in acting from the bottom-up, in bypassing and ignoring the high-functioning sociopaths who dominate our top-down hierarchies of markets and politics. I still believe that.
But it doesn’t work with COVID-19.
The core problem with any rights-based approach to public policy is dealing with questions of competing rights. Under what circumstances could your right to liberty and the pursuit of happiness come into conflict with my right to life? Under most circumstances, neither of us is forced to compromise our rights, because we have the choice to NOT interact with each other. If my laundromat requires you to wear a mask to enter, but you think wearing a mask is an affront to your liberty, then the solution is easy: go wash your clothes somewhere else. And vice versa if I think your restaurant does a poor job of enforcing social distancing and food safety: I’ll take my business elsewhere.
Let me put this a bit more bluntly. I think that COVID-19 deniers and truthers are idiots. I think that people who minimize or otherwise ignore the clear and present danger that the biology of this virus presents to themselves and their families are fools. And there’s no perfect way to insulate their idiocy and foolishness from the rest of us. But if these idiots and fools want to take stupid risks alongside other idiots and fools, if their vision of liberty and the pursuit of happiness is to revel in some death cult, but in a way that largely allows us non-death cultists to opt out … well, I believe it is wrong for a government to stop them. Yes, there are exceptions. No, this isn’t applicable on all issues, all the time. But I believe with all my heart that if we are to take individual rights seriously, then we must take individual responsibility and agency just as seriously. Even self-destructive agency. Even in the age of COVID-19. Especially in the age of COVID-19.
There are three common and important circumstances, however, where this choice to NOT interact doesn’t exist, where the rights of yes, even idiots, to liberty and the pursuit of happiness as they understand it will inexorably come into conflict with the right to life of those who understand all too well the highly contagious and dangerous biology of this virus.
Only government can provide the necessary resources and the necessary coordination to resolve these conflicts of rights peacefully and without trampling the rights of one set of citizens or another.
You have no idea how much it pains me to say that.
It pains me because I think there’s a snowball’s chance in hell that our government will do that.
Here’s how a legitimate government would deal with the three inevitable and irreconcilable conflicts of rights in the age of COVID-19:
Healthcare workers and first responders have no choice but to risk their right to life in caring for all citizens who are sick, regardless of the agency or lack thereof behind that sickness.
How does a legitimate government resolve this conflict?
By mobilizing on a war-time basis to provide personal protective equipment (PPE) to ALL healthcare workers and social workers and first responders and public safety officers and anyone else who must serve the sick.
Workers who believe that their employer does not provide sufficient protection against this virus have no choice but to risk their right to life in their return to work, as unemployment insurance typically is unavailable for people who “voluntarily” quit their job.
How does a legitimate government resolve this conflict?
By providing a Federal safe harbor to unemployment claims based on COVID-19 safety concerns, AND by maintaining unemployment benefits at the current (higher) CARES Act level throughout the crisis.
All citizens who use public transit or use public facilities have no choice but to trust that their fellow citizens share a common respect for the rights of others, even if they may differ in their risk tolerance and private beliefs regarding the biology of the virus.
How does a legitimate government resolve this conflict?
By mobilizing on a war-time basis to provide ubiquitous rapid testing in and around all public spaces, starting today with symptom testing (temperature checks) and required masking to limit asymptomatic spread, and implementing over time near-instant antigen tests as they are developed.
It’s just not that hard.
But it is impossible. Politically impossible.
So what do we do?
“I have no idea what’s awaiting me, or what will happen when this all ends. For the moment I know this: there are sick people and they need curing.”
— Albert Camus, The Plague (1947)
We do what we can. We howl our discontent. We resist. We help our neighbors. We make. We protect. We teach. We keep the small-l liberal virtues and the small-c conservative virtues alive in our hearts and our minds.
So what do we do?
For the moment I know this: there are sick people and they need curing.
13:12
actually reached out to Togo and ask to
see their correspondence with the
tobacco companies and they gave us this
letter
EMI we had to translate it from French
but it was worth it because this thing
is almost comically appalled appalling
it informs Togo that plain packaging
laws would result in an incalculable
amount of international trade litigation suggesting Togo would lose any legal
challenge by citing among other things
an Australian High Court decision which
they write concluded that plain
packaging constitutes a substantial
privation of property rights now the
court case they’re referring to is the
one from earlier you remember the one
tobacco companies lost so badly they had
to cover the court costs and yet they
quote the one judge in that case who
ruled in favor of tobacco ignoring the
other six who called their case if you
remember delusive unreal and synthetic
and saying it had fatal defects that’s like when a shitty movie engineers a
good review out of a bad one like
Mordecai is a pile of dot dot dot great
bits letter is bullshit and yet Togo
justifiably terrified by threats of
billion dollar settlements backed down
from a public health law that many
people wanted and it’s not just Togo
British American Tobacco sent a similar
letter to Namibia and one of their
subsidiaries sent one to the Solomon
Islands a country with a population of
600,000 at this point it’s safe to say
if you live in an apartment with at
least two other people and you asked one
of them to please smoke outside you can
look forward to a letter from a tobacco
company very soon
14:55
look I could get angry and I could call
14:58
tobacco companies assholes or monsters
15:00
or open sores on Satan’s dick but
15:03
instead instead instead let’s rise above
15:06
it and let’s try and broker peace
15:08
because it’s clear what each side wants
15:10
countries want to warn their citizens
15:13
about the health dangers of smoking
15:15
tobacco tobacco companies want to be
15:18
able to present branded images that they
15:20
have spent time and money to cultivate
15:22
so may I suggest a compromise I present
15:25
to you the new face of Marlboro Jeff the
15:28
diseased lung in a cowboy hat
15:30
we are offering two F to you Philip
15:33
Morris International to use as you wish
15:35
put him on your billboards put him on
15:37
some ads in fact and don’t be mad we’ve
15:42
we’ve already started doing that for you
15:45
this is an actual billboards that is in
15:54
Montevideo right now and people seem to
15:58
like it there because they like it
16:01
of course they look everyone loves Jeff
16:03
the diseased lung in a cowboy hat oh one
16:06
more thing
16:07
um to be completely honest we didn’t
16:10
just do it in Uruguay because we also
16:12
and don’t be mad we made some Jeff
16:16
branded t-shirts and we ship them to
16:17
Togo yesterday where they’ve been quite
16:20
a hit and if you don’t believe me check
16:22
this out
16:38
Jeff’s already out there you just need
16:41
to claim him
16:42
our lawyers unlike yours will not sue
16:44
and and I know our viewers would love to
16:48
help you get the message out there in
16:50
fact you can tweet about Jeff using the
16:52
hashtag Jeff we can to get in trending
16:55
worldwide and get pmos attention post
16:58
Jeff’s photo on Google+ and tag him Mull
17:00
bruh which might push him to the top of
17:03
Marlboros Google Image Search we can do
17:05
this everyone don’t be a maybe about
17:08
this
17:10
[Applause]
17:27
because he’s definitely suffering from
17:29
emphysema on your stress enough you do
17:39
not market to children kids love Jeff
17:41
don’t you kids
17:44
[Applause]
17:50
[Applause]
18:01
[Applause]
18:09
you
13:57
that like why I mean okay the you you’re
going to be ineffective in these days
maybe you can be an effective regardless
but you’re certainly going to be
ineffective arguing in the public sphere
if you pretend that we’re actually
having a across the board that we’re
actually having honest debate a lot of
it is not a lot of a lot of the
arguments that you hear are in bad faith
so if we talk about the dispute about
the 2017 tax cut there what there was
not this was not a case of well some
serious people think it’s a good idea
and some serious people think it’s a bad
idea that was it was solved with lies
and and then you need
if if you’re going to acknowledge that
and I think it’s being you’re being
unfair to your readers if you don’t say
that then you are also really being
unfair to your readers if you don’t
explain why people are willing to – to
say these things I mean so so think
about well something I’m mixing subjects
here but think about monetary policy
which actually you probably shouldn’t
but anyways one of the one of those
topic one of those topics that is really
probably often not suitable but it’s
sometimes it is so there there are real
disputes in monetary policy yeah Ben
Bernanke and I are in somewhat in
disagreement about the effectiveness of
quantitative easing and if you don’t
know what I’m talking about
consider yourself lucky the that’s a
fine that’s a that’s that’s a perfectly
fine debate and I would never question
his motives but if we were having it as
we were having in the early 2010’s a
debate about whether the feds efforts to
rescue the economy we’re gonna lead to
hyperinflation it was important not just
to say that this is really crazy this is
not that’s not going to happen but to
ask who is it why are people saying this
because there it was really there was nobody making those claims who wasn’t
effectively a paid political operative
and some some of them may have had an
economics PhD or at least call
themselves economics but nonetheless in
fact it was all hired concen and you
need to say that again you’re not being
honest with your readers if you don’t
say that well I’ll get to some things
16:13
that I want to keep coming back to you
16:15
know I want to switch gears a little bit
16:18
I really I mean there were a number of
16:21
greatest hits that I really enjoyed in
16:23
here but one that I had not read before
16:24
that I really enjoyed was the 1993 piece
16:27
that you did called how I work and you
16:31
know one of the things that you known in
16:32
there you trace out the arc of how
16:34
you’ve thought about your work over time
16:36
and and one thing that you noted is that
16:38
you’ve always seen live policy debates
16:40
as fodder for your deeper economic
16:42
thinking so even before you became
16:44
abundant
16:45
and so when to give you an opportunity
16:47
to just tell us you know of the policy
16:50
topics that you’ve worked on over your
16:51
career which have given me of the live
16:54
policy debates which have been the ones
16:56
that have come back into your thinking
16:58
about theory in the in the ways that
17:01
have been most influential in your own
17:03
thinking oh wow
17:06
let me give you two so there were two my
17:13
what I personally consider the the best
17:17
academic paper I ever wrote was actually
17:20
about Japan in was a little over twenty
17:23
years ago
17:24
writing about Japan being stuck in this
17:26
trap being unable to to get out of
17:28
deflation and I was from among the
17:30
people who you know looked at Japan and
well actually so I came into it I started thinking about I thought the Japanese were being stupid that there has to be a really easy answer to this
that they and and in the course of
researching and try and think it through
and looking at there I realize that you
know actually this is really hard it’s not that the Japanese are not being stupid and and it could happen to us which in fact it did ten years later so
it so that’s a case where looking at an
actual policy issue which is the
troubles of Japan let me into relief
rethinking on understanding that they
that we did not have this recession
economic slump thing under control that
it was not a solved problem as many
economists thought at the time the other
area which in this book but you know the
minimum wage the the very few things
that in economic research have shaken me
as much as as the empirical research on
the effects of minimum wage increases
which turns out to be one of the few
places in economics we don’t get to do
very many experiments in economics it’s
a human experimentation is generally
frowned upon and but we get a lot of natural experiments when when states or cities raise their minimum wage and you can compare what happens there with what
happens in neighboring
cities and there’s this classic work
18:56
which has not been replicated and
18:58
extended many times from from 1993 by
19:01
David carte now in Kruger where they
19:03
found out that contrary to what econ 101
19:06
would say you cannot see any any job
19:09
losses from loans or men wage increases
19:10
and that was just shook my my you know
19:13
said okay maybe the economy works a lot
19:16
less like I knew that econ 101 was an
19:19
imperfect incomplete story but maybe
19:21
it’s a lot more imperfect and incomplete
19:22
than I realized it was yeah I mean it’s
19:26
about two comments I mean this I mean
19:28
one that is such a pivotal moment I
19:30
think in economics and so much of the
19:31
work we’re doing at equitable growth is
19:33
building on that the the ideas of how
19:36
all of this new empirical data and
19:38
evidence is changing the way we think
19:40
about theory but I’m also glad I asked
19:43
you this question because now I know why
19:44
you’ve spent so much time in your
19:46
columns focusing on the Japan slump I
19:48
mean it was important but also it’s nice
19:50
to hear you talk about how you thought
19:51
it was important and so this is I’m
19:54
having fun up here is basically what I’m
19:55
saying so okay this is great so um so
19:58
keeping on the same theme here so
20:01
recently when you were talking about
20:02
your book you told the american prospect
20:05
quote i’m considerably less of a believer in the invisible hand and more concerned about power than when i was
younger
and that just really struck me and as I
was as we’ve been doing our work at at
global growth and I’ve been thinking
about what the data and the research and
the evidence means and you know thinking
about Adam Smith’s notion of the
invisible hand which you know he calls
the you know it’s like it’s the divine
it’s sort of it’s this it seems it’s
this kindly you know gentle hand that’s
pushing the economy towards optimal
outcomes you know where everyone has
20:39
this mutual beneficial exchange and is
20:43
I’ve been thinking about it the image
20:44
that I now have in my head of the
20:46
invisible hand is actually maybe most of
20:50
you will get this in the 80s there were
20:52
these ads on television for Hamburger
20:54
Helper and there was this
20:56
this hand in this glove that I think is
20:58
little traumatizing for me but you know
21:00
at this smiley face but it looked kind
21:02
of cruel and so in my head I now mention
21:04
the official hand it’s like it’s like
21:05
pushing some people up its shoving other
21:08
people aside and it’s punching down
21:10
right this is it’s it’s not this kindly
21:12
hand this is what I’m thinking about it
21:14
so what am I question for you
21:16
it is does this image resonate with you
21:21
and you know what does it mean to you to
21:26
say you’re you’re less of a believer in
21:29
the invisible hand okay
21:30
so first of all I should say that the
21:32
British magazine prospect would probably
21:34
be a little bit upset at being called
21:36
The American Prospect I associate
21:47
Hamburger Helper with with my
21:49
apprenticeship as an economist because I
21:51
I spent a couple of summers working as a
21:53
research assistant and and in the 70s
21:57
and eating a lot of Hamburger Helper but
21:58
anyway anyway no I mean the the what I
22:05
actually Smith wasn’t that that certain
22:09
that the invisible hand was Benari I
22:11
mean but he was just saying that you
22:12
know things the logic of the system is
22:15
that the but but the belief that markets
22:20
get it right and that markets and the
22:22
markets that there’s kind of a uniquely
22:25
determined thing this is what the market
22:27
wants to happen and defy the market
22:28
etcher at your peril yeah I never fully
22:32
believed in that but it’s become
22:34
increasingly hard to to the weight that
22:41
you want to put on that view and and
22:43
actually the central issue there is
22:45
inequality so and we you know there was
22:49
a an orthodoxy which to some extent I
22:53
shared but have progressively moved away
22:56
from and in a couple of sentences was
23:00
that that rising inequality was because
23:03
of these anonymous
23:05
is that the technological we’ve got
23:07
Larry Michelle if you’re skill-biased
23:09
technological change was pushing us
23:11
towards it greater inequality and that
23:13
has the worse and worse as a story about
23:16
what actually happened and so you
23:17
actually start to ask things like okay
23:20
why are ceos paid so much and the
23:25
proximate answer is well their pay is
23:28
decided by compensation committees that
23:30
they basically a point but that was
23:31
always true so what was it what changed
23:34
between the 60s and and the world we
23:36
live in now that that caused those
23:38
compensation committees to start paying
23:40
them you know three hundred times as
23:43
much as their workers instead of twenty
23:44
times as much as their workers so those
23:46
that’s the sense in which and we see
23:49
that across a lot of fronts now we’re
23:51
having a hard time it’s it’s it’s kind
23:54
of a grab bag of different stories here
23:58
but but somehow clearly it’s not just
24:00
that the market wants something the
24:02
market the there’s clearly a lot of
24:05
wiggle room and outcomes that seems to
24:07
depend on things that at some level are
24:09
our power well and I think it’s this
24:12
grab bag of different stories that’s
24:15
where I see economics right now you’ve
24:17
talked about the card and Krueger work
24:19
we have all of this new empirical
24:20
research a lot of which where we’re
24:23
looking at what inequality means across
24:25
different vectors and then trying to
24:27
understand what that means for economic
24:29
outcomes but it does feel like there is
24:31
still these questions of what it means
24:33
for theory what how do we take all of
24:35
this new research and evidence and you
24:38
know I think this will go into this next
24:40
question here so in one of your pieces
24:41
from August of 2018 so recently called
24:46
capitalism socialism and unfreedom
24:47
you focus on and I wanted to quote this
24:50
because you labeled a quote what’s wrong
24:51
with the neoliberal ideology that is
24:53
dominated so much of the public
24:55
discourse since 1970s and you argue they
24:59
quote the idea that free markets remove
25:01
power relations from the equation is
25:03
just naive and so I wonder if you could
25:06
spend a couple of minutes on you know
25:08
how is it that you think about
25:10
integrating power into economic theory
25:13
I’m sure it’s kind of connected to the
25:14
grab-bag in the invisible hand but if
25:16
you could focus just for a
25:17
and on you know when you say it’s naive
25:21
to not that free markets can remove
25:24
power relations how do you think about
25:27
integrating that into into theory into
25:30
economics okay it’s really hard right
25:32
Mindy
25:33
the thing about economics and for what
25:35
what Heather knows and the economists in
25:38
the room know is that we we have this
25:39
sort of baseline economic theory which
25:42
is the serve supply and demand but but
25:45
in a much extended version which is
25:48
beautiful
25:49
so all the pieces fit together and it’s
25:51
a and it gives you answers to to
25:54
everything and it so it has aesthetics
25:59
going for it it has a kind of
26:01
intellectual satisfaction it’s got
26:04
everything going for it except actually
26:05
that’s not true
26:06
and yeah but it’s but even even people
26:10
like even those of us who know it’s not
26:14
you tend to do stuff where we start with
26:16
that as a baseline and then say okay but
26:19
let’s tweak it a bit so we’ll introduce
26:20
some monopolies into it or let’s tweak
26:23
it a bit and let’s introduce some
26:25
realistic features of labor markets and
26:29
the trouble two problems one is the
26:33
theme which ways that you should tweak
26:35
it is it’s very hard to come up with
26:38
those accept you know kind of
26:41
case-by-case basis so I’m not sure if
26:44
you had asked me where I thought that
26:46
empirical work would say that we econ
26:48
101 got really wrong
26:50
I wouldn’t take minimum wages as the
26:52
place and that but that turns out to be
26:54
where the compelling evidence is so it’s
26:56
it’s very much still here’s something we
26:59
found it’s not necessarily what you
27:00
thought and the MDT it doesn’t we don’t
27:08
have an integrated theory we just have a
27:10
whole lot of mixed we men of course more
27:16
a menagerie of particular cases so it’s
27:21
the the short answer is that I’m just
27:26
much more willing to
27:28
pay attention – to evidence that says
27:31
that we’ve got it wrong but I don’t have
27:33
a general theory of power I mean this is
