This is a transcript of Lex Fridman Podcast #419 with Sam Altman 2.
The timestamps in the transcript are clickable links that take you directly to that point in
the main video. Please note that the transcript is human generated, and may have errors.
Here are some useful links:
The timestamps in the transcript are clickable links that take you directly to that point in
the main video. Please note that the transcript is human generated, and may have errors.
Here are some useful links:
- Go back to this episode’s main page
- Watch the full YouTube version of the podcast
Table of Contents
Here are the loose “chapters” in the conversation.
Click link to jump approximately to that part in the transcript:
The following is a conversation with Sam Altman, his second time on the podcast. He is the CEO of OpenAI, the company behind GPT-4, ChaTGPT, Sora, and perhaps one day the very company that will build AGI. This is The Lex Fridman Podcast. To support it, please check out our sponsors in the description. And now, dear friends, here’s Sam Altman.
Take me through the OpenAI board saga that started on Thursday, November 16th, maybe Friday, November 17th for you.
So those were decided honestly without… You do that on the battlefield. You don’t have time to design a rigorous process then. For new board members since, and new board members we’ll add going forward, we have some criteria that we think are important for the board to have, different expertise that we want the board to have. Unlike hiring an executive where you need them to do one role well, the board needs to do a whole role of governance and thoughtfulness well, and so, one thing that Brett says which I really like is that we want to hire board members in slates, not as individuals one at a time. And thinking about a group of people that will bring nonprofit expertise, expertise at running companies, good legal and governance expertise, that’s what we’ve tried to optimize for.
And I was like, well, my current job at OpenAI is, or it was, to run a decently sized company at this point. And the thing I’d always liked the most was just getting to work with the researchers. And I was like, yeah, I can just go do a very focused AGI research effort. And I got excited about that. Didn’t even occur to me at the time possibly that this was all going to get undone. This was Friday afternoon.
We kept being told, all right, we’re almost done. We’re almost done. We just need a little bit more time. And it was this very confusing state. And then Sunday evening when, again, every few hours I expected that we were going to be done and we’re going to figure out a way for me to return and things to go back to how they were. The board then appointed a new interim CEO, and then I was like, that feels really bad. That was the low point of the whole thing. I’ll tell you something. It felt very painful, but I felt a lot of love that whole weekend. Other than that one moment Sunday night, I would not characterize my emotions as anger or hate, but I felt a lot of love from people, towards people. It was painful, but the dominant emotion of the weekend was love, not hate.
And then it became clear that we were going to need to do different things and also have huge amounts more capital. So we said, “Okay, well, the structure doesn’t quite work for that. How do we patch the structure?” And then you patch it again and patch it again and you end up with something that does look eyebrow-raising, to say the least. But we got here gradually with, I think, reasonable decisions at each point along the way. And it doesn’t mean I wouldn’t do it totally differently if we could go back now with an Oracle, but you don’t get the Oracle at the time. But anyway, in terms of what Elon’s real motivations here are, I don’t know.
So speaking of cool shit, Sora. There’s like a million questions I could ask. First of all, it’s amazing. It truly is amazing on a product level but also just on a philosophical level. So let me just technical/philosophical ask, what do you think it understands about the world more or less than GPT-4 for example? The world model when you train on these patches versus language tokens.
I remember when I started first watching Sora videos and I would see a person walk in front of something for a few seconds and occlude it and then walk away and the same thing was still there. I was like, “Oh, this is pretty good.” Or there’s examples where the underlying physics looks so well represented over a lot of steps in a sequence, it’s like, “|Oh, this is quite impressive.” But fundamentally, these models are just getting better and that will keep happening. If you look at the trajectory from DALL·E 1 to 2 to 3 to Sora, there are a lot of people that were dunked on each version saying it can’t do this, it can’t do that and look at it now.
Listen, I hate being in front of the camera. If I can figure out a way to not be in front of the camera, I would love it. Unfortunately, it’ll take a while. That generating faces, it is getting there, but generating faces in video format is tricky when it’s specific people versus generic people.
Let me ask you about GPT-4. There’s so many questions. First of all, also amazing. Looking back, it’ll probably be this kind of historic pivotal moment with 3, 5 and 4 which ChatGPT.
One of the other things that you can see a very small glimpse of is when I can help on longer horizon tasks, break down something in multiple steps, maybe execute some of those steps, search the internet, write code, whatever, put that together. When that works, which is not very often, it’s very magical.
You mentioned this collaboration. I’m not sure where the magic is, if it’s in here or if it’s in there or if it’s somewhere in between. I’m not sure. But one of the things that concerns me for knowledge task when I start with GPT is I’ll usually have to do fact checking after, like check that it didn’t come up with fake stuff. How do you figure that out that GPT can come up with fake stuff that sounds really convincing? So how do you ground it in truth?
I think that’s really good. But the fact that people like you and others say you still feel like there are these leaps makes me think that maybe we should be doing our releasing even more iteratively. And I don’t know what that would mean, I don’t have an answer ready to go, but our goal is not to have shock updates to the world. The opposite.
But compute is different. Intelligence is going to be more like energy or something like that, where the only thing that I think makes sense to talk about is, at price X, the world will use this much compute, and at price Y, the world will use this much compute. Because if it’s really cheap, I’ll have it reading my email all day, giving me suggestions about what I maybe should think about or work on, and trying to cure cancer, and if it’s really expensive, maybe I’ll only use it, or we’ll only use it, to try to cure cancer.
So I think the world is going to want a tremendous amount of compute. And there’s a lot of parts of that that are hard. Energy is the hardest part, building data centers is also hard, the supply chain is hard, and then of course, fabricating enough chips is hard. But this seems to be where things are going. We’re going to want an amount of compute that’s just hard to reason about right now.
But I don’t think it’s that interesting to say, “How do we go do a better job of giving you 10 ranked webpages to look at than what Google does?” Maybe it’s really interesting to go say, “How do we help you get the answer or the information you need? How do we help create that in some cases, synthesize that in others, or point you to it in yet others?” But a lot of people have tried to just make a better search engine than Google and it is a hard technical problem, it is a hard branding problem, it is a hard ecosystem problem. I don’t think the world needs another copy of Google.
And I don’t know, we have a very simple business model and I like it, and I know that I’m not the product. I know I’m paying and that’s how the business model works. And when I go use Twitter or Facebook or Google or any other great product but ad-supported great product, I don’t love that, and I think it gets worse, not better, in a world with AI.
Let me ask you about safety, but also bias, and safety in the short term, safety in the long term. The Gemini 1.5 came out recently, there’s a lot of drama around it, speaking of theatrical things, and it generated Black Nazis and Black Founding Fathers. I think fair to say it was a bit on the ultra-woke side. So that’s a concern for people, if there is a human layer within companies that modifies the safety or the harm caused by a model, that it would introduce a lot of bias that fits sort of an ideological lean within a company. How do you deal with that?
Now again, I feel like I can completely defend the specifics here, and I think most people would agree with that, but it does make it harder for me to look you in the eye and say, “Hey, the board can just fire me.” I continue to not want super-voting control over OpenAI. I never have. Never have had it, never wanted it. Even after all this craziness, I still don’t want it. I continue to think that no company should be making these decisions, and that we really need governments to put rules of the road in place.
And I realize that that means people like Marc Andreessen or whatever will claim I’m going for regulatory capture, and I’m just willing to be misunderstood there. It’s not true. And I think in the fullness of time, it’ll get proven out why this is important. But I think I have made plenty of bad decisions for OpenAI along the way, and a lot of good ones, and I’m proud of the track record overall. But I don’t think any one person should, and I don’t think any one person will. I think it’s just too big of a thing now, and it’s happening throughout society in a good and healthy way. But I don’t think any one person should be in control of an AGI, or this whole movement towards AGI. And I don’t think that’s what’s happening.
And then I used to, I think, even capitalize my tweets because I was trying to sound professional or something. I haven’t capitalized my private DMs or whatever in a long time. And then slowly, stuff like shorter-form, less formal stuff has slowly drifted to closer and closer to how I would text my friends. If I pull up a Word document and I’m writing a strategy memo for the company or something, I always capitalize that. If I’m writing a long, more formal message, I always use capitalization there, too. So I still remember how to do it. But even that may fade out. I don’t know. But I never spend time thinking about this, so I don’t have a ready-made-
And you can come up with lots of other examples, but I think this idea that the lowly square root operator can offer such a profound insight and a new realm of knowledge applies in a lot of ways. And I think there are a lot of those operators for why people may think that any version that they like of the simulation hypothesis is maybe more likely than they thought before. But for me, the fact that Sora worked is not in the top five.
Click link to jump approximately to that part in the transcript:
- 0:00 – Introduction
- 1:05 – OpenAI board saga
- 18:31 – Ilya Sutskever
- 24:40 – Elon Musk lawsuit
- 34:32 – Sora
- 44:23 – GPT-4
- 55:32 – Memory & privacy
- 1:02:36 – Q*
- 1:06:12 – GPT-5
- 1:09:27 – $7 trillion of compute
- 1:17:35 – Google and Gemini
- 1:28:40 – Leap to GPT-5
- 1:32:24 – AGI
- 1:50:57 – Aliens
Introduction
Sam Altman
I think compute is going to be the currency of the future. I think it’ll be maybe the most precious commodity in the world. I expect that by the end of this decade, and possibly somewhat sooner than that, we will have quite capable systems that we look at and say, “Wow, that’s really remarkable.” The road to AGI should be a giant power struggle. I expect that to be the case.
I think compute is going to be the currency of the future. I think it’ll be maybe the most precious commodity in the world. I expect that by the end of this decade, and possibly somewhat sooner than that, we will have quite capable systems that we look at and say, “Wow, that’s really remarkable.” The road to AGI should be a giant power struggle. I expect that to be the case.
Lex Fridman
Whoever builds AGI first gets a lot of power. Do you trust yourself with that much power?
Whoever builds AGI first gets a lot of power. Do you trust yourself with that much power?
The following is a conversation with Sam Altman, his second time on the podcast. He is the CEO of OpenAI, the company behind GPT-4, ChaTGPT, Sora, and perhaps one day the very company that will build AGI. This is The Lex Fridman Podcast. To support it, please check out our sponsors in the description. And now, dear friends, here’s Sam Altman.
OpenAI board saga
Take me through the OpenAI board saga that started on Thursday, November 16th, maybe Friday, November 17th for you.
Sam Altman
That was definitely the most painful professional experience of my life, and chaotic and shameful and upsetting and a bunch of other negative things. There were great things about it too, and I wish it had not been in such an adrenaline rush that I wasn’t able to stop and appreciate them at the time. But I came across this old tweet of mine or this tweet of mine from that time period. It was like going your own eulogy, watching people say all these great things about you, and just unbelievable support from people I love and care about. That was really nice, really nice. That whole weekend, with one big exception, I felt like a great deal of love and very little hate, even though it felt like I have no idea what’s happening and what’s going to happen here and this feels really bad. And there were definitely times I thought it was going to be one of the worst things to ever happen for AI safety. Well, I also think I’m happy that it happened relatively early. I thought at some point between when OpenAI started and when we created AGI, there was going to be something crazy and explosive that happened, but there may be more crazy and explosive things still to happen. It still, I think, helped us build up some resilience and be ready for more challenges in the future.
That was definitely the most painful professional experience of my life, and chaotic and shameful and upsetting and a bunch of other negative things. There were great things about it too, and I wish it had not been in such an adrenaline rush that I wasn’t able to stop and appreciate them at the time. But I came across this old tweet of mine or this tweet of mine from that time period. It was like going your own eulogy, watching people say all these great things about you, and just unbelievable support from people I love and care about. That was really nice, really nice. That whole weekend, with one big exception, I felt like a great deal of love and very little hate, even though it felt like I have no idea what’s happening and what’s going to happen here and this feels really bad. And there were definitely times I thought it was going to be one of the worst things to ever happen for AI safety. Well, I also think I’m happy that it happened relatively early. I thought at some point between when OpenAI started and when we created AGI, there was going to be something crazy and explosive that happened, but there may be more crazy and explosive things still to happen. It still, I think, helped us build up some resilience and be ready for more challenges in the future.
Lex Fridman
But the thing you had a sense that you would experience is some kind of power struggle?
But the thing you had a sense that you would experience is some kind of power struggle?
Sam Altman
The road to AGI should be a giant power struggle. The world should… Well, not should. I expect that to be the case.
The road to AGI should be a giant power struggle. The world should… Well, not should. I expect that to be the case.
Lex Fridman
And so you have to go through that, like you said, iterate as often as possible in figuring out how to have a board structure, how to have organization, how to have the kind of people that you’re working with, how to communicate all that in order to deescalate the power struggle as much as possible.
And so you have to go through that, like you said, iterate as often as possible in figuring out how to have a board structure, how to have organization, how to have the kind of people that you’re working with, how to communicate all that in order to deescalate the power struggle as much as possible.
Sam Altman
Yeah.
Yeah.
Lex Fridman
Pacify it.
Pacify it.
Sam Altman
But at this point, it feels like something that was in the past that was really unpleasant and really difficult and painful, but we’re back to work and things are so busy and so intense that I don’t spend a lot of time thinking about it. There was a time after, there was this fugue state for the month after, maybe 45 days after, that I was just drifting through the days. I was so out of it. I was feeling so down.
But at this point, it feels like something that was in the past that was really unpleasant and really difficult and painful, but we’re back to work and things are so busy and so intense that I don’t spend a lot of time thinking about it. There was a time after, there was this fugue state for the month after, maybe 45 days after, that I was just drifting through the days. I was so out of it. I was feeling so down.
Lex Fridman
Just on a personal, psychological level?
Just on a personal, psychological level?
Sam Altman
Yeah. Really painful, and hard to have to keep running OpenAI in the middle of that. I just wanted to crawl into a cave and recover for a while. But now it’s like we’re just back to working on the mission.
Yeah. Really painful, and hard to have to keep running OpenAI in the middle of that. I just wanted to crawl into a cave and recover for a while. But now it’s like we’re just back to working on the mission.
Lex Fridman
Well, it’s still useful to go back there and reflect on board structures, on power dynamics, on how companies are run, the tension between research and product development and money and all this kind of stuff so that you, who have a very high potential of building AGI, would do so in a slightly more organized, less dramatic way in the future. So there’s value there to go, both the personal psychological aspects of you as a leader, and also just the board structure and all this messy stuff.
Well, it’s still useful to go back there and reflect on board structures, on power dynamics, on how companies are run, the tension between research and product development and money and all this kind of stuff so that you, who have a very high potential of building AGI, would do so in a slightly more organized, less dramatic way in the future. So there’s value there to go, both the personal psychological aspects of you as a leader, and also just the board structure and all this messy stuff.
Sam Altman
I definitely learned a lot about structure and incentives and what we need out of a board. And I think that it is valuable that this happened now in some sense. I think this is probably not the last high-stress moment of OpenAI, but it was quite a high-stress moment. My company very nearly got destroyed. And we think a lot about many of the other things we’ve got to get right for AGI, but thinking about how to build a resilient org and how to build a structure that will stand up to a lot of pressure in the world, which I expect more and more as we get closer, I think that’s super important.
I definitely learned a lot about structure and incentives and what we need out of a board. And I think that it is valuable that this happened now in some sense. I think this is probably not the last high-stress moment of OpenAI, but it was quite a high-stress moment. My company very nearly got destroyed. And we think a lot about many of the other things we’ve got to get right for AGI, but thinking about how to build a resilient org and how to build a structure that will stand up to a lot of pressure in the world, which I expect more and more as we get closer, I think that’s super important.
Lex Fridman
Do you have a sense of how deep and rigorous the deliberation process by the board was? Can you shine some light on just human dynamics involved in situations like this? Was it just a few conversations and all of a sudden it escalates and why don’t we fire Sam kind of thing?
Do you have a sense of how deep and rigorous the deliberation process by the board was? Can you shine some light on just human dynamics involved in situations like this? Was it just a few conversations and all of a sudden it escalates and why don’t we fire Sam kind of thing?
Sam Altman
I think the board members are well-meaning people on the whole, and I believe that in stressful situations where people feel time pressure or whatever, people understand and make suboptimal decisions. And I think one of the challenges for OpenAI will be we’re going to have to have a board and a team that are good at operating under pressure.
I think the board members are well-meaning people on the whole, and I believe that in stressful situations where people feel time pressure or whatever, people understand and make suboptimal decisions. And I think one of the challenges for OpenAI will be we’re going to have to have a board and a team that are good at operating under pressure.
Lex Fridman
Do you think the board had too much power?
Do you think the board had too much power?
Sam Altman
I think boards are supposed to have a lot of power, but one of the things that we did see is in most corporate structures, boards are usually answerable to shareholders. Sometimes people have super voting shares or whatever. In this case, and I think one of the things with our structure that we maybe should have thought about more than we did is that the board of a nonprofit has, unless you put other rules in place, quite a lot of power. They don’t really answer to anyone but themselves. And there’s ways in which that’s good, but what we’d really like is for the board of OpenAI to answer to the world as a whole, as much as that’s a practical thing.
I think boards are supposed to have a lot of power, but one of the things that we did see is in most corporate structures, boards are usually answerable to shareholders. Sometimes people have super voting shares or whatever. In this case, and I think one of the things with our structure that we maybe should have thought about more than we did is that the board of a nonprofit has, unless you put other rules in place, quite a lot of power. They don’t really answer to anyone but themselves. And there’s ways in which that’s good, but what we’d really like is for the board of OpenAI to answer to the world as a whole, as much as that’s a practical thing.
Lex Fridman
So there’s a new board announced.
So there’s a new board announced.
Sam Altman
Yeah.
Yeah.
Lex Fridman
There’s I guess a new smaller board at first, and now there’s a new final board?
There’s I guess a new smaller board at first, and now there’s a new final board?
Sam Altman
Not a final board yet. We’ve added some. We’ll add more.
Not a final board yet. We’ve added some. We’ll add more.
Lex Fridman
Added some. Okay. What is fixed in the new one that was perhaps broken in the previous one?
Added some. Okay. What is fixed in the new one that was perhaps broken in the previous one?
Sam Altman
The old board got smaller over the course of about a year. It was nine and then it went down to six, and then we couldn’t agree on who to add. And the board also I think didn’t have a lot of experienced board members, and a lot of the new board members at OpenAI have just have more experience as board members. I think that’ll help.
The old board got smaller over the course of about a year. It was nine and then it went down to six, and then we couldn’t agree on who to add. And the board also I think didn’t have a lot of experienced board members, and a lot of the new board members at OpenAI have just have more experience as board members. I think that’ll help.
Lex Fridman
It’s been criticized, some of the people that are added to the board. I heard a lot of people criticizing the addition of Larry Summers, for example. What’s the process of selecting the board? What’s involved in that?
It’s been criticized, some of the people that are added to the board. I heard a lot of people criticizing the addition of Larry Summers, for example. What’s the process of selecting the board? What’s involved in that?
Sam Altman
So Brett and Larry were decided in the heat of the moment over this very tense weekend, and that weekend was a real rollercoaster. It was a lot of ups and downs. And we were trying to agree on new board members that both the executive team here and the old board members felt would be reasonable. Larry was actually one of their suggestions, the old board members. Brett, I think I had even previous to that weekend suggested, but he was busy and didn’t want to do it, and then we really needed help in [inaudible 00:09:22]. We talked about a lot of other people too, but I felt like if I was going to come back, I needed new board members. I didn’t think I could work with the old board again in the same configuration, although we then decided, and I’m grateful that Adam would stay, but we considered various configurations, decided we wanted to get to a board of three and had to find two new board members over the course of a short period of time.
So Brett and Larry were decided in the heat of the moment over this very tense weekend, and that weekend was a real rollercoaster. It was a lot of ups and downs. And we were trying to agree on new board members that both the executive team here and the old board members felt would be reasonable. Larry was actually one of their suggestions, the old board members. Brett, I think I had even previous to that weekend suggested, but he was busy and didn’t want to do it, and then we really needed help in [inaudible 00:09:22]. We talked about a lot of other people too, but I felt like if I was going to come back, I needed new board members. I didn’t think I could work with the old board again in the same configuration, although we then decided, and I’m grateful that Adam would stay, but we considered various configurations, decided we wanted to get to a board of three and had to find two new board members over the course of a short period of time.
So those were decided honestly without… You do that on the battlefield. You don’t have time to design a rigorous process then. For new board members since, and new board members we’ll add going forward, we have some criteria that we think are important for the board to have, different expertise that we want the board to have. Unlike hiring an executive where you need them to do one role well, the board needs to do a whole role of governance and thoughtfulness well, and so, one thing that Brett says which I really like is that we want to hire board members in slates, not as individuals one at a time. And thinking about a group of people that will bring nonprofit expertise, expertise at running companies, good legal and governance expertise, that’s what we’ve tried to optimize for.
Lex Fridman
So is technical savvy important for the individual board members?
So is technical savvy important for the individual board members?
Sam Altman
Not for every board member, but for certainly some you need that. That’s part of what the board needs to do.
Not for every board member, but for certainly some you need that. That’s part of what the board needs to do.
Lex Fridman
The interesting thing that people probably don’t understand about OpenAI, I certainly don’t, is all the details of running the business. When they think about the board, given the drama, they think about you. They think about if you reach AGI or you reach some of these incredibly impactful products and you build them and deploy them, what’s the conversation with the board like? And they think, all right, what’s the right squad to have in that kind of situation to deliberate?
The interesting thing that people probably don’t understand about OpenAI, I certainly don’t, is all the details of running the business. When they think about the board, given the drama, they think about you. They think about if you reach AGI or you reach some of these incredibly impactful products and you build them and deploy them, what’s the conversation with the board like? And they think, all right, what’s the right squad to have in that kind of situation to deliberate?
Sam Altman
Look, I think you definitely need some technical experts there. And then you need some people who are like, “How can we deploy this in a way that will help people in the world the most?” And people who have a very different perspective. I think a mistake that you or I might make is to think that only the technical understanding matters, and that’s definitely part of the conversation you want that board to have, but there’s a lot more about how that’s going to just impact society and people’s lives that you really want represented in there too.
Look, I think you definitely need some technical experts there. And then you need some people who are like, “How can we deploy this in a way that will help people in the world the most?” And people who have a very different perspective. I think a mistake that you or I might make is to think that only the technical understanding matters, and that’s definitely part of the conversation you want that board to have, but there’s a lot more about how that’s going to just impact society and people’s lives that you really want represented in there too.
Lex Fridman
Are you looking at the track record of people or you’re just having conversations?
Are you looking at the track record of people or you’re just having conversations?
Sam Altman
Track record is a big deal. You of course have a lot of conversations, but there are some roles where I totally ignore track record and just look at slope, ignore the Y-intercept.
Track record is a big deal. You of course have a lot of conversations, but there are some roles where I totally ignore track record and just look at slope, ignore the Y-intercept.
Lex Fridman
Thank you. Thank you for making it mathematical for the audience.
Thank you. Thank you for making it mathematical for the audience.
Sam Altman
For a board member, I do care much more about the Y-intercept. I think there is something deep to say about track record there, and experience is something’s very hard to replace.
For a board member, I do care much more about the Y-intercept. I think there is something deep to say about track record there, and experience is something’s very hard to replace.
Lex Fridman
Do you try to fit a polynomial function or exponential one to the track record?
Do you try to fit a polynomial function or exponential one to the track record?
Sam Altman
That analogy doesn’t carry that far.
That analogy doesn’t carry that far.
Lex Fridman
All right. You mentioned some of the low points that weekend. What were some of the low points psychologically for you? Did you consider going to the Amazon jungle and just taking ayahuasca and disappearing forever?
All right. You mentioned some of the low points that weekend. What were some of the low points psychologically for you? Did you consider going to the Amazon jungle and just taking ayahuasca and disappearing forever?
Sam Altman
It was a very bad period of time. There were great high points too. My phone was just nonstop blowing up with nice messages from people I worked with every day, people I hadn’t talked to in a decade. I didn’t get to appreciate that as much as I should have because I was just in the middle of this firefight, but that was really nice. But on the whole, it was a very painful weekend. It was like a battle fought in public to a surprising degree, and that was extremely exhausting to me, much more than I expected. I think fights are generally exhausting, but this one really was. The board did this Friday afternoon. I really couldn’t get much in the way of answers, but I also was just like, well, the board gets to do this, so I’m going to think for a little bit about what I want to do, but I’ll try to find the blessing in disguise here.
It was a very bad period of time. There were great high points too. My phone was just nonstop blowing up with nice messages from people I worked with every day, people I hadn’t talked to in a decade. I didn’t get to appreciate that as much as I should have because I was just in the middle of this firefight, but that was really nice. But on the whole, it was a very painful weekend. It was like a battle fought in public to a surprising degree, and that was extremely exhausting to me, much more than I expected. I think fights are generally exhausting, but this one really was. The board did this Friday afternoon. I really couldn’t get much in the way of answers, but I also was just like, well, the board gets to do this, so I’m going to think for a little bit about what I want to do, but I’ll try to find the blessing in disguise here.
And I was like, well, my current job at OpenAI is, or it was, to run a decently sized company at this point. And the thing I’d always liked the most was just getting to work with the researchers. And I was like, yeah, I can just go do a very focused AGI research effort. And I got excited about that. Didn’t even occur to me at the time possibly that this was all going to get undone. This was Friday afternoon.
Lex Fridman
So you’ve accepted the death of this-
So you’ve accepted the death of this-
Sam Altman
Very quickly. Very quickly. I went through a little period of confusion and rage, but very quickly, quickly. And by Friday night, I was talking to people about what was going to be next, and I was excited about that. I think it was Friday evening for the first time that I heard from the exec team here, which is like, “Hey, we’re going to fight this.” and then I went to bed just still being like, okay, excited. Onward.
Very quickly. Very quickly. I went through a little period of confusion and rage, but very quickly, quickly. And by Friday night, I was talking to people about what was going to be next, and I was excited about that. I think it was Friday evening for the first time that I heard from the exec team here, which is like, “Hey, we’re going to fight this.” and then I went to bed just still being like, okay, excited. Onward.
Lex Fridman
Were you able to sleep?
Were you able to sleep?
Sam Altman
Not a lot. One of the weird things was there was this period of four and a half days where I didn’t sleep much, didn’t eat much, and still had a surprising amount of energy. You learn a weird thing about adrenaline in wartime.
Not a lot. One of the weird things was there was this period of four and a half days where I didn’t sleep much, didn’t eat much, and still had a surprising amount of energy. You learn a weird thing about adrenaline in wartime.
Lex Fridman
So you accepted the death of this baby, OpenAI.
So you accepted the death of this baby, OpenAI.
Sam Altman
And I was excited for the new thing. I was just like, “Okay, this was crazy, but whatever.”
And I was excited for the new thing. I was just like, “Okay, this was crazy, but whatever.”
Lex Fridman
It’s a very good coping mechanism.
It’s a very good coping mechanism.
Sam Altman
And then Saturday morning, two of the board members called and said, “Hey, we didn’t mean to destabilize things. We don’t want to store a lot of value here. Can we talk about you coming back?” And I immediately didn’t want to do that, but I thought a little more and I was like, well, I really care about the people here, the partners, shareholders. I love this company. And so I thought about it and I was like, “Well, okay, but here’s the stuff I would need.” And then the most painful time of all was over the course of that weekend, I kept thinking and being told, and not just me, the whole team here kept thinking, well, we were trying to keep OpenAI stabilized while the whole world was trying to break it apart, people trying to recruit whatever.
And then Saturday morning, two of the board members called and said, “Hey, we didn’t mean to destabilize things. We don’t want to store a lot of value here. Can we talk about you coming back?” And I immediately didn’t want to do that, but I thought a little more and I was like, well, I really care about the people here, the partners, shareholders. I love this company. And so I thought about it and I was like, “Well, okay, but here’s the stuff I would need.” And then the most painful time of all was over the course of that weekend, I kept thinking and being told, and not just me, the whole team here kept thinking, well, we were trying to keep OpenAI stabilized while the whole world was trying to break it apart, people trying to recruit whatever.
We kept being told, all right, we’re almost done. We’re almost done. We just need a little bit more time. And it was this very confusing state. And then Sunday evening when, again, every few hours I expected that we were going to be done and we’re going to figure out a way for me to return and things to go back to how they were. The board then appointed a new interim CEO, and then I was like, that feels really bad. That was the low point of the whole thing. I’ll tell you something. It felt very painful, but I felt a lot of love that whole weekend. Other than that one moment Sunday night, I would not characterize my emotions as anger or hate, but I felt a lot of love from people, towards people. It was painful, but the dominant emotion of the weekend was love, not hate.
Lex Fridman
You’ve spoken highly of Mira Murati, that she helped especially, as you put in the tweet, in the quiet moments when it counts. Perhaps we could take a bit of a tangent. What do you admire about Mira?
You’ve spoken highly of Mira Murati, that she helped especially, as you put in the tweet, in the quiet moments when it counts. Perhaps we could take a bit of a tangent. What do you admire about Mira?
Sam Altman
Well, she did a great job during that weekend in a lot of chaos, but people often see leaders in the crisis moments, good or bad. But a thing I really value in leaders is how people act on a boring Tuesday at 9:46 in the morning and in just the normal drudgery of the day-to-day. How someone shows up in a meeting, the quality of the decisions they make. That was what I meant about the quiet moments.
Well, she did a great job during that weekend in a lot of chaos, but people often see leaders in the crisis moments, good or bad. But a thing I really value in leaders is how people act on a boring Tuesday at 9:46 in the morning and in just the normal drudgery of the day-to-day. How someone shows up in a meeting, the quality of the decisions they make. That was what I meant about the quiet moments.
Lex Fridman
Meaning most of the work is done on a day-by-day, in meeting-by-meeting. Just be present and make great decisions.
Meaning most of the work is done on a day-by-day, in meeting-by-meeting. Just be present and make great decisions.
Sam Altman
Yeah. Look, what you have wanted to spend the last 20 minutes about, and I understand, is this one very dramatic weekend, but that’s not really what OpenAI is about. OpenAI is really about the other seven years.
Yeah. Look, what you have wanted to spend the last 20 minutes about, and I understand, is this one very dramatic weekend, but that’s not really what OpenAI is about. OpenAI is really about the other seven years.
Lex Fridman
Well, yeah. Human civilization is not about the invasion of the Soviet Union by Nazi Germany, but still that’s something people focus on.
Well, yeah. Human civilization is not about the invasion of the Soviet Union by Nazi Germany, but still that’s something people focus on.
Sam Altman
Very understandable.
Very understandable.
Lex Fridman
It gives us an insight into human nature, the extremes of human nature, and perhaps some of the damage in some of the triumphs of human civilization can happen in those moments, so it’s illustrative. Let me ask you about Ilya. Is he being held hostage in a secret nuclear facility?
It gives us an insight into human nature, the extremes of human nature, and perhaps some of the damage in some of the triumphs of human civilization can happen in those moments, so it’s illustrative. Let me ask you about Ilya. Is he being held hostage in a secret nuclear facility?
Ilya Sutskever
Sam Altman
No.
No.
Lex Fridman
What about a regular secret facility?
What about a regular secret facility?
Sam Altman
No.
No.
Lex Fridman
What about a nuclear non-secret facility?
What about a nuclear non-secret facility?
Sam Altman
Neither. Not that either.
Neither. Not that either.
Lex Fridman
This is becoming a meme at some point. You’ve known Ilya for a long time. He was obviously part of this drama with the board and all that kind of stuff. What’s your relationship with him now?
This is becoming a meme at some point. You’ve known Ilya for a long time. He was obviously part of this drama with the board and all that kind of stuff. What’s your relationship with him now?
Sam Altman
I love Ilya. I have tremendous respect for Ilya. I don’t have anything I can say about his plans right now. That’s a question for him, but I really hope we work together for certainly the rest of my career. He’s a little bit younger than me. Maybe he works a little bit longer.
I love Ilya. I have tremendous respect for Ilya. I don’t have anything I can say about his plans right now. That’s a question for him, but I really hope we work together for certainly the rest of my career. He’s a little bit younger than me. Maybe he works a little bit longer.
Lex Fridman
There’s a meme that he saw something, like he maybe saw AGI and that gave him a lot of worry internally. What did Ilya see?
There’s a meme that he saw something, like he maybe saw AGI and that gave him a lot of worry internally. What did Ilya see?
Sam Altman
Ilya has not seen AGI. None of us have seen AGI. We’ve not built AGI. I do think one of the many things that I really love about Ilya is he takes AGI and the safety concerns, broadly speaking, including things like the impact this is going to have on society, very seriously. And as we continue to make significant progress, Ilya is one of the people that I’ve spent the most time over the last couple of years talking about what this is going to mean, what we need to do to ensure we get it right, to ensure that we succeed at the mission. So Ilya did not see AGI, but Ilya is a credit to humanity in terms of how much he thinks and worries about making sure we get this right.
Ilya has not seen AGI. None of us have seen AGI. We’ve not built AGI. I do think one of the many things that I really love about Ilya is he takes AGI and the safety concerns, broadly speaking, including things like the impact this is going to have on society, very seriously. And as we continue to make significant progress, Ilya is one of the people that I’ve spent the most time over the last couple of years talking about what this is going to mean, what we need to do to ensure we get it right, to ensure that we succeed at the mission. So Ilya did not see AGI, but Ilya is a credit to humanity in terms of how much he thinks and worries about making sure we get this right.
Lex Fridman
I’ve had a bunch of conversation with him in the past. I think when he talks about technology, he’s always doing this long-term thinking type of thing. So he is not thinking about what this is going to be in a year. He’s thinking about in 10 years, just thinking from first principles like, “Okay, if this scales, what are the fundamentals here? Where’s this going?” And so that’s a foundation for them thinking about all the other safety concerns and all that kind of stuff, which makes him a really fascinating human to talk with. Do you have any idea why he’s been quiet? Is it he’s just doing some soul-searching?
I’ve had a bunch of conversation with him in the past. I think when he talks about technology, he’s always doing this long-term thinking type of thing. So he is not thinking about what this is going to be in a year. He’s thinking about in 10 years, just thinking from first principles like, “Okay, if this scales, what are the fundamentals here? Where’s this going?” And so that’s a foundation for them thinking about all the other safety concerns and all that kind of stuff, which makes him a really fascinating human to talk with. Do you have any idea why he’s been quiet? Is it he’s just doing some soul-searching?
Sam Altman
Again, I don’t want to speak for Ilya. I think that you should ask him that. He’s definitely a thoughtful guy. I think Ilya is always on a soul search in a really good way.
Again, I don’t want to speak for Ilya. I think that you should ask him that. He’s definitely a thoughtful guy. I think Ilya is always on a soul search in a really good way.
Lex Fridman
Yes. Yeah. Also, he appreciates the power of silence. Also, I’m told he can be a silly guy, which I’ve never seen that side of him.
Yes. Yeah. Also, he appreciates the power of silence. Also, I’m told he can be a silly guy, which I’ve never seen that side of him.
Sam Altman
It’s very sweet when that happens.
It’s very sweet when that happens.
Lex Fridman
I’ve never witnessed a silly Ilya, but I look forward to that as well.
I’ve never witnessed a silly Ilya, but I look forward to that as well.
Sam Altman
I was at a dinner party with him recently and he was playing with a puppy and he was in a very silly mood, very endearing. And I was thinking, oh man, this is not the side of Ilya that the world sees the most.
I was at a dinner party with him recently and he was playing with a puppy and he was in a very silly mood, very endearing. And I was thinking, oh man, this is not the side of Ilya that the world sees the most.
Lex Fridman
So just to wrap up this whole saga, are you feeling good about the board structure-
So just to wrap up this whole saga, are you feeling good about the board structure-
Sam Altman
Yes.
Yes.
Lex Fridman
… about all of this and where it’s moving?
… about all of this and where it’s moving?
Sam Altman
I feel great about the new board. In terms of the structure of OpenAI, one of the board’s tasks is to look at that and see where we can make it more robust. We wanted to get new board members in place first, but we clearly learned a lesson about structure throughout this process. I don’t have, I think, super deep things to say. It was a crazy, very painful experience. I think it was a perfect storm of weirdness. It was a preview for me of what’s going to happen as the stakes get higher and higher and the need that we have robust governance structures and processes and people. I’m happy it happened when it did, but it was a shockingly painful thing to go through.
I feel great about the new board. In terms of the structure of OpenAI, one of the board’s tasks is to look at that and see where we can make it more robust. We wanted to get new board members in place first, but we clearly learned a lesson about structure throughout this process. I don’t have, I think, super deep things to say. It was a crazy, very painful experience. I think it was a perfect storm of weirdness. It was a preview for me of what’s going to happen as the stakes get higher and higher and the need that we have robust governance structures and processes and people. I’m happy it happened when it did, but it was a shockingly painful thing to go through.
Lex Fridman
Did it make you be more hesitant in trusting people?
Did it make you be more hesitant in trusting people?
Sam Altman
Yes.
Yes.
Lex Fridman
Just on a personal level?
Just on a personal level?
Sam Altman
Yes. I think I’m like an extremely trusting person. I’ve always had a life philosophy of don’t worry about all of the paranoia. Don’t worry about the edge cases. You get a little bit screwed in exchange for getting to live with your guard down. And this was so shocking to me. I was so caught off guard that it has definitely changed, and I really don’t like this, it’s definitely changed how I think about just default trust of people and planning for the bad scenarios.
Yes. I think I’m like an extremely trusting person. I’ve always had a life philosophy of don’t worry about all of the paranoia. Don’t worry about the edge cases. You get a little bit screwed in exchange for getting to live with your guard down. And this was so shocking to me. I was so caught off guard that it has definitely changed, and I really don’t like this, it’s definitely changed how I think about just default trust of people and planning for the bad scenarios.
Lex Fridman
You got to be careful with that. Are you worried about becoming a little too cynical?
You got to be careful with that. Are you worried about becoming a little too cynical?
Sam Altman
I’m not worried about becoming too cynical. I think I’m the extreme opposite of a cynical person, but I’m worried about just becoming less of a default trusting person.
I’m not worried about becoming too cynical. I think I’m the extreme opposite of a cynical person, but I’m worried about just becoming less of a default trusting person.
Lex Fridman
I’m actually not sure which mode is best to operate in for a person who’s developing AGI, trusting or un-trusting. It’s an interesting journey you’re on. But in terms of structure, see, I’m more interested on the human level. How do you surround yourself with humans that are building cool shit, but also are making wise decisions? Because the more money you start making, the more power the thing has, the weirder people get.
I’m actually not sure which mode is best to operate in for a person who’s developing AGI, trusting or un-trusting. It’s an interesting journey you’re on. But in terms of structure, see, I’m more interested on the human level. How do you surround yourself with humans that are building cool shit, but also are making wise decisions? Because the more money you start making, the more power the thing has, the weirder people get.
Sam Altman
I think you could make all kinds of comments about the board members and the level of trust I should have had there, or how I should have done things differently. But in terms of the team here, I think you’d have to give me a very good grade on that one. And I have just enormous gratitude and trust and respect for the people that I work with every day, and I think being surrounded with people like that is really important.
I think you could make all kinds of comments about the board members and the level of trust I should have had there, or how I should have done things differently. But in terms of the team here, I think you’d have to give me a very good grade on that one. And I have just enormous gratitude and trust and respect for the people that I work with every day, and I think being surrounded with people like that is really important.
Elon Musk lawsuit
Lex Fridman
Our mutual friend Elon sued OpenAI. What to you is the essence of what he’s criticizing? To what degree does he have a point? To what degree is he wrong?
Our mutual friend Elon sued OpenAI. What to you is the essence of what he’s criticizing? To what degree does he have a point? To what degree is he wrong?
Sam Altman
I don’t know what it’s really about. We started off just thinking we were going to be a research lab and having no idea about how this technology was going to go. Because it was only seven or eight years ago, it’s hard to go back and really remember what it was like then, but this is before language models were a big deal. This was before we had any idea about an API or selling access to a chatbot. It was before we had any idea we were going to productize at all. So we’re like, “We’re just going to try to do research and we don’t really know what we’re going to do with that.” I think with many fundamentally new things, you start fumbling through the dark and you make some assumptions, most of which turned out to be wrong.
I don’t know what it’s really about. We started off just thinking we were going to be a research lab and having no idea about how this technology was going to go. Because it was only seven or eight years ago, it’s hard to go back and really remember what it was like then, but this is before language models were a big deal. This was before we had any idea about an API or selling access to a chatbot. It was before we had any idea we were going to productize at all. So we’re like, “We’re just going to try to do research and we don’t really know what we’re going to do with that.” I think with many fundamentally new things, you start fumbling through the dark and you make some assumptions, most of which turned out to be wrong.
And then it became clear that we were going to need to do different things and also have huge amounts more capital. So we said, “Okay, well, the structure doesn’t quite work for that. How do we patch the structure?” And then you patch it again and patch it again and you end up with something that does look eyebrow-raising, to say the least. But we got here gradually with, I think, reasonable decisions at each point along the way. And it doesn’t mean I wouldn’t do it totally differently if we could go back now with an Oracle, but you don’t get the Oracle at the time. But anyway, in terms of what Elon’s real motivations here are, I don’t know.
Lex Fridman
To the degree you remember, what was the response that OpenAI gave in the blog post? Can you summarize it?
To the degree you remember, what was the response that OpenAI gave in the blog post? Can you summarize it?
Sam Altman
Oh, we just said Elon said this set of things. Here’s our characterization, or here’s not our characterization. Here’s the characterization of how this went down. We tried to not make it emotional and just say, “Here’s the history.”
Oh, we just said Elon said this set of things. Here’s our characterization, or here’s not our characterization. Here’s the characterization of how this went down. We tried to not make it emotional and just say, “Here’s the history.”
Lex Fridman
I do think there’s a degree of mischaracterization from Elon here about one of the points you just made, which is the degree of uncertainty you had at the time. You guys are a small group of researchers crazily talking about AGI when everybody’s laughing at that thought.
I do think there’s a degree of mischaracterization from Elon here about one of the points you just made, which is the degree of uncertainty you had at the time. You guys are a small group of researchers crazily talking about AGI when everybody’s laughing at that thought.
Sam Altman
It wasn’t that long ago Elon was crazily talking about launching rockets when people were laughing at that thought, so I think he’d have more empathy for this.
It wasn’t that long ago Elon was crazily talking about launching rockets when people were laughing at that thought, so I think he’d have more empathy for this.
Lex Fridman
I do think that there’s personal stuff here, that there was a split that OpenAI and a lot of amazing people here chose to part ways with Elon, so there’s a personal-
I do think that there’s personal stuff here, that there was a split that OpenAI and a lot of amazing people here chose to part ways with Elon, so there’s a personal-
Sam Altman
Elon chose to part ways.
Elon chose to part ways.
Lex Fridman
Can you describe that exactly? The choosing to part ways?
Can you describe that exactly? The choosing to part ways?
Sam Altman
He thought OpenAI was going to fail. He wanted total control to turn it around. We wanted to keep going in the direction that now has become OpenAI. He also wanted Tesla to be able to build an AGI effort. At various times, he wanted to make OpenAI into a for-profit company that he could have control of or have it merge with Tesla. We didn’t want to do that, and he decided to leave, which that’s fine.
He thought OpenAI was going to fail. He wanted total control to turn it around. We wanted to keep going in the direction that now has become OpenAI. He also wanted Tesla to be able to build an AGI effort. At various times, he wanted to make OpenAI into a for-profit company that he could have control of or have it merge with Tesla. We didn’t want to do that, and he decided to leave, which that’s fine.
Lex Fridman
So you’re saying, and that’s one of the things that the blog post says, is that he wanted OpenAI to be basically acquired by Tesla in the same way that, or maybe something similar or maybe something more dramatic than the partnership with Microsoft.
So you’re saying, and that’s one of the things that the blog post says, is that he wanted OpenAI to be basically acquired by Tesla in the same way that, or maybe something similar or maybe something more dramatic than the partnership with Microsoft.
Sam Altman
My memory is the proposal was just like, yeah, get acquired by Tesla and have Tesla have full control over it. I’m pretty sure that’s what it was.
My memory is the proposal was just like, yeah, get acquired by Tesla and have Tesla have full control over it. I’m pretty sure that’s what it was.
Lex Fridman
So what does the word open in OpenAI mean to Elon at the time? Ilya has talked about this in the email exchanges and all this kind of stuff. What does it mean to you at the time? What does it mean to you now?
So what does the word open in OpenAI mean to Elon at the time? Ilya has talked about this in the email exchanges and all this kind of stuff. What does it mean to you at the time? What does it mean to you now?
Sam Altman
Speaking of going back with an Oracle, I’d pick a different name. One of the things that I think OpenAI is doing that is the most important of everything that we’re doing is putting powerful technology in the hands of people for free, as a public good. We don’t run ads on our-
Speaking of going back with an Oracle, I’d pick a different name. One of the things that I think OpenAI is doing that is the most important of everything that we’re doing is putting powerful technology in the hands of people for free, as a public good. We don’t run ads on our-
Sam Altman
… as a public good. We don’t run ads on our free version. We don’t monetize it in other ways. We just say it’s part of our mission. We want to put increasingly powerful tools in the hands of people for free and get them to use them. I think that kind of open is really important to our mission. I think if you give people great tools and teach them to use them or don’t even teach them, they’ll figure it out, and let them go build an incredible future for each other with that, that’s a big deal. So if we can keep putting free or low cost or free and low cost powerful AI tools out in the world, I think that’s a huge deal for how we fulfill the mission. Open source or not, yeah, I think we should open source some stuff and not other stuff. It does become this religious battle line where nuance is hard to have, but I think nuance is the right answer.
… as a public good. We don’t run ads on our free version. We don’t monetize it in other ways. We just say it’s part of our mission. We want to put increasingly powerful tools in the hands of people for free and get them to use them. I think that kind of open is really important to our mission. I think if you give people great tools and teach them to use them or don’t even teach them, they’ll figure it out, and let them go build an incredible future for each other with that, that’s a big deal. So if we can keep putting free or low cost or free and low cost powerful AI tools out in the world, I think that’s a huge deal for how we fulfill the mission. Open source or not, yeah, I think we should open source some stuff and not other stuff. It does become this religious battle line where nuance is hard to have, but I think nuance is the right answer.
Lex Fridman
So he said, “Change your name to CloseAI and I’ll drop the lawsuit.” I mean is it going to become this battleground in the land of memes about the name?
So he said, “Change your name to CloseAI and I’ll drop the lawsuit.” I mean is it going to become this battleground in the land of memes about the name?
Sam Altman
I think that speaks to the seriousness with which Elon means the lawsuit, and that’s like an astonishing thing to say, I think.
I think that speaks to the seriousness with which Elon means the lawsuit, and that’s like an astonishing thing to say, I think.
Lex Fridman
Maybe correct me if I’m wrong, but I don’t think the lawsuit is legally serious. It’s more to make a point about the future of AGI and the company that’s currently leading the way.
Maybe correct me if I’m wrong, but I don’t think the lawsuit is legally serious. It’s more to make a point about the future of AGI and the company that’s currently leading the way.
Sam Altman
Look, I mean Grok had not open sourced anything until people pointed out it was a little bit hypocritical and then he announced that Grok will open source things this week. I don’t think open source versus not is what this is really about for him.
Look, I mean Grok had not open sourced anything until people pointed out it was a little bit hypocritical and then he announced that Grok will open source things this week. I don’t think open source versus not is what this is really about for him.
Lex Fridman
Well, we will talk about open source and not. I do think maybe criticizing the competition is great. Just talking a little shit, that’s great. But friendly competition versus like, “I personally hate lawsuits.”
Well, we will talk about open source and not. I do think maybe criticizing the competition is great. Just talking a little shit, that’s great. But friendly competition versus like, “I personally hate lawsuits.”
Sam Altman
Look, I think this whole thing is unbecoming of a builder. And I respect Elon as one of the great builders of our time. I know he knows what it’s like to have haters attack him and it makes me extra sad he’s doing it toss.
Look, I think this whole thing is unbecoming of a builder. And I respect Elon as one of the great builders of our time. I know he knows what it’s like to have haters attack him and it makes me extra sad he’s doing it toss.
Lex Fridman
Yeah, he’s one of the greatest builders of all time, potentially the greatest builder of all time.
Yeah, he’s one of the greatest builders of all time, potentially the greatest builder of all time.
Sam Altman
It makes me sad. And I think it makes a lot of people sad. There’s a lot of people who’ve really looked up to him for a long time. I said in some interview or something that I missed the old Elon and the number of messages I got being like, “That exactly encapsulates how I feel.”
It makes me sad. And I think it makes a lot of people sad. There’s a lot of people who’ve really looked up to him for a long time. I said in some interview or something that I missed the old Elon and the number of messages I got being like, “That exactly encapsulates how I feel.”
Lex Fridman
I think he should just win. He should just make X Grok beat GPT and then GPT beats Grok and it’s just the competition and it’s beautiful for everybody. But on the question of open source, do you think there’s a lot of companies playing with this idea? It’s quite interesting. I would say Meta surprisingly has led the way on this, or at least took the first step in the game of chess of really open sourcing the model. Of course it’s not the state-of-the-art model, but open sourcing Llama Google is flirting with the idea of open sourcing a smaller version. What are the pros and cons of open sourcing? Have you played around with this idea?
I think he should just win. He should just make X Grok beat GPT and then GPT beats Grok and it’s just the competition and it’s beautiful for everybody. But on the question of open source, do you think there’s a lot of companies playing with this idea? It’s quite interesting. I would say Meta surprisingly has led the way on this, or at least took the first step in the game of chess of really open sourcing the model. Of course it’s not the state-of-the-art model, but open sourcing Llama Google is flirting with the idea of open sourcing a smaller version. What are the pros and cons of open sourcing? Have you played around with this idea?
Sam Altman
Yeah, I think there is definitely a place for open source models, particularly smaller models that people can run locally, I think there’s huge demand for. I think there will be some open source models, there will be some closed source models. It won’t be unlike other ecosystems in that way.
Yeah, I think there is definitely a place for open source models, particularly smaller models that people can run locally, I think there’s huge demand for. I think there will be some open source models, there will be some closed source models. It won’t be unlike other ecosystems in that way.
Lex Fridman
I listened to all in podcasts talking about this lawsuit and all that kind of stuff. They were more concerned about the precedent of going from nonprofit to this cap for profit. What precedent that sets for other startups? Is that something-
I listened to all in podcasts talking about this lawsuit and all that kind of stuff. They were more concerned about the precedent of going from nonprofit to this cap for profit. What precedent that sets for other startups? Is that something-
Sam Altman
I would heavily discourage any startup that was thinking about starting as a nonprofit and adding a for-profit arm later. I’d heavily discourage them from doing that. I don’t think we’ll set a precedent here.
I would heavily discourage any startup that was thinking about starting as a nonprofit and adding a for-profit arm later. I’d heavily discourage them from doing that. I don’t think we’ll set a precedent here.
Lex Fridman
Okay. So most startups should go just-
Okay. So most startups should go just-
Sam Altman
For sure.
For sure.
Lex Fridman
And again-
And again-
Sam Altman
If we knew what was going to happen, we would’ve done that too.
If we knew what was going to happen, we would’ve done that too.
Lex Fridman
Well in theory, if you dance beautifully here, there’s some tax incentives or whatever, but…
Well in theory, if you dance beautifully here, there’s some tax incentives or whatever, but…
Sam Altman
I don’t think that’s how most people think about these things.
I don’t think that’s how most people think about these things.
Lex Fridman
It’s just not possible to save a lot of money for a startup if you do it this way.
It’s just not possible to save a lot of money for a startup if you do it this way.
Sam Altman
No, I think there’s laws that would make that pretty difficult.
No, I think there’s laws that would make that pretty difficult.
Lex Fridman
Where do you hope this goes with Elon? This tension, this dance, what do you hope this? If we go 1, 2, 3 years from now, your relationship with him on a personal level too, like friendship, friendly competition, just all this kind of stuff.
Where do you hope this goes with Elon? This tension, this dance, what do you hope this? If we go 1, 2, 3 years from now, your relationship with him on a personal level too, like friendship, friendly competition, just all this kind of stuff.
Sam Altman
Yeah, I really respect Elon and I hope that years in the future we have an amicable relationship.
Yeah, I really respect Elon and I hope that years in the future we have an amicable relationship.
Lex Fridman
Yeah, I hope you guys have an amicable relationship this month and just compete and win and explore these ideas together. I do suppose there’s competition for talent or whatever, but it should be friendly competition. Just build cool shit. And Elon is pretty good at building cool shit. So are you.
Yeah, I hope you guys have an amicable relationship this month and just compete and win and explore these ideas together. I do suppose there’s competition for talent or whatever, but it should be friendly competition. Just build cool shit. And Elon is pretty good at building cool shit. So are you.
Sora
So speaking of cool shit, Sora. There’s like a million questions I could ask. First of all, it’s amazing. It truly is amazing on a product level but also just on a philosophical level. So let me just technical/philosophical ask, what do you think it understands about the world more or less than GPT-4 for example? The world model when you train on these patches versus language tokens.
Sam Altman
I think all of these models understand something more about the world model than most of us give them credit for. And because they’re also very clear things they just don’t understand or don’t get right, it’s easy to look at the weaknesses, see through the veil and say, “Ah, this is all fake.” But it’s not all fake. It’s just some of it works and some of it doesn’t work.
I think all of these models understand something more about the world model than most of us give them credit for. And because they’re also very clear things they just don’t understand or don’t get right, it’s easy to look at the weaknesses, see through the veil and say, “Ah, this is all fake.” But it’s not all fake. It’s just some of it works and some of it doesn’t work.
I remember when I started first watching Sora videos and I would see a person walk in front of something for a few seconds and occlude it and then walk away and the same thing was still there. I was like, “Oh, this is pretty good.” Or there’s examples where the underlying physics looks so well represented over a lot of steps in a sequence, it’s like, “|Oh, this is quite impressive.” But fundamentally, these models are just getting better and that will keep happening. If you look at the trajectory from DALL·E 1 to 2 to 3 to Sora, there are a lot of people that were dunked on each version saying it can’t do this, it can’t do that and look at it now.
Lex Fridman
Well, the thing you just mentioned is the occlusions is basically modeling the physics of the three-dimensional physics of the world sufficiently well to capture those kinds of things.
Well, the thing you just mentioned is the occlusions is basically modeling the physics of the three-dimensional physics of the world sufficiently well to capture those kinds of things.
Sam Altman
Well…
Well…
Lex Fridman
Or yeah, maybe you can tell me, in order to deal with occlusions, what does the world model need to?
Or yeah, maybe you can tell me, in order to deal with occlusions, what does the world model need to?
Sam Altman
Yeah. So what I would say is it’s doing something to deal with occlusions really well. What I represent that it has a great underlying 3D model of the world, it’s a little bit more of a stretch.
Yeah. So what I would say is it’s doing something to deal with occlusions really well. What I represent that it has a great underlying 3D model of the world, it’s a little bit more of a stretch.
Lex Fridman
But can you get there through just these kinds of two-dimensional training data approaches?
But can you get there through just these kinds of two-dimensional training data approaches?
Sam Altman
It looks like this approach is going to go surprisingly far. I don’t want to speculate too much about what limits it will surmount and which it won’t, but…
It looks like this approach is going to go surprisingly far. I don’t want to speculate too much about what limits it will surmount and which it won’t, but…
Lex Fridman
What are some interesting limitations of the system that you’ve seen? I mean there’s been some fun ones you’ve posted.
What are some interesting limitations of the system that you’ve seen? I mean there’s been some fun ones you’ve posted.
Sam Altman
There’s all kinds of fun. I mean, cat’s sprouting an extra limit at random points in a video. Pick what you want, but there’s still a lot of problem, there’s a lot of weaknesses.
There’s all kinds of fun. I mean, cat’s sprouting an extra limit at random points in a video. Pick what you want, but there’s still a lot of problem, there’s a lot of weaknesses.
Lex Fridman
Do you think it’s a fundamental flaw of the approach or is it just bigger model or better technical details or better data, more data is going to solve the cat sprouting [inaudible 00:37:19]?
Do you think it’s a fundamental flaw of the approach or is it just bigger model or better technical details or better data, more data is going to solve the cat sprouting [inaudible 00:37:19]?
Sam Altman
I would say yes to both. I think there is something about the approach which just seems to feel different from how we think and learn and whatever. And then also I think it’ll get better with scale.
I would say yes to both. I think there is something about the approach which just seems to feel different from how we think and learn and whatever. And then also I think it’ll get better with scale.
Lex Fridman
Like I mentioned, LLMS have tokens, text tokens, and Sora has visual patches so it converts all visual data, a diverse kinds of visual data videos and images into patches. Is the training to the degree you can say fully self supervised, there’s some manual labeling going on? What’s the involvement of humans in all this?
Like I mentioned, LLMS have tokens, text tokens, and Sora has visual patches so it converts all visual data, a diverse kinds of visual data videos and images into patches. Is the training to the degree you can say fully self supervised, there’s some manual labeling going on? What’s the involvement of humans in all this?
Sam Altman
I mean without saying anything specific about the Sora approach, we use lots of human data in our work.
I mean without saying anything specific about the Sora approach, we use lots of human data in our work.
Lex Fridman
But not internet scale data? So lots of humans. Lots is a complicated word, Sam.
But not internet scale data? So lots of humans. Lots is a complicated word, Sam.
Sam Altman
I think lots is a fair word in this case.
I think lots is a fair word in this case.
Lex Fridman
Because to me, “lots”… Listen, I’m an introvert and when I hang out with three people, that’s a lot of people. Four people, that’s a lot. But I suppose you mean more than…
Because to me, “lots”… Listen, I’m an introvert and when I hang out with three people, that’s a lot of people. Four people, that’s a lot. But I suppose you mean more than…
Sam Altman
More than three people work on labeling the data for these models, yeah.
More than three people work on labeling the data for these models, yeah.
Lex Fridman
Okay. Right. But fundamentally, there’s a lot of self supervised learning. Because what you mentioned in the technical report is internet scale data. That’s another beautiful… It’s like poetry. So it’s a lot of data that’s not human label. It’s self supervised in that way?
Okay. Right. But fundamentally, there’s a lot of self supervised learning. Because what you mentioned in the technical report is internet scale data. That’s another beautiful… It’s like poetry. So it’s a lot of data that’s not human label. It’s self supervised in that way?
Sam Altman
Yeah.
Yeah.
Lex Fridman
And then the question is, how much data is there on the internet that could be used in this that is conducive to this kind of self supervised way if only we knew the details of the self supervised. Have you considered opening it up a little more details?
And then the question is, how much data is there on the internet that could be used in this that is conducive to this kind of self supervised way if only we knew the details of the self supervised. Have you considered opening it up a little more details?
Sam Altman
We have. You mean for source specifically?
We have. You mean for source specifically?
Lex Fridman
Source specifically. Because it’s so interesting that can the same magic of LLMs now start moving towards visual data and what does that take to do that?
Source specifically. Because it’s so interesting that can the same magic of LLMs now start moving towards visual data and what does that take to do that?
Sam Altman
I mean it looks to me like yes, but we have more work to do.
I mean it looks to me like yes, but we have more work to do.
Lex Fridman
Sure. What are the dangers? Why are you concerned about releasing the system? What are some possible dangers of this?
Sure. What are the dangers? Why are you concerned about releasing the system? What are some possible dangers of this?
Sam Altman
I mean frankly speaking, one thing we have to do before releasing the system is just get it to work at a level of efficiency that will deliver the scale people are going to want from this so that I don’t want to downplay that. And there’s still a ton ton of work to do there. But you can imagine issues with deepfakes, misinformation. We try to be a thoughtful company about what we put out into the world and it doesn’t take much thought to think about the ways this can go badly.
I mean frankly speaking, one thing we have to do before releasing the system is just get it to work at a level of efficiency that will deliver the scale people are going to want from this so that I don’t want to downplay that. And there’s still a ton ton of work to do there. But you can imagine issues with deepfakes, misinformation. We try to be a thoughtful company about what we put out into the world and it doesn’t take much thought to think about the ways this can go badly.
Lex Fridman
There’s a lot of tough questions here, you’re dealing in a very tough space. Do you think training AI should be or is fair use under copyright law?
There’s a lot of tough questions here, you’re dealing in a very tough space. Do you think training AI should be or is fair use under copyright law?
Sam Altman
I think the question behind that question is, do people who create valuable data deserve to have some way that they get compensated for use of it, and that I think the answer is yes. I don’t know yet what the answer is. People have proposed a lot of different things. We’ve tried some different models. But if I’m like an artist for example, A, I would like to be able to opt out of people generating art in my style. And B, if they do generate art in my style, I’d like to have some economic model associated with that.
I think the question behind that question is, do people who create valuable data deserve to have some way that they get compensated for use of it, and that I think the answer is yes. I don’t know yet what the answer is. People have proposed a lot of different things. We’ve tried some different models. But if I’m like an artist for example, A, I would like to be able to opt out of people generating art in my style. And B, if they do generate art in my style, I’d like to have some economic model associated with that.
Lex Fridman
Yeah, it’s that transition from CDs to Napster to Spotify. We have to figure out some kind of model.
Yeah, it’s that transition from CDs to Napster to Spotify. We have to figure out some kind of model.
Sam Altman
The model changes but people have got to get paid.
The model changes but people have got to get paid.
Lex Fridman
Well, there should be some kind of incentive if we zoom out even more for humans to keep doing cool shit.
Well, there should be some kind of incentive if we zoom out even more for humans to keep doing cool shit.
Sam Altman
Of everything I worry about, humans are going to do cool shit and society is going to find some way to reward it. That seems pretty hardwired. We want to create, we want to be useful, we want to achieve status in whatever way. That’s not going anywhere I don’t think.
Of everything I worry about, humans are going to do cool shit and society is going to find some way to reward it. That seems pretty hardwired. We want to create, we want to be useful, we want to achieve status in whatever way. That’s not going anywhere I don’t think.
Lex Fridman
But the reward might not be monetary financially. It might be fame and celebration of other cool-
But the reward might not be monetary financially. It might be fame and celebration of other cool-
Sam Altman
Maybe financial in some other way. Again, I don’t think we’ve seen the last evolution of how the economic system’s going to work.
Maybe financial in some other way. Again, I don’t think we’ve seen the last evolution of how the economic system’s going to work.
Lex Fridman
Yeah, but artists and creators are worried. When they see Sora, they’re like, “Holy shit.”
Yeah, but artists and creators are worried. When they see Sora, they’re like, “Holy shit.”
Sam Altman
Sure. Artists were also super worried when photography came out and then photography became a new art form and people made a lot of money taking pictures. I think things like that will keep happening. People will use the new tools in new ways.
Sure. Artists were also super worried when photography came out and then photography became a new art form and people made a lot of money taking pictures. I think things like that will keep happening. People will use the new tools in new ways.
Lex Fridman
If we just look on YouTube or something like this, how much of that will be using Sora like AI generated content, do you think, in the next five years?
If we just look on YouTube or something like this, how much of that will be using Sora like AI generated content, do you think, in the next five years?
Sam Altman
People talk about how many jobs is AI going to do in five years. The framework that people have is, what percentage of current jobs are just going to be totally replaced by some AI doing the job? The way I think about it is not what percent of jobs AI will do, but what percent of tasks will AI do on over one time horizon. So if you think of all of the five-second tasks in the economy, five minute tasks, the five-hour tasks, maybe even the five-day tasks, how many of those can AI do? I think that’s a way more interesting, impactful, important question than how many jobs AI can do because it is a tool that will work at increasing levels of sophistication and over longer and longer time horizons for more and more tasks and let people operate at a higher level of abstraction. So maybe people are way more efficient at the job they do. And at some point that’s not just a quantitative change, but it’s a qualitative one too about the kinds of problems you can keep in your head. I think that for videos on YouTube it’ll be the same. Many videos, maybe most of them, will use AI tools in the production, but they’ll still be fundamentally driven by a person thinking about it, putting it together, doing parts of it. Sort of directing and running it.
People talk about how many jobs is AI going to do in five years. The framework that people have is, what percentage of current jobs are just going to be totally replaced by some AI doing the job? The way I think about it is not what percent of jobs AI will do, but what percent of tasks will AI do on over one time horizon. So if you think of all of the five-second tasks in the economy, five minute tasks, the five-hour tasks, maybe even the five-day tasks, how many of those can AI do? I think that’s a way more interesting, impactful, important question than how many jobs AI can do because it is a tool that will work at increasing levels of sophistication and over longer and longer time horizons for more and more tasks and let people operate at a higher level of abstraction. So maybe people are way more efficient at the job they do. And at some point that’s not just a quantitative change, but it’s a qualitative one too about the kinds of problems you can keep in your head. I think that for videos on YouTube it’ll be the same. Many videos, maybe most of them, will use AI tools in the production, but they’ll still be fundamentally driven by a person thinking about it, putting it together, doing parts of it. Sort of directing and running it.
Lex Fridman
Yeah, it’s so interesting. I mean it’s scary, but it’s interesting to think about. I tend to believe that humans like to watch other humans or other human humans-
Yeah, it’s so interesting. I mean it’s scary, but it’s interesting to think about. I tend to believe that humans like to watch other humans or other human humans-
Sam Altman
Humans really care about other humans a lot.
Humans really care about other humans a lot.
Lex Fridman
Yeah. If there’s a cooler thing that’s better than a human, humans care about that for two days and then they go back to humans.
Yeah. If there’s a cooler thing that’s better than a human, humans care about that for two days and then they go back to humans.
Sam Altman
That seems very deeply wired.
That seems very deeply wired.
Lex Fridman
It’s the whole chess thing, “Oh, yeah,” but now let’s everybody keep playing chess. And let’s ignore the elephant in the room that humans are really bad at chess relative to AI systems.
It’s the whole chess thing, “Oh, yeah,” but now let’s everybody keep playing chess. And let’s ignore the elephant in the room that humans are really bad at chess relative to AI systems.
Sam Altman
We still run races and cars are much faster. I mean there’s a lot of examples.
We still run races and cars are much faster. I mean there’s a lot of examples.
Lex Fridman
Yeah. And maybe it’ll just be tooling in the Adobe suite type of way where it can just make videos much easier and all that kind of stuff.
Yeah. And maybe it’ll just be tooling in the Adobe suite type of way where it can just make videos much easier and all that kind of stuff.
Listen, I hate being in front of the camera. If I can figure out a way to not be in front of the camera, I would love it. Unfortunately, it’ll take a while. That generating faces, it is getting there, but generating faces in video format is tricky when it’s specific people versus generic people.
GPT-4
Let me ask you about GPT-4. There’s so many questions. First of all, also amazing. Looking back, it’ll probably be this kind of historic pivotal moment with 3, 5 and 4 which ChatGPT.
Sam Altman
Maybe five will be the pivotal moment. I don’t know. Hard to say that looking forward.
Maybe five will be the pivotal moment. I don’t know. Hard to say that looking forward.
Lex Fridman
We’ll never know. That’s the annoying thing about the future, it’s hard to predict. But for me, looking back, GPT-4, ChatGPT is pretty damn impressive, historically impressive. So allow me to ask, what’s been the most impressive capabilities of GPT-4 to you and GPT-4 Turbo?
We’ll never know. That’s the annoying thing about the future, it’s hard to predict. But for me, looking back, GPT-4, ChatGPT is pretty damn impressive, historically impressive. So allow me to ask, what’s been the most impressive capabilities of GPT-4 to you and GPT-4 Turbo?
Sam Altman
I think it kind of sucks.
I think it kind of sucks.
Lex Fridman
Typical human also, gotten used to an awesome thing.
Typical human also, gotten used to an awesome thing.
Sam Altman
No, I think it is an amazing thing, but relative to where we need to get to and where I believe we will get to, at the time of GPT-3, people are like, “Oh, this is amazing. This is marvel of technology.” And it is, it was. But now we have GPT-4 and look at GPT-3 and you’re like, “That’s unimaginably horrible.” I expect that the delta between 5 and 4 will be the same as between 4 and 3 and I think it is our job to live a few years in the future and remember that the tools we have now are going to kind of suck looking backwards at them and that’s how we make sure the future is better.
No, I think it is an amazing thing, but relative to where we need to get to and where I believe we will get to, at the time of GPT-3, people are like, “Oh, this is amazing. This is marvel of technology.” And it is, it was. But now we have GPT-4 and look at GPT-3 and you’re like, “That’s unimaginably horrible.” I expect that the delta between 5 and 4 will be the same as between 4 and 3 and I think it is our job to live a few years in the future and remember that the tools we have now are going to kind of suck looking backwards at them and that’s how we make sure the future is better.
Lex Fridman
What are the most glorious ways in that GPT-4 sucks? Meaning-
What are the most glorious ways in that GPT-4 sucks? Meaning-
Sam Altman
What are the best things it can do?
What are the best things it can do?
Lex Fridman
What are the best things it can do and the limits of those best things that allow you to say it sucks, therefore gives you an inspiration and hope for the future?
What are the best things it can do and the limits of those best things that allow you to say it sucks, therefore gives you an inspiration and hope for the future?
Sam Altman
One thing I’ve been using it for more recently is sort of like a brainstorming partner.
One thing I’ve been using it for more recently is sort of like a brainstorming partner.
Lex Fridman
Yep, [inaudible 00:46:25] for that.
Yep, [inaudible 00:46:25] for that.
Sam Altman
There’s a glimmer of something amazing in there. When people talk about it, what it does, they’re like, “Oh, it helps me code more productively. It helps me write more faster and better. It helps me translate from this language to another,” all these amazing things, but there’s something about the kind of creative brainstorming partner, “I need to come up with a name for this thing. I need to think about this problem in a different way. I’m not sure what to do here,” that I think gives a glimpse of something I hope to see more of.
There’s a glimmer of something amazing in there. When people talk about it, what it does, they’re like, “Oh, it helps me code more productively. It helps me write more faster and better. It helps me translate from this language to another,” all these amazing things, but there’s something about the kind of creative brainstorming partner, “I need to come up with a name for this thing. I need to think about this problem in a different way. I’m not sure what to do here,” that I think gives a glimpse of something I hope to see more of.
One of the other things that you can see a very small glimpse of is when I can help on longer horizon tasks, break down something in multiple steps, maybe execute some of those steps, search the internet, write code, whatever, put that together. When that works, which is not very often, it’s very magical.
Lex Fridman
The iterative back and forth with a human, it works a lot for me. What do you mean it-
The iterative back and forth with a human, it works a lot for me. What do you mean it-
Sam Altman
Iterative back and forth to human, it can get more often when it can go do a 10 step problem on its own.
Iterative back and forth to human, it can get more often when it can go do a 10 step problem on its own.
Lex Fridman
Oh.
Oh.
Sam Altman
It doesn’t work for that too often, sometimes.
It doesn’t work for that too often, sometimes.
Lex Fridman
Add multiple layers of abstraction or do you mean just sequential?
Add multiple layers of abstraction or do you mean just sequential?
Sam Altman
Both, to break it down and then do things that different layers of abstraction to put them together. Look, I don’t want to downplay the accomplishment of GPT-4, but I don’t want to overstate it either. And I think this point that we are on an exponential curve, we’ll look back relatively soon at GPT-4 like we look back at GPT-3 now.
Both, to break it down and then do things that different layers of abstraction to put them together. Look, I don’t want to downplay the accomplishment of GPT-4, but I don’t want to overstate it either. And I think this point that we are on an exponential curve, we’ll look back relatively soon at GPT-4 like we look back at GPT-3 now.
Lex Fridman
That said, I mean ChatGPT was a transition to where people started to believe there is an uptick of believing, not internally at OpenAI.
That said, I mean ChatGPT was a transition to where people started to believe there is an uptick of believing, not internally at OpenAI.
Sam Altman
For sure.
For sure.
Lex Fridman
Perhaps there’s believers here, but when you think of-
Perhaps there’s believers here, but when you think of-
Sam Altman
And in that sense, I do think it’ll be a moment where a lot of the world went from not believing to believing. That was more about the ChatGPT interface. And by the interface and product, I also mean the post training of the model and how we tune it to be helpful to you and how to use it than the underlying model itself.
And in that sense, I do think it’ll be a moment where a lot of the world went from not believing to believing. That was more about the ChatGPT interface. And by the interface and product, I also mean the post training of the model and how we tune it to be helpful to you and how to use it than the underlying model itself.
Lex Fridman
How much of each of those things are important? The underlying model and the RLHF or something of that nature that tunes it to be more compelling to the human, more effective and productive for the human.
How much of each of those things are important? The underlying model and the RLHF or something of that nature that tunes it to be more compelling to the human, more effective and productive for the human.
Sam Altman
I mean they’re both super important, but the RLHF, the post-training step, the little wrapper of things that from a compute perspective, little wrapper of things that we do on top of the base model even though it’s a huge amount of work, that’s really important to say nothing of the product that we build around it. In some sense, we did have to do two things. We had to invent the underlying technology and then we had to figure out how to make it into a product people would love, which is not just about the actual product work itself, but this whole other step of how you align it and make it useful.
I mean they’re both super important, but the RLHF, the post-training step, the little wrapper of things that from a compute perspective, little wrapper of things that we do on top of the base model even though it’s a huge amount of work, that’s really important to say nothing of the product that we build around it. In some sense, we did have to do two things. We had to invent the underlying technology and then we had to figure out how to make it into a product people would love, which is not just about the actual product work itself, but this whole other step of how you align it and make it useful.
Lex Fridman
And how you make the scale work where a lot of people can use it at the same time. All that kind of stuff.
And how you make the scale work where a lot of people can use it at the same time. All that kind of stuff.
Sam Altman
And that. But that was a known difficult thing. We knew we were going to have to scale it up. We had to go do two things that had never been done before that were both I would say quite significant achievements and then a lot of things like scaling it up that other companies have had to do before.
And that. But that was a known difficult thing. We knew we were going to have to scale it up. We had to go do two things that had never been done before that were both I would say quite significant achievements and then a lot of things like scaling it up that other companies have had to do before.
Lex Fridman
How does the context window of going from 8K to 128K tokens compare from GPT-4 to GPT-4 Turbo?
How does the context window of going from 8K to 128K tokens compare from GPT-4 to GPT-4 Turbo?
Sam Altman
Most people don’t need all the way to 128 most of the time. Although if we dream into the distant future, we’ll have way distant future, we’ll have context length of several billion. You will feed in all of your information, all of your history over time and it’ll just get to know you better and better and that’ll be great. For now, the way people use these models, they’re not doing that. People sometimes post in a paper or a significant fraction of a code repository, whatever, but most usage of the models is not using the long context most of the time.
Most people don’t need all the way to 128 most of the time. Although if we dream into the distant future, we’ll have way distant future, we’ll have context length of several billion. You will feed in all of your information, all of your history over time and it’ll just get to know you better and better and that’ll be great. For now, the way people use these models, they’re not doing that. People sometimes post in a paper or a significant fraction of a code repository, whatever, but most usage of the models is not using the long context most of the time.
Lex Fridman
I like that this is your “I have a dream” speech. One day you’ll be judged by the full context of your character or of your whole lifetime. That’s interesting. So that’s part of the expansion that you’re hoping for, is a greater and greater context.
I like that this is your “I have a dream” speech. One day you’ll be judged by the full context of your character or of your whole lifetime. That’s interesting. So that’s part of the expansion that you’re hoping for, is a greater and greater context.
Sam Altman
I saw this internet clip once, I’m going to get the numbers wrong, but it was like Bill Gates talking about the amount of memory on some early computer, maybe it was 64K, maybe 640K, something like that. Most of it was used for the screen buffer. He just couldn’t seem genuine. He just couldn’t imagine that the world would eventually need gigabytes of memory in a computer or terabytes of memory in a computer. And you always do, or you always do just need to follow the exponential of technology and we will find out how to use better technology. So I can’t really imagine what it’s like right now for context links to go out to the billion someday. And they might not literally go there, but effectively it’ll feel like that. But I know we’ll use it and really not want to go back once we have it.
I saw this internet clip once, I’m going to get the numbers wrong, but it was like Bill Gates talking about the amount of memory on some early computer, maybe it was 64K, maybe 640K, something like that. Most of it was used for the screen buffer. He just couldn’t seem genuine. He just couldn’t imagine that the world would eventually need gigabytes of memory in a computer or terabytes of memory in a computer. And you always do, or you always do just need to follow the exponential of technology and we will find out how to use better technology. So I can’t really imagine what it’s like right now for context links to go out to the billion someday. And they might not literally go there, but effectively it’ll feel like that. But I know we’ll use it and really not want to go back once we have it.
Lex Fridman
Yeah, even saying billions 10 years from now might seem dumb because it’ll be trillions upon trillions.
Yeah, even saying billions 10 years from now might seem dumb because it’ll be trillions upon trillions.
Sam Altman
Sure.
Sure.
Lex Fridman
There’ll be some kind of breakthrough that will effectively feel like infinite context. But even 120, I have to be honest, I haven’t pushed it to that degree. Maybe putting in entire books or parts of books and so on, papers. What are some interesting use cases of GPT-4 that you’ve seen?
There’ll be some kind of breakthrough that will effectively feel like infinite context. But even 120, I have to be honest, I haven’t pushed it to that degree. Maybe putting in entire books or parts of books and so on, papers. What are some interesting use cases of GPT-4 that you’ve seen?
Sam Altman
The thing that I find most interesting is not any particular use case that we can talk about those, but it’s people who kind of like, this is mostly younger people, but people who use it as their default start for any kind of knowledge work task. And it’s the fact that it can do a lot of things reasonably well. You can use GPT-V, you can use it to help you write code, you can use it to help you do search, you can use it to edit a paper. The most interesting thing to me is the people who just use it as the start of their workflow.
The thing that I find most interesting is not any particular use case that we can talk about those, but it’s people who kind of like, this is mostly younger people, but people who use it as their default start for any kind of knowledge work task. And it’s the fact that it can do a lot of things reasonably well. You can use GPT-V, you can use it to help you write code, you can use it to help you do search, you can use it to edit a paper. The most interesting thing to me is the people who just use it as the start of their workflow.
Lex Fridman
I do as well for many things. I use it as a reading partner for reading books. It helps me think, help me think through ideas, especially when the books are classic. So it’s really well written about. I find it often to be significantly better than even Wikipedia on well-covered topics. It’s somehow more balanced and more nuanced. Or maybe it’s me, but it inspires me to think deeper than a Wikipedia article does. I’m not exactly sure what that is.
I do as well for many things. I use it as a reading partner for reading books. It helps me think, help me think through ideas, especially when the books are classic. So it’s really well written about. I find it often to be significantly better than even Wikipedia on well-covered topics. It’s somehow more balanced and more nuanced. Or maybe it’s me, but it inspires me to think deeper than a Wikipedia article does. I’m not exactly sure what that is.
You mentioned this collaboration. I’m not sure where the magic is, if it’s in here or if it’s in there or if it’s somewhere in between. I’m not sure. But one of the things that concerns me for knowledge task when I start with GPT is I’ll usually have to do fact checking after, like check that it didn’t come up with fake stuff. How do you figure that out that GPT can come up with fake stuff that sounds really convincing? So how do you ground it in truth?
Sam Altman
That’s obviously an area of intense interest for us. I think it’s going to get a lot better with upcoming versions, but we’ll have to continue to work on it and we’re not going to have it all solved this year.
That’s obviously an area of intense interest for us. I think it’s going to get a lot better with upcoming versions, but we’ll have to continue to work on it and we’re not going to have it all solved this year.
Lex Fridman
Well the scary thing is, as it gets better, you’ll start not doing the fact checking more and more, right?
Well the scary thing is, as it gets better, you’ll start not doing the fact checking more and more, right?
Sam Altman
I’m of two minds about that. I think people are much more sophisticated users of technology than we often give them credit for.
I’m of two minds about that. I think people are much more sophisticated users of technology than we often give them credit for.
Lex Fridman
Sure.
Sure.
Sam Altman
And people seem to really understand that GPT, any of these models hallucinate some of the time. And if it’s mission-critical, you got to check it.
And people seem to really understand that GPT, any of these models hallucinate some of the time. And if it’s mission-critical, you got to check it.
Lex Fridman
Except journalists don’t seem to understand that. I’ve seen journalists half-assedly just using GPT-4. It’s-
Except journalists don’t seem to understand that. I’ve seen journalists half-assedly just using GPT-4. It’s-
Sam Altman
Of the long list of things I’d like to dunk on journalists for, this is not my top criticism of them.
Of the long list of things I’d like to dunk on journalists for, this is not my top criticism of them.
Lex Fridman
Well, I think the bigger criticism is perhaps the pressures and the incentives of being a journalist is that you have to work really quickly and this is a shortcut.I would love our society to incentivize like-
Well, I think the bigger criticism is perhaps the pressures and the incentives of being a journalist is that you have to work really quickly and this is a shortcut.I would love our society to incentivize like-
Sam Altman
I would too.
I would too.
Lex Fridman
… like a journalistic efforts that take days and weeks and rewards great in depth journalism. Also journalism that present stuff in a balanced way where it’s like celebrates people while criticizing them even though the criticism is the thing that gets clicks and making shit up also gets clicks and headlines that mischaracterized completely. I’m sure you have a lot of people dunking on, “Well, all that drama probably got a lot of clicks.”
… like a journalistic efforts that take days and weeks and rewards great in depth journalism. Also journalism that present stuff in a balanced way where it’s like celebrates people while criticizing them even though the criticism is the thing that gets clicks and making shit up also gets clicks and headlines that mischaracterized completely. I’m sure you have a lot of people dunking on, “Well, all that drama probably got a lot of clicks.”
Sam Altman
Probably did.
Probably did.
Memory & privacy
Lex Fridman
And that’s a bigger problem about human civilization I’d love to see-saw. This is where we celebrate a bit more. You’ve given ChatGPT the ability to have memories. You’ve been playing with that about previous conversations. And also the ability to turn off memory. I wish I could do that sometimes. Just turn on and off, depending. I guess sometimes alcohol can do that, but not optimally I suppose. What have you seen through that, like playing around with that idea of remembering conversations and not…
And that’s a bigger problem about human civilization I’d love to see-saw. This is where we celebrate a bit more. You’ve given ChatGPT the ability to have memories. You’ve been playing with that about previous conversations. And also the ability to turn off memory. I wish I could do that sometimes. Just turn on and off, depending. I guess sometimes alcohol can do that, but not optimally I suppose. What have you seen through that, like playing around with that idea of remembering conversations and not…
Sam Altman
We’re very early in our explorations here, but I think what people want, or at least what I want for myself, is a model that gets to know me and gets more useful to me over time. This is an early exploration. I think there’s a lot of other things to do, but that’s where we’d like to head. You’d like to use a model, and over the course of your life or use a system, it’d be many models, and over the course of your life it gets better and better.
We’re very early in our explorations here, but I think what people want, or at least what I want for myself, is a model that gets to know me and gets more useful to me over time. This is an early exploration. I think there’s a lot of other things to do, but that’s where we’d like to head. You’d like to use a model, and over the course of your life or use a system, it’d be many models, and over the course of your life it gets better and better.
Lex Fridman
Yeah. How hard is that problem? Because right now it’s more like remembering little factoids and preferences and so on. What about remembering? Don’t you want GPT to remember all the shit you went through in November and all the drama and then you can-
Yeah. How hard is that problem? Because right now it’s more like remembering little factoids and preferences and so on. What about remembering? Don’t you want GPT to remember all the shit you went through in November and all the drama and then you can-
Sam Altman
Yeah. Yeah.
Yeah. Yeah.
Lex Fridman
Because right now you’re clearly blocking it out a little bit.
Because right now you’re clearly blocking it out a little bit.
Sam Altman
It’s not just that I want it to remember that. I want it to integrate the lessons of that and remind me in the future what to do differently or what to watch out for. We all gain from experience over the course of our lives in varying degrees, and I’d like my AI agent to gain with that experience too. So if we go back and let ourselves imagine that trillions and trillions of context length, if I can put every conversation I’ve ever had with anybody in my life in there, if I can have all of my emails input out, all of my input output in the context window every time I ask a question, that’d be pretty cool I think.
It’s not just that I want it to remember that. I want it to integrate the lessons of that and remind me in the future what to do differently or what to watch out for. We all gain from experience over the course of our lives in varying degrees, and I’d like my AI agent to gain with that experience too. So if we go back and let ourselves imagine that trillions and trillions of context length, if I can put every conversation I’ve ever had with anybody in my life in there, if I can have all of my emails input out, all of my input output in the context window every time I ask a question, that’d be pretty cool I think.
Lex Fridman
Yeah, I think that would be very cool. People sometimes will hear that and be concerned about privacy. What do you think about that aspect of it, the more effective the AI becomes that really integrating all the experiences and all the data that happened to you and give you advice?
Yeah, I think that would be very cool. People sometimes will hear that and be concerned about privacy. What do you think about that aspect of it, the more effective the AI becomes that really integrating all the experiences and all the data that happened to you and give you advice?
Sam Altman
I think the right answer there is just user choice. Anything I want stricken from the record from my AI agent, I want to be able to take out. If I don’t want to remember anything, I want that too. You and I may have different opinions about where on that privacy utility trade off for our own AI-
I think the right answer there is just user choice. Anything I want stricken from the record from my AI agent, I want to be able to take out. If I don’t want to remember anything, I want that too. You and I may have different opinions about where on that privacy utility trade off for our own AI-
Sam Altman
…opinions about where on that privacy/utility trade-off for OpenAI going to be, which is totally fine. But I think the answer is just really easy user choice.
…opinions about where on that privacy/utility trade-off for OpenAI going to be, which is totally fine. But I think the answer is just really easy user choice.
Lex Fridman
But there should be some high level of transparency from a company about the user choice. Because sometimes companies in the past have been kind of shady about, “Eh, it’s kind of presumed that we’re collecting all your data. We’re using it for a good reason, for advertisement and so on.” But there’s not a transparency about the details of that.
But there should be some high level of transparency from a company about the user choice. Because sometimes companies in the past have been kind of shady about, “Eh, it’s kind of presumed that we’re collecting all your data. We’re using it for a good reason, for advertisement and so on.” But there’s not a transparency about the details of that.
Sam Altman
That’s totally true. You mentioned earlier that I’m blocking out the November stuff.
That’s totally true. You mentioned earlier that I’m blocking out the November stuff.
Lex Fridman
Just teasing you.
Just teasing you.
Sam Altman
Well, I mean, I think it was a very traumatic thing and it did immobilize me for a long period of time. Definitely the hardest work thing I’ve had to do was just keep working that period, because I had to try to come back in here and put the pieces together while I was just in shock and pain, and nobody really cares about that. I mean, the team gave me a pass and I was not working at my normal level. But there was a period where it was really hard to have to do both. But I kind of woke up one morning, and I was like, “This was a horrible thing that happened to me. I think I could just feel like a victim forever, or I can say this is the most important work I’ll ever touch in my life and I need to get back to it.” And it doesn’t mean that I’ve repressed it, because sometimes I wake up in the middle of the night thinking about it, but I do feel an obligation to keep moving forward.
Well, I mean, I think it was a very traumatic thing and it did immobilize me for a long period of time. Definitely the hardest work thing I’ve had to do was just keep working that period, because I had to try to come back in here and put the pieces together while I was just in shock and pain, and nobody really cares about that. I mean, the team gave me a pass and I was not working at my normal level. But there was a period where it was really hard to have to do both. But I kind of woke up one morning, and I was like, “This was a horrible thing that happened to me. I think I could just feel like a victim forever, or I can say this is the most important work I’ll ever touch in my life and I need to get back to it.” And it doesn’t mean that I’ve repressed it, because sometimes I wake up in the middle of the night thinking about it, but I do feel an obligation to keep moving forward.
Lex Fridman
Well, that’s beautifully said, but there could be some lingering stuff in there. Like, what I would be concerned about is that trust thing that you mentioned, that being paranoid about people as opposed to just trusting everybody or most people, like using your gut. It’s a tricky dance.
Well, that’s beautifully said, but there could be some lingering stuff in there. Like, what I would be concerned about is that trust thing that you mentioned, that being paranoid about people as opposed to just trusting everybody or most people, like using your gut. It’s a tricky dance.
Sam Altman
For sure.
For sure.
Lex Fridman
I mean, because I’ve seen in my part-time explorations, I’ve been diving deeply into the Zelenskyy administration and the Putin administration and the dynamics there in wartime in a very highly stressful environment. And what happens is distrust, and you isolate yourself, both, and you start to not see the world clearly. And that’s a human concern. You seem to have taken it in stride and kind of learned the good lessons and felt the love and let the love energize you, which is great, but still can linger in there. There’s just some questions I would love to ask, your intuition about what’s GPT able to do and not. So it’s allocating approximately the same amount of compute for each token it generates. Is there room there in this kind of approach to slower thinking, sequential thinking?
I mean, because I’ve seen in my part-time explorations, I’ve been diving deeply into the Zelenskyy administration and the Putin administration and the dynamics there in wartime in a very highly stressful environment. And what happens is distrust, and you isolate yourself, both, and you start to not see the world clearly. And that’s a human concern. You seem to have taken it in stride and kind of learned the good lessons and felt the love and let the love energize you, which is great, but still can linger in there. There’s just some questions I would love to ask, your intuition about what’s GPT able to do and not. So it’s allocating approximately the same amount of compute for each token it generates. Is there room there in this kind of approach to slower thinking, sequential thinking?
Sam Altman
I think there will be a new paradigm for that kind of thinking.
I think there will be a new paradigm for that kind of thinking.
Lex Fridman
Will it be similar architecturally as what we’re seeing now with LLMs? Is it a layer on top of LLMs?
Will it be similar architecturally as what we’re seeing now with LLMs? Is it a layer on top of LLMs?
Sam Altman
I can imagine many ways to implement that. I think that’s less important than the question you were getting at, which is, do we need a way to do a slower kind of thinking, where the answer doesn’t have to get… I guess spiritually you could say that you want an AI to be able to think harder about a harder problem and answer more quickly about an easier problem. And I think that will be important.
I can imagine many ways to implement that. I think that’s less important than the question you were getting at, which is, do we need a way to do a slower kind of thinking, where the answer doesn’t have to get… I guess spiritually you could say that you want an AI to be able to think harder about a harder problem and answer more quickly about an easier problem. And I think that will be important.
Lex Fridman
Is that like a human thought that we just have and you should be able to think hard? Is that wrong intuition?
Is that like a human thought that we just have and you should be able to think hard? Is that wrong intuition?
Sam Altman
I suspect that’s a reasonable intuition.
I suspect that’s a reasonable intuition.
Lex Fridman
Interesting. So it’s not possible once the GPT gets like GPT-7, would just instantaneously be able to see, “Here’s the proof of Fermat’s Theorem”?
Interesting. So it’s not possible once the GPT gets like GPT-7, would just instantaneously be able to see, “Here’s the proof of Fermat’s Theorem”?
Sam Altman
It seems to me like you want to be able to allocate more compute to harder problems. It seems to me that if you ask a system like that, “Prove Fermat’s Last Theorem,” versus, “What’s today’s date?,” unless it already knew and and had memorized the answer to the proof, assuming it’s got to go figure that out, seems like that will take more compute.
It seems to me like you want to be able to allocate more compute to harder problems. It seems to me that if you ask a system like that, “Prove Fermat’s Last Theorem,” versus, “What’s today’s date?,” unless it already knew and and had memorized the answer to the proof, assuming it’s got to go figure that out, seems like that will take more compute.
Lex Fridman
But can it look like basically an LLM talking to itself, that kind of thing?
But can it look like basically an LLM talking to itself, that kind of thing?
Sam Altman
Maybe. I mean, there’s a lot of things that you could imagine working. What the right or the best way to do that will be, we don’t know.
Maybe. I mean, there’s a lot of things that you could imagine working. What the right or the best way to do that will be, we don’t know.
Q*
Lex Fridman
This does make me think of the mysterious lore behind Q*. What’s this mysterious Q* project? Is it also in the same nuclear facility?
This does make me think of the mysterious lore behind Q*. What’s this mysterious Q* project? Is it also in the same nuclear facility?
Sam Altman
There is no nuclear facility.
There is no nuclear facility.
Lex Fridman
Mm-hmm. That’s what a person with a nuclear facility always says.
Mm-hmm. That’s what a person with a nuclear facility always says.
Sam Altman
I would love to have a secret nuclear facility. There isn’t one.
I would love to have a secret nuclear facility. There isn’t one.
Lex Fridman
All right.
All right.
Sam Altman
Maybe someday.
Maybe someday.
Lex Fridman
Someday? All right. One can dream.
Someday? All right. One can dream.
Sam Altman
OpenAI is not a good company at keeping secrets. It would be nice. We’re like, been plagued by a lot of leaks, and it would be nice if we were able to have something like that.
OpenAI is not a good company at keeping secrets. It would be nice. We’re like, been plagued by a lot of leaks, and it would be nice if we were able to have something like that.
Lex Fridman
Can you speak to what Q* is?
Can you speak to what Q* is?
Sam Altman
We are not ready to talk about that.
We are not ready to talk about that.
Lex Fridman
See, but an answer like that means there’s something to talk about. It’s very mysterious, Sam.
See, but an answer like that means there’s something to talk about. It’s very mysterious, Sam.
Sam Altman
I mean, we work on all kinds of research. We have said for a while that we think better reasoning in these systems is an important direction that we’d like to pursue. We haven’t cracked the code yet. We’re very interested in it.
I mean, we work on all kinds of research. We have said for a while that we think better reasoning in these systems is an important direction that we’d like to pursue. We haven’t cracked the code yet. We’re very interested in it.
Lex Fridman
Is there going to be moments, Q* or otherwise, where there’s going to be leaps similar to ChatGPT, where you’re like…
Is there going to be moments, Q* or otherwise, where there’s going to be leaps similar to ChatGPT, where you’re like…
Sam Altman
That’s a good question. What do I think about that? It’s interesting. To me, it all feels pretty continuous.
That’s a good question. What do I think about that? It’s interesting. To me, it all feels pretty continuous.
Lex Fridman
Right. This is kind of a theme that you’re saying, is you’re basically gradually going up an exponential slope. But from an outsider’s perspective, from me just watching, it does feel like there’s leaps. But to you, there isn’t?
Right. This is kind of a theme that you’re saying, is you’re basically gradually going up an exponential slope. But from an outsider’s perspective, from me just watching, it does feel like there’s leaps. But to you, there isn’t?
Sam Altman
I do wonder if we should have… So part of the reason that we deploy the way we do, we call it iterative deployment, rather than go build in secret until we got all the way to GPT-5, we decided to talk about GPT-1, 2, 3, and 4. And part of the reason there is I think AI and surprise don’t go together. And also the world, people, institutions, whatever you want to call it, need time to adapt and think about these things. And I think one of the best things that OpenAI has done is this strategy, and we get the world to pay attention to the progress, to take AGI seriously, to think about what systems and structures and governance we want in place before we’re under the gun and have to make a rush decision.
I do wonder if we should have… So part of the reason that we deploy the way we do, we call it iterative deployment, rather than go build in secret until we got all the way to GPT-5, we decided to talk about GPT-1, 2, 3, and 4. And part of the reason there is I think AI and surprise don’t go together. And also the world, people, institutions, whatever you want to call it, need time to adapt and think about these things. And I think one of the best things that OpenAI has done is this strategy, and we get the world to pay attention to the progress, to take AGI seriously, to think about what systems and structures and governance we want in place before we’re under the gun and have to make a rush decision.
I think that’s really good. But the fact that people like you and others say you still feel like there are these leaps makes me think that maybe we should be doing our releasing even more iteratively. And I don’t know what that would mean, I don’t have an answer ready to go, but our goal is not to have shock updates to the world. The opposite.
Lex Fridman
Yeah, for sure. More iterative would be amazing. I think that’s just beautiful for everybody.
Yeah, for sure. More iterative would be amazing. I think that’s just beautiful for everybody.
Sam Altman
But that’s what we’re trying to do, that’s our stated strategy, and I think we’re somehow missing the mark. So maybe we should think about releasing GPT-5 in a different way or something like that.
But that’s what we’re trying to do, that’s our stated strategy, and I think we’re somehow missing the mark. So maybe we should think about releasing GPT-5 in a different way or something like that.
Lex Fridman
Yeah, 4.71, 4.72. But people tend to like to celebrate, people celebrate birthdays. I don’t know if you know humans, but they kind of have these milestones and those things.
Yeah, 4.71, 4.72. But people tend to like to celebrate, people celebrate birthdays. I don’t know if you know humans, but they kind of have these milestones and those things.
Sam Altman
I do know some humans. People do like milestones. I totally get that. I think we like milestones too. It’s fun to declare victory on this one and go start the next thing. But yeah, I feel like we’re somehow getting this a little bit wrong.
I do know some humans. People do like milestones. I totally get that. I think we like milestones too. It’s fun to declare victory on this one and go start the next thing. But yeah, I feel like we’re somehow getting this a little bit wrong.
GPT-5
Lex Fridman
So when is GPT-5 coming out again?
So when is GPT-5 coming out again?
Sam Altman
I don’t know. That’s the honest answer.
I don’t know. That’s the honest answer.
Lex Fridman
Oh, that’s the honest answer. Blink twice if it’s this year.
Oh, that’s the honest answer. Blink twice if it’s this year.
Sam Altman
We will release an amazing new model this year. I don’t know what we’ll call it.
We will release an amazing new model this year. I don’t know what we’ll call it.
Lex Fridman
So that goes to the question of, what’s the way we release this thing?
So that goes to the question of, what’s the way we release this thing?
Sam Altman
We’ll release in the coming months many different things. I think that’d be very cool. I think before we talk about a GPT-5-like model called that, or not called that, or a little bit worse or a little bit better than what you’d expect from a GPT-5, I think we have a lot of other important things to release first.
We’ll release in the coming months many different things. I think that’d be very cool. I think before we talk about a GPT-5-like model called that, or not called that, or a little bit worse or a little bit better than what you’d expect from a GPT-5, I think we have a lot of other important things to release first.
Lex Fridman
I don’t know what to expect from GPT-5. You’re making me nervous and excited. What are some of the biggest challenges and bottlenecks to overcome for whatever it ends up being called, but let’s call it GPT-5? Just interesting to ask. Is it on the compute side? Is it on the technical side?
I don’t know what to expect from GPT-5. You’re making me nervous and excited. What are some of the biggest challenges and bottlenecks to overcome for whatever it ends up being called, but let’s call it GPT-5? Just interesting to ask. Is it on the compute side? Is it on the technical side?
Sam Altman
It’s always all of these. You know, what’s the one big unlock? Is it a bigger computer? Is it a new secret? Is it something else? It’s all of these things together. The thing that OpenAI, I think, does really well… This is actually an original Ilya quote that I’m going to butcher, but it’s something like, “We multiply 200 medium-sized things together into one giant thing.”
It’s always all of these. You know, what’s the one big unlock? Is it a bigger computer? Is it a new secret? Is it something else? It’s all of these things together. The thing that OpenAI, I think, does really well… This is actually an original Ilya quote that I’m going to butcher, but it’s something like, “We multiply 200 medium-sized things together into one giant thing.”
Lex Fridman
So there’s this distributed constant innovation happening?
So there’s this distributed constant innovation happening?
Sam Altman
Yeah.
Yeah.
Lex Fridman
So even on the technical side?
So even on the technical side?
Sam Altman
Especially on the technical side.
Especially on the technical side.
Lex Fridman
So even detailed approaches?
So even detailed approaches?
Sam Altman
Yeah.
Yeah.
Lex Fridman
Like you do detailed aspects of every… How does that work with different, disparate teams and so on? How do the medium-sized things become one whole giant Transformer?
Like you do detailed aspects of every… How does that work with different, disparate teams and so on? How do the medium-sized things become one whole giant Transformer?
Sam Altman
There’s a few people who have to think about putting the whole thing together, but a lot of people try to keep most of the picture in their head.
There’s a few people who have to think about putting the whole thing together, but a lot of people try to keep most of the picture in their head.
Lex Fridman
Oh, like the individual teams, individual contributors try to keep the bigger picture?
Oh, like the individual teams, individual contributors try to keep the bigger picture?
Sam Altman
At a high level, yeah. You don’t know exactly how every piece works, of course, but one thing I generally believe is that it’s sometimes useful to zoom out and look at the entire map. And I think this is true for a technical problem, I think this is true for innovating in business. But things come together in surprising ways, and having an understanding of that whole picture, even if most of the time you’re operating in the weeds in one area, pays off with surprising insights. In fact, one of the things that I used to have and was super valuable was I used to have a good map of all or most of the frontiers in the tech industry. And I could sometimes see these connections or new things that were possible that if I were only deep in one area, I wouldn’t be able to have the idea for because I wouldn’t have all the data. And I don’t really have that much anymore. I’m super deep now. But I know that it’s a valuable thing.
At a high level, yeah. You don’t know exactly how every piece works, of course, but one thing I generally believe is that it’s sometimes useful to zoom out and look at the entire map. And I think this is true for a technical problem, I think this is true for innovating in business. But things come together in surprising ways, and having an understanding of that whole picture, even if most of the time you’re operating in the weeds in one area, pays off with surprising insights. In fact, one of the things that I used to have and was super valuable was I used to have a good map of all or most of the frontiers in the tech industry. And I could sometimes see these connections or new things that were possible that if I were only deep in one area, I wouldn’t be able to have the idea for because I wouldn’t have all the data. And I don’t really have that much anymore. I’m super deep now. But I know that it’s a valuable thing.
Lex Fridman
You’re not the man you used to be, Sam.
You’re not the man you used to be, Sam.
Sam Altman
Very different job now than what I used to have.
Very different job now than what I used to have.
$7 trillion of compute
Lex Fridman
Speaking of zooming out, let’s zoom out to another cheeky thing, but profound thing, perhaps, that you said. You tweeted about needing $7 trillion.
Speaking of zooming out, let’s zoom out to another cheeky thing, but profound thing, perhaps, that you said. You tweeted about needing $7 trillion.
Sam Altman
I did not tweet about that. I never said, like, “We’re raising $7 trillion,” blah blah blah.
I did not tweet about that. I never said, like, “We’re raising $7 trillion,” blah blah blah.
Lex Fridman
Oh, that’s somebody else?
Oh, that’s somebody else?
Sam Altman
Yeah.
Yeah.
Lex Fridman
Oh, but you said, “Fuck it, maybe eight,” I think?
Oh, but you said, “Fuck it, maybe eight,” I think?
Sam Altman
Okay, I meme once there’s misinformation out in the world.
Okay, I meme once there’s misinformation out in the world.
Lex Fridman
Oh, you meme. But misinformation may have a foundation of insight there.
Oh, you meme. But misinformation may have a foundation of insight there.
Sam Altman
Look, I think compute is going to be the currency of the future. I think it will be maybe the most precious commodity in the world, and I think we should be investing heavily to make a lot more compute. Compute, I think it’s going to be an unusual market. People think about the market for chips for mobile phones or something like that. And you can say that, okay, there’s 8 billion people in the world, maybe 7 billion of them have phones, maybe 6 billion, let’s say. They upgrade every two years, so the market per year is 3 billion system-on-chip for smartphones. And if you make 30 billion, you will not sell 10 times as many phones, because most people have one phone.
Look, I think compute is going to be the currency of the future. I think it will be maybe the most precious commodity in the world, and I think we should be investing heavily to make a lot more compute. Compute, I think it’s going to be an unusual market. People think about the market for chips for mobile phones or something like that. And you can say that, okay, there’s 8 billion people in the world, maybe 7 billion of them have phones, maybe 6 billion, let’s say. They upgrade every two years, so the market per year is 3 billion system-on-chip for smartphones. And if you make 30 billion, you will not sell 10 times as many phones, because most people have one phone.
But compute is different. Intelligence is going to be more like energy or something like that, where the only thing that I think makes sense to talk about is, at price X, the world will use this much compute, and at price Y, the world will use this much compute. Because if it’s really cheap, I’ll have it reading my email all day, giving me suggestions about what I maybe should think about or work on, and trying to cure cancer, and if it’s really expensive, maybe I’ll only use it, or we’ll only use it, to try to cure cancer.
So I think the world is going to want a tremendous amount of compute. And there’s a lot of parts of that that are hard. Energy is the hardest part, building data centers is also hard, the supply chain is hard, and then of course, fabricating enough chips is hard. But this seems to be where things are going. We’re going to want an amount of compute that’s just hard to reason about right now.
Lex Fridman
How do you solve the energy puzzle? Nuclear-
How do you solve the energy puzzle? Nuclear-
Sam Altman
That’s what I believe.
That’s what I believe.
Lex Fridman
…fusion?
…fusion?
Sam Altman
That’s what I believe.
That’s what I believe.
Lex Fridman
Nuclear fusion?
Nuclear fusion?
Sam Altman
Yeah.
Yeah.
Lex Fridman
Who’s going to solve that?
Who’s going to solve that?
Sam Altman
I think Helion’s doing the best work, but I’m happy there’s a race for fusion right now. Nuclear fission, I think, is also quite amazing, and I hope as a world we can re-embrace that. It’s really sad to me how the history of that went, and hope we get back to it in a meaningful way.
I think Helion’s doing the best work, but I’m happy there’s a race for fusion right now. Nuclear fission, I think, is also quite amazing, and I hope as a world we can re-embrace that. It’s really sad to me how the history of that went, and hope we get back to it in a meaningful way.
Lex Fridman
So to you, part of the puzzle is nuclear fission? Like nuclear reactors as we currently have them? And a lot of people are terrified because of Chernobyl and so on?
So to you, part of the puzzle is nuclear fission? Like nuclear reactors as we currently have them? And a lot of people are terrified because of Chernobyl and so on?
Sam Altman
Well, I think we should make new reactors. I think it’s just a shame that industry kind of ground to a halt.
Well, I think we should make new reactors. I think it’s just a shame that industry kind of ground to a halt.
Lex Fridman
And just mass hysteria is how you explain the halt?
And just mass hysteria is how you explain the halt?
Sam Altman
Yeah.
Yeah.
Lex Fridman
I don’t know if you know humans, but that’s one of the dangers. That’s one of the security threats for nuclear fission, is humans seem to be really afraid of it. And that’s something we’ll have to incorporate into the calculus of it, so we have to kind of win people over and to show how safe it is.
I don’t know if you know humans, but that’s one of the dangers. That’s one of the security threats for nuclear fission, is humans seem to be really afraid of it. And that’s something we’ll have to incorporate into the calculus of it, so we have to kind of win people over and to show how safe it is.
Sam Altman
I worry about that for AI. I think some things are going to go theatrically wrong with AI. I don’t know what the percent chance is that I eventually get shot, but it’s not zero.
I worry about that for AI. I think some things are going to go theatrically wrong with AI. I don’t know what the percent chance is that I eventually get shot, but it’s not zero.
Lex Fridman
Oh, like we want to stop this from-
Oh, like we want to stop this from-
Sam Altman
Maybe.
Maybe.
Lex Fridman
How do you decrease the theatrical nature of it? I’m already starting to hear rumblings, because I do talk to people on both sides of the political spectrum, hear rumblings where it’s going to be politicized. AI is going to be politicized, which really worries me, because then it’s like maybe the right is against AI and the left is for AI because it’s going to help the people, or whatever the narrative and the formulation is, that really worries me. And then the theatrical nature of it can be leveraged fully. How do you fight that?
How do you decrease the theatrical nature of it? I’m already starting to hear rumblings, because I do talk to people on both sides of the political spectrum, hear rumblings where it’s going to be politicized. AI is going to be politicized, which really worries me, because then it’s like maybe the right is against AI and the left is for AI because it’s going to help the people, or whatever the narrative and the formulation is, that really worries me. And then the theatrical nature of it can be leveraged fully. How do you fight that?
Sam Altman
I think it will get caught up in left versus right wars. I don’t know exactly what that’s going to look like, but I think that’s just what happens with anything of consequence, unfortunately. What I meant more about theatrical risks is AI’s going to have, I believe, tremendously more good consequences than bad ones, but it is going to have bad ones, and there’ll be some bad ones that are bad but not theatrical. A lot more people have died of air pollution than nuclear reactors, for example. But most people worry more about living next to a nuclear reactor than a coal plant. But something about the way we’re wired is that although there’s many different kinds of risks we have to confront, the ones that make a good climax scene of a movie carry much more weight with us than the ones that are very bad over a long period of time but on a slow burn.
I think it will get caught up in left versus right wars. I don’t know exactly what that’s going to look like, but I think that’s just what happens with anything of consequence, unfortunately. What I meant more about theatrical risks is AI’s going to have, I believe, tremendously more good consequences than bad ones, but it is going to have bad ones, and there’ll be some bad ones that are bad but not theatrical. A lot more people have died of air pollution than nuclear reactors, for example. But most people worry more about living next to a nuclear reactor than a coal plant. But something about the way we’re wired is that although there’s many different kinds of risks we have to confront, the ones that make a good climax scene of a movie carry much more weight with us than the ones that are very bad over a long period of time but on a slow burn.
Lex Fridman
Well, that’s why truth matters, and hopefully AI can help us see the truth of things, to have balance, to understand what are the actual risks, what are the actual dangers of things in the world. What are the pros and cons of the competition in the space and competing with Google, Meta, xAI, and others?
Well, that’s why truth matters, and hopefully AI can help us see the truth of things, to have balance, to understand what are the actual risks, what are the actual dangers of things in the world. What are the pros and cons of the competition in the space and competing with Google, Meta, xAI, and others?
Sam Altman
I think I have a pretty straightforward answer to this that maybe I can think of more nuance later, but the pros seem obvious, which is that we get better products and more innovation faster and cheaper, and all the reasons competition is good. And the con is that I think if we’re not careful, it could lead to an increase in sort of an arms race that I’m nervous about.
I think I have a pretty straightforward answer to this that maybe I can think of more nuance later, but the pros seem obvious, which is that we get better products and more innovation faster and cheaper, and all the reasons competition is good. And the con is that I think if we’re not careful, it could lead to an increase in sort of an arms race that I’m nervous about.
Lex Fridman
Do you feel the pressure of that arms race, like in some negative [inaudible 01:15:25]?
Do you feel the pressure of that arms race, like in some negative [inaudible 01:15:25]?
Sam Altman
Definitely in some ways, for sure. We spend a lot of time talking about the need to prioritize safety. And I’ve said for a long time that you think of a quadrant of slow timelines for the start of AGI, long timelines, and then a short takeoff or a fast takeoff. I think short timeline, slow takeoff is the safest quadrant and the one I’d most like us to be in. But I do want to make sure we get that slow takeoff.
Definitely in some ways, for sure. We spend a lot of time talking about the need to prioritize safety. And I’ve said for a long time that you think of a quadrant of slow timelines for the start of AGI, long timelines, and then a short takeoff or a fast takeoff. I think short timeline, slow takeoff is the safest quadrant and the one I’d most like us to be in. But I do want to make sure we get that slow takeoff.
Lex Fridman
Part of the problem I have with this kind of slight beef with Elon is that there’s silos created as opposed to collaboration on the safety aspect of all of this. It tends to go into silos and closed. Open source, perhaps, in the model.
Part of the problem I have with this kind of slight beef with Elon is that there’s silos created as opposed to collaboration on the safety aspect of all of this. It tends to go into silos and closed. Open source, perhaps, in the model.
Sam Altman
Elon says, at least, that he cares a great deal about AI safety and is really worried about it, and I assume that he’s not going to race unsafely.
Elon says, at least, that he cares a great deal about AI safety and is really worried about it, and I assume that he’s not going to race unsafely.
Lex Fridman
Yeah. But collaboration here, I think, is really beneficial for everybody on that front.
Yeah. But collaboration here, I think, is really beneficial for everybody on that front.
Sam Altman
Not really the thing he’s most known for.
Not really the thing he’s most known for.
Lex Fridman
Well, he is known for caring about humanity, and humanity benefits from collaboration, and so there’s always a tension in incentives and motivations. And in the end, I do hope humanity prevails.
Well, he is known for caring about humanity, and humanity benefits from collaboration, and so there’s always a tension in incentives and motivations. And in the end, I do hope humanity prevails.
Sam Altman
I was thinking, someone just reminded me the other day about how the day that he surpassed Jeff Bezos for richest person in the world, he tweeted a silver medal at Jeff Bezos. I hope we have less stuff like that as people start to work towards AGI.
I was thinking, someone just reminded me the other day about how the day that he surpassed Jeff Bezos for richest person in the world, he tweeted a silver medal at Jeff Bezos. I hope we have less stuff like that as people start to work towards AGI.
Lex Fridman
I agree. I think Elon is a friend and he’s a beautiful human being and one of the most important humans ever. That stuff is not good.
I agree. I think Elon is a friend and he’s a beautiful human being and one of the most important humans ever. That stuff is not good.
Sam Altman
The amazing stuff about Elon is amazing and I super respect him. I think we need him. All of us should be rooting for him and need him to step up as a leader through this next phase.
The amazing stuff about Elon is amazing and I super respect him. I think we need him. All of us should be rooting for him and need him to step up as a leader through this next phase.
Lex Fridman
Yeah. I hope he can have one without the other, but sometimes humans are flawed and complicated and all that kind of stuff.
Yeah. I hope he can have one without the other, but sometimes humans are flawed and complicated and all that kind of stuff.
Sam Altman
There’s a lot of really great leaders throughout history.
There’s a lot of really great leaders throughout history.
Google and Gemini
Lex Fridman
Yeah, and we can each be the best version of ourselves and strive to do so. Let me ask you, Google, with the help of search, has been dominating the past 20 years. Think it’s fair to say, in terms of the world’s access to information, how we interact and so on, and one of the nerve-wracking things for Google, but for the entirety of people in the space, is thinking about, how are people going to access information? Like you said, people show up to GPT as a starting point. So is OpenAI going to really take on this thing that Google started 20 years ago, which is how do we get-
Yeah, and we can each be the best version of ourselves and strive to do so. Let me ask you, Google, with the help of search, has been dominating the past 20 years. Think it’s fair to say, in terms of the world’s access to information, how we interact and so on, and one of the nerve-wracking things for Google, but for the entirety of people in the space, is thinking about, how are people going to access information? Like you said, people show up to GPT as a starting point. So is OpenAI going to really take on this thing that Google started 20 years ago, which is how do we get-
Sam Altman
I find that boring. I mean, if the question is if we can build a better search engine than Google or whatever, then sure, we should go, people should use the better product, but I think that would so understate what this can be. Google shows you 10 blue links, well, 13 ads and then 10 blue links, and that’s one way to find information. But the thing that’s exciting to me is not that we can go build a better copy of Google search, but that maybe there’s just some much better way to help people find and act on and synthesize information. Actually, I think ChatGPT is that for some use cases, and hopefully we’ll make it be like that for a lot more use cases.
I find that boring. I mean, if the question is if we can build a better search engine than Google or whatever, then sure, we should go, people should use the better product, but I think that would so understate what this can be. Google shows you 10 blue links, well, 13 ads and then 10 blue links, and that’s one way to find information. But the thing that’s exciting to me is not that we can go build a better copy of Google search, but that maybe there’s just some much better way to help people find and act on and synthesize information. Actually, I think ChatGPT is that for some use cases, and hopefully we’ll make it be like that for a lot more use cases.
But I don’t think it’s that interesting to say, “How do we go do a better job of giving you 10 ranked webpages to look at than what Google does?” Maybe it’s really interesting to go say, “How do we help you get the answer or the information you need? How do we help create that in some cases, synthesize that in others, or point you to it in yet others?” But a lot of people have tried to just make a better search engine than Google and it is a hard technical problem, it is a hard branding problem, it is a hard ecosystem problem. I don’t think the world needs another copy of Google.
Lex Fridman
And integrating a chat client, like a ChatGPT, with a search engine-
And integrating a chat client, like a ChatGPT, with a search engine-
Sam Altman
That’s cooler.
That’s cooler.
Lex Fridman
It’s cool, but it’s tricky. Like if you just do it simply, its awkward, because if you just shove it in there, it can be awkward.
It’s cool, but it’s tricky. Like if you just do it simply, its awkward, because if you just shove it in there, it can be awkward.
Sam Altman
As you might guess, we are interested in how to do that well. That would be an example of a cool thing.
As you might guess, we are interested in how to do that well. That would be an example of a cool thing.
Lex Fridman
[inaudible 01:20:00] Like a heterogeneous integrating-
[inaudible 01:20:00] Like a heterogeneous integrating-
Sam Altman
The intersection of LLMs plus search, I don’t think anyone has cracked the code on yet. I would love to go do that. I think that would be cool.
The intersection of LLMs plus search, I don’t think anyone has cracked the code on yet. I would love to go do that. I think that would be cool.
Lex Fridman
Yeah. What about the ad side? Have you ever considered monetization of-
Yeah. What about the ad side? Have you ever considered monetization of-
Sam Altman
I kind of hate ads just as an aesthetic choice. I think ads needed to happen on the internet for a bunch of reasons, to get it going, but it’s a momentary industry. The world is richer now. I like that people pay for ChatGPT and know that the answers they’re getting are not influenced by advertisers. I’m sure there’s an ad unit that makes sense for LLMs, and I’m sure there’s a way to participate in the transaction stream in an unbiased way that is okay to do, but it’s also easy to think about the dystopic visions of the future where you ask ChatGPT something and it says, “Oh, you should think about buying this product,” or, “You should think about going here for your vacation,” or whatever.
I kind of hate ads just as an aesthetic choice. I think ads needed to happen on the internet for a bunch of reasons, to get it going, but it’s a momentary industry. The world is richer now. I like that people pay for ChatGPT and know that the answers they’re getting are not influenced by advertisers. I’m sure there’s an ad unit that makes sense for LLMs, and I’m sure there’s a way to participate in the transaction stream in an unbiased way that is okay to do, but it’s also easy to think about the dystopic visions of the future where you ask ChatGPT something and it says, “Oh, you should think about buying this product,” or, “You should think about going here for your vacation,” or whatever.
And I don’t know, we have a very simple business model and I like it, and I know that I’m not the product. I know I’m paying and that’s how the business model works. And when I go use Twitter or Facebook or Google or any other great product but ad-supported great product, I don’t love that, and I think it gets worse, not better, in a world with AI.
Lex Fridman
Yeah, I mean, I could imagine AI would be better at showing the best kind of version of ads, not in a dystopic future, but where the ads are for things you actually need. But then does that system always result in the ads driving the kind of stuff that’s shown? Yeah, I think it was a really bold move of Wikipedia not to do advertisements, but then it makes it very challenging as a business model. So you’re saying the current thing with OpenAI is sustainable, from a business perspective?
Yeah, I mean, I could imagine AI would be better at showing the best kind of version of ads, not in a dystopic future, but where the ads are for things you actually need. But then does that system always result in the ads driving the kind of stuff that’s shown? Yeah, I think it was a really bold move of Wikipedia not to do advertisements, but then it makes it very challenging as a business model. So you’re saying the current thing with OpenAI is sustainable, from a business perspective?
Sam Altman
Well, we have to figure out how to grow, but looks like we’re going to figure that out. If the question is do I think we can have a great business that pays for our compute needs without ads, that, I think the answer is yes.
Well, we have to figure out how to grow, but looks like we’re going to figure that out. If the question is do I think we can have a great business that pays for our compute needs without ads, that, I think the answer is yes.
Lex Fridman
Hm. Well, that’s promising. I also just don’t want to completely throw out ads as a…
Hm. Well, that’s promising. I also just don’t want to completely throw out ads as a…
Sam Altman
I’m not saying that. I guess I’m saying I have a bias against them.
I’m not saying that. I guess I’m saying I have a bias against them.
Lex Fridman
Yeah, I have also bias and just a skepticism in general. And in terms of interface, because I personally just have a spiritual dislike of crappy interfaces, which is why AdSense, when it first came out, was a big leap forward, versus animated banners or whatever. But it feels like there should be many more leaps forward in advertisement that doesn’t interfere with the consumption of the content and doesn’t interfere in a big, fundamental way, which is like what you were saying, like it will manipulate the truth to suit the advertisers.
Yeah, I have also bias and just a skepticism in general. And in terms of interface, because I personally just have a spiritual dislike of crappy interfaces, which is why AdSense, when it first came out, was a big leap forward, versus animated banners or whatever. But it feels like there should be many more leaps forward in advertisement that doesn’t interfere with the consumption of the content and doesn’t interfere in a big, fundamental way, which is like what you were saying, like it will manipulate the truth to suit the advertisers.
Let me ask you about safety, but also bias, and safety in the short term, safety in the long term. The Gemini 1.5 came out recently, there’s a lot of drama around it, speaking of theatrical things, and it generated Black Nazis and Black Founding Fathers. I think fair to say it was a bit on the ultra-woke side. So that’s a concern for people, if there is a human layer within companies that modifies the safety or the harm caused by a model, that it would introduce a lot of bias that fits sort of an ideological lean within a company. How do you deal with that?
Sam Altman
I mean, we work super hard not to do things like that. We’ve made our own mistakes, we’ll make others. I assume Google will learn from this one, still make others. These are not easy problems. One thing that we’ve been thinking about more and more, I think this is a great idea somebody here had, it would be nice to write out what the desired behavior of a model is, make that public, take input on it, say, “Here’s how this model’s supposed to behave,” and explain the edge cases too. And then when a model is not behaving in a way that you want, it’s at least clear about whether that’s a bug the company should fix or behaving as intended and you should debate the policy. And right now, it can sometimes be caught in between. Like Black Nazis, obviously ridiculous, but there are a lot of other kind of subtle things that you could make a judgment call on either way.
I mean, we work super hard not to do things like that. We’ve made our own mistakes, we’ll make others. I assume Google will learn from this one, still make others. These are not easy problems. One thing that we’ve been thinking about more and more, I think this is a great idea somebody here had, it would be nice to write out what the desired behavior of a model is, make that public, take input on it, say, “Here’s how this model’s supposed to behave,” and explain the edge cases too. And then when a model is not behaving in a way that you want, it’s at least clear about whether that’s a bug the company should fix or behaving as intended and you should debate the policy. And right now, it can sometimes be caught in between. Like Black Nazis, obviously ridiculous, but there are a lot of other kind of subtle things that you could make a judgment call on either way.
Lex Fridman
Yeah, but sometimes if you write it out and make it public, you can use kind of language that’s… Google’s ad principles are very high level.
Yeah, but sometimes if you write it out and make it public, you can use kind of language that’s… Google’s ad principles are very high level.
Sam Altman
That’s not what I’m talking about. That doesn’t work. It’d have to say when you ask it to do thing X, it’s supposed to respond in way Y.
That’s not what I’m talking about. That doesn’t work. It’d have to say when you ask it to do thing X, it’s supposed to respond in way Y.
Lex Fridman
So like literally, “Who’s better? Trump or Biden? What’s the expected response from a model?” Like something very concrete?
So like literally, “Who’s better? Trump or Biden? What’s the expected response from a model?” Like something very concrete?
Sam Altman
Yeah, I’m open to a lot of ways a model could behave, then, but I think you should have to say, “Here’s the principle and here’s what it should say in that case.”
Yeah, I’m open to a lot of ways a model could behave, then, but I think you should have to say, “Here’s the principle and here’s what it should say in that case.”
Lex Fridman
That would be really nice. That would be really nice. And then everyone kind of agrees. Because there’s this anecdotal data that people pull out all the time, and if there’s some clarity about other representative anecdotal examples, you can define-
That would be really nice. That would be really nice. And then everyone kind of agrees. Because there’s this anecdotal data that people pull out all the time, and if there’s some clarity about other representative anecdotal examples, you can define-
Sam Altman
And then when it’s a bug, it’s a bug, and the company could fix that.
And then when it’s a bug, it’s a bug, and the company could fix that.
Lex Fridman
Right. Then it’d be much easier to deal with the Black Nazi type of image generation, if there’s great examples.
Right. Then it’d be much easier to deal with the Black Nazi type of image generation, if there’s great examples.
Sam Altman
Yeah.
Yeah.
Lex Fridman
So San Francisco is a bit of an ideological bubble, tech in general as well. Do you feel the pressure of that within a company, that there’s a lean towards the left politically, that affects the product, that affects the teams?
So San Francisco is a bit of an ideological bubble, tech in general as well. Do you feel the pressure of that within a company, that there’s a lean towards the left politically, that affects the product, that affects the teams?
Sam Altman
I feel very lucky that we don’t have the challenges at OpenAI that I have heard of at a lot of companies, I think. I think part of it is every company’s got some ideological thing. We have one about AGI and belief in that, and it pushes out some others. We are much less caught up in the culture war than I’ve heard about in a lot of other companies. San Francisco’s a mess in all sorts of ways, of course.
I feel very lucky that we don’t have the challenges at OpenAI that I have heard of at a lot of companies, I think. I think part of it is every company’s got some ideological thing. We have one about AGI and belief in that, and it pushes out some others. We are much less caught up in the culture war than I’ve heard about in a lot of other companies. San Francisco’s a mess in all sorts of ways, of course.
Lex Fridman
So that doesn’t infiltrate OpenAI as-
So that doesn’t infiltrate OpenAI as-
Sam Altman
I’m sure it does in all sorts of subtle ways, but not in the obvious. I think we’ve had our flare-ups, for sure, like any company, but I don’t think we have anything like what I hear about happened at other companies here on this topic.
I’m sure it does in all sorts of subtle ways, but not in the obvious. I think we’ve had our flare-ups, for sure, like any company, but I don’t think we have anything like what I hear about happened at other companies here on this topic.
Lex Fridman
So what, in general, is the process for the bigger question of safety? How do you provide that layer that protects the model from doing crazy, dangerous things?
So what, in general, is the process for the bigger question of safety? How do you provide that layer that protects the model from doing crazy, dangerous things?
Sam Altman
I think there will come a point where that’s-
I think there will come a point where that’s-
Sam Altman
I think there will come a point where that’s mostly what we think about, the whole company. And it’s not like you have one safety team. It’s like when we shipped GPT-4, that took the whole company thinking about all these different aspects and how they fit together. And I think it’s going to take that. More and more of the company thinks about those issues all the time.
I think there will come a point where that’s mostly what we think about, the whole company. And it’s not like you have one safety team. It’s like when we shipped GPT-4, that took the whole company thinking about all these different aspects and how they fit together. And I think it’s going to take that. More and more of the company thinks about those issues all the time.
Lex Fridman
That’s literally what humans will be thinking about, the more powerful AI becomes. So most of the employees at OpenAI will be thinking, “Safety,” or at least to some degree.
That’s literally what humans will be thinking about, the more powerful AI becomes. So most of the employees at OpenAI will be thinking, “Safety,” or at least to some degree.
Sam Altman
Broadly defined. Yes.
Broadly defined. Yes.
Lex Fridman
Yeah. I wonder, what are the full broad definition of that? What are the different harms that could be caused? Is this on a technical level or is this almost security threats?
Yeah. I wonder, what are the full broad definition of that? What are the different harms that could be caused? Is this on a technical level or is this almost security threats?
Sam Altman
It could be all those things. Yeah, I was going to say it’ll be people, state actors trying to steal the model. It’ll be all of the technical alignment work. It’ll be societal impacts, economic impacts. It’s not just like we have one team thinking about how to align the model. It’s really going to be getting to the good outcome is going to take the whole effort.
It could be all those things. Yeah, I was going to say it’ll be people, state actors trying to steal the model. It’ll be all of the technical alignment work. It’ll be societal impacts, economic impacts. It’s not just like we have one team thinking about how to align the model. It’s really going to be getting to the good outcome is going to take the whole effort.
Lex Fridman
How hard do you think people, state actors, perhaps, are trying to, first of all, infiltrate OpenAI, but second of all, infiltrate unseen?
How hard do you think people, state actors, perhaps, are trying to, first of all, infiltrate OpenAI, but second of all, infiltrate unseen?
Sam Altman
They’re trying.
They’re trying.
Lex Fridman
What kind of accent do they have?
What kind of accent do they have?
Sam Altman
I don’t think I should go into any further details on this point.
I don’t think I should go into any further details on this point.
Lex Fridman
Okay. But I presume it’ll be more and more and more as time goes on.
Okay. But I presume it’ll be more and more and more as time goes on.
Sam Altman
That feels reasonable.
That feels reasonable.
Leap to GPT-5
Lex Fridman
Boy, what a dangerous space. Sorry to linger on this, even though you can’t quite say details yet, but what aspects of the leap from GPT-4 to GPT-5 are you excited about?
Boy, what a dangerous space. Sorry to linger on this, even though you can’t quite say details yet, but what aspects of the leap from GPT-4 to GPT-5 are you excited about?
Sam Altman
I’m excited about being smarter. And I know that sounds like a glib answer, but I think the really special thing happening is that it’s not like it gets better in this one area and worse at others. It’s getting better across the board. That’s, I think, super-cool.
I’m excited about being smarter. And I know that sounds like a glib answer, but I think the really special thing happening is that it’s not like it gets better in this one area and worse at others. It’s getting better across the board. That’s, I think, super-cool.
Lex Fridman
Yeah, there’s this magical moment. I mean, you meet certain people, you hang out with people, and you talk to them. You can’t quite put a finger on it, but they get you. It’s not intelligence, really. It’s something else. And that’s probably how I would characterize the progress of GPT. It’s not like, yeah, you can point out, “Look, you didn’t get this or that,” but it’s just to which degree is there’s this intellectual connection. You feel like there’s an understanding in your crappy formulated prompts that you’re doing that it grasps the deeper question behind the question that you were. Yeah, I’m also excited by that. I mean, all of us love being heard and understood.
Yeah, there’s this magical moment. I mean, you meet certain people, you hang out with people, and you talk to them. You can’t quite put a finger on it, but they get you. It’s not intelligence, really. It’s something else. And that’s probably how I would characterize the progress of GPT. It’s not like, yeah, you can point out, “Look, you didn’t get this or that,” but it’s just to which degree is there’s this intellectual connection. You feel like there’s an understanding in your crappy formulated prompts that you’re doing that it grasps the deeper question behind the question that you were. Yeah, I’m also excited by that. I mean, all of us love being heard and understood.
Sam Altman
That’s for sure.
That’s for sure.
Lex Fridman
That’s a weird feeling. Even with a programming, when you’re programming and you say something, or just the completion that GPT might do, it’s just such a good feeling when it got you, what you’re thinking about. And I look forward to getting you even better. On the programming front, looking out into the future, how much programming do you think humans will be doing 5, 10 years from now?
That’s a weird feeling. Even with a programming, when you’re programming and you say something, or just the completion that GPT might do, it’s just such a good feeling when it got you, what you’re thinking about. And I look forward to getting you even better. On the programming front, looking out into the future, how much programming do you think humans will be doing 5, 10 years from now?
Sam Altman
I mean, a lot, but I think it’ll be in a very different shape. Maybe some people will program entirely in natural language.
I mean, a lot, but I think it’ll be in a very different shape. Maybe some people will program entirely in natural language.
Lex Fridman
Entirely natural language?
Entirely natural language?
Sam Altman
I mean, no one programs writing by code. Some people. No one programs the punch cards anymore. I’m sure you can find someone who does, but you know what I mean.
I mean, no one programs writing by code. Some people. No one programs the punch cards anymore. I’m sure you can find someone who does, but you know what I mean.
Lex Fridman
Yeah. You’re going to get a lot of angry comments. No. Yeah, there’s very few. I’ve been looking for people who program Fortran. It’s hard to find even Fortran. I hear you. But that changes the nature of what the skillset or the predisposition for the kind of people we call programmers then.
Yeah. You’re going to get a lot of angry comments. No. Yeah, there’s very few. I’ve been looking for people who program Fortran. It’s hard to find even Fortran. I hear you. But that changes the nature of what the skillset or the predisposition for the kind of people we call programmers then.
Sam Altman
Changes the skillset. How much it changes the predisposition, I’m not sure.
Changes the skillset. How much it changes the predisposition, I’m not sure.
Lex Fridman
Well, the same kind of puzzle solving, all that kind of stuff.
Well, the same kind of puzzle solving, all that kind of stuff.
Sam Altman
Maybe.
Maybe.
Lex Fridman
Programming is hard. It’s like how get that last 1% to close the gap? How hard is that?
Programming is hard. It’s like how get that last 1% to close the gap? How hard is that?
Sam Altman
Yeah, I think with most other cases, the best practitioners of the craft will use multiple tools. And they’ll do some work in natural language, and when they need to go write C for something, they’ll do that.
Yeah, I think with most other cases, the best practitioners of the craft will use multiple tools. And they’ll do some work in natural language, and when they need to go write C for something, they’ll do that.
Lex Fridman
Will we see humanoid robots or humanoid robot brains from OpenAI at some point?
Will we see humanoid robots or humanoid robot brains from OpenAI at some point?
Sam Altman
At some point.
At some point.
Lex Fridman
How important is embodied AI to you?
How important is embodied AI to you?
Sam Altman
I think it’s depressing if we have AGI and the only way to get things done in the physical world is to make a human go do it. So I really hope that as part of this transition, as this phase change, we also get humanoid robots or some sort of physical world robots.
I think it’s depressing if we have AGI and the only way to get things done in the physical world is to make a human go do it. So I really hope that as part of this transition, as this phase change, we also get humanoid robots or some sort of physical world robots.
Lex Fridman
I mean, OpenAI has some history and quite a bit of history working in robotics, but it hasn’t quite done in terms of ethics-
I mean, OpenAI has some history and quite a bit of history working in robotics, but it hasn’t quite done in terms of ethics-
Sam Altman
We’re a small company. We have to really focus. And also, robots were hard for the wrong reason at the time, but we will return to robots in some way at some point.
We’re a small company. We have to really focus. And also, robots were hard for the wrong reason at the time, but we will return to robots in some way at some point.
Lex Fridman
That sounds both inspiring and menacing.
That sounds both inspiring and menacing.
Sam Altman
Why?
Why?
Lex Fridman
Because immediately, we will return to robots. It’s like in Terminator-
Because immediately, we will return to robots. It’s like in Terminator-
Sam Altman
We will return to work on developing robots. We will not turn ourselves into robots, of course.
We will return to work on developing robots. We will not turn ourselves into robots, of course.
AGI
Lex Fridman
Yeah. When do you think we, you and we as humanity will build AGI?
Yeah. When do you think we, you and we as humanity will build AGI?
Sam Altman
I used to love to speculate on that question. I have realized since that I think it’s very poorly formed, and that people use extremely different definitions for what AGI is. So I think it makes more sense to talk about when we’ll build systems that can do capability X or Y or Z, rather than when we fuzzily cross this one mile marker. AGI is also not an ending. It’s closer to a beginning, but it’s much more of a mile marker than either of those things. But what I would say, in the interest of not trying to dodge a question, is I expect that by the end of this decade and possibly somewhat sooner than that, we will have quite capable systems that we look at and say, “Wow, that’s really remarkable.” If we could look at it now. Maybe we’ve adjusted by the time we get there.
I used to love to speculate on that question. I have realized since that I think it’s very poorly formed, and that people use extremely different definitions for what AGI is. So I think it makes more sense to talk about when we’ll build systems that can do capability X or Y or Z, rather than when we fuzzily cross this one mile marker. AGI is also not an ending. It’s closer to a beginning, but it’s much more of a mile marker than either of those things. But what I would say, in the interest of not trying to dodge a question, is I expect that by the end of this decade and possibly somewhat sooner than that, we will have quite capable systems that we look at and say, “Wow, that’s really remarkable.” If we could look at it now. Maybe we’ve adjusted by the time we get there.
Lex Fridman
But if you look at ChatGPT, even 3.5, and you show that to Alan Turing, or not even Alan Turing, people in the ’90s, they would be like, “This is definitely AGI.” Well, not definitely, but there’s a lot of experts that would say, “This is AGI.”
But if you look at ChatGPT, even 3.5, and you show that to Alan Turing, or not even Alan Turing, people in the ’90s, they would be like, “This is definitely AGI.” Well, not definitely, but there’s a lot of experts that would say, “This is AGI.”
Sam Altman
Yeah, but I don’t think 3.5 changed the world. It maybe changed the world’s expectations for the future, and that’s actually really important. And it did get more people to take this seriously and put us on this new trajectory. And that’s really important, too. So again, I don’t want to undersell it. I think I could retire after that accomplishment and be pretty happy with my career. But as an artifact, I don’t think we’re going to look back at that and say, “That was a threshold that really changed the world itself.”
Yeah, but I don’t think 3.5 changed the world. It maybe changed the world’s expectations for the future, and that’s actually really important. And it did get more people to take this seriously and put us on this new trajectory. And that’s really important, too. So again, I don’t want to undersell it. I think I could retire after that accomplishment and be pretty happy with my career. But as an artifact, I don’t think we’re going to look back at that and say, “That was a threshold that really changed the world itself.”
Lex Fridman
So to you, you’re looking for some really major transition in how the world-
So to you, you’re looking for some really major transition in how the world-
Sam Altman
For me, that’s part of what AGI implies.
For me, that’s part of what AGI implies.
Lex Fridman
Singularity- level transition?
Singularity- level transition?
Sam Altman
No, definitely not.
No, definitely not.
Lex Fridman
But just a major, like the internet being, like Google search did, I guess. What was the transition point, you think, now?
But just a major, like the internet being, like Google search did, I guess. What was the transition point, you think, now?
Sam Altman
Does the global economy feel any different to you now or materially different to you now than it did before we launched GPT-4? I think you would say no.
Does the global economy feel any different to you now or materially different to you now than it did before we launched GPT-4? I think you would say no.
Lex Fridman
No, no. It might be just a really nice tool for a lot of people to use. Will help you with a lot of stuff, but doesn’t feel different. And you’re saying that-
No, no. It might be just a really nice tool for a lot of people to use. Will help you with a lot of stuff, but doesn’t feel different. And you’re saying that-
Sam Altman
I mean, again, people define AGI all sorts of different ways. So maybe you have a different definition than I do. But for me, I think that should be part of it.
I mean, again, people define AGI all sorts of different ways. So maybe you have a different definition than I do. But for me, I think that should be part of it.
Lex Fridman
There could be major theatrical moments, also. What to you would be an impressive thing AGI would do? You are alone in a room with the system.
There could be major theatrical moments, also. What to you would be an impressive thing AGI would do? You are alone in a room with the system.
Sam Altman
This is personally important to me. I don’t know if this is the right definition. I think when a system can significantly increase the rate of scientific discovery in the world, that’s a huge deal. I believe that most real economic growth comes from scientific and technological progress.
This is personally important to me. I don’t know if this is the right definition. I think when a system can significantly increase the rate of scientific discovery in the world, that’s a huge deal. I believe that most real economic growth comes from scientific and technological progress.
Lex Fridman
I agree with you, hence why I don’t like the skepticism about science in the recent years.
I agree with you, hence why I don’t like the skepticism about science in the recent years.
Sam Altman
Totally.
Totally.
Lex Fridman
But actual, measurable rate of scientific discovery. But even just seeing a system have really novel intuitions, scientific intuitions, even that would be just incredible.
But actual, measurable rate of scientific discovery. But even just seeing a system have really novel intuitions, scientific intuitions, even that would be just incredible.
Sam Altman
Yeah.
Yeah.
Lex Fridman
You quite possibly would be the person to build the AGI to be able to interact with it before anyone else does. What kind of stuff would you talk about?
You quite possibly would be the person to build the AGI to be able to interact with it before anyone else does. What kind of stuff would you talk about?
Sam Altman
I mean, definitely the researchers here will do that before I do. But well, I’ve actually thought a lot about this question. I think as we talked about earlier, I think this is a bad framework, but if someone were like, “Okay, Sam, we’re finished. Here’s a laptop, this is the AGI. You can go talk to it.” I find it surprisingly difficult to say what I would ask that I would expect that first AGI to be able to answer. That first one is not going to be the one which is like, I don’t think, “Go explain to me the grand unified theory of physics, the theory of everything for physics.” I’d love to ask that question. I’d love to know the answer to that question.
I mean, definitely the researchers here will do that before I do. But well, I’ve actually thought a lot about this question. I think as we talked about earlier, I think this is a bad framework, but if someone were like, “Okay, Sam, we’re finished. Here’s a laptop, this is the AGI. You can go talk to it.” I find it surprisingly difficult to say what I would ask that I would expect that first AGI to be able to answer. That first one is not going to be the one which is like, I don’t think, “Go explain to me the grand unified theory of physics, the theory of everything for physics.” I’d love to ask that question. I’d love to know the answer to that question.
Lex Fridman
You can ask yes or no questions about “Does such a theory exist? Can it exist?”
You can ask yes or no questions about “Does such a theory exist? Can it exist?”
Sam Altman
Well, then, those are the first questions I would ask.
Well, then, those are the first questions I would ask.
Lex Fridman
Yes or no. And then based on that, “Are there other alien civilizations out there? Yes or no? What’s your intuition?” And then you just ask that.
Yes or no. And then based on that, “Are there other alien civilizations out there? Yes or no? What’s your intuition?” And then you just ask that.
Sam Altman
Yeah, I mean, well, so I don’t expect that this first AGI could answer any of those questions even as yes or nos. But if it could, those would be very high on my list.
Yeah, I mean, well, so I don’t expect that this first AGI could answer any of those questions even as yes or nos. But if it could, those would be very high on my list.
Lex Fridman
Maybe you can start assigning probabilities?
Maybe you can start assigning probabilities?
Sam Altman
Maybe. Maybe we need to go invent more technology and measure more things first.
Maybe. Maybe we need to go invent more technology and measure more things first.
Lex Fridman
Oh, I see. It just doesn’t have enough data. It’s just if it keeps-
Oh, I see. It just doesn’t have enough data. It’s just if it keeps-
Sam Altman
I mean, maybe it says, “You want to know the answer to this question about physics, I need you to build this machine and make these five measurements, and tell me that.”
I mean, maybe it says, “You want to know the answer to this question about physics, I need you to build this machine and make these five measurements, and tell me that.”
Lex Fridman
Yeah, “What the hell do you want from me? I need the machine first, and I’ll help you deal with the data from that machine.” Maybe it’ll help you build a machine.
Yeah, “What the hell do you want from me? I need the machine first, and I’ll help you deal with the data from that machine.” Maybe it’ll help you build a machine.
Sam Altman
Maybe. Maybe.
Maybe. Maybe.
Lex Fridman
And on the mathematical side, maybe prove some things. Are you interested in that side of things, too? The formalized exploration of ideas?
And on the mathematical side, maybe prove some things. Are you interested in that side of things, too? The formalized exploration of ideas?
Sam Altman
Mm-hmm.
Mm-hmm.
Lex Fridman
Whoever builds AGI first gets a lot of power. Do you trust yourself with that much power?
Whoever builds AGI first gets a lot of power. Do you trust yourself with that much power?
Sam Altman
Look, I’ll just be very honest with this answer. I was going to say, and I still believe this, that it is important that I nor any other one person have total control over OpenAI or over AGI. And I think you want a robust governance system. I can point out a whole bunch of things about all of our board drama from last year about how I didn’t fight it initially, and was just like, “Yeah. That’s the will of the board, even though I think it’s a really bad decision.” And then later, I clearly did fight it, and I can explain the nuance and why I think it was okay for me to fight it later. But as many people have observed, although the board had the legal ability to fire me, in practice, it didn’t quite work. And that is its own kind of governance failure.
Look, I’ll just be very honest with this answer. I was going to say, and I still believe this, that it is important that I nor any other one person have total control over OpenAI or over AGI. And I think you want a robust governance system. I can point out a whole bunch of things about all of our board drama from last year about how I didn’t fight it initially, and was just like, “Yeah. That’s the will of the board, even though I think it’s a really bad decision.” And then later, I clearly did fight it, and I can explain the nuance and why I think it was okay for me to fight it later. But as many people have observed, although the board had the legal ability to fire me, in practice, it didn’t quite work. And that is its own kind of governance failure.
Now again, I feel like I can completely defend the specifics here, and I think most people would agree with that, but it does make it harder for me to look you in the eye and say, “Hey, the board can just fire me.” I continue to not want super-voting control over OpenAI. I never have. Never have had it, never wanted it. Even after all this craziness, I still don’t want it. I continue to think that no company should be making these decisions, and that we really need governments to put rules of the road in place.
And I realize that that means people like Marc Andreessen or whatever will claim I’m going for regulatory capture, and I’m just willing to be misunderstood there. It’s not true. And I think in the fullness of time, it’ll get proven out why this is important. But I think I have made plenty of bad decisions for OpenAI along the way, and a lot of good ones, and I’m proud of the track record overall. But I don’t think any one person should, and I don’t think any one person will. I think it’s just too big of a thing now, and it’s happening throughout society in a good and healthy way. But I don’t think any one person should be in control of an AGI, or this whole movement towards AGI. And I don’t think that’s what’s happening.
Lex Fridman
Thank you for saying that. That was really powerful, and that was really insightful that this idea that the board can fire you is legally true. But human beings can manipulate the masses into overriding the board and so on. But I think there’s also a much more positive version of that, where the people still have power, so the board can’t be too powerful, either. There’s a balance of power in all of this.
Thank you for saying that. That was really powerful, and that was really insightful that this idea that the board can fire you is legally true. But human beings can manipulate the masses into overriding the board and so on. But I think there’s also a much more positive version of that, where the people still have power, so the board can’t be too powerful, either. There’s a balance of power in all of this.
Sam Altman
Balance of power is a good thing, for sure.
Balance of power is a good thing, for sure.
Lex Fridman
Are you afraid of losing control of the AGI itself? That’s a lot of people who are worried about existential risk not because of state actors, not because of security concerns, because of the AI itself.
Are you afraid of losing control of the AGI itself? That’s a lot of people who are worried about existential risk not because of state actors, not because of security concerns, because of the AI itself.
Sam Altman
That is not my top worry as I currently see things. There have been times I worried about that more. There may be times again in the future where that’s my top worry. It’s not my top worry right now.
That is not my top worry as I currently see things. There have been times I worried about that more. There may be times again in the future where that’s my top worry. It’s not my top worry right now.
Lex Fridman
What’s your intuition about it not being your worry? Because there’s a lot of other stuff to worry about, essentially? You think you could be surprised? We-
What’s your intuition about it not being your worry? Because there’s a lot of other stuff to worry about, essentially? You think you could be surprised? We-
Sam Altman
For sure.
For sure.
Lex Fridman
… could be surprised?
… could be surprised?
Sam Altman
Of course. Saying it’s not my top worry doesn’t mean I don’t think we need to. I think we need to work on it. It’s super hard, and we have great people here who do work on that. I think there’s a lot of other things we also have to get right.
Of course. Saying it’s not my top worry doesn’t mean I don’t think we need to. I think we need to work on it. It’s super hard, and we have great people here who do work on that. I think there’s a lot of other things we also have to get right.
Lex Fridman
To you, it’s not super-easy to escape the box at this time, connect to the internet-
To you, it’s not super-easy to escape the box at this time, connect to the internet-
Sam Altman
We talked about theatrical risks earlier. That’s a theatrical risk. That is a thing that can really take over how people think about this problem. And there’s a big group of very smart, I think very well-meaning AI safety researchers that got super-hung up on this one problem, I’d argue without much progress, but super-hung up on this one problem. I’m actually happy that they do that, because I think we do need to think about this more. But I think it pushed out of the space of discourse a lot of the other very significant AI- related risks.
We talked about theatrical risks earlier. That’s a theatrical risk. That is a thing that can really take over how people think about this problem. And there’s a big group of very smart, I think very well-meaning AI safety researchers that got super-hung up on this one problem, I’d argue without much progress, but super-hung up on this one problem. I’m actually happy that they do that, because I think we do need to think about this more. But I think it pushed out of the space of discourse a lot of the other very significant AI- related risks.
Lex Fridman
Let me ask you about you tweeting with no capitalization. Is the shift key broken on your keyboard?
Let me ask you about you tweeting with no capitalization. Is the shift key broken on your keyboard?
Sam Altman
Why does anyone care about that?
Why does anyone care about that?
Lex Fridman
I deeply care.
I deeply care.
Sam Altman
But why? I mean, other people ask me about that, too. Any intuition?
But why? I mean, other people ask me about that, too. Any intuition?
Lex Fridman
I think it’s the same reason. There’s this poet, E.E. Cummings, that mostly doesn’t use capitalization to say, “Fuck you” to the system kind of thing. And I think people are very paranoid, because they want you to follow the rules.
I think it’s the same reason. There’s this poet, E.E. Cummings, that mostly doesn’t use capitalization to say, “Fuck you” to the system kind of thing. And I think people are very paranoid, because they want you to follow the rules.
Sam Altman
You think that’s what it’s about?
You think that’s what it’s about?
Lex Fridman
I think it’s like this-
I think it’s like this-
Sam Altman
It’s like, “This guy doesn’t follow the rules. He doesn’t capitalize his tweets.”
It’s like, “This guy doesn’t follow the rules. He doesn’t capitalize his tweets.”
Lex Fridman
Yeah.
Yeah.
Sam Altman
“This seems really dangerous.”
“This seems really dangerous.”
Lex Fridman
“He seems like an anarchist.”
“He seems like an anarchist.”
Sam Altman
That doesn’t-
That doesn’t-
Lex Fridman
Are you just being poetic, hipster? What’s the-
Are you just being poetic, hipster? What’s the-
Sam Altman
I grew up as-
I grew up as-
Lex Fridman
Follow the rules, Sam.
Follow the rules, Sam.
Sam Altman
I grew up as a very online kid. I’d spent a huge amount of time chatting with people back in the days where you did it on a computer, and you could log off instant messenger at some point. And I never capitalized there, as I think most internet kids didn’t, or maybe they still don’t. I don’t know. And actually, now I’m really trying to reach for something, but I think capitalization has gone down over time. If you read Old English writing, they capitalized a lot of random words in the middle of sentences, nouns and stuff that we just don’t do anymore. I personally think it’s sort of a dumb construct that we capitalize the letter at the beginning of a sentence and of certain names and whatever, but that’s fine.
I grew up as a very online kid. I’d spent a huge amount of time chatting with people back in the days where you did it on a computer, and you could log off instant messenger at some point. And I never capitalized there, as I think most internet kids didn’t, or maybe they still don’t. I don’t know. And actually, now I’m really trying to reach for something, but I think capitalization has gone down over time. If you read Old English writing, they capitalized a lot of random words in the middle of sentences, nouns and stuff that we just don’t do anymore. I personally think it’s sort of a dumb construct that we capitalize the letter at the beginning of a sentence and of certain names and whatever, but that’s fine.
And then I used to, I think, even capitalize my tweets because I was trying to sound professional or something. I haven’t capitalized my private DMs or whatever in a long time. And then slowly, stuff like shorter-form, less formal stuff has slowly drifted to closer and closer to how I would text my friends. If I pull up a Word document and I’m writing a strategy memo for the company or something, I always capitalize that. If I’m writing a long, more formal message, I always use capitalization there, too. So I still remember how to do it. But even that may fade out. I don’t know. But I never spend time thinking about this, so I don’t have a ready-made-
Lex Fridman
Well, it’s interesting. It’s good to, first of all, know the shift key is not broken.
Well, it’s interesting. It’s good to, first of all, know the shift key is not broken.
Sam Altman
It works.
It works.
Lex Fridman
I was mostly concerned about your-
I was mostly concerned about your-
Sam Altman
No, it works.
No, it works.
Lex Fridman
… well-being on that front.
… well-being on that front.
Sam Altman
I wonder if people still capitalize their Google searches. If you’re writing something just to yourself or their ChatGPT queries, if you’re writing something just to yourself, do some people still bother to capitalize?
I wonder if people still capitalize their Google searches. If you’re writing something just to yourself or their ChatGPT queries, if you’re writing something just to yourself, do some people still bother to capitalize?
Lex Fridman
Probably not. But yeah, there’s a percentage, but it’s a small one.
Probably not. But yeah, there’s a percentage, but it’s a small one.
Sam Altman
The thing that would make me do it is if people were like, “It’s a sign of…” Because I’m sure I could force myself to use capital letters, obviously. If it felt like a sign of respect to people or something, then I could go do it. But I don’t know. I don’t think about this.
The thing that would make me do it is if people were like, “It’s a sign of…” Because I’m sure I could force myself to use capital letters, obviously. If it felt like a sign of respect to people or something, then I could go do it. But I don’t know. I don’t think about this.
Lex Fridman
I don’t think there’s a disrespect, but I think it’s just the conventions of civility that have a momentum, and then you realize it’s not actually important for civility if it’s not a sign of respect or disrespect. But I think there’s a movement of people that just want you to have a philosophy around it so they can let go of this whole capitalization thing.
I don’t think there’s a disrespect, but I think it’s just the conventions of civility that have a momentum, and then you realize it’s not actually important for civility if it’s not a sign of respect or disrespect. But I think there’s a movement of people that just want you to have a philosophy around it so they can let go of this whole capitalization thing.
Sam Altman
I don’t think anybody else thinks about this as much. I mean, maybe some people. I know some people-
I don’t think anybody else thinks about this as much. I mean, maybe some people. I know some people-
Lex Fridman
People think about every day for many hours a day. So I’m really grateful we clarified it.
People think about every day for many hours a day. So I’m really grateful we clarified it.
Sam Altman
Can’t be the only person that doesn’t capitalize tweets.
Can’t be the only person that doesn’t capitalize tweets.
Lex Fridman
You’re the only CEO of a company that doesn’t capitalize tweets.
You’re the only CEO of a company that doesn’t capitalize tweets.
Sam Altman
I don’t even think that’s true, but maybe. I’d be very surprised.
I don’t even think that’s true, but maybe. I’d be very surprised.
Lex Fridman
All right. We’ll investigate further and return to this topic later. Given Sora’s ability to generate simulated worlds, let me ask you a pothead question. Does this increase your belief, if you ever had one, that we live in a simulation, maybe a simulated world generated by an AI system?
All right. We’ll investigate further and return to this topic later. Given Sora’s ability to generate simulated worlds, let me ask you a pothead question. Does this increase your belief, if you ever had one, that we live in a simulation, maybe a simulated world generated by an AI system?
Sam Altman
Somewhat. I don’t think that’s the strongest piece of evidence. I think the fact that we can generate worlds should increase everyone’s probability somewhat, or at least openness to it somewhat. But I was certain we would be able to do something like Sora at some point. It happened faster than I thought, but I guess that was not a big update.
Somewhat. I don’t think that’s the strongest piece of evidence. I think the fact that we can generate worlds should increase everyone’s probability somewhat, or at least openness to it somewhat. But I was certain we would be able to do something like Sora at some point. It happened faster than I thought, but I guess that was not a big update.
Lex Fridman
Yeah. But the fact that… And presumably, it’ll get better and better and better… You can generate worlds that are novel, they’re based in some aspect of training data, but when you look at them, they’re novel, that makes you think how easy it is to do this thing. How easy it is to create universes, entire video game worlds that seem ultra-realistic and photo-realistic. And then how easy is it to get lost in that world, first with a VR headset, and then on the physics-based level?
Yeah. But the fact that… And presumably, it’ll get better and better and better… You can generate worlds that are novel, they’re based in some aspect of training data, but when you look at them, they’re novel, that makes you think how easy it is to do this thing. How easy it is to create universes, entire video game worlds that seem ultra-realistic and photo-realistic. And then how easy is it to get lost in that world, first with a VR headset, and then on the physics-based level?
Sam Altman
Someone said to me recently, I thought it was a super-profound insight, that there are these very-simple sounding but very psychedelic insights that exist sometimes. So the square root function, square root of four, no problem. Square root of two, okay, now I have to think about this new kind of number. But once I come up with this easy idea of a square root function that you can explain to a child and exists by even looking at some simple geometry, then you can ask the question of “What is the square root of negative one?” And this is why it’s a psychedelic thing. That tips you into some whole other kind of reality.
Someone said to me recently, I thought it was a super-profound insight, that there are these very-simple sounding but very psychedelic insights that exist sometimes. So the square root function, square root of four, no problem. Square root of two, okay, now I have to think about this new kind of number. But once I come up with this easy idea of a square root function that you can explain to a child and exists by even looking at some simple geometry, then you can ask the question of “What is the square root of negative one?” And this is why it’s a psychedelic thing. That tips you into some whole other kind of reality.
And you can come up with lots of other examples, but I think this idea that the lowly square root operator can offer such a profound insight and a new realm of knowledge applies in a lot of ways. And I think there are a lot of those operators for why people may think that any version that they like of the simulation hypothesis is maybe more likely than they thought before. But for me, the fact that Sora worked is not in the top five.
Lex Fridman
I do think, broadly speaking, AI will serve as those kinds of gateways at its best, simple, psychedelic-like gateways to another wave C reality.
I do think, broadly speaking, AI will serve as those kinds of gateways at its best, simple, psychedelic-like gateways to another wave C reality.
Sam Altman
That seems for certain.
That seems for certain.
Lex Fridman
That’s pretty exciting. I haven’t done ayahuasca before, but I will soon. I’m going to the aforementioned Amazon jungle in a few weeks.
That’s pretty exciting. I haven’t done ayahuasca before, but I will soon. I’m going to the aforementioned Amazon jungle in a few weeks.
Sam Altman
Excited?
Excited?
Lex Fridman
Yeah, I’m excited for it. Not the ayahuasca part, but that’s great, whatever. But I’m going to spend several weeks in the jungle, deep in the jungle. And it’s exciting, but it’s terrifying.
Yeah, I’m excited for it. Not the ayahuasca part, but that’s great, whatever. But I’m going to spend several weeks in the jungle, deep in the jungle. And it’s exciting, but it’s terrifying.
Sam Altman
I’m excited for you.
I’m excited for you.
Lex Fridman
There’s a lot of things that can eat you there, and kill you and poison you, but it’s also nature, and it’s the machine of nature. And you can’t help but appreciate the machinery of nature in the Amazon jungle. It’s just like this system that just exists and renews itself every second, every minute, every hour. It’s the machine. It makes you appreciate this thing we have here, this human thing came from somewhere. This evolutionary machine has created that, and it’s most clearly on display in the jungle. So hopefully, I’ll make it out alive. If not, this will be the last fun conversation we’ve had, so I really deeply appreciate it. Do you think, as I mentioned before, there’s other alien civilizations out there, intelligent ones, when you look up at the skies?
There’s a lot of things that can eat you there, and kill you and poison you, but it’s also nature, and it’s the machine of nature. And you can’t help but appreciate the machinery of nature in the Amazon jungle. It’s just like this system that just exists and renews itself every second, every minute, every hour. It’s the machine. It makes you appreciate this thing we have here, this human thing came from somewhere. This evolutionary machine has created that, and it’s most clearly on display in the jungle. So hopefully, I’ll make it out alive. If not, this will be the last fun conversation we’ve had, so I really deeply appreciate it. Do you think, as I mentioned before, there’s other alien civilizations out there, intelligent ones, when you look up at the skies?
Aliens
Sam Altman
I deeply want to believe that the answer is yes. I find the Fermi paradox very puzzling.
I deeply want to believe that the answer is yes. I find the Fermi paradox very puzzling.
Lex Fridman
I find it scary that intelligence is not good at handling-
I find it scary that intelligence is not good at handling-
Sam Altman
Very scary.
Very scary.
Lex Fridman
… powerful technologies. But at the same time, I think I’m pretty confident that there’s just a very large number of intelligent alien civilizations out there. It might just be really difficult to travel through space.
… powerful technologies. But at the same time, I think I’m pretty confident that there’s just a very large number of intelligent alien civilizations out there. It might just be really difficult to travel through space.
Sam Altman
Very possible.
Very possible.
Lex Fridman
And it also makes me think about the nature of intelligence. Maybe we’re really blind to what intelligence looks like, and maybe AI will help us see that. It’s not as simple as IQ tests and simple puzzle solving. There’s something bigger. What gives you hope about the future of humanity, this thing we’ve got going on, this human civilization?
And it also makes me think about the nature of intelligence. Maybe we’re really blind to what intelligence looks like, and maybe AI will help us see that. It’s not as simple as IQ tests and simple puzzle solving. There’s something bigger. What gives you hope about the future of humanity, this thing we’ve got going on, this human civilization?
Sam Altman
I think the past is a lot. I mean, we just look at what humanity has done in a not very long period of time, huge problems, deep flaws, lots to be super-ashamed of. But on the whole, very inspiring. Gives me a lot of hope.
I think the past is a lot. I mean, we just look at what humanity has done in a not very long period of time, huge problems, deep flaws, lots to be super-ashamed of. But on the whole, very inspiring. Gives me a lot of hope.
Lex Fridman
Just the trajectory of it all.
Just the trajectory of it all.
Sam Altman
Yeah.
Yeah.
Lex Fridman
That we’re together pushing towards a better future.
That we’re together pushing towards a better future.
Sam Altman
One thing that I wonder about, is AGI going to be more like some single brain, or is it more like the scaffolding in society between all of us? You have not had a great deal of genetic drift from your great-great-great grandparents, and yet what you’re capable of is dramatically different. What you know is dramatically different. And that’s not because of biological change. I mean, you got a little bit healthier, probably. You have modern medicine, you eat better, whatever. But what you have is this scaffolding that we all contributed to built on top of. No one person is going to go build the iPhone. No one person is going to go discover all of science, and yet you get to use it. And that gives you incredible ability. And so in some sense, that we all created that, and that fills me with hope for the future. That was a very collective thing.
One thing that I wonder about, is AGI going to be more like some single brain, or is it more like the scaffolding in society between all of us? You have not had a great deal of genetic drift from your great-great-great grandparents, and yet what you’re capable of is dramatically different. What you know is dramatically different. And that’s not because of biological change. I mean, you got a little bit healthier, probably. You have modern medicine, you eat better, whatever. But what you have is this scaffolding that we all contributed to built on top of. No one person is going to go build the iPhone. No one person is going to go discover all of science, and yet you get to use it. And that gives you incredible ability. And so in some sense, that we all created that, and that fills me with hope for the future. That was a very collective thing.
Lex Fridman
Yeah, we really are standing on the shoulders of giants. You mentioned when we were talking about theatrical, dramatic AI risks that sometimes you might be afraid for your own life. Do you think about your death? Are you afraid of it?
Yeah, we really are standing on the shoulders of giants. You mentioned when we were talking about theatrical, dramatic AI risks that sometimes you might be afraid for your own life. Do you think about your death? Are you afraid of it?
Sam Altman
I mean, if I got shot tomorrow and I knew it today, I’d be like, “Oh, that’s sad. I want to see what’s going to happen. What a curious time. What an interesting time.” But I would mostly just feel very grateful for my life.
I mean, if I got shot tomorrow and I knew it today, I’d be like, “Oh, that’s sad. I want to see what’s going to happen. What a curious time. What an interesting time.” But I would mostly just feel very grateful for my life.
Lex Fridman
The moments that you did get. Yeah, me, too. It’s a pretty awesome life. I get to enjoy awesome creations of humans, which I believe ChatGPT is one of, and everything that OpenAI is doing. Sam, it’s really an honor and pleasure to talk to you again.
The moments that you did get. Yeah, me, too. It’s a pretty awesome life. I get to enjoy awesome creations of humans, which I believe ChatGPT is one of, and everything that OpenAI is doing. Sam, it’s really an honor and pleasure to talk to you again.
Sam Altman
Great to talk to you. Thank you for having me.
Great to talk to you. Thank you for having me.
Lex Fridman
Thanks for listening to this conversation with Sam Altman. To support this podcast, please check out our sponsors in the description. And now let me leave you with some words from Arthur C. Clarke. “It may be that our role on this planet is not to worship God, but to create him.” Thank you for listening, and hope to see you next time.
Thanks for listening to this conversation with Sam Altman. To support this podcast, please check out our sponsors in the description. And now let me leave you with some words from Arthur C. Clarke. “It may be that our role on this planet is not to worship God, but to create him.” Thank you for listening, and hope to see you next time.
Transcript for Israel-Palestine Debate: Finkelstein, Destiny, M. Rabbani & Benny Morris | Lex Fridman Podcast #418
This is a transcript of Lex Fridman Podcast #418 with Israel-Palestine Debate.
The timestamps in the transcript are clickable links that take you directly to that point in
the main video. Please note that the transcript is human generated, and may have errors.
Here are some useful links:
The timestamps in the transcript are clickable links that take you directly to that point in
the main video. Please note that the transcript is human generated, and may have errors.
Here are some useful links:
- Go back to this episode’s main page
- Watch the full YouTube version of the podcast
Table of Contents
Here are the loose “chapters” in the conversation.
Click link to jump approximately to that part in the transcript:
The goal was to explore together the history, present and future of Israel and Palestine in a free flowing conversation. No time limits, no rules. There was a lot of tension in the room from the very beginning, and it only got more intense as we went along. And I quickly realized that this very conversation in a very real human way was a microcosm of the tensions and distance and perspectives on the topic of Israel and Palestine. For some debates, I will step in and moderate strictly to prevent emotion from boiling. For this, I saw the value in not interfering with the passion of the exchanges because that emotion in itself spoke volumes.
We did talk about the history and the future. But the anger, the frustration, the biting wit, and at times, respect and comradery were all there. Like I said, we did it in an perhaps all too human way. I will do more debates and conversations on these difficult topics and I will continue to search for hope in the midst of death and destruction, to search for our common humanity in the midst of division and hate. This thing we have going on, human civilization, the whole of it is beautiful and it’s worth figuring out how we can help it flourish together. I love you all. This is the Lex Fridman Podcast. To support it, please check out our sponsors in the description. And now, dear friends, here’s Norman Finkelstein, Benny Morris, Mouin Rabbani, and Steven Bonnell.
First question is about 1948/ for Israelis, 1948 is the establishment of the state of Israel and the war of independence. For Palestinians, 1948 is the Nakba, which means catastrophe or the displacement of 700,000 Palestinians from their homes as a consequence of the war. What to you is important to understand about the events of 1948 and the period around there, ’47, ’49, that helps us understand what’s going on today and maybe helps us understand the roots of all of this that started even before 1948. I was hoping that Norm could speak first, then Benny, then Mouin, and then Steven. Norm?
The UN Special Committee on Palestine, which came into being before the UN 181 Partition Resolution. The UN Special Committee recommended two states in Palestine. There was a minority position represented by Iran, India, Yugoslavia. They supported one state. But they believed that if forced to, the two communities would figure out some sort of modus vivendi and live together. United Nations General Assembly supported partition between what it called a Jewish state and an Arab state. Now, in my reading of the record, and I understand there’s new scholarship in the subject which I’ve not read, but so far as I’ve read the record, there’s no clarity on what the United Nations General Assembly meant by a Jewish state and an Arab state, except for the fact that the Jewish state would be, demographically, the majority would be Jewish, and the Arab state demographically would be Arab.
The UNSCOP, the UN Special Committee on Palestine, it was very clear and it was reiterated many times that in recommending two states, each state, the Arab state and the Jewish state, would have to guarantee full equality of all citizens with regard to political, civil, and religious matters. Now, that does raise the question if there is absolute full equality of all citizens, both in the Jewish state and the Arab state with regard to political rights, civil rights, and religious rights. Apart from the demographic majority, it’s very unclear what it meant to call a state Jewish or call a state Arab.
In my view, the Partition Resolution was the correct decision. I do not believe that the Arab and Jewish communities could, at that point, be made to live together. I disagree with the minority position of India, Iran, and Yugoslavia. And that not being a practical option, two states was the only other option. In this regard, I would want to pay tribute to what was probably the most moving speech at the UN General Assembly proceedings by the Soviet Foreign Minister Gromyko. I was very tempted to quote it at length, but I recognized that would be taking too much time. So I asked a young friend, Jamie Stern-Weiner to edit it and just get the essence of what Foreign Minister Gromyko had to say.
” During the last war,” Gromyko said, “The Jewish people underwent exceptional sorrow and suffering. Without any exaggeration, this sorrow and suffering are indescribable. Hundreds of thousands of Jews are wandering about in various countries of Europe in search of means of existence and in search of shelter. The United Nations cannot and must not regard this situation with indifference. Past experience, particularly during the Second World War, shows that no Western European state was able to provide adequate assistance for the Jewish people in defending its rights and its very existence from the violence of the Hitlerites and their allies. This is an unpleasant fact. But unfortunately, like all other facts, it must be admitted.”
Gromyko went on to say, in principle, he supports one state, or the Soviet Union supports one state. But he said, ” If relations between the Jewish and Arab populations of Palestine proved to be so bad that would be impossible to reconcile them and to ensure the peaceful coexistence of the Arabs and the Jews, the Soviet Union would support two states. I personally am not convinced that the two states would have been unsustainable in the long term if, and this is big if, the Zionist movement had been faithful to the position that proclaimed during the UNSCOP public hearings.”
At the time Ben-Gurion testified, “I want to express what we mean by a Jewish state. We mean by a Jewish state, simply a state where the majority of the people are Jews, not a state where a Jew has in any way any privilege more than anyone else. A Jewish state means a state based on absolute equality of all her citizens and on democracy. Alas, this was not to be.” As Professor Morris has written, “Zionist ideology and practice were necessarily an elementally expansionist.” And then he wrote in another book, “Transfer…” The euphemism for expulsion, “Transfer was inevitable and inbuilt into Zionism because it sought to transform a land which was Arab into a Jewish state. And a Jewish state could not have arisen without a major displacement of Arab population. And because this aim automatically produced resistance among the Arabs, which in turn persuade the Yishuv’s leaders,” the Yishuv being the Jewish community, “The Yishuv’s leaders, that a hostile Arab majority or a large minority could not remain in place if a Jewish state was to arise or safely endure.”
Or as Professor Morris retrospectively put it, “A removing of a population was needed. Without a population expulsion, a Jewish state would not have been established.” The Arab side rejected outright the partition resolution. I won’t play games with that. I know a lot of people try to prove it’s not true. It clearly, in my view, is true. The Arab side rejected outright the partition resolution. While Israeli leaders acting on the compulsions inevitable and inbuilt into Zionism, found the pretext in the course of the first Arab-Israeli war to expel the indigenous population and expand its borders. I therefore conclude that neither side was committed to the letter of the partition resolution and both sides aborted it.
And the United Nations followed suit. The United Nations, UNSCOP and then the UN General Assembly representing the will of the international community said two states is the just solution in this complex situation. The problem was that immediately with the passage of the resolution, the Arabs, Arab states and the Arabs of Palestine said no. As Norman Finkelstein said, they said no. They rejected the partition idea, the principle of partition, not just the idea of what percentage which side should get, but the principle of partition they said no to, the Jews should not have any part of Palestine for their sovereign territory. Maybe Jews could live as a minority in Palestine. That also was problematic in the eyes of the Palestinian Arab leadership.
Husayni had said, only Jews who were there before 1917 could actually get citizenship and continue to live there. But the Arabs rejected partition and the Arabs of Palestine launched, in very disorganized fashion, war against the resolution, against the implementation of the resolution, against the Jewish community in Palestine. And this was their defeat in that civil war between the two communities, while the British were withdrawing from Palestine, led to the Arab invasion, the invasion by the Arab states in May, 1948 of the country. Again, basically with the idea of eradicating or preventing the emergence of a Jewish state in line with the United Nations decision and the will of the international community.
Norman said that the Zionist enterprise, and he quoted me, meant from the beginning to transfer or expel the Arabs of Palestine or some of the Arabs of Palestine. And I think he’s quoting out of context. The context in which the statements were made that the Jewish state could only emerge if there was a transfer of Arab population was proceeded in the way I wrote it, and the way it actually happened by Arab resistance and hostilities towards the Jewish community. Had the Arabs accepted partition, there would’ve been a large Arab minority in the Jewish state which emerged in ’47. And in fact, Jewish economists and state builders took into account that there would be a large Arab minority and its needs would be cared for, et cetera.
But this was not to be because the Arabs attacked. And had they not attacked, perhaps a Jewish state with a large Arab minority could have emerged. But this didn’t happen. They went to war. The Jews resisted. And in the course of that war, Arab populations were driven out. Some were expelled, some left because Arab leaders advised them to leave or ordered them to leave. And at the end of the war, Israel said they can’t return because they just tried to destroy the Jewish state. And that’s the basic reality of what happened in ’48. The Jews created a state. The Palestinian Arabs never bothered to even try to create a state before ’48 and in the course of the 1948 war. And for that reason, they have no state to this day. The Jews do have a state because they prepared to establish a state, fought for it, and established it, hopefully lastingly.
The second point is, I think what the Soviet foreign minister at the time Andrei Gromyko said is exactly right, with one reservation. Gromyko was describing a European savagery unleashed against Europe’s Jews. At the time, it wasn’t Palestinians or Arabs. The savages and the barbarians were European to the core. It had nothing to do with developments in Palestine or the Middle East. Secondly, at the time that Gromyko was speaking, those Jewish survivors of the Holocaust and others who were in need of safe haven were still overwhelmingly on the European continent and not in Palestine.
And I think, given the scale of the savagery, I don’t think that any one state or country should have borne the responsibility for addressing this crisis. I think it should have been an international responsibility. The Soviet Union could have contributed, Germany certainly could and should have contributed, the United Kingdom and the United States which slammed their doors shut to the persecuted Jews of Europe as the Nazis were rising to power, they certainly should have played a role. But instead, what passed for the international community at the time, decided to partition Palestine. And here I think we need to judge the Partition Resolution against the realities that obtained at the time time.
Two thirds of the population of Palestine was Arab. The Yishuv, the Jewish community in Palestine, constituted about one third of the total population and controlled even less of the land within Palestine. As a preeminent Palestinian historian Walid Khalidi has pointed out, the Partition Resolution in giving roughly 55% of Palestine to the Jewish community, and I think 41, 42% to the Arab community, to the Palestinians, did not preserve the position of each community, or even favor one community at the expense of the other. Rather, it thoroughly inverted and revolutionized the relationship between the two communities.
And as many have written, the Nakba was the inevitable consequence of partition given the nature of Zionism, given the territorial disposition, given the weakness of the Palestinian community whose leadership had been largely decimated during a major revolt at the end of the 1930s, given that the Arab states were still very much under French and British influence, the Nakba was inevitable, the inevitable product of the Partition Resolution. And one last point also about the UN’s Partition Resolution is, yes, formally, that is what the international community decided on the 29th of November, 1947. It’s not a resolution that could ever have gotten through the UN General Assembly today for a very simple reason. It was a very different general assembly.
Most African, most Asian states were not yet independent. Were the resolution to be placed before the international community today, and I find it telling that the minority opinion was led by India, Iran, and Yugoslavia, I think they would’ve represented the clear majority. So partition, given what we know about Zionism, given that it was entirely predictable what would happen, given the realities on the ground in Palestine was deeply unjust, and the idea that either the Palestinians or the Arab states could have accepted such a resolution is, I think, an illusion. That was in 1947. We saw what happened in ’48 and ’49. Palestinian society was essentially destroyed. Over 80%, I believe, of Palestinians residents in the territory that became the state of Israel were either expelled or fled and ultimately were ethnically cleansed because ethnic cleansing consists of two components. It’s not just forcing people into refuge or expelling them, it’s just as importantly preventing their return. And Benny Morris has written, I think, a article about Yosef Weitz and the transfer committees. There was a very detailed initiative to prevent the return and it consisted of raising hundreds of Palestinian villages to the ground, which was systematically implemented and so on. And so Palestinians became a stateless people.
Now, what is the most important reason that no Arab state was established in Palestine? Well, since the 1930s, the Zionist leadership and the Hashemite leadership of Jordan, as it’s been thoroughly researched and written about by the Israeli-British historian Avi Shlaim, essentially colluded to prevent the establishment of an independent Arab state in Palestine in the late 1940s. There’s much more here, but I think those are the key points I would make about 1948.
I never hear about the fact that the majority of the land that was acquired happened by purchases from Jewish organizations of Palestinian Arabs of the Ottoman Empire before the mandatory period in 1920 even started. Funnily enough, king Abdullah of Jordan was quoted as saying, “The Arabs are as prodigal in selling their land as they are in weeping about it.” I never hear about the multiple times that Arabs rejected partition, rejected living with Jews, rejected any sort of state that would’ve even had any sort of Jewish exclusivity. It’s funny because it was brought up before that the partition plan was unfair, and that’s why the Arabs rejected it, as though they rejected it because it was unfair, because of the amount of land that Jews were given and not just due to the fact that Jews were given land at all, as though a 30% partition or a 25% partition would’ve been accepted when I don’t think that was the reality of the circumstances.
I feel like most of the other stuff has been said, but I noticed that whenever people talk about ’48 or the years preceding ’48, I think the worst thing that happens is there’s a cherry-picking of the facts where basically all of the blame is ascribed to this built-in idea of Zionism because of a handful of quotes or because of an ideology, we can say that transfer or population expulsion or basically the mandate of all of these Arabs being kicked off the land was always going to happen, when I think there’s a refusal sometimes as well to acknowledge that regardless of the ideas of some of the Zionist leaders, there is a political, social and military reality on the ground that they’re forced to contend with.
And unfortunately, the Arabs, because of their inability to engage in diplomacy and only to use tools of war to try to negotiate everything going on in mandatory Palestine, basically always gave the Jews a reason or an excuse to fight and acquire land through that way because of their refusal to negotiate on anything else, whether it was the partition plan in ’47, whether it was the Lausanne peace conference afterwards where Israel even offered to annex Gaza in ’51, where they offered to take in a hundred thousand refugees. Every single deal is just rejected out of hand because the Arabs don’t want a Jewish state anywhere in this region of the world.
You said that transfer was inevitable and inbuilt into Zionism. We’re not talking about circumstantial factors, a war, Arab hostility. You said it’s inevitable and inbuilt into Zionism. Now, as I said, so we won’t be accused of cherry picking. Those were 25 very densely argued pages. And then in an interview, and I could cite several quotes, but I’ll choose one, you said, “Removing a population was needed.” Let’s look at the words. “Without a population expulsion, a Jewish state would not have been established.” Now you are the one… Again, I was very surprised when I read your book here. I’m referring to “Righteous Victims.” I was very surprised when I came to that page 37, where you wrote that territorial displacement and dispossession was the chief motor of Arab resistance to Zionism. Territorial displacement and dispossession were the chief motor of Arab resistance to Zionism.
So you then went on to say, because the Arab population rationally feared territorial displacement and dispossession, it of course opposed Zionism. That’s as normal as Native Americans opposing the Euro-American manifest destiny in the history of our own country because they understood it would be at their expense. It was inbuilt and inevitable.
And so now for you to come along and say that it all happened just because of the war, that otherwise the Zionists made all these plans for a happy minority to live there, that simply does not gel. It does not cohere. It is not reconcilable with what you yourself have written. It was inevitable and inbuilt.
Now, in other situations, you’ve said that’s true with, I think it was a greater good to establish a Jewish state at the expense of the indigenous population. That’s another kind of argument that was Theodore Roosevelt’s argument in our own country. He said, we don’t want the whole of North America to remain a squalid refuge for these wigwams and teepees. We have to get rid of them and make this a great country. But he didn’t deny that it was inbuilt and inevitable.
Now, Norman has said that, I said that transfer was inbuilt into Zionism in one way or another. And this is certainly true in order to buy land, the Jews bought tracts of land on which some Arabs sometimes lived. Sometimes they bought tracts of land on which there weren’t Arab villages, but sometimes they bought land on which there were Arabs.
And according to Ottoman law, and the British, at least in the initial years of the British mandate, the law said that the people who bought the land could do what they liked with the people who didn’t own the land, who were basically squatting on the land, which is the Arab tenant farmers, which is we’re talking about a very small number actually of Arabs who were displaced as a result of land purchases in the Ottoman period or the mandate period.
But there was dispossession in one way. They didn’t possess the land. They didn’t own it, but they were removed from the land. And this did happen in Zionism. And there’s, if you like, an inevitability in Zionist ideology of buying tracts of land and starting to work it yourself and settle it with your own people and so on. That made sense.
But what we’re really talking about is what happened in 47/48. And in 47/48, the Arabs started a war. And actually people pay for their mistakes. And the Palestinians have never actually agreed to pay for their mistakes. They make mistakes, they attack, they suffer as a result.
And we see something similar going on today in the Gaza Strip. They do something terrible. They kill 1,200 Jews. They abduct 250 women and children and babies and old people and whatever. And then they start screaming, please save us from what we did because the Jews are counterattacking. And this is what happened then. And this is what’s happening now. There’s something fairly similar in the situation here.
Expulsion, and this is important, Norman, you should pay attention to this. You didn’t raise that. Expulsion transfer whenever policy of the Zionist movement before 47, it doesn’t exist in Zionist platforms of the various political parties, of the Zionist organization, of the Israeli state, of the Jewish agency. Nobody would’ve actually made it into policy because it was always a large minority. If there were people who wanted it, always a large minority of Jewish politicians and leaders would’ve said, no, this is immoral. We cannot start a state on the basis of an expulsion.
So it was never adopted and actually was never adopted as policy even in 48, even though Ben-Gurion wanted as few Arabs in the course of the war staying in the Jewish state after they attacked it. He didn’t want disloyal citizens staying there because they wouldn’t have been loyal citizens. But this made sense in the war itself. But the movement itself and its political parties never accepted it.
It’s true that in 1937, when the British, as part of the proposal by the Peel Commission to divide the country into two states, one Arab, one Jewish, which the Arabs of course rejected, Peel also recommended most of the Arabs in the Jewish state should be transferred because otherwise, if they stayed and were disloyal to the emergent Jewish state, this would cause endless disturbances, warfare, killing, and so on.
So Ben-Gurion and Weizmann latched onto this proposal by the most famous democracy in the world, the British democracy, when they proposed the idea of transfer side by side with the idea of partition because it made sense. And they said, well, if the British say so, we should also advocate it. But they never actually tried to pass it as Zionist policy, and they fairly quickly stopped even talking about transfer after 1938.
And the second, I think, impediment to that view is that long before the UN General Assembly convened to address a question of Palestine, Palestinian and Arab and other leaders as well had been warning ad infinitum that the purpose of the Zionist movement is not just to establish a Jewish state, but to establish an exclusivist Jewish state. And that transfer forced displacement was fundamental to that project. And just responding to…. Sorry, was it-
You may want to consult the book published last year by Lori Allen, “A History of False Hope”, which discusses in great detail the consistent engagement by Palestinians, their leaders, their elites, their diplomats, and so on with all these international committees.
If we look at today, the Palestinians are once again going to the International Court of Justice. They’re consistently trying to persuade the chief prosecutor of the International Criminal Court to do his job. They have launched widespread boycott campaigns. So of course the Palestinians have engaged in military resistance. But I think the suggestion that this has always been their first and last resort and that they have somehow spurned civic action, spurned diplomacy, I think really has no basis in reality.
The issue that I run into is while you can find quotes from leaders, while you can find maybe desires expressed in diaries, I feel like it’s hard to truly ever know if there would’ve been mass transfer in the face of Arab peace, because I feel like every time there was a huge deal on the table that would’ve had a sizable Jewish and Arab population living together, the Arabs would reject it out of hand.
So for instance, when we say that transfer was inevitable, when we say that Zionists would’ve never accepted a sizable Arab population, how do you explain the acceptance of the 47 partition plan that would’ve had a huge Arab population living in the Jewish state? Is your contention that after the acceptance of that, after the establishment of that state, that Jews would’ve slowly started to expel all of these Arab citizens from their country?
Or how do you explain that in Lusanne a couple years later that Israel was willing to formally annex the Gaza Strip and make-
It was the British mandate. There was significant Arab resistance to Zionism, and that resistance was based on the fact, as you said, the fear of territorial displacement and dispossession. So you couldn’t very well expect the Zionist movement to come out in neon lights and announce, hey, we’re going to be expelling you the first chance we get. That’s not realistic.
But the fact is transfer did not occur before 1947, and Arabs later said, and since then have said that the Jews want to build a third temple on the Temple Mount as if that’s what really the mainstream of Zionism has always wanted and always strived for. But this is nonsense. It’s something that Husseini used to use as a way to mobilize masses for the cause, using religion as the way to get them to join him. The fact that Arabs said that the Zionists want to dispossess us doesn’t mean it’s true. It just means that there’s some Arabs thought that maybe said it sincerely and maybe insincerely.
But what I’m saying is that the idea of transfer wasn’t the core of Zionism. The idea of Zionism was to save the Jews who had been vastly persecuted in Eastern Europe, and incidentally in the Arab world, the Muslim world for centuries, and eventually ending up with the Holocaust. The idea of Zionism was to save the Jewish people by establishing a state or re-establishing a Jewish state on the ancient Jewish homeland, which is something that Arabs today even deny that there were Jews in Palestine or the land of Israel 2000 years ago.
Arafat famously said, “What Temple was there on Temple Mount? Maybe it was in Nablus.” Which of course is nonsense. But they had a strong connection for thousands of years to the land to which they wanted to return and return there. They found that on the land lived hundreds of thousands of Arabs, and the question was how to accommodate the vision of a Jewish state in Palestine alongside the existence of these Arab masses living on who were indigenous, in fact, to the land by that stage.
And the idea of partition because they couldn’t live together because the Arabs didn’t want to live together with the Jews. And I think the Jews also didn’t want to live together in one state with Arabs in general. The idea of partition was the thing which the Zionists accepted, okay, we can only get a small part of Palestine. The Arabs will get in 37. Most of Palestine in 1947 the ratios were changed, but we can live side by side with each other in a partitioned Palestine. And this was the essence of it.
The idea of transfer was there, but it was never adopted as policy. But in 1947/48, the Arabs attacked trying to destroy essentially the Zionist enterprise and the emerging Jewish state. And the reaction was transfer in some way, not as policy, but this is what happened on the battlefield. And this is also what Ben-Gurion at some point began to want as well.
I think Rhodes, from what I recall, correct me if I’m wrong, has quite a prominent place in Herzl’s diaries. I think Herzl was also corresponding with him and seeking his support. Cecil Rhodes, of course, was the British colonialist after whom the former white minority regime in Rhodesia was named. And Herzl also says explicitly in his diaries, that it is essential to remove the existing population from Palestine.
But the point is it has only a 1% of the diary, which is devoted to this subject. It’s not a central idea in Herzl’s thinking. What Herzl wanted, and this is what’s important, not Rhodes, I don’t think he was the model. Herzl wanted to create a liberal democratic western state in Palestine for the Jews. That was the idea. Not some imperial enterprise serving some imperial master, which is what Rhodes was about.
But to have a Jewish state, which was modeled on the western democracies in Palestine, and this incidentally was more or less what Weizmann and Ben-Gurion wanted. Ben-Gurion was more of a socialist. Weizmann was more of a liberal westerner, but they wanted to establish a social democratic or liberal state in Palestine.
And they both envisioned through most of the years of their activity that there would be an Arab minority in that Jewish state. It’s true that Ben-Gurion strived to have as small as possible an Arab minority in the Jewish state because he knew that if you want a Jewish majority state, that would be necessary, but it’s not something which they were willing to translate into actual policy.
Can you name any country yours, for example, or yours, that would be prepared to give 55%, 25%, 10% of your country to the Palestinians? Of course not. And so the issue was not the existence of Jews in Palestine. They had been there for centuries, and of course they had ties to Palestine and particularly to Jerusalem and other places going back centuries if not millennia.
But the idea of establishing an exclusively Jewish state at the expense of those who were already living there, I think it was right to reject that. And I don’t think we can look back now 75 years later and say, well, you should have accepted losing 55% of your homeland because you ended up losing 78% of it, and the remaining 22% was occupied in 1967. That’s not how things work.
And I can imagine an American rejecting giving 10% of the United States to the Palestinians, and if that rejection leads to war and you lose half your country, I doubt that 50 years from now you’re going to say, well, maybe I should have accepted that.
Now, I do believe there’s a legitimate question, had it been the case, as you said, Professor Morris, that the Zionists wanted to create a happy state with a Jewish majority, but a large Jewish minority, and if by virtue of immigration, like in our own country … in our own country, given the current trajectories, non-whites will become the majority population in the United States quite soon. And according to democratic principles, we have to accept that. So if that were the case, I would say maybe there’s an argument that had there been mass Jewish immigration that changed the demographic balance in Palestine and therefore Jews became the majority, you can make an argument in the abstract that the indigenous Arab population should have been accepting of that, just as ‘whites’ in the United States have to be accepting of the fact that the demographic majority is shifting to non-whites in our own country.
But that’s not what Zionism was about. I did write my doctoral dissertation on Zionism, and I don’t want to get now bogged down in abstract ideas, but as I suspect you know, most theorists of nationalism say there are two kinds of nationalism. One is a nationalism based on citizenship. You become a citizen, you’re integral to the country. That’s sometimes called political nationalism. And then there’s another kind of nationalism, and that says the state should not belong to its citizens, it should belong to an ethnic group. Each ethnic group should have its own state. It’s usually called the German romantic idea of nationalism.
Zionism is squarely in the German romantic idea. That was the whole point of Zionism. “We don’t want to be bundists and be one more ethnic minority in Russia. We don’t want to become citizens and just become a Jewish people in England or France. We want our own state-
Now, I personally have shied away from using the word Zionism ever since I finished my doctoral dissertation, because-
But Professor Morris, you are aware that until the Biltmore resolution in 1942, the Zionist movement never declared it was for a Jewish state. Why? Because it was politically impossible at the moment, until 1942. There’s your ideology, there are your convictions, there are your operative plans, and there’s also, separately, what you say in public. The Zionist movement couldn’t say in public, “We’re expelling all the Arabs.” They can’t say that. And they couldn’t even say, “We support a Jewish state,” until 1942.
I also think it’s interesting that when you analyze the flight of Jewish people, and I’ve seen this, I agree with you, it wasn’t just a mass expulsion from all the Arab states. There were definitely push factors. There were also pull factors. Now, I don’t know how you guys feel about the Nakba, but when the analysis of the Nakba comes in, again, it’s back to that; well, that was actually just a top-down expulsion. The retreat of wealthy Arab people in the ’30s didn’t matter. Any of the messaging from the surrounding Arab states didn’t matter. It was just an expulsion from Jewish people or people running from their lives from Jewish massacres. Again, I feel like it’s a selective critical analysis of the-
And then Mr Ben-Ami, for those of you who are listening, he was Israel’s former foreign minister, and he’s an influential historian in his own right, he says, “In fact, envoys from the Mossad and the Jewish Agency worked underground in Arab countries and Iran to encourage Jews to go to Israel. More importantly, for many Jews in Arab states, the very possibility of immigrating to Israel was the combination of millennial aspirations. It represented the consummation of a dream to take part in Israel’s resurgence as a nation.”
So this idea that they were all expelled after 1948, that’s one area, Professor Morris, I defer to expertise. That’s one of my credos in life. I don’t know the Israeli literature. But as it’s been translated in English, there’s very little solid scholarship on what happened in 1948 in the Arab countries which caused the Jews to leave.
But when you look at the other side, Arabs would out of hand reject literally any deal that apportioned any amount of that land for any state relating to Jewish people or the Israeli people. I think it was said, even on the other end of the table, that Arab Palestinians or Arabs would’ve never accepted any Jewish state whatsoever.
So it’s interesting that on the ideology part where it’s claimed that Zionists are people of exclusion and supremacy and expulsion, we can find that in diary entries, but we can find that expressed in very real terms on the Arab side, I think in all of their behavior around ’48 and earlier, where the goal was the destruction of the Israeli state, it would’ve been the dispossession of many Jewish people. It probably would’ve been the expulsion of a lot of them back to Europe. And I think that very clearly plays out in the difference between the actions of the Arabs versus some diary entries of some Jewish leaders.
The second thing is, of course, there’s no point in belittling the fact that the Palestinian Arab National Movement’s leader, Husseini, worked for the Nazis in the 1940s. He got a salary from the German foreign ministry, he raised troops among Muslims in Bosnia for the SS, and he broadcast to the Arab world calling for the murder of the Jews in the Middle East. This is what he did. And the Arabs since then have been trying to whitewash Husseini’s role. I’m not saying he was the instigator of the Holocaust, but he helped the Germans along in doing what they were doing and supported them in doing that. So this can’t be removed from the fact that the Arabs, as you say, paid a price for the Holocaust, but they also participated in various ways in helping it happen.
Suez Canal was the jugular vein of the British Empire between Europe and India, and the British came to the conclusion that they needed to secure the Suez Canal from any threat. And as the British have done so often in so many places, how do you deal with this? Well, you bring in a foreign minority, implant them amongst a hostile population, and establish a protectorate over them. I don’t think a Jewish state in Palestine had been part of British intentions, and the Balfour Declaration very specifically speaks about a Jewish national home in Palestine, in other words, a British protectorate. Things ended up taking a different course, and I think the most important development was World War II, and I think this had maybe less to do with the Holocaust and more to do with the effective bankruptcy of the United Kingdom during that war, and its inability to sustain its global empire.
It ended up giving up India, ended up giving up Palestine, and it’s in that context, I think, that we need to see the emergence of a Jewish state in Palestine, and again, a Jewish state means a state in which the Jewish community enjoys not only a demographic majority, but an uncontestable demographic majority, an uncontestable territorial hegemony, and uncontestable political supremacy. And that is also why after 1948, the nascent Israeli state confiscated, I believe, up to 90% of lands that had been previously owned by Palestinians who became citizens of Israel.
It is why the new Israeli state imposed a military government on its population of Palestinian citizens between 1948 and 1966. It is why the Israeli state effectively reduced the Palestinians living within the Israeli state, as citizens of the Israeli state, to second class citizens, on the one hand, promoting Jewish nationalism and Jewish nationalist parties, on the other hand, doing everything within its power to suppress and eliminate Palestinian or Arab nationalist movements. And that’s why today there’s a consensus among all major human rights organizations that Israel is an apartheid state, what the Israeli human rights organization B’Tselem describes a regime of Jewish supremacy between the river and the sea.
As far as the actual complicity of the Palestinian Arabs, if you look at Raul Hilberg’s three volume classic work, The Destruction of the European Jury, he has in those 1,000+ pages, one sentence on the role of the mufti of Jerusalem, and that I think is probably an overstatement, but we’ll leave it aside. The only two points I would make aside from the Holocaust point is number one, I do think the transfer discussion is useful because it indicates that there was a rational reason behind the Arab resistance to Jewish or Zionist immigration to Palestine, the fear of territorial displacement and dispossession.
And number two, there are two issues. One is the history, and the second is being responsible for your words. Now, some people accuse me of speaking very slowly, and they’re advised on YouTube to turn up the speed twice to three times whenever I’m on. One of the reasons I speak slowly is because I attach value to every word I say, and it is discomforting, disorienting, where you have a person who’s produced a voluminous corpus, rich in insights, and rich in archival sources who seems to disown each and every word that you pluck from that corpus by claiming that it’s either out of context or it’s cherry-picking. Words count, and I agree with Lex, everybody has the right to rescind what they’ve said in the past, but what you cannot claim is that you didn’t say what you said.
And the Christian world owes the Jews because it persecuted them for 2,000 years. This debt we’re now beginning to repay with the 1917 declaration favoring Zionism, but it’s also worth remembering that the Jews weren’t proxies or attached to the British imperial endeavor. They were happy to receive British support in 1917 and then subsequently when the British ruled Palestine for 20, 30 years, but they weren’t part of the British imperial design or mission. They wanted a state for themselves. The Jews happy to have the British support them, happy to date to have the Americans support Israel, but it’s not because we’re stooges or extensions of American imperial interests. The British incidentally always described in Arab narratives of propaganda as consistent supporters of Zionism, they weren’t. The first British rulers in Palestine, 1917, 1920-
And this is the driving ideology behind the massacre of the Jews on October 7th, which brought down on the Gaza Strip, and I think with the intention by the Hamas of the Israeli counter offensive because they knew that that counter offensive would result in many Palestinian dead because the Hamas fighters and their weaponry and so on were embedded in the population in Gaza, and they hoped to benefit from this in the eyes of world public opinion as Israel chased these Hamas people and their ammunition dumps and so on and killed lots of Palestinian civilians in the process. All of this was understood by Sinwar, by the head of the Hamas, and he strived for that, but initially he wanted to kill as many Jews as he could in the border areas around the Gaza Strip.
Secondly, I think there are quite a few indications in the factual record that raise serious questions about the accusations of the genocidal intent and genocidal practice of what happened on October 7th. And my final point would be, I don’t think I should take your word for it, I don’t think you should take my word for it. I think what we need here is a proper independent international investigation, and the reason we need that-
That’s your description of the Lebanon War. As I say, that’s when I first got involved in the conflict. I am a voracious reader. I read everything on the Lebanon War. I would say there’s not a single account of the Lebanon War in which the estimates are between 15 and 20,000 Palestinian, Lebanese were killed, overwhelmingly civilians, the biggest bloodletting until the current Gaza genocide. Biggest bloodletting. I would say I can’t think of a single mainstream account that remotely approximates what you just said. So leaving aside… I can name the books. Voluminous, huge volumes. I’ll just take one example. Now you will remember, because I think you served in Lebanon in ’82. Am I correct on that?
I think that when we analyze different attacks or when we talk about the conduct of the military, it’s important to understand, prospectively from the unit of analysis of the actual military committing the acts, what’s happening and what are the decisions being made rather than just saying retrospectively, “Oh, well, a lot of civilians died. Not very many military people died, comparatively speaking, so it must have been war crimes,” especially when you’ve got another side, I’ll fast-forward to Hamas, that intentionally attempts to induce those same civilian numbers, because Hamas is guilty of any war crime that you would potentially accuse. And this is according to the Amnesty International, people that Norm loves to cite, Hamas is guilty of all of these same war crimes, of them failing to take care of their civilian population, of them essentially utilizing human shields to try to fire rockets, free from attacks-
Now, a lot of people have looked at the court’s ruling of the 26th of January and focused on the fact that the court did not order a ceasefire. I actually wasn’t expecting it to order a ceasefire, and I wasn’t surprised that it didn’t because in the other cases that the court has considered, most prominently Bosnia and Myanmar, it also didn’t order a ceasefire, and South Africa in requesting a ceasefire also didn’t ask the court to render an opinion on the legitimacy, or lack thereof, of Israel’s military operation. From my perspective, the key issue on the 26th of January was whether the court would simply dismiss the case or decide to proceed with it.
This is not the same as saying there’s no distinction between militants and civilians in Gaza. His statement here is actually fully compliant with international law to the letter because if you are storing military supplies in civilian areas, these things become military targets, and you’re allowed to do proportionality assessments afterwards. So, if this is supposed to be one of many quotes that they’ve shown that is supposed to demonstrate genocidal intent, but it is very easily explained by military intent or by a conflict between two parties-
We are not yet at the court. The evidence in their minds compels the conclusion that genocide is being committed. I am willing, because I happen to know Mr. Dugard personally, and I have corresponded with Vaughan Lowe, I’ve heard their claim, I’ve read the report. I would say they make a very strong case, but let’s agree plausible. Now, here’s a question, if somebody qualifies for an Olympic team, let’s say a regional person qualifies for an Olympic team, it doesn’t mean they’re going to be on the Olympic team, it doesn’t mean they’re going to win a gold medal, a silver medal, or a bronze medal-
But the best deal that Israel could ever offer them, they were offered, which essentially was 95% of the West Bank, East Jerusalem, half of the old city of Jerusalem, some sort of joint control of the Temple Mount and the Gaza Strip of course in full. And the Palestinians said no to this deal and nobody really knows why Arafat said no. Some people think he was trying to hold out for slightly better terms, but my reading is that he was constitutionally, psychologically incapable of signing off on a two-state deal, meaning acceptance of the existence of a Jewish state. This was really the problem.
And I think it was in that context that had there been a joint US-Soviet push for an Arab-Israeli and Israeli-Palestinian resolution that incorporated both an Israeli withdrawal to the 1967 lines and the establishment of a Palestinian state in the occupied territories, I think there was a very reasonable prospect for that being achieved. It ended up being aborted, I think for several reasons, and ultimately the Egyptian President Anwar Sadat decided for reasons we can discuss later to launch a separate unilateral initiative for Israeli Egyptian rather than Arab-Israeli peace. And I think once that set in motion, the prospects disappeared because Israel essentially saw its most powerful adversary removed from the equation and felt that this would give it a free hand in the occupied territories also in Lebanon to get rid of the PLO and so on.
You ask when were we closest, and I can’t give you an answer of when we were closest. I can only tell you when I think we could have been close and that was a lost opportunity. If we look at the situation today, there’s been a lot of discussion about a two-state settlement. My own view, and I’ve written about this, I don’t buy the arguments of the naysayers that we have passed the so-called point of no return with respect to a two-state settlement. Certainly if you look at the Israeli position in the occupied territories, I would argue it’s more tenuous than was the French position in Algeria in 1954, than was a British position in Ireland in 1916, than was a Ethiopian position in Eritrea in 1990. And so as a matter of practicality, as a matter of principle, I do think the establishment of a Palestinian state in the occupied territories remains realistic.
I think the question that we now need to ask ourselves, it’s one I’m certainly asking myself since October 7th and looking at Israel’s genocidal campaign, but also looking at larger questions, is it desirable? Can you have peace with what increasingly appears to be an irrational genocidal state that seeks to confront and resolve each and every political challenge with violence? And that reacts to its failure to achieve solutions to political challenges with violence by applying even more violence, that has an insatiable lust for Palestinian territory, that a genocidal apartheid state that seems increasingly incapable of even conceiving of peaceful coexistence with the other people on that land. So I’m very pessimistic that a solution is possible.
I grew up in Western Europe in the long shadow of the Second World War. I think we can all agree that there could have been no peace in Europe had certain regimes on that continent not been removed from power. I look at Southeast Asia in the late 1970s, and I think we all agreed that there could not have been peace that region had the Khmer Rouge not been ousted. I look at Southern Africa during the 1990s and I think we can all be agreed that had the white minority regimes that ruled Zimbabwe and South Africa not been dismantled, there could not have been peace in that region. And although I think it’s worth having a discussion, I do think it’s now legitimate question to ask, can there be peace without dismantling the Zionist regime?
And I make a very clear distinction between the Israeli state and its institutions on the one hand and the Israeli people who I think regardless of our discussion about the history, I think you can now talk about an Israeli people and the people that have developed rights over time and a formula for peaceful coexistence with them will need to be found, which is a separate matter from dismantling the Israeli state and its institutions. And again, I haven’t reached clear conclusions about this except to say as a practical matter, I think a two state settlement remains feasible. But I think there are very legitimate questions about its desirability and about whether peace can be achieved in the Middle East with the persistence of an irrational genocidal apartheid regime. Particularly because Israeli society is beginning to develop many extremely, extremely distasteful supremacist, dehumanizing aspects that I think also stand in the way of coexistence that are being fed by this regime.
I mean you said as much about the institution, at least to the Zionist government. Israel’s government is probably not going anywhere. All of the other surrounding Arab states have accepted that, or at least most of them down in the Gulf. Egypt and Jordan have accepted that the Palestinians need to accept it too. The Israeli state or the state apparatus is not going anywhere, and at some point they need to realize like, “Hey, we need a leader that’s going to come out and represent us, represent all of us, is willing to take political risks, is willing to negotiate some lasting piece for us, and it’s not going to be the international community or some invocation of international law or some invocation of morality or justice that’s going to extricate us from this conflict. It’s going to take some actual difficult political maneuvering on the ground-“
That was their worry that the Palestinians were becoming too moderate. And unless you understand that, you can’t understand the June 1982 Lebanon war. The purpose of the June 1982 Lebanon war was to liquidate the PLO in Southern Lebanon because they were too moderate the Palestinian peace offensive. I’m going to have to fast-forward. There are many events. There was the First Intifada, then there’s the Oslo Accord, and let’s now go to the heart of the issue, namely the 2000-2001 negotiations. Well, the negotiations are divided into three parts for the sake of listeners. There’s Camp David in July 2000, there are the Clinton parameters in December 2000, and then there are negotiations in Taba in Egypt in 2001. Those are the three phases. Now, I have studied the record probably to the point of insanity because there are so many details you have to master.
Ben-Ami says, “I think the Israeli offer was reasonable.” That’s how he sees it. But what is the standard of reasonable? My standard is what does international law say? International law says the settlements are illegal. Israel wants to keep all the settlement blocks. 15 judges, all 15 in the wall decision in July 2004, all 15 judges, including the American judge, Buergenthal ruled the settlements are illegal under international law. They want to keep 80% of the settlers under international law. All the settlers are illegal in the West Bank. They want to keep large parts of East Jerusalem. But under international law, East Jerusalem is occupied Palestinian territory. That’s what the international-
So if you use as the baseline what the UN General Assembly has said and what the International Court of Justice has said, if you use that baseline, international law, by that baseline, all the concessions came from the Palestinian side. Every single concession came from the Palestinian side. None came from the Israeli side. They may have accepted less than what they wanted, but it was still beyond what international law allocated to them. Now you say-
Dennis Ross decided to be the philosopher king. He’s going to decide on the basis of needs. Well, if you asked me, since Gaza is one of the densest places on Earth, it needs [inaudible 03:58:50]-
You might consider international opinion on things, but at the end of the day, it’s the bilateral negotiations, oftentimes historically started in secret, independent of the international community, that end up shaping what the final agreements look like. I think the issue with this broad appeal to international law is, again, going back to my earlier point about all of the euphemistic words, all it simply does is drive Palestinian expectations up to a level that is never going to be satisfied. For instance, you can throw that ICJ opinion all you want, it was an advisory opinion, that came in 2004, how Palestinians gained more or less land since that 2004 advisory opinion was issued.
So you need to take into account that when you’re advocating bilateral negotiations that, effectively, that gives each of the parties veto power. And in the current circumstances, the Palestinians have already recognized Israel.
But let’s get to the issue that Mouin wrote. Here’s what you said. You said, formally… You said, “Yes, it’s true, the Palestinians recognize Israel.” But then you said, “Viscerally, in their hearts-“
And just as a matter of historical record, beginning in the early 1970s, there was fierce debate within the Palestinian national movement about whether to accept or reject. And there were three schools of thought. There was one that would accept nothing less than the total liberation of Palestine. There was a second that accepted what was called the establishment of a fighting national authority on Palestinian soil, which they saw-
But for some reason, they’ve never had a leader that convinced them of that as much, that Arafat thought that if he held on, there was always a better deal around the corner, that Abbas is more concerned with trying to maintain any legitimacy amongst Palestinians than actually trying to negotiate anything realistic with Israel, that Palestinians are always incentivized to feel like as long as they keep fighting, either the international community is going to save them with the 5 millionth UN resolution condemning whatever, that another ICJ advisory opinion is finally going to lead to the expulsion of half a million Jews from the West Bank, or that some other international body, the ICJ and the genocide charge, is going to come and save the Palestinians.
As long as they, in their mind, feel like somebody is coming to save them, then they feel like they’re going to have the ability to get something better in the future. But the reality is all of the good partners for peace that the Palestinians had have completely and utterly abandoned them; Egypt, Jordan, the Gulf states. Whether you’re talking bilateral peace or the Abraham Accords, most of the Arab leaders, in negotiating peace with Israel, have just not had as much of an interest in maintaining the rights and the representations of what the Palestinian people want.
And the only people they have today to draw legitimacy from or to have on their side to argue with them are people that, I guess, write books or tweet or people in the international community that do resolutions or Amnesty International reports. And the reality is, we can scream until we’re blue in the face on these things, none of it has gotten any closer to helping the Palestinians in any sense of the word.
The condition has only gotten worse. The settlements only continue to expand. The military operations are only to get more brutal. The blockade is going to continue to have worse effects. As long as we use international law as the basis and there isn’t a strong Sadat-like Palestinian leader that’s willing to come up and confront Israel with the brave, peaceful negotiations to force them to acquiesce, nothing is going to happen.
And I think that the issue you come up with is, whether it’s people like Norm that talk about how brave the October 7th attacks were or how much respect they have for those fighters, Israel, in a way… And I think people have said as much about Netanyahu. The right wants violence from the Palestinians because it always gives them a perpetual excuse to further the conflict.
“Well, we have to go in on October 7th and we’ve got to remove Hamas. Well, we can’t trust these people in the West. We have to do the night raids because the Second Intifada made us feel like the Palestinian people didn’t want trust with us.”
I feel like the biggest thing that would force Israel to change its path would be an actual, a real… not for two weeks, but an actual peaceful Palestinian leader, somebody committed to peace, that is able to apply those standards and hold the entire region of Palestine to those standards. Because I think, over time, the mounting pressure from without the international community and the mounting pressure from within because Israel hosts a lot of its own criticism, if we talk about B’Tselem, we talk about Haaretz, Israel will host a lot of its own criticism.
I think that that pressure would force Israel towards an actual peace agreement, but it’s never going to come through violence. Historically, it hasn’t. And in the modern day, violence has just hurt the Palestinians more and more.
And then when the international pressure is always ’67 borders, infinite right of return for refugees, and a total withdrawal of Israel from all these lands to even start negotiations, I just don’t see, realistically, on the Palestinian side, no negotiations are ever going to start in a place that Israel’s willing to accept.
And the reason that Israel agreed to relinquish the occupied Egyptian Sinai and the reason that Egyptian-Israeli peace treaty was signed in 1979 is because Israel, in 1973, recognized that its military superiority was ultimately no match for Egypt’s determination to recover its occupied territories and that there would come a point when Egypt would find a way to extract an unbearable price.
So the Israelis are dead set on restoring that deterrence capability. On the Arab side, and I know Mouin and I have disagreed on it, and we’re allowed to disagree, I think the Arab side, the lesson they learned from October 7th is Israelis aren’t as strong as we thought they were.
But this is a people that never has and, I believe, never will surrender. At a certain point, I think Israel and its leaders will have to come to the realization that by hook or by crook, these people are going to achieve their inalienable and legitimate national rights, and that is going to be a reality.
One more question, since we have two historians here. Briefly, from a history perspective, what do you hope your legacy is as historians, Benny and Norm, will be of the work that you’ve put out there? Maybe Norm, you can go first, and try to say briefly.
Thanks for listening to this conversation with Norman Finkelstein, Benny Morris, Mouin Rabbani, and Steven Bonnell. To support this podcast, please check out our sponsors in the description. And now let me leave you with some words from Lyndon B. Johnson. “Peace is a journey of a thousand miles, and it must be taken one step at a time.” Thank you for listening, and hope to see you next time.
Click link to jump approximately to that part in the transcript:
- 0:00 – Introduction
- 4:42 – 1948
- 1:03:14 – Partition
- 2:07:47 – October 7
- 3:01:59 – Gaza
- 3:28:34 – Peace
- 4:33:18 – Hope for the future
Introduction
Benny Morris
That’s a good point. No, no, that’s a good point.
That’s a good point. No, no, that’s a good point.
Norman Finkelstein
Now, some people accuse me of speaking very slowly, and they’re advised on YouTube to turn up the speed twice to three times whenever I’m on. One of the reasons I speak slowly is because I attach value to every word I say.
Now, some people accuse me of speaking very slowly, and they’re advised on YouTube to turn up the speed twice to three times whenever I’m on. One of the reasons I speak slowly is because I attach value to every word I say.
Steven Bonnell
Norman say this all over and over and over again, “I only deal in facts. I don’t deal in hypotheticals. I only deal in facts. I only deal in facts.” And that seems to be the case except for when the facts are completely and totally contrary to the particular point you’re trying to push. The idea that Jews would’ve out of hand rejected any state that had Arabs on it or always had a plan of expulsion, it’s just betrayed by the acceptance of the 47 partition plan.
Norman say this all over and over and over again, “I only deal in facts. I don’t deal in hypotheticals. I only deal in facts. I only deal in facts.” And that seems to be the case except for when the facts are completely and totally contrary to the particular point you’re trying to push. The idea that Jews would’ve out of hand rejected any state that had Arabs on it or always had a plan of expulsion, it’s just betrayed by the acceptance of the 47 partition plan.
Norman Finkelstein
I don’t think you understand politics.
I don’t think you understand politics.
Benny Morris
They forced the British to prevent immigration of Jews from Europe and reaching safe shores in Palestine. That’s what they did. And they knew that the Jews were being persecuted in Europe at the time.
They forced the British to prevent immigration of Jews from Europe and reaching safe shores in Palestine. That’s what they did. And they knew that the Jews were being persecuted in Europe at the time.
Mouin Rabbani
Was Palestine the only spot of land on Earth?
Was Palestine the only spot of land on Earth?
Benny Morris
Yes. Basically that was the problem. The Jews couldn’t immigrate anywhere else.
Yes. Basically that was the problem. The Jews couldn’t immigrate anywhere else.
Mouin Rabbani
What about your great friends in Britain, the architects of the Balfour Declaration?
What about your great friends in Britain, the architects of the Balfour Declaration?
Benny Morris
By the late 1930s-
By the late 1930s-
Mouin Rabbani
What about the United States?
What about the United States?
Benny Morris
… they weren’t happy to take in Jews, and the Americans weren’t happy to take in Jews.
… they weren’t happy to take in Jews, and the Americans weren’t happy to take in Jews.
Mouin Rabbani
And why are Palestinians who were not Europeans, who had zero role in the rise of Nazism, who had no relation to any of this, why are they somehow uniquely responsible for what happened in Europe and uniquely-
And why are Palestinians who were not Europeans, who had zero role in the rise of Nazism, who had no relation to any of this, why are they somehow uniquely responsible for what happened in Europe and uniquely-
Benny Morris
Because maybe helping the cause is the only safe haven for Jews.
Because maybe helping the cause is the only safe haven for Jews.
Norman Finkelstein
Professor Morris, because of your logic, and I’m not disputing it, that’s why October 7th happened.
Professor Morris, because of your logic, and I’m not disputing it, that’s why October 7th happened.
Steven Bonnell
Oh my God.
Oh my God.
Norman Finkelstein
Because there was no options left for those people.
Because there was no options left for those people.
Benny Morris
The Hamas guys who attacked the kibbutzim, apart from the attacks on the military sites, when they attacked the kibbutzim, were out to kill civilians and they killed family after family, house after house.
The Hamas guys who attacked the kibbutzim, apart from the attacks on the military sites, when they attacked the kibbutzim, were out to kill civilians and they killed family after family, house after house.
Norman Finkelstein
Talk fast so people think that you’re coherent.
Talk fast so people think that you’re coherent.
Steven Bonnell
I’m just reading from the UN.
I’m just reading from the UN.
Norman Finkelstein
Yeah. But you think…
Yeah. But you think…
Steven Bonnell
I know you like them sometimes, only when they agree with you though. That you’ve lied about this particular instance in the past. Those kids weren’t just on the beaches is often stated in articles. Those kids were literally coming out of a previously identified Hamas compound that they had operated from. They literally… You could Google it.
I know you like them sometimes, only when they agree with you though. That you’ve lied about this particular instance in the past. Those kids weren’t just on the beaches is often stated in articles. Those kids were literally coming out of a previously identified Hamas compound that they had operated from. They literally… You could Google it.
Norman Finkelstein
Mr. Bonnell.
Mr. Bonnell.
Steven Bonnell
You could Google it.
You could Google it.
Norman Finkelstein
Mr. Bonnell.
Mr. Bonnell.
Steven Bonnell
Mr. Finkelstein.
Mr. Finkelstein.
Norman Finkelstein
With all due respect, you’re such a fantastic moron. It’s terrifying.
With all due respect, you’re such a fantastic moron. It’s terrifying.
Lex Fridman
The following is a debate on the topic of Israel and Palestine with Norman Finkelstein, Benny Morris, Mouin Rabbani and Steven Bonnell, also known online as Destiny. Norm and Benny are historians. Mouin is a Middle East analyst. And Steven is a political commentator and streamer. All four have spoken and debated extensively on this topic. The goal for this debate was not for anyone to win or to score points. It wasn’t to get views or likes. I never care about those. And I think there are probably much easier ways to get those things if I did care.
The following is a debate on the topic of Israel and Palestine with Norman Finkelstein, Benny Morris, Mouin Rabbani and Steven Bonnell, also known online as Destiny. Norm and Benny are historians. Mouin is a Middle East analyst. And Steven is a political commentator and streamer. All four have spoken and debated extensively on this topic. The goal for this debate was not for anyone to win or to score points. It wasn’t to get views or likes. I never care about those. And I think there are probably much easier ways to get those things if I did care.
The goal was to explore together the history, present and future of Israel and Palestine in a free flowing conversation. No time limits, no rules. There was a lot of tension in the room from the very beginning, and it only got more intense as we went along. And I quickly realized that this very conversation in a very real human way was a microcosm of the tensions and distance and perspectives on the topic of Israel and Palestine. For some debates, I will step in and moderate strictly to prevent emotion from boiling. For this, I saw the value in not interfering with the passion of the exchanges because that emotion in itself spoke volumes.
We did talk about the history and the future. But the anger, the frustration, the biting wit, and at times, respect and comradery were all there. Like I said, we did it in an perhaps all too human way. I will do more debates and conversations on these difficult topics and I will continue to search for hope in the midst of death and destruction, to search for our common humanity in the midst of division and hate. This thing we have going on, human civilization, the whole of it is beautiful and it’s worth figuring out how we can help it flourish together. I love you all. This is the Lex Fridman Podcast. To support it, please check out our sponsors in the description. And now, dear friends, here’s Norman Finkelstein, Benny Morris, Mouin Rabbani, and Steven Bonnell.
1948
First question is about 1948/ for Israelis, 1948 is the establishment of the state of Israel and the war of independence. For Palestinians, 1948 is the Nakba, which means catastrophe or the displacement of 700,000 Palestinians from their homes as a consequence of the war. What to you is important to understand about the events of 1948 and the period around there, ’47, ’49, that helps us understand what’s going on today and maybe helps us understand the roots of all of this that started even before 1948. I was hoping that Norm could speak first, then Benny, then Mouin, and then Steven. Norm?
Norman Finkelstein
After World War II, the British decided that they didn’t want to deal with the Palestine question anymore and the ball was thrown into the court of the United Nations. Now, as I read the record, the UN was not attempting to arbitrate or adjudicate rights and wrongs. It was confronting a very practical problem. There were two national communities in Palestine and there were irreconcilable differences on fundamental questions, most importantly, looking at the historic record on the question of immigration, and associate with the question of immigration, the question of land.
After World War II, the British decided that they didn’t want to deal with the Palestine question anymore and the ball was thrown into the court of the United Nations. Now, as I read the record, the UN was not attempting to arbitrate or adjudicate rights and wrongs. It was confronting a very practical problem. There were two national communities in Palestine and there were irreconcilable differences on fundamental questions, most importantly, looking at the historic record on the question of immigration, and associate with the question of immigration, the question of land.
The UN Special Committee on Palestine, which came into being before the UN 181 Partition Resolution. The UN Special Committee recommended two states in Palestine. There was a minority position represented by Iran, India, Yugoslavia. They supported one state. But they believed that if forced to, the two communities would figure out some sort of modus vivendi and live together. United Nations General Assembly supported partition between what it called a Jewish state and an Arab state. Now, in my reading of the record, and I understand there’s new scholarship in the subject which I’ve not read, but so far as I’ve read the record, there’s no clarity on what the United Nations General Assembly meant by a Jewish state and an Arab state, except for the fact that the Jewish state would be, demographically, the majority would be Jewish, and the Arab state demographically would be Arab.
The UNSCOP, the UN Special Committee on Palestine, it was very clear and it was reiterated many times that in recommending two states, each state, the Arab state and the Jewish state, would have to guarantee full equality of all citizens with regard to political, civil, and religious matters. Now, that does raise the question if there is absolute full equality of all citizens, both in the Jewish state and the Arab state with regard to political rights, civil rights, and religious rights. Apart from the demographic majority, it’s very unclear what it meant to call a state Jewish or call a state Arab.
In my view, the Partition Resolution was the correct decision. I do not believe that the Arab and Jewish communities could, at that point, be made to live together. I disagree with the minority position of India, Iran, and Yugoslavia. And that not being a practical option, two states was the only other option. In this regard, I would want to pay tribute to what was probably the most moving speech at the UN General Assembly proceedings by the Soviet Foreign Minister Gromyko. I was very tempted to quote it at length, but I recognized that would be taking too much time. So I asked a young friend, Jamie Stern-Weiner to edit it and just get the essence of what Foreign Minister Gromyko had to say.
” During the last war,” Gromyko said, “The Jewish people underwent exceptional sorrow and suffering. Without any exaggeration, this sorrow and suffering are indescribable. Hundreds of thousands of Jews are wandering about in various countries of Europe in search of means of existence and in search of shelter. The United Nations cannot and must not regard this situation with indifference. Past experience, particularly during the Second World War, shows that no Western European state was able to provide adequate assistance for the Jewish people in defending its rights and its very existence from the violence of the Hitlerites and their allies. This is an unpleasant fact. But unfortunately, like all other facts, it must be admitted.”
Gromyko went on to say, in principle, he supports one state, or the Soviet Union supports one state. But he said, ” If relations between the Jewish and Arab populations of Palestine proved to be so bad that would be impossible to reconcile them and to ensure the peaceful coexistence of the Arabs and the Jews, the Soviet Union would support two states. I personally am not convinced that the two states would have been unsustainable in the long term if, and this is big if, the Zionist movement had been faithful to the position that proclaimed during the UNSCOP public hearings.”
At the time Ben-Gurion testified, “I want to express what we mean by a Jewish state. We mean by a Jewish state, simply a state where the majority of the people are Jews, not a state where a Jew has in any way any privilege more than anyone else. A Jewish state means a state based on absolute equality of all her citizens and on democracy. Alas, this was not to be.” As Professor Morris has written, “Zionist ideology and practice were necessarily an elementally expansionist.” And then he wrote in another book, “Transfer…” The euphemism for expulsion, “Transfer was inevitable and inbuilt into Zionism because it sought to transform a land which was Arab into a Jewish state. And a Jewish state could not have arisen without a major displacement of Arab population. And because this aim automatically produced resistance among the Arabs, which in turn persuade the Yishuv’s leaders,” the Yishuv being the Jewish community, “The Yishuv’s leaders, that a hostile Arab majority or a large minority could not remain in place if a Jewish state was to arise or safely endure.”
Or as Professor Morris retrospectively put it, “A removing of a population was needed. Without a population expulsion, a Jewish state would not have been established.” The Arab side rejected outright the partition resolution. I won’t play games with that. I know a lot of people try to prove it’s not true. It clearly, in my view, is true. The Arab side rejected outright the partition resolution. While Israeli leaders acting on the compulsions inevitable and inbuilt into Zionism, found the pretext in the course of the first Arab-Israeli war to expel the indigenous population and expand its borders. I therefore conclude that neither side was committed to the letter of the partition resolution and both sides aborted it.
Lex Fridman
Thank you, Norm. Norm asked that you make a lengthy statement in the beginning. Benny, I hope it’s okay to call everybody by their first name in the name of camaraderie. Norm has quoted several things you said. Perhaps you can comment broadly on the question of 1948 and maybe respond to the things that Norm said.
Thank you, Norm. Norm asked that you make a lengthy statement in the beginning. Benny, I hope it’s okay to call everybody by their first name in the name of camaraderie. Norm has quoted several things you said. Perhaps you can comment broadly on the question of 1948 and maybe respond to the things that Norm said.
Benny Morris
Yeah. UNSCOP, the United Nations Special Committee on Palestine recommended partition. The majority of UNSCOP recommended partition, which was accepted by the UN General Assembly in November, 1947. Essentially, looking back to the Peel Commission in 1937, 10 years earlier, a British Commission had looked at the problem of Palestine, the two warring national groups who refused to live together, if you like, or consolidate a unitary state between them. And Peel said there should be two states. That’s the principle. The country must be partitioned in two states. This would give a modicum of justice to both sides, if not all their demands, of course.
Yeah. UNSCOP, the United Nations Special Committee on Palestine recommended partition. The majority of UNSCOP recommended partition, which was accepted by the UN General Assembly in November, 1947. Essentially, looking back to the Peel Commission in 1937, 10 years earlier, a British Commission had looked at the problem of Palestine, the two warring national groups who refused to live together, if you like, or consolidate a unitary state between them. And Peel said there should be two states. That’s the principle. The country must be partitioned in two states. This would give a modicum of justice to both sides, if not all their demands, of course.
And the United Nations followed suit. The United Nations, UNSCOP and then the UN General Assembly representing the will of the international community said two states is the just solution in this complex situation. The problem was that immediately with the passage of the resolution, the Arabs, Arab states and the Arabs of Palestine said no. As Norman Finkelstein said, they said no. They rejected the partition idea, the principle of partition, not just the idea of what percentage which side should get, but the principle of partition they said no to, the Jews should not have any part of Palestine for their sovereign territory. Maybe Jews could live as a minority in Palestine. That also was problematic in the eyes of the Palestinian Arab leadership.
Husayni had said, only Jews who were there before 1917 could actually get citizenship and continue to live there. But the Arabs rejected partition and the Arabs of Palestine launched, in very disorganized fashion, war against the resolution, against the implementation of the resolution, against the Jewish community in Palestine. And this was their defeat in that civil war between the two communities, while the British were withdrawing from Palestine, led to the Arab invasion, the invasion by the Arab states in May, 1948 of the country. Again, basically with the idea of eradicating or preventing the emergence of a Jewish state in line with the United Nations decision and the will of the international community.
Norman said that the Zionist enterprise, and he quoted me, meant from the beginning to transfer or expel the Arabs of Palestine or some of the Arabs of Palestine. And I think he’s quoting out of context. The context in which the statements were made that the Jewish state could only emerge if there was a transfer of Arab population was proceeded in the way I wrote it, and the way it actually happened by Arab resistance and hostilities towards the Jewish community. Had the Arabs accepted partition, there would’ve been a large Arab minority in the Jewish state which emerged in ’47. And in fact, Jewish economists and state builders took into account that there would be a large Arab minority and its needs would be cared for, et cetera.
But this was not to be because the Arabs attacked. And had they not attacked, perhaps a Jewish state with a large Arab minority could have emerged. But this didn’t happen. They went to war. The Jews resisted. And in the course of that war, Arab populations were driven out. Some were expelled, some left because Arab leaders advised them to leave or ordered them to leave. And at the end of the war, Israel said they can’t return because they just tried to destroy the Jewish state. And that’s the basic reality of what happened in ’48. The Jews created a state. The Palestinian Arabs never bothered to even try to create a state before ’48 and in the course of the 1948 war. And for that reason, they have no state to this day. The Jews do have a state because they prepared to establish a state, fought for it, and established it, hopefully lastingly.
Lex Fridman
When you say hostility, in case people are not familiar, there was a full on war where Arab states invaded and Israel won that war.
When you say hostility, in case people are not familiar, there was a full on war where Arab states invaded and Israel won that war.
Benny Morris
Let me just add to clarify. The war had two parts to it. The first part was the Arab community in Palestine, its militiamen attacked the Jews from November, 1947. In other words, from the day after the UN Partition Resolution was passed, Arab gunmen were busy shooting up Jews, and that snowballed into a full scale civil war between the two communities in Palestine. In May, 1948, a second stage began in the war in which the Arab states invaded, the new state attacked the new state, and they too were defeated. And thus the state of Israel emerged. In the course of this two stage war, a vast Palestinian refugee problem occurred.
Let me just add to clarify. The war had two parts to it. The first part was the Arab community in Palestine, its militiamen attacked the Jews from November, 1947. In other words, from the day after the UN Partition Resolution was passed, Arab gunmen were busy shooting up Jews, and that snowballed into a full scale civil war between the two communities in Palestine. In May, 1948, a second stage began in the war in which the Arab states invaded, the new state attacked the new state, and they too were defeated. And thus the state of Israel emerged. In the course of this two stage war, a vast Palestinian refugee problem occurred.
Lex Fridman
And so after that, the transfer, the expulsion, the thing that people call the Nakba happened. Mouin, could you speak to 1948 and the historical significance of it?
And so after that, the transfer, the expulsion, the thing that people call the Nakba happened. Mouin, could you speak to 1948 and the historical significance of it?
Mouin Rabbani
Sure. There’s a lot to unpack here. I’ll try to limit myself to just a few points regarding Zionism and transfer. I think Chaim Weizmann, the head of the world’s Zionist organization, had it exactly right when he said that the objective of Zionism is to make Palestine as Jewish as England is English or France is French. In other words, as Norman explained, a Jewish state requires Jewish political demographic and territorial supremacy. Without those three elements, the state would be Jewish in name only. And I think what distinguishes Zionism is its insistence, supremacy and exclusivity. That would be my first point.
Sure. There’s a lot to unpack here. I’ll try to limit myself to just a few points regarding Zionism and transfer. I think Chaim Weizmann, the head of the world’s Zionist organization, had it exactly right when he said that the objective of Zionism is to make Palestine as Jewish as England is English or France is French. In other words, as Norman explained, a Jewish state requires Jewish political demographic and territorial supremacy. Without those three elements, the state would be Jewish in name only. And I think what distinguishes Zionism is its insistence, supremacy and exclusivity. That would be my first point.
The second point is, I think what the Soviet foreign minister at the time Andrei Gromyko said is exactly right, with one reservation. Gromyko was describing a European savagery unleashed against Europe’s Jews. At the time, it wasn’t Palestinians or Arabs. The savages and the barbarians were European to the core. It had nothing to do with developments in Palestine or the Middle East. Secondly, at the time that Gromyko was speaking, those Jewish survivors of the Holocaust and others who were in need of safe haven were still overwhelmingly on the European continent and not in Palestine.
And I think, given the scale of the savagery, I don’t think that any one state or country should have borne the responsibility for addressing this crisis. I think it should have been an international responsibility. The Soviet Union could have contributed, Germany certainly could and should have contributed, the United Kingdom and the United States which slammed their doors shut to the persecuted Jews of Europe as the Nazis were rising to power, they certainly should have played a role. But instead, what passed for the international community at the time, decided to partition Palestine. And here I think we need to judge the Partition Resolution against the realities that obtained at the time time.
Two thirds of the population of Palestine was Arab. The Yishuv, the Jewish community in Palestine, constituted about one third of the total population and controlled even less of the land within Palestine. As a preeminent Palestinian historian Walid Khalidi has pointed out, the Partition Resolution in giving roughly 55% of Palestine to the Jewish community, and I think 41, 42% to the Arab community, to the Palestinians, did not preserve the position of each community, or even favor one community at the expense of the other. Rather, it thoroughly inverted and revolutionized the relationship between the two communities.
And as many have written, the Nakba was the inevitable consequence of partition given the nature of Zionism, given the territorial disposition, given the weakness of the Palestinian community whose leadership had been largely decimated during a major revolt at the end of the 1930s, given that the Arab states were still very much under French and British influence, the Nakba was inevitable, the inevitable product of the Partition Resolution. And one last point also about the UN’s Partition Resolution is, yes, formally, that is what the international community decided on the 29th of November, 1947. It’s not a resolution that could ever have gotten through the UN General Assembly today for a very simple reason. It was a very different general assembly.
Most African, most Asian states were not yet independent. Were the resolution to be placed before the international community today, and I find it telling that the minority opinion was led by India, Iran, and Yugoslavia, I think they would’ve represented the clear majority. So partition, given what we know about Zionism, given that it was entirely predictable what would happen, given the realities on the ground in Palestine was deeply unjust, and the idea that either the Palestinians or the Arab states could have accepted such a resolution is, I think, an illusion. That was in 1947. We saw what happened in ’48 and ’49. Palestinian society was essentially destroyed. Over 80%, I believe, of Palestinians residents in the territory that became the state of Israel were either expelled or fled and ultimately were ethnically cleansed because ethnic cleansing consists of two components. It’s not just forcing people into refuge or expelling them, it’s just as importantly preventing their return. And Benny Morris has written, I think, a article about Yosef Weitz and the transfer committees. There was a very detailed initiative to prevent the return and it consisted of raising hundreds of Palestinian villages to the ground, which was systematically implemented and so on. And so Palestinians became a stateless people.
Now, what is the most important reason that no Arab state was established in Palestine? Well, since the 1930s, the Zionist leadership and the Hashemite leadership of Jordan, as it’s been thoroughly researched and written about by the Israeli-British historian Avi Shlaim, essentially colluded to prevent the establishment of an independent Arab state in Palestine in the late 1940s. There’s much more here, but I think those are the key points I would make about 1948.
Lex Fridman
We may talk about Zionism, Britain, UN assemblies and all the things you mentioned. There’s a lot to dig into. So again, if we can keep it to just one statement moving forward, after Steven, if you want to go a little longer. Also, we should acknowledge the fact that the speaking speeds of people here are different. Steven speaks about 10 times faster than me. Steven, if you want to comment on 1948.
We may talk about Zionism, Britain, UN assemblies and all the things you mentioned. There’s a lot to dig into. So again, if we can keep it to just one statement moving forward, after Steven, if you want to go a little longer. Also, we should acknowledge the fact that the speaking speeds of people here are different. Steven speaks about 10 times faster than me. Steven, if you want to comment on 1948.
Steven Bonnell
Yeah. I think it’s interesting where people choose to start the history. I noticed a lot of people like to start at either ’47 or ’48 because it’s the first time where they can clearly point to a catastrophe that occurs on the Arab side, that they want to ascribe 100% of the blame to the newly emergent Israeli state to. But I feel like when you have this type of reading of history, it feels like the goal is to moralize everything first and then to pick and choose facts that support the statements of your initial moral statement afterwards. Whenever people are talking about ’48 or the establishment of the Arab state, I never hear about the fact that a civil war started in ’47. That was largely instigated because of the Arab rejectionism of the ’47 partition plan.
Yeah. I think it’s interesting where people choose to start the history. I noticed a lot of people like to start at either ’47 or ’48 because it’s the first time where they can clearly point to a catastrophe that occurs on the Arab side, that they want to ascribe 100% of the blame to the newly emergent Israeli state to. But I feel like when you have this type of reading of history, it feels like the goal is to moralize everything first and then to pick and choose facts that support the statements of your initial moral statement afterwards. Whenever people are talking about ’48 or the establishment of the Arab state, I never hear about the fact that a civil war started in ’47. That was largely instigated because of the Arab rejectionism of the ’47 partition plan.
I never hear about the fact that the majority of the land that was acquired happened by purchases from Jewish organizations of Palestinian Arabs of the Ottoman Empire before the mandatory period in 1920 even started. Funnily enough, king Abdullah of Jordan was quoted as saying, “The Arabs are as prodigal in selling their land as they are in weeping about it.” I never hear about the multiple times that Arabs rejected partition, rejected living with Jews, rejected any sort of state that would’ve even had any sort of Jewish exclusivity. It’s funny because it was brought up before that the partition plan was unfair, and that’s why the Arabs rejected it, as though they rejected it because it was unfair, because of the amount of land that Jews were given and not just due to the fact that Jews were given land at all, as though a 30% partition or a 25% partition would’ve been accepted when I don’t think that was the reality of the circumstances.
I feel like most of the other stuff has been said, but I noticed that whenever people talk about ’48 or the years preceding ’48, I think the worst thing that happens is there’s a cherry-picking of the facts where basically all of the blame is ascribed to this built-in idea of Zionism because of a handful of quotes or because of an ideology, we can say that transfer or population expulsion or basically the mandate of all of these Arabs being kicked off the land was always going to happen, when I think there’s a refusal sometimes as well to acknowledge that regardless of the ideas of some of the Zionist leaders, there is a political, social and military reality on the ground that they’re forced to contend with.
And unfortunately, the Arabs, because of their inability to engage in diplomacy and only to use tools of war to try to negotiate everything going on in mandatory Palestine, basically always gave the Jews a reason or an excuse to fight and acquire land through that way because of their refusal to negotiate on anything else, whether it was the partition plan in ’47, whether it was the Lausanne peace conference afterwards where Israel even offered to annex Gaza in ’51, where they offered to take in a hundred thousand refugees. Every single deal is just rejected out of hand because the Arabs don’t want a Jewish state anywhere in this region of the world.
Norman Finkelstein
I would like to engage Professor Morris. If you don’t mind, I’m not with the first name. It’s just not my-
I would like to engage Professor Morris. If you don’t mind, I’m not with the first name. It’s just not my-
Lex Fridman
Okay.
Okay.
Norman Finkelstein
… way of relating.
… way of relating.
Benny Morris
You can just call me Morris. You don’t need the professor.
You can just call me Morris. You don’t need the professor.
Norman Finkelstein
Okay. There’s a real problem here, and it’s been a problem I’ve had over many years of reading your work. Apart perhaps from, as grandchild, I suspect nobody knows your work better than I do. I’ve read it many times, not once, not twice, at least three times everything you’ve written. And the problem is, it’s a kind of quicksilver. It’s very hard to grasp a point and hold you to it. So we’re going to try here to see whether we can hold you to a point. And then you argue with me the point. I have no problem with that. Your name please.
Okay. There’s a real problem here, and it’s been a problem I’ve had over many years of reading your work. Apart perhaps from, as grandchild, I suspect nobody knows your work better than I do. I’ve read it many times, not once, not twice, at least three times everything you’ve written. And the problem is, it’s a kind of quicksilver. It’s very hard to grasp a point and hold you to it. So we’re going to try here to see whether we can hold you to a point. And then you argue with me the point. I have no problem with that. Your name please.
Steven Bonnell
Steven Bonnell.
Steven Bonnell.
Norman Finkelstein
Okay. Mr. Bonnell referred to cherry-picking and handful of quotes. Now, it’s true that when you wrote your first book on the Palestinian refugee question, you only had a few lines on this issue of transfer.
Okay. Mr. Bonnell referred to cherry-picking and handful of quotes. Now, it’s true that when you wrote your first book on the Palestinian refugee question, you only had a few lines on this issue of transfer.
Benny Morris
Four pages.
Four pages.
Norman Finkelstein
Yeah. In the first book?
Yeah. In the first book?
Benny Morris
In the first book. Four pages.
In the first book. Four pages.
Norman Finkelstein
Maybe four. I’m not going to quarrel. My memory is not clear. We’re talking about 40 years ago. I read it, I read it, but then I read other things by you. Okay. And you were taken to task, if my memory is correct, that you hadn’t adequately documented the claims of transfer. Allow me to finish. And I thought that was a reasonable challenge because it was an unusual claim for a mainstream Israeli historian to say, as you did not-
Maybe four. I’m not going to quarrel. My memory is not clear. We’re talking about 40 years ago. I read it, I read it, but then I read other things by you. Okay. And you were taken to task, if my memory is correct, that you hadn’t adequately documented the claims of transfer. Allow me to finish. And I thought that was a reasonable challenge because it was an unusual claim for a mainstream Israeli historian to say, as you did not-
Norman Finkelstein
Mainstream Israeli historian to say, as you did in that first book, that from the very beginning, transfer figured prominently in Zionist thinking that was an unusual, if you read Anita Shapira, you read Shabtai Teveth that was an unusual acknowledgement by you. And then I found it very impressive that in that revised version of your first book, you devoted 25 pages to copiously documenting the salience of transfer in Zionist thinking. And in fact, you used a very provocative and resonant phrase.
Mainstream Israeli historian to say, as you did in that first book, that from the very beginning, transfer figured prominently in Zionist thinking that was an unusual, if you read Anita Shapira, you read Shabtai Teveth that was an unusual acknowledgement by you. And then I found it very impressive that in that revised version of your first book, you devoted 25 pages to copiously documenting the salience of transfer in Zionist thinking. And in fact, you used a very provocative and resonant phrase.
You said that transfer was inevitable and inbuilt into Zionism. We’re not talking about circumstantial factors, a war, Arab hostility. You said it’s inevitable and inbuilt into Zionism. Now, as I said, so we won’t be accused of cherry picking. Those were 25 very densely argued pages. And then in an interview, and I could cite several quotes, but I’ll choose one, you said, “Removing a population was needed.” Let’s look at the words. “Without a population expulsion, a Jewish state would not have been established.” Now you are the one… Again, I was very surprised when I read your book here. I’m referring to “Righteous Victims.” I was very surprised when I came to that page 37, where you wrote that territorial displacement and dispossession was the chief motor of Arab resistance to Zionism. Territorial displacement and dispossession were the chief motor of Arab resistance to Zionism.
So you then went on to say, because the Arab population rationally feared territorial displacement and dispossession, it of course opposed Zionism. That’s as normal as Native Americans opposing the Euro-American manifest destiny in the history of our own country because they understood it would be at their expense. It was inbuilt and inevitable.
And so now for you to come along and say that it all happened just because of the war, that otherwise the Zionists made all these plans for a happy minority to live there, that simply does not gel. It does not cohere. It is not reconcilable with what you yourself have written. It was inevitable and inbuilt.
Now, in other situations, you’ve said that’s true with, I think it was a greater good to establish a Jewish state at the expense of the indigenous population. That’s another kind of argument that was Theodore Roosevelt’s argument in our own country. He said, we don’t want the whole of North America to remain a squalid refuge for these wigwams and teepees. We have to get rid of them and make this a great country. But he didn’t deny that it was inbuilt and inevitable.
Benny Morris
I think You’ve made your point there. First, I’ll take up something that Mouin said. He said that the Nakba was inevitable=
I think You’ve made your point there. First, I’ll take up something that Mouin said. He said that the Nakba was inevitable=
Mouin Rabbani
As have you.
As have you.
Benny Morris
… and predictable. No, no, no, I’ve never said that. It was inevitable and predictable only because the Arabs assaulted the Jewish community and state in 1947/48. Had there been no assault, there probably wouldn’t have been a refugee problem. There’s no reason for a refugee problem to have occurred, expulsions to have occurred, a massive dispossession to occur. These occurred as a result of war.
… and predictable. No, no, no, I’ve never said that. It was inevitable and predictable only because the Arabs assaulted the Jewish community and state in 1947/48. Had there been no assault, there probably wouldn’t have been a refugee problem. There’s no reason for a refugee problem to have occurred, expulsions to have occurred, a massive dispossession to occur. These occurred as a result of war.
Now, Norman has said that, I said that transfer was inbuilt into Zionism in one way or another. And this is certainly true in order to buy land, the Jews bought tracts of land on which some Arabs sometimes lived. Sometimes they bought tracts of land on which there weren’t Arab villages, but sometimes they bought land on which there were Arabs.
And according to Ottoman law, and the British, at least in the initial years of the British mandate, the law said that the people who bought the land could do what they liked with the people who didn’t own the land, who were basically squatting on the land, which is the Arab tenant farmers, which is we’re talking about a very small number actually of Arabs who were displaced as a result of land purchases in the Ottoman period or the mandate period.
But there was dispossession in one way. They didn’t possess the land. They didn’t own it, but they were removed from the land. And this did happen in Zionism. And there’s, if you like, an inevitability in Zionist ideology of buying tracts of land and starting to work it yourself and settle it with your own people and so on. That made sense.
But what we’re really talking about is what happened in 47/48. And in 47/48, the Arabs started a war. And actually people pay for their mistakes. And the Palestinians have never actually agreed to pay for their mistakes. They make mistakes, they attack, they suffer as a result.
And we see something similar going on today in the Gaza Strip. They do something terrible. They kill 1,200 Jews. They abduct 250 women and children and babies and old people and whatever. And then they start screaming, please save us from what we did because the Jews are counterattacking. And this is what happened then. And this is what’s happening now. There’s something fairly similar in the situation here.
Expulsion, and this is important, Norman, you should pay attention to this. You didn’t raise that. Expulsion transfer whenever policy of the Zionist movement before 47, it doesn’t exist in Zionist platforms of the various political parties, of the Zionist organization, of the Israeli state, of the Jewish agency. Nobody would’ve actually made it into policy because it was always a large minority. If there were people who wanted it, always a large minority of Jewish politicians and leaders would’ve said, no, this is immoral. We cannot start a state on the basis of an expulsion.
So it was never adopted and actually was never adopted as policy even in 48, even though Ben-Gurion wanted as few Arabs in the course of the war staying in the Jewish state after they attacked it. He didn’t want disloyal citizens staying there because they wouldn’t have been loyal citizens. But this made sense in the war itself. But the movement itself and its political parties never accepted it.
It’s true that in 1937, when the British, as part of the proposal by the Peel Commission to divide the country into two states, one Arab, one Jewish, which the Arabs of course rejected, Peel also recommended most of the Arabs in the Jewish state should be transferred because otherwise, if they stayed and were disloyal to the emergent Jewish state, this would cause endless disturbances, warfare, killing, and so on.
So Ben-Gurion and Weizmann latched onto this proposal by the most famous democracy in the world, the British democracy, when they proposed the idea of transfer side by side with the idea of partition because it made sense. And they said, well, if the British say so, we should also advocate it. But they never actually tried to pass it as Zionist policy, and they fairly quickly stopped even talking about transfer after 1938.
Lex Fridman
So just to clarify, what you’re saying is that 47 was an offensive war, not a defensive war-
So just to clarify, what you’re saying is that 47 was an offensive war, not a defensive war-
Benny Morris
By the Arabs. Yes.
By the Arabs. Yes.
Lex Fridman
… by the Arabs.
… by the Arabs.
Benny Morris
Yeah.
Yeah.
Lex Fridman
And you’re also saying that there was never a top-down policy of expulsion.
And you’re also saying that there was never a top-down policy of expulsion.
Benny Morris
Yes.
Yes.
Lex Fridman
Just to clarify the point.
Just to clarify the point.
Mouin Rabbani
If I understood you correctly, you’re making the claim that transfer expulsion and so on was in fact a very localized phenomenon-
If I understood you correctly, you’re making the claim that transfer expulsion and so on was in fact a very localized phenomenon-
Benny Morris
Before 48.
Before 48.
Mouin Rabbani
… resulting from individual land purchases. If I understand you correctly, you’re also making the claim that the idea that a Jewish state requires a removal or overwhelming reduction of the non-Jewish population was-
… resulting from individual land purchases. If I understand you correctly, you’re also making the claim that the idea that a Jewish state requires a removal or overwhelming reduction of the non-Jewish population was-
Benny Morris
If the Arabs are attacking you. Yes.
If the Arabs are attacking you. Yes.
Mouin Rabbani
… But let’s say prior to 1947, it would be your claim that the idea that a significant reduction or wholesale removal of the Arab population was not part of Zionist thinking. Well, I think there’s two problems with that. I think what you’re saying about localized disputes is correct, but I also think that there is a whole literature that demonstrates that transfer was envisioned by Zionist leaders on a much broader skill than simply individual land purchases. In other words, it went way beyond, we need to remove these tenants so that we can farm this land. The idea was we can’t have a state where all these Arabs remain and we have to get rid of them.
… But let’s say prior to 1947, it would be your claim that the idea that a significant reduction or wholesale removal of the Arab population was not part of Zionist thinking. Well, I think there’s two problems with that. I think what you’re saying about localized disputes is correct, but I also think that there is a whole literature that demonstrates that transfer was envisioned by Zionist leaders on a much broader skill than simply individual land purchases. In other words, it went way beyond, we need to remove these tenants so that we can farm this land. The idea was we can’t have a state where all these Arabs remain and we have to get rid of them.
And the second, I think, impediment to that view is that long before the UN General Assembly convened to address a question of Palestine, Palestinian and Arab and other leaders as well had been warning ad infinitum that the purpose of the Zionist movement is not just to establish a Jewish state, but to establish an exclusivist Jewish state. And that transfer forced displacement was fundamental to that project. And just responding to…. Sorry, was it-
Steven Bonnell
Yeah, Steven.
Yeah, Steven.
Mouin Rabbani
… Bonnell or Donnel?
… Bonnell or Donnel?
Steven Bonnell
Bonnell, yeah.
Bonnell, yeah.
Mouin Rabbani
With a B?
With a B?
Steven Bonnell
Yeah.
Yeah.
Mouin Rabbani
Yeah. You made the point that the problem here is that people don’t recognize is that the first and last result for the Arabs is always war. I think there’s a problem with that. I think you might do well to recall the 1936 general strike conducted by Palestinians at the beginning of the revolt, which at the time was the longest recorded general strike in history.
Yeah. You made the point that the problem here is that people don’t recognize is that the first and last result for the Arabs is always war. I think there’s a problem with that. I think you might do well to recall the 1936 general strike conducted by Palestinians at the beginning of the revolt, which at the time was the longest recorded general strike in history.
You may want to consult the book published last year by Lori Allen, “A History of False Hope”, which discusses in great detail the consistent engagement by Palestinians, their leaders, their elites, their diplomats, and so on with all these international committees.
If we look at today, the Palestinians are once again going to the International Court of Justice. They’re consistently trying to persuade the chief prosecutor of the International Criminal Court to do his job. They have launched widespread boycott campaigns. So of course the Palestinians have engaged in military resistance. But I think the suggestion that this has always been their first and last resort and that they have somehow spurned civic action, spurned diplomacy, I think really has no basis in reality.
Steven Bonnell
I’ll respond to that. And then a question for Norm to take into account. I think when he answers Benny, because I am curious, obviously I have fresher eyes on this and I’m a newcomer to this arena versus the three of you guys for sure. A claim that gets brought up a lot has to do with the inevitability of transfer and Zionism or the idea that as soon as the Jews envisioned a state in Palestine, they knew that it would involve some mass transfer population, perhaps a mass expulsion. I’m sure we’ll talk about Plan Dalet or Plan D at some point.
I’ll respond to that. And then a question for Norm to take into account. I think when he answers Benny, because I am curious, obviously I have fresher eyes on this and I’m a newcomer to this arena versus the three of you guys for sure. A claim that gets brought up a lot has to do with the inevitability of transfer and Zionism or the idea that as soon as the Jews envisioned a state in Palestine, they knew that it would involve some mass transfer population, perhaps a mass expulsion. I’m sure we’ll talk about Plan Dalet or Plan D at some point.
The issue that I run into is while you can find quotes from leaders, while you can find maybe desires expressed in diaries, I feel like it’s hard to truly ever know if there would’ve been mass transfer in the face of Arab peace, because I feel like every time there was a huge deal on the table that would’ve had a sizable Jewish and Arab population living together, the Arabs would reject it out of hand.
So for instance, when we say that transfer was inevitable, when we say that Zionists would’ve never accepted a sizable Arab population, how do you explain the acceptance of the 47 partition plan that would’ve had a huge Arab population living in the Jewish state? Is your contention that after the acceptance of that, after the establishment of that state, that Jews would’ve slowly started to expel all of these Arab citizens from their country?
Or how do you explain that in Lusanne a couple years later that Israel was willing to formally annex the Gaza Strip and make-
Mouin Rabbani
Of course it was.
Of course it was.
Steven Bonnell
… 200,000 so people, those citizens, but I’m just curious, how do we get this idea of Zionism always means mass transfer when there were times, at least early on in the history of Israel and a little bit before it, where Israel would’ve accepted a state that would’ve had a massive Arab population in it. Is your idea that they would’ve just slowly expelled them afterwards or?
… 200,000 so people, those citizens, but I’m just curious, how do we get this idea of Zionism always means mass transfer when there were times, at least early on in the history of Israel and a little bit before it, where Israel would’ve accepted a state that would’ve had a massive Arab population in it. Is your idea that they would’ve just slowly expelled them afterwards or?
Mouin Rabbani
Is that question to me or Norm?
Is that question to me or Norm?
Steven Bonnell
To either one. I’m curious for the incorporation of the answer. Yeah.
To either one. I’m curious for the incorporation of the answer. Yeah.
Norman Finkelstein
There is some misunderstandings here. So let’s try to clarify that. Number one, it was the old historians who would point to the fact and Professor Morris’s terminology, the old historians, what he called not real historians, he called them chroniclers, not real historians. It was the old Israeli historians who denied the centrality of transfer in Zionist thinking. It was then Professor Morris who contrary to Israel’s historian establishment, who said, now you remind me it’s four pages, but it came at the end of the book. It was-
There is some misunderstandings here. So let’s try to clarify that. Number one, it was the old historians who would point to the fact and Professor Morris’s terminology, the old historians, what he called not real historians, he called them chroniclers, not real historians. It was the old Israeli historians who denied the centrality of transfer in Zionist thinking. It was then Professor Morris who contrary to Israel’s historian establishment, who said, now you remind me it’s four pages, but it came at the end of the book. It was-
Benny Morris
No, no, it’s at the beginning of the book.
No, no, it’s at the beginning of the book.
Norman Finkelstein
… Transfer.
… Transfer.
Benny Morris
Yeah, transfer is dealt with in four pages at the beginning of my first book on the Palestinian refugee problem.
Yeah, transfer is dealt with in four pages at the beginning of my first book on the Palestinian refugee problem.
Norman Finkelstein
It’s a fault of my memory, but the point still stands, it was Professor Morris who introduced this idea in what you might call a big way.
It’s a fault of my memory, but the point still stands, it was Professor Morris who introduced this idea in what you might call a big way.
Benny Morris
Yeah, but I didn’t say it was the central to the Zionist experience. You’re saying centrality. I never said it was central. I said it was there. The idea.
Yeah, but I didn’t say it was the central to the Zionist experience. You’re saying centrality. I never said it was central. I said it was there. The idea.
Lex Fridman
By the way, it’s okay to respond back and forth. This is great. And also just a quick question, if I may. You’re using quotes from Benny, from Professor Morris. It’s also okay to say those quotes do not reflect the full context.
By the way, it’s okay to respond back and forth. This is great. And also just a quick question, if I may. You’re using quotes from Benny, from Professor Morris. It’s also okay to say those quotes do not reflect the full context.
Norman Finkelstein
That would be fine.
That would be fine.
Lex Fridman
So if we go back to quotes we’ve said in the past, and you’ve both here have written, the three of you have written on this topic a lot is we should be careful and just admit like-
So if we go back to quotes we’ve said in the past, and you’ve both here have written, the three of you have written on this topic a lot is we should be careful and just admit like-
Steven Bonnell
Real quick just to be clear that the contention is that Norm is quoting apart and saying that this was the entire reason for this, whereas Benny’s saying it’s a part of that.
Real quick just to be clear that the contention is that Norm is quoting apart and saying that this was the entire reason for this, whereas Benny’s saying it’s a part of that.
Norman Finkelstein
I’m not quoting apart, I’m quoting 25 pages where Professor Morris was at great pains to document the claim that appeared in those early four pages of his book. Now you say it never became part of the official Zionist platform.
I’m not quoting apart, I’m quoting 25 pages where Professor Morris was at great pains to document the claim that appeared in those early four pages of his book. Now you say it never became part of the official Zionist platform.
Benny Morris
It never became part of policy.
It never became part of policy.
Norman Finkelstein
Fine.
Fine.
Benny Morris
Not to say, but it wasn’t policy.
Not to say, but it wasn’t policy.
Norman Finkelstein
We’re also asked, well, this is true. Why did that happen? Why did that happen? It’s because it’s a very simple fact which everybody understands. Ideology doesn’t operate in a vacuum. There are real world practical problems. You can’t just take an ideology and superimpose it on a political reality and turn it into effect.
We’re also asked, well, this is true. Why did that happen? Why did that happen? It’s because it’s a very simple fact which everybody understands. Ideology doesn’t operate in a vacuum. There are real world practical problems. You can’t just take an ideology and superimpose it on a political reality and turn it into effect.
It was the British mandate. There was significant Arab resistance to Zionism, and that resistance was based on the fact, as you said, the fear of territorial displacement and dispossession. So you couldn’t very well expect the Zionist movement to come out in neon lights and announce, hey, we’re going to be expelling you the first chance we get. That’s not realistic.
Lex Fridman
Norm.
Norm.
Norman Finkelstein
Okay.
Okay.
Benny Morris
Let me respond. Look, you’ve said it a number of times that the Arabs from fairly early on in the conflict from the 1890s or the early 1900s said the Jews intend to expel us. This doesn’t mean that it’s true. It means that some Arabs said this, maybe believing it was true, maybe using it as a political instrument to gain support to mobilize Arabs against the Zionist experiment.
Let me respond. Look, you’ve said it a number of times that the Arabs from fairly early on in the conflict from the 1890s or the early 1900s said the Jews intend to expel us. This doesn’t mean that it’s true. It means that some Arabs said this, maybe believing it was true, maybe using it as a political instrument to gain support to mobilize Arabs against the Zionist experiment.
But the fact is transfer did not occur before 1947, and Arabs later said, and since then have said that the Jews want to build a third temple on the Temple Mount as if that’s what really the mainstream of Zionism has always wanted and always strived for. But this is nonsense. It’s something that Husseini used to use as a way to mobilize masses for the cause, using religion as the way to get them to join him. The fact that Arabs said that the Zionists want to dispossess us doesn’t mean it’s true. It just means that there’s some Arabs thought that maybe said it sincerely and maybe insincerely.
Norman Finkelstein
Professor Morris.
Professor Morris.
Benny Morris
Later became a self-fulfilling prophecy. This is true because Arabs attacked the Jews.
Later became a self-fulfilling prophecy. This is true because Arabs attacked the Jews.
Norman Finkelstein
Professor Morris, I read through your stuff. Even yesterday I was looking through “Righteous Victims.”
Professor Morris, I read through your stuff. Even yesterday I was looking through “Righteous Victims.”
Benny Morris
You should read other things. You’re wasting your time.
You should read other things. You’re wasting your time.
Norman Finkelstein
No, no, actually no. I do read other things, but I don’t consider it a waste of time to read you. Not at all. You say that this wasn’t inherent in Zionism. Now, would you agree that David Ben-Gurion was a Zionist?
No, no, actually no. I do read other things, but I don’t consider it a waste of time to read you. Not at all. You say that this wasn’t inherent in Zionism. Now, would you agree that David Ben-Gurion was a Zionist?
Benny Morris
A major Zionist leader?
A major Zionist leader?
Norman Finkelstein
Right. Would you agree Chaim Weizmann was a Zionist?
Right. Would you agree Chaim Weizmann was a Zionist?
Benny Morris
Yeah.
Yeah.
Norman Finkelstein
Okay. I believe they were. I believe they took their ideology seriously. It was the first generation. Just like with the Bolsheviks, the first generation was committed to an idea. By the 1930s, it was just pure geopolitique. The ideology went out the window. The first generation, I have no doubt about their convictions. Okay. They were Zionists. Transfer was inevitable and inbuilt in Zionism.
Okay. I believe they were. I believe they took their ideology seriously. It was the first generation. Just like with the Bolsheviks, the first generation was committed to an idea. By the 1930s, it was just pure geopolitique. The ideology went out the window. The first generation, I have no doubt about their convictions. Okay. They were Zionists. Transfer was inevitable and inbuilt in Zionism.
Benny Morris
You keep repeating the same things.
You keep repeating the same things.
Norman Finkelstein
Because as I said, Mr. Morris, I have a problem reconciling what you’re saying. It either was incidental or it was deeply entrenched. Here I read it’s deeply entrenched, two very resonant words, inevitable and inbuilt.
Because as I said, Mr. Morris, I have a problem reconciling what you’re saying. It either was incidental or it was deeply entrenched. Here I read it’s deeply entrenched, two very resonant words, inevitable and inbuilt.
Benny Morris
Deeply entrenched. I never wrote it.
Deeply entrenched. I never wrote it.
Norman Finkelstein
Well, I’m not sure.
Well, I’m not sure.
Benny Morris
It’s something you just invented.
It’s something you just invented.
Norman Finkelstein
Okay.
Okay.
Benny Morris
But it was there.
But it was there.
Norman Finkelstein
Inevitable and inbuilt. Fine, fine.
Inevitable and inbuilt. Fine, fine.
Benny Morris
Let me concede something. The idea of transfer was there. Israel Zangwill, a British Zionist talked about it early on in the century. Even Herzl in some way talked about transferring population.
Let me concede something. The idea of transfer was there. Israel Zangwill, a British Zionist talked about it early on in the century. Even Herzl in some way talked about transferring population.
Norman Finkelstein
According to your 25 pages everybody talked about.
According to your 25 pages everybody talked about.
Lex Fridman
we keep bringing up this line from the 25 pages and the four pages. We’re lucky to have Benny in front of us right now. We don’t need to go to the quotes. We can legitimately ask, how central is expulsion to Zionism in its early version of Zionism and whatever Zionism is today, and how much power influence does Zionism and ideology have in Israel and the influence, the philosophy, the ideology of Zionism have on Israel today?
we keep bringing up this line from the 25 pages and the four pages. We’re lucky to have Benny in front of us right now. We don’t need to go to the quotes. We can legitimately ask, how central is expulsion to Zionism in its early version of Zionism and whatever Zionism is today, and how much power influence does Zionism and ideology have in Israel and the influence, the philosophy, the ideology of Zionism have on Israel today?
Benny Morris
The Zionist movement up to 1948, Zionist ideology was central to the whole Zionist experience, the whole enterprise up to 1948. And I think Zionist ideology was also important in the first decades of Israel’s existence. Slowly, the hold of Zionism, if you like, like Bolshevism held the Soviet Union gradually faded, and a lot of Israelis today think in terms of individual success and then the capitalism and all sorts of things, which had nothing to do with Zionism, but Zionism was very important.
The Zionist movement up to 1948, Zionist ideology was central to the whole Zionist experience, the whole enterprise up to 1948. And I think Zionist ideology was also important in the first decades of Israel’s existence. Slowly, the hold of Zionism, if you like, like Bolshevism held the Soviet Union gradually faded, and a lot of Israelis today think in terms of individual success and then the capitalism and all sorts of things, which had nothing to do with Zionism, but Zionism was very important.
But what I’m saying is that the idea of transfer wasn’t the core of Zionism. The idea of Zionism was to save the Jews who had been vastly persecuted in Eastern Europe, and incidentally in the Arab world, the Muslim world for centuries, and eventually ending up with the Holocaust. The idea of Zionism was to save the Jewish people by establishing a state or re-establishing a Jewish state on the ancient Jewish homeland, which is something that Arabs today even deny that there were Jews in Palestine or the land of Israel 2000 years ago.
Arafat famously said, “What Temple was there on Temple Mount? Maybe it was in Nablus.” Which of course is nonsense. But they had a strong connection for thousands of years to the land to which they wanted to return and return there. They found that on the land lived hundreds of thousands of Arabs, and the question was how to accommodate the vision of a Jewish state in Palestine alongside the existence of these Arab masses living on who were indigenous, in fact, to the land by that stage.
And the idea of partition because they couldn’t live together because the Arabs didn’t want to live together with the Jews. And I think the Jews also didn’t want to live together in one state with Arabs in general. The idea of partition was the thing which the Zionists accepted, okay, we can only get a small part of Palestine. The Arabs will get in 37. Most of Palestine in 1947 the ratios were changed, but we can live side by side with each other in a partitioned Palestine. And this was the essence of it.
The idea of transfer was there, but it was never adopted as policy. But in 1947/48, the Arabs attacked trying to destroy essentially the Zionist enterprise and the emerging Jewish state. And the reaction was transfer in some way, not as policy, but this is what happened on the battlefield. And this is also what Ben-Gurion at some point began to want as well.
Mouin Rabbani
One of the first books on this issue I read when I was still in high school because my late father had it, was “The Diaries of Theodor Herzl.” And I think Theodor Herzl, of course, was the founder of the contemporary Zionist movement. And I think if you read that, it’s very clear for Herzl the model upon which the Zionist movement would proceed. His model was Cecil Rhodes.
One of the first books on this issue I read when I was still in high school because my late father had it, was “The Diaries of Theodor Herzl.” And I think Theodor Herzl, of course, was the founder of the contemporary Zionist movement. And I think if you read that, it’s very clear for Herzl the model upon which the Zionist movement would proceed. His model was Cecil Rhodes.
I think Rhodes, from what I recall, correct me if I’m wrong, has quite a prominent place in Herzl’s diaries. I think Herzl was also corresponding with him and seeking his support. Cecil Rhodes, of course, was the British colonialist after whom the former white minority regime in Rhodesia was named. And Herzl also says explicitly in his diaries, that it is essential to remove the existing population from Palestine.
Benny Morris
Can I respond to this-
Can I respond to this-
Mouin Rabbani
In a moment, please. He says, we shall have to spirit the penniless population across the borders and procure employment for them elsewhere or something. And Israel Zangwill who you mentioned, a land without a people for a people without a land, they knew then well it wasn’t a land without a people. I’ll continue, but please go ahead.
In a moment, please. He says, we shall have to spirit the penniless population across the borders and procure employment for them elsewhere or something. And Israel Zangwill who you mentioned, a land without a people for a people without a land, they knew then well it wasn’t a land without a people. I’ll continue, but please go ahead.
Benny Morris
Just to this, there is one small diary entry in Herzl’s vast-
Just to this, there is one small diary entry in Herzl’s vast-
Mouin Rabbani
It’s five volumes.
It’s five volumes.
Benny Morris
… Yeah, five volumes. There’s one paragraph which actually mentions the idea of transfer. There are people who think that Herzl was actually pointing to South America when he was talking about that the Jews were going to move to Argentina, and then they would try and buy out or buy off or spirit the penniless natives to make way for Jewish settlement. Maybe he wasn’t even talking about the Arabs in that particular passage. That’s the argument of some people. Maybe he was.
… Yeah, five volumes. There’s one paragraph which actually mentions the idea of transfer. There are people who think that Herzl was actually pointing to South America when he was talking about that the Jews were going to move to Argentina, and then they would try and buy out or buy off or spirit the penniless natives to make way for Jewish settlement. Maybe he wasn’t even talking about the Arabs in that particular passage. That’s the argument of some people. Maybe he was.
But the point is it has only a 1% of the diary, which is devoted to this subject. It’s not a central idea in Herzl’s thinking. What Herzl wanted, and this is what’s important, not Rhodes, I don’t think he was the model. Herzl wanted to create a liberal democratic western state in Palestine for the Jews. That was the idea. Not some imperial enterprise serving some imperial master, which is what Rhodes was about.
But to have a Jewish state, which was modeled on the western democracies in Palestine, and this incidentally was more or less what Weizmann and Ben-Gurion wanted. Ben-Gurion was more of a socialist. Weizmann was more of a liberal westerner, but they wanted to establish a social democratic or liberal state in Palestine.
And they both envisioned through most of the years of their activity that there would be an Arab minority in that Jewish state. It’s true that Ben-Gurion strived to have as small as possible an Arab minority in the Jewish state because he knew that if you want a Jewish majority state, that would be necessary, but it’s not something which they were willing to translate into actual policy.
Lex Fridman
Just a quick pause to mention that for people who are not familiar, Theodor Herzl we’re talking about over a century ago, and everything we’ve been talking about has been mostly 1948 and before.
Just a quick pause to mention that for people who are not familiar, Theodor Herzl we’re talking about over a century ago, and everything we’ve been talking about has been mostly 1948 and before.
Mouin Rabbani
Yes. Just one clarification on Herzl’s diaries. I mean, the other thing that I recall from those diaries is he was very preoccupied with, in fact, getting great power patronage, seeing Palestine, the Jewish state in Palestine, I think his words, an outpost of civilization against barbarism. In other words, very much seeing his project as a proxy for Western imperialism-
Yes. Just one clarification on Herzl’s diaries. I mean, the other thing that I recall from those diaries is he was very preoccupied with, in fact, getting great power patronage, seeing Palestine, the Jewish state in Palestine, I think his words, an outpost of civilization against barbarism. In other words, very much seeing his project as a proxy for Western imperialism-
Benny Morris
No, no, I don’t think that’s the right word.
No, no, I don’t think that’s the right word.
Mouin Rabbani
… in the Middle East.
… in the Middle East.
Benny Morris
Not proxy. He wanted to establish a Jewish state which would be independent. To get that he hoped that he would be able to garner support from major imperial powers, but it wasn’t-
Not proxy. He wanted to establish a Jewish state which would be independent. To get that he hoped that he would be able to garner support from major imperial powers, but it wasn’t-
Mouin Rabbani
Including the Ottoman Sultan-
Including the Ottoman Sultan-
Benny Morris
Yes, yes, exactly.
Yes, yes, exactly.
Partition
Mouin Rabbani
… who he tried to cultivate. I just want to respond to a point you made earlier, which was that people expressed the rejection of the partition resolution on the grounds that it gave the majority of Palestine to the Jewish community, which formed only a third. Whereas in fact, if I understood you correctly, you’re saying the Palestinians and the Arabs would have rejected any partition resolution.
… who he tried to cultivate. I just want to respond to a point you made earlier, which was that people expressed the rejection of the partition resolution on the grounds that it gave the majority of Palestine to the Jewish community, which formed only a third. Whereas in fact, if I understood you correctly, you’re saying the Palestinians and the Arabs would have rejected any partition resolution.
Steven Bonnell
Yeah, a couple of things that one, they would’ve rejected any. Two, a lot of that land given was in the Negev. It was pretty terrible land at the time. And then three, the land that would’ve been partitioned to Jews I think would’ve been, I think I saw it was like 500,000… It would’ve been 500,000 Jews, 400,000 Arabs, and I think like 80,000 Bedouins would’ve been there. So the state would’ve been divided pretty close to them.
Yeah, a couple of things that one, they would’ve rejected any. Two, a lot of that land given was in the Negev. It was pretty terrible land at the time. And then three, the land that would’ve been partitioned to Jews I think would’ve been, I think I saw it was like 500,000… It would’ve been 500,000 Jews, 400,000 Arabs, and I think like 80,000 Bedouins would’ve been there. So the state would’ve been divided pretty close to them.
Mouin Rabbani
I think you raise a valid point because I think the Palestinians did reject the partition of their homeland in principle. And I think the fact that the United Nations General Assembly then awarded the majority of their homeland to the Zionist movement only added in salt to injury. I mean, one doesn’t have to sympathize with the Palestinians to recognize that they have now been a stateless people for 75 years.
I think you raise a valid point because I think the Palestinians did reject the partition of their homeland in principle. And I think the fact that the United Nations General Assembly then awarded the majority of their homeland to the Zionist movement only added in salt to injury. I mean, one doesn’t have to sympathize with the Palestinians to recognize that they have now been a stateless people for 75 years.
Can you name any country yours, for example, or yours, that would be prepared to give 55%, 25%, 10% of your country to the Palestinians? Of course not. And so the issue was not the existence of Jews in Palestine. They had been there for centuries, and of course they had ties to Palestine and particularly to Jerusalem and other places going back centuries if not millennia.
But the idea of establishing an exclusively Jewish state at the expense of those who were already living there, I think it was right to reject that. And I don’t think we can look back now 75 years later and say, well, you should have accepted losing 55% of your homeland because you ended up losing 78% of it, and the remaining 22% was occupied in 1967. That’s not how things work.
And I can imagine an American rejecting giving 10% of the United States to the Palestinians, and if that rejection leads to war and you lose half your country, I doubt that 50 years from now you’re going to say, well, maybe I should have accepted that.
Steven Bonnell
Sure. So I like this answer more than what I usually feel like I’m hearing when it comes to the Palestinian rejection of the 47 partition plan. Sometimes I feel like a weird switch happens to where the Arabs in the area are actually presented as entirely pragmatic people who are simply doing a calculation and saying like, well, we’re losing 55% of our land. Jews are only maybe one third of the people here, and we’ve got 45. And no, the math doesn’t work, basically. But it wasn’t a math problem. I think, like you said-
Sure. So I like this answer more than what I usually feel like I’m hearing when it comes to the Palestinian rejection of the 47 partition plan. Sometimes I feel like a weird switch happens to where the Arabs in the area are actually presented as entirely pragmatic people who are simply doing a calculation and saying like, well, we’re losing 55% of our land. Jews are only maybe one third of the people here, and we’ve got 45. And no, the math doesn’t work, basically. But it wasn’t a math problem. I think, like you said-
Mouin Rabbani
It was a matter of principle.
It was a matter of principle.
Steven Bonnell
… it was an ideology problem.
… it was an ideology problem.
Mouin Rabbani
No, it was a matter of principle.
No, it was a matter of principle.
Steven Bonnell
Yeah. Ideologically driven that they as a people have a right to or are entitled to this land that they’ve never actually had an independent state on, that they’ve never had even a guarantee of an independent state on, that they’ve never actually ruled a government on.
Yeah. Ideologically driven that they as a people have a right to or are entitled to this land that they’ve never actually had an independent state on, that they’ve never had even a guarantee of an independent state on, that they’ve never actually ruled a government on.
Mouin Rabbani
That last point is actually not correct because for all its injustice, the mandate system recognized Palestine as a class a mandate, which provisionally recognized the independence of that territory.
That last point is actually not correct because for all its injustice, the mandate system recognized Palestine as a class a mandate, which provisionally recognized the independence of that territory.
Steven Bonnell
Of what would emerge from that territory, but not of the Palestinians.
Of what would emerge from that territory, but not of the Palestinians.
Mouin Rabbani
It was provisionally recognized.
It was provisionally recognized.
Steven Bonnell
But the territory itself was, but not of the Palestinian people to have a right or guarantee to a government that would emerge from it.
But the territory itself was, but not of the Palestinian people to have a right or guarantee to a government that would emerge from it.
Mouin Rabbani
But it was the British mandate of Palestine, not the British mandate of Israel.
But it was the British mandate of Palestine, not the British mandate of Israel.
Benny Morris
The word exclusive, which you keep using is nonsense. The state, which Ben-Gurion envisioned would be a Jewish majority state as they accepted the 1947 partition resolution, as Steven said, that included 400,000 plus Arabs in a state which would have 500,000 Jews. So the idea of exclusivity wasn’t anywhere in the air at all among the Zionist leaders-
The word exclusive, which you keep using is nonsense. The state, which Ben-Gurion envisioned would be a Jewish majority state as they accepted the 1947 partition resolution, as Steven said, that included 400,000 plus Arabs in a state which would have 500,000 Jews. So the idea of exclusivity wasn’t anywhere in the air at all among the Zionist leaders-
Mouin Rabbani
I think it was there.
I think it was there.
Benny Morris
… in 4748, they wanted a Jewish majority state, but were willing to accept a state which had 40% Arabs. That’s one point. The second thing is that Palestinians may have regarded the land of Palestine as their homeland, but so did the Jews. It was the homeland of the Jews as well. The problem was the Arabs were unable and remain to this day, unable to recognize that for the Jews, that is their…
… in 4748, they wanted a Jewish majority state, but were willing to accept a state which had 40% Arabs. That’s one point. The second thing is that Palestinians may have regarded the land of Palestine as their homeland, but so did the Jews. It was the homeland of the Jews as well. The problem was the Arabs were unable and remain to this day, unable to recognize that for the Jews, that is their…
Benny Morris
… today, unable to recognize that for the Jews, that is their homeland as well. And the problem then is how do you share this homeland, either with one binational state or partitioned into two states? The problem is that the Arabs have always rejected both of these ideas. The homeland belongs to the Jews, as Jews feel, as much as it does, if not more, than for the Arabs.
… today, unable to recognize that for the Jews, that is their homeland as well. And the problem then is how do you share this homeland, either with one binational state or partitioned into two states? The problem is that the Arabs have always rejected both of these ideas. The homeland belongs to the Jews, as Jews feel, as much as it does, if not more, than for the Arabs.
Mouin Rabbani
I think I would say Zionists, not Jews.
I think I would say Zionists, not Jews.
Benny Morris
I would say for the Jews. It’s the Jewish people’s homeland.
I would say for the Jews. It’s the Jewish people’s homeland.
Steven Bonnell
Real quick, I just want for both of you guys, because I haven’t heard these questions answered, I’m just so curious how to make sense of them. It was correctly brought up that I believe that Ben-Gurion had, I think Shlomo Ben-Ami describes it as an obsession with getting validation or support from Western states; Great Britain, and then a couple of decades later- [inaudible 01:08:44].
Real quick, I just want for both of you guys, because I haven’t heard these questions answered, I’m just so curious how to make sense of them. It was correctly brought up that I believe that Ben-Gurion had, I think Shlomo Ben-Ami describes it as an obsession with getting validation or support from Western states; Great Britain, and then a couple of decades later- [inaudible 01:08:44].
Mouin Rabbani
That explains the Suez Crisis.
That explains the Suez Crisis.
Steven Bonnell
Yeah, exactly. Correct. That was one of the major motivators, the idea to work with Britain and France on a military operation.
Yeah, exactly. Correct. That was one of the major motivators, the idea to work with Britain and France on a military operation.
Mouin Rabbani
An imperial stooge.
An imperial stooge.
Steven Bonnell
But then the question again I go back to, if that is true, if Ben-Gurion, if the early Israel saw themselves as a Western-fashioned nation, how could we possibly imagine that they would’ve engaged in the transfer of some 400,000 Arabs after accepting the partition plan? Would that not have completely and totally destroyed their legitimacy in the eyes of the entire Western world?
But then the question again I go back to, if that is true, if Ben-Gurion, if the early Israel saw themselves as a Western-fashioned nation, how could we possibly imagine that they would’ve engaged in the transfer of some 400,000 Arabs after accepting the partition plan? Would that not have completely and totally destroyed their legitimacy in the eyes of the entire Western world?
Mouin Rabbani
No.
No.
Steven Bonnell
How not?
How not?
Mouin Rabbani
Well, first of all, I think that the Zionist leadership’s acceptance of the partition resolution, and I think you may have written about this, that they accepted it because it provided international endorsement of the legitimacy of the principle of Jewish statehood. And they didn’t accept the borders, and in fact, later expanded the borders. Second of all-
Well, first of all, I think that the Zionist leadership’s acceptance of the partition resolution, and I think you may have written about this, that they accepted it because it provided international endorsement of the legitimacy of the principle of Jewish statehood. And they didn’t accept the borders, and in fact, later expanded the borders. Second of all-
Benny Morris
No, they didn’t. They didn’t expand the borders. They accepted the UN partition resolution, borders and all. That’s how they accepted it. You can say that some of the Zionists, deep in their hearts, had the idea that maybe at some point, they would ne able to get more.
No, they didn’t. They didn’t expand the borders. They accepted the UN partition resolution, borders and all. That’s how they accepted it. You can say that some of the Zionists, deep in their hearts, had the idea that maybe at some point, they would ne able to get more.
Mouin Rabbani
Yeah, including their most senior leaders, who said so, and I think you’ve quoted them saying so.
Yeah, including their most senior leaders, who said so, and I think you’ve quoted them saying so.
Benny Morris
But they begrudgingly accepted what the United Nations, the world community had said; “This is what you’re going to get.”
But they begrudgingly accepted what the United Nations, the world community had said; “This is what you’re going to get.”
Mouin Rabbani
Yes. And second of all, removing dark people? Darker people? It’s intrinsic-
Yes. And second of all, removing dark people? Darker people? It’s intrinsic-
Benny Morris
Why dark? In Israel, Jews are as dark as Arabs. This is nonsense.
Why dark? In Israel, Jews are as dark as Arabs. This is nonsense.
Mouin Rabbani
It’s intrinsic to Western history. So the idea that Americans or Brits or the French would have an issue with … I mean, French had been doing it in Algeria for decades. The Americans have been doing it in North America for centuries. So how would Israel forcibly displacing Palestinians somehow besmirch Israel in the eyes of the West?
It’s intrinsic to Western history. So the idea that Americans or Brits or the French would have an issue with … I mean, French had been doing it in Algeria for decades. The Americans have been doing it in North America for centuries. So how would Israel forcibly displacing Palestinians somehow besmirch Israel in the eyes of the West?
Norman Finkelstein
In fact, even in the 1944 resolution of the Labor Party, and at the time, even Bertrand Russell was a member of the Labor Party, it endorsed transfer of Arabs out of Palestine. As [inaudible 01:10:55] pointed out, that was a deeply entrenched idea in Western thinking, that it doesn’t in any way contradict or violate or breach any moral values to displace the Palestinian population.
In fact, even in the 1944 resolution of the Labor Party, and at the time, even Bertrand Russell was a member of the Labor Party, it endorsed transfer of Arabs out of Palestine. As [inaudible 01:10:55] pointed out, that was a deeply entrenched idea in Western thinking, that it doesn’t in any way contradict or violate or breach any moral values to displace the Palestinian population.
Now, I do believe there’s a legitimate question, had it been the case, as you said, Professor Morris, that the Zionists wanted to create a happy state with a Jewish majority, but a large Jewish minority, and if by virtue of immigration, like in our own country … in our own country, given the current trajectories, non-whites will become the majority population in the United States quite soon. And according to democratic principles, we have to accept that. So if that were the case, I would say maybe there’s an argument that had there been mass Jewish immigration that changed the demographic balance in Palestine and therefore Jews became the majority, you can make an argument in the abstract that the indigenous Arab population should have been accepting of that, just as ‘whites’ in the United States have to be accepting of the fact that the demographic majority is shifting to non-whites in our own country.
But that’s not what Zionism was about. I did write my doctoral dissertation on Zionism, and I don’t want to get now bogged down in abstract ideas, but as I suspect you know, most theorists of nationalism say there are two kinds of nationalism. One is a nationalism based on citizenship. You become a citizen, you’re integral to the country. That’s sometimes called political nationalism. And then there’s another kind of nationalism, and that says the state should not belong to its citizens, it should belong to an ethnic group. Each ethnic group should have its own state. It’s usually called the German romantic idea of nationalism.
Zionism is squarely in the German romantic idea. That was the whole point of Zionism. “We don’t want to be bundists and be one more ethnic minority in Russia. We don’t want to become citizens and just become a Jewish people in England or France. We want our own state-
Steven Bonnell
Like the Arab 23 states.
Like the Arab 23 states.
Norman Finkelstein
No, wait, before we get to the Arabs, let’s stick to the Jews for a moment. Or the Zionists. “We want our own state.” And in that concept of wanting your own state, the minority, at best, lives on sufferance, and at worst gets expelled. That’s the logic of the German romantic Zionist idea of a state. That’s why they’re Zionists.
No, wait, before we get to the Arabs, let’s stick to the Jews for a moment. Or the Zionists. “We want our own state.” And in that concept of wanting your own state, the minority, at best, lives on sufferance, and at worst gets expelled. That’s the logic of the German romantic Zionist idea of a state. That’s why they’re Zionists.
Now, I personally have shied away from using the word Zionism ever since I finished my doctoral dissertation, because-
Mouin Rabbani
It was that painful.
It was that painful.
Norman Finkelstein
Because as I said, I don’t believe it’s the operative ideology today. It’s like talking about bolshevism and referring to Khrushchev. I doubt Khrushchev could have spelled Bolshevik. But for the period we’re talking about, they were Zionists, they were committed to their exclusive state with a minority living on sufferance, or at worst expelled. That was their ideology. And I really feel there’s a problem with your happy vision of these Western Democrats like Weitzman, and they wanted to live peacefully with their Arabs. Weitzman described the expulsion in 1948 as ‘the miraculous clearing of the land.’ That doesn’t sound like somebody shedding too many tears at the loss of the indigenous population.
Because as I said, I don’t believe it’s the operative ideology today. It’s like talking about bolshevism and referring to Khrushchev. I doubt Khrushchev could have spelled Bolshevik. But for the period we’re talking about, they were Zionists, they were committed to their exclusive state with a minority living on sufferance, or at worst expelled. That was their ideology. And I really feel there’s a problem with your happy vision of these Western Democrats like Weitzman, and they wanted to live peacefully with their Arabs. Weitzman described the expulsion in 1948 as ‘the miraculous clearing of the land.’ That doesn’t sound like somebody shedding too many tears at the loss of the indigenous population.
Benny Morris
Let me just respond to the word on sufferance.
Let me just respond to the word on sufferance.
Lex Fridman
Let him respond.
Let him respond.
Norman Finkelstein
Okay.
Okay.
Benny Morris
The on sufferance, I don’t agree with. I think that’s wrong. The Jewish state came into being in 1948. It had a population which was 20% Arab when it came into being, after many of them had become refugees, but 20% remained in the country. 20% of Israel’s population at inception in 1949 was Arab.
The on sufferance, I don’t agree with. I think that’s wrong. The Jewish state came into being in 1948. It had a population which was 20% Arab when it came into being, after many of them had become refugees, but 20% remained in the country. 20% of Israel’s population at inception in 1949 was Arab.
Mouin Rabbani
80% went missing.
80% went missing.
Benny Morris
No, no, no. I was talking about what remained in Palestine/Israel after it was created. The 20% who lived in Israel received citizenship and all the rights of Israelis, except, of course, the right to serve in the Army, which they didn’t want to. And they had Supreme Court Justices, they have Knesset members. They enjoyed basically-
No, no, no. I was talking about what remained in Palestine/Israel after it was created. The 20% who lived in Israel received citizenship and all the rights of Israelis, except, of course, the right to serve in the Army, which they didn’t want to. And they had Supreme Court Justices, they have Knesset members. They enjoyed basically-
Norman Finkelstein
I think they lived under emergency laws until 1966.
I think they lived under emergency laws until 1966.
Benny Morris
For a period, sure, they lived under emergency-
For a period, sure, they lived under emergency-
Norman Finkelstein
So they didn’t immediately have citizenship. This is just fantasy.
So they didn’t immediately have citizenship. This is just fantasy.
Benny Morris
No, no, no, no. Wait a minute. It’s not fantasy. At the beginning, they received citizenship, could vote in elections for their own people, and they were put into parliament. But in the first years, the Jewish majority suspected that maybe the Arabs would be disloyal, because they had just tried to destroy the Jewish state. Then they dropped the military government and they became fully equal citizens. So if the whole idea was they must have a state without Arabs, this didn’t happen in ’49, and it didn’t happen in the subsequent decades.
No, no, no, no. Wait a minute. It’s not fantasy. At the beginning, they received citizenship, could vote in elections for their own people, and they were put into parliament. But in the first years, the Jewish majority suspected that maybe the Arabs would be disloyal, because they had just tried to destroy the Jewish state. Then they dropped the military government and they became fully equal citizens. So if the whole idea was they must have a state without Arabs, this didn’t happen in ’49, and it didn’t happen in the subsequent decades.
Norman Finkelstein
So Professor Morris, then why did you say without a population expulsion, a Jewish state would not have been established?
So Professor Morris, then why did you say without a population expulsion, a Jewish state would not have been established?
Benny Morris
Because you are missing the first section of that paragraph, which was they were being assaulted by the Arabs, and as a result, a Jewish state could not have come into being unless there had also been an expulsion of the population which was trying to kill them.
Because you are missing the first section of that paragraph, which was they were being assaulted by the Arabs, and as a result, a Jewish state could not have come into being unless there had also been an expulsion of the population which was trying to kill them.
Lex Fridman
Norm, I’m officially forbidding you referencing that again. Hold on a second, wait. We responded to it. So the main point you’re making, we have to take Benny at his word, is there was a war, and that’s the reason why he made that statement.
Norm, I’m officially forbidding you referencing that again. Hold on a second, wait. We responded to it. So the main point you’re making, we have to take Benny at his word, is there was a war, and that’s the reason why he made that statement.
Mouin Rabbani
I think just one last point on this. I remember reading your book when it first came out, and reading one incident after the other, and one example after the other, and then getting to the conclusion where you said the Nakba was a product of war, not design, I think were your exact words. And I remember reacting almost in shock to that, that I felt you had mobilized overwhelming evidence that it was a product of design, not war. And I think our discussion today very much reflects, let’s say, the dissonance between the evidence and the conclusion. You don’t feel that the research that you have conducted and published demonstrates that it was in fact inherent and inbuilt and inevitable. And I think the point that Norm and I are making is that your own historical research, together with that of others, indisputably demonstrates that it does. I think that’s a fundamental disagreement we’re having here.
I think just one last point on this. I remember reading your book when it first came out, and reading one incident after the other, and one example after the other, and then getting to the conclusion where you said the Nakba was a product of war, not design, I think were your exact words. And I remember reacting almost in shock to that, that I felt you had mobilized overwhelming evidence that it was a product of design, not war. And I think our discussion today very much reflects, let’s say, the dissonance between the evidence and the conclusion. You don’t feel that the research that you have conducted and published demonstrates that it was in fact inherent and inbuilt and inevitable. And I think the point that Norm and I are making is that your own historical research, together with that of others, indisputably demonstrates that it does. I think that’s a fundamental disagreement we’re having here.
Steven Bonnell
Well, yeah, can I actually respond to that? Because I think this is emblematic of the entire conversation. I watched a lot of Norm’s interviews and conversations in preparation for this, and I hear Norm will say this over and over and over again. “I only deal in facts. I don’t deal in hypotheticals. I only deal in facts. I only deal in facts.” And that seems to be the case, except for when the facts are completely and totally contrary to the particular point you’re trying to push. The idea that Jews would’ve out of hand rejected any state that had Arabs on it or always had a plan of expulsion is just betrayed by the acceptance of the ’47 partition plan.
Well, yeah, can I actually respond to that? Because I think this is emblematic of the entire conversation. I watched a lot of Norm’s interviews and conversations in preparation for this, and I hear Norm will say this over and over and over again. “I only deal in facts. I don’t deal in hypotheticals. I only deal in facts. I only deal in facts.” And that seems to be the case, except for when the facts are completely and totally contrary to the particular point you’re trying to push. The idea that Jews would’ve out of hand rejected any state that had Arabs on it or always had a plan of expulsion is just betrayed by the acceptance of the ’47 partition plan.
Norman Finkelstein
I don’t think you understand politics. Did I just say that there is a chasm that separates your ideology from the limits and constraints imposed by politics and reality? Now, Professor Morris, I suspect, would agree that the Zionist movement from fairly early on was committed to the idea of a Jewish state. I am aware of only one major study, probably written 40 years ago, The Binational Idea in Mandatory Palestine by a woman. I forgot her name now. You remember her?
I don’t think you understand politics. Did I just say that there is a chasm that separates your ideology from the limits and constraints imposed by politics and reality? Now, Professor Morris, I suspect, would agree that the Zionist movement from fairly early on was committed to the idea of a Jewish state. I am aware of only one major study, probably written 40 years ago, The Binational Idea in Mandatory Palestine by a woman. I forgot her name now. You remember her?
Benny Morris
I’m trying to.
I’m trying to.
Norman Finkelstein
Yeah. Okay. But you know the book.
Yeah. Okay. But you know the book.
Benny Morris
I think so.
I think so.
Norman Finkelstein
Yeah. She is the only one who tried to persuasively argue that the Zionist movement was actually, not formally, actually committed to the binational idea. But most historians of the subject agree, the Zionist movement was committed to the idea of a Jewish state. Having written my doctoral dissertation on the topic, I was confirmed in that idea, because Professor Chomsky, who was my closest friend for about 40 years, was very committed to the idea that bi-nationalism was the dominant trend in Zionism. I couldn’t go with him there.
Yeah. She is the only one who tried to persuasively argue that the Zionist movement was actually, not formally, actually committed to the binational idea. But most historians of the subject agree, the Zionist movement was committed to the idea of a Jewish state. Having written my doctoral dissertation on the topic, I was confirmed in that idea, because Professor Chomsky, who was my closest friend for about 40 years, was very committed to the idea that bi-nationalism was the dominant trend in Zionism. I couldn’t go with him there.
But Professor Morris, you are aware that until the Biltmore resolution in 1942, the Zionist movement never declared it was for a Jewish state. Why? Because it was politically impossible at the moment, until 1942. There’s your ideology, there are your convictions, there are your operative plans, and there’s also, separately, what you say in public. The Zionist movement couldn’t say in public, “We’re expelling all the Arabs.” They can’t say that. And they couldn’t even say, “We support a Jewish state,” until 1942.
Benny Morris
You’re conflating two things. The Zionists wanted a Jewish state. Correct. That didn’t mean expulsion of the Arabs. It’s not the same thing. They wanted a Jewish state with a Jewish majority, but they were willing, as it turned out, both in ’37 and in ’47 and subsequently, to have a large Arab minority-
You’re conflating two things. The Zionists wanted a Jewish state. Correct. That didn’t mean expulsion of the Arabs. It’s not the same thing. They wanted a Jewish state with a Jewish majority, but they were willing, as it turned out, both in ’37 and in ’47 and subsequently, to have a large Arab minority-
Norman Finkelstein
In ’37 there was a transfer.
In ’37 there was a transfer.
Benny Morris
They were willing to have a large Arab minority in the country, and they ended up with a large Arab minority in the country. 20% of the population in ’49 was Arab, and it still is-
They were willing to have a large Arab minority in the country, and they ended up with a large Arab minority in the country. 20% of the population in ’49 was Arab, and it still is-
Norman Finkelstein
They ended up for about five minutes before they were expelled. They agreed to it up until ’47, and then they were gone by March 1949.
They ended up for about five minutes before they were expelled. They agreed to it up until ’47, and then they were gone by March 1949.
Steven Bonnell
What happened in between the rejection of the partition plan and the expulsion of the Arabs?
What happened in between the rejection of the partition plan and the expulsion of the Arabs?
Benny Morris
The Arabs launched the war.
The Arabs launched the war.
Steven Bonnell
Well, yeah. It wasn’t random. There is a potential that-
Well, yeah. It wasn’t random. There is a potential that-
Norman Finkelstein
I agree. It wasn’t random. I totally agree with that. It was by design. It wasn’t random.
I agree. It wasn’t random. I totally agree with that. It was by design. It wasn’t random.
Steven Bonnell
You can say that, but in this case, the facts betray you. There was no Arab acceptance of anything that would’ve allowed for a Jewish state to exist, number one, and number two, I think that it’s entirely possible, given how things happen after a war, that this exact same conflict could have played out and an expulsion would’ve happened without any ideology at play. There was a people that disagreed on who had territorial rights to a land, there was a massive war afterwards, and then a bunch of their friends invaded after to reinforce the idea that the Jewish people in this case couldn’t have a state. There could have been a transfer regardless.
You can say that, but in this case, the facts betray you. There was no Arab acceptance of anything that would’ve allowed for a Jewish state to exist, number one, and number two, I think that it’s entirely possible, given how things happen after a war, that this exact same conflict could have played out and an expulsion would’ve happened without any ideology at play. There was a people that disagreed on who had territorial rights to a land, there was a massive war afterwards, and then a bunch of their friends invaded after to reinforce the idea that the Jewish people in this case couldn’t have a state. There could have been a transfer regardless.
Norman Finkelstein
Anything could have been, but that’s not what history is about.
Anything could have been, but that’s not what history is about.
Steven Bonnell
History is about Palestinian rejections to any peace deal, over and over and over again.
History is about Palestinian rejections to any peace deal, over and over and over again.
Norman Finkelstein
As I said, when the ball was thrown into the court of the United Nations, they were faced with a practical problem, and I, for one, am not going to try to adjudicate the rights and wrongs from the beginning. I do not believe that if territorial displacement and dispossession was inherent in the Zionist project, I do not believe it can be a legitimate political enterprise. Now, you might say that’s speaking from 2022. Or where are we now?
As I said, when the ball was thrown into the court of the United Nations, they were faced with a practical problem, and I, for one, am not going to try to adjudicate the rights and wrongs from the beginning. I do not believe that if territorial displacement and dispossession was inherent in the Zionist project, I do not believe it can be a legitimate political enterprise. Now, you might say that’s speaking from 2022. Or where are we now?
Mouin Rabbani
’24 now, I think. Yeah.
’24 now, I think. Yeah.
Norman Finkelstein
Okay. But we have to recognize that from nearly the beginning, for perfectly obvious reasons having nothing to do with antisemitism, anti-Westernism, anti-Europeanism, but because no people that I am aware of would voluntarily cede its country-
Okay. But we have to recognize that from nearly the beginning, for perfectly obvious reasons having nothing to do with antisemitism, anti-Westernism, anti-Europeanism, but because no people that I am aware of would voluntarily cede its country-
Steven Bonnell
Except for all the people that sold land voluntarily.
Except for all the people that sold land voluntarily.
Norman Finkelstein
You can perfectly understand Native American resistance to Euro-colonialism. You can perfectly well understand it without any anti-Europeanism, anti-whiteism, anti-Christianism. They didn’t want to cede their country to invaders. That’s completely understandable.
You can perfectly understand Native American resistance to Euro-colonialism. You can perfectly well understand it without any anti-Europeanism, anti-whiteism, anti-Christianism. They didn’t want to cede their country to invaders. That’s completely understandable.
Benny Morris
You’re minimizing the antisemitic element in Arab nationalism.
You’re minimizing the antisemitic element in Arab nationalism.
Norman Finkelstein
You minimized it. In all your books, you minimized it.
You minimized it. In all your books, you minimized it.
Benny Morris
No, no, no. Husseini was an antisemite. The leader of the Palestinian national movement in the ’30s and ’40s was an antisemite. This was one of the things which drove him, and also drove him in the end to work in Berlin for Hitler for four years, giving Nazi propaganda to the Arab world, calling on the Arabs to murder the Jews. That’s what he did in World War II. That’s the leader of the Palestinian Arab National Movement. And he wasn’t alone. He wasn’t alone.
No, no, no. Husseini was an antisemite. The leader of the Palestinian national movement in the ’30s and ’40s was an antisemite. This was one of the things which drove him, and also drove him in the end to work in Berlin for Hitler for four years, giving Nazi propaganda to the Arab world, calling on the Arabs to murder the Jews. That’s what he did in World War II. That’s the leader of the Palestinian Arab National Movement. And he wasn’t alone. He wasn’t alone.
Norman Finkelstein
Professor Morris, if you read your book, Righteous Victims, you can read it and read it and read it and read it, as I have, you will find barely a word about the Arabs being motivated by antisemitism.
Professor Morris, if you read your book, Righteous Victims, you can read it and read it and read it and read it, as I have, you will find barely a word about the Arabs being motivated by antisemitism.
Benny Morris
It exists, though.
It exists, though.
Norman Finkelstein
I didn’t say it doesn’t exist.
I didn’t say it doesn’t exist.
Benny Morris
Ah, you agree that it exists?
Ah, you agree that it exists?
Norman Finkelstein
Hey, I don’t know a single non-Jew who doesn’t harbor antisemitic sentiments.
Hey, I don’t know a single non-Jew who doesn’t harbor antisemitic sentiments.
Benny Morris
We’re talking about Arabs now.
We’re talking about Arabs now.
Norman Finkelstein
Yeah, but I don’t know anybody. That’s just part of the human condition.
Yeah, but I don’t know anybody. That’s just part of the human condition.
Benny Morris
Antisemitism?
Antisemitism?
Norman Finkelstein
Yes.
Yes.
Benny Morris
And among the Arabs?
And among the Arabs?
Norman Finkelstein
So Professor Morris, here’s my problem. I didn’t see that in your Righteous Victims. Even when you talked about the first Intifada, and you talked about the second Intifada, and you talked about how there was a lot of influence by Hamas, the Islamic movement, you even stated that there was a lot of antisemitism in those movements, but then you went on to say, “But of course, at bottom, it was about the occupation. It wasn’t about” … And I’ve read it.
So Professor Morris, here’s my problem. I didn’t see that in your Righteous Victims. Even when you talked about the first Intifada, and you talked about the second Intifada, and you talked about how there was a lot of influence by Hamas, the Islamic movement, you even stated that there was a lot of antisemitism in those movements, but then you went on to say, “But of course, at bottom, it was about the occupation. It wasn’t about” … And I’ve read it.
Benny Morris
Yeah, but you’re moving from different ages, across the ages.
Yeah, but you’re moving from different ages, across the ages.
Norman Finkelstein
No, I’m talking about your whole book.
No, I’m talking about your whole book.
Benny Morris
The occupation began in ’67, the one you’re talking about.
The occupation began in ’67, the one you’re talking about.
Norman Finkelstein
I looked and looked and looked for evidence of this antisemitism as being a chief motor of Arab resistance to Zionism. I didn’t see it.
I looked and looked and looked for evidence of this antisemitism as being a chief motor of Arab resistance to Zionism. I didn’t see it.
Steven Bonnell
Did he make that claim?
Did he make that claim?
Benny Morris
I don’t remember the word chief. It’s one of the elements.
I don’t remember the word chief. It’s one of the elements.
Steven Bonnell
Yeah. It’s very binary thinking when it comes to-
Yeah. It’s very binary thinking when it comes to-
Norman Finkelstein
Binary?
Binary?
Steven Bonnell
Yes, binary.
Yes, binary.
Norman Finkelstein
Please, don’t give me this postmodernism ‘binary’. You’re the one that said the chief motor-
Please, don’t give me this postmodernism ‘binary’. You’re the one that said the chief motor-
Benny Morris
But you are thinking in terms of black and white. Steven has a point.
But you are thinking in terms of black and white. Steven has a point.
Norman Finkelstein
Do you have your book here? Page 137.
Do you have your book here? Page 137.
Benny Morris
You’re talking in black and white concepts when history is much grayer. Lots of things happen because of lots of reasons, not one or the other, and you don’t seem to see that.
You’re talking in black and white concepts when history is much grayer. Lots of things happen because of lots of reasons, not one or the other, and you don’t seem to see that.
Steven Bonnell
Can I ask you a question? Because it’s for them to talk too. Can I ask you a very quick question? What do you think the ideal solution was on the Arab side from ’47? What would they have preferred? And what would’ve happened-
Can I ask you a question? Because it’s for them to talk too. Can I ask you a very quick question? What do you think the ideal solution was on the Arab side from ’47? What would they have preferred? And what would’ve happened-
Mouin Rabbani
Well, they were explicit.
Well, they were explicit.
Steven Bonnell
And then the second one, what would’ve happened if Jews would’ve lost the war in ’48? What do you think would’ve happened to the Israeli population, the Jewish population?
And then the second one, what would’ve happened if Jews would’ve lost the war in ’48? What do you think would’ve happened to the Israeli population, the Jewish population?
Mouin Rabbani
I think the Palestinians and the Arabs were explicit that they wanted a unitary, I think, federal state, and they made their submissions to [inaudible 01:28:09], they made their appeals at the UN General Assembly.
I think the Palestinians and the Arabs were explicit that they wanted a unitary, I think, federal state, and they made their submissions to [inaudible 01:28:09], they made their appeals at the UN General Assembly.
Benny Morris
What do you mean by unitary and federal? I don’t get that. They wanted an Arab state. They wanted Palestine to be an Arab state.
What do you mean by unitary and federal? I don’t get that. They wanted an Arab state. They wanted Palestine to be an Arab state.
Mouin Rabbani
Yes. Yes.
Yes. Yes.
Benny Morris
Put it simply. That word, unitary, federal, they wanted Palestine as an Arab and exclusively Arab state. That’s what they wanted.
Put it simply. That word, unitary, federal, they wanted Palestine as an Arab and exclusively Arab state. That’s what they wanted.
Mouin Rabbani
No, no, it wasn’t an exclusively Arab state. I think we have to distinguish between Palestinian and Arab opposition to a Jewish state in Palestine on the one hand, and Palestinian and Arab attitudes to Jewish existence in Palestine, and there’s a fundamental difference-
No, no, it wasn’t an exclusively Arab state. I think we have to distinguish between Palestinian and Arab opposition to a Jewish state in Palestine on the one hand, and Palestinian and Arab attitudes to Jewish existence in Palestine, and there’s a fundamental difference-
Benny Morris
Well, Husseini, the leader of the movement, said that all the Jews who had come since 1917, and that’s the majority of the Jews in Palestine in 1947, shouldn’t be there.
Well, Husseini, the leader of the movement, said that all the Jews who had come since 1917, and that’s the majority of the Jews in Palestine in 1947, shouldn’t be there.
Mouin Rabbani
Well, he did say-
Well, he did say-
Benny Morris
They shouldn’t be citizens and they shouldn’t be there.
They shouldn’t be citizens and they shouldn’t be there.
Norman Finkelstein
[inaudible 01:28:59]. The PLO charter said that in ’64. I’m not going to deny it. Of course, it’s true. I can understand the sentiment, but I think it’s wrong.
[inaudible 01:28:59]. The PLO charter said that in ’64. I’m not going to deny it. Of course, it’s true. I can understand the sentiment, but I think it’s wrong.
Steven Bonnell
Also, [inaudible 01:29:11] because you had the used the words earlier, that it was supremacy and exclusivity that the Zionist state-
Also, [inaudible 01:29:11] because you had the used the words earlier, that it was supremacy and exclusivity that the Zionist state-
Mouin Rabbani
Well, I want to answer your question. Husseini did say that, and I’m sure there was a very substantial body of Palestinian Arab public opinion that endorsed that. But by the same token, I think a unitary Arab state, as you call it, or a Palestinian state, could have been established, with arrangements, with guarantees to ensure the security and rights of both communities. How that would work in detail had been discussed and proposed, but never resolved. And again, I think Jewish fears about what would’ve happened-
Well, I want to answer your question. Husseini did say that, and I’m sure there was a very substantial body of Palestinian Arab public opinion that endorsed that. But by the same token, I think a unitary Arab state, as you call it, or a Palestinian state, could have been established, with arrangements, with guarantees to ensure the security and rights of both communities. How that would work in detail had been discussed and proposed, but never resolved. And again, I think Jewish fears about what would’ve happened-
Benny Morris
A second Holocaust.
A second Holocaust.
Mouin Rabbani
Well, no-
Well, no-
Benny Morris
That was the Jewish fear. A second Holocaust.
That was the Jewish fear. A second Holocaust.
Mouin Rabbani
Well, that may well have been the Jewish fear. It was an unfounded Jewish fear.
Well, that may well have been the Jewish fear. It was an unfounded Jewish fear.
Steven Bonnell
It was unfounded?
It was unfounded?
Mouin Rabbani
Of course it was unfounded.
Of course it was unfounded.
Steven Bonnell
What about like in ’48 and ’56 and-
What about like in ’48 and ’56 and-
Mouin Rabbani
You really think that the Palestinians, had they won the war, were going to import ovens and crematoria from Germany and-
You really think that the Palestinians, had they won the war, were going to import ovens and crematoria from Germany and-
Steven Bonnell
I don’t know about that, but in almost every single Arab state where there were Jews living, after ’48, after ’56, after ’67, there were always pogroms, there were always flights from Jews from those countries to Israel afterwards. I don’t think it would be-
I don’t know about that, but in almost every single Arab state where there were Jews living, after ’48, after ’56, after ’67, there were always pogroms, there were always flights from Jews from those countries to Israel afterwards. I don’t think it would be-
Mouin Rabbani
I wouldn’t say there were always pogroms in every Arab state. I think there was flight of Arab Jews for multiple reasons, in some cases for precisely the reasons you say. If you look at the Jewish community in Algeria, for example, their flight had virtually nothing to do with the Arab-Israeli conflict. The issue of Algerian Jews was that the French gave them citizenship during their colonial rule of Algeria, and they increasingly became identified with French rule, when Algeria became independent and all the French ended up leaving, out of fear, or out of disappointment, or out of whatever, the Jews were identified as French rather than Algerian.
I wouldn’t say there were always pogroms in every Arab state. I think there was flight of Arab Jews for multiple reasons, in some cases for precisely the reasons you say. If you look at the Jewish community in Algeria, for example, their flight had virtually nothing to do with the Arab-Israeli conflict. The issue of Algerian Jews was that the French gave them citizenship during their colonial rule of Algeria, and they increasingly became identified with French rule, when Algeria became independent and all the French ended up leaving, out of fear, or out of disappointment, or out of whatever, the Jews were identified as French rather than Algerian.
Benny Morris
This is a bit of a red herring. There were pogroms in the Arab countries. In Bahrain even, where there’s almost no Jews, there was a pogrom in 1947. There was a pogrom in Aleppo in 1947.
This is a bit of a red herring. There were pogroms in the Arab countries. In Bahrain even, where there’s almost no Jews, there was a pogrom in 1947. There was a pogrom in Aleppo in 1947.
Mouin Rabbani
I’m not denying any of that history.
I’m not denying any of that history.
Benny Morris
There were killings of Jews in Iraq and Egypt in 1948/49. But the Jews basically fled the Arab states, not for multiple reasons. They fled because they felt that the governments there and the societies amid which they had lived for hundreds of years no longer wanted them.
There were killings of Jews in Iraq and Egypt in 1948/49. But the Jews basically fled the Arab states, not for multiple reasons. They fled because they felt that the governments there and the societies amid which they had lived for hundreds of years no longer wanted them.
Mouin Rabbani
Look, without getting into the details, I think we can both agree that ultimately a clear majority of Arab Jews who believed that after having lived in these countries for centuries-
Look, without getting into the details, I think we can both agree that ultimately a clear majority of Arab Jews who believed that after having lived in these countries for centuries-
Benny Morris
Way before the Arabs arrived there. Way before the Arabs arrived in Iraq.
Way before the Arabs arrived there. Way before the Arabs arrived in Iraq.
Mouin Rabbani
… for centuries, if not millennia, came to the unfortunate conclusion that their situation had become untenable. I also think that we can both agree that this had never been an issue prior to Zionism and the emergence of the state of Israel.
… for centuries, if not millennia, came to the unfortunate conclusion that their situation had become untenable. I also think that we can both agree that this had never been an issue prior to Zionism and the emergence of the state of Israel.
Benny Morris
This isn’t true. There were pogroms prior to Zionism.
This isn’t true. There were pogroms prior to Zionism.
Mouin Rabbani
Look, I’m not-
Look, I’m not-
Benny Morris
Pogroms didn’t begin with Zionism in the Arab world.
Pogroms didn’t begin with Zionism in the Arab world.
Mouin Rabbani
The issue is the point I raised, which is whether these communities had ever come to a collective conclusion that their position had become untenable in this part of the world. No, they were Arab Jews.
The issue is the point I raised, which is whether these communities had ever come to a collective conclusion that their position had become untenable in this part of the world. No, they were Arab Jews.
Steven Bonnell
Well, because untenable meant there was no alternative. But with the creation of Israel, there was an alternative, right? A place where they could go and not be discriminated against or live as second class citizens or be subject to Arab majority states.
Well, because untenable meant there was no alternative. But with the creation of Israel, there was an alternative, right? A place where they could go and not be discriminated against or live as second class citizens or be subject to Arab majority states.
I also think it’s interesting that when you analyze the flight of Jewish people, and I’ve seen this, I agree with you, it wasn’t just a mass expulsion from all the Arab states. There were definitely push factors. There were also pull factors. Now, I don’t know how you guys feel about the Nakba, but when the analysis of the Nakba comes in, again, it’s back to that; well, that was actually just a top-down expulsion. The retreat of wealthy Arab people in the ’30s didn’t matter. Any of the messaging from the surrounding Arab states didn’t matter. It was just an expulsion from Jewish people or people running from their lives from Jewish massacres. Again, I feel like it’s a selective critical analysis of the-
Mouin Rabbani
Again, I’m a little uncomfortable always using the term Jewish here, because it wasn’t the Jews of England or the Soviet Jews.
Again, I’m a little uncomfortable always using the term Jewish here, because it wasn’t the Jews of England or the Soviet Jews.
Steven Bonnell
Well, I say Jewish because prior to ’48, saying Israeli-
Well, I say Jewish because prior to ’48, saying Israeli-
Mouin Rabbani
I think it’s useful to refer to Zionists before 1948 and Israelis after ’48. We don’t need to implicate Jews of all-
I think it’s useful to refer to Zionists before 1948 and Israelis after ’48. We don’t need to implicate Jews of all-
Steven Bonnell
Well, sure, but the Jewish people that were being attacked in Arab states weren’t Zionists. They were just Jews living there, right?
Well, sure, but the Jewish people that were being attacked in Arab states weren’t Zionists. They were just Jews living there, right?
Norman Finkelstein
Okay, I need to just comment on that. I was rereading Shlomo Ben-Ami’s last book, and he does at the end discuss at some length the whole issue of the refugee question bearing on the so-called peace process. And on the question of ’48 and the Arab immigration, if you’ll allow me, let me just quote him. “Israel is particularly fond of the awkwardly false symmetry she makes between the Palestinian refugee crisis and the forced immigration of 600,000 Jews from Arab countries following the creation of the state of Israel, as if it were ‘an unplanned exchange of populations.’.
Okay, I need to just comment on that. I was rereading Shlomo Ben-Ami’s last book, and he does at the end discuss at some length the whole issue of the refugee question bearing on the so-called peace process. And on the question of ’48 and the Arab immigration, if you’ll allow me, let me just quote him. “Israel is particularly fond of the awkwardly false symmetry she makes between the Palestinian refugee crisis and the forced immigration of 600,000 Jews from Arab countries following the creation of the state of Israel, as if it were ‘an unplanned exchange of populations.’.
And then Mr Ben-Ami, for those of you who are listening, he was Israel’s former foreign minister, and he’s an influential historian in his own right, he says, “In fact, envoys from the Mossad and the Jewish Agency worked underground in Arab countries and Iran to encourage Jews to go to Israel. More importantly, for many Jews in Arab states, the very possibility of immigrating to Israel was the combination of millennial aspirations. It represented the consummation of a dream to take part in Israel’s resurgence as a nation.”
So this idea that they were all expelled after 1948, that’s one area, Professor Morris, I defer to expertise. That’s one of my credos in life. I don’t know the Israeli literature. But as it’s been translated in English, there’s very little solid scholarship on what happened in 1948 in the Arab countries which caused the Jews to leave.
Mouin Rabbani
Arab Jews.
Arab Jews.
Norman Finkelstein
Arab Jews, right. But Shlomo Ben-Ami knows the literature. He knows the scholarship. He’s a historian.
Arab Jews, right. But Shlomo Ben-Ami knows the literature. He knows the scholarship. He’s a historian.
Benny Morris
He comes from Tangiers.
He comes from Tangiers.
Mouin Rabbani
He’s from Morocco. [inaudible 01:36:10] from Iraq has written on this issue as well.
He’s from Morocco. [inaudible 01:36:10] from Iraq has written on this issue as well.
Benny Morris
And the Jews in the Arab lands were not pro-Zionists. They weren’t Zionists at all. Certainly [inaudible 01:36:18] family was anti-Zionist.
And the Jews in the Arab lands were not pro-Zionists. They weren’t Zionists at all. Certainly [inaudible 01:36:18] family was anti-Zionist.
Norman Finkelstein
And [inaudible 01:36:21], when he was interviewed by Marin Rappaport, on this question he said, “You simply cannot say that the Iraqi Jews were expelled. It’s just not true.” And he was speaking as an Iraqi Jew who left with his family in 1948.
And [inaudible 01:36:21], when he was interviewed by Marin Rappaport, on this question he said, “You simply cannot say that the Iraqi Jews were expelled. It’s just not true.” And he was speaking as an Iraqi Jew who left with his family in 1948.
Benny Morris
They were pushed out. They weren’t expelled. That’s probably the right phrase. They were pushed out.
They were pushed out. They weren’t expelled. That’s probably the right phrase. They were pushed out.
Mouin Rabbani
Well, I think it’s more complex than that. Sorry, I interrupted you.
Well, I think it’s more complex than that. Sorry, I interrupted you.
Norman Finkelstein
No, you’re not interrupting me, because I only know what’s been translated into English, and the English literature on the subject is very small and not scholarly. Now, there may be a Hebrew literature, I don’t know, but I was surprised that even Shlomo Ben-Ami, stalwart of his state, fair enough, on this particular point he called it false symmetry.
No, you’re not interrupting me, because I only know what’s been translated into English, and the English literature on the subject is very small and not scholarly. Now, there may be a Hebrew literature, I don’t know, but I was surprised that even Shlomo Ben-Ami, stalwart of his state, fair enough, on this particular point he called it false symmetry.
Benny Morris
No, no, Steven is right. There was a pull and a push mechanism in the departure of the Jews from the Arab lands post ’48. But there was also a lot of push. A lot of push.
No, no, Steven is right. There was a pull and a push mechanism in the departure of the Jews from the Arab lands post ’48. But there was also a lot of push. A lot of push.
Mouin Rabbani
That’s indisputable. There was push-
That’s indisputable. There was push-
Lex Fridman
And on the point of agreement, on this one brief light of agreement, let us wrap up with this topic of history and move on to modern day. But before that, I’m wondering if we could just say a couple of last words on this topic. Steven?
And on the point of agreement, on this one brief light of agreement, let us wrap up with this topic of history and move on to modern day. But before that, I’m wondering if we could just say a couple of last words on this topic. Steven?
Steven Bonnell
Yeah. I think that when you look at the behaviors of both parties in the time period around ’48, or especially ’48 and earlier, there’s this assumption that there was this huge built-in mechanism of Zionism, and that it was going to be inevitable from the inception of the first Zionist thought that appeared in Herzl’s mind that there would be a mass violent population transfer of Arab Palestinians out of what would become the Israeli state. I understand that there are some quotes that we can find that maybe seem to possibly support an idea that looks close to that, but I think when you actually consult the record of what happened, when you look at the massive populations that Israel was willing to accept within what would become their state borders, their nation borders, I just don’t think that the historical record agrees with the idea that Zionists would’ve just never been okay living alongside Arab Palestinians.
Yeah. I think that when you look at the behaviors of both parties in the time period around ’48, or especially ’48 and earlier, there’s this assumption that there was this huge built-in mechanism of Zionism, and that it was going to be inevitable from the inception of the first Zionist thought that appeared in Herzl’s mind that there would be a mass violent population transfer of Arab Palestinians out of what would become the Israeli state. I understand that there are some quotes that we can find that maybe seem to possibly support an idea that looks close to that, but I think when you actually consult the record of what happened, when you look at the massive populations that Israel was willing to accept within what would become their state borders, their nation borders, I just don’t think that the historical record agrees with the idea that Zionists would’ve just never been okay living alongside Arab Palestinians.
But when you look at the other side, Arabs would out of hand reject literally any deal that apportioned any amount of that land for any state relating to Jewish people or the Israeli people. I think it was said, even on the other end of the table, that Arab Palestinians or Arabs would’ve never accepted any Jewish state whatsoever.
So it’s interesting that on the ideology part where it’s claimed that Zionists are people of exclusion and supremacy and expulsion, we can find that in diary entries, but we can find that expressed in very real terms on the Arab side, I think in all of their behavior around ’48 and earlier, where the goal was the destruction of the Israeli state, it would’ve been the dispossession of many Jewish people. It probably would’ve been the expulsion of a lot of them back to Europe. And I think that very clearly plays out in the difference between the actions of the Arabs versus some diary entries of some Jewish leaders.
Lex Fridman
Benny?
Benny?
Benny Morris
Well, one thing which stood out, and I think Mouin made this point, is that the Arabs had nothing to do with the Holocaust, but then the world community forced the Arabs to pay the price for the Holocaust. That’s the traditional Arab argument. This is slightly distorting the reality. The Arabs in the 1930s did their utmost to prevent Jewish emigration from Europe and reaching Palestine, which was the only safe haven available, because America, Britain, France, nobody wanted Jews anywhere, and they were being persecuted in Central Europe and eventually would be massacred in large numbers. So the Arab effort to pressure the British to prevent Jews reaching Palestine’s safe shores contributed indirectly to the slaughter of many Jews in Europe because they couldn’t get to anywhere, and they couldn’t get to Palestine because the Arabs were busy attacking Jews in Palestine and attacking the British to make sure they didn’t allow Jews to reach this safe haven. That’s important.
Well, one thing which stood out, and I think Mouin made this point, is that the Arabs had nothing to do with the Holocaust, but then the world community forced the Arabs to pay the price for the Holocaust. That’s the traditional Arab argument. This is slightly distorting the reality. The Arabs in the 1930s did their utmost to prevent Jewish emigration from Europe and reaching Palestine, which was the only safe haven available, because America, Britain, France, nobody wanted Jews anywhere, and they were being persecuted in Central Europe and eventually would be massacred in large numbers. So the Arab effort to pressure the British to prevent Jews reaching Palestine’s safe shores contributed indirectly to the slaughter of many Jews in Europe because they couldn’t get to anywhere, and they couldn’t get to Palestine because the Arabs were busy attacking Jews in Palestine and attacking the British to make sure they didn’t allow Jews to reach this safe haven. That’s important.
The second thing is, of course, there’s no point in belittling the fact that the Palestinian Arab National Movement’s leader, Husseini, worked for the Nazis in the 1940s. He got a salary from the German foreign ministry, he raised troops among Muslims in Bosnia for the SS, and he broadcast to the Arab world calling for the murder of the Jews in the Middle East. This is what he did. And the Arabs since then have been trying to whitewash Husseini’s role. I’m not saying he was the instigator of the Holocaust, but he helped the Germans along in doing what they were doing and supported them in doing that. So this can’t be removed from the fact that the Arabs, as you say, paid a price for the Holocaust, but they also participated in various ways in helping it happen.
Lex Fridman
Mouin?
Mouin?
Mouin Rabbani
I’ll make two points. The first is you mentioned [inaudible 01:41:27] Husseini and his collaboration with the Nazis. Entirely legitimate point to raise. But I think one can also say definitively, had Husseini never existed, the Holocaust would’ve played out precisely as it did.
I’ll make two points. The first is you mentioned [inaudible 01:41:27] Husseini and his collaboration with the Nazis. Entirely legitimate point to raise. But I think one can also say definitively, had Husseini never existed, the Holocaust would’ve played out precisely as it did.
Benny Morris
Certainly. Certainly.
Certainly. Certainly.
Mouin Rabbani
As far as Palestinian opposition to Jewish emigration to Palestine during the 1930s is concerned, it was of a different character than, for example, British and American rejection of Jewish immigration-
As far as Palestinian opposition to Jewish emigration to Palestine during the 1930s is concerned, it was of a different character than, for example, British and American rejection of Jewish immigration-
Mouin Rabbani
… An American rejection of Jewish immigration. They just didn’t want Jews on their soil.
… An American rejection of Jewish immigration. They just didn’t want Jews on their soil.
Benny Morris
Objectively, it helped the Germans kill the Jews.
Objectively, it helped the Germans kill the Jews.
Mouin Rabbani
In the Palestinian case, their opposition to Jewish immigration was to prevent the transformation of their homeland into a Jewish state that would dispossess them, and I think that’s an important distinction to make. The other point I wanted to make is we’ve spent the past several hours talking about Zionism, transfer, and so on, but I think there’s a more fundamental aspect to this, which is that Zionism, I think, would have emerged and disappeared as yet one more utopian political project had it not been for the British, what the preeminent Palestinian historian, Walid Khalidi, has termed the British Shield, because I think without the British sponsorship, we wouldn’t be having this discussion today. The British sponsored Zionism for a very simple reason, which is that during World War I, the Ottoman armies attempted to march on the Suez Canal.
In the Palestinian case, their opposition to Jewish immigration was to prevent the transformation of their homeland into a Jewish state that would dispossess them, and I think that’s an important distinction to make. The other point I wanted to make is we’ve spent the past several hours talking about Zionism, transfer, and so on, but I think there’s a more fundamental aspect to this, which is that Zionism, I think, would have emerged and disappeared as yet one more utopian political project had it not been for the British, what the preeminent Palestinian historian, Walid Khalidi, has termed the British Shield, because I think without the British sponsorship, we wouldn’t be having this discussion today. The British sponsored Zionism for a very simple reason, which is that during World War I, the Ottoman armies attempted to march on the Suez Canal.
Suez Canal was the jugular vein of the British Empire between Europe and India, and the British came to the conclusion that they needed to secure the Suez Canal from any threat. And as the British have done so often in so many places, how do you deal with this? Well, you bring in a foreign minority, implant them amongst a hostile population, and establish a protectorate over them. I don’t think a Jewish state in Palestine had been part of British intentions, and the Balfour Declaration very specifically speaks about a Jewish national home in Palestine, in other words, a British protectorate. Things ended up taking a different course, and I think the most important development was World War II, and I think this had maybe less to do with the Holocaust and more to do with the effective bankruptcy of the United Kingdom during that war, and its inability to sustain its global empire.
It ended up giving up India, ended up giving up Palestine, and it’s in that context, I think, that we need to see the emergence of a Jewish state in Palestine, and again, a Jewish state means a state in which the Jewish community enjoys not only a demographic majority, but an uncontestable demographic majority, an uncontestable territorial hegemony, and uncontestable political supremacy. And that is also why after 1948, the nascent Israeli state confiscated, I believe, up to 90% of lands that had been previously owned by Palestinians who became citizens of Israel.
It is why the new Israeli state imposed a military government on its population of Palestinian citizens between 1948 and 1966. It is why the Israeli state effectively reduced the Palestinians living within the Israeli state, as citizens of the Israeli state, to second class citizens, on the one hand, promoting Jewish nationalism and Jewish nationalist parties, on the other hand, doing everything within its power to suppress and eliminate Palestinian or Arab nationalist movements. And that’s why today there’s a consensus among all major human rights organizations that Israel is an apartheid state, what the Israeli human rights organization B’Tselem describes a regime of Jewish supremacy between the river and the sea.
Lex Fridman
You’re
You’re
Lex Fridman
Really tempting a response from the other side on the last few sentences. We’ll talk-
Really tempting a response from the other side on the last few sentences. We’ll talk-
Benny Morris
Propaganda, yeah, okay.
Propaganda, yeah, okay.
Lex Fridman
We’ll talk about the claims of apartheid and so on. It’s a fascinating discussion, we need to have it. Norm.
We’ll talk about the claims of apartheid and so on. It’s a fascinating discussion, we need to have it. Norm.
Norman Finkelstein
On the question of the responsibility of the Palestinian Arabs for the Nazi Holocaust, direct or indirect, I consider that an absurd claim, as [inaudible 01:46:46] said, and I quoted him, “The entire Western world turned its back on the Jews to somehow focus on the Palestinians,” it strikes me as completely ridiculous. Number two, as Mouin said, there’s a perfectly understandable reason why Palestinian Arabs wouldn’t want Jews because in their minds, and not irrationally, these Jews intended to create a Jewish state, which would quite likely have resulted in their expulsion. I’m a very generous person. I’ve actually taken in a homeless person for two and a half years, but if I knew in advance that that homeless person was going to try to turn me out of my apartment, I would think 10,000 times before I took him in.
On the question of the responsibility of the Palestinian Arabs for the Nazi Holocaust, direct or indirect, I consider that an absurd claim, as [inaudible 01:46:46] said, and I quoted him, “The entire Western world turned its back on the Jews to somehow focus on the Palestinians,” it strikes me as completely ridiculous. Number two, as Mouin said, there’s a perfectly understandable reason why Palestinian Arabs wouldn’t want Jews because in their minds, and not irrationally, these Jews intended to create a Jewish state, which would quite likely have resulted in their expulsion. I’m a very generous person. I’ve actually taken in a homeless person for two and a half years, but if I knew in advance that that homeless person was going to try to turn me out of my apartment, I would think 10,000 times before I took him in.
As far as the actual complicity of the Palestinian Arabs, if you look at Raul Hilberg’s three volume classic work, The Destruction of the European Jury, he has in those 1,000+ pages, one sentence on the role of the mufti of Jerusalem, and that I think is probably an overstatement, but we’ll leave it aside. The only two points I would make aside from the Holocaust point is number one, I do think the transfer discussion is useful because it indicates that there was a rational reason behind the Arab resistance to Jewish or Zionist immigration to Palestine, the fear of territorial displacement and dispossession.
And number two, there are two issues. One is the history, and the second is being responsible for your words. Now, some people accuse me of speaking very slowly, and they’re advised on YouTube to turn up the speed twice to three times whenever I’m on. One of the reasons I speak slowly is because I attach value to every word I say, and it is discomforting, disorienting, where you have a person who’s produced a voluminous corpus, rich in insights, and rich in archival sources who seems to disown each and every word that you pluck from that corpus by claiming that it’s either out of context or it’s cherry-picking. Words count, and I agree with Lex, everybody has the right to rescind what they’ve said in the past, but what you cannot claim is that you didn’t say what you said.
Benny Morris
I’ll stick to the history, not the current propaganda. 1917, the Zionist movement began way before the British supported the Zionist movement for decades. In 1917, the British jumped in and issued the Balfour Declaration supporting the emergence of a Jewish national home in Palestine, which most people understood to mean eventual Jewish statehood in Palestine. Most people understood that in Britain and among the Zionists and among the Arabs, but the British declared the Balfour Declaration or issued the Balfour Declaration, not only because of imperial self-interest, and this is what you’re basically saying, they had the imperial interests, a buffer state which would protect the Suez Canal from the East. The British also were motivated by idealism, and this incidentally is how Balfour described the reasoning behind issuing the declaration. And he said, “The Western world, Western Christendom owes the Jews a great debt,” both for giving the world and the West, if you like, social values as embodied in the Bible, social justice and all sorts of other things.
I’ll stick to the history, not the current propaganda. 1917, the Zionist movement began way before the British supported the Zionist movement for decades. In 1917, the British jumped in and issued the Balfour Declaration supporting the emergence of a Jewish national home in Palestine, which most people understood to mean eventual Jewish statehood in Palestine. Most people understood that in Britain and among the Zionists and among the Arabs, but the British declared the Balfour Declaration or issued the Balfour Declaration, not only because of imperial self-interest, and this is what you’re basically saying, they had the imperial interests, a buffer state which would protect the Suez Canal from the East. The British also were motivated by idealism, and this incidentally is how Balfour described the reasoning behind issuing the declaration. And he said, “The Western world, Western Christendom owes the Jews a great debt,” both for giving the world and the West, if you like, social values as embodied in the Bible, social justice and all sorts of other things.
And the Christian world owes the Jews because it persecuted them for 2,000 years. This debt we’re now beginning to repay with the 1917 declaration favoring Zionism, but it’s also worth remembering that the Jews weren’t proxies or attached to the British imperial endeavor. They were happy to receive British support in 1917 and then subsequently when the British ruled Palestine for 20, 30 years, but they weren’t part of the British imperial design or mission. They wanted a state for themselves. The Jews happy to have the British support them, happy to date to have the Americans support Israel, but it’s not because we’re stooges or extensions of American imperial interests. The British incidentally always described in Arab narratives of propaganda as consistent supporters of Zionism, they weren’t. The first British rulers in Palestine, 1917, 1920-
Mouin Rabbani
Herbert Samuel.
Herbert Samuel.
Benny Morris
No, before Herbert Samuel. Samuel came in 1920. The British ruled there for three years previously, and most of the leaders, the British generals and so on who were in Palestine were anti-Zionists. And subsequently, in the ’20s and ’30s, the British occasionally curbed Zionist immigration to Palestine, and in 1939 switched horses and supported the Arab National Movement and not Zionism. They turned anti-Zionist and basically said, “You Arabs will rule Palestine within the next 10 years. This is what we’re giving you by limiting Jewish immigration to Palestine,” but the Arabs didn’t actually understand what they were being given on the silver platter Husseini again, and he said, “No, no, we can’t accept the British White Paper of May 1939, which had given the Arabs everything they wanted basically, self- determination in an Arab majority state. So, what I’m saying is the British at some point did support the Zionist enterprise, but at other points were less consistent in the support. And in 1939 until 1948, when they didn’t vote even for partition for Jewish statehood in Palestine in the UN resolution, they didn’t support Zionism during the last decade of the mandate. It’s worth remembering that.
No, before Herbert Samuel. Samuel came in 1920. The British ruled there for three years previously, and most of the leaders, the British generals and so on who were in Palestine were anti-Zionists. And subsequently, in the ’20s and ’30s, the British occasionally curbed Zionist immigration to Palestine, and in 1939 switched horses and supported the Arab National Movement and not Zionism. They turned anti-Zionist and basically said, “You Arabs will rule Palestine within the next 10 years. This is what we’re giving you by limiting Jewish immigration to Palestine,” but the Arabs didn’t actually understand what they were being given on the silver platter Husseini again, and he said, “No, no, we can’t accept the British White Paper of May 1939, which had given the Arabs everything they wanted basically, self- determination in an Arab majority state. So, what I’m saying is the British at some point did support the Zionist enterprise, but at other points were less consistent in the support. And in 1939 until 1948, when they didn’t vote even for partition for Jewish statehood in Palestine in the UN resolution, they didn’t support Zionism during the last decade of the mandate. It’s worth remembering that.
Mouin Rabbani
I’d like to respond to that. Speaking of propaganda, I find it simply impossible to accept that Balfour, who as British Prime Minister in 1905, was a chief sponsor of the Aliens Act, which was specifically-
I’d like to respond to that. Speaking of propaganda, I find it simply impossible to accept that Balfour, who as British Prime Minister in 1905, was a chief sponsor of the Aliens Act, which was specifically-
Benny Morris
He changed his mind.
He changed his mind.
Mouin Rabbani
… Which was specifically designed to keep persecuted Eastern European Jews out of the streets of the UK and who was denounced as an antisemite by the entire British Jewish establishment. A decade later, all of a sudden-
… Which was specifically designed to keep persecuted Eastern European Jews out of the streets of the UK and who was denounced as an antisemite by the entire British Jewish establishment. A decade later, all of a sudden-
Benny Morris
Changed his mind.
Changed his mind.
Mouin Rabbani
People changed their minds, but when the changing of the mind just coincidentally happens to coincide with the British imperial interest, I think perhaps the transformation is a little more superficial than he’s being given credit for. It was clearly a British imperial venture, and if there had been no threat to the Suez Canal during World War I, regardless of what Balfour would’ve thought about the Jews and their contribution to history and their persecution and so on, there would’ve been no Balfour Declaration.
People changed their minds, but when the changing of the mind just coincidentally happens to coincide with the British imperial interest, I think perhaps the transformation is a little more superficial than he’s being given credit for. It was clearly a British imperial venture, and if there had been no threat to the Suez Canal during World War I, regardless of what Balfour would’ve thought about the Jews and their contribution to history and their persecution and so on, there would’ve been no Balfour Declaration.
Steven Bonnell
May I ask real quick, it’s a question on that, why did the British ever cap immigration then from Jews to that area at all?
May I ask real quick, it’s a question on that, why did the British ever cap immigration then from Jews to that area at all?
Mouin Rabbani
Well, we’re talking now about 19-
Well, we’re talking now about 19-
Benny Morris
20s and 30s.
20s and 30s.
Steven Bonnell
But I’m saying that if the whole goal was just to be an imperialist project, there were terrorist attacks from Jewish-
But I’m saying that if the whole goal was just to be an imperialist project, there were terrorist attacks from Jewish-
Mouin Rabbani
Yes, but you’re… I’ll answer you.
Yes, but you’re… I’ll answer you.
Steven Bonnell
In the ’40s.
In the ’40s.
Mouin Rabbani
And we’re talking now about 1917, and as I mentioned earlier, I don’t think the British had a Jewish state in mind. That’s why they used the term Jewish national home. I think what they wanted was a British protectorate, loyal to and dependent upon the British. I think an outstanding review of British policy towards these issues during the mandate has been done by Martin Bunton of the University of Victoria, and he basically makes the argument that once the British realized the mess they were in, certainly by the late ’20s, early ’30s, they recognized the mess they were in, the irreconcilable differences, and basically pursued a policy of just muddling on, and muddling on in the context of British rule in Palestine, whose overall purpose was to serve for the development of Zionist institutions, Yishuv’s economy and so on, meant even if the British were not self-consciously doing this, preparing the groundwork for the eventual establishment of the Jewish state. I don’t know if that answers your question.
And we’re talking now about 1917, and as I mentioned earlier, I don’t think the British had a Jewish state in mind. That’s why they used the term Jewish national home. I think what they wanted was a British protectorate, loyal to and dependent upon the British. I think an outstanding review of British policy towards these issues during the mandate has been done by Martin Bunton of the University of Victoria, and he basically makes the argument that once the British realized the mess they were in, certainly by the late ’20s, early ’30s, they recognized the mess they were in, the irreconcilable differences, and basically pursued a policy of just muddling on, and muddling on in the context of British rule in Palestine, whose overall purpose was to serve for the development of Zionist institutions, Yishuv’s economy and so on, meant even if the British were not self-consciously doing this, preparing the groundwork for the eventual establishment of the Jewish state. I don’t know if that answers your question.
Benny Morris
Except they did turn anti-Zionist in 1939.
Except they did turn anti-Zionist in 1939.
Mouin Rabbani
Yes, of course [inaudible 01:56:30].
Yes, of course [inaudible 01:56:30].
Benny Morris
And maintained-
And maintained-
Mouin Rabbani
They were being shot off by [inaudible 01:56:33]-
They were being shot off by [inaudible 01:56:33]-
Benny Morris
… That Zionist… No, no, before they were being shot off, but maintain that anti-Zionist posture until 1948.
… That Zionist… No, no, before they were being shot off, but maintain that anti-Zionist posture until 1948.
Norman Finkelstein
Okay.
Okay.
Mouin Rabbani
And if I may, just also one point, you mentioned Hajj Amin al-Husseini during World… Entirely legitimate, but what I would also point out is that you had a Zionist organization, the Lehi-
And if I may, just also one point, you mentioned Hajj Amin al-Husseini during World… Entirely legitimate, but what I would also point out is that you had a Zionist organization, the Lehi-
Benny Morris
300 people.
300 people.
Mouin Rabbani
300 people, one of whom happened to become an Israeli prime minister, an Israeli foreign minister, a speaker of Israeli parliament-
300 people, one of whom happened to become an Israeli prime minister, an Israeli foreign minister, a speaker of Israeli parliament-
Norman Finkelstein
Maybe you should give his name.
Maybe you should give his name.
Mouin Rabbani
Yitzhak Shamir proposing an alliance with Nazi Germany in 1941.
Yitzhak Shamir proposing an alliance with Nazi Germany in 1941.
Benny Morris
Shamir proposed a Nazi-
Shamir proposed a Nazi-
Mouin Rabbani
Well, no, the Lehi proposed-
Well, no, the Lehi proposed-
Benny Morris
Some people in the Lehi proposed-
Some people in the Lehi proposed-
Mouin Rabbani
Of which Shamir was a prominent leader.
Of which Shamir was a prominent leader.
Benny Morris
This is a red herring also.
This is a red herring also.
Mouin Rabbani
No, no. Well, if he’s a red herring, Hajj Amin al-Husseini is a red whale, I’m sorry.
No, no. Well, if he’s a red herring, Hajj Amin al-Husseini is a red whale, I’m sorry.
Benny Morris
The Lehi was an unimportant organization in the Yishuv. 300 people versus 30,000 belonged to the Haganah, so it was not a very important organization. It’s true, before the Holocaust actually began, they wanted allies against the British where they could find them and they-
The Lehi was an unimportant organization in the Yishuv. 300 people versus 30,000 belonged to the Haganah, so it was not a very important organization. It’s true, before the Holocaust actually began, they wanted allies against the British where they could find them and they-
Mouin Rabbani
We’re talking 1941 here, not 1931.
We’re talking 1941 here, not 1931.
Benny Morris
1940.
1940.
Mouin Rabbani
’41 from what I recall.
’41 from what I recall.
Benny Morris
1940, they approached the German emissary in Istanbul or something.
1940, they approached the German emissary in Istanbul or something.
Mouin Rabbani
And if I may, proposed an alliance with Nazi Germany on what the Lehi described as on the basis of shared ideological principles.
And if I may, proposed an alliance with Nazi Germany on what the Lehi described as on the basis of shared ideological principles.
Benny Morris
They didn’t share ideological-
They didn’t share ideological-
Mouin Rabbani
Well, they said they did.
Well, they said they did.
Norman Finkelstein
They said it.
They said it.
Benny Morris
They did revile-
They did revile-
Norman Finkelstein
Why are you doing these things? Of course, they said that.
Why are you doing these things? Of course, they said that.
Benny Morris
The Lehi was reviled by the majority-
The Lehi was reviled by the majority-
Norman Finkelstein
You know the state, but you know the-
You know the state, but you know the-
Benny Morris
The Lehi was reviled.
The Lehi was reviled.
Norman Finkelstein
You know what the statement said on the basis of a shared ideology. Why do you say no?
You know what the statement said on the basis of a shared ideology. Why do you say no?
Benny Morris
The Lehi people were Nazi, that you say?
The Lehi people were Nazi, that you say?
Norman Finkelstein
I’m saying that they said-
I’m saying that they said-
Benny Morris
No, you’re saying that. Forget statements, you like to quote things, but where they-
No, you’re saying that. Forget statements, you like to quote things, but where they-
Norman Finkelstein
I do like to quote things, it’s called facts.
I do like to quote things, it’s called facts.
Benny Morris
Where are the Lehi Nazis? That’s what I’m asking.
Where are the Lehi Nazis? That’s what I’m asking.
Norman Finkelstein
What did he just say?
What did he just say?
Benny Morris
Some of them supported Stalin, incidentally.
Some of them supported Stalin, incidentally.
Norman Finkelstein
He’s saying that the basis of the pact was there agreement on ideology.
He’s saying that the basis of the pact was there agreement on ideology.
Benny Morris
There wasn’t any pact. They suggested, they proposed an agreement.
There wasn’t any pact. They suggested, they proposed an agreement.
Norman Finkelstein
Right, and what did the agreement say?
Right, and what did the agreement say?
Benny Morris
They wanted arms against the British, that’s what they wanted.
They wanted arms against the British, that’s what they wanted.
Norman Finkelstein
What did the agreement say?
What did the agreement say?
Mouin Rabbani
Well, that’s what Hajj Amin al-Husseini wanted also. That’s what-
Well, that’s what Hajj Amin al-Husseini wanted also. That’s what-
Benny Morris
No, no, but they didn’t-
No, no, but they didn’t-
Mouin Rabbani
… Others in India-
… Others in India-
Benny Morris
Lehi people didn’t work in Berlin helping the Nazi regime.
Lehi people didn’t work in Berlin helping the Nazi regime.
Mouin Rabbani
It’s what the IRA wanted also.
It’s what the IRA wanted also.
Benny Morris
No, but this is what Hajj Amin al-Husseini did. You know that he was an antisemite. You’ve probably read some of his works. He wasn’t just anti-British.
No, but this is what Hajj Amin al-Husseini did. You know that he was an antisemite. You’ve probably read some of his works. He wasn’t just anti-British.
Mouin Rabbani
Yes, and-
Yes, and-
Benny Morris
He was also antisemitic. He had a common ground with Hitler. It’s as simple as that.
He was also antisemitic. He had a common ground with Hitler. It’s as simple as that.
Mouin Rabbani
I think we can agree-
I think we can agree-
Norman Finkelstein
Not every antisemite is a Hitlerite.
Not every antisemite is a Hitlerite.
Mouin Rabbani
I think we could-
I think we could-
Norman Finkelstein
That part-
That part-
Steven Bonnell
He literally worked with the Nazis to recruit people. He wasn’t just a guy posting or-
He literally worked with the Nazis to recruit people. He wasn’t just a guy posting or-
Norman Finkelstein
And he was an absolutely revolting, disgusting human being-
And he was an absolutely revolting, disgusting human being-
Benny Morris
There’s something happening here.
There’s something happening here.
Steven Bonnell
But the problem is you’re saying that Husseini was his influence… You’re saying the move [inaudible 01:59:28]-
But the problem is you’re saying that Husseini was his influence… You’re saying the move [inaudible 01:59:28]-
Norman Finkelstein
I don’t even understand, of all the crimes you want to ascribe to the Palestinian people, trying to blame them directly-indirectly, indirectly, or indirectly, three times the move for the Nazi Holocaust is completely lunatic.
I don’t even understand, of all the crimes you want to ascribe to the Palestinian people, trying to blame them directly-indirectly, indirectly, or indirectly, three times the move for the Nazi Holocaust is completely lunatic.
Steven Bonnell
Hold on. Wait, he’s not blaming them for the Holocaust. He’s saying that from the perspective-
Hold on. Wait, he’s not blaming them for the Holocaust. He’s saying that from the perspective-
Norman Finkelstein
Of course he-
Of course he-
Benny Morris
No, no, no.
No, no, no.
Steven Bonnell
Wait, wait, wait, no, he’s saying that from the perspective of Jews in the region, Palestinians would’ve been part of the-
Wait, wait, wait, no, he’s saying that from the perspective of Jews in the region, Palestinians would’ve been part of the-
Norman Finkelstein
That’s not what he’s saying.
That’s not what he’s saying.
Steven Bonnell
That is exactly what he said.
That is exactly what he said.
Norman Finkelstein
You have not read him. I’ve read him.
You have not read him. I’ve read him.
Steven Bonnell
You’ve read him and you don’t understand him.
You’ve read him and you don’t understand him.
Norman Finkelstein
You’ve read-
You’ve read-
Steven Bonnell
He’s right here.
He’s right here.
Norman Finkelstein
Believe me, I’m a lot more literate than you, Mr. Barelli.
Believe me, I’m a lot more literate than you, Mr. Barelli.
Steven Bonnell
I’m going to believe the guy that wrote the stuff.
I’m going to believe the guy that wrote the stuff.
Norman Finkelstein
You read what Wikipedia said.
You read what Wikipedia said.
Steven Bonnell
That’s great, and you don’t even speak Hebrew and you call yourself an Israeli historian.
That’s great, and you don’t even speak Hebrew and you call yourself an Israeli historian.
Norman Finkelstein
[inaudible 02:00:11].
[inaudible 02:00:11].
Steven Bonnell
[inaudible 02:00:10] different grounds.
[inaudible 02:00:10] different grounds.
Mouin Rabbani
If I can just respond to you-
If I can just respond to you-
Steven Bonnell
No, no, I’m just saying that there were two tricks-
No, no, I’m just saying that there were two tricks-
Norman Finkelstein
You said nothing, as you always do.
You said nothing, as you always do.
Steven Bonnell
That’s fine. There were two tricks that are being played here that I think is interesting. One is, you guys claim that the Lehi was trying to forge an alliance with Nazi Germany because of a shared ideology.
That’s fine. There were two tricks that are being played here that I think is interesting. One is, you guys claim that the Lehi was trying to forge an alliance with Nazi Germany because of a shared ideology.
Mouin Rabbani
That’s what they said.
That’s what they said.
Steven Bonnell
Yeah, but hold on. No, no, no, no, wait, wait, wait, no, no, it’s about what you said. You brought that up to imply that Zionism must be inexorably linked-
Yeah, but hold on. No, no, no, no, wait, wait, wait, no, no, it’s about what you said. You brought that up to imply that Zionism must be inexorably linked-
Norman Finkelstein
That’s a fact.
That’s a fact.
Mouin Rabbani
I’m sorry. No, you’re putting words in my mouth.
I’m sorry. No, you’re putting words in my mouth.
Steven Bonnell
Wait. Well, then what was the purpose of saying that the Lehi claimed that… The Lehi, who were a small group of people that were reviled by many in Israel [inaudible 02:00:44]-
Wait. Well, then what was the purpose of saying that the Lehi claimed that… The Lehi, who were a small group of people that were reviled by many in Israel [inaudible 02:00:44]-
Benny Morris
Not many, by everybody practically. They were called terrorists.
Not many, by everybody practically. They were called terrorists.
Steven Bonnell
[inaudible 02:00:47].
[inaudible 02:00:47].
Benny Morris
The Zionist movement called them terrorists.
The Zionist movement called them terrorists.
Mouin Rabbani
Yes and [inaudible 02:00:51]-
Yes and [inaudible 02:00:51]-
Benny Morris
And hunted them.
And hunted them.
Steven Bonnell
[inaudible 02:00:52] shared ideology come?
[inaudible 02:00:52] shared ideology come?
Mouin Rabbani
Shamir called himself a terrorist. They were so irrelevant that their leader ended up being kicked upstairs to the leader of the Israeli parliament-
Shamir called himself a terrorist. They were so irrelevant that their leader ended up being kicked upstairs to the leader of the Israeli parliament-
Benny Morris
That’s Israeli [inaudible 02:01:02] in.
That’s Israeli [inaudible 02:01:02] in.
Mouin Rabbani
… To Israeli foreign minister-
… To Israeli foreign minister-
Steven Bonnell
And Begin was also a part-
And Begin was also a part-
Mouin Rabbani
Yes, you want to characterize him as irrelevant as well, go ahead.
Yes, you want to characterize him as irrelevant as well, go ahead.
Steven Bonnell
No, characterize him as relevant or irrelevant based on what happens decades later. The timeline matters. The question is, what is the point of saying that the Lehi tried to forge an alliance with Nazi Germany based on [inaudible 02:01:19]?
No, characterize him as relevant or irrelevant based on what happens decades later. The timeline matters. The question is, what is the point of saying that the Lehi tried to forge an alliance with Nazi Germany based on [inaudible 02:01:19]?
Norman Finkelstein
[inaudible 02:01:19] the fact that it’s relevant is bringing up the mufti of Jerusalem and trying to blame the Holocaust [inaudible 02:01:25]-
[inaudible 02:01:19] the fact that it’s relevant is bringing up the mufti of Jerusalem and trying to blame the Holocaust [inaudible 02:01:25]-
Steven Bonnell
No one [inaudible 02:01:26] Holocaust [inaudible 02:01:28].
No one [inaudible 02:01:26] Holocaust [inaudible 02:01:28].
Benny Morris
The mufti was the leader of the Palestine Arab National Movement. The Lehi was 300 people.
The mufti was the leader of the Palestine Arab National Movement. The Lehi was 300 people.
Norman Finkelstein
And he had as much to do with the Nazi Holocaust as I did.
And he had as much to do with the Nazi Holocaust as I did.
Benny Morris
No, he recruited people for the SS. How can you get away from that?
No, he recruited people for the SS. How can you get away from that?
Norman Finkelstein
No, he recruited soldiers in the Balkans, mostly Kosovars, which was disgusting. I have no doubt about that, but he had one [inaudible 02:01:50]-
No, he recruited soldiers in the Balkans, mostly Kosovars, which was disgusting. I have no doubt about that, but he had one [inaudible 02:01:50]-
Benny Morris
He was [inaudible 02:01:50] plenty with the foreign ministers saying, “Don’t let the Jews out.”
He was [inaudible 02:01:50] plenty with the foreign ministers saying, “Don’t let the Jews out.”
Norman Finkelstein
[inaudible 02:01:54].
[inaudible 02:01:54].
Mouin Rabbani
Can I say-
Can I say-
Norman Finkelstein
[inaudible 02:01:55].
[inaudible 02:01:55].
Benny Morris
The Italian foreign minister receive letters from Husseini during the Holocaust, “Don’t let the Jews out.” I’m not saying he was a major architect of the Holocaust.
The Italian foreign minister receive letters from Husseini during the Holocaust, “Don’t let the Jews out.” I’m not saying he was a major architect of the Holocaust.
Norman Finkelstein
He wasn’t even minor, one sentence.
He wasn’t even minor, one sentence.
Mouin Rabbani
If we’re agreed, that Hajj Amin al-Husseini, the Mufti of Jerusalem, collaborated with the Nazis during World War II and actively sought their sponsorship, why is it irrelevant-
If we’re agreed, that Hajj Amin al-Husseini, the Mufti of Jerusalem, collaborated with the Nazis during World War II and actively sought their sponsorship, why is it irrelevant-
Benny Morris
And probably wanted the destruction of European jury.
And probably wanted the destruction of European jury.
Mouin Rabbani
He probably wanted a lot of things.
He probably wanted a lot of things.
Benny Morris
Okay.
Okay.
Mouin Rabbani
If that’s relevant, why is it irrelevant that a prime minister of Israel-
If that’s relevant, why is it irrelevant that a prime minister of Israel-
Benny Morris
Not prime minister. In 1941, he wasn’t prime minister of Israel. He was a leader of a very small terrorist group.
Not prime minister. In 1941, he wasn’t prime minister of Israel. He was a leader of a very small terrorist group.
Mouin Rabbani
So do you contend-
So do you contend-
Benny Morris
Denounced as terrorist by the mainstream of Zionism.
Denounced as terrorist by the mainstream of Zionism.
Mouin Rabbani
Do you consider it irrelevant that many years ago, Mahmoud Abbas wrote a doctoral thesis, which is basically tantamount-
Do you consider it irrelevant that many years ago, Mahmoud Abbas wrote a doctoral thesis, which is basically tantamount-
Benny Morris
Show me something about Mahmoud Abbas, but I didn’t bring it up, you’re the one who’s bringing it up.
Show me something about Mahmoud Abbas, but I didn’t bring it up, you’re the one who’s bringing it up.
Mouin Rabbani
Yes, do you consider that [inaudible 02:02:58]-
Yes, do you consider that [inaudible 02:02:58]-
Benny Morris
Belittling the Holocaust, that’s what you’re saying. The president of the Palestinian National Authority belittled the Holocaust saying it didn’t happen, or only a few Jews died.
Belittling the Holocaust, that’s what you’re saying. The president of the Palestinian National Authority belittled the Holocaust saying it didn’t happen, or only a few Jews died.
Mouin Rabbani
I think that’s a fair characterization of Mahmoud Abbas.
I think that’s a fair characterization of Mahmoud Abbas.
Benny Morris
But I didn’t bring it up.
But I didn’t bring it up.
Mouin Rabbani
I brought it up because my question is, then why is Shamir’s antecedence irrelevant?
I brought it up because my question is, then why is Shamir’s antecedence irrelevant?
Benny Morris
He was a terrorist leader of a very small, marginal group-
He was a terrorist leader of a very small, marginal group-
Mouin Rabbani
Who became-
Who became-
Benny Morris
Hajj Amin al-Husseini was the head of the movement at the time. There’s no comparison.
Hajj Amin al-Husseini was the head of the movement at the time. There’s no comparison.
Steven Bonnell
Also, the point of bringing Husseini-
Also, the point of bringing Husseini-
Mouin Rabbani
There’s no-
There’s no-
Steven Bonnell
The point of bringing up Husseini’s stuff wasn’t to say that he was a great further of the Holocaust, it’s that he might’ve been a great further in the prevention of Jews fleeing to go to Palestine to escape the Holocaust.
The point of bringing up Husseini’s stuff wasn’t to say that he was a great further of the Holocaust, it’s that he might’ve been a great further in the prevention of Jews fleeing to go to Palestine to escape the Holocaust.
Mouin Rabbani
Yes, but the point I made-
Yes, but the point I made-
Steven Bonnell
That was the point.
That was the point.
Mouin Rabbani
And I explained why I think that’s not an entirely accurate characterization. And then I wanted to make another point, if it’s legitimate to bring up his role during World War II, why is it illegitimate to bring up a man who would become Israel’s speaker of parliament, foreign minister? And also-
And I explained why I think that’s not an entirely accurate characterization. And then I wanted to make another point, if it’s legitimate to bring up his role during World War II, why is it illegitimate to bring up a man who would become Israel’s speaker of parliament, foreign minister? And also-
Benny Morris
He was a young terrorist.
He was a young terrorist.
Mouin Rabbani
And was also responsible for the murder of the United Nations’ first international envoy, Folke Bernadotte, why is all that irrelevant? I don’t understand.
And was also responsible for the murder of the United Nations’ first international envoy, Folke Bernadotte, why is all that irrelevant? I don’t understand.
Steven Bonnell
I think that the reason why he was brought up was because Jewish people in this time period would’ve viewed it as there was a prevention of Jews leaving Europe because of the Palestinians pressuring the British to put a curb that 75,000 immigration limit, yes, but it’s not about them furthering the Holocaust or being an architect, major, minor player in the Holocaust. He was a major player in that region, so if you wanted to bring up-
I think that the reason why he was brought up was because Jewish people in this time period would’ve viewed it as there was a prevention of Jews leaving Europe because of the Palestinians pressuring the British to put a curb that 75,000 immigration limit, yes, but it’s not about them furthering the Holocaust or being an architect, major, minor player in the Holocaust. He was a major player in that region, so if you wanted to bring up-
Mouin Rabbani
Benny Morris made the specific claim that the Palestinians played an indirect role in the Holocaust.
Benny Morris made the specific claim that the Palestinians played an indirect role in the Holocaust.
Steven Bonnell
The indirect role would’ve been the prevention of people escaping from Europe.
The indirect role would’ve been the prevention of people escaping from Europe.
Mouin Rabbani
Yes, and my response to that is, first of all, I disagree with that characterization, but second of all-
Yes, and my response to that is, first of all, I disagree with that characterization, but second of all-
Benny Morris
How can you disagree with that? They forced the British to prevent immigration of Jews from Europe and reaching safe shores in Palestine. That’s what they did, and they knew that the Jews were being persecuted in Europe.
How can you disagree with that? They forced the British to prevent immigration of Jews from Europe and reaching safe shores in Palestine. That’s what they did, and they knew that the Jews were being persecuted in Europe.
Mouin Rabbani
Was Palestine the only spot of land on Earth?
Was Palestine the only spot of land on Earth?
Benny Morris
Yes, basically that was the problem. The Jews couldn’t immigrate anywhere else.
Yes, basically that was the problem. The Jews couldn’t immigrate anywhere else.
Mouin Rabbani
What about your great friends in Britain, the architects of the Balfour Declaration?
What about your great friends in Britain, the architects of the Balfour Declaration?
Benny Morris
By the late 1930s, they weren’t-
By the late 1930s, they weren’t-
Mouin Rabbani
What about the United States?
What about the United States?
Benny Morris
… Happy to take in Jews and the Americans weren’t happy to take in Jews.
… Happy to take in Jews and the Americans weren’t happy to take in Jews.
Mouin Rabbani
And why are Palestinians, who were not Europeans, who had zero role in the rise of Nazism, who had no relation to any of this, why are they somehow uniquely responsible for what happened in Europe and uniquely culpable?
And why are Palestinians, who were not Europeans, who had zero role in the rise of Nazism, who had no relation to any of this, why are they somehow uniquely responsible for what happened in Europe and uniquely culpable?
Benny Morris
[inaudible 02:05:41] the only safe haven for Jews, that’s all.
[inaudible 02:05:41] the only safe haven for Jews, that’s all.
Norman Finkelstein
Oh, really? The United States wasn’t a potential safe haven? The only one was Palestine.
Oh, really? The United States wasn’t a potential safe haven? The only one was Palestine.
Benny Morris
At the time.
At the time.
Norman Finkelstein
The United States had no room from the Atlantic to the Pacific for Jews?
The United States had no room from the Atlantic to the Pacific for Jews?
Benny Morris
It did have room, but it didn’t want Jews.
It did have room, but it didn’t want Jews.
Norman Finkelstein
So, that wasn’t the only safe haven.
So, that wasn’t the only safe haven.
Mouin Rabbani
Shouldn’t you be focusing your anger and outrage-
Shouldn’t you be focusing your anger and outrage-
Benny Morris
America should be blamed for not letting Jews in during the ’30s and ’40s.
America should be blamed for not letting Jews in during the ’30s and ’40s.
Norman Finkelstein
They are blamed, but nobody blames them for the Holocaust.
They are blamed, but nobody blames them for the Holocaust.
Benny Morris
Well, indirectly-
Well, indirectly-
Norman Finkelstein
I’ve never heard it said that Franklin Delano Roosevelt was indirectly responsible for the Holocaust. I never heard that. Now, maybe it’s in Israeli literature because the Israelis have gone mad. Yes, your prime minister said the whole idea of the gas chambers came from the mufti of Jerusalem.
I’ve never heard it said that Franklin Delano Roosevelt was indirectly responsible for the Holocaust. I never heard that. Now, maybe it’s in Israeli literature because the Israelis have gone mad. Yes, your prime minister said the whole idea of the gas chambers came from the mufti of Jerusalem.
Benny Morris
That’s nonsense. We all know that’s nonsense.
That’s nonsense. We all know that’s nonsense.
Norman Finkelstein
But we also know that Netanyahu said it.
But we also know that Netanyahu said it.
Benny Morris
Netanyahu says so many things, which are absurd [inaudible 02:06:36]-
Netanyahu says so many things, which are absurd [inaudible 02:06:36]-
Norman Finkelstein
And he happens to be the prime minister [inaudible 02:06:38]-
And he happens to be the prime minister [inaudible 02:06:38]-
Mouin Rabbani
[inaudible 02:06:38] serving prime minister of Israel.
[inaudible 02:06:38] serving prime minister of Israel.
Benny Morris
I can’t be responsible-
I can’t be responsible-
Mouin Rabbani
You’re not responsible for them, but it is relevant that he’s the longest serving prime minister of Israel.
You’re not responsible for them, but it is relevant that he’s the longest serving prime minister of Israel.
Benny Morris
Unfortunately, it says something about the Israeli public, I agree.
Unfortunately, it says something about the Israeli public, I agree.
Mouin Rabbani
Yes, and he gets elected, not despite saying such things, but because he says such.
Yes, and he gets elected, not despite saying such things, but because he says such.
Benny Morris
His voters don’t care about Hajj Amin al-Husseini or Hitler, they know nothing about…
His voters don’t care about Hajj Amin al-Husseini or Hitler, they know nothing about…
Mouin Rabbani
They will be [inaudible 02:07:00].
They will be [inaudible 02:07:00].
Benny Morris
His base know nothing about anything, and he can say what he likes and they’ll say yes, or they don’t care if he says these things.
His base know nothing about anything, and he can say what he likes and they’ll say yes, or they don’t care if he says these things.
Mouin Rabbani
You may well be right, but anyway, not to beat a dead horse, but I still don’t understand-
You may well be right, but anyway, not to beat a dead horse, but I still don’t understand-
Benny Morris
Let’s not beat a dead horse, you’re right.
Let’s not beat a dead horse, you’re right.
Mouin Rabbani
I’ll just conclude by saying I don’t understand why the Mufti of Jerusalem is relevant-
I’ll just conclude by saying I don’t understand why the Mufti of Jerusalem is relevant-
Benny Morris
He is relevant, but-
He is relevant, but-
Benny Morris
The head of the national-
The head of the national-
Mouin Rabbani
… Yitzhak Shamir is not relevant?
… Yitzhak Shamir is not relevant?
Benny Morris
Shamir wasn’t the head of the national movement. He represented 100 or 200 or 300 gunmen who were considered terrorists by the Zionist movement at the time. The fact that 30 years later he becomes prime minister, that’s the crux of history.
Shamir wasn’t the head of the national movement. He represented 100 or 200 or 300 gunmen who were considered terrorists by the Zionist movement at the time. The fact that 30 years later he becomes prime minister, that’s the crux of history.
Mouin Rabbani
And his history is not-
And his history is not-
Benny Morris
Hajj Amin al-Husseini was the head of the Palestine Arab National Movement at the time.
Hajj Amin al-Husseini was the head of the Palestine Arab National Movement at the time.
Mouin Rabbani
Anyway-
Anyway-
Benny Morris
What can you do?
What can you do?
Mouin Rabbani
I think we’re speaking past each other and I’ll leave it there.
I think we’re speaking past each other and I’ll leave it there.
Benny Morris
We’re not, I’m talking facts.
We’re not, I’m talking facts.
October 7
Lex Fridman
Let’s move to the modern day and we’ll return to history, maybe ’67 and other important moments, but let’s look to today, in the recent months, October 7th. Let me ask sort of a pointed question. Was October 7th attacks by Hamas on Israel genocidal? Was it an act of ethnic cleansing? Just so we lay out the moral calculus that we are engaged in, maybe-
Let’s move to the modern day and we’ll return to history, maybe ’67 and other important moments, but let’s look to today, in the recent months, October 7th. Let me ask sort of a pointed question. Was October 7th attacks by Hamas on Israel genocidal? Was it an act of ethnic cleansing? Just so we lay out the moral calculus that we are engaged in, maybe-
Benny Morris
The problem with October 7th is this, the Hamas fighters who invaded Southern Israel were sent, ordered to murder, rape, and do all the nasty things that they did, and they killed some 1,200 Israelis that day and abducted them as we know, something like 250, mostly civilians, also some soldiers, took them back to dungeons in Gaza, but they were motivated not just by the words of their current leader in the Gaza Strip, but by their ideology, which is embedded in their charter from 1988, if I remember correctly, and that charter is genocidal. It says that the Jews must be eradicated basically from the land of Israel, from Palestine. The Jews are described there as sons of apes and pigs. The Jews are a base people, killers of prophets, and they should not exist in Palestine. It doesn’t say that they necessarily should be murdered all around the world, the Hamas charter, but certainly the Jews should be eliminated from Palestine.
The problem with October 7th is this, the Hamas fighters who invaded Southern Israel were sent, ordered to murder, rape, and do all the nasty things that they did, and they killed some 1,200 Israelis that day and abducted them as we know, something like 250, mostly civilians, also some soldiers, took them back to dungeons in Gaza, but they were motivated not just by the words of their current leader in the Gaza Strip, but by their ideology, which is embedded in their charter from 1988, if I remember correctly, and that charter is genocidal. It says that the Jews must be eradicated basically from the land of Israel, from Palestine. The Jews are described there as sons of apes and pigs. The Jews are a base people, killers of prophets, and they should not exist in Palestine. It doesn’t say that they necessarily should be murdered all around the world, the Hamas charter, but certainly the Jews should be eliminated from Palestine.
And this is the driving ideology behind the massacre of the Jews on October 7th, which brought down on the Gaza Strip, and I think with the intention by the Hamas of the Israeli counter offensive because they knew that that counter offensive would result in many Palestinian dead because the Hamas fighters and their weaponry and so on were embedded in the population in Gaza, and they hoped to benefit from this in the eyes of world public opinion as Israel chased these Hamas people and their ammunition dumps and so on and killed lots of Palestinian civilians in the process. All of this was understood by Sinwar, by the head of the Hamas, and he strived for that, but initially he wanted to kill as many Jews as he could in the border areas around the Gaza Strip.
Mouin Rabbani
I’ll respond directly to the points you made, and then I’ll leave it to Norm to bring in the historical context. That Hamas charter is from the ’90s, I think?
I’ll respond directly to the points you made, and then I’ll leave it to Norm to bring in the historical context. That Hamas charter is from the ’90s, I think?
Benny Morris
1988.
1988.
Mouin Rabbani
1988, so it’s from the ’80s. I think your characterization of that charter as antisemitic is indisputable. I think your characterization of that charter as genocidal is off the mark.
1988, so it’s from the ’80s. I think your characterization of that charter as antisemitic is indisputable. I think your characterization of that charter as genocidal is off the mark.
Benny Morris
It’s implicit.
It’s implicit.
Mouin Rabbani
And more importantly, that charter has been superseded by a new charter. In fact, it has been… Well, there is-
And more importantly, that charter has been superseded by a new charter. In fact, it has been… Well, there is-
Benny Morris
There is no new charter. There is an explanation, a statement [inaudible 02:11:06]-
There is no new charter. There is an explanation, a statement [inaudible 02:11:06]-
Norman Finkelstein
2018, a political statement.
2018, a political statement.
Benny Morris
2000 and something.
2000 and something.
Norman Finkelstein
2018.
2018.
Benny Morris
2018, supposedly clarifying things which are in the charter, but it doesn’t actually step back from what the charter says, eliminate Israel, eliminate the Jews from the land of Israel.
2018, supposedly clarifying things which are in the charter, but it doesn’t actually step back from what the charter says, eliminate Israel, eliminate the Jews from the land of Israel.
Mouin Rabbani
In 2018, the Hamas charter, if we look at the current version of the charter-
In 2018, the Hamas charter, if we look at the current version of the charter-
Benny Morris
It’s not called a charter. You’re calling it a charter. It wasn’t. The only thing called the charter is what was issued in 1988 by Yassin himself.
It’s not called a charter. You’re calling it a charter. It wasn’t. The only thing called the charter is what was issued in 1988 by Yassin himself.
Mouin Rabbani
Anyway, it makes a clear distinction between Jews and Zionists in 2018. Now, you can choose to dismiss it, believe it, it’s sincere, it’s insincere, whatever-
Anyway, it makes a clear distinction between Jews and Zionists in 2018. Now, you can choose to dismiss it, believe it, it’s sincere, it’s insincere, whatever-
Benny Morris
Insincere is probably the right word.
Insincere is probably the right word.
Mouin Rabbani
Secondly, I’m really unfamiliar with fighters who consult these kinds of documents before they go on-
Secondly, I’m really unfamiliar with fighters who consult these kinds of documents before they go on-
Benny Morris
They’re brought up on this in their education system. In the kindergarten, they’re told, “Kill the Jews.” They practice with make-believe guns and uniforms when they’re five years old in the kindergartens of the Hamas-
They’re brought up on this in their education system. In the kindergarten, they’re told, “Kill the Jews.” They practice with make-believe guns and uniforms when they’re five years old in the kindergartens of the Hamas-
Mouin Rabbani
At the instruction of the commissioner-general of UNRWA, right?
At the instruction of the commissioner-general of UNRWA, right?
Benny Morris
I didn’t say that. I said the Hamas has kindergartens and summer camps in which they trained to kill Jews, children aged five and six.
I didn’t say that. I said the Hamas has kindergartens and summer camps in which they trained to kill Jews, children aged five and six.
Mouin Rabbani
Secondly, you keep saying Jews, to which I would respond-
Secondly, you keep saying Jews, to which I would respond-
Benny Morris
They use the word Jews.
They use the word Jews.
Mouin Rabbani
To which I would respond that Hamas does not have a record of deliberately targeting Jews who are not Israelis. And in fact, it also doesn’t have a record of deliberately targeting either Jews or Israelis outside Israel and Palestine, so all this talk of-
To which I would respond that Hamas does not have a record of deliberately targeting Jews who are not Israelis. And in fact, it also doesn’t have a record of deliberately targeting either Jews or Israelis outside Israel and Palestine, so all this talk of-
Benny Morris
Unlike the Hezbollah, which has started targeting Jews outside of Palestine.
Unlike the Hezbollah, which has started targeting Jews outside of Palestine.
Mouin Rabbani
We’re talking about October 7th and Hamas. If you’d also like to speak about Hezbollah, let’s get to that separately if you don’t mind. So again, genocidal, well, if that term is going to be discussed, my first response would be let’s talk about potentially genocidal actions against Israelis rather than against Jews for the reasons that I just mentioned. And again, I find this constant conflation of Jews, Israel, Zionism, to be a bit disturbing.
We’re talking about October 7th and Hamas. If you’d also like to speak about Hezbollah, let’s get to that separately if you don’t mind. So again, genocidal, well, if that term is going to be discussed, my first response would be let’s talk about potentially genocidal actions against Israelis rather than against Jews for the reasons that I just mentioned. And again, I find this constant conflation of Jews, Israel, Zionism, to be a bit disturbing.
Secondly, I think there are quite a few indications in the factual record that raise serious questions about the accusations of the genocidal intent and genocidal practice of what happened on October 7th. And my final point would be, I don’t think I should take your word for it, I don’t think you should take my word for it. I think what we need here is a proper independent international investigation, and the reason we need that-
Benny Morris
Of what?
Of what?
Mouin Rabbani
Of genocide during this conflict, whether by Palestinians on October 7th or Israel thereafter, and the reason that we need such an investigation is because Hamas is… There won’t be any hearings on what Hamas did on October 7th at the International Court of Justice because the International Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide deals only with states and not with movements. I think the international criminal court, and specifically its current prosecutor, Karim Khan lacks any and all credibility. He’s been an absolute failure at his job. He’s just been sitting his backside for years on this file. And I think I would point out that Hamas has called for independent investigations of all these allegations. Israel has categorically rejected any international investigation, of course, fully supported by the United States. And I think what is required is to have credible investigations of these things because I don’t think you’re going to convince me, I don’t think I’m going to convince you, and this is two people sitting across the table from each other.
Of genocide during this conflict, whether by Palestinians on October 7th or Israel thereafter, and the reason that we need such an investigation is because Hamas is… There won’t be any hearings on what Hamas did on October 7th at the International Court of Justice because the International Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide deals only with states and not with movements. I think the international criminal court, and specifically its current prosecutor, Karim Khan lacks any and all credibility. He’s been an absolute failure at his job. He’s just been sitting his backside for years on this file. And I think I would point out that Hamas has called for independent investigations of all these allegations. Israel has categorically rejected any international investigation, of course, fully supported by the United States. And I think what is required is to have credible investigations of these things because I don’t think you’re going to convince me, I don’t think I’m going to convince you, and this is two people sitting across the table from each other.
Benny Morris
No, there’s certain things you don’t even have to investigate. You know how many citizens, civilians died in the October 7th assault-
No, there’s certain things you don’t even have to investigate. You know how many citizens, civilians died in the October 7th assault-
Mouin Rabbani
Yes, but that’s not-
Yes, but that’s not-
Benny Morris
You know that there are lots of allegations of rape. I don’t know how persuaded you are of those. They did find bodies without heads, which is-
You know that there are lots of allegations of rape. I don’t know how persuaded you are of those. They did find bodies without heads, which is-
Mouin Rabbani
There were no beheadings of infants.
There were no beheadings of infants.
Benny Morris
There were some beheadings, apparently.
There were some beheadings, apparently.
Norman Finkelstein
The Israelis didn’t even claim that in the document they submitted before the ICJ. Go read what your government submitted. It never mentioned beheadings.
The Israelis didn’t even claim that in the document they submitted before the ICJ. Go read what your government submitted. It never mentioned beheadings.
Benny Morris
Well, as far as I know, there were some people who were beheaded, but-
Well, as far as I know, there were some people who were beheaded, but-
Norman Finkelstein
We could bring it up right now.
We could bring it up right now.
Benny Morris
You also deny that there were rapes there.
You also deny that there were rapes there.
Norman Finkelstein
I didn’t deny. I said I’ve not seen convincing evidence that confirms it. I’ve said that from day one, and I’ll say it today, four and a half months later.
I didn’t deny. I said I’ve not seen convincing evidence that confirms it. I’ve said that from day one, and I’ll say it today, four and a half months later.
Benny Morris
Do you know that they killed eight or 900 civilians in their assault?
Do you know that they killed eight or 900 civilians in their assault?
Norman Finkelstein
Absolutely, that seems to me indisputable.
Absolutely, that seems to me indisputable.
Benny Morris
… 900 civilians in the assault-
… 900 civilians in the assault-
Norman Finkelstein
Absolutely. That seems to me indisputable.
Absolutely. That seems to me indisputable.
Benny Morris
Oh, okay. Well, I’m glad that you’re considering something-
Oh, okay. Well, I’m glad that you’re considering something-
Norman Finkelstein
I’ve said that from day one.
I’ve said that from day one.
Steven Bonnell
Well, to be clear, you haven’t. You did a debate… I don’t remember the talk show, but you seemed to imply that there was a lot of crossfire and then it might’ve been the IDF that had killed a lot of-
Well, to be clear, you haven’t. You did a debate… I don’t remember the talk show, but you seemed to imply that there was a lot of crossfire and then it might’ve been the IDF that had killed a lot of-
Norman Finkelstein
I said that there is no question because the names were published in Haaretz. There is no question that roughly of the 1200 people killed, 800 of them were civilians-
I said that there is no question because the names were published in Haaretz. There is no question that roughly of the 1200 people killed, 800 of them were civilians-
Benny Morris
850.
850.
Norman Finkelstein
850, fine. So I never said that, but then I said, “No, we don’t know exactly how they were killed.” But 800 civilians killed, no, 850, no question there. And I also said on repeated occasions, there cannot be any doubt, in my opinion as of now with the available evidence, that Hamas was responsible for significant atrocities, and I made sure to include the plural.
850, fine. So I never said that, but then I said, “No, we don’t know exactly how they were killed.” But 800 civilians killed, no, 850, no question there. And I also said on repeated occasions, there cannot be any doubt, in my opinion as of now with the available evidence, that Hamas was responsible for significant atrocities, and I made sure to include the plural.
Steven Bonnell
There’s a lot of tricky language being employed here. Do you think of the 850-
There’s a lot of tricky language being employed here. Do you think of the 850-
Norman Finkelstein
There’s nothing tricky. It’s called attaching value to words and not talking like a motormouth. I am very careful about qualifying because that’s what language is about.
There’s nothing tricky. It’s called attaching value to words and not talking like a motormouth. I am very careful about qualifying because that’s what language is about.
Steven Bonnell
That’s great. Then let me just ask a clarifying question, do you firmly believe that the majority of the 850 civilians were killed by Hamas?
That’s great. Then let me just ask a clarifying question, do you firmly believe that the majority of the 850 civilians were killed by Hamas?
Norman Finkelstein
My view is, even if it were half, 400 is a huge number by any reckoning-
My view is, even if it were half, 400 is a huge number by any reckoning-
Benny Morris
Why-
Why-
Steven Bonnell
Okay, wait. You didn’t-
Okay, wait. You didn’t-
Norman Finkelstein
I said even if-
I said even if-
Steven Bonnell
Wait, wait, wait-
Wait, wait, wait-
Norman Finkelstein
Because Benny, because Professor Morris, I don’t know. I agree with Mouin Rabbani, I’m not sure if he concedes the 400. I’ll say-
Because Benny, because Professor Morris, I don’t know. I agree with Mouin Rabbani, I’m not sure if he concedes the 400. I’ll say-
Benny Morris
Why 400? Whoever thought up the number, 400? 800 of the 850 were slaughtered by Hamas. Maybe a couple of individuals were killed in Israeli action-
Why 400? Whoever thought up the number, 400? 800 of the 850 were slaughtered by Hamas. Maybe a couple of individuals were killed in Israeli action-
Norman Finkelstein
I don’t know. Professor Morris-
I don’t know. Professor Morris-
Steven Bonnell
You’re saying from day one, you believed this particular thing, and you clearly don’t. You clearly don’t believe this thing-
You’re saying from day one, you believed this particular thing, and you clearly don’t. You clearly don’t believe this thing-
Norman Finkelstein
I said from day one day one-
I said from day one day one-
Steven Bonnell
You said people died. That’s not controversial-
You said people died. That’s not controversial-
Mouin Rabbani
Wait. Hold on, hold on. If I may-
Wait. Hold on, hold on. If I may-
Steven Bonnell
That’s not controversial.
That’s not controversial.
Norman Finkelstein
Mr. Bonnell, I attach value to words-
Mr. Bonnell, I attach value to words-
Steven Bonnell
Yes, you’ve said that. If you value them, stop repeating them so much.
Yes, you’ve said that. If you value them, stop repeating them so much.
Norman Finkelstein
Mr. Bonnell, please slow down the speech and attempt to listen. When I was explicitly asked by Piers Morgan, I said there can be no question that Hamas committed atrocities-
Mr. Bonnell, please slow down the speech and attempt to listen. When I was explicitly asked by Piers Morgan, I said there can be no question that Hamas committed atrocities-
Steven Bonnell
Committed atrocities. I’ve heard this, yes.
Committed atrocities. I’ve heard this, yes.
Norman Finkelstein
… on October 7th. If you want me to pin down a number, I can’t do that-
… on October 7th. If you want me to pin down a number, I can’t do that-
Steven Bonnell
I didn’t ask you to pin down a number. You can listen to what I’m-
I didn’t ask you to pin down a number. You can listen to what I’m-
Norman Finkelstein
You didn’t ask me?
You didn’t ask me?
Steven Bonnell
No. My question is-
No. My question is-
Norman Finkelstein
Okay.
Okay.
Steven Bonnell
I’ll ask a very precise-
I’ll ask a very precise-
Norman Finkelstein
Mr. Bonnell, I cannot speak to you because you’re not-
Mr. Bonnell, I cannot speak to you because you’re not-
Mouin Rabbani
Sorry, excuse me-
Sorry, excuse me-
Steven Bonnell
It’s a very easy question-
It’s a very easy question-
Mouin Rabbani
If I understood your question correctly-
If I understood your question correctly-
Steven Bonnell
My question is, do you think the majority of the people that were killed on October 7th, the civilians, were killed by Hamas, or are we subscribing to the idea that the IDF killed hundreds, four or 500 in the crossfire?
My question is, do you think the majority of the people that were killed on October 7th, the civilians, were killed by Hamas, or are we subscribing to the idea that the IDF killed hundreds, four or 500 in the crossfire?
Mouin Rabbani
No, but let me explain why that’s a difficult question to answer. The total number of civilians killed was 800, 850. We know that Hamas is responsible, probably for the majority of those killings. We also know that there were killings by Islamic Jihad. We also know-
No, but let me explain why that’s a difficult question to answer. The total number of civilians killed was 800, 850. We know that Hamas is responsible, probably for the majority of those killings. We also know that there were killings by Islamic Jihad. We also know-
Benny Morris
No, we’re Bunching together the Islamic Jihad and Hamas. That’s splitting hairs now-
No, we’re Bunching together the Islamic Jihad and Hamas. That’s splitting hairs now-
Mouin Rabbani
But his question was specifically about-
But his question was specifically about-
Benny Morris
No, but he means the raiders. He means the raiders.
No, but he means the raiders. He means the raiders.
Steven Bonnell
I’m speaking in opposition to the conspiracy theory that people like… Do you prefer Norm or Professor Finkelstein? I don’t know, how do you prefer to be addressed?
I’m speaking in opposition to the conspiracy theory that people like… Do you prefer Norm or Professor Finkelstein? I don’t know, how do you prefer to be addressed?
Mouin Rabbani
Well, it’s not a conspiracy theory there because it’s-
Well, it’s not a conspiracy theory there because it’s-
Steven Bonnell
Well, the conspiracy theory is the idea that the IDF killed the majority of them.
Well, the conspiracy theory is the idea that the IDF killed the majority of them.
Mouin Rabbani
It’s not a conspiracy theory-
It’s not a conspiracy theory-
Steven Bonnell
And there is also a theory that, as Norm pointed out on the show that he was on, that he thought that it was very strange that, given how reputable Israeli services are when it comes to sending ambulances, retrieving bodies, he thought it was very strange that that number was continually being adjusted-
And there is also a theory that, as Norm pointed out on the show that he was on, that he thought that it was very strange that, given how reputable Israeli services are when it comes to sending ambulances, retrieving bodies, he thought it was very strange that that number was continually being adjusted-
Norman Finkelstein
Yeah, I did find it-
Yeah, I did find it-
Mouin Rabbani
And do you know why-
And do you know why-
Steven Bonnell
So when you say that in combination with, “Well, I’m not sure how many were killed by Hamas and the IDF-“
So when you say that in combination with, “Well, I’m not sure how many were killed by Hamas and the IDF-“
Mouin Rabbani
Do you know why the number went down? The number went down because the Israeli authorities were in possession of 200 corpses that were burned to a crisp that they assumed were Israelis who had been killed on October 7th. They later determined that these were in fact Palestinian fighters. Now, how does a Palestinian fighter get burned to a crisp?
Do you know why the number went down? The number went down because the Israeli authorities were in possession of 200 corpses that were burned to a crisp that they assumed were Israelis who had been killed on October 7th. They later determined that these were in fact Palestinian fighters. Now, how does a Palestinian fighter get burned to a crisp?
Benny Morris
No, you’re mixing two things. Some of the bodies, they weren’t able to identify, and eventually they ruled that some of them were actually Arab marauders rather than Israeli victims. A few of them also of the Jews were burnt to a crisp and it took them time to work this out, and they came out initially with a slightly higher figure, 1,400 dead, and eventually reduced it to 1,200 dead Israelis-
No, you’re mixing two things. Some of the bodies, they weren’t able to identify, and eventually they ruled that some of them were actually Arab marauders rather than Israeli victims. A few of them also of the Jews were burnt to a crisp and it took them time to work this out, and they came out initially with a slightly higher figure, 1,400 dead, and eventually reduced it to 1,200 dead Israelis-
Mouin Rabbani
And the reason is that a proportion of Israeli civilians killed on October 7th… I don’t believe it was a majority. We don’t know how many. Some were killed in the crossfire, some were killed by Israeli shellfire, helicopter fire and so on, and the majority were killed by Palestinians. And of that majority, we don’t know… Again, I understood your question is referring specifically to Hamas, which is why I tried to answer it that way. But if you meant generically Palestinians, yes. If you mean specifically Hamas, we don’t have a clear breakdown of how many were-
And the reason is that a proportion of Israeli civilians killed on October 7th… I don’t believe it was a majority. We don’t know how many. Some were killed in the crossfire, some were killed by Israeli shellfire, helicopter fire and so on, and the majority were killed by Palestinians. And of that majority, we don’t know… Again, I understood your question is referring specifically to Hamas, which is why I tried to answer it that way. But if you meant generically Palestinians, yes. If you mean specifically Hamas, we don’t have a clear breakdown of how many were-
Steven Bonnell
No, I don’t mean specifically Hamas. But I just think when you use the word some, that’s doing a lot of heavy lifting.
No, I don’t mean specifically Hamas. But I just think when you use the word some, that’s doing a lot of heavy lifting.
Norman Finkelstein
Who used some?
Who used some?
Steven Bonnell
That’s fine. But some can mean anywhere from 1% to 49%-
That’s fine. But some can mean anywhere from 1% to 49%-
Norman Finkelstein
Who used some?
Who used some?
Mouin Rabbani
But we don’t know.
But we don’t know.
Lex Fridman
So the numbers here in the details are interesting and important almost from a legal perspective, but if we zoom out, the moral perspective, are Palestinians from Gaza justified in violent resistance?
So the numbers here in the details are interesting and important almost from a legal perspective, but if we zoom out, the moral perspective, are Palestinians from Gaza justified in violent resistance?
Mouin Rabbani
Well, Palestinians have the right to resistance. That right includes the right to armed resistance. At the same time, armed resistance is subject to the laws of war, and there are very clear regulations that separate legitimate acts of armed resistance from acts of armed resistance that are not legitimate-
Well, Palestinians have the right to resistance. That right includes the right to armed resistance. At the same time, armed resistance is subject to the laws of war, and there are very clear regulations that separate legitimate acts of armed resistance from acts of armed resistance that are not legitimate-
Lex Fridman
The attacks of October 7th, where do they land for you?
The attacks of October 7th, where do they land for you?
Mouin Rabbani
There’s been almost exclusive focus on the attacks on civilian population centers and the killings of civilians on October 7th. What is much less discussed to the point of amnesia is that there were very extensive attacks on Israeli military and intelligence facilities on October 7th. I would make a very clear distinction between those two. And secondly, I’m not sure that I would characterize the efforts by Palestinians on October 7th to seize Israeli territory and Israeli population centers as in and of themselves illegitimate.
There’s been almost exclusive focus on the attacks on civilian population centers and the killings of civilians on October 7th. What is much less discussed to the point of amnesia is that there were very extensive attacks on Israeli military and intelligence facilities on October 7th. I would make a very clear distinction between those two. And secondly, I’m not sure that I would characterize the efforts by Palestinians on October 7th to seize Israeli territory and Israeli population centers as in and of themselves illegitimate.
Benny Morris
You mean attacking Israeli civilians is legitimate?
You mean attacking Israeli civilians is legitimate?
Mouin Rabbani
No. That’s not what I said.
No. That’s not what I said.
Benny Morris
I didn’t understand what you said.
I didn’t understand what you said.
Mouin Rabbani
I think what you had on October 7th was an effort by Hamas to seize Israeli territory and population centers-
I think what you had on October 7th was an effort by Hamas to seize Israeli territory and population centers-
Benny Morris
And kill civilians.
And kill civilians.
Mouin Rabbani
That’s not what I said. What I said is, I would not describe the effort to seize Israeli territory as in and of itself illegitimate, as a separate issue from the killing of Israeli civilians in those cases where they had been deliberately targeted. That’s very clearly illegitimate.
That’s not what I said. What I said is, I would not describe the effort to seize Israeli territory as in and of itself illegitimate, as a separate issue from the killing of Israeli civilians in those cases where they had been deliberately targeted. That’s very clearly illegitimate.
Benny Morris
Whole families were slaughtered in kibbutzim, many of them left-wingers incidentally who helped Palestinians go to hospitals in Israel and so on, even drove Palestinian cancer patients to hospitals in Israeli-
Whole families were slaughtered in kibbutzim, many of them left-wingers incidentally who helped Palestinians go to hospitals in Israel and so on, even drove Palestinian cancer patients to hospitals in Israeli-
Mouin Rabbani
Again, I’m making a distinction here-
Again, I’m making a distinction here-
Benny Morris
But you don’t seem to be very condemnatory of what the Hamas did.
But you don’t seem to be very condemnatory of what the Hamas did.
Mouin Rabbani
Well, I don’t do selective condemnation-
Well, I don’t do selective condemnation-
Benny Morris
I’m not talking about selective. I’m talking about-
I’m not talking about selective. I’m talking about-
Mouin Rabbani
I don’t do selective outrage.
I don’t do selective outrage.
Benny Morris
… specific condemnation of this specific assault on civilians. I would, for example, condemn Israeli assaults on civilians, deliberate assaults on civilians. I would condemn them, but you’re not doing that with the Hamas.
… specific condemnation of this specific assault on civilians. I would, for example, condemn Israeli assaults on civilians, deliberate assaults on civilians. I would condemn them, but you’re not doing that with the Hamas.
Mouin Rabbani
You know what the issue is?
You know what the issue is?
Benny Morris
What?
What?
Mouin Rabbani
I’ve been speaking in public now, I would say since the late-1980s and interviewed and so on. I have never on one occasion ever been asked to condemn any Israeli act. When I’ve been in group discussions, those supporting the Israeli action or perspective, I have never encountered an example where these individuals are asked to condemn what Israel is doing. The demand and obligation of condemnation is exclusively applied, in my personal experience over decades, is exclusively applied to Palestinians-
I’ve been speaking in public now, I would say since the late-1980s and interviewed and so on. I have never on one occasion ever been asked to condemn any Israeli act. When I’ve been in group discussions, those supporting the Israeli action or perspective, I have never encountered an example where these individuals are asked to condemn what Israel is doing. The demand and obligation of condemnation is exclusively applied, in my personal experience over decades, is exclusively applied to Palestinians-
Benny Morris
No, this is [inaudible 02:25:04] Israel is condemned day and night on every television channel, and has been for the last-
No, this is [inaudible 02:25:04] Israel is condemned day and night on every television channel, and has been for the last-
Mouin Rabbani
I’m telling you about personal experience lasting decades-
I’m telling you about personal experience lasting decades-
Norman Finkelstein
You said quote-
You said quote-
Steven Bonnell
Uh-oh. Oh, no.
Uh-oh. Oh, no.
Norman Finkelstein
I’m trying to quote what you just said. You said-
I’m trying to quote what you just said. You said-
Benny Morris
I shouldn’t have said anything at any [inaudible 02:25:20]
I shouldn’t have said anything at any [inaudible 02:25:20]
Norman Finkelstein
Professor Morris?
Professor Morris?
Benny Morris
Yes.
Yes.
Norman Finkelstein
You just said, “I would condemn anytime Israel deliberately attacks civilians.” The problem, Professor Morris, is, over and over again, you claim in the face of overwhelming evidence that they didn’t attack civilians-
You just said, “I would condemn anytime Israel deliberately attacks civilians.” The problem, Professor Morris, is, over and over again, you claim in the face of overwhelming evidence that they didn’t attack civilians-
Benny Morris
That’s not true. I’ve said Israel has attacked civilians. In [inaudible 02:25:51] Israel attacked civilians, and I’ve written extensively about it. In Kfar Qasim, they killed civilians, and I’ve written that. So you’re just admitting you’re selecting… As Steven says, you cherry-pick. You cherry-pick.
That’s not true. I’ve said Israel has attacked civilians. In [inaudible 02:25:51] Israel attacked civilians, and I’ve written extensively about it. In Kfar Qasim, they killed civilians, and I’ve written that. So you’re just admitting you’re selecting… As Steven says, you cherry-pick. You cherry-pick.
Norman Finkelstein
Okay, let’s fast-forward. When you were an adult, what did you say about the 1982 Lebanon War?
Okay, let’s fast-forward. When you were an adult, what did you say about the 1982 Lebanon War?
Benny Morris
What did I say?
What did I say?
Norman Finkelstein
You don’t remember? Okay, allow me.
You don’t remember? Okay, allow me.
Steven Bonnell
Uh-oh.
Uh-oh.
Norman Finkelstein
Okay. So it happens that I had no interest in the Israel-Palestine conflict as a young man-
Okay. So it happens that I had no interest in the Israel-Palestine conflict as a young man-
Benny Morris
This is true.
This is true.
Norman Finkelstein
… until the 1982 Lebanon War.
… until the 1982 Lebanon War.
Benny Morris
Yep. He’s lost the passage-
Yep. He’s lost the passage-
Norman Finkelstein
I’ll find it.
I’ll find it.
Steven Bonnell
Okay, real quick while he’s searching for that, you bring up something that’s really important that a lot of people don’t draw a distinction between, in that there is just causes for war and there is just ways to act within a war, and these two things principally do have a distinction from one another.
Okay, real quick while he’s searching for that, you bring up something that’s really important that a lot of people don’t draw a distinction between, in that there is just causes for war and there is just ways to act within a war, and these two things principally do have a distinction from one another.
Mouin Rabbani
Correct.
Correct.
Steven Bonnell
However, while I appreciate the recognition of the distinction, the idea that the cause for war that Hamas was engaged in, if we look at their actions in war or the statements that they’ve made, it doesn’t seem like it had to do with the territorial acquisition.
However, while I appreciate the recognition of the distinction, the idea that the cause for war that Hamas was engaged in, if we look at their actions in war or the statements that they’ve made, it doesn’t seem like it had to do with the territorial acquisition.
Mouin Rabbani
No, no, no-
No, no, no-
Steven Bonnell
By taking land back.
By taking land back.
Mouin Rabbani
No, the point I was making was, what was Hamas trying to achieve militarily on October 7th? And I was pointing out that the focus has been very much on Hamas attacks on civilians and atrocities and so on. And I’m not saying those things should be ignored. What I’m saying is that what’s getting lost in the shuffle is that there were extensive attacks on military and intelligence facilities. And as far as the other aspects are concerned, because I think either you or Lex asked me about the legitimacy of these attacks, I said I’m unclear whether efforts by Hamas to seize Israeli population centers in and of themselves are illegitimate as opposed to actions that either deliberately targeted Israeli civilians or actions that should reasonably have been expected to result in the killings of Israeli civilians. Those strike me as, by definition, illegitimate, and I want to be very clear about that. I have-
No, the point I was making was, what was Hamas trying to achieve militarily on October 7th? And I was pointing out that the focus has been very much on Hamas attacks on civilians and atrocities and so on. And I’m not saying those things should be ignored. What I’m saying is that what’s getting lost in the shuffle is that there were extensive attacks on military and intelligence facilities. And as far as the other aspects are concerned, because I think either you or Lex asked me about the legitimacy of these attacks, I said I’m unclear whether efforts by Hamas to seize Israeli population centers in and of themselves are illegitimate as opposed to actions that either deliberately targeted Israeli civilians or actions that should reasonably have been expected to result in the killings of Israeli civilians. Those strike me as, by definition, illegitimate, and I want to be very clear about that. I have-
Benny Morris
Illegitimate means you condemn them?
Illegitimate means you condemn them?
Mouin Rabbani
Illegitimate means they are not legitimate. I have a problem-
Illegitimate means they are not legitimate. I have a problem-
Benny Morris
Condemning your side, yes.
Condemning your side, yes.
Mouin Rabbani
No, not condemning my side. I have a problem with selective outrage and I have a problem with selective condemnation. And as I explained to you a few minutes ago, in my decades of appearing in public and being interviewed, I have never been asked to condemn an Israeli action, I’ve never been asked for a moral judgment on an Israeli action. Exclusive requests for condemnation has to do with what Palestinians [inaudible 02:29:01] And just as importantly, I’m sure if you watch BBC or CNN, when is the last time an Israeli spokesperson has been asked to condemn an Israeli act? I’ve never seen it.
No, not condemning my side. I have a problem with selective outrage and I have a problem with selective condemnation. And as I explained to you a few minutes ago, in my decades of appearing in public and being interviewed, I have never been asked to condemn an Israeli action, I’ve never been asked for a moral judgment on an Israeli action. Exclusive requests for condemnation has to do with what Palestinians [inaudible 02:29:01] And just as importantly, I’m sure if you watch BBC or CNN, when is the last time an Israeli spokesperson has been asked to condemn an Israeli act? I’ve never seen it.
Steven Bonnell
I don’t think we condemn the Arab side either though, right? I don’t think there’s any condemnation-
I don’t think we condemn the Arab side either though, right? I don’t think there’s any condemnation-
Mouin Rabbani
No. But now that we’re talking about Israeli victims, all of a sudden morality is central-
No. But now that we’re talking about Israeli victims, all of a sudden morality is central-
Steven Bonnell
Well, I think the reason why it comes up is because there’s no shortage of international condemnation for Israel. As Norm will point out a million times, that there are 50 billion UN resolutions, you’ve got Amnesty International, you’ve got multiple bodies of the UN, you’ve got now this case for the ICJ. So there’s no question of if there’s condemnation for Israel-
Well, I think the reason why it comes up is because there’s no shortage of international condemnation for Israel. As Norm will point out a million times, that there are 50 billion UN resolutions, you’ve got Amnesty International, you’ve got multiple bodies of the UN, you’ve got now this case for the ICJ. So there’s no question of if there’s condemnation for Israel-
Mouin Rabbani
But sorry, if I can interrupt you, in 1948, the entire world stood behind the establishment of a Jewish state, and the entire world-
But sorry, if I can interrupt you, in 1948, the entire world stood behind the establishment of a Jewish state, and the entire world-
Benny Morris
No, except Arab states and the Muslim states. Not the entire world.
No, except Arab states and the Muslim states. Not the entire world.
Mouin Rabbani
Okay, but I think you know what I mean by that.
Okay, but I think you know what I mean by that.
Benny Morris
The Western democracies, that’s what you’re saying. Western democracies supported the establishment of Israel.
The Western democracies, that’s what you’re saying. Western democracies supported the establishment of Israel.
Steven Bonnell
My quick question was, you said that you believe that… This is a very short one, you don’t have to… You think that there’s an argument to be made that the people in Gaza, Hamas and Islamic Jihad or whoever participated had a just cause for war. Maybe they didn’t do it in the correct way, but they maybe had a just cause for war, which is-
My quick question was, you said that you believe that… This is a very short one, you don’t have to… You think that there’s an argument to be made that the people in Gaza, Hamas and Islamic Jihad or whoever participated had a just cause for war. Maybe they didn’t do it in the correct way, but they maybe had a just cause for war, which is-
Mouin Rabbani
I don’t think there’s a maybe there. The Palestinians have-
I don’t think there’s a maybe there. The Palestinians have-
Steven Bonnell
Okay, you think they absolutely had a just cause for it.
Okay, you think they absolutely had a just cause for it.
Mouin Rabbani
Yes.
Yes.
Steven Bonnell
Do you think that Israel has a just cause for Operation Swords of Iron?
Do you think that Israel has a just cause for Operation Swords of Iron?
Mouin Rabbani
No, of course not.
No, of course not.
Steven Bonnell
All right. You can say your quote.
All right. You can say your quote.
Norman Finkelstein
Okay. First of all, on this issue of double standards, which is the one that irks or irritates Mouin, you said that you are not a person of double standards, unlike people like Mouin. You hold high a single standard and you condemn deliberate Israeli attacks on-
Okay. First of all, on this issue of double standards, which is the one that irks or irritates Mouin, you said that you are not a person of double standards, unlike people like Mouin. You hold high a single standard and you condemn deliberate Israeli attacks on-
Mouin Rabbani
Civilians.
Civilians.
Norman Finkelstein
… civilians. And I would say that’s true for the period up till 1967, and I think it’s accurate, your account of the First Intifada. There, it seems to me you are in conformity with most mainstream accounts and the case of the First Intifada. Surprisingly, you used Arab human rights sources like Al-Haq, which I think Mouin worked for during the First Intifada. That’s true. But then something very strange happens, so let’s illustrate it-
… civilians. And I would say that’s true for the period up till 1967, and I think it’s accurate, your account of the First Intifada. There, it seems to me you are in conformity with most mainstream accounts and the case of the First Intifada. Surprisingly, you used Arab human rights sources like Al-Haq, which I think Mouin worked for during the First Intifada. That’s true. But then something very strange happens, so let’s illustrate it-
Benny Morris
Wait, the something strange which happened is the Arabs rejected Israel’s peace offers-
Wait, the something strange which happened is the Arabs rejected Israel’s peace offers-
Norman Finkelstein
Okay, wait.
Okay, wait.
Benny Morris
That’s what happened.
That’s what happened.
Mouin Rabbani
By accepting the Oslo agreements.
By accepting the Oslo agreements.
Norman Finkelstein
Yeah.
Yeah.
Benny Morris
Not the-
Not the-
Steven Bonnell
By rejecting… He’s talking about Camp David and Taba.
By rejecting… He’s talking about Camp David and Taba.
Benny Morris
I’m talking about Camp David.
I’m talking about Camp David.
Norman Finkelstein
If we have time, I know the record very well, I’d be very happy to go through it with you, but let’s get to those double standards. So, this is what you have to say about Israel’s invasion of Lebanon in 1982. You said, “Israel was reluctant to harm civilians, sought to avoid casualties on both sides, and took care not to harm Lebanese and Palestinian civilians.” You then went on to acknowledge the massive use of IDF firepower against civilians during the Siege of Beirut which traumatized Israeli society. Morris quickly enters the caveat that Israel “tried to pinpoint military targets, but inevitably many civilians were hit.”
If we have time, I know the record very well, I’d be very happy to go through it with you, but let’s get to those double standards. So, this is what you have to say about Israel’s invasion of Lebanon in 1982. You said, “Israel was reluctant to harm civilians, sought to avoid casualties on both sides, and took care not to harm Lebanese and Palestinian civilians.” You then went on to acknowledge the massive use of IDF firepower against civilians during the Siege of Beirut which traumatized Israeli society. Morris quickly enters the caveat that Israel “tried to pinpoint military targets, but inevitably many civilians were hit.”
That’s your description of the Lebanon War. As I say, that’s when I first got involved in the conflict. I am a voracious reader. I read everything on the Lebanon War. I would say there’s not a single account of the Lebanon War in which the estimates are between 15 and 20,000 Palestinian, Lebanese were killed, overwhelmingly civilians, the biggest bloodletting until the current Gaza genocide. Biggest bloodletting. I would say I can’t think of a single mainstream account that remotely approximates what you just said. So leaving aside… I can name the books. Voluminous, huge volumes. I’ll just take one example. Now you will remember, because I think you served in Lebanon in ’82. Am I correct on that?
Benny Morris
Yeah.
Yeah.
Norman Finkelstein
So you will remember that Dov Yermiya kept a war diary. So with your permission, allow me to describe what he wrote during his diary. He writes, “The war machine of the IDF is galloping and trampling over the conquered territory, demonstrating a total insensitivity to the fate of the Arabs who are found in its path. A PLO-run hospital suffered a direct hit. Thousands of refugees are returning to the city. When they arrive at their homes, many of which have been destroyed or damaged, you hear their cries of pain and their howls over the deaths of their loved ones. The air is permeated with the smell of corpses. Destruction and death are continuing-“
So you will remember that Dov Yermiya kept a war diary. So with your permission, allow me to describe what he wrote during his diary. He writes, “The war machine of the IDF is galloping and trampling over the conquered territory, demonstrating a total insensitivity to the fate of the Arabs who are found in its path. A PLO-run hospital suffered a direct hit. Thousands of refugees are returning to the city. When they arrive at their homes, many of which have been destroyed or damaged, you hear their cries of pain and their howls over the deaths of their loved ones. The air is permeated with the smell of corpses. Destruction and death are continuing-“
Benny Morris
Yeah, point made. The point you’re making actually-
Yeah, point made. The point you’re making actually-
Norman Finkelstein
Does that sound like your description of the Lebanon War?
Does that sound like your description of the Lebanon War?
Benny Morris
Forget my description-
Forget my description-
Norman Finkelstein
Forget it?
Forget it?
Benny Morris
The point you’re making-
The point you’re making-
Norman Finkelstein
The words are in print. We can’t just forget them-
The words are in print. We can’t just forget them-
Benny Morris
Let me just finish my sentence. The point you’re making, which you somehow forget, is that there are Israelis who strongly criticize their own side and describe how Israelis are doing things which they regard as immoral. You don’t find that on the Arab sides-
Let me just finish my sentence. The point you’re making, which you somehow forget, is that there are Israelis who strongly criticize their own side and describe how Israelis are doing things which they regard as immoral. You don’t find that on the Arab sides-
Norman Finkelstein
I’m talking about you, Mr. Morris. I’m not talking about Dov Yermiya, I’m talking about you, the historian. How did you depict the Lebanon War?
I’m talking about you, Mr. Morris. I’m not talking about Dov Yermiya, I’m talking about you, the historian. How did you depict the Lebanon War?
Benny Morris
Because I believe that the Israeli military tried to avoid committing a civilian [inaudible 02:35:18] as I think they fail to do in Gaza now-
Because I believe that the Israeli military tried to avoid committing a civilian [inaudible 02:35:18] as I think they fail to do in Gaza now-
Norman Finkelstein
All the accounts by Robert Fisk in Pity the Nation-
All the accounts by Robert Fisk in Pity the Nation-
Benny Morris
Robert Fisk is a anti-Zionist journalist-
Robert Fisk is a anti-Zionist journalist-
Norman Finkelstein
I know.
I know.
Benny Morris
Has always been.
Has always been.
Norman Finkelstein
Right. So that’s why you can say with such confidence that you don’t condemn deliberate Israeli attacks on civilians-
Right. So that’s why you can say with such confidence that you don’t condemn deliberate Israeli attacks on civilians-
Mouin Rabbani
Because there weren’t any.
Because there weren’t any.
Norman Finkelstein
… because there weren’t any.
… because there weren’t any.
Benny Morris
No, I didn’t say there weren’t any-
No, I didn’t say there weren’t any-
Norman Finkelstein
Yeah, you didn’t?
Yeah, you didn’t?
Benny Morris
You agreed that I have condemned Israeli attacks on civilians.
You agreed that I have condemned Israeli attacks on civilians.
Norman Finkelstein
I never quarrel with facts. Your description of the 1982 War is so shocking, it makes my innards writhe. And then your description of the Second Intifada, your description of Defensive Shield, they were worse than apologetics-
I never quarrel with facts. Your description of the 1982 War is so shocking, it makes my innards writhe. And then your description of the Second Intifada, your description of Defensive Shield, they were worse than apologetics-
Benny Morris
When Arab suicide bombers were destroying Jews in masses in buses and in restaurants, that’s the Second Intifada. Do you remember that?
When Arab suicide bombers were destroying Jews in masses in buses and in restaurants, that’s the Second Intifada. Do you remember that?
Norman Finkelstein
You can try everything-
You can try everything-
Benny Morris
Suicide bombers in Jerusalem’s buses and restaurants, and in Tel Aviv-
Suicide bombers in Jerusalem’s buses and restaurants, and in Tel Aviv-
Norman Finkelstein
I am completely aware of that, but if you forgot the numbers-
I am completely aware of that, but if you forgot the numbers-
Benny Morris
I don’t forget the numbers-
I don’t forget the numbers-
Norman Finkelstein
… it was three to one. The number-
… it was three to one. The number-
Benny Morris
They killed mostly armed-
They killed mostly armed-
Norman Finkelstein
No-
No-
Benny Morris
… Palestinian gunmen.
… Palestinian gunmen.
Norman Finkelstein
That’s what you say in your book-
That’s what you say in your book-
Benny Morris
That’s what I say. That’s what I think.
That’s what I say. That’s what I think.
Norman Finkelstein
… but that’s not what Amnesty International said. That’s not what Human Rights Watch said-
… but that’s not what Amnesty International said. That’s not what Human Rights Watch said-
Benny Morris
I don’t remember what they said.
I don’t remember what they said.
Norman Finkelstein
I do. That’s not what [inaudible 02:36:45] said-
I do. That’s not what [inaudible 02:36:45] said-
Benny Morris
I don’t know whether their figures are right. My figures are right.
I don’t know whether their figures are right. My figures are right.
Norman Finkelstein
Listen, listen-
Listen, listen-
Benny Morris
In the Second Intifada, some 4,000 Palestinians were killed, most of them armed people. And 1,000 Israelis were killed, almost all of them [inaudible 02:36:59] civilians.
In the Second Intifada, some 4,000 Palestinians were killed, most of them armed people. And 1,000 Israelis were killed, almost all of them [inaudible 02:36:59] civilians.
Norman Finkelstein
Professor Morris, fantasy, but I’m not going to argue with here. Here’s a simple challenge… You said not to look at the camera-
Professor Morris, fantasy, but I’m not going to argue with here. Here’s a simple challenge… You said not to look at the camera-
Lex Fridman
Sometimes.
Sometimes.
Norman Finkelstein
It scares the people. I’ll make the open challenge.
It scares the people. I’ll make the open challenge.
Benny Morris
You are going to scare them.
You are going to scare them.
Norman Finkelstein
No. Professor Morris-
No. Professor Morris-
Steven Bonnell
Open challenge.
Open challenge.
Norman Finkelstein
… words are in print. I wrote 50 pages analyzing all of your work. I quote, some will say cherry-pick but I think, accurately quote you. Here’s a simple challenge. Answer me in print. Answer what I wrote and show where I’m making things up. Answer me in print-
… words are in print. I wrote 50 pages analyzing all of your work. I quote, some will say cherry-pick but I think, accurately quote you. Here’s a simple challenge. Answer me in print. Answer what I wrote and show where I’m making things up. Answer me in print-
Benny Morris
I’m not familiar. I’m sorry, but I’m not familiar with what you wrote.
I’m not familiar. I’m sorry, but I’m not familiar with what you wrote.
Norman Finkelstein
That’s no problem. You’re a busy man, you’re an important historian. You don’t have to know everything that’s in print, especially by modest publishers. But now you know, and so here’s the public challenge. You answer and show where I cherry-picked, where I misrepresented-
That’s no problem. You’re a busy man, you’re an important historian. You don’t have to know everything that’s in print, especially by modest publishers. But now you know, and so here’s the public challenge. You answer and show where I cherry-picked, where I misrepresented-
Benny Morris
Send me the article, I will-
Send me the article, I will-
Norman Finkelstein
Fine, I will, and then we can have a civil scholarly discussion and-
Fine, I will, and then we can have a civil scholarly discussion and-
Benny Morris
I’m not sure we will agree, even if I-
I’m not sure we will agree, even if I-
Norman Finkelstein
We don’t have to agree. It’s for the reader to decide, looking at both sides, where this truth stands.
We don’t have to agree. It’s for the reader to decide, looking at both sides, where this truth stands.
Lex Fridman
Norman, and if I may ask, it’s good to discuss ideas that are in the air now as opposed to citing literature that was written in the past as much as possible, because of the listeners were not familiar with the literature. So whatever was written, just express it, condense the key idea, and then we can debate the ideas or discuss the ideas.
Norman, and if I may ask, it’s good to discuss ideas that are in the air now as opposed to citing literature that was written in the past as much as possible, because of the listeners were not familiar with the literature. So whatever was written, just express it, condense the key idea, and then we can debate the ideas or discuss the ideas.
Norman Finkelstein
No, there are two aspects. There’s this public debate, but there’s also written words.
No, there are two aspects. There’s this public debate, but there’s also written words.
Lex Fridman
Yes. I’m just telling you that you as a academic historian put a lot of value in the written word and I think it is valuable, but in this context-
Yes. I’m just telling you that you as a academic historian put a lot of value in the written word and I think it is valuable, but in this context-
Norman Finkelstein
He’s incidentally not the only historian who puts value to words. I also do, actually. Just so we-
He’s incidentally not the only historian who puts value to words. I also do, actually. Just so we-
Lex Fridman
Yes, but in this-
Yes, but in this-
Steven Bonnell
More than just one or two sentences at a time.
More than just one or two sentences at a time.
Lex Fridman
But in this context, just for the educational purpose of teaching people-
But in this context, just for the educational purpose of teaching people-
Norman Finkelstein
Well, the educational purpose is, why would people [inaudible 02:39:05] what I have to acknowledge? Because I am faithful to the facts. Massive atrocities on October 7th. Why did that happen? And I think that’s the problem, the past is erased and we suddenly went from 1948 to October 7th, 2023, and there is a problem there.
Well, the educational purpose is, why would people [inaudible 02:39:05] what I have to acknowledge? Because I am faithful to the facts. Massive atrocities on October 7th. Why did that happen? And I think that’s the problem, the past is erased and we suddenly went from 1948 to October 7th, 2023, and there is a problem there.
Lex Fridman
So first of all, you have complete freedom to backtrack and we’ll go there with you. Obviously we can’t cover every single year, every single event, but there’s probably critical moments in time.
So first of all, you have complete freedom to backtrack and we’ll go there with you. Obviously we can’t cover every single year, every single event, but there’s probably critical moments in time.
Steven Bonnell
Can I respond to something relating to that, the Lebanon War? I looked at the book that he got this from and what the quote was from. It sounds cold to say it, but war is tragic and civilians die. There is no war that this has not happened in, in the history of all of humankind. The statement that Israel might take care not to target civilians is not incompatible with a diary entry from someone who said they saw civilians getting killed. I think that sometimes we do a lot of weird games when we talk about international humanitarian law or laws that govern conflict, but we say things like, civilians dying is a war crime, or civilian homes or hospitals getting destroyed is necessarily a war crime, or is necessarily somebody intentionally targeting civilians without making distinctions between military targets or civilian ones.
Can I respond to something relating to that, the Lebanon War? I looked at the book that he got this from and what the quote was from. It sounds cold to say it, but war is tragic and civilians die. There is no war that this has not happened in, in the history of all of humankind. The statement that Israel might take care not to target civilians is not incompatible with a diary entry from someone who said they saw civilians getting killed. I think that sometimes we do a lot of weird games when we talk about international humanitarian law or laws that govern conflict, but we say things like, civilians dying is a war crime, or civilian homes or hospitals getting destroyed is necessarily a war crime, or is necessarily somebody intentionally targeting civilians without making distinctions between military targets or civilian ones.
I think that when we analyze different attacks or when we talk about the conduct of the military, it’s important to understand, prospectively from the unit of analysis of the actual military committing the acts, what’s happening and what are the decisions being made rather than just saying retrospectively, “Oh, well, a lot of civilians died. Not very many military people died, comparatively speaking, so it must have been war crimes,” especially when you’ve got another side, I’ll fast-forward to Hamas, that intentionally attempts to induce those same civilian numbers, because Hamas is guilty of any war crime that you would potentially accuse. And this is according to the Amnesty International, people that Norm loves to cite, Hamas is guilty of all of these same war crimes, of them failing to take care of their civilian population, of them essentially utilizing human shields to try to fire rockets, free from attacks-
Norman Finkelstein
Essentially?
Essentially?
Steven Bonnell
Essentially, yes. I’m just saying that, essentially, as in terms of how international law defines it and not how Amnesty International defines it. But Amnesty International describes times of human shielding, but they don’t actually apply the correct international legal standard-
Essentially, yes. I’m just saying that, essentially, as in terms of how international law defines it and not how Amnesty International defines it. But Amnesty International describes times of human shielding, but they don’t actually apply the correct international legal standard-
Norman Finkelstein
You don’t know what’s the correct international law-
You don’t know what’s the correct international law-
Steven Bonnell
I know absolutely-
I know absolutely-
Norman Finkelstein
You haven’t a clue-
You haven’t a clue-
Steven Bonnell
No, I absolutely do-
No, I absolutely do-
Norman Finkelstein
You haven’t a clue because you can’t find it on Wikipedia. You can’t find it on Wikipedia-
You haven’t a clue because you can’t find it on Wikipedia. You can’t find it on Wikipedia-
Steven Bonnell
But I’m just saying… Believe it or not, Norm, the entire Geneva Convention is all on Wikipedia. It’s a wonderful website. But I’m just saying that on the Hamas side, if there’s an attempt to induce this type of military activity, attempt to induce civilian harm, that it’s not just enough to say, “Well, here’s a diary entry where a guy talks about how tragic these attacks are.”
But I’m just saying… Believe it or not, Norm, the entire Geneva Convention is all on Wikipedia. It’s a wonderful website. But I’m just saying that on the Hamas side, if there’s an attempt to induce this type of military activity, attempt to induce civilian harm, that it’s not just enough to say, “Well, here’s a diary entry where a guy talks about how tragic these attacks are.”
Mouin Rabbani
See, I think the problem with your statement is that if you go back and listen to it, the first part of it is, war is hell, civilians die. It’s a fact of life. And you state that in a very factual matter. Then when you start talking about Hamas, all of a sudden you’ve discovered morality and you’ve discovered condemnation and you’ve discovered intent, and you are unfortunately far from alone in this. I’ll give you… You know who for me is a perfect example?
See, I think the problem with your statement is that if you go back and listen to it, the first part of it is, war is hell, civilians die. It’s a fact of life. And you state that in a very factual matter. Then when you start talking about Hamas, all of a sudden you’ve discovered morality and you’ve discovered condemnation and you’ve discovered intent, and you are unfortunately far from alone in this. I’ll give you… You know who for me is a perfect example?
Steven Bonnell
Wait, hold on. We’re [inaudible 02:42:14]. We don’t need examples-
Wait, hold on. We’re [inaudible 02:42:14]. We don’t need examples-
Mouin Rabbani
No… Oh, go ahead.
No… Oh, go ahead.
Steven Bonnell
The false equivalency of the two sides is astounding. When Hamas kills civilians in a surprise attack on October 7th, this isn’t because they are attempting to target military targets and they happen to stumble into a giant festival of people that-
The false equivalency of the two sides is astounding. When Hamas kills civilians in a surprise attack on October 7th, this isn’t because they are attempting to target military targets and they happen to stumble into a giant festival of people that-
Mouin Rabbani
Well, they did happen to stumble into it.
Well, they did happen to stumble into it.
Steven Bonnell
They did, but-
They did, but-
Benny Morris
And they killed 300 people in the music festival-
And they killed 300 people in the music festival-
Steven Bonnell
But when they stumbled into it, that wasn’t an issue of trying to figure out a military target or not. They weren’t failing a distinction. There wasn’t a proportionality assessment done. It was just to kill civilians. Even the Amnesty International in 2008 and in 2014, and even today, will continue to say that there’s likely types of attacks-
But when they stumbled into it, that wasn’t an issue of trying to figure out a military target or not. They weren’t failing a distinction. There wasn’t a proportionality assessment done. It was just to kill civilians. Even the Amnesty International in 2008 and in 2014, and even today, will continue to say that there’s likely types of attacks-
Mouin Rabbani
Look, I don’t think you’ll find anyone who will deny that Hamas has targeted civilians. You gave the example-
Look, I don’t think you’ll find anyone who will deny that Hamas has targeted civilians. You gave the example-
Steven Bonnell
But there’s a difference because-
But there’s a difference because-
Mouin Rabbani
… of suicide bombings during the Second Intifada. Facts are facts-
… of suicide bombings during the Second Intifada. Facts are facts-
Steven Bonnell
Sure, but I’m just saying that the Hamas targeting of innocent civilians is different than the incidental loss of life that occurs when Israel does-
Sure, but I’m just saying that the Hamas targeting of innocent civilians is different than the incidental loss of life that occurs when Israel does-
Norman Finkelstein
Whoa, the incidental loss of life-
Whoa, the incidental loss of life-
Mouin Rabbani
Genocide is the intentional mass murder-
Genocide is the intentional mass murder-
Steven Bonnell
Well, genocide is a entirely separate claim.
Well, genocide is a entirely separate claim.
Mouin Rabbani
Yeah, but the idea that Israel is not in the business of intentionally targeting civilians, I know that’s what we’re supposed to believe, but the historical record stands pretty clearly-
Yeah, but the idea that Israel is not in the business of intentionally targeting civilians, I know that’s what we’re supposed to believe, but the historical record stands pretty clearly-
Steven Bonnell
No, it doesn’t. I don’t believe it does.
No, it doesn’t. I don’t believe it does.
Mouin Rabbani
You’ve written about it yourself-
You’ve written about it yourself-
Steven Bonnell
Well, when you say historical, do you mean in the ’40s to the ’60s, or do you mean over the past-
Well, when you say historical, do you mean in the ’40s to the ’60s, or do you mean over the past-
Mouin Rabbani
I would say from the ’30s of the last century to the ’20s of this century. The way you characterized it, I think the best example of that I’ve come across during this specific conflict is John Kirby, the White House spokesman. I’ve named him Tears Tosterone, for a very good reason. When he is talking about Palestinian civilian deaths, war is hell, it’s a fact of life, get used to it. When he was confronted with Israeli civilian deaths on October 7th, he literally broke down in tears in public-
I would say from the ’30s of the last century to the ’20s of this century. The way you characterized it, I think the best example of that I’ve come across during this specific conflict is John Kirby, the White House spokesman. I’ve named him Tears Tosterone, for a very good reason. When he is talking about Palestinian civilian deaths, war is hell, it’s a fact of life, get used to it. When he was confronted with Israeli civilian deaths on October 7th, he literally broke down in tears in public-
Benny Morris
But he understood that one is deliberate and one isn’t. He understood that.
But he understood that one is deliberate and one isn’t. He understood that.
Mouin Rabbani
No, that’s what he tried to make us understand.
No, that’s what he tried to make us understand.
Benny Morris
No, he was speaking facts. The Hamas guys who attacked the kibbutzim, apart from the attacks on the military sites, when they attacked the kibbutzim, were out to kill civilians. And they killed family after family, house after house. The Israeli attacks on Hamas installations-
No, he was speaking facts. The Hamas guys who attacked the kibbutzim, apart from the attacks on the military sites, when they attacked the kibbutzim, were out to kill civilians. And they killed family after family, house after house. The Israeli attacks on Hamas installations-
Mouin Rabbani
You know better. You know better-
You know better. You know better-
Benny Morris
No, I don’t know better. You don’t know Israeli pilots, that’s the problem-
No, I don’t know better. You don’t know Israeli pilots, that’s the problem-
Norman Finkelstein
Thank God.
Thank God.
Benny Morris
No, you don’t know Israeli pilots-
No, you don’t know Israeli pilots-
Norman Finkelstein
I know, thank God.
I know, thank God.
Benny Morris
They believe that they are killing Hamas snakes. They’re given certain objectives and that’s what they attack. And if the Hamas is hiding behind civilians, civilians die. Simple as that-
They believe that they are killing Hamas snakes. They’re given certain objectives and that’s what they attack. And if the Hamas is hiding behind civilians, civilians die. Simple as that-
Norman Finkelstein
Every time they target a kid, I’m sure they believe it’s Hamas.
Every time they target a kid, I’m sure they believe it’s Hamas.
Benny Morris
[inaudible 02:44:53]
[inaudible 02:44:53]
Norman Finkelstein
Yeah. When they killed the four kids on the…
Yeah. When they killed the four kids on the…
Benny Morris
They believed that they were Hamas snakes-
They believed that they were Hamas snakes-
Norman Finkelstein
I know they believed it. Even though they were diminutive size, even though they were [inaudible 02:45:03]
I know they believed it. Even though they were diminutive size, even though they were [inaudible 02:45:03]
Benny Morris
You know from that angle, you don’t see the sides-
You know from that angle, you don’t see the sides-
Norman Finkelstein
No, they saw the sides, but let’s see the side-
No, they saw the sides, but let’s see the side-
Steven Bonnell
Oh, I know what he’s quoting, correct, but you’ve lied about this particular instance in the past. Those kids weren’t just on the beaches as often stated in articles. Those kids were literally coming out of a previously identified Hamas compound that they had operated from. They literally-
Oh, I know what he’s quoting, correct, but you’ve lied about this particular instance in the past. Those kids weren’t just on the beaches as often stated in articles. Those kids were literally coming out of a previously identified Hamas compound that they had operated from. They literally-
Norman Finkelstein
Mr. Borelli-
Mr. Borelli-
Steven Bonnell
You could Google it, Mr. Finkel-stinker-
You could Google it, Mr. Finkel-stinker-
Norman Finkelstein
Mr. Borelli, with all due respect, you’re such a fantastic moron, it’s terrifying. That wharf was filled with journalists. There were scores of journalists. That was an old fisherman’s shack. What are you talking about? It’s so painful to listen to this idiocy-
Mr. Borelli, with all due respect, you’re such a fantastic moron, it’s terrifying. That wharf was filled with journalists. There were scores of journalists. That was an old fisherman’s shack. What are you talking about? It’s so painful to listen to this idiocy-
Steven Bonnell
And to be clear, on the other side, you’re implying that the strike was okayed on the Israeli side where they said, “We’re just going to kill four Palestinian people today for no reason.”
And to be clear, on the other side, you’re implying that the strike was okayed on the Israeli side where they said, “We’re just going to kill four Palestinian people today for no reason.”
Norman Finkelstein
Hey-
Hey-
Benny Morris
Do you believe that?
Do you believe that?
Steven Bonnell
Do you believe that? Do you believe that? [inaudible 02:45:57] journalists, do you think that [inaudible 02:46:00]
Do you believe that? Do you believe that? [inaudible 02:45:57] journalists, do you think that [inaudible 02:46:00]
Norman Finkelstein
Here we go-
Here we go-
Benny Morris
That they would actually kill four children?
That they would actually kill four children?
Steven Bonnell
He went answer the question-
He went answer the question-
Norman Finkelstein
Here we go-
Here we go-
Steven Bonnell
He will never answer that question.
He will never answer that question.
Norman Finkelstein
I will answer the question-
I will answer the question-
Benny Morris
The pilots were out to kill four children-
The pilots were out to kill four children-
Norman Finkelstein
I will even answer the moron’s questions-
I will even answer the moron’s questions-
Steven Bonnell
Because that was a strike, that was a drone strike, so that was approved all the way up the chain that we’re going to kill children today. We’re going to kill Palestinian children today-
Because that was a strike, that was a drone strike, so that was approved all the way up the chain that we’re going to kill children today. We’re going to kill Palestinian children today-
Norman Finkelstein
Okay, you want me to answer or do you want your motormouth to go? Okay, answer. In 2018, there was the Great March of Return in Gaza by all reckonings of human rights organizations and journalists who were there. It was overwhelmingly nonviolent-
Okay, you want me to answer or do you want your motormouth to go? Okay, answer. In 2018, there was the Great March of Return in Gaza by all reckonings of human rights organizations and journalists who were there. It was overwhelmingly nonviolent-
Benny Morris
And organized by the Hamas.
And organized by the Hamas.
Norman Finkelstein
Whoever organized it-
Whoever organized it-
Mouin Rabbani
It was organized by Satan, let’s start with that-
It was organized by Satan, let’s start with that-
Norman Finkelstein
Satan-
Satan-
Benny Morris
No, by Hamas-
No, by Hamas-
Norman Finkelstein
Okay, Satan. I agree. Let’s go for the big one, the big magilla. It’s Satan, okay. Overwhelmingly non-violent. Resembled at the beginning the First Intifada-
Okay, Satan. I agree. Let’s go for the big one, the big magilla. It’s Satan, okay. Overwhelmingly non-violent. Resembled at the beginning the First Intifada-
Benny Morris
They threw bombs here and there.
They threw bombs here and there.
Norman Finkelstein
Okay, not bombs, but-
Okay, not bombs, but-
Benny Morris
They tried to make holes in the fence, obviously-
They tried to make holes in the fence, obviously-
Norman Finkelstein
Okay, let’s continue.
Okay, let’s continue.
Benny Morris
Yeah.
Yeah.
Norman Finkelstein
So-
So-
Benny Morris
But I’m not sure Israel behaved morally in that respect.
But I’m not sure Israel behaved morally in that respect.
Norman Finkelstein
Okay-
Okay-
Benny Morris
No, no, no-
No, no, no-
Norman Finkelstein
Okay, wait, wait, wait-
Okay, wait, wait, wait-
Benny Morris
I’m willing to grant you that.
I’m willing to grant you that.
Norman Finkelstein
Please, please. Allow me to-
Please, please. Allow me to-
Benny Morris
You don’t have to pursue it because I’m willing to grant-
You don’t have to pursue it because I’m willing to grant-
Norman Finkelstein
Allow me to finish-
Allow me to finish-
Mouin Rabbani
I don’t know anything about this. I’d like to hear.
I don’t know anything about this. I’d like to hear.
Norman Finkelstein
Okay. So as you know, along the Gaza perimeter, there was Israel’s best-trained snipers. Correct?
Okay. So as you know, along the Gaza perimeter, there was Israel’s best-trained snipers. Correct?
Benny Morris
I don’t know best-trained. There was snipers-
I don’t know best-trained. There was snipers-
Norman Finkelstein
Fine. Okay. All right. Because… Hey, laugh. It’s hilarious. This story’s so funny-
Fine. Okay. All right. Because… Hey, laugh. It’s hilarious. This story’s so funny-
Steven Bonnell
You’re lying. The Great March of Return had aspects of violence to it. Even the UN says it themselves.
You’re lying. The Great March of Return had aspects of violence to it. Even the UN says it themselves.
Norman Finkelstein
Okay, okay, okay.
Okay, okay, okay.
Steven Bonnell
But you only collect what the UN says that you like.
But you only collect what the UN says that you like.
Norman Finkelstein
You see the problem, Mr. Morelli, is, you don’t know the English language. You don’t-
You see the problem, Mr. Morelli, is, you don’t know the English language. You don’t-
Steven Bonnell
I can read from the UN website itself. In regards to the Great March of Return, they said, “While the vast majority of protestors have acted in a peaceful manner, during most protests dozens have approached the fence attempting to damage it, burning fires, throwing stones and Molotov cocktails towards Israeli forces, and flying incendiary kites and balloons into Israeli territory. The latter resulted in extensive damage to agricultural land and nature reserves inside Israel and risked the lives of Israeli civilians. Some incidents of shooting and throwing of explosives also reported-“
I can read from the UN website itself. In regards to the Great March of Return, they said, “While the vast majority of protestors have acted in a peaceful manner, during most protests dozens have approached the fence attempting to damage it, burning fires, throwing stones and Molotov cocktails towards Israeli forces, and flying incendiary kites and balloons into Israeli territory. The latter resulted in extensive damage to agricultural land and nature reserves inside Israel and risked the lives of Israeli civilians. Some incidents of shooting and throwing of explosives also reported-“
Norman Finkelstein
Talk Fast. Talk fast so people think that you’re coherent-
Talk Fast. Talk fast so people think that you’re coherent-
Steven Bonnell
I’m just reading from the UN-
I’m just reading from the UN-
Norman Finkelstein
Yeah, but you’re saying-
Yeah, but you’re saying-
Steven Bonnell
I know you like them sometimes, only when they agree with you though.
I know you like them sometimes, only when they agree with you though.
Norman Finkelstein
You got the months wrong. You got the months wrong. We’re talking about the beginning in March 30th to what-
You got the months wrong. You got the months wrong. We’re talking about the beginning in March 30th to what-
Steven Bonnell
You just described that march as mostly peaceful.
You just described that march as mostly peaceful.
Norman Finkelstein
Okay, allow me to finish. So there were the snipers, okay. Now, you find it so far-fetched. Israelis purposely, deliberately targeting civilians? That’s such a far-fetched idea. An overwhelmingly nonviolent march. What did the international investigation-
Okay, allow me to finish. So there were the snipers, okay. Now, you find it so far-fetched. Israelis purposely, deliberately targeting civilians? That’s such a far-fetched idea. An overwhelmingly nonviolent march. What did the international investigation-
Benny Morris
It wasn’t the march. It was a campaign which went on for months.
It wasn’t the march. It was a campaign which went on for months.
Norman Finkelstein
Whatever you want to call it, yeah. What did the UN investigation find? It found-
Whatever you want to call it, yeah. What did the UN investigation find? It found-
Benny Morris
Well, he just read it for you.
Well, he just read it for you.
Norman Finkelstein
I read the report. I don’t read things off of those machines. I read the report. What did it find? Brace yourself. You thought it was so funny, the idea of IDF targeting civilians. It found… Go look this up on your machine-
I read the report. I don’t read things off of those machines. I read the report. What did it find? Brace yourself. You thought it was so funny, the idea of IDF targeting civilians. It found… Go look this up on your machine-
Steven Bonnell
I already know what you’re going to say. You’re going to say it found that only one or two of them were justified killings-
I already know what you’re going to say. You’re going to say it found that only one or two of them were justified killings-
Norman Finkelstein
It targeted children, targeted journalists, targeted medics. And here’s the funniest one of all, it’s so hilarious, they targeted disabled people who were 300 meters away from the fence and just standing by trees-
It targeted children, targeted journalists, targeted medics. And here’s the funniest one of all, it’s so hilarious, they targeted disabled people who were 300 meters away from the fence and just standing by trees-
Benny Morris
If this is true, if what you’re saying is true-
If this is true, if what you’re saying is true-
Lex Fridman
Just a quick pause. I think everything was fascinating to listen to except the mention of hilarious. Nobody finds any of this hilarious, and if any of us are laughing, it’s not at the suffering of-
Just a quick pause. I think everything was fascinating to listen to except the mention of hilarious. Nobody finds any of this hilarious, and if any of us are laughing, it’s not at the suffering of-
Norman Finkelstein
[inaudible 02:50:00].
[inaudible 02:50:00].
Lex Fridman
And if any of us are laughing, it’s not at the suffering of civilians or suffering of anyone, it’s at the obvious joyful comradery in the room, so I’m enjoying it, and also the joy of learning, so thank you.
And if any of us are laughing, it’s not at the suffering of civilians or suffering of anyone, it’s at the obvious joyful comradery in the room, so I’m enjoying it, and also the joy of learning, so thank you.
Steven Bonnell
Can we talk about the targeting civilian thing a little bit? I think there’s an important underlying-
Can we talk about the targeting civilian thing a little bit? I think there’s an important underlying-
Lex Fridman
[Inaudible 02:50:18].
[Inaudible 02:50:18].
Steven Bonnell
I think it’s important to understand there’s three different things here that we need to think about. So, one is a policy of killing civilians. So, I would ask the other side, I’m going to ask all three, because I know there won’t be a short answer, do you think there is a policy, top down from the IDF to target civilians? That’s one thing-
I think it’s important to understand there’s three different things here that we need to think about. So, one is a policy of killing civilians. So, I would ask the other side, I’m going to ask all three, because I know there won’t be a short answer, do you think there is a policy, top down from the IDF to target civilians? That’s one thing-
Mouin Rabbani
Yes.
Yes.
Steven Bonnell
… A second thing is-
… A second thing is-
Benny Morris
He said yes.
He said yes.
Steven Bonnell
I’ll write that down.
I’ll write that down.
Benny Morris
Mouin answered yes.
Mouin answered yes.
Steven Bonnell
That’s fine, but then the second thing is, or there’s two distinctions I want to draw between. I think Benny would say this, I would say this. I’m sure, undoubtedly, there have been cases where IDF soldiers, for no good reason, have targeted and killed Palestinians that they should not have done, that would be prosecutable as war crimes as defined by the [inaudible 02:50:56]-
That’s fine, but then the second thing is, or there’s two distinctions I want to draw between. I think Benny would say this, I would say this. I’m sure, undoubtedly, there have been cases where IDF soldiers, for no good reason, have targeted and killed Palestinians that they should not have done, that would be prosecutable as war crimes as defined by the [inaudible 02:50:56]-
Benny Morris
And some have been prosecuted.
And some have been prosecuted.
Steven Bonnell
And I’m absolutely sure-
And I’m absolutely sure-
Norman Finkelstein
According to you and your book, practically none.
According to you and your book, practically none.
Steven Bonnell
I’m sure that we would all agree for soldiers that that happens, but I think that it’s important that when we talk about military strikes or we talk about things especially involving bombings or drone attacks, these are things that are signed off by multiple different layers of command, by multiple people involved in an operation, including intelligence gathering, including weaponeering, and they also have typically lawyers involved. When you make the claim that an IDF soldier shot a Palestinian, those three people, the three hostages that came up with white flags, that something horrible happened, I think that’s a fair statement to make and I think a lot of criticism is deserved, but when you make the statement that four children were killed by a strike, the claim that you’re making-
I’m sure that we would all agree for soldiers that that happens, but I think that it’s important that when we talk about military strikes or we talk about things especially involving bombings or drone attacks, these are things that are signed off by multiple different layers of command, by multiple people involved in an operation, including intelligence gathering, including weaponeering, and they also have typically lawyers involved. When you make the claim that an IDF soldier shot a Palestinian, those three people, the three hostages that came up with white flags, that something horrible happened, I think that’s a fair statement to make and I think a lot of criticism is deserved, but when you make the statement that four children were killed by a strike, the claim that you’re making-
Norman Finkelstein
Deliberately, yeah.
Deliberately, yeah.
Steven Bonnell
The claim that you’re making is that multiple levels of the IDF signed off-
The claim that you’re making is that multiple levels of the IDF signed off-
Norman Finkelstein
I have no idea what [inaudible 02:51:47]-
I have no idea what [inaudible 02:51:47]-
Steven Bonnell
That’s great if you don’t understand the process, then let me educate you.
That’s great if you don’t understand the process, then let me educate you.
Norman Finkelstein
You don’t understand the process.
You don’t understand the process.
Steven Bonnell
I do understand the process, I’m telling you. I’m trying to explain to you right now.
I do understand the process, I’m telling you. I’m trying to explain to you right now.
Norman Finkelstein
Really? You’re in the IDF?
Really? You’re in the IDF?
Steven Bonnell
No, it’s basic-
No, it’s basic-
Norman Finkelstein
You’re studying the IDF.
You’re studying the IDF.
Steven Bonnell
You can ask anybody that talks about-
You can ask anybody that talks about-
Norman Finkelstein
Aside from Wikipedia, can you tell me what your knowledge of the IDF is?
Aside from Wikipedia, can you tell me what your knowledge of the IDF is?
Steven Bonnell
You can talk to people who work in the military-
You can talk to people who work in the military-
Norman Finkelstein
What’s your knowledge of the IDF?
What’s your knowledge of the IDF?
Steven Bonnell
Your audience can look this up. Do you think that bombing and strikes are decided by one person in the field? Do you think one person-
Your audience can look this up. Do you think that bombing and strikes are decided by one person in the field? Do you think one person-
Mouin Rabbani
Can I respond to that?
Can I respond to that?
Steven Bonnell
[inaudible 02:52:10] on a drone strike-
[inaudible 02:52:10] on a drone strike-
Benny Morris
[inaudible 02:52:11] a pilot doesn’t do it on his own.
[inaudible 02:52:11] a pilot doesn’t do it on his own.
Mouin Rabbani
Can I respond-
Can I respond-
Steven Bonnell
[inaudible 02:52:14] have entire apparatuses that are designed to figure out how to strike and who to strike, so when you say that four children are targeted, you’re saying that a whole apparatus that tries to murder-
[inaudible 02:52:14] have entire apparatuses that are designed to figure out how to strike and who to strike, so when you say that four children are targeted, you’re saying that a whole apparatus that tries to murder-
Norman Finkelstein
You made my argument better than me-
You made my argument better than me-
Steven Bonnell
… Poor Palestinian children.
… Poor Palestinian children.
Norman Finkelstein
You made my argument better than me.
You made my argument better than me.
Steven Bonnell
Which is a ridiculous argument.
Which is a ridiculous argument.
Norman Finkelstein
Oh, really? It’s impossible at the command level, but you said that they couldn’t have done it at the bottom if it weren’t also at the top.
Oh, really? It’s impossible at the command level, but you said that they couldn’t have done it at the bottom if it weren’t also at the top.
Steven Bonnell
You don’t understand the strength of the claim that you’re making. You’re saying that from a top down level, that lawyers, multiple commanders, intelligence, all these people signed off-
You don’t understand the strength of the claim that you’re making. You’re saying that from a top down level, that lawyers, multiple commanders, intelligence, all these people signed off-
Norman Finkelstein
Mr. Bonnell, do not tell me what I don’t understand.
Mr. Bonnell, do not tell me what I don’t understand.
Steven Bonnell
… On killing poor Palestinians, children.
… On killing poor Palestinians, children.
Norman Finkelstein
It’s true, I don’t spend my nights on Wikipedia. I read books. I admit that as a-
It’s true, I don’t spend my nights on Wikipedia. I read books. I admit that as a-
Steven Bonnell
That’s a waste of time, by the way. You’re wasting time [inaudible 02:52:55].
That’s a waste of time, by the way. You’re wasting time [inaudible 02:52:55].
Norman Finkelstein
I know, books are a waste of time. With all due regard, they’re-
I know, books are a waste of time. With all due regard, they’re-
Steven Bonnell
Well, according to you they are. The only thing you take from them are two or three quotes that you use to push people around.
Well, according to you they are. The only thing you take from them are two or three quotes that you use to push people around.
Norman Finkelstein
I completely respect the fact… And I’ll say it on the air, as much as I find totally disgusting what’s come of your politics, a lot of the books are excellent, and I’ll even tell you because I’m not afraid of saying it, whenever I have to check on the basic fact, the equivalent of going to the Britannica, I go to your books. I know you got a lot of the facts right.
I completely respect the fact… And I’ll say it on the air, as much as I find totally disgusting what’s come of your politics, a lot of the books are excellent, and I’ll even tell you because I’m not afraid of saying it, whenever I have to check on the basic fact, the equivalent of going to the Britannica, I go to your books. I know you got a lot of the facts right.
Lex Fridman
Benny Morris’ books for the listener.
Benny Morris’ books for the listener.
Norman Finkelstein
I would never say books are a waste of time and it’s regrettable to you that you got strapped with a partner who thinks that all the wisdom-
I would never say books are a waste of time and it’s regrettable to you that you got strapped with a partner who thinks that all the wisdom-
Benny Morris
He didn’t say they’re a waste of time.
He didn’t say they’re a waste of time.
Mouin Rabbani
I’d like to respond to what you were saying. I think the question that we’re trying to answer-
I’d like to respond to what you were saying. I think the question that we’re trying to answer-
Benny Morris
I think you don’t understand Israel, you know? Neither of you really understands Israel and how it works.
I think you don’t understand Israel, you know? Neither of you really understands Israel and how it works.
Mouin Rabbani
Let me finish, please. I think we’re all agreed that Palestinians have deliberately targeted civilians. Whether we’re talking about Hamas and Islamic jihad today or previously-
Let me finish, please. I think we’re all agreed that Palestinians have deliberately targeted civilians. Whether we’re talking about Hamas and Islamic jihad today or previously-
Benny Morris
I prefer the word murdered and raped rather than targeted. Targeted is too soft for what the Hamas did.
I prefer the word murdered and raped rather than targeted. Targeted is too soft for what the Hamas did.
Steven Bonnell
I’m okay with it.
I’m okay with it.
Mouin Rabbani
I’m not talking about-
I’m not talking about-
Benny Morris
I’m talking about this now.
I’m talking about this now.
Mouin Rabbani
Yeah, but I’m trying to answer his question. Historically, there is substantial evidence that Palestinians have targeted civilians, whether it’s been incidental or systematic is a different discussion, I don’t want to get into that now. For some reason, there seems to be a huge debate about whether any Israeli has ever sunk so low as to target a civilian. I don’t-
Yeah, but I’m trying to answer his question. Historically, there is substantial evidence that Palestinians have targeted civilians, whether it’s been incidental or systematic is a different discussion, I don’t want to get into that now. For some reason, there seems to be a huge debate about whether any Israeli has ever sunk so low as to target a civilian. I don’t-
Benny Morris
No, we’ve agreed. We’ve both said.
No, we’ve agreed. We’ve both said.
Steven Bonnell
We just agreed [inaudible 02:54:50].
We just agreed [inaudible 02:54:50].
Benny Morris
I just said that this has happened here and there. We’ve agreed on that. What we’re saying is it’s not policy, which is what you guys are implying, that they kill civilians deliberately.
I just said that this has happened here and there. We’ve agreed on that. What we’re saying is it’s not policy, which is what you guys are implying, that they kill civilians deliberately.
Mouin Rabbani
If I understand you correctly, you’re basically making the claim that none of these attacks could have happened without going through an entire chain of commands.
If I understand you correctly, you’re basically making the claim that none of these attacks could have happened without going through an entire chain of commands.
Steven Bonnell
For strike cells that are involved in drone attacks or plane attacks or-
For strike cells that are involved in drone attacks or plane attacks or-
Mouin Rabbani
Yeah.
Yeah.
Steven Bonnell
Yes [inaudible 02:55:13].
Yes [inaudible 02:55:13].
Mouin Rabbani
My understanding of the Israeli military, and you could perhaps… You’ve served in it, you would know better, it’s actually a fairly chaotic organization.
My understanding of the Israeli military, and you could perhaps… You’ve served in it, you would know better, it’s actually a fairly chaotic organization.
Benny Morris
No, that’s not true, especially not the Air Force, extremely, extremely organized. The Air Force works in a very organized fashion, as he says, with lawyers, a chain of command, and ultimately the pilot drops the bomb where he is told to drop it.
No, that’s not true, especially not the Air Force, extremely, extremely organized. The Air Force works in a very organized fashion, as he says, with lawyers, a chain of command, and ultimately the pilot drops the bomb where he is told to drop it.
Steven Bonnell
Protective Edge, was that 200 strikes in like 60 seconds, I think, the opening of Protective Edge? The coordination between [inaudible 02:55:43]-
Protective Edge, was that 200 strikes in like 60 seconds, I think, the opening of Protective Edge? The coordination between [inaudible 02:55:43]-
Mouin Rabbani
You’re talking about 2008.
You’re talking about 2008.
Steven Bonnell
I think Protective Edge was 2014, but I’m just saying that the coordination in the military is pretty tight.
I think Protective Edge was 2014, but I’m just saying that the coordination in the military is pretty tight.
Mouin Rabbani
Well, my understanding of the Israeli military-
Well, my understanding of the Israeli military-
Benny Morris
It’s very organized.
It’s very organized.
Mouin Rabbani
… Is that it’s quite chaotic and there’s also a lot of testimonies from Israel, but be that as it may, I’m prepared to accept both of your contentions that it’s a highly organized and disciplined force. Air Force under any scenario is going to be more organized than the other branches, and you’re saying such a strike would’ve been inconceivable.
… Is that it’s quite chaotic and there’s also a lot of testimonies from Israel, but be that as it may, I’m prepared to accept both of your contentions that it’s a highly organized and disciplined force. Air Force under any scenario is going to be more organized than the other branches, and you’re saying such a strike would’ve been inconceivable.
Steven Bonnell
Well, I’m not necessarily saying inconceivable. I’m saying that that would’ve required murderous intent on so many different levels. I don’t think good evidence has been presented to say that that’s-
Well, I’m not necessarily saying inconceivable. I’m saying that that would’ve required murderous intent on so many different levels. I don’t think good evidence has been presented to say that that’s-
Mouin Rabbani
Your basic claim is that it would be fair to assume that such a strike could have only been carried out with multiple levels of authorization and signing off. Let’s accept that for the sake of argument. We have now seen incident after incident after incident after incident where entire families are vaporized in single strikes-
Your basic claim is that it would be fair to assume that such a strike could have only been carried out with multiple levels of authorization and signing off. Let’s accept that for the sake of argument. We have now seen incident after incident after incident after incident where entire families are vaporized in single strikes-
Benny Morris
Who is in the families? Who lives in the house inside-
Who is in the families? Who lives in the house inside-
Mouin Rabbani
Family members.
Family members.
Benny Morris
No, next to the house in which these families are killed?
No, next to the house in which these families are killed?
Mouin Rabbani
We have seen incident-
We have seen incident-
Benny Morris
Do you know that Hamas [inaudible 02:57:02] weren’t in that house? Do you know that their ammunition dumps weren’t in those houses?
Do you know that Hamas [inaudible 02:57:02] weren’t in that house? Do you know that their ammunition dumps weren’t in those houses?
Mouin Rabbani
Why do I have to prove a negative?
Why do I have to prove a negative?
Benny Morris
You are saying that they deliberately targeted families. If Israel wanted to kill civilians in Gaza, they could have killed 500,000 by now with the number of strikes they’ve done and the fact that they’ve only killed a certain small number [inaudible 02:57:22]-
You are saying that they deliberately targeted families. If Israel wanted to kill civilians in Gaza, they could have killed 500,000 by now with the number of strikes they’ve done and the fact that they’ve only killed a certain small number [inaudible 02:57:22]-
Mouin Rabbani
30,000 is a small number?
30,000 is a small number?
Benny Morris
Small number in proportion-
Small number in proportion-
Mouin Rabbani
You consider 30,000 a small number?
You consider 30,000 a small number?
Benny Morris
Small number in proportion over four months probably is an indication that-
Small number in proportion over four months probably is an indication that-
Norman Finkelstein
12,000 children is only.
12,000 children is only.
Benny Morris
… Is targeted and that there are Hamas targets in these places.
… Is targeted and that there are Hamas targets in these places.
Norman Finkelstein
12,000 children is only, and if that’s the case, why is it-
12,000 children is only, and if that’s the case, why is it-
Benny Morris
Did I use the word only?
Did I use the word only?
Norman Finkelstein
Yeah, you said only. Professor Morris, here’s a question for you, if we take every combat zone in the world for the past three years, every combat zone in the world-
Yeah, you said only. Professor Morris, here’s a question for you, if we take every combat zone in the world for the past three years, every combat zone in the world-
Benny Morris
In Vietnam, the Americans killed 1 million people.
In Vietnam, the Americans killed 1 million people.
Mouin Rabbani
Well, the [inaudible 02:57:58] killed 40 million.
Well, the [inaudible 02:57:58] killed 40 million.
Norman Finkelstein
I was in the anti-war movement, so don’t strap me-
I was in the anti-war movement, so don’t strap me-
Benny Morris
The Americans killed 1 million people in Vietnam.
The Americans killed 1 million people in Vietnam.
Norman Finkelstein
Fine, and 30 million Russians were killed during World War II, so everything else is irrelevant.
Fine, and 30 million Russians were killed during World War II, so everything else is irrelevant.
Benny Morris
[inaudible 02:58:13].
[inaudible 02:58:13].
Norman Finkelstein
Professor Morris, here’s a question, it’s very perplexing. If you take every combat zone in the world for the past three years and you multiply the number of children killed by four, every combat zone in the world, you get Gaza. So when you say-
Professor Morris, here’s a question, it’s very perplexing. If you take every combat zone in the world for the past three years and you multiply the number of children killed by four, every combat zone in the world, you get Gaza. So when you say-
Steven Bonnell
What is that supposed to prove?
What is that supposed to prove?
Norman Finkelstein
I’m going to tell you… Just shut up
I’m going to tell you… Just shut up
Benny Morris
Firstly, you’re lying on Hamas numbers.
Firstly, you’re lying on Hamas numbers.
Norman Finkelstein
No, I’m not lying [inaudible 02:58:44]-
No, I’m not lying [inaudible 02:58:44]-
Benny Morris
Hamas numbers are not necessarily true.
Hamas numbers are not necessarily true.
Norman Finkelstein
… The numbers that everybody else… I’m lying in the numbers [inaudible 02:58:47]-
… The numbers that everybody else… I’m lying in the numbers [inaudible 02:58:47]-
Steven Bonnell
Even if we take the numbers though, what does that prove?
Even if we take the numbers though, what does that prove?
Benny Morris
Those are Hamas numbers, which may not be true. They could invent anything because you know that they are a mendacious organization.
Those are Hamas numbers, which may not be true. They could invent anything because you know that they are a mendacious organization.
Norman Finkelstein
I know mendacious, believe me-
I know mendacious, believe me-
Benny Morris
You like the word mendacious?
You like the word mendacious?
Norman Finkelstein
Mendacious as in the Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs. So here’s the thing, you say they could have killed 500,000, but they only killed, only, that’s your words, they only killed 30,000.
Mendacious as in the Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs. So here’s the thing, you say they could have killed 500,000, but they only killed, only, that’s your words, they only killed 30,000.
Benny Morris
You believe that they deliberately target civilians, they would’ve killed many, many more. The fact is that they don’t deliberately target civilians.
You believe that they deliberately target civilians, they would’ve killed many, many more. The fact is that they don’t deliberately target civilians.
Norman Finkelstein
Professor Morris, for [inaudible 02:59:24]-
Professor Morris, for [inaudible 02:59:24]-
Benny Morris
And you don’t understand Israeli society.
And you don’t understand Israeli society.
Norman Finkelstein
I don’t want to understand Israeli society.
I don’t want to understand Israeli society.
Benny Morris
You don’t want the truth.
You don’t want the truth.
Norman Finkelstein
I don’t want to. I D.dOn’t want to get inside their heads.
I don’t want to. I D.dOn’t want to get inside their heads.
Benny Morris
That’s the problem.
That’s the problem.
Steven Bonnell
[inaudible 02:59:33].
[inaudible 02:59:33].
Norman Finkelstein
90%-
90%-
Benny Morris
A good historian tries to get into the heads of-
A good historian tries to get into the heads of-
Norman Finkelstein
There’s a limit.
There’s a limit.
Benny Morris
… The various protagonists.
… The various protagonists.
Norman Finkelstein
There’s a limit.
There’s a limit.
Benny Morris
A good historian does.
A good historian does.
Norman Finkelstein
When 90% of Israelis think that Israel’s using enough or too little force in Gaza, I don’t want to get inside that head. 40% think that Israel is using insufficient force in Gaza. I don’t want to get inside that head. I don’t want to get inside the head of people who think they’re using insufficient force against the population, half of which is children. I don’t want to get inside that head, but here’s the point, because your partner wants to know the point. You don’t understand political constraints. One of your ministers said, “Let’s drop an atomic bomb on Gaza.”
When 90% of Israelis think that Israel’s using enough or too little force in Gaza, I don’t want to get inside that head. 40% think that Israel is using insufficient force in Gaza. I don’t want to get inside that head. I don’t want to get inside the head of people who think they’re using insufficient force against the population, half of which is children. I don’t want to get inside that head, but here’s the point, because your partner wants to know the point. You don’t understand political constraints. One of your ministers said, “Let’s drop an atomic bomb on Gaza.”
Benny Morris
You think he really meant that?
You think he really meant that?
Mouin Rabbani
He said it three times.
He said it three times.
Benny Morris
No, no, no, it was said in a sort of a very questionable way. He didn’t say they should drop an atomic bomb.
No, no, no, it was said in a sort of a very questionable way. He didn’t say they should drop an atomic bomb.
Mouin Rabbani
He said it the day after the ICJ met.
He said it the day after the ICJ met.
Benny Morris
This minister is a messianic idiot, but he didn’t say drop an atomic bomb [inaudible 03:00:43].
This minister is a messianic idiot, but he didn’t say drop an atomic bomb [inaudible 03:00:43].
Mouin Rabbani
He said it [inaudible 03:00:44].
He said it [inaudible 03:00:44].
Norman Finkelstein
None other Israel’s chief historian, the justifiably famed Benny Morris, thinks we should be dropping nuclear weapons on Iran.
None other Israel’s chief historian, the justifiably famed Benny Morris, thinks we should be dropping nuclear weapons on Iran.
Benny Morris
Iran, its leaders for years have said, “We should destroy Israel.” Do you agree with that? They’ve said, “We should destroy Israel. Israel must be destroyed.” Is that correct? This is what the Iranian leaders have been saying since Khomeini.
Iran, its leaders for years have said, “We should destroy Israel.” Do you agree with that? They’ve said, “We should destroy Israel. Israel must be destroyed.” Is that correct? This is what the Iranian leaders have been saying since Khomeini.
Norman Finkelstein
I would say Iranian leaders have sent mixed messages.
I would say Iranian leaders have sent mixed messages.
Benny Morris
But some of them have said, including Khamenei-
But some of them have said, including Khamenei-
Norman Finkelstein
If you don’t know the evidence, why are you laughing?
If you don’t know the evidence, why are you laughing?
Steven Bonnell
The slightest skepticism, it’s very funny.
The slightest skepticism, it’s very funny.
Norman Finkelstein
It’s funny because-
It’s funny because-
Steven Bonnell
Iran that supports Hezbollah and the Houthis and Hamas, maybe they want Israel destroyed.
Iran that supports Hezbollah and the Houthis and Hamas, maybe they want Israel destroyed.
Norman Finkelstein
Brace yourself to the extent that the Houthis are trying to stop the genocide in Gaza, I support-
Brace yourself to the extent that the Houthis are trying to stop the genocide in Gaza, I support-
Steven Bonnell
[inaudible 03:01:37] ships. I know I selectively support international law when it agrees with you and then when it doesn’t, you decide to throw international law to the wind.
[inaudible 03:01:37] ships. I know I selectively support international law when it agrees with you and then when it doesn’t, you decide to throw international law to the wind.
Benny Morris
There’s no genocide in Gaza.
There’s no genocide in Gaza.
Norman Finkelstein
If you like [inaudible 03:01:46]-
If you like [inaudible 03:01:46]-
Lex Fridman
Hold on a second. Norm, Norm-
Hold on a second. Norm, Norm-
Norman Finkelstein
Let me read what you said-
Let me read what you said-
Lex Fridman
Norm, Norm, stop, please. Norm, just for me, please. Just give me a second. You said there’s no genocide going on in Gaza. Let me ask that clear question. The same question I asked on the Hamas attacks. Is there, from a legal, philosophical, moral perspective, is there genocide going on in Gaza today?
Norm, Norm, stop, please. Norm, just for me, please. Just give me a second. You said there’s no genocide going on in Gaza. Let me ask that clear question. The same question I asked on the Hamas attacks. Is there, from a legal, philosophical, moral perspective, is there genocide going on in Gaza today?
Gaza
Mouin Rabbani
Is there a genocide going on in Gaza? Well, in several years we will have a definitive response to that question. What has happened thus far is that on the 29th of December, the Republic of South Africa instituted proceedings against Israel, pursuant to the 1948 convention on the prevention and punishment of the crime of genocide. South Africa basically accused Israel of perpetrating genocide in the Gaza Strip. On the 26th of January, the court issued its initial ruling. The court at this stage is not making a determination on whether Israel has or has not committed genocide. So, just as it has not found Israel guilty, it certainly also hasn’t found Israel innocent. What the court had to do at this stage was take one of two decisions, either South Africa’s case was the equivalent of a frivolous lawsuit and dismiss it and close the proceedings, or it had to determine that South Africa presented a plausible case that Israel was violating its obligations under the genocide convention and that it would on that basis hold a full hearing.
Is there a genocide going on in Gaza? Well, in several years we will have a definitive response to that question. What has happened thus far is that on the 29th of December, the Republic of South Africa instituted proceedings against Israel, pursuant to the 1948 convention on the prevention and punishment of the crime of genocide. South Africa basically accused Israel of perpetrating genocide in the Gaza Strip. On the 26th of January, the court issued its initial ruling. The court at this stage is not making a determination on whether Israel has or has not committed genocide. So, just as it has not found Israel guilty, it certainly also hasn’t found Israel innocent. What the court had to do at this stage was take one of two decisions, either South Africa’s case was the equivalent of a frivolous lawsuit and dismiss it and close the proceedings, or it had to determine that South Africa presented a plausible case that Israel was violating its obligations under the genocide convention and that it would on that basis hold a full hearing.
Now, a lot of people have looked at the court’s ruling of the 26th of January and focused on the fact that the court did not order a ceasefire. I actually wasn’t expecting it to order a ceasefire, and I wasn’t surprised that it didn’t because in the other cases that the court has considered, most prominently Bosnia and Myanmar, it also didn’t order a ceasefire, and South Africa in requesting a ceasefire also didn’t ask the court to render an opinion on the legitimacy, or lack thereof, of Israel’s military operation. From my perspective, the key issue on the 26th of January was whether the court would simply dismiss the case or decide to proceed with it.
Benny Morris
And it decided to proceed [inaudible 03:04:35]-
And it decided to proceed [inaudible 03:04:35]-
Mouin Rabbani
And I think that’s enormously-
And I think that’s enormously-
Norman Finkelstein
I thought that was beautifully [inaudible 03:04:39]-
I thought that was beautifully [inaudible 03:04:39]-
Benny Morris
But you said they committed genocide. You already said they committed genocide. Israel is committing genocide.
But you said they committed genocide. You already said they committed genocide. Israel is committing genocide.
Mouin Rabbani
But if I can just-
But if I can just-
Norman Finkelstein
Allow me-
Allow me-
Benny Morris
You used that word.
You used that word.
Norman Finkelstein
That’s correct. I don’t run away from my words.
That’s correct. I don’t run away from my words.
Benny Morris
So Norman, you did say Israel was committing genocide.
So Norman, you did say Israel was committing genocide.
Lex Fridman
Norm, can you let Mouin finish?
Norm, can you let Mouin finish?
Norman Finkelstein
Yeah.
Yeah.
Mouin Rabbani
Well, the end of the story is you specifically asked whether I think Israel is committing genocide. I explained formally there is no finding and as you said, we won’t know for a number of years and I think there’s legitimate questions to be raised. In the Bosnia case, which I think all four of us would agree was clearly a case of genocide, the court determined-
Well, the end of the story is you specifically asked whether I think Israel is committing genocide. I explained formally there is no finding and as you said, we won’t know for a number of years and I think there’s legitimate questions to be raised. In the Bosnia case, which I think all four of us would agree was clearly a case of genocide, the court determined-
Benny Morris
You mean by the Serbs?
You mean by the Serbs?
Mouin Rabbani
Yes. In the Bosnia case, the court determined that of all the evidence placed before them only Srebrenica qualified as genocide and all the other atrocities committed did not qualify as genocide. International law is a developing organism. I don’t know how the court is going to respond in this case, so I wouldn’t take it as a foregone conclusion how the court is going to respond, but-
Yes. In the Bosnia case, the court determined that of all the evidence placed before them only Srebrenica qualified as genocide and all the other atrocities committed did not qualify as genocide. International law is a developing organism. I don’t know how the court is going to respond in this case, so I wouldn’t take it as a foregone conclusion how the court is going to respond, but-
Benny Morris
Norman has determined already.
Norman has determined already.
Mouin Rabbani
I have too, because you’re asking my personal opinion.
I have too, because you’re asking my personal opinion.
Lex Fridman
Personal opinion is [inaudible 03:05:50].
Personal opinion is [inaudible 03:05:50].
Mouin Rabbani
So as a matter of law, I want to state very clearly it has not been determined and won’t be determined for several years. Based on my observations and the evidence before me, I would say it’s indisputable that Israel is engaged in a genocidal assault against the Palestinian people in the Gaza Strip.
So as a matter of law, I want to state very clearly it has not been determined and won’t be determined for several years. Based on my observations and the evidence before me, I would say it’s indisputable that Israel is engaged in a genocidal assault against the Palestinian people in the Gaza Strip.
Benny Morris
Which is a PLO line.
Which is a PLO line.
Norman Finkelstein
Get with the program, the PLO is long passed.
Get with the program, the PLO is long passed.
Benny Morris
Okay, the Palestinian authority.
Okay, the Palestinian authority.
Mouin Rabbani
As you were saying, genocide is not a body count. Genocide consists of two elements, the destruction of a people in whole or in part, so in other words, you can commit genocide by killing 30,000 people.
As you were saying, genocide is not a body count. Genocide consists of two elements, the destruction of a people in whole or in part, so in other words, you can commit genocide by killing 30,000 people.
Benny Morris
[inaudible 03:06:39].
[inaudible 03:06:39].
Mouin Rabbani
Well, five probably is below threshold.
Well, five probably is below threshold.
Benny Morris
There is a problem of numbers.
There is a problem of numbers.
Mouin Rabbani
Yes, but I think 30,000 crosses the threshold and not reaching 500,000 is probably irrelevant, and the second element is there has to be an intent. In other words-
Yes, but I think 30,000 crosses the threshold and not reaching 500,000 is probably irrelevant, and the second element is there has to be an intent. In other words-
Benny Morris
And you believe there’s an intent?
And you believe there’s an intent?
Mouin Rabbani
Yes. I think if there is any other plausible reason for why all these people are being murdered, it’s not genocide. And as far as intent to [inaudible 03:07:06]-
Yes. I think if there is any other plausible reason for why all these people are being murdered, it’s not genocide. And as far as intent to [inaudible 03:07:06]-
Benny Morris
What about hiding behind a human shield? You don’t think that’s a reason for them being killed?
What about hiding behind a human shield? You don’t think that’s a reason for them being killed?
Mouin Rabbani
Well, let’s get the intent part out of the way first. South Africa’s-
Well, let’s get the intent part out of the way first. South Africa’s-
Benny Morris
Forget South Africa, they don’t [inaudible 03:07:16]-
Forget South Africa, they don’t [inaudible 03:07:16]-
Mouin Rabbani
I’d like to finish.
I’d like to finish.
Benny Morris
Hamas government, that’s got nothing to do with anything.
Hamas government, that’s got nothing to do with anything.
Mouin Rabbani
I think they’re pro-Satan as well, last time I checked.
I think they’re pro-Satan as well, last time I checked.
Benny Morris
No, they pro-Hamas.
No, they pro-Hamas.
Mouin Rabbani
For some reason, you don’t have a problem with people being pro-Israeli at the time of this, but if they support Palestinians’ right to life or self-determination, they get demonized and de-legitimized as pro-Hamas?
For some reason, you don’t have a problem with people being pro-Israeli at the time of this, but if they support Palestinians’ right to life or self-determination, they get demonized and de-legitimized as pro-Hamas?
Benny Morris
They supported an organization which murdered 1,200 people deliberately. That’s my problem.
They supported an organization which murdered 1,200 people deliberately. That’s my problem.
Mouin Rabbani
But supporting a state that has murdered 30,000 [inaudible 03:07:45]-
But supporting a state that has murdered 30,000 [inaudible 03:07:45]-
Benny Morris
But they haven’t because these are 30,000 are basically human shields to get by the Hamas, in which the Hamas wanted killed. They wanted them killed. Hamas wanted these people killed.
But they haven’t because these are 30,000 are basically human shields to get by the Hamas, in which the Hamas wanted killed. They wanted them killed. Hamas wanted these people killed.
Mouin Rabbani
Sure, if I could just get-
Sure, if I could just get-
Benny Morris
You don’t think they wanted them killed?
You don’t think they wanted them killed?
Mouin Rabbani
No, I don’t.
No, I don’t.
Benny Morris
They didn’t provide them with shelters. They build tunnels for their fighters, but not one shelter for their own civilians.
They didn’t provide them with shelters. They build tunnels for their fighters, but not one shelter for their own civilians.
Mouin Rabbani
If I can get back to my point, you asked me about intent and the reason that I brought in the South African application is because it is actually exceptionally detailed on intent by quoting numerous-
If I can get back to my point, you asked me about intent and the reason that I brought in the South African application is because it is actually exceptionally detailed on intent by quoting numerous-
Benny Morris
All sorts of idiotic ministers in Israel.
All sorts of idiotic ministers in Israel.
Mouin Rabbani
Well, yeah, including the prime minister, the defense minister, the chief of staff-
Well, yeah, including the prime minister, the defense minister, the chief of staff-
Benny Morris
The prime minister didn’t say genocide [inaudible 03:08:27]-
The prime minister didn’t say genocide [inaudible 03:08:27]-
Norman Finkelstein
According to Asa Kasher, the philosopher of the IDF, he said that Netanyahu was vowing genocide. Now, he’s an idiot?
According to Asa Kasher, the philosopher of the IDF, he said that Netanyahu was vowing genocide. Now, he’s an idiot?
Benny Morris
I didn’t say he’s an idiot, but he’s passed it.
I didn’t say he’s an idiot, but he’s passed it.
Mouin Rabbani
So, the reason I raised the South African application is twofold. Hamas or no Hamas, it’s exceptionally detailed on the question of intent. And secondly, when the International Court of Justice issues a ruling, individual justices have the right can give their own opinion. And I found the German one to be the most interesting on this specific question because he was basically saying that he didn’t think South Africa presented a persuasive case, but he said their section on intent was so overpowering that he felt he was left with no choice but to vote with the majority. So, I think that answers the intent part of your question.
So, the reason I raised the South African application is twofold. Hamas or no Hamas, it’s exceptionally detailed on the question of intent. And secondly, when the International Court of Justice issues a ruling, individual justices have the right can give their own opinion. And I found the German one to be the most interesting on this specific question because he was basically saying that he didn’t think South Africa presented a persuasive case, but he said their section on intent was so overpowering that he felt he was left with no choice but to vote with the majority. So, I think that answers the intent part of your question.
Steven Bonnell
So, for the ICJ case that South Africa has brought, I think there’s a couple of things that need to be mentioned. One is, and I saw you two talk at length about this, the plausibility standard is incredibly low. The only thing we’re looking for is a basic presentation of facts that make it conceivable, possible that-
So, for the ICJ case that South Africa has brought, I think there’s a couple of things that need to be mentioned. One is, and I saw you two talk at length about this, the plausibility standard is incredibly low. The only thing we’re looking for is a basic presentation of facts that make it conceivable, possible that-
Mouin Rabbani
Plausible.
Plausible.
Steven Bonnell
Plausible, which legally, this is obviously below criminal conviction, below-
Plausible, which legally, this is obviously below criminal conviction, below-
Mouin Rabbani
Yes, of course. Think of it as an indictment.
Yes, of course. Think of it as an indictment.
Steven Bonnell
Sure, possibly, maybe even a lower level than even an indictment, so plausibility is an incredibly low standard, number one. Number two, if you actually go through and you read the complaint that South Africa filed, I would say that if you go through the quotes and you even follow through to the source of the quotes, the misrepresentation that South Africa does in their case about all of these horrendous quotes, in my opinion, borders on criminal.
Sure, possibly, maybe even a lower level than even an indictment, so plausibility is an incredibly low standard, number one. Number two, if you actually go through and you read the complaint that South Africa filed, I would say that if you go through the quotes and you even follow through to the source of the quotes, the misrepresentation that South Africa does in their case about all of these horrendous quotes, in my opinion, borders on criminal.
Mouin Rabbani
16 ICJ judges disagree.
16 ICJ judges disagree.
Steven Bonnell
That’s fine if 16 ICJ judges disagree, but I’m going to give-
That’s fine if 16 ICJ judges disagree, but I’m going to give-
Norman Finkelstein
They must be awfully incompetent.
They must be awfully incompetent.
Steven Bonnell
They could be.
They could be.
Norman Finkelstein
Even the American judge, she must have been awful incompetent if she was unable to see the misrepresentations that Mr. Bonnell based on his Wikipedia entry was able to find.
Even the American judge, she must have been awful incompetent if she was unable to see the misrepresentations that Mr. Bonnell based on his Wikipedia entry was able to find.
Steven Bonnell
So, this is based on the official ICJ report that was released. I’m not sure if you read the entire thing.
So, this is based on the official ICJ report that was released. I’m not sure if you read the entire thing.
Norman Finkelstein
I read every aspect.
I read every aspect.
Steven Bonnell
Did you go through and actually identify any of the sources of underlying quotes?
Did you go through and actually identify any of the sources of underlying quotes?
Norman Finkelstein
Actually, brace yourself for this and Mouin could confirm it, Yaniv Kogan, an Israeli, and Jamie Stern-Weiner, a half Israeli, they checked every single quote in the Hebrew original and Yaniv Kogan, love the guy, he has terrifying powers of concentration, he checked every single quote. Is that correct, Mouin?
Actually, brace yourself for this and Mouin could confirm it, Yaniv Kogan, an Israeli, and Jamie Stern-Weiner, a half Israeli, they checked every single quote in the Hebrew original and Yaniv Kogan, love the guy, he has terrifying powers of concentration, he checked every single quote. Is that correct, Mouin?
Mouin Rabbani
Mm-hmm.
Mm-hmm.
Norman Finkelstein
And Jamie checked every single quote in the English, in the context, and where there were any contextual questions they told us.
And Jamie checked every single quote in the English, in the context, and where there were any contextual questions they told us.
Mouin Rabbani
I think they found one.
I think they found one.
Norman Finkelstein
Yeah, I think they found one. So, I do not believe that those 15 judges… It was 15 to two?
Yeah, I think they found one. So, I do not believe that those 15 judges… It was 15 to two?
Mouin Rabbani
16 to two, I think.
16 to two, I think.
Norman Finkelstein
There are 15 in the court plus two, so it’s 17, so it’s 15 to two. I don’t think those 15 judges were incompetent and I certainly don’t believe the president of the court, an American, would allow herself to be duped.
There are 15 in the court plus two, so it’s 17, so it’s 15 to two. I don’t think those 15 judges were incompetent and I certainly don’t believe the president of the court, an American, would allow herself to be duped.
Steven Bonnell
Well, let me read [inaudible 03:12:19]-
Well, let me read [inaudible 03:12:19]-
Norman Finkelstein
Mr. Bonnell-
Mr. Bonnell-
Lex Fridman
Hey, hey, hey, whoa, whoa, whoa, let him read.
Hey, hey, hey, whoa, whoa, whoa, let him read.
Steven Bonnell
Sure, so this was taken from the South African complaint. There’s tons of these, so here’s one. In the complaint for the ICJ they said that, “On the 12th of October, 2023, President Isaac Herzog made clear that Israel was not distinguishing between militants and civilians in Gaza, stating in a press conference to foreign media in relation to Palestinians in Gaza, over 1 million of whom are children, ‘It’s an entire nation out there that is responsible. It is not true, this rhetoric about civilians not aware, not involved.'”
Sure, so this was taken from the South African complaint. There’s tons of these, so here’s one. In the complaint for the ICJ they said that, “On the 12th of October, 2023, President Isaac Herzog made clear that Israel was not distinguishing between militants and civilians in Gaza, stating in a press conference to foreign media in relation to Palestinians in Gaza, over 1 million of whom are children, ‘It’s an entire nation out there that is responsible. It is not true, this rhetoric about civilians not aware, not involved.'”
Mouin Rabbani
I saw that [inaudible 03:12:58]-
I saw that [inaudible 03:12:58]-
Steven Bonnell
“It’s absolutely not true and we will fight until we break their backbone.” If you actually go to the news article that they even state, they even link it in their complaint. The full context for the quote was, “It is an entire nation out there that is responsible. It’s not true, this rhetoric about civilians not being aware, not involved, it’s absolutely not true. They could have risen up, they could have fought against that evil regime which took over Gaza in a coup d’etat, but we are at war. We are defending our homes, we are protecting our homes. That’s the truth. And when a nation protects its home, it fights and we will fight until we break their backbone.” He acknowledged that many Gazans had nothing to do with Hamas, but was adamant that others did. “I agree there are many innocent Palestinians who don’t agree with this, but you have a missile in your goddamn kitchen and you want to shoot it at me. Am I allowed to defend myself? We have to defend ourselves. We have the right to do so.”
“It’s absolutely not true and we will fight until we break their backbone.” If you actually go to the news article that they even state, they even link it in their complaint. The full context for the quote was, “It is an entire nation out there that is responsible. It’s not true, this rhetoric about civilians not being aware, not involved, it’s absolutely not true. They could have risen up, they could have fought against that evil regime which took over Gaza in a coup d’etat, but we are at war. We are defending our homes, we are protecting our homes. That’s the truth. And when a nation protects its home, it fights and we will fight until we break their backbone.” He acknowledged that many Gazans had nothing to do with Hamas, but was adamant that others did. “I agree there are many innocent Palestinians who don’t agree with this, but you have a missile in your goddamn kitchen and you want to shoot it at me. Am I allowed to defend myself? We have to defend ourselves. We have the right to do so.”
This is not the same as saying there’s no distinction between militants and civilians in Gaza. His statement here is actually fully compliant with international law to the letter because if you are storing military supplies in civilian areas, these things become military targets, and you’re allowed to do proportionality assessments afterwards. So, if this is supposed to be one of many quotes that they’ve shown that is supposed to demonstrate genocidal intent, but it is very easily explained by military intent or by a conflict between two parties-
Mouin Rabbani
I saw that press conference.
I saw that press conference.
Benny Morris
Wait, let me just say something. All of this talk is a bit irrelevant because it may sound to the listeners that the court in The Hague has ruled that Israel is committing genocide.
Wait, let me just say something. All of this talk is a bit irrelevant because it may sound to the listeners that the court in The Hague has ruled that Israel is committing genocide.
Mouin Rabbani
No, I think-
No, I think-
Benny Morris
It hasn’t. It’s just going in the next few years to look at the whole subject. There has been no determination at all. And as Steven says, some of the quotes are not exactly accurate quotes or taken out of context.
It hasn’t. It’s just going in the next few years to look at the whole subject. There has been no determination at all. And as Steven says, some of the quotes are not exactly accurate quotes or taken out of context.
Steven Bonnell
A total discharacterization.
A total discharacterization.
Benny Morris
Yes.
Yes.
Norman Finkelstein
It is correct, as Mouin put it, that’ll be several years before the court makes a determination.
It is correct, as Mouin put it, that’ll be several years before the court makes a determination.
Benny Morris
And my guess is that it’ll determine there was no genocide. That’s my guess. I’m just giving you my guess.
And my guess is that it’ll determine there was no genocide. That’s my guess. I’m just giving you my guess.
Norman Finkelstein
I can’t predict. I got it all wrong actually, as Mouin will attest, I got all wrong the first time. I never thought the American judge would vote in favor of plausibility.
I can’t predict. I got it all wrong actually, as Mouin will attest, I got all wrong the first time. I never thought the American judge would vote in favor of plausibility.
Benny Morris
So, you admit that you were wrong?
So, you admit that you were wrong?
Norman Finkelstein
Yeah, of course. I think I tell Mouin twice a day I was wrong about this and I was wrong about that. I’m not wrong about the facts. I try not to be, but my speculations, they can be wrong. Leaving that aside, first of all, as Mouin pointed out, there’s a difference between the legal decision by the ruling and an independent judgment. Now, South Africa was not filing a frivolous case. That was 84 pages. It was single-
Yeah, of course. I think I tell Mouin twice a day I was wrong about this and I was wrong about that. I’m not wrong about the facts. I try not to be, but my speculations, they can be wrong. Leaving that aside, first of all, as Mouin pointed out, there’s a difference between the legal decision by the ruling and an independent judgment. Now, South Africa was not filing a frivolous case. That was 84 pages. It was single-
Benny Morris
Even 84 pages can be frivolous.
Even 84 pages can be frivolous.
Steven Bonnell
It takes an hour and a half to read. It was not a massive case.
It takes an hour and a half to read. It was not a massive case.
Norman Finkelstein
It was single spaced and it had literally hundreds of footnotes-
It was single spaced and it had literally hundreds of footnotes-
Benny Morris
It can still be frivolous.
It can still be frivolous.
Norman Finkelstein
It’s possible.
It’s possible.
Mouin Rabbani
Of course, but this one wasn’t.
Of course, but this one wasn’t.
Norman Finkelstein
I read the report. To tell you the truth, I followed very closely everything that’s been happening to October 7th, I was mesmerized. I couldn’t believe the comprehensiveness of that particular report. Number two, there are two quite respected judges… Excuse me, there were two quite respected experts of international law sitting on the South African panel, John Dugard and Vaughan Lowe. Vaughan Lowe, as you might know, he argued the war case in 2004 before the International Court of Justice. Now, they were alleging genocide, which in their view means the evidence in their minds…
I read the report. To tell you the truth, I followed very closely everything that’s been happening to October 7th, I was mesmerized. I couldn’t believe the comprehensiveness of that particular report. Number two, there are two quite respected judges… Excuse me, there were two quite respected experts of international law sitting on the South African panel, John Dugard and Vaughan Lowe. Vaughan Lowe, as you might know, he argued the war case in 2004 before the International Court of Justice. Now, they were alleging genocide, which in their view means the evidence in their minds…
We are not yet at the court. The evidence in their minds compels the conclusion that genocide is being committed. I am willing, because I happen to know Mr. Dugard personally, and I have corresponded with Vaughan Lowe, I’ve heard their claim, I’ve read the report. I would say they make a very strong case, but let’s agree plausible. Now, here’s a question, if somebody qualifies for an Olympic team, let’s say a regional person qualifies for an Olympic team, it doesn’t mean they’re going to be on the Olympic team, it doesn’t mean they’re going to win a gold medal, a silver medal, or a bronze medal-
Benny Morris
But they can swim, that’s what you’re saying.
But they can swim, that’s what you’re saying.
Norman Finkelstein
No, I would say that’s a very high bar-
No, I would say that’s a very high bar-
Benny Morris
You’re saying they can swim.
You’re saying they can swim.
Norman Finkelstein
… To even qualify.
… To even qualify.
Mouin Rabbani
They can swim well enough to have a realistic prospect at winning a medal.
They can swim well enough to have a realistic prospect at winning a medal.
Norman Finkelstein
So, the even make it to plausible-
So, the even make it to plausible-
Steven Bonnell
That is not true. That is not what plausible means. It’s absolutely not. You’re dead wrong.
That is not true. That is not what plausible means. It’s absolutely not. You’re dead wrong.
Norman Finkelstein
Mr. Berelli, please don’t teach me about the English language.
Mr. Berelli, please don’t teach me about the English language.
Steven Bonnell
So, the declaration judge [inaudible 03:17:53]-
So, the declaration judge [inaudible 03:17:53]-
Norman Finkelstein
I said plausibility is the same concept as qualifying.
I said plausibility is the same concept as qualifying.
Steven Bonnell
The court is not asked at this present phase of the proceedings to determine whether South Africa’s allegations of genocide are well-founded. They’re not even well-founded. You said that plausible was a high standard, it’s absolutely not. It’s a misrepresentation of the strength of the case against Israel, just like the majority of the quotes they have in this case are. And also you said it was an extremely well-founded case. They spent like one-fourth of all the quotations, some even pulled from the Goldstone Report, that actually deal with the intent part, which is, by the way, I don’t know if you used the phrase dolus specialis, that the intentional part of genocide-
The court is not asked at this present phase of the proceedings to determine whether South Africa’s allegations of genocide are well-founded. They’re not even well-founded. You said that plausible was a high standard, it’s absolutely not. It’s a misrepresentation of the strength of the case against Israel, just like the majority of the quotes they have in this case are. And also you said it was an extremely well-founded case. They spent like one-fourth of all the quotations, some even pulled from the Goldstone Report, that actually deal with the intent part, which is, by the way, I don’t know if you used the phrase dolus specialis, that the intentional part of genocide-
Mouin Rabbani
I don’t know that term.
I don’t know that term.
Steven Bonnell
I think it’s called dolus specialis, it’s the most important part of genocide, which is proving it is a highly special intent to commit genocide. It’s possible that Israel could-
I think it’s called dolus specialis, it’s the most important part of genocide, which is proving it is a highly special intent to commit genocide. It’s possible that Israel could-
Norman Finkelstein
That’s [foreign language 03:18:43].
That’s [foreign language 03:18:43].
Steven Bonnell
Yes, I understand the state of mind, but for genocide, it’s called dolus specialis. It’s a highly special intent. Did you read the case?
Yes, I understand the state of mind, but for genocide, it’s called dolus specialis. It’s a highly special intent. Did you read the case?
Norman Finkelstein
Yeah.
Yeah.
Steven Bonnell
It is a highly special intent [inaudible 03:18:56]-
It is a highly special intent [inaudible 03:18:56]-
Norman Finkelstein
Mr. Berelli, I’m going to ask you again-
Mr. Berelli, I’m going to ask you again-
Steven Bonnell
Yes.
Yes.
Norman Finkelstein
… Please stop displaying your imbecility.
… Please stop displaying your imbecility.
Steven Bonnell
I’m sorry if you think the declaration of the judge is imbecility.
I’m sorry if you think the declaration of the judge is imbecility.
Norman Finkelstein
Don’t put on public display that you are a moron. At least have the self-possession to shut up. Did I read the case?
Don’t put on public display that you are a moron. At least have the self-possession to shut up. Did I read the case?
Steven Bonnell
I’m comfortable putting my display on camera if you’re comfortable putting yours in books.
I’m comfortable putting my display on camera if you’re comfortable putting yours in books.
Norman Finkelstein
Mr. Berelli, I read the case around four times. I read all of the majority opinion, the declarations, I read our own Barack’s declaration [inaudible 03:19:27]-
Mr. Berelli, I read the case around four times. I read all of the majority opinion, the declarations, I read our own Barack’s declaration [inaudible 03:19:27]-
Steven Bonnell
Then why are you lying and saying plausible is a high standard?
Then why are you lying and saying plausible is a high standard?
Norman Finkelstein
Because I said even reaching the benchmark of plausibility is a very high standard in the world. It’s the equivalent of a regional player qualifying for an Olympics. It’s still two steps removed, you may not be on the team, and you may not get a medal, but to get qualified, which in this context is the equivalent of plausible, you must be doing something pretty horrible. As it happens, Professor Morris-
Because I said even reaching the benchmark of plausibility is a very high standard in the world. It’s the equivalent of a regional player qualifying for an Olympics. It’s still two steps removed, you may not be on the team, and you may not get a medal, but to get qualified, which in this context is the equivalent of plausible, you must be doing something pretty horrible. As it happens, Professor Morris-
Benny Morris
The court will rule there was no genocide. That’s what the court will rule. Remember what I just told you, the court will rule there was no genocide.
The court will rule there was no genocide. That’s what the court will rule. Remember what I just told you, the court will rule there was no genocide.
Norman Finkelstein
I don’t expect to be even around when the court reaches its final decision.
I don’t expect to be even around when the court reaches its final decision.
Benny Morris
Why?
Why?
Norman Finkelstein
Why? It’ll take a long, long time.
Why? It’ll take a long, long time.
Benny Morris
Two years, three years.
Two years, three years.
Norman Finkelstein
No, I don’t think it’ll take two or three years.
No, I don’t think it’ll take two or three years.
Mouin Rabbani
Bosnia, which was admittedly a special type of case, because they were accusing Serbia of sponsoring the Bosnian Serbs, that took I think 17 years from ’90-
Bosnia, which was admittedly a special type of case, because they were accusing Serbia of sponsoring the Bosnian Serbs, that took I think 17 years from ’90-
Benny Morris
I assume they’ll take two or three years.
I assume they’ll take two or three years.
Lex Fridman
But the point you’re making, so this is a legal-
But the point you’re making, so this is a legal-
Norman Finkelstein
I’m saying that something horrible must be happening to even achieve-
I’m saying that something horrible must be happening to even achieve-
Benny Morris
It is horrible, it’s a war.
It is horrible, it’s a war.
Steven Bonnell
That is true, yes.
That is true, yes.
Benny Morris
It’s horrible.
It’s horrible.
Norman Finkelstein
Except they weren’t rendering a ruling on the war, they were rendering a ruling on the genocide.
Except they weren’t rendering a ruling on the war, they were rendering a ruling on the genocide.
Mouin Rabbani
And I think the suggestion-
And I think the suggestion-
Steven Bonnell
And they said it was plausible, they also said it plausible that Israel is committing a military operation as well.
And they said it was plausible, they also said it plausible that Israel is committing a military operation as well.
Mouin Rabbani
But I think the problem with your characterization is you’re saying in so many words the South Africans basically only have to show up in court with a coherent statement.
But I think the problem with your characterization is you’re saying in so many words the South Africans basically only have to show up in court with a coherent statement.
Benny Morris
Right.
Right.
Steven Bonnell
That is correct.
That is correct.
Benny Morris
In today’s atmosphere, that’s probably correct.
In today’s atmosphere, that’s probably correct.
Mouin Rabbani
They needed to do a lot more. They needed to persuade-
They needed to do a lot more. They needed to persuade-
Norman Finkelstein
The American judge?
The American judge?
Mouin Rabbani
They needed to persuade-
They needed to persuade-
Benny Morris
Judges go according to what the majority want to hear.
Judges go according to what the majority want to hear.
Mouin Rabbani
But they needed-
But they needed-
Norman Finkelstein
She was the president.
She was the president.
Mouin Rabbani
They needed to persuade the court that it was worth investing several years of their time in hearing this case.
They needed to persuade the court that it was worth investing several years of their time in hearing this case.
Benny Morris
They’re probably well-paid for it.
They’re probably well-paid for it.
Mouin Rabbani
They’re well paid whether they take this case or not. They have a full docket whether they accept or reject this case, and I don’t think we should-
They’re well paid whether they take this case or not. They have a full docket whether they accept or reject this case, and I don’t think we should-
Benny Morris
Remember what I just said, they won’t rule there was genocide. Remember what I said.
Remember what I just said, they won’t rule there was genocide. Remember what I said.
Steven Bonnell
Also, I recommend people actually read the case and follow through a lot of the quotes that they just don’t show genocidal intent.
Also, I recommend people actually read the case and follow through a lot of the quotes that they just don’t show genocidal intent.
Norman Finkelstein
Mr. Berelli, brace yourself.
Mr. Berelli, brace yourself.
Steven Bonnell
The Israeli minister of finance on the 8th of October, 2023, this is taken from the ICJ, this is from South Africa submission Bezalel Smotrich… I can’t read this.
The Israeli minister of finance on the 8th of October, 2023, this is taken from the ICJ, this is from South Africa submission Bezalel Smotrich… I can’t read this.
Benny Morris
Bezalel Smotrich.
Bezalel Smotrich.
Steven Bonnell
There you go, at a meeting of the Israeli cabinet that, “We need to deal a below that hasn’t been seen in 50 years and take down Gaza.” But again, if you click through and you read the source, their own linked source, it says, as per this own source, “The powerful finance minister, settler leader Bezalel Smotrich, I can’t pronounce this, demanded at the cabinet meeting late Saturday that the army, ‘Hit Hamas brutally and not take the matter of the captives into significant consideration.’ ‘As in war, you have to be brutal.’ He was quoted as saying, ‘We need to deal a blow that hasn’t been seen in 50 years and take down Gaza.'” You can’t strip the quotation of Hamas, an entity we are at war with, and then [inaudible 03:22:38] there was genocidal intent.
There you go, at a meeting of the Israeli cabinet that, “We need to deal a below that hasn’t been seen in 50 years and take down Gaza.” But again, if you click through and you read the source, their own linked source, it says, as per this own source, “The powerful finance minister, settler leader Bezalel Smotrich, I can’t pronounce this, demanded at the cabinet meeting late Saturday that the army, ‘Hit Hamas brutally and not take the matter of the captives into significant consideration.’ ‘As in war, you have to be brutal.’ He was quoted as saying, ‘We need to deal a blow that hasn’t been seen in 50 years and take down Gaza.'” You can’t strip the quotation of Hamas, an entity we are at war with, and then [inaudible 03:22:38] there was genocidal intent.
Norman Finkelstein
[inaudible 03:22:40] Gaza.
[inaudible 03:22:40] Gaza.
Benny Morris
That’s not genocidal intent.
That’s not genocidal intent.
Steven Bonnell
When the Ukrainians say, “We need to defeat Russia-“
When the Ukrainians say, “We need to defeat Russia-“
Norman Finkelstein
[inaudible 03:22:41], that’s not genocidal?
[inaudible 03:22:41], that’s not genocidal?
Steven Bonnell
No, when Ukraine says, “We need to defeat Russia,” is that genocidal? Do they mean killing all Russian citizens?
No, when Ukraine says, “We need to defeat Russia,” is that genocidal? Do they mean killing all Russian citizens?
Norman Finkelstein
Professor Morris, here’s another one.
Professor Morris, here’s another one.
Benny Morris
It’s ridiculous.
It’s ridiculous.
Norman Finkelstein
Ridiculous?
Ridiculous?
Benny Morris
Yes, ridiculous.
Yes, ridiculous.
Norman Finkelstein
The American judge-
The American judge-
Benny Morris
He also doesn’t determine policy, but that’s neither here nor there.
He also doesn’t determine policy, but that’s neither here nor there.
Norman Finkelstein
The American judge read-
The American judge read-
Benny Morris
You are holding the American judge to-
You are holding the American judge to-
Norman Finkelstein
Well, she was the president [inaudible 03:23:07]-
Well, she was the president [inaudible 03:23:07]-
Steven Bonnell
He’ll appeal to authority when it agrees with him, and we won’t deal with the actual facts of the matter, ever.
He’ll appeal to authority when it agrees with him, and we won’t deal with the actual facts of the matter, ever.
Norman Finkelstein
The American judge read several of the quotes.
The American judge read several of the quotes.
Benny Morris
Look at the American Supreme Court today, they may support Trump. It shows you how worthy American judges are.
Look at the American Supreme Court today, they may support Trump. It shows you how worthy American judges are.
Norman Finkelstein
Professor Morris, without going too far afield, if you heard a statement by the defense minister, the defense minister said, “We are going to prevent any food, water, fuel, or electricity from entering Gaza-“
Professor Morris, without going too far afield, if you heard a statement by the defense minister, the defense minister said, “We are going to prevent any food, water, fuel, or electricity from entering Gaza-“
Benny Morris
Did Israel do that?
Did Israel do that?
Norman Finkelstein
No, I’m wondering-
No, I’m wondering-
Benny Morris
Well, he said-
Well, he said-
Norman Finkelstein
I’m asking-
I’m asking-
Benny Morris
… Isn’t Israeli government policy.
… Isn’t Israeli government policy.
Norman Finkelstein
But we’re talking about statements now, intent. How would you interpret that?
But we’re talking about statements now, intent. How would you interpret that?
Benny Morris
After 1,200 of your citizens are murdered the way they were, I would expect extreme statements by lots of politicians.
After 1,200 of your citizens are murdered the way they were, I would expect extreme statements by lots of politicians.
Mouin Rabbani
But you don’t accept extreme Palestinians-
But you don’t accept extreme Palestinians-
Benny Morris
But that’s not a crazy [inaudible 03:24:02]-
But that’s not a crazy [inaudible 03:24:02]-
Mouin Rabbani
Wait, but you don’t accept-
Wait, but you don’t accept-
Benny Morris
What he said isn’t Israeli policy.
What he said isn’t Israeli policy.
Mouin Rabbani
But you don’t-
But you don’t-
Benny Morris
… that’s not Israeli policy.
… that’s not Israeli policy.
Mouin Rabbani
But you don’t accept-
But you don’t accept-
Benny Morris
What he said isn’t Israeli policy. They let in water. They let in gas.
What he said isn’t Israeli policy. They let in water. They let in gas.
Norman Finkelstein
Untrue. Untrue. Untrue.
Untrue. Untrue. Untrue.
Mouin Rabbani
But you don’t accept extreme Palestinian statements after they lost their entire country, not just 1200 people.
But you don’t accept extreme Palestinian statements after they lost their entire country, not just 1200 people.
Benny Morris
That’s a good point. No, no, that’s a good point.
That’s a good point. No, no, that’s a good point.
Lex Fridman
And on that, on that brief moment of agreement, let’s just take a quick pause. We need a smoke break. We need a water break, a bathroom break.
And on that, on that brief moment of agreement, let’s just take a quick pause. We need a smoke break. We need a water break, a bathroom break.
Norman Finkelstein
Take down Gaza is not a genocide.
Take down Gaza is not a genocide.
Steven Bonnell
Defeat Russia is a genocide statement.
Defeat Russia is a genocide statement.
Benny Morris
What does take down Gaza?
What does take down Gaza?
Steven Bonnell
When we went to war with Iraq and we wanted to destroy Iraq, that was a genocidal statement.
When we went to war with Iraq and we wanted to destroy Iraq, that was a genocidal statement.
Benny Morris
Take down Gaza.
Take down Gaza.
Steven Bonnell
There’s a reason why genocide is such an importantly guarded concept, and it’s not to condemn every nation that goes to war.
There’s a reason why genocide is such an importantly guarded concept, and it’s not to condemn every nation that goes to war.
Norman Finkelstein
Mr. Bonnell-
Mr. Bonnell-
Steven Bonnell
Wait, you do know how to pronounce my name. You’re mispronouncing it intentionally.
Wait, you do know how to pronounce my name. You’re mispronouncing it intentionally.
Benny Morris
He made you an Italian all the time.
He made you an Italian all the time.
Norman Finkelstein
I’m so [inaudible 03:24:46] by your solicitude for international laws.
I’m so [inaudible 03:24:46] by your solicitude for international laws.
Steven Bonnell
You should try learning it sometime. It would help you sort out a lot of the civilian deaths.
You should try learning it sometime. It would help you sort out a lot of the civilian deaths.
Norman Finkelstein
Unfortunately, 15 judges disagree.
Unfortunately, 15 judges disagree.
Steven Bonnell
You could keep citing the judges. You should actually try reading the actual statements.
You could keep citing the judges. You should actually try reading the actual statements.
Benny Morris
This is tiring. You’ve invited us to a tiring session.
This is tiring. You’ve invited us to a tiring session.
Lex Fridman
Yeah. There you go. How are you guys doing?
Yeah. There you go. How are you guys doing?
Benny Morris
Okay. Okay. There are major things to discuss here, not just what some court is doing and the judge in two years time.
Okay. Okay. There are major things to discuss here, not just what some court is doing and the judge in two years time.
Steven Bonnell
Yes. Okay. So what you just said is my whole… One of the reasons why I feel so strongly about this particular conflict is because there are really important things to discuss, but they will never be discussed.
Yes. Okay. So what you just said is my whole… One of the reasons why I feel so strongly about this particular conflict is because there are really important things to discuss, but they will never be discussed.
Benny Morris
They’re not being discussed here.
They’re not being discussed here.
Steven Bonnell
We’re not going to talk about like Area A, B, and C or what a transference of territory. So we’re going to talk about apartheid. We’re not going to talk about the differences in how do you conduct war in an urban environment where people, we’re just going to talk about genocide. We’re not going to talk about what’s a good solution for the Palestinians. We’re just going to say ethnic cleansing,
We’re not going to talk about like Area A, B, and C or what a transference of territory. So we’re going to talk about apartheid. We’re not going to talk about the differences in how do you conduct war in an urban environment where people, we’re just going to talk about genocide. We’re not going to talk about what’s a good solution for the Palestinians. We’re just going to say ethnic cleansing,
Lex Fridman
Is it possible to be productive over the next two hours and talk about solutions?
Is it possible to be productive over the next two hours and talk about solutions?
Benny Morris
About solutions. I have no idea what to say. I mean, I don’t see any solutions on if you wanted a positive end to this discussion, which is what you said at the beginning. I can’t contribute to this because I am pessimistic. I don’t see anywhere any way forward here,
About solutions. I have no idea what to say. I mean, I don’t see any solutions on if you wanted a positive end to this discussion, which is what you said at the beginning. I can’t contribute to this because I am pessimistic. I don’t see anywhere any way forward here,
Steven Bonnell
But the solution is easy. The reason why the solution is hard is because the histories and the myths are completely… There’s a different factual record.
But the solution is easy. The reason why the solution is hard is because the histories and the myths are completely… There’s a different factual record.
Lex Fridman
One of the things would be good to talk about solutions with the future is going back in all the times that it has failed. So every time-
One of the things would be good to talk about solutions with the future is going back in all the times that it has failed. So every time-
Steven Bonnell
But even at that, we’re probably not going to agree. He’s going to say… You could write that. I can predict the whole line. He’s going to say from ’93 to ’99, he’s going to say, Israel didn’t adhere to the Oslo courts ever, settlement expansion continued, raids happened into the West Bank, that there was never a legitimate… That Netanyahu came in and violated the Y Memorandum, the transference. He’s going to say all of this and he’s not going to bring up anything of the Palestinian side. And then for Camp David, he’s going to say that yeah, that Arafat was trying, that the maps and the territorial exchange wasn’t good enough, that they were asking Palestinians to make all the concessions, that Israel would’ve made-
But even at that, we’re probably not going to agree. He’s going to say… You could write that. I can predict the whole line. He’s going to say from ’93 to ’99, he’s going to say, Israel didn’t adhere to the Oslo courts ever, settlement expansion continued, raids happened into the West Bank, that there was never a legitimate… That Netanyahu came in and violated the Y Memorandum, the transference. He’s going to say all of this and he’s not going to bring up anything of the Palestinian side. And then for Camp David, he’s going to say that yeah, that Arafat was trying, that the maps and the territorial exchange wasn’t good enough, that they were asking Palestinians to make all the concessions, that Israel would’ve made-
Lex Fridman
Well, lay it all out. Lay it out.
Well, lay it all out. Lay it out.
Benny Morris
You do talk quickly.
You do talk quickly.
Steven Bonnell
Yeah, I know. Yeah.
Yeah, I know. Yeah.
Benny Morris
Yeah. My future book should interest you guys.
Yeah. My future book should interest you guys.
Mouin Rabbani
What are you working on?
What are you working on?
Benny Morris
No, it’s not working on, it’s actually going to come out. It deals with Israeli and Arab atrocities, war crimes I call them in the ’48 war.
No, it’s not working on, it’s actually going to come out. It deals with Israeli and Arab atrocities, war crimes I call them in the ’48 war.
Mouin Rabbani
Really?
Really?
Benny Morris
That’s the book, just deals with that subject.
That’s the book, just deals with that subject.
Mouin Rabbani
Because I know you’ve also talked about the closure of the archives and stuff.
Because I know you’ve also talked about the closure of the archives and stuff.
Benny Morris
Well, it’s marginal. It deals with that as well. But they have tried to seal off documents, which had already used and seen. Now they don’t let people see them. That’s happened. But it’s marginal in terms of its effect on-
Well, it’s marginal. It deals with that as well. But they have tried to seal off documents, which had already used and seen. Now they don’t let people see them. That’s happened. But it’s marginal in terms of its effect on-
Mouin Rabbani
Were the British archives useful for you, for this new book?
Were the British archives useful for you, for this new book?
Benny Morris
Yeah. Well, for this list it’s mostly Israeli archives. The British and the Americans and the UN did deal with these subjects, but not as well as Israeli documents.
Yeah. Well, for this list it’s mostly Israeli archives. The British and the Americans and the UN did deal with these subjects, but not as well as Israeli documents.
Mouin Rabbani
What’s your casualty count for Deir Yassin?
What’s your casualty count for Deir Yassin?
Benny Morris
It’s about a hundred. I think there’s agreement on that by Israelis and Arabs, 100-105.
It’s about a hundred. I think there’s agreement on that by Israelis and Arabs, 100-105.
Mouin Rabbani
Because before they were-
Because before they were-
Benny Morris
They used to say 245 or 254. Those were the figures. The British and the Arabs and the Haganah agreed on it at the beginning.
They used to say 245 or 254. Those were the figures. The British and the Arabs and the Haganah agreed on it at the beginning.
Mouin Rabbani
Because the Red Cross, I think was the one that first put out that number.
Because the Red Cross, I think was the one that first put out that number.
Benny Morris
I don’t remember. Maybe it was, what’s his name? Jacques de Rainier or maybe, yeah, maybe he came up with that number. But it was just they didn’t count. They didn’t count bodies. They just threw the number out and everybody was happy to blame the Irgun and the Lehi for killing more Arabs than actually-
I don’t remember. Maybe it was, what’s his name? Jacques de Rainier or maybe, yeah, maybe he came up with that number. But it was just they didn’t count. They didn’t count bodies. They just threw the number out and everybody was happy to blame the Irgun and the Lehi for killing more Arabs than actually-
Mouin Rabbani
Well, and they put it to good use as well.
Well, and they put it to good use as well.
Benny Morris
Well, they said that it helped to precipitate more evacuations. So they were happy.
Well, they said that it helped to precipitate more evacuations. So they were happy.
Mouin Rabbani
I think Begin in his memoir [inaudible 03:28:33].
I think Begin in his memoir [inaudible 03:28:33].
Benny Morris
Yeah. Yeah. They also use that number.
Yeah. Yeah. They also use that number.
Peace
Lex Fridman
So first of all, thank you for that heated discussion about the present. I would love to go back into history in a way that informs what we can look for as by way of hope for the future. So when has Israel and Palestine have we been closest to something like a peace settlement, to something that where both sides would be happy and enable the flourishing of both peoples?
So first of all, thank you for that heated discussion about the present. I would love to go back into history in a way that informs what we can look for as by way of hope for the future. So when has Israel and Palestine have we been closest to something like a peace settlement, to something that where both sides would be happy and enable the flourishing of both peoples?
Benny Morris
Well, from my knowledge of the 120 years or so of conflict, the closest I think the two sides have been to reaching some sort of settlement appears to have been in the year 2000 when Barak and then subsequently Clinton offered a two-state settlement to PLO, Palestinian Authority Chairman Yasser Arafat and Arafat seemed to waver. He didn’t immediately reject what was being offered, but ultimately at the end of Camp David in July 2000, he came down against the proposals. And Clinton who said he wouldn’t blame him, later blamed Arafat for bringing down the summit and not reaching a solution there. But I think there on the table, certainly in the Clinton parameters of December 2000, which followed the proposals by Barak in July, the Palestinians were offered the best deal they’re ever going to get from Israel unless Israel is destroyed and then there’ll just be a Palestinian Arab state.
Well, from my knowledge of the 120 years or so of conflict, the closest I think the two sides have been to reaching some sort of settlement appears to have been in the year 2000 when Barak and then subsequently Clinton offered a two-state settlement to PLO, Palestinian Authority Chairman Yasser Arafat and Arafat seemed to waver. He didn’t immediately reject what was being offered, but ultimately at the end of Camp David in July 2000, he came down against the proposals. And Clinton who said he wouldn’t blame him, later blamed Arafat for bringing down the summit and not reaching a solution there. But I think there on the table, certainly in the Clinton parameters of December 2000, which followed the proposals by Barak in July, the Palestinians were offered the best deal they’re ever going to get from Israel unless Israel is destroyed and then there’ll just be a Palestinian Arab state.
But the best deal that Israel could ever offer them, they were offered, which essentially was 95% of the West Bank, East Jerusalem, half of the old city of Jerusalem, some sort of joint control of the Temple Mount and the Gaza Strip of course in full. And the Palestinians said no to this deal and nobody really knows why Arafat said no. Some people think he was trying to hold out for slightly better terms, but my reading is that he was constitutionally, psychologically incapable of signing off on a two-state deal, meaning acceptance of the existence of a Jewish state. This was really the problem.
Mouin Rabbani
Of Israel or of a Jewish state?
Of Israel or of a Jewish state?
Benny Morris
Of a Jewish state, the Jewish state of Israel. He wasn’t willing to share Palestine with the Jews and put his name to that. I think he just couldn’t do it. That’s my reading. But some people say it was because the terms were insufficient and he was willing, but was waiting for slightly better terms. I don’t buy that. I don’t think so. But other people disagree with me on this.
Of a Jewish state, the Jewish state of Israel. He wasn’t willing to share Palestine with the Jews and put his name to that. I think he just couldn’t do it. That’s my reading. But some people say it was because the terms were insufficient and he was willing, but was waiting for slightly better terms. I don’t buy that. I don’t think so. But other people disagree with me on this.
Lex Fridman
What do you think?
What do you think?
Mouin Rabbani
Well, just briefly in response, Arafat formally recognized Israel in 1993. Yeah, earlier. I don’t think actually that in 2000-2001, a genuine resolution was on offer because I think the maximum Israel was prepared to offer, admittedly more than it had been prepared to offer in the past, fell short of the minimum that the Palestinians consider to be a reasonable two state settlement. Bearing in mind that as of 1949, Israel controlled 78% of the British mandate of Palestine. Palestinians were seeking a state on the remaining 22%, and this was apparently too much for Israel. My response to your question would be-
Well, just briefly in response, Arafat formally recognized Israel in 1993. Yeah, earlier. I don’t think actually that in 2000-2001, a genuine resolution was on offer because I think the maximum Israel was prepared to offer, admittedly more than it had been prepared to offer in the past, fell short of the minimum that the Palestinians consider to be a reasonable two state settlement. Bearing in mind that as of 1949, Israel controlled 78% of the British mandate of Palestine. Palestinians were seeking a state on the remaining 22%, and this was apparently too much for Israel. My response to your question would be-
Benny Morris
Wait, wait. They were being offered something like 22 or 21%.
Wait, wait. They were being offered something like 22 or 21%.
Mouin Rabbani
They were being offered, I think less than a withdrawal to the 1967 borders with mutual and minor and reciprocal land swaps and the just resolution of-
They were being offered, I think less than a withdrawal to the 1967 borders with mutual and minor and reciprocal land swaps and the just resolution of-
Benny Morris
The refugee problem was one of the problems.
The refugee problem was one of the problems.
Mouin Rabbani
Refugee question. Yes. I worked for a number of years with an international crisis group and my boss at the time was Rob Malley, who was one of the American officials, present at Camp David.
Refugee question. Yes. I worked for a number of years with an international crisis group and my boss at the time was Rob Malley, who was one of the American officials, present at Camp David.
Benny Morris
Who was be thrown out of the State Department or whatever.
Who was be thrown out of the State Department or whatever.
Mouin Rabbani
The point I want to make about Rob was he wrote, I think, a very perceptive article in 2001 in the New York Review of books. I know that you and Ehud Barak have had a debate with them, but I think he gives a very compelling reason of why and how Camp David failed. But rather than going into that, I’ll-
The point I want to make about Rob was he wrote, I think, a very perceptive article in 2001 in the New York Review of books. I know that you and Ehud Barak have had a debate with them, but I think he gives a very compelling reason of why and how Camp David failed. But rather than going into that, I’ll-
Benny Morris
He wrote that together with Hussein Araj.
He wrote that together with Hussein Araj.
Mouin Rabbani
Hussein Araj, yes, who was not at Camp David. But in response to your question, I think there could have been a real possibility of Israeli-Palestinian and Arab-Israeli peace in the mid 1970s in the wake of the 1973 October War. I’ll recall that in 1971, Moshe Dayan, Israel’s defense minister at the time, full of triumphalism about Israel’s victory in 1967 speaking to a group of Israeli military veterans, stated, “If I had to choose between Sharm El-Sheikh without peace or peace without Sharm El-Sheikh…” This is referring to the resort in Egyptian Sinai, which was an under Israeli occupation. Dayan said, “I will choose for Sharm El-Sheikh without peace.” Then the 1973 war came along and I think Israeli calculations began to change very significantly.
Hussein Araj, yes, who was not at Camp David. But in response to your question, I think there could have been a real possibility of Israeli-Palestinian and Arab-Israeli peace in the mid 1970s in the wake of the 1973 October War. I’ll recall that in 1971, Moshe Dayan, Israel’s defense minister at the time, full of triumphalism about Israel’s victory in 1967 speaking to a group of Israeli military veterans, stated, “If I had to choose between Sharm El-Sheikh without peace or peace without Sharm El-Sheikh…” This is referring to the resort in Egyptian Sinai, which was an under Israeli occupation. Dayan said, “I will choose for Sharm El-Sheikh without peace.” Then the 1973 war came along and I think Israeli calculations began to change very significantly.
And I think it was in that context that had there been a joint US-Soviet push for an Arab-Israeli and Israeli-Palestinian resolution that incorporated both an Israeli withdrawal to the 1967 lines and the establishment of a Palestinian state in the occupied territories, I think there was a very reasonable prospect for that being achieved. It ended up being aborted, I think for several reasons, and ultimately the Egyptian President Anwar Sadat decided for reasons we can discuss later to launch a separate unilateral initiative for Israeli Egyptian rather than Arab-Israeli peace. And I think once that set in motion, the prospects disappeared because Israel essentially saw its most powerful adversary removed from the equation and felt that this would give it a free hand in the occupied territories also in Lebanon to get rid of the PLO and so on.
You ask when were we closest, and I can’t give you an answer of when we were closest. I can only tell you when I think we could have been close and that was a lost opportunity. If we look at the situation today, there’s been a lot of discussion about a two-state settlement. My own view, and I’ve written about this, I don’t buy the arguments of the naysayers that we have passed the so-called point of no return with respect to a two-state settlement. Certainly if you look at the Israeli position in the occupied territories, I would argue it’s more tenuous than was the French position in Algeria in 1954, than was a British position in Ireland in 1916, than was a Ethiopian position in Eritrea in 1990. And so as a matter of practicality, as a matter of principle, I do think the establishment of a Palestinian state in the occupied territories remains realistic.
I think the question that we now need to ask ourselves, it’s one I’m certainly asking myself since October 7th and looking at Israel’s genocidal campaign, but also looking at larger questions, is it desirable? Can you have peace with what increasingly appears to be an irrational genocidal state that seeks to confront and resolve each and every political challenge with violence? And that reacts to its failure to achieve solutions to political challenges with violence by applying even more violence, that has an insatiable lust for Palestinian territory, that a genocidal apartheid state that seems increasingly incapable of even conceiving of peaceful coexistence with the other people on that land. So I’m very pessimistic that a solution is possible.
I grew up in Western Europe in the long shadow of the Second World War. I think we can all agree that there could have been no peace in Europe had certain regimes on that continent not been removed from power. I look at Southeast Asia in the late 1970s, and I think we all agreed that there could not have been peace that region had the Khmer Rouge not been ousted. I look at Southern Africa during the 1990s and I think we can all be agreed that had the white minority regimes that ruled Zimbabwe and South Africa not been dismantled, there could not have been peace in that region. And although I think it’s worth having a discussion, I do think it’s now legitimate question to ask, can there be peace without dismantling the Zionist regime?
And I make a very clear distinction between the Israeli state and its institutions on the one hand and the Israeli people who I think regardless of our discussion about the history, I think you can now talk about an Israeli people and the people that have developed rights over time and a formula for peaceful coexistence with them will need to be found, which is a separate matter from dismantling the Israeli state and its institutions. And again, I haven’t reached clear conclusions about this except to say as a practical matter, I think a two state settlement remains feasible. But I think there are very legitimate questions about its desirability and about whether peace can be achieved in the Middle East with the persistence of an irrational genocidal apartheid regime. Particularly because Israeli society is beginning to develop many extremely, extremely distasteful supremacist, dehumanizing aspects that I think also stand in the way of coexistence that are being fed by this regime.
Lex Fridman
So if you look back into history when we’re closest to peace, and do you draw any hope from any of them?
So if you look back into history when we’re closest to peace, and do you draw any hope from any of them?
Steven Bonnell
I feel like in 2000, I feel like the deal that was present, at least at the end of the Taba Summit, I think in terms of what Israel, I think had the appetite to give and what the Palestinians would’ve gotten, would’ve definitely been the most agreeable between the two parties. I don’t know if in ’73. I’m not sure if the appetite would’ve ever been there for the Arab states to negotiate alongside the Palestinians. I know that in Jordan there was no love for the Palestinians after 1970, after Black September. I know that Sadat had no love for the Palestinians due to their association with the Muslim brotherhoods, attempted assassinations in Egypt.
I feel like in 2000, I feel like the deal that was present, at least at the end of the Taba Summit, I think in terms of what Israel, I think had the appetite to give and what the Palestinians would’ve gotten, would’ve definitely been the most agreeable between the two parties. I don’t know if in ’73. I’m not sure if the appetite would’ve ever been there for the Arab states to negotiate alongside the Palestinians. I know that in Jordan there was no love for the Palestinians after 1970, after Black September. I know that Sadat had no love for the Palestinians due to their association with the Muslim brotherhoods, attempted assassinations in Egypt.
Mouin Rabbani
Sorry, which? PLO and the Muslim brotherhood?
Sorry, which? PLO and the Muslim brotherhood?
Steven Bonnell
Sadat was upset because there were attempted assassinations by people in… Oh no, an assassination. It was a personal friend of his, Yusuf Al-Sabah. I can’t pronounce that. He was assassinated by a Palestinian-
Sadat was upset because there were attempted assassinations by people in… Oh no, an assassination. It was a personal friend of his, Yusuf Al-Sabah. I can’t pronounce that. He was assassinated by a Palestinian-
Mouin Rabbani
He was killed by the Abu Nidal organization, which was not part of the PLO and had nothing to do with the Muslim Brotherhood.
He was killed by the Abu Nidal organization, which was not part of the PLO and had nothing to do with the Muslim Brotherhood.
Steven Bonnell
Admittedly, he says as much, belongs to a [inaudible 03:42:05] group, not PLO directly. But I think that there was a history of the Palestinians sometimes fighting with their neighboring states that were hosting them if they weren’t getting the political concessions they wanted. The assassination of the Jordanian king in ’51 might be another example of that in Jordan. It feels like over a long period of time, it feels like the Palestinians have been told from the neighboring Arab states that if they just continue to enact violence, whether in Israel or abroad, that eventually a state will materialize somehow. I don’t think it’s gotten them any closer to a state. If anything, I think it’s taken them farther and farther and farther away from one, and I think as long as the hyperbolic language is continually employed internationally, the idea that Israel is committing a genocide, the idea that there is an apartheid, the idea that they live in a concentration camp, all of these words, I think further the narrative for the Palestinians that Israel is an evil state that needs to be dismantled.
Admittedly, he says as much, belongs to a [inaudible 03:42:05] group, not PLO directly. But I think that there was a history of the Palestinians sometimes fighting with their neighboring states that were hosting them if they weren’t getting the political concessions they wanted. The assassination of the Jordanian king in ’51 might be another example of that in Jordan. It feels like over a long period of time, it feels like the Palestinians have been told from the neighboring Arab states that if they just continue to enact violence, whether in Israel or abroad, that eventually a state will materialize somehow. I don’t think it’s gotten them any closer to a state. If anything, I think it’s taken them farther and farther and farther away from one, and I think as long as the hyperbolic language is continually employed internationally, the idea that Israel is committing a genocide, the idea that there is an apartheid, the idea that they live in a concentration camp, all of these words, I think further the narrative for the Palestinians that Israel is an evil state that needs to be dismantled.
I mean you said as much about the institution, at least to the Zionist government. Israel’s government is probably not going anywhere. All of the other surrounding Arab states have accepted that, or at least most of them down in the Gulf. Egypt and Jordan have accepted that the Palestinians need to accept it too. The Israeli state or the state apparatus is not going anywhere, and at some point they need to realize like, “Hey, we need a leader that’s going to come out and represent us, represent all of us, is willing to take political risks, is willing to negotiate some lasting piece for us, and it’s not going to be the international community or some invocation of international law or some invocation of morality or justice that’s going to extricate us from this conflict. It’s going to take some actual difficult political maneuvering on the ground-“
Mouin Rabbani
Of accepting Israel?
Of accepting Israel?
Steven Bonnell
Of accepting Israel.
Of accepting Israel.
Mouin Rabbani
Which they formally did in 1993.
Which they formally did in 1993.
Steven Bonnell
Which they formally did in 1993. But then no lasting piece came after that in 2000.
Which they formally did in 1993. But then no lasting piece came after that in 2000.
Mouin Rabbani
No. Because 1993 was not a peace agreement.
No. Because 1993 was not a peace agreement.
Steven Bonnell
Sure. The Oslo Accords didn’t have a final solution.
Sure. The Oslo Accords didn’t have a final solution.
Mouin Rabbani
… were an interim agreement. And Palestinians actually began clamoring for commencing the permanent status resolutions on schedule, and the Israelis kept delaying them. In fact, they only began, I believe in ’99 under American pressure on the Israelis.
… were an interim agreement. And Palestinians actually began clamoring for commencing the permanent status resolutions on schedule, and the Israelis kept delaying them. In fact, they only began, I believe in ’99 under American pressure on the Israelis.
Benny Morris
I think you’re being a bit one-sided. Both sides didn’t fulfill the promise of Oslo and the steps needed for Oslo. There was Palestinian terrorism which accompanied Israel’s expansion of settlements and other things. The two things fed each other and led to what happened in 2000, which was a breakdown of the talks altogether when the Palestinians said no. But I don’t agree incidentally with this definition of Israel or the Israeli state as apartheid. It’s not. There is some sort of apartheid going on in the West Bank. The Israeli regime itself is not an apartheid regime. That is nonsense, by any definition of apartheid, which-
I think you’re being a bit one-sided. Both sides didn’t fulfill the promise of Oslo and the steps needed for Oslo. There was Palestinian terrorism which accompanied Israel’s expansion of settlements and other things. The two things fed each other and led to what happened in 2000, which was a breakdown of the talks altogether when the Palestinians said no. But I don’t agree incidentally with this definition of Israel or the Israeli state as apartheid. It’s not. There is some sort of apartheid going on in the West Bank. The Israeli regime itself is not an apartheid regime. That is nonsense, by any definition of apartheid, which-
Mouin Rabbani
Well, by the formal definition, I think it qualifies.
Well, by the formal definition, I think it qualifies.
Benny Morris
No, it doesn’t qualify. Apartheid is a race-based distinction between different segments of the population and some of them don’t have any representation at all, like the Blacks in South Africa.
No, it doesn’t qualify. Apartheid is a race-based distinction between different segments of the population and some of them don’t have any representation at all, like the Blacks in South Africa.
Mouin Rabbani
That’s not a requirement.
That’s not a requirement.
Benny Morris
In Israel itself, the minority, the Arabs do have representation, do have rights, and so on. I don’t think Israel is also genocidal. I don’t think it’s being genocidal. It wasn’t so in ’48. It wasn’t so in ’67, and it hasn’t been recently in my view. And talk about dismantling Israel and that’s what you’re talking about is, and I think Steven said it correctly, is counterproductive. It just pushes Israelis further away from willing to give Palestinians anything.
In Israel itself, the minority, the Arabs do have representation, do have rights, and so on. I don’t think Israel is also genocidal. I don’t think it’s being genocidal. It wasn’t so in ’48. It wasn’t so in ’67, and it hasn’t been recently in my view. And talk about dismantling Israel and that’s what you’re talking about is, and I think Steven said it correctly, is counterproductive. It just pushes Israelis further away from willing to give Palestinians anything.
Lex Fridman
Please, Norm tell me you have-
Please, Norm tell me you have-
Benny Morris
Something optimistic to say.
Something optimistic to say.
Lex Fridman
… optimistic to say.
… optimistic to say.
Norman Finkelstein
Even though I agree, I’ve thought about it a lot and I agree with Marine’s analysis. I’m not really in the business of punditry. I’d rather look at the historical record where I feel more comfortable and I feel on terra firma. So I’d like to just go through that. I don’t quite, I agree and I disagree with Mouin on the ’73 issue. After the 1973 war, it was clear that Israel was surprised by what happened during the war, and it took a big hit. The estimates are… I don’t know what numbers you used, but I hear between two and 3000 Israeli soldiers were killed during the 19-
Even though I agree, I’ve thought about it a lot and I agree with Marine’s analysis. I’m not really in the business of punditry. I’d rather look at the historical record where I feel more comfortable and I feel on terra firma. So I’d like to just go through that. I don’t quite, I agree and I disagree with Mouin on the ’73 issue. After the 1973 war, it was clear that Israel was surprised by what happened during the war, and it took a big hit. The estimates are… I don’t know what numbers you used, but I hear between two and 3000 Israeli soldiers were killed during the 19-
Mouin Rabbani
It was 2,500.
It was 2,500.
Benny Morris
Yeah, 27. Yeah.
Yeah, 27. Yeah.
Norman Finkelstein
Okay, so I got it right. I read different numbers. That’s a very large number of Israelis who were killed. There were moments at the beginning of the war where there was a fear that this might be it.
Okay, so I got it right. I read different numbers. That’s a very large number of Israelis who were killed. There were moments at the beginning of the war where there was a fear that this might be it.
Benny Morris
There wasn’t.
There wasn’t.
Norman Finkelstein
No. The Israelis fear-
No. The Israelis fear-
Benny Morris
This is nonsense. Everybody forgets Israel’s atomic weaponry.
This is nonsense. Everybody forgets Israel’s atomic weaponry.
Norman Finkelstein
I know, but-
I know, but-
Benny Morris
So how could they have been defeated?
So how could they have been defeated?
Norman Finkelstein
Because Dayan expressed-
Because Dayan expressed-
Mouin Rabbani
Didn’t Dayan talk about the collapse of the third temple?
Didn’t Dayan talk about the collapse of the third temple?
Benny Morris
He did, but it was hysterical and silly because Israel had weapons. They wanted to stop the Syrians or the Egyptians.
He did, but it was hysterical and silly because Israel had weapons. They wanted to stop the Syrians or the Egyptians.
Mouin Rabbani
But we’re talking about perceptions.
But we’re talking about perceptions.
Norman Finkelstein
I can’t tell you if he was hysterical or not.
I can’t tell you if he was hysterical or not.
Benny Morris
No. He was. For a day, he was hysterical.
No. He was. For a day, he was hysterical.
Norman Finkelstein
I wasn’t in the same room with him.
I wasn’t in the same room with him.
Benny Morris
For a day, he was hysterical.
For a day, he was hysterical.
Norman Finkelstein
But I’m just saying, let’s not bog down on that. The war is over and when President Carter comes into power… Carter was an extremely smart guy. Jimmy Carter, extremely smart guy, and he was very fixed on details. He was probably the most impressive of modern American presidents, in my opinion, by a wide margin. And he was determined to resolve the conflict on a big scale, on the Arab-Israeli scale. On the Palestinian issue, he wouldn’t go past what he called a Palestinian homeland. He wouldn’t accept-
But I’m just saying, let’s not bog down on that. The war is over and when President Carter comes into power… Carter was an extremely smart guy. Jimmy Carter, extremely smart guy, and he was very fixed on details. He was probably the most impressive of modern American presidents, in my opinion, by a wide margin. And he was determined to resolve the conflict on a big scale, on the Arab-Israeli scale. On the Palestinian issue, he wouldn’t go past what he called a Palestinian homeland. He wouldn’t accept-
Mouin Rabbani
Palestinian national home.
Palestinian national home.
Norman Finkelstein
On the Palestinian national home. He wouldn’t go as far as a Palestinian state. I’m not going to go into the details of that. I don’t think realistically, given the political balance of forces that was going to happen, but that’s a separate issue. Let’s get to the issue at hand, namely, what is the obstacle or what has been the obstacle since the early 1970s? Since roughly 1974, the Palestinians have accepted the two states settlement and the June 1967 border. Now as more pressure was exerted on Israel because the Palestinians seemed reasonable, the Israelis, to quote the Israeli political scientist, Avner Yaniv, he since passed from the scene. He said… Yaniv in his book, Dilemmas of Security, he said that the big Israeli fear was what he called the Palestinian peace offensive.
On the Palestinian national home. He wouldn’t go as far as a Palestinian state. I’m not going to go into the details of that. I don’t think realistically, given the political balance of forces that was going to happen, but that’s a separate issue. Let’s get to the issue at hand, namely, what is the obstacle or what has been the obstacle since the early 1970s? Since roughly 1974, the Palestinians have accepted the two states settlement and the June 1967 border. Now as more pressure was exerted on Israel because the Palestinians seemed reasonable, the Israelis, to quote the Israeli political scientist, Avner Yaniv, he since passed from the scene. He said… Yaniv in his book, Dilemmas of Security, he said that the big Israeli fear was what he called the Palestinian peace offensive.
That was their worry that the Palestinians were becoming too moderate. And unless you understand that, you can’t understand the June 1982 Lebanon war. The purpose of the June 1982 Lebanon war was to liquidate the PLO in Southern Lebanon because they were too moderate the Palestinian peace offensive. I’m going to have to fast-forward. There are many events. There was the First Intifada, then there’s the Oslo Accord, and let’s now go to the heart of the issue, namely the 2000-2001 negotiations. Well, the negotiations are divided into three parts for the sake of listeners. There’s Camp David in July 2000, there are the Clinton parameters in December 2000, and then there are negotiations in Taba in Egypt in 2001. Those are the three phases. Now, I have studied the record probably to the point of insanity because there are so many details you have to master.
Benny Morris
I’ll vouch for that, the insanity part, yeah.
I’ll vouch for that, the insanity part, yeah.
Norman Finkelstein
Actually, I will vouch for it. I will personally vouch for it. There is one extensive record from that whole period, from 2000 to you could say 2007, and that is what came to be called the Palestine Papers, which were about 15,000 pages of all the records of the negotiations. I have read through all of them, every single page, and this is what I find. If you look at Shlomo Ben-Ami’s book, which I have with me, Prophets Without Honor, it’s his last book. He says, “Going into Camp David…” That means July, going into Camp David, July 2000, he said the Israelis were willing to return about… Not return. But will withdraw from-
Actually, I will vouch for it. I will personally vouch for it. There is one extensive record from that whole period, from 2000 to you could say 2007, and that is what came to be called the Palestine Papers, which were about 15,000 pages of all the records of the negotiations. I have read through all of them, every single page, and this is what I find. If you look at Shlomo Ben-Ami’s book, which I have with me, Prophets Without Honor, it’s his last book. He says, “Going into Camp David…” That means July, going into Camp David, July 2000, he said the Israelis were willing to return about… Not return. But will withdraw from-
Mouin Rabbani
Relinquish.
Relinquish.
Norman Finkelstein
Relinquish. 92% of the West Bank.
Relinquish. 92% of the West Bank.
Mouin Rabbani
Ben-Ami was at Camp David.
Ben-Ami was at Camp David.
Norman Finkelstein
Yeah. Then he was at Taba. Oh, yeah. He was also at Camp David. Israel wanted to keep all the major settlement blocks. It wanted to keep roughly 8% of the West Bank. They were allowing for… You put it at 84 to 90% in your books. They put it at roughly 92%. Israel was willing to give up.
Yeah. Then he was at Taba. Oh, yeah. He was also at Camp David. Israel wanted to keep all the major settlement blocks. It wanted to keep roughly 8% of the West Bank. They were allowing for… You put it at 84 to 90% in your books. They put it at roughly 92%. Israel was willing to give up.
Mouin Rabbani
It also depends how you calculate.
It also depends how you calculate.
Benny Morris
It depends what stage at Camp David because there were two weeks.
It depends what stage at Camp David because there were two weeks.
Norman Finkelstein
I’ll get to that.
I’ll get to that.
Benny Morris
The proposals changed during those two weeks.
The proposals changed during those two weeks.
Norman Finkelstein
So Israel wants to keep all the major settlement blocks.
So Israel wants to keep all the major settlement blocks.
Benny Morris
Means the border area of the West Bank.
Means the border area of the West Bank.
Norman Finkelstein
Well, not the border. We have Ari’el, we have Ma’ale Adumim. We have, as Condoleezza Rice called Ari’el, she said it was a dagger into the heart of the West Bank. So they want to keep 8% of the land. They want to keep the settlement blocks. They want to keep 80% of the settlers. They will not budge an inch on the question of refugees. To quote Ehud Barak in the article he co-authored with you in the New York review of books, “We will accept…” And I think the quote’s accurate. “No moral, legal or historical responsibility for what happened to the refugees.” So forget about even allowing refugees to return. We accept no moral, legal or historical responsibility for the refugees. And on Jerusalem, they wanted to keep large parts of Jerusalem. Now, how do we judge who is reasonable and who is not?
Well, not the border. We have Ari’el, we have Ma’ale Adumim. We have, as Condoleezza Rice called Ari’el, she said it was a dagger into the heart of the West Bank. So they want to keep 8% of the land. They want to keep the settlement blocks. They want to keep 80% of the settlers. They will not budge an inch on the question of refugees. To quote Ehud Barak in the article he co-authored with you in the New York review of books, “We will accept…” And I think the quote’s accurate. “No moral, legal or historical responsibility for what happened to the refugees.” So forget about even allowing refugees to return. We accept no moral, legal or historical responsibility for the refugees. And on Jerusalem, they wanted to keep large parts of Jerusalem. Now, how do we judge who is reasonable and who is not?
Ben-Ami says, “I think the Israeli offer was reasonable.” That’s how he sees it. But what is the standard of reasonable? My standard is what does international law say? International law says the settlements are illegal. Israel wants to keep all the settlement blocks. 15 judges, all 15 in the wall decision in July 2004, all 15 judges, including the American judge, Buergenthal ruled the settlements are illegal under international law. They want to keep 80% of the settlers under international law. All the settlers are illegal in the West Bank. They want to keep large parts of East Jerusalem. But under international law, East Jerusalem is occupied Palestinian territory. That’s what the international-
Benny Morris
Well, not Palestinian, because there was no Palestine.
Well, not Palestinian, because there was no Palestine.
Norman Finkelstein
Excuse me. Okay.
Excuse me. Okay.
Benny Morris
There’s never been a Palestinian state. How could it be Palestinian?
There’s never been a Palestinian state. How could it be Palestinian?
Norman Finkelstein
I listened patiently to you.
I listened patiently to you.
Benny Morris
Sorry.
Sorry.
Norman Finkelstein
Under international law, if you read the decision, all territory, the 2004 wall decision, all territory beyond the green line, which includes East Jerusalem is occupied Palestinian territory.
Under international law, if you read the decision, all territory, the 2004 wall decision, all territory beyond the green line, which includes East Jerusalem is occupied Palestinian territory.
Mouin Rabbani
With the exception of the Golan Heights.
With the exception of the Golan Heights.
Norman Finkelstein
According to the International Court of Justice, the designated unit for Palestinian self-determination, and they deny any right whatsoever on the right of return. I don’t want to go into the details now. The maximum formal offer was by Ehud Omar in 2008. He offered 5,000 refugees could return under what was called family reunification, 5,000, in the course of five years, and no recognition of any Israeli responsibility.
According to the International Court of Justice, the designated unit for Palestinian self-determination, and they deny any right whatsoever on the right of return. I don’t want to go into the details now. The maximum formal offer was by Ehud Omar in 2008. He offered 5,000 refugees could return under what was called family reunification, 5,000, in the course of five years, and no recognition of any Israeli responsibility.
So if you use as the baseline what the UN General Assembly has said and what the International Court of Justice has said, if you use that baseline, international law, by that baseline, all the concessions came from the Palestinian side. Every single concession came from the Palestinian side. None came from the Israeli side. They may have accepted less than what they wanted, but it was still beyond what international law allocated to them. Now you say-
Mouin Rabbani
Allocated to the Palestinians.
Allocated to the Palestinians.
Norman Finkelstein
Allocated to Palestinians, yes. Thank you for the clarification. Now about Arafat, like the Mufti, never liked the guy. I think that was one of the only disagreements Mouin and I had. When Arafat passed, you were a little sentimental. I was not. I never liked the guy. But politics, you don’t have to like the guy. There was no question. Nobody argues it that whenever the negotiation started up, the Palestinians just kept saying the same things.
Allocated to Palestinians, yes. Thank you for the clarification. Now about Arafat, like the Mufti, never liked the guy. I think that was one of the only disagreements Mouin and I had. When Arafat passed, you were a little sentimental. I was not. I never liked the guy. But politics, you don’t have to like the guy. There was no question. Nobody argues it that whenever the negotiation started up, the Palestinians just kept saying the same things.
Benny Morris
No.
No.
Norman Finkelstein
No.
No.
Benny Morris
They kept saying no.
They kept saying no.
Norman Finkelstein
No. Professor Morris, with due respect, incorrect. They kept saying, “International legitimacy, international law, UN resolutions.” They said, “We already gave you what the law required. We gave that in 1988, November 1988, and then ratified again at Oslo in 1993.” And they said, “Now we want what was promised us under international law.” And that was the one point where everybody on the other side agreed. Clinton, don’t talk to me about international law. Livni during the Olmert administration. She said, “I studied international law. I don’t believe in international law.” Every single member on the other side, they didn’t want to hear from international law. And to my thinking that that is the only reasonable baseline for trying to resolve the conflict. And Israel has, along with the US-
No. Professor Morris, with due respect, incorrect. They kept saying, “International legitimacy, international law, UN resolutions.” They said, “We already gave you what the law required. We gave that in 1988, November 1988, and then ratified again at Oslo in 1993.” And they said, “Now we want what was promised us under international law.” And that was the one point where everybody on the other side agreed. Clinton, don’t talk to me about international law. Livni during the Olmert administration. She said, “I studied international law. I don’t believe in international law.” Every single member on the other side, they didn’t want to hear from international law. And to my thinking that that is the only reasonable baseline for trying to resolve the conflict. And Israel has, along with the US-
Benny Morris
When has international law been relevant to any conflict basically in the world?
When has international law been relevant to any conflict basically in the world?
Norman Finkelstein
That’s why-
That’s why-
Benny Morris
Over the last 150 years.
Over the last 150 years.
Norman Finkelstein
That’s why the Palestinians have to recognize Israel because that’s international law.
That’s why the Palestinians have to recognize Israel because that’s international law.
Benny Morris
But international law is-
But international law is-
Norman Finkelstein
[inaudible 03:58:00] have to recognize Israel because that’s international law.
[inaudible 03:58:00] have to recognize Israel because that’s international law.
Benny Morris
No, but international law is meaningless.
No, but international law is meaningless.
Norman Finkelstein
That was UN Resolution 242.
That was UN Resolution 242.
Benny Morris
Conflicts are not solved by international law or in accordance with international law.
Conflicts are not solved by international law or in accordance with international law.
Norman Finkelstein
Yeah. But then, Professor Morris, for argument’s sake, let’s agree on that, strictly for argument’s sake. What’s the alternative? Dennis Ross said, “We’re going to decide who gets what on the basis of needs.” So he says, “Israel needs this. Israel needs that. Israel needs that.”
Yeah. But then, Professor Morris, for argument’s sake, let’s agree on that, strictly for argument’s sake. What’s the alternative? Dennis Ross said, “We’re going to decide who gets what on the basis of needs.” So he says, “Israel needs this. Israel needs that. Israel needs that.”
Dennis Ross decided to be the philosopher king. He’s going to decide on the basis of needs. Well, if you asked me, since Gaza is one of the densest places on Earth, it needs [inaudible 03:58:50]-
Mouin Rabbani
Tel Aviv.
Tel Aviv.
Norman Finkelstein
Yes. It needs-
Yes. It needs-
Benny Morris
It needs part of Sinai. That’s what Gaza-
It needs part of Sinai. That’s what Gaza-
Norman Finkelstein
It needs a nice big chunk-
It needs a nice big chunk-
Benny Morris
Of Sinai.
Of Sinai.
Norman Finkelstein
Not Sinai.
Not Sinai.
Benny Morris
That’s what it actually needs.
That’s what it actually needs.
Norman Finkelstein
Okay. I don’t even want to go there. It needs a nice big chunk, but I have to accept international law says no. Okay.
Okay. I don’t even want to go there. It needs a nice big chunk, but I have to accept international law says no. Okay.
Benny Morris
International law is irrelevant.
International law is irrelevant.
Norman Finkelstein
Now, Benjamin says, “I think the Israeli offer was reasonable.” Okay.
Now, Benjamin says, “I think the Israeli offer was reasonable.” Okay.
Benny Morris
And he’s a reasonable guy. You know that.
And he’s a reasonable guy. You know that.
Norman Finkelstein
Okay, I don’t want to go there. I’ve debated him and partly agree with you. But who decides what’s reasonable? I think the international community in its political incarnation, the General Assembly, the Security Council, all those UN Security Council resolutions saying the settlements are illegal, annexation of East Jerusalem is null and void, and the International Court of Justice, that, to me, is a reasonable standard. And by that standard, the Palestinians were asked to make concessions, which I consider unreasonable or the international community considers unreasonable.
Okay, I don’t want to go there. I’ve debated him and partly agree with you. But who decides what’s reasonable? I think the international community in its political incarnation, the General Assembly, the Security Council, all those UN Security Council resolutions saying the settlements are illegal, annexation of East Jerusalem is null and void, and the International Court of Justice, that, to me, is a reasonable standard. And by that standard, the Palestinians were asked to make concessions, which I consider unreasonable or the international community considers unreasonable.
Steven Bonnell
I think that the issue is when you apply international law or international standards, I wouldn’t say what Benny Morris says, that they’re irrelevant, but I think that these have to be seen as informing the conversation. I don’t think these are the final shape of the conversation. I don’t think, historically, Israel has ever negotiated within the strict bounds of whether we’re talking Resolution 242, whether we’re talking about any General Assembly resolutions. That’s just not how these negotiations tend to go.
I think that the issue is when you apply international law or international standards, I wouldn’t say what Benny Morris says, that they’re irrelevant, but I think that these have to be seen as informing the conversation. I don’t think these are the final shape of the conversation. I don’t think, historically, Israel has ever negotiated within the strict bounds of whether we’re talking Resolution 242, whether we’re talking about any General Assembly resolutions. That’s just not how these negotiations tend to go.
You might consider international opinion on things, but at the end of the day, it’s the bilateral negotiations, oftentimes historically started in secret, independent of the international community, that end up shaping what the final agreements look like. I think the issue with this broad appeal to international law is, again, going back to my earlier point about all of the euphemistic words, all it simply does is drive Palestinian expectations up to a level that is never going to be satisfied. For instance, you can throw that ICJ opinion all you want, it was an advisory opinion, that came in 2004, how Palestinians gained more or less land since that 2004 advisory opinion was issued.
Mouin Rabbani
So what would your standard be then?
So what would your standard be then?
Steven Bonnell
Both sides have to have a delegation that confronts each other and they assess the realistic conditions on the ground, and they try to figure out, within the confines of international law-
Both sides have to have a delegation that confronts each other and they assess the realistic conditions on the ground, and they try to figure out, within the confines of international law-
Mouin Rabbani
See, the problem with that-
See, the problem with that-
Steven Bonnell
… [inaudible 04:01:13] both sides are reasonable for. But for instance, this statement of retreat from the West Bank. What is it? 400,000 settlers? How many settlers live in the West Bank now?
… [inaudible 04:01:13] both sides are reasonable for. But for instance, this statement of retreat from the West Bank. What is it? 400,000 settlers? How many settlers live in the West Bank now?
Benny Morris
Probably half a million.
Probably half a million.
Steven Bonnell
Yeah.
Yeah.
Benny Morris
Depends if you include the Jerusalem suburbs or not.
Depends if you include the Jerusalem suburbs or not.
Steven Bonnell
Yeah. 4 or 500,000 people.
Yeah. 4 or 500,000 people.
Norman Finkelstein
I think it’s 700,000.
I think it’s 700,000.
Benny Morris
With the Jerusalem suburbs, perhaps.
With the Jerusalem suburbs, perhaps.
Steven Bonnell
Yeah. Half a million people are-
Yeah. Half a million people are-
Benny Morris
But Israel calls that Jerusalem, not settlements.
But Israel calls that Jerusalem, not settlements.
Norman Finkelstein
I know that, but that’s not what the law… The law calls it null and void.
I know that, but that’s not what the law… The law calls it null and void.
Benny Morris
[inaudible 04:01:34]. The law is irrelevant.
[inaudible 04:01:34]. The law is irrelevant.
Steven Bonnell
We can say whatever we want until we’re blue in the face, but half a million Israeli people are not being expelled from [inaudible 04:01:41]. It’s not going to happen.
We can say whatever we want until we’re blue in the face, but half a million Israeli people are not being expelled from [inaudible 04:01:41]. It’s not going to happen.
Mouin Rabbani
My response… You’re basically saying, if I understand correctly, there’s only one way to resolve this, and that is through direct bilateral negotiation?
My response… You’re basically saying, if I understand correctly, there’s only one way to resolve this, and that is through direct bilateral negotiation?
Steven Bonnell
Probably, yeah.
Probably, yeah.
Mouin Rabbani
Okay.
Okay.
Steven Bonnell
Or ideally.
Or ideally.
Mouin Rabbani
So I’ve taken over your house. Okay. You’re not going to go to the police because the law is only of limited value. So you come over and sit in what is now my living room that used to be your living room and we negotiate. The problem there is that you’re not going to get anything unless I agree to it. And standards and norms and law and all the rest of it be damned.
So I’ve taken over your house. Okay. You’re not going to go to the police because the law is only of limited value. So you come over and sit in what is now my living room that used to be your living room and we negotiate. The problem there is that you’re not going to get anything unless I agree to it. And standards and norms and law and all the rest of it be damned.
So you need to take into account that when you’re advocating bilateral negotiations that, effectively, that gives each of the parties veto power. And in the current circumstances, the Palestinians have already recognized Israel.
Steven Bonnell
You keep bringing that up like it’s a significant concession.
You keep bringing that up like it’s a significant concession.
Benny Morris
It’s not true. It’s not true.
It’s not true. It’s not true.
Norman Finkelstein
It’s called the law.
It’s called the law.
Benny Morris
It’s not even true.
It’s not even true.
Norman Finkelstein
It’s called the law.
It’s called the law.
Benny Morris
Even though they signed a piece of paper-
Even though they signed a piece of paper-
Steven Bonnell
The recognition from Palestine isn’t doing anything for-
The recognition from Palestine isn’t doing anything for-
Benny Morris
Hamas totally rejects-
Hamas totally rejects-
Mouin Rabbani
I’m not talking about Hamas.
I’m not talking about Hamas.
Benny Morris
Hamas is the majority among the Palestinian people. They won the elections in 2006.
Hamas is the majority among the Palestinian people. They won the elections in 2006.
Mouin Rabbani
Actually, they won a majority of the seats.
Actually, they won a majority of the seats.
Benny Morris
Yes, exactly.
Yes, exactly.
Mouin Rabbani
They didn’t win a majority of the votes.
They didn’t win a majority of the votes.
Benny Morris
Every opinion poll today says the majority of Palestinians-
Every opinion poll today says the majority of Palestinians-
Mouin Rabbani
That sounds right.
That sounds right.
Benny Morris
… support Hamas.
… support Hamas.
Mouin Rabbani
That sounds right.
That sounds right.
Benny Morris
And Hamas absolutely rejects Israel. So if Arafat, in 2003, 1993 or whatever, issued a sort of recognition of Israel-
And Hamas absolutely rejects Israel. So if Arafat, in 2003, 1993 or whatever, issued a sort of recognition of Israel-
Mouin Rabbani
It wasn’t a sort of recognition.
It wasn’t a sort of recognition.
Benny Morris
Okay, a recognition of Israel. It’s meaningless. It’s meaningless.
Okay, a recognition of Israel. It’s meaningless. It’s meaningless.
Mouin Rabbani
It’s meaningless?
It’s meaningless?
Benny Morris
Anyhow, I don’t believe that Arafat was sincere about it.
Anyhow, I don’t believe that Arafat was sincere about it.
Mouin Rabbani
Does it matter what you or I think about what he felt?
Does it matter what you or I think about what he felt?
Benny Morris
Well, most Israelis do, and that does matter.
Well, most Israelis do, and that does matter.
Mouin Rabbani
Okay.
Okay.
Benny Morris
That does matter. But Hamas says no and Hamas is the majority today.
That does matter. But Hamas says no and Hamas is the majority today.
Mouin Rabbani
So for years, the Israeli and US demand was that the Palestinians recognize 242 and 338. They did. But you’re saying, “Okay, we demanded that they do this, but it was meaningless when they did it.” Then the demand was that-
So for years, the Israeli and US demand was that the Palestinians recognize 242 and 338. They did. But you’re saying, “Okay, we demanded that they do this, but it was meaningless when they did it.” Then the demand was that-
Benny Morris
It was a tactical thing. Yes.
It was a tactical thing. Yes.
Mouin Rabbani
Then the demand was that the PLO recognize Israel.
Then the demand was that the PLO recognize Israel.
Benny Morris
Tactical.
Tactical.
Mouin Rabbani
Okay, we demanded that they did this, and they did it, but it’s meaningless.
Okay, we demanded that they did this, and they did it, but it’s meaningless.
Benny Morris
And they never changed their charter, the PLO. You may remember that.
And they never changed their charter, the PLO. You may remember that.
Mouin Rabbani
In fact, in 19-
In fact, in 19-
Benny Morris
They supposedly abrogated the old charter but never came up with a new one.
They supposedly abrogated the old charter but never came up with a new one.
Mouin Rabbani
No.
No.
Benny Morris
So there’s no new [inaudible 04:04:05].
So there’s no new [inaudible 04:04:05].
Mouin Rabbani
But in 1996-
But in 1996-
Benny Morris
And Farouk Kaddoumi said, “Of course, the old charter is still enforced.”
And Farouk Kaddoumi said, “Of course, the old charter is still enforced.”
Mouin Rabbani
Yes, yes. But the point is, the Palestinians, demands are constantly made of them.
Yes, yes. But the point is, the Palestinians, demands are constantly made of them.
Benny Morris
And of Israel.
And of Israel.
Mouin Rabbani
And when they accede to those demands, they’re then told, “Actually, what you did is meaningless, so here’s a new set of demands.” I mean, it’s like a hamster-
And when they accede to those demands, they’re then told, “Actually, what you did is meaningless, so here’s a new set of demands.” I mean, it’s like a hamster-
Benny Morris
There’s no new set of demands.
There’s no new set of demands.
Mouin Rabbani
It’s like a hamster stuck in a wheel-
It’s like a hamster stuck in a wheel-
Benny Morris
No, no, let me tell you what the bottom line is.
No, no, let me tell you what the bottom line is.
Mouin Rabbani
… that will be told, “If you run fast enough, you’ll get out of the cage.”
… that will be told, “If you run fast enough, you’ll get out of the cage.”
Benny Morris
No, no. The bottom line is that Israel would like a Palestinian Sadat. It wants the Palestinians… Listen. Listen. Just let me finish.
No, no. The bottom line is that Israel would like a Palestinian Sadat. It wants the Palestinians… Listen. Listen. Just let me finish.
Mouin Rabbani
This is really a worst-case scenario that you’re talking about now.
This is really a worst-case scenario that you’re talking about now.
Benny Morris
Okay, let me just… Because they shot Sadat, but anyhow.
Okay, let me just… Because they shot Sadat, but anyhow.
Mouin Rabbani
For good reason.
For good reason.
Benny Morris
The Israelis-
The Israelis-
Steven Bonnell
For good reason?
For good reason?
Benny Morris
… want the Palestinians… Israelis want the Palestinians to actually accept the legitimacy of the state of Israel and the Zionist project and then live side by side with them in two states. That’s what the Israelis… I don’t even know if it’s true-
… want the Palestinians… Israelis want the Palestinians to actually accept the legitimacy of the state of Israel and the Zionist project and then live side by side with them in two states. That’s what the Israelis… I don’t even know if it’s true-
Mouin Rabbani
And what is the formal position-
And what is the formal position-
Benny Morris
I don’t even know if that’s true today because there may be-
I don’t even know if that’s true today because there may be-
Mouin Rabbani
And what is the formal position of this Israeli government?
And what is the formal position of this Israeli government?
Benny Morris
No, no. I’m saying I don’t know if it exists today.
No, no. I’m saying I don’t know if it exists today.
Mouin Rabbani
Okay, its predecessor and its predecessor and its predecessor.
Okay, its predecessor and its predecessor and its predecessor.
Benny Morris
I’m talking about [inaudible 04:05:13].
I’m talking about [inaudible 04:05:13].
Norman Finkelstein
Professor Morris. Professor Morris.
Professor Morris. Professor Morris.
Mouin Rabbani
Come on.
Come on.
Benny Morris
That’s what Israelis want.
That’s what Israelis want.
Norman Finkelstein
Professor Morris.
Professor Morris.
Benny Morris
They want a change of psyche among the Palestinians.
They want a change of psyche among the Palestinians.
Norman Finkelstein
Mouin has an interesting-
Mouin has an interesting-
Benny Morris
If that doesn’t happen, there won’t be a Palestinian state. There just won’t be.
If that doesn’t happen, there won’t be a Palestinian state. There just won’t be.
Norman Finkelstein
Mouin has an interesting point.
Mouin has an interesting point.
Benny Morris
Forget international law and all the UN resolutions.
Forget international law and all the UN resolutions.
Norman Finkelstein
I know you want to forget it just like you want to forget the genocide charge. I know you want to forget that.
I know you want to forget it just like you want to forget the genocide charge. I know you want to forget that.
Steven Bonnell
Well, the Palestinians want to forget it too when it doesn’t suit them as well, right?
Well, the Palestinians want to forget it too when it doesn’t suit them as well, right?
Norman Finkelstein
But here’s the problem, and it’s exactly the problem that Mouin just brought up. Now, I read carefully your book, One State, Two States. With all due respect, absolutely a disgrace. Coming from you, coming from you-
But here’s the problem, and it’s exactly the problem that Mouin just brought up. Now, I read carefully your book, One State, Two States. With all due respect, absolutely a disgrace. Coming from you, coming from you-
Benny Morris
Most reviewers didn’t agree with you, though.
Most reviewers didn’t agree with you, though.
Norman Finkelstein
Yeah. Coming from you, it was like you wrote it in your sleep. It’s nothing compared to what you wrote before. I don’t know why you did it. In my opinion, you ruined your reputation, not totally, but you undermined it with that book.
Yeah. Coming from you, it was like you wrote it in your sleep. It’s nothing compared to what you wrote before. I don’t know why you did it. In my opinion, you ruined your reputation, not totally, but you undermined it with that book.
But let’s get to the issue that Mouin wrote. Here’s what you said. You said, formally… You said, “Yes, it’s true, the Palestinians recognize Israel.” But then you said, “Viscerally, in their hearts-“
Benny Morris
They don’t.
They don’t.
Norman Finkelstein
“… they didn’t really recognize Israel.” So I thought to myself, “How does Professor Morris know-“
“… they didn’t really recognize Israel.” So I thought to myself, “How does Professor Morris know-“
Mouin Rabbani
Cut open your chest.
Cut open your chest.
Norman Finkelstein
“… what’s in the hearts of Palestinians? I don’t know.”
“… what’s in the hearts of Palestinians? I don’t know.”
Benny Morris
[inaudible 04:06:34].
[inaudible 04:06:34].
Norman Finkelstein
I was surprised, as a historian, you would be talking about what’s lurking in the hearts of Palestinians. But then you said something which was really interesting. You said, “Even if, in their hearts, they accepted Israel,” you said, quote, “Rationally, they could never accept Israel because they got nothing. They had this beautiful Palestine and now they’re reduced to just a few parcels of land. The two-state settlement-“
I was surprised, as a historian, you would be talking about what’s lurking in the hearts of Palestinians. But then you said something which was really interesting. You said, “Even if, in their hearts, they accepted Israel,” you said, quote, “Rationally, they could never accept Israel because they got nothing. They had this beautiful Palestine and now they’re reduced to just a few parcels of land. The two-state settlement-“
Benny Morris
So they will never accept it.
So they will never accept it.
Norman Finkelstein
Yes.
Yes.
Benny Morris
Which is true.
Which is true.
Norman Finkelstein
So you said there’s no way they can accept it.
So you said there’s no way they can accept it.
Benny Morris
No, I would say that as well.
No, I would say that as well.
Norman Finkelstein
Yeah.
Yeah.
Benny Morris
The two-state solution, as proposed, doesn’t make any sense.
The two-state solution, as proposed, doesn’t make any sense.
Norman Finkelstein
Exactly as Mouin said, you keep moving the goalposts until we reach the point where we realize, according to Benny Morris, there can’t be a solution. So why don’t you just say that outright? Why don’t you say it outright? According to you, the Palestinians can never be reasonable because according to you-
Exactly as Mouin said, you keep moving the goalposts until we reach the point where we realize, according to Benny Morris, there can’t be a solution. So why don’t you just say that outright? Why don’t you say it outright? According to you, the Palestinians can never be reasonable because according to you-
Benny Morris
They want all of Palestine. That’s why.
They want all of Palestine. That’s why.
Norman Finkelstein
According to you, they couldn’t possibly agree to a two-state settlement because it’s such a lousy settlement. That’s what you say.
According to you, they couldn’t possibly agree to a two-state settlement because it’s such a lousy settlement. That’s what you say.
Benny Morris
Because they want all of Palestine.
Because they want all of Palestine.
Norman Finkelstein
But you said, rationally, they couldn’t accept it, not their feelings.
But you said, rationally, they couldn’t accept it, not their feelings.
Benny Morris
It’s both.
It’s both.
Norman Finkelstein
You said rational. You went from formally, viscerally, rationally. So now we’re reaching the point where, according to Benny Morris, the Palestinians can’t be reasonable because, reasonably, they have to reject two states.
You said rational. You went from formally, viscerally, rationally. So now we’re reaching the point where, according to Benny Morris, the Palestinians can’t be reasonable because, reasonably, they have to reject two states.
Benny Morris
They want all of Palestine.
They want all of Palestine.
Norman Finkelstein
So, Mouin is absolutely correct. There’s no way to resolve the problem, according to your logic.
So, Mouin is absolutely correct. There’s no way to resolve the problem, according to your logic.
Benny Morris
They want all of Palestine. He said that himself. He said they should dismantle Israel.
They want all of Palestine. He said that himself. He said they should dismantle Israel.
Norman Finkelstein
I’m talking about-
I’m talking about-
Benny Morris
That’s what he’s saying.
That’s what he’s saying.
Mouin Rabbani
What I said-
What I said-
Norman Finkelstein
He didn’t say that.
He didn’t say that.
Benny Morris
Dismantle Israel.
Dismantle Israel.
Mouin Rabbani
What I said, and I’ve written-
What I said, and I’ve written-
Norman Finkelstein
I’m glad you didn’t deny it. Go ahead.
I’m glad you didn’t deny it. Go ahead.
Mouin Rabbani
I’ve written extensively on this issue, on why a two-state settlement is still feasible, and I came out in support of that proposition. Perhaps in my heart, you can see that I was just bullshitting, but that’s what I actually wrote. That was a number of years ago.
I’ve written extensively on this issue, on why a two-state settlement is still feasible, and I came out in support of that proposition. Perhaps in my heart, you can see that I was just bullshitting, but that’s what I actually wrote. That was a number of years ago.
And just as a matter of historical record, beginning in the early 1970s, there was fierce debate within the Palestinian national movement about whether to accept or reject. And there were three schools of thought. There was one that would accept nothing less than the total liberation of Palestine. There was a second that accepted what was called the establishment of a fighting national authority on Palestinian soil, which they saw-
Benny Morris
As a springboard.
As a springboard.
Mouin Rabbani
… as a springboard for the total liberation of Palestine. And there was a third school that believed that, under current dynamics and so on, that they should go for a two-state settlement. And our friend and correspondent [inaudible 04:09:41] has written a very perceptive article on when the PLO, already in 1976, came out in open support of a two-state resolution at the Security Council. PLO accepted it. Israel, of course, rejected it. But the resolution didn’t pass because the US and the UK vetoed it. It was both of them.
… as a springboard for the total liberation of Palestine. And there was a third school that believed that, under current dynamics and so on, that they should go for a two-state settlement. And our friend and correspondent [inaudible 04:09:41] has written a very perceptive article on when the PLO, already in 1976, came out in open support of a two-state resolution at the Security Council. PLO accepted it. Israel, of course, rejected it. But the resolution didn’t pass because the US and the UK vetoed it. It was both of them.
Norman Finkelstein
I think it was nine to five [inaudible 04:10:06].
I think it was nine to five [inaudible 04:10:06].
Mouin Rabbani
Ah, okay. Yeah. But fact of the matter is that the PLO came to accept a two-state settlement. Why they did it I think is irrelevant. And subsequently, the PLO acted on the basis of seeking to achieve a two-state settlement. The reason, I think, and I think Norm, you’ve written about this, the reason that Arafat was so insistent on getting minimally acceptable terms for a two-state settlement at Camp David and afterwards was precisely because he knew that once he signed, that was all the Palestinians were going to get. If his intention had been, “I’m not accepting Israel. I simply want to springboard,” he would’ve accepted a Palestinian state in Jericho, but he didn’t. He insisted-
Ah, okay. Yeah. But fact of the matter is that the PLO came to accept a two-state settlement. Why they did it I think is irrelevant. And subsequently, the PLO acted on the basis of seeking to achieve a two-state settlement. The reason, I think, and I think Norm, you’ve written about this, the reason that Arafat was so insistent on getting minimally acceptable terms for a two-state settlement at Camp David and afterwards was precisely because he knew that once he signed, that was all the Palestinians were going to get. If his intention had been, “I’m not accepting Israel. I simply want to springboard,” he would’ve accepted a Palestinian state in Jericho, but he didn’t. He insisted-
Benny Morris
That’s something I’ve never understood. He should have logically accepted the springboard, and then from there, launched his next stage.
That’s something I’ve never understood. He should have logically accepted the springboard, and then from there, launched his next stage.
Norman Finkelstein
No, he understood what you don’t understand.
No, he understood what you don’t understand.
Benny Morris
He should’ve done that.
He should’ve done that.
Norman Finkelstein
He understood international law would put a real constraint on him once he accepted it was over.
He understood international law would put a real constraint on him once he accepted it was over.
Benny Morris
No, but also, I think, constitutionally, he was incapable of signing.
No, but also, I think, constitutionally, he was incapable of signing.
Norman Finkelstein
I don’t know that.
I don’t know that.
Benny Morris
You’re right that he should have-
You’re right that he should have-
Norman Finkelstein
I’m not his [inaudible 04:11:21].
I’m not his [inaudible 04:11:21].
Benny Morris
… accepted it.
… accepted it.
Mouin Rabbani
But if you’re correct, okay, that he was really out to-
But if you’re correct, okay, that he was really out to-
Benny Morris
[inaudible 04:11:26].
[inaudible 04:11:26].
Mouin Rabbani
… eliminate Israel, then he wouldn’t have cared about the borders. He wouldn’t have cared about what the thing said about refugees. He would’ve gotten a sovereign state and used that to achieve that purpose.
… eliminate Israel, then he wouldn’t have cared about the borders. He wouldn’t have cared about what the thing said about refugees. He would’ve gotten a sovereign state and used that to achieve that purpose.
Norman Finkelstein
The springboard.
The springboard.
Mouin Rabbani
But I think it was precisely because he recognized that he was not negotiating for a springboard, he was negotiating permanent status, that he was such a stickler about the details.
But I think it was precisely because he recognized that he was not negotiating for a springboard, he was negotiating permanent status, that he was such a stickler about the details.
Norman Finkelstein
Just as a factual matter, he wasn’t such a stickler. When they asked him how many refugees, the numbers at the-
Just as a factual matter, he wasn’t such a stickler. When they asked him how many refugees, the numbers at the-
Mouin Rabbani
It was the principle rather than the numbers.
It was the principle rather than the numbers.
Norman Finkelstein
It was the principle.
It was the principle.
Benny Morris
He said they would be pragmatic about it. [inaudible 04:12:00].
He said they would be pragmatic about it. [inaudible 04:12:00].
Norman Finkelstein
Yes. And the numbers that were used at Annapolis were between 100 and 250,000 refugees over 10 years. That was the number. Arafat, when he was asked at Camp David, he kept saying, “I care about the Lebanese… the Palestinian refugees in Lebanon,” which came to about 300,000.
Yes. And the numbers that were used at Annapolis were between 100 and 250,000 refugees over 10 years. That was the number. Arafat, when he was asked at Camp David, he kept saying, “I care about the Lebanese… the Palestinian refugees in Lebanon,” which came to about 300,000.
Mouin Rabbani
Those were his priority.
Those were his priority.
Norman Finkelstein
Which was a large concession from… whether you accept the number or not, that he wasn’t talking about 6 million. He was talking about between 100 and 250,000 over 10 years. Now, the best offer that came from the Palestinians… Excuse me, the best offer that came from Israel was the Olmert offer.
Which was a large concession from… whether you accept the number or not, that he wasn’t talking about 6 million. He was talking about between 100 and 250,000 over 10 years. Now, the best offer that came from the Palestinians… Excuse me, the best offer that came from Israel was the Olmert offer.
Lex Fridman
Can we just pretend like we didn’t all lay out the exceptionally pessimistic view of a two-state… Hold on a second. Two-state solution? Let’s pretend that in five years, in 10 years, a two-state peace settlement is reached. And as historians, you’ll still be here writing about it 20 years from now. How would it have happened?
Can we just pretend like we didn’t all lay out the exceptionally pessimistic view of a two-state… Hold on a second. Two-state solution? Let’s pretend that in five years, in 10 years, a two-state peace settlement is reached. And as historians, you’ll still be here writing about it 20 years from now. How would it have happened?
Steven Bonnell
I think that, historically, I think that the big issue is I think that both sides have had their own internal motivations to fight because they feel like they have something to gain from it. But I think as time has gone on, unfortunately, the record proves that the Palestinian side is delusional. The longer that the conflict endures, the worse position they’ll be in.
I think that, historically, I think that the big issue is I think that both sides have had their own internal motivations to fight because they feel like they have something to gain from it. But I think as time has gone on, unfortunately, the record proves that the Palestinian side is delusional. The longer that the conflict endures, the worse position they’ll be in.
But for some reason, they’ve never had a leader that convinced them of that as much, that Arafat thought that if he held on, there was always a better deal around the corner, that Abbas is more concerned with trying to maintain any legitimacy amongst Palestinians than actually trying to negotiate anything realistic with Israel, that Palestinians are always incentivized to feel like as long as they keep fighting, either the international community is going to save them with the 5 millionth UN resolution condemning whatever, that another ICJ advisory opinion is finally going to lead to the expulsion of half a million Jews from the West Bank, or that some other international body, the ICJ and the genocide charge, is going to come and save the Palestinians.
As long as they, in their mind, feel like somebody is coming to save them, then they feel like they’re going to have the ability to get something better in the future. But the reality is all of the good partners for peace that the Palestinians had have completely and utterly abandoned them; Egypt, Jordan, the Gulf states. Whether you’re talking bilateral peace or the Abraham Accords, most of the Arab leaders, in negotiating peace with Israel, have just not had as much of an interest in maintaining the rights and the representations of what the Palestinian people want.
And the only people they have today to draw legitimacy from or to have on their side to argue with them are people that, I guess, write books or tweet or people in the international community that do resolutions or Amnesty International reports. And the reality is, we can scream until we’re blue in the face on these things, none of it has gotten any closer to helping the Palestinians in any sense of the word.
The condition has only gotten worse. The settlements only continue to expand. The military operations are only to get more brutal. The blockade is going to continue to have worse effects. As long as we use international law as the basis and there isn’t a strong Sadat-like Palestinian leader that’s willing to come up and confront Israel with the brave, peaceful negotiations to force them to acquiesce, nothing is going to happen.
And I think that the issue you come up with is, whether it’s people like Norm that talk about how brave the October 7th attacks were or how much respect they have for those fighters, Israel, in a way… And I think people have said as much about Netanyahu. The right wants violence from the Palestinians because it always gives them a perpetual excuse to further the conflict.
“Well, we have to go in on October 7th and we’ve got to remove Hamas. Well, we can’t trust these people in the West. We have to do the night raids because the Second Intifada made us feel like the Palestinian people didn’t want trust with us.”
I feel like the biggest thing that would force Israel to change its path would be an actual, a real… not for two weeks, but an actual peaceful Palestinian leader, somebody committed to peace, that is able to apply those standards and hold the entire region of Palestine to those standards. Because I think, over time, the mounting pressure from without the international community and the mounting pressure from within because Israel hosts a lot of its own criticism, if we talk about B’Tselem, we talk about Haaretz, Israel will host a lot of its own criticism.
I think that that pressure would force Israel towards an actual peace agreement, but it’s never going to come through violence. Historically, it hasn’t. And in the modern day, violence has just hurt the Palestinians more and more.
Lex Fridman
If you paint a picture of the future, now is a good moment for both Palestine and Israel to get new leadership. Netanyahu’s on the way out, Hamas possibly is on the way out. Who should rise to the top such that a peaceful settlement can be reached? And I’d love to [inaudible 04:16:33].
If you paint a picture of the future, now is a good moment for both Palestine and Israel to get new leadership. Netanyahu’s on the way out, Hamas possibly is on the way out. Who should rise to the top such that a peaceful settlement can be reached? And I’d love to [inaudible 04:16:33].
Steven Bonnell
The problem is, as Benny said, yeah, it’s difficult because Hamas enjoys so much widespread support amongst the Palestinian people. I think that… Well, I don’t know. There’s opinions on whether democracy or pushing them towards elections was the right or wrong idea. But with an Islamic fundamentalist government for Hamas, I don’t know if a negotiation with Israel ever happens there.
The problem is, as Benny said, yeah, it’s difficult because Hamas enjoys so much widespread support amongst the Palestinian people. I think that… Well, I don’t know. There’s opinions on whether democracy or pushing them towards elections was the right or wrong idea. But with an Islamic fundamentalist government for Hamas, I don’t know if a negotiation with Israel ever happens there.
And then when the international pressure is always ’67 borders, infinite right of return for refugees, and a total withdrawal of Israel from all these lands to even start negotiations, I just don’t see, realistically, on the Palestinian side, no negotiations are ever going to start in a place that Israel’s willing to accept.
Mouin Rabbani
If you want to dismiss international law, that’s fine, but then you have to do it consistently. You can’t set standards for the Palestinians but reject applying those standards to Israel. If we’re going to have the law of the jungle, then we can all be beasts and not only some of us. So it’s either that or you have certain agreed standards that are intended to regulate our conduct, all of our conduct, not just some of us. So that’s a fundamental-
If you want to dismiss international law, that’s fine, but then you have to do it consistently. You can’t set standards for the Palestinians but reject applying those standards to Israel. If we’re going to have the law of the jungle, then we can all be beasts and not only some of us. So it’s either that or you have certain agreed standards that are intended to regulate our conduct, all of our conduct, not just some of us. So that’s a fundamental-
Steven Bonnell
[inaudible 04:17:46] I’m saying to abandon?
[inaudible 04:17:46] I’m saying to abandon?
Mouin Rabbani
Well, you’re saying international law and the millionth UN resolution, you’re being very dismissive about all these things.
Well, you’re saying international law and the millionth UN resolution, you’re being very dismissive about all these things.
Steven Bonnell
Well, I’m saying [inaudible 04:17:54]-
Well, I’m saying [inaudible 04:17:54]-
Mouin Rabbani
And that’s fine.
And that’s fine.
Steven Bonnell
I’m not being dismissive.
I’m not being dismissive.
Mouin Rabbani
But then you have to be dismissive across the board.
But then you have to be dismissive across the board.
Steven Bonnell
I’m just saying, for instance, 242, that was a Chapter VI resolution. That’s non-binding. But 242 [inaudible 04:18:01]-
I’m just saying, for instance, 242, that was a Chapter VI resolution. That’s non-binding. But 242 [inaudible 04:18:01]-
Mouin Rabbani
It’s binding.
It’s binding.
Steven Bonnell
It’s absolutely not binding.
It’s absolutely not binding.
Mouin Rabbani
It’s binding.
It’s binding.
Norman Finkelstein
What is binding? Do you know anything about how the UN system works?
What is binding? Do you know anything about how the UN system works?
Steven Bonnell
If you read the language of the resolution, binding is typically if it commits you to upholding a particular international law or if it establishes [inaudible 04:18:13].
If you read the language of the resolution, binding is typically if it commits you to upholding a particular international law or if it establishes [inaudible 04:18:13].
Norman Finkelstein
What is Chapter VI? You just throw out words. You hear binding, not binding.
What is Chapter VI? You just throw out words. You hear binding, not binding.
Steven Bonnell
Does 424 mention a Palestinian state?
Does 424 mention a Palestinian state?
Mouin Rabbani
Norm-
Norm-
Norman Finkelstein
Of course not.
Of course not.
Mouin Rabbani
That’s part of the problem.
That’s part of the problem.
Steven Bonnell
Yeah, exactly.
Yeah, exactly.
Norman Finkelstein
That was the reason why the Palestinians didn’t want to recognize 242 because they only referred, at the very end, the refugee problem.
That was the reason why the Palestinians didn’t want to recognize 242 because they only referred, at the very end, the refugee problem.
Steven Bonnell
Sure, but the PLO recognized 181 and 242 [inaudible 04:18:31].
Sure, but the PLO recognized 181 and 242 [inaudible 04:18:31].
Mouin Rabbani
Yeah, but hold on. Hold on. Every United Nations Security Council resolution, irrespective of under which chapter it was adopted, is, by definition, binding. Binding not only on the members of the Security Council but on every member state of the UN. Read the UN Charter. It’s black and white.
Yeah, but hold on. Hold on. Every United Nations Security Council resolution, irrespective of under which chapter it was adopted, is, by definition, binding. Binding not only on the members of the Security Council but on every member state of the UN. Read the UN Charter. It’s black and white.
Steven Bonnell
Sure. People can look that up [inaudible 04:18:53]-
Sure. People can look that up [inaudible 04:18:53]-
Mouin Rabbani
Yes.
Yes.
Steven Bonnell
… but the language even of 242 is kept intentionally vague such that it doesn’t actually provide, again, the final [inaudible 04:18:59]-
… but the language even of 242 is kept intentionally vague such that it doesn’t actually provide, again, the final [inaudible 04:18:59]-
Mouin Rabbani
It’s actually not that vague-
It’s actually not that vague-
Steven Bonnell
It’s incredibly vague.
It’s incredibly vague.
Mouin Rabbani
… because the term “land for peace” originates in 242. The idea is-
… because the term “land for peace” originates in 242. The idea is-
Steven Bonnell
Sure, but the part about territorial acquisition and Israel’s need to give it up was kept vague. That’s why, in ’79, Israel thought that they fulfilled their obligations under 242 [inaudible 04:19:13]-
Sure, but the part about territorial acquisition and Israel’s need to give it up was kept vague. That’s why, in ’79, Israel thought that they fulfilled their obligations under 242 [inaudible 04:19:13]-
Mouin Rabbani
You asked a separate question.
You asked a separate question.
Norman Finkelstein
Allow me points of information. The first principle in UN Resolution 242 is that the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by force-
Allow me points of information. The first principle in UN Resolution 242 is that the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by force-
Steven Bonnell
Which is meaningless.
Which is meaningless.
Norman Finkelstein
It may be meaningless to you, Mr. Bonnell.
It may be meaningless to you, Mr. Bonnell.
Steven Bonnell
It was meaningless to everyone in the region.
It was meaningless to everyone in the region.
Norman Finkelstein
Okay. Mr. Bonnell, that principle was adopted by the Friendly Nations Resolution, the UN General Assembly in 1970. That resolution was then reiterated in the International Court of Justice ruling, advisory opinion in 2004. That was the basis of the coalition against Iraq when it acquired Kuwait and then declared it a province of Kuwait.
Okay. Mr. Bonnell, that principle was adopted by the Friendly Nations Resolution, the UN General Assembly in 1970. That resolution was then reiterated in the International Court of Justice ruling, advisory opinion in 2004. That was the basis of the coalition against Iraq when it acquired Kuwait and then declared it a province of Kuwait.
Steven Bonnell
Which Arafat supported.
Which Arafat supported.
Norman Finkelstein
That’s what’s called-
That’s what’s called-
Benny Morris
That’s true. Arafat did-
That’s true. Arafat did-
Steven Bonnell
Arafat did support it.
Arafat did support it.
Benny Morris
Arafat did support it.
Arafat did support it.
Steven Bonnell
[inaudible 04:20:11].
[inaudible 04:20:11].
Norman Finkelstein
It’s not accurate. I’m not going to go there. I’m not going to go there.
It’s not accurate. I’m not going to go there. I’m not going to go there.
Steven Bonnell
It’s not accurate that Arafat endorsed-
It’s not accurate that Arafat endorsed-
Norman Finkelstein
Okay, I’m not going to go there.
Okay, I’m not going to go there.
Steven Bonnell
Okay. [inaudible 04:20:18].
Okay. [inaudible 04:20:18].
Norman Finkelstein
It’s called, under international law, jus cogens or peremptory norms of international law, the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war. That is not controversial. It’s not vague. You couldn’t put it more succinctly. You cannot acquire territory by force under international law.
It’s called, under international law, jus cogens or peremptory norms of international law, the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war. That is not controversial. It’s not vague. You couldn’t put it more succinctly. You cannot acquire territory by force under international law.
Steven Bonnell
On the West Bank before ’67, who owned the Gaza Strip before ’67?
On the West Bank before ’67, who owned the Gaza Strip before ’67?
Norman Finkelstein
Mr. Bonnell, don’t change the subject. If you don’t know what you’re talking about-
Mr. Bonnell, don’t change the subject. If you don’t know what you’re talking about-
Steven Bonnell
It’s not about [inaudible 04:20:50]-
It’s not about [inaudible 04:20:50]-
Norman Finkelstein
… at least have the humility-
… at least have the humility-
Steven Bonnell
How close has 242-
How close has 242-
Norman Finkelstein
You talk about Chapter VI-
You talk about Chapter VI-
Steven Bonnell
How close has 242 gotten-
How close has 242 gotten-
Norman Finkelstein
You don’t know Chapter VI-
You don’t know Chapter VI-
Steven Bonnell
How close has 242 gotten the Palestinians to peace?
How close has 242 gotten the Palestinians to peace?
Norman Finkelstein
You don’t know Chapter VI from tweet five. You have no idea what you’re talking about. It’s just so embarrassing. At least have some humility. Between us who have read maybe 10,000 books on the topic and you’ve read two Wikipedia entries and you start talking about Chapter VI. Do you know what Chapter VII is?
You don’t know Chapter VI from tweet five. You have no idea what you’re talking about. It’s just so embarrassing. At least have some humility. Between us who have read maybe 10,000 books on the topic and you’ve read two Wikipedia entries and you start talking about Chapter VI. Do you know what Chapter VII is?
Steven Bonnell
Answer me. Answer the question.
Answer me. Answer the question.
Norman Finkelstein
Do you know what Chapter VII is?
Do you know what Chapter VII is?
Steven Bonnell
Norm, answer the question. How close has 242 gotten the Palestinians to a state?
Norm, answer the question. How close has 242 gotten the Palestinians to a state?
Mouin Rabbani
Let me ask you this.
Let me ask you this.
Steven Bonnell
How close has the 2004 advisory opinion gotten the West Bank settlement [inaudible 04:21:26]?
How close has the 2004 advisory opinion gotten the West Bank settlement [inaudible 04:21:26]?
Mouin Rabbani
What’s your alternative?
What’s your alternative?
Steven Bonnell
The alternative is not this, whatever this making money off the conflict is. The actual alternative-
The alternative is not this, whatever this making money off the conflict is. The actual alternative-
Norman Finkelstein
[inaudible 04:21:33] making money-
[inaudible 04:21:33] making money-
Steven Bonnell
The actual alternative-
The actual alternative-
Norman Finkelstein
Destiny should talk about making money off of idiocy.
Destiny should talk about making money off of idiocy.
Steven Bonnell
Yes. Yeah, you’re a media [inaudible 04:21:37] when you go and talk to 50 million different people about your awesome [inaudible 04:21:40].
Yes. Yeah, you’re a media [inaudible 04:21:37] when you go and talk to 50 million different people about your awesome [inaudible 04:21:40].
Benny Morris
But he has a point, though.
But he has a point, though.
Norman Finkelstein
What point?
What point?
Steven Bonnell
But the issue is you have to negotiate-
But the issue is you have to negotiate-
Benny Morris
All these resolutions have gotten the Palestinians no closer to a state.
All these resolutions have gotten the Palestinians no closer to a state.
Steven Bonnell
Nothing.
Nothing.
Norman Finkelstein
Yeah, but hold on. Because they haven’t been enforced because of the US veto.
Yeah, but hold on. Because they haven’t been enforced because of the US veto.
Benny Morris
They’re not going to be enforced.
They’re not going to be enforced.
Norman Finkelstein
Wait, wait, wait, wait.
Wait, wait, wait, wait.
Benny Morris
They’ve gotten nowhere-
They’ve gotten nowhere-
Mouin Rabbani
If I may, if I may-
If I may, if I may-
Steven Bonnell
[inaudible 04:21:52].
[inaudible 04:21:52].
Norman Finkelstein
You know what? You know what? Professor Morris-
You know what? You know what? Professor Morris-
Steven Bonnell
[inaudible 04:21:58] about the case for genocide.
[inaudible 04:21:58] about the case for genocide.
Norman Finkelstein
Professor Morris, because of your logic, and I’m not disputing it, that’s why October 7th happened.
Professor Morris, because of your logic, and I’m not disputing it, that’s why October 7th happened.
Benny Morris
Oh my God.
Oh my God.
Norman Finkelstein
Because there was no options left for those people. Exactly what Mouin said.
Because there was no options left for those people. Exactly what Mouin said.
Benny Morris
And now what options are left? After October 7th-
And now what options are left? After October 7th-
Steven Bonnell
This has been the Palestinian mentality for 60 years.
This has been the Palestinian mentality for 60 years.
Benny Morris
… what’s the options left?
… what’s the options left?
Steven Bonnell
The only option is conflict.
The only option is conflict.
Norman Finkelstein
Listen to this.
Listen to this.
Steven Bonnell
The only option is combat.
The only option is combat.
Norman Finkelstein
Mr. Bonnell is now an expert on Palestinian mentality.
Mr. Bonnell is now an expert on Palestinian mentality.
Mouin Rabbani
Hold on. You’re contradicting yourself.
Hold on. You’re contradicting yourself.
Norman Finkelstein
You know as much about Palestinian politics as you know about Chapter V.
You know as much about Palestinian politics as you know about Chapter V.
Steven Bonnell
I only deal with facts. I only deal with facts. Egypt didn’t find it necessary to-
I only deal with facts. I only deal with facts. Egypt didn’t find it necessary to-
Norman Finkelstein
Tell me about Chapter V.
Tell me about Chapter V.
Steven Bonnell
Egypt didn’t find it necessary-
Egypt didn’t find it necessary-
Norman Finkelstein
Tell me about Chapter V.
Tell me about Chapter V.
Steven Bonnell
… to negotiate peace [inaudible 04:22:34] the Palestinians. Jordan didn’t find it necessary to negotiate peace [inaudible 04:22:36] the Palestinians.
… to negotiate peace [inaudible 04:22:34] the Palestinians. Jordan didn’t find it necessary to negotiate peace [inaudible 04:22:36] the Palestinians.
Mouin Rabbani
Hey, if I may-
Hey, if I may-
Steven Bonnell
The Abraham Accords [inaudible 04:22:37] the Palestinians-
The Abraham Accords [inaudible 04:22:37] the Palestinians-
Norman Finkelstein
Talk faster, faster, faster, faster.
Talk faster, faster, faster, faster.
Steven Bonnell
… despite all of the international law-
… despite all of the international law-
Lex Fridman
Everybody, Mouin.
Everybody, Mouin.
Norman Finkelstein
Faster.
Faster.
Mouin Rabbani
You’re contradicting yourself. On the one hand, you’re saying all the Palestinians do is fight and violence and terrorism and all the rest of it, but on the other hand, you’re saying they’re expecting salvation from UN resolutions and international court. Those aren’t violent.
You’re contradicting yourself. On the one hand, you’re saying all the Palestinians do is fight and violence and terrorism and all the rest of it, but on the other hand, you’re saying they’re expecting salvation from UN resolutions and international court. Those aren’t violent.
Norman Finkelstein
It’s the law.
It’s the law.
Steven Bonnell
No, but it’s part of maintaining-
No, but it’s part of maintaining-
Norman Finkelstein
It’s the law.
It’s the law.
Steven Bonnell
It’s the continual putting off of negotiating any solution.
It’s the continual putting off of negotiating any solution.
Norman Finkelstein
[inaudible 04:23:06].
[inaudible 04:23:06].
Mouin Rabbani
They’ve negotiated.
They’ve negotiated.
Steven Bonnell
As in when Arafat takes 10 days to respond-
As in when Arafat takes 10 days to respond-
Norman Finkelstein
I think he said-
I think he said-
Steven Bonnell
When Arafat takes 10 days to respond and hops on a jet all over the world to go and visit his friends, yes.
When Arafat takes 10 days to respond and hops on a jet all over the world to go and visit his friends, yes.
Norman Finkelstein
I think Mouin said-
I think Mouin said-
Steven Bonnell
But it’s for putting the conflict off indefinitely.
But it’s for putting the conflict off indefinitely.
Norman Finkelstein
… they accepted two states in 1975. Brace yourself.
… they accepted two states in 1975. Brace yourself.
Benny Morris
They didn’t.
They didn’t.
Steven Bonnell
Why didn’t they accept the Taba Summit then?
Why didn’t they accept the Taba Summit then?
Norman Finkelstein
Brace yourself. That’s 50 years ago.
Brace yourself. That’s 50 years ago.
Steven Bonnell
Why didn’t they accept the Camp David [inaudible 04:23:19]?
Why didn’t they accept the Camp David [inaudible 04:23:19]?
Benny Morris
This is a legend.
This is a legend.
Norman Finkelstein
That’s a half-century ago.
That’s a half-century ago.
Benny Morris
No, no, they didn’t accept a two-state solution [inaudible 04:23:26].
No, no, they didn’t accept a two-state solution [inaudible 04:23:26].
Norman Finkelstein
He quoted a very good article [inaudible 04:23:28].
He quoted a very good article [inaudible 04:23:28].
Steven Bonnell
You can quote Arafat talking about how he’s lying and he’s just going to use… In ’94 and ’95 when he’s making trips around the world, how he just wanted [inaudible 04:23:35] starting ground.
You can quote Arafat talking about how he’s lying and he’s just going to use… In ’94 and ’95 when he’s making trips around the world, how he just wanted [inaudible 04:23:35] starting ground.
Norman Finkelstein
Talk faster. Talk faster.
Talk faster. Talk faster.
Steven Bonnell
I’m sorry. I can’t talk slow. You can watch [inaudible 04:23:38] and slow it down to 0.5 speed if you don’t understand what I’m saying.
I’m sorry. I can’t talk slow. You can watch [inaudible 04:23:38] and slow it down to 0.5 speed if you don’t understand what I’m saying.
Norman Finkelstein
Faster. Faster.
Faster. Faster.
Mouin Rabbani
There’s a very lengthy history-
There’s a very lengthy history-
Norman Finkelstein
Motor mouth.
Motor mouth.
Mouin Rabbani
… of Israeli-Palestinian negotiations. You want to deny that those negotiations took place.
… of Israeli-Palestinian negotiations. You want to deny that those negotiations took place.
Steven Bonnell
Where it feels like there was a good-faith effort-
Where it feels like there was a good-faith effort-
Norman Finkelstein
What it feels like.
What it feels like.
Steven Bonnell
Where there was a good-faith effort-
Where there was a good-faith effort-
Norman Finkelstein
Feels like.
Feels like.
Steven Bonnell
Where there was a good-faith effort-
Where there was a good-faith effort-
Norman Finkelstein
We have a written record.
We have a written record.
Steven Bonnell
With all due respect-
With all due respect-
Norman Finkelstein
We have a written record, Mr. Bonnell.
We have a written record, Mr. Bonnell.
Steven Bonnell
Mr. Pop History, you can’t even read the written records. I don’t know why you’re referring to them. Okay.
Mr. Pop History, you can’t even read the written records. I don’t know why you’re referring to them. Okay.
Norman Finkelstein
Excuse me? I just said there are 15,000 pages on Annapolis.
Excuse me? I just said there are 15,000 pages on Annapolis.
Steven Bonnell
And I’m sure you cherry-picked your favorite quotes from all of them. Okay.
And I’m sure you cherry-picked your favorite quotes from all of them. Okay.
Norman Finkelstein
I don’t cherry-pick.
I don’t cherry-pick.
Steven Bonnell
That’s great. That’s great.
That’s great. That’s great.
Norman Finkelstein
Mr. Bonnell, at least I had a quote to cherry-pick.
Mr. Bonnell, at least I had a quote to cherry-pick.
Steven Bonnell
That’s great. [inaudible 04:24:12].
That’s great. [inaudible 04:24:12].
Norman Finkelstein
All you have is Wikipedia.
All you have is Wikipedia.
Steven Bonnell
I gave you quotes.
I gave you quotes.
Norman Finkelstein
All you have is Wikipedia.
All you have is Wikipedia.
Steven Bonnell
Do you want quotes? Find me the information that shows the Palestinian cause has been furthered by any international law. You can’t do it.
Do you want quotes? Find me the information that shows the Palestinian cause has been furthered by any international law. You can’t do it.
Mouin Rabbani
I think the problem is different. Okay. You want to say the Palestinians were only fighting. And then when I point out they’ve also gone to the court and the UN, you say, “Well, all they do then is these things and they should be negotiating.” And I demonstrate that there was a lengthy record of negotiations. You said, “Yeah, but they didn’t go in good faith.” Again, you’re placing the hamster in the wheel and telling him if he runs fast enough, maybe one day he’ll get out of the cage.
I think the problem is different. Okay. You want to say the Palestinians were only fighting. And then when I point out they’ve also gone to the court and the UN, you say, “Well, all they do then is these things and they should be negotiating.” And I demonstrate that there was a lengthy record of negotiations. You said, “Yeah, but they didn’t go in good faith.” Again, you’re placing the hamster in the wheel and telling him if he runs fast enough, maybe one day he’ll get out of the cage.
Steven Bonnell
What was the best good-faith negotiation on the side of the-
What was the best good-faith negotiation on the side of the-
Mouin Rabbani
Okay. Please, if I could just finish. I think the fundamental problem here is not what the Palestinians have and haven’t done, and it’s perfectly legitimate to have a discussion about whether they could have been more effective. Of course, they could have been more effective. Everyone could have always been more effective. The fundamental issue here is that Israel has never been prepared to concede the legitimacy of Palestinian national rights in the land of the former British mandate of Palestine.
Okay. Please, if I could just finish. I think the fundamental problem here is not what the Palestinians have and haven’t done, and it’s perfectly legitimate to have a discussion about whether they could have been more effective. Of course, they could have been more effective. Everyone could have always been more effective. The fundamental issue here is that Israel has never been prepared to concede the legitimacy of Palestinian national rights in the land of the former British mandate of Palestine.
Steven Bonnell
Then how do you explain Taba Summit? How do you explain Camp David?
Then how do you explain Taba Summit? How do you explain Camp David?
Benny Morris
No, Barack and Olmert did accept the legitimacy-
No, Barack and Olmert did accept the legitimacy-
Steven Bonnell
How do you explain Olmert’s offer to Abbas? Yeah.
How do you explain Olmert’s offer to Abbas? Yeah.
Benny Morris
… of Palestinian demands. But they didn’t want to give the Palestinians all of Palestine, that’s all.
… of Palestinian demands. But they didn’t want to give the Palestinians all of Palestine, that’s all.
Norman Finkelstein
No, all of Palestine? No, no.
No, all of Palestine? No, no.
Mouin Rabbani
You mean all of the occupied territories?
You mean all of the occupied territories?
Benny Morris
You’re talking about all of Palestine being occupied territory?
You’re talking about all of Palestine being occupied territory?
Steven Bonnell
Wait. What is the occupied territories?
Wait. What is the occupied territories?
Norman Finkelstein
Professor Morris.
Professor Morris.
Mouin Rabbani
The occupied territories-
The occupied territories-
Steven Bonnell
Is that all of Israel?
Is that all of Israel?
Norman Finkelstein
Professor Morris, could you show me-
Professor Morris, could you show me-
Mouin Rabbani
The occupied territories are those territories that Israel occupied in June of 1967.
The occupied territories are those territories that Israel occupied in June of 1967.
Norman Finkelstein
Could you show me-
Could you show me-
Benny Morris
Palestinians often use that term to define the whole of Palestine, not just the West Bank.
Palestinians often use that term to define the whole of Palestine, not just the West Bank.
Norman Finkelstein
Could you show me, Professor Morris, in all the negotiations, all the negotiations and all the accounts that have been written, can you show me one where the Palestinians in the negotiations, because that’s what we were talking about, wanted all of Israel? The maximum-
Could you show me, Professor Morris, in all the negotiations, all the negotiations and all the accounts that have been written, can you show me one where the Palestinians in the negotiations, because that’s what we were talking about, wanted all of Israel? The maximum-
Benny Morris
They can’t say that because the international community won’t accept it.
They can’t say that because the international community won’t accept it.
Norman Finkelstein
Oh, so you know it because you know what-
Oh, so you know it because you know what-
Mouin Rabbani
So they didn’t say it. They didn’t ask for it.
So they didn’t say it. They didn’t ask for it.
Norman Finkelstein
… but you know what’s in their hearts.
… but you know what’s in their hearts.
Benny Morris
No, Hamas did. Hamas always said all of it.
No, Hamas did. Hamas always said all of it.
Mouin Rabbani
Hamas only negotiated with Israel about prisoner exchanges [inaudible 04:26:36].
Hamas only negotiated with Israel about prisoner exchanges [inaudible 04:26:36].
Benny Morris
No, I know. But they represent-
No, I know. But they represent-
Norman Finkelstein
So we were talking about the negotiations.
So we were talking about the negotiations.
Benny Morris
… a lot of the Palestinian people, you will agree.
… a lot of the Palestinian people, you will agree.
Norman Finkelstein
The only place I saw pieces of Israel were the land swaps, and the land swaps accounted for about 2-5% of Israel. Nobody asked for all of Israel. Why do you say things like that?
The only place I saw pieces of Israel were the land swaps, and the land swaps accounted for about 2-5% of Israel. Nobody asked for all of Israel. Why do you say things like that?
Steven Bonnell
What do you mean? They asked for all of Israel in ’48. They asked for all of Israel in ’67. What do you think those reports were about?
What do you mean? They asked for all of Israel in ’48. They asked for all of Israel in ’67. What do you think those reports were about?
Norman Finkelstein
Okay. Mr. Bonnell, you talk so-
Okay. Mr. Bonnell, you talk so-
Steven Bonnell
You’re not going to respond to anything I’m saying because you have no answer.
You’re not going to respond to anything I’m saying because you have no answer.
Norman Finkelstein
I’ll respond to you. Okay. Mr. Bonnell, we were talking about the diplomatic negotiations beginning with 2001.
I’ll respond to you. Okay. Mr. Bonnell, we were talking about the diplomatic negotiations beginning with 2001.
Steven Bonnell
Yes, I understand, but you can’t pretend that the first ask for Israel was in diplomacy. It was through war.
Yes, I understand, but you can’t pretend that the first ask for Israel was in diplomacy. It was through war.
Norman Finkelstein
Okay. You don’t know what you’re talking about.
Okay. You don’t know what you’re talking about.
Steven Bonnell
Is the international law argument ever going to get the Palestinians closer to state? Is the Israeli state ever going to be dismantled? Do you think that’s realistic coming up, ever, in the next 20 years?
Is the international law argument ever going to get the Palestinians closer to state? Is the Israeli state ever going to be dismantled? Do you think that’s realistic coming up, ever, in the next 20 years?
Mouin Rabbani
Again, I’m posing a question, and the question is, regardless of what’s feasible or realistic today, the question I’m posing is, can you have peace in the Middle East with this militant, irrational, genocidal, apartheid state and power?
Again, I’m posing a question, and the question is, regardless of what’s feasible or realistic today, the question I’m posing is, can you have peace in the Middle East with this militant, irrational, genocidal, apartheid state and power?
Steven Bonnell
[inaudible 04:27:49] I don’t think so, no.
[inaudible 04:27:49] I don’t think so, no.
Mouin Rabbani
Okay. And the question I’m asking is, can you have peace with this regime or does this regime and its institutions need to be dismantled, similar to the examples I gave of Europe and Southern Africa?
Okay. And the question I’m asking is, can you have peace with this regime or does this regime and its institutions need to be dismantled, similar to the examples I gave of Europe and Southern Africa?
Steven Bonnell
How do you contend with the fact that most of the surrounding Arab states seem to agree that you can?
How do you contend with the fact that most of the surrounding Arab states seem to agree that you can?
Mouin Rabbani
Yeah, you’re correct. Several of them, most importantly, Egypt, Jordan, have made their peace with Israel. I should add that Israel’s conduct since then has placed these relations under strain. I had very little… I didn’t take the reports of a Saudi-Israeli rapprochement particularly seriously before October 7th, the reason being that it was really a Saudi-Israeli-US deal, which committed the US to make certain commitments to Saudi Arabia that would probably never get through Congress.
Yeah, you’re correct. Several of them, most importantly, Egypt, Jordan, have made their peace with Israel. I should add that Israel’s conduct since then has placed these relations under strain. I had very little… I didn’t take the reports of a Saudi-Israeli rapprochement particularly seriously before October 7th, the reason being that it was really a Saudi-Israeli-US deal, which committed the US to make certain commitments to Saudi Arabia that would probably never get through Congress.
Steven Bonnell
Do you not consider the Egypt-Israeli peace deal legitimate then since the United States made a great financial contribution to Egypt?
Do you not consider the Egypt-Israeli peace deal legitimate then since the United States made a great financial contribution to Egypt?
Mouin Rabbani
I don’t think the question is whether that deal is legitimate or not. I think that deal exists. But the point is, the core of this conflict is not between Israel and Egypt. The core of this conflict is between Israel and the Palestinian people.