27:35
a this is a long way off and but but
27:38
listen to listen to what the data says
27:40
and listen actually that that 93 si was
27:43
actually about writing academic
27:44
economics but it was also about being
27:47
willing to listen to people with with
27:49
heterodox views who don’t necessarily
27:51
speak your language and the the way I
27:53
actually put it which seems appropriate
27:54
was listen to the Gentiles I know that’s
28:00
um for tonight um well I mean I think
28:03
that that is it is interesting and you
28:04
know for anybody who might be you know
28:06
here in the audience who wants to think
28:07
about a career in economics I think that
28:09
this is a very exciting question it’s
28:13
something that we’re gonna have to
28:14
continue to grapple with it so that’s
28:17
just my pitch for people to come and
28:19
help the the profession I will also note
28:22
that you know my favorite piece that
28:24
you’ve ever written was the one called
28:25
mistaking beauty for truth so so I
28:29
recommend that that’s in here and that
28:32
it kind of gets at some of these themes
28:33
so um I wanted um actually I’m going to
28:37
go to this next so I wanted to go back
28:39
to this 93 essay for just a moment and
28:43
quote something that you said let me
28:45
just find it um I have way more
28:48
questions that I could possibly ask in
28:50
an hour so I just I just skimmed wine
28:52
we’ll have to get back to it later so
28:54
you um
28:57
so in this 93 essay and when you trace
28:59
your intellectual history you talk about
29:01
how you learned that your talent was to
29:05
make complex ideas into simple models by
29:07
reframing the question among other
29:09
things and I thought that was a really
29:11
interesting self-awareness and I want to
29:15
quote from the book where you’re telling
29:17
the reader how you develop trait models
29:19
where economies of scale could be an
29:20
independent cause of international trade
29:22
even the absence of comparative
29:23
advantage and you say if this paragraph
29:25
where you say I was of course quote I
29:28
was of course only saying something that
29:30
critics of conventional theory had been
29:32
saying for decades yet my point was not
29:34
part of mainstream international
29:35
economics why because it had never been
29:38
expressed in nice
29:39
models and Lil ellipse here quote I
29:43
suddenly realized the remarkable extent
29:46
to which the methodology of economics
29:48
creates blind spots we don’t we just
29:50
don’t see what we can’t formalize and
29:54
and then you go on to explain how that
29:56
was important in this but I you know I
29:59
as I’m as I was reading this in thinking
30:02
about both your statements about the
30:03
invisible hand our thinking about that
30:05
these questions about power I wondered
30:08
if you could I mean do you think that
30:10
power is a big blind spot for economics
30:13
oh sure I mean a little bit less blind
30:16
than it was but it was if I think about
30:20
the way that people like me you know
30:24
vaguely center-left but but but
30:26
economics trained people thought about
30:28
the world 2025 years ago it really
30:33
didn’t beat much room for power it was
30:36
really that that if this was basically a
30:38
you know a functioning market supply and
30:41
demand and then yes you wanted to have
30:44
some government policies to mitigate
30:45
some of the injustice as a harshness of
30:47
it but but didn’t think very much at all
30:50
about the role of monopolies didn’t
30:52
think very much about as we might I
30:57
think I was probably always for higher
30:59
minimum wages but assume that there be a
31:01
cost in terms of jobs always has some
31:04
sympathy for unions but didn’t thought
31:07
up them as as as having a lot of
31:10
downsides much more than I do now and
31:13
just generally the we we’ve really got
31:16
we bought into the the idea that that
31:20
the the invisible hand that the the
31:21
logic of the marketplace severely
31:24
constrains what happens and that looks a
31:26
lot less persuasive now so one more
31:29
theory question and then I want to talk
31:30
about what all this means for how we
31:32
kill the zombies they one word that just
31:35
I have to one run through a question
31:36
about macro so you’ve talked about and
31:40
you have this nice piece in here from
31:42
2010 at where you called the instability
31:44
of moderation where you point out that a
31:46
key problem for macro economics has been
31:48
this search for micro foundations and
31:51
that we weren’t able to find those in a
31:53
way they did worked
31:55
you know microphone served
31:57
microeconomics being about rational
31:58
economic outdoors and rapidly clearing
32:00
markets I’m relative to macro where
32:02
there’s frictions and ad-hoc behavior
32:04
and I wondered if you could comment on
32:08
something else that I’m seeing happening
32:10
now which is the reverse in that we’re
32:14
seeing a lot of young scholars new
32:17
generation of scholars who are using
32:19
micro economic data to build up to do
32:21
macroeconomic theory and I wonder if you
32:24
see any hope for the forum developing a
32:27
more cohesion between micro and macro
32:29
from them from the micro to the macro
32:31
rather than from the trying to find the
32:34
micro foundation okay so if I the micro
32:36
foundation I think maybe I should do a
32:38
micro foundations was the idea we have
32:40
this idealized Homo economicus the
32:43
economic man who’s perfectly rational
32:45
and is and and operates in perfect
32:49
markets and it’s a it’s a metaphor that
32:51
has proved useful but then ends up
32:54
trouble with it is that people are
32:56
always tempted to go too far with it and
32:58
and there was a for most of my
33:00
professional life we we were in
33:03
situation where people basically the
33:06
things that happen in recessions
33:07
couldn’t happen if people were as
33:10
rational when markets where as efficient
33:12
as as this theory says and so you would
33:15
say so that means you’re going to change
33:16
the theory right but what actually
33:18
happened was that not half the
33:19
profession said that means that the
33:21
things that actually happened don’t
33:22
actually happen so we can create this
33:25
idealized world where you know if they
33:26
what are you gonna believe the theory or
33:28
your lying eyes and and and I hope that
33:34
we moved back from that more although
33:36
there’s still quite a lot of that I was
33:37
actually one of the shocking things to
33:39
me has been how little adjustment in
33:42
doctrine took place after the financial
33:44
crisis it’s amazing to me how how how
33:48
many people I maybe should know that
33:50
right there’s old line about science
33:53
that science progresses funeral by
33:54
funeral basically nobody ever admits
33:57
that they were wrong about anything but
33:58
the but I think I think what you’re
34:01
getting is we’re now tending to do a
34:03
in academic economics it became lots and
34:06
lots of of work with data work with real
34:09
cases and the problem always with that
34:12
actually there two problems with it
34:13
one is that knowing how an individual
34:16
market works doesn’t necessarily tell
34:18
you how the whole ensemble works either
34:20
their work can be real fallacies of
34:23
composition so looking at what goes on
34:26
it you can can be very very wrong I mean
34:29
actually that’s in some ways that’s what
34:30
macro is all about because if you say is
34:32
it good for an individual to save and be
34:35
thrifty and the answer is well yes is
34:37
good if everybody tries to spend less
34:39
than their income at the same time the
34:42
answer is that’s a depression so but the
34:46
other problem is that that you get this
34:48
accumulation of cases and it’s always
34:52
tricky to know whether your general
34:55
whether whether they generalize you you
34:57
end up knowing you learn a lot about
35:00
some some so that there’s a there’s a
35:03
prize that’s actually harder to get the
35:05
novella called Clark medal it’s given to
35:07
an economist under 40 and so we’ve had
35:10
stuff a there’s some wonderful work on
35:12
the impact of of increased access to
35:18
global markets driven by the expansion
35:21
of the the railway network in India in
35:23
in the nineteenth century that’s great
35:27
but how sure are we that what we learn
35:30
from indian railway networks is actually
35:32
applicable to to to the coronavirus
35:35
let’s say and you know when I was a
35:39
under granit took a course in computer
35:42
science that it’s a very primitive
35:45
artificial intelligence efforts then and
35:48
and people I remember very much the line
35:51
that we thought we could learn to
35:53
understand intelligence by by teaching
35:55
computers to play chess and what we
35:56
ended up was learning a lot about chess
36:00
and that’s kind of the problem with all
36:04
this proliferation of which we need but
36:07
and but it’s a judgment call
36:09
so so some of this stuff I think is
36:11
tremendously relevant and but but you
36:14
know I’m never sure
36:16
okay again so now um I want to move on
36:20
to the zombies to keep us up at night
36:22
and core to this book into your columns
36:27
is and you already talked about it the
36:29
one-sided nature of the current debate
36:31
in the sense that there’s polarization
36:33
but it’s asymmetric and we need to
36:35
understand the motives on on both sides
36:37
and in your in a piece from October of
36:42
2018 you wrote quote I submit that the
36:46
GOP is an authoritarian regime in
36:49
waiting and I wrote in my notes here
36:52
yikes
36:53
so I tell us a little bit more about you
36:57
know you know as I read through the book
36:59
it does seem that the and I and part of
37:01
what I was trying to do in time of the
37:03
theory is that there seemed to be some
37:05
parallels between what’s happening
37:07
economics and what’s happening in our in
37:10
the way that we talk about economics out
37:12
in the political sphere but focusing in
37:15
on the political sphere how you know
37:19
what do you see as the biggest zombies
37:21
and do you think that the GOP is the
37:26
most important one which is it one of
37:28
the one of the things that I feel like I
37:30
took from your book what the zombies are
37:32
ideas so a zombie idea is something like
37:35
new tax cuts pay for themselves which
37:37
which should be dead but is instead out
37:40
there eating people’s brains but the and
37:43
the in principle those zombie ideas
37:47
could come from either left or right but
37:49
in in America in 2020 that all of the
37:53
important zombies are coming from the
37:54
right they were all reflecting the
37:56
nature of and the section of the book
37:59
about movement conservatism is this this
38:03
interlocking set of institutions
38:05
included the Republican Party being
38:07
actually just sitting in in the midst of
38:09
the set of interlocking institutions
38:11
held together largely by by money from
38:15
from relative handful of billionaires
38:16
but doesn’t take a lot of billionaires
38:18
to finance a movement and and willing to
38:23
make deals with
38:28
racists with-with-with intolerance in
38:32
order to advance the interests of these
38:34
people and it is extremely scary look
38:37
we’ve seen it happened that when I was
38:42
at Princeton my next-door office
38:44
neighbor was a constitutional law
38:46
scholar and who was who also happened to
38:51
be a specialist on Central Europe and so
38:53
I was busy sort of tracking the collapse
38:56
of democracy and hungry and you can just
38:59
see how that you know Kim chef Lee was
39:02
doing this she actually spoke magyar
39:03
which nobody does but the and and so she
39:07
was able to – and I should lend her
39:10
space on my blog because no one was
39:12
reporting it but I got up a really
39:15
pretty first hand you know much I was
39:18
much more aware than the vast majority
39:20
of people in this country of how it’s
39:24
possible to dismantle a democracy you
39:28
can maintain the institution’s on paper
39:30
it bus completely subvert them in
39:32
reality which happened essentially
39:34
hungry is now one-party authoritarian
39:35
state it’s it’s a little bit subtle have
39:39
but it’s it’s it’s very real and and
39:41
frankly if Trump was a smart Viktor
39:43
Orban we’d probably be lost already so
39:45
the so I scared the hell out of me it’s
39:49
a it’s extremely frightening it’s a
39:52
we’re we’re we’re not very far from that
39:54
point this is the dark part of the
39:57
conversation sorry
39:59
and so the next thing in terms of
40:02
zombies is they you’ve said quote to be
40:05
honest sometimes I wonder whether I’m
40:06
wasting my time talking about any issue
40:08
other than climate change in quote and
40:12
you know I often think that the climate
40:15
change issue visa the economics is very
40:17
interesting because economics is about
40:19
optimizing given resource constraints
40:22
and climate change is so fundamental to
40:24
that that that basic idea but tell us
40:27
about what you think economists should
40:29
be focusing on and where you would like
40:33
to see the economic profession focus its
40:35
energy on this question okay so
40:41
first of all I think we do need to
40:42
convey that there’s still this notion
40:44
that somehow environmental costs are not
40:48
really part of the economy and I’m not
40:51
sure that it’s it’s all that important
40:52
weather or change the measure of GDP to
40:55
include those or not but it is important
40:57
to to highlight the the cost I mean if
41:00
you look at the fossil fuel industry as
41:02
a wholly the kind of measurable costs
41:05
climate change is only just one of them
41:07
but including the the government direct
41:09
Arman subsidies but also that the health
41:11
costs of air pollution the fossil fuel
41:14
industry in the u.s. actually destroys
41:16
about twice as much value as as the
41:19
total value of wages profits and
41:21
everything else in the industry so it
41:22
that we should we should be making a
41:25
point of that that should be out there
41:27
but also this is a case where I think
41:29
the invisible hand stuff comes back the
41:34
there’s now econ 101 is every principles
41:39
of economics textbook has a chapter on
41:40
externalities cost that you impose on
41:43
people and and how the appropriate
41:45
solution is to put a price on them so
41:47
basically economics 101 says we should
41:49
have carbon taxes that that’s actually
41:52
absolutely standard stuff so but there
41:57
is a still some tendency for our
42:00
colleagues in the profession to say and
42:02
that is the solution and is the only
42:05
right solution it has to be the core of
42:07
the solution and that’s not actually
42:09
right I mean it’s it certainly should be
42:12
a important part of it but there’s a lot
42:14
of reason to believe that that there are
42:16
other things that matter a lot that
42:18
investments in infrastructure
42:20
investments in technology and just in
42:22
general this issue is so important that
42:24
we can’t afford to be purists I think
42:27
the purists the purity test on on policy
42:29
here is wrong anyway but even if it were
42:32
right the important thing is to do
42:35
something do something big and and if
42:38
you have to sell it by packaging it with
42:40
a lot of other stuff sure so I basically
42:43
I’m a green new deal enthusiast for both
42:46
on the economics and the political
42:48
economy it’s just this is no time to say
42:51
well the textbook says we should do it
42:53
this way
42:53
and that’s the only way yeah so um I
43:04
want to ask you a few questions about
43:06
what should be in our handbook you know
43:09
how is it that you know you’re out there
43:12
every day not every day but twice a week
43:15
I’m one of the nation’s most important
43:17
economics educators giving people tools
43:20
to help both understand the economy and
43:22
to push back in their own communities on
43:24
zombie economic ideas and you know you
43:28
have a long list of things that you
43:30
think are zombies and and ways to fight
43:33
back but one one thing they fit in and
43:36
you’ve written a lot about this the one
43:38
thing that’s important is the language
43:40
that we use and so you’ve noted a number
43:42
of your columns about how people you
43:47
know might be using the words capitalism
43:49
or socialism differently and I’d like to
43:53
ask you whether or not you think it you
43:55
know how you think that matters in
43:57
communicating to the public when you
43:58
know that different people are gonna
43:59
have a different sense of you know if
44:01
you say socialism and you look at a poll
44:02
whether or not people are for it part of
44:04
that is different people have different
44:05
conceptions of what that is and so what
44:08
do you think what are you finding the
44:09
most fruitful ways to deal with these
44:11
multiple understandings oh boy
44:14
I mean I’m not sure that I even know the
44:16
answer because I’m not sure if I found
44:19
anything that works I mean we have there
44:29
is a I mean unfortunately I mean we
44:32
don’t really use the term very much in
44:36
this country that’s social democracy
44:38
which is a sort of standard European
44:40
parlance for what it’s actually what the
44:44
Democratic Party stands for these days
44:46
it is a mostly market system but with
44:49
the government regulation
44:52
government moves to empower workers
44:55
it’s basically Denmark you know it’s a
44:57
and if you and it would be really
45:01
helpful if we could use that now we have
45:04
a long history in this country of
45:07
anybody proposing anything that sort of
45:10
mitigates the harshness of the market is
45:12
accused of being a socialist and that’s
45:16
one of the I think that it is in the
45:18
book of it was a Operation coffee cup in
45:23
1961 which was the American Medical
45:25
Association
45:26
it wanted doctors wives it was 1961
45:29
doctors wives were supposed to invite
45:31
their friends over for coffee to listen
45:33
to a recording of Ronald Reagan
45:35
explaining how Medicare would destroy
45:37
American freedom and you can listen to
45:41
it it’s on YouTube the so it’s so if you
45:47
keep on calling any attempt to mitigate
45:49
unit to make lives may be basically any
45:51
attempt to have nice things as socialism
45:52
then of course at some point pieces some
45:54
people start to say well in that case
45:56
I’m a socialist it does worry me a lot
45:58
that one of the seriously possible
46:02
Democratic nominees for president
46:04
actually plays into that and I says I am
46:07
a socialist which he actually is you
46:09
know Bernie Sanders is actually a Social
46:11
Democrat who was kind of shocking the
46:14
bridge was seat by saying I am a
46:16
socialist and that I’m not sure I kind
46:19
of understand the appeal of doing that
46:21
but I I’m not sure that I really want to
46:24
go into a general election that way so
46:27
so but but yeah there’s this tremendous
46:30
okay no I mean yet you know I I am x
46:34
doesn’t allow me to endorse candidates
46:36
by the way not explicitly anyway and and
46:39
and one thing I’ve been saying is I
46:41
think that in terms of actual policy any
46:44
of the Democrats will be much the same
46:45
yeah that we’re not gonna get Medicare
46:47
for all no matter who is elected but
46:50
we’re not going to be getting Republican
46:53
policies we’re gonna get beginning
46:54
significant progressive policies even if
46:56
it is a centrist guess the the
47:01
but but there is this constant I mean
47:05
the White House this White House put out
47:07
a actually hilarious report on you know
47:10
attacking socialism hilarious because if
47:13
they were screening so hard and one of
47:17
the things they did was they kept on
47:18
switching back and forth some of the
47:20
time they were saying that basically
47:22
it’s it’s all Venezuela and sometimes
47:24
and they were having a really hard time
47:26
with the Nordic countries they are
47:28
really hard time with Denmark and some
47:30
of the time it says Denmark well that’s
47:32
not socialism so it’s okay
47:33
and some of the times well it is
47:34
socialism medicine and and they’ve been
47:36
trying to show that socialism is bad
47:38
they they finally found their decisive
47:40
chart which says it’s a lot more
47:42
expensive to own a pickup truck in
47:44
Sweden it is an America it’s a good it’s
47:47
an important stat yeah you use the term
47:49
neoliberalism in one of your columns and
47:52
you note when you said it you have a
47:54
parenthesis says oh this is what it is
47:56
and it was notable cuz I think it was
47:58
the only time I’d appeared in the book
47:59
and it’s not clear to me that it’s a
48:01
useful term I’ve questions about whether
48:04
or not it’s a useful term for a column
48:06
tell me why you think it or do you think
48:08
it is I suspect that that’s was one that
48:11
was actually a blog post and actually
48:13
The Times has done something to me I
48:15
used to have a blog that was clearly
48:17
distinguished it was right I was under
48:18
times umbrella but it was clearly
48:20
distinct from the column and they
48:21
changed the format so that digitally
48:23
they look the same and so I and and it’s
48:28
actually kind of inhibiting it’s kind of
48:30
because people may not know that this is
48:32
it and so they might I feel a little bit
48:35
less free to use terms of art in in blog
48:39
posts because a lot of we’re going to
48:41
not know that that’s not my regular
48:42
column and so neoliberalism I mean I
48:45
think it’s my feet is a meaningful term
48:47
I think there is a there was a real and
48:49
but it’s not it’s it’s a kind of not a
48:52
term we use in this country yeah it’s a
48:54
term that a lot of people outside the US
48:55
used to refer to this faith in markets
48:58
to this belief that privatizing leads to
49:01
more efficiency and a lot of people who
49:04
are at least moderately progressive at
49:07
least used to be all Sony liberals there
49:09
used to be a lot of people who were
49:11
or market liberalisation and free trade
49:17
which is somewhat different subject but
49:19
also uh even for some privatization but
49:23
also for strong social safety net and so
49:27
I think it’s a it’s a meaningful term
49:29
and probably I think if you ask where
49:32
was I in 1995 I would have been would
49:35
have been a neoliberal I’m a much less
49:38
of one if I probably not one at all now
49:40
because uh because I learned something I
49:43
mean I think though it’s turned out that
49:45
the world is is is less that’s contacted
49:47
the invisible and a lot less facing the
49:50
invisible hand that I used to well so um
49:52
I have one more question so for those of
49:54
you who have questions from the audience
49:56
there’s two mics here so please feel
49:58
free to come up so when Paul when when
50:03
you reached out to me to do this
50:04
interview this evening and I was told I
50:07
could ask any questions I wanted I got
50:08
really excited and I was gonna spend the
50:10
entire hour talking about how awesome
50:15
the New Pornographers are and we could
50:17
talk about all the bands that you like
50:19
and and one things that I love about
50:21
Paul’s column is that when he elevates
50:23
these young indie bands and introduces
50:26
me to new music that I didn’t already
50:28
know about and so I’m just to end a bit
50:31
on a high note
50:32
I wanted to know if you could just share
50:34
with us this evening like what is the
50:36
the new band that you’re most excited
50:37
about so that justjust tell us okay so
50:40
by the way this is one of those things I
50:41
used to do a blog post every Friday with
50:43
a with a band performance by a band so
50:46
I’m a 66 year old wannabe hipster I
50:48
discovered indie music and and now I’m
50:52
inhibited about that because because
50:54
people will think it’s a regular Times
50:55
article and saying they’re using it
50:57
throughout some band you like and but
50:59
but we’re now appears so advertisement
51:01
on my newsletter which you can subscribe
51:04
to if you’re a time subscriber you
51:06
subscribe and get an email newsletter so
51:08
I now have an indie band performance
51:09
every every week in the newsletter and
51:13
the so yeah there’s a couple but I think
51:17
probably the ones that I’ve been
51:20
really really liking and I like the way
51:23
I got I found them to that I was
51:25
actually so is it this band called
51:27
Larkin Pope it’s two sisters from
51:29
Atlanta who do blues basically and and I
51:34
found them by I just hadn’t I hadn’t
51:38
been to a concert for a while none of my
51:40
usual bands were performing it there are
51:42
a few venues in New York so I just
51:43
looked at the you know Rockwood Music
51:45
Hall well the list of future
51:48
performances none of which I recognized
51:50
so I listened to bits of each of the
51:52
bands and said oh I like those people
51:54
and so those are and they got they got a
51:57
Grammy nomination several years later so
51:59
I actually I wasn’t wrong to think there
52:01
was something there so I encourage all
52:05
of you to sign up for his newsletter and
52:07
I think you were first sold disc out did
52:09
it so I think what I’m going to do
52:10
because there’s a long line here is I’m
52:14
going to take a handful of questions and
52:16
then after you ask your question feel
52:18
free to sit back down he will still
52:20
speak to you but or if you want to keep
52:22
standing up here you can’t I always
52:23
think it’s all awkward when you keep
52:24
standing so but I’ll take a few so go
52:27
ahead my understanding is that you were
52:30
hired for The Times principally to deal
52:33
with economic issues and as time went on
52:37
that stretched into a somewhat broader
52:39
set of policy questions and then a kind
52:43
of uber pundit covering quite a bit of
52:48
territory beyond economics and I’m
52:50
curious about foundations and how you
52:53
think about them you’ve talked about
52:58
becoming less wedded to the earlier
53:03
orthodoxy of economic theory by the time
53:06
you’re talking about power and politics
53:09
more broadly it’s not clear what the
53:12
anchor is other than you and I and a lot
53:15
of people in this room share a lot of
53:17
the same values for the kind of society
53:20
that we’d like to see but I’m curious if
53:23
it feels different for you when you’re
53:26
talking against a theoretical basis
53:29
and when you’re expanding more broadly
53:32
into eval use this course okay thank you
53:36
cumulatively I’ll try to remember I’ll
53:39
write them down too
53:42
thanks Paul so much for coming down this
53:44
has been great looking forward to
53:46
reading your book just quick background
53:48
I’m 35 years old over the Obama years I
53:51
struggled mightily to establish myself
53:53
in the last three years I’ve paid off
53:56
over six figures and student loans and
53:58
bought a half million dollar condo in DC
54:00
which is 50% black in this room of
54:03
liberal elite there is about less than
54:05
2% black people my main question is what
54:08
is a 2 or 3 eken I’m open-minded not a
54:10
zombie but I voted for Trump and I’m
54:12
wondering what are 2 or 3 economic
54:14
policies that could increase the black
54:17
attendance in this room or make the
54:20
black people in my neighborhood able to
54:22
have a six-figure salary such as myself
54:25
that’s the question thank you great
54:28
question um go ahead over here ok so I
54:32
call my country yes among the victims of
54:35
the Regan doctrine of the Washington
54:36
Consensus especially in free trade so my
54:39
question was can we count as part of
54:41
strands legacy the fall of the
54:44
intellectual framework that calls
54:45
feel free free trade what if I’m one
54:49
more and then all why was the drop of
54:51
the unemployment rate from 10 percent to
54:53
5 percent under President Obama
54:55
essentially ignored all fall from 5% to
54:58
3.5% under President Trump his glorified
55:06
address that first one obviously I’m
55:10
ready I hope I’m doing more than just
55:12
values there’s most my columns are
55:16
actually pretty analytic if you actually
55:17
read them they they’re I’m using pretty
55:20
you know vigorous language but if you
55:23
actually look there’s always an
55:24
analytical core it’s not always
55:26
economics because I actually talk to
55:28
people in other fields I sit in this
55:31
invested in it as does in the the stone
55:35
Center for the study of socio-economic
55:36
inequality which is
55:39
is a genuine interdisciplinary group so
55:42
I actually Janet Varney who runs the
55:46
center is a sociologist at least in part
55:48
as the McCall’s political science so I
55:51
act but in general I talked so I I’ve
55:53
leaned quite heavily on other social
55:55
sciences and try to make sure that I’m
55:58
not just making stuff up that I’m that
56:00
I’m actually restaurant so so that’s
56:02
it’s still always driven by by some
56:05
aspect of of analytics I and I drink
56:10
relatively few you know sort of Trump is
56:12
bad Trump was a bad person I don’t think
56:16
I’ve written any that are just there
56:18
because that not because you know I
56:20
obviously have views but because lots of
56:23
people are doing that and I’m trying
56:24
trying to actually put do a little bit
56:26
more analytics okay I already lost what
56:29
the rest of the ship and one question
56:31
was how do we increase black attendance
56:33
and audiences like this one about free
56:38
trade and then one about why the drop in
56:43
the unemployment rate wasn’t is
56:44
celebrated under Obama as it is being
56:46
horrified under trauma yeah so I mean
56:50
it’s an interesting I mean I am it’s a
56:54
shame that’s it this audience isn’t more
56:55
diverse I try to reach out and I think
57:02
there is some I mean it’s also i’m sure
57:05
that the the average education level in
57:08
this audience is way above public you
57:11
just do what you can but I’ve got knows
57:13
I I have what I’m not quite even sure
57:20
what’s probably to say here it’s not as
57:22
if I I’m disconnected from the non my
57:24
community I married into it
57:26
I mean it’s so it’s it’s not I I hope
57:32
that there’s some connection there and I
57:34
do do event so I actually I’m fairly
57:37
heavily involved with with Goddard
57:39
Riverside which which does all it is
57:41
sort of a traditional settlement house
57:43
that does a lot of outreach so I hope
57:46
that that’s part of it and in terms of
57:48
look
57:50
the a strong social safety net
57:55
educational opportunity health care all
57:58
of these things are important for
58:01
everybody but they given that America is
58:03
what it is and in our history they’re
58:05
especially important for for for
58:09
non-whites so I think that this is all
58:12
may I’m for a lot of things that for
58:16
racial justice that go beyond just
58:17
economic policies but even your basic
58:20
progressive agenda is very it’s good for
58:23
for a lot of people but it is
58:24
disproportionately good for for for
58:27
minority groups okay so we have free
58:31
trade I think I mean the thing about
58:35
free trade you know there are some I
58:42
think we see more about the downsides of
58:45
globalization than then some of us
58:47
acknowledged but on the other hand there
58:49
are some important upsides especially by
58:51
the way for poor countries which
58:53
desperately need access to global
58:54
markets and one of the things I think
58:56
worth saying is that the global trading
58:59
system uses the set of rules the ones
59:01
that that Trump is making a mockery of
59:04
the roots of that system are actually
59:07
they go back to FDR this is this was
59:09
originally a progressive project it was
59:11
actually part of trying to make a world
59:13
that was more integrated also more
59:16
peaceful and and and rule of law on an
59:19
international level so they so I don’t
59:22
think that you can say that just because
59:23
Trump is throwing carrots around that
59:25
that somehow means that he’s serving a
59:27
progressive agenda it’s actually it’s in
59:30
some ways to return to the old-fashioned
59:33
Caronia stopped protectionism that of
59:36
the old adage still have my short-term
59:42
memories my buffer is not big enough the
59:45
last one was about the unemployment rate
59:48
why do you yeah why why didn’t got more
59:50
attention it’s a tough one to answer
59:51
yeah man it’s our third what do we
59:55
really need to to ask I mean it’s a they
59:59
think about
60:02
to state television otherwise known as
60:04
Fox News what what they emphasized and
60:08
so no it’s clearly it’s a it’s a
60:11
question of what it’s it is quite
60:13
remarkable actually that you had under
60:18
under Obama you had starting in 2010 you
60:22
had an enormous sustained recovery and
60:24
it was it it didn’t get they’ve got
60:28
unemployment down to levels even by the
60:30
end of Obama’s term unemployment was in
60:32
fact below what the Fed had thought was
60:34
was sustainable so we were already in
60:36
this territory but there wasn’t a paid
60:40
cheerleading squad and the way there is
60:41
now and and and a lot of you know retro
60:45
the retroactive rewriting of history so
60:48
and of course the same people who
60:51
declared that all the numbers were fake
60:52
when they were good numbers for Obama
60:54
are now all you know don’t say that
60:58
don’t say that anymore so that it’s not
61:01
really that hard to understand I mean if
61:04
I’m gonna extend this a bit there is
61:06
even aside from this specifically us you
61:10
know that’s specifically us dynamics
61:12
there is this amazing a lot of the
61:16
business and economic reporting still
61:19
does have a a conservative slant and it
61:23
I see if one of my minor little cause
61:28
celeb here is the is the way that some
61:33
European countries quickly France France
61:36
gets extraordinary bad press and and you
61:42
keep on reading that it’s actually one
61:45
of my colleagues Roger Cohen to his
61:46
credit he he quoted he said I brought
61:49
something about France of ugly here or
61:51
so ago and he quoted himself saying
61:54
about how France is collapsing and it’s
61:56
an impossible economy it can’t sustain
61:58
so and then he said something like I
62:00
actually I wrote that in 1986 if you
62:04
actually look at the reality France it’s
62:06
not so bad I mean
62:08
in fact prime age adults are more likely
62:11
to be employed there than they are here
62:13
and the and if you look at the quality
62:16
of life standard of living but France
62:19
because France has really big government
62:21
and high taxes and generous social
62:23
programs it’s supposed to be a disaster
62:25
area and so a lot of the news media
62:27
write about it as if it were even though
62:29
in fact it’s not okay so we’re running
62:34
out of time ran try to get to these
62:36
questions I’m not totally guaranteeing
62:38
we’re gonna get to all of them but this
62:39
is a plea to be pithy and I’ll take four
62:43
again and see where we are you sir yeah
62:45
thank you
62:47
Paul this is a question about fiscal
62:49
deficits so this is a big argument
62:52
that’s going on between well you on one
62:56
side saying they really don’t matter
62:58
you know our deficit topped the trillion
63:00
last year total debt is over 20 trillion
63:03
dollars and it’s projected to keep going
63:06
up at an astronomical rate and
63:08
throughout our lives where we thought to
63:10
balance our budget that you don’t want
63:12
to pay down so can you tell me why
63:24
arguing that they don’t matter if you
63:27
could share also the counter-argument
63:29
for that that Larry Summers is providing
63:31
so note to myself just so as I remember
63:39
that so I’m gonna take it back to
63:41
monetary policy here so apologies for
63:43
that but the current bull market began
63:46
after the financial crisis and despite
63:50
some you know recent you’re fairly
63:52
recent Corrections or quote-unquote
63:54
recession indicators it’s continued and
63:58
really shows no sign of stopping
64:01
you have asset prices or valuations at
64:04
historic highs so my question is do you
64:06
believe Fed policy has played a role in
64:09
sustaining the market and if so how big
64:12
is that role and if so do you see it as
64:14
a problem thank you great over here
64:18
hi with the increase of the kick economy
64:20
and
64:21
with automation what’s your thoughts on
64:23
Andrew Yang’s universal basic income
64:26
especially when it was said or
64:28
demonstrated to have failed in the
64:30
Nordic countries wonderful and over here
64:33
I just have a quick simple question in
64:36
your opinion on a scale of zero to ten
64:39
how much is the United States of
64:40
plutocracy okay so why you start with
64:44
that one I’ve written them all down so
64:46
I’ll repeat them for you okay I respect
64:48
myself okay um maybe a maybe a seven
64:56
Venis it’s not totaled we’re not we’re
64:59
not full feeling gone full oligarch here
65:02
and look under Obama it’s funny that
65:08
people don’t seem to realize but tax
65:11
rates on the top one percent went up
65:14
quite a lot under Obama in fact if you
65:16
believe the CBO that by the end of
65:18
Obama’s term they were federal tax rate
65:22
on top one percent was about what it was
65:24
in 1979 so then effectively although
65:27
it’s their complicated details but but
65:31
by some measures at least he had unwound
65:33
all of the Reagan tax cuts for the rich
65:36
so you know we’re not it clearly we have
65:39
a hugely disproportionate influence of
65:42
of the wealthy but but where it’s not
65:44
not totally and it’s not it’s not
65:46
impossible we aren’t we haven’t gone all
65:49
that way it’s so it don’t you don’t you
65:55
could very such a thing sometimes hard
65:57
to believe given given the kinds of
65:59
things we have to write about but there
66:00
is such a thing as being too cynical
66:04
okay okay which so there’s a ubi there
66:08
is an Swedes in reverse order yeah yeah
66:10
what um first of all gig economy that’s
66:16
one of those weird things where it turns
66:18
out that it’s it hasn’t grown nearly as
66:20
much as people think so people talk
66:22
about the gig economy things like uber
66:24
and the list of things that are like
66:27
uber is uber that’s basically yeah and
66:34
and I think one thing that does happen
66:36
when you have a sort of high
66:38
socioeconomic status cratis we don’t
66:41
realize how many people always worked in
66:42
something like a key economy that they
66:45
that when I was in Princeton you know
66:47
there were all these Central American
66:50
men mowing lawns and early in the
66:51
morning and how how were they hired the
66:54
answer is men would stand on street
66:56
corners in Trenton and get picked up by
66:58
then you you a new hotel take so and
67:01
some of the people have done did
67:03
research Larry Katz and I’m forgotten
67:07
the co-authors who had said there was a
67:09
big increase in the indicate economy
67:11
redid the numbers and said you know we
67:13
it’s not actually that big an increase
67:14
so that’s an exaggerated and Andrew yang
67:16
the two things one is his vision is that
67:21
technological changes rapid productivity
67:23
growth is eliminating work except
67:25
actually productivity growth is the
67:27
slowest it’s been in decades it’s just
67:30
not it’s just not there and the trouble
67:32
with ubi I like the idea of as as little
67:39
as clean and few questions asked us
67:42
support policy as possible the trouble
67:45
with UPI is that either you make it a
67:50
woefully inadequate sum of money some of
67:53
these people can’t really live on or
67:55
it’s an enormous too expensive program
67:57
so I don’t think that and I don’t think
68:00
we’re in a position to do that
68:01
so the so we need much more targeted
68:05
means-tested programs at least for now
68:07
now if we really were having the robots
68:10
taking all of our jobs then we might
68:11
have to rethink about this issue but
68:14
there’s no sign that that’s happening so
68:15
it’s funny yang is if
68:17
as I’m the numbers driven candidate
68:20
telling you the truth except none of the
68:23
numbers actually support what he says so
68:27
then there’s monetary policy order
68:29
economies in household okay yeah so on
68:34
so actually so clearly asset prices all
68:37
kinds of asset prices are high because
68:39
interest rates are low yield on bonds is
68:42
low so people buying other stuff the
68:44
question is is that because the Fed is
68:46
doing something artificial and I don’t
68:48
think it is I think the point is that
68:49
that we seem to be in a world that which
68:51
is a wash and savings with no place to
68:53
go and the Fed has to keep interest
68:55
rates low to not have us in a in a
68:57
persistent depression
68:59
now there’s in some ways a better answer
69:03
would need to get those savings
69:04
something to go by having a massive
69:06
infrastructure program and and having
69:09
the federal government you know right
69:10
now the real as of yesterday anyway that
69:14
a 10-year bond rate was one point five
69:15
two percent was less than the inflation
69:17
rate so basically people are paid
69:19
willing to pay the federal government to
69:21
take their money and we should be doing
69:23
a lot more spending with that but that’s
69:25
a I don’t think that the Fed has done
69:27
something especially evil or distorting
69:29
here which actually ties in I was really
69:33
I thought was really strange to have the
69:34
it’s trying to make an opposition
69:37
between me and Larry Summers because
69:39
Larry Summers is actually saying exactly
69:41
the same thing I am on debt bail he’s
69:43
actually calling for deficit spending
69:44
and lots of infrastructure spending and
69:46
that’s not his hat by the way I mean if
69:48
it was I don’t think it was ever the
69:49
case that that serious economists were
69:54
as remotely as freaked out about debt as
69:57
Delta a consensus was I don’t think
69:59
there was ever there the the whole
70:02
notion that debt was the greatest threat
70:04
facing America was something that none
70:06
of the people I take seriously ever ever
70:08
bought into but there’s been a movement
70:10
now in the last couple of years with the
70:13
most mainstream of mainstream economists
70:15
coming around to the view that debt
70:18
concerns have been greatly overrated so
70:20
we have Olivia blanch are the former
70:22
chief economist of the IMF who is the
70:24
the most probably the most mainstream
70:27
person and in in the economics
70:29
profession
70:30
then the most the most control the
70:32
careful presidential address the
70:35
American Economic Association last year
70:37
was saying we worry too much about debt
70:39
and you have Larry Summers and Jason
70:41
Furman he was effectively topic on
70:44
succeeded Larry as top economist for
70:46
Obama saying we actually shouldn’t be
70:48
worrying about death and we need to be
70:49
doing it we need to be borrowing to
70:50
build infrastructure so no I’m actually
70:52
on this stuff I’m squarely in the
70:54
mainstream and the people who think that
70:56
debt is some existential threat are well
71:00
they’re inventing economics that doesn’t
71:01
actually come from economists okay so we
71:04
are we are out of time but here’s what
71:06
I’m going to do I’m gonna let you ask
71:08
your questions quickly and then you can
71:10
pick which one to answer okay
71:11
so it’s a bit of a it’s I know I know
71:13
it’s a yeah we’ll see so start over here
71:15
there are two trends taking place across
71:18
almost the entire Western world right
71:20
now so one economic basically slower
71:22
growth and widening inequality and one
71:24
political the rise of the far right do
71:27
you think there’s a connection between
71:28
those two trends and if so what is it
71:30
and what can be done about it
71:31
yeah that’s a good go ahead speaking
71:35
about zombie ideas you kind of mentioned
71:38