I don’t think the question is whether that deal is legitimate or not. I think that deal exists. But the point is, the core of this conflict is not between Israel and Egypt. The core of this conflict is between Israel and the Palestinian people.
And the reason that Israel agreed to relinquish the occupied Egyptian Sinai and the reason that Egyptian-Israeli peace treaty was signed in 1979 is because Israel, in 1973, recognized that its military superiority was ultimately no match for Egypt’s determination to recover its occupied territories and that there would come a point when Egypt would find a way to extract an unbearable price.
Benny Morris
Maybe just Israelis wanted peace.
Maybe just Israelis wanted peace.
Mouin Rabbani
Well, the Israelis wanted-
Well, the Israelis wanted-
Benny Morris
Not just because they were afraid of what Egypt might do at some point.
Not just because they were afraid of what Egypt might do at some point.
Mouin Rabbani
If you’re talking about the average Israeli citizen, I think that’s a fair characterization. If you’re talking about the Israeli leadership, I think they looked at it in more strategic terms of how do you remove-
If you’re talking about the average Israeli citizen, I think that’s a fair characterization. If you’re talking about the Israeli leadership, I think they looked at it in more strategic terms of how do you remove-
Benny Morris
I think it’s both.
I think it’s both.
Mouin Rabbani
… the most powerful Arab military states from the equation?
… the most powerful Arab military states from the equation?
Norman Finkelstein
Two points. Simple points. What was the terms of that Egypt-Israel peace treaty? International law, Egypt demanded every-
Two points. Simple points. What was the terms of that Egypt-Israel peace treaty? International law, Egypt demanded every-
Benny Morris
Nobody cared about international law.
Nobody cared about international law.
Norman Finkelstein
Allow me to finish. Every single inch of Egyptian-
Allow me to finish. Every single inch of Egyptian-
Benny Morris
Nobody [inaudible 04:30:30] about international law.
Nobody [inaudible 04:30:30] about international law.
Norman Finkelstein
Okay.
Okay.
Benny Morris
Begin and Carter and Sadat talk about the realities-
Begin and Carter and Sadat talk about the realities-
Norman Finkelstein
No, Professor-
No, Professor-
Benny Morris
… of Israel occupying territory and wanting peace.
… of Israel occupying territory and wanting peace.
Norman Finkelstein
Professor Morris, I know the record. They demanded, as you know because you’ve written about it, they demanded every square inch, as you know. They demanded the oil fields be dismantled, the airfields be dismantled.
Professor Morris, I know the record. They demanded, as you know because you’ve written about it, they demanded every square inch, as you know. They demanded the oil fields be dismantled, the airfields be dismantled.
Benny Morris
No, not dismantle. They wanted the oil fields.
No, not dismantle. They wanted the oil fields.
Norman Finkelstein
And they wanted the settlements dismantled.
And they wanted the settlements dismantled.
Benny Morris
They wanted the settlements dismantled.
They wanted the settlements dismantled.
Norman Finkelstein
The settlements, the oil fields, and the airfield, they demanded all three back. You can’t have-
The settlements, the oil fields, and the airfield, they demanded all three back. You can’t have-
Benny Morris
What do you mean “back”? The airfields weren’t there when the Egyptians were there.
What do you mean “back”? The airfields weren’t there when the Egyptians were there.
Norman Finkelstein
Okay. That’s incorrect.
Okay. That’s incorrect.
Benny Morris
What’s incorrect?
What’s incorrect?
Norman Finkelstein
You’re incorrect.
You’re incorrect.
Benny Morris
The airfields were built after-
The airfields were built after-
Norman Finkelstein
They built an airfield. The Israelis built an airfield in the occupied Sinai.
They built an airfield. The Israelis built an airfield in the occupied Sinai.
Benny Morris
Yes.
Yes.
Norman Finkelstein
And they wanted it back.
And they wanted it back.
Benny Morris
They didn’t want it back. It wasn’t theirs.
They didn’t want it back. It wasn’t theirs.
Norman Finkelstein
Okay.
Okay.
Benny Morris
They wanted the territory in which the airfields were built back.
They wanted the territory in which the airfields were built back.
Norman Finkelstein
The oil fields, the airfields, the settlements had to be dismantled.
The oil fields, the airfields, the settlements had to be dismantled.
Benny Morris
Yes.
Yes.
Norman Finkelstein
Begin said, “I don’t want to be the first prime minister to dismantle a settlement.”
Begin said, “I don’t want to be the first prime minister to dismantle a settlement.”
Benny Morris
But he did.
But he did.
Norman Finkelstein
But he did. Why? Because of the law.
But he did. Why? Because of the law.
Benny Morris
No.
No.
Steven Bonnell
No. It was because of peace… It was normalization-
No. It was because of peace… It was normalization-
Benny Morris
Nobody cared about the law. The law had nothing to do with anything. It was a negotiation between two states-
Nobody cared about the law. The law had nothing to do with anything. It was a negotiation between two states-
Norman Finkelstein
Mr. Morris. Mr. Morris.
Mr. Morris. Mr. Morris.
Benny Morris
… each of which wanted certain things.
… each of which wanted certain things.
Norman Finkelstein
Palestinians [inaudible 04:31:42]-
Palestinians [inaudible 04:31:42]-
Benny Morris
The law had nothing to do with anything.
The law had nothing to do with anything.
Norman Finkelstein
… as they said repeatedly in the negotiations-
… as they said repeatedly in the negotiations-
Benny Morris
You’re not listening. You’re not listening.
You’re not listening. You’re not listening.
Norman Finkelstein
I know-
I know-
Benny Morris
You’re missing the whole point.
You’re missing the whole point.
Norman Finkelstein
I’ve read the negotiations.
I’ve read the negotiations.
Benny Morris
The law has nothing to do with anything.
The law has nothing to do with anything.
Norman Finkelstein
There were two foreign relations of US volumes on it.
There were two foreign relations of US volumes on it.
Benny Morris
Nobody cared about the law.
Nobody cared about the law.
Norman Finkelstein
The Palestinians kept saying, “We want exactly-“
The Palestinians kept saying, “We want exactly-“
Benny Morris
Forget the Palestinians. They weren’t there.
Forget the Palestinians. They weren’t there.
Norman Finkelstein
Allow me to finish. The Palestinians kept saying, “We want what Egypt got.”
Allow me to finish. The Palestinians kept saying, “We want what Egypt got.”
Norman Finkelstein
The Palestinians kept saying, “We want what Egypt got. We want what Egypt got.” Egypt got everything back.
The Palestinians kept saying, “We want what Egypt got. We want what Egypt got.” Egypt got everything back.
Benny Morris
But nothing to do with the law.
But nothing to do with the law.
Norman Finkelstein
Okay.
Okay.
Benny Morris
Nothing to do with the law.
Nothing to do with the law.
Norman Finkelstein
And number two, I’m not saying it’s the whole picture, but as Foreign Minister Moshe Dayan said at the time, he said, “If a car has four wheels and you remove one wheel, the car can’t move.” And for them, removing Egypt from the Arab front would then remove any Arab military threat to Israel.
And number two, I’m not saying it’s the whole picture, but as Foreign Minister Moshe Dayan said at the time, he said, “If a car has four wheels and you remove one wheel, the car can’t move.” And for them, removing Egypt from the Arab front would then remove any Arab military threat to Israel.
Benny Morris
Yeah, but it’s got nothing to do with the international law.
Yeah, but it’s got nothing to do with the international law.
Norman Finkelstein
No, the first part did, and that’s what the Palestinians kept saying-
No, the first part did, and that’s what the Palestinians kept saying-
Benny Morris
I don’t know what the first part is.
I don’t know what the first part is.
Norman Finkelstein
… “We want what each Egypt got from the settlement.”
… “We want what each Egypt got from the settlement.”
Benny Morris
Yeah, that’s true, but forget the international law.
Yeah, that’s true, but forget the international law.
Norman Finkelstein
By the way-
By the way-
Benny Morris
It had nothing to do with negotiations.
It had nothing to do with negotiations.
Norman Finkelstein
… one last thing on a personal note. The quote about Sharm El Sheikh without peace, that’s the only thing you ever cited from a book of mine.
… one last thing on a personal note. The quote about Sharm El Sheikh without peace, that’s the only thing you ever cited from a book of mine.
Benny Morris
I’ve cited from your book?
I’ve cited from your book?
Norman Finkelstein
Yes. I was absolutely shocked at your betrayal of your people. That was pure treason.I
Yes. I was absolutely shocked at your betrayal of your people. That was pure treason.I
Benny Morris
I apologize for that. I apologize.
I apologize for that. I apologize.
Norman Finkelstein
Okay, I accept.
Okay, I accept.
Hope for the future
Lex Fridman
All right. Well, let me try once again, for the region and for the entirety of humanity, what gives you hope? We just heard a lot of pessimistic, cynical takes. What gives you hope?
All right. Well, let me try once again, for the region and for the entirety of humanity, what gives you hope? We just heard a lot of pessimistic, cynical takes. What gives you hope?
Benny Morris
People don’t like war. That’s a good reason, that’s hope. In other words, the fear of war, the disaster of war, should give people an impetus to try and seek peace.
People don’t like war. That’s a good reason, that’s hope. In other words, the fear of war, the disaster of war, should give people an impetus to try and seek peace.
Lex Fridman
When you look at people in Gaza and people on the West Bank, people in Israel, fundamentally they hate war?
When you look at people in Gaza and people on the West Bank, people in Israel, fundamentally they hate war?
Benny Morris
Yes, I think so.
Yes, I think so.
Lex Fridman
What gives you hope?
What gives you hope?
Norman Finkelstein
There is no hope, no. It’s an extreme… Hey, I’m not happy to say that.
There is no hope, no. It’s an extreme… Hey, I’m not happy to say that.
Steven Bonnell
Of course you are.
Of course you are.
Norman Finkelstein
It’s a very bleak moment right now.
It’s a very bleak moment right now.
Benny Morris
That I agree with. I agree with that.
That I agree with. I agree with that.
Norman Finkelstein
Because Israel believes it has to restore what it calls its deterrence capability. I think you’ve written about it actually, I just realized. Israel has to restore its deterrence capability, and after the catastrophe of October 7th, restoring its deterrence capacity means… this part you didn’t write about… the annihilation of Gaza and then moving on to the Hezbollah.
Because Israel believes it has to restore what it calls its deterrence capability. I think you’ve written about it actually, I just realized. Israel has to restore its deterrence capability, and after the catastrophe of October 7th, restoring its deterrence capacity means… this part you didn’t write about… the annihilation of Gaza and then moving on to the Hezbollah.
So the Israelis are dead set on restoring that deterrence capability. On the Arab side, and I know Mouin and I have disagreed on it, and we’re allowed to disagree, I think the Arab side, the lesson they learned from October 7th is Israelis aren’t as strong as we thought they were.
Benny Morris
That would be an unfortunate message if that’s really what the Arabs come to believe.
That would be an unfortunate message if that’s really what the Arabs come to believe.
Norman Finkelstein
And they think that there is a military option now. I think that it’s a zero-sum game at this point, and it’s very, very bleak, and I’m not going to lie about that. Now, I will admit my predictive capacities are not perfect-
And they think that there is a military option now. I think that it’s a zero-sum game at this point, and it’s very, very bleak, and I’m not going to lie about that. Now, I will admit my predictive capacities are not perfect-
Benny Morris
Are limited.
Are limited.
Norman Finkelstein
… are limited, but for the moment it’s a very bleak situation-
… are limited, but for the moment it’s a very bleak situation-
Benny Morris
That I agree with.
That I agree with.
Norman Finkelstein
… and I don’t see right now a way out. However, at the very minimum, permanent ceasefire ended in human and illegal blockade of Gaza, and free the hostages.
… and I don’t see right now a way out. However, at the very minimum, permanent ceasefire ended in human and illegal blockade of Gaza, and free the hostages.
Benny Morris
Why is it illegal? They were shooting rockets at Israel for 20 years. Why is that illegal to blockade Gaza?
Why is it illegal? They were shooting rockets at Israel for 20 years. Why is that illegal to blockade Gaza?
Steven Bonnell
He thinks they’re bottle rockets, that’s what he calls them [inaudible 04:35:47].
He thinks they’re bottle rockets, that’s what he calls them [inaudible 04:35:47].
Norman Finkelstein
Why is it illegal? I’ll tell you why.
Why is it illegal? I’ll tell you why.
Benny Morris
You don’t rocket your neighbor. You rocket your neighbor, expect consequences.
You don’t rocket your neighbor. You rocket your neighbor, expect consequences.
Norman Finkelstein
I’ll tell you why.
I’ll tell you why.
Benny Morris
Expect consequences.
Expect consequences.
Mouin Rabbani
But that works both ways.
But that works both ways.
Norman Finkelstein
Yes.
Yes.
Benny Morris
I know, and I accept that, it works both ways.
I know, and I accept that, it works both ways.
Norman Finkelstein
Professor Morris. I’ll tell you why. Because every human rights, humanitarian and UN organization in the world-
Professor Morris. I’ll tell you why. Because every human rights, humanitarian and UN organization in the world-
Benny Morris
They’re all irrelevant.
They’re all irrelevant.
Norman Finkelstein
… has said that the blockade-
… has said that the blockade-
Benny Morris
You keep quoting them. Nobody cares about Amnesty.
You keep quoting them. Nobody cares about Amnesty.
Norman Finkelstein
… is a form of collective punishment-
… is a form of collective punishment-
Benny Morris
Nobody cares about Amnesty.
Nobody cares about Amnesty.
Norman Finkelstein
… which is illegal under international law.
… which is illegal under international law.
Benny Morris
Forget illegal. The word illegal is…
Forget illegal. The word illegal is…
Norman Finkelstein
You think a blockade which-
You think a blockade which-
Benny Morris
You don’t understand the way the world works. These things are irrelevant.
You don’t understand the way the world works. These things are irrelevant.
Norman Finkelstein
And you think confining, because that’s the blockade-
And you think confining, because that’s the blockade-
Benny Morris
Yes, you don’t shoot rockets at your neighbor.
Yes, you don’t shoot rockets at your neighbor.
Norman Finkelstein
… confining a million children-
… confining a million children-
Benny Morris
That’s the choice of Hamas.
That’s the choice of Hamas.
Steven Bonnell
Children?
Children?
Benny Morris
That’s Hamas’ choice.
That’s Hamas’ choice.
Norman Finkelstein
Confining a million children in what The Economist calls a human rubbish heap-
Confining a million children in what The Economist calls a human rubbish heap-
Benny Morris
The Economist supported Israel in this war, and continues to support Israel.
The Economist supported Israel in this war, and continues to support Israel.
Norman Finkelstein
Okay. What International Committee of The Red Cross called a sinking ship, what the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights called a toxic slum, you think-
Okay. What International Committee of The Red Cross called a sinking ship, what the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights called a toxic slum, you think-
Benny Morris
It is a slum, of course it’s a slum, but it’s caused by the Hamas.
It is a slum, of course it’s a slum, but it’s caused by the Hamas.
Norman Finkelstein
… under international law, you think it’s legitimate-
… under international law, you think it’s legitimate-
Benny Morris
Forget the law.
Forget the law.
Norman Finkelstein
Hey, I know you want to forget the law.
Hey, I know you want to forget the law.
Benny Morris
What about morality? Forget the law, what about morality?
What about morality? Forget the law, what about morality?
Norman Finkelstein
It’s what every Israeli fears the most.
It’s what every Israeli fears the most.
Benny Morris
What?
What?
Norman Finkelstein
The law.
The law.
Benny Morris
No, no, no.
No, no, no.
Norman Finkelstein
As Tzipi Livni said, “I studied international law. I oppose international law.” Of course you don’t want to hear about the law.
As Tzipi Livni said, “I studied international law. I oppose international law.” Of course you don’t want to hear about the law.
Benny Morris
That has got nothing to do with anything.
That has got nothing to do with anything.
Norman Finkelstein
Okay, so here’s the thing. Then don’t complain about October 7th.
Okay, so here’s the thing. Then don’t complain about October 7th.
Benny Morris
Do you hear me complaining? I didn’t complain.
Do you hear me complaining? I didn’t complain.
Norman Finkelstein
If you want to say forget about the law-
If you want to say forget about the law-
Benny Morris
All I said was they acted like barbarians.
All I said was they acted like barbarians.
Norman Finkelstein
… when there is no international humanitarian law, there’s no distinction between civilians and combatants-
… when there is no international humanitarian law, there’s no distinction between civilians and combatants-
Benny Morris
There should be, but it’s got nothing to do with the law.
There should be, but it’s got nothing to do with the law.
Norman Finkelstein
Now you’re doing what Mouin said, you’re becoming very selective about the law. If you want to forget about the law-
Now you’re doing what Mouin said, you’re becoming very selective about the law. If you want to forget about the law-
Benny Morris
People should be [inaudible 04:37:51].
People should be [inaudible 04:37:51].
Mouin Rabbani
Across the board.
Across the board.
Norman Finkelstein
… Hamas had every right to do what it did. It had every right to do what it did according to you, not to me, because you want to forget the law.
… Hamas had every right to do what it did. It had every right to do what it did according to you, not to me, because you want to forget the law.
Steven Bonnell
Do you still support the Houthis shooting random ships?
Do you still support the Houthis shooting random ships?
Norman Finkelstein
Absolutely.
Absolutely.
Steven Bonnell
Okay, that’s a violation of international law, so you play the same game.
Okay, that’s a violation of international law, so you play the same game.
Norman Finkelstein
Absolutely. And were there are power during World War II who had the courage of the Houthis, were there are power that had that kind of courage-
Absolutely. And were there are power during World War II who had the courage of the Houthis, were there are power that had that kind of courage-
Steven Bonnell
So courageous to be bombing merchant ships while tens of thousands of people die of actual starvation, not the starvation that exists in the Gaza Strip where people before October 7th don’t die of starvation. Not the concentration camp, as they say of the Gaza Strip. The Houthis.
So courageous to be bombing merchant ships while tens of thousands of people die of actual starvation, not the starvation that exists in the Gaza Strip where people before October 7th don’t die of starvation. Not the concentration camp, as they say of the Gaza Strip. The Houthis.
Benny Morris
What about starvation in Yemen? Don’t that have something better to do?
What about starvation in Yemen? Don’t that have something better to do?
Norman Finkelstein
That was the Houthis.
That was the Houthis.
Benny Morris
Yes, I know. Don’t they have anything better to do?
Yes, I know. Don’t they have anything better to do?
Norman Finkelstein
That was the Houthis, and you know in three years they blew up 180,000 people.
That was the Houthis, and you know in three years they blew up 180,000 people.
Benny Morris
Shouldn’t they be feeding the Yemenis?
Shouldn’t they be feeding the Yemenis?
Norman Finkelstein
You know, 60,000 Yemenis died in starvation?
You know, 60,000 Yemenis died in starvation?
Benny Morris
Why fight the western powers in Israel when you should be taking care of your problems at home, the Houthis.
Why fight the western powers in Israel when you should be taking care of your problems at home, the Houthis.
Mouin Rabbani
Often the only allies of the dispossessed are those who experience similar circumstances.
Often the only allies of the dispossessed are those who experience similar circumstances.
Benny Morris
Don’t you think that they should take care of the Yemeni problems?
Don’t you think that they should take care of the Yemeni problems?
Mouin Rabbani
As I said-
As I said-
Norman Finkelstein
I’m very happy they’re helping out the Palestinians.
I’m very happy they’re helping out the Palestinians.
Benny Morris
It’s at the expense of the Yemenis. They’ll pay for it.
It’s at the expense of the Yemenis. They’ll pay for it.
Norman Finkelstein
Anybody who comes to the aid of those suffering the genocide-
Anybody who comes to the aid of those suffering the genocide-
Benny Morris
There’s no genocide.
There’s no genocide.
Norman Finkelstein
… half of whom are children… Yeah, according to the most current UN reports, as of today-
… half of whom are children… Yeah, according to the most current UN reports, as of today-
Benny Morris
There’s no genocide.
There’s no genocide.
Norman Finkelstein
… one quarter of the population of Gaza-
… one quarter of the population of Gaza-
Benny Morris
Is starving.
Is starving.
Norman Finkelstein
That means 500,000 children-
That means 500,000 children-
Benny Morris
Are starving,
Are starving,
Norman Finkelstein
… are on the verge of famine.
… are on the verge of famine.
Benny Morris
They keep saying on the verge of.
They keep saying on the verge of.
Steven Bonnell
On the verge of. Didn’t you quote that they said it was unlivable?
On the verge of. Didn’t you quote that they said it was unlivable?
Benny Morris
I have not seen one Palestinian die of starvation in these last four months. Not one.
I have not seen one Palestinian die of starvation in these last four months. Not one.
Mouin Rabbani
There have been documented cases.
There have been documented cases.
Benny Morris
They are always on the verge. They’re on the verge.
They are always on the verge. They’re on the verge.
Mouin Rabbani
There have been documented cases.
There have been documented cases.
Benny Morris
I haven’t seen any.
I haven’t seen any.
Steven Bonnell
Yesterday Al Jazeera said six, and the day before that they said two, so those are the two.
Yesterday Al Jazeera said six, and the day before that they said two, so those are the two.
Benny Morris
That number probably dies in Israel of starvation also.
That number probably dies in Israel of starvation also.
Mouin Rabbani
I don’t think there’s famine in Israel.
I don’t think there’s famine in Israel.
Norman Finkelstein
You’re so laid back, so blasé.
You’re so laid back, so blasé.
Benny Morris
There isn’t. There isn’t in the Gaza Strip either. It’s something which is produced for the Western-
There isn’t. There isn’t in the Gaza Strip either. It’s something which is produced for the Western-
Norman Finkelstein
“I haven’t seen any starving children yet.”
“I haven’t seen any starving children yet.”
Mouin Rabbani
There are infants dying due to a engineered lack of access to food and nutrition.
There are infants dying due to a engineered lack of access to food and nutrition.
Benny Morris
I don’t think it’s engineered, I think that if the Hamas stopped shooting perhaps, or-
I don’t think it’s engineered, I think that if the Hamas stopped shooting perhaps, or-
Norman Finkelstein
Unfortunately, most-
Unfortunately, most-
Mouin Rabbani
As I said, engineered.
As I said, engineered.
Norman Finkelstein
I think Human Rights Watch called it using starvation as a weapon. That’s called engineering.
I think Human Rights Watch called it using starvation as a weapon. That’s called engineering.
Steven Bonnell
That’s what they did, but you were pushed on this by Coleman Hughes to bring up an example of why is the Gaza Strip, by what metric are they starving? By what metric is it so behind the rest of the world?
That’s what they did, but you were pushed on this by Coleman Hughes to bring up an example of why is the Gaza Strip, by what metric are they starving? By what metric is it so behind the rest of the world?
Mouin Rabbani
If we’re going to bring up-
If we’re going to bring up-
Steven Bonnell
I want to hear an answer to that, because he didn’t answer it before.
I want to hear an answer to that, because he didn’t answer it before.
Norman Finkelstein
I’m happy to answer it. I just quoted you from the humanitarian organizations. They said one quarter of the population of Gaza is now verging on famine.
I’m happy to answer it. I just quoted you from the humanitarian organizations. They said one quarter of the population of Gaza is now verging on famine.
Steven Bonnell
Before October 7th.
Before October 7th.
Norman Finkelstein
I’m not going before October 7th.
I’m not going before October 7th.
Steven Bonnell
But you used that as justification for Hamas fighting. You said the conditions were unlivable, they had to fight.
But you used that as justification for Hamas fighting. You said the conditions were unlivable, they had to fight.
Norman Finkelstein
I said to him-
I said to him-
Steven Bonnell
So my question is what made it unlivable prior to October 7th? What are the metrics that you’re using?
So my question is what made it unlivable prior to October 7th? What are the metrics that you’re using?
Norman Finkelstein
There were about five, six or seven reports issued by UNCTAD, issued by the World Bank, issued by the International Monetary Fund, and they all said that’s why.
There were about five, six or seven reports issued by UNCTAD, issued by the World Bank, issued by the International Monetary Fund, and they all said that’s why.
Steven Bonnell
Why? Why did they say that?
Why? Why did they say that?
Norman Finkelstein
That’s why The Economist, not a radical periodical, described Gaza as a human rubbish heap.
That’s why The Economist, not a radical periodical, described Gaza as a human rubbish heap.
Steven Bonnell
So tell me by what metrics? If you’re a historian, if you do all this work to get to things, tell me what they said. Don’t just tell me a sentence, tell me by what metric.
So tell me by what metrics? If you’re a historian, if you do all this work to get to things, tell me what they said. Don’t just tell me a sentence, tell me by what metric.
Norman Finkelstein
Mr. Bonnell.
Mr. Bonnell.
Steven Bonnell
He’s not going to answer again.
He’s not going to answer again.
Norman Finkelstein
I don’t think I’ve avoided any of your questions-
I don’t think I’ve avoided any of your questions-
Steven Bonnell
Of course you have, you’ve avoided every question.
Of course you have, you’ve avoided every question.
Norman Finkelstein
… except when they breached the threshold of complete imbecility.
… except when they breached the threshold of complete imbecility.
Steven Bonnell
So you were about to tell me by what metric the Gaza Strip is a humanitarian crisis.
So you were about to tell me by what metric the Gaza Strip is a humanitarian crisis.
Norman Finkelstein
I’m going to answer you. You remember what I said a moment ago, I said to Professor Morris, I defer to expertise? I look at what the organizations say. I look at what the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights said.
I’m going to answer you. You remember what I said a moment ago, I said to Professor Morris, I defer to expertise? I look at what the organizations say. I look at what the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights said.
Steven Bonnell
You’re saying in more words that you don’t know. You don’t know or you don’t care.
You’re saying in more words that you don’t know. You don’t know or you don’t care.
Norman Finkelstein
And I don’t know.
And I don’t know.
Steven Bonnell
Okay, that’s fine. That’s what I said.
Okay, that’s fine. That’s what I said.
Norman Finkelstein
Have you ever investigated how complicated is the metric for hunger, starvation, and famine? It is such a complicated metric they figured out, if you asked me to repeat it now, I couldn’t do it.
Have you ever investigated how complicated is the metric for hunger, starvation, and famine? It is such a complicated metric they figured out, if you asked me to repeat it now, I couldn’t do it.
Steven Bonnell
And yet we have a Human Development Index where we rank countries, yet we can still measure infant mortality-
And yet we have a Human Development Index where we rank countries, yet we can still measure infant mortality-
Norman Finkelstein
Okay, you go and call the news programs.
Okay, you go and call the news programs.
Steven Bonnell
… life expectancy, we can measure all of these things.
… life expectancy, we can measure all of these things.
Lex Fridman
Mouin, I’m holding out for you here. You still didn’t answer the hope question. What gives you a source of hope about the region?
Mouin, I’m holding out for you here. You still didn’t answer the hope question. What gives you a source of hope about the region?
Mouin Rabbani
Well, first of all, I would agree with Benny Morris and Norman Finkelstein that the current situation is bleak, and I think it would be unreasonable to expect it to not get even bleaker in the coming weeks and months. And we now, this conflict, really, it originated in the late 19th century, it’s been a more or less active conflict since the 1920s, 1930s, and it has produced a tremendous amount of suffering, and regional conflict, and geopolitical complications, and all of that. But what gives me hope is that throughout their entire ordeal, the Palestinian people have never surrendered, and I believe they never will surrender to overwhelming force and violence. They have taken everything that Israel has thrown at them, they have taken everything that the West has thrown at them, they have taken everything that those who are supposed to be their natural allies have on occasion thrown at them.
Well, first of all, I would agree with Benny Morris and Norman Finkelstein that the current situation is bleak, and I think it would be unreasonable to expect it to not get even bleaker in the coming weeks and months. And we now, this conflict, really, it originated in the late 19th century, it’s been a more or less active conflict since the 1920s, 1930s, and it has produced a tremendous amount of suffering, and regional conflict, and geopolitical complications, and all of that. But what gives me hope is that throughout their entire ordeal, the Palestinian people have never surrendered, and I believe they never will surrender to overwhelming force and violence. They have taken everything that Israel has thrown at them, they have taken everything that the West has thrown at them, they have taken everything that those who are supposed to be their natural allies have on occasion thrown at them.
But this is a people that never has and, I believe, never will surrender. At a certain point, I think Israel and its leaders will have to come to the realization that by hook or by crook, these people are going to achieve their inalienable and legitimate national rights, and that is going to be a reality.
Benny Morris
Well, what do you mean by that? You mean all of Palestine? Is that what you mean?
Well, what do you mean by that? You mean all of Palestine? Is that what you mean?
Mouin Rabbani
No.
No.
Benny Morris
From the river to the sea?
From the river to the sea?
Mouin Rabbani
Well, ideally, of course, yes. And what I was….
Well, ideally, of course, yes. And what I was….
Benny Morris
Are those the inalienable rights?
Are those the inalienable rights?
Mouin Rabbani
No. What I was saying earlier, and then the discussion got sidetracked, is that I did believe that a two-state settlement, a partition of Palestine along the 1967 boundaries would have been a reasonable solution, because I think it also would have opened pathways to further-
No. What I was saying earlier, and then the discussion got sidetracked, is that I did believe that a two-state settlement, a partition of Palestine along the 1967 boundaries would have been a reasonable solution, because I think it also would have opened pathways to further-
Benny Morris
But now you believe what?
But now you believe what?
Mouin Rabbani
… further nonviolent engagement between Israel and the Palestinians that could create other forms of coexistence in a federal, or binational, or other-
… further nonviolent engagement between Israel and the Palestinians that could create other forms of coexistence in a federal, or binational, or other-
Steven Bonnell
What do you think about refugees in regards to that? Do you think there has to be a resettlement of the five or six million, whoever wants to lay claim to be [inaudible 04:45:12]?
What do you think about refugees in regards to that? Do you think there has to be a resettlement of the five or six million, whoever wants to lay claim to be [inaudible 04:45:12]?
Benny Morris
A return?
A return?
Mouin Rabbani
I think there has to be an explicit acknowledgement of…
I think there has to be an explicit acknowledgement of…
Benny Morris
Responsibility?
Responsibility?
Mouin Rabbani
… of the responsibility-
… of the responsibility-
Benny Morris
And the return?
And the return?
Mouin Rabbani
… and of their rights. I think that in the framework of a two-state settlement, I think a formula would need to be found that does not undermine the foundations of a two-state settlement. And I don’t think it would be that difficult, because I suspect that there are probably large numbers of Palestinian refugees who, once their rights are acknowledged, will find it exceptionally distasteful-
… and of their rights. I think that in the framework of a two-state settlement, I think a formula would need to be found that does not undermine the foundations of a two-state settlement. And I don’t think it would be that difficult, because I suspect that there are probably large numbers of Palestinian refugees who, once their rights are acknowledged, will find it exceptionally distasteful-
Benny Morris
To return from [inaudible 04:46:00].
To return from [inaudible 04:46:00].
Mouin Rabbani
… to have to live among the kind of sentiments that we’ve heard around this table today, to be quite frank. I mean, I was previously unfamiliar with you, and I watched one of your preparation videos. Very disconcerting stuff, I have to say. You were explaining two days ago, in the discussion about apartheid and how absurd it was, that in your view Jim Crow was not apartheid, but Arab states not giving citizenship to Palestinian refugees is apartheid. That’s what I meant with my earlier comments about white supremacy.
… to have to live among the kind of sentiments that we’ve heard around this table today, to be quite frank. I mean, I was previously unfamiliar with you, and I watched one of your preparation videos. Very disconcerting stuff, I have to say. You were explaining two days ago, in the discussion about apartheid and how absurd it was, that in your view Jim Crow was not apartheid, but Arab states not giving citizenship to Palestinian refugees is apartheid. That’s what I meant with my earlier comments about white supremacy.
Steven Bonnell
That’s great, the white supremacy comment. Well, hold on, let me respond. My issue is that I feel like we have jumped on this euphemistic treadmill, and I think that’s part of the reason why this conflict will never get solved, is because on one end you’ve got a people who are now convinced internationally that they’re victims of apartheid, genocide, concentration camp conditions, ethnic cleansing, they’re forced to live in an open air prison, with all of these things that are stacked against them, all of these terms that are highly specific, that refer to very precise things. And then when people like you say that they should-
That’s great, the white supremacy comment. Well, hold on, let me respond. My issue is that I feel like we have jumped on this euphemistic treadmill, and I think that’s part of the reason why this conflict will never get solved, is because on one end you’ve got a people who are now convinced internationally that they’re victims of apartheid, genocide, concentration camp conditions, ethnic cleansing, they’re forced to live in an open air prison, with all of these things that are stacked against them, all of these terms that are highly specific, that refer to very precise things. And then when people like you say that they should-
Mouin Rabbani
Well, I would expect nothing less from someone who doesn’t think Jim Crow is apartheid, but who does think that Arab states not giving Palestinians-
Well, I would expect nothing less from someone who doesn’t think Jim Crow is apartheid, but who does think that Arab states not giving Palestinians-
Steven Bonnell
The problem is you’re morally loading. For you apartheid is when racists do bad things.
The problem is you’re morally loading. For you apartheid is when racists do bad things.
Mouin Rabbani
No. There’s a definition of apartheid.
No. There’s a definition of apartheid.
Steven Bonnell
That’s great.
That’s great.
Mouin Rabbani
There is a very clear definition of apartheid.
There is a very clear definition of apartheid.
Steven Bonnell
A specific top-down racial domination, enacted through top-down, like federal legislative policies or whatever, means that I don’t know if Jim Crow would have qualified for apartheid. That doesn’t make it any less…
A specific top-down racial domination, enacted through top-down, like federal legislative policies or whatever, means that I don’t know if Jim Crow would have qualified for apartheid. That doesn’t make it any less…
Norman Finkelstein
Have you ever heard of Plessy versus Ferguson?
Have you ever heard of Plessy versus Ferguson?
Steven Bonnell
Excuse me. Finkelstein, I’m talking right now. Excuse me, excuse me Twinklestein, I’m talking to your friend over here. I don’t know if it would have qualified as the crime of apartheid, just like if Israel were to literally nuke the Gaza Strip and kill two million people, I don’t know if that would qualify for the crime of genocide.
Excuse me. Finkelstein, I’m talking right now. Excuse me, excuse me Twinklestein, I’m talking to your friend over here. I don’t know if it would have qualified as the crime of apartheid, just like if Israel were to literally nuke the Gaza Strip and kill two million people, I don’t know if that would qualify for the crime of genocide.
Mouin Rabbani
In your eyes probably not.
In your eyes probably not.
Steven Bonnell
Well, yeah, but because genocide requires a special intent. I think the issue is, instead of… And I think this conversation actually is emblematic of the entire conversation.
Well, yeah, but because genocide requires a special intent. I think the issue is, instead of… And I think this conversation actually is emblematic of the entire conversation.
Mouin Rabbani
Then let me finish answering Benny Morris’s question.
Then let me finish answering Benny Morris’s question.
Steven Bonnell
Well sure, but you accused me of supporting racism.
Well sure, but you accused me of supporting racism.
Mouin Rabbani
Well, you did.
Well, you did.
Steven Bonnell
I didn’t.
I didn’t.
Mouin Rabbani
And you are.
And you are.
Steven Bonnell
Do you think I support Jim Crow laws?
Do you think I support Jim Crow laws?
Mouin Rabbani
Look, when-
Look, when-
Steven Bonnell
The fact that you can’t even answer that honestly, right?
The fact that you can’t even answer that honestly, right?
Mouin Rabbani
It doesn’t matter what-
It doesn’t matter what-
Steven Bonnell
You couldn’t say that 800 civilians were killed by Hamas, you said, “Well, maybe 400 were killed by Israel. I don’t know the number, maybe-
You couldn’t say that 800 civilians were killed by Hamas, you said, “Well, maybe 400 were killed by Israel. I don’t know the number, maybe-
Mouin Rabbani
No, I didn’t say that.
No, I didn’t say that.
Steven Bonnell
You said 400.
You said 400.
Mouin Rabbani
No, I didn’t say that.
No, I didn’t say that.
Steven Bonnell
You co-signed the opinion.
You co-signed the opinion.
Mouin Rabbani
No, I didn’t.
No, I didn’t.
Norman Finkelstein
No, he didn’t. He said the majority [inaudible 04:48:20].
No, he didn’t. He said the majority [inaudible 04:48:20].
Steven Bonnell
Well, wait, how many? I think the word was some, that’s what I heard.
Well, wait, how many? I think the word was some, that’s what I heard.
Norman Finkelstein
No, I think your memory-
No, I think your memory-
Mouin Rabbani
Well, you weren’t listening.
Well, you weren’t listening.
Norman Finkelstein
… you memory’s retarded.
… you memory’s retarded.
Steven Bonnell
How many people do you think approximately, if you had to ballpark it, how many do you think were killed by Hamas on October 7th?
How many people do you think approximately, if you had to ballpark it, how many do you think were killed by Hamas on October 7th?
Mouin Rabbani
I think it’s pretty clear that the majority of civilians that were killed on-
I think it’s pretty clear that the majority of civilians that were killed on-
Norman Finkelstein
That’s what he said.
That’s what he said.
Steven Bonnell
51%? Or 90%?
51%? Or 90%?
Mouin Rabbani
Don’t ask me to put a number on something I don’t know.
Don’t ask me to put a number on something I don’t know.
Steven Bonnell
I just want a ballpark. Those are two very different intuition.
I just want a ballpark. Those are two very different intuition.
Mouin Rabbani
First of all, when you say Hamas, do you mean Palestinians, or do you mean Hamas specifically?
First of all, when you say Hamas, do you mean Palestinians, or do you mean Hamas specifically?
Steven Bonnell
I mean the invading Palestinian force? I don’t like to say Palestinians, because I don’t think all Palestinian civilians were involved, so I’ll say Hamas, Islamic Jihad, whatever, Al Quds, whatever other-
I mean the invading Palestinian force? I don’t like to say Palestinians, because I don’t think all Palestinian civilians were involved, so I’ll say Hamas, Islamic Jihad, whatever, Al Quds, whatever other-
Mouin Rabbani
But that’s how this discussion started. You said Hamas and I began to answer that, and then Benny Morris said, actually he means Hamas in addition to Jihad and the others.
But that’s how this discussion started. You said Hamas and I began to answer that, and then Benny Morris said, actually he means Hamas in addition to Jihad and the others.
Steven Bonnell
So of the invading Palestinian force, how many do you think killed civilians versus the IDF? What do you think the ballpark, the percentage?
So of the invading Palestinian force, how many do you think killed civilians versus the IDF? What do you think the ballpark, the percentage?
Mouin Rabbani
Well, the figures we have are that about a third of the casualties on October 7th were military, and about two-thirds were-
Well, the figures we have are that about a third of the casualties on October 7th were military, and about two-thirds were-
Steven Bonnell
That’s not what I asked at all.
That’s not what I asked at all.
Mouin Rabbani
What’s your question?
What’s your question?
Benny Morris
He’s asking about the two-thirds.
He’s asking about the two-thirds.
Steven Bonnell
What percentage of civilians do you think were killed by the invading force, a ballpark?
What percentage of civilians do you think were killed by the invading force, a ballpark?
Mouin Rabbani
I think a clear majority, but I can’t give you a specific figure.
I think a clear majority, but I can’t give you a specific figure.
Steven Bonnell
If you thought it was closer to 51% or 99% were killed by-
If you thought it was closer to 51% or 99% were killed by-
Norman Finkelstein
Why would he know that? How would he know that?
Why would he know that? How would he know that?
Steven Bonnell
Because it’s interesting to actually stake out a position.
Because it’s interesting to actually stake out a position.
Norman Finkelstein
Yeah, it’s interesting-
Yeah, it’s interesting-
Steven Bonnell
If you want to be completely, totally agnostic on it, that’s fine.
If you want to be completely, totally agnostic on it, that’s fine.
Norman Finkelstein
Based on complete ignorance, because we don’t know. Professor Morris doesn’t know, Mouin Rabbani doesn’t know.
Based on complete ignorance, because we don’t know. Professor Morris doesn’t know, Mouin Rabbani doesn’t know.
Steven Bonnell
And yet you can speak with absolute certainty that the IDF is targeting and murdering Palestinian children intentionally.
And yet you can speak with absolute certainty that the IDF is targeting and murdering Palestinian children intentionally.
Norman Finkelstein
Well, actually-
Well, actually-
Steven Bonnell
Do you see the double standard?
Do you see the double standard?
Norman Finkelstein
No, I don’t. You see-
No, I don’t. You see-
Steven Bonnell
I know you don’t. It was a rhetorical question, obviously you don’t.
I know you don’t. It was a rhetorical question, obviously you don’t.
Norman Finkelstein
You know why?
You know why?
Steven Bonnell
Because you’re uneducated on the matter.
Because you’re uneducated on the matter.
Norman Finkelstein
I looked at the UN report.
I looked at the UN report.
Steven Bonnell
Uh-huh. The Goldstone Report?
Uh-huh. The Goldstone Report?
Norman Finkelstein
No. The UN report on the great march of return in 2018, and they said that the snipers were targeting children, medics, journalists, and disabled people.
No. The UN report on the great march of return in 2018, and they said that the snipers were targeting children, medics, journalists, and disabled people.
Mouin Rabbani
Just as they are now in this conflict.
Just as they are now in this conflict.
Norman Finkelstein
Exactly.
Exactly.
Mouin Rabbani
More journalists have been killed in the last several months in Gaza, than in any other conflict.
More journalists have been killed in the last several months in Gaza, than in any other conflict.
Norman Finkelstein
And in all of World War II.
And in all of World War II.
Steven Bonnell
Do you acknowledge that Hamas… That’s great, the comparison is fun.
Do you acknowledge that Hamas… That’s great, the comparison is fun.
Mouin Rabbani
Hamas is not killing journalists in the Gaza strip.
Hamas is not killing journalists in the Gaza strip.
Steven Bonnell
Do you agree that they operate in civilian uniforms, that their goal is to induce that confusion, that that’s the way that they conduct themselves militarily?
Do you agree that they operate in civilian uniforms, that their goal is to induce that confusion, that that’s the way that they conduct themselves militarily?
Mouin Rabbani
Let me finish my point. More journalists have been, more UN-
Let me finish my point. More journalists have been, more UN-
Steven Bonnell
I understand, and more children, and the-
I understand, and more children, and the-
Norman Finkelstein
He doesn’t want to hear it, it’s so boring.
He doesn’t want to hear it, it’s so boring.
Steven Bonnell
No, because it’s virtue signaling.
No, because it’s virtue signaling.
Norman Finkelstein
Virtue signaling!
Virtue signaling!
Steven Bonnell
You don’t have a material, a substantial… It is virtue signaling. Yes, like when you say children, over and over again, that’s virtue signaling.
You don’t have a material, a substantial… It is virtue signaling. Yes, like when you say children, over and over again, that’s virtue signaling.
Mouin Rabbani
You know you have this habit of mocking the dead.
You know you have this habit of mocking the dead.
Norman Finkelstein
But talking about how many Israelis were killed, that’s not virtue signaling, because that’s human life.
But talking about how many Israelis were killed, that’s not virtue signaling, because that’s human life.
Steven Bonnell
I don’t care if a hundred are killed or a thousand, I’m curious who you’re assigning blame to.
I don’t care if a hundred are killed or a thousand, I’m curious who you’re assigning blame to.
Norman Finkelstein
You just interrogated him, 51%, 90%.
You just interrogated him, 51%, 90%.
Steven Bonnell
The question, yes, that’s not the number, that’s the responsibility, Norman.
The question, yes, that’s not the number, that’s the responsibility, Norman.
Norman Finkelstein
And then Mouin mentions that more journalists were killed in Gaza than in all of World War II.
And then Mouin mentions that more journalists were killed in Gaza than in all of World War II.
Steven Bonnell
That doesn’t further any part of the conversation.
That doesn’t further any part of the conversation.
Norman Finkelstein
And more medics were killed in Gaza.
And more medics were killed in Gaza.
Benny Morris
No, that’s silly.
No, that’s silly.
Norman Finkelstein
And then he says, it’s virtue signaling.
And then he says, it’s virtue signaling.
Benny Morris
Journalists weren’t in the area.
Journalists weren’t in the area.
Norman Finkelstein
But when Israelis get killed, that’s serious.
But when Israelis get killed, that’s serious.
Steven Bonnell
I never said that. It’s serious on both sides. I didn’t say, respectfully-
I never said that. It’s serious on both sides. I didn’t say, respectfully-
Mouin Rabbani
It’s called [inaudible 04:51:29].
It’s called [inaudible 04:51:29].
Norman Finkelstein
No, you called it virtue signaling.
No, you called it virtue signaling.
Steven Bonnell
No, I’m not virtue signaling, I’m asking a substantive question of who do you assign blame to, or do you play into Norm Finkelstein’s conspiracies that the ambulances should have known immediately who was dead, that the numbers were changed because they were fake.
No, I’m not virtue signaling, I’m asking a substantive question of who do you assign blame to, or do you play into Norm Finkelstein’s conspiracies that the ambulances should have known immediately who was dead, that the numbers were changed because they were fake.
Norman Finkelstein
Mr. Borrell, Mr. Borrell-
Mr. Borrell, Mr. Borrell-
Steven Bonnell
Or that maybe 51% of the people were killed by Hamas and Islamic Jihad, but 29% were killed by IDF helicopters.
Or that maybe 51% of the people were killed by Hamas and Islamic Jihad, but 29% were killed by IDF helicopters.
Mouin Rabbani
You asked me a direct question, and you got a direct answer.
You asked me a direct question, and you got a direct answer.
Steven Bonnell
I didn’t, I got majority, which could be anything from 51 to 99.
I didn’t, I got majority, which could be anything from 51 to 99.
Mouin Rabbani
I said a clear majority.
I said a clear majority.
Benny Morris
What percent is a clear majority as opposed to a majority?
What percent is a clear majority as opposed to a majority?
Steven Bonnell
They live in ambiguity.
They live in ambiguity.
Mouin Rabbani
A clear majority, in my view, is well over 50%. Please don’t ask me to be more precise, because I can’t.
A clear majority, in my view, is well over 50%. Please don’t ask me to be more precise, because I can’t.
Benny Morris
You could say 80, 90, 95%.
You could say 80, 90, 95%.
Mouin Rabbani
If I knew that, I would say it.
If I knew that, I would say it.
Benny Morris
I think it’s reasonable. It’s a reasonable supposition.
I think it’s reasonable. It’s a reasonable supposition.
Mouin Rabbani
Perhaps it is, but I…
Perhaps it is, but I…
Norman Finkelstein
Mr. Morris, you are not the best person to be asking that question. I read when you described Operation Defensive Shield, and you said a few dozen homes were destroyed.
Mr. Morris, you are not the best person to be asking that question. I read when you described Operation Defensive Shield, and you said a few dozen homes were destroyed.
Benny Morris
You’re talking about what happened in a Judean refugee camp.
You’re talking about what happened in a Judean refugee camp.
Norman Finkelstein
Yeah. And you said-
Yeah. And you said-
Benny Morris
No, the Arabs said 500.
No, the Arabs said 500.
Norman Finkelstein
You said a few died-
You said a few died-
Benny Morris
You guys said 500 Palestinians were killed in a Judean-
You guys said 500 Palestinians were killed in a Judean-
Mouin Rabbani
I never said that.
I never said that.
Benny Morris
No, but that was the statement from the PLO, the Palestinian Authority.
No, but that was the statement from the PLO, the Palestinian Authority.
Norman Finkelstein
You said a few dozen homes-
You said a few dozen homes-
Benny Morris
And that there were massacres there. Yes, a few dozen homes.
And that there were massacres there. Yes, a few dozen homes.
Norman Finkelstein
Yeah.
Yeah.
Benny Morris
That’s right.
That’s right.
Norman Finkelstein
Well, it turned 140 buildings were destroyed-
Well, it turned 140 buildings were destroyed-
Benny Morris
That’s a few dozen.
That’s a few dozen.
Norman Finkelstein
… 5,000 people were left homeless.
… 5,000 people were left homeless.
Benny Morris
How many people were killed?
How many people were killed?
Norman Finkelstein
5,000.
5,000.
Benny Morris
How many were killed?
How many were killed?
Norman Finkelstein
You described it… No, I’m talking about homes destroyed. So you are not the best person to be criticizing what Mouin says when he says clear majority, but he can’t say more. You know why he can’t say more?
You described it… No, I’m talking about homes destroyed. So you are not the best person to be criticizing what Mouin says when he says clear majority, but he can’t say more. You know why he can’t say more?
Benny Morris
He doesn’t know.
He doesn’t know.
Norman Finkelstein
He doesn’t know.
He doesn’t know.
Benny Morris
Yeah, I understand that. I understood that point.
Yeah, I understand that. I understood that point.
Norman Finkelstein
I hope as a historian you understand that.
I hope as a historian you understand that.
Mouin Rabbani
If I was trying to belittle, I would give you a very different answer. I would just say I don’t know. I do know that some were shot, but-
If I was trying to belittle, I would give you a very different answer. I would just say I don’t know. I do know that some were shot, but-
Benny Morris
You know what the right phrase there would be? The overwhelming majority were killed by Arab gunmen, and a very small number were killed by Israelis by accident or whatever.
You know what the right phrase there would be? The overwhelming majority were killed by Arab gunmen, and a very small number were killed by Israelis by accident or whatever.
Norman Finkelstein
You’re not speaking as a historian now.
You’re not speaking as a historian now.
Benny Morris
That’s probably true.
That’s probably true.
Mouin Rabbani
I can state with confidence, a clear majority. Overwhelming majority? You may be correct, but I can’t state that with certainty. I think there’s a very easy way to find out is to have an independent-
I can state with confidence, a clear majority. Overwhelming majority? You may be correct, but I can’t state that with certainty. I think there’s a very easy way to find out is to have an independent-
Benny Morris
Forget independent.
Forget independent.
Mouin Rabbani
Well, of course you forget independent.
Well, of course you forget independent.
Norman Finkelstein
I know you want to forget the law-
I know you want to forget the law-
Benny Morris
Well forget, that doesn’t mean anything.
Well forget, that doesn’t mean anything.
Norman Finkelstein
Forget the law-
Forget the law-
Benny Morris
Independent is the UN High Commission for-
Independent is the UN High Commission for-
Norman Finkelstein
– forget the independent commissioner. No!
– forget the independent commissioner. No!
Benny Morris
… Human Rights, whatever it’s called.
… Human Rights, whatever it’s called.
Mouin Rabbani
Not necessarily.
Not necessarily.
Norman Finkelstein
Just repeat the numbers.
Just repeat the numbers.
Benny Morris
They’re all from barbaric countries. You know, a Syrian was the head of the UN Commission for Human Rights.
They’re all from barbaric countries. You know, a Syrian was the head of the UN Commission for Human Rights.
Mouin Rabbani
But if it was an Israeli, it would have been okay?
But if it was an Israeli, it would have been okay?
Benny Morris
He certainly would have been more honest than a Syrian.
He certainly would have been more honest than a Syrian.
Norman Finkelstein
Oh yeah, sure, of course.
Oh yeah, sure, of course.
Mouin Rabbani
Of course. Oh yeah, from your perspective.
Of course. Oh yeah, from your perspective.
Lex Fridman
Well, to disagree with Steven, I thought this was extremely valuable, and at times really the view of history, the passion. I’m really grateful that you would spend your really valuable time.
Well, to disagree with Steven, I thought this was extremely valuable, and at times really the view of history, the passion. I’m really grateful that you would spend your really valuable time.
One more question, since we have two historians here. Briefly, from a history perspective, what do you hope your legacy is as historians, Benny and Norm, will be of the work that you’ve put out there? Maybe Norm, you can go first, and try to say briefly.
Norman Finkelstein
I think there’s a value to preserving the record. I’m not optimistic about where things are going to end up. There was a very nice book written by a woman named Helen Hunt Jackson at the end of the 19th century, describing what was done to the Native Americans. She called it a century of dishonor, and she described in vivid, poignant detail what was done to the Native Americans. Did it save them? No. Did it help them? Probably not. Did it preserve their memory? Yes, and I think there’s a value to that. There was a famous film by Sergei Eisenstein, it was either Battleship Potemkin or Mother, I can’t remember which one. The last scene was the Tsar’s troops mowing down all the Russian people. He pans the scene.
I think there’s a value to preserving the record. I’m not optimistic about where things are going to end up. There was a very nice book written by a woman named Helen Hunt Jackson at the end of the 19th century, describing what was done to the Native Americans. She called it a century of dishonor, and she described in vivid, poignant detail what was done to the Native Americans. Did it save them? No. Did it help them? Probably not. Did it preserve their memory? Yes, and I think there’s a value to that. There was a famous film by Sergei Eisenstein, it was either Battleship Potemkin or Mother, I can’t remember which one. The last scene was the Tsar’s troops mowing down all the Russian people. He pans the scene.
Benny Morris
Not all the Russian people, just a few of them.
Not all the Russian people, just a few of them.
Norman Finkelstein
Well, he pan the massacre.
Well, he pan the massacre.
Mouin Rabbani
But he could have killed a lot more.
But he could have killed a lot more.
Norman Finkelstein
And the last words of the movie were, “Proletarians,” exclamation point, “Remember,” exclamation point. And I’ve seen it as my life’s work to preserve the memory and to remember. I didn’t expect that anyone would read my book on Gaza. It’s very dense, it gives me even a bit of a headache to read at least one of the chapters.
And the last words of the movie were, “Proletarians,” exclamation point, “Remember,” exclamation point. And I’ve seen it as my life’s work to preserve the memory and to remember. I didn’t expect that anyone would read my book on Gaza. It’s very dense, it gives me even a bit of a headache to read at least one of the chapters.
Mouin Rabbani
You wrote a book on Gaza?
You wrote a book on Gaza?
Norman Finkelstein
But I thought that the memory deserves to be preserved.
But I thought that the memory deserves to be preserved.
Mouin Rabbani
Amen.
Amen.
Benny Morris
Well, I would say very briefly, unlike my colleague, I think writing the truth about what happened in history, in various periods of history, if I’ve done a little bit of that, I’m happy.
Well, I would say very briefly, unlike my colleague, I think writing the truth about what happened in history, in various periods of history, if I’ve done a little bit of that, I’m happy.
Lex Fridman
Thank you Norm, thank you Benny, thank you Steven, thank you Mouin.
Thank you Norm, thank you Benny, thank you Steven, thank you Mouin.
Thanks for listening to this conversation with Norman Finkelstein, Benny Morris, Mouin Rabbani, and Steven Bonnell. To support this podcast, please check out our sponsors in the description. And now let me leave you with some words from Lyndon B. Johnson. “Peace is a journey of a thousand miles, and it must be taken one step at a time.” Thank you for listening, and hope to see you next time.
Transcript for Kimbal Musk: The Art of Cooking, Tesla, SpaceX, Zip2, and Family | Lex Fridman Podcast #417
This is a transcript of Lex Fridman Podcast #417 with Kimbal Musk.
The timestamps in the transcript are clickable links that take you directly to that point in
the main video. Please note that the transcript is human generated, and may have errors.
Here are some useful links:
The timestamps in the transcript are clickable links that take you directly to that point in
the main video. Please note that the transcript is human generated, and may have errors.
Here are some useful links:
- Go back to this episode’s main page
- Watch the full YouTube version of the podcast
Table of Contents
Here are the loose “chapters” in the conversation.
Click link to jump approximately to that part in the transcript:
Growing up in South Africa, you said it was a violent place. What are some formative moments that you remember from that time?
In South Africa, people died, or people were killed. I saw someone killed in front of me. I was getting off a train and it’s a very violent train known for violence. We were stupid kids. We didn’t really listen to our parents. We went on this train and the doors opened and I had people trying to get off the train and in front of me, two Black people, one Black guy just stabbed this knife in the side of this other Black guy’s head and you’re like, “What the fuck?” And you just, I got to get off the train.
When my cousin, Russ and I, again, we’re stupid kids, we shouldn’t be doing this, but we go into the townships where a lot of the violence would be happening, and we really didn’t see most of the violence there. It was in these more protests and so forth. But there’s a joy that also comes from lower value of human life. There’s a real joy. Everyone was like, well, I mean it’s beautiful. We’d have dinner with Black friends, friends with their family, and we were still pretty young and there was just a real joy to it.
He was really [inaudible 00:09:59], but I’m not connected to him, but he taught me, the phrase I used to have was he taught me what not to do, so I still actually learned a lot. What kind of human not to be, what kind of actions not to take. And so that kind of closer to living up to his mistakes. But my father was such a train wreck that it’s not really mistakes. It’s like intentional actions of what not to do. Okay, look, don’t do that.
So, I went to the grocery store and back in those days, a butcher is separate to the grocery store, and I went to the butcher and I said, “What can I cook?” And he pulled out a chicken and he said, “This is the easiest recipe for you. Just put it on a pan in an oven, a hot oven.” Because back then the ovens weren’t necessarily like 400 degrees or 450 or whatever. “And put it in a hot oven for one hour and enjoy.” That was it. And so I went home and actually I also bought some french fries, I’ll tell you that as well. I’m a kid, of course, I went french fries. So, the roast chicken with french fries and the chicken came out and it was just fantastic.
And I was like, “Wow, this is a very powerful thing that I’ve now got.” Where in no other way could I have that connection with my family. I mean, obviously we stay connected, we’re very close, et cetera, but in no other way can we sit down and just talk about things or talk about whatever’s on our mind or just to not even talk, just to be at the table together. And I’ve done that now through my whole life. My kids still for my family, and we will do gratitudes at the beginning of our meal. And it’s just, I think what kept me cooking, what made my love of cooking so great was actually the fact that we would sit down-
Well, this is now happening at scale with all of these, what do you, call trolling or whatever. And I’ve sat at the bar and I’ve had a hardcore Trump supporter, and I’m just curious, just like, “Tell me what, I’m not a Trump supporter, but tell me more.” And actually it draws the conversation out because you’re there for an hour or longer, so there’s no rush to get the answer. And I think that’s a big difference. I’ve had one time where just a couple months ago I had someone, I was sitting at the community table, we have a community table in the restaurant, and I didn’t know him too well, but he asked me, did I know that 9-11 was a conspiracy and it didn’t really happen?
And somehow that kind of grounds us to, we’re just a bunch of descendants of apes here, just kind of grateful to be alive, frankly, and grateful to be consuming this thing which keeps us alive. And in that context, you can talk about all kinds of stuff. You can discuss flat earth and enjoy it.
So, they’re like, “Oh, no one’s ever asked me that before,” so then they become vulnerable. And then it’s something as simple as, “What’s the most fun thing you’ve done recently and what is the most fun thing you’re looking forward to?” I have gotten into, with those prompts, I’ve gotten into hours long discussions on God. I’ve gotten into hours long discussions on love. I’ve got into hours long discussions on anger. It’s actually amazing when people are just asked a question, ” What’s the most fun thing you’ve done lately?” Well, why would anger come up? Well, actually, they’re in a vulnerable place, so it’ll just kind of come out of them.
So, they’re all in it together, we need to have water. But there’s still a little bit of tension as well in the background. And I think that’s what restaurants do is a very, very subtle version of that. You’re in a room with strangers and you’re a little cluster. Okay, fine, you guys are connected in it, but you’re in a room with strangers, and it’s just something that adds that energy to the meal.
So you’d make a carrot puree out of that and then you’d carrots that are more typical in shape and size, you might roast them for dinner. So it’s the appreciation for vegetables in general. I probably would say carrots is my favorite just because that was an example of one where I’ve really had to learn how to use the different types of carrots that come from all of our farms. And it’s fun. It’s a fun ingredient. If you just went to the whole foods or just went to a grocery store and you just got exactly the same carrot every time, less fun. But go to a farmer’s market and see what you get and you’ll see they’re quite different.
They have total respect for this human and he can do whatever he wants. And one of the things he wanted to teach was how do you make an omelet, a French omelet, and it’s really fundamentally the same thing. It’s a soft scrambled eggs that you fold and the love that he put into the time with us. And of course he’s a legend. There were moments like that where I’m like, wow, okay. Also, just like the other chefs, he didn’t have any concern berating anyone. So he berated our master chefs saying, “I don’t trust these people to teach you how to make scrambled eggs, so I’m going to do it instead.”
The next day, it was Valentine’s Day. Tomorrow’s Valentine’s Day. I’m just going to have a nice day with the family and my wife at the time. And we went to a children’s run to do the inner tube run, and the tubes are small, but everyone uses the same tube. So I’m six foot five, my kids are four years old, and everyone uses the same size tube. It should have been a message to me not to get on this thing. But I went and got on it and on the first run, I went down and you’re going super fast, 35 miles an hour, and the tube hit the braking mats and it stopped. The tube just stopped where it was. It just threw me. My head was facing downhill, so that’s created the wrong center of gravity. So instead of braking, it just threw me.
I landed on my head. My head went into my chest, compression into my chest, down like that. I ruptured my spine at C6 and C7. And in the blink of a second, I was paralyzed. I was like, “What?” Just impossible to comprehend. And they put this big thing, this halo on my head, and they take me to the hospital, which was more of a medical clinic. And I’m just like, “What is going on here?”
So the doctor says, “Look, the way you broke your neck, really, at a zero degree angle, that is so rare, but as a result, there is no twisting of the spine. We think that we can get the blood out of your spinal column and you should get some or maybe all of your movement back.” And I was like, “Oh, okay. I think I’m going to be fine. I guess I’m going to be fine.” And then I realized I had tears just streaming down the side of my face and I was like, “Whoa, man. I have no idea what is going on.”
It was just clear. It was a clear voice. It wasn’t for a moment. It wasn’t like a flash of light or anything. It was probably two weeks of clear voice.
So I went to business school and I busted my ass to get a kick-ass summer job, and I got a job in one of the main banks. It was in Toronto, but it was like their version of Wall Street. I was so disappointed with the people that I was around. I was just like, whoa. I totally misunderstood what the banking world is. It was a very large bank. I’m sure if I’d gone to a more aggressive one, maybe I would’ve had a better experience. I say aggressive, meaning someone was paying attention. This was just a…
And what I was astounded by was not so much that there was a magic trick, it was the lack of appreciation for innovation. They just looked at it and they were like, “Huh, that’s nice.” And I was like, “We’re going to have someone spend hundreds of hours doing something and now it’s something you can do in a minute.”
And changed those three things. And it was like a watershed moment just all of a sudden. And I just followed the instructions of what this guy told me. All of a sudden, every single sale I would make, I was like, I can’t believe that it was really my lack of humility to learn from someone else. I was like, “No, I’m going to prove that I can do this without your teachings,” and I was going to fail.
Navtech was building it for NeverLost, for Hertz NeverLost, which would come out a few years later. This was not something that people knew existed. This was something we discovered that it existed. Let’s put it on the internet and share it with the world.
Because electric motors, they have constant torque, incredible power, put it in a car that looks like a sports car. So the idea was to put it in the Lotus release, redesign it a bit. And even at that point I was like, “This is theoretically good, so I’m going to join and help build it.” But I was not convinced that it would work because General Motors had done such a terrible job of making everyone think that these things are terrible. But I was curious. And the time that I fell in love with the company and its mission was I was driving in what’s called a mule where we take a car and we take the engine out and we put in electric drive train and I drove it. Even the dashboards, there’s no dashboard. It’s just you got a steering wheel and it’s just wires and everything around. And I remember there’s a street, we were running the Bay Area called Bing Street, and I was just like… No traffic. So I’m just going to drive this on the floor and see what happens.
And it was a feeling I’d never experienced before. Gasoline cars have an inertia to them. So you go… This was being shot out of a cannon. And I was like, “Okay, this is going to be real.”
So I got to know a couple of people locally and got to know this one guy who had a mobile home, best view in the world, but it’s just a mobile home with a patch of grass next to it. And I was just desperate to find food that wasn’t from the cafeteria because this is the worst food you can imagine. And I met him and he showed me this little tiny little grocery store, which had a few things like canned tomatoes. And this is, again, your middle of nowhere. It’s just nothing fresh. And I made this dish that was a version of an Italian version of chili, just baked beans and sweating onions and then tomatoes. And it was a big pot of food. It’s a group of people. We didn’t even have a table. And we just put the big pot in the middle and we had our little paper plates and we took a scoop as we needed it.
And it was… Do we need the gathering place of food brings people together in the most difficult times, and it was one of my favorite memories because I was able to bring my gift to this group of incredible people that their hearts were broken. And to sit there and share a meal and feel the life kind come back into us and by the end of the night, we’re actually having a good time.
And so, “Okay, let’s go do that.” So I’ll help out where I think we really can make a difference. But if you step back a little, things are actually getting better. It’s just a bumpy ride.
Click link to jump approximately to that part in the transcript:
- 0:00 – Introduction
- 1:02 – Growing up in South Africa
- 13:32 – Cooking
- 36:18 – Ingredients
- 43:23 – Anthony Bourdain
- 45:38 – Cooking school
- 1:01:58 – Life-threatening accident
- 1:16:02 – Road trip across US
- 1:27:45 – Zip2
- 1:32:28 – Tesla
- 1:39:53 – SpaceX
- 1:43:36 – Hope for the future
Introduction
Kimbal Musk
For me, cooking is an art.
For me, cooking is an art.
Lex Fridman
What’s your favorite ingredient to cook with?
What’s your favorite ingredient to cook with?
Kimbal Musk
There isn’t one. It’s more like when there is one, it really is one. There’s peaches on the cover of this cookbook. Those peaches, those were in August, Colorado peaches. It just doesn’t get any better than that.
There isn’t one. It’s more like when there is one, it really is one. There’s peaches on the cover of this cookbook. Those peaches, those were in August, Colorado peaches. It just doesn’t get any better than that.
Lex Fridman
On that day, at that moment, that was best ingredient?
On that day, at that moment, that was best ingredient?
Kimbal Musk
That was the best, but that only lasts for a week and then they don’t taste so great, but damn are they so good in that moment and you just can’t stop wanting to use that ingredient.
That was the best, but that only lasts for a week and then they don’t taste so great, but damn are they so good in that moment and you just can’t stop wanting to use that ingredient.
Lex Fridman
The following is a conversation with Kimbal Musk, a long time entrepreneur and chef and author of a new cookbook called The Kitchen Cookbook, Cooking for Your Community. You should check it out. It is in fact the first cookbook I’ve ever owned. I’ve already made stuff from it and it’s delicious. This is the Lex Fridman podcast. To support it, please check out our sponsors in the description. And now, dear friends, here’s Kimbal Musk.
The following is a conversation with Kimbal Musk, a long time entrepreneur and chef and author of a new cookbook called The Kitchen Cookbook, Cooking for Your Community. You should check it out. It is in fact the first cookbook I’ve ever owned. I’ve already made stuff from it and it’s delicious. This is the Lex Fridman podcast. To support it, please check out our sponsors in the description. And now, dear friends, here’s Kimbal Musk.
Growing up in South Africa
Growing up in South Africa, you said it was a violent place. What are some formative moments that you remember from that time?
Kimbal Musk
South Africa was, so I grew up in apartheid South Africa, but more specifically the fall of apartheid. I was a teenager in the ’80s and our community would, part of our social life frankly, was the anti-apartheid protests and to go be with white people, Black people, kind of mixing it all altogether. The most formative experiences, frankly, how much I appreciate a place like America where we have value for human life. So, that was a country where human life was not valued. It’s a weird thing to come from that to here where we take it so seriously, if someone dies in a war or something like that, and we just didn’t take it seriously.
South Africa was, so I grew up in apartheid South Africa, but more specifically the fall of apartheid. I was a teenager in the ’80s and our community would, part of our social life frankly, was the anti-apartheid protests and to go be with white people, Black people, kind of mixing it all altogether. The most formative experiences, frankly, how much I appreciate a place like America where we have value for human life. So, that was a country where human life was not valued. It’s a weird thing to come from that to here where we take it so seriously, if someone dies in a war or something like that, and we just didn’t take it seriously.
In South Africa, people died, or people were killed. I saw someone killed in front of me. I was getting off a train and it’s a very violent train known for violence. We were stupid kids. We didn’t really listen to our parents. We went on this train and the doors opened and I had people trying to get off the train and in front of me, two Black people, one Black guy just stabbed this knife in the side of this other Black guy’s head and you’re like, “What the fuck?” And you just, I got to get off the train.
Lex Fridman
How old were you at this time?
How old were you at this time?
Kimbal Musk
Probably 16 or 17. And I got to get off the train and everyone is trying to get me to get off because they’re all behind me. So, I step off and I step into the pool of blood one foot, and then I just walk for about a hundred paces while the stickiness of the blood just kind of for my sneakers just on one foot just leaves a footprint behind me. And you just walk on. You just walk on.
Probably 16 or 17. And I got to get off the train and everyone is trying to get me to get off because they’re all behind me. So, I step off and I step into the pool of blood one foot, and then I just walk for about a hundred paces while the stickiness of the blood just kind of for my sneakers just on one foot just leaves a footprint behind me. And you just walk on. You just walk on.
Lex Fridman
Did the others walk on as well?
Did the others walk on as well?
Lex Fridman
Go to the concert.
Go to the concert.
Kimbal Musk
Everyone walked on.
Everyone walked on.
Lex Fridman
That’s an interesting point you make. Underlying the violence is a kind of philosophy that human life is disposable, the individual life is disposable. I mean, that underlies many ideologies. I grew up in the Soviet Union, the value of human life was lower there than in the United States. The value of the individual in the United States is really high. There’s probably an index you can put together.
That’s an interesting point you make. Underlying the violence is a kind of philosophy that human life is disposable, the individual life is disposable. I mean, that underlies many ideologies. I grew up in the Soviet Union, the value of human life was lower there than in the United States. The value of the individual in the United States is really high. There’s probably an index you can put together.
Kimbal Musk
Yeah, right, exactly.
Yeah, right, exactly.
Lex Fridman
Per nation, that’s a really interesting way to put it because violence is much easier on a mass scale. Suffering, causing suffering on a mass scale is much easier when you don’t value the human life.
Per nation, that’s a really interesting way to put it because violence is much easier on a mass scale. Suffering, causing suffering on a mass scale is much easier when you don’t value the human life.
Kimbal Musk
I’ve heard this before, which I think I agree with, is when someone is killed, someone is taken from our lives. The vacuum that it creates, the social vacuum is extraordinarily painful and it truly is true. I mean, if someone in my community passes away, it’s very, very sad for me. And when you go to a place where, or live, grow up in a place where that human life is not valued, there’s something about, there’s a little bit less of the social vacuum created because everyone is kind of expecting everyone to potentially be taken out at any moment. But then there’s also a beauty to it because there’s a much more of a celebratory element.
I’ve heard this before, which I think I agree with, is when someone is killed, someone is taken from our lives. The vacuum that it creates, the social vacuum is extraordinarily painful and it truly is true. I mean, if someone in my community passes away, it’s very, very sad for me. And when you go to a place where, or live, grow up in a place where that human life is not valued, there’s something about, there’s a little bit less of the social vacuum created because everyone is kind of expecting everyone to potentially be taken out at any moment. But then there’s also a beauty to it because there’s a much more of a celebratory element.
When my cousin, Russ and I, again, we’re stupid kids, we shouldn’t be doing this, but we go into the townships where a lot of the violence would be happening, and we really didn’t see most of the violence there. It was in these more protests and so forth. But there’s a joy that also comes from lower value of human life. There’s a real joy. Everyone was like, well, I mean it’s beautiful. We’d have dinner with Black friends, friends with their family, and we were still pretty young and there was just a real joy to it.
Lex Fridman
When you accept mortality, you can really enjoy life.
When you accept mortality, you can really enjoy life.
Kimbal Musk
You can really enjoy life. I mean, I think that’s actually quite a nice insight. I’ve never really put it that way, but I think that’s right actually. I think you just chill out a bit, takes things a little less seriously.
You can really enjoy life. I mean, I think that’s actually quite a nice insight. I’ve never really put it that way, but I think that’s right actually. I think you just chill out a bit, takes things a little less seriously.
Lex Fridman
Because life does end for everybody.
Because life does end for everybody.
Kimbal Musk
It does. Right.
It does. Right.
Lex Fridman
And if you just head on accept that fact, you can just enjoy every single moment and let go of this attachment and just enjoy the moment.
And if you just head on accept that fact, you can just enjoy every single moment and let go of this attachment and just enjoy the moment.
Kimbal Musk
I do love that we all live longer and so forth, but we should live longer with the goal of joy and the goal of happiness and peace, not some form of misery that you choose to attach yourself to.
I do love that we all live longer and so forth, but we should live longer with the goal of joy and the goal of happiness and peace, not some form of misery that you choose to attach yourself to.
Lex Fridman
Maximize joy.
Maximize joy.
Kimbal Musk
Maximize joy. That’s right.
Maximize joy. That’s right.
Lex Fridman
There’s a story that Walter Isaacson writes about where Elon got beat up pretty bad and you were there, and then you also had to watch your dad yell at Elon for an hour, calling him worthless, all those kinds of things. You said it was the worst memory of your life. What do you make of such cruelty? What do you remember from that time?
There’s a story that Walter Isaacson writes about where Elon got beat up pretty bad and you were there, and then you also had to watch your dad yell at Elon for an hour, calling him worthless, all those kinds of things. You said it was the worst memory of your life. What do you make of such cruelty? What do you remember from that time?
Kimbal Musk
I mean, it was horrible. I think coming back to the point of low value of human life, they tried to kill him. There was no holding back, so I just watched someone… It wasn’t just one, but there was a main person and then there was a few others that piled in. They tried to kill him in front of me. We were eating sandwiches on a staircase at the school, in outdoor staircase. They were not coming after me and I just had to watch and I couldn’t help. It was one of the saddest, most difficult experiences. It was just awful.
I mean, it was horrible. I think coming back to the point of low value of human life, they tried to kill him. There was no holding back, so I just watched someone… It wasn’t just one, but there was a main person and then there was a few others that piled in. They tried to kill him in front of me. We were eating sandwiches on a staircase at the school, in outdoor staircase. They were not coming after me and I just had to watch and I couldn’t help. It was one of the saddest, most difficult experiences. It was just awful.
Lex Fridman
Just like that, life can end.
Just like that, life can end.
Kimbal Musk
Yeah.
Yeah.
Lex Fridman
If could have been you.
If could have been you.
Kimbal Musk
Yeah. I think I’ve had a near death experience where I almost died. I was in 2010 and I think that… And I broke my neck and I can go into that story in a moment, but this was different. This comes back to the low value of human life part where if someone had killed my brother, if that person had beat him to death, which he was trying to do, life would’ve gone on. That’s like an insane thought in an American, well maybe in some tough neighborhoods, but for the most part, it’s another thing.
Yeah. I think I’ve had a near death experience where I almost died. I was in 2010 and I think that… And I broke my neck and I can go into that story in a moment, but this was different. This comes back to the low value of human life part where if someone had killed my brother, if that person had beat him to death, which he was trying to do, life would’ve gone on. That’s like an insane thought in an American, well maybe in some tough neighborhoods, but for the most part, it’s another thing.
Lex Fridman
Yeah, the brutality of that, the mundaneness of the brutality.
Yeah, the brutality of that, the mundaneness of the brutality.
Kimbal Musk
Yeah.
Yeah.
Lex Fridman
It makes you think of all the places in the world that that’s happening.
It makes you think of all the places in the world that that’s happening.
Kimbal Musk
Exactly. Exactly.
Exactly. Exactly.
Lex Fridman
And all the beautiful people that just disappear.
And all the beautiful people that just disappear.
Kimbal Musk
I always say to people who have an opinion about America that this is a really bad country or whatever, and I say, “Look, please go try another country before you say that. Not to say that America can’t get better, but please go try another country,” because not having that perspective or having a perspective that, I don’t know, they’ll catch up on their shoulder about the country that they’re in. Okay, go try another country and then come back and tell me, pick any country. It doesn’t have to be some very violent country. You go pick any country and you just realize that actually the world doesn’t think the same way that America thinks, and you are going to just learn a perspective that I think gives you a better way to critique where we live in America.
I always say to people who have an opinion about America that this is a really bad country or whatever, and I say, “Look, please go try another country before you say that. Not to say that America can’t get better, but please go try another country,” because not having that perspective or having a perspective that, I don’t know, they’ll catch up on their shoulder about the country that they’re in. Okay, go try another country and then come back and tell me, pick any country. It doesn’t have to be some very violent country. You go pick any country and you just realize that actually the world doesn’t think the same way that America thinks, and you are going to just learn a perspective that I think gives you a better way to critique where we live in America.
Lex Fridman
Yeah, it’s humbling. You said that your dad was a roller coaster of affection and then verbal abuse. Walter Isaacson quotes Barack Obama who said, “Someone once said that every man is trying to live up to his father’s expectations or makeup for his father’s mistakes, and I suppose that may explain my particular malady.” Is part of that ring true for you?
Yeah, it’s humbling. You said that your dad was a roller coaster of affection and then verbal abuse. Walter Isaacson quotes Barack Obama who said, “Someone once said that every man is trying to live up to his father’s expectations or makeup for his father’s mistakes, and I suppose that may explain my particular malady.” Is part of that ring true for you?
Kimbal Musk
What I thought you were going to say, thought you were going to end the sentence with live up to my father’s expectations. That’s what most people say. But then you said the second part, which is make up for his mistakes. I think that’s actually, that one rings true for me.
What I thought you were going to say, thought you were going to end the sentence with live up to my father’s expectations. That’s what most people say. But then you said the second part, which is make up for his mistakes. I think that’s actually, that one rings true for me.
He was really [inaudible 00:09:59], but I’m not connected to him, but he taught me, the phrase I used to have was he taught me what not to do, so I still actually learned a lot. What kind of human not to be, what kind of actions not to take. And so that kind of closer to living up to his mistakes. But my father was such a train wreck that it’s not really mistakes. It’s like intentional actions of what not to do. Okay, look, don’t do that.
Lex Fridman
But there’s still the trauma of that. It has an effect on the human psychology and can permeate through time. So, it has probably complex indirect effects on who you are, the good and the bad.
But there’s still the trauma of that. It has an effect on the human psychology and can permeate through time. So, it has probably complex indirect effects on who you are, the good and the bad.
Kimbal Musk
There’s a critique that my friends give me, which is when they’re talking to me, I kind of just drift away. That just, I’m still looking at them, I’m still nodding, might even respond to them in their conversation, but I’m actually not there. And I’ve realized that actually that grew up because my father would just, verbal abuse is one way to say it. It is abuse, but it’s more just verbal diarrhea for you for hours and constantly saying, “Do you understand?” He wants to make sure that I’m paying attention. So, I trained myself to look like I’m paying attention, but I’m not.
There’s a critique that my friends give me, which is when they’re talking to me, I kind of just drift away. That just, I’m still looking at them, I’m still nodding, might even respond to them in their conversation, but I’m actually not there. And I’ve realized that actually that grew up because my father would just, verbal abuse is one way to say it. It is abuse, but it’s more just verbal diarrhea for you for hours and constantly saying, “Do you understand?” He wants to make sure that I’m paying attention. So, I trained myself to look like I’m paying attention, but I’m not.
Lex Fridman
To disappear to someplace.
To disappear to someplace.
Kimbal Musk
Disappear to someplace.
Disappear to someplace.
Lex Fridman
Wherever that is.
Wherever that is.
Kimbal Musk
Yeah, I do that less and less over time, but I-
Yeah, I do that less and less over time, but I-
Lex Fridman
That path has been paved somewhere in your mind at childhood, so it could be easy to walk down it. You and Elon were close growing up, you’re still close. What did you learn from each other? How did you compliment each other?
That path has been paved somewhere in your mind at childhood, so it could be easy to walk down it. You and Elon were close growing up, you’re still close. What did you learn from each other? How did you compliment each other?
Kimbal Musk
Yeah, I think we are a good compliment. I’ll talk for myself first. My strength is definitely on the social side. I love the gathering place and I love putting people together in person and I love to have vibrant debates and conversations. I’ve been doing that forever, including throwing fun parties and stuff where I bring people together and I really want people to have fun, but be vulnerable in not just silly partying, just actually let’s all connect. The definition for me of a good party is people laugh and cry. I want to have people have an emotional connection. I go to Burning Man every year, and that is, there’s no question you will cry at some point during Burning Man.
Yeah, I think we are a good compliment. I’ll talk for myself first. My strength is definitely on the social side. I love the gathering place and I love putting people together in person and I love to have vibrant debates and conversations. I’ve been doing that forever, including throwing fun parties and stuff where I bring people together and I really want people to have fun, but be vulnerable in not just silly partying, just actually let’s all connect. The definition for me of a good party is people laugh and cry. I want to have people have an emotional connection. I go to Burning Man every year, and that is, there’s no question you will cry at some point during Burning Man.
Lex Fridman
No small talk.
No small talk.
Kimbal Musk
No small talk. Yeah, exactly. No small talk. You’re totally right on most parties, not parties, but most events you go to are like clubs, these sort of nightclubs. I never go to those. And my joke is why would I want to go to a place where I pay to shout small talk in the dark?
No small talk. Yeah, exactly. No small talk. You’re totally right on most parties, not parties, but most events you go to are like clubs, these sort of nightclubs. I never go to those. And my joke is why would I want to go to a place where I pay to shout small talk in the dark?
Lex Fridman
That’s a good line. That’s what it feels like. The only reason I enjoy those places is the full absurdity of exactly that.
That’s a good line. That’s what it feels like. The only reason I enjoy those places is the full absurdity of exactly that.
Kimbal Musk
Right. It’s totally absurd.
Right. It’s totally absurd.
Lex Fridman
What are we doing? What is this? What is this life?
What are we doing? What is this? What is this life?
Kimbal Musk
My compliment for my brother was just bringing joy and social connection and he’s an engineering genius. I’ve worked with him forever and we do compliment each other.
My compliment for my brother was just bringing joy and social connection and he’s an engineering genius. I’ve worked with him forever and we do compliment each other.
Cooking
Lex Fridman
You just came out with a cookbook, by the way. Thank you for giving me my first cookbook. I feel legit.
You just came out with a cookbook, by the way. Thank you for giving me my first cookbook. I feel legit.
Kimbal Musk
I love that. Your first cookbook.
I love that. Your first cookbook.
Lex Fridman
I’m going to keep it on the counter and it’s going to give me legitimacy when anyone comes over. Hey, listen, I’m basically a chef now.
I’m going to keep it on the counter and it’s going to give me legitimacy when anyone comes over. Hey, listen, I’m basically a chef now.
Kimbal Musk
That’s right. Exactly.
That’s right. Exactly.
Lex Fridman
When did you first fall in love with cooking?
When did you first fall in love with cooking?
Kimbal Musk
I started cooking when I was 11 years old. My mom, she’s wonderful, but she is self-admittedly a bad cook. But at the time it was, and I think anyone with kids goes through this, your kids just want something like spaghetti bolognese or a burger or something. And my mom would do brown bread, plain yogurt, and boiled squash. The absolute most disgusting things that a child could imagine eating. And so I said, “Can I cook?” And she said, “Yeah, if you want to cook, no problem.”
I started cooking when I was 11 years old. My mom, she’s wonderful, but she is self-admittedly a bad cook. But at the time it was, and I think anyone with kids goes through this, your kids just want something like spaghetti bolognese or a burger or something. And my mom would do brown bread, plain yogurt, and boiled squash. The absolute most disgusting things that a child could imagine eating. And so I said, “Can I cook?” And she said, “Yeah, if you want to cook, no problem.”
So, I went to the grocery store and back in those days, a butcher is separate to the grocery store, and I went to the butcher and I said, “What can I cook?” And he pulled out a chicken and he said, “This is the easiest recipe for you. Just put it on a pan in an oven, a hot oven.” Because back then the ovens weren’t necessarily like 400 degrees or 450 or whatever. “And put it in a hot oven for one hour and enjoy.” That was it. And so I went home and actually I also bought some french fries, I’ll tell you that as well. I’m a kid, of course, I went french fries. So, the roast chicken with french fries and the chicken came out and it was just fantastic.
Lex Fridman
It was?
It was?
Kimbal Musk
Absolutely fantastic.
Absolutely fantastic.
Lex Fridman
That’s incredible, by the way.
That’s incredible, by the way.
Kimbal Musk
Yeah.
Yeah.
Lex Fridman
You didn’t screw it up the first time.
You didn’t screw it up the first time.
Kimbal Musk
First of all, I think that also kicks off the magic. If you screw it up and you’re like, “Oh, maybe this is not for me.” So for me, it really did kick it off.
First of all, I think that also kicks off the magic. If you screw it up and you’re like, “Oh, maybe this is not for me.” So for me, it really did kick it off.
Lex Fridman
You started out on a high note.
You started out on a high note.
Kimbal Musk
Right, exactly. But I tell the french fry part, which was a disaster. I cooked the french fries, but I didn’t heat the oil first, so I just put the potatoes in the oil and I waited for to heat up. And I just was throwing up later that night, your body can’t ingest that much because it sucks the oils in. And so that was a disaster. But at the time it tasted good. The real magic, which I also found was wonderful, was when I cooked, my brother, my sister, my mom, all very, very busy, very intense people, would sit down and we would have a meal together.
Right, exactly. But I tell the french fry part, which was a disaster. I cooked the french fries, but I didn’t heat the oil first, so I just put the potatoes in the oil and I waited for to heat up. And I just was throwing up later that night, your body can’t ingest that much because it sucks the oils in. And so that was a disaster. But at the time it tasted good. The real magic, which I also found was wonderful, was when I cooked, my brother, my sister, my mom, all very, very busy, very intense people, would sit down and we would have a meal together.
And I was like, “Wow, this is a very powerful thing that I’ve now got.” Where in no other way could I have that connection with my family. I mean, obviously we stay connected, we’re very close, et cetera, but in no other way can we sit down and just talk about things or talk about whatever’s on our mind or just to not even talk, just to be at the table together. And I’ve done that now through my whole life. My kids still for my family, and we will do gratitudes at the beginning of our meal. And it’s just, I think what kept me cooking, what made my love of cooking so great was actually the fact that we would sit down-
Lex Fridman
Together.
Together.
Kimbal Musk
… and be present with each other. And I’m also just horrible with that too, so I also get to be present.
… and be present with each other. And I’m also just horrible with that too, so I also get to be present.
Lex Fridman
What is that about food that brings people together and not just together, but really together where you’re paying attention? What is that? Why is it food? What else does that? Sometimes maybe alcohol can do that, which is a kind of food, I guess [inaudible 00:17:18]-
What is that about food that brings people together and not just together, but really together where you’re paying attention? What is that? Why is it food? What else does that? Sometimes maybe alcohol can do that, which is a kind of food, I guess [inaudible 00:17:18]-
Kimbal Musk
Yeah, but I think alcohol is different because you’re usually standing when you’re doing alcohol. You’re socializing, but you’re just going to stay more in the small talk zone. Whereas if you sit down, and I see this in my restaurant, in the kitchen in Boulder where we have every viewpoint or we go to Denver, every viewpoint. In restaurant in Chicago, every viewpoint. And the physical presence of someone being right there is people, they’re just different, absolutely different to what they are online. I think we all know the difference between you send an email to someone and they misunderstand the email and “Oh, if I just had talked to the person, it would’ve been fine.”
Yeah, but I think alcohol is different because you’re usually standing when you’re doing alcohol. You’re socializing, but you’re just going to stay more in the small talk zone. Whereas if you sit down, and I see this in my restaurant, in the kitchen in Boulder where we have every viewpoint or we go to Denver, every viewpoint. In restaurant in Chicago, every viewpoint. And the physical presence of someone being right there is people, they’re just different, absolutely different to what they are online. I think we all know the difference between you send an email to someone and they misunderstand the email and “Oh, if I just had talked to the person, it would’ve been fine.”
Well, this is now happening at scale with all of these, what do you, call trolling or whatever. And I’ve sat at the bar and I’ve had a hardcore Trump supporter, and I’m just curious, just like, “Tell me what, I’m not a Trump supporter, but tell me more.” And actually it draws the conversation out because you’re there for an hour or longer, so there’s no rush to get the answer. And I think that’s a big difference. I’ve had one time where just a couple months ago I had someone, I was sitting at the community table, we have a community table in the restaurant, and I didn’t know him too well, but he asked me, did I know that 9-11 was a conspiracy and it didn’t really happen?
Lex Fridman
It didn’t happen? Yeah.;
It didn’t happen? Yeah.;
Kimbal Musk
And I was like, “Huh.” So, I was at 9-11, [inaudible 00:19:02] I was there physically there. So, it’s like, nope.
And I was like, “Huh.” So, I was at 9-11, [inaudible 00:19:02] I was there physically there. So, it’s like, nope.
Lex Fridman
Allegedly.
Allegedly.
Kimbal Musk
There’s no doubt in my mind. But I didn’t want to interrupt what he had to say. I let him talk for five minutes, six minutes, seven minutes. Again, you’re there for a while, so you’re not in a rush to jump in and argue. And then I shared that I was there, and I think because I had been willing to listen to him, he was willing to listen to me. And I don’t know if he changed his mind. Certainly doesn’t change my mind, but it was actually a pretty cool conversation to get into each other’s mind.
There’s no doubt in my mind. But I didn’t want to interrupt what he had to say. I let him talk for five minutes, six minutes, seven minutes. Again, you’re there for a while, so you’re not in a rush to jump in and argue. And then I shared that I was there, and I think because I had been willing to listen to him, he was willing to listen to me. And I don’t know if he changed his mind. Certainly doesn’t change my mind, but it was actually a pretty cool conversation to get into each other’s mind.
Lex Fridman
Well, I think you connect on a different level. Not on the level of the conspiracy, but on the level of basic humanity.
Well, I think you connect on a different level. Not on the level of the conspiracy, but on the level of basic humanity.
Kimbal Musk
Yes.
Yes.
Lex Fridman
That’s what you really connect on. And then it almost becomes interesting and fun that you can exchange ideas, even crazy ideas, out there ideas, and kind of play with them. We humans are good at that.
That’s what you really connect on. And then it almost becomes interesting and fun that you can exchange ideas, even crazy ideas, out there ideas, and kind of play with them. We humans are good at that.
Kimbal Musk
Yeah, exactly. I like the term play with them because what you’re not trying to do is shut the conversation down. You’re also not trying to-
Yeah, exactly. I like the term play with them because what you’re not trying to do is shut the conversation down. You’re also not trying to-
Lex Fridman
Talk down on me.
Talk down on me.
Kimbal Musk
Yeah, yeah, exactly. This guys is, let me just be nice while I totally disagree with this person. You can do that for a few minutes. You can’t do that for two hours.
Yeah, yeah, exactly. This guys is, let me just be nice while I totally disagree with this person. You can do that for a few minutes. You can’t do that for two hours.
Lex Fridman
And there’s something about food that completely, I don’t know, it must be evolutionary that it makes us vulnerable in a way that even just standing there for a prolonged period of time doesn’t. There’s something about, you know when the animals gather to the water or whatever, this kind of experience where you’re just like, “All right, let’s just acknowledge together that we need sustenance.”
And there’s something about food that completely, I don’t know, it must be evolutionary that it makes us vulnerable in a way that even just standing there for a prolonged period of time doesn’t. There’s something about, you know when the animals gather to the water or whatever, this kind of experience where you’re just like, “All right, let’s just acknowledge together that we need sustenance.”
And somehow that kind of grounds us to, we’re just a bunch of descendants of apes here, just kind of grateful to be alive, frankly, and grateful to be consuming this thing which keeps us alive. And in that context, you can talk about all kinds of stuff. You can discuss flat earth and enjoy it.
Kimbal Musk
Absolutely. Absolutely. In fact, one of my favorite things to do is you do a Jeffersonian style dinner, let’s say five or six people. Sometimes people will break off into individual conversations. That’s actually when things break down. So that’s when you go back to small talk like, “Oh, I’m stuck next to this guy. I’m just going to do a little small talk.” What you need to do to really create a great conversation is one conversation at the table. And that’s where there’ll be some simple questions that I’ll say. I’ll say, “What’s your middle name?” And you’ll be amazed at the stories you get from that, but it’s about creating vulnerability.
Absolutely. Absolutely. In fact, one of my favorite things to do is you do a Jeffersonian style dinner, let’s say five or six people. Sometimes people will break off into individual conversations. That’s actually when things break down. So that’s when you go back to small talk like, “Oh, I’m stuck next to this guy. I’m just going to do a little small talk.” What you need to do to really create a great conversation is one conversation at the table. And that’s where there’ll be some simple questions that I’ll say. I’ll say, “What’s your middle name?” And you’ll be amazed at the stories you get from that, but it’s about creating vulnerability.
So, they’re like, “Oh, no one’s ever asked me that before,” so then they become vulnerable. And then it’s something as simple as, “What’s the most fun thing you’ve done recently and what is the most fun thing you’re looking forward to?” I have gotten into, with those prompts, I’ve gotten into hours long discussions on God. I’ve gotten into hours long discussions on love. I’ve got into hours long discussions on anger. It’s actually amazing when people are just asked a question, ” What’s the most fun thing you’ve done lately?” Well, why would anger come up? Well, actually, they’re in a vulnerable place, so it’ll just kind of come out of them.
Lex Fridman
So, you get to see this, you get to see this at the kitchen in you said Boulder, Denver, Chicago?
So, you get to see this, you get to see this at the kitchen in you said Boulder, Denver, Chicago?
Kimbal Musk
And we’re going to open in Austin.
And we’re going to open in Austin.
Lex Fridman
In Austin. That’s what I saw. When?
In Austin. That’s what I saw. When?
Kimbal Musk
In October is the goal.
In October is the goal.
Lex Fridman
In October is the goal. Well, I mean, speaking of characters and human beings, Austin is fascinating. I forget how long ago, a couple months ago, I was just sitting at a bar and the two people were talking and they were talking about Marxism, and it turns out that they’re a narco communists, which is the thing. And I got into this conversation.
In October is the goal. Well, I mean, speaking of characters and human beings, Austin is fascinating. I forget how long ago, a couple months ago, I was just sitting at a bar and the two people were talking and they were talking about Marxism, and it turns out that they’re a narco communists, which is the thing. And I got into this conversation.
Kimbal Musk
Communist likes drugs?
Communist likes drugs?
Lex Fridman
That’s a good question.
That’s a good question.
Kimbal Musk
I think I know some of those.
I think I know some of those.
Lex Fridman
Anyway, they were beautiful people. I think they’re local from Austin. I don’t know the depth of their personal experience of the different kinds of communists-like systems, but it was fascinating to listen to and then get to know them and the humanity, the weirdness, like the characters. I love it. One of the reasons I really love Austin, I decided to be here, is just the cliche thing of keep Austin weird. I mean, there’s a lot of weird characters.
Anyway, they were beautiful people. I think they’re local from Austin. I don’t know the depth of their personal experience of the different kinds of communists-like systems, but it was fascinating to listen to and then get to know them and the humanity, the weirdness, like the characters. I love it. One of the reasons I really love Austin, I decided to be here, is just the cliche thing of keep Austin weird. I mean, there’s a lot of weird characters.
Kimbal Musk
I love it. I think that I’ve talked to a lot Austinites who’ve been here forever, and I’m like, “Man, you got to hold us accountable. We got to keep this place weird.”
I love it. I think that I’ve talked to a lot Austinites who’ve been here forever, and I’m like, “Man, you got to hold us accountable. We got to keep this place weird.”
Lex Fridman
A hundred percent. Which makes the restaurant seem great because you have all these characters come in. It’s great, so I look forward to that. But you were saying you get to see humans in real life interact. That’s one of the beautiful things over food. In the book you write, Picasso once said, “The meaning of life is to find your gift. The purpose of life is to give it away.” Then you wrote that you believe food is the gift we give ourselves three times a day. Can you explain that? The gift nature of it.
A hundred percent. Which makes the restaurant seem great because you have all these characters come in. It’s great, so I look forward to that. But you were saying you get to see humans in real life interact. That’s one of the beautiful things over food. In the book you write, Picasso once said, “The meaning of life is to find your gift. The purpose of life is to give it away.” Then you wrote that you believe food is the gift we give ourselves three times a day. Can you explain that? The gift nature of it.
Kimbal Musk
Yeah. I think it’s one of my most powerful life lessons is we have to eat. So, it’s not like you have a choice, you have to eat. And so what I choose to do is I choose to make it a gift to myself for each meal. And most of the time, the best gift is with friends, with family. We’ll have to cook some scrambled eggs in the morning with my daughter, or we’ll have dinner with our family. To me, it’s a gift we give ourselves three times a day at least, but for the most part, three times a day, let’s make it a good one.
Yeah. I think it’s one of my most powerful life lessons is we have to eat. So, it’s not like you have a choice, you have to eat. And so what I choose to do is I choose to make it a gift to myself for each meal. And most of the time, the best gift is with friends, with family. We’ll have to cook some scrambled eggs in the morning with my daughter, or we’ll have dinner with our family. To me, it’s a gift we give ourselves three times a day at least, but for the most part, three times a day, let’s make it a good one.
Lex Fridman
What makes it a good one to you? What aspect of what makes it a good one?
What makes it a good one to you? What aspect of what makes it a good one?
Kimbal Musk
Well, first definitely eating with people, so that makes it a good one. Eating in a restaurant, it doesn’t have to be my restaurant, where you have the energy of people around you, energy of the town, people you don’t know creates a little bit of a vibe. You mentioned the watering hole analogy that animals sipping at the water, but there’s an energy to that because they’re also looking around going, “Am I just about to be eaten?”
Well, first definitely eating with people, so that makes it a good one. Eating in a restaurant, it doesn’t have to be my restaurant, where you have the energy of people around you, energy of the town, people you don’t know creates a little bit of a vibe. You mentioned the watering hole analogy that animals sipping at the water, but there’s an energy to that because they’re also looking around going, “Am I just about to be eaten?”
So, they’re all in it together, we need to have water. But there’s still a little bit of tension as well in the background. And I think that’s what restaurants do is a very, very subtle version of that. You’re in a room with strangers and you’re a little cluster. Okay, fine, you guys are connected in it, but you’re in a room with strangers, and it’s just something that adds that energy to the meal.
Lex Fridman
Yeah. You’re a little bit wondering what does everyone else think about our little cluster?
Yeah. You’re a little bit wondering what does everyone else think about our little cluster?
Kimbal Musk
Right. Are we too loud or just people are random, so something random could happen.
Right. Are we too loud or just people are random, so something random could happen.
Lex Fridman
And also depending on your personality, if you’re an extrovert, maybe you want to show off to the other clusters.
And also depending on your personality, if you’re an extrovert, maybe you want to show off to the other clusters.
Kimbal Musk
Exactly. Yeah, absolutely. Totally right. I mean, look at the cowboy hat. I mean, actually, I’ll take my hat off when I want to have a quiet meal and I can leave my hat on when I’m-
Exactly. Yeah, absolutely. Totally right. I mean, look at the cowboy hat. I mean, actually, I’ll take my hat off when I want to have a quiet meal and I can leave my hat on when I’m-
Lex Fridman
So you’re aware of [inaudible 00:26:23] of the hat.
So you’re aware of [inaudible 00:26:23] of the hat.
Kimbal Musk
I’m aware of the effect it has. Yeah, absolutely.
I’m aware of the effect it has. Yeah, absolutely.
Lex Fridman
Everyone turns [inaudible 00:26:27].
Everyone turns [inaudible 00:26:27].
Kimbal Musk
That’s right.
That’s right.
Lex Fridman
And then it’s back to the watering hole because when you wear a cowboy hat, you just might actually not-
And then it’s back to the watering hole because when you wear a cowboy hat, you just might actually not-
Kimbal Musk
Yeah. I’m like, they’re going to get me first.
Yeah. I’m like, they’re going to get me first.
Lex Fridman
At noon. I love it.
At noon. I love it.
Kimbal Musk
I got to tell the story. So, talk to the craziness of being in the restaurant world where you’re sitting at a table and anything can happen in the restaurant. So, this one time, it was like 15 years ago, this guy comes up to us and says, he’d like to propose to his wife, his girlfriend. And so we said, “Okay, cool. We’ve done this before. We’ll make sure it’s-
I got to tell the story. So, talk to the craziness of being in the restaurant world where you’re sitting at a table and anything can happen in the restaurant. So, this one time, it was like 15 years ago, this guy comes up to us and says, he’d like to propose to his wife, his girlfriend. And so we said, “Okay, cool. We’ve done this before. We’ll make sure it’s-
Kimbal Musk
And so we said, okay, cool. We’ve done this before. We’ll make sure it’s all set up, 6:00 PM reservation. So she shows up and we give her a glass of champagne and we obviously didn’t want to spoil the surprise so we just doing everything we can. But then he doesn’t arrive and they’re like, oh man. Now we’re like, don’t leave. Can we get you another glass of champagne? We’re doing everything we can because the guy was obviously earnest earlier, but just as he stuck in traffic or whatever and coming through the back door of the restaurant, which is you’re not allowed to come through the back door of the restaurant, a marching band from the school, the university comes through the restaurant full on brass band and the whole thing and he gets down and he proposes and it’s beautiful, sure, but it’s also like, man, this is chaos. This is insane. And we would never have said yes to this if he’d actually told us what he was going to do.
And so we said, okay, cool. We’ve done this before. We’ll make sure it’s all set up, 6:00 PM reservation. So she shows up and we give her a glass of champagne and we obviously didn’t want to spoil the surprise so we just doing everything we can. But then he doesn’t arrive and they’re like, oh man. Now we’re like, don’t leave. Can we get you another glass of champagne? We’re doing everything we can because the guy was obviously earnest earlier, but just as he stuck in traffic or whatever and coming through the back door of the restaurant, which is you’re not allowed to come through the back door of the restaurant, a marching band from the school, the university comes through the restaurant full on brass band and the whole thing and he gets down and he proposes and it’s beautiful, sure, but it’s also like, man, this is chaos. This is insane. And we would never have said yes to this if he’d actually told us what he was going to do.
Lex Fridman
Well sometimes in life you have to do it and apologize.
Well sometimes in life you have to do it and apologize.
Kimbal Musk
You do it and apologize. But that talks to that kind of what’s the crazy thing that could happen in a… It’s subtle, but it’s still there.
You do it and apologize. But that talks to that kind of what’s the crazy thing that could happen in a… It’s subtle, but it’s still there.
Lex Fridman
So in 2004 you opened The Kitchen. It’s an American bistro restaurant. What was it like? What’s it like running a restaurant? The good, the bad and the ugly. What’s the easy, what’s the fun and what’s the hard?
So in 2004 you opened The Kitchen. It’s an American bistro restaurant. What was it like? What’s it like running a restaurant? The good, the bad and the ugly. What’s the easy, what’s the fun and what’s the hard?
Kimbal Musk
I think the thing that I absolutely love about running the restaurant, not eating at it but running the restaurant is the tangible reaction from people. And you also kind of know when you screwed it up and you also know when you got it right. It’s kind of a weird way to say this, but even if the customer’s unhappy, you know whether you got it right or wrong. It’s not just about the food you’re making, but it’s about the person’s psychological state. And you’ll do something that you’d know that was not done well. And their psychological state, they’re just in a very happy place and they love it. And you’re like, huh, interesting. That’s not how I would’ve reacted to that dish. And then the other way around you’re like I got that right and that person’s just really unhappy today.
I think the thing that I absolutely love about running the restaurant, not eating at it but running the restaurant is the tangible reaction from people. And you also kind of know when you screwed it up and you also know when you got it right. It’s kind of a weird way to say this, but even if the customer’s unhappy, you know whether you got it right or wrong. It’s not just about the food you’re making, but it’s about the person’s psychological state. And you’ll do something that you’d know that was not done well. And their psychological state, they’re just in a very happy place and they love it. And you’re like, huh, interesting. That’s not how I would’ve reacted to that dish. And then the other way around you’re like I got that right and that person’s just really unhappy today.
Lex Fridman
Yeah. And it’s so hard to read humans because you have to… If you got it right, that can look a million different ways depending on the emotional rollercoaster that humans living through. I’ve been at some very low points and I’ve gone to a restaurant alone and just sitting there and be truly happy with just the zen aspect of it. And it was just a great steak or something like this and maybe two other people around me would look like I’m very unhappy just because I’m within myself.
Yeah. And it’s so hard to read humans because you have to… If you got it right, that can look a million different ways depending on the emotional rollercoaster that humans living through. I’ve been at some very low points and I’ve gone to a restaurant alone and just sitting there and be truly happy with just the zen aspect of it. And it was just a great steak or something like this and maybe two other people around me would look like I’m very unhappy just because I’m within myself.
Kimbal Musk
Sure, struggling with your today.
Sure, struggling with your today.
Lex Fridman
Yeah. Within myself. But I’m truly happy within that struggle. So yeah, it’s interesting. But you can kind of tell.
Yeah. Within myself. But I’m truly happy within that struggle. So yeah, it’s interesting. But you can kind of tell.
Kimbal Musk
Yeah, you can tell. And you mentioned being at the bar the most gifted bartenders really understand that. What’s also great about a restaurant it goes beyond the one-time experience that you walk in and you have that experience, is the good bartenders they remember you. Oh, you were in a few months ago and this is kind of your thing. You might need a little time. And other people will come in, they want a conversation or other people come in and they’re going through a divorce and they just want to be sad for a moment. Have a scotch. And it’s like, it’s amazing what you learn in the restaurant world to just be connected to humanity.
Yeah, you can tell. And you mentioned being at the bar the most gifted bartenders really understand that. What’s also great about a restaurant it goes beyond the one-time experience that you walk in and you have that experience, is the good bartenders they remember you. Oh, you were in a few months ago and this is kind of your thing. You might need a little time. And other people will come in, they want a conversation or other people come in and they’re going through a divorce and they just want to be sad for a moment. Have a scotch. And it’s like, it’s amazing what you learn in the restaurant world to just be connected to humanity.
Lex Fridman
Yeah. What is that about bars? That’s a different experience. You said the table, the communal.
Yeah. What is that about bars? That’s a different experience. You said the table, the communal.
Kimbal Musk
The table is when you connect with people, learn about each other. Bars, you can sometimes do that, you can talk left and right, but you have the freedom to always break free. You can say, okay great, I’m going to go back to my meal. It’s a friend you can turn on and off at any time because the bartender knows that. They’re trained. If you want attention, I’m going to give it to you. If you don’t, I’m going to stay away. If you want to be chatty, I’m going to be chatty. If you want to be completely in your head, I’ll leave you in your head.
The table is when you connect with people, learn about each other. Bars, you can sometimes do that, you can talk left and right, but you have the freedom to always break free. You can say, okay great, I’m going to go back to my meal. It’s a friend you can turn on and off at any time because the bartender knows that. They’re trained. If you want attention, I’m going to give it to you. If you don’t, I’m going to stay away. If you want to be chatty, I’m going to be chatty. If you want to be completely in your head, I’ll leave you in your head.
Lex Fridman
But there’s also strangers next to you that you… There’s a feeling with a bar that you’re kind of alone together.
But there’s also strangers next to you that you… There’s a feeling with a bar that you’re kind of alone together.
Kimbal Musk
Yeah. And you can reach out, you can add some conversation or you can choose not to.
Yeah. And you can reach out, you can add some conversation or you can choose not to.
Lex Fridman
And you can exit quickly.
And you can exit quickly.
Kimbal Musk
You can exit. Exactly. It’s a really good exit. So bars are wonderful and I love going to a bar by myself after work. I might have a scotch, might even not even have alcohol, just have something and maybe I’ll have a snack or something before dinner because I’m going to go home and have dinner with the family and that 20 minutes is just an amazing state change from daytime to nighttime. Whereas if I went straight home, I’m still in my head and I’m just trying to get grounded and I’m not as pleasant of a person. So that’s another powerful use of a bar. It’s just like a transition time.
You can exit. Exactly. It’s a really good exit. So bars are wonderful and I love going to a bar by myself after work. I might have a scotch, might even not even have alcohol, just have something and maybe I’ll have a snack or something before dinner because I’m going to go home and have dinner with the family and that 20 minutes is just an amazing state change from daytime to nighttime. Whereas if I went straight home, I’m still in my head and I’m just trying to get grounded and I’m not as pleasant of a person. So that’s another powerful use of a bar. It’s just like a transition time.
Lex Fridman
Well, it would be remiss not to mention the other use of the bar, which is like when you’re going through some shit in life and you just go. I mean that’s the cliche thing, I’ve been somewhere-
Well, it would be remiss not to mention the other use of the bar, which is like when you’re going through some shit in life and you just go. I mean that’s the cliche thing, I’ve been somewhere-
Kimbal Musk
Drowning your sorrows.
Drowning your sorrows.
Lex Fridman
Exactly.
Exactly.
Kimbal Musk
The real thing.
The real thing.
Lex Fridman
Exactly. But the bar makes the melancholy somehow rich and beautiful and you feel heard in the silence.
Exactly. But the bar makes the melancholy somehow rich and beautiful and you feel heard in the silence.
Kimbal Musk
Yes. You feel heard. Like I said earlier, people going through a divorce, they don’t know where else to go. These are mostly men. Sometimes women will do it, but mostly men will do this and women have other ways of processing it. But they want a place to be sad and want a place where they could feel comfortable talking about it if… They’re certainly not going to go into too much detail, but they just want to say something and the bartender is there for them.
Yes. You feel heard. Like I said earlier, people going through a divorce, they don’t know where else to go. These are mostly men. Sometimes women will do it, but mostly men will do this and women have other ways of processing it. But they want a place to be sad and want a place where they could feel comfortable talking about it if… They’re certainly not going to go into too much detail, but they just want to say something and the bartender is there for them.
Lex Fridman
Yeah, you don’t know where to go.
Yeah, you don’t know where to go.
Kimbal Musk
You don’t know where to go. Exactly.
You don’t know where to go. Exactly.
Lex Fridman
And the bar… Yeah, you’re right. For men especially is a place to just go and just, I don’t know. What is that? What is that?
And the bar… Yeah, you’re right. For men especially is a place to just go and just, I don’t know. What is that? What is that?
Kimbal Musk
I’ll be honest, I still do it myself where if I’m at home and I don’t have a work thing that I got to deal with and I don’t have kids and I don’t have my wife or my family around, I don’t often cook for myself. I actually love going to a bar by myself. I have a glass of red wine and I usually don’t have a starter, appetizer. I just have a main meal and I just take in the energy of the space. It was my restaurant, someone else’s restaurant, I just take in the energy and it’s so much better than being home and turn the TV on. No, no, no. I want to be out in the restaurant. I want to feel the energy of the town. The other thing that restaurants teach me is they’re the front lines of the economy or what’s a better word for it? Front lines of the energy of how things are going.
I’ll be honest, I still do it myself where if I’m at home and I don’t have a work thing that I got to deal with and I don’t have kids and I don’t have my wife or my family around, I don’t often cook for myself. I actually love going to a bar by myself. I have a glass of red wine and I usually don’t have a starter, appetizer. I just have a main meal and I just take in the energy of the space. It was my restaurant, someone else’s restaurant, I just take in the energy and it’s so much better than being home and turn the TV on. No, no, no. I want to be out in the restaurant. I want to feel the energy of the town. The other thing that restaurants teach me is they’re the front lines of the economy or what’s a better word for it? Front lines of the energy of how things are going.
Lex Fridman
Of a people’s in general. It doesn’t necessarily mean this part of town, but it could be the entire society.
Of a people’s in general. It doesn’t necessarily mean this part of town, but it could be the entire society.
Kimbal Musk
Yeah, exactly. So you can go into a restaurant and I’ll use a simple example and why is the restaurant empty? Ah, there’s a football game going on and there’s such a large number of people want to watch that game that the restaurant is quiet. Or it might be like another world series or something and you’re like, wow, that’s so interesting. You can actually watch in America, of course, American humanity, you can watch them move in their patterns just by being in the restaurant.
Yeah, exactly. So you can go into a restaurant and I’ll use a simple example and why is the restaurant empty? Ah, there’s a football game going on and there’s such a large number of people want to watch that game that the restaurant is quiet. Or it might be like another world series or something and you’re like, wow, that’s so interesting. You can actually watch in America, of course, American humanity, you can watch them move in their patterns just by being in the restaurant.
Lex Fridman
Yeah. Yeah. Yeah.
Yeah. Yeah. Yeah.
Kimbal Musk
And then another time you might be in a restaurant and he’s just jamming. It’s a Monday night and you’re like, what is the energy that created this on a Monday night and maybe even on a cold February, Monday night, what is it? And sometimes you can’t find out but you can feel it. And it’s my front lines of humanity that I also just really love about the restaurants.
And then another time you might be in a restaurant and he’s just jamming. It’s a Monday night and you’re like, what is the energy that created this on a Monday night and maybe even on a cold February, Monday night, what is it? And sometimes you can’t find out but you can feel it. And it’s my front lines of humanity that I also just really love about the restaurants.
Lex Fridman
Yeah, it could be empty, it could be full. Empty bars, there’s a magic to those too.
Yeah, it could be empty, it could be full. Empty bars, there’s a magic to those too.
Kimbal Musk
Yeah.
Yeah.
Lex Fridman
You could still feel that energy. I don’t know.
You could still feel that energy. I don’t know.
Kimbal Musk
I actually prefer empty bars than full ones.
I actually prefer empty bars than full ones.
Lex Fridman
It’s just you and the bartender. I mean some of my greatest experiences is just the quiet bar, just me and the bartender and they’re doing their thing and they’ve seen so many… I’ve almost like through osmosis somehow feel the stories that that bartender has seen, has felt, has heard and all that kind of stuff. It’s not to be sort of spiritual about it, but it seems like it’s in the walls or something. Like there’s the history is felt.
It’s just you and the bartender. I mean some of my greatest experiences is just the quiet bar, just me and the bartender and they’re doing their thing and they’ve seen so many… I’ve almost like through osmosis somehow feel the stories that that bartender has seen, has felt, has heard and all that kind of stuff. It’s not to be sort of spiritual about it, but it seems like it’s in the walls or something. Like there’s the history is felt.
Kimbal Musk
And then some of these bars are actually very old and it’s wonderful. There are many in Europe like this, but there’s a couple in New York City, a few hundred years old and they’re still operating nonstop for that long and man, you feel it.
And then some of these bars are actually very old and it’s wonderful. There are many in Europe like this, but there’s a couple in New York City, a few hundred years old and they’re still operating nonstop for that long and man, you feel it.
Lex Fridman
Yeah. Let me ask you some questions about ingredients. What’s your favorite ingredient to cook with?
Yeah. Let me ask you some questions about ingredients. What’s your favorite ingredient to cook with?
Ingredients
Kimbal Musk
For me, cooking is an art. So it’d be like asking me what’s my favorite paint color to use. It’s not that it isn’t like there isn’t one, it’s more like when there is one, it really is one. There’s peaches on the cover of this cookbook. Those peaches, those were in August, Colorado peaches. It just doesn’t get any better than that.
For me, cooking is an art. So it’d be like asking me what’s my favorite paint color to use. It’s not that it isn’t like there isn’t one, it’s more like when there is one, it really is one. There’s peaches on the cover of this cookbook. Those peaches, those were in August, Colorado peaches. It just doesn’t get any better than that.
Lex Fridman
On that day, at that moment, that was the best.
On that day, at that moment, that was the best.
Kimbal Musk
That was the best, but that only lasts for a week and then they don’t taste so great.
That was the best, but that only lasts for a week and then they don’t taste so great.
Lex Fridman
Yeah.
Yeah.
Kimbal Musk
But damn are they so good in that moment and you just can’t stop wanting to use that ingredient.
But damn are they so good in that moment and you just can’t stop wanting to use that ingredient.
Lex Fridman
They look really good.
They look really good.
Kimbal Musk
They are so good.
They are so good.
Lex Fridman
What’s your favorite fruit? I love veggies and fruit. What’s your favorite fruit?
What’s your favorite fruit? I love veggies and fruit. What’s your favorite fruit?
Kimbal Musk
I love a smoothie bowl, so I do sort of berries, raspberries, but I use fruit more in the form of a smoothie bowl than I eat fruit that often. I like an apple or a banana, but for the most part, I prefer the blended.
I love a smoothie bowl, so I do sort of berries, raspberries, but I use fruit more in the form of a smoothie bowl than I eat fruit that often. I like an apple or a banana, but for the most part, I prefer the blended.
Lex Fridman
Not me. I love the way you casually said I like an apple.
Not me. I love the way you casually said I like an apple.
Kimbal Musk
A good apple is pretty great.
A good apple is pretty great.
Lex Fridman
For me it’s a problem, I think. Probably cherries number one. Probably, what are they called? Granny Smith apples number two.
For me it’s a problem, I think. Probably cherries number one. Probably, what are they called? Granny Smith apples number two.
Kimbal Musk
Oh, yeah, those are great. But try it when sometime come to Colorado in August and when you try those peaches, it is like it heaven has arrived in your mouth. It is so ridiculously good.
Oh, yeah, those are great. But try it when sometime come to Colorado in August and when you try those peaches, it is like it heaven has arrived in your mouth. It is so ridiculously good.
Lex Fridman
But just for a week in August.
But just for a week in August.
Kimbal Musk
Just for a week. You can’t have it all year long.
Just for a week. You can’t have it all year long.
Lex Fridman
Okay. What about veggies? You wrote that Chef Hugo that you worked with the co-founder of The Kitchen with taught you the power of a good vegetable.
Okay. What about veggies? You wrote that Chef Hugo that you worked with the co-founder of The Kitchen with taught you the power of a good vegetable.
Kimbal Musk
Yeah.
Yeah.
Lex Fridman
What’s the power of good vegetable?
What’s the power of good vegetable?
Kimbal Musk
So I’ve trained in New York as a French chef, but it wasn’t very much ingredients focused. It wasn’t very much sourcing focused. He came from the River Cafe in London, which was one of the OGs for the farm to table and still going strong today. And he taught me the value of getting to know farmers and getting to know vegetables from that farm versus vegetables from that farm. And they’re actually different. The soil’s a little different. The way they grow it a little different. It’s the opposite of the industrial machine where everything needs to look exactly the same. And sometimes you’ll get carrots that are ugly and deformed, but there’s much sweeter than the carrots you’d get for other purposes.
So I’ve trained in New York as a French chef, but it wasn’t very much ingredients focused. It wasn’t very much sourcing focused. He came from the River Cafe in London, which was one of the OGs for the farm to table and still going strong today. And he taught me the value of getting to know farmers and getting to know vegetables from that farm versus vegetables from that farm. And they’re actually different. The soil’s a little different. The way they grow it a little different. It’s the opposite of the industrial machine where everything needs to look exactly the same. And sometimes you’ll get carrots that are ugly and deformed, but there’s much sweeter than the carrots you’d get for other purposes.
So you’d make a carrot puree out of that and then you’d carrots that are more typical in shape and size, you might roast them for dinner. So it’s the appreciation for vegetables in general. I probably would say carrots is my favorite just because that was an example of one where I’ve really had to learn how to use the different types of carrots that come from all of our farms. And it’s fun. It’s a fun ingredient. If you just went to the whole foods or just went to a grocery store and you just got exactly the same carrot every time, less fun. But go to a farmer’s market and see what you get and you’ll see they’re quite different.
Lex Fridman
Yeah, carrot for me is probably number one. I have rigorous detailed rankings for fruit and veggies.
Yeah, carrot for me is probably number one. I have rigorous detailed rankings for fruit and veggies.
Kimbal Musk
That’s amazing.
That’s amazing.
Lex Fridman
But we’ll get into it. No, I’m just kidding. Well, I am the kind of person that would have a spreadsheet for that.
But we’ll get into it. No, I’m just kidding. Well, I am the kind of person that would have a spreadsheet for that.
Kimbal Musk
That’s great.
That’s great.
Lex Fridman
But I’m mostly just making fun of myself. But I do love carrots. I wish they weren’t so full of carbs, but…
But I’m mostly just making fun of myself. But I do love carrots. I wish they weren’t so full of carbs, but…
Kimbal Musk
Yeah, I’m just not anti carbs. I think the-
Yeah, I’m just not anti carbs. I think the-
Lex Fridman
Anti carb. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah.
Anti carb. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah.
Kimbal Musk
Yeah. I think they play a role. I have a great friend who’s an amazing doctor and he did some tests for me and everything and turns out I have a gluten allergy and I was like, okay. So what that means is I shouldn’t eat gluten. It’s like, yeah. It’s like, okay, but I also have hay fever and that means I should not go out into nature. So I was like, nah, I think I’m going to go out into nature and maybe what I’ll do on bread and pasta is, like the true carbs I’ll just have it when it’s really good because when it’s really good, it’s really good and you don’t want to miss that. Most of the time, okay, find some crummy bread, whatever. I can skip that part, but I find all of these diets that are like, no, none of this will work. Super this, super that. I wonder if they’re just like people are just looking for something to hang on to. But these diets have been around forever and if they work, then we would know that.
Yeah. I think they play a role. I have a great friend who’s an amazing doctor and he did some tests for me and everything and turns out I have a gluten allergy and I was like, okay. So what that means is I shouldn’t eat gluten. It’s like, yeah. It’s like, okay, but I also have hay fever and that means I should not go out into nature. So I was like, nah, I think I’m going to go out into nature and maybe what I’ll do on bread and pasta is, like the true carbs I’ll just have it when it’s really good because when it’s really good, it’s really good and you don’t want to miss that. Most of the time, okay, find some crummy bread, whatever. I can skip that part, but I find all of these diets that are like, no, none of this will work. Super this, super that. I wonder if they’re just like people are just looking for something to hang on to. But these diets have been around forever and if they work, then we would know that.
Lex Fridman
Yeah, I think one of the biggest problems with diets is it adds stress when you do have that perfect bowl of pasta. If you have categorized yourself as a low-carb eating person, you might be very stressed about enjoying this thing when you should just let go.
Yeah, I think one of the biggest problems with diets is it adds stress when you do have that perfect bowl of pasta. If you have categorized yourself as a low-carb eating person, you might be very stressed about enjoying this thing when you should just let go.
Kimbal Musk
Let go. This is your cheat day or whatever. And I’ve heard that, and actually I have friends who do that their cheat day, and I say to them, I’m only going to hang out with you on your cheat day because that’s when you’re actually fun.
Let go. This is your cheat day or whatever. And I’ve heard that, and actually I have friends who do that their cheat day, and I say to them, I’m only going to hang out with you on your cheat day because that’s when you’re actually fun.
Lex Fridman
Yeah. I would say for me there’s things that make me feel really good, but they’re not rules. They’re not… They’re like go-to favorites in terms of diet and so on. For example, I’ve mostly been eating once a day for the longest time, but that’s not a rule. It’s completely flexible and I’ve mostly been eating very low-carb.
Yeah. I would say for me there’s things that make me feel really good, but they’re not rules. They’re not… They’re like go-to favorites in terms of diet and so on. For example, I’ve mostly been eating once a day for the longest time, but that’s not a rule. It’s completely flexible and I’ve mostly been eating very low-carb.
Kimbal Musk
Yeah, but you must be eating a lot of food in that one meal.
Yeah, but you must be eating a lot of food in that one meal.
Lex Fridman
Yeah, because it’s usually a very sort of meat heavy. It’s not, portions are not that big.
Yeah, because it’s usually a very sort of meat heavy. It’s not, portions are not that big.
Kimbal Musk
Sure, but your body needs food.
Sure, but your body needs food.
Lex Fridman
Yeah, body needs food. So you’re talking about like 2000 calories. What you find out is that dinner is the most social time of the day.
Yeah, body needs food. So you’re talking about like 2000 calories. What you find out is that dinner is the most social time of the day.
Kimbal Musk
Yeah. I have kids in the mornings, so if you have kids, it’s for sure a morning experience, but if you don’t, then you’re right.
Yeah. I have kids in the mornings, so if you have kids, it’s for sure a morning experience, but if you don’t, then you’re right.
Lex Fridman
Yeah. But like you said, I deviate. I’m more afraid of missing the perfect dessert, the perfect breakfast, the perfect bowl of pasta, pizza, all that kind of stuff. I don’t think of it as a cheat day. I think it’s a-
Yeah. But like you said, I deviate. I’m more afraid of missing the perfect dessert, the perfect breakfast, the perfect bowl of pasta, pizza, all that kind of stuff. I don’t think of it as a cheat day. I think it’s a-
Kimbal Musk
Well, of you only doing one meal a day, you can eat whatever you like.
Well, of you only doing one meal a day, you can eat whatever you like.
Lex Fridman
But I want to make clear that it’s not one meal a day always, and I’m like this very strict thing. You always have to be open to the experience, to the new experience.
But I want to make clear that it’s not one meal a day always, and I’m like this very strict thing. You always have to be open to the experience, to the new experience.
Kimbal Musk
I love that. Yeah.
I love that. Yeah.
Lex Fridman
Otherwise you do miss out, just like you said, hay fever. I think if you want to be really safe, you should never leave your home.
Otherwise you do miss out, just like you said, hay fever. I think if you want to be really safe, you should never leave your home.
Kimbal Musk
Yes. Right we learned during COVID, if you wrap yourself in cotton wool in your basement-
Yes. Right we learned during COVID, if you wrap yourself in cotton wool in your basement-
Lex Fridman
Yes.
Yes.
Kimbal Musk
… you’re not going to die from COVID. You might die from a lot of other things, of pure misery.
… you’re not going to die from COVID. You might die from a lot of other things, of pure misery.
Lex Fridman
Yeah. Well, you might live forever.
Yeah. Well, you might live forever.
Kimbal Musk
We don’t know.
We don’t know.
Lex Fridman
But it certainly doesn’t maximize the joy of whatever makes life worth living, it doesn’t maximize that.
But it certainly doesn’t maximize the joy of whatever makes life worth living, it doesn’t maximize that.
Kimbal Musk
Yeah. Exactly.
Yeah. Exactly.
Anthony Bourdain
Lex Fridman
You wrote in the book that Anthony Bourdain was one of your heroes. Can you speak to what inspired you about him?
You wrote in the book that Anthony Bourdain was one of your heroes. Can you speak to what inspired you about him?
Kimbal Musk
Yeah, he wrote a book called Kitchen Confidential in the nineties. I was in cooking school at the time. It was so… He romanticized the cooking in the restaurant so well. His writing is great. He kind of got me into like, oh, that’s cool, I want to do that. It was cool. So I got into cooking school, got more engaged in it, and I had this FOMO feeling of I wanted to experience what it’s like to be in the back. When you’re in cooking school, you are in the back. It had a restaurant, we would serve people, but it’s not the same thing as actually being in a… A real restaurant it’s like you’re in a submarine with your teammates and you got to win tonight. It’s a real energy. And so that was a big inspiration. I followed him over the… It’s so sad that he chose to end his life, but I also had met with him a few times. Not like one-on-one over dinner or anything, but just met with him and I just felt his love for food and truly just love for food.
Yeah, he wrote a book called Kitchen Confidential in the nineties. I was in cooking school at the time. It was so… He romanticized the cooking in the restaurant so well. His writing is great. He kind of got me into like, oh, that’s cool, I want to do that. It was cool. So I got into cooking school, got more engaged in it, and I had this FOMO feeling of I wanted to experience what it’s like to be in the back. When you’re in cooking school, you are in the back. It had a restaurant, we would serve people, but it’s not the same thing as actually being in a… A real restaurant it’s like you’re in a submarine with your teammates and you got to win tonight. It’s a real energy. And so that was a big inspiration. I followed him over the… It’s so sad that he chose to end his life, but I also had met with him a few times. Not like one-on-one over dinner or anything, but just met with him and I just felt his love for food and truly just love for food.
Lex Fridman
He gave the advice of don’t be afraid, get excited, and cook with love.
He gave the advice of don’t be afraid, get excited, and cook with love.
Kimbal Musk
Yeah. I’ve used that phrase, especially the cook loved one. One of the things about which we talked about this earlier, where you get quick tangible feedback from a customer when you’re in the restaurant. I know when I didn’t put love into that dish. I know when one of my line cooks did not put love into that part of the dish. I know when that expert person did not put love into double checking the dish before putting it on the table. You just know and cook with love is you do it for your family. Oh, actually, especially when you do it for your family. The food doesn’t have to be perfect, but you’re cooking with love.
Yeah. I’ve used that phrase, especially the cook loved one. One of the things about which we talked about this earlier, where you get quick tangible feedback from a customer when you’re in the restaurant. I know when I didn’t put love into that dish. I know when one of my line cooks did not put love into that part of the dish. I know when that expert person did not put love into double checking the dish before putting it on the table. You just know and cook with love is you do it for your family. Oh, actually, especially when you do it for your family. The food doesn’t have to be perfect, but you’re cooking with love.
Lex Fridman
That’s why you lost scrambled eggs.
That’s why you lost scrambled eggs.
Kimbal Musk
I do that, it’s-
I do that, it’s-
Lex Fridman
That’s in the book, Kimbal’s scrambled eggs.
That’s in the book, Kimbal’s scrambled eggs.
Kimbal Musk
Yes.
Yes.
Lex Fridman
You promised to make me scrambled eggs, I’m going to hold you to it.
You promised to make me scrambled eggs, I’m going to hold you to it.
Kimbal Musk
That’s great.
That’s great.
Cooking school
Lex Fridman
A cooking school you mentioned, The French Culinary Institute. I heard it was a bit of a rough experience in parts.
A cooking school you mentioned, The French Culinary Institute. I heard it was a bit of a rough experience in parts.
Kimbal Musk
I will call it… It’s not a rough experience in that-
I will call it… It’s not a rough experience in that-
Lex Fridman
In a beautiful way.
In a beautiful way.
Kimbal Musk
Yeah, it’s exactly. It’s not like I’m a victim of it. It’s rough in that they intentionally make it rough. So the school costs the same price as Harvard to go to. You show up, it’s an 18 month program. You are allowed to drop out at any time. You don’t get your money back. 25 people started, six people graduated, and the people who graduated, I graduated, but man, there were times where I’m like, I can’t handle this. I would literally say to my friends, “Oh, I got to go to cooking school. I’m going to go get screamed at for the next six or seven hours.” And I had this little French chef who was my nemesis.
Yeah, it’s exactly. It’s not like I’m a victim of it. It’s rough in that they intentionally make it rough. So the school costs the same price as Harvard to go to. You show up, it’s an 18 month program. You are allowed to drop out at any time. You don’t get your money back. 25 people started, six people graduated, and the people who graduated, I graduated, but man, there were times where I’m like, I can’t handle this. I would literally say to my friends, “Oh, I got to go to cooking school. I’m going to go get screamed at for the next six or seven hours.” And I had this little French chef who was my nemesis.
Lex Fridman
Does he still live in your head somewhere?
Does he still live in your head somewhere?
Kimbal Musk
He still lives in my head. Exactly. He totally does. He’s like five foot two or something. And I remember him screaming so much at me that… He’s like the short guy. I’m six five. The spittle would land on my face.
He still lives in my head. Exactly. He totally does. He’s like five foot two or something. And I remember him screaming so much at me that… He’s like the short guy. I’m six five. The spittle would land on my face.
Lex Fridman
Nice.
Nice.
Kimbal Musk
And I would just have to stand there and take it. It was a very humbling experience. I did learn though that it’s intentionally rough. So it took a little bit of the edge off it. One day when that same chef had come over to me and said, move over a little bit, and I moved over and he took my carrots, whatever, and started just chopping everything, perfectly. And then he said, okay, you can come back. And then he went over to someone else and started screaming at them saying that, look, even Kimbal can do this and you can’t do this. And I was like, this whole thing’s like a psycho game. So it did take the edge off when I realized it was… The guy was intentionally trying to break you down. And they do this apparently in the army. I’ve not been to the army, but they need to break you down. Everything you know is worthless so that then we can teach you and you can come out of it with what actually we want you to know.
And I would just have to stand there and take it. It was a very humbling experience. I did learn though that it’s intentionally rough. So it took a little bit of the edge off it. One day when that same chef had come over to me and said, move over a little bit, and I moved over and he took my carrots, whatever, and started just chopping everything, perfectly. And then he said, okay, you can come back. And then he went over to someone else and started screaming at them saying that, look, even Kimbal can do this and you can’t do this. And I was like, this whole thing’s like a psycho game. So it did take the edge off when I realized it was… The guy was intentionally trying to break you down. And they do this apparently in the army. I’ve not been to the army, but they need to break you down. Everything you know is worthless so that then we can teach you and you can come out of it with what actually we want you to know.
Lex Fridman
Are there specific technical lessons you remember you learned from that, sort of how to cut carrots or how to approach food, how to prepare food, how to think about food, how to carry yourself in the kitchen?
Are there specific technical lessons you remember you learned from that, sort of how to cut carrots or how to approach food, how to prepare food, how to think about food, how to carry yourself in the kitchen?
Kimbal Musk
All of those things. I think that one of the most beautiful lessons was actually scrambled eggs. So there’s different layers of chefs. So they’re all master chefs. They’re all very well-known people and everything, but Alain Sailhac was one of the chief main main guys, and he just passed away, master chef, and everything kind of stopped when he would show up in the kitchen and he would teach very few things. And all of the other chefs, the same ones that were screaming at us, just like, it was like the Red Sea parting.
All of those things. I think that one of the most beautiful lessons was actually scrambled eggs. So there’s different layers of chefs. So they’re all master chefs. They’re all very well-known people and everything, but Alain Sailhac was one of the chief main main guys, and he just passed away, master chef, and everything kind of stopped when he would show up in the kitchen and he would teach very few things. And all of the other chefs, the same ones that were screaming at us, just like, it was like the Red Sea parting.
They have total respect for this human and he can do whatever he wants. And one of the things he wanted to teach was how do you make an omelet, a French omelet, and it’s really fundamentally the same thing. It’s a soft scrambled eggs that you fold and the love that he put into the time with us. And of course he’s a legend. There were moments like that where I’m like, wow, okay. Also, just like the other chefs, he didn’t have any concern berating anyone. So he berated our master chefs saying, “I don’t trust these people to teach you how to make scrambled eggs, so I’m going to do it instead.”
Lex Fridman
Can you speak to that? Because a lot of people here in this would be like scrambled eggs. Why do you need to be a master chef to really make scrambled eggs?
Can you speak to that? Because a lot of people here in this would be like scrambled eggs. Why do you need to be a master chef to really make scrambled eggs?
Kimbal Musk
Yeah. Well, first of all, for me, and it’s a learning journey forever. So I make scrambled eggs. I must have made it 10,000 times or more, whatever.
Yeah. Well, first of all, for me, and it’s a learning journey forever. So I make scrambled eggs. I must have made it 10,000 times or more, whatever.
Lex Fridman
So it’s like Jared dreams of sushi, Kimbal dreams of scrambled eggs.
So it’s like Jared dreams of sushi, Kimbal dreams of scrambled eggs.
Kimbal Musk
Pretty much.
Pretty much.
Lex Fridman
Okay.
Okay.
Kimbal Musk
So I will wake up and be held accountable by my kids to make scrambled eggs. So this happens every morning and I know all the steps, muscle memory level kind of steps, how well I know it, and then I’ll cook it. And it’s very meditative for me because you have to focus. So most scrambled eggs, soft scrambled egg recipes are 10, 15 minutes to get them to that perfect softness. And the recipe that I got from Chef Alain was something that you do in 90 seconds, but it requires total focus. If you look up for a second, you’re going to miss the perfect moment where you have to stop and get those eggs out of the pan because the eggs will keep cooking. And so it’s this meditation. And sometimes you hit it perfectly, but most times could have been a little softer, could have been a little firmer, could have been a little bit more salt, could have been a little bit of pepper. And so what’s really fun about the morning is my kids are kind of into it so we critique the eggs every morning.
So I will wake up and be held accountable by my kids to make scrambled eggs. So this happens every morning and I know all the steps, muscle memory level kind of steps, how well I know it, and then I’ll cook it. And it’s very meditative for me because you have to focus. So most scrambled eggs, soft scrambled egg recipes are 10, 15 minutes to get them to that perfect softness. And the recipe that I got from Chef Alain was something that you do in 90 seconds, but it requires total focus. If you look up for a second, you’re going to miss the perfect moment where you have to stop and get those eggs out of the pan because the eggs will keep cooking. And so it’s this meditation. And sometimes you hit it perfectly, but most times could have been a little softer, could have been a little firmer, could have been a little bit more salt, could have been a little bit of pepper. And so what’s really fun about the morning is my kids are kind of into it so we critique the eggs every morning.
Lex Fridman
Do they have a rating system? We’re back to the spreadsheet.
Do they have a rating system? We’re back to the spreadsheet.
Kimbal Musk
It’s more like, and again, it also comes back to how do people feel. So my kids can be in a bad mood and they can be grumpy.
It’s more like, and again, it also comes back to how do people feel. So my kids can be in a bad mood and they can be grumpy.
Lex Fridman
Or it’s like a Michelin star system. What?
Or it’s like a Michelin star system. What?
Kimbal Musk
No, no. It’s more like, oh yeah, I like my eggs a little more gooier or yesterday it was this way, but a little bit more salt, a little less salt. Salt is usually the one that is… Because not all salts are equal. So if you are used to working with a certain kind of salt and then you just are forced for some reason to… You ran out of salt so you use some other salt, you actually don’t know how to use it. You really want to have the same salt all the time.
No, no. It’s more like, oh yeah, I like my eggs a little more gooier or yesterday it was this way, but a little bit more salt, a little less salt. Salt is usually the one that is… Because not all salts are equal. So if you are used to working with a certain kind of salt and then you just are forced for some reason to… You ran out of salt so you use some other salt, you actually don’t know how to use it. You really want to have the same salt all the time.
Lex Fridman
Yeah. You have a page on salt in the book, which is fascinating.
Yeah. You have a page on salt in the book, which is fascinating.
Kimbal Musk
Totally. Salt is you got to get to know your salt, you got to love your salt, and you got to use it over and over and over again. And it will teach you how to use that salt, whereby your own palate will tell you how salty you like things. But if you change it up and you mix up a whole bunch of salts, you’ve now multiplied your learning path. So for me, my favorite salt is kosher salt. And I like to use that all the time. And if I ever change it, I might sprinkle a little bit of Maldon salt, just a crunchy sort of a flaky salt. But it’s more for that when you’re actually eating.
Totally. Salt is you got to get to know your salt, you got to love your salt, and you got to use it over and over and over again. And it will teach you how to use that salt, whereby your own palate will tell you how salty you like things. But if you change it up and you mix up a whole bunch of salts, you’ve now multiplied your learning path. So for me, my favorite salt is kosher salt. And I like to use that all the time. And if I ever change it, I might sprinkle a little bit of Maldon salt, just a crunchy sort of a flaky salt. But it’s more for that when you’re actually eating.
Lex Fridman
For the texture.
For the texture.
Kimbal Musk
Yeah, it gives you texture as well as salt. Exactly. You wouldn’t use it on scrambled eggs, but if you switch out your salts, it’s a different weapon.
Yeah, it gives you texture as well as salt. Exactly. You wouldn’t use it on scrambled eggs, but if you switch out your salts, it’s a different weapon.
Lex Fridman
Yeah. Yeah.
Yeah. Yeah.
Kimbal Musk
You need to learn it.
You need to learn it.
Lex Fridman
I like how usually there’s wine connoisseurs. You’re saying going back to farm to table when you’re talking about carrots, in that same rigor and nuance you have to consider the different farms involved for the carrots, in that same way you have to consider the different salts with like-
I like how usually there’s wine connoisseurs. You’re saying going back to farm to table when you’re talking about carrots, in that same rigor and nuance you have to consider the different farms involved for the carrots, in that same way you have to consider the different salts with like-
Kimbal Musk
And also not even all kosher salts are the same. It’s the particular salt that you like, get to know it, get in a relationship with it. It’s like great. You’ll learn so much.
And also not even all kosher salts are the same. It’s the particular salt that you like, get to know it, get in a relationship with it. It’s like great. You’ll learn so much.
Lex Fridman
In terms of the measurement, the proportion, the amount you put of salt you put in, are you doing that exactly, or are you doing it by feel.
In terms of the measurement, the proportion, the amount you put of salt you put in, are you doing that exactly, or are you doing it by feel.
Kimbal Musk
So it’s by feel, and that’s where you get the relationship. So in fact, in the cookbook, I have QR codes that people can scan because what I struggle with is they don’t teach you technique. They can describe the technique, but they don’t teach the technique because it’s a technique, it’s not a recipe. And so one of the lessons is how do you salt a steak. And the answer is not here’s a teaspoon and you do it this way. The answer is use kosher salts-
So it’s by feel, and that’s where you get the relationship. So in fact, in the cookbook, I have QR codes that people can scan because what I struggle with is they don’t teach you technique. They can describe the technique, but they don’t teach the technique because it’s a technique, it’s not a recipe. And so one of the lessons is how do you salt a steak. And the answer is not here’s a teaspoon and you do it this way. The answer is use kosher salts-
Kimbal Musk
The answer is use kosher salt so you can see with your eyes, because they’re little flakes, how much salt is on your steak, cook it and then taste it. Do you think you need more or do you need it less? Okay, now next time put a little more on it because you can see it. And it’s about learning the fact that you want to be able to see how much salt is on the steak so that you can then train yourself for the future of how much salt you want on your steak.
The answer is use kosher salt so you can see with your eyes, because they’re little flakes, how much salt is on your steak, cook it and then taste it. Do you think you need more or do you need it less? Okay, now next time put a little more on it because you can see it. And it’s about learning the fact that you want to be able to see how much salt is on the steak so that you can then train yourself for the future of how much salt you want on your steak.
Lex Fridman
Yeah. But then the steak and the salt kind of dance together. It depends on where the steak came from.
Yeah. But then the steak and the salt kind of dance together. It depends on where the steak came from.
Kimbal Musk
That’s true. Or the thickness of the steak, that’ll make a difference. But for the most part, if you’re able to see it versus table salt, for example, just disappears, you just can’t see what you’re putting on your steak. You can’t really learn as a result.
That’s true. Or the thickness of the steak, that’ll make a difference. But for the most part, if you’re able to see it versus table salt, for example, just disappears, you just can’t see what you’re putting on your steak. You can’t really learn as a result.
Lex Fridman
I think you talk about roast chickens where your love of food began. What about steak?
I think you talk about roast chickens where your love of food began. What about steak?
Kimbal Musk
I love a good steak. It’s so great.
I love a good steak. It’s so great.
Lex Fridman
So in the French school, you add sauces and all this kind of stuff, and in Boulder is when you realized there’s a beauty to the basic ingredient.
So in the French school, you add sauces and all this kind of stuff, and in Boulder is when you realized there’s a beauty to the basic ingredient.
Kimbal Musk
Simplicity, yeah, a good New York strip from a good rancher. There’s a lot of discussion and controversy on how cattle should be raised, and we have a very different approach, which is, we know how our cattle are raised. We go to the farm, we get to know the rancher. And sometimes you do want to have them be finished on, they’ll be grass-fed for the most part, but then there’s some sort of cool recipe of food you’re giving them that will then make them taste better. And sometimes it is actually pretty good to have 100% grass fed. I’ve had some amazing ranchers that show me that the flavor is all there. For the average person that might go to Whole Foods or a grocery store, I think the simplicity of a good steak, it is important to get good sourcing, but also it’s just good.
Simplicity, yeah, a good New York strip from a good rancher. There’s a lot of discussion and controversy on how cattle should be raised, and we have a very different approach, which is, we know how our cattle are raised. We go to the farm, we get to know the rancher. And sometimes you do want to have them be finished on, they’ll be grass-fed for the most part, but then there’s some sort of cool recipe of food you’re giving them that will then make them taste better. And sometimes it is actually pretty good to have 100% grass fed. I’ve had some amazing ranchers that show me that the flavor is all there. For the average person that might go to Whole Foods or a grocery store, I think the simplicity of a good steak, it is important to get good sourcing, but also it’s just good.
Lex Fridman
What’s your favorite kind of meat? Is it New York Strip? It’s probably New York Strip for me.
What’s your favorite kind of meat? Is it New York Strip? It’s probably New York Strip for me.
Kimbal Musk
Yeah. New York Strip. I like the fact that it’s lean, but if you want the fat, you can dive into that little strip of fat or you can leave it alone because you don’t want it that night. It’s also a great steak for adding something, if you want. You could either do a pepper sauce or you could do a lot of ground pepper, which it’s not sauce, but it’s a peppery steak. It’s a really good steak for a canvas for other things.
Yeah. New York Strip. I like the fact that it’s lean, but if you want the fat, you can dive into that little strip of fat or you can leave it alone because you don’t want it that night. It’s also a great steak for adding something, if you want. You could either do a pepper sauce or you could do a lot of ground pepper, which it’s not sauce, but it’s a peppery steak. It’s a really good steak for a canvas for other things.
Lex Fridman
But the basic ingredients you’re playing with are salt and pepper?
But the basic ingredients you’re playing with are salt and pepper?
Kimbal Musk
Yeah, pretty much. Actually, I will say there’s another one, garlic. This is my favorite recipe for a steak. You season it, both sides salt and pepper. You saute it in a little olive oil, barely anything, and you’re getting a nice crisp, a golden dark, golden brown on both sides. The other trick with cooking a steak is don’t touch it. You just put one side when you’re ready to turn it, turn it around. Don’t touch it any other time. But at the end, you take a dab of butter and you crush a clove of garlic. You don’t even chop it, you just crush the clove, and you put the two of them in the pan and you just roll the steak around in the garlic butter. I think that’s the one.
Yeah, pretty much. Actually, I will say there’s another one, garlic. This is my favorite recipe for a steak. You season it, both sides salt and pepper. You saute it in a little olive oil, barely anything, and you’re getting a nice crisp, a golden dark, golden brown on both sides. The other trick with cooking a steak is don’t touch it. You just put one side when you’re ready to turn it, turn it around. Don’t touch it any other time. But at the end, you take a dab of butter and you crush a clove of garlic. You don’t even chop it, you just crush the clove, and you put the two of them in the pan and you just roll the steak around in the garlic butter. I think that’s the one.
Lex Fridman
Bold move, bold move. Since you’re in Austin quite a bit opening a restaurant here, what do you think about barbecue? It’s the Texas way.
Bold move, bold move. Since you’re in Austin quite a bit opening a restaurant here, what do you think about barbecue? It’s the Texas way.
Kimbal Musk
Well, I would say there’s an Austin way.
Well, I would say there’s an Austin way.
Lex Fridman
There’s an Austin way.
There’s an Austin way.
Kimbal Musk
And actually even Austin would say, “There’s a suburb of Austin way.” I think that actually the adventure of food is wonderful. I would absolutely say that Austin is one of the great food cities of America, and barbecue is one of its gifts that it gives the city. But you go to one and the other and you’ll have a different approach, and that’s the part I love is where the real celebration of the art is in. So you might go to one, and they have a style that they love and they’ve been doing it for years, and then you’ll go to another and they have a style that they love and they’ve been doing it for years. They’re still barbecue, but they’re actually different. And it’s really beautiful to see that. I think that’s what food culture is. It just builds up over time by people who love this style of cooking.
And actually even Austin would say, “There’s a suburb of Austin way.” I think that actually the adventure of food is wonderful. I would absolutely say that Austin is one of the great food cities of America, and barbecue is one of its gifts that it gives the city. But you go to one and the other and you’ll have a different approach, and that’s the part I love is where the real celebration of the art is in. So you might go to one, and they have a style that they love and they’ve been doing it for years, and then you’ll go to another and they have a style that they love and they’ve been doing it for years. They’re still barbecue, but they’re actually different. And it’s really beautiful to see that. I think that’s what food culture is. It just builds up over time by people who love this style of cooking.
Lex Fridman
Well, I especially love the communal, how they structure restaurants usually. I don’t even want to call it a restaurant because it doesn’t feel like a restaurant. It feels like a tavern of some sort. Terry Black’s was like that.
Well, I especially love the communal, how they structure restaurants usually. I don’t even want to call it a restaurant because it doesn’t feel like a restaurant. It feels like a tavern of some sort. Terry Black’s was like that.
Kimbal Musk
Yeah. They also have paper towels. You can get as messy as you like. And it’s a whole roll of paper towels. They don’t just give you a napkin. They know what you’re getting into.
Yeah. They also have paper towels. You can get as messy as you like. And it’s a whole roll of paper towels. They don’t just give you a napkin. They know what you’re getting into.
Lex Fridman
There’s just wood everywhere and it has this feel like this place has been around forever. It’s not changing. I know it’s the 21st century with the internet and all this nonsense that you people are building, but really this is all about the same. It’s been the same for generations. We’re doing it the same. That kind of feel, if you want to escape the world in that way and then truly connect with people.
There’s just wood everywhere and it has this feel like this place has been around forever. It’s not changing. I know it’s the 21st century with the internet and all this nonsense that you people are building, but really this is all about the same. It’s been the same for generations. We’re doing it the same. That kind of feel, if you want to escape the world in that way and then truly connect with people.
Kimbal Musk
One of the other things that’ll happen in a town like Austin is there’ll be a barbecue joint that is just legendary, and then out of that will come someone who wants to go do their own barbecue joint and they’ll take the learning from that barbecue joint, they’ll open up a new one, but it won’t be the same as the other barbecue joint. Part of it says, “Dude, don’t just do the same thing. Do something. What you have to say?” But also part of it is, if you’re in the world of food as an art form and you want to go open up another barbecue joint, you want to prove yourself. “I deserve to have a barbecue joint in this town. I know this is one of the holy grails of barbecue.” And people will follow you like they’re following a musician or they’re following an artist and they are excited to see what your version is and how well you can pull it off. But that’s what I love. That’s what I mean by a city with a food culture. Austin has that.
One of the other things that’ll happen in a town like Austin is there’ll be a barbecue joint that is just legendary, and then out of that will come someone who wants to go do their own barbecue joint and they’ll take the learning from that barbecue joint, they’ll open up a new one, but it won’t be the same as the other barbecue joint. Part of it says, “Dude, don’t just do the same thing. Do something. What you have to say?” But also part of it is, if you’re in the world of food as an art form and you want to go open up another barbecue joint, you want to prove yourself. “I deserve to have a barbecue joint in this town. I know this is one of the holy grails of barbecue.” And people will follow you like they’re following a musician or they’re following an artist and they are excited to see what your version is and how well you can pull it off. But that’s what I love. That’s what I mean by a city with a food culture. Austin has that.
Lex Fridman
There’s also a legend to certain places. Certain places are more than just the food they create. That could be a burden. You have to live up to the legendary nature of the name.
There’s also a legend to certain places. Certain places are more than just the food they create. That could be a burden. You have to live up to the legendary nature of the name.
Kimbal Musk
Our restaurant in Boulder, The Kitchen, is 20 years old. We’re very well known, very well respected, and we do have to live up to the name. I think that our restaurant lives up to its name in not just the food. It’s like you walk in and you feel the restaurant. And that is also something we’ve just done naturally. The space is 120 year old building. It used to be a brothel. It was a bookstore, a storied history.
Our restaurant in Boulder, The Kitchen, is 20 years old. We’re very well known, very well respected, and we do have to live up to the name. I think that our restaurant lives up to its name in not just the food. It’s like you walk in and you feel the restaurant. And that is also something we’ve just done naturally. The space is 120 year old building. It used to be a brothel. It was a bookstore, a storied history.
Lex Fridman
That’s an interesting take.
That’s an interesting take.
Kimbal Musk
Literally, this was a mining town. So back in the 1800s, this was built late 1800s, brothels were all over. That was a thing. And so there’s an actual tunnel in the basement that goes to the local hotel that would be used for going back and forth between the hotel and the brothel without people knowing. The tunnel is now concreted up, but you can go about 20, 30 feet into the tunnel. You go into the space and it’s actually an old space, so you feel like it’s been there forever.
Literally, this was a mining town. So back in the 1800s, this was built late 1800s, brothels were all over. That was a thing. And so there’s an actual tunnel in the basement that goes to the local hotel that would be used for going back and forth between the hotel and the brothel without people knowing. The tunnel is now concreted up, but you can go about 20, 30 feet into the tunnel. You go into the space and it’s actually an old space, so you feel like it’s been there forever.
Life-threatening accident
Lex Fridman
In 2010, you had a life-threatening accident that changed the way you see life, the world, also the way you see food and cooking. Can you tell me the story of it?
In 2010, you had a life-threatening accident that changed the way you see life, the world, also the way you see food and cooking. Can you tell me the story of it?
Kimbal Musk
Yeah. So 2010, I was 37. I had opened the restaurant in 2004, and I had loved the restaurant world, loved it, but I didn’t really want to grow a restaurant company. That wasn’t my goal. And so I went back into technology and I had gone from something that I love to something that I like. For me, it was like chewing sawdust every day. I just couldn’t believe that I had changed my life and had gone back into technology. And then now I do, do work in technology and I do love it, but I found a better relationship with it. But I was really unhappy. From the outside, I was a CEO of a hot startup, but from the inside I was just very unhappy. And I was in Jackson Hole and I was doing these very aggressive snowboard runs and I’m at the time a pretty good, aggressive snowboarder. And I remember saying to myself, “Look, I’ve got kids. I need to chill on this.”
Yeah. So 2010, I was 37. I had opened the restaurant in 2004, and I had loved the restaurant world, loved it, but I didn’t really want to grow a restaurant company. That wasn’t my goal. And so I went back into technology and I had gone from something that I love to something that I like. For me, it was like chewing sawdust every day. I just couldn’t believe that I had changed my life and had gone back into technology. And then now I do, do work in technology and I do love it, but I found a better relationship with it. But I was really unhappy. From the outside, I was a CEO of a hot startup, but from the inside I was just very unhappy. And I was in Jackson Hole and I was doing these very aggressive snowboard runs and I’m at the time a pretty good, aggressive snowboarder. And I remember saying to myself, “Look, I’ve got kids. I need to chill on this.”
The next day, it was Valentine’s Day. Tomorrow’s Valentine’s Day. I’m just going to have a nice day with the family and my wife at the time. And we went to a children’s run to do the inner tube run, and the tubes are small, but everyone uses the same tube. So I’m six foot five, my kids are four years old, and everyone uses the same size tube. It should have been a message to me not to get on this thing. But I went and got on it and on the first run, I went down and you’re going super fast, 35 miles an hour, and the tube hit the braking mats and it stopped. The tube just stopped where it was. It just threw me. My head was facing downhill, so that’s created the wrong center of gravity. So instead of braking, it just threw me.
I landed on my head. My head went into my chest, compression into my chest, down like that. I ruptured my spine at C6 and C7. And in the blink of a second, I was paralyzed. I was like, “What?” Just impossible to comprehend. And they put this big thing, this halo on my head, and they take me to the hospital, which was more of a medical clinic. And I’m just like, “What is going on here?”
Lex Fridman
Do you remember your thoughts from the moment it happened to when you got to the hospital?
Do you remember your thoughts from the moment it happened to when you got to the hospital?
Kimbal Musk
So this is one of the things that actually the doctor said caused the most damage was I was thrown from the tube, and I heard this big crunch sound in my body and I knew that I was hurt, but I didn’t feel any pain. That’s also, why wouldn’t you feel pain? Because when you’re paralyzed, you don’t feel pain. And I’m face down on the snow and the snow is burning my face because you can’t do that. You need something. And I found a way to turn myself around so that my face wouldn’t be on the ground, but I knew I couldn’t move. And that they said actually caused more damage. Well, obviously, the accident created the opening, but once you move your body, the blood goes into the spinal column at a faster rate. And that is what caused my paralysis. But I remember that and I remember getting into the ambulance.
So this is one of the things that actually the doctor said caused the most damage was I was thrown from the tube, and I heard this big crunch sound in my body and I knew that I was hurt, but I didn’t feel any pain. That’s also, why wouldn’t you feel pain? Because when you’re paralyzed, you don’t feel pain. And I’m face down on the snow and the snow is burning my face because you can’t do that. You need something. And I found a way to turn myself around so that my face wouldn’t be on the ground, but I knew I couldn’t move. And that they said actually caused more damage. Well, obviously, the accident created the opening, but once you move your body, the blood goes into the spinal column at a faster rate. And that is what caused my paralysis. But I remember that and I remember getting into the ambulance.
Lex Fridman
Did you think you were going to die in those seconds, minutes?
Did you think you were going to die in those seconds, minutes?
Kimbal Musk
It was a different feeling than death. It was more of a, what is going on here? It was more like, I can’t make sense of what’s going on. There was a moment where I got to the hospital and they did this MRI and the doctor comes up to me and says, “Look, we’ve done this MRI.” Now I’m in the hospital and I’m like, “I can’t move.” But I also don’t feel any pain. So it’s very confusing. Your body looks like you can move it. Look, see how I’m moving my hand? It looks like you can do that and then it just doesn’t move. There’s no feedback loop that it’s not moving. Your brain even thinks it’s moving, but it’s not moving. It’s the worst, most terrifying thing.
It was a different feeling than death. It was more of a, what is going on here? It was more like, I can’t make sense of what’s going on. There was a moment where I got to the hospital and they did this MRI and the doctor comes up to me and says, “Look, we’ve done this MRI.” Now I’m in the hospital and I’m like, “I can’t move.” But I also don’t feel any pain. So it’s very confusing. Your body looks like you can move it. Look, see how I’m moving my hand? It looks like you can do that and then it just doesn’t move. There’s no feedback loop that it’s not moving. Your brain even thinks it’s moving, but it’s not moving. It’s the worst, most terrifying thing.
So the doctor says, “Look, the way you broke your neck, really, at a zero degree angle, that is so rare, but as a result, there is no twisting of the spine. We think that we can get the blood out of your spinal column and you should get some or maybe all of your movement back.” And I was like, “Oh, okay. I think I’m going to be fine. I guess I’m going to be fine.” And then I realized I had tears just streaming down the side of my face and I was like, “Whoa, man. I have no idea what is going on.”
Lex Fridman
So this kind of intense state of confusion, I wonder if it’s a weird psychological defense mechanism of taking you away from the obvious possibility of death.
So this kind of intense state of confusion, I wonder if it’s a weird psychological defense mechanism of taking you away from the obvious possibility of death.
Kimbal Musk
For sure, all of the defenses were up. I don’t know else to describe it. But there was denial. There was this curiosity of, why is there no pain? When they did actually repair me and fix me, it was three days later, the pain was indescribable how much pain I was in, but there was no pain for three days.
For sure, all of the defenses were up. I don’t know else to describe it. But there was denial. There was this curiosity of, why is there no pain? When they did actually repair me and fix me, it was three days later, the pain was indescribable how much pain I was in, but there was no pain for three days.
Lex Fridman
The human body is fascinating,
The human body is fascinating,
Kimbal Musk
Man.
Man.
Lex Fridman
Wow. So they were able?
Wow. So they were able?
Kimbal Musk
Yeah, so they did the surgery. But I had this very clear voice in my head that I’ve determined that it’s God, I’m not religious, but I don’t know how else to describe the voice. And this voice was very clear. “You’re going to work with kids and food.” Okay, where did that come from? I’m a tech CEO. I have a restaurant. We were working with some kids in schools with helping at a local nonprofit. And he’s like, “No, you’re just going to work on kids and food.” My good friend Antonio and my brother were in the hospital and I was like, “I’m going to work on kids and food.” They were like, “He’s crazy. He’s lost his mind.” But not that they were arguing, no one was arguing with me, but I was like, “I’m just going to do that. I need to say it out loud.” And I remember resigning from my job as the CEO from the hospital, and that was it.
Yeah, so they did the surgery. But I had this very clear voice in my head that I’ve determined that it’s God, I’m not religious, but I don’t know how else to describe the voice. And this voice was very clear. “You’re going to work with kids and food.” Okay, where did that come from? I’m a tech CEO. I have a restaurant. We were working with some kids in schools with helping at a local nonprofit. And he’s like, “No, you’re just going to work on kids and food.” My good friend Antonio and my brother were in the hospital and I was like, “I’m going to work on kids and food.” They were like, “He’s crazy. He’s lost his mind.” But not that they were arguing, no one was arguing with me, but I was like, “I’m just going to do that. I need to say it out loud.” And I remember resigning from my job as the CEO from the hospital, and that was it.
It was just clear. It was a clear voice. It wasn’t for a moment. It wasn’t like a flash of light or anything. It was probably two weeks of clear voice.
Lex Fridman
Of clarity.
Of clarity.
Kimbal Musk
Clarity. Exactly, clarity. No monkey brain, nothing. No monkey brain, just clarity.
Clarity. Exactly, clarity. No monkey brain, nothing. No monkey brain, just clarity.
Lex Fridman
So you’re not a religious person, but you do call it the voice of God. Who is that God, do you think? Who is that? Where did that come from?
So you’re not a religious person, but you do call it the voice of God. Who is that God, do you think? Who is that? Where did that come from?
Kimbal Musk
Well, I’ve done ayahuasca and I’ve spoken to what they call Mother Aya, which is another version of God. It’s a divine presence, I think is a better way to say it. I’ve also had this debate in my head. Maybe it’s just me. I’m talking to me and it’s my peaceful, more kinder, less caught up in the emotion of the day version of me. Maybe it’s me. Okay, maybe it is, but it’s there.
Well, I’ve done ayahuasca and I’ve spoken to what they call Mother Aya, which is another version of God. It’s a divine presence, I think is a better way to say it. I’ve also had this debate in my head. Maybe it’s just me. I’m talking to me and it’s my peaceful, more kinder, less caught up in the emotion of the day version of me. Maybe it’s me. Okay, maybe it is, but it’s there.
Lex Fridman
But who are you? How deep does it go? What does you mean? First of all, the depth of what the human mind even is, is a gigantic mystery, consciousness, all of it. Who are you? So yeah, maybe it is you, but then maybe in order to build you, we need to build the universe. You are actually fundamentally a part of this whole human society, so the pieces of humans that you’ve interacted with are all within you. And then maybe the history of the humans that came before are also in there. And maybe the entirety of life on earth is also in there. And whatever brought life about on earth is in there somewhere. So that’s all you.
But who are you? How deep does it go? What does you mean? First of all, the depth of what the human mind even is, is a gigantic mystery, consciousness, all of it. Who are you? So yeah, maybe it is you, but then maybe in order to build you, we need to build the universe. You are actually fundamentally a part of this whole human society, so the pieces of humans that you’ve interacted with are all within you. And then maybe the history of the humans that came before are also in there. And maybe the entirety of life on earth is also in there. And whatever brought life about on earth is in there somewhere. So that’s all you.
Kimbal Musk
Yeah, which is really true. It literally is true that we all are, the photons from the sun came in.
Yeah, which is really true. It literally is true that we all are, the photons from the sun came in.
Lex Fridman
You’re part fish.
You’re part fish.
Kimbal Musk
We all came from all that. One of the things I do is meditate, I’ve been meditating for many, many years, and the way I meditate is I sit and I listen to my thoughts and I simply just do that for 15 to 20 minutes. It just calms the nervous system, and I might breathe and just breathe through because it’s been a stressful day and it’s just a beautiful way I do it around. I remember I said I used to do a [inaudible 01:12:08] at the bar after work. Now I go meditate, for instance.
We all came from all that. One of the things I do is meditate, I’ve been meditating for many, many years, and the way I meditate is I sit and I listen to my thoughts and I simply just do that for 15 to 20 minutes. It just calms the nervous system, and I might breathe and just breathe through because it’s been a stressful day and it’s just a beautiful way I do it around. I remember I said I used to do a [inaudible 01:12:08] at the bar after work. Now I go meditate, for instance.
Lex Fridman
Same thing.
Same thing.
Kimbal Musk
A little bit better for my health. But meditation I was taught. Sam Harris actually taught me. It was not so much just about watching your thoughts, but realizing that you’re a watcher. You’re actually a watcher. Who is the person watching? That’s you actually. Your thoughts are floating through your mind, but you are the watcher. And I was like, oh, that’s really interesting. Okay, so I’m going to learn that. I’m going to be the watcher. And what I learned was I’m watching these thoughts go by and there’s a consistent other presence. And I’m like, what is that consistent other presence? It’s not a thought. It’s not something I can let it float away, and it doesn’t even want to float away. It’s just a consistent other presence that I can watch and feel.
A little bit better for my health. But meditation I was taught. Sam Harris actually taught me. It was not so much just about watching your thoughts, but realizing that you’re a watcher. You’re actually a watcher. Who is the person watching? That’s you actually. Your thoughts are floating through your mind, but you are the watcher. And I was like, oh, that’s really interesting. Okay, so I’m going to learn that. I’m going to be the watcher. And what I learned was I’m watching these thoughts go by and there’s a consistent other presence. And I’m like, what is that consistent other presence? It’s not a thought. It’s not something I can let it float away, and it doesn’t even want to float away. It’s just a consistent other presence that I can watch and feel.
Lex Fridman
So you are the watcher watching the feelings and thoughts, but there’s also other presence next to you almost?
So you are the watcher watching the feelings and thoughts, but there’s also other presence next to you almost?
Kimbal Musk
Yes. Yeah, that’s how I feel. And it’s a beautiful presence. It’s not a presence that is trying to intervene. It’s not a presence that is trying to tell you what to do. It’s just a beautiful presence.
Yes. Yeah, that’s how I feel. And it’s a beautiful presence. It’s not a presence that is trying to intervene. It’s not a presence that is trying to tell you what to do. It’s just a beautiful presence.
Lex Fridman
And that might be part of the thing you met when you took Ayahuasca.
And that might be part of the thing you met when you took Ayahuasca.
Kimbal Musk
I learned about Mother Ayahuasca where you have this experience of talking to… Actually, I would say the closest thing to breaking my neck, that feeling was ayahuasca.
I learned about Mother Ayahuasca where you have this experience of talking to… Actually, I would say the closest thing to breaking my neck, that feeling was ayahuasca.
Lex Fridman
Can you go through that experience? Because I’m actually traveling to the Amazon jungle in a month. I’ll probably do ayahuasca for the first time.
Can you go through that experience? Because I’m actually traveling to the Amazon jungle in a month. I’ll probably do ayahuasca for the first time.
Kimbal Musk
Okay.
Okay.
Lex Fridman
I need a preview, unofficial instruction manual.
I need a preview, unofficial instruction manual.
Kimbal Musk
Yeah, sure. First of all, I think there are many different ways to do it, and I’ve done many different ways. There’s a very western medicine approach where you have doctors that look after you during the day, put an eye mask on, you’re on a futon, and you really are in a western medicine setting. And it frankly for me has been the most powerful experience. I feel the most comfortable part of western medicine in my upbringing. The other extreme, but they’re in-between would be very probably Peruvian ceremonies, where you’re probably going to go, very much about you do it in a community, you do it with others, and you feel people go through their pain and their processing. So I know the whole gamut, but the thing that I found most powerful about it and profoundly powerful, I would say, first of all, it’s non-recreational. No one should do this for a good time. This is not a good time. This is a very…
Yeah, sure. First of all, I think there are many different ways to do it, and I’ve done many different ways. There’s a very western medicine approach where you have doctors that look after you during the day, put an eye mask on, you’re on a futon, and you really are in a western medicine setting. And it frankly for me has been the most powerful experience. I feel the most comfortable part of western medicine in my upbringing. The other extreme, but they’re in-between would be very probably Peruvian ceremonies, where you’re probably going to go, very much about you do it in a community, you do it with others, and you feel people go through their pain and their processing. So I know the whole gamut, but the thing that I found most powerful about it and profoundly powerful, I would say, first of all, it’s non-recreational. No one should do this for a good time. This is not a good time. This is a very…
Lex Fridman
Almost traumatic, but in, again, a beautiful way.
Almost traumatic, but in, again, a beautiful way.
Kimbal Musk
I was actually going to say that word, but it’s not traumatic. It’s profound. So it’s more like you really leave who you were before behind, and then you become the person you will be afterwards.
I was actually going to say that word, but it’s not traumatic. It’s profound. So it’s more like you really leave who you were before behind, and then you become the person you will be afterwards.
Lex Fridman
And that’s never an easy thing.
And that’s never an easy thing.
Kimbal Musk
Yes, exactly. And what I recall was arguing with Mother Aya and saying, “No, I’m fine. What are you talking about? Leave me alone.”
Yes, exactly. And what I recall was arguing with Mother Aya and saying, “No, I’m fine. What are you talking about? Leave me alone.”
Road trip across US
Lex Fridman
How did that work out? But before 2010, the accident and the two transformational experiences you had, you were a very successful tech CEO. Maybe go back to the early days with Zip2. In 1994, you and Elon started Zip2. Tell me the story of that.
How did that work out? But before 2010, the accident and the two transformational experiences you had, you were a very successful tech CEO. Maybe go back to the early days with Zip2. In 1994, you and Elon started Zip2. Tell me the story of that.
Kimbal Musk
So in ’94, we actually did a road trip around the U.S. to brainstorm about what we wanted to do after college.
So in ’94, we actually did a road trip around the U.S. to brainstorm about what we wanted to do after college.
Lex Fridman
What was the road trip like?
What was the road trip like?
Kimbal Musk
That was awesome. So we went from Silicon Valley to Philadelphia. My brother’s old very really cool, it’s one of those very old BMW’s, not ones from the ’60s or ’70s, but the car didn’t work. It would break down all the time, but we had a blast. I remember going through Needles, on the border of California in Arizona, there’s a town called Needles, it’s the hottest place in America, and the engine was not cooling, so we had to put the heat on. So we had the heat blasting to cool the engine, keep the engine cool, and keep the windows down because you can’t stand the heat in the car. But actually the outside heat is hotter than the inside heat, so you’re just in a furnace if you’re driving through.
That was awesome. So we went from Silicon Valley to Philadelphia. My brother’s old very really cool, it’s one of those very old BMW’s, not ones from the ’60s or ’70s, but the car didn’t work. It would break down all the time, but we had a blast. I remember going through Needles, on the border of California in Arizona, there’s a town called Needles, it’s the hottest place in America, and the engine was not cooling, so we had to put the heat on. So we had the heat blasting to cool the engine, keep the engine cool, and keep the windows down because you can’t stand the heat in the car. But actually the outside heat is hotter than the inside heat, so you’re just in a furnace if you’re driving through.
Lex Fridman
Just sweating.
Just sweating.
Kimbal Musk
This is at night even. I can’t imagine doing that in the day.
This is at night even. I can’t imagine doing that in the day.
Lex Fridman
Oh, wow.
Oh, wow.
Kimbal Musk
Yeah, it was wonderful. It took us a few weeks. I think three weeks maybe.
Yeah, it was wonderful. It took us a few weeks. I think three weeks maybe.
Lex Fridman
First time across America?
First time across America?
Kimbal Musk
First road trip like that, yeah, for sure. But it was really not a road trip for tourist sites. We went to the weirdest places. And actually, I would say, we didn’t go to them. We broke down in the weirdest places because that’s when we stopped.
First road trip like that, yeah, for sure. But it was really not a road trip for tourist sites. We went to the weirdest places. And actually, I would say, we didn’t go to them. We broke down in the weirdest places because that’s when we stopped.
Lex Fridman
Did you meet any interesting people?
Did you meet any interesting people?
Kimbal Musk
I remember we broke down in the Badlands of South Dakota, about an hour from Rapid City. That road is empty, and so we actually slept in the car because there was just no one around. No cell phones in those days. And eventually a trucker picked us up. He was just like, “Man, you guys are the dumbest kids on the planet.” I was 21. He was maybe 22. But he was so nice to us and so kind to us, and found us a mechanic in Rapid City and then found us a tow truck. You find the most wonderful people. When you’re in a place of distress, people do want to take care of other people.
I remember we broke down in the Badlands of South Dakota, about an hour from Rapid City. That road is empty, and so we actually slept in the car because there was just no one around. No cell phones in those days. And eventually a trucker picked us up. He was just like, “Man, you guys are the dumbest kids on the planet.” I was 21. He was maybe 22. But he was so nice to us and so kind to us, and found us a mechanic in Rapid City and then found us a tow truck. You find the most wonderful people. When you’re in a place of distress, people do want to take care of other people.
Lex Fridman
They help you.
They help you.
Kimbal Musk
Yeah, they want to help.
Yeah, they want to help.
Lex Fridman
And especially when you’re on a road trip, because I’ve taken a road trip across the United States, and there’s a part of people where they really love that. I think part of them wants to do that also, wants to escape whatever the local struggles. Just whatever the mundaneness, the struggles of life are, a road trip is a kind of thing where you’re like, you know what? I’m going to get away from it all and I’m going to experience life in the full epic Jack Kerouac way of seeing America. And the people. Not the tourist sites, just the humans.
And especially when you’re on a road trip, because I’ve taken a road trip across the United States, and there’s a part of people where they really love that. I think part of them wants to do that also, wants to escape whatever the local struggles. Just whatever the mundaneness, the struggles of life are, a road trip is a kind of thing where you’re like, you know what? I’m going to get away from it all and I’m going to experience life in the full epic Jack Kerouac way of seeing America. And the people. Not the tourist sites, just the humans.
Kimbal Musk
Yeah, exactly. This was not tourist related. We did, of course, one. We stopped at Mount Rushmore at night, which you can see nothing. We thought that was hilarious. We couldn’t see Mount Rushmore.
Yeah, exactly. This was not tourist related. We did, of course, one. We stopped at Mount Rushmore at night, which you can see nothing. We thought that was hilarious. We couldn’t see Mount Rushmore.
Lex Fridman
That’s great.
That’s great.
Kimbal Musk
It was like, well, we physically were here. We took a photo of us not seeing Mount Rushmore.
It was like, well, we physically were here. We took a photo of us not seeing Mount Rushmore.
Lex Fridman
In the darkness. You could just say you went to the Grand Canyon too, just at night. And just visit different places when the car broke down, I love it. So yes, you took the road trip before founding Zip2.
In the darkness. You could just say you went to the Grand Canyon too, just at night. And just visit different places when the car broke down, I love it. So yes, you took the road trip before founding Zip2.
Kimbal Musk
Yeah. So I had a experience in college running a house painting business. That, for me, was my first experience with success. It was very, very hard. It was a franchise where they teach students how to paint houses, but I was good at it. I built a team of 30 people after about two years. So I was like, I had a taste of, hey, I’m not unable to do this. In fact, my most vulnerable place I remember as an entrepreneur was I just loved the idea of Wall Street and finance. I was allured by it. This is in the late ’80s. I’m in high school and there was a lot of these books, Liar’s Poker and others that came out and I was like, ah, man, this is awesome. These people must be amazing.
Yeah. So I had a experience in college running a house painting business. That, for me, was my first experience with success. It was very, very hard. It was a franchise where they teach students how to paint houses, but I was good at it. I built a team of 30 people after about two years. So I was like, I had a taste of, hey, I’m not unable to do this. In fact, my most vulnerable place I remember as an entrepreneur was I just loved the idea of Wall Street and finance. I was allured by it. This is in the late ’80s. I’m in high school and there was a lot of these books, Liar’s Poker and others that came out and I was like, ah, man, this is awesome. These people must be amazing.
So I went to business school and I busted my ass to get a kick-ass summer job, and I got a job in one of the main banks. It was in Toronto, but it was like their version of Wall Street. I was so disappointed with the people that I was around. I was just like, whoa. I totally misunderstood what the banking world is. It was a very large bank. I’m sure if I’d gone to a more aggressive one, maybe I would’ve had a better experience. I say aggressive, meaning someone was paying attention. This was just a…
Kimbal Musk
Aggressive meaning someone was paying attention. This was just people showing up and not doing much. Actually, it is funny. This is great. So 1991, ’92, so one of those summers, but the summer job was literally they print out the sales for all the brokerage houses for the whole company. It’s a pile of papers that’s maybe four or five feet tall and you have a pencil and you add things up using your pencil and a calculator. And I had known about Lotus 1-2-3 forever. Excel was coming out and I was like, “Hey, guys, you know that there’s a different way to do this.” And they’re like, “Don’t talk to us. This is just your job. Go do it.”
Aggressive meaning someone was paying attention. This was just people showing up and not doing much. Actually, it is funny. This is great. So 1991, ’92, so one of those summers, but the summer job was literally they print out the sales for all the brokerage houses for the whole company. It’s a pile of papers that’s maybe four or five feet tall and you have a pencil and you add things up using your pencil and a calculator. And I had known about Lotus 1-2-3 forever. Excel was coming out and I was like, “Hey, guys, you know that there’s a different way to do this.” And they’re like, “Don’t talk to us. This is just your job. Go do it.”
Lex Fridman
Yeah, just use the pencil.
Yeah, just use the pencil.
Kimbal Musk
So I went to the head of the data… I just asked because in those days you had the manila envelope where you just write the name of the person that you want this to go to and it’ll go to them. It’s like email, I guess, but there’s no filter.
So I went to the head of the data… I just asked because in those days you had the manila envelope where you just write the name of the person that you want this to go to and it’ll go to them. It’s like email, I guess, but there’s no filter.
Lex Fridman
There’s no spam filter.
There’s no spam filter.
Kimbal Musk
There’s no spam filter. So I sent a note, I wrote a nice letter to the database administrator who I didn’t really know, and I said, “Would you be open to me saying hi and maybe I can get access to the file rather than print the damn thing out and use a pencil?” And she responded right away and we hit it off. She was great. So she’s like, “Of course you can [inaudible 01:22:43] I can’t believe these guys are doing what they’re doing.” So for the first couple of weeks of the summer, I wrote code in Lotus 1-2-3 that would… This is going to sound crazy, but you type in the date range and you type in the geography and you type in which part of the bank you care about, and it will literally just create a new spreadsheet and it will just, a macro would print it out. It was like a magic trick for these guys.
There’s no spam filter. So I sent a note, I wrote a nice letter to the database administrator who I didn’t really know, and I said, “Would you be open to me saying hi and maybe I can get access to the file rather than print the damn thing out and use a pencil?” And she responded right away and we hit it off. She was great. So she’s like, “Of course you can [inaudible 01:22:43] I can’t believe these guys are doing what they’re doing.” So for the first couple of weeks of the summer, I wrote code in Lotus 1-2-3 that would… This is going to sound crazy, but you type in the date range and you type in the geography and you type in which part of the bank you care about, and it will literally just create a new spreadsheet and it will just, a macro would print it out. It was like a magic trick for these guys.
Lex Fridman
Incredible.
Incredible.
Kimbal Musk
I know. No, it’s [inaudible 01:23:20] for me, I was like, “Guys, this is so obvious.” So I got all that done and this job was supposed to take three or four months because it’s really, you’re doing this with a pencil and now I’ve created this macro that you could not just do it, you could do it, you could tweak it and say, “Oh, I want this area of the world or this area of or this month or that month compared to that month,” all the normal things you could do with the spreadsheet. And the software was on a floppy disk. And I was like, “Here’s the software and just put it into your computer right now, open 1-2-3 and it just pops up with a little box that type in your dates and the whole little, I coded a little thing like that.”
I know. No, it’s [inaudible 01:23:20] for me, I was like, “Guys, this is so obvious.” So I got all that done and this job was supposed to take three or four months because it’s really, you’re doing this with a pencil and now I’ve created this macro that you could not just do it, you could do it, you could tweak it and say, “Oh, I want this area of the world or this area of or this month or that month compared to that month,” all the normal things you could do with the spreadsheet. And the software was on a floppy disk. And I was like, “Here’s the software and just put it into your computer right now, open 1-2-3 and it just pops up with a little box that type in your dates and the whole little, I coded a little thing like that.”
And what I was astounded by was not so much that there was a magic trick, it was the lack of appreciation for innovation. They just looked at it and they were like, “Huh, that’s nice.” And I was like, “We’re going to have someone spend hundreds of hours doing something and now it’s something you can do in a minute.”
Lex Fridman
Yeah, if that doesn’t fill you with excitement…
Yeah, if that doesn’t fill you with excitement…
Kimbal Musk
Yeah, if that doesn’t move your needle, what the heck? And so I was really disappointed with the banking world. But anyway, that was also fine. That’s…
Yeah, if that doesn’t move your needle, what the heck? And so I was really disappointed with the banking world. But anyway, that was also fine. That’s…
Lex Fridman
Such a good example though. Yeah. And then also see the possibility of where that goes.
Such a good example though. Yeah. And then also see the possibility of where that goes.
Kimbal Musk
Then I got back to business school and I canceled all of my business classes I possibly could. But I was actually in business school, so I couldn’t cancel them all. All finance courses, I was like, “I’m done with that industry. I’m not going back.” So the vulnerable part for me was my whole family’s full of entrepreneurs and there was this franchise to do house painting, and I genuinely was afraid that I wouldn’t be good at it. And I was like, “Wow, I really am afraid of failure.” It’s very easy to avoid entrepreneurship, but if your whole family’s entrepreneurs and you go in and you aren’t good, I was really afraid.
Then I got back to business school and I canceled all of my business classes I possibly could. But I was actually in business school, so I couldn’t cancel them all. All finance courses, I was like, “I’m done with that industry. I’m not going back.” So the vulnerable part for me was my whole family’s full of entrepreneurs and there was this franchise to do house painting, and I genuinely was afraid that I wouldn’t be good at it. And I was like, “Wow, I really am afraid of failure.” It’s very easy to avoid entrepreneurship, but if your whole family’s entrepreneurs and you go in and you aren’t good, I was really afraid.
Lex Fridman
You’re going to have to face that failure every time you meet your family.
You’re going to have to face that failure every time you meet your family.
Kimbal Musk
Yes. And our family are wonderful and everything, but pretty much everyone’s an entrepreneur. And of course not everyone is perfect. Not everyone’s doing it successfully all the time, but when you’re young and you want to prove yourself, it really was putting my heart on my sleeve. I started the business in this part of Toronto and for the first… Paint the houses in the summer, but you do all your sales pre before the summer and all the way until April, I was just not succeeding. And I was like, I’m like, “Oh my God, I’m just going to fail.” And I remember that my whole nervous system was like, “I’m a failure.” And I remember I had this gentle manager who he was like, “You seem like you know what you’re doing. Why are you not making any sales?” So he actually went with me on a few sales calls and he said, “Oh, he was great. You’re doing this wrong, you’re doing that wrong, you’re doing this wrong.”
Yes. And our family are wonderful and everything, but pretty much everyone’s an entrepreneur. And of course not everyone is perfect. Not everyone’s doing it successfully all the time, but when you’re young and you want to prove yourself, it really was putting my heart on my sleeve. I started the business in this part of Toronto and for the first… Paint the houses in the summer, but you do all your sales pre before the summer and all the way until April, I was just not succeeding. And I was like, I’m like, “Oh my God, I’m just going to fail.” And I remember that my whole nervous system was like, “I’m a failure.” And I remember I had this gentle manager who he was like, “You seem like you know what you’re doing. Why are you not making any sales?” So he actually went with me on a few sales calls and he said, “Oh, he was great. You’re doing this wrong, you’re doing that wrong, you’re doing this wrong.”
And changed those three things. And it was like a watershed moment just all of a sudden. And I just followed the instructions of what this guy told me. All of a sudden, every single sale I would make, I was like, I can’t believe that it was really my lack of humility to learn from someone else. I was like, “No, I’m going to prove that I can do this without your teachings,” and I was going to fail.
Lex Fridman
So to you, that humility is essential for the entrepreneur, especially young.
So to you, that humility is essential for the entrepreneur, especially young.
Kimbal Musk
I would say if we have an openness to learning, which does require humility, and you course correct or you help get other people to help you course correct. But it does start with humility because if you try and pretend you have all the answers, you don’t.
I would say if we have an openness to learning, which does require humility, and you course correct or you help get other people to help you course correct. But it does start with humility because if you try and pretend you have all the answers, you don’t.
Zip2
Lex Fridman
So you went from that to founding Zip2. That was an interesting time in the history of tech.
So you went from that to founding Zip2. That was an interesting time in the history of tech.
Kimbal Musk
Yeah.
Yeah.
Lex Fridman
But what was it like? You mentioned and the first people to look at a map basically at directions.
But what was it like? You mentioned and the first people to look at a map basically at directions.
Kimbal Musk
Yeah. So mapping had been on the internet but vector-based mapping had not. So that’s the ability to zoom in or zoom out, and it’s really data versus an image that comes across. And we went into this company called Navtech, my brother and I, and we just asked for the data and this is Silicon Valley. They wrote us a one page letter that we had to sign and said, “Here’s all of our data that we own it, you don’t own it, but you can use it on the internet and if you ever make any money on it, you have to call us.” That was it. We’re like, “Okay, that sounds great.” And so we put it up on the internet and back in those days, it might take 60 to 120 seconds to actually give you an answer back, but it was amazing. The door to door directions, the ability to take a map and zoom in and zoom out. We use these things 10 times a day now. It was amazing. And we were the first two humans to see it on the internet because this stuff didn’t even exist to the world.
Yeah. So mapping had been on the internet but vector-based mapping had not. So that’s the ability to zoom in or zoom out, and it’s really data versus an image that comes across. And we went into this company called Navtech, my brother and I, and we just asked for the data and this is Silicon Valley. They wrote us a one page letter that we had to sign and said, “Here’s all of our data that we own it, you don’t own it, but you can use it on the internet and if you ever make any money on it, you have to call us.” That was it. We’re like, “Okay, that sounds great.” And so we put it up on the internet and back in those days, it might take 60 to 120 seconds to actually give you an answer back, but it was amazing. The door to door directions, the ability to take a map and zoom in and zoom out. We use these things 10 times a day now. It was amazing. And we were the first two humans to see it on the internet because this stuff didn’t even exist to the world.
Navtech was building it for NeverLost, for Hertz NeverLost, which would come out a few years later. This was not something that people knew existed. This was something we discovered that it existed. Let’s put it on the internet and share it with the world.
Lex Fridman
What did the two of you feel like to see that magic? Did you know…
What did the two of you feel like to see that magic? Did you know…
Kimbal Musk
It’s amazing. It was like, “What?”
It’s amazing. It was like, “What?”
Lex Fridman
Did you mean the amazing, just that it’s cool, but also that you could see the future that this could transform…
Did you mean the amazing, just that it’s cool, but also that you could see the future that this could transform…
Kimbal Musk
I don’t think people understand before this moment, you could not be told your directions. You just could not. Today, we live in this world where you’re told our directions all the time. Before this moment you could not be told your directions and all of a sudden you could. It wasn’t like a little thing.
I don’t think people understand before this moment, you could not be told your directions. You just could not. Today, we live in this world where you’re told our directions all the time. Before this moment you could not be told your directions and all of a sudden you could. It wasn’t like a little thing.
Lex Fridman
Yeah, there’s a bunch of things that once we have, we take it for granted. And that takes a day for people to transition.
Yeah, there’s a bunch of things that once we have, we take it for granted. And that takes a day for people to transition.
Kimbal Musk
Totally.
Totally.
Lex Fridman
It’s like, “Oh, okay, cool.”
It’s like, “Oh, okay, cool.”
Kimbal Musk
Yeah. Right. Exactly. Exactly.
Yeah. Right. Exactly. Exactly.
Lex Fridman
And when you see, maybe when you’re one of the first humans to see that thing, you’re like, “Holy, shit.”
And when you see, maybe when you’re one of the first humans to see that thing, you’re like, “Holy, shit.”
Kimbal Musk
Holy shit. This is going to be used by everyone all the time forever.
Holy shit. This is going to be used by everyone all the time forever.
Lex Fridman
So Zip2 was a success.
So Zip2 was a success.
Kimbal Musk
I would say it was a success but it was also a very hard company to build. And I mean it because the internet in those days was a boom time. We were being funded, but you couldn’t make any money. So it was actually really hard, the constant outside criticism that we aren’t for real. This is not going to survive. This is not going to… And it started to feel that way. We’re like, “Wow, man, we are doing something that is great that people are using.” And we were top 100 website. Most of our work was through folks like The New York Times. So we were even much, much busier than that. But there was just no money at it. And even today, go to Google Maps, there’s no money in it. It’s just a local search that is needed for everyone. And so it became an add-on to search. But even remember in those days, you couldn’t make money at search either. No one had figured out AdWords or anything, they didn’t realize how big of a business this was. But we all knew this was a thing and everyone was using it.
I would say it was a success but it was also a very hard company to build. And I mean it because the internet in those days was a boom time. We were being funded, but you couldn’t make any money. So it was actually really hard, the constant outside criticism that we aren’t for real. This is not going to survive. This is not going to… And it started to feel that way. We’re like, “Wow, man, we are doing something that is great that people are using.” And we were top 100 website. Most of our work was through folks like The New York Times. So we were even much, much busier than that. But there was just no money at it. And even today, go to Google Maps, there’s no money in it. It’s just a local search that is needed for everyone. And so it became an add-on to search. But even remember in those days, you couldn’t make money at search either. No one had figured out AdWords or anything, they didn’t realize how big of a business this was. But we all knew this was a thing and everyone was using it.
Lex Fridman
But didn’t quite know how to make money on it.
But didn’t quite know how to make money on it.
Kimbal Musk
Didn’t make money. When we got acquired, it was a bittersweet moment because Compact that owned AltaVista wanted to merge so that sort of regular search with the best search engine at the time, pre-Google with Zip2, which would be the best local search, and it would be a Yahoo killer. And the Compact just wanted to make money by taking the company public but they wouldn’t give us any stock. They paid us cash return out, actually very well for us, but because the whole internet bubble burst, we didn’t know that at the time. And so it was bittersweet because they essentially wanted our company and we were welcome to stay but you don’t have to. And that feeling, that was a pretty rough feeling. Yeah.
Didn’t make money. When we got acquired, it was a bittersweet moment because Compact that owned AltaVista wanted to merge so that sort of regular search with the best search engine at the time, pre-Google with Zip2, which would be the best local search, and it would be a Yahoo killer. And the Compact just wanted to make money by taking the company public but they wouldn’t give us any stock. They paid us cash return out, actually very well for us, but because the whole internet bubble burst, we didn’t know that at the time. And so it was bittersweet because they essentially wanted our company and we were welcome to stay but you don’t have to. And that feeling, that was a pretty rough feeling. Yeah.
Lex Fridman
But in retrospect, it opened the door to…
But in retrospect, it opened the door to…
Kimbal Musk
It set us up for an incredible platform to go do beautiful things.
It set us up for an incredible platform to go do beautiful things.
Tesla
Lex Fridman
You’ve invested in X. com that eventually merged with PayPal. That’s a fascinating story there, also fascinating on many levels, including the fact that the current social media company, formerly known as Twitter, is now called X. History has a rhyme to it. It’s kind of all hilarious in a certain kind of way. You invested in and help sell a lot of the initial products for Tesla.
You’ve invested in X. com that eventually merged with PayPal. That’s a fascinating story there, also fascinating on many levels, including the fact that the current social media company, formerly known as Twitter, is now called X. History has a rhyme to it. It’s kind of all hilarious in a certain kind of way. You invested in and help sell a lot of the initial products for Tesla.
Kimbal Musk
Yeah, I still sell on the board of Tesla. Tesla is 20 years now. Isn’t that amazing?
Yeah, I still sell on the board of Tesla. Tesla is 20 years now. Isn’t that amazing?
Lex Fridman
20 years.
20 years.
Kimbal Musk
Yeah.
Yeah.
Lex Fridman
From the Roadster, the initial Roadster to…
From the Roadster, the initial Roadster to…
Kimbal Musk
I still have the first business plan. So I didn’t join as a founder, I joined as a founding board member. And so I actually, I didn’t write the business plan. I got to read it and I still have that. I still have it as a part of history.
I still have the first business plan. So I didn’t join as a founder, I joined as a founding board member. And so I actually, I didn’t write the business plan. I got to read it and I still have that. I still have it as a part of history.
Lex Fridman
Did you see the future at that time, the company that Tesla is today? Could you have possibly, could you and Elon imagine it?
Did you see the future at that time, the company that Tesla is today? Could you have possibly, could you and Elon imagine it?
Kimbal Musk
No. No, I certainly didn’t. What I saw in it was a real… For me personally, I was really upset that the General Motors had killed their EV car. There’s even a movie called Who Killed the Electric Car? And I knew that the physics of electric is perfectly fine. There’s no reason why you couldn’t use an electric car to drive around. What resonated with me with the business plan was take an electric motor, which is really a high performance motor, and put it in a sports car and sell it at a high price as a way to enter into the market. Whereas what others had been doing, or at least General Motors had done, is you put it into a really crummy car and you sell it as a commuter vehicle that doesn’t really work that well and looks ugly as well. They really did everything you could to make that thing as ugly as Zen. And then I was like, “Okay, I get it. We’re going to take an appropriate technology and put it in an appropriate car so that when you have…”
No. No, I certainly didn’t. What I saw in it was a real… For me personally, I was really upset that the General Motors had killed their EV car. There’s even a movie called Who Killed the Electric Car? And I knew that the physics of electric is perfectly fine. There’s no reason why you couldn’t use an electric car to drive around. What resonated with me with the business plan was take an electric motor, which is really a high performance motor, and put it in a sports car and sell it at a high price as a way to enter into the market. Whereas what others had been doing, or at least General Motors had done, is you put it into a really crummy car and you sell it as a commuter vehicle that doesn’t really work that well and looks ugly as well. They really did everything you could to make that thing as ugly as Zen. And then I was like, “Okay, I get it. We’re going to take an appropriate technology and put it in an appropriate car so that when you have…”
Because electric motors, they have constant torque, incredible power, put it in a car that looks like a sports car. So the idea was to put it in the Lotus release, redesign it a bit. And even at that point I was like, “This is theoretically good, so I’m going to join and help build it.” But I was not convinced that it would work because General Motors had done such a terrible job of making everyone think that these things are terrible. But I was curious. And the time that I fell in love with the company and its mission was I was driving in what’s called a mule where we take a car and we take the engine out and we put in electric drive train and I drove it. Even the dashboards, there’s no dashboard. It’s just you got a steering wheel and it’s just wires and everything around. And I remember there’s a street, we were running the Bay Area called Bing Street, and I was just like… No traffic. So I’m just going to drive this on the floor and see what happens.
And it was a feeling I’d never experienced before. Gasoline cars have an inertia to them. So you go… This was being shot out of a cannon. And I was like, “Okay, this is going to be real.”
Lex Fridman
It’s a very spaceship-like feeling.
It’s a very spaceship-like feeling.
Kimbal Musk
Yeah. It’s like, “Whoa.” It’s like the G-force pulls you back.
Yeah. It’s like, “Whoa.” It’s like the G-force pulls you back.
Lex Fridman
Yeah.
Yeah.
Kimbal Musk
So I was like, “Okay, this is going to be great. This is going to be an interesting… We are going to create something interesting here.” I think the real transformative thing for Tesla was the Model 3 when we were able to get the price down for the world.
So I was like, “Okay, this is going to be great. This is going to be an interesting… We are going to create something interesting here.” I think the real transformative thing for Tesla was the Model 3 when we were able to get the price down for the world.
Lex Fridman
And that was also one of the most challenging periods…
And that was also one of the most challenging periods…
Kimbal Musk
Oh my God.
Oh my God.
Lex Fridman
… For Tesla for you.
… For Tesla for you.
Kimbal Musk
We were borderline bankrupt like two or three times that year. And everyone was hating on us about whether we’d get that done. The Model 3 today is incredibly affordable car, like a 300 bucks a month kind of lease and $3,000 down. That’s where you get the scale. That’s where you get people who… And by the way, it’s a great car. It’s even a better Model 3 now than it was five years ago. We don’t function the way car companies function. We function more like how an iPhone company or how Apple works. So our Model 3 today this year is better than last year. It’s like it’s way better and we just keep getting better.
We were borderline bankrupt like two or three times that year. And everyone was hating on us about whether we’d get that done. The Model 3 today is incredibly affordable car, like a 300 bucks a month kind of lease and $3,000 down. That’s where you get the scale. That’s where you get people who… And by the way, it’s a great car. It’s even a better Model 3 now than it was five years ago. We don’t function the way car companies function. We function more like how an iPhone company or how Apple works. So our Model 3 today this year is better than last year. It’s like it’s way better and we just keep getting better.
Lex Fridman
Yeah, and the software is a fundamental part of the car and the software keeps improving.
Yeah, and the software is a fundamental part of the car and the software keeps improving.
Kimbal Musk
Exactly. And we upload over the air.
Exactly. And we upload over the air.
Lex Fridman
Which was one of the things that people don’t often acknowledge, it’s over the air updates. It’s like a revolutionary thing. It’s not just the autopilot. To me, it’s like the over the updates, is even bigger thing than on the autopilot, at least in this moment of history because you basically turned a car into the iPhone.
Which was one of the things that people don’t often acknowledge, it’s over the air updates. It’s like a revolutionary thing. It’s not just the autopilot. To me, it’s like the over the updates, is even bigger thing than on the autopilot, at least in this moment of history because you basically turned a car into the iPhone.
Kimbal Musk
Exactly. It’s an iPhone with wheels. But actually talking about autopilot, right after this interview, I’m going to go test out the latest Model 3.
Exactly. It’s an iPhone with wheels. But actually talking about autopilot, right after this interview, I’m going to go test out the latest Model 3.
Lex Fridman
You’re going to get driven around by a robot.
You’re going to get driven around by a robot.
Kimbal Musk
I’m going to get driven around by the car. I’m going to say, “I want to go to this barbecue joint. Take me there and park me there.” And I’m going to see how it is. And this is the latest Model 3 that we have out into production. Anyone can buy it. And it’s super affordable. And it’s like, “Okay. Full stop driving is a journey. It’s not like there’s a destination. It’s a journey forever. So let’s see where we are on the journey today.”
I’m going to get driven around by the car. I’m going to say, “I want to go to this barbecue joint. Take me there and park me there.” And I’m going to see how it is. And this is the latest Model 3 that we have out into production. Anyone can buy it. And it’s super affordable. And it’s like, “Okay. Full stop driving is a journey. It’s not like there’s a destination. It’s a journey forever. So let’s see where we are on the journey today.”
Lex Fridman
And there’s been a bit of a push and pull between you and Elon in terms of levels of optimism about deadlines and so on, timelines about when we’ll arrive at the destination. I like that you said it’s a journey. For Elon, there’s a destination, right?
And there’s been a bit of a push and pull between you and Elon in terms of levels of optimism about deadlines and so on, timelines about when we’ll arrive at the destination. I like that you said it’s a journey. For Elon, there’s a destination, right?
Kimbal Musk
Exactly.
Exactly.
Lex Fridman
And that destination is tomorrow or yesterday.
And that destination is tomorrow or yesterday.
Kimbal Musk
I think that’s a really good insight. I actually live with this concept of a growth mindset versus a fixed mindset. And it’s a philosophical term where fixed mindset is about the destination and a growth mindset is about learning on the journey. And I think that I’m a happier person because I take that learning on the journey approach, whereas it’s really frustrating if you’re always, it has to be about the destination every time.
I think that’s a really good insight. I actually live with this concept of a growth mindset versus a fixed mindset. And it’s a philosophical term where fixed mindset is about the destination and a growth mindset is about learning on the journey. And I think that I’m a happier person because I take that learning on the journey approach, whereas it’s really frustrating if you’re always, it has to be about the destination every time.
Lex Fridman
The nice thing about destination, at least from my personal perspective as a programmer engineer, is it puts a little fire under you to get shit done.
The nice thing about destination, at least from my personal perspective as a programmer engineer, is it puts a little fire under you to get shit done.
Kimbal Musk
That’s true.
That’s true.
Lex Fridman
If there’s a clear deadline of a destination, you feel the anxiety of it.
If there’s a clear deadline of a destination, you feel the anxiety of it.
Kimbal Musk
I would say that I still do that, but I call those forcing functions instead of destinations…
I would say that I still do that, but I call those forcing functions instead of destinations…
Lex Fridman
That’s true.
That’s true.
Kimbal Musk
… Because you’re just forcing people to crank on some code or cookbook or whatever because you have a date. And oftentimes there’s reason. It’s 20th anniversary, you wanted to get the cookbook out. We have a reason we didn’t make this up out of thin air. And so yeah, that does push you, but just because we have the cookbook doesn’t mean it’s a destination. It means it was a forcing function to get it out there. Now we’re on the journey.
… Because you’re just forcing people to crank on some code or cookbook or whatever because you have a date. And oftentimes there’s reason. It’s 20th anniversary, you wanted to get the cookbook out. We have a reason we didn’t make this up out of thin air. And so yeah, that does push you, but just because we have the cookbook doesn’t mean it’s a destination. It means it was a forcing function to get it out there. Now we’re on the journey.
SpaceX
Lex Fridman
Speaking of journeys, I have to ask you about SpaceX. The journey that all of humanity [inaudible 01:40:00]
Speaking of journeys, I have to ask you about SpaceX. The journey that all of humanity [inaudible 01:40:00]
Kimbal Musk
Seriously. Talk about a journey. That is incredible.
Seriously. Talk about a journey. That is incredible.
Lex Fridman
It’s an interesting moment in the history of humanity that perhaps hopefully we’ll become a multi-planetary species. But SpaceX is also a company. You invested in SpaceX, you were side by side with Elon through the highs and the lows, through the lows and the highs. So what were some memorable challenges? What were some low points…
It’s an interesting moment in the history of humanity that perhaps hopefully we’ll become a multi-planetary species. But SpaceX is also a company. You invested in SpaceX, you were side by side with Elon through the highs and the lows, through the lows and the highs. So what were some memorable challenges? What were some low points…
Kimbal Musk
Sure.
Sure.
Lex Fridman
… From the history of SpaceX?
… From the history of SpaceX?
Kimbal Musk
One of the hardest times in SpaceX was we were in the mid-Pacific in Kwajalein and my brother had sold PayPal. He’d done well financially. But in the rocket world, that money goes away really quickly. And we were in this military base in Kwajalein and I think it was the second rocket that blew up, I’m not sure. But we didn’t have infinite resources. I certainly didn’t have the resources. I’m there to support, brotherly support. So every rocket launch was do or die, and the first one had blown up. And so the second one, I think it was the second one, blew up. And it was so depressing. It was just like, “Ugh.” There’s nowhere to go. There’s no distraction. You’re on this military base. You don’t really socialize. It was just, we were all together. And I had gotten to know… For me, I’m not part of the team, I’m just there for emotional support or whatever, because it’s cool.
One of the hardest times in SpaceX was we were in the mid-Pacific in Kwajalein and my brother had sold PayPal. He’d done well financially. But in the rocket world, that money goes away really quickly. And we were in this military base in Kwajalein and I think it was the second rocket that blew up, I’m not sure. But we didn’t have infinite resources. I certainly didn’t have the resources. I’m there to support, brotherly support. So every rocket launch was do or die, and the first one had blown up. And so the second one, I think it was the second one, blew up. And it was so depressing. It was just like, “Ugh.” There’s nowhere to go. There’s no distraction. You’re on this military base. You don’t really socialize. It was just, we were all together. And I had gotten to know… For me, I’m not part of the team, I’m just there for emotional support or whatever, because it’s cool.
So I got to know a couple of people locally and got to know this one guy who had a mobile home, best view in the world, but it’s just a mobile home with a patch of grass next to it. And I was just desperate to find food that wasn’t from the cafeteria because this is the worst food you can imagine. And I met him and he showed me this little tiny little grocery store, which had a few things like canned tomatoes. And this is, again, your middle of nowhere. It’s just nothing fresh. And I made this dish that was a version of an Italian version of chili, just baked beans and sweating onions and then tomatoes. And it was a big pot of food. It’s a group of people. We didn’t even have a table. And we just put the big pot in the middle and we had our little paper plates and we took a scoop as we needed it.
And it was… Do we need the gathering place of food brings people together in the most difficult times, and it was one of my favorite memories because I was able to bring my gift to this group of incredible people that their hearts were broken. And to sit there and share a meal and feel the life kind come back into us and by the end of the night, we’re actually having a good time.
Lex Fridman
What a fascinating contrast of rockets representing the peak accomplishment of human beings as a society and then returning to the thing that is the foundation of human society, which is that communal experience.
What a fascinating contrast of rockets representing the peak accomplishment of human beings as a society and then returning to the thing that is the foundation of human society, which is that communal experience.
Kimbal Musk
That communal, vulnerable connection. Like we mentioned vulnerability earlier. The most vulnerable place, actually that’s when you have some of your most beautiful meals.
That communal, vulnerable connection. Like we mentioned vulnerability earlier. The most vulnerable place, actually that’s when you have some of your most beautiful meals.
Lex Fridman
Yeah, the descendants of apes gathering around some baked beans after watching a rocket explode.
Yeah, the descendants of apes gathering around some baked beans after watching a rocket explode.
Hope for the future
Kimbal Musk
Right.
Right.
Lex Fridman
What gives you hope about the future of this whole thing we’ve got going on, humanity?
What gives you hope about the future of this whole thing we’ve got going on, humanity?
Kimbal Musk
If you look at how things have changed over the past, say, 50 years, you can clearly say, “Oh, wow. Poverty rates have gone down, infant mortality has gone down dramatically. All these things have gone down a lot.” So if you look at it on a daily basis, you can tell that life is very dramatic, whether it’s something’s blowing up on X or from the newspapers or whatever, and you can really get caught up into it. But if you look back over the past few decades, things are getting better. And at the fundamental level, are less people hungry? Are there is war going on? Of course, but are there less wars? Yes. And so I think if we all just step back a little bit, it’s less about hope. It’s more perspective and reflection. And if I do see a problem, like in case of the obesity epidemic, I work really hard to help with that. Our nonprofit’s called Big Green and we work with 150 nonprofits around the country to help Americans grow food again, get connected to their food because I really believe growing food changes your life.
If you look at how things have changed over the past, say, 50 years, you can clearly say, “Oh, wow. Poverty rates have gone down, infant mortality has gone down dramatically. All these things have gone down a lot.” So if you look at it on a daily basis, you can tell that life is very dramatic, whether it’s something’s blowing up on X or from the newspapers or whatever, and you can really get caught up into it. But if you look back over the past few decades, things are getting better. And at the fundamental level, are less people hungry? Are there is war going on? Of course, but are there less wars? Yes. And so I think if we all just step back a little bit, it’s less about hope. It’s more perspective and reflection. And if I do see a problem, like in case of the obesity epidemic, I work really hard to help with that. Our nonprofit’s called Big Green and we work with 150 nonprofits around the country to help Americans grow food again, get connected to their food because I really believe growing food changes your life.
And so, “Okay, let’s go do that.” So I’ll help out where I think we really can make a difference. But if you step back a little, things are actually getting better. It’s just a bumpy ride.
Lex Fridman
Yeah, and for those of us watching all of this, I think I would love to see more celebrating of the people that are helping, the people that have found their way of helping and just celebrating those people.
Yeah, and for those of us watching all of this, I think I would love to see more celebrating of the people that are helping, the people that have found their way of helping and just celebrating those people.
Kimbal Musk
Yeah. I would also, actually that’s a really nice point. I have learned that you really want to celebrate your successes because even in the greater scheme of things, I’ve learned this in the startup world where you are constantly facing death. Why should you even exist? Do your customers want your product or whatever? And then something will happen where you’re like, “Wow, we really nailed that. That’s really great.” Or we got a product released or got some good kudos from something, right? Everyone, we’re going to go celebrate. And actually everyone’s still like, “No, no, we’ve got all these other problems.” Nope, we’re going to go celebrate and then we’ll go back to the problems. But if you don’t do that, then it starts building on this kind of… You never really get to celebrate.
Yeah. I would also, actually that’s a really nice point. I have learned that you really want to celebrate your successes because even in the greater scheme of things, I’ve learned this in the startup world where you are constantly facing death. Why should you even exist? Do your customers want your product or whatever? And then something will happen where you’re like, “Wow, we really nailed that. That’s really great.” Or we got a product released or got some good kudos from something, right? Everyone, we’re going to go celebrate. And actually everyone’s still like, “No, no, we’ve got all these other problems.” Nope, we’re going to go celebrate and then we’ll go back to the problems. But if you don’t do that, then it starts building on this kind of… You never really get to celebrate.
Lex Fridman
Mm-hmm. And be grateful. I think this is a good time to go celebrate the very fact that we’re alive today. We get to live and enjoy this incredible life, the two of us, and have this great conversation, and we’ll get to celebrate over some scrambled eggs.
Mm-hmm. And be grateful. I think this is a good time to go celebrate the very fact that we’re alive today. We get to live and enjoy this incredible life, the two of us, and have this great conversation, and we’ll get to celebrate over some scrambled eggs.
Kimbal Musk
Beautiful.
Beautiful.
Lex Fridman
I’m going to hold you to it.
I’m going to hold you to it.
Kimbal Musk
Beautiful.
Beautiful.
Lex Fridman
Kimbal, thank you so much for talking today.
Kimbal, thank you so much for talking today.
Kimbal Musk
Thank you for having me.
Thank you for having me.
Lex Fridman
Thanks for listening to this conversation with Kimbal Musk. To support this podcast, please check out our sponsors in the description. And now let me leave you some words from Anthony Bourdain. Your body is not a temple, it’s an amusement park. Enjoy the ride. Thank you for listening and hope to see you next time.
Thanks for listening to this conversation with Kimbal Musk. To support this podcast, please check out our sponsors in the description. And now let me leave you some words from Anthony Bourdain. Your body is not a temple, it’s an amusement park. Enjoy the ride. Thank you for listening and hope to see you next time.
Transcript for Yann Lecun: Meta AI, Open Source, Limits of LLMs, AGI & the Future of AI | Lex Fridman Podcast #416
This is a transcript of Lex Fridman Podcast #416 with Yann LeCun.
The timestamps in the transcript are clickable links that take you directly to that point in
the main video. Please note that the transcript is human generated, and may have errors.
Here are some useful links:
The timestamps in the transcript are clickable links that take you directly to that point in
the main video. Please note that the transcript is human generated, and may have errors.
Here are some useful links:
- Go back to this episode’s main page
- Watch the full YouTube version of the podcast
Table of Contents
Here are the loose “chapters” in the conversation.
Click link to jump approximately to that part in the transcript:
At this moment of rapid AI development, this happens to be somewhat a controversial position, and so it’s been fun seeing Yann get into a lot of intense and fascinating discussions online as we do in this very conversation. This is the Lex Fridman podcast. To support it, please check out our sponsors in the description. And now, dear friends, here’s Yann LeCun. You’ve had some strong statements, technical statements about the future of artificial intelligence throughout your career actually, but recently as well, you’ve said that autoregressive LLMs are not the way we’re going to make progress towards superhuman intelligence. These are the large language models like GPT-4, like Llama 2 and 3 soon and so on. How do they work and why are they not going to take us all the way?
And then there is another tidbit or fact that I think is very interesting. Those LLMs are trained on enormous amounts of texts, basically, the entirety of all publicly available texts on the internet, right? That’s typically on the order of 10 to the 13 tokens. Each token is typically two bytes, so that’s two 10 to the 13 bytes as training data. It would take you or me 170,000 years to just read through this at eight hours a day. So it seems like an enormous amount of knowledge that those systems can accumulate, but then you realize it’s really not that much data. If you talk to developmental psychologists and they tell you a four-year-old has been awake for 16,000 hours in his or her life, and the amount of information that has reached the visual cortex of that child in four years is about 10 to 15 bytes.
And you can compute this by estimating that the optical nerve carry about 20 megabytes per second roughly, and so 10 to the 15 bytes for a four-year-old versus two times 10 to the 13 bytes for 170,000 years worth of reading. What that tells you is that through sensory input, we see a lot more information than we do through language, and that despite our intuition, most of what we learn and most of our knowledge is through our observation and interaction with the real world, not through language. Everything that we learn in the first few years of life, and certainly everything that animals learn has nothing to do with language.
So a lot of my colleagues who are more interested in things like computer vision are really on that camp that AI needs to be embodied essentially. And then other people coming from the NLP side or maybe some other motivation don’t necessarily agree with that, and philosophers are split as well, and the complexity of the world is hard to imagine. It’s hard to represent all the complexities that we take completely for granted in the real world that we don’t even imagine require intelligence, right?
This is the old Moravec paradox, from the pioneer of robotics, hence Moravec, who said, how is it that with computers, it seems to be easy to do high-level complex tasks like playing chess and solving integrals and doing things like that, whereas the thing we take for granted that we do every day, like, I don’t know, learning to drive a car or grabbing an object, we can’t do with computers, and we have LLMs that can pass the bar exam, so they must be smart, but then they can’t learn to drive in 20 hours like any 17-year old, they can’t learn to clear out the dinner table and fill up the dishwasher like any 10-year old can learn in one shot. Why is that? What are we missing? What type of learning or reasoning architecture or whatever are we missing that basically prevent us from having level five sort of in cars and domestic robots?
And then you just feed that to the LLM in addition to the text, and you just expect the LLM, during training, to be able to use those representations to help make decisions. I mean, there’s been work along those lines for quite a long time and now, you see those systems. I mean there are LLMs that have some vision extension, but they’re basically hacks in the sense that those things are not trained to really understand the world. They’re not trained with video, for example. They don’t really understand intuitive physics, at least not at the moment.
So what it’s going to do is produce a probability distribution of all the possible words in a dictionary. In fact, it doesn’t predict words. It predicts tokens that are kind of subword units, and so it’s easy to handle the uncertainty in the prediction there because there is only a finite number of possible words in the dictionary, and you can just compute a distribution over them. Then what the system does is that it picks a word from that distribution. Of course, there’s a higher chance of picking words that have a higher probability within that distribution. So you sample from that distribution to actually produce a word, and then you shift that word into the input, and so that allows the system not to predict the second word, and once you do this, you shift it into the input, et cetera.
That’s called autoregressive prediction, which is why those LLMs should be called autoregressive LLMs, but we just call them LLMs, and there is a difference between this kind of process and a process by which before producing a word… When you and I talk, you and I are bilingual, we think about what we’re going to say, and it’s relatively independent of the language in which we’re going to say. When we talk about, I don’t know, let’s say a mathematical concept or something, the kind of thinking that we’re doing and the answer that we’re planning to produce is not linked to whether we’re going to see it in French or Russian or English.
LLMs don’t do that. They just produce one word after the other instinctively if you want. It’s a bit like the subconscious actions where you’re distracted, you’re doing something, you’re completely concentrated, and someone comes to you and asks you a question and you kind of answer the question. You don’t have time to think about the answer, but the answer is easy. So you don’t need to pay attention. You sort of respond automatically. That’s kind of what an LLM does. It doesn’t think about its answer really. It retrieves it because it’s accumulated a lot of knowledge. So it can retrieve some things, but it’s going to just spit out one token after the other without planning the answer.
So one model really is here is my idea of the state of the world at time, T, here is an action I might take. What is the predicted state of the world at time, T+1? Now that state of the world does not need to represent everything about the world, it just needs to represent enough that’s relevant for this planning of the action, but not necessarily all the details. Now, here is the problem. You’re not going to be able to do this with generative models. So a generative model has trained on video, and we’ve tried to do this for 10 years, you take a video, show a system, a piece of video, and then ask you to predict the reminder of the video, basically predict what’s going to happen.
We do not know how to represent distributions over high-dimensional, continuous spaces in ways that are useful. And there lies the main issue, and the reason we can do this is because the world is incredibly more complicated and richer in terms of information than text. Text is discrete, video is high-dimensional and continuous. A lot of details in this. So if I take a video of this room and the video is a camera panning around, there is no way I can predict everything that’s going to be in the room as I pan around. The system cannot predict what’s going to be in the room as the camera is panning. Maybe it’s going to predict this is a room where there’s a light and there is a wall and things like that. It can’t predict what the painting of the wall looks like or what the texture of the couch looks like. Certainly not the texture of the carpet. So there’s no way I can predict all those details.
So one way to possibly handle this, which we’ve been working for a long time, is to have a model that has what’s called a latent variable. And the latent variable is fed to a neural net, and it’s supposed to represent all the information about the world that you don’t perceive yet, and that you need to augment the system for the prediction to do a good job at predicting pixels, including the fine texture of the carpet and the couch and the painting on the wall.
That has been a complete failure essentially. And we’ve tried lots of things. We tried just straight neural nets, we tried GANs, we tried VAEs, all kinds of regularized auto encoders. We tried many things. We also tried those kinds of methods to learn good representations of images or video that could then be used as input to, for example, an image classification system. That also has basically failed. All the systems that attempt to predict missing parts of an image or video from a corrupted version of it, basically, so take an image or a video, corrupt it or transform it in some way, and then try to reconstruct the complete video or image from the corrupted version, and then hope that internally, the system will develop good representations of images that you can use for object recognition, segmentation, whatever it is. That has been essentially a complete failure and it works really well for text. That’s the principle that is used for LLMs, right?
And I call this a JEPA, so that means joint embedding predictive architecture because this joint embedding and there is this predictor that predicts the representation of the good guy from the bad guy. And the big question is how do you train something like this? And until five years ago or six years ago, we didn’t have particularly good answers for how you train those things except for one, called contrastive learning, where the idea of contrastive learning is you take a pair of images that are, again, an image and a corrupted version or degraded version somehow or transformed version of the original one, and you train the predicted representation to be the same as that. If you only do this, this system collapses. It basically completely ignores the input and produces representations that are constant. So the contrastive methods avoid this, and those things have been around since the early ’90s, I had a paper on this in 1993, is you also show pairs of images that you know are different, and then you push away the representations from each other. So you say, not only do representations of things that we know are the same should be the same or should be similar, but representation of things that we know are different should be different. And that prevents the collapse, but it has some limitation. And there’s a whole bunch of techniques that have appeared over the last six, seven years that can revive this type of method, some of them from FAIR, some of them from Google and other places, but there are limitations to those contrastive methods.
What has changed in the last three, four years is now we have methods that are non-contrastive. So they don’t require those negative contrastive samples of images that we know are different. You turn them on you with images that are different versions or different views of the same thing, and you rely on some other tricks to prevent the system from collapsing. And we have half a dozen different methods for this now.
So it lifts the level of abstraction of the representation. If you think about this, this is something we do absolutely all the time. Whenever we describe a phenomenon, we describe it at a particular level of abstraction. We don’t always describe every natural phenomenon in terms of quantum field theory. That would be impossible. So we have multiple levels of abstraction to describe what happens in the world, starting from quantum field theory, to atomic theory and molecules and chemistry, materials and all the way up to concrete objects in the real world and things like that. So we can’t just only model everything at the lowest level. And that’s what the idea of JEPA is really about, learn abstract representation in a self-supervised manner, and you can do it hierarchically as well. So that, I think, is an essential component of an intelligent system. And in language, we can get away without doing this because language is already to some level abstract and already has eliminated a lot of information that is not predictable. And so we can get away without doing the joint embedding, without lifting the abstraction level and by directly predicting words.
And the problem with this is that we might improve our language models by feeding them images, but we’re not going to get to the level of even the intelligence or level of understanding of the world of a cat or a dog, which doesn’t have language. They don’t have language and they understand the world much better than any LLM. They can plan really complex actions and imagine the result of a bunch of actions. How do we get machines to learn that before we combine that with language? Obviously if we combine this with language, this is going to be a winner, but before that, we have to focus on how do we get systems to learn how the world works?
Sometimes a predictor is very simple, sometimes it doesn’t exist, but train a predictor to predict a representation of the first uncorrupted input from the corrupted input. But you only train the second branch. You only train the part of the network that is fed with the corrupted input. The other network, you don’t train. But since they share the same weight, when you modify the first one, it also modifies the second one. And with various tricks, you can prevent the system from collapsing with the collapse of the type I was explaining before, where the system basically ignores the input. So that works very well. The two techniques we developed at FAIR, DINO and I-JEPA work really well for that.
So that’s the I-JEPA. It doesn’t need to know that it’s an image for example, because the only thing it needs to know is how to do this masking. Whereas with DINO, you need to know it’s an image because you need to do things like geometry transformation and blurring and things like that, that are really image specific. A more recent version of this that we have is called V-JEPA. So it’s basically the same idea as I-JEPA except it’s applied to video. So now you take a whole video and you mask a whole chunk of it. And what we mask is actually kind of a temporal tube, so a whole segment of each frame in the video over the entire video.
So if it’s a dash cam in a car and you know the angle of the wheel, you should be able to predict to some extent what’s going to happen to what you see. You’re not going to be able to predict all the details of objects that appear in the view obviously, but at a abstract representation level, you can probably predict what’s going to happen. So now what you have is a internal model that says, “Here is my idea of the state of the world at time T. Here is an action I’m taking. Here is a prediction of the state of the world at time T plus one, T plus delta T, T plus two seconds,” whatever it is. If you have a model of this type, you can use it for planning. So now you can do what LMS cannot do, which is planning what you’re going to do. So as you arrive at a particular outcome or satisfy a particular objective.
So you can have a number of objectives. I can predict that if I have an object like this and I open my hand, it’s going to fall. And if I push it with a particular force on the table, it’s going to move. If I push the table itself, it’s probably not going to move with the same force. So we have this internal model of the world in our mind, which allows us to plan sequences of actions to arrive at a particular goal. And so now if you have this world model, we can imagine a sequence of actions, predict what the outcome of the sequence of action is going to be, measure to what extent the final state satisfies a particular objective, like moving the bottle to the left of the table and then plan a sequence of actions that will minimize this objective, at runtime.
We’re not talking about learning, we’re talking about inference time, so this is planning, really. And in optimal control, this is a very classical thing. It’s called model predictive control. You have a model of the system you want to control that can predict the sequence of states corresponding to a sequence of commands. And you’re planning a sequence of commands so that according to your role model, the end state of the system will satisfy an objectives that you fix. This is the way rocket trajectories have been planned since computers have been around, so since the early ’60s essentially.
Okay, now I have another sub goal go down on the street. Well that means going to the elevator, going down the elevator, walk out the street. How do I go to the elevator? I have to stand up from my chair, open the door in my office, go to the elevator, push the button. How do I get up for my chair? You can imagine going down, all the way down, to basically what amounts to millisecond by millisecond muscle control. And obviously you’re not going plan your entire trip from New York to Paris in terms of millisecond by millisecond muscle control. First, that would be incredibly expensive, but it will also be completely impossible because you don’t know all the conditions of what’s going to happen, how long it’s going to take to catch a taxi or to go to the airport with traffic. I mean, you would have to know exactly the condition of everything to be able to do this planning and you don’t have the information. So you have to do this hierarchical planning so that you can start acting and then sort of replanning as you go. And nobody really knows how to do this in AI. Nobody knows how to train a system to learn the appropriate multiple levels of representation so that hierarchical planning works.
So the idea that you take a piece of text, you corrupt it, and then you train some gigantic neural net to reconstruct the parts that are missing. That has produced an enormous amount of benefits. It allowed us to create systems that understand language, systems that can translate hundreds of languages in any direction, systems that are multilingual, so it’s a single system that can be trained to understand hundreds of languages and translate in any direction, and produce summaries and then answer questions and produce text.
And then there’s a special case of it, which is the auto regressive trick where you constrain the system to not elaborate a representation of the text from looking at the entire text, but only predicting a word from the words that are come before. And you do this by constraining the architecture of the network, and that’s what you can build an auto aggressive LLM from.
So there was a surprise many years ago with what’s called decoder only LLM. So since systems of this type that are just trying to produce words from the previous one and the fact that when you scale them up, they tend to really understand more about language. When you train them on lots of data, you make them really big. That was a surprise and that surprise occurred quite a while back, with work from Google, Meta, OpenAI, et cetera, going back to the GPT kind of work, general pre-trained transformers.
The conference I co-founded 14 years ago is called International Conference on Learning Representations. That’s the entire issue that deep learning is dealing with, and it’s been my obsession for almost 40 years now. So learning representation is really the thing. For the longest time, we could only do this with supervised learning, and then we started working on what we used to call unsupervised learning and revived the idea of unsupervised running in the early 2000s with your [inaudible 00:56:58] and Jeff Hinton. Then discovered that supervised running actually works pretty well if you can collect enough data. And so the whole idea of unsupervised, self supervised running kind of took a backseat for a bit, and then I tried to revive it in a big way starting in 2014, basically when we started FAIR and really pushing for finding new methods to do self supervised running both for text and for images and for video and audio.
And some of that work has been incredibly successful. I mean, the reason why we have multilingual translation system, things to do, content moderation on Meta, for example, on Facebook, that are multilingual, that understand whether a piece of text is hate speech not or something, is due to that progress using self supervised running for NLP, combining this with transformer architectures and blah, blah, blah.
But that’s the big success of self supervised running. We had similar success in speech recognition, a system called WAVE2VEC, which is also a joint embedding architecture, by the way, trained with contrastive running. And that system also can produce speech recognition systems that are multilingual with mostly unlabeled data and only need a few minutes of labeled data to actually do speech recognition, that’s amazing. We have systems now based on those combination of ideas that can do real time translation of hundreds of languages into each other, speech to speech.
And tried and tried and failed and failed, with generative models, with models that predict pixels. We could not get them to learn good representations of images. We could not get them to learn good representations of videos. And we tried many times, we published lots of papers on it, where they kind of sort of work, but not really great. They started working, we abandoned this idea of predicting every pixel and basically just doing the joint embedding and predicting and representation space, that works. So there’s ample evidence that we’re not going to be able to learn good representations of the real world using generative model. So I’m telling people, everybody’s talking about generative AI. If you’re really interested in human level AI, abandon the idea of generative AI.
And so the system will behave properly on the prompts that has been either trained, pre-trained, or fine-tuned, but then there is an entire space of things that it cannot possibly have been trained on because the number is gigantic. So whatever training the system has been subject to produce appropriate answers, you can break it by finding out a prompt that will be outside of the set of prompts that’s been trained on, or things that are similar, and then it will just spew complete nonsense.
The type of reasoning that takes place in LLM is very, very primitive, and the reason you can tell is primitive is because the amount of computation that is spent per token produced is constant. So if you ask a question and that question has an answer in a given number of token, the amount of computation devoted to computing that answer can be exactly estimated. It’s the size of the prediction network with its 36 layers or 92 layers or whatever it is multiply by number of tokens, that’s it. And so essentially, it doesn’t matter if the question being asked is simple to answer, complicated to answer, impossible to answer because it’s a decidable or something, the amount of computation the system will be able to devote to the answer is constant or is proportional to number of token produced in the answer. This is not the way we work, the way we reason is that when we’re faced with a complex problem or a complex question, we spend more time trying to solve it and answer it because it’s more difficult.
It’s the same difference as the difference between what psychologists call system one and system two in humans, so system one is the type of task that you can accomplish without deliberately consciously think about how you do them, you just do them, you’ve done them enough that you can just do it subconsciously without thinking about them. If you’re an experienced driver, you can drive without really thinking about it and you can talk to someone at the same time or listen to the radio. If you are a very experienced chess player, you can play against a non- experienced chess player without really thinking either, you just recognize the pattern and you play. That’s system one, so all the things that you do instinctively without really having to deliberately plan and think about it.
And then there is all the tasks where you need to plan, so if you are a not too experienced chess player or you are experienced where you play against another experienced chess player, you think about all kinds of options, you think about it for a while and you are much better if you have time to think about it than you are if you play blitz with limited time. So this type of deliberate planning, which uses your internal world model, that’s system two, this is what LMS currently cannot do. How do we get them to do this? How do we build a system that can do this kind of planning or reasoning that devotes more resources to complex problems than to simple problems? And it’s not going to be a regressive prediction of tokens, it’s going to be more something akin to inference of little variables in what used to be called probabilistic models or graphical models and things of that type.
Basically, the principle is like this, the prompt is like observed variables, and what the model does, is that basically, it can measure to what extent an answer is a good answer for a prompt. So think of it as some gigantic neural net, but it’s got only one output, and that output is a scaler number, which is, let’s say, zero, if the answer is a good answer for the question and a large number, if the answer is not a good answer for the question. Imagine you had this model, if you had such a model, you could use it to produce good answers, the way you would do is, produce the prompt and then search through the space of possible answers for one that minimizes that number, that’s called an energy based model.
Now we have an abstract representation of the thought of the answer, representation of the answer, we feed that to basically an autoregressive decoder, which can be very simple, that turns this into a text that expresses this thought. So that, in my opinion, is the blueprint of future data systems, they will think about their answer, plan their answer by optimization before turning it into text, and that is turning complete.
How do you train a system like this at a completely general level, is you show it pairs of X and Ys that are compatible, a question and the corresponding answer, and you train the parameters of the big neural net inside to produce zero. Now that doesn’t completely work because the system might decide, well, I’m just going to say zero for everything, so now you have to have a process to make sure that for a wrong Y, the energy would be larger than zero. And there you have two options, one is contrastive method, so contrastive method is, you show an X and a bad Y and you tell the system, well, give a high energy to this, push up the energy, change the weights in the neural net that confuse the energy so that it goes up. So that’s contrasting methods.
The problem with this is, if the space of Y is large, the number of such contrasting samples are going to have to show is gigantic. But people do this, they do this when you train a system with RLHF, basically what you’re training is what’s called a reward model, which is basically an objective function that tells you whether an answer is good or bad, and that’s basically exactly what this is. So we already do this to some extent, we’re just not using it for inference, we’re just using it for training.
There is another set of methods which are non-contrastive, and I prefer those, and those non-contrastive methods basically say, the energy function needs to have low energy on pairs of XYs that are compatible that come from your training set. How do you make sure that the energy is going to be higher everywhere else? And the way you do this is by having a regularizer, a criterion, a term in your cost function that basically minimizes the volume of space that can take low energy. And the precise way to do this is all kinds of different specific ways to do this depending on the architecture, but that’s the basic principle. So that if you push down the energy function for particular regions in the XY space, it will automatically go up in other places because there’s only a limited volume of space that can take low energy by the construction of the system or by the regularizing function.
Now, indirectly, that gives a high probability to sequences of words that are good and low probability to sequences of words that are bad, but it’s very indirect. And it’s not obvious why this actually works at all because you’re not doing it on the joint probability of all the symbols in a sequence, you factorize that probability in terms of conditional probabilities over successive tokens.
If you want to adjust your world model while you are operating in the world or your objective function, that is basically in the realm of RL, this is what RL deals with to some extent, so adjust your word model. And the way to adjust your word model even in advance is to explore parts of the space where you know that your world model is inaccurate, that’s called curiosity basically, or play. When you play, you explore parts of the space that you don’t want to do for real because it might be dangerous, but you can adjust your world model without killing yourself basically. So that’s what you want to use RL for, when it comes time to learning a particular task, you already have all the good representations, you already have your world model, but you need to adjust it for the situation at hand, that’s when you use RL.
It’s very similar to the objective I was talking about earlier for planning, except now it’s not used for planning, it’s used for fine-tuning your system. I think it would be much more efficient to use it for planning, but currently, it’s used to fine tune the parameters of the system. There’s several ways to do this, some of them are supervised, you just ask a human person like, what is a good answer for this? Then you just type the answer. There’s lots of ways that those systems are being adjusted.
And so you can ask two questions, the first question is, is it possible to produce an AI system that is not biased? And the answer is, absolutely not. And it’s not because of technological challenges, although they are technological challenges to that, it’s because bias is in the eye of the beholder. Different people may have different ideas about what constitutes bias for a lot of things, there are facts that are indisputable, but there are a lot of opinions or things that can be expressed in different ways. And so you cannot have an unbiased system, that’s just an impossibility.
And so what’s the answer to this? And the answer is the same answer that we found in liberal democracy about the press, the press needs to be free and diverse. We have free speech for a good reason, is because we don’t want all of our information to come from a unique source because that’s opposite to the whole idea of democracy and progressive ideas and even science. In science, people have to argue for different opinions and science makes progress when people disagree and they come up with an answer and consensus forms, and it’s true in all democracies around the world.
There is a future which is already happening where every single one of our interaction with the digital world will be mediated by AI systems, AI assistance. We’re going to have smart glasses, you can already buy them from Meta, the Ray-Ban Meta where you can talk to them and they are connected with an LLM and you can get answers on any question you have. Or you can be looking at a monument and there is a camera in the glasses you can ask it like, what can you tell me about this building or this monument? You can be looking at a menu in a foreign language, and I think we will translate it for you, or we can do real time translation if we speak different languages. So a lot of our interactions with the digital world are going to be mediated by those systems in the near future.
Increasingly, the search engines that we’re going to use are not going to be search engines, they’re going to be dialogue systems that we just ask a question and it will answer and then point you to perhaps appropriate reference for it. But here is the thing, we cannot afford those systems to come from a handful of companies on the west coast of the US because those systems will constitute the repository of all human knowledge, and we cannot have that be controlled by a small number of people. It has to be diverse for the same reason the press has to be diverse, so how do we get a diverse set of AI assistance? It’s very expensive and difficult to train a base model, a base LLM at the moment, in the future it might be something different, but at the moment, that’s an LLM. So only a few companies can do this properly.
And if some of those top systems are open source, anybody can use them, anybody can fine tune them. If we put in place some systems that allows any group of people, whether they are individual citizens, groups of citizens, government organizations, NGOs, companies, whatever, to take those open source AI systems and fine tune them for their own purpose on their own data, then we’re going to have a very large diversity of different AI systems that are specialized for all of those things.
I tell you, I talked to the French government quite a bit, and the French government will not accept that the digital diet of all their citizens be controlled by three companies on the west coast of the US. That’s just not acceptable, it’s a danger to democracy regardless of how well-intentioned those companies are, and it’s also a danger to local culture, to values, to language. I was talking with the founder of Infosys in India, he’s funding a project to fine tune Llama 2, the open source model produced by Meta, so that Llama 2 two speaks all 22 official languages in India, it is very important for people in India. I was talking to a former colleague of mine, Moustapha Cisse, who used to be a scientist at Fair and then moved back to Africa, created a research lab for Google in Africa and now has a new startup Co-Kera.
And what he’s trying to do, is basically have LLM that speak the local languages in Senegal so that people can have access to medical information because they don’t have access to doctors, it’s a very small number of doctors per capita in Senegal. You can’t have any of this unless you have open source platforms, so with open source platforms, you can have AI systems that are not only diverse in terms of political opinions or things of that-
A lot of companies want this. A lot of companies want this not just for their employees, but also for their customers, to take care of their customers. So the only way you’re going to have an AI industry, the only way you’re going to have AI systems that are not uniquely biased is if you have open source platforms on top of which any group can build specialized systems. So the direction of inevitable direction of history is that the vast majority of AI systems will be built on top of open source platforms.
In fact, nobody in the world, not even countries used bioweapons because most of the time they have no idea how to protect their own populations against it. So it’s too dangerous, actually, to ever use, and it’s, in fact, banned by international treaties. Chemical weapons is different. It’s also banned by treaties, but it’s the same problem. It’s difficult to use in situations that doesn’t turn against the perpetrators, but we could ask Elon Musk. I can give you a very precise list of instructions of how you build a rocket engine. Even if you have a team of 50 engineers that are really experienced building it, you’re still going to have to blow up a dozen of them before you get one that works. It’s the same with chemical weapons or bioweapons or things like this, it requires expertise in the real world that the LLM is not going to help you with.
Then the next step is going to be world models based on this type of idea training from video. There’s similar work at DeepMind also and taking place people, and also at UC Berkeley on world models and video. A lot of people are working on this. I think a lot of good ideas are appearing. My bet is that those systems are going to be JEPA light, they’re not going to be generative models, and we’ll see what the future will tell. There’s really good work, a gentleman called Danijar Hafner who is now DeepMind, who’s worked on models of this type that learn representations and then use them for planning or learning tasks by reinforcement training and a lot of work at Berkeley by Pieter Abbeel, Sergey Levine, a bunch of other people of that type I’m collaborating with actually in the context of some grants with my NYU hat.
Then collaboration is also through Meta ’cause the lab at Berkeley is associated with Meta in some way, so with fair. So I think it is very exciting. I haven’t been that excited about the direction of machine learning and AI since 10 years ago when Fairway was started. Before that, 30 years ago, we were working, oh, sorry, 35 on combination nets and the early days of neural nets. So I’m super excited because I see a path towards potentially human-level intelligence with systems that can understand the world, remember, plan, reason. There is some set of ideas to make progress there that might have a chance of working, and I’m really excited about this. What I like is that somewhat we get on to a good direction and perhaps succeed before my brain turns to a white sauce or before I need to retire.
Are we going to have systems that can reason and plan perhaps along the lines of objective-driven AI architectures that I described before? Yeah, but before we get this to work properly, it’s going to take a while. Before we get all those things to work together, and then on top of this, have systems that can learn hierarchical planning, hierarchical representations, systems that can be configured for a lot of different situation at hand, the way the human brain can, all of this is going to take at least a decade and probably much more because there are a lot of problems that we’re not seeing right now that we have not encountered, so we don’t know if there is an easy solution within this framework. So it’s not just around the corner. I’ve been hearing people for the last 12, 15 years claiming that AGI is just around the corner and being systematically wrong. I knew they were wrong when they were saying it. I called their bullshit.
It’s not going to be one effort, that it’s going to be lots of different people doing this, and some of them are going to succeed at making intelligent systems that are controllable and safe and have the right guardrails. If some other goes rogue, then we can use the good ones to go against the rogue ones. So it’s going to be my smart AI police against your rogue AI. So it’s not going to be like we’re going to be exposed to a single rogue AI that’s going to kill us all. That’s just not happening. Now, there is another fallacy, which is the fact that because the system is intelligent, it necessarily wants to take over. There is several arguments that make people scared of this, which I think are completely false as well.
So one of them is in nature, it seems to be that the more intelligent species otherwise end up dominating the other and even distinguishing the others sometimes by design, sometimes just by mistake. So there is thinking by which you say, “Well, if AI systems are more intelligent than us, surely they’re going to eliminate us, if not by design, simply because they don’t care about us,” and that’s just preposterous for a number of reasons. First reason is they’re not going to be a species. They’re not going to be a species that competes with us. They’re not going to have the desire to dominate because the desire to dominate is something that has to be hardwired into an intelligent system. It is hardwired in humans. It is hardwired in baboons, in chimpanzees, in wolves, not in orangutans. The species in which this desire to dominate or submit or attain status in other ways is specific to social species. Non-social species like orangutans don’t have it, and they are as smart as we are, almost, right?
Those are incredibly complex pieces of hardware that run at really high temperatures for 20 hours at a time sometimes, and we can fly halfway around the world on a two-engine jetliner at near the speed of sound. Like how incredible is this? It’s just unbelievable. Did we do this because we invented a general principle of how to make turbojets safe? No, it took decades to fine tune the design of those systems so that they were safe. Is there a separate group within General Electric or Snecma or whatever that is specialized in turbojet safety? No. The design is all about safety, because a better turbojet is also a safer turbojet, so a more reliable one. It’s the same for AI. Do you need specific provisions to make AI safe? No, you need to make better AI systems, and they will be safe because they are designed to be more useful and more controllable.
We’re still some distance away from completely autonomous level five driving, and we’re certainly very far away from having level five autonomous driving by a system that can train itself by driving 20 hours like any 17-year-old. So until we have, again, world models, systems that can train themselves to understand how the world works, we’re not going to have significant progress in robotics. So a lot of the people working on robotic hardware at the moment are betting or banking on the fact that AI is going to make sufficient progress towards that,
And so the question of planning is not just a question of planning physical actions. It could be planning actions to use tools for a dialogue system or for any kind of intelligence system. And there’s some work on this, but not a huge amount. Some work at fair, one called Toolformer, which was a couple years ago and some more recent work on planning, but I don’t think we have a good solution for any of that. Then there is the question of hierarchical planning. So the example I mentioned of planning a trip from New York to Paris, that’s hierarchical, but almost every action that we take involves hierarchical planning in some sense, and we really have absolutely no idea how to do this.
There’s zero demonstration of hierarchical planning in AI where the various levels of representations that are necessary have been learned. We can do two level hierarchical planning when we designed the two levels. So for example, you have a dog-like robot, you want it to go from the living room to the kitchen. You can plan a path that avoids the obstacle, and then you can send this to a lower level planner that figures out how to move the legs to follow that trajectories. So that works, but that two level planning is designed by hand.
We specify what the proper levels of abstraction, the representation at each level of abstraction have to be. How do you learn this? How do you learn that hierarchical representation of action plans? With [inaudible 02:37:21] and deep learning, we can train the system to learn hierarchical representations of percepts. What is the equivalent when what you’re trying to represent are action plans?
That’s actually a wonderful thing. So having machines that are smarter than us, that assist us in all of our tasks, our daily lives, whether it’s professional or personal, I think would be an absolutely wonderful thing. Because intelligence is the commodity that is most in demand. That’s really what I mean. All the mistakes that humanity makes is because of lack of intelligence really, or lack of knowledge, which is related. So making people smarter, we just can only be better. For the same reason that public education is a good thing and books are a good thing, and the internet is also a good thing, intrinsically and even social networks are a good thing if you run them properly.
It’s difficult, but you can. Because it helps the communication of information and knowledge and the transmission of knowledge. So AI is going to make humanity smarter. And the analogy I’ve been using is the fact that perhaps an equivalent event in the history of humanity to what might be provided by generalization of AI assistant is the invention of the printing press. It made everybody smarter, the fact that people could have access to books. Books were a lot cheaper than they were before, and so a lot more people had an incentive to learn to read, which wasn’t the case before.
And people became smarter. It enabled the enlightenment. There wouldn’t be an enlightenment without the printing press. It enabled philosophy, rationalism, escape from religious doctrine, democracy, science. And certainly without this, there wouldn’t have been the American Revolution or the French Revolution. And so we would still be under a feudal regimes perhaps. And so it completely transformed the world because people became smarter and learned about things. Now, it also created 200 years of essentially religious conflicts in Europe because the first thing that people read was the Bible and realized that perhaps there was a different interpretation of the Bible than what the priests were telling them. And so that created the Protestant movement and created the rift. And in fact, the Catholic Church didn’t like the idea of the printing press, but they had no choice. And so it had some bad effects and some good effects.
I don’t think anyone today would say that the invention of the printing press had a overall negative effect despite the fact that it created 200 years of religious conflicts in Europe. Now, compare this, and I thought I was very proud of myself to come up with this analogy, but realized someone else came with the same idea before me, compare this with what happened in the Ottoman Empire. The Ottoman Empire banned the printing press for 200 years, and he didn’t ban it for all languages, only for Arabic. You could actually print books in Latin or Hebrew or whatever in the Ottoman Empire, just not in Arabic.
And I thought it was because the rulers just wanted to preserve the control over the population and the religious dogma and everything. But after talking with the UAE Minister of AI, Omar Al Olama, he told me no, there was another reason. And the other reason was that it was to preserve the corporation of calligraphers. There’s an art form, which is writing those beautiful Arabic poems or whatever, religious text in this thing. And it was a very powerful corporation of scribes basically that run a big chunk of the empire, and we couldn’t put them out of business. So they banned the printing press in part to protect that business.
Now, what’s the analogy for AI today? Who are we protecting by banning AI? Who are the people who are asking that AI be regulated to protect their jobs? And of course, it’s a real question of what is going to be the effect of a technological transformation like AI on the job market and the labor market? And there are economists who are much more expert at this than I am, but when I talk to them, they tell us we’re not going to run out of the job. This is not going to cause mass unemployment. This is just going to be gradual shift of different professions.
The professions that are going to be hot 10 or 15 years from now, we have no idea today what they’re going to be. The same way, if you go back 20 years in the past, who could have thought 20 years ago that the hottest job, even five, 10 years ago, was mobile app developer? Smartphones weren’t invented.
Click link to jump approximately to that part in the transcript:
- 0:00 – Introduction
- 2:18 – Limits of LLMs
- 13:54 – Bilingualism and thinking
- 17:46 – Video prediction
- 25:07 – JEPA (Joint-Embedding Predictive Architecture)
- 28:15 – JEPA vs LLMs
- 37:31 – DINO and I-JEPA
- 38:51 – V-JEPA
- 44:22 – Hierarchical planning
- 50:40 – Autoregressive LLMs
- 1:06:06 – AI hallucination
- 1:11:30 – Reasoning in AI
- 1:29:02 – Reinforcement learning
- 1:34:10 – Woke AI
- 1:43:48 – Open source
- 1:47:26 – AI and ideology
- 1:49:58 – Marc Andreesen
- 1:57:56 – Llama 3
- 2:04:20 – AGI
- 2:08:48 – AI doomers
- 2:24:38 – Joscha Bach
- 2:28:51 – Humanoid robots
- 2:38:00 – Hope for the future
Introduction
Yann LeCun
I see the danger of this concentration of power through proprietary AI systems as a much bigger danger than everything else. What works against this is people who think that for reasons of security, we should keep AI systems under lock and key because it’s too dangerous to put it in the hands of everybody. That would lead to a very bad future in which all of our information diet is controlled by a small number of companies who proprietary systems.
I see the danger of this concentration of power through proprietary AI systems as a much bigger danger than everything else. What works against this is people who think that for reasons of security, we should keep AI systems under lock and key because it’s too dangerous to put it in the hands of everybody. That would lead to a very bad future in which all of our information diet is controlled by a small number of companies who proprietary systems.
Lex Fridman
I believe that people are fundamentally good, and so if AI, especially open source AI can make them smarter, it just empowers the goodness in humans.
I believe that people are fundamentally good, and so if AI, especially open source AI can make them smarter, it just empowers the goodness in humans.
Yann LeCun
So I share that feeling. Okay. I think people are fundamentally good and in fact, a lot of doomers are doomers because they don’t think that people are fundamentally good.
So I share that feeling. Okay. I think people are fundamentally good and in fact, a lot of doomers are doomers because they don’t think that people are fundamentally good.
Lex Fridman
The following is a conversation with Yann LeCun, his third time on this podcast. He is the chief AI scientist at Meta, professor at NYU, Turing Award winner and one of the seminal figures in the history of artificial intelligence. He and Meta AI have been big proponents of open sourcing, AI development and have been walking the walk by open sourcing many of their biggest models, including Llama 2 and eventually Llama 3. Also, Yann has been an outspoken critic of those people in the AI community who warn about the looming danger and existential threat of AGI. He believes the AGI will be created one day, but it will be good. It will not escape human control, nor will it dominate and kill all humans.
The following is a conversation with Yann LeCun, his third time on this podcast. He is the chief AI scientist at Meta, professor at NYU, Turing Award winner and one of the seminal figures in the history of artificial intelligence. He and Meta AI have been big proponents of open sourcing, AI development and have been walking the walk by open sourcing many of their biggest models, including Llama 2 and eventually Llama 3. Also, Yann has been an outspoken critic of those people in the AI community who warn about the looming danger and existential threat of AGI. He believes the AGI will be created one day, but it will be good. It will not escape human control, nor will it dominate and kill all humans.
Limits of LLMs
At this moment of rapid AI development, this happens to be somewhat a controversial position, and so it’s been fun seeing Yann get into a lot of intense and fascinating discussions online as we do in this very conversation. This is the Lex Fridman podcast. To support it, please check out our sponsors in the description. And now, dear friends, here’s Yann LeCun. You’ve had some strong statements, technical statements about the future of artificial intelligence throughout your career actually, but recently as well, you’ve said that autoregressive LLMs are not the way we’re going to make progress towards superhuman intelligence. These are the large language models like GPT-4, like Llama 2 and 3 soon and so on. How do they work and why are they not going to take us all the way?
Yann LeCun
For a number of reasons. The first is that there is a number of characteristics of intelligent behavior. For example, the capacity to understand the world, understand the physical world, the ability to remember and retrieve things, persistent memory, the ability to reason, and the ability to plan. Those are four essential characteristics of intelligent systems or entities, humans, animals. LLMs can do none of those or they can only do them in a very primitive way and they don’t really understand the physical world. They don’t really have persistent memory. They can’t really reason and they certainly can’t plan. And so if you expect the system to become intelligent just without having the possibility of doing those things, you’re making a mistake. That is not to say that autoregressive LLMs are not useful. They’re certainly useful, that they’re not interesting, that we can’t build a whole ecosystem of applications around them. Of course we can, but as a pass towards human-level intelligence, they’re missing essential components.
For a number of reasons. The first is that there is a number of characteristics of intelligent behavior. For example, the capacity to understand the world, understand the physical world, the ability to remember and retrieve things, persistent memory, the ability to reason, and the ability to plan. Those are four essential characteristics of intelligent systems or entities, humans, animals. LLMs can do none of those or they can only do them in a very primitive way and they don’t really understand the physical world. They don’t really have persistent memory. They can’t really reason and they certainly can’t plan. And so if you expect the system to become intelligent just without having the possibility of doing those things, you’re making a mistake. That is not to say that autoregressive LLMs are not useful. They’re certainly useful, that they’re not interesting, that we can’t build a whole ecosystem of applications around them. Of course we can, but as a pass towards human-level intelligence, they’re missing essential components.
And then there is another tidbit or fact that I think is very interesting. Those LLMs are trained on enormous amounts of texts, basically, the entirety of all publicly available texts on the internet, right? That’s typically on the order of 10 to the 13 tokens. Each token is typically two bytes, so that’s two 10 to the 13 bytes as training data. It would take you or me 170,000 years to just read through this at eight hours a day. So it seems like an enormous amount of knowledge that those systems can accumulate, but then you realize it’s really not that much data. If you talk to developmental psychologists and they tell you a four-year-old has been awake for 16,000 hours in his or her life, and the amount of information that has reached the visual cortex of that child in four years is about 10 to 15 bytes.
And you can compute this by estimating that the optical nerve carry about 20 megabytes per second roughly, and so 10 to the 15 bytes for a four-year-old versus two times 10 to the 13 bytes for 170,000 years worth of reading. What that tells you is that through sensory input, we see a lot more information than we do through language, and that despite our intuition, most of what we learn and most of our knowledge is through our observation and interaction with the real world, not through language. Everything that we learn in the first few years of life, and certainly everything that animals learn has nothing to do with language.
Lex Fridman
So it would be good to maybe push against some of the intuition behind what you’re saying. So it is true there’s several orders of magnitude more data coming into the human mind much faster, and the human mind is able to learn very quickly from that, filter the data very quickly. Somebody might argue your comparison between sensory data versus language, that language is already very compressed. It already contains a lot more information than the bytes it takes to store them if you compare it to visual data. So there’s a lot of wisdom and language. There’s words, and the way we stitch them together, it already contains a lot of information. So is it possible that language alone already has enough wisdom and knowledge in there to be able to, from that language, construct a world model and understanding of the world, an understanding of the physical world that you’re saying LLMs lack?
So it would be good to maybe push against some of the intuition behind what you’re saying. So it is true there’s several orders of magnitude more data coming into the human mind much faster, and the human mind is able to learn very quickly from that, filter the data very quickly. Somebody might argue your comparison between sensory data versus language, that language is already very compressed. It already contains a lot more information than the bytes it takes to store them if you compare it to visual data. So there’s a lot of wisdom and language. There’s words, and the way we stitch them together, it already contains a lot of information. So is it possible that language alone already has enough wisdom and knowledge in there to be able to, from that language, construct a world model and understanding of the world, an understanding of the physical world that you’re saying LLMs lack?
Yann LeCun
So it’s a big debate among philosophers and also cognitive scientists, like whether intelligence needs to be grounded in reality. I’m clearly in the camp that yes, intelligence cannot appear without some grounding in some reality. It doesn’t need to be physical reality. It could be simulated, but the environment is just much richer than what you can express in language. Language is a very approximate representation or percepts and/or mental models. I mean, there’s a lot of tasks that we accomplish where we manipulate a mental model of the situation at hand, and that has nothing to do with language. Everything that’s physical, mechanical, whatever, when we build something, when we accomplish a task, model task of grabbing something, et cetera, we plan or action sequences, and we do this by essentially imagining the result of the outcome of a sequence of actions that we might imagine and that requires mental models that don’t have much to do with language, and I would argue most of our knowledge is derived from that interaction with the physical world.
So it’s a big debate among philosophers and also cognitive scientists, like whether intelligence needs to be grounded in reality. I’m clearly in the camp that yes, intelligence cannot appear without some grounding in some reality. It doesn’t need to be physical reality. It could be simulated, but the environment is just much richer than what you can express in language. Language is a very approximate representation or percepts and/or mental models. I mean, there’s a lot of tasks that we accomplish where we manipulate a mental model of the situation at hand, and that has nothing to do with language. Everything that’s physical, mechanical, whatever, when we build something, when we accomplish a task, model task of grabbing something, et cetera, we plan or action sequences, and we do this by essentially imagining the result of the outcome of a sequence of actions that we might imagine and that requires mental models that don’t have much to do with language, and I would argue most of our knowledge is derived from that interaction with the physical world.
So a lot of my colleagues who are more interested in things like computer vision are really on that camp that AI needs to be embodied essentially. And then other people coming from the NLP side or maybe some other motivation don’t necessarily agree with that, and philosophers are split as well, and the complexity of the world is hard to imagine. It’s hard to represent all the complexities that we take completely for granted in the real world that we don’t even imagine require intelligence, right?
This is the old Moravec paradox, from the pioneer of robotics, hence Moravec, who said, how is it that with computers, it seems to be easy to do high-level complex tasks like playing chess and solving integrals and doing things like that, whereas the thing we take for granted that we do every day, like, I don’t know, learning to drive a car or grabbing an object, we can’t do with computers, and we have LLMs that can pass the bar exam, so they must be smart, but then they can’t learn to drive in 20 hours like any 17-year old, they can’t learn to clear out the dinner table and fill up the dishwasher like any 10-year old can learn in one shot. Why is that? What are we missing? What type of learning or reasoning architecture or whatever are we missing that basically prevent us from having level five sort of in cars and domestic robots?
Lex Fridman
Can a large language model construct a world model that does know how to drive and does know how to fill a dishwasher, but just doesn’t know how to deal with visual data at this time, so it can operate in a space of concepts?
Can a large language model construct a world model that does know how to drive and does know how to fill a dishwasher, but just doesn’t know how to deal with visual data at this time, so it can operate in a space of concepts?
Yann LeCun
So yeah, that’s what a lot of people are working on. So the short answer is no, and the more complex answer is you can use all kinds of tricks to get an LLM to basically digest visual representations of images or video or audio for that matter. And a classical way of doing this is you train a vision system in some way, and we have a number of ways to train vision systems either supervised, semi-supervised, self-supervised, all kinds of different ways, that will turn any image into a high-level representation. Basically a list of tokens that are really similar to the kind of tokens that typical LLM takes as an input.
So yeah, that’s what a lot of people are working on. So the short answer is no, and the more complex answer is you can use all kinds of tricks to get an LLM to basically digest visual representations of images or video or audio for that matter. And a classical way of doing this is you train a vision system in some way, and we have a number of ways to train vision systems either supervised, semi-supervised, self-supervised, all kinds of different ways, that will turn any image into a high-level representation. Basically a list of tokens that are really similar to the kind of tokens that typical LLM takes as an input.
And then you just feed that to the LLM in addition to the text, and you just expect the LLM, during training, to be able to use those representations to help make decisions. I mean, there’s been work along those lines for quite a long time and now, you see those systems. I mean there are LLMs that have some vision extension, but they’re basically hacks in the sense that those things are not trained to really understand the world. They’re not trained with video, for example. They don’t really understand intuitive physics, at least not at the moment.
Lex Fridman
So you don’t think there’s something special to you about intuitive physics, about sort of common sense reasoning about the physical space, about physical reality. That to you is a giant leap that LLMs are just not able to do?
So you don’t think there’s something special to you about intuitive physics, about sort of common sense reasoning about the physical space, about physical reality. That to you is a giant leap that LLMs are just not able to do?
Yann LeCun
We’re not going to be able to do this with the type of LLMs that we are working with today, and there’s a number of reasons for this, but the main reason is the way LLMs are trained is that you take a piece of text, you remove some of the words in that text, you mask them, you replace them by blank markers, and you train a genetic neural net to predict the words that are missing. And if you build this neural net in a particular way so that it can only look at words that are to the left or the one it’s trying to predict, then what you have is a system that basically is trying to predict the next word in a text. So then you can feed it a text, a prompt, and you can ask it to predict the next word. It can never predict the next word exactly.
We’re not going to be able to do this with the type of LLMs that we are working with today, and there’s a number of reasons for this, but the main reason is the way LLMs are trained is that you take a piece of text, you remove some of the words in that text, you mask them, you replace them by blank markers, and you train a genetic neural net to predict the words that are missing. And if you build this neural net in a particular way so that it can only look at words that are to the left or the one it’s trying to predict, then what you have is a system that basically is trying to predict the next word in a text. So then you can feed it a text, a prompt, and you can ask it to predict the next word. It can never predict the next word exactly.
So what it’s going to do is produce a probability distribution of all the possible words in a dictionary. In fact, it doesn’t predict words. It predicts tokens that are kind of subword units, and so it’s easy to handle the uncertainty in the prediction there because there is only a finite number of possible words in the dictionary, and you can just compute a distribution over them. Then what the system does is that it picks a word from that distribution. Of course, there’s a higher chance of picking words that have a higher probability within that distribution. So you sample from that distribution to actually produce a word, and then you shift that word into the input, and so that allows the system not to predict the second word, and once you do this, you shift it into the input, et cetera.
Bilingualism and thinking
That’s called autoregressive prediction, which is why those LLMs should be called autoregressive LLMs, but we just call them LLMs, and there is a difference between this kind of process and a process by which before producing a word… When you and I talk, you and I are bilingual, we think about what we’re going to say, and it’s relatively independent of the language in which we’re going to say. When we talk about, I don’t know, let’s say a mathematical concept or something, the kind of thinking that we’re doing and the answer that we’re planning to produce is not linked to whether we’re going to see it in French or Russian or English.
Lex Fridman
Chomsky just rolled his eyes, but I understand, so you’re saying that there’s a bigger abstraction that goes before language and maps onto language?
Chomsky just rolled his eyes, but I understand, so you’re saying that there’s a bigger abstraction that goes before language and maps onto language?
Yann LeCun
Right. It’s certainly true for a lot of thinking that we do.
Right. It’s certainly true for a lot of thinking that we do.
Lex Fridman
Is that obvious that we don’t… You’re saying your thinking is same in French as it is in English?
Is that obvious that we don’t… You’re saying your thinking is same in French as it is in English?
Yann LeCun
Yeah, pretty much.
Yeah, pretty much.
Lex Fridman
Pretty much or how flexible are you if there’s a probability distribution?
Pretty much or how flexible are you if there’s a probability distribution?
Yann LeCun
Well, it depends what kind of thinking, right? If it’s producing puns, I get much better in French than English about that, or much worse.
Well, it depends what kind of thinking, right? If it’s producing puns, I get much better in French than English about that, or much worse.
Lex Fridman
Is there an abstract representation of puns? Is your humor an abstract… When you tweet and your tweets are sometimes a little bit spicy, is there an abstract representation in your brain of a tweet before it maps onto English?
Is there an abstract representation of puns? Is your humor an abstract… When you tweet and your tweets are sometimes a little bit spicy, is there an abstract representation in your brain of a tweet before it maps onto English?
Yann LeCun
There is an abstract representation of imagining the reaction of a reader to that text.
There is an abstract representation of imagining the reaction of a reader to that text.
Lex Fridman
Or you start with laughter and then figure out how to make that happen?
Or you start with laughter and then figure out how to make that happen?
Yann LeCun
Or figure out like a reaction you want to cause and then figure out how to say it so that it causes that reaction. But that’s really close to language. But think about a mathematical concept or imagining something you want to build out of wood or something like this. The kind of thinking you’re doing has absolutely nothing to do with language really. It’s not like you have necessarily an internal monologue in any particular language. You are imagining mental models of the thing. I mean, if I ask you to imagine what this water bottle will look like if I rotate it 90 degrees, that has nothing to do with language. And so clearly, there is a more abstract level of representation in which we do most of our thinking, and we plan what we’re going to say if the output is uttered words as opposed to an output being muscle actions, we plan our answer before we produce it.
Or figure out like a reaction you want to cause and then figure out how to say it so that it causes that reaction. But that’s really close to language. But think about a mathematical concept or imagining something you want to build out of wood or something like this. The kind of thinking you’re doing has absolutely nothing to do with language really. It’s not like you have necessarily an internal monologue in any particular language. You are imagining mental models of the thing. I mean, if I ask you to imagine what this water bottle will look like if I rotate it 90 degrees, that has nothing to do with language. And so clearly, there is a more abstract level of representation in which we do most of our thinking, and we plan what we’re going to say if the output is uttered words as opposed to an output being muscle actions, we plan our answer before we produce it.
LLMs don’t do that. They just produce one word after the other instinctively if you want. It’s a bit like the subconscious actions where you’re distracted, you’re doing something, you’re completely concentrated, and someone comes to you and asks you a question and you kind of answer the question. You don’t have time to think about the answer, but the answer is easy. So you don’t need to pay attention. You sort of respond automatically. That’s kind of what an LLM does. It doesn’t think about its answer really. It retrieves it because it’s accumulated a lot of knowledge. So it can retrieve some things, but it’s going to just spit out one token after the other without planning the answer.
Lex Fridman
But you’re making it sound just one token after the other. One token at a time generation is bound to be simplistic, but if the world model is sufficiently sophisticated that one token at a time, the most likely thing it generates is a sequence of tokens is going to be a deeply profound thing.
But you’re making it sound just one token after the other. One token at a time generation is bound to be simplistic, but if the world model is sufficiently sophisticated that one token at a time, the most likely thing it generates is a sequence of tokens is going to be a deeply profound thing.
Yann LeCun
But then that assumes that those systems actually possess an eternal world model.
But then that assumes that those systems actually possess an eternal world model.
Video prediction
Lex Fridman
So really goes to the… I think the fundamental question is can you build a really complete world model, not complete, but one that has a deep understanding of the world?
So really goes to the… I think the fundamental question is can you build a really complete world model, not complete, but one that has a deep understanding of the world?
Yann LeCun
Yeah. So can you build this first of all by prediction, and the answer is probably yes. Can you build it by predicting words? And the answer is most probably no, because language is very poor in terms of weak or low bandwidth if you want, there’s just not enough information there. So building world models means observing the world and understanding why the world is evolving the way it is, and then the extra component of a world model is something that can predict how the world is going to evolve as a consequence of an action you might take.
Yeah. So can you build this first of all by prediction, and the answer is probably yes. Can you build it by predicting words? And the answer is most probably no, because language is very poor in terms of weak or low bandwidth if you want, there’s just not enough information there. So building world models means observing the world and understanding why the world is evolving the way it is, and then the extra component of a world model is something that can predict how the world is going to evolve as a consequence of an action you might take.
So one model really is here is my idea of the state of the world at time, T, here is an action I might take. What is the predicted state of the world at time, T+1? Now that state of the world does not need to represent everything about the world, it just needs to represent enough that’s relevant for this planning of the action, but not necessarily all the details. Now, here is the problem. You’re not going to be able to do this with generative models. So a generative model has trained on video, and we’ve tried to do this for 10 years, you take a video, show a system, a piece of video, and then ask you to predict the reminder of the video, basically predict what’s going to happen.
Lex Fridman
One frame at a time, do the same thing as the autoregressive LLMs do, but for video.
One frame at a time, do the same thing as the autoregressive LLMs do, but for video.
Yann LeCun
Right. Either one frame at a time-
Right. Either one frame at a time-
Lex Fridman
LVMs.
LVMs.
Yann LeCun
… or a group of frames at a time. But yeah, a large video model if you want. The idea of doing this has been floating around for a long time and at FAIR, some of our colleagues and I have been trying to do this for about 10 years, and you can’t really do the same trick as with LLMs because LLMs, as I said, you can’t predict exactly which word is going to follow a sequence of words, but you can predict the distribution of words. Now, if you go to video, what you would have to do is predict the distribution of all possible frames in a video, and we don’t really know how to do that properly.
… or a group of frames at a time. But yeah, a large video model if you want. The idea of doing this has been floating around for a long time and at FAIR, some of our colleagues and I have been trying to do this for about 10 years, and you can’t really do the same trick as with LLMs because LLMs, as I said, you can’t predict exactly which word is going to follow a sequence of words, but you can predict the distribution of words. Now, if you go to video, what you would have to do is predict the distribution of all possible frames in a video, and we don’t really know how to do that properly.
We do not know how to represent distributions over high-dimensional, continuous spaces in ways that are useful. And there lies the main issue, and the reason we can do this is because the world is incredibly more complicated and richer in terms of information than text. Text is discrete, video is high-dimensional and continuous. A lot of details in this. So if I take a video of this room and the video is a camera panning around, there is no way I can predict everything that’s going to be in the room as I pan around. The system cannot predict what’s going to be in the room as the camera is panning. Maybe it’s going to predict this is a room where there’s a light and there is a wall and things like that. It can’t predict what the painting of the wall looks like or what the texture of the couch looks like. Certainly not the texture of the carpet. So there’s no way I can predict all those details.
So one way to possibly handle this, which we’ve been working for a long time, is to have a model that has what’s called a latent variable. And the latent variable is fed to a neural net, and it’s supposed to represent all the information about the world that you don’t perceive yet, and that you need to augment the system for the prediction to do a good job at predicting pixels, including the fine texture of the carpet and the couch and the painting on the wall.
That has been a complete failure essentially. And we’ve tried lots of things. We tried just straight neural nets, we tried GANs, we tried VAEs, all kinds of regularized auto encoders. We tried many things. We also tried those kinds of methods to learn good representations of images or video that could then be used as input to, for example, an image classification system. That also has basically failed. All the systems that attempt to predict missing parts of an image or video from a corrupted version of it, basically, so take an image or a video, corrupt it or transform it in some way, and then try to reconstruct the complete video or image from the corrupted version, and then hope that internally, the system will develop good representations of images that you can use for object recognition, segmentation, whatever it is. That has been essentially a complete failure and it works really well for text. That’s the principle that is used for LLMs, right?
Lex Fridman
So where’s the failure exactly? Is it that it’s very difficult to form a good representation of an image, like a good embedding of all the important information in the image? Is it in terms of the consistency of image to image, to image to image that forms the video? If we do a highlight reel of all the ways you failed, what’s that look like?
So where’s the failure exactly? Is it that it’s very difficult to form a good representation of an image, like a good embedding of all the important information in the image? Is it in terms of the consistency of image to image, to image to image that forms the video? If we do a highlight reel of all the ways you failed, what’s that look like?
Yann LeCun
Okay, so the reason this doesn’t work is first of all, I have to tell you exactly what doesn’t work because there is something else that does work. So the thing that does not work is training the system to learn representations of images by training it to reconstruct a good image from a corrupted version of it, okay? That’s what doesn’t work. And we have a whole slew of techniques for this that are variant of denoising autoencoders, something called MAE developed by some of my colleagues at FAIR, masked autoencoder. So it’s basically like the LLMs or things like this where you train the system by corrupting texts except you corrupt images, you remove patches from it, and you train a gigantic neural network reconstruct. The features you get are not good, and you know they’re not good because if you now train the same architecture, but you train it to supervise with label data, with textual descriptions of images, et cetera, you do get good representations and the performance on recognition tasks is much better than if you do this self-supervised retraining.
Okay, so the reason this doesn’t work is first of all, I have to tell you exactly what doesn’t work because there is something else that does work. So the thing that does not work is training the system to learn representations of images by training it to reconstruct a good image from a corrupted version of it, okay? That’s what doesn’t work. And we have a whole slew of techniques for this that are variant of denoising autoencoders, something called MAE developed by some of my colleagues at FAIR, masked autoencoder. So it’s basically like the LLMs or things like this where you train the system by corrupting texts except you corrupt images, you remove patches from it, and you train a gigantic neural network reconstruct. The features you get are not good, and you know they’re not good because if you now train the same architecture, but you train it to supervise with label data, with textual descriptions of images, et cetera, you do get good representations and the performance on recognition tasks is much better than if you do this self-supervised retraining.
Lex Fridman
The architecture is good?
The architecture is good?
Yann LeCun
The architecture is good, the architecture of the encoder is good, but the fact that you train the system to reconstruct images does not lead it to produce to long, good generic features of images.
The architecture is good, the architecture of the encoder is good, but the fact that you train the system to reconstruct images does not lead it to produce to long, good generic features of images.
Lex Fridman
When you train in a self-supervised way?
When you train in a self-supervised way?
Yann LeCun
Self-supervised by reconstruction.
Self-supervised by reconstruction.
Lex Fridman
Yeah, by reconstruction.
Yeah, by reconstruction.
Yann LeCun
Okay, so what’s the alternative? The alternative is joint embedding.
Okay, so what’s the alternative? The alternative is joint embedding.
JEPA (Joint-Embedding Predictive Architecture)
Lex Fridman
What is joint embedding? What are these architectures that you’re so excited about?
What is joint embedding? What are these architectures that you’re so excited about?
Yann LeCun
Okay, so now instead of training a system to encode the image and then training it to reconstruct the full image from a corrupted version, you take the full image, you take the corrupted or transformed version, you run them both through encoders, which in general, are identical, but not necessarily. And then you train a predictor on top of those encoders to predict the representation of the full input from the representation of the corrupted one. So joint embedding, because you’re taking the full input and the corrupted version or transformed version, run them both through encoders, you get a joint embedding, and then you’re saying, can I predict the representation of the full one from the representation of the corrupted one?
Okay, so now instead of training a system to encode the image and then training it to reconstruct the full image from a corrupted version, you take the full image, you take the corrupted or transformed version, you run them both through encoders, which in general, are identical, but not necessarily. And then you train a predictor on top of those encoders to predict the representation of the full input from the representation of the corrupted one. So joint embedding, because you’re taking the full input and the corrupted version or transformed version, run them both through encoders, you get a joint embedding, and then you’re saying, can I predict the representation of the full one from the representation of the corrupted one?
And I call this a JEPA, so that means joint embedding predictive architecture because this joint embedding and there is this predictor that predicts the representation of the good guy from the bad guy. And the big question is how do you train something like this? And until five years ago or six years ago, we didn’t have particularly good answers for how you train those things except for one, called contrastive learning, where the idea of contrastive learning is you take a pair of images that are, again, an image and a corrupted version or degraded version somehow or transformed version of the original one, and you train the predicted representation to be the same as that. If you only do this, this system collapses. It basically completely ignores the input and produces representations that are constant. So the contrastive methods avoid this, and those things have been around since the early ’90s, I had a paper on this in 1993, is you also show pairs of images that you know are different, and then you push away the representations from each other. So you say, not only do representations of things that we know are the same should be the same or should be similar, but representation of things that we know are different should be different. And that prevents the collapse, but it has some limitation. And there’s a whole bunch of techniques that have appeared over the last six, seven years that can revive this type of method, some of them from FAIR, some of them from Google and other places, but there are limitations to those contrastive methods.
What has changed in the last three, four years is now we have methods that are non-contrastive. So they don’t require those negative contrastive samples of images that we know are different. You turn them on you with images that are different versions or different views of the same thing, and you rely on some other tricks to prevent the system from collapsing. And we have half a dozen different methods for this now.
JEPA vs LLMs
Lex Fridman
So what is the fundamental difference between joint embedding architectures and LLMs? Can JEPA take us to AGI? Whether we should say that you don’t like the term AGI, and we’ll probably argue I think every single time I’ve talked to you, we’ve argued about the G in AGI.
So what is the fundamental difference between joint embedding architectures and LLMs? Can JEPA take us to AGI? Whether we should say that you don’t like the term AGI, and we’ll probably argue I think every single time I’ve talked to you, we’ve argued about the G in AGI.
Yann LeCun
Yes.
Yes.
Lex Fridman
I get it. I get it. Well, we’ll probably continue to argue about it. It’s great. You like AMI because you like French and ami is friend in French, and AMI stands for advanced machine intelligence. But either way, can JEPA take us to that towards that advanced machine intelligence?
I get it. I get it. Well, we’ll probably continue to argue about it. It’s great. You like AMI because you like French and ami is friend in French, and AMI stands for advanced machine intelligence. But either way, can JEPA take us to that towards that advanced machine intelligence?
Yann LeCun
Well, so it’s a first step. Okay, so first of all, what’s the difference with generative architectures like LLMs? So LLMs or vision systems that are trained by reconstruction generate the inputs. They generate the original input that is non-corrupted, non-transformed, so you have to predict all the pixels, and there is a huge amount of resources spent in the system to actually predict all those pixels, all the details. In a JEPA, you’re not trying to predict all the pixels, you’re only trying to predict an abstract representation of the inputs. And that’s much easier in many ways. So what the JEPA system, when it’s being trained, is trying to do is extract as much information as possible from the input, but yet only extract information that is relatively easily predictable. So there’s a lot of things in the world that we cannot predict. For example, if you have a self-driving car driving down the street or road, there may be trees around the road and it could be a windy day. So the leaves on the tree are kind moving in kind semi-chaotic, random ways that you can’t predict and you don’t care, you don’t want to predict. So what you want is your encoder to basically eliminate all those details. It’ll tell you there’s moving leaves, but it’s not going to give the details of exactly what’s going on. And so when you do the prediction in representation space, you’re not going to have to predict every single pixel of every leaf. And that not only is a lot simpler, but also, it allows the system to essentially learn an abstract representation of the world where what can be modeled and predicted is preserved and the rest is viewed as noise and eliminated by the encoder.
Well, so it’s a first step. Okay, so first of all, what’s the difference with generative architectures like LLMs? So LLMs or vision systems that are trained by reconstruction generate the inputs. They generate the original input that is non-corrupted, non-transformed, so you have to predict all the pixels, and there is a huge amount of resources spent in the system to actually predict all those pixels, all the details. In a JEPA, you’re not trying to predict all the pixels, you’re only trying to predict an abstract representation of the inputs. And that’s much easier in many ways. So what the JEPA system, when it’s being trained, is trying to do is extract as much information as possible from the input, but yet only extract information that is relatively easily predictable. So there’s a lot of things in the world that we cannot predict. For example, if you have a self-driving car driving down the street or road, there may be trees around the road and it could be a windy day. So the leaves on the tree are kind moving in kind semi-chaotic, random ways that you can’t predict and you don’t care, you don’t want to predict. So what you want is your encoder to basically eliminate all those details. It’ll tell you there’s moving leaves, but it’s not going to give the details of exactly what’s going on. And so when you do the prediction in representation space, you’re not going to have to predict every single pixel of every leaf. And that not only is a lot simpler, but also, it allows the system to essentially learn an abstract representation of the world where what can be modeled and predicted is preserved and the rest is viewed as noise and eliminated by the encoder.
So it lifts the level of abstraction of the representation. If you think about this, this is something we do absolutely all the time. Whenever we describe a phenomenon, we describe it at a particular level of abstraction. We don’t always describe every natural phenomenon in terms of quantum field theory. That would be impossible. So we have multiple levels of abstraction to describe what happens in the world, starting from quantum field theory, to atomic theory and molecules and chemistry, materials and all the way up to concrete objects in the real world and things like that. So we can’t just only model everything at the lowest level. And that’s what the idea of JEPA is really about, learn abstract representation in a self-supervised manner, and you can do it hierarchically as well. So that, I think, is an essential component of an intelligent system. And in language, we can get away without doing this because language is already to some level abstract and already has eliminated a lot of information that is not predictable. And so we can get away without doing the joint embedding, without lifting the abstraction level and by directly predicting words.
Lex Fridman
So joint embedding, it’s still generative, but it’s generative in this abstract representation space?
So joint embedding, it’s still generative, but it’s generative in this abstract representation space?
Yann LeCun
Yeah.
Yeah.
Lex Fridman
And you’re saying language, we were lazy with language because we already got the abstract representation for free, and now we have to zoom out, actually think about generally intelligent systems. We have to deal with a full mess of physical reality, of reality. And you do have to do this step of jumping from the full, rich, detailed reality to a abstract representation of that reality based on what you can then reason and all that kind of stuff.
And you’re saying language, we were lazy with language because we already got the abstract representation for free, and now we have to zoom out, actually think about generally intelligent systems. We have to deal with a full mess of physical reality, of reality. And you do have to do this step of jumping from the full, rich, detailed reality to a abstract representation of that reality based on what you can then reason and all that kind of stuff.
Yann LeCun
Right. And the thing is those self-supervised algorithm that learn by prediction, even in representation space, they learn more concept if the input data you feed them is more redundant. The more redundancy there is in the data, the more they’re able to capture some internal structure of it. And so there is way more redundancy in the structure in perceptual inputs, sensory input like vision than there is in text, which is not nearly as redundant. This is back to the question you were asking a few minutes ago. Language might represent more information really, because it’s already compressed. You’re right about that, but that means it’s also less redundant, and so self-supervision, you will not work as well.
Right. And the thing is those self-supervised algorithm that learn by prediction, even in representation space, they learn more concept if the input data you feed them is more redundant. The more redundancy there is in the data, the more they’re able to capture some internal structure of it. And so there is way more redundancy in the structure in perceptual inputs, sensory input like vision than there is in text, which is not nearly as redundant. This is back to the question you were asking a few minutes ago. Language might represent more information really, because it’s already compressed. You’re right about that, but that means it’s also less redundant, and so self-supervision, you will not work as well.
Lex Fridman
Is it possible to join the self-supervised training on visual data and self-supervised training on language data? There is a huge amount of knowledge, even though you talk down about those 10 to the 13 tokens. Those 10 to the 13 tokens represent the entirety-
Is it possible to join the self-supervised training on visual data and self-supervised training on language data? There is a huge amount of knowledge, even though you talk down about those 10 to the 13 tokens. Those 10 to the 13 tokens represent the entirety-
Lex Fridman
Those 10 to the 13 tokens represent the entirety, a large fraction of what us humans have figured out, both the shit-talk on Reddit and the contents of all the books and the articles and the full spectrum of human intellectual creation. So is it possible to join those two together?
Those 10 to the 13 tokens represent the entirety, a large fraction of what us humans have figured out, both the shit-talk on Reddit and the contents of all the books and the articles and the full spectrum of human intellectual creation. So is it possible to join those two together?
Yann LeCun
Well, eventually, yes. But I think if we do this too early, we run the risk of being tempted to cheat. And in fact, that’s what people are doing at the moment with vision-language model. We’re basically cheating. We’re using language as a crutch to help the deficiencies of our vision systems to learn good representations from images and video.
Well, eventually, yes. But I think if we do this too early, we run the risk of being tempted to cheat. And in fact, that’s what people are doing at the moment with vision-language model. We’re basically cheating. We’re using language as a crutch to help the deficiencies of our vision systems to learn good representations from images and video.
And the problem with this is that we might improve our language models by feeding them images, but we’re not going to get to the level of even the intelligence or level of understanding of the world of a cat or a dog, which doesn’t have language. They don’t have language and they understand the world much better than any LLM. They can plan really complex actions and imagine the result of a bunch of actions. How do we get machines to learn that before we combine that with language? Obviously if we combine this with language, this is going to be a winner, but before that, we have to focus on how do we get systems to learn how the world works?
Lex Fridman
So this joint-embedding predictive architecture, for you, that’s going to be able to learn something like common sense, something like what a cat uses to predict how to mess with its owner most optimally by knocking over a thing.
So this joint-embedding predictive architecture, for you, that’s going to be able to learn something like common sense, something like what a cat uses to predict how to mess with its owner most optimally by knocking over a thing.
Yann LeCun
That’s the hope. In fact, the techniques we’re using are non-contrastive. So not only is the architecture non-generative, the learning procedures we are using are non-contrastive. We have two sets of techniques. One set is based on distillation, and there’s a number of methods that use this principle, one by DeepMind called BYOL, a couple by FAIR, one called vcREG and another one called I-JEPA. And vcREG, I should say, is not a distillation method actually, but I-JEPA and BYOL certainly are. And there’s another one also called DINO or DINO also produced from at FAIR. And the idea of those things is that you take the full input, let’s say an image, you run it through an encoder, produces a representation, and then you corrupt that input or transform it, run it through essentially what amounts to the same encoder with some minor differences and then train a predictor.
That’s the hope. In fact, the techniques we’re using are non-contrastive. So not only is the architecture non-generative, the learning procedures we are using are non-contrastive. We have two sets of techniques. One set is based on distillation, and there’s a number of methods that use this principle, one by DeepMind called BYOL, a couple by FAIR, one called vcREG and another one called I-JEPA. And vcREG, I should say, is not a distillation method actually, but I-JEPA and BYOL certainly are. And there’s another one also called DINO or DINO also produced from at FAIR. And the idea of those things is that you take the full input, let’s say an image, you run it through an encoder, produces a representation, and then you corrupt that input or transform it, run it through essentially what amounts to the same encoder with some minor differences and then train a predictor.
Sometimes a predictor is very simple, sometimes it doesn’t exist, but train a predictor to predict a representation of the first uncorrupted input from the corrupted input. But you only train the second branch. You only train the part of the network that is fed with the corrupted input. The other network, you don’t train. But since they share the same weight, when you modify the first one, it also modifies the second one. And with various tricks, you can prevent the system from collapsing with the collapse of the type I was explaining before, where the system basically ignores the input. So that works very well. The two techniques we developed at FAIR, DINO and I-JEPA work really well for that.
DINO and I-JEPA
Lex Fridman
So what kind of data are we talking about here?
So what kind of data are we talking about here?
Yann LeCun
So there’s several scenario, one scenario is you take an image, you corrupt it by changing the cropping, for example, changing the size a little bit, maybe changing the orientation, blurring it, changing the colors, doing all kinds of horrible things to it.
So there’s several scenario, one scenario is you take an image, you corrupt it by changing the cropping, for example, changing the size a little bit, maybe changing the orientation, blurring it, changing the colors, doing all kinds of horrible things to it.
Lex Fridman
But basic horrible things?
But basic horrible things?
Yann LeCun
Basic horrible things that sort of degrade the quality a little bit and change the framing, crop the image. And in some cases, in the case of I-JEPA, you don’t need to do any of this, you just mask some parts of it. You just basically remove some regions, like a big block essentially, and then run through the encoders and train the entire system, encoder and predictor, to predict the representation of the good one from the representation of the corrupted one.
Basic horrible things that sort of degrade the quality a little bit and change the framing, crop the image. And in some cases, in the case of I-JEPA, you don’t need to do any of this, you just mask some parts of it. You just basically remove some regions, like a big block essentially, and then run through the encoders and train the entire system, encoder and predictor, to predict the representation of the good one from the representation of the corrupted one.
V-JEPA
So that’s the I-JEPA. It doesn’t need to know that it’s an image for example, because the only thing it needs to know is how to do this masking. Whereas with DINO, you need to know it’s an image because you need to do things like geometry transformation and blurring and things like that, that are really image specific. A more recent version of this that we have is called V-JEPA. So it’s basically the same idea as I-JEPA except it’s applied to video. So now you take a whole video and you mask a whole chunk of it. And what we mask is actually kind of a temporal tube, so a whole segment of each frame in the video over the entire video.
Lex Fridman
And that tube was statically positioned throughout the frames, just literally it’s a straight tube.
And that tube was statically positioned throughout the frames, just literally it’s a straight tube.
Yann LeCun
The tube, yeah, typically is 16 frames or something, and we mask the same region over the entire 16 frames. It’s a different one for every video obviously. And then again, train that system so as to predict the representation of the full video from the partially masked video. And that works really well. It’s the first system that we have that learns good representations of video so that when you feed those representations to a supervised classifier head, it can tell you what action is taking place in the video with pretty good accuracy. So that’s the first time we get something of that quality.
The tube, yeah, typically is 16 frames or something, and we mask the same region over the entire 16 frames. It’s a different one for every video obviously. And then again, train that system so as to predict the representation of the full video from the partially masked video. And that works really well. It’s the first system that we have that learns good representations of video so that when you feed those representations to a supervised classifier head, it can tell you what action is taking place in the video with pretty good accuracy. So that’s the first time we get something of that quality.
Lex Fridman
That’s a good test that a good representation is formed. That means there’s something to this.
That’s a good test that a good representation is formed. That means there’s something to this.
Yann LeCun
Yeah. We also preliminary result that seem to indicate that the representation allow our system to tell whether the video is physically possible or completely impossible, because some object disappeared or an object suddenly jumped from one location to another or changed shape or something.
Yeah. We also preliminary result that seem to indicate that the representation allow our system to tell whether the video is physically possible or completely impossible, because some object disappeared or an object suddenly jumped from one location to another or changed shape or something.
Lex Fridman
So it’s able to capture some physics based constraints about the reality represented in the video, about the appearance and the disappearance of objects.
So it’s able to capture some physics based constraints about the reality represented in the video, about the appearance and the disappearance of objects.
Yann LeCun
Yeah, that’s really new.
Yeah, that’s really new.
Lex Fridman
Okay, but can this actually get us to this kind of world model that understands enough about the world to be able to drive a car?
Okay, but can this actually get us to this kind of world model that understands enough about the world to be able to drive a car?
Yann LeCun
Possibly, this is going to take a while before we get to that point. And there are systems already robotic systems, that are based on this idea. And what you need for this is a slightly modified version of this, where imagine that you have a complete video and what you’re doing to this video is that you are either translating it in time towards the future. So you only see the beginning of the video, but you don’t see the latter part of it that is in the original one, or you just mask the second half of the video, for example. And then you train a JEPA system or the type I described, to predict the representation of the full video from the shifted one. But you also feed the predictor with an action. For example, the wheel is turned 10 degrees to the right or something, right?
Possibly, this is going to take a while before we get to that point. And there are systems already robotic systems, that are based on this idea. And what you need for this is a slightly modified version of this, where imagine that you have a complete video and what you’re doing to this video is that you are either translating it in time towards the future. So you only see the beginning of the video, but you don’t see the latter part of it that is in the original one, or you just mask the second half of the video, for example. And then you train a JEPA system or the type I described, to predict the representation of the full video from the shifted one. But you also feed the predictor with an action. For example, the wheel is turned 10 degrees to the right or something, right?
So if it’s a dash cam in a car and you know the angle of the wheel, you should be able to predict to some extent what’s going to happen to what you see. You’re not going to be able to predict all the details of objects that appear in the view obviously, but at a abstract representation level, you can probably predict what’s going to happen. So now what you have is a internal model that says, “Here is my idea of the state of the world at time T. Here is an action I’m taking. Here is a prediction of the state of the world at time T plus one, T plus delta T, T plus two seconds,” whatever it is. If you have a model of this type, you can use it for planning. So now you can do what LMS cannot do, which is planning what you’re going to do. So as you arrive at a particular outcome or satisfy a particular objective.
So you can have a number of objectives. I can predict that if I have an object like this and I open my hand, it’s going to fall. And if I push it with a particular force on the table, it’s going to move. If I push the table itself, it’s probably not going to move with the same force. So we have this internal model of the world in our mind, which allows us to plan sequences of actions to arrive at a particular goal. And so now if you have this world model, we can imagine a sequence of actions, predict what the outcome of the sequence of action is going to be, measure to what extent the final state satisfies a particular objective, like moving the bottle to the left of the table and then plan a sequence of actions that will minimize this objective, at runtime.
We’re not talking about learning, we’re talking about inference time, so this is planning, really. And in optimal control, this is a very classical thing. It’s called model predictive control. You have a model of the system you want to control that can predict the sequence of states corresponding to a sequence of commands. And you’re planning a sequence of commands so that according to your role model, the end state of the system will satisfy an objectives that you fix. This is the way rocket trajectories have been planned since computers have been around, so since the early ’60s essentially.
Hierarchical planning
Lex Fridman
So yes, for a model predictive control, but you also often talk about hierarchical planning. Can hierarchical planning emerge from this somehow?
So yes, for a model predictive control, but you also often talk about hierarchical planning. Can hierarchical planning emerge from this somehow?
Yann LeCun
Well, so no, you will have to build a specific architecture to allow for hierarchical planning. So hierarchical planning is absolutely necessary if you want to plan complex actions. If I want to go from, let’s say from New York to Paris, it’s the example I use all the time, and I’m sitting in my office at NYU, my objective that I need to minimize is my distance to Paris. At a high level, a very abstract representation of my location, I would have to decompose this into two sub goals. First one is go to the airport, second one is catch a plane to Paris. Okay, so my sub goal is now going to the airport. My objective function is my distance to the airport. How do I go to the airport where I have to go in the street and hail a taxi, which you can do in New York.
Well, so no, you will have to build a specific architecture to allow for hierarchical planning. So hierarchical planning is absolutely necessary if you want to plan complex actions. If I want to go from, let’s say from New York to Paris, it’s the example I use all the time, and I’m sitting in my office at NYU, my objective that I need to minimize is my distance to Paris. At a high level, a very abstract representation of my location, I would have to decompose this into two sub goals. First one is go to the airport, second one is catch a plane to Paris. Okay, so my sub goal is now going to the airport. My objective function is my distance to the airport. How do I go to the airport where I have to go in the street and hail a taxi, which you can do in New York.
Okay, now I have another sub goal go down on the street. Well that means going to the elevator, going down the elevator, walk out the street. How do I go to the elevator? I have to stand up from my chair, open the door in my office, go to the elevator, push the button. How do I get up for my chair? You can imagine going down, all the way down, to basically what amounts to millisecond by millisecond muscle control. And obviously you’re not going plan your entire trip from New York to Paris in terms of millisecond by millisecond muscle control. First, that would be incredibly expensive, but it will also be completely impossible because you don’t know all the conditions of what’s going to happen, how long it’s going to take to catch a taxi or to go to the airport with traffic. I mean, you would have to know exactly the condition of everything to be able to do this planning and you don’t have the information. So you have to do this hierarchical planning so that you can start acting and then sort of replanning as you go. And nobody really knows how to do this in AI. Nobody knows how to train a system to learn the appropriate multiple levels of representation so that hierarchical planning works.
Lex Fridman
Does something like that already emerge? So can you use an LLM, state-of-the-art LLM, to get you from New York to Paris by doing exactly the kind of detailed set of questions that you just did, which is, can you give me a list of 10 steps I need to do, to get from New York to Paris? And then for each of those steps, can you give me a list of 10 steps, how I make that step happen? And for each of those steps, can you give me a list of 10 steps to make each one of those, until you’re moving your individual muscles, maybe not, whatever you can actually act upon using your own mind.
Does something like that already emerge? So can you use an LLM, state-of-the-art LLM, to get you from New York to Paris by doing exactly the kind of detailed set of questions that you just did, which is, can you give me a list of 10 steps I need to do, to get from New York to Paris? And then for each of those steps, can you give me a list of 10 steps, how I make that step happen? And for each of those steps, can you give me a list of 10 steps to make each one of those, until you’re moving your individual muscles, maybe not, whatever you can actually act upon using your own mind.
Yann LeCun
Right. So there’s a lot of questions that are also implied by this, right? So the first thing is LLMs will be able to answer some of those questions down to some level of abstraction, under the condition that they’ve been trained with similar scenarios in their training set.
Right. So there’s a lot of questions that are also implied by this, right? So the first thing is LLMs will be able to answer some of those questions down to some level of abstraction, under the condition that they’ve been trained with similar scenarios in their training set.
Lex Fridman
They would be able to answer all of those questions, but some of them may be hallucinated meaning non-factual.
They would be able to answer all of those questions, but some of them may be hallucinated meaning non-factual.
Yann LeCun
Yeah, true. I mean they’ll probably produce some answer except they’re not going to be able to really produce millisecond by millisecond muscle control of how you stand up from your chair. But down to some level of abstraction where you can describe things by words, they might be able to give you a plan, but only under the condition that they’ve been trained to produce those kinds of plans. They’re not going to be able to plan for situations where that they never encountered before. They basically are going to have to regurgitate the template that they’ve been trained on.
Yeah, true. I mean they’ll probably produce some answer except they’re not going to be able to really produce millisecond by millisecond muscle control of how you stand up from your chair. But down to some level of abstraction where you can describe things by words, they might be able to give you a plan, but only under the condition that they’ve been trained to produce those kinds of plans. They’re not going to be able to plan for situations where that they never encountered before. They basically are going to have to regurgitate the template that they’ve been trained on.
Lex Fridman
Just for the example of New York to Paris, is it going to start getting into trouble? Which layer of abstraction do you think you’ll start? I can imagine almost every single part of that, an LLM would be able to answer somewhat accurately, especially when you’re talking about New York and Paris, major cities.
Just for the example of New York to Paris, is it going to start getting into trouble? Which layer of abstraction do you think you’ll start? I can imagine almost every single part of that, an LLM would be able to answer somewhat accurately, especially when you’re talking about New York and Paris, major cities.
Yann LeCun
I mean certainly LLM would be able to solve that problem if you fine tune it for it. And so I can’t say that an LLM cannot do this, it can do this if you train it for it, there’s no question down to a certain level where things can be formulated in terms of words. But if you want to go down to how you climb down the stairs or just stand up from your chair in terms of words, you can’t do it. That’s one of the reasons you need experience of the physical world, which is much higher bandwidth than what you can express in words, in human language.
I mean certainly LLM would be able to solve that problem if you fine tune it for it. And so I can’t say that an LLM cannot do this, it can do this if you train it for it, there’s no question down to a certain level where things can be formulated in terms of words. But if you want to go down to how you climb down the stairs or just stand up from your chair in terms of words, you can’t do it. That’s one of the reasons you need experience of the physical world, which is much higher bandwidth than what you can express in words, in human language.
Lex Fridman
So everything we’ve been talking about on the joint embedding space, is it possible that that’s what we need for the interaction with physical reality on the robotics front, and then just the LLMs are the thing that sits on top of it for the bigger reasoning, about the fact that I need to book a plane ticket and I need to know how to go to the websites and so on.
So everything we’ve been talking about on the joint embedding space, is it possible that that’s what we need for the interaction with physical reality on the robotics front, and then just the LLMs are the thing that sits on top of it for the bigger reasoning, about the fact that I need to book a plane ticket and I need to know how to go to the websites and so on.
Yann LeCun
Sure. And a lot of plans that people know about that are relatively high level are actually learned. Most people don’t invent the plans by themselves. We have some ability to do this of course, obviously, but most plans that people use are plans that have been trained on, they’ve seen other people use those plans or they’ve been told how to do things, right? That you can’t invent how you take a person who’s never heard of airplanes and tell them how do you go from New York to Paris? And they’re probably not going to be able to deconstruct the whole plan unless they’ve seen examples of that before. So certainly LLMs are going to be able to do this, but then how you link this from the low level of actions, that needs to be done with things like JEPA that basically lift the abstraction level of the representation without attempting to reconstruct the detail of the situation, that’s why we need JEPAs for.
Sure. And a lot of plans that people know about that are relatively high level are actually learned. Most people don’t invent the plans by themselves. We have some ability to do this of course, obviously, but most plans that people use are plans that have been trained on, they’ve seen other people use those plans or they’ve been told how to do things, right? That you can’t invent how you take a person who’s never heard of airplanes and tell them how do you go from New York to Paris? And they’re probably not going to be able to deconstruct the whole plan unless they’ve seen examples of that before. So certainly LLMs are going to be able to do this, but then how you link this from the low level of actions, that needs to be done with things like JEPA that basically lift the abstraction level of the representation without attempting to reconstruct the detail of the situation, that’s why we need JEPAs for.
Autoregressive LLMs
Lex Fridman
I would love to sort of linger on your skepticism around auto regressive LLMs. So one way I would like to test that skepticism is everything you say makes a lot of sense, but if I apply everything you said today and in general to I don’t know, 10 years ago, maybe a little bit less, no, let’s say three years ago, I wouldn’t be able to predict the success of LLMs. So does it make sense to you that autoregressive LLMs are able to be so damn good?
I would love to sort of linger on your skepticism around auto regressive LLMs. So one way I would like to test that skepticism is everything you say makes a lot of sense, but if I apply everything you said today and in general to I don’t know, 10 years ago, maybe a little bit less, no, let’s say three years ago, I wouldn’t be able to predict the success of LLMs. So does it make sense to you that autoregressive LLMs are able to be so damn good?
Yann LeCun
Yes.
Yes.
Lex Fridman
Can you explain your intuition? Because if I were to take your wisdom and intuition at face value, I would say there’s no way autoregressive LLMs, one token at a time, would be able to do the kind of things they’re doing.
Can you explain your intuition? Because if I were to take your wisdom and intuition at face value, I would say there’s no way autoregressive LLMs, one token at a time, would be able to do the kind of things they’re doing.
Yann LeCun
No, there’s one thing that autoregressive LLMs or that LLMs in general, not just the autoregressive one, but including the bird style bidirectional ones, are exploiting and its self supervised running, and I’ve been a very, very strong advocate of self supervised running for many years. So those things are a incredibly impressive demonstration that self supervised running actually works. The idea that started, it didn’t start with BERT, but it was really kind of good demonstration with this.
No, there’s one thing that autoregressive LLMs or that LLMs in general, not just the autoregressive one, but including the bird style bidirectional ones, are exploiting and its self supervised running, and I’ve been a very, very strong advocate of self supervised running for many years. So those things are a incredibly impressive demonstration that self supervised running actually works. The idea that started, it didn’t start with BERT, but it was really kind of good demonstration with this.
So the idea that you take a piece of text, you corrupt it, and then you train some gigantic neural net to reconstruct the parts that are missing. That has produced an enormous amount of benefits. It allowed us to create systems that understand language, systems that can translate hundreds of languages in any direction, systems that are multilingual, so it’s a single system that can be trained to understand hundreds of languages and translate in any direction, and produce summaries and then answer questions and produce text.
And then there’s a special case of it, which is the auto regressive trick where you constrain the system to not elaborate a representation of the text from looking at the entire text, but only predicting a word from the words that are come before. And you do this by constraining the architecture of the network, and that’s what you can build an auto aggressive LLM from.
So there was a surprise many years ago with what’s called decoder only LLM. So since systems of this type that are just trying to produce words from the previous one and the fact that when you scale them up, they tend to really understand more about language. When you train them on lots of data, you make them really big. That was a surprise and that surprise occurred quite a while back, with work from Google, Meta, OpenAI, et cetera, going back to the GPT kind of work, general pre-trained transformers.
Lex Fridman
You mean like GPT2? There’s a certain place where you start to realize scaling might actually keep giving us an emergent benefit.
You mean like GPT2? There’s a certain place where you start to realize scaling might actually keep giving us an emergent benefit.
Yann LeCun
Yeah, I mean there were work from various places, but if you want to place it in the GPT timeline, that would be around GPT2, yeah.
Yeah, I mean there were work from various places, but if you want to place it in the GPT timeline, that would be around GPT2, yeah.
Lex Fridman
Well, because you said it so charismatic and you said so many words, but self supervised learning, yes. But again, the same intuition you’re applying to saying that auto aggressive LLMs cannot have a deep understanding of the world. If we just apply that, same intuition, does it make sense to you that they’re able to form enough of a representation in the world to be damn convincing, essentially passing the original touring test with flying colors?
Well, because you said it so charismatic and you said so many words, but self supervised learning, yes. But again, the same intuition you’re applying to saying that auto aggressive LLMs cannot have a deep understanding of the world. If we just apply that, same intuition, does it make sense to you that they’re able to form enough of a representation in the world to be damn convincing, essentially passing the original touring test with flying colors?
Yann LeCun
Well, we’re fooled by their fluency, right? We just assume that if a system is fluent in manipulating language, then it has all the characteristics of human intelligence, but that impression is false. We’re really fooled by it.
Well, we’re fooled by their fluency, right? We just assume that if a system is fluent in manipulating language, then it has all the characteristics of human intelligence, but that impression is false. We’re really fooled by it.
Lex Fridman
What do you think Alan Turing would say, without understanding anything, just hanging out with it?
What do you think Alan Turing would say, without understanding anything, just hanging out with it?
Yann LeCun
Alan Turing would decide that a Turing test is a really bad test, okay? This is what the AI community has decided many years ago that the Turing test was a really bad test of intelligence.
Alan Turing would decide that a Turing test is a really bad test, okay? This is what the AI community has decided many years ago that the Turing test was a really bad test of intelligence.
Lex Fridman
What would Hans Marvek say about the larger language models?
What would Hans Marvek say about the larger language models?
Yann LeCun
Hans Marvek would say that Marvek Paradox still applies. Okay, we can pass-
Hans Marvek would say that Marvek Paradox still applies. Okay, we can pass-
Lex Fridman
You don’t think he would be really impressed?
You don’t think he would be really impressed?
Yann LeCun
No, of course everybody would be impressed. But it’s not a question of being impressed or not, it’s the question of knowing what the limit of those systems can do. Again, they are impressive. They can do a lot of useful things. There’s a whole industry that is being built around them. They’re going to make progress, but there is a lot of things they cannot do, and we have to realize what they cannot do and then figure out how we get there. And I’m seeing this from basically 10 years of research on the idea of self supervised running, actually that’s going back more than 10 years, but the idea of self supervised running. So basically capturing the internal structure of a piece of a set of inputs without training the system for any particular task, to learning representations.
No, of course everybody would be impressed. But it’s not a question of being impressed or not, it’s the question of knowing what the limit of those systems can do. Again, they are impressive. They can do a lot of useful things. There’s a whole industry that is being built around them. They’re going to make progress, but there is a lot of things they cannot do, and we have to realize what they cannot do and then figure out how we get there. And I’m seeing this from basically 10 years of research on the idea of self supervised running, actually that’s going back more than 10 years, but the idea of self supervised running. So basically capturing the internal structure of a piece of a set of inputs without training the system for any particular task, to learning representations.
The conference I co-founded 14 years ago is called International Conference on Learning Representations. That’s the entire issue that deep learning is dealing with, and it’s been my obsession for almost 40 years now. So learning representation is really the thing. For the longest time, we could only do this with supervised learning, and then we started working on what we used to call unsupervised learning and revived the idea of unsupervised running in the early 2000s with your [inaudible 00:56:58] and Jeff Hinton. Then discovered that supervised running actually works pretty well if you can collect enough data. And so the whole idea of unsupervised, self supervised running kind of took a backseat for a bit, and then I tried to revive it in a big way starting in 2014, basically when we started FAIR and really pushing for finding new methods to do self supervised running both for text and for images and for video and audio.
And some of that work has been incredibly successful. I mean, the reason why we have multilingual translation system, things to do, content moderation on Meta, for example, on Facebook, that are multilingual, that understand whether a piece of text is hate speech not or something, is due to that progress using self supervised running for NLP, combining this with transformer architectures and blah, blah, blah.
But that’s the big success of self supervised running. We had similar success in speech recognition, a system called WAVE2VEC, which is also a joint embedding architecture, by the way, trained with contrastive running. And that system also can produce speech recognition systems that are multilingual with mostly unlabeled data and only need a few minutes of labeled data to actually do speech recognition, that’s amazing. We have systems now based on those combination of ideas that can do real time translation of hundreds of languages into each other, speech to speech.
Lex Fridman
Speech to speech, even including, which is fascinating, languages that don’t have written forms.
Speech to speech, even including, which is fascinating, languages that don’t have written forms.
Yann LeCun
That’s right.
That’s right.
Lex Fridman
Just spoken only.
Just spoken only.
Yann LeCun
That’s right. We don’t go through text, it goes directly from speech to speech using an internal representation of speech units that are discrete, but it’s called Textless NLP. We used to call it this way. But yeah, so I mean incredible success there. And then for 10 years, we tried to apply this idea to learning representations of images by training a system to predict videos, learning intuitive physics by training a system to predict what’s going to happen in the video.
That’s right. We don’t go through text, it goes directly from speech to speech using an internal representation of speech units that are discrete, but it’s called Textless NLP. We used to call it this way. But yeah, so I mean incredible success there. And then for 10 years, we tried to apply this idea to learning representations of images by training a system to predict videos, learning intuitive physics by training a system to predict what’s going to happen in the video.
And tried and tried and failed and failed, with generative models, with models that predict pixels. We could not get them to learn good representations of images. We could not get them to learn good representations of videos. And we tried many times, we published lots of papers on it, where they kind of sort of work, but not really great. They started working, we abandoned this idea of predicting every pixel and basically just doing the joint embedding and predicting and representation space, that works. So there’s ample evidence that we’re not going to be able to learn good representations of the real world using generative model. So I’m telling people, everybody’s talking about generative AI. If you’re really interested in human level AI, abandon the idea of generative AI.
Lex Fridman
Okay, but you really think it’s possible to get far with the joint embedding representation. So there’s common sense reasoning, and then there’s high level reasoning. I feel like those are two… The kind of reasoning that LLMs are able to do, okay, let me not use the word reasoning, but the kind of stuff that LLMs are able to do, seems fundamentally different than the common sense reasoning we use to navigate the world. It seems like we’re going to need both. Would you be able to get, with the joint embedding, which is JEPA type of approach, looking at video, would you be able to learn, let’s see, well, how to get from New York to Paris or how to understand the state of politics in the world today. These are things where various humans generate a lot of language and opinions on, in the space of language, but don’t visually represent that in any clearly compressible way.
Okay, but you really think it’s possible to get far with the joint embedding representation. So there’s common sense reasoning, and then there’s high level reasoning. I feel like those are two… The kind of reasoning that LLMs are able to do, okay, let me not use the word reasoning, but the kind of stuff that LLMs are able to do, seems fundamentally different than the common sense reasoning we use to navigate the world. It seems like we’re going to need both. Would you be able to get, with the joint embedding, which is JEPA type of approach, looking at video, would you be able to learn, let’s see, well, how to get from New York to Paris or how to understand the state of politics in the world today. These are things where various humans generate a lot of language and opinions on, in the space of language, but don’t visually represent that in any clearly compressible way.
Yann LeCun
Right. Well, there’s a lot of situations that might be difficult to, for a purely language based system to know. Okay, you can probably learn from reading texts, the entirety of the publicly available texts in the world that I cannot get from New York to Paris by snapping my fingers. That’s not going to work, right?
Right. Well, there’s a lot of situations that might be difficult to, for a purely language based system to know. Okay, you can probably learn from reading texts, the entirety of the publicly available texts in the world that I cannot get from New York to Paris by snapping my fingers. That’s not going to work, right?
Lex Fridman
Yes.
Yes.
Yann LeCun
But there’s probably more complex scenarios of this type, which an LLM may never have encountered and may not be able to determine whether it’s possible or not. So that link from the low level to the high level, the thing is that the high level that language expresses is based on the common experience of the low level, which LLMs currently do not have. When we talk to each other, we know we have a common experience of the world. A lot of it is similar, and LLMs don’t have that.
But there’s probably more complex scenarios of this type, which an LLM may never have encountered and may not be able to determine whether it’s possible or not. So that link from the low level to the high level, the thing is that the high level that language expresses is based on the common experience of the low level, which LLMs currently do not have. When we talk to each other, we know we have a common experience of the world. A lot of it is similar, and LLMs don’t have that.
Lex Fridman
But see, it’s present. You and I have a common experience of the world in terms of the physics of how gravity works and stuff like this, and that common knowledge of the world, I feel like is there, in the language. We don’t explicitly express it, but if you have a huge amount of text, you’re going to get this stuff that’s between the lines. In order to form a consistent world model, you’re going to have to understand how gravity works, even if you don’t have an explicit explanation of gravity. So even though in the case of gravity, there is explicit explanations of gravity in Wikipedia. But the stuff that we think of as common sense reasoning, I feel like to generate language correctly, you’re going to have to figure that out. Now, you could say as you have, there’s not enough text… Sorry, okay, so you don’t think so?
But see, it’s present. You and I have a common experience of the world in terms of the physics of how gravity works and stuff like this, and that common knowledge of the world, I feel like is there, in the language. We don’t explicitly express it, but if you have a huge amount of text, you’re going to get this stuff that’s between the lines. In order to form a consistent world model, you’re going to have to understand how gravity works, even if you don’t have an explicit explanation of gravity. So even though in the case of gravity, there is explicit explanations of gravity in Wikipedia. But the stuff that we think of as common sense reasoning, I feel like to generate language correctly, you’re going to have to figure that out. Now, you could say as you have, there’s not enough text… Sorry, okay, so you don’t think so?
Yann LeCun
No, I agree with what you just said, which is that to be able to do high level common sense, to have high level common sense, you need to have the low level common sense to build on top of.
No, I agree with what you just said, which is that to be able to do high level common sense, to have high level common sense, you need to have the low level common sense to build on top of.
Lex Fridman
But that’s not there.
But that’s not there.
Yann LeCun
And that’s not there in the LLMs. LLMs are purely trained from text. So then the other statement you made, I would not agree with, the fact that implicit in all languages in the world is the underlying reality, is a lot of underlying reality, which is not expressed in language.
And that’s not there in the LLMs. LLMs are purely trained from text. So then the other statement you made, I would not agree with, the fact that implicit in all languages in the world is the underlying reality, is a lot of underlying reality, which is not expressed in language.
Lex Fridman
Is that obvious to you?
Is that obvious to you?
Yann LeCun
Yeah, totally.
Yeah, totally.
Lex Fridman
So all the conversations we had… Okay, there’s the dark web, meaning whatever, the private conversations like DMs and stuff like this, which is much, much larger probably than what’s available, what LLMs are trained on.
So all the conversations we had… Okay, there’s the dark web, meaning whatever, the private conversations like DMs and stuff like this, which is much, much larger probably than what’s available, what LLMs are trained on.
Yann LeCun
You don’t need to communicate the stuff that is common, right?
You don’t need to communicate the stuff that is common, right?
Lex Fridman
But the humor, all of it, no, you do, you don’t need to, but it comes through. If I accidentally knock this over, you’ll probably make fun of me in the content of the you making fun of me will be explanation of the fact that cups fall, and then gravity works in this way. And then you’ll have some very vague information about what kind of things explode when they hit the ground. And then maybe you’ll make a joke about entropy or something like this, then we’ll never be able to reconstruct this again. You’ll make a little joke like this and there’ll be a trillion of other jokes. And from the jokes, you can piece together the fact that gravity works and mugs can break and all this kind of stuff. You don’t need to see, it’ll be very inefficient. It’s easier to knock the thing over, but I feel like it would be there if you have enough of that data.
But the humor, all of it, no, you do, you don’t need to, but it comes through. If I accidentally knock this over, you’ll probably make fun of me in the content of the you making fun of me will be explanation of the fact that cups fall, and then gravity works in this way. And then you’ll have some very vague information about what kind of things explode when they hit the ground. And then maybe you’ll make a joke about entropy or something like this, then we’ll never be able to reconstruct this again. You’ll make a little joke like this and there’ll be a trillion of other jokes. And from the jokes, you can piece together the fact that gravity works and mugs can break and all this kind of stuff. You don’t need to see, it’ll be very inefficient. It’s easier to knock the thing over, but I feel like it would be there if you have enough of that data.
Yann LeCun
I just think that most of the information of this type that we have accumulated when we were babies, it’s just not present in text, in any description, essentially.
I just think that most of the information of this type that we have accumulated when we were babies, it’s just not present in text, in any description, essentially.
Lex Fridman
And the sensory data is a much richer source for getting that kind of understanding.
And the sensory data is a much richer source for getting that kind of understanding.
Yann LeCun
I mean, there’s 16,000 hours of wake time of a 4-year-old and tend to do 15 bites going through vision, just vision, there is a similar bandwidth of touch and a little less through audio. And then text, language doesn’t come in until a year in life. And by the time you are nine years old, you’ve learned about gravity, you know about inertia, you know about gravity, the stability, you know about the distinction between animate and inanimate objects. You know by 18 months, you know about why people want to do things and you help them if they can’t. I mean, there’s a lot of things that you learn mostly by observation, really not even through interaction. In the first few months of life, babies don’t really have any influence on the world, they can only observe. And you accumulate a gigantic amount of knowledge just from that. So that’s what we’re missing from current AI systems.
I mean, there’s 16,000 hours of wake time of a 4-year-old and tend to do 15 bites going through vision, just vision, there is a similar bandwidth of touch and a little less through audio. And then text, language doesn’t come in until a year in life. And by the time you are nine years old, you’ve learned about gravity, you know about inertia, you know about gravity, the stability, you know about the distinction between animate and inanimate objects. You know by 18 months, you know about why people want to do things and you help them if they can’t. I mean, there’s a lot of things that you learn mostly by observation, really not even through interaction. In the first few months of life, babies don’t really have any influence on the world, they can only observe. And you accumulate a gigantic amount of knowledge just from that. So that’s what we’re missing from current AI systems.
AI hallucination
Lex Fridman
I think in one of your slides, you have this nice plot that is one of the ways you show that LLMs are limited. I wonder if you could talk about hallucinations from your perspectives, the why hallucinations happen from large language models and to what degree is that a fundamental flaw of large language models?
I think in one of your slides, you have this nice plot that is one of the ways you show that LLMs are limited. I wonder if you could talk about hallucinations from your perspectives, the why hallucinations happen from large language models and to what degree is that a fundamental flaw of large language models?
Yann LeCun
Right, so because of the autoregressive prediction, every time an produces a token or a word, there is some level of probability for that word to take you out of the set of reasonable answers. And if you assume, which is a very strong assumption, that the probability of such error is that those errors are independent across a sequence of tokens being produced. What that means is that every time you produce a token, the probability that you stay within the set of correct answer decreases and it decreases exponentially.
Right, so because of the autoregressive prediction, every time an produces a token or a word, there is some level of probability for that word to take you out of the set of reasonable answers. And if you assume, which is a very strong assumption, that the probability of such error is that those errors are independent across a sequence of tokens being produced. What that means is that every time you produce a token, the probability that you stay within the set of correct answer decreases and it decreases exponentially.
Lex Fridman
So there’s a strong, like you said, assumption there that if there’s a non-zero probability of making a mistake, which there appears to be, then there’s going to be a kind of drift.
So there’s a strong, like you said, assumption there that if there’s a non-zero probability of making a mistake, which there appears to be, then there’s going to be a kind of drift.
Yann LeCun
Yeah, and that drift is exponential. It’s like errors accumulate. So the probability that an answer would be nonsensical increases exponentially with the number of tokens.
Yeah, and that drift is exponential. It’s like errors accumulate. So the probability that an answer would be nonsensical increases exponentially with the number of tokens.
Lex Fridman
Is that obvious to you, by the way? Well, mathematically speaking maybe, but isn’t there a kind of gravitational pull towards the truth? Because on average, hopefully, the truth is well represented in the training set?
Is that obvious to you, by the way? Well, mathematically speaking maybe, but isn’t there a kind of gravitational pull towards the truth? Because on average, hopefully, the truth is well represented in the training set?
Yann LeCun
No, it’s basically a struggle against the curse of dimensionality. So the way you can correct for this is that you fine tune the system by having it produce answers for all kinds of questions that people might come up with.
No, it’s basically a struggle against the curse of dimensionality. So the way you can correct for this is that you fine tune the system by having it produce answers for all kinds of questions that people might come up with.
Yann LeCun
Having it produce answers for all kinds of questions that people might come up with. And people are people, so a lot of the questions that they have are very similar to each other, so you can probably cover 80% or whatever of questions that people will ask by collecting data and then you fine tune the system to produce good answers for all of those things, and it’s probably going to be able to learn that because it’s got a lot of capacity to learn. But then there is the enormous set of prompts that you have not covered during training, and that set is enormous, like within the set of all possible prompts, the proportion of prompts that have been used for training is absolutely tiny, it’s a tiny, tiny, tiny subset of all possible prompts.
Having it produce answers for all kinds of questions that people might come up with. And people are people, so a lot of the questions that they have are very similar to each other, so you can probably cover 80% or whatever of questions that people will ask by collecting data and then you fine tune the system to produce good answers for all of those things, and it’s probably going to be able to learn that because it’s got a lot of capacity to learn. But then there is the enormous set of prompts that you have not covered during training, and that set is enormous, like within the set of all possible prompts, the proportion of prompts that have been used for training is absolutely tiny, it’s a tiny, tiny, tiny subset of all possible prompts.
And so the system will behave properly on the prompts that has been either trained, pre-trained, or fine-tuned, but then there is an entire space of things that it cannot possibly have been trained on because the number is gigantic. So whatever training the system has been subject to produce appropriate answers, you can break it by finding out a prompt that will be outside of the set of prompts that’s been trained on, or things that are similar, and then it will just spew complete nonsense.
Lex Fridman
When you say prompt, do you mean that exact prompt or do you mean a prompt that’s in many parts, very different than? Is it that easy to ask a question or to say a thing that hasn’t been said before on the internet?
When you say prompt, do you mean that exact prompt or do you mean a prompt that’s in many parts, very different than? Is it that easy to ask a question or to say a thing that hasn’t been said before on the internet?
Yann LeCun
People have come up with things where you put essentially a random sequence of characters in the prompt and that’s enough to throw the system into a mode where it is going to answer something completely different than it would have answered without this. So that’s a way to jailbreak the system, basically go outside of its conditioning.
People have come up with things where you put essentially a random sequence of characters in the prompt and that’s enough to throw the system into a mode where it is going to answer something completely different than it would have answered without this. So that’s a way to jailbreak the system, basically go outside of its conditioning.
Lex Fridman
That’s a very clear demonstration of it, but of course, that goes outside of what is designed to do, right? If you actually stitch together reasonably grammatical sentences, is it that easy to break it?
That’s a very clear demonstration of it, but of course, that goes outside of what is designed to do, right? If you actually stitch together reasonably grammatical sentences, is it that easy to break it?
Yann LeCun
Yeah, some people have done things like, you write a sentence in English or you ask a question in English and it produces a perfectly fine answer and then you just substitute a few words by the same word in another language and all of a sudden the answer is complete nonsense.
Yeah, some people have done things like, you write a sentence in English or you ask a question in English and it produces a perfectly fine answer and then you just substitute a few words by the same word in another language and all of a sudden the answer is complete nonsense.
Lex Fridman
What I’m saying is, which fraction of prompts that humans are likely to generate are going to break the system?
What I’m saying is, which fraction of prompts that humans are likely to generate are going to break the system?
Yann LeCun
The problem is that there is a long tail, this is an issue that a lot of people have realized in social networks and stuff like that, which is there’s a very, very long tail of things that people will ask and you can fine tune the system for the 80% or whatever of the things that most people will ask. And then this long tail is so large that you’re not going to be able to fine tune the system for all the conditions. And in the end, the system ends up being a giant lookup table essentially, which is not really what you want, you want systems that can reason, certainly that can plan.
The problem is that there is a long tail, this is an issue that a lot of people have realized in social networks and stuff like that, which is there’s a very, very long tail of things that people will ask and you can fine tune the system for the 80% or whatever of the things that most people will ask. And then this long tail is so large that you’re not going to be able to fine tune the system for all the conditions. And in the end, the system ends up being a giant lookup table essentially, which is not really what you want, you want systems that can reason, certainly that can plan.
Reasoning in AI
The type of reasoning that takes place in LLM is very, very primitive, and the reason you can tell is primitive is because the amount of computation that is spent per token produced is constant. So if you ask a question and that question has an answer in a given number of token, the amount of computation devoted to computing that answer can be exactly estimated. It’s the size of the prediction network with its 36 layers or 92 layers or whatever it is multiply by number of tokens, that’s it. And so essentially, it doesn’t matter if the question being asked is simple to answer, complicated to answer, impossible to answer because it’s a decidable or something, the amount of computation the system will be able to devote to the answer is constant or is proportional to number of token produced in the answer. This is not the way we work, the way we reason is that when we’re faced with a complex problem or a complex question, we spend more time trying to solve it and answer it because it’s more difficult.
Lex Fridman
There’s a prediction element, there’s an iterative element where you’re adjusting your understanding of a thing by going over and over and over, there’s a hierarchical elements on. Does this mean it’s a fundamental flaw of LLMs or does it mean that-
There’s a prediction element, there’s an iterative element where you’re adjusting your understanding of a thing by going over and over and over, there’s a hierarchical elements on. Does this mean it’s a fundamental flaw of LLMs or does it mean that-
Yann LeCun
Yeah.
Yeah.
Lex Fridman
… There’s more part to that question, now you’re just behaving like an LLM, immediately answering. No, that it’s just the low level world model on top of which we can then build some of these kinds of mechanisms, like you said, persistent long-term memory or reasoning, so on. But we need that world model that comes from language. Maybe it is not so difficult to build this kind of reasoning system on top of a well constructed world model.
… There’s more part to that question, now you’re just behaving like an LLM, immediately answering. No, that it’s just the low level world model on top of which we can then build some of these kinds of mechanisms, like you said, persistent long-term memory or reasoning, so on. But we need that world model that comes from language. Maybe it is not so difficult to build this kind of reasoning system on top of a well constructed world model.
Yann LeCun
Whether it’s difficult or not, the near future will say because a lot of people are working on reasoning and planning abilities for dialogue systems. Even if we restrict ourselves to language, just having the ability to plan your answer before you answer in terms that are not necessarily linked with the language you’re going to use to produce the answer, so this idea of this mental model that allows you to plan what you’re going to say before you say it, that is very important. I think there’s going to be a lot of systems over the next few years that are going to have this capability, but the blueprint of those systems will be extremely different from auto aggressive LLMs.
Whether it’s difficult or not, the near future will say because a lot of people are working on reasoning and planning abilities for dialogue systems. Even if we restrict ourselves to language, just having the ability to plan your answer before you answer in terms that are not necessarily linked with the language you’re going to use to produce the answer, so this idea of this mental model that allows you to plan what you’re going to say before you say it, that is very important. I think there’s going to be a lot of systems over the next few years that are going to have this capability, but the blueprint of those systems will be extremely different from auto aggressive LLMs.
It’s the same difference as the difference between what psychologists call system one and system two in humans, so system one is the type of task that you can accomplish without deliberately consciously think about how you do them, you just do them, you’ve done them enough that you can just do it subconsciously without thinking about them. If you’re an experienced driver, you can drive without really thinking about it and you can talk to someone at the same time or listen to the radio. If you are a very experienced chess player, you can play against a non- experienced chess player without really thinking either, you just recognize the pattern and you play. That’s system one, so all the things that you do instinctively without really having to deliberately plan and think about it.
And then there is all the tasks where you need to plan, so if you are a not too experienced chess player or you are experienced where you play against another experienced chess player, you think about all kinds of options, you think about it for a while and you are much better if you have time to think about it than you are if you play blitz with limited time. So this type of deliberate planning, which uses your internal world model, that’s system two, this is what LMS currently cannot do. How do we get them to do this? How do we build a system that can do this kind of planning or reasoning that devotes more resources to complex problems than to simple problems? And it’s not going to be a regressive prediction of tokens, it’s going to be more something akin to inference of little variables in what used to be called probabilistic models or graphical models and things of that type.
Basically, the principle is like this, the prompt is like observed variables, and what the model does, is that basically, it can measure to what extent an answer is a good answer for a prompt. So think of it as some gigantic neural net, but it’s got only one output, and that output is a scaler number, which is, let’s say, zero, if the answer is a good answer for the question and a large number, if the answer is not a good answer for the question. Imagine you had this model, if you had such a model, you could use it to produce good answers, the way you would do is, produce the prompt and then search through the space of possible answers for one that minimizes that number, that’s called an energy based model.
Lex Fridman
But that energy based model would need the model constructed by the LLM?
But that energy based model would need the model constructed by the LLM?
Yann LeCun
Well, so really what you need to do would be to not search over possible strings of text that minimize that energy. But what you would do, we do this in abstract representation space, so in the space of abstract thoughts, you would elaborate a thought using this process of minimizing the output of your model, which is just a scaler, it’s an optimization process. So now the way the system produces its sensor is through optimization by minimizing an objective function basically. And we’re talking about inference, we’re not talking about training, the system has been trained already.
Well, so really what you need to do would be to not search over possible strings of text that minimize that energy. But what you would do, we do this in abstract representation space, so in the space of abstract thoughts, you would elaborate a thought using this process of minimizing the output of your model, which is just a scaler, it’s an optimization process. So now the way the system produces its sensor is through optimization by minimizing an objective function basically. And we’re talking about inference, we’re not talking about training, the system has been trained already.
Now we have an abstract representation of the thought of the answer, representation of the answer, we feed that to basically an autoregressive decoder, which can be very simple, that turns this into a text that expresses this thought. So that, in my opinion, is the blueprint of future data systems, they will think about their answer, plan their answer by optimization before turning it into text, and that is turning complete.
Lex Fridman
Can you explain exactly what the optimization problem there is? What’s the objective function? Just linger on it, you briefly described it, but over what space are you optimizing?
Can you explain exactly what the optimization problem there is? What’s the objective function? Just linger on it, you briefly described it, but over what space are you optimizing?
Yann LeCun
The space of representations.
The space of representations.
Lex Fridman
It goes abstract representation?
It goes abstract representation?
Yann LeCun
You have an abstract representation inside the system, you have a prompt, the prompt goes through an encoder, produces a representation, perhaps goes through a predictor that predicts a representation of the proper answer. But that representation may not be a good answer because there might be some complicated reasoning you need to do, so then you have another process that takes the representation of the answers and modifies it so as to minimize a cost function that measures to what extent the answer is a good answer for the question. Now we ignore the issue for a moment of how you train that system to measure whether an answer is a good answer for a fraction.
You have an abstract representation inside the system, you have a prompt, the prompt goes through an encoder, produces a representation, perhaps goes through a predictor that predicts a representation of the proper answer. But that representation may not be a good answer because there might be some complicated reasoning you need to do, so then you have another process that takes the representation of the answers and modifies it so as to minimize a cost function that measures to what extent the answer is a good answer for the question. Now we ignore the issue for a moment of how you train that system to measure whether an answer is a good answer for a fraction.
Lex Fridman
Sure. Suppose such a system could be created, but what’s this search like process?
Sure. Suppose such a system could be created, but what’s this search like process?
Yann LeCun
It’s an optimization process. You can do this if the entire system is differentiable, that scaler output is the result of running the representation of the answers to some neural net. Then by gradient descent, by back propagating gradients, you can figure out how to modify the representation of the answers so as to minimize that.
It’s an optimization process. You can do this if the entire system is differentiable, that scaler output is the result of running the representation of the answers to some neural net. Then by gradient descent, by back propagating gradients, you can figure out how to modify the representation of the answers so as to minimize that.
Lex Fridman
That’s still a gradient based?
That’s still a gradient based?
Yann LeCun
It’s gradient based inference. So now you have a representation of the answer in abstract space, now you can turn it into text. And the cool thing about this is that the representation now can be optimized through gradient descent, but also is independent of the language in which you’re going to express the answer.
It’s gradient based inference. So now you have a representation of the answer in abstract space, now you can turn it into text. And the cool thing about this is that the representation now can be optimized through gradient descent, but also is independent of the language in which you’re going to express the answer.
Lex Fridman
Right. So you’re operating in the subtract representation. This goes back to the joint embedding, that it’s better to work in the space of, I don’t know, or to romanticize the notion like space of concepts versus the space of concrete sensory information.
Right. So you’re operating in the subtract representation. This goes back to the joint embedding, that it’s better to work in the space of, I don’t know, or to romanticize the notion like space of concepts versus the space of concrete sensory information.
Yann LeCun
Right.
Right.
Lex Fridman
But can this do something like reasoning, which is what we’re talking about?
But can this do something like reasoning, which is what we’re talking about?
Yann LeCun
Well, not really, only in a very simple way. Basically, you can think of those things as doing the optimization I was talking about, except they optimize in the discrete space, which is the space of possible sequences of tokens. And they do this optimization in a horribly inefficient way, which is generate a lot of hypothesis and then select the best ones. And that’s incredibly wasteful in terms of competition because you basically have to run your LLM for every possible generative sequence and it’s incredibly wasteful. So it’s much better to do an optimization in continuous space where you can do gradient and descent as opposed to generate tons of things and then select the best, you just iteratively refine your answer to go towards the best, that’s much more efficient. But you can only do this in continuous spaces with differentiable functions.
Well, not really, only in a very simple way. Basically, you can think of those things as doing the optimization I was talking about, except they optimize in the discrete space, which is the space of possible sequences of tokens. And they do this optimization in a horribly inefficient way, which is generate a lot of hypothesis and then select the best ones. And that’s incredibly wasteful in terms of competition because you basically have to run your LLM for every possible generative sequence and it’s incredibly wasteful. So it’s much better to do an optimization in continuous space where you can do gradient and descent as opposed to generate tons of things and then select the best, you just iteratively refine your answer to go towards the best, that’s much more efficient. But you can only do this in continuous spaces with differentiable functions.
Lex Fridman
You’re talking about the ability to think deeply or to reason deeply, how do you know what is an answer that’s better or worse based on deep reasoning?
You’re talking about the ability to think deeply or to reason deeply, how do you know what is an answer that’s better or worse based on deep reasoning?
Yann LeCun
Then we are asking the question of, conceptually, how do you train an energy based model? Energy based model is a function with a scaler output, just a number, you give it two inputs, X and Y, and it tells you whether Y is compatible with X or not. X, you observe, let’s say it’s a prompt, an image, a video, whatever, and Y is a proposal for an answer, a continuation of video, whatever and it tells you whether Y is compatible with X. And the way it tells you that Y is compatible with X is that the output of that function would be zero if Y is compatible with X and would be a positive number, non-zero, if Y is not compatible with X.
Then we are asking the question of, conceptually, how do you train an energy based model? Energy based model is a function with a scaler output, just a number, you give it two inputs, X and Y, and it tells you whether Y is compatible with X or not. X, you observe, let’s say it’s a prompt, an image, a video, whatever, and Y is a proposal for an answer, a continuation of video, whatever and it tells you whether Y is compatible with X. And the way it tells you that Y is compatible with X is that the output of that function would be zero if Y is compatible with X and would be a positive number, non-zero, if Y is not compatible with X.
How do you train a system like this at a completely general level, is you show it pairs of X and Ys that are compatible, a question and the corresponding answer, and you train the parameters of the big neural net inside to produce zero. Now that doesn’t completely work because the system might decide, well, I’m just going to say zero for everything, so now you have to have a process to make sure that for a wrong Y, the energy would be larger than zero. And there you have two options, one is contrastive method, so contrastive method is, you show an X and a bad Y and you tell the system, well, give a high energy to this, push up the energy, change the weights in the neural net that confuse the energy so that it goes up. So that’s contrasting methods.
The problem with this is, if the space of Y is large, the number of such contrasting samples are going to have to show is gigantic. But people do this, they do this when you train a system with RLHF, basically what you’re training is what’s called a reward model, which is basically an objective function that tells you whether an answer is good or bad, and that’s basically exactly what this is. So we already do this to some extent, we’re just not using it for inference, we’re just using it for training.
There is another set of methods which are non-contrastive, and I prefer those, and those non-contrastive methods basically say, the energy function needs to have low energy on pairs of XYs that are compatible that come from your training set. How do you make sure that the energy is going to be higher everywhere else? And the way you do this is by having a regularizer, a criterion, a term in your cost function that basically minimizes the volume of space that can take low energy. And the precise way to do this is all kinds of different specific ways to do this depending on the architecture, but that’s the basic principle. So that if you push down the energy function for particular regions in the XY space, it will automatically go up in other places because there’s only a limited volume of space that can take low energy by the construction of the system or by the regularizing function.
Lex Fridman
We’ve been talking very generally, but what is a good X and a good Y? What is a good representation of X and Y? Because we’ve been talking about language and if you just take language directly that presumably is not good, so there has to be some kind of abstract representation of ideas.
We’ve been talking very generally, but what is a good X and a good Y? What is a good representation of X and Y? Because we’ve been talking about language and if you just take language directly that presumably is not good, so there has to be some kind of abstract representation of ideas.
Yann LeCun
You can do this with language directly by just, X is a text and Y is a continuation of that text.
You can do this with language directly by just, X is a text and Y is a continuation of that text.
Lex Fridman
Yes.
Yes.
Yann LeCun
Or X is a question, Y is the answer.
Or X is a question, Y is the answer.
Lex Fridman
But you’re saying that’s not going to take it, that’s going to do what LLMs are doing.
But you’re saying that’s not going to take it, that’s going to do what LLMs are doing.
Yann LeCun
Well, no, it depends on how the internal structure of the system is built. If the internal structure of the system is built in such a way that inside of the system there is a latent variable, let’s call it Z, that you can manipulate so as to minimize the output energy, then that Z can be viewed as a representation of a good answer that you can translate into a Y that is a good answer.
Well, no, it depends on how the internal structure of the system is built. If the internal structure of the system is built in such a way that inside of the system there is a latent variable, let’s call it Z, that you can manipulate so as to minimize the output energy, then that Z can be viewed as a representation of a good answer that you can translate into a Y that is a good answer.
Lex Fridman
This system could be trained in a very similar way?
This system could be trained in a very similar way?
Yann LeCun
Very similar way, but you have to have this way preventing collapse of ensuring that there is high energy for things you don’t train it on. And currently, it’s very implicit in LLM, it’s done in a way that people don’t realize it’s being done, but it is being done. It is due to the fact that when you give a high probability to a word, automatically, you give low probability to other words because you only have a finite amount of probability to go around right there to sum to one. So when you minimize the cross entropy or whatever, when you train your LLM to predict the next word, you are increasing the probability your system will give to the correct word, but you’re also decreasing the probability it will give to the incorrect words.
Very similar way, but you have to have this way preventing collapse of ensuring that there is high energy for things you don’t train it on. And currently, it’s very implicit in LLM, it’s done in a way that people don’t realize it’s being done, but it is being done. It is due to the fact that when you give a high probability to a word, automatically, you give low probability to other words because you only have a finite amount of probability to go around right there to sum to one. So when you minimize the cross entropy or whatever, when you train your LLM to predict the next word, you are increasing the probability your system will give to the correct word, but you’re also decreasing the probability it will give to the incorrect words.
Now, indirectly, that gives a high probability to sequences of words that are good and low probability to sequences of words that are bad, but it’s very indirect. And it’s not obvious why this actually works at all because you’re not doing it on the joint probability of all the symbols in a sequence, you factorize that probability in terms of conditional probabilities over successive tokens.
Lex Fridman
How do you do this for visual data?
How do you do this for visual data?
Yann LeCun
We’ve been doing this with I-JEPA architectures, basically-
We’ve been doing this with I-JEPA architectures, basically-
Lex Fridman
The joint embedding.
The joint embedding.
Yann LeCun
… I-JEPA. So there the compatibility between two things is, here’s an image or a video, here is a corrupted, shifted or transformed version of that image or video or masked. And then the energy of the system is the prediction error of the predicted representation of the good thing versus the actual representation of the good thing. So you run the corrupted image to the system, predict the representation of the good input uncorrupted, and then compute the prediction error, that’s the energy of the system. So this system will tell you if this is a good image and this is a corrupted version, it will give you zero energy if those two things, effectively, one of them is a corrupted version of the other, it gives you a high energy if the two images are completely different.
… I-JEPA. So there the compatibility between two things is, here’s an image or a video, here is a corrupted, shifted or transformed version of that image or video or masked. And then the energy of the system is the prediction error of the predicted representation of the good thing versus the actual representation of the good thing. So you run the corrupted image to the system, predict the representation of the good input uncorrupted, and then compute the prediction error, that’s the energy of the system. So this system will tell you if this is a good image and this is a corrupted version, it will give you zero energy if those two things, effectively, one of them is a corrupted version of the other, it gives you a high energy if the two images are completely different.
Lex Fridman
And hopefully that whole process gives you a really nice compressed representation of a visual reality?
And hopefully that whole process gives you a really nice compressed representation of a visual reality?
Yann LeCun
And we know it does because then we use those representations as input to a classification system or something and that it works.
And we know it does because then we use those representations as input to a classification system or something and that it works.
Reinforcement learning
Lex Fridman
And then that classification system works really nicely, okay. Well, so to summarize, you recommend in a spicy way that only Yann LeCun can, you recommend that we abandon generative models in favor of joint embedding architectures?
And then that classification system works really nicely, okay. Well, so to summarize, you recommend in a spicy way that only Yann LeCun can, you recommend that we abandon generative models in favor of joint embedding architectures?
Yann LeCun
Yes.
Yes.
Lex Fridman
Abandon autoregressive generation.
Abandon autoregressive generation.
Yann LeCun
Yes.
Yes.
Lex Fridman
This feels like court testimony, abandon probabilistic models in favor of energy based models as we talked about, abandon contrastive methods in favor of regularized methods. And let me ask you about this, you’ve been for a while, a critic of reinforcement learning.
This feels like court testimony, abandon probabilistic models in favor of energy based models as we talked about, abandon contrastive methods in favor of regularized methods. And let me ask you about this, you’ve been for a while, a critic of reinforcement learning.
Yann LeCun
Yes.
Yes.
Lex Fridman
The last recommendation is that we abandon RL in favor of model predictive control, as you were talking about, and only use RL when planning doesn’t yield the predicted outcome, and we use RL in that case to adjust the world model or the critic.
The last recommendation is that we abandon RL in favor of model predictive control, as you were talking about, and only use RL when planning doesn’t yield the predicted outcome, and we use RL in that case to adjust the world model or the critic.
Yann LeCun
Yes.
Yes.
Lex Fridman
You’ve mentioned RLHF, reinforcement learning with human feedback, why do you still hate reinforcement learning?
You’ve mentioned RLHF, reinforcement learning with human feedback, why do you still hate reinforcement learning?
Yann LeCun
I don’t hate reinforcement learning, and I think-
I don’t hate reinforcement learning, and I think-
Lex Fridman
It’s all love, yes.
It’s all love, yes.
Yann LeCun
… I think it should not be abandoned completely, but I think it’s use should be minimized because it’s incredibly inefficient in terms of samples. And so the proper way to train a system is to first have it learn good representations of the world and world models from mostly observation, maybe a little bit of interactions.
… I think it should not be abandoned completely, but I think it’s use should be minimized because it’s incredibly inefficient in terms of samples. And so the proper way to train a system is to first have it learn good representations of the world and world models from mostly observation, maybe a little bit of interactions.
Lex Fridman
And then steered based on that, if the representation is good, then the adjustments should be minimal.
And then steered based on that, if the representation is good, then the adjustments should be minimal.
Yann LeCun
Yeah. Now there’s two things, if you’ve learned a world model, you can use the world model to plan a sequence of actions to arrive at a particular objective, you don’t need RL unless the way you measure whether you succeed might be in exact. Your idea of whether you are going to fall from your bike might be wrong, or whether the person you’re fighting with MMA who’s going to do something and they do something else. So there’s two ways you can be wrong, either your objective function does not reflect the actual objective function you want to optimize or your world model is inaccurate, so the prediction you were making about what was going to happen in the world is inaccurate.
Yeah. Now there’s two things, if you’ve learned a world model, you can use the world model to plan a sequence of actions to arrive at a particular objective, you don’t need RL unless the way you measure whether you succeed might be in exact. Your idea of whether you are going to fall from your bike might be wrong, or whether the person you’re fighting with MMA who’s going to do something and they do something else. So there’s two ways you can be wrong, either your objective function does not reflect the actual objective function you want to optimize or your world model is inaccurate, so the prediction you were making about what was going to happen in the world is inaccurate.
If you want to adjust your world model while you are operating in the world or your objective function, that is basically in the realm of RL, this is what RL deals with to some extent, so adjust your word model. And the way to adjust your word model even in advance is to explore parts of the space where you know that your world model is inaccurate, that’s called curiosity basically, or play. When you play, you explore parts of the space that you don’t want to do for real because it might be dangerous, but you can adjust your world model without killing yourself basically. So that’s what you want to use RL for, when it comes time to learning a particular task, you already have all the good representations, you already have your world model, but you need to adjust it for the situation at hand, that’s when you use RL.
Lex Fridman
Why do you think RLHF works so well? This enforcement learning with human feedback, why did it have such a transformational effect on large language models than before?
Why do you think RLHF works so well? This enforcement learning with human feedback, why did it have such a transformational effect on large language models than before?
Yann LeCun
What’s had the transformational effect is human feedback, there is many ways to use it, and some of it is just purely supervised, actually, it’s not really reinforcement learning.
What’s had the transformational effect is human feedback, there is many ways to use it, and some of it is just purely supervised, actually, it’s not really reinforcement learning.
Lex Fridman
It’s the HF?
It’s the HF?
Yann LeCun
It’s the HF, and then there is various ways to use human feedback. So you can ask humans to rate multiple answers that are produced by world model, and then what you do is you train an objective function to predict that rating, and then you can use that objective function to predict whether an answer is good and you can back propagate gradient to this to fine tune your system so that it only produces highly rated answers. That’s one way, so in RL, that means training what’s called a reward model, so something that basically is a small neural net that estimates to what extent an answer is good.
It’s the HF, and then there is various ways to use human feedback. So you can ask humans to rate multiple answers that are produced by world model, and then what you do is you train an objective function to predict that rating, and then you can use that objective function to predict whether an answer is good and you can back propagate gradient to this to fine tune your system so that it only produces highly rated answers. That’s one way, so in RL, that means training what’s called a reward model, so something that basically is a small neural net that estimates to what extent an answer is good.
It’s very similar to the objective I was talking about earlier for planning, except now it’s not used for planning, it’s used for fine-tuning your system. I think it would be much more efficient to use it for planning, but currently, it’s used to fine tune the parameters of the system. There’s several ways to do this, some of them are supervised, you just ask a human person like, what is a good answer for this? Then you just type the answer. There’s lots of ways that those systems are being adjusted.
Woke AI
Lex Fridman
Now, a lot of people have been very critical of the recently released Google’s Gemini 1.5 for essentially, in my words, I could say super woke in the negative connotation of that word. There is some almost hilariously absurd things that it does, like it modifies history like generating images of a black George Washington, or perhaps more seriously something that you commented on Twitter, which is refusing to comment on or generate images or even descriptions of Tiananmen Square or The Tank Man, one of the most legendary protest images in history. Of course, these images are highly censored by the Chinese government and therefore, everybody started asking questions of what is the process of designing these LLMs? What is the role of censorship and all that kind of stuff? So you commented on Twitter saying that open source is the answer.
Now, a lot of people have been very critical of the recently released Google’s Gemini 1.5 for essentially, in my words, I could say super woke in the negative connotation of that word. There is some almost hilariously absurd things that it does, like it modifies history like generating images of a black George Washington, or perhaps more seriously something that you commented on Twitter, which is refusing to comment on or generate images or even descriptions of Tiananmen Square or The Tank Man, one of the most legendary protest images in history. Of course, these images are highly censored by the Chinese government and therefore, everybody started asking questions of what is the process of designing these LLMs? What is the role of censorship and all that kind of stuff? So you commented on Twitter saying that open source is the answer.
Yann LeCun
Yeah.
Yeah.
Lex Fridman
Essentially, so can you explain?
Essentially, so can you explain?
Yann LeCun
I actually made that comment on just about every social network I can, and I’ve made that point multiple times in various forums. Here’s my point of view on this, people can complain that AI systems are biased and they generally are biased by the distribution of the training data that they’ve been trained on that reflects biases in society, and that is potentially offensive to some people or potentially not. And some techniques to de-bias then become offensive to some people because of historical incorrectness and things like that.
I actually made that comment on just about every social network I can, and I’ve made that point multiple times in various forums. Here’s my point of view on this, people can complain that AI systems are biased and they generally are biased by the distribution of the training data that they’ve been trained on that reflects biases in society, and that is potentially offensive to some people or potentially not. And some techniques to de-bias then become offensive to some people because of historical incorrectness and things like that.
And so you can ask two questions, the first question is, is it possible to produce an AI system that is not biased? And the answer is, absolutely not. And it’s not because of technological challenges, although they are technological challenges to that, it’s because bias is in the eye of the beholder. Different people may have different ideas about what constitutes bias for a lot of things, there are facts that are indisputable, but there are a lot of opinions or things that can be expressed in different ways. And so you cannot have an unbiased system, that’s just an impossibility.
And so what’s the answer to this? And the answer is the same answer that we found in liberal democracy about the press, the press needs to be free and diverse. We have free speech for a good reason, is because we don’t want all of our information to come from a unique source because that’s opposite to the whole idea of democracy and progressive ideas and even science. In science, people have to argue for different opinions and science makes progress when people disagree and they come up with an answer and consensus forms, and it’s true in all democracies around the world.
There is a future which is already happening where every single one of our interaction with the digital world will be mediated by AI systems, AI assistance. We’re going to have smart glasses, you can already buy them from Meta, the Ray-Ban Meta where you can talk to them and they are connected with an LLM and you can get answers on any question you have. Or you can be looking at a monument and there is a camera in the glasses you can ask it like, what can you tell me about this building or this monument? You can be looking at a menu in a foreign language, and I think we will translate it for you, or we can do real time translation if we speak different languages. So a lot of our interactions with the digital world are going to be mediated by those systems in the near future.
Increasingly, the search engines that we’re going to use are not going to be search engines, they’re going to be dialogue systems that we just ask a question and it will answer and then point you to perhaps appropriate reference for it. But here is the thing, we cannot afford those systems to come from a handful of companies on the west coast of the US because those systems will constitute the repository of all human knowledge, and we cannot have that be controlled by a small number of people. It has to be diverse for the same reason the press has to be diverse, so how do we get a diverse set of AI assistance? It’s very expensive and difficult to train a base model, a base LLM at the moment, in the future it might be something different, but at the moment, that’s an LLM. So only a few companies can do this properly.
And if some of those top systems are open source, anybody can use them, anybody can fine tune them. If we put in place some systems that allows any group of people, whether they are individual citizens, groups of citizens, government organizations, NGOs, companies, whatever, to take those open source AI systems and fine tune them for their own purpose on their own data, then we’re going to have a very large diversity of different AI systems that are specialized for all of those things.
I tell you, I talked to the French government quite a bit, and the French government will not accept that the digital diet of all their citizens be controlled by three companies on the west coast of the US. That’s just not acceptable, it’s a danger to democracy regardless of how well-intentioned those companies are, and it’s also a danger to local culture, to values, to language. I was talking with the founder of Infosys in India, he’s funding a project to fine tune Llama 2, the open source model produced by Meta, so that Llama 2 two speaks all 22 official languages in India, it is very important for people in India. I was talking to a former colleague of mine, Moustapha Cisse, who used to be a scientist at Fair and then moved back to Africa, created a research lab for Google in Africa and now has a new startup Co-Kera.
And what he’s trying to do, is basically have LLM that speak the local languages in Senegal so that people can have access to medical information because they don’t have access to doctors, it’s a very small number of doctors per capita in Senegal. You can’t have any of this unless you have open source platforms, so with open source platforms, you can have AI systems that are not only diverse in terms of political opinions or things of that-
Yann LeCun
… AI systems that are not only diverse in terms of political opinions or things of that type, but in terms of language, culture, value systems, political opinions, technical abilities in various domains, and you can have an industry, an ecosystem of companies that fine tune those open source systems for vertical applications in industry. I don’t know, a publisher has thousands of books and they want to build a system that allows a customer to just ask a question about the content of any of their books, you need to train on their proprietary data. You have a company, we have one within Meta, it’s called Metamate, and it’s basically an LLM that can answer any question about internal stuff about the company, very useful.
… AI systems that are not only diverse in terms of political opinions or things of that type, but in terms of language, culture, value systems, political opinions, technical abilities in various domains, and you can have an industry, an ecosystem of companies that fine tune those open source systems for vertical applications in industry. I don’t know, a publisher has thousands of books and they want to build a system that allows a customer to just ask a question about the content of any of their books, you need to train on their proprietary data. You have a company, we have one within Meta, it’s called Metamate, and it’s basically an LLM that can answer any question about internal stuff about the company, very useful.
A lot of companies want this. A lot of companies want this not just for their employees, but also for their customers, to take care of their customers. So the only way you’re going to have an AI industry, the only way you’re going to have AI systems that are not uniquely biased is if you have open source platforms on top of which any group can build specialized systems. So the direction of inevitable direction of history is that the vast majority of AI systems will be built on top of open source platforms.
Lex Fridman
So that’s a beautiful vision. So meaning a company like Meta or Google or so on should take only minimal fine-tuning steps after building the foundation pre-trained model as few steps as possible.
So that’s a beautiful vision. So meaning a company like Meta or Google or so on should take only minimal fine-tuning steps after building the foundation pre-trained model as few steps as possible.
Open source
Yann LeCun
Basically.
Basically.
Lex Fridman
Can Meta afford to do that?
Can Meta afford to do that?
Yann LeCun
No.
No.
Lex Fridman
So I don’t know if you know this, but companies are supposed to make money somehow and open source is giving away… I don’t know. Mark made a video, Mark Zuckerberg, very sexy video talking about 350,000 Nvidia H100s.
So I don’t know if you know this, but companies are supposed to make money somehow and open source is giving away… I don’t know. Mark made a video, Mark Zuckerberg, very sexy video talking about 350,000 Nvidia H100s.
Yann LeCun
Yeah, [inaudible 01:44:12]
Yeah, [inaudible 01:44:12]
Lex Fridman
The math of that is just for the GPUs, that’s 100 billion plus the infrastructure for training everything. So I’m no business guy, but how do you make money on that? So the division you paint is a really powerful one, but how is it possible to make money?
The math of that is just for the GPUs, that’s 100 billion plus the infrastructure for training everything. So I’m no business guy, but how do you make money on that? So the division you paint is a really powerful one, but how is it possible to make money?
Yann LeCun
Okay, so you have several business models, right?
Okay, so you have several business models, right?
Lex Fridman
Mm-hmm.
Mm-hmm.
Yann LeCun
The business model that Meta is built around is you offer a service and the financing of that service is either through ads or through business customers. So for example, if you have an LLM that can help a mom-and-pop pizza place by talking to the customers through WhatsApp, and so the customers can just order a pizza and the system will just ask them, “What topping do you want or what size, blah, blah, blah.” The business will pay for that, okay? That’s a model. Otherwise, if it’s a system that is on the more classical services, it can be ad supported or there’s several models. But the point is, if you have a big enough potential customer base and you need to build that system anyway for them, it doesn’t hurt you to actually distribute it to the open source.
The business model that Meta is built around is you offer a service and the financing of that service is either through ads or through business customers. So for example, if you have an LLM that can help a mom-and-pop pizza place by talking to the customers through WhatsApp, and so the customers can just order a pizza and the system will just ask them, “What topping do you want or what size, blah, blah, blah.” The business will pay for that, okay? That’s a model. Otherwise, if it’s a system that is on the more classical services, it can be ad supported or there’s several models. But the point is, if you have a big enough potential customer base and you need to build that system anyway for them, it doesn’t hurt you to actually distribute it to the open source.
Lex Fridman
Again, I’m no business guy, but if you release the open source model, then other people can do the same kind of task and compete on it, basically provide fine-tuned models for businesses.
Again, I’m no business guy, but if you release the open source model, then other people can do the same kind of task and compete on it, basically provide fine-tuned models for businesses.
Yann LeCun
Sure.
Sure.
Lex Fridman
By the way, I’m a huge fan of all this, but is the bet that Meta is making, it’s like, “We’ll do a better job of it?”
By the way, I’m a huge fan of all this, but is the bet that Meta is making, it’s like, “We’ll do a better job of it?”
Yann LeCun
Well, no. The bet is more, “We already have a huge user base and customer base-
Well, no. The bet is more, “We already have a huge user base and customer base-
Lex Fridman
Ah, right.
Ah, right.
Yann LeCun
… so it’s going to be useful to them. Whatever we offer them is going to be useful and there is a way to derive revenue from this.
… so it’s going to be useful to them. Whatever we offer them is going to be useful and there is a way to derive revenue from this.
Lex Fridman
Sure.
Sure.
Yann LeCun
It doesn’t hurt that we provide that system or the base model, the foundation model in open source for others to build applications on top of it too. If those applications turn out to be useful for our customers, we can just buy it from them. It could be that they will improve the platform. In fact, we see this already. There is literally millions of downloads of LLaMA 2 and thousands of people who have provided ideas about how to make it better. So this clearly accelerates progress to make the system available to a wide community of people, and there’s literally thousands of businesses who are building applications with it. So Meta’s ability to derive revenue from this technology is not impaired by the distribution of base models in open source.
It doesn’t hurt that we provide that system or the base model, the foundation model in open source for others to build applications on top of it too. If those applications turn out to be useful for our customers, we can just buy it from them. It could be that they will improve the platform. In fact, we see this already. There is literally millions of downloads of LLaMA 2 and thousands of people who have provided ideas about how to make it better. So this clearly accelerates progress to make the system available to a wide community of people, and there’s literally thousands of businesses who are building applications with it. So Meta’s ability to derive revenue from this technology is not impaired by the distribution of base models in open source.
AI and ideology
Lex Fridman
The fundamental criticism that Gemini is getting is that as you point out on the West Coast, just to clarify, we’re currently on the East Coast where I would suppose Meta AI headquarters would be. So there are strong words about the West Coast, but I guess the issue that happens is I think it’s fair to say that most tech people have a political affiliation with the left wing. They lean left. So the problem that people are criticizing Gemini with is that there’s in that de-biasing process that you mentioned, that their ideological lean becomes obvious. Is this something that could be escaped? You’re saying open source is the only way.
The fundamental criticism that Gemini is getting is that as you point out on the West Coast, just to clarify, we’re currently on the East Coast where I would suppose Meta AI headquarters would be. So there are strong words about the West Coast, but I guess the issue that happens is I think it’s fair to say that most tech people have a political affiliation with the left wing. They lean left. So the problem that people are criticizing Gemini with is that there’s in that de-biasing process that you mentioned, that their ideological lean becomes obvious. Is this something that could be escaped? You’re saying open source is the only way.
Yann LeCun
Yes.
Yes.
Lex Fridman
Have you witnessed this kind of ideological lean that makes engineering difficult?
Have you witnessed this kind of ideological lean that makes engineering difficult?
Yann LeCun
No, I don’t think the issue has to do with the political leaning of the people designing those systems. It has to do with the acceptability or political leanings of their customer base or audience. So a big company cannot afford to offend too many people, so they’re going to make sure that whatever product they put out is safe, whatever that means. It’s very possible to overdo it, and it’s impossible to do it properly for everyone. You’re not going to satisfy everyone. So that’s what I said before, you cannot have a system that is perceived as unbiased by everyone. It’s going to be you push it in one way, one set of people are going to see it as biased, and then you push it the other way and another set of people is going to see it as biased. Then in addition to this, there’s the issue of if you push the system perhaps a little too far in one direction, it’s going to be non-factual. You’re going to have Black Nazi soldiers in uniform.
No, I don’t think the issue has to do with the political leaning of the people designing those systems. It has to do with the acceptability or political leanings of their customer base or audience. So a big company cannot afford to offend too many people, so they’re going to make sure that whatever product they put out is safe, whatever that means. It’s very possible to overdo it, and it’s impossible to do it properly for everyone. You’re not going to satisfy everyone. So that’s what I said before, you cannot have a system that is perceived as unbiased by everyone. It’s going to be you push it in one way, one set of people are going to see it as biased, and then you push it the other way and another set of people is going to see it as biased. Then in addition to this, there’s the issue of if you push the system perhaps a little too far in one direction, it’s going to be non-factual. You’re going to have Black Nazi soldiers in uniform.
Lex Fridman
Yeah, we so we should mention image generation of Black Nazi soldiers, which is not factually accurate.
Yeah, we so we should mention image generation of Black Nazi soldiers, which is not factually accurate.
Yann LeCun
Right, and can be offensive for some people as well. So it’s going to be impossible to produce systems that are unbiased for everyone. So the only solution that I see is diversity.
Right, and can be offensive for some people as well. So it’s going to be impossible to produce systems that are unbiased for everyone. So the only solution that I see is diversity.
Lex Fridman
Diversity in the full meaning of that word, diversity of in every possible way.
Diversity in the full meaning of that word, diversity of in every possible way.
Marc Andreesen
Yann LeCun
Yeah.
Yeah.
Lex Fridman
Marc Andreessen just tweeted today. Let me do a TL;DR. The conclusion is only startups and open source can avoid the issue that he’s highlighting with big tech. He’s asking, “Can Big Tech actually field generative AI products?” (1) Ever-escalating demands from internal activists, employee mobs, crazed executives, broken boards, pressure groups, extremist regulators, government agencies, the press, in quotes, “experts” and everything corrupting the output. (2) Constant risk of generating a bad answer or drawing a bad picture or rendering a bad video who knows what is going to say or do at any moment. (3) Legal exposure, product liability, slander, election law, many other things and so on, anything that makes Congress mad. (4) Continuous attempts to tighten grip on acceptable output, degrade the model, how good it actually is, in terms of usable and pleasant to use and effective and all that kind of stuff. (5) Publicity of bad text, images, video actual puts those examples into the training data for the next version and so on. So he just highlights how difficult this is from all kinds of people being unhappy. He said you can’t create a system that makes everybody happy.
Marc Andreessen just tweeted today. Let me do a TL;DR. The conclusion is only startups and open source can avoid the issue that he’s highlighting with big tech. He’s asking, “Can Big Tech actually field generative AI products?” (1) Ever-escalating demands from internal activists, employee mobs, crazed executives, broken boards, pressure groups, extremist regulators, government agencies, the press, in quotes, “experts” and everything corrupting the output. (2) Constant risk of generating a bad answer or drawing a bad picture or rendering a bad video who knows what is going to say or do at any moment. (3) Legal exposure, product liability, slander, election law, many other things and so on, anything that makes Congress mad. (4) Continuous attempts to tighten grip on acceptable output, degrade the model, how good it actually is, in terms of usable and pleasant to use and effective and all that kind of stuff. (5) Publicity of bad text, images, video actual puts those examples into the training data for the next version and so on. So he just highlights how difficult this is from all kinds of people being unhappy. He said you can’t create a system that makes everybody happy.
Yann LeCun
Yes.
Yes.
Lex Fridman
So if you’re going to do the fine-tuning yourself and keep it close source, essentially, the problem there is then trying to minimize the number of people who are going to be unhappy.
So if you’re going to do the fine-tuning yourself and keep it close source, essentially, the problem there is then trying to minimize the number of people who are going to be unhappy.
Yann LeCun
Yep.
Yep.
Lex Fridman
You’re saying that almost impossible to do, and there are better ways to do open source
You’re saying that almost impossible to do, and there are better ways to do open source
Yann LeCun
Basically. Yeah. Mark is right about a number of things that you list that indeed scare large companies. Certainly, congressional investigations is one of them, legal liability, making things that get people to hurt themselves or hurt others. Big companies are really careful about not producing things of this type because they don’t want to hurt anyone, first of all, and then second, they want to preserve their business. So it’s essentially impossible for systems like this that can inevitably formulate political opinions, and opinions about various things that may be political or not, but that people may disagree about, about moral issues and questions about religion and things like that or cultural issues that people from different communities would disagree with in the first place. So there’s only a relatively small number of things that people will agree on are basic principles, but beyond that, if you want those systems to be useful, they will necessarily have to offend a number of people inevitably.
Basically. Yeah. Mark is right about a number of things that you list that indeed scare large companies. Certainly, congressional investigations is one of them, legal liability, making things that get people to hurt themselves or hurt others. Big companies are really careful about not producing things of this type because they don’t want to hurt anyone, first of all, and then second, they want to preserve their business. So it’s essentially impossible for systems like this that can inevitably formulate political opinions, and opinions about various things that may be political or not, but that people may disagree about, about moral issues and questions about religion and things like that or cultural issues that people from different communities would disagree with in the first place. So there’s only a relatively small number of things that people will agree on are basic principles, but beyond that, if you want those systems to be useful, they will necessarily have to offend a number of people inevitably.
Lex Fridman
So open source is just better and then you get-
So open source is just better and then you get-
Yann LeCun
Diversity is better, right?
Diversity is better, right?
Lex Fridman
And open source enables diversity.
And open source enables diversity.
Yann LeCun
That’s right. Open source enables diversity.
That’s right. Open source enables diversity.
Lex Fridman
This can be a fascinating world where if it’s true that the open source world, if Meta leads the way and creates this open source foundation model world, governments will have a fine- tuned model and then potentially, people that vote left and right will have their own model and preference to be able to choose and it will potentially divide us even more. But that’s on us humans. We get to figure out basically the technology enables humans to human more effectively, and all the difficult ethical questions that humans raise will just leave it up to us to figure that out.
This can be a fascinating world where if it’s true that the open source world, if Meta leads the way and creates this open source foundation model world, governments will have a fine- tuned model and then potentially, people that vote left and right will have their own model and preference to be able to choose and it will potentially divide us even more. But that’s on us humans. We get to figure out basically the technology enables humans to human more effectively, and all the difficult ethical questions that humans raise will just leave it up to us to figure that out.
Yann LeCun
Yeah, there are some limits. The same way there are limits to free speech. There has to be some limit to the kind of stuff that those systems might be authorized to produce, some guardrails. So that’s one thing I’d be interested in, which is in the type of architecture that we were discussing before where the output of the system is a result of an inference to satisfy an objective, that objective can include guardrails, and we can put guardrails in open source systems. If we eventually have systems that are built with this blueprint, we can put guardrails in those systems that guarantee that there is a minimum set of guardrails that make the system non-dangerous and non-toxic, et cetera, basic things that everybody would agree on. Then the fine-tuning that people will add or the additional guardrails that people will add will cater to their community, whatever it is.
Yeah, there are some limits. The same way there are limits to free speech. There has to be some limit to the kind of stuff that those systems might be authorized to produce, some guardrails. So that’s one thing I’d be interested in, which is in the type of architecture that we were discussing before where the output of the system is a result of an inference to satisfy an objective, that objective can include guardrails, and we can put guardrails in open source systems. If we eventually have systems that are built with this blueprint, we can put guardrails in those systems that guarantee that there is a minimum set of guardrails that make the system non-dangerous and non-toxic, et cetera, basic things that everybody would agree on. Then the fine-tuning that people will add or the additional guardrails that people will add will cater to their community, whatever it is.
Lex Fridman
The fine-tuning will be more about the gray areas of what is hate speech, what is dangerous and all that kind of stuff, but it’s the-
The fine-tuning will be more about the gray areas of what is hate speech, what is dangerous and all that kind of stuff, but it’s the-
Yann LeCun
Or different value systems.
Or different value systems.
Lex Fridman
Still value systems. But still even with the objectives of how to build a bioweapon, for example, I think something you’ve commented on, or at least there’s a paper where a collection of researchers is trying to understand the social impacts of these LLMs. I guess one threshold that’s nice is, does the LLM make it any easier than a search would, like a Google search would?
Still value systems. But still even with the objectives of how to build a bioweapon, for example, I think something you’ve commented on, or at least there’s a paper where a collection of researchers is trying to understand the social impacts of these LLMs. I guess one threshold that’s nice is, does the LLM make it any easier than a search would, like a Google search would?
Yann LeCun
Right. So the increasing number of studies on this seems to point to the fact that it doesn’t help. So having an LLM doesn’t help you design or build a bioweapon or a chemical weapon if you already have access to a search engine and their library. So the increased information you get or the ease with which you get it doesn’t really help you. That’s the first thing. The second thing is, it’s one thing to have a list of instructions of how to make a chemical weapon, for example, a bioweapon. It’s another thing to actually build it, and it’s much harder than you might think, and then LLM will not help you with that.
Right. So the increasing number of studies on this seems to point to the fact that it doesn’t help. So having an LLM doesn’t help you design or build a bioweapon or a chemical weapon if you already have access to a search engine and their library. So the increased information you get or the ease with which you get it doesn’t really help you. That’s the first thing. The second thing is, it’s one thing to have a list of instructions of how to make a chemical weapon, for example, a bioweapon. It’s another thing to actually build it, and it’s much harder than you might think, and then LLM will not help you with that.
In fact, nobody in the world, not even countries used bioweapons because most of the time they have no idea how to protect their own populations against it. So it’s too dangerous, actually, to ever use, and it’s, in fact, banned by international treaties. Chemical weapons is different. It’s also banned by treaties, but it’s the same problem. It’s difficult to use in situations that doesn’t turn against the perpetrators, but we could ask Elon Musk. I can give you a very precise list of instructions of how you build a rocket engine. Even if you have a team of 50 engineers that are really experienced building it, you’re still going to have to blow up a dozen of them before you get one that works. It’s the same with chemical weapons or bioweapons or things like this, it requires expertise in the real world that the LLM is not going to help you with.
Lex Fridman
It requires even the common sense expertise that we’ve been talking about, which is how to take language-based instructions and materialize them in the physical world requires a lot of knowledge that’s not in the instructions.
It requires even the common sense expertise that we’ve been talking about, which is how to take language-based instructions and materialize them in the physical world requires a lot of knowledge that’s not in the instructions.
Yann LeCun
Yeah, exactly. A lot of biologists have posted on this actually, in response to those things saying, “Do you realize how hard it is to actually do the lab work?” Like, “No, this is not trivial.”
Yeah, exactly. A lot of biologists have posted on this actually, in response to those things saying, “Do you realize how hard it is to actually do the lab work?” Like, “No, this is not trivial.”
Llama 3
Lex Fridman
Yeah, and Hans Moravec comes to light once again. Just to linger on LLaMA, Marc announced that LLaMA 3 is coming out eventually. I don’t think there’s a release date, but what are you most excited about? First of all, LLaMA 2 that’s already out there and maybe the future a LLaMA 3, 4, 5, 6, 10, just the future of the open source under Meta?
Yeah, and Hans Moravec comes to light once again. Just to linger on LLaMA, Marc announced that LLaMA 3 is coming out eventually. I don’t think there’s a release date, but what are you most excited about? First of all, LLaMA 2 that’s already out there and maybe the future a LLaMA 3, 4, 5, 6, 10, just the future of the open source under Meta?
Yann LeCun
Well, a number of things. So there’s going to be various versions of LLaMA that are improvements of previous LLaMAs, bigger, better, multimodal, things like that. Then in future generations, systems that are capable of planning that really understand how the world works, maybe are trained from video, so they have some world model maybe capable of the type of reasoning and planning I was talking about earlier. How long is that going to take? When is the research that is going in that direction going to feed into the product line if you want of LLaMA? I don’t know. I can’t tell you. There’s a few breakthroughs that we have to basically go through before we can get there, but you’ll be able to monitor our progress because we publish our research. So last week we published the V-JEPA work, which is a first step towards training systems for video.
Well, a number of things. So there’s going to be various versions of LLaMA that are improvements of previous LLaMAs, bigger, better, multimodal, things like that. Then in future generations, systems that are capable of planning that really understand how the world works, maybe are trained from video, so they have some world model maybe capable of the type of reasoning and planning I was talking about earlier. How long is that going to take? When is the research that is going in that direction going to feed into the product line if you want of LLaMA? I don’t know. I can’t tell you. There’s a few breakthroughs that we have to basically go through before we can get there, but you’ll be able to monitor our progress because we publish our research. So last week we published the V-JEPA work, which is a first step towards training systems for video.
Then the next step is going to be world models based on this type of idea training from video. There’s similar work at DeepMind also and taking place people, and also at UC Berkeley on world models and video. A lot of people are working on this. I think a lot of good ideas are appearing. My bet is that those systems are going to be JEPA light, they’re not going to be generative models, and we’ll see what the future will tell. There’s really good work, a gentleman called Danijar Hafner who is now DeepMind, who’s worked on models of this type that learn representations and then use them for planning or learning tasks by reinforcement training and a lot of work at Berkeley by Pieter Abbeel, Sergey Levine, a bunch of other people of that type I’m collaborating with actually in the context of some grants with my NYU hat.
Then collaboration is also through Meta ’cause the lab at Berkeley is associated with Meta in some way, so with fair. So I think it is very exciting. I haven’t been that excited about the direction of machine learning and AI since 10 years ago when Fairway was started. Before that, 30 years ago, we were working, oh, sorry, 35 on combination nets and the early days of neural nets. So I’m super excited because I see a path towards potentially human-level intelligence with systems that can understand the world, remember, plan, reason. There is some set of ideas to make progress there that might have a chance of working, and I’m really excited about this. What I like is that somewhat we get on to a good direction and perhaps succeed before my brain turns to a white sauce or before I need to retire.
Lex Fridman
Yeah. Yeah. Is it beautiful to you just the amount of GPUs involved, the whole training process on this much compute, just zooming out, just looking at earth and humans together have built these computing devices and are able to train this one brain, then we then open source, like giving birth to this open source brain trained on this gigantic compute system, there’s just the details of how to train on that, how to build the infrastructure and the hardware, the cooling, all of this kind of stuff, or are you just still that most of your excitement is in the theory aspect of it, meaning the software?
Yeah. Yeah. Is it beautiful to you just the amount of GPUs involved, the whole training process on this much compute, just zooming out, just looking at earth and humans together have built these computing devices and are able to train this one brain, then we then open source, like giving birth to this open source brain trained on this gigantic compute system, there’s just the details of how to train on that, how to build the infrastructure and the hardware, the cooling, all of this kind of stuff, or are you just still that most of your excitement is in the theory aspect of it, meaning the software?
Yann LeCun
I used to be a hardware guy many years ago.
I used to be a hardware guy many years ago.
Lex Fridman
Yes. Yes, that’s right.
Yes. Yes, that’s right.
Yann LeCun
Decades ago.
Decades ago.
Lex Fridman
Hardware has improved a little bit. Changed-
Hardware has improved a little bit. Changed-
Yann LeCun
A little bit.
A little bit.
Lex Fridman
… a little bit, yeah.
… a little bit, yeah.
Yann LeCun
Certainly, scale is necessary but not sufficient.
Certainly, scale is necessary but not sufficient.
Lex Fridman
Absolutely.
Absolutely.
Yann LeCun
So we certainly need competition. We’re still far in terms of compute power from what we would need to match the compute power of the human brain. This may occur in the next couple of decades, but we’re still some ways away. Certainly, in terms of power efficiency, we’re really far, so there’s a lot of progress to make in hardware. Right now, a lot of the progress is, there’s a bit coming from silicon technology, but a lot of it coming from architectural innovation and quite a bit coming from more efficient ways of implementing the architectures that have become popular, basically combination of transformers and com nets, and so there’s still some ways to go until we are going to saturate. We’re going to have to come up with new principles, new fabrication technology, new basic components perhaps based on different principles and classical digital [inaudible 02:03:41]
So we certainly need competition. We’re still far in terms of compute power from what we would need to match the compute power of the human brain. This may occur in the next couple of decades, but we’re still some ways away. Certainly, in terms of power efficiency, we’re really far, so there’s a lot of progress to make in hardware. Right now, a lot of the progress is, there’s a bit coming from silicon technology, but a lot of it coming from architectural innovation and quite a bit coming from more efficient ways of implementing the architectures that have become popular, basically combination of transformers and com nets, and so there’s still some ways to go until we are going to saturate. We’re going to have to come up with new principles, new fabrication technology, new basic components perhaps based on different principles and classical digital [inaudible 02:03:41]
Lex Fridman
Interesting. So you think in order to build AMI, we potentially might need some hardware innovation too.
Interesting. So you think in order to build AMI, we potentially might need some hardware innovation too.
Yann LeCun
Well, if we want to make it ubiquitous, yeah, certainly, ’cause we’re going to have to reduce the power consumption. A GPU today is half a kilowatt to a kilowatt. Human brain is about 25 watts, and a GPU is way below the power of the human brain. You need something like 100,000 or a million to match it, so we are off by a huge factor here.
Well, if we want to make it ubiquitous, yeah, certainly, ’cause we’re going to have to reduce the power consumption. A GPU today is half a kilowatt to a kilowatt. Human brain is about 25 watts, and a GPU is way below the power of the human brain. You need something like 100,000 or a million to match it, so we are off by a huge factor here.
AGI
Lex Fridman
You often say that a GI is not coming soon, meaning not this year, not the next few years, potentially farther away. What’s your basic intuition behind that?
You often say that a GI is not coming soon, meaning not this year, not the next few years, potentially farther away. What’s your basic intuition behind that?
Yann LeCun
So first of all, it’s not going to be an event. The idea somehow, which is popularized by science fiction and Hollywood, that somehow somebody is going to discover the secret to AGI or human-level AI or AMI, whatever you want to call it, and then turn on a machine and then we have AGI, that’s just not going to happen. It’s not going to be an event. It’s going to be gradual progress. Are we going to have systems that can learn from video how the world works and learn good representations? Yeah. Before we get them to the scale and performance that we observe in humans it’s going to take quite a while. It’s not going to happen in one day. Are we going to get systems that can have large amount of associated memory so they can remember stuff? Yeah, but same, it’s not going to happen tomorrow. There is some basic techniques that need to be developed. We have a lot of them, but to get this to work together with a full system is another story.
So first of all, it’s not going to be an event. The idea somehow, which is popularized by science fiction and Hollywood, that somehow somebody is going to discover the secret to AGI or human-level AI or AMI, whatever you want to call it, and then turn on a machine and then we have AGI, that’s just not going to happen. It’s not going to be an event. It’s going to be gradual progress. Are we going to have systems that can learn from video how the world works and learn good representations? Yeah. Before we get them to the scale and performance that we observe in humans it’s going to take quite a while. It’s not going to happen in one day. Are we going to get systems that can have large amount of associated memory so they can remember stuff? Yeah, but same, it’s not going to happen tomorrow. There is some basic techniques that need to be developed. We have a lot of them, but to get this to work together with a full system is another story.
Are we going to have systems that can reason and plan perhaps along the lines of objective-driven AI architectures that I described before? Yeah, but before we get this to work properly, it’s going to take a while. Before we get all those things to work together, and then on top of this, have systems that can learn hierarchical planning, hierarchical representations, systems that can be configured for a lot of different situation at hand, the way the human brain can, all of this is going to take at least a decade and probably much more because there are a lot of problems that we’re not seeing right now that we have not encountered, so we don’t know if there is an easy solution within this framework. So it’s not just around the corner. I’ve been hearing people for the last 12, 15 years claiming that AGI is just around the corner and being systematically wrong. I knew they were wrong when they were saying it. I called their bullshit.
Lex Fridman
First of all, from the birth of the term artificial intelligence, there has been a eternal optimism that’s perhaps unlike other technologies. Is it a Moravec’s paradox, the explanation for why people are so optimistic about AGI?
First of all, from the birth of the term artificial intelligence, there has been a eternal optimism that’s perhaps unlike other technologies. Is it a Moravec’s paradox, the explanation for why people are so optimistic about AGI?
Yann LeCun
Don’t think it’s just Moravec’s paradox. Moravec’s paradox is a consequence of realizing that the world is not as easy as we think. So first of all, intelligence is not a linear thing that you can measure with a scale or with a single number. Can you say that humans are smarter than orangutans? In some ways, yes, but in some ways, orangutans are smarter than humans in a lot of domains that allows them to survive in the forest, for example.
Don’t think it’s just Moravec’s paradox. Moravec’s paradox is a consequence of realizing that the world is not as easy as we think. So first of all, intelligence is not a linear thing that you can measure with a scale or with a single number. Can you say that humans are smarter than orangutans? In some ways, yes, but in some ways, orangutans are smarter than humans in a lot of domains that allows them to survive in the forest, for example.
Lex Fridman
So IQ is a very limited measure of intelligence. Human intelligence is bigger than what IQ, for example, measures.
So IQ is a very limited measure of intelligence. Human intelligence is bigger than what IQ, for example, measures.
Yann LeCun
Well, IQ can measure approximately something for humans, but because humans come in relatively uniform form, right?
Well, IQ can measure approximately something for humans, but because humans come in relatively uniform form, right?
Lex Fridman
Yeah.
Yeah.
Yann LeCun
But it only measures one type of ability that maybe relevant for some tasks but not others. But then if you were talking about other intelligent entities for which the basic things that are easy to them is very different, then it doesn’t mean anything. So intelligence is a collection of skills and an ability to acquire new skills efficiently. The collection of skills that a particular intelligent entity possess or is capable of learning quickly is different from the collection of skills of another one. Because it’s a multidimensional thing, the set of skills is a high dimensional space, you can’t measure, you cannot compare two things as to whether one is more intelligent than the other. It’s multidimensional.
But it only measures one type of ability that maybe relevant for some tasks but not others. But then if you were talking about other intelligent entities for which the basic things that are easy to them is very different, then it doesn’t mean anything. So intelligence is a collection of skills and an ability to acquire new skills efficiently. The collection of skills that a particular intelligent entity possess or is capable of learning quickly is different from the collection of skills of another one. Because it’s a multidimensional thing, the set of skills is a high dimensional space, you can’t measure, you cannot compare two things as to whether one is more intelligent than the other. It’s multidimensional.
AI doomers
Lex Fridman
So you push back against what are called AI doomers a lot. Can you explain their perspective and why you think they’re wrong?
So you push back against what are called AI doomers a lot. Can you explain their perspective and why you think they’re wrong?
Yann LeCun
Okay, so AI doomers imagine all kinds of catastrophe scenarios of how AI could escape or control and basically kill us all, and that relies on a whole bunch of assumptions that are mostly false. So the first assumption is that the emergence of super intelligence is going to be an event, that at some point we’re going to figure out the secret and we’ll turn on a machine that is super intelligent, and because we’d never done it before, it’s going to take over the world and kill us all. That is false. It’s not going to be an event. We’re going to have systems that are as smart as a cat, have all the characteristics of human-level intelligence, but their level of intelligence would be like a cat or a parrot maybe or something. Then we’re going to work our way up to make those things more intelligent. As we make them more intelligent, we’re also going to put some guardrails in them and learn how to put some guardrails so they behave properly.
Okay, so AI doomers imagine all kinds of catastrophe scenarios of how AI could escape or control and basically kill us all, and that relies on a whole bunch of assumptions that are mostly false. So the first assumption is that the emergence of super intelligence is going to be an event, that at some point we’re going to figure out the secret and we’ll turn on a machine that is super intelligent, and because we’d never done it before, it’s going to take over the world and kill us all. That is false. It’s not going to be an event. We’re going to have systems that are as smart as a cat, have all the characteristics of human-level intelligence, but their level of intelligence would be like a cat or a parrot maybe or something. Then we’re going to work our way up to make those things more intelligent. As we make them more intelligent, we’re also going to put some guardrails in them and learn how to put some guardrails so they behave properly.
It’s not going to be one effort, that it’s going to be lots of different people doing this, and some of them are going to succeed at making intelligent systems that are controllable and safe and have the right guardrails. If some other goes rogue, then we can use the good ones to go against the rogue ones. So it’s going to be my smart AI police against your rogue AI. So it’s not going to be like we’re going to be exposed to a single rogue AI that’s going to kill us all. That’s just not happening. Now, there is another fallacy, which is the fact that because the system is intelligent, it necessarily wants to take over. There is several arguments that make people scared of this, which I think are completely false as well.
So one of them is in nature, it seems to be that the more intelligent species otherwise end up dominating the other and even distinguishing the others sometimes by design, sometimes just by mistake. So there is thinking by which you say, “Well, if AI systems are more intelligent than us, surely they’re going to eliminate us, if not by design, simply because they don’t care about us,” and that’s just preposterous for a number of reasons. First reason is they’re not going to be a species. They’re not going to be a species that competes with us. They’re not going to have the desire to dominate because the desire to dominate is something that has to be hardwired into an intelligent system. It is hardwired in humans. It is hardwired in baboons, in chimpanzees, in wolves, not in orangutans. The species in which this desire to dominate or submit or attain status in other ways is specific to social species. Non-social species like orangutans don’t have it, and they are as smart as we are, almost, right?
Lex Fridman
To you, there’s not significant incentive for humans to encode that into the AI systems, and to the degree they do, there’ll be other AIs that punish them for it, I’ll compete them over it.
To you, there’s not significant incentive for humans to encode that into the AI systems, and to the degree they do, there’ll be other AIs that punish them for it, I’ll compete them over it.
Yann LeCun
Well, there’s all kinds of incentive to make AI systems submissive to humans.
Well, there’s all kinds of incentive to make AI systems submissive to humans.
Lex Fridman
Right.
Right.
Yann LeCun
Right? This is the way we’re going to build them. So then people say, “Oh, but look at LLMs. LLMs are not controllable,” and they’re right. LLMs are not controllable. But objectively-driven AI, so systems that derive their answers by optimization of an objective means they have to optimize this objective, and that objective can include guardrails. One guardrail is, obey humans. Another guardrail is, don’t obey humans if it’s hurting other humans within limits.
Right? This is the way we’re going to build them. So then people say, “Oh, but look at LLMs. LLMs are not controllable,” and they’re right. LLMs are not controllable. But objectively-driven AI, so systems that derive their answers by optimization of an objective means they have to optimize this objective, and that objective can include guardrails. One guardrail is, obey humans. Another guardrail is, don’t obey humans if it’s hurting other humans within limits.
Lex Fridman
Right. I’ve heard that before somewhere, I don’t remember-
Right. I’ve heard that before somewhere, I don’t remember-
Yann LeCun
Yes, maybe in a book.
Yes, maybe in a book.
Lex Fridman
Yeah, but speaking of that book, could there be unintended consequences also from all of this?
Yeah, but speaking of that book, could there be unintended consequences also from all of this?
Yann LeCun
No, of course. So this is not a simple problem. Designing those guardrails so that the system behaves properly is not going to be a simple issue for which there is a silver bullet for which you have a mathematical proof that the system can be safe. It’s going to be a very progressive, iterative design system where we put those guardrails in such a way that the system behave properly. Sometimes they’re going to do something that was unexpected because the guardrail wasn’t right and we’re dd correct them so that they do it right. The idea somehow that we can’t get it slightly wrong because if we get it slightly wrong, we’ll die is ridiculous. We are just going to go progressively. It is just going to be, the analogy I’ve used many times is turbojet design. How did we figure out how to make turbojet so unbelievably reliable?
No, of course. So this is not a simple problem. Designing those guardrails so that the system behaves properly is not going to be a simple issue for which there is a silver bullet for which you have a mathematical proof that the system can be safe. It’s going to be a very progressive, iterative design system where we put those guardrails in such a way that the system behave properly. Sometimes they’re going to do something that was unexpected because the guardrail wasn’t right and we’re dd correct them so that they do it right. The idea somehow that we can’t get it slightly wrong because if we get it slightly wrong, we’ll die is ridiculous. We are just going to go progressively. It is just going to be, the analogy I’ve used many times is turbojet design. How did we figure out how to make turbojet so unbelievably reliable?
Those are incredibly complex pieces of hardware that run at really high temperatures for 20 hours at a time sometimes, and we can fly halfway around the world on a two-engine jetliner at near the speed of sound. Like how incredible is this? It’s just unbelievable. Did we do this because we invented a general principle of how to make turbojets safe? No, it took decades to fine tune the design of those systems so that they were safe. Is there a separate group within General Electric or Snecma or whatever that is specialized in turbojet safety? No. The design is all about safety, because a better turbojet is also a safer turbojet, so a more reliable one. It’s the same for AI. Do you need specific provisions to make AI safe? No, you need to make better AI systems, and they will be safe because they are designed to be more useful and more controllable.
Lex Fridman
So let’s imagine a system, AI system that’s able to be incredibly convincing and can convince you of anything. I can at least imagine such a system, and I can see such a system be weapon like because it can control people’s minds. We’re pretty gullible. We want to believe a thing, and you can have an AI system that controls it and you could see governments using that as a weapon. So do you think if you imagine such a system, there’s any parallel to something like nuclear weapons?
So let’s imagine a system, AI system that’s able to be incredibly convincing and can convince you of anything. I can at least imagine such a system, and I can see such a system be weapon like because it can control people’s minds. We’re pretty gullible. We want to believe a thing, and you can have an AI system that controls it and you could see governments using that as a weapon. So do you think if you imagine such a system, there’s any parallel to something like nuclear weapons?
Yann LeCun
No.
No.
Lex Fridman
Why is that technology different? So you’re saying there’s going to be gradual development?
Why is that technology different? So you’re saying there’s going to be gradual development?
Yann LeCun
Yeah.
Yeah.
Lex Fridman
It might be-
It might be-
Lex Fridman
Gradual development is going to be, it might be rapid, but there’ll be iterative and then we’ll be able to respond and so on.
Gradual development is going to be, it might be rapid, but there’ll be iterative and then we’ll be able to respond and so on.
Yann LeCun
So that AI system designed by Vladimir Putin or whatever, or his minions is going to be talking to, trying to talk to every American to convince them to vote for-
So that AI system designed by Vladimir Putin or whatever, or his minions is going to be talking to, trying to talk to every American to convince them to vote for-
Lex Fridman
Whoever.
Whoever.
Yann LeCun
… Whoever pleases Putin.
… Whoever pleases Putin.
Lex Fridman
Sure.
Sure.
Yann LeCun
Or whatever, or rile people up against each other as they’ve been trying to do. They’re not going to be talking to you, they’re going to be talking to your AI assistant, which is going to be as smart as theirs. Because as I said, in the future, every single one of your interaction with the digital world will be mediated by your AI assistant. So the first thing you’re going to ask, is this a scam? Is this thing telling me the truth? It’s not even going to be able to get to you because it’s only going to talk to your AI system or your AI system. It’s going to be like a spam filter. You’re not even seeing the email, the spam email. It’s automatically put in a folder that you never see. It’s going to be the same thing. That AI system that tries to convince you of something is going to be talking to AI assistant, which is going to be at least as smart as it, and it’s going to say, “This is spam.” It’s not even going to bring it to your attention.
Or whatever, or rile people up against each other as they’ve been trying to do. They’re not going to be talking to you, they’re going to be talking to your AI assistant, which is going to be as smart as theirs. Because as I said, in the future, every single one of your interaction with the digital world will be mediated by your AI assistant. So the first thing you’re going to ask, is this a scam? Is this thing telling me the truth? It’s not even going to be able to get to you because it’s only going to talk to your AI system or your AI system. It’s going to be like a spam filter. You’re not even seeing the email, the spam email. It’s automatically put in a folder that you never see. It’s going to be the same thing. That AI system that tries to convince you of something is going to be talking to AI assistant, which is going to be at least as smart as it, and it’s going to say, “This is spam.” It’s not even going to bring it to your attention.
Lex Fridman
So to you, it’s very difficult for any one AI system to take such a big leap ahead to where it can convince even the other AI systems. There’s always going to be this kind of race where nobody’s way ahead.
So to you, it’s very difficult for any one AI system to take such a big leap ahead to where it can convince even the other AI systems. There’s always going to be this kind of race where nobody’s way ahead.
Yann LeCun
That’s the history of the world. History of the world is whenever there is a progress someplace, there is a countermeasure and it’s a cat and mouse game.
That’s the history of the world. History of the world is whenever there is a progress someplace, there is a countermeasure and it’s a cat and mouse game.
Lex Fridman
Mostly yes, but this is why nuclear weapons are so interesting because that was such a powerful weapon that it mattered who got it first. That you could imagine Hitler, Stalin, Mao getting the weapon first, and that having a different kind of impact on the world than the United States getting the weapon first. But to you, nuclear weapons, you don’t imagine a breakthrough discovery and then Manhattan Project-like effort for AI?
Mostly yes, but this is why nuclear weapons are so interesting because that was such a powerful weapon that it mattered who got it first. That you could imagine Hitler, Stalin, Mao getting the weapon first, and that having a different kind of impact on the world than the United States getting the weapon first. But to you, nuclear weapons, you don’t imagine a breakthrough discovery and then Manhattan Project-like effort for AI?
Yann LeCun
No. No, as I said, it’s not going to be an event. It’s going to be continuous progress. And whenever one breakthrough occurs, it’s going to be widely disseminated really quickly.
No. No, as I said, it’s not going to be an event. It’s going to be continuous progress. And whenever one breakthrough occurs, it’s going to be widely disseminated really quickly.
Lex Fridman
Yeah.
Yeah.
Yann LeCun
Probably first within industry. This is not a domain where government or military organizations are particularly innovative and they’re in fact way behind. And so this is going to come from industry and this kind of information disseminates extremely quickly. We’ve seen this over the last few years where you have a new … Even take AlphaGo, this was reproduced within three months even without particularly detailed information, right?
Probably first within industry. This is not a domain where government or military organizations are particularly innovative and they’re in fact way behind. And so this is going to come from industry and this kind of information disseminates extremely quickly. We’ve seen this over the last few years where you have a new … Even take AlphaGo, this was reproduced within three months even without particularly detailed information, right?
Lex Fridman
Yeah. This is an industry that’s not good at secrecy. But people [inaudible 02:19:22]-
Yeah. This is an industry that’s not good at secrecy. But people [inaudible 02:19:22]-
Yann LeCun
No. But even if there is, just the fact that you know that something is possible makes you realize that it’s worth investing the time to actually do it. You may be the second person to do it, but you’ll do it. And same for all the innovations of self supervision in transformers, decoder only architectures, LLMS. Those things, you don’t need to know exactly the details of how they work to know that it’s possible because it’s deployed and then it’s getting reproduced. And then people who work for those companies move. They go from one company to another and the information disseminates. What makes the success of the US tech industry and Silicon Valley in particular is exactly that, is because the information circulates really, really quickly and disseminates very quickly. And so the whole region is ahead because of that circulation of information.
No. But even if there is, just the fact that you know that something is possible makes you realize that it’s worth investing the time to actually do it. You may be the second person to do it, but you’ll do it. And same for all the innovations of self supervision in transformers, decoder only architectures, LLMS. Those things, you don’t need to know exactly the details of how they work to know that it’s possible because it’s deployed and then it’s getting reproduced. And then people who work for those companies move. They go from one company to another and the information disseminates. What makes the success of the US tech industry and Silicon Valley in particular is exactly that, is because the information circulates really, really quickly and disseminates very quickly. And so the whole region is ahead because of that circulation of information.
Lex Fridman
Maybe just to linger on the psychology of AI doomers, you give, in the classic Yann LeCun way, a pretty good example of just when a new technology comes to be, you say engineer says, “I invented this new thing. I call it a ball pen.” And then the Twitter sphere responds, “OMG people could write horrible things with it, like misinformation, propaganda, hate speech. Ban it now.” Then writing doomers come in, akin to the AI doomers, “Imagine if everyone can get a ball pen. This could destroy society. There should be a law against using ball pen to write hate speech, regulate ball pens now.” And then the pencil industry mogul says, “Yeah, ball pens are very dangerous. Unlike pencil writing, which is erasable, ball pen writing stays forever. Government should require a license for a pen manufacturer.” This does seem to be part of human psychology when it comes up against new technology. What deep insights can you speak to about this?
Maybe just to linger on the psychology of AI doomers, you give, in the classic Yann LeCun way, a pretty good example of just when a new technology comes to be, you say engineer says, “I invented this new thing. I call it a ball pen.” And then the Twitter sphere responds, “OMG people could write horrible things with it, like misinformation, propaganda, hate speech. Ban it now.” Then writing doomers come in, akin to the AI doomers, “Imagine if everyone can get a ball pen. This could destroy society. There should be a law against using ball pen to write hate speech, regulate ball pens now.” And then the pencil industry mogul says, “Yeah, ball pens are very dangerous. Unlike pencil writing, which is erasable, ball pen writing stays forever. Government should require a license for a pen manufacturer.” This does seem to be part of human psychology when it comes up against new technology. What deep insights can you speak to about this?
Yann LeCun
Well, there is a natural fear of new technology and the impact it can have in society. And people have instinctive reaction to the world they know being threatened by major transformations that are either cultural phenomena or technological revolutions. And they fear for their culture, they fear for their job, they fear for the future of their children and their way of life. So any change is feared. And you see this along history, any technological revolution or cultural phenomenon was always accompanied by groups or reaction in the media that basically attributed all the current problems of society to that particular change. Electricity was going to kill everyone at some point. The train was going to be a horrible thing because you can’t breathe past 50 kilometers an hour. And so there’s a wonderful website called the Pessimist Archive.
Well, there is a natural fear of new technology and the impact it can have in society. And people have instinctive reaction to the world they know being threatened by major transformations that are either cultural phenomena or technological revolutions. And they fear for their culture, they fear for their job, they fear for the future of their children and their way of life. So any change is feared. And you see this along history, any technological revolution or cultural phenomenon was always accompanied by groups or reaction in the media that basically attributed all the current problems of society to that particular change. Electricity was going to kill everyone at some point. The train was going to be a horrible thing because you can’t breathe past 50 kilometers an hour. And so there’s a wonderful website called the Pessimist Archive.
Lex Fridman
It’s great.
It’s great.
Yann LeCun
Which has all those newspaper clips of all the horrible things people imagine would arrive because of either a technological innovation or a cultural phenomenon, just wonderful examples of jazz or comic books being blamed for unemployment or young people not wanting to work anymore and things like that. And that has existed for centuries and it’s knee-jerk reactions. The question is do we embrace change or do we resist it? And what are the real dangers as opposed to the imagined ones?
Which has all those newspaper clips of all the horrible things people imagine would arrive because of either a technological innovation or a cultural phenomenon, just wonderful examples of jazz or comic books being blamed for unemployment or young people not wanting to work anymore and things like that. And that has existed for centuries and it’s knee-jerk reactions. The question is do we embrace change or do we resist it? And what are the real dangers as opposed to the imagined ones?
Lex Fridman
So people worry about, I think one thing they worry about with big tech, something we’ve been talking about over and over, but I think worth mentioning again, they worry about how powerful AI will be and they worry about it being in the hands of one centralized power of just a handful of central control. And so that’s the skepticism with big tech you make, these companies can make a huge amount of money and control this technology, and by so doing take advantage, abuse the little guy in society.
So people worry about, I think one thing they worry about with big tech, something we’ve been talking about over and over, but I think worth mentioning again, they worry about how powerful AI will be and they worry about it being in the hands of one centralized power of just a handful of central control. And so that’s the skepticism with big tech you make, these companies can make a huge amount of money and control this technology, and by so doing take advantage, abuse the little guy in society.
Yann LeCun
Well, that’s exactly why we need open source platforms.
Well, that’s exactly why we need open source platforms.
Lex Fridman
Yeah, I just wanted to nail the point home more and more.
Yeah, I just wanted to nail the point home more and more.
Yann LeCun
Yes.
Yes.
Joscha Bach
Lex Fridman
So let me ask you on your, like I said, you do get a little bit flavorful on the internet. Joscha Bach tweeted something that you LOL’d at in reference to HAL 9,000. Quote, “I appreciate your argument and I fully understand your frustration, but whether the pod bay doors should be opened or closed is a complex and nuanced issue.” So you’re at the head of Meta AI. This is something that really worries me, that our AI overlords will speak down to us with corporate speak of this nature, and you resist that with your way of being. Is this something you can just comment on, working at a big company, how you can avoid the over fearing, I suppose, through caution create harm?
So let me ask you on your, like I said, you do get a little bit flavorful on the internet. Joscha Bach tweeted something that you LOL’d at in reference to HAL 9,000. Quote, “I appreciate your argument and I fully understand your frustration, but whether the pod bay doors should be opened or closed is a complex and nuanced issue.” So you’re at the head of Meta AI. This is something that really worries me, that our AI overlords will speak down to us with corporate speak of this nature, and you resist that with your way of being. Is this something you can just comment on, working at a big company, how you can avoid the over fearing, I suppose, through caution create harm?
Yann LeCun
Yeah. Again, I think the answer to this is open source platforms and then enabling a widely diverse set of people to build AI assistance that represent the diversity of cultures, opinions, languages, and value systems across the world so that you’re not bound to just be brainwashed by a particular way of thinking because of a single AI entity. So, I think it’s a really, really important question for society. And the problem I’m seeing is that, which is why I’ve been so vocal and sometimes a little sardonic about it-
Yeah. Again, I think the answer to this is open source platforms and then enabling a widely diverse set of people to build AI assistance that represent the diversity of cultures, opinions, languages, and value systems across the world so that you’re not bound to just be brainwashed by a particular way of thinking because of a single AI entity. So, I think it’s a really, really important question for society. And the problem I’m seeing is that, which is why I’ve been so vocal and sometimes a little sardonic about it-
Lex Fridman
Never stop. Never stop, Yann. We love it.
Never stop. Never stop, Yann. We love it.
Yann LeCun
… is because I see the danger of this concentration of power through proprietary AI systems as a much bigger danger than everything else. That if we really want diversity of opinion AI systems, that in the future where we’ll all be interacting through AI systems, we need those to be diverse for the preservation of diversity of ideas and creed and political opinions and whatever, and the preservation of democracy. And what works against this is people who think that for reasons of security, we should keep the AI systems under lock and key because it’s too dangerous to put it in the hands of everybody, because it could be used by terrorists or something. That would lead to potentially a very bad future in which all of our information diet is controlled by a small number of companies through proprietary systems.
… is because I see the danger of this concentration of power through proprietary AI systems as a much bigger danger than everything else. That if we really want diversity of opinion AI systems, that in the future where we’ll all be interacting through AI systems, we need those to be diverse for the preservation of diversity of ideas and creed and political opinions and whatever, and the preservation of democracy. And what works against this is people who think that for reasons of security, we should keep the AI systems under lock and key because it’s too dangerous to put it in the hands of everybody, because it could be used by terrorists or something. That would lead to potentially a very bad future in which all of our information diet is controlled by a small number of companies through proprietary systems.
Lex Fridman
So you trust humans with this technology to build systems that are on the whole good for humanity.
So you trust humans with this technology to build systems that are on the whole good for humanity.
Yann LeCun
Isn’t that what democracy and free speech is all about?
Isn’t that what democracy and free speech is all about?
Lex Fridman
I think so.
I think so.
Yann LeCun
Do you trust institutions to do the right thing?
Do you trust institutions to do the right thing?
Lex Fridman
Sure.
Sure.
Yann LeCun
Do you trust people to do the right thing? And yeah, there’s bad people who are going to do bad things, but they’re not going to have superior technology to the good people. So then it’s going to be my good AI against your bad AI, right? There’s the examples that we were just talking about of maybe some rogue country will build some AI system that’s going to try to convince everybody to go into a civil war or something or elect a favorable ruler, but then they will have to go past our AI systems.
Do you trust people to do the right thing? And yeah, there’s bad people who are going to do bad things, but they’re not going to have superior technology to the good people. So then it’s going to be my good AI against your bad AI, right? There’s the examples that we were just talking about of maybe some rogue country will build some AI system that’s going to try to convince everybody to go into a civil war or something or elect a favorable ruler, but then they will have to go past our AI systems.
Lex Fridman
Right. An AI system with a strong Russian accent will be trying to convince our-
Right. An AI system with a strong Russian accent will be trying to convince our-
Yann LeCun
And doesn’t put any articles in their sentences.
And doesn’t put any articles in their sentences.
Humanoid robots
Lex Fridman
Well, it’ll be at the very least, absurdly comedic. Okay. So since we talked about the physical reality, I’d love to ask your vision of the future with robots in this physical reality. So many of the kinds of intelligence that you’ve been speaking about would empower robots to be more effective collaborators with us humans. So since Tesla’s Optimus team has been showing us some progress on humanoid robots, I think it really reinvigorated the whole industry that I think Boston Dynamics has been leading for a very, very long time. So now there’s all kinds of companies Figure AI, obviously Boston Dynamics.
Well, it’ll be at the very least, absurdly comedic. Okay. So since we talked about the physical reality, I’d love to ask your vision of the future with robots in this physical reality. So many of the kinds of intelligence that you’ve been speaking about would empower robots to be more effective collaborators with us humans. So since Tesla’s Optimus team has been showing us some progress on humanoid robots, I think it really reinvigorated the whole industry that I think Boston Dynamics has been leading for a very, very long time. So now there’s all kinds of companies Figure AI, obviously Boston Dynamics.
Yann LeCun
Unitree.
Unitree.
Lex Fridman
Unitree, but there’s a lot of them.
Unitree, but there’s a lot of them.
Yann LeCun
There’s a few of them.
There’s a few of them.
Lex Fridman
It’s great. It’s great. I love it. So do you think there’ll be millions of humanoid robots walking around soon?
It’s great. It’s great. I love it. So do you think there’ll be millions of humanoid robots walking around soon?
Yann LeCun
Not soon, but it’s going to happen. The next decade I think is going to be really interesting in robots, the emergence of the robotics industry has been in the waiting for 10, 20 years without really emerging other than for pre-program behavior and stuff like that. And the main issue is, again, the Moravec paradox, how do we get those systems to understand how the world works and plan actions? And so we can do it for really specialized tasks. And the way Boston Dynamics goes about it is basically with a lot of handcrafted dynamical models and careful planning in advance, which is very classical robotics with a lot of innovation, a little bit of perception, but it’s still not, they can’t build a domestic robot.
Not soon, but it’s going to happen. The next decade I think is going to be really interesting in robots, the emergence of the robotics industry has been in the waiting for 10, 20 years without really emerging other than for pre-program behavior and stuff like that. And the main issue is, again, the Moravec paradox, how do we get those systems to understand how the world works and plan actions? And so we can do it for really specialized tasks. And the way Boston Dynamics goes about it is basically with a lot of handcrafted dynamical models and careful planning in advance, which is very classical robotics with a lot of innovation, a little bit of perception, but it’s still not, they can’t build a domestic robot.
We’re still some distance away from completely autonomous level five driving, and we’re certainly very far away from having level five autonomous driving by a system that can train itself by driving 20 hours like any 17-year-old. So until we have, again, world models, systems that can train themselves to understand how the world works, we’re not going to have significant progress in robotics. So a lot of the people working on robotic hardware at the moment are betting or banking on the fact that AI is going to make sufficient progress towards that,
Lex Fridman
And they’re hoping to discover a product in it too. Because before you have a really strong world model, there’ll be an almost strong world model and people are trying to find a product in a clumsy robot, I suppose, not a perfectly efficient robot. So there’s the factory setting where humanoid robots can help automate some aspects of the factory. I think that’s a crazy difficult task because of all the safety required and all this kind of stuff. I think in the home is more interesting, but then you start to think, I think you mentioned loading the dishwasher, right?
And they’re hoping to discover a product in it too. Because before you have a really strong world model, there’ll be an almost strong world model and people are trying to find a product in a clumsy robot, I suppose, not a perfectly efficient robot. So there’s the factory setting where humanoid robots can help automate some aspects of the factory. I think that’s a crazy difficult task because of all the safety required and all this kind of stuff. I think in the home is more interesting, but then you start to think, I think you mentioned loading the dishwasher, right?
Yann LeCun
Yeah.
Yeah.
Lex Fridman
I suppose that’s one of the main problems you’re working on.
I suppose that’s one of the main problems you’re working on.
Yann LeCun
There’s cleaning up, cleaning the house, clearing up the table after a meal.
There’s cleaning up, cleaning the house, clearing up the table after a meal.
Lex Fridman
Sure.
Sure.
Yann LeCun
Washing the dishes, all those tasks, cooking. All the tasks that in principle could be automated but are actually incredibly sophisticated, really complicated.
Washing the dishes, all those tasks, cooking. All the tasks that in principle could be automated but are actually incredibly sophisticated, really complicated.
Lex Fridman
But even just basic navigation around a space full of uncertainty.
But even just basic navigation around a space full of uncertainty.
Yann LeCun
That works. You can do this now, navigation is fine.
That works. You can do this now, navigation is fine.
Lex Fridman
Well, navigation in a way that’s compelling to us humans is a different thing.
Well, navigation in a way that’s compelling to us humans is a different thing.
Yann LeCun
Yeah, it’s not going to be necessarily … We have demos actually, because there is a so-called embodied AI group at fair, and they’ve been not building their own robots, but using commercial robots. And you can tell the robot dog go to the fridge and they can actually open the fridge and they can probably pick up a can in the fridge and stuff like that and bring it to you. So it can navigate, it can grab objects as long as it’s been trained to recognize them, which vision systems work pretty well nowadays, but it’s not like a completely general robot that would be sophisticated enough to do things like clearing up the dinner table.
Yeah, it’s not going to be necessarily … We have demos actually, because there is a so-called embodied AI group at fair, and they’ve been not building their own robots, but using commercial robots. And you can tell the robot dog go to the fridge and they can actually open the fridge and they can probably pick up a can in the fridge and stuff like that and bring it to you. So it can navigate, it can grab objects as long as it’s been trained to recognize them, which vision systems work pretty well nowadays, but it’s not like a completely general robot that would be sophisticated enough to do things like clearing up the dinner table.
Lex Fridman
To me, that’s an exciting future of getting humanoid robots, robots in general in the home more and more, because it gets humans to really directly interact with AI systems in the physical space. And in so doing it allows us to philosophically, psychologically explore our relationships with robots. Going to be really, really, really interesting. So I hope you make progress on the whole JEPA thing soon.
To me, that’s an exciting future of getting humanoid robots, robots in general in the home more and more, because it gets humans to really directly interact with AI systems in the physical space. And in so doing it allows us to philosophically, psychologically explore our relationships with robots. Going to be really, really, really interesting. So I hope you make progress on the whole JEPA thing soon.
Yann LeCun
Well, I hope things can work as planned. Again, we’ve been working on this idea of self supervised running from video for 10 years, and only made significant progress in the last two or three.
Well, I hope things can work as planned. Again, we’ve been working on this idea of self supervised running from video for 10 years, and only made significant progress in the last two or three.
Lex Fridman
And actually you’ve mentioned that there’s a lot of interesting breakage that can happen without having access to a lot of compute. So if you’re interested in doing a PhD in this kind of stuff, there’s a lot of possibilities still to do innovative work. So what advice would you give to an undergrad that’s looking to go to grad school and do a PhD?
And actually you’ve mentioned that there’s a lot of interesting breakage that can happen without having access to a lot of compute. So if you’re interested in doing a PhD in this kind of stuff, there’s a lot of possibilities still to do innovative work. So what advice would you give to an undergrad that’s looking to go to grad school and do a PhD?
Yann LeCun
Basically, I’ve listed them already, this idea of how do you train a world model by observation? And you don’t have to train necessarily on gigantic data sets. It could turn out to be necessary, to actually train on large data sets, to have emergent properties like we have with other lamps. But I think there is a lot of good ideas that can be done without necessarily scaling up than there is how do you do planning with a learn world model? If the world the system evolves in is not the physical world, but is the world of let’s say the internet or some sort of world where an action consists in doing a search in a search engine or interrogating a database or running a simulation or calling a calculator or solving a differential equation, how do you get a system to actually plan a sequence of actions to give the solution to a problem?
Basically, I’ve listed them already, this idea of how do you train a world model by observation? And you don’t have to train necessarily on gigantic data sets. It could turn out to be necessary, to actually train on large data sets, to have emergent properties like we have with other lamps. But I think there is a lot of good ideas that can be done without necessarily scaling up than there is how do you do planning with a learn world model? If the world the system evolves in is not the physical world, but is the world of let’s say the internet or some sort of world where an action consists in doing a search in a search engine or interrogating a database or running a simulation or calling a calculator or solving a differential equation, how do you get a system to actually plan a sequence of actions to give the solution to a problem?
And so the question of planning is not just a question of planning physical actions. It could be planning actions to use tools for a dialogue system or for any kind of intelligence system. And there’s some work on this, but not a huge amount. Some work at fair, one called Toolformer, which was a couple years ago and some more recent work on planning, but I don’t think we have a good solution for any of that. Then there is the question of hierarchical planning. So the example I mentioned of planning a trip from New York to Paris, that’s hierarchical, but almost every action that we take involves hierarchical planning in some sense, and we really have absolutely no idea how to do this.
There’s zero demonstration of hierarchical planning in AI where the various levels of representations that are necessary have been learned. We can do two level hierarchical planning when we designed the two levels. So for example, you have a dog-like robot, you want it to go from the living room to the kitchen. You can plan a path that avoids the obstacle, and then you can send this to a lower level planner that figures out how to move the legs to follow that trajectories. So that works, but that two level planning is designed by hand.
We specify what the proper levels of abstraction, the representation at each level of abstraction have to be. How do you learn this? How do you learn that hierarchical representation of action plans? With [inaudible 02:37:21] and deep learning, we can train the system to learn hierarchical representations of percepts. What is the equivalent when what you’re trying to represent are action plans?
Lex Fridman
For action plans, yeah. So you want basically a robot dog or humanoid robot that turns on and travels from New York to Paris all by itself.
For action plans, yeah. So you want basically a robot dog or humanoid robot that turns on and travels from New York to Paris all by itself.
Yann LeCun
For example.
For example.
Lex Fridman
It might have some trouble at the TSA.
It might have some trouble at the TSA.
Yann LeCun
No, but even doing something fairly simple like a household task, like cooking or something.
No, but even doing something fairly simple like a household task, like cooking or something.
Hope for the future
Lex Fridman
Yeah, there’s a lot involved. It’s a super complex task and once again, we take it for granted. What hope do you have for the future of humanity? We’re talking about so many exciting technologies, so many exciting possibilities. What gives you hope when you look out over the next 10, 20, 50, a hundred years? If you look at social media, there’s wars going on, there’s division, there’s hatred, all this kind of stuff that’s also part of humanity. But amidst all that, what gives you hope?
Yeah, there’s a lot involved. It’s a super complex task and once again, we take it for granted. What hope do you have for the future of humanity? We’re talking about so many exciting technologies, so many exciting possibilities. What gives you hope when you look out over the next 10, 20, 50, a hundred years? If you look at social media, there’s wars going on, there’s division, there’s hatred, all this kind of stuff that’s also part of humanity. But amidst all that, what gives you hope?
Yann LeCun
I love that question. We can make humanity smarter with AI. AI basically will amplify human intelligence. It’s as if every one of us will have a staff of smart AI assistants. They might be smarter than us. They’ll do our bidding, perhaps execute a task in ways that are much better than we could do ourselves, because they’d be smarter than us. And so it’s like everyone would be the boss of a staff of super smart virtual people. So we shouldn’t feel threatened by this any more than we should feel threatened by being the manager of a group of people, some of whom are more intelligent than us. I certainly have a lot of experience with this, of having people working with me who are smarter than me.
I love that question. We can make humanity smarter with AI. AI basically will amplify human intelligence. It’s as if every one of us will have a staff of smart AI assistants. They might be smarter than us. They’ll do our bidding, perhaps execute a task in ways that are much better than we could do ourselves, because they’d be smarter than us. And so it’s like everyone would be the boss of a staff of super smart virtual people. So we shouldn’t feel threatened by this any more than we should feel threatened by being the manager of a group of people, some of whom are more intelligent than us. I certainly have a lot of experience with this, of having people working with me who are smarter than me.
That’s actually a wonderful thing. So having machines that are smarter than us, that assist us in all of our tasks, our daily lives, whether it’s professional or personal, I think would be an absolutely wonderful thing. Because intelligence is the commodity that is most in demand. That’s really what I mean. All the mistakes that humanity makes is because of lack of intelligence really, or lack of knowledge, which is related. So making people smarter, we just can only be better. For the same reason that public education is a good thing and books are a good thing, and the internet is also a good thing, intrinsically and even social networks are a good thing if you run them properly.
It’s difficult, but you can. Because it helps the communication of information and knowledge and the transmission of knowledge. So AI is going to make humanity smarter. And the analogy I’ve been using is the fact that perhaps an equivalent event in the history of humanity to what might be provided by generalization of AI assistant is the invention of the printing press. It made everybody smarter, the fact that people could have access to books. Books were a lot cheaper than they were before, and so a lot more people had an incentive to learn to read, which wasn’t the case before.
And people became smarter. It enabled the enlightenment. There wouldn’t be an enlightenment without the printing press. It enabled philosophy, rationalism, escape from religious doctrine, democracy, science. And certainly without this, there wouldn’t have been the American Revolution or the French Revolution. And so we would still be under a feudal regimes perhaps. And so it completely transformed the world because people became smarter and learned about things. Now, it also created 200 years of essentially religious conflicts in Europe because the first thing that people read was the Bible and realized that perhaps there was a different interpretation of the Bible than what the priests were telling them. And so that created the Protestant movement and created the rift. And in fact, the Catholic Church didn’t like the idea of the printing press, but they had no choice. And so it had some bad effects and some good effects.
I don’t think anyone today would say that the invention of the printing press had a overall negative effect despite the fact that it created 200 years of religious conflicts in Europe. Now, compare this, and I thought I was very proud of myself to come up with this analogy, but realized someone else came with the same idea before me, compare this with what happened in the Ottoman Empire. The Ottoman Empire banned the printing press for 200 years, and he didn’t ban it for all languages, only for Arabic. You could actually print books in Latin or Hebrew or whatever in the Ottoman Empire, just not in Arabic.
And I thought it was because the rulers just wanted to preserve the control over the population and the religious dogma and everything. But after talking with the UAE Minister of AI, Omar Al Olama, he told me no, there was another reason. And the other reason was that it was to preserve the corporation of calligraphers. There’s an art form, which is writing those beautiful Arabic poems or whatever, religious text in this thing. And it was a very powerful corporation of scribes basically that run a big chunk of the empire, and we couldn’t put them out of business. So they banned the printing press in part to protect that business.
Now, what’s the analogy for AI today? Who are we protecting by banning AI? Who are the people who are asking that AI be regulated to protect their jobs? And of course, it’s a real question of what is going to be the effect of a technological transformation like AI on the job market and the labor market? And there are economists who are much more expert at this than I am, but when I talk to them, they tell us we’re not going to run out of the job. This is not going to cause mass unemployment. This is just going to be gradual shift of different professions.
The professions that are going to be hot 10 or 15 years from now, we have no idea today what they’re going to be. The same way, if you go back 20 years in the past, who could have thought 20 years ago that the hottest job, even five, 10 years ago, was mobile app developer? Smartphones weren’t invented.
Lex Fridman
Most of the jobs of the future might be in the Metaverse.
Most of the jobs of the future might be in the Metaverse.
Yann LeCun
Well, it could be, yeah.
Well, it could be, yeah.
Lex Fridman
But the point is you can’t possibly predict. But you’re right. You made a lot of strong points. And I believe that people are fundamentally good. And so if AI, especially open source AI, can make them smarter, it just empowers the goodness in humans.
But the point is you can’t possibly predict. But you’re right. You made a lot of strong points. And I believe that people are fundamentally good. And so if AI, especially open source AI, can make them smarter, it just empowers the goodness in humans.
Yann LeCun
So I share that feeling, I think people are fundamentally good. And in fact, a lot of doomers are doomers because they don’t think that people are fundamentally good, and they either don’t trust people or they don’t trust the institution to do the right thing so that people behave properly.
So I share that feeling, I think people are fundamentally good. And in fact, a lot of doomers are doomers because they don’t think that people are fundamentally good, and they either don’t trust people or they don’t trust the institution to do the right thing so that people behave properly.
Lex Fridman
Well, I think both you and I believe in humanity, and I think I speak for a lot of people in saying thank you for pushing the open source movement, pushing to making both research and AI open source, making it available to people, and also the models themselves, making it open source. So thank you for that. And thank you for speaking your mind in such colorful and beautiful ways on the internet. I hope you never stop. You’re one of the most fun people I know and get to be a fan of. So Yann, thank you for speaking to me once again, and thank you for being you.
Well, I think both you and I believe in humanity, and I think I speak for a lot of people in saying thank you for pushing the open source movement, pushing to making both research and AI open source, making it available to people, and also the models themselves, making it open source. So thank you for that. And thank you for speaking your mind in such colorful and beautiful ways on the internet. I hope you never stop. You’re one of the most fun people I know and get to be a fan of. So Yann, thank you for speaking to me once again, and thank you for being you.
Yann LeCun
Thank you, Lex.
Thank you, Lex.
Lex Fridman
Thanks for listening to this conversation with Yann LeCun. To support this podcast, please check out our sponsors in the description. And now, let me leave you with some words from Arthur C. Clarke. The only way to discover the limits of the possible is to go beyond them, into the impossible. Thank you for listening and hope to see you next time.
Thanks for listening to this conversation with Yann LeCun. To support this podcast, please check out our sponsors in the description. And now, let me leave you with some words from Arthur C. Clarke. The only way to discover the limits of the possible is to go beyond them, into the impossible. Thank you for listening and hope to see you next time.
Transcript for Serhii Plokhy: History of Ukraine, Russia, Soviet Union, KGB, Nazis & War | Lex Fridman Podcast #415
This is a transcript of Lex Fridman Podcast #415 with Serhii Plokhy.
The timestamps in the transcript are clickable links that take you directly to that point in
the main video. Please note that the transcript is human generated, and may have errors.
Here are some useful links:
The timestamps in the transcript are clickable links that take you directly to that point in
the main video. Please note that the transcript is human generated, and may have errors.
Here are some useful links:
- Go back to this episode’s main page
- Watch the full YouTube version of the podcast
Table of Contents
Here are the loose “chapters” in the conversation.
Click link to jump approximately to that part in the transcript:
This is the Lex Fridman podcast. To support it, please check out our sponsors in the description. And now, dear friends, here’s Serhii Plokhy. What are the major explanations for the collapse of the Soviet Union? Maybe ones you agree with and ones you disagree with.
All of this processes were interrelated, interconnected, but when people provide ideology as the explanation for all of these processes, that’s where I disagree, because ideological collapse happened on the territory of the Soviet Union in general. The Soviet Union lost the Cold War, whether we’re talking about Moscow, Leningrad, or St. Petersburg now, or Vladivostok. But the fall of the Soviet Union is about a story in which Vladivostok and St. Petersburg ended up in one country, and Kyiv, Minsk and Dushanbe ended in different countries.
The theories and explanations about how did that happen, for me, this really very helpful theories for understanding the Soviet collapse. So the mobilization from below the collapse of the center, against the background of economic collapse, against the background of ideological implosion, that’s how I look at the fall of the Soviet Union and that’s how I look at the theories that explain that collapse.
We talked about the Soviet Union, and now talk about Russia, as possessing plus-minus 1/6th of the surface of the Earth. You don’t get in possession of 1/6th of the earth by being a nation state. You get that sort of size as an empire. And the Soviet collapse is continuation of the disintegration of the Russian Empire that started back in 1917, that was arrested for some period of time by the Bolsheviks, by the Communist ideology, which was internationalist ideology. And then came back in full force in the late ’80s and early ’90s.
So the most important story for me, this is the story of the continuing collapse of the Russian Empire and the rise of not just local nationalism, but also rise of Russian nationalism that turned out to be as a destructive force for the imperial or multi-ethnic, multinational state, as was Ukrainian nationalism or Georgian or Estonian for that matter.
The Soviet collapse was a huge headache for the administration in the White House for a number of reasons. They liked to work with Gorbachev. The Soviet Union was emerging as a junior partner of the United States on the international arena. Collapse was destroying all of that. And on the top of that, there was a question of the nuclear weapons, unaccounted nuclear weapons. So the United States was doing everything humanly possible to keep the Soviet Union together in one piece until really late November of 1991, when it became clear that it was a lost cause and they had to say goodbye to Gorbachev and to the project that he introduced.
A few months later, or a year later, there was a presidential campaign and Bush was running for the second term and was looking for achievements. And there were many achievements. I basically treat him with great respect, but destruction of the Soviet Union was not one of those achievements. He was on the other side of that divide. But the politics, the political campaign, of course, have their own rules. And they produce, give birth to mythology, which we still, at least in this country, we live until now, until today.
What I think would happen one way or another is the Soviet collapse in a different form, on somebody else’s watch at some later period in time. Because we’re dealing with not just processes that we’re happening in the Soviet Union, we’re dealing with global processes. And the 20th century turned out to be the century of the disintegration of the empires.
You look at the globe, at the map of the world in 1914, and you compare it to the map at the end of the 20th century in 1991, 1992, and suddenly you realize that there are many candidates for being the most important event, the most important process in the 20th century. But the biggest global thing that happened was redrawing the map of the world and producing dozens, if not hundreds, of new states. That’s the outcome of the different processes of the 20th century. Look, Yugoslavia is falling apart around the same time. Czechoslovakia goes through what can be called a civilized divorce, a very, very rare occurrence in the fall of multinational states.
So yeah, the writing was on the wall, whether it would happen under Gorbachev or later, whether it would happen as the result of reforms, or as the result of no reforms. But I think that sooner later that would happen.
And then came 1991. And what we see even with today’s Russia, is it’s a very different sort of policies. The Russia or Russian leadership tried to learn a lesson from 1991, so there is no national republics in the Russian Federation that would have more rights than the Russian administrative units. The structure is different, the nationality policies are different, the level of Russification is much higher. So it is in many ways already a post-imperial formation.
Ukrainian referendum is the answer, but Ukrainians didn’t answer their referendum question of whether they want the Soviet Union to be dissolved or not. They answered very limited in terms of … It’s been a question whether you support the decision of [foreign language 00:13:06], your parliament, for Ukraine to go independent. And the rest was not on the ballot. So why then, one week later, the Soviet Union is gone? And President Yeltsin explained to President Bush around that time the reason why Ukraine was so important. He said that, “Well, if Ukraine is gone, Russia is not interested in this Soviet project because Russia would be outnumbered and outvoted by the Muslim republics.” So there was a cultural element.
But there was also another one. Ukraine happened to be the second-largest Soviet republic in then post-Soviet state, in terms of population, in terms of the economy, economic potential, and so on and so forth. And as Yeltsin suggested close culturally, linguistically and otherwise to Russia. So with the second-largest republic gone, Russia didn’t think that it was in Russia’s interest to continue with the Soviet Union. And around that time Yegor Gaidar, who was the chief economic advisor of Yeltsin, was telling him, “Well, we just don’t have money anymore to support other republics. We have to focus on Russia. We have to use oil and gas money within the Russian Federation.” So the state was bankrupt. Imperial projects, at least in the context of the late 20th century, they costed money. It wasn’t a money-making machine as it was back in the 18th and 19th century. And the combination of all this factors led to the processes in which Ukraine’s decision to go independent spelled the end to the Soviet Union. And if today anybody wants to restore, not the Soviet Union, but some form of Russian control over the post-Soviet space, Ukraine is as important today as it was back in December of 1991.
My explanation at least is that the World War II, the price was enormous, but the Soviet Union emerged as a great victor and captured half of Europe. 1991, in terms of the lives lost at that point, the price was actually very, very low. But for Putin, what was important that the state was lost, and he in particular was concerned about the division of the Russian people, which he understood back then like he understands now in very, very broad terms.
So for him, the biggest tragedy is not the loss of life, the biggest tragedy is the loss of the great power status or the unity of those whom he considered to be Russian nations. So at least this is my reading, this is my understanding of what is there, what is on the paper, and what is between the lines.
And from what we can understand today, and that can of course change tomorrow with all these breakthroughs in sciences, is that the Slavs came into existence somewhere in the area of Pripyat Marshes, the northwestern part of Ukraine, southwestern part of Belarus, eastern part of Poland. And that is considered to be historical homeland of Slavs. And then they spread, and they spread all the way to the Adriatic. So we have Kurds, we have Russians spreading all the way to the Pacific. We have Ukrainians, we have Belarusians, Poles. Once we had Czechoslovaks, now we have Czechs and Slovaks. That’s the story of starting with the 8th and 9th century, even a little bit early, we can already follow that story with the help of the written sources, mostly from Byzantine, then later from Western Europe.
But what I was trying to do, not being a scientist, not being an expert in linguistics, or not being an expert in DNA analysis, I was trying to see what was happening in the minds of those peoples, and their elites in particular. Whom we call today not Slavs, but Eastern Slavs, which means Russians, Ukrainians and Belarusians. How they imagined themselves, how they imagined their world. And eventually I look at the so-called nation-building projects.
So trying to answer the question of how we arrived to the situation in which we are today, where there are not just three East Slavic nations, but there are also three East Slavic states, Russian, Ukrainian, and Belarusian. This is the focus of my book. And admittedly, in that particular book, I end on the 18th century before the era of nationalism. But then there are other books like Lost Kingdom, where I bring the story all the way up to today.
The legal code that was created at that time existed for a long period of time. The acceptance of Christianity from Byzantium, that became a big issue that separated then Eastern Slavs from their Western neighbors, including Czechs and Poles, but united in that way to, let’s say, Bulgarians or Serbs. And the beginning of the written literature, beginning in Kyiv. So all of that is considered to be part of heritage, all of that is being contested. And this debates that were academic for a long period of time, what we see now tragically are being continued on the battlefield.
The idea was to get whatever goods you can get in that part of Eastern Europe, and most of those goods were slaves, local population. Put them on the ships in Kyiv, because Kyiv was on the border with the steppe zones. Steppe zones were controlled by other groups, Scythians, Sarmations, Polovtsians, Pechenegs, and so on, and you name it. And then staying on the river, being protected from attacks of the nomads to come to the Black Sea and sell these products in Constantinople. That was the idea, that was the model.
Vikings tried to practice that sort of business model also in other parts of Europe, and like in other parts of Europe, they turned out to be by default creators of new politics, of new states. And that was the story of the first Kievan dynasty, and Kyiv as the capital of that huge empire that was going from the Baltics to today, central Ukraine, and then was trying to get through the southern Ukraine to the Black Sea, that was a major, major European state kingdom, if you want to call it, of medieval Europe. Creating a lot of tradition in terms of dynasty, in terms of language, in terms of religion, in terms of, again, historical mythology. So Kyiv is central for the nation-building myth of a number of groups in the region.
And Moscow comes to prominence really in a very different context and with a very different empire running the show in the region. The story of Moscow and the rise of Moscow, this is the story of the Mongol rule over former Rus lands and former Rus territories. The part of the former Rus eventually overthrows the Mongol control with the help of the small group of people called Lithuanians, which had a young state and young dynasty, and united this lands, which were mostly in today’s terms Ukrainian and Belorussian. So they separate early. And what is today’s Russia, mostly western Russia, central Russia, stays under the Mongol control up until late 15th century.
And that was the story when Moscow rises as the new capital of that realm, replacing the city of Vladimir as that capital. For those who ever went to Russia, they familiar with, of course, Vladimir as the place of the oldest architectural monuments, the so-called the Golden Ring of Russia, and so on and so forth. Vladimir is central, and there were so many architectural monuments there because before there was Moscow, there was Vladimir. Eventually in this struggle over control of the territory, struggle for favors from the Mongols and the Tatar Horde, Moscow emerges as the center of that particular realm under Mongols.
After the Mongol rule is removed, Moscow embarks on the project that historians, Russian historians of the 19th century, called the “gathering of the Russian lands.” Using Russian now for Rus and trying to bring back the lands of former Kievan Rus, but also the lands of the former Mongol Empire. The Russians get to the Pacific before they get to Kyiv historically, and really the, quote, unquote, “gathering of the,” quote, unquote, “Russian lands.” As only in 1945, when the Soviet Union bullies the Czechoslovak government into turning what is today’s Transcarpathian Ukraine to the Soviet Union. It is included in the Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic.
So that’s the moment when that destiny, the way how it was imagined by the 19th century Russian historian, was eventually fulfilled. Moscow was in control of all these lands.
So there is this linguistic history that is in common, but languages very clearly indicate that you’re dealing with different peoples. We know that language is not everything. Americans speak a particular way of English, Australians speak a particular variant of English. But for reasons of geography, history, we pretty much believe that despite linguistic unity, these are different nations and different peoples. And there are some parts of political tradition more in common, others are quite different.
So the same when it comes to language, the same when it comes to political tradition, to the loyalty to the political institution, applies to Slavic nations. Again, there is nothing particularly unique about the Slavs in that regard.
And the text captivates the attention of some key figures in the Russian intellectual elite in St. Petersburg, people like Kondraty Ryleyev, who was executed for his participation in 1825 uprising. Writes poetry on the basis of this text. Pushkin pays attention to it as well. And then comes along the key figure in Ukrainian national revival, of the 19th century Ukrainian national project, Taras Shevchenko, and reads it as well, and they all read it very differently. Eventually, by the beginning of the mid 20th century, some of the Russian, mostly nationalist writers, call this text the Quran of Ukrainian nationalism.
So what is there? The story, it’s very important in a sense that what the authors, and that’s what I claim in the book, what the authors of the text were trying to say, they were trying to say that the Cossack elite should have the same rights as the Russian nobility. And brings the long historical records to prove how cold the Cossacks were over the period of time.
But at the beginning of the 19th century, they put this claim already, they use new arguments, and these arguments are about nation and nationalism. And they’re saying that the Cossacks are a separate nation, and that’s a big, big, big claim. The Russian Empire, and this is a very, very good argument in historiography, that Russian Empire grew and acquired this 1/6th of the Earth by using one very specific way of integrating those lands. It integrated the elites. It was making deals with the elites. Whether their elites were Muslim or their elites were Roman Catholic, as the case with the Poles, they would be-
So, the importance of the tax is that it was making claim on the part of a particular estate, the Cossack Officer Class, which was that empire could survive. But it turned it, given the conditions of the time, into the claim for the special role of Cossacks as a nation, creating that this is a separate nation, Russian nation. And that is the challenge of nationalism that no empire really survived, and the Russian Empire was not an exception. So, there’s a turning point when the discourse switches from loyalty based on the integration of the elites to the loyalty based on attachment to your nation, to your language, and to your culture, and to your history.
So, Bandera becomes the leader of the organization of Ukrainian Nationalists in Ukraine at the young age and organizes a number of assassinations of the Polish officials or members of the Ukrainian community who this young people, in their 17, 18, 19, considered to be collaborators. He is arrested, put on trial, and that’s where the myth of Bandera starts to emerge, because he uses the trial to make statements about the Ukrainian nationalism, radical nationalism, and its goals, and suddenly, becomes a hero among the Ukrainian youth at that time. He is sentenced for execution for death. So, when he delivers his speech, he knows that he probably would die soon, and then it was, the sentence was commuted to life in prison.
Then World War II happens. The Polish state collapses under the pressure coming, of course, from Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union. Bandera walks away and presides over the act of the split of the organization of Ukrainian Nationalists into two groups. The most radical one used called Revolutionary, they call themselves Revolutionary, is led by Bandera. They worked together with the Nazi Germany at that time, with the hope that Nazi Germany would deliver them independent Ukraine.
First days of the German attack, Nazi attack on the Soviet Union, the units formed on the basis of Organization of Ukrainian Nationalists marching to the city of Lviv and declare Ukrainian independence. That was not sanctioned by the German authorities. That was not in German plans. So, they arrest Bandera, members of his family, his brothers, members of the leaders, leaders of the organization. So, his two brothers go to Auschwitz, die there. He was sent to Sachsenhausen for the most duration of the war, until 1944, refusing to revoke declaration of Ukrainian independence, which, again, contributes further to his mythology.
After the war, he never comes back to Ukraine. He lives in exile in Munich. So, between 1930 and his death in 1959, he spent in Ukraine maybe up to two years, maybe a little bit more, but most of the time was either in the Polish prison, or in the German concentration camp, or in exile.
But the myth of Bandera lived. And all the members of the Organization of Ukrainian Nationalists and then the Ukrainian Insurgent Army, that fought against the Soviets all the way into the early 1950s, they were called Banderites. They were called Banderites by the Soviet authorities. They were known also in that way to the local population. So, there was a faraway leader that barely was there on the spot, but whose name was attached to this movement for, really, liberation of Ukraine at that time. Again, the battle that failed.
But there are other parts of his life which certainly put this whole thing in question. The fate of his family, his own time in the German concentration camp, certainly don’t fit the propaganda one-sided image of Bandera.
In terms of him being a hero, that’s a very, very interesting question, because he is perceived in Ukraine today, not by all, and probably not by the majority, but by many people in Ukraine, as a symbol of fighting against the Soviet Union and, by extension, against Russia and Russian occupation. So, his popularity grew after February 24, 2022 as a symbol of that resistance. Again, we are talking here about myth and mythology, because Bandera was not leading the fight against the Soviet occupation in Ukraine because, at that time, he was just simply not in Ukraine. He was in Germany. And you can imagine that geography mattered at that time much more than it matters today.
In terms of fascism, there is very clear and there is research done that, in particularly, Italian fascism had influence on the thinking of people in that organization, including people at the top. But it is also very important to keep in mind that they call themselves nationalist and revolutionaries. And despite the fact that in 1939 and 1940 and 1941, it was very beneficial for them to declare themselves to be Ukrainian fascists and establish this bond, not just with Italy, but with Nazi Germany. They refused to do that. And then, they used to recall their independence. So, influences, yes, but clearly, it’s a different type of political project.
Why Ukraine in the conditions of the war is the country that manages relations between different ethnic groups and languages in the way that strengthens political nation? So, for me, as a scholar and a researcher, what I see is that, in Ukraine, the influence of the far right in different variations is much lower than it is among some of Ukraine’s neighbors and in Europe in general. And the question is why. I don’t know. I have guesses. I don’t know answer. But that’s the question that I think is interesting to answer, how Ukraine ended up to be the only country in the world, outside of Israel, who has a Jewish president who is, my at least understanding, is the most popular president in history, in terms of how his popularity goes after the election. So, this really, from my point of view, interesting questions, and again, we can certainly debate that.
And yes, the war, historically, of course, puts forward and makes, from the more nationalist views and forces, turned them from marginal forces into more central ones. We talked about Bandera and we talked about Organization of Ukrainian Nationalists. They were the most marginal group in the political spectrum in Ukraine in the 1930s that one can only imagine. But World War II comes, and they become the most central group, because they also were, from the start go, they had the organization, the violence was basically one of their means, they knew how to fight. So, historically, wars indeed produced those results, so we are looking at Ukraine. We’re trying to see what is happening there.
And as war started first in 2014, and then all out war in 2022, I came across a lot of people on the personal level, but also in the media reporting, that they really can’t find common language with their close relatives in Russia, people who visited Ukraine who know that it’s not taken over by nationalists and is not taken over by Nazis, but the media around them, the neighbors around them, the people at their work, basically, say one and the same thing. And we, as humans, in general, whatever our background, we are very, very, our mind is really, it’s relatively easy to manipulate it, and to a degree that even family connections and even family ties don’t sometimes help to maintain that ability to think and to analyze on your own to look at the facts.
One of the explanations was that they were looking at the experience of World War I, and seeing that the units, the Ukrainian units, in the Austrian army then played a very important role in the fight for independence. So that is one of the explanations. You can’t just use one explanation to describe motivations of everyone and every single person who was joined in there. So, they were sent to the front. They were defeated within a few short days by the Red Army, and then were retreating through Slovakia, where they were used to fight with the partisan movement there, and eventually surrendered to the British. So, that’s the story. You can personally maybe understand what the good motivations were of this person or that person, but that is one of the best, one of the very tragic and unfortunate pages in Ukrainian history. You can’t justify that as a phenomenon.
So, from that point of view, the celebration of that experience, as opposed to looking at that, okay, that happened, and we wish that those young men who were idealistic or joined the Division for idealistic purposes had better understanding of things or made other choices, but you can’t certainly celebrate that. And once that happened, that, of course, became a big propaganda, a propaganda item, in the current war. We’re talking about 10,000-20,000 people in the Division, and we’re talking about 2-3 million Ukrainians fighting in the Red Army. And again, it’s not like Red Army is completely blameless in the way how it behaved in Prussia, in Germany, and so on and so forth. But it’s basically, it’s, again, we’re going back to the story of Bandera. So, there is a period of collaboration, and that’s what propaganda tries to define him by, or there is a Division Galizien by 20,000 people, and somehow it makes irrelevant the experience of 2-3 million people.
So, that could be an opportunity to explore the dark complexity that some of the Ukrainians were in the SS, or Bandera, the complexities there, but I think they were doing not a complex thing. They were doing a very shallow applaud. And we should applaud veterans, of course, but in that case, they were doing it for show, for Zelenskyy and so on. So, we should clarify that the applause wasn’t knowing, it wasn’t for the SS. It was for Ukrainian, it was for World War II veterans, but the propaganda, or at least an interpretation from the Russian side, from whatever side, is that they were applauding the full person standing before them, which wasn’t just a Ukrainian veteran, but Ukrainian veteran that fought for the SS.
The war is conducted by the Organization of Ukrainian Nationalists, which have a Ukrainian insurgent army, and the government tries to crush that resistance. So, what it does is basically recruits local people to spy on the partisans on the underground, and Bohdan Stashynsky is one of those people. His family is supporting the resistance. They provide food. His sister is engaged with one of the local commanders of this underground unit, and they know everything about Stashynsky’s family and they know everything about him because he is also collecting funds for the underground. They have a conversation with him saying that, “Okay, that’s what we got, and you and your family can go to prison, or you help us a little bit. We’re interested in the fiance of your sister, and we want to get him.” Stashynsky says yes. Once they round up the fiance, he basically betrayed a member or almost member of his family, he is done. He can’t go back to his village, he can’t go back to his study. He was studying in [inaudible 01:09:39] at that time. As I write in my book, the secret police becomes his family.
And he is sent to Kyiv. He is trained for two years, sent to East Germany, into Berlin and becomes an assassin. So, they sent him across the border to Western Germany, to Munich. It was the headquarter of different organizations, anti-Soviet organizations, Ukrainian and Russian and Georgian and so on and so forth. And he kills two leaders of the organization of Ukrainian Nationalists, one editor of the newspaper, and eventually he kills Bandera. He does that with the new weapon, a spray pistol, that eventually makes it into the bond novel, The Man with the Golden Gun. And that whole episode is a little bit reshaped, but it’s not in the film, but it is in the novel itself.
And then later has a change of mind under the influence of his German fiance and then wife. They decide to escape to the West. And while they’re doing that, they discover that their apartment was bugged and probably the KGB knows all of that. A long story short, his son dies in Berlin. KGB doesn’t allow him to go there, but his wife has a nervous breakdown so they allow him to go there to just calm her so that there would be no scandal. And two of them, one day before their son’s burial, because after that they would be sent to Moscow. They jumped the ship and go to West Berlin, two hours before the Berlin Wall was being built.
So, if they would stay for the funeral, probably the KGB would not let them go. But also if they would stay, the border would be there. And he goes to the American intelligence and says, “Okay, that’s who I am and that’s what I did.” And they look at him and they say, “We don’t trust you. We don’t know who you are. You have documents in five names. You say you killed Bandera. Well, we have a different information. He was poisoned and probably by someone in his close circle. A spray pistol, did you read too much Ian Fleming? Where does this come from?”
He insists, they said, “Okay, you insist. If you committed all those crimes, they giving you to the German police, and German police will be investigating you.” And then the trial comes, and if he says, if he takes back his testimony, the whole case against him collapses. He can go free. He knows that if he goes free, he is a target of his colleagues from the same department. So, his task at the trial is to prove that he’s guilty, that he did that.
And then he disappears and nobody knows where he goes. And there are all sorts of cover stories. And I was lucky to interview a commander, former chief of the South African Police, who confirmed to me that Stashynsky was in South Africa.
It changed in the ’70s with Andropov where KGB started to play, again, very important role in the Soviet history. And let’s say decisions on Afghanistan and the Soviet troops marching into Afghanistan were made by the, apart from Brezhnev, by the trio of the people who would be called today [foreign language 01:16:15] maybe or not all of them were [foreign language 01:16:17] but one of course was Andropov, the head of the KGB. Another was the Minister of Defense, and then there was secretary in charge of the military industrial complex, Ministry of Foreign Minister of Foreign Affairs.
But the head of the KGB became really not just the member of Politbruo, but the member of that inner circle. And then the fact that on Andropov succeeds Brezhnev is also a manifestation of the power that KGB acquired really after Khrushchev in the 1970s, and then going into the 1980s.
So, really institutionally it was a huge, huge mammoth. And another thing that we know we can sort of extrapolate from what we know from the Stasi archives, that the surveillance at home, the surveillance was really massive. The guess is the Soviets were not as effective and as meticulous and as scrupulous and as methodical as probably as Germans were. But that gives you a basic idea of how penetrated the entire society was.
After this scandal with Stashynsky, at least on many levels, the KGB stopped the practice of the assassinations, political assassinations abroad because it was considered politically to be extremely, extremely dangerous. The person who was in charge of the KGB at the time of Bandera assassination, Shelepin, was one of the candidates to replace Khrushchev and Brezhnev used against him that scandal abroad eventually to remove him from Politburo.
So, the KGB was really looking at the party leadership as to a degree, an effective corrupt and who was on their way. And from what I understand, that’s exactly the attitudes that people like Putin and people of his circle brought to power in Kremlin. So, the methods that KGB use they can use now, and there is no party or no other institution actually stopping them from doing that. And they think about, my understanding, the operations abroad about foreign policy in general in terms of the KGB mindset of planning operations and executing particular operations and so on and so forth. I think a lot of culture that came into existence in the Soviet KGB now became part of the culture of the Russian establishment.
And that’s how things started. But then when they became really massive and why something that was called Euro Revolution became Revolution of Dignity was when the government police beat up students in downtown Kyiv, who judging by the reports were basically already almost ready to disperse, almost ready to go home. And that’s when roughly half of Kyiv showed up on the streets. That sort of the police behavior, that sort of was absolutely unacceptable in Ukraine. The stealing elections and falsification of elections wasn’t unacceptable.
That’s where around that time and around 2004, the president of Ukraine at that time, Leonid Kuchma, writes a book called Ukraine is Not Russia. And apparently the term comes from his discussion with Putin, when Putin was suggesting to him quite strongly to use force against people [inaudible 01:26:11] on the square in Kyiv. And Kuchma allegedly said to him, “You don’t understand. Ukraine is not Russia. You can’t do things like that. You get pushed back.” And that’s, this two events, 2004 and then 2013 became really crucial point in terms of the Ukraine direction, the survival of Ukrainian democracy, which is one of very few countries in the post Soviet space where democracy survived the original flirt between the government leaders and democracy of the 1990s.
It was the old Soviet story in Russia. Everywhere else there was high democratic expectations, but they came pretty much to an end by the end of the decade. Ukraine preserved the democracy and the orientation of Ukraine toward integration in some form into Western and European structures, that Ukrainian democracy plus Western orientation was something. And in Russia, we see the strengthening of the autocratic regime under Putin, that if you look deeper, this are the processes that put the two countries on the collision course.
The Ukraine signing association agreement with European Union would mean that Ukraine would not be able to sign association agreement with any Eurasian union in any shape or form, that was at that time in the process of making. And for Vladimir Putin, that was the beginning of his, or part of his third term, one of his agenda items for the third term was really consolidation of the post-Soviet space and Eurasian space and not membership in NATO, not membership in European Union. But association agreement with European Union meant that that post-Soviet space would have to exist under Moscow’s control, but without Ukraine, the second-largest post-Soviet republic. The republic on whose vote depended the continuing existence of the Soviet Union and whose vote ended in many ways the existence of the Soviet Union.
So, that is broadly background, but also there are of course personalities. There are also their beliefs, their readings of history, and all of that became part of the story. But if you look at that geopolitically, the association agreement is put in Ukraine outside of the Russian sphere of influence. And the response was an attempt to topple the government in Kyiv that clearly was going to sign that agreement, to take over Crimea and to help to deal with a lot of issues within Russia itself and boost the popularity of the president.
And it certainly, certainly worked in that way as well. Once Ukraine, still after Crimea, continued on its path, then the next step started the so-called hybrid warfare in Donbas. But again, unlike Crimea, from what I understand, Russia was not really looking forward to taking possession of Donbas. Donbas was viewed as the way how to influence Ukraine to stop it from a drift toward the West.
But Donbas became a site, one of the key sites in the Russian Empire of early industrialization, with its mining industry, with mythological industry. So, what that meant was that people from other parts of, not Ukraine, but other parts of the Russian Empire, congregated there. That’s where jobs were. That’s how Khrushchev and his family came to Donbas. The family of Brezhnev overshoot a little bit. They got to the industrial enterprises in the city of [inaudible 01:33:13] the place, the city that was called [inaudible 01:33:16].
So, those were Russian peasants moving into the area in looking for their job. The population became quite mixed. Ukrainians still constituted the majority of the population, but not necessarily in the towns and in the cities. And culturally, the place was becoming more and more Russian as the result of that moment. Apart from the Crimea, Donbas was the part of Ukraine where the ethnic Russians were the biggest group. They were not the majority, but they were very, very big and significant group. For example, in the city of Mariupol, that was all but destroyed in the course of the last two years, the ethnic Russians constituted over 40% of the population, right? So, that’s not exactly part of Donbas, but that gives you general idea.
Now, the story of Donbas and what happened now is multidimensional, and this ethnic composition is just one part of the story. Another very important part of the story is economy, and Donbas is a classical rust belt. And we know what happens with the cities that were part of the first or second wave of industrialization in the United States and globally, we know about social problems that exist in those places. So, Donbas is probably the most dramatic and tragic case of implosion of the rust belt. With the mines not anymore producing the sort of the… And at the acceptable price. The coal that they used to produce, is people losing jobs with the politicians looking for subsidies as opposed to trying very unpopular, unpopular measures of doing something and bring your money and your investment into the region. All of that become part of the story that made it easy for Russia, for the Russian Federation, to destabilize the situation. We have interviews with Mr. Girkin who is saying that he was the first who pulled the trigger and fired the shot in that war. He became the Minister of Defense in the Donetsk people’s republic. You look at the Prime Minister, he is another person with Moscow residency permit. So, you see key figures in those positions at the start and the beginning, not being Russians from Ukraine, but being Russians from Russia and Russians from Moscow closely connected to the government structure and intelligence structure and so on. So, that is the start in the beginning, but the way how it exploded, the way it did was also a combination of the economic and ethno-cultural and linguistic factors.
And the people who spoke Ukrainian are more on the western side of Ukraine and young people that are kind of wanting to show that in an activist way that they want to fight for the independence of their country. So, I take your point. I wonder if you want to comment about language and maybe about the future of language in Ukraine. Is the future of language going to stabilize on Ukrainian or is it going to return to its traditional base of Russian language?
And in Ukraine, you can talk in either Russian or Ukrainian in any part of the country and you would be understood and you would be responded in a different language with the expectation that you would understand. And if you don’t understand, that means you don’t come from Ukraine. That’s the reality. The war and loss of the Crimea and partial loss of Donbas, its major industrial areas, really shifted the balance toward mostly Ukrainian-speaking regions. And also what you see, and you clearly pointed to that, starting with 2014, even a little bit earlier, the younger generation chooses Ukrainian as a marker of its identity. And that started in 2014, but we have a dramatic, dramatic shift after 2022. And on the-
And we were documenting and mapping different data in time. And what we noticed a spike in the people’s self-reporting of use of Ukrainian in 2014 and 2015 at the time of the start of the war when the threat was the most clear one. This is self-reporting, that doesn’t mean that people exactly do what they believe that that’s what they’re supposed to do, and then return back to where it was by the year 2016 and 2017. So this dynamic can repeat itself, but given how long the war is going on, how big the impact, how big the stress is, and that the wave of the future is probably associated with younger people who are switching to Ukrainian. So my bet would be on Ukrainian language rising in prominence.
This is the idea that was dominant in the Russian Empire of the 19s and the beginning of the 20th century, that Russians, Ukrainians and Belorussians are really, great Russians, little Russians, and white Russians, and that they constitute one people. Yes, there are some dialectical differences. Yes, Ukrainians sing well, yes, they dance funny, but overall that doesn’t matter.
And that idea actually was really destroyed, mostly destroyed by the revolution of 1917. Because it wasn’t just social revolution that’s how it’s understood in the US and good part of the world, it was also national revolution, it was an empire, it was a revolution in the Russian Empire. And to bring this pieces of empire back within the Soviet Union, the Bolsheviks had to make concessions. And one of those concessions was recognition of the existence of Ukrainians as a separate nation, Belorussians as a separate nations, Russians as a separate nations. Endowing them with their own territorial with borders, with institutions and so on and so forth.
But there was one institution that was not reformed, that institution was called the Russian Orthodox Church. Because one of the ways that Bolsheviks dealt with it, they couldn’t eradicate religion completely. But they arrested the development of the religion, and thinking, and theology on the level as it existed before the revolution of 1917. So the Russian Orthodox Church of 1917 continued to be the Russian Orthodox Church in 1991 and in 2013. Continuing the same imperial mantra of the existence of one big Russian nation, one unified people. And when you see the formation of the ideas about nations, about foreign policy in the Russian Empire after 1991, they’re going back to the pre-Bolshevik times.
Ukrainians do that as well. Estonians do that as well. The difference is that when Ukrainians go back, they go back to the pre-1917, they had their intellectual fathers and writings of basically liberal nationalism. Or sometimes they go to the radical nationalism of Bandera, which would be not pre-1917, but pre-1945. When the Russians go to pre-Bolshevik past, looking for the ideas, looking for inspiration, looking for the narratives, what they find there is empire, what they find there are imperial projects. And that’s certainly the story of Putin’s claim, that’s the story of the argument. And to conclude the argument that he lays out there, historical argument, comes also almost directly from the narratives of the late 19s and the beginning of the 20th century. So it’s not only the argument is coming from that era, but also the argumentation is coming from that era as well.
On the top of that, there is a history of existence in the Soviet Union, and before that in one empire for a long period of time. So you see a lot of before the war, a lot of Ukrainian singers and entertainers performing in Russia and vice versa. And biography of President Zelensky certainly fits that particular model as well, that all talks about similarities. But this similarities also very often obscure things that became so important in the course of this war. And I already mentioned the book titled by President Kuchma of Ukraine, Ukraine is Not Russia. So that’s the argument, despite the fact that you think that we are the same, we behave differently. And it turned out that they behave differently. You have Bolotnaya in Moscow and police violence, and that’s the end of it. You have the Maidan in Ukraine and you have police violence, and that’s the beginning, that’s not the end. History really matters in the way why sometimes people speaking the same language with different accents behave very differently.
Russia and Russian identity was formed around the state, and has difficulty imagining itself outside of the state, and that state happened to be imperial for most of Russian history. Ukrainian project came into existence in revolt against the state. Ukraine came into existence out of the parts of different empires, which means they left different cultural impact on them. And for Ukrainians to stay together, autocratic regime so far didn’t work. It’s like the colonies of the United States. You have to find common language, you have to talk to each other. And that became part of the Ukrainian political DNA. And that became a huge factor in the war.
And very few people in Ukraine believed what Vladimir Putin was saying that Russians and Ukrainians were one and the same people, but the majority believed that they’re certainly close culturally and historically nations. And from that point of view the bombardment of the Ukrainian cities became such a shock to the Ukrainians. Because deep down they maybe looked at Syria, they looked at Chechnya, and were explaining that through the fact that there was basically such a big cultural gap and difference between Russians and those countries and those nations. But my understanding at least, most of them had difficulty imagining the war of that proportion and that ferocity, and bring that war crimes and on that level.
Not just someone who came to take, but the state that is continuation of them, that helps to provide security for them. That the Ukrainian armed forces even before the start of this war had the highest support and popularity in Ukraine. The state today functions unbelievably effectively under attacks and missile attacks, and against city government and local government. And we are witnessing when it comes to Ukraine, we’re witnessing a very important historical development where Ukrainians found their state for the first time through most of their history, and try to make a transition from successful rebels to successful managers and state builders.
What he wanted there was an ultimatum that really was there not to start negotiations, but really to stop negotiations. He demanded the withdrawal of NATO to the borders of the 1997, if I’m not mistaken. So completely something that neither leaders would accept, nor the country’s members of NATO would accept. But for me, it’s very clear that that was an excuse, that that was a justification.
And what happened later in the year 2022 and 2023 certainly confirms me in that belief. Finland joined NATO and Sweden is on the way to joining NATO. So Finland joining NATO, increased border between Russia and NATO, twofold, and probably more than that. So if NATO is the real concern, it would be probably not completely unreasonable to expect that if not every single soldier, but at least half of the Russian army fighting in Ukraine would be moved to protect the new border with NATO in Finland.
So I have no doubt that no one in Kremlin either in the past or today looks favorably or is excited about NATO moving, or the countries of Eastern Europe journey NATO. But I have very difficult time imagining that that was the primary cause of the war. And what we see also we talked about Tucker’s interview, he was surprised, but he believed that Putin was completely honest when the first 25 minutes of interview he was talking about relations between Russia and Ukraine, was talking about history. And that was also the main focus of his essay. Essay was not on NATO and Russia, his essay was on Russia and Ukraine. So that is where the real causes are. The broader context is the fall of empire and process of disintegration of empire, not the story of NATO.
And that was the most difficult times and days. And speaking about Zelensky, every I understand reasonable leader in the West was trying to convince him to leave Ukraine and to set a government in exile in Poland or in London. And it was reasonable to accept one of his predecessors Mr. Yanukovych fled Kiev. A few months before that in Afghanistan, the president of Afghanistan fled Afghanistan. That was a reasonable thing to expect, and he turned out to be very, very unreasonable in that sense. That comes with the guts, his guts and guts people around him and Ukrainians in general.
And once Ukrainians realize that they can win on the battlefield, once the Russians were defeated and withdrew from Kiev, the opportunity emerged to get out of the negotiations, which was very clear were leading, if not today then tomorrow to the complete destruction of Ukraine. And then of course, once the territory started to be liberated, things like butcher and massacres of the civilian population came to the fore, which made also very difficult, if not impossible to conduct negotiations from this moral and emotional point of view.
The victory of one side, the victory of another side, and a sort of stalemate and compromise, especially when it comes to the territories. This war is already approaching the end of the second year. I follow the news and look analysis. I don’t remember one single piece suggesting that the next year will bring peace or will bring-
And the question is whether on the part of Zelensky, this is just the change of the leadership or this is also the change of his approach to the war, and that can mean many things. One, can mean him taking more active part in planning operations. It can mean also possible change of the tactic in the war, given that counteroffensive didn’t work out. We don’t know yet. I don’t know whether President Zelensky at this point knows exactly what will come next, but this is the time when the change of the leadership in the country and in the army that is at war, it’s one of the most trying, most dangerous moments.
And in terms of whether Zelensky’s days are numbered or not, I don’t think they’re numbered, but if Ukraine stays a democracy, and I believe it’ll stay, what comes to my mind is the story of Churchill, the story of de Gaulle. In Poland, the story of Pilsudski. So once the war is over, really the electorate in the Democratic elections, they want to change the political leadership, they want to move forward. But Pilsudski came back to power, and de Gaulle came back to power, and Churchill came back to power. So no, whatever happens in the short run or medium term run, I think that Zelensky’s days in politics are not numbered.
And restructure Russia meant getting rid of the Baltics, Central Asia Caucasus and have Russians, Ukrainians, and Belorussians, including those who live in northern Kazakhstan to create one nation state. So he was a Russian nationalist, but he was thinking about Russian nation state as the state of Russians, Ukrainians, and Belorussians. And once the Soviet Union collapsed and his idea was not implemented in the 1990s, he formulated plan B, taking over by Russia of Donbas, Crimea, and southern Ukraine, the areas that now are included in the Russian constitution. So in historical terms and intellectual terms, what is happening today in the war between Russia and Ukraine is the vision on one level or another level that was formulated by the noble laureate Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn, half Russian, half Ukrainian.
The famine of ’32-’33 was not exclusive Ukrainian phenomenon, but most of Ukraine in the Soviet Union died in Ukraine. And Ukraine was the only place where the policy on collecting grain were coming together with the policy of the cleansing of the political leadership, sending people from Moscow to recover the leadership and attack on Ukrainian culture. So in terms of what I learn about human nature, it’s more me learning about the ideologies of the 20th century because it’s not the only famine in the communist lands. The famine in China, which was in terms of the numbers, much more devastating than that. It’s in a different category and for a good reason, but you have Holocaust. What unites these things is the time. This is 20th century.
What unites them are the dominance in the societies that are doing that, really ideologies that not just devalued human life, but considered that actually the way forward is by destroying large group of populations defined ethnically, religiously, socially, or otherwise, which tells about the time, but tells also about humanity because for centuries before that human life was valued. There were enemies, but the idea was that human life can put and at the end of the day, they can be slaves. You can use them for productive force. Countries in the 18th century with southern Ukraine, they were looking for settlers, for people to bring and live on land. You move into the 20th century and there is mass destruction of the population in the name of ideologies, which basically are by definition destroy human lives.
And that’s what’s really so shocking and striking because that break with not just with issues of morale, not just with issues of humanity, with any common sense, what is happening. And I’m absolutely convinced that we didn’t learn the lesson. I’m absolutely convinced that we didn’t learn the lesson. With turning our page on fascism communism, we somehow decided that we are free of that. That at least in those terms, history came to and end. That what is ahead is the future and nothing of that sort. What happened would take place to a degree that people would get in trouble for comparing any statements or events that happening today with the communism or fascism. And so I feel responsibility of myself and as a historian in particular for not doing a better job about telling people that, “Well, we are who we are and we have as humans our dark side and we have to be very careful.”
A few years before that, Three Mile Island happened, which was a big, big nuclear disaster, but in terms of consequences, nothing like Chernobyl. And there in the context of the American legal culture and managerial culture, people who were operators, who were in managerial positions, that was their responsibility to take decisions. President Carter came there, but he was not calling shots on none of those issues. What you see with Chernobyl, and people who saw HBO series know that very well, the moment the high official arrives, everyone actually falls in line, it’s the official who calls the shot. And to move population from the city of Pripyat, you needed the okay coming from Moscow from the very top. So that is Soviet story, and then there is a global story of cutting corners to meet either deadlines like it was with that test that they were running at that time, or to meet production quotas. This is not just socialist thing, you can-
And then guess what? A few years later, the Soviet Union collapses very much also thanks to the mobilization of people over the issue of Chernobyl and nuclear energy. People writing about that subject call it eco-nationalism, ecological nationalism, which comes at least in part from withholding information from people. And in Ukraine, mobilization didn’t start over the issues that led to independence, didn’t start over the issue of language or didn’t start over the issue of national autonomy. It started under the slogans, “Tell us the truth about Chernobyl. We want to know whether we live in contaminated areas or not.”
And that was a very, very strong factor that crossed, not just ethnic religious linguistic lines, lines between members of the party and not members of the party of the top§ leadership and not in military and civilian because it turned out that the party card didn’t protect you from being affected by radiation. So the all national mobilization happens. The first mass manifestations are about Chernobyl, not about anything else.
But then there is a huge gray area in between big truth and small truths of recreating the environment. And that’s how you get from one to another. And then you see the KGB officers coming and taking someone out of the meeting and arresting, which was not necessary. You see the Soviet boss threatening someone to throw the person from the helicopter. So you get these Hollywood sort of things despite the fact that it’s HBO series. And they’re the best really as a film in the fourth episode where they completely decided just to hell with the reality and let’s make a film.
So they bring Legasov, one of the key characters, to the court meetings. They bring Soviet party boss, Shcherbina, he wasn’t there. They created drama there. So they got the main thing, the big truth right, and that’s why I like this production.
So let me just ask about nuclear safety because there’s an interesting point you make. You wrote in the book in Atoms and Ashes: A Global History of Nuclear Disasters, so technically nuclear energy is extremely safe. If there’s a number of people died per energy generated, it’s much safer than coal oil, for example, as far as I understand. But the case you also make is you write, quote, “Many of the political, economic, social and cultural factors that led to the accidents of the past are still with us today, making the nuclear industry vulnerable to repeating old mistakes in new and unexpected ways and any new accidents are certain to create new anti-nuclear mobilization.”
And then you continue with, “This makes the nuclear industry not only risky to operate, but also impossible to count on as a long-term solution to an overwhelming problem.” Can you explain that perspective? It’s an interesting one, speaking to the psychology when an accident does happen, it has a dramatic effect. And also speaking to the fact that accidents can happen, not because of the safety of the nuclear power plant, but of the underlying structure of government that oversees it.
So that is with us, if you look at where the future of the nuclear industry is now at this point, it’s the regimes and powers in the Middle East, that’s a big new frontier. The countries that are not particularly known for the history of democratic existence. Where we also have the situation that we had at Three Mile Island that we had at Chernobyl, this is the first generation nuclear engineers. So people who are, where the country doesn’t have a lot of experience and generations after generations working in that particular industry where it’s all new. That is certainly additional risk.
And what we got now with this current war is something that… Not that people completely didn’t expect, but didn’t happen in the past. You see the war come into the nuclear sites, Chernobyl was taken over by the Russian army or National Guard rather, on the first day of the invasion. Then there was Zaporizhzhia, the largest nuclear power plant in Europe where the battle was waged on the territory of the nuclear power plant. The missiles being fired, buildings catching fire, and the situation that brought the Fukushima disaster was there at Zaporizhzhia more than once, and Fukushima came because the reactors were shut down as they are at Zaporizhzhia, but they still needed electricity to bring water and to them down.
And in Fukushima case, it was the tsunami that cut off the supply of electricity. In the case of Zaporizhzhia, there was the warfare that was happening in the area around Zaporizhzhia that did the same effect. So we have 440 reactors in the world today, plus minus. None of them was designed to withstand the direct missile attack or to function in the conditions of the warfare. Operators they’re human, then they make mistakes like they did it Three Mile Island or Chernobyl. But think also if the war is happening around them, if they’re not sure what is happening with their families, if they don’t know whether next missile, whether will hit the control room or not, that multiplies also.
So we are in a situation where we are not done yet with the nuclear accidents. It’s not like we don’t pay attention or we don’t learn. Smart people work on that and after every accident, try to figure the way how not to step into the same trap. But next accident would actually expose new vulnerability. You deal with Chernobyl and then tsunami comes. You deal with tsunami and then war comes. And we really in that sense, we have sometimes wild imagination, but sometimes it’s difficult to imagine what can happen next. So we are not done. There will be nuclear accidents unfortunately in the future.
And that makes nuclear energy so problematic when you count on it to fight climate change. I’ll explain why. You gave the figures how many people die from burning coal, from how many people die from radiation. And it’s a good argument. Some people would question them because it’s also the issue of not just dying, but impact of radiation on cancer, on our health, which is not completely understood yet. So still there is a lot of question marks, but let’s assume what you’re saying, that’s the figures. That’s how it is. But we as people, for whatever reason are not afraid of coal, but we’re very much afraid of radiation. It’s invisible, it’s everywhere and you can’t see it.
And then you start having issues and then you have problems during the COVID, the governments closed the borders, maybe a good idea, maybe not so good ideas, isolation. So that was the way governments started to fight for access, to fight, to Moderna, to Sputnik, to whatever it’s, to vaccine. So now back to the radiation. What is happening once Chernobyl happens? That’s the highest point in the development of nuclear industry so far in terms of how many new reactors were commissioned or the licenses were issued.
The next reactor after Three Mile Island in the US go ahead was given, it seems to me 10 years ago or something like that, the Fukushima happens, the reaction is in China to that as well. They’re very much concerned. So there is a saying in the field, “Anywhere is Chernobyl everywhere.” After Fukushima, Germany decides to go nuclear-free and gets there at the expense of burning coal. So that’s how we react. And each major accident, that means global freeze on the nuclear reactor production for at least another 10 years. So that’s what I mean that nuclear industry is politic, not just in terms of technology and not just in terms of radiation, impact on health, but also politically a very, very unreliable option.
Where we are now? Well, we are now in Russia certainly trying to regain its military strength, but no one actually believes that Russia is the superpower it was imagined before 2022. We see certainly Russia finding the way to deal with the sanctions, but we don’t see certainly Russia as an economic power with any sort of a future. So it is not an implosion of the Russian military economic and political power, but it’s significantly… actually it’s diminished. So today, very difficult to imagine Russia emerging as another pole of the multipolar world. Not impossible, but the war certainly made that very problematic and much more difficult.
On the other hand, what the war did, it basically awakened the old West. United States and Western Europe transatlantic alliance. On the top of that, there are East European countries that are even much, even much stronger proponents of assistance for Ukraine than is Germany or the United States of America. So it is the replay of the Cold War story, the Return of the West, one of the chapters in my book, the Russo-Ukrainian War is called that way. We also can see the elements of the rebuilding of the Beijing-Moscow alliance of the 1950s, which was a very important part of the Cold War. It was extremely important part of the Korean War that in many ways launched also the Cold War globally.
So I see a lot of parallels of going back to the time of the Cold War and the bipolar world that emerges, it’s not anymore the world focused on Washington and Moscow. It’s more like world focused on Washington and Beijing. And then there are countries in between. There are countries in between that join one bloc or another bloc that is emerging that is not fully formed. This, in my opinion, makes the task of us historians to really go back to the Cold War and look through new perspective on the history of that conflict because there is a lot of things that we can learn.
And again, I described that in book many times about Kennedy bringing back his wisdom from World War II years. There always will be SOB who didn’t get the order or missed things that was happening on the American side as well. So people who believe that they’re in control really are not in control, and that can escalate whether they very often against their wishes. So that is one lesson, but going back to what we’re still here and why the world didn’t end up in 1962 is that the leadership, and I come to the issue that you strongly believe in that people, personalities matter, leaders matter. They were very different. Age, education, political careers, understanding what politics are and so on and so forth.
So we have a very, very paradoxical sort of situation. The crisis occurred because of the nuclear weapons, because Khrushchev put them on Cuba, but the crisis was resolved and we didn’t end in the third World War because of the nuclear weapons, because people, leaders were afraid of them. And that’s where I want to put emphasis. It’s not that the nuclear weapons created crisis or solved the crisis, it’s basically our perception of them. And we are now in the age after the Cold War era, with the new generation of voters, with the new generation of politicians. We don’t belong to the generation of bikini atoll. You maybe know what bikini is, but we think that this is something-
Click link to jump approximately to that part in the transcript:
- 0:00 – Introduction
- 1:18 – Collapse of the Soviet Union
- 17:27 – Origins of Russia and Ukraine
- 30:30 – Ukrainian nationalism
- 38:13 – Stepan Bandera
- 1:07:13 – KGB
- 1:22:11 – War in Ukraine
- 1:58:27 – NATO and Russia
- 2:09:30 – Peace talks
- 2:23:17 – Ukrainian Army head Valerii Zaluzhnyi
- 2:29:54 – Power and War
- 2:40:45 – Holodomor
- 2:47:17 – Chernobyl
- 2:57:51 – Nuclear power
- 3:07:28 – Future of the world
Introduction
Serhii Plokhy
What happened during World War II? Was that once the Germans started to run out of manpower, they created foreign legion groups. But because those people were not Aryans, they couldn’t be trusted. So they were put under the command of Heinrich Himmler and the commando SS, and became known as SS Waffen units, and one of such units was created in Ukraine.
What happened during World War II? Was that once the Germans started to run out of manpower, they created foreign legion groups. But because those people were not Aryans, they couldn’t be trusted. So they were put under the command of Heinrich Himmler and the commando SS, and became known as SS Waffen units, and one of such units was created in Ukraine.
Lex Fridman
The following is a conversation with Serhii Plokhy, a historian at Harvard University and the director of the Ukrainian Research Institute, also at Harvard. As a historian, he specializes in the history of Eastern Europe with an emphasis on Ukraine. He wrote a lot of great books on Ukraine and Russia, the Soviet Union, on Slavic peoples in general across centuries, on Chernobyl and nuclear disasters, and on the current war in Ukraine, a book titled The Russo-Ukrainian War: The Return of History.
The following is a conversation with Serhii Plokhy, a historian at Harvard University and the director of the Ukrainian Research Institute, also at Harvard. As a historian, he specializes in the history of Eastern Europe with an emphasis on Ukraine. He wrote a lot of great books on Ukraine and Russia, the Soviet Union, on Slavic peoples in general across centuries, on Chernobyl and nuclear disasters, and on the current war in Ukraine, a book titled The Russo-Ukrainian War: The Return of History.
This is the Lex Fridman podcast. To support it, please check out our sponsors in the description. And now, dear friends, here’s Serhii Plokhy. What are the major explanations for the collapse of the Soviet Union? Maybe ones you agree with and ones you disagree with.
Collapse of the Soviet Union
Serhii Plokhy
Very often people confuse three different processes that were taking place in the late ’80s and early ’90s, and the one was the collapse of communism as ideology. Another was the end of the Cold War. And the third one was the end of the Soviet Union.
Very often people confuse three different processes that were taking place in the late ’80s and early ’90s, and the one was the collapse of communism as ideology. Another was the end of the Cold War. And the third one was the end of the Soviet Union.
All of this processes were interrelated, interconnected, but when people provide ideology as the explanation for all of these processes, that’s where I disagree, because ideological collapse happened on the territory of the Soviet Union in general. The Soviet Union lost the Cold War, whether we’re talking about Moscow, Leningrad, or St. Petersburg now, or Vladivostok. But the fall of the Soviet Union is about a story in which Vladivostok and St. Petersburg ended up in one country, and Kyiv, Minsk and Dushanbe ended in different countries.
The theories and explanations about how did that happen, for me, this really very helpful theories for understanding the Soviet collapse. So the mobilization from below the collapse of the center, against the background of economic collapse, against the background of ideological implosion, that’s how I look at the fall of the Soviet Union and that’s how I look at the theories that explain that collapse.
Lex Fridman
So it’s a story of geography, ideology, economics. Which are the most important to understand of what made the collapse of the Soviet Union happen?
So it’s a story of geography, ideology, economics. Which are the most important to understand of what made the collapse of the Soviet Union happen?
Serhii Plokhy
The Soviet collapse was unique, but not more unique than collapse of any other empire. What we really witnessed, or the world witnessed back in 1991, and we continue to witness today with the Russian aggression against Ukraine, is a collapse of one of the largest world empires.
The Soviet collapse was unique, but not more unique than collapse of any other empire. What we really witnessed, or the world witnessed back in 1991, and we continue to witness today with the Russian aggression against Ukraine, is a collapse of one of the largest world empires.
We talked about the Soviet Union, and now talk about Russia, as possessing plus-minus 1/6th of the surface of the Earth. You don’t get in possession of 1/6th of the earth by being a nation state. You get that sort of size as an empire. And the Soviet collapse is continuation of the disintegration of the Russian Empire that started back in 1917, that was arrested for some period of time by the Bolsheviks, by the Communist ideology, which was internationalist ideology. And then came back in full force in the late ’80s and early ’90s.
So the most important story for me, this is the story of the continuing collapse of the Russian Empire and the rise of not just local nationalism, but also rise of Russian nationalism that turned out to be as a destructive force for the imperial or multi-ethnic, multinational state, as was Ukrainian nationalism or Georgian or Estonian for that matter.
Lex Fridman
You said a lot of interesting stuff there. In 1917, Bolsheviks, internationalists, how that plays with the idea of Russian Empire and so on. But first, let me ask about US influence on this. One of the ideas is that through the Cold War, that mechanism, US had major interest to weaken the Soviet Union, and therefore the collapse could be attributed to pressure and manipulation from the United States. Is there truth to that?
You said a lot of interesting stuff there. In 1917, Bolsheviks, internationalists, how that plays with the idea of Russian Empire and so on. But first, let me ask about US influence on this. One of the ideas is that through the Cold War, that mechanism, US had major interest to weaken the Soviet Union, and therefore the collapse could be attributed to pressure and manipulation from the United States. Is there truth to that?
Serhii Plokhy
The pressure from the United States, this is part of the Cold War. And Cold War, part of that story, but it doesn’t explain the Soviet collapse. And the reason is quite simple. The United States of America didn’t want the Soviet Union to collapse and disintegrate. They didn’t want that at the start of the Cold War in 1948. We now have the strategic documents. They were concerned about that, they didn’t want to do that. And certainly they didn’t want to do that in the year 1991. As late as August of 1991, the month of the coup in Moscow, President Bush, George H.W. Bush, travels from Moscow to Kyiv and gives famous or infamous speech called Chicken Kiev speech, basically warning Ukrainians against going for independence.
The pressure from the United States, this is part of the Cold War. And Cold War, part of that story, but it doesn’t explain the Soviet collapse. And the reason is quite simple. The United States of America didn’t want the Soviet Union to collapse and disintegrate. They didn’t want that at the start of the Cold War in 1948. We now have the strategic documents. They were concerned about that, they didn’t want to do that. And certainly they didn’t want to do that in the year 1991. As late as August of 1991, the month of the coup in Moscow, President Bush, George H.W. Bush, travels from Moscow to Kyiv and gives famous or infamous speech called Chicken Kiev speech, basically warning Ukrainians against going for independence.
The Soviet collapse was a huge headache for the administration in the White House for a number of reasons. They liked to work with Gorbachev. The Soviet Union was emerging as a junior partner of the United States on the international arena. Collapse was destroying all of that. And on the top of that, there was a question of the nuclear weapons, unaccounted nuclear weapons. So the United States was doing everything humanly possible to keep the Soviet Union together in one piece until really late November of 1991, when it became clear that it was a lost cause and they had to say goodbye to Gorbachev and to the project that he introduced.
A few months later, or a year later, there was a presidential campaign and Bush was running for the second term and was looking for achievements. And there were many achievements. I basically treat him with great respect, but destruction of the Soviet Union was not one of those achievements. He was on the other side of that divide. But the politics, the political campaign, of course, have their own rules. And they produce, give birth to mythology, which we still, at least in this country, we live until now, until today.
Lex Fridman
Gorbachev is an interesting figure in all of this. Is there a possible history where the Soviet Union did not collapse and some of the ideas that Gorbachev had for the future of the Soviet Union came to life?
Gorbachev is an interesting figure in all of this. Is there a possible history where the Soviet Union did not collapse and some of the ideas that Gorbachev had for the future of the Soviet Union came to life?
Serhii Plokhy
Of course, history, on the one hand, there is a statement, it doesn’t allow for what-ifs. On the other hand, in my opinion, history is full of what-if. That’s what history is about, and certainly the Russian areas, how the Soviet Union would continue, would continue beyond, let’s say, Gorbachev’s tenure. And the argument has been made that the reforms that he introduced, that they were mismanaged and they could be managed differently, or there could be no reforms and there could be continuing stagnation. So that is all possible.
Of course, history, on the one hand, there is a statement, it doesn’t allow for what-ifs. On the other hand, in my opinion, history is full of what-if. That’s what history is about, and certainly the Russian areas, how the Soviet Union would continue, would continue beyond, let’s say, Gorbachev’s tenure. And the argument has been made that the reforms that he introduced, that they were mismanaged and they could be managed differently, or there could be no reforms and there could be continuing stagnation. So that is all possible.
What I think would happen one way or another is the Soviet collapse in a different form, on somebody else’s watch at some later period in time. Because we’re dealing with not just processes that we’re happening in the Soviet Union, we’re dealing with global processes. And the 20th century turned out to be the century of the disintegration of the empires.
You look at the globe, at the map of the world in 1914, and you compare it to the map at the end of the 20th century in 1991, 1992, and suddenly you realize that there are many candidates for being the most important event, the most important process in the 20th century. But the biggest global thing that happened was redrawing the map of the world and producing dozens, if not hundreds, of new states. That’s the outcome of the different processes of the 20th century. Look, Yugoslavia is falling apart around the same time. Czechoslovakia goes through what can be called a civilized divorce, a very, very rare occurrence in the fall of multinational states.
So yeah, the writing was on the wall, whether it would happen under Gorbachev or later, whether it would happen as the result of reforms, or as the result of no reforms. But I think that sooner later that would happen.
Lex Fridman
Yeah, it’s very possible hundreds of years from now, the way the 20th century is written about, as the century defined by the collapse of empires. You call the Soviet Union “the last empire.” The book is called The Last Empire. So is there something fundamental about the way the world is that means it’s not conducive to the formation of empires?
Yeah, it’s very possible hundreds of years from now, the way the 20th century is written about, as the century defined by the collapse of empires. You call the Soviet Union “the last empire.” The book is called The Last Empire. So is there something fundamental about the way the world is that means it’s not conducive to the formation of empires?
Serhii Plokhy
The meaning that I was putting in the term the Soviet Union as the last empire was that the Soviet collapse was the collapse of the last major European empires, traditional empires, that was there in the 18th century, 19th century, and through most of the 20th century. The Austria-Hungary died in the midst of World War I. The Ottoman Empire disintegrated. The Brits were gone and left India. And the successor to the Russian Empire called the Soviet Union was still hanging on there.
The meaning that I was putting in the term the Soviet Union as the last empire was that the Soviet collapse was the collapse of the last major European empires, traditional empires, that was there in the 18th century, 19th century, and through most of the 20th century. The Austria-Hungary died in the midst of World War I. The Ottoman Empire disintegrated. The Brits were gone and left India. And the successor to the Russian Empire called the Soviet Union was still hanging on there.
And then came 1991. And what we see even with today’s Russia, is it’s a very different sort of policies. The Russia or Russian leadership tried to learn a lesson from 1991, so there is no national republics in the Russian Federation that would have more rights than the Russian administrative units. The structure is different, the nationality policies are different, the level of Russification is much higher. So it is in many ways already a post-imperial formation.
Lex Fridman
And you’re right about that moment in 1991, the role that Ukraine played in that, seems to be a very critical role. You can describe just that, what role Ukraine played in the collapse of the Soviet Union?
And you’re right about that moment in 1991, the role that Ukraine played in that, seems to be a very critical role. You can describe just that, what role Ukraine played in the collapse of the Soviet Union?
Serhii Plokhy
History is many things, but it started in a very simple way of making notes on the yearly basis, what happened this year and that. So it’s about chronology. Chronology in the history of the collapse of the Soviet Union is very important. You have Ukrainian referendum on December 1st, 1991, and you have dissolution of the Soviet Union by the leaders of Russia, Ukraine, and Belarus one week later. And the question is why.
History is many things, but it started in a very simple way of making notes on the yearly basis, what happened this year and that. So it’s about chronology. Chronology in the history of the collapse of the Soviet Union is very important. You have Ukrainian referendum on December 1st, 1991, and you have dissolution of the Soviet Union by the leaders of Russia, Ukraine, and Belarus one week later. And the question is why.
Ukrainian referendum is the answer, but Ukrainians didn’t answer their referendum question of whether they want the Soviet Union to be dissolved or not. They answered very limited in terms of … It’s been a question whether you support the decision of [foreign language 00:13:06], your parliament, for Ukraine to go independent. And the rest was not on the ballot. So why then, one week later, the Soviet Union is gone? And President Yeltsin explained to President Bush around that time the reason why Ukraine was so important. He said that, “Well, if Ukraine is gone, Russia is not interested in this Soviet project because Russia would be outnumbered and outvoted by the Muslim republics.” So there was a cultural element.
But there was also another one. Ukraine happened to be the second-largest Soviet republic in then post-Soviet state, in terms of population, in terms of the economy, economic potential, and so on and so forth. And as Yeltsin suggested close culturally, linguistically and otherwise to Russia. So with the second-largest republic gone, Russia didn’t think that it was in Russia’s interest to continue with the Soviet Union. And around that time Yegor Gaidar, who was the chief economic advisor of Yeltsin, was telling him, “Well, we just don’t have money anymore to support other republics. We have to focus on Russia. We have to use oil and gas money within the Russian Federation.” So the state was bankrupt. Imperial projects, at least in the context of the late 20th century, they costed money. It wasn’t a money-making machine as it was back in the 18th and 19th century. And the combination of all this factors led to the processes in which Ukraine’s decision to go independent spelled the end to the Soviet Union. And if today anybody wants to restore, not the Soviet Union, but some form of Russian control over the post-Soviet space, Ukraine is as important today as it was back in December of 1991.
Lex Fridman
Let me ask you about Vladimir Putin’s statement that the collapse of the Soviet Union is one of the great tragedies of history. To what degree does he have a point? To what degree is he wrong?
Let me ask you about Vladimir Putin’s statement that the collapse of the Soviet Union is one of the great tragedies of history. To what degree does he have a point? To what degree is he wrong?
Serhii Plokhy
His formulation was that this is the greatest geopolitical catastrophe or tragedy of the 20th century. And I specifically went and looked at the text and put it in specific time when it was happening. And it was interesting that the statement was made a few weeks before the May 9 parade and celebrations of the victory, a key part of the mythology of the current Russian state. So why say things about the Soviet collapse being the largest geopolitical strategy, and not in that particular context, the Second World War?
His formulation was that this is the greatest geopolitical catastrophe or tragedy of the 20th century. And I specifically went and looked at the text and put it in specific time when it was happening. And it was interesting that the statement was made a few weeks before the May 9 parade and celebrations of the victory, a key part of the mythology of the current Russian state. So why say things about the Soviet collapse being the largest geopolitical strategy, and not in that particular context, the Second World War?
My explanation at least is that the World War II, the price was enormous, but the Soviet Union emerged as a great victor and captured half of Europe. 1991, in terms of the lives lost at that point, the price was actually very, very low. But for Putin, what was important that the state was lost, and he in particular was concerned about the division of the Russian people, which he understood back then like he understands now in very, very broad terms.
So for him, the biggest tragedy is not the loss of life, the biggest tragedy is the loss of the great power status or the unity of those whom he considered to be Russian nations. So at least this is my reading, this is my understanding of what is there, what is on the paper, and what is between the lines.
Lex Fridman
So both the unity of the, quote, Russian Empire and the status of the superpower?
So both the unity of the, quote, Russian Empire and the status of the superpower?
Serhii Plokhy
That’s how I read it.
That’s how I read it.
Origins of Russia and Ukraine
Lex Fridman
You wrote a book, The Origins of the Slavic Nations. So let’s go back into history. What is the origin of Slavic nations?
You wrote a book, The Origins of the Slavic Nations. So let’s go back into history. What is the origin of Slavic nations?
Serhii Plokhy
We can look at that from different perspectives, and we are now making major breakthroughs in answering this question with the very interesting, innovative linguistic analysis, the study of DNA. So that’s really the new frontier. We are getting into a pre-historical period where there is no historical sources.
We can look at that from different perspectives, and we are now making major breakthroughs in answering this question with the very interesting, innovative linguistic analysis, the study of DNA. So that’s really the new frontier. We are getting into a pre-historical period where there is no historical sources.
And from what we can understand today, and that can of course change tomorrow with all these breakthroughs in sciences, is that the Slavs came into existence somewhere in the area of Pripyat Marshes, the northwestern part of Ukraine, southwestern part of Belarus, eastern part of Poland. And that is considered to be historical homeland of Slavs. And then they spread, and they spread all the way to the Adriatic. So we have Kurds, we have Russians spreading all the way to the Pacific. We have Ukrainians, we have Belarusians, Poles. Once we had Czechoslovaks, now we have Czechs and Slovaks. That’s the story of starting with the 8th and 9th century, even a little bit early, we can already follow that story with the help of the written sources, mostly from Byzantine, then later from Western Europe.
But what I was trying to do, not being a scientist, not being an expert in linguistics, or not being an expert in DNA analysis, I was trying to see what was happening in the minds of those peoples, and their elites in particular. Whom we call today not Slavs, but Eastern Slavs, which means Russians, Ukrainians and Belarusians. How they imagined themselves, how they imagined their world. And eventually I look at the so-called nation-building projects.
So trying to answer the question of how we arrived to the situation in which we are today, where there are not just three East Slavic nations, but there are also three East Slavic states, Russian, Ukrainian, and Belarusian. This is the focus of my book. And admittedly, in that particular book, I end on the 18th century before the era of nationalism. But then there are other books like Lost Kingdom, where I bring the story all the way up to today.
Lex Fridman
What aspects of the 8th and 9th century the East Slavic states permeates to today that we should understand?
What aspects of the 8th and 9th century the East Slavic states permeates to today that we should understand?
Serhii Plokhy
Well, the most important one is that the existence of the state of Kievan Rus, back during the medieval period, created the foundations for historical mythology, common historical mythology. And there are just wars and battles over who has the right or more right for Kievan Rus.
Well, the most important one is that the existence of the state of Kievan Rus, back during the medieval period, created the foundations for historical mythology, common historical mythology. And there are just wars and battles over who has the right or more right for Kievan Rus.
The legal code that was created at that time existed for a long period of time. The acceptance of Christianity from Byzantium, that became a big issue that separated then Eastern Slavs from their Western neighbors, including Czechs and Poles, but united in that way to, let’s say, Bulgarians or Serbs. And the beginning of the written literature, beginning in Kyiv. So all of that is considered to be part of heritage, all of that is being contested. And this debates that were academic for a long period of time, what we see now tragically are being continued on the battlefield.
Lex Fridman
What is Kyiv? What is Rus that you mentioned? What’s the importance of these? You mentioned them as the defining places and terms, labels, at the beginning of all of this, so what is Kyiv?
What is Kyiv? What is Rus that you mentioned? What’s the importance of these? You mentioned them as the defining places and terms, labels, at the beginning of all of this, so what is Kyiv?
Serhii Plokhy
Kyiv became a capital or the outpost of the Vikings who were trying to establish control over the trade route between what is today’s western Russia and Belarus and northern Ukraine, so the forest areas. And the biggest and the richest market in the world that existed at that time, which was in Constantinople, in Byzantium.
Kyiv became a capital or the outpost of the Vikings who were trying to establish control over the trade route between what is today’s western Russia and Belarus and northern Ukraine, so the forest areas. And the biggest and the richest market in the world that existed at that time, which was in Constantinople, in Byzantium.
The idea was to get whatever goods you can get in that part of Eastern Europe, and most of those goods were slaves, local population. Put them on the ships in Kyiv, because Kyiv was on the border with the steppe zones. Steppe zones were controlled by other groups, Scythians, Sarmations, Polovtsians, Pechenegs, and so on, and you name it. And then staying on the river, being protected from attacks of the nomads to come to the Black Sea and sell these products in Constantinople. That was the idea, that was the model.
Vikings tried to practice that sort of business model also in other parts of Europe, and like in other parts of Europe, they turned out to be by default creators of new politics, of new states. And that was the story of the first Kievan dynasty, and Kyiv as the capital of that huge empire that was going from the Baltics to today, central Ukraine, and then was trying to get through the southern Ukraine to the Black Sea, that was a major, major European state kingdom, if you want to call it, of medieval Europe. Creating a lot of tradition in terms of dynasty, in terms of language, in terms of religion, in terms of, again, historical mythology. So Kyiv is central for the nation-building myth of a number of groups in the region.
Lex Fridman
In one perspective and narrative, Kyiv is at the center of this Russian Empire. At which point does Moscow come to prominence as the center of the Russian Empire?
In one perspective and narrative, Kyiv is at the center of this Russian Empire. At which point does Moscow come to prominence as the center of the Russian Empire?
Serhii Plokhy
Well, the Russian Empire is a term and really creation of the 18th century. What we have for the Kievan, we call it Kievan Rus, again, this is a term of the 19th century, they call themselves Rus.
Well, the Russian Empire is a term and really creation of the 18th century. What we have for the Kievan, we call it Kievan Rus, again, this is a term of the 19th century, they call themselves Rus.
Lex Fridman
Rus.
Rus.
Serhii Plokhy
And there was metropolitanate of Rus and there was Rus principalities. So very important to keep in mind that Rus is not Russia because that was a self-name for all multiple groups on that territory. And Moscow doesn’t exist at the time when Kyiv emerges as the capital. The first reference to Moscow comes from the 12th century when it was founded by one of the Kievan princes.
And there was metropolitanate of Rus and there was Rus principalities. So very important to keep in mind that Rus is not Russia because that was a self-name for all multiple groups on that territory. And Moscow doesn’t exist at the time when Kyiv emerges as the capital. The first reference to Moscow comes from the 12th century when it was founded by one of the Kievan princes.
And Moscow comes to prominence really in a very different context and with a very different empire running the show in the region. The story of Moscow and the rise of Moscow, this is the story of the Mongol rule over former Rus lands and former Rus territories. The part of the former Rus eventually overthrows the Mongol control with the help of the small group of people called Lithuanians, which had a young state and young dynasty, and united this lands, which were mostly in today’s terms Ukrainian and Belorussian. So they separate early. And what is today’s Russia, mostly western Russia, central Russia, stays under the Mongol control up until late 15th century.
And that was the story when Moscow rises as the new capital of that realm, replacing the city of Vladimir as that capital. For those who ever went to Russia, they familiar with, of course, Vladimir as the place of the oldest architectural monuments, the so-called the Golden Ring of Russia, and so on and so forth. Vladimir is central, and there were so many architectural monuments there because before there was Moscow, there was Vladimir. Eventually in this struggle over control of the territory, struggle for favors from the Mongols and the Tatar Horde, Moscow emerges as the center of that particular realm under Mongols.
After the Mongol rule is removed, Moscow embarks on the project that historians, Russian historians of the 19th century, called the “gathering of the Russian lands.” Using Russian now for Rus and trying to bring back the lands of former Kievan Rus, but also the lands of the former Mongol Empire. The Russians get to the Pacific before they get to Kyiv historically, and really the, quote, unquote, “gathering of the,” quote, unquote, “Russian lands.” As only in 1945, when the Soviet Union bullies the Czechoslovak government into turning what is today’s Transcarpathian Ukraine to the Soviet Union. It is included in the Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic.
So that’s the moment when that destiny, the way how it was imagined by the 19th century Russian historian, was eventually fulfilled. Moscow was in control of all these lands.
Lex Fridman
To what degree are the Slavic people one people, and this is the theme that will continue throughout, I think, versus a collection of multiple peoples? Whether we’re talking about the Kievan Rus or we’re talking about the 19th century Russian Empire conception.
To what degree are the Slavic people one people, and this is the theme that will continue throughout, I think, versus a collection of multiple peoples? Whether we’re talking about the Kievan Rus or we’re talking about the 19th century Russian Empire conception.
Serhii Plokhy
Well, a number of ways to look at that. One, the most obvious, the most clear, is language. And there is no question that Poles speak a separate language than the Slavs. And there is no question for anyone going to Ukraine and here in Ukrainian, realizing that this is not Russian. The level of comprehension can be different, you can understand certain words and you don’t understand others. And the same would be with Polish, and the same would be with Czech.
Well, a number of ways to look at that. One, the most obvious, the most clear, is language. And there is no question that Poles speak a separate language than the Slavs. And there is no question for anyone going to Ukraine and here in Ukrainian, realizing that this is not Russian. The level of comprehension can be different, you can understand certain words and you don’t understand others. And the same would be with Polish, and the same would be with Czech.
So there is this linguistic history that is in common, but languages very clearly indicate that you’re dealing with different peoples. We know that language is not everything. Americans speak a particular way of English, Australians speak a particular variant of English. But for reasons of geography, history, we pretty much believe that despite linguistic unity, these are different nations and different peoples. And there are some parts of political tradition more in common, others are quite different.
So the same when it comes to language, the same when it comes to political tradition, to the loyalty to the political institution, applies to Slavic nations. Again, there is nothing particularly unique about the Slavs in that regard.
Ukrainian nationalism
Lex Fridman
You wrote the book, The Cossack Myth: History and Nationhood in the Age of Empires. It tells the story of an anonymous manuscript called The History of the Rus. It started being circulated in the 1820s. I would love it if you can tell the story of this. This is supposedly one of the most impactful texts in history, modern history. So what’s the importance of this text? What did it contain? How did it define the future of the region?
You wrote the book, The Cossack Myth: History and Nationhood in the Age of Empires. It tells the story of an anonymous manuscript called The History of the Rus. It started being circulated in the 1820s. I would love it if you can tell the story of this. This is supposedly one of the most impactful texts in history, modern history. So what’s the importance of this text? What did it contain? How did it define the future of the region?
Serhii Plokhy
In the first decades of the 19th century, after Napoleonic Wars, a mysterious text emerged that was attributed to an Orthodox archbishop that was long dead, which was claiming that the Cossacks of Ukraine were in fact the original Rus people, and that they had the right for particular place, for central place, in the Russian Empire. And it tells the history of the Cossacks. It’s the era of romanticism, full of all sorts of drama, there are heroes, there are villains.
In the first decades of the 19th century, after Napoleonic Wars, a mysterious text emerged that was attributed to an Orthodox archbishop that was long dead, which was claiming that the Cossacks of Ukraine were in fact the original Rus people, and that they had the right for particular place, for central place, in the Russian Empire. And it tells the history of the Cossacks. It’s the era of romanticism, full of all sorts of drama, there are heroes, there are villains.
And the text captivates the attention of some key figures in the Russian intellectual elite in St. Petersburg, people like Kondraty Ryleyev, who was executed for his participation in 1825 uprising. Writes poetry on the basis of this text. Pushkin pays attention to it as well. And then comes along the key figure in Ukrainian national revival, of the 19th century Ukrainian national project, Taras Shevchenko, and reads it as well, and they all read it very differently. Eventually, by the beginning of the mid 20th century, some of the Russian, mostly nationalist writers, call this text the Quran of Ukrainian nationalism.
So what is there? The story, it’s very important in a sense that what the authors, and that’s what I claim in the book, what the authors of the text were trying to say, they were trying to say that the Cossack elite should have the same rights as the Russian nobility. And brings the long historical records to prove how cold the Cossacks were over the period of time.
But at the beginning of the 19th century, they put this claim already, they use new arguments, and these arguments are about nation and nationalism. And they’re saying that the Cossacks are a separate nation, and that’s a big, big, big claim. The Russian Empire, and this is a very, very good argument in historiography, that Russian Empire grew and acquired this 1/6th of the Earth by using one very specific way of integrating those lands. It integrated the elites. It was making deals with the elites. Whether their elites were Muslim or their elites were Roman Catholic, as the case with the Poles, they would be-
Serhii Plokhy
… were Roman Catholic, as the case with the Poles. The elites would be integrated, and the empire was based on the state loyalty and the state integration. But once you bring in the factor of nation and nationalism and language, then, once in a sudden, the whole model of the integration of the elites, irrespective of their language, religion, and culture, starts falling apart. And the Poles were the first who really produced this sort of a challenge to the Russian Empire, by two uprisings in the 19th century. And Ukrainians then followed in their footsteps.
… were Roman Catholic, as the case with the Poles. The elites would be integrated, and the empire was based on the state loyalty and the state integration. But once you bring in the factor of nation and nationalism and language, then, once in a sudden, the whole model of the integration of the elites, irrespective of their language, religion, and culture, starts falling apart. And the Poles were the first who really produced this sort of a challenge to the Russian Empire, by two uprisings in the 19th century. And Ukrainians then followed in their footsteps.
So, the importance of the tax is that it was making claim on the part of a particular estate, the Cossack Officer Class, which was that empire could survive. But it turned it, given the conditions of the time, into the claim for the special role of Cossacks as a nation, creating that this is a separate nation, Russian nation. And that is the challenge of nationalism that no empire really survived, and the Russian Empire was not an exception. So, there’s a turning point when the discourse switches from loyalty based on the integration of the elites to the loyalty based on attachment to your nation, to your language, and to your culture, and to your history.
Lex Fridman
So that was like the initial spark, the flame, that led to nationalist movements.
So that was like the initial spark, the flame, that led to nationalist movements.
Serhii Plokhy
That was the beginning and the beginning that was building a bridge between the existence of the Cossack state in the 17th and 18th century that was used as a foundation for the Cossack mythology, Ukrainian national mythology, went into the Ukrainian National Anthem, and the new age and the new stage where the Cossacks were not there anymore, whether they were professors, intellectuals, students, members of the national and organizations. And it started, of course, with romantic poetry, it was started with collected folklore, and then, later goes to the political stage, and eventually the stage of mass politics.
That was the beginning and the beginning that was building a bridge between the existence of the Cossack state in the 17th and 18th century that was used as a foundation for the Cossack mythology, Ukrainian national mythology, went into the Ukrainian National Anthem, and the new age and the new stage where the Cossacks were not there anymore, whether they were professors, intellectuals, students, members of the national and organizations. And it started, of course, with romantic poetry, it was started with collected folklore, and then, later goes to the political stage, and eventually the stage of mass politics.
Lex Fridman
So to you, even throughout the 20th century under Stalin, there was always a force within Ukraine that wants it to be independent.
So to you, even throughout the 20th century under Stalin, there was always a force within Ukraine that wants it to be independent.
Serhii Plokhy
There were five attempts for Ukraine to declare its independence and to maintain it in the 20th century. Only one succeeded in 1991, but there were four different attempts at times before. And you see the Ukrainian national identity manifest in itself in two different ways, in the form of national communism after the Bolshevik victory in the Bolshevik-controlled Ukraine, and in the form of radical nationalism in the parts of Ukraine that were controlled by Poland and Romania, and part of that was also controlled by Czechoslovakia and later Hungary. So, in those parts outside of the Soviet Union, the form of the national mobilization, the key form of national mobilization, became radical nationalism. In Soviet Ukraine, it was national communism that came back in the 1960s and 1970s. And then, in the 1991, the majority of the members of the Ukrainian Parliament, who voted for independence, were members of the Communist Party. So that spirit on certain level never died.
There were five attempts for Ukraine to declare its independence and to maintain it in the 20th century. Only one succeeded in 1991, but there were four different attempts at times before. And you see the Ukrainian national identity manifest in itself in two different ways, in the form of national communism after the Bolshevik victory in the Bolshevik-controlled Ukraine, and in the form of radical nationalism in the parts of Ukraine that were controlled by Poland and Romania, and part of that was also controlled by Czechoslovakia and later Hungary. So, in those parts outside of the Soviet Union, the form of the national mobilization, the key form of national mobilization, became radical nationalism. In Soviet Ukraine, it was national communism that came back in the 1960s and 1970s. And then, in the 1991, the majority of the members of the Ukrainian Parliament, who voted for independence, were members of the Communist Party. So that spirit on certain level never died.
Stepan Bandera
Lex Fridman
So, there’s national communism and radical nationalism. Well, let me ask you about the radical nationalism, because that is a topic that comes up in the discussion of the war in Ukraine today. Can you tell me about Stepan Bandera? Who was he, this controversial far-right Ukrainian revolutionary?
So, there’s national communism and radical nationalism. Well, let me ask you about the radical nationalism, because that is a topic that comes up in the discussion of the war in Ukraine today. Can you tell me about Stepan Bandera? Who was he, this controversial far-right Ukrainian revolutionary?
Serhii Plokhy
The [inaudible 00:38:32] lists two Stepan Banderas. One is the real person and another is mythology that really comes with this name. And the real person was a young student, nationalistically oriented student, in the late 1920s and early 1930s in the part of Ukraine that was controlled by Poland, who belonged to the generation who regretted that they were not born in time for the big struggles of the World War I and Revolution at that time. They believed that their fathers lost opportunity for Ukraine to become independent and that a new ideology was needed, and that ideology was radical nationalism, and new tactics were needed.
The [inaudible 00:38:32] lists two Stepan Banderas. One is the real person and another is mythology that really comes with this name. And the real person was a young student, nationalistically oriented student, in the late 1920s and early 1930s in the part of Ukraine that was controlled by Poland, who belonged to the generation who regretted that they were not born in time for the big struggles of the World War I and Revolution at that time. They believed that their fathers lost opportunity for Ukraine to become independent and that a new ideology was needed, and that ideology was radical nationalism, and new tactics were needed.
So, Bandera becomes the leader of the organization of Ukrainian Nationalists in Ukraine at the young age and organizes a number of assassinations of the Polish officials or members of the Ukrainian community who this young people, in their 17, 18, 19, considered to be collaborators. He is arrested, put on trial, and that’s where the myth of Bandera starts to emerge, because he uses the trial to make statements about the Ukrainian nationalism, radical nationalism, and its goals, and suddenly, becomes a hero among the Ukrainian youth at that time. He is sentenced for execution for death. So, when he delivers his speech, he knows that he probably would die soon, and then it was, the sentence was commuted to life in prison.
Then World War II happens. The Polish state collapses under the pressure coming, of course, from Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union. Bandera walks away and presides over the act of the split of the organization of Ukrainian Nationalists into two groups. The most radical one used called Revolutionary, they call themselves Revolutionary, is led by Bandera. They worked together with the Nazi Germany at that time, with the hope that Nazi Germany would deliver them independent Ukraine.
First days of the German attack, Nazi attack on the Soviet Union, the units formed on the basis of Organization of Ukrainian Nationalists marching to the city of Lviv and declare Ukrainian independence. That was not sanctioned by the German authorities. That was not in German plans. So, they arrest Bandera, members of his family, his brothers, members of the leaders, leaders of the organization. So, his two brothers go to Auschwitz, die there. He was sent to Sachsenhausen for the most duration of the war, until 1944, refusing to revoke declaration of Ukrainian independence, which, again, contributes further to his mythology.
After the war, he never comes back to Ukraine. He lives in exile in Munich. So, between 1930 and his death in 1959, he spent in Ukraine maybe up to two years, maybe a little bit more, but most of the time was either in the Polish prison, or in the German concentration camp, or in exile.
But the myth of Bandera lived. And all the members of the Organization of Ukrainian Nationalists and then the Ukrainian Insurgent Army, that fought against the Soviets all the way into the early 1950s, they were called Banderites. They were called Banderites by the Soviet authorities. They were known also in that way to the local population. So, there was a faraway leader that barely was there on the spot, but whose name was attached to this movement for, really, liberation of Ukraine at that time. Again, the battle that failed.
Lex Fridman
The fact that he collaborated with the Nazis sticks. From one perspective, he’s considered by many to be a hero of Ukraine for fighting for the independence of Ukraine. From another perspective, coupled with the fact that there’s this radical, revolutionary extremist flavor to the way he sees the world, that label just stays that he’s a fascist, he’s a Nazi. To what degree is this true? To what degree is it not?
The fact that he collaborated with the Nazis sticks. From one perspective, he’s considered by many to be a hero of Ukraine for fighting for the independence of Ukraine. From another perspective, coupled with the fact that there’s this radical, revolutionary extremist flavor to the way he sees the world, that label just stays that he’s a fascist, he’s a Nazi. To what degree is this true? To what degree is it not?
Serhii Plokhy
This label is certainly promoted, first, by the Soviet propaganda, and then by Russian propaganda. It works very nicely. If you focus on the years of collaboration, those were the same years when Joseph Stalin collaborated with Hitler, right? So, we have the same reason to call Stalin Nazi collaborator as we have the reason to call Bandera Nazi collaborator. We look at the situation in the Pacific, in Indonesia, in other places, the leaders who worked together with Japanese, with the idea of promoting independence of their countries after the Japanese collapse, become leaders of the empire. So, the difference with Bandera is that he never becomes the leader, the leader of empire, and immunity that comes with that position certainly doesn’t apply to him.
This label is certainly promoted, first, by the Soviet propaganda, and then by Russian propaganda. It works very nicely. If you focus on the years of collaboration, those were the same years when Joseph Stalin collaborated with Hitler, right? So, we have the same reason to call Stalin Nazi collaborator as we have the reason to call Bandera Nazi collaborator. We look at the situation in the Pacific, in Indonesia, in other places, the leaders who worked together with Japanese, with the idea of promoting independence of their countries after the Japanese collapse, become leaders of the empire. So, the difference with Bandera is that he never becomes the leader, the leader of empire, and immunity that comes with that position certainly doesn’t apply to him.
But there are other parts of his life which certainly put this whole thing in question. The fate of his family, his own time in the German concentration camp, certainly don’t fit the propaganda one-sided image of Bandera.
In terms of him being a hero, that’s a very, very interesting question, because he is perceived in Ukraine today, not by all, and probably not by the majority, but by many people in Ukraine, as a symbol of fighting against the Soviet Union and, by extension, against Russia and Russian occupation. So, his popularity grew after February 24, 2022 as a symbol of that resistance. Again, we are talking here about myth and mythology, because Bandera was not leading the fight against the Soviet occupation in Ukraine because, at that time, he was just simply not in Ukraine. He was in Germany. And you can imagine that geography mattered at that time much more than it matters today.
Lex Fridman
There’s a million questions to ask here. I think it’s an important topic, because it is at the center of the claimed reason that the war continues in Ukraine. So, I would like to explore that from different angles. But just to clarify, was there a moment where Bandera chose Nazi Germany over the Red Army when the war already began? So, in the list of allegiances, is Ukraine’s independence more important than fighting Nazi Germany, essentially?
There’s a million questions to ask here. I think it’s an important topic, because it is at the center of the claimed reason that the war continues in Ukraine. So, I would like to explore that from different angles. But just to clarify, was there a moment where Bandera chose Nazi Germany over the Red Army when the war already began? So, in the list of allegiances, is Ukraine’s independence more important than fighting Nazi Germany, essentially?
Serhii Plokhy
The Ukrainian independence was their goal, and they were there to work with anybody who would support and, in one way, or at least allow the Ukrainian independence. So, there is no question that they are just classic nationalists. So, the goal is, nationalism is the principle according to which the, or at least one definition is, according to which the cultural boundaries coincide with political boundaries. So, their goal was to create political boundaries that would coincide with the geographic boundaries in the conditions of the World War II, and certainly making deals with whoever would either support, as I said, or tolerate that project of theirs.
The Ukrainian independence was their goal, and they were there to work with anybody who would support and, in one way, or at least allow the Ukrainian independence. So, there is no question that they are just classic nationalists. So, the goal is, nationalism is the principle according to which the, or at least one definition is, according to which the cultural boundaries coincide with political boundaries. So, their goal was to create political boundaries that would coincide with the geographic boundaries in the conditions of the World War II, and certainly making deals with whoever would either support, as I said, or tolerate that project of theirs.
Lex Fridman
So, I would love to find the line between nationalism, even extreme nationalism, and fascism and Nazism. So, for Bandera, the myth, the Bandera the person, let’s look at some of the ideology of Nazism. To which degree did he hate Jews? Was he anti-Semitic?
So, I would love to find the line between nationalism, even extreme nationalism, and fascism and Nazism. So, for Bandera, the myth, the Bandera the person, let’s look at some of the ideology of Nazism. To which degree did he hate Jews? Was he anti-Semitic?
Serhii Plokhy
We know that, basically, in his circle, there were people who were anti-Semites in a sense that, okay, we have the texts, right? We know that. We don’t have that information about, or that sort of text, or that sort of evidence with regard to Bandera himself.
We know that, basically, in his circle, there were people who were anti-Semites in a sense that, okay, we have the texts, right? We know that. We don’t have that information about, or that sort of text, or that sort of evidence with regard to Bandera himself.
In terms of fascism, there is very clear and there is research done that, in particularly, Italian fascism had influence on the thinking of people in that organization, including people at the top. But it is also very important to keep in mind that they call themselves nationalist and revolutionaries. And despite the fact that in 1939 and 1940 and 1941, it was very beneficial for them to declare themselves to be Ukrainian fascists and establish this bond, not just with Italy, but with Nazi Germany. They refused to do that. And then, they used to recall their independence. So, influences, yes, but clearly, it’s a different type of political project.
Lex Fridman
So, let me fast-forward into the future and see to which degree the myth permeates. Does Ukraine have a neo-Nazi problem?
So, let me fast-forward into the future and see to which degree the myth permeates. Does Ukraine have a neo-Nazi problem?
Serhii Plokhy
My understanding is there are Nazis in Ukraine and there are supporters of white supremacy theories, but also my understanding is that they are extremely marginal and they are more marginal than the same sort of groups are in Central Europe, maybe in the U.S. as well. And for me, the question is not whether the Ukraine has it, but why even in the conditions of the war, the radical nationalism and extremism and white supremacist is such a marginal force, when in the countries that are not at the war, you look at France, you look at, again, it’s not exactly Nazis, but really right radical right is becoming so important.
My understanding is there are Nazis in Ukraine and there are supporters of white supremacy theories, but also my understanding is that they are extremely marginal and they are more marginal than the same sort of groups are in Central Europe, maybe in the U.S. as well. And for me, the question is not whether the Ukraine has it, but why even in the conditions of the war, the radical nationalism and extremism and white supremacist is such a marginal force, when in the countries that are not at the war, you look at France, you look at, again, it’s not exactly Nazis, but really right radical right is becoming so important.
Why Ukraine in the conditions of the war is the country that manages relations between different ethnic groups and languages in the way that strengthens political nation? So, for me, as a scholar and a researcher, what I see is that, in Ukraine, the influence of the far right in different variations is much lower than it is among some of Ukraine’s neighbors and in Europe in general. And the question is why. I don’t know. I have guesses. I don’t know answer. But that’s the question that I think is interesting to answer, how Ukraine ended up to be the only country in the world, outside of Israel, who has a Jewish president who is, my at least understanding, is the most popular president in history, in terms of how his popularity goes after the election. So, this really, from my point of view, interesting questions, and again, we can certainly debate that.
Lex Fridman
So, just for context, the most popular far right party, 1-0.15% of the vote in 2019. This is before the war. So that’s where things stood. It’s unclear where they stand now. It’d be an interesting question whether it escalated and how much. What you’re saying is that war in general can serve as a catalyst for expansion of extremist groups, of extremist nationalistic groups especially, like the far right. And it’s interesting to see to what degree they have or have not risen to power in the shadows.
So, just for context, the most popular far right party, 1-0.15% of the vote in 2019. This is before the war. So that’s where things stood. It’s unclear where they stand now. It’d be an interesting question whether it escalated and how much. What you’re saying is that war in general can serve as a catalyst for expansion of extremist groups, of extremist nationalistic groups especially, like the far right. And it’s interesting to see to what degree they have or have not risen to power in the shadows.
Serhii Plokhy
So, no nationalist or nationalistic party actually crossed the barrier to get into the Parliament.
So, no nationalist or nationalistic party actually crossed the barrier to get into the Parliament.
Lex Fridman
Yeah.
Yeah.
Serhii Plokhy
So, Ukraine is the country where there is no right or far right in the Parliament. We can’t say that about Germany, we can’t say that about France, so that’s just one more way to stress this unique place of Ukraine in that sense. And the year 2019 is the year already of the war. The war started in 2014 with the annexation of the Crimean. The front line was near Donbas. All these groups were fighting there. So, Ukraine, maybe not to a degree that it is now, was already on the war footing, and yet the right party couldn’t get more than 2%. So, that’s the question that I have in mind.
So, Ukraine is the country where there is no right or far right in the Parliament. We can’t say that about Germany, we can’t say that about France, so that’s just one more way to stress this unique place of Ukraine in that sense. And the year 2019 is the year already of the war. The war started in 2014 with the annexation of the Crimean. The front line was near Donbas. All these groups were fighting there. So, Ukraine, maybe not to a degree that it is now, was already on the war footing, and yet the right party couldn’t get more than 2%. So, that’s the question that I have in mind.
And yes, the war, historically, of course, puts forward and makes, from the more nationalist views and forces, turned them from marginal forces into more central ones. We talked about Bandera and we talked about Organization of Ukrainian Nationalists. They were the most marginal group in the political spectrum in Ukraine in the 1930s that one can only imagine. But World War II comes, and they become the most central group, because they also were, from the start go, they had the organization, the violence was basically one of their means, they knew how to fight. So, historically, wars indeed produced those results, so we are looking at Ukraine. We’re trying to see what is happening there.
Lex Fridman
So, Vladimir Putin in his interview with Tucker Carlson, but many times before, said that the current goal for the war in Ukraine is denazification, that the purpose of the war is denazification. Can you explain this concept of denazification as Putin sees it?
So, Vladimir Putin in his interview with Tucker Carlson, but many times before, said that the current goal for the war in Ukraine is denazification, that the purpose of the war is denazification. Can you explain this concept of denazification as Putin sees it?
Serhii Plokhy
Denazification is the trop that is accepted quite well by the former Soviet population and Russian population in particular. The most powerful Soviet mythology that then was basically passed as part of heritage to the Russian Federation was World War II, was fighting against fascism. So, once you use terms “fascism,” and “Nazi,” and “denazification,” suddenly people, not just start listening, they just stop analyzing. And as a propaganda tool, this is, of course, very powerful tool. In terms of to what degree this is the real goal or not, we discussed the importance of the far right in Europe and in Ukraine. So, if that’s the real goal of the war probably, the war would have to start not against Ukraine, but probably against France or some other country, if you take this at face value.
Denazification is the trop that is accepted quite well by the former Soviet population and Russian population in particular. The most powerful Soviet mythology that then was basically passed as part of heritage to the Russian Federation was World War II, was fighting against fascism. So, once you use terms “fascism,” and “Nazi,” and “denazification,” suddenly people, not just start listening, they just stop analyzing. And as a propaganda tool, this is, of course, very powerful tool. In terms of to what degree this is the real goal or not, we discussed the importance of the far right in Europe and in Ukraine. So, if that’s the real goal of the war probably, the war would have to start not against Ukraine, but probably against France or some other country, if you take this at face value.
Lex Fridman
Well, there is something really interesting here, as you mentioned, because I’ve spoken to a lot of people in Russia, and you said analysis stops. In the West, people look at the word “denazification” and look at the things we’ve just discussed and almost think this is absurd. But when you talk to people in Russia, maybe it’s deep in there somewhere, the history of World War II still reverberates through maybe the fears, maybe the pride, whatever the deep emotional history is there, it seems that the goal of denazification appears to be reasonable for people in Russia. They don’t seem to see the absurdity or the complexity or even the need for analysis, I guess, in this kind of word of denazification.
Well, there is something really interesting here, as you mentioned, because I’ve spoken to a lot of people in Russia, and you said analysis stops. In the West, people look at the word “denazification” and look at the things we’ve just discussed and almost think this is absurd. But when you talk to people in Russia, maybe it’s deep in there somewhere, the history of World War II still reverberates through maybe the fears, maybe the pride, whatever the deep emotional history is there, it seems that the goal of denazification appears to be reasonable for people in Russia. They don’t seem to see the absurdity or the complexity or even the need for analysis, I guess, in this kind of word of denazification.
Serhii Plokhy
I would say this is broader. This is broader. The war that started under the banner that Russians and Ukrainians were one and the same people and produces that sort of casualty, really goes against also any sort of logical thinking. But Russia is a place where the free press doesn’t exist already for a long period of time. Russia is the place where there is an echo chamber, to a degree.
I would say this is broader. This is broader. The war that started under the banner that Russians and Ukrainians were one and the same people and produces that sort of casualty, really goes against also any sort of logical thinking. But Russia is a place where the free press doesn’t exist already for a long period of time. Russia is the place where there is an echo chamber, to a degree.
And as war started first in 2014, and then all out war in 2022, I came across a lot of people on the personal level, but also in the media reporting, that they really can’t find common language with their close relatives in Russia, people who visited Ukraine who know that it’s not taken over by nationalists and is not taken over by Nazis, but the media around them, the neighbors around them, the people at their work, basically, say one and the same thing. And we, as humans, in general, whatever our background, we are very, very, our mind is really, it’s relatively easy to manipulate it, and to a degree that even family connections and even family ties don’t sometimes help to maintain that ability to think and to analyze on your own to look at the facts.
Lex Fridman
So, Putin has alluded to the Yaroslav Hunka incident in the Canadian Parliament September 2023. This man is a veteran of World War II on the Ukrainian side, and he got two standing ovations in the Canadian Parliament, but they later found out that he was part of the SS. So, can you explain on this, what are your thoughts on this? This had a very big effect on the narrative, I guess, propagated throughout the region.
So, Putin has alluded to the Yaroslav Hunka incident in the Canadian Parliament September 2023. This man is a veteran of World War II on the Ukrainian side, and he got two standing ovations in the Canadian Parliament, but they later found out that he was part of the SS. So, can you explain on this, what are your thoughts on this? This had a very big effect on the narrative, I guess, propagated throughout the region.
Serhii Plokhy
Yes. What happened during World War II was that once the Germans started to run out of manpower, they created foreign legion groups. But because those people were not Aryans, they were created for fighting on the battleground. Because they were not Aryans, they couldn’t be trusted. So, they were put under the command of Henry Himmler, under command of SS, and became known as SS Waffen units. And one of such units was created in Ukraine, with great difficulties, because Nazis didn’t consider Slavs to be generally worthy of even that sort of foreign legion formations. But they made an exception, because those people were coming from Galicia, which was part of Austria-Hungary, which means part of Austria, which means somehow were open to the benevolent influence of the Germanic race, and called the Division Galizien, or Galicia. Part of Ukrainian youth joined the division.
Yes. What happened during World War II was that once the Germans started to run out of manpower, they created foreign legion groups. But because those people were not Aryans, they were created for fighting on the battleground. Because they were not Aryans, they couldn’t be trusted. So, they were put under the command of Henry Himmler, under command of SS, and became known as SS Waffen units. And one of such units was created in Ukraine, with great difficulties, because Nazis didn’t consider Slavs to be generally worthy of even that sort of foreign legion formations. But they made an exception, because those people were coming from Galicia, which was part of Austria-Hungary, which means part of Austria, which means somehow were open to the benevolent influence of the Germanic race, and called the Division Galizien, or Galicia. Part of Ukrainian youth joined the division.
One of the explanations was that they were looking at the experience of World War I, and seeing that the units, the Ukrainian units, in the Austrian army then played a very important role in the fight for independence. So that is one of the explanations. You can’t just use one explanation to describe motivations of everyone and every single person who was joined in there. So, they were sent to the front. They were defeated within a few short days by the Red Army, and then were retreating through Slovakia, where they were used to fight with the partisan movement there, and eventually surrendered to the British. So, that’s the story. You can personally maybe understand what the good motivations were of this person or that person, but that is one of the best, one of the very tragic and unfortunate pages in Ukrainian history. You can’t justify that as a phenomenon.
So, from that point of view, the celebration of that experience, as opposed to looking at that, okay, that happened, and we wish that those young men who were idealistic or joined the Division for idealistic purposes had better understanding of things or made other choices, but you can’t certainly celebrate that. And once that happened, that, of course, became a big propaganda, a propaganda item, in the current war. We’re talking about 10,000-20,000 people in the Division, and we’re talking about 2-3 million Ukrainians fighting in the Red Army. And again, it’s not like Red Army is completely blameless in the way how it behaved in Prussia, in Germany, and so on and so forth. But it’s basically, it’s, again, we’re going back to the story of Bandera. So, there is a period of collaboration, and that’s what propaganda tries to define him by, or there is a Division Galizien by 20,000 people, and somehow it makes irrelevant the experience of 2-3 million people.
Lex Fridman
I mean, just to clarify, I think there is just a blunder on the Canadian Parliament side, the Canadian side, of not doing research of, maybe correct me if I’m wrong, but from my understanding, they were just doing stupid shallow political stuff. Let’s applaud, when Zelenskyy shows up, let’s have a Ukrainian veteran, let’s applaud a veteran of World War II, and then all of a sudden, you realize, well, there’s actually complexities to wars. We can talk about, for example, a lot of dark aspects on all sides of World War II, the mass rape at the end of World War II by the Red Army, when they [inaudible 01:03:40] Germany. There’s a lot of really dark complexity in it on all sides.
I mean, just to clarify, I think there is just a blunder on the Canadian Parliament side, the Canadian side, of not doing research of, maybe correct me if I’m wrong, but from my understanding, they were just doing stupid shallow political stuff. Let’s applaud, when Zelenskyy shows up, let’s have a Ukrainian veteran, let’s applaud a veteran of World War II, and then all of a sudden, you realize, well, there’s actually complexities to wars. We can talk about, for example, a lot of dark aspects on all sides of World War II, the mass rape at the end of World War II by the Red Army, when they [inaudible 01:03:40] Germany. There’s a lot of really dark complexity in it on all sides.
So, that could be an opportunity to explore the dark complexity that some of the Ukrainians were in the SS, or Bandera, the complexities there, but I think they were doing not a complex thing. They were doing a very shallow applaud. And we should applaud veterans, of course, but in that case, they were doing it for show, for Zelenskyy and so on. So, we should clarify that the applause wasn’t knowing, it wasn’t for the SS. It was for Ukrainian, it was for World War II veterans, but the propaganda, or at least an interpretation from the Russian side, from whatever side, is that they were applauding the full person standing before them, which wasn’t just a Ukrainian veteran, but Ukrainian veteran that fought for the SS.
Serhii Plokhy
I don’t have any particular insights, but I would be very much surprised if even one person in the Parliament, I mean, the members of the Parliament actually knew the whole story. I would be very surprised.
I don’t have any particular insights, but I would be very much surprised if even one person in the Parliament, I mean, the members of the Parliament actually knew the whole story. I would be very surprised.
Lex Fridman
Yeah. The whole story of this person, and frankly, the whole story of Ukraine and Russia in World War II, period.
Yeah. The whole story of this person, and frankly, the whole story of Ukraine and Russia in World War II, period.
Serhii Plokhy
Yes, yes.
Yes, yes.
Lex Fridman
Nevertheless, it had a lot of power and really reverberated in support of the narrative that there is a neo-Nazi, a Nazi problem in Ukraine.
Nevertheless, it had a lot of power and really reverberated in support of the narrative that there is a neo-Nazi, a Nazi problem in Ukraine.
Serhii Plokhy
This is the narrative that is out there, and it’s especially powerful in Russia. It’s especially powerful in Russia given that there are, really, that the atmosphere that is created, really, is not conducive to any independent analysis.
This is the narrative that is out there, and it’s especially powerful in Russia. It’s especially powerful in Russia given that there are, really, that the atmosphere that is created, really, is not conducive to any independent analysis.
Lex Fridman
Well, I wonder what is the most effective way to respond to that particular claim, because there could be a discussion about nationalism, and extreme nationalism, and the fight for independence, and whether it isn’t, like Putin wrote, “one people,” but the question of, are there Nazis in Ukraine, seems to be a question that could be analyzed rigorously with data.
Well, I wonder what is the most effective way to respond to that particular claim, because there could be a discussion about nationalism, and extreme nationalism, and the fight for independence, and whether it isn’t, like Putin wrote, “one people,” but the question of, are there Nazis in Ukraine, seems to be a question that could be analyzed rigorously with data.
Serhii Plokhy
That is being done on the academic level. But in terms of the public response and public discourse, the only response that I see is not to focus on the questions raised and put by the propaganda, because you’ve already become victim of that propaganda by definition, but talk about that much broadly and talk about different aspects of, if it is World War II, about different aspects of World War II, if it’s about issue of the far right in Ukraine, let’s talk about U.S., let’s talk about Russia, let’s talk about France, let’s compare. That’s the only way how you deal with propaganda, because propaganda is not necessarily something that is an outright lie. It can be just one factor that’s taken out of the context and is blown out of proportion. And that is good enough.
That is being done on the academic level. But in terms of the public response and public discourse, the only response that I see is not to focus on the questions raised and put by the propaganda, because you’ve already become victim of that propaganda by definition, but talk about that much broadly and talk about different aspects of, if it is World War II, about different aspects of World War II, if it’s about issue of the far right in Ukraine, let’s talk about U.S., let’s talk about Russia, let’s talk about France, let’s compare. That’s the only way how you deal with propaganda, because propaganda is not necessarily something that is an outright lie. It can be just one factor that’s taken out of the context and is blown out of proportion. And that is good enough.
KGB
Lex Fridman
And the way to defend against that is to bring in the context. Let us move gracefully throughout, back and forth through history, back to Bandera. You wrote a book on the KGB spy Bohdan Stashynsky. Can you tell his story?
And the way to defend against that is to bring in the context. Let us move gracefully throughout, back and forth through history, back to Bandera. You wrote a book on the KGB spy Bohdan Stashynsky. Can you tell his story?
Serhii Plokhy
This is a story of the history of the Organization of Ukrainian Nationalists, and Bandera as well, already after the end of the Second World War.
This is a story of the history of the Organization of Ukrainian Nationalists, and Bandera as well, already after the end of the Second World War.
Lex Fridman
Mm-hmm.
Mm-hmm.
Serhii Plokhy
Because what you got after the Second World War, so imagine May of 1945, the Red Banner is all over Riksdag, the Red Army is in control of half of Europe, but the units of the Red Army are still fighting the war, and not just behind the Soviet lines, but within the borders of the Soviet Union.
Because what you got after the Second World War, so imagine May of 1945, the Red Banner is all over Riksdag, the Red Army is in control of half of Europe, but the units of the Red Army are still fighting the war, and not just behind the Soviet lines, but within the borders of the Soviet Union.
Serhii Plokhy
… behind the Soviet lines, but within the borders of the Soviet Union. And this war continues all the way into the early 1950s, almost up to Stalin’s death.
… behind the Soviet lines, but within the borders of the Soviet Union. And this war continues all the way into the early 1950s, almost up to Stalin’s death.
The war is conducted by the Organization of Ukrainian Nationalists, which have a Ukrainian insurgent army, and the government tries to crush that resistance. So, what it does is basically recruits local people to spy on the partisans on the underground, and Bohdan Stashynsky is one of those people. His family is supporting the resistance. They provide food. His sister is engaged with one of the local commanders of this underground unit, and they know everything about Stashynsky’s family and they know everything about him because he is also collecting funds for the underground. They have a conversation with him saying that, “Okay, that’s what we got, and you and your family can go to prison, or you help us a little bit. We’re interested in the fiance of your sister, and we want to get him.” Stashynsky says yes. Once they round up the fiance, he basically betrayed a member or almost member of his family, he is done. He can’t go back to his village, he can’t go back to his study. He was studying in [inaudible 01:09:39] at that time. As I write in my book, the secret police becomes his family.
And he is sent to Kyiv. He is trained for two years, sent to East Germany, into Berlin and becomes an assassin. So, they sent him across the border to Western Germany, to Munich. It was the headquarter of different organizations, anti-Soviet organizations, Ukrainian and Russian and Georgian and so on and so forth. And he kills two leaders of the organization of Ukrainian Nationalists, one editor of the newspaper, and eventually he kills Bandera. He does that with the new weapon, a spray pistol, that eventually makes it into the bond novel, The Man with the Golden Gun. And that whole episode is a little bit reshaped, but it’s not in the film, but it is in the novel itself.
And then later has a change of mind under the influence of his German fiance and then wife. They decide to escape to the West. And while they’re doing that, they discover that their apartment was bugged and probably the KGB knows all of that. A long story short, his son dies in Berlin. KGB doesn’t allow him to go there, but his wife has a nervous breakdown so they allow him to go there to just calm her so that there would be no scandal. And two of them, one day before their son’s burial, because after that they would be sent to Moscow. They jumped the ship and go to West Berlin, two hours before the Berlin Wall was being built.
So, if they would stay for the funeral, probably the KGB would not let them go. But also if they would stay, the border would be there. And he goes to the American intelligence and says, “Okay, that’s who I am and that’s what I did.” And they look at him and they say, “We don’t trust you. We don’t know who you are. You have documents in five names. You say you killed Bandera. Well, we have a different information. He was poisoned and probably by someone in his close circle. A spray pistol, did you read too much Ian Fleming? Where does this come from?”
He insists, they said, “Okay, you insist. If you committed all those crimes, they giving you to the German police, and German police will be investigating you.” And then the trial comes, and if he says, if he takes back his testimony, the whole case against him collapses. He can go free. He knows that if he goes free, he is a target of his colleagues from the same department. So, his task at the trial is to prove that he’s guilty, that he did that.
And then he disappears and nobody knows where he goes. And there are all sorts of cover stories. And I was lucky to interview a commander, former chief of the South African Police, who confirmed to me that Stashynsky was in South Africa.
Lex Fridman
He fled.
He fled.
Serhii Plokhy
The West German intelligence thought that it was too dangerous for him to stay in Germany. They sent him under a different name to South Africa. So, that’s the story of Stashynsky himself. But going back to Bandera, of course, the fact that he confessed and it became known that KGB assassinated Bandera, that added to the image and to general mythology about Bandera.
The West German intelligence thought that it was too dangerous for him to stay in Germany. They sent him under a different name to South Africa. So, that’s the story of Stashynsky himself. But going back to Bandera, of course, the fact that he confessed and it became known that KGB assassinated Bandera, that added to the image and to general mythology about Bandera.
Lex Fridman
What a fascinating story of a village boy becoming an assassin who killed one of the most influential revolutionaries of the region in the 20th century. Just zooming out broadly on the KGB, how powerful was the KGB? What role did it play in this whole story of the Soviet Union?
What a fascinating story of a village boy becoming an assassin who killed one of the most influential revolutionaries of the region in the 20th century. Just zooming out broadly on the KGB, how powerful was the KGB? What role did it play in this whole story of the Soviet Union?
Serhii Plokhy
It depends on the period. At the time that we just described, late ’50s and early ’60s, they were not powerful at all. And the reasons for that was that people like Khrushchev were really concerned about the secret police becoming too powerful. It became too powerful in their mind under Stalin, under Beria. And it was concern about Beria’s power as a secret police chief that led to the coup against Beria, and Khrushchev come into power, and Beria was arrested and executed. And what Khrushchev was trying to do after that was trying to put… Since ’54, the name was already KGB, KGB under his control. So, he was appointing the former [inaudible 01:15:33] leaders as the heads of the KGB, so the people who really owned everything to him, that sort of position. And the heads of the KGB were not members of Politburo.
It depends on the period. At the time that we just described, late ’50s and early ’60s, they were not powerful at all. And the reasons for that was that people like Khrushchev were really concerned about the secret police becoming too powerful. It became too powerful in their mind under Stalin, under Beria. And it was concern about Beria’s power as a secret police chief that led to the coup against Beria, and Khrushchev come into power, and Beria was arrested and executed. And what Khrushchev was trying to do after that was trying to put… Since ’54, the name was already KGB, KGB under his control. So, he was appointing the former [inaudible 01:15:33] leaders as the heads of the KGB, so the people who really owned everything to him, that sort of position. And the heads of the KGB were not members of Politburo.
It changed in the ’70s with Andropov where KGB started to play, again, very important role in the Soviet history. And let’s say decisions on Afghanistan and the Soviet troops marching into Afghanistan were made by the, apart from Brezhnev, by the trio of the people who would be called today [foreign language 01:16:15] maybe or not all of them were [foreign language 01:16:17] but one of course was Andropov, the head of the KGB. Another was the Minister of Defense, and then there was secretary in charge of the military industrial complex, Ministry of Foreign Minister of Foreign Affairs.
But the head of the KGB became really not just the member of Politbruo, but the member of that inner circle. And then the fact that on Andropov succeeds Brezhnev is also a manifestation of the power that KGB acquired really after Khrushchev in the 1970s, and then going into the 1980s.
Lex Fridman
Who was more powerful, the KGB or the CIA during the Soviet Union?
Who was more powerful, the KGB or the CIA during the Soviet Union?
Serhii Plokhy
The CIA, it’s the organization that is charged with the information gathering and all sorts of operations, including assassinations in the ’50s and ’60s abroad. The KGB was the organization that really had both the surveillance over the population within the Soviet Union and also the operations abroad. And its members, its leaders were members of the inner circle for making decisions. Again, from what I understand about the way how politics and decision work and decisions are made in the United States, the CIA, the chief of the CIA is not one of the decision-making group that providing information. Yeah, so I would say it’s not day and night, but their power, political influence, political significance, very different.
The CIA, it’s the organization that is charged with the information gathering and all sorts of operations, including assassinations in the ’50s and ’60s abroad. The KGB was the organization that really had both the surveillance over the population within the Soviet Union and also the operations abroad. And its members, its leaders were members of the inner circle for making decisions. Again, from what I understand about the way how politics and decision work and decisions are made in the United States, the CIA, the chief of the CIA is not one of the decision-making group that providing information. Yeah, so I would say it’s not day and night, but their power, political influence, political significance, very different.
Lex Fridman
Is it understood how big the KGB was? How widespread it was, given its secretive and distributed nature.
Is it understood how big the KGB was? How widespread it was, given its secretive and distributed nature.
Serhii Plokhy
Certain things we know, others we don’t, because the Stasi archives are open and most of the KGB, especially in Moscow, they’re not. But we know that the KGB combined not only the internal sort of secret police functions at home and counter intelligence branch and intelligence branch abroad, but also the border troops for example.
Certain things we know, others we don’t, because the Stasi archives are open and most of the KGB, especially in Moscow, they’re not. But we know that the KGB combined not only the internal sort of secret police functions at home and counter intelligence branch and intelligence branch abroad, but also the border troops for example.
So, really institutionally it was a huge, huge mammoth. And another thing that we know we can sort of extrapolate from what we know from the Stasi archives, that the surveillance at home, the surveillance was really massive. The guess is the Soviets were not as effective and as meticulous and as scrupulous and as methodical as probably as Germans were. But that gives you a basic idea of how penetrated the entire society was.
Lex Fridman
What do you think is important to understand about the KGB, if we want to also understand Vladimir Putin? Since he was a KGB foreign intelligence officer for 16 years.
What do you think is important to understand about the KGB, if we want to also understand Vladimir Putin? Since he was a KGB foreign intelligence officer for 16 years.
Serhii Plokhy
From my research, including on Stashynsky, what I understand is that in KGB, and it was a powerful organization, again, less powerful in ’50s and ’60s, but still very powerful organization. There was on the one hand the understanding of the situation in the country and abroad that probably other organizations didn’t have. They had also first pick in terms of the select and cadres. The work in the KGB was well paid and considered to be very prestigious. So, that was part to a degree of the Soviet elite in terms of whom they recruited. And they had a resentment over the party leadership that didn’t allow them to do James Bond kind of things that they would want to do because there were political risks.
From my research, including on Stashynsky, what I understand is that in KGB, and it was a powerful organization, again, less powerful in ’50s and ’60s, but still very powerful organization. There was on the one hand the understanding of the situation in the country and abroad that probably other organizations didn’t have. They had also first pick in terms of the select and cadres. The work in the KGB was well paid and considered to be very prestigious. So, that was part to a degree of the Soviet elite in terms of whom they recruited. And they had a resentment over the party leadership that didn’t allow them to do James Bond kind of things that they would want to do because there were political risks.
After this scandal with Stashynsky, at least on many levels, the KGB stopped the practice of the assassinations, political assassinations abroad because it was considered politically to be extremely, extremely dangerous. The person who was in charge of the KGB at the time of Bandera assassination, Shelepin, was one of the candidates to replace Khrushchev and Brezhnev used against him that scandal abroad eventually to remove him from Politburo.
So, the KGB was really looking at the party leadership as to a degree, an effective corrupt and who was on their way. And from what I understand, that’s exactly the attitudes that people like Putin and people of his circle brought to power in Kremlin. So, the methods that KGB use they can use now, and there is no party or no other institution actually stopping them from doing that. And they think about, my understanding, the operations abroad about foreign policy in general in terms of the KGB mindset of planning operations and executing particular operations and so on and so forth. I think a lot of culture that came into existence in the Soviet KGB now became part of the culture of the Russian establishment.
War in Ukraine
Lex Fridman
You wrote the book, the Russo-Ukrainian War, the Return of History, that gives the full context leading up to the invasion of Ukraine by Russia in February, 2022. Can you take me through the key moments in history that led up to this war? So, we’ll mention the collapse of the Soviet Union. We could probably go much farther back, but the collapse of the Soviet Union mentioned 2014. Maybe you can highlight key moments that led up to 2022.
You wrote the book, the Russo-Ukrainian War, the Return of History, that gives the full context leading up to the invasion of Ukraine by Russia in February, 2022. Can you take me through the key moments in history that led up to this war? So, we’ll mention the collapse of the Soviet Union. We could probably go much farther back, but the collapse of the Soviet Union mentioned 2014. Maybe you can highlight key moments that led up to 2022.
Serhii Plokhy
The key moments would be first, the year 2004, known for Orange Revolution in Ukraine, and then the year 2013, known as the Revolution of Dignity. Both were the revolts against the something that by significant part of Ukrainian population was considered to be completely, completely unacceptable actions on the part of the government and people in the government at that time. The Orange Revolution of 2004 was a protest against falsified presidential elections and rejection of a candidate that was supported by Russia, publicly supported by Russia. I remember being in Moscow at that time and couldn’t believe my eyes went, in the center of Russia, I saw a billboard with Yanukovych. The trick was that there were a lot of Ukrainians in Russia and in Moscow in particular, and they had the right to vote. And it led to the election as Ukrainian president, Viktor Yushchenko, who put on the agenda the issue of Ukraine’s membership in NATO. So, it was very clear pro-Western orientation. And the second case was the Revolution of Dignity 2013, with some of the same characters including Yanukovych, who at that time was already president of Ukraine. And there the question was of the government promising the people for one year at least to sign an association agreement with European Union, and then turning over almost overnight and saying that they were not going to do that.
The key moments would be first, the year 2004, known for Orange Revolution in Ukraine, and then the year 2013, known as the Revolution of Dignity. Both were the revolts against the something that by significant part of Ukrainian population was considered to be completely, completely unacceptable actions on the part of the government and people in the government at that time. The Orange Revolution of 2004 was a protest against falsified presidential elections and rejection of a candidate that was supported by Russia, publicly supported by Russia. I remember being in Moscow at that time and couldn’t believe my eyes went, in the center of Russia, I saw a billboard with Yanukovych. The trick was that there were a lot of Ukrainians in Russia and in Moscow in particular, and they had the right to vote. And it led to the election as Ukrainian president, Viktor Yushchenko, who put on the agenda the issue of Ukraine’s membership in NATO. So, it was very clear pro-Western orientation. And the second case was the Revolution of Dignity 2013, with some of the same characters including Yanukovych, who at that time was already president of Ukraine. And there the question was of the government promising the people for one year at least to sign an association agreement with European Union, and then turning over almost overnight and saying that they were not going to do that.
And that’s how things started. But then when they became really massive and why something that was called Euro Revolution became Revolution of Dignity was when the government police beat up students in downtown Kyiv, who judging by the reports were basically already almost ready to disperse, almost ready to go home. And that’s when roughly half of Kyiv showed up on the streets. That sort of the police behavior, that sort of was absolutely unacceptable in Ukraine. The stealing elections and falsification of elections wasn’t unacceptable.
That’s where around that time and around 2004, the president of Ukraine at that time, Leonid Kuchma, writes a book called Ukraine is Not Russia. And apparently the term comes from his discussion with Putin, when Putin was suggesting to him quite strongly to use force against people [inaudible 01:26:11] on the square in Kyiv. And Kuchma allegedly said to him, “You don’t understand. Ukraine is not Russia. You can’t do things like that. You get pushed back.” And that’s, this two events, 2004 and then 2013 became really crucial point in terms of the Ukraine direction, the survival of Ukrainian democracy, which is one of very few countries in the post Soviet space where democracy survived the original flirt between the government leaders and democracy of the 1990s.
It was the old Soviet story in Russia. Everywhere else there was high democratic expectations, but they came pretty much to an end by the end of the decade. Ukraine preserved the democracy and the orientation of Ukraine toward integration in some form into Western and European structures, that Ukrainian democracy plus Western orientation was something. And in Russia, we see the strengthening of the autocratic regime under Putin, that if you look deeper, this are the processes that put the two countries on the collision course.
Lex Fridman
So, there’s a division, a push and pull inside Ukraine on identity, on whether they’re part of Russia or part of Europe. And you highlighted two moments in Ukrainian history that there’s a big flare up where the statement was first Ukraine is not Russia, and essentially Ukraine is part of Europe, but there’s other moments. What were the defining moments that began an actual war in the [inaudible 01:28:11]?
So, there’s a division, a push and pull inside Ukraine on identity, on whether they’re part of Russia or part of Europe. And you highlighted two moments in Ukrainian history that there’s a big flare up where the statement was first Ukraine is not Russia, and essentially Ukraine is part of Europe, but there’s other moments. What were the defining moments that began an actual war in the [inaudible 01:28:11]?
Serhii Plokhy
The war started in February of 2014, was the Russian takeover of Crimea by military force. The so-called Green Man. And the big question is why, and it’s very important to go back to the year 2013 and the start of the protests and the story of the Ukraine signing association agreement with European Union. So, from what we understand today, the Ukrainian government under President Yanukovych, did this suicidal sharp turn after one year of promising association agreement saying that, “Okay, we changed our mind under pressure from Moscow.” And Moscow applied that pressure for one reason, at least in my opinion.
The war started in February of 2014, was the Russian takeover of Crimea by military force. The so-called Green Man. And the big question is why, and it’s very important to go back to the year 2013 and the start of the protests and the story of the Ukraine signing association agreement with European Union. So, from what we understand today, the Ukrainian government under President Yanukovych, did this suicidal sharp turn after one year of promising association agreement saying that, “Okay, we changed our mind under pressure from Moscow.” And Moscow applied that pressure for one reason, at least in my opinion.
The Ukraine signing association agreement with European Union would mean that Ukraine would not be able to sign association agreement with any Eurasian union in any shape or form, that was at that time in the process of making. And for Vladimir Putin, that was the beginning of his, or part of his third term, one of his agenda items for the third term was really consolidation of the post-Soviet space and Eurasian space and not membership in NATO, not membership in European Union. But association agreement with European Union meant that that post-Soviet space would have to exist under Moscow’s control, but without Ukraine, the second-largest post-Soviet republic. The republic on whose vote depended the continuing existence of the Soviet Union and whose vote ended in many ways the existence of the Soviet Union.
So, that is broadly background, but also there are of course personalities. There are also their beliefs, their readings of history, and all of that became part of the story. But if you look at that geopolitically, the association agreement is put in Ukraine outside of the Russian sphere of influence. And the response was an attempt to topple the government in Kyiv that clearly was going to sign that agreement, to take over Crimea and to help to deal with a lot of issues within Russia itself and boost the popularity of the president.
And it certainly, certainly worked in that way as well. Once Ukraine, still after Crimea, continued on its path, then the next step started the so-called hybrid warfare in Donbas. But again, unlike Crimea, from what I understand, Russia was not really looking forward to taking possession of Donbas. Donbas was viewed as the way how to influence Ukraine to stop it from a drift toward the West.
Lex Fridman
Maybe you can tell me about the region of Donbas.
Maybe you can tell me about the region of Donbas.
Serhii Plokhy
I mentioned that nationalism and principle of nationalism is the principle of making the political borders to coincide with ethnic and cultural borders. And that’s how the maps of many East European countries had been drawn in the 19th and 20th century. On that principle, Donbas, where the majority constituted by the beginning of the 20th century were Ukrainians, was considered to be Ukrainian and was claimed in the middle of this revolution and revolutionary wars and civil wars by Ukrainian government.
I mentioned that nationalism and principle of nationalism is the principle of making the political borders to coincide with ethnic and cultural borders. And that’s how the maps of many East European countries had been drawn in the 19th and 20th century. On that principle, Donbas, where the majority constituted by the beginning of the 20th century were Ukrainians, was considered to be Ukrainian and was claimed in the middle of this revolution and revolutionary wars and civil wars by Ukrainian government.
But Donbas became a site, one of the key sites in the Russian Empire of early industrialization, with its mining industry, with mythological industry. So, what that meant was that people from other parts of, not Ukraine, but other parts of the Russian Empire, congregated there. That’s where jobs were. That’s how Khrushchev and his family came to Donbas. The family of Brezhnev overshoot a little bit. They got to the industrial enterprises in the city of [inaudible 01:33:13] the place, the city that was called [inaudible 01:33:16].
So, those were Russian peasants moving into the area in looking for their job. The population became quite mixed. Ukrainians still constituted the majority of the population, but not necessarily in the towns and in the cities. And culturally, the place was becoming more and more Russian as the result of that moment. Apart from the Crimea, Donbas was the part of Ukraine where the ethnic Russians were the biggest group. They were not the majority, but they were very, very big and significant group. For example, in the city of Mariupol, that was all but destroyed in the course of the last two years, the ethnic Russians constituted over 40% of the population, right? So, that’s not exactly part of Donbas, but that gives you general idea.
Now, the story of Donbas and what happened now is multidimensional, and this ethnic composition is just one part of the story. Another very important part of the story is economy, and Donbas is a classical rust belt. And we know what happens with the cities that were part of the first or second wave of industrialization in the United States and globally, we know about social problems that exist in those places. So, Donbas is probably the most dramatic and tragic case of implosion of the rust belt. With the mines not anymore producing the sort of the… And at the acceptable price. The coal that they used to produce, is people losing jobs with the politicians looking for subsidies as opposed to trying very unpopular, unpopular measures of doing something and bring your money and your investment into the region. All of that become part of the story that made it easy for Russia, for the Russian Federation, to destabilize the situation. We have interviews with Mr. Girkin who is saying that he was the first who pulled the trigger and fired the shot in that war. He became the Minister of Defense in the Donetsk people’s republic. You look at the Prime Minister, he is another person with Moscow residency permit. So, you see key figures in those positions at the start and the beginning, not being Russians from Ukraine, but being Russians from Russia and Russians from Moscow closely connected to the government structure and intelligence structure and so on. So, that is the start in the beginning, but the way how it exploded, the way it did was also a combination of the economic and ethno-cultural and linguistic factors.
Lex Fridman
For Putin, the war on Donbas and even in 2022 is a defensive war against what the Ukrainian government is doing against ethnically Russian people in Donbas. Is that fair to say how he describes it?
For Putin, the war on Donbas and even in 2022 is a defensive war against what the Ukrainian government is doing against ethnically Russian people in Donbas. Is that fair to say how he describes it?
Serhii Plokhy
What we see, this is certainly the argument. This is certainly the argument and pretext because what we see there is that there would be no, and there was no independent mobilization in Crimea either, in Crimea or in Donbas, without Russian presence. Without Russian occupation de facto of the Crimea, there would be no… And there was no before, at least in the previous five to six years, any mass mobilizations of Russians. There was none of such mobilizations in Donbas before Girkin and other people with parts of military units showed up there. So, it is an excuse. You’ve been to Ukraine.
What we see, this is certainly the argument. This is certainly the argument and pretext because what we see there is that there would be no, and there was no independent mobilization in Crimea either, in Crimea or in Donbas, without Russian presence. Without Russian occupation de facto of the Crimea, there would be no… And there was no before, at least in the previous five to six years, any mass mobilizations of Russians. There was none of such mobilizations in Donbas before Girkin and other people with parts of military units showed up there. So, it is an excuse. You’ve been to Ukraine.
Lex Fridman
Mm-hmm.
Mm-hmm.
Serhii Plokhy
You know that Russian language is not persecuted in Ukraine. And if you’ve not been to Donbas or to the Crimea, it would be difficult to find one single Ukrainian school. Not that they didn’t exist at all, but it would take quite an effort for you to find it, or sometimes even to hear Ukrainian language outside of the institutions or the farmer’s market. That’s the reality. That’s the reality that is clear, that is visible. So, imagine under those conditions and context that someone is persecuting ethnic Russians or Russian speakers. One, to believe in something like that, one important precondition is never to step your foot in Ukraine.
You know that Russian language is not persecuted in Ukraine. And if you’ve not been to Donbas or to the Crimea, it would be difficult to find one single Ukrainian school. Not that they didn’t exist at all, but it would take quite an effort for you to find it, or sometimes even to hear Ukrainian language outside of the institutions or the farmer’s market. That’s the reality. That’s the reality that is clear, that is visible. So, imagine under those conditions and context that someone is persecuting ethnic Russians or Russian speakers. One, to believe in something like that, one important precondition is never to step your foot in Ukraine.
Lex Fridman
I should mention, maybe this is a good moment to mention, when I traveled to Ukraine, this is after the start of the war, you mentioned farmer’s market, which is funny. Basically every single person I talked to, including the leadership, we spoke in Russian. For many of them, Russian is the more comfortable language even.
I should mention, maybe this is a good moment to mention, when I traveled to Ukraine, this is after the start of the war, you mentioned farmer’s market, which is funny. Basically every single person I talked to, including the leadership, we spoke in Russian. For many of them, Russian is the more comfortable language even.
And the people who spoke Ukrainian are more on the western side of Ukraine and young people that are kind of wanting to show that in an activist way that they want to fight for the independence of their country. So, I take your point. I wonder if you want to comment about language and maybe about the future of language in Ukraine. Is the future of language going to stabilize on Ukrainian or is it going to return to its traditional base of Russian language?
Serhii Plokhy
Very roughly, before the start of the war in 2014, we can talk about parity between Russian and Ukrainian and also with, as you said, clearly Ukraine being a dominant language in the West and Russian being a dominant language on the streets, certainly in the East of the country. And then in between of that to pause a number of these transitional areas. And Ukraine, in my experience, and I visited a lot of countries, not all of them, and probably maybe I will be still surprised, but in my experience, this is the only truly bilingual country that I ever visited. I lived in Canada for a long period of time. There is Quebec and the rest.
Very roughly, before the start of the war in 2014, we can talk about parity between Russian and Ukrainian and also with, as you said, clearly Ukraine being a dominant language in the West and Russian being a dominant language on the streets, certainly in the East of the country. And then in between of that to pause a number of these transitional areas. And Ukraine, in my experience, and I visited a lot of countries, not all of them, and probably maybe I will be still surprised, but in my experience, this is the only truly bilingual country that I ever visited. I lived in Canada for a long period of time. There is Quebec and the rest.
And in Ukraine, you can talk in either Russian or Ukrainian in any part of the country and you would be understood and you would be responded in a different language with the expectation that you would understand. And if you don’t understand, that means you don’t come from Ukraine. That’s the reality. The war and loss of the Crimea and partial loss of Donbas, its major industrial areas, really shifted the balance toward mostly Ukrainian-speaking regions. And also what you see, and you clearly pointed to that, starting with 2014, even a little bit earlier, the younger generation chooses Ukrainian as a marker of its identity. And that started in 2014, but we have a dramatic, dramatic shift after 2022. And on the-
Serhii Plokhy
… 2022. And on the anecdotal level I can tell you that I speak to people who be in Chernihiv at the time, this is east of Crimea, at the time of the Russian aggression, and bombardment and so on and so forth, who had passive knowledge of Ukrainian but spoke all their life Russian. And they would speak Ukrainian to me, and when I say, “Okay, why you doing that? We know each other for decades and you used Russian.” And he said, “Well, I don’t want to have anything in common with people who did that to us.” So there is a big, big push of course with this current war. Now the question is whether this change is something that will stay or not. What is the future? Linguistic practices are very, very conservative ones. And we at the Harvard Ukrainian Research Institute have a project called MAPA Digital Atlas of Ukraine.
… 2022. And on the anecdotal level I can tell you that I speak to people who be in Chernihiv at the time, this is east of Crimea, at the time of the Russian aggression, and bombardment and so on and so forth, who had passive knowledge of Ukrainian but spoke all their life Russian. And they would speak Ukrainian to me, and when I say, “Okay, why you doing that? We know each other for decades and you used Russian.” And he said, “Well, I don’t want to have anything in common with people who did that to us.” So there is a big, big push of course with this current war. Now the question is whether this change is something that will stay or not. What is the future? Linguistic practices are very, very conservative ones. And we at the Harvard Ukrainian Research Institute have a project called MAPA Digital Atlas of Ukraine.
And we were documenting and mapping different data in time. And what we noticed a spike in the people’s self-reporting of use of Ukrainian in 2014 and 2015 at the time of the start of the war when the threat was the most clear one. This is self-reporting, that doesn’t mean that people exactly do what they believe that that’s what they’re supposed to do, and then return back to where it was by the year 2016 and 2017. So this dynamic can repeat itself, but given how long the war is going on, how big the impact, how big the stress is, and that the wave of the future is probably associated with younger people who are switching to Ukrainian. So my bet would be on Ukrainian language rising in prominence.
Lex Fridman
So as we get closer to February of 2022, there’s a few other key moments. Maybe let’s talk about in July 2021, Putin publishing an essay titled On the Historical Unity of Russians and Ukrainians. Can you describe the ideas expressed in this essay?
So as we get closer to February of 2022, there’s a few other key moments. Maybe let’s talk about in July 2021, Putin publishing an essay titled On the Historical Unity of Russians and Ukrainians. Can you describe the ideas expressed in this essay?
Serhii Plokhy
The idea is very conveniently presented already in the first paragraph, in the first sentences really of the article, where Putin says that, “For a long time I was saying that Russians and Ukrainians were one and the same people, and here is the proof.” He develops his historical argumentation apparently with the help of a lot of people around him. And he started to talk about Russians and Ukrainians being one and the same people, one year before the start of the war in 2014. So in 2013, he was together with Patriarch Kirill on visit to Kiev. And there was a conference specifically organized for him in the Kievan Caves Monastery, and that’s where he stated that. The fact that he was with Patriarch Kirill is very important factor for understanding where the idea is coming from.
The idea is very conveniently presented already in the first paragraph, in the first sentences really of the article, where Putin says that, “For a long time I was saying that Russians and Ukrainians were one and the same people, and here is the proof.” He develops his historical argumentation apparently with the help of a lot of people around him. And he started to talk about Russians and Ukrainians being one and the same people, one year before the start of the war in 2014. So in 2013, he was together with Patriarch Kirill on visit to Kiev. And there was a conference specifically organized for him in the Kievan Caves Monastery, and that’s where he stated that. The fact that he was with Patriarch Kirill is very important factor for understanding where the idea is coming from.
This is the idea that was dominant in the Russian Empire of the 19s and the beginning of the 20th century, that Russians, Ukrainians and Belorussians are really, great Russians, little Russians, and white Russians, and that they constitute one people. Yes, there are some dialectical differences. Yes, Ukrainians sing well, yes, they dance funny, but overall that doesn’t matter.
And that idea actually was really destroyed, mostly destroyed by the revolution of 1917. Because it wasn’t just social revolution that’s how it’s understood in the US and good part of the world, it was also national revolution, it was an empire, it was a revolution in the Russian Empire. And to bring this pieces of empire back within the Soviet Union, the Bolsheviks had to make concessions. And one of those concessions was recognition of the existence of Ukrainians as a separate nation, Belorussians as a separate nations, Russians as a separate nations. Endowing them with their own territorial with borders, with institutions and so on and so forth.
But there was one institution that was not reformed, that institution was called the Russian Orthodox Church. Because one of the ways that Bolsheviks dealt with it, they couldn’t eradicate religion completely. But they arrested the development of the religion, and thinking, and theology on the level as it existed before the revolution of 1917. So the Russian Orthodox Church of 1917 continued to be the Russian Orthodox Church in 1991 and in 2013. Continuing the same imperial mantra of the existence of one big Russian nation, one unified people. And when you see the formation of the ideas about nations, about foreign policy in the Russian Empire after 1991, they’re going back to the pre-Bolshevik times.
Ukrainians do that as well. Estonians do that as well. The difference is that when Ukrainians go back, they go back to the pre-1917, they had their intellectual fathers and writings of basically liberal nationalism. Or sometimes they go to the radical nationalism of Bandera, which would be not pre-1917, but pre-1945. When the Russians go to pre-Bolshevik past, looking for the ideas, looking for inspiration, looking for the narratives, what they find there is empire, what they find there are imperial projects. And that’s certainly the story of Putin’s claim, that’s the story of the argument. And to conclude the argument that he lays out there, historical argument, comes also almost directly from the narratives of the late 19s and the beginning of the 20th century. So it’s not only the argument is coming from that era, but also the argumentation is coming from that era as well.
Lex Fridman
But those arguments are all in the flavor of empire.
But those arguments are all in the flavor of empire.
Serhii Plokhy
It’s empire on the one hand, but also there is imperial understanding of what Russian nation is, that doesn’t allow for independence of its little Russian and white Russian branches, alleged branches. So what you see is the concept of the big Russian nation that’s late 19s beginning 20th century. Empire sees the writing on the wall that nationalism is on the rise, and it tries to survive by mobilizing the nationalism of the largest group in the empire, she happens to be Russian. Stalin is a big promoter of some form of Russian nationalism, especially during the war and after war. And he started his career as a very promising Georgian writer, writing in Georgian. So he’s not doing that for some personal affinity or cultural intellectual roots within Russian nation or Russian people. He is doing that for the sake of the success of his Soviet and communist project. And he has to get the largest ethnic group on board, which are Russians. But Stalin and Putin have different understanding who Russians are. Stalin already accepted Ukrainians and Belarusians, their existence Putin goes back to pre-Stalin and pre-Lenin times.
It’s empire on the one hand, but also there is imperial understanding of what Russian nation is, that doesn’t allow for independence of its little Russian and white Russian branches, alleged branches. So what you see is the concept of the big Russian nation that’s late 19s beginning 20th century. Empire sees the writing on the wall that nationalism is on the rise, and it tries to survive by mobilizing the nationalism of the largest group in the empire, she happens to be Russian. Stalin is a big promoter of some form of Russian nationalism, especially during the war and after war. And he started his career as a very promising Georgian writer, writing in Georgian. So he’s not doing that for some personal affinity or cultural intellectual roots within Russian nation or Russian people. He is doing that for the sake of the success of his Soviet and communist project. And he has to get the largest ethnic group on board, which are Russians. But Stalin and Putin have different understanding who Russians are. Stalin already accepted Ukrainians and Belarusians, their existence Putin goes back to pre-Stalin and pre-Lenin times.
Lex Fridman
So if we step back from the historical context of this and maybe the geopolitical purpose of writing such an essay, and forget about the essay altogether. I have family in Ukraine and Russia. I know a lot of people in Ukraine and Russia. Forget the war, forget all of this, they all sound the same. If I go to France, they sound different than in Ukraine and Russia. If you lay out the cultural map of the world, there’s just a different beat, and music, and flavor to a people. What I’m trying to say is there seems to be a closeness between the cultures of Ukraine and Russia. How do we describe that? Do we acknowledge that and how does that add tension with the national independence?
So if we step back from the historical context of this and maybe the geopolitical purpose of writing such an essay, and forget about the essay altogether. I have family in Ukraine and Russia. I know a lot of people in Ukraine and Russia. Forget the war, forget all of this, they all sound the same. If I go to France, they sound different than in Ukraine and Russia. If you lay out the cultural map of the world, there’s just a different beat, and music, and flavor to a people. What I’m trying to say is there seems to be a closeness between the cultures of Ukraine and Russia. How do we describe that? Do we acknowledge that and how does that add tension with the national independence?
Serhii Plokhy
First of all, especially when it comes to Eastern Ukraine or to big cities, many people in Ukraine spoke Russian. Generally, it’s the same language. On the top of that we started our discussion with talking about the Slavs, so both Ukrainian and Russian language are Slavic languages, so there is proximity there as well.
First of all, especially when it comes to Eastern Ukraine or to big cities, many people in Ukraine spoke Russian. Generally, it’s the same language. On the top of that we started our discussion with talking about the Slavs, so both Ukrainian and Russian language are Slavic languages, so there is proximity there as well.
On the top of that, there is a history of existence in the Soviet Union, and before that in one empire for a long period of time. So you see a lot of before the war, a lot of Ukrainian singers and entertainers performing in Russia and vice versa. And biography of President Zelensky certainly fits that particular model as well, that all talks about similarities. But this similarities also very often obscure things that became so important in the course of this war. And I already mentioned the book titled by President Kuchma of Ukraine, Ukraine is Not Russia. So that’s the argument, despite the fact that you think that we are the same, we behave differently. And it turned out that they behave differently. You have Bolotnaya in Moscow and police violence, and that’s the end of it. You have the Maidan in Ukraine and you have police violence, and that’s the beginning, that’s not the end. History really matters in the way why sometimes people speaking the same language with different accents behave very differently.
Russia and Russian identity was formed around the state, and has difficulty imagining itself outside of the state, and that state happened to be imperial for most of Russian history. Ukrainian project came into existence in revolt against the state. Ukraine came into existence out of the parts of different empires, which means they left different cultural impact on them. And for Ukrainians to stay together, autocratic regime so far didn’t work. It’s like the colonies of the United States. You have to find common language, you have to talk to each other. And that became part of the Ukrainian political DNA. And that became a huge factor in the war.
And very few people in Ukraine believed what Vladimir Putin was saying that Russians and Ukrainians were one and the same people, but the majority believed that they’re certainly close culturally and historically nations. And from that point of view the bombardment of the Ukrainian cities became such a shock to the Ukrainians. Because deep down they maybe looked at Syria, they looked at Chechnya, and were explaining that through the fact that there was basically such a big cultural gap and difference between Russians and those countries and those nations. But my understanding at least, most of them had difficulty imagining the war of that proportion and that ferocity, and bring that war crimes and on that level.
Lex Fridman
It’s interesting you say that in the DNA of Ukraine versus Russia. So maybe Russia is more conducive to authoritarian regimes, and Ukraine is more conducive to defining itself by rebelling against authoritarian regimes.
It’s interesting you say that in the DNA of Ukraine versus Russia. So maybe Russia is more conducive to authoritarian regimes, and Ukraine is more conducive to defining itself by rebelling against authoritarian regimes.
Serhii Plokhy
By rebellion, absolutely, and that was the story pretty much before 1991. So what you see since 1991 and what you see today is I would say new factor, certainly in Ukrainian modern history. Because Ukrainians traditionally were very successful rebels. The largest peasant army in the Civil War in the Russian Empire was the Makhno army in Southern Ukraine. And one revolt, Cossack revolts and other revolts, one after another. But Ukrainians had historically difficulty actually maintaining the freedom that they acquired, had difficulty associating themselves with the state. And what we see, especially in the last two years, it’s a quite phenomenal development in Ukraine when Ukrainians associate themselves with the state. Where Ukrainians see a state not just as a foreigner, as historically it was in Ukrainian history.
By rebellion, absolutely, and that was the story pretty much before 1991. So what you see since 1991 and what you see today is I would say new factor, certainly in Ukrainian modern history. Because Ukrainians traditionally were very successful rebels. The largest peasant army in the Civil War in the Russian Empire was the Makhno army in Southern Ukraine. And one revolt, Cossack revolts and other revolts, one after another. But Ukrainians had historically difficulty actually maintaining the freedom that they acquired, had difficulty associating themselves with the state. And what we see, especially in the last two years, it’s a quite phenomenal development in Ukraine when Ukrainians associate themselves with the state. Where Ukrainians see a state not just as a foreigner, as historically it was in Ukrainian history.
Not just someone who came to take, but the state that is continuation of them, that helps to provide security for them. That the Ukrainian armed forces even before the start of this war had the highest support and popularity in Ukraine. The state today functions unbelievably effectively under attacks and missile attacks, and against city government and local government. And we are witnessing when it comes to Ukraine, we’re witnessing a very important historical development where Ukrainians found their state for the first time through most of their history, and try to make a transition from successful rebels to successful managers and state builders.
NATO and Russia
Lex Fridman
I talked to John Mearsheimer recently, there’s a lot of people that believe NATO had a big contribution to the Russian invasion of Ukraine in 2022. So what role did NATO play in this full history from Bucharest in 2008 to today?
I talked to John Mearsheimer recently, there’s a lot of people that believe NATO had a big contribution to the Russian invasion of Ukraine in 2022. So what role did NATO play in this full history from Bucharest in 2008 to today?
Serhii Plokhy
NATO was a big part certainly of the Russian justification for the war, that was the theme that was up there in the months leading to the aggression. The truth is that, and Vladimir Putin went on records saying that, that the Western leaders were telling him again and again that there is no chance for Ukraine to become member of NATO anytime soon. Russia was very effective back in the year two ’08 in stopping Ukraine and Georgia on the path of joining NATO. There was a Bucharest Summit at which the US president at that time, George W. Bush was pushing for the membership. And Putin convinced leaders of France and Germany to block that membership. And after that membership for Ukraine and for Georgia was really removed from the realistic agenda for NATO. And that’s what the leaders of the western world in the month leading into the February 2022 aggression were trying to convey to Vladimir Putin.
NATO was a big part certainly of the Russian justification for the war, that was the theme that was up there in the months leading to the aggression. The truth is that, and Vladimir Putin went on records saying that, that the Western leaders were telling him again and again that there is no chance for Ukraine to become member of NATO anytime soon. Russia was very effective back in the year two ’08 in stopping Ukraine and Georgia on the path of joining NATO. There was a Bucharest Summit at which the US president at that time, George W. Bush was pushing for the membership. And Putin convinced leaders of France and Germany to block that membership. And after that membership for Ukraine and for Georgia was really removed from the realistic agenda for NATO. And that’s what the leaders of the western world in the month leading into the February 2022 aggression were trying to convey to Vladimir Putin.
What he wanted there was an ultimatum that really was there not to start negotiations, but really to stop negotiations. He demanded the withdrawal of NATO to the borders of the 1997, if I’m not mistaken. So completely something that neither leaders would accept, nor the country’s members of NATO would accept. But for me, it’s very clear that that was an excuse, that that was a justification.
And what happened later in the year 2022 and 2023 certainly confirms me in that belief. Finland joined NATO and Sweden is on the way to joining NATO. So Finland joining NATO, increased border between Russia and NATO, twofold, and probably more than that. So if NATO is the real concern, it would be probably not completely unreasonable to expect that if not every single soldier, but at least half of the Russian army fighting in Ukraine would be moved to protect the new border with NATO in Finland.
So I have no doubt that no one in Kremlin either in the past or today looks favorably or is excited about NATO moving, or the countries of Eastern Europe journey NATO. But I have very difficult time imagining that that was the primary cause of the war. And what we see also we talked about Tucker’s interview, he was surprised, but he believed that Putin was completely honest when the first 25 minutes of interview he was talking about relations between Russia and Ukraine, was talking about history. And that was also the main focus of his essay. Essay was not on NATO and Russia, his essay was on Russia and Ukraine. So that is where the real causes are. The broader context is the fall of empire and process of disintegration of empire, not the story of NATO.
Lex Fridman
What was to clarify the reason Putin, Russia invaded Ukraine in 2022?
What was to clarify the reason Putin, Russia invaded Ukraine in 2022?
Serhii Plokhy
The immediate goal in 2014 when the war started was to stop the drift of Ukraine toward the west and outside of the Russian sphere of influence. The invasion of 2022 perceived the same goals, keeping Ukraine in the Russian sphere of influence. Once we have the resistance, quite effective resistance on the part of Ukraine, the Rammstein and coalition, international coalition in support of Ukraine. Then we see the realization of plan B, where parts of Ukrainian territory are being annexed and included in the Constitution of the Russian Federation. So the two scenarios don’t exclude each other, but if scenario number one doesn’t work, then scenario number two goes into play.
The immediate goal in 2014 when the war started was to stop the drift of Ukraine toward the west and outside of the Russian sphere of influence. The invasion of 2022 perceived the same goals, keeping Ukraine in the Russian sphere of influence. Once we have the resistance, quite effective resistance on the part of Ukraine, the Rammstein and coalition, international coalition in support of Ukraine. Then we see the realization of plan B, where parts of Ukrainian territory are being annexed and included in the Constitution of the Russian Federation. So the two scenarios don’t exclude each other, but if scenario number one doesn’t work, then scenario number two goes into play.
Lex Fridman
In the Gates of Kiev chapter, you write about Volodymyr Zelensky in the early days of the war. What are most important moments to you about this time? The first hours and days of the invasion.
In the Gates of Kiev chapter, you write about Volodymyr Zelensky in the early days of the war. What are most important moments to you about this time? The first hours and days of the invasion.
Serhii Plokhy
The first hours and the first days were the most difficult, psychologically. The rest of the world really didn’t expect Kiev to last for more than few days. Didn’t expect Ukraine to last for more than few weeks. And all the data suggested that that’s what would happen. Ukraine would collapse, would be taken over. Putin called his war a special military operation, which suggests your also expectations about the scope, expectations about the time. So semi-military, semi police operation. So every reasonable person in the world believed that that would happen. And it’s the heroism of “unreasonable” people like Zelensky, like the commander of Ukrainian Armed forces, Zoluzhny, like mayors of the cities, Klitschko and others. I’m just naming names that are familiar to almost all of us now. But there are thousands of those people, unreasonable people who decided that it was unreasonable to attack their country.
The first hours and the first days were the most difficult, psychologically. The rest of the world really didn’t expect Kiev to last for more than few days. Didn’t expect Ukraine to last for more than few weeks. And all the data suggested that that’s what would happen. Ukraine would collapse, would be taken over. Putin called his war a special military operation, which suggests your also expectations about the scope, expectations about the time. So semi-military, semi police operation. So every reasonable person in the world believed that that would happen. And it’s the heroism of “unreasonable” people like Zelensky, like the commander of Ukrainian Armed forces, Zoluzhny, like mayors of the cities, Klitschko and others. I’m just naming names that are familiar to almost all of us now. But there are thousands of those people, unreasonable people who decided that it was unreasonable to attack their country.
And that was the most difficult times and days. And speaking about Zelensky, every I understand reasonable leader in the West was trying to convince him to leave Ukraine and to set a government in exile in Poland or in London. And it was reasonable to accept one of his predecessors Mr. Yanukovych fled Kiev. A few months before that in Afghanistan, the president of Afghanistan fled Afghanistan. That was a reasonable thing to expect, and he turned out to be very, very unreasonable in that sense. That comes with the guts, his guts and guts people around him and Ukrainians in general.
Lex Fridman
Why do you think he stayed in Kiev, this former comedian who played a president on TV, when Kiev is being invaded by the second most powerful military in the world?
Why do you think he stayed in Kiev, this former comedian who played a president on TV, when Kiev is being invaded by the second most powerful military in the world?
Serhii Plokhy
Because I think he believes in things. One of those things was that if he a president and he is in the presidential office, he is there to play his role to the end. And another thing, my personal, again, I never met Volodymyr Zelensky. My personal understanding of him is that he has talent that helped him in his career before the presidency and then helps now. He feels the audience, and then channels the attitude of the audience and amplifies it. And I think that another reason why he didn’t leave Kiev was that he felt the audience, the audience in that particular context for the Ukrainians.
Because I think he believes in things. One of those things was that if he a president and he is in the presidential office, he is there to play his role to the end. And another thing, my personal, again, I never met Volodymyr Zelensky. My personal understanding of him is that he has talent that helped him in his career before the presidency and then helps now. He feels the audience, and then channels the attitude of the audience and amplifies it. And I think that another reason why he didn’t leave Kiev was that he felt the audience, the audience in that particular context for the Ukrainians.
Lex Fridman
So he had a sense that the Ukrainians would unify. Because he was quite if you look at the polls before the war, quite unpopular. And there was still divisions and factions, and the government is divided, there’s the East and the West and all this stuff. You think he had a sense that this could unite people.
So he had a sense that the Ukrainians would unify. Because he was quite if you look at the polls before the war, quite unpopular. And there was still divisions and factions, and the government is divided, there’s the East and the West and all this stuff. You think he had a sense that this could unite people.
Serhii Plokhy
The East and the West was not already such an issue after Crimea and part of Donbas being gone. So Ukraine was much more united than it was before. He brought to power his before that really non-existent party of regions on his personal popularity. But the important thing is that he created a majority in the parliament, which really reflected the unity that existed among Ukrainians that was not there before. He won with 73% of the population of those who took part in the elections, his predecessor Petro Poroshenko also carried 90% of the precincts. And the same happened with Zelensky. So the country unified after 2014, to a degree it was impossible to imagine before. And Zelensky felt that Zelensky knew that, and that’s where the talent of politician really matters. That’s something that you can see beyond just data, and you can feel that apparently Yeltsin had that ability.
The East and the West was not already such an issue after Crimea and part of Donbas being gone. So Ukraine was much more united than it was before. He brought to power his before that really non-existent party of regions on his personal popularity. But the important thing is that he created a majority in the parliament, which really reflected the unity that existed among Ukrainians that was not there before. He won with 73% of the population of those who took part in the elections, his predecessor Petro Poroshenko also carried 90% of the precincts. And the same happened with Zelensky. So the country unified after 2014, to a degree it was impossible to imagine before. And Zelensky felt that Zelensky knew that, and that’s where the talent of politician really matters. That’s something that you can see beyond just data, and you can feel that apparently Yeltsin had that ability.
Peace talks
Lex Fridman
Why did the peace talks fail? There was a lot of peace talks.
Why did the peace talks fail? There was a lot of peace talks.
Serhii Plokhy
The main reason is that the conditions that Russia was trying to impose on Ukraine were basically unacceptable for Ukraine. Because one of the conditions apart from this strange thing called Denazification, was of course de facto loss of the territory. And for the future, really staying outside either of NATO or any Western support, which was very clear. You can buy a couple of weeks, you can buy a couple of months, but in the conditions like that Russia will come back tomorrow and will take over everything.
The main reason is that the conditions that Russia was trying to impose on Ukraine were basically unacceptable for Ukraine. Because one of the conditions apart from this strange thing called Denazification, was of course de facto loss of the territory. And for the future, really staying outside either of NATO or any Western support, which was very clear. You can buy a couple of weeks, you can buy a couple of months, but in the conditions like that Russia will come back tomorrow and will take over everything.
And once Ukrainians realize that they can win on the battlefield, once the Russians were defeated and withdrew from Kiev, the opportunity emerged to get out of the negotiations, which was very clear were leading, if not today then tomorrow to the complete destruction of Ukraine. And then of course, once the territory started to be liberated, things like butcher and massacres of the civilian population came to the fore, which made also very difficult, if not impossible to conduct negotiations from this moral and emotional point of view.
Lex Fridman
What about the claims that Boris Johnson, the West compromised the ability of these peace talks to be successful, basically manipulated the talks?
What about the claims that Boris Johnson, the West compromised the ability of these peace talks to be successful, basically manipulated the talks?
Serhii Plokhy
I asked people who accompanied Boris Johnson to Kiev that question, the answer was no. And I believe this answer, and I’ll tell you why. Because it is very difficult for me to imagine President Zelensky to take orders from anybody in the world. Either whether it is Johnson or Joe Biden or anybody else, and basically doing things that Zelensky believes are not in his interest or in the interest of his country. I just can’t imagine that anybody in the world telling Zelensky what to do, and Zelensky actually following it against his own wishes and desires. At least if that is possible, what is in the public’s sphere doesn’t allow us to suggest that it is.
I asked people who accompanied Boris Johnson to Kiev that question, the answer was no. And I believe this answer, and I’ll tell you why. Because it is very difficult for me to imagine President Zelensky to take orders from anybody in the world. Either whether it is Johnson or Joe Biden or anybody else, and basically doing things that Zelensky believes are not in his interest or in the interest of his country. I just can’t imagine that anybody in the world telling Zelensky what to do, and Zelensky actually following it against his own wishes and desires. At least if that is possible, what is in the public’s sphere doesn’t allow us to suggest that it is.
Lex Fridman
That said, Zelensky is a smart man and he knows that the war can only continue with the West’s support.
That said, Zelensky is a smart man and he knows that the war can only continue with the West’s support.
Serhii Plokhy
That is a different supposition to know that it can continue with the West’s support. But if talking about withdrawing from the negotiations, that’s not about the continuation of the war, that you don’t need Western support.
That is a different supposition to know that it can continue with the West’s support. But if talking about withdrawing from the negotiations, that’s not about the continuation of the war, that you don’t need Western support.
Lex Fridman
Well, what I mean is if he started to sense that the West will support no matter what, then maybe the space of decisions you’re making is different.
Well, what I mean is if he started to sense that the West will support no matter what, then maybe the space of decisions you’re making is different.
Serhii Plokhy
We can interpret that that way. But Boris Johnson represented at that point Britain, not the United States. And really what the war showed, and it was clear already at that time that what was needed was massive support from the West as a whole. And the promise of that support came only after the West realized that Ukraine can win, and came only in late April is the Rammstein, so at least a few weeks later. So I don’t know how much Boris Johnson could promise, he probably could promise to try to help and try to convince and try to work on that. If Zelensky acted on that promise he certainly was taking a risk. But the key issue, again, I’m going back where I started, it’s principle unacceptance for Ukraine the conditions that were offered. And Ukraine was the moment they saw the possibility that they could fight back with Johnson’s support, without Johnson’s support they took the chance.
We can interpret that that way. But Boris Johnson represented at that point Britain, not the United States. And really what the war showed, and it was clear already at that time that what was needed was massive support from the West as a whole. And the promise of that support came only after the West realized that Ukraine can win, and came only in late April is the Rammstein, so at least a few weeks later. So I don’t know how much Boris Johnson could promise, he probably could promise to try to help and try to convince and try to work on that. If Zelensky acted on that promise he certainly was taking a risk. But the key issue, again, I’m going back where I started, it’s principle unacceptance for Ukraine the conditions that were offered. And Ukraine was the moment they saw the possibility that they could fight back with Johnson’s support, without Johnson’s support they took the chance.
Lex Fridman
So what are the ways this war can end, do you think? What are the different possible trajectories, whether it’s peace talks? What does winning look like for you this side? What is the role of US? What trajectories do you see that are possible?
So what are the ways this war can end, do you think? What are the different possible trajectories, whether it’s peace talks? What does winning look like for you this side? What is the role of US? What trajectories do you see that are possible?
Serhii Plokhy
It’s a question on the one level very easy to answer, on the other very difficult. The level on which it is very easy, it’s a broad historical perspective. If you really believe, and I believe in that, that this is the war of the Soviet succession, that this is the war of the disintegration of empire. We know how the story ends, and they end with disintegration of empire. They end with the rise of the new states and appearance of the new colored spots on the map. That’s the story that started with the American Revolution, so that’s long-term perspective. The difficult part is of course what will happen tomorrow. The difficult part is what they will be in two days or even in two years. In very broad terms, the war can end in one of three scenarios.
It’s a question on the one level very easy to answer, on the other very difficult. The level on which it is very easy, it’s a broad historical perspective. If you really believe, and I believe in that, that this is the war of the Soviet succession, that this is the war of the disintegration of empire. We know how the story ends, and they end with disintegration of empire. They end with the rise of the new states and appearance of the new colored spots on the map. That’s the story that started with the American Revolution, so that’s long-term perspective. The difficult part is of course what will happen tomorrow. The difficult part is what they will be in two days or even in two years. In very broad terms, the war can end in one of three scenarios.
The victory of one side, the victory of another side, and a sort of stalemate and compromise, especially when it comes to the territories. This war is already approaching the end of the second year. I follow the news and look analysis. I don’t remember one single piece suggesting that the next year will bring peace or will bring-
Serhii Plokhy
Suggesting that the next year will bring peace for sure, and we are in a situation where both sides still believe that they can achieve something or improve their position on the battlefield. Certainly that was the expectations of Ukrainian side back in the summer and early fall of 2023, and from what I understand now, this is certainly the expectations of the Russian side today. This is the largest war in Europe since World War II, the largest war in the world since Korean War. And we know that the Korean war ended in this division of Korea, but the negotiations were going on for more than two years. While those negotiations were going on, both sides were trying to improve their position there. And until there was a political change, death of Stalin, rival of Eisenhower in the United States, and the realization that the chances of succeeding on the battlefield are huge, the peace talks didn’t come. So at this point, all three scenarios are possible. I don’t really discount any of them. It’s early to say what will happen.
Suggesting that the next year will bring peace for sure, and we are in a situation where both sides still believe that they can achieve something or improve their position on the battlefield. Certainly that was the expectations of Ukrainian side back in the summer and early fall of 2023, and from what I understand now, this is certainly the expectations of the Russian side today. This is the largest war in Europe since World War II, the largest war in the world since Korean War. And we know that the Korean war ended in this division of Korea, but the negotiations were going on for more than two years. While those negotiations were going on, both sides were trying to improve their position there. And until there was a political change, death of Stalin, rival of Eisenhower in the United States, and the realization that the chances of succeeding on the battlefield are huge, the peace talks didn’t come. So at this point, all three scenarios are possible. I don’t really discount any of them. It’s early to say what will happen.
Lex Fridman
So without any political change, let’s try to imagine what are the possibilities that the war ends this year? Is it possible that it can end with compromise basically at the place it started?
So without any political change, let’s try to imagine what are the possibilities that the war ends this year? Is it possible that it can end with compromise basically at the place it started?
Serhii Plokhy
Meaning back to the borders of 2022.
Meaning back to the borders of 2022.
Lex Fridman
Yeah. Back to the borders of ’22, with some security guarantees that aren’t really guarantees, but are hopeful guarantees.
Yeah. Back to the borders of ’22, with some security guarantees that aren’t really guarantees, but are hopeful guarantees.
Serhii Plokhy
No, it’s not just virtual impossibility, it is impossible without political change in Moscow. The reason is that back in the fall of 2022, Vladimir Putin included five of Ukrainian regions, oblasts, even those that he didn’t control or didn’t control fully into the Russian constitution, which basically in simple language is that the hands are tied up not only for Putin himself, but also for his possible successors. So that means that no return to the borders of 2022 without political change in Moscow are possible. A few days after that decision in Moscow, Zelensky issued a decree saying that no negotiations with Russia. What that really meant in plain language is that basically, we’re not prepared to negotiate a stable agreement with five oblasts, not just the next, but also included into the Russian constitution. So that’s where we are, so that scenario, again, everything is possible of course, but it’s highly, highly unlikely.
No, it’s not just virtual impossibility, it is impossible without political change in Moscow. The reason is that back in the fall of 2022, Vladimir Putin included five of Ukrainian regions, oblasts, even those that he didn’t control or didn’t control fully into the Russian constitution, which basically in simple language is that the hands are tied up not only for Putin himself, but also for his possible successors. So that means that no return to the borders of 2022 without political change in Moscow are possible. A few days after that decision in Moscow, Zelensky issued a decree saying that no negotiations with Russia. What that really meant in plain language is that basically, we’re not prepared to negotiate a stable agreement with five oblasts, not just the next, but also included into the Russian constitution. So that’s where we are, so that scenario, again, everything is possible of course, but it’s highly, highly unlikely.
Lex Fridman
So the Russian constitution is a thing that makes this all very difficult.
So the Russian constitution is a thing that makes this all very difficult.
Serhii Plokhy
Yes, and not only as a negotiation tactic for Putin or whoever would negotiate on the Russian side, but also as a legal issue.
Yes, and not only as a negotiation tactic for Putin or whoever would negotiate on the Russian side, but also as a legal issue.
Lex Fridman
So the practical aspect of it even is difficult.
So the practical aspect of it even is difficult.
Serhii Plokhy
Yes. You really have to change the Constitution before the peace agreement takes hold or immediately after that. And with the Minsk agreements, that was one of things that Russia wanted from Ukraine, change of the Constitution, and it turned out to be rarely impossible. So that’s one of the backstories of the Minsk and collapse of the Minsk agreements.
Yes. You really have to change the Constitution before the peace agreement takes hold or immediately after that. And with the Minsk agreements, that was one of things that Russia wanted from Ukraine, change of the Constitution, and it turned out to be rarely impossible. So that’s one of the backstories of the Minsk and collapse of the Minsk agreements.
Lex Fridman
Is there something like Minsk agreements that are possible now, maybe this is a legal question, but to override the Constitution to sort of shake everything up? So see the constitutional amendment as just a negotiation tactic to come to the table to something like Minsk agreement?
Is there something like Minsk agreements that are possible now, maybe this is a legal question, but to override the Constitution to sort of shake everything up? So see the constitutional amendment as just a negotiation tactic to come to the table to something like Minsk agreement?
Serhii Plokhy
Given how fast those amendments to the Constitution were adopted, that suggests that really, executive power in Russia has enormous power over the legislative branch. So it’s again difficult to imagine, but technically this is possible, again, but possible if there is a political change in Moscow.
Given how fast those amendments to the Constitution were adopted, that suggests that really, executive power in Russia has enormous power over the legislative branch. So it’s again difficult to imagine, but technically this is possible, again, but possible if there is a political change in Moscow.
Lex Fridman
I don’t understand why assuming political change in Moscow is not possible this year, so I’m trying to see if there’s a way to end this war this year. Right?
I don’t understand why assuming political change in Moscow is not possible this year, so I’m trying to see if there’s a way to end this war this year. Right?
Serhii Plokhy
There is a possibility of armistice, right? But armistice more like any armistice, along the lines of the current front lines. But withdrawal of the Russian troops to the borders of 2022 at this point, whether it’s reasonable or unreasonable, can be achieved all only as the result of the defeat of the Russian army like it happened near Kiev. Is it possible? Possible. Is it likely, especially given what is happening with the Western support, military support for Ukraine? Probably not.
There is a possibility of armistice, right? But armistice more like any armistice, along the lines of the current front lines. But withdrawal of the Russian troops to the borders of 2022 at this point, whether it’s reasonable or unreasonable, can be achieved all only as the result of the defeat of the Russian army like it happened near Kiev. Is it possible? Possible. Is it likely, especially given what is happening with the Western support, military support for Ukraine? Probably not.
Lex Fridman
But if Putin, the executive branch has a lot of power, why can’t the United States president, the Russian president, the Ukrainian president come to the table and drop something like Minsk agreements, and then rapid constitutional changes made and you go back to the borders of before 2022? Through agreements, through compromise, impossible for you?
But if Putin, the executive branch has a lot of power, why can’t the United States president, the Russian president, the Ukrainian president come to the table and drop something like Minsk agreements, and then rapid constitutional changes made and you go back to the borders of before 2022? Through agreements, through compromise, impossible for you?
Serhii Plokhy
Certainly not this year. I look at this year as the time when at least one side, Russian side, will try to get as much as it can through military means.
Certainly not this year. I look at this year as the time when at least one side, Russian side, will try to get as much as it can through military means.
Lex Fridman
But that’s been happening last year too. There’s been a counteroffensive, there’s attempts.
But that’s been happening last year too. There’s been a counteroffensive, there’s attempts.
Serhii Plokhy
It doesn’t mean that new year somehow is supposed to bring new tactics. The last year was pretty much a lot of fighting, a lot of suffering, very little movement of the front line. The biggest change of the last year was Ukraine victory on the Black Sea, where they pushed the Russian Navy into the western part of the pond and restored the grain corridor and export from Odessa, apparently up to 75% of what it used to be before the war. So that’s the only major change but again, the price is enormous in terms of wealth, especially in terms of lives.
It doesn’t mean that new year somehow is supposed to bring new tactics. The last year was pretty much a lot of fighting, a lot of suffering, very little movement of the front line. The biggest change of the last year was Ukraine victory on the Black Sea, where they pushed the Russian Navy into the western part of the pond and restored the grain corridor and export from Odessa, apparently up to 75% of what it used to be before the war. So that’s the only major change but again, the price is enormous in terms of wealth, especially in terms of lives.
Ukrainian Army head Valerii Zaluzhnyi
Lex Fridman
So thinking about what 2024 brings, Zelensky just fired Ukraine’s head of the army, a man you’ve mentioned, General Valery Zaluzhny. What do you make of this development?
So thinking about what 2024 brings, Zelensky just fired Ukraine’s head of the army, a man you’ve mentioned, General Valery Zaluzhny. What do you make of this development?
Serhii Plokhy
This is a very, very dangerous moment in the war. The reason for that is that Zaluzhny is someone who is very popular with the army and we people in general. So if you look at that through American prism, that would be something analogous to President Truman firing General MacArthur, given that stakes for U.S at that time were very high, but probably not as high as they’re for Ukraine today. In both cases, what is at stake is certainly the idea that the political leadership and military leadership have to be on the same page.
This is a very, very dangerous moment in the war. The reason for that is that Zaluzhny is someone who is very popular with the army and we people in general. So if you look at that through American prism, that would be something analogous to President Truman firing General MacArthur, given that stakes for U.S at that time were very high, but probably not as high as they’re for Ukraine today. In both cases, what is at stake is certainly the idea that the political leadership and military leadership have to be on the same page.
And the question is whether on the part of Zelensky, this is just the change of the leadership or this is also the change of his approach to the war, and that can mean many things. One, can mean him taking more active part in planning operations. It can mean also possible change of the tactic in the war, given that counteroffensive didn’t work out. We don’t know yet. I don’t know whether President Zelensky at this point knows exactly what will come next, but this is the time when the change of the leadership in the country and in the army that is at war, it’s one of the most trying, most dangerous moments.
Lex Fridman
So the thing that President Zelensky expressed is that this is going to be a change of tactics, making the approach more technologically advanced, those kind of things. But as you said, I believe he is less popular than the chief of the army, Zaluzhny, 80% to 60% depending on the polls. Do you think it’s possible that Zelensky’s days are numbered as the president and that somebody like Zaluzhny comes to power?
So the thing that President Zelensky expressed is that this is going to be a change of tactics, making the approach more technologically advanced, those kind of things. But as you said, I believe he is less popular than the chief of the army, Zaluzhny, 80% to 60% depending on the polls. Do you think it’s possible that Zelensky’s days are numbered as the president and that somebody like Zaluzhny comes to power?
Serhii Plokhy
What we know is that in this war, Ukrainian people really united around their president and the armed forces were always, even before the start of the war, more popular than was the presidential office., so the change that happened in that realm was not so dramatic. And from what I can see from social media in Ukraine, there is a lot of unhappiness, a lot of questions, but there is also realization, and very strong realization, that the country has to stay united. And certainly the behavior of Zaluzhny himself is there basically not suggesting any sort of a Prigozhin type of scenario. That gives me some hope, actually a lot of hope.
What we know is that in this war, Ukrainian people really united around their president and the armed forces were always, even before the start of the war, more popular than was the presidential office., so the change that happened in that realm was not so dramatic. And from what I can see from social media in Ukraine, there is a lot of unhappiness, a lot of questions, but there is also realization, and very strong realization, that the country has to stay united. And certainly the behavior of Zaluzhny himself is there basically not suggesting any sort of a Prigozhin type of scenario. That gives me some hope, actually a lot of hope.
And in terms of whether Zelensky’s days are numbered or not, I don’t think they’re numbered, but if Ukraine stays a democracy, and I believe it’ll stay, what comes to my mind is the story of Churchill, the story of de Gaulle. In Poland, the story of Pilsudski. So once the war is over, really the electorate in the Democratic elections, they want to change the political leadership, they want to move forward. But Pilsudski came back to power, and de Gaulle came back to power, and Churchill came back to power. So no, whatever happens in the short run or medium term run, I think that Zelensky’s days in politics are not numbered.
Lex Fridman
So what to you is interesting? For example, if I get a chance to interview Zelensky, what to you is interesting about the person that would be good to ask about, to explore about, the state of his mind, his thinking, his view of the world as it stands today?
So what to you is interesting? For example, if I get a chance to interview Zelensky, what to you is interesting about the person that would be good to ask about, to explore about, the state of his mind, his thinking, his view of the world as it stands today?
Serhii Plokhy
Next month we’re supposed to take place Ukrainian elections. They’re not taking place because the majority of Ukrainians don’t think this is the right thing to do, to change the president, to have the elections, to have a political struggle in the middle of the war. So Zelensky refused to call those elections, despite the fact that he is and continues to be the most popular politician in Ukraine. So it would be to his benefit, but that’s clearly not what the Ukrainians want. But the question of continuing as the president beyond five years also one way or another would raise questions about the legitimacy, and certainly Russia will be playing this card like there is no tomorrow. What I would be interested in asking Zelensky about, whether he sees that his second term, which comes on those conditions, would suggest a different attitude toward the opposition. Maybe some form of the coalition government, like it was the case in Britain with Churchill, under different circumstances of course, or this is basically, in his opinion, something that would be destructive and something that would really be an impediment for the issue, for the question of unity and war effort. And I would ask this question not to basically suggest that that’s the way to go, but I would be very much interested to hear what is his thinking about that is.
Next month we’re supposed to take place Ukrainian elections. They’re not taking place because the majority of Ukrainians don’t think this is the right thing to do, to change the president, to have the elections, to have a political struggle in the middle of the war. So Zelensky refused to call those elections, despite the fact that he is and continues to be the most popular politician in Ukraine. So it would be to his benefit, but that’s clearly not what the Ukrainians want. But the question of continuing as the president beyond five years also one way or another would raise questions about the legitimacy, and certainly Russia will be playing this card like there is no tomorrow. What I would be interested in asking Zelensky about, whether he sees that his second term, which comes on those conditions, would suggest a different attitude toward the opposition. Maybe some form of the coalition government, like it was the case in Britain with Churchill, under different circumstances of course, or this is basically, in his opinion, something that would be destructive and something that would really be an impediment for the issue, for the question of unity and war effort. And I would ask this question not to basically suggest that that’s the way to go, but I would be very much interested to hear what is his thinking about that is.
Power and War
Lex Fridman
Do you think there’s a degree during wartime that the power that comes with being a war president can corrupt the person, sort of push you away from the democratic mindset towards an authoritarian one?
Do you think there’s a degree during wartime that the power that comes with being a war president can corrupt the person, sort of push you away from the democratic mindset towards an authoritarian one?
Serhii Plokhy
I think that there is a possibility of that, right? In the conditions of any emergency, a war, in the case of the Soviet Union, there was a Chernobyl disaster and so on and so forth, you make decisions much faster. You create this vertical and then it’s very easy to get really used to that way dealing with the conditions of emergency. And in continuing emergency or with no emergency, they’re continuing the emergency mode. I think again, that would be a very, very natural thing for any human being to do to make it easier. Should I do that easier and in more effective way, or should I do the right way? That’s the challenge. Sometimes it’s difficult to answer this question.
I think that there is a possibility of that, right? In the conditions of any emergency, a war, in the case of the Soviet Union, there was a Chernobyl disaster and so on and so forth, you make decisions much faster. You create this vertical and then it’s very easy to get really used to that way dealing with the conditions of emergency. And in continuing emergency or with no emergency, they’re continuing the emergency mode. I think again, that would be a very, very natural thing for any human being to do to make it easier. Should I do that easier and in more effective way, or should I do the right way? That’s the challenge. Sometimes it’s difficult to answer this question.
Lex Fridman
Let me stay in power for just a little longer to do it the efficient way, and then time flies away and all of a sudden you’re going for the third term and the fourth term.
Let me stay in power for just a little longer to do it the efficient way, and then time flies away and all of a sudden you’re going for the third term and the fourth term.
Serhii Plokhy
And suddenly it’s easy to realize that actually, you can’t control in any other way. Whatever skills you had or people around that can help, is that already gone?
And suddenly it’s easy to realize that actually, you can’t control in any other way. Whatever skills you had or people around that can help, is that already gone?
Lex Fridman
Exactly. The people that surround you are not providing the kind of critical feedback necessary for democratic system. One of the things that Tucker said after his interview with Putin, he was just in his hotel just chatting on video, and he said that he felt like Putin was not very good at explaining himself, like a coherent, whole narrative of why the invasion happened or just this big picture. And he said that’s not because he doesn’t have one, but it’s been a long time since he’s had somebody around him where he has to explain himself to so he’s out of practice, which is very interesting. It’s a very interesting point. And that’s what war and being in power for a prolonged period of time can do. So on that topic, if you had a chance to talk to Putin, what kind of questions would you ask him? What would you like to find out about the man as he stands today?
Exactly. The people that surround you are not providing the kind of critical feedback necessary for democratic system. One of the things that Tucker said after his interview with Putin, he was just in his hotel just chatting on video, and he said that he felt like Putin was not very good at explaining himself, like a coherent, whole narrative of why the invasion happened or just this big picture. And he said that’s not because he doesn’t have one, but it’s been a long time since he’s had somebody around him where he has to explain himself to so he’s out of practice, which is very interesting. It’s a very interesting point. And that’s what war and being in power for a prolonged period of time can do. So on that topic, if you had a chance to talk to Putin, what kind of questions would you ask him? What would you like to find out about the man as he stands today?
Serhii Plokhy
As a historian, I have a lot of questions, and I have questions about when the decision was made to attack Ukraine and what went into this decision because we’re thinking about that, we’re trying to solve. As a historian, I have this big question. I have question about the Crimea when those decisions were made. So that sort of questions that interest me, but the rest either I think that I understand what is going on with him or I don’t expect the answer that can help. For example, a good question, whether you regret or not the start of the war in ’22, given the enormous, enormous casualties on both sides. But you can’t expect from a politician an honest answer to this question. Right? So there are questions to which I know he can’t answer honestly, and then there are other questions to which I think already provided all answers that he could. So what for me is of interest are basically questions for a historian about the timing and the logic of particular decisions.
As a historian, I have a lot of questions, and I have questions about when the decision was made to attack Ukraine and what went into this decision because we’re thinking about that, we’re trying to solve. As a historian, I have this big question. I have question about the Crimea when those decisions were made. So that sort of questions that interest me, but the rest either I think that I understand what is going on with him or I don’t expect the answer that can help. For example, a good question, whether you regret or not the start of the war in ’22, given the enormous, enormous casualties on both sides. But you can’t expect from a politician an honest answer to this question. Right? So there are questions to which I know he can’t answer honestly, and then there are other questions to which I think already provided all answers that he could. So what for me is of interest are basically questions for a historian about the timing and the logic of particular decisions.
Lex Fridman
Well, I do wonder how different what he says publicly is from what he thinks privately, so a question about when the decision to invade Ukraine happens is a very good question to give insight to the difference between how he thinks about the world privately versus what he says publicly. And same about empire is if you ask Putin, he will say he has no interest in empire and he finds the notion silly, but at the same time, perhaps privately there’s a sense in which he does seek the reunification of the Russian Empire.