power motives what about education or
71:43
lack thereof about economics because you
71:47
know I just had two children go through
71:49
a very good public school system in this
71:51
area and it’s really not integrated and
71:54
then in college there’s just you know so
71:57
many other things going on and other
71:59
requirements and so I just I was just
72:02
wondering what your thoughts are on
72:05
teaching economics whether it should be
72:07
taught more or differently or is it you
72:11
know really this kind of side thing that
72:14
only people interested should be taught
72:16
hi I just applied to PhD programs this
72:20
year I think generally because of
72:22
initially reading your columns and I was
72:25
wondering given that the rewards to
72:27
begin economically seem to me pretty I
72:29
mean if you care about policy very
72:31
skewed to people who have New York Times
72:34
columns and books should I should I do
72:36
it or what what is the other thing I
72:37
should do if I should I said you might
72:40
be is that
72:41
should he become an economist the answer
72:43
says well yeah yes yeah okay hi I was
72:57
wondering what your thoughts are on the
72:59
current state of the eurozone and we go
73:02
and also what’s going on at the BC
73:04
that’s it that’s the question all right
73:07
and last one here so I was really struck
73:10
by your comments about kind of moving
73:12
away
73:12
I guess you said from your liberalism
73:14
and as you’ve learned over the years and
73:15
kind of being able to evolve your
73:17
thinking in a way that you know may be
73:19
admitting you were wrong in the past
73:20
something that I’ve been thinking a lot
73:22
about and the upcoming election my views
73:25
having shifted a lot in the past four
73:26
years and I think something that has
73:28
been difficult for me and probably
73:31
people in this room to reconcile is that
73:33
knowing that we may be in an era that
73:35
really calls for these bigger ideas like
73:37
the green new deal like you mentioned
73:38
while recognizing that you know myself
73:40
included kind of has both of financial
73:42
and I guess kind of political stake in
73:44
the status quo and so I think my
73:46
question is really about kind of how you
73:48
are able to let yourself change your
73:51
mind I think it’s kind of a difficult
73:52
like ego thing even for me and how to
73:54
address people you know your friends and
73:58
family kind of who may not quite be on
74:00
board without kind of reinforcing the
74:02
self-fulfilling prophecy of saying an
74:04
issue like the green new deal may not be
74:06
realistic where as kind of seems to end
74:09
up being the conclusion if that’s the
74:11
attitude you who’s going to it well too
74:14
much then I’m going to skip the Europe
74:16
even though I can go on at length I’m
74:18
not don’t want to do that and I just
74:21
want to say that yeah we should have
74:22
more economics education but you can
74:25
discount what I’d say about that because
74:27
our the Krugman Welles economics
74:30
textbook AP a dish ap edition we
74:33
actually have about 70% of that market
74:35
so I have a conflict of interest I mean
74:42
I don’t think we fully understand the
74:45
rise to the far right
74:47
I mean it’s rising inequality probably
74:52
is part of it but it’s it’s not such an
74:56
easy thing it’s not it’s not the case
74:58
that the this is where I do talk to
75:02
political scientists the people who have
75:04
gone far right in the US which where I
75:07
know the research can not in fact to be
75:10
people who want have lost it’s a there
75:13
there are some and this certainly
75:14
geographically it’s regions that have
75:16
lost that then have gone hard right but
75:19
that’s not actually often people who are
75:21
suffering who are who are the ones
75:23
who’ve gone that way and there there’s
75:25
something going on I I suspect that I I
75:29
don’t have a complete theory but one of
75:31
the things that’s happened I do believe
75:32
that the that the financial crisis and
75:37
all of that had the effect of
75:40
discrediting elites and that that people
75:45
used to be that people believe maybe
75:48
this is a kind of euro thing as well
75:49
because people believe that the the
75:52
European Commission and the the the
75:55
great the Great and the good actually
75:57
knew what what was up and that that if
76:00
they said you know don’t listen to
76:01
neo-fascists that that people listen to
76:04
them and there’s been a la huge
76:05
reputational lost which is removed one
76:08
of the great you know stabilizers in our
76:11
system now it’s harder to do for the US
76:14
I mean it’s not made maybe that’s part
76:18
of it as here as well but what I would
76:25
say here is is that the the the hatred
76:29
was always there the question is what
76:32
freed people to express it what freed
76:34
people to do it and then I’m not sure I
76:36
know the answer to that it’s there there
76:39
was always if you imagined that that
76:42
everyone had had really become tolerant
76:45
that it didn’t happen and but the but
76:50
somehow or other all across the Western
76:52
world even in the place I mean that
76:55
there’s a strong white nationalist
76:58
movement in a lot of Scandinavia too so
77:00
it’s it’s not clear that even the
77:02
inequality and having a really strong
77:05
social safety net is enough to prevent
77:07
that I don’t know what I don’t know what
77:09
the answer to that question except to
77:12
say that that it’s a big deal and it’s
77:14
one of those things we really well we
77:17
need to understand but we also need to
77:18
if possible you’re headed off because
77:20
the the future looks pretty scary on
77:22
that front I on a positive note
77:25
we’re ending here thank you all so much
77:46
you
26:52
say so he had made moves in this debate
that I considered intellectually
dishonest and and I mean he because he’s
playing a game and this is not a real
conversation this is a formal academic
style debate where you know his job is
not to leave his view open to influence
by the other discussions he’s making a
case and I didn’t know it at the time
but he felt unnaturally constrained by
the format of the debate he had to argue
that Islam is a religion of peace and
some of the moves he made there I
thought were dishonest and so I said ma
Jude I remember this more or less
verbatim because we talked about anyway
since transcribed it into a book but I
said ma j’tia you know everyone in this
room recognizes that you have the
hardest job in the world and we’re all
very glad that you’re doing it you have
to somehow convince the next generation
of Muslims that Islam really is a
religion of peace and the jihad is just
an inner spiritual struggle and that the
martyrs don’t get 72 virgins in paradise
and all the rest and so my question for
you is is this do you really believe
that this is the case now or do you do
you think that pretending that is that
is the case is the method by which you
will make it the case that if you just
pretend long enough and hard enough
it’ll become so and the extra line here
was and can you just be honest with us
but I find my final sentence was and you
know you know we’re not on we’re not
televised now can you just be honest
with us here and so there so I responded
immediately and said are you calling me
a liar and so now there’s like 70 we
have 70 people and I’m like into my
second gin and tonic and and and he’s
given me the the sort of you know
middle-eastern stare down across it so
he repeats it I said no no I’m asking
just here
that where there’s no cameras can you
just be honest with us and I said are
you calling me a liar and it didn’t go
too well at all the entire everyone on
the table kind of went quiet and and I
didn’t know who this guy was I never met
him and and I should have known who he
was and and then I think somebody very
tactfully changed the conversation and
just completely veered off this and I’d
never I never spoke to him again for
another what was it a couple of years a
couple years I’d never cross paths in
center the reason I bring this up is
that I was one of those guys that didn’t
want to entertain a conversation with
Sam based upon the defensiveness when it
came to this topic and and I think that
actually it’s important to say that to
people that because you asked him a
question about the Charles Murray
situation a lot of people rather than
actually wanting to engage with someone
on the substance of their ideas that I
think in the climate we’re in today that
they’re engaging with people based upon
their on their feelings and those
feelings are valid of course everyone
has the right to their feelings but
we’ve got to try as hard as we can to
detach those feelings from because
that’s clearly not what you know if the
principle of charity means you lend the
person that you’re speaking to the best
possible interpretation of what they’re
saying and and allow them to clarify
what they mean as opposed to you putting
into their mouths what what they mean
and telling them what they mean I learnt
that you know because then two years
later he reaches out to me and he says I
think we can try again you know are you
willing to have a conversation with me
and and I hadn’t originally remembered
it was the same guy so that’s fine I got
my foot in the door just because he
30:12
didn’t know who I was and then we had
30:14
this conversation which it’s a lesson
30:16
for me because we had this conversation
30:17
it’s it’s it’s called Islam in the
30:19
future of tolerance it’s it’s become a
30:21
book right published by Harvard
30:22
University Press we had this
30:24
conversation that became a book that’s
30:25
been made into a film which I think any
30:27
couple of weeks now we hear some news on
30:28
that yeah I don’t know one that it’s
30:30
coming out with that so we do days a
30:31
lecture tour of Australia and the people
30:34
who organized that made a documentary
30:36
that week but they realized this lesson
30:39
to your question and that is that I am
30:41
somebody that didn’t engage with him on
30:44
the substance of his question but
30:45
actually fired a misfire an emotional
30:49
misfire on on on what was really
30:51
questioning and his motives for asking
30:54
the question
30:55
rather than actually addressing
30:56
addressing the points he was making and
30:57
I think that when I because I didn’t
30:59
rember who he was I then started the
31:02
conversation anew without the memory of
31:05
my original judgment on him hmm and the
31:07
conversation went really well
31:08
so we’ve got some he’ll be able to
31:10
divorce ourselves on that background
31:11
that can’t happen I mean it can be done
31:13
it’s just it takes people of strong
31:15
character to try to like abandon all
31:19
preconceived notions from the past
31:21
conversation just start fresh
31:22
yeah unfortunately this example of a
31:25
kind of a signal success has has caused
31:29
me to in the end kind of miss spend a
31:33
lot of energy just assuming that’s it I
31:35
can’t keep thinking I keep walking into
31:37
another situation thinking this is
31:39
possible is that why you deleted Twitter
31:43
so you haven’t deleted your account
31:45
no I’m still on Twitter but I I will
31:47
based on this recent episode I is a damn
31:51
fascinated by people and their struggles
31:54
with social media with like detaching
31:57
from it reattaching from it getting
31:59
addicted to it I mean I know so many
32:01
people that will look at their Twitter
32:03
at like 1 o’clock in the morning before
32:05
they go to bed and something pisses them
32:07
off and then they can’t sleep yeah oh
32:08
yeah really common I was not I don’t
32:13
consider myself someone who had a a real
32:17
pathology with it I was you know I have
32:19
I don’t know
32:20
6,000 tweets or 7,000 tweets over the
32:23
course of many years so I’m not I was
32:26
not tweeting that much I was not even
32:28
looking that much I was I was fairly
32:31
disengaged and I’ve never used Facebook
32:33
as I’ve never I just used Facebook as
32:35
kind of a publishing channel I never
32:37
engaged with comments but I was looking
32:40
enough and it it was one was clearly
32:44
making me a worse person imagine it was
32:46
I was I was reacting to stuff that I
32:48
didn’t need to react to and it was
32:50
amplifying certain McCrystal isms and
32:52
and voices which need not have been
32:55
amplified and in this in this last case
32:57
it just turned a it just created a huge
33:02
kind of explosion in my life I was in
33:05
the middle of a vacation which I
33:06
basically torpedoed the
33:08
because of what I saw on Twitter and it
33:10
was just it was like the perfect
33:12
infomercial for why you don’t want to be
33:15
he told you our vacation how well so I’m
33:18
in the middle of it like the first
33:19
vacation taken with my family for in a
33:21
very long time was at least a year and
33:23
Wow and what you do so I you know we’re
33:26
on Hawaii and just like I’m supposed to
33:29
put everything down to be the best
33:30
father and husband I can be right and
33:32
that was my intention that’s what was
33:34
happening it happened for a good solid
33:37
24 hours and then I pick up my phone and
33:42
I see that that Reza Aslan and Glenn
33:45
Greenwald
33:46
and Ezra Klein had all attacked me in
33:48
the space of an hour oh no it goes out
33:51
to millions of people is this over that
33:53
what he was Austria was asking about the
33:54
charles murray thing yeah yeah well I
33:55
true that I can’t even see what I didn’t
33:58
look at what Greenwald had done he was
34:00
circulating somebody’s video about me
34:03
how I’m I think I’m a racist in that
34:05
video Reza Aslan blocks me so I can’t
34:08
even see what if he attacks me by name
34:10
but he blocks me so I can’t even see
34:12
what his but so I just saw the the
34:15
aftermath of that you know lots of stuff
34:17
you know lots of notifications coming to
34:19
me with both of us tagged and then Ezra
34:22
published this message I suppose I
34:25
should back up however painfully to
34:27
describe what happened here but so I had
34:29
charles murray on my podcast a year ago
34:31
and charles murray is this this social
34:33
scientist who published the bell curve
34:36
back in the 90s which it was a a book
34:39
about IQ and and success in in western
34:43
societies like our own and it’s a book
34:46
where he worries a lot about the
34:48
cognitive stratification of society we
34:50
have a society that is selecting more
34:52
and more for a narrow band of talents
34:54
that are very well fairly well captured
34:57
by what we call IQ and there is a kind
35:00
of winner-take-all situation where
35:02
people are really you know 500 years ago
35:04
if you had a a very high IQ and you’re
35:08
just pushing a plough next to your
35:09
neighbor you had no real advantage but
35:12
now you can start a hedge fund or you
35:14
can start a software company and we’re
35:15
seeing the this this real shocking
35:19
disparity and
35:20
in good fortune really so he wrote this
35:25
book it had a chapter on race which
35:28
talked about the disparities in in
35:30
racial groups I observe disparities
35:35
right and the claim about the source of
35:40
those disparities was by even the
35:42
standards of the time but certainly the
35:44
standards of today an incredibly tepid
35:48
mealy-mouthed just hand-waving it was
35:50
not this you know here comes the Third
35:53
Reich declaration of white supremacy it
35:56
was undoubtedly there are environmental
36:01
and genetic reasons for this and we
36:03
don’t understand them you know it was
36:05
like to think that is one or the other
36:08
we’re not in a position to know what the
36:10
mixes of influences now and that is
36:14
virtually any honest scientists take on
36:17
the matter and certainly today and it’s
36:22
only become more so but that went off
36:25
like a nuclear bomb I mean that was just
36:26
so that was such a I mean it’s it’s the
36:31
most I saw at the time I never read the
36:35
book I just thought this had to be just
36:36
racist cause Marie would be vilified for
36:39
films and he’s been vilified ever since
36:42
and ever since you know I’ve ignored him
36:44
there’s any deep platformed and was
36:46
assaulted recent yeah so that’s what
36:47
happened so he went to Middlebury to
36:49
give a talk you know 20-some odd years
36:52
25 years after he wrote this book oh by
36:55
the way he’s also listed by the Southern
36:56
Poverty Law Center oh and so that that
36:58
that’s what contributed to the D
37:00
platforming and the violent protests
37:02
against him at Middlebury what’s crazy
37:04
is the whole thing is a propaganda for
37:06
the superiority of the Asian race and
37:08
everyone’s talking about white supremacy
37:12
decisions are the ones far and above I
37:14
mean that’s basically what his book
37:16
proved and you know they’re suing
37:18
Harvard now there’s a group of Asian
37:20
students that are suing Harvard because
37:21
they’re discriminated against because
37:23
they’re required to have higher scores
37:24
because they’re assumed to be smarter so
37:27
their standards for Asian students
37:29
entering into Harvard is higher than
37:31
white people
37:32
Wow yes while Asian privilege has a big
37:34
problem yeah your grandfather was
37:37
working on the railroads in California
37:39
as an indentured servant and all that
37:42
privilege trickled down there’s
37:43
obviously a lot of factors that lead to
37:45
IQ to hierarchy but to ignore what those
37:48
are to ignore it completely to disinvite
37:51
all of you yes exactly only ideology and
37:54
this idea that you cannot look at
37:55
statistics you cannot look at facts and
37:58
in your conversation with ezra’s charles
38:00
that sort of as a recline rather that’s
38:01
what I got is that this is this is an
38:04
ideological issue and that you you it’s
38:08
almost like an impossible subject to
38:10
breach like you can’t even discuss the
38:12
fact that certain races demonstrate low
38:16
IQ and then let’s look at what could be
38:19
the cause of those even discussing that
38:21
somehow another is so inherently racist
38:23
that it must be ignored or must be
38:25
silenced and that you you must first
38:28
concentrate on all the various and
38:30
justices that have been done to those
38:31
people who have this lower IQ yeah well
38:34
let me just take a couple of minutes to
38:35
close the various doors to hell that are
38:37
now ajar based on what we’ve just said
38:40
on your holiday and you get it yeah so
38:43
we’ll just take a little more context so
38:45
yeah as you said Charles Murray went to
38:47
Middlebury College and was D platformed
38:48
and he was not only the platform so the
38:50
usual D platform and with the students
38:52
turning their back to the speaker and
38:53
shout in and not let anything happen but
38:56
the professor who invited him who was a
38:58
liberal professor who wanted to
39:00
essentially debate him she was attacked
39:01
when they’re leaving the hall they both
39:04
get physically attacked by a crowd of
39:07
students charles was was not hurt his
39:10
host this female professor got a
39:13
concussion and a neck injury that that
39:15
still persists and this is now more than
39:17
a year later so it’s like sure that she
39:18
was a registered devil arm by this no
39:21
doubt and and they’re driving out in an
39:23
SUV where that gets I mean someone pulls
39:25
a stop sign out of the the sidewalk and
39:28
I still got the concrete ball on the end
39:29
of it and that this SUV gets smashed
39:31
with this you know concrete Laden stop
39:33
sign I mean this was this is happening
39:35
at one of the most liberal privileged
39:38
colleges on earth it’s nuts so anyway
39:42
that was the thing that put Murray on my
39:44
radar after
39:45
all these many years of my ignoring him
39:46
and I had actually I felt guilty because
39:48
I had declined to be a part of at least
39:51
one project because his name was
39:53
attached right because I just thought
39:55
that this guy is radioactive he’s got
39:57
some white supremacist agenda I had
39:59
believed the the the the lies about him
40:02
and then I saw this I thought okay well
40:04
maybe he’s the canary in the coal mine
40:06
or certainly one of the Canaries in the
40:08
coal mine that I had ignored where the
40:09
as you say there’s a certain topics are
40:12
considered so politically fraught that
40:15
you cannot discuss them no matter what
40:17
is true like it’s just a you know there
40:20
has to be a firewall between your
40:23
conversation about reality and these
40:25
sorts of facts and so you know he so
40:30
he’s been you know suffering from having
40:32
transgressed that boundary and so I had
40:35
him on the on the podcast being fairly
40:39
agnostic about his his actual social
40:42
policy commitments and his political
40:44
concerns and just wanting to talk about
40:48
you know the facts and so far as we
40:51
touch them lightly may had zero interest
40:52
in intelligence as measured by IQ
40:57
although I mean it’s an interesting
40:58
subject but I hadn’t you know I hadn’t
41:00
spent much time focused on that and I
41:02
had truly zero interest in establishing
41:06
differences between populations with
41:08
respect to intelligence or anything else
41:10
but I see what’s coming I see the fact
41:13
that that the the more we understand
41:15
ourselves genetically and
41:17
environmentally the more we will if we
41:20
go looking or even if we’re not looking
41:21
we will discover differences between
41:23
groups and the endgame for us as a
41:27
species is not to deny that those
41:29
differences exist or could possibly
41:30
exist it’s to deny that they have real
41:35
political implication I mean with the
41:37
political implica lurk we need is a
41:40
commitment to to equality across the
41:44
board and a commitment to treating
41:46
individuals as individuals there’s
41:48
nobody who’s that the average of a
41:50
population is meaningless with respect
41:53
to you and that will always be so and
41:57