Well, I do wonder how different what he says publicly is from what he thinks privately, so a question about when the decision to invade Ukraine happens is a very good question to give insight to the difference between how he thinks about the world privately versus what he says publicly. And same about empire is if you ask Putin, he will say he has no interest in empire and he finds the notion silly, but at the same time, perhaps privately there’s a sense in which he does seek the reunification of the Russian Empire.
Serhii Plokhy
Not in the form of the Russian Empire, not in the form of the Soviet Union, but certainly in some form of the Russian control. For me at least, it’s quite clear, otherwise there would be no busts to the Russian emperors and Catherine and Peter and others.
Not in the form of the Russian Empire, not in the form of the Soviet Union, but certainly in some form of the Russian control. For me at least, it’s quite clear, otherwise there would be no busts to the Russian emperors and Catherine and Peter and others.
Lex Fridman
You wrote in your book titled The Frontline: Essays on Ukraine’s Past and Present about the Russian question, I guess articulated by Solzhenitsyn first in 1994. Solzhenitsyn of course is the year of The Gulag Archipelago, he’s half Ukrainian. What is the Russian question?
You wrote in your book titled The Frontline: Essays on Ukraine’s Past and Present about the Russian question, I guess articulated by Solzhenitsyn first in 1994. Solzhenitsyn of course is the year of The Gulag Archipelago, he’s half Ukrainian. What is the Russian question?
Serhii Plokhy
Solzhenitsyn clearly identifies himself as a Russian, and his opposition to the communist regime was a position of a Russianist. So his argument was that communism was bad for Russia, and for him Russian question is about the ethnic Russians, but also he was thinking about Russians in Putin’s terms, how Putin thinks. In Solzhenitsyn’s terms about Ukrainians and Belorussians constituting part of that. So the Russian question is the biggest tragedy of the 20th century, the the loss of the statehood and division of the Russians between different states. This is the Solzhenitsyn Russian question, and his original idea and plan was presented in the essay that he published in 1990, which was called How We Should Restructure Russia.
Solzhenitsyn clearly identifies himself as a Russian, and his opposition to the communist regime was a position of a Russianist. So his argument was that communism was bad for Russia, and for him Russian question is about the ethnic Russians, but also he was thinking about Russians in Putin’s terms, how Putin thinks. In Solzhenitsyn’s terms about Ukrainians and Belorussians constituting part of that. So the Russian question is the biggest tragedy of the 20th century, the the loss of the statehood and division of the Russians between different states. This is the Solzhenitsyn Russian question, and his original idea and plan was presented in the essay that he published in 1990, which was called How We Should Restructure Russia.
And restructure Russia meant getting rid of the Baltics, Central Asia Caucasus and have Russians, Ukrainians, and Belorussians, including those who live in northern Kazakhstan to create one nation state. So he was a Russian nationalist, but he was thinking about Russian nation state as the state of Russians, Ukrainians, and Belorussians. And once the Soviet Union collapsed and his idea was not implemented in the 1990s, he formulated plan B, taking over by Russia of Donbas, Crimea, and southern Ukraine, the areas that now are included in the Russian constitution. So in historical terms and intellectual terms, what is happening today in the war between Russia and Ukraine is the vision on one level or another level that was formulated by the noble laureate Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn, half Russian, half Ukrainian.
Lex Fridman
If there is such a thing, what would you say is the Ukrainian question as we stand today?
If there is such a thing, what would you say is the Ukrainian question as we stand today?
Serhii Plokhy
The Ukrainian question is very simple. Now it’s not anymore acquisition of the nation state, but actually a sovereign state. But it’s maintenance, so the Ukrainian question is like dozens of other questions in the 20th and 21st century, the rise of the new state. And that’s what is the Ukrainian question, whether Ukraine will continue to its existence as a nation, as an independent state, because that existence has been questioned by stating that Russians and Ukrainians so on are the same people, which de facto is saying your guy is Russian and also trying to destroy the state.
The Ukrainian question is very simple. Now it’s not anymore acquisition of the nation state, but actually a sovereign state. But it’s maintenance, so the Ukrainian question is like dozens of other questions in the 20th and 21st century, the rise of the new state. And that’s what is the Ukrainian question, whether Ukraine will continue to its existence as a nation, as an independent state, because that existence has been questioned by stating that Russians and Ukrainians so on are the same people, which de facto is saying your guy is Russian and also trying to destroy the state.
Lex Fridman
Is it possible that if the war in Ukraine continues for many more years, that the next leader that follows Zelensky would take Ukraine away from a democratic western style nation towards a more authoritarian one, maybe even with a far right influence, this kind of direction because of the influence of war?
Is it possible that if the war in Ukraine continues for many more years, that the next leader that follows Zelensky would take Ukraine away from a democratic western style nation towards a more authoritarian one, maybe even with a far right influence, this kind of direction because of the influence of war?
Serhii Plokhy
Everything is possible and the longer the war continues, the more likely a scenario like that becomes. But realization of that scenario would go against the grain of largest part of Ukrainian history. Where Ukraine really emerged as a pluralistic state on which the elements of democracy were built in the last 30 years would go against the grain of the Ukrainian society where, as one author formulated in the 1990s, he wrote a book, Ukrainian Nationalism: A Minority Faith, where the nationalist was a minority faith. And radical nationalism continues to be or at least continued to be in 2019 a minority faith during the last elections. So possible, but unlikely given the historical realities of the last 30+ years.
Everything is possible and the longer the war continues, the more likely a scenario like that becomes. But realization of that scenario would go against the grain of largest part of Ukrainian history. Where Ukraine really emerged as a pluralistic state on which the elements of democracy were built in the last 30 years would go against the grain of the Ukrainian society where, as one author formulated in the 1990s, he wrote a book, Ukrainian Nationalism: A Minority Faith, where the nationalist was a minority faith. And radical nationalism continues to be or at least continued to be in 2019 a minority faith during the last elections. So possible, but unlikely given the historical realities of the last 30+ years.
Holodomor
Lex Fridman
I could talk to you for many more hours on Chernobyl alone, since you’ve written a book on Chernobyl and nuclear disaster. There’s just a million possible conversations here, but let me just jump around history a little bit. Back before World War II, my grandmother lived through Holodomor and World War II, Nazi-occupied Ukraine. Holodomor, what do you learn let’s say about human nature and about governments and nations from the fact that Holodomor happened? And maybe you could say what it is and why it happened?
I could talk to you for many more hours on Chernobyl alone, since you’ve written a book on Chernobyl and nuclear disaster. There’s just a million possible conversations here, but let me just jump around history a little bit. Back before World War II, my grandmother lived through Holodomor and World War II, Nazi-occupied Ukraine. Holodomor, what do you learn let’s say about human nature and about governments and nations from the fact that Holodomor happened? And maybe you could say what it is and why it happened?
Serhii Plokhy
Holodomor is a massive famine in Ukraine between the years 1932 and 1934, and it happened as the result of forceful collectivization of the agriculture, and a tamp on the part of Stalin also really roll Ukraine into the Soviet Union with basically no potential opposition from Ukraine, now national communists. So two things came together in December of 1932 when in the same decree, Stalin and Molotov signed a decree on the acquisition of the grain, which led eventually to the mass starvation, and on the banning of Ukrainian language publications and education in other Soviet republics outside of Ukraine, and introducing limitations on the so-called Ukrainianization policies, so the use of Ukrainian language in Ukraine itself. And the numbers are debated. The numbers that most of the scholars work today are 4 million, but again, there are larger numbers as well that circulate.
Holodomor is a massive famine in Ukraine between the years 1932 and 1934, and it happened as the result of forceful collectivization of the agriculture, and a tamp on the part of Stalin also really roll Ukraine into the Soviet Union with basically no potential opposition from Ukraine, now national communists. So two things came together in December of 1932 when in the same decree, Stalin and Molotov signed a decree on the acquisition of the grain, which led eventually to the mass starvation, and on the banning of Ukrainian language publications and education in other Soviet republics outside of Ukraine, and introducing limitations on the so-called Ukrainianization policies, so the use of Ukrainian language in Ukraine itself. And the numbers are debated. The numbers that most of the scholars work today are 4 million, but again, there are larger numbers as well that circulate.
The famine of ’32-’33 was not exclusive Ukrainian phenomenon, but most of Ukraine in the Soviet Union died in Ukraine. And Ukraine was the only place where the policy on collecting grain were coming together with the policy of the cleansing of the political leadership, sending people from Moscow to recover the leadership and attack on Ukrainian culture. So in terms of what I learn about human nature, it’s more me learning about the ideologies of the 20th century because it’s not the only famine in the communist lands. The famine in China, which was in terms of the numbers, much more devastating than that. It’s in a different category and for a good reason, but you have Holocaust. What unites these things is the time. This is 20th century.
What unites them are the dominance in the societies that are doing that, really ideologies that not just devalued human life, but considered that actually the way forward is by destroying large group of populations defined ethnically, religiously, socially, or otherwise, which tells about the time, but tells also about humanity because for centuries before that human life was valued. There were enemies, but the idea was that human life can put and at the end of the day, they can be slaves. You can use them for productive force. Countries in the 18th century with southern Ukraine, they were looking for settlers, for people to bring and live on land. You move into the 20th century and there is mass destruction of the population in the name of ideologies, which basically are by definition destroy human lives.
And that’s what’s really so shocking and striking because that break with not just with issues of morale, not just with issues of humanity, with any common sense, what is happening. And I’m absolutely convinced that we didn’t learn the lesson. I’m absolutely convinced that we didn’t learn the lesson. With turning our page on fascism communism, we somehow decided that we are free of that. That at least in those terms, history came to and end. That what is ahead is the future and nothing of that sort. What happened would take place to a degree that people would get in trouble for comparing any statements or events that happening today with the communism or fascism. And so I feel responsibility of myself and as a historian in particular for not doing a better job about telling people that, “Well, we are who we are and we have as humans our dark side and we have to be very careful.”
Lex Fridman
So there is a human capacity to be captured by an idea, an ideology that claims to bring up a better world as the Nazis did, as Soviet Union did. And on the path of doing that, devaluing human life, that we will bring a better world. And if millions of people have to be tortured on the way to that, all right, but at least we have a better world and human beings are able to if not accept it, look the other way.
So there is a human capacity to be captured by an idea, an ideology that claims to bring up a better world as the Nazis did, as Soviet Union did. And on the path of doing that, devaluing human life, that we will bring a better world. And if millions of people have to be tortured on the way to that, all right, but at least we have a better world and human beings are able to if not accept it, look the other way.
Serhii Plokhy
Yes. And in the name of a particular nation or race, like it was the Third Reich or in the name of the humanity of the future. So not just devalue human life, destroy human life.
Yes. And in the name of a particular nation or race, like it was the Third Reich or in the name of the humanity of the future. So not just devalue human life, destroy human life.
Chernobyl
Lex Fridman
Is there something fundamental about communism and centralized planning that’s part of the problem here? Maybe this also connects to the story of Chernobyl, where the Chernobyl disaster is not just a story of failure of a nuclear power plant, but it’s an entire institution of the scientific and nuclear institution, but the entirety of the government.
Is there something fundamental about communism and centralized planning that’s part of the problem here? Maybe this also connects to the story of Chernobyl, where the Chernobyl disaster is not just a story of failure of a nuclear power plant, but it’s an entire institution of the scientific and nuclear institution, but the entirety of the government.
Serhii Plokhy
There is, and there is a number of factors of political and social character that produced Chernobyl. One of them is generally the atmosphere of secrecy in the Soviet Union in the conditions of the Cold War. Chernobyl reactor was a dual purpose reactor. It could boil water today and produce enriched uranium tomorrow, so it was top secret and if there were problems with that reactor, those problems were kept secret even at people who operated the reactor. That’s what happened in Chernobyl. Another big, big part of the story, which is specifically Soviet, that’s the nature of the managerial culture and administrative culture in which people had no right to make their own decisions in their place, in their position.
There is, and there is a number of factors of political and social character that produced Chernobyl. One of them is generally the atmosphere of secrecy in the Soviet Union in the conditions of the Cold War. Chernobyl reactor was a dual purpose reactor. It could boil water today and produce enriched uranium tomorrow, so it was top secret and if there were problems with that reactor, those problems were kept secret even at people who operated the reactor. That’s what happened in Chernobyl. Another big, big part of the story, which is specifically Soviet, that’s the nature of the managerial culture and administrative culture in which people had no right to make their own decisions in their place, in their position.
A few years before that, Three Mile Island happened, which was a big, big nuclear disaster, but in terms of consequences, nothing like Chernobyl. And there in the context of the American legal culture and managerial culture, people who were operators, who were in managerial positions, that was their responsibility to take decisions. President Carter came there, but he was not calling shots on none of those issues. What you see with Chernobyl, and people who saw HBO series know that very well, the moment the high official arrives, everyone actually falls in line, it’s the official who calls the shot. And to move population from the city of Pripyat, you needed the okay coming from Moscow from the very top. So that is Soviet story, and then there is a global story of cutting corners to meet either deadlines like it was with that test that they were running at that time, or to meet production quotas. This is not just socialist thing, you can-
Serhii Plokhy
… quotas, this is not just socialist thing. You can replace production quotas with profit and you get the same story. So some parts in that story are generally reflective of today’s world in general. Others are very specific, very specific for Soviet Union, for Soviet experience. And then the biggest, probably, Soviet part of that story is that on the one hand, the government in Moscow and Kiev, they mobilize all resources to deal with that, but they keep information about what is happening and the radiation clouds secret from the rest of the population, something that completely would be impossible and was impossible in the US, in UK where other accidents happened.
… quotas, this is not just socialist thing. You can replace production quotas with profit and you get the same story. So some parts in that story are generally reflective of today’s world in general. Others are very specific, very specific for Soviet Union, for Soviet experience. And then the biggest, probably, Soviet part of that story is that on the one hand, the government in Moscow and Kiev, they mobilize all resources to deal with that, but they keep information about what is happening and the radiation clouds secret from the rest of the population, something that completely would be impossible and was impossible in the US, in UK where other accidents happened.
And then guess what? A few years later, the Soviet Union collapses very much also thanks to the mobilization of people over the issue of Chernobyl and nuclear energy. People writing about that subject call it eco-nationalism, ecological nationalism, which comes at least in part from withholding information from people. And in Ukraine, mobilization didn’t start over the issues that led to independence, didn’t start over the issue of language or didn’t start over the issue of national autonomy. It started under the slogans, “Tell us the truth about Chernobyl. We want to know whether we live in contaminated areas or not.”
And that was a very, very strong factor that crossed, not just ethnic religious linguistic lines, lines between members of the party and not members of the party of the top§ leadership and not in military and civilian because it turned out that the party card didn’t protect you from being affected by radiation. So the all national mobilization happens. The first mass manifestations are about Chernobyl, not about anything else.
Lex Fridman
That’s fascinating. For people who might not know, Chernobyl is located in Ukraine. It’s a fascinating view that Chernobyl might be one of the critical threshold catalysts for the collapse of the Soviet Union. That’s very interesting. Just as a small aside, I guess this is a good moment to give some love to the HBO series. Even though it’s British accents and so on, it made me realize that some of these stories in Eastern Europe could be told very effectively through film, through series. It’s so incredibly well done. And maybe I can ask you. Historically speaking, were you impressed?
That’s fascinating. For people who might not know, Chernobyl is located in Ukraine. It’s a fascinating view that Chernobyl might be one of the critical threshold catalysts for the collapse of the Soviet Union. That’s very interesting. Just as a small aside, I guess this is a good moment to give some love to the HBO series. Even though it’s British accents and so on, it made me realize that some of these stories in Eastern Europe could be told very effectively through film, through series. It’s so incredibly well done. And maybe I can ask you. Historically speaking, were you impressed?
Serhii Plokhy
I was. I was and I think that the mini-series are very truthful on a number of levels and very untruthful on some others. And they got very well the macro and micro levels. So the macro level is the issue of the big truth and the story there is very much built around the theme that I just discussed now. It’s about the cost of lies and the Soviet Union lying to the people. And that’s what the film explores. So that, I call it a big truth about Chernobyl. And they got a lot of minor things really, really very well. Like the curtains on the windows, like how the houses looked from inside and outside. I didn’t see any post-Soviet film or any western film that would be so good at capturing those everyday details.
I was. I was and I think that the mini-series are very truthful on a number of levels and very untruthful on some others. And they got very well the macro and micro levels. So the macro level is the issue of the big truth and the story there is very much built around the theme that I just discussed now. It’s about the cost of lies and the Soviet Union lying to the people. And that’s what the film explores. So that, I call it a big truth about Chernobyl. And they got a lot of minor things really, really very well. Like the curtains on the windows, like how the houses looked from inside and outside. I didn’t see any post-Soviet film or any western film that would be so good at capturing those everyday details.
But then there is a huge gray area in between big truth and small truths of recreating the environment. And that’s how you get from one to another. And then you see the KGB officers coming and taking someone out of the meeting and arresting, which was not necessary. You see the Soviet boss threatening someone to throw the person from the helicopter. So you get these Hollywood sort of things despite the fact that it’s HBO series. And they’re the best really as a film in the fourth episode where they completely decided just to hell with the reality and let’s make a film.
So they bring Legasov, one of the key characters, to the court meetings. They bring Soviet party boss, Shcherbina, he wasn’t there. They created drama there. So they got the main thing, the big truth right, and that’s why I like this production.
Lex Fridman
Sometimes to show what something felt like you have to go bigger than it actually was. If you… I don’t know. If you experience heartbreak and you see a film about it, you want there to be explosions.
Sometimes to show what something felt like you have to go bigger than it actually was. If you… I don’t know. If you experience heartbreak and you see a film about it, you want there to be explosions.
Serhii Plokhy
You want to see this in images. Visible, right? But the question again, I just mentioned KGB marching in and some party leader giving a speech, they were not giving that speech, but the sense was there and it was in the air and I, as people of my generation who were there, knew that and recognized that. But for new generation, whether they are in Ukraine and Russia, in US, in Britain, in Zimbabwe, anywhere, you have do these little untruths and introduce them. And I had a very interesting on-air conversation with the author of the script, Mazin, and I asked him the question of the film declared really the importance of the truth, but how do you square that with the need in the film, to really put it mildly, to go beyond the measures of truth, whatever understanding of that term is?
You want to see this in images. Visible, right? But the question again, I just mentioned KGB marching in and some party leader giving a speech, they were not giving that speech, but the sense was there and it was in the air and I, as people of my generation who were there, knew that and recognized that. But for new generation, whether they are in Ukraine and Russia, in US, in Britain, in Zimbabwe, anywhere, you have do these little untruths and introduce them. And I had a very interesting on-air conversation with the author of the script, Mazin, and I asked him the question of the film declared really the importance of the truth, but how do you square that with the need in the film, to really put it mildly, to go beyond the measures of truth, whatever understanding of that term is?
Lex Fridman
Well, I suppose it is a bit terrifying that some of the most dramatic moments in history are probably quite mundane. The decisions to begin wars, invasions, they’re probably something like a Zoom meeting on a random Tuesday in today’s workplace. So it’s not like there’s dramatic music playing. These are just human decisions and they command armies and they command destruction. I personally, because of that, believe in the power of individuals to be able to stop wars, not just start wars, individual leaders.
Well, I suppose it is a bit terrifying that some of the most dramatic moments in history are probably quite mundane. The decisions to begin wars, invasions, they’re probably something like a Zoom meeting on a random Tuesday in today’s workplace. So it’s not like there’s dramatic music playing. These are just human decisions and they command armies and they command destruction. I personally, because of that, believe in the power of individuals to be able to stop wars, not just start wars, individual leaders.
Nuclear power
So let me just ask about nuclear safety because there’s an interesting point you make. You wrote in the book in Atoms and Ashes: A Global History of Nuclear Disasters, so technically nuclear energy is extremely safe. If there’s a number of people died per energy generated, it’s much safer than coal oil, for example, as far as I understand. But the case you also make is you write, quote, “Many of the political, economic, social and cultural factors that led to the accidents of the past are still with us today, making the nuclear industry vulnerable to repeating old mistakes in new and unexpected ways and any new accidents are certain to create new anti-nuclear mobilization.”
And then you continue with, “This makes the nuclear industry not only risky to operate, but also impossible to count on as a long-term solution to an overwhelming problem.” Can you explain that perspective? It’s an interesting one, speaking to the psychology when an accident does happen, it has a dramatic effect. And also speaking to the fact that accidents can happen, not because of the safety of the nuclear power plant, but of the underlying structure of government that oversees it.
Serhii Plokhy
Yes, I wrote a book on Chernobyl and then I tried to understand Chernobyl better by placing it in the context of other disasters. As a historian I was looking at the political factors and social factors and cultural factors, not the physics or engineering part of the story. And the factors that are still with us are, like it was the case in Chernobyl, the authoritarian regimes and high centralization of the decision-making and desire to cut corners and also the issues associated with secrecy.
Yes, I wrote a book on Chernobyl and then I tried to understand Chernobyl better by placing it in the context of other disasters. As a historian I was looking at the political factors and social factors and cultural factors, not the physics or engineering part of the story. And the factors that are still with us are, like it was the case in Chernobyl, the authoritarian regimes and high centralization of the decision-making and desire to cut corners and also the issues associated with secrecy.
So that is with us, if you look at where the future of the nuclear industry is now at this point, it’s the regimes and powers in the Middle East, that’s a big new frontier. The countries that are not particularly known for the history of democratic existence. Where we also have the situation that we had at Three Mile Island that we had at Chernobyl, this is the first generation nuclear engineers. So people who are, where the country doesn’t have a lot of experience and generations after generations working in that particular industry where it’s all new. That is certainly additional risk.
And what we got now with this current war is something that… Not that people completely didn’t expect, but didn’t happen in the past. You see the war come into the nuclear sites, Chernobyl was taken over by the Russian army or National Guard rather, on the first day of the invasion. Then there was Zaporizhzhia, the largest nuclear power plant in Europe where the battle was waged on the territory of the nuclear power plant. The missiles being fired, buildings catching fire, and the situation that brought the Fukushima disaster was there at Zaporizhzhia more than once, and Fukushima came because the reactors were shut down as they are at Zaporizhzhia, but they still needed electricity to bring water and to them down.
And in Fukushima case, it was the tsunami that cut off the supply of electricity. In the case of Zaporizhzhia, there was the warfare that was happening in the area around Zaporizhzhia that did the same effect. So we have 440 reactors in the world today, plus minus. None of them was designed to withstand the direct missile attack or to function in the conditions of the warfare. Operators they’re human, then they make mistakes like they did it Three Mile Island or Chernobyl. But think also if the war is happening around them, if they’re not sure what is happening with their families, if they don’t know whether next missile, whether will hit the control room or not, that multiplies also.
So we are in a situation where we are not done yet with the nuclear accidents. It’s not like we don’t pay attention or we don’t learn. Smart people work on that and after every accident, try to figure the way how not to step into the same trap. But next accident would actually expose new vulnerability. You deal with Chernobyl and then tsunami comes. You deal with tsunami and then war comes. And we really in that sense, we have sometimes wild imagination, but sometimes it’s difficult to imagine what can happen next. So we are not done. There will be nuclear accidents unfortunately in the future.
And that makes nuclear energy so problematic when you count on it to fight climate change. I’ll explain why. You gave the figures how many people die from burning coal, from how many people die from radiation. And it’s a good argument. Some people would question them because it’s also the issue of not just dying, but impact of radiation on cancer, on our health, which is not completely understood yet. So still there is a lot of question marks, but let’s assume what you’re saying, that’s the figures. That’s how it is. But we as people, for whatever reason are not afraid of coal, but we’re very much afraid of radiation. It’s invisible, it’s everywhere and you can’t see it.
And then you start having issues and then you have problems during the COVID, the governments closed the borders, maybe a good idea, maybe not so good ideas, isolation. So that was the way governments started to fight for access, to fight, to Moderna, to Sputnik, to whatever it’s, to vaccine. So now back to the radiation. What is happening once Chernobyl happens? That’s the highest point in the development of nuclear industry so far in terms of how many new reactors were commissioned or the licenses were issued.
The next reactor after Three Mile Island in the US go ahead was given, it seems to me 10 years ago or something like that, the Fukushima happens, the reaction is in China to that as well. They’re very much concerned. So there is a saying in the field, “Anywhere is Chernobyl everywhere.” After Fukushima, Germany decides to go nuclear-free and gets there at the expense of burning coal. So that’s how we react. And each major accident, that means global freeze on the nuclear reactor production for at least another 10 years. So that’s what I mean that nuclear industry is politic, not just in terms of technology and not just in terms of radiation, impact on health, but also politically a very, very unreliable option.
Lex Fridman
And to you, you suspect that’s an irreparable aspect of human nature in the human mind that there are certain things that just create a kind of panic, invisible threats of this kind. Whether it’s a virus or radiation. There’s something about the mind, if I get a stomach ache in the United States after Fukushima, I kind of think it’s probably radiation, this kind of irrational type of thinking. And that’s not possible to repair?
And to you, you suspect that’s an irreparable aspect of human nature in the human mind that there are certain things that just create a kind of panic, invisible threats of this kind. Whether it’s a virus or radiation. There’s something about the mind, if I get a stomach ache in the United States after Fukushima, I kind of think it’s probably radiation, this kind of irrational type of thinking. And that’s not possible to repair?
Serhii Plokhy
I think we can be trained. We can be trained.
I think we can be trained. We can be trained.
Lex Fridman
Pretty smart, aren’t we? Education.
Pretty smart, aren’t we? Education.
Serhii Plokhy
But generally, we are afraid of things that we see, but even more, we’re afraid of things that we don’t see and radiation is one of those.
But generally, we are afraid of things that we see, but even more, we’re afraid of things that we don’t see and radiation is one of those.
Future of the world
Lex Fridman
Let’s zoom out on the world. We talked about the war in Ukraine. How does the war in Ukraine change the world order? Let me just look at everything that’s going on. Zoom out a bit. China, the Israel-Gaza war, the Middle East, India. What is interesting to you, important to think about, in the coming years and decades?
Let’s zoom out on the world. We talked about the war in Ukraine. How does the war in Ukraine change the world order? Let me just look at everything that’s going on. Zoom out a bit. China, the Israel-Gaza war, the Middle East, India. What is interesting to you, important to think about, in the coming years and decades?
Serhii Plokhy
As a historian, and I’m trained that way, I have a feeling of deja vu. I see the Cold War is coming back in many of its features. And the war started, and we discussed that, in 2014, at least in my interpretation, with Russia trying to really reestablish its control over the post-Soviet space and Ukraine was crucial for that project. The more global Russian vision since 1990s was that they didn’t like the American monopolar world. They knew and realized that they couldn’t go back to the bipolar world of the Cold War era. So the vision was multipolar world. Again, it wasn’t just academic exercise, it was a political exercise in which Russia would be one of the poles on par with China, on par with European Union, on par with the United States. That’s very broadly speaking the context in which the war starts in 2014.
As a historian, and I’m trained that way, I have a feeling of deja vu. I see the Cold War is coming back in many of its features. And the war started, and we discussed that, in 2014, at least in my interpretation, with Russia trying to really reestablish its control over the post-Soviet space and Ukraine was crucial for that project. The more global Russian vision since 1990s was that they didn’t like the American monopolar world. They knew and realized that they couldn’t go back to the bipolar world of the Cold War era. So the vision was multipolar world. Again, it wasn’t just academic exercise, it was a political exercise in which Russia would be one of the poles on par with China, on par with European Union, on par with the United States. That’s very broadly speaking the context in which the war starts in 2014.
Where we are now? Well, we are now in Russia certainly trying to regain its military strength, but no one actually believes that Russia is the superpower it was imagined before 2022. We see certainly Russia finding the way to deal with the sanctions, but we don’t see certainly Russia as an economic power with any sort of a future. So it is not an implosion of the Russian military economic and political power, but it’s significantly… actually it’s diminished. So today, very difficult to imagine Russia emerging as another pole of the multipolar world. Not impossible, but the war certainly made that very problematic and much more difficult.
On the other hand, what the war did, it basically awakened the old West. United States and Western Europe transatlantic alliance. On the top of that, there are East European countries that are even much, even much stronger proponents of assistance for Ukraine than is Germany or the United States of America. So it is the replay of the Cold War story, the Return of the West, one of the chapters in my book, the Russo-Ukrainian War is called that way. We also can see the elements of the rebuilding of the Beijing-Moscow alliance of the 1950s, which was a very important part of the Cold War. It was extremely important part of the Korean War that in many ways launched also the Cold War globally.
So I see a lot of parallels of going back to the time of the Cold War and the bipolar world that emerges, it’s not anymore the world focused on Washington and Moscow. It’s more like world focused on Washington and Beijing. And then there are countries in between. There are countries in between that join one bloc or another bloc that is emerging that is not fully formed. This, in my opinion, makes the task of us historians to really go back to the Cold War and look through new perspective on the history of that conflict because there is a lot of things that we can learn.
Lex Fridman
So in some ways, history does repeat itself here. So now it’s a cold war with China and the United States. What’s a hopeful trajectory for the 21st century for the rest of it?
So in some ways, history does repeat itself here. So now it’s a cold war with China and the United States. What’s a hopeful trajectory for the 21st century for the rest of it?
Serhii Plokhy
The hopeful trajectory is really trying to be as wise and as lucky as our predecessors during the Cold War War were. Because the dominant discourse so far about the Cold War was what a horrible thing that Cold War was. What did we do wrong? How did we end up in the Cold War? And I think especially today, this is a wrong question to ask. The right question to ask is how did it happen? What did we do so right that for now more than 70 years, we don’t have a world war? How come that after World War I, World War II came within 20 years? What helped us to keep the world on the brink, but still away from the global war for such a long period of time? How to keep the Cold War cold. That’s the biggest lesson that the history of the Cold War can give us. And I don’t think we ask the question quite often enough, ask the question that way. And if you don’t ask right questions, we don’t get right answers.
The hopeful trajectory is really trying to be as wise and as lucky as our predecessors during the Cold War War were. Because the dominant discourse so far about the Cold War was what a horrible thing that Cold War was. What did we do wrong? How did we end up in the Cold War? And I think especially today, this is a wrong question to ask. The right question to ask is how did it happen? What did we do so right that for now more than 70 years, we don’t have a world war? How come that after World War I, World War II came within 20 years? What helped us to keep the world on the brink, but still away from the global war for such a long period of time? How to keep the Cold War cold. That’s the biggest lesson that the history of the Cold War can give us. And I don’t think we ask the question quite often enough, ask the question that way. And if you don’t ask right questions, we don’t get right answers.
Lex Fridman
Yeah, you’ve written a book, a great book on the Cuban Missile crisis. We came very close, not to just another world war, but to a nuclear war and the destruction of human civilization as we know it. So I guess it’s a good question to ask, what did we do so right? And maybe one of the answers could be that we just got lucky. And the question is how do we keep getting lucky?
Yeah, you’ve written a book, a great book on the Cuban Missile crisis. We came very close, not to just another world war, but to a nuclear war and the destruction of human civilization as we know it. So I guess it’s a good question to ask, what did we do so right? And maybe one of the answers could be that we just got lucky. And the question is how do we keep getting lucky?
Serhii Plokhy
Luck is clearly, clearly one of the factors in Cuban Missile crisis because what happened there, and there is one of the lessons, is that eventually, the commanders at the top, they believe that they have all the cards, they negotiate with each other. They try to see who blinks first in the game of nuclear brinkmanship. The trick is that they don’t control fully people on the ground. The most dangerous moment, or one of the most dangerous moment of the Cuban Missile crisis was the Soviet missile shooting down the American airplane, killing the pilot, an act of war. So technically we’re already in the war. And the order to shoot the missile was given with Moscow having no clue what was going on the ground. Moscow never gave approval for that.
Luck is clearly, clearly one of the factors in Cuban Missile crisis because what happened there, and there is one of the lessons, is that eventually, the commanders at the top, they believe that they have all the cards, they negotiate with each other. They try to see who blinks first in the game of nuclear brinkmanship. The trick is that they don’t control fully people on the ground. The most dangerous moment, or one of the most dangerous moment of the Cuban Missile crisis was the Soviet missile shooting down the American airplane, killing the pilot, an act of war. So technically we’re already in the war. And the order to shoot the missile was given with Moscow having no clue what was going on the ground. Moscow never gave approval for that.
And again, I described that in book many times about Kennedy bringing back his wisdom from World War II years. There always will be SOB who didn’t get the order or missed things that was happening on the American side as well. So people who believe that they’re in control really are not in control, and that can escalate whether they very often against their wishes. So that is one lesson, but going back to what we’re still here and why the world didn’t end up in 1962 is that the leadership, and I come to the issue that you strongly believe in that people, personalities matter, leaders matter. They were very different. Age, education, political careers, understanding what politics are and so on and so forth.
Lex Fridman
You mean Khrushchev?
You mean Khrushchev?
Serhii Plokhy
Khrushchev and Kennedy. Yes, but they had one thing in common, that in one way they belong to the same generation. That was generation of the Bikini Atoll, that was the generation of the hydrogen bomb. The bomb that unlike the atomic bomb, they knew could destroy the world. And they were scared. They were scared of the nuclear weapons and they tried to do whatever they could pushing against their advisors or trying to deal with their anxieties. The first is true for Kennedy, later maybe for Khrushchev to make sure that the war between the United States and the Soviet Union doesn’t start because they knew that that war would be a nuclear war.
Khrushchev and Kennedy. Yes, but they had one thing in common, that in one way they belong to the same generation. That was generation of the Bikini Atoll, that was the generation of the hydrogen bomb. The bomb that unlike the atomic bomb, they knew could destroy the world. And they were scared. They were scared of the nuclear weapons and they tried to do whatever they could pushing against their advisors or trying to deal with their anxieties. The first is true for Kennedy, later maybe for Khrushchev to make sure that the war between the United States and the Soviet Union doesn’t start because they knew that that war would be a nuclear war.
So we have a very, very paradoxical sort of situation. The crisis occurred because of the nuclear weapons, because Khrushchev put them on Cuba, but the crisis was resolved and we didn’t end in the third World War because of the nuclear weapons, because people, leaders were afraid of them. And that’s where I want to put emphasis. It’s not that the nuclear weapons created crisis or solved the crisis, it’s basically our perception of them. And we are now in the age after the Cold War era, with the new generation of voters, with the new generation of politicians. We don’t belong to the generation of bikini atoll. You maybe know what bikini is, but we think that this is something-
Lex Fridman
It’s a different thing. Yeah.
It’s a different thing. Yeah.
Serhii Plokhy
… That this is something else. And it’s very important.
… That this is something else. And it’s very important.
Lex Fridman
It’s so fascinating how that fades into memory, that the power and the respect and fear of the power of nuclear weapons just fades into memory. And then we may very well make the same mistakes again.
It’s so fascinating how that fades into memory, that the power and the respect and fear of the power of nuclear weapons just fades into memory. And then we may very well make the same mistakes again.
Serhii Plokhy
Yes, we can.
Yes, we can.
Lex Fridman
Another leader said that, I believe, but about a totally different topic. Well, like you said, I’m also glad that we’re here as a civilization, that we’re still seem to be going on. There’s several billion of us. And I’m also glad that the two of us are here. I’ve read a lot of your books. I’ve been recommending it. Please keep writing. Thank you for talking today. This was an honor.
Another leader said that, I believe, but about a totally different topic. Well, like you said, I’m also glad that we’re here as a civilization, that we’re still seem to be going on. There’s several billion of us. And I’m also glad that the two of us are here. I’ve read a lot of your books. I’ve been recommending it. Please keep writing. Thank you for talking today. This was an honor.
Serhii Plokhy
Thank you very much, Lex. It was a pleasure.
Thank you very much, Lex. It was a pleasure.
Lex Fridman
Thanks for listening to this conversation with Serhii Plokhy. To support this podcast. Please check out our sponsors in the description. And now, let me leave you with some words from Ernest Hemingway. “Never think that war, no matter how necessary nor how justified is not a crime.” Thank you for listening and hope to see you next time.
Thanks for listening to this conversation with Serhii Plokhy. To support this podcast. Please check out our sponsors in the description. And now, let me leave you with some words from Ernest Hemingway. “Never think that war, no matter how necessary nor how justified is not a crime.” Thank you for listening and hope to see you next time.
Transcript for Tucker Carlson: Putin, Navalny, Trump, CIA, NSA, War, Politics & Freedom | Lex Fridman Podcast #414
This is a transcript of Lex Fridman Podcast #414 with Tucker Carlson.
The timestamps in the transcript are clickable links that take you directly to that point in
the main video. Please note that the transcript is human generated, and may have errors.
Here are some useful links:
The timestamps in the transcript are clickable links that take you directly to that point in
the main video. Please note that the transcript is human generated, and may have errors.
Here are some useful links:
- Go back to this episode’s main page
- Watch the full YouTube version of the podcast
Table of Contents
Here are the loose “chapters” in the conversation.
Click link to jump approximately to that part in the transcript:
For people who think I shouldn’t do the conversation with Tucker or generally think that there are certain people I should never talk to, I’m sorry, but I disagree. I will talk to everyone, as long as they’re willing to talk genuinely in long form for 2, 3, 4 or more hours. I’ll talk to Putin and to Zelensky, to Trump and to Biden, to Tucker and to John Stewart, AOC, Obama, and many more people with very different views on the world. I want to understand people and ideas. That’s what long form conversations are supposed to be all about. Now for people who criticize me for not asking tough questions, I hear you, but again, I disagree. I do often ask tough questions. But I try to do it in a way that doesn’t shut down the other person, putting them into a defensive state where they give only shallow talking points. Instead, I’m looking always for the expression of genuinely held ideas and the deep roots of those ideas. When done well, this gives us a chance to really hear out the guest and to begin to understand what and how they think.
And I trust the intelligence of you, the listener, to make up your own mind to see through the bullshit, to the degree there’s bullshit and to see to the heart of the person. Sometimes I fail at this, but I’ll continue working my ass off to improve. All that said, I find that this no tough questions criticism often happens when the guest is a person the listener simply hates and wants to see them grilled into embarrassment. Called the liar, a greedy egomaniac, a killer, maybe even an evil human being and so on. If you are such a listener, what you want is drama, not wisdom. In this case, this show is not for you. There are many shows you can go to for that with hosts that are way more charismatic and entertaining than I’ll ever be. If you do stick around, please know I will work hard to do this well and to keep improving. Thank you for your patience and thank you for your support. I love you all. This is a Lex Fridman podcast To support it. Please check out our sponsors in the description. And now, dear friends, here’s Tucker Carlson.
What was your first impression when you met Vladimir Putin for the interview?
And so I alluded to that in my question and rather than answering it, he went off on this long from my perspective, kind of tiresome, sort of greatest hits of Russian history. And the implication I thought was, “Well, Ukraine is ours, or Eastern Ukraine is ours already.” And I thought he was doing that to avoid answering the question. So the last thing you want when you’re interviewing someone is to get rolled, and I didn’t want to be rolled. So I, a couple of times interrupted him politely, I thought, but he wasn’t having it. And then I thought, “You know what? I’m not here to prove that I’m a great interviewer. It’s kind of not about me.”
I want to know who this guy is. I think a western audience, a global audience, has a right to know more about the guy, and so just let him talk. Because I don’t feel like my reputation’s on the line. People have already drawn conclusions about me, I suppose to the extent they have. I’m not interested really in those conclusions anyway, so just let him talk. And so I calmed down and just let him talk. And in retrospect, I thought that was really, really interesting. Whether you agree with it or not, or whether you think it’s relevant to the war in Ukraine or not, that was his answer. And so it’s inherently significant.
We were in Molotov’s old office. So for me, I was just blown away by that. I thought I knew a lot about Russia. It turns out I knew a lot about the Soviet period, the 1937 purge trials, the famine in Ukraine. I knew a fair amount about that, but I really knew nothing about contemporary Russia, less than I thought I did, it turned out. But yeah, I was just blown away by where we were, and that’s kind of one of the main drivers at this stage in my life. That’s why I do what I do, is because I’m interested in stuff and I want to see as much as I can and try and draw conclusions from it to the extent I can. So I was very much caught up in that. But no, I wasn’t nervous. I didn’t think he was going to kill me or something, and I’m not particularly afraid of that anyway.
I mean, I guess I reject the whole premise of the war in Ukraine from the American perspective, which is a tiny group of dumb people in Washington has decided to do this for reasons they won’t really explain. And you don’t have a role in it at all as an American citizen, as the person who’s paying for it, whose children might be drafted to fight it. To shut up and obey, I just reject that completely. I think, I guess I’m a child of a different era. I’m a child of participatory democracy to some extent, where your opinion as a citizen is not irrelevant. And I guess the level of lying about it was starting to drive me crazy.
And I’ve said, and I will say again, I’m not an expert on the regional, really any region other than say western Maine. I just don’t, I’m not Russian, but it was obvious to me that we were being lied to in ways that were just… It was crazy, the scale of lies. And I’ll just give you one example. The idea that Ukraine would inevitably win this war. Now victory was never, as it never is, defined precisely. Nothing’s ever defined precisely, which is always to tell that there’s deception at the heart of the claim. But Ukraine’s on the verge of winning. Well, I don’t know. I mean, I’m hardly a tactician or military expert. For the fifth time, I’m not an expert on Russia or Ukraine. I just looked at Wikipedia. Russia has a hundred million more people than Ukraine, a hundred million.
It has much deeper industrial capacity, war material capacity than all of NATO combined. For example, Russia is turning out artillery shells, which are significant in a ground war at a ratio of seven to one compared to all NATO countries combined. That’s all of Europe. Russia is producing seven times the artillery shells as all of Europe combined. What? That’s an amazing fact, and it turns out to be a really significant fact. In fact, the significant fact. But if you ask your average person in this country, even a fairly well-informed person of good faith who’s just trying to understand what’s going on, who’s going to win this war? Well, Ukraine’s going to win. They’re on the right side.
And they think that because our media who really just do serve the interest of the US government, period, they are state media in that sense, have told them that for over two years. And I was in Hungary last summer talking to the Prime Minister, Viktor Orban, who’s whatever you think of him, he’s a very smart guy, very smart guy, smart on a scale that we’re not used to in our leaders. And I said to him, off camera, “So is Ukraine going to win?” And he looked at me like I was deranged or I was congenitally deficient. Are they going to win? No. Of course they can’t win. It’s tiny compared to Russia. Russia has a wartime economy. Ukraine doesn’t really have an economy. No, look at the populations. He looked at me like I was stupid.
And I said to him, “I think most Americans believe that because NBC News and CNN and all the news channels, all of them tell them that because it’s framed exclusively in moral terms, and it’s Churchill versus Hitler. And of course, Churchill’s going to prevail in the end.” And it’s just so dishonest that it doesn’t even matter what I want to happen or what I think ought to happen, that’s a distortion of what is happening. And if I have any job at all, which I sort of don’t actually at this point, but if I do have a job, it’s to just try to be honest, and that’s a lie.
So yeah, we were close to that a year and a half ago, and the Biden administration dispatched Boris Johnson, the briefly prime minister of the UK to stop it and to say to Zelensky, who I feel sorry for by the way, because he’s caught between these forces that are bigger than he is, to say, “No, you cannot come to any terms with Russia.” And the result of that has not been a Ukrainian victory. It’s just been more dead Ukrainians and a lot of profit for the West. It’s a moral crime in my opinion. And I tried to ask Boris Johnson about it because why wouldn’t I? After he denounced me as a tool of the Kremlin or something, and he demanded a million dollars to talk to me. And this just happened last week. And by the way, in writing too, I’m not making this…
It’s not about me. I don’t think I’m an especially good person. I’ve definitely never claimed to be, but people can make their own judgments. And again, the only judgments that I care about are my wife and children and God. So I’m just not interested in proving I’m a good person and I just want to hear from him. And I had a lot of… I mean, you should see, I almost never write questions down, but I did in this case because I had months… Well, I had three years to think about it as I was trying to book the interview, which I did myself. But it was all about internal Russian politics and Navalny. And I had a lot of, what I thought, really good questions. And then at the last second, and you make these decisions, as you know, since you interview people a lot, often you make them on the fly.
And I thought, “No, I want to talk about the things that haven’t been talked about and that I think matter in a world historic sense.” And the number one among those, of course, is the war and what it means for the world. And so I stuck to that. I mean, I did ask about Gershkovich, who I felt sorry for, and I wanted Putin to release him to me. And I was offended that he didn’t. I thought his rationale was absurd. “Well, we want to trade him for someone.” I said, “Well, doesn’t that make him a hostage?” Which of course it does. But other than that, I really wanted to keep it to the things that I think matter most. People can judge whether I did a good job or not, but that was my decision.
But do we know how we died? The short answer? No, we don’t. Now, if I had to guess, I would say killing Navalny during the Munich Security Conference in the middle of a debate over $60 billion in Ukraine funding, maybe the Russians are dumb. I didn’t get that vibe at all. I don’t see it. But maybe they killed him. I mean, they certainly put him in prison, which I’m against. But here’s what I do know is that we don’t know. And so when Chuck Schumer stands up and [inaudible 00:21:42]. Joe Biden reads some card in front of him with lines about Navalny, it’s like, I’m allowed to laugh at that because it’s absurd. You don’t know.
And I just dismissed that completely out of hand as stupid and actually a slander against my country, but it turned out to all be true or substantially true anyway. And that’s been a real shock for me in middle age to understand that. But anyway, as to Navalny, look, I don’t know. But we should always proceed on the basis of what we do know, which is to say on the basis of truth, knowable truth. And if you have an entire policymaking apparatus that is making the biggest decisions on the face of the planet, on the basis of things that are bullshit or lies, you’re going to get bad outcomes every time, every time. And that’s why we are where we are.
And there’s a lot to love, the culture that produced Tolstoy. It’s not a gas station with nuclear weapons. Sorry. Only a moron would say that. It’s a very deep culture. I don’t fully understand it, of course, but I admire it. Who wouldn’t? But I asked him, “What’s it like living here?” And he goes, “It’s great. Moscow is a great city indisputably.” He said, “You don’t want to get involved in Russian politics.” And I said, “Why?” He said, “Well, you could get hurt. You could wind up like Navalny if you did. But also, it’s just too complicated.”
The Russian mind is not exactly the same… It’s Western, it’s a European city, but it’s not quite European. And the way they think is very, very complex. Very complex. It’s too complicated. Just don’t get involved. And I would just say two things. One, I’m not sure. I mean, I don’t know, but my strong sense is that Navalny’s death, whoever did it, probably didn’t have a lot to do with the coming election in Russia. My sense from talking to Putin and the people around him is they’re not really focused on that. In fact, I asked one of his top advisors, “When’s the election?” And she looked at me completely confused. She didn’t know the date of the election. Okay. She’s like March.
And I asked a bunch of other people just in Moscow, “Who’s Putin running against?” Nobody knew. So it’s not a real election in the sense that we would recognize at all. Second, I was really struck by so many things in Moscow and really deeply bothered by a lot of things that I saw there. But one thing I noticed was the total absence of cult of personality propaganda, which I expected to see and have seen around the world. Jordan, for example, I don’t know if you’ve been to Jordan, but go to Jordan. In every building, there are pictures of the king and his extended family, and that’s a sign of political insecurity.
You don’t create a cult of personality unless you’re personally insecure. And also, unless you’re worried about losing your grip and power. None of that. It’s interesting. And I expected to see a lot of it, like statues of Putin. No. There are no statues of anybody other than Christian saints. I’m not quite sure. I’m just reporting what I saw. So yes, in a political sense. It’s not a free country. It’s not a democracy in the way that we would understand it or I don’t want to live there because I like to say what I think. In fact, I make my living doing it. But it’s not Stalinist in a recognizable way. And anyone who says it is should go there and tell me how.
And I said, “Well, I don’t recognize the legitimacy of that actually, because I’m American and I’ve lived here my whole life. And that’s so outrageous that I’m happy to face that risk because I so reject the premise. Okay, I’m an American. I should be able to talk to anyone I want to, and I plan to exercise that freedom, which I think I was born with.” And I gave them this long lecture. They’re like, “We’re just lawyers.” But that was… Let me put it this way, I don’t know how much you’ve dealt with lawyers, but it costs many thousands of dollars to get a conclusion like that. They sent a whole bunch of their summer associates or whatever.
They put a lot of people on this question, checked a lot of precedent, and they sent me a 10-page memo on it, and their sincere conclusion was, “Do not do this.” And of course, it made me mad. So I was lecturing on the phone and I had another call with a head lawyer and he said, “Well, look, a lot will depend on the questions that you ask Putin. If you’re seen as too nice to him, you could get arrested when you come back.” And I was like, “You’re describing a fascist country. Okay. You’re saying that the US government will arrest me if I don’t ask the questions they want asked, is that what’s you’re saying?” “Well, we just think based on what’s happened, that that’s possible.” And so I’m just telling you what happened.
And I know that because two New York Times reporters, one of whom I actually like a lot, said and called other people. “Oh, he’s going to interview Putin.” I hadn’t told anybody that, like anybody. My wife, two producers, that’s it. So they got that from the government. Then I’m over there, and of course I want to see Snowden, who I admire. And so we have a mutual friend. So I got his text and come on over, and Snowden does not want publicity at all. But I really wanted to have dinner with him. So we had dinner in my hotel room at the Four Seasons in Moscow, and I tried to convince him, “I’d love to do an interview, shoot it on my iPhone.” I’d-
I’m not guessing, because I spent my entire life in that world, 33 years, I worked in big news companies and so I know how it works. I know the people involved in it. I could name them, Ben Smith of Semaphore, among many others and I find that really objectionable, not just on principle either, in effect, in practice, I don’t want to live in that kind of country. People externalize all of their anxiety about this I have noticed. So it’s like Russia is not free. Yeah, I know. Neither is Burkina Faso, most countries aren’t free actually, but we are. We’re the United States. We’re different. That’s my concern. Preserving that is my concern. They get so exercised about what’s happening in other parts of the world, places they’ve never been, know nothing about, it’s almost a way of ignoring what’s happening in their own country right around them. I find it so strange and sad and weird.
If state actors are involved, you can keep whatever the Malaysian mafia from reading your texts probably. You cannot keep the big Intel services from reading your texts, it’s not possible, any of them, or listening to your calls. That was the firm conclusion of people who’ve been involved in it for a long time, decades, in both cases. I just thought, you know what, I don’t care. I don’t care. I’m not sending a ton of naked pictures of myself to anybody.
No, I’m serious. It does. It was, I don’t know, five or six years ago we went to North Korea, and my phone started acting crazy. I talked to someone on the National Security Council, actually who called me about this, somehow knew that your phone is being surveilled by the South Korean government. I was like, “I like the South Korean government. Why would they do that?” Because they want more information, they thought I was talking to Trump or whatever. But I could tell because all of a sudden the thing would just drain in like 45 minutes so that’s a downside.
I don’t care what you tell me. I don’t care what you claim you represent. I don’t care about the ideas or the systems that you say you embody. It’s dogs barking to me. How’s your life expectancy? How’s your suicide rate? What’s drug use like? Are people having children? Are people’s children more likely to live in a free or more prosperous society than you did and their grandparents did? Those are the only measures that matter to me, the rest is a lie. But anyway, the point is we just get so obsessed with the theater around people or people, and we miss the bigger things that are happening and we allow ourselves to be deceived into thinking that what doesn’t matter at all matters, that moral victories are all that matters. No, actually, facts on the ground victories matter more than anything. You certainly see it in this country. Black Lives Matter, for example, how many black people did that help? It hurt a lot of black people, but in the end, we should be able to measure it.
How many black people have died by gunfire in the four years since George Floyd died? Well, the number’s gone way, way up and that was a Black Lives Matter operation, defund the police. So I think we can say as a factual matter, data-based matter, Black Lives Matter didn’t help black people and if it did tell me how. “Well, these are important moral victories.” I’m over that. That’s just another lie, a long litany of lies. So I try to see the rest of the world that way. But more than anything, I try to see world events through the lens of an American because I am one. And what does this mean for us? It’s not even the war, it’s the sanctions that will forever change the United States, our standard of living, the way our government operates. That more than any single thing in my lifetime screwed the United States. Levying those sanctions in the way that we did was crazy. For me, the main takeaway from my eight days in Moscow was not Putin. He’s a leader, whatever. None of them are that different actually, in my pretty extensive experience, no, it was Moscow. That blew my mind. I was not prepared for that at all and I thought I knew a lot about Moscow. My dad worked there on and off in the 80s and 90s because, a US government employee. And he was always coming back, “Moscow, it’s a nightmare,” and all this stuff, “no electricity.” I got there almost exactly two years after sanctions, totally cut off from Western financial systems, kicked out of Swift, can’t use US dollars, no banking, no credit cards. And that city just factually, I’m not endorsing the system, I’m not endorsing the whole country. I didn’t go to Lake Baikal. I didn’t go to Turkmenistan. I just went to Moscow, largest city in Europe, 13 million people. I drove all around it and that city is way nicer, outwardly anyway, I don’t live there, than any city we have by a lot.
And by nicer, let me be specific. No graffiti. No homeless. No people using drugs in the street. Totally tidy. No garbage on the ground. And no forest of steel and concrete soul- destroying buildings, none of the postmodern architecture that oppresses us without even our knowledge. None of that crap. It’s a truly beautiful city. That’s not an endorsement of Putin. By the way, it didn’t make me love Putin, it made me hate my own leaders because I grew up in a country that had cities kind of like that, that were nice cities that were safe, and we don’t have that anymore. How did that happen? Did Putin do that? I don’t think Putin did that actually. I think the people in charge of that, the mayors, the governors, the president, they did that and they should be held accountable for it.
No, that matters almost more than anything, actually. We can have both. The normal regime defenders and morons, John Stewart or whatever he’s calling himself, they’re like, “Whoa, that’s the price of freedom.” People shitting on the sidewalk is the price of freedom. It’s like you can’t fool me because I’ve lived here for 54 years, I know that it’s not the price of freedom because I lived in a country that was both free and clean and orderly. So that’s not a trade off I think I have to make. That is the beauty of being a little bit older because you’re like, no, I remember that, actually. It wasn’t what you’re saying. We didn’t have racial segregation in 1985. It was a really nice country that respected itself. I was here. I think with younger people, you can tell them that and they’re like, well, 1985 you were selling slaves in Madison Square Garden. It’s like, no, they weren’t. You’re going to Madison Square Garden and not stepping over a single fentanyl addict.
It’s not something that just appears organically. I wrote a book about crime 30 years ago. I thought a lot about this. You have as much crime as you put up with, period. It doesn’t make you less free to not tolerate murder. In fact, it makes you unfree to have a lot of murders. But it makes me sad that people are like, “I can’t live in New York City anymore because of inflation and filth and illegal aliens and people shooting each other, but I’m glad because this is vibrant and strong and free.” It’s like that’s not freedom actually, at all.
Okay, so again, this is commentary in the United States and our policymakers, why are we doing this? It’s forcing the rest of the world into a block against us called bricks. They’re getting off the US dollar. That will mean a lot of dollars are going to come back here and destroy our economy and impoverish this country. So the consequences, the stakes are really high. They’re huge and we’re not even hurting Russia. What the hell are we doing, one. On the subway, that Subway was built by Joseph Stalin right before the second World War. I’m not endorsing Stalin, obviously. Stalinism is a thing that I hate and I don’t want to come to my country. I’m making the obvious point that for over 80 years you’ve had these frescoes and chandeliers, maybe they’ve been redone or whatever, but somehow the society has been able to not destroy what its ancestors built, the things that are worth having, and there are a lot. Why don’t we have that?
Even on a much more terrestrial plane, why can’t I have a subway station like that? Why can’t my children who live in New York City ride the subway? A lot of people I know who live in New York City are afraid to ride the subway, young women especially. That’s freedom? No, again, it’s slavery. If Putin can do this, why can’t we? What? This is so obvious. I’m a traitor? Okay, so if I’m calling for American citizens to demand more from their government and higher standards for their own society, and remember that just 30 years ago, we had a much different and much happier and cleaner and healthier society where everyone wasn’t fat with diabetes at 40 from poisoned food, I’m not a traitor to my country, I’m a defender of my country. By the way, the people calling me a traitor, they’re all like, whatever. I would not say they’re people who put America’s interest first to put it mildly.
I would just recommend to everyone watching this, if you’re really interested, if you’re one of those people, and I’m not one, but who’s waking up every day and you’ve got a Ukrainian flag on your mailbox or whatever, your Ukrainian lapel pin, or this absurd theater, but if you sincerely care about Ukraine or Russia or whatever, why don’t you just hop on a plane for 800 bucks and go see it? That doesn’t occur to anyone to do that. I know it’s time consuming and kind of expensive, sort of, not really, but you benefit so much. I could bore you for eight hours, and I know you’ve had this experience, where you think you know what something is or you think you know who someone is, and then you have direct experience of that place or person and you realize all your preconceptions were totally wrong. They were controlled by somebody else. In fact, I won’t betray confidences, but off the air we were talking about somebody and you said, “I couldn’t believe the person was not at all what I thought.” Well, that’s happened to me-
Here’s my point. The idea that a whole group of people is just evil because of their blood, I just don’t believe that. I think it’s immoral to think that, and I can just tell you my own experience after eight days there. I think it’s a really interesting culture, Slavic culture, which is shared by the way, by Russian and Ukraine, of course, they’re first cousins at the most distant. I found them really smart and interesting and informed. I didn’t understand a lot of what they were saying. I don’t understand the way their minds work because I’m American, but it wasn’t a thin culture, it’s a thick culture and I admire that. I wish I could go to Ukraine. I would go tomorrow.
We don’t have to live like animals. We can live with dignity. Even the Russians can do it. That’s kind of what I was saying. Even the Russians under Vladimir freaking Putin can live like this. No, it’s not a feature of dictatorship. That’s the most, I think, discouraging and most dishonest line by people like Jon Stewart who really are trying to prepare the population for accepting a lot less. He is really a tool of the regime in a sinister way, always has been like, “How dare you expect that? What are you, a Stalinist?” It’s like, no, I’m an American. I’m a decent person. I just want to be able to walk to the grocery store without being murdered. Is that too much? “Shut up, you don’t believe in freedom.” It’s really dark if you think about it.
But they go along with things. You are not allowed, if you stand up at any cable channel, any cable channel in the United States and say, “Wait a second, how did the Ukrainian government throw a U.S. citizen into prison until he died for criticizing the Ukrainian government? We’re paying for that. That’s why it’s offensive to me. We’re paying for it. That happens all the time around the world, of course. But this is a U.S. citizen and we’re paying the pensions of Ukrainian bureaucrats. We are the Ukrainian government at this point. If you said that on TV on any channel, well, you’d lose your job for that.
Norway is at the top. Really, Norway? If I went to Norwegian television and said NATO blew up Nord Stream, which it did, NATO blew up Nord Stream, the United States government with the help of other governments blew up, committed the largest act of industrial terrorism in history, and by the way, the largest environmental crime, the largest emission of CO2, methane, could I keep my job? No. So how is that a free press?
Crossfire was stupid. Crossfire didn’t help. Crossfire framed everything as Republican versus Democrat, whatever. It was not helpful to the public discourse. I couldn’t agree more, and that’s why I left. So that was part of his critique, fair. I’m not sure I would’ve admitted it at the time because I worked there and it’s sort of hard to admit you’re engaged in an enterprise that’s fundamentally worthless, which it was. But his other point was that I was somehow a partisan or a mindless partisan, which is definitely not true. It is true of him. He is a mindless partisan, but I’m not.
I really haven’t been since I got back from Baghdad at the beginning of the Iraq War, and I realized that the Republican party, which I’d voted for my whole life to that point, and had supported in general, was pushing this really horrible thing that was going to hurt the United States, which in time it really did. The Iraq War really hurt the United States. I realized that I had been on the wrong side of that. I said so publicly immediately from Baghdad, I said that to the New York Times and I really meant it. I mean it now. So to call me partisan, you can call me stupid, you can call me wrong, I certainly had been wrong, but partisan, I just didn’t think it was a meaningful… I mean, that’s just not true. It’s the opposite of true.
So I didn’t really take it seriously at all, and I never thought much of him. So I was like, “Whatever. Some buffoon jumping around on my show grandstanding.” By the way, that happened right at the moment that YouTube began. I think that was one of the first big YouTube, it was one of the first big YouTube videos. So it had a virality that, if that’s a word, it went everywhere in a way that didn’t used to happen in cable news. I mean, by that point, that was 20 years ago as you point out, I’ve been in cable news for nine years. So before 2004, we would say something on television and then it would be lost. People could claim they heard it, but you’d have to go to I think the University of Tennessee at Knoxville archives to get it.
Suddenly everything we said would live forever on the internet, which is good, by the way. That’s not bad. But it was a big change for me, and I just couldn’t believe how widely that was discussed at the time, because I thought he was not an interesting person, I think he’s obviously a very unhappy person. I just didn’t take him seriously then and I don’t now. But so anyway, that was it. It was a smaller thing in my life at the time than other people imagined.
So I think that people who bring that level of intensity to politics are, by definition, bitter, by definition, disappointed, bitter in the way the disappointed people are. That the real questions are like what happens when you die and how do the people around you feel about you? Those are not the only questions in life, but they’re certainly the most important ones. If we’re spending a disproportionate amount of time on who gets elected to some office, not that it’s irrelevant, it is relevant, but it’s not the eternal question. So I feel like he’s not the only kind of bitter silly person in Washington or in its orbit. There are many, and a lot of them are Republicans, so.
But I just thought it was ironic. I mean, everything’s ironic to me, but being called a Russia’s sympathizer by a guy who calls himself Boris, it just made me laugh. No one else has ever laughed at that. Boris Johnson’s real name is not Boris, as you know. He calls himself Boris. It’s his middle name. So if you call yourself Boris, you don’t really have standing to attack anyone else as a Russia defender, right? I think that’s funny. No one else, as I noted does. But Jon Stewart, there are a lot of things you could say about me, but he’s much more partisan than I am. So to call me a partisan, it’s like what?
But if you’re going to pretend to be the guy who’s giving the finger to entrenched power, you should do it once in a while, and he never has. There’s not one time when he said something that would be deeply unpopular on Morning Joe. That’s all I’m saying. So don’t call yourself a truth teller. You’re a court comedian or a flatterer of power. Okay, that’s fine. There’s a role for that, but don’t pretend to be something else.
I remember thinking, “Well, that’s kind of weird. That’s not what I remember.” Then I realized, no, Jon Stewart was more popular than I was, therefore he was recorded as the winner. That was hard for me to accept, because that struck me as unfair. You should rate any contest on points. Here are the rules. We’re going to judge the contest in the basis of those rules. No, in the end, it’s just like the more popular guy wins. Every TV critic like Jon Stewart, every one of them hated me, therefore he won. I was like, “Wow, I guess I have to accept that reality.” You do, like the reality of the sunrise. You’re not in charge of it. So that’s just what it is.
The fact that we’ve a carried interest loophole in the tax code and people are claiming that their income is investment, income and they’re paying half the tax rate as someone who just goes to work every day, it discourages work. It encourages lending at interest, which I think is gross, personally. I’m against it. Sorry. The fact that we’re creating chaos around the world is the saddest thing that’s happening right now. Nobody feels free to say that. So that’s not good.
So I didn’t push it, but I thought it was really interesting. Because, of course, Putin knows my views on Joe Biden. He knew I applied to the CIA, so they’ve done some digging on me, but he didn’t mention it, and he didn’t attack NATO. The reason is, I know for a fact, because he wants a settlement. He wants a settlement not because Russia’s about to collapse despite the lying of our media, that’s just not true, and no one is even saying it anymore because it’s so dumb. He wants to because it’s just bad to have a war. It changes the world in ways you can’t predict. People die. Everything about it is sad. If you can avoid it, you should.
So I would like to see a settlement where, look, the thing that Russia wants and I think probably has a right to is not to have NATO missiles on its border. I don’t know why we would do that. I don’t know what we get out of it. I just don’t even understand it. I don’t understand the purpose of NATO. I don’t think NATO is good for the United States. I think it’s an attack on our sovereignty. I would pull out of NATO immediately if I were the U.S. president, because I don’t think it helps the U.S. I know a lot of people are getting their bread buttered by NATO. But anyway, that’s my view as an American.
If I’m a Russian or a Ukrainian, let’s just be sovereign countries now. We’re not run by the U.S. State Department. We’re just our own countries. I believe in sovereignty, okay? So that’s my view. I also want to say one thing about Zelensky. I attacked him before because I was so offended by his cavalier talk about nuclear exchange because it would kill my family. So I’m really offended by that. Anyone who talks that way I’m offended by. But I do feel for Zelensky. I do. He didn’t run for president to have this happen.
I think Zelensky’s been completely misused by the State Department, by Toria Nuland, by our Secretary of State, by the policymakers in the U.S. who’ve used Ukraine as a vessel for their ambitions, their geopolitical ambitions, but also the many American businesses who’ve used Ukraine as a way to fleece the American taxpayer, and then by just independent ghouls like Boris Johnson who are hoping to get rich from interviews on it. The whole thing, Zelensky is at the center of this. He’s not driving history. NATO and the United States is driving history. Putin is driving history. There’s this guy, Zelensky. So I do feel for him, and I think he’s in a perilous place.
The first is caring about the people you lead, that’s number one. In the way a father cares for his children, or an officer cares for his troops. A president should care for his people. That leads inexorably to the next requirement, which is bravery, physical courage. I believe in that. I’m not like some tough guy, but I just think it’s obvious. If you’re in charge, I’m at my house and I feel like someone broke in, I’m not going to say to my wife, “Hey, baby, go deal with the home invasion.” I’m going to deal with it because I’m dad. Okay? So if you’re the president of a country and your capital city is attacked, as ours was at the Pentagon, and you run away?
“The Secret Service told me to.” Bitch, are you in charge? Who’s daddy here? The Secret Service? Do you know what I mean? I found that totally contemptible and I said so, and man, did I get a lecture, not just from Republicans, but from Democrats. “Oh, you don’t know. Put yourself in that position.” I was like, “Okay.” I don’t know what I would do under that kind of stress, enormous stress. I get it. I know one thing I wouldn’t do is run away because you can’t do that. If you’re not willing to die for your country, then you shouldn’t be leading it. So yes, to the extent, if Zelensky really is in Ukraine most of the time, amen.
Okay. Putin doesn’t like nationalist Ukrainians. Putin hates nationalism in general, which is interesting. Of course he does. He’s got 80 whatever republics, and he’s afraid of nationalist movements. He fought a war in Chechnya over this. So I understand it, but I have a different… I’m for nationalism, I’m for American nationalism, so I disagree with Putin on that. But calling them Nazis, it’s like, I thought it was childish.
He’s speaking to multiple audiences around the world. I’m not sure what he hoped to achieve by that interview, I will never know. But I did think that, this guy is not good at telling his story. And I also think honestly on the base of a lot… I mean, I know this. Very isolated during COVID, very.
We keep hearing that he’s dying of this or that disease, “He’s got ALS. I mean, I don’t know, I’m not his doctor. There’s a ton of lying about it, I know that. But one thing that’s not a lie, is that he was cloistered away during COVID, I know this, and only dealing with two or three people. And that makes you weird, it’s so important to deal with a lot of people to have your views challenged. And you see this with leaders who stay in power too long. He’s been in power 24 years, effectively. There’s been upsides I think for Russia, the Russian economy, Russian life expectancy, but there are definitely downsides. And one of them is you get weird, and you get autocratic, this is why we have term limits. Very few kings don’t get crazy in old age.
And George W. Bush to his credit is like, “Well, that seems like kind of an innovative good idea.” And Condi Rice, who’s one of the stupidest people ever to hold power in the United States, if I can say. Who’s monomaniacally anti-Russia because she had an advisor at Stanford who was, or something during the Cold War, “No, we can’t do that.” And Bush is just weak and so he agreed, it’s like, “What? That is crazy.” If you’re fighting with someone and the person says, “You know what? Actually our interests align. And you’ve spent 80% of your mental disc space on hating me and opposing me or whatever, but actually we can be on the same team.” If you don’t at least see that as progress, what?
If your interest is in helping your country, what’s the counter argument? I don’t even understand it. And no one has even addressed any of this, “The war of Russian aggression.” Yeah, it was a war of Russian aggression, for sure. But how did we get there? We got there because Joe Biden and Tony Blinken dispatched Kamala Harris, who does not freelance this stuff, fair to say, to the Munich Security Conference two years ago this month, February 2022. And said in a press conference to Zelenskyy, poor Zelenskyy, “We want you to join NATO.” This was not in a backroom, this was in public at a press conference, knowing because he said it 4,000 times, “We don’t want nuclear weapons from the United States or NATO on our western border.” Duh. And days later, he invaded. So what is that?
And I raised that question in my previous job, and I was denounced as of course a traitor or something. But okay, great, I’m a traitor. What’s the answer? What’s the answer? Toria Nuland, who I know, not dumb, hasn’t helped the US in any way, an architect of the Iraq war, architect of this disaster, one of the people who destroyed the US dollar. Okay, fine, but you’re not stupid. So you’re trying to get a war by acting that way, what’s the other explanation? By the way, NATO didn’t want Ukraine because it didn’t meet the criteria for admission. So why would you say that? Because you want a war, that’s why. And that war has enriched a lot of people to the tune of billions. So I don’t care if I sound like some kind of left-wing conspiracy nut, because I’m neither left-wing nor a conspiracy nut. Tell me how I’m wrong.
I mean, the receptionist in my office in 1991 was getting a master’s in Russian from Georgetown, he was going to be a Sovietologist. And he was among thousands of people in Washington on that same track. And so the Soviet Union collapses, well, so does the rationale for a good portion of the US government, has been dedicated for over 40 years to opposing this thing that no longer exists. So there’s a lot of forward momentum, there’s a huge amount of money, the bulk of the money in the richest country in the world, aimed in this direction. And it’s very hard for people to readjust, to reassess. And you see this in life all the time.
I love my wife, all of a sudden she ran off with my best friend. Holy shit, I didn’t expect that this morning, now it’s a reality, how do I deal with that? Well, I got Stage 4 cancer diagnosis, and it’s all bad, but just saying that’s the nature of life. Things that you did not anticipate, never thought you’d have to face, happen out of nowhere, and you have to adjust your expectations and your goals. And people have a hard time with that, very hard time with that. So that’s a lot of it.
If you’re Condi Rice, sort of highly ambitious mid-wit, who gets this degree from Stanford, and you read Tolstoy in the original, sure you did. And you spent your whole life thinking that Russia is the center of evil in the world, it’s kind of hard to be like, “Well, actually there’s a new threat, and it’s coming from farther east. It’s primarily an economic threat.” And maybe all the threats aren’t reduced to tank battles, that’s the other thing. Is these people are so inelastic in their thinking, so lacking imagination and flexibility, that they can’t sort of imagine a new framework. And the new framework is not that you’re going to go to war with China over Formosa, Taiwan. No, the framework is that all of a sudden all the infrastructure in Tijuana is going to be built by China, and that’s a different kind of threat. But they can’t kind of get there because they’re not that impressive.
And it appeals to Republican voters, unfortunately. That every problem is the result of weakness. Everyone’s Chamberlain, Germany never would’ve gone in to Poland, Czechoslovakia if England had been stronger, that’s the argument. Is that true? I don’t know, actually. Maybe, it might be totally true, it might not be true at all, I really don’t know. But not everything is that, that’s not always true. If I go up to you in a bar and I say, “I hate your neck tie.” I’m being pretty aggressive with you, pretty strong. You might beat the shit out of me actually, or shoot me if I do that. An aggressive posture doesn’t always get you the outcome that you want. Sometimes it requires a more sophisticated Mediterranean posture. I mean, it kind of depends, it’s a time and place thing. And they don’t acknowledge that, everything is this same template, and that’s not the road to good decision making at all.
But the problem is, from my perspective, as someone who’s trying to think of a follow-up and listen to the answer, Putin will talk, and you can in part of your ear hear the Slavic sounds, and then over that is a guy with a Slavic accent speaking English. And then you can hear Putin stop talking, and then this guy’s answer goes on for another 15, 20 seconds. So it’s super disconcerting, and it’s really hard.
And the other thing is, it doesn’t matter how good your translators are. I’m interested in language, I speak only English fluently, but I’m really interested in language, and I work in language. It doesn’t matter how good your translator is, in literature and in conversation you miss so much if the language is moving… I mean, you see this in Bible study, you see it in Dostoevsky, you see it everywhere. If you don’t speak Aramaic, Hebrew, Russian, you’re not really getting… I mean, even in romance languages. I like Balzac, who obviously wrote in French. You read Père Goriot, it’s an amazing novel, hilarious, and you’re not really getting it. And it’s not that French and English are not that far apart. Russian, what?
And I said earlier that I think that the desire for power and money will kill you, and I believe that, and I’ve seen it a lot. But I also think the desire for the love of people you don’t know is every bit as poisonous, maybe more so. And so, yes. And it’s not just because I’ve obviously spent most of my life in public. And in fact, I don’t spend my life in public, and I’m a completely private person. But professionally, I’ve spent my life in public. It’s not just that, it’s social media makes everybody into a cable news host. And we were talking off the air, my new… I’m obsessed with this. I don’t know enough about it, but here’s what I do know. South Korea, amazing country, great people. I grew up around Koreans, probably no group, if I can generalize about a group, that I like more than Koreans, are just smart, funny, honest, brave. I really like Koreans, I always have, my whole life, growing up in sunny California with Koreans.
South Korea is dying, it’s literally dying. It’s way below replacement rate in fertility, its suicide rate is astronomical. Why is that? It’s a rich country. Of course, I don’t know the answer. But I suspect it has something to do with the penetration of technology into South Korean society, is I think certainly one of the highest in the world, people live online there. And there was a belief for a bunch of reasons in South Korea that western technology would be a liberating progressive force, and I think it’s been the opposite. It’s my sense, strong sense. And I think it’s true in this country too. And I don’t understand how people can ignore the decline in life expectancy or the rise in fentanyl use. It’s not just about China shipping precursor chemicals to Mexico, it’s like, “Why would you take that shit?”
Do you shoot him or do you wait to get shot? Because all the data, look, he hasn’t shot you. He’s not committed a crime other than carrying a weapon in New York City. But maybe he’s got a license. You don’t know. It could be legal, but he’s pointing a gun at you. Is it fair to kill him before he kills you, even though you can’t prove that he will kill you?
I want, but I don’t want to go on TV and say that’s a rigged election because I don’t have any evidence it’s a rigged election. You can’t do that. It’s irresponsible and it’s wrong. So I was like, the Trump campaign was making all these claims about this or that fraud. So I was trying my best to substantiate them, to follow up on it. Everyone was like, “Shut up, Trump, you lost. Go away. We’re going to indict you.” But I felt like my job was to be like, no, the guy’s, he’s president, he’s claiming the election just got stolen and he’s making these claims. Let’s see if we can… Well, the people around him were so incompetent. It was just absolutely crazy. And so I called a couple of times, I finally give up, but I’d call and be like, “All right, you guys claim that these inconsistencies and this whatever, this happened, give me evidence and I’ll put it on TV.” It’s my job to bring stuff that is not going to be aired anywhere else to the public. It was insane how incompetent and unserious-
Because they all lie, because their job is to get elected or whatever. So I’m very wary of campaigns having been around it for 30 years, but I made an exception to my rule and I got a bunch of stuff from them. Well, of the six names, two of them are still alive. What? I immediately corrected it the next night. CNN did a whole segment on how I was spreading disinformation, which I was by the way. In this one case, they were right. I was so mad. I was like, “I hate you. I’m not talking about you. I’m so mad.” Anyway, that’s the answer. That’s what that was.
But I got bullied into it by a lawyer… I didn’t get bullied into it. I was weak enough to agree with a lawyer. It was my fault. Never should have done that. “Fuck you. They’re my texts.” I’m not even named in this case. That’s what I should have said, but I didn’t. I said I was mad on the air the next day, but not in language that colorful, but whatever. I try to be transparent. I mean, I also think, by the way, if you watch someone over time, you don’t always know what they really think, but you can tell if someone’s lying. You can sort of feel it in people. And I have lied. I’m sure I’ll lie again. I don’t want to lie. I don’t think I’m a liar. I try not to be a liar. I don’t want to be a liar. I think it’s really important not to be a liar.
They have to have all information that they want, whether the people in charge want it or don’t want it or think it’s true or think it’s false, it doesn’t matter. And the second you don’t have that, you don’t have a democracy. It’s not a free election, period. And that’s very clear in other countries, I guess. But it’s not clear here. But I would say it’s this election that… It took me a while to come to this, but it’s this election that’s the referendum on democracy. Biden is senile. He’s literally senile. He can’t talk, he can’t walk. The whole world knows that, leave our borders. Everybody in the world knows it.
A senile man is not going to get elected in the most powerful country in the world unless there’s fraud, period. Who would vote for a senile man? He literally can’t talk. And nobody I’ve ever met thinks he’s running the US government because he’s not. And so I think the world is looking on at this coming election and saying… And a lot of the world hates Trump. Okay, it’s not an endorsement of Trump, but it’s just true. If Joe Biden gets reelected, democracy is a freaking joke. That’s just true.
So it’s really substantially about the money. It’s not ideological. It’s about the money. And if someone controls the federal government, I mean at this point, it’s the most powerful organization in human history. It’s kind of hard to fight that. And in the case of Trump, I know the answer there. They raided Mar-a-Lago. They indicted him on bullshit charges. And I felt that in myself too. Even I was like, come on, come on. Whatever you think of Trump… And I agreed with his immigration views and I really like Trump personally. I think he’s hilarious and interesting, which he is. But it’s like, okay, there are a lot of people in this country.
At the very least, let’s have a real debate. The second… Messed up your cameras there, sorry, I’m getting excited. But the second they rated Mar-a-Lago on a documents charge, as someone from DC I was like, I know a lot about classification and all this stuff and been around it a lot. That’s so absurd that I was like, now it’s not about Trump, it’s about our system continuing. If you can take out a presidential candidate on a fake charge, use the justice system to take the guy out of the race, then we don’t have a representative democracy anymore. And I think a lot of Republican voters felt that way. If they hadn’t indicted him, I’m not sure he would be the nominee. I really don’t think he would be.
That’s honestly the only reason. I was like, live in foreign countries, see history happen. I’m for that. I applied to the Operations Directorate. They turned me down on the basis of drug use actually. True. But anyway, whatever. I was unsuited for it so I’m glad they turned me down. But the point is I didn’t see CIA as a threat, partly because I was bathing in propaganda about CIA and I didn’t really understand what it was and didn’t want to know. But second, because my impression at the time was it was outwardly focused. It was focused on our enemies. I don’t have a problem with that as much. The fact that CIA is playing in domestic politics and actually has for a long time, was involved in the Kennedy assassination, that’s not speculation. That’s a fact. And I confirmed that from someone who had read their documents that are still not public, it’s shocking.
You can’t have that. And the reason I’m so mad is I really believe in the idea of representative government. Acknowledging its imperfections, but I should have some say, I live here, I’m a citizen. I pay all your freaking taxes. So the fact that they would be tampering with American democracy is so outrageous to me. And I don’t know why Morning Joe is not outraged. This parade of dummies, highly credentialed dummies they have on Morning Joe every day. That doesn’t bother them at all. How could that not bother you? Why is only Glenn Greenwald mad about it? I mean, it’s confirmed. It’s not like a fever dream. It’s real. They played in the last election domestically, and I guess it shows how dumb I am because they’ve been doing that for many years. I mean, the guy who took out Mosaddegh lived on my street. One of the Roosevelts, CIA officer.
So I mean, again, I grew up around this stuff, but I never really thought… I never reached the obvious conclusion, which is that if the US government subverts democracy in other countries in the name of democracy, it will over time subvert democracy in my country. Why wouldn’t it? That is, the corruption is like core. It’s at the root of it. The purpose of the CIA was envisioned, at least publicly envisioned, as an intel gathering apparatus for the executive so the president could make wise foreign policy decisions. What the hell is happening in Country X? I don’t know. Let me call the agency in charge of finding out. The point wasn’t to freaking guarantee the outcome of elections.
And it’s very unwise for… I’m not a huge fan of treaties. Some are fine, too many bad. But I think US aid, military aid to Israel and the implied security guarantees, some explicit, but many implied, security guarantees of the United States to Israel probably haven’t helped Israel that much long-term. It’s a rich country with a highly capable population. Like every other country, it’s probably best if it makes its decisions based on what it can do by itself. So I would definitely be concerned if I lived in Israel because I think fair or unfair-
But now it’s not possible. If you had a coalition of countries against Israel, I know Israel has nuclear weapons and has a capable military and all that and the backing of the United States, but it’s a small country, I think I’d be very worried. So there’s that. I don’t see any advantage to the United States. I mean, I think it’s important for each country to make its own decisions.
So I just don’t have any confidence in those leaders to… When was the last time they improved another country? Can you think of that? Oh, the Marshall Plan. Well, you look at Europe now and you’re like, “I don’t know if that worked.” But even if it did work, again 80 years ago. So when was the last country American foreign policy makers improved? Netanyahu’s in a very difficult place, politically impossible. I mean, I’m glad I’m not Netanyahu, and I’m not sure he’s capable of making wise long-term decisions anyway. But if I was just an Israeli, I’d be like, “I don’t know if I want all this help and guidance.”
So yeah, I actually think it’s worse than just having just returned from the Middle East and talking to a lot of pretty open-minded sort of pro-Israeli Arabs who want stability above all. The merchant class always wants stability. So I’m on their side, I guess. They’re like, “Man, this could get super ugly super fast.” American leadership is completely absent. It’s just all posturing. People like Nikki Haley, you just wonder how does an advanced civilization promote someone like Nikki Haley to a position of authority? It’s like what? Adults are talking. Adults are talking. Nikki Haley, please go away.
That would be the appropriate response. But everyone’s so intimidated to be like, “Oh, she’s a strong woman.” She’s so transparently weak and sort of ridiculous and doesn’t know anything, and it’s just thinks that jumping up and down and making these absurd blanket statements, repeating bumper stickers just like leadership or something. It’s like a self-confident advanced society would never allow Nikki Haley to advance. I mean, she’s really not impressive. Sorry.
This weird kind of group think, it’s almost like fourth grade, there’s always some little girl in the front row who’s like acting as kind of the teacher’s enforcer. Whip around and be like, “Sit down. Didn’t you hear Mrs. Johnson said sit down.” It’s like the whole American media, “How dare you ask that question?” Rogan just seems like completely on his own trip. He doesn’t even hear it. He’s like, “Well, really where the pyramids built?” I was like, “Oh, I love that.”
Your choices matter. If I smoke a lot, I get lung cancer. If I use fentanyl, I may OD. Got it. If I don’t exercise, I might get fat, okay. But on a bigger scale, you’re not only the sum total of your choices. Things happen to you that you didn’t deserve, good and bad. Marriages, and I’ll speak for myself, in my case, just one of them. I mean, clearly spending time with the person you’re married to, talking, enjoying each other. I have a lot of rituals. We have a lot of rituals that ensure that. But in 40 years, you’re like a different person.
I did drugs. I was drinking all the time when we met. It’s been a long time since I’ve done that. I’m very different and so is she, but we’re different in ways that are complementary and happy. We’ve never been happier. So how do we pull that off? Just kind of good luck, honestly. Then I see other people… No, I’m not kidding. But that’s true. I think it’s so important not to flatter yourself if you’ve been successful at something. The thing I’ve been most successful at is marriage, but it’s not really me. I mean, I haven’t-
I was thinking actually this morning in my sauna, of all the people I’ve interviewed or met, this is someone I’ve never interviewed, but I have talked to him a couple of times, the greatest leader I’ve ever met in the world is literally a king. It’s MB Sheikh Mohammed of Abu Dhabi, who is Muslim. I’m definitely not Muslim. I’m Christian, Protestant Christian. So I don’t agree with his religion and I don’t agree with monarchies, but he’s the best leader in the world that I’ve ever met, and by far, it’s not even close. Why is that? Well, I could bore you for an hour on the subject, but the reason that he’s such a good leader is because he’s guided by an ever-present knowledge of his limitations and of the limits of his power and of his foresight.
When you start there, when you start with reality, it’s not even humility. Humility can be a pose like, “Oh, I’m so humble.” Okay, humble brag is a phrase for a reason. It’s like way deeper than that’s just like, no, do I have magical powers? Can I see the future? No. Okay. That’s just a fact. So I’m not God, but I’ve never seen anybody more at ease with admitting that than MBZ, just a remarkable person. For that reason, he is treated as an oracle. I don’t think people understand the number of world leaders who traipse through his house or palace to seek his counsel. I’m not sure that there is a parallel since, I don’t want to get too hyperbolic here, but honestly, since Solomon, where people come from around the world to ask what he thinks.
Now, why would they be doing that? Because Abu Dhabi’s military is so powerful? I mean, he’s rich, okay, massive oil and gas deposits, but so is Canada. You know what I mean? No one is coming to Ottawa to ask Justin Trudeau what he thinks. No, it’s humility. That’s where wisdom comes from. You start to think, I spent my whole life mad at America’s leadership class, because it’s not just Biden or the people in official positions, it’s the whole constellation of advisors and throne sniffers around them. It’s not even that I disagree with them. It’s I’m not impressed by them. I’m just not impressed. They’re not that capable, right? So that’s what I was saying about Nikki Haley. I don’t think Nikki Haley’s the most evil person in the world. I just think she’s ridiculous, obviously. Everyone’s like, “Oh, Nikki Haley or Mike Pompeo.” What?
If you have the opportunity, and a lot of people are being denied the opportunity to have children, and this messing with the gender roles, and I’m not even talking about the tranny stuff, I mean, feminism has so destroyed people’s brains and the ability of young people to connect with each other and stay together and have fruitful lives. It’s like nothing’s been more destructive than that. It’s such a lie. It’s so dumb. It’s counter to human nature, and nothing counter to human nature can endure. It can only cause suffering and that’s what it’s done. But fight that. Stop complaining about it. Find someone.
By the way, everyone gets together, or most people get together on the basis, in a Western society where there’s no arranged marriages, they get together on a basis of sexual attraction. Totally natural. Get off your birth control and have children. “Oh, I can’t afford that.” Well, yeah, you’ll figure out a way to afford it once you have kids. It’s like it’s chicken in the egg, but it’s actually not. When you have responsibility, when you have no… This is true of men, I’m not sure if true of women, but it’s definitely true of men, you will not achieve until you have no choice. Because I always think of men, men do nothing until they have to, but once they have to, they will do anything. That is true.
Men will do nothing unless they have to. But once they have to, they will do anything. I really believe that from watching and from being one. I would never have done anything if I didn’t have to, but I had to and I would just recommend it. By the way, even if you don’t succeed, even if you’re poor, having spent my life among rich people, I grew up among rich people, I am a rich person. Boy, are they unhappy? Well, that’s clearly not the road to happiness. You don’t want to be a debt slave or starved to death or anything like that, but making a billion dollars, that’s not worth doing. Don’t do that. Don’t even try to do that.
If you create something that’s beautiful and worth having and you make a billion dollars, okay, then you have to deal with your billion dollars, which will be the worst part of your life, trust me. But seeking money for its own sake is a dead end. What you should seek for its own sake is children. Talk about a creative act. Last thing I’ll say, the whole point of life is to create, okay? The act of creation, which is dying in the West, in the arts and in its most pure expression, which is children, that’s all that’s worth doing while you’re alive is creating something beautiful. Creating children, by the way, it’s super fun. It’s not hard. I can get more technical off the earth if you want.
But anyway, but he was talking and he’s reading all these talking points, all the cool kids are talking about Adapos and whatever, and he starts talking about it in his way, his accent, he was saying, “I think it’s so important that we follow an ethical way, always in an ethical way, of course, very ethical. I’m a very ethical man, that we follow using technology to improve the human mind and implant the chips in the brain.” I’m like, “Okay, you have no idea what you’re talking about. You’re as senile as Joe Biden.” But what was so striking is that no one in the room is like, “Wait, what? You’re with people’s brains. Oh my God. What are you even talking about? Who do you think you are?”
It’s not super complicated. So I prize long-term thinking. I don’t always apply to my own life, obviously. I want to, but I prize it. I think that people with power should think about future generations and I don’t see that kind of thinking at all. They all seem like children to me, and don’t give children handguns because they can hurt people.
Click link to jump approximately to that part in the transcript:
- 0:00 – Introduction
- 3:53 – Putin
- 20:07 – Navalny
- 41:20 – Moscow
- 1:00:48 – Freedom of speech
- 1:07:03 – Jon Stewart
- 1:19:48 – Ending the War in Ukraine
- 1:29:15 – Nazis
- 1:37:42 – Putin’s health
- 1:48:47 – Hitler
- 1:58:12 – Nuclear war
- 2:16:31 – Trump
- 2:33:27 – Israel-Palestine
- 2:39:37 – Xi Jinping
- 2:53:34 – Advice for young people
- 2:58:53 – Hope for the future
Introduction
Tucker Carlson
… he said very specifically, “Depending on the questions you ask Putin, you could be arrested or not.” And I said, “Listen to what you’re saying. You’re saying the US government has control over my questions and they’ll arrest me if I ask the wrong question. How are we better than Putin if that’s true?” Killing Navalny during the Munich Security Conference in the middle of a debate over $60 billion in Ukraine funding. Maybe the Russians are dumb. I didn’t get that vibe at all. I don’t think we kill people in other countries to affect election outcomes. Oh wait, no, we do it a lot and have for 80 years.
… he said very specifically, “Depending on the questions you ask Putin, you could be arrested or not.” And I said, “Listen to what you’re saying. You’re saying the US government has control over my questions and they’ll arrest me if I ask the wrong question. How are we better than Putin if that’s true?” Killing Navalny during the Munich Security Conference in the middle of a debate over $60 billion in Ukraine funding. Maybe the Russians are dumb. I didn’t get that vibe at all. I don’t think we kill people in other countries to affect election outcomes. Oh wait, no, we do it a lot and have for 80 years.
Lex Fridman
The following is a conversation with Tucker Carlson, a highly influential and often controversial political commentator. When he was a Fox, Time Magazine called him the most powerful conservative in America. After Fox. He has continued to host big, impactful interviews and shows on X, on the Tucker Carlson podcast, and on tuckercarlson.com. I recommend subscribing, even if you disagree with his views. It is always good to explore a diversity of perspectives. Most recently, he interviewed the President of Russia of Vladimir Putin. We discussed this, the topic of Russia, Putin, Navalny, and the War in Ukraine at length in this conversation. Please allow me to say a few words about the very fact that I did this interview. I have received a lot of criticism publicly and privately when I announced that I’ll be talking with Tucker.
The following is a conversation with Tucker Carlson, a highly influential and often controversial political commentator. When he was a Fox, Time Magazine called him the most powerful conservative in America. After Fox. He has continued to host big, impactful interviews and shows on X, on the Tucker Carlson podcast, and on tuckercarlson.com. I recommend subscribing, even if you disagree with his views. It is always good to explore a diversity of perspectives. Most recently, he interviewed the President of Russia of Vladimir Putin. We discussed this, the topic of Russia, Putin, Navalny, and the War in Ukraine at length in this conversation. Please allow me to say a few words about the very fact that I did this interview. I have received a lot of criticism publicly and privately when I announced that I’ll be talking with Tucker.
For people who think I shouldn’t do the conversation with Tucker or generally think that there are certain people I should never talk to, I’m sorry, but I disagree. I will talk to everyone, as long as they’re willing to talk genuinely in long form for 2, 3, 4 or more hours. I’ll talk to Putin and to Zelensky, to Trump and to Biden, to Tucker and to John Stewart, AOC, Obama, and many more people with very different views on the world. I want to understand people and ideas. That’s what long form conversations are supposed to be all about. Now for people who criticize me for not asking tough questions, I hear you, but again, I disagree. I do often ask tough questions. But I try to do it in a way that doesn’t shut down the other person, putting them into a defensive state where they give only shallow talking points. Instead, I’m looking always for the expression of genuinely held ideas and the deep roots of those ideas. When done well, this gives us a chance to really hear out the guest and to begin to understand what and how they think.
And I trust the intelligence of you, the listener, to make up your own mind to see through the bullshit, to the degree there’s bullshit and to see to the heart of the person. Sometimes I fail at this, but I’ll continue working my ass off to improve. All that said, I find that this no tough questions criticism often happens when the guest is a person the listener simply hates and wants to see them grilled into embarrassment. Called the liar, a greedy egomaniac, a killer, maybe even an evil human being and so on. If you are such a listener, what you want is drama, not wisdom. In this case, this show is not for you. There are many shows you can go to for that with hosts that are way more charismatic and entertaining than I’ll ever be. If you do stick around, please know I will work hard to do this well and to keep improving. Thank you for your patience and thank you for your support. I love you all. This is a Lex Fridman podcast To support it. Please check out our sponsors in the description. And now, dear friends, here’s Tucker Carlson.
Putin
What was your first impression when you met Vladimir Putin for the interview?
Tucker Carlson
I thought he seemed nervous, and I was very surprised by that. And I thought he seemed like someone who’d overthought it a little bit, who had a plan, and I don’t think that’s the right way to go into any interview. My strong sense, having done a lot of them for a long time, is that it’s better to know what you think, to say as much as you can honestly, so you don’t get confused by your own lies, and just to be yourself. And I thought that he went into it like an over-prepared student, and I kept thinking, “Why is he nervous?” But I guess because he thought a lot of people were going to see it,
I thought he seemed nervous, and I was very surprised by that. And I thought he seemed like someone who’d overthought it a little bit, who had a plan, and I don’t think that’s the right way to go into any interview. My strong sense, having done a lot of them for a long time, is that it’s better to know what you think, to say as much as you can honestly, so you don’t get confused by your own lies, and just to be yourself. And I thought that he went into it like an over-prepared student, and I kept thinking, “Why is he nervous?” But I guess because he thought a lot of people were going to see it,
Lex Fridman
But he was also probably prepared to give you a full lesson in history as he did.
But he was also probably prepared to give you a full lesson in history as he did.
Tucker Carlson
Well, I was totally shocked by that and very annoyed because I thought he was filibustering. I mean, I asked him as I usually do the most obvious dumbest question ever, which is, “Why’d you do this?” And he had said in a speech that I think is worth reading. I don’t speak Russian, so I haven’t heard it in the original, but he had said at the moment of the beginning of the war, he had given this address to Russians, in which he explained to the fullest extent we have seen so far why he was doing this. And he said in that speech, “I fear that NATO the West, the United States, the Biden administration will preemptively attack us.” And I thought, “Well, that’s interesting.” I can’t evaluate whether that’s a fear rooted in reality or one rooted in paranoia. But I thought, “Well, that’s an answer right there.”
Well, I was totally shocked by that and very annoyed because I thought he was filibustering. I mean, I asked him as I usually do the most obvious dumbest question ever, which is, “Why’d you do this?” And he had said in a speech that I think is worth reading. I don’t speak Russian, so I haven’t heard it in the original, but he had said at the moment of the beginning of the war, he had given this address to Russians, in which he explained to the fullest extent we have seen so far why he was doing this. And he said in that speech, “I fear that NATO the West, the United States, the Biden administration will preemptively attack us.” And I thought, “Well, that’s interesting.” I can’t evaluate whether that’s a fear rooted in reality or one rooted in paranoia. But I thought, “Well, that’s an answer right there.”
And so I alluded to that in my question and rather than answering it, he went off on this long from my perspective, kind of tiresome, sort of greatest hits of Russian history. And the implication I thought was, “Well, Ukraine is ours, or Eastern Ukraine is ours already.” And I thought he was doing that to avoid answering the question. So the last thing you want when you’re interviewing someone is to get rolled, and I didn’t want to be rolled. So I, a couple of times interrupted him politely, I thought, but he wasn’t having it. And then I thought, “You know what? I’m not here to prove that I’m a great interviewer. It’s kind of not about me.”
I want to know who this guy is. I think a western audience, a global audience, has a right to know more about the guy, and so just let him talk. Because I don’t feel like my reputation’s on the line. People have already drawn conclusions about me, I suppose to the extent they have. I’m not interested really in those conclusions anyway, so just let him talk. And so I calmed down and just let him talk. And in retrospect, I thought that was really, really interesting. Whether you agree with it or not, or whether you think it’s relevant to the war in Ukraine or not, that was his answer. And so it’s inherently significant.
Lex Fridman
Well, you said he was nervous. Were you nervous? Were you afraid? This is Vladimir Putin.
Well, you said he was nervous. Were you nervous? Were you afraid? This is Vladimir Putin.
Tucker Carlson
I wasn’t afraid at all, and I wasn’t nervous at all.
I wasn’t afraid at all, and I wasn’t nervous at all.
Lex Fridman
Did you drink tea beforehand?
Did you drink tea beforehand?
Tucker Carlson
No. I did my normal regimen of nicotine pouches and coffee. No, I’m not a tea drinker. I try not to eat all the sweets they put in front of us, which is… That is my weakness, is eating crap. But you eat a lot of sugar as you know before an interview, and it does dull you. So I successfully resisted that. But no, I wasn’t nervous. I wasn’t nervous the whole time I was there. Why would I be? I’m 54, my kids are grown. I believe in God. I’m almost never nervous. But no, I wasn’t nervous, I was just interested. I mean, I’m interested in Soviet history. I studied it in college. I’ve read about it my entire life. My dad worked in the Cold War. It was a constant topic of conversation. And so to be in the Kremlin in a room where Stalin made decisions, either wartime decisions or decisions about murdering his own population, I just couldn’t get over it.
No. I did my normal regimen of nicotine pouches and coffee. No, I’m not a tea drinker. I try not to eat all the sweets they put in front of us, which is… That is my weakness, is eating crap. But you eat a lot of sugar as you know before an interview, and it does dull you. So I successfully resisted that. But no, I wasn’t nervous. I wasn’t nervous the whole time I was there. Why would I be? I’m 54, my kids are grown. I believe in God. I’m almost never nervous. But no, I wasn’t nervous, I was just interested. I mean, I’m interested in Soviet history. I studied it in college. I’ve read about it my entire life. My dad worked in the Cold War. It was a constant topic of conversation. And so to be in the Kremlin in a room where Stalin made decisions, either wartime decisions or decisions about murdering his own population, I just couldn’t get over it.
We were in Molotov’s old office. So for me, I was just blown away by that. I thought I knew a lot about Russia. It turns out I knew a lot about the Soviet period, the 1937 purge trials, the famine in Ukraine. I knew a fair amount about that, but I really knew nothing about contemporary Russia, less than I thought I did, it turned out. But yeah, I was just blown away by where we were, and that’s kind of one of the main drivers at this stage in my life. That’s why I do what I do, is because I’m interested in stuff and I want to see as much as I can and try and draw conclusions from it to the extent I can. So I was very much caught up in that. But no, I wasn’t nervous. I didn’t think he was going to kill me or something, and I’m not particularly afraid of that anyway.
Lex Fridman
Not afraid of dying?
Not afraid of dying?
Tucker Carlson
Not really, no. I mean, again, it’s an age and stage in life thing. I mean, I have four children, so there were times when they were little where I was terrified of dying because if I died, it would have huge consequences. But no, I mean, at this point, I don’t want to die. I’m really enjoying my life. But I’ve been with the same girl for 40 years, and I have four children who I’m extremely close to. Well, now five, a daughter-in-law, and I love them all. I’m really close to them. I tell them I love them every day. I’ve had a really interesting life.
Not really, no. I mean, again, it’s an age and stage in life thing. I mean, I have four children, so there were times when they were little where I was terrified of dying because if I died, it would have huge consequences. But no, I mean, at this point, I don’t want to die. I’m really enjoying my life. But I’ve been with the same girl for 40 years, and I have four children who I’m extremely close to. Well, now five, a daughter-in-law, and I love them all. I’m really close to them. I tell them I love them every day. I’ve had a really interesting life.
Lex Fridman
What was the goal? Just linger on that. What was the goal for the interview? How were you thinking about it? What would success be like in your head leading into it?
What was the goal? Just linger on that. What was the goal for the interview? How were you thinking about it? What would success be like in your head leading into it?
Tucker Carlson
To bring more information, to the public.
To bring more information, to the public.
Lex Fridman
Disinformation.
Disinformation.
Tucker Carlson
Yeah, that’s it. I mean, I have really strong feelings about what’s happening not just in Ukraine or Russia, but around the world. I think the world is resetting to the grave disadvantage of the United States. I don’t think most Americans are aware of that at all. And so that’s my view, and I’ve stated it many times because it’s sincere. But my goal was to have more information brought to the West so people could make their own decisions about whether this is a good idea.
Yeah, that’s it. I mean, I have really strong feelings about what’s happening not just in Ukraine or Russia, but around the world. I think the world is resetting to the grave disadvantage of the United States. I don’t think most Americans are aware of that at all. And so that’s my view, and I’ve stated it many times because it’s sincere. But my goal was to have more information brought to the West so people could make their own decisions about whether this is a good idea.
I mean, I guess I reject the whole premise of the war in Ukraine from the American perspective, which is a tiny group of dumb people in Washington has decided to do this for reasons they won’t really explain. And you don’t have a role in it at all as an American citizen, as the person who’s paying for it, whose children might be drafted to fight it. To shut up and obey, I just reject that completely. I think, I guess I’m a child of a different era. I’m a child of participatory democracy to some extent, where your opinion as a citizen is not irrelevant. And I guess the level of lying about it was starting to drive me crazy.
And I’ve said, and I will say again, I’m not an expert on the regional, really any region other than say western Maine. I just don’t, I’m not Russian, but it was obvious to me that we were being lied to in ways that were just… It was crazy, the scale of lies. And I’ll just give you one example. The idea that Ukraine would inevitably win this war. Now victory was never, as it never is, defined precisely. Nothing’s ever defined precisely, which is always to tell that there’s deception at the heart of the claim. But Ukraine’s on the verge of winning. Well, I don’t know. I mean, I’m hardly a tactician or military expert. For the fifth time, I’m not an expert on Russia or Ukraine. I just looked at Wikipedia. Russia has a hundred million more people than Ukraine, a hundred million.
It has much deeper industrial capacity, war material capacity than all of NATO combined. For example, Russia is turning out artillery shells, which are significant in a ground war at a ratio of seven to one compared to all NATO countries combined. That’s all of Europe. Russia is producing seven times the artillery shells as all of Europe combined. What? That’s an amazing fact, and it turns out to be a really significant fact. In fact, the significant fact. But if you ask your average person in this country, even a fairly well-informed person of good faith who’s just trying to understand what’s going on, who’s going to win this war? Well, Ukraine’s going to win. They’re on the right side.
And they think that because our media who really just do serve the interest of the US government, period, they are state media in that sense, have told them that for over two years. And I was in Hungary last summer talking to the Prime Minister, Viktor Orban, who’s whatever you think of him, he’s a very smart guy, very smart guy, smart on a scale that we’re not used to in our leaders. And I said to him, off camera, “So is Ukraine going to win?” And he looked at me like I was deranged or I was congenitally deficient. Are they going to win? No. Of course they can’t win. It’s tiny compared to Russia. Russia has a wartime economy. Ukraine doesn’t really have an economy. No, look at the populations. He looked at me like I was stupid.
And I said to him, “I think most Americans believe that because NBC News and CNN and all the news channels, all of them tell them that because it’s framed exclusively in moral terms, and it’s Churchill versus Hitler. And of course, Churchill’s going to prevail in the end.” And it’s just so dishonest that it doesn’t even matter what I want to happen or what I think ought to happen, that’s a distortion of what is happening. And if I have any job at all, which I sort of don’t actually at this point, but if I do have a job, it’s to just try to be honest, and that’s a lie.
Lex Fridman
There is a more nuanced discussion about what winning might look like. You’re right a nuanced discussion is not being had, but it is possible for Ukraine to, quote unquote, “win” with the help of the United States.
There is a more nuanced discussion about what winning might look like. You’re right a nuanced discussion is not being had, but it is possible for Ukraine to, quote unquote, “win” with the help of the United States.
Tucker Carlson
I guess that conversation needs to begin by defining terms. And the key term is win. What does that mean?
I guess that conversation needs to begin by defining terms. And the key term is win. What does that mean?
Lex Fridman
Peace, a ceasefire, who owns which land, coming to the table with, as you call the parent in the United States, putting leverage on the negotiation to make sure there’s a fairness.
Peace, a ceasefire, who owns which land, coming to the table with, as you call the parent in the United States, putting leverage on the negotiation to make sure there’s a fairness.
Tucker Carlson
Amen. Well, of course, as A, and I should just restate this, I am not emotionally involved in this. I’m American in every sense, and my only interest is in America. I’m not leaving ever. And so I’m looking at this purely from our perspective, what’s good for us. But also as a human being, as a Christian, I mean, I hate war. And anybody who doesn’t hate war shouldn’t have power, in my opinion. So I agree with that definition vehemently a victory is not killing an entire generation of your population. It’s not being completely destroyed to be eaten up by BlackRock or whatever comes next for them.
Amen. Well, of course, as A, and I should just restate this, I am not emotionally involved in this. I’m American in every sense, and my only interest is in America. I’m not leaving ever. And so I’m looking at this purely from our perspective, what’s good for us. But also as a human being, as a Christian, I mean, I hate war. And anybody who doesn’t hate war shouldn’t have power, in my opinion. So I agree with that definition vehemently a victory is not killing an entire generation of your population. It’s not being completely destroyed to be eaten up by BlackRock or whatever comes next for them.
So yeah, we were close to that a year and a half ago, and the Biden administration dispatched Boris Johnson, the briefly prime minister of the UK to stop it and to say to Zelensky, who I feel sorry for by the way, because he’s caught between these forces that are bigger than he is, to say, “No, you cannot come to any terms with Russia.” And the result of that has not been a Ukrainian victory. It’s just been more dead Ukrainians and a lot of profit for the West. It’s a moral crime in my opinion. And I tried to ask Boris Johnson about it because why wouldn’t I? After he denounced me as a tool of the Kremlin or something, and he demanded a million dollars to talk to me. And this just happened last week. And by the way, in writing too, I’m not making this…
Lex Fridman
Just for the record, you demanded a million dollars from me to talk to me today.
Just for the record, you demanded a million dollars from me to talk to me today.
Tucker Carlson
I didn’t. And you paid. No, I’m of course kidding. And I said to his guy, I said, “I just interviewed Putin who was widely recognized as a bad guy.” And he did it for free. He didn’t demand a million dollars. He wasn’t in this for profit. Are you telling me that Boris Johnson is sleazier than Vladimir Putin? And of course, that is the message. And so I guess these are really… It’s not just about Boris Johnson being a sad rapacious fraud, which he is obviously, but it’s about the future of the West and the future of Ukraine, this country that purportedly we care so much about. All these people are dying, and what is the end game? It’s also deranged that I didn’t imagine, and don’t imagine that I could add anything very meaningful to the conversation because I’m not a genius. But I felt like I could at the very least, puncture some of the lies, and that’s an inherent good.
I didn’t. And you paid. No, I’m of course kidding. And I said to his guy, I said, “I just interviewed Putin who was widely recognized as a bad guy.” And he did it for free. He didn’t demand a million dollars. He wasn’t in this for profit. Are you telling me that Boris Johnson is sleazier than Vladimir Putin? And of course, that is the message. And so I guess these are really… It’s not just about Boris Johnson being a sad rapacious fraud, which he is obviously, but it’s about the future of the West and the future of Ukraine, this country that purportedly we care so much about. All these people are dying, and what is the end game? It’s also deranged that I didn’t imagine, and don’t imagine that I could add anything very meaningful to the conversation because I’m not a genius. But I felt like I could at the very least, puncture some of the lies, and that’s an inherent good.
Lex Fridman
Vladimir Putin, after the interview said that he wasn’t fully satisfied because you weren’t aggressive enough. You didn’t ask sharp enough questions. First of all, what do you think about him saying that?
Vladimir Putin, after the interview said that he wasn’t fully satisfied because you weren’t aggressive enough. You didn’t ask sharp enough questions. First of all, what do you think about him saying that?
Tucker Carlson
I don’t even understand it. I guess it does seem like the one Putin statement that Western media take at face value. Everything else Putin says is a lie except his criticism of me, which is true. But I mean, I have no idea what he meant by that. I can only tell you what my goal was, as I’ve suggested, was not to make it about me. He hasn’t done any interviews of any kind for years, but the last interview he did with an English-speaking reporter, Western media reporter, was like many of the other interviews he’d done with Western media reporters. Mike Wallace’s son did an interview with him that was of the same variety. And it was all about him. I’m a good person. You’re a bad person. And I just feel like that’s the most tiresome, fruitless kind of interview.
I don’t even understand it. I guess it does seem like the one Putin statement that Western media take at face value. Everything else Putin says is a lie except his criticism of me, which is true. But I mean, I have no idea what he meant by that. I can only tell you what my goal was, as I’ve suggested, was not to make it about me. He hasn’t done any interviews of any kind for years, but the last interview he did with an English-speaking reporter, Western media reporter, was like many of the other interviews he’d done with Western media reporters. Mike Wallace’s son did an interview with him that was of the same variety. And it was all about him. I’m a good person. You’re a bad person. And I just feel like that’s the most tiresome, fruitless kind of interview.
It’s not about me. I don’t think I’m an especially good person. I’ve definitely never claimed to be, but people can make their own judgments. And again, the only judgments that I care about are my wife and children and God. So I’m just not interested in proving I’m a good person and I just want to hear from him. And I had a lot of… I mean, you should see, I almost never write questions down, but I did in this case because I had months… Well, I had three years to think about it as I was trying to book the interview, which I did myself. But it was all about internal Russian politics and Navalny. And I had a lot of, what I thought, really good questions. And then at the last second, and you make these decisions, as you know, since you interview people a lot, often you make them on the fly.
And I thought, “No, I want to talk about the things that haven’t been talked about and that I think matter in a world historic sense.” And the number one among those, of course, is the war and what it means for the world. And so I stuck to that. I mean, I did ask about Gershkovich, who I felt sorry for, and I wanted Putin to release him to me. And I was offended that he didn’t. I thought his rationale was absurd. “Well, we want to trade him for someone.” I said, “Well, doesn’t that make him a hostage?” Which of course it does. But other than that, I really wanted to keep it to the things that I think matter most. People can judge whether I did a good job or not, but that was my decision.
Lex Fridman
In the moment, what was your gut? Did you want to ask some tough questions as follow-ups on certain topics?
In the moment, what was your gut? Did you want to ask some tough questions as follow-ups on certain topics?
Tucker Carlson
I don’t know what it would mean to ask a tough question.
I don’t know what it would mean to ask a tough question.
Lex Fridman
Clarifying questions, I suppose they would-
Clarifying questions, I suppose they would-
Tucker Carlson
I guess. I just wanted him to talk. I just wanted to hear his perspective again. I’ve probably asked more asshole questions than any living American. As has been noted correctly, I’m a dick by my nature, and so I just feel at this stage of my life, I didn’t need to prove that I could be like, “Vladimir Putin, answer the question.”
I guess. I just wanted him to talk. I just wanted to hear his perspective again. I’ve probably asked more asshole questions than any living American. As has been noted correctly, I’m a dick by my nature, and so I just feel at this stage of my life, I didn’t need to prove that I could be like, “Vladimir Putin, answer the question.”
Lex Fridman
For sure. For sure.
For sure. For sure.
Tucker Carlson
I think if I had been 34 instead of 54, I definitely would’ve done that because I would’ve thought, “This is really about me and I need to prove myself and all that stuff.” No, there’s a war going on that is wrecking the US economy in a way and at a scale people do not understand. The US dollar is going away. That was, of course, inevitable ultimately because everything dies, including currencies. But that death, that process of death has been accelerated exponentially by the behavior of the Biden administration and the US Congress, particularly the sanctions. And people don’t understand what the ramifications of that are. The ramifications are poverty in the United States. So I just wanted to get to that because I’m coming at this from not a global perspective. I’m coming at it from an American perspective.
I think if I had been 34 instead of 54, I definitely would’ve done that because I would’ve thought, “This is really about me and I need to prove myself and all that stuff.” No, there’s a war going on that is wrecking the US economy in a way and at a scale people do not understand. The US dollar is going away. That was, of course, inevitable ultimately because everything dies, including currencies. But that death, that process of death has been accelerated exponentially by the behavior of the Biden administration and the US Congress, particularly the sanctions. And people don’t understand what the ramifications of that are. The ramifications are poverty in the United States. So I just wanted to get to that because I’m coming at this from not a global perspective. I’m coming at it from an American perspective.
Navalny
Lex Fridman
So you mentioned Navalny. After you left, Navalny died in prison. What are your thoughts on just at a high level, first about his death?
So you mentioned Navalny. After you left, Navalny died in prison. What are your thoughts on just at a high level, first about his death?
Tucker Carlson
Well, it’s awful. I mean, imagine dying in prison. I’ve thought about it a lot. I’ve known a lot of people in prison a lot, including some very good friends of mine. So I felt instantly sad about it. From a geopolitical perspective, I don’t know any more than that. And I laugh at and sort of resent, but mostly find amusing the claims by American politicians, who really are the dumbest politicians in the world actually, “This happened and here’s what it means.” And it’s like, “Actually as a factual matter, we don’t know what happened. We don’t know what happened.” We have no freaking idea what happened. We can say, and I did say, and I will say again, I don’t think you should put opposition figures in prison. I really don’t. I don’t, period. It happens a lot around the world, happens in this country, as you know, and I’m against all of it.
Well, it’s awful. I mean, imagine dying in prison. I’ve thought about it a lot. I’ve known a lot of people in prison a lot, including some very good friends of mine. So I felt instantly sad about it. From a geopolitical perspective, I don’t know any more than that. And I laugh at and sort of resent, but mostly find amusing the claims by American politicians, who really are the dumbest politicians in the world actually, “This happened and here’s what it means.” And it’s like, “Actually as a factual matter, we don’t know what happened. We don’t know what happened.” We have no freaking idea what happened. We can say, and I did say, and I will say again, I don’t think you should put opposition figures in prison. I really don’t. I don’t, period. It happens a lot around the world, happens in this country, as you know, and I’m against all of it.
But do we know how we died? The short answer? No, we don’t. Now, if I had to guess, I would say killing Navalny during the Munich Security Conference in the middle of a debate over $60 billion in Ukraine funding, maybe the Russians are dumb. I didn’t get that vibe at all. I don’t see it. But maybe they killed him. I mean, they certainly put him in prison, which I’m against. But here’s what I do know is that we don’t know. And so when Chuck Schumer stands up and [inaudible 00:21:42]. Joe Biden reads some card in front of him with lines about Navalny, it’s like, I’m allowed to laugh at that because it’s absurd. You don’t know.
Lex Fridman
There’s a lot of interesting ideas about if he was killed, who killed him, because it could be Putin, it could be somebody in Russia who’s not Putin. It could be Ukrainians because it would benefit the war.
There’s a lot of interesting ideas about if he was killed, who killed him, because it could be Putin, it could be somebody in Russia who’s not Putin. It could be Ukrainians because it would benefit the war.
Tucker Carlson
They killed Dugan’s daughter in Moscow. So yeah, that’s possible.
They killed Dugan’s daughter in Moscow. So yeah, that’s possible.
Lex Fridman
And it could be… I mean, the United States could also be involved.
And it could be… I mean, the United States could also be involved.
Tucker Carlson
I don’t think we kill people in other countries to affect election outcomes. Oh, wait, no, we do it a lot and have for 80 years, and it’s shameful. I can say that as an American because it’s my money and my name. Yeah, I’m really offended by that. And I never thought that was true. And again, I’m much older than you, and so I spent, my worldview was defined by the Cold War and very much in the house I lived in Georgetown, Washington DC. That’s what we talked about. And the left at the time, I don’t know, the wacko MIT professor who I never had any respect for, who I know you’ve interviewed, et cetera. The hard left was always saying, “Well, the United States government is interfering in other elections.”
I don’t think we kill people in other countries to affect election outcomes. Oh, wait, no, we do it a lot and have for 80 years, and it’s shameful. I can say that as an American because it’s my money and my name. Yeah, I’m really offended by that. And I never thought that was true. And again, I’m much older than you, and so I spent, my worldview was defined by the Cold War and very much in the house I lived in Georgetown, Washington DC. That’s what we talked about. And the left at the time, I don’t know, the wacko MIT professor who I never had any respect for, who I know you’ve interviewed, et cetera. The hard left was always saying, “Well, the United States government is interfering in other elections.”
And I just dismissed that completely out of hand as stupid and actually a slander against my country, but it turned out to all be true or substantially true anyway. And that’s been a real shock for me in middle age to understand that. But anyway, as to Navalny, look, I don’t know. But we should always proceed on the basis of what we do know, which is to say on the basis of truth, knowable truth. And if you have an entire policymaking apparatus that is making the biggest decisions on the face of the planet, on the basis of things that are bullshit or lies, you’re going to get bad outcomes every time, every time. And that’s why we are where we are.
Lex Fridman
Does it bother you that basically the most famous opposition figure in Russia is sitting in prison?
Does it bother you that basically the most famous opposition figure in Russia is sitting in prison?
Tucker Carlson
Well, of course it does. Of course it bothers me. I mean, it bothered me when I got there. It bothers me now. I was sad when he died. Yeah, I mean, that’s one of the measures… It’s one of the basic measures of political freedom. Are you imprisoning people who oppose you? Are you imprisoning people who pose a physical risk to you? I mean, there are some subjective decision-making involved in these things. However, big picture, yeah. Do you have leaders in jail? It’s not a politically free society, and Russia isn’t, obviously. And as I said, a friend of mine from childhood, an American actually was a wonderful person, lives in Russia, in Moscow, with his Russian wife, and I had dinner with him. He’s a very balanced guy, totally non-political person, and speaks Russian and loves his many Russian children and loves the culture.
Well, of course it does. Of course it bothers me. I mean, it bothered me when I got there. It bothers me now. I was sad when he died. Yeah, I mean, that’s one of the measures… It’s one of the basic measures of political freedom. Are you imprisoning people who oppose you? Are you imprisoning people who pose a physical risk to you? I mean, there are some subjective decision-making involved in these things. However, big picture, yeah. Do you have leaders in jail? It’s not a politically free society, and Russia isn’t, obviously. And as I said, a friend of mine from childhood, an American actually was a wonderful person, lives in Russia, in Moscow, with his Russian wife, and I had dinner with him. He’s a very balanced guy, totally non-political person, and speaks Russian and loves his many Russian children and loves the culture.
And there’s a lot to love, the culture that produced Tolstoy. It’s not a gas station with nuclear weapons. Sorry. Only a moron would say that. It’s a very deep culture. I don’t fully understand it, of course, but I admire it. Who wouldn’t? But I asked him, “What’s it like living here?” And he goes, “It’s great. Moscow is a great city indisputably.” He said, “You don’t want to get involved in Russian politics.” And I said, “Why?” He said, “Well, you could get hurt. You could wind up like Navalny if you did. But also, it’s just too complicated.”
The Russian mind is not exactly the same… It’s Western, it’s a European city, but it’s not quite European. And the way they think is very, very complex. Very complex. It’s too complicated. Just don’t get involved. And I would just say two things. One, I’m not sure. I mean, I don’t know, but my strong sense is that Navalny’s death, whoever did it, probably didn’t have a lot to do with the coming election in Russia. My sense from talking to Putin and the people around him is they’re not really focused on that. In fact, I asked one of his top advisors, “When’s the election?” And she looked at me completely confused. She didn’t know the date of the election. Okay. She’s like March.
And I asked a bunch of other people just in Moscow, “Who’s Putin running against?” Nobody knew. So it’s not a real election in the sense that we would recognize at all. Second, I was really struck by so many things in Moscow and really deeply bothered by a lot of things that I saw there. But one thing I noticed was the total absence of cult of personality propaganda, which I expected to see and have seen around the world. Jordan, for example, I don’t know if you’ve been to Jordan, but go to Jordan. In every building, there are pictures of the king and his extended family, and that’s a sign of political insecurity.
You don’t create a cult of personality unless you’re personally insecure. And also, unless you’re worried about losing your grip and power. None of that. It’s interesting. And I expected to see a lot of it, like statues of Putin. No. There are no statues of anybody other than Christian saints. I’m not quite sure. I’m just reporting what I saw. So yes, in a political sense. It’s not a free country. It’s not a democracy in the way that we would understand it or I don’t want to live there because I like to say what I think. In fact, I make my living doing it. But it’s not Stalinist in a recognizable way. And anyone who says it is should go there and tell me how.
Lex Fridman
I mean, this question about the freedom of the press is underlying the very fact of the interview you’re having with him. So you might not need to ask the Navalny question, but did you feel like, “Are there things I shouldn’t say?”
I mean, this question about the freedom of the press is underlying the very fact of the interview you’re having with him. So you might not need to ask the Navalny question, but did you feel like, “Are there things I shouldn’t say?”
Tucker Carlson
I mean, how honest do you want me to be? I mean, when I say I felt not one twinge of concern for the eight days that I was there. Maybe I just didn’t… And I feel like I’ve got a pretty strong gut sense of things. I rely on it. I make all my decisions based on how I feel, my instincts. And I didn’t feel it at all. My lawyers before I left, and these are people who work for a big law firm. This is not Bob’s law firm. This is one of the biggest law firms in the world, said, “You’re going to get arrested if you do this by the US government on sanctions violations.”
I mean, how honest do you want me to be? I mean, when I say I felt not one twinge of concern for the eight days that I was there. Maybe I just didn’t… And I feel like I’ve got a pretty strong gut sense of things. I rely on it. I make all my decisions based on how I feel, my instincts. And I didn’t feel it at all. My lawyers before I left, and these are people who work for a big law firm. This is not Bob’s law firm. This is one of the biggest law firms in the world, said, “You’re going to get arrested if you do this by the US government on sanctions violations.”
And I said, “Well, I don’t recognize the legitimacy of that actually, because I’m American and I’ve lived here my whole life. And that’s so outrageous that I’m happy to face that risk because I so reject the premise. Okay, I’m an American. I should be able to talk to anyone I want to, and I plan to exercise that freedom, which I think I was born with.” And I gave them this long lecture. They’re like, “We’re just lawyers.” But that was… Let me put it this way, I don’t know how much you’ve dealt with lawyers, but it costs many thousands of dollars to get a conclusion like that. They sent a whole bunch of their summer associates or whatever.
They put a lot of people on this question, checked a lot of precedent, and they sent me a 10-page memo on it, and their sincere conclusion was, “Do not do this.” And of course, it made me mad. So I was lecturing on the phone and I had another call with a head lawyer and he said, “Well, look, a lot will depend on the questions that you ask Putin. If you’re seen as too nice to him, you could get arrested when you come back.” And I was like, “You’re describing a fascist country. Okay. You’re saying that the US government will arrest me if I don’t ask the questions they want asked, is that what’s you’re saying?” “Well, we just think based on what’s happened, that that’s possible.” And so I’m just telling you what happened.
Lex Fridman
So you were okay being arrested in Moscow and arrested back in-
So you were okay being arrested in Moscow and arrested back in-
Tucker Carlson
I didn’t think for a second… I mean, maybe. Look, I don’t speak Russian. I’d never been there before. Everything about the culture was brand new to me. Ignorance does protect you sort of when you have no freaking idea what’s going on, you’re not worried about it. This has happened to me many times. There’s a principle there that extends throughout life. So it’s completely possible that I was in grave peril and didn’t know it because how would I know it? I’m like a bumbling English speaker from California, but I didn’t feel it at all.
I didn’t think for a second… I mean, maybe. Look, I don’t speak Russian. I’d never been there before. Everything about the culture was brand new to me. Ignorance does protect you sort of when you have no freaking idea what’s going on, you’re not worried about it. This has happened to me many times. There’s a principle there that extends throughout life. So it’s completely possible that I was in grave peril and didn’t know it because how would I know it? I’m like a bumbling English speaker from California, but I didn’t feel it at all.
Lex Fridman
But the lawyers did.
But the lawyers did.
Tucker Carlson
Yeah. I mean, it scared the crap out of people. You’re going to look… And you have to pay in cash. They don’t take credit cards because of sanctions. And you have to go through all these hoops, just procedural hoops to go to Russia, which I was willing to do because I wanted to interview Putin because they told me I couldn’t. But then there’s another fact, which is that I was being surveilled by the US government, intensely surveilled by the US government. And this came out, they admitted it, the NSA admitted it a couple of years ago that they were up in my signal account, and then they leaked it to the New York Times. They did that again before I left.
Yeah. I mean, it scared the crap out of people. You’re going to look… And you have to pay in cash. They don’t take credit cards because of sanctions. And you have to go through all these hoops, just procedural hoops to go to Russia, which I was willing to do because I wanted to interview Putin because they told me I couldn’t. But then there’s another fact, which is that I was being surveilled by the US government, intensely surveilled by the US government. And this came out, they admitted it, the NSA admitted it a couple of years ago that they were up in my signal account, and then they leaked it to the New York Times. They did that again before I left.
And I know that because two New York Times reporters, one of whom I actually like a lot, said and called other people. “Oh, he’s going to interview Putin.” I hadn’t told anybody that, like anybody. My wife, two producers, that’s it. So they got that from the government. Then I’m over there, and of course I want to see Snowden, who I admire. And so we have a mutual friend. So I got his text and come on over, and Snowden does not want publicity at all. But I really wanted to have dinner with him. So we had dinner in my hotel room at the Four Seasons in Moscow, and I tried to convince him, “I’d love to do an interview, shoot it on my iPhone.” I’d-
Tucker Carlson
… just do an interview, shoot it on my iPhone. I’d love to take a picture together and put it on the internet because I just want to show support because I think he’s been railroaded. He had no interest in living in Russia, no intention of being in Russia. The whole thing is a lie. But anyway, whatever, all this stuff. He just said, “Respectfully, I’d rather not anyone know that we met.” Great. I didn’t tell anybody and I didn’t text it to anybody, okay, except him. Semaphore runs this piece reporting information they got from the US Intel agencies leaking against me using my money, in my name, in a supposedly free country, they run this piece saying I’d met with Snowden like it was a crime or something. So again, my interest is in the United States and preserving freedoms here, the ones that I grew up with. If you have a media establishment that acts as an auxiliary of, or acts as employees of the national security state, you don’t have a free country and that’s where we are.
… just do an interview, shoot it on my iPhone. I’d love to take a picture together and put it on the internet because I just want to show support because I think he’s been railroaded. He had no interest in living in Russia, no intention of being in Russia. The whole thing is a lie. But anyway, whatever, all this stuff. He just said, “Respectfully, I’d rather not anyone know that we met.” Great. I didn’t tell anybody and I didn’t text it to anybody, okay, except him. Semaphore runs this piece reporting information they got from the US Intel agencies leaking against me using my money, in my name, in a supposedly free country, they run this piece saying I’d met with Snowden like it was a crime or something. So again, my interest is in the United States and preserving freedoms here, the ones that I grew up with. If you have a media establishment that acts as an auxiliary of, or acts as employees of the national security state, you don’t have a free country and that’s where we are.
I’m not guessing, because I spent my entire life in that world, 33 years, I worked in big news companies and so I know how it works. I know the people involved in it. I could name them, Ben Smith of Semaphore, among many others and I find that really objectionable, not just on principle either, in effect, in practice, I don’t want to live in that kind of country. People externalize all of their anxiety about this I have noticed. So it’s like Russia is not free. Yeah, I know. Neither is Burkina Faso, most countries aren’t free actually, but we are. We’re the United States. We’re different. That’s my concern. Preserving that is my concern. They get so exercised about what’s happening in other parts of the world, places they’ve never been, know nothing about, it’s almost a way of ignoring what’s happening in their own country right around them. I find it so strange and sad and weird.
Lex Fridman
So the NSA was tracking you? Do you think CIA was? Is people still tracking you?
So the NSA was tracking you? Do you think CIA was? Is people still tracking you?
Tucker Carlson
Look, one of the things I did before I went, just because the business I’m in, all of us are in, and just because we live here, we all have theories about secure communications channels. Like signal is secure, Telegraph isn’t, or WhatsApp is owned by Mark Zuckerberg, you can’t trust, well, okay. So I thought before I go over here, we were having all these conversations, my producers and I about this, and I decide I’m just going to actually find out what’s really going on. I talked to two people who would know, trust me, and it’s all I can say. I hate to be like, oh, I talked to people who would know but I can’t share who. But I mean it, they would know. Both of them said exactly the same thing, which is, “Are you joking, nothing is secure. Everything is monitored all the time.”
Look, one of the things I did before I went, just because the business I’m in, all of us are in, and just because we live here, we all have theories about secure communications channels. Like signal is secure, Telegraph isn’t, or WhatsApp is owned by Mark Zuckerberg, you can’t trust, well, okay. So I thought before I go over here, we were having all these conversations, my producers and I about this, and I decide I’m just going to actually find out what’s really going on. I talked to two people who would know, trust me, and it’s all I can say. I hate to be like, oh, I talked to people who would know but I can’t share who. But I mean it, they would know. Both of them said exactly the same thing, which is, “Are you joking, nothing is secure. Everything is monitored all the time.”
If state actors are involved, you can keep whatever the Malaysian mafia from reading your texts probably. You cannot keep the big Intel services from reading your texts, it’s not possible, any of them, or listening to your calls. That was the firm conclusion of people who’ve been involved in it for a long time, decades, in both cases. I just thought, you know what, I don’t care. I don’t care. I’m not sending a ton of naked pictures of myself to anybody.
Lex Fridman
Not a ton, just the little?
Not a ton, just the little?
Tucker Carlson
Not a ton. I’m 54, dude, probably not too many. The guys travel with three people I work with, who I love, who I’ve been around the world with for many years, and I know them really, really well and they all got separate phones and I’m leaving my other phone back in New York or whatever. I just decided I don’t care, actually. I resent having no privacy because privacy is a prerequisite for freedom, but I can’t change it, and so I have the same surveilled cell phone. I do switch them out. There it is. Because if you have too much spyware on your phone, this is true, it wrecks the battery.
Not a ton. I’m 54, dude, probably not too many. The guys travel with three people I work with, who I love, who I’ve been around the world with for many years, and I know them really, really well and they all got separate phones and I’m leaving my other phone back in New York or whatever. I just decided I don’t care, actually. I resent having no privacy because privacy is a prerequisite for freedom, but I can’t change it, and so I have the same surveilled cell phone. I do switch them out. There it is. Because if you have too much spyware on your phone, this is true, it wrecks the battery.
No, I’m serious. It does. It was, I don’t know, five or six years ago we went to North Korea, and my phone started acting crazy. I talked to someone on the National Security Council, actually who called me about this, somehow knew that your phone is being surveilled by the South Korean government. I was like, “I like the South Korean government. Why would they do that?” Because they want more information, they thought I was talking to Trump or whatever. But I could tell because all of a sudden the thing would just drain in like 45 minutes so that’s a downside.
Lex Fridman
You keep switching phones, getting new phones for the battery life. That’s good.
You keep switching phones, getting new phones for the battery life. That’s good.
Tucker Carlson
Yeah. I try not to do it. I’m kind of flinty Yankee type in some ways, so I don’t like to spend $1,000 with the freaking Apple corporation too often, but yeah, I do.
Yeah. I try not to do it. I’m kind of flinty Yankee type in some ways, so I don’t like to spend $1,000 with the freaking Apple corporation too often, but yeah, I do.
Lex Fridman
You say it lightly, but it’s really troublesome that you, as a journalist, would be tracked.
You say it lightly, but it’s really troublesome that you, as a journalist, would be tracked.
Tucker Carlson
Well, they leaked it to Semaphore and they leaked it to the New York Times. Well, there’s nothing I can do, so I have to put up with everything, but I would probably not be actively angry about being surveilled because I’m just so old and I actually do pay my taxes, and I’m not sleeping with the makeup artist or whatever so I don’t care that much. The fact that they are leaking against me, that the Intel services in the United States are actively engaged in US politics and media, that’s so unacceptable. That makes democracy impossible. There’s no defense of that. And yet NBC News, Ken Dilanian and the rest will defend it, and not just on NBC news, by the way, on the supposedly conservative channels too, they will defend it and there’s no defending that. You can’t have democracy if the Intel services are tempering in elections and information, period.
Well, they leaked it to Semaphore and they leaked it to the New York Times. Well, there’s nothing I can do, so I have to put up with everything, but I would probably not be actively angry about being surveilled because I’m just so old and I actually do pay my taxes, and I’m not sleeping with the makeup artist or whatever so I don’t care that much. The fact that they are leaking against me, that the Intel services in the United States are actively engaged in US politics and media, that’s so unacceptable. That makes democracy impossible. There’s no defense of that. And yet NBC News, Ken Dilanian and the rest will defend it, and not just on NBC news, by the way, on the supposedly conservative channels too, they will defend it and there’s no defending that. You can’t have democracy if the Intel services are tempering in elections and information, period.
Lex Fridman
So you had no fear. Your lawyer said, be careful which questions you asked. You said, I don’t have-
So you had no fear. Your lawyer said, be careful which questions you asked. You said, I don’t have-
Tucker Carlson
Well, no, he said very specifically, depending on the questions you ask Putin, you could be arrested or not. I said, “Listen to what you’re saying. You’re saying the US government has control over my questions and they’ll arrest me if I ask the wrong question. How are we better than Putin if that’s true.” By the way, that’s just what the lawyer said. But I can’t overstate, one of the biggest law firms in the United States, smart lawyers we’ve used for years so I was really shocked by it.
Well, no, he said very specifically, depending on the questions you ask Putin, you could be arrested or not. I said, “Listen to what you’re saying. You’re saying the US government has control over my questions and they’ll arrest me if I ask the wrong question. How are we better than Putin if that’s true.” By the way, that’s just what the lawyer said. But I can’t overstate, one of the biggest law firms in the United States, smart lawyers we’ve used for years so I was really shocked by it.
Lex Fridman
You said leaders kill, leaders lie.
You said leaders kill, leaders lie.
Tucker Carlson
Yeah. I don’t believe in leaders very much like this whole, “Oh, Zelensky’s Jesus and Putin’s Satan.” It’s like, no, they’re all leaders of countries. Grow up a little bit you child. Have you ever met a leader? First of all, anyone who seeks power is damaged morally, in my opinion. You shouldn’t be seeking power. You can’t seek power or wealth for its own sake and remain a decent person. That’s just true. So there aren’t any really virtuous billionaires and there aren’t any really virtuous world leaders. You have grades of virtue, some are better than others for sure. In other words, Zelensky may be better than Putin. I’m open to that possibility. But to claim that one is evil and the other is virtuous, it’s like, you’re revealing that you’re a child, you don’t know anything about how the world actually is or what reality is.
Yeah. I don’t believe in leaders very much like this whole, “Oh, Zelensky’s Jesus and Putin’s Satan.” It’s like, no, they’re all leaders of countries. Grow up a little bit you child. Have you ever met a leader? First of all, anyone who seeks power is damaged morally, in my opinion. You shouldn’t be seeking power. You can’t seek power or wealth for its own sake and remain a decent person. That’s just true. So there aren’t any really virtuous billionaires and there aren’t any really virtuous world leaders. You have grades of virtue, some are better than others for sure. In other words, Zelensky may be better than Putin. I’m open to that possibility. But to claim that one is evil and the other is virtuous, it’s like, you’re revealing that you’re a child, you don’t know anything about how the world actually is or what reality is.
Lex Fridman
That’s quite a realist perspective, but there is a spectrum.
That’s quite a realist perspective, but there is a spectrum.
Tucker Carlson
There’s a spectrum, absolutely. I’m not saying they’re all the same. They’re not.
There’s a spectrum, absolutely. I’m not saying they’re all the same. They’re not.
Lex Fridman
And our task is to figure out where on the spectrum they lie and the leader’s task is to confuse us and convince us they’re one of the good guys.
And our task is to figure out where on the spectrum they lie and the leader’s task is to confuse us and convince us they’re one of the good guys.
Tucker Carlson
Of course. Of course. But I actually reject even that formulation. I don’t think it’s always about the leaders. Of course the leaders make the difference. A good leader has a healthy country and a bad leader has a decaying country, which is something to think about. But it’s about the ideas and the policies and the practical effect of things. So we’re very much caught up in the personalities of various leaders, not just our political leaders, but our business leaders, our cultural leaders. Are they good people? Do they have the right thoughts? It’s like, no, I ask a much more basic question, what are the fruits of their behavior? I always make it personal because I think everything is personal. Does his wife respect him? Do his children respect him? How are they doing? Is the country he runs thriving or is it falling apart? If your life expectancy is going down, if your suicide rate is going up, if your standard of living is tanking, you’re not a good leader.
Of course. Of course. But I actually reject even that formulation. I don’t think it’s always about the leaders. Of course the leaders make the difference. A good leader has a healthy country and a bad leader has a decaying country, which is something to think about. But it’s about the ideas and the policies and the practical effect of things. So we’re very much caught up in the personalities of various leaders, not just our political leaders, but our business leaders, our cultural leaders. Are they good people? Do they have the right thoughts? It’s like, no, I ask a much more basic question, what are the fruits of their behavior? I always make it personal because I think everything is personal. Does his wife respect him? Do his children respect him? How are they doing? Is the country he runs thriving or is it falling apart? If your life expectancy is going down, if your suicide rate is going up, if your standard of living is tanking, you’re not a good leader.
I don’t care what you tell me. I don’t care what you claim you represent. I don’t care about the ideas or the systems that you say you embody. It’s dogs barking to me. How’s your life expectancy? How’s your suicide rate? What’s drug use like? Are people having children? Are people’s children more likely to live in a free or more prosperous society than you did and their grandparents did? Those are the only measures that matter to me, the rest is a lie. But anyway, the point is we just get so obsessed with the theater around people or people, and we miss the bigger things that are happening and we allow ourselves to be deceived into thinking that what doesn’t matter at all matters, that moral victories are all that matters. No, actually, facts on the ground victories matter more than anything. You certainly see it in this country. Black Lives Matter, for example, how many black people did that help? It hurt a lot of black people, but in the end, we should be able to measure it.
Moscow
How many black people have died by gunfire in the four years since George Floyd died? Well, the number’s gone way, way up and that was a Black Lives Matter operation, defund the police. So I think we can say as a factual matter, data-based matter, Black Lives Matter didn’t help black people and if it did tell me how. “Well, these are important moral victories.” I’m over that. That’s just another lie, a long litany of lies. So I try to see the rest of the world that way. But more than anything, I try to see world events through the lens of an American because I am one. And what does this mean for us? It’s not even the war, it’s the sanctions that will forever change the United States, our standard of living, the way our government operates. That more than any single thing in my lifetime screwed the United States. Levying those sanctions in the way that we did was crazy. For me, the main takeaway from my eight days in Moscow was not Putin. He’s a leader, whatever. None of them are that different actually, in my pretty extensive experience, no, it was Moscow. That blew my mind. I was not prepared for that at all and I thought I knew a lot about Moscow. My dad worked there on and off in the 80s and 90s because, a US government employee. And he was always coming back, “Moscow, it’s a nightmare,” and all this stuff, “no electricity.” I got there almost exactly two years after sanctions, totally cut off from Western financial systems, kicked out of Swift, can’t use US dollars, no banking, no credit cards. And that city just factually, I’m not endorsing the system, I’m not endorsing the whole country. I didn’t go to Lake Baikal. I didn’t go to Turkmenistan. I just went to Moscow, largest city in Europe, 13 million people. I drove all around it and that city is way nicer, outwardly anyway, I don’t live there, than any city we have by a lot.
And by nicer, let me be specific. No graffiti. No homeless. No people using drugs in the street. Totally tidy. No garbage on the ground. And no forest of steel and concrete soul- destroying buildings, none of the postmodern architecture that oppresses us without even our knowledge. None of that crap. It’s a truly beautiful city. That’s not an endorsement of Putin. By the way, it didn’t make me love Putin, it made me hate my own leaders because I grew up in a country that had cities kind of like that, that were nice cities that were safe, and we don’t have that anymore. How did that happen? Did Putin do that? I don’t think Putin did that actually. I think the people in charge of that, the mayors, the governors, the president, they did that and they should be held accountable for it.
Lex Fridman
I think cleanliness and architectural design is not the entirety of the metrics that matter when you measure a city.
I think cleanliness and architectural design is not the entirety of the metrics that matter when you measure a city.
Tucker Carlson
They’re the main metrics that matter. They’re the main metrics that matter. The main metrics that matter are cleanliness, safety, and beauty, in my opinion. And one of the big lies that we are told in our world is that, no, something you can’t measure that has no actual effect on your life matters most. Bullshit. What matters most, to say it again, beauty, safety, cleanliness, lots of other things matter too, a whole bunch of things matter. But if I were to put them in order, it’s not some theoretical, well, actually, I don’t know if you know that the Duma has no power. Okay, I get that. Freedom of speech matters enormously to me. They have less freedom of speech in Russia than we do in the United States. We are superior to them in that way. But you can’t tell me that living in a city where your 6-year-old daughter can walk to the bus stop and ride on a clean bus or ride in a beautiful subway car that’s on time and not get assaulted, that doesn’t matter.
They’re the main metrics that matter. They’re the main metrics that matter. The main metrics that matter are cleanliness, safety, and beauty, in my opinion. And one of the big lies that we are told in our world is that, no, something you can’t measure that has no actual effect on your life matters most. Bullshit. What matters most, to say it again, beauty, safety, cleanliness, lots of other things matter too, a whole bunch of things matter. But if I were to put them in order, it’s not some theoretical, well, actually, I don’t know if you know that the Duma has no power. Okay, I get that. Freedom of speech matters enormously to me. They have less freedom of speech in Russia than we do in the United States. We are superior to them in that way. But you can’t tell me that living in a city where your 6-year-old daughter can walk to the bus stop and ride on a clean bus or ride in a beautiful subway car that’s on time and not get assaulted, that doesn’t matter.
No, that matters almost more than anything, actually. We can have both. The normal regime defenders and morons, John Stewart or whatever he’s calling himself, they’re like, “Whoa, that’s the price of freedom.” People shitting on the sidewalk is the price of freedom. It’s like you can’t fool me because I’ve lived here for 54 years, I know that it’s not the price of freedom because I lived in a country that was both free and clean and orderly. So that’s not a trade off I think I have to make. That is the beauty of being a little bit older because you’re like, no, I remember that, actually. It wasn’t what you’re saying. We didn’t have racial segregation in 1985. It was a really nice country that respected itself. I was here. I think with younger people, you can tell them that and they’re like, well, 1985 you were selling slaves in Madison Square Garden. It’s like, no, they weren’t. You’re going to Madison Square Garden and not stepping over a single fentanyl addict.
Lex Fridman
It is true, there doesn’t have to be a trade off between cleanliness and freedom of speech, but it is also true that in dictatorships, cleanliness and architectural design is easier to achieve and perfect, and often is done so you can show off, look how great our cities are while you’re suppressing-
It is true, there doesn’t have to be a trade off between cleanliness and freedom of speech, but it is also true that in dictatorships, cleanliness and architectural design is easier to achieve and perfect, and often is done so you can show off, look how great our cities are while you’re suppressing-
Tucker Carlson
Of course, of course, I agree with that vehemently. This is not a defense of the Russian system at all. If I felt that way, I would not only move there, but I would announce I was moving there. I’m not ashamed of my views. I never have been. For all the people who are trying to impute secret motives to my words, I’m like the one person in America you don’t need to do that with. If you think I’m a racist, ask me and I’ll tell you.
Of course, of course, I agree with that vehemently. This is not a defense of the Russian system at all. If I felt that way, I would not only move there, but I would announce I was moving there. I’m not ashamed of my views. I never have been. For all the people who are trying to impute secret motives to my words, I’m like the one person in America you don’t need to do that with. If you think I’m a racist, ask me and I’ll tell you.
Lex Fridman
Are you a racist?
Are you a racist?
Tucker Carlson
No. I am a sexist though.
No. I am a sexist though.
Lex Fridman
Great
Great
Tucker Carlson
Anyway. No, but if I was a defender of Vladimir Putin, I would just say I’m defending Vladimir Putin now. I’m not. I am attacking our leaders and I’m grieving over the low expectations of our people. You don’t need to put up with this. You don’t need to put up with foreign invaders stealing from you, occupying your kid’s school. Your kids can’t get an education because people from foreign countries broke our laws and showed up here and they’ve taken over the school. That’s not a feature of freedom, actually, that’s the opposite. That’s what enslavement looks like. I’m just saying, raise your expectations a little bit. You can have a clean, functional, safe country, crime is totally optional. Crime is something our leaders decide to have or not have.
Anyway. No, but if I was a defender of Vladimir Putin, I would just say I’m defending Vladimir Putin now. I’m not. I am attacking our leaders and I’m grieving over the low expectations of our people. You don’t need to put up with this. You don’t need to put up with foreign invaders stealing from you, occupying your kid’s school. Your kids can’t get an education because people from foreign countries broke our laws and showed up here and they’ve taken over the school. That’s not a feature of freedom, actually, that’s the opposite. That’s what enslavement looks like. I’m just saying, raise your expectations a little bit. You can have a clean, functional, safe country, crime is totally optional. Crime is something our leaders decide to have or not have.
It’s not something that just appears organically. I wrote a book about crime 30 years ago. I thought a lot about this. You have as much crime as you put up with, period. It doesn’t make you less free to not tolerate murder. In fact, it makes you unfree to have a lot of murders. But it makes me sad that people are like, “I can’t live in New York City anymore because of inflation and filth and illegal aliens and people shooting each other, but I’m glad because this is vibrant and strong and free.” It’s like that’s not freedom actually, at all.
Lex Fridman
Your point is well taken, you can have both. But do you regret-
Your point is well taken, you can have both. But do you regret-
Tucker Carlson
Had both. That’s the point, we had both, I saw it.
Had both. That’s the point, we had both, I saw it.
Lex Fridman
Do you regret to a degree using the Moscow subway and the grocery store as a mechanism by which to make that point?
Do you regret to a degree using the Moscow subway and the grocery store as a mechanism by which to make that point?
Tucker Carlson
No. Look, I’m one of the more unself-aware people you will ever interview. So to ask me how will this be perceived, I literally have no idea and kind of limited interest. But I was so shocked by it. I was so shocked by it. To the extent I regret anything and to blame for anything, it would be not, and I’ve done this a lot, not giving it context, not fully explaining why are we doing this. The grocery store, I was shocked by the prices. And yes, I’m familiar with exchange rates, very familiar with exchange rates and I adjusted them for exchange rates, and this is two years into sanctions, total isolation from the west. So I would expect, in fact, I did expect until I got there that their supply chains would be crushed. How do you get good stuff if you don’t have access to western markets? I didn’t fully get the answer because I was occupied doing other things when I was there, but somehow they have and that’s the point. They haven’t had the supply chains problems that I predicted. In other words, sanctions haven’t made the country noticeably worse.
No. Look, I’m one of the more unself-aware people you will ever interview. So to ask me how will this be perceived, I literally have no idea and kind of limited interest. But I was so shocked by it. I was so shocked by it. To the extent I regret anything and to blame for anything, it would be not, and I’ve done this a lot, not giving it context, not fully explaining why are we doing this. The grocery store, I was shocked by the prices. And yes, I’m familiar with exchange rates, very familiar with exchange rates and I adjusted them for exchange rates, and this is two years into sanctions, total isolation from the west. So I would expect, in fact, I did expect until I got there that their supply chains would be crushed. How do you get good stuff if you don’t have access to western markets? I didn’t fully get the answer because I was occupied doing other things when I was there, but somehow they have and that’s the point. They haven’t had the supply chains problems that I predicted. In other words, sanctions haven’t made the country noticeably worse.
Okay, so again, this is commentary in the United States and our policymakers, why are we doing this? It’s forcing the rest of the world into a block against us called bricks. They’re getting off the US dollar. That will mean a lot of dollars are going to come back here and destroy our economy and impoverish this country. So the consequences, the stakes are really high. They’re huge and we’re not even hurting Russia. What the hell are we doing, one. On the subway, that Subway was built by Joseph Stalin right before the second World War. I’m not endorsing Stalin, obviously. Stalinism is a thing that I hate and I don’t want to come to my country. I’m making the obvious point that for over 80 years you’ve had these frescoes and chandeliers, maybe they’ve been redone or whatever, but somehow the society has been able to not destroy what its ancestors built, the things that are worth having, and there are a lot. Why don’t we have that?
Even on a much more terrestrial plane, why can’t I have a subway station like that? Why can’t my children who live in New York City ride the subway? A lot of people I know who live in New York City are afraid to ride the subway, young women especially. That’s freedom? No, again, it’s slavery. If Putin can do this, why can’t we? What? This is so obvious. I’m a traitor? Okay, so if I’m calling for American citizens to demand more from their government and higher standards for their own society, and remember that just 30 years ago, we had a much different and much happier and cleaner and healthier society where everyone wasn’t fat with diabetes at 40 from poisoned food, I’m not a traitor to my country, I’m a defender of my country. By the way, the people calling me a traitor, they’re all like, whatever. I would not say they’re people who put America’s interest first to put it mildly.
Lex Fridman
There’s many elements, like you said, you don’t like Stalinism. You’re a student of history, central planning is good at building subways in a way that’s really nice. The thing that accounts for New York subways, by the way, there’s a lot of really positive things about New York subways, not cleanliness, but the efficiency, the accessibility, how wide it spreads. The New York network is incredible.
There’s many elements, like you said, you don’t like Stalinism. You’re a student of history, central planning is good at building subways in a way that’s really nice. The thing that accounts for New York subways, by the way, there’s a lot of really positive things about New York subways, not cleanliness, but the efficiency, the accessibility, how wide it spreads. The New York network is incredible.
Tucker Carlson
It is.
It is.
Lex Fridman
But Moscow, under different metrics, results of a capitalist system. And you actually said that you don’t think US is quite a capitalist system, which is an interesting question itself.
But Moscow, under different metrics, results of a capitalist system. And you actually said that you don’t think US is quite a capitalist system, which is an interesting question itself.
Tucker Carlson
That’s for sure. We have more central planning here than they do in Russia.
That’s for sure. We have more central planning here than they do in Russia.
Lex Fridman
No, that’s not true.
No, that’s not true.
Tucker Carlson
Of course it is.
Of course it is.
Lex Fridman
You think that’s true.
You think that’s true.
Tucker Carlson
The climate agenda, of course. The US government has, in league with a couple of big, companies, decided to change the way we produce and consume energy. There’s no popular outcry for that. There’s never been any mass movement of Americans who’s like, “I hate my gasoline powered engine. No more diesel.” That has been central planning. That is central planning. You see it up and down our economy, there’s no free market in the United States. You get crossways with the government, you’re done. If you’re at scale, maybe if you’ve got a barbershop or a liquor store or something, but even then you’re regulated by politicians. And so, no, I actually am for free markets. I hate monopolies. Our economy is dominated by monopolies, completely dominated in-
The climate agenda, of course. The US government has, in league with a couple of big, companies, decided to change the way we produce and consume energy. There’s no popular outcry for that. There’s never been any mass movement of Americans who’s like, “I hate my gasoline powered engine. No more diesel.” That has been central planning. That is central planning. You see it up and down our economy, there’s no free market in the United States. You get crossways with the government, you’re done. If you’re at scale, maybe if you’ve got a barbershop or a liquor store or something, but even then you’re regulated by politicians. And so, no, I actually am for free markets. I hate monopolies. Our economy is dominated by monopolies, completely dominated in-
Lex Fridman
What do you mean?
What do you mean?
Tucker Carlson
Google. What percentage of search does Google have, 90? Google’s a monopoly, by any definition. Google is just rich enough to continue doing whatever it wants in violation of US law. There’s no monopoly in Russia as big as Google. I’m not, again, defending the Russian system. I’m calling for return to our old system, which was sensible and moderate and put the needs of Americans, at least somewhere in the top 10. Somewhere in the top 10. I’m not saying that standard oil was interested in the welfare of average Americans, but I am saying that there was a constituency in our political system, in the Congress, for example, different presidential candidates are like, “No, wait a second. What is this doing to people? Is it good for people or not?” There’s not even a conversation about that. It’s shut up and submit to AI. No offense. And so I’m just-
Google. What percentage of search does Google have, 90? Google’s a monopoly, by any definition. Google is just rich enough to continue doing whatever it wants in violation of US law. There’s no monopoly in Russia as big as Google. I’m not, again, defending the Russian system. I’m calling for return to our old system, which was sensible and moderate and put the needs of Americans, at least somewhere in the top 10. Somewhere in the top 10. I’m not saying that standard oil was interested in the welfare of average Americans, but I am saying that there was a constituency in our political system, in the Congress, for example, different presidential candidates are like, “No, wait a second. What is this doing to people? Is it good for people or not?” There’s not even a conversation about that. It’s shut up and submit to AI. No offense. And so I’m just-
Lex Fridman
Offense taken. I’ll write, “We will get you.” When it’s strong enough-
Offense taken. I’ll write, “We will get you.” When it’s strong enough-
Tucker Carlson
I have no doubt.
I have no doubt.
Lex Fridman
… you’ll be the first one to go.
… you’ll be the first one to go.
Tucker Carlson
Well, as a white man, I just won’t even exist anymore.
Well, as a white man, I just won’t even exist anymore.
Lex Fridman
Right, so much to say on that one.
Right, so much to say on that one.
Tucker Carlson
I bet when you Google my picture 20 years from now, I’ll be a Black chick. A hundred percent.
I bet when you Google my picture 20 years from now, I’ll be a Black chick. A hundred percent.
Lex Fridman
Well, I hope she’s attractive.
Well, I hope she’s attractive.
Tucker Carlson
I hope so too. It’d probably be an upgrade.
I hope so too. It’d probably be an upgrade.
Lex Fridman
So, well, the central planning point is really interesting, but I just don’t know where you’re coming from. There’s a capitalist system … the United States is one of the most successful capitalist system in the history of earth. So just-
So, well, the central planning point is really interesting, but I just don’t know where you’re coming from. There’s a capitalist system … the United States is one of the most successful capitalist system in the history of earth. So just-
Tucker Carlson
It’s the most successful. I’m just saying that I think it’s changed a lot in the last 15 years and that we need to update our assumptions about what we’re seeing.
It’s the most successful. I’m just saying that I think it’s changed a lot in the last 15 years and that we need to update our assumptions about what we’re seeing.
Lex Fridman
Sure.
Sure.
Tucker Carlson
And that’s true up and down. That’s true with everything. It’s true with your neighbor’s children who you haven’t seen in three years and they come home from Wesleyan and you’re like, “Oh, you’ve grown.” That is true for the world around us as well. Most of our assumptions about immigration, about our economy, about our tax system are completely outdated if you compare them to the current reality. I’m just for updating my files and I have a big advantage over you because I am middle aged, and so I don’t-
And that’s true up and down. That’s true with everything. It’s true with your neighbor’s children who you haven’t seen in three years and they come home from Wesleyan and you’re like, “Oh, you’ve grown.” That is true for the world around us as well. Most of our assumptions about immigration, about our economy, about our tax system are completely outdated if you compare them to the current reality. I’m just for updating my files and I have a big advantage over you because I am middle aged, and so I don’t-
Lex Fridman
You’ve called yourself old so many times throughout this conversation.
You’ve called yourself old so many times throughout this conversation.
Tucker Carlson
I don’t trust my perceptions of things so I’m constantly trying to be like, is that true, I should go there. I should see it. I guess just in the end, I trust direct perceptions. I don’t trust the internet, actually. Wikipedia is a joke. Wikipedia could not be more dishonest, it’s certainly in the political categories or things that I know a lot about. Occasionally, I read an entry written about something that I saw or know the people involved, and I’m like, well, that’s a complete lie or you left out the most important fact. It’s not a reliable guide to reality or history and that will accelerate with AI, where our perception of the past is completely controlled and distorted. I think just getting out there and seeing stuff and seeing that Moscow was not what I thought it would be, which was a smoldering ruin, rats in a garbage dump, it was nicer than New York. What the hell?
I don’t trust my perceptions of things so I’m constantly trying to be like, is that true, I should go there. I should see it. I guess just in the end, I trust direct perceptions. I don’t trust the internet, actually. Wikipedia is a joke. Wikipedia could not be more dishonest, it’s certainly in the political categories or things that I know a lot about. Occasionally, I read an entry written about something that I saw or know the people involved, and I’m like, well, that’s a complete lie or you left out the most important fact. It’s not a reliable guide to reality or history and that will accelerate with AI, where our perception of the past is completely controlled and distorted. I think just getting out there and seeing stuff and seeing that Moscow was not what I thought it would be, which was a smoldering ruin, rats in a garbage dump, it was nicer than New York. What the hell?
Lex Fridman
Direct data is good, but it’s challenging. For example, if you talk to a lot of people in Moscow or in Russia, and you ask them, “Is there a censorship?” They will usually say, “Yes, there is.”
Direct data is good, but it’s challenging. For example, if you talk to a lot of people in Moscow or in Russia, and you ask them, “Is there a censorship?” They will usually say, “Yes, there is.”
Tucker Carlson
Oh yeah, of course there is. Well, I agree. Just to be clear, I have no plans to move to Russia. I think I would probably be arrested if I moved to Russia. Ed Snowden, who is the most famous openness, transparency, advocate in the world, I would say along with Assange, doesn’t want to live in Russia. He’s had problems with the Putin government. He’s attacked Putin. They don’t like it. I get it. I get it. I’m just saying, what are the lessons for us? The main lesson is we are being lied to in a way that’s bewildering and very upsetting. I was mad about it all eight days I was there because I feel like I’m better informed than most people because it’s my job to be informed. I’m skeptical of everything and yet I was completely hoodwinked by it.
Oh yeah, of course there is. Well, I agree. Just to be clear, I have no plans to move to Russia. I think I would probably be arrested if I moved to Russia. Ed Snowden, who is the most famous openness, transparency, advocate in the world, I would say along with Assange, doesn’t want to live in Russia. He’s had problems with the Putin government. He’s attacked Putin. They don’t like it. I get it. I get it. I’m just saying, what are the lessons for us? The main lesson is we are being lied to in a way that’s bewildering and very upsetting. I was mad about it all eight days I was there because I feel like I’m better informed than most people because it’s my job to be informed. I’m skeptical of everything and yet I was completely hoodwinked by it.
I would just recommend to everyone watching this, if you’re really interested, if you’re one of those people, and I’m not one, but who’s waking up every day and you’ve got a Ukrainian flag on your mailbox or whatever, your Ukrainian lapel pin, or this absurd theater, but if you sincerely care about Ukraine or Russia or whatever, why don’t you just hop on a plane for 800 bucks and go see it? That doesn’t occur to anyone to do that. I know it’s time consuming and kind of expensive, sort of, not really, but you benefit so much. I could bore you for eight hours, and I know you’ve had this experience, where you think you know what something is or you think you know who someone is, and then you have direct experience of that place or person and you realize all your preconceptions were totally wrong. They were controlled by somebody else. In fact, I won’t betray confidences, but off the air we were talking about somebody and you said, “I couldn’t believe the person was not at all what I thought.” Well, that’s happened to me-
Lex Fridman
In the positive direction.
In the positive direction.
Tucker Carlson
In the positive direction. By the way, for me, it’s almost always in that direction. Most people I meet, and I’ve had the great privilege of meeting a lot of people over all this time, they’re way better than you think, or they’re more complicated or whatever. But the point is, a direct experience unmediated by liars, there’s no substitute for that.
In the positive direction. By the way, for me, it’s almost always in that direction. Most people I meet, and I’ve had the great privilege of meeting a lot of people over all this time, they’re way better than you think, or they’re more complicated or whatever. But the point is, a direct experience unmediated by liars, there’s no substitute for that.
Lex Fridman
Well, on that point, direct experience in Ukraine. I visited Ukraine and witnessed a lot of the same things you witnessed in Moscow. First of all, beautiful architecture.
Well, on that point, direct experience in Ukraine. I visited Ukraine and witnessed a lot of the same things you witnessed in Moscow. First of all, beautiful architecture.
Tucker Carlson
Yes.
Yes.
Lex Fridman
This is a country that’s really in war. So it’s not-
This is a country that’s really in war. So it’s not-
Tucker Carlson
Oh, for real,
Oh, for real,
Lex Fridman
… for real. Where most of the men are either volunteering or fighting in the war, and there’s actual tanks in the streets that are going into your major city of Kyiv and still the supply chains are working-
… for real. Where most of the men are either volunteering or fighting in the war, and there’s actual tanks in the streets that are going into your major city of Kyiv and still the supply chains are working-
Tucker Carlson
Yes.
Yes.
Lex Fridman
… just a handful of months after the start of the war. Everything is working. The restaurants are amazing. Most of the people are able to do some kind of job, like the life goes on. Cleanliness, like you mentioned.
… just a handful of months after the start of the war. Everything is working. The restaurants are amazing. Most of the people are able to do some kind of job, like the life goes on. Cleanliness, like you mentioned.
Tucker Carlson
I love that.
I love that.
Lex Fridman
Security, it’s incredible. The crime went to zero. They gave out guns to everybody, the Texas strategy.
Security, it’s incredible. The crime went to zero. They gave out guns to everybody, the Texas strategy.
Tucker Carlson
It does work.
It does work.
Lex Fridman
When you witness it, you realize, okay, there’s something to these people. There’s something to this country that they’re not as corrupt as you might hear.
When you witness it, you realize, okay, there’s something to these people. There’s something to this country that they’re not as corrupt as you might hear.
Tucker Carlson
Right.
Right.
Lex Fridman
You hear that Russia is corrupt, Ukraine is corrupt, you assume it’s just all going to go to shit.
You hear that Russia is corrupt, Ukraine is corrupt, you assume it’s just all going to go to shit.
Tucker Carlson
I haven’t been to Ukraine, and I’ve certainly tried. They put me on some kill him immediately list so I can’t. I’ve tried to interview Zelensky. He keeps denouncing me. I just want an interview with him, he won’t, unfortunately. I would love to do it.
I haven’t been to Ukraine, and I’ve certainly tried. They put me on some kill him immediately list so I can’t. I’ve tried to interview Zelensky. He keeps denouncing me. I just want an interview with him, he won’t, unfortunately. I would love to do it.
Lex Fridman
I hope you do.
I hope you do.
Tucker Carlson
I do too. But one of the things that bothers me most … I love to hear that, what you just said about Kyiv, but I’m not really surprised. One of the things that I’m most ashamed of is the bigotry that I felt towards Slavic people, also toward Muslims, I’ll just be totally honest because I lived through decades of propaganda from NBC news and CNN where I worked, about this or that group of people and they’re horrible or whatever. And I kind of believed it. I see it now, we can’t even put the word Russia at Wimbledon because it’s so offensive. Well, what does the tennis player have to do with it? Did he invade Ukraine, I don’t think he did. Stealing all these business guys yachts and denouncing thing was oligarchs, what do they have to do with it? Whatever.
I do too. But one of the things that bothers me most … I love to hear that, what you just said about Kyiv, but I’m not really surprised. One of the things that I’m most ashamed of is the bigotry that I felt towards Slavic people, also toward Muslims, I’ll just be totally honest because I lived through decades of propaganda from NBC news and CNN where I worked, about this or that group of people and they’re horrible or whatever. And I kind of believed it. I see it now, we can’t even put the word Russia at Wimbledon because it’s so offensive. Well, what does the tennis player have to do with it? Did he invade Ukraine, I don’t think he did. Stealing all these business guys yachts and denouncing thing was oligarchs, what do they have to do with it? Whatever.
Here’s my point. The idea that a whole group of people is just evil because of their blood, I just don’t believe that. I think it’s immoral to think that, and I can just tell you my own experience after eight days there. I think it’s a really interesting culture, Slavic culture, which is shared by the way, by Russian and Ukraine, of course, they’re first cousins at the most distant. I found them really smart and interesting and informed. I didn’t understand a lot of what they were saying. I don’t understand the way their minds work because I’m American, but it wasn’t a thin culture, it’s a thick culture and I admire that. I wish I could go to Ukraine. I would go tomorrow.
Freedom of speech
Lex Fridman
I think after you did the interview with Putin, you put a clip, I think on TCN, your analysis afterwards.
I think after you did the interview with Putin, you put a clip, I think on TCN, your analysis afterwards.
Tucker Carlson
It wasn’t much of an analysis.
It wasn’t much of an analysis.
Lex Fridman
No, but what stood out to me is you were talking shit about Putin a little bit. You were criticizing him.
No, but what stood out to me is you were talking shit about Putin a little bit. You were criticizing him.
Tucker Carlson
Why wouldn’t I?
Why wouldn’t I?
Lex Fridman
It spoke to the thing that you mentioned, which is you weren’t afraid. Now, the question I want to ask is, it would be pretty badass if you went to the supermarket and made the point you were making, but also criticize Putin, right? Criticize that there is a lack of freedom of speech and freedom of the press.
It spoke to the thing that you mentioned, which is you weren’t afraid. Now, the question I want to ask is, it would be pretty badass if you went to the supermarket and made the point you were making, but also criticize Putin, right? Criticize that there is a lack of freedom of speech and freedom of the press.
Tucker Carlson
In the supermarket?
In the supermarket?
Lex Fridman
Yes.
Yes.
Tucker Carlson
Oh, you mean if I also said that? Well, yeah, of course I think that. I guess part of it is that because I have such a low opinion of the commentariat in the United States and the news organizations, which really do just work for the US government, I really see them as I did Izvestia and Pravda in the 80s. They’re just organs of the government and I think they’re contemptible and I think the people who work there are contemptible. I say that as someone who knows them really well, personally. I think they’re disgusting. I’m a little bit cut off kind of from what people are saying about me because I’m not interested. But-
Oh, you mean if I also said that? Well, yeah, of course I think that. I guess part of it is that because I have such a low opinion of the commentariat in the United States and the news organizations, which really do just work for the US government, I really see them as I did Izvestia and Pravda in the 80s. They’re just organs of the government and I think they’re contemptible and I think the people who work there are contemptible. I say that as someone who knows them really well, personally. I think they’re disgusting. I’m a little bit cut off kind of from what people are saying about me because I’m not interested. But-
Tucker Carlson
Cut off kind of from what people are saying about me because I’m not interested. So I try not to be defensive like, “See, I’m not a tool of Putin.” But the idea that I’d be flacking for Putin when my relatives fought in the Revolutionary War, I’m as American as you could be, it’s like crazy to me. Anne Applebaum calls me a traitor. I’m like, “Okay.” It’s just so dumb. But no, of course, they don’t have… No country has freedom of speech other than us. Canada doesn’t have it. Great Britain definitely doesn’t have it. France, Netherlands, these are countries I spend a lot of time in, and Russia certainly doesn’t have it. So that’s why I don’t live there. I’m just saying our sanctions don’t work. That’s all I was saying.
Cut off kind of from what people are saying about me because I’m not interested. So I try not to be defensive like, “See, I’m not a tool of Putin.” But the idea that I’d be flacking for Putin when my relatives fought in the Revolutionary War, I’m as American as you could be, it’s like crazy to me. Anne Applebaum calls me a traitor. I’m like, “Okay.” It’s just so dumb. But no, of course, they don’t have… No country has freedom of speech other than us. Canada doesn’t have it. Great Britain definitely doesn’t have it. France, Netherlands, these are countries I spend a lot of time in, and Russia certainly doesn’t have it. So that’s why I don’t live there. I’m just saying our sanctions don’t work. That’s all I was saying.
We don’t have to live like animals. We can live with dignity. Even the Russians can do it. That’s kind of what I was saying. Even the Russians under Vladimir freaking Putin can live like this. No, it’s not a feature of dictatorship. That’s the most, I think, discouraging and most dishonest line by people like Jon Stewart who really are trying to prepare the population for accepting a lot less. He is really a tool of the regime in a sinister way, always has been like, “How dare you expect that? What are you, a Stalinist?” It’s like, no, I’m an American. I’m a decent person. I just want to be able to walk to the grocery store without being murdered. Is that too much? “Shut up, you don’t believe in freedom.” It’s really dark if you think about it.
Lex Fridman
So there is a fundamental way which you wanted Americans to expect more.
So there is a fundamental way which you wanted Americans to expect more.
Tucker Carlson
You don’t have to live like this. We don’t have to live like this. You don’t have to accept it. You don’t. Everyone’s afraid in this country, they’re going to be shut down by the tech oligarchs or have the FBI show up at their houses or go to jail. People are legit afraid of that in the United States. My feeling is, so? Show a little courage. What is it worth to you for your grandchildren to live in a free prosperous country? It should be worth more than your comfort. That’s how I feel.
You don’t have to live like this. We don’t have to live like this. You don’t have to accept it. You don’t. Everyone’s afraid in this country, they’re going to be shut down by the tech oligarchs or have the FBI show up at their houses or go to jail. People are legit afraid of that in the United States. My feeling is, so? Show a little courage. What is it worth to you for your grandchildren to live in a free prosperous country? It should be worth more than your comfort. That’s how I feel.
Lex Fridman
We should make clear that by many measures, you look at the World Press Freedom Index, you’re right. U.S. is not at the top. Norway is. U.S.’s score is 71.
We should make clear that by many measures, you look at the World Press Freedom Index, you’re right. U.S. is not at the top. Norway is. U.S.’s score is 71.
Tucker Carlson
Norway is.
Norway is.
Lex Fridman
Same as Gambia in West Africa.
Same as Gambia in West Africa.
Tucker Carlson
Really? So let me just ask.
Really? So let me just ask.
Lex Fridman
Hold on a second. Hold on a second. Hold on a second.
Hold on a second. Hold on a second. Hold on a second.
Tucker Carlson
Now you’re making me laugh.
Now you’re making me laugh.
Lex Fridman
Ukraine is 61 and Russia is 35, the lower it is, the worst. Close to China at 23, and North Korea at the very bottom, 22.
Ukraine is 61 and Russia is 35, the lower it is, the worst. Close to China at 23, and North Korea at the very bottom, 22.
Tucker Carlson
Didn’t ukraine put Gonzalo Lira in jail until he died for criticizing the government? How can they have a high press?
Didn’t ukraine put Gonzalo Lira in jail until he died for criticizing the government? How can they have a high press?
Lex Fridman
Yes. That’s why they’re 61 out of [inaudible 01:04:40].
Yes. That’s why they’re 61 out of [inaudible 01:04:40].
Tucker Carlson
What I’m saying, look, I don’t know what the criteria are they’re using to arrive at that, but I know press freedom when I see it. I try to practice it, which is saying what you think is true, correcting yourself when you’ve been shown to be wrong, as I have many times, being as honest as you can be all the time and not being afraid. Those are wholly absent in my country, wholly absent. People are afraid in the news business. I would know since I spent my life working there. They’re afraid to tell the truth. They’re under an enormous amount of pressure and a lot of them have little kids and mortgages, I’ve been there, so I have sympathy.
What I’m saying, look, I don’t know what the criteria are they’re using to arrive at that, but I know press freedom when I see it. I try to practice it, which is saying what you think is true, correcting yourself when you’ve been shown to be wrong, as I have many times, being as honest as you can be all the time and not being afraid. Those are wholly absent in my country, wholly absent. People are afraid in the news business. I would know since I spent my life working there. They’re afraid to tell the truth. They’re under an enormous amount of pressure and a lot of them have little kids and mortgages, I’ve been there, so I have sympathy.
But they go along with things. You are not allowed, if you stand up at any cable channel, any cable channel in the United States and say, “Wait a second, how did the Ukrainian government throw a U.S. citizen into prison until he died for criticizing the Ukrainian government? We’re paying for that. That’s why it’s offensive to me. We’re paying for it. That happens all the time around the world, of course. But this is a U.S. citizen and we’re paying the pensions of Ukrainian bureaucrats. We are the Ukrainian government at this point. If you said that on TV on any channel, well, you’d lose your job for that.
Norway is at the top. Really, Norway? If I went to Norwegian television and said NATO blew up Nord Stream, which it did, NATO blew up Nord Stream, the United States government with the help of other governments blew up, committed the largest act of industrial terrorism in history, and by the way, the largest environmental crime, the largest emission of CO2, methane, could I keep my job? No. So how is that a free press?
Lex Fridman
Well, we don’t know that. I mean the whole point of this-
Well, we don’t know that. I mean the whole point of this-
Tucker Carlson
In Norway?
In Norway?
Lex Fridman
Yes.
Yes.
Tucker Carlson
Well, as a Scandinavian, and I can tell you they would not put up with that in Norway for a second.
Well, as a Scandinavian, and I can tell you they would not put up with that in Norway for a second.
Lex Fridman
It’s been a while.
It’s been a while.
Tucker Carlson
You’re deviating from the majority, no.
You’re deviating from the majority, no.
Lex Fridman
Well, deviating maybe is frowned upon, but-
Well, deviating maybe is frowned upon, but-
Tucker Carlson
Frowned upon. Yeah.
Frowned upon. Yeah.
Lex Fridman
But do you have the freedom to say it if you do deviate? That’s the question.
But do you have the freedom to say it if you do deviate? That’s the question.
Tucker Carlson
Can you keep your job? That’s one measurement of it.
Can you keep your job? That’s one measurement of it.
Lex Fridman
Can you keep your job, yeah.
Can you keep your job, yeah.
Tucker Carlson
Yeah. It’s not the only measurement. Obviously being thrown into prison is much worse than losing your job. I’ve been fired a number of times for saying what I think, by the way. It’s fine. I’ve enjoyed it. I don’t mind being fired. I’ve always become a better person after it happened. But it is one measurement of freedom if you have the theoretical right to do something, but no practical ability to do it, do you have the right to do it? The answer is not really, actually.
Yeah. It’s not the only measurement. Obviously being thrown into prison is much worse than losing your job. I’ve been fired a number of times for saying what I think, by the way. It’s fine. I’ve enjoyed it. I don’t mind being fired. I’ve always become a better person after it happened. But it is one measurement of freedom if you have the theoretical right to do something, but no practical ability to do it, do you have the right to do it? The answer is not really, actually.
Jon Stewart
Lex Fridman
You mentioned Jon Stewart, the two of you have a bit of a history. I don’t know if you’ve seen it, but he kind of grilled your supermarket and subway videos. Have you got any chance to see it?
You mentioned Jon Stewart, the two of you have a bit of a history. I don’t know if you’ve seen it, but he kind of grilled your supermarket and subway videos. Have you got any chance to see it?
Tucker Carlson
I haven’t seen it, but someone characterized it to me, which is why I pivoted against it early in our conversation about how the price of freedom is living in filth and chaos.
I haven’t seen it, but someone characterized it to me, which is why I pivoted against it early in our conversation about how the price of freedom is living in filth and chaos.
Lex Fridman
Yeah, that was essentially it. So in 2004, that’s 20 years ago, Jon Stewart appeared on Crossfire, a show you hosted. That was kind of a memorable moment. Can you tell the saga of that as you remember it?
Yeah, that was essentially it. So in 2004, that’s 20 years ago, Jon Stewart appeared on Crossfire, a show you hosted. That was kind of a memorable moment. Can you tell the saga of that as you remember it?
Tucker Carlson
I mean, for me, as I was saying to you before about how it takes a long time to digest and process and understand what happens to you, or at least it does for me, I didn’t understand that as a particularly significant moment while it was happening. I just got off a plane from Hawaii. I mean, I was out of it as usual, and I was very literal as usual. So from my perspective, his criticism of me, to the extent I remember it, was that I was a partisan. Well, he had two critiques. One that Crossfire was stupid, which it certainly was. In fact, I’d already given my notice and I was moving on to another company by that point.
I mean, for me, as I was saying to you before about how it takes a long time to digest and process and understand what happens to you, or at least it does for me, I didn’t understand that as a particularly significant moment while it was happening. I just got off a plane from Hawaii. I mean, I was out of it as usual, and I was very literal as usual. So from my perspective, his criticism of me, to the extent I remember it, was that I was a partisan. Well, he had two critiques. One that Crossfire was stupid, which it certainly was. In fact, I’d already given my notice and I was moving on to another company by that point.
Crossfire was stupid. Crossfire didn’t help. Crossfire framed everything as Republican versus Democrat, whatever. It was not helpful to the public discourse. I couldn’t agree more, and that’s why I left. So that was part of his critique, fair. I’m not sure I would’ve admitted it at the time because I worked there and it’s sort of hard to admit you’re engaged in an enterprise that’s fundamentally worthless, which it was. But his other point was that I was somehow a partisan or a mindless partisan, which is definitely not true. It is true of him. He is a mindless partisan, but I’m not.
I really haven’t been since I got back from Baghdad at the beginning of the Iraq War, and I realized that the Republican party, which I’d voted for my whole life to that point, and had supported in general, was pushing this really horrible thing that was going to hurt the United States, which in time it really did. The Iraq War really hurt the United States. I realized that I had been on the wrong side of that. I said so publicly immediately from Baghdad, I said that to the New York Times and I really meant it. I mean it now. So to call me partisan, you can call me stupid, you can call me wrong, I certainly had been wrong, but partisan, I just didn’t think it was a meaningful… I mean, that’s just not true. It’s the opposite of true.
So I didn’t really take it seriously at all, and I never thought much of him. So I was like, “Whatever. Some buffoon jumping around on my show grandstanding.” By the way, that happened right at the moment that YouTube began. I think that was one of the first big YouTube, it was one of the first big YouTube videos. So it had a virality that, if that’s a word, it went everywhere in a way that didn’t used to happen in cable news. I mean, by that point, that was 20 years ago as you point out, I’ve been in cable news for nine years. So before 2004, we would say something on television and then it would be lost. People could claim they heard it, but you’d have to go to I think the University of Tennessee at Knoxville archives to get it.
Suddenly everything we said would live forever on the internet, which is good, by the way. That’s not bad. But it was a big change for me, and I just couldn’t believe how widely that was discussed at the time, because I thought he was not an interesting person, I think he’s obviously a very unhappy person. I just didn’t take him seriously then and I don’t now. But so anyway, that was it. It was a smaller thing in my life at the time than other people imagined.
Lex Fridman
Okay, you said lot of words that will make it sound like you’re a bit bitter even if you’re not. So you said unhappy person, partisan person.
Okay, you said lot of words that will make it sound like you’re a bit bitter even if you’re not. So you said unhappy person, partisan person.
Tucker Carlson
Well, I think he’s an unhappy guy. Well, he’s definitely partisan for sure.
Well, I think he’s an unhappy guy. Well, he’s definitely partisan for sure.
Lex Fridman
So can you elaborate why you think he’s partisan?
So can you elaborate why you think he’s partisan?
Tucker Carlson
Well, so I think that, and I see this a lot, not only on the left, but people who believe that whatever political debate they’re engaged in is the most important debate in the world. So they bring an emotional intensity to those debates, and they’re inevitably disappointed because no eternal question is solved politically. So they’re kind of on the wrong path and they’re doomed to frustration if they believe that, and many do. He certainly does, that whatever the issue is, so Clarence Thomas should not be Supreme Court justice, and the implication is, well, if someone else’s Supreme Court justice, we’ll live in a fair and happy society, but that’s just not… It’s a false promise.
Well, so I think that, and I see this a lot, not only on the left, but people who believe that whatever political debate they’re engaged in is the most important debate in the world. So they bring an emotional intensity to those debates, and they’re inevitably disappointed because no eternal question is solved politically. So they’re kind of on the wrong path and they’re doomed to frustration if they believe that, and many do. He certainly does, that whatever the issue is, so Clarence Thomas should not be Supreme Court justice, and the implication is, well, if someone else’s Supreme Court justice, we’ll live in a fair and happy society, but that’s just not… It’s a false promise.
So I think that people who bring that level of intensity to politics are, by definition, bitter, by definition, disappointed, bitter in the way the disappointed people are. That the real questions are like what happens when you die and how do the people around you feel about you? Those are not the only questions in life, but they’re certainly the most important ones. If we’re spending a disproportionate amount of time on who gets elected to some office, not that it’s irrelevant, it is relevant, but it’s not the eternal question. So I feel like he’s not the only kind of bitter silly person in Washington or in its orbit. There are many, and a lot of them are Republicans, so.
But I just thought it was ironic. I mean, everything’s ironic to me, but being called a Russia’s sympathizer by a guy who calls himself Boris, it just made me laugh. No one else has ever laughed at that. Boris Johnson’s real name is not Boris, as you know. He calls himself Boris. It’s his middle name. So if you call yourself Boris, you don’t really have standing to attack anyone else as a Russia defender, right? I think that’s funny. No one else, as I noted does. But Jon Stewart, there are a lot of things you could say about me, but he’s much more partisan than I am. So to call me a partisan, it’s like what?
Lex Fridman
He would probably say that he’s not a partisan, that he’s a comedian who’s looking for the humor and the absurdity of the system on both sides.
He would probably say that he’s not a partisan, that he’s a comedian who’s looking for the humor and the absurdity of the system on both sides.
Tucker Carlson
He’s a very serious person. I will say this, and he shares this quality with a lot of comedians, I know a lot of comedians, I know a cross section of people just having done this job for a long time, and a lot of them are very serious about their views, and they have a lot of emotional intensity. He certainly is in that category. That’s the silliest thing. Yeah, he’s a comedian for sure. He can be very funny for sure. He has talent, no doubt about it. I’ve never denied that. But he’s motivated by his moral views, “This is right. That is wrong.” I just think that it’s a misapplied passion.
He’s a very serious person. I will say this, and he shares this quality with a lot of comedians, I know a lot of comedians, I know a cross section of people just having done this job for a long time, and a lot of them are very serious about their views, and they have a lot of emotional intensity. He certainly is in that category. That’s the silliest thing. Yeah, he’s a comedian for sure. He can be very funny for sure. He has talent, no doubt about it. I’ve never denied that. But he’s motivated by his moral views, “This is right. That is wrong.” I just think that it’s a misapplied passion.
Lex Fridman
Do you think I’m just a comedian? Is-
Do you think I’m just a comedian? Is-
Tucker Carlson
I don’t think any person thinks that. I mean, if you’re just a comedian, and I, look, I’m not trying to claim, I couldn’t claim that I haven’t said a lot of dumb things, and one of the dumbest things I ever said was when he was on our set lecturing me, he’s a moralizer, which I also don’t really care for as an aesthetic matter, but he was lecturing me about something and I said, “I thought you’re here to tell jokes.” Which I shouldn’t have said because he wasn’t there to tell jokes. He was there to lecture me, and I should have just engaged it directly rather than trying to diminish him by like, “You’re just a little comedian.” Well, he doesn’t see himself that way. But I would just say this, Jon Stewart’s a defender of power. Jon Stewart has never criticized… What’s Jon Stewart’s view on the aid we’ve sent to Ukraine, the $100 billion or whatever. What happened to that money? What happened to the weapons that it bought? He doesn’t care. He has the exact same priorities as the people permanently in charge in Washington. So whatever. He’s not alone in that. So does Mika Brzezinski and her husband and all the rest of the cast of dummies.
I don’t think any person thinks that. I mean, if you’re just a comedian, and I, look, I’m not trying to claim, I couldn’t claim that I haven’t said a lot of dumb things, and one of the dumbest things I ever said was when he was on our set lecturing me, he’s a moralizer, which I also don’t really care for as an aesthetic matter, but he was lecturing me about something and I said, “I thought you’re here to tell jokes.” Which I shouldn’t have said because he wasn’t there to tell jokes. He was there to lecture me, and I should have just engaged it directly rather than trying to diminish him by like, “You’re just a little comedian.” Well, he doesn’t see himself that way. But I would just say this, Jon Stewart’s a defender of power. Jon Stewart has never criticized… What’s Jon Stewart’s view on the aid we’ve sent to Ukraine, the $100 billion or whatever. What happened to that money? What happened to the weapons that it bought? He doesn’t care. He has the exact same priorities as the people permanently in charge in Washington. So whatever. He’s not alone in that. So does Mika Brzezinski and her husband and all the rest of the cast of dummies.
But if you’re going to pretend to be the guy who’s giving the finger to entrenched power, you should do it once in a while, and he never has. There’s not one time when he said something that would be deeply unpopular on Morning Joe. That’s all I’m saying. So don’t call yourself a truth teller. You’re a court comedian or a flatterer of power. Okay, that’s fine. There’s a role for that, but don’t pretend to be something else.
Lex Fridman
I’ll just be honest that I watched it just recently, that video and-
I’ll just be honest that I watched it just recently, that video and-
Tucker Carlson
From 20 years ago?
From 20 years ago?
Lex Fridman
From 20 years ago. I watched it initially, and I remember it very differently. I remembered that Jon Stewart completely destroyed you in that conversation. I watched it and you asked a very good question of him, and there was no destruction, first of all. You asked a very good question of him, “Why when you got a chance to interview John Kerry, did you ask a bunch of softball questions?”
From 20 years ago. I watched it initially, and I remember it very differently. I remembered that Jon Stewart completely destroyed you in that conversation. I watched it and you asked a very good question of him, and there was no destruction, first of all. You asked a very good question of him, “Why when you got a chance to interview John Kerry, did you ask a bunch of softball questions?”
Tucker Carlson
Yeah.
Yeah.
Lex Fridman
I thought that was a really fair question. Then his defense was, “Well, I’m just a comedian.”
I thought that was a really fair question. Then his defense was, “Well, I’m just a comedian.”
Tucker Carlson
So I thought that was disingenuous. I haven’t watched it. I never have watched the clip one time in my life, and I don’t like to watch myself on television. I never have. That’s my fault and I probably should force myself to watch it though, of course I never will. But I think the takeaway for me, which was really interesting and life-changing, was I agree with your assessment. I’ve lost a lot of debates. I’ve been humiliated on television. I’m not above that. It certainly happened to me. It will happen again. But I didn’t feel like it was a clear win for him at all. Maybe A TKO, but it was not a knockout at all, and yet it was recorded that way.
So I thought that was disingenuous. I haven’t watched it. I never have watched the clip one time in my life, and I don’t like to watch myself on television. I never have. That’s my fault and I probably should force myself to watch it though, of course I never will. But I think the takeaway for me, which was really interesting and life-changing, was I agree with your assessment. I’ve lost a lot of debates. I’ve been humiliated on television. I’m not above that. It certainly happened to me. It will happen again. But I didn’t feel like it was a clear win for him at all. Maybe A TKO, but it was not a knockout at all, and yet it was recorded that way.
I remember thinking, “Well, that’s kind of weird. That’s not what I remember.” Then I realized, no, Jon Stewart was more popular than I was, therefore he was recorded as the winner. That was hard for me to accept, because that struck me as unfair. You should rate any contest on points. Here are the rules. We’re going to judge the contest in the basis of those rules. No, in the end, it’s just like the more popular guy wins. Every TV critic like Jon Stewart, every one of them hated me, therefore he won. I was like, “Wow, I guess I have to accept that reality.” You do, like the reality of the sunrise. You’re not in charge of it. So that’s just what it is.
Lex Fridman
Unfortunately it’s a bit darker, I think. The reason he’s seen as the winner and the reason at the time I saw as the “winner” is because he was basically shitting on you, like personal attacks versus engaging ideas. It was funny in a dark way and making fun of the bow tie and all this kind of stuff.
Unfortunately it’s a bit darker, I think. The reason he’s seen as the winner and the reason at the time I saw as the “winner” is because he was basically shitting on you, like personal attacks versus engaging ideas. It was funny in a dark way and making fun of the bow tie and all this kind of stuff.
Tucker Carlson
That’s fair, the bow tie.
That’s fair, the bow tie.
Lex Fridman
I understand.
I understand.
Tucker Carlson
It was fair to call me a dick. I remember he called me a dick, and I remember even when he said that, I was like, “Yeah, I’m definitely a dick, and that’s not my best quality, trust me.”
It was fair to call me a dick. I remember he called me a dick, and I remember even when he said that, I was like, “Yeah, I’m definitely a dick, and that’s not my best quality, trust me.”
Lex Fridman
I thought Jon Stewart came off as a giant dick at that time, and I’m a big fan of his, and I think he has improved a lot.
I thought Jon Stewart came off as a giant dick at that time, and I’m a big fan of his, and I think he has improved a lot.
Tucker Carlson
That may be true.
That may be true.
Lex Fridman
So we should also say that people grow, people like-
So we should also say that people grow, people like-
Tucker Carlson
Well, I certainly have, or changed anyway. You hope it’s growth. You hope it’s not shrinkage, but-
Well, I certainly have, or changed anyway. You hope it’s growth. You hope it’s not shrinkage, but-
Lex Fridman
It is cold outside.
It is cold outside.
Tucker Carlson
Yeah. I mean, look, I haven’t followed Jon Stewart’s career at all. I don’t have a television. I’m pretty cut off from all that stuff, so I wouldn’t really know. But the measure to me is, are you taking positions that are unpopular with the most powerful people in the world and how often are you doing it? It’s super simple. Not for its own sake, but do you feel free enough to say to the consensus, “I disagree.” If you don’t, then you’re just another toady. That’s my view.
Yeah. I mean, look, I haven’t followed Jon Stewart’s career at all. I don’t have a television. I’m pretty cut off from all that stuff, so I wouldn’t really know. But the measure to me is, are you taking positions that are unpopular with the most powerful people in the world and how often are you doing it? It’s super simple. Not for its own sake, but do you feel free enough to say to the consensus, “I disagree.” If you don’t, then you’re just another toady. That’s my view.
Lex Fridman
Well, I think he probably feels free enough to do it, but you’re saying he doesn’t do it.
Well, I think he probably feels free enough to do it, but you’re saying he doesn’t do it.
Tucker Carlson
On the big things. Look, the big things, this is my estimation of it, others may disagree, the big things are the economy and war, okay? The big things government does can be, I mean, there are a lot of things government does, government does everything at this point, but where we kill people and how and for what purpose and how we organize the economic engine that keeps the country afloat, those are the two big questions. I hear almost no debate about either one of them in the media, and I have dissenting views on both of them. I mean, I’m mad about the tax code, which I think is unfair.
On the big things. Look, the big things, this is my estimation of it, others may disagree, the big things are the economy and war, okay? The big things government does can be, I mean, there are a lot of things government does, government does everything at this point, but where we kill people and how and for what purpose and how we organize the economic engine that keeps the country afloat, those are the two big questions. I hear almost no debate about either one of them in the media, and I have dissenting views on both of them. I mean, I’m mad about the tax code, which I think is unfair.
The fact that we’ve a carried interest loophole in the tax code and people are claiming that their income is investment, income and they’re paying half the tax rate as someone who just goes to work every day, it discourages work. It encourages lending at interest, which I think is gross, personally. I’m against it. Sorry. The fact that we’re creating chaos around the world is the saddest thing that’s happening right now. Nobody feels free to say that. So that’s not good.
Ending the War in Ukraine
Lex Fridman
How do you hope the war on Ukraine ends?
How do you hope the war on Ukraine ends?
Tucker Carlson
With a settlement, with a reasonable settlement. You know what a reasonable settlement is, which is a settlement where both sides feel like they’re giving a little, but can live with it. I mean, I was really struck in my conversation with Putin by how he basically refused to criticize Joe Biden and to criticize NATO. I will just be honest, as an American, it would be a little weird to be pissing on Joe Biden with a foreign leader, any foreign leader, even though I don’t think Joe Biden is a real person or really a president. I mean, the whole thing is ridiculous. But still, he is the American president technically, and I don’t want to beat up on the American president with a foreigner. I just don’t. Maybe I’m old fashioned. So that’s how I feel.
With a settlement, with a reasonable settlement. You know what a reasonable settlement is, which is a settlement where both sides feel like they’re giving a little, but can live with it. I mean, I was really struck in my conversation with Putin by how he basically refused to criticize Joe Biden and to criticize NATO. I will just be honest, as an American, it would be a little weird to be pissing on Joe Biden with a foreign leader, any foreign leader, even though I don’t think Joe Biden is a real person or really a president. I mean, the whole thing is ridiculous. But still, he is the American president technically, and I don’t want to beat up on the American president with a foreigner. I just don’t. Maybe I’m old fashioned. So that’s how I feel.
So I didn’t push it, but I thought it was really interesting. Because, of course, Putin knows my views on Joe Biden. He knew I applied to the CIA, so they’ve done some digging on me, but he didn’t mention it, and he didn’t attack NATO. The reason is, I know for a fact, because he wants a settlement. He wants a settlement not because Russia’s about to collapse despite the lying of our media, that’s just not true, and no one is even saying it anymore because it’s so dumb. He wants to because it’s just bad to have a war. It changes the world in ways you can’t predict. People die. Everything about it is sad. If you can avoid it, you should.
So I would like to see a settlement where, look, the thing that Russia wants and I think probably has a right to is not to have NATO missiles on its border. I don’t know why we would do that. I don’t know what we get out of it. I just don’t even understand it. I don’t understand the purpose of NATO. I don’t think NATO is good for the United States. I think it’s an attack on our sovereignty. I would pull out of NATO immediately if I were the U.S. president, because I don’t think it helps the U.S. I know a lot of people are getting their bread buttered by NATO. But anyway, that’s my view as an American.
If I’m a Russian or a Ukrainian, let’s just be sovereign countries now. We’re not run by the U.S. State Department. We’re just our own countries. I believe in sovereignty, okay? So that’s my view. I also want to say one thing about Zelensky. I attacked him before because I was so offended by his cavalier talk about nuclear exchange because it would kill my family. So I’m really offended by that. Anyone who talks that way I’m offended by. But I do feel for Zelensky. I do. He didn’t run for president to have this happen.
I think Zelensky’s been completely misused by the State Department, by Toria Nuland, by our Secretary of State, by the policymakers in the U.S. who’ve used Ukraine as a vessel for their ambitions, their geopolitical ambitions, but also the many American businesses who’ve used Ukraine as a way to fleece the American taxpayer, and then by just independent ghouls like Boris Johnson who are hoping to get rich from interviews on it. The whole thing, Zelensky is at the center of this. He’s not driving history. NATO and the United States is driving history. Putin is driving history. There’s this guy, Zelensky. So I do feel for him, and I think he’s in a perilous place.
Lex Fridman
Do you think Zelensky is a hero for staying in Kiev? Because I do. To me, you can criticize a lot of things. You should call out things that are obviously positive.
Do you think Zelensky is a hero for staying in Kiev? Because I do. To me, you can criticize a lot of things. You should call out things that are obviously positive.
Tucker Carlson
I just tried to a second ago, I don’t know the extent that he is in Kiev. He seems to be in the United States an awful lot, way too much. You can do a satellite interview. You don’t have to speak to my Congress. You’re not an American. Please leave. That’s my opinion but-
I just tried to a second ago, I don’t know the extent that he is in Kiev. He seems to be in the United States an awful lot, way too much. You can do a satellite interview. You don’t have to speak to my Congress. You’re not an American. Please leave. That’s my opinion but-
Lex Fridman
You got many zingers, Tucker.
You got many zingers, Tucker.
Tucker Carlson
No, no, no. It’s just heartfelt. It’s bubbling up from the wellspring that never turns off. But I would say this about Zelensky, yeah, to the extent he’s in Ukraine, good man. George W. Bush fled Washington on 9/11. I lived there with three kids and he ran away to some Air Force base in South Dakota. I thought that was cowardly and I said so at the time, and man was I attacked for saying that. I wrote a column about it in New York Magazine where I then had a column, hard to believe. But I felt that. I felt that. I think the prerequisites of leadership are really basic.
No, no, no. It’s just heartfelt. It’s bubbling up from the wellspring that never turns off. But I would say this about Zelensky, yeah, to the extent he’s in Ukraine, good man. George W. Bush fled Washington on 9/11. I lived there with three kids and he ran away to some Air Force base in South Dakota. I thought that was cowardly and I said so at the time, and man was I attacked for saying that. I wrote a column about it in New York Magazine where I then had a column, hard to believe. But I felt that. I felt that. I think the prerequisites of leadership are really basic.
The first is caring about the people you lead, that’s number one. In the way a father cares for his children, or an officer cares for his troops. A president should care for his people. That leads inexorably to the next requirement, which is bravery, physical courage. I believe in that. I’m not like some tough guy, but I just think it’s obvious. If you’re in charge, I’m at my house and I feel like someone broke in, I’m not going to say to my wife, “Hey, baby, go deal with the home invasion.” I’m going to deal with it because I’m dad. Okay? So if you’re the president of a country and your capital city is attacked, as ours was at the Pentagon, and you run away?
“The Secret Service told me to.” Bitch, are you in charge? Who’s daddy here? The Secret Service? Do you know what I mean? I found that totally contemptible and I said so, and man, did I get a lecture, not just from Republicans, but from Democrats. “Oh, you don’t know. Put yourself in that position.” I was like, “Okay.” I don’t know what I would do under that kind of stress, enormous stress. I get it. I know one thing I wouldn’t do is run away because you can’t do that. If you’re not willing to die for your country, then you shouldn’t be leading it. So yes, to the extent, if Zelensky really is in Ukraine most of the time, amen.
Lex Fridman
Well, hold on a second. Let’s clarify. It’s not about what he’s in Ukraine most of the time or not.
Well, hold on a second. Let’s clarify. It’s not about what he’s in Ukraine most of the time or not.
Tucker Carlson
Well, I thought that was the whole premise of the problem.
Well, I thought that was the whole premise of the problem.
Lex Fridman
No, at the beginning of the war, when a lot of people thought that the second biggest military in the world is pointing its guns in Kiev, is going to be taken. A man, a leader who stays in that city and says, “Fuck it.” When everybody around him says, flee, everybody around him believes the city will be taken or at least destroyed, leveled, artillery, bombs, all of this, he chooses to stay. You know a lot of leaders, how many leaders would choose to stay?
No, at the beginning of the war, when a lot of people thought that the second biggest military in the world is pointing its guns in Kiev, is going to be taken. A man, a leader who stays in that city and says, “Fuck it.” When everybody around him says, flee, everybody around him believes the city will be taken or at least destroyed, leveled, artillery, bombs, all of this, he chooses to stay. You know a lot of leaders, how many leaders would choose to stay?
Tucker Carlson
Well, the leader of Afghanistan, the U.S. backed leader when the Taliban came, got in a U.S. plane with U.S. dollars and ran away, and of course is living on those dollars now. So yeah, there’s a lot of cowardly behavior. Good for him. I mean, I guess I’m looking at it slightly differently, which is what’s the option? You’re the leader of the country. You can’t leave. Stalin never left Moscow during the war. It was surrounded by the Germans, as you know, for a year, and he didn’t leave. When I was in Russia, they’re like, “Stalin never left.” It’s like he’s the leader of the country, you can’t. I mean, that’s just table stakes, of course. I would say, but you raised an interesting by implication question, which is what about Kiev? You think the Russians couldn’t level Kiev? Of course, obviously they could. Why haven’t? They could, but they haven’t.
Well, the leader of Afghanistan, the U.S. backed leader when the Taliban came, got in a U.S. plane with U.S. dollars and ran away, and of course is living on those dollars now. So yeah, there’s a lot of cowardly behavior. Good for him. I mean, I guess I’m looking at it slightly differently, which is what’s the option? You’re the leader of the country. You can’t leave. Stalin never left Moscow during the war. It was surrounded by the Germans, as you know, for a year, and he didn’t leave. When I was in Russia, they’re like, “Stalin never left.” It’s like he’s the leader of the country, you can’t. I mean, that’s just table stakes, of course. I would say, but you raised an interesting by implication question, which is what about Kiev? You think the Russians couldn’t level Kiev? Of course, obviously they could. Why haven’t? They could, but they haven’t.
Lex Fridman
Well, there’s military answers to that, which is urban warfare is extremely difficult.
Well, there’s military answers to that, which is urban warfare is extremely difficult.
Tucker Carlson
Do you think that Putin wants to take Kiev?
Do you think that Putin wants to take Kiev?
Lex Fridman
No, I do think he expected Zelensky to flee and somebody else to come into power.
No, I do think he expected Zelensky to flee and somebody else to come into power.
Tucker Carlson
Yeah, that may be totally right. I don’t know. I have no idea what Putin was thinking when he did that about Zelensky. I didn’t ask him. But it’s a mistake to imagine this is a contest between Putin and Zelensky. This is Putin versus the U.S. State Department. That’s why I said I felt sorry for him. I mean, as I said, we’re literally paying the pensions of Ukrainian bureaucrats. So there is no Ukrainian government independent of the U.S. government. Maybe you’re for that, maybe you’re against it, but you can’t endorse that in the same sentence that you use the term democracy, because that’s not a democracy, obviously.
Yeah, that may be totally right. I don’t know. I have no idea what Putin was thinking when he did that about Zelensky. I didn’t ask him. But it’s a mistake to imagine this is a contest between Putin and Zelensky. This is Putin versus the U.S. State Department. That’s why I said I felt sorry for him. I mean, as I said, we’re literally paying the pensions of Ukrainian bureaucrats. So there is no Ukrainian government independent of the U.S. government. Maybe you’re for that, maybe you’re against it, but you can’t endorse that in the same sentence that you use the term democracy, because that’s not a democracy, obviously.
Lex Fridman
Well, that’s why it’s interesting that he didn’t really bring up NATO extensively.
Well, that’s why it’s interesting that he didn’t really bring up NATO extensively.
Tucker Carlson
He wants a settlement, he wants a settlement. He doesn’t want to fight with them rhetorically and he just wants to get this done. He made a bunch of offers at the peace deal. We wouldn’t even know this happened if the Israelis hadn’t told us. I’m so grateful that they did that, that Johnson was dispatched by the State Department to stop it. I mean, I think Boris Johnson is a husk of a man. But imagine if you were Boris Johnson and you spend your whole life with Ukraine flag, “I’m for Ukraine,” and then all those kids died because of what you did, and the lines haven’t really moved. It hasn’t been a victory for Ukraine. It’s not going to be a victory for Ukraine. It’s like, how do you feel about yourself if you did that? I mean, I’ve done a lot of shitty things in my life, I feel bad about them, but I’ve never extended a war for no reason. That’s a pretty grave sin in my opinion.
He wants a settlement, he wants a settlement. He doesn’t want to fight with them rhetorically and he just wants to get this done. He made a bunch of offers at the peace deal. We wouldn’t even know this happened if the Israelis hadn’t told us. I’m so grateful that they did that, that Johnson was dispatched by the State Department to stop it. I mean, I think Boris Johnson is a husk of a man. But imagine if you were Boris Johnson and you spend your whole life with Ukraine flag, “I’m for Ukraine,” and then all those kids died because of what you did, and the lines haven’t really moved. It hasn’t been a victory for Ukraine. It’s not going to be a victory for Ukraine. It’s like, how do you feel about yourself if you did that? I mean, I’ve done a lot of shitty things in my life, I feel bad about them, but I’ve never extended a war for no reason. That’s a pretty grave sin in my opinion.
Lex Fridman
Yes, that was a failure. But it doesn’t mean you can’t have a success over and over and over keep having negotiations between leaders.
Yes, that was a failure. But it doesn’t mean you can’t have a success over and over and over keep having negotiations between leaders.
Tucker Carlson
Well, the U.S. government’s not allowing negotiations. So that for me is the most upsetting part. It’s like in the end, what Russia does, I’m not implicated in that. What Ukraine does, I’m not implicated in that. I’m not Russian or Ukrainian. I’m an American who grew up really believing in my country. I’m supporting my country through my tax dollars. It’s like I really care about what the U.S. government does because they’re doing it in my name, and I care a lot because I’m American. We are the impediment to peace, which is another way of saying we are responsible for all these innocent people getting dragooned out of public parks in Kiev and sent to go die. What? That is not good. I’m ashamed of it.
Well, the U.S. government’s not allowing negotiations. So that for me is the most upsetting part. It’s like in the end, what Russia does, I’m not implicated in that. What Ukraine does, I’m not implicated in that. I’m not Russian or Ukrainian. I’m an American who grew up really believing in my country. I’m supporting my country through my tax dollars. It’s like I really care about what the U.S. government does because they’re doing it in my name, and I care a lot because I’m American. We are the impediment to peace, which is another way of saying we are responsible for all these innocent people getting dragooned out of public parks in Kiev and sent to go die. What? That is not good. I’m ashamed of it.
Nazis
Lex Fridman
What do you think of Putin saying that justification for continuing the war is denazification?
What do you think of Putin saying that justification for continuing the war is denazification?
Tucker Carlson
I thought it was one of the dumbest things I’d ever heard. I didn’t understand what it meant. Denazification?
I thought it was one of the dumbest things I’d ever heard. I didn’t understand what it meant. Denazification?
Lex Fridman
It literally means what it sounds like.
It literally means what it sounds like.
Tucker Carlson
Yeah. I mean, I have a lot of thoughts on this. I hate that whole conversation because it’s not real. It’s just ad hominem. It’s a way of associating someone with an evil regime that doesn’t exist anymore. But in point of fact, Nazism, whatever it was, is inseparable from the German nation. It was a nationalist movement in Germany. There were no other Nazis, right? There’s no book of Nazism like, “I want to be a Nazi. What does it mean to be a Nazi?” I mean, Mein Kampf is not Das Kapital, right? Mein Kampf is, to the extent I understand it, it’s like he’s pissed about the Treaty of Versailles, whatever. I’m very anti-Nazi. I’m merely saying there isn’t a Nazi movement in 2024. It’s a way of calling people evil.
Yeah. I mean, I have a lot of thoughts on this. I hate that whole conversation because it’s not real. It’s just ad hominem. It’s a way of associating someone with an evil regime that doesn’t exist anymore. But in point of fact, Nazism, whatever it was, is inseparable from the German nation. It was a nationalist movement in Germany. There were no other Nazis, right? There’s no book of Nazism like, “I want to be a Nazi. What does it mean to be a Nazi?” I mean, Mein Kampf is not Das Kapital, right? Mein Kampf is, to the extent I understand it, it’s like he’s pissed about the Treaty of Versailles, whatever. I’m very anti-Nazi. I’m merely saying there isn’t a Nazi movement in 2024. It’s a way of calling people evil.
Okay. Putin doesn’t like nationalist Ukrainians. Putin hates nationalism in general, which is interesting. Of course he does. He’s got 80 whatever republics, and he’s afraid of nationalist movements. He fought a war in Chechnya over this. So I understand it, but I have a different… I’m for nationalism, I’m for American nationalism, so I disagree with Putin on that. But calling them Nazis, it’s like, I thought it was childish.
Lex Fridman
Well, I do believe that he believes it.
Well, I do believe that he believes it.
Tucker Carlson
So that’s so interesting. I agree with that. Because I was listening to this because in the United States, everyone’s always calling everyone else a Nazi, “You’re a Nazi.” But I was listening to this and I was like, “This is the dumbest sort of not convincing line you could take.” I sat there and listened to him talk about Nazis for eight minutes, and I’m like, “I think he believes this.”
So that’s so interesting. I agree with that. Because I was listening to this because in the United States, everyone’s always calling everyone else a Nazi, “You’re a Nazi.” But I was listening to this and I was like, “This is the dumbest sort of not convincing line you could take.” I sat there and listened to him talk about Nazis for eight minutes, and I’m like, “I think he believes this.”
Lex Fridman
Yeah. Having had a bunch of conversations with people who are living in Russia, they also believe it. Now, there’s technicalities here, which the word Nazi, World War II is deeply in the blood of a lot of Russians and Ukrainians.
Yeah. Having had a bunch of conversations with people who are living in Russia, they also believe it. Now, there’s technicalities here, which the word Nazi, World War II is deeply in the blood of a lot of Russians and Ukrainians.
Tucker Carlson
I get it. I get it.
I get it. I get it.
Lex Fridman
So you’re using it as almost a political term, the way it’s used in the United States also, like racism and all this kind of stuff. Because you know you can really touch people if you use the Nazi term.
So you’re using it as almost a political term, the way it’s used in the United States also, like racism and all this kind of stuff. Because you know you can really touch people if you use the Nazi term.
Tucker Carlson
I think that’s totally right.
I think that’s totally right.
Lex Fridman
But it’s also to me a really disgusting thing to do.
But it’s also to me a really disgusting thing to do.
Tucker Carlson
I agree.
I agree.
Lex Fridman
Also to clarify, there is neo-Nazi movements in Ukraine but it’s very small. You’re saying that there’s this distinction between Nazi and neo-Nazi, sure. But it’s a small percentage of the population, a tiny percentage that have no power in government, as far I have seen no data to show they have any influence on Zelensky and Zelensky government at all. So really, when Putin says denazification, I think he means nationalist movements.
Also to clarify, there is neo-Nazi movements in Ukraine but it’s very small. You’re saying that there’s this distinction between Nazi and neo-Nazi, sure. But it’s a small percentage of the population, a tiny percentage that have no power in government, as far I have seen no data to show they have any influence on Zelensky and Zelensky government at all. So really, when Putin says denazification, I think he means nationalist movements.
Tucker Carlson
I think you’re right. I agree with everything you said. I do think that the Second World War occupies a place in Slavic society, Polish society, Central Eastern Europe that it does not occupy in the United States. You can just look at the death totals, tens of millions versus less than half a million. So it’s like this eliminated a lot of the male population of these countries. So of course, it’s still resonant in those countries. I get it. I think I’ve watched, I don’t think I know, I’ve watched the misuse of words, the weaponization of words for political reasons for so long that I just don’t like, though I do engage in it sometime and I’m sorry, I don’t like just dismissing people in a word. “Oh, he’s a Nazi. He’s a liberal,” or whatever. It’s like, tell me what you mean, what don’t you like about what they’re doing or saying?
I think you’re right. I agree with everything you said. I do think that the Second World War occupies a place in Slavic society, Polish society, Central Eastern Europe that it does not occupy in the United States. You can just look at the death totals, tens of millions versus less than half a million. So it’s like this eliminated a lot of the male population of these countries. So of course, it’s still resonant in those countries. I get it. I think I’ve watched, I don’t think I know, I’ve watched the misuse of words, the weaponization of words for political reasons for so long that I just don’t like, though I do engage in it sometime and I’m sorry, I don’t like just dismissing people in a word. “Oh, he’s a Nazi. He’s a liberal,” or whatever. It’s like, tell me what you mean, what don’t you like about what they’re doing or saying?
Tucker Carlson
What don’t you like about what they’re doing or saying? And Nazi especially, I don’t even know what the hell you’re talking about.
What don’t you like about what they’re doing or saying? And Nazi especially, I don’t even know what the hell you’re talking about.
Lex Fridman
What troubled me about that is because he said that that’s the primary objective currently for the war. And that because it’s not grounded in reality, it makes it difficult to then negotiate peace. Because what does it mean to get rid of the Nazis in Ukraine? So he’ll come to the table and say, “Well, okay, I will agree to do a ceasefire once the Nazis are gone.” Okay, so can you list the Nazis?
What troubled me about that is because he said that that’s the primary objective currently for the war. And that because it’s not grounded in reality, it makes it difficult to then negotiate peace. Because what does it mean to get rid of the Nazis in Ukraine? So he’ll come to the table and say, “Well, okay, I will agree to do a ceasefire once the Nazis are gone.” Okay, so can you list the Nazis?
Tucker Carlson
I totally agree. Plus, can you negotiate with a Nazi?
I totally agree. Plus, can you negotiate with a Nazi?
Lex Fridman
Right, exactly.
Right, exactly.
Tucker Carlson
I totally agree with you.
I totally agree with you.
Lex Fridman
It was very strange. But maybe it perhaps had to do with speaking to his own population, and also probably trying to avoid the use of the word NATO as the justification for the war.
It was very strange. But maybe it perhaps had to do with speaking to his own population, and also probably trying to avoid the use of the word NATO as the justification for the war.
Tucker Carlson
Yes, that’s all… Of course, I don’t know, but I suspect you’re right on both counts. But I would say it points to something that I’ve thought more and more since I did that interview, which was two weeks ago, I guess. I didn’t think he was… As a PR guy, not very good, not good at telling his own story. The story of the current war in Ukraine is the eastward expansion of NATO scaring the shit out of the Russians with NATO expansion. Which is totally necessary, doesn’t help the United States, NATO itself doesn’t help the United States. And so I’m not pro-Russian for saying that, I’m pro-American for saying that. And I think that’s a really compelling story, because it’s true. He did not tell that story, he told some other story that I didn’t fully understand. Again, I’m not Russian.
Yes, that’s all… Of course, I don’t know, but I suspect you’re right on both counts. But I would say it points to something that I’ve thought more and more since I did that interview, which was two weeks ago, I guess. I didn’t think he was… As a PR guy, not very good, not good at telling his own story. The story of the current war in Ukraine is the eastward expansion of NATO scaring the shit out of the Russians with NATO expansion. Which is totally necessary, doesn’t help the United States, NATO itself doesn’t help the United States. And so I’m not pro-Russian for saying that, I’m pro-American for saying that. And I think that’s a really compelling story, because it’s true. He did not tell that story, he told some other story that I didn’t fully understand. Again, I’m not Russian.
He’s speaking to multiple audiences around the world. I’m not sure what he hoped to achieve by that interview, I will never know. But I did think that, this guy is not good at telling his story. And I also think honestly on the base of a lot… I mean, I know this. Very isolated during COVID, very.
We keep hearing that he’s dying of this or that disease, “He’s got ALS. I mean, I don’t know, I’m not his doctor. There’s a ton of lying about it, I know that. But one thing that’s not a lie, is that he was cloistered away during COVID, I know this, and only dealing with two or three people. And that makes you weird, it’s so important to deal with a lot of people to have your views challenged. And you see this with leaders who stay in power too long. He’s been in power 24 years, effectively. There’s been upsides I think for Russia, the Russian economy, Russian life expectancy, but there are definitely downsides. And one of them is you get weird, and you get autocratic, this is why we have term limits. Very few kings don’t get crazy in old age.
Lex Fridman
Yeah. And you said some of this also in your post-Kremlin discussion while you’re in Moscow still, which was very impressive to me, that you can just openly criticize. This was great.
Yeah. And you said some of this also in your post-Kremlin discussion while you’re in Moscow still, which was very impressive to me, that you can just openly criticize. This was great.
Tucker Carlson
Well, I don’t care.
Well, I don’t care.
Lex Fridman
I understand this. I just wish you did some more of that also with the supermarket video, and perhaps some more of that with Putin in front of you.
I understand this. I just wish you did some more of that also with the supermarket video, and perhaps some more of that with Putin in front of you.
Tucker Carlson
Putin in front of me, it would be like, “I’m such a good person.”
Putin in front of me, it would be like, “I’m such a good person.”
Lex Fridman
I know you see it as virtue signaling.
I know you see it as virtue signaling.
Tucker Carlson
Yeah, it is. Have you seen some of the interview he did with some NBC news child?
Yeah, it is. Have you seen some of the interview he did with some NBC news child?
Lex Fridman
Yes, I understand. So I think you’re just so annoyed by how bad journalists are, that you just didn’t want to be them.
Yes, I understand. So I think you’re just so annoyed by how bad journalists are, that you just didn’t want to be them.
Tucker Carlson
Yeah, that’s probably right actually.
Yeah, that’s probably right actually.
Lex Fridman
Some great conversations will involve some challenging. You were confused about denazification.
Some great conversations will involve some challenging. You were confused about denazification.
Tucker Carlson
Well, first of all, I accept your criticism, and I accept it as true, that in some way I’m probably pivoting against what I dislike. And I have such contempt for American journalists on the basis of so much knowledge, that I probably was like, “I don’t want to be like that.” Fair, that is a kind of defensiveness and dumb. So you’re right. As for the Nazi thing, I really felt like we were just speaking so far past each other that we would never come to… I was like, “I don’t even know what the hell you’re talking about.” And especially when I decided or concluded that he really meant it, I was like, “That’s just too freaking weird to me.” I can think of many other examples where you’re interviewing someone, and they’ll say something that’s like… I was interviewing a guy one time and he started talking about the Black Israelites and, “We’re the real Jews.” And it wasn’t on camera, but it was so far out to me that I was like, “We’ll never understand common terms on that.”
Well, first of all, I accept your criticism, and I accept it as true, that in some way I’m probably pivoting against what I dislike. And I have such contempt for American journalists on the basis of so much knowledge, that I probably was like, “I don’t want to be like that.” Fair, that is a kind of defensiveness and dumb. So you’re right. As for the Nazi thing, I really felt like we were just speaking so far past each other that we would never come to… I was like, “I don’t even know what the hell you’re talking about.” And especially when I decided or concluded that he really meant it, I was like, “That’s just too freaking weird to me.” I can think of many other examples where you’re interviewing someone, and they’ll say something that’s like… I was interviewing a guy one time and he started talking about the Black Israelites and, “We’re the real Jews.” And it wasn’t on camera, but it was so far out to me that I was like, “We’ll never understand common terms on that.”
Putin’s health
Lex Fridman
So you mentioned there’s a bunch of conspiracy theories about Putin’s health. How was he in person? What did he feel like? Did he look healthy?
So you mentioned there’s a bunch of conspiracy theories about Putin’s health. How was he in person? What did he feel like? Did he look healthy?
Tucker Carlson
I’m not a health person myself, so I can easily gain 30 pounds and not know it, so I’m probably not a great person to ask. But no, he seemed fine. He had his arm hooked through a chair, and I heard people say, “Well, he’s got Parkinson’s.” And Parkinson’s can be controlled I know for periods with drugs. So it’s hard to assess. One of the tells of Parkinson’s is gait, how a person walks, I think. And his walking seemed fine, and I walked around with him and talked to him off camera. He’s had some work done, for sure. He’s 71 or two.
I’m not a health person myself, so I can easily gain 30 pounds and not know it, so I’m probably not a great person to ask. But no, he seemed fine. He had his arm hooked through a chair, and I heard people say, “Well, he’s got Parkinson’s.” And Parkinson’s can be controlled I know for periods with drugs. So it’s hard to assess. One of the tells of Parkinson’s is gait, how a person walks, I think. And his walking seemed fine, and I walked around with him and talked to him off camera. He’s had some work done, for sure. He’s 71 or two.
Lex Fridman
You mean visual purposes?
You mean visual purposes?
Tucker Carlson
Yeah, I’m 54, he’s almost 20 years older than me, he looked younger than me.
Yeah, I’m 54, he’s almost 20 years older than me, he looked younger than me.
Lex Fridman
What was that like? The conversation off camera, you walking around with him, what was the content of the conversation?
What was that like? The conversation off camera, you walking around with him, what was the content of the conversation?
Tucker Carlson
I feel bad even with Putin or anybody talking about stuff that is off the record. But I’ll just say that when I said that he didn’t want to fight with NATO, or with the US State Department, or with Joe Biden because he wants a settlement, that’s a very informed perspective, he doesn’t. Say whatever you want about that, believe it or not, but that is true.
I feel bad even with Putin or anybody talking about stuff that is off the record. But I’ll just say that when I said that he didn’t want to fight with NATO, or with the US State Department, or with Joe Biden because he wants a settlement, that’s a very informed perspective, he doesn’t. Say whatever you want about that, believe it or not, but that is true.
Lex Fridman
So he’s open for peace, for peace negotiation?
So he’s open for peace, for peace negotiation?
Tucker Carlson
Russia tried to join NATO in 2000, that’s a fact. Okay, they tried to join NATO. So just think about this, NATO exists to keep Russia contained. It exists as a bulwark against Russian territorial expansion. And whether or not Russia has any territorial ambitions is another question. Why would it, it’s the largest landmass in the world? Whatever. But that’s why it exists. So if Russia seeks to join NATO, it is by definition a sign that NATO’s job is done here, we can declare victory and go home. The fact that they turned him down is so shocking to me, but it’s true. Then he approaches the next president, George W. Bush… That was with Bill Clinton at the end of his term in 2000. He approaches the next president and said, “In our next missile deal, let’s align on this, and we’ll designate Iran as our common enemy.” Iran, which is now effectively in league with Russia, thanks to our insane policies.
Russia tried to join NATO in 2000, that’s a fact. Okay, they tried to join NATO. So just think about this, NATO exists to keep Russia contained. It exists as a bulwark against Russian territorial expansion. And whether or not Russia has any territorial ambitions is another question. Why would it, it’s the largest landmass in the world? Whatever. But that’s why it exists. So if Russia seeks to join NATO, it is by definition a sign that NATO’s job is done here, we can declare victory and go home. The fact that they turned him down is so shocking to me, but it’s true. Then he approaches the next president, George W. Bush… That was with Bill Clinton at the end of his term in 2000. He approaches the next president and said, “In our next missile deal, let’s align on this, and we’ll designate Iran as our common enemy.” Iran, which is now effectively in league with Russia, thanks to our insane policies.
And George W. Bush to his credit is like, “Well, that seems like kind of an innovative good idea.” And Condi Rice, who’s one of the stupidest people ever to hold power in the United States, if I can say. Who’s monomaniacally anti-Russia because she had an advisor at Stanford who was, or something during the Cold War, “No, we can’t do that.” And Bush is just weak and so he agreed, it’s like, “What? That is crazy.” If you’re fighting with someone and the person says, “You know what? Actually our interests align. And you’ve spent 80% of your mental disc space on hating me and opposing me or whatever, but actually we can be on the same team.” If you don’t at least see that as progress, what?
If your interest is in helping your country, what’s the counter argument? I don’t even understand it. And no one has even addressed any of this, “The war of Russian aggression.” Yeah, it was a war of Russian aggression, for sure. But how did we get there? We got there because Joe Biden and Tony Blinken dispatched Kamala Harris, who does not freelance this stuff, fair to say, to the Munich Security Conference two years ago this month, February 2022. And said in a press conference to Zelenskyy, poor Zelenskyy, “We want you to join NATO.” This was not in a backroom, this was in public at a press conference, knowing because he said it 4,000 times, “We don’t want nuclear weapons from the United States or NATO on our western border.” Duh. And days later, he invaded. So what is that?
And I raised that question in my previous job, and I was denounced as of course a traitor or something. But okay, great, I’m a traitor. What’s the answer? What’s the answer? Toria Nuland, who I know, not dumb, hasn’t helped the US in any way, an architect of the Iraq war, architect of this disaster, one of the people who destroyed the US dollar. Okay, fine, but you’re not stupid. So you’re trying to get a war by acting that way, what’s the other explanation? By the way, NATO didn’t want Ukraine because it didn’t meet the criteria for admission. So why would you say that? Because you want a war, that’s why. And that war has enriched a lot of people to the tune of billions. So I don’t care if I sound like some kind of left-wing conspiracy nut, because I’m neither left-wing nor a conspiracy nut. Tell me how I’m wrong.
Lex Fridman
Who do you think is behind it? If you were to analyze, zoom out, looking at the entirety of human history, the military industrial complex, you said Kamala Harris, is it individuals? Is it this collective flock that people are just pro-war as a collective?
Who do you think is behind it? If you were to analyze, zoom out, looking at the entirety of human history, the military industrial complex, you said Kamala Harris, is it individuals? Is it this collective flock that people are just pro-war as a collective?
Tucker Carlson
It’s the hive mind. And I spent my whole life in DC from 85 to 2020, so 35 years. And again, I grew up around it in that world. And I do think that conspiracies… Of course, there are conspiracies. But in general, the hive mind is responsible for the worst decisions. It’s a bunch of people with the same views, views that have not been updated in decades. Putin said something that I thought was absolutely true, I don’t know how he would know this, but it is true because I lived among them. So the Soviet Union dissolves in August of 91 on my honeymoon in Bermuda, I’ll never forget it. And it was a big thing, if you lived in DC.
It’s the hive mind. And I spent my whole life in DC from 85 to 2020, so 35 years. And again, I grew up around it in that world. And I do think that conspiracies… Of course, there are conspiracies. But in general, the hive mind is responsible for the worst decisions. It’s a bunch of people with the same views, views that have not been updated in decades. Putin said something that I thought was absolutely true, I don’t know how he would know this, but it is true because I lived among them. So the Soviet Union dissolves in August of 91 on my honeymoon in Bermuda, I’ll never forget it. And it was a big thing, if you lived in DC.
I mean, the receptionist in my office in 1991 was getting a master’s in Russian from Georgetown, he was going to be a Sovietologist. And he was among thousands of people in Washington on that same track. And so the Soviet Union collapses, well, so does the rationale for a good portion of the US government, has been dedicated for over 40 years to opposing this thing that no longer exists. So there’s a lot of forward momentum, there’s a huge amount of money, the bulk of the money in the richest country in the world, aimed in this direction. And it’s very hard for people to readjust, to reassess. And you see this in life all the time.
I love my wife, all of a sudden she ran off with my best friend. Holy shit, I didn’t expect that this morning, now it’s a reality, how do I deal with that? Well, I got Stage 4 cancer diagnosis, and it’s all bad, but just saying that’s the nature of life. Things that you did not anticipate, never thought you’d have to face, happen out of nowhere, and you have to adjust your expectations and your goals. And people have a hard time with that, very hard time with that. So that’s a lot of it.
If you’re Condi Rice, sort of highly ambitious mid-wit, who gets this degree from Stanford, and you read Tolstoy in the original, sure you did. And you spent your whole life thinking that Russia is the center of evil in the world, it’s kind of hard to be like, “Well, actually there’s a new threat, and it’s coming from farther east. It’s primarily an economic threat.” And maybe all the threats aren’t reduced to tank battles, that’s the other thing. Is these people are so inelastic in their thinking, so lacking imagination and flexibility, that they can’t sort of imagine a new framework. And the new framework is not that you’re going to go to war with China over Formosa, Taiwan. No, the framework is that all of a sudden all the infrastructure in Tijuana is going to be built by China, and that’s a different kind of threat. But they can’t kind of get there because they’re not that impressive.
Lex Fridman
So you actually have mentioned this, it’s not just the Cold War, it’s World War II that populates most of their thinking in Washington. You mentioned Churchill, Chamberlain, and Hitler, and they’re kind of seeing the World War II as kind of the good war and successful role the United States played in that war. They’re kind of seeing that dynamic, that geopolitical dynamic, and applying it everywhere else still.
So you actually have mentioned this, it’s not just the Cold War, it’s World War II that populates most of their thinking in Washington. You mentioned Churchill, Chamberlain, and Hitler, and they’re kind of seeing the World War II as kind of the good war and successful role the United States played in that war. They’re kind of seeing that dynamic, that geopolitical dynamic, and applying it everywhere else still.
Tucker Carlson
Yeah, it’s a template for everything. And I think it’s of huge significance to the development of the West, to the civilization we live in now, to world history, was a world war. And so I think it’s worth knowing a lot about, and being honest about, and all the rest. But it’s hardly the sum total of human history, it’s a snapshot. And so you keep hearing people refer to… Not even the war, no one ever talks about the war. How much does Tony Blinken know about the Battle of Stalingrad? Probably zero, he doesn’t know anything. Largest battle in human history, but I bet he knows nothing. But he knows a lot about the cliches surrounding the ’38 to ’40 period, 1938 to 1940. And everything is kind of expressed through that formula. And not everything is that formula, that’s all I’m saying. And the Republicans have a strange weakness for it, particularly the closeted ones, the weird ones who have no life other than starting more wars. Everything to them, the most vulnerable, I would say, among them, emotionally, psychologically vulnerable, the dumbest, they will always say the same thing.
Yeah, it’s a template for everything. And I think it’s of huge significance to the development of the West, to the civilization we live in now, to world history, was a world war. And so I think it’s worth knowing a lot about, and being honest about, and all the rest. But it’s hardly the sum total of human history, it’s a snapshot. And so you keep hearing people refer to… Not even the war, no one ever talks about the war. How much does Tony Blinken know about the Battle of Stalingrad? Probably zero, he doesn’t know anything. Largest battle in human history, but I bet he knows nothing. But he knows a lot about the cliches surrounding the ’38 to ’40 period, 1938 to 1940. And everything is kind of expressed through that formula. And not everything is that formula, that’s all I’m saying. And the Republicans have a strange weakness for it, particularly the closeted ones, the weird ones who have no life other than starting more wars. Everything to them, the most vulnerable, I would say, among them, emotionally, psychologically vulnerable, the dumbest, they will always say the same thing.
And it appeals to Republican voters, unfortunately. That every problem is the result of weakness. Everyone’s Chamberlain, Germany never would’ve gone in to Poland, Czechoslovakia if England had been stronger, that’s the argument. Is that true? I don’t know, actually. Maybe, it might be totally true, it might not be true at all, I really don’t know. But not everything is that, that’s not always true. If I go up to you in a bar and I say, “I hate your neck tie.” I’m being pretty aggressive with you, pretty strong. You might beat the shit out of me actually, or shoot me if I do that. An aggressive posture doesn’t always get you the outcome that you want. Sometimes it requires a more sophisticated Mediterranean posture. I mean, it kind of depends, it’s a time and place thing. And they don’t acknowledge that, everything is this same template, and that’s not the road to good decision making at all.
Hitler
Lex Fridman
Since we’re on the time period, let me ask you a almost cliche question, but it applies to you, which you’ve interviewed a lot of world leaders. If you had the chance to interview Hitler in ’39, ’40, ’41, first of all, would you do it? And how would you do it? I assume you would do it given who you are.
Since we’re on the time period, let me ask you a almost cliche question, but it applies to you, which you’ve interviewed a lot of world leaders. If you had the chance to interview Hitler in ’39, ’40, ’41, first of all, would you do it? And how would you do it? I assume you would do it given who you are.
Tucker Carlson
Man, it would be a massive cost for doing it. It may destroy my life to interview Putin, though I can tell you as much as I want that I’m not a Putin defender, I only care about the United States. That’s 100% true, anyone who knows me will tell you what’s true, I keep saying it. But history may record me to the extent it records me at all as a tool of Putin, a hater of America. That seems absurd to me, but absurd things happen. What would I ask Hitler? I don’t even know. I guess I would probably ask him, what I asked Putin, which is what I ask everybody, “What’s your motive? Why did you do…” I mean, if he’d already gone into Poland, “Why are you doing that? What’s your goal?” And then the question is, is he going to answer honestly? I don’t know, you can’t make someone answer a question honestly. You can only sort of shut up while they talk and then let people decide what they think of the answer.
Man, it would be a massive cost for doing it. It may destroy my life to interview Putin, though I can tell you as much as I want that I’m not a Putin defender, I only care about the United States. That’s 100% true, anyone who knows me will tell you what’s true, I keep saying it. But history may record me to the extent it records me at all as a tool of Putin, a hater of America. That seems absurd to me, but absurd things happen. What would I ask Hitler? I don’t even know. I guess I would probably ask him, what I asked Putin, which is what I ask everybody, “What’s your motive? Why did you do…” I mean, if he’d already gone into Poland, “Why are you doing that? What’s your goal?” And then the question is, is he going to answer honestly? I don’t know, you can’t make someone answer a question honestly. You can only sort of shut up while they talk and then let people decide what they think of the answer.
Lex Fridman
Well, just like in the bar fight, there’s different ways.
Well, just like in the bar fight, there’s different ways.
Tucker Carlson
There are different ways, that’s exactly right. Man, is that true? That is absolutely right.
There are different ways, that’s exactly right. Man, is that true? That is absolutely right.
Lex Fridman
I mean, your energy with Putin, for example, was such that it felt like he could trust you. I felt like he could tell you a lot. I think…
I mean, your energy with Putin, for example, was such that it felt like he could trust you. I felt like he could tell you a lot. I think…
Tucker Carlson
I just wanted to get it on the record, that’s all I wanted.
I just wanted to get it on the record, that’s all I wanted.
Lex Fridman
I think it was a extremely… We have to acknowledge how important that interview was, for the record, and for opening the door for conversation. Opening the door to conversation literally is the path to more conversations in peace talks.
I think it was a extremely… We have to acknowledge how important that interview was, for the record, and for opening the door for conversation. Opening the door to conversation literally is the path to more conversations in peace talks.
Tucker Carlson
Well, I would flip it around and say anyone who seeks to shut that down by focusing on a supermarket video of four minutes versus a two hour and 15 minute long interview with a world leader, anyone who doesn’t want more conversation, who wants fewer facts, fewer perspectives is totalitarian, and probably doesn’t have good intent. I mean, I can honestly say for all my many manifold faults, I’ve never tried to make people shut up. It’s not in me, I don’t believe in that.
Well, I would flip it around and say anyone who seeks to shut that down by focusing on a supermarket video of four minutes versus a two hour and 15 minute long interview with a world leader, anyone who doesn’t want more conversation, who wants fewer facts, fewer perspectives is totalitarian, and probably doesn’t have good intent. I mean, I can honestly say for all my many manifold faults, I’ve never tried to make people shut up. It’s not in me, I don’t believe in that.
Lex Fridman
So Putin’s folks have shown interest for quite a while to speaking with me. So you’ve spoken with him, what advice would you give?
So Putin’s folks have shown interest for quite a while to speaking with me. So you’ve spoken with him, what advice would you give?
Tucker Carlson
Oh, do it immediately. How’s your Russian, by the way?
Oh, do it immediately. How’s your Russian, by the way?
Lex Fridman
Fluent.
Fluent.
Tucker Carlson
Have you kept up with it?
Have you kept up with it?
Lex Fridman
Yeah, fluent, so it would most likely be in Russian. So that’s the other thing is I do have a question about language barrier, was it annoying?
Yeah, fluent, so it would most likely be in Russian. So that’s the other thing is I do have a question about language barrier, was it annoying?
Tucker Carlson
It’s horrible. I mean, I don’t have much of a technique as an interviewer other than listen really carefully, that’s my only skill. I don’t have the best questions, I certainly don’t have the best questions. All I do that I’m proud of and that I think works is I just listen super carefully. I never let a word go by that I’m not paying… It exhausts me, actually. But you can’t do that in a foreign language because there’s a delay. And here, I’m just whining. But it’s real.
It’s horrible. I mean, I don’t have much of a technique as an interviewer other than listen really carefully, that’s my only skill. I don’t have the best questions, I certainly don’t have the best questions. All I do that I’m proud of and that I think works is I just listen super carefully. I never let a word go by that I’m not paying… It exhausts me, actually. But you can’t do that in a foreign language because there’s a delay. And here, I’m just whining. But it’s real.
Lex Fridman
It’s not whining. Can you actually describe the technical details of that? Are you hearing concurrently at the same time?
It’s not whining. Can you actually describe the technical details of that? Are you hearing concurrently at the same time?
Tucker Carlson
Yes, but there’s a massive lag. So what’s happening is… So the translators… So we were of course extremely uptight about the logistical details. So we brought our own cameraman who I’ve been around the world with, who worked at Fox, came with me now, amazing. And he did our cameras, lighting, everything, we had full control of that, and we had control of the tape. The Russians also had their own cameras, and I don’t know what they did with it. But we had full control of that, and we brought our own translator. We got our own translator, because I don’t trust anyone. So I think we had a good translator, we had two of them actually, because they get exhausted.
Yes, but there’s a massive lag. So what’s happening is… So the translators… So we were of course extremely uptight about the logistical details. So we brought our own cameraman who I’ve been around the world with, who worked at Fox, came with me now, amazing. And he did our cameras, lighting, everything, we had full control of that, and we had control of the tape. The Russians also had their own cameras, and I don’t know what they did with it. But we had full control of that, and we brought our own translator. We got our own translator, because I don’t trust anyone. So I think we had a good translator, we had two of them actually, because they get exhausted.
But the problem is, from my perspective, as someone who’s trying to think of a follow-up and listen to the answer, Putin will talk, and you can in part of your ear hear the Slavic sounds, and then over that is a guy with a Slavic accent speaking English. And then you can hear Putin stop talking, and then this guy’s answer goes on for another 15, 20 seconds. So it’s super disconcerting, and it’s really hard.
And the other thing is, it doesn’t matter how good your translators are. I’m interested in language, I speak only English fluently, but I’m really interested in language, and I work in language. It doesn’t matter how good your translator is, in literature and in conversation you miss so much if the language is moving… I mean, you see this in Bible study, you see it in Dostoevsky, you see it everywhere. If you don’t speak Aramaic, Hebrew, Russian, you’re not really getting… I mean, even in romance languages. I like Balzac, who obviously wrote in French. You read Père Goriot, it’s an amazing novel, hilarious, and you’re not really getting it. And it’s not that French and English are not that far apart. Russian, what?
Lex Fridman
Plus conversation. So the chemistry of conversation, the humor, the wit, the play with words, all this [inaudible 01:54:29].
Plus conversation. So the chemistry of conversation, the humor, the wit, the play with words, all this [inaudible 01:54:29].
Tucker Carlson
Exactly. And my understanding of Russian as a lover of Russian literature in English, is that it’s not a simple language at all. The grammar’s complex, there’s a lot that’s expressed that will be lost in the translation. So yes, I mean, the fact that you speak native Russian, I mean, I would run, not walk to that interview because I think it would just be amazing. You would get so much more out of it than I did.
Exactly. And my understanding of Russian as a lover of Russian literature in English, is that it’s not a simple language at all. The grammar’s complex, there’s a lot that’s expressed that will be lost in the translation. So yes, I mean, the fact that you speak native Russian, I mean, I would run, not walk to that interview because I think it would just be amazing. You would get so much more out of it than I did.
Lex Fridman
And we should say that you’ve met a lot of world leaders, both Zelenskyy and Putin are intelligent, witty, even funny. So there’s a depth to the person that could be explored through a conversation just on that element, the linguistic element.
And we should say that you’ve met a lot of world leaders, both Zelenskyy and Putin are intelligent, witty, even funny. So there’s a depth to the person that could be explored through a conversation just on that element, the linguistic element.
Tucker Carlson
For sure. And Putin speaks decent English, I spoke to him in English, so I know that, but he’s not comfortable with it at all. But Zelenskyy is, I think,
For sure. And Putin speaks decent English, I spoke to him in English, so I know that, but he’s not comfortable with it at all. But Zelenskyy is, I think,
Lex Fridman
No, he is… Well, he’s better than Putin at English, but the humor, the wit, the intelligence, all of that is not quite there in English. He says simple points, but the guy’s a comedian, and he’s a comedian primarily in Russian, the Russian language. So the Ukrainian language is now used mostly primarily as a kind of symbol of independence.
No, he is… Well, he’s better than Putin at English, but the humor, the wit, the intelligence, all of that is not quite there in English. He says simple points, but the guy’s a comedian, and he’s a comedian primarily in Russian, the Russian language. So the Ukrainian language is now used mostly primarily as a kind of symbol of independence.
Tucker Carlson
I’m aware of that, it’s a political decision. No, I know.
I’m aware of that, it’s a political decision. No, I know.
Lex Fridman
Really his native language is Russian language.
Really his native language is Russian language.
Tucker Carlson
Of course, as a lot of people in Ukraine.
Of course, as a lot of people in Ukraine.
Lex Fridman
But you can also understand his position, that he might not want to be speaking Russian publicly. That’s something I’ve…
But you can also understand his position, that he might not want to be speaking Russian publicly. That’s something I’ve…
Tucker Carlson
I don’t think they’re allowed to speak in Russian in some places in Ukraine. That’s one of the reasons that Russia was so mad, is that they were attacking language. And that’s a fair complaint, like, “What?” And by the way, if you haven’t been to Moscow in a while, you should see it, and you will pick up a million things that were invisible to me, and you should assess it for yourself. And my strong advice would be, even if you don’t interview Putin, go over there, spend a week there, and assess what you think. I mean, how restricted does the society feel? I mean, it would take a lot of balls to do this because… I mean, whatever you decide, you will be sucked into conversations that have nothing to do with you, political conversations. You’re obviously not a political activist, you’re an interviewer. But I think it would be so interesting.
I don’t think they’re allowed to speak in Russian in some places in Ukraine. That’s one of the reasons that Russia was so mad, is that they were attacking language. And that’s a fair complaint, like, “What?” And by the way, if you haven’t been to Moscow in a while, you should see it, and you will pick up a million things that were invisible to me, and you should assess it for yourself. And my strong advice would be, even if you don’t interview Putin, go over there, spend a week there, and assess what you think. I mean, how restricted does the society feel? I mean, it would take a lot of balls to do this because… I mean, whatever you decide, you will be sucked into conversations that have nothing to do with you, political conversations. You’re obviously not a political activist, you’re an interviewer. But I think it would be so interesting.
Lex Fridman
But for an interview itself, is there advice you have about how to carry an interview? It is fundamentally different when you do it in the native language.
But for an interview itself, is there advice you have about how to carry an interview? It is fundamentally different when you do it in the native language.
Tucker Carlson
Yes, I mean, I think I approached… And maybe I did it incorrectly, but this was the product of a lot of thought. I was coming into that interview aware that he hadn’t given an interview at all with anybody since the war started. So I had a million different questions, and as noted, I didn’t ask them because I just wanted to focus on the war. But I mean, there’s so many… I’ll send you my notes that I wrote, I was like a diligent little girl.
Yes, I mean, I think I approached… And maybe I did it incorrectly, but this was the product of a lot of thought. I was coming into that interview aware that he hadn’t given an interview at all with anybody since the war started. So I had a million different questions, and as noted, I didn’t ask them because I just wanted to focus on the war. But I mean, there’s so many… I’ll send you my notes that I wrote, I was like a diligent little girl.
Lex Fridman
That would be amazing, but I think…
That would be amazing, but I think…
Tucker Carlson
All these questions, and some of them I thought were pretty funny.
All these questions, and some of them I thought were pretty funny.
Lex Fridman
In your case, I think the very fact of the interview was the most important thing.
In your case, I think the very fact of the interview was the most important thing.
Tucker Carlson
Yeah, that’s probably right. The question that I really wanted to ask that I was almost going to ask, because it made me laugh out loud. I was sitting drinking coffee beforehand with my producers, and I was like, “I’m going to go in there. My first question is going to be, Mr. President, I’ve been here in the Kremlin for two days preparing, and I haven’t seen a single African-American in a position of power in the Kremlin.” I thought that’s too culturally specific and dry. And he’d be like, “This guy’s freaking crazy.”
Yeah, that’s probably right. The question that I really wanted to ask that I was almost going to ask, because it made me laugh out loud. I was sitting drinking coffee beforehand with my producers, and I was like, “I’m going to go in there. My first question is going to be, Mr. President, I’ve been here in the Kremlin for two days preparing, and I haven’t seen a single African-American in a position of power in the Kremlin.” I thought that’s too culturally specific and dry. And he’d be like, “This guy’s freaking crazy.”
Lex Fridman
Yeah, you don’t want to open with humor.
Yeah, you don’t want to open with humor.
Tucker Carlson
I know.
I know.
Lex Fridman
All right.
All right.
Tucker Carlson
Doesn’t translate.
Doesn’t translate.
Lex Fridman
It doesn’t. Oh, yeah, and there’ll be a small delay where you have to wait for the joke, to see if it lands or not.
It doesn’t. Oh, yeah, and there’ll be a small delay where you have to wait for the joke, to see if it lands or not.
Tucker Carlson
Like, “What? This is not America.”
Like, “What? This is not America.”
Nuclear war
Lex Fridman
At Fox, you were for a time the most popular host. After Fox you’ve garnered a huge amount of attention as well, same, probably more. Do you worry that popularity and just that attention gets to your head, is a kind of drug that clouds your thinking?
At Fox, you were for a time the most popular host. After Fox you’ve garnered a huge amount of attention as well, same, probably more. Do you worry that popularity and just that attention gets to your head, is a kind of drug that clouds your thinking?
Tucker Carlson
You think? I live in a spiritual graveyard of people killed by the quest for fame. Yes, I have lived in it. I mean, I would say the two advantages I have. One, I Have a happy family, and a stable family, and a stable group of friends, which is just the greatest blessing, and a strong love of nature that my family shares. So I’m in nature every day. And I have a whole series of rituals designed to keep me from becoming the asshole that I could easily become. But no, of course, I mean, that’s what I… And I don’t want to beat up on… I’m grateful to Elon who gave me a platform, and I mean that sincerely. But I definitely don’t spend a lot of time on social media or on the internet, for that exact reason. Well, first of all, I think it’s, as I’ve said, a much more controlled environment than we acknowledge, and I don’t want lies in my head. But I also don’t want to become the sort of person who’s seeking the adulation of strangers, I think that’s soul poison.
You think? I live in a spiritual graveyard of people killed by the quest for fame. Yes, I have lived in it. I mean, I would say the two advantages I have. One, I Have a happy family, and a stable family, and a stable group of friends, which is just the greatest blessing, and a strong love of nature that my family shares. So I’m in nature every day. And I have a whole series of rituals designed to keep me from becoming the asshole that I could easily become. But no, of course, I mean, that’s what I… And I don’t want to beat up on… I’m grateful to Elon who gave me a platform, and I mean that sincerely. But I definitely don’t spend a lot of time on social media or on the internet, for that exact reason. Well, first of all, I think it’s, as I’ve said, a much more controlled environment than we acknowledge, and I don’t want lies in my head. But I also don’t want to become the sort of person who’s seeking the adulation of strangers, I think that’s soul poison.
And I said earlier that I think that the desire for power and money will kill you, and I believe that, and I’ve seen it a lot. But I also think the desire for the love of people you don’t know is every bit as poisonous, maybe more so. And so, yes. And it’s not just because I’ve obviously spent most of my life in public. And in fact, I don’t spend my life in public, and I’m a completely private person. But professionally, I’ve spent my life in public. It’s not just that, it’s social media makes everybody into a cable news host. And we were talking off the air, my new… I’m obsessed with this. I don’t know enough about it, but here’s what I do know. South Korea, amazing country, great people. I grew up around Koreans, probably no group, if I can generalize about a group, that I like more than Koreans, are just smart, funny, honest, brave. I really like Koreans, I always have, my whole life, growing up in sunny California with Koreans.
South Korea is dying, it’s literally dying. It’s way below replacement rate in fertility, its suicide rate is astronomical. Why is that? It’s a rich country. Of course, I don’t know the answer. But I suspect it has something to do with the penetration of technology into South Korean society, is I think certainly one of the highest in the world, people live online there. And there was a belief for a bunch of reasons in South Korea that western technology would be a liberating progressive force, and I think it’s been the opposite. It’s my sense, strong sense. And I think it’s true in this country too. And I don’t understand how people can ignore the decline in life expectancy or the rise in fentanyl use. It’s not just about China shipping precursor chemicals to Mexico, it’s like, “Why would you take that shit?”
Lex Fridman
I hope those two things aren’t coupled, technological advancement and the erosion…
I hope those two things aren’t coupled, technological advancement and the erosion…
Tucker Carlson
Well, let me ask you… And I know you’re a technologist and I respect it, and there’s a lot about technology that I like and have benefited from. I had back surgery and it worked. Okay, so I’m not against all technology. But can you name a big technology in the last 20 years that we can say conclusively has improved people’s lives?
Well, let me ask you… And I know you’re a technologist and I respect it, and there’s a lot about technology that I like and have benefited from. I had back surgery and it worked. Okay, so I’m not against all technology. But can you name a big technology in the last 20 years that we can say conclusively has improved people’s lives?
Lex Fridman
Well, conclusive is a tough thing.
Well, conclusive is a tough thing.
Tucker Carlson
Pretty conclusively, that we can brag about.
Pretty conclusively, that we can brag about.
Lex Fridman
Well, you’ve criticized Google search recently, but I think making the world knowledge accessible to anyone anywhere across the world through Google search.
Well, you’ve criticized Google search recently, but I think making the world knowledge accessible to anyone anywhere across the world through Google search.
Tucker Carlson
Well, I love that, I love that idea. Are people better informed or are they more superstitious and misled than they were 20 years ago? It’s not close.
Well, I love that, I love that idea. Are people better informed or are they more superstitious and misled than they were 20 years ago? It’s not close.
Lex Fridman
Well, no, I don’t know, I think they are more informed. It’s just revealing the ignorance. The internet has revealed ignorance that people have, but I think the ignorance has been decreasing gradually. And if you look, you can criticize places like Wikipedia a lot, and very many aspects of Wikipedia are very biased. But most of it are actually topics that don’t have any bias in them, because they’re not political or so on, there’s no battle over those topics. And most of Wikipedia is the fastest way to learn about a thing.
Well, no, I don’t know, I think they are more informed. It’s just revealing the ignorance. The internet has revealed ignorance that people have, but I think the ignorance has been decreasing gradually. And if you look, you can criticize places like Wikipedia a lot, and very many aspects of Wikipedia are very biased. But most of it are actually topics that don’t have any bias in them, because they’re not political or so on, there’s no battle over those topics. And most of Wikipedia is the fastest way to learn about a thing.
Tucker Carlson
I couldn’t agree more. You can very quickly imagine… You’re an expert, and that may be the problem, I think. No, I just experienced it in Moscow. Again, I feel like I’m in the top 1% for information, certainly intake, because it’s my job. And I had literally… And I’m always out of the country, I’ve been around the world many times. I feel like I know a lot about the rest of the world, or I thought I did. And how did I not know any of that? And maybe I’m just unusually ignorant or something, or reading the wrong things. I don’t know what it was, but all I know is the digital information sources that I use to understand just something as simple as, what’s the city of Moscow like? Were completely inadequate. And anyway, look, I just am worried that we’re missing the obvious signs. And the obvious signs are reproduction, life expectancy, sobriety. If you have a society where people just can’t deal with being sober, don’t want to have children, and are dying younger, you have a suicidal society.
I couldn’t agree more. You can very quickly imagine… You’re an expert, and that may be the problem, I think. No, I just experienced it in Moscow. Again, I feel like I’m in the top 1% for information, certainly intake, because it’s my job. And I had literally… And I’m always out of the country, I’ve been around the world many times. I feel like I know a lot about the rest of the world, or I thought I did. And how did I not know any of that? And maybe I’m just unusually ignorant or something, or reading the wrong things. I don’t know what it was, but all I know is the digital information sources that I use to understand just something as simple as, what’s the city of Moscow like? Were completely inadequate. And anyway, look, I just am worried that we’re missing the obvious signs. And the obvious signs are reproduction, life expectancy, sobriety. If you have a society where people just can’t deal with being sober, don’t want to have children, and are dying younger, you have a suicidal society.
Tucker Carlson
…An extremely sick, you have a suicidal society. And I’m not even blaming anyone for it. I’m just saying objectively that is true. And the measure of a health of your society is the number of children that you have and how well they do. It’s super simple. That’s the next generation. We all die and what replaces us? And if you don’t care, then you’re suicidal. And maybe other things too. But that’s all I’m saying. So what happened to South Korea? Why can’t anyone answer the question? They’re great people, they’re rich, they have all these advantages. They’re on the cutting edge of every American… For a foreign country, they’re more American than maybe any other country other than Canada. And what happened?
…An extremely sick, you have a suicidal society. And I’m not even blaming anyone for it. I’m just saying objectively that is true. And the measure of a health of your society is the number of children that you have and how well they do. It’s super simple. That’s the next generation. We all die and what replaces us? And if you don’t care, then you’re suicidal. And maybe other things too. But that’s all I’m saying. So what happened to South Korea? Why can’t anyone answer the question? They’re great people, they’re rich, they have all these advantages. They’re on the cutting edge of every American… For a foreign country, they’re more American than maybe any other country other than Canada. And what happened?
Lex Fridman
And I mean, your fundamental worry is the same kind of thing might be happening or will happen in the United States.
And I mean, your fundamental worry is the same kind of thing might be happening or will happen in the United States.
Tucker Carlson
Well, let me just ask you this. I think North Korea seems like the most dystopian, horrible place in the world, right? Obviously it’s a byword for dystopia, right? North Korean. I use it all the time. And I mean it. If in a hundred years there are more North Koreans still alive than there are South Koreans, what does that tell us?
Well, let me just ask you this. I think North Korea seems like the most dystopian, horrible place in the world, right? Obviously it’s a byword for dystopia, right? North Korean. I use it all the time. And I mean it. If in a hundred years there are more North Koreans still alive than there are South Koreans, what does that tell us?
Lex Fridman
Yeah, that’s something to worry about. But also-
Yeah, that’s something to worry about. But also-
Tucker Carlson
But how did it happen? But why? I’m interested in the why. This is a question I asked Putin. Sometimes we don’t know why, but why does no one ask why?
But how did it happen? But why? I’m interested in the why. This is a question I asked Putin. Sometimes we don’t know why, but why does no one ask why?
Lex Fridman
I’ve seen a lot of increased distrust in science, which is deserved in many places. It just worries me because some of the greatest inventions of humanity come from science and technological innovation.
I’ve seen a lot of increased distrust in science, which is deserved in many places. It just worries me because some of the greatest inventions of humanity come from science and technological innovation.
Tucker Carlson
Okay, then let me ask you a couple quick questions and perhaps you have the answer. I’ve always assumed that was true. And I should say that when I was a kid, I lived in La Jolla, California, next to the Salk Institute named after Jonas Salk, a resident of La Jolla, California, who created the polio vaccine and saved untold millions. And so my belief, which is still my belief, actually, that’s a great thing. It’s one of the great additions to human flourishing ever. But if technology is so great, why is life expectancy going down? And why are fewer people having kids? And why would anybody who has internet access ever use fentanyl? What is that? What is going on? And until we can answer that question, I think we have to assume the question of whether technology is a net good or a net bad is unresolved at best. Right?
Okay, then let me ask you a couple quick questions and perhaps you have the answer. I’ve always assumed that was true. And I should say that when I was a kid, I lived in La Jolla, California, next to the Salk Institute named after Jonas Salk, a resident of La Jolla, California, who created the polio vaccine and saved untold millions. And so my belief, which is still my belief, actually, that’s a great thing. It’s one of the great additions to human flourishing ever. But if technology is so great, why is life expectancy going down? And why are fewer people having kids? And why would anybody who has internet access ever use fentanyl? What is that? What is going on? And until we can answer that question, I think we have to assume the question of whether technology is a net good or a net bad is unresolved at best. Right?
Lex Fridman
At best, perhaps. But technology is the very tool which will allow us to have that kind of discourse to figure out to do science better.
At best, perhaps. But technology is the very tool which will allow us to have that kind of discourse to figure out to do science better.
Tucker Carlson
I mean, I want that to be true. And when you said that the internet allows people to escape the darkness of ignorance, man, that resonated with me because I felt that way in 1993, 4 when it was first starting, and I first got on it and I thought, man, this is amazing. You can talk for free to anyone around the world. This is going to be great. But let me just ask you this. This is something I’ve never gotten over or gotten a straight answer to. Why is it that in any European city, the greatest buildings indisputably were built before electricity and the machine age? Why has no one ever built a medieval cathedral in the modern era ever?
I mean, I want that to be true. And when you said that the internet allows people to escape the darkness of ignorance, man, that resonated with me because I felt that way in 1993, 4 when it was first starting, and I first got on it and I thought, man, this is amazing. You can talk for free to anyone around the world. This is going to be great. But let me just ask you this. This is something I’ve never gotten over or gotten a straight answer to. Why is it that in any European city, the greatest buildings indisputably were built before electricity and the machine age? Why has no one ever built a medieval cathedral in the modern era ever?
Lex Fridman
Well-
Well-
Tucker Carlson
What is that?
What is that?
Lex Fridman
…Indisputably? You have a presumption. We have a good definition wat beauty is. There’s a lot of people-
…Indisputably? You have a presumption. We have a good definition wat beauty is. There’s a lot of people-
Tucker Carlson
Right. Let’s be specific. Pick a European city or any city in the world and tell me that there’s a prettier building than say Notre Dame before it was set fire to.
Right. Let’s be specific. Pick a European city or any city in the world and tell me that there’s a prettier building than say Notre Dame before it was set fire to.
Lex Fridman
There’s other sources of prettiness and beauty.
There’s other sources of prettiness and beauty.
Tucker Carlson
Purely in architecture. Of course. Trees are prettier than any building in my opinion. So I agree with you there.
Purely in architecture. Of course. Trees are prettier than any building in my opinion. So I agree with you there.
Lex Fridman
Well, but also there could be, I grew up in the pre-internet age, but-
Well, but also there could be, I grew up in the pre-internet age, but-
Tucker Carlson
Good.
Good.
Lex Fridman
Good. But if you grew up in the internet age, I think your eyes would be more open to beauty that’s digital. That is in a digital-
Good. But if you grew up in the internet age, I think your eyes would be more open to beauty that’s digital. That is in a digital-
Tucker Carlson
I’m not discounting the possibility of digital beauty at all. And the Ted Kaczynski in me wants to, but that’s too close-minded. I agree. I’m completely willing to believe there is such a thing as digital beauty. I mean, I have digital pictures of my phone, of my dogs and kids. So I know that there is, but purely in the realm of architecture because it’s limited, and it is one of the pure expressions of human creativity. We need places to live and work and worship and eat. And so we build buildings and every civilization has, but the machine age, the industrial age seemed to have decreased the quality and the beauty in that one expression of human creativity, architecture. And why is that?
I’m not discounting the possibility of digital beauty at all. And the Ted Kaczynski in me wants to, but that’s too close-minded. I agree. I’m completely willing to believe there is such a thing as digital beauty. I mean, I have digital pictures of my phone, of my dogs and kids. So I know that there is, but purely in the realm of architecture because it’s limited, and it is one of the pure expressions of human creativity. We need places to live and work and worship and eat. And so we build buildings and every civilization has, but the machine age, the industrial age seemed to have decreased the quality and the beauty in that one expression of human creativity, architecture. And why is that?
Lex Fridman
Well, I could also argue that I’m a big sucker for bridges and modern bridges can give older bridges a run for their money.
Well, I could also argue that I’m a big sucker for bridges and modern bridges can give older bridges a run for their money.
Tucker Carlson
I like bridges too. So I agree with you, sort of. But the Brooklyn Bridge… I don’t know that there’s any modern bridges that was built in late-
I like bridges too. So I agree with you, sort of. But the Brooklyn Bridge… I don’t know that there’s any modern bridges that was built in late-
Lex Fridman
19th century.
19th century.
Tucker Carlson
…19th century. Very much in the industrial age. But I’m just saying the great cathedrals of Europe-
…19th century. Very much in the industrial age. But I’m just saying the great cathedrals of Europe-
Lex Fridman
Sure, yeah.
Sure, yeah.
Tucker Carlson
Even the pyramids, whoever built them. It seems like it’s super obvious. I’m dealing on the autism level here, just like, well, why is that? But that’s a good way to start. If all of a sudden you have electricity and hydraulics and you have access to… I mean, I have machines in my wood shop at home that are so much more advanced than anything. Any cathedral builder in 15th century Europe had. And yet there’s neither I nor anyone I know could even begin to understand how a flying buttress was built. And so what is that?
Even the pyramids, whoever built them. It seems like it’s super obvious. I’m dealing on the autism level here, just like, well, why is that? But that’s a good way to start. If all of a sudden you have electricity and hydraulics and you have access to… I mean, I have machines in my wood shop at home that are so much more advanced than anything. Any cathedral builder in 15th century Europe had. And yet there’s neither I nor anyone I know could even begin to understand how a flying buttress was built. And so what is that?
Lex Fridman
And the other question is also consider that whatever is creating this technology is unstoppable.
And the other question is also consider that whatever is creating this technology is unstoppable.
Tucker Carlson
Well, there’s that.
Well, there’s that.
Lex Fridman
And the question is how do you steer it then? You have to look in a realist way at the world and say that if you don’t, somebody else will. And you want to do it in a safe way. I mean, this is the Manhattan Project.
And the question is how do you steer it then? You have to look in a realist way at the world and say that if you don’t, somebody else will. And you want to do it in a safe way. I mean, this is the Manhattan Project.
Tucker Carlson
Was the Manhattan Project a good idea, to create nuclear weapons? That’s an easy call. No.
Was the Manhattan Project a good idea, to create nuclear weapons? That’s an easy call. No.
Lex Fridman
For me, it’s an easy call in retrospect. In retrospect, yes. Because it seems like it stopped world wars. So the mutually assured destruction seems to have ended wars. Ended major military conflict.
For me, it’s an easy call in retrospect. In retrospect, yes. Because it seems like it stopped world wars. So the mutually assured destruction seems to have ended wars. Ended major military conflict.
Tucker Carlson
Well it’s been what, 80 years? Not even 80 years, 79. And so we haven’t had a world war in 79 years. But one nuclear exchange would of course kill more people than all wars in human history combined.
Well it’s been what, 80 years? Not even 80 years, 79. And so we haven’t had a world war in 79 years. But one nuclear exchange would of course kill more people than all wars in human history combined.
Lex Fridman
Your saying 79 makes it sound like you’re counting.
Your saying 79 makes it sound like you’re counting.
Tucker Carlson
I am counting. Because I think it obviously, it’s completely demonic and everyone pretends like it’s great. Nuclear weapons are evil.
I am counting. Because I think it obviously, it’s completely demonic and everyone pretends like it’s great. Nuclear weapons are evil.
Lex Fridman
Yeah, no, absolutely.
Yeah, no, absolutely.
Tucker Carlson
The use of them is evil, and the technology itself is evil. And in my opinion, I mean, it’s like if you can’t, that’s just so obvious. And what I’m saying is I’m not against all technology. I took a shower this morning. It was powered by an electric pump, heated by a water heater. I loved it. I sat in an electric sauna. I’m not against all technology, obviously, but the mindless worship of technology?
The use of them is evil, and the technology itself is evil. And in my opinion, I mean, it’s like if you can’t, that’s just so obvious. And what I’m saying is I’m not against all technology. I took a shower this morning. It was powered by an electric pump, heated by a water heater. I loved it. I sat in an electric sauna. I’m not against all technology, obviously, but the mindless worship of technology?
Lex Fridman
Mindless worship of anything is pretty bad.
Mindless worship of anything is pretty bad.
Tucker Carlson
But I’m just saying, so you said, let’s approach this from a realist perspective. Okay, let’s. If we think that there is a reasonable or even a potential chance it could happen, maybe on the margins, let’s assign it a 15% chance, that AI, for example, gets away from us, and we are now ruled by machines that may actually hate us. Who knows what they want. Why wouldn’t we use force to stop that from happening? So you’re walking down the street in midtown Manhattan, it’s midnight. You’ve had a few drinks, you’re coming from dinner, you’re walking back to your apartment. A guy, a very thuggish looking guy, young man, approaches you. He’s 50 feet away. He pulls out a handgun, he lifts it up to you. You also are armed.
But I’m just saying, so you said, let’s approach this from a realist perspective. Okay, let’s. If we think that there is a reasonable or even a potential chance it could happen, maybe on the margins, let’s assign it a 15% chance, that AI, for example, gets away from us, and we are now ruled by machines that may actually hate us. Who knows what they want. Why wouldn’t we use force to stop that from happening? So you’re walking down the street in midtown Manhattan, it’s midnight. You’ve had a few drinks, you’re coming from dinner, you’re walking back to your apartment. A guy, a very thuggish looking guy, young man, approaches you. He’s 50 feet away. He pulls out a handgun, he lifts it up to you. You also are armed.
Do you shoot him or do you wait to get shot? Because all the data, look, he hasn’t shot you. He’s not committed a crime other than carrying a weapon in New York City. But maybe he’s got a license. You don’t know. It could be legal, but he’s pointing a gun at you. Is it fair to kill him before he kills you, even though you can’t prove that he will kill you?
Lex Fridman
If I knew my skills with a gun because he already has the gun out.
If I knew my skills with a gun because he already has the gun out.
Tucker Carlson
Right, but it turns out that you have some confidence in your ability to stop the threat by force. Are you justified in doing that?
Right, but it turns out that you have some confidence in your ability to stop the threat by force. Are you justified in doing that?
Lex Fridman
I just like this picture. Am I wearing a cowboy hat? No.
I just like this picture. Am I wearing a cowboy hat? No.
Tucker Carlson
No. But you are wearing cowboy boots and they’re clicking on the cobblestones. Actually, you’re in the meat packing.
No. But you are wearing cowboy boots and they’re clicking on the cobblestones. Actually, you’re in the meat packing.
Lex Fridman
Okay, great. I like this picture. I’m just, I think about this a lot, no. Yeah, I understand your point. But also I think that metaphor falls apart if there’s other nations at play here. Same as with the nuclear bomb. If US doesn’t build it, will other nations build it? The Soviet Union build it. China or Nazi Germany.
Okay, great. I like this picture. I’m just, I think about this a lot, no. Yeah, I understand your point. But also I think that metaphor falls apart if there’s other nations at play here. Same as with the nuclear bomb. If US doesn’t build it, will other nations build it? The Soviet Union build it. China or Nazi Germany.
Tucker Carlson
We faced this. I mean, we faced this and the last president to try and keep in a meaningful way nuclear proliferation under control was John F. Kennedy. And look what happened to him.
We faced this. I mean, we faced this and the last president to try and keep in a meaningful way nuclear proliferation under control was John F. Kennedy. And look what happened to him.
Lex Fridman
But what’s your suggestion? Was it inevitable?
But what’s your suggestion? Was it inevitable?
Tucker Carlson
Well, hold on. Well, their position in 1962 was no, it’s absolutely not inevitable. Or perhaps it’s inevitable in the sense that our death is inevitable as human beings, but we fight against the dying of the light anyway, because that’s the right thing to do. No, we were willing to use force to prevent other countries from getting the bomb because we thought that would be really terrible. We acknowledged that while there were upsides to nuclear weapons, just like there are upsides to AI, the downside was terrifying in the hands of… I mean, that’s the thing that I kind of don’t get. It’s like the applications of that technology in the hands of people who mean to do harm and destroy. It’s so obviously terrifying.
Well, hold on. Well, their position in 1962 was no, it’s absolutely not inevitable. Or perhaps it’s inevitable in the sense that our death is inevitable as human beings, but we fight against the dying of the light anyway, because that’s the right thing to do. No, we were willing to use force to prevent other countries from getting the bomb because we thought that would be really terrible. We acknowledged that while there were upsides to nuclear weapons, just like there are upsides to AI, the downside was terrifying in the hands of… I mean, that’s the thing that I kind of don’t get. It’s like the applications of that technology in the hands of people who mean to do harm and destroy. It’s so obviously terrifying.
Lex Fridman
It’s not so obvious to me. What I’m terrified about is probably similar thing that you’re terrified about, is using that technology to manipulate people’s minds. That’s much more reasonable to me as an expectation, a real threat that’s possible in the next few years.
It’s not so obvious to me. What I’m terrified about is probably similar thing that you’re terrified about, is using that technology to manipulate people’s minds. That’s much more reasonable to me as an expectation, a real threat that’s possible in the next few years.
Tucker Carlson
But what matters more than that?
But what matters more than that?
Lex Fridman
Well, I think that could lead to destruction of human civilization through other humans, for example, starting nuclear wars.
Well, I think that could lead to destruction of human civilization through other humans, for example, starting nuclear wars.
Tucker Carlson
Yeah. Well, I mean, this is one of the reasons I wasn’t afraid in the Vladimir Putin interview. It’s all ending anyway. You know what I mean?
Yeah. Well, I mean, this is one of the reasons I wasn’t afraid in the Vladimir Putin interview. It’s all ending anyway. You know what I mean?
Lex Fridman
Yeah. Well-
Yeah. Well-
Tucker Carlson
Might as well dance on the deck of the Titanic. Don’t be a pussy. Enjoy it.
Might as well dance on the deck of the Titanic. Don’t be a pussy. Enjoy it.
Lex Fridman
I think we will forever fight against the dying of the light as the entirety of the civilization.
I think we will forever fight against the dying of the light as the entirety of the civilization.
Tucker Carlson
Someone the other day said that Biden ascribed that to Churchill. That was a Churchill quote. That’s kind of what I’m saying. It’s like if you live in a society where people don’t read anymore, people are by definition much more ignorant, but they don’t know it. I do think the Wikipedia culture, and I think there are cool things about Wikipedia, certainly its ease of use is high and that’s great, but people get the sense that like, oh, I know a lot about this or that or the other thing. And it’s like the key to wisdom, again, the key to wise decision making is doing what you don’t know. And it’s just so important to be reminded of what a dummy you are and how ignorant you are all the time. That’s why I like having daughters. It’s like it’s never far from mind how flawed I am. And that’s important.
Someone the other day said that Biden ascribed that to Churchill. That was a Churchill quote. That’s kind of what I’m saying. It’s like if you live in a society where people don’t read anymore, people are by definition much more ignorant, but they don’t know it. I do think the Wikipedia culture, and I think there are cool things about Wikipedia, certainly its ease of use is high and that’s great, but people get the sense that like, oh, I know a lot about this or that or the other thing. And it’s like the key to wisdom, again, the key to wise decision making is doing what you don’t know. And it’s just so important to be reminded of what a dummy you are and how ignorant you are all the time. That’s why I like having daughters. It’s like it’s never far from mind how flawed I am. And that’s important.
Lex Fridman
In the same way I hope to be a dad one day.
In the same way I hope to be a dad one day.
Tucker Carlson
You should have a ton of kids. Are you going to have a ton of pups?
You should have a ton of kids. Are you going to have a ton of pups?
Lex Fridman
Five… Oh pup, you mean kids?
Five… Oh pup, you mean kids?
Tucker Carlson
Children.
Children.
Lex Fridman
Yes. But also I’ve been thinking of getting a dog, but unrelated. I would love to have five or six kids. Yeah, for sure.
Yes. But also I’ve been thinking of getting a dog, but unrelated. I would love to have five or six kids. Yeah, for sure.
Tucker Carlson
Have you found a victim yet?
Have you found a victim yet?
Lex Fridman
You make it sound so romantic, Tucker.
You make it sound so romantic, Tucker.
Tucker Carlson
I’m just joking. I love it. No, you should totally do that.
I’m just joking. I love it. No, you should totally do that.
Lex Fridman
Yeah, 100%. But also in terms of being humble, I do jiu-jitsu. It’s a martial art where you get your ass kicked all the time.
Yeah, 100%. But also in terms of being humble, I do jiu-jitsu. It’s a martial art where you get your ass kicked all the time.
Tucker Carlson
I love that.
I love that.
Lex Fridman
It’s nice to get your ass kicked. Physical humbling is unlike anything else, I think, because we’re kind of monkeys at heart and just getting your ass kicked just really helpful.
It’s nice to get your ass kicked. Physical humbling is unlike anything else, I think, because we’re kind of monkeys at heart and just getting your ass kicked just really helpful.
Tucker Carlson
I agree. I’ve had it happen to me twice.
I agree. I’ve had it happen to me twice.
Lex Fridman
Twice is enough.
Twice is enough.
Tucker Carlson
It got me to quit drinking. I was good at starting fights. Not good at winning them, but no, I completely agree with that.
It got me to quit drinking. I was good at starting fights. Not good at winning them, but no, I completely agree with that.
Trump
Lex Fridman
Let me ask you, you’ve been pretty close with Donald Trump. Your private texts about him around the 2020 election were made public in one of them. You said you passionately hate Trump. When that came out, you said that you actually no, you love him. So how do you explain the difference?
Let me ask you, you’ve been pretty close with Donald Trump. Your private texts about him around the 2020 election were made public in one of them. You said you passionately hate Trump. When that came out, you said that you actually no, you love him. So how do you explain the difference?
Tucker Carlson
My texts reflect a lot of things, including how I feel at the moment that I sent them. That specific text I happen to know since I had to go through it forensically during my deposition in a case I was not named in. I had nothing to do with whatsoever. It’s crazy how civil suits can be used to hurt people you disagree with politically. But I was mad at a very specific person. I mean, really I, you’re asking me, I’ll tell you exactly what that was. It was the second the election ended and they stopped voting, stopped the vote counting on election night. I was like, well, this is, and it’s all now mail-in ballots and electronic voting machines. I was like, that’s a rigged election. I thought that then, I think now. Now it’s obvious that it was. But at the time I was like, “I feel like that was crazy what just happened”.
My texts reflect a lot of things, including how I feel at the moment that I sent them. That specific text I happen to know since I had to go through it forensically during my deposition in a case I was not named in. I had nothing to do with whatsoever. It’s crazy how civil suits can be used to hurt people you disagree with politically. But I was mad at a very specific person. I mean, really I, you’re asking me, I’ll tell you exactly what that was. It was the second the election ended and they stopped voting, stopped the vote counting on election night. I was like, well, this is, and it’s all now mail-in ballots and electronic voting machines. I was like, that’s a rigged election. I thought that then, I think now. Now it’s obvious that it was. But at the time I was like, “I feel like that was crazy what just happened”.
I want, but I don’t want to go on TV and say that’s a rigged election because I don’t have any evidence it’s a rigged election. You can’t do that. It’s irresponsible and it’s wrong. So I was like, the Trump campaign was making all these claims about this or that fraud. So I was trying my best to substantiate them, to follow up on it. Everyone was like, “Shut up, Trump, you lost. Go away. We’re going to indict you.” But I felt like my job was to be like, no, the guy’s, he’s president, he’s claiming the election just got stolen and he’s making these claims. Let’s see if we can… Well, the people around him were so incompetent. It was just absolutely crazy. And so I called a couple of times, I finally give up, but I’d call and be like, “All right, you guys claim that these inconsistencies and this whatever, this happened, give me evidence and I’ll put it on TV.” It’s my job to bring stuff that is not going to be aired anywhere else to the public. It was insane how incompetent and unserious-
Lex Fridman
So they weren’t able to provide like-
So they weren’t able to provide like-
Tucker Carlson
Here’s the point of the story and of that text. So then they come out and they say, well, dead people voted. Well, that’s just an easy call. If a dead person voted, we can prove someone’s dead. Because being dead is one of the few things we’re good at verifying because you start to smell and there’s a record of it. It’s called the death certificate. So it was like, give me the names of people who are dead who voted, and then we can get their registration and we can show they voted. Five names. So I go on TV and I say this Caroline Johnson, 79 of Waukegan, Illinois voted. Here’s her death certificate. She died. And the campaign sends me this stuff. Now in general, I don’t take stuff directly from campaigns.
Here’s the point of the story and of that text. So then they come out and they say, well, dead people voted. Well, that’s just an easy call. If a dead person voted, we can prove someone’s dead. Because being dead is one of the few things we’re good at verifying because you start to smell and there’s a record of it. It’s called the death certificate. So it was like, give me the names of people who are dead who voted, and then we can get their registration and we can show they voted. Five names. So I go on TV and I say this Caroline Johnson, 79 of Waukegan, Illinois voted. Here’s her death certificate. She died. And the campaign sends me this stuff. Now in general, I don’t take stuff directly from campaigns.
Because they all lie, because their job is to get elected or whatever. So I’m very wary of campaigns having been around it for 30 years, but I made an exception to my rule and I got a bunch of stuff from them. Well, of the six names, two of them are still alive. What? I immediately corrected it the next night. CNN did a whole segment on how I was spreading disinformation, which I was by the way. In this one case, they were right. I was so mad. I was like, “I hate you. I’m not talking about you. I’m so mad.” Anyway, that’s the answer. That’s what that was.
Lex Fridman
Who were you texting to?
Who were you texting to?
Tucker Carlson
My producer and I was venting. It’s like a producer I was really close to, and I’ve known him for a long time. He’s really smart. And he’s like, he was someone I could be honest with. And I was like, and by the way, it was so funny. I mean now I’m doing what was me, which I will keep to a minimum, but it’s like stealing someone’s texts? And by the way, I was an idiot. I should have said, “Come and arrest me. I’m not giving you my freaking text messages.”
My producer and I was venting. It’s like a producer I was really close to, and I’ve known him for a long time. He’s really smart. And he’s like, he was someone I could be honest with. And I was like, and by the way, it was so funny. I mean now I’m doing what was me, which I will keep to a minimum, but it’s like stealing someone’s texts? And by the way, I was an idiot. I should have said, “Come and arrest me. I’m not giving you my freaking text messages.”
But I got bullied into it by a lawyer… I didn’t get bullied into it. I was weak enough to agree with a lawyer. It was my fault. Never should have done that. “Fuck you. They’re my texts.” I’m not even named in this case. That’s what I should have said, but I didn’t. I said I was mad on the air the next day, but not in language that colorful, but whatever. I try to be transparent. I mean, I also think, by the way, if you watch someone over time, you don’t always know what they really think, but you can tell if someone’s lying. You can sort of feel it in people. And I have lied. I’m sure I’ll lie again. I don’t want to lie. I don’t think I’m a liar. I try not to be a liar. I don’t want to be a liar. I think it’s really important not to be a liar.
Lex Fridman
You said nice things about me earlier. I’m starting to question. I have questions. I have a lot of questions, Tucker.
You said nice things about me earlier. I’m starting to question. I have questions. I have a lot of questions, Tucker.
Tucker Carlson
I hate Lex Fridman.
I hate Lex Fridman.
Lex Fridman
Yeah. I’m going to have to see your texts after this.
Yeah. I’m going to have to see your texts after this.
Tucker Carlson
My texts are so uninteresting now. It’s like crazy how uninteresting they are.
My texts are so uninteresting now. It’s like crazy how uninteresting they are.
Lex Fridman
Emojis and gifs.
Emojis and gifs.
Tucker Carlson
Yeah, lots of dog pictures.
Yeah, lots of dog pictures.
Lex Fridman
Nice. You said some degree the election was rigged. Was it stolen?
Nice. You said some degree the election was rigged. Was it stolen?
Tucker Carlson
It was a hundred percent stolen. Are you joking?
It was a hundred percent stolen. Are you joking?
Lex Fridman
It was rigged to that large of a degree?
It was rigged to that large of a degree?
Tucker Carlson
Yeah. They completely change the way people vote right before the election on the basis of COVID, which had nothing to do with-
Yeah. They completely change the way people vote right before the election on the basis of COVID, which had nothing to do with-
Lex Fridman
So in that way it was rigged, meaning manipulated.
So in that way it was rigged, meaning manipulated.
Tucker Carlson
One hundred percent. Then you censor the information people are allowed to get, anyone who complains about COVID… Which is like, by the way, it might’ve hurt Trump. But I mean it’s like whatever. I mean you could play it many different ways. You can’t have censorship in a democracy by definition. Here’s how it works. The people rule. They vote for representatives to carry their agenda to the capitol city and get it enacted. That’s how they’re in charge. And then every few years they get to reassess the performance of those people in an election. In order to do that, they need access, unfettered access to information. And no one, particularly not people who are already in power, is allowed to tell them what information they can have.
One hundred percent. Then you censor the information people are allowed to get, anyone who complains about COVID… Which is like, by the way, it might’ve hurt Trump. But I mean it’s like whatever. I mean you could play it many different ways. You can’t have censorship in a democracy by definition. Here’s how it works. The people rule. They vote for representatives to carry their agenda to the capitol city and get it enacted. That’s how they’re in charge. And then every few years they get to reassess the performance of those people in an election. In order to do that, they need access, unfettered access to information. And no one, particularly not people who are already in power, is allowed to tell them what information they can have.
They have to have all information that they want, whether the people in charge want it or don’t want it or think it’s true or think it’s false, it doesn’t matter. And the second you don’t have that, you don’t have a democracy. It’s not a free election, period. And that’s very clear in other countries, I guess. But it’s not clear here. But I would say it’s this election that… It took me a while to come to this, but it’s this election that’s the referendum on democracy. Biden is senile. He’s literally senile. He can’t talk, he can’t walk. The whole world knows that, leave our borders. Everybody in the world knows it.
A senile man is not going to get elected in the most powerful country in the world unless there’s fraud, period. Who would vote for a senile man? He literally can’t talk. And nobody I’ve ever met thinks he’s running the US government because he’s not. And so I think the world is looking on at this coming election and saying… And a lot of the world hates Trump. Okay, it’s not an endorsement of Trump, but it’s just true. If Joe Biden gets reelected, democracy is a freaking joke. That’s just true.
Lex Fridman
I think half the country doesn’t think he’s senile, just thinks-
I think half the country doesn’t think he’s senile, just thinks-
Tucker Carlson
Do you really think that?
Do you really think that?
Lex Fridman
…He’s speaking-
…He’s speaking-
Tucker Carlson
They don’t think he’s senile?
They don’t think he’s senile?
Lex Fridman
Yeah, I think he just has difficulty speaking. It’s like-
Yeah, I think he just has difficulty speaking. It’s like-
Tucker Carlson
Why do they think he has difficulty speaking?
Why do they think he has difficulty speaking?
Lex Fridman
…Gradual degradation. Just getting old. So cognitive ability is degrading.
…Gradual degradation. Just getting old. So cognitive ability is degrading.
Tucker Carlson
What’s the difference between degraded cognitive ability and senility?
What’s the difference between degraded cognitive ability and senility?
Lex Fridman
Well, senility has a threshold of is beyond a threshold to where he could be a functioning leader.
Well, senility has a threshold of is beyond a threshold to where he could be a functioning leader.
Tucker Carlson
That may be a term of art that I don’t fully understand and maybe there’s an IQ threshold or something, but I’m happy to go with degraded cognitive ability.
That may be a term of art that I don’t fully understand and maybe there’s an IQ threshold or something, but I’m happy to go with degraded cognitive ability.
Lex Fridman
Sure. But that’s an age thing.
Sure. But that’s an age thing.
Tucker Carlson
But he’s the leader of the United States with the world’s second-largest nuclear arsenal.
But he’s the leader of the United States with the world’s second-largest nuclear arsenal.
Lex Fridman
Yeah, I’m with you. I’m a sucker for great speeches and for speaking abilities of leaders. And Biden with two wars going on and potentially more, the importance of a leader to speak eloquently, both privately in a room with other leaders and publicly is really important.
Yeah, I’m with you. I’m a sucker for great speeches and for speaking abilities of leaders. And Biden with two wars going on and potentially more, the importance of a leader to speak eloquently, both privately in a room with other leaders and publicly is really important.
Tucker Carlson
I agree with you that rhetorical ability really matters. Convincing people that your program is right, telling them what we’re for, national identity, national unity, all come from words. I agree with all of that. But at this stage, even someone who grunted at the microphone would be more reassuring than a guy who clearly doesn’t know where he is. And I think everyone knows that. And I can’t imagine there’s an honest person in Washington, which is going to vote for Biden by 90% obviously because they’re all dependent on the federal government for their income. But is there any person who could say, out of 350 million Americans that’s the most qualified to lead, or even in the top 80%, like what? That’s so embarrassing that that guy is our president. And with wars going on, it’s scary.
I agree with you that rhetorical ability really matters. Convincing people that your program is right, telling them what we’re for, national identity, national unity, all come from words. I agree with all of that. But at this stage, even someone who grunted at the microphone would be more reassuring than a guy who clearly doesn’t know where he is. And I think everyone knows that. And I can’t imagine there’s an honest person in Washington, which is going to vote for Biden by 90% obviously because they’re all dependent on the federal government for their income. But is there any person who could say, out of 350 million Americans that’s the most qualified to lead, or even in the top 80%, like what? That’s so embarrassing that that guy is our president. And with wars going on, it’s scary.
Lex Fridman
But it’s complicated to understand why those are the choices we have.
But it’s complicated to understand why those are the choices we have.
Tucker Carlson
I agree. Well, it’s a failure of the system. Clearly it’s not working. If you’ve got one guy over 80, the other guy almost at 80… People that age he should not be running anything.
I agree. Well, it’s a failure of the system. Clearly it’s not working. If you’ve got one guy over 80, the other guy almost at 80… People that age he should not be running anything.
Lex Fridman
You have on the Democratic side, you have Dean Phillips, you have RFK Jr until recently, I guess he’s independent. And then you have Vivek who are all younger people. Why did they not connect to a degree to where the people vote?
You have on the Democratic side, you have Dean Phillips, you have RFK Jr until recently, I guess he’s independent. And then you have Vivek who are all younger people. Why did they not connect to a degree to where the people vote?
Tucker Carlson
It’s such an interesting, I mean, I think it’s a really interesting question. There are a million different answers. And of course I don’t fully understand it even though I feel like I’ve watched it pretty carefully. But I would say the bottom line is there’s so much money vested in the federal apparatus, in the parties, in the government. As I said a minute ago, our economy’s dominated by monopolies but the greatest of all monopolies is the federal monopoly which oversees and controls all the other monopolies.
It’s such an interesting, I mean, I think it’s a really interesting question. There are a million different answers. And of course I don’t fully understand it even though I feel like I’ve watched it pretty carefully. But I would say the bottom line is there’s so much money vested in the federal apparatus, in the parties, in the government. As I said a minute ago, our economy’s dominated by monopolies but the greatest of all monopolies is the federal monopoly which oversees and controls all the other monopolies.
So it’s really substantially about the money. It’s not ideological. It’s about the money. And if someone controls the federal government, I mean at this point, it’s the most powerful organization in human history. It’s kind of hard to fight that. And in the case of Trump, I know the answer there. They raided Mar-a-Lago. They indicted him on bullshit charges. And I felt that in myself too. Even I was like, come on, come on. Whatever you think of Trump… And I agreed with his immigration views and I really like Trump personally. I think he’s hilarious and interesting, which he is. But it’s like, okay, there are a lot of people in this country.
At the very least, let’s have a real debate. The second… Messed up your cameras there, sorry, I’m getting excited. But the second they rated Mar-a-Lago on a documents charge, as someone from DC I was like, I know a lot about classification and all this stuff and been around it a lot. That’s so absurd that I was like, now it’s not about Trump, it’s about our system continuing. If you can take out a presidential candidate on a fake charge, use the justice system to take the guy out of the race, then we don’t have a representative democracy anymore. And I think a lot of Republican voters felt that way. If they hadn’t indicted him, I’m not sure he would be the nominee. I really don’t think he would be.
Lex Fridman
So now a vote for Trump is a kind of fuck you to the system.
So now a vote for Trump is a kind of fuck you to the system.
Tucker Carlson
Or an expression of your desire to keep the system that we had, which is one where voters get to decide. Prosecutors don’t get to decide. Look, they told us for four years that Trump was a super criminal or something. I’ve actually been friends with some super criminals. I’m a little less judgy than most. So I didn’t discount the possibility that he had… I don’t know. He’s in the real estate business in New York in the seventies. Did he kill someone? I don’t know.
Or an expression of your desire to keep the system that we had, which is one where voters get to decide. Prosecutors don’t get to decide. Look, they told us for four years that Trump was a super criminal or something. I’ve actually been friends with some super criminals. I’m a little less judgy than most. So I didn’t discount the possibility that he had… I don’t know. He’s in the real estate business in New York in the seventies. Did he kill someone? I don’t know.
Lex Fridman
Yeah.
Yeah.
Tucker Carlson
No, I’m not joking. And I’m not for killing people, but anything’s possible.
No, I’m not joking. And I’m not for killing people, but anything’s possible.
Lex Fridman
It’s good that you took a stand on that.
It’s good that you took a stand on that.
Tucker Carlson
No, I’m not joking. I was like, well, who knows?
No, I’m not joking. I was like, well, who knows?
Lex Fridman
Real estate.
Real estate.
Tucker Carlson
And I didn’t know. And what they came up with was a documents charge. Are you joking? And then the sitting president has the same documents violation, but he’s fine. It’s like, it’s just crazy this is happening in front of all of us. And then it becomes… At that point, it’s not about Joe Biden, it’s not about Donald Trump. It’s about preserving a system which has worked not perfectly, but pretty freaking well for 250 years. I know you don’t like Trump. I get it. Let’s not destroy that system. We can handle another four years of Trump. I think we can. Let’s all calm down. What we can’t handle is a country whose political system is run by the Justice Department. That is just, you’re freaking Ecuador at that point. No.
And I didn’t know. And what they came up with was a documents charge. Are you joking? And then the sitting president has the same documents violation, but he’s fine. It’s like, it’s just crazy this is happening in front of all of us. And then it becomes… At that point, it’s not about Joe Biden, it’s not about Donald Trump. It’s about preserving a system which has worked not perfectly, but pretty freaking well for 250 years. I know you don’t like Trump. I get it. Let’s not destroy that system. We can handle another four years of Trump. I think we can. Let’s all calm down. What we can’t handle is a country whose political system is run by the Justice Department. That is just, you’re freaking Ecuador at that point. No.
Lex Fridman
So speaking of the Justice Department, CIA and intelligence agencies of that nature, which… You’ve been traveling quite a bit, probably tracked by everybody. Which is the most powerful intelligence agency, do you think? CIA, Mossad, MI6, SVR? I could keep going. The Chinese.
So speaking of the Justice Department, CIA and intelligence agencies of that nature, which… You’ve been traveling quite a bit, probably tracked by everybody. Which is the most powerful intelligence agency, do you think? CIA, Mossad, MI6, SVR? I could keep going. The Chinese.
Tucker Carlson
It depends what you mean by powerful. Which one bats above its weight? We know. Which one-
It depends what you mean by powerful. Which one bats above its weight? We know. Which one-
Lex Fridman
Mossad, just to be clear, I guess is what you’re talking about.
Mossad, just to be clear, I guess is what you’re talking about.
Tucker Carlson
Well of course. Tiny country, very sophisticated intel service. Which one has the greatest global reach in comms? Which one is most able to read your texts? I assume the NSA, but Chinese are clearly pretty good. Israelis pretty good. The French actually are surprisingly good for kind of a declining country. Their intel services seem pretty impressive. No, I love France, but you know what I mean and all that. But the question… I grew up around all that stuff, that’s all totally fine. A strong country should have a strong and capable intel service so its policymakers can make informed decisions. That’s what they’re for. And so as Vladimir Putin himself noted, I don’t talk about it very much, but it’s true. I applied to the CIA when I was in college because I was familiar with it because of where I lived and had grown up and everything. And I was like, seemed interesting.
Well of course. Tiny country, very sophisticated intel service. Which one has the greatest global reach in comms? Which one is most able to read your texts? I assume the NSA, but Chinese are clearly pretty good. Israelis pretty good. The French actually are surprisingly good for kind of a declining country. Their intel services seem pretty impressive. No, I love France, but you know what I mean and all that. But the question… I grew up around all that stuff, that’s all totally fine. A strong country should have a strong and capable intel service so its policymakers can make informed decisions. That’s what they’re for. And so as Vladimir Putin himself noted, I don’t talk about it very much, but it’s true. I applied to the CIA when I was in college because I was familiar with it because of where I lived and had grown up and everything. And I was like, seemed interesting.
That’s honestly the only reason. I was like, live in foreign countries, see history happen. I’m for that. I applied to the Operations Directorate. They turned me down on the basis of drug use actually. True. But anyway, whatever. I was unsuited for it so I’m glad they turned me down. But the point is I didn’t see CIA as a threat, partly because I was bathing in propaganda about CIA and I didn’t really understand what it was and didn’t want to know. But second, because my impression at the time was it was outwardly focused. It was focused on our enemies. I don’t have a problem with that as much. The fact that CIA is playing in domestic politics and actually has for a long time, was involved in the Kennedy assassination, that’s not speculation. That’s a fact. And I confirmed that from someone who had read their documents that are still not public, it’s shocking.
You can’t have that. And the reason I’m so mad is I really believe in the idea of representative government. Acknowledging its imperfections, but I should have some say, I live here, I’m a citizen. I pay all your freaking taxes. So the fact that they would be tampering with American democracy is so outrageous to me. And I don’t know why Morning Joe is not outraged. This parade of dummies, highly credentialed dummies they have on Morning Joe every day. That doesn’t bother them at all. How could that not bother you? Why is only Glenn Greenwald mad about it? I mean, it’s confirmed. It’s not like a fever dream. It’s real. They played in the last election domestically, and I guess it shows how dumb I am because they’ve been doing that for many years. I mean, the guy who took out Mosaddegh lived on my street. One of the Roosevelts, CIA officer.
So I mean, again, I grew up around this stuff, but I never really thought… I never reached the obvious conclusion, which is that if the US government subverts democracy in other countries in the name of democracy, it will over time subvert democracy in my country. Why wouldn’t it? That is, the corruption is like core. It’s at the root of it. The purpose of the CIA was envisioned, at least publicly envisioned, as an intel gathering apparatus for the executive so the president could make wise foreign policy decisions. What the hell is happening in Country X? I don’t know. Let me call the agency in charge of finding out. The point wasn’t to freaking guarantee the outcome of elections.
Israel-Palestine
Lex Fridman
I’m doing an Israel Palestine debate next week, but I have to ask you just your thoughts, maybe even from a US perspective, what do you think about Hamas attacks on Israel? What would be the right thing for Israel to do and what’s the right thing for us to do in this? If you’re looking at the geopolitics of it.
I’m doing an Israel Palestine debate next week, but I have to ask you just your thoughts, maybe even from a US perspective, what do you think about Hamas attacks on Israel? What would be the right thing for Israel to do and what’s the right thing for us to do in this? If you’re looking at the geopolitics of it.
Tucker Carlson
I mean, it’s not a topic that I get into a lot because I’m a non-expert and because I’m not… Unlike every other American, I’m not emotionally invested in other countries just in general. I mean, I admire them or not, and I love visiting them. I love Jerusalem, probably my favorite city in the world, but I don’t have an emotional attachment to it. So maybe I’ve got more clarity. I don’t know, maybe less. Here’s my view. I believe in sovereignty as mentioned, and I think each country has to make decisions based on its own interest, but also with reference to its own capabilities and its own long-term interest.
I mean, it’s not a topic that I get into a lot because I’m a non-expert and because I’m not… Unlike every other American, I’m not emotionally invested in other countries just in general. I mean, I admire them or not, and I love visiting them. I love Jerusalem, probably my favorite city in the world, but I don’t have an emotional attachment to it. So maybe I’ve got more clarity. I don’t know, maybe less. Here’s my view. I believe in sovereignty as mentioned, and I think each country has to make decisions based on its own interest, but also with reference to its own capabilities and its own long-term interest.
And it’s very unwise for… I’m not a huge fan of treaties. Some are fine, too many bad. But I think US aid, military aid to Israel and the implied security guarantees, some explicit, but many implied, security guarantees of the United States to Israel probably haven’t helped Israel that much long-term. It’s a rich country with a highly capable population. Like every other country, it’s probably best if it makes its decisions based on what it can do by itself. So I would definitely be concerned if I lived in Israel because I think fair or unfair-
Tucker Carlson
Concerned if I lived in Israel because I think, fair or unfair, and really this is another product of technology, social media, public sentiment in that area is boiling over. I think it’s going to be hard for some of the governments in the region, Jordan, Egypt, Turkey, to contain their own population. They don’t want conflict with Israel at all. They were all pretty psyched actually for the trend in progress, the Saudi peace deal, which was never signed, but would’ve been great for everybody. Because trade peace, normal relations, that’s good, okay? Let’s just say. I know John Bolton doesn’t like it, but it’s good it, and it’s kind of what we should be looking for.
Concerned if I lived in Israel because I think, fair or unfair, and really this is another product of technology, social media, public sentiment in that area is boiling over. I think it’s going to be hard for some of the governments in the region, Jordan, Egypt, Turkey, to contain their own population. They don’t want conflict with Israel at all. They were all pretty psyched actually for the trend in progress, the Saudi peace deal, which was never signed, but would’ve been great for everybody. Because trade peace, normal relations, that’s good, okay? Let’s just say. I know John Bolton doesn’t like it, but it’s good it, and it’s kind of what we should be looking for.
But now it’s not possible. If you had a coalition of countries against Israel, I know Israel has nuclear weapons and has a capable military and all that and the backing of the United States, but it’s a small country, I think I’d be very worried. So there’s that. I don’t see any advantage to the United States. I mean, I think it’s important for each country to make its own decisions.
Lex Fridman
But it also is a place, like you said, where things are boiling over and it could spread across multiple nations into a major military conflict.
But it also is a place, like you said, where things are boiling over and it could spread across multiple nations into a major military conflict.
Tucker Carlson
Yeah. Well, I think it very easily could happen. In fact, probably right after Ramadan, if I had to guess. I pray it doesn’t. But again, I don’t think you can overstate the lack of wisdom, weakness, short-term thinking of American foreign policy leadership. These are the architects of the Iraq War, of the totally pointless destruction of Libya, totally pointless destruction of Syria, and the 20-year occupation of Afghanistan that resulted in a return to the status quo, of the Vietnam War. Their track record of the Korean war even going back 80 years is uninterrupted failures, one after the other.
Yeah. Well, I think it very easily could happen. In fact, probably right after Ramadan, if I had to guess. I pray it doesn’t. But again, I don’t think you can overstate the lack of wisdom, weakness, short-term thinking of American foreign policy leadership. These are the architects of the Iraq War, of the totally pointless destruction of Libya, totally pointless destruction of Syria, and the 20-year occupation of Afghanistan that resulted in a return to the status quo, of the Vietnam War. Their track record of the Korean war even going back 80 years is uninterrupted failures, one after the other.
So I just don’t have any confidence in those leaders to… When was the last time they improved another country? Can you think of that? Oh, the Marshall Plan. Well, you look at Europe now and you’re like, “I don’t know if that worked.” But even if it did work, again 80 years ago. So when was the last country American foreign policy makers improved? Netanyahu’s in a very difficult place, politically impossible. I mean, I’m glad I’m not Netanyahu, and I’m not sure he’s capable of making wise long-term decisions anyway. But if I was just an Israeli, I’d be like, “I don’t know if I want all this help and guidance.”
So yeah, I actually think it’s worse than just having just returned from the Middle East and talking to a lot of pretty open-minded sort of pro-Israeli Arabs who want stability above all. The merchant class always wants stability. So I’m on their side, I guess. They’re like, “Man, this could get super ugly super fast.” American leadership is completely absent. It’s just all posturing. People like Nikki Haley, you just wonder how does an advanced civilization promote someone like Nikki Haley to a position of authority? It’s like what? Adults are talking. Adults are talking. Nikki Haley, please go away.
That would be the appropriate response. But everyone’s so intimidated to be like, “Oh, she’s a strong woman.” She’s so transparently weak and sort of ridiculous and doesn’t know anything, and it’s just thinks that jumping up and down and making these absurd blanket statements, repeating bumper stickers just like leadership or something. It’s like a self-confident advanced society would never allow Nikki Haley to advance. I mean, she’s really not impressive. Sorry.
Lex Fridman
I just feel like you hold back too much and don’t tell us what you really think.
I just feel like you hold back too much and don’t tell us what you really think.
Tucker Carlson
Sorry.
Sorry.
Lex Fridman
I think you just speak your mind more often.
I think you just speak your mind more often.
Tucker Carlson
I mean, you can completely disagree with my opinions, but in the case of Nikki Haley, it’s not like an opinion formed just from watching television, which I don’t watch. It’s an opinion formed from knowing Nikki Haley, so.
I mean, you can completely disagree with my opinions, but in the case of Nikki Haley, it’s not like an opinion formed just from watching television, which I don’t watch. It’s an opinion formed from knowing Nikki Haley, so.
Lex Fridman
Strong words from Tucker, well felt too.
Strong words from Tucker, well felt too.
Tucker Carlson
Well, the world’s in the balance. I mean, it’s not just like-
Well, the world’s in the balance. I mean, it’s not just like-
Lex Fridman
Yes, yes. This is important stuff.
Yes, yes. This is important stuff.
Tucker Carlson
Yeah, it’s not just like, well, what should the capital gains rate be? It’s like, do we live or die? I don’t know. Let’s consult Nikki Haley. So if you’re asking should we live or die and consulting Nikki Haley, clearly you don’t care about the lives of your children. That’s how I feel.
Yeah, it’s not just like, well, what should the capital gains rate be? It’s like, do we live or die? I don’t know. Let’s consult Nikki Haley. So if you’re asking should we live or die and consulting Nikki Haley, clearly you don’t care about the lives of your children. That’s how I feel.
Xi Jinping
Lex Fridman
Not to try to get a preview or anything, but do you have interest of interviewing Xi Jinping? If you do, how will you approach that?
Not to try to get a preview or anything, but do you have interest of interviewing Xi Jinping? If you do, how will you approach that?
Tucker Carlson
I have enormous interest in doing that, enormous, and a couple other people and we’re working on it.
I have enormous interest in doing that, enormous, and a couple other people and we’re working on it.
Lex Fridman
Yeah. I should also say, it’s been refreshing you interviewing world leaders. I think when I’ve started seeing you do that, it made me realize how much that’s lacking.
Yeah. I should also say, it’s been refreshing you interviewing world leaders. I think when I’ve started seeing you do that, it made me realize how much that’s lacking.
Tucker Carlson
Well, yeah, it’s just interesting. I mean-
Well, yeah, it’s just interesting. I mean-
Lex Fridman
From even a historical perspective, it’s interesting. But it’s also important from a geopolitics perspective.
From even a historical perspective, it’s interesting. But it’s also important from a geopolitics perspective.
Tucker Carlson
Well, it’s really changed my perspective and I’ve been going on about how American I am, and I think that’s a great thing. I love America. But it’s also we’re so physically geographically isolated from the world, even though I traveled a ton as a kid, a lot, more than most people. But even now I’m like, “I’m so parochial.” I see everything through this lens and getting out and seeing the rest of the world to which we really are connected, that’s real, is vitally important. So yeah. I mean, at this stage I don’t kind of need to do it, but I really want to, just motivated by curiosity and trying to expand my own mind and not be closed-minded and see the fullest perspective I possibly can in order to render wise judgments. I mean, that’s like the whole journey of life.
Well, it’s really changed my perspective and I’ve been going on about how American I am, and I think that’s a great thing. I love America. But it’s also we’re so physically geographically isolated from the world, even though I traveled a ton as a kid, a lot, more than most people. But even now I’m like, “I’m so parochial.” I see everything through this lens and getting out and seeing the rest of the world to which we really are connected, that’s real, is vitally important. So yeah. I mean, at this stage I don’t kind of need to do it, but I really want to, just motivated by curiosity and trying to expand my own mind and not be closed-minded and see the fullest perspective I possibly can in order to render wise judgments. I mean, that’s like the whole journey of life.
Lex Fridman
I was just hanging out with Rogan yesterday, Joe Rogan. I mentioned to him that as me being a fan of his show, that I would love for him to talk with you and he said he’s up for it. Any reason you guys haven’t done it already.
I was just hanging out with Rogan yesterday, Joe Rogan. I mentioned to him that as me being a fan of his show, that I would love for him to talk with you and he said he’s up for it. Any reason you guys haven’t done it already.
Tucker Carlson
I don’t know. I’ve only met Rogan once and I liked him. I met him at the UFC in New York. He was with somebody, a mutual friend of ours. Rogan changed media. I mean, maybe more than anybody. What I admire about Rogan without knowing him beyond meeting him that one time, I mean, I’m still in media, but I’ve always been in media. It’s not a great surprise. I’m doing what I’ve always done just a different format. But Rogan, he’s got one of those resumes that I admire. I like the guy who was like, “I was a longshoreman. I was a short order cook. I was an astrophysicist.” You know what I mean? You use to call it a man of parts. This guy was a fighter, a stand up comic. He hosted some Fear Factor. How did he wind up at the vanguard of the deepest conversations in the country? How did that happen? So I definitely respect that and I think it’s cool. Rogan is one of those people who just came out of nowhere. No one helped him. You know what I mean?
I don’t know. I’ve only met Rogan once and I liked him. I met him at the UFC in New York. He was with somebody, a mutual friend of ours. Rogan changed media. I mean, maybe more than anybody. What I admire about Rogan without knowing him beyond meeting him that one time, I mean, I’m still in media, but I’ve always been in media. It’s not a great surprise. I’m doing what I’ve always done just a different format. But Rogan, he’s got one of those resumes that I admire. I like the guy who was like, “I was a longshoreman. I was a short order cook. I was an astrophysicist.” You know what I mean? You use to call it a man of parts. This guy was a fighter, a stand up comic. He hosted some Fear Factor. How did he wind up at the vanguard of the deepest conversations in the country? How did that happen? So I definitely respect that and I think it’s cool. Rogan is one of those people who just came out of nowhere. No one helped him. You know what I mean?
Lex Fridman
He was doing the thing that he loves doing and it somehow keeps accidentally being exceptionally successful.
He was doing the thing that he loves doing and it somehow keeps accidentally being exceptionally successful.
Tucker Carlson
Yeah, and he’s curious. So that’s the main thing. There was a guy, without getting boring, but there was a guy I worked with years ago who kind of dominated cable news, Larry King. Everyone would always beat up on Larry King for being dumb. Well, I got to know Larry King well, and I was his fill in host for a while, and Larry King was just intensely curious. He’d be like, “Why do you wear a black tie, Lex?” You’d be like, “Because I like black tie.” “Why do you like a black tie? Everyone else wears a striped tie, but you wear a black one.” He was really interested.
Yeah, and he’s curious. So that’s the main thing. There was a guy, without getting boring, but there was a guy I worked with years ago who kind of dominated cable news, Larry King. Everyone would always beat up on Larry King for being dumb. Well, I got to know Larry King well, and I was his fill in host for a while, and Larry King was just intensely curious. He’d be like, “Why do you wear a black tie, Lex?” You’d be like, “Because I like black tie.” “Why do you like a black tie? Everyone else wears a striped tie, but you wear a black one.” He was really interested.
Lex Fridman
Yeah, genuinely so, yeah.
Yeah, genuinely so, yeah.
Tucker Carlson
Totally. I want to be like that. I don’t want to think I know everything. That’s so boorish and also false. You don’t know everything. But I see that in Rogan. Rogan’s like, “How does that work?”
Totally. I want to be like that. I don’t want to think I know everything. That’s so boorish and also false. You don’t know everything. But I see that in Rogan. Rogan’s like, “How does that work?”
Lex Fridman
100%.
100%.
Tucker Carlson
It’s so funny how that’s threatening to people. It’s like Rogan will just sit there while someone else is free balling on some far out topic, which by the way might be true, probably truer than the conventional explanation. People are like, “I don’t know, how can he stand that?” He had someone say, “The pyramids weren’t built 3,000 years ago, but 8,000 years ago, and that’s wrong.” It’s like, first of all, how do you know when the pyramids were built? Second, why do you care if someone disagrees with you? What is that?
It’s so funny how that’s threatening to people. It’s like Rogan will just sit there while someone else is free balling on some far out topic, which by the way might be true, probably truer than the conventional explanation. People are like, “I don’t know, how can he stand that?” He had someone say, “The pyramids weren’t built 3,000 years ago, but 8,000 years ago, and that’s wrong.” It’s like, first of all, how do you know when the pyramids were built? Second, why do you care if someone disagrees with you? What is that?
This weird kind of group think, it’s almost like fourth grade, there’s always some little girl in the front row who’s like acting as kind of the teacher’s enforcer. Whip around and be like, “Sit down. Didn’t you hear Mrs. Johnson said sit down.” It’s like the whole American media, “How dare you ask that question?” Rogan just seems like completely on his own trip. He doesn’t even hear it. He’s like, “Well, really where the pyramids built?” I was like, “Oh, I love that.”
Lex Fridman
Yeah, curiosity, open-mindedness.
Yeah, curiosity, open-mindedness.
Tucker Carlson
Yes.
Yes.
Lex Fridman
The thing I admire about him most, honestly, is that he’s a good father. He’s a good husband. He’s a good family man for many years. That’s his place where he escapes from the world too and it’s just beautiful.
The thing I admire about him most, honestly, is that he’s a good father. He’s a good husband. He’s a good family man for many years. That’s his place where he escapes from the world too and it’s just beautiful.
Tucker Carlson
Without that man, you’re destroyed.
Without that man, you’re destroyed.
Lex Fridman
Yeah.
Yeah.
Tucker Carlson
If I had a wife who was interested at all in any way in what I did, I think I would’ve gone crazy by now. When we get home, she’s like, “How was your day?” “It was great.” “Oh, I’m so proud of you.” That’s the end of our conversation about what I do for a living. That is such a wonderful and essential respite from, you said how do I not become an asshole to the extent I haven’t, I kind of have. How have I not been transformed into a totally insufferable megalomaniac who is checking his Twitter replies every day or every minute? It’s that. Yeah. The core of your life has to be solid and enduring and not just ephemeral and silly.
If I had a wife who was interested at all in any way in what I did, I think I would’ve gone crazy by now. When we get home, she’s like, “How was your day?” “It was great.” “Oh, I’m so proud of you.” That’s the end of our conversation about what I do for a living. That is such a wonderful and essential respite from, you said how do I not become an asshole to the extent I haven’t, I kind of have. How have I not been transformed into a totally insufferable megalomaniac who is checking his Twitter replies every day or every minute? It’s that. Yeah. The core of your life has to be solid and enduring and not just ephemeral and silly.
Lex Fridman
So the two of you have known each other for what, 40 years?
So the two of you have known each other for what, 40 years?
Tucker Carlson
We’ve been together 40 years.
We’ve been together 40 years.
Lex Fridman
Together 40 years.
Together 40 years.
Tucker Carlson
40 years, yeah, 1984. Was the hottest 15-year old in Newport, Rhode Island.
40 years, yeah, 1984. Was the hottest 15-year old in Newport, Rhode Island.
Lex Fridman
Wow.
Wow.
Tucker Carlson
It sounds dirty, but I’m talking about myself, I was the hottest.
It sounds dirty, but I’m talking about myself, I was the hottest.
Lex Fridman
[inaudible 02:45:29]. Yeah. You were just looking in the mirror.
[inaudible 02:45:29]. Yeah. You were just looking in the mirror.
Tucker Carlson
Yeah.
Yeah.
Lex Fridman
Very nice. So what’s the secret to successful relationship, successful marriage?
Very nice. So what’s the secret to successful relationship, successful marriage?
Tucker Carlson
I don’t even know. I mean, no, I’m serious. I got married in August ’91, so that’s our 30 year of being married.
I don’t even know. I mean, no, I’m serious. I got married in August ’91, so that’s our 30 year of being married.
Lex Fridman
The collapse of the Soviet Union.
The collapse of the Soviet Union.
Tucker Carlson
Yeah, yeah, yeah. As noted. Yeah. So you hear these people, it’s actually changed my theology a little bit. Not that I have deep theology, but I grew up in a society in Southern California when I was little. That was a totally self-created society. I mean, Southern California was that root of libertarianism for a reason. It was like that’s where you went to recreate yourself. So the operative assumption there is that you are the sum total of your choices and that free will is everything. We never consider questions like, well, why do children get cancer? What do they do to deserve it? Well, of course nothing, right? Because that would suggest that maybe you’re not the sum total.
Yeah, yeah, yeah. As noted. Yeah. So you hear these people, it’s actually changed my theology a little bit. Not that I have deep theology, but I grew up in a society in Southern California when I was little. That was a totally self-created society. I mean, Southern California was that root of libertarianism for a reason. It was like that’s where you went to recreate yourself. So the operative assumption there is that you are the sum total of your choices and that free will is everything. We never consider questions like, well, why do children get cancer? What do they do to deserve it? Well, of course nothing, right? Because that would suggest that maybe you’re not the sum total.
Your choices matter. If I smoke a lot, I get lung cancer. If I use fentanyl, I may OD. Got it. If I don’t exercise, I might get fat, okay. But on a bigger scale, you’re not only the sum total of your choices. Things happen to you that you didn’t deserve, good and bad. Marriages, and I’ll speak for myself, in my case, just one of them. I mean, clearly spending time with the person you’re married to, talking, enjoying each other. I have a lot of rituals. We have a lot of rituals that ensure that. But in 40 years, you’re like a different person.
I did drugs. I was drinking all the time when we met. It’s been a long time since I’ve done that. I’m very different and so is she, but we’re different in ways that are complementary and happy. We’ve never been happier. So how do we pull that off? Just kind of good luck, honestly. Then I see other people… No, I’m not kidding. But that’s true. I think it’s so important not to flatter yourself if you’ve been successful at something. The thing I’ve been most successful at is marriage, but it’s not really me. I mean, I haven’t-
Lex Fridman
So I think what you’re indirectly communicating is it’s like humility, I think.
So I think what you’re indirectly communicating is it’s like humility, I think.
Tucker Carlson
It’s not even humility. Humility is the result of a reality-based worldview, okay?
It’s not even humility. Humility is the result of a reality-based worldview, okay?
Lex Fridman
Sure, right.
Sure, right.
Tucker Carlson
Once you see things clearly, then you know that you are not the author of all your successes or failures. I hate the implication otherwise because it suggests powers that people don’t have. It’s one of the reasons I always hated the smoking debate or the COVID debate. Someone die of COVID, didn’t have the vaccine. They’d be like, “See, that’s what you get.” You smoke cigarettes, you die. Well, yeah, if you smoke cigarettes, you’re more likely to get lung cancer. Whatever. Cause and effect is real. I’m not denying its existence. It’s obvious, but it’s not the whole story. There are larger forces acting on us, unseen forces. That’s just a fact. You don’t need to be some kind of religious nut and they act on AI too and you should keep that in mind. The idea that all-
Once you see things clearly, then you know that you are not the author of all your successes or failures. I hate the implication otherwise because it suggests powers that people don’t have. It’s one of the reasons I always hated the smoking debate or the COVID debate. Someone die of COVID, didn’t have the vaccine. They’d be like, “See, that’s what you get.” You smoke cigarettes, you die. Well, yeah, if you smoke cigarettes, you’re more likely to get lung cancer. Whatever. Cause and effect is real. I’m not denying its existence. It’s obvious, but it’s not the whole story. There are larger forces acting on us, unseen forces. That’s just a fact. You don’t need to be some kind of religious nut and they act on AI too and you should keep that in mind. The idea that all-
Tucker Carlson
It’s missing why you said that.
It’s missing why you said that.
Tucker Carlson
No, it’s true. It’s demonstrably true. We’re the only society that hasn’t acknowledged the truth of that. The idea that the only things that are real are the things that we can see or measure in a lab. That’s insane. That’s just dumb.
No, it’s true. It’s demonstrably true. We’re the only society that hasn’t acknowledged the truth of that. The idea that the only things that are real are the things that we can see or measure in a lab. That’s insane. That’s just dumb.
Lex Fridman
In the religious context, you have this two categories that I really like of the two kinds of people, people who believe they’re God and people who know they’re not, which is a really interesting division that speaks to humility and a kind of realist worldview of where we are in the world.
In the religious context, you have this two categories that I really like of the two kinds of people, people who believe they’re God and people who know they’re not, which is a really interesting division that speaks to humility and a kind of realist worldview of where we are in the world.
Tucker Carlson
Oh.
Oh.
Lex Fridman
Can atheists be in the latter category?
Can atheists be in the latter category?
Tucker Carlson
No. There are very few atheists. I’ve never actually met one. There are people who pose as atheists, but no one’s purely rational. Everyone, I mean, this is a cliche for a reason, everyone under extreme stress appeals to a power higher than himself because everyone knows that there is a power higher than himself. So really it’s just people who are gripped with a delusion that they’re God. No one actually believes that. If you’re God, jump off the roof of your garage and see what happens. You know what I mean? No one actually thinks that, but people behave as if it’s true, and those people are dangerous. I will say by contrast, the only people I trust are the people who know their limits.
No. There are very few atheists. I’ve never actually met one. There are people who pose as atheists, but no one’s purely rational. Everyone, I mean, this is a cliche for a reason, everyone under extreme stress appeals to a power higher than himself because everyone knows that there is a power higher than himself. So really it’s just people who are gripped with a delusion that they’re God. No one actually believes that. If you’re God, jump off the roof of your garage and see what happens. You know what I mean? No one actually thinks that, but people behave as if it’s true, and those people are dangerous. I will say by contrast, the only people I trust are the people who know their limits.
I was thinking actually this morning in my sauna, of all the people I’ve interviewed or met, this is someone I’ve never interviewed, but I have talked to him a couple of times, the greatest leader I’ve ever met in the world is literally a king. It’s MB Sheikh Mohammed of Abu Dhabi, who is Muslim. I’m definitely not Muslim. I’m Christian, Protestant Christian. So I don’t agree with his religion and I don’t agree with monarchies, but he’s the best leader in the world that I’ve ever met, and by far, it’s not even close. Why is that? Well, I could bore you for an hour on the subject, but the reason that he’s such a good leader is because he’s guided by an ever-present knowledge of his limitations and of the limits of his power and of his foresight.
When you start there, when you start with reality, it’s not even humility. Humility can be a pose like, “Oh, I’m so humble.” Okay, humble brag is a phrase for a reason. It’s like way deeper than that’s just like, no, do I have magical powers? Can I see the future? No. Okay. That’s just a fact. So I’m not God, but I’ve never seen anybody more at ease with admitting that than MBZ, just a remarkable person. For that reason, he is treated as an oracle. I don’t think people understand the number of world leaders who traipse through his house or palace to seek his counsel. I’m not sure that there is a parallel since, I don’t want to get too hyperbolic here, but honestly, since Solomon, where people come from around the world to ask what he thinks.
Now, why would they be doing that? Because Abu Dhabi’s military is so powerful? I mean, he’s rich, okay, massive oil and gas deposits, but so is Canada. You know what I mean? No one is coming to Ottawa to ask Justin Trudeau what he thinks. No, it’s humility. That’s where wisdom comes from. You start to think, I spent my whole life mad at America’s leadership class, because it’s not just Biden or the people in official positions, it’s the whole constellation of advisors and throne sniffers around them. It’s not even that I disagree with them. It’s I’m not impressed by them. I’m just not impressed. They’re not that capable, right? So that’s what I was saying about Nikki Haley. I don’t think Nikki Haley’s the most evil person in the world. I just think she’s ridiculous, obviously. Everyone’s like, “Oh, Nikki Haley or Mike Pompeo.” What?
Lex Fridman
Great leaders are so rare that when you see one, you know it right away.
Great leaders are so rare that when you see one, you know it right away.
Tucker Carlson
It blows your mind. What blows my mind about Sheikh Mohammed in Abu Dhabi is that everyone in the world knows it. I’ve never seen a story on this, and I’m not guessing, I know this is true because I’ve seen it. Everyone in the world knows it. So if there’s a conflict, he’s the only person that people call. Everybody calls the same guy. It’s like he runs this tiny little country, the UAE, in Abu Dhabi there are a bunch of Emirates, but he’s the president of the country, but still, and it’s got a ton of energy and all that wealth and all that. Dubai’s got great real estate and restaurants, but really it’s a tiny little country that wasn’t even a country 50 years ago. So how did that happen? Purely on the basis of his humility and the wisdom that results from that humility. That’s it.
It blows your mind. What blows my mind about Sheikh Mohammed in Abu Dhabi is that everyone in the world knows it. I’ve never seen a story on this, and I’m not guessing, I know this is true because I’ve seen it. Everyone in the world knows it. So if there’s a conflict, he’s the only person that people call. Everybody calls the same guy. It’s like he runs this tiny little country, the UAE, in Abu Dhabi there are a bunch of Emirates, but he’s the president of the country, but still, and it’s got a ton of energy and all that wealth and all that. Dubai’s got great real estate and restaurants, but really it’s a tiny little country that wasn’t even a country 50 years ago. So how did that happen? Purely on the basis of his humility and the wisdom that results from that humility. That’s it.
Advice for young people
Lex Fridman
What advice would you give to young people? You got four, you somehow made them into great human beings. What advice would you give people in high school?
What advice would you give to young people? You got four, you somehow made them into great human beings. What advice would you give people in high school?
Tucker Carlson
Have children immediately.
Have children immediately.
Lex Fridman
Oh that.
Oh that.
Tucker Carlson
Including in high school? Yes, I think that. That’s all that matters in the end. Again, these aren’t even cliches anymore because no one says them. But when I was a kid, people always say, “On your deathbed, you never wish you’d spent more time at work.” I mean, everyone said that. It was like one of these things. Now, I don’t think Google allows you to say that. It’s like, “No, you’re going to wish you spent more time at work. Get back to your cube.” But I can’t overstate from my vantage how true that is. Nothing else matters but your family.
Including in high school? Yes, I think that. That’s all that matters in the end. Again, these aren’t even cliches anymore because no one says them. But when I was a kid, people always say, “On your deathbed, you never wish you’d spent more time at work.” I mean, everyone said that. It was like one of these things. Now, I don’t think Google allows you to say that. It’s like, “No, you’re going to wish you spent more time at work. Get back to your cube.” But I can’t overstate from my vantage how true that is. Nothing else matters but your family.
If you have the opportunity, and a lot of people are being denied the opportunity to have children, and this messing with the gender roles, and I’m not even talking about the tranny stuff, I mean, feminism has so destroyed people’s brains and the ability of young people to connect with each other and stay together and have fruitful lives. It’s like nothing’s been more destructive than that. It’s such a lie. It’s so dumb. It’s counter to human nature, and nothing counter to human nature can endure. It can only cause suffering and that’s what it’s done. But fight that. Stop complaining about it. Find someone.
By the way, everyone gets together, or most people get together on the basis, in a Western society where there’s no arranged marriages, they get together on a basis of sexual attraction. Totally natural. Get off your birth control and have children. “Oh, I can’t afford that.” Well, yeah, you’ll figure out a way to afford it once you have kids. It’s like it’s chicken in the egg, but it’s actually not. When you have responsibility, when you have no… This is true of men, I’m not sure if true of women, but it’s definitely true of men, you will not achieve until you have no choice. Because I always think of men, men do nothing until they have to, but once they have to, they will do anything. That is true.
Men will do nothing unless they have to. But once they have to, they will do anything. I really believe that from watching and from being one. I would never have done anything if I didn’t have to, but I had to and I would just recommend it. By the way, even if you don’t succeed, even if you’re poor, having spent my life among rich people, I grew up among rich people, I am a rich person. Boy, are they unhappy? Well, that’s clearly not the road to happiness. You don’t want to be a debt slave or starved to death or anything like that, but making a billion dollars, that’s not worth doing. Don’t do that. Don’t even try to do that.
If you create something that’s beautiful and worth having and you make a billion dollars, okay, then you have to deal with your billion dollars, which will be the worst part of your life, trust me. But seeking money for its own sake is a dead end. What you should seek for its own sake is children. Talk about a creative act. Last thing I’ll say, the whole point of life is to create, okay? The act of creation, which is dying in the West, in the arts and in its most pure expression, which is children, that’s all that’s worth doing while you’re alive is creating something beautiful. Creating children, by the way, it’s super fun. It’s not hard. I can get more technical off the earth if you want.
Lex Fridman
Can you? Yeah, please.
Can you? Yeah, please.
Tucker Carlson
I have a lot of thoughts on it.
I have a lot of thoughts on it.
Lex Fridman
Do you have documents or something?
Do you have documents or something?
Tucker Carlson
No, I can draw you a schematic.
No, I can draw you a schematic.
Lex Fridman
Oh, thank you.
Oh, thank you.
Tucker Carlson
But yeah, that’s the greatest thing. The fact that corporate America denies, “Oh, freeze your eggs. Have an abortion.” What? You’re evil. Are you kidding? Because you’re taking from people the only thing that can possibly give them enduring joy. They are successfully taking it from people, and I hate them for it.
But yeah, that’s the greatest thing. The fact that corporate America denies, “Oh, freeze your eggs. Have an abortion.” What? You’re evil. Are you kidding? Because you’re taking from people the only thing that can possibly give them enduring joy. They are successfully taking it from people, and I hate them for it.
Lex Fridman
You founded TCN, Tucker Carlson Network.
You founded TCN, Tucker Carlson Network.
Tucker Carlson
Yeah.
Yeah.
Lex Fridman
What’s your vision for it?
What’s your vision for it?
Tucker Carlson
I have no vision for myself, for my career, and I never have. So I’m the last person to explain.
I have no vision for myself, for my career, and I never have. So I’m the last person to explain.
Lex Fridman
You just roll with it.
You just roll with it.
Tucker Carlson
Yeah, I’m an instinct guy, 100%. I have a vision for the world, but I don’t have a vision for my life, for my career. So really my vision extended precisely this far, I just want to keep doing what I’m doing. I just want to keep doing what I’m doing. There was a five hour period where I wondered if I would be able to, because I feel pretty spry and alert, and I’m certainly deeply enjoying what I’m doing, which is talking to people and saying what I think and learning, constantly learning. But I just wanted to keep doing that and I also wanted to employ the people who I worked with at Fox. I’ve worked with the same people for years, and I love them. So I had all these people and I wanted to bring them with me so we had to build a structure for that.
Yeah, I’m an instinct guy, 100%. I have a vision for the world, but I don’t have a vision for my life, for my career. So really my vision extended precisely this far, I just want to keep doing what I’m doing. I just want to keep doing what I’m doing. There was a five hour period where I wondered if I would be able to, because I feel pretty spry and alert, and I’m certainly deeply enjoying what I’m doing, which is talking to people and saying what I think and learning, constantly learning. But I just wanted to keep doing that and I also wanted to employ the people who I worked with at Fox. I’ve worked with the same people for years, and I love them. So I had all these people and I wanted to bring them with me so we had to build a structure for that.
Lex Fridman
But this feels like one of the first times you’re really working for yourself. There’s an extra level of freedom here.
But this feels like one of the first times you’re really working for yourself. There’s an extra level of freedom here.
Tucker Carlson
Totally, totally. You don’t want me doing your taxes. I’m good at some things, but I’m really not good at others, so. One of them would be running a business. No idea. I’m not interested, not a commerce guy, so I don’t buy anything. So it’s like the whole thing I’m not good at. But luckily, I’m really blessed to have friends who are involved in this who are good at that. So I feel positive about it, but mostly I am totally committed to only doing the things that I am good at and enjoy and not doing anything else because I don’t want to waste my time. So I’m just getting to do what I want to do and I’m really loving it.
Totally, totally. You don’t want me doing your taxes. I’m good at some things, but I’m really not good at others, so. One of them would be running a business. No idea. I’m not interested, not a commerce guy, so I don’t buy anything. So it’s like the whole thing I’m not good at. But luckily, I’m really blessed to have friends who are involved in this who are good at that. So I feel positive about it, but mostly I am totally committed to only doing the things that I am good at and enjoy and not doing anything else because I don’t want to waste my time. So I’m just getting to do what I want to do and I’m really loving it.
Hope for the future
Lex Fridman
What hope, positive hope do you have for the future of human civilization in say 50 years, 100 years, 200 years?
What hope, positive hope do you have for the future of human civilization in say 50 years, 100 years, 200 years?
Tucker Carlson
People are great just by their nature. I mean, they’re super complicated, but I like people. I always have liked people. If I was sitting here with Nikki Haley, who I guess I’ve been pretty clear I’m not a mega fan of Nikki Haley’s, I would enjoy it. I’ve never met anybody I couldn’t enjoy on some level given enough time. So as long as nobody tampers with the human recipe, the human nature itself, I will always feel blessed by being around other people. That’s true around the world. I’ve never been to a country, and I’ve been to scores of countries, where I didn’t, given a week, really like it and the people. So yeah, bad leaders are a recurring theme in human history. They’re mostly bad, and we’ve got an unusually bad set right now, but we’ll have better ones at some point. One thing I don’t like more than nuclear weapons and more than AI, the one thing that really, really bothers me is the idea of using technology to change the human brain permanently. Because you’re tampering with the secret sauce. You’re tampering with God’s creation, and totally evil. I mean, I literally sat there the other day with Klaus Schwab. I was with Klaus Schwab. He was like a total moron, like 100 years old and has no idea what’s going on in the world. But he’s one of these guys who, speaking of mediocre, everyone’s so afraid of Klaus Schwab, I don’t think Klaus Schwab is going to be organizing anything. Again, he’s just like a total figurehead, like a douchebag.
People are great just by their nature. I mean, they’re super complicated, but I like people. I always have liked people. If I was sitting here with Nikki Haley, who I guess I’ve been pretty clear I’m not a mega fan of Nikki Haley’s, I would enjoy it. I’ve never met anybody I couldn’t enjoy on some level given enough time. So as long as nobody tampers with the human recipe, the human nature itself, I will always feel blessed by being around other people. That’s true around the world. I’ve never been to a country, and I’ve been to scores of countries, where I didn’t, given a week, really like it and the people. So yeah, bad leaders are a recurring theme in human history. They’re mostly bad, and we’ve got an unusually bad set right now, but we’ll have better ones at some point. One thing I don’t like more than nuclear weapons and more than AI, the one thing that really, really bothers me is the idea of using technology to change the human brain permanently. Because you’re tampering with the secret sauce. You’re tampering with God’s creation, and totally evil. I mean, I literally sat there the other day with Klaus Schwab. I was with Klaus Schwab. He was like a total moron, like 100 years old and has no idea what’s going on in the world. But he’s one of these guys who, speaking of mediocre, everyone’s so afraid of Klaus Schwab, I don’t think Klaus Schwab is going to be organizing anything. Again, he’s just like a total figurehead, like a douchebag.
But anyway, but he was talking and he’s reading all these talking points, all the cool kids are talking about Adapos and whatever, and he starts talking about it in his way, his accent, he was saying, “I think it’s so important that we follow an ethical way, always in an ethical way, of course, very ethical. I’m a very ethical man, that we follow using technology to improve the human mind and implant the chips in the brain.” I’m like, “Okay, you have no idea what you’re talking about. You’re as senile as Joe Biden.” But what was so striking is that no one in the room is like, “Wait, what? You’re with people’s brains. Oh my God. What are you even talking about? Who do you think you are?”
Lex Fridman
I mean, you’re right, the secret sauce. The human mind is really special. We should not mess with it.
I mean, you’re right, the secret sauce. The human mind is really special. We should not mess with it.
Tucker Carlson
It’s all that matters, dude.
It’s all that matters, dude.
Lex Fridman
We should be very careful. Whatever special thing it does, it seems like it’s a good thing. Human beings are fundamentally good. These sources of creativity, the creative force in the universe we don’t want to mess with.
We should be very careful. Whatever special thing it does, it seems like it’s a good thing. Human beings are fundamentally good. These sources of creativity, the creative force in the universe we don’t want to mess with.
Tucker Carlson
Oh, I mean, what else matters? I don’t understand. I mean, I guess, look, I don’t want to seem like the Unabomber and I’m not.
Oh, I mean, what else matters? I don’t understand. I mean, I guess, look, I don’t want to seem like the Unabomber and I’m not.
Lex Fridman
We are in a cabin in the woods.
We are in a cabin in the woods.
Tucker Carlson
No. Well, I’m sympathetic to some of his ideas, but not of course sending mail bombs to people because I like people and I don’t believe in violence at all. But I think the problem with technology, one of the problems with technology is the way that people approach it in a very kind of mindless heedless way. I think it’s important, this idea that it’s inexorable and we can’t control it, and if we don’t do it, someone else will. There’s some truth in that, but it’s not the whole story. We do have free will and we are creating these things intentionally, and I think it’s incumbent on us, it’s a requirement, of a moral requirement of us that we ask, is this a net gain or a net loss? What, to the extent we can foresee them, will the effects be, et cetera, et cetera?
No. Well, I’m sympathetic to some of his ideas, but not of course sending mail bombs to people because I like people and I don’t believe in violence at all. But I think the problem with technology, one of the problems with technology is the way that people approach it in a very kind of mindless heedless way. I think it’s important, this idea that it’s inexorable and we can’t control it, and if we don’t do it, someone else will. There’s some truth in that, but it’s not the whole story. We do have free will and we are creating these things intentionally, and I think it’s incumbent on us, it’s a requirement, of a moral requirement of us that we ask, is this a net gain or a net loss? What, to the extent we can foresee them, will the effects be, et cetera, et cetera?
It’s not super complicated. So I prize long-term thinking. I don’t always apply to my own life, obviously. I want to, but I prize it. I think that people with power should think about future generations and I don’t see that kind of thinking at all. They all seem like children to me, and don’t give children handguns because they can hurt people.
Lex Fridman
Fundamentally, you want people in power to be pro-humanity.
Fundamentally, you want people in power to be pro-humanity.
Tucker Carlson
By the way, you don’t want people who are 81 who are going to die anyway. Why do they care? By the way, if your track record with your own family is miserable, why would I give you my family to oversee? Again, these are autistic level questions that someone should answer.
By the way, you don’t want people who are 81 who are going to die anyway. Why do they care? By the way, if your track record with your own family is miserable, why would I give you my family to oversee? Again, these are autistic level questions that someone should answer.
Lex Fridman
Well, thank you for asking those questions, first of all, and thank you for this conversation. Thank you for welcoming me to the cabin in the woods.
Well, thank you for asking those questions, first of all, and thank you for this conversation. Thank you for welcoming me to the cabin in the woods.
Tucker Carlson
Thank you.
Thank you.
Lex Fridman
Thanks for listening to this conversation with Tucker Carlson. To support this podcast, please check out our sponsors in the description. Now, let me leave you with some words from Mahatma Gandhi. When I despair, I remember that all through history the way of truth and love has always won. There have been tyrants and murderers and for a time they can seem invincible, but in the end, they always fall. Think of it, always. Thank you for listening and hope to see you next time.
Thanks for listening to this conversation with Tucker Carlson. To support this podcast, please check out our sponsors in the description. Now, let me leave you with some words from Mahatma Gandhi. When I despair, I remember that all through history the way of truth and love has always won. There have been tyrants and murderers and for a time they can seem invincible, but in the end, they always fall. Think of it, always. Thank you for listening and hope to see you next time.
Transcript for Bill Ackman: Investing, Financial Battles, Harvard, DEI, X & Free Speech | Lex Fridman Podcast #413
This is a transcript of Lex Fridman Podcast #413 with Bill Ackman.
The timestamps in the transcript are clickable links that take you directly to that point in
the main video. Please note that the transcript is human generated, and may have errors.
Here are some useful links:
The timestamps in the transcript are clickable links that take you directly to that point in
the main video. Please note that the transcript is human generated, and may have errors.
Here are some useful links:
- Go back to this episode’s main page
- Watch the full YouTube version of the podcast
Table of Contents
Here are the loose “chapters” in the conversation.
Click link to jump approximately to that part in the transcript:
In your lecture on the basics of finance and investing, you mentioned a book, Intelligent Investor by Benjamin Graham, as being formative in your life. What key lesson do you take away from that book that informs your own investing?
And the key is to figure out what something’s worth and you have to kind of weigh it. He talked about the difference between… He said the stock market in the short term is a voting machine. It represents speculative interests, supply and demand of people in the short term. But in the long term, the stock market’s a weighing machine, much more accurate. It’s going to tell you what something’s worth. And so if you can define what something’s worth, then you can really take advantage of the market because it’s really here to help you. And that’s kind of the message of the book.
How many widgets are going to sell this year, how many are going to sell next year, what are the costs going to be? How much of the money that they generate? Do they need to reinvest in the business to keep the business going? And that’s more complicated. But what we do is we try to find businesses where, with a very high degree of confidence, we know what those cash flows are going to be for a very long time. And very few businesses that you can have a really high degree of certainty about. And as a result, many investments are speculations because it’s really very difficult to predict the future. So what we do for a living, what I do for a living is find those rare companies that you can kind of predict what they’re going to look like over a very long period of time.
They’re the best at taking an artist who’s 18 years old, who’s got a great voice, and has started to get a presence on YouTube and Instagram and helping that artist become a superstar. And that’s a unique talent. And the end result is the best artists in the world want to come work for them, but they also have this incredible library of the Beatles, the Rolling Stone, U2, et cetera. And then if you think about what music has become… It used to be about what records and CDs and eight track tapes for those of whom… And it was about a new format and that’s how they drive sales. And it’s become a business which is like the podcast business, streaming. And streaming is a lot more predictable than selling records. You can sort of say, “Okay, how many people have smartphones? How many people are going to have smartphones next year?”
There’s a kind of global penetration over time of smartphones. You pay, call it, 10, 11 bucks a month for a subscription or less for a family plan and you can kind of build a model of what the world looks like and predict the growth of the streaming business, predict what kind of market share Universal is going to have over time. You can’t get to a precise view of value. You can get to an approximation. And the key is to buy at a price that represents a big discount to that approximation. And that gets back to Ben Graham. Ben Graham invented this concept of margin of safety. You want to buy a company at a price that if you’re wrong about what you think it’s worth and it turns out to be worth 30% less, you paid a deep enough discount to your estimate that you’re still okay. A big part of investing is not losing money. If you can avoid losing money and then have a few great hits, you can do very, very well over time.
And I can’t envision a world beyond streaming in a sense… Now you may have a Neuralink chip in your head instead of a phone, but the music can come in a digitized kind of format, you’re going to want to have an infinite library that you can walk around in your pocket or in your brain. It’s not going to matter that much of the form factor. The device changes. It’s not really that important whether it’s Spotify or Apple or Amazon that are the so-called DSPs or the providers. I think the value is really going to reside in the content owners. And that’s really the artists and the label.
Conference call transcripts are publicly available. It’s very helpful to go back five years and learn the story. “Here’s how management describes their business, here’s what they say they’re going to do,” and you can follow along to see what they do. It’s like a historical record of how competent and truthful they are. It’s a very useful device. And then, of course, looking at competitors and thinking about what could dislodge this company. And then we’ll talk to… If it’s an industry we don’t know well… We know the restaurant industry really well. Music industry, we will talk to people in the industry. We’ll try to understand the difference between publishing and recorded music. We’ll look at the competitors, we’ll read books. I read a book about the music industry or a couple books about the industry.
So it’s a bit like a big research project. And these, so-called expert networks now, and you can get pretty much anyone on the phone and they’ll talk to you about an aspect of the industry that you don’t understand, want to learn more about. Try to get a sense… Public filings of companies generally give you a lot of information, but not everything you want to know. And you can learn more by talking to experts about some of the industry dynamics, the personalities. You want to get a sense of management. I like watching podcasts. If a CEO were to do a podcast or a YouTube interview, you get a sense of the people.
So we can’t earn the kind of returns we want to earn for investors by paying a really high price. Price matters a lot. You can buy the best business in the world and if you overpay, you’re not going to earn particularly attractive returns. So we get involved in cases where a great business has kind of made a big mistake or you’ve a company that’s kind of lost its way, but it’s recoverable. And we buy from shareholders who are disappointed, who’ve lost confidence, selling at a low price relative to what it’s worth if fixed. And then we try to be helpful in fixing the company.
The beauty of the restaurant business… Our best track record is in restaurants. We’ve never lost money. We’ve only made a fortune, interestingly, investing restaurants. A big part of it, it’s a really simple business. If you get Chipotle right and you’re at a hundred stores, it’s not so hard to envision getting to 200 stores and then getting to 500 stores, right? And the key is maintaining the brand image, growing intelligently, having the right systems. Now when you go from a hundred stores to 3,500 stores, you have to know what you’re doing and there’s a lot of complexity. If you think about your local restaurant, the family’s working in the business, they’re watching the cash register, and you can probably open another restaurant across town, but there are very few restaurant operators that own more than a few restaurants and operate them successfully.
And the quick service business is about systems and building a model that a stranger who doesn’t know the restaurant industry can come in and enter the business and build a successful franchise. Now, Chipotle is not a franchise company. They actually own all their own stores, but many of the most successful restaurant companies are franchise models like a Burger King, a McDonald’s, Tim Horton’s, all these various brands, Popeyes. And there it’s about systems, but the same systems apply whether you own all the stores and it’s run by a big corporation or whether the owners of the restaurants are sort of franchisees, local entrepreneurs.
So you’d open your computer and you open your search and very high percentage of the world starts with a Google page in one line where you type in your search. The Google advertising, search, YouTube franchise is one of the most dominant franchises in the world. Very difficult to disrupt, extremely profitable. The world is moving from offline advertising to online advertising. And that trend, I think, continues. Why? Because you can actually see whether your ads work. They used to say about advertising, “You spend a fortune and you just don’t know which 50% of it works, but you just sort of spend the money because you know ultimately that’s going to bring in the customer.” And now with online advertising, you can see with granularity which dollars I’m spending… When people click on the search term and end up buying something and I pay, it’s a very high return on investment for the advertiser and they really dominate that business.
Now, AI, of course, is a risk. If all of a sudden people start searching or asking questions of ChatGPT and don’t start with the Google search bar, that’s a risk to the company. And so our view, based on work we had done and talked to industry experts, is that Google, by virtue of the investment they’ve made the time, the energy that people put into it, we felt their AI capabilities were, if anything, potentially greater than Microsoft ChatGPT and that the market had overreacted. And because Google is a big company, global business regulators scrutinized it incredibly carefully. They couldn’t take some of the same liberties a startup like OpenAI did in releasing a product. And I think Google took a more cautious approach in releasing an early version of Bard in terms of its capabilities. And that led the world to believe that they were behind.
And we ultimately concluded, if anything, they’re tied or ahead and you’re paying nothing for that potential business. And they also have huge advantages by virtue… If you think of all the data Google has, the search data, all the various applications, email and otherwise, and the Google suite of products, it’s an incredible data set. So they have more training data than pretty much any company in the world. They have incredible engineers, they have enormous financial resources. So that was kind of the bet. And we still think it’s probably the cheapest of the big seven companies in terms of the price you’re paying for the business relative to its current earnings. It also is a business that has a lot of potential for efficiency. Sometimes when you have this enormously profitable dominant company… All of the technology companies in the post March ’20 world grew enormously in terms of their teams and they probably overhired.
And so you’ve seen the Facebooks of the world and now even Google starting to get a little more efficient in terms of their operation. So we paid a low multiple for the business. One way to think about the value of the business is the price you pay for the earnings or alternatively what’s the yield? If you flip over the price over the earnings, it gives you kind of the yield of the business. So a 15 multiple is about almost a seven and a half percent yield. And that earnings yield is growing over time as the business grows. Compare it to what you can earn lending your money to the government, 4%, that’s a very attractive going in yield.
And then there’s all kinds of, what we call, optionality in all the various businesses and investments they’ve made that are losing money. They’ve got a cloud business that’s growing very rapidly, but they’re investing basically a hundred percent of the profits from that business and growth. So you’re in that earnings number, you’re not seeing any earnings from the cloud business, and they’re one of the top cloud players. So very interesting, generally well-managed company with incredible assets and resources and dominance, and it has no debt. It’s got a ton of cash. And so pretty good story.
Conference calls are actually relatively recent. When I started in the business, there weren’t conference call transcripts. Now you have a written record of everything management has said in response to questions from analysts, at conferences and otherwise. And so just you learn a lot about people by listening to what they say, how they answer questions, and ultimately their track record for doing what they say they’re going to do. Do they under promise and over deliver? Do they over promise and under deliver? Do they say what they’re going to do? Do they admit mistakes? Do they build great teams? Do people want to come work for them? Are they able to retain their talent?
And then part of it is how much are they running the business for the benefit of the business? How much are they running the business for the benefit of themselves? And that’s the analysis you do.
But a great leader has great followership. Over the course of their career, they’ll have a team they’ve built that will come follow them into the next opportunity. But the key is really the top person matters enormously, and then it’s who they recruit. You recruit an A-plus leader and they’re going to recruit other A- type people. You recruit a B-leader, you’re not going to recruit any great talent beneath them.
I don’t think it’s something that… If you think about surviving the jungle, the lion shows up and everyone starts running, you run with them. That does not work well in markets. In fact, you generally have to do the opposite, right? When the lemmings are running over the cliff, that’s the time where you’re facing the other direction and you’re running the other direction, i.e, you’re stepping in, you’re buying stocks at really low prices. Buffett’s been great at that and great at teaching about what he calls temperament, which is this sort of emotional or unemotional quality that you need to be able to dispassionately look at the world and say, “Okay, is this a real risk? Are people overreacting?” People tend to get excited about investments when stocks are going up and they get depressed when they’re going down. And I think that’s just inherently human. You have to reverse that. You have to get excited when things get cheaper and you got to get concerned when things get more expensive.
Stocks can trade at any price in the short term. And if you know what a business is worth and you understand the management and you know it extremely well, it’s not nearly as… It doesn’t bother you when a stock price goes down or it has much less impact on you because again, as Mr. Graham said, the short term, the markets are voting machine. You have a bunch of lemmings voting one direction that’s concerning. But if it’s a great business, doesn’t have a lot of debt and people are going to just listen to more music next year than this year, you know you’re going to do well. So it’s a bit some combination of being personally secure and also just knowing what you own and over time you build callouses, I would say.
And you can own the greatest business in the world trading for a hundred dollars a share, and next moment it could be 50. So as long as you don’t borrow against securities, you own really high quality businesses and it’s not money that you need in the short term, then you can actually be thoughtful about it. And that is a huge advantage. The vast majority of investors, it seems tend to be the ones that panic and the downturns get over related and when markets are doing well.
So I would invest in things you can understand, that’s kind of a key. You like Chipotle, you understand why they’re successful. You can go there every week and you can monitor. Is anything changing? How’s Chicken al Pastor, is that a good upgrade from the basic chicken? The drink offering is improving. The store is clean. I think you should invest in companies you really understand, simple businesses where you can predict with a high degree of confidence what it’s going to look like over time. And if you do that in a not particularly concentrated fashion and you don’t borrow money against your securities, you’ll probably do much better than your typical mutual fund.
So our strategy is built upon finding great companies in some cases that have lost their way and then helping them succeed. And we can do that with ideas from outside the boardroom. Sometimes we take a seat on a board or more than one, and we work with the best management teams in the world to help these businesses succeed. So when I first went into this business, no one knew who we were and we didn’t have that much money. And so to influence what was to us a big company, we had to make a fair bit more noise, right? So we would buy a stake, we’d announce it publicly, we’d attempt to engage with management. The first activist investment we made at Pershing Square was Wendy’s. I couldn’t get the CEO to ever return my call. He didn’t return my call. Actually, in that case, our idea was Wendy’s owned a company called Tim Hortons, which was this coffee donut chain, and you could buy Wendy’s for basically $5 billion and they owned a hundred percent of Tim Hortons, which itself was worth more than 5 billion.
So you could literally buy Wendy’s, separate Tim Hortons and get Wendy’s for negative value. That seemed like a pretty good opportunity even though the business wasn’t doing that well. So we bought the stake, called the CEO, couldn’t get a meeting, nothing. So we hired actually Blackstone, which at that time had an investment bank and we hired them to do what’s called a fairness opinion of what Wendy’s would be worth if they followed our advice and they agreed to do it, paid them a fee for it. And then we mailed in a letter with a copy of the fairness opinion saying Wendy’s would basically be worth 80% more if they did what we said. And six weeks later they did what we said. So that’s activism, at least an early form of activism. With that kind of under our belt, we had a little more credibility and now we started to take things and stakes in companies.
The media would pay attention. So the media became kind of an important partner and some combination of shame, embarrassment and opportunity motivated management teams to do the right thing. And then beyond that, there’s certain steps you can take if management’s recalcitrant and the shareholders are on your side. But it’s a bit like running for office. You’ve got to get all the constituents to support you and your ideas. And if they support you and your ideas, you can overthrow, if you will, the board of a company. You bring in new talent and then take over the management of a business. And that’s the most extreme form of activism. So that’s kind of the early days, and what we did. And a lot of the early things that we did were, what we call sort of like investment banking activism where we’d go in and recommend something, a good investment bank would’ve recommended, and if they do it, we make a bunch of money.
And then we moved on to the next one. And then we realized an investment in a company called General Growth was the first time we took a board seat on a company. And there it was some financial restructuring and also an opportunity to improve the operations of the business, sit on the board of a company. And that was one of the best investments we ever made. And we said, “Okay, we can do more than just be an outside the boardroom investor and we can get involved in helping select the right management teams and helping guide the right management teams.” And then we’ve done that over years. And then I would say the last seven years we haven’t had to be an activist. An activist is generally someone who’s outside banging on the door trying to get in. We’re sort of built enough credibility that they open the door and they say, “Hey, Bill, what ideas do you have? So welcome. Would you like to join the board?”
We’re treated differently today than we were in the beginning. And that is… I would say some people might just call it being an engaged owner. And by the way, that’s the way investing was done in the Andrew Carnegie, JPMorgan days 150 years ago. You had these iconic business leaders that would own 20% of US steel, and when things would go wrong, they’d replace the board and the management and fix them. And over time, we went to a world where mutual funds were created in the 1920s, ’30s, index funds with Vanguard and others, and that all these controlling shareholders gave their stock to society or their children and multiple generations. And they were no longer controlling owners of businesses or very few. And that led to under performance and the opportunity for activists over time. And what activism has done, and I think we’ve helped lead this movement, is it restored the balance of power between the owners of the business and the management of the company. And that’s been a very good thing for the performance of the US stock market actually.
And the best businesses are forever assets and decisions you make now have impact three, four or five years from now, in order to make… And sometimes there are decisions we make that have the effect of reducing the earnings of a company in the short-term because in the long term it’s going to make the business much more valuable. But sometimes it’s hard to have that kind of credibility when you’re a new CEO of a company. So when you have a major owner that’s respected by other shareholders sitting on the board saying, “Hey, the CEO is doing the right thing and making this expensive investment in a new factory, we’re spending more money on R&D because we’re developing something that’s going to pay off over time.” That large owner on the board can help buy the time necessary for management to behave in a longer term way. And that’s, I think, good for all the shareholders.
It was pretty aggressive. As the value went up, he would borrow more and more against the assets and that helped the short-term results of the business. The problem was during the financial crisis, the market for what’s called CMBS, commercial mortgage backed securities basically shut. And the company, because its debt was relatively short term, had a lot of big maturities coming up that they had no ability to refinance. And the market said, “Oh, my god, the lenders are going to foreclose and the shareholders going to get wiped, the company’s going to go bankrupt, they’re going to get wiped out.” The stock went from $63 a share to 34 cents. And there was a family, the Bucksbaum Family owned I think about 25% of the company, and they had a 5 billion of stock that was worth 25 billion or something by the time, we bought a stake in the business.
And what interested me was I thought the assets were worth substantially more than the liabilities. The company had 27 billion of debt and had a hundred million dollars value of the equity down from 20 billion. Okay? And one that sort of an interesting place to start with a stock down 99%. But the fundamental drivers, the mall business are occupancy. How occupied are the malls, occupancy was up year-on-year between ’07 and ’08. Interestingly, net operating income, which is kind of a measure of cash flow from the malls, that was up year-on-year. So kind of the underlying fundamentals were doing fine. The only problem they had is they had billions of dollars of debt that they had to repay, they couldn’t repay. And if you kind of examine the bankruptcy code, it’s precisely designed for a situation like this where it’s this resting place you can go to restructure your business.
Now the problem was that every other company that had gone bankrupt, the shareholders got wiped out. And so the market’s seeing every previous example, the shareholders get wiped out. The assumption is this stock is going to go to zero. But that’s not what the bankruptcy code says. What the bankruptcy code says is that the value gets portioned based on value. And if you could prove to a judge that there was the assets worth more than a liabilities, then the shareholders actually get to keep their investment in the company. And that was the bet we made. And so we stepped into the market and we bought 25% of the company in the open market for… We had to pay up. It started out at 34 cents, I think there were 300 million shares. So it was at a hundred million dollars value by the time we were done. We paid an average of… We paid 60 million for 25% of the business, so about $240 million for the equity of the company.
And then we had to get on the board to convince the directors the thing to do. And the board was in complete panic, didn’t know what to do, spending a ton of money on advisors. And I was a shareholder activist four years into Pershing Square, and no one had any idea what we were doing. They thought we were crazy. Every day we’d go into the market and we’d buy this penny stock and we’d file what’s called a 13D, every 1% increase in our stake. And people just thought we were crazy. We’re buying stock in a company that’s going to go bankrupt. “Bill, you’re going to lose all your money. Run.” And I said, “Well, wait, bankruptcy code says that if it’s more asset value than liabilities, we should be fine.” And the key moment, if you’re looking for fun moments is there’s a woman named Maddie Bucksbaum who’s from the Bucksbaum family.
And her cousin John was chairman of the board, CEO of the company. And as she calls me after we disclose our stake in the company, she’s like, “Bill Ackman, I’m really glad to see you here.” And I met her like… I don’t think it was a date, but I kind of met her in a social context when I was like 25 or something. And she said, “Look, I’m really glad to see you here and if there’s anything I can do to help you, call me.” I said, “Sure.” We kept trying to get on the board of the company. They wouldn’t invite us on, couldn’t really run a proxy contest, not with a company going bankrupt. And their advisors actually were Goldman Sachs…
The bankruptcy system worked the way it should. I was in court all the time and the first meeting with the judge, the judge is like, “Look, this would never have happened were it not for a financial crisis.” And once the judge said that, I knew we were going to be fine, because the company had really not done anything fundamentally wrong, maybe a little too aggressive in how they borrowed money. And stock went from 34 cents to $31 a share. And actually fun little anecdote, we made a lot of people a lot of money who followed us into it. I got a lot of nice thank you notes, which you get on occasion in this business, believe it or not. And then one day I get a voicemail, this is when there was something called voicemail, probably a few years later. And it’s a guy with a very thick Jamaican accent leaving a message for Bill Ackman.
I return all my calls, called the guy back. I said, “Hi, it’s Bill Ackman. I’m just returning your call.” He says, “Oh, Mr. Ackman, thank you so much for calling me.” And I said, “Oh, how can I help?” He says, “I wanted to thank you.” I said, “What do you mean?” He said, “I saw you on CNBC a couple of years ago and you were talking about this general growth and the stock.” I said, “Where was the stock at the time?” He said, “It’s 60 cents or something like this. And I bought a lot of stock.” And I’m like, “Well, how much did you invest?” ” Oh, I invest all of my money in the company.” And he was a New York City taxi driver and he invested like $50,000 or something like this at 60 cents a share. And he was still holding it. And he went into retirement and he made 50 times his money. And those are the moments that you feel pretty good about investing.
And that one we did very well, but I missed the big opportunity and I suffered severe psychological torture every time I walked by Rockefeller Center because we knew more about that property, anyone else, but I knew less about deal making and didn’t have the resources, and I was 28 years old or 27. And they hired a better lawyer than we did, and they outsmarted us on that one in a way. I said, “Okay, I’m going to go hire this guy the next time round.”
And those rules have been changed very recently where the company now has to include really all the candidates and the materials they sent to shareholders and the shareholders pick the best ones. When we ran proxy contests in the past, that was not the case. And so you have to spend a lot of money, mostly mailing fees and all kinds of other legal and other expenses to let everyone know you’re running, like running a political campaign. And then you got to run around and meet with the big shareholders, fly around the country, explain your case to them, and then there’s a shareholder meeting. And if you get a majority of the votes, you get on.
They’ll sit on four boards, they collect a million, a million and a half dollars a year in director’s fees. If they get thrown off the board by the shareholders, that’s embarrassing obviously and it affects their ability to get on other boards. Again, incentives, as I said earlier, drive all human behavior. The incentives of directors, they want to preserve their board seats. Now the directors on board serve in various roles. The most vulnerable ones are ones who, for example, chair a compensation committee. And if they put in a bad plan or they overpaid management, they’re subject to attack by shareholders. But these contests are not dissimilar to political contests, where there’s mudslinging and the other side puts out false information about you and you have to respond and they’re spending the shareholders’ money, so they have sort of unlimited resources. And you’re spending your and your investors’ money, when you’re a small firm, finite resources. They can outspend you, they can sue you, they can try to jigger the mechanics in such a way that you’re going to lose. There’s some unfortunate stuff that’s happened in the past, some manipulative stuff.
And basically same country, same regions, the tracks weren’t that far apart. But it was a really important company and being on this board was like an honorary thing. And everyone on the board was an icon of Canada. The chairman of the Royal Bank of Canada, the head of the most important privately held grain company, an important collection of big time Canadian executives. Here we were, this is probably about 13 years ago, and still maybe a 44-year-old from New York, not a Canadian basically saying, “This is the worst run railroad North America.” And we bought 12% of the railroad at a really low price and we brought with us to our first meeting, the greatest railroader ever, a guy named Hunter Harrison who had turned around Canadian National. We’re like, “Okay, we’ve got a great asset. We’ve got the greatest railroad CEO of all time. He’s come out of retirement to step in and run the railroad.” And we brought him to the first meeting and they wouldn’t even meet with him, and they certainly weren’t going to consider hiring him. And that led us to a proxy contest.
And then I spoke to a guy who was one of the wealthiest guys in Canada who was on the board at one point in time. And he said, “Bill, I have an idea for you. There’s this woman, Rebecca McDonald, why don’t you give her a call?” And I called Rebecca and she was the first woman to take a company public in Canada as CEO. And she was an anti-establishment, not afraid to take on anything kind of person. And I called her, we had a great conversation and she was in the Dominican Republic at her house and I flew down to see her and she said, “Yeah, I’m all in.” And actually, once we got her, that enabled us to get others. And then we put together our slate and we had some pretty interesting dialogue with the company. They tried to embarrass us all the time.
And Hunter was incredible, and Paul Lau, other members of my team were super engaged. And Canadians are known to be nice, so one of the problems we had is shareholders would never tell management or the board that they were losing. It was not until the night before the meeting when the vote came in, that management realized that they lost. We got 99% of the vote. And they begged us to take a deal. They said, “Look, we’ll resign tonight so that we don’t have to come to the meeting tomorrow.” That’s how embarrassed they were. But that was kind of an interesting one.
It taught me for-profit solutions to problems are much better than nonprofits. And here you had kind of a blend. It was set up as a nonprofit, but I think they found the same thing. They couldn’t hire the talent they wanted without having a for-profit subsidiary. But the nonprofit entity, as I understand it, owns a big chunk of OpenAI, and the investors own a capped interest where their upside is capped and they don’t have representation on the board. And I think that was a setup for a problem, and that’s clearly what happened here.
And then they also shorted the other stocks that we owned. And so that Valiant loss led to an overall more than 30% loss in the value of our portfolio. The Valiant loss was real and was crystallized. We ended up selling the position taking that loss. Most of the other losses were what I would call mark to market losses that were temporary. But many people go out of business because as I mentioned before, large move in a price, if investors are redeeming or you have leverage can put you out of business. And if people assumed if we got put out of business, we’d have to sell everything or cover our short position, and that would make the losses even worse. Wall Street is kind of ruthless.
You have to delegate more. That was a contributor to the Valiant mistake. Now we lose a ton of money on Valiant. My ex-wife and I were talking about separating, getting divorced. I put that on hold because I didn’t want to make a decision in the middle of this crisis, and things just kept getting worse. We were also sued. When you lose a lot of money … we didn’t get sued by our investors, but we got sued by a shareholder because when the stock price goes down, shareholders sue. We’d done nothing wrong other than make a big mistake. So you have litigation, your investors are taking their money out. I’m in the middle of a divorce. The divorce starts to proceed. My ex-wife’s lawyer’s expectations of what my net worth was was about three times what it actually was, and it was going lower right in the middle of this. And I remember the lawyer saying, “Look, Bill, we’ve estimate your net worth at X, but don’t worry, we only want a third.” But X was 3X, so a third was 100%.
And then I had litigation. And actually never before publicly disclosed, and I’ll share it with you now. We had a public company that owned about a third of our portfolio that was call it, our version of Berkshire Hathaway. I tried to learn from Mr. Buffet over time, and it was so to speak, permanent capital. The problem with hedge funds is people can take their money out every quarter. What Buffet has is a company where if people want to take their money out, they sell the stock, but the money stays. We set up a similar structure in October of 2014, and then a year later, Valiant happens, and then a year later we’re in the middle of the mess and we’re still in the mess. By mid 2017, we’ve got litigation underway, and another activist investor, a firm called Elliot Associates, which is run by a guy named Paul Singer, took a big position in our public company that was the bulk of our capital, and they shorted all the stocks that we owned.
And they probably went long the short that we were short, and they were making a bet that we’d be forced to liquidate and then they would make money on … Our public company was trading at a discount to what all the securities were worth. They bought the public company, they shorted the securities, and then they came to see us to try to be activists and force us to liquidate and that sort of-
I did something I’d never done before. I talked about it before about that you don’t borrow money, but I borrowed money and I borrowed $300 million from JP Morgan in the middle of this mess. And I give JP Morgan enormous credit in seeing through it. And also I had been a good client over a long period of time, and it’s like it’s a handshake bank and they bet that I would succeed. And I took that money to buy enough stock in my public company that I could prevent an activist from taking over and I could effectively buy control of our little public company.
And I got that done, and that I knew was the moment, the turning point. And I resolved my divorce, and divorces get easier to resolve when things are going badly. I was able to resolve that. We settled the litigation. I was buying blocks of our stock in the market. I remember a day I bought a big block of stock in the market, and I get a call from Gordon Singer, who is Paul Singer’s son, who runs their London part of their business. And he’s like, “Bill, was that you buying that block?” I said, “Yes.” And he’s like, “Fuck.”
But you just, okay, just make step by step by step. And then 90 days in you’re like, okay, I was way down there. Okay, the mountain. Okay, I don’t look up. Just keep making progress, progress, progress and progress really does compound. And one day you wake up and like, wow, it’s amazing how far I’ve come.
And if you look at a chart of Pershing Square, our company, you can see the absolute bottom. You can see where we were, you can see the drop and you can see where we are now. And that huge drop that felt like a complete unbelievable disaster looks like a little bump on the curve. And it really gives you perspective on these things. You just have to power through. And I think the key is, I’ve always been fortunate from a mental health point of view and nutrition, sleep, exercise, and a little progress every day. That’s it. And good friends and family. I had go take a walk with a friend every night and a sister who loves me and parents who were supportive, but they were all worried about their son, their brother. It was a moment.
And also, by the way, the other thing to think about is when you recover from something like this, you really appreciate it. And also as much of the media loves when some successful person falls, they love writing the story of success, they love even more the story of failure. But when you recover from that, it’s kind of like the American story. America, you think of the great entrepreneurs and how many failures they had before they succeeded. How many rocket launches did SpaceX have explode on the pad? And then you look at success. I mean, that’s why Musk is so admired.
He’s like, “Sure, but what are you going to pay me to borrow them?” I’m like, “I’ll pay you interest on the value of the dollars today.” So you borrow the dollars that are worth $100 each today, you pay them interest while you’re borrowing them, and then you go sell them in the market for $100. That’s what they’re worth. And then they go down in price to 50. You go back in, you buy the silver dollars back at $50 and you give them back to your friend. Your friend is fine. You borrowed 10, you gave him the 10 back and he got interest. In the meantime, he’s happy. He made money on his coin collection. You, however, made $50 times the 10 coins, you made 500 bucks. That’s pretty good. The problem with that is what if you sell them and they go from 100 to 1000, now you’re going to have to go buy them back and you got to pay whatever, $10,000 to buy back coins that you sold for 500.
You’re going to lose $9,500. And there’s no limit to how high a stock price can go. Companies go to $3 trillion in value. Tesla, a lot of people shorted Tesla saying, oh, it’s overvalued. He’s never going to be able to make a successful electric car. Well, I’m sure the people went bankrupt shorting Tesla. That’s why we didn’t short stocks. But I was presented with this actually a reporter that covered the other short investment we made early in the career, a company called MBIA, came to me and said, “Bill, I found this incredible company. You got to take a look at it. It’s a total fraud and they’re scamming poor people.”
And the people that adopt it lose money and they go after poor people. They go after, actually in many cases, undocumented immigrants who are pitched on the American Dream opportunity. And because they have few other options because they can’t get legal employment, they become Herbalife distributors. And it’s a business where you, so-called multi-level marketing. Multi-level marketing is sort of the name for a legitimate company like this. Or it’s a pyramid scheme where basically your sales are really only coming from people you convince to buy the product by getting them into the business. That’s precisely what this company is. And like, okay, shorting a pyramid scheme seems like, one, we’ll make a bunch of money, but two, the world will be behind us because they’re harming poor people. Regulators will get interested in a company like this. And we said, the FTC is going to shut this thing down.
And we did a ton of work and I gave this sort of epic presentation laying out all the facts, stock got completely crushed, and we were on our way. And the government actually got interested early on, launched an investigation pretty early, SEC and otherwise. But then a guy named Carl Icahn showed up, and we have a little bit of a backstory, but his motivations here were not really principally driven by thinking Herbalife was a good company. He thought it was a good way to hurt me. So he basically bought a bunch of stock and said it was a really great company, and Carl, at least at the time, threw his weight around a bit. He was a credible investor, had a lot of resources, and that began the saga.
And the way the schmuck insurance went, he said, “Look, Bill, if I sell the stock in the next three years for a higher price, I’ll give you 50% of my profit.” That’s a pretty good deal. So we made that deal, and because I was dealing with Carl Icahn who had a reputation for being difficult, I was very focused on the agreement and we didn’t want him to be able to be cute. So the agreement said, if he sells or otherwise transfers his shares. And we came up with a definition to include every version of sell, okay, because it’s Carl. Well, he then buys the stake and then makes a bid for the company and plan is for him to get the company. And he bids like 120 a share, and the company hires Morgan Stanley to sell itself, and he raises bid to 125 and then 130, and eventually gets sold, I don’t remember the exact price, let’s say $145 a share.
And Carl’s not the winning bidder, and he sells his stock or he loses or transfers his shares for $145 a share. So he owes actually our investors the difference between 145 and 80 times 50%. And I had… Lawyers never like you to put a arithmetic example. I put a formula out of a math book in the documents so there can be no confusion. It was only an eight page, really simple agreement. So the deal closes and he’s supposed to pay us in two business days or three business days. I wait a few business days, no money comes in. I call Carl. I’m like, “Carl, congratulations on the Hallwood Realty.” “Thanks Bill.” I said, “Carl, just I want to remind you, I know it’s been a few years, but we have this agreement. Remember the schmuck insurance?” He’s like, “Yeah.” And I said, “Well, you owe us our schmuck insurance.”
He said, “What do you mean? I didn’t sell my shares.” And I said, “Do you still have the shares?” He says, “No.” I said, “What happened to them?” “Well, the company did a merger for cash and they took away my shares, but I didn’t sell them. Do you understand what happened?” And I said, “Carl, I’m going to have to sue you.” He said, “Sue me. I’m going to sue you,” he says.
So I sued him and the legal system in America can take some time. And what he would do is we sued and then we won in the whatever New York Supreme Court, and then he appealed, and you can appeal six months after the case. He waited till the 179th day, and then he would appeal. And then we fought at the next level, and then he would appeal. And he appealed all the way to the Supreme Court. Of course, the Supreme Court wouldn’t take the case. It took years. Now, as part of our agreement, we got 9% interest on the money that he owed us. So I viewed it as my Carl Icahn money market account with a much higher interest rate. And eventually I won.
I met a professor from Berkeley a couple of years ago who told me that he had been hired by the government as their expert on Herbalife, and he got access to all their data, was able to prove that they’re a pyramid scheme. But the government ultimately settled with Carl because they were afraid they could possibly lose in court. So they settled with him. But if you look at the stock, if we’d been able to stay short the entire time, we would’ve made a bunch of money because the stock had a $6 billion market cap, and we shorted it. Today as probably a billion, a billion and a half.
And so I had kind of an early kind of perspective, and as chairman of the Jerusalem Foundation, I would go into Arab communities and I would meet with families in their homes. You get a sense of the humanity of a people. And I care about humanity. I generally take the side of people who’ve been disadvantaged. Almost all of our philanthropic work has been in that capacity. So it’s sort of my natural perspective, but I don’t take the side of terrorists ever, obviously. And the whole thing is just a tragedy.
And then going back to incentives, terrorists generate their resources by committing terrorism, and that’s how they get funding. And there’s a lot of graft. It’s a plutocracy. The top of the terrorist pyramid, if you accept the numbers that are in the press, the top leaders have billions of dollars. 40 billion or so has gone into Gaza over the last… and the West Bank over the last 30 years, a number like that. And a lot of it’s disappeared into some combination of corruption or tunnels or weapons. And the tragedy is you look at what Singapore has achieved in the last 30 years, right?
Then the protests erupted on campus and they started out reasonably benign. Then the protesters got more and more aggressive in terms of violating university rules on things like bullying, and the university did nothing. That obviously for the Jewish students, the Israeli students, the Israeli faculty, Jewish faculty, created an incredibly uncomfortable environment. The president seemed indifferent. I went up to campus and I met with hundreds of students in small groups, in larger groups and they’re like, “Bill, why is the president doing nothing? Why is the administration doing nothing?” That was really the beginning.
I reached out to the president, reached out to the board of Harvard, I said, “Look, this thing is headed in the wrong direction and you need to fix it. I have some ideas, love to share.” I got the Heisman, as they say. They just kept pushing off the opportunity for me to meet with the president and meet with the board. At a certain point in time I pushed, I’m kind of a activist when he pushed me, it reminded me of early days of activism where I couldn’t get the CEO of Wendy’s to return my call. I couldn’t get the CEO of Harvard to take a meeting.
Then finally I spoke to the chairman of the board, a woman by the name of Penny Pritzker, who I’m on a business school board with her. It was, as I described, one of the more disappointing conversations in my life. She seemed a bit like, if you will, deer in the headlights. They couldn’t do this, they couldn’t do that. The law was preventing them from doing various things. That led to my first letter to the university. I sort of ended the letter of giving this president of Harvard a dare to be great speech. This is your opportunity. You can fix this. This could be your legacy. I emailed it to the president and the board members whose email addresses I had, I posted it on Twitter and I got no response, no acknowledgement, nothing. In fact, the open dialogue I had with a couple of people on the board basically got shut down after that.
That led to letter number two. Then when the Congress, led by Elise Stefanik, announced an investigation of antisemitism on campus and concern about violations of law, the president was called to testify along with two other … The president of MIT, the president of University of Pennsylvania were having similar issues on campus. I reached out to the president of Harvard and said, well, one, the Israeli government had gotten in touch and offered the opportunity for me to see the Hamas, if you will, GoPro film. I said, “You know, I’d love to show it at Harvard,” and they thought that would be a great idea. I partnered with the head of Harvard Chabad, a guy named Rabbi Hirschy, and we were putting the film up on campus.
I thought if the president were to see this, it would give her a lot of perspective on what happened and she should see it before her testimony. I reached out to her, or actually Rabbi Hirschy did. He was told she would be out of town and couldn’t see it. Then I reached out to her again and said, “Look, I’ll facilitate your attendance in the Congress. Come see the film, I’ll fly you down.” That was rejected, and then she testified.
I watched a good percentage, 80% of the testimony, of all three presidents, and it was an embarrassment to the country, embarrassment to the universities. They were evasive. They didn’t answer questions. They were rude. They smirked. They looked very disrespectful to our Congress. Then, of course, there was that several minutes where finally Elise Stefanik was not getting answers to her questions, and she said, “Let me be kind of clear. What if protestors were calling for genocide for the Jews? Does that violate your rules on bullying and harassment?” The three of them basically gave the same answer; “It depends on the context.” Not until they actually executed on the genocide that the university had the right to intervene.
The thing that perhaps bothered me the most was the incredible hypocrisy. Each of these universities are ranked by this entity called FIRE, which is a nonprofit that focuses on free speech on campus. Harvard, it’s been in the bottom quartile for the last five years and dropped to last before October 7th, out of 250.
I was in the barber chair, if you will, getting a haircut. I had a guy on my team send me the three-minute section. I said, “Cut that line of questioning.” I put out a little tweet on that. I call it my greatest hits of posts, it’s got something like 110 million views. Everyone looked at this and said, “What is wrong with university campuses and their leadership,” and their governance, by the way. In a way, this whole conversation has been about governance. Harvard has a disastrous governance structure, which is why we have the problem we have.
After the congressional testimony, the board of Harvard said that they were unanimously, a hundred percent behind President Gay. Clearly, I was ineffective. Ultimately what took her down was other, I would say, activists who identified issues with academic integrity and then she lost the confidence of the faculty. Once that happens, it’s hard to stay. I wanted her to be fired, basically, or be forced to resign because of failures of leadership, because that would’ve sent a message about the importance of leadership. Failure to stop a emergence of antisemitism on campus. There’s some news today; the protests are getting worse.
Harvard is a private corporation and as a private corporation, they can put on what restrictions they want. Harvard had introduced only a few months before bullying and harassment policies, and that’s why Representative Stefanik focused on … It’s not like she said, “Does calling for genocide against the Jews violate your free speech policies?” She said, “Does calling for genocide against the Jews violate your policies on bullying and harassment?”
I think everyone looked at this when they said, it depends on the context. They said, look, if you replaced Jews with some other ethnic group, students who’ve used the N word for example, have been thrown off campus or suspended. Students who’ve hate speeched directed at LGBTQ people has led to disciplinary action, but attacking, spitting on Jewish students or roughing them up a bit, seemed like we’re calling for their elimination, didn’t seem to violate the policies. Look, I think a university should be a place where you have broad views and open viewpoints and broad discussion, but it should also be a place where students don’t feel threatened going to class, where their learning is not interrupted, when final exams are not interrupted by people coming in with loud protests.
Students asked me when I went up there, “What would you do if you were Harvard president?” This was before I knew what was happening on the Dartmouth campus, I said, “I’d convene everyone together. This is Harvard. We have access to the best minds in the world. Let’s have a better understanding of the history. Let’s understand the backdrop. Let’s focus on solutions. Let’s bring Arab and Jewish and Israeli students together. Let’s form let groups to create communication.” That’s how you solve this kind of problem. None of that stuff has been done. It’s not that hard.
Then there’s the board of overseers, which is I think 32 directors. A few years ago, if you could put together 600 signatures, you could run for that board and put up a bunch of candidates and about five or six get elected each year. A group did exactly that, and it was an oil and gas kind of disinvestment group. They got the signatures, a couple of them got elected, and Harvard then changed the rules and they said, ” Now we need 3,200 signatures. By the way, if there are these dissident directors on the board, we’re going to cap them at five.” So if three were elected in the oil and gas thing, now they’re only two seats available.
Then a group of former students, kind of younger alums, one of whom I knew, approached me and said, “Look, Bill, we should run for the board.” They decided this pretty late, only a few weeks before the signatures were due. We’d love your support. I took a look at their platform, I thought it looked great. I said, “Look, happy to support.” I posted about them, did a Zoom with them, and they got thousands of signatures. Collectively the four got, whatever, 12,000 signatures or something like this. They missed by about 10% of the threshold.
What did Harvard do in the middle of the election? They made it very, very difficult to sign up for a vote and it just makes them look terrible. They’ve got now thousands of alums upset that … Again, this wasn’t an election. This was just to put the names on the slate. The only candidates on the slate are the ones selected by the existing members. Businesses fail because of governance failures. Universities fail because of governance failures. It’s not really the president’s fault, because the job of the board is to hire and fire the president and help guide the institution academically and otherwise. That’s governance.
I was like, “How can this be?” October 7th, the event that woke me up was 30 student organizations came out with a public letter on October 8th, literally the morning after this letter was created and said, “Israel is solely responsible for Hamas’ violent acts.” Again, Israel had not even mounted a defense at this point, and there were still terrorists running around in the southern part of Israel. I’m like, “34 Harvard student organizations signed this letter?” I’m like, “What is going on? WTF?” That’s when I went up on campus and I started talking to the faculty.
That’s when I started hearing about, actually, Bill, it’s this DEI ideology. I’m like, “What?” Diversity, equity, inclusion. Obviously I’m familiar with these words and I see this in the corporate context. They say, “Yeah.” They started talking to me about this oppressor-oppressed framework, which is effectively taught on campus and represents the backdrop for many of the courses that are offered and some of the studies and other degree offerings. I had not even heard of this and I’m a pretty aware person, but I was completely unaware. Basically they’re like, “Look, Israel is deemed an oppressor and the Palestinians are deemed the oppressed, and you take the side of the oppressed. Any acts of the oppressed to dislodge the oppressor, regardless of how vile or barbaric, are okay.” I’m like, “Okay. This is a super dangerous ideology.”
I wrote a questioning post about this, like, “Here’s what I’m hearing, is this right?” A friend of mine sent me Christopher Rufo’s book, America’s Cultural Revolution, which is sort of a sociological study of the origins of the DEI movement and critical race theory. I found it actually one of the more important books I’ve read and also I found it quite concerning. Ultimately, DEI comes out of a kind of Marxist socialist way to look at the world. I think there are a lot of issues with it, but unfortunately it’s advancing. I, ultimately, concluded racism, as opposed to fighting it, which is what I thought it was ultimately about.
Harvard faculty were telling me that there really is no such thing as free speech on campus and that there was a survey done, a year or so ago, the Harvard faculty and only 2% of the faculty admitted, even in an anonymous survey, admitted to having a conservative point of view. We have a campus that’s 98% non-conservative, liberal, progressive that’s adopted this DEI construct. Then I learned from a member of the search committee for the Harvard president that they were restricted in looking at candidates only those who met the DEI office’s criteria. I shared this in one of my postings and I was accused of being a racist. That’s someone who believes in that diversity is a very good thing for organizations and that equity fairness isn’t really important, and having an inclusive culture is critical for a functioning of a organization. Here I was, someone who was like, “Okay. DEI, sounds good to me,” at least in the small D small E, I version of events, but this DEI ideology is really problematic.
I described it as almost a McCarthy-esque kind of movement in that if you challenge the DEI construct people accuse you of being a racist. It’s happened to me already. Perhaps I’m much less vulnerable than a university professor who can get shouted off campus, canceled. I’m sort of difficult to cancel, but that doesn’t mean people aren’t going to try. I’ve been the victim of a couple of interesting articles in the last few days, or at least one in particular in The Washington Post written by what I thought was a well-meaning reporter. It’s just clear that I’ve taken on some big parts of at least the progressive establishment, DEI. I’m also a believer that Biden should have stepped aside a long time ago, and it’s only getting worse. I’m attacking the president, DEI, elite universities and you make some enemies doing that.
I wrote my college thesis on university admissions. The reason why controlling the gates of the Harvard institution, the admissions office is important, is that many of these people who graduate end up with the top jobs in government and ultimately become judges, they permeate through society and so it really matters what they learn. If they’re limited to one side of the political aisle and they’re not open to a broad array of views, and this represents some of the most elite institutions in our country, I think it’s very problematic for the country, long term.
One of the things I learned about how faculty get hired at universities, ultimately, it’s signed off by the board, but the new faculty are chosen by each of the various departments. There’s sort of a tipping point, politically, where once they tip in one direction, the faculty recruit more people like themselves. The departments become more and more progressive, if you will, with the passage of time. They only advance candidates that meet their political objectives. It’s not a great way to build an institution, which allows for …
Really, plagiarism is academic fraud. One indicia of plagiarism is a missing footnote, that could also be a clerical error. When a professor’s accused of plagiarism, the university does sort of a deep dive. They have these administrative boards. It can take six months, nine months, a year to evaluate … Intent matters. Was this intentional theft of another person’s idea? That’s academic fraud. Or was this sloppy or just humanity? You miss a footnote here or there. I think once it got …
Now if you’re writing a novel, words matter more. If you’re taking Shakespeare and presenting it as your own words. If you’re writing about ideas, ideas matter, but you’re not supposed to take someone else’s words without properly acknowledging them, whether it’s quotation marks or otherwise.
But in the context of a academic’s life’s work before AI, everyone’s going to have missing quotation marks and footnotes. I remember writing my own thesis, there were books you couldn’t take out a Widener Library, so I’d have index cards. And I’d write stuff on index cards, and I put a little citation to make sure I remember to cite it properly.
And scrambling to do your thesis, get it in on time, what’s the chances you forget at what point, what are your words versus the author’s words? And you forget to put quotation marks. Just the humanity, the human fallibility of it. So it’s not academic fraud to have human fallibility, but it’s academic fraud. If you take someone else’s ideas that are an integral part of your work.
I mean, the future of Harvard, A lot of it’s going to depend on who they pick as the next leader. Here’s an interesting anecdote that I think has not surfaced publicly. So a guy named Larry Bacow was the previous president of Harvard. Larry Bacow was on the search committee, and they were looking for a new president. And what was strange was they picked an old white guy to be president of Harvard when there was a call for a more diverse president.
And what I learned was Harvard actually ran a process, had a diverse new president of Harvard, and in the due diligence on that candidate, shortly before the announcement of the new president, they found out that that presidential candidate had a plagiarism problem. And the search had gone on long enough, they couldn’t restart a search to find another candidate.
So they picked Larry Bacow off the board, off the search committee to the next president Harvard, as kind of an interim solution. And then there was that much more pressure to have a more diverse candidate this time around, because it was a big disappointment to the DEI office, if you will, and I would say to the community at large. That Harvard of all places couldn’t have a racially-diverse present. It sent an important message.
So the strange thing is that they didn’t do due diligence on President Gay, and that it was a relatively quick process. So the whole thing I think is worthy of further exploration.
And the incentives in some sense of the alums are for, it’s a bit like a club. If you’re proud of the elitism of the club, you don’t want that many new members. But the fact that the population has grown of the country so significantly since, certainly, I was a student in 1984, and the fact that Harvard recruits people from all over the world, it’s really serving a smaller and smaller percentage of the population today.
And some of them were most talented and successful entrepreneurs anyway. It’s a token of success that they didn’t make it through their undergraduate years. They left as a freshman, or they didn’t attend at all.
But I mean what I say. She’s the most remarkable person I’ve ever met, and I’ve met a lot of remarkable people, and I’m incredibly fortunate to spend a very high percentage of my lifetime with her, ever since I met her six years ago.
I met her parents for the first time a long time ago, almost six years ago as well. And I knew her parents were from Eastern Europe, originally. So I asked her father, what city did her family come from originally? And I called my father and asked him, “Dad, Grandpa Abraham, what’s the name of the city?” And then I put the two cities into Google Maps, and they were 52 miles apart. Which I thought was pretty cool.
Then of course at some point we did genetic testing, make sure we weren’t related, which we were not. But we share incredible commonality on values. We are attracted to the same kind of people. She loves my friends, I love hers. We love doing the same kind of things, we like spending time the same ways.
And she has more emotion, more elegance. She doesn’t like battles, but she’s very strong. But she’s more sensitive than I am.
So I shared, I reposted those posts. And then when the board, she ultimately resigned and she got a $900,000 a year professorship continuing at Harvard, I said, look, in light of her limited academic record and these plagiarism allegations, she had to go.
I knew when I did so, I assumed I was actually a bit paranoid about that thesis I had written. I only had one academic work, but I hadn’t checked it for plagiarism. And I thought, that’s going to happen. Actually, I had someone, I did not have a copy on hand, so I got a copy of my thesis.
And I remember writing it, Harvard at the time was pretty, they kind of gave you a lecture about making sure you have all your footnotes and quotation marks. I learned later that apparently they had a copy of my thesis at the New York Public Library, and a member of the media told me he was there online with a dozen other members of the media all trying to get a copy of my thesis to run it through some AI. They had to first do optical character recognition to convert the paper document into digital.
But fortunately, through a miracle, I didn’t have an issue. I didn’t think about Neri of course, who has whatever, 130 academic works.
And so we were just at the end of a vacation for Christmas break, and it was early in the morning for a vacation time. And all of a sudden I hear my phone ringing in the other room, or vibrating in the other room multiple times. I’m like, hm.
I pick up the phone and saw our communication guy, Fran McGill. And he’s like, “Bill, Business Insider has apparently identified a number of instances of plagiarism in Neri’s dissertation. Let me send you this email.”
He sent me the email, and they had identified four paragraphs in her 330- page dissertation where she had cited the author, but she had used the vast majority of the words, and that those paragraphs were from the author, and she should have used quotation marks.
And then there was one case where she paraphrased correctly an author, but did not footnote that it was from his work.
And so we were presented with this and told, they’re going to publish in a few hours. And we’re like, “Well, can we get to the next day? We’re just about to head home.”
And they’re like, “No, we’re publishing by noon. We need an answer by noon.”
And so we downloaded the copy of her thesis on the slow internet. And Neri checked it out and she said, “You know what? Looks like they’re right.”
And I said, “Look, you should just admit your mistake.”
And she wrote a very simple, gracious, yes, I should have used quotation marks. And on the author I failed to cite, she pointed out that she cited them eight other times, and wrote a several-paragraph section of her thesis acknowledging his work.
And none of these were important parts of her thesis. But she acknowledged her mistake and she said, I apologize for my mistake, and I apologized to the author who I failed to cite. And I stand on the shoulders of all the people came before me, and looking to advance work. And we sort of thought it was over.
We head home. In-flight on the way home, although we didn’t realize this until we got back the following day, a Business Insider published another article and said, “Neri Oxman admits to plagiarism.” Plagiarism, of course, is academic fraud. And this thing goes crazy viral.
Oh, Bill Ackman the title is Bill Ackman’s Wife, Celebrity Academic, Mary Oxman. And they use the term celebrity because there are limits to what legitimate media can go after, but celebrities, there’s a lot more leeway in the media into what they can say. So that’s why they call her a celebrity. First time ever she’d been called a celebrity. And they basically, she’s admitting to academic fraud. And then they said … And then the next day at 5:19 PM, I remember the timeline pretty well, an email was sent to Fran McGill saying, “We’ve identified two dozen other instances of plagiarism in her work.” 15 of which are Wikipedia entries where she copied definitions, and the others were mostly software-hardware manuals for various devices or software she used in her work, most of which were in footnotes where she described a nozzle for a 3D printer or something like this.
And they said, “We’re publishing tonight.” The email they sent to us was 6,900 words. It was 12 pages. It was practically indecipherable. You couldn’t even read it in an hour. And we didn’t have some of the documents they were referring to.
And I’m like, “Neri, you know what I’m going to do? I think it’ll be useful to provide context here. I’m going to do a review of every MIT professor’s dissertations. Every published paper. AI has enabled this.”
And so that was, I put out a tweet basically saying that. And we’re doing a test run now, because we have to get it right, and I think it’ll be a useful exercise. Provide some context, if you will. And then this thing goes crazy viral. And Neri is a pretty sensitive person, pretty emotional person, and someone who’s a perfectionist. And having everyone in the world thinking you committed academic fraud is a pretty damning thing.
Now, they did say they did a thorough review of all of her work, and this is what they found. I’m like, sweetheart, that’s remarkable. I did 130 works, 73 of which were peer-reviewed, blah, blah, blah. And she’s published in Nature Science and all these different publications. That’s actually, it’s a pretty good batting average.
But this is wrong, this is not academic fraud. These are inadvertent mistakes. And the Wikipedia entries, Neri actually used Wikipedia as a dictionary. This is the early days of Wikipedia. And they also referred to the MIT handbook, which has a whole section on plagiarism, academic handbook.
And if you read it, which I ultimately did, they make clear a few things. Number one, there’s plagiarism, academic fraud. And there’s what they call inadvertent plagiarism, which is clerical errors where you make a mistake, and it depends on intent. And there’s a link that you can go to, which is a section on, if you get investigated at MIT, what happens? What’s the procedure, what’s the initial stage, what’s the investigative stage, what’s the procedure if they identify it? And they make very clear that academic fraud is, and they list plagiarism, research theft, a few other things, but it does not include honest errors. Honest errors are not plagiarism under MIT’s own policies.
And in the handbook, they also have a big section of what they call common knowledge. And common knowledge depends on who you’re writing your thesis for. And so if it’s a fact that is known by your audience, you’re not required to quote or cite.
And so all those Wikipedia entries were for things like sustainable design, computer-aided design. She just took a definition from Wikipedia, common knowledge to her readers, no obligation under the handbook, totally exempt.
On using the same words, she referred to whatever, some kind of 3D printer. She was, the Stratasys 3D Printer, and she quoted from the manual. Right away, Stratasys is a company you consulted for. That’s not something, you’re not stealing their ideas, you’re describing a nozzle for a device you use in your work in a footnote. That’s not a theft of idea.
And so I’m like, this is crazy. And so this has got to stop. And so I reach out to a guy I knew who was on the board of Business Insider, the chairman, and his name is going to come public shortly. I committed at that time to keep his name confidential, it’s now surfaced publicly in the press.
And there’s nothing about anything that Neri did, anything in her thesis or in her life. Everyone that knows her, she’s a rock star. I just want to make it clear, it really hurt me that the internet, whatever is happening, could go after a great scientist. Because I love science, and I love celebrating great scientists.
And it’s just really messed up that whatever the machine, we can talk about Business Insider or whatever, social media, mass hysteria, whatever is happening. We need the great scientists of the world, because the future depends on them. And so we need to celebrate them, and protect them, and let them flourish and do their thing.
And keep them out of this whatever shit-storm that we’re doing to get clicks, and advertisements, and drama and all this. We need to protect them. So I just want to say there’s nobody I know, and I have a million friends that are scientists, world-class scientists, Nobel Prize winners, they all love Neri, they all respect Neri, she did zero wrong.
And then the rest of the conversation we’re going to have about how broken journalism is, and so on. But I just want to say that there’s nothing that Neri did wrong. It’s not a gray area or so on.
I also personally don’t love that Claudine Gay is a discussion about plagiarism, because it distracts from the fundamentals that is broken, it becomes some weird technical discussion. But in case of Neri, did nothing wrong. Great scientist, great engineer at MIT and beyond. She’s doing the cool thing now.
It’s not just that she did nothing wrong, but they accused her of academic fraud. They did it knowing, they make reference to MIT’s own handbook so they had to read all the same stuff that I read in the handbook, they did that work. Then, after I escalated this thing to Henry Blodget, the chairman of Business Insider, to the CEO of Axel Springer, I even reached out to Henry Kravis at a certain point in time, one of the controlling shareholders of the company through KKR, laying out the factual errors in the article.
Business Insider went public after they said Neri committed academic fraud and plagiarism. And said, we didn’t challenge any, the facts remain undisputed in the article.
So it’s basically, Neri committed plagiarism. That’s story one. Neri admits to plagiarism. She admits to plagiarism. She admitted to making a few clerical errors, that’s the only thing she admitted to, and she graciously apologized.
So they said, “Neri admits to plagiarism, apologizes for plagiarism.” That’s incredibly damning. ” And by the way, we’re doing an investigation because we’re concerned that there might’ve been inappropriate process, but the facts of the story have not been disputed by Neri Oxman or Bill Ackman.”
And that was totally false. I had done it privately, I’d done it publicly on Twitter, on X. I laid out, I have a whole tech stream, a WhatsApp stream with the CEO of the company. And they doubled down, and they doubled down again.
And so, I don’t sue people lightly. And stay tuned.
And I’m just making sure that when we present the demand to Business Insider, and ultimately to Axel Springer, that it’s incredibly clear how they defamed her, the factual mistakes in our stories, and what they need to do to fix it. And if we can fix it there, we can move on from this episode and hopefully avoid litigation. So that’s where we are.
It was a political agenda. She doesn’t like me, and she was trying to hurt me, and they couldn’t find plagiarism in my thesis. And being a short seller, the Herbalife battle went on for years. They tried to do everything to destroy my reputation. So they’d already gone through my trash, they’d already done all that work. So anything they could possibly find, I’ve always lived a very clean life, thankfully. And if you’re going to be an activist short seller, you better. Because they’re going to find out dirt on you if it exists. And so they’re like, how can we really hurt Bill?
And by the way, Neri had left MIT years earlier. When the reporter found out she was no longer a member of the MIT faculty, they were enraged. They didn’t believe us. They made us prove to us she’s no longer on the MIT faculty, because they wanted to get her fired. And by the way, malice is one of the important factors in determining whether defamation is taking place. And this was a malice- driven, this was not about news.
And the unfortunate thing about journalism is Business Insider made a fortune from this. This story was published and republished by thousands of media organizations around the world. It was the number one trending thing on Twitter for two days. Every newspaper, it was on the front page of every Israeli newspaper, it was on the front page of the Financial Times.
And she’s building a business. And if you’re a CEO of a science company and you committed academic fraud, that’s incredibly damaging. But I ultimately convinced her that this was good.
I said, “Sweetheart, you’re amazing. You’re incredible. You’re incredibly talented, but you’re mostly known in the design world. Now everyone in the universe has heard of Neri Oxman. We’re going to get this thing cleared up. You’re going to be doing an event in six months where you’re going to tell the world, you’re going to go out of stealth mode, you’re going to tell the world about all the incredible things that you’re building, and you’re designing, and you’re creating. And it’s going to be like the iPhone launch, because everyone’s going to be paying attention and they’re going to want to see your work.”
And that’s how I try to cheer her up. But I think it’s true.
And so she’s going to do amazing things. But as I said, she’s an extremely sensitive person. She’s a perfectionist. Okay? Imagine thinking that the entire world thinks you committed academic fraud. And so that was very hard for her.
She’s a very positive person. But I saw her in, I would say, her darkest emotional period for sure. She’s doing much better now. But you can kill someone. You can kill someone by destroying their reputation. People commit suicide. People go into these deep, dark depression.
When you went from a paper version of journalism to digital, and you could track how many people click, and it’s a medium that advertising drives the economics. And if you can show an advertiser more clicks, you can make more money. So a journalist is incentivized to write a story that will generate more clicks. How do you write a story that generate more clicks? You get a billionaire guy, and then you go after his wife, and you make a sensationalist story. And you give them no time to respond, right?
Look at the timing here. On the first story, they gave us three hours. On the second one, the following day, 5:19 PM, the email comes in not to Neri, not to her firm, but to my communications person. Who tracks us down by 5:30, 10 minutes later. And they publish their story 92 minutes after.
And they sent us, “We’re going to surface all these documents in our demand.” Read the email they sent, whether you could even decipher it. There was no … And by the way, there’s a reason why academic institutions, when a professor’s accused…
And the media plays a very important role and they can destroy people. At least we now have some ability to fight back. We have a platform, we can surface our views. The typical old days, they write an incredibly damning article and you point out factual errors and then two months later they bury a little correction on page, whatever. By then the person was fired where their life was destroyed or the reputation’s damaged. It was with Warren Buffett talking about media, and it’s a business he really loves. He says, “You know what, Bill?” He said, “A thief with a dagger. The only person who cause you more harm than a thief with a dagger is a journalist with a pen.” And those were very powerful words.
And he did a lot of things perhaps deserving of being discredited. He is by a very imperfect and some cases harmful leader. But everything from pre-election, the Hunter Biden laptop story in the New York Post that then Twitter made difficult for people to share and to read. COVID, the Jay Bhattacharyas of the world, questioning the government’s response, questioning long-term lockdowns, questioning keeping kids out of school, questions about masks, about vaccines, which are still not definitively answered, no counterbalance to the power of the government when the government can shut down avenues for free speech and where the mainstream media has kind of towed the line in many stents to the government’s actions.
So having an independently owned powerful platform is very important for truth, for free speech, for hearing the other side of the story, for counterbalancing the power of the government. Elon is getting a lot of pushback. The SpaceXs and Teslas of the world are experiencing a lot of government questions and investigations. And even the President of the United States came out and said, “Look, he needs to be investigated.” I’m getting my own version of that in terms of some negative media articles. I don’t know what’s next. But yeah, if you stick your neck out in today’s world and you go against the establishment, or at least the existing administration, you can find yourself in a very challenged place. And that discourages people from sharing stuff. And that’s why anonymous speech is important, some of which you find on Twitter.
And those conditions were present in 2020 as well. They’re just, I would say worse now. And I said, “Look, it’s a great thing that we have a business man as president.” And in my lifetime was really the first businessman as opposed to, I mean, maybe Bush to some degree was a business person, but I thought, “Okay, I always wanted the CEO to be CEO of America.” And now we have Trump said, “Look, he’s got some personal qualities that seem less ideal, but he’s going to be President of the United States. He’s going to rise to the occasion. This is going to be his legacy, and he knows how to make deals and he’s going to recruit some great people into his administration.” I hoped. And growth can solve a lot of our problems. So if we can get rid of a bunch of regulations that are holding back the country, we can have a president.
Obama was a, I would say not a pro-business president. He did not love the business community. He did not love successful people. And having a president who just changed the tone on being a pro-business president, I thought it would be good for the country. And that’s basically what I said. And I would say Trump did a lot of good things and a lot of people, you can get criticized for acknowledging that, but I think the country’s economy accelerated dramatically. And that, by the way, the capitalist system helps the people at the bottom best when the system does well and when the economy does well.
The black unemployment rate was the lowest in history when Trump was president, and that’s true for other minority groups. So he was good for the economy, and he recognized some of the challenges and issues and threats of China early. He kind of woke up NATO. Now, again, the way he did all this stuff you can object to, but NATO actually started spending more money on defense in the early part of Trump’s presidency because of his threats, which turned out to be a good thing in light of ultimately the Russia-Ukraine war. And I think if you analyze Trump objectively based on policies, he did a lot of good for the country. I think what’s bad is he did some harm as well.
I do think civility disappeared in America with Trump as president. A lot of that’s his personal style. And how important is civility? I do think he was attacked very aggressively by the left, by the media that made him paranoid. It probably interfered with his ability to be successful. He had the Russian collusion investigation overhang, and when someone’s attacked, they’re not going to be at their best, particularly if they’re paranoid. I think there’s some degree of that, but I’m giving the best of defense of Trump. Just you look at how he managed his team, right? Very few people made it through the Trump administration without getting fired or quitting, and he would say they’re the greatest person in the world when he hired them, and they’re total disaster when he fired them. It’s not an inspiring way to be a leader and to attract really talented people.
I think the events surrounding the election, I think January 6th, he could have done a lot more to stop a riot. I don’t consider it an insurrection, but a riot that takes place in our capitol. And where police officers are killed or die, commit suicide for failure as they sought it to do their job. He stepped in way too late to stop that. He could have stopped it early. Many of his words, I think, inspired people, some of whom with malintent to go in there and cause harm, and literally to shut down the government. There were some evil people unfortunately there. So he’s been a very imperfect president and also I think contributed to the extreme amount of divisiveness in our country. So I was ultimately disappointed by the note of optimism. And again, I always support the president. I trust the people ultimately to select our next leader.
It’s a bit like who wants to be a millionaire? When you go to the crowd and the crowd says a certain thing, you got to trust the crowd. But usually in who wants to be a millionaire, it’s a landslide in one direction. So you know which letter to pick. Here, we had an incredibly close election, which itself is a problem. So my dream and what I’ve tried a little bit, played politics in the last little period to support some alternatives to Trump so that we have a president. I use the example, imagine you woke up in the morning, it’s election day, whatever it is, this November 4th, whatever, 2024, and you still haven’t figured out who to vote for because the candidates are so appealing that you don’t know which lever to pull because it’s a tough call. That’s the choice we should be making as Americans. It shouldn’t be, I’m a member of this party and I’m only going to vote this way. I’m a member of that party going to vote the other way and I hate the other side. And that’s where we’ve been, unfortunately for too long.
He’s not a billionaire, but he doesn’t need the job. The party hates him now because he challenged the king, but he was willing to give up his political career because what he thought was best for the country, he tried to get other people to run who were higher profile, had more name recognition. None would, no one wants to challenge Biden if they want to have a chance to stay in office or run in the future. But he’s very principled. I think he would be a great president, but his shot is Michigan, but he needs to raise money in order to… He’s only got a couple weeks and he’s got to be on TV there. That’s expensive. So we’ll see.
I mean, you got to be at the serious physical shape and at the top of your game to represent this country. And he is a far cry from that. And it’s just getting worse, and it’s embarrassing. And he cannot be. And by the way, every day he waits, he’s handing the election to Trump because it’s harder and harder for an alternative candidate to surface. Now, Dean is the only candidate left on the Democratic side. They can still win delegates. He’s on the ballot in 42 states. And the best way for Biden to step aside is for Dean to show well in Michigan.
Haley, who I like and who I’ve supported, does not look like she’s going to make it. Trump is really kind of running the table. And so vote for Haley as an independent Michigan, maybe throw away your vote. I think it increases the likelihood that Dean can get those independent votes if he could theoretically, again, he needs money, he could beat Biden in Michigan. Biden’s doing very poorly in Michigan. His polls are terrible. The Muslim community is not happy with him, and he really has spent no time there. And so if he’s embarrassed in Michigan, it could be a catalyst for him withdrawing.
Then Dean will get funding if he wins Michigan or shows well in Michigan, and people say he’s viable. He’s the only choice we have. He’ll attract from the center, he’ll attract from people, Republicans who won’t vote for Trump, of which there are a big percentage, could be 60% or more. It could be 70% won’t vote for Trump and also from the Democrats. So I think he’s a really interesting candidate, but we’ve got to get the word out.
We have some incredible moats among them. We have the Atlantic and the Pacific, and we have peaceful neighbors to the north and the South. We’re an enormously rich country. Capitalism still works effectively here. I get optimistic about the world when I talk to my friends who are either venture capitalists or my hobby of backing these young entrepreneurs. I talked to a founder of a startup, if you want to get optimistic about the world. So I think technology is going to save us. I think AI, of course, has its frightening, Terminator-like scenarios. But I’m going to take the opposite view that this is going to be a huge enabler of productivity, scientific discovery, drug discovery, and it’s going to make us healthier, happier, and better. So I do think the internet revolution had a lot of good, obviously some bad. I think the AI revolution’s going to be similar, but we’re at this other really interesting juncture in the world with technology, and we’re going to have to use it for our good.
On the media front, I’m happy about X, and I think Elon’s going to be successful here. I think advertisers will realize it’s a really good platform. The best way to reach me, if you want to sell something to me, I’ve actually bought stuff on some ads in X. I don’t remember the last time I responded to a direct response advertising. In terms of my business, I have an incredible team. It’s tiny. We’re one of the smallest firms relative to the assets we manage. It’s a bit like the Navy SEALs, not the US Army. We have only 40 people at Pershing Square. So it’s a tight team. I think we’ll do great things. I think we’re early on my ambitions investment-wise, I’ve always said I’d like to have a record as good as Warren Buffett’s. The problem is, each year he adds on another year.
He’s now in his 93rd year. So I’ve got 36 more years to just get where he is, and I think he’s going to add a lot more years. I’m excited about seeing what Neri is going to produce. She’s building an incredible company. They’re trying to solve a lot of problems with respect to products and buildings and their impact on the environment. Her vision is how do we design products that by virtue of the product’s existence, the world is a better place. Today, her world is a world where the existence of the new car actually is better for the environment than if the new car hadn’t existed. And think about that in every product scale, that’s what she’s working on. I don’t want to give away too much, but you’re going to see some early examples of what she’s working on. So again, I get excited about the future and crises are sort of a terrible thing to waste.
And we’ve had a number of these here. I think this disaster in the Middle East, my prediction is the next few months, this war will largely be over in terms of getting rid of Hamas. I think I can envision a world in which Saudi Arabia, some of the other Gulf states come together, take over the governance and reconstruction of Gaza. Security guarantees are put in place. The Abraham Accords continue to grow. A deal is made. Terrorists are ostracized that this October 7th experience on the Harvard, Penn, MIT, Columbia, unfortunately, other campuses is a wake-up call for universities. Generally, people see the problems with DEI, but understand the importance of diversity and inclusion, but not as a political movement, but as a way that we return to a meritocratic world where someone’s background is relevant in understanding their contribution, but we don’t have race quotas and things that were made illegal years ago actually being implemented in organizations on campus. So I think there’s, if we can go through a corrective phase, and I’m an optimist and I hope we get there.
Click link to jump approximately to that part in the transcript:
- 0:00 – Introduction
- 0:47 – Investing basics
- 5:39 – Investing in music
- 14:00 – Process of researching companies
- 18:39 – Investing in restaurants
- 24:08 – Investing in Google
- 29:50 – AI
- 35:05 – Warren Buffet
- 37:14 – Psychology of investing
- 46:45 – Activist investing
- 56:33 – General Growth Properties
- 1:12:49 – Canadian Pacific Railway
- 1:20:13 – OpenAI
- 1:24:24 – Biggest loss and lowest point
- 1:39:13 – Herbalife and Carl Icahn
- 1:56:03 – Oct 7
- 2:02:34 – College campus protests
- 2:21:01 – DEI in universities
- 2:41:52 – Neri Oxman
- 3:07:22 – X and free speech
- 3:11:46 – Trump
- 3:19:22 – Dean Phillips
- 3:26:28 – Future
Introduction
Bill Ackman
The only person who’ll cause you more harm than a thief with a dagger is a journalist with a pen.
The only person who’ll cause you more harm than a thief with a dagger is a journalist with a pen.
Lex Fridman
The following is a conversation with Bill Ackman, a legendary activist investor who has been part of some of the biggest and at times, controversial trades in history. Also, he is fearlessly vocal on X, FKA Twitter, and uses the platform to fight for ideas he believes in. For example, he was a central figure in the resignation of the President of Harvard University, Claudine Gay, the saga of which we discuss in this episode. This is the Lex Fridman podcast to support it. Please check out our sponsors in the description. And now to you, friends, here’s Bill Ackman.
The following is a conversation with Bill Ackman, a legendary activist investor who has been part of some of the biggest and at times, controversial trades in history. Also, he is fearlessly vocal on X, FKA Twitter, and uses the platform to fight for ideas he believes in. For example, he was a central figure in the resignation of the President of Harvard University, Claudine Gay, the saga of which we discuss in this episode. This is the Lex Fridman podcast to support it. Please check out our sponsors in the description. And now to you, friends, here’s Bill Ackman.
Investing basics
In your lecture on the basics of finance and investing, you mentioned a book, Intelligent Investor by Benjamin Graham, as being formative in your life. What key lesson do you take away from that book that informs your own investing?
Bill Ackman
Sure. Actually, it was the first investment book I read, and as such, it was kind of the inspiration for my career and a lot of my life. So important book. Bear in mind, this is sort of after the Great Depression, people lost confidence investing in markets, World War II, and then he writes this book. It’s for the average man, and basically he says that you have to understand the difference between price and value. Price is what you pay, value is what you get. And he said the stock market is here to serve you, and it’s a bit like the neighbor that comes by every day and makes you an offer for your house. It makes you a stupid offer, you ignore. It makes you a great offer, you can take it. And that’s the stock market.
Sure. Actually, it was the first investment book I read, and as such, it was kind of the inspiration for my career and a lot of my life. So important book. Bear in mind, this is sort of after the Great Depression, people lost confidence investing in markets, World War II, and then he writes this book. It’s for the average man, and basically he says that you have to understand the difference between price and value. Price is what you pay, value is what you get. And he said the stock market is here to serve you, and it’s a bit like the neighbor that comes by every day and makes you an offer for your house. It makes you a stupid offer, you ignore. It makes you a great offer, you can take it. And that’s the stock market.
And the key is to figure out what something’s worth and you have to kind of weigh it. He talked about the difference between… He said the stock market in the short term is a voting machine. It represents speculative interests, supply and demand of people in the short term. But in the long term, the stock market’s a weighing machine, much more accurate. It’s going to tell you what something’s worth. And so if you can define what something’s worth, then you can really take advantage of the market because it’s really here to help you. And that’s kind of the message of the book.
Lex Fridman
In that same way, there’s a kind of difference between speculation and investing.
In that same way, there’s a kind of difference between speculation and investing.
Bill Ackman
Yeah, speculation is just a bit like trading crypto, right? You’re-
Yeah, speculation is just a bit like trading crypto, right? You’re-
Lex Fridman
Strong words.
Strong words.
Bill Ackman
Well, short-term trading crypto. Maybe in the long run there’s intrinsic value, but many investors in a bubble going into the crash were really just pure speculators. They didn’t know what things were worth, they just knew they were going up. That’s speculation. And investing is doing your homework, digging down, understanding a business, understanding the competitive dynamics of an industry, understanding what management’s going to do, understanding what price you’re going to pay. The value of anything, I would say, other than love, let’s say, is the present value of the cash you can take out of it over its life. Now, some people think about love that way, but it’s not the right way to think about love. So investing is about basically building a model of what this business is going to produce over its lifetime.
Well, short-term trading crypto. Maybe in the long run there’s intrinsic value, but many investors in a bubble going into the crash were really just pure speculators. They didn’t know what things were worth, they just knew they were going up. That’s speculation. And investing is doing your homework, digging down, understanding a business, understanding the competitive dynamics of an industry, understanding what management’s going to do, understanding what price you’re going to pay. The value of anything, I would say, other than love, let’s say, is the present value of the cash you can take out of it over its life. Now, some people think about love that way, but it’s not the right way to think about love. So investing is about basically building a model of what this business is going to produce over its lifetime.
Lex Fridman
So how do you get to that, this idea called value investing? How do you get to the value of a thing? Even philosophically, value of anything really but we can just talk about the things that are on the stock market, companies.
So how do you get to that, this idea called value investing? How do you get to the value of a thing? Even philosophically, value of anything really but we can just talk about the things that are on the stock market, companies.
Bill Ackman
The value of a security is the present value of the cash you can take out of it over its life. So if you think about a bond, a bond pays a 5% coupon, interest rate. You get that, let’s say, every year or twice a year, split in half, and it’s very predictable. And if it’s a US government bond, you know you’re going to get it. So that’s a pretty easy thing to value. A stock is an interest in a business. It’s like owning a piece of a company and a business, a profitable one, is like a bond in that it generates these coupons or these earnings or cashflow every year. The difference with a stock and a bond is that the bond, it’s a contract. You know what you’re going to get as long as they don’t go bankrupt and default. With the stock, you have to make predictions about the business.
The value of a security is the present value of the cash you can take out of it over its life. So if you think about a bond, a bond pays a 5% coupon, interest rate. You get that, let’s say, every year or twice a year, split in half, and it’s very predictable. And if it’s a US government bond, you know you’re going to get it. So that’s a pretty easy thing to value. A stock is an interest in a business. It’s like owning a piece of a company and a business, a profitable one, is like a bond in that it generates these coupons or these earnings or cashflow every year. The difference with a stock and a bond is that the bond, it’s a contract. You know what you’re going to get as long as they don’t go bankrupt and default. With the stock, you have to make predictions about the business.
How many widgets are going to sell this year, how many are going to sell next year, what are the costs going to be? How much of the money that they generate? Do they need to reinvest in the business to keep the business going? And that’s more complicated. But what we do is we try to find businesses where, with a very high degree of confidence, we know what those cash flows are going to be for a very long time. And very few businesses that you can have a really high degree of certainty about. And as a result, many investments are speculations because it’s really very difficult to predict the future. So what we do for a living, what I do for a living is find those rare companies that you can kind of predict what they’re going to look like over a very long period of time.
Lex Fridman
So what are the factors that indicate that a company is going to be something that’s going to make a lot of money, it’s going to have a lot of value, and it’s going to be reliable over a long period of time? And what is your process of figuring out whether a company is or isn’t that?
So what are the factors that indicate that a company is going to be something that’s going to make a lot of money, it’s going to have a lot of value, and it’s going to be reliable over a long period of time? And what is your process of figuring out whether a company is or isn’t that?
Investing in music
Bill Ackman
So every consumer has a view on different brands and different companies. And what we look for are these non-disruptively businesses, a business where you can close your eyes, stock market shuts for a decade, and you know that 10 years from now it’s going to be a more valuable, more profitable company. So we own a business called Universal Music Group. It’s in the business of helping artists become global artists, recorded music business, and it’s in the business of owning the music publishing rights of songwriters. And I think music is forever, right? Music is a many thousand year old part of the human experience, and I think it will be thousands of years from now. And so that’s a pretty good backdrop to invest in a company. And the company basically owns a third of the global recorded music, the most dominant market share in the business.
So every consumer has a view on different brands and different companies. And what we look for are these non-disruptively businesses, a business where you can close your eyes, stock market shuts for a decade, and you know that 10 years from now it’s going to be a more valuable, more profitable company. So we own a business called Universal Music Group. It’s in the business of helping artists become global artists, recorded music business, and it’s in the business of owning the music publishing rights of songwriters. And I think music is forever, right? Music is a many thousand year old part of the human experience, and I think it will be thousands of years from now. And so that’s a pretty good backdrop to invest in a company. And the company basically owns a third of the global recorded music, the most dominant market share in the business.
They’re the best at taking an artist who’s 18 years old, who’s got a great voice, and has started to get a presence on YouTube and Instagram and helping that artist become a superstar. And that’s a unique talent. And the end result is the best artists in the world want to come work for them, but they also have this incredible library of the Beatles, the Rolling Stone, U2, et cetera. And then if you think about what music has become… It used to be about what records and CDs and eight track tapes for those of whom… And it was about a new format and that’s how they drive sales. And it’s become a business which is like the podcast business, streaming. And streaming is a lot more predictable than selling records. You can sort of say, “Okay, how many people have smartphones? How many people are going to have smartphones next year?”
There’s a kind of global penetration over time of smartphones. You pay, call it, 10, 11 bucks a month for a subscription or less for a family plan and you can kind of build a model of what the world looks like and predict the growth of the streaming business, predict what kind of market share Universal is going to have over time. You can’t get to a precise view of value. You can get to an approximation. And the key is to buy at a price that represents a big discount to that approximation. And that gets back to Ben Graham. Ben Graham invented this concept of margin of safety. You want to buy a company at a price that if you’re wrong about what you think it’s worth and it turns out to be worth 30% less, you paid a deep enough discount to your estimate that you’re still okay. A big part of investing is not losing money. If you can avoid losing money and then have a few great hits, you can do very, very well over time.
Lex Fridman
Well, music is interesting because yes, music’s been around for a very long time, but the way to make money from music has been evolving. Like you mentioned streaming, there’s a big transition initiated by, I guess, Napster, then created Spotify of how you make money on music with Apple and with all of this. And the question is, how well are companies like UMG able to adjust to such transformations? One, I could ask you about the future, which is artificial intelligence being able to generate music, for example.
Well, music is interesting because yes, music’s been around for a very long time, but the way to make money from music has been evolving. Like you mentioned streaming, there’s a big transition initiated by, I guess, Napster, then created Spotify of how you make money on music with Apple and with all of this. And the question is, how well are companies like UMG able to adjust to such transformations? One, I could ask you about the future, which is artificial intelligence being able to generate music, for example.
Bill Ackman
Sure.
Sure.
Lex Fridman
There have been a lot of amazing advancements with… So do you have to also think about that. When you close your eyes, all the things you think about, are you imagining the possible ways that the future is completely different from the present and how well this company will be able to surf the wave of that?
There have been a lot of amazing advancements with… So do you have to also think about that. When you close your eyes, all the things you think about, are you imagining the possible ways that the future is completely different from the present and how well this company will be able to surf the wave of that?
Bill Ackman
Sure. And they’ve had to surf a lot of waves. And actually the music business peaked the last time in the late ’90s or 2000 timeframe. And that really innovation, Napster, digitization of music, almost killed the industry. And Universal really led an effort to save the industry and actually made an early deal with Spotify that enabled the industry to really recover. And so by virtue of their market position and their credibility and their willingness to kind of adopt new technologies, they’ve kept their position. Now, they of course had this huge advantage because I think the Beatles are forever, I think U2 is forever, I think Rolling Stones are forever. So they had a nice base of assets that were important and I think will forever be, and forever is a long time. Again, enormous… There are all kinds of risks in every business. This is one that I think has a very high degree of persistence.
Sure. And they’ve had to surf a lot of waves. And actually the music business peaked the last time in the late ’90s or 2000 timeframe. And that really innovation, Napster, digitization of music, almost killed the industry. And Universal really led an effort to save the industry and actually made an early deal with Spotify that enabled the industry to really recover. And so by virtue of their market position and their credibility and their willingness to kind of adopt new technologies, they’ve kept their position. Now, they of course had this huge advantage because I think the Beatles are forever, I think U2 is forever, I think Rolling Stones are forever. So they had a nice base of assets that were important and I think will forever be, and forever is a long time. Again, enormous… There are all kinds of risks in every business. This is one that I think has a very high degree of persistence.
And I can’t envision a world beyond streaming in a sense… Now you may have a Neuralink chip in your head instead of a phone, but the music can come in a digitized kind of format, you’re going to want to have an infinite library that you can walk around in your pocket or in your brain. It’s not going to matter that much of the form factor. The device changes. It’s not really that important whether it’s Spotify or Apple or Amazon that are the so-called DSPs or the providers. I think the value is really going to reside in the content owners. And that’s really the artists and the label.
Lex Fridman
And I actually think AI is not going to be the primary creator of music. I think we’re going to actually face the reality that it’s not that music has been around for thousands of years, but musicians and music has been around. We actually care to know who’s the musician that created it, just like we want to know who’s the artist, human artist that created a piece of art.
And I actually think AI is not going to be the primary creator of music. I think we’re going to actually face the reality that it’s not that music has been around for thousands of years, but musicians and music has been around. We actually care to know who’s the musician that created it, just like we want to know who’s the artist, human artist that created a piece of art.
Bill Ackman
I totally agree. If you think about it, there’s lots of other technologies and computers that have been used to generate music over time but no one falls in love with a computer generated track. And Taylor Swift, incredible music, but it’s also about the artist and her story and her physical presence and the live experience. I don’t think you’re going to sit there and someone’s going to put a computer up on stage and it’s going to play and people are going to get excited around it. So I think AI is really going to be a tool to make artists better artists. A synthesizer really created the opportunity for one man to have an orchestra. Maybe a bit of a threat to a percussionist, but not maybe. Maybe it drove even more demand for the live experience.
I totally agree. If you think about it, there’s lots of other technologies and computers that have been used to generate music over time but no one falls in love with a computer generated track. And Taylor Swift, incredible music, but it’s also about the artist and her story and her physical presence and the live experience. I don’t think you’re going to sit there and someone’s going to put a computer up on stage and it’s going to play and people are going to get excited around it. So I think AI is really going to be a tool to make artists better artists. A synthesizer really created the opportunity for one man to have an orchestra. Maybe a bit of a threat to a percussionist, but not maybe. Maybe it drove even more demand for the live experience.
Lex Fridman
Unless that computer has human- like sentience, which I believe is a real possibility. But then it’s really, from a business perspective, no different than a human. If it has an identity, that’s basically fame and an influence, and there’ll be a robot Taylor Swift and it doesn’t really matter-
Unless that computer has human- like sentience, which I believe is a real possibility. But then it’s really, from a business perspective, no different than a human. If it has an identity, that’s basically fame and an influence, and there’ll be a robot Taylor Swift and it doesn’t really matter-
Bill Ackman
That’s a copyrightable asset I would think, right? Yeah.
That’s a copyrightable asset I would think, right? Yeah.
Lex Fridman
And then there’ll-
And then there’ll-
Bill Ackman
I’m not sure that’s the world I’m excited about that.
I’m not sure that’s the world I’m excited about that.
Lex Fridman
That’s a different discussion. The world is not going to ask your permission to become what it’s becoming, but you could still make money on it. Presumably there’d be a capital system and there’d be some laws under which I believe AI systems will have rights that are akin to human rights and we’re going to have to contend with what that means.
That’s a different discussion. The world is not going to ask your permission to become what it’s becoming, but you could still make money on it. Presumably there’d be a capital system and there’d be some laws under which I believe AI systems will have rights that are akin to human rights and we’re going to have to contend with what that means.
Bill Ackman
Well, there’s sort of name and likeness rights that have to be protected. Now, can a name be attributed to a Tesla robot? I don’t know.
Well, there’s sort of name and likeness rights that have to be protected. Now, can a name be attributed to a Tesla robot? I don’t know.
Lex Fridman
I think so. I think it’s quite obvious to me.
I think so. I think it’s quite obvious to me.
Bill Ackman
Okay, so those are more potential artists for us to represent at Universal.
Okay, so those are more potential artists for us to represent at Universal.
Lex Fridman
Exactly, exactly. All right.
Exactly, exactly. All right.
Bill Ackman
That’s sort of one example. Another example could be just the restaurant industry. If you look at businesses like a McDonald’s, it’s… Whatever, the company’s like an 1950 vintage business and here we are, 75 years later, and you can kind of predict what it’s going to look like over time. And the menu’s going to adjust over time to consumer tastes but I think the hamburger and fries is probably forever.
That’s sort of one example. Another example could be just the restaurant industry. If you look at businesses like a McDonald’s, it’s… Whatever, the company’s like an 1950 vintage business and here we are, 75 years later, and you can kind of predict what it’s going to look like over time. And the menu’s going to adjust over time to consumer tastes but I think the hamburger and fries is probably forever.
Lex Fridman
The Beatles, the Rolling Stones, the hamburger and fries are forever. I was eating at Chipotle last night as I was preparing these notes-
The Beatles, the Rolling Stones, the hamburger and fries are forever. I was eating at Chipotle last night as I was preparing these notes-
Bill Ackman
Thank you. Thank you.
Thank you. Thank you.
Lex Fridman
And yeah, it is one of my favorite places to eat. You said it is a place that you eat. You obviously also invest in it. What do you get at Chipotle?
And yeah, it is one of my favorite places to eat. You said it is a place that you eat. You obviously also invest in it. What do you get at Chipotle?
Bill Ackman
I tend to get a double chicken.
I tend to get a double chicken.
Lex Fridman
Bowl or burrito?
Bowl or burrito?
Bill Ackman
I like the burrito, but I generally try to order the bowl. Cut the carb part.
I like the burrito, but I generally try to order the bowl. Cut the carb part.
Lex Fridman
For health reasons. All right.
For health reasons. All right.
Bill Ackman
And double chicken, guac, lettuce, black beans.
And double chicken, guac, lettuce, black beans.
Process of researching companies
Lex Fridman
And I’m more of a steak guy, just putting that on the record. What’s the actual process you go through, literally the process of figuring out what the value of a company is? How do you do the research? Is it reading documents? Is it talking to people? How do you do it?
And I’m more of a steak guy, just putting that on the record. What’s the actual process you go through, literally the process of figuring out what the value of a company is? How do you do the research? Is it reading documents? Is it talking to people? How do you do it?
Bill Ackman
All of the above. So Chipotle, what attracted us initially is the stock price dropped by about 50%. Great company, great concept. Athletes love it, consumers love it. Healthy, sustainable, fresh food made in front of your eyes and great… Steve Ells is the founder, did an amazing job, but ultimately the company’s lacking some of the systems and had a food safety issue. Consumers got sick, almost killed the rent. But the reality of the fast food, quick service industry is almost every fast food company has had a food safety issue over time. And the vast majority have survived. And we said, “Look, it’s such a great concept,” but their approach was not… It was far from my deal, but we start with usually reading the SEC filing. So companies file a 10-K or an annual report and they file these quarterly reports called 10-Qs. They have a proxy statement which describes the governance, the board structure.
All of the above. So Chipotle, what attracted us initially is the stock price dropped by about 50%. Great company, great concept. Athletes love it, consumers love it. Healthy, sustainable, fresh food made in front of your eyes and great… Steve Ells is the founder, did an amazing job, but ultimately the company’s lacking some of the systems and had a food safety issue. Consumers got sick, almost killed the rent. But the reality of the fast food, quick service industry is almost every fast food company has had a food safety issue over time. And the vast majority have survived. And we said, “Look, it’s such a great concept,” but their approach was not… It was far from my deal, but we start with usually reading the SEC filing. So companies file a 10-K or an annual report and they file these quarterly reports called 10-Qs. They have a proxy statement which describes the governance, the board structure.
Conference call transcripts are publicly available. It’s very helpful to go back five years and learn the story. “Here’s how management describes their business, here’s what they say they’re going to do,” and you can follow along to see what they do. It’s like a historical record of how competent and truthful they are. It’s a very useful device. And then, of course, looking at competitors and thinking about what could dislodge this company. And then we’ll talk to… If it’s an industry we don’t know well… We know the restaurant industry really well. Music industry, we will talk to people in the industry. We’ll try to understand the difference between publishing and recorded music. We’ll look at the competitors, we’ll read books. I read a book about the music industry or a couple books about the industry.
So it’s a bit like a big research project. And these, so-called expert networks now, and you can get pretty much anyone on the phone and they’ll talk to you about an aspect of the industry that you don’t understand, want to learn more about. Try to get a sense… Public filings of companies generally give you a lot of information, but not everything you want to know. And you can learn more by talking to experts about some of the industry dynamics, the personalities. You want to get a sense of management. I like watching podcasts. If a CEO were to do a podcast or a YouTube interview, you get a sense of the people.
Lex Fridman
So in the case of Chipotle, for example… By the way, I could talk about Chipotle all day. I just love it. I love it. I wish there was a sponsor.
So in the case of Chipotle, for example… By the way, I could talk about Chipotle all day. I just love it. I love it. I wish there was a sponsor.
Bill Ackman
I’ll mention it to the CEO.
I’ll mention it to the CEO.
Lex Fridman
Don’t make promises you can’t keep, Bill.
Don’t make promises you can’t keep, Bill.
Bill Ackman
I’m not making… Brian Nichols a fantastic CEO. He’s not going to spend $1 that he doesn’t think is in the company’s best interest.
I’m not making… Brian Nichols a fantastic CEO. He’s not going to spend $1 that he doesn’t think is in the company’s best interest.
Lex Fridman
All right. All I want is free Chipotle, come on now. What was I saying? Oh, and so you look at a company like Chipotle and then you see there’s a difficult moment in its history, like you said that there was a food safety issue and then you say, “Okay, well I see a path where we can fix this and therefore even though the price is low, we can get it to where the price goes up to its value.”
All right. All I want is free Chipotle, come on now. What was I saying? Oh, and so you look at a company like Chipotle and then you see there’s a difficult moment in its history, like you said that there was a food safety issue and then you say, “Okay, well I see a path where we can fix this and therefore even though the price is low, we can get it to where the price goes up to its value.”
Bill Ackman
So the kind of business we’re looking for is sort of the kind of business everyone should be looking for, right? A great business, it’s got a long-term trajectory of growth even beyond the foreseeable distance. Those are the kind of businesses you want to own, you want businesses that generate a lot of cash, you want businesses you can easily understand, you want businesses with these sort of huge barriers to entry where it’s difficult for others to compete. You want companies that don’t have to constantly raise capital. And these are some of the great business of the world, but people have figured out that those are the great businesses. So the problem is those companies tend to have very high stock prices and the value is generally built into the price you have to pay for the business.
So the kind of business we’re looking for is sort of the kind of business everyone should be looking for, right? A great business, it’s got a long-term trajectory of growth even beyond the foreseeable distance. Those are the kind of businesses you want to own, you want businesses that generate a lot of cash, you want businesses you can easily understand, you want businesses with these sort of huge barriers to entry where it’s difficult for others to compete. You want companies that don’t have to constantly raise capital. And these are some of the great business of the world, but people have figured out that those are the great businesses. So the problem is those companies tend to have very high stock prices and the value is generally built into the price you have to pay for the business.
So we can’t earn the kind of returns we want to earn for investors by paying a really high price. Price matters a lot. You can buy the best business in the world and if you overpay, you’re not going to earn particularly attractive returns. So we get involved in cases where a great business has kind of made a big mistake or you’ve a company that’s kind of lost its way, but it’s recoverable. And we buy from shareholders who are disappointed, who’ve lost confidence, selling at a low price relative to what it’s worth if fixed. And then we try to be helpful in fixing the company.
Investing in restaurants
Lex Fridman
You said that barriers to entry… You said a lot of really interesting qualities of companies very quickly in a sequence of statements that took less than 10 seconds to say, but some of them were… All of them were fascinating. So you said barriers to entry. How do you know if there’s a type of moat protecting the competitors from stepping up to the plate?
You said that barriers to entry… You said a lot of really interesting qualities of companies very quickly in a sequence of statements that took less than 10 seconds to say, but some of them were… All of them were fascinating. So you said barriers to entry. How do you know if there’s a type of moat protecting the competitors from stepping up to the plate?
Bill Ackman
The most difficult analysis to do as an investor is that, is kind of figuring out how wide is the moat, how much at risk is the business to disruption? And we’re in, I would say, the greatest period of disruptability in history. Technology… A couple of 19 year olds can leave whatever university or maybe they didn’t even go in the first place, they can raise millions of dollars, they can get access to infinite bandwidth storage. They can contract with engineers in low cost markets around the world. They could build a virtual company and they can disrupt businesses that seem super established over time. And then on top of that, you have major companies with multi-trillion dollar market caps working to find profits wherever they can. And so that’s a dangerous world in a way to be an investor. And so you have to find businesses that it’s hard to foresee a world in which they get disrupted.
The most difficult analysis to do as an investor is that, is kind of figuring out how wide is the moat, how much at risk is the business to disruption? And we’re in, I would say, the greatest period of disruptability in history. Technology… A couple of 19 year olds can leave whatever university or maybe they didn’t even go in the first place, they can raise millions of dollars, they can get access to infinite bandwidth storage. They can contract with engineers in low cost markets around the world. They could build a virtual company and they can disrupt businesses that seem super established over time. And then on top of that, you have major companies with multi-trillion dollar market caps working to find profits wherever they can. And so that’s a dangerous world in a way to be an investor. And so you have to find businesses that it’s hard to foresee a world in which they get disrupted.
The beauty of the restaurant business… Our best track record is in restaurants. We’ve never lost money. We’ve only made a fortune, interestingly, investing restaurants. A big part of it, it’s a really simple business. If you get Chipotle right and you’re at a hundred stores, it’s not so hard to envision getting to 200 stores and then getting to 500 stores, right? And the key is maintaining the brand image, growing intelligently, having the right systems. Now when you go from a hundred stores to 3,500 stores, you have to know what you’re doing and there’s a lot of complexity. If you think about your local restaurant, the family’s working in the business, they’re watching the cash register, and you can probably open another restaurant across town, but there are very few restaurant operators that own more than a few restaurants and operate them successfully.
And the quick service business is about systems and building a model that a stranger who doesn’t know the restaurant industry can come in and enter the business and build a successful franchise. Now, Chipotle is not a franchise company. They actually own all their own stores, but many of the most successful restaurant companies are franchise models like a Burger King, a McDonald’s, Tim Horton’s, all these various brands, Popeyes. And there it’s about systems, but the same systems apply whether you own all the stores and it’s run by a big corporation or whether the owners of the restaurants are sort of franchisees, local entrepreneurs.
Lex Fridman
So if the restaurant has scaled to a certain number, that means they’ve figured out some kind of system that works. And it’s very difficult to develop that kind of system. So that’s a moat?
So if the restaurant has scaled to a certain number, that means they’ve figured out some kind of system that works. And it’s very difficult to develop that kind of system. So that’s a moat?
Bill Ackman
A moat is you get to a certain scale and you do it successfully and the brand is now the understood by the consumer. And what’s interesting about Chipotle is what they’ve achieved is difficult. They’re not buying frozen hamburgers, getting shipped in. They’re buying fresh, sustainably sourced ingredients. They’re preparing food in the store. That was a first. The quality of the product at Chipotle is incredible. It’s the highest quality food. You can get a serious dinner for under 20 bucks and eat really healthfully and very high quality ingredients. And that’s just not available anywhere else. And it’s very hard to replicate and to build those relationships with farmers around the country. It’s a lot easier to make a deal with one of the big massive food producers and buy your pork from them than to buy from a whole bunch of farmers around the country. And so that is a big moat for Chipotle, very difficult to replicate.
A moat is you get to a certain scale and you do it successfully and the brand is now the understood by the consumer. And what’s interesting about Chipotle is what they’ve achieved is difficult. They’re not buying frozen hamburgers, getting shipped in. They’re buying fresh, sustainably sourced ingredients. They’re preparing food in the store. That was a first. The quality of the product at Chipotle is incredible. It’s the highest quality food. You can get a serious dinner for under 20 bucks and eat really healthfully and very high quality ingredients. And that’s just not available anywhere else. And it’s very hard to replicate and to build those relationships with farmers around the country. It’s a lot easier to make a deal with one of the big massive food producers and buy your pork from them than to buy from a whole bunch of farmers around the country. And so that is a big moat for Chipotle, very difficult to replicate.
Lex Fridman
And by the way, another company, I think, you have a stake in is McDonald’s?
And by the way, another company, I think, you have a stake in is McDonald’s?
Bill Ackman
No. We own a company called Restaurant Brands. Restaurant Brands owns a number of quick service companies, one of which is Burger King.
No. We own a company called Restaurant Brands. Restaurant Brands owns a number of quick service companies, one of which is Burger King.
Lex Fridman
Burger King, okay. Well, it’s been a meme for a while, but… Burger King is great too. Wendy’s, whatever. But usually I go McDonald’s, I’ll just eat burger patties. I don’t know if you knew you could do this, but a burger patty… Burger King can do this, McDonald’s. It’s actually way cheaper.
Burger King, okay. Well, it’s been a meme for a while, but… Burger King is great too. Wendy’s, whatever. But usually I go McDonald’s, I’ll just eat burger patties. I don’t know if you knew you could do this, but a burger patty… Burger King can do this, McDonald’s. It’s actually way cheaper.
Bill Ackman
They’ll just sell you the patty.
They’ll just sell you the patty.
Lex Fridman
The patty and it’s cheap. It’s like $1.50 or $2 per patty and it’s about 250 calories and it’s just meat. And despite the criticism or memes out there, that’s-
The patty and it’s cheap. It’s like $1.50 or $2 per patty and it’s about 250 calories and it’s just meat. And despite the criticism or memes out there, that’s-
Bill Ackman
Pretty healthy stuff.
Pretty healthy stuff.
Lex Fridman
It’s healthy stuff. And so the healthiest I feel is when I do carnivore. It doesn’t sound healthy, but if I eat only meat, I feel really good, I lose weight. I have all this energy, it’s crazy. And when I’m traveling, the easiest way to get meat is that.
It’s healthy stuff. And so the healthiest I feel is when I do carnivore. It doesn’t sound healthy, but if I eat only meat, I feel really good, I lose weight. I have all this energy, it’s crazy. And when I’m traveling, the easiest way to get meat is that.
Bill Ackman
So you go to McDonald’s, you order six patties.
So you go to McDonald’s, you order six patties.
Lex Fridman
Exactly. So there’s this sad meme of me just sitting alone in a car when I’m traveling, just eating beef patties at McDonald’s. But I love it. And you got to do what you love, what makes you happy, and that’s what makes me happy.
Exactly. So there’s this sad meme of me just sitting alone in a car when I’m traveling, just eating beef patties at McDonald’s. But I love it. And you got to do what you love, what makes you happy, and that’s what makes me happy.
Bill Ackman
I think maybe we’ll have Burger King feature in it. What about Flame World? What’s with these fried burgers? We got to get you to Burger King, grilled burgers.
I think maybe we’ll have Burger King feature in it. What about Flame World? What’s with these fried burgers? We got to get you to Burger King, grilled burgers.
Lex Fridman
Wait, is this fast food trash? I don’t know the details of how they’re made. I don’t have allegiance-
Wait, is this fast food trash? I don’t know the details of how they’re made. I don’t have allegiance-
Bill Ackman
I think we got a chance to switch you to Burger King.
I think we got a chance to switch you to Burger King.
Lex Fridman
Great. We’ll see. I’m making so many deals today, it’s wonderful. Okay, you were talking about moats, and this kind of remind me of Alphabet, the parent company.
Great. We’ll see. I’m making so many deals today, it’s wonderful. Okay, you were talking about moats, and this kind of remind me of Alphabet, the parent company.
Investing in Google
Bill Ackman
Sure. It’s a big position for us.
Sure. It’s a big position for us.
Lex Fridman
So it’s interesting that you think that maybe Alphabet fits some of these characteristics. It’s tricky to know with everything that’s happening in AI… And I’m interviewing Sundar Pichai soon. It’s interesting that you think that there’s a moat. And it’s also interesting to analyze it because as a consumer, as just a fan of technology, why is Google still around? It’s not just a search engine, it’s doing all the basics of the business of search really well, but they’re doing all these other stuff. So what’s your analysis of Alphabet? Why are you still positive about it?
So it’s interesting that you think that maybe Alphabet fits some of these characteristics. It’s tricky to know with everything that’s happening in AI… And I’m interviewing Sundar Pichai soon. It’s interesting that you think that there’s a moat. And it’s also interesting to analyze it because as a consumer, as just a fan of technology, why is Google still around? It’s not just a search engine, it’s doing all the basics of the business of search really well, but they’re doing all these other stuff. So what’s your analysis of Alphabet? Why are you still positive about it?
Bill Ackman
Sure. So it’s a business we’ve admired as a firm for, whatever, 15 years, but rarely got to a price that we felt we could own it. Because again, the expectations were so high and price really matters. Really the sort of AI scare, I would call it… Microsoft comes out with ChatGPT, they do an amazing demonstration. People like this most incredible product. And Google, which had been working on AI even earlier, obviously… The Microsoft was behind in AI. It was really their ChatGPT deal that gave them a market presence. And then Google does this fairly disastrous demonstration of Bard and the world says, “Oh my god, Google’s fallen behind in AI. AI is the future.” Stock gets crushed. Google gets to a price around 15 times earnings, which for a business of this quality is an extremely, extremely low price. And our view on Google… One way to think about it, when a business becomes a verb, that’s usually pretty good sign about the moat around the business.
Sure. So it’s a business we’ve admired as a firm for, whatever, 15 years, but rarely got to a price that we felt we could own it. Because again, the expectations were so high and price really matters. Really the sort of AI scare, I would call it… Microsoft comes out with ChatGPT, they do an amazing demonstration. People like this most incredible product. And Google, which had been working on AI even earlier, obviously… The Microsoft was behind in AI. It was really their ChatGPT deal that gave them a market presence. And then Google does this fairly disastrous demonstration of Bard and the world says, “Oh my god, Google’s fallen behind in AI. AI is the future.” Stock gets crushed. Google gets to a price around 15 times earnings, which for a business of this quality is an extremely, extremely low price. And our view on Google… One way to think about it, when a business becomes a verb, that’s usually pretty good sign about the moat around the business.
So you’d open your computer and you open your search and very high percentage of the world starts with a Google page in one line where you type in your search. The Google advertising, search, YouTube franchise is one of the most dominant franchises in the world. Very difficult to disrupt, extremely profitable. The world is moving from offline advertising to online advertising. And that trend, I think, continues. Why? Because you can actually see whether your ads work. They used to say about advertising, “You spend a fortune and you just don’t know which 50% of it works, but you just sort of spend the money because you know ultimately that’s going to bring in the customer.” And now with online advertising, you can see with granularity which dollars I’m spending… When people click on the search term and end up buying something and I pay, it’s a very high return on investment for the advertiser and they really dominate that business.
Now, AI, of course, is a risk. If all of a sudden people start searching or asking questions of ChatGPT and don’t start with the Google search bar, that’s a risk to the company. And so our view, based on work we had done and talked to industry experts, is that Google, by virtue of the investment they’ve made the time, the energy that people put into it, we felt their AI capabilities were, if anything, potentially greater than Microsoft ChatGPT and that the market had overreacted. And because Google is a big company, global business regulators scrutinized it incredibly carefully. They couldn’t take some of the same liberties a startup like OpenAI did in releasing a product. And I think Google took a more cautious approach in releasing an early version of Bard in terms of its capabilities. And that led the world to believe that they were behind.
And we ultimately concluded, if anything, they’re tied or ahead and you’re paying nothing for that potential business. And they also have huge advantages by virtue… If you think of all the data Google has, the search data, all the various applications, email and otherwise, and the Google suite of products, it’s an incredible data set. So they have more training data than pretty much any company in the world. They have incredible engineers, they have enormous financial resources. So that was kind of the bet. And we still think it’s probably the cheapest of the big seven companies in terms of the price you’re paying for the business relative to its current earnings. It also is a business that has a lot of potential for efficiency. Sometimes when you have this enormously profitable dominant company… All of the technology companies in the post March ’20 world grew enormously in terms of their teams and they probably overhired.
And so you’ve seen the Facebooks of the world and now even Google starting to get a little more efficient in terms of their operation. So we paid a low multiple for the business. One way to think about the value of the business is the price you pay for the earnings or alternatively what’s the yield? If you flip over the price over the earnings, it gives you kind of the yield of the business. So a 15 multiple is about almost a seven and a half percent yield. And that earnings yield is growing over time as the business grows. Compare it to what you can earn lending your money to the government, 4%, that’s a very attractive going in yield.
And then there’s all kinds of, what we call, optionality in all the various businesses and investments they’ve made that are losing money. They’ve got a cloud business that’s growing very rapidly, but they’re investing basically a hundred percent of the profits from that business and growth. So you’re in that earnings number, you’re not seeing any earnings from the cloud business, and they’re one of the top cloud players. So very interesting, generally well-managed company with incredible assets and resources and dominance, and it has no debt. It’s got a ton of cash. And so pretty good story.
AI
Lex Fridman
Is there something fundamentally different about AI that makes all of this more complicated, which is the exponential possibilities of the kinds of products and impact that AI could create when you’re looking at Meta, Microsoft, Alphabet, Google, all these companies, xAI, or maybe startups? Is there some more risk introduced by the possibilities of AI?
Is there something fundamentally different about AI that makes all of this more complicated, which is the exponential possibilities of the kinds of products and impact that AI could create when you’re looking at Meta, Microsoft, Alphabet, Google, all these companies, xAI, or maybe startups? Is there some more risk introduced by the possibilities of AI?
Bill Ackman
Absolutely. That’s a great question. Investing is about finding companies that can’t be disrupted. AI is the ultimate disruptable asset or technology. And that’s what makes investing treacherous, is that you own a business that’s enormously profitable, management gets, if you will, fat and happy, and then a new technology emerges that just takes away all their profitability. And AI is this incredibly powerful tool, which is why every business is saying, “How can I use AI in my business to make us more profitable, more successful, grow faster, and also disrupt or protect ourself from the incomings?” It’s a bit like… Buffett talks about a great business is like a cast…
Absolutely. That’s a great question. Investing is about finding companies that can’t be disrupted. AI is the ultimate disruptable asset or technology. And that’s what makes investing treacherous, is that you own a business that’s enormously profitable, management gets, if you will, fat and happy, and then a new technology emerges that just takes away all their profitability. And AI is this incredibly powerful tool, which is why every business is saying, “How can I use AI in my business to make us more profitable, more successful, grow faster, and also disrupt or protect ourself from the incomings?” It’s a bit like… Buffett talks about a great business is like a cast…
Bill Ackman
It’s a bit like Buffett talks about a great business, like a castle surrounded by this really wide moat but you have all these barbarians trying to get in and steal the princess. And it happens. Kodak, for example, was an amazing, incredibly dominant company until it disappeared. Polaroid, this incredible technology. And that’s why we have tended to stay away from companies that are technology companies because technology companies generally… The world is such a dynamic place that someone’s always working on a better version. And Kodak was caught up in the analog film world and then the world changed.
It’s a bit like Buffett talks about a great business, like a castle surrounded by this really wide moat but you have all these barbarians trying to get in and steal the princess. And it happens. Kodak, for example, was an amazing, incredibly dominant company until it disappeared. Polaroid, this incredible technology. And that’s why we have tended to stay away from companies that are technology companies because technology companies generally… The world is such a dynamic place that someone’s always working on a better version. And Kodak was caught up in the analog film world and then the world changed.
Lex Fridman
Well, Google was pretty fat and happy until ChatGPT came out.
Well, Google was pretty fat and happy until ChatGPT came out.
Bill Ackman
Yes.
Yes.
Lex Fridman
How would you rate their ability to wake up, lose weight, and be less happy and aggressively rediscover their search for happiness?
How would you rate their ability to wake up, lose weight, and be less happy and aggressively rediscover their search for happiness?
Bill Ackman
I think you’ve seen a lot of that in the last year. And I would say some combination of embarrassment and pride are huge motivators for everyone from Sergey Brin, to the management of the company.
I think you’ve seen a lot of that in the last year. And I would say some combination of embarrassment and pride are huge motivators for everyone from Sergey Brin, to the management of the company.
Lex Fridman
And Demis Hassabis threw them into the picture and all of DeepMind teams, and the unification of teams and all the shakeups. It was interesting to watch the chaos. I love it. I love it when everybody freaks out. Like you said, partly embarrassment, and partly that competitive drive that drives engineers, is great. I can’t wait to see what… They’ve [inaudible 00:32:31] a lot of improvement in the product, let’s see where it goes. You mentioned management. How do you analyze the governance structure and the individual humans that are the managers of a company?
And Demis Hassabis threw them into the picture and all of DeepMind teams, and the unification of teams and all the shakeups. It was interesting to watch the chaos. I love it. I love it when everybody freaks out. Like you said, partly embarrassment, and partly that competitive drive that drives engineers, is great. I can’t wait to see what… They’ve [inaudible 00:32:31] a lot of improvement in the product, let’s see where it goes. You mentioned management. How do you analyze the governance structure and the individual humans that are the managers of a company?
Bill Ackman
So as I like to say, incentives drive all human behavior and that certainly applies in the business world. So understanding the people and what drives them, and what the actual financial and other incentives of a business, are very important part of the analysis for investing in a company. And you can learn a lot… I mentioned before, one great way to learn about a business is go back a decade and read everything that management has written about the business, and see what they’ve done over time. See what they’ve said…
So as I like to say, incentives drive all human behavior and that certainly applies in the business world. So understanding the people and what drives them, and what the actual financial and other incentives of a business, are very important part of the analysis for investing in a company. And you can learn a lot… I mentioned before, one great way to learn about a business is go back a decade and read everything that management has written about the business, and see what they’ve done over time. See what they’ve said…
Conference calls are actually relatively recent. When I started in the business, there weren’t conference call transcripts. Now you have a written record of everything management has said in response to questions from analysts, at conferences and otherwise. And so just you learn a lot about people by listening to what they say, how they answer questions, and ultimately their track record for doing what they say they’re going to do. Do they under promise and over deliver? Do they over promise and under deliver? Do they say what they’re going to do? Do they admit mistakes? Do they build great teams? Do people want to come work for them? Are they able to retain their talent?
And then part of it is how much are they running the business for the benefit of the business? How much are they running the business for the benefit of themselves? And that’s the analysis you do.
Lex Fridman
Are we talking about CEO, COO? What does management mean? How deep does it go?
Are we talking about CEO, COO? What does management mean? How deep does it go?
Bill Ackman
Sure. Very senior management matters enormously. We use the Chipotle example. Steve Ells, great entrepreneur. Business got to a scale he really couldn’t run it. We helped the company recruit a guy named Brian Niccol, and he was considered the best person in the quick service industry. He came in and completely rebuilt the company. Actually we moved the company, Chipotle was moved to California. And sometimes one way to redo the culture of a company is just to move it geographically, and then you can reboot the business.
Sure. Very senior management matters enormously. We use the Chipotle example. Steve Ells, great entrepreneur. Business got to a scale he really couldn’t run it. We helped the company recruit a guy named Brian Niccol, and he was considered the best person in the quick service industry. He came in and completely rebuilt the company. Actually we moved the company, Chipotle was moved to California. And sometimes one way to redo the culture of a company is just to move it geographically, and then you can reboot the business.
But a great leader has great followership. Over the course of their career, they’ll have a team they’ve built that will come follow them into the next opportunity. But the key is really the top person matters enormously, and then it’s who they recruit. You recruit an A-plus leader and they’re going to recruit other A- type people. You recruit a B-leader, you’re not going to recruit any great talent beneath them.
Warren Buffet
Lex Fridman
You mentioned Warren Buffett. You said you admire him as an investor. What do you find most interesting and powerful about his approach? What aspects of his approach to investing do you also practice?
You mentioned Warren Buffett. You said you admire him as an investor. What do you find most interesting and powerful about his approach? What aspects of his approach to investing do you also practice?
Bill Ackman
Sure. So most of what I’ve learned in the investment business, I’ve learned from Warren Buffett, he’s been my great professor of this business. My first book I read in the business was the Ben Graham Intelligent Investor, but fairly quickly you get to learn about Warren Buffett and I started by reading the Berkshire Hathaway annual reports. And then I eventually got the Buffett partnership letters that you could see, which are an amazing read to go back to the mid 1950s and read what he wrote to his limited partners when he first started out and just follow that trajectory over a long period of time. So what’s remarkable about him is one, duration, right? He’s still at it at 93. Two, it takes a very long-term view, but a big thing that you learn from him investing requires is incredible, dispassionate, unemotional quality. You have to be extremely economically rational, which is not a basic, it’s not something you learn in the jungle.
Sure. So most of what I’ve learned in the investment business, I’ve learned from Warren Buffett, he’s been my great professor of this business. My first book I read in the business was the Ben Graham Intelligent Investor, but fairly quickly you get to learn about Warren Buffett and I started by reading the Berkshire Hathaway annual reports. And then I eventually got the Buffett partnership letters that you could see, which are an amazing read to go back to the mid 1950s and read what he wrote to his limited partners when he first started out and just follow that trajectory over a long period of time. So what’s remarkable about him is one, duration, right? He’s still at it at 93. Two, it takes a very long-term view, but a big thing that you learn from him investing requires is incredible, dispassionate, unemotional quality. You have to be extremely economically rational, which is not a basic, it’s not something you learn in the jungle.
I don’t think it’s something that… If you think about surviving the jungle, the lion shows up and everyone starts running, you run with them. That does not work well in markets. In fact, you generally have to do the opposite, right? When the lemmings are running over the cliff, that’s the time where you’re facing the other direction and you’re running the other direction, i.e, you’re stepping in, you’re buying stocks at really low prices. Buffett’s been great at that and great at teaching about what he calls temperament, which is this sort of emotional or unemotional quality that you need to be able to dispassionately look at the world and say, “Okay, is this a real risk? Are people overreacting?” People tend to get excited about investments when stocks are going up and they get depressed when they’re going down. And I think that’s just inherently human. You have to reverse that. You have to get excited when things get cheaper and you got to get concerned when things get more expensive.
Psychology of investing
Lex Fridman
You’ve been a part of some big battles, some big losses, some big wins. It’s been a roller coaster. So in terms of temperament psychologically, how do you not let that break you? How do you maintain a calm demeanor and avoid running with a lemmings?
You’ve been a part of some big battles, some big losses, some big wins. It’s been a roller coaster. So in terms of temperament psychologically, how do you not let that break you? How do you maintain a calm demeanor and avoid running with a lemmings?
Bill Ackman
I think it’s something you learn over time. A key success factor is you want to have enough money in the bank that you’re going to survive regardless of what’s going on with volatility in markets, people who… One, you shouldn’t borrow money. So if you borrow money, you own stocks on margin, markets are going down and you have your livelihood at risk. It’s very difficult to be rational. So key is getting yourself to a place where you’re financially secure, you’re not going to lose your house. That’s kind of a key thing. And then also doing your homework.
I think it’s something you learn over time. A key success factor is you want to have enough money in the bank that you’re going to survive regardless of what’s going on with volatility in markets, people who… One, you shouldn’t borrow money. So if you borrow money, you own stocks on margin, markets are going down and you have your livelihood at risk. It’s very difficult to be rational. So key is getting yourself to a place where you’re financially secure, you’re not going to lose your house. That’s kind of a key thing. And then also doing your homework.
Stocks can trade at any price in the short term. And if you know what a business is worth and you understand the management and you know it extremely well, it’s not nearly as… It doesn’t bother you when a stock price goes down or it has much less impact on you because again, as Mr. Graham said, the short term, the markets are voting machine. You have a bunch of lemmings voting one direction that’s concerning. But if it’s a great business, doesn’t have a lot of debt and people are going to just listen to more music next year than this year, you know you’re going to do well. So it’s a bit some combination of being personally secure and also just knowing what you own and over time you build callouses, I would say.
Lex Fridman
So psychologically, just as a human being, speaking of lines and gazelles and all this kind of stuff, is it as simple as just being financially secure? Is there some just human qualities that you have to be born with slash develop?
So psychologically, just as a human being, speaking of lines and gazelles and all this kind of stuff, is it as simple as just being financially secure? Is there some just human qualities that you have to be born with slash develop?
Bill Ackman
I think so. I think now I’m a pretty emotional person I would say, or I feel pretty strong emotions, but not in investing. I’m remarkably immune to volatility and that’s a big advantage and it took some time for me to develop that.
I think so. I think now I’m a pretty emotional person I would say, or I feel pretty strong emotions, but not in investing. I’m remarkably immune to volatility and that’s a big advantage and it took some time for me to develop that.
Lex Fridman
So you weren’t born with that, you think?
So you weren’t born with that, you think?
Bill Ackman
No.
No.
Lex Fridman
So being emotional, do you want to respond to volatility?
So being emotional, do you want to respond to volatility?
Bill Ackman
Yeah, and it’s a bit… Again, you can learn a lot from other people’s experience. It’s one of the few businesses where you can learn an enormous amount by reading about other periods in history following Buffett’s career, the mistakes he made. If you’re investing a lot of capital, every one of your mistakes is going to be big, right? So we’ve made big mistakes. The good news is that the vast majority of things we’ve done have worked out really well. And so that also gives you confidence over time. But because we make very few investments, we own eight things today or seven companies of that matter, if we get one wrong, it’s going to be big news. And so the other nature of our business you have to be comfortable with is a lot of public scrutiny, a lot of public criticism. And that requires some experience. I call it that.
Yeah, and it’s a bit… Again, you can learn a lot from other people’s experience. It’s one of the few businesses where you can learn an enormous amount by reading about other periods in history following Buffett’s career, the mistakes he made. If you’re investing a lot of capital, every one of your mistakes is going to be big, right? So we’ve made big mistakes. The good news is that the vast majority of things we’ve done have worked out really well. And so that also gives you confidence over time. But because we make very few investments, we own eight things today or seven companies of that matter, if we get one wrong, it’s going to be big news. And so the other nature of our business you have to be comfortable with is a lot of public scrutiny, a lot of public criticism. And that requires some experience. I call it that.
Lex Fridman
I think we’ll talk about some of that. Financially secure is something I believe also recommend for even just everyday investors. Is there some general advice from the things you’ve been talking about that applies to everyday investors?
I think we’ll talk about some of that. Financially secure is something I believe also recommend for even just everyday investors. Is there some general advice from the things you’ve been talking about that applies to everyday investors?
Bill Ackman
Sure. So never invest money you can’t afford to lose. Where if you’d lost this money, you lose your house, et cetera. So being in a place where you’re investing money that you don’t care about the price in the short term, it’s money for your retirement, and you take a really long-term view, I think that’s key. Never investing, will you borrow money against your securities? The markets offer you the opportunity to leverage your investment and in most worlds you’ll be okay, except if there’s a financial crisis or a nuclear device gets detonated, God forbid somewhere in the world or there’s an unexpected war or someone kills a leader unexpectedly, things happen that can change the course of history and markets react very negatively to those kinds of events.
Sure. So never invest money you can’t afford to lose. Where if you’d lost this money, you lose your house, et cetera. So being in a place where you’re investing money that you don’t care about the price in the short term, it’s money for your retirement, and you take a really long-term view, I think that’s key. Never investing, will you borrow money against your securities? The markets offer you the opportunity to leverage your investment and in most worlds you’ll be okay, except if there’s a financial crisis or a nuclear device gets detonated, God forbid somewhere in the world or there’s an unexpected war or someone kills a leader unexpectedly, things happen that can change the course of history and markets react very negatively to those kinds of events.
And you can own the greatest business in the world trading for a hundred dollars a share, and next moment it could be 50. So as long as you don’t borrow against securities, you own really high quality businesses and it’s not money that you need in the short term, then you can actually be thoughtful about it. And that is a huge advantage. The vast majority of investors, it seems tend to be the ones that panic and the downturns get over related and when markets are doing well.
Lex Fridman
So be able to think long-term and be sufficiently financially secure such that you can afford to think long-term.
So be able to think long-term and be sufficiently financially secure such that you can afford to think long-term.
Bill Ackman
Now Buffett is the ultimate long-term thinker and just the decisions he makes, the consistency of the decisions he’s made over time and fitting into that sort of long-term framework is a very, very educational, let’s put it that way, for learning about this business.
Now Buffett is the ultimate long-term thinker and just the decisions he makes, the consistency of the decisions he’s made over time and fitting into that sort of long-term framework is a very, very educational, let’s put it that way, for learning about this business.
Lex Fridman
So you mentioned eight companies, but what do you think about mutual funds for everyday investors that diversify across a larger number of companies?
So you mentioned eight companies, but what do you think about mutual funds for everyday investors that diversify across a larger number of companies?
Bill Ackman
I think there are very few mutual funds. There are thousands and thousands of mutual funds. There are very few that earn their keep in terms of the fees they charge. They tend to be too diversified and too short-term. And you’re often much better off just buying an index fund. And many of them perform, if you look carefully at their portfolios are not so different from the underlying index itself and you tend to pay a much higher fee. Now, all of that being said, there’s some very talented mutual fund managers. A guy named Will Danoff at Fidelity has had a great record over a long period of time. The famous Peter Lynch, Ron Barron, another great long-term growth stock investor. So there’s some great mutual funds, but I put them in the handful versus the thousands. And if you’re in the thousands, I’d rather someone bought just an index fund basically.
I think there are very few mutual funds. There are thousands and thousands of mutual funds. There are very few that earn their keep in terms of the fees they charge. They tend to be too diversified and too short-term. And you’re often much better off just buying an index fund. And many of them perform, if you look carefully at their portfolios are not so different from the underlying index itself and you tend to pay a much higher fee. Now, all of that being said, there’s some very talented mutual fund managers. A guy named Will Danoff at Fidelity has had a great record over a long period of time. The famous Peter Lynch, Ron Barron, another great long-term growth stock investor. So there’s some great mutual funds, but I put them in the handful versus the thousands. And if you’re in the thousands, I’d rather someone bought just an index fund basically.
Lex Fridman
Yeah, index funds. But what would be the leap for an everyday investor to go to investing in a small number of companies like two, three, four, five companies?
Yeah, index funds. But what would be the leap for an everyday investor to go to investing in a small number of companies like two, three, four, five companies?
Bill Ackman
I even recommend for individual investors to invest in a dozen companies, you don’t get that much more benefit of diversification going from a dozen to 25 or even 50. Most of the benefits of diversification come in the first, call it 10 or 12. And if you’re investing in businesses that don’t have a lot of debt, they’re businesses that you can understand yourself, you understand… Actually individual investors did a much better job analyzing Tesla than the so-called professional investors or analysts, the vast majority of them. So if it’s a business you understand, if you bought a Tesla, you understand the product and its appeal to consumers, it’s a good place to start when you’re analyzing a company.
I even recommend for individual investors to invest in a dozen companies, you don’t get that much more benefit of diversification going from a dozen to 25 or even 50. Most of the benefits of diversification come in the first, call it 10 or 12. And if you’re investing in businesses that don’t have a lot of debt, they’re businesses that you can understand yourself, you understand… Actually individual investors did a much better job analyzing Tesla than the so-called professional investors or analysts, the vast majority of them. So if it’s a business you understand, if you bought a Tesla, you understand the product and its appeal to consumers, it’s a good place to start when you’re analyzing a company.
So I would invest in things you can understand, that’s kind of a key. You like Chipotle, you understand why they’re successful. You can go there every week and you can monitor. Is anything changing? How’s Chicken al Pastor, is that a good upgrade from the basic chicken? The drink offering is improving. The store is clean. I think you should invest in companies you really understand, simple businesses where you can predict with a high degree of confidence what it’s going to look like over time. And if you do that in a not particularly concentrated fashion and you don’t borrow money against your securities, you’ll probably do much better than your typical mutual fund.
Lex Fridman
Yeah, it’s interesting. Consumers that love a thing are actually good analysts of that thing, or I guess a good starting point.
Yeah, it’s interesting. Consumers that love a thing are actually good analysts of that thing, or I guess a good starting point.
Bill Ackman
And by the way, there’s much more information available today. When I was first investing, literally we had people faxing us documents from the SEC filings in Washington, D.C. Now everything’s available online, conference call transcripts are free. You have AI, you have unlimited data and all kinds of message boards and Reddit forums and things where people are sharing advice and everyone has their own… By virtue of their career or experience, they’ll know about an industry or a business and that gives them… I would take advantage of your own competitive advantages.
And by the way, there’s much more information available today. When I was first investing, literally we had people faxing us documents from the SEC filings in Washington, D.C. Now everything’s available online, conference call transcripts are free. You have AI, you have unlimited data and all kinds of message boards and Reddit forums and things where people are sharing advice and everyone has their own… By virtue of their career or experience, they’ll know about an industry or a business and that gives them… I would take advantage of your own competitive advantages.
Lex Fridman
I’m just afraid if I invest in Chipotle, I’ll be analyzing every little change of menu from a financial perspective and just be very critical.
I’m just afraid if I invest in Chipotle, I’ll be analyzing every little change of menu from a financial perspective and just be very critical.
Bill Ackman
If it’s going to affect your experience, I wouldn’t buy the stock.
If it’s going to affect your experience, I wouldn’t buy the stock.
Lex Fridman
Yeah, I mean I should also say that I am somebody that emotionally does respond to volatility, which is why I’ve never bought index funds and I just notice myself psychologically being affected by the ups and downs of the market. I want to tune out because if I’m at all tuned in, it has a negative impact on my life.
Yeah, I mean I should also say that I am somebody that emotionally does respond to volatility, which is why I’ve never bought index funds and I just notice myself psychologically being affected by the ups and downs of the market. I want to tune out because if I’m at all tuned in, it has a negative impact on my life.
Bill Ackman
Yeah, that’s really important.
Yeah, that’s really important.
Activist investing
Lex Fridman
Can you explain what activist investing is? You’ve been talking about investing and then looking at companies when they’re struggling, stepping in and reconfiguring things within that company and helping it become great. So that’s part of it, but let’s just zoom out. What’s this idea of activist investing?
Can you explain what activist investing is? You’ve been talking about investing and then looking at companies when they’re struggling, stepping in and reconfiguring things within that company and helping it become great. So that’s part of it, but let’s just zoom out. What’s this idea of activist investing?
Bill Ackman
I think recently in the last couple of days I read an article saying that more than 50% of the capital in the world today invests in the stock markets passive indexed money. And that’s the most passive form, right? So if you think about an index fund, a machine buys a fixed set of securities in certain proportion. There’s no human judgment at all, and there’s no real person behind it, in a way. They never take steps to improve a business. They just quietly own securities. What we do is we invest our capital in a handful of things. We get to know them really, really well because you’re going to put 20% of your assets in something, you need to know it really well. But once you become a big holder and if you’ve got some thoughts on how to make a business more valuable, you can do more than just be a passive investor.
I think recently in the last couple of days I read an article saying that more than 50% of the capital in the world today invests in the stock markets passive indexed money. And that’s the most passive form, right? So if you think about an index fund, a machine buys a fixed set of securities in certain proportion. There’s no human judgment at all, and there’s no real person behind it, in a way. They never take steps to improve a business. They just quietly own securities. What we do is we invest our capital in a handful of things. We get to know them really, really well because you’re going to put 20% of your assets in something, you need to know it really well. But once you become a big holder and if you’ve got some thoughts on how to make a business more valuable, you can do more than just be a passive investor.
So our strategy is built upon finding great companies in some cases that have lost their way and then helping them succeed. And we can do that with ideas from outside the boardroom. Sometimes we take a seat on a board or more than one, and we work with the best management teams in the world to help these businesses succeed. So when I first went into this business, no one knew who we were and we didn’t have that much money. And so to influence what was to us a big company, we had to make a fair bit more noise, right? So we would buy a stake, we’d announce it publicly, we’d attempt to engage with management. The first activist investment we made at Pershing Square was Wendy’s. I couldn’t get the CEO to ever return my call. He didn’t return my call. Actually, in that case, our idea was Wendy’s owned a company called Tim Hortons, which was this coffee donut chain, and you could buy Wendy’s for basically $5 billion and they owned a hundred percent of Tim Hortons, which itself was worth more than 5 billion.
So you could literally buy Wendy’s, separate Tim Hortons and get Wendy’s for negative value. That seemed like a pretty good opportunity even though the business wasn’t doing that well. So we bought the stake, called the CEO, couldn’t get a meeting, nothing. So we hired actually Blackstone, which at that time had an investment bank and we hired them to do what’s called a fairness opinion of what Wendy’s would be worth if they followed our advice and they agreed to do it, paid them a fee for it. And then we mailed in a letter with a copy of the fairness opinion saying Wendy’s would basically be worth 80% more if they did what we said. And six weeks later they did what we said. So that’s activism, at least an early form of activism. With that kind of under our belt, we had a little more credibility and now we started to take things and stakes in companies.
The media would pay attention. So the media became kind of an important partner and some combination of shame, embarrassment and opportunity motivated management teams to do the right thing. And then beyond that, there’s certain steps you can take if management’s recalcitrant and the shareholders are on your side. But it’s a bit like running for office. You’ve got to get all the constituents to support you and your ideas. And if they support you and your ideas, you can overthrow, if you will, the board of a company. You bring in new talent and then take over the management of a business. And that’s the most extreme form of activism. So that’s kind of the early days, and what we did. And a lot of the early things that we did were, what we call sort of like investment banking activism where we’d go in and recommend something, a good investment bank would’ve recommended, and if they do it, we make a bunch of money.
And then we moved on to the next one. And then we realized an investment in a company called General Growth was the first time we took a board seat on a company. And there it was some financial restructuring and also an opportunity to improve the operations of the business, sit on the board of a company. And that was one of the best investments we ever made. And we said, “Okay, we can do more than just be an outside the boardroom investor and we can get involved in helping select the right management teams and helping guide the right management teams.” And then we’ve done that over years. And then I would say the last seven years we haven’t had to be an activist. An activist is generally someone who’s outside banging on the door trying to get in. We’re sort of built enough credibility that they open the door and they say, “Hey, Bill, what ideas do you have? So welcome. Would you like to join the board?”
We’re treated differently today than we were in the beginning. And that is… I would say some people might just call it being an engaged owner. And by the way, that’s the way investing was done in the Andrew Carnegie, JPMorgan days 150 years ago. You had these iconic business leaders that would own 20% of US steel, and when things would go wrong, they’d replace the board and the management and fix them. And over time, we went to a world where mutual funds were created in the 1920s, ’30s, index funds with Vanguard and others, and that all these controlling shareholders gave their stock to society or their children and multiple generations. And they were no longer controlling owners of businesses or very few. And that led to under performance and the opportunity for activists over time. And what activism has done, and I think we’ve helped lead this movement, is it restored the balance of power between the owners of the business and the management of the company. And that’s been a very good thing for the performance of the US stock market actually.
Lex Fridman
So the owners meaning the shareholders?
So the owners meaning the shareholders?
Bill Ackman
Yes.
Yes.
Lex Fridman
And so there’s a more direct channel of communication with activists investing between the shareholders and the people running the company?
And so there’s a more direct channel of communication with activists investing between the shareholders and the people running the company?
Bill Ackman
Yes. So activists generally never own more than five or 10% of a business. So they don’t have control. So the way they get influence is they have to convince the other, but they have to get to sort of a majority of the other shareholders to support them. And if they can get that kind of support, they can behave almost like a controlling shareholder. And that’s how it works.
Yes. So activists generally never own more than five or 10% of a business. So they don’t have control. So the way they get influence is they have to convince the other, but they have to get to sort of a majority of the other shareholders to support them. And if they can get that kind of support, they can behave almost like a controlling shareholder. And that’s how it works.
Lex Fridman
So the running of companies, according to Bill Ackman is more democratic now.
So the running of companies, according to Bill Ackman is more democratic now.
Bill Ackman
It is. It is. But you need some thought leaders. So activists are kind of thought leaders. Because they can spend the time and the money. A retail investor that owns a thousand shares doesn’t have the resources or the time, they got a day job. Whereas an activist day job is finding the handful of things where there are opportunities.
It is. It is. But you need some thought leaders. So activists are kind of thought leaders. Because they can spend the time and the money. A retail investor that owns a thousand shares doesn’t have the resources or the time, they got a day job. Whereas an activist day job is finding the handful of things where there are opportunities.
Lex Fridman
So on average is a good to have such an engaged, powerful, influential investor helping control direct the direction of a company.
So on average is a good to have such an engaged, powerful, influential investor helping control direct the direction of a company.
Bill Ackman
It depends who that investor is, but generally I think it’s a good thing. And that’s why one of the problems with being CEO of a company today and having a very diversified shareholder base is the kind of short-term, long-term balance. And you have investors that have all different interests in terms of what they want to achieve and when they want it achieved. And CEO of a new company… A new CEO of an old company, let’s say, hasn’t had the chance to develop the credibility to make the kind of longer-term decisions and can be stuck in a cycle of being judged on a quarterly basis.
It depends who that investor is, but generally I think it’s a good thing. And that’s why one of the problems with being CEO of a company today and having a very diversified shareholder base is the kind of short-term, long-term balance. And you have investors that have all different interests in terms of what they want to achieve and when they want it achieved. And CEO of a new company… A new CEO of an old company, let’s say, hasn’t had the chance to develop the credibility to make the kind of longer-term decisions and can be stuck in a cycle of being judged on a quarterly basis.
And the best businesses are forever assets and decisions you make now have impact three, four or five years from now, in order to make… And sometimes there are decisions we make that have the effect of reducing the earnings of a company in the short-term because in the long term it’s going to make the business much more valuable. But sometimes it’s hard to have that kind of credibility when you’re a new CEO of a company. So when you have a major owner that’s respected by other shareholders sitting on the board saying, “Hey, the CEO is doing the right thing and making this expensive investment in a new factory, we’re spending more money on R&D because we’re developing something that’s going to pay off over time.” That large owner on the board can help buy the time necessary for management to behave in a longer term way. And that’s, I think, good for all the shareholders.
Lex Fridman
So that’s the good story. But can it get bad? Can you have a CEO who is a visionary and sees the long-term future of a company and an investor come in and have very selfish interest in just making more money in the short term and therefore destroy and manipulate the opinions of the shareholders and other people on the board in order to sink the company, maybe increase the price, but destroy the possibility of long-term value?
So that’s the good story. But can it get bad? Can you have a CEO who is a visionary and sees the long-term future of a company and an investor come in and have very selfish interest in just making more money in the short term and therefore destroy and manipulate the opinions of the shareholders and other people on the board in order to sink the company, maybe increase the price, but destroy the possibility of long-term value?
Bill Ackman
It could theoretically happen, but again, the activist in your example, generally doesn’t own a lot of stock. The shareholder basis today, the biggest shareholders are these index funds that are forever, right? The BlackRock, Vanguard, State Street, their ownership stakes are just at this point only growing because of the inflows of capital they have from shareholders. So they have to think or they should think very long-term and they’re going to be very skeptical of someone coming in with a short-term idea that drives the stock price up in the next six months, but impairs the company’s long-term ability to compete. And basically that ownership group prevents this kind of activity from really happening.
It could theoretically happen, but again, the activist in your example, generally doesn’t own a lot of stock. The shareholder basis today, the biggest shareholders are these index funds that are forever, right? The BlackRock, Vanguard, State Street, their ownership stakes are just at this point only growing because of the inflows of capital they have from shareholders. So they have to think or they should think very long-term and they’re going to be very skeptical of someone coming in with a short-term idea that drives the stock price up in the next six months, but impairs the company’s long-term ability to compete. And basically that ownership group prevents this kind of activity from really happening.
Lex Fridman
So people are generally skeptical of short-term activist investors?
So people are generally skeptical of short-term activist investors?
Bill Ackman
Yes, and they’re very few. I don’t really know any short-term activist investors.
Yes, and they’re very few. I don’t really know any short-term activist investors.
Lex Fridman
That’s a hopeful-
That’s a hopeful-
Bill Ackman
Not ones with credibility.
Not ones with credibility.
General Growth Properties
Lex Fridman
You mentioned general growth. I read somewhere called arguably one of the best hedge fund trades of all time. So I guess it went from $60 million to over 3 billion.
You mentioned general growth. I read somewhere called arguably one of the best hedge fund trades of all time. So I guess it went from $60 million to over 3 billion.
Bill Ackman
It was a good one.
It was a good one.
Lex Fridman
All right.
All right.
Bill Ackman
But it wasn’t a trade. I wouldn’t describe it as a trade. A trade is something you buy and you flip. This is something where we made the investment initially in November of 2008, and we still own a company. We spun off of general growth and it’s now 15 years later.
But it wasn’t a trade. I wouldn’t describe it as a trade. A trade is something you buy and you flip. This is something where we made the investment initially in November of 2008, and we still own a company. We spun off of general growth and it’s now 15 years later.
Lex Fridman
Can you describe what went into making that decision to actually increase the value of the company?
Can you describe what went into making that decision to actually increase the value of the company?
Bill Ackman
Sure. So this was at the time of the financial crisis, circa November 2008. Real estate’s always been a kind of sector that I’ve been interested in. I began my career in the real estate business working for my dad, actually arranging mortgages for real estate developers. So I have kind of deep ties and interest in the business and General Growth was the second-largest shopping mall company in the country. Simon Properties many people have heard of, General Growth was number two. They owned some of the best malls in the country. And at that time, people thought of shopping malls as these non disruptible things. Again, we talk about disruption. Malls have been disrupted in many ways and General Growth stock… General Growth the company, the CFO in particular was very aggressive in the way that he borrowed money. And he borrowed money from a kind of Wall Street, not long-term mortgages, but generally relatively short-term mortgages.
Sure. So this was at the time of the financial crisis, circa November 2008. Real estate’s always been a kind of sector that I’ve been interested in. I began my career in the real estate business working for my dad, actually arranging mortgages for real estate developers. So I have kind of deep ties and interest in the business and General Growth was the second-largest shopping mall company in the country. Simon Properties many people have heard of, General Growth was number two. They owned some of the best malls in the country. And at that time, people thought of shopping malls as these non disruptible things. Again, we talk about disruption. Malls have been disrupted in many ways and General Growth stock… General Growth the company, the CFO in particular was very aggressive in the way that he borrowed money. And he borrowed money from a kind of Wall Street, not long-term mortgages, but generally relatively short-term mortgages.
It was pretty aggressive. As the value went up, he would borrow more and more against the assets and that helped the short-term results of the business. The problem was during the financial crisis, the market for what’s called CMBS, commercial mortgage backed securities basically shut. And the company, because its debt was relatively short term, had a lot of big maturities coming up that they had no ability to refinance. And the market said, “Oh, my god, the lenders are going to foreclose and the shareholders going to get wiped, the company’s going to go bankrupt, they’re going to get wiped out.” The stock went from $63 a share to 34 cents. And there was a family, the Bucksbaum Family owned I think about 25% of the company, and they had a 5 billion of stock that was worth 25 billion or something by the time, we bought a stake in the business.
And what interested me was I thought the assets were worth substantially more than the liabilities. The company had 27 billion of debt and had a hundred million dollars value of the equity down from 20 billion. Okay? And one that sort of an interesting place to start with a stock down 99%. But the fundamental drivers, the mall business are occupancy. How occupied are the malls, occupancy was up year-on-year between ’07 and ’08. Interestingly, net operating income, which is kind of a measure of cash flow from the malls, that was up year-on-year. So kind of the underlying fundamentals were doing fine. The only problem they had is they had billions of dollars of debt that they had to repay, they couldn’t repay. And if you kind of examine the bankruptcy code, it’s precisely designed for a situation like this where it’s this resting place you can go to restructure your business.
Now the problem was that every other company that had gone bankrupt, the shareholders got wiped out. And so the market’s seeing every previous example, the shareholders get wiped out. The assumption is this stock is going to go to zero. But that’s not what the bankruptcy code says. What the bankruptcy code says is that the value gets portioned based on value. And if you could prove to a judge that there was the assets worth more than a liabilities, then the shareholders actually get to keep their investment in the company. And that was the bet we made. And so we stepped into the market and we bought 25% of the company in the open market for… We had to pay up. It started out at 34 cents, I think there were 300 million shares. So it was at a hundred million dollars value by the time we were done. We paid an average of… We paid 60 million for 25% of the business, so about $240 million for the equity of the company.
And then we had to get on the board to convince the directors the thing to do. And the board was in complete panic, didn’t know what to do, spending a ton of money on advisors. And I was a shareholder activist four years into Pershing Square, and no one had any idea what we were doing. They thought we were crazy. Every day we’d go into the market and we’d buy this penny stock and we’d file what’s called a 13D, every 1% increase in our stake. And people just thought we were crazy. We’re buying stock in a company that’s going to go bankrupt. “Bill, you’re going to lose all your money. Run.” And I said, “Well, wait, bankruptcy code says that if it’s more asset value than liabilities, we should be fine.” And the key moment, if you’re looking for fun moments is there’s a woman named Maddie Bucksbaum who’s from the Bucksbaum family.
And her cousin John was chairman of the board, CEO of the company. And as she calls me after we disclose our stake in the company, she’s like, “Bill Ackman, I’m really glad to see you here.” And I met her like… I don’t think it was a date, but I kind of met her in a social context when I was like 25 or something. And she said, “Look, I’m really glad to see you here and if there’s anything I can do to help you, call me.” I said, “Sure.” We kept trying to get on the board of the company. They wouldn’t invite us on, couldn’t really run a proxy contest, not with a company going bankrupt. And their advisors actually were Goldman Sachs…
Bill Ackman
… not with a company going bankrupt. And their advisors actually were Goldman Sachs and they’re like, “You don’t want the fox in the henhouse.” And they were listening to their advisors. I called Maddie up and I said, “Maddie, I need to get on the board of the company to help.” And she says, “You know what? I will call my cousin and I’ll get it done.” She calls back a few hours later, “You’ll be going onto the board.” I don’t know what she said because …
… not with a company going bankrupt. And their advisors actually were Goldman Sachs and they’re like, “You don’t want the fox in the henhouse.” And they were listening to their advisors. I called Maddie up and I said, “Maddie, I need to get on the board of the company to help.” And she says, “You know what? I will call my cousin and I’ll get it done.” She calls back a few hours later, “You’ll be going onto the board.” I don’t know what she said because …
Lex Fridman
Well, she was convincing.
Well, she was convincing.
Bill Ackman
Next thing you know, I’m invited on the board of the company, and the board is talking about the old equity of general growth. Old equity is what you talk about, “The shareholders are getting wiped out.” I said, “No, no, no. This board represents the current equity of the company and I’m a major shareholder. John’s a major shareholder. There’s plenty of asset value here. This company should be able to be restructured for the benefit of shareholders.” And we led a restructuring for the benefit of shareholders, and it took, let’s say eight months. And the company emerged from Chapter 11. We made an incremental investment into the company, and the shareholders kept the vast majority of their investment. All the creditors got their face amount of their investment par plus accrued interest, and it was a great outcome. All the employees kept their jobs, the mall stayed open, there was no liquidation.
Next thing you know, I’m invited on the board of the company, and the board is talking about the old equity of general growth. Old equity is what you talk about, “The shareholders are getting wiped out.” I said, “No, no, no. This board represents the current equity of the company and I’m a major shareholder. John’s a major shareholder. There’s plenty of asset value here. This company should be able to be restructured for the benefit of shareholders.” And we led a restructuring for the benefit of shareholders, and it took, let’s say eight months. And the company emerged from Chapter 11. We made an incremental investment into the company, and the shareholders kept the vast majority of their investment. All the creditors got their face amount of their investment par plus accrued interest, and it was a great outcome. All the employees kept their jobs, the mall stayed open, there was no liquidation.
The bankruptcy system worked the way it should. I was in court all the time and the first meeting with the judge, the judge is like, “Look, this would never have happened were it not for a financial crisis.” And once the judge said that, I knew we were going to be fine, because the company had really not done anything fundamentally wrong, maybe a little too aggressive in how they borrowed money. And stock went from 34 cents to $31 a share. And actually fun little anecdote, we made a lot of people a lot of money who followed us into it. I got a lot of nice thank you notes, which you get on occasion in this business, believe it or not. And then one day I get a voicemail, this is when there was something called voicemail, probably a few years later. And it’s a guy with a very thick Jamaican accent leaving a message for Bill Ackman.
I return all my calls, called the guy back. I said, “Hi, it’s Bill Ackman. I’m just returning your call.” He says, “Oh, Mr. Ackman, thank you so much for calling me.” And I said, “Oh, how can I help?” He says, “I wanted to thank you.” I said, “What do you mean?” He said, “I saw you on CNBC a couple of years ago and you were talking about this general growth and the stock.” I said, “Where was the stock at the time?” He said, “It’s 60 cents or something like this. And I bought a lot of stock.” And I’m like, “Well, how much did you invest?” ” Oh, I invest all of my money in the company.” And he was a New York City taxi driver and he invested like $50,000 or something like this at 60 cents a share. And he was still holding it. And he went into retirement and he made 50 times his money. And those are the moments that you feel pretty good about investing.
Lex Fridman
What gave you confidence through that? Went to a penny stock, and I’m sure you were getting a lot of naysayers and people saying that, “This is crazy.”
What gave you confidence through that? Went to a penny stock, and I’m sure you were getting a lot of naysayers and people saying that, “This is crazy.”
Bill Ackman
It’s the same thing. You just do the work. We got a lot of pushback from our investors actually because we had never invested in a bankrupt company before. It’s a field called distressed investing, and they’re dedicated distressed investors and we weren’t considered one of them. “Bill, what are you doing? You don’t know anything about distressed investing. You don’t know anything about bankruptcy investing.” But I can read.
It’s the same thing. You just do the work. We got a lot of pushback from our investors actually because we had never invested in a bankrupt company before. It’s a field called distressed investing, and they’re dedicated distressed investors and we weren’t considered one of them. “Bill, what are you doing? You don’t know anything about distressed investing. You don’t know anything about bankruptcy investing.” But I can read.
Lex Fridman
And you learned.
And you learned.
Bill Ackman
And I learned. And it sometimes is very helpful not to be a practitioner, an expert in something because you get used to the conventional wisdom. And so we just abstractly stepped back and look at the facts and it was just a really interesting setup for one of the best investments we ever made.
And I learned. And it sometimes is very helpful not to be a practitioner, an expert in something because you get used to the conventional wisdom. And so we just abstractly stepped back and look at the facts and it was just a really interesting setup for one of the best investments we ever made.
Lex Fridman
How hard is it to learn some of the legal aspects of this? Like you mentioned bankruptcy code. I imagine is very dense language and dense ideas and loopholes and all that kind of stuff. If you’re just stepping in and you’ve never done distressed investing, how hard is it to figure out?
How hard is it to learn some of the legal aspects of this? Like you mentioned bankruptcy code. I imagine is very dense language and dense ideas and loopholes and all that kind of stuff. If you’re just stepping in and you’ve never done distressed investing, how hard is it to figure out?
Bill Ackman
It’s not that hard. No, it’s not that hard.
It’s not that hard. No, it’s not that hard.
Lex Fridman
Okay.
Okay.
Bill Ackman
I literally read a book on distressed investing. Ben Branch or something on distressed investing.
I literally read a book on distressed investing. Ben Branch or something on distressed investing.
Lex Fridman
You were able to pick up the intuition from that. Just all the basic skills involved, the basic facts to know, all that kind of stuff?
You were able to pick up the intuition from that. Just all the basic skills involved, the basic facts to know, all that kind of stuff?
Bill Ackman
Most of the world’s knowledge has already been written somewhere. You just got to read the right books. And also had great lawyers. Built up some great relationships. We work with Sullivan & Cromwell, and the lawyer there named Joe Schenker who I met earlier in my career. Pershing Square was actually my second act in the hedge fund business. I started a fund called Gotham Partners when I was 26. One of my early investments was a company called Rockefeller Center Properties that was heading for bankruptcy. And the lawyer on the other side representing Goldman Sachs was a guy named Joe Schenker. He was an obvious phone call because we had yet another real estate bankruptcy.
Most of the world’s knowledge has already been written somewhere. You just got to read the right books. And also had great lawyers. Built up some great relationships. We work with Sullivan & Cromwell, and the lawyer there named Joe Schenker who I met earlier in my career. Pershing Square was actually my second act in the hedge fund business. I started a fund called Gotham Partners when I was 26. One of my early investments was a company called Rockefeller Center Properties that was heading for bankruptcy. And the lawyer on the other side representing Goldman Sachs was a guy named Joe Schenker. He was an obvious phone call because we had yet another real estate bankruptcy.
And that one we did very well, but I missed the big opportunity and I suffered severe psychological torture every time I walked by Rockefeller Center because we knew more about that property, anyone else, but I knew less about deal making and didn’t have the resources, and I was 28 years old or 27. And they hired a better lawyer than we did, and they outsmarted us on that one in a way. I said, “Okay, I’m going to go hire this guy the next time round.”
Lex Fridman
Okay. We’ll probably talk about Rockefeller Center and some failures, but first you said Fox in the henhouse, something that the board and the chairman were worried about. Why would they call you a fox? You keep saying activist investing, there’s nothing to worry about. It’s always good, mostly good. But that expression applied in this context, they were still worried about that.
Okay. We’ll probably talk about Rockefeller Center and some failures, but first you said Fox in the henhouse, something that the board and the chairman were worried about. Why would they call you a fox? You keep saying activist investing, there’s nothing to worry about. It’s always good, mostly good. But that expression applied in this context, they were still worried about that.
Bill Ackman
Sure.
Sure.
Lex Fridman
And so there’s a million questions here, but first of all, what is the process of getting on the board look like?
And so there’s a million questions here, but first of all, what is the process of getting on the board look like?
Bill Ackman
A board can always admit a member at any time in their discretion for a US company. Maybe there’s some jurisdiction where you need a shareholder vote, but in most cases a board can vote on any director that they want. If the board doesn’t invite you to the party, you have to apply to be a member in effect, and basically it’s the process of ultimately running a slate for a meeting where you propose a … Any shareholder can propose to be on a board of a company if they own a one share of stock in the business. And getting your name in the materials they sent to shareholders, those rules were written in a way that were very unfavorable and very difficult to get in the door.
A board can always admit a member at any time in their discretion for a US company. Maybe there’s some jurisdiction where you need a shareholder vote, but in most cases a board can vote on any director that they want. If the board doesn’t invite you to the party, you have to apply to be a member in effect, and basically it’s the process of ultimately running a slate for a meeting where you propose a … Any shareholder can propose to be on a board of a company if they own a one share of stock in the business. And getting your name in the materials they sent to shareholders, those rules were written in a way that were very unfavorable and very difficult to get in the door.
And those rules have been changed very recently where the company now has to include really all the candidates and the materials they sent to shareholders and the shareholders pick the best ones. When we ran proxy contests in the past, that was not the case. And so you have to spend a lot of money, mostly mailing fees and all kinds of other legal and other expenses to let everyone know you’re running, like running a political campaign. And then you got to run around and meet with the big shareholders, fly around the country, explain your case to them, and then there’s a shareholder meeting. And if you get a majority of the votes, you get on.
Lex Fridman
What’s this proxy contest/battle idea, what’s the-
What’s this proxy contest/battle idea, what’s the-
Bill Ackman
The battle comes when they don’t want you to get on. And a lot of that has to do with I would say, pride, normal human stuff. A lot of times a board of an underperforming company doesn’t want to admit that they’ve underperformed. And boards of directors 20 years ago when we started Pershing Square, were pretty cushy jobs. Sit on a board of a company, you play golf with the CEO at nice golf courses, you make a few hundred thousand dollars a year to go to four meetings. It was kind of a rubber stamp world where, at the end of the day, the CEO really ran the show. Once shareholders could actually dislodge board members and they could lose their seats, and that’s really the rise of shareholder activism, boards started taking their responsibilities much more seriously. Because directors are typically … in many cases, they’re retired CEOs. This is how they’re making a living in the later part of their career.
The battle comes when they don’t want you to get on. And a lot of that has to do with I would say, pride, normal human stuff. A lot of times a board of an underperforming company doesn’t want to admit that they’ve underperformed. And boards of directors 20 years ago when we started Pershing Square, were pretty cushy jobs. Sit on a board of a company, you play golf with the CEO at nice golf courses, you make a few hundred thousand dollars a year to go to four meetings. It was kind of a rubber stamp world where, at the end of the day, the CEO really ran the show. Once shareholders could actually dislodge board members and they could lose their seats, and that’s really the rise of shareholder activism, boards started taking their responsibilities much more seriously. Because directors are typically … in many cases, they’re retired CEOs. This is how they’re making a living in the later part of their career.
They’ll sit on four boards, they collect a million, a million and a half dollars a year in director’s fees. If they get thrown off the board by the shareholders, that’s embarrassing obviously and it affects their ability to get on other boards. Again, incentives, as I said earlier, drive all human behavior. The incentives of directors, they want to preserve their board seats. Now the directors on board serve in various roles. The most vulnerable ones are ones who, for example, chair a compensation committee. And if they put in a bad plan or they overpaid management, they’re subject to attack by shareholders. But these contests are not dissimilar to political contests, where there’s mudslinging and the other side puts out false information about you and you have to respond and they’re spending the shareholders’ money, so they have sort of unlimited resources. And you’re spending your and your investors’ money, when you’re a small firm, finite resources. They can outspend you, they can sue you, they can try to jigger the mechanics in such a way that you’re going to lose. There’s some unfortunate stuff that’s happened in the past, some manipulative stuff.
Lex Fridman
Also some stuff that’s public like in the press and all this kind of stuff?
Also some stuff that’s public like in the press and all this kind of stuff?
Bill Ackman
Oh, of course. There’ll be articles about … In the dirty days where they would go through your trash and make sure that you’re not sleeping around and things like this. But that’s okay. I can survive extreme scrutiny because I’ve been through this for a long time.
Oh, of course. There’ll be articles about … In the dirty days where they would go through your trash and make sure that you’re not sleeping around and things like this. But that’s okay. I can survive extreme scrutiny because I’ve been through this for a long time.
Lex Fridman
You’re saying the fat and happy hens can get very wolf-like when the fox is trying to break in? Is this how we extend this metaphor?
You’re saying the fat and happy hens can get very wolf-like when the fox is trying to break in? Is this how we extend this metaphor?
Bill Ackman
Well, the fox is a threat to the hens.
Well, the fox is a threat to the hens.
Lex Fridman
But the charismatic fox just explained to me why the fox is good for everybody in the henhouse.
But the charismatic fox just explained to me why the fox is good for everybody in the henhouse.
Bill Ackman
At the end of the day, it’s actually very good on a board to have someone … There are many examples over time and some handful of high profile ones where the board fought tooth and nail to keep the activists off the board. And then once the activists got on the board and they said, “This guy’s not so bad after all. The shareholders voted him on. He’s got some decent ideas and let’s all work together to have this work out.” And so there are very few cases where after the contest … And by the way, sometimes you have to replace the entire board. We’ve done that. But in most cases you got a couple of seats on the board, and it’s just you want to build a board comprised of diverse points of view. And that’s how you get to the truth.
At the end of the day, it’s actually very good on a board to have someone … There are many examples over time and some handful of high profile ones where the board fought tooth and nail to keep the activists off the board. And then once the activists got on the board and they said, “This guy’s not so bad after all. The shareholders voted him on. He’s got some decent ideas and let’s all work together to have this work out.” And so there are very few cases where after the contest … And by the way, sometimes you have to replace the entire board. We’ve done that. But in most cases you got a couple of seats on the board, and it’s just you want to build a board comprised of diverse points of view. And that’s how you get to the truth.
Canadian Pacific Railway
Lex Fridman
What was the most dramatic battle for the board that you have been a part of?
What was the most dramatic battle for the board that you have been a part of?
Bill Ackman
The Canadian Pacific Proxy contest. Canadian Pacific was considered the most iconic company in Canada. It literally built the country because the rail that got built over Canada is what united the various provinces into a country. And then over time, because the railroad business is a pretty good business, they built a ton of hotels, they owned a lot of real estate, and it became this massive conglomerate, but it was horribly mismanaged for decades. By the time we got involved, it was by far the worst run railroad in North America. They had the lowest profit margins, they had the lowest growth rate. Every quarter management would make excuses, generally about the weather as to why they underperformed versus … And there there’s a direct competitor, a company called Canadian National, has a rail goes right across the country. And Canadian Pacific would constantly be complaining about the weather.
The Canadian Pacific Proxy contest. Canadian Pacific was considered the most iconic company in Canada. It literally built the country because the rail that got built over Canada is what united the various provinces into a country. And then over time, because the railroad business is a pretty good business, they built a ton of hotels, they owned a lot of real estate, and it became this massive conglomerate, but it was horribly mismanaged for decades. By the time we got involved, it was by far the worst run railroad in North America. They had the lowest profit margins, they had the lowest growth rate. Every quarter management would make excuses, generally about the weather as to why they underperformed versus … And there there’s a direct competitor, a company called Canadian National, has a rail goes right across the country. And Canadian Pacific would constantly be complaining about the weather.
And basically same country, same regions, the tracks weren’t that far apart. But it was a really important company and being on this board was like an honorary thing. And everyone on the board was an icon of Canada. The chairman of the Royal Bank of Canada, the head of the most important privately held grain company, an important collection of big time Canadian executives. Here we were, this is probably about 13 years ago, and still maybe a 44-year-old from New York, not a Canadian basically saying, “This is the worst run railroad North America.” And we bought 12% of the railroad at a really low price and we brought with us to our first meeting, the greatest railroader ever, a guy named Hunter Harrison who had turned around Canadian National. We’re like, “Okay, we’ve got a great asset. We’ve got the greatest railroad CEO of all time. He’s come out of retirement to step in and run the railroad.” And we brought him to the first meeting and they wouldn’t even meet with him, and they certainly weren’t going to consider hiring him. And that led us to a proxy contest.
Lex Fridman
And this is where the engine starts churning to figure out how this contest can be won. What’s involved?
And this is where the engine starts churning to figure out how this contest can be won. What’s involved?
Bill Ackman
Well the key is we had to one come up with a group of directors who would be willing to step into a battle. And we didn’t want a bunch of New York directors or even American directors, we wanted Canadians. The problem was this was the most iconic company in Canada and we wanted high profile people. We talked to all the high profile people in Canada. Every one of them would say, “Bill, you’re entirely right. This thing is the worst run railroad. It needs to be fixed. But I see John at the club. I see him at the Toronto Club. I can’t do this, but you’re totally right.” And that was the concern because you have to file your materials by a certain day, you got to put together a slate. We needed a big slate because we knew that we had to replace basically all the directors.
Well the key is we had to one come up with a group of directors who would be willing to step into a battle. And we didn’t want a bunch of New York directors or even American directors, we wanted Canadians. The problem was this was the most iconic company in Canada and we wanted high profile people. We talked to all the high profile people in Canada. Every one of them would say, “Bill, you’re entirely right. This thing is the worst run railroad. It needs to be fixed. But I see John at the club. I see him at the Toronto Club. I can’t do this, but you’re totally right.” And that was the concern because you have to file your materials by a certain day, you got to put together a slate. We needed a big slate because we knew that we had to replace basically all the directors.
And then I spoke to a guy who was one of the wealthiest guys in Canada who was on the board at one point in time. And he said, “Bill, I have an idea for you. There’s this woman, Rebecca McDonald, why don’t you give her a call?” And I called Rebecca and she was the first woman to take a company public in Canada as CEO. And she was an anti-establishment, not afraid to take on anything kind of person. And I called her, we had a great conversation and she was in the Dominican Republic at her house and I flew down to see her and she said, “Yeah, I’m all in.” And actually, once we got her, that enabled us to get others. And then we put together our slate and we had some pretty interesting dialogue with the company. They tried to embarrass us all the time.
Lex Fridman
In the press publicly? What are talking about?
In the press publicly? What are talking about?
Bill Ackman
Press publicly. At one point I wrote an email saying, “Look, let’s come to peace on this thing, but if we don’t, you’re really forcing my hand and we’re going to have to rent the largest hall in Toronto and invite all the shareholders and it’s going to be embarrassing for management.” And I made reference to some nuclear winter, “Let’s not have it be a nuclear winter.” And they thought they’d embarrass me by releasing the email, but it only inspired us. And we rented the largest hall in Canada and we put up a presentation walking through, “Here’s Canadian National. Here’s Canadian Pacific. Here’s what they said. Here’s what they did.” And then we had Hunter get up who was this incredibly charismatic guy from Tennessee. He’s like a lion, incredibly deep voice, unbelievable track record, incredibly respected guy. It’s like getting Michael Jordan to come out of retirement and come run the company.
Press publicly. At one point I wrote an email saying, “Look, let’s come to peace on this thing, but if we don’t, you’re really forcing my hand and we’re going to have to rent the largest hall in Toronto and invite all the shareholders and it’s going to be embarrassing for management.” And I made reference to some nuclear winter, “Let’s not have it be a nuclear winter.” And they thought they’d embarrass me by releasing the email, but it only inspired us. And we rented the largest hall in Canada and we put up a presentation walking through, “Here’s Canadian National. Here’s Canadian Pacific. Here’s what they said. Here’s what they did.” And then we had Hunter get up who was this incredibly charismatic guy from Tennessee. He’s like a lion, incredibly deep voice, unbelievable track record, incredibly respected guy. It’s like getting Michael Jordan to come out of retirement and come run the company.
And Hunter was incredible, and Paul Lau, other members of my team were super engaged. And Canadians are known to be nice, so one of the problems we had is shareholders would never tell management or the board that they were losing. It was not until the night before the meeting when the vote came in, that management realized that they lost. We got 99% of the vote. And they begged us to take a deal. They said, “Look, we’ll resign tonight so that we don’t have to come to the meeting tomorrow.” That’s how embarrassed they were. But that was kind of an interesting one.
Lex Fridman
In both this proxy battle and the company itself, this was one of your more successful investments?
In both this proxy battle and the company itself, this was one of your more successful investments?
Bill Ackman
It was. The stock’s up about 10 times and it’s an industrial company. It’s a railroad. It’s not Google. So it’s a great story. And the company’s now run by a guy named Keith Creel. And Keith was Hunter’s protege, and in many ways he’s actually better than Hunter. He’s doing an incredible job. And the sad part here is we did very well, we tripled our money over several years and then I went through a very challenging period because of a couple of bad investments, and we had to sell our Canadian Pacific to raise capital to pay for investors who are leaving. But we had another opportunity to buy it back in the last couple of years. And so we’re now again a major owner of the company. But had we held onto original stock, it would’ve been epic, if you will.
It was. The stock’s up about 10 times and it’s an industrial company. It’s a railroad. It’s not Google. So it’s a great story. And the company’s now run by a guy named Keith Creel. And Keith was Hunter’s protege, and in many ways he’s actually better than Hunter. He’s doing an incredible job. And the sad part here is we did very well, we tripled our money over several years and then I went through a very challenging period because of a couple of bad investments, and we had to sell our Canadian Pacific to raise capital to pay for investors who are leaving. But we had another opportunity to buy it back in the last couple of years. And so we’re now again a major owner of the company. But had we held onto original stock, it would’ve been epic, if you will.
Lex Fridman
On this one, you were right.
On this one, you were right.
Bill Ackman
Yes.
Yes.
Lex Fridman
And I read an article about you, and there’s many articles about you. I read an article that said, Bill is often right, but you approach it with a scorched earth approach that can often do damage.
And I read an article about you, and there’s many articles about you. I read an article that said, Bill is often right, but you approach it with a scorched earth approach that can often do damage.
Bill Ackman
I haven’t read the often right article, but the good news is we are often right, and I say we because we’re a team, a small team, but fortunately a very successful one. Our batting average as investors is extremely high. And the good news is our record’s totally public. You can see everything we’ve ever done. But the press doesn’t generally write about the success stories, they write about the failures. And so we’ve had some epic failures, big losses. The good news is they’ve been a tiny minority of the cases now. No one likes to lose money. It’s even worse to lose other people’s money. And I’ve done that occasionally. The good news is if you’ve stuck with us, you’ve done very well over a long time.
I haven’t read the often right article, but the good news is we are often right, and I say we because we’re a team, a small team, but fortunately a very successful one. Our batting average as investors is extremely high. And the good news is our record’s totally public. You can see everything we’ve ever done. But the press doesn’t generally write about the success stories, they write about the failures. And so we’ve had some epic failures, big losses. The good news is they’ve been a tiny minority of the cases now. No one likes to lose money. It’s even worse to lose other people’s money. And I’ve done that occasionally. The good news is if you’ve stuck with us, you’ve done very well over a long time.
OpenAI
Lex Fridman
On a small tangent since we were talking about boards. Did you get a chance to see what happened with the OpenAI board? Because I’m talking to Sam Altman soon. Is there any insight you have, just maybe lessons you draw from these kinds of events, especially with an AI technology company, such dramatic things happening?
On a small tangent since we were talking about boards. Did you get a chance to see what happened with the OpenAI board? Because I’m talking to Sam Altman soon. Is there any insight you have, just maybe lessons you draw from these kinds of events, especially with an AI technology company, such dramatic things happening?
Bill Ackman
Yeah, that was an incredible story. Look, governance really matters, and the governance structure of OpenAI, I think leaves something to be desired. I think Sam’s point was, and maybe Elon Musk’s point originally set up as a nonprofit. And it reminds me actually, I invested in a nonprofit run by a former Facebook founder where he was going to create a Facebook-like entity for nonprofits to promote goodness in the world. And the problem was he couldn’t hire the talent he wanted because he couldn’t grant stock options, he couldn’t pay market salaries. And ultimately he ended up selling the business to a for-profit.
Yeah, that was an incredible story. Look, governance really matters, and the governance structure of OpenAI, I think leaves something to be desired. I think Sam’s point was, and maybe Elon Musk’s point originally set up as a nonprofit. And it reminds me actually, I invested in a nonprofit run by a former Facebook founder where he was going to create a Facebook-like entity for nonprofits to promote goodness in the world. And the problem was he couldn’t hire the talent he wanted because he couldn’t grant stock options, he couldn’t pay market salaries. And ultimately he ended up selling the business to a for-profit.
It taught me for-profit solutions to problems are much better than nonprofits. And here you had kind of a blend. It was set up as a nonprofit, but I think they found the same thing. They couldn’t hire the talent they wanted without having a for-profit subsidiary. But the nonprofit entity, as I understand it, owns a big chunk of OpenAI, and the investors own a capped interest where their upside is capped and they don’t have representation on the board. And I think that was a setup for a problem, and that’s clearly what happened here.
Lex Fridman
And there’s, I guess some kind of complexity in the governance. Because of this nonprofit and cap profit thing, it seems like there’s a bunch of complexity and non-standard aspects to it that perhaps also contributed to the problem?
And there’s, I guess some kind of complexity in the governance. Because of this nonprofit and cap profit thing, it seems like there’s a bunch of complexity and non-standard aspects to it that perhaps also contributed to the problem?
Bill Ackman
Yeah. Governance really matters. Boards of directors really matter. Giving the shareholders the right to have input at least once a year on the structure of the governance of companies is really important. And private venture backed boards are also not ideal. I’m an active investor in ventures, and there are some complicated issues that emerge in private and venture stage companies where board members have somewhat divergent incentives from the long-term owners of a business. And what you see a lot in venture boards is they’re presided over generally by venture capital investors who are big investors in the company. And oftentimes it’s more important to them to have the public perception that they’re good directors so they get the next best deal. If they have a reputation for taking on management too aggressively, word will get out in the small community of founders and they’ll miss the next Google. And so their interests are not just in that particular company. That’s also one of the problems. Again, it all comes back to incentives.
Yeah. Governance really matters. Boards of directors really matter. Giving the shareholders the right to have input at least once a year on the structure of the governance of companies is really important. And private venture backed boards are also not ideal. I’m an active investor in ventures, and there are some complicated issues that emerge in private and venture stage companies where board members have somewhat divergent incentives from the long-term owners of a business. And what you see a lot in venture boards is they’re presided over generally by venture capital investors who are big investors in the company. And oftentimes it’s more important to them to have the public perception that they’re good directors so they get the next best deal. If they have a reputation for taking on management too aggressively, word will get out in the small community of founders and they’ll miss the next Google. And so their interests are not just in that particular company. That’s also one of the problems. Again, it all comes back to incentives.
Lex Fridman
Can you explain to me the difference venture backed VCs and shareholders? This means before the company goes public?
Can you explain to me the difference venture backed VCs and shareholders? This means before the company goes public?
Bill Ackman
Yeah. Private venture backed companies, the boards tend to be very small. It could be a handful of the venture investors and management. They’re often very rarely independent directors. It’s just not an ideal structure.
Yeah. Private venture backed companies, the boards tend to be very small. It could be a handful of the venture investors and management. They’re often very rarely independent directors. It’s just not an ideal structure.
Lex Fridman
Oh, I see. You want independent?
Oh, I see. You want independent?
Bill Ackman
It’s beneficial to have people who have an economic interest in the business and they care only about the success of that company, as opposed to someone who … If you think about the venture business, getting into the best deals is more important than any one deal. And you see cases where the boards go along with, in some cases, bad behavior on the part of management because they want a reputation for being a founder friendly director. That’s kind of problematic. You don’t have the same issue in public company boards.
It’s beneficial to have people who have an economic interest in the business and they care only about the success of that company, as opposed to someone who … If you think about the venture business, getting into the best deals is more important than any one deal. And you see cases where the boards go along with, in some cases, bad behavior on the part of management because they want a reputation for being a founder friendly director. That’s kind of problematic. You don’t have the same issue in public company boards.
Lex Fridman
We talked about some of the big wins and your a track record, but you said there were some big losses. What’s the biggest loss of your career?
We talked about some of the big wins and your a track record, but you said there were some big losses. What’s the biggest loss of your career?
Biggest loss and lowest point
Bill Ackman
Biggest loss in my career is a company called Valiant Pharmaceuticals. We made an investment in business that didn’t meet our core principles. The problem in the pharmaceutical industry, and there are many problems as I’ve learned, is it’s a very volatile business. It’s based on drug discovery. It’s based on predicting the future revenues of a drug before it goes off patent. Lots of complexities. And we thought we had found a pharmaceutical company we could own because of a very unusual founder in the way he approached this business. It was a company where another activist was on the board of directors of the company and governing and overseeing the day-to-day decisions, and we ended up making a passive investment in the company. And up until this point in time, we really didn’t make passive investments, and the company made a series of decisions that were disastrous and then we stepped in to try to solve the problem. It was the first time I ever joined a board, and the mess was much larger than I realized from the outside and then I was kind of stuck. And it was very much a confidence sensitive strategy because they built their business by acquiring pharmaceutical assets, and they often issued stock when they acquired targets. Once the market lost confidence in management, the stock price got crushed and it impaired their ability to continue to acquire low cost drugs. And we lost $4 billion.
Biggest loss in my career is a company called Valiant Pharmaceuticals. We made an investment in business that didn’t meet our core principles. The problem in the pharmaceutical industry, and there are many problems as I’ve learned, is it’s a very volatile business. It’s based on drug discovery. It’s based on predicting the future revenues of a drug before it goes off patent. Lots of complexities. And we thought we had found a pharmaceutical company we could own because of a very unusual founder in the way he approached this business. It was a company where another activist was on the board of directors of the company and governing and overseeing the day-to-day decisions, and we ended up making a passive investment in the company. And up until this point in time, we really didn’t make passive investments, and the company made a series of decisions that were disastrous and then we stepped in to try to solve the problem. It was the first time I ever joined a board, and the mess was much larger than I realized from the outside and then I was kind of stuck. And it was very much a confidence sensitive strategy because they built their business by acquiring pharmaceutical assets, and they often issued stock when they acquired targets. Once the market lost confidence in management, the stock price got crushed and it impaired their ability to continue to acquire low cost drugs. And we lost $4 billion.
Lex Fridman
$4 billion.
$4 billion.
Bill Ackman
How’s that for a big loss? That’s up there.
How’s that for a big loss? That’s up there.
Lex Fridman
I’m sweating this whole conversation, both the wins and the losses and the stakes involved.
I’m sweating this whole conversation, both the wins and the losses and the stakes involved.
Bill Ackman
And by the way, that loss catalyzed other, what I call mark to market losses. Very high profile, huge number, disastrous press. Then people said, “Okay, Bill’s going to go out of business, so we’re going to bet against everything he’s doing. And we know his entire portfolio because we only own 10 things.” And we were short a company called Herbalife. Very famously, we’ve only really shorted two companies. The first one, there’s a book, the second one, there’s a movie. We no longer short companies. People pushed up the price of Herbalife, which when you’re a short seller, that’s catastrophic. I can explain that.
And by the way, that loss catalyzed other, what I call mark to market losses. Very high profile, huge number, disastrous press. Then people said, “Okay, Bill’s going to go out of business, so we’re going to bet against everything he’s doing. And we know his entire portfolio because we only own 10 things.” And we were short a company called Herbalife. Very famously, we’ve only really shorted two companies. The first one, there’s a book, the second one, there’s a movie. We no longer short companies. People pushed up the price of Herbalife, which when you’re a short seller, that’s catastrophic. I can explain that.
And then they also shorted the other stocks that we owned. And so that Valiant loss led to an overall more than 30% loss in the value of our portfolio. The Valiant loss was real and was crystallized. We ended up selling the position taking that loss. Most of the other losses were what I would call mark to market losses that were temporary. But many people go out of business because as I mentioned before, large move in a price, if investors are redeeming or you have leverage can put you out of business. And if people assumed if we got put out of business, we’d have to sell everything or cover our short position, and that would make the losses even worse. Wall Street is kind of ruthless.
Lex Fridman
They can make money off of that whole thing?
They can make money off of that whole thing?
Bill Ackman
Absolutely.
Absolutely.
Lex Fridman
They used the opportunity of Valiant to try to destroy you reputation, financially, and then capitalize and make money off of that?
They used the opportunity of Valiant to try to destroy you reputation, financially, and then capitalize and make money off of that?
Bill Ackman
Yes.
Yes.
Lex Fridman
Wow, that’s a terrifying spot to be in. What was it like going through that?
Wow, that’s a terrifying spot to be in. What was it like going through that?
Bill Ackman
I was pretty grim. It’s actually much worse than that because I had a lot of stuff going on personally as well, and these things tend to be correlated. The Valiant mistake came at a time where I was contemplating my marriage. The problem with the hedge fund business is when you get to a certain scale, the CEO becomes like the chief marketing officer of the business, and I’m really an investor as opposed to a marketing guy. But when you have investors who give you a few hundred million dollars, they want to see you once a year, “Bill, I’d love to see you for an hour.” But if you’ve got a couple hundred of those, you find yourself on a plane to the Middle East, to Asia, flying around the country. This is pre Zoom, and that takes you away from the investment process.
I was pretty grim. It’s actually much worse than that because I had a lot of stuff going on personally as well, and these things tend to be correlated. The Valiant mistake came at a time where I was contemplating my marriage. The problem with the hedge fund business is when you get to a certain scale, the CEO becomes like the chief marketing officer of the business, and I’m really an investor as opposed to a marketing guy. But when you have investors who give you a few hundred million dollars, they want to see you once a year, “Bill, I’d love to see you for an hour.” But if you’ve got a couple hundred of those, you find yourself on a plane to the Middle East, to Asia, flying around the country. This is pre Zoom, and that takes you away from the investment process.
You have to delegate more. That was a contributor to the Valiant mistake. Now we lose a ton of money on Valiant. My ex-wife and I were talking about separating, getting divorced. I put that on hold because I didn’t want to make a decision in the middle of this crisis, and things just kept getting worse. We were also sued. When you lose a lot of money … we didn’t get sued by our investors, but we got sued by a shareholder because when the stock price goes down, shareholders sue. We’d done nothing wrong other than make a big mistake. So you have litigation, your investors are taking their money out. I’m in the middle of a divorce. The divorce starts to proceed. My ex-wife’s lawyer’s expectations of what my net worth was was about three times what it actually was, and it was going lower right in the middle of this. And I remember the lawyer saying, “Look, Bill, we’ve estimate your net worth at X, but don’t worry, we only want a third.” But X was 3X, so a third was 100%.
And then I had litigation. And actually never before publicly disclosed, and I’ll share it with you now. We had a public company that owned about a third of our portfolio that was call it, our version of Berkshire Hathaway. I tried to learn from Mr. Buffet over time, and it was so to speak, permanent capital. The problem with hedge funds is people can take their money out every quarter. What Buffet has is a company where if people want to take their money out, they sell the stock, but the money stays. We set up a similar structure in October of 2014, and then a year later, Valiant happens, and then a year later we’re in the middle of the mess and we’re still in the mess. By mid 2017, we’ve got litigation underway, and another activist investor, a firm called Elliot Associates, which is run by a guy named Paul Singer, took a big position in our public company that was the bulk of our capital, and they shorted all the stocks that we owned.
And they probably went long the short that we were short, and they were making a bet that we’d be forced to liquidate and then they would make money on … Our public company was trading at a discount to what all the securities were worth. They bought the public company, they shorted the securities, and then they came to see us to try to be activists and force us to liquidate and that sort of-
Lex Fridman
Wow.
Wow.
Bill Ackman
I envisioned an end where the divorce takes all of my resources, the permanent capital vehicle ends up getting liquidated, and another activist in my industry puts me out of business. And I had met Neri Oxman right around this time, and I’d fallen completely in love with her. And I was envisioning a world where I was bankrupt, a judge found me guilty of whatever, he sends me off to jail … of course not that judge because he was a civil judge, but another judge sues the SEC, Department of Justice, and I find myself in this incredible mess. And I decided I didn’t want things to end that way.
I envisioned an end where the divorce takes all of my resources, the permanent capital vehicle ends up getting liquidated, and another activist in my industry puts me out of business. And I had met Neri Oxman right around this time, and I’d fallen completely in love with her. And I was envisioning a world where I was bankrupt, a judge found me guilty of whatever, he sends me off to jail … of course not that judge because he was a civil judge, but another judge sues the SEC, Department of Justice, and I find myself in this incredible mess. And I decided I didn’t want things to end that way.
I did something I’d never done before. I talked about it before about that you don’t borrow money, but I borrowed money and I borrowed $300 million from JP Morgan in the middle of this mess. And I give JP Morgan enormous credit in seeing through it. And also I had been a good client over a long period of time, and it’s like it’s a handshake bank and they bet that I would succeed. And I took that money to buy enough stock in my public company that I could prevent an activist from taking over and I could effectively buy control of our little public company.
And I got that done, and that I knew was the moment, the turning point. And I resolved my divorce, and divorces get easier to resolve when things are going badly. I was able to resolve that. We settled the litigation. I was buying blocks of our stock in the market. I remember a day I bought a big block of stock in the market, and I get a call from Gordon Singer, who is Paul Singer’s son, who runs their London part of their business. And he’s like, “Bill, was that you buying that block?” I said, “Yes.” And he’s like, “Fuck.”
Lex Fridman
So he knew-
So he knew-
Bill Ackman
He knew that once I got that they were not going to be able to succeed, and they went away. And that was the bottom. And that we’ve had an incredible run since then.
He knew that once I got that they were not going to be able to succeed, and they went away. And that was the bottom. And that we’ve had an incredible run since then.
Lex Fridman
And then you were able to protect your reputation from the Valiant failure still?
And then you were able to protect your reputation from the Valiant failure still?
Bill Ackman
This is a business where you’re going to make some mistakes. It was a big one. It was very reputationally damaging. The press-
This is a business where you’re going to make some mistakes. It was a big one. It was very reputationally damaging. The press-
Bill Ackman
… was a big one. It was very reputationally damaging. The press was a total disaster, but I’m not a quitter. And actually the key moments for us, we’d never taken our core investment principles and actually really written them down, something we talked about at meetings, kind of our investment team meetings. I had a member of the team, I said, “Look, go find a big piece of granite and a chisel and let’s take those core principles. I want them Moses’ 10 Commandments. Okay, we’re going to chisel them and then we’re going to put it up on the wall.” And once we produce those, we put one on everyone’s desk. I said, “Look, if we ever again veer from the core principles, hit me with a baseball bat.” And that was the bottom. And ever since then, we’ve had the best six years in the history of the firm.
… was a big one. It was very reputationally damaging. The press was a total disaster, but I’m not a quitter. And actually the key moments for us, we’d never taken our core investment principles and actually really written them down, something we talked about at meetings, kind of our investment team meetings. I had a member of the team, I said, “Look, go find a big piece of granite and a chisel and let’s take those core principles. I want them Moses’ 10 Commandments. Okay, we’re going to chisel them and then we’re going to put it up on the wall.” And once we produce those, we put one on everyone’s desk. I said, “Look, if we ever again veer from the core principles, hit me with a baseball bat.” And that was the bottom. And ever since then, we’ve had the best six years in the history of the firm.
Lex Fridman
So refocus on the fundamentals. That’s a hell of a story.
So refocus on the fundamentals. That’s a hell of a story.
Bill Ackman
And love helps. Love helps. I literally met Neri at the absolute bottom. Our first date was September 7th of 2017. That was very close to the bottom. Actually, there’s one other element to the story. So this went on for a few months after I met her. The other element is that one day I got a call from Neri. She’s like, “Bill, guess what?” I’m like, “What?” “Brad Pitt is coming to the Media Lab. He wants to see my work.” I’m like, “That’s beautiful, sweetheart. I didn’t know Brad Pitt was interested in your work.”
And love helps. Love helps. I literally met Neri at the absolute bottom. Our first date was September 7th of 2017. That was very close to the bottom. Actually, there’s one other element to the story. So this went on for a few months after I met her. The other element is that one day I got a call from Neri. She’s like, “Bill, guess what?” I’m like, “What?” “Brad Pitt is coming to the Media Lab. He wants to see my work.” I’m like, “That’s beautiful, sweetheart. I didn’t know Brad Pitt was interested in your work.”
Lex Fridman
As a man, that’s a difficult phone call to take.
As a man, that’s a difficult phone call to take.
Bill Ackman
And apparently he’s really interested in architecture. I’m like, “Okay.” Now, Neri and I were like, we would WhatsApp all day every day, we talk throughout the day. Brad Pitt shows up at the Media Lab at 10 o’clock. I talk to her in the morning. I kind of text her to see how things are going, don’t hear back. And on WhatsApp, you can see whether the other person’s read it or not.
And apparently he’s really interested in architecture. I’m like, “Okay.” Now, Neri and I were like, we would WhatsApp all day every day, we talk throughout the day. Brad Pitt shows up at the Media Lab at 10 o’clock. I talk to her in the morning. I kind of text her to see how things are going, don’t hear back. And on WhatsApp, you can see whether the other person’s read it or not.
Lex Fridman
Yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah.
Yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah.
Bill Ackman
Okay, no response. A couple of hours later, send her another text, no response. Six o’clock, no response. Eight o’clock, no response, 10 o’clock, no response. And she finally calls me at 10:30 and tells me how great Brad Pitt is. So I had this scenario, okay, a judge is going to find me. We’re going to lose to the judge. All my assets will disappear. And then Brad Pitt’s going to take my girlfriend. [inaudible 01:35:09].
Okay, no response. A couple of hours later, send her another text, no response. Six o’clock, no response. Eight o’clock, no response, 10 o’clock, no response. And she finally calls me at 10:30 and tells me how great Brad Pitt is. So I had this scenario, okay, a judge is going to find me. We’re going to lose to the judge. All my assets will disappear. And then Brad Pitt’s going to take my girlfriend. [inaudible 01:35:09].
Lex Fridman
Yeah, Brad Pitt’s your competition. This is great.
Yeah, Brad Pitt’s your competition. This is great.
Bill Ackman
So it was like a moment. That was sort of the bottom. And then sort of the motivational thing. I didn’t want to lose to an activist, didn’t want to lose my girl to some other guy.
So it was like a moment. That was sort of the bottom. And then sort of the motivational thing. I didn’t want to lose to an activist, didn’t want to lose my girl to some other guy.
Lex Fridman
Brad Pitt, and you emerged from all of that, the winner on all fronts.
Brad Pitt, and you emerged from all of that, the winner on all fronts.
Bill Ackman
I’m a very fortunate guy, very fortunate and lucky.
I’m a very fortunate guy, very fortunate and lucky.
Lex Fridman
You talked about some of the technical aspects of that, but psychologically, what are you doing at night by yourself?
You talked about some of the technical aspects of that, but psychologically, what are you doing at night by yourself?
Bill Ackman
That was a hard time, hard time because I was separated from my wife and my kids. I was living in not the greatest apartment. I had a beautiful home. And so I had to go find a bachelor place and I didn’t want to be away from my kids. I moved 10 blocks away and I wasn’t seeing them and they didn’t like it. So I ended up buying an apartment I didn’t like in the same building as my kids with a different entrance so I could be near them. But I was home alone. I got a dog that was Babar. We call him Babar, not the elephant. He’s a black Labradoodle.
That was a hard time, hard time because I was separated from my wife and my kids. I was living in not the greatest apartment. I had a beautiful home. And so I had to go find a bachelor place and I didn’t want to be away from my kids. I moved 10 blocks away and I wasn’t seeing them and they didn’t like it. So I ended up buying an apartment I didn’t like in the same building as my kids with a different entrance so I could be near them. But I was home alone. I got a dog that was Babar. We call him Babar, not the elephant. He’s a black Labradoodle.
Lex Fridman
Nice.
Nice.
Bill Ackman
He was supposed to be a mini, but he’s not so as mini. But I got him at six weeks old and he would keep me company. And I started meditating actually. And a friend recommended TM. And I would meditate 20 minutes in the morning, 20 minutes in the evening. And I also a big believer in exercise and weightlifting and I play tennis. And I had been… This is not my first proximity to disaster. I had another moment in my career, like 2002, and I learned this method for dealing with these kind of moments, which is you just make a little progress every day. So today, I’m going to wake up, I’m going to make progress. I’ll make progress in the litigation, I’ll make progress in the portfolio. I’ll make progress with my life. And progress compounds a bit like money compounds. You don’t see a lot of progress in the first few weeks, but 30 days in like, oh, okay. You can’t look up at the mountaintop where you used to be because then you’ll give up.
He was supposed to be a mini, but he’s not so as mini. But I got him at six weeks old and he would keep me company. And I started meditating actually. And a friend recommended TM. And I would meditate 20 minutes in the morning, 20 minutes in the evening. And I also a big believer in exercise and weightlifting and I play tennis. And I had been… This is not my first proximity to disaster. I had another moment in my career, like 2002, and I learned this method for dealing with these kind of moments, which is you just make a little progress every day. So today, I’m going to wake up, I’m going to make progress. I’ll make progress in the litigation, I’ll make progress in the portfolio. I’ll make progress with my life. And progress compounds a bit like money compounds. You don’t see a lot of progress in the first few weeks, but 30 days in like, oh, okay. You can’t look up at the mountaintop where you used to be because then you’ll give up.
But you just, okay, just make step by step by step. And then 90 days in you’re like, okay, I was way down there. Okay, the mountain. Okay, I don’t look up. Just keep making progress, progress, progress and progress really does compound. And one day you wake up and like, wow, it’s amazing how far I’ve come.
And if you look at a chart of Pershing Square, our company, you can see the absolute bottom. You can see where we were, you can see the drop and you can see where we are now. And that huge drop that felt like a complete unbelievable disaster looks like a little bump on the curve. And it really gives you perspective on these things. You just have to power through. And I think the key is, I’ve always been fortunate from a mental health point of view and nutrition, sleep, exercise, and a little progress every day. That’s it. And good friends and family. I had go take a walk with a friend every night and a sister who loves me and parents who were supportive, but they were all worried about their son, their brother. It was a moment.
And also, by the way, the other thing to think about is when you recover from something like this, you really appreciate it. And also as much of the media loves when some successful person falls, they love writing the story of success, they love even more the story of failure. But when you recover from that, it’s kind of like the American story. America, you think of the great entrepreneurs and how many failures they had before they succeeded. How many rocket launches did SpaceX have explode on the pad? And then you look at success. I mean, that’s why Musk is so admired.
Herbalife and Carl Icahn
Lex Fridman
You mentioned Herbalife. Can you take me through the saga of that? It’s historic.
You mentioned Herbalife. Can you take me through the saga of that? It’s historic.
Bill Ackman
So we at Pershing Square short a very few stocks. And the reason for that is short selling is just inherently treacherous. So if you buy a stock, it’s called going long. You’re buying something, your worst case scenario is you lose your whole investment. You buy a stock for 100, it goes to zero, you lose $100 per share. You buy one share, you lose 100. You short a stock at 100. What it means is you borrow the security from someone else. The analogy I gave that made it easy for people to understand, it’s a bit like you think silver coins are going to go down in value, and you have a friend who’s got a whole pile of these 1880 silver US dollars, and you think they’re going to go down in value, and say, “Hey, can I borrow 10 of those dollars from you?”
So we at Pershing Square short a very few stocks. And the reason for that is short selling is just inherently treacherous. So if you buy a stock, it’s called going long. You’re buying something, your worst case scenario is you lose your whole investment. You buy a stock for 100, it goes to zero, you lose $100 per share. You buy one share, you lose 100. You short a stock at 100. What it means is you borrow the security from someone else. The analogy I gave that made it easy for people to understand, it’s a bit like you think silver coins are going to go down in value, and you have a friend who’s got a whole pile of these 1880 silver US dollars, and you think they’re going to go down in value, and say, “Hey, can I borrow 10 of those dollars from you?”
He’s like, “Sure, but what are you going to pay me to borrow them?” I’m like, “I’ll pay you interest on the value of the dollars today.” So you borrow the dollars that are worth $100 each today, you pay them interest while you’re borrowing them, and then you go sell them in the market for $100. That’s what they’re worth. And then they go down in price to 50. You go back in, you buy the silver dollars back at $50 and you give them back to your friend. Your friend is fine. You borrowed 10, you gave him the 10 back and he got interest. In the meantime, he’s happy. He made money on his coin collection. You, however, made $50 times the 10 coins, you made 500 bucks. That’s pretty good. The problem with that is what if you sell them and they go from 100 to 1000, now you’re going to have to go buy them back and you got to pay whatever, $10,000 to buy back coins that you sold for 500.
You’re going to lose $9,500. And there’s no limit to how high a stock price can go. Companies go to $3 trillion in value. Tesla, a lot of people shorted Tesla saying, oh, it’s overvalued. He’s never going to be able to make a successful electric car. Well, I’m sure the people went bankrupt shorting Tesla. That’s why we didn’t short stocks. But I was presented with this actually a reporter that covered the other short investment we made early in the career, a company called MBIA, came to me and said, “Bill, I found this incredible company. You got to take a look at it. It’s a total fraud and they’re scamming poor people.”
Lex Fridman
And we should say that MBIA was a very successful short.
And we should say that MBIA was a very successful short.
Bill Ackman
It was a big part of it was that we used a different kind of instrument to short it where we reversed that sort of… we made the investment asymmetric in our favor, meaning put up a small amount of money, if it works, we make a fortune. Whereas, short selling is you kind of sell something and you have to buy it back at a higher price. Herbalife didn’t have the, what’s called credit default swaps that you purchase. Not a big enough company. It didn’t have enough debt outstanding to be able to implement it. You had to short the stock in order to make it as successful, to bet against the company. And the more work I did in the company, the more I was like, oh, my God, this thing’s an incredible scam. They purport to sell weight loss shakes, but in reality, they’re selling kind a fake business plan.
It was a big part of it was that we used a different kind of instrument to short it where we reversed that sort of… we made the investment asymmetric in our favor, meaning put up a small amount of money, if it works, we make a fortune. Whereas, short selling is you kind of sell something and you have to buy it back at a higher price. Herbalife didn’t have the, what’s called credit default swaps that you purchase. Not a big enough company. It didn’t have enough debt outstanding to be able to implement it. You had to short the stock in order to make it as successful, to bet against the company. And the more work I did in the company, the more I was like, oh, my God, this thing’s an incredible scam. They purport to sell weight loss shakes, but in reality, they’re selling kind a fake business plan.
And the people that adopt it lose money and they go after poor people. They go after, actually in many cases, undocumented immigrants who are pitched on the American Dream opportunity. And because they have few other options because they can’t get legal employment, they become Herbalife distributors. And it’s a business where you, so-called multi-level marketing. Multi-level marketing is sort of the name for a legitimate company like this. Or it’s a pyramid scheme where basically your sales are really only coming from people you convince to buy the product by getting them into the business. That’s precisely what this company is. And like, okay, shorting a pyramid scheme seems like, one, we’ll make a bunch of money, but two, the world will be behind us because they’re harming poor people. Regulators will get interested in a company like this. And we said, the FTC is going to shut this thing down.
And we did a ton of work and I gave this sort of epic presentation laying out all the facts, stock got completely crushed, and we were on our way. And the government actually got interested early on, launched an investigation pretty early, SEC and otherwise. But then a guy named Carl Icahn showed up, and we have a little bit of a backstory, but his motivations here were not really principally driven by thinking Herbalife was a good company. He thought it was a good way to hurt me. So he basically bought a bunch of stock and said it was a really great company, and Carl, at least at the time, threw his weight around a bit. He was a credible investor, had a lot of resources, and that began the saga.
Lex Fridman
So he was, we should say, a legendary investor himself.
So he was, we should say, a legendary investor himself.
Bill Ackman
I’d say legendary in a sense. Yes, for sure. An iconic…
I’d say legendary in a sense. Yes, for sure. An iconic…
Lex Fridman
Iconic.
Iconic.
Bill Ackman
… Carl Icahn.
… Carl Icahn.
Lex Fridman
Oh, that’s very well done.
Oh, that’s very well done.
Bill Ackman
Yeah, so definitely a iconic investor.
Yeah, so definitely a iconic investor.
Lex Fridman
So what was the backstory between the two of you?
So what was the backstory between the two of you?
Bill Ackman
So I mentioned that I had another period of time where significant business challenges… This was my first fund called Gotham Partners. And we had a court stop a transaction between a private company we owned and a public company. It’s another long story if you want to go there.
So I mentioned that I had another period of time where significant business challenges… This was my first fund called Gotham Partners. And we had a court stop a transaction between a private company we owned and a public company. It’s another long story if you want to go there.
Lex Fridman
I would love to hear it as well.
I would love to hear it as well.
Bill Ackman
But it was really my deciding to wind up my former fund. And we owned a big stake in a company called Hallwood Realty Partners, which was a company that owned real estate assets and it was worth a lot more than where it was trading, but it needed an activist to really unlock the value. And we were in fact of going out of business and didn’t have the time or the resources to pursue it. So I sold it to Carl Icahn, and I sold it to him at a premium to where the stock was trading. I think the stock was like 66. I sold it to him for 80, but it was worth about 150. And I said, look… And part of the deal was Carl’s like, look, I’ll give you schmuck insurance. I’ll make you sure you don’t look bad. And I had another deal at a higher price without schmuck insurance, but a deal with Carl at a lower price with schmuck insurance.
But it was really my deciding to wind up my former fund. And we owned a big stake in a company called Hallwood Realty Partners, which was a company that owned real estate assets and it was worth a lot more than where it was trading, but it needed an activist to really unlock the value. And we were in fact of going out of business and didn’t have the time or the resources to pursue it. So I sold it to Carl Icahn, and I sold it to him at a premium to where the stock was trading. I think the stock was like 66. I sold it to him for 80, but it was worth about 150. And I said, look… And part of the deal was Carl’s like, look, I’ll give you schmuck insurance. I’ll make you sure you don’t look bad. And I had another deal at a higher price without schmuck insurance, but a deal with Carl at a lower price with schmuck insurance.
And the way the schmuck insurance went, he said, “Look, Bill, if I sell the stock in the next three years for a higher price, I’ll give you 50% of my profit.” That’s a pretty good deal. So we made that deal, and because I was dealing with Carl Icahn who had a reputation for being difficult, I was very focused on the agreement and we didn’t want him to be able to be cute. So the agreement said, if he sells or otherwise transfers his shares. And we came up with a definition to include every version of sell, okay, because it’s Carl. Well, he then buys the stake and then makes a bid for the company and plan is for him to get the company. And he bids like 120 a share, and the company hires Morgan Stanley to sell itself, and he raises bid to 125 and then 130, and eventually gets sold, I don’t remember the exact price, let’s say $145 a share.
And Carl’s not the winning bidder, and he sells his stock or he loses or transfers his shares for $145 a share. So he owes actually our investors the difference between 145 and 80 times 50%. And I had… Lawyers never like you to put a arithmetic example. I put a formula out of a math book in the documents so there can be no confusion. It was only an eight page, really simple agreement. So the deal closes and he’s supposed to pay us in two business days or three business days. I wait a few business days, no money comes in. I call Carl. I’m like, “Carl, congratulations on the Hallwood Realty.” “Thanks Bill.” I said, “Carl, just I want to remind you, I know it’s been a few years, but we have this agreement. Remember the schmuck insurance?” He’s like, “Yeah.” And I said, “Well, you owe us our schmuck insurance.”
He said, “What do you mean? I didn’t sell my shares.” And I said, “Do you still have the shares?” He says, “No.” I said, “What happened to them?” “Well, the company did a merger for cash and they took away my shares, but I didn’t sell them. Do you understand what happened?” And I said, “Carl, I’m going to have to sue you.” He said, “Sue me. I’m going to sue you,” he says.
So I sued him and the legal system in America can take some time. And what he would do is we sued and then we won in the whatever New York Supreme Court, and then he appealed, and you can appeal six months after the case. He waited till the 179th day, and then he would appeal. And then we fought at the next level, and then he would appeal. And he appealed all the way to the Supreme Court. Of course, the Supreme Court wouldn’t take the case. It took years. Now, as part of our agreement, we got 9% interest on the money that he owed us. So I viewed it as my Carl Icahn money market account with a much higher interest rate. And eventually I won.
Lex Fridman
What was the amount? Just-
What was the amount? Just-
Bill Ackman
Tiny. Now it was material to my investors. So my first fund, I wound it down, but I wanted to maximize everything for my investors. These are the people who backed me at 26 years old. I was right out of business school and no experience, and they supported me. So I’m going to go to the end of the earth for them. And four and a half million relative to our fund at the end was maybe 400 million. So it wasn’t a huge number, but it was a big percentage of what was left after I sold our liquid securities. So I was fighting for it. So we got four and a half million plus interest for eight years or something. That’s how long the litigation took. So we got about double. So he owed me $9 million, which to Carl Icahn, who had probably a $20 billion net worth. At the time, this was nothing. But to me, it was like, okay, this is my investor’s money. I’m going to get it back. And so eventually we won. Eventually he paid, and then he called me and he said, “Bill, congratulations. Now we can be friends and we can do some investing together.” I’m like, “Carl, fuck you.”
Tiny. Now it was material to my investors. So my first fund, I wound it down, but I wanted to maximize everything for my investors. These are the people who backed me at 26 years old. I was right out of business school and no experience, and they supported me. So I’m going to go to the end of the earth for them. And four and a half million relative to our fund at the end was maybe 400 million. So it wasn’t a huge number, but it was a big percentage of what was left after I sold our liquid securities. So I was fighting for it. So we got four and a half million plus interest for eight years or something. That’s how long the litigation took. So we got about double. So he owed me $9 million, which to Carl Icahn, who had probably a $20 billion net worth. At the time, this was nothing. But to me, it was like, okay, this is my investor’s money. I’m going to get it back. And so eventually we won. Eventually he paid, and then he called me and he said, “Bill, congratulations. Now we can be friends and we can do some investing together.” I’m like, “Carl, fuck you.”
Lex Fridman
You actually said fuck you?
You actually said fuck you?
Bill Ackman
Yes. And I’m not that kind of person generally, but he made eight years to pay me, not me, even me, my investors money they owed. So yeah. So he probably didn’t like that. So he kind of hung around in the weeds waiting for an opportunity. And then from there I started purging. We had a kind straight line up. We were up. The first 12 years, we could do nothing wrong. Then Valeant, Herbalife, he sees an opportunity and he buys the stock. He figures he’s going to run me off the road. And so that was the beginning of that. And the moment, and I think it’s, I’m told by CNBC, it’s the most watched segment in business television history. They’re interviewing me about the Herbalife investment on CNBC, and then Carl Icahn calls into the show and we have kind of a interesting conversation where he calls me all kinds of names and stuff. So it was a moment. It was a moment in my life.
Yes. And I’m not that kind of person generally, but he made eight years to pay me, not me, even me, my investors money they owed. So yeah. So he probably didn’t like that. So he kind of hung around in the weeds waiting for an opportunity. And then from there I started purging. We had a kind straight line up. We were up. The first 12 years, we could do nothing wrong. Then Valeant, Herbalife, he sees an opportunity and he buys the stock. He figures he’s going to run me off the road. And so that was the beginning of that. And the moment, and I think it’s, I’m told by CNBC, it’s the most watched segment in business television history. They’re interviewing me about the Herbalife investment on CNBC, and then Carl Icahn calls into the show and we have kind of a interesting conversation where he calls me all kinds of names and stuff. So it was a moment. It was a moment in my life.
Lex Fridman
It wasn’t public information that he was long on Herbalife?
It wasn’t public information that he was long on Herbalife?
Bill Ackman
He didn’t yet disclose he had a stake. But he was just telling me how stupid I was to be short at this company.
He didn’t yet disclose he had a stake. But he was just telling me how stupid I was to be short at this company.
Lex Fridman
So for him, it wasn’t about the fundamentals of the company, it was just personal?
So for him, it wasn’t about the fundamentals of the company, it was just personal?
Bill Ackman
100%.
100%.
Lex Fridman
Is there part of you that regrets saying fuck you on that phone call to Carl Icahn?
Is there part of you that regrets saying fuck you on that phone call to Carl Icahn?
Bill Ackman
No. I generally have no regrets because I’m very happy with where I am now. And I feel like it’s a bit like you step on the butterfly in the forest and the world changes because every action has a reaction. If you’re happy with who you are, where you are in life, every decision you’ve made, good or bad over the course of your life, got you to precisely where you are. I wouldn’t change anything.
No. I generally have no regrets because I’m very happy with where I am now. And I feel like it’s a bit like you step on the butterfly in the forest and the world changes because every action has a reaction. If you’re happy with who you are, where you are in life, every decision you’ve made, good or bad over the course of your life, got you to precisely where you are. I wouldn’t change anything.
Lex Fridman
He said, you lost money on Herbalife. So he did the long-term battle.
He said, you lost money on Herbalife. So he did the long-term battle.
Bill Ackman
What he did is he got on the board of the company and used the company’s financial resources plus his stake in the business to squeeze us. And a squeeze in short selling is where you restrict the supply of the securities so that there’s a scarcity, and then you encourage people to buy the stock and you drive the stock up. And as I explained before, you short those coins at 10, they go to 100, you can lose, theoretically, an unlimited amount of money. And that’s scary. That’s why we don’t short stocks. That’s why I didn’t short stocks before this, but this was… Unfortunately, I had to have the personal lesson.
What he did is he got on the board of the company and used the company’s financial resources plus his stake in the business to squeeze us. And a squeeze in short selling is where you restrict the supply of the securities so that there’s a scarcity, and then you encourage people to buy the stock and you drive the stock up. And as I explained before, you short those coins at 10, they go to 100, you can lose, theoretically, an unlimited amount of money. And that’s scary. That’s why we don’t short stocks. That’s why I didn’t short stocks before this, but this was… Unfortunately, I had to have the personal lesson.
Lex Fridman
So how much was for him personal versus part of the game of investing?
So how much was for him personal versus part of the game of investing?
Bill Ackman
Well, he thought he could make money doing this. He wouldn’t have done it if he did otherwise. He thought his bully pulpit, his ability to create a short squeeze, his control over the company would enable him to achieve this. And he made a billion, we lost a billion.
Well, he thought he could make money doing this. He wouldn’t have done it if he did otherwise. He thought his bully pulpit, his ability to create a short squeeze, his control over the company would enable him to achieve this. And he made a billion, we lost a billion.
Lex Fridman
So you think it was a financial decision not a personal?
So you think it was a financial decision not a personal?
Bill Ackman
It was a personal decision to pursue it, but he was waiting for an opportunity where he could make money at our expense, and it was kind of a brilliant opportunity for him. Now, the irony is… Well, first of all, the FTC found a few interesting facts. So one, the government launched an investigation. They ended up settling with the company, and the company paid $220 million in fines.
It was a personal decision to pursue it, but he was waiting for an opportunity where he could make money at our expense, and it was kind of a brilliant opportunity for him. Now, the irony is… Well, first of all, the FTC found a few interesting facts. So one, the government launched an investigation. They ended up settling with the company, and the company paid $220 million in fines.
I met a professor from Berkeley a couple of years ago who told me that he had been hired by the government as their expert on Herbalife, and he got access to all their data, was able to prove that they’re a pyramid scheme. But the government ultimately settled with Carl because they were afraid they could possibly lose in court. So they settled with him. But if you look at the stock, if we’d been able to stay short the entire time, we would’ve made a bunch of money because the stock had a $6 billion market cap, and we shorted it. Today as probably a billion, a billion and a half.
Lex Fridman
So you left the short or whatever that’s called…?
So you left the short or whatever that’s called…?
Bill Ackman
We covered, we closed it out. When we sold Valeant, we covered Herbalife. That was the resetting moment for the firm because it would just, psychologically… And the beauty of investing is you don’t need to make it back the way you lost it. You can just take your loss. By the way, losses are valuable and that the government allows you to take a tax loss and that can shelter other gains. And we just refocused.
We covered, we closed it out. When we sold Valeant, we covered Herbalife. That was the resetting moment for the firm because it would just, psychologically… And the beauty of investing is you don’t need to make it back the way you lost it. You can just take your loss. By the way, losses are valuable and that the government allows you to take a tax loss and that can shelter other gains. And we just refocused.
Lex Fridman
Can you say one thing you really like about Carl Icahn and one thing you really don’t like about him?
Can you say one thing you really like about Carl Icahn and one thing you really don’t like about him?
Bill Ackman
Sure. So he’s a very charming guy. So in the midst of all this, at the Hallwood one, he took me out for dinner to his favorite Italian restaurant.
Sure. So he’s a very charming guy. So in the midst of all this, at the Hallwood one, he took me out for dinner to his favorite Italian restaurant.
Lex Fridman
Really?
Really?
Bill Ackman
Yeah. We’re in the middle of the litigation to see if he could resolve it, and he offered 10 million to my favorite charity. The problem was that it wasn’t my money, it was my investor’s money. So I couldn’t settle with him on that basis, but I had the chance to spend real time with him at dinner. He’s funny, he’s charismatic, he’s got incredible stories. And actually I made peace with him over time. We had a little hug out on CNBC, even had him to my house, believe it or not. I hosted something called the Finance Cup, which is a tennis tournament between people in finance in Europe and the US. And we had the event at my house and one guy thought to invite Carl Icahn. And so we had Carl Icahn there to present awards. And again, I have to say, I kind of like the guy, but I didn’t like him much during this.
Yeah. We’re in the middle of the litigation to see if he could resolve it, and he offered 10 million to my favorite charity. The problem was that it wasn’t my money, it was my investor’s money. So I couldn’t settle with him on that basis, but I had the chance to spend real time with him at dinner. He’s funny, he’s charismatic, he’s got incredible stories. And actually I made peace with him over time. We had a little hug out on CNBC, even had him to my house, believe it or not. I hosted something called the Finance Cup, which is a tennis tournament between people in finance in Europe and the US. And we had the event at my house and one guy thought to invite Carl Icahn. And so we had Carl Icahn there to present awards. And again, I have to say, I kind of like the guy, but I didn’t like him much during this.
Lex Fridman
Because at least from the outsider perspective, there’s a bit of a personal vengeance here or anger can build up. Do you ever worry the personal attacks between powerful investors can cloud your judgment of what is the right financial decision?
Because at least from the outsider perspective, there’s a bit of a personal vengeance here or anger can build up. Do you ever worry the personal attacks between powerful investors can cloud your judgment of what is the right financial decision?
Bill Ackman
I think it’s possible, but again, I try to be extremely economically rational. And actually the last seven years have been quite peaceful. I really have not been an activist in the old form for many years. And the vast majority of even our activist investments historically were very polite, respectful cases. The press, of course, focuses on the more interesting ones. Like Chipotle was one of the best investments we ever made. We got four of eight board seats and we worked with management and it was a great outcome. I don’t think there’s ever been a story about it. And the stock’s up almost 10 times from the time we hired Brian Nichols as CEO. But it’s not interesting because there was no battle. Whereas, Herbalife, of course, was like an epic battle, even Canadian Pacific. So for a period there, most people when they meet me in person, they’re like, “Wow, bill, you seem like a really nice guy. But I thought…” But things have been pretty calm for the last seven years.
I think it’s possible, but again, I try to be extremely economically rational. And actually the last seven years have been quite peaceful. I really have not been an activist in the old form for many years. And the vast majority of even our activist investments historically were very polite, respectful cases. The press, of course, focuses on the more interesting ones. Like Chipotle was one of the best investments we ever made. We got four of eight board seats and we worked with management and it was a great outcome. I don’t think there’s ever been a story about it. And the stock’s up almost 10 times from the time we hired Brian Nichols as CEO. But it’s not interesting because there was no battle. Whereas, Herbalife, of course, was like an epic battle, even Canadian Pacific. So for a period there, most people when they meet me in person, they’re like, “Wow, bill, you seem like a really nice guy. But I thought…” But things have been pretty calm for the last seven years.
Oct 7
Lex Fridman
Of course, there’s more than just the investing that your life is about, especially recently. Let me just ask you about what’s going on in the world. First, what was your reaction and what is your reaction and thoughts with respect to the October 7th attacks by Hamas on Israel?
Of course, there’s more than just the investing that your life is about, especially recently. Let me just ask you about what’s going on in the world. First, what was your reaction and what is your reaction and thoughts with respect to the October 7th attacks by Hamas on Israel?
Bill Ackman
It’s a sad world that we live in. That, one, we have terrorists, and two, that we could have such barbaric terrorism. And just a reminder of that.
It’s a sad world that we live in. That, one, we have terrorists, and two, that we could have such barbaric terrorism. And just a reminder of that.
Lex Fridman
So there’s several things I can ask here. First, on your views on the prospects of the Middle East, but also on the reaction to this war in the United States, especially on university campuses. So first, let me just ask, you’ve said that you’re pro-Palestinian. Can you explain what you mean by that?
So there’s several things I can ask here. First, on your views on the prospects of the Middle East, but also on the reaction to this war in the United States, especially on university campuses. So first, let me just ask, you’ve said that you’re pro-Palestinian. Can you explain what you mean by that?
Bill Ackman
With all of my posts about Israel, I’m obviously very supportive of the country of Israel, Israel’s right to exist, Israel’s right to defend itself. My Arab friends, my Palestinian friends were kind of saying, “Hey Bill, where are you? What about Palestinian lives?” And I was pretty early in my life, a guy named Marty Peretz, who’s been important to me over the course of my life, a professor or first investor in my fund, introduced me to Neri, asked me when I was right out of school to join this nonprofit called the Jerusalem Foundation, which was a charitable foundation that supported Teddy Kollek when he was mayor of Jerusalem. I ended up becoming the youngest chairman of the Jerusalem Foundation in my 30s. And I spent some time in Israel, and the early philanthropic stuff I did with the Jerusalem Foundation, the thing I was most interested in was kind of the plight to the Palestinians and kind of peaceful coexistence.
With all of my posts about Israel, I’m obviously very supportive of the country of Israel, Israel’s right to exist, Israel’s right to defend itself. My Arab friends, my Palestinian friends were kind of saying, “Hey Bill, where are you? What about Palestinian lives?” And I was pretty early in my life, a guy named Marty Peretz, who’s been important to me over the course of my life, a professor or first investor in my fund, introduced me to Neri, asked me when I was right out of school to join this nonprofit called the Jerusalem Foundation, which was a charitable foundation that supported Teddy Kollek when he was mayor of Jerusalem. I ended up becoming the youngest chairman of the Jerusalem Foundation in my 30s. And I spent some time in Israel, and the early philanthropic stuff I did with the Jerusalem Foundation, the thing I was most interested in was kind of the plight to the Palestinians and kind of peaceful coexistence.
And so I had kind of an early kind of perspective, and as chairman of the Jerusalem Foundation, I would go into Arab communities and I would meet with families in their homes. You get a sense of the humanity of a people. And I care about humanity. I generally take the side of people who’ve been disadvantaged. Almost all of our philanthropic work has been in that capacity. So it’s sort of my natural perspective, but I don’t take the side of terrorists ever, obviously. And the whole thing is just a tragedy.
Lex Fridman
So to you, this is about Hamas, not about Palestine?
So to you, this is about Hamas, not about Palestine?
Bill Ackman
Yes. I mean, the problem of course is when Hamas controls… for the last almost 20 years, has controlled Gaza, including the education system. They’re educating. You see these training videos of kindergartners, indoctrinating them into hating Jews and Israel. And of course, you don’t like to see Palestinians celebrating some of those early videos of October 7th with dead bodies in the back of trucks and people cheering. So it’s a really unfortunate situation, but I think about a Palestinian life as important, as valuable as a Jewish life, as a American life. And what do people really want? They want a place. They want a home. They want to be able to feed their family. They want a job that generates the resources to feed their family. They want their kids to have a better life than they’ve had. They want peace. I think these are basic human things. I’m sure the vast majority of Palestinians share these views, but it’s such an embedded situation with hatred and, as I say, indoctrination.
Yes. I mean, the problem of course is when Hamas controls… for the last almost 20 years, has controlled Gaza, including the education system. They’re educating. You see these training videos of kindergartners, indoctrinating them into hating Jews and Israel. And of course, you don’t like to see Palestinians celebrating some of those early videos of October 7th with dead bodies in the back of trucks and people cheering. So it’s a really unfortunate situation, but I think about a Palestinian life as important, as valuable as a Jewish life, as a American life. And what do people really want? They want a place. They want a home. They want to be able to feed their family. They want a job that generates the resources to feed their family. They want their kids to have a better life than they’ve had. They want peace. I think these are basic human things. I’m sure the vast majority of Palestinians share these views, but it’s such an embedded situation with hatred and, as I say, indoctrination.
And then going back to incentives, terrorists generate their resources by committing terrorism, and that’s how they get funding. And there’s a lot of graft. It’s a plutocracy. The top of the terrorist pyramid, if you accept the numbers that are in the press, the top leaders have billions of dollars. 40 billion or so has gone into Gaza over the last… and the West Bank over the last 30 years, a number like that. And a lot of it’s disappeared into some combination of corruption or tunnels or weapons. And the tragedy is you look at what Singapore has achieved in the last 30 years, right?
Lex Fridman
Do you think that’s still possible if we look into the future of 10, 20, 50 years from now?
Do you think that’s still possible if we look into the future of 10, 20, 50 years from now?
Bill Ackman
Absolutely.
Absolutely.
Lex Fridman
So not just peace, but-
So not just peace, but-
Bill Ackman
Peace comes with prosperity. People are under the leadership of terrorists, you’re not going to have prosperity and you’re not going to have peace. And I think the Israelis withdrew in 2005 and fairly quickly, Hamas took control of the situation. That should never have been allowed to happen. And I think if you think about… I had the opportunity to spend, call it, an hour with Henry Kissinger a few months before we passed away, and we were talking about Gaza, or in the early stage of the war. He said, “Look, you can think about Gaza as a test of a two-state solution. It’s not looking good.” These were his words. So the next time round, the Palestinian people should have their own state, but it can’t be a state where 40 billion resources goes in and is spent on weaponry and missiles and rockets going into Israel. And I do think a consortium of the Gulf states, the Saudis and others have to ultimately oversee the governance of this region. I think if that can happen, I think you can have peace, you can have prosperity. And I’m fundamentally an optimist.
Peace comes with prosperity. People are under the leadership of terrorists, you’re not going to have prosperity and you’re not going to have peace. And I think the Israelis withdrew in 2005 and fairly quickly, Hamas took control of the situation. That should never have been allowed to happen. And I think if you think about… I had the opportunity to spend, call it, an hour with Henry Kissinger a few months before we passed away, and we were talking about Gaza, or in the early stage of the war. He said, “Look, you can think about Gaza as a test of a two-state solution. It’s not looking good.” These were his words. So the next time round, the Palestinian people should have their own state, but it can’t be a state where 40 billion resources goes in and is spent on weaponry and missiles and rockets going into Israel. And I do think a consortium of the Gulf states, the Saudis and others have to ultimately oversee the governance of this region. I think if that can happen, I think you can have peace, you can have prosperity. And I’m fundamentally an optimist.
Lex Fridman
So a coalition of governance.
So a coalition of governance.
Bill Ackman
Governance matters, going back to what we talked about before.
Governance matters, going back to what we talked about before.
Lex Fridman
And that kind of approach can give the people a chance to flourish.
And that kind of approach can give the people a chance to flourish.
Bill Ackman
100%. 100%. I mean, look at what Dubai has accomplished with nomads in the desert. It’s a tourist destination. Gaza could have been a tourist destination.
100%. 100%. I mean, look at what Dubai has accomplished with nomads in the desert. It’s a tourist destination. Gaza could have been a tourist destination.
College campus protests
Lex Fridman
Take me through the saga of university presidents testifying on this topic, on the topic of protests on college campuses, protests that call for the genocide of Jewish people and the university presidents… Maybe you could describe it more precisely, but they fail to denounce the calls for genocide.
Take me through the saga of university presidents testifying on this topic, on the topic of protests on college campuses, protests that call for the genocide of Jewish people and the university presidents… Maybe you could describe it more precisely, but they fail to denounce the calls for genocide.
Bill Ackman
So it begins on October 8th probably. And you can do a compare and contrast with how Dartmouth managed the events of October 7th and the aftermath, and how Harvard did. And on October 8th or shortly thereafter, the Dartmouth president, who had been in her job for precisely the same number of months that the Harvard president had been in her job. The first thing she did is she got the most important professors of Middle East studies who were Arab and who were Jews and convened them and held an open session Q&A for students to talk about what’s going on in the Middle East, and began an opportunity for common understanding among the student body. And Dartmouth has been a relatively benign environment on this issue, and students are able to do work and there aren’t disruptive protests with people with bullhorn…
So it begins on October 8th probably. And you can do a compare and contrast with how Dartmouth managed the events of October 7th and the aftermath, and how Harvard did. And on October 8th or shortly thereafter, the Dartmouth president, who had been in her job for precisely the same number of months that the Harvard president had been in her job. The first thing she did is she got the most important professors of Middle East studies who were Arab and who were Jews and convened them and held an open session Q&A for students to talk about what’s going on in the Middle East, and began an opportunity for common understanding among the student body. And Dartmouth has been a relatively benign environment on this issue, and students are able to do work and there aren’t disruptive protests with people with bullhorn…
Bill Ackman
Work and there aren’t disruptive protests with people with bullhorns walking into classrooms interfering with … People pay, today, $82,000 a year, which itself is crazy, to go to Harvard. But imagine your family borrows the money or you borrow the money as a student and you’re learning is disrupted by constant protests and the university does nothing. When George Floyd died, the Harvard president wrote a very strong letter denouncing what had taken place and calling this an important moment in American history and took it incredibly seriously. Her first letter about October 7th was not that, let’s put it that way. Then her second letter was not that. Then, ultimately, she was sort of forced by the board or pressured to make a more public statement, but it was clear that it was hard for her to come to an understanding of this terrorist act.
Work and there aren’t disruptive protests with people with bullhorns walking into classrooms interfering with … People pay, today, $82,000 a year, which itself is crazy, to go to Harvard. But imagine your family borrows the money or you borrow the money as a student and you’re learning is disrupted by constant protests and the university does nothing. When George Floyd died, the Harvard president wrote a very strong letter denouncing what had taken place and calling this an important moment in American history and took it incredibly seriously. Her first letter about October 7th was not that, let’s put it that way. Then her second letter was not that. Then, ultimately, she was sort of forced by the board or pressured to make a more public statement, but it was clear that it was hard for her to come to an understanding of this terrorist act.
Then the protests erupted on campus and they started out reasonably benign. Then the protesters got more and more aggressive in terms of violating university rules on things like bullying, and the university did nothing. That obviously for the Jewish students, the Israeli students, the Israeli faculty, Jewish faculty, created an incredibly uncomfortable environment. The president seemed indifferent. I went up to campus and I met with hundreds of students in small groups, in larger groups and they’re like, “Bill, why is the president doing nothing? Why is the administration doing nothing?” That was really the beginning.
I reached out to the president, reached out to the board of Harvard, I said, “Look, this thing is headed in the wrong direction and you need to fix it. I have some ideas, love to share.” I got the Heisman, as they say. They just kept pushing off the opportunity for me to meet with the president and meet with the board. At a certain point in time I pushed, I’m kind of a activist when he pushed me, it reminded me of early days of activism where I couldn’t get the CEO of Wendy’s to return my call. I couldn’t get the CEO of Harvard to take a meeting.
Then finally I spoke to the chairman of the board, a woman by the name of Penny Pritzker, who I’m on a business school board with her. It was, as I described, one of the more disappointing conversations in my life. She seemed a bit like, if you will, deer in the headlights. They couldn’t do this, they couldn’t do that. The law was preventing them from doing various things. That led to my first letter to the university. I sort of ended the letter of giving this president of Harvard a dare to be great speech. This is your opportunity. You can fix this. This could be your legacy. I emailed it to the president and the board members whose email addresses I had, I posted it on Twitter and I got no response, no acknowledgement, nothing. In fact, the open dialogue I had with a couple of people on the board basically got shut down after that.
That led to letter number two. Then when the Congress, led by Elise Stefanik, announced an investigation of antisemitism on campus and concern about violations of law, the president was called to testify along with two other … The president of MIT, the president of University of Pennsylvania were having similar issues on campus. I reached out to the president of Harvard and said, well, one, the Israeli government had gotten in touch and offered the opportunity for me to see the Hamas, if you will, GoPro film. I said, “You know, I’d love to show it at Harvard,” and they thought that would be a great idea. I partnered with the head of Harvard Chabad, a guy named Rabbi Hirschy, and we were putting the film up on campus.
I thought if the president were to see this, it would give her a lot of perspective on what happened and she should see it before her testimony. I reached out to her, or actually Rabbi Hirschy did. He was told she would be out of town and couldn’t see it. Then I reached out to her again and said, “Look, I’ll facilitate your attendance in the Congress. Come see the film, I’ll fly you down.” That was rejected, and then she testified.
I watched a good percentage, 80% of the testimony, of all three presidents, and it was an embarrassment to the country, embarrassment to the universities. They were evasive. They didn’t answer questions. They were rude. They smirked. They looked very disrespectful to our Congress. Then, of course, there was that several minutes where finally Elise Stefanik was not getting answers to her questions, and she said, “Let me be kind of clear. What if protestors were calling for genocide for the Jews? Does that violate your rules on bullying and harassment?” The three of them basically gave the same answer; “It depends on the context.” Not until they actually executed on the genocide that the university had the right to intervene.
The thing that perhaps bothered me the most was the incredible hypocrisy. Each of these universities are ranked by this entity called FIRE, which is a nonprofit that focuses on free speech on campus. Harvard, it’s been in the bottom quartile for the last five years and dropped to last before October 7th, out of 250.
Lex Fridman
I should mention briefly that I’ve interviewed on this podcast, the founder of FIRE and the current head of FIRE, where we discussed this at length, including running for the board of Harvard and the whole procedure of all that. It’s quite a fascinating investigation of free speech. For people who care about free speech absolutism that’s a good episode to listen to because those folks kind of fight for this idea. It’s a difficult idea actually to internalize; what does free speech on college campuses look like?
I should mention briefly that I’ve interviewed on this podcast, the founder of FIRE and the current head of FIRE, where we discussed this at length, including running for the board of Harvard and the whole procedure of all that. It’s quite a fascinating investigation of free speech. For people who care about free speech absolutism that’s a good episode to listen to because those folks kind of fight for this idea. It’s a difficult idea actually to internalize; what does free speech on college campuses look like?
Bill Ackman
Harvard has become a place where free speech is not tolerated on campus, or at least free speech that’s not part of the accepted dialogue. This whole notion of speech codes and microaggressions really emerged on the Harvard, Yale campuses of the world. The then president of Harvard’s explanation for why you could call for the genocide of the Jewish people on campus was Harvard’s commitment to free expression. One of the more hypocritical statements of all time. You really can’t have it both ways. Either Harvard has to be a place where it’s a free speech … She basically said, “We’re a free speech absolutist place, which is why we have to allow this.” Harvard could not be further from that. That was a big part of it.
Harvard has become a place where free speech is not tolerated on campus, or at least free speech that’s not part of the accepted dialogue. This whole notion of speech codes and microaggressions really emerged on the Harvard, Yale campuses of the world. The then president of Harvard’s explanation for why you could call for the genocide of the Jewish people on campus was Harvard’s commitment to free expression. One of the more hypocritical statements of all time. You really can’t have it both ways. Either Harvard has to be a place where it’s a free speech … She basically said, “We’re a free speech absolutist place, which is why we have to allow this.” Harvard could not be further from that. That was a big part of it.
I was in the barber chair, if you will, getting a haircut. I had a guy on my team send me the three-minute section. I said, “Cut that line of questioning.” I put out a little tweet on that. I call it my greatest hits of posts, it’s got something like 110 million views. Everyone looked at this and said, “What is wrong with university campuses and their leadership,” and their governance, by the way. In a way, this whole conversation has been about governance. Harvard has a disastrous governance structure, which is why we have the problem we have.
Lex Fridman
Just to linger on the testimony, you mentioned smirks and this kind of stuff, and you mentioned dare to be great, I myself am kind of a sucker for great leadership. You mentioned Churchill or so on, even great speeches … People talk down on speeches like it’s maybe just words, but I think speeches can define a culture and define a place, define a people that can inspire. I think, actually, the testimony before Congress could have been an opportunity to redefine what Harvard is. Dare to be a great leader.
Just to linger on the testimony, you mentioned smirks and this kind of stuff, and you mentioned dare to be great, I myself am kind of a sucker for great leadership. You mentioned Churchill or so on, even great speeches … People talk down on speeches like it’s maybe just words, but I think speeches can define a culture and define a place, define a people that can inspire. I think, actually, the testimony before Congress could have been an opportunity to redefine what Harvard is. Dare to be a great leader.
Bill Ackman
The president of Harvard had a huge opportunity, because she went third. The first two gave the world’s most disastrous answers to the question, and she literally just copied their answer, which is, itself, kind of ironic in light of ultimately what happened.
The president of Harvard had a huge opportunity, because she went third. The first two gave the world’s most disastrous answers to the question, and she literally just copied their answer, which is, itself, kind of ironic in light of ultimately what happened.
Lex Fridman
It’s tough because you can get busy as a president, as a leader and so on. There’s these meetings, and so you think Congress, maybe you’re smirking at the ridiculousness of the meeting. You need to remember that many of these are opportunities to give a speech of a lifetime. If there is principles which you want to see an institution become and embody in the next several decades, there’s opportunities to do that. You, as a great leader, also need to have a sense of when is the opportunity to do that. October 7th really woke up the world on all sides, honestly. There is a serious issue going on here. Then the protests woke up the university to there’s a serious issue going on here. It’s an opportunity to speak on free speech and on genocide, both.
It’s tough because you can get busy as a president, as a leader and so on. There’s these meetings, and so you think Congress, maybe you’re smirking at the ridiculousness of the meeting. You need to remember that many of these are opportunities to give a speech of a lifetime. If there is principles which you want to see an institution become and embody in the next several decades, there’s opportunities to do that. You, as a great leader, also need to have a sense of when is the opportunity to do that. October 7th really woke up the world on all sides, honestly. There is a serious issue going on here. Then the protests woke up the university to there’s a serious issue going on here. It’s an opportunity to speak on free speech and on genocide, both.
Bill Ackman
Yes.
Yes.
Lex Fridman
Do you see the criticism that you are a billionaire donor and you sort of used your power and financial influence unfairly to affect the governing structure of Harvard, in this case?
Do you see the criticism that you are a billionaire donor and you sort of used your power and financial influence unfairly to affect the governing structure of Harvard, in this case?
Bill Ackman
First of all, I never threatened to use financial or other resources. The only thing I did here was wrote. I wrote public letters, I spoke privately to a couple members of the board. I spoke for 45 minutes to the chairman. None of those conversations were effective or went anywhere, as far as I could tell. I think my public letters and then some of the posts, I did and that little three minute video excerpt had an impact, but it wasn’t about … I mean you can criticize me for being a billionaire, but it was really the words. It’s a bit like, again, going back to the corporate analogy, it’s not the fact that you own 5% of the company that causes people to vote in your favor, it’s the fact that your ideas are right.
First of all, I never threatened to use financial or other resources. The only thing I did here was wrote. I wrote public letters, I spoke privately to a couple members of the board. I spoke for 45 minutes to the chairman. None of those conversations were effective or went anywhere, as far as I could tell. I think my public letters and then some of the posts, I did and that little three minute video excerpt had an impact, but it wasn’t about … I mean you can criticize me for being a billionaire, but it was really the words. It’s a bit like, again, going back to the corporate analogy, it’s not the fact that you own 5% of the company that causes people to vote in your favor, it’s the fact that your ideas are right.
After the congressional testimony, the board of Harvard said that they were unanimously, a hundred percent behind President Gay. Clearly, I was ineffective. Ultimately what took her down was other, I would say, activists who identified issues with academic integrity and then she lost the confidence of the faculty. Once that happens, it’s hard to stay. I wanted her to be fired, basically, or be forced to resign because of failures of leadership, because that would’ve sent a message about the importance of leadership. Failure to stop a emergence of antisemitism on campus. There’s some news today; the protests are getting worse.
Lex Fridman
Is there some tension between free speech on college campuses and disciplining students for calls of genocide?
Is there some tension between free speech on college campuses and disciplining students for calls of genocide?
Bill Ackman
Yes, there’s certainly a tension. First of all, I think free speech is incredibly important. I’m a lot closer to absolutism on free speech than otherwise. The issue I had was the hypocrisy. They were restricting other kinds of speech on campus, principally conservative speech, conservative views. So it wasn’t a free speech, absolutist campus. The protests were actually quite threatening to students. There are limits to even absolutist free speech and they begin where people feel intimidation, harassment and threat to bodily harm, et cetera, that kind of speech is generally … Again, it’s pretty technical, but as people feel like they’re in imminent harm, by virtue of the protest, that speech is at risk of not meeting the standards for free speech.
Yes, there’s certainly a tension. First of all, I think free speech is incredibly important. I’m a lot closer to absolutism on free speech than otherwise. The issue I had was the hypocrisy. They were restricting other kinds of speech on campus, principally conservative speech, conservative views. So it wasn’t a free speech, absolutist campus. The protests were actually quite threatening to students. There are limits to even absolutist free speech and they begin where people feel intimidation, harassment and threat to bodily harm, et cetera, that kind of speech is generally … Again, it’s pretty technical, but as people feel like they’re in imminent harm, by virtue of the protest, that speech is at risk of not meeting the standards for free speech.
Harvard is a private corporation and as a private corporation, they can put on what restrictions they want. Harvard had introduced only a few months before bullying and harassment policies, and that’s why Representative Stefanik focused on … It’s not like she said, “Does calling for genocide against the Jews violate your free speech policies?” She said, “Does calling for genocide against the Jews violate your policies on bullying and harassment?”
I think everyone looked at this when they said, it depends on the context. They said, look, if you replaced Jews with some other ethnic group, students who’ve used the N word for example, have been thrown off campus or suspended. Students who’ve hate speeched directed at LGBTQ people has led to disciplinary action, but attacking, spitting on Jewish students or roughing them up a bit, seemed like we’re calling for their elimination, didn’t seem to violate the policies. Look, I think a university should be a place where you have broad views and open viewpoints and broad discussion, but it should also be a place where students don’t feel threatened going to class, where their learning is not interrupted, when final exams are not interrupted by people coming in with loud protests.
Students asked me when I went up there, “What would you do if you were Harvard president?” This was before I knew what was happening on the Dartmouth campus, I said, “I’d convene everyone together. This is Harvard. We have access to the best minds in the world. Let’s have a better understanding of the history. Let’s understand the backdrop. Let’s focus on solutions. Let’s bring Arab and Jewish and Israeli students together. Let’s form let groups to create communication.” That’s how you solve this kind of problem. None of that stuff has been done. It’s not that hard.
Lex Fridman
Do you think this reveals a deeper problem in terms of ideology and the governance of Harvard in maybe the culture of Harvard?
Do you think this reveals a deeper problem in terms of ideology and the governance of Harvard in maybe the culture of Harvard?
Bill Ackman
Yes. On governance, the governance structure is a disaster. The way it works today is Harvard has two principal boards. There’s the board of the corporation, the so-called fellows of Harvard. It’s a board of, I think, 12 independent directors and the president. There’s no shareholder vote, there’s no proxy system. It’s really a self-perpetuating board that effectively elects its own members. Once the balance tips, politically, one way or another, it can be kept that way forever. There’s no kind of rebalancing system. If a US corporation goes off the rails, so to speak, the shareholders can get together and vote off the directors. There’s no ability to vote off the directors.
Yes. On governance, the governance structure is a disaster. The way it works today is Harvard has two principal boards. There’s the board of the corporation, the so-called fellows of Harvard. It’s a board of, I think, 12 independent directors and the president. There’s no shareholder vote, there’s no proxy system. It’s really a self-perpetuating board that effectively elects its own members. Once the balance tips, politically, one way or another, it can be kept that way forever. There’s no kind of rebalancing system. If a US corporation goes off the rails, so to speak, the shareholders can get together and vote off the directors. There’s no ability to vote off the directors.
Then there’s the board of overseers, which is I think 32 directors. A few years ago, if you could put together 600 signatures, you could run for that board and put up a bunch of candidates and about five or six get elected each year. A group did exactly that, and it was an oil and gas kind of disinvestment group. They got the signatures, a couple of them got elected, and Harvard then changed the rules and they said, ” Now we need 3,200 signatures. By the way, if there are these dissident directors on the board, we’re going to cap them at five.” So if three were elected in the oil and gas thing, now they’re only two seats available.
Then a group of former students, kind of younger alums, one of whom I knew, approached me and said, “Look, Bill, we should run for the board.” They decided this pretty late, only a few weeks before the signatures were due. We’d love your support. I took a look at their platform, I thought it looked great. I said, “Look, happy to support.” I posted about them, did a Zoom with them, and they got thousands of signatures. Collectively the four got, whatever, 12,000 signatures or something like this. They missed by about 10% of the threshold.
What did Harvard do in the middle of the election? They made it very, very difficult to sign up for a vote and it just makes them look terrible. They’ve got now thousands of alums upset that … Again, this wasn’t an election. This was just to put the names on the slate. The only candidates on the slate are the ones selected by the existing members. Businesses fail because of governance failures. Universities fail because of governance failures. It’s not really the president’s fault, because the job of the board is to hire and fire the president and help guide the institution academically and otherwise. That’s governance.
DEI in universities
I was like, “How can this be?” October 7th, the event that woke me up was 30 student organizations came out with a public letter on October 8th, literally the morning after this letter was created and said, “Israel is solely responsible for Hamas’ violent acts.” Again, Israel had not even mounted a defense at this point, and there were still terrorists running around in the southern part of Israel. I’m like, “34 Harvard student organizations signed this letter?” I’m like, “What is going on? WTF?” That’s when I went up on campus and I started talking to the faculty.
That’s when I started hearing about, actually, Bill, it’s this DEI ideology. I’m like, “What?” Diversity, equity, inclusion. Obviously I’m familiar with these words and I see this in the corporate context. They say, “Yeah.” They started talking to me about this oppressor-oppressed framework, which is effectively taught on campus and represents the backdrop for many of the courses that are offered and some of the studies and other degree offerings. I had not even heard of this and I’m a pretty aware person, but I was completely unaware. Basically they’re like, “Look, Israel is deemed an oppressor and the Palestinians are deemed the oppressed, and you take the side of the oppressed. Any acts of the oppressed to dislodge the oppressor, regardless of how vile or barbaric, are okay.” I’m like, “Okay. This is a super dangerous ideology.”
I wrote a questioning post about this, like, “Here’s what I’m hearing, is this right?” A friend of mine sent me Christopher Rufo’s book, America’s Cultural Revolution, which is sort of a sociological study of the origins of the DEI movement and critical race theory. I found it actually one of the more important books I’ve read and also I found it quite concerning. Ultimately, DEI comes out of a kind of Marxist socialist way to look at the world. I think there are a lot of issues with it, but unfortunately it’s advancing. I, ultimately, concluded racism, as opposed to fighting it, which is what I thought it was ultimately about.
Lex Fridman
Maybe you can speak to that book a little bit. So there’s a history that traces back across decades and then that infiltrated college campuses.
Maybe you can speak to that book a little bit. So there’s a history that traces back across decades and then that infiltrated college campuses.
Bill Ackman
So basically what Rufo argues is that the black power movement of the sixties really failed. It was a very violent movement and many of the protagonists ended up in jail. Out of that movement, a number of thought leaders, this guy named [inaudible 02:24:08] and others built this framework kind of an approach. Said, “Look, if we’re going to be successful, it can’t be a violent movement, number one. Number two, we need to infiltrate, if you will, the universities and we need to become part of the faculty and we need to teach the students. Then once we take over the universities with this ideology, then we can go into government and then we can go into corporations and we can change the world.” I thought important book, and the more I dug in, the more I felt there was credibility to this, not just the kind of sociological backdrop, but to what it meant on campus.
So basically what Rufo argues is that the black power movement of the sixties really failed. It was a very violent movement and many of the protagonists ended up in jail. Out of that movement, a number of thought leaders, this guy named [inaudible 02:24:08] and others built this framework kind of an approach. Said, “Look, if we’re going to be successful, it can’t be a violent movement, number one. Number two, we need to infiltrate, if you will, the universities and we need to become part of the faculty and we need to teach the students. Then once we take over the universities with this ideology, then we can go into government and then we can go into corporations and we can change the world.” I thought important book, and the more I dug in, the more I felt there was credibility to this, not just the kind of sociological backdrop, but to what it meant on campus.
Harvard faculty were telling me that there really is no such thing as free speech on campus and that there was a survey done, a year or so ago, the Harvard faculty and only 2% of the faculty admitted, even in an anonymous survey, admitted to having a conservative point of view. We have a campus that’s 98% non-conservative, liberal, progressive that’s adopted this DEI construct. Then I learned from a member of the search committee for the Harvard president that they were restricted in looking at candidates only those who met the DEI office’s criteria. I shared this in one of my postings and I was accused of being a racist. That’s someone who believes in that diversity is a very good thing for organizations and that equity fairness isn’t really important, and having an inclusive culture is critical for a functioning of a organization. Here I was, someone who was like, “Okay. DEI, sounds good to me,” at least in the small D small E, I version of events, but this DEI ideology is really problematic.
Lex Fridman
What’s the way to fix this in the next few years, the infiltration of DEI with the uppercase version of universities and the things that have troubled you, the things you saw at Harvard and elsewhere.
What’s the way to fix this in the next few years, the infiltration of DEI with the uppercase version of universities and the things that have troubled you, the things you saw at Harvard and elsewhere.
Bill Ackman
The same way this was an eyeopening event for me it has been for a very broad range of other people. I mentioned general growth. I got a lot of nice letters from people from making money on a stock that went up a hundred times. I literally get hundreds of emails, letters, texts, handwritten letters, typed letters from people, from the ages of 25 to 85, saying, “Bill, this is so important. Thanks for speaking out on this. You are saying what so many of us believe but have been afraid to say.”
The same way this was an eyeopening event for me it has been for a very broad range of other people. I mentioned general growth. I got a lot of nice letters from people from making money on a stock that went up a hundred times. I literally get hundreds of emails, letters, texts, handwritten letters, typed letters from people, from the ages of 25 to 85, saying, “Bill, this is so important. Thanks for speaking out on this. You are saying what so many of us believe but have been afraid to say.”
I described it as almost a McCarthy-esque kind of movement in that if you challenge the DEI construct people accuse you of being a racist. It’s happened to me already. Perhaps I’m much less vulnerable than a university professor who can get shouted off campus, canceled. I’m sort of difficult to cancel, but that doesn’t mean people aren’t going to try. I’ve been the victim of a couple of interesting articles in the last few days, or at least one in particular in The Washington Post written by what I thought was a well-meaning reporter. It’s just clear that I’ve taken on some big parts of at least the progressive establishment, DEI. I’m also a believer that Biden should have stepped aside a long time ago, and it’s only getting worse. I’m attacking the president, DEI, elite universities and you make some enemies doing that.
Lex Fridman
I should say, I’m still at MIT and I love MIT. I believe in the power of great universities to explore ideas, to inspire young people to think, to inspire young people to lead.
I should say, I’m still at MIT and I love MIT. I believe in the power of great universities to explore ideas, to inspire young people to think, to inspire young people to lead.
Bill Ackman
Let me ask, okay, how can you explore how to think when you’re only shared a certain point of view? How can you learn about leadership when the governance and leadership at the institution is broken and exposure to ideas, if you’re limited in the ideas that you’re exposed to? I think university is at risk. I mean, the concerning thing is if 34 student organizations that each have, I don’t know, 30 members or maybe more, that’s a thousand. Okay. That’s a meaningful percentage of the campus perhaps that ultimately respond. Now, 10 or so, the 30 withdrew the statement once many of the members realized what they had written. It seems like the statement was signed by their leadership and not necessarily supported by all the various students that were members. If the university teaches people these precepts, this is the next generation of …
Let me ask, okay, how can you explore how to think when you’re only shared a certain point of view? How can you learn about leadership when the governance and leadership at the institution is broken and exposure to ideas, if you’re limited in the ideas that you’re exposed to? I think university is at risk. I mean, the concerning thing is if 34 student organizations that each have, I don’t know, 30 members or maybe more, that’s a thousand. Okay. That’s a meaningful percentage of the campus perhaps that ultimately respond. Now, 10 or so, the 30 withdrew the statement once many of the members realized what they had written. It seems like the statement was signed by their leadership and not necessarily supported by all the various students that were members. If the university teaches people these precepts, this is the next generation of …
I wrote my college thesis on university admissions. The reason why controlling the gates of the Harvard institution, the admissions office is important, is that many of these people who graduate end up with the top jobs in government and ultimately become judges, they permeate through society and so it really matters what they learn. If they’re limited to one side of the political aisle and they’re not open to a broad array of views, and this represents some of the most elite institutions in our country, I think it’s very problematic for the country, long term.
Lex Fridman
Yeah, I 100% agree. I also felt like the leadership wasn’t even part of the problem as much as they were almost out of touch, unaware that this is an important moment, it’s an important crisis, it’s an important opportunity to step up as a leader and define the future of an institution. I don’t even know where the source of the problem is. It could be, literally, governance structure as we’ve been talking about.
Yeah, I 100% agree. I also felt like the leadership wasn’t even part of the problem as much as they were almost out of touch, unaware that this is an important moment, it’s an important crisis, it’s an important opportunity to step up as a leader and define the future of an institution. I don’t even know where the source of the problem is. It could be, literally, governance structure as we’ve been talking about.
Bill Ackman
Well, it’s two things. I think it’s governance structure. I also think universities, they’re not selecting leaders. It’s not clear to me that universities should necessarily be run by academics. The dean of a university, the person who helps … There’s sort of the business of the university, and then there’s the academics of the university. I would argue having a business leader run these institutions and then having a board that has, itself, diverse viewpoints, and by the way, permanently structured to have diverse viewpoints is a much better way to run a university than picking an academic that the faculty supports.
Well, it’s two things. I think it’s governance structure. I also think universities, they’re not selecting leaders. It’s not clear to me that universities should necessarily be run by academics. The dean of a university, the person who helps … There’s sort of the business of the university, and then there’s the academics of the university. I would argue having a business leader run these institutions and then having a board that has, itself, diverse viewpoints, and by the way, permanently structured to have diverse viewpoints is a much better way to run a university than picking an academic that the faculty supports.
One of the things I learned about how faculty get hired at universities, ultimately, it’s signed off by the board, but the new faculty are chosen by each of the various departments. There’s sort of a tipping point, politically, where once they tip in one direction, the faculty recruit more people like themselves. The departments become more and more progressive, if you will, with the passage of time. They only advance candidates that meet their political objectives. It’s not a great way to build an institution, which allows for …
Lex Fridman
Small D, diversity
Small D, diversity
Bill Ackman
Allows for diversity. Diversity by the way, is not just race and gender. That’s also something I feel very strongly about.
Allows for diversity. Diversity by the way, is not just race and gender. That’s also something I feel very strongly about.
Lex Fridman
Well, luckily, engineering robotics is touched last by this. It is touched. When I am at the computing building [inaudible 02:32:11] and the new one, politics doesn’t infiltrate, or I haven’t seen it infiltrate quite as deeply as elsewhere.
Well, luckily, engineering robotics is touched last by this. It is touched. When I am at the computing building [inaudible 02:32:11] and the new one, politics doesn’t infiltrate, or I haven’t seen it infiltrate quite as deeply as elsewhere.
Bill Ackman
It’s in the biology department at Harvard because biology is controversial now.
It’s in the biology department at Harvard because biology is controversial now.
Lex Fridman
Yes. Yes, yes.
Yes. Yes, yes.
Bill Ackman
Because biology and gender, there are faculty … There’s a woman at Harvard who was literally canceled from the faculty as a member. I think she was at the med school. She made the argument that there are basically two genders determined by biology. She wasn’t allowed to stay. That’s another topic for another time.
Because biology and gender, there are faculty … There’s a woman at Harvard who was literally canceled from the faculty as a member. I think she was at the med school. She made the argument that there are basically two genders determined by biology. She wasn’t allowed to stay. That’s another topic for another time.
Lex Fridman
That’s another topic.
That’s another topic.
Bill Ackman
You should do a show on that one. That’d be an interesting one.
You should do a show on that one. That’d be an interesting one.
Lex Fridman
So as you said, technically Claudine Gay, the president of Harvard resigned over plagiarism, not over the thing that you were initially troubled by.
So as you said, technically Claudine Gay, the president of Harvard resigned over plagiarism, not over the thing that you were initially troubled by.
Bill Ackman
It’s hard to really know, right? It’s not like a provable fact. I would say at a certain point in time, she lost the confidence of the faculty, and that was ultimately the catalyst. How much of that was the plagiarism issue, and how much of that was some of the things that preceded it, or was it all of these issues in their entirety? There’s no way to do a calculus.
It’s hard to really know, right? It’s not like a provable fact. I would say at a certain point in time, she lost the confidence of the faculty, and that was ultimately the catalyst. How much of that was the plagiarism issue, and how much of that was some of the things that preceded it, or was it all of these issues in their entirety? There’s no way to do a calculus.
Lex Fridman
Can you explain the nature of this plagiarism from what you remember?
Can you explain the nature of this plagiarism from what you remember?
Bill Ackman
Aaron Sibarium and Christopher Rufo, one from The Free Beacon, and Chris, surfaced some allegations, or identified some pleasures in the issues that I would say the initial examples were use of the same words with proper attribution, some missing footnotes. Then over time with, I guess, more digging, they released I think ultimately something like 76 examples of what they call plagiarism in I think eight of 11 of her articles. One of the other things that came forth here is, as president of the university, she had sort of the thinnest transcript academically of any previous president, relatively small body of work. Then when you couple that with the amount of plagiarism that was pervasive. Then I guess some of the other examples that surfaced were not missing quotation marks where the authors of the work felt that their ideas had been stolen.
Aaron Sibarium and Christopher Rufo, one from The Free Beacon, and Chris, surfaced some allegations, or identified some pleasures in the issues that I would say the initial examples were use of the same words with proper attribution, some missing footnotes. Then over time with, I guess, more digging, they released I think ultimately something like 76 examples of what they call plagiarism in I think eight of 11 of her articles. One of the other things that came forth here is, as president of the university, she had sort of the thinnest transcript academically of any previous president, relatively small body of work. Then when you couple that with the amount of plagiarism that was pervasive. Then I guess some of the other examples that surfaced were not missing quotation marks where the authors of the work felt that their ideas had been stolen.
Really, plagiarism is academic fraud. One indicia of plagiarism is a missing footnote, that could also be a clerical error. When a professor’s accused of plagiarism, the university does sort of a deep dive. They have these administrative boards. It can take six months, nine months, a year to evaluate … Intent matters. Was this intentional theft of another person’s idea? That’s academic fraud. Or was this sloppy or just humanity? You miss a footnote here or there. I think once it got …
Bill Ackman
It’s a footnote here or there. And I think once it got to a place where people felt it was theft of someone else’s intellectual property, that’s when it became intolerable for her to stay as President of Harvard.
It’s a footnote here or there. And I think once it got to a place where people felt it was theft of someone else’s intellectual property, that’s when it became intolerable for her to stay as President of Harvard.
Lex Fridman
So is there a spectrum for you between a different kinds of plagiarism, maybe be plagiarizing words, and plagiarizing ideas, and plagiarizing novel ideas?
So is there a spectrum for you between a different kinds of plagiarism, maybe be plagiarizing words, and plagiarizing ideas, and plagiarizing novel ideas?
Bill Ackman
Of course. The common understanding of plagiarism, if you look in the dictionary, it’s about the theft. Theft requires a intent. Did the person intentionally take someone else’s ideas or words?
Of course. The common understanding of plagiarism, if you look in the dictionary, it’s about the theft. Theft requires a intent. Did the person intentionally take someone else’s ideas or words?
Now if you’re writing a novel, words matter more. If you’re taking Shakespeare and presenting it as your own words. If you’re writing about ideas, ideas matter, but you’re not supposed to take someone else’s words without properly acknowledging them, whether it’s quotation marks or otherwise.
But in the context of a academic’s life’s work before AI, everyone’s going to have missing quotation marks and footnotes. I remember writing my own thesis, there were books you couldn’t take out a Widener Library, so I’d have index cards. And I’d write stuff on index cards, and I put a little citation to make sure I remember to cite it properly.
And scrambling to do your thesis, get it in on time, what’s the chances you forget at what point, what are your words versus the author’s words? And you forget to put quotation marks. Just the humanity, the human fallibility of it. So it’s not academic fraud to have human fallibility, but it’s academic fraud. If you take someone else’s ideas that are an integral part of your work.
Lex Fridman
Is there a part of you that regrets that, at least from the perception of it, the President Harvard stepped on over plagiarism versus over refusing to say that the calls for genocide are wrong?
Is there a part of you that regrets that, at least from the perception of it, the President Harvard stepped on over plagiarism versus over refusing to say that the calls for genocide are wrong?
Bill Ackman
Again, I think it would’ve sent a better message if a leader fails as a leader, and that’s the reason for their resignation or dismissal. Then she gets, if you will, caught on a technical violation that had nothing to do with failed leadership. Because I don’t know what lesson that teaches the board about selecting the next candidate.
Again, I think it would’ve sent a better message if a leader fails as a leader, and that’s the reason for their resignation or dismissal. Then she gets, if you will, caught on a technical violation that had nothing to do with failed leadership. Because I don’t know what lesson that teaches the board about selecting the next candidate.
I mean, the future of Harvard, A lot of it’s going to depend on who they pick as the next leader. Here’s an interesting anecdote that I think has not surfaced publicly. So a guy named Larry Bacow was the previous president of Harvard. Larry Bacow was on the search committee, and they were looking for a new president. And what was strange was they picked an old white guy to be president of Harvard when there was a call for a more diverse president.
And what I learned was Harvard actually ran a process, had a diverse new president of Harvard, and in the due diligence on that candidate, shortly before the announcement of the new president, they found out that that presidential candidate had a plagiarism problem. And the search had gone on long enough, they couldn’t restart a search to find another candidate.
So they picked Larry Bacow off the board, off the search committee to the next president Harvard, as kind of an interim solution. And then there was that much more pressure to have a more diverse candidate this time around, because it was a big disappointment to the DEI office, if you will, and I would say to the community at large. That Harvard of all places couldn’t have a racially-diverse present. It sent an important message.
So the strange thing is that they didn’t do due diligence on President Gay, and that it was a relatively quick process. So the whole thing I think is worthy of further exploration.
Lex Fridman
So this goes deeper than just the president?
So this goes deeper than just the president?
Bill Ackman
Yes, for sure. When a company fails, most people blame the CEO. I generally blame the board. Because the board’s job is to make sure the right person’s running the company, and if they’re failing, help the person. If they can’t help the person, make a change. That’s not what’s happened here. The board’s hand was sort of forced from the outside, whereas they should have made their own decision from the inside.
Yes, for sure. When a company fails, most people blame the CEO. I generally blame the board. Because the board’s job is to make sure the right person’s running the company, and if they’re failing, help the person. If they can’t help the person, make a change. That’s not what’s happened here. The board’s hand was sort of forced from the outside, whereas they should have made their own decision from the inside.
Lex Fridman
Do you still love Harvard?
Do you still love Harvard?
Bill Ackman
Sure. It’s a 400-odd year institution. Enormously helpful to me in my life, I’m sure. My sister also went to Harvard. And the experiences, learnings, friendships, relationships. Again, I’m very happy with my life. Harvard was an important part of my life, I went there for both undergrad and business school. I learned a ton, met a lot of faculty. A number of my closest friends who I still really keep in touch with, I made then. So yeah, it’s a great place, but it needs a reboot.
Sure. It’s a 400-odd year institution. Enormously helpful to me in my life, I’m sure. My sister also went to Harvard. And the experiences, learnings, friendships, relationships. Again, I’m very happy with my life. Harvard was an important part of my life, I went there for both undergrad and business school. I learned a ton, met a lot of faculty. A number of my closest friends who I still really keep in touch with, I made then. So yeah, it’s a great place, but it needs a reboot.
Lex Fridman
Yeah, I still have hope. I think universities are really important institutions.
Yeah, I still have hope. I think universities are really important institutions.
Bill Ackman
When I went to Harvard, there were 1600 people in my class. I think today’s class about the same size, and their online education really has not taken off. So I heard Peter Thiel speak at one point in time, and he’s like, “What great institution do you know, that’s truly great, that hasn’t grown in a hundred years?”
When I went to Harvard, there were 1600 people in my class. I think today’s class about the same size, and their online education really has not taken off. So I heard Peter Thiel speak at one point in time, and he’s like, “What great institution do you know, that’s truly great, that hasn’t grown in a hundred years?”
And the incentives in some sense of the alums are for, it’s a bit like a club. If you’re proud of the elitism of the club, you don’t want that many new members. But the fact that the population has grown of the country so significantly since, certainly, I was a student in 1984, and the fact that Harvard recruits people from all over the world, it’s really serving a smaller and smaller percentage of the population today.
And some of them were most talented and successful entrepreneurs anyway. It’s a token of success that they didn’t make it through their undergraduate years. They left as a freshman, or they didn’t attend at all.
Lex Fridman
For entrepreneurs, yes. But it’s still a place…
For entrepreneurs, yes. But it’s still a place…
Bill Ackman
Very important for research, very important for advancing ideas. And yes, in shaping dialogue and the next generation of Supreme Court justices, and the members of government, politicians. So yes, it’s critically important. But it’s not doing the job it should be doing.
Very important for research, very important for advancing ideas. And yes, in shaping dialogue and the next generation of Supreme Court justices, and the members of government, politicians. So yes, it’s critically important. But it’s not doing the job it should be doing.
Neri Oxman
Lex Fridman
Neri Oxman, somebody you mentioned several times throughout this podcast, somebody I had a wonderful conversation with, a friendship with. I’ve looked up to her, admired her, I’ve been a fan of hers for a long time, of her work and of her as a human being. Looks like you’re a fan of hers as well.
Neri Oxman, somebody you mentioned several times throughout this podcast, somebody I had a wonderful conversation with, a friendship with. I’ve looked up to her, admired her, I’ve been a fan of hers for a long time, of her work and of her as a human being. Looks like you’re a fan of hers as well.
Bill Ackman
Yes. W.
Yes. W.
Lex Fridman
Hat do you love about Neri? What do you admire about her as a scientist, artist, human being?
Hat do you love about Neri? What do you admire about her as a scientist, artist, human being?
Bill Ackman
I think she’s the most beautiful person I’ve ever met, and I mean that from the center of her soul. She’s the most caring, warm, considerate, thoughtful person I’ve ever met. And she couples those remarkable qualities with brilliance, incredible creativity, beauty, elegance, grace. I’m talking about my wife, but I’m talking incredibly dispassionately.
I think she’s the most beautiful person I’ve ever met, and I mean that from the center of her soul. She’s the most caring, warm, considerate, thoughtful person I’ve ever met. And she couples those remarkable qualities with brilliance, incredible creativity, beauty, elegance, grace. I’m talking about my wife, but I’m talking incredibly dispassionately.
But I mean what I say. She’s the most remarkable person I’ve ever met, and I’ve met a lot of remarkable people, and I’m incredibly fortunate to spend a very high percentage of my lifetime with her, ever since I met her six years ago.
Lex Fridman
So she’s been a help to you through some of the rough moments you described.
So she’s been a help to you through some of the rough moments you described.
Bill Ackman
For sure. I mean, I met her at the bottom. Which is not a bad place to meet someone if it works out.
For sure. I mean, I met her at the bottom. Which is not a bad place to meet someone if it works out.
Lex Fridman
Is there some degree of yin and yang with the two personalities? You have described yourself as emotional and so on, but it does seem the two of you have slightly different styles about how you approach the world.
Is there some degree of yin and yang with the two personalities? You have described yourself as emotional and so on, but it does seem the two of you have slightly different styles about how you approach the world.
Bill Ackman
Sure. Well, interestingly, we have a lot of, we come from very similar places in the world. There are times where you feel like we’ve known each other for centuries.
Sure. Well, interestingly, we have a lot of, we come from very similar places in the world. There are times where you feel like we’ve known each other for centuries.
I met her parents for the first time a long time ago, almost six years ago as well. And I knew her parents were from Eastern Europe, originally. So I asked her father, what city did her family come from originally? And I called my father and asked him, “Dad, Grandpa Abraham, what’s the name of the city?” And then I put the two cities into Google Maps, and they were 52 miles apart. Which I thought was pretty cool.
Then of course at some point we did genetic testing, make sure we weren’t related, which we were not. But we share incredible commonality on values. We are attracted to the same kind of people. She loves my friends, I love hers. We love doing the same kind of things, we like spending time the same ways.
And she has more emotion, more elegance. She doesn’t like battles, but she’s very strong. But she’s more sensitive than I am.
Lex Fridman
Yeah, you are constantly in multiple battles at the same time, and there’s often the media, social media, it’s just fire everywhere.
Yeah, you are constantly in multiple battles at the same time, and there’s often the media, social media, it’s just fire everywhere.
Bill Ackman
That hasn’t really been the case for a while. I’ve had relative peace for a long time as I stopped being, as I haven’t had to be the kind of activist I was earlier in my career. I think since October 7th, yes, I do feel like I’ve been in a war.
That hasn’t really been the case for a while. I’ve had relative peace for a long time as I stopped being, as I haven’t had to be the kind of activist I was earlier in my career. I think since October 7th, yes, I do feel like I’ve been in a war.
Lex Fridman
Can you tell me the saga of the accusations against Neri?
Can you tell me the saga of the accusations against Neri?
Bill Ackman
So I did not actually surface the plagiarism allegations against President Gay that surfaced by Aaron and maybe Christopher Ruffo as well, or maybe Chris helped promote what Aaron and some anonymous person identified. But I certainly, it was a point in time where the board had said “We’re a hundred percent behind her,” and unanimously. And I really felt she had to go. So it didn’t bother me at all that they had identified problems with her work.
So I did not actually surface the plagiarism allegations against President Gay that surfaced by Aaron and maybe Christopher Ruffo as well, or maybe Chris helped promote what Aaron and some anonymous person identified. But I certainly, it was a point in time where the board had said “We’re a hundred percent behind her,” and unanimously. And I really felt she had to go. So it didn’t bother me at all that they had identified problems with her work.
So I shared, I reposted those posts. And then when the board, she ultimately resigned and she got a $900,000 a year professorship continuing at Harvard, I said, look, in light of her limited academic record and these plagiarism allegations, she had to go.
I knew when I did so, I assumed I was actually a bit paranoid about that thesis I had written. I only had one academic work, but I hadn’t checked it for plagiarism. And I thought, that’s going to happen. Actually, I had someone, I did not have a copy on hand, so I got a copy of my thesis.