and whatever you know and whatever
42:00
diversity of talents there is
42:01
statistically in various populations we
42:04
want societies that simply don’t care
42:09
politically about that I mean that’s
42:12
just it’s just not what we its they are
42:17
our political tolerance of one another
42:19
in support of one another is not
42:21
predicated on denying individual
42:24
differences or even statistical
42:26
differences across groups it can’t be
42:28
because we know that there are people
42:29
walking around like you know Elon Musk
42:33
who gets out of bed in the every morning
42:35
does the work of like 4,000 people right
42:37
and people who just are struggling to
42:41
work at Starbucks and hold down a job
42:42
and our political system I mean we don’t
42:48
say one person is more valuable
42:50
politically and socially than another
42:52
even though one person is capable of
42:54
doing massive things that that many most
42:57
other people aren’t it’s you know when
43:00
it comes time to to write laws and
43:03
create institutions that protect you
43:05
that that support human flourishing we
43:08
we have to engineer times that raise all
43:11
the boats and so you know and and you
43:13
know they’re legitimate debates about
43:15
the social policies that will do that
43:17
but and they’re legitimate debates about
43:19
facts so we can debate scientific fact
43:21
and and you know the the results of you
43:25
know psychometric testing or or
43:27
behavioral genetics that are relevant to
43:29
this question of intelligence and we can
43:31
have a good faith debate about the data
43:33
and then we can have a good faith debate
43:35
about social policy that should follow
43:37
from the data but what’s happening on
43:39
the left now is on either at either of
43:42
those tiers of conversation there are
43:46
just straight-up allegations of racism
43:49
that hit you the moment you touch
43:51
certain a certain fact can I say that
43:53
that what he just summarized that when
43:55
I’ve heard it sounds to me as being more
43:59
humane than the implications of the
44:03
argument that the left who are opposing
44:05
what Sam has just said ah because if you
44:08
think about it the implications of their
44:10
argument would be
44:11
they’re what they want to deny the facts
44:12
because they’re scared that those facts
44:15
would from which there would be derived
44:19
a policy that would reflect those facts
44:21
and other words in their minds they are
44:24
marrying those two they are marrying the
44:26
notion that if in statistical observance
44:28
there are variances in IQs between
44:31
groups in their minds that means the
44:33
policy should follow from that so it’s
44:36
why they’re resisting what he’s saying
44:38
whereas what he’s saying is there is no
44:41
connection between what the policy
44:42
should be and what the facts may be
44:43
because of the kind of world we want to
44:45
live in should aspire to equality
44:48
regardless of what the science is saying
44:49
because one is policy and one is science
44:52
I freely agree with you on that but I
44:54
don’t think that’s necessarily exactly
44:55
what they’re saying well I think what
44:57
they’re saying is what they’re doing is
44:59
they almost feel so guilty that any
45:01
discussion whatsoever about race can’t
45:03
be held unless you repeatedly bring up
45:06
all the instances of racism and
45:08
suppression that in discrimination that
45:11
that group has suffered from it’s like
45:13
you can’t it doesn’t exist as a
45:15
statistic island you have to bring
45:18
everything in together if you don’t do
45:20
that
45:21
that’s where their protest comes from
45:22
and I think that was one of the things
45:24
that I got from your conversation with
45:25
Ezra Klein he wasn’t willing to just
45:27
discuss what’s the implication of these
45:29
issues and completely dismiss this this
45:32
fact that Asian people score far better
45:36
there it’s not there’s nothing but it’s
45:38
always fair that by conceding on the
45:41
data it’s almost as if they fear that
45:43
the implication must necessarily follow
45:45
that the policy will also be supremacist
45:47
in that way hmm I wonder I honestly
45:50
think that what we talked about before
45:51
is a big part of it this is ideological
45:53
an idea sport and that they’re just
45:55
volleying back I don’t think they’re
45:57
willing to take I think one of the real
45:59
strengths of character that you
46:01
demonstrate in a debate or any
46:03
discussion of faxes when uncomfortable
46:05
truths rear their ugly head that are
46:07
counter to your or your personal
46:09
position you have to be able to go you
46:11
got a really good point you’ve got a
46:13
good point there’s something to that I
46:14
see what you’re saying okay this is what
46:16
my concern would be and this would be a
46:17
rational real conversation this is what
46:20
I would worry about and then you would
46:21
I’m sure say absolutely I would worry
46:24
about that as well and then you would
46:25
have this sort of a discussion I didn’t
46:27
get that from that conversation you had
46:29
I got ping pong I got I got this
46:32
rallying back and forth of ideas rather
46:35
than two human beings not digging their
46:38
heels into the sand just trying to look
46:41
at the ideas and look at the statistics
46:43
and look at these studies for what they
46:44
are and look at charles murray and what
46:46
he’s gone through and should we be able
46:49
to examine these statistical anomalies
46:51
should be able to examine athletic
46:53
superiority should we be able to examine
46:56
superiority that asians show and
46:58
mathematics and a lot of the sciences
46:59
should we should we be able to or should
47:01
we just dig our heads in the city should
47:03
we just let things sort themselves out
47:04
and quietly ignore all the reality yeah
47:07
I don’t know what so I should say that I
47:10
am I certainly understand people’s fear
47:13
that if you could that anyone who would
47:16
go looking for racial difference is very
47:19
likely motivate and motivated by
47:20
something unethical or unsavory right so
47:22
like like you could imagine you know
47:24
white supremacists being being super
47:29
enamored of this the possibility that
47:31
these days is yes and they are yes and
47:33
so they look at the Asians too so so
47:38
that’s like I get that right and there
47:41
is there’s some things that and this was
47:43
the question I had for charles murray on
47:44
them on that podcast i said like why pay
47:47
attention to any of this what is the
47:48
upside in the in the infinity of
47:52
interesting problems we can tackle
47:54
scientifically why focus on population
47:56
differences and you know frankly i
47:58
didn’t get a great answer from him i
48:00
mean yesterday his answer his answer is
48:03
well I think the best version of his
48:06
answer which I agree with but still it
48:08
may not justify certain certain uses of
48:11
attention it’s just that if you there’s
48:15
this massive bias that basically we’re
48:19
all working with a blank slate you know
48:22
genetically and therefore any difference
48:25
you see among people is a matter of
48:28
environment and so so then you have
48:31
people who have privileged environments
48:34
and people who have environments that
48:36
that
48:37
where they’re massively under-resourced
48:40
and so therefore any different
48:44
representation at the you know the
48:46
higher echelons of success and
48:48
achievement and power in our society you
48:51
know if there’s 13% African Americans in
48:54
the u.s. if you look at the top doctors
48:56
in hospitals or the top academics or the
49:01
you know the Oscar winners or whatever
49:03
you know whatever you want to look for
49:04
for for achievement if there are less
49:07
than 13% African Americans in any one of
49:10
those bins that has to be the result of
49:13
racism or systemic racism that is the
49:18
left the leftward bias at this moment
49:20
and it and so it is with Jews for
49:22
anti-semitism so it is to women you know
49:25
there should be an equal representation
49:26
of women you know computer software
49:29
engineers at Google and any lack of any
49:34
disparity there must be the result of
49:36
either just inequitable resources for
49:42
you know kids in schools or somewhere
49:44
along the way or a pound of a selection
49:48
pressure from the top that you know we
49:50
do you know we don’t like women in at
49:51
Google or blacks at the Oscars and so
49:57
that’s the so Murray’s concern is if you
50:00
believe that and I’m you know this it’s
50:03
not exactly what he said but this is
50:04
this is what I believe he thinks but I
50:06
could be putting some words into his
50:07
mouth here but there’s certainly what
50:08
many other people on his side of the
50:10
debate thing if you believe that you
50:12
will can consistently find racial bias
50:16
and anti-semitism and misogyny where it
50:18
doesn’t exist right so like if you if
50:20
you go looking if you go to a hospital
50:22
and this is a real problem you that
50:24
they’re like like you know the academic
50:26
departments in the medical schools at
50:28
the best medical schools are under
50:29
massive pressure to find like real
50:33
diversity in representation at the
50:35
highest level you need to find a head of
50:38
Cardiology who’s black right and if you
50:42
and you end the fact that you haven’t
50:44
done that is a sign that there’s a
50:46
problem with you and your organization
50:48
and your process of hiring
50:50
now if it’s just the case for whatever
50:53
reason that there are not many
50:55
candidates likely of less than 13% for
50:58
that field or to take the you know the
51:00
James d’amore memo at Google right if it
51:03
just is the case that women forget about
51:05
this is this is beyond aptitude this
51:07
just goes to interest if it’s the case
51:09
that women for whatever reason genetic
51:12
and but or environmental are less
51:16
interested in being software engineers
51:17
on average than men are then you then
51:21
having you know twenty percent women
51:22
coding software at Google is not the
51:25
probably’s not Google’s problem it’s
51:27
just the fact that this is that the
51:28
popular what the population the
51:30
interests are now we should no doubt
51:33
racism still exists no doubt misogyny
51:36
and sexism still exist there there are I
51:39
mean that and there’s proof of this to
51:40
be found as well but if to assume an
51:44
absolute uniformity of humor of interest
51:48
and aptitude in every population you
51:50
could look at is just scientifically
51:54
irrational that would be a miracle if
51:56
that was it so at this stage allow me to
51:58
remind everybody that was Sam’s
51:59
summarizing what he thinks Charles Mari
52:01
was saying as opposed to Sam what no no
52:04
that final point it’s just a true point
52:07
there jeans almost everything we care
52:10
about are massively influenced by genes
52:13
not a hundred percent of what I’ve seen
52:15
happen to you though is that people have
52:16
taken your summaries of other people
52:19
Charles Murray’s position you it’s your
52:22
summary of his position in relationship
52:25
to this this fight against it the thing
52:28
that I would add and the thing were
52:30
there’s some daylight between the two of
52:32
me and him on my podcast is this is so
52:38
toxic to be trafficking in population
52:44
differences with respect to IQ that and
52:48
and it’s not it’s not absolutely clear
52:50
what Social Policy is turn on really
52:54
nailing down these differences I mean so
52:56
you could go I mean to take it even more
52:57
toxic as an example
52:58
it’s like you could decide you know the
53:02
Roma in Europe the gypsies like this is
53:04
like a very isolated beleaguered you
53:07
know community who knows how inbred it
53:10
is I mean I don’t know it’s just this is
53:12
a this is an outlier community like
53:15
anyone who’s gonna want to do you know
53:17
massive IQ testing on the Roma what’s
53:20
the what’s the point of doing that right
53:22
like you know it’s like your it seems
53:24
like a just a kind of political time
53:28
bomb to devote resources in that way
53:32
because we know that the policy you want
53:36
whatever any whatever this the mean IQ
53:39
is of any group the policy you want is
53:42
to give everyone whatever opportunities
53:45
they can avail themselves of so we want
53:47
we want people to have the best schools
53:49
they can use and then we’ll find people
53:51
who need to be in more remedial schools
53:54
for whatever reason or you know people
53:55
like you know they’ll be one population
53:57
that has ten times the amount of
53:59
dyslexia then another population say and
54:02
they’ll be undoubtedly genetic reasons
54:04
for that you know there may be
54:05
environmental reasons for that as well
54:07
but there’s we need to be able to cater
54:10
to all of those needs with just there’s
54:14
this fundamental commitment to goodwill
54:16
and equality without being panicked that
54:19
we’ll find stuff that just blows
54:21
everything up but on the left there
54:24
there’s the sense that the only way to
54:26
move forward toward equality is to lie
54:29
about what is scientifically pause
54:31
applause a bowl and demonize anyone who
54:34
won’t lie with you mmm that’s the
54:37
ideological point yeah this is a new
54:41
thing though right I mean relatively
54:43
speaking this this hard-nosed dance from
54:46
the left of the equality of outcome and
54:48
and the only reason why there wouldn’t
54:51
be 50% women or 50% black or 50% any you
54:54
just pick any marginalized group the
54:56
only reason why wouldn’t be even across
54:57
the board with all other races is
54:59
because of discrimination this is a
55:00
fairly new stance I mean there were
55:02
there were moments that were fairly well
55:04
publicized that I don’t forget when
55:06
Larry Summers got fired from Harvard so
55:08
Larry Summers was the president of
55:09
Harvard and he’s a famous economist
55:12
and he gave a speech for what she was
55:15
fired there might be a little more color
55:17
as to why he was fired I mean it was
55:19
more fired because he he wants the the
55:21
wheels started to come off he didn’t he
55:24
had alienated enough people that he
55:25
didn’t have friends to kind of prop him
55:26
up but but the thing that pulled the
55:28
wheels off was that he gave a speech and
55:30
he said we know there are our
55:34
differences in in the the bell curves
55:37
that describe you know mathematical
55:39
aptitude between men and women and this
55:42
explains why there are many more
55:44
top-flight male mathematicians and
55:47
engineers than women and it’s not that
55:49
they even it’s not that the the means of
55:53
the the of the bell curves are different
55:56
so the means could be the same but there
55:59
could be more variant so that the tails
56:00
are thicker in the case of the male bit
56:02
poker so at the absolute ends both of
56:05
the low end and the high end you have
56:07
many more people so you know if you’re
56:10
gonna ask you know what’s the in the
56:12
same size population how many people do
56:15
you have at the 99.999% aisle of
56:19
aptitude in math say it could be that
56:23
you have and there’s a fair amount of
56:24
data to show this many more men at the
56:27
tails than women
56:29
right and and that’s true for
56:31
grandmasters in chess right it’s just
56:33
the it’s just this is not a and it may
56:36
be true for something like you know
56:38
playing pool you know I mean they’re
56:39
they’re just differences and that may
56:41
not be entirely environmental almost
56:43
certainly or not entirely environmental
56:45
that is one right it’s a big issue in
56:49
the world of pool men and women play
56:51
separately and there’s no reason
56:52
physically why they should yeah it’s not
56:54
a strength game right but women are
56:56
allowed to play in men’s tournaments but
56:58
they never win right gene be Lucas was a
57:00
woman who’s she was like one of the only
57:03
women ever compete and beat men she’s
57:06
like an extreme outlier and this was
57:07
like I want to say was in the late
57:10
seventies in the 80s and and other than
57:12
that there’s been a few women that have
57:14
done well in tournaments but when they
57:15
come to major league professional pool
57:17
tournaments they’re almost always won by
57:20
men and I’m when I say almost I mean
57:22
like 99.9 percent so it was a cum
57:25
games have been happening as we it was
57:27
just over the last couple of weeks and
57:29
there was a male to female transgendered
57:32
athlete in the weightlifting category
57:35
that’s a whole nother boy participated
57:37
in the women’s competition yes and the
57:41
Commonwealth Games at the time of her
57:43
joining hadn’t yet put down a rule asked
57:46
the testosterone levels in the females
57:48
competing and so this male to female
57:51
transgendered person qualified in the
57:53
female games and was as you’d expect
57:57
winning in all of the games and was the
58:00
front-runner and destined to win the
58:02
competition as a male to female
58:04
transgendered person and the only reason
58:06
and it would have led to a huge crisis
58:08
in the Commonwealth Games because there
58:10
was some resistance to this notion and
58:13
of course the questions that arise is
58:15
this fair men are born naturally with
58:17
higher levels of testosterone for
58:18
example the only reason it didn’t lead
58:20
to the crunch time and that was the huge
58:22
scandal of of her winning is that she
58:25
injured herself in the competition and
58:27
by sheer accident yeah I saw that I can
58:30
expand on that a little bit because I’ve
58:31
actually gone through this extensively
58:33
because there was a woman who was used
58:36
to be a man was competing in mixed
58:37
martial arts against women and just
58:39
beating the shit out of them and I and I
58:41
was saying that this is this is a
58:42
mistake and that you’re you’re looking
58:45
at whether someone should be legally
58:47
able to identify as a woman portray
58:50
themselves as a woman absolutely do you
58:51
have the freedom to become a woman in
58:54
quotes in our society yes but you can’t
58:56
deny biological nature and there’s
58:58
physiological advantages to the male
59:00
frame there’s it’s specifically when it
59:03
comes to combat sports that’s my
59:05
wheelhouse I’m an expert I understand
59:07
there’s a giant difference between the
59:09
amount of power that a man and a woman
59:11
can generate and if you’re telling me
59:13
that a guy living thirty years of his
59:14
life as a man that’s that’s essentially
59:17
like a woman being on steroids for 30
59:19
years
59:20
then getting off and then having regular
59:23
women being forced to compete with her
59:25
and trying to pretend this a level
59:27
playing field
59:28
it is not there’s a difference in the
59:29
shape of the hips the size of the
59:31
shoulder the density of the bones the
59:33
size the fists wet that’s a giant factor
59:36
and your ability to generate power is
59:39
size of your fists it’s also an ethical
59:41
problem it’s not just a competition here
59:42
is he have girls getting beaten up by
59:45
someone who used to be a man yes but
59:47
people came down on me harder than
59:50
anything that I’ve ever stood up for in
59:52
my life never in my life – I think
59:53
there’s gonna be a situation when I said
59:55
hey I don’t think the guy should be able
59:56
to get his penis removed and beat the
59:57
shit out of women and then people like
59:59
you’re out of line but that’s what
60:04
happened this is a conversation that I
60:05
had with a woman online this one what
60:08
during this whole thing she said she
60:11
this person who had turned into a woman
60:13
has always been a woman and I said but
60:16
she was a man for 30 years she goes no
60:18
she’s always been a woman I go even when
60:20
she had sex with a woman and fathered a
60:23
kid and she says yes even then I go well
60:26
we’re done yeah because you’re just
60:27
talking nonsense that’s a neurology
60:30
cover exact the facts as they are that
60:32
she had a male physique this person
60:35
always arguing with me wants to claim
60:37
this moral high ground of being the most
60:39
progressive and they’re always looking
60:41
step on top of anybody who’s less
60:43
progressive than then and complained and
60:45
proclaimed superiority and this is the
60:47
ideological sport this is the idea sport
60:50
that that you see with what people are
60:52
playing just ping-pong with ideas
60:54
they’re not listening you you need to
60:56
listen to experts in in that when you
60:59
especially talk about martial arts
61:01
there’s a did the the difference is so
61:03
profound and the results are so critical
61:06
because you’re talking about a sport
61:08
where the objective goal the goal is
61:11
clear it’s very clear beat the fuck out
61:14
of the other person in front of you yeah
61:15
so anything that would give you an
61:17
advantage in beating the fuck out of
61:18
that person should be really looked at
61:20
very carefully and not to thrown through
61:23
the the lens of this progressive
61:25
ideological filter that we’re going
61:26
through right now because that’s that’s
61:28
what it is I mean that’s how people are
61:29
looking at it it’s with weightlifting as
61:31
well when transgendered athletes going
61:34
to weightlifting competitions the male
61:37
to female transgender athletes are
61:39
overwhelmingly dominant I mean is this
61:42
is this a coincidence or it’s no it’s
61:44
someone who had fucking testosterone
61:46
pumping through their system and a
61:48
y-chromosome their whole life and now
61:50
all of a sudden we’re supposed to say no
61:52
she’s a woman
61:52
she’s dainty she’s got size 14 feet
61:56
she’s got gorilla hands like the fuck’s
61:58
he doing sir so I think as you said
62:01
earlier it’s she is a woman but for the
62:03
purposes of competition yeah against
62:05
other women you know legally she’s a