And I remember writing it, Harvard at the time was pretty, they kind of gave you a lecture about making sure you have all your footnotes and quotation marks. I learned later that apparently they had a copy of my thesis at the New York Public Library, and a member of the media told me he was there online with a dozen other members of the media all trying to get a copy of my thesis to run it through some AI. They had to first do optical character recognition to convert the paper document into digital.
But fortunately, through a miracle, I didn’t have an issue. I didn’t think about Neri of course, who has whatever, 130 academic works.
And so we were just at the end of a vacation for Christmas break, and it was early in the morning for a vacation time. And all of a sudden I hear my phone ringing in the other room, or vibrating in the other room multiple times. I’m like, hm.
I pick up the phone and saw our communication guy, Fran McGill. And he’s like, “Bill, Business Insider has apparently identified a number of instances of plagiarism in Neri’s dissertation. Let me send you this email.”
He sent me the email, and they had identified four paragraphs in her 330- page dissertation where she had cited the author, but she had used the vast majority of the words, and that those paragraphs were from the author, and she should have used quotation marks.
And then there was one case where she paraphrased correctly an author, but did not footnote that it was from his work.
And so we were presented with this and told, they’re going to publish in a few hours. And we’re like, “Well, can we get to the next day? We’re just about to head home.”
And they’re like, “No, we’re publishing by noon. We need an answer by noon.”
And so we downloaded the copy of her thesis on the slow internet. And Neri checked it out and she said, “You know what? Looks like they’re right.”
And I said, “Look, you should just admit your mistake.”
And she wrote a very simple, gracious, yes, I should have used quotation marks. And on the author I failed to cite, she pointed out that she cited them eight other times, and wrote a several-paragraph section of her thesis acknowledging his work.
And none of these were important parts of her thesis. But she acknowledged her mistake and she said, I apologize for my mistake, and I apologized to the author who I failed to cite. And I stand on the shoulders of all the people came before me, and looking to advance work. And we sort of thought it was over.
We head home. In-flight on the way home, although we didn’t realize this until we got back the following day, a Business Insider published another article and said, “Neri Oxman admits to plagiarism.” Plagiarism, of course, is academic fraud. And this thing goes crazy viral.
Oh, Bill Ackman the title is Bill Ackman’s Wife, Celebrity Academic, Mary Oxman. And they use the term celebrity because there are limits to what legitimate media can go after, but celebrities, there’s a lot more leeway in the media into what they can say. So that’s why they call her a celebrity. First time ever she’d been called a celebrity. And they basically, she’s admitting to academic fraud. And then they said … And then the next day at 5:19 PM, I remember the timeline pretty well, an email was sent to Fran McGill saying, “We’ve identified two dozen other instances of plagiarism in her work.” 15 of which are Wikipedia entries where she copied definitions, and the others were mostly software-hardware manuals for various devices or software she used in her work, most of which were in footnotes where she described a nozzle for a 3D printer or something like this.
And they said, “We’re publishing tonight.” The email they sent to us was 6,900 words. It was 12 pages. It was practically indecipherable. You couldn’t even read it in an hour. And we didn’t have some of the documents they were referring to.
And I’m like, “Neri, you know what I’m going to do? I think it’ll be useful to provide context here. I’m going to do a review of every MIT professor’s dissertations. Every published paper. AI has enabled this.”
And so that was, I put out a tweet basically saying that. And we’re doing a test run now, because we have to get it right, and I think it’ll be a useful exercise. Provide some context, if you will. And then this thing goes crazy viral. And Neri is a pretty sensitive person, pretty emotional person, and someone who’s a perfectionist. And having everyone in the world thinking you committed academic fraud is a pretty damning thing.
Now, they did say they did a thorough review of all of her work, and this is what they found. I’m like, sweetheart, that’s remarkable. I did 130 works, 73 of which were peer-reviewed, blah, blah, blah. And she’s published in Nature Science and all these different publications. That’s actually, it’s a pretty good batting average.
But this is wrong, this is not academic fraud. These are inadvertent mistakes. And the Wikipedia entries, Neri actually used Wikipedia as a dictionary. This is the early days of Wikipedia. And they also referred to the MIT handbook, which has a whole section on plagiarism, academic handbook.
And if you read it, which I ultimately did, they make clear a few things. Number one, there’s plagiarism, academic fraud. And there’s what they call inadvertent plagiarism, which is clerical errors where you make a mistake, and it depends on intent. And there’s a link that you can go to, which is a section on, if you get investigated at MIT, what happens? What’s the procedure, what’s the initial stage, what’s the investigative stage, what’s the procedure if they identify it? And they make very clear that academic fraud is, and they list plagiarism, research theft, a few other things, but it does not include honest errors. Honest errors are not plagiarism under MIT’s own policies.
And in the handbook, they also have a big section of what they call common knowledge. And common knowledge depends on who you’re writing your thesis for. And so if it’s a fact that is known by your audience, you’re not required to quote or cite.
And so all those Wikipedia entries were for things like sustainable design, computer-aided design. She just took a definition from Wikipedia, common knowledge to her readers, no obligation under the handbook, totally exempt.
On using the same words, she referred to whatever, some kind of 3D printer. She was, the Stratasys 3D Printer, and she quoted from the manual. Right away, Stratasys is a company you consulted for. That’s not something, you’re not stealing their ideas, you’re describing a nozzle for a device you use in your work in a footnote. That’s not a theft of idea.
And so I’m like, this is crazy. And so this has got to stop. And so I reach out to a guy I knew who was on the board of Business Insider, the chairman, and his name is going to come public shortly. I committed at that time to keep his name confidential, it’s now surfaced publicly in the press.
Lex Fridman
Can I just pause real quick here?
Can I just pause real quick here?
Bill Ackman
Sure.
Sure.
Lex Fridman
Just to, I don’t know. There’s a lot of things I want to say. But you made it pretty clear. But just as a member of the community, there’s also a common sense test. I think you’re more precisely legal in looking at…
Just to, I don’t know. There’s a lot of things I want to say. But you made it pretty clear. But just as a member of the community, there’s also a common sense test. I think you’re more precisely legal in looking at…
Bill Ackman
Sure.
Sure.
Lex Fridman
But there’s just a bullshit test. And nothing that Neri did is plagiarism in the bad meaning of the word. Plagiarism right now is becoming another -ism, like racism or so on, used as an attack word. I don’t care what the meaning of it is, but there’s the bad academic fraud like theft, theft of an idea. And maybe you can say a lot of definitions and this kind of stuff. But then there’s just a basic bullshit test where everyone knows, this is a thief and this is definitely not a thief.
But there’s just a bullshit test. And nothing that Neri did is plagiarism in the bad meaning of the word. Plagiarism right now is becoming another -ism, like racism or so on, used as an attack word. I don’t care what the meaning of it is, but there’s the bad academic fraud like theft, theft of an idea. And maybe you can say a lot of definitions and this kind of stuff. But then there’s just a basic bullshit test where everyone knows, this is a thief and this is definitely not a thief.
And there’s nothing about anything that Neri did, anything in her thesis or in her life. Everyone that knows her, she’s a rock star. I just want to make it clear, it really hurt me that the internet, whatever is happening, could go after a great scientist. Because I love science, and I love celebrating great scientists.
And it’s just really messed up that whatever the machine, we can talk about Business Insider or whatever, social media, mass hysteria, whatever is happening. We need the great scientists of the world, because the future depends on them. And so we need to celebrate them, and protect them, and let them flourish and do their thing.
And keep them out of this whatever shit-storm that we’re doing to get clicks, and advertisements, and drama and all this. We need to protect them. So I just want to say there’s nobody I know, and I have a million friends that are scientists, world-class scientists, Nobel Prize winners, they all love Neri, they all respect Neri, she did zero wrong.
And then the rest of the conversation we’re going to have about how broken journalism is, and so on. But I just want to say that there’s nothing that Neri did wrong. It’s not a gray area or so on.
I also personally don’t love that Claudine Gay is a discussion about plagiarism, because it distracts from the fundamentals that is broken, it becomes some weird technical discussion. But in case of Neri, did nothing wrong. Great scientist, great engineer at MIT and beyond. She’s doing the cool thing now.
Bill Ackman
Could not have said it better myself. Now, obviously I’m focusing the technical part…
Could not have said it better myself. Now, obviously I’m focusing the technical part…
Lex Fridman
Right. Because you have to be precise here.
Right. Because you have to be precise here.
Bill Ackman
Well, it’s not even that. I mean, yes, I have said that we’re going to sue Business Insider. And in 35 years of my career of someone who has, not every article has been a favorable one, not every article has been an accurate one, I’ve never threatened to sue the media. And I’ve never sued the media. But this is so egregious.
Well, it’s not even that. I mean, yes, I have said that we’re going to sue Business Insider. And in 35 years of my career of someone who has, not every article has been a favorable one, not every article has been an accurate one, I’ve never threatened to sue the media. And I’ve never sued the media. But this is so egregious.
It’s not just that she did nothing wrong, but they accused her of academic fraud. They did it knowing, they make reference to MIT’s own handbook so they had to read all the same stuff that I read in the handbook, they did that work. Then, after I escalated this thing to Henry Blodget, the chairman of Business Insider, to the CEO of Axel Springer, I even reached out to Henry Kravis at a certain point in time, one of the controlling shareholders of the company through KKR, laying out the factual errors in the article.
Business Insider went public after they said Neri committed academic fraud and plagiarism. And said, we didn’t challenge any, the facts remain undisputed in the article.
So it’s basically, Neri committed plagiarism. That’s story one. Neri admits to plagiarism. She admits to plagiarism. She admitted to making a few clerical errors, that’s the only thing she admitted to, and she graciously apologized.
So they said, “Neri admits to plagiarism, apologizes for plagiarism.” That’s incredibly damning. ” And by the way, we’re doing an investigation because we’re concerned that there might’ve been inappropriate process, but the facts of the story have not been disputed by Neri Oxman or Bill Ackman.”
And that was totally false. I had done it privately, I’d done it publicly on Twitter, on X. I laid out, I have a whole tech stream, a WhatsApp stream with the CEO of the company. And they doubled down, and they doubled down again.
And so, I don’t sue people lightly. And stay tuned.
Lex Fridman
So you’re, at least for now, moving forward with…
So you’re, at least for now, moving forward with…
Bill Ackman
It’s a certainty we’re moving forward. There’s a step we can take prior to suing them, where we basically send them a letter demanding they make a series of corrections. That if they don’t make those corrections, the next step is litigation. I hope we can avoid the next step.
It’s a certainty we’re moving forward. There’s a step we can take prior to suing them, where we basically send them a letter demanding they make a series of corrections. That if they don’t make those corrections, the next step is litigation. I hope we can avoid the next step.
And I’m just making sure that when we present the demand to Business Insider, and ultimately to Axel Springer, that it’s incredibly clear how they defamed her, the factual mistakes in our stories, and what they need to do to fix it. And if we can fix it there, we can move on from this episode and hopefully avoid litigation. So that’s where we are.
Lex Fridman
I don’t know. You’re smarter than me. There’s technical stuff, there’s legal stuff, there’s journalistic stuff. But just, fuck you Business Insider for doing this. I don’t know much in this world, but journalists aren’t supposed to do that.
I don’t know. You’re smarter than me. There’s technical stuff, there’s legal stuff, there’s journalistic stuff. But just, fuck you Business Insider for doing this. I don’t know much in this world, but journalists aren’t supposed to do that.
Bill Ackman
Now look, we’re going to surface all this stuff publicly, ultimately. The email was not to Neri saying there was plagiarism in her work. The email came from a reporter named Catherine Long, and the headline was, “Your wife committed plagiarism. Shouldn’t she be fired from MIT, just like you caused Claudine Gay to be fired from Harvard?”
Now look, we’re going to surface all this stuff publicly, ultimately. The email was not to Neri saying there was plagiarism in her work. The email came from a reporter named Catherine Long, and the headline was, “Your wife committed plagiarism. Shouldn’t she be fired from MIT, just like you caused Claudine Gay to be fired from Harvard?”
It was a political agenda. She doesn’t like me, and she was trying to hurt me, and they couldn’t find plagiarism in my thesis. And being a short seller, the Herbalife battle went on for years. They tried to do everything to destroy my reputation. So they’d already gone through my trash, they’d already done all that work. So anything they could possibly find, I’ve always lived a very clean life, thankfully. And if you’re going to be an activist short seller, you better. Because they’re going to find out dirt on you if it exists. And so they’re like, how can we really hurt Bill?
And by the way, Neri had left MIT years earlier. When the reporter found out she was no longer a member of the MIT faculty, they were enraged. They didn’t believe us. They made us prove to us she’s no longer on the MIT faculty, because they wanted to get her fired. And by the way, malice is one of the important factors in determining whether defamation is taking place. And this was a malice- driven, this was not about news.
And the unfortunate thing about journalism is Business Insider made a fortune from this. This story was published and republished by thousands of media organizations around the world. It was the number one trending thing on Twitter for two days. Every newspaper, it was on the front page of every Israeli newspaper, it was on the front page of the Financial Times.
And she’s building a business. And if you’re a CEO of a science company and you committed academic fraud, that’s incredibly damaging. But I ultimately convinced her that this was good.
I said, “Sweetheart, you’re amazing. You’re incredible. You’re incredibly talented, but you’re mostly known in the design world. Now everyone in the universe has heard of Neri Oxman. We’re going to get this thing cleared up. You’re going to be doing an event in six months where you’re going to tell the world, you’re going to go out of stealth mode, you’re going to tell the world about all the incredible things that you’re building, and you’re designing, and you’re creating. And it’s going to be like the iPhone launch, because everyone’s going to be paying attention and they’re going to want to see your work.”
And that’s how I try to cheer her up. But I think it’s true.
Lex Fridman
It is true. And you’re doing your job as a good partner, seeing the silver lining of all this. How is, just from observing her, how did she stay strong through all of this psychologically? Because at least I know she’s pushing ahead with the work.
It is true. And you’re doing your job as a good partner, seeing the silver lining of all this. How is, just from observing her, how did she stay strong through all of this psychologically? Because at least I know she’s pushing ahead with the work.
Bill Ackman
Oh, she’s full speed ahead in her work. She’s built an amazing team, she’s hired 30 scientists, roboticists, people who, biologists, plant specialists, material scientists, engineers, really incredible crew. She’s built this 36,000 square-foot lab in New York City that’s one of a kind, they’re working out of it. It’s still under construction while they’re working out of it.
Oh, she’s full speed ahead in her work. She’s built an amazing team, she’s hired 30 scientists, roboticists, people who, biologists, plant specialists, material scientists, engineers, really incredible crew. She’s built this 36,000 square-foot lab in New York City that’s one of a kind, they’re working out of it. It’s still under construction while they’re working out of it.
And so she’s going to do amazing things. But as I said, she’s an extremely sensitive person. She’s a perfectionist. Okay? Imagine thinking that the entire world thinks you committed academic fraud. And so that was very hard for her.
She’s a very positive person. But I saw her in, I would say, her darkest emotional period for sure. She’s doing much better now. But you can kill someone. You can kill someone by destroying their reputation. People commit suicide. People go into these deep, dark depression.
Lex Fridman
Well my worry, primarily, when I saw what Business Insider was doing, is that they might dim the light of a truly special scientist and creator.
Well my worry, primarily, when I saw what Business Insider was doing, is that they might dim the light of a truly special scientist and creator.
Bill Ackman
It’s not going to happen.
It’s not going to happen.
Lex Fridman
But I also worry about others like Neri, young Neris, that this sends a signal that might scare them. And journalism shouldn’t scare aspiring young scientists.
But I also worry about others like Neri, young Neris, that this sends a signal that might scare them. And journalism shouldn’t scare aspiring young scientists.
Bill Ackman
The problem is the defamation law in the US is so favorable to the publisher, to the media, and so unfavorable to the victim. And the incentives are all wrong.
The problem is the defamation law in the US is so favorable to the publisher, to the media, and so unfavorable to the victim. And the incentives are all wrong.
When you went from a paper version of journalism to digital, and you could track how many people click, and it’s a medium that advertising drives the economics. And if you can show an advertiser more clicks, you can make more money. So a journalist is incentivized to write a story that will generate more clicks. How do you write a story that generate more clicks? You get a billionaire guy, and then you go after his wife, and you make a sensationalist story. And you give them no time to respond, right?
Look at the timing here. On the first story, they gave us three hours. On the second one, the following day, 5:19 PM, the email comes in not to Neri, not to her firm, but to my communications person. Who tracks us down by 5:30, 10 minutes later. And they publish their story 92 minutes after.
And they sent us, “We’re going to surface all these documents in our demand.” Read the email they sent, whether you could even decipher it. There was no … And by the way, there’s a reason why academic institutions, when a professor’s accused…
Bill Ackman
The reason why academic institutions, when a professors accused of plagiarism, why they have these very careful processes with multiple stages and they can take a year or more because it depends on intent. Was this intentional? In order to be a crime, an academic crime, you got to prove that they intentionally stole. Look, in some cases it’s obvious. In some cases it’s very subtle and they take this stuff super seriously, but they basically accused Neri of academic crime. And then 92 minutes later, they said she committed an academic crime and that should be a crime and that should be punishable with litigation. And there should be a real cost. And we’re going to make sure there’s a real cost, reputationally and otherwise, to Business Insider and to Axel Springer. Because ultimately you got to look to the controlling owner. They’re responsible.
The reason why academic institutions, when a professors accused of plagiarism, why they have these very careful processes with multiple stages and they can take a year or more because it depends on intent. Was this intentional? In order to be a crime, an academic crime, you got to prove that they intentionally stole. Look, in some cases it’s obvious. In some cases it’s very subtle and they take this stuff super seriously, but they basically accused Neri of academic crime. And then 92 minutes later, they said she committed an academic crime and that should be a crime and that should be punishable with litigation. And there should be a real cost. And we’re going to make sure there’s a real cost, reputationally and otherwise, to Business Insider and to Axel Springer. Because ultimately you got to look to the controlling owner. They’re responsible.
Lex Fridman
I’ll just say that you in this regard are inspiring to me for facing basically an institution that whole purpose is to write articles. So you’re like going into the fire.
I’ll just say that you in this regard are inspiring to me for facing basically an institution that whole purpose is to write articles. So you’re like going into the fire.
X and free speech
Bill Ackman
My kid’s school, the epithet of the school, or the saying is go forth unafraid. I think it’s a good way to live. And again, words can’t harm me. The power of X, And we do owe Elon enormous thanks for this is now, so for example, the Washington Post wrote a story about me a couple days ago, and I didn’t think the story was a fair story. So within a few hours of the story being written, I’m able to put out a response to the story and send it to 1,200,000 people. And it gets read and reread. I haven’t checked, but probably 5 million people saw my response. Now, those are the people on X, It’s not everyone in the world. There’s a disconnection between the X world and the offline world. But reputation in my business is basically all you have. And as they say, you can take a lifetime to build a reputation and take five minutes to have a disappear.
My kid’s school, the epithet of the school, or the saying is go forth unafraid. I think it’s a good way to live. And again, words can’t harm me. The power of X, And we do owe Elon enormous thanks for this is now, so for example, the Washington Post wrote a story about me a couple days ago, and I didn’t think the story was a fair story. So within a few hours of the story being written, I’m able to put out a response to the story and send it to 1,200,000 people. And it gets read and reread. I haven’t checked, but probably 5 million people saw my response. Now, those are the people on X, It’s not everyone in the world. There’s a disconnection between the X world and the offline world. But reputation in my business is basically all you have. And as they say, you can take a lifetime to build a reputation and take five minutes to have a disappear.
And the media plays a very important role and they can destroy people. At least we now have some ability to fight back. We have a platform, we can surface our views. The typical old days, they write an incredibly damning article and you point out factual errors and then two months later they bury a little correction on page, whatever. By then the person was fired where their life was destroyed or the reputation’s damaged. It was with Warren Buffett talking about media, and it’s a business he really loves. He says, “You know what, Bill?” He said, “A thief with a dagger. The only person who cause you more harm than a thief with a dagger is a journalist with a pen.” And those were very powerful words.
Lex Fridman
So you think X, formerly known as Twitter, is a kind of neutralizing force to that, to the power of centralized institutions?
So you think X, formerly known as Twitter, is a kind of neutralizing force to that, to the power of centralized institutions?
Bill Ackman
100%. And I think it’s a really important one, and it’s really been eye-opening for me to see how stories get covered in mainstream media. And then what I do on X is I follow people on multiple sides of an issue and you can or I post on a topic and I get to hear the other side. I read the replies. And the truth is something that people have had a lot of question about, particularly in the last, I would say five years beginning with Trump’s talking about fake news. And a lot of what Trump said about fake news is true. A big part of the world hated Trump and did everything they could to discredit him, destroy him.
100%. And I think it’s a really important one, and it’s really been eye-opening for me to see how stories get covered in mainstream media. And then what I do on X is I follow people on multiple sides of an issue and you can or I post on a topic and I get to hear the other side. I read the replies. And the truth is something that people have had a lot of question about, particularly in the last, I would say five years beginning with Trump’s talking about fake news. And a lot of what Trump said about fake news is true. A big part of the world hated Trump and did everything they could to discredit him, destroy him.
And he did a lot of things perhaps deserving of being discredited. He is by a very imperfect and some cases harmful leader. But everything from pre-election, the Hunter Biden laptop story in the New York Post that then Twitter made difficult for people to share and to read. COVID, the Jay Bhattacharyas of the world, questioning the government’s response, questioning long-term lockdowns, questioning keeping kids out of school, questions about masks, about vaccines, which are still not definitively answered, no counterbalance to the power of the government when the government can shut down avenues for free speech and where the mainstream media has kind of towed the line in many stents to the government’s actions.
So having an independently owned powerful platform is very important for truth, for free speech, for hearing the other side of the story, for counterbalancing the power of the government. Elon is getting a lot of pushback. The SpaceXs and Teslas of the world are experiencing a lot of government questions and investigations. And even the President of the United States came out and said, “Look, he needs to be investigated.” I’m getting my own version of that in terms of some negative media articles. I don’t know what’s next. But yeah, if you stick your neck out in today’s world and you go against the establishment, or at least the existing administration, you can find yourself in a very challenged place. And that discourages people from sharing stuff. And that’s why anonymous speech is important, some of which you find on Twitter.
Trump
Lex Fridman
You mentioned Trump. I have to talk to you about politics.
You mentioned Trump. I have to talk to you about politics.
Bill Ackman
Sure.
Sure.
Lex Fridman
Amongst all the other battles, you’ve also been a part of that one. Maybe you can correct me on this, but you’ve been a big supporter of various democratic candidates over the years, but you did say a lot of nice things about Donald Trump in 2016, I believe.
Amongst all the other battles, you’ve also been a part of that one. Maybe you can correct me on this, but you’ve been a big supporter of various democratic candidates over the years, but you did say a lot of nice things about Donald Trump in 2016, I believe.
Bill Ackman
So I was interviewed by Andrew Sorkin a week after Trump won the election.
So I was interviewed by Andrew Sorkin a week after Trump won the election.
Lex Fridman
Yes.
Yes.
Bill Ackman
And I made my case for why I thought he could be a good president.
And I made my case for why I thought he could be a good president.
Lex Fridman
Yes. So what was the case back then? To which degree did that turn out to be true? And to which degree did not? To which degree was he a good president? To which degree was he not a good president?
Yes. So what was the case back then? To which degree did that turn out to be true? And to which degree did not? To which degree was he a good president? To which degree was he not a good president?
Bill Ackman
Look, I think what I said at the time was the United States is actually a huge business. And it reminds me a bit of the type of activist investments we’ve taken on over time where this really, really great business has kind of lost its way. And with the right leadership, we can fix it. And if you think about the business of the United States today, right? You’ve got $32 trillion worth of debt over leveraged and or it’s highly leveraged, and the leverage is only increasing. We’re losing money, i.e., revenues aren’t covering expenses. The cost of our debt is going up as interest rates have gone up and the debt has to be rolled over. We have enormous administrative bloat in the country. The regulatory regime is incredibly complicated and burdensome and impeding growth. Our relations with our competitor nations and our friendly nations are far from ideal.
Look, I think what I said at the time was the United States is actually a huge business. And it reminds me a bit of the type of activist investments we’ve taken on over time where this really, really great business has kind of lost its way. And with the right leadership, we can fix it. And if you think about the business of the United States today, right? You’ve got $32 trillion worth of debt over leveraged and or it’s highly leveraged, and the leverage is only increasing. We’re losing money, i.e., revenues aren’t covering expenses. The cost of our debt is going up as interest rates have gone up and the debt has to be rolled over. We have enormous administrative bloat in the country. The regulatory regime is incredibly complicated and burdensome and impeding growth. Our relations with our competitor nations and our friendly nations are far from ideal.
And those conditions were present in 2020 as well. They’re just, I would say worse now. And I said, “Look, it’s a great thing that we have a business man as president.” And in my lifetime was really the first businessman as opposed to, I mean, maybe Bush to some degree was a business person, but I thought, “Okay, I always wanted the CEO to be CEO of America.” And now we have Trump said, “Look, he’s got some personal qualities that seem less ideal, but he’s going to be President of the United States. He’s going to rise to the occasion. This is going to be his legacy, and he knows how to make deals and he’s going to recruit some great people into his administration.” I hoped. And growth can solve a lot of our problems. So if we can get rid of a bunch of regulations that are holding back the country, we can have a president.
Obama was a, I would say not a pro-business president. He did not love the business community. He did not love successful people. And having a president who just changed the tone on being a pro-business president, I thought it would be good for the country. And that’s basically what I said. And I would say Trump did a lot of good things and a lot of people, you can get criticized for acknowledging that, but I think the country’s economy accelerated dramatically. And that, by the way, the capitalist system helps the people at the bottom best when the system does well and when the economy does well.
The black unemployment rate was the lowest in history when Trump was president, and that’s true for other minority groups. So he was good for the economy, and he recognized some of the challenges and issues and threats of China early. He kind of woke up NATO. Now, again, the way he did all this stuff you can object to, but NATO actually started spending more money on defense in the early part of Trump’s presidency because of his threats, which turned out to be a good thing in light of ultimately the Russia-Ukraine war. And I think if you analyze Trump objectively based on policies, he did a lot of good for the country. I think what’s bad is he did some harm as well.
I do think civility disappeared in America with Trump as president. A lot of that’s his personal style. And how important is civility? I do think he was attacked very aggressively by the left, by the media that made him paranoid. It probably interfered with his ability to be successful. He had the Russian collusion investigation overhang, and when someone’s attacked, they’re not going to be at their best, particularly if they’re paranoid. I think there’s some degree of that, but I’m giving the best of defense of Trump. Just you look at how he managed his team, right? Very few people made it through the Trump administration without getting fired or quitting, and he would say they’re the greatest person in the world when he hired them, and they’re total disaster when he fired them. It’s not an inspiring way to be a leader and to attract really talented people.
I think the events surrounding the election, I think January 6th, he could have done a lot more to stop a riot. I don’t consider it an insurrection, but a riot that takes place in our capitol. And where police officers are killed or die, commit suicide for failure as they sought it to do their job. He stepped in way too late to stop that. He could have stopped it early. Many of his words, I think, inspired people, some of whom with malintent to go in there and cause harm, and literally to shut down the government. There were some evil people unfortunately there. So he’s been a very imperfect president and also I think contributed to the extreme amount of divisiveness in our country. So I was ultimately disappointed by the note of optimism. And again, I always support the president. I trust the people ultimately to select our next leader.
It’s a bit like who wants to be a millionaire? When you go to the crowd and the crowd says a certain thing, you got to trust the crowd. But usually in who wants to be a millionaire, it’s a landslide in one direction. So you know which letter to pick. Here, we had an incredibly close election, which itself is a problem. So my dream and what I’ve tried a little bit, played politics in the last little period to support some alternatives to Trump so that we have a president. I use the example, imagine you woke up in the morning, it’s election day, whatever it is, this November 4th, whatever, 2024, and you still haven’t figured out who to vote for because the candidates are so appealing that you don’t know which lever to pull because it’s a tough call. That’s the choice we should be making as Americans. It shouldn’t be, I’m a member of this party and I’m only going to vote this way. I’m a member of that party going to vote the other way and I hate the other side. And that’s where we’ve been, unfortunately for too long.
Lex Fridman
Or you might be torn because both candidates are not good.
Or you might be torn because both candidates are not good.
Bill Ackman
Yeah.
Yeah.
Lex Fridman
I love a future where I’m torn because the choices are so amazing.
I love a future where I’m torn because the choices are so amazing.
Bill Ackman
The problem is the party system is so screwed up and the parties are self-interested, and there’s another governance problem, an incentive problem. Michael Porter, who was one of my professors at Harvard Business School, wrote a brilliant piece on the American political system and all the incentives and market dynamics and what he called a competitive analysis. It’s a must read. I should dig it up and send it around on X, but it explains how the parties and the incentives of these sort of self-sustaining entities where the people involved are not incentivized to do what’s best for the country, it’s a problem.
The problem is the party system is so screwed up and the parties are self-interested, and there’s another governance problem, an incentive problem. Michael Porter, who was one of my professors at Harvard Business School, wrote a brilliant piece on the American political system and all the incentives and market dynamics and what he called a competitive analysis. It’s a must read. I should dig it up and send it around on X, but it explains how the parties and the incentives of these sort of self-sustaining entities where the people involved are not incentivized to do what’s best for the country, it’s a problem.
Dean Phillips
Lex Fridman
You’ve been a supporter of Dean Phillips for the 2024 US presidential race.
You’ve been a supporter of Dean Phillips for the 2024 US presidential race.
Bill Ackman
Yes.
Yes.
Lex Fridman
What do you like about Dean?
What do you like about Dean?
Bill Ackman
I think he’s a honest, smart, motivated, capable, proven guy as a business leader. And I think in six, almost in his three terms in Congress, he ran when Trump was elected, he said his kids cried, his daughters cried, inspired him to run for office, ran in a Republican district in Minnesota for the last 60 years, was elected in the landslide, has been re-elected twice, moved up the ranks in the Congress, respected by his fellow members of Congress, advance some important legislation during COVID on senior roles, on various foreign policy committees. Centrist considered, I think the second most bipartisan member of the Congress. I’d love to have a bipartisan president. That’s the only way to go forward. But we’d enormously benefit if we had a president that chose policies on the basis of what’s best for the country as opposed to what his party wanted. What I like about him is he’s financially independent.
I think he’s a honest, smart, motivated, capable, proven guy as a business leader. And I think in six, almost in his three terms in Congress, he ran when Trump was elected, he said his kids cried, his daughters cried, inspired him to run for office, ran in a Republican district in Minnesota for the last 60 years, was elected in the landslide, has been re-elected twice, moved up the ranks in the Congress, respected by his fellow members of Congress, advance some important legislation during COVID on senior roles, on various foreign policy committees. Centrist considered, I think the second most bipartisan member of the Congress. I’d love to have a bipartisan president. That’s the only way to go forward. But we’d enormously benefit if we had a president that chose policies on the basis of what’s best for the country as opposed to what his party wanted. What I like about him is he’s financially independent.
He’s not a billionaire, but he doesn’t need the job. The party hates him now because he challenged the king, but he was willing to give up his political career because what he thought was best for the country, he tried to get other people to run who were higher profile, had more name recognition. None would, no one wants to challenge Biden if they want to have a chance to stay in office or run in the future. But he’s very principled. I think he would be a great president, but his shot is Michigan, but he needs to raise money in order to… He’s only got a couple weeks and he’s got to be on TV there. That’s expensive. So we’ll see.
Lex Fridman
So he has to increase name recognition, all that kind of stuff. Also, as you mentioned, he’s young.
So he has to increase name recognition, all that kind of stuff. Also, as you mentioned, he’s young.
Bill Ackman
55. Yeah, but he’s a young 55. You see him play hockey.
55. Yeah, but he’s a young 55. You see him play hockey.
Lex Fridman
Yeah. I mean, I guess 55 no matter what is a pretty young age.
Yeah. I mean, I guess 55 no matter what is a pretty young age.
Bill Ackman
I’m 57. I feel young. I can do more pull-ups today than I could as a kid. So that’s a standard.
I’m 57. I feel young. I can do more pull-ups today than I could as a kid. So that’s a standard.
Lex Fridman
You’re at the top of your tennis game.
You’re at the top of your tennis game.
Bill Ackman
I’m at the top of my tennis game for sure.
I’m at the top of my tennis game for sure.
Lex Fridman
Maybe there’s someone that would disagree with that.
Maybe there’s someone that would disagree with that.
Bill Ackman
And by the way, the other thing to point out here is, and I have been pointing this out as of others, Biden is I think is done. I mean, it’s embarrassing. It’s embarrassing for the country having him as a presidential candidate, let alone the president of the country. It’s crazy. And it’s just going to get worse and worse and should… The worst of his legacy is his ego that prevents him from stepping aside. And that’s it. It’s his ego. And it is so wrong and so bad and so embarrassing when you talk to people. I was in Europe, I was in London a few days ago, and people are like, “Bill, how can this guy be a president?” And it’s a bit like, again, I go back to my business analogy. Being a CEO is like a full contact sport. Being President of the United States is like some combination of wrestling, marathon running, being a triathlete.
And by the way, the other thing to point out here is, and I have been pointing this out as of others, Biden is I think is done. I mean, it’s embarrassing. It’s embarrassing for the country having him as a presidential candidate, let alone the president of the country. It’s crazy. And it’s just going to get worse and worse and should… The worst of his legacy is his ego that prevents him from stepping aside. And that’s it. It’s his ego. And it is so wrong and so bad and so embarrassing when you talk to people. I was in Europe, I was in London a few days ago, and people are like, “Bill, how can this guy be a president?” And it’s a bit like, again, I go back to my business analogy. Being a CEO is like a full contact sport. Being President of the United States is like some combination of wrestling, marathon running, being a triathlete.
I mean, you got to be at the serious physical shape and at the top of your game to represent this country. And he is a far cry from that. And it’s just getting worse, and it’s embarrassing. And he cannot be. And by the way, every day he waits, he’s handing the election to Trump because it’s harder and harder for an alternative candidate to surface. Now, Dean is the only candidate left on the Democratic side. They can still win delegates. He’s on the ballot in 42 states. And the best way for Biden to step aside is for Dean to show well in Michigan.
Lex Fridman
And so you think there is a path with the delegates and all that kind of stuff?
And so you think there is a path with the delegates and all that kind of stuff?
Bill Ackman
100%. So what has to happen is New Hampshire, he went from 0 to 20% of the vote and 10 weeks with no name recognition. I helped a little bit. Elon helped. We did a spaces for him. We had 350,000 people on the spaces. Some originally 40,000 live or something and then the rest after. And then he was on the ground in New Hampshire. And New Hampshire is one of the states where you don’t need to be registered to a party to vote for the candidate. So it’s like jump ball and you got 20%. And that’s with a lot of independents and Democrats voting for Haley.
100%. So what has to happen is New Hampshire, he went from 0 to 20% of the vote and 10 weeks with no name recognition. I helped a little bit. Elon helped. We did a spaces for him. We had 350,000 people on the spaces. Some originally 40,000 live or something and then the rest after. And then he was on the ground in New Hampshire. And New Hampshire is one of the states where you don’t need to be registered to a party to vote for the candidate. So it’s like jump ball and you got 20%. And that’s with a lot of independents and Democrats voting for Haley.
Haley, who I like and who I’ve supported, does not look like she’s going to make it. Trump is really kind of running the table. And so vote for Haley as an independent Michigan, maybe throw away your vote. I think it increases the likelihood that Dean can get those independent votes if he could theoretically, again, he needs money, he could beat Biden in Michigan. Biden’s doing very poorly in Michigan. His polls are terrible. The Muslim community is not happy with him, and he really has spent no time there. And so if he’s embarrassed in Michigan, it could be a catalyst for him withdrawing.
Then Dean will get funding if he wins Michigan or shows well in Michigan, and people say he’s viable. He’s the only choice we have. He’ll attract from the center, he’ll attract from people, Republicans who won’t vote for Trump, of which there are a big percentage, could be 60% or more. It could be 70% won’t vote for Trump and also from the Democrats. So I think he’s a really interesting candidate, but we’ve got to get the word out.
Lex Fridman
I gotten a chance to chat with Dean. I really like him. I really like him. And I think the next President of the United States is going to have to meet and speak regularly with Zelensky, Putin, [inaudible 03:25:07], with world leaders and have some of the most historic conversations, agreements, negotiations. And I just don’t see Biden doing that.
I gotten a chance to chat with Dean. I really like him. I really like him. And I think the next President of the United States is going to have to meet and speak regularly with Zelensky, Putin, [inaudible 03:25:07], with world leaders and have some of the most historic conversations, agreements, negotiations. And I just don’t see Biden doing that.
Bill Ackman
No.
No.
Lex Fridman
And not for any reason, but sadly, age.
And not for any reason, but sadly, age.
Bill Ackman
Think about it this way. When Biden’s present now, you saw his recent impromptu press conference, which he did after the special prosecutor report, basically saying the guy was way past his prime, and then he confused the president of Mexico and the president of Egypt. So they’re very careful when they roll him out and he’s scripted and he’s always reading from a lectern. Imagine the care they have in exposing him, and when they expose him, it’s terrible. Okay. Imagine how bad it is for real.
Think about it this way. When Biden’s present now, you saw his recent impromptu press conference, which he did after the special prosecutor report, basically saying the guy was way past his prime, and then he confused the president of Mexico and the president of Egypt. So they’re very careful when they roll him out and he’s scripted and he’s always reading from a lectern. Imagine the care they have in exposing him, and when they expose him, it’s terrible. Okay. Imagine how bad it is for real.
Lex Fridman
It’s not good.
It’s not good.
Bill Ackman
No, really bad for America. And I’m upset with him and upset with his family. I’m upset with his wife. This is the time where the people closest to you have to put their arms around you and say, “Dad, honey, you’ve done your thing. This is going to be your legacy and it’s not going to be a good one.”
No, really bad for America. And I’m upset with him and upset with his family. I’m upset with his wife. This is the time where the people closest to you have to put their arms around you and say, “Dad, honey, you’ve done your thing. This is going to be your legacy and it’s not going to be a good one.”
Lex Fridman
Great leaders should also know when to step down.
Great leaders should also know when to step down.
Bill Ackman
Yeah. One of the best tests of a leader is succession planning. This is a massive failure of succession planning.
Yeah. One of the best tests of a leader is succession planning. This is a massive failure of succession planning.
Future
Lex Fridman
Outside of politics, let me look to the future, first, in terms of the financial world, what are you looking forward to in the next couple of years? You have a new fund. What are you thinking about in terms of investment, your own and the entire economy, and maybe even the economy of the world?
Outside of politics, let me look to the future, first, in terms of the financial world, what are you looking forward to in the next couple of years? You have a new fund. What are you thinking about in terms of investment, your own and the entire economy, and maybe even the economy of the world?
Bill Ackman
Sure. So the SEC doesn’t like us to talk about new funds that we’re launching, that we filed with the SEC.
Sure. So the SEC doesn’t like us to talk about new funds that we’re launching, that we filed with the SEC.
Lex Fridman
Sure.
Sure.
Bill Ackman
But I would say I do, and by the way, if anyone’s ever interested in a fund, they should always read the prospectus carefully, including the risk factors. That’s very, very important. But I like the idea of democratizing access to good investors, and I think that’s an interesting trend. So we want to be part of that trend. In terms of financial markets, generally the economy, a lot is going to depend upon the next leader of the country. So we’re kind of right back there. The leadership of the United States is important for the US economy. It’s important for the global economy, it’s important for global peace, and we’ve gone through a really difficult period, and it’s time. We need a break. But look, I think the United States is an incredibly resilient country.
But I would say I do, and by the way, if anyone’s ever interested in a fund, they should always read the prospectus carefully, including the risk factors. That’s very, very important. But I like the idea of democratizing access to good investors, and I think that’s an interesting trend. So we want to be part of that trend. In terms of financial markets, generally the economy, a lot is going to depend upon the next leader of the country. So we’re kind of right back there. The leadership of the United States is important for the US economy. It’s important for the global economy, it’s important for global peace, and we’ve gone through a really difficult period, and it’s time. We need a break. But look, I think the United States is an incredibly resilient country.
We have some incredible moats among them. We have the Atlantic and the Pacific, and we have peaceful neighbors to the north and the South. We’re an enormously rich country. Capitalism still works effectively here. I get optimistic about the world when I talk to my friends who are either venture capitalists or my hobby of backing these young entrepreneurs. I talked to a founder of a startup, if you want to get optimistic about the world. So I think technology is going to save us. I think AI, of course, has its frightening, Terminator-like scenarios. But I’m going to take the opposite view that this is going to be a huge enabler of productivity, scientific discovery, drug discovery, and it’s going to make us healthier, happier, and better. So I do think the internet revolution had a lot of good, obviously some bad. I think the AI revolution’s going to be similar, but we’re at this other really interesting juncture in the world with technology, and we’re going to have to use it for our good.
On the media front, I’m happy about X, and I think Elon’s going to be successful here. I think advertisers will realize it’s a really good platform. The best way to reach me, if you want to sell something to me, I’ve actually bought stuff on some ads in X. I don’t remember the last time I responded to a direct response advertising. In terms of my business, I have an incredible team. It’s tiny. We’re one of the smallest firms relative to the assets we manage. It’s a bit like the Navy SEALs, not the US Army. We have only 40 people at Pershing Square. So it’s a tight team. I think we’ll do great things. I think we’re early on my ambitions investment-wise, I’ve always said I’d like to have a record as good as Warren Buffett’s. The problem is, each year he adds on another year.
He’s now in his 93rd year. So I’ve got 36 more years to just get where he is, and I think he’s going to add a lot more years. I’m excited about seeing what Neri is going to produce. She’s building an incredible company. They’re trying to solve a lot of problems with respect to products and buildings and their impact on the environment. Her vision is how do we design products that by virtue of the product’s existence, the world is a better place. Today, her world is a world where the existence of the new car actually is better for the environment than if the new car hadn’t existed. And think about that in every product scale, that’s what she’s working on. I don’t want to give away too much, but you’re going to see some early examples of what she’s working on. So again, I get excited about the future and crises are sort of a terrible thing to waste.
And we’ve had a number of these here. I think this disaster in the Middle East, my prediction is the next few months, this war will largely be over in terms of getting rid of Hamas. I think I can envision a world in which Saudi Arabia, some of the other Gulf states come together, take over the governance and reconstruction of Gaza. Security guarantees are put in place. The Abraham Accords continue to grow. A deal is made. Terrorists are ostracized that this October 7th experience on the Harvard, Penn, MIT, Columbia, unfortunately, other campuses is a wake-up call for universities. Generally, people see the problems with DEI, but understand the importance of diversity and inclusion, but not as a political movement, but as a way that we return to a meritocratic world where someone’s background is relevant in understanding their contribution, but we don’t have race quotas and things that were made illegal years ago actually being implemented in organizations on campus. So I think there’s, if we can go through a corrective phase, and I’m an optimist and I hope we get there.
Lex Fridman
So you have hope for the entirety of it, even for Harvard.
So you have hope for the entirety of it, even for Harvard.
Bill Ackman
I have hope, even for Harvard, it’s generally hard to break 400 year old things.
I have hope, even for Harvard, it’s generally hard to break 400 year old things.
Lex Fridman
Well, I share your hope and you are a fascinating mind, a brilliant mind, persistent as you like to say. And fearless, the fearless part is truly inspiring, and this was an incredible conversation. Thank you. Thank you for talking today, Bill.
Well, I share your hope and you are a fascinating mind, a brilliant mind, persistent as you like to say. And fearless, the fearless part is truly inspiring, and this was an incredible conversation. Thank you. Thank you for talking today, Bill.
Bill Ackman
Thank you, Lex.
Thank you, Lex.
Lex Fridman
Thanks for listening to this conversation with Bill Ackman. To support this podcast, please check out our sponsors in the description. And now, let me leave you some words from Jonathan Swift, “A wise person should have money in their head, but not in their heart.” Thank you for listening and hope to see you next time.
Thanks for listening to this conversation with Bill Ackman. To support this podcast, please check out our sponsors in the description. And now, let me leave you some words from Jonathan Swift, “A wise person should have money in their head, but not in their heart.” Thank you for listening and hope to see you next time.
Transcript for Marc Raibert: Boston Dynamics and the Future of Robotics | Lex Fridman Podcast #412
This is a transcript of Lex Fridman Podcast #412 with Marc Raibert.
The timestamps in the transcript are clickable links that take you directly to that point in
the main video. Please note that the transcript is human generated, and may have errors.
Here are some useful links:
The timestamps in the transcript are clickable links that take you directly to that point in
the main video. Please note that the transcript is human generated, and may have errors.
Here are some useful links:
- Go back to this episode’s main page
- Watch the full YouTube version of the podcast
Table of Contents
Here are the loose “chapters” in the conversation.
Click link to jump approximately to that part in the transcript:
This is the Lex Friedman Podcast. To support it, please check out our sponsors in the description. And now, dear friends, here’s Marc Raibert. When did you first fall in love with robotics?
But the result of that was our basement was always full of tools and equipment and electronics, and from a young age, I would watch him assembling an ICO kit or something like that. I still have a couple of his old ICO kits.
But it was really during graduate school when I followed a professor back from class. It was Berthold Horn at MIT, and I was taking an interim class. It’s IAP, Independent Activities Period. And I followed him back to his lab, and on the table was a [inaudible 00:02:50] robot arm taken apart in probably a thousand pieces. And when I saw that, from that day on, I was a roboticist.
So that was the first time a bridge was made between those two groups then the bridge kind of went away, and then there was another time in the ’80s. And then recently the last five or so years, there’s been a stronger connection.
And I even had kind of this platonic ideal that a robot, if you just looked at a robot and it wasn’t doing anything, it would look like a pile of junk, which a lot of my robots looked like in those days. But then when it started moving, you’d get the idea that it had some kind of life or some kind of interest in its movement, and I think we purposely even designed the machines not worrying about the aesthetics of the structure itself. But then it turns out that the aesthetics of the thing itself add and combine with the lifelike things that the robots can do. But the heart of it is making them do things that are interesting.
And I went to a talk. All the talks were about the body of either animals or people and respiration, things like that. But one talk was by a robotics guy, and he showed a six legged robot that walked very slowly. It always had at least three feet on the ground, so it worked like a table or a chair with tripod stability, and it moved really slowly.
And I just looked at that and said, wow, that’s wrong. That’s not anything like how people and animals work because we bounce and fly. We have to predict what’s going to happen in order to keep our balance when we’re taking a running step or something like that. We use the springiness in our legs, our muscles and our tendons and things like that as part of the story. The energy circulates. We don’t just throw it away every time.
I’m not sure I understood all that when I first thought, but I definitely got inspired to say, “Let’s try the opposite.” And I didn’t have a clue as to how to make a hopping robot work, not balance in 3D. In fact, when I started, it was all just about the energy of bouncing, and I was going to have a springy thing in the leg and some actuator so that you could get an energy regime going of bouncing.
And the idea that balance was an important part of it didn’t come until a little later. And then I made the pogo stick robots. Now I think that we need to do that in manipulation. If you look at robot manipulation, a community has been working on it for 50 years. We’re nowhere near human levels of manipulation. It’s come along, but I think it’s all too safe.
And I think trying to break out of that safety thing of static grasping. If you look at a lot of work that goes on, it’s about the geometry of the part, and then you figure out how to move your hand so that you can position it with respect to that, and then you grasp it carefully and then you move it. Well, that’s not anything like how people and animals work. We juggle in our hands, we hug multiple objects and can sort them. So.
Now to be fair, being more aggressive is going to mean things aren’t going to work very well for a while, so it’s a longer term approach to the problem, and that’s just theory now. Maybe that won’t pay off, but that’s how I’m trying to think about it, trying to encourage our group to go at it.
These are incredible robots. You talked about the very first step was to get a thing hopping up and down, and then you realized, well, balancing is a thing you should care about, and it’s actually a solvable problem. Can you just go through how to create that robot? What was involved in creating that robot?
Anyway, I got to know him and at one point he said he encouraged me to do some kind of project at Caltech, even though I was at JPL. Those are kind of related institutions. And so I thought about it and I made up a list of three possible projects, and I purposely made the top one and the bottom one really boring sounding. And in the middle I put Pogo stick robot. And when he looked at it, Ivan is a brilliant guy, brilliant engineer, and a real cultivator of people. He looked at it and knew right away what thing that was worth doing. And so he had an endowed chair, so he had about $3,000 that he gave me to build the first model, which I went I to the shop and with my own hands kind of made a first model, which didn’t work and was just a beginning shot at it.
Ivan and I took that to Washington. And in those days you could just walk into DARPA and walk down the hallway and see who’s there, and Ivan, who had been there in his previous life. And so we walked around and we looked in the offices. Of course, I didn’t know anything. I was basically a kid, but Ivan knew his way around, and we found Craig Fields in his office.
Craig later became the director of DARPA, but in those days, he was a program manager. And so we went in, I had a little Samsonite suitcase, which we opened, and it had just the skeleton of this one-legged hopping robot. And we showed it to him, and you could almost see the drool going down his chin of excitement. And he sent me $250,000. He said, “Okay, I want to fund this.”
And I was between institutions, I was just about to leave JPL, and I hadn’t decided yet where I was going next, and then when I landed at CMU, he sent $250,000, which in 1980 was a lot of research money.
It wasn’t that hard to make it balanced once you get the physical machine to be working well enough and have enough control over the degrees of freedom. We started out by having it floating on an inclined air table, and then that only gave us like six foot of travel, so once it started working, we switched to a thing that could run around the room on another device. It’s hard to explain these without you seeing them, but you probably know what I’m talking about, a planarize.
And then the next big step was to make it work in 3D, which that was really the scary part with these simple things. People had inverted pendulums at the time for years, and they could control them by driving a cart back and forth, but could you make it work in three dimensions while it’s bouncing and all that? But it turned out not to be that hard to do, at least at the level of performance we achieved at the time.
Then there’s a part that you decide where to put the foot. And if you think when you’re landing on the ground with respect to the center of mass. So if you think of a pole vaulter, the key thing the pole vaulter has to do is get its body to the right place when the pole gets stuck. If they’re too far forward, they kind of get thrown backwards. If they’re too far back, they go over. And what they need to do is get it so that they go mostly up to get over the thing. And high jumpers is the same kind of thing. So there’s a calculation about where to put the foot, and we did something relatively simple.
And then there’s a third part to keep the body at an attitude that’s upright, because if it gets too far, you could hop and just keep rotating around. But if it gets too far, then you run out of motion of the joints at the hips. So you have to do that. And we did that by applying a torque between the legs and the body. Every time the foot’s on the ground. You only can do it while the foot’s on the ground in the air. The physics don’t work out.
One of my students worked on getting things to go faster. Another one worked on climbing over obstacles. Because when you’re running on the open ground, it’s one thing; if you’re running up a stair, you have to adjust where you are, otherwise things don’t work out. You land your foot on the edge of the steps. There’s other degrees of freedom to control if you’re getting to more realistic, practical situations.
But I’ll tell you, after we started working on them, you could see that the connection and the impact with other people, whether they’re laypeople or even other technical people, there’s a special thing that goes on, even though most of the humanoid robots aren’t that much like a person.
And we were doing surgical operations’ anastomosis, which was stitching tubes together. Tubes like blood vessels or other things in their body. And you could feel, you could see the tissues move. And it was really exciting. And the idea was to make a trainer to teach surgeons how to do stuff. We built a scoring system because we’d interviewed surgeons that told us what you’re supposed to do and what you’re not supposed to do.
You’re not supposed to tear the tissue, you’re not supposed to touch it in any place except for where you’re trying to engage. There were a bunch of rules. So we built this thing and took it to a trade show, a surgical trade show, and the surgeons were practically lined up. Well, we kept a score and we posted their scores on a video game. And those guys are so competitive that they really, really loved doing it.
And they would come around and they see someone’s score was higher there, so they would come back. But we figured out shortly after, that we thought surgeons were going to pay us to get trained on these things and the surgeons thought we should pay them so they could teach us about the thing. And there was no money from the surgeons. And we looked at it and thought, well, maybe we could sell it to hospitals that would train their surgeons.
And then we said, at the time we were probably a 12 person company or maybe 15 people, I don’t remember, there’s no way we could go after a marketing activity. The company was all bootstrapped in those years. We never had investors until Google bought us, which was after 20 years. So we didn’t have any resources to go after hospitals. So one day, Rob and I were looking at that and we’d built another simulator for knee arthroscopy and we said, “This isn’t going to work.” And we killed it. And we moved on. And that was really a milestone in the company because we sort of understood who we were and what would work and what wouldn’t. Even though technically it was really a fascinating thing.
So we had six ISDN lines installed and we would have a telecon every week that worked at very low frame rates, something like 10 hertz. English across the boundary with Japan was a challenge trying to understand what each of us was saying and have meetings every week for several years doing that.
And it was a pleasure working with them. They were really supporters. They seemed to like us and what we were doing. That was the real transition from us being a simulation company into being a robotics company again.
One was BigDog, one was a climbing robot rise, and that put things in motion. We hired Martin Bueller, he was a professor in Montreal at McGill. He was incredibly important for getting BigDog out of the lab and into the mud, which was a key step to really be willing to go out there out and build it, break it, fix it, which is sort of one of our mottos at the company.
And the robot itself just had the actuators. It had gyroscopes for sensing and some other sensors, but all the power and computing was off board. BigDog had all that stuff integrated on the platform. It had a gasoline engine for power, which was a very complicated thing to undertake. It had to convert the rotation of the engine into hydraulic power, which is how we actuated it. So there was a lot of learning just on building the physical robot and the system integration for that. And then there was the controls of it.
So I think those were actually bigger challenges. Once we faced them, it was mostly getting the systems to work well enough together, the hardware systems to work. And the controls. In those days, we did have a human operator who did all the visual perception going up the Guadalcanal Trail. So there was an operator who was right there who was very skilled even though the robot was balancing itself and placing its own feet, if the operator didn’t do the right thing, it wouldn’t go.
But years later, we went back with one of the electric, the precursor to Spot, and we had advanced the controls and everything so much that a complete amateur could operate the robot the first time up and down and up and down. Whereas it taken us years to get there in the previous robot.
And that was the inspiration behind the spot pretty much as it exists today. We did a prototype the same size that was the first all electric, non-hydraulic robot.
Most of hydraulic control, that is the valve that controls the flow of oil, had been designed in the 50s for airplanes. It had been made robust enough, safe enough that you could count on it so that humans could fly in airplanes and very little innovation had happened that might not be fair to the people who make the valves. I’m sure that they did innovate, but the basic had stayed the same and there was so much more you could do.
And so our engineers designed valves, the ones that are in Atlas for instance, that had new kinds of circuits, they sort of did some of the computing that could get you much more efficient use. They were much smaller and lighter so the whole robot could be smaller and lighter. We made a hydraulic power supply that had a bunch of components integrated in this tiny package.
It’s about this big, the size of a football weighs five kilograms and it produces five kilowatts of power. Of course it has to have a battery operating, but it’s got a motor, a pump filters, heat exchanger to keep it cool. Some valves all in this tiny little package. So hydraulics could still have a ways to go.
And you’re looking at what the obstacles are, where the feet are going to be placed. You have to coordinate a lot of things. If you have obstacles and you’re balancing at the same time and it’s that limited horizon type calculation that’s doing a lot of that. But if you’re doing something like a somersault, you’re looking out a lot further. If you want to stick the landing, you have to, at the time of launch, have momentum and rotation, all those things coordinated so that a landing is within reach.
So how high you jump gives you time. You look at how quickly you can rotate. And so if you get those two right, then when you land, you have the feet in the right place and you have to get rid of all that rotational and linear momentum. But that’s not too hard to figure out. And we made back in about 1985 or six, I can’t remember, we had a simple robot doing somersaults.
To do it in 3D, really the calculation is the same. You just have to be balancing in the other degrees of freedom. If you’re just doing a somersault, it’s just a plainer thing. Ron Robert was my graduate student and we were at MIT, which is when we made a two-legged robot do a 3D somersault for the first time. There, in order to get enough rotation rate you needed to do tucking also, withdraw the legs in order to accelerate it.
And he did some really fascinating work on how you stabilize more complicated maneuvers. You remember he was a gymnast at Champion Gymnast before he’d come to me. So he had the physical abilities and he was an engineer, so he could translate some of that into the math and the algorithms that you need to do that.
I injured my toe recently and it made running very unpleasant. So that seems to be important. So how do you figure out for efficiency, for function, for aesthetics, how many joints to have, how many actuaries to have?
I’ll tell you the first sketch that Ben Brown made when we were talking about building this thing, was a very complicated thing with zillions of springs, lots of joints. It looked much more like a kangaroo or an ostrich or something like that. Things we were paying a lot of attention to at the time. So my job was to say, okay, well let’s do something simpler to get started and maybe we’ll get there at some point.
And in BigDog, there was no place to store negative work in the knees. But BigDog also had pogo stick springs down below. So part of the action was to comply in a bouncing motion. Later on in Spot, we took that out. As we got further and further away from the leg lab, we had more energy-driven controls.
And he made this legged system that could walk down an incline plane where the legs folded and unfolded and swung forward, do the whole walking motion where there was no computer. There were some adjustments to the mechanics so that there were dampers and springs in some places that helped the mechanical action happen. It was essentially a mechanical computer. And the interesting idea there is that it’s not all about the brain dictating to the body what the body should do. The body is a participant in the motion.
And I think that’s in short supply for robots. Most robots are pretty dumb. As a result, it takes a lot of skilled people to program them to do everything they do, and it takes a long time. If robots are going to satisfy our dreams, they need to be smarter. So the AI Institute is designed to combine that physicality of the athletic side with the cognitive side.
For instance, we’re trying to make robots that can watch a human do a task, understand what it’s seeing, and then do the task itself. OJT, on-the-job training for robots as a paradigm. Now, that’s pretty hard, and it’s sort of science fiction, but our idea is to work on a longer timeframe and work on solving those kinds of problems. I have a whole list of things that are in that vein.
There’s cost too, you’d like to get the cost down. Spots are still pretty expensive, and I don’t think that they have to be, but it takes a different kind of activity to do that. I think that Boston Dynamics is owned primarily by Hyundai now, and I think that the skills of Hyundai in making cars can be brought to bear in making robots that are less expensive and more reliable and those kinds of things.
We have several people working on machine learning approaches. I don’t know if you know, but we opened an office in Zurich recently, and Marco Hutter, who’s one of the real leaders in reinforcement learning for robots, is the director of that office. He’s still half-time at ETH, the university there, where he has an unbelievably fantastic lab, and then he’s half-time leading, will be leading efforts in the Zurich office. So we have a healthy learning component.
But there’s part of me that still says, if you look out in the world at what the most impressive performances are, they’re still pretty much, I hate to use the word traditional, but that’s what everybody’s calling it, traditional controls, like model predictive control. The Atlas performances that you’ve seen are mostly model predictive control. They’ve started to do some learning stuff that’s really incredible. I don’t know if it’s all been shown yet, but you’ll see it over time. And then Marco has done some great stuff and others.
Again, I’ll point at Boston Dynamics, some of the videos that we had showing the engineer making it hard for the robot to do its task. Spot opening a door and then the guy gets there and pushes on the door so it doesn’t open the way it’s supposed to. Pulling on the rope that’s attached to the robot, so its navigation has been screwed up. We have one where the robot’s climbing stairs and an engineer is tugging on a rope that’s pulling it back down the stairs. That’s totally different than just the robot seeing the stairs, making a model, putting its feet carefully on each step. But that’s what probably robotics needs to succeed, and having that broader idea that you want to come with a robust solution is what I meant by diligence.
I think the third thing is that if you’re lucky to be working in a team where you’re getting the benefit of other people’s skills that are helping you do your thing. None of us has all the skills needed to do most of these projects, and if you have a team where you’re working well with the others, that can be very satisfying.
Then if you’re an engineer, you also usually get paid. So you kind of get paid four times in my view of the world. So what could be better than that?
Meanwhile, Sarcos got acquired and then they went through all changes and I don’t know exactly what their current status is. So it took many years, is part of the answer. I think you got to find people who love it. In the early days, we paid a little less so we only got people who were doing it because they really loved it. We also hired people who might not have professional degrees, people who were building bicycles and building kayaks. We have some people who come from the maker world, and that’s really important for the work we do, to have that be part of the mix.
So you got to admire the guy and I wouldn’t count him out for anything. I don’t think Optimus today is where Atlas is, for instance. I don’t know, it’s a little hard to compare them to the other companies. I visited Figure. I think they’re doing well and they have a good team. I’ve visited Apptronik and I think they have a good team and they’re doing well. But Elon has a lot of resources, he has a lot of ambition. I like to take some credit for his ambition. I think if I read between the lines, it’s hard not to think that him seeing what Atlas is doing is a little bit of an inspiration. I hope so.
In the AI world now, now that we’re working on cognitive stuff, it feels much more a competition. The entry requirements in terms of computing hardware and the skills of the team and hiring talent, it’s a much tougher place. So I think much more about competition now on the cognitive side. On the physical side, it doesn’t feel it’s that much about competition yet. Obviously, with 10 humanoid companies out there, 10 or 12, I mean there’s probably others that I don’t know about, they’re definitely in competition, will be in competition.
Click link to jump approximately to that part in the transcript:
- 0:00 – Introduction
- 1:43 – Early robots
- 6:47 – Legged robots
- 25:27 – Boston Dynamics
- 28:45 – BigDog
- 36:52 – Hydraulic actuation
- 38:44 – Natural movement
- 44:31 – Leg Lab
- 51:23 – AI Institute
- 54:41 – Athletic intelligence
- 1:02:35 – Building a team
- 1:05:37 – Videos
- 1:13:25 – Engineering
- 1:16:53 – Dancing robots
- 1:21:40 – Hiring
- 1:25:32 – Optimus robot
- 1:34:02 – Future of robotics
- 1:38:56 – Advice for young people
Introduction
Marc Raibert
BigDog became LS3, which is the big load carrying one.
BigDog became LS3, which is the big load carrying one.
Lex Fridman
Just a quick pause. It can carry 400 pounds.
Just a quick pause. It can carry 400 pounds.
Marc Raibert
It was designed to carry 400, but we had it carrying about 1,000 pounds at one time.
It was designed to carry 400, but we had it carrying about 1,000 pounds at one time.
Lex Fridman
Of course you did. Just to make sure.
Of course you did. Just to make sure.
Marc Raibert
We had one carrying the other one. We had two of them, so we had one carrying the other one.
We had one carrying the other one. We had two of them, so we had one carrying the other one.
Lex Fridman
So one of the things that stands out about the robots Boston Dynamics have created is how beautiful the movement is, how natural the walking is and running is, even flipping, it’s throwing is, so maybe you can talk about what’s involved in making it look natural.
So one of the things that stands out about the robots Boston Dynamics have created is how beautiful the movement is, how natural the walking is and running is, even flipping, it’s throwing is, so maybe you can talk about what’s involved in making it look natural.
Marc Raibert
Well, I think having good hardware is part of the story, and people who think you don’t need to innovate hardware anymore are wrong.
Well, I think having good hardware is part of the story, and people who think you don’t need to innovate hardware anymore are wrong.
Lex Fridman
The following is a conversation with Marc Raibert, a legendary roboticist, founder and longtime CEO of Boston Dynamics, and recently the Executive Director of the newly created Boston Dynamics AI Institute, that focuses on research and the cutting edge, on creating future generations of robots that are far better than anything that exists today. He has been leading the creation of incredible legged robots for over 40 years at CMU, at MIT, the legendary MIT Leg Lab, and then of course, Boston Dynamics with amazing robots like BigDog, Atlas, Spot, and Handle. This was a big honor and pleasure for me.
The following is a conversation with Marc Raibert, a legendary roboticist, founder and longtime CEO of Boston Dynamics, and recently the Executive Director of the newly created Boston Dynamics AI Institute, that focuses on research and the cutting edge, on creating future generations of robots that are far better than anything that exists today. He has been leading the creation of incredible legged robots for over 40 years at CMU, at MIT, the legendary MIT Leg Lab, and then of course, Boston Dynamics with amazing robots like BigDog, Atlas, Spot, and Handle. This was a big honor and pleasure for me.
This is the Lex Friedman Podcast. To support it, please check out our sponsors in the description. And now, dear friends, here’s Marc Raibert. When did you first fall in love with robotics?
Early robots
Marc Raibert
Well, I was always a builder from a young age. I was lucky. My father was a frustrated engineer, and by that, I mean he wanted to be an aerospace engineer, but his mom from the old country thought that that would be like a grease monkey, and so she said no. So he became an accountant.
Well, I was always a builder from a young age. I was lucky. My father was a frustrated engineer, and by that, I mean he wanted to be an aerospace engineer, but his mom from the old country thought that that would be like a grease monkey, and so she said no. So he became an accountant.
But the result of that was our basement was always full of tools and equipment and electronics, and from a young age, I would watch him assembling an ICO kit or something like that. I still have a couple of his old ICO kits.
But it was really during graduate school when I followed a professor back from class. It was Berthold Horn at MIT, and I was taking an interim class. It’s IAP, Independent Activities Period. And I followed him back to his lab, and on the table was a [inaudible 00:02:50] robot arm taken apart in probably a thousand pieces. And when I saw that, from that day on, I was a roboticist.
Lex Fridman
Do you remember the year?
Do you remember the year?
Marc Raibert
1974.
1974.
Lex Fridman
1974. So there’s just this arm in pieces.
1974. So there’s just this arm in pieces.
Marc Raibert
Yeah.
Yeah.
Lex Fridman
And you saw the pieces and you saw in your vision the arm when it’s put back together and the possibilities that holds.
And you saw the pieces and you saw in your vision the arm when it’s put back together and the possibilities that holds.
Marc Raibert
Somehow it spurred my imagination. I was in the branding cognitive sciences department as a graduate student doing neurophysiology. I’d been an electrical engineer as an undergrad at Northeastern. And the neurophysiology wasn’t really working for me. It wasn’t conceptual enough. I couldn’t see really how by looking at single neurons, you were going to get to a place where you could understand control systems or thought or anything like that. And the AI lab was always an appealing. This was before, [inaudible 00:03:47]. This was in the ’70s. So the AI lab was always an appealing idea. And so when I went back to the AI lab following him and I saw the arm, I just thought, “This is it.”
Somehow it spurred my imagination. I was in the branding cognitive sciences department as a graduate student doing neurophysiology. I’d been an electrical engineer as an undergrad at Northeastern. And the neurophysiology wasn’t really working for me. It wasn’t conceptual enough. I couldn’t see really how by looking at single neurons, you were going to get to a place where you could understand control systems or thought or anything like that. And the AI lab was always an appealing. This was before, [inaudible 00:03:47]. This was in the ’70s. So the AI lab was always an appealing idea. And so when I went back to the AI lab following him and I saw the arm, I just thought, “This is it.”
Lex Fridman
It’s so interesting, the tension between the BCS, brain cognitive science approach to understanding intelligence, and the robotics approach to understanding intelligence.
It’s so interesting, the tension between the BCS, brain cognitive science approach to understanding intelligence, and the robotics approach to understanding intelligence.
Marc Raibert
Well, BCS is now morphed. They have the Center for Brains, minds and Machines, which is trying to bridge that gap. And even when I was there, David Maher was in the AI lab. David Maher had models of the brain that were appealing both to biologists but also to computer people. So he was a visitor in the AI lab at the time, and I guess he became full-time there.
Well, BCS is now morphed. They have the Center for Brains, minds and Machines, which is trying to bridge that gap. And even when I was there, David Maher was in the AI lab. David Maher had models of the brain that were appealing both to biologists but also to computer people. So he was a visitor in the AI lab at the time, and I guess he became full-time there.
So that was the first time a bridge was made between those two groups then the bridge kind of went away, and then there was another time in the ’80s. And then recently the last five or so years, there’s been a stronger connection.
Lex Fridman
You said you were always kind of a builder. What stands out to you in memory of a thing you’ve built, maybe a trivial thing that just kind of inspired you in the possibilities that this direction of work might hold?
You said you were always kind of a builder. What stands out to you in memory of a thing you’ve built, maybe a trivial thing that just kind of inspired you in the possibilities that this direction of work might hold?
Marc Raibert
We were just doing gadgets when we were kids. I have a friend, we were taking the… I don’t know if everybody remembers, but fluorescent lights had this little aluminum cylinder, I can’t even remember what it’s called now that you needed a starter, I think it was. And we would take those apart, fill them with match heads, put a tail on it and make it into little rockets.
We were just doing gadgets when we were kids. I have a friend, we were taking the… I don’t know if everybody remembers, but fluorescent lights had this little aluminum cylinder, I can’t even remember what it’s called now that you needed a starter, I think it was. And we would take those apart, fill them with match heads, put a tail on it and make it into little rockets.
Lex Fridman
So it wasn’t always about function, it was, well…
So it wasn’t always about function, it was, well…
Marc Raibert
Rocket was pretty [inaudible 00:05:32].
Rocket was pretty [inaudible 00:05:32].
Lex Fridman
I guess that is pretty functional. But yeah, I guess that is a question. How much was it about function versus just creating something cool?
I guess that is pretty functional. But yeah, I guess that is a question. How much was it about function versus just creating something cool?
Marc Raibert
I think it’s still a balance between those two. There was a time though, I guess I was probably already a professor or maybe late in graduate school, when I thought that function was everything and that mobility, dexterity, perception and intelligence, those are the key functionalities for robotics, that that’s what mattered. And nothing else mattered.
I think it’s still a balance between those two. There was a time though, I guess I was probably already a professor or maybe late in graduate school, when I thought that function was everything and that mobility, dexterity, perception and intelligence, those are the key functionalities for robotics, that that’s what mattered. And nothing else mattered.
And I even had kind of this platonic ideal that a robot, if you just looked at a robot and it wasn’t doing anything, it would look like a pile of junk, which a lot of my robots looked like in those days. But then when it started moving, you’d get the idea that it had some kind of life or some kind of interest in its movement, and I think we purposely even designed the machines not worrying about the aesthetics of the structure itself. But then it turns out that the aesthetics of the thing itself add and combine with the lifelike things that the robots can do. But the heart of it is making them do things that are interesting.
Legged robots
Lex Fridman
One of the things that underlies a lot of your work is that the robots you create, the systems you have created for over 40 years now have a kind of, they’re not cautious. So a lot of robots that people know about move about this world very cautiously, carefully, very afraid of the world. A lot of the robots you built, especially in the early days, were very aggressive under actuated. They’re hopping, they’re wild, moving quickly. So is there a philosophy under underlying that?
One of the things that underlies a lot of your work is that the robots you create, the systems you have created for over 40 years now have a kind of, they’re not cautious. So a lot of robots that people know about move about this world very cautiously, carefully, very afraid of the world. A lot of the robots you built, especially in the early days, were very aggressive under actuated. They’re hopping, they’re wild, moving quickly. So is there a philosophy under underlying that?
Marc Raibert
Well, let me tell you about how I got started on legs at all. When I was still a graduate student, I went to a conference. It was a biological legged locomotion conference, I think it was in Philadelphia. So it was all biomechanics people, researchers who would look at muscle and maybe neurons and things like that. They weren’t so much computational people, but they were more biomechanics and maybe there were a thousand people there.
Well, let me tell you about how I got started on legs at all. When I was still a graduate student, I went to a conference. It was a biological legged locomotion conference, I think it was in Philadelphia. So it was all biomechanics people, researchers who would look at muscle and maybe neurons and things like that. They weren’t so much computational people, but they were more biomechanics and maybe there were a thousand people there.
And I went to a talk. All the talks were about the body of either animals or people and respiration, things like that. But one talk was by a robotics guy, and he showed a six legged robot that walked very slowly. It always had at least three feet on the ground, so it worked like a table or a chair with tripod stability, and it moved really slowly.
And I just looked at that and said, wow, that’s wrong. That’s not anything like how people and animals work because we bounce and fly. We have to predict what’s going to happen in order to keep our balance when we’re taking a running step or something like that. We use the springiness in our legs, our muscles and our tendons and things like that as part of the story. The energy circulates. We don’t just throw it away every time.
I’m not sure I understood all that when I first thought, but I definitely got inspired to say, “Let’s try the opposite.” And I didn’t have a clue as to how to make a hopping robot work, not balance in 3D. In fact, when I started, it was all just about the energy of bouncing, and I was going to have a springy thing in the leg and some actuator so that you could get an energy regime going of bouncing.
And the idea that balance was an important part of it didn’t come until a little later. And then I made the pogo stick robots. Now I think that we need to do that in manipulation. If you look at robot manipulation, a community has been working on it for 50 years. We’re nowhere near human levels of manipulation. It’s come along, but I think it’s all too safe.
And I think trying to break out of that safety thing of static grasping. If you look at a lot of work that goes on, it’s about the geometry of the part, and then you figure out how to move your hand so that you can position it with respect to that, and then you grasp it carefully and then you move it. Well, that’s not anything like how people and animals work. We juggle in our hands, we hug multiple objects and can sort them. So.
Now to be fair, being more aggressive is going to mean things aren’t going to work very well for a while, so it’s a longer term approach to the problem, and that’s just theory now. Maybe that won’t pay off, but that’s how I’m trying to think about it, trying to encourage our group to go at it.
Lex Fridman
Well, we’ll talk about what it means to what is the actual thing we’re trying to optimize for a robot, sometimes, especially with human robot interaction, maybe flaws is a good thing. Perfection is not necessarily the right thing to be chasing. Just like you said, maybe being good at fumbling an object, being good at fumbling might be the right thing to optimize versus perfect modeling of the object and perfect movement of the arm to grasp that object as maybe perfection is not supposed to exist in the real world.
Well, we’ll talk about what it means to what is the actual thing we’re trying to optimize for a robot, sometimes, especially with human robot interaction, maybe flaws is a good thing. Perfection is not necessarily the right thing to be chasing. Just like you said, maybe being good at fumbling an object, being good at fumbling might be the right thing to optimize versus perfect modeling of the object and perfect movement of the arm to grasp that object as maybe perfection is not supposed to exist in the real world.
Marc Raibert
I don’t know if you know my friend Matt Mason, who is the director of the Robotics Institute at Carnegie Mellon, and we go back to graduate school together, but he analyzed a movie of Julia Child’s doing a cooking thing, and she did, I think he said something like there were 40 different ways that she handled a thing and none of them was grasping. She would nudge, roll, flatten with her knife, things like that. And none of them was grasping.
I don’t know if you know my friend Matt Mason, who is the director of the Robotics Institute at Carnegie Mellon, and we go back to graduate school together, but he analyzed a movie of Julia Child’s doing a cooking thing, and she did, I think he said something like there were 40 different ways that she handled a thing and none of them was grasping. She would nudge, roll, flatten with her knife, things like that. And none of them was grasping.
Lex Fridman
So okay, let’s go back to the early days. First of all, you’ve created and led the Leg Lab, the legendary Leg Lab at MIT. So what was that first hopping robot?
So okay, let’s go back to the early days. First of all, you’ve created and led the Leg Lab, the legendary Leg Lab at MIT. So what was that first hopping robot?
Marc Raibert
But first of all, the Leg Lab actually started at Carnegie Mellon.
But first of all, the Leg Lab actually started at Carnegie Mellon.
Lex Fridman
Carnegie Mellon.
Carnegie Mellon.
Marc Raibert
So I was a professor there starting in 1980, about 1986, so that’s where the first topping machines were built. I guess we got the first one working in about 1982, something like that. That was a simplified one. Then we got a three-dimensional one in 1983, the quadruped that we built at the Leg Lab, the first version was built in about 1984 or five, and really only got going about ’86 or so, and took years of development to get it to…
So I was a professor there starting in 1980, about 1986, so that’s where the first topping machines were built. I guess we got the first one working in about 1982, something like that. That was a simplified one. Then we got a three-dimensional one in 1983, the quadruped that we built at the Leg Lab, the first version was built in about 1984 or five, and really only got going about ’86 or so, and took years of development to get it to…
Lex Fridman
Let’s just pause here. For people who don’t know, I’m talking to Mark Weber, founder of Boston Dynamics. But before that, you were a professor developing some of the most incredible robots for 15 years. And before that, of course, a grad student and all that. So you’ve been doing this for a really long time. You skipped over this, but go to the first hopping robot. There’s videos of some of this.
Let’s just pause here. For people who don’t know, I’m talking to Mark Weber, founder of Boston Dynamics. But before that, you were a professor developing some of the most incredible robots for 15 years. And before that, of course, a grad student and all that. So you’ve been doing this for a really long time. You skipped over this, but go to the first hopping robot. There’s videos of some of this.
These are incredible robots. You talked about the very first step was to get a thing hopping up and down, and then you realized, well, balancing is a thing you should care about, and it’s actually a solvable problem. Can you just go through how to create that robot? What was involved in creating that robot?
Marc Raibert
Well, I’m going to start on not the technical side, but I guess we could call it the motivational side or the funding side. So before Carnegie Mellon, I was actually at JPL at the Jet Propulsion Lab for three years. And while I was there, I connected up with Ivan Sutherland, who is sometimes regarded as the father of computer graphics because of work he did both at MIT and then University of Utah and Evanston Sutherland.
Well, I’m going to start on not the technical side, but I guess we could call it the motivational side or the funding side. So before Carnegie Mellon, I was actually at JPL at the Jet Propulsion Lab for three years. And while I was there, I connected up with Ivan Sutherland, who is sometimes regarded as the father of computer graphics because of work he did both at MIT and then University of Utah and Evanston Sutherland.
Anyway, I got to know him and at one point he said he encouraged me to do some kind of project at Caltech, even though I was at JPL. Those are kind of related institutions. And so I thought about it and I made up a list of three possible projects, and I purposely made the top one and the bottom one really boring sounding. And in the middle I put Pogo stick robot. And when he looked at it, Ivan is a brilliant guy, brilliant engineer, and a real cultivator of people. He looked at it and knew right away what thing that was worth doing. And so he had an endowed chair, so he had about $3,000 that he gave me to build the first model, which I went I to the shop and with my own hands kind of made a first model, which didn’t work and was just a beginning shot at it.
Ivan and I took that to Washington. And in those days you could just walk into DARPA and walk down the hallway and see who’s there, and Ivan, who had been there in his previous life. And so we walked around and we looked in the offices. Of course, I didn’t know anything. I was basically a kid, but Ivan knew his way around, and we found Craig Fields in his office.
Craig later became the director of DARPA, but in those days, he was a program manager. And so we went in, I had a little Samsonite suitcase, which we opened, and it had just the skeleton of this one-legged hopping robot. And we showed it to him, and you could almost see the drool going down his chin of excitement. And he sent me $250,000. He said, “Okay, I want to fund this.”
And I was between institutions, I was just about to leave JPL, and I hadn’t decided yet where I was going next, and then when I landed at CMU, he sent $250,000, which in 1980 was a lot of research money.
Lex Fridman
Did you see the possibility of where this is going, why this is an important problem?
Did you see the possibility of where this is going, why this is an important problem?
Marc Raibert
No.
No.
Lex Fridman
It has to do with leg locomotion. I mean, it has to do with all these problems that the human body solves when we’re walking, for example. All the fundamentals are there.
It has to do with leg locomotion. I mean, it has to do with all these problems that the human body solves when we’re walking, for example. All the fundamentals are there.
Marc Raibert
Yeah, I think that was the motivation to try and get more at the fundamentals of how animals work, but the idea that it would result in machines that were anything practical like we’re making now, that wasn’t anywhere in my head. As an academic, I was mostly just trying to do the next thing, make some progress, impress my colleagues if I could.
Yeah, I think that was the motivation to try and get more at the fundamentals of how animals work, but the idea that it would result in machines that were anything practical like we’re making now, that wasn’t anywhere in my head. As an academic, I was mostly just trying to do the next thing, make some progress, impress my colleagues if I could.
Lex Fridman
And have fun.
And have fun.
Marc Raibert
And have fun.
And have fun.
Lex Fridman
Pogo stick robot.
Pogo stick robot.
Marc Raibert
Pogo stick robot.
Pogo stick robot.
Lex Fridman
So what was on the technical side? What are some of the challenges of getting to the point where we saw in the video the pogo stick robot that’s actually successfully hopping and then eventually doing flips and all this kind of stuff?
So what was on the technical side? What are some of the challenges of getting to the point where we saw in the video the pogo stick robot that’s actually successfully hopping and then eventually doing flips and all this kind of stuff?
Marc Raibert
Well, in the very early days, I needed some better engineering than I could do myself, and I hired Ben Brown. We each had our way of contributing to the design, and we came up with a thing that could start to work. I had some stupid ideas about how the actuation system should work, and we sorted that out.
Well, in the very early days, I needed some better engineering than I could do myself, and I hired Ben Brown. We each had our way of contributing to the design, and we came up with a thing that could start to work. I had some stupid ideas about how the actuation system should work, and we sorted that out.
It wasn’t that hard to make it balanced once you get the physical machine to be working well enough and have enough control over the degrees of freedom. We started out by having it floating on an inclined air table, and then that only gave us like six foot of travel, so once it started working, we switched to a thing that could run around the room on another device. It’s hard to explain these without you seeing them, but you probably know what I’m talking about, a planarize.
And then the next big step was to make it work in 3D, which that was really the scary part with these simple things. People had inverted pendulums at the time for years, and they could control them by driving a cart back and forth, but could you make it work in three dimensions while it’s bouncing and all that? But it turned out not to be that hard to do, at least at the level of performance we achieved at the time.
Lex Fridman
Okay. You mentioned inverted pendulum, but can you explain how a hopping stick in 3D can balance itself?
Okay. You mentioned inverted pendulum, but can you explain how a hopping stick in 3D can balance itself?
Marc Raibert
Yeah, sure.
Yeah, sure.
Lex Fridman
What does the actuation look like?
What does the actuation look like?
Marc Raibert
The simple story is that there’s three things going on. There’s something making it bounce. And we had a system that was estimating how high the robot was off the ground and using that. There’s energy that can be in three places in a pogo stick: one is in the spring, one is in the altitude, and the other is in the velocity. And so when at the top of the hop, it’s all in the height, so you could just measure how high you’re going, and thereby have an idea of a lot about the cycle, and you could decide whether to put more energy in or less. That’s one element.
The simple story is that there’s three things going on. There’s something making it bounce. And we had a system that was estimating how high the robot was off the ground and using that. There’s energy that can be in three places in a pogo stick: one is in the spring, one is in the altitude, and the other is in the velocity. And so when at the top of the hop, it’s all in the height, so you could just measure how high you’re going, and thereby have an idea of a lot about the cycle, and you could decide whether to put more energy in or less. That’s one element.
Then there’s a part that you decide where to put the foot. And if you think when you’re landing on the ground with respect to the center of mass. So if you think of a pole vaulter, the key thing the pole vaulter has to do is get its body to the right place when the pole gets stuck. If they’re too far forward, they kind of get thrown backwards. If they’re too far back, they go over. And what they need to do is get it so that they go mostly up to get over the thing. And high jumpers is the same kind of thing. So there’s a calculation about where to put the foot, and we did something relatively simple.
And then there’s a third part to keep the body at an attitude that’s upright, because if it gets too far, you could hop and just keep rotating around. But if it gets too far, then you run out of motion of the joints at the hips. So you have to do that. And we did that by applying a torque between the legs and the body. Every time the foot’s on the ground. You only can do it while the foot’s on the ground in the air. The physics don’t work out.
Lex Fridman
How far does it have to tilt before it’s too late to be able to balance itself or it’s impossible to balance itself, correct itself?
How far does it have to tilt before it’s too late to be able to balance itself or it’s impossible to balance itself, correct itself?
Marc Raibert
Well, you’re asking an interesting question because in those days, we didn’t actually optimize things and they probably could have gone much further than we did and then had higher performance, and we just kind of got a sketch of a solution and worked on that. And then in years since, some people working for us, some people working for others, people came up with all kinds of equations or algorithms for how to do a better job, be able to go faster.
Well, you’re asking an interesting question because in those days, we didn’t actually optimize things and they probably could have gone much further than we did and then had higher performance, and we just kind of got a sketch of a solution and worked on that. And then in years since, some people working for us, some people working for others, people came up with all kinds of equations or algorithms for how to do a better job, be able to go faster.
One of my students worked on getting things to go faster. Another one worked on climbing over obstacles. Because when you’re running on the open ground, it’s one thing; if you’re running up a stair, you have to adjust where you are, otherwise things don’t work out. You land your foot on the edge of the steps. There’s other degrees of freedom to control if you’re getting to more realistic, practical situations.
Lex Fridman
I think it’s really interesting to ask about the early days because believing in yourself, believing that there’s something interesting here. And then you mentioned finding somebody else, Ben Brown. What’s that like, finding other people with whom you can build this crazy idea and actually make it work?
I think it’s really interesting to ask about the early days because believing in yourself, believing that there’s something interesting here. And then you mentioned finding somebody else, Ben Brown. What’s that like, finding other people with whom you can build this crazy idea and actually make it work?
Marc Raibert
Probably the smartest thing I ever did is to find the other people. When I look at it now, I look at Boston Dynamics and all the really excellent engineering there, people who really make stuff work, I’m only the dreamer.
Probably the smartest thing I ever did is to find the other people. When I look at it now, I look at Boston Dynamics and all the really excellent engineering there, people who really make stuff work, I’m only the dreamer.
Lex Fridman
So when you talk about pogo stick robot or legged robots, whether it’s quadrupeds or humanoid robots, did people doubt that this is possible? Did you experience a lot of people around you kind of…
So when you talk about pogo stick robot or legged robots, whether it’s quadrupeds or humanoid robots, did people doubt that this is possible? Did you experience a lot of people around you kind of…
Marc Raibert
I don’t know if they doubted whether it was possible, but I think they thought it was a waste of time.
I don’t know if they doubted whether it was possible, but I think they thought it was a waste of time.
Lex Fridman
Oh, it’s not even an interesting problem.
Oh, it’s not even an interesting problem.
Marc Raibert
I think for a lot of people. I think it’s been both, though. Some people, I felt like they were saying, “Oh, why are you wasting your time on this stupid problem?” But then I’ve been at many things where people have told me it’s been an inspiration to go out and attack these harder things. And I think legged locomotion has turned out to be a useful thing.
I think for a lot of people. I think it’s been both, though. Some people, I felt like they were saying, “Oh, why are you wasting your time on this stupid problem?” But then I’ve been at many things where people have told me it’s been an inspiration to go out and attack these harder things. And I think legged locomotion has turned out to be a useful thing.
Lex Fridman
Did you ever have doubt about bringing Atlas to life, for example, or with Big Dog just every step of the way? Did you have doubt? This is too hard of a problem.
Did you ever have doubt about bringing Atlas to life, for example, or with Big Dog just every step of the way? Did you have doubt? This is too hard of a problem.
Marc Raibert
At first, I wasn’t an enthusiast for the humanoids. Again, it goes back to saying “what’s the functionality?” And the form wasn’t as important as the functionality. And also, there’s an aspect to humanoid robots that’s about about the cosmetics, where there isn’t really other functionality, and that kind of is off putting for me. As a roboticist, I think the functionality really matters. So probably that’s why I avoided the humanoid robots to start with.
At first, I wasn’t an enthusiast for the humanoids. Again, it goes back to saying “what’s the functionality?” And the form wasn’t as important as the functionality. And also, there’s an aspect to humanoid robots that’s about about the cosmetics, where there isn’t really other functionality, and that kind of is off putting for me. As a roboticist, I think the functionality really matters. So probably that’s why I avoided the humanoid robots to start with.
But I’ll tell you, after we started working on them, you could see that the connection and the impact with other people, whether they’re laypeople or even other technical people, there’s a special thing that goes on, even though most of the humanoid robots aren’t that much like a person.
Lex Fridman
But we anthropomorphize and we see the humanity. But also with Spot, you can see not the humanity, but whatever we find compelling about social interactions there in Spot, as well.
But we anthropomorphize and we see the humanity. But also with Spot, you can see not the humanity, but whatever we find compelling about social interactions there in Spot, as well.
Marc Raibert
Well. I’ll tell you, I go around giving talks and take Spot to a lot of them, and it’s amazing. The media likes to say that they’re terrifying and that people are afraid, and YouTube commenters like to say that it’s frightening. But when you take a Spot out there, maybe it’s self-selecting, but you get a crowd of people who want to take pictures, want to pose for selfies, want to operate the robot, want to pet it, want to put clothes on it. It’s amazing.
Well. I’ll tell you, I go around giving talks and take Spot to a lot of them, and it’s amazing. The media likes to say that they’re terrifying and that people are afraid, and YouTube commenters like to say that it’s frightening. But when you take a Spot out there, maybe it’s self-selecting, but you get a crowd of people who want to take pictures, want to pose for selfies, want to operate the robot, want to pet it, want to put clothes on it. It’s amazing.
Lex Fridman
Yeah, I love Spot. So if we move around history a little bit, so you said, I think, in the early days of Boston Dynamics that you quietly worked on making a running version of Aibo, Sony’s robot dog.
Yeah, I love Spot. So if we move around history a little bit, so you said, I think, in the early days of Boston Dynamics that you quietly worked on making a running version of Aibo, Sony’s robot dog.
Marc Raibert
Yeah.
Yeah.
Lex Fridman
It’s just an interesting little tidbit of history for me. What stands out to your memory from that task? For people who don’t know, that little dog robot moves slowly. How did that become Big Dog? What was involved there? What was the dance between how do we make this cute little dog versus a thing that can actually carry a lot of payload and move fast and stuff like that?
It’s just an interesting little tidbit of history for me. What stands out to your memory from that task? For people who don’t know, that little dog robot moves slowly. How did that become Big Dog? What was involved there? What was the dance between how do we make this cute little dog versus a thing that can actually carry a lot of payload and move fast and stuff like that?
Marc Raibert
What the connection was is that at that point, Boston Dynamics was mostly a physics-based simulation company. So when I left MIT to start Boston Dynamics, there was a few years of overlap, but the concept wasn’t to start a robot company. The concept was to use this dynamic simulation tool that we developed to do robotics for other things. But working with Sony, we got back into robotics by doing the IBO Runner, we made some tools for programming Curio, which was a small humanoid this big that could do some dancing and other kinds of fun stuff. And I don’t think it ever reached the market, even though they did show it. When I look back, I say that we got us back where we belonged.
What the connection was is that at that point, Boston Dynamics was mostly a physics-based simulation company. So when I left MIT to start Boston Dynamics, there was a few years of overlap, but the concept wasn’t to start a robot company. The concept was to use this dynamic simulation tool that we developed to do robotics for other things. But working with Sony, we got back into robotics by doing the IBO Runner, we made some tools for programming Curio, which was a small humanoid this big that could do some dancing and other kinds of fun stuff. And I don’t think it ever reached the market, even though they did show it. When I look back, I say that we got us back where we belonged.
Lex Fridman
Yeah, you rediscovered the soul of the company.
Yeah, you rediscovered the soul of the company.
Marc Raibert
That’s right.
That’s right.
Lex Fridman
And so from there, it was always about robots.
And so from there, it was always about robots.
Marc Raibert
Yeah.
Yeah.
Lex Fridman
So you started Boston Dynamics in 1992.
So you started Boston Dynamics in 1992.
Boston Dynamics
Marc Raibert
Right.
Right.
Lex Fridman
What are some fond memories from the early days?
What are some fond memories from the early days?
Marc Raibert
One of the robots that we built wasn’t actually a robot, it was a surgical simulator, but it had force feedback, so it had all the techniques of robotics, and you look down into this mirror, it actually was, and it looked like you were looking down onto the body you were working on. Your hands were underneath the mirror where you were looking, and you had tools in your hands that were connected up to these force feedback devices made by another MIT spin out, Sensible Technologies.
One of the robots that we built wasn’t actually a robot, it was a surgical simulator, but it had force feedback, so it had all the techniques of robotics, and you look down into this mirror, it actually was, and it looked like you were looking down onto the body you were working on. Your hands were underneath the mirror where you were looking, and you had tools in your hands that were connected up to these force feedback devices made by another MIT spin out, Sensible Technologies.
Marc Raibert
Another MIT spin out sensible technologies. So they made the force feedback device, we attached the tools and we wrote all the software and did all the graphics. So we had 3D computer graphics. It was in the old days, this was in the late 90s when you had a Silicon Graphics computer that was about this big. It was the heater in the office basically.
Another MIT spin out sensible technologies. So they made the force feedback device, we attached the tools and we wrote all the software and did all the graphics. So we had 3D computer graphics. It was in the old days, this was in the late 90s when you had a Silicon Graphics computer that was about this big. It was the heater in the office basically.
And we were doing surgical operations’ anastomosis, which was stitching tubes together. Tubes like blood vessels or other things in their body. And you could feel, you could see the tissues move. And it was really exciting. And the idea was to make a trainer to teach surgeons how to do stuff. We built a scoring system because we’d interviewed surgeons that told us what you’re supposed to do and what you’re not supposed to do.
You’re not supposed to tear the tissue, you’re not supposed to touch it in any place except for where you’re trying to engage. There were a bunch of rules. So we built this thing and took it to a trade show, a surgical trade show, and the surgeons were practically lined up. Well, we kept a score and we posted their scores on a video game. And those guys are so competitive that they really, really loved doing it.
And they would come around and they see someone’s score was higher there, so they would come back. But we figured out shortly after, that we thought surgeons were going to pay us to get trained on these things and the surgeons thought we should pay them so they could teach us about the thing. And there was no money from the surgeons. And we looked at it and thought, well, maybe we could sell it to hospitals that would train their surgeons.
And then we said, at the time we were probably a 12 person company or maybe 15 people, I don’t remember, there’s no way we could go after a marketing activity. The company was all bootstrapped in those years. We never had investors until Google bought us, which was after 20 years. So we didn’t have any resources to go after hospitals. So one day, Rob and I were looking at that and we’d built another simulator for knee arthroscopy and we said, “This isn’t going to work.” And we killed it. And we moved on. And that was really a milestone in the company because we sort of understood who we were and what would work and what wouldn’t. Even though technically it was really a fascinating thing.
Lex Fridman
What was that meeting like, where you’re just sitting at a table, “You know what? We’re going to pivot completely. We’re going to let go of this thing we put so much hard work into and then go back to the thing it came from.”
What was that meeting like, where you’re just sitting at a table, “You know what? We’re going to pivot completely. We’re going to let go of this thing we put so much hard work into and then go back to the thing it came from.”
Marc Raibert
It just always felt right once we did it.
It just always felt right once we did it.
Lex Fridman
Just looked at each other and said, “Let’s build robots.”
Just looked at each other and said, “Let’s build robots.”
BigDog
Marc Raibert
Yeah. What was the first robot you built under the flag of Boston Dynamics? BigDog?
Yeah. What was the first robot you built under the flag of Boston Dynamics? BigDog?
Marc Raibert
Well, there was the Aibo runner, but it wasn’t even a whole robot. We took off the legs on Aibos and attached legs we’ve made. And we got that working and showed it to the Sony people. We worked pretty closely with Sony in those years. One of the interesting things is that it was before the internet and Zoom and anything like that.
Well, there was the Aibo runner, but it wasn’t even a whole robot. We took off the legs on Aibos and attached legs we’ve made. And we got that working and showed it to the Sony people. We worked pretty closely with Sony in those years. One of the interesting things is that it was before the internet and Zoom and anything like that.
So we had six ISDN lines installed and we would have a telecon every week that worked at very low frame rates, something like 10 hertz. English across the boundary with Japan was a challenge trying to understand what each of us was saying and have meetings every week for several years doing that.
And it was a pleasure working with them. They were really supporters. They seemed to like us and what we were doing. That was the real transition from us being a simulation company into being a robotics company again.
Lex Fridman
It was a quadruplet. The legs were four legs digital legs?
It was a quadruplet. The legs were four legs digital legs?
Marc Raibert
Yeah, no, four legs.
Yeah, no, four legs.
Lex Fridman
And what did you learn from that experience of building basically a fast moving quadruplet?
And what did you learn from that experience of building basically a fast moving quadruplet?
Marc Raibert
Mostly we learned that something that small doesn’t look very exciting when it’s running. It’s like it’s scampering and you had to watch a slow mo for it to look like it was interesting. If you watch it fast, it was just like a-
Mostly we learned that something that small doesn’t look very exciting when it’s running. It’s like it’s scampering and you had to watch a slow mo for it to look like it was interesting. If you watch it fast, it was just like a-
Lex Fridman
That’s funny.
That’s funny.
Marc Raibert
One of my things was to show stuff in video from the very early days of the hopping machines. And so I was always focused on how’s this going to look through the Viewfinder and running Aibo didn’t look so cool through the Viewfinder.
One of my things was to show stuff in video from the very early days of the hopping machines. And so I was always focused on how’s this going to look through the Viewfinder and running Aibo didn’t look so cool through the Viewfinder.
Lex Fridman
So what came next? What was a big next milestone in terms of a robot you built?
So what came next? What was a big next milestone in terms of a robot you built?
Marc Raibert
I mean, you got to say that BigDog sort of put us on the map and got our heads really pulled together. We scaled up the company. BigDog was the result of Alan Rudolph at DARPA starting a biodynamics program. And he put out a request for proposals and I think there were 42 proposals written and three got funded.
I mean, you got to say that BigDog sort of put us on the map and got our heads really pulled together. We scaled up the company. BigDog was the result of Alan Rudolph at DARPA starting a biodynamics program. And he put out a request for proposals and I think there were 42 proposals written and three got funded.
One was BigDog, one was a climbing robot rise, and that put things in motion. We hired Martin Bueller, he was a professor in Montreal at McGill. He was incredibly important for getting BigDog out of the lab and into the mud, which was a key step to really be willing to go out there out and build it, break it, fix it, which is sort of one of our mottos at the company.
Lex Fridman
So testing it in the real world. For people who don’t know BigDog, maybe you can correct me, but it’s a big quadruplet four-legged robot. It looks big, could probably carry a lot of weight. Not the most weight that Boston Dynamics have built, but a lot.
So testing it in the real world. For people who don’t know BigDog, maybe you can correct me, but it’s a big quadruplet four-legged robot. It looks big, could probably carry a lot of weight. Not the most weight that Boston Dynamics have built, but a lot.
Marc Raibert
Well, it’s the first thing that worked. So let’s see, if we go back to the leg lab, we built a quadruplet that could do many of the things that BigDog did, but it had a hydraulic pump sitting in the room with hoses connected to the robot. It had a VAX computer in the next room. It needed its own room because it was this giant thing with air conditioning and it had this very complicated bus connected to the robot.
Well, it’s the first thing that worked. So let’s see, if we go back to the leg lab, we built a quadruplet that could do many of the things that BigDog did, but it had a hydraulic pump sitting in the room with hoses connected to the robot. It had a VAX computer in the next room. It needed its own room because it was this giant thing with air conditioning and it had this very complicated bus connected to the robot.
And the robot itself just had the actuators. It had gyroscopes for sensing and some other sensors, but all the power and computing was off board. BigDog had all that stuff integrated on the platform. It had a gasoline engine for power, which was a very complicated thing to undertake. It had to convert the rotation of the engine into hydraulic power, which is how we actuated it. So there was a lot of learning just on building the physical robot and the system integration for that. And then there was the controls of it.
Lex Fridman
So for BigDog, you brought it all together onto one platform so-
So for BigDog, you brought it all together onto one platform so-
Marc Raibert
You could take it out in the woods.
You could take it out in the woods.
Lex Fridman
Yeah, and you did.
Yeah, and you did.
Marc Raibert
We did. We spent a lot of time down at the Marine Corps base in Quantico where there was a trail called the Guadalcanal Trail. And our milestone that DARPA had specified was that we could go on this one particular trail that involved a lot of challenge. And we spent a lot of time. Our team spent a lot of time down there hiking. Those were fun days.
We did. We spent a lot of time down at the Marine Corps base in Quantico where there was a trail called the Guadalcanal Trail. And our milestone that DARPA had specified was that we could go on this one particular trail that involved a lot of challenge. And we spent a lot of time. Our team spent a lot of time down there hiking. Those were fun days.
Lex Fridman
Hiking with the robot. So what did you learn about what it takes to balance a robot like that on a trail, on a hiking trail in the woods? Basically, forget the woods. Just the real world. That’s the big leap into testing in the real world.
Hiking with the robot. So what did you learn about what it takes to balance a robot like that on a trail, on a hiking trail in the woods? Basically, forget the woods. Just the real world. That’s the big leap into testing in the real world.
Marc Raibert
As challenging as the woods were, working inside of a home or in an office is really harder because when you’re in the woods, you can actually take any path up the hill. All you have to do is avoid the obstacles. There’s no such thing as damaging the woods, at least to first order. Whereas if you’re in a house, you can’t leave scuff marks, you can’t bang into the walls. The robots aren’t very comfortable bumping into the walls, especially in the early days.
As challenging as the woods were, working inside of a home or in an office is really harder because when you’re in the woods, you can actually take any path up the hill. All you have to do is avoid the obstacles. There’s no such thing as damaging the woods, at least to first order. Whereas if you’re in a house, you can’t leave scuff marks, you can’t bang into the walls. The robots aren’t very comfortable bumping into the walls, especially in the early days.
So I think those were actually bigger challenges. Once we faced them, it was mostly getting the systems to work well enough together, the hardware systems to work. And the controls. In those days, we did have a human operator who did all the visual perception going up the Guadalcanal Trail. So there was an operator who was right there who was very skilled even though the robot was balancing itself and placing its own feet, if the operator didn’t do the right thing, it wouldn’t go.
But years later, we went back with one of the electric, the precursor to Spot, and we had advanced the controls and everything so much that a complete amateur could operate the robot the first time up and down and up and down. Whereas it taken us years to get there in the previous robot.
Lex Fridman
So if you fast-forward, BigDog eventually became Spot?
So if you fast-forward, BigDog eventually became Spot?
Marc Raibert
So BigDog became LS3, which is the big load carrying one.
So BigDog became LS3, which is the big load carrying one.
Lex Fridman
Just a quick pause, it can carry 400 pounds?
Just a quick pause, it can carry 400 pounds?
Marc Raibert
It was designed to carry 400. But we had it carrying about a thousand pounds one time.
It was designed to carry 400. But we had it carrying about a thousand pounds one time.
Lex Fridman
Of course you did. Just to make sure.
Of course you did. Just to make sure.
Marc Raibert
We had one carrying the other one. We had two of them, so we had one carrying the other one. There’s a little clip of that. We should put that out somewhere. That’s from 20 years ago.
We had one carrying the other one. We had two of them, so we had one carrying the other one. There’s a little clip of that. We should put that out somewhere. That’s from 20 years ago.
Lex Fridman
Wow. And it can go for very long distances? You can travel the 20 miles.
Wow. And it can go for very long distances? You can travel the 20 miles.
Marc Raibert
Yeah. Gasoline.
Yeah. Gasoline.
Lex Fridman
Gasoline, yeah. And that event just… Okay, sorry. So LS3 then how did that lead to Spot?
Gasoline, yeah. And that event just… Okay, sorry. So LS3 then how did that lead to Spot?
Marc Raibert
So BigDog and LS3 had engine power and hydraulic actuation. Then we made a robot that was electric power. So there’s a battery driving a motor, driving a pump, but still hydraulic actuation. Larry asked us, “Could you make something that weighed 60 pounds, that would not be so intimidating if you had it in a house where there were people.”
So BigDog and LS3 had engine power and hydraulic actuation. Then we made a robot that was electric power. So there’s a battery driving a motor, driving a pump, but still hydraulic actuation. Larry asked us, “Could you make something that weighed 60 pounds, that would not be so intimidating if you had it in a house where there were people.”
And that was the inspiration behind the spot pretty much as it exists today. We did a prototype the same size that was the first all electric, non-hydraulic robot.
Lex Fridman
What was the conversation with Larry Page about? Here’s a guy that is very product focused and can see a vision for what the future holds. That’s just interesting aside, what was the brainstorm about the future of robotics with him?
What was the conversation with Larry Page about? Here’s a guy that is very product focused and can see a vision for what the future holds. That’s just interesting aside, what was the brainstorm about the future of robotics with him?
Marc Raibert
I mean, it was almost as simple as what I just said. We were having meeting, he said, “Do you think you could make a smaller one that wouldn’t be so intimidating like a big dog if it was in your house?” And I said, “Yeah, we could do that.” And we started and did.
I mean, it was almost as simple as what I just said. We were having meeting, he said, “Do you think you could make a smaller one that wouldn’t be so intimidating like a big dog if it was in your house?” And I said, “Yeah, we could do that.” And we started and did.
Hydraulic actuation
Lex Fridman
Is there a lot of technical challenges to go from hydraulic to electric?
Is there a lot of technical challenges to go from hydraulic to electric?
Marc Raibert
I had been in love with hydraulics and still love hydraulics. It’s a great technology. It’s too bad that somehow the world out there looks at it like it’s old-fashioned or that it’s icky. And it’s true that you do. It is very hard to keep it from having some amount of dripping from time to time. But if you look at the performance, how strong you can get in a lightweight package, and of course we did a huge amount of innovation.
I had been in love with hydraulics and still love hydraulics. It’s a great technology. It’s too bad that somehow the world out there looks at it like it’s old-fashioned or that it’s icky. And it’s true that you do. It is very hard to keep it from having some amount of dripping from time to time. But if you look at the performance, how strong you can get in a lightweight package, and of course we did a huge amount of innovation.
Most of hydraulic control, that is the valve that controls the flow of oil, had been designed in the 50s for airplanes. It had been made robust enough, safe enough that you could count on it so that humans could fly in airplanes and very little innovation had happened that might not be fair to the people who make the valves. I’m sure that they did innovate, but the basic had stayed the same and there was so much more you could do.
And so our engineers designed valves, the ones that are in Atlas for instance, that had new kinds of circuits, they sort of did some of the computing that could get you much more efficient use. They were much smaller and lighter so the whole robot could be smaller and lighter. We made a hydraulic power supply that had a bunch of components integrated in this tiny package.
It’s about this big, the size of a football weighs five kilograms and it produces five kilowatts of power. Of course it has to have a battery operating, but it’s got a motor, a pump filters, heat exchanger to keep it cool. Some valves all in this tiny little package. So hydraulics could still have a ways to go.
Natural movement
Lex Fridman
One of the things that stands out about the robots Boston Dynamics have created is how beautiful the movement is, how natural the walking is, and running is, even flipping is, throwing is. So maybe you can talk about what’s involved in making it look natural.
One of the things that stands out about the robots Boston Dynamics have created is how beautiful the movement is, how natural the walking is, and running is, even flipping is, throwing is. So maybe you can talk about what’s involved in making it look natural.
Marc Raibert
Well, I think having good hardware is part of the story and people who think you don’t need to innovate hardware anymore are wrong, in my opinion. So I think one of the things, certainly in the early years for me, taking a dynamic approach where you think about what’s the evolution of the motion of the thing going to be in the future and having a prediction of that that’s used at the time that you’re giving signals to it, as opposed to it all being sing, which is sing is sort of backward looking. It says, okay, where am I now? I’m going to try and adjust for that. But you really need to think about what’s coming.
Well, I think having good hardware is part of the story and people who think you don’t need to innovate hardware anymore are wrong, in my opinion. So I think one of the things, certainly in the early years for me, taking a dynamic approach where you think about what’s the evolution of the motion of the thing going to be in the future and having a prediction of that that’s used at the time that you’re giving signals to it, as opposed to it all being sing, which is sing is sort of backward looking. It says, okay, where am I now? I’m going to try and adjust for that. But you really need to think about what’s coming.
Lex Fridman
So how far ahead you do, you have to look in time.
So how far ahead you do, you have to look in time.
Marc Raibert
It’s interesting. I think that the number is only a couple of seconds for Spot. So there’s a limited horizon type approach where you’re recalculating assuming what’s going to happen in the next second or second and a half. And then you keep iterating at the next, even though a 10th of a second later you’ll say, okay, let’s do that again and see what’s happening.
It’s interesting. I think that the number is only a couple of seconds for Spot. So there’s a limited horizon type approach where you’re recalculating assuming what’s going to happen in the next second or second and a half. And then you keep iterating at the next, even though a 10th of a second later you’ll say, okay, let’s do that again and see what’s happening.
And you’re looking at what the obstacles are, where the feet are going to be placed. You have to coordinate a lot of things. If you have obstacles and you’re balancing at the same time and it’s that limited horizon type calculation that’s doing a lot of that. But if you’re doing something like a somersault, you’re looking out a lot further. If you want to stick the landing, you have to, at the time of launch, have momentum and rotation, all those things coordinated so that a landing is within reach.
Lex Fridman
How hard is it to stick a landing? I mean, it’s very much under actuated. In the air, you don’t have as much control about anything. So how hard is it to get that to work? First of all, did flips with a hopping robot.
How hard is it to stick a landing? I mean, it’s very much under actuated. In the air, you don’t have as much control about anything. So how hard is it to get that to work? First of all, did flips with a hopping robot.
Marc Raibert
If you look at the first time we ever made a robot do a somersault, it was in a planer robot. It had a boom. So it was restricted to the surface of a sphere. We call that planer. So it could move fore-and-aft, it could go up and down and it could rotate. And so the calculation of what you need to do to stick a landing isn’t all that complicated. You have to get time to make the rotation.
If you look at the first time we ever made a robot do a somersault, it was in a planer robot. It had a boom. So it was restricted to the surface of a sphere. We call that planer. So it could move fore-and-aft, it could go up and down and it could rotate. And so the calculation of what you need to do to stick a landing isn’t all that complicated. You have to get time to make the rotation.
So how high you jump gives you time. You look at how quickly you can rotate. And so if you get those two right, then when you land, you have the feet in the right place and you have to get rid of all that rotational and linear momentum. But that’s not too hard to figure out. And we made back in about 1985 or six, I can’t remember, we had a simple robot doing somersaults.
To do it in 3D, really the calculation is the same. You just have to be balancing in the other degrees of freedom. If you’re just doing a somersault, it’s just a plainer thing. Ron Robert was my graduate student and we were at MIT, which is when we made a two-legged robot do a 3D somersault for the first time. There, in order to get enough rotation rate you needed to do tucking also, withdraw the legs in order to accelerate it.
And he did some really fascinating work on how you stabilize more complicated maneuvers. You remember he was a gymnast at Champion Gymnast before he’d come to me. So he had the physical abilities and he was an engineer, so he could translate some of that into the math and the algorithms that you need to do that.
Lex Fridman
He knew how humans do it. You just have to get robots to do the same.
He knew how humans do it. You just have to get robots to do the same.
Marc Raibert
Unfortunately though, humans don’t really know how they do it, right. We are coached, we have ways of learning, but do we really understand in a physics way what we’re doing? Probably most gymnasts and athletes don’t know.
Unfortunately though, humans don’t really know how they do it, right. We are coached, we have ways of learning, but do we really understand in a physics way what we’re doing? Probably most gymnasts and athletes don’t know.
Lex Fridman
So in some way, by building robots, you are in part understanding how humans do walking. Most of us walk without considering how we walk really and how we make it so natural and efficient, all those kinds of things.
So in some way, by building robots, you are in part understanding how humans do walking. Most of us walk without considering how we walk really and how we make it so natural and efficient, all those kinds of things.
Marc Raibert
Atlas still doesn’t walk like a person and it still doesn’t walk quite as gracefully as a person. Even though it’s been getting closer and closer. The running might be close to a human, but the walking is still a challenge.
Atlas still doesn’t walk like a person and it still doesn’t walk quite as gracefully as a person. Even though it’s been getting closer and closer. The running might be close to a human, but the walking is still a challenge.
Lex Fridman
That’s interesting, right? That running is closer to a human. It just shows that the more aggressive and the more you leap into the unknown, the more natural it is. I mean, walking is kind of falling always right?
That’s interesting, right? That running is closer to a human. It just shows that the more aggressive and the more you leap into the unknown, the more natural it is. I mean, walking is kind of falling always right?
Marc Raibert
And something weird about the knee that you can do this folding and unfolding and get it to work out just a human can get it to work out just right, there’s compliances. Compliance means springiness in the design that are important to how it all works. Well, we used to have a motto at the Boston Dynamics in the early days, which was you have to run before you can walk.
And something weird about the knee that you can do this folding and unfolding and get it to work out just a human can get it to work out just right, there’s compliances. Compliance means springiness in the design that are important to how it all works. Well, we used to have a motto at the Boston Dynamics in the early days, which was you have to run before you can walk.
Lex Fridman
That’s a good motto because you also had Wildcat, which was one of along the way towards Spot, which is a quadruplet that went 19 miles an hour on flat terrain. Is that the fastest you’ve ever built?
That’s a good motto because you also had Wildcat, which was one of along the way towards Spot, which is a quadruplet that went 19 miles an hour on flat terrain. Is that the fastest you’ve ever built?
Marc Raibert
Oh, yeah.
Oh, yeah.
Lex Fridman
Might be the fastest quadruplet in the world. I don’t know.
Might be the fastest quadruplet in the world. I don’t know.
Marc Raibert
For a quadruplet, probably. Of course, it was probably the loudest too. So we had this little racing go-kart engine on it, and we would get people from three buildings away sending us… Complaining about how loud it was.
For a quadruplet, probably. Of course, it was probably the loudest too. So we had this little racing go-kart engine on it, and we would get people from three buildings away sending us… Complaining about how loud it was.
Leg Lab
Lex Fridman
So at the leg lab, I believe most of the robots didn’t have knees. How do you figure out what is the right number of actuators? What are the joints to have? What do you need to have? We humans have knees and all kinds of interesting stuff on the feet. The toe is an important part, I guess, for humans, or maybe it’s not.
So at the leg lab, I believe most of the robots didn’t have knees. How do you figure out what is the right number of actuators? What are the joints to have? What do you need to have? We humans have knees and all kinds of interesting stuff on the feet. The toe is an important part, I guess, for humans, or maybe it’s not.
I injured my toe recently and it made running very unpleasant. So that seems to be important. So how do you figure out for efficiency, for function, for aesthetics, how many joints to have, how many actuaries to have?
Marc Raibert
Well, it’s always a balance between wanting to get where you really want to get and what’s practical to do based on your resources or what you know and all that. So I mean, the whole idea of the pogo stick was to do a simplification. Obviously, it didn’t look like a human. I think a technical scientist could appreciate that we were capturing some of the things that are important in human locomotion without it looking like it, without having a knee, an ankle.
Well, it’s always a balance between wanting to get where you really want to get and what’s practical to do based on your resources or what you know and all that. So I mean, the whole idea of the pogo stick was to do a simplification. Obviously, it didn’t look like a human. I think a technical scientist could appreciate that we were capturing some of the things that are important in human locomotion without it looking like it, without having a knee, an ankle.
I’ll tell you the first sketch that Ben Brown made when we were talking about building this thing, was a very complicated thing with zillions of springs, lots of joints. It looked much more like a kangaroo or an ostrich or something like that. Things we were paying a lot of attention to at the time. So my job was to say, okay, well let’s do something simpler to get started and maybe we’ll get there at some point.
Lex Fridman
I just love the idea that you two were studying kangaroos and ostriches.
I just love the idea that you two were studying kangaroos and ostriches.
Marc Raibert
Oh yeah, we did. We filmed and digitized data from horses. I did a dissection of ostrich at one point, which has absolutely remarkable legs.
Oh yeah, we did. We filmed and digitized data from horses. I did a dissection of ostrich at one point, which has absolutely remarkable legs.
Lex Fridman
Dumb question. Do ostriches have a lot of musculature on the legs or no?
Dumb question. Do ostriches have a lot of musculature on the legs or no?
Marc Raibert
Most of it’s up in the feathers, but there’s a huge amount going on in the feathers, including a knee joint. The knee joint’s way up there. The thing that’s halfway down the leg that looks like a backwards knee is actually the ankle. The thing on the ground which looks like the foot is actually the toes. It’s an extended toe.
Most of it’s up in the feathers, but there’s a huge amount going on in the feathers, including a knee joint. The knee joint’s way up there. The thing that’s halfway down the leg that looks like a backwards knee is actually the ankle. The thing on the ground which looks like the foot is actually the toes. It’s an extended toe.
Lex Fridman
Fascinating.
Fascinating.
Marc Raibert
But the basic morphology is the same in all these animals.
But the basic morphology is the same in all these animals.
Lex Fridman
What do you think is the most beautiful movement of an animal? What animal you think is the coolest land animal? That’s cool because fish is pretty cool. Like the fish in crystal water, but legged locomotion.
What do you think is the most beautiful movement of an animal? What animal you think is the coolest land animal? That’s cool because fish is pretty cool. Like the fish in crystal water, but legged locomotion.
Marc Raibert
The slow mos of cheetahs running are incredible. There’s so much back motion and grace, and of course they’re moving very fast. The animals running away from the cheetah are pretty exciting. The pronghorn, which they do this all four legs at once, jump called the prog, especially if there’s a group of them, to confuse whoever’s chasing them.
The slow mos of cheetahs running are incredible. There’s so much back motion and grace, and of course they’re moving very fast. The animals running away from the cheetah are pretty exciting. The pronghorn, which they do this all four legs at once, jump called the prog, especially if there’s a group of them, to confuse whoever’s chasing them.
Lex Fridman
So they do a misdirection type of thing?
So they do a misdirection type of thing?
Marc Raibert
Yep. They do a misdirection thing. The front on views of the cheetahs running fast where the tail is whipping around to help in the turns to help stabilize in the turns. That’s pretty exciting.
Yep. They do a misdirection thing. The front on views of the cheetahs running fast where the tail is whipping around to help in the turns to help stabilize in the turns. That’s pretty exciting.
Lex Fridman
Because they spend a lot of time in the air, I guess, as they’re running that fast.
Because they spend a lot of time in the air, I guess, as they’re running that fast.
Marc Raibert
But they also turn very fast.
But they also turn very fast.
Lex Fridman
Is that a tail thing or is do you have to have contact with ground?
Is that a tail thing or is do you have to have contact with ground?
Marc Raibert
Everything in the body is probably helping turn because they’re chasing something that’s trying to get away. That’s also zigzagging around. But I would be remiss if I didn’t say humans are pretty good too. You watch gymnasts, especially these days, they’re doing just incredible stuff.
Everything in the body is probably helping turn because they’re chasing something that’s trying to get away. That’s also zigzagging around. But I would be remiss if I didn’t say humans are pretty good too. You watch gymnasts, especially these days, they’re doing just incredible stuff.
Lex Fridman
Well, especially Olympic level gymnasts. See, but there could be cheetahs that are Olympic level. We might be watching the average cheetah versus there could be a really special cheetah that can do-
Well, especially Olympic level gymnasts. See, but there could be cheetahs that are Olympic level. We might be watching the average cheetah versus there could be a really special cheetah that can do-
Marc Raibert
You’re right.
You’re right.
Lex Fridman
When did the knees first come into play in you building legged robots?
When did the knees first come into play in you building legged robots?
Marc Raibert
In BigDog. BigDog came first and then LittleDog was later. And there’s a big compromise there. Human knees have multiple muscles and you could argue that there’s… I mean, it’s a technical thing about negative work when you’re contracting a joint, but you’re pushing out, that’s negative work. And if you don’t have a place to store that, it can be very expensive to do negative work.
In BigDog. BigDog came first and then LittleDog was later. And there’s a big compromise there. Human knees have multiple muscles and you could argue that there’s… I mean, it’s a technical thing about negative work when you’re contracting a joint, but you’re pushing out, that’s negative work. And if you don’t have a place to store that, it can be very expensive to do negative work.
And in BigDog, there was no place to store negative work in the knees. But BigDog also had pogo stick springs down below. So part of the action was to comply in a bouncing motion. Later on in Spot, we took that out. As we got further and further away from the leg lab, we had more energy-driven controls.
Lex Fridman
Is there something to be said about needs that go forward versus backward?
Is there something to be said about needs that go forward versus backward?
Marc Raibert
Sure. There’s this idea called passive dynamics, which says that although you can use computers and actuators to make a motion, a mechanical system can make a motion just by itself if it gets stimulated the right way. So Tad McGeer, I think in the mid 80s, maybe it was in the late 80s, started to work on that.
Sure. There’s this idea called passive dynamics, which says that although you can use computers and actuators to make a motion, a mechanical system can make a motion just by itself if it gets stimulated the right way. So Tad McGeer, I think in the mid 80s, maybe it was in the late 80s, started to work on that.
And he made this legged system that could walk down an incline plane where the legs folded and unfolded and swung forward, do the whole walking motion where there was no computer. There were some adjustments to the mechanics so that there were dampers and springs in some places that helped the mechanical action happen. It was essentially a mechanical computer. And the interesting idea there is that it’s not all about the brain dictating to the body what the body should do. The body is a participant in the motion.
Lex Fridman
So a great design for a robot has a mechanical component where the movement is efficient even without a brain?
So a great design for a robot has a mechanical component where the movement is efficient even without a brain?
Marc Raibert
Yes.
Yes.
Lex Fridman
How do you design that?
How do you design that?
Marc Raibert
I think that these days most robots aren’t doing that. Most robots are basically using the computer to govern the motion. Now, the brain though is taking into account what the mechanical thing can do and how it’s going to behave. Otherwise, it would have to really forcefully move everything around all the time which probably some solutions do, but I think you end up with a more efficient and more graceful thing if you’re taking into account what the machine wants to do.
I think that these days most robots aren’t doing that. Most robots are basically using the computer to govern the motion. Now, the brain though is taking into account what the mechanical thing can do and how it’s going to behave. Otherwise, it would have to really forcefully move everything around all the time which probably some solutions do, but I think you end up with a more efficient and more graceful thing if you’re taking into account what the machine wants to do.
AI Institute
Lex Fridman
So this might be a good place to mention that you’re now leading up the Boston Dynamics AI Institute newly formed, which is focused more on designing the robots of the future. I think one of the things, maybe you can tell me the big vision for what’s going on, but one of the things is this idea that hardware still matters with organic design and so on. Maybe before that, can you zoom out and tell me what the vision is for the AI Institute?
So this might be a good place to mention that you’re now leading up the Boston Dynamics AI Institute newly formed, which is focused more on designing the robots of the future. I think one of the things, maybe you can tell me the big vision for what’s going on, but one of the things is this idea that hardware still matters with organic design and so on. Maybe before that, can you zoom out and tell me what the vision is for the AI Institute?
Marc Raibert
I like to talk about intelligence having two parts, an athletic part and a cognitive part.
I like to talk about intelligence having two parts, an athletic part and a cognitive part.
Marc Raibert
An athletic part and a cognitive part. I think Boston Dynamics, in my view, has set the standard for what athletic intelligence can be. And it has to do with all the things we’ve been talking about, the mechanical design, the real-time control, the energetics and that kind of stuff. But obviously, people have another kind of intelligence, and animals have another kind of intelligence. We can make a plan. Our meeting started at 9:30, I looked up on Google Maps how long it took to walk over here. It was 20 minutes, so I decided, okay, I’d leave my house at nine, which is what I did. Simple intelligence, but we use that kind of stuff all the time. It’s what we think of as going on in our heads.
An athletic part and a cognitive part. I think Boston Dynamics, in my view, has set the standard for what athletic intelligence can be. And it has to do with all the things we’ve been talking about, the mechanical design, the real-time control, the energetics and that kind of stuff. But obviously, people have another kind of intelligence, and animals have another kind of intelligence. We can make a plan. Our meeting started at 9:30, I looked up on Google Maps how long it took to walk over here. It was 20 minutes, so I decided, okay, I’d leave my house at nine, which is what I did. Simple intelligence, but we use that kind of stuff all the time. It’s what we think of as going on in our heads.
And I think that’s in short supply for robots. Most robots are pretty dumb. As a result, it takes a lot of skilled people to program them to do everything they do, and it takes a long time. If robots are going to satisfy our dreams, they need to be smarter. So the AI Institute is designed to combine that physicality of the athletic side with the cognitive side.
For instance, we’re trying to make robots that can watch a human do a task, understand what it’s seeing, and then do the task itself. OJT, on-the-job training for robots as a paradigm. Now, that’s pretty hard, and it’s sort of science fiction, but our idea is to work on a longer timeframe and work on solving those kinds of problems. I have a whole list of things that are in that vein.
Lex Fridman
Maybe we can just take many of the things you mentioned, just take it as a tangent. First of all, athletic intelligence is a super cool term. And that really is intelligence. We humans take it for granted that we’re so good at walking and moving about the world.
Maybe we can just take many of the things you mentioned, just take it as a tangent. First of all, athletic intelligence is a super cool term. And that really is intelligence. We humans take it for granted that we’re so good at walking and moving about the world.
Marc Raibert
And using our hands.
And using our hands.
Lex Fridman
Using your hands.
Using your hands.
Marc Raibert
The mechanics of interacting with all these [inaudible 00:54:15] these two things.
The mechanics of interacting with all these [inaudible 00:54:15] these two things.
Lex Fridman
And you’ve never touched those things before.
And you’ve never touched those things before.
Marc Raibert
Never touched… Well, I’ve touched ones like this.
Never touched… Well, I’ve touched ones like this.
Lex Fridman
[inaudible 00:54:20].
[inaudible 00:54:20].
Marc Raibert
Look at all the things I can do, right? I can juggle them, I’m rotating it this way, I can rotate it without looking. I could fetch these things out my pocket and figure out which one was which and all that kind of stuff. And I don’t think we have much of a clue how all that works yet.
Look at all the things I can do, right? I can juggle them, I’m rotating it this way, I can rotate it without looking. I could fetch these things out my pocket and figure out which one was which and all that kind of stuff. And I don’t think we have much of a clue how all that works yet.
Athletic intelligence
Lex Fridman
I really like putting that under the banner of athletic intelligence. What are the big open problems in athletic intelligence? Boston Dynamics, with Spot, with Atlas, just have shown time and time again, pushed the limits of what we think is possible with robots. But where do we stand actually, if we zoom out. What are the big open problems on the athletic intelligence side?
I really like putting that under the banner of athletic intelligence. What are the big open problems in athletic intelligence? Boston Dynamics, with Spot, with Atlas, just have shown time and time again, pushed the limits of what we think is possible with robots. But where do we stand actually, if we zoom out. What are the big open problems on the athletic intelligence side?
Marc Raibert
I mean, one question you could ask, that isn’t my question, but are they commercially viable? Will they increase productivity? And I think we’re getting very close to that. I don’t think we’re quite there still. Most of the robotics companies, it’s a struggle. It’s really the lack of the cognitive side that probably is the biggest barrier at the moment, even for the physically successful robots.
I mean, one question you could ask, that isn’t my question, but are they commercially viable? Will they increase productivity? And I think we’re getting very close to that. I don’t think we’re quite there still. Most of the robotics companies, it’s a struggle. It’s really the lack of the cognitive side that probably is the biggest barrier at the moment, even for the physically successful robots.
Lex Fridman
Interesting.
Interesting.
Marc Raibert
But your question’s a good one. You can always do a thing that’s more efficient, lighter, more reliable. I’d say reliability. I know that Spot, they’ve been working very hard on getting the tail of the reliability curve up and they’ve made huge progress. There’s 1500 of them out there now, many of them being used in practical applications, day in and day out, where they have to work reliably. And it’s very exciting that they’ve done that. But it takes a huge effort to get that reliability in the robot.
But your question’s a good one. You can always do a thing that’s more efficient, lighter, more reliable. I’d say reliability. I know that Spot, they’ve been working very hard on getting the tail of the reliability curve up and they’ve made huge progress. There’s 1500 of them out there now, many of them being used in practical applications, day in and day out, where they have to work reliably. And it’s very exciting that they’ve done that. But it takes a huge effort to get that reliability in the robot.
There’s cost too, you’d like to get the cost down. Spots are still pretty expensive, and I don’t think that they have to be, but it takes a different kind of activity to do that. I think that Boston Dynamics is owned primarily by Hyundai now, and I think that the skills of Hyundai in making cars can be brought to bear in making robots that are less expensive and more reliable and those kinds of things.
Lex Fridman
On the cognitive side for the AI Institute, what’s the trade-off between moonshot projects for you and maybe incremental progress?
On the cognitive side for the AI Institute, what’s the trade-off between moonshot projects for you and maybe incremental progress?
Marc Raibert
That’s a good question. I think we’re using the paradigm called stepping stones to moonshots. I don’t believe… That was in my original proposal for the institute, stepping stones to moonshots. I think if you go more than a year without seeing a tangible status report of where you are, which is the stepping stone, and it could be a simplification, you don’t necessarily have to solve all the problems of your target goal, even though your target goal is going to take several years, those stepping stone results give you feedback, give motivation, because usually there’s some success in there. So that’s the mantra we’ve been working on, and that’s pretty much how I’d say Boston Dynamics has worked, where you make progress and show it as you go. Show it to yourself, if not to the world.
That’s a good question. I think we’re using the paradigm called stepping stones to moonshots. I don’t believe… That was in my original proposal for the institute, stepping stones to moonshots. I think if you go more than a year without seeing a tangible status report of where you are, which is the stepping stone, and it could be a simplification, you don’t necessarily have to solve all the problems of your target goal, even though your target goal is going to take several years, those stepping stone results give you feedback, give motivation, because usually there’s some success in there. So that’s the mantra we’ve been working on, and that’s pretty much how I’d say Boston Dynamics has worked, where you make progress and show it as you go. Show it to yourself, if not to the world.
Lex Fridman
What does success look like? What are some of the milestones you’re chasing?
What does success look like? What are some of the milestones you’re chasing?
Marc Raibert
Well, with Watch Understand Do, the project I mentioned before, we’ve broken that down into getting some progress with, what does meaningfully watching something mean? Breaking down an observation of a person doing something into the components, segmenting. You watch me do something, I’m going to pick up this thing and put it down here and stack this on it. Well, it’s not obvious if you just look at the raw data, what the sequence of acts are. It’s really a creative intelligent act for you to break that down into the pieces and understand them in a way, so you could say, “Okay, what skill do I need to accomplish each of those things?” So we’re working on the front end of that kind of a problem, where we observe and translate the, it may be video, it may be live, into a description of what we think is going on and then try and map that into skills to accomplish that. And we’ve been developing skills as well. So we have multiple stabs at the pieces of doing that.
Well, with Watch Understand Do, the project I mentioned before, we’ve broken that down into getting some progress with, what does meaningfully watching something mean? Breaking down an observation of a person doing something into the components, segmenting. You watch me do something, I’m going to pick up this thing and put it down here and stack this on it. Well, it’s not obvious if you just look at the raw data, what the sequence of acts are. It’s really a creative intelligent act for you to break that down into the pieces and understand them in a way, so you could say, “Okay, what skill do I need to accomplish each of those things?” So we’re working on the front end of that kind of a problem, where we observe and translate the, it may be video, it may be live, into a description of what we think is going on and then try and map that into skills to accomplish that. And we’ve been developing skills as well. So we have multiple stabs at the pieces of doing that.
Lex Fridman
That. And this is usually video of humans manipulating objects with their hands, kind of thing.
That. And this is usually video of humans manipulating objects with their hands, kind of thing.
Marc Raibert
Mm-hmm. We’re starting out with bicycle repair, some simple bicycle repair tasks.
Mm-hmm. We’re starting out with bicycle repair, some simple bicycle repair tasks.
Lex Fridman
Oh no. That seems complicated, that seems really complicated.
Oh no. That seems complicated, that seems really complicated.
Marc Raibert
Well, it is, but there’s some parts of it that aren’t, like putting the seat into the… You have a tube that goes inside of another tube and there’s a latch. That should be within range.
Well, it is, but there’s some parts of it that aren’t, like putting the seat into the… You have a tube that goes inside of another tube and there’s a latch. That should be within range.
Lex Fridman
Is it possible to observe, to watch a video like this without having an explicit model of what a bicycle looks like?
Is it possible to observe, to watch a video like this without having an explicit model of what a bicycle looks like?
Marc Raibert
I think it is, and I think that’s the kind of thing that people don’t recognize. Let me translate it to navigation. I think the basic paradigm for navigating a space is to get some kind of sensor that tells you where an obstacle is and what’s open, build a map and then go through the space. But if we were doing on the job training where I was giving you a task, I wouldn’t have to say anything about the room. We came in here, all we did is adjust the chair, but we didn’t say anything about the room and we could navigate it. So I think there’s opportunities to build that kind of navigation skill into robots and we’re hoping to be able to do that.
I think it is, and I think that’s the kind of thing that people don’t recognize. Let me translate it to navigation. I think the basic paradigm for navigating a space is to get some kind of sensor that tells you where an obstacle is and what’s open, build a map and then go through the space. But if we were doing on the job training where I was giving you a task, I wouldn’t have to say anything about the room. We came in here, all we did is adjust the chair, but we didn’t say anything about the room and we could navigate it. So I think there’s opportunities to build that kind of navigation skill into robots and we’re hoping to be able to do that.
Lex Fridman
So operate successfully under a lot of uncertainty.
So operate successfully under a lot of uncertainty.
Marc Raibert
Yeah. And lack of specification.
Yeah. And lack of specification.
Lex Fridman
Lack of specification.
Lack of specification.
Marc Raibert
I mean that’s what intelligence is, right? Dealing with… Understanding a situation even though it wasn’t explained.
I mean that’s what intelligence is, right? Dealing with… Understanding a situation even though it wasn’t explained.
Lex Fridman
So how big of a role does machine learning play in all of this? Is this more and more learning based?
So how big of a role does machine learning play in all of this? Is this more and more learning based?
Marc Raibert
Since Chat GPT, which is a year ago, basically, there’s a huge interest in that and a huge optimism about it. I think that there’s a lot of things that that kind of machine learning, now of course there’s lots of different kinds of machine learning, I think there’s a lot of interest and optimism about it. The facts on the ground are that doing physical things with physical robots is a little bit different than language, and the tokens don’t exist. Pixel values aren’t like words. But I think that there’s a lot that can be done there.
Since Chat GPT, which is a year ago, basically, there’s a huge interest in that and a huge optimism about it. I think that there’s a lot of things that that kind of machine learning, now of course there’s lots of different kinds of machine learning, I think there’s a lot of interest and optimism about it. The facts on the ground are that doing physical things with physical robots is a little bit different than language, and the tokens don’t exist. Pixel values aren’t like words. But I think that there’s a lot that can be done there.
We have several people working on machine learning approaches. I don’t know if you know, but we opened an office in Zurich recently, and Marco Hutter, who’s one of the real leaders in reinforcement learning for robots, is the director of that office. He’s still half-time at ETH, the university there, where he has an unbelievably fantastic lab, and then he’s half-time leading, will be leading efforts in the Zurich office. So we have a healthy learning component.
But there’s part of me that still says, if you look out in the world at what the most impressive performances are, they’re still pretty much, I hate to use the word traditional, but that’s what everybody’s calling it, traditional controls, like model predictive control. The Atlas performances that you’ve seen are mostly model predictive control. They’ve started to do some learning stuff that’s really incredible. I don’t know if it’s all been shown yet, but you’ll see it over time. And then Marco has done some great stuff and others.
Lex Fridman
So especially for the athletic intelligence piece, the traditional approach seems to be the one that still performs the best.
So especially for the athletic intelligence piece, the traditional approach seems to be the one that still performs the best.
Marc Raibert
I think we’re going to find a mating of the two and we’ll have the best of both worlds. And we’re working on that at the institute too.
I think we’re going to find a mating of the two and we’ll have the best of both worlds. And we’re working on that at the institute too.
Building a team
Lex Fridman
If I can talk to you about teams, you’ve built an incredible team of Boston Dynamics, before at MIT and CMU, at Boston Dynamics, and now at the AI Institute. And you said that there’s four components to a great team, technical fearlessness, diligence, intrepidness, and fun, technical fun. Can you explain each? Technical fearlessness, what do you mean by that?
If I can talk to you about teams, you’ve built an incredible team of Boston Dynamics, before at MIT and CMU, at Boston Dynamics, and now at the AI Institute. And you said that there’s four components to a great team, technical fearlessness, diligence, intrepidness, and fun, technical fun. Can you explain each? Technical fearlessness, what do you mean by that?
Marc Raibert
Sure. Technical fearlessness means being willing to take on a problem that you don’t know how to solve, and study it, figure out an entry point, maybe a simplified version, or a simplified solution or something, learn from the stepping stone, and go back and eventually make a solution that meets your goals. I think that’s really important.
Sure. Technical fearlessness means being willing to take on a problem that you don’t know how to solve, and study it, figure out an entry point, maybe a simplified version, or a simplified solution or something, learn from the stepping stone, and go back and eventually make a solution that meets your goals. I think that’s really important.
Lex Fridman
The fearlessness comes into play because some of it has never been done before?
The fearlessness comes into play because some of it has never been done before?
Marc Raibert
Yeah, and you don’t know how to do it. There’s easier stuff to do in life. I mean, I don’t know, Watch Understand Do, it’s a mountain of a challenge.
Yeah, and you don’t know how to do it. There’s easier stuff to do in life. I mean, I don’t know, Watch Understand Do, it’s a mountain of a challenge.
Lex Fridman
So that’s the really big challenge you’re tackling now, can we watch humans at scale and have robots, by watching humans, become effective actors in the world?
So that’s the really big challenge you’re tackling now, can we watch humans at scale and have robots, by watching humans, become effective actors in the world?
Marc Raibert
Yeah. I mean we have others like that. We have one called Inspect Diagnose Fix. You call up the Maytag repairman… Okay, he’s the one who you don’t have to call. But you call up the dishwasher repair person, and they come to your house and they look at your machine. It’s already been actually figured out that something doesn’t work, but they have to examine it and figure out what’s wrong and then fix it. I think robots should be able to do that. Boston Dynamics already has Spot robots collecting data on machines, things like thermal data, reading the gauges, listening to them, getting sounds, and that data are used to determine whether they’re healthy or not. But the interpretation isn’t done by the robots yet, and certainly the fixing, the diagnosing and the fixing isn’t done yet, but I think it could be. That’s bringing the AI and combining it with the physical skills to do it.
Yeah. I mean we have others like that. We have one called Inspect Diagnose Fix. You call up the Maytag repairman… Okay, he’s the one who you don’t have to call. But you call up the dishwasher repair person, and they come to your house and they look at your machine. It’s already been actually figured out that something doesn’t work, but they have to examine it and figure out what’s wrong and then fix it. I think robots should be able to do that. Boston Dynamics already has Spot robots collecting data on machines, things like thermal data, reading the gauges, listening to them, getting sounds, and that data are used to determine whether they’re healthy or not. But the interpretation isn’t done by the robots yet, and certainly the fixing, the diagnosing and the fixing isn’t done yet, but I think it could be. That’s bringing the AI and combining it with the physical skills to do it.
Lex Fridman
And you’re referring to the fixing in the physical world. I can’t wait until they can fix the psychological problems of humans, and show up and talk, do therapy.
And you’re referring to the fixing in the physical world. I can’t wait until they can fix the psychological problems of humans, and show up and talk, do therapy.
Marc Raibert
Yeah, that’s a different thing.
Yeah, that’s a different thing.
Lex Fridman
Yeah, it’s a different. Well, it’s all part of the same thing. Again, humanity. Maybe, maybe.
Yeah, it’s a different. Well, it’s all part of the same thing. Again, humanity. Maybe, maybe.
Marc Raibert
You mean convincing you it’s okay that the dishwasher’s broken, just do the [inaudible 01:05:21]. The marketing approach.
You mean convincing you it’s okay that the dishwasher’s broken, just do the [inaudible 01:05:21]. The marketing approach.
Lex Fridman
Yeah, exactly. Don’t sweat the small stuff. As opposed to fixing the dishwasher, it’ll convince you that it’s okay that the dishwasher’s broken. It’s a different approach. Diligence. Why is diligence important?
Yeah, exactly. Don’t sweat the small stuff. As opposed to fixing the dishwasher, it’ll convince you that it’s okay that the dishwasher’s broken. It’s a different approach. Diligence. Why is diligence important?
Videos
Marc Raibert
Well, if you want a real robot solution, it can’t be a very narrow solution that’s going to break at the first variation in what the robot does, or the environment if it wasn’t exactly as you expected it. So how do you get there? I think having an approach that leaves you unsatisfied until you’ve embraced the bigger problem is the diligence I’m talking about.
Well, if you want a real robot solution, it can’t be a very narrow solution that’s going to break at the first variation in what the robot does, or the environment if it wasn’t exactly as you expected it. So how do you get there? I think having an approach that leaves you unsatisfied until you’ve embraced the bigger problem is the diligence I’m talking about.
Again, I’ll point at Boston Dynamics, some of the videos that we had showing the engineer making it hard for the robot to do its task. Spot opening a door and then the guy gets there and pushes on the door so it doesn’t open the way it’s supposed to. Pulling on the rope that’s attached to the robot, so its navigation has been screwed up. We have one where the robot’s climbing stairs and an engineer is tugging on a rope that’s pulling it back down the stairs. That’s totally different than just the robot seeing the stairs, making a model, putting its feet carefully on each step. But that’s what probably robotics needs to succeed, and having that broader idea that you want to come with a robust solution is what I meant by diligence.
Lex Fridman
So really testing it in all conditions, perturbing the system in all kinds of ways, and as a result, creating some epic videos. The legendary-
So really testing it in all conditions, perturbing the system in all kinds of ways, and as a result, creating some epic videos. The legendary-
Marc Raibert
The fun part, the hockey stick.
The fun part, the hockey stick.
Lex Fridman
And then yes, tugging on Spot as it’s trying to open the door. I mean, it’s great testing, but it’s also, I don’t know, it’s just somehow extremely compelling demonstration of robotics in video form.
And then yes, tugging on Spot as it’s trying to open the door. I mean, it’s great testing, but it’s also, I don’t know, it’s just somehow extremely compelling demonstration of robotics in video form.
Marc Raibert
I learned something very early on with the first three-dimensional hopping machine. If you just show a video of it hopping, it’s a so what. If you show it falling over a couple of times, and you can see how easily and fast it falls over, then you appreciate what the robot’s doing when it’s doing its thing. So I think the reaction you just gave to the robot getting interfered with or tested while it’s going through the door, it’s showing you the scope of the solution.
I learned something very early on with the first three-dimensional hopping machine. If you just show a video of it hopping, it’s a so what. If you show it falling over a couple of times, and you can see how easily and fast it falls over, then you appreciate what the robot’s doing when it’s doing its thing. So I think the reaction you just gave to the robot getting interfered with or tested while it’s going through the door, it’s showing you the scope of the solution.
Lex Fridman
The limits of the system, the challenges involved in failure. Showing both failure and success makes you appreciate the success, yeah. And then just the way the videos are done in Boston Dynamics are incredible. Because there’s no flash, there’s no extra production, it’s just raw testing of the robot.
The limits of the system, the challenges involved in failure. Showing both failure and success makes you appreciate the success, yeah. And then just the way the videos are done in Boston Dynamics are incredible. Because there’s no flash, there’s no extra production, it’s just raw testing of the robot.
Marc Raibert
Well, I was the final edit for most of the videos up until about three years ago, or four years ago. My theory of the video is no explanation. If they can’t see it, then it’s not the right thing. And if you do something worth showing, then let them see it. Don’t interfere with a bunch of titles that slow you down, or a bunch of distraction, just do something worth showing and then show it.
Well, I was the final edit for most of the videos up until about three years ago, or four years ago. My theory of the video is no explanation. If they can’t see it, then it’s not the right thing. And if you do something worth showing, then let them see it. Don’t interfere with a bunch of titles that slow you down, or a bunch of distraction, just do something worth showing and then show it.
Lex Fridman
That’s brilliant.
That’s brilliant.
Marc Raibert
It’s hard though for people to buy into that.
It’s hard though for people to buy into that.
Lex Fridman
Yeah, I mean people always want to add more stuff, but the simplicity of just, “Do something worth showing and show it”, that’s brilliant. And don’t add extra stuff.
Yeah, I mean people always want to add more stuff, but the simplicity of just, “Do something worth showing and show it”, that’s brilliant. And don’t add extra stuff.
Marc Raibert
People have criticized, especially the Big Dog videos, where there’s a human driving the robot. And I understand the criticism now. At the time we wanted to just show, “Look, this thing’s using its legs to get up the hill.” So we focused on showing that, which was, we thought, the story. The fact that there was a human… So they were thinking about autonomy, whereas we were thinking about the mobility. So we’ve adjusted to a lot of things that we see that people care about, trying to be honest. We’ve always tried to be honest.
People have criticized, especially the Big Dog videos, where there’s a human driving the robot. And I understand the criticism now. At the time we wanted to just show, “Look, this thing’s using its legs to get up the hill.” So we focused on showing that, which was, we thought, the story. The fact that there was a human… So they were thinking about autonomy, whereas we were thinking about the mobility. So we’ve adjusted to a lot of things that we see that people care about, trying to be honest. We’ve always tried to be honest.
Lex Fridman
But also just show cool stuff in its raw form, the limits of the system. Let’s see the system be perturbed and be robust and resilient and all that kind of stuff. And dancing with some music. Intrepidness and fun. So, intrepid?
But also just show cool stuff in its raw form, the limits of the system. Let’s see the system be perturbed and be robust and resilient and all that kind of stuff. And dancing with some music. Intrepidness and fun. So, intrepid?
Marc Raibert
I mean, it might be the most important ingredient.
I mean, it might be the most important ingredient.
Lex Fridman
Sure.
Sure.
Marc Raibert
And that is, robotics is hard, it’s not going to work right right away, so don’t be discouraged, is all it really means. Usually, when I talk about these things, I show videos, and I show a long string of outtakes. You have to have courage to be intrepid, when you work so hard to build your machine, and then you’re trying it, and it just doesn’t do what you thought it would do, what you want it to do, and you have to stick to it and keep trying.
And that is, robotics is hard, it’s not going to work right right away, so don’t be discouraged, is all it really means. Usually, when I talk about these things, I show videos, and I show a long string of outtakes. You have to have courage to be intrepid, when you work so hard to build your machine, and then you’re trying it, and it just doesn’t do what you thought it would do, what you want it to do, and you have to stick to it and keep trying.
Lex Fridman
I mean, we don’t often see that, the story behind Spot and Atlas. How many failures were there along the way to get a working Atlas, a working Spot, in the early days, even a working Big Dog?
I mean, we don’t often see that, the story behind Spot and Atlas. How many failures were there along the way to get a working Atlas, a working Spot, in the early days, even a working Big Dog?
Marc Raibert
There’s a video of Atlas climbing three big steps, and it’s very dynamic and it’s really exciting, real accomplishment. It took 109 tries and we have video of every one of them, we shoot everything. Again, we, this is at Boston Dynamics. So it took 109 tries, but once it did it had a high percentage of success. So it’s not like we’re cheating by just showing the best one, but we do show the evolved performance, not everything along the way. But everything along the way is informative. And it shows there’s stupid things that go wrong, like the robot, just when you say go and it collapses right there on the start, that doesn’t have to do with the steps. Or the perception didn’t work right, so you miss the target when you jump, or something breaks and there’s oil flying everywhere. But that’s fun.
There’s a video of Atlas climbing three big steps, and it’s very dynamic and it’s really exciting, real accomplishment. It took 109 tries and we have video of every one of them, we shoot everything. Again, we, this is at Boston Dynamics. So it took 109 tries, but once it did it had a high percentage of success. So it’s not like we’re cheating by just showing the best one, but we do show the evolved performance, not everything along the way. But everything along the way is informative. And it shows there’s stupid things that go wrong, like the robot, just when you say go and it collapses right there on the start, that doesn’t have to do with the steps. Or the perception didn’t work right, so you miss the target when you jump, or something breaks and there’s oil flying everywhere. But that’s fun.
Lex Fridman
Yeah. So the hardware failures and maybe some software-
Yeah. So the hardware failures and maybe some software-
Marc Raibert
Lots of control of evolution during that time. I think it took six weeks to get those 109 trials, because there was programming going on. It was actually robot learning, but there were human in the loop helping with the learning. So all data-driven.
Lots of control of evolution during that time. I think it took six weeks to get those 109 trials, because there was programming going on. It was actually robot learning, but there were human in the loop helping with the learning. So all data-driven.
Lex Fridman
Okay, and you always are learning from that failure.
Okay, and you always are learning from that failure.
Marc Raibert
Right.
Right.
Lex Fridman
How do you protect Atlas from not getting damaged from 109 attempts?
How do you protect Atlas from not getting damaged from 109 attempts?
Marc Raibert
It’s remarkable. One of the accomplishments of Atlas is that the engineers have made a machine that’s robust enough that it can take that kind of testing, where it’s falling and stuff, and it doesn’t break every time. It still breaks, and part of the paradigm is to have people to repair stuff. You got to figure that in if you’re going to do this kind of work. I sometimes criticize the people who have their gold-plated thing and they keep it on the shelf and they’re afraid to use it. I don’t think you can make progress if you’re working that way. You need to be ready to have it break and go in there and fix it. It’s part of the thing. Plan your budget so you have spare parts and a crew and all that stuff.
It’s remarkable. One of the accomplishments of Atlas is that the engineers have made a machine that’s robust enough that it can take that kind of testing, where it’s falling and stuff, and it doesn’t break every time. It still breaks, and part of the paradigm is to have people to repair stuff. You got to figure that in if you’re going to do this kind of work. I sometimes criticize the people who have their gold-plated thing and they keep it on the shelf and they’re afraid to use it. I don’t think you can make progress if you’re working that way. You need to be ready to have it break and go in there and fix it. It’s part of the thing. Plan your budget so you have spare parts and a crew and all that stuff.
Lex Fridman
If it falls 109 times, it’s okay. Wow. So, intrepid, truly. And that applies to Spot, that applies to all the other robot stuff.
If it falls 109 times, it’s okay. Wow. So, intrepid, truly. And that applies to Spot, that applies to all the other robot stuff.
Marc Raibert
Applies to everything. I think it applies to everything anybody tries to do that’s worth doing.
Applies to everything. I think it applies to everything anybody tries to do that’s worth doing.
Lex Fridman
And especially with systems in the real world, right?
And especially with systems in the real world, right?
Engineering
Marc Raibert
Yeah.
Yeah.
Lex Fridman
So, fun.
So, fun.
Marc Raibert
Fun. Technical fun, I usually say.
Fun. Technical fun, I usually say.
Lex Fridman
Technical fun.
Technical fun.
Marc Raibert
Have technical fun. I think that life as an engineer is really satisfying. To some degree it can be like crafts work, where you get to do things with your own hands, or your own design, or whatever your media is, and it’s very satisfying to be able to just do the work. Unlike a lot of people who have to do something that they don’t like doing, I think engineers typically get to do something that they like and there’s a lot of satisfaction from that. Then there’s, in many cases, you can have impact on the world somehow, because you’ve done something that other people admire, which is different from just the craft fun of building a thing. So that’s the second way that being an engineer is good.
Have technical fun. I think that life as an engineer is really satisfying. To some degree it can be like crafts work, where you get to do things with your own hands, or your own design, or whatever your media is, and it’s very satisfying to be able to just do the work. Unlike a lot of people who have to do something that they don’t like doing, I think engineers typically get to do something that they like and there’s a lot of satisfaction from that. Then there’s, in many cases, you can have impact on the world somehow, because you’ve done something that other people admire, which is different from just the craft fun of building a thing. So that’s the second way that being an engineer is good.
I think the third thing is that if you’re lucky to be working in a team where you’re getting the benefit of other people’s skills that are helping you do your thing. None of us has all the skills needed to do most of these projects, and if you have a team where you’re working well with the others, that can be very satisfying.
Then if you’re an engineer, you also usually get paid. So you kind of get paid four times in my view of the world. So what could be better than that?
Lex Fridman
Get paid to have fun. What do you love about engineering? When you say engineering, what does that mean to you exactly? What is this big thing that we call engineering?
Get paid to have fun. What do you love about engineering? When you say engineering, what does that mean to you exactly? What is this big thing that we call engineering?
Marc Raibert
I think it’s both being a scientist, or getting to use science, at the same time as being an artist or a creator. Scientists only get to study what’s out there, and engineers get to make stuff that didn’t exist before. So it’s really, I think, a higher calling, even though I think most the public out there thinks science is top and engineering is somehow secondary, but I think it’s the other way around.
I think it’s both being a scientist, or getting to use science, at the same time as being an artist or a creator. Scientists only get to study what’s out there, and engineers get to make stuff that didn’t exist before. So it’s really, I think, a higher calling, even though I think most the public out there thinks science is top and engineering is somehow secondary, but I think it’s the other way around.
Lex Fridman
And at the cutting edge, I think, when you talk about robotics, there is a possibility to do art in that you do the first of its kind thing. Then there’s the production at scale, which is its own beautiful thing. But when you do the first new robot or the first new thing, that’s a possibility to create something totally new, that is art.
And at the cutting edge, I think, when you talk about robotics, there is a possibility to do art in that you do the first of its kind thing. Then there’s the production at scale, which is its own beautiful thing. But when you do the first new robot or the first new thing, that’s a possibility to create something totally new, that is art.
Marc Raibert
Bringing metal to life, or a machine to life, is fun. It was fun doing the dancing videos, where got a huge public response, and we’re going to do more. We’re doing some at the institute doing some at the institute and we’ll do more.
Bringing metal to life, or a machine to life, is fun. It was fun doing the dancing videos, where got a huge public response, and we’re going to do more. We’re doing some at the institute doing some at the institute and we’ll do more.
Lex Fridman
Well, that metal to life moment. I mean, to me that’s still magical. When inanimate objects comes to life, to me-
Well, that metal to life moment. I mean, to me that’s still magical. When inanimate objects comes to life, to me-
Marc Raibert
It’s cool.
It’s cool.
Lex Fridman
… to this day, is still an incredible moment. That human intelligence can create systems that instill life, or whatever that is, into inanimate objects, it’s truly magical. Especially when it’s at the scale that humans can perceive and appreciate directly.
… to this day, is still an incredible moment. That human intelligence can create systems that instill life, or whatever that is, into inanimate objects, it’s truly magical. Especially when it’s at the scale that humans can perceive and appreciate directly.
Marc Raibert
But I think, with going back to the pieces of that, you design a linkage that turns out to be half the weight and just as strong, that’s very satisfying.
But I think, with going back to the pieces of that, you design a linkage that turns out to be half the weight and just as strong, that’s very satisfying.
Lex Fridman
That’s [inaudible 01:16:49], yeah.
That’s [inaudible 01:16:49], yeah.
Marc Raibert
There are people who do that and it’s a creative act.
There are people who do that and it’s a creative act.
Dancing robots
Lex Fridman
What to you is most beautiful about robotics? Sorry for the big romantic question.
What to you is most beautiful about robotics? Sorry for the big romantic question.
Marc Raibert
I think having the robots move in a way that’s evocative of life is pretty exciting.
I think having the robots move in a way that’s evocative of life is pretty exciting.
Lex Fridman
So the elegance of movement.
So the elegance of movement.
Marc Raibert
Yeah. Or if it’s a high performance act where it’s doing it faster, bigger than other robots. Usually we’re not doing it bigger, faster than people, but we’re getting there in a few narrow dimensions.
Yeah. Or if it’s a high performance act where it’s doing it faster, bigger than other robots. Usually we’re not doing it bigger, faster than people, but we’re getting there in a few narrow dimensions.
Lex Fridman
So faster, bigger, smoother, more elegant, more graceful.
So faster, bigger, smoother, more elegant, more graceful.
Marc Raibert
I mean, I’d like to do dancing that starts… We’re nowhere near the dancing capabilities of a human. We’ve been having a ballerina in, who’s kind of a well-known ballerina, and she’s been programming the robot. We’ve been working on the tools that can make it so that she can use her way of talking, way of doing a choreography or something like that, more accessible, to get the robot to do things, and starting to produce some interesting stuff.
I mean, I’d like to do dancing that starts… We’re nowhere near the dancing capabilities of a human. We’ve been having a ballerina in, who’s kind of a well-known ballerina, and she’s been programming the robot. We’ve been working on the tools that can make it so that she can use her way of talking, way of doing a choreography or something like that, more accessible, to get the robot to do things, and starting to produce some interesting stuff.
Lex Fridman
Well, we should mention that there is a choreography tool.
Well, we should mention that there is a choreography tool.
Marc Raibert
There is.
There is.
Lex Fridman
I guess-
I guess-
Lex Fridman
Tool.
Tool.
Marc Raibert
There is.
There is.
Lex Fridman
I mean I guess I saw versions of it, which is pretty cool. You can, at slices of time, control different parts at the high level, the movement of the robot, Spot and other-
I mean I guess I saw versions of it, which is pretty cool. You can, at slices of time, control different parts at the high level, the movement of the robot, Spot and other-
Marc Raibert
We hope to take that forward and make it more tuned to how the dance world wants to talk, wants to communicate and get better performances. I mean, we’ve done a lot, but there’s still a lot possible. And I’d like to have performances where the robots are dancing with people. So right now almost everything that we’ve done on dancing is to a fixed time base. So once you press go, the robot does its thing and plays out its thing. It’s not listening, it’s not watching. But I think it should do those things.
We hope to take that forward and make it more tuned to how the dance world wants to talk, wants to communicate and get better performances. I mean, we’ve done a lot, but there’s still a lot possible. And I’d like to have performances where the robots are dancing with people. So right now almost everything that we’ve done on dancing is to a fixed time base. So once you press go, the robot does its thing and plays out its thing. It’s not listening, it’s not watching. But I think it should do those things.
Lex Fridman
I think I would love to see a professional ballerina, alone in her room with a robot, slowly teaching the robot. Just actually, the process of a clueless robot trying to figure out a small little piece of a dance. Because right now, Atlas and Spot have done perfect dancing to a beat and so on, to a degree, but the learning process of interacting with a human would be incredible to watch.
I think I would love to see a professional ballerina, alone in her room with a robot, slowly teaching the robot. Just actually, the process of a clueless robot trying to figure out a small little piece of a dance. Because right now, Atlas and Spot have done perfect dancing to a beat and so on, to a degree, but the learning process of interacting with a human would be incredible to watch.
Marc Raibert
One of the cool things going on, you know that there’s a class at Brown University called Choreorobotics? Sidney Skybetter is a dancer, choreographer and he teamed up with Stefanie Tellex, who’s a computer science professor, and they taught this class and I think they have some graduate students helping teach it, where they have two spots and people come in. I think it’s 50/50 of computer science people and dance people, and they program performances that are very interesting. I show some of them sometimes when I give a talk.
One of the cool things going on, you know that there’s a class at Brown University called Choreorobotics? Sidney Skybetter is a dancer, choreographer and he teamed up with Stefanie Tellex, who’s a computer science professor, and they taught this class and I think they have some graduate students helping teach it, where they have two spots and people come in. I think it’s 50/50 of computer science people and dance people, and they program performances that are very interesting. I show some of them sometimes when I give a talk.
Lex Fridman
And making that process of a human teaching the robot more efficient, more intuitive, maybe partial language, part movement. That’d be really fascinating because one of the things I’ve realized is humans communicate with movement a lot. It’s not just language, there’s a lot. There’s body language, there’s so many intricate little things. To watch a human and Spot communicate back and forth with movement, I mean there’s just so many wonderful possibilities there.
And making that process of a human teaching the robot more efficient, more intuitive, maybe partial language, part movement. That’d be really fascinating because one of the things I’ve realized is humans communicate with movement a lot. It’s not just language, there’s a lot. There’s body language, there’s so many intricate little things. To watch a human and Spot communicate back and forth with movement, I mean there’s just so many wonderful possibilities there.
Marc Raibert
But it’s also a challenge. We get asked to have our robots perform with famous dancers and they have 200 degrees of freedom or something, every little ripple and thing, and they have all this head and neck and shoulders and stuff, and the robots mostly don’t have all that stuff and it’s a daunting challenge to not look physically stupid next to them. So we’ve pretty much avoided that performance, but we’ll get to it.
But it’s also a challenge. We get asked to have our robots perform with famous dancers and they have 200 degrees of freedom or something, every little ripple and thing, and they have all this head and neck and shoulders and stuff, and the robots mostly don’t have all that stuff and it’s a daunting challenge to not look physically stupid next to them. So we’ve pretty much avoided that performance, but we’ll get to it.
Lex Fridman
I think even with the limited degrees of freedom, we could still have some sass and flavor and so on. You can figure out your own thing even if you can’t-
I think even with the limited degrees of freedom, we could still have some sass and flavor and so on. You can figure out your own thing even if you can’t-
Marc Raibert
And we can reverse things. If you watch a human do a robot animation, which is a dance style where you jerk around and you pop and lock and all that stuff, I think the robots could show up the humans by doing unstable oscillations and things that are faster than a person could. So that’s on my plan, but I haven’t quite gotten there yet.
And we can reverse things. If you watch a human do a robot animation, which is a dance style where you jerk around and you pop and lock and all that stuff, I think the robots could show up the humans by doing unstable oscillations and things that are faster than a person could. So that’s on my plan, but I haven’t quite gotten there yet.
Hiring
Lex Fridman
You mentioned about building teams and robotics teams and so on. How do you find great engineers? How do you hire great engineers?
You mentioned about building teams and robotics teams and so on. How do you find great engineers? How do you hire great engineers?
Marc Raibert
Well, it’s a chicken and egg. If you have an environment where interesting engineering is going on, then engineers want to work there. And I think it took a long time to develop that at Boston Dynamics. In fact, when we started, although I had the experience of building things in the leg lab, both at CMU and at MIT, we weren’t that sophisticated an engineering thing compared to what Boston Dynamics is now, but it was our ambition to do that. And Sarcos was another robot company, so I always thought of us as being this much on the computing side, and this much on the hardware side, and they were this. And then over the years, I think we achieved the same or better levels of engineering.
Well, it’s a chicken and egg. If you have an environment where interesting engineering is going on, then engineers want to work there. And I think it took a long time to develop that at Boston Dynamics. In fact, when we started, although I had the experience of building things in the leg lab, both at CMU and at MIT, we weren’t that sophisticated an engineering thing compared to what Boston Dynamics is now, but it was our ambition to do that. And Sarcos was another robot company, so I always thought of us as being this much on the computing side, and this much on the hardware side, and they were this. And then over the years, I think we achieved the same or better levels of engineering.
Meanwhile, Sarcos got acquired and then they went through all changes and I don’t know exactly what their current status is. So it took many years, is part of the answer. I think you got to find people who love it. In the early days, we paid a little less so we only got people who were doing it because they really loved it. We also hired people who might not have professional degrees, people who were building bicycles and building kayaks. We have some people who come from the maker world, and that’s really important for the work we do, to have that be part of the mix.
Lex Fridman
Whatever that is. Whatever the magic ingredient that makes a great builder, maker. That’s the big part of it.
Whatever that is. Whatever the magic ingredient that makes a great builder, maker. That’s the big part of it.
Marc Raibert
People who repaired their cars or motorcycles or whatever in their garages when they were kids.
People who repaired their cars or motorcycles or whatever in their garages when they were kids.
Lex Fridman
The robotics students, grad students, and just roboticists that I know and I hang out with, there’s a endless energy and they’re just happy. Say, I compare another group of people that are alike that are people that skydive professionally. There’s just excitement and general energy that I think probably has to do with the fact that they’re just constantly, first of all, fail a lot. And then the joy of building a thing that you eventually works.
The robotics students, grad students, and just roboticists that I know and I hang out with, there’s a endless energy and they’re just happy. Say, I compare another group of people that are alike that are people that skydive professionally. There’s just excitement and general energy that I think probably has to do with the fact that they’re just constantly, first of all, fail a lot. And then the joy of building a thing that you eventually works.
Marc Raibert
Talking about being happy, there used to be a time when I was doing the machine shop work myself back in those JPL and Caltech days, when, if I came home smelling like the machine shop because it’s an oily place, my wife would say, “You had a good day today.” Because she could tell that that’s where I’d been.
Talking about being happy, there used to be a time when I was doing the machine shop work myself back in those JPL and Caltech days, when, if I came home smelling like the machine shop because it’s an oily place, my wife would say, “You had a good day today.” Because she could tell that that’s where I’d been.
Lex Fridman
You’ve actually built something. You’ve done something in the physical world. And probably the videos help show off what robotics is.
You’ve actually built something. You’ve done something in the physical world. And probably the videos help show off what robotics is.
Marc Raibert
At Boston Dynamics, it put us on the map. I remember interviewing some sales guy and he was from a company and he said, “Well, no one’s ever heard of my company but we have really good products. You guys, everybody knows who you are but you don’t have any products at all.” Which was true, and we thank YouTube for that. YouTube came, we caught the YouTube wave and it had a huge impact on our company.
At Boston Dynamics, it put us on the map. I remember interviewing some sales guy and he was from a company and he said, “Well, no one’s ever heard of my company but we have really good products. You guys, everybody knows who you are but you don’t have any products at all.” Which was true, and we thank YouTube for that. YouTube came, we caught the YouTube wave and it had a huge impact on our company.
Lex Fridman
I mean, it’s a big impact not just on your company, but on robotics in general and helping people understand and inspire what is possible with robots, and inspire imagination, fear and everything. The full spectrum of human emotion was aroused, which is great for the entirety of humanity, and also, it’s probably inspiring for young people that want to get into AI and robotics. Let me ask you about some competitors. You’ve been a complimentary of Elon and Tesla’s work on Optimus robot with their humanoid robot. What do you think of their efforts there with the humanoid robot?
I mean, it’s a big impact not just on your company, but on robotics in general and helping people understand and inspire what is possible with robots, and inspire imagination, fear and everything. The full spectrum of human emotion was aroused, which is great for the entirety of humanity, and also, it’s probably inspiring for young people that want to get into AI and robotics. Let me ask you about some competitors. You’ve been a complimentary of Elon and Tesla’s work on Optimus robot with their humanoid robot. What do you think of their efforts there with the humanoid robot?
Optimus robot
Marc Raibert
I really admire Elon as a technologist. I think that what he did with Tesla, it was just totally mind-boggling that he could go from this totally niche area that less than 1% of anybody seemed to be interested to making it, so that essentially every car company in the world is trying to do what he’s done. So you got to give it to him. Then look at SpaceX, he’s basically replaced NASA. That might be a little exaggeration, but not by much.
I really admire Elon as a technologist. I think that what he did with Tesla, it was just totally mind-boggling that he could go from this totally niche area that less than 1% of anybody seemed to be interested to making it, so that essentially every car company in the world is trying to do what he’s done. So you got to give it to him. Then look at SpaceX, he’s basically replaced NASA. That might be a little exaggeration, but not by much.
So you got to admire the guy and I wouldn’t count him out for anything. I don’t think Optimus today is where Atlas is, for instance. I don’t know, it’s a little hard to compare them to the other companies. I visited Figure. I think they’re doing well and they have a good team. I’ve visited Apptronik and I think they have a good team and they’re doing well. But Elon has a lot of resources, he has a lot of ambition. I like to take some credit for his ambition. I think if I read between the lines, it’s hard not to think that him seeing what Atlas is doing is a little bit of an inspiration. I hope so.
Lex Fridman
Do you think Atlas and Optimus will hang out at some point?
Do you think Atlas and Optimus will hang out at some point?
Marc Raibert
I would love to host that. Now that I’m not at Boston Dynamics, I’m not officially connected, I’m on the board but I’m not officially connected, I would love to host a-
I would love to host that. Now that I’m not at Boston Dynamics, I’m not officially connected, I’m on the board but I’m not officially connected, I would love to host a-
Lex Fridman
A robot meetups?
A robot meetups?
Marc Raibert
… a wrote up meetup, yeah.
… a wrote up meetup, yeah.
Lex Fridman
Does the AI Institute work with Spots and Atlas? Is it focused on Spots mostly right now as a platform?
Does the AI Institute work with Spots and Atlas? Is it focused on Spots mostly right now as a platform?
Marc Raibert
We have a bunch of different robots. We bought everything we could buy. So we have Spots. I think we have a good size fleet of them. I don’t know how many it is, but a good size fleet. We have a couple of ANYmal robots. ANYmal is a company founded by Marco Hutter, even though he’s not that involved anymore, but we have a couple of those. We have a bunch of arms like Franka’s and USRobotics. Because even though we have ambitions to build stuff and we are starting to build stuff, day one, getting off the ground, we just bought stuff.
We have a bunch of different robots. We bought everything we could buy. So we have Spots. I think we have a good size fleet of them. I don’t know how many it is, but a good size fleet. We have a couple of ANYmal robots. ANYmal is a company founded by Marco Hutter, even though he’s not that involved anymore, but we have a couple of those. We have a bunch of arms like Franka’s and USRobotics. Because even though we have ambitions to build stuff and we are starting to build stuff, day one, getting off the ground, we just bought stuff.
Lex Fridman
I love this robot playground you’ve built.
I love this robot playground you’ve built.
Marc Raibert
You can come over and take a look if you want.
You can come over and take a look if you want.
Lex Fridman
That’s great. So it’s all these kinds of robots, legged, arms.
That’s great. So it’s all these kinds of robots, legged, arms.
Marc Raibert
Well, there’s some areas that feel like a playground, but it’s not like they’re all frolic together.
Well, there’s some areas that feel like a playground, but it’s not like they’re all frolic together.
Lex Fridman
Again, maybe you’ll arrange a robot meetup. But in general, what’s your view on competition in this space for especially humanoid and legged robots? Are you excited by the competition or the friendly competition?
Again, maybe you’ll arrange a robot meetup. But in general, what’s your view on competition in this space for especially humanoid and legged robots? Are you excited by the competition or the friendly competition?
Marc Raibert
I don’t think about competition that much. I’m not a commercial guy. I think for the many years I was at Boston Dynamics, we didn’t think about competition. We were just doing our thing there. It wasn’t like there were products out there that we were competing with. Maybe there was some competition for DARPA funding, which we got a lot of, got very good at getting. But even there, in a couple of cases where we might’ve competed, we ended up just being the robot provider, that is for the LittleDog program, we just made the robots. We didn’t participate as developers except for developing the robot. And in the DARPA robotics challenge, we didn’t compete. We provided the robots.
I don’t think about competition that much. I’m not a commercial guy. I think for the many years I was at Boston Dynamics, we didn’t think about competition. We were just doing our thing there. It wasn’t like there were products out there that we were competing with. Maybe there was some competition for DARPA funding, which we got a lot of, got very good at getting. But even there, in a couple of cases where we might’ve competed, we ended up just being the robot provider, that is for the LittleDog program, we just made the robots. We didn’t participate as developers except for developing the robot. And in the DARPA robotics challenge, we didn’t compete. We provided the robots.
In the AI world now, now that we’re working on cognitive stuff, it feels much more a competition. The entry requirements in terms of computing hardware and the skills of the team and hiring talent, it’s a much tougher place. So I think much more about competition now on the cognitive side. On the physical side, it doesn’t feel it’s that much about competition yet. Obviously, with 10 humanoid companies out there, 10 or 12, I mean there’s probably others that I don’t know about, they’re definitely in competition, will be in competition.
Lex Fridman
How much room is there for a quadruped and especially a humanoid robot to become cheaper? So cutting costs, and how low can you go? And how much of it is just mass production? So questions of how to produce versus engineering innovation, how to simplify it.
How much room is there for a quadruped and especially a humanoid robot to become cheaper? So cutting costs, and how low can you go? And how much of it is just mass production? So questions of how to produce versus engineering innovation, how to simplify it.
Marc Raibert
I think there’s a huge way to go. I don’t think we’ve seen the bottom of it, the bottom in terms of its lower prices. I think you should be totally optimistic that, at asymptote, things don’t have to be anything as expensive as they are now. Back to competition, I wanted to say one thing. I think in the quadruped space, having other people selling quadruped’s is a great thing for Boston Dynamics because I believe the question in the user’s minds is, “Which quadruped do I want?” It’s not, “Do I want a quadruped?” “Can a quadruped do my job?” It’s much more like that, which is a great place for it to be. Then you’re just doing the things you normally do to make your product better and compete, selling and all that stuff. And that’ll be the way it is with humanoids at some point.
I think there’s a huge way to go. I don’t think we’ve seen the bottom of it, the bottom in terms of its lower prices. I think you should be totally optimistic that, at asymptote, things don’t have to be anything as expensive as they are now. Back to competition, I wanted to say one thing. I think in the quadruped space, having other people selling quadruped’s is a great thing for Boston Dynamics because I believe the question in the user’s minds is, “Which quadruped do I want?” It’s not, “Do I want a quadruped?” “Can a quadruped do my job?” It’s much more like that, which is a great place for it to be. Then you’re just doing the things you normally do to make your product better and compete, selling and all that stuff. And that’ll be the way it is with humanoids at some point.
Lex Fridman
Well, there’s a lot of humanoids and you’re just not even… It’s like iPhone versus Android and people are just buying both and it’s just, you’re not really-
Well, there’s a lot of humanoids and you’re just not even… It’s like iPhone versus Android and people are just buying both and it’s just, you’re not really-
Marc Raibert
You’re creating the category or the category is happening. I mean right now, the use cases, that’s the key thing. Having realistic use cases that are moneymaking in robotics is a big challenge. There’s the warehouse use case. That’s probably the only thing that makes anybody any money in robotics at this point.
You’re creating the category or the category is happening. I mean right now, the use cases, that’s the key thing. Having realistic use cases that are moneymaking in robotics is a big challenge. There’s the warehouse use case. That’s probably the only thing that makes anybody any money in robotics at this point.
Lex Fridman
There’s got to be a moment-
There’s got to be a moment-
Marc Raibert
There’s old-fashioned robots. I mean, there’s fixed arms doing manufacturing. I don’t want to say that they’re not making money.
There’s old-fashioned robots. I mean, there’s fixed arms doing manufacturing. I don’t want to say that they’re not making money.
Lex Fridman
… Industrial robotics, yes. But there’s got to be a moment when social robotics starts making real money. Meaning a Spot type robot in the home and there’s tens of millions of them in the home and they’re, I don’t know, how many dogs there are in the United States as pets.
… Industrial robotics, yes. But there’s got to be a moment when social robotics starts making real money. Meaning a Spot type robot in the home and there’s tens of millions of them in the home and they’re, I don’t know, how many dogs there are in the United States as pets.
Marc Raibert
Many.
Many.
Lex Fridman
It feels there’s something we love about having a intelligent companion with us that remembers us, that’s excited to see us. All that stuff.
It feels there’s something we love about having a intelligent companion with us that remembers us, that’s excited to see us. All that stuff.
Marc Raibert
But it’s also true that the companies making those things, there’ve been a lot of failures in recent times. There’s that one year when I think three of them went under. So it’s not that easy to do that. Getting performance, safety and cost all to be where they need to be at the same time, that’s hard.
But it’s also true that the companies making those things, there’ve been a lot of failures in recent times. There’s that one year when I think three of them went under. So it’s not that easy to do that. Getting performance, safety and cost all to be where they need to be at the same time, that’s hard.
Lex Fridman
But also some of it is, like you say, you can have a product but people might not be aware of it. So also part of it is the videos or however you connect with the public, the culture and create the category. Make people realize this is the thing you want. There’s a lot of negative perceptions you can have. Do you really want a system with the camera in your home walking around? If it’s presented correctly and if there’s the right boundaries around it and you understand how it works and so on, a lot of people would want to. And if they don’t, they might be suspicious of it. So that’s an important one. We all use smartphones and that has a camera that’s looking at us.
But also some of it is, like you say, you can have a product but people might not be aware of it. So also part of it is the videos or however you connect with the public, the culture and create the category. Make people realize this is the thing you want. There’s a lot of negative perceptions you can have. Do you really want a system with the camera in your home walking around? If it’s presented correctly and if there’s the right boundaries around it and you understand how it works and so on, a lot of people would want to. And if they don’t, they might be suspicious of it. So that’s an important one. We all use smartphones and that has a camera that’s looking at us.
Marc Raibert
It has two or three or four.
It has two or three or four.
Lex Fridman
And it’s listening. Very few people are suspicious about it. They take it for granted and so on. And I think robots would be the same way.
And it’s listening. Very few people are suspicious about it. They take it for granted and so on. And I think robots would be the same way.
Marc Raibert
I agree.
I agree.
Future of robotics
Lex Fridman
So as you work on the cognitive aspect of these robots, do you think we’ll ever get to human level or superhuman level intelligence? There’s been a lot of conversations about this recently, given the rapid development in large language models.
So as you work on the cognitive aspect of these robots, do you think we’ll ever get to human level or superhuman level intelligence? There’s been a lot of conversations about this recently, given the rapid development in large language models.
Marc Raibert
I think that intelligence is a lot of different things and I think some things, computers are already smarter than people, and some things they’re not even close. And I think you’d need a menu of detailed categories to come up with that. But I also think that the conversation that seems to be happening about AGI’s puzzles me. So I ask you a question, do you think there’s anybody smarter than you in the world?
I think that intelligence is a lot of different things and I think some things, computers are already smarter than people, and some things they’re not even close. And I think you’d need a menu of detailed categories to come up with that. But I also think that the conversation that seems to be happening about AGI’s puzzles me. So I ask you a question, do you think there’s anybody smarter than you in the world?
Lex Fridman
Absolutely, yes.
Absolutely, yes.
Marc Raibert
Do you find that threatening?
Do you find that threatening?
Lex Fridman
No.
No.
Marc Raibert
So I don’t understand, even if computers were smarter than people, why we should assume that that’s a threat, especially since they could easily be smarter but still available to us or under our control, which is basically how computers generally are.
So I don’t understand, even if computers were smarter than people, why we should assume that that’s a threat, especially since they could easily be smarter but still available to us or under our control, which is basically how computers generally are.
Lex Fridman
I think the fear is that they would be 10x or 100x smarter and operating under different morals and ethical codes than humans naturally do, and so almost become misaligned in unintended ways and therefore harm humans in ways we just can’t predict. And even if we program them to do a thing, on the way of doing that thing, they would cause a lot of harm. And when they’re 100 times, 1,000 times, 10,000 times smarter than us, we won’t be able to stop it or we won’t be able to even see the harm as it’s happening until it’s too late. That stuff. So you can construct all possible trajectories of how the world ends because of super intelligent systems.
I think the fear is that they would be 10x or 100x smarter and operating under different morals and ethical codes than humans naturally do, and so almost become misaligned in unintended ways and therefore harm humans in ways we just can’t predict. And even if we program them to do a thing, on the way of doing that thing, they would cause a lot of harm. And when they’re 100 times, 1,000 times, 10,000 times smarter than us, we won’t be able to stop it or we won’t be able to even see the harm as it’s happening until it’s too late. That stuff. So you can construct all possible trajectories of how the world ends because of super intelligent systems.
Marc Raibert
It’s a little bit like that line in the Oppenheimer movie where they contemplate whether the first time they set off a reaction, all matter on earth is going to go up. I don’t remember what the verb they used was for the chain reaction. I guess it’s possible, but I personally don’t think it’s worth worrying about that. I think that it’s balancing opportunities and risk. I think if you take any technology, there’s opportunity and risk. I’ll point at the car. They pollute and about what? 1.25 million people get killed every year around the world because of them. Despite that, I think they’re a boon to humankind, they’re very useful, many of us love them and those technical problems can be solved. I think they’re becoming safer. I think they’re becoming less polluting, at least some of them are. And every technology you can name has a story like that in my opinion.
It’s a little bit like that line in the Oppenheimer movie where they contemplate whether the first time they set off a reaction, all matter on earth is going to go up. I don’t remember what the verb they used was for the chain reaction. I guess it’s possible, but I personally don’t think it’s worth worrying about that. I think that it’s balancing opportunities and risk. I think if you take any technology, there’s opportunity and risk. I’ll point at the car. They pollute and about what? 1.25 million people get killed every year around the world because of them. Despite that, I think they’re a boon to humankind, they’re very useful, many of us love them and those technical problems can be solved. I think they’re becoming safer. I think they’re becoming less polluting, at least some of them are. And every technology you can name has a story like that in my opinion.
Lex Fridman
What’s the story behind the Hawaiian shirt? Is it a fashion statement, a philosophical statement? Is it just a statement of rebellion? Engineering statement?
What’s the story behind the Hawaiian shirt? Is it a fashion statement, a philosophical statement? Is it just a statement of rebellion? Engineering statement?
Marc Raibert
It was born of me being a contrarian.
It was born of me being a contrarian.
Lex Fridman
It’s a symbol.
It’s a symbol.
Marc Raibert
Someone told me once that I was wearing one when I only had one or two and they said, “Those things are so old-fashioned. You can’t wear that, Marc.” And I stopped wearing them for about a week and then I said, “I’m not going to let them tell me what to do.” And so every day since, pretty much.
Someone told me once that I was wearing one when I only had one or two and they said, “Those things are so old-fashioned. You can’t wear that, Marc.” And I stopped wearing them for about a week and then I said, “I’m not going to let them tell me what to do.” And so every day since, pretty much.
Lex Fridman
So it’s a symbol.
So it’s a symbol.
Marc Raibert
That was years ago. That was 20 years ago. 15 years ago probably.
That was years ago. That was 20 years ago. 15 years ago probably.
Lex Fridman
That says something about your personality. That’s great.
That says something about your personality. That’s great.
Marc Raibert
It took me a while to realize that I was a contrarian, but it can be a useful tool.
It took me a while to realize that I was a contrarian, but it can be a useful tool.
Lex Fridman
Have you had people tell you on the robotics side that, “I don’t think you could do this”? A negative motivation?
Have you had people tell you on the robotics side that, “I don’t think you could do this”? A negative motivation?
Marc Raibert
I’d rather talk about, when we were doing a lot of DARPA work, there was a Marine, Ed Tovar, who’s still around. What he would always say is when someone would say, “You can’t do that.” He’d say, “Why not?” And it’s a great question. I ask all the time when I’m thinking, “We’re not going to do that nice thing.” “Why not?” And I give him credit for opening my eyes to resisting that.
I’d rather talk about, when we were doing a lot of DARPA work, there was a Marine, Ed Tovar, who’s still around. What he would always say is when someone would say, “You can’t do that.” He’d say, “Why not?” And it’s a great question. I ask all the time when I’m thinking, “We’re not going to do that nice thing.” “Why not?” And I give him credit for opening my eyes to resisting that.
Advice for young people
Lex Fridman
So the Hawaiian shirt is almost a symbol of “why not?” Okay. What advice would you give to young folks that are trying to figure out what they want to do with their life? How to have a life they can be proud of? How they can have a career they can be proud of?
So the Hawaiian shirt is almost a symbol of “why not?” Okay. What advice would you give to young folks that are trying to figure out what they want to do with their life? How to have a life they can be proud of? How they can have a career they can be proud of?
Marc Raibert
When I was teaching at MIT, for a while, I had undergraduate advisees where people would have to meet with me once a semester or something and they frequently would ask what they should do. And I think the advice I used to give was something like, “Well, if you had no constraints on you, no resource constraints, no opportunity constraints and no skill constraints, what could you imagine doing?” And I said, “Well, start there and see how close you can get to what’s realistic for how close you can get.” The other version of that is try and figure out what you want to do and do that. A lot of people think that they’re in a channel and there’s only limited opportunities, but it’s usually wider than they think.
When I was teaching at MIT, for a while, I had undergraduate advisees where people would have to meet with me once a semester or something and they frequently would ask what they should do. And I think the advice I used to give was something like, “Well, if you had no constraints on you, no resource constraints, no opportunity constraints and no skill constraints, what could you imagine doing?” And I said, “Well, start there and see how close you can get to what’s realistic for how close you can get.” The other version of that is try and figure out what you want to do and do that. A lot of people think that they’re in a channel and there’s only limited opportunities, but it’s usually wider than they think.
Lex Fridman
The opportunities really are limitless. But at the same time, you want to pick a thing and it’s the diligence and really, really pursue it. And really pursue it. Because sometimes the really special stuff happens after years of pursuit.
The opportunities really are limitless. But at the same time, you want to pick a thing and it’s the diligence and really, really pursue it. And really pursue it. Because sometimes the really special stuff happens after years of pursuit.
Marc Raibert
Yeah. Oh, absolutely. It can take a while.
Yeah. Oh, absolutely. It can take a while.
Lex Fridman
I mean, you’ve been doing this for 40 plus years.
I mean, you’ve been doing this for 40 plus years.
Marc Raibert
Some people think I’m in a rut. And in fact, some of the inspiration for the AI Institute is to say, “I’ve been working on locomotion for however many years it was, let’s do something else.” And it’s a really fascinating and interesting challenge.
Some people think I’m in a rut. And in fact, some of the inspiration for the AI Institute is to say, “I’ve been working on locomotion for however many years it was, let’s do something else.” And it’s a really fascinating and interesting challenge.
Lex Fridman
And you’re hoping to show it off also in the same way it has been done with Boston Dynamics?
And you’re hoping to show it off also in the same way it has been done with Boston Dynamics?
Marc Raibert
Just about to start showing some stuff off. I hope we have a YouTube channel. I mean one of the challenges is, it’s one thing to show athletic skills on YouTube. Showing cognitive function is a lot harder, and I haven’t quite figured out yet how that’s going to work.
Just about to start showing some stuff off. I hope we have a YouTube channel. I mean one of the challenges is, it’s one thing to show athletic skills on YouTube. Showing cognitive function is a lot harder, and I haven’t quite figured out yet how that’s going to work.
Lex Fridman
There might be a way.
There might be a way.
Marc Raibert
There’s a way.
There’s a way.
Lex Fridman
There’s a way.
There’s a way.
Marc Raibert
Why not?
Why not?
Lex Fridman
I also do think sucking at a task is also compelling. The incremental improvement. A robot being really terrible at a task and then slowly becoming better. Even in athletic intelligence, honestly. Learning to walk and falling and slowly figuring that out, I think there’s something extremely compelling about that. We like flaws, especially with the cognitive task. It’s okay to be clumsy. It’s okay to be confused and a little silly and all that stuff. It feels like in that space is where we can-
I also do think sucking at a task is also compelling. The incremental improvement. A robot being really terrible at a task and then slowly becoming better. Even in athletic intelligence, honestly. Learning to walk and falling and slowly figuring that out, I think there’s something extremely compelling about that. We like flaws, especially with the cognitive task. It’s okay to be clumsy. It’s okay to be confused and a little silly and all that stuff. It feels like in that space is where we can-
Marc Raibert
There’s charm.
There’s charm.
Lex Fridman
… There’s charm and there’s something inspiring about a robot sucking and then becoming less terrible slowly at a task.
… There’s charm and there’s something inspiring about a robot sucking and then becoming less terrible slowly at a task.
Marc Raibert
No, I think you’re right.
No, I think you’re right.
Lex Fridman
That reveals something about ourselves. Ultimately, that’s what’s one of the coolest things about robots, is it’s a mirror about what makes humans special. Just by watching how hard it is to make a robot do the things that humans do. You realize how special we are. What do you think is the meaning of this whole thing? Why are we here? Marc, do you ever ask about the big questions as you try to create these humanoid, human-like intelligence systems?
That reveals something about ourselves. Ultimately, that’s what’s one of the coolest things about robots, is it’s a mirror about what makes humans special. Just by watching how hard it is to make a robot do the things that humans do. You realize how special we are. What do you think is the meaning of this whole thing? Why are we here? Marc, do you ever ask about the big questions as you try to create these humanoid, human-like intelligence systems?
Marc Raibert
I don’t know. I think you have to have fun while you’re here. That’s about all I know. It would be a waste not to.
I don’t know. I think you have to have fun while you’re here. That’s about all I know. It would be a waste not to.
Lex Fridman
The ride is pretty short, so might as well have fun. Marc, I’m a huge fan of yours. It’s a huge honor that you would talk with me. This is really amazing and your work for many decades has been amazing and I can’t wait to see what you do at the AI Institute. I’m going to be waiting impatiently for the videos and the demos and the next robot meetup for maybe Atlas and Optimus to hang out.
The ride is pretty short, so might as well have fun. Marc, I’m a huge fan of yours. It’s a huge honor that you would talk with me. This is really amazing and your work for many decades has been amazing and I can’t wait to see what you do at the AI Institute. I’m going to be waiting impatiently for the videos and the demos and the next robot meetup for maybe Atlas and Optimus to hang out.
Marc Raibert
I would love to do that. That would be fun.
I would love to do that. That would be fun.
Lex Fridman
Thank you so much for talking.
Thank you so much for talking.
Marc Raibert
Thank you. It was fun talking to you.
Thank you. It was fun talking to you.
Lex Fridman
Thanks for listening to this conversation with Marc Raibert. To support this podcast, please check out our sponsors in the description. And now let me leave you with some words from Arthur C. Clark. “Whether we’re based on carbon or on silken makes no fundamental difference. We should each be treated with appropriate respect.” Thank you for listening and hope to see you next time.
Thanks for listening to this conversation with Marc Raibert. To support this podcast, please check out our sponsors in the description. And now let me leave you with some words from Arthur C. Clark. “Whether we’re based on carbon or on silken makes no fundamental difference. We should each be treated with appropriate respect.” Thank you for listening and hope to see you next time.
Transcript for Omar Suleiman: Palestine, Gaza, Oct 7, Israel, Resistance, Faith & Islam | Lex Fridman Podcast #411
This is a transcript of Lex Fridman Podcast #411 with Omar Suleiman.
The timestamps in the transcript are clickable links that take you directly to that point in
the main video. Please note that the transcript is human generated, and may have errors.
Here are some useful links:
The timestamps in the transcript are clickable links that take you directly to that point in
the main video. Please note that the transcript is human generated, and may have errors.
Here are some useful links:
- Go back to this episode’s main page
- Watch the full YouTube version of the podcast
Table of Contents
Here are the loose “chapters” in the conversation.
Click link to jump approximately to that part in the transcript:
This is the Lex Fridman Podcast. To support it, please check out our sponsors in the description.
And now, dear friends, here’s Omar Suleiman. What did you think, feel, and pray for in the days that followed October 7th?
Shireen Abu Akleh, a Palestinian American journalist, is shot dead in 2022 in front of the world. The United States says initially that if it is shown that Israel was complicit or that Israel carried out the execution, then there will be consequences. Of course, once it was shown that Israel was indeed responsible for the bullet that killed Shireen Abu Akleh, the United States did absolutely nothing. Shireen’s funeral was attacked. The pallbearers were beaten. Her casket almost fell. And again, the world is watching.
The aggression against worshipers in Al-Aqsa is getting worse. You have the Flag March, the Jerusalem Flag March where extremist settlers are let loose and wild on Palestinians by the thousands, chanting things like, “Muhammad is dead. We’re going to murder you, Arabs.” All with the protection of the state with Israeli soldiers. And throughout this time, it’s like something bad is going to happen.
And then 2023 comes along. You had 13,000 settler units in 2023. A plan of 13,000 settler units, the most in the history of the occupation, the most racist and extremist government, Israeli government, that you have ever had. And people don’t realize that in 2023 alone, over 600 Palestinians had already been killed. It just doesn’t make Western headlines. And so, if you wonder why the American public sees this so much differently than the rest of the world, it’s because American media shows the American public something so much different than what the rest of the world has shown. And so, this was a pressure cooker. This was going to explode. It is extremely predictable. You’ve given people absolutely no hope. And so, I think that as we’re watching that, it’s important for us to actually interrogate the ignorance that people have of the Palestinian plight, the ignorance of the root causes of this violence, the ignorance of the occupation. And also, ask yourselves, why is it that Israel can violate every single international law on the books, have all these determinations, and the United States keeps on issuing these inconsequential statements while also, at the same time, funding these aggressions?
So, it’s like, “Stop the settler violence.” The United States will issue statement after statements, “Stop the settler violence. Stop the incursions on Mosque Al-Aqsa. Stop violating the people in Jerusalem. Stop trying to wipe out the Palestinian people. Stop openly saying that there is no two-state solution, that we will never allow a Palestinian state to be established.” But at the same time, “Here’s your $3 billion check.” And if the United Nations issues any sort of resolution against Israel, or if any international body tries to hold Israel accountable, the United States stands in the way of any accountability. It’s important for us to ask why?
And so, I always tell people, “Read beyond the headlines.” Even now with the backdrop of a genocide, over 30,000 people have been killed. If you open the front page of most American mainstream sites, you will see stories about the hostages, the Israeli hostages. You will see stories about October 7th, but October 8th is missing. October 9th is missing. October 10th is missing. A hundred days of genocide are missing. And you’ll barely have a story that shows up every once in a while that is still very much so controlled by the Israeli propaganda machine, because while Israel kills Palestinian journalists, it also makes sure that American journalists are only able to tell a certain story. They’re only able to see Gaza from a certain perspective. They’re only able to speak about Gaza from a certain perspective.
And this is well-documented, that they have to review their media tapes with Israel before they can publicize them. And so, this is state propaganda at this point. The mainstream media and the United States government are in lockstep, telling a very skewed story. And that is leading to a greater sense of frustration. And I think the American public has been wronged as well by not knowing what’s happening.
You interviewed Mohammed El-Kurd, met him. What did the world do when it saw the images of the Kurd household being taken over by a guy from Brooklyn or Long Island who just shows up and lays claim to their home? What did the world do when American settlers suddenly decided they could walk into historic Palestinian homes and throw people out of their homes? What did the world do? And so, yes, this is very much so connected to the broader issue of Palestinian existence.
If you realize here, we are erased in peace and we are erased in war. In peace, it’s the Abraham Accords, agreements between Israel and its Arab neighbors, which is supposedly to solve the Palestinian problem. The Palestinians are absent from their own fate, from discussions about their own fate. In war, it’s the Israel-Hamas war. It’s Israel and Gaza. Where are the Palestinian people? The millions of Palestinian people that have either been removed from their land or are being tormented on their land, where are they in this discussion?
If you turn on a TV or if you open a mainstream news site, these sites are justifying your slaughter and people are being killed over there because they look like me, because they’re Palestinian like I’m Palestinian. And so, we’re watching this in diaspora with agony. We can’t go, we can’t heal our loved ones. We can’t comfort the people that are there. I recently spoke to a doctor who’s lost 75 relatives, 75 relatives in Gaza, and he’s a medical doctor. And all he wants to do is get in there and just use his medical expertise to help his people and he can’t.
And so, we’re watching it from afar, but our hearts are there. They are in the buildings that are being destroyed. They’re in the hospitals that are being bombed. They are there and they’re with the people.
I always say that if they’ve made them faceless, they can’t make us voiceless. They have reduced our casualties in Palestine to a number. The number is hundreds a day, over 30,000 people. We’re averaging 10,000 people a month. The fact that they’ve been turned into faceless numbers with no stories, with no humanity, makes it that much more important for us to tell their stories here. And to remind the world that you’ve lost your humanity if you can watch this unfold and not even have the decency to call for a ceasefire. I mean, that’s where we’ve reached. That’s how low it is right now. Calling for a ceasefire has now become radical.
So, we have to remind the world that if you’re okay with the demolition of an entire town, or a city, or whatever it is that you want to call Gaza because it wasn’t always the Gaza Strip, but if you’re okay with this and you’re okay with this casualty count every single day, it’s not just them who are being killed; it’s your hearts that are dying. And I think that when I look back to Dr. Martin Luther King Jr, and I mentioned this, he wrote about Vietnam. He said that if America was to succumb to its spiritual death, the autopsy would read Vietnam. I would say that it would read Gaza now.
Wael was reporting on TV when an airstrike hits his wife, two kids and a grandchild. He goes to the scene. And he said this, “You never expect as a journalist to be the subject of the story.” Suddenly, the camera’s on him mourning over his dead wife and kids and grandkid, and he even says it in Arabic. He says, “They’re taking it out on our children. They’re taking it out on our children.” I’ve heard this from multiple people that have had relatives targeted that, “I wish it was me instead.” He gets back on camera the same day because he feels a responsibility to continue to cover the lives of the people of Gaza. He understands that his story, as devastating as it is, is not unique in regards to the people of Gaza, that there are many people whose families have been killed in airstrikes. All two million people have been traumatized in some way. And so, he gets back on camera, tells the story again, and then he is targeted himself, his arm struck. His cameraman, Samer Abudaqa, dies in front of him. He bleeds out. Wael watches him bleed out for hours. And while any aid workers try to reach them in the building that they were in, snipers would shoot all of those that were rushing to Samer.
So, he watches his cameraman and one of his best friends bleed out to death. Wael goes to the hospital. His arm is wrapped up, gets treatment. He’s back on camera the next day. A few weeks later, another child is killed again with his friend in a car. So, this was a targeted airstrike. His son is driving. And his son and his best friend are hit in an airstrike. Wael leads the funeral prayer, is back on camera again, and speaks with such dignity, with such compassion. One of the things that always gets to me, as a Palestinian and as a Muslim too, is that we are portrayed to be these beasts and savages. Tell me a man that would be put through what Wael was put through and still stand on that pulpit and in front of the world with such dignity, with such grace. He continues to tell the story. Wael has become a hero to many of us, and he would be a hero in a world that wasn’t anti-Palestinian. And unfortunately, Wael has not only lost his family, he’s not only lost much of his own existence, but Wael is part of the greater story of erasure. So, even though he’s telling the story of the people of Gaza and he is the story of the people of Gaza, most people will never learn about Wael Al-Dahdouh.
I remember in 2021, there was an image that I will never forget of children having to go back to school after the bombardment of 2021. And next to them, they would have the empty chairs and the posters of the child that used to sit in that chair. I think what encapsulates it most for me, an image that I grew up with was the image of Muhammad al-Durrah, who was in his father’s lap over 20 years ago, and his father was begging for Israel to spare his child. And Muhammad was murdered in his lap. And you know what happened these last rounds? His other kids were murdered. So, Muhammad’s brothers were murdered and his father’s been on the run.
Every single person in Gaza has witnessed multiple wars, has witnessed the greatest suffocation of occupation, has even had their diets restricted, and has suffered under Israel state policy, which is called mowing the lawn. And everyone should look this up. This is what Israeli ministers refer to as routine bombardment of Gaza, mowing the lawn, which shows you that before they called us animals, they considered us insects. And unfortunately, the casualty counts get higher and higher every time, and people become more and more desperate, more and more helpless.
Gaza has been, unfortunately, the worst manifestation of anti-Palestinian bigotry. I mean, 60% of the population is a refugee population. What that means, and people do need to understand this, is that people move to Gaza from other parts of occupied territory to find refuge and were practically living on top of each other. There are people that are in the Gaza Strip that know that they had homes right beyond that apartheid wall and those homes were stolen from them, and they can’t even enter that territory anymore.
And they know that on the other side of that wall, there’s life. On the other side of that wall, there’s opportunity. On the other side of that wall, you have a passport, you have an airport, you have the ability to travel, you have the ability to export and import, you can dream. But behind that wall, you are to live until the next airstrike. You are to live until Israel mows the lawn again and hope that you’re not part of the grass. That’s what Gaza has been all of these years.
I want you to think about what you saw in Ukraine. Look, imagine coming back to school in Gaza in some destroyed building. You’re missing legs. You’re missing arms. You have white phosphorus burns. Have you ever seen what white phosphorus does to a person? There’s a reason why it’s a war crime. You have white phosphorus burns. Your mom’s dead. Your dad’s dead. All of your uncles and aunts are dead. All of your siblings are dead. Somehow you got pulled out of the rubble.
In my own family, my father’s in-laws, my father remarried after my mother passed away and they’re in Gaza, all of them were killed in an airstrike, except for an elderly aunt who somehow made it out of the rubble a day later. If you’re a child that’s been pulled out of the rubble, what are you going to grow up with? I mean, what are you supposed to feel? What are you supposed to think? And then you have racist commentators that say, “They could have turned that into a Singapore. The Palestinians are the authors of their own destruction, because if they wanted to, they could have turned this into a place of prosperity, but they keep on bringing destruction upon themselves.”
So, at the root of this is a bigotry. And again, this idea that Palestinians are savages, they’re animals, and the only way to deal with them is to continuously mow the lawn while simultaneously expanding the occupation and erasing anything that was ever called Palestine and any human being that was ever called the Palestinian.
You’ve already decided then whose life is worth more than the other. And so, instead of talking about the future of Israeli lives, why don’t you talk about the present of Palestinian lives? Instead of talking about whether or not your state will be secure in the future, talk to me about why you’re killing children now. Two thirds of the 30,000 civilians are women and children. And so, we can’t talk about what these children are going to grow up with. We should talk about whether or not these children are going to grow up in the first place. And that should be what dominates our conscience right now, and what drives our policies, and what drives our emotions right now.
There’s a reason why it’s called Palestinian self-determination. The United States likes to use it in all of its inconsequential statements, that we need Palestinian self-determination too. But the United States also voted against 138 states in the United Nations to allow for Palestinian self-determination. Self-determination means I get to pursue my own course of worth. I get to pursue my own happiness. I don’t have to depend on the benevolence of my occupier and when my occupier-
We talk about Israel’s right to defend itself. Israel is the occupier. Any occupied people by international law have the right to defend themselves, and any occupation is unjustified and illegal. And so, that’s where I start from. That’s the point that I come to this with. I think that the problem is that the Palestinians are told, “Find better ways to resist,” and then they are demonized when they try to find any other way to resist. If you go back a few years ago, you had the Great Return March. People in Gaza marched to the wall in what was one of the most inspiring protests or demonstrations that I had ever seen, March to the Wall, nonviolent protest, and snipers took out their legs. AP actually documented that Israeli snipers had knee counts, where you had an Israeli soldier that would say, “I took out 45 knees.” They actually had a register, a scroll of knee counts. And so, you have all these kids in Gaza walking around without legs now because they were targeted by snipers when they marched to the wall.
We’re told to find methods of nonviolent resistance, but when we boycott, when we launch boycotts around the world, in response to this transgression, in response to this ongoing oppression that the world powers have shown either the inability or the unwillingness to reign in, we’re told that that’s antisemitic, even though it is based on the South African method of bringing an end to the apartheid regime there. So, don’t respond with violence. Don’t respond nonviolently. Don’t protest. Don’t try to use people power in the face of global impotence at the political level.
Instead, let’s just keep talking about the two-state solution. And while talking about the two-state solution, if you were to look at a map under every single Israeli regime, conservative or liberal, whatever it is, the settlements have expanded. More Palestinian land has disappeared, more Palestinians have been dispossessed, more Palestinians have been killed. And so, we have these little pieces of land that keep on shrinking, and Jerusalem keeps disappearing, and there’s aggression whether Palestinians are resisting or not. But then we’re told, “Why can’t you people just pursue peace? Why can’t you just believe in a better way?”
All along, we’re hearing Israeli ministers become far more radical and open about their intentions to wipe us off the face of the earth. And that is actually their policy. It’s not just slogans. It’s not fringe elements. Actual Israeli ministers starting from the prime Minister himself, who has executed a policy of the removal of all Palestinian lands and Palestinian lives. And then we’re told, “Peace, peace, peace, peace.” And it is awfully ugly when you use the language of peace to suffocate the work of justice.
Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., one of his early sermons was something along the lines of, “When Peace Is Obnoxious,” when peace is obnoxious. It was in the 1950s around the Montgomery Bus Boycott, and he talked about how this obsession with the language of peace, is usually used to try to keep people in status quo and make them complacent with their miserable situation. That has been the story of the Palestinian people, that they’ve been told that if you do things differently, then you will find peace. But everything the Palestinians have tried, inside and outside, has been met with repression, the most violent forms of it there in Gaza and beyond. And so look, I start from the place of wanting to see peace. I want to see a situation in which no innocent people lose their lives, but we have to analyze the situation with some justice, with some fairness. What would any group of people do in this situation? That doesn’t mean that you hope for hell. That means that you analyze the existing circumstances of hell, which was life in Gaza even before October 7th.
It’s not because of American freedom. It’s because America is directly participating. The United States government is directly participating in the worst genocide that we have ever seen in our lives, playing out on screen, on social media, and we can’t do anything about it. So, I think that the point is that we need those international bodies. We need methods of effective accountability, and I would love to see blame properly assigned, and anyone that kills any innocent human being, taken to account, anyone that is guilty of a war crime, taken to account. We have to ask ourselves, why is it that Israel has violated over 63 United Nations resolutions, has expanded its occupation, has killed over 600 Palestinians before October 7th? Why is it that Israel cannot be held accountable? And so when you talk about words that get thrown around, that are used to justify violence against more innocent people, when I’m asked about terrorism, is it only terrorism if it’s a non-state actor, if someone’s sitting inside a room of suits, and can press a button and terrorize thousands of people and murder innocent people with no consequences, how is that not terrorism?
So, if terrorism is only to be assigned to non-state actors, then it’s a word without function. In fact, it’s a word that justifies more terror that is then reigned upon innocent populations. We have to have moral consistency. Children should not be killed. Non-combatant should not be targeted. We can all agree upon that. Why aren’t there proper investigative bodies, and then, proper international bodies of accountability then, that can execute their findings in a way that makes the world a better place. In a way that actually brings about more peace? And so, I think this is where we’re at right now, and this is the frustration, and this is the place that the Palestinians have been left.
And I remember responding to a local reporter, most people I just ignored. I responded to a local reporter. I said, “I’ve got people in my community that have already lost 10, 15 relatives at that point. Now, it’s 20, 30, and you haven’t said a word, and now you’re reaching out to me about the potential violence of Muslims in America. This is great. This is just like 911.” What are you going to do to restrain, you angry Muslims, from responding to what’s happening overseas, and responding to the call of a global day of Jihad?
Guess what? That night, this man takes out a military knife and attacks a six-year-old boy, a six-year-old Palestinian boy. By the way, it gets worse the more details that you know. And I recently had a chance to go and speak to his mom because she was in the hospital when I was there for the funeral, so I had a chance to visit her not too long ago.
Usually, in a scene like that, police are hesitant to classify something as a hate crime. It was classified as a hate crime the very same day. The thing is that, who’s complicit in that hate crime? What filled that man’s head for him to believe that he was doing an act of good by murdering a 6-year-old Palestinian boy? And in reality, uncle Joe was motivated by President Joe Biden, who repeated a debunked report that there were 40 beheaded Israeli babies. And he said, “I saw 40 beheaded Israeli babies.” The White House walked it back afterwards in a statement that no one reads because it was factually false. But Uncle Joe heard it, and had been binge-watching media about these violent Palestinians, and suddenly the propaganda overcame his own humanity and what he knew of that family. And he went in and ruined their lives.
And now, just like any mom, she hasn’t moved a thing. His bike is still in the same place it was. His toys are still in the same place. She’s left with this great void, this great emptiness. If that was the only crime, it would be enough to wake this country up and say, “Oh, no, this is not where we need to go. Oh, no.” Right? The last thing she heard him say was, “Oh no,” if that was it.
And I got the news, by the way, when I was ironically at a protest. We were protesting on Saturday, Downtown Dallas, and I started getting all these texts about what happened in Chicago. Oh, no. Right? No Muslims attacked anyone. The media was in a frenzy over the global day of Jihad. I got called by national news outlets and local news outlets, “What are you going to do about Muslims that are going to turn into monsters, and start killing people in the streets?” Next thing we know, we have a dead six-year-old Palestinian boy. I went to his funeral, and that’s speaks to the proximity part of things.
Yeah, it felt like stepping into Gaza for a moment. It didn’t feel like America. Didn’t feel like America. It felt like stepping into Gaza. His casket, was wrapped in a Palestinian flag. There was not just sadness at his funeral, but a deep sense of anger. At the funeral, some of his family members shouted out, “Joe Biden, you did this. Joe Biden, you did this.”
And I remember the next day, it was right after the funeral, looking at the front page of CNN, and the story of Wadea was buried in the last section, and it was right over all these meaningless ads. And I thought to myself, that’s it. If this was an Arab man, let’s be real. Let’s be honest here. If this was a Palestinian landlord that stabbed a six-year-old Jewish boy to death, this would have gotten more attention. It would’ve been the front page of the news. And rightfully so, people would have grieved over the insanity of stabbing a six-year-old boy 26 times. Wadea became an afterthought the very next day.
And so it’s an extension of the bigotry, an extension of the racism, and there’s so much that happens after that. There’s the terrible stabbing of Detroit synagogue president, Samantha Woll, and it’s horrible. She was stabbed in her driveway, immediately front page of all the news outlets. Immediately, it’s the main news story. And immediately, the implications are, “There go the Muslims. The Palestinians have lost their minds. The Muslims have… They are who we thought they were. That’s what it is. They are who we thought they were. They went and they stabbed a synagogue president.” It turned out it wasn’t a hate crime, although it’s an awful crime. It turned out it wasn’t a hate crime. Wadea is an afterthought.
I had people reach out to me afterwards expressing condolences, and I responded to them, those who have justified the genocide in Gaza but that were somehow offering condolences for Wadea privately, of course. By the way, if a Muslim would’ve committed that crime, every single Muslim leader would’ve had press in front of their door to condemn that crime. We would’ve all been made complicit.
Had people reach out to me, say, “I’m sorry about what happened with Wadea. It’s terrible. I saw you at the funeral, praying for you.” My response was, “What’s the difference between Wadea and a boy in Gaza? What’s the difference between me and Wadea?” I’m a Palestinian child. My parents made it out of Palestine. I was born in this country. If I didn’t have the opportunity to grow up here and to become the person that I became, you would’ve been justifying my murder right now. You would’ve been okay with my genocide. You would’ve been giving the talking points to the press to erase me. But you feel sorry because Wadea was killed.
And I think this is when we say that anti-Palestinian bigotry is an extension of Islamophobia. If a mosque gets targeted here, people rightfully rush to protect that mosque and say, “This is horrible, and it shouldn’t happen.” But when you have an Israeli soldier bombing a mosque and laughing like a maniac on video, and it’s going viral on TikTok, and there’s no way to reign that in. And you don’t have a word of condemnation about it. In fact, you are standing in the way of a ceasefire, then you’re a hypocrite. There’s no way around it. You are a hypocrite. What’s the difference between a mosque here and a mosque there? What’s the difference between a Palestinian life here and a Palestinian life there? If you’re okay with me being murdered there, don’t say that you care about my life here. And so that hypocrisy has been laid bare.
We have said multiple times, masks are falling, masks are falling. People that we thought were decent people, somehow have found it in themselves to justify a genocide. There is no shortage at this point of videos. And again, I could have made the excuse for you, maybe in the first few weeks, that you hadn’t seen enough. But with all social media suppression across all platforms, there isn’t a single platform that hasn’t suppressed Palestinian voices. With all that suppression, there are enough videos at this point of children whose heads have been blowing off. Of children walking around without limbs. Of parents carrying their kids in bags, not body bags, I mean grocery bags because they don’t even have body bags, and screaming out, and saying, “Why are you doing this to me? Make it stop.” And you come back, and you tell the person, ” It’s Hamas’ fault.”
Where is your humanity? Where is your sense of decency? Isn’t that the logic of the so-called terrorism that you condemn? Yeah, you can wipe out entire populations. You should have talked to Hamas. It’s Hamas’ fault. All the kids in the West Bank… Where does this end? So, what are your moral boundaries here? If that’s the logic that you’re okay with, then, in that case, when there’s a mass shooter in a school in the United States, just bomb the whole school. In fact, bomb the whole town if you can’t find the mass shooter. Where does this end for you? And so when I say people have lost their humanity, they’re killing us overseas, but their hearts are dying. People have lost their humanity. They’ve lost any sense of morality and their moral boundaries, and being there, and participating in this funeral, it was anger. I’m not used to that. I’m not used to that.
I’m an imam. I pastor to people. I went to Christchurch, and that was the worst I’d ever seen before where 50 Muslims were killed by a white supremacist, and he murdered them with such callousness. And I remember being at those funerals, and there was anger, but it was just profound sadness because at least the rest of the world could all come out in one voice and say, “That’s wrong.” Now, most of the world sees what’s happening in Gaza and says, this is disgusting. Most of the world sees this, and says, “This is a genocide.” But we happen to live in this bubble here where we’re constantly being told, “We did this to ourselves.” And that’s the same logic that led to our initial expulsion, 1948. What was the crime of those 700,000 Palestinians that were driven out of their home in 1948? What did they do? They did not commit the Holocaust. They didn’t have a mass murder of Jews at their hands. What did they do? What crime were they paying for? And so, it’s been the consistent theme, this is the story of our people, not since October 7th, this is the story of our people for the last 75 years.
The United States is not just responsible at the governmental level for the genocide. It’s responsible for letting it get to this point in the first place. We have funded that arsenal. We’ve given them the most sophisticated weapons in the world to test on the most desperate population in the world. We’ve given them the weapons. It’s been bipartisan. We have issued, at most, inconsequential statements of condemnation, but at the same time, stopped any international body of law from actually holding it accountable.
So, the United States, at this point, unfortunately, has rightfully lost all credibility. It should remove itself from this because it is not an honest peace broker. I think Americans are probably sick of us paying for wars in general. I think Americans are probably sick of our tax dollars going to funding a genocide, while we have a rise of homelessness and income disparity here in the United States. I think that Americans probably don’t like that we’re making ourselves so deeply unpopular in the world because of Israel’s actions. So, in the immediate moment, make the stop.
The United States could have had a ceasefire a long time ago. The United States could have ended this genocide right away. The reason why this is continuing is because of US foreign policy. And in the process of Joe Biden talking about managing this crisis and talking about making things better, there have only been more bills that have come out of Congress. In fact, he’s bypassed Congress to fund the arsenal, to keep replenishing the arsenal. Stop paying for weapons. Stop paying for someone else’s war crimes. Stop protecting another country as it commits these war crimes. And if you can’t be an honest peace broker, get out of the process.
He has failed to speak to Palestinian humanity. He has spoken with deep passion and concern, as has Anthony Blinken, about the devastation in Israel and the way that people are feeling in Israel and has shown nothing of that sort towards Palestinians. We don’t want the rhetoric. We really don’t want the rhetoric. When people say, “Call for a ceasefire,” the United States has had an opportunity, and has an opportunity to really walk back and reflect on its entire policy towards Israel-Palestine. This is a moment of reflection. This is a moment of…
And so we will make him hear us set the polls and any politician, for Congress or otherwise, that has not called for a ceasefire that has been a part of this dehumanization, we will make sure that we cease support for them in any way as a community. It’s only right.
So he lost us a long time ago, but he’s definitely not getting us back after this in any way. And I can’t speak for all Muslims, but I think that come November, he and all of those politicians, especially in swing states that have turned their back on the Muslim community, and not just the Muslim community, by the way. 67% of this country wants a ceasefire. Three-fourths of Democratic voters want a ceasefire. Half of Republican voters want a ceasefire. It’s not just the Muslim community. This is not some radical opinion to call for a ceasefire, and every single politician that has refused to hear us is going to pay a price at the polls, as they should.
That doesn’t mean that we’re under any illusion that the other side promises us anything better. In fact, it feels like Republicans have simply rushed to out-racist the Democrats, to outpace them in terms of talking about how they’re going to be more unapologetic in supporting Israel unconditionally. It’s been pathetic, but something has to change, and I think that Americans of conscience have to look at how this failed political system has hurt people here and abroad and talk about how to transcend that with just more humanity. Again, when you have 67% of the American public that wants a ceasefire, but only a handful of congressmen out of over 500 can muster up the courage in the face of these super PACs to say that we should stop the genocide, what are you asking for here?
You’re asking for the genocide to stop. You’re asking for Israeli hostages to be brought home. You’re asking for Palestinian prisoners to be released. You’re asking for peace and to start carving the path out to end this once and for all in the most ambiguous way possible, by the way, because there aren’t many radical American politicians. It’s the way that the system is. In the most ambiguous, bare way possible, and you can’t even bring yourself to do that. This is already a failed democracy then. All the while, again, it always boggles my mind, if you’re from the America First crew, what’s America First about? Funneling billions and billions and billions of dollars to Israel while it carries out this genocide while people are starving here.
And if you’re part of the human rights crew and progressive crew, they have a term called progressive except Palestine, right? PeP, Progressive except Palestine. Where are all your notions of social justice? You talk about policing here, but you don’t talk about who trains our police departments in many major cities and the type of brutality that’s being carried out there. You talk about human rights at the border here, but you don’t talk about the assault on people at the border there. You talk about all of these things here, but you somehow use the exact same framings against the people there. So it’s exposed, I think, the moral bankruptcy of both political polar opposites that exist in this country right now and hopefully, evoked a greater societal sentiment to say this is ridiculous.
One of the things that is happening is that more people are getting their news outside of legacy media outlets. You can’t hide that many dead babies anymore. You just can’t. More people have woken up to the Palestinian plight now than ever before. More people are outraged that this has been our American foreign policy all throughout Democratic and Republican administrations. This is what we’ve been paying for? This is what we’ve been excusing? And Israeli leaders literally spit in the faces of whoever the American president is and says, “Yeah, we don’t care what they tell us to do.”
American leadership says, “We’re pushing Israel to minimize the casualties, to get less indiscriminate with its bombing, to manage the crisis, get a few more humanitarian corridors in, to make sure that Gaza is not evacuated and not ethnically cleansed, to make sure Palestinians can come back.” And Netanyahu comes on TV and says, “From the river to the sea,” how ironic is that? From the river to the sea, and that is his policy. “We’re going to make sure that Israel controls from the river to the sea, and we’re going to push Palestinians into Sinai and Muslim countries need to take them in.”
You have Israeli ministers, national defense ministers saying things openly like, “We want to thin out the population,” i.e. ethnic cleansing. “We want to remove people, and the Muslim world needs to step up and take in these refugees.”
And the American administration or the American President says, or an American Secretary of State says, “We’re talking to them and we’re making sure that that’s not going to happen.” And if one of their ministers says something, Blinken maybe tweets out something about how that’s not going to happen, but then it happens anyway, and then we still write them the checks.
So I think most of the American public is probably going to get sick of this at some point, and just people of decency and people of conscience are going to say, “Yeah, this is not something we want to be a part of anymore.”
So what I remember first and foremost about the protest is that they were nowhere to be found on mainstream media, which was expected. But what I also remember from the actual day of and from all of the pro Palestine rallies is that I have never seen a more multi-faith, more diverse group of people consistently coming out for Palestine against the genocide in Gaza than I have this time around. And I think that has been the experience all around. There has been a pronounced Jewish presence, Jewish voice for peace, if not now, other anti-Zionist Jewish groups, groups that are against the genocide, against the occupation. Former Israeli soldiers even that have been showing up at these protests. There has been a pronounced presence from Native American groups, indigenous groups, all across the board, right? Christians, Jews, Muslims. I’ve never seen more diversity at these rallies than I’ve seen this time around, which I think is a sign of where things are going.
And if you look at the under 35 opinion polls, it’s very clear that there’s a generational gap here. That the country is moving into a more coherent direction and understanding what has been happening over there, and people from all backgrounds are standing up to it now.
I will tell you what many people are not seeing, Columbia University, two former IDF soldiers spraying Palestinian protesters with skunk water, which is what the IDF uses on Palestinian protesters and sometimes on worshipers on their way to Masjid al-Aqsa, which has multiple health repercussions. And so I was reading about how one of the students that was sprayed on campus, that Columbia Palestinian student has showered, at this point of us doing this podcast, 11 times, cannot get the smell out of her, has suffered all sorts of health issues as a result of being sprayed. Again, people are not seeing the other side here. People are not seeing what we’ve had to deal with at these protests. The open bigotry, and I want you to think about this by the way.
People go and serve in the IDF and then come back to the United States or the United Kingdom, and they’re not stigmatized for participating in apartheid policies or participating in a genocide. How am I supposed to feel as a Palestinian knowing that this guy right next to me participated in murdering my relatives in Gaza and has open rein to say what he wants to say or do what he wants to do? And so we haven’t seen the other side of that as well, but I’d recommend to anyone that’s talking about pro-Palestine protests to actually go see one. If you go to the protests, you listen to what’s being said, and you don’t just capture them, you got 400,000 people. You’re going to find four stupid people at a protest of 400,000 people because the protest scene is always messy.
But I think that this is a sign of the outrage and the anger and the frustration that many students have about being silenced. Again, in the media, in academic settings, professors are losing their jobs. Students are having their faces put on trucks, being doxed, these shady watch lists that get put out. I’m on a few of them as well and I just don’t care anymore. But you got these shady watch lists. People are losing their jobs at law firms. They’re losing all of their future opportunities, young Palestinian students, because of something that they tweeted that’s being taken out of context 10 years ago when they were 17 years old. It’s ridiculous. And so I think that we have to listen to the overwhelming majority of voices of people that are demonstrating for justice, not demonstrating against anyone, but demonstrating for people.
Again, there’s a large pronounced Jewish presence at every single pro-Palestine March. In fact, if you look at the organizations, the groups that have taken over Capitol Hill and train stations, it’s been, If Not Now, Not In Our Name, Never Again Means For Anyone. It’s been Jewish groups, many Jewish anti-occupation groups that have been at the forefronts. And I think that that’s where we have to pay attention to the beauty of how diverse this movement for a free Palestine has actually been.
As far as the rise in Islamophobia, it is felt. It’s under-reported, and it is part of the same framing that has led to the devastation of our people overseas. So there’s a rise in Islamophobia. There’s a rise in anti-Semitism. There’s a rise in hatred. All of that is true, but there’s also an ongoing genocide, and that should be our priority right now to end.
You can find statements from Benjamin Netanyahu in the ’80s, ’90s, 2000s. You can find him talking about this prior to October 7th and after October 7th. He’s definitely doing this now to save his political career. I think he wants to drive this as long as he possibly can because he knows that his days in office are numbered. But let’s also ask ourselves, why is it that Benjamin Netanyahu was able to rise to power in the first place? There’s something deeply troubling about the fact that his messaging ever resonated and what the prospects are for peace if Benjamin Netanyahu is able to rise with such pronounced hateful messaging.
However, the problem of the occupation is not Benjamin Netanyahu. The problem of the occupation is the occupation. Yair Lapid was the progressive, moderate alternative, and he drove just as bigoted of an agenda against the Palestinian people as possible. So to the Palestinian that’s living in Gaza or the Palestinian in the West Bank, whoever whoever’s sitting in that seat has meant the exact same thing to them. But Benjamin Netanyahu is certainly, I think, the loudest bigot that we have seen in that seat.
Those borders were drawn across occupied land and have been expanding into Palestinian territory, and people have been thrown out of their homes systematically and transgressed upon, even in the places that they fled to, which is Gaza. So when you talk about Israel having a right to defend itself, you should be talking about Israel’s duty to protect everyone under its occupation. Either lift the occupation or protect everyone under your occupation. Where are your borders? What is your responsibility? Who are you protecting? And I think that it speaks to the fact that Israeli policy considers Palestinians to be animals. They say as much and they do as much.
I’ve spoken about James Baldwin and James Baldwin talked about this pious silence surrounding Israel that we’re supposed to pretend like it’s just another state and ignore how it came into being and what it functions as. And I think that pious silence has to be broken. I remember John Stewart when he had the Daily Show several years ago, and he talked about this policy of, ” We have to defend ourselves.” And if someone was attacking your home, what would you do?
And the response was, “Well, why are you forcing people into a closet?” So you force people into this desperate situation. You drive them out of their homes, claim their homes, and then say that you’re defending yourself against them. The default is that an occupied people have a right to defend themselves. The occupier is obligated to those that they occupy.
So instead of the United States trying to get a ceasefire through, the United States decided, let’s go bomb Yemen too. Let’s spend more money on weapons and killing innocent people, which shows you exactly where our policy always leads itself to, unfortunately. So I think that most reasonable people would say that the problem is not with Yemeni rebels attacking ships. The problem is with Israel attacking innocent Palestinian lives.
When people talk about Israeli hostages and then talk about Palestinian prisoners, there’s already a problem with that framing. First of all, 2. 2 million people in Gaza are hostages. Every Palestinian that live…
Even what happened during that four-day truce, which all of us hoped would be extended and become permanent, where 150 Palestinian prisoners were released, Israel just went and picked up another 135 in the West Bank and threw them in prisons. That’s what I mean when I say you’re not addressing the root of the problem. The root of the problem is the occupation. The root of the problem is the apartheid. The root of the problem is the desperation that then drives the creation of all sorts of circumstances that will only further lead to the devastation of everyone, right? If you don’t solve that problem. At the root of that problem is the dehumanization of the Palestinian, because no one is raising alarms for those Palestinian hostages in Israeli military prisons. No one is putting up their pictures, and no one is talking about who they are, and their human stories, and the violence that’s been wreaked against them at every level.
If you don’t solve not just the root of occupation, but also the dehumanization that drives the occupation, which is unfortunately so pervasive right now in the discourse, then you’re going to continue to have this gap in how the world sees the plight of the Palestinians and how, unfortunately, the American public sees the problem of the Palestinians.
So let’s be clear about something here, that Malcolm never himself was part of any violence. Malcolm never did anything violent. Malcolm found it hypocritical to commit the oppressed people to nonviolence while not restraining the oppressor from its violence. I agree with Malcolm. It is absolutely hypocritical to focus your attention and your energy on the oppressed people, and committing them to nonviolence, while not directing your attention to the oppressor. When you have such asymmetry, when you have a clear aggressor and aggressed upon, you have a clear colonial entity and a clear colonized people, you focus your energy on restraining the colonial power. You focus your energy on restraining the oppressor, not the oppressed. That was Malcolm’s point, and it’s clear in his messaging throughout his religious growth, because, of course, Malcolm did evolve as a person. But Malcolm found it deeply hypocritical to commit the oppressed to nonviolence.
Malcolm also had a deep understanding of the way that brutality here, state violence in the United States was connected to its state violence abroad and American imperialism as a whole. Malcolm was the first to speak on Vietnam, the first major African American leader to speak on Vietnam. Martin followed. Malcolm also went to Gaza in 1964. 1964, went to Khan Yunis, which is now under heavy bombardment, and Malcolm penned an essay on Zionism, and connected Zionism to American imperialism and the broader implications of America’s foreign policy. So Martin and Malcolm, if you look at them in the capacity of what’s happening right now, where I would say you can find something that is deeply profound, James Cone wrote a book called Malcolm & Martin: Dreams and Nightmares. He wrote something profound to the effect that Martin tried to liberate white people from their own racism, whereas Malcolm tried to liberate Black people from the effects of that racism on them. They both played a deeply important role.
Self-determination is crucial to maintain the fuel of a movement. I think one of the things that probably deeply frustrates those that have sought the erasure of Palestine is that Palestinian consciousness has only continued to grow after 75 years. Palestinians in diaspora and Palestinians within occupied territory all are deeply rooted in their Palestinian identity and existence, and they’re not going away.
So I think that that’s where the function is important of this, whereas those that are complicit in the oppression need to be liberated from their own oppression and liberated from what they’re participating in. Most Americans that I talk to, that have absolutely no idea about what’s going on, when they come to hear just a few stories of the plight of the Palestinian people, and the types of brutality that we have encountered, wake up to this and say, “Oh, my God. This is what my tax dollars go to? This is what I’m a part of?” Right? So we have to liberate people across the board from being oppressors or from being oppressed.
I mentioned 2023, 13,000 new settlement units being advanced. If that happened anywhere, right? Just think about what that means when you clear out a village or two, and it’s not that big of a territory, right? When you know that that’s happening, and when you have been subjected to that, anyone that claims to be supporting you or uplifting you from that state of misery is going to have sympathy. Whether you agree with their mission, or their methods, or not, it’s human. It is human that if anyone says that they are going to get you out of this misery, and inflict pain on those who have given you a life of pain, and promised you a future of pain, you’re going to have sympathy to that group whether you agree with them or not.
I think that the question also has to be asked, what about the Israeli public? Israel holds all of the power in that region, holds all of the power over that territory. Is able to dominate the expansion of its own territory and diminish any Palestinian territory. Is able to place restrictions whenever it wants on Palestinian movement, trying to get to their holy sites or otherwise. Whether it’s Masjid Al-Aqsa, or the Holy Sepulchre, or the Church of Nativity, right? The majority of the Israeli public, before October 7th, unfortunately, according to all polls, favors a nondemocratic regime, the end of a two-state solution, does not care about the plight of Palestinian people, the majority of the Israeli public. Why is that? And what does that mean for Palestinians, right? Especially now after this genocide, the vast majority of the Israeli public does not favor a ceasefire, right?
What are we supposed to do when we see mainstream media coming out of Israel, pop culture, TikTok videos that only speak to a greater desire to eliminate the Palestinian people, right? So anyone that says that they are going to support your plight, whether you agree with their mission or their methods, is going to resonate with that child that has grown up in those desperate circumstances. Bassem Youssef had an interview with Piers Morgan and he was talking about this. He literally gave it a human story. If you’re a child that’s grown up, you’ve lost limbs, your parents are dead, your friends are dead. You have been made a refugee two or three times already. You have no future in sight, and then someone comes to you and says, “I’m going to help you and I’m going to fight back on your behalf.” of course, it’s going to resonate. It’s human, right? So I think that it’s important for us to see the world through their eyes, rather than try to see the world through our eyes.
I do believe in the power of healing. I do believe in the power of growth. I do believe that we have seen ugly episodes of history before that have been rectified. I also believe in the heart of my people. I believe that the Palestinian people are people of resistance, they’re people of resilience, they’re people of courage. They’re people of benevolence and magnanimity, and they’re people who have been made to grow under the worst of circumstances. I don’t see, in the hearts of young Palestinians that have been tormented, I don’t see darkness. I see light. I see the ability to still laugh and find joy despite everything that’s happened. So I think that the urgency right now just has to be towards ensuring that they have a life, that they’re not being killed anymore.
You know who else faced that bigotry? Jews trying to escape the Holocaust. 1939, 300,000 Germans applied for refuge here in the United States. I think only about 10,000 were allowed in, and we also turned away ships of Jews that were seeking refuge here in the United States, on what basis? That they were national security threats and could not be trusted. They could not be taken in. That’s the same bigotry that’s driving this, and I want you to think about it from that perspective. How deeply offensive that is when you have millions of Palestinians in diaspora. Where have Palestinians caused trouble where they’ve gone? Everywhere Palestinians are, they have overcome significant hurdles to become scientists, and doctors, and to grow themselves, and to grow the places that they’re in. Where have Palestinians that have been displaced all over the world caused issues for people, right? It’s both racist and factually incorrect.
That’s not the right question that should be asked. The question that should be asked are, why are these people driven from their homes? Not, why won’t other people around them open their homes to them? So I’ll just share with you that, even on a personal level, it’s really interesting, because sometimes on Twitter or wherever it is, it’ll be like, “Go back home.” Right? “Why don’t you go back home?” And I’m sitting there thinking to myself like, “Sure. My parents were driven from their homes. Yeah, sure. I was born in this country as a consequence of bad policy.” Now, I embrace my complicated identity in that regard, and I hope to be productive as an American, but I am a Palestinian. And Palestinians in diaspora that have been fortunate enough to have the ability to build and to overcome circumstances should not be an excuse for eliminating the Palestinians that remain in their homes under that torment. So this bigotry is not new, unfortunately. Its manifestation is ugly, and we have to push back on it whenever it shows itself, no matter who it’s being spoken about.
I think that what makes the Palestinian plight deeply painful, and maybe where the analogy even doesn’t do justice, is that from the river to the sea is less than 500 times what the United States is in terms of land. It’s not that big of a piece of land. The original lie was, “A land without a people for a people without a land.” The problem was that there were people on that land that were forcibly removed. So I think that the sheer size, right? We’re talking about a tiny piece of land, and a lot of people that were removed forcibly from their land, and that continue to be brutalized under those miserable conditions.
So we say, “Abraham, peace be upon him.” We say, “Jesus, peace be upon him.” We say, “Moses, peace be upon him.” We say, “Muhammad, peace be upon him.” We believe that Moses came to confirm what came from Abraham. Jesus came to confirm what came from Moses. Muhammad came to confirm what came from Jesus. They upheld the same message. God did not change over time, nor did the centrality of his message of monotheism change over time, and so to us, it’s one beautiful house. There’s a saying from the prophet Muhammad, peace be upon him, where he describes the house of prophethood, each prophet being a brick, and him simply being the last brick of a beautiful house. And so we love the prophets of God and we believe that they-
I think that it is particularly outrageous. So it’s complicated. Look, I expect more from people in the face of a genocide. We don’t have to agree on all the particulars, but we can agree that what is happening is morally outrageous. And so I think that I’ve had a few people that have reached out and said, “I want to say something, but I can’t.” And I’ve had to respond with, that’s not good enough. So I think that we have a problem, and instead of focusing on that problem, I’d like to focus on the more morally consistent voices across faiths that have risen to the moment rather than those that have failed.
So Islam is not violent. And I think that the history of Muslims also bears witness to that. The history of Islam is a history of contribution, is a history of building, is a history of medicine, and science, and math. And of course, Muslims have sometimes fallen short of Islamic standards in the past and in the present. But if you look at the overall history of Islam and the history of the Muslim community, that’s not the case. And when you look at the present Muslim community around the world, Muslims do not account for a greater proportion of violence than other faith communities. And again, the word terrorist is a functionless and meaningless word, because, to me, it’s no less violent if it’s commanded by a head of state or by a government than by a non-state actor. So Muslims do not account for a greater portion of violence now, nor have they accounted for a greater portion of violence in the past.
It was our direction of prayer, and it remained a fundamental part of our faith, fundamental holy sanctuary. There are three sanctuaries in Islam, Mecca, Medina, and Jerusalem, and Masjid al-Aqsa is precious to us. And so you can imagine then the pain of watching innocent Palestinian worshipers being stomped on by Israeli soldiers or skunk water being sprayed on people as they’re trying to walk in, or tear gassing taking place in the nights of Ramadan in that place.
The restrictions on people that live right next to it and that cannot pray in it due to the certain classification of Palestinian that they’ve been given or the age, because, generally speaking, if you’re younger, you’re not allowed to go to Masjid al- Aqsa, even if you live within the occupied territories. So it’s tough to watch such a sacred place with such an ugly occupation. But I’ll also say this, that the sanctity of a human being, the sanctity of just one person is greater than the sanctity of any place of worship to us. So the sanctity of one individual in Gaza or one individual in Jerusalem is greater to us than the sanctity of a place of worship. But it is all certainly interconnected.
I mean, they’re not shouting profanities. They’re not shouting words of emptiness or despair, but rather they are pouring out their hearts that are full of faith for the world to see. And I think that a lot of people have seen that and said, what is that? And so we’ve had multiple people come to the mosque. I’ve never seen more people become Muslim in my life, but not just that, but gain an appreciation for Islam. Like, what type of an engineering is there that allows for people to have that type of faith? So people are opening the Quran for the first time. People are asking questions about Islam in a way that shows that they’re inspired, even though they’re heartbroken by what they’re seeing.
So those are six articles of faith. So when you testify to the oneness of God and to the Prophet Muhammad, peace be upon him, being the final messenger. That’s called the Shahada. You embrace the package of those articles of faith. That’s the implication. Then you learn the prayers, learn to fast in Ramadan. You give what’s known as Zakat, the mandatory charity, 2.5% of your retained earnings, and Hajj, which is the pilgrimage to Mecca, if you can. So that’s the growth part, the journey. Once a person takes the testimony, they then grow. It’s really interesting because we always have those people that convert to Islam, like a week before Ramadan or even a day before Ramadan. So you’re Muslim and you got to fast the next day, and that’s always a challenging experience for people, but a fulfilling experience for many people when they embrace Islam at that point. And again, I mean, it’s simple. And I think that the beauty of Islam to many people is in its simplicity, one God, one humanity, one body of prophets, and one community.
Click link to jump approximately to that part in the transcript:
- 0:00 – Introduction
- 1:36 – Oct 7
- 10:32 – Palestinian diaspora
- 14:47 – Wael Al-Dahdouh
- 29:39 – Violence
- 53:17 – Biden and Trump
- 1:06:28 – Ceasefire march
- 1:16:42 – Benjamin Netanyahu
- 1:23:44 – Houthi rebel attacks
- 1:25:21 – Hostages
- 1:31:41 – MLK Jr and Malcolm X
- 1:44:22 – Palestinian refugees
- 1:53:32 – Mohammad and Jesus
- 2:04:24 – Al-Aqsa Mosque
- 2:13:22 – Ramadan
- 2:18:14 – Hope for the future
Introduction
Omar Suleiman
You always know when you live in Gaza that it’s only a matter of time before the next bombs drop. You know if you’re in Gaza that you are waiting for your death. People dream about going out in the world and pursuing education. People dream about going out in the world and pursuing economic opportunity. In Gaza, your idea of opportunity is an opportunity to see the next year. That has been the case. And so, when we talk about this not existing in a vacuum, if people only hear about Gaza on October 7th, that is a major part of the problem. And that is, again, part of the problem of our ignorance and our apathy. Why is it that the plight of the people of Gaza is not brought up until an attack happens on Israel?
You always know when you live in Gaza that it’s only a matter of time before the next bombs drop. You know if you’re in Gaza that you are waiting for your death. People dream about going out in the world and pursuing education. People dream about going out in the world and pursuing economic opportunity. In Gaza, your idea of opportunity is an opportunity to see the next year. That has been the case. And so, when we talk about this not existing in a vacuum, if people only hear about Gaza on October 7th, that is a major part of the problem. And that is, again, part of the problem of our ignorance and our apathy. Why is it that the plight of the people of Gaza is not brought up until an attack happens on Israel?
Lex Fridman
The following is a conversation with Imam Dr. Omar Suleiman, his second time on the podcast. He is a Palestinian American, a Muslim scholar, a civil rights leader, president of the Yaqeen Institute for Islamic Research, and is one of the most influential Muslims in the world. Our previous conversation was focused on Islam. This time the focus was on Gaza and Palestine.
The following is a conversation with Imam Dr. Omar Suleiman, his second time on the podcast. He is a Palestinian American, a Muslim scholar, a civil rights leader, president of the Yaqeen Institute for Islamic Research, and is one of the most influential Muslims in the world. Our previous conversation was focused on Islam. This time the focus was on Gaza and Palestine.
This is the Lex Fridman Podcast. To support it, please check out our sponsors in the description.
Oct 7
And now, dear friends, here’s Omar Suleiman. What did you think, feel, and pray for in the days that followed October 7th?
Omar Suleiman
I think the first feeling was that there’s going to be a lot of death and destruction in Gaza as a result. We always kind of see this where one Israeli casualty leads to hundreds of Palestinian casualties, right? So, it’s a pretty familiar cycle in some ways where there are daily transgressions against Palestinians in the West Bank and in Gaza, the checkpoints, the aggression on Mosque Al-Aqsa, the settlements expanding, the stories of Palestinian death. And then you have rockets fired from Gaza, and that’s when the Western press catches up and starts to cover it. Israel responds with Hellfire missiles, white phosphorus bombs, and the casualties are wildly disproportionate. And so, I think that I wasn’t surprised. I prayed for the people that I knew were going to bear the brunt of this outbreak, but the outbreak was predictable.
I think the first feeling was that there’s going to be a lot of death and destruction in Gaza as a result. We always kind of see this where one Israeli casualty leads to hundreds of Palestinian casualties, right? So, it’s a pretty familiar cycle in some ways where there are daily transgressions against Palestinians in the West Bank and in Gaza, the checkpoints, the aggression on Mosque Al-Aqsa, the settlements expanding, the stories of Palestinian death. And then you have rockets fired from Gaza, and that’s when the Western press catches up and starts to cover it. Israel responds with Hellfire missiles, white phosphorus bombs, and the casualties are wildly disproportionate. And so, I think that I wasn’t surprised. I prayed for the people that I knew were going to bear the brunt of this outbreak, but the outbreak was predictable.
Lex Fridman
You wrote a statement on October 9th. I was hoping to read it, if it’s okay?
You wrote a statement on October 9th. I was hoping to read it, if it’s okay?
Omar Suleiman
Yeah, go ahead.
Yeah, go ahead.
Lex Fridman
Our Palestinian casualties are always your footnotes. The daily humiliation of occupation ignored, the aggression by settlers and soldiers alike on holy sites and souls, the annihilation of entire families that follows, the devastation of whatever scraps remain in the open air prison of Gaza, unsustainable and inhumane. So, if you’re waking up to a sudden interest in the region and want to know what’s been happening, dig a bit deeper than two weeks and try to read beyond the headlines of a media that has been dehumanizing us for decades.
Our Palestinian casualties are always your footnotes. The daily humiliation of occupation ignored, the aggression by settlers and soldiers alike on holy sites and souls, the annihilation of entire families that follows, the devastation of whatever scraps remain in the open air prison of Gaza, unsustainable and inhumane. So, if you’re waking up to a sudden interest in the region and want to know what’s been happening, dig a bit deeper than two weeks and try to read beyond the headlines of a media that has been dehumanizing us for decades.
Omar Suleiman
Again, this was not surprising. This was very predictable. If you’ve been watching what’s been unfolding before October 7th, 2021, Human Rights Watch puts out the report, Threshold reached, Israel is an apartheid state. Amnesty International 2022, the crime of apartheid, showing how all of the legal determinations of apartheid have been reached, the occupations only getting more aggressive.
Again, this was not surprising. This was very predictable. If you’ve been watching what’s been unfolding before October 7th, 2021, Human Rights Watch puts out the report, Threshold reached, Israel is an apartheid state. Amnesty International 2022, the crime of apartheid, showing how all of the legal determinations of apartheid have been reached, the occupations only getting more aggressive.
Shireen Abu Akleh, a Palestinian American journalist, is shot dead in 2022 in front of the world. The United States says initially that if it is shown that Israel was complicit or that Israel carried out the execution, then there will be consequences. Of course, once it was shown that Israel was indeed responsible for the bullet that killed Shireen Abu Akleh, the United States did absolutely nothing. Shireen’s funeral was attacked. The pallbearers were beaten. Her casket almost fell. And again, the world is watching.
The aggression against worshipers in Al-Aqsa is getting worse. You have the Flag March, the Jerusalem Flag March where extremist settlers are let loose and wild on Palestinians by the thousands, chanting things like, “Muhammad is dead. We’re going to murder you, Arabs.” All with the protection of the state with Israeli soldiers. And throughout this time, it’s like something bad is going to happen.
And then 2023 comes along. You had 13,000 settler units in 2023. A plan of 13,000 settler units, the most in the history of the occupation, the most racist and extremist government, Israeli government, that you have ever had. And people don’t realize that in 2023 alone, over 600 Palestinians had already been killed. It just doesn’t make Western headlines. And so, if you wonder why the American public sees this so much differently than the rest of the world, it’s because American media shows the American public something so much different than what the rest of the world has shown. And so, this was a pressure cooker. This was going to explode. It is extremely predictable. You’ve given people absolutely no hope. And so, I think that as we’re watching that, it’s important for us to actually interrogate the ignorance that people have of the Palestinian plight, the ignorance of the root causes of this violence, the ignorance of the occupation. And also, ask yourselves, why is it that Israel can violate every single international law on the books, have all these determinations, and the United States keeps on issuing these inconsequential statements while also, at the same time, funding these aggressions?
So, it’s like, “Stop the settler violence.” The United States will issue statement after statements, “Stop the settler violence. Stop the incursions on Mosque Al-Aqsa. Stop violating the people in Jerusalem. Stop trying to wipe out the Palestinian people. Stop openly saying that there is no two-state solution, that we will never allow a Palestinian state to be established.” But at the same time, “Here’s your $3 billion check.” And if the United Nations issues any sort of resolution against Israel, or if any international body tries to hold Israel accountable, the United States stands in the way of any accountability. It’s important for us to ask why?
And so, I always tell people, “Read beyond the headlines.” Even now with the backdrop of a genocide, over 30,000 people have been killed. If you open the front page of most American mainstream sites, you will see stories about the hostages, the Israeli hostages. You will see stories about October 7th, but October 8th is missing. October 9th is missing. October 10th is missing. A hundred days of genocide are missing. And you’ll barely have a story that shows up every once in a while that is still very much so controlled by the Israeli propaganda machine, because while Israel kills Palestinian journalists, it also makes sure that American journalists are only able to tell a certain story. They’re only able to see Gaza from a certain perspective. They’re only able to speak about Gaza from a certain perspective.
And this is well-documented, that they have to review their media tapes with Israel before they can publicize them. And so, this is state propaganda at this point. The mainstream media and the United States government are in lockstep, telling a very skewed story. And that is leading to a greater sense of frustration. And I think the American public has been wronged as well by not knowing what’s happening.
Lex Fridman
You mentioned settlements. So, to you, this is bigger than Gaza. It is the West Bank. It is the Palestinian people broadly.
You mentioned settlements. So, to you, this is bigger than Gaza. It is the West Bank. It is the Palestinian people broadly.
Omar Suleiman
Absolutely. You can’t disconnect Gaza from Palestine. You can’t disconnect the West Bank from Palestine. You can’t disconnect Jerusalem from Palestine. And you can’t disconnect the very human story from the political plight.
Absolutely. You can’t disconnect Gaza from Palestine. You can’t disconnect the West Bank from Palestine. You can’t disconnect Jerusalem from Palestine. And you can’t disconnect the very human story from the political plight.
You interviewed Mohammed El-Kurd, met him. What did the world do when it saw the images of the Kurd household being taken over by a guy from Brooklyn or Long Island who just shows up and lays claim to their home? What did the world do when American settlers suddenly decided they could walk into historic Palestinian homes and throw people out of their homes? What did the world do? And so, yes, this is very much so connected to the broader issue of Palestinian existence.
If you realize here, we are erased in peace and we are erased in war. In peace, it’s the Abraham Accords, agreements between Israel and its Arab neighbors, which is supposedly to solve the Palestinian problem. The Palestinians are absent from their own fate, from discussions about their own fate. In war, it’s the Israel-Hamas war. It’s Israel and Gaza. Where are the Palestinian people? The millions of Palestinian people that have either been removed from their land or are being tormented on their land, where are they in this discussion?
Palestinian diaspora
Lex Fridman
What are the Palestinians in the diaspora feeling?
What are the Palestinians in the diaspora feeling?
Omar Suleiman
I think deeply frustrated, a great sense of anger, sadness. Every single Palestinian right now knows someone that’s been killed. Every single Palestinian is a part of a story of displacement or destruction. Every single Palestinian has a relative that’s either missing a limb or a loved one. Every single Palestinian in the world is traumatized by this. And in some ways, being outside of Palestine, being away from it all hurts even more because you see your people being killed, and starved, and brutalized, and slaughtered, and you can’t do anything about it. And the people around you are justifying that slaughter.
I think deeply frustrated, a great sense of anger, sadness. Every single Palestinian right now knows someone that’s been killed. Every single Palestinian is a part of a story of displacement or destruction. Every single Palestinian has a relative that’s either missing a limb or a loved one. Every single Palestinian in the world is traumatized by this. And in some ways, being outside of Palestine, being away from it all hurts even more because you see your people being killed, and starved, and brutalized, and slaughtered, and you can’t do anything about it. And the people around you are justifying that slaughter.
If you turn on a TV or if you open a mainstream news site, these sites are justifying your slaughter and people are being killed over there because they look like me, because they’re Palestinian like I’m Palestinian. And so, we’re watching this in diaspora with agony. We can’t go, we can’t heal our loved ones. We can’t comfort the people that are there. I recently spoke to a doctor who’s lost 75 relatives, 75 relatives in Gaza, and he’s a medical doctor. And all he wants to do is get in there and just use his medical expertise to help his people and he can’t.
And so, we’re watching it from afar, but our hearts are there. They are in the buildings that are being destroyed. They’re in the hospitals that are being bombed. They are there and they’re with the people.
Lex Fridman
You’re somebody who’s always rushed into the midst of a crisis. So, what does it feel like on a personal level to not be able to do that here, to go to Gaza to help?
You’re somebody who’s always rushed into the midst of a crisis. So, what does it feel like on a personal level to not be able to do that here, to go to Gaza to help?
Omar Suleiman
Yeah, it’s really hard. I mean, when any group of people are killed, my instinct, and I think a lot of people is to go there to help, whether it’s a natural disaster or especially after an incident of terror, wherever it is. It’s rush there and do the best that you can to help people get through it. So, it’s been extremely hard to watch this from afar and feel like I can’t do anything about it. And so, that’s why, instead, I think that most of us are driven to continue to be the voice of the voiceless.
Yeah, it’s really hard. I mean, when any group of people are killed, my instinct, and I think a lot of people is to go there to help, whether it’s a natural disaster or especially after an incident of terror, wherever it is. It’s rush there and do the best that you can to help people get through it. So, it’s been extremely hard to watch this from afar and feel like I can’t do anything about it. And so, that’s why, instead, I think that most of us are driven to continue to be the voice of the voiceless.
I always say that if they’ve made them faceless, they can’t make us voiceless. They have reduced our casualties in Palestine to a number. The number is hundreds a day, over 30,000 people. We’re averaging 10,000 people a month. The fact that they’ve been turned into faceless numbers with no stories, with no humanity, makes it that much more important for us to tell their stories here. And to remind the world that you’ve lost your humanity if you can watch this unfold and not even have the decency to call for a ceasefire. I mean, that’s where we’ve reached. That’s how low it is right now. Calling for a ceasefire has now become radical.
So, we have to remind the world that if you’re okay with the demolition of an entire town, or a city, or whatever it is that you want to call Gaza because it wasn’t always the Gaza Strip, but if you’re okay with this and you’re okay with this casualty count every single day, it’s not just them who are being killed; it’s your hearts that are dying. And I think that when I look back to Dr. Martin Luther King Jr, and I mentioned this, he wrote about Vietnam. He said that if America was to succumb to its spiritual death, the autopsy would read Vietnam. I would say that it would read Gaza now.
Wael Al-Dahdouh
Lex Fridman
Speaking of the people, the faces, the voices, one of the people you’ve talked about, you’ve posted about, you’ve written about is Wael Al-Dahdouh, him being hospitalized. He’s a Palestinian journalist and the bureau chief of Al Jazeera in Gaza City. What can you tell me about this man?
Speaking of the people, the faces, the voices, one of the people you’ve talked about, you’ve posted about, you’ve written about is Wael Al-Dahdouh, him being hospitalized. He’s a Palestinian journalist and the bureau chief of Al Jazeera in Gaza City. What can you tell me about this man?
Omar Suleiman
If Wael Al-Dahdouh wasn’t Palestinian, he’d be on the cover of Time Magazine right now. He would be the most celebrated journalist in the world. Wael Al-Dahdouh is from Gaza. He has been in Israeli prisons. He has been under Israeli airstrikes. He has seen the worst of the occupation before. He’s seen the worst of the genocide while on TV. I mean, and this is insane when you think about it. We have over a hundred journalists now, that’s more than any conflict in history, that have been killed. And there is sufficient evidence by international watchdogs that this is intentional. That journalists have been killed intentionally, but then their families.
If Wael Al-Dahdouh wasn’t Palestinian, he’d be on the cover of Time Magazine right now. He would be the most celebrated journalist in the world. Wael Al-Dahdouh is from Gaza. He has been in Israeli prisons. He has been under Israeli airstrikes. He has seen the worst of the occupation before. He’s seen the worst of the genocide while on TV. I mean, and this is insane when you think about it. We have over a hundred journalists now, that’s more than any conflict in history, that have been killed. And there is sufficient evidence by international watchdogs that this is intentional. That journalists have been killed intentionally, but then their families.
Wael was reporting on TV when an airstrike hits his wife, two kids and a grandchild. He goes to the scene. And he said this, “You never expect as a journalist to be the subject of the story.” Suddenly, the camera’s on him mourning over his dead wife and kids and grandkid, and he even says it in Arabic. He says, “They’re taking it out on our children. They’re taking it out on our children.” I’ve heard this from multiple people that have had relatives targeted that, “I wish it was me instead.” He gets back on camera the same day because he feels a responsibility to continue to cover the lives of the people of Gaza. He understands that his story, as devastating as it is, is not unique in regards to the people of Gaza, that there are many people whose families have been killed in airstrikes. All two million people have been traumatized in some way. And so, he gets back on camera, tells the story again, and then he is targeted himself, his arm struck. His cameraman, Samer Abudaqa, dies in front of him. He bleeds out. Wael watches him bleed out for hours. And while any aid workers try to reach them in the building that they were in, snipers would shoot all of those that were rushing to Samer.
So, he watches his cameraman and one of his best friends bleed out to death. Wael goes to the hospital. His arm is wrapped up, gets treatment. He’s back on camera the next day. A few weeks later, another child is killed again with his friend in a car. So, this was a targeted airstrike. His son is driving. And his son and his best friend are hit in an airstrike. Wael leads the funeral prayer, is back on camera again, and speaks with such dignity, with such compassion. One of the things that always gets to me, as a Palestinian and as a Muslim too, is that we are portrayed to be these beasts and savages. Tell me a man that would be put through what Wael was put through and still stand on that pulpit and in front of the world with such dignity, with such grace. He continues to tell the story. Wael has become a hero to many of us, and he would be a hero in a world that wasn’t anti-Palestinian. And unfortunately, Wael has not only lost his family, he’s not only lost much of his own existence, but Wael is part of the greater story of erasure. So, even though he’s telling the story of the people of Gaza and he is the story of the people of Gaza, most people will never learn about Wael Al-Dahdouh.
Lex Fridman
You have posted videos and written about what is happening in Gaza since October 7th. What has been happening there, the individual stories and the broader impact on the two million people there?
You have posted videos and written about what is happening in Gaza since October 7th. What has been happening there, the individual stories and the broader impact on the two million people there?
Omar Suleiman
Gaza has been described as the world’s largest open air prison, unemployment, blockaded from all directions, no airport, regular added restrictions placed even on their ability to fish. So, every aspect of Gazan life has been under occupation. I would argue that it’s an injustice to even call it an open air prison because inmates are not bombed in prisons routinely by the most sophisticated weapons in the world. Regular bombardment of Gaza, every single person in Gaza has lived through multiple rounds of bombardment. It is deeply distressing.
Gaza has been described as the world’s largest open air prison, unemployment, blockaded from all directions, no airport, regular added restrictions placed even on their ability to fish. So, every aspect of Gazan life has been under occupation. I would argue that it’s an injustice to even call it an open air prison because inmates are not bombed in prisons routinely by the most sophisticated weapons in the world. Regular bombardment of Gaza, every single person in Gaza has lived through multiple rounds of bombardment. It is deeply distressing.
I remember in 2021, there was an image that I will never forget of children having to go back to school after the bombardment of 2021. And next to them, they would have the empty chairs and the posters of the child that used to sit in that chair. I think what encapsulates it most for me, an image that I grew up with was the image of Muhammad al-Durrah, who was in his father’s lap over 20 years ago, and his father was begging for Israel to spare his child. And Muhammad was murdered in his lap. And you know what happened these last rounds? His other kids were murdered. So, Muhammad’s brothers were murdered and his father’s been on the run.
Every single person in Gaza has witnessed multiple wars, has witnessed the greatest suffocation of occupation, has even had their diets restricted, and has suffered under Israel state policy, which is called mowing the lawn. And everyone should look this up. This is what Israeli ministers refer to as routine bombardment of Gaza, mowing the lawn, which shows you that before they called us animals, they considered us insects. And unfortunately, the casualty counts get higher and higher every time, and people become more and more desperate, more and more helpless.
Gaza has been, unfortunately, the worst manifestation of anti-Palestinian bigotry. I mean, 60% of the population is a refugee population. What that means, and people do need to understand this, is that people move to Gaza from other parts of occupied territory to find refuge and were practically living on top of each other. There are people that are in the Gaza Strip that know that they had homes right beyond that apartheid wall and those homes were stolen from them, and they can’t even enter that territory anymore.
And they know that on the other side of that wall, there’s life. On the other side of that wall, there’s opportunity. On the other side of that wall, you have a passport, you have an airport, you have the ability to travel, you have the ability to export and import, you can dream. But behind that wall, you are to live until the next airstrike. You are to live until Israel mows the lawn again and hope that you’re not part of the grass. That’s what Gaza has been all of these years.
Lex Fridman
So, pragmatically and psychologically, it’s very difficult to flourish when you’re just waiting for more bombardment.
So, pragmatically and psychologically, it’s very difficult to flourish when you’re just waiting for more bombardment.
Omar Suleiman
Because you know that it’s around the corner. You always know when you live in Gaza that it’s only a matter of time before the next bombs drop. You know if you’re in Gaza that you are waiting for your death. People dream about going out in the world and pursuing education. People dream about going out in the world and pursuing economic opportunity. In Gaza, your idea of opportunity is an opportunity to see the next year. That has been the case. And so, when we talk about this not existing in a vacuum, if people only hear about Gaza on October 7th, that is a major part of the problem. And that is, again, part of the problem of our ignorance and our apathy. Why is it that the plight of the people of Gaza is not brought up until an attack happens on Israel?
Because you know that it’s around the corner. You always know when you live in Gaza that it’s only a matter of time before the next bombs drop. You know if you’re in Gaza that you are waiting for your death. People dream about going out in the world and pursuing education. People dream about going out in the world and pursuing economic opportunity. In Gaza, your idea of opportunity is an opportunity to see the next year. That has been the case. And so, when we talk about this not existing in a vacuum, if people only hear about Gaza on October 7th, that is a major part of the problem. And that is, again, part of the problem of our ignorance and our apathy. Why is it that the plight of the people of Gaza is not brought up until an attack happens on Israel?
Lex Fridman
I’ve gotten a chance to witness a destroyed school in Ukraine. That’s something that is really difficult to see.
I’ve gotten a chance to witness a destroyed school in Ukraine. That’s something that is really difficult to see.
Omar Suleiman
You have over a hundred destroyed mosques. Every university in Gaza has been demolished. We’re seeing TikTok videos of Israeli soldiers laughing and singing as they press a button. And we see the demolition of every single university in Gaza. Schools have been reduced to rubble. There’s a cultural genocide as well.
You have over a hundred destroyed mosques. Every university in Gaza has been demolished. We’re seeing TikTok videos of Israeli soldiers laughing and singing as they press a button. And we see the demolition of every single university in Gaza. Schools have been reduced to rubble. There’s a cultural genocide as well.
I want you to think about what you saw in Ukraine. Look, imagine coming back to school in Gaza in some destroyed building. You’re missing legs. You’re missing arms. You have white phosphorus burns. Have you ever seen what white phosphorus does to a person? There’s a reason why it’s a war crime. You have white phosphorus burns. Your mom’s dead. Your dad’s dead. All of your uncles and aunts are dead. All of your siblings are dead. Somehow you got pulled out of the rubble.
In my own family, my father’s in-laws, my father remarried after my mother passed away and they’re in Gaza, all of them were killed in an airstrike, except for an elderly aunt who somehow made it out of the rubble a day later. If you’re a child that’s been pulled out of the rubble, what are you going to grow up with? I mean, what are you supposed to feel? What are you supposed to think? And then you have racist commentators that say, “They could have turned that into a Singapore. The Palestinians are the authors of their own destruction, because if they wanted to, they could have turned this into a place of prosperity, but they keep on bringing destruction upon themselves.”
So, at the root of this is a bigotry. And again, this idea that Palestinians are savages, they’re animals, and the only way to deal with them is to continuously mow the lawn while simultaneously expanding the occupation and erasing anything that was ever called Palestine and any human being that was ever called the Palestinian.
Lex Fridman
So, those kids growing up in Gaza now, to you, they have almost no choice but to have hatred for Israel?
So, those kids growing up in Gaza now, to you, they have almost no choice but to have hatred for Israel?
Omar Suleiman
It’s human. I mean, look, any child that is under that type of oppression is going to hate their oppressor. I don’t care who you are. I don’t care what you are. But here’s my problem with how that gets brought up. You’re talking about the future of the security of Israel. Even some people that speak about it seemingly from a place of being well-meaning, that say the only way that Israel can have its security is to stop killing Palestinians. And so, the future of Israel depends upon Palestinians not hating Israel so much. And so, we’ve got to stop tormenting these people so that they don’t grow up to want to torment us.
It’s human. I mean, look, any child that is under that type of oppression is going to hate their oppressor. I don’t care who you are. I don’t care what you are. But here’s my problem with how that gets brought up. You’re talking about the future of the security of Israel. Even some people that speak about it seemingly from a place of being well-meaning, that say the only way that Israel can have its security is to stop killing Palestinians. And so, the future of Israel depends upon Palestinians not hating Israel so much. And so, we’ve got to stop tormenting these people so that they don’t grow up to want to torment us.
You’ve already decided then whose life is worth more than the other. And so, instead of talking about the future of Israeli lives, why don’t you talk about the present of Palestinian lives? Instead of talking about whether or not your state will be secure in the future, talk to me about why you’re killing children now. Two thirds of the 30,000 civilians are women and children. And so, we can’t talk about what these children are going to grow up with. We should talk about whether or not these children are going to grow up in the first place. And that should be what dominates our conscience right now, and what drives our policies, and what drives our emotions right now.
Lex Fridman
When I had a conversation with Elon Musk, he suggested that what Israel should do is conspicuous acts of kindness. So, do as much positive things in Gaza as possible on a basic individual human level and at a policy level at every level. What do you think about that?
When I had a conversation with Elon Musk, he suggested that what Israel should do is conspicuous acts of kindness. So, do as much positive things in Gaza as possible on a basic individual human level and at a policy level at every level. What do you think about that?
Omar Suleiman
You don’t pass out candy in a concentration camp, you and the occupation. And so, there has to be a solution that is beyond merely acts of kindness. At the end of the day, if you’re occupying a people, you have to remove that occupation. Apartheid is not dealt with by acts of kindness on the part of the occupying power. Apartheid is dealt with by ending apartheid. And so, there has to be a level of accountability. It’s not just acts of kindness. It’s not just treating the people with more dignity. It’s giving them the ability to pursue their own dignity.
You don’t pass out candy in a concentration camp, you and the occupation. And so, there has to be a solution that is beyond merely acts of kindness. At the end of the day, if you’re occupying a people, you have to remove that occupation. Apartheid is not dealt with by acts of kindness on the part of the occupying power. Apartheid is dealt with by ending apartheid. And so, there has to be a level of accountability. It’s not just acts of kindness. It’s not just treating the people with more dignity. It’s giving them the ability to pursue their own dignity.
There’s a reason why it’s called Palestinian self-determination. The United States likes to use it in all of its inconsequential statements, that we need Palestinian self-determination too. But the United States also voted against 138 states in the United Nations to allow for Palestinian self-determination. Self-determination means I get to pursue my own course of worth. I get to pursue my own happiness. I don’t have to depend on the benevolence of my occupier and when my occupier-
Omar Suleiman
To depend on the benevolence of my occupier, and when my occupier feels like throwing me a few more crumbs, it has to end. There has to be a point now where the world says this is not sustainable. It’s not just about ending the present genocide. A ceasefire is the bare minimum. I think any decent human being would be calling for a ceasefire right now, but at some point you cease occupation, you cease apartheid because what led to the ability of Israel to carry out a genocide without any accountability was that the global arena has permitted it to do so, largely due to American obstruction of justice.
To depend on the benevolence of my occupier, and when my occupier feels like throwing me a few more crumbs, it has to end. There has to be a point now where the world says this is not sustainable. It’s not just about ending the present genocide. A ceasefire is the bare minimum. I think any decent human being would be calling for a ceasefire right now, but at some point you cease occupation, you cease apartheid because what led to the ability of Israel to carry out a genocide without any accountability was that the global arena has permitted it to do so, largely due to American obstruction of justice.
Violence
Lex Fridman
Is violence an effective method of resistance?
Is violence an effective method of resistance?
Omar Suleiman
So, the framework that I would propose is that Dr. King mentioned that peace is not the absence of violence, it’s the presence of justice. And so, occupation and apartheid are violent even in their most benevolent manifestations. The default of occupation is that it is unjustified. The default of apartheid is that it is unjustified, and it must be dealt with. The default of resistance to occupation and apartheid is that it is justified, but there can be transgressions even in resisting occupation and apartheid, right? And I come to this from an Islamic perspective. My moral framework is Islam. The prophet Muhammad, peace be upon Him, was outraged when he saw a woman or a child that was dead from the other side, the side of his persecutor. And so, yes, we have a saying as Muslims that they are not our teachers. Our oppressors are not our teachers, but the concept of resistance to occupation, it is morally justified. It is justified by international law. Any occupied people have the right to defend themselves.
So, the framework that I would propose is that Dr. King mentioned that peace is not the absence of violence, it’s the presence of justice. And so, occupation and apartheid are violent even in their most benevolent manifestations. The default of occupation is that it is unjustified. The default of apartheid is that it is unjustified, and it must be dealt with. The default of resistance to occupation and apartheid is that it is justified, but there can be transgressions even in resisting occupation and apartheid, right? And I come to this from an Islamic perspective. My moral framework is Islam. The prophet Muhammad, peace be upon Him, was outraged when he saw a woman or a child that was dead from the other side, the side of his persecutor. And so, yes, we have a saying as Muslims that they are not our teachers. Our oppressors are not our teachers, but the concept of resistance to occupation, it is morally justified. It is justified by international law. Any occupied people have the right to defend themselves.
We talk about Israel’s right to defend itself. Israel is the occupier. Any occupied people by international law have the right to defend themselves, and any occupation is unjustified and illegal. And so, that’s where I start from. That’s the point that I come to this with. I think that the problem is that the Palestinians are told, “Find better ways to resist,” and then they are demonized when they try to find any other way to resist. If you go back a few years ago, you had the Great Return March. People in Gaza marched to the wall in what was one of the most inspiring protests or demonstrations that I had ever seen, March to the Wall, nonviolent protest, and snipers took out their legs. AP actually documented that Israeli snipers had knee counts, where you had an Israeli soldier that would say, “I took out 45 knees.” They actually had a register, a scroll of knee counts. And so, you have all these kids in Gaza walking around without legs now because they were targeted by snipers when they marched to the wall.
We’re told to find methods of nonviolent resistance, but when we boycott, when we launch boycotts around the world, in response to this transgression, in response to this ongoing oppression that the world powers have shown either the inability or the unwillingness to reign in, we’re told that that’s antisemitic, even though it is based on the South African method of bringing an end to the apartheid regime there. So, don’t respond with violence. Don’t respond nonviolently. Don’t protest. Don’t try to use people power in the face of global impotence at the political level.
Instead, let’s just keep talking about the two-state solution. And while talking about the two-state solution, if you were to look at a map under every single Israeli regime, conservative or liberal, whatever it is, the settlements have expanded. More Palestinian land has disappeared, more Palestinians have been dispossessed, more Palestinians have been killed. And so, we have these little pieces of land that keep on shrinking, and Jerusalem keeps disappearing, and there’s aggression whether Palestinians are resisting or not. But then we’re told, “Why can’t you people just pursue peace? Why can’t you just believe in a better way?”
All along, we’re hearing Israeli ministers become far more radical and open about their intentions to wipe us off the face of the earth. And that is actually their policy. It’s not just slogans. It’s not fringe elements. Actual Israeli ministers starting from the prime Minister himself, who has executed a policy of the removal of all Palestinian lands and Palestinian lives. And then we’re told, “Peace, peace, peace, peace.” And it is awfully ugly when you use the language of peace to suffocate the work of justice.
Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., one of his early sermons was something along the lines of, “When Peace Is Obnoxious,” when peace is obnoxious. It was in the 1950s around the Montgomery Bus Boycott, and he talked about how this obsession with the language of peace, is usually used to try to keep people in status quo and make them complacent with their miserable situation. That has been the story of the Palestinian people, that they’ve been told that if you do things differently, then you will find peace. But everything the Palestinians have tried, inside and outside, has been met with repression, the most violent forms of it there in Gaza and beyond. And so look, I start from the place of wanting to see peace. I want to see a situation in which no innocent people lose their lives, but we have to analyze the situation with some justice, with some fairness. What would any group of people do in this situation? That doesn’t mean that you hope for hell. That means that you analyze the existing circumstances of hell, which was life in Gaza even before October 7th.
Lex Fridman
That said, you did talk about [inaudible 00:35:37] and dignity, and you mentioned transgressions, so there is places where violence can go too far?
That said, you did talk about [inaudible 00:35:37] and dignity, and you mentioned transgressions, so there is places where violence can go too far?
Omar Suleiman
Absolutely. So violence, again, the point is that you ask yourself why we’ve been silent about the violence all of this time. And you know what? When people say, “Well, what about this? Well, what about that?” My response is this. What I would love to see is effective international bodies of justice, being able to reign in any party that has committed an act of aggression or committed an act of injustice and hold them accountable. Any reasonable human being would say, “Yeah, you know what? There should be effective international bodies that can reign in parties that can’t be reigned in domestically, that could stop the violence. That could assign blame properly, and then have methods of accountability.” The problem is that Israel has been made invincible in the international arena because of the United States. And then we wonder why there’s such a rise in global anti-American sentiment.
Absolutely. So violence, again, the point is that you ask yourself why we’ve been silent about the violence all of this time. And you know what? When people say, “Well, what about this? Well, what about that?” My response is this. What I would love to see is effective international bodies of justice, being able to reign in any party that has committed an act of aggression or committed an act of injustice and hold them accountable. Any reasonable human being would say, “Yeah, you know what? There should be effective international bodies that can reign in parties that can’t be reigned in domestically, that could stop the violence. That could assign blame properly, and then have methods of accountability.” The problem is that Israel has been made invincible in the international arena because of the United States. And then we wonder why there’s such a rise in global anti-American sentiment.
It’s not because of American freedom. It’s because America is directly participating. The United States government is directly participating in the worst genocide that we have ever seen in our lives, playing out on screen, on social media, and we can’t do anything about it. So, I think that the point is that we need those international bodies. We need methods of effective accountability, and I would love to see blame properly assigned, and anyone that kills any innocent human being, taken to account, anyone that is guilty of a war crime, taken to account. We have to ask ourselves, why is it that Israel has violated over 63 United Nations resolutions, has expanded its occupation, has killed over 600 Palestinians before October 7th? Why is it that Israel cannot be held accountable? And so when you talk about words that get thrown around, that are used to justify violence against more innocent people, when I’m asked about terrorism, is it only terrorism if it’s a non-state actor, if someone’s sitting inside a room of suits, and can press a button and terrorize thousands of people and murder innocent people with no consequences, how is that not terrorism?
So, if terrorism is only to be assigned to non-state actors, then it’s a word without function. In fact, it’s a word that justifies more terror that is then reigned upon innocent populations. We have to have moral consistency. Children should not be killed. Non-combatant should not be targeted. We can all agree upon that. Why aren’t there proper investigative bodies, and then, proper international bodies of accountability then, that can execute their findings in a way that makes the world a better place. In a way that actually brings about more peace? And so, I think this is where we’re at right now, and this is the frustration, and this is the place that the Palestinians have been left.
Lex Fridman
So, to you, violence becomes terrorism when women and children, non-combatants, are killed, no matter who is doing the killing?
So, to you, violence becomes terrorism when women and children, non-combatants, are killed, no matter who is doing the killing?
Omar Suleiman
Absolutely. Absolutely.
Absolutely. Absolutely.
Lex Fridman
In America, for you, for other Palestinians, other Muslims in your community, what has all of this been like?
In America, for you, for other Palestinians, other Muslims in your community, what has all of this been like?
Omar Suleiman
It feels like there is a return to some of the days after 911, the dehumanization, the feeling of complete disregard for our humanity at the level of government, at the level of media. Feeling of an increase in surveillance, the feeling in an increase in bigotry. People are losing their jobs, and people are being berated on campuses, in grocery stores, and people are being killed. I went to the funeral of a 6-year-old boy who was killed directly due to anti-Palestinian propaganda. And so I think that a lot of us are feeling a return to that, but we also refuse to be cornered into a position where we are told to perpetually condemn acts of violence and not speak about the violence that’s committed against us here or abroad.
It feels like there is a return to some of the days after 911, the dehumanization, the feeling of complete disregard for our humanity at the level of government, at the level of media. Feeling of an increase in surveillance, the feeling in an increase in bigotry. People are losing their jobs, and people are being berated on campuses, in grocery stores, and people are being killed. I went to the funeral of a 6-year-old boy who was killed directly due to anti-Palestinian propaganda. And so I think that a lot of us are feeling a return to that, but we also refuse to be cornered into a position where we are told to perpetually condemn acts of violence and not speak about the violence that’s committed against us here or abroad.
Lex Fridman
Can you tell the story of this boy, Wadea Al-Fayoume? He’s a 6-year-old Palestinian-American boy who was stabbed 26 times in his home in Plainfield Township, Illinois. It was found to be a hate crime motivated by Islamophobia, and the attacker said, “You, Muslims, must die.”
Can you tell the story of this boy, Wadea Al-Fayoume? He’s a 6-year-old Palestinian-American boy who was stabbed 26 times in his home in Plainfield Township, Illinois. It was found to be a hate crime motivated by Islamophobia, and the attacker said, “You, Muslims, must die.”
Omar Suleiman
So, before Wadea was killed, Wadea was killed on a Saturday. It was the immediate Saturday after October 7th. I remember on Friday, media starts to reach out to every Imam in the country, every Muslim leader in the country, and say, “What are you going to do about this global day of Jihad? What are you going to do about the global day of Jihad?” It’s like, “What are you talking about?” It’s like, “Well, Hamas has called for a global day of Jihad, so how are you going to stop Muslims from attacking people?” Right? So, it’s Friday, and I’m like, “Well, this is the first I’m hearing from you.”
So, before Wadea was killed, Wadea was killed on a Saturday. It was the immediate Saturday after October 7th. I remember on Friday, media starts to reach out to every Imam in the country, every Muslim leader in the country, and say, “What are you going to do about this global day of Jihad? What are you going to do about the global day of Jihad?” It’s like, “What are you talking about?” It’s like, “Well, Hamas has called for a global day of Jihad, so how are you going to stop Muslims from attacking people?” Right? So, it’s Friday, and I’m like, “Well, this is the first I’m hearing from you.”
And I remember responding to a local reporter, most people I just ignored. I responded to a local reporter. I said, “I’ve got people in my community that have already lost 10, 15 relatives at that point. Now, it’s 20, 30, and you haven’t said a word, and now you’re reaching out to me about the potential violence of Muslims in America. This is great. This is just like 911.” What are you going to do to restrain, you angry Muslims, from responding to what’s happening overseas, and responding to the call of a global day of Jihad?
Guess what? That night, this man takes out a military knife and attacks a six-year-old boy, a six-year-old Palestinian boy. By the way, it gets worse the more details that you know. And I recently had a chance to go and speak to his mom because she was in the hospital when I was there for the funeral, so I had a chance to visit her not too long ago.
Lex Fridman
And she was attacked, also.
And she was attacked, also.
Omar Suleiman
She was attacked first. It was actually their landlord. So Hanaan, the mother, was at home with Wadea, 6-year-old boy. Landlord comes in, and with absolutely no emotion, just charges at her, starts with her. She was able to fight him off. Stabbed her initially seven or eight times with a military grade knife. She fought him off, escaped to call 911. And while she is calling 911, she hears Wadea. Wadea ran up to the man, calling him Uncle Joe because the landlord prior to that, had been kind to them, used to give Wadea toys. Wadea had an infectious, beautiful smile. Every picture you see of that kid, beautiful, beautiful, beautiful smile. And so, Wadea runs up to him, says, “Uncle Joe.” He runs up to him to give him a hug, even though he’s carrying a military grade knife with blood on it, because Wadea doesn’t believe that harm can come to him from that man. And Hanaan didn’t think that he would do anything to her kid, even in that fit of rage. The last thing that she says she heard was, “Oh, no,” Wadea the says, “Oh, no.” And then, he starts to stab him 26 times, says, “You, Muslims, must die.”
She was attacked first. It was actually their landlord. So Hanaan, the mother, was at home with Wadea, 6-year-old boy. Landlord comes in, and with absolutely no emotion, just charges at her, starts with her. She was able to fight him off. Stabbed her initially seven or eight times with a military grade knife. She fought him off, escaped to call 911. And while she is calling 911, she hears Wadea. Wadea ran up to the man, calling him Uncle Joe because the landlord prior to that, had been kind to them, used to give Wadea toys. Wadea had an infectious, beautiful smile. Every picture you see of that kid, beautiful, beautiful, beautiful smile. And so, Wadea runs up to him, says, “Uncle Joe.” He runs up to him to give him a hug, even though he’s carrying a military grade knife with blood on it, because Wadea doesn’t believe that harm can come to him from that man. And Hanaan didn’t think that he would do anything to her kid, even in that fit of rage. The last thing that she says she heard was, “Oh, no,” Wadea the says, “Oh, no.” And then, he starts to stab him 26 times, says, “You, Muslims, must die.”
Usually, in a scene like that, police are hesitant to classify something as a hate crime. It was classified as a hate crime the very same day. The thing is that, who’s complicit in that hate crime? What filled that man’s head for him to believe that he was doing an act of good by murdering a 6-year-old Palestinian boy? And in reality, uncle Joe was motivated by President Joe Biden, who repeated a debunked report that there were 40 beheaded Israeli babies. And he said, “I saw 40 beheaded Israeli babies.” The White House walked it back afterwards in a statement that no one reads because it was factually false. But Uncle Joe heard it, and had been binge-watching media about these violent Palestinians, and suddenly the propaganda overcame his own humanity and what he knew of that family. And he went in and ruined their lives.
And now, just like any mom, she hasn’t moved a thing. His bike is still in the same place it was. His toys are still in the same place. She’s left with this great void, this great emptiness. If that was the only crime, it would be enough to wake this country up and say, “Oh, no, this is not where we need to go. Oh, no.” Right? The last thing she heard him say was, “Oh no,” if that was it.
And I got the news, by the way, when I was ironically at a protest. We were protesting on Saturday, Downtown Dallas, and I started getting all these texts about what happened in Chicago. Oh, no. Right? No Muslims attacked anyone. The media was in a frenzy over the global day of Jihad. I got called by national news outlets and local news outlets, “What are you going to do about Muslims that are going to turn into monsters, and start killing people in the streets?” Next thing we know, we have a dead six-year-old Palestinian boy. I went to his funeral, and that’s speaks to the proximity part of things.
Yeah, it felt like stepping into Gaza for a moment. It didn’t feel like America. Didn’t feel like America. It felt like stepping into Gaza. His casket, was wrapped in a Palestinian flag. There was not just sadness at his funeral, but a deep sense of anger. At the funeral, some of his family members shouted out, “Joe Biden, you did this. Joe Biden, you did this.”
And I remember the next day, it was right after the funeral, looking at the front page of CNN, and the story of Wadea was buried in the last section, and it was right over all these meaningless ads. And I thought to myself, that’s it. If this was an Arab man, let’s be real. Let’s be honest here. If this was a Palestinian landlord that stabbed a six-year-old Jewish boy to death, this would have gotten more attention. It would’ve been the front page of the news. And rightfully so, people would have grieved over the insanity of stabbing a six-year-old boy 26 times. Wadea became an afterthought the very next day.
And so it’s an extension of the bigotry, an extension of the racism, and there’s so much that happens after that. There’s the terrible stabbing of Detroit synagogue president, Samantha Woll, and it’s horrible. She was stabbed in her driveway, immediately front page of all the news outlets. Immediately, it’s the main news story. And immediately, the implications are, “There go the Muslims. The Palestinians have lost their minds. The Muslims have… They are who we thought they were. That’s what it is. They are who we thought they were. They went and they stabbed a synagogue president.” It turned out it wasn’t a hate crime, although it’s an awful crime. It turned out it wasn’t a hate crime. Wadea is an afterthought.
I had people reach out to me afterwards expressing condolences, and I responded to them, those who have justified the genocide in Gaza but that were somehow offering condolences for Wadea privately, of course. By the way, if a Muslim would’ve committed that crime, every single Muslim leader would’ve had press in front of their door to condemn that crime. We would’ve all been made complicit.
Had people reach out to me, say, “I’m sorry about what happened with Wadea. It’s terrible. I saw you at the funeral, praying for you.” My response was, “What’s the difference between Wadea and a boy in Gaza? What’s the difference between me and Wadea?” I’m a Palestinian child. My parents made it out of Palestine. I was born in this country. If I didn’t have the opportunity to grow up here and to become the person that I became, you would’ve been justifying my murder right now. You would’ve been okay with my genocide. You would’ve been giving the talking points to the press to erase me. But you feel sorry because Wadea was killed.
And I think this is when we say that anti-Palestinian bigotry is an extension of Islamophobia. If a mosque gets targeted here, people rightfully rush to protect that mosque and say, “This is horrible, and it shouldn’t happen.” But when you have an Israeli soldier bombing a mosque and laughing like a maniac on video, and it’s going viral on TikTok, and there’s no way to reign that in. And you don’t have a word of condemnation about it. In fact, you are standing in the way of a ceasefire, then you’re a hypocrite. There’s no way around it. You are a hypocrite. What’s the difference between a mosque here and a mosque there? What’s the difference between a Palestinian life here and a Palestinian life there? If you’re okay with me being murdered there, don’t say that you care about my life here. And so that hypocrisy has been laid bare.
We have said multiple times, masks are falling, masks are falling. People that we thought were decent people, somehow have found it in themselves to justify a genocide. There is no shortage at this point of videos. And again, I could have made the excuse for you, maybe in the first few weeks, that you hadn’t seen enough. But with all social media suppression across all platforms, there isn’t a single platform that hasn’t suppressed Palestinian voices. With all that suppression, there are enough videos at this point of children whose heads have been blowing off. Of children walking around without limbs. Of parents carrying their kids in bags, not body bags, I mean grocery bags because they don’t even have body bags, and screaming out, and saying, “Why are you doing this to me? Make it stop.” And you come back, and you tell the person, ” It’s Hamas’ fault.”
Where is your humanity? Where is your sense of decency? Isn’t that the logic of the so-called terrorism that you condemn? Yeah, you can wipe out entire populations. You should have talked to Hamas. It’s Hamas’ fault. All the kids in the West Bank… Where does this end? So, what are your moral boundaries here? If that’s the logic that you’re okay with, then, in that case, when there’s a mass shooter in a school in the United States, just bomb the whole school. In fact, bomb the whole town if you can’t find the mass shooter. Where does this end for you? And so when I say people have lost their humanity, they’re killing us overseas, but their hearts are dying. People have lost their humanity. They’ve lost any sense of morality and their moral boundaries, and being there, and participating in this funeral, it was anger. I’m not used to that. I’m not used to that.
I’m an imam. I pastor to people. I went to Christchurch, and that was the worst I’d ever seen before where 50 Muslims were killed by a white supremacist, and he murdered them with such callousness. And I remember being at those funerals, and there was anger, but it was just profound sadness because at least the rest of the world could all come out in one voice and say, “That’s wrong.” Now, most of the world sees what’s happening in Gaza and says, this is disgusting. Most of the world sees this, and says, “This is a genocide.” But we happen to live in this bubble here where we’re constantly being told, “We did this to ourselves.” And that’s the same logic that led to our initial expulsion, 1948. What was the crime of those 700,000 Palestinians that were driven out of their home in 1948? What did they do? They did not commit the Holocaust. They didn’t have a mass murder of Jews at their hands. What did they do? What crime were they paying for? And so, it’s been the consistent theme, this is the story of our people, not since October 7th, this is the story of our people for the last 75 years.
Biden and Trump
Lex Fridman
There is a deep geopolitical connection between the United States and that part of the world. What is the role of US politicians in all of this?
There is a deep geopolitical connection between the United States and that part of the world. What is the role of US politicians in all of this?
Omar Suleiman
James Baldwin wrote about how Israel was created as an extension of United States policy to be a colonial entity at the gates of the Middle East, and to function essentially as a military base out there, and as a means of extending its policy throughout the Middle East, and it has functioned as such. The United States is not an honest peace broker. It never has been an honest peace broker. The United States has never shown any meaningful inclination towards peace. Has guarded and protected Israel from international accountability, has made Israel invincible.
James Baldwin wrote about how Israel was created as an extension of United States policy to be a colonial entity at the gates of the Middle East, and to function essentially as a military base out there, and as a means of extending its policy throughout the Middle East, and it has functioned as such. The United States is not an honest peace broker. It never has been an honest peace broker. The United States has never shown any meaningful inclination towards peace. Has guarded and protected Israel from international accountability, has made Israel invincible.
The United States is not just responsible at the governmental level for the genocide. It’s responsible for letting it get to this point in the first place. We have funded that arsenal. We’ve given them the most sophisticated weapons in the world to test on the most desperate population in the world. We’ve given them the weapons. It’s been bipartisan. We have issued, at most, inconsequential statements of condemnation, but at the same time, stopped any international body of law from actually holding it accountable.
So, the United States, at this point, unfortunately, has rightfully lost all credibility. It should remove itself from this because it is not an honest peace broker. I think Americans are probably sick of us paying for wars in general. I think Americans are probably sick of our tax dollars going to funding a genocide, while we have a rise of homelessness and income disparity here in the United States. I think that Americans probably don’t like that we’re making ourselves so deeply unpopular in the world because of Israel’s actions. So, in the immediate moment, make the stop.
The United States could have had a ceasefire a long time ago. The United States could have ended this genocide right away. The reason why this is continuing is because of US foreign policy. And in the process of Joe Biden talking about managing this crisis and talking about making things better, there have only been more bills that have come out of Congress. In fact, he’s bypassed Congress to fund the arsenal, to keep replenishing the arsenal. Stop paying for weapons. Stop paying for someone else’s war crimes. Stop protecting another country as it commits these war crimes. And if you can’t be an honest peace broker, get out of the process.
Lex Fridman
So, there’s money that you just mentioned, and bills. And then, there’s rhetoric, which you also criticized, that he spoke about, the beheaded babies and things of that nature, so where has Joe Biden fallen short?
So, there’s money that you just mentioned, and bills. And then, there’s rhetoric, which you also criticized, that he spoke about, the beheaded babies and things of that nature, so where has Joe Biden fallen short?
Omar Suleiman
We need another podcast. That’s going to take a few hours to talk about where Joe Biden has failed. For one, the first time he seemed to find the word Palestinian in his vocabulary was when he accused the Palestinians of lying about the death toll in Gaza. And then, that turned out to also be false. In fact, the numbers that were coming out of the Gaza Health Ministry, according to multiple international bodies, have been underreporting Palestinian casualty counts. Israeli intelligence has said that the civilian count or the death toll is actually higher than what’s been coming out of the Gaza Health Ministry, so he’s failed on that front.
We need another podcast. That’s going to take a few hours to talk about where Joe Biden has failed. For one, the first time he seemed to find the word Palestinian in his vocabulary was when he accused the Palestinians of lying about the death toll in Gaza. And then, that turned out to also be false. In fact, the numbers that were coming out of the Gaza Health Ministry, according to multiple international bodies, have been underreporting Palestinian casualty counts. Israeli intelligence has said that the civilian count or the death toll is actually higher than what’s been coming out of the Gaza Health Ministry, so he’s failed on that front.
He has failed to speak to Palestinian humanity. He has spoken with deep passion and concern, as has Anthony Blinken, about the devastation in Israel and the way that people are feeling in Israel and has shown nothing of that sort towards Palestinians. We don’t want the rhetoric. We really don’t want the rhetoric. When people say, “Call for a ceasefire,” the United States has had an opportunity, and has an opportunity to really walk back and reflect on its entire policy towards Israel-Palestine. This is a moment of reflection. This is a moment of…
Omar Suleiman
… of reflection. This is a moment of restoration if you want it to be, right? And to think about what we’ve enabled in the first place, he’s shown absolutely no real empathy, and I think that he is under great delusion in thinking that the Muslim community or people of conscience are going to forgive this, are going to forget this come November. You can’t tell us that, ” Well, at least I don’t have the Trump Muslim ban,” while also carrying out a genocide primarily against Muslims and think that the Muslims are still going to vote for you.
… of reflection. This is a moment of restoration if you want it to be, right? And to think about what we’ve enabled in the first place, he’s shown absolutely no real empathy, and I think that he is under great delusion in thinking that the Muslim community or people of conscience are going to forgive this, are going to forget this come November. You can’t tell us that, ” Well, at least I don’t have the Trump Muslim ban,” while also carrying out a genocide primarily against Muslims and think that the Muslims are still going to vote for you.
And so we will make him hear us set the polls and any politician, for Congress or otherwise, that has not called for a ceasefire that has been a part of this dehumanization, we will make sure that we cease support for them in any way as a community. It’s only right.
Lex Fridman
So Biden has lost or is losing the hearts and the support of the Palestinian people and the Muslim people in America?
So Biden has lost or is losing the hearts and the support of the Palestinian people and the Muslim people in America?
Omar Suleiman
I don’t know if he ever had the hearts of the Muslim community to be honest with you. I personally was never a Joe Biden fan. I think a lot of people felt the same. This country unfortunately, the way that our political system is built is that you’re always voting for the lesser of the two evils. That’s always the way that it is, analyzing which evil is lesser, right?
I don’t know if he ever had the hearts of the Muslim community to be honest with you. I personally was never a Joe Biden fan. I think a lot of people felt the same. This country unfortunately, the way that our political system is built is that you’re always voting for the lesser of the two evils. That’s always the way that it is, analyzing which evil is lesser, right?
Lex Fridman
Yeah.
Yeah.
Omar Suleiman
And when people say, “If you vote for Donald Trump,” and I’m not planning to vote for Donald Trump either, but, “if you don’t vote for Joe Biden, then you are destroying democracy.” I’m like a democracy that’s given us a choice between Donald Trump. And Joe Biden is already a failed democracy, and so he never had the hearts and minds of the Muslim community. People always saw past his rhetoric. He always has had a terrible disposition towards Palestine. He’s always had a terrible disposition towards the Muslim world. His segregationist past comes out sometimes when he starts talking about the Muslim world, and you can hear the racism in his voice and you can hear the way that he talks about Palestinian life in such devalued fashion.
And when people say, “If you vote for Donald Trump,” and I’m not planning to vote for Donald Trump either, but, “if you don’t vote for Joe Biden, then you are destroying democracy.” I’m like a democracy that’s given us a choice between Donald Trump. And Joe Biden is already a failed democracy, and so he never had the hearts and minds of the Muslim community. People always saw past his rhetoric. He always has had a terrible disposition towards Palestine. He’s always had a terrible disposition towards the Muslim world. His segregationist past comes out sometimes when he starts talking about the Muslim world, and you can hear the racism in his voice and you can hear the way that he talks about Palestinian life in such devalued fashion.
So he lost us a long time ago, but he’s definitely not getting us back after this in any way. And I can’t speak for all Muslims, but I think that come November, he and all of those politicians, especially in swing states that have turned their back on the Muslim community, and not just the Muslim community, by the way. 67% of this country wants a ceasefire. Three-fourths of Democratic voters want a ceasefire. Half of Republican voters want a ceasefire. It’s not just the Muslim community. This is not some radical opinion to call for a ceasefire, and every single politician that has refused to hear us is going to pay a price at the polls, as they should.
That doesn’t mean that we’re under any illusion that the other side promises us anything better. In fact, it feels like Republicans have simply rushed to out-racist the Democrats, to outpace them in terms of talking about how they’re going to be more unapologetic in supporting Israel unconditionally. It’s been pathetic, but something has to change, and I think that Americans of conscience have to look at how this failed political system has hurt people here and abroad and talk about how to transcend that with just more humanity. Again, when you have 67% of the American public that wants a ceasefire, but only a handful of congressmen out of over 500 can muster up the courage in the face of these super PACs to say that we should stop the genocide, what are you asking for here?
You’re asking for the genocide to stop. You’re asking for Israeli hostages to be brought home. You’re asking for Palestinian prisoners to be released. You’re asking for peace and to start carving the path out to end this once and for all in the most ambiguous way possible, by the way, because there aren’t many radical American politicians. It’s the way that the system is. In the most ambiguous, bare way possible, and you can’t even bring yourself to do that. This is already a failed democracy then. All the while, again, it always boggles my mind, if you’re from the America First crew, what’s America First about? Funneling billions and billions and billions of dollars to Israel while it carries out this genocide while people are starving here.
And if you’re part of the human rights crew and progressive crew, they have a term called progressive except Palestine, right? PeP, Progressive except Palestine. Where are all your notions of social justice? You talk about policing here, but you don’t talk about who trains our police departments in many major cities and the type of brutality that’s being carried out there. You talk about human rights at the border here, but you don’t talk about the assault on people at the border there. You talk about all of these things here, but you somehow use the exact same framings against the people there. So it’s exposed, I think, the moral bankruptcy of both political polar opposites that exist in this country right now and hopefully, evoked a greater societal sentiment to say this is ridiculous.
One of the things that is happening is that more people are getting their news outside of legacy media outlets. You can’t hide that many dead babies anymore. You just can’t. More people have woken up to the Palestinian plight now than ever before. More people are outraged that this has been our American foreign policy all throughout Democratic and Republican administrations. This is what we’ve been paying for? This is what we’ve been excusing? And Israeli leaders literally spit in the faces of whoever the American president is and says, “Yeah, we don’t care what they tell us to do.”
American leadership says, “We’re pushing Israel to minimize the casualties, to get less indiscriminate with its bombing, to manage the crisis, get a few more humanitarian corridors in, to make sure that Gaza is not evacuated and not ethnically cleansed, to make sure Palestinians can come back.” And Netanyahu comes on TV and says, “From the river to the sea,” how ironic is that? From the river to the sea, and that is his policy. “We’re going to make sure that Israel controls from the river to the sea, and we’re going to push Palestinians into Sinai and Muslim countries need to take them in.”
You have Israeli ministers, national defense ministers saying things openly like, “We want to thin out the population,” i.e. ethnic cleansing. “We want to remove people, and the Muslim world needs to step up and take in these refugees.”
And the American administration or the American President says, or an American Secretary of State says, “We’re talking to them and we’re making sure that that’s not going to happen.” And if one of their ministers says something, Blinken maybe tweets out something about how that’s not going to happen, but then it happens anyway, and then we still write them the checks.
So I think most of the American public is probably going to get sick of this at some point, and just people of decency and people of conscience are going to say, “Yeah, this is not something we want to be a part of anymore.”
Lex Fridman
Do you think there’s something that Donald Trump can do to help move this in the right direction?
Do you think there’s something that Donald Trump can do to help move this in the right direction?
Omar Suleiman
Trump’s first words were about how he’s going to be worse on this. So he talked about how he’s going to deport people, revoke visas of students that are part of these pro-Palestinian rallies.
Trump’s first words were about how he’s going to be worse on this. So he talked about how he’s going to deport people, revoke visas of students that are part of these pro-Palestinian rallies.
Lex Fridman
Also, the focus was on the rallies versus what’s going on abroad.
Also, the focus was on the rallies versus what’s going on abroad.
Omar Suleiman
Yeah, but look, we had a Donald Trump presidency. He moved the embassy to Jerusalem. He was not better on this. Unfortunately, this is a bipartisan problem. And so again, we’re under no illusion here. We’re not looking to Donald Trump as a savior here, but we are going to penalize Joe Biden, and I can’t speak for everybody, but I think that that’s where a lot of our minds are at right now.
Yeah, but look, we had a Donald Trump presidency. He moved the embassy to Jerusalem. He was not better on this. Unfortunately, this is a bipartisan problem. And so again, we’re under no illusion here. We’re not looking to Donald Trump as a savior here, but we are going to penalize Joe Biden, and I can’t speak for everybody, but I think that that’s where a lot of our minds are at right now.
Ceasefire march
Lex Fridman
You spoke at the November 4th demonstration of Washington called the Free Palestine March. It had a lot of people, several hundred thousand people there. What do you remember from that experience?
You spoke at the November 4th demonstration of Washington called the Free Palestine March. It had a lot of people, several hundred thousand people there. What do you remember from that experience?
Omar Suleiman
Well, the first thing I remember is that there was no news coverage of it. So 400,000 people march on DC, one of the largest marches in history. It was nowhere to be found in mainstream media coverage. Whereas when the Stand With Israel Rally happened between the 300,000 strong Palestine rally and the 400,000 strong Palestine rally, there was a Stand with Israel rally where congressmen were bused from Congress to speak at that rally, Democrats and Republicans and high profile celebrities, and it was live-streamed across multiple places. I have to say this, the ICJ, if that wasn’t the greatest display of media bias in the domain of United States mainstream media, then I don’t know what is. They live-streamed the Israeli defense on multiple news outlets defending itself against the case for genocide and completely omitted the South African presentation of the crimes of Israel the day before.
Well, the first thing I remember is that there was no news coverage of it. So 400,000 people march on DC, one of the largest marches in history. It was nowhere to be found in mainstream media coverage. Whereas when the Stand With Israel Rally happened between the 300,000 strong Palestine rally and the 400,000 strong Palestine rally, there was a Stand with Israel rally where congressmen were bused from Congress to speak at that rally, Democrats and Republicans and high profile celebrities, and it was live-streamed across multiple places. I have to say this, the ICJ, if that wasn’t the greatest display of media bias in the domain of United States mainstream media, then I don’t know what is. They live-streamed the Israeli defense on multiple news outlets defending itself against the case for genocide and completely omitted the South African presentation of the crimes of Israel the day before.
So what I remember first and foremost about the protest is that they were nowhere to be found on mainstream media, which was expected. But what I also remember from the actual day of and from all of the pro Palestine rallies is that I have never seen a more multi-faith, more diverse group of people consistently coming out for Palestine against the genocide in Gaza than I have this time around. And I think that has been the experience all around. There has been a pronounced Jewish presence, Jewish voice for peace, if not now, other anti-Zionist Jewish groups, groups that are against the genocide, against the occupation. Former Israeli soldiers even that have been showing up at these protests. There has been a pronounced presence from Native American groups, indigenous groups, all across the board, right? Christians, Jews, Muslims. I’ve never seen more diversity at these rallies than I’ve seen this time around, which I think is a sign of where things are going.