62:07
woman at that stage right if she goes
62:08
through that identity transition but I
62:10
think we have to recognize and I think
62:12
even many traditional feminists are
62:14
making this point you match to the anger
62:17
of the trans community they’re saying
62:19
hold on your what you’re doing in this
62:20
way is actually we fought so hard and so
62:22
long for these female spaces where we
62:26
have a space of our own and now people
62:28
that used to be men are coming into
62:29
those spaces and actually quite
62:30
literally beating the crap out of us yes
62:33
yes you know whether it’s in boxing
62:35
whether it’s in weightlifting in martial
62:37
arts they are – by definition they’re
62:41
dominating all this of course they are
62:42
for the reasons you said experts that
62:44
they’re calling upon or almost all
62:46
transition doctors surgeons or people
62:50
that have transitioned themselves when
62:52
they speak to actual board-certified
62:54
endocrinologist some of the only do it
62:56
off record but one of them forget her
63:01
name she was in one of the big mixed
63:03
martial arts publications Ramona cross
63:05
sick I believe is her name she’s saying
63:08
no not only does it it it actually doing
63:11
this transition like from male to female
63:14
you’re forcing your you’re putting
63:17
estrogen into the system so the bone
63:19
density change that would ordinarily
63:20
take place if you remove someone’s
63:22
testicles and stop that just the
63:24
production of testosterone estrogen
63:26
preserves bone density so you’re
63:28
actually retaining the male bone density
63:31
there’s so many problems with this and
63:33
that and that one of the other things
63:35
they say well oh the Olympics the
63:37
Olympics allow it the Olympics are very
63:39
ideologically based there’s not a whole
63:41
lot of science to this to this
63:42
transition thing of allowing male to
63:45
female athletes to compete in the
63:47
Olympics and there’s a stream amount of
63:50
corruption in the Olympics as it is with
63:52
the IOC being in bed with wada the world
63:55
anti-doping agency and the way they
63:56
handle this Russian scandal I mean this
63:58
Russian scandal that was highlighted in
64:00
that fantastic documentary Icarus yeah I
64:03
was like they’re fucking crazy
64:04
the
64:05
Olympics are not to be trusted that is a
64:07
gigantic multi-billion dollar business
64:09
where the athletes get paid zero money
64:11
it is inherently corrupt from the top
64:13
down no doubt about it so to call upon
64:16
them is to see who should be competing
64:19
as a woman fuck off they’re not the
64:22
experts this is this is not something
64:23
that’s been examined and this is coming
64:25
from someone who one of my jobs is
64:27
examining and commentating on fights
64:30
that is a big part of what I do
64:32
I understand fights and I know what it
64:34
looks like when a man’s beating the shit
64:35
out of a woman and that’s what it looked
64:37
like when this person was fighting women
64:38
it was there was a massive physical
64:40
advantage massive and not a scintilla
64:42
advantage what was the way you mention
64:43
something about the reaction that you go
64:44
to that what was the trouble you gonna
64:46
tell people are so mad at me I mean it
64:47
was just so many not only that they took
64:49
my words out of context they quoted of
64:52
all these different gender transition
64:55
doctors at saying that there’s no
64:57
science behind this and the science
64:59
behind it being totally fair and totally
65:01
equal it’s just not and people know it
65:04
everyone knows it they could they
65:06
couldn’t put Chris cyborg against this
65:07
guy and give him a run for his money
65:09
wrong way classer that’s the other way
65:12
that’s the other thing and we’re dealing
65:13
with a similar situation like that in
65:15
Texas I don’t know about the girl who
65:17
was which was born a girl she’s
65:19
transitioning to a boy in high school
65:21
taking testosterone but in Texas they
65:24
only allow her to compete as a girl so
65:26
she’s dominated the Texas State
65:27
wrestling championship two years in a
65:29
row and it’s horrific because she’s on
65:31
steroids she’s on testosterone and it
65:35
doesn’t matter because they’re testing
65:37
chromosome yeah she’s a woman she was
65:39
born a woman right she’s born a girl
65:41
so because the fact that she’s
65:42
transitioning to be a boy they don’t
65:44
give a shit you’re a woman you’re not
65:45
gonna wrestle against men you’re a girl
65:47
you’re not gonna wrestle against boys so
65:49
they’ve allowed her under extreme
65:51
protest mitts terrible she wants to
65:53
compete or he I should say wants to
65:54
compete as a boy they won’t let him they
65:58
say no you were born a girl you have to
65:59
compete as a girl so when he competes
66:02
everybody boos it’s awesome it’s fucking
66:04
awful I mean it’s it’s it’s really that
66:07
question for you that way around if it’s
66:09
female to male transition somebody that
66:13
used to be a woman that transitions to a
66:16
man and wants to compete with the men
66:17
they don’t have it
66:18
zone you’re allowed to read of this
66:21
advance if they win in that context they
66:23
actually done really good yes right look
66:25
women can beat men yeah I mean it
66:27
happens all the time in jujitsu there’s
66:29
especially in jujitsu in particularly
66:30
because it’s such a technique based art
66:32
but it is possible there’s there’s also
66:35
a woman named Germaine jaronda me who’s
66:37
world-class mixed martial artist who’s
66:39
multiple time world Muay Thai champion
66:40
who fought a man and knocked him out
66:42
it’s a crazy video she was a real man ko
66:45
time with a straight right it’s it is
66:47
possible for them to win if their skill
66:49
level is so far superior that it
66:52
overcomes the inherent strength
66:53
advantages but a woman – male transition
66:57
would be at a severe disadvantage
66:58
against the natural man so would you be
67:00
so in that Texas case they clearly have
67:02
it wrong they should allow they should
67:04
allow him to compete with yes and would
67:07
you be whereas I can I think all three
67:09
of us probably instinctively would
67:10
resist the notion that a female that a
67:13
male to female athlete competes with
67:16
other females because they’d have enough
67:17
quad resist that yes but would you be
67:19
for a female to male athlete competing
67:22
with men yes because I don’t think
67:24
there’s no there’s no better but here’s
67:26
the problem and again the consent is
67:28
sort of running in the other he is
67:30
continually putting herself or he’s
67:32
putting her right in my way knowingly
67:35
and I’m not opposed to a woman fighting
67:38
a man if she so chooses
67:39
like I’m not opposed to bull riding yeah
67:41
if you wanted I’m not you know lobbying
67:44
to get bull riding outlawed but if you
67:45
want to be so fucking stupid that you
67:47
climb on top of a 2,000 pound angry
67:49
animal go for it yeah you should be able
67:52
to do whatever you want I think you
67:53
should be able to jump out of fairly
67:54
good air on airplanes if you want to
67:56
parachute you should be able to risk
67:57
your life parachuting the difference
68:00
lies in just massive advantages and that
68:03
there’s a massive advantage in
68:04
transitioning from male to female female
68:07
to male here’s the other problem female
68:09
to male you have to take testosterone
68:10
you can’t legally take testosterone and
68:13
compete it’s been a giant issue in mixed
68:15
martial arts because for the longest
68:17
time there was a loophole and the
68:18
loophole was testosterone therapy and
68:20
they were allowing testosterone
68:22
replacement therapy for male athletes
68:24
that were either older or it’s it was a
68:27
it was a symptom of having pituitary
68:31
gland
68:32
which comes from head trauma which come
68:34
which means really essentially your
68:36
career should be over yeah your your
68:37
body’s not producing hormones correctly
68:40
and that’s a very common issue with
68:41
people that have been in war people that
68:44
have been blown up by IEDs people that
68:46
have been hit a lot even soccer players
68:48
a lot of times there’s show diminished
68:51
levels of testosterone and growth
68:52
hormone because of to eteri gland damage
68:54
so you wouldn’t even allow that so a
68:56
female to male would be in a whole
68:59
nother problem in combat sports because
69:01
it’s not legal for you to take
69:02
testosterone and compete to bring this
69:06
full circle back to me sitting at the
69:08
pool destroy about to destroy my
69:09
vacation on twitter how long did you
69:11
spend working on this article what
69:13
another thing it’s so again this was
69:14
your wife must hate to do that how much
69:17
does she matter well it was kind of the
69:20
perfect storm but there were there were
69:21
a few things that that relieve the
69:23
pressure one is there was another family
69:25
from our school so they’re like well
69:27
mark my daughter had a friend that said
69:30
that we that my wife could socialize
69:31
with and having another couple there
69:34
forced me to sort of put on my social
69:36
phase at dinner and and I mean it’s not
69:48
to say to describe it that way he’s
69:50
putting on your social phase it actually
69:52
changes your psychology I mean like if
69:53
you have if you if you have to drop your
69:55
problem in order to be a normal sane
69:57
person with people you don’t know all
69:58
that well you’re actually a happier more
70:00
normal person if it had just been me and
70:02
my wife at dinner while I’m dealing with
70:04
this blow up it just you know it’s just
70:05
never would’ve the cloud wouldn’t
70:06
wouldn’t have left so anyway I I was
70:12
trying so I was trying not to engage and
70:14
so I didn’t want to have to write
70:15
anything new to deal with this the this
70:17
what I viewed is just an egregious
70:20
attack on on my intellectual and moral
70:23
integrity and so when I saw this article
70:27
from Klein I realize I had this email
70:30
exchange with him at the end of which I
70:32
said listen if you if you continue to
70:35
slander me this is ahead for like a year
70:37
previously because there’s been released
70:39
I released so so I said but I said the
70:43
end of this exchange if you continue to
70:45
slander me
70:45
and if you misrepresent the reasons why
70:47
we didn’t do a podcast because we we had
70:49
had talked publicly about maybe sorting
70:52
this out on a podcast a year ago but I
70:54
found the exchange with him by emails so
70:57
in such bad faith I found him so evasive
70:59
and dishonest and again just plain
71:02
ideological ping-pong as you said and
71:04
not actually engaging my points that I
71:08
said listen if you if you lie about this
71:10
and you keep slandering me I’m just
71:11
gonna publish this email because because
71:13
I think the world should see how you
71:15
operate as a journalist and as an editor
71:17
like he he had declined to publish a far
71:20
more mainstream opinion defending me and
71:22
Marie an inbox I mean he it was just it
71:25
was truly you know slanderous and
71:27
misleading everything he’s published on
71:29
this topic and he has a huge platform I
71:31
wish to do it so which I enjoy I really
71:34
like what oh yeah no I mean if I I’ve
71:36
red fox with pleasure as well but it is
71:39
it it you know once you see how the
71:41
sausage gets made on many of these
71:43
things once you’re the news item you can
71:45
see that there’s very little
71:46
journalistic scruple in the in the
71:48
background there so I I was lit man I
71:53
didn’t want to have to spend my time on
71:55
vacation writing a retort to this thing
71:58
but I felt like I had to respond and
72:00
again this is an illusion there’s like a
72:01
sheer confection of looking at Twitter
72:05
if I hadn’t been looking at Twitter I
72:06
wouldn’t have felt I had to respond and
72:09
so I responded in the laziest possible
72:12
way which I just published the email
72:15
exchange because it’s already written I
72:16
don’t have to write anything you know I
72:17
just live those hits and essentially and
72:19
of course the rest of the world didn’t
72:20
know you’re actually meant to be on
72:21
vacation right now and so there’s no
72:24
context to them as to why you were still
72:28
III massively underestimated the amount
72:30
of work even my own fans would have to
72:33
do to understand why I was so angry in
72:36
that email exchange so I came off like
72:37
the angry bastard in the email exchange
72:39
and he came off as this you know just
72:43
open-minded ready to dialog guy whereas
72:46
if you follow the plot and you saw what
72:49
he had published about me and and Murray
72:51
previously this thing that has hit is
72:53
now on the hate watch page of SPLC
72:56
he was being totally disingenuous and
72:59
Ave
72:59
and just these responses you remember
73:01
they didn’t match to his article did
73:02
they not not at all and it was this
73:04
thing it was so yeah so I just kept
73:06
getting more tuned up and and so I
73:09
published this thing not realizing not I
73:13
mean I you know it was definitely
73:14
mistake to publish the email exchange
73:16
just just pragmatically not I don’t
73:18
think it was unethical because I told
73:21
him I was going to do it in advance if
73:23
he kept he kept it up it was just it was
73:27
totally counterproductive because it was
73:29
if he was far more reasonable emaddix
73:31
people in the original article what
73:33
seems like he that do a lot of work –
73:35
yeah yeah thing is he wasn’t it was
73:37
suited he was it was it was a an
73:40
appearance of reason but it was it was
73:42
not and then which so we finally did
73:44
this podcast a year hence you know this
73:48
is now my last podcast is now you know
73:50
two weeks ago and you know it was
73:53
basically as bad as I was expecting
73:56
and I basic I feel that I met the person
73:59
who I thought I was dealing with in the
74:01
email exchange and he was fundamentally
74:03
unresponsive to any of my points and you
74:07
know as you say Joe just trying to score
74:09
political points to his toward his
74:12
audience and the thing is he has a
74:14
what’s that mean there’s many there many
74:16
asymmetries here but one crucial one is
74:19
that he has an audience that doesn’t
74:22
care about whether or not he’s
74:25
responsive to the thing that his his
74:28
opponent or interlocutor just said right
74:30
it’s they’re not tracking it by that
74:33
metric they’re tracking it by are you
74:35
making the political points you win it
74:37
that are going that are massaging that
74:40
you know outrage part of our brains like
74:41
our ego
74:42
do you have your hands on our amygdala
74:44
you know and and are you pushing the
74:46
right buttons and so he’s talking about
74:49
racism and you know just the white
74:51
privilege and I’m granting him all of
74:53
that I’m said listen like let me tell
74:56
you why that’s not relevant to my
74:58
concerns and what happened here with
74:59
Murray I’m gonna I’m everything you’re
75:01
gonna say about the history of lynching
75:02
I’m gonna grant you right that’s not the
75:05
we don’t there’s no daylight between us
75:07
there and but the thing is I have an
75:09
audience that is that care is massively
75:12
about
75:13
following the logical conversation if
75:16
somebody makes a point in frustrating
75:17
that is even close to being a good in
75:21
response to me my audience is like you
75:24
know okay Sam what the fuck are you
75:25
gonna say to that yes right and if and
75:26
if I drop that ball I I lose massive
75:29
points right whereas I’m often finding
75:31
myself in conversation with people who
75:33
don’t have to care about those kinds of
75:35
audience that was the one I had one with
75:37
this Omar Aziz oh well that was title
75:40
the best podcast ever I mean he knows
75:42
his audience does not care about him
75:45
honestly representing in this case the
75:47
doctrine of Islam who was that guy even
75:49
I mean Ali says right fine you could say
75:50
okay editor of ox or whatever where did
75:52
you even find that Connie’s podcast
75:58
until this day I don’t even know who
76:00
this bloke is this guy is some crazy guy
76:03
me and auntie me it was because at one
76:07
point he was going on about me being
76:08
some form of enabler of your bigotry and
76:10
yeah well yeah be your own Uncle Tom
76:12
yeah I could see this is that this is
76:18
why it’s so frustrating because I have
76:19
pretty much memorized inside out back to
76:22
front these lannister ideological
76:23
narrative and I could sit here right now
76:25
and play that game with you the game of
76:28
ping pong yeah without conceding
76:29
anything and this is where you know I
76:31
feel our conversation went really well
76:33
because it was stripped away from all of
76:36
that bullshit and we had a genuine
76:38
conversation it still to this day very
76:40
easy for me to to play the tune of the
76:45
Islamist and score those points
76:47
especially because some of what I’ve
76:49
been through
76:49
yeah and score those points and just get
76:52
locked in a essentially it’s ego but
76:55
it’s it’s a it’s it’s it’s not an
76:56
intellectual conversation it’s a it’s
76:58
it’s a game of you know who’s who is
77:00
basically checking the right boxes in
77:03
their own little confirmation bias to
77:04
their own audience that doesn’t interest
77:07
me but it’s frustrating you’re also
77:09
you’re also the best person on the other
77:11
side of that conversation now so there’s
77:13
a series of videos on YouTube I think
77:15
it’s called Merry Christmas mr. Islamist
77:17
yeah that’s right and so on YouTube you
77:19
can look at him hit it against people
77:22
who are playing this game you know
77:23
Islamists and and jihadis of various
77:25
sorts you
77:26
and that he modest is meeting them on
77:29
your interview shows you mostly in the
77:31
UK where they’re pretending to be more
77:35
benign than they are and that it
77:36
monitors you know finding the question
77:38
that sort of pulls back the mask on the
77:41
theocrats hilarious it’s it’s very fun
77:43
well you’re that one video that you
77:45
publish on your blog I’ve sent to dozens
77:48
of my friends the one video where
77:50
there’s this guy and he’s addressing
77:51
this enormous group of people and he’s
77:53
talking about is this radical Islam or
77:55
is this Islam that was I think a
77:57
conference in Norway yeah that was just
77:59
I mean he’s not straight up in Islamist
78:02
jihadist addressing a crowd of seemingly
78:05
mainstream Muslims in Norway and but he
78:07
just by show of hands you know is it you
78:10
know are we extremists if we think
78:11
apostates or COPD it’s it’s pretty it’s
78:14
stunning it’s an amazing document in
78:16
yeah in respect to the way they want to
78:18
treat homosexuals apostates I mean the
78:21
whole thing is is this Islam or is this
78:23
radical Islam talking of ideology
78:26
blinking statistical data on the subject
78:29
of homosexuality so in the United
78:31
Kingdom a poll was done last year asking
78:34
so there have been two polls gauging
78:36
public Muslim attitudes towards gays the
78:40
first asked how many Muslims in the UK
78:42
find homosexuality morally acceptable
78:44
and zero percent this is by the way by a
78:48
professional polling company it’s not
78:50
just some student that’s devised a poll
78:52
on Twitter a professional polling
78:54
company found that zero percent of
78:55
British Muslims responded to a poll
78:58
saying that they found homosexuality
78:59
morally acceptable and then a year later
79:02
which now last year another poll was was
79:05
conducted and that was an ICM poll
79:08
asking whether British Mazda how many
79:11
British Muslims believed the
79:13
homosexuality should be criminalized or
79:15
remain legal and I think it was roughly
79:18
52% 52% if my memory serves incorrectly
79:21
said of British Muslims said that they
79:23
would wish for homosexuality to be
79:25
criminalized and of course what does
79:27
criminalization of homosexuality mean
79:29
under Sharia and traditional Islamic
79:32
jurisprudence we know that it’s
79:34
punished by death so these are these
79:38
this is scientific data from gauging you
79:40
know attitudes British Muslim attitudes
79:42
towards homosexuality but the
79:44
ideological blinkers will will kick in
79:47
and refuse to see that truth and these
79:49
aren’t Islamists unfortunately my
79:50
dialogue with Sam we talked about this
79:51
that there are the Islamists who want to
79:53
who actively want to take over a country
79:55
and enforce their version of Islam then
79:57
there’s underneath that there’s a softer
79:59
landing of very very conservative
80:01
stroked fundamentalist attitudes that
80:04
unfortunately have become widespread and
80:06
here is an example of it that is that is
80:08
being gauged by scientific polling
80:10
methodology that tells us there’s a
80:12
problem and unfortunately if one were to
80:14
speak in this way especially in in
80:18
Europe one is received by my own
80:21
political tribe and that’s liberals
80:23
center-left and further one is met with
80:27
denial and called a bigot simply for
80:30
relaying these facts a quarter of
80:32
British Muslims when asked about the
80:35
massacre at the Charlie Hebdo offices in
80:37
Paris a quarter said that those attacks
80:41
are justifiable they sympathized with
80:42
the attackers as opposed to the victims
80:45
who were the staff at the Charlie Hebdo
80:46
offices so this is what led you to be
80:50
put on the southern sovereign speaking
80:53
in these terms and unfortunately it’s
80:55
reporting polling data and what it does
80:57
for me is to say this is why it’s so
80:59
important to address these issues to
81:00
have these conversations to try and
81:03
empower those Muslim voices that are
81:04
seeking to challenge this sort of these
81:06
sorts of attitudes and and carve out a
81:09
space and if you know if if one can do
81:12
that with Catholicism in Europe and go
81:14
through a Reformation and end up with an
81:16
Enlightenment and end up with secularism
81:17
in the West what I often say is American
81:21
liberals are very happy challenging
81:23
their own Bible Belt and yet we have a
81:25
Quran Belt within our communities and if
81:28
I’m attempting to replicate the
81:30
equivalent of challenging the Bible Belt
81:32
within Muslim communities it means
81:33
addressing these issues and yet they
81:35
grant to themselves the right to
81:37
challenge the Bible Belt within America
81:40
and yet if we were to challenge what I
81:41
call the Quran belt in Europe we
81:43
suddenly called bigots
81:45
you know and Islamophobes is this is
81:48
this static has this been moving has it
81:51
been adjusting and changing is there any
81:53
sort of a recognition that there’s an
81:55
issue with this so you know the
81:57
emergence of Isis really did bring it to
81:59
the fore and it really did quieten some
82:02
of the voices it also did increase the
82:04
hysteria from the far left because they
82:06
began panicking thinking actually we’re
82:08
gonna lose this debate and that’s where
82:09
I noticed their labeling became even
82:12
stronger but the emergence of Isis did
82:14
wake up a lot of people to to the
82:16
challenges we’re facing here because so
82:18
many European born and raised Muslims
82:20
went over to join Isis and of course
82:22
think about it in this sense the most
82:23
infamous and notorious execution cell
82:26
that I think were erroneously called the
82:29
the jihadi Beatles in the press because
82:31
actually it really does it’s an insult
82:34
to the Beatles but it was a diminishes
82:35
the true horror you have these guys you
82:37
know they called him jihadi John and but
82:39
the ISIS execution is basically that
82:40
entire cell of the the media face of
82:44
Isis execution cell were all British
82:46
Muslims and that should tell you
82:47
something that we’ve got the worst
82:49
terrorist group educator I mean the
82:50
thing is university graduate like every
82:52
variable that the the far left wants to
82:55
marshal to explain this phenomenon like
82:58
lack of educational opportunity lack of
82:59
Economic Opportunity lack of social
83:01
integration mental illness a you you can
83:04
all you can find people who had massive
83:07
opportunity I mean City were I mean you
83:09
weren’t a jihadist but you were an
83:10
Islamist but let me you’re a person who
83:12
that’s right and basically play any game
83:14
he want to mere you like it is he’s he’s
83:16
he’s somebody who back to the Superman
83:18
he can run he can run for political
83:19
office
83:20
he hasn’t been elected yet but he you
83:22
know he should be I mean this is the
83:25
quarterback of the football team in the
83:28
the this context he is a candidate for a
83:31
recruitment wealth I think a think of it
83:32
this way we’ve got the worst terrorist
83:34
group in our lifetime it one can
83:36
reasonably say is Isis right the worst
83:38
terrorist group at least in living
83:39
memory is Isis and the worst cell
83:42
analysis the execution cell came from a
83:45
fully developed for want of a better
83:49
term first world country and that was
83:50
Britain and mohammed emwazi the leader
83:53
of that execution cell graduated from
83:55
the University of Westminster was given
83:57
as a young child was given political
83:59
asylum by Britain because his family
84:00
were Kuwaiti and they fled the invasion
84:03
of Kuwait by Saddam Hussein the country
84:05
that the West liberated and he turned
84:08
against that country so he had every
84:10
reason to like Britain Britain gave my
84:12
home gave him a actually physically
84:14
bricks-and-mortar house gave his family
84:16
on social costs they gave him social
84:18
housing they educated he graduated from
84:20
University and they liberated his
84:21
father’s country from an aggressor and
84:23
this man turned against this country
84:26
that helped him and his family and his
84:27
nation was he captured or did he’s dead
84:31
what one of them has been captured but
84:32
he’s currently being held in Turkey
84:34
would it would be fascinating to listen
84:36
to his rationale it’s not so that the
84:39
other why I forgot his name but he was
84:41
just interviewed you know you don’t get
84:43
a lot out of him
84:44
he was interviewed by female Arab
84:45
journalists so on and dismissive
84:51
character he refused to talk about much
84:54
he said you know these are accurate
84:55
accusations and allegations you’re
84:57
making and I will wait to trial in the
85:01
end he kind of cut the interview short
85:02
he seemed a little put out that she was
85:04
a woman oh yeah he did so as I’m looking
85:06
at you now imagine she’s the interview
85:08
and and and and she’s asking me
85:10
questions and I’m looking in this
85:11
direction
85:12
she literally never laid eyes on her
85:18
[Laughter]
85:21
it’s so intense it’s such it like as you
85:24
say radioactive subject to just it’s
85:27
it’s just fascinating to watch white
85:29
liberal progressives just scamper away
85:32
from this well but the flip the flip
85:34
side of the ISIS thing has been the
85:36
refugee crisis which has made which has
85:39
really empowered both extremes frankly
85:42
that the far left and the far right so
85:44
you have the far right you obviously
85:47
with the wind in their sails worrying
85:50
about this influx of people from the
85:53
Middle East and and you know and beyond
85:55
North Africa and just the change of
85:58
culture in their societies and a lot of
86:01
these concerns are plausible but because
86:03
only the far right and a few other
86:05
decent people like Douglas Murray will
86:08
talk about the plausible concerns
86:11
the space has just been vacated so you
86:13
just have the far right but if our
86:15
far-right populist politics being and
86:17
enabled and then you have this
86:19
delusional open borders left that won’t
86:22
we’ve got to talk about the huge problem
86:25
I told Sam about this but it bears
86:27
repeating I was having a conversation
86:29
with someone as an executive at YouTube
86:30
and I asked them why someone got a
86:33
Community Guidelines strike on their
86:34
account because they posted up a video
86:36
on their playlist that they enjoyed of
86:38
Sam Harris and Douglas Murray engaged in
86:42
a conversation I go why would that get
86:45
you a Community Guidelines strike and
86:46
this woman said because it’s hate speech
86:48
I got a problem with the last you see
86:50
sorry apparently Douglas Murray caused
86:52
me problems somebody worked yes she was
86:55
a big executive equate YouTube
86:57
she said it’s hate speech and I told her
86:59
I go did you listen to it I go you
87:01
didn’t listen to it I go this is
87:02
stunning that you would just say it’s
87:03
hate speech then you just be so
87:06
dismissive of it so quickly and she
87:08
talked to me as if I was her employee
87:10
like I was not allowed to question her
87:12
and she was just gonna say what she said
87:13
and I was gonna shut up and it was a
87:15
fascinating conversation no no no why on
87:19
vacation no but it was I did a podcast
87:21
with Douglas and apparently it got
87:23
flagged someone else put it up on their
87:25
account and I got flagged as hate speech
87:27
and strikes you can get your account
87:30
removed so I’ve got a phrase for this
87:32
and I’ve been I’ve been rallying for it
87:33
on social media for a couple of months
87:35
now and I call it a digital blind spot
87:38
there’s a cultural bias on social media
87:41
where because of and it’s intellectually
87:44
lazy because because social media is
87:46
essentially a Californian invention
87:48
right and we’re in the home state of
87:50
where most of this came from
87:51
it’s got a very Californian based
87:54
worldview which cares a lot about white
87:56
supremacy and doesn’t care about many
87:59
other forms of bigotry that exist out
88:00
there in the rest of the world which by
88:02
the way is the majority of the world so
88:04
on Twitter right now of course there’s
88:06
Miley Annapolis has been banned
88:08
Tommy Robinson has been banned as in
88:11
taken off now Twitter’s a private camere
88:12
onsen he’s the former leader of the
88:14
British English Defence League which was
88:17
at one time Europe’s largest anti-muslim
88:19
street protest group
88:20
I helped him leave that organization is
88:22
still what many views I completely
88:24
agree with but nevertheless he doesn’t
88:26
support or nor advocate for terrorism
88:28
why was he removed well so Twitter is a
88:31
private company it can choose to remove
88:33
whoever it wants for whatever reason and
88:34
we will judge it for us inconsistencies
88:35
but he was ostensibly removed for hate
88:37
speech as was Milo unitless
88:39
now the point being that still till this
88:43
day and before people misquote me and
88:45
completely say that I’m now defending
88:47
hate speech and and it’s and their right
88:50
to speak with hateful views on Twitter
88:52
this is my actual point that till this
88:54
day did you know that Hezbollah which is
88:58
a known and recognized terrorist
89:00
organization
89:01
so forget hate speech for a moment a
89:03
terrorist organization that believes in
89:05
actually killing civilians and Hamas a
89:08
known and recognized terrorist
89:10
organization that believes in bombing
89:12
babies on buses as a form of resistance
89:14
they still have accounts on Twitter and
89:18
my point is is that this is the this is
89:20
the blind spot you know that and I’ve
89:22
flagged Twitter about this on many an
89:24
occasion this is the cultural blind spot
89:26
this is the digital blind spot that the
89:28
dude sitting in California in wherever
89:31
who is monitoring this stuff and it’s
89:33
probably more than one person they don’t
89:35
give a shit that there’s some Brown
89:37
person in the Gaza Strip that believes
89:40
it’s okay to kill Jewish babies they
89:42
don’t give a shit because it’s a brown
89:44
person saying it in the name of Islam
89:46
what they care about is a non-violent
89:49
yet says stupid things guy because he’s
89:52
white called Tommy Robinson in England
89:54
or Milo u Annapolis saying stuff that
89:56
they obviously that touches their
89:58
sensitivities and it’s so intellectually
90:00
lazy to flag that immediately and to bar
90:02
it from social media because you’re
90:04
comfortable with it you recognize white
90:06
supremacy it doesn’t take any effort to
90:08
recognize it you don’t have to invest in
90:09
studying this stuff to know what white
90:11
supremacy is it takes a bit of effort to
90:14
study brown people’s ideas that you’re
90:16
unfamiliar with and recognize here’s a
90:19
terrorist organization that’s freely
90:20
operating on social media I know
90:22
specifically on Twitter
90:23
I’ve actually pulled up their handles I
90:25
think one of the concerns that Twitter
90:27
has and I think this is a valid concern
90:29
is that when you have people there
90:30
saying hateful things and you have
90:32
people that are saying whether it’s
90:34
white supremacy or whatever even if it’s
90:35
stupid yeah
90:37
problem is there’s a rallying cry of
90:39
trolls that follow behind them and it
90:42
builds up momentum and it gets pretty
90:44
stunning and that was what was happening
90:45
with Milo and by silencing Milo off
90:49
Twitter they have essentially removed
90:51
him from the public discourse you don’t
90:53
hear about him what’s right because of
90:55
this because of these things but imagine
90:58
what that does in Arabic with the
90:59
terrorist groups yes but there’s there
91:00
everything you’ve just said by the way I
91:02
agree with and multiply that for groups
91:05
that have infrastructure in multiple
91:06
countries with actual organizational
91:09
hierarchies and planned means of
91:11
distributing their ideas across entire
91:14
populations physically fighting in Wars
91:16
right now such as Hezbollah in Syria
91:18
killing Sunni Muslim rebels you know and
91:20
so imagine that and the and the way
91:22
you’re able to rally a mob in Pakistan
91:24
on blasphemy as an example all it takes
91:27
for some person on social media to
91:28
accuse another person or blasphemy and
91:30
they’re probably gonna get killed the
91:31
very next day where and it happens all
91:32
the time but but because these
91:34
californian based social media companies
91:36
are unaware of of the of the cultural
91:39
implications of those sorts of
91:40
organizations and groups and listed
91:42
terrorist groups mind you they are
91:44
there’s completely no no barring on any
91:46
of their activity there’s also the same
91:48
thing that you have with YouTube and
91:50
with a lot of these other social media
91:52
organizations and companies is they
91:54
don’t have to respond or give you any
91:57
reasons they can say it violates our
92:00
Terms but what are those terms those
92:02
terms aren’t even listed it would be
92:03
vague like no hate speech okay well
92:05
what’s hate speech like what do you say
92:07
like what is what are you what is your
92:09
clear policy what are your guidelines
92:12
how does someone avoid violating your
92:14
guidelines they don’t say yeah and how
92:16
is the president the United States not
92:17
of not violating those yeah well the
92:20
monetization is another way that they do
92:22
it they’ll remove the ability to put
92:23
advertising on a conversation that they
92:26
don’t like and it doesn’t have to be
92:28
like my conversation with Douglas Murray
92:29
was Dumont’s not without any explanation
92:32
none zero then we have Douglas his he’s
92:37
yeah but if you’ve listened to our act
92:40
the actual context of our conversation
92:42
there’s nothing even remotely remotely
92:44
hateful about it yeah yeah I mean these
92:47
are private companies they’ve got the
92:48
right to to choose whatever policy the
92:50
only
92:50
thing I would expect from a private
92:52
company show a consistent policy towards
92:54
these things you know if you don’t like
92:56
hate speech then Brown Band Brown people
92:58
who are also advocating more than just
92:59
the hate speech but actually preaching
93:01
violent terrorism right yeah it’s a
93:03
strange time for this man because it’s
93:06
it’s also a time where it’s you can
93:09
communicate so instantaneously it’s
93:11
fantastic in that regard you can get
93:13
ideas out so quickly but these hubs of
93:17
information like where the information
93:19
gets distributed are they’re controlled
93:22
by people that I don’t think ever knew
93:24
that they were going to have this sort
93:26
of responsibility I don’t think I think
93:27
you’re seeing that with Zuckerberg and
93:29
these trials or the the the speeches
93:32
that he’s given in front of Congress
93:33
like when you see him on television
93:35
talking about it you get the sense that
93:37
this is a guy that never prepared for
93:39
this had no idea this was going to
93:40
happen and then all of a sudden from
93:42
this simple social media platform that
93:45
was supposed to be friends sharing
93:47
photos and just talking about girls yeah
93:50
no sense of yeah put women there’s a lot
93:53
of that you know but I mean – and what
93:55
was Twitter I mean Twitter was
93:56
essentially just you know I mean you
93:57
remember the old days of Twitter it
93:59
would be you would use your name it like
94:03
is doing this like Sam under Sam Harris
94:06
like Sam Harris is at the movies you
94:08
would say that almost if you were in a
94:10
third person that was the original form
94:12
that people would use Twitter come after
94:14
that it was weird it was a weird way of
94:16
talking and then people started just
94:18
writing what they thought yeah and it
94:21
just became and then became ideology and
94:24
then it became sharing links sharing
94:27
links and interesting articles is a big
94:28
part of it but to me that’s the only
94:31
good part of it now like I got like I’ve
94:34
just discovered that and that was as
94:37
most of my attachment to it I genuinely
94:40
use it to ask you as a curated news
94:43
because I follow interesting people they
94:45
say they tweet interesting stuff and I
94:47
and I consumed it that way but noticing
94:50
what’s coming back at me in the at
94:52
mansion so I put something out you know
94:54
with my podcast and then I look to see
94:56
how it’s being received on Twitter and I
94:58
don’t tend to do that in other forums I
95:01
don’t really look at facebook comments
95:03
much
95:03
I don’t look at YouTube on YouTube it’s
95:06
just a cesspool right I mean so so even
95:08
if therefore you that the comments are
95:09
horrible nastiness started on the
95:17
youtube comment friends it’s and then
95:18
spread everywhere else very strange but
95:20
so I but one thing I found that you you
95:22
can change that your settings in Twitter
95:24
where you you screen out people who
95:27
don’t have you know just have Twitter
95:30
egg photos they don’t have a real photo
95:31
you can screen out people who haven’t
95:33
had their email confirmed and I think I
95:36
just did those two things and like 90%
95:39
of the hate went away it was amazing
95:41
like it just just doing that thank you
95:45
for you should do that except I’m think
95:47
it’s better to not actually even look at
95:49
what’s coming back at you
95:51
well you’ve taken it off your phone no I
95:52
think so too I think looking looking at
95:55
it – virus my wife Rachel will be very
95:57
happy with that I think she’d probably
95:59
wish that I did the city you tweak on it
96:02
to do you think I don’t react sometimes
96:05
I like to think I don’t react in this
96:07
way but I mean I can’t I can’t say that
96:09
cuz actually probably I have sometimes
96:10
but but you know I get all that same
96:12
kind of I get it’s interesting because I
96:14
took I took a stance on the serious
96:16
strikes and that’s your stance well I
96:18
just think that um especially now in
96:21
hindsight we’re there now no casualties
96:23
involved at all there are only three
96:25
injuries I think we had to take a stance
96:27
that succeeded where Obama failed in in
96:31
making sure that redline was maintained
96:32
that the use of chemical weapons cannot
96:34
be tolerated even if it was symbolic
96:36
even it was highly symbolic I think
96:38
sometimes symbolism is important so I
96:40
took that stance and it wasn’t got a lot
96:43
of love on Twitter oh yeah of course
96:44
because it’s actually that’s against the
96:45
grain public opinion at the moment is is
96:47
it was against the strikes and I fully
96:48
acknowledge that when I took the stance
96:49
right but I argued a case and I set the
96:52
case out and both on my sky news show i
96:54
have a show a co-host on the pledge and
96:56
also on my radio show on LBC I
96:58
repeatedly argue for why I think is
97:00
important that we don’t allow for
97:02
chemical weapons and they used to become
97:03
normalized in our world and so it was
97:06
interesting because I posted the sky
97:07
news clip of me sort of talking to
97:09
camera about my reasons for this and and
97:12
I have this screen grab of the reaction
97:15
it’s just a puddle of blood so it is the
97:19
two extremes completely they actually
97:21
started fighting with each other about
97:23
who’s right about her so I’ve said look
97:25
there here’s a clip why we must
97:26
intervene is here after that come up
97:27
with that blah blah first one is a guy
97:29
with an actual swastika Nazi symbol on
97:31
his profile and it says you know that
97:34
Nordic Scot as his handle Thomas James
97:36
he says Majid wants Britain to intervene
97:38
in Syria because Putin and Assad are
97:40
kicking his Isis buddies arses end of
97:42
story right so there’s a guy is
97:43
basically saying what my real reason for
97:45
calling for that is because I’m
97:46
supporting Isis against the Assad regime
97:48
the guy immediately after responds to
97:51
him and it’s called at last oh right and
97:53
he says what are you on about you Nazi
97:55
dumbest Majid is funded by you’re not
97:57
he’s a far I Uncle Tom captures that but
98:05
they’re arguing with each other over
98:07
whether I’m in there cut his camp or his
98:09
camp basically you never have the worst
98:12
publicist in the world or the best one
98:14
so I should I think I should take myself
98:15
out of that equation let them find each
98:17
other it would be even better really
98:18
that’s the move just set something like
98:20
that up set the far right and the far
98:22
left against each other and you could
98:23
just like sneak away while they’re
98:25
fighting yeah that’s how nuts it is I
98:28
mean the the kind of horses you know the
98:31
extremes are I mean they’re equally
98:36
irrational and the fact that you could
98:38
be at the epicenter of each prompt of
98:42
both of their problems yeah you’re
98:43
Europe covert jihadist and you’re an
98:46
anti-muslim bigot it seems like there’s
98:48
more conspiracy theories in in terms of
98:51
like what someone’s actual motivation
98:53
for what they’re saying now than ever
98:54
before to because it’s so easy to
98:56
express them so someone could say no you
98:58
know he’s far-right or no you’re you’re
99:00
you’re just trying to support Isis yeah
99:03
like this this is this ability to like
99:05
find some nefarious reason for your
99:07
actions but again it’s reducing one’s
99:09
opinion to the lowest yes base you know
99:12
dodgy motive as opposed to applying the
99:14
principle of charity so if Joe says
99:16
something now I can either sit her and
99:18
actually think no I don’t trust this guy
99:20
I don’t respect him and therefore I’m
99:22
gonna reduce his opinion to the worst
99:24
possible interpretation that he could
99:25
possibly mean and then use that against
99:27
him
99:28
or I could continue to ask what you mean
99:30
by that because I’m assuming you’re a
99:32
good decent human being in origin and
99:34
perhaps you mean something that I
99:35
haven’t yet quite grasped and then I’ll
99:36
see to clarify your own opinion in your
99:38
own words and I think it’s unfortunate
99:40
that many of our conversations today and
99:43
the far left is as guilty of it as the
99:44
far right and they like to think they’re
99:46
not which is part of that righteousness
99:47
that blinds them from actually
99:49
committing this very same injustice they
99:51
accuse the far right of committing and
99:52
that is a it’s the same bigotry in in a
99:55
mirror image I call it the bigotry of
99:57
low expectations the low expectations
99:59
they have that Muslims are somehow
100:01
unable to adhere to a common decent
100:02
liberal secular democratic values and so
100:05
it’s actually plaguing our conversation
100:07
stay if only we were able to strip away
100:10
our ideological baggage in entering
100:12
conversations and and allow for you know
100:14
that honest honest conversation but of
100:16
course we say that and then you try to
100:18
replicate our success on a number of
100:20
occasions and found yourself incredibly
100:22
frustrated well you know unfortunately I
100:26
found the one reasonable person to have
100:28
a fight with well it just seems like
100:30
this is a side effect of this increased
100:33
ability to communicate and that just
100:34
there’s so much noise and there’s so
100:37
much going on I mean it is the most
100:39
fantastic time for the distribution of
100:41
information there’s never been time yeah
100:43
where it’s so easy to distribute
100:44
information in human history it’s really
100:46
crazy but I don’t think we know what to
100:47
do with it and I think that when you
100:49
deal with people who have such rigid
100:51
ideologies and they find this incredibly
100:54
easy ability to express these ideologies
100:56
there’s just so much clashing it’s just
100:59
so much so much noise and nonsense and
101:01
when someone says something that they
101:05
know that they don’t have to back up
101:06
with facts because they know that
101:07
they’re there people were on their
101:08
position will support it you say the
101:10
right keywords you know right and
101:12
privilege whatever you want to say and
101:13
then boom you’re gonna get a whole slew
101:17
of people like those two people in your
101:18
your mentions battling it out with each
101:20
other you’re just like kind of picking
101:22
fights and starting these little fires
101:23
and letting other people go to war you
101:26
know what I think we’ve done and it’s
101:27
again the advent of social media is that
101:28
we I was speaking with my friend Mark
101:31
about this and we’ve democratized truth
101:34
and when you democratize truth in that
101:36
way the earlier thing you mentioned
101:39
about sports
101:40
that sports and your expertise in their
101:42
field if I had come back at you and
101:44
spoke at you with as much authority as
101:47
you claim in your expertise with having
101:50
absolutely no history in that expertise
101:52
whatsoever and assumed that I have as
101:55
equal right to an unresearched claim to
101:59
truth in my opinion as you do and who
102:01
has a lifetime of experience in that
102:04
field therein lies a problem that I am
102:06
arrogating to myself this notion this
102:09
this this kind of belief that my opinion
102:12
though I’ve got of course I have an
102:13
equally legal right to express it but it
102:15
doesn’t mean it carries the same weight
102:16
as your opinion when it comes to combat
102:18
sports and it shouldn’t unfortunately I
102:20
think what’s happened with the and were
102:22
still you could add you’re expressing
102:24
that opinion as a person of color or as
102:30
therefore it Sun criticize about by you
102:32
because his truth otherwise you’re
102:34
racist and it’s my task the key word
102:36
that it’s my truth you know and so the
102:38
problem with that is when you relativize
102:39
truth in that way is it there now I can
102:41
speak to you on on an equal footing
102:42
about combat sports which only a mad
102:45
person who hasn’t had that history in
102:46
combats what would think would arrogate
102:48
to themselves a right to do so but
102:49
social media I think has allowed for
102:51
that to happen I gave a TED talking
102:54
about I think it was roughly 2011 about
102:55
the the dangers of this happening and
102:57
social media dividing us all but I’d say
103:00
now that that’s if I were to pitch that
103:02
TED talk today I did it that Ted global
103:04
if I were to pitch that TED talk today
103:06
it wouldn’t be accepted because it’s not
103:09
something new now it’s it’s now people
103:10
know that how social medias has divided
103:12
us but back then it was new and
103:15
innovative art in offer as an idea for
103:17
Ted global to say we want you to speak
103:18
about this on and it’s still up online
103:20
but if people watched it today they’d
103:21
think how on earth did that become a TED
103:22
talk um
103:23
because there was this heady day back in
103:27
you know five six seven years ago this
103:29
kind of hope filled moment where
103:31
everyone thought Google Facebook and
103:33
Twitter and generally social media and
103:35
also tech companies were like the good
103:37
guys that these companies weren’t
103:39
actually companies that they were on our
103:41
side against the corporate world and it
103:43
turns out I think we’ve just hit this
103:44
moment he mentioned Zuckerberg we I
103:46
think we’ve culturally come to this
103:47
moment now where you know I think
103:50
symbolized by his testimony of Congress
103:51
that those that honeymoon period is over
103:54
people now view him I think quite firmly
103:57
and squarely as a CEO of a very rich
104:00
company as opposed to a guy in my club
104:04
that I’m friends with who’s on my side
104:05
against the world you know and that’s
104:07
how Google used to have that slogan
104:09
don’t do evil they still have it I mean
104:14
the problem is the the incentives are
104:16
all wrong and I’m sorry I was just at
104:18
Ted and well they give you a sense of
104:20
how far the rot has spread here so I was
104:22
I found myself at a dinner sitting next
104:24
to a neuroscientist who thought that it
104:28
was and this Ezra Klein thing followed
104:32
me around to Ted and I saw because many
104:33
people have listened to the podcast and
104:35
he thought Charles Marie should have
104:38
been physically attacked at Middlebury
104:40
this is a nurse is a neuroscientist
104:42
academic you know what you’re like a
104:45
impeccable person otherwise I think he
104:48
was after we wound up having a fight at
104:50
dinner over it I think he was somewhat
104:52
chagrined by having expressed that
104:53
opinion but I mean that’s how how
104:55
emotionally hijacked people are by this
104:57
issue and but it’s a that’s incredible
105:03
it was the other thing that’s new this
105:05
is the other thing that’s no the left
105:07
advocating for violence this is very new
105:10
yeah yeah I mean I always felt like the
105:12
the left was nonviolent the the whole
105:16
idea behind being progressive like
105:18
non-violence was was a genuine aspect of
105:21
that and free speech yeah two things yes
105:24
those are two things that have been sort
105:25
of stopped that this free speech is fine
105:28
as long as you’re not saying speech that
105:30
I disagree with and non-violence sure
105:33
unless we need to use violence which is
105:35
like and the people that are saying it
105:37
like if you watch these nt4 people like
105:40
Jesus Christ the most incompetent
105:41
violent people you’ve ever seen in your
105:43
life these guys practicing there’s
105:53
videos of anti feh they had they got
105:56
together and decided to train and
105:58
prepare for violence and so they’re
106:00
doing these martial arts classes they
106:02
have people teach them like holy shit
106:03
like the average high school kid could
106:06
fuck you guys up like this is the most
106:08
ridiculous thing I’ve ever seen in my
106:09
life but it’s almost like they’re they
106:11
realize that there’s not that much
106:14
danger in what they’re doing and they
106:16
can kind of play with danger they can
106:18
play with violence they can put the
106:20
masks on there that you know they’re not
106:22
in Israel they’re check out the Gaza
106:24
Strip show they’re a bunch of cowards
106:26
he’s a guy there’s a guy he went to my
106:27
old Universe I graduated from so ask
106:29
before I did my masters at the LSE so s
106:31
has been embroiled in a strike at the
106:32
moment as the Students Union has been
106:34
supporting professors who are on strike
106:36
and it’s over pension and pension rights
106:38
in a refused government refusing to
106:40
raise their pension rights and whatever
106:41
and some of the students came out in
106:43
strike far-left students defending the
106:46
professors and they put up they put
106:47
forward a ring preventing students from
106:49
attending their classes and an a female
106:53
black lecturer wanted to cross the
106:56
strike lines to go in to teach her
106:57
students a white male public school
107:02
educated very very middle class
107:05
protester far left physically attacked
107:08
her he physically attacked a female
107:10
black professor so gone is suddenly gone
107:14
is the white privilege gone is the male
107:16
attacking a female you know gone is all
107:18
of that is non-violence all the above
107:20
the name of ideology he legitimized and
107:23
allowed himself to attack of black
107:25
female by the way oh and she was also
107:26
Muslim black female this white kid is
107:36
just attack for wanting to teach my
107:38
class this is crazy this is crazy crazy
107:41
world we’re in man this is do you are
107:43
you optimistic about the future yeah I
107:50
say that because it’s going to take a
107:52
lifetime’s work and I don’t think that
107:53
in our lifetime much is gonna change I
107:57
think you know maybe for the next
107:59
generation what is it the picture of how
108:04
do you conceive of your job at the
108:05
moment and what what is the status quo I
108:08
mean so say for instance Isis the
108:10
Islamic state is sort of fading from
108:12
most people’s memory now I mean there’s
108:14
you know the even mine I’m spending much
108:16
less time thinking about it because it
108:18
seems to fit so let me tell you story in
108:19
into submission
108:20
can answer this question with a story so
108:22
radical which is my autobiography has a
108:23
u.s. publication right in the UK it’s
108:26
Random House Penguin it’s published by
108:27
the biggest publishing house when I came
108:29
to publish in the US I approached
108:32
publishing houses but it was after bin
108:34
Laden was killed and so when we
108:37
approached ten twenty whatever
108:38
publishing houses the problem solved
108:40
they all said no they say the problem
108:42
solved they said we think you know we
108:44
wish you’d come to us five years earlier
108:45
but problem solved now there’s not a
108:47
problem anymore and and a bit like what
108:50
you mentioned is sort of your expertise
108:51
and and I I have been consumed by this
108:54
subject all my life and there are a few
108:56
people on this planet that I would take
108:58
seriously on this subject outside
109:01
especially of Quilliam and there are
109:02
other organizations they have some
109:04
really good people but I know them all
109:05
and we regularly speak so I would say to
109:08
all these publishing houses I can assure
109:11
you 100% this problem not only has not
109:13
been solved it’s gonna come back around
109:15
in a far worse way than you can ever
109:17
have imagined this is before Isis came
109:19
along none of them believed me of course
109:22
what then happened my cookbook
109:24
eventually got published by some very
109:26
small publishing house in the US and has
109:28
done quite well for them but the point
109:30
of the story was this Isis came around
109:32
and people were suddenly like oh my god
109:34
where did this come from of course those
109:36
of us who had been monitoring the
109:37
situation knew this was going to come
109:39
back around very very heavy now the ISIS
109:42
had been pushed back and and this is
109:44
where this story is sort of the point of
109:45
the story is we’ve got to resist the
109:47
temptation to believe the problem has
109:49
been solved because the the organization
109:51
known as Isis which is an a bureaucracy
109:54
has been fought back but the ideology
109:56
upon which that organization was built
109:59
is still very much alive and it’s still
110:02
strong um what al Qaeda did while the
110:05
whole world was focused on Isis was
110:07
exploit that opportunity to rebuild and
110:10
regroup and they’ve been rebuilding in
110:12
Syria now they are stronger than they
110:15
have ever been even under bin Laden
110:17
because for the first time in the
110:19
history of that organization they are
110:21
firmly embedded within the Syrian
110:23
population as they genuinely kind of
110:25
viewed by the people that they were
110:27
fighting on behalf of as a grassroots
110:29
resistance organization whereas up
110:31
before that they were seen as a a tear
110:33
group that was like a you know just like
110:34
a vanguard they’ve embedded themselves
110:36
in the Syrian population in the Yemeni
110:38
Civil War they’ve embedded themselves in
110:40
North Africa East Africa and in Pakistan
110:42
and they are resurgent and they are
110:45
grooming Hamza Bin Ladin who has been
110:48
add-in son and they’re grooming him for
110:50
leadership and and a time will come
110:51
maybe in a couple of months maybe in a
110:53
couple of years where they announce
110:54
Hamza bin Laden as a new leader of
110:56
al-qaeda currently it’s Ayman Zawahiri
110:58
when they do that once their grooming
111:01
has been complete and assuming hamza
111:03
isn’t killed up until then all of the
111:06
fragments of what remains of isis will
111:09
probably rejoin al qaeda under hamza bin
111:11
Laden and you’ll have a stronger than
111:13
ever before al-qaeda organization and
111:15
we’ve got to we’ve got to remember that
111:17
we never expected Isis to emerge alqaeda
111:19
will come back with a vengeance what is
111:23
the the politics between the remnants of
111:27
Isis and al Qaeda
111:29
well Hamza bin Laden’s succession to the
111:30
leadership solves that problem of the
111:32
biggest the Isis guys well originally
111:35
all al Qaeda Isis was al Qaeda in Syria
111:37
and they broke away after bin Laden died
111:39
because they didn’t they had pledged
111:41
allegiance to bin Laden and the new
111:43
leader of al Qaeda Ayman Zawahiri is by
111:45
all accounts a rather uncharismatic and
111:47
you know he’s a he’s a pediatrician he’s
111:49
not really a kind of bin Laden had the
111:51
Korea’s media Trish yeah he’s a kid he’s
111:53
Egyptian as an Egyptian pediatrician
111:54
from a very well-off Egyptian family by
111:56
the way
111:57
I think his grandfather ambassador bin
112:02
Laden clearly had the charisma the
112:04
wealth the presence the looks he had all
112:07
of it
112:07
that saguaro he doesn’t as worries you
112:10
know compared to bin Laden he just
112:11
doesn’t you know say if the guys that
112:13
broke away from Al Qaeda’s forum Isis
112:15
said to suwari the current leader we
112:17
pledged allegiance to bin Laden we are
112:19
you nothing you’re not our Emir our
112:21
leader
112:22
if humza bin Laden comes back into as
112:25
the leader of al Qaeda it solves that
112:26
problem because those remnants of Isis
112:29
have a loyalty to the bin Laden name and
112:31
their bin Laden family and they remember
112:33
what they consider their glory days
112:34
fighting under under bin Laden that’s
112:39
not nice to hear no no the problem has
112:41
not gone away I can tell you that the
112:43
problem and the problem is the ideology
112:45
and it will not
112:46
be dealt with until we deal with this
112:48
ideology and it’s why it’s so dangerous
112:50
too you know there was this awful term
112:52
that I railed against it was so
112:55
frustrating to see under Obama’s
112:57
presidency the US State Department
112:58
officially adopted as their name for
113:01
challenging this problem they adopted
113:03
the term al Qaeda inspired extremism of
113:07
course it isn’t it isn’t al Qaeda that
113:10
it inspired extremism its extremism that
113:12
inspired al Qaeda and it is for the
113:15
purposes of political correctness you’ve
113:16
got this term and the State Department
113:17
officially that we’re fighting across
113:19
the world we are fighting al Qaeda
113:21
inspired extremism my former
113:24
organization his but to hire a Caliphate
113:26
espousing organization that believes in
113:28
their ideal caliphate that gays should
113:30
be killed adulterous he should be stoned
113:32
to death
113:33
they were there before al Qaeda and this
113:36
ideology has been there before al Qaeda
113:37
al Qaeda was one of a long line of
113:39
groups that came as a result of the
113:41
Islamist ideology and we’ve got to start
113:43
focusing on the ideology itself not the
113:45
physical groups that spring up from it
113:47
because they can change their name as
113:49
you point out there’s a another layer to
113:52
the ideology that is also that is even
113:54
more well subscribed that presents
113:56
social and political problems so freely
113:58
so as you said there are conservative
114:01
Muslims who don’t support al Qaeda
114:03
they’re not jihadist they can they would
114:05
honestly say bin Laden doesn’t represent
114:07
my brand of Islam but these are still
114:10
people who will who will say that
114:12
homosexuals should be killed that’s nice
114:15
oh so it’s like there’s apparent allies
114:18
against quote extremism can still be
114:21
people so with with religiously mandated
114:24
social attitudes that just cannot be
114:26
assimilated in cosmopolitan societies so
114:30
people who are and it may be worse worse
114:34
than worse than al-qaeda inspired
114:36
extremism there’s just this notion that
114:38
on the left and and this was this came
114:40
out of Obama’s mouth and it came out of
114:42
Clinton’s mouth and largely why she
114:44
wasn’t president it’s not it’s just a
114:48
generic extremism right so that like in
114:51
the same sentence that you have to worry
114:53
about the caliphate you have to talk
114:56
about abortion doctors being killed in
114:59
the u.s. once every
115:00
fifteen years so you might cost you
115:01
remember because that President Obama
115:02
refused to use the word Islamist
115:04
extremism Trump has the other problem he
115:06
thinks that bite like Rumpelstiltskin by
115:08
repeating it enough you’ve solved the
115:09
problem you know but but actually one of
115:12
the elements in which he was correctly
115:13
critical of Obama was and I was at the
115:16
time vocally critical of Obama’s
115:17
reluctance to use the word Islamist
115:19
extremism and we’ve got no problem when
115:23
we talk about you know when we talk
115:26
about white supremacist ideology we
115:28
don’t mean that all white people are
115:30
supremacists you know what we’re doing
115:32
here is actually attributing precisely
115:35
specifically what the ideology is and
115:37
believes in white supremacy and likewise
115:40
Islamist you know it’s important so we
115:42
can identify that ideology still while
115:45
not calling it Islam right so we’re
115:48
still giving a bit of a leeway there for
115:49
everybody else all the other Muslims but
115:52
to call it Islamist extremism is to
115:53
recognize that it’s an offshoot of Islam
115:55
it’s a manifestation extreme or
115:56
otherwise of Islam and thereby we are
115:59
acknowledging that its justifications
116:01
are in Islamic Scripture as well as of
116:03
course a multiplicity of other causes
116:05
grievances and what-have-you but we
116:07
cannot ignore that it also rests on
116:09
justifications that are derived from the
116:11
Islamic Scripture I mean I can cite for
116:13
the Arabic that tells you in the Koran
116:15
itself to cut the hand of a thief or to
116:17
lash the adulterer you know these are
116:20
they all quote the hadith or the saying
116:22
of the Prophet that says kill the person
116:23
that changes their religion this is
116:25
scripture and so of course there are
116:27
other factors involved as well but one
116:29
of the factors that gives rise to this
116:31
is the unreformed scripture that these
116:34
extremists cite and so we have to
116:36
acknowledge that Islam has a role to
116:37
play I often say that you know because
116:40
again under the Obama presidency it was
116:42
frustrating that the common refrain was
116:44
to say that Islam this has nothing to do
116:46
with Islam this is absurd as arguing
116:49
that the Spanish Inquisition had nothing
116:50
to do with Catholicism he went even
116:52
further at one point didn’t he at one
116:53
point say that not only does this have
116:55
nothing to do with his mom this has less
116:57
to do with Islam than any other wouldn’t
116:59
tell him it was just he bent over
117:00
backwards it’s not saying the Crusades
117:02
have nothing dude Christianity yeah Oh
117:04
gentlemen unfortunately I have to wrap
117:06
this up but I really appreciate you guys
117:09
coming on it was
117:11
in your book the book is Islam in the
117:15
future of tolerance and actually we’re
117:17
the one thing we do have to announce is
117:19
we’re going to Sydney and Auckland yeah
117:23
two of us and Douglas Murray and both
117:25
Weinstein brothers we’re gonna we’re
117:27
gonna wreck those towns oh my goodness
117:30
we’re gonna have a podcast a day long
117:32
calm I think you want to use that first
117:33
name because I think okay
117:42
no but great to get both of them
117:43
together that room yeah those guys are
117:45
awesome
117:45
yeah I’m really grateful to meet both of
117:47
them and you as well thank you guys
117:49
thank you appreciate is
117:54
[Applause]
117:57
[Music]