And if you look at the under 35 opinion polls, it’s very clear that there’s a generational gap here. That the country is moving into a more coherent direction and understanding what has been happening over there, and people from all backgrounds are standing up to it now.
Lex Fridman
What do you think about the protests on campus against Israel?
What do you think about the protests on campus against Israel?
Omar Suleiman
Every protest I’ve been to has had the exact same tenor, has had the exact same messaging, but you always have that idiot or two that shows up with a sign and no one knows who that idiot is, ironically. Never comes with anybody else, always shows up somehow in the middle of the protest and puts up a sign that says something completely contrary to the messaging of the protest, and then all the cameras shift towards that guy. I see it every single time. But the overwhelming tenor of all of these protests has been consistent. It’s been calling for freedom. It’s been calling for liberation. It’s been calling for an end to the genocide, a ceasefire, an end to the occupation, an end to the apartheid.
Every protest I’ve been to has had the exact same tenor, has had the exact same messaging, but you always have that idiot or two that shows up with a sign and no one knows who that idiot is, ironically. Never comes with anybody else, always shows up somehow in the middle of the protest and puts up a sign that says something completely contrary to the messaging of the protest, and then all the cameras shift towards that guy. I see it every single time. But the overwhelming tenor of all of these protests has been consistent. It’s been calling for freedom. It’s been calling for liberation. It’s been calling for an end to the genocide, a ceasefire, an end to the occupation, an end to the apartheid.
I will tell you what many people are not seeing, Columbia University, two former IDF soldiers spraying Palestinian protesters with skunk water, which is what the IDF uses on Palestinian protesters and sometimes on worshipers on their way to Masjid al-Aqsa, which has multiple health repercussions. And so I was reading about how one of the students that was sprayed on campus, that Columbia Palestinian student has showered, at this point of us doing this podcast, 11 times, cannot get the smell out of her, has suffered all sorts of health issues as a result of being sprayed. Again, people are not seeing the other side here. People are not seeing what we’ve had to deal with at these protests. The open bigotry, and I want you to think about this by the way.
People go and serve in the IDF and then come back to the United States or the United Kingdom, and they’re not stigmatized for participating in apartheid policies or participating in a genocide. How am I supposed to feel as a Palestinian knowing that this guy right next to me participated in murdering my relatives in Gaza and has open rein to say what he wants to say or do what he wants to do? And so we haven’t seen the other side of that as well, but I’d recommend to anyone that’s talking about pro-Palestine protests to actually go see one. If you go to the protests, you listen to what’s being said, and you don’t just capture them, you got 400,000 people. You’re going to find four stupid people at a protest of 400,000 people because the protest scene is always messy.
But I think that this is a sign of the outrage and the anger and the frustration that many students have about being silenced. Again, in the media, in academic settings, professors are losing their jobs. Students are having their faces put on trucks, being doxed, these shady watch lists that get put out. I’m on a few of them as well and I just don’t care anymore. But you got these shady watch lists. People are losing their jobs at law firms. They’re losing all of their future opportunities, young Palestinian students, because of something that they tweeted that’s being taken out of context 10 years ago when they were 17 years old. It’s ridiculous. And so I think that we have to listen to the overwhelming majority of voices of people that are demonstrating for justice, not demonstrating against anyone, but demonstrating for people.
Again, there’s a large pronounced Jewish presence at every single pro-Palestine March. In fact, if you look at the organizations, the groups that have taken over Capitol Hill and train stations, it’s been, If Not Now, Not In Our Name, Never Again Means For Anyone. It’s been Jewish groups, many Jewish anti-occupation groups that have been at the forefronts. And I think that that’s where we have to pay attention to the beauty of how diverse this movement for a free Palestine has actually been.
Lex Fridman
So the average sentiment is anti- occupation, not anti-Semitic?
So the average sentiment is anti- occupation, not anti-Semitic?
Omar Suleiman
It’s incredibly lazy to say that anti-Zionism or that anti-occupation is anti-Semitic. First and foremost, the Palestinians are a Semitic people. That’s number one. Number two, look, I’m proud of my community. My community has stood against anti-Semitism in this country. The Muslim community has been at the forefront of condemning anti-Semitism. We have stood in front of synagogues. We have stood with the Jewish community when the Jewish community is attacked. This is about occupation. This is a story of a colonial entity that has driven us out of our homes and has done so in such a way that has forced us to try to be the voice of a people that are being exterminated overseas right now. This is not an anti-Semitic movement. This is a pro-freedom movement.
It’s incredibly lazy to say that anti-Zionism or that anti-occupation is anti-Semitic. First and foremost, the Palestinians are a Semitic people. That’s number one. Number two, look, I’m proud of my community. My community has stood against anti-Semitism in this country. The Muslim community has been at the forefront of condemning anti-Semitism. We have stood in front of synagogues. We have stood with the Jewish community when the Jewish community is attacked. This is about occupation. This is a story of a colonial entity that has driven us out of our homes and has done so in such a way that has forced us to try to be the voice of a people that are being exterminated overseas right now. This is not an anti-Semitic movement. This is a pro-freedom movement.
Lex Fridman
Do you think the protests ever go too far?
Do you think the protests ever go too far?
Omar Suleiman
The protest scene is a messy scene, and so again, you’re going to have sometimes that odd speaker or people get carried away in their emotions. And yes, sometimes people chant things or do things that are contrary to the protests. It’s pretty unfair when you judge the entire protest movement by some of these incidents that have happened at protests, and you don’t pay attention to what they’re protesting about in the first place, which is a genocide. Right now, everything is secondary to ending a genocide that is ongoing. In the course of this discussion, it’s not an exaggeration to say that at least 30, 40 people would’ve been killed just over the last few hours because we’re averaging 135 to 150 a day. So everything else is secondary to that. This is where we all need to be right now as people of conscience. How do we stop this? Because every single day is deeply costly.
The protest scene is a messy scene, and so again, you’re going to have sometimes that odd speaker or people get carried away in their emotions. And yes, sometimes people chant things or do things that are contrary to the protests. It’s pretty unfair when you judge the entire protest movement by some of these incidents that have happened at protests, and you don’t pay attention to what they’re protesting about in the first place, which is a genocide. Right now, everything is secondary to ending a genocide that is ongoing. In the course of this discussion, it’s not an exaggeration to say that at least 30, 40 people would’ve been killed just over the last few hours because we’re averaging 135 to 150 a day. So everything else is secondary to that. This is where we all need to be right now as people of conscience. How do we stop this? Because every single day is deeply costly.
Lex Fridman
Do you think there has been a rise of anti-Semitism and anti-Muslim hate in the US?
Do you think there has been a rise of anti-Semitism and anti-Muslim hate in the US?
Omar Suleiman
Yeah, I think that’s factual. Look, anti-Semitism is always to be condemned. It’s wrong. It’s something that as a Muslim community and as people of conscience, we have always taken a stand against. Jewish people should not be attacked for being Jewish people here or anywhere else. Synagogues should be protected, and if a person is attacked for being Jewish, we will be the first to go and to stand with them and to reject that attack on them. And there has been, as I said, an inspiring pronounced Jewish presence in the movement to end the occupation. And so we’re being morally consistent here.
Yeah, I think that’s factual. Look, anti-Semitism is always to be condemned. It’s wrong. It’s something that as a Muslim community and as people of conscience, we have always taken a stand against. Jewish people should not be attacked for being Jewish people here or anywhere else. Synagogues should be protected, and if a person is attacked for being Jewish, we will be the first to go and to stand with them and to reject that attack on them. And there has been, as I said, an inspiring pronounced Jewish presence in the movement to end the occupation. And so we’re being morally consistent here.
As far as the rise in Islamophobia, it is felt. It’s under-reported, and it is part of the same framing that has led to the devastation of our people overseas. So there’s a rise in Islamophobia. There’s a rise in anti-Semitism. There’s a rise in hatred. All of that is true, but there’s also an ongoing genocide, and that should be our priority right now to end.
Benjamin Netanyahu
Lex Fridman
I think we spoke last time, about a year ago, how has your view on Benjamin Netanyahu evolved over time?
I think we spoke last time, about a year ago, how has your view on Benjamin Netanyahu evolved over time?
Omar Suleiman
Benjamin Netanyahu has committed himself to the erasure of Palestinian people and Palestinian symbols and Palestinian land. From the very beginning of his political career, this is who he has been. We just haven’t been listening to him. He campaigned on bigotry and racism and on the promise that there would never be a Palestinian state. He campaigned on the promise that Gaza would be wiped out. He campaigned by saying, “The Arabs are rushing to the polls. We need to make sure that they don’t infect our policy.” He has always been this person. This has always been his policy. He has always indicated that genocide and ethnic cleansing is where he wants to go. So he’s simply manifesting what his message has always been, and anyone that ignores that is being disingenuous.
Benjamin Netanyahu has committed himself to the erasure of Palestinian people and Palestinian symbols and Palestinian land. From the very beginning of his political career, this is who he has been. We just haven’t been listening to him. He campaigned on bigotry and racism and on the promise that there would never be a Palestinian state. He campaigned on the promise that Gaza would be wiped out. He campaigned by saying, “The Arabs are rushing to the polls. We need to make sure that they don’t infect our policy.” He has always been this person. This has always been his policy. He has always indicated that genocide and ethnic cleansing is where he wants to go. So he’s simply manifesting what his message has always been, and anyone that ignores that is being disingenuous.
You can find statements from Benjamin Netanyahu in the ’80s, ’90s, 2000s. You can find him talking about this prior to October 7th and after October 7th. He’s definitely doing this now to save his political career. I think he wants to drive this as long as he possibly can because he knows that his days in office are numbered. But let’s also ask ourselves, why is it that Benjamin Netanyahu was able to rise to power in the first place? There’s something deeply troubling about the fact that his messaging ever resonated and what the prospects are for peace if Benjamin Netanyahu is able to rise with such pronounced hateful messaging.
Lex Fridman
So the claim that security of Israel is the primary concern is, you’re saying, a dishonest claim?
So the claim that security of Israel is the primary concern is, you’re saying, a dishonest claim?
Omar Suleiman
I think he’s trying to secure his seat in office. He knows his days are numbered. This is not about Israel. This isn’t about the hostages for him. This isn’t about anything but Benjamin Netanyahu, he is a narcissist. He’s a tyrant. He is despised around the world, and I think even amongst Israelis, I think there’s a deep hatred for him. I think the hostages’ families know that he doesn’t care about the families or about the hostages, that he’s driving a political agenda that doesn’t care about people, not Palestinian people or otherwise.
I think he’s trying to secure his seat in office. He knows his days are numbered. This is not about Israel. This isn’t about the hostages for him. This isn’t about anything but Benjamin Netanyahu, he is a narcissist. He’s a tyrant. He is despised around the world, and I think even amongst Israelis, I think there’s a deep hatred for him. I think the hostages’ families know that he doesn’t care about the families or about the hostages, that he’s driving a political agenda that doesn’t care about people, not Palestinian people or otherwise.
However, the problem of the occupation is not Benjamin Netanyahu. The problem of the occupation is the occupation. Yair Lapid was the progressive, moderate alternative, and he drove just as bigoted of an agenda against the Palestinian people as possible. So to the Palestinian that’s living in Gaza or the Palestinian in the West Bank, whoever whoever’s sitting in that seat has meant the exact same thing to them. But Benjamin Netanyahu is certainly, I think, the loudest bigot that we have seen in that seat.
Lex Fridman
Do you think Israel has the right to defend his borders?
Do you think Israel has the right to defend his borders?
Omar Suleiman
I think Israel has a responsibility to protect those that it occupies. I think you have to ask that question differently. Noura Erakat wrote a tremendous article on this from a legal perspective. When you talk about Israel defending itself, Israel is bound to occupation law. This is the problem all along. When John Kerry said, of course, “The US is great sometimes at issuing inconsequential statements that Israel has to choose whether or not it wants to be a Jewish or a Democratic state, but it can’t be both.” Israel wants to occupy and deny, and at the same time not be held to the standards of being an occupier, but be treated as if it’s some normal state.
I think Israel has a responsibility to protect those that it occupies. I think you have to ask that question differently. Noura Erakat wrote a tremendous article on this from a legal perspective. When you talk about Israel defending itself, Israel is bound to occupation law. This is the problem all along. When John Kerry said, of course, “The US is great sometimes at issuing inconsequential statements that Israel has to choose whether or not it wants to be a Jewish or a Democratic state, but it can’t be both.” Israel wants to occupy and deny, and at the same time not be held to the standards of being an occupier, but be treated as if it’s some normal state.
Those borders were drawn across occupied land and have been expanding into Palestinian territory, and people have been thrown out of their homes systematically and transgressed upon, even in the places that they fled to, which is Gaza. So when you talk about Israel having a right to defend itself, you should be talking about Israel’s duty to protect everyone under its occupation. Either lift the occupation or protect everyone under your occupation. Where are your borders? What is your responsibility? Who are you protecting? And I think that it speaks to the fact that Israeli policy considers Palestinians to be animals. They say as much and they do as much.
I’ve spoken about James Baldwin and James Baldwin talked about this pious silence surrounding Israel that we’re supposed to pretend like it’s just another state and ignore how it came into being and what it functions as. And I think that pious silence has to be broken. I remember John Stewart when he had the Daily Show several years ago, and he talked about this policy of, ” We have to defend ourselves.” And if someone was attacking your home, what would you do?
And the response was, “Well, why are you forcing people into a closet?” So you force people into this desperate situation. You drive them out of their homes, claim their homes, and then say that you’re defending yourself against them. The default is that an occupied people have a right to defend themselves. The occupier is obligated to those that they occupy.
Lex Fridman
Can you speak to this term “occupation” in Gaza? Because the people that say it is not an occupation say that Israeli troops have been pulled out from there before October 7th for many years. And to you, it still is a de facto occupation.
Can you speak to this term “occupation” in Gaza? Because the people that say it is not an occupation say that Israeli troops have been pulled out from there before October 7th for many years. And to you, it still is a de facto occupation.
Omar Suleiman
Israel doesn’t get to set the terms and then define them. It is an occupation according to any international legal standard. Israel controls the movement of everyone in Gaza. It controls the air and the seas. It controls the ability to import or export. The people that live in Gaza and the people that live in the West Bank, the Palestinians have had their identity stolen from them. So there’s the freedom of movement. There is the freedom of thriving. There is self-determination. All of that has been stolen from the people of Gaza. There’s no airport in Gaza, that was destroyed by Israel as well. It is an occupation at every level and by any meaningful legal determination.
Israel doesn’t get to set the terms and then define them. It is an occupation according to any international legal standard. Israel controls the movement of everyone in Gaza. It controls the air and the seas. It controls the ability to import or export. The people that live in Gaza and the people that live in the West Bank, the Palestinians have had their identity stolen from them. So there’s the freedom of movement. There is the freedom of thriving. There is self-determination. All of that has been stolen from the people of Gaza. There’s no airport in Gaza, that was destroyed by Israel as well. It is an occupation at every level and by any meaningful legal determination.
Houthi rebel attacks
Lex Fridman
What do you think about Yemen’s Houthi rebels attacking Israel in response to October 7th and then the United States and the UK initiating bombing of multiple targets in Yemen in response to that?
What do you think about Yemen’s Houthi rebels attacking Israel in response to October 7th and then the United States and the UK initiating bombing of multiple targets in Yemen in response to that?
Omar Suleiman
Yeah. I think that it’s clear that the United States cares more about its shipping lanes than it does about Palestinian lives, and that actually has proved it. Look, I do not support the Houthis as Houthis or their policies in general, but if you look at what has transpired and what they have said, they’re attacking these ships in response to the occupation or in response to the genocide and saying that they will continue to do so, to stop business as usual until a ceasefire is reached. They have not killed anyone. They have seized ships. They have blocked the lanes, but they have said that if a ceasefire happens, they will cease their activity.
Yeah. I think that it’s clear that the United States cares more about its shipping lanes than it does about Palestinian lives, and that actually has proved it. Look, I do not support the Houthis as Houthis or their policies in general, but if you look at what has transpired and what they have said, they’re attacking these ships in response to the occupation or in response to the genocide and saying that they will continue to do so, to stop business as usual until a ceasefire is reached. They have not killed anyone. They have seized ships. They have blocked the lanes, but they have said that if a ceasefire happens, they will cease their activity.
So instead of the United States trying to get a ceasefire through, the United States decided, let’s go bomb Yemen too. Let’s spend more money on weapons and killing innocent people, which shows you exactly where our policy always leads itself to, unfortunately. So I think that most reasonable people would say that the problem is not with Yemeni rebels attacking ships. The problem is with Israel attacking innocent Palestinian lives.
Hostages
Lex Fridman
You mentioned paying respects to the legacy of EBJ, Eddie Bernice Johnson, and remembering Palestinian child prisoners. Can you explain?
You mentioned paying respects to the legacy of EBJ, Eddie Bernice Johnson, and remembering Palestinian child prisoners. Can you explain?
Omar Suleiman
So Congresswoman Eddie Bernice Johnson was one of the few co-sponsors of a bill that has been on the floor of Congress for years, initially sponsored by Congresswoman Betty McCollum to penalize Israel for its detention of child prisoners. Thousands of children arbitrarily detained, put in military courts, solitary confinement, and yes, sexual violence that’s been documented by human rights organizations against them, and there have been no repercussions. So I want you to think about this, just the thought of conditioning aid to Israel so that it doesn’t indiscriminately bomb entire populations has not been able to find any home in mainstream American politics. For years. Just trying to stop Israel from picking up children and throwing them into military prisons where they disappear for decades at times, has not found any thrust in mainstream American politics. Whereas any resolution that is pro-Israel will make it past both chambers relatively quickly.
So Congresswoman Eddie Bernice Johnson was one of the few co-sponsors of a bill that has been on the floor of Congress for years, initially sponsored by Congresswoman Betty McCollum to penalize Israel for its detention of child prisoners. Thousands of children arbitrarily detained, put in military courts, solitary confinement, and yes, sexual violence that’s been documented by human rights organizations against them, and there have been no repercussions. So I want you to think about this, just the thought of conditioning aid to Israel so that it doesn’t indiscriminately bomb entire populations has not been able to find any home in mainstream American politics. For years. Just trying to stop Israel from picking up children and throwing them into military prisons where they disappear for decades at times, has not found any thrust in mainstream American politics. Whereas any resolution that is pro-Israel will make it past both chambers relatively quickly.
When people talk about Israeli hostages and then talk about Palestinian prisoners, there’s already a problem with that framing. First of all, 2. 2 million people in Gaza are hostages. Every Palestinian that live…
Omar Suleiman
Two million people in Gaza are hostages. Every Palestinian that lives under occupation is a hostage. But all of those prisoners that have been picked up, women, children, innocent people with absolutely no process of making sure that they’re treated right, or given fair trials, or even given a communication line with their families, or with any government to help them, is absolutely criminal. All of those prisoners are also hostages. When you already propose this idea that there are Israeli hostages and Palestinian prisoners, you’re already implying that one group is complicit in their own devastation, whereas another group has had devastation visited upon them entirely out of their own doing. So it’s important for people to learn about children prisoners who are indeed hostages to an apartheid system.
Two million people in Gaza are hostages. Every Palestinian that lives under occupation is a hostage. But all of those prisoners that have been picked up, women, children, innocent people with absolutely no process of making sure that they’re treated right, or given fair trials, or even given a communication line with their families, or with any government to help them, is absolutely criminal. All of those prisoners are also hostages. When you already propose this idea that there are Israeli hostages and Palestinian prisoners, you’re already implying that one group is complicit in their own devastation, whereas another group has had devastation visited upon them entirely out of their own doing. So it’s important for people to learn about children prisoners who are indeed hostages to an apartheid system.
Even what happened during that four-day truce, which all of us hoped would be extended and become permanent, where 150 Palestinian prisoners were released, Israel just went and picked up another 135 in the West Bank and threw them in prisons. That’s what I mean when I say you’re not addressing the root of the problem. The root of the problem is the occupation. The root of the problem is the apartheid. The root of the problem is the desperation that then drives the creation of all sorts of circumstances that will only further lead to the devastation of everyone, right? If you don’t solve that problem. At the root of that problem is the dehumanization of the Palestinian, because no one is raising alarms for those Palestinian hostages in Israeli military prisons. No one is putting up their pictures, and no one is talking about who they are, and their human stories, and the violence that’s been wreaked against them at every level.
If you don’t solve not just the root of occupation, but also the dehumanization that drives the occupation, which is unfortunately so pervasive right now in the discourse, then you’re going to continue to have this gap in how the world sees the plight of the Palestinians and how, unfortunately, the American public sees the problem of the Palestinians.
Lex Fridman
And to you, big peace agreements of the like of Abraham Accords should include Palestine.
And to you, big peace agreements of the like of Abraham Accords should include Palestine.
Omar Suleiman
Abraham Accords is nothing but an agreement in which you slap the name of Abraham on arms deals. In exchange for countries being able to undertake their own unholy pursuits, they use one of the holiest names in history and continue to erase the main victims of this atrocity. So the Abraham Accords are an insult to humanity, an insult to the Palestinians, an insult to the name of Abraham.
Abraham Accords is nothing but an agreement in which you slap the name of Abraham on arms deals. In exchange for countries being able to undertake their own unholy pursuits, they use one of the holiest names in history and continue to erase the main victims of this atrocity. So the Abraham Accords are an insult to humanity, an insult to the Palestinians, an insult to the name of Abraham.
Lex Fridman
But do you think something like that, agreements of that nature, of that scale, could be made that include the Palestinian people and that would actually make progress?
But do you think something like that, agreements of that nature, of that scale, could be made that include the Palestinian people and that would actually make progress?
Omar Suleiman
If they’re honest to the plight of the Palestinians. If they are honest to the roots of the problem, absolutely. Look, again, peace is sought, but peace cannot be used to silence. The entire peace process has been hung over the Palestinians all of these years while settlements continue to expand and their situation only continue to get worse. Is Israel really going to remove the 700,000, 800,000 settlers and suddenly change its tune on a two-state solution? Benjamin Netanyahu is saying right now, and he’s speaking to, unfortunately, what is clearly a majority of the Israeli public, that there will never be a Palestinian state. So these peace talks cannot be used to suffocate all of the work of justice and bringing Israel to accountability. The world has to act when they see apartheid. The world has to act when they see occupation. If the world fails to bring Israel to a place of accountability, then a few countries that have their own agendas cannot put forth anything meaningful for the victims of Israel, being the Palestinian people.
If they’re honest to the plight of the Palestinians. If they are honest to the roots of the problem, absolutely. Look, again, peace is sought, but peace cannot be used to silence. The entire peace process has been hung over the Palestinians all of these years while settlements continue to expand and their situation only continue to get worse. Is Israel really going to remove the 700,000, 800,000 settlers and suddenly change its tune on a two-state solution? Benjamin Netanyahu is saying right now, and he’s speaking to, unfortunately, what is clearly a majority of the Israeli public, that there will never be a Palestinian state. So these peace talks cannot be used to suffocate all of the work of justice and bringing Israel to accountability. The world has to act when they see apartheid. The world has to act when they see occupation. If the world fails to bring Israel to a place of accountability, then a few countries that have their own agendas cannot put forth anything meaningful for the victims of Israel, being the Palestinian people.
MLK Jr and Malcolm X
Lex Fridman
There’s a lot of questions I want to ask you about the nature of resistance and what is the proper way to resist. What is the practical, pragmatic, effective ways of resisting. One example that is often brought up is the difference between MLK and Malcolm X. One emphasized nonviolent resistance, the other emphasized any-means-necessary resistance. Which do you side with in general, and in this particular case of what has happened over the past 100-plus days?
There’s a lot of questions I want to ask you about the nature of resistance and what is the proper way to resist. What is the practical, pragmatic, effective ways of resisting. One example that is often brought up is the difference between MLK and Malcolm X. One emphasized nonviolent resistance, the other emphasized any-means-necessary resistance. Which do you side with in general, and in this particular case of what has happened over the past 100-plus days?
Omar Suleiman
In general, that framing relies on a sanitization of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., and a vilification of Malcolm X, that a lot of people do put forth and present as two polar opposites in how they approached the plight of Black people in America and resisting racism here in America. When I taught a course at Southern Methodist University on MLK, and Malcolm X, and Islam, and the Civil Rights Movement, what I’d often do is I’d give my students a set of quotes. I would say, “Assign this to Malcolm or Martin.” and they’d always get it wrong, right? You can find quotes from MLK in Breaking the Silence, and especially when he took a stand against the Vietnam War, that sound so radical when you compare them to the image of MLK. And Malcolm is, of course, turned into this militant, angry Muslim who just wanted violence and was seeking chaos here in the United States.
In general, that framing relies on a sanitization of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., and a vilification of Malcolm X, that a lot of people do put forth and present as two polar opposites in how they approached the plight of Black people in America and resisting racism here in America. When I taught a course at Southern Methodist University on MLK, and Malcolm X, and Islam, and the Civil Rights Movement, what I’d often do is I’d give my students a set of quotes. I would say, “Assign this to Malcolm or Martin.” and they’d always get it wrong, right? You can find quotes from MLK in Breaking the Silence, and especially when he took a stand against the Vietnam War, that sound so radical when you compare them to the image of MLK. And Malcolm is, of course, turned into this militant, angry Muslim who just wanted violence and was seeking chaos here in the United States.
So let’s be clear about something here, that Malcolm never himself was part of any violence. Malcolm never did anything violent. Malcolm found it hypocritical to commit the oppressed people to nonviolence while not restraining the oppressor from its violence. I agree with Malcolm. It is absolutely hypocritical to focus your attention and your energy on the oppressed people, and committing them to nonviolence, while not directing your attention to the oppressor. When you have such asymmetry, when you have a clear aggressor and aggressed upon, you have a clear colonial entity and a clear colonized people, you focus your energy on restraining the colonial power. You focus your energy on restraining the oppressor, not the oppressed. That was Malcolm’s point, and it’s clear in his messaging throughout his religious growth, because, of course, Malcolm did evolve as a person. But Malcolm found it deeply hypocritical to commit the oppressed to nonviolence.
Malcolm also had a deep understanding of the way that brutality here, state violence in the United States was connected to its state violence abroad and American imperialism as a whole. Malcolm was the first to speak on Vietnam, the first major African American leader to speak on Vietnam. Martin followed. Malcolm also went to Gaza in 1964. 1964, went to Khan Yunis, which is now under heavy bombardment, and Malcolm penned an essay on Zionism, and connected Zionism to American imperialism and the broader implications of America’s foreign policy. So Martin and Malcolm, if you look at them in the capacity of what’s happening right now, where I would say you can find something that is deeply profound, James Cone wrote a book called Malcolm & Martin: Dreams and Nightmares. He wrote something profound to the effect that Martin tried to liberate white people from their own racism, whereas Malcolm tried to liberate Black people from the effects of that racism on them. They both played a deeply important role.
Self-determination is crucial to maintain the fuel of a movement. I think one of the things that probably deeply frustrates those that have sought the erasure of Palestine is that Palestinian consciousness has only continued to grow after 75 years. Palestinians in diaspora and Palestinians within occupied territory all are deeply rooted in their Palestinian identity and existence, and they’re not going away.
So I think that that’s where the function is important of this, whereas those that are complicit in the oppression need to be liberated from their own oppression and liberated from what they’re participating in. Most Americans that I talk to, that have absolutely no idea about what’s going on, when they come to hear just a few stories of the plight of the Palestinian people, and the types of brutality that we have encountered, wake up to this and say, “Oh, my God. This is what my tax dollars go to? This is what I’m a part of?” Right? So we have to liberate people across the board from being oppressors or from being oppressed.
Lex Fridman
What do you think about the seeming fact the majority of Palestinians support the October 7th attacks?
What do you think about the seeming fact the majority of Palestinians support the October 7th attacks?
Omar Suleiman
You have to see their world through their eyes. You can’t try to see their world through your eyes. If you live under occupation, you’re routinely harassed at Israeli checkpoints. The occupation is expanding into your territory. You’re meeting families regularly that have been thrown out of their homes and that are looking for a new place in this shrinking territory. You deal with routine airstrikes. You have no way to get out. You have no way to grow. You don’t even have a passport. Your education is subpar. Your standards of living are lower than the rest of the world. And all you hear from the other side, which dominates the discourse and dominates every element of your existence, are promises of complete erasure.
You have to see their world through their eyes. You can’t try to see their world through your eyes. If you live under occupation, you’re routinely harassed at Israeli checkpoints. The occupation is expanding into your territory. You’re meeting families regularly that have been thrown out of their homes and that are looking for a new place in this shrinking territory. You deal with routine airstrikes. You have no way to get out. You have no way to grow. You don’t even have a passport. Your education is subpar. Your standards of living are lower than the rest of the world. And all you hear from the other side, which dominates the discourse and dominates every element of your existence, are promises of complete erasure.
I mentioned 2023, 13,000 new settlement units being advanced. If that happened anywhere, right? Just think about what that means when you clear out a village or two, and it’s not that big of a territory, right? When you know that that’s happening, and when you have been subjected to that, anyone that claims to be supporting you or uplifting you from that state of misery is going to have sympathy. Whether you agree with their mission, or their methods, or not, it’s human. It is human that if anyone says that they are going to get you out of this misery, and inflict pain on those who have given you a life of pain, and promised you a future of pain, you’re going to have sympathy to that group whether you agree with them or not.
I think that the question also has to be asked, what about the Israeli public? Israel holds all of the power in that region, holds all of the power over that territory. Is able to dominate the expansion of its own territory and diminish any Palestinian territory. Is able to place restrictions whenever it wants on Palestinian movement, trying to get to their holy sites or otherwise. Whether it’s Masjid Al-Aqsa, or the Holy Sepulchre, or the Church of Nativity, right? The majority of the Israeli public, before October 7th, unfortunately, according to all polls, favors a nondemocratic regime, the end of a two-state solution, does not care about the plight of Palestinian people, the majority of the Israeli public. Why is that? And what does that mean for Palestinians, right? Especially now after this genocide, the vast majority of the Israeli public does not favor a ceasefire, right?
What are we supposed to do when we see mainstream media coming out of Israel, pop culture, TikTok videos that only speak to a greater desire to eliminate the Palestinian people, right? So anyone that says that they are going to support your plight, whether you agree with their mission or their methods, is going to resonate with that child that has grown up in those desperate circumstances. Bassem Youssef had an interview with Piers Morgan and he was talking about this. He literally gave it a human story. If you’re a child that’s grown up, you’ve lost limbs, your parents are dead, your friends are dead. You have been made a refugee two or three times already. You have no future in sight, and then someone comes to you and says, “I’m going to help you and I’m going to fight back on your behalf.” of course, it’s going to resonate. It’s human, right? So I think that it’s important for us to see the world through their eyes, rather than try to see the world through our eyes.
Lex Fridman
So as Malcolm X did, you’re calling for highlighting the asymmetry in violence and asymmetry in moral reasoning.
So as Malcolm X did, you’re calling for highlighting the asymmetry in violence and asymmetry in moral reasoning.
Omar Suleiman
Absolutely. It’s important. You’re not going to be able to solve this problem unless you’re able to do that. When Malcolm said that if you stick a knife nine inches into my back and pull it out six inches, that’s not progress. Progress is healing the wounds, and you’re not even willing to acknowledge that the knife is there yet. Those that don’t acknowledge what is determined now by any international human rights organization, even Israeli human rights organization, B’Tselem and others, to be apartheid, a state of apartheid and a state of occupation, and now an unfolding genocide, are not partners for peace.
Absolutely. It’s important. You’re not going to be able to solve this problem unless you’re able to do that. When Malcolm said that if you stick a knife nine inches into my back and pull it out six inches, that’s not progress. Progress is healing the wounds, and you’re not even willing to acknowledge that the knife is there yet. Those that don’t acknowledge what is determined now by any international human rights organization, even Israeli human rights organization, B’Tselem and others, to be apartheid, a state of apartheid and a state of occupation, and now an unfolding genocide, are not partners for peace.
Lex Fridman
It just hurts me to think how long it takes to heal. Even if the healing begins now, with the knife metaphor, it’s just going to be generations. Because people don’t forget when your father and mother were murdered, or somebody that you know in your family was killed. They don’t forget.
It just hurts me to think how long it takes to heal. Even if the healing begins now, with the knife metaphor, it’s just going to be generations. Because people don’t forget when your father and mother were murdered, or somebody that you know in your family was killed. They don’t forget.
Omar Suleiman
Look, I think the point is that we have to come to terms with the fact that the trauma of the past does not justify the murder of the present, and the fear of the future does not justify the murder of the present. The urgency of the world right now should be entirely focused on ending this atrocity that, unfortunately, the world has become so complacent with. Again, prior to October 7th, the status quo was not acceptable, and there was no means in sight in the global arena to rein this in, to make Israel more accountable to stop this.
Look, I think the point is that we have to come to terms with the fact that the trauma of the past does not justify the murder of the present, and the fear of the future does not justify the murder of the present. The urgency of the world right now should be entirely focused on ending this atrocity that, unfortunately, the world has become so complacent with. Again, prior to October 7th, the status quo was not acceptable, and there was no means in sight in the global arena to rein this in, to make Israel more accountable to stop this.
I do believe in the power of healing. I do believe in the power of growth. I do believe that we have seen ugly episodes of history before that have been rectified. I also believe in the heart of my people. I believe that the Palestinian people are people of resistance, they’re people of resilience, they’re people of courage. They’re people of benevolence and magnanimity, and they’re people who have been made to grow under the worst of circumstances. I don’t see, in the hearts of young Palestinians that have been tormented, I don’t see darkness. I see light. I see the ability to still laugh and find joy despite everything that’s happened. So I think that the urgency right now just has to be towards ensuring that they have a life, that they’re not being killed anymore.
Palestinian refugees
Lex Fridman
I was wondering if you can comment on a idea and notion that comes up often in conversations about this, of why can’t other nations in the region take in Palestinian refugees?
I was wondering if you can comment on a idea and notion that comes up often in conversations about this, of why can’t other nations in the region take in Palestinian refugees?
Omar Suleiman
I think that we have to tackle what’s implied by that at multiple levels, and I actually want to walk back. I was listening to Nikki Haley, when she said in one of her interviews, “Why is it that you think no one wants to take the Palestinians in?” She had this deeply disturbing laugh to it. Or Ben Shapiro, when he said, “Israelis like to build and Arabs like to bomb crap and live in their sewage.” Or, “Why is it that no one wants to govern the Palestinians?” suggesting that Palestinians are ungovernable and not fit to bring into your countries, and that’s why they’re being turned away.
I think that we have to tackle what’s implied by that at multiple levels, and I actually want to walk back. I was listening to Nikki Haley, when she said in one of her interviews, “Why is it that you think no one wants to take the Palestinians in?” She had this deeply disturbing laugh to it. Or Ben Shapiro, when he said, “Israelis like to build and Arabs like to bomb crap and live in their sewage.” Or, “Why is it that no one wants to govern the Palestinians?” suggesting that Palestinians are ungovernable and not fit to bring into your countries, and that’s why they’re being turned away.
You know who else faced that bigotry? Jews trying to escape the Holocaust. 1939, 300,000 Germans applied for refuge here in the United States. I think only about 10,000 were allowed in, and we also turned away ships of Jews that were seeking refuge here in the United States, on what basis? That they were national security threats and could not be trusted. They could not be taken in. That’s the same bigotry that’s driving this, and I want you to think about it from that perspective. How deeply offensive that is when you have millions of Palestinians in diaspora. Where have Palestinians caused trouble where they’ve gone? Everywhere Palestinians are, they have overcome significant hurdles to become scientists, and doctors, and to grow themselves, and to grow the places that they’re in. Where have Palestinians that have been displaced all over the world caused issues for people, right? It’s both racist and factually incorrect.
That’s not the right question that should be asked. The question that should be asked are, why are these people driven from their homes? Not, why won’t other people around them open their homes to them? So I’ll just share with you that, even on a personal level, it’s really interesting, because sometimes on Twitter or wherever it is, it’ll be like, “Go back home.” Right? “Why don’t you go back home?” And I’m sitting there thinking to myself like, “Sure. My parents were driven from their homes. Yeah, sure. I was born in this country as a consequence of bad policy.” Now, I embrace my complicated identity in that regard, and I hope to be productive as an American, but I am a Palestinian. And Palestinians in diaspora that have been fortunate enough to have the ability to build and to overcome circumstances should not be an excuse for eliminating the Palestinians that remain in their homes under that torment. So this bigotry is not new, unfortunately. Its manifestation is ugly, and we have to push back on it whenever it shows itself, no matter who it’s being spoken about.
Lex Fridman
How difficult has it been for people in Gaza to flee?
How difficult has it been for people in Gaza to flee?
Omar Suleiman
I mean, they’re blockaded from all directions. There is nowhere for people in Gaza to go. They cannot get out, and the reality is that they don’t want to leave. They do not want to leave. The Palestinian people want to live in their land, in their homes, and to continue to produce an extension of the beautiful culture and legacy that was handed to them. They don’t want to leave. In fact, those that have fled for whatever reason, or have been able to get out for medical treatment, or because they have some sort of citizenship in other countries, all they’re talking about is going back and rebuilding. You can’t bomb Palestine out of our hearts. You cannot starve Palestine out of our hearts. I think that’s a critical mistake that Israel is making. It thinks that if it destroys Gaza enough, if it wipes out all the buildings, that people will never want to come back. But we don’t want to go anywhere, as a Palestinian people, in a way that would remove us from our homes.
I mean, they’re blockaded from all directions. There is nowhere for people in Gaza to go. They cannot get out, and the reality is that they don’t want to leave. They do not want to leave. The Palestinian people want to live in their land, in their homes, and to continue to produce an extension of the beautiful culture and legacy that was handed to them. They don’t want to leave. In fact, those that have fled for whatever reason, or have been able to get out for medical treatment, or because they have some sort of citizenship in other countries, all they’re talking about is going back and rebuilding. You can’t bomb Palestine out of our hearts. You cannot starve Palestine out of our hearts. I think that’s a critical mistake that Israel is making. It thinks that if it destroys Gaza enough, if it wipes out all the buildings, that people will never want to come back. But we don’t want to go anywhere, as a Palestinian people, in a way that would remove us from our homes.
Lex Fridman
The Palestinian people are proud people.
The Palestinian people are proud people.
Omar Suleiman
Yeah, you’ve met a lot of them, right? When you sat with Mohammed El-Kurd, or people in East Jerusalem, what those people have been subjected to, the harassment. Think about the tenacity and the character that it takes to still try to walk back into your home after an intruder has been brought in by the state, that’s sitting in your living room, that is pushing you around, and you’re saying, “I’m not leaving my home.” This is literally what’s been happening in East Jerusalem, and we’re not going anywhere. I think those of us that are in diaspora, Palestine is not leaving our hearts, and those of us that are still there are not leaving their land. The world has to make the occupier more accountable, not tell the occupied how to cope.
Yeah, you’ve met a lot of them, right? When you sat with Mohammed El-Kurd, or people in East Jerusalem, what those people have been subjected to, the harassment. Think about the tenacity and the character that it takes to still try to walk back into your home after an intruder has been brought in by the state, that’s sitting in your living room, that is pushing you around, and you’re saying, “I’m not leaving my home.” This is literally what’s been happening in East Jerusalem, and we’re not going anywhere. I think those of us that are in diaspora, Palestine is not leaving our hearts, and those of us that are still there are not leaving their land. The world has to make the occupier more accountable, not tell the occupied how to cope.
Lex Fridman
Do you ever imagine that if your family did not flee and you were now living, say in Gaza, what you would be doing?
Do you ever imagine that if your family did not flee and you were now living, say in Gaza, what you would be doing?
Omar Suleiman
I think about what could’ve been all the time. I actually mentioned this in the first D.C. protest, that I remember getting a news notification just prior to October, with my name in it. I always get these notifications, right, if my name has been mentioned in an article. So, “Oh, your name has been mentioned in an article.” and it was a 16-year-old Omar Suleiman who was murdered in the West Bank. He literally had my name. I held up his picture and I realized that could’ve been me. So I think of why God chose me to not be there, and hopefully Him choosing all of us that are not there to be for those that are still there, to be their voices. I’m grateful and I’m also in pain. I’m grateful for the opportunity to be able to speak on their behalf, but I’m also guilty that they have to bear the brunt of this evil hatred that unfortunately displaced our parents in the first place.
I think about what could’ve been all the time. I actually mentioned this in the first D.C. protest, that I remember getting a news notification just prior to October, with my name in it. I always get these notifications, right, if my name has been mentioned in an article. So, “Oh, your name has been mentioned in an article.” and it was a 16-year-old Omar Suleiman who was murdered in the West Bank. He literally had my name. I held up his picture and I realized that could’ve been me. So I think of why God chose me to not be there, and hopefully Him choosing all of us that are not there to be for those that are still there, to be their voices. I’m grateful and I’m also in pain. I’m grateful for the opportunity to be able to speak on their behalf, but I’m also guilty that they have to bear the brunt of this evil hatred that unfortunately displaced our parents in the first place.
Lex Fridman
You mentioned that Palestinians invoke the plight of Indigenous people like Native Americans. What works and doesn’t work about this analogy?
You mentioned that Palestinians invoke the plight of Indigenous people like Native Americans. What works and doesn’t work about this analogy?
Omar Suleiman
I think that there’s a powerful connection between the Palestinian people and the Indigenous in this land and in other places that have been wronged. We are living here in the United States on stolen lands that is drenched in the blood of the Natives, and that was built upon with the blood, sweat, and labor of enslaved Africans that were brought from overseas. It’s a great evil that we have to reckon with constantly, so I think that’s the power of solidarity. If you look in Canada and you look in places like Australia, there has been a refocus on the crimes against the Indigenous of those places.
I think that there’s a powerful connection between the Palestinian people and the Indigenous in this land and in other places that have been wronged. We are living here in the United States on stolen lands that is drenched in the blood of the Natives, and that was built upon with the blood, sweat, and labor of enslaved Africans that were brought from overseas. It’s a great evil that we have to reckon with constantly, so I think that’s the power of solidarity. If you look in Canada and you look in places like Australia, there has been a refocus on the crimes against the Indigenous of those places.
I think that what makes the Palestinian plight deeply painful, and maybe where the analogy even doesn’t do justice, is that from the river to the sea is less than 500 times what the United States is in terms of land. It’s not that big of a piece of land. The original lie was, “A land without a people for a people without a land.” The problem was that there were people on that land that were forcibly removed. So I think that the sheer size, right? We’re talking about a tiny piece of land, and a lot of people that were removed forcibly from their land, and that continue to be brutalized under those miserable conditions.
Mohammad and Jesus
Lex Fridman
Why is Palestine a special place, a holy land?
Why is Palestine a special place, a holy land?
Omar Suleiman
It’s the land of prophets. It is a land that holds deep significance, obviously to Jews, Christians, and Muslims. It’s the land of Abraham, peace be upon him. It is the land that has such a rich history to it that connects multiple peoples in multiple ways. It’s precious. I think that history, while it tells the story of tragedy and struggle over that piece of land, also tells a beautiful story of sanctity.
It’s the land of prophets. It is a land that holds deep significance, obviously to Jews, Christians, and Muslims. It’s the land of Abraham, peace be upon him. It is the land that has such a rich history to it that connects multiple peoples in multiple ways. It’s precious. I think that history, while it tells the story of tragedy and struggle over that piece of land, also tells a beautiful story of sanctity.
Lex Fridman
You mention Abraham, prophets. Prophet Muhammad is deeply venerated in Islam, obviously, but other prophets are as well, Jesus being one of them. What are the similarities and differences in the teachings from these two prophets?
You mention Abraham, prophets. Prophet Muhammad is deeply venerated in Islam, obviously, but other prophets are as well, Jesus being one of them. What are the similarities and differences in the teachings from these two prophets?
Omar Suleiman
Well, Islam refers to this idea of submission to one God and attaining peace in the process. And refers to the way of life that prophets have all come with, which is this idea of monotheism, and serving that one God in the way that he commands you to serve him. So to us, as it says in the Quran that we do not distinguish between the prophets, all of the prophets came with one message, one mission. There’s a coherence in the creed. There is a beauty in the foundation of what would become the legislation of each of those prophets, and we see them all as siblings in prophethood.
Well, Islam refers to this idea of submission to one God and attaining peace in the process. And refers to the way of life that prophets have all come with, which is this idea of monotheism, and serving that one God in the way that he commands you to serve him. So to us, as it says in the Quran that we do not distinguish between the prophets, all of the prophets came with one message, one mission. There’s a coherence in the creed. There is a beauty in the foundation of what would become the legislation of each of those prophets, and we see them all as siblings in prophethood.
So we say, “Abraham, peace be upon him.” We say, “Jesus, peace be upon him.” We say, “Moses, peace be upon him.” We say, “Muhammad, peace be upon him.” We believe that Moses came to confirm what came from Abraham. Jesus came to confirm what came from Moses. Muhammad came to confirm what came from Jesus. They upheld the same message. God did not change over time, nor did the centrality of his message of monotheism change over time, and so to us, it’s one beautiful house. There’s a saying from the prophet Muhammad, peace be upon him, where he describes the house of prophethood, each prophet being a brick, and him simply being the last brick of a beautiful house. And so we love the prophets of God and we believe that they-
Omar Suleiman
And so we love the prophets of God and we believe that they each came with the legislation that was necessary for the time, but with the same message.
And so we love the prophets of God and we believe that they each came with the legislation that was necessary for the time, but with the same message.
Lex Fridman
So the message is fundamentally the same. Is there a difference in emphasis, for example, the emphasis on love with Jesus?
So the message is fundamentally the same. Is there a difference in emphasis, for example, the emphasis on love with Jesus?
Omar Suleiman
Yeah. It’s like when you talk about MLK and Malcolm to an extent, except there was actually some difference, right, between MLK and Malcolm. I just think that the difference is exaggerated between them. But I don’t think that Moses didn’t emphasize love, but Jesus emphasized love. And then Muhammad didn’t emphasize love, peace be upon them all. I think that they each emphasized the same attributes and names of God and ways of knowing God. But there were, of course, changes within legislation, changes within the divine law, but the divine spirit remained the same. And so I don’t see them as being counter to each other, nor do I see that any prophet betrayed the message that came before them. I think they’re all part of the same beautiful message that we have to be at harmony with our creator and that we turn towards him for our guidance, and that when we do so, we establish a greater existence here on earth. And so I think that that’s something that’s consistent throughout the message of all the prophets.
Yeah. It’s like when you talk about MLK and Malcolm to an extent, except there was actually some difference, right, between MLK and Malcolm. I just think that the difference is exaggerated between them. But I don’t think that Moses didn’t emphasize love, but Jesus emphasized love. And then Muhammad didn’t emphasize love, peace be upon them all. I think that they each emphasized the same attributes and names of God and ways of knowing God. But there were, of course, changes within legislation, changes within the divine law, but the divine spirit remained the same. And so I don’t see them as being counter to each other, nor do I see that any prophet betrayed the message that came before them. I think they’re all part of the same beautiful message that we have to be at harmony with our creator and that we turn towards him for our guidance, and that when we do so, we establish a greater existence here on earth. And so I think that that’s something that’s consistent throughout the message of all the prophets.
Lex Fridman
You have been longtime friends with and had amazing conversations with people of other faiths, Christian, Jewish. How has the events of October 7th and the days after affected this in the United States? Your ability to have interfaith conversations, connections, relationships, friendships.
You have been longtime friends with and had amazing conversations with people of other faiths, Christian, Jewish. How has the events of October 7th and the days after affected this in the United States? Your ability to have interfaith conversations, connections, relationships, friendships.
Omar Suleiman
Complicated. Very complicated. And it’s not just Muslims and Jews, it’s also Christian Zionists. Christian Zionism is at the root of the problem, in my opinion, especially when we talk about what drives America’s unshakable, unconditional commitment to Israel. It’s devastating, I think, to Palestinian Christians in particular when Israel can bomb some of the oldest churches of Christianity in Gaza and kill Palestinian Christians, and Palestinian Christians are barred from going to the Holy Sepulcher or to their places of worship in Bethlehem or Jerusalem, and Christians here in the United States turn their back on them.
Complicated. Very complicated. And it’s not just Muslims and Jews, it’s also Christian Zionists. Christian Zionism is at the root of the problem, in my opinion, especially when we talk about what drives America’s unshakable, unconditional commitment to Israel. It’s devastating, I think, to Palestinian Christians in particular when Israel can bomb some of the oldest churches of Christianity in Gaza and kill Palestinian Christians, and Palestinian Christians are barred from going to the Holy Sepulcher or to their places of worship in Bethlehem or Jerusalem, and Christians here in the United States turn their back on them.
I think that it is particularly outrageous. So it’s complicated. Look, I expect more from people in the face of a genocide. We don’t have to agree on all the particulars, but we can agree that what is happening is morally outrageous. And so I think that I’ve had a few people that have reached out and said, “I want to say something, but I can’t.” And I’ve had to respond with, that’s not good enough. So I think that we have a problem, and instead of focusing on that problem, I’d like to focus on the more morally consistent voices across faiths that have risen to the moment rather than those that have failed.
Lex Fridman
So you wish more rabbis would be able to have a conversation like we’re having today and also not allow it to be seen as them turning their back on their religion?
So you wish more rabbis would be able to have a conversation like we’re having today and also not allow it to be seen as them turning their back on their religion?
Omar Suleiman
Rabbis, pastors, again, it’s not just Jewish leadership; it’s also Christian leadership. I think that it’s important for those that have claimed to be allies in the fight against Islamophobia, to see that you cannot be opposed to Islamophobia while also extending anti-Palestinian bigotry.
Rabbis, pastors, again, it’s not just Jewish leadership; it’s also Christian leadership. I think that it’s important for those that have claimed to be allies in the fight against Islamophobia, to see that you cannot be opposed to Islamophobia while also extending anti-Palestinian bigotry.
Lex Fridman
Yeah, one of the things since we last spoke, I’ve gotten to meet a lot of Palestinian Christians, including in West Bank, and that was fascinating. And those are beautiful people.
Yeah, one of the things since we last spoke, I’ve gotten to meet a lot of Palestinian Christians, including in West Bank, and that was fascinating. And those are beautiful people.
Omar Suleiman
I think people should watch Reverend Munther Isaac’s sermon on Christmas, Jesus in the Rubble. It was deeply profound. I had a chance to speak to Mitri Raheb from the Lutheran Church there as well. No, they’re devastated. It was eyeopening to many people here when Justin Amash, who was a Republican congressman, right, Palestinian Christian, Republican congressman, posted about his own family dying in one of the church bombings. So it’s strange, strange times. And I think that it shows that the philosophy of hate that drives this terrible policy is secular at it’s root and not religious.
I think people should watch Reverend Munther Isaac’s sermon on Christmas, Jesus in the Rubble. It was deeply profound. I had a chance to speak to Mitri Raheb from the Lutheran Church there as well. No, they’re devastated. It was eyeopening to many people here when Justin Amash, who was a Republican congressman, right, Palestinian Christian, Republican congressman, posted about his own family dying in one of the church bombings. So it’s strange, strange times. And I think that it shows that the philosophy of hate that drives this terrible policy is secular at it’s root and not religious.
Lex Fridman
One of the criticisms of Islam points to specific verses of the Quran and the criticism being that it is not a religion of peace. Can you speak to that?
One of the criticisms of Islam points to specific verses of the Quran and the criticism being that it is not a religion of peace. Can you speak to that?
Omar Suleiman
So objectively speaking, if you were to take the verses of the Quran about violence and compare them just from a purely percentage-based comparison to the New Testament and the Old Testament, you would find less verses about war in the Quran than the Old Testament or the New Testament. And there are plenty of studies to speak to that. Deeper than that, contextualizing the birth of Islam, the revelation of the Quran, which was over 23 years in response to deep persecution of the Prophet Muhammad, peace be upon him, makes it very clear that none of those verses are what they’ve been made out to be. If Muslims believed that they had to kill people wherever they are, mankind would not exist. There are two billion of us, right? If we believe that we were called by the Quran to hurt people and to kill people simply for being non-believers, right, it would not make for a sustainable world.
So objectively speaking, if you were to take the verses of the Quran about violence and compare them just from a purely percentage-based comparison to the New Testament and the Old Testament, you would find less verses about war in the Quran than the Old Testament or the New Testament. And there are plenty of studies to speak to that. Deeper than that, contextualizing the birth of Islam, the revelation of the Quran, which was over 23 years in response to deep persecution of the Prophet Muhammad, peace be upon him, makes it very clear that none of those verses are what they’ve been made out to be. If Muslims believed that they had to kill people wherever they are, mankind would not exist. There are two billion of us, right? If we believe that we were called by the Quran to hurt people and to kill people simply for being non-believers, right, it would not make for a sustainable world.
So Islam is not violent. And I think that the history of Muslims also bears witness to that. The history of Islam is a history of contribution, is a history of building, is a history of medicine, and science, and math. And of course, Muslims have sometimes fallen short of Islamic standards in the past and in the present. But if you look at the overall history of Islam and the history of the Muslim community, that’s not the case. And when you look at the present Muslim community around the world, Muslims do not account for a greater proportion of violence than other faith communities. And again, the word terrorist is a functionless and meaningless word, because, to me, it’s no less violent if it’s commanded by a head of state or by a government than by a non-state actor. So Muslims do not account for a greater portion of violence now, nor have they accounted for a greater portion of violence in the past.
Lex Fridman
Why do you think these narratives have taken hold in present discourse, at least in the United States?
Why do you think these narratives have taken hold in present discourse, at least in the United States?
Omar Suleiman
Because they allow for greater violence against the Muslim community domestically and abroad. The United States has launched wars against primarily Muslim countries, right? And has a particularly violent foreign policy towards the Muslim world. And the Muslim community here in the United States has dealt with, unfortunately, multiple aggressive iterations of programs of suppression and surveillance under Republican and Democratic administrations. And so there’s a convenience to that Islamophobia. There’s a convenience to that framing of the Muslim community that also distracts from other forms of violence that are deeply pervasive and present, including the ones that are committed by the government itself.
Because they allow for greater violence against the Muslim community domestically and abroad. The United States has launched wars against primarily Muslim countries, right? And has a particularly violent foreign policy towards the Muslim world. And the Muslim community here in the United States has dealt with, unfortunately, multiple aggressive iterations of programs of suppression and surveillance under Republican and Democratic administrations. And so there’s a convenience to that Islamophobia. There’s a convenience to that framing of the Muslim community that also distracts from other forms of violence that are deeply pervasive and present, including the ones that are committed by the government itself.
Al-Aqsa Mosque
Lex Fridman
If it’s okay, you’ve mentioned al-Aqsa Mosque a couple of times. I would love it if you can describe why it is such an important place, a holy place for Muslims in general, but also for this particular crisis that we have been speaking about today.
If it’s okay, you’ve mentioned al-Aqsa Mosque a couple of times. I would love it if you can describe why it is such an important place, a holy place for Muslims in general, but also for this particular crisis that we have been speaking about today.
Omar Suleiman
So Muslims honor the history of all of the prophets. So all of the prophets that have walked in that place, all of the prophets that have worshiped in that place, all of that makes it sacred. So it’s not separated from Muslims, from post-Muhammad, peace be upon him, versus prior to Muhammad, peace be upon him, in terms of the sanctity of that place. So we honor it. And Masjid al-Aqsa in particular is the place where the Prophet Muhammad, peace be upon him, leads the other prophets in prayer in the night of what’s known as Al-Isra’ wal-Mi’raj, the night journey of the Prophet, peace be upon him, and then he ascends to the heavens and back. And it’s also the first Qibla, which is the first place of direction of prayer for us. So before Muslims faced Mecca and prayer, for the first half of Islam, they actually faced towards Jerusalem in their prayer.
So Muslims honor the history of all of the prophets. So all of the prophets that have walked in that place, all of the prophets that have worshiped in that place, all of that makes it sacred. So it’s not separated from Muslims, from post-Muhammad, peace be upon him, versus prior to Muhammad, peace be upon him, in terms of the sanctity of that place. So we honor it. And Masjid al-Aqsa in particular is the place where the Prophet Muhammad, peace be upon him, leads the other prophets in prayer in the night of what’s known as Al-Isra’ wal-Mi’raj, the night journey of the Prophet, peace be upon him, and then he ascends to the heavens and back. And it’s also the first Qibla, which is the first place of direction of prayer for us. So before Muslims faced Mecca and prayer, for the first half of Islam, they actually faced towards Jerusalem in their prayer.
It was our direction of prayer, and it remained a fundamental part of our faith, fundamental holy sanctuary. There are three sanctuaries in Islam, Mecca, Medina, and Jerusalem, and Masjid al-Aqsa is precious to us. And so you can imagine then the pain of watching innocent Palestinian worshipers being stomped on by Israeli soldiers or skunk water being sprayed on people as they’re trying to walk in, or tear gassing taking place in the nights of Ramadan in that place.
The restrictions on people that live right next to it and that cannot pray in it due to the certain classification of Palestinian that they’ve been given or the age, because, generally speaking, if you’re younger, you’re not allowed to go to Masjid al- Aqsa, even if you live within the occupied territories. So it’s tough to watch such a sacred place with such an ugly occupation. But I’ll also say this, that the sanctity of a human being, the sanctity of just one person is greater than the sanctity of any place of worship to us. So the sanctity of one individual in Gaza or one individual in Jerusalem is greater to us than the sanctity of a place of worship. But it is all certainly interconnected.
Lex Fridman
That’s a really powerful idea. The value of a human being is greater than even the al-Aqsa Mosque. That’s a foundational idea for Islam.
That’s a really powerful idea. The value of a human being is greater than even the al-Aqsa Mosque. That’s a foundational idea for Islam.
Omar Suleiman
The Prophet Muhammad, peace be upon him, says to the Ka’bah itself that the value of a believer’s dignity and honor is greater than the value of the structure itself. And so when I see a person in Gaza aggressed upon, when I see one [foreign language 02:07:36], when I see one child, that’s greater to me than even al-Aqsa. But al-Aqsa is at the heart of who we are as well. And it’s certainly at the heart of the Palestinian cause. It’s a place of prophets, and it’s a place that should be treated prophetically.
The Prophet Muhammad, peace be upon him, says to the Ka’bah itself that the value of a believer’s dignity and honor is greater than the value of the structure itself. And so when I see a person in Gaza aggressed upon, when I see one [foreign language 02:07:36], when I see one child, that’s greater to me than even al-Aqsa. But al-Aqsa is at the heart of who we are as well. And it’s certainly at the heart of the Palestinian cause. It’s a place of prophets, and it’s a place that should be treated prophetically.
Lex Fridman
You mentioned to me that since October 7th, a lot of young people in the United States and in general have been showing interest in Islam. First of all, can you explain what you’ve been seeing and experiencing in terms of that trend?
You mentioned to me that since October 7th, a lot of young people in the United States and in general have been showing interest in Islam. First of all, can you explain what you’ve been seeing and experiencing in terms of that trend?
Omar Suleiman
Yeah, we have Quran TikTok trends where you had a few people that went on camera and said, “I’m reading the Quran for the first time.” And I think that that’s the beauty of the faith of the people of Gaza, the beauty of their resilience. When you’re looking at these people living what’s hell on earth, but they’re seeking paradise outside, and they’re able to still be inspired towards words of faith, and determination, and certainty, you’re like, what is their secret? What are they reading? What are they on that allows them to still face this brutality with such grace, right?
Yeah, we have Quran TikTok trends where you had a few people that went on camera and said, “I’m reading the Quran for the first time.” And I think that that’s the beauty of the faith of the people of Gaza, the beauty of their resilience. When you’re looking at these people living what’s hell on earth, but they’re seeking paradise outside, and they’re able to still be inspired towards words of faith, and determination, and certainty, you’re like, what is their secret? What are they reading? What are they on that allows them to still face this brutality with such grace, right?
I mean, they’re not shouting profanities. They’re not shouting words of emptiness or despair, but rather they are pouring out their hearts that are full of faith for the world to see. And I think that a lot of people have seen that and said, what is that? And so we’ve had multiple people come to the mosque. I’ve never seen more people become Muslim in my life, but not just that, but gain an appreciation for Islam. Like, what type of an engineering is there that allows for people to have that type of faith? So people are opening the Quran for the first time. People are asking questions about Islam in a way that shows that they’re inspired, even though they’re heartbroken by what they’re seeing.
Lex Fridman
What’s a good way to get introduced to Islam, the faith, the spiritual experience of it?
What’s a good way to get introduced to Islam, the faith, the spiritual experience of it?
Omar Suleiman
Well, I think, look, you go to our websites, you go to whyislam.org, you come to Yaqeen’s website, yaqeeninstitute.org, you go to multiple Islamic websites to get those questions answered. But there’s nothing like going to a mosque. There’s nothing like actually going to a mosque, and meeting Muslims, and asking questions. And I tell people, you have to step out of your comfort zone and go there and let your world be complicated a bit, experience it, listen to the sermon, meet people from different backgrounds, and ask questions. Muslims love to be asked, by the way, about their faith because they’re so sick of hearing other people talk about it. So Muslims love to be asked about their faith. Palestinians love to be asked about Palestine because they’re so sick of other people talking about it. So ask questions, and you will have them answered. But there’s nothing like a physical connection. There’s nothing like a human connection. So definitely try to reach out to your local Islamic organizations and meet people.
Well, I think, look, you go to our websites, you go to whyislam.org, you come to Yaqeen’s website, yaqeeninstitute.org, you go to multiple Islamic websites to get those questions answered. But there’s nothing like going to a mosque. There’s nothing like actually going to a mosque, and meeting Muslims, and asking questions. And I tell people, you have to step out of your comfort zone and go there and let your world be complicated a bit, experience it, listen to the sermon, meet people from different backgrounds, and ask questions. Muslims love to be asked, by the way, about their faith because they’re so sick of hearing other people talk about it. So Muslims love to be asked about their faith. Palestinians love to be asked about Palestine because they’re so sick of other people talking about it. So ask questions, and you will have them answered. But there’s nothing like a physical connection. There’s nothing like a human connection. So definitely try to reach out to your local Islamic organizations and meet people.
Lex Fridman
How difficult is it to convert to Islam?
How difficult is it to convert to Islam?
Omar Suleiman
It takes 20 seconds, man.
It takes 20 seconds, man.
Lex Fridman
Okay. [inaudible 02:11:07] Simple enough.
Okay. [inaudible 02:11:07] Simple enough.
Omar Suleiman
There’s no pool, there’s no baptism. I often joke with people, I’m like, all right, we got the pool in the back. We’re going to do the baptism now. It’s literally testifying to the oneness of God and testifying that Muhammad is his final messenger. And so that’s called the Shahada. And when you testify to the oneness of God and to the Prophet Muhammad, peace be upon him, being his final prophet, you are accepting what’s known as the six articles of faith. Six articles of faith are belief in one God, belief in the angels, belief in the messengers. So you can’t be a Muslim without believing in Jesus, or Moses, or Abraham, or Muhammad to believe in the messages that God has spoken to humanity through divine revelation. The Quran being the last revelation to believe in the day of Judgment and to believe in divine decree and predestination.
There’s no pool, there’s no baptism. I often joke with people, I’m like, all right, we got the pool in the back. We’re going to do the baptism now. It’s literally testifying to the oneness of God and testifying that Muhammad is his final messenger. And so that’s called the Shahada. And when you testify to the oneness of God and to the Prophet Muhammad, peace be upon him, being his final prophet, you are accepting what’s known as the six articles of faith. Six articles of faith are belief in one God, belief in the angels, belief in the messengers. So you can’t be a Muslim without believing in Jesus, or Moses, or Abraham, or Muhammad to believe in the messages that God has spoken to humanity through divine revelation. The Quran being the last revelation to believe in the day of Judgment and to believe in divine decree and predestination.
So those are six articles of faith. So when you testify to the oneness of God and to the Prophet Muhammad, peace be upon him, being the final messenger. That’s called the Shahada. You embrace the package of those articles of faith. That’s the implication. Then you learn the prayers, learn to fast in Ramadan. You give what’s known as Zakat, the mandatory charity, 2.5% of your retained earnings, and Hajj, which is the pilgrimage to Mecca, if you can. So that’s the growth part, the journey. Once a person takes the testimony, they then grow. It’s really interesting because we always have those people that convert to Islam, like a week before Ramadan or even a day before Ramadan. So you’re Muslim and you got to fast the next day, and that’s always a challenging experience for people, but a fulfilling experience for many people when they embrace Islam at that point. And again, I mean, it’s simple. And I think that the beauty of Islam to many people is in its simplicity, one God, one humanity, one body of prophets, and one community.
Ramadan
Lex Fridman
Because for you as a Palestinian-American this year, the Ramadan perhaps would be especially difficult spiritually. What are you anticipating? What do you think is the difference this year?
Because for you as a Palestinian-American this year, the Ramadan perhaps would be especially difficult spiritually. What are you anticipating? What do you think is the difference this year?
Omar Suleiman
I hope and pray that we have a ceasefire before Ramadan. I hope that at that point we’re rebuilding Gaza, talking about rebuilding Gaza, and helping people that have been damaged in so many different ways. I hope that Ramadan is turning a corner. Every Ramadan, the aggression against the Palestinian people seems to grow. So we’re usually dealing with last the 10 nights of Ramadan, and then the incursions on Masjid al-Aqsa, really sour it for the entire Muslim world because you’re watching worshipers being assaulted in one of the holiest places in the world. And at the same time, you’re trying to find your deep connection, your own deep, holy connection in Ramadan. This time we’re going in, and if this is still ongoing, we are dealing with a continued genocide. So I think that the mood has been somber in the community. The mood has been different from anything I’ve ever seen before. So I anticipate this Ramadan would be different from anything we’ve ever seen before. I think the focus will continue to be on Gaza, and on either stopping the aggression on Gaza, or beginning the rebuilding of Gaza.
I hope and pray that we have a ceasefire before Ramadan. I hope that at that point we’re rebuilding Gaza, talking about rebuilding Gaza, and helping people that have been damaged in so many different ways. I hope that Ramadan is turning a corner. Every Ramadan, the aggression against the Palestinian people seems to grow. So we’re usually dealing with last the 10 nights of Ramadan, and then the incursions on Masjid al-Aqsa, really sour it for the entire Muslim world because you’re watching worshipers being assaulted in one of the holiest places in the world. And at the same time, you’re trying to find your deep connection, your own deep, holy connection in Ramadan. This time we’re going in, and if this is still ongoing, we are dealing with a continued genocide. So I think that the mood has been somber in the community. The mood has been different from anything I’ve ever seen before. So I anticipate this Ramadan would be different from anything we’ve ever seen before. I think the focus will continue to be on Gaza, and on either stopping the aggression on Gaza, or beginning the rebuilding of Gaza.
Lex Fridman
So a general heaviness permeates just your prayers and your thoughts throughout this?
So a general heaviness permeates just your prayers and your thoughts throughout this?
Omar Suleiman
Yeah, I mean, look, every sermon I’ve given since October 7th has had to have some inclusion of this because it’s what’s on everyone’s hearts and minds. We also have people in our communities that have lost 20, 30, 40 people in our midst. It’s not the same. If we start to have refugees or people that escape for medical treatment or that are able to get out through Egypt and join their families. It’s becoming more real, right? It’s becoming more personal for people. So I think that Ramadan will surround both in terms of messaging as well as community, the pain of the moment with a prayer for hope and healing.
Yeah, I mean, look, every sermon I’ve given since October 7th has had to have some inclusion of this because it’s what’s on everyone’s hearts and minds. We also have people in our communities that have lost 20, 30, 40 people in our midst. It’s not the same. If we start to have refugees or people that escape for medical treatment or that are able to get out through Egypt and join their families. It’s becoming more real, right? It’s becoming more personal for people. So I think that Ramadan will surround both in terms of messaging as well as community, the pain of the moment with a prayer for hope and healing.
Lex Fridman
Not to put you on the spot, but in your sermons, in your private life, what is the passage in the Quran that is one you find yourself returning to often?
Not to put you on the spot, but in your sermons, in your private life, what is the passage in the Quran that is one you find yourself returning to often?
Omar Suleiman
The part of the Quran, I get asked this question, that resonates with me most usually has to do with what is heaviest for me at the moment. There is a verse in the chapter of Mary, a part of the verse, [foreign language 02:16:42]. Your Lord does not forget. Your Lord does not forget. And so, as you see what’s transpiring right now, our hope is not in creation, our hope is in our Creator. And our hope is not in this life, our hope is in the afterlife. And so that verse deeply resonates because I think that many of us often wonder how are they going to build? How are they going to get past this? And we know that God has a way of restoring everything. God will restore everything, if not in this life, then in the next.
The part of the Quran, I get asked this question, that resonates with me most usually has to do with what is heaviest for me at the moment. There is a verse in the chapter of Mary, a part of the verse, [foreign language 02:16:42]. Your Lord does not forget. Your Lord does not forget. And so, as you see what’s transpiring right now, our hope is not in creation, our hope is in our Creator. And our hope is not in this life, our hope is in the afterlife. And so that verse deeply resonates because I think that many of us often wonder how are they going to build? How are they going to get past this? And we know that God has a way of restoring everything. God will restore everything, if not in this life, then in the next.
Lex Fridman
So there’s an eternal flame of hope that burns there.
So there’s an eternal flame of hope that burns there.
Omar Suleiman
Yeah, and the people of Gaza have it. The people of Gaza have it. You can be more easily deluded by this material world if you’re hostage to it. But the people of Gaza have never been deluded by the material world because they never really had it. They’ve always been attached to a greater idea, to a greater place. And so it is part of the secret ingredient that they have, that they believe in something greater than this. And so you can’t survive hell on earth unless you believe in paradise outside of it.
Yeah, and the people of Gaza have it. The people of Gaza have it. You can be more easily deluded by this material world if you’re hostage to it. But the people of Gaza have never been deluded by the material world because they never really had it. They’ve always been attached to a greater idea, to a greater place. And so it is part of the secret ingredient that they have, that they believe in something greater than this. And so you can’t survive hell on earth unless you believe in paradise outside of it.
Hope for the future
Lex Fridman
When you look far into the future, 20, 30, 40 years from now, we’re doing another podcast, and 80s and 90-years-old, what do you hope to see in the Middle East? What do you hope to see change in the Middle East and the United States as a people, as a set of policies, cultures, nations?
When you look far into the future, 20, 30, 40 years from now, we’re doing another podcast, and 80s and 90-years-old, what do you hope to see in the Middle East? What do you hope to see change in the Middle East and the United States as a people, as a set of policies, cultures, nations?
Omar Suleiman
I think that the nation-state model and nationalism are becoming so unsustainable just with the growth of refugee populations, desperate refugee populations. The rise of, unfortunately, fanaticism and fascism in different parts of the world, climate, and all that that presents to us in terms of displacement. We’re going to have to figure out how to function as a world rather than as nations and states. We’re going to have to figure out how to not see everyone outside of our borders as threats and people that are different from us within our borders as threats. We’re going to have to start seeing people as people. And so my hope would be that we would have made people uncomfortable enough to transcend some of the barriers in their hearts and some of the barriers that we have in the world that don’t allow us to see other people as people. And then that drives horrific policies towards people that are so distant from us.
I think that the nation-state model and nationalism are becoming so unsustainable just with the growth of refugee populations, desperate refugee populations. The rise of, unfortunately, fanaticism and fascism in different parts of the world, climate, and all that that presents to us in terms of displacement. We’re going to have to figure out how to function as a world rather than as nations and states. We’re going to have to figure out how to not see everyone outside of our borders as threats and people that are different from us within our borders as threats. We’re going to have to start seeing people as people. And so my hope would be that we would have made people uncomfortable enough to transcend some of the barriers in their hearts and some of the barriers that we have in the world that don’t allow us to see other people as people. And then that drives horrific policies towards people that are so distant from us.
Lex Fridman
You have been fearless in walking through the fire. What gives you strength psychologically to keep going, to speak out, but just also maintain an optimism and a hope for the future?
You have been fearless in walking through the fire. What gives you strength psychologically to keep going, to speak out, but just also maintain an optimism and a hope for the future?
Omar Suleiman
I don’t believe that anyone gives me success or causes me failure without the permission of God. I don’t seek fuel from anyone else. I don’t seek hope from anyone else. I believe in a creator that has a greater plan, and I want to be a greater part of that plan. And I’m inspired by the resilience of the people of Gaza. I’m inspired by the resilience of my parents, and our grandparents, and Palestinians around the world that have refused to succumb to their erasure, that have refused to give up. And so we have both the energy that we need and we have the examples that we need. The energy is from above. The examples are all around us.
I don’t believe that anyone gives me success or causes me failure without the permission of God. I don’t seek fuel from anyone else. I don’t seek hope from anyone else. I believe in a creator that has a greater plan, and I want to be a greater part of that plan. And I’m inspired by the resilience of the people of Gaza. I’m inspired by the resilience of my parents, and our grandparents, and Palestinians around the world that have refused to succumb to their erasure, that have refused to give up. And so we have both the energy that we need and we have the examples that we need. The energy is from above. The examples are all around us.
Lex Fridman
Well, Omar Imam, this is a huge honor to once again speak with you. And I just want to say thank you, not just for this, but for many private notes you have sent me of kindness, and support, and love through some of the low points, as silly as they are for me personally. So it’s just great to be able to call you a friend and to be able to have you in my corner. I’m forever grateful to you for that.
Well, Omar Imam, this is a huge honor to once again speak with you. And I just want to say thank you, not just for this, but for many private notes you have sent me of kindness, and support, and love through some of the low points, as silly as they are for me personally. So it’s just great to be able to call you a friend and to be able to have you in my corner. I’m forever grateful to you for that.
Omar Suleiman
I appreciate it. Thank you so much, man.
I appreciate it. Thank you so much, man.
Lex Fridman
And thank you for talking today. Thanks for listening to this conversation with Omar Suleiman. To support this podcast, please check out our sponsors in the description. And now let me leave you some words from Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. “We shall overcome because the arc of the moral universe is long, but it bends towards justice.” Thank you for listening, and hope to see you next time.
And thank you for talking today. Thanks for listening to this conversation with Omar Suleiman. To support this podcast, please check out our sponsors in the description. And now let me leave you some words from Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. “We shall overcome because the arc of the moral universe is long, but it bends towards justice.” Thank you for listening, and hope to see you next time.
Transcript for Ben Shapiro vs Destiny Debate: Politics, Jan 6, Israel, Ukraine & Wokeism | Lex Fridman Podcast #410
This is a transcript of Lex Fridman Podcast #410 with Ben Shapiro vs Destiny Debate.
The timestamps in the transcript are clickable links that take you directly to that point in
the main video. Please note that the transcript is human generated, and may have errors.
Here are some useful links:
The timestamps in the transcript are clickable links that take you directly to that point in
the main video. Please note that the transcript is human generated, and may have errors.
Here are some useful links:
- Go back to this episode’s main page
- Watch the full YouTube version of the podcast
Table of Contents
Here are the loose “chapters” in the conversation.
Click link to jump approximately to that part in the transcript:
Ben, you’re conservative. Destiny, you’re a liberal. Can you each describe what key values underpin your philosophy on politics and maybe life in the context of this left to right political spectrum? You want to go first?
So a lot of governmental discussions on a pragmatic level end up being discussions about where government ought to be involved, but also at what level government ought to be involved. And I have an incredibly subsidiary view of government. I think that local governments, because you have higher levels of homogeneity and consent are capable of doing more things. And as you abstract up the chain, it becomes more and more impractical and more and more divisive to do more things.
In my view, government is basically there to preserve certain key liberties. Those key liberties pre-exist the government insofar as they’re more important than what priorities the government has. The job of government is to maintain, for example, national defense, protection of property rights, protection of religious freedom. These are the key focuses of government as generally expressed in the Bill of Rights and the Constitution. And I agree with the general philosophy of the Bill of Rights and the Constitution.
Now, that doesn’t mean by the way, that you can’t do more on a governmental level again as you get closer to the ground, which by the way is also embedded in the Constitution. People forget the Constitution was originally applied to the federal government, not to local and state government. But if I were going to define conservatism, it would actually be a little broader than that because I think to understand how people interact with government, you have to go to core values.
And so for me, there are a couple of premises. One, human beings have a nature. That nature is neither good nor bad. We have aspects of goodness and we have aspects of badness. Human beings are sinful. We have temptations. What that means is that we have to be careful not to incentivize the bad and that we should incentivize the good. Human beings do have agency and are capable of making decisions in the vast majority of circumstances. And it’s better for society if we act as though they do.
Second, the basic idea of human nature. There is an idea in my view that all human beings have equal value before the law. I’m a religious person, so I’d say equal value before God. But I think that’s also sort of a key tenet of Western civilization being non-religious or religious, that every individual has equivalent value in sort of cosmic terms.
But that does not necessarily mean that every person is equally equipped to do everything equally well. And so it is not the job of government to rectify every imbalance of life. The quest for cosmic justice, as Thomas Sowell suggests, is something that government is generally incapable of doing, and more often than not, botches and makes things worse. So those are a few key tenets and that tends to materialize in a variety of ways. The easiest way to sum that up would the traditional kind of three legs of the conservative stool, although now obviously there’s a very fragmented conservative movement in the United States would be a socially conservative view in which family is the chief institution of society, like the little platoons of society as Edmund Burke suggested, in which free markets and property rights are extraordinarily valuable and necessary because every individual has the ability to be creative with their property and to freely alienate that property.
Finally, I tend toward a hawkish foreign policy that suggests that the world is not filled with wonderful people who all agree with us and think like us. And those people will pursue adversarial interests if we do not protect our own interests.
Personally, I did 12 years of Catholic private education. However, the public schools in Nebraska, depending on where you lived, were very, very, very good. I opted for a certain district, I bought a house there, I moved there, and then my son was able to go to those schools. And he’s been going through those schools and the difference of availability of technology, these kids are taking home iPads in first grade. They’ve got huge computer labs and everything. Do you think that there is some type of, I don’t want to say injustice or unfairness because not even looking at it that way, just pragmatically that there might be children that are in certain schools that if they just had better funding or more access to technologies or things available to them, that those kids would become more productive members of society that would like a little bit of a help that they could actually achieve more and do better for all of society?
So when you say, if we could give every kid an iPad, would you give every kid an iPad? The question is not, if I had a replicator machine from Star Trek, would I give everybody an enormous amount of stuff? Sure, I would. Every resource is fine. It every resource is limited, and you have to prioritize what are the outcomes that you seek in terms of the means with which you are seeking them.
And so, again, I think that the question is… I quibble with the premise of the question, which is that, again, the chief injustice when it comes to education on the list of injustices is lack of availability to technology or that it’s a funding problem. I just don’t think that’s the case.
Now, I agree that neither of these things might be determinative in, well, 20% of kids were graduating and now 80% of kids are graduating. Or these kids are all going with their GEDs into the workforce, and now these kids are all suddenly becoming engineers. But in terms of where we can help, do you think there should be some minimum threshold or minimum baseline of… At the very least, every school should have a non-leaky gym or every school should have… If children can’t afford lunch or breakfast like some sort of food provided or every school should have these baseline things?
I think that you’re starting at a second order question, which is what if we ignore what I would think are the big primary questions of education, namely family structure, value of education at home. How much you have parents who are capable or willing to help with homework? What are the incentive structures we can set up for a society that actually facilitate that? How local communities take ownership of their schools is a big one, right?
All of these issues we’re ignoring in favor of, say, “Air conditioning or lunch programs.” And so in a vacuum, if you say air conditioning and lunch programs sounds great in a vacuum. In terms of prioritization of values and cost structure, are those the things that I think are going to move the needle in a major way in terms of public policy? I do not. And in fact, I think that many of them end up being disproportionate wastes of money. I’ve talked before pretty controversially about the fact that an enormous amount of school lunch programs are thrown out.
An enormous amount of that food ends up in the garbage can. Is there a better way to do that? If there is a better way to do it, then I’m perfectly willing to hear about that better way to do it. But it seems to me that one of the big flaws in the way that many people of the left approach government is what if we hit every gnat with a hammer? And my question is, what if the gnat isn’t even the problem? What if there is a much bigger substructure problem that needs to be solved in order to… If you’re shifting deck chairs on the Titanic, sure, you can make the Titanic slightly more balanced because the deck chairs are slightly better oriented. But the real question is the water that’s gaping into the Titanic, right?
I think that these two things are probably huge things that are moving us off of shotgun marriages or getting married very early on, and I don’t see… Do you think that those two things are going to change fundamentally?
All that is wonderful. When it comes to the actual problem of education, what I object to in the political sphere, and this happens all the time, is everybody is arguing on top of the iceberg about how we can move the needle 0.5 percentage points as opposed to the entire iceberg melting beneath them. And we just ignore that and we pretend that that’s just sort of the natural consequence of thing. The arc of history suggests that people are never going to get married again.
Well, I mean, actually what the arc of history suggests realistically speaking is that the people who are not getting married are not going to be having kids. And what it also suggests, the people who are married are going to be having kids. So the demographic profile actually over time is rather going to shift toward people who are having lots and lots of kids. I’m married, I have four kids. Everyone in my community is married. That’s like minimum buy-in my community is four kids.
So what’s happening actually in terms of demographics is that the people who are more religious and getting married are having more kids. And so if you’re talking about the arc of history shifting toward marriage, I would suggest that actually demographically over time, long periods of time, not over one generation, over long periods of time, the only cure for low birth rate is going to be the people who get married and have lots of kids.
I’m not going to disagree with you on any of that. All of that is true. It’s just frustrating that sometimes when you bring up any problem, all of it will circle back to other things that makes it seem like we can’t make any progress in any area without fixing something [inaudible 00:20:10]
It’s a matter of incentive structures, not per se morality, because incentive structures do have moral underpinnings. There’s such a thing as… For example, if you’re going to use a welfare program, you have to decide how effective it is to what crowd. It applies where the cutoffs are. Does it disincentivize work, does it not? All of these are pragmatic concerns. But on a moral level, the generalized objection that I have to people on the left side of the aisle is that they like to focus… In these conversations very often it feels as though it’s a conversation with people who are drunk, searching under the lamp for their keys. The problems they want to look at are the problems that are solvable by government, and then all the problems they don’t want to look at, which are the actual giant monsters lurking in the dark and not particularly solvable by government are the ones they want to ignore and assume are just the natural state of things. And I don’t think that’s correct at all.
When it comes to the economy, I think that Trump’s economic record was better than Biden’s. Doesn’t mean he didn’t overspend. He did. He wildly overspent. But he also had a very solid record of job creation. A huge percentage of the gains in the economy went to people on the lower end of the economic spectrum. Actually, the gross income to the average American was about $6,000 during his term. The unemployment rates were very, very low before COVID.
I think that you almost have to separate the Trump administration into sort of before COVID and during COVID, because COVID obviously is a black swan event, the most signal change in politics in our lifetime. And so governance during COVID is almost its own category, which we can discuss. But in terms of foreign policy, in terms of domestic policy, I think that Trump was significantly better than Biden has been. And that’s on the upside for Trump.
On the downside, for Biden, obviously you’re talking 40 or highs in inflation. You’re talking about savings being eaten away. You’re talking about everything being 20 to 30% more expensive. You’re talking about massive increases to the deficit, even at a rate that was unknown under Trump. The deficit under Trump raised by about a little under a trillion dollars every year up until 2020. Again, 2020 was COVID year, so everybody decided that we’re going to fire hose money at things.
But then Joe Biden continued to fire hose money at things in ’21, ’22, and ’23. That obviously is, in my opinion, bad economic policy. And then you get to the rhetoric, and you get to the stuff that Donald Trump says. As I’ve said before, my view is that on Donald Trump’s epitaph, on his gravestone, it will say, “Donald Trump. He’s said a lot of shit.” I think that Donald Trump does say a lot of things. I think that that is basically baked into the cake, which is why everyone who’s bewildered by the polls is ignoring human nature, which is at the beginning when you see something very shocking, it’s very shocking.
And then if you see it over and over and over, and over for years on end, it is no longer shocking. It’s just part of the background noise like tinnitus. It just becomes something that your brain adjusts for. And so do I like a lot of Donald Trump’s rhetoric? No, and I never have. Do I think that that is dispositive as to his presidency? No, I do not. When it comes to Biden, again, I think he’s underperforming economically. I think that his foreign policy has been really a problem.
Even the things I think he’s done right are, I think, band- aids for things that he created by doing wrong. And when it comes to his own rhetoric, you can argue that it’s grading on a curve because Trump was coming in with such wild rhetoric that just a maintenance of that wild rhetoric doesn’t really change again the baseline. For Biden, he came in the same way that Obama did on the soaring rhetoric of American unity.
Trump came in and he is like, “Listen, I’m the president for what I am, and I’m going to say the things I want to say. I’m beyond the toilet and I’m tweeting.” We’re like, “Okay, that’s what it is.” With Biden, he came in with, “I’m a president for all Americans. I’m trying to unify everybody.” And that pretty quickly broke down into a lot of oppositional language about his political opponents in particular, an attempt to lump in, for example, huge swaths of the conservative movement with the people who participated, for example, in January 6th, or who were fans of January 6th, and the sort of lumping in of everybody into MAGA Republicans who wasn’t personally signed on to an infrastructure bill with him.
That sort of stuff I think has been truly terrible. I thought his Philadelphia speech was truly terrible. And again, I think that you do have the problem of he is no longer capable of certainly rhetorically unifying the country when every speech from him feels like watching Nik Wallenda walk across a volcano on a tightrope. It really is like you’re just sort of waiting for him to fall.
I mean, it’s sad to say. I mean, the other day he was speaking for what was, in effect, his campaign kickoff, and this was in Valley Forge. I mean, Jill rushed up there. As soon as he was done, Jill rushed up there like she’d been shot out of a cannon to come and try and guide him away so he didn’t become the Shane Gillis Roomba. And that’s not really… Let’s put it this way. It does not quiet the soul to watch Joe Biden rhetorically. Again, that’s a different problem than Trump’s problem, but that’s my analysis.
Even recently, I think the Secretary of Defense Esper and John Kelly, the chief of staff were saying, “I think Trump is a threat to democracy.” You’ve got all of his prior people that were around him, some of his closest allies. You’ve got Bill Barr that won’t co-sign a single thing that he says. You’ve got all these people that he used to work with that all say, “Trump is a horrible, evil person. He’s ineffective as a leader. He doesn’t accomplish anything.” And he didn’t.
To say that Biden has failed at bipartisanship when we’ve gotten the CHIPS Act, we’ve gotten the IRA, we’ve gotten the ARP, we’ve gotten the Bipartisan Infrastructure bill, when we’ve gotten all this major legislation that is working in this historically divided Congress as opposed to Trump that got us tax cuts and deficit spending. I don’t understand where we ever are in this world where Biden is somehow-
Trump is like the most divisive president I think we’ve ever had, at least in my lifetime of being an American citizen. And the rhetoric from him is just, it’s on a whole other level in terms of the demonization of political opponents. I mean, this is a guy that’s known for giving his political opponents bad nicknames, right? That’s what Trump does.
It’s funny, but even as a resident of Florida, if Florida had another natural disaster, do you think Trump would withhold aid because you had… I think that was one of the few nice things that DeSantis actually said about Biden was that like, “Hey, listen, when the buildings collapsed in I think was Miami Beach.”
In terms of the economy. I do think it’s funny that Republicans are very keen to say that, “Well, we can’t really grade Trump post-COVID” because obviously, COVID messed everything up, which is fair. But pre-COVID, what did Trump do? He did deficit spending tax cuts. He presided over historical low interest rates and an economy that was already like blazing past the final years of Obama. We were posting all time highs in all the stock markets in 2013 onwards. Unemployment rates were falling. Now under Biden, unemployment rates are even lower than they were under Trump. But it sucks that for Trump, we can say, “Well, we can’t really hold him accountable for 2020. That was COVID.”
Well, all we have for Biden is post-COVID. We don’t have any pre-COVID Biden economy. And it was the same thing for Obama too, coming in right after the housing collapse as well. And it sucks that Republicans are able to walk out of office having burned the entire American society to the ground economically. And now, we’ve got to try to evaluate, “Okay, well, what did Obama do during his first two to three to four years just trying to recover from where the housing crash left it.” And then we look at Biden now who’s trying to recover from COVID and now we’re grading him on a totally different scale than what Trump is being graded on. Yeah, that sucks, I think. We can go into-
I think that being said, I think that Biden has done a phenomenal job when it comes to foreign policy. I think that the coalition building was so important for Ukraine, Russia, and I’m so happy that he decided to go to our European allies and our NATO allies and try to build a coalition of people to help Ukraine, so that that wasn’t only the United States.
Personally, especially after doing a whole bunch of research, I do tend to side with Israel over Palestine in a lot of the Israeli-Palestinian conflicts. I’m glad that Biden, while remaining a staunch defender of Israel, is trying to rein in some of the more aggressive posturing towards the Palestinians and the Gaza Strip. I’m proud that Biden said, “Hey, listen, we are going to delay some of these attacks. Hey, listen, we are going to allow humanitarian aid here. Hey, listen, we are going to try to not kill as many Palestinian people down there” while still signaling that he would be a staunch supporter of Israel in the conflict, assuming the civilian casualties don’t go too high.
For foreign policy, I mean, blemishes, I mean, the biggest one you can give to Biden is Afghanistan and the pull-out there. But man, are we going to talk about the Inspector General report that says that one of the biggest reasons why the Afghanistan pull-out was so disastrous was because of the Doha Accords where Donald Trump headed talks that didn’t even include the Afghanistan army. I mean, these were disasters. When Biden took office, we had 2,500 troops left in Afghanistan. What was the options even afforded to Biden at that point?
Obviously, you’ve got the abandonment of the Kurds in Northern Syria for the Turkish armies to lay waste to. You’re talking about Iran and North Korea, although I’m not sure where Ben would land on those, but yeah, that’s a broadly [inaudible 00:34:11].
So when we’re comparing these things, I don’t think they’re leagues apart in terms of the divisive effects of what they say, right? And I’m separating that off from the inherent content of what they say because obviously, what Trump says is more divisive just on the raw level. I mean, if he’s insulting people as opposed to Joe Biden doing MAGA Republicans, if I were to just… if I were an alien come down from space and look at these two statements, I’d say this one’s more divisive than this one. But then, there’s the reality of being a human being in the world and that is everyone has baked Donald Trump into the cake. And Joe Biden, again, started off with a patina of being non-divisive and now has emerged as divisive.
If you don’t mind, I actually want to get to the foreign policy questions because this one is actually slightly less interesting to me.
I want to ask a couple of questions on the foreign policy. Sure.
What that did is incentivize terrorism from Iran. What we’re watching in the Middle East is Iran attempting to use every one of its terror proxies in the Middle East and it was specifically launched in an attempt to avoid what Biden actually was trying to do, which was good, which was after two years of failure with Saudi Arabia, try to bring them into the Abraham Accords, right? That was what was burgeoning at the end of last year and Iran saw that and Iran decided that they were going to throw grenade into the middle of those negotiations by essentially activating Hamas. Hamas activates. Hamas commits October 7th. Israel, as a sovereign nation state, has to respond to the murder of 1,200 of its citizens in the taking, kidnapping of 240. Israel has to do that not only to go after its own hostages and try to restore them, but also to reestablish military deterrence in the most violent region of the world.
Hezbollah gets active on Israel’s northern border. Hezbollah is an Iranian proxy. They get active on the northern border. The Houthis in Yemen get active. The only reason all this is happening at the same time is because Iran is doing this, right?
However, I don’t know if the path forward is constantly being a belligerent to Iran or trying to figure out some road to normalcy. I don’t know if the collapse of Iran or the destruction of that country, considering how unpopular the Ayatollah even is there. The citizens of Iran, I don’t think, are big supporters of the government there. I feel like moving on a path where, let’s do our nuclear inspections. We had that Iranian nuclear deal that Trump pulled out of. Let’s do the nuclear inspections. Make sure you’re not on the way to nuclear weapons. Let’s unfree some funds. Let’s move in some direction where we get on a good term with you. I feel like that’s the most important thing that needs to happen in the Middle East. As much as people like to look at the Abraham Accords, who cares if… what was it? Bahrain, I think Oman. I think [inaudible 00:51:10].
In any case, Yoav Galant was urging in the very early days of the war that Israel should turn North and instead of hitting Hamas, they should actually take the opportunity to knock Hezbollah out because Hezbollah is significantly more dangerous to the existence of the state of Israel than Hamas. I actually agree with that. As far as what Israel has been doing wrong in the actual war, I mean, I think that, again, from an American perspective, I think that Israel is doing pretty well from an Israeli perspective via Israeli. I would actually want Israel to be less loose about sending its soldiers in on the ground level. So Israel’s attempting to minimize civilian casualties, and the cost of that has been the high.
And that complacence bred what happened on October 7th. So to me, what Israel did wrong was years and years and years of complacence and belief in an Oslo System that is at root a failure because you cannot make a peace agreement with people who do not want to make peace with you. So that’s what I think Israel is doing wrong. I have a feeling that there’s going to be wide divergence on this point.
However, one area where I’ll break with, Ben, is I think that minimizing civilian casualties and everything is very, very, very important I think on the Israeli side. I don’t think it’s important so that the US will stay with them because I think the US is probably going to stick with Israel as long as they’re not doing anything crazy, and I don’t even think it matters for the international community. It definitely doesn’t matter for the UN because Jesus Christ. However, I think it’s really, really, really important that… I think that in the Middle East, broadly speaking, I think that leadership, especially in the Gulf, has gotten over the Palestinian issue.
I think that leadership is kind of like they don’t care as much anymore, but the populations still care quite a bit. And I think that the main issue that Israel could run into is if the civilian death toll does climb too high, and if they start to hit this 40, 50, 60,000 number of civilian casualties, they run the risk of the civilian populations in the surrounding Middle Eastern states becoming so antagonistic towards Israel that they start to take steps back towards normalization in the region.
So for instance, I know that Bahrain, I think, already pulled out their ambassador to Israel. My guess is going to be it’s temporary. I know that on the public speaking side, you’ve got a lot of people condemning Israel for the attacks. And on the private side, you’ve got people telling Israel, “Please kill all of Hamas because this is untenable and nobody wants to work in this situation.” I don’t know if this ended up being true or not. I’m guessing it didn’t, but I saw on a couple of Twitter accounts, it was leaked that potentially, Saudi Arabia was considering installing a government in the West Bank that they would run.
Yeah, I think that Israel, what I would say to be, quote, unquote, “critical” of Israel is Israel needs to take strong steps towards peace that probably involves them enduring some undue hardship. So not the October 7th attacks, because Jesus, that’s way too much, but other types of attacks that they might have to deal with that might cause some civilians to die that they don’t come out over the top with and retaliate with if there’s ever going to be peace in that region. However, another thing that I’ve always said is a huge problem between Israel and Palestine is I think that both sides think that if they continue to fight, it will be good for them. But the problem is one side is delusional. I think Israel wants to continue to fight because they get justifications for the annexation of the Golan Heights. They get justifications for expansions, especially in the Area C that, I think, they’re probably going to try to annex soon. They get justifications for the increased military posturing towards the Gaza Strip and the embargoes.
And Israel is right that if the conflict continues, really, the situation only improves for Israel over time. But the Palestinians also all believe that if they keep fighting, they thought this since 2000 under Arafat, that if they just keep fighting, they’ll get better gains too. But that’s not the case.
But to combat that problem is like you have to get the UN on board, we’ve got to do an actual addressing of the Palestinian refugee problem, which is handled like a joke right now. Iran has to be brought to the table in terms of negotiations. There has to be huge efforts made to economically revitalize these Palestinian areas. Even though they’re one of the highest recipients of aid in the world. You have to do something about the embargo and the blockade and the Gaza Strip, which isn’t just maintained by Israel, it’s also maintained by Egypt. You should ask why. Yeah, there’s a lot of things that have to happen to fix that problem. But the reality is I don’t think Israel really wants to because they get to continue their expansion into the West Bank, and I don’t think anybody around the world really cares that much because in a month, we won’t be talking [inaudible 01:04:36].
And the question as to whether if Israel stopped building, there’ve been many settlement freeze in the past, including some undertaken by Netanyahu, and it actually has not done one iota of good in moving the ball forward in terms of actual negotiations. Again, the biggest problem is that the leadership for Palestinians has spent every day since, really, ’67. It’s not even ’48. Because between ’48 and ’67, Jordan was in charge of the West Bank and Egypt was in charge of the Gaza Strip. And at no point did either of those powers say, “Hey, maybe we ought to hand this over to an independent Palestinian state.” Which was originally the division that was promoted by the UN Partition Plan in ’47. Because of that, the leadership post ’67, and really, starting in ’64, the Palestine Liberation Organization was founded in ’64, and it called for the liberation of the land in ’64. They had the West Bank and they had the Gaza Strip. So they’re talking about Tel Aviv.
When it was founded in ’64, the basic idea, as kind of indicated by that, was Israel will not exist, and that was a promise that’s been made by pretty much every Palestinian leader in Arabic to the people that they are talking to. Yasser Arafat famously would do this sort of thing. He’d speak in English and talk about how he wanted a two-state solution, and then he’d go back to his own people and say, “This is a Trojan Horse and we’re going to…” If Israel could, if you think that Israeli parents want to send their kids at the age of 18 to go and monitor Jenin and Nablus and be in Khan Yunis, you’re out of your mind. You’re out of your mind. Israelis do not want that. In fact, Israelis didn’t want that so much that they allowed rockets to fall in their cities for full on 18 years in order to avoid sending soldiers en masse back into the Gaza Strip.
The magic, magic is a strong word… The benefit of the Abraham Accords was proof of what you’re saying, which is true, which is that all of these surrounding countries, in reality, have abandoned the idea that there’s a centrality to the Palestinian-Israeli conflict. That is not the central conflict in the Middle East. And by the way, one of the reasons it’s not the central conflict in the Middle East is because actually, ironically, because of the rise of Iran. It’s SUNY states that are largely signing up with Israel because they’re realizing they need some sort of counterweight to a burgeoning nuclear power in Iran.
Now, the reality is that the US’ interests had largely been achieved in the first few months of the war, meaning the revocation of the ability of Russia to take Ukraine and just ingest it. And two, the devastation of Russia’s military capability. I mean, Russia has just been wrecked. I mean, the military is in serious straits because of the war in Ukraine. From an American perspective, I’m very much pro all of that. I think that we have an interest in Ukraine maintaining a buffer status against a territorially aggressive Russia. I think that the United States does have an interest in degrading the Russian military to the extent that it can’t threaten the Baltic states or threaten Kazakhstan or other countries in the region. The problem I have with Biden’s strategy is as always, I think that it’s a muddle, and I think muddles tend to end with misperceptions.
War tends to break out and maintain because of misperception, misperception of the other side’s strength, the other side’s intentions, and all of the rest. People misperceive what’s going to happen. They say, “I’ll cross that line and nothing will happen.” This is what Putin thought. He thought, “I’ll cross that line. They’ll greet me as a liberator. And because the United States just surrendered in Afghanistan, essentially, they won’t do anything, and the West is fragmenting because NATO’s fragmenting and all the rest of this.” And obviously, he was wrong on all of those scores.
The problem for Biden is that as with virtually every war, no end line was set. And so it became out recently that it was widely reported that actually there was a peace deal that was on the table in the first few months that Putin was on board with that basically would’ve seeded Luhansk and Donetsk and Crimea to Russia in return for solidification of those lines. American and Western security guarantees to Ukraine, right? Ukraine wouldn’t formally join NATO, but there would be security guarantees to Ukraine. We’re ending up there anyway. It’s just taking a lot more money and a lot more time to get there.
Instead, what Biden said, and this was reported in the Washington Post last year, the Biden administration said, “We’re going to fight for as long as it takes with as much as it takes.” And when they were asked until when, they said, “Whatever Zelenskyy says.” And that’s not a policy, that’s just a recipe for a frozen conflict with endless funding. Now, it may be that Putin has walked away from the table and that deal is no longer available. If that deal is available right now, I certainly hope that’s being pursued behind closed doors. My main critique again of Biden is that when you outsource the end goal to another country without stating what America’s interest is, that’s a problem. I also think that Biden did really quite a poor job of sort of explaining what America’s realistic interests are. I don’t like it when American leaders… It’s weird for me to say this, but I’m not a huge fan of the we’re in it to protect democracy kind of rhetoric because frankly, we are allied with many, many countries that are not democracies, and that’s not actually how foreign policy works.
We should, as an overall 30,000-foot goal, advance democracy and rights where we can, but the reason that we were fighting in favor of Ukraine, and when I say fighting, I mean giving them money and giving them weaponry, the reason that we were doing that in favor of Ukraine is not because of Ukraine’s long history of clean voting and non-corruption. The reason that we were doing that is to counter Russian interest in the region. I mean, it was a pure, real politic play, and that real politic play is hard to deny no matter what side of the aisle you’re on. I think that what many Americans are going to, are reverting to is we have no interest there. Why are we spending the money there and not spending the money here? And that kind of stuff. And that argument can always be applied unless you actually articulate the reason why it is good for Americans beyond simply the ideological for the United States to be involved in a thing.
So for example, I think right now, when Biden is taught, I think that what Biden just did, the United States as we speak, is striking the Houthis. I think that that’s a really, really good thing. I think that’s a necessary thing, and I think American people should understand why that is happening. It’s not because of, quote, unquote, “ideology”. It is, I mean, on a very root level, but really, it’s because you’re screwing up the straits. I mean, you can’t do that. You can’t screw up free trade, and Americans have an interest in not seeing all of our prices at the grocery store double and triple because a bunch of ragtag pirates akin to the Barbary pirates from 1800 are bothering everyone. Right?
My feeling would be, and this is just a feeling, I don’t know if internal cables have leaked that say otherwise, is the Biden administration has probably always had a quiet position of at some point, there’s going to be an off-ramp here, and I think even a month or two ago, I think those talks were being leaked, that discussion had begun with Zelenskyy looking for an off-ramp. But publicly, of course, the United States is never going to come out and say, “We are going to support you guys to fight as much as you want for three months. And then after that, it’s no more.” Obviously, that can’t be the statement. It’s always going to be that, “We’re going to support you in your fight against Russia [inaudible 01:19:28].”
I think that even for a lot of military people and analysts around the world, that that was an expectation or at least a significant probability. Nobody knew, the phrase that’s thrown right now is paper tiger, that Russia’s military was as ill-equipped as they were. So I can understand why, especially if you’re Ukraine and if you’ve repelled an invasion from one of the world’s largest armies, why you might feel like, “Well, fuck it, let’s fight for a few months. Let’s fight for a year. Let’s see what happens.” And I can understand the United States supporting them, but I agree that there has to be some reasonable off-ramp, but we’re not going to fight forever. I think the US State Department has already begun those conversations with Zelenskyy to look at what that off-ramp looks like. But yeah, I’m not too sure other than explicitly stating publicly you can only fight until this date. I don’t really know what else I would… I don’t think the Biden administration should have done that. I don’t know what else-
And then on the day of January 6th, trying to capitalize on the violence by him, Giuliani, and Eastman making phone calls to senators and congressmen saying, “Well, don’t you think maybe you guys should delay the vote a little bit? Don’t you think they’re just really mad about the election?” I think he said to McCarthy, “They’re more upset than you.” And his utter dereliction of duty and not doing anything to stop the rioting that happened on January 6th because he was too busy taking advantage of it, I think all of these things are horrible. I look forward to seeing the Jack Smith indictments play out in court, maybe even the Georgia RICO case. But yeah, I think all of these things are unfathomable, and I think when you look at the plot from start to finish, clearly, the goal the entire time was to circumvent the peaceful transfer of power. That was the goal from start to finish, whether it was through false claims, whether it was through illegal schemes, or whether it was through violence at the Capitol to delay the certification of the vote.
When it comes to incitement, it has to be incitement to immediate lawless action. That’s the standard for incitement. And I’m very meticulous in how I use this because I happen to speak publicly a lot, and that means there are lots of people who listen to me, which means some of those people are probably crazy and some of them may go and do a crazy thing. Did I incite them? The media tends to use the word incitement very loosely with regard to this sort of stuff, in the same way that Bernie Sanders, quote, unquote, “incited” the congressional baseball shooting. He did not. Bernie Sanders has a lot of things I disagree with. I think Bernie’s a schmuck, doesn’t matter. He did not incite that.
So saying bad things is not the same thing as inciting violence. Inciting violence, the legal standard in the United States is, I want you to go punch that guy in the face. That’s inciting. With regard to insurrection, typically, in insurrection, and there are some descriptions in case law, though none in statutory law as far as [inaudible 01:26:50]. The typical description in case law is the replacement of one legitimate government of the United States with another by violent means. The notion that Donald Trump coordinated any such insurrection is belied by the FBI itself. The FBI put out a report in, I believe it was…
And then again, the claim that January 6th itself was an insurrection… I’m not aware that anyone was charged with actual insurrection. There were some people who were charged with seditious conspiracy. There are insurrection statutes that do exist. No one was charged under those particular statutes. There were some people who you could say informally had insurrectionist ideas. Those would be the people who wanted to hang Nancy Pelosi or kill Mike Pence, and those people are in jail right now. And the election went forward. The election was certified. Mike Pence presided over the certification. Mitch McConnell presided over the certification. Joe Biden has been the President for the last three years.
Donald Trump, by the way, was still President at that point. If he had actually wanted to do what other people who’ve actually launched coups have done, he would’ve theoretically called the National Guard not to put down the riot but to actually depose the sitting Government of the United States in the name of a specious legal theory. He did not do that, he did not attempt that. Nobody working for him did that. The most you can say, I think, about what everybody was doing… and I don’t want to say everybody. We can talk about Trump because this is really about Trump.
He used a phrase that Trump was disseminating knowingly false information. The word that’s carrying a lot of weight there is the word knowingly. Knowingly implies a knower. Do I think the information he was disseminating was false? Yes. Do I think that Donald Trump has unique capacity to convince himself of nearly anything that is to his own benefit? Absolutely. And I think that that’s actually what Donald Trump was doing there, and the evidence for that is Donald Trump being a human and all of us watching him for the last several years.
So the idea that he knew it to be false, I’m not even sure those standards apply in any… just assessing him as a human, which is really what we’re being asked to do because there’s an intent element to this crime. Do you think that today, Donald Trump knows that he lost the election?
I think that Trump kind of thought… One, I don’t think Trump knows much at all about how the Government works. I think we probably agree with that. I think Trump probably thought that if he had people that were at least in his party and kind of camp, that they’ll basically do whatever needs to be done to give him what he wants, and with no respect for process. But now that he sees that, well, it’s not enough to just have allies; I need people that are fiercely alleged to me, would we not be worried that a guy that tried to essentially steal the election for real wouldn’t try to pick people that would be more amenable to his plans in the next administration?
It is unlike, say, the analogs that are used by the majority opinion, like age. Obviously this is not the same thing. We can all tell what somebody’s age is by looking at their birth certificate. I can’t tell whether somebody’s an insurrectionist without any reference to a legal statute or definition of the term.
That used to be applied in sort of Marxist ways, the suggestion being that economic inequality was the result of misallocation of power in the structure preserved by an upper crust of people who wanted to cram down exploitation on people. That was sort of the Marxist version of postmodernism, and that got transmuted into sort of a racial version of postmodernism in which the systems of the United States are white supremacist in orientation, and are perpetuated by a group of people who are in fact in favor of the preservation of white power and white supremacy. That is the generalized theory of Critical Race Theory as proposed by, for example, Jean Stefancic and Richard Delgado in their book on Critical Race Theory.
That has taken a softer form that we refer to as DEI. The key in DEI is the E, meaning equity. So equity is a term that does not mean equality. People mix it up. Equality is the idea that we all ought to have equal rights, that we all ought to be treated equally by the law. Equity is the idea that if there is an inequality that emerges from any system, it is therefore due to discrimination, and the best way to tell whether somebody has been victimized is by dint of their race, and we can tell whether you’re a member of an oppressed group or an oppressor group by the intersectional identity that you carry, and by the nature of your group’s success or failure predominantly along economic and power lines in American life.
This means that if one group is predominantly successful economically, they must be a member of the victimizing class, and the only corrective for that would be, as Ibram X. Kendi likes to suggest, effectively anti-racist policies, racism in the serVice of destroying racism. That you’re going to have to in order to correct for discrimination that’s baked into the system. That’s incredibly dangerous. It leads to a victim-victimizer narrative that is unhealthy for individuals and terrible for societies. It relieves people of individual responsibility and it destroys the very notion of an objective metric by which we can decide meritocracy and meritocracy is the only system human beings have ever devised that has positive externalities in literally any area of life.
Every other distribution of wealth, power done along other lines that is not having to do with merit, has negative externalities. Every system having to do with merit has positive externalities because presumably the most effective and useful people are going to succeed under those systems. That’s the very basis of a meritocracy. And the externalities of that mean that other people benefit from the meritorious and excellent performance of those people.
I mean, one of the costs of education escalating is in the massive administrative function that is now undertaken by universities, as opposed to teaching and cost of dorms and such.
The issue that you run into is people don’t ever have a stopping point, and I think people kind of get lost in this woke-for-woke-sake thing where we start to see these very weird workings of these academic, I guess, arguments that are used for really horrible things. So for instance, I think that you can talk about in the United States, things like white supremacy or things like Oppression or certain demographics, especially with Jim Crow laws and pre-Jim Crow, and you can even talk about effects from that.
But then when you run into this weird world where we’ve kind of worked these things so that not only is white supremacy still as present today as it ever has been, well actually black people and other minorities can’t even be racist. They don’t have the power to, because we’re going to use a different definition of racism and we can only talk about punching up as opposed to punching down. And then we’re actually going to say it’s totally okay for these people to say or do whatever they want, and it’s never bad. But white people, who have always been the oppressors, even if you’re like a trailer park guy whose family’s addicted to meth, you have all this privilege, etc, etc.
I think that you run into these issues where woke ism, it starts off as a really good idea and I would argue has achieved really good things, especially in regards to women’s education and everything, and then it just gets so academia-ized… There’s a word there, academic, whatever, where you take something and you put it into school too much and then it comes out as some Frankenstein cancer baby of horrible things, such that today when I’m reading stuff, and I know Ben is the same way, if I even hear somebody say the word anti-racism, I’m probably ignoring every other thing you have to say.
If you utter the word like colonial anything, I’m probably going to say you probably don’t have anything good to say. Yeah, a lot of it has just taken way too far. But you know what I will blame on some of this is I will blame conservatives for some of this-
For a long time, conservatives are saying, oh, the educational institutions are against us. Rush Limbaugh talks about how evil the colleges are and blah, blah, blah. And then what happens is conservatives are less and less willing to engage in them. So then you get this scenario or this environment where everybody that’s engaged in academia on the administrative side are fucking insane. They’re even more so to, and I also want to draw a distinction between the administrators and the faculty because oftentimes when you’re reading story after story after story of all of these insane admins that are pushing further and further left, usually the faculty is fighting against it. A lot of the tenure professors, a lot of people in their departments are saying, hold on, well, we actually don’t agree with this.
But I feel like, because conservatives for so long have demonized these institutions rather than critically evaluated them and tried to have honest critique and engagement, that they’ve just completely broken off. And when you only have a bunch of lefties or righties together, all they’ll do is they veer off even more into their insane directions. I feel like that’s a big problem that we’ve run into in the country to where conservatives have totally broken off some conversations, broken away from where they won’t participate in them anymore, and then the people that you have left just run as far to the left as possible.
And he talks about this, it’s a very evocative episode where he’s talking about how he’s smoking, and as he’s smoking, the ash is growing more and more, and the ash falls down on this very expensive carpet. And the president of the university who’s listening to him rant and rave, Shelby Steele says, “I thought he was going to say something about this. I mean, I was wrecking a thousand dollar carpet in his office being a jackass, and instead, I could see him wilt inside. I could see him collapse. He didn’t have the institutional credibility or sort of the spiritual strength to just say, ‘Listen, I agree with you on some of these things, but you’re acting like a jackass.'” And what you see in the late 1960s and early 1970s is in fact the collapse of these institutions to the point where, by the time I was going to college, there was this radical disproportion between conservatives and liberals.
The problem is that when it comes to a system like the universities, basically you have to separate the universities off into two separate categories. One is STEM, where the universities are still pretty damn good. American universities, when it comes to STEM, are still leading universities in the world. Harvard’s main creations these days are coming from actual hard science field. Then you have the liberal arts field in which you basically have a self-perpetuating elite because that’s actually how dissertations work. If you have somebody who’s very far to the left and you decide that you’re going to write a dissertation on the history of American gun rights, the chances that that is going to be approved by your dissertation advisor are much lower than if you happen to write something that tends to agree with the political positions of your dissertation advisor. Now, listen, I think there are open and tolerant professors, even in the liberal arts at these universities.
I went to these universities. I went to UCLA, I went to Harvard Law School. When I was at Harvard Law School, one of my favorite professors was Lani Guinier. Lani Guinier, they tried to appoint her, I believe, Secretary of Labor under Clinton. And she was too liberal and she got rejected. So she was like a full- on communist. By the time I went there, she was great. We had debates every day. It was wonderful. She used to write me recommendations for my legal jobs. After we left, Randall Kennedy, I don’t agree with him very much. Randall Kennedy was terrific professor. There are some professors who are like this. Unfortunately, there tends to be, in these echo chambers, more and more ideological conformity that is rigorously enforced, and it is by left on left. So, for example, when I was at Harvard Law School, the president of the university was another president who ended up being ousted, Larry Summers.
Larry Summers had been the Secretary of Treasury under Bill Clinton, and he made the critical error of suggesting that perhaps the dearth of women in hard sciences in prestigious positions was due to possibly two factors that people were refusing to talk about. One was the possibility that women actually didn’t want to be in hard sciences at nearly the rates that men do, which happens to be true. And, two, was the distribution of STEM IQ, which is something that you certainly were not allowed to talk about. The idea that the men’s bell curve when it comes to IQ, particularly on STEM subjects, tends to be shallower than the women’s bell curve. So when you get to the very end of the bell curve, what you tend to see is a lot of really dumb guys and a lot of really smarter guys.
And so when you’re talking about the top universities, maybe that has something to do with the disproportion. And he’s trying to explain that to say that our systems are not discriminating if we end up with more men than women, maybe more men are applying and more men are qualified. That’s quite a… He was ousted for that by a left-wing faculty and general alum network at Harvard University. There’s a lot to blame conservatives for surrendering the playing field. I totally agree that conservatives should not have surrendered the playing field in some institutions. Colleges were surrendered a lot earlier than 20 years ago. They were surrendered in the late 1960s, early 1970s.
And then, two, there’s a general hopelessness when it comes to how society is ran or structured, such that you fall into that populist brain rot of the only person that can save me is Donald Trump. I can’t trust literally anything. And I think that when you start driving people into that direction, all it does is it further amplifies all the problems that you’re complaining about. So that’s one of the reasons why when we talk about conservative participation, I want there to be more conservatives that are trying to participate in academia. But I feel like the leading thought or the leading speaking out against it is basically saying it’s a waste of time. It’s completely lost.
A person who used to be able to just graduate high school, now it’s de facto, you got to go to JuCo, and then you got to go to college, or nobody’s even going to look at your resume. It’s really, really terrible for people who can’t afford all of that. It’s led to this massive increase in educational cost that is inexplicable other than this particular sort of bleed up. And by the way, federal subsidies for higher education, again, one of my problems with federal subsidies for higher education, I’d love for everyone to be able to go to college if qualified to do so and if it is productive. But one of the things I did when I went to law school is I took loans because a bank said I was going to get my money back if I got a law degree from Harvard. But you know when you’re not going to get your money back? If you’re a bank, you’re not going to lend to some dude who wants to major in Art Theory because is that a good bet? There’s no collateral.
If I give a loan for a house, I can go repossess the house. How do I repossess your garbage college degree from UCLA? There’s no way to do that. This is the broader conversation about education in general. I think the educational system is cruising for a bruising, and I think all that’s necessary for it to completely collapse on the non-STEM side where you actually learn things is for people who employ to simply say, give me your SAT score and I will hire you for an apprenticeship directly out of high school. That it would cut out so much of the middleman. But as far as the general point that you’re making about institutions, I may disagree on the education and how far it’s gone. In general, I agree with you. So in general, I agree. And, I guess, to use my favorite longest word in the English language here, I would consider myself in many cases an anti-disestablishmentarianist.
The idea of a full commitment to a human being with whom you genetically create children, which is typically how we’ve done it throughout human existence, is in fact the fundamental basis for any functional civilization. It allows for the transmission of culture and values. It allows for the transmission of beliefs and responsibility. And it gives the great lie to both, the communitarian lie, the atomistic individualist lie. The communitarian lie is that you belong to the giant community of man, which is not true because you have a family. And your allegiance should be and is naturally to the members of your family first. That’s how we learn, and then we expound that out.
And it also is a lie to the notion that we are all atomistic individuals with no responsibilities. We are born into a world of responsibilities. Everyone is born into a world of responsibilities, and rules, and roles. And those are good. And if we do not actually socialize our children that way, there will be, number one, no children. Number two, there will be no healthy children. Number three, there will be not the foundation for either social fabric, which is the real glue that holds together society or for a functional government. So, yes. Yes, monogamous marriage. I’m a fan. 15 years married, four kids. Yes.
And, arguably, although we’re getting into weird places I guess in the world now, children are the primary conduit for where you transmit cultural values and everything. The one kind of weird thing that we are coming up against, that we have been coming up against now for some number of decades and we’ll continue to is as societies progress, seems like people are having less children. And I actually don’t know 100% what the answer is to that question.
I don’t know if I would say there exists a moral imperative on an individual to have children. I think that there’s a lot of interesting arguments down that path. I don’t know if we’re quite at the point yet where we need to say like, oh my God, we’re running out of people. We need to have more kids. I don’t think we’re quite there yet, but we are seeing weird demographic trends that are having big impacts on how countries are playing out. For instance, the fact that we have a disproportionately huge aging population that needs to be taken care of with medical expenses and everything, that vote in different ways than our younger population, and that when they die off, the way that society is going to look is going to be a lot different. I don’t actually have a, I’m not entirely sure what the future’s going to look like in terms of pushing people to have kids when every single industrialized country, as they become more industrialized, have fewer and fewer and fewer children.
So I think if you go through life saying, well, I try my best to be unbiased rather than saying, I try my best to be aware of my biases because the latter is more realistic and the former is literally impossible unless you’re a computer. So I think having actual mental practices that you engage in to try to counter some of the biases that you have is more important than trying to pretend that you’re free of all biases and then consuming all your media from one source.
Click link to jump approximately to that part in the transcript:
- 0:00 – Introduction
- 1:36 – Liberalism vs Conservatism
- 6:49 – Education
- 23:06 – Trump vs Biden
- 43:31 – Foreign policy
- 56:28 – Israel-Palestine
- 1:11:25 – Russia-Ukraine
- 1:23:04 – January 6
- 1:39:03 – Abuse of power
- 1:49:01 – Wokeism
- 1:55:42 – Institutional capture
- 2:09:36 – Monogamy vs open relationships
- 2:14:29 – Rapid fire questions
Introduction
Destiny
Something has to happen with Iran. There has to be some diplomatic bilateral communication there.
Something has to happen with Iran. There has to be some diplomatic bilateral communication there.
Ben Shapiro
No. What has to happen is the containment of Iran.
No. What has to happen is the containment of Iran.
Destiny
History moves in one direction.
History moves in one direction.
Ben Shapiro
Why?
Why?
Destiny
Because of time.
Because of time.
Ben Shapiro
Communism, Nazism, all of that was a regression from what was happening at, for example, the beginning of the 19th century into the 20th century.
Communism, Nazism, all of that was a regression from what was happening at, for example, the beginning of the 19th century into the 20th century.
Destiny
In what way?
In what way?
Ben Shapiro
Do you think that today Donald Trump knows that he lost the election?
Do you think that today Donald Trump knows that he lost the election?
Destiny
Absolutely.
Absolutely.
Ben Shapiro
I don’t.
I don’t.
Destiny
This is one of the areas where we get into this, I don’t understand if there’s brain-breaking happening or what’s going on. I don’t know what world we can ever live in where we say that Trump is less divisive for the country than Biden.
This is one of the areas where we get into this, I don’t understand if there’s brain-breaking happening or what’s going on. I don’t know what world we can ever live in where we say that Trump is less divisive for the country than Biden.
Ben Shapiro
Joe Biden literally used the Occupational Safety and Hazard Administration to try to cram down vax mandates on 80 million Americans. That’s insane.
Joe Biden literally used the Occupational Safety and Hazard Administration to try to cram down vax mandates on 80 million Americans. That’s insane.
Destiny
What about supercalifragilisticexpialidocious?
What about supercalifragilisticexpialidocious?
Ben Shapiro
What about pneumonoultramicroscopicsilicovolcanoconiosis?
What about pneumonoultramicroscopicsilicovolcanoconiosis?
Destiny
Yeah, or the science terms.
Yeah, or the science terms.
Ben Shapiro
Yeah, exactly.
Yeah, exactly.
Destiny
Or what about the 7,000 letter thing that’s from part of a biochem.
Or what about the 7,000 letter thing that’s from part of a biochem.
Lex Fridman
I got my education in the Soviet Union. So we just did math. We didn’t run any of this.
I got my education in the Soviet Union. So we just did math. We didn’t run any of this.
Ben Shapiro
That’s why you’re a useful person.
That’s why you’re a useful person.
Lex Fridman
Does body count matter? The following is a debate between Ben Shapiro and Destiny. Each arguably representing the right and left of American politics respectively. They are two of the most influential and skilled political debaters in the world. This debate has been a long time coming for many years. It’s about 2.5 hours and we could have easily gone for many more. And I’m sure we will. It is only round one. This is the Lex Fridman Podcast to support it. Please check out our sponsors in the description. And now, dear friends, here’s Ben Shapiro and Destiny.
Does body count matter? The following is a debate between Ben Shapiro and Destiny. Each arguably representing the right and left of American politics respectively. They are two of the most influential and skilled political debaters in the world. This debate has been a long time coming for many years. It’s about 2.5 hours and we could have easily gone for many more. And I’m sure we will. It is only round one. This is the Lex Fridman Podcast to support it. Please check out our sponsors in the description. And now, dear friends, here’s Ben Shapiro and Destiny.
Liberalism vs Conservatism
Ben, you’re conservative. Destiny, you’re a liberal. Can you each describe what key values underpin your philosophy on politics and maybe life in the context of this left to right political spectrum? You want to go first?
Destiny
Yeah. So I think that we have a huge country full of a lot of people, a lot of individual talents, capabilities, and I think that the goal of government, broadly speaking, should be to try to ensure that everybody is able to achieve as much as possible. So on a liberal level, that usually means some people might need a little bit of a boost when it comes to things like education. They might need a little bit of a boost when it comes to providing certain necessities like housing or food or clothing. But broadly speaking, I mean, I’m still a liberal, not a communist or a socialist. I don’t believe in the total command economy, total communist takeover of all of the economy, but I think that broadly speaking, the government should kick in and help people when they need it.
Yeah. So I think that we have a huge country full of a lot of people, a lot of individual talents, capabilities, and I think that the goal of government, broadly speaking, should be to try to ensure that everybody is able to achieve as much as possible. So on a liberal level, that usually means some people might need a little bit of a boost when it comes to things like education. They might need a little bit of a boost when it comes to providing certain necessities like housing or food or clothing. But broadly speaking, I mean, I’m still a liberal, not a communist or a socialist. I don’t believe in the total command economy, total communist takeover of all of the economy, but I think that broadly speaking, the government should kick in and help people when they need it.
Lex Fridman
And that government can and should be big?
And that government can and should be big?
Destiny
Not necessarily. I noticed that when liberals talk about government, especially taxes, it seems like they talk about it for taxes sake or bigness sake. So people talk about taxes sometimes as like a punishment, like tax the rich. I think taxing the rich is fine insofar as it funds the programs that we want to fund. But Democrats have a really big problem demonizing success or wealth. And I don’t think that’s a bad thing. I don’t think it’s a bad thing to be wealthy, to be a billionaire or whatever, as long as we’re funding what we need to fund.
Not necessarily. I noticed that when liberals talk about government, especially taxes, it seems like they talk about it for taxes sake or bigness sake. So people talk about taxes sometimes as like a punishment, like tax the rich. I think taxing the rich is fine insofar as it funds the programs that we want to fund. But Democrats have a really big problem demonizing success or wealth. And I don’t think that’s a bad thing. I don’t think it’s a bad thing to be wealthy, to be a billionaire or whatever, as long as we’re funding what we need to fund.
Lex Fridman
Ben, what do you think it means to be a conservative? What’s the philosophy that underlies your political view?
Ben, what do you think it means to be a conservative? What’s the philosophy that underlies your political view?
Ben Shapiro
So first of all, I’m glad that Destiny, you’re already coming out as a Republican. That’s exciting. I mean, we hold a lot in common in terms of the basic idea that people ought to have as much opportunity as possible and also insofar as the government should do the minimum amount necessary to interfere in people’s lives in order to pursue certain functions, particularly at the local level.
So first of all, I’m glad that Destiny, you’re already coming out as a Republican. That’s exciting. I mean, we hold a lot in common in terms of the basic idea that people ought to have as much opportunity as possible and also insofar as the government should do the minimum amount necessary to interfere in people’s lives in order to pursue certain functions, particularly at the local level.
So a lot of governmental discussions on a pragmatic level end up being discussions about where government ought to be involved, but also at what level government ought to be involved. And I have an incredibly subsidiary view of government. I think that local governments, because you have higher levels of homogeneity and consent are capable of doing more things. And as you abstract up the chain, it becomes more and more impractical and more and more divisive to do more things.
In my view, government is basically there to preserve certain key liberties. Those key liberties pre-exist the government insofar as they’re more important than what priorities the government has. The job of government is to maintain, for example, national defense, protection of property rights, protection of religious freedom. These are the key focuses of government as generally expressed in the Bill of Rights and the Constitution. And I agree with the general philosophy of the Bill of Rights and the Constitution.
Now, that doesn’t mean by the way, that you can’t do more on a governmental level again as you get closer to the ground, which by the way is also embedded in the Constitution. People forget the Constitution was originally applied to the federal government, not to local and state government. But if I were going to define conservatism, it would actually be a little broader than that because I think to understand how people interact with government, you have to go to core values.
And so for me, there are a couple of premises. One, human beings have a nature. That nature is neither good nor bad. We have aspects of goodness and we have aspects of badness. Human beings are sinful. We have temptations. What that means is that we have to be careful not to incentivize the bad and that we should incentivize the good. Human beings do have agency and are capable of making decisions in the vast majority of circumstances. And it’s better for society if we act as though they do.
Second, the basic idea of human nature. There is an idea in my view that all human beings have equal value before the law. I’m a religious person, so I’d say equal value before God. But I think that’s also sort of a key tenet of Western civilization being non-religious or religious, that every individual has equivalent value in sort of cosmic terms.
But that does not necessarily mean that every person is equally equipped to do everything equally well. And so it is not the job of government to rectify every imbalance of life. The quest for cosmic justice, as Thomas Sowell suggests, is something that government is generally incapable of doing, and more often than not, botches and makes things worse. So those are a few key tenets and that tends to materialize in a variety of ways. The easiest way to sum that up would the traditional kind of three legs of the conservative stool, although now obviously there’s a very fragmented conservative movement in the United States would be a socially conservative view in which family is the chief institution of society, like the little platoons of society as Edmund Burke suggested, in which free markets and property rights are extraordinarily valuable and necessary because every individual has the ability to be creative with their property and to freely alienate that property.
Finally, I tend toward a hawkish foreign policy that suggests that the world is not filled with wonderful people who all agree with us and think like us. And those people will pursue adversarial interests if we do not protect our own interests.
Destiny
Can I ask a question on that? I’m so curious.
Can I ask a question on that? I’m so curious.
Lex Fridman
Okay.
Okay.
Education
Destiny
I’m excited for this conversation because I consider you to be really intelligent, but I feel like sometimes there are ways that conservatives talk about certain issues that seem to defy logic and reason, I guess. And I’m sure you feel the same way about… Well, I feel the same way about progressives, but even some liberals for sure. Before I ask this question, it’s going to relate to education. We can agree broadly speaking that statistics are real and that not everybody could do everything. So for a grounded example, my life was pretty bad. I got into streaming and I turned my life around and that was really cool. But I can’t expect everybody to do what I did. Right? Like everybody being able to join the NBA or to be like a streamer.
I’m excited for this conversation because I consider you to be really intelligent, but I feel like sometimes there are ways that conservatives talk about certain issues that seem to defy logic and reason, I guess. And I’m sure you feel the same way about… Well, I feel the same way about progressives, but even some liberals for sure. Before I ask this question, it’s going to relate to education. We can agree broadly speaking that statistics are real and that not everybody could do everything. So for a grounded example, my life was pretty bad. I got into streaming and I turned my life around and that was really cool. But I can’t expect everybody to do what I did. Right? Like everybody being able to join the NBA or to be like a streamer.
Ben Shapiro
Of course, everybody has different qualities. Sure.
Of course, everybody has different qualities. Sure.
Destiny
Okay. So I used to be a lot more libertarian when I was 20, 21. And one of the things that dramatically changed my view on government, manipulation of things in the, I guess, in society when it came time to deal with my son and the school that he went to. And one of the things that I noticed was when time to send my son to school, I could either do private education or I could do public.
Okay. So I used to be a lot more libertarian when I was 20, 21. And one of the things that dramatically changed my view on government, manipulation of things in the, I guess, in society when it came time to deal with my son and the school that he went to. And one of the things that I noticed was when time to send my son to school, I could either do private education or I could do public.
Personally, I did 12 years of Catholic private education. However, the public schools in Nebraska, depending on where you lived, were very, very, very good. I opted for a certain district, I bought a house there, I moved there, and then my son was able to go to those schools. And he’s been going through those schools and the difference of availability of technology, these kids are taking home iPads in first grade. They’ve got huge computer labs and everything. Do you think that there is some type of, I don’t want to say injustice or unfairness because not even looking at it that way, just pragmatically that there might be children that are in certain schools that if they just had better funding or more access to technologies or things available to them, that those kids would become more productive members of society that would like a little bit of a help that they could actually achieve more and do better for all of society?
Ben Shapiro
So I think that on the list of priorities when it comes to education, the availability of technology is actually fairly low on the list of priorities.
So I think that on the list of priorities when it comes to education, the availability of technology is actually fairly low on the list of priorities.
Destiny
Sure. The two things I’ve heard are food availability, and I think air conditioning I think are the two biggest ones that I hear, but sure.
Sure. The two things I’ve heard are food availability, and I think air conditioning I think are the two biggest ones that I hear, but sure.
Ben Shapiro
Well, I mean the biggest thing in terms of education itself, not just the physical facilities that we’re talking about, would actually be two parent family households.
Well, I mean the biggest thing in terms of education itself, not just the physical facilities that we’re talking about, would actually be two parent family households.
Destiny
Sure.
Sure.
Ben Shapiro
Communities that have fathers in them. It’s actually the number one decisive according to Roland Friar and many studies done on this particular topic. And the idea that money alone, that investment of resources is the top priority in schooling is belied by the fact that LAUSD, which is where I went to school when I was younger, they pour an enormous amount of money into LAUSD. We’re talking about tens of thousands of dollars very often per student, and it does not result in better schooling outcomes.
Communities that have fathers in them. It’s actually the number one decisive according to Roland Friar and many studies done on this particular topic. And the idea that money alone, that investment of resources is the top priority in schooling is belied by the fact that LAUSD, which is where I went to school when I was younger, they pour an enormous amount of money into LAUSD. We’re talking about tens of thousands of dollars very often per student, and it does not result in better schooling outcomes.
So when you say, if we could give every kid an iPad, would you give every kid an iPad? The question is not, if I had a replicator machine from Star Trek, would I give everybody an enormous amount of stuff? Sure, I would. Every resource is fine. It every resource is limited, and you have to prioritize what are the outcomes that you seek in terms of the means with which you are seeking them.
And so, again, I think that the question is… I quibble with the premise of the question, which is that, again, the chief injustice when it comes to education on the list of injustices is lack of availability to technology or that it’s a funding problem. I just don’t think that’s the case.
Destiny
Sure. And I can half agree with you there, but I don’t think any amount of changes in the schools will create two parent households. We can’t bring a-
Sure. And I can half agree with you there, but I don’t think any amount of changes in the schools will create two parent households. We can’t bring a-
Ben Shapiro
I totally agree with you. That’s why I think that the fundamental educational problem is not in fact a schooling problem. I think that it preexist that.
I totally agree with you. That’s why I think that the fundamental educational problem is not in fact a schooling problem. I think that it preexist that.
Destiny
Sure. Now, I feel like this is kind of the conservative merry-go-round where it’s like, what can we do to help with schools? So two of the things that I’ve seen I think that are usually brought up in research is one is air conditioning that children in hotter environments just don’t learn as well. And then the second one is access to food. So kids that are given a breakfast or a lunch that’s provided at school increases educational outcomes.
Sure. Now, I feel like this is kind of the conservative merry-go-round where it’s like, what can we do to help with schools? So two of the things that I’ve seen I think that are usually brought up in research is one is air conditioning that children in hotter environments just don’t learn as well. And then the second one is access to food. So kids that are given a breakfast or a lunch that’s provided at school increases educational outcomes.
Now, I agree that neither of these things might be determinative in, well, 20% of kids were graduating and now 80% of kids are graduating. Or these kids are all going with their GEDs into the workforce, and now these kids are all suddenly becoming engineers. But in terms of where we can help, do you think there should be some minimum threshold or minimum baseline of… At the very least, every school should have a non-leaky gym or every school should have… If children can’t afford lunch or breakfast like some sort of food provided or every school should have these baseline things?
Ben Shapiro
So again, I’m going to quibble with the premise of the question because I think that when it comes to, for example, food insecurity, school food programs… Again, you can always pour money into any program and at the margins create change. I mean, there’s no doubt that pouring money onto anything will create change in a marginal way. The question is how large is the margin and how big is the movement? So the delta is what I’m looking at.
So again, I’m going to quibble with the premise of the question because I think that when it comes to, for example, food insecurity, school food programs… Again, you can always pour money into any program and at the margins create change. I mean, there’s no doubt that pouring money onto anything will create change in a marginal way. The question is how large is the margin and how big is the movement? So the delta is what I’m looking at.
I think that you’re starting at a second order question, which is what if we ignore what I would think are the big primary questions of education, namely family structure, value of education at home. How much you have parents who are capable or willing to help with homework? What are the incentive structures we can set up for a society that actually facilitate that? How local communities take ownership of their schools is a big one, right?
All of these issues we’re ignoring in favor of, say, “Air conditioning or lunch programs.” And so in a vacuum, if you say air conditioning and lunch programs sounds great in a vacuum. In terms of prioritization of values and cost structure, are those the things that I think are going to move the needle in a major way in terms of public policy? I do not. And in fact, I think that many of them end up being disproportionate wastes of money. I’ve talked before pretty controversially about the fact that an enormous amount of school lunch programs are thrown out.
An enormous amount of that food ends up in the garbage can. Is there a better way to do that? If there is a better way to do it, then I’m perfectly willing to hear about that better way to do it. But it seems to me that one of the big flaws in the way that many people of the left approach government is what if we hit every gnat with a hammer? And my question is, what if the gnat isn’t even the problem? What if there is a much bigger substructure problem that needs to be solved in order to… If you’re shifting deck chairs on the Titanic, sure, you can make the Titanic slightly more balanced because the deck chairs are slightly better oriented. But the real question is the water that’s gaping into the Titanic, right?
Destiny
Yeah. And I agree with you 100%, but again, I feel like we’re on the conservative merry-go-round then of never wanting to address-
Yeah. And I agree with you 100%, but again, I feel like we’re on the conservative merry-go-round then of never wanting to address-
Ben Shapiro
That’s not a conservative merry-go-round. I can give you 10 ways.
That’s not a conservative merry-go-round. I can give you 10 ways.
Destiny
Well, sure. So here would be the merry-go-round. I would say that there is a minimum funding for schools that I think would help children, and then we go, “Well, the thing that would help them the most is two parent household.” Then they go, “Okay. Well, two parent households actually aren’t the problem. The issue is access to things like birth controls that people don’t have children early on.” And it’s like, “But the issue isn’t actually birth control, the issue is actually you need a certain amount of money to move out early and to get married and then to have a two-parent household.” So it’s actually like economic opportunity.
Well, sure. So here would be the merry-go-round. I would say that there is a minimum funding for schools that I think would help children, and then we go, “Well, the thing that would help them the most is two parent household.” Then they go, “Okay. Well, two parent households actually aren’t the problem. The issue is access to things like birth controls that people don’t have children early on.” And it’s like, “But the issue isn’t actually birth control, the issue is actually you need a certain amount of money to move out early and to get married and then to have a two-parent household.” So it’s actually like economic opportunity.
Ben Shapiro
No.
No.
Destiny
Well, it’s not…
Well, it’s not…
Ben Shapiro
Just two parent households. That’s it.
Just two parent households. That’s it.
Destiny
But what are the pre-cursor-
But what are the pre-cursor-
Ben Shapiro
Don’t fuck people before you’re married and have babies.
Don’t fuck people before you’re married and have babies.
Destiny
Sure.
Sure.
Ben Shapiro
Done.
Done.
Destiny
That’s great. We can say that and try to fight against however many hundreds of thousands of years of human evolution, but people will have sex and people will make babies.
That’s great. We can say that and try to fight against however many hundreds of thousands of years of human evolution, but people will have sex and people will make babies.
Ben Shapiro
And then they used to get married. The vast majority of people in this country with kids used to be married. The vast majority of people with kids in this country now are not married increasingly.
And then they used to get married. The vast majority of people in this country with kids used to be married. The vast majority of people with kids in this country now are not married increasingly.
Destiny
But a lot of those-
But a lot of those-
Ben Shapiro
It’s obviously a societal change. Something changed. It wasn’t human evolution.
It’s obviously a societal change. Something changed. It wasn’t human evolution.
Destiny
But a lot of those things in terms of resting on whether or not people get married, have to do with financial decisions. Do you have the money?
But a lot of those things in terms of resting on whether or not people get married, have to do with financial decisions. Do you have the money?
Ben Shapiro
People are worse off now than they were 50, 60 years ago when the marriage rates were higher.
People are worse off now than they were 50, 60 years ago when the marriage rates were higher.
Destiny
People are delaying the start of their careers because education is going to be increasingly important.
People are delaying the start of their careers because education is going to be increasingly important.
Ben Shapiro
So in other words, people are richer now and they have more education now, and yet they’re having more babies out of wedlock now because they’re richer and have more education?
So in other words, people are richer now and they have more education now, and yet they’re having more babies out of wedlock now because they’re richer and have more education?
Destiny
I’m saying that one of the biggest indicators for whether or not somebody is willing to get married is how much money both people are making if they can move out of their household. People don’t tend to want to get married at 22 when they’ve just finished college, when they don’t have the money to move out and they can’t afford a house.
I’m saying that one of the biggest indicators for whether or not somebody is willing to get married is how much money both people are making if they can move out of their household. People don’t tend to want to get married at 22 when they’ve just finished college, when they don’t have the money to move out and they can’t afford a house.
Ben Shapiro
Because we have changed the moral status of marriage in the culture. Meaning that everyone poor, rich and in between used to get married. By the way, a huge percentage of marriages in the United States used to be what they would call shotgun marriages, meaning that somebody knocked somebody up and because they did not want the baby to be born outside of a two-parent household, they would then get married.
Because we have changed the moral status of marriage in the culture. Meaning that everyone poor, rich and in between used to get married. By the way, a huge percentage of marriages in the United States used to be what they would call shotgun marriages, meaning that somebody knocked somebody up and because they did not want the baby to be born outside of a two-parent household, they would then get married.
Destiny
Do we think that shotgun marriages though are a way to bring back equilibrium to education?
Do we think that shotgun marriages though are a way to bring back equilibrium to education?
Ben Shapiro
Yes, absolutely. Yes, 100%. A child deserves a mother and a father because that is the basis for all of this, including education.
Yes, absolutely. Yes, 100%. A child deserves a mother and a father because that is the basis for all of this, including education.
Destiny
Do we think that shotgun marriages are… Well, let’s say this. Do we think that that’s a reasonable direction that society would ever take? Or is this-
Do we think that shotgun marriages are… Well, let’s say this. Do we think that that’s a reasonable direction that society would ever take? Or is this-
Ben Shapiro
Yes. It was the reasonable direction for nearly all of modern history
Yes. It was the reasonable direction for nearly all of modern history
Destiny
Was, but history moves in one direction.
Was, but history moves in one direction.
Ben Shapiro
Why?
Why?
Destiny
Because of time.
Because of time.
Ben Shapiro
People don’t think that’s… In what ways?
People don’t think that’s… In what ways?
Destiny
I don’t think we’ve ever regressed social standards back to like, “Oh, well, let’s go a hundred years back and do things that used to exist before.”
I don’t think we’ve ever regressed social standards back to like, “Oh, well, let’s go a hundred years back and do things that used to exist before.”
Ben Shapiro
The entire left right now is arguing that we regressed social standards by rejecting Roe v. Wade. So that’s obviously not true.
The entire left right now is arguing that we regressed social standards by rejecting Roe v. Wade. So that’s obviously not true.
Destiny
The Roe v. Wade is not a social standard. It’s a supreme court ruling, number one. But number two, if you read the actual majority opinion on Roe v. Wade, we can see that socially we ever actually never made huge progress on how society viewed abortion. This has always been an incredibly divisive thing. Even that was, I think, part of Alitos writing on it was that things like gay marriage, for instance, we’ve kind of moved past, and it’s not really as debated anymore, but abortion was never a subtle topic despite Rove v. Wade.
The Roe v. Wade is not a social standard. It’s a supreme court ruling, number one. But number two, if you read the actual majority opinion on Roe v. Wade, we can see that socially we ever actually never made huge progress on how society viewed abortion. This has always been an incredibly divisive thing. Even that was, I think, part of Alitos writing on it was that things like gay marriage, for instance, we’ve kind of moved past, and it’s not really as debated anymore, but abortion was never a subtle topic despite Rove v. Wade.
Ben Shapiro
The notion of the the arc of history constantly moves in one direction is belied by nearly all of the 20th century.
The notion of the the arc of history constantly moves in one direction is belied by nearly all of the 20th century.
Destiny
What do we mean by that? [inaudible 00:15:42] women’s rights? Civil rights?
What do we mean by that? [inaudible 00:15:42] women’s rights? Civil rights?
Ben Shapiro
Barbarism, communism, Nazism, all of that was a regression from what was happening at, for example, the beginning of the 19th century and the 20th century.
Barbarism, communism, Nazism, all of that was a regression from what was happening at, for example, the beginning of the 19th century and the 20th century.
Destiny
In what way?
In what way?
Ben Shapiro
Nazis and communism weren’t a regression from what was going on in 1905?
Nazis and communism weren’t a regression from what was going on in 1905?
Destiny
Well, in terms of communism being a regression, for instance… I’m not Not a communist, but the industrialization of the Soviet Union happened under communist society, the industrialization-
Well, in terms of communism being a regression, for instance… I’m not Not a communist, but the industrialization of the Soviet Union happened under communist society, the industrialization-
Ben Shapiro
Except murder of tens of millions of people.
Except murder of tens of millions of people.
Destiny
Yeah. There’s-
Yeah. There’s-
Ben Shapiro
I consider that regression, a moral regression, which is what we are talking about now, moral regression. And you’re suggesting that moral regression, I wouldn’t term. I would term return two traditional values a moral regression. You would. But your suggestion is that history only moves in one direction, and I’m suggesting that history does not only move in one direction, it tends to move actually back and forth.
I consider that regression, a moral regression, which is what we are talking about now, moral regression. And you’re suggesting that moral regression, I wouldn’t term. I would term return two traditional values a moral regression. You would. But your suggestion is that history only moves in one direction, and I’m suggesting that history does not only move in one direction, it tends to move actually back and forth.
Destiny
Sure. I don’t think that all of history moves in one direction. There are going to be wars, there are going to be times of peace. I think in general, we’re more peaceful now than we have been in the past, but I think when we look at the way that people live their lives, I think that we tend to move in a certain direction socially. So when it comes to things like racism or when it comes to things like slavery or women’s rights, I think that there are two huge things that probably aren’t changing in the US and one is access to contraception and one is women working jobs.
Sure. I don’t think that all of history moves in one direction. There are going to be wars, there are going to be times of peace. I think in general, we’re more peaceful now than we have been in the past, but I think when we look at the way that people live their lives, I think that we tend to move in a certain direction socially. So when it comes to things like racism or when it comes to things like slavery or women’s rights, I think that there are two huge things that probably aren’t changing in the US and one is access to contraception and one is women working jobs.
I think that these two things are probably huge things that are moving us off of shotgun marriages or getting married very early on, and I don’t see… Do you think that those two things are going to change fundamentally?
Ben Shapiro
First of all, what the data tend to show is that actually more highly educated people, as you are saying, tend to get married more. So the idea is that women getting an education somehow throws them off marriage. It’s the opposite. Usually it’s women who are not educated-
First of all, what the data tend to show is that actually more highly educated people, as you are saying, tend to get married more. So the idea is that women getting an education somehow throws them off marriage. It’s the opposite. Usually it’s women who are not educated-
Destiny
But those women aren’t getting shotgun marriages. Those women aren’t having children.
But those women aren’t getting shotgun marriages. Those women aren’t having children.
Ben Shapiro
But now you’re shifting the topic. My topic was how to get more people married. And then you suggested that higher levels of education are delaying marriage and making it less probable. What I’m telling you, because this is what the data suggests, is that actually as you raise up the educational ladder, people tend to be married more than they are lower down on the educational ladder. If you’re a high school graduate, you’re less likely to be married than if you’re a postdoc.
But now you’re shifting the topic. My topic was how to get more people married. And then you suggested that higher levels of education are delaying marriage and making it less probable. What I’m telling you, because this is what the data suggests, is that actually as you raise up the educational ladder, people tend to be married more than they are lower down on the educational ladder. If you’re a high school graduate, you’re less likely to be married than if you’re a postdoc.
Destiny
I agree with you, but that’s because one of the biggest precursors to getting married is having a level of economic stability. So as people get more educated, they obtain this economic stability and then they’re in a more comfortable position to explore more serious relationships.
I agree with you, but that’s because one of the biggest precursors to getting married is having a level of economic stability. So as people get more educated, they obtain this economic stability and then they’re in a more comfortable position to explore more serious relationships.
Ben Shapiro
There’s another confound there. I mean, the confound is that people in stable marriages tend to be the children of stable marriages, and there’s only one way to break that cycle, which is to create a stable marriage, and that is something that is in everyone’s hands. Again, this notion that it is somehow an unbreakable, unshatterable barrier to get married and have kids, I don’t understand where this is coming from. Why is that such a challenge? It’s not a challenge.
There’s another confound there. I mean, the confound is that people in stable marriages tend to be the children of stable marriages, and there’s only one way to break that cycle, which is to create a stable marriage, and that is something that is in everyone’s hands. Again, this notion that it is somehow an unbreakable, unshatterable barrier to get married and have kids, I don’t understand where this is coming from. Why is that such a challenge? It’s not a challenge.
Destiny
I don’t it’s unbreakable or unshatterable. The initial point was for school, if we can provide a minimum level of educational stuff for children, that’d probably be good. But when we retreat back to, well, it has to be the families that are fixed first, fixing families is a multivariate problem that so many [inaudible 00:18:19]
I don’t it’s unbreakable or unshatterable. The initial point was for school, if we can provide a minimum level of educational stuff for children, that’d probably be good. But when we retreat back to, well, it has to be the families that are fixed first, fixing families is a multivariate problem that so many [inaudible 00:18:19]
Ben Shapiro
I’m fine within my local community. Again, I’ve suggested that there’s a difference between local community and federal. I’m fine with my local community voting for school lunches or air conditioning or whatever it is that we all agreed to do. Because the more local you get, the more homogeneity you get in terms of interest and the more interest you have in your neighbors. All of that is fine. I’m part of a very, very solid community. In our community, we give to each other. We have minimum standards of helping one another.
I’m fine within my local community. Again, I’ve suggested that there’s a difference between local community and federal. I’m fine with my local community voting for school lunches or air conditioning or whatever it is that we all agreed to do. Because the more local you get, the more homogeneity you get in terms of interest and the more interest you have in your neighbors. All of that is fine. I’m part of a very, very solid community. In our community, we give to each other. We have minimum standards of helping one another.
All that is wonderful. When it comes to the actual problem of education, what I object to in the political sphere, and this happens all the time, is everybody is arguing on top of the iceberg about how we can move the needle 0.5 percentage points as opposed to the entire iceberg melting beneath them. And we just ignore that and we pretend that that’s just sort of the natural consequence of thing. The arc of history suggests that people are never going to get married again.
Well, I mean, actually what the arc of history suggests realistically speaking is that the people who are not getting married are not going to be having kids. And what it also suggests, the people who are married are going to be having kids. So the demographic profile actually over time is rather going to shift toward people who are having lots and lots of kids. I’m married, I have four kids. Everyone in my community is married. That’s like minimum buy-in my community is four kids.
So what’s happening actually in terms of demographics is that the people who are more religious and getting married are having more kids. And so if you’re talking about the arc of history shifting toward marriage, I would suggest that actually demographically over time, long periods of time, not over one generation, over long periods of time, the only cure for low birth rate is going to be the people who get married and have lots of kids.
Destiny
I don’t necessarily disagree with any of that, but I’m just saying that, again, on the… I know you’re upset when I bring up the term merry-go-round. I think that there are good conversations to be had about people getting married because stable families produce stable children that are less likely to commit crime, that are more likely to go to school, that are more likely to be productive members of society, et cetera, et cetera.
I don’t necessarily disagree with any of that, but I’m just saying that, again, on the… I know you’re upset when I bring up the term merry-go-round. I think that there are good conversations to be had about people getting married because stable families produce stable children that are less likely to commit crime, that are more likely to go to school, that are more likely to be productive members of society, et cetera, et cetera.
I’m not going to disagree with you on any of that. All of that is true. It’s just frustrating that sometimes when you bring up any problem, all of it will circle back to other things that makes it seem like we can’t make any progress in any area without fixing something [inaudible 00:20:10]
Ben Shapiro
In what way? I literally just told you that on the local level, I’m fine for people voting for [inaudible 00:20:13]
In what way? I literally just told you that on the local level, I’m fine for people voting for [inaudible 00:20:13]
Destiny
For instance, on the local level. So for school funding, school funding is done, I think generally per district. So what do you do when you have poor districts that can’t afford air conditioner for their schools?
For instance, on the local level. So for school funding, school funding is done, I think generally per district. So what do you do when you have poor districts that can’t afford air conditioner for their schools?
Ben Shapiro
I mean, the idea there would be that presumably if the society, meaning the state, and I generally don’t mean the federal state. I mean the state of California, for example, decides that everybody ought to have air conditioning. People will vote for air conditioning, and that’s perfectly legal. I don’t think there’s anything morally objectionable about that per se.
I mean, the idea there would be that presumably if the society, meaning the state, and I generally don’t mean the federal state. I mean the state of California, for example, decides that everybody ought to have air conditioning. People will vote for air conditioning, and that’s perfectly legal. I don’t think there’s anything morally objectionable about that per se.
Destiny
Cool.
Cool.
Ben Shapiro
I also don’t think that that’s going to heal anything remotely like the central problem.
I also don’t think that that’s going to heal anything remotely like the central problem.
Destiny
Sure. I agree.
Sure. I agree.
Ben Shapiro
And I think that what tends to happen in terms of government is people love arguing about the problems that can be solved by opening a wallet. And nobody likes to solve a problem by closing their sex life to one person, for example, or having kids within a stable religious community. The things that actually build society… I’m fine with arguing about each of these policies and whether we apply them or not is a matter generally of pragmatism, not morality.
And I think that what tends to happen in terms of government is people love arguing about the problems that can be solved by opening a wallet. And nobody likes to solve a problem by closing their sex life to one person, for example, or having kids within a stable religious community. The things that actually build society… I’m fine with arguing about each of these policies and whether we apply them or not is a matter generally of pragmatism, not morality.
It’s a matter of incentive structures, not per se morality, because incentive structures do have moral underpinnings. There’s such a thing as… For example, if you’re going to use a welfare program, you have to decide how effective it is to what crowd. It applies where the cutoffs are. Does it disincentivize work, does it not? All of these are pragmatic concerns. But on a moral level, the generalized objection that I have to people on the left side of the aisle is that they like to focus… In these conversations very often it feels as though it’s a conversation with people who are drunk, searching under the lamp for their keys. The problems they want to look at are the problems that are solvable by government, and then all the problems they don’t want to look at, which are the actual giant monsters lurking in the dark and not particularly solvable by government are the ones they want to ignore and assume are just the natural state of things. And I don’t think that’s correct at all.
Destiny
And I 1 billion percent agree. But then obviously my criticism for the conservative side is the exact opposite where there are parts where government could remedy some issues. For instance, children having sex with each other and producing other children out of wedlock. Sometimes having afterschool programs is nice to prevent that. I didn’t have time for these things. When I was in school, I was doing football practice, I was doing cross country practice. I went in early for a band. I agree with you that sometimes people only focus on one end of the problem as I hate to be that guy, but as somebody that… Have you ever watched The Wire?
And I 1 billion percent agree. But then obviously my criticism for the conservative side is the exact opposite where there are parts where government could remedy some issues. For instance, children having sex with each other and producing other children out of wedlock. Sometimes having afterschool programs is nice to prevent that. I didn’t have time for these things. When I was in school, I was doing football practice, I was doing cross country practice. I went in early for a band. I agree with you that sometimes people only focus on one end of the problem as I hate to be that guy, but as somebody that… Have you ever watched The Wire?
Ben Shapiro
Sure.
Sure.
Destiny
I’m not going to cite The Wire as a real life example, but obviously there’s only so much you can do in a school when the children coming in are so beyond destroyed because of the family life and everything prior to them even getting to school that day. So I agree. Government is not like the solution to broken families. That would never be the case.
I’m not going to cite The Wire as a real life example, but obviously there’s only so much you can do in a school when the children coming in are so beyond destroyed because of the family life and everything prior to them even getting to school that day. So I agree. Government is not like the solution to broken families. That would never be the case.
Ben Shapiro
And it’s actually not the solution to education depending on the kind of solutions that you’re talking about. Some solutions, yes. Some solutions, no.
And it’s actually not the solution to education depending on the kind of solutions that you’re talking about. Some solutions, yes. Some solutions, no.
Destiny
Yeah. The only thing I’m looking at is, as I said earlier, just these minimum threshold things where it’s like, where can government make… Because you mentioned marginal, which I think is a really good way to look at things. Marginal costs and marginal utility to things where the first thousand dollars per student you spend might give you a huge return, but the extra 20,000 after is just a waste.
Yeah. The only thing I’m looking at is, as I said earlier, just these minimum threshold things where it’s like, where can government make… Because you mentioned marginal, which I think is a really good way to look at things. Marginal costs and marginal utility to things where the first thousand dollars per student you spend might give you a huge return, but the extra 20,000 after is just a waste.
Ben Shapiro
I think these are all pragmatic discussions.
I think these are all pragmatic discussions.
Destiny
Sure, of course.
Sure, of course.
Ben Shapiro
And actually, this is what we used to hash out in legislatures before they turned into platforms for people grandstanding. But yes, sure.
And actually, this is what we used to hash out in legislatures before they turned into platforms for people grandstanding. But yes, sure.
Destiny
Okay.
Okay.
Trump vs Biden
Lex Fridman
As we descend from the heavens of philosophical discussion of conservatism and liberalism, let’s go to the pragmatic muck of politics. Trump versus Biden. Between the two of them, who was in their first term, the better president? And thus who should win if the two of them are, in fact, our choices should win a second term in 2024. Ben?
As we descend from the heavens of philosophical discussion of conservatism and liberalism, let’s go to the pragmatic muck of politics. Trump versus Biden. Between the two of them, who was in their first term, the better president? And thus who should win if the two of them are, in fact, our choices should win a second term in 2024. Ben?
Ben Shapiro
Sure. So in terms of actual job performance, you have to separate it into a few categories. In terms of actual performance informed policy, I think Trump’s foreign policy record is significantly better than Biden’s, the world being on fire right now, being a fairly good example of that. And we can get into each aspect of the world being on fire and where the incentive structures came from and how all of that happened in a moment.
Sure. So in terms of actual job performance, you have to separate it into a few categories. In terms of actual performance informed policy, I think Trump’s foreign policy record is significantly better than Biden’s, the world being on fire right now, being a fairly good example of that. And we can get into each aspect of the world being on fire and where the incentive structures came from and how all of that happened in a moment.
When it comes to the economy, I think that Trump’s economic record was better than Biden’s. Doesn’t mean he didn’t overspend. He did. He wildly overspent. But he also had a very solid record of job creation. A huge percentage of the gains in the economy went to people on the lower end of the economic spectrum. Actually, the gross income to the average American was about $6,000 during his term. The unemployment rates were very, very low before COVID.
I think that you almost have to separate the Trump administration into sort of before COVID and during COVID, because COVID obviously is a black swan event, the most signal change in politics in our lifetime. And so governance during COVID is almost its own category, which we can discuss. But in terms of foreign policy, in terms of domestic policy, I think that Trump was significantly better than Biden has been. And that’s on the upside for Trump.
On the downside, for Biden, obviously you’re talking 40 or highs in inflation. You’re talking about savings being eaten away. You’re talking about everything being 20 to 30% more expensive. You’re talking about massive increases to the deficit, even at a rate that was unknown under Trump. The deficit under Trump raised by about a little under a trillion dollars every year up until 2020. Again, 2020 was COVID year, so everybody decided that we’re going to fire hose money at things.
But then Joe Biden continued to fire hose money at things in ’21, ’22, and ’23. That obviously is, in my opinion, bad economic policy. And then you get to the rhetoric, and you get to the stuff that Donald Trump says. As I’ve said before, my view is that on Donald Trump’s epitaph, on his gravestone, it will say, “Donald Trump. He’s said a lot of shit.” I think that Donald Trump does say a lot of things. I think that that is basically baked into the cake, which is why everyone who’s bewildered by the polls is ignoring human nature, which is at the beginning when you see something very shocking, it’s very shocking.
And then if you see it over and over and over, and over for years on end, it is no longer shocking. It’s just part of the background noise like tinnitus. It just becomes something that your brain adjusts for. And so do I like a lot of Donald Trump’s rhetoric? No, and I never have. Do I think that that is dispositive as to his presidency? No, I do not. When it comes to Biden, again, I think he’s underperforming economically. I think that his foreign policy has been really a problem.
Even the things I think he’s done right are, I think, band- aids for things that he created by doing wrong. And when it comes to his own rhetoric, you can argue that it’s grading on a curve because Trump was coming in with such wild rhetoric that just a maintenance of that wild rhetoric doesn’t really change again the baseline. For Biden, he came in the same way that Obama did on the soaring rhetoric of American unity.
Trump came in and he is like, “Listen, I’m the president for what I am, and I’m going to say the things I want to say. I’m beyond the toilet and I’m tweeting.” We’re like, “Okay, that’s what it is.” With Biden, he came in with, “I’m a president for all Americans. I’m trying to unify everybody.” And that pretty quickly broke down into a lot of oppositional language about his political opponents in particular, an attempt to lump in, for example, huge swaths of the conservative movement with the people who participated, for example, in January 6th, or who were fans of January 6th, and the sort of lumping in of everybody into MAGA Republicans who wasn’t personally signed on to an infrastructure bill with him.
That sort of stuff I think has been truly terrible. I thought his Philadelphia speech was truly terrible. And again, I think that you do have the problem of he is no longer capable of certainly rhetorically unifying the country when every speech from him feels like watching Nik Wallenda walk across a volcano on a tightrope. It really is like you’re just sort of waiting for him to fall.
I mean, it’s sad to say. I mean, the other day he was speaking for what was, in effect, his campaign kickoff, and this was in Valley Forge. I mean, Jill rushed up there. As soon as he was done, Jill rushed up there like she’d been shot out of a cannon to come and try and guide him away so he didn’t become the Shane Gillis Roomba. And that’s not really… Let’s put it this way. It does not quiet the soul to watch Joe Biden rhetorically. Again, that’s a different problem than Trump’s problem, but that’s my analysis.
Destiny
This is one of the areas where we get into this, I don’t understand if there’s brain-breaking happening or what’s going on. I don’t know what world we can ever live in where we say that Trump is less divisive for the country than Biden. I think it is so patently obvious. Trump is so divisive. Not only does Trump make an enemy out of every person in the opposition party, he makes an enemy out of his own party and every single person around him. We all watched him bully Jeff Sessions. We all watched him bully his own party on Twitter. We all watched all of these people walk away from him.
This is one of the areas where we get into this, I don’t understand if there’s brain-breaking happening or what’s going on. I don’t know what world we can ever live in where we say that Trump is less divisive for the country than Biden. I think it is so patently obvious. Trump is so divisive. Not only does Trump make an enemy out of every person in the opposition party, he makes an enemy out of his own party and every single person around him. We all watched him bully Jeff Sessions. We all watched him bully his own party on Twitter. We all watched all of these people walk away from him.
Even recently, I think the Secretary of Defense Esper and John Kelly, the chief of staff were saying, “I think Trump is a threat to democracy.” You’ve got all of his prior people that were around him, some of his closest allies. You’ve got Bill Barr that won’t co-sign a single thing that he says. You’ve got all these people that he used to work with that all say, “Trump is a horrible, evil person. He’s ineffective as a leader. He doesn’t accomplish anything.” And he didn’t.
To say that Biden has failed at bipartisanship when we’ve gotten the CHIPS Act, we’ve gotten the IRA, we’ve gotten the ARP, we’ve gotten the Bipartisan Infrastructure bill, when we’ve gotten all this major legislation that is working in this historically divided Congress as opposed to Trump that got us tax cuts and deficit spending. I don’t understand where we ever are in this world where Biden is somehow-
Destiny
I don’t understand where we ever are in this world where Biden is somehow more divisive than Trump. Even the speeches that Ben is bringing up, they always bring up… I remember that one. I think we might’ve even done it on our episode. The one speech that Biden gave where at one point that the background is red and probably-
I don’t understand where we ever are in this world where Biden is somehow more divisive than Trump. Even the speeches that Ben is bringing up, they always bring up… I remember that one. I think we might’ve even done it on our episode. The one speech that Biden gave where at one point that the background is red and probably-
Ben Shapiro
[inaudible 00:29:17] speech I referenced.
[inaudible 00:29:17] speech I referenced.
Destiny
… Yeah. And they’re like, “Oh my God, it’s over. This is the end.” And then meanwhile, you’ve got Donald Trump coming into office saying things like, “If you burn the flag, you should have your citizenship revoked” or talking about MSDNC, that I’m going to investigate every single one of these media organizations for corruptness. I’m going to open the libel and defamation laws. I’m going to take all of these guys to court. You’ve got this weird Project 2025 stuff where is it John Paschal, I think, is talking about we’re going to investigate all of these people and we’re going to try to throw crimes at all these people.
… Yeah. And they’re like, “Oh my God, it’s over. This is the end.” And then meanwhile, you’ve got Donald Trump coming into office saying things like, “If you burn the flag, you should have your citizenship revoked” or talking about MSDNC, that I’m going to investigate every single one of these media organizations for corruptness. I’m going to open the libel and defamation laws. I’m going to take all of these guys to court. You’ve got this weird Project 2025 stuff where is it John Paschal, I think, is talking about we’re going to investigate all of these people and we’re going to try to throw crimes at all these people.
Trump is like the most divisive president I think we’ve ever had, at least in my lifetime of being an American citizen. And the rhetoric from him is just, it’s on a whole other level in terms of the demonization of political opponents. I mean, this is a guy that’s known for giving his political opponents bad nicknames, right? That’s what Trump does.
It’s funny, but even as a resident of Florida, if Florida had another natural disaster, do you think Trump would withhold aid because you had… I think that was one of the few nice things that DeSantis actually said about Biden was that like, “Hey, listen, when the buildings collapsed in I think was Miami Beach.”
Ben Shapiro
Surfside. Yeah.
Surfside. Yeah.
Destiny
Yeah, that for the hurricane stuff, that Biden was there. He was saying, “If you guys need aid, however many billions, you can have it.” Meanwhile, Trump, I think, was threatening to withhold federal funding from blue states that wouldn’t… I think it had to do with the National Guard stuff, the deployment of the National Guard, that they weren’t doing enough for the riots and Trump was threatening to withhold aid from some of these blue states. Yeah, Trump is literally the most divisive person in the world. I don’t see how on any metric he has ever succeeding in the divisive category.
Yeah, that for the hurricane stuff, that Biden was there. He was saying, “If you guys need aid, however many billions, you can have it.” Meanwhile, Trump, I think, was threatening to withhold federal funding from blue states that wouldn’t… I think it had to do with the National Guard stuff, the deployment of the National Guard, that they weren’t doing enough for the riots and Trump was threatening to withhold aid from some of these blue states. Yeah, Trump is literally the most divisive person in the world. I don’t see how on any metric he has ever succeeding in the divisive category.
In terms of the economy. I do think it’s funny that Republicans are very keen to say that, “Well, we can’t really grade Trump post-COVID” because obviously, COVID messed everything up, which is fair. But pre-COVID, what did Trump do? He did deficit spending tax cuts. He presided over historical low interest rates and an economy that was already like blazing past the final years of Obama. We were posting all time highs in all the stock markets in 2013 onwards. Unemployment rates were falling. Now under Biden, unemployment rates are even lower than they were under Trump. But it sucks that for Trump, we can say, “Well, we can’t really hold him accountable for 2020. That was COVID.”
Well, all we have for Biden is post-COVID. We don’t have any pre-COVID Biden economy. And it was the same thing for Obama too, coming in right after the housing collapse as well. And it sucks that Republicans are able to walk out of office having burned the entire American society to the ground economically. And now, we’ve got to try to evaluate, “Okay, well, what did Obama do during his first two to three to four years just trying to recover from where the housing crash left it.” And then we look at Biden now who’s trying to recover from COVID and now we’re grading him on a totally different scale than what Trump is being graded on. Yeah, that sucks, I think. We can go into-
Lex Fridman
Can you comment on the foreign policy policy?
Can you comment on the foreign policy policy?
Destiny
On the foreign policy, I’m going to be honest, I am very liberal. I’m very not progressive. I’ll probably come off as more hawkish than others because I’m not a big fan of this, which also, I mean, if Ben agrees, I think people like Trump are going to be the most dovish, isolationist people ever. They don’t want to do anything internationally. They just want to protect America, be at home, protect our economy, don’t do anything internationally, which is why he was constantly undermining NATO and constantly attacking all of the European Union and cheering on the UK for Brexiting away from the EU.
On the foreign policy, I’m going to be honest, I am very liberal. I’m very not progressive. I’ll probably come off as more hawkish than others because I’m not a big fan of this, which also, I mean, if Ben agrees, I think people like Trump are going to be the most dovish, isolationist people ever. They don’t want to do anything internationally. They just want to protect America, be at home, protect our economy, don’t do anything internationally, which is why he was constantly undermining NATO and constantly attacking all of the European Union and cheering on the UK for Brexiting away from the EU.
I think that being said, I think that Biden has done a phenomenal job when it comes to foreign policy. I think that the coalition building was so important for Ukraine, Russia, and I’m so happy that he decided to go to our European allies and our NATO allies and try to build a coalition of people to help Ukraine, so that that wasn’t only the United States.
Personally, especially after doing a whole bunch of research, I do tend to side with Israel over Palestine in a lot of the Israeli-Palestinian conflicts. I’m glad that Biden, while remaining a staunch defender of Israel, is trying to rein in some of the more aggressive posturing towards the Palestinians and the Gaza Strip. I’m proud that Biden said, “Hey, listen, we are going to delay some of these attacks. Hey, listen, we are going to allow humanitarian aid here. Hey, listen, we are going to try to not kill as many Palestinian people down there” while still signaling that he would be a staunch supporter of Israel in the conflict, assuming the civilian casualties don’t go too high.
For foreign policy, I mean, blemishes, I mean, the biggest one you can give to Biden is Afghanistan and the pull-out there. But man, are we going to talk about the Inspector General report that says that one of the biggest reasons why the Afghanistan pull-out was so disastrous was because of the Doha Accords where Donald Trump headed talks that didn’t even include the Afghanistan army. I mean, these were disasters. When Biden took office, we had 2,500 troops left in Afghanistan. What was the options even afforded to Biden at that point?
Obviously, you’ve got the abandonment of the Kurds in Northern Syria for the Turkish armies to lay waste to. You’re talking about Iran and North Korea, although I’m not sure where Ben would land on those, but yeah, that’s a broadly [inaudible 00:34:11].
Lex Fridman
That’s a lot from both, right? You want to pick at something where you disagree with here?
That’s a lot from both, right? You want to pick at something where you disagree with here?
Ben Shapiro
Well, I mean, there’s a lot. So I want to ask a few questions on each one of these.
Well, I mean, there’s a lot. So I want to ask a few questions on each one of these.
Destiny
Yeah, sure.
Yeah, sure.
Ben Shapiro
So let’s talk about divisiveness for a second. So there’s no one who can make the case that Donald Trump is not divisive. Yeah, of course, he’s incredibly divisive. It’s a given. Do you treat Biden’s rhetoric with the same level of seriousness that you treat Trump’s rhetoric, or I should probably put that the other way around. Should we treat Trump’s rhetoric with the same level of seriousness as Joe Biden or, say, Barack Obama’s rhetoric?
So let’s talk about divisiveness for a second. So there’s no one who can make the case that Donald Trump is not divisive. Yeah, of course, he’s incredibly divisive. It’s a given. Do you treat Biden’s rhetoric with the same level of seriousness that you treat Trump’s rhetoric, or I should probably put that the other way around. Should we treat Trump’s rhetoric with the same level of seriousness as Joe Biden or, say, Barack Obama’s rhetoric?
Destiny
I’m going to try to be concise when I say this. Broadly speaking, especially in studying Israel, Palestine and Ukraine, Russia, I try not to take politicians at their word because sometimes, they just say stuff to say stuff. I understand that. But broadly speaking, I’m going to look at the rhetoric and the actions and I am going to grade them the same. So yes, I would hold Biden and Trump to the same standard.
I’m going to try to be concise when I say this. Broadly speaking, especially in studying Israel, Palestine and Ukraine, Russia, I try not to take politicians at their word because sometimes, they just say stuff to say stuff. I understand that. But broadly speaking, I’m going to look at the rhetoric and the actions and I am going to grade them the same. So yes, I would hold Biden and Trump to the same standard.
Ben Shapiro
Right, so my feeling is, and this is one area where for clarification, we’re going to have a division, is that I of course don’t treat Trump’s rhetoric in the same way that I treat Biden’s or Obama’s. He’s utterly uncalibrated and he says whatever he wants to at any given time and it doesn’t even match up with his policy very often.
Right, so my feeling is, and this is one area where for clarification, we’re going to have a division, is that I of course don’t treat Trump’s rhetoric in the same way that I treat Biden’s or Obama’s. He’s utterly uncalibrated and he says whatever he wants to at any given time and it doesn’t even match up with his policy very often.
Destiny
Can I ask you, for our head of state, our chief executive, shouldn’t rhetoric be arguably one of the most important things that he does?
Can I ask you, for our head of state, our chief executive, shouldn’t rhetoric be arguably one of the most important things that he does?
Ben Shapiro
The answer would be yes. And now, I’ve been given a choice between a person who I think in calibrated ways says things that are divisive and a person who in uncalibrated ways says things that are divisive. And so the evidence that Joe Biden is divisive is every poll taken since essentially August of 2021. He is, by all available metrics, incredibly divisive. A huge percentage of Americans are deeply unhappy not only with his performance, but don’t believe he’s a uniter. That’s just the reality. And that may just be a reflection. I mean, honestly, we may be putting too much on Trump or Biden personally. It may just be that the American people themselves are rhetorically divided because of social media, and social media can, in fact, be assessable and [inaudible 00:36:02].
The answer would be yes. And now, I’ve been given a choice between a person who I think in calibrated ways says things that are divisive and a person who in uncalibrated ways says things that are divisive. And so the evidence that Joe Biden is divisive is every poll taken since essentially August of 2021. He is, by all available metrics, incredibly divisive. A huge percentage of Americans are deeply unhappy not only with his performance, but don’t believe he’s a uniter. That’s just the reality. And that may just be a reflection. I mean, honestly, we may be putting too much on Trump or Biden personally. It may just be that the American people themselves are rhetorically divided because of social media, and social media can, in fact, be assessable and [inaudible 00:36:02].
Destiny
One thing that I would ask you about that, though…
One thing that I would ask you about that, though…
Ben Shapiro
Sure.
Sure.
Destiny
… is I agree, especially when you look at the favorability, but sometimes, when I look at these polls, when you start to disaggregate them by party, I wonder if it’s actually is Biden historically divisive or I’m trying to think of a really polite way to say this. The people that like Trump worship Trump. I don’t know. One of the most prescient things that Trump could have probably ever said was that I could kill someone on Fifth Street and nobody would hold him accountable. So is it really that Biden’s historically divisive, or is it that every single Trump supporter will always say that Trump is great [inaudible 00:36:32].
… is I agree, especially when you look at the favorability, but sometimes, when I look at these polls, when you start to disaggregate them by party, I wonder if it’s actually is Biden historically divisive or I’m trying to think of a really polite way to say this. The people that like Trump worship Trump. I don’t know. One of the most prescient things that Trump could have probably ever said was that I could kill someone on Fifth Street and nobody would hold him accountable. So is it really that Biden’s historically divisive, or is it that every single Trump supporter will always say that Trump is great [inaudible 00:36:32].
Ben Shapiro
No, the reason I would say that Biden is, in fact, historically divisive is because Republicans felt much more strongly about Barack Obama than Joe Biden, actually.
No, the reason I would say that Biden is, in fact, historically divisive is because Republicans felt much more strongly about Barack Obama than Joe Biden, actually.
Destiny
I agree. But they didn’t feel as strongly about Trump as they did about Romney or McCain. Right?
I agree. But they didn’t feel as strongly about Trump as they did about Romney or McCain. Right?
Ben Shapiro
In what way? I mean-
In what way? I mean-
Destiny
The allegiance to Trump.
The allegiance to Trump.
Ben Shapiro
… oh, no, there’s certainly more allegiance to Trump than there is to Romney or McCain, largely because Trump won in 2016. But beyond that, the point that I’m making is that if you’re looking at the stats in terms of divisiveness, Republicans always find the Democratic president divisive. The question is where the rest of the country is. And right now, there are a lot of Democrats who either don’t agree with Biden or find him divisive. There are a lot of independents who find them divisive.
… oh, no, there’s certainly more allegiance to Trump than there is to Romney or McCain, largely because Trump won in 2016. But beyond that, the point that I’m making is that if you’re looking at the stats in terms of divisiveness, Republicans always find the Democratic president divisive. The question is where the rest of the country is. And right now, there are a lot of Democrats who either don’t agree with Biden or find him divisive. There are a lot of independents who find them divisive.
So when we’re comparing these things, I don’t think they’re leagues apart in terms of the divisive effects of what they say, right? And I’m separating that off from the inherent content of what they say because obviously, what Trump says is more divisive just on the raw level. I mean, if he’s insulting people as opposed to Joe Biden doing MAGA Republicans, if I were to just… if I were an alien come down from space and look at these two statements, I’d say this one’s more divisive than this one. But then, there’s the reality of being a human being in the world and that is everyone has baked Donald Trump into the cake. And Joe Biden, again, started off with a patina of being non-divisive and now has emerged as divisive.
If you don’t mind, I actually want to get to the foreign policy questions because this one is actually slightly less interesting to me.
Destiny
Sure. Can I ask just one quick thing, I guess.
Sure. Can I ask just one quick thing, I guess.
Ben Shapiro
[inaudible 00:37:48], go for it.
[inaudible 00:37:48], go for it.
Destiny
We can say the reality of it and we can look at opinion polls. What if we look at legislative accomplishments? Like Biden is working on a 50-50 divided Senate. Donald Trump had both House of Congress and the Supreme Court and got no major legislation passed.
We can say the reality of it and we can look at opinion polls. What if we look at legislative accomplishments? Like Biden is working on a 50-50 divided Senate. Donald Trump had both House of Congress and the Supreme Court and got no major legislation passed.
Ben Shapiro
Well, I mean, he did lose Congress in 2018.
Well, I mean, he did lose Congress in 2018.
Destiny
But prior to that, we got the Infrastructure bill, I think, in one year, which Trump promised for his entire presidency, didn’t get anywhere on it.
But prior to that, we got the Infrastructure bill, I think, in one year, which Trump promised for his entire presidency, didn’t get anywhere on it.
Ben Shapiro
I mean, yes, his Republican base was not in favor of mass spending on infrastructure and neither am I. So there’s that. I think that’s mostly a state and local issue.
I mean, yes, his Republican base was not in favor of mass spending on infrastructure and neither am I. So there’s that. I think that’s mostly a state and local issue.
Destiny
But they were in favor of mass spending for tax cuts?
But they were in favor of mass spending for tax cuts?
Ben Shapiro
That’s not a spending. It-
That’s not a spending. It-
Destiny
I mean, effectively it is, right?
I mean, effectively it is, right?
Ben Shapiro
Effectively, it’s not.
Effectively, it’s not.
Destiny
If you’re cutting tax receipts, but you’re not changing the level of spending like Biden did with the IRA.
If you’re cutting tax receipts, but you’re not changing the level of spending like Biden did with the IRA.
Ben Shapiro
Again, we have a fundamental philosophical difference here. I think that when the government takes my money, that is not the government somehow being more fiscally responsible, and when the government allows me to keep my money, I don’t see that as the government spending. I see that as my money and the government is taking less of it.
Again, we have a fundamental philosophical difference here. I think that when the government takes my money, that is not the government somehow being more fiscally responsible, and when the government allows me to keep my money, I don’t see that as the government spending. I see that as my money and the government is taking less of it.
Destiny
That’s great, but at the end of the day, the government is still going to be in a deficit spending and they’re going to have to borrow money from the Treasury.
That’s great, but at the end of the day, the government is still going to be in a deficit spending and they’re going to have to borrow money from the Treasury.
Ben Shapiro
Right, we have a spending problem, in other words, not a receipts problem is the case that I’m making.
Right, we have a spending problem, in other words, not a receipts problem is the case that I’m making.
Destiny
Right.
Right.
Ben Shapiro
The problem with Donald Trump is not that he lowered taxes. The United States has one of the most progressive tax systems on the planet, and in fact, if you wish to have a European style social welfare state, what you actually need is to tax the middle class to death, the reality is that the top 20% of the American population pays literally all net taxes in the United States after state benefits and all of this.
The problem with Donald Trump is not that he lowered taxes. The United States has one of the most progressive tax systems on the planet, and in fact, if you wish to have a European style social welfare state, what you actually need is to tax the middle class to death, the reality is that the top 20% of the American population pays literally all net taxes in the United States after state benefits and all of this.
Destiny
Sure.
Sure.
Ben Shapiro
So if you actually wanted to have the kind of social welfare state that many liberals seem to want to have like Northern Europe, for example, you’d actually have to tax people who make 40, 50, $60,000.
So if you actually wanted to have the kind of social welfare state that many liberals seem to want to have like Northern Europe, for example, you’d actually have to tax people who make 40, 50, $60,000.
Destiny
And I don’t want that. I agree with that, but how do you explain the lack of legislation, I mean, if he’s such a uniter.
And I don’t want that. I agree with that, but how do you explain the lack of legislation, I mean, if he’s such a uniter.
Ben Shapiro
Because I think the Republican party itself is quite divided, and I think that Trump can-
Because I think the Republican party itself is quite divided, and I think that Trump can-
Destiny
But isn’t that his job? He’s the head of the Republican Party. He’s the president, Republican President of the United States.
But isn’t that his job? He’s the head of the Republican Party. He’s the president, Republican President of the United States.
Ben Shapiro
I mean, again, I don’t think that Joe Biden has passed wildly historic legislation, other than-
I mean, again, I don’t think that Joe Biden has passed wildly historic legislation, other than-
Destiny
The infrastructure bill was the largest [inaudible 00:39:38].
The infrastructure bill was the largest [inaudible 00:39:38].
Ben Shapiro
So here’s the problem. If you’re a Republican, the only bills that you can get consensus on tend to be bills that either… let’s be real about this, that are tax cuts because as you would, I think, agree with. When it comes to polling data, Americans constantly say they want to cut the government and then the minute you ask them which program, they have no idea what they’re…
So here’s the problem. If you’re a Republican, the only bills that you can get consensus on tend to be bills that either… let’s be real about this, that are tax cuts because as you would, I think, agree with. When it comes to polling data, Americans constantly say they want to cut the government and then the minute you ask them which program, they have no idea what they’re…
Destiny
Right.
Right.
Ben Shapiro
… right, exactly. And so it’s much harder to come up with a bill to cut things than it is to come up with a bill to add things, which is why spending was out of control under Trump as well. But there are some Republicans who still don’t want to spend on those things, right? So inherently, the task that, this goes back to the first question, the task that Republicans think government is there to do is different than the task that Democrats think that government is there to do. So the way that the very metric of success for a Democratic president versus Republican president, namely, for example, pieces of legislation passed. As a Republican, one of my goals is to pass nearly no legislation because I don’t actually want the government involved in more areas of our life.
… right, exactly. And so it’s much harder to come up with a bill to cut things than it is to come up with a bill to add things, which is why spending was out of control under Trump as well. But there are some Republicans who still don’t want to spend on those things, right? So inherently, the task that, this goes back to the first question, the task that Republicans think government is there to do is different than the task that Democrats think that government is there to do. So the way that the very metric of success for a Democratic president versus Republican president, namely, for example, pieces of legislation passed. As a Republican, one of my goals is to pass nearly no legislation because I don’t actually want the government involved in more areas of our life.
I want to ask a couple of questions on the foreign policy. Sure.
Destiny
Yeah. Okay, wait, real quick, just so for instance, Donald Trump wanted to punish China and he wanted to bring microprocessor manufacturing to the United States. Biden did that with legislation with the CHIPS Act. You talk about spending being out of control, and I mean, I can agree with that. I think anybody that looks at the numbers has to agree with that. But why not pass legislation like the Inflation Reduction Act, which is at least spending neutral, right? Why are there not bills where Donald Trump could take-
Yeah. Okay, wait, real quick, just so for instance, Donald Trump wanted to punish China and he wanted to bring microprocessor manufacturing to the United States. Biden did that with legislation with the CHIPS Act. You talk about spending being out of control, and I mean, I can agree with that. I think anybody that looks at the numbers has to agree with that. But why not pass legislation like the Inflation Reduction Act, which is at least spending neutral, right? Why are there not bills where Donald Trump could take-
Ben Shapiro
Well, first of all, I think that whenever the government says something is spending neutral, it rarely materializes that way. That is not going to be a spending neutral bill. [inaudible 00:41:02].
Well, first of all, I think that whenever the government says something is spending neutral, it rarely materializes that way. That is not going to be a spending neutral bill. [inaudible 00:41:02].
Destiny
Sure, but there’s difference between at least they say it’s spending neutral versus this is a $500 billion bill over 10 years.
Sure, but there’s difference between at least they say it’s spending neutral versus this is a $500 billion bill over 10 years.
Ben Shapiro
Well, but again, I don’t see a tax cut as a matter of spending neutrality. The big problem is they keep spending, not that they are allowing me to keep the money that I earned and they did not earn, but [inaudible 00:41:16].
Well, but again, I don’t see a tax cut as a matter of spending neutrality. The big problem is they keep spending, not that they are allowing me to keep the money that I earned and they did not earn, but [inaudible 00:41:16].
Destiny
Okay. So then just to understand, so if somebody just did massive reductions in tax receipts, so tax cut after tax cut after tax cut, but they didn’t change spending at all, you wouldn’t consider that an increase in deficit spending or out of control spending. You would just say they’re just tax cuts?
Okay. So then just to understand, so if somebody just did massive reductions in tax receipts, so tax cut after tax cut after tax cut, but they didn’t change spending at all, you wouldn’t consider that an increase in deficit spending or out of control spending. You would just say they’re just tax cuts?
Ben Shapiro
No, the opposite. I would consider it a wild overspending, meaning-
No, the opposite. I would consider it a wild overspending, meaning-
Destiny
Okay. So then was it under Trump then when he did the tax [inaudible 00:41:36]?
Okay. So then was it under Trump then when he did the tax [inaudible 00:41:36]?
Ben Shapiro
… I mean, the deficit spending, by the way, under Biden is way worse than it was under Trump.
… I mean, the deficit spending, by the way, under Biden is way worse than it was under Trump.
Destiny
Of course, but we’re in post-COVID, right?
Of course, but we’re in post-COVID, right?
Ben Shapiro
COVID ended effectively… I mean, you live in Florida. COVID effectively ended in the state of Florida by the middle of 2021.
COVID ended effectively… I mean, you live in Florida. COVID effectively ended in the state of Florida by the middle of 2021.
Destiny
Yeah [inaudible 00:41:47].
Yeah [inaudible 00:41:47].
Ben Shapiro
Even if you’re a vaccine fan, by April, May of 2021, there was wide availability of vaccines, whether or not you like the vaccines, and at that point, we were done. [inaudible 00:41:55].
Even if you’re a vaccine fan, by April, May of 2021, there was wide availability of vaccines, whether or not you like the vaccines, and at that point, we were done. [inaudible 00:41:55].
Destiny
I agree. But we’re in a post… how many trillions of dollars have been dumped in worldwide that are leading to inflation, right? The inflation is a worldwide issue right now because of the economy shutting down for a year or two. It’s not like those effects are gone in one year, right? COVID might be gone, but the after effects of all the stimulus spending and the unemployment and everything else.
I agree. But we’re in a post… how many trillions of dollars have been dumped in worldwide that are leading to inflation, right? The inflation is a worldwide issue right now because of the economy shutting down for a year or two. It’s not like those effects are gone in one year, right? COVID might be gone, but the after effects of all the stimulus spending and the unemployment and everything else.
Ben Shapiro
The definition of inflation is too much money chasing too few goods. So pouring more money on top of that makes for more inflation. That’s what it does.
The definition of inflation is too much money chasing too few goods. So pouring more money on top of that makes for more inflation. That’s what it does.
Destiny
Sure. I agree. But there’s also the definition of when do you deficit spend is when economies are headed for recessions, right, rather than when economies are doing really well that we’re under Trump and he was deficit spending, whereas Biden can at least make the argument that I ought to be deficit spending because the economy is heading for potential recession.
Sure. I agree. But there’s also the definition of when do you deficit spend is when economies are headed for recessions, right, rather than when economies are doing really well that we’re under Trump and he was deficit spending, whereas Biden can at least make the argument that I ought to be deficit spending because the economy is heading for potential recession.
Ben Shapiro
So here’s the thing. I don’t think that the economy was actually headed for a recession. In fact, if you look at the economics statistics-
So here’s the thing. I don’t think that the economy was actually headed for a recession. In fact, if you look at the economics statistics-
Destiny
And every economist said it was.
And every economist said it was.
Ben Shapiro
… no, [inaudible 00:42:39].
… no, [inaudible 00:42:39].
Destiny
They’re still saying that there’s a recession coming, right?
They’re still saying that there’s a recession coming, right?
Ben Shapiro
But that was largely because of the after effects of inflation, meaning if you inflate the economy, what you are going to end up doing is bursting a bubble and then when that bubble bursts, you’ll get a recession. I mean, that was the basic idea, right? The idea, the question was whether you’re going to get a soft landing. But if you actually look at, for example, the employment statistics or the economic growth statistics in the United States, what they look like under the last year’s Obama and then Trump, I mean, this is what the chart looks like. Because it looks like this and then it hits March of 2020. It goes like that, right, and then by September, it bounces back up, right? It’s a V-shaped recovery, and then it starts to peter out.
But that was largely because of the after effects of inflation, meaning if you inflate the economy, what you are going to end up doing is bursting a bubble and then when that bubble bursts, you’ll get a recession. I mean, that was the basic idea, right? The idea, the question was whether you’re going to get a soft landing. But if you actually look at, for example, the employment statistics or the economic growth statistics in the United States, what they look like under the last year’s Obama and then Trump, I mean, this is what the chart looks like. Because it looks like this and then it hits March of 2020. It goes like that, right, and then by September, it bounces back up, right? It’s a V-shaped recovery, and then it starts to peter out.
Destiny
Sure. A lot because of the American Recovery Plan, right, that Biden did as well.
Sure. A lot because of the American Recovery Plan, right, that Biden did as well.
Ben Shapiro
I mean-
I mean-
Destiny
4 million jobs. Yeah.
4 million jobs. Yeah.
Ben Shapiro
… no, I’m not going to attribute it to that because the rates of growth in job growth from September, October, November were actually very similar to the rates of job growth after Joe Biden took office. What you see is actually kind of a straight line. I mean, what the chart looks like-
… no, I’m not going to attribute it to that because the rates of growth in job growth from September, October, November were actually very similar to the rates of job growth after Joe Biden took office. What you see is actually kind of a straight line. I mean, what the chart looks like-
Lex Fridman
Let’s get on.
Let’s get on.
Ben Shapiro
In any case, okay, on the foreign policy stuff, this is getting abstruse.
In any case, okay, on the foreign policy stuff, this is getting abstruse.
Foreign policy
Destiny
[inaudible 00:43:31].
[inaudible 00:43:31].
Ben Shapiro
But on the foreign policy stuff, so the questions that I have with regard to Biden on foreign policy, very, very simple question. Do you think that the situation in the Middle East is better now than it was under Donald Trump?
But on the foreign policy stuff, so the questions that I have with regard to Biden on foreign policy, very, very simple question. Do you think that the situation in the Middle East is better now than it was under Donald Trump?
Destiny
Probably. That’s a hard one.
Probably. That’s a hard one.
Ben Shapiro
Why?
Why?
Destiny
The factors that I’m making right now are obviously you’ve got the Israel- Palestinian War that’s going on right now, which is kind of bad, but broadly speaking, I’m not sure how much that affects the Middle East as much as the collapse of Syria. 2013 Syrian Civil War sent millions of immigrants throughout all of Europe-
The factors that I’m making right now are obviously you’ve got the Israel- Palestinian War that’s going on right now, which is kind of bad, but broadly speaking, I’m not sure how much that affects the Middle East as much as the collapse of Syria. 2013 Syrian Civil War sent millions of immigrants throughout all of Europe-
Ben Shapiro
Which was under…
Which was under…
Destiny
… which was under Obama and continued under Trump.
… which was under Obama and continued under Trump.
Ben Shapiro
Right.
Right.
Destiny
Trump didn’t do anything to alleviate any of the Syrian Civil War. [inaudible 00:44:18].
Trump didn’t do anything to alleviate any of the Syrian Civil War. [inaudible 00:44:18].
Ben Shapiro
Why did Syria end up as a preserve of Russia again?
Why did Syria end up as a preserve of Russia again?
Destiny
How did Syria end up as a preserve of Russia?
How did Syria end up as a preserve of Russia?
Ben Shapiro
Yes. Why did it end up being essentially a client state of Russia?
Yes. Why did it end up being essentially a client state of Russia?
Destiny
I know that Putin enjoys access to the ports down there. I don’t know. You tell me.
I know that Putin enjoys access to the ports down there. I don’t know. You tell me.
Ben Shapiro
I mean, the reason is because Barack Obama suggested that there was a red line that would be drawn in the face of chemical weapons used.
I mean, the reason is because Barack Obama suggested that there was a red line that would be drawn in the face of chemical weapons used.
Destiny
Sure.
Sure.
Ben Shapiro
Bashir Assad then used chemical weapons in Syria, and Barack Obama was unwilling to then essentially create consequences for Syria in the form of any sort of Western strike and so instead, he outsourced it to Russia. This is 2013, 2014.
Bashir Assad then used chemical weapons in Syria, and Barack Obama was unwilling to then essentially create consequences for Syria in the form of any sort of Western strike and so instead, he outsourced it to Russia. This is 2013, 2014.
Destiny
Sure. Do you think there might’ve been some hesitancy after seeing how Libya ended up that maybe us intervening [inaudible 00:44:55].
Sure. Do you think there might’ve been some hesitancy after seeing how Libya ended up that maybe us intervening [inaudible 00:44:55].
Ben Shapiro
Who’s president during Libya? Yeah. I mean, [inaudible 00:44:57].
Who’s president during Libya? Yeah. I mean, [inaudible 00:44:57].
Destiny
But what does that have to do with anything, though? I’m just saying there might’ve been a mistake learned.
But what does that have to do with anything, though? I’m just saying there might’ve been a mistake learned.
Ben Shapiro
The point that I’m making is that actually the Middle East, I mean just historically speaking, was historically good under Donald Trump. I mean, it’s very difficult to make the case that either before or after Trump were better than during Donald Trump.
The point that I’m making is that actually the Middle East, I mean just historically speaking, was historically good under Donald Trump. I mean, it’s very difficult to make the case that either before or after Trump were better than during Donald Trump.
Destiny
Was it? I don’t think that Trump contributed to the Syrian situation improving much. He wrecked a lot of-
Was it? I don’t think that Trump contributed to the Syrian situation improving much. He wrecked a lot of-
Ben Shapiro
I mean, he wrecked ISIS. He did wreck ISIS, which was in the [inaudible 00:45:20].
I mean, he wrecked ISIS. He did wreck ISIS, which was in the [inaudible 00:45:20].
Destiny
I mean, ISIS had been getting wrecked by the Kurds in Iraq, by every single person, by Assad’s army, by Putin, by Turkey.
I mean, ISIS had been getting wrecked by the Kurds in Iraq, by every single person, by Assad’s army, by Putin, by Turkey.
Ben Shapiro
[inaudible 00:45:26].
[inaudible 00:45:26].
Destiny
Literally, everybody was fighting against ISIS at that point.
Literally, everybody was fighting against ISIS at that point.
Ben Shapiro
There’s a spike in violence and then the Trump… I mean, you get credit for when you’re president, presumably. I mean, things got better with ISIS under Trump.
There’s a spike in violence and then the Trump… I mean, you get credit for when you’re president, presumably. I mean, things got better with ISIS under Trump.
Destiny
I mean, yeah, they did. I mean-
I mean, yeah, they did. I mean-
Ben Shapiro
Things got worse with ISIS under Obama.
Things got worse with ISIS under Obama.
Destiny
… for sure.
… for sure.
Ben Shapiro
He called them the JV squad, and then they became not the JV squad.
He called them the JV squad, and then they became not the JV squad.
Destiny
But I don’t know if ISIS is originating in Syria and Baghdadi and all of the growth of that is necessarily Obama’s fault. I know that we like to say that Obama created ISIS. I don’t know if you say that, but I’ve heard that saying a lot. I think that’s a little bit simplistic. I don’t think that when I’m looking at actions that presidents have taken, the biggest criticism I have for Middle Eastern policy is I think the Doha accords were a disaster and I think that’s one of the biggest blemishes that we have right now. I would also argue that moving the embassy to Jerusalem was also kind of silly and arguably contributed to some of the conflict we see right now between [inaudible 00:46:16].
But I don’t know if ISIS is originating in Syria and Baghdadi and all of the growth of that is necessarily Obama’s fault. I know that we like to say that Obama created ISIS. I don’t know if you say that, but I’ve heard that saying a lot. I think that’s a little bit simplistic. I don’t think that when I’m looking at actions that presidents have taken, the biggest criticism I have for Middle Eastern policy is I think the Doha accords were a disaster and I think that’s one of the biggest blemishes that we have right now. I would also argue that moving the embassy to Jerusalem was also kind of silly and arguably contributed to some of the conflict we see right now between [inaudible 00:46:16].
Ben Shapiro
No, I’ll argue precisely the opposite, especially given the fact that after the movement of the embassy to Jerusalem, the Abraham Accords continued to sign and actually expand and that if Donald Trump had been elected, I have no doubt in my mind that Saudi Arabia would now be a part of the Abraham Accords. In fact, that was basically pre-negotiated and then when Joe Biden took office, Joe Biden took a very anti-Saudi stance on a wide variety of issues. The biggest single effect in the Middle East of Joe Biden’s presidency, and again, I agree with you that not every foreign policy issue can be laid at the hands of a president. Joe Biden’s main approach to the Middle East was very similar to the Obama approach, which is why the Middle East was chaotic under Obama and chaotic under Biden and that was to alienate allies like Saudi Arabia and Israel and instead, to try to make common cause or cut deals with Iran.
No, I’ll argue precisely the opposite, especially given the fact that after the movement of the embassy to Jerusalem, the Abraham Accords continued to sign and actually expand and that if Donald Trump had been elected, I have no doubt in my mind that Saudi Arabia would now be a part of the Abraham Accords. In fact, that was basically pre-negotiated and then when Joe Biden took office, Joe Biden took a very anti-Saudi stance on a wide variety of issues. The biggest single effect in the Middle East of Joe Biden’s presidency, and again, I agree with you that not every foreign policy issue can be laid at the hands of a president. Joe Biden’s main approach to the Middle East was very similar to the Obama approach, which is why the Middle East was chaotic under Obama and chaotic under Biden and that was to alienate allies like Saudi Arabia and Israel and instead, to try to make common cause or cut deals with Iran.
What that did is incentivize terrorism from Iran. What we’re watching in the Middle East is Iran attempting to use every one of its terror proxies in the Middle East and it was specifically launched in an attempt to avoid what Biden actually was trying to do, which was good, which was after two years of failure with Saudi Arabia, try to bring them into the Abraham Accords, right? That was what was burgeoning at the end of last year and Iran saw that and Iran decided that they were going to throw grenade into the middle of those negotiations by essentially activating Hamas. Hamas activates. Hamas commits October 7th. Israel, as a sovereign nation state, has to respond to the murder of 1,200 of its citizens in the taking, kidnapping of 240. Israel has to do that not only to go after its own hostages and try to restore them, but also to reestablish military deterrence in the most violent region of the world.
Hezbollah gets active on Israel’s northern border. Hezbollah is an Iranian proxy. They get active on the northern border. The Houthis in Yemen get active. The only reason all this is happening at the same time is because Iran is doing this, right?
Destiny
[inaudible 00:47:53].
[inaudible 00:47:53].
Ben Shapiro
Not just that, they’re threatening global shipping.
Not just that, they’re threatening global shipping.
Destiny
Sure.
Sure.
Ben Shapiro
If you’re talking about the effects of global supply lines, which I totally agree, had a major inflationary effect on the economy, thanks to COVID. Right now, the cost of shipping is nearly double what it was just a few weeks ago and that is because a ragtag group of Houthi barbarians are attacking international shipping and forcing everybody to stop using the Bab-el-Mandeb freight, instead of going around the Cape of Good Hope in Africa.
If you’re talking about the effects of global supply lines, which I totally agree, had a major inflationary effect on the economy, thanks to COVID. Right now, the cost of shipping is nearly double what it was just a few weeks ago and that is because a ragtag group of Houthi barbarians are attacking international shipping and forcing everybody to stop using the Bab-el-Mandeb freight, instead of going around the Cape of Good Hope in Africa.
Destiny
Sure.
Sure.
Ben Shapiro
All of that is the result of the fact that Joe Biden reoriented the United States in the very early days in favor of a more pro-Iranian stance. He appointed Robert Malley to negotiate the Iran deal who, as it turns out, was using proxies. Many of his aides were actually taking money from Iran. The Biden administration, literally one of their first acts was to delist the Houthis as a terror organization and sanctions against the Houthis. These are all moves that Biden made very early on. They were disastrous moves. But when it comes to domestic policy, I think he hasn’t been nearly as damaging in domestic policy as-
All of that is the result of the fact that Joe Biden reoriented the United States in the very early days in favor of a more pro-Iranian stance. He appointed Robert Malley to negotiate the Iran deal who, as it turns out, was using proxies. Many of his aides were actually taking money from Iran. The Biden administration, literally one of their first acts was to delist the Houthis as a terror organization and sanctions against the Houthis. These are all moves that Biden made very early on. They were disastrous moves. But when it comes to domestic policy, I think he hasn’t been nearly as damaging in domestic policy as-
Destiny
Wait, wait. Domestic policy. Let’s do…
Wait, wait. Domestic policy. Let’s do…
Ben Shapiro
Foreign policy.
Foreign policy.
Destiny
… sure, sure. So just on a couple of Middle Eastern things. So one of the big things that threw the Middle East into disaster was what we all traumatized by it now was the Iraq invasion [inaudible 00:48:56] Republican president.
… sure, sure. So just on a couple of Middle Eastern things. So one of the big things that threw the Middle East into disaster was what we all traumatized by it now was the Iraq invasion [inaudible 00:48:56] Republican president.
Ben Shapiro
Sure.
Sure.
Destiny
You hear that, right?
You hear that, right?
Ben Shapiro
Sure.
Sure.
Destiny
The deposition of Saddam Hussein and everything that followed after probably contributed more to the growth of ISIS and the destabilization of that entire region probably more than anything else. I think that prior to Bush for Clinton and even at the beginning of Bush’s presidency, we were on some kind of road to normalcy with Iran, which I think has to happen whether we liked them or not until Bush, for whatever reason, decides to throw Iran into the Axis of Evil.
The deposition of Saddam Hussein and everything that followed after probably contributed more to the growth of ISIS and the destabilization of that entire region probably more than anything else. I think that prior to Bush for Clinton and even at the beginning of Bush’s presidency, we were on some kind of road to normalcy with Iran, which I think has to happen whether we liked them or not until Bush, for whatever reason, decides to throw Iran into the Axis of Evil.
Ben Shapiro
You emphasized that we’re on a road to normalcy with Iran in the 1990s.
You emphasized that we’re on a road to normalcy with Iran in the 1990s.
Destiny
We do in the… wait, what?
We do in the… wait, what?
Ben Shapiro
That we are on a road to normalcy with Iran in the 1990s.
That we are on a road to normalcy with Iran in the 1990s.
Destiny
My understanding is that, yeah, from the late ’90s and prior to the Axis of Evil labeling of Iran, that there was going to be some path forward to where we could start to normalize relationships with them.
My understanding is that, yeah, from the late ’90s and prior to the Axis of Evil labeling of Iran, that there was going to be some path forward to where we could start to normalize relationships with them.
Ben Shapiro
I find that very difficult to believe, and I don’t see a lot of evidence. I mean, we can just disagree on that.
I find that very difficult to believe, and I don’t see a lot of evidence. I mean, we can just disagree on that.
Destiny
Sure, okay, yeah, sure. We can disagree on that, but I know that once I [inaudible 00:49:43].
Sure, okay, yeah, sure. We can disagree on that, but I know that once I [inaudible 00:49:43].
Ben Shapiro
By the way, the after effects, just a quick note, the after effect of the Iraq War that was the most devastating was the increase in power of Iran.
By the way, the after effects, just a quick note, the after effect of the Iraq War that was the most devastating was the increase in power of Iran.
Destiny
I agree, yeah, because of the destabilization of Iraq and Iraq not having a government there that was functional for at least a decade.
I agree, yeah, because of the destabilization of Iraq and Iraq not having a government there that was functional for at least a decade.
Ben Shapiro
And was, in fact, a Sunni government, right? Originally, it was a Sunni government. The Sunni army was one of the worst things that the Bush administration did.
And was, in fact, a Sunni government, right? Originally, it was a Sunni government. The Sunni army was one of the worst things that the Bush administration did.
Destiny
Banning all the former Ba’ath party [inaudible 00:50:03].
Banning all the former Ba’ath party [inaudible 00:50:03].
Ben Shapiro
Sectarian, yeah.
Sectarian, yeah.
Destiny
All horrible under a Republican president.
All horrible under a Republican president.
Ben Shapiro
Don’t disagree.
Don’t disagree.
Destiny
That that probably contributed more to ISIS, to the growth of power in Iran, maybe even to the destabilization of Syria, probably more than anything that Obama did. Also, when we look at Iran funding people in the region, I don’t disagree with that as well. I think Iran is the number one instigator of bad-guy things right now in the Middle East. Iran, the IRGC I supported when Donald Trump killed Soleimani. I think that was a great thing. I think that Iran is a major problem.
That that probably contributed more to ISIS, to the growth of power in Iran, maybe even to the destabilization of Syria, probably more than anything that Obama did. Also, when we look at Iran funding people in the region, I don’t disagree with that as well. I think Iran is the number one instigator of bad-guy things right now in the Middle East. Iran, the IRGC I supported when Donald Trump killed Soleimani. I think that was a great thing. I think that Iran is a major problem.
However, I don’t know if the path forward is constantly being a belligerent to Iran or trying to figure out some road to normalcy. I don’t know if the collapse of Iran or the destruction of that country, considering how unpopular the Ayatollah even is there. The citizens of Iran, I don’t think, are big supporters of the government there. I feel like moving on a path where, let’s do our nuclear inspections. We had that Iranian nuclear deal that Trump pulled out of. Let’s do the nuclear inspections. Make sure you’re not on the way to nuclear weapons. Let’s unfree some funds. Let’s move in some direction where we get on a good term with you. I feel like that’s the most important thing that needs to happen in the Middle East. As much as people like to look at the Abraham Accords, who cares if… what was it? Bahrain, I think Oman. I think [inaudible 00:51:10].
Ben Shapiro
UAE, Morocco.
UAE, Morocco.
Destiny
The UAE and Morocco… like all of these people, even Saudi Arabia already have like de facto normalization with Israel anyway. They’re all trading [inaudible 00:51:18].
The UAE and Morocco… like all of these people, even Saudi Arabia already have like de facto normalization with Israel anyway. They’re all trading [inaudible 00:51:18].
Ben Shapiro
No, I mean, to pretend that anybody even 15 years ago would’ve been talking about normalization between Saudi Arabia and Israel is insane. I mean, that’s insane.
No, I mean, to pretend that anybody even 15 years ago would’ve been talking about normalization between Saudi Arabia and Israel is insane. I mean, that’s insane.
Destiny
They were already on that path. They were already de facto trading partners with each other. They had already been collaborating [inaudible 00:51:34].
They were already on that path. They were already de facto trading partners with each other. They had already been collaborating [inaudible 00:51:34].
Ben Shapiro
That’s a wild claim that Israel and Saudi Arabia were going to normalize 15 years ago?
That’s a wild claim that Israel and Saudi Arabia were going to normalize 15 years ago?
Destiny
15 years ago might’ve been a wild claim, but after Turkey, after Jordan, and then in the past 20 years of economic relations and ties with each other, all of the leadership in the Middle East and you’ll agree with this. Look at Israel. Then they go, okay, well, we’ve got Palestinians who God bless them, do nothing, and then you’ve got Israel, which is on a region with no natural resources to somehow become an economic giant. They’re good to trade with their population’s educated. They have military power. All of the leadership in these Middle Eastern countries are wanting to be friendly with Israel and are engaging in trade de facto with Israel and the idea that the UAE and Bahrain were brought in to say like, oh, well, now we’re going to officially say this.
15 years ago might’ve been a wild claim, but after Turkey, after Jordan, and then in the past 20 years of economic relations and ties with each other, all of the leadership in the Middle East and you’ll agree with this. Look at Israel. Then they go, okay, well, we’ve got Palestinians who God bless them, do nothing, and then you’ve got Israel, which is on a region with no natural resources to somehow become an economic giant. They’re good to trade with their population’s educated. They have military power. All of the leadership in these Middle Eastern countries are wanting to be friendly with Israel and are engaging in trade de facto with Israel and the idea that the UAE and Bahrain were brought in to say like, oh, well, now we’re going to officially say this.
Ben Shapiro
Those were the first steps toward obviously the formation of a new Middle East in which economics would predominate over sectarian conflict. The chief obstacle to that is Iran. I agree. The notion that negotiations with the Ayatollah, were going to be a solution to any of this is, but do we think Absolutely. The night,
Those were the first steps toward obviously the formation of a new Middle East in which economics would predominate over sectarian conflict. The chief obstacle to that is Iran. I agree. The notion that negotiations with the Ayatollah, were going to be a solution to any of this is, but do we think Absolutely. The night,
Destiny
Is it the Abraham Accords that’s convincing Saudi Arabia to take a stance against Iran?
Is it the Abraham Accords that’s convincing Saudi Arabia to take a stance against Iran?
Ben Shapiro
No. I mean, they’re
No. I mean, they’re
Destiny
Already fighting. They’re already fighting with each other. Right. I don’t think the Abraham Accords moved us any closer towards any type of real peace in the region. It has to happen is something has to happen with Iran. There has to be some diplomatic bilateral communication there.
Already fighting. They’re already fighting with each other. Right. I don’t think the Abraham Accords moved us any closer towards any type of real peace in the region. It has to happen is something has to happen with Iran. There has to be some diplomatic bilateral communication there.
Ben Shapiro
No. What has to happen is the containment of Iran, which was what was taking place with the increased normalization with the Sunni Arab world and Israel combined with significant economic sanctions. The notion that there’s this far-fetched notion in foreign policy circles that diplomacy can sort of be wish cast out of thin air. That if you sit around a table that you can always come to an agreement with somebody. The Ayatollahs do not have common interests with the United States. They do not, and this idea that they’re willing to take money in exchange, for example, some sort of peaceful acquiescence to Israel’s existence is obviously untrue, literally,
No. What has to happen is the containment of Iran, which was what was taking place with the increased normalization with the Sunni Arab world and Israel combined with significant economic sanctions. The notion that there’s this far-fetched notion in foreign policy circles that diplomacy can sort of be wish cast out of thin air. That if you sit around a table that you can always come to an agreement with somebody. The Ayatollahs do not have common interests with the United States. They do not, and this idea that they’re willing to take money in exchange, for example, some sort of peaceful acquiescence to Israel’s existence is obviously untrue, literally,
Destiny
Historically. Hasn’t that been the case though, that you’ve had a region with tons of sectarian violence for a long time, and then finally Turkey was like, you know what? This isn’t worth it. The United States paid them a lot of money. They had conversations with Israel, and you know what? The economy, the economic gains, same thing with Jordan. Same thing with
Historically. Hasn’t that been the case though, that you’ve had a region with tons of sectarian violence for a long time, and then finally Turkey was like, you know what? This isn’t worth it. The United States paid them a lot of money. They had conversations with Israel, and you know what? The economy, the economic gains, same thing with Jordan. Same thing with
Ben Shapiro
Turkish politics, but the situation with Turkey was actually quite warm between Israel and Turkey in the nineties when you had the sort of secular Muslim regime
Turkish politics, but the situation with Turkey was actually quite warm between Israel and Turkey in the nineties when you had the sort of secular Muslim regime
Destiny
In the nineties, but they signed
In the nineties, but they signed
Ben Shapiro
Out of Turk in place, and now Erdogan has joined in the fray. Erdogan is significantly more radical than
Out of Turk in place, and now Erdogan has joined in the fray. Erdogan is significantly more radical than
Destiny
What came before. Sure. I’m so sorry if I said Turga in Egypt, my
What came before. Sure. I’m so sorry if I said Turga in Egypt, my
Ben Shapiro
Bad. Egypt
Bad. Egypt
Destiny
In terms of Egypt and Jordan, right, we’re the first two you
In terms of Egypt and Jordan, right, we’re the first two you
Ben Shapiro
Need big, so here’s the thing. Is it possible that you could theoretically come to a deal with Iran only with a new leadership crew? Okay. This is true for every peace agreement in the region. You could not, Israel could not have made peace with. Well, they
Need big, so here’s the thing. Is it possible that you could theoretically come to a deal with Iran only with a new leadership crew? Okay. This is true for every peace agreement in the region. You could not, Israel could not have made peace with. Well, they
Destiny
Made peace with Egypt, and Sadat was the leader for Yom Kippur.
Made peace with Egypt, and Sadat was the leader for Yom Kippur.
Ben Shapiro
They did not make peace with Nasser. Right. The point is that this is a different regime. You need a different regime,
They did not make peace with Nasser. Right. The point is that this is a different regime. You need a different regime,
Destiny
But I’m saying the same regime that part of the Yom, Kippur war was the same regime that negotiated peace with Israel.
But I’m saying the same regime that part of the Yom, Kippur war was the same regime that negotiated peace with Israel.
Ben Shapiro
I mean, that’s true. It is also true that that is a relationship that could be cultivated specifically because it was Sadat who made clear he was going to come to the table. Have the Iranians ever made clear that they would come to the table over, for example, the existence of the state of Israel?
I mean, that’s true. It is also true that that is a relationship that could be cultivated specifically because it was Sadat who made clear he was going to come to the table. Have the Iranians ever made clear that they would come to the table over, for example, the existence of the state of Israel?
Destiny
No.
No.
Ben Shapiro
That is not a thing that’s going to happen, but
That is not a thing that’s going to happen, but
Destiny
I think people probably thought the same.
I think people probably thought the same.
Ben Shapiro
Every single one of their proxy rules, every one of them not only calls for the destruction of the state of Israel, they also call for the destruction of America. I mean, this is literally the Houthi slogan. They’re busy hitting ships, and their slogan is literally Ahu Akbar, death to America, death to the Jews, death to Israel. It doesn’t fit on a bumper sticker, but it’s not all like catchy, but that is in fact their slogan. The notion that the regime that propagates that is going to be approached with diplomacy is not only wrong, the problem is that it’s easy to say the stakes of diplomacy are okay, so we try to talk jaw-jaw is better than war-war. Sure. The only problem is that in the Middle East, weakness is taken as a sign that aggression might be an appropriate response. That is how things work in the Middle East, and the fact that Barack, that Joe Biden rather came into office with an orientation toward continuing the Obama policies in Iran has led to conflagrations these sort of brushfires breaking out everywhere that Iran has borders with either the West or Israel or both. Right. Any place that’s happening, it’s leading to Brushfires because again, the logic of violence in the Middle East is not quite the logic of violence in other places in the world. By the way, I think the logic of violence in the Middle East is actually closer to what most international politics looks like than we wish that it were. I mean, I think that’s part of what’s happening in Ukraine as well, which brings me, by the way, here’s my question about Ukraine. Well, just real quick-
Every single one of their proxy rules, every one of them not only calls for the destruction of the state of Israel, they also call for the destruction of America. I mean, this is literally the Houthi slogan. They’re busy hitting ships, and their slogan is literally Ahu Akbar, death to America, death to the Jews, death to Israel. It doesn’t fit on a bumper sticker, but it’s not all like catchy, but that is in fact their slogan. The notion that the regime that propagates that is going to be approached with diplomacy is not only wrong, the problem is that it’s easy to say the stakes of diplomacy are okay, so we try to talk jaw-jaw is better than war-war. Sure. The only problem is that in the Middle East, weakness is taken as a sign that aggression might be an appropriate response. That is how things work in the Middle East, and the fact that Barack, that Joe Biden rather came into office with an orientation toward continuing the Obama policies in Iran has led to conflagrations these sort of brushfires breaking out everywhere that Iran has borders with either the West or Israel or both. Right. Any place that’s happening, it’s leading to Brushfires because again, the logic of violence in the Middle East is not quite the logic of violence in other places in the world. By the way, I think the logic of violence in the Middle East is actually closer to what most international politics looks like than we wish that it were. I mean, I think that’s part of what’s happening in Ukraine as well, which brings me, by the way, here’s my question about Ukraine. Well, just real quick-
Destiny
So you think that for Iran, right, a country that has been sanctioned for God knows how many years now, you think that for Iran just continuing to sanction them and contain them is an effective way, is more effective than trying to engage them in bilateral or multilateral peace talks?
So you think that for Iran, right, a country that has been sanctioned for God knows how many years now, you think that for Iran just continuing to sanction them and contain them is an effective way, is more effective than trying to engage them in bilateral or multilateral peace talks?
Ben Shapiro
Yes, 100% and the proof is in the pudding.
Yes, 100% and the proof is in the pudding.
Israel-Palestine
Lex Fridman
Before we go to Ukraine, can I ask about Israel? So you’re both mostly in agreement, but what is Israel?
Before we go to Ukraine, can I ask about Israel? So you’re both mostly in agreement, but what is Israel?
Destiny
I don’t know if I’d say that.
I don’t know if I’d say that.
Lex Fridman
Okay, but as I’m learning what is Israel doing right? What is Israel doing wrong in this very specific current war in Gaza?
Okay, but as I’m learning what is Israel doing right? What is Israel doing wrong in this very specific current war in Gaza?
Ben Shapiro
I mean, frankly, I think that what Israel’s doing wrong is if I were Israel, again, America’s interests are not coincident with Israel’s interests. If I were an Israeli leader, I would’ve swiveled up and I would’ve knocked the bleep out of Hezbollah early. What does that mean mean? What does that mean? So I would have Yoav Galant, who is the defense minister of Israel, was encouraging Netanyahu, who’s the prime minister and the war cabinet, including Benny Gantz. People talk about the Netanyahu government. That’s not what’s in place right now. There’s a unity war government in place that includes the political opposition. The reason I point that out is because there are a lot of people politically who will suggest that the actions Israel is currently taking are somehow the manifestation of a right-wing government. Israel currently does not have a quote, right-wing government, they have unity government that includes the opposition.
I mean, frankly, I think that what Israel’s doing wrong is if I were Israel, again, America’s interests are not coincident with Israel’s interests. If I were an Israeli leader, I would’ve swiveled up and I would’ve knocked the bleep out of Hezbollah early. What does that mean mean? What does that mean? So I would have Yoav Galant, who is the defense minister of Israel, was encouraging Netanyahu, who’s the prime minister and the war cabinet, including Benny Gantz. People talk about the Netanyahu government. That’s not what’s in place right now. There’s a unity war government in place that includes the political opposition. The reason I point that out is because there are a lot of people politically who will suggest that the actions Israel is currently taking are somehow the manifestation of a right-wing government. Israel currently does not have a quote, right-wing government, they have unity government that includes the opposition.
In any case, Yoav Galant was urging in the very early days of the war that Israel should turn North and instead of hitting Hamas, they should actually take the opportunity to knock Hezbollah out because Hezbollah is significantly more dangerous to the existence of the state of Israel than Hamas. I actually agree with that. As far as what Israel has been doing wrong in the actual war, I mean, I think that, again, from an American perspective, I think that Israel is doing pretty well from an Israeli perspective via Israeli. I would actually want Israel to be less loose about sending its soldiers in on the ground level. So Israel’s attempting to minimize civilian casualties, and the cost of that has been the high.
Ben Shapiro
… on the ground level. So Israel’s attempting to minimize civilian casualties, and the cost of that has been the highest military death toll that Israel has had since the 1973 Yom Kippur War. I mean, I personally know, through one degree of separation, three separate people who have been killed in Gaza, and that’s because they’re going in door to door, it’s because they’re attempting to minimize civilian casualties and they’re losing a lot of guys in this particular war. The problem that Israel has had historically speaking is that Israel got very complacent about its own security situation. They believed the technology was going to somehow correct for the hatred on the other side of the wall. That, okay, so our people have to live underground for two weeks at a time while some rockets fall, but at least it’s not a war.
… on the ground level. So Israel’s attempting to minimize civilian casualties, and the cost of that has been the highest military death toll that Israel has had since the 1973 Yom Kippur War. I mean, I personally know, through one degree of separation, three separate people who have been killed in Gaza, and that’s because they’re going in door to door, it’s because they’re attempting to minimize civilian casualties and they’re losing a lot of guys in this particular war. The problem that Israel has had historically speaking is that Israel got very complacent about its own security situation. They believed the technology was going to somehow correct for the hatred on the other side of the wall. That, okay, so our people have to live underground for two weeks at a time while some rockets fall, but at least it’s not a war.
And that complacence bred what happened on October 7th. So to me, what Israel did wrong was years and years and years of complacence and belief in an Oslo System that is at root a failure because you cannot make a peace agreement with people who do not want to make peace with you. So that’s what I think Israel is doing wrong. I have a feeling that there’s going to be wide divergence on this point.
Destiny
Maybe. So in terms of broadly speaking, I generally oppose settlement expansion is a thing that Israel does incorrectly that I think is kind of provocative to at least all the Palestinians in the West Bank, and it probably energizes hatred in the Gaza Strip for them as well. In terms of conducting warfare, the one thing that I always say to everybody, especially Americans, is you can’t evaluate things from an American perspective. It’s very stupid. It happened a lot with Ukraine where people are like, “Oh, well, they work with the Nazis?” and “Weren’t the Soviets the good guys?” And it’s like, well, in other parts of the world, it’s not quite as simple. And I think the same is true for Israel-Palestine, that a lot of Americans will analyze the conflict as just being one between only Israel and Palestine, which it’s not, it’s a conflict between Israel and then Palestine, Hezbollah, the Houthis, and Iran. Right now, it is.
Maybe. So in terms of broadly speaking, I generally oppose settlement expansion is a thing that Israel does incorrectly that I think is kind of provocative to at least all the Palestinians in the West Bank, and it probably energizes hatred in the Gaza Strip for them as well. In terms of conducting warfare, the one thing that I always say to everybody, especially Americans, is you can’t evaluate things from an American perspective. It’s very stupid. It happened a lot with Ukraine where people are like, “Oh, well, they work with the Nazis?” and “Weren’t the Soviets the good guys?” And it’s like, well, in other parts of the world, it’s not quite as simple. And I think the same is true for Israel-Palestine, that a lot of Americans will analyze the conflict as just being one between only Israel and Palestine, which it’s not, it’s a conflict between Israel and then Palestine, Hezbollah, the Houthis, and Iran. Right now, it is.
However, one area where I’ll break with, Ben, is I think that minimizing civilian casualties and everything is very, very, very important I think on the Israeli side. I don’t think it’s important so that the US will stay with them because I think the US is probably going to stick with Israel as long as they’re not doing anything crazy, and I don’t even think it matters for the international community. It definitely doesn’t matter for the UN because Jesus Christ. However, I think it’s really, really, really important that… I think that in the Middle East, broadly speaking, I think that leadership, especially in the Gulf, has gotten over the Palestinian issue.
I think that leadership is kind of like they don’t care as much anymore, but the populations still care quite a bit. And I think that the main issue that Israel could run into is if the civilian death toll does climb too high, and if they start to hit this 40, 50, 60,000 number of civilian casualties, they run the risk of the civilian populations in the surrounding Middle Eastern states becoming so antagonistic towards Israel that they start to take steps back towards normalization in the region.
So for instance, I know that Bahrain, I think, already pulled out their ambassador to Israel. My guess is going to be it’s temporary. I know that on the public speaking side, you’ve got a lot of people condemning Israel for the attacks. And on the private side, you’ve got people telling Israel, “Please kill all of Hamas because this is untenable and nobody wants to work in this situation.” I don’t know if this ended up being true or not. I’m guessing it didn’t, but I saw on a couple of Twitter accounts, it was leaked that potentially, Saudi Arabia was considering installing a government in the West Bank that they would run.
Ben Shapiro
No, I mean, I think Israel would love nothing better than that, but that is [inaudible 01:01:21].
No, I mean, I think Israel would love nothing better than that, but that is [inaudible 01:01:21].
Destiny
For sure.
For sure.
Ben Shapiro
One of the big problems in the Middle East is literally no one wants to preside over the Palestinians. No one. In the Arab states, Israel, no one.
One of the big problems in the Middle East is literally no one wants to preside over the Palestinians. No one. In the Arab states, Israel, no one.
Destiny
So I think the issue, and I’m largely actually, I’m very sympathetic towards the Palestinians because I think that since ’48 and onwards, I think that all of the Arab states super gassed them up on that. They wanted the Palestinians to fight because they wanted to fight with Israel. However, as time has gone on and they’ve realized that it’s kind of a lost cause, states have started to drop out. So you’re getting these bilateral peace treaties with Egypt and with Jordan, you’re getting multilateral agreements like the Abraham Accords, and now, the Palestinians are looking around. I’m like, “Okay, well, you guys told us to fight all this time, and now, the only people that we have supporting us are Iranian proxies.” So the Palestinians are in a very weird spot where they’ve lost all their support.
So I think the issue, and I’m largely actually, I’m very sympathetic towards the Palestinians because I think that since ’48 and onwards, I think that all of the Arab states super gassed them up on that. They wanted the Palestinians to fight because they wanted to fight with Israel. However, as time has gone on and they’ve realized that it’s kind of a lost cause, states have started to drop out. So you’re getting these bilateral peace treaties with Egypt and with Jordan, you’re getting multilateral agreements like the Abraham Accords, and now, the Palestinians are looking around. I’m like, “Okay, well, you guys told us to fight all this time, and now, the only people that we have supporting us are Iranian proxies.” So the Palestinians are in a very weird spot where they’ve lost all their support.
Yeah, I think that Israel, what I would say to be, quote, unquote, “critical” of Israel is Israel needs to take strong steps towards peace that probably involves them enduring some undue hardship. So not the October 7th attacks, because Jesus, that’s way too much, but other types of attacks that they might have to deal with that might cause some civilians to die that they don’t come out over the top with and retaliate with if there’s ever going to be peace in that region. However, another thing that I’ve always said is a huge problem between Israel and Palestine is I think that both sides think that if they continue to fight, it will be good for them. But the problem is one side is delusional. I think Israel wants to continue to fight because they get justifications for the annexation of the Golan Heights. They get justifications for expansions, especially in the Area C that, I think, they’re probably going to try to annex soon. They get justifications for the increased military posturing towards the Gaza Strip and the embargoes.
And Israel is right that if the conflict continues, really, the situation only improves for Israel over time. But the Palestinians also all believe that if they keep fighting, they thought this since 2000 under Arafat, that if they just keep fighting, they’ll get better gains too. But that’s not the case.
Lex Fridman
Is there a difference between Palestinian citizens and the leadership when you say that?
Is there a difference between Palestinian citizens and the leadership when you say that?
Destiny
I love all people. I love all people around the world, and I think that when we analyze issues, I think that we have to be very honest with what the people on the ground think. And the idea that Hamas is just this one-off thing in the Gaza Strip is not only incorrect with the situation on the ground, it’s also incredibly ahistorical. And the idea that the Palestinians in the West Bank, of which I believe the most recent polling shows, I want to say 75 to 80% support the October 7th attacks. Palestinians, in general, want to fight in violent conflict with Israel. That’s not just the position of the government. That’s not just people. There’s a reason why Abbas doesn’t want to do elections in the West Bank, and it’s because the Palestinian people really do want to fight with Israel.
I love all people. I love all people around the world, and I think that when we analyze issues, I think that we have to be very honest with what the people on the ground think. And the idea that Hamas is just this one-off thing in the Gaza Strip is not only incorrect with the situation on the ground, it’s also incredibly ahistorical. And the idea that the Palestinians in the West Bank, of which I believe the most recent polling shows, I want to say 75 to 80% support the October 7th attacks. Palestinians, in general, want to fight in violent conflict with Israel. That’s not just the position of the government. That’s not just people. There’s a reason why Abbas doesn’t want to do elections in the West Bank, and it’s because the Palestinian people really do want to fight with Israel.
But to combat that problem is like you have to get the UN on board, we’ve got to do an actual addressing of the Palestinian refugee problem, which is handled like a joke right now. Iran has to be brought to the table in terms of negotiations. There has to be huge efforts made to economically revitalize these Palestinian areas. Even though they’re one of the highest recipients of aid in the world. You have to do something about the embargo and the blockade and the Gaza Strip, which isn’t just maintained by Israel, it’s also maintained by Egypt. You should ask why. Yeah, there’s a lot of things that have to happen to fix that problem. But the reality is I don’t think Israel really wants to because they get to continue their expansion into the West Bank, and I don’t think anybody around the world really cares that much because in a month, we won’t be talking [inaudible 01:04:36].
Ben Shapiro
I will argue with that. The idea that Israel does not want to end the conflict is belied by the history of what just happened with the Gaza Strip. So when we talk about settlements for example, Israel did have settlements inside the Gaza Strip. There were 8,000 Jews who were living inside the Gaza Strip in Gush Katif. Up until 2005, they withdrew all of those people, I mean, took them literally out of their homes, and the result was not the burgeoning of a better attitude toward the state of Israel with regard to, for example, the Palestinian population in Gaza. In fact, it was more radical in Gaza than it was in the West Bank. The result was obviously the election of Hamas, the October 7th attacks, in which unfortunately, many civilians took part in the October 7th attacks. There’s video of people rushing, who are civilians and dressed in civilian clothing, into Israeli villages.
I will argue with that. The idea that Israel does not want to end the conflict is belied by the history of what just happened with the Gaza Strip. So when we talk about settlements for example, Israel did have settlements inside the Gaza Strip. There were 8,000 Jews who were living inside the Gaza Strip in Gush Katif. Up until 2005, they withdrew all of those people, I mean, took them literally out of their homes, and the result was not the burgeoning of a better attitude toward the state of Israel with regard to, for example, the Palestinian population in Gaza. In fact, it was more radical in Gaza than it was in the West Bank. The result was obviously the election of Hamas, the October 7th attacks, in which unfortunately, many civilians took part in the October 7th attacks. There’s video of people rushing, who are civilians and dressed in civilian clothing, into Israeli villages.
Destiny
Oh, careful. Not always the same thing.
Oh, careful. Not always the same thing.
Ben Shapiro
Well, no, no. That is 100% true, obviously. And when it comes to Area C and Israel’s supposed deep and abiding desire for territorial expansion in Area C. Area C, so for those who are not familiar with the Oslo Accords, and again, this is getting very abstruse, but the Oslo Accords are broken down into three areas of the West Bank. Area A is under full Palestinian control. That’d be like Jenin and Nablus, the major cities, for example. There’s Area B, which is mixed Israeli-Palestinian control, where Israel provides some level of military security and control, and then there’s Area C. And Area C was like to be decided later. It was left up for possible concessions to the Palestinian authority if the Oslo accords have moved forward. Those are disputed territories. There is building taking place in Area C by both, actually no one talks about this, but by Palestinians as well as Israelis.
Well, no, no. That is 100% true, obviously. And when it comes to Area C and Israel’s supposed deep and abiding desire for territorial expansion in Area C. Area C, so for those who are not familiar with the Oslo Accords, and again, this is getting very abstruse, but the Oslo Accords are broken down into three areas of the West Bank. Area A is under full Palestinian control. That’d be like Jenin and Nablus, the major cities, for example. There’s Area B, which is mixed Israeli-Palestinian control, where Israel provides some level of military security and control, and then there’s Area C. And Area C was like to be decided later. It was left up for possible concessions to the Palestinian authority if the Oslo accords have moved forward. Those are disputed territories. There is building taking place in Area C by both, actually no one talks about this, but by Palestinians as well as Israelis.
And the question as to whether if Israel stopped building, there’ve been many settlement freeze in the past, including some undertaken by Netanyahu, and it actually has not done one iota of good in moving the ball forward in terms of actual negotiations. Again, the biggest problem is that the leadership for Palestinians has spent every day since, really, ’67. It’s not even ’48. Because between ’48 and ’67, Jordan was in charge of the West Bank and Egypt was in charge of the Gaza Strip. And at no point did either of those powers say, “Hey, maybe we ought to hand this over to an independent Palestinian state.” Which was originally the division that was promoted by the UN Partition Plan in ’47. Because of that, the leadership post ’67, and really, starting in ’64, the Palestine Liberation Organization was founded in ’64, and it called for the liberation of the land in ’64. They had the West Bank and they had the Gaza Strip. So they’re talking about Tel Aviv.
When it was founded in ’64, the basic idea, as kind of indicated by that, was Israel will not exist, and that was a promise that’s been made by pretty much every Palestinian leader in Arabic to the people that they are talking to. Yasser Arafat famously would do this sort of thing. He’d speak in English and talk about how he wanted a two-state solution, and then he’d go back to his own people and say, “This is a Trojan Horse and we’re going to…” If Israel could, if you think that Israeli parents want to send their kids at the age of 18 to go and monitor Jenin and Nablus and be in Khan Yunis, you’re out of your mind. You’re out of your mind. Israelis do not want that. In fact, Israelis didn’t want that so much that they allowed rockets to fall in their cities for full on 18 years in order to avoid sending soldiers en masse back into the Gaza Strip.
Destiny
True. But I think Israel does want to continue to expand settlements into the West Bank, right? They want to continue to build, they want to have all of Jerusalem, East Jerusalem as well.
True. But I think Israel does want to continue to expand settlements into the West Bank, right? They want to continue to build, they want to have all of Jerusalem, East Jerusalem as well.
Ben Shapiro
Well, I mean, East Jerusalem has already been annexed. So East Jerusalem is, according to Israel, a part of Israel. That’s not a settlement.
Well, I mean, East Jerusalem has already been annexed. So East Jerusalem is, according to Israel, a part of Israel. That’s not a settlement.
Destiny
Sure.
Sure.
Ben Shapiro
Okay. So there’s that. With regard to does Israel have an interest in expanding settlements in the West Bank? Why would they not until there’s a peace partner?
Okay. So there’s that. With regard to does Israel have an interest in expanding settlements in the West Bank? Why would they not until there’s a peace partner?
Destiny
Sure.
Sure.
Ben Shapiro
[inaudible 01:08:05].
[inaudible 01:08:05].
Destiny
That’s what I mean. But I’m saying as long as the conflict continues, because even when you talk about-
That’s what I mean. But I’m saying as long as the conflict continues, because even when you talk about-
Ben Shapiro
But no, your suggestion is that they’re incentivizing the conflict to continue so they can grab more land.
But no, your suggestion is that they’re incentivizing the conflict to continue so they can grab more land.
Destiny
Well, no, let me be very clear. I don’t think there’s a… So some people say, for instance, they’ll take that one quote from Netanyahu and they’ll try to say that he was funding the people on the Gaza Strip by allowing Qatari money to come in, even though he was actually speaking in opposition to Abbas, allowing the Gaza Strip to fall for Netanyahu to clear it out for him and they give it back, et cetera, et cetera. I’m not claiming those theories. I’m just saying that I think that Israel will take a relatively neutral stance towards conflict and enduring, because as long as the conflict endures, and as long as the settlements can expand, I think that ultimately benefits Israel.
Well, no, let me be very clear. I don’t think there’s a… So some people say, for instance, they’ll take that one quote from Netanyahu and they’ll try to say that he was funding the people on the Gaza Strip by allowing Qatari money to come in, even though he was actually speaking in opposition to Abbas, allowing the Gaza Strip to fall for Netanyahu to clear it out for him and they give it back, et cetera, et cetera. I’m not claiming those theories. I’m just saying that I think that Israel will take a relatively neutral stance towards conflict and enduring, because as long as the conflict endures, and as long as the settlements can expand, I think that ultimately benefits Israel.
Ben Shapiro
I think there would be… Let’s put it this way, if suddenly there are arose among the Palestinians, a deep and abiding desire for peace approved by a vast majority of the population with serious security guarantees, I think you’d be very hard-pressed to find Israelis who would not be willing to at least consider that. [inaudible 01:08:57] not expanding bathrooms [inaudible 01:08:59].
I think there would be… Let’s put it this way, if suddenly there are arose among the Palestinians, a deep and abiding desire for peace approved by a vast majority of the population with serious security guarantees, I think you’d be very hard-pressed to find Israelis who would not be willing to at least consider that. [inaudible 01:08:57] not expanding bathrooms [inaudible 01:08:59].
Destiny
I would’ve agreed with you on October 6th. I think we’re probably a year or two away from that right now.
I would’ve agreed with you on October 6th. I think we’re probably a year or two away from that right now.
Ben Shapiro
No, no. But no, the point I’m making is that Israelis now realize that the entire peace process was a sham, meaning the people who were on the other side of the table were using it as a Trojan Horse in the first place. The death of Oslo is not the death of Israeli hopefulness. It’s the death of the illusion that on the other side of the table was anyone worth bargaining with. That’s what’s happening, and that’s why you have this sort of insane disconnect right now between the United States and the Israeli government. Again, it’s a unity government. No one in Israel is talking about making concessions to the Palestinian authority for a wide variety of reasons, including the fact that Mahmoud Abbas’ Fatah continues to pay actual families of terrorists who killed Jews.
No, no. But no, the point I’m making is that Israelis now realize that the entire peace process was a sham, meaning the people who were on the other side of the table were using it as a Trojan Horse in the first place. The death of Oslo is not the death of Israeli hopefulness. It’s the death of the illusion that on the other side of the table was anyone worth bargaining with. That’s what’s happening, and that’s why you have this sort of insane disconnect right now between the United States and the Israeli government. Again, it’s a unity government. No one in Israel is talking about making concessions to the Palestinian authority for a wide variety of reasons, including the fact that Mahmoud Abbas’ Fatah continues to pay actual families of terrorists who killed Jews.
Destiny
Sure, the Martyr fund. Yeah.
Sure, the Martyr fund. Yeah.
Ben Shapiro
Right. And the fact-
Right. And the fact-
Destiny
Which is from the moderate West Bank.
Which is from the moderate West Bank.
Ben Shapiro
Right, exactly. So again, the taste in Israel for this is even the people who are the Hilonim, those are the most secular people in Israel, which was, by the way, the place that was attacked on October 7th. I mean, what people should understand is that October 7th was not an attack against settlements in the West Bank. It was an attack on peace villages that were essentially disarmed, and many of these people who were killed were peace activists who were literally trying to work with people in Gaza to get them… I mean, it’s mind-boggling. That’s why you’ve had this ground shift in Israel. The next 20 years in Israel is going to be about security and economic development. Period, end of story. Everything else goes second, third place.
Right, exactly. So again, the taste in Israel for this is even the people who are the Hilonim, those are the most secular people in Israel, which was, by the way, the place that was attacked on October 7th. I mean, what people should understand is that October 7th was not an attack against settlements in the West Bank. It was an attack on peace villages that were essentially disarmed, and many of these people who were killed were peace activists who were literally trying to work with people in Gaza to get them… I mean, it’s mind-boggling. That’s why you’ve had this ground shift in Israel. The next 20 years in Israel is going to be about security and economic development. Period, end of story. Everything else goes second, third place.
Destiny
And I will say, I agree essentially with everything you’re saying. Not to loop back on another topic, but this is one of the reasons then why I was so critical. I don’t want to say critical, but kind of nonchalant about the Abraham Accord because they didn’t address anything with the Palestinians whatsoever. They brought countries that weren’t super relevant to the conflict. They didn’t bring in Qatar, which is where a lot of the money and support for the Gaza Strip comes from. It didn’t involve Iran at all. They involved bilateral [inaudible 01:10:33].
And I will say, I agree essentially with everything you’re saying. Not to loop back on another topic, but this is one of the reasons then why I was so critical. I don’t want to say critical, but kind of nonchalant about the Abraham Accord because they didn’t address anything with the Palestinians whatsoever. They brought countries that weren’t super relevant to the conflict. They didn’t bring in Qatar, which is where a lot of the money and support for the Gaza Strip comes from. It didn’t involve Iran at all. They involved bilateral [inaudible 01:10:33].
Ben Shapiro
No, but it’s totally changed the mentality, and this is why what I’m seeing right now, this is why… Listen, I think that Biden has done better than I certainly expected him to do in terms of support for Israel. Obama was way less supportive of Israel than Biden by every metric. With that said, the rhetoric that he’s been using recently and the blanket have been using recently about Israel needs to make painful concessions for peace, Israel… Re-centering, this issue at the center of relations in the Middle East is doomed to failure.
No, but it’s totally changed the mentality, and this is why what I’m seeing right now, this is why… Listen, I think that Biden has done better than I certainly expected him to do in terms of support for Israel. Obama was way less supportive of Israel than Biden by every metric. With that said, the rhetoric that he’s been using recently and the blanket have been using recently about Israel needs to make painful concessions for peace, Israel… Re-centering, this issue at the center of relations in the Middle East is doomed to failure.
The magic, magic is a strong word… The benefit of the Abraham Accords was proof of what you’re saying, which is true, which is that all of these surrounding countries, in reality, have abandoned the idea that there’s a centrality to the Palestinian-Israeli conflict. That is not the central conflict in the Middle East. And by the way, one of the reasons it’s not the central conflict in the Middle East is because actually, ironically, because of the rise of Iran. It’s SUNY states that are largely signing up with Israel because they’re realizing they need some sort of counterweight to a burgeoning nuclear power in Iran.
Russia-Ukraine
Lex Fridman
Can we talk about Ukraine?
Can we talk about Ukraine?
Destiny
Sure.
Sure.
Lex Fridman
Do you have a disagreement with what Destiny said?
Do you have a disagreement with what Destiny said?
Ben Shapiro
My main problem with Biden’s policy with regard to Ukraine is that he outsourced the end goal of the war to Zelenskyy early on. Now, that might make sense if that goal were something that he was willing to fund to the point of achievement or if Zelenskyy could have achieved it on his own. But right now, and this has been true since pretty early on in the war, it’s a point Henry Kissinger made, that pretty early on in the war, it was very clear that for example, Crimea was going nowhere. The Russians had control of Crimea, barring the United States giving permission to fly F-16s over Crimea, nothing was going to change over there. The same thing was true in most of the Donbas, in Luhansk and Donetsk. That was not going to change. Zelenskyy’s stated goal, and you understand it, he’s the leader of Ukraine, is that there was a predation on his territory in 2014 and that the Russian sent their little green men across the border, and then they took all of these areas. And so he, as the leader of Ukraine, is saying, “Okay, I want all of that back.”
My main problem with Biden’s policy with regard to Ukraine is that he outsourced the end goal of the war to Zelenskyy early on. Now, that might make sense if that goal were something that he was willing to fund to the point of achievement or if Zelenskyy could have achieved it on his own. But right now, and this has been true since pretty early on in the war, it’s a point Henry Kissinger made, that pretty early on in the war, it was very clear that for example, Crimea was going nowhere. The Russians had control of Crimea, barring the United States giving permission to fly F-16s over Crimea, nothing was going to change over there. The same thing was true in most of the Donbas, in Luhansk and Donetsk. That was not going to change. Zelenskyy’s stated goal, and you understand it, he’s the leader of Ukraine, is that there was a predation on his territory in 2014 and that the Russian sent their little green men across the border, and then they took all of these areas. And so he, as the leader of Ukraine, is saying, “Okay, I want all of that back.”
Now, the reality is that the US’ interests had largely been achieved in the first few months of the war, meaning the revocation of the ability of Russia to take Ukraine and just ingest it. And two, the devastation of Russia’s military capability. I mean, Russia has just been wrecked. I mean, the military is in serious straits because of the war in Ukraine. From an American perspective, I’m very much pro all of that. I think that we have an interest in Ukraine maintaining a buffer status against a territorially aggressive Russia. I think that the United States does have an interest in degrading the Russian military to the extent that it can’t threaten the Baltic states or threaten Kazakhstan or other countries in the region. The problem I have with Biden’s strategy is as always, I think that it’s a muddle, and I think muddles tend to end with misperceptions.
War tends to break out and maintain because of misperception, misperception of the other side’s strength, the other side’s intentions, and all of the rest. People misperceive what’s going to happen. They say, “I’ll cross that line and nothing will happen.” This is what Putin thought. He thought, “I’ll cross that line. They’ll greet me as a liberator. And because the United States just surrendered in Afghanistan, essentially, they won’t do anything, and the West is fragmenting because NATO’s fragmenting and all the rest of this.” And obviously, he was wrong on all of those scores.
The problem for Biden is that as with virtually every war, no end line was set. And so it became out recently that it was widely reported that actually there was a peace deal that was on the table in the first few months that Putin was on board with that basically would’ve seeded Luhansk and Donetsk and Crimea to Russia in return for solidification of those lines. American and Western security guarantees to Ukraine, right? Ukraine wouldn’t formally join NATO, but there would be security guarantees to Ukraine. We’re ending up there anyway. It’s just taking a lot more money and a lot more time to get there.
Lex Fridman
And do you think Trump would’ve helped push that peace?
And do you think Trump would’ve helped push that peace?
Ben Shapiro
Yes, and I think that Biden actually did Zelenskyy a bit of a disservice because Zelenskyy knows where this war is going to end, and it’s not going to end with Luhansk and Donetsk and Crimea in Ukrainian hands. It’s just not going to, and he knows that. What actually, in my opinion, Zelenskyy needed was for Joe Biden to be the person who foisted that deal upon him so that he could then go back to his own people and say, “Listen, guys. I wanted all those things, but the Americans weren’t willing to allow me to have all those things.” And so we did an amazing job, we did a heroic job in defending our own land. We devastated the Russian military even though no one expected us to, but we can’t get back those things because it’s unrealistic to get back to those things because America basically, they’re a big funder and they’re the ones who want the deal.
Yes, and I think that Biden actually did Zelenskyy a bit of a disservice because Zelenskyy knows where this war is going to end, and it’s not going to end with Luhansk and Donetsk and Crimea in Ukrainian hands. It’s just not going to, and he knows that. What actually, in my opinion, Zelenskyy needed was for Joe Biden to be the person who foisted that deal upon him so that he could then go back to his own people and say, “Listen, guys. I wanted all those things, but the Americans weren’t willing to allow me to have all those things.” And so we did an amazing job, we did a heroic job in defending our own land. We devastated the Russian military even though no one expected us to, but we can’t get back those things because it’s unrealistic to get back to those things because America basically, they’re a big funder and they’re the ones who want the deal.
Instead, what Biden said, and this was reported in the Washington Post last year, the Biden administration said, “We’re going to fight for as long as it takes with as much as it takes.” And when they were asked until when, they said, “Whatever Zelenskyy says.” And that’s not a policy, that’s just a recipe for a frozen conflict with endless funding. Now, it may be that Putin has walked away from the table and that deal is no longer available. If that deal is available right now, I certainly hope that’s being pursued behind closed doors. My main critique again of Biden is that when you outsource the end goal to another country without stating what America’s interest is, that’s a problem. I also think that Biden did really quite a poor job of sort of explaining what America’s realistic interests are. I don’t like it when American leaders… It’s weird for me to say this, but I’m not a huge fan of the we’re in it to protect democracy kind of rhetoric because frankly, we are allied with many, many countries that are not democracies, and that’s not actually how foreign policy works.
We should, as an overall 30,000-foot goal, advance democracy and rights where we can, but the reason that we were fighting in favor of Ukraine, and when I say fighting, I mean giving them money and giving them weaponry, the reason that we were doing that in favor of Ukraine is not because of Ukraine’s long history of clean voting and non-corruption. The reason that we were doing that is to counter Russian interest in the region. I mean, it was a pure, real politic play, and that real politic play is hard to deny no matter what side of the aisle you’re on. I think that what many Americans are going to, are reverting to is we have no interest there. Why are we spending the money there and not spending the money here? And that kind of stuff. And that argument can always be applied unless you actually articulate the reason why it is good for Americans beyond simply the ideological for the United States to be involved in a thing.
So for example, I think right now, when Biden is taught, I think that what Biden just did, the United States as we speak, is striking the Houthis. I think that that’s a really, really good thing. I think that’s a necessary thing, and I think American people should understand why that is happening. It’s not because of, quote, unquote, “ideology”. It is, I mean, on a very root level, but really, it’s because you’re screwing up the straits. I mean, you can’t do that. You can’t screw up free trade, and Americans have an interest in not seeing all of our prices at the grocery store double and triple because a bunch of ragtag pirates akin to the Barbary pirates from 1800 are bothering everyone. Right?
Lex Fridman
So Ben said a lot there. Do you disagree with any aspect on the Ukraine side [inaudible 01:17:04]?
So Ben said a lot there. Do you disagree with any aspect on the Ukraine side [inaudible 01:17:04]?
Destiny
A little bit, yeah. I think on the macro, I agree. Maybe we get into weasel a little bit on some things. On the final thing that he said, though, I wish that Americans could have honest conversations about foreign policy. I think that it would just be better for everybody. I don’t know if it’s Red Scare after the Cold War where it was literally the behemoths, we’re fighting against communism and we felt like after ’91, every single foreign policy decision needs to be able to be explained in seven words, like he’s the bad guy, and that’s it. I wish we had more honest conversations about what our foreign policy interest is in a particular region, because I don’t think most Americans honestly could even articulate why Israel would be an important ally or why it’s important to defend Ukraine against Russia or why should we care about Taiwan at all. I don’t know if most Americans could articulate anything there, even though they might have very strong opinions about why we ought to be involved in certain conflicts. So I do agree with that. I wish we had more honest conversations about foreign policy. In terms of how Biden has handled Ukraine. The things that I liked the most were one, that he was very clear in the beginning about what we wouldn’t do. So Biden saying that, “We’re not going to do not a red line, no-fly zones over Ukraine. We’re not going to be deploying troops on the ground in Ukraine. We’re not going to be doing anything that would have US soldiers and Russian soldiers crossing swords with each other. That’s not going to happen.” I liked that he made that very clear at the beginning, and I liked that he coalition-built between NATO and the EU to get people to send funds, training, soldiers, airplanes and everything to Ukraine. I thought those two things were really good. In terms of basically writing Zelenskyy a blank check, I would like to hope that Biden and the entire United States learned a lesson from Iraq and Afghanistan, that open-ended missions with unlimited budgets and no clear goal are like the worst foreign policy decisions you can ever do. They’ve defined US foreign policy for the past two or three decades, which is unfortunate, but seems to be the case.
A little bit, yeah. I think on the macro, I agree. Maybe we get into weasel a little bit on some things. On the final thing that he said, though, I wish that Americans could have honest conversations about foreign policy. I think that it would just be better for everybody. I don’t know if it’s Red Scare after the Cold War where it was literally the behemoths, we’re fighting against communism and we felt like after ’91, every single foreign policy decision needs to be able to be explained in seven words, like he’s the bad guy, and that’s it. I wish we had more honest conversations about what our foreign policy interest is in a particular region, because I don’t think most Americans honestly could even articulate why Israel would be an important ally or why it’s important to defend Ukraine against Russia or why should we care about Taiwan at all. I don’t know if most Americans could articulate anything there, even though they might have very strong opinions about why we ought to be involved in certain conflicts. So I do agree with that. I wish we had more honest conversations about foreign policy. In terms of how Biden has handled Ukraine. The things that I liked the most were one, that he was very clear in the beginning about what we wouldn’t do. So Biden saying that, “We’re not going to do not a red line, no-fly zones over Ukraine. We’re not going to be deploying troops on the ground in Ukraine. We’re not going to be doing anything that would have US soldiers and Russian soldiers crossing swords with each other. That’s not going to happen.” I liked that he made that very clear at the beginning, and I liked that he coalition-built between NATO and the EU to get people to send funds, training, soldiers, airplanes and everything to Ukraine. I thought those two things were really good. In terms of basically writing Zelenskyy a blank check, I would like to hope that Biden and the entire United States learned a lesson from Iraq and Afghanistan, that open-ended missions with unlimited budgets and no clear goal are like the worst foreign policy decisions you can ever do. They’ve defined US foreign policy for the past two or three decades, which is unfortunate, but seems to be the case.
My feeling would be, and this is just a feeling, I don’t know if internal cables have leaked that say otherwise, is the Biden administration has probably always had a quiet position of at some point, there’s going to be an off-ramp here, and I think even a month or two ago, I think those talks were being leaked, that discussion had begun with Zelenskyy looking for an off-ramp. But publicly, of course, the United States is never going to come out and say, “We are going to support you guys to fight as much as you want for three months. And then after that, it’s no more.” Obviously, that can’t be the statement. It’s always going to be that, “We’re going to support you in your fight against Russia [inaudible 01:19:28].”
Ben Shapiro
Yeah, we tried that under Obama with Afghanistan. It was terrible.
Yeah, we tried that under Obama with Afghanistan. It was terrible.
Destiny
Sure. You can’t-
Sure. You can’t-
Ben Shapiro
We’ll escalate the troops levels to X, but only for six months and then we’ll [inaudible 01:19:34].
We’ll escalate the troops levels to X, but only for six months and then we’ll [inaudible 01:19:34].
Destiny
You just can’t do that. It’s always going to come off as, “We’re going to support you forever and as long as it takes and as long as you need, whatever we have to do to defend freedom and democracy in your country.” And any other statement would be absurd. So I can understand why it feels like on a public level, a blank check and an indefinite time period was granted to Zelenskyy, but I don’t think that’s going to be the case. I think, again, I hope we’ve learned our lessons in the Middle East about the forever wars, that this isn’t going to be a forever funding to Ukraine to fight for as long as they want. I do disagree. I feel like we’re playing a little bit retrospectively, saying that, “Well, it’s obvious that they’re not going to capture the Donbas. It’s obvious that they’re not going to capture Crimea.” I agree, for Crimea, that was incredibly obvious, but it was also really obvious that in two weeks, Russia would own Kyiv and Ukraine was going to be Belarus 2.0.
You just can’t do that. It’s always going to come off as, “We’re going to support you forever and as long as it takes and as long as you need, whatever we have to do to defend freedom and democracy in your country.” And any other statement would be absurd. So I can understand why it feels like on a public level, a blank check and an indefinite time period was granted to Zelenskyy, but I don’t think that’s going to be the case. I think, again, I hope we’ve learned our lessons in the Middle East about the forever wars, that this isn’t going to be a forever funding to Ukraine to fight for as long as they want. I do disagree. I feel like we’re playing a little bit retrospectively, saying that, “Well, it’s obvious that they’re not going to capture the Donbas. It’s obvious that they’re not going to capture Crimea.” I agree, for Crimea, that was incredibly obvious, but it was also really obvious that in two weeks, Russia would own Kyiv and Ukraine was going to be Belarus 2.0.
I think that even for a lot of military people and analysts around the world, that that was an expectation or at least a significant probability. Nobody knew, the phrase that’s thrown right now is paper tiger, that Russia’s military was as ill-equipped as they were. So I can understand why, especially if you’re Ukraine and if you’ve repelled an invasion from one of the world’s largest armies, why you might feel like, “Well, fuck it, let’s fight for a few months. Let’s fight for a year. Let’s see what happens.” And I can understand the United States supporting them, but I agree that there has to be some reasonable off-ramp, but we’re not going to fight forever. I think the US State Department has already begun those conversations with Zelenskyy to look at what that off-ramp looks like. But yeah, I’m not too sure other than explicitly stating publicly you can only fight until this date. I don’t really know what else I would… I don’t think the Biden administration should have done that. I don’t know what else-
Ben Shapiro
Do you think Biden should cut this deal on the funding? Meaning there’s this $105 billion deal that’s been held up by debate between Republicans and Democrats over border. So basically, it contains $60 billion for Ukraine, $14 billion for Israel, another several billion dollars for Taiwanese defense against China, and then includes some border funding and some border provisions. Republicans want the border funding and the border provisions because we can get into the illegal immigration issue, but that’s a pretty serious issue, and Biden Democrats have been unwilling to hold that up, and that seems to me like just from, put aside Republicans, Democrats, it seems like political malpractice, meaning there’s a widespread perception in the United States that the border’s a disaster area. Joe Biden wants these things. Many republicans don’t want these things. If he caves on the border stuff, he gets all the things that he wants, and he’s going to be able to go back to the moderates in the country and say, “I did something about the border.” It seems like such an obvious win.
Do you think Biden should cut this deal on the funding? Meaning there’s this $105 billion deal that’s been held up by debate between Republicans and Democrats over border. So basically, it contains $60 billion for Ukraine, $14 billion for Israel, another several billion dollars for Taiwanese defense against China, and then includes some border funding and some border provisions. Republicans want the border funding and the border provisions because we can get into the illegal immigration issue, but that’s a pretty serious issue, and Biden Democrats have been unwilling to hold that up, and that seems to me like just from, put aside Republicans, Democrats, it seems like political malpractice, meaning there’s a widespread perception in the United States that the border’s a disaster area. Joe Biden wants these things. Many republicans don’t want these things. If he caves on the border stuff, he gets all the things that he wants, and he’s going to be able to go back to the moderates in the country and say, “I did something about the border.” It seems like such an obvious win.
Destiny
If he caves on the border stuff, you mean on the Ukraine stuff?
If he caves on the border stuff, you mean on the Ukraine stuff?
Ben Shapiro
Yes, because then he gets the whole package, meaning he can go back to his own base and he can say, “Listen, guys, I want it to be easy on the border. The Republicans forced me to it, but we needed the Ukraine aid. We needed the Taiwan [inaudible 01:21:59].”
Yes, because then he gets the whole package, meaning he can go back to his own base and he can say, “Listen, guys, I want it to be easy on the border. The Republicans forced me to it, but we needed the Ukraine aid. We needed the Taiwan [inaudible 01:21:59].”
Destiny
Honestly, you’re going to be more educated than me on this. I don’t like, or maybe I just don’t know enough. I don’t like the principle that when we negotiate things in the United States, there’s like 50 million hostages at all points in time for every single thing. Like, “Oh, boy, here comes the debt ceiling. What do the Republicans want? What do the Democrats want? Oh, boy, we can’t fund our government.” But I mean, obviously, the argument is going to be that if the Ukraine funding doesn’t come in this bill, and if Biden and his administration feel like it’s really important that not unilaterally, but as a single issue, it’s not going to pass. So I would say that at this point, and I don’t know what the conversations look like between the Biden administration and Zelenskyy, I would say at this point, that it’s probably fair to start making contingencies on the money that we give to Ukraine that, “Listen, this conflict has waged on now. Now, we need to start looking for potential peace. We can’t just write you an unlimited check.” So I mean, if those strings are attached, I’d be okay with it. But the broader question of is it okay to make this particular piece of legislation with all this funding contingent on the Ukrainian funding? I mean, that just seems to be the way the government works now, unfortunately.
Honestly, you’re going to be more educated than me on this. I don’t like, or maybe I just don’t know enough. I don’t like the principle that when we negotiate things in the United States, there’s like 50 million hostages at all points in time for every single thing. Like, “Oh, boy, here comes the debt ceiling. What do the Republicans want? What do the Democrats want? Oh, boy, we can’t fund our government.” But I mean, obviously, the argument is going to be that if the Ukraine funding doesn’t come in this bill, and if Biden and his administration feel like it’s really important that not unilaterally, but as a single issue, it’s not going to pass. So I would say that at this point, and I don’t know what the conversations look like between the Biden administration and Zelenskyy, I would say at this point, that it’s probably fair to start making contingencies on the money that we give to Ukraine that, “Listen, this conflict has waged on now. Now, we need to start looking for potential peace. We can’t just write you an unlimited check.” So I mean, if those strings are attached, I’d be okay with it. But the broader question of is it okay to make this particular piece of legislation with all this funding contingent on the Ukrainian funding? I mean, that just seems to be the way the government works now, unfortunately.
January 6
Lex Fridman
Quick pause, bathroom break. One of the big issues in this presidential election is going to be January 6th. It’s in the news now, and I think it’s going to become bigger and bigger and bigger. So question for Destiny first. The Donald Trump incite and insurrection on January 6th, 2021.
Quick pause, bathroom break. One of the big issues in this presidential election is going to be January 6th. It’s in the news now, and I think it’s going to become bigger and bigger and bigger. So question for Destiny first. The Donald Trump incite and insurrection on January 6th, 2021.
Destiny
Absolutely. This is probably ignoring every other issue we’ve talked about, of which I think there are plenty that I would say disqualified Trump from holding office. I think that the conduct and the behavior leading up to and including January 6th, I think is wildly indefensible. I am excited to see Ben try to… Yeah, the three to four stages are the taking what I think any reasonable [inaudible 01:23:48] knowingly false information about elections being rigged or ballot box is being stuffed, or Ruby Freeman running the ballots three times in Georgia. Taking that knowingly false information and trying to call state secretaries and stuff to have them flip their electoral vote, that was horrible. The plot that Eastman hatched in order to have these false slates of electors where all seven states had citizens go in and falsely say that they were the duly elected electors that could submit votes to Congress, that was insane. That happened. Asking or begging Pence to accept these false states of electors initially, and then just say you should just throw it out completely and throw it to the house delegation, which was majority Republican, that was absolutely unbelievable.
Absolutely. This is probably ignoring every other issue we’ve talked about, of which I think there are plenty that I would say disqualified Trump from holding office. I think that the conduct and the behavior leading up to and including January 6th, I think is wildly indefensible. I am excited to see Ben try to… Yeah, the three to four stages are the taking what I think any reasonable [inaudible 01:23:48] knowingly false information about elections being rigged or ballot box is being stuffed, or Ruby Freeman running the ballots three times in Georgia. Taking that knowingly false information and trying to call state secretaries and stuff to have them flip their electoral vote, that was horrible. The plot that Eastman hatched in order to have these false slates of electors where all seven states had citizens go in and falsely say that they were the duly elected electors that could submit votes to Congress, that was insane. That happened. Asking or begging Pence to accept these false states of electors initially, and then just say you should just throw it out completely and throw it to the house delegation, which was majority Republican, that was absolutely unbelievable.
And then on the day of January 6th, trying to capitalize on the violence by him, Giuliani, and Eastman making phone calls to senators and congressmen saying, “Well, don’t you think maybe you guys should delay the vote a little bit? Don’t you think they’re just really mad about the election?” I think he said to McCarthy, “They’re more upset than you.” And his utter dereliction of duty and not doing anything to stop the rioting that happened on January 6th because he was too busy taking advantage of it, I think all of these things are horrible. I look forward to seeing the Jack Smith indictments play out in court, maybe even the Georgia RICO case. But yeah, I think all of these things are unfathomable, and I think when you look at the plot from start to finish, clearly, the goal the entire time was to circumvent the peaceful transfer of power. That was the goal from start to finish, whether it was through false claims, whether it was through illegal schemes, or whether it was through violence at the Capitol to delay the certification of the vote.
Lex Fridman
Ben.
Ben.
Ben Shapiro
So I’m glad you’re excited. It’s always fun. So there are two elements to incitement of insurrection. One is incitement, the other is insurrection. So incitement has a legal standard, so does insurrection. Neither of those standards are met. So if you’re asking me, morally speaking, did Donald Trump do the right thing between November 4th and January 6th? I said, I will continue to say no, he did not. I think he was saying things that are false with just factually false about his theories with regard to the election, about the election being stolen, about fraud. This is all adjudicated in court. He did not even bring many of the claims that he has brought publicly and all the rest of that. If we’re talking about incitement of insurrection as a legal standard, he doesn’t meet any of those standards.
So I’m glad you’re excited. It’s always fun. So there are two elements to incitement of insurrection. One is incitement, the other is insurrection. So incitement has a legal standard, so does insurrection. Neither of those standards are met. So if you’re asking me, morally speaking, did Donald Trump do the right thing between November 4th and January 6th? I said, I will continue to say no, he did not. I think he was saying things that are false with just factually false about his theories with regard to the election, about the election being stolen, about fraud. This is all adjudicated in court. He did not even bring many of the claims that he has brought publicly and all the rest of that. If we’re talking about incitement of insurrection as a legal standard, he doesn’t meet any of those standards.
When it comes to incitement, it has to be incitement to immediate lawless action. That’s the standard for incitement. And I’m very meticulous in how I use this because I happen to speak publicly a lot, and that means there are lots of people who listen to me, which means some of those people are probably crazy and some of them may go and do a crazy thing. Did I incite them? The media tends to use the word incitement very loosely with regard to this sort of stuff, in the same way that Bernie Sanders, quote, unquote, “incited” the congressional baseball shooting. He did not. Bernie Sanders has a lot of things I disagree with. I think Bernie’s a schmuck, doesn’t matter. He did not incite that.
So saying bad things is not the same thing as inciting violence. Inciting violence, the legal standard in the United States is, I want you to go punch that guy in the face. That’s inciting. With regard to insurrection, typically, in insurrection, and there are some descriptions in case law, though none in statutory law as far as [inaudible 01:26:50]. The typical description in case law is the replacement of one legitimate government of the United States with another by violent means. The notion that Donald Trump coordinated any such insurrection is belied by the FBI itself. The FBI put out a report in, I believe it was…
Ben Shapiro
… is belied by the FBI itself. The FBI put out a report in, I believe it was August of 2021, suggesting that there was no well-coordinated insurrectionist attempt coordinated by the White House. In fact, what you had was Donald Trump thrashing around like that weird alien in the movie, Life. I don’t if you ever saw it with Jake Gyllenhaal, where he’s like kind of thrashing up against this glass box, just an alien just thrashing up against the glass box. That I think is more what you were seeing from November 4th to January 6th.
… is belied by the FBI itself. The FBI put out a report in, I believe it was August of 2021, suggesting that there was no well-coordinated insurrectionist attempt coordinated by the White House. In fact, what you had was Donald Trump thrashing around like that weird alien in the movie, Life. I don’t if you ever saw it with Jake Gyllenhaal, where he’s like kind of thrashing up against this glass box, just an alien just thrashing up against the glass box. That I think is more what you were seeing from November 4th to January 6th.
And then again, the claim that January 6th itself was an insurrection… I’m not aware that anyone was charged with actual insurrection. There were some people who were charged with seditious conspiracy. There are insurrection statutes that do exist. No one was charged under those particular statutes. There were some people who you could say informally had insurrectionist ideas. Those would be the people who wanted to hang Nancy Pelosi or kill Mike Pence, and those people are in jail right now. And the election went forward. The election was certified. Mike Pence presided over the certification. Mitch McConnell presided over the certification. Joe Biden has been the President for the last three years.
Donald Trump, by the way, was still President at that point. If he had actually wanted to do what other people who’ve actually launched coups have done, he would’ve theoretically called the National Guard not to put down the riot but to actually depose the sitting Government of the United States in the name of a specious legal theory. He did not do that, he did not attempt that. Nobody working for him did that. The most you can say, I think, about what everybody was doing… and I don’t want to say everybody. We can talk about Trump because this is really about Trump.
He used a phrase that Trump was disseminating knowingly false information. The word that’s carrying a lot of weight there is the word knowingly. Knowingly implies a knower. Do I think the information he was disseminating was false? Yes. Do I think that Donald Trump has unique capacity to convince himself of nearly anything that is to his own benefit? Absolutely. And I think that that’s actually what Donald Trump was doing there, and the evidence for that is Donald Trump being a human and all of us watching him for the last several years.
So the idea that he knew it to be false, I’m not even sure those standards apply in any… just assessing him as a human, which is really what we’re being asked to do because there’s an intent element to this crime. Do you think that today, Donald Trump knows that he lost the election?
Destiny
Absolutely.
Absolutely.
Ben Shapiro
So I don’t, actually. I think that-
So I don’t, actually. I think that-
Destiny
So I’m glad that you have the attorney background. When we are assessing mens rea, when we’re looking at certain criminal statutes where intent is required, it’s a reasonable person standard, right?
So I’m glad that you have the attorney background. When we are assessing mens rea, when we’re looking at certain criminal statutes where intent is required, it’s a reasonable person standard, right?
Ben Shapiro
Well-
Well-
Destiny
Would a reasonable person have known that they were-
Would a reasonable person have known that they were-
Ben Shapiro
No, it depends on the mens rea standard. So it’s not the same in every case. If you have to establish individual intent, then it’s not enough to say a reasonable person should have known. That would be enough for a negligent statute.
No, it depends on the mens rea standard. So it’s not the same in every case. If you have to establish individual intent, then it’s not enough to say a reasonable person should have known. That would be enough for a negligent statute.
Destiny
Sure, but for-
Sure, but for-
Ben Shapiro
Usually when you’re talking about reasonable person statutes, just legally speaking, a reasonable person statute is should a reasonable person have known. That’s when you get to manslaughter. You can’t do a reasonable person standard on first degree murder.
Usually when you’re talking about reasonable person statutes, just legally speaking, a reasonable person statute is should a reasonable person have known. That’s when you get to manslaughter. You can’t do a reasonable person standard on first degree murder.
Destiny
So for-
So for-
Ben Shapiro
You have to establish actual motive and first degree murder.
You have to establish actual motive and first degree murder.
Destiny
But for first degree murder, you don’t need the statement of, “I plan to kill this person,” or “I intend to kill this person.”
But for first degree murder, you don’t need the statement of, “I plan to kill this person,” or “I intend to kill this person.”
Ben Shapiro
No. No, you need a-
No. No, you need a-
Destiny
We can prove that state of mind from a ton of other circumstantial evidence.
We can prove that state of mind from a ton of other circumstantial evidence.
Ben Shapiro
Correct. Yes, sure. You can prove it.
Correct. Yes, sure. You can prove it.
Destiny
So I feel like my feeling for Donald Trump was there were all these people around him that he trusted to investigate election fraud. He trusted Barr and the DOJ. He asked Pence, his Vice President, to look into it. He asked his chief of staff, he asked his legal counsel. He asked so many people that, ostensibly, he trusts them if he’s asked them to look into it, and when all of them looked into it and reported back to him, “No, we found nothing.” Unless we’re going to literally make the concession that Trump might actually be a delusional psycho man, at that point, should he not have realized, well, okay, maybe this thing-
So I feel like my feeling for Donald Trump was there were all these people around him that he trusted to investigate election fraud. He trusted Barr and the DOJ. He asked Pence, his Vice President, to look into it. He asked his chief of staff, he asked his legal counsel. He asked so many people that, ostensibly, he trusts them if he’s asked them to look into it, and when all of them looked into it and reported back to him, “No, we found nothing.” Unless we’re going to literally make the concession that Trump might actually be a delusional psycho man, at that point, should he not have realized, well, okay, maybe this thing-
Ben Shapiro
I think he should have realized the day of the election that he lost the election, but that’s not what-
I think he should have realized the day of the election that he lost the election, but that’s not what-
Destiny
Sure. But I’m saying that, at that point, should he not have known that for him to go and propagate those claims that he’d asked all of the people he trusted to research, and then for him to take those claims to Michigan and to Georgia and then publicly and to try to convince people to throw out the election. You don’t think that-
Sure. But I’m saying that, at that point, should he not have known that for him to go and propagate those claims that he’d asked all of the people he trusted to research, and then for him to take those claims to Michigan and to Georgia and then publicly and to try to convince people to throw out the election. You don’t think that-
Ben Shapiro
But you’re doing the same thing. You’re reverting to should a reasonable person have known. Yes, a reasonable person should have known. Did Donald Trump know? That’s a different question, and so conflating those two questions is going to get you into some messy territory. By the way, this is why Jack Smith charged the way Jack Smith charged.
But you’re doing the same thing. You’re reverting to should a reasonable person have known. Yes, a reasonable person should have known. Did Donald Trump know? That’s a different question, and so conflating those two questions is going to get you into some messy territory. By the way, this is why Jack Smith charged the way Jack Smith charged.
Destiny
Yeah, which was-
Yeah, which was-
Ben Shapiro
But Jack Smith did not charge conspiracy. Jack Smith did not charge insurrection. He did not charge seditious conspiracy, right?
But Jack Smith did not charge conspiracy. Jack Smith did not charge insurrection. He did not charge seditious conspiracy, right?
Destiny
But I think for Jack Smith-
But I think for Jack Smith-
Ben Shapiro
Jack Smith is a good lawyer. What he’s doing is he’s actually broadly, I would say pretty obviously, expanding statutory coverage in weird areas in order to cover a thing that doesn’t quite fit into any of these legal categories. But the point that I’m making is that Jack Smith is on my side of this. He doesn’t think that he can actually establish the intent necessary to convict under a seditious conspiracy or an insurrection charge.
Jack Smith is a good lawyer. What he’s doing is he’s actually broadly, I would say pretty obviously, expanding statutory coverage in weird areas in order to cover a thing that doesn’t quite fit into any of these legal categories. But the point that I’m making is that Jack Smith is on my side of this. He doesn’t think that he can actually establish the intent necessary to convict under a seditious conspiracy or an insurrection charge.
Destiny
I agree with that, but I think a lot of the underlying facts though, because he does bring up those calls to Raffensperger in Georgia, he does bring up and the indictments that they were knowingly false information. So it seems like that’s going to be part of the case. Maybe not to convict on any of the four particular charges that he mentioned, but it seems like that’s probably going to be part of what he’s going to have to establish in court to convict Trump.
I agree with that, but I think a lot of the underlying facts though, because he does bring up those calls to Raffensperger in Georgia, he does bring up and the indictments that they were knowingly false information. So it seems like that’s going to be part of the case. Maybe not to convict on any of the four particular charges that he mentioned, but it seems like that’s probably going to be part of what he’s going to have to establish in court to convict Trump.
Ben Shapiro
So I want to look at the actual text of the charges. So I’m sorry that I don’t have them memorized. I believe one’s a fraud charge that generally does not apply to cases like this. Generally, the fraud charge is like you’re trying to steal money from the Government. One is-
So I want to look at the actual text of the charges. So I’m sorry that I don’t have them memorized. I believe one’s a fraud charge that generally does not apply to cases like this. Generally, the fraud charge is like you’re trying to steal money from the Government. One is-
Destiny
Sure. Fraud has been used pretty broadly in the past though. Because Smith has done oral arguments in response to a lot of the claims by Trump’s lawyers. This was one of them. The infinite civil and criminal immunity was another one of them where he cites past cases where these types of things, because I think it was to defraud of civil rights, I think was the fourth charge.
Sure. Fraud has been used pretty broadly in the past though. Because Smith has done oral arguments in response to a lot of the claims by Trump’s lawyers. This was one of them. The infinite civil and criminal immunity was another one of them where he cites past cases where these types of things, because I think it was to defraud of civil rights, I think was the fourth charge.
Ben Shapiro
Right. So the defraud of civil rights is usually somebody standing in the actual voting house door and preventing you from voting, not you have a specious legal theory that you espouse in court about whether those votes should be thrown out.
Right. So the defraud of civil rights is usually somebody standing in the actual voting house door and preventing you from voting, not you have a specious legal theory that you espouse in court about whether those votes should be thrown out.
Destiny
Sure, although I don’t like… when we say specious legal theory and novel application, which I do agree, some of these in some ways is novel. I don’t think we’ve ever also had a President try to do this before. It is a novel situation-
Sure, although I don’t like… when we say specious legal theory and novel application, which I do agree, some of these in some ways is novel. I don’t think we’ve ever also had a President try to do this before. It is a novel situation-
Ben Shapiro
Well-
Well-
Destiny
… where somebody has resisted the peaceful transfer of power this clearly in so many different ways.
… where somebody has resisted the peaceful transfer of power this clearly in so many different ways.
Ben Shapiro
Well, if you’re talking about the legal cases, I mean that’s not true. Gore sued in 2000. I mean, if we’re talking legal cases, right?
Well, if you’re talking about the legal cases, I mean that’s not true. Gore sued in 2000. I mean, if we’re talking legal cases, right?
Destiny
If this was comparable to Gore, then-
If this was comparable to Gore, then-
Ben Shapiro
I’m not saying it’s comparable to Gore. I’m saying that if the idea is that espousing a legal theory in court amounts to de facto some form of election-
I’m not saying it’s comparable to Gore. I’m saying that if the idea is that espousing a legal theory in court amounts to de facto some form of election-
Destiny
Well, I’m just saying that Gore-
Well, I’m just saying that Gore-
Ben Shapiro
… denial or interference in some way, that’s not true. As a general principle, it’s over inclusive.
… denial or interference in some way, that’s not true. As a general principle, it’s over inclusive.
Destiny
Sure. Gore wasn’t trying to de-certify the vote though for states. Right? They challenged their thing to the Supreme Court, they lost their case in the Supreme Court and then power transfer happened afterwards.
Sure. Gore wasn’t trying to de-certify the vote though for states. Right? They challenged their thing to the Supreme Court, they lost their case in the Supreme Court and then power transfer happened afterwards.
Ben Shapiro
Right, and Donald Trump had a bunch of legal challenges, and then he had a rally, and then there was a riot, and then he left power.
Right, and Donald Trump had a bunch of legal challenges, and then he had a rally, and then there was a riot, and then he left power.
Destiny
Yeah, but the Eastman theory of what Pence could do in Congress is a far cry away from-
Yeah, but the Eastman theory of what Pence could do in Congress is a far cry away from-
Ben Shapiro
A truly shitty theory. I mean, make no mistake. It’s a really shitty theory.
A truly shitty theory. I mean, make no mistake. It’s a really shitty theory.
Destiny
But not just shitty. I think that if any Democrat had done this, I feel like we’d be looking at it in a far different lens. As in we would be using terms like attempted coup, a subversion of peaceful transfer of power. If a Democrat Vice President had tried to essentially say that in Congress, they could throw away the vote.
But not just shitty. I think that if any Democrat had done this, I feel like we’d be looking at it in a far different lens. As in we would be using terms like attempted coup, a subversion of peaceful transfer of power. If a Democrat Vice President had tried to essentially say that in Congress, they could throw away the vote.
Ben Shapiro
So I think what I want to get to here actually, so we can be more specific, is why are these terms important? We agree on, largely speaking, what happened. I think, the characterization of the term, we keep kind of bouncing around between two different categories, and I want to make sure we-
So I think what I want to get to here actually, so we can be more specific, is why are these terms important? We agree on, largely speaking, what happened. I think, the characterization of the term, we keep kind of bouncing around between two different categories, and I want to make sure we-
Destiny
We can dump the legal stuff actually-
We can dump the legal stuff actually-
Ben Shapiro
Okay. So we’re just talking… Fine, fine, fine.
Okay. So we’re just talking… Fine, fine, fine.
Destiny
We’re not looking at incite… because like you said, Jack Smith… nobody’s charging with incitement, and I don’t believe insurrection is part of that. So we’re dumping legal. Just in terms of like a President that is trying to prevent the peaceful transfer of power. So we do call that a bloodless coup or a coup or whatever contemporaneous term you want to use.
We’re not looking at incite… because like you said, Jack Smith… nobody’s charging with incitement, and I don’t believe insurrection is part of that. So we’re dumping legal. Just in terms of like a President that is trying to prevent the peaceful transfer of power. So we do call that a bloodless coup or a coup or whatever contemporaneous term you want to use.
Ben Shapiro
So prevent the peaceful transfer of power with all means or using means that are inappropriate, not quite the same thing. Meaning means that-
So prevent the peaceful transfer of power with all means or using means that are inappropriate, not quite the same thing. Meaning means that-
Destiny
Using means that are inappropriate or illegal.
Using means that are inappropriate or illegal.
Ben Shapiro
Okay. So illegal? I don’t think so. I don’t think that these charges actually meet the criteria for the various charges, and we can discuss each case if you want. As far as inappropriate, sure, I think tons of inappropriate stuff. I mean, inappropriate seems not-
Okay. So illegal? I don’t think so. I don’t think that these charges actually meet the criteria for the various charges, and we can discuss each case if you want. As far as inappropriate, sure, I think tons of inappropriate stuff. I mean, inappropriate seems not-
Destiny
The reason why I don’t like the word inappropriate though is because then conservatives are very quick to say, “Well, sure he was inappropriate, but everybody who’s inappropriate.”
The reason why I don’t like the word inappropriate though is because then conservatives are very quick to say, “Well, sure he was inappropriate, but everybody who’s inappropriate.”
Ben Shapiro
I mean, I’ll concede that he’s more inappropriate than others. I just don’t see that-
I mean, I’ll concede that he’s more inappropriate than others. I just don’t see that-
Destiny
Okay, the most inappropriate?
Okay, the most inappropriate?
Ben Shapiro
Sure. I mean-
Sure. I mean-
Destiny
Okay. That’s important to me though. Does it not bother you that Donald Trump sought, through legal and extralegal and Trump magical ways of trying to entrench his power as President passed when he should have been able to? Is that not something that was incredibly troublesome?
Okay. That’s important to me though. Does it not bother you that Donald Trump sought, through legal and extralegal and Trump magical ways of trying to entrench his power as President passed when he should have been able to? Is that not something that was incredibly troublesome?
Ben Shapiro
I mean, the question to me is… the bigger question that I think the Democrats are trying to promote in this election cycle, which is this means he’s a threat to democracy sufficient that if he were to win the election, there would not be another. And my answer that is-
I mean, the question to me is… the bigger question that I think the Democrats are trying to promote in this election cycle, which is this means he’s a threat to democracy sufficient that if he were to win the election, there would not be another. And my answer that is-
Destiny
But he tried to do that last time. Could he not try it next time?
But he tried to do that last time. Could he not try it next time?
Ben Shapiro
I mean, he could try to do whatever he wants, presumably, and he would fail the same way that he did last time.
I mean, he could try to do whatever he wants, presumably, and he would fail the same way that he did last time.
Destiny
Why do we think that?
Why do we think that?
Ben Shapiro
Because he failed.
Because he failed.
Destiny
So [inaudible 01:35:33]-
So [inaudible 01:35:33]-
Ben Shapiro
Because there was a riot and in three hours… Yes.
Because there was a riot and in three hours… Yes.
Destiny
Lord, save me. Let’s say hypothetically Giuliani was the next head of the Department of Justice, Giuliani was the next Attorney General.
Lord, save me. Let’s say hypothetically Giuliani was the next head of the Department of Justice, Giuliani was the next Attorney General.
Ben Shapiro
How would he be confirmed?
How would he be confirmed?
Destiny
Well, I’m not entirely sure because so much of the Republican party, despite feeling like they don’t support Trump when it comes time to actually back him in Congress-
Well, I’m not entirely sure because so much of the Republican party, despite feeling like they don’t support Trump when it comes time to actually back him in Congress-
Ben Shapiro
Also, I would have to check whether he would be barred by a criminal conviction from holding… I don’t know the answer to that.
Also, I would have to check whether he would be barred by a criminal conviction from holding… I don’t know the answer to that.
Destiny
Sure. Well, yeah, especially with the 14th Amendment. We’re figuring out a lot of this right now. Yeah, but I mean, say if not Giuliani, say if there are any other number of insane people that Trump could theoretically put on his side of the Government that wouldn’t tell him no next time, because there were a lot of people that rebuked him. There were Republicans in a lot of the states. Right? Raffensperger is one of them. There were Republicans in his own administration. You’ve got Rosen. You’ve got Barr. There was his own Vice President. But theoretically next time, and I feel like last time going in, I’m going to do a little bit of mind reading and macro… Maybe you’ll agree, maybe you’ll disagree.
Sure. Well, yeah, especially with the 14th Amendment. We’re figuring out a lot of this right now. Yeah, but I mean, say if not Giuliani, say if there are any other number of insane people that Trump could theoretically put on his side of the Government that wouldn’t tell him no next time, because there were a lot of people that rebuked him. There were Republicans in a lot of the states. Right? Raffensperger is one of them. There were Republicans in his own administration. You’ve got Rosen. You’ve got Barr. There was his own Vice President. But theoretically next time, and I feel like last time going in, I’m going to do a little bit of mind reading and macro… Maybe you’ll agree, maybe you’ll disagree.
I think that Trump kind of thought… One, I don’t think Trump knows much at all about how the Government works. I think we probably agree with that. I think Trump probably thought that if he had people that were at least in his party and kind of camp, that they’ll basically do whatever needs to be done to give him what he wants, and with no respect for process. But now that he sees that, well, it’s not enough to just have allies; I need people that are fiercely alleged to me, would we not be worried that a guy that tried to essentially steal the election for real wouldn’t try to pick people that would be more amenable to his plans in the next administration?
Ben Shapiro
I believe in the checks and balances of American Government. I believe they worked on January 6th. So if you’re asking me, do I think that Trump has bad intent or could have bad intent with that sort of stuff, sure. Do I believe that the guardrails held and will continue to hold? Also sure.
I believe in the checks and balances of American Government. I believe they worked on January 6th. So if you’re asking me, do I think that Trump has bad intent or could have bad intent with that sort of stuff, sure. Do I believe that the guardrails held and will continue to hold? Also sure.
Destiny
So if somebody was running and they blatantly said, “I…” I don’t want to use the fascist word, but if they said, “I want to be an authoritarian, I’m going to abolish all elections,” you would say, ” Sure, he’s saying that, but I don’t think he can actually do it. So it’s okay if he runs for President.” You don’t care at all as long as you feel like the guardrails [inaudible 01:37:36]?
So if somebody was running and they blatantly said, “I…” I don’t want to use the fascist word, but if they said, “I want to be an authoritarian, I’m going to abolish all elections,” you would say, ” Sure, he’s saying that, but I don’t think he can actually do it. So it’s okay if he runs for President.” You don’t care at all as long as you feel like the guardrails [inaudible 01:37:36]?
Ben Shapiro
I mean, I might prefer other candidates, but I think that also one of the things that you do is that politicians… Again, this would be an exceptional circumstance, but politicians constantly make promises about the things that they’re going to do and then don’t fulfill, and we tend to take those out in the wash, meaning that, if I promise that day one, as Donald Trump has pledged to do that, he’s going to deport literally every illegal immigrant into the country, do I think he’s actually going to do that? I mean, I really highly doubt it. He didn’t do it last time he was in office. There are many examples of this.
I mean, I might prefer other candidates, but I think that also one of the things that you do is that politicians… Again, this would be an exceptional circumstance, but politicians constantly make promises about the things that they’re going to do and then don’t fulfill, and we tend to take those out in the wash, meaning that, if I promise that day one, as Donald Trump has pledged to do that, he’s going to deport literally every illegal immigrant into the country, do I think he’s actually going to do that? I mean, I really highly doubt it. He didn’t do it last time he was in office. There are many examples of this.
Destiny
I agree.
I agree.
Ben Shapiro
Here’s my question. Do you think the guardrails are going to fail to hold?
Here’s my question. Do you think the guardrails are going to fail to hold?
Destiny
I’m not sure.
I’m not sure.
Ben Shapiro
Really?
Really?
Destiny
Yeah, because I think the issue is one, when it’s election time, Republicans are spineless in office, and I don’t know how many congressmen would support what he wants just because they want to win reelection or because they think it’s inevitable anyway.
Yeah, because I think the issue is one, when it’s election time, Republicans are spineless in office, and I don’t know how many congressmen would support what he wants just because they want to win reelection or because they think it’s inevitable anyway.
Ben Shapiro
I mean, I think that one of the things that happened in 2022 is Democrats ran directly on this platform, and a bunch of Republicans who were running on this platform. Literally every Secretary of State who ran on the Donald Trump, we should deny elections platform, lost in every state.
I mean, I think that one of the things that happened in 2022 is Democrats ran directly on this platform, and a bunch of Republicans who were running on this platform. Literally every Secretary of State who ran on the Donald Trump, we should deny elections platform, lost in every state.
Destiny
Sure, but are there Republicans that have been-
Sure, but are there Republicans that have been-
Ben Shapiro
A great way to lose local office is this.
A great way to lose local office is this.
Destiny
Sure, but I mean, look at what happened with like Kinzinger and Cheney, right, who were very staunchly anti-Trump after J6 for that select committee, right? Kinzinger even run again, and Cheney lost her election by I think the widest margin that anybody has ever lost an election ever, in the history of all of US politics.
Sure, but I mean, look at what happened with like Kinzinger and Cheney, right, who were very staunchly anti-Trump after J6 for that select committee, right? Kinzinger even run again, and Cheney lost her election by I think the widest margin that anybody has ever lost an election ever, in the history of all of US politics.
Ben Shapiro
Right, yeah. People who were not yet born voted against her, yes.
Right, yeah. People who were not yet born voted against her, yes.
Destiny
Yeah. I guess it’s a surprising position to me for me, if we’re looking at principled stances of Government, the idea that a man who has… and I think we both agree on this, that Donald Trump’s only allegiance is to Donald Trump, right? We agree on that. The only thing he cares about is Donald Trump.
Yeah. I guess it’s a surprising position to me for me, if we’re looking at principled stances of Government, the idea that a man who has… and I think we both agree on this, that Donald Trump’s only allegiance is to Donald Trump, right? We agree on that. The only thing he cares about is Donald Trump.
Abuse of power
Ben Shapiro
I don’t think it’s the only thing he care about it. I think it’s certainly the largest thing he cares about.
I don’t think it’s the only thing he care about it. I think it’s certainly the largest thing he cares about.
Destiny
It’s the largest thing he cares about, right?
It’s the largest thing he cares about, right?
Ben Shapiro
Sure.
Sure.
Destiny
So you’ve got a man who only cares about himself.
So you’ve got a man who only cares about himself.
Ben Shapiro
Welcome to politics. I mean, it may more-
Welcome to politics. I mean, it may more-
Destiny
But that’s not even-
But that’s not even-
Ben Shapiro
It may be more with Trump, but it’s certainly not unique to Trump.
It may be more with Trump, but it’s certainly not unique to Trump.
Destiny
I think that the issue with Trump too though is I think he’s even a threat to the Republican party in which I think… I think you would mostly agree with me, maybe not overall, but on every individual point. Trump picks bad candidates. He has no concern for the future of the Republican Party. For instance, I think there is a chance… I don’t think it’ll happen because of the polling looks now, but if Trump didn’t get the nomination, I think Trump would say, screw it and run as an independent because he thinks he can win or whatever.
I think that the issue with Trump too though is I think he’s even a threat to the Republican party in which I think… I think you would mostly agree with me, maybe not overall, but on every individual point. Trump picks bad candidates. He has no concern for the future of the Republican Party. For instance, I think there is a chance… I don’t think it’ll happen because of the polling looks now, but if Trump didn’t get the nomination, I think Trump would say, screw it and run as an independent because he thinks he can win or whatever.
Ben Shapiro
I doubt that he would do that, but theoretically-
I doubt that he would do that, but theoretically-
Destiny
It’s possible.
It’s possible.
Ben Shapiro
Yeah. I mean, again-
Yeah. I mean, again-
Destiny
He was really content to throw Georgia… the two runoff elections under the bus because Raffensperger didn’t support him for the election stuff.
He was really content to throw Georgia… the two runoff elections under the bus because Raffensperger didn’t support him for the election stuff.
Ben Shapiro
What is all of this in serVice of? What’s the generalized argument that you’re making. I’ll go back to my question.
What is all of this in serVice of? What’s the generalized argument that you’re making. I’ll go back to my question.
Destiny
[inaudible 01:39:58]-
[inaudible 01:39:58]-
Ben Shapiro
Do you think if Trump wins, there will be no more elections?
Do you think if Trump wins, there will be no more elections?
Destiny
I don’t-
I don’t-
Ben Shapiro
Put a percentage on it. What percentage do you think that that’s a reality, that if Donald Trump becomes President-
Put a percentage on it. What percentage do you think that that’s a reality, that if Donald Trump becomes President-
Destiny
Comes general Trump wins, I think there is a 100% chance that he will try to prevent the peaceful transfer of power. In terms of would he succeed-
Comes general Trump wins, I think there is a 100% chance that he will try to prevent the peaceful transfer of power. In terms of would he succeed-
Ben Shapiro
I can guarantee you he will not do that.
I can guarantee you he will not do that.
Destiny
Why is that?
Why is that?
Ben Shapiro
Because he’s in the second term and he’s no longer eligible, and he will believe he won and he will leave.
Because he’s in the second term and he’s no longer eligible, and he will believe he won and he will leave.
Destiny
But hasn’t Donald Trump himself joked about running for a third term?
But hasn’t Donald Trump himself joked about running for a third term?
Ben Shapiro
That’s not-
That’s not-
Destiny
I think that having a third term-
I think that having a third term-
Ben Shapiro
What has Donald Trump not joked about? I mean, for god’s sake.
What has Donald Trump not joked about? I mean, for god’s sake.
Destiny
Okay, hold on. Here’s another-
Okay, hold on. Here’s another-
Ben Shapiro
If you want to prevent him from creating a revolution, you probably should actually just appoint the President and he can’t run again, so…
If you want to prevent him from creating a revolution, you probably should actually just appoint the President and he can’t run again, so…
Destiny
Here’s another broad argument that I don’t like in favor of Trump, and this was brought up earlier in terms of we talk about not grading Presidents on a curve, but then earlier we said we take Biden’s rhetoric seriously-
Here’s another broad argument that I don’t like in favor of Trump, and this was brought up earlier in terms of we talk about not grading Presidents on a curve, but then earlier we said we take Biden’s rhetoric seriously-
Ben Shapiro
No, I totally grade Trump… No, I 100% grade Presidents on a curve. Are you kidding?
No, I totally grade Trump… No, I 100% grade Presidents on a curve. Are you kidding?
Destiny
Oh, okay. Well, then I feel like-
Oh, okay. Well, then I feel like-
Ben Shapiro
I grade pretty much everybody on a curve.
I grade pretty much everybody on a curve.
Destiny
I feel like-
I feel like-
Ben Shapiro
I don’t treat my seven-year-old the same way that I treat my nine-year-old. And I don’t treat Trump the same way I treat Biden.
I don’t treat my seven-year-old the same way that I treat my nine-year-old. And I don’t treat Trump the same way I treat Biden.
Destiny
Sure, but I don’t like that it feels like we’re treating Donald Trump like a seven-year-old or a nine-year-old. I think we should treat him like the President of the United States. I don’t think having a President that has taken concrete steps to prevent the transfer of power, which he did with the electorate sham, which he did with Pence, and which he did with trying to capitalize on the J6 violence. A President that’s taken concrete steps towards coup-ing the Government essentially. I don’t know why that guy, we’d say, “Well, it’s Trump, he does Trump things. The guardrails held. They’ll probably hold next time. Let’s throw him in.”
Sure, but I don’t like that it feels like we’re treating Donald Trump like a seven-year-old or a nine-year-old. I think we should treat him like the President of the United States. I don’t think having a President that has taken concrete steps to prevent the transfer of power, which he did with the electorate sham, which he did with Pence, and which he did with trying to capitalize on the J6 violence. A President that’s taken concrete steps towards coup-ing the Government essentially. I don’t know why that guy, we’d say, “Well, it’s Trump, he does Trump things. The guardrails held. They’ll probably hold next time. Let’s throw him in.”
Ben Shapiro
I mean, when we say we shouldn’t, do you mean that he should be actually barred from office?
I mean, when we say we shouldn’t, do you mean that he should be actually barred from office?
Destiny
I’m just talking about support form. I don’t even think Republicans should support Trump. You lose your incumbent advantage. The guy’s obviously self-destructive. He’s destructive to the political party itself.
I’m just talking about support form. I don’t even think Republicans should support Trump. You lose your incumbent advantage. The guy’s obviously self-destructive. He’s destructive to the political party itself.
Lex Fridman
Do you think he should be on the ballot? You think there’s a case to be made to remove him from the ballot?
Do you think he should be on the ballot? You think there’s a case to be made to remove him from the ballot?
Destiny
I think there’s a case to be made, but man, the phrasing… For as much as our Governmental founding fathers and everybody else wrote nice amendments and wrote nice in the Constitution, some of the phrasing is very, very, very… And the section three, the not requiring any type of actual conviction, I don’t have a strong feeling on it. I will say I’m very interested in reading the majority opinion from the Supreme Court. I seriously doubt the Supreme Court is going to uphold that States should be able to decide if they leave him off the ballot or not. I think for the political future of the United States, it’s probably not healthy that the leading opposition candidate is now going to be barred from the ballot. It’s probably not healthy for us, because then what-
I think there’s a case to be made, but man, the phrasing… For as much as our Governmental founding fathers and everybody else wrote nice amendments and wrote nice in the Constitution, some of the phrasing is very, very, very… And the section three, the not requiring any type of actual conviction, I don’t have a strong feeling on it. I will say I’m very interested in reading the majority opinion from the Supreme Court. I seriously doubt the Supreme Court is going to uphold that States should be able to decide if they leave him off the ballot or not. I think for the political future of the United States, it’s probably not healthy that the leading opposition candidate is now going to be barred from the ballot. It’s probably not healthy for us, because then what-
Ben Shapiro
You want to talk about threats of democracy, that would be a pretty serious one, applied across the board by-
You want to talk about threats of democracy, that would be a pretty serious one, applied across the board by-
Destiny
It would be. However, that threat to democracy was earned by Donald Trump and the conservatives that supported him. I think conservatives made a dangerous gamble when they threw Trump into office, and now all of the fallout from that is something that we all as Americans have to deal with.
It would be. However, that threat to democracy was earned by Donald Trump and the conservatives that supported him. I think conservatives made a dangerous gamble when they threw Trump into office, and now all of the fallout from that is something that we all as Americans have to deal with.
Ben Shapiro
I mean, I think that the unprecedented legal theory that a state can simply bar somebody from the ballot in an informal way, believing that he’s, quote, unquote, an insurrectionist is pretty wild. I mean that is-
I mean, I think that the unprecedented legal theory that a state can simply bar somebody from the ballot in an informal way, believing that he’s, quote, unquote, an insurrectionist is pretty wild. I mean that is-
Destiny
We can say it’s pretty wild, but there is an amendment in the Constitution, the 14th Amendment, that says that if they have engaged in this, they shall not be, or you shall… I don’t remember the phrasing because it doesn’t require conviction, but it’s a self-executing, arguably thing.
We can say it’s pretty wild, but there is an amendment in the Constitution, the 14th Amendment, that says that if they have engaged in this, they shall not be, or you shall… I don’t remember the phrasing because it doesn’t require conviction, but it’s a self-executing, arguably thing.
Ben Shapiro
If we’re getting into constitutional law, I mean there are a number of provisions that suggest that this is, number one, not self-executing. I mean, minority opinions in the Colorado Supreme Court case are pretty thorough. The number one contention, which is that this is not self-executing because other elements are not self-executing, that ignores subsequent actual law that happened. I mean, the Congress passed a law, for example, in 1872 defining who was an insurrectionist, who is not an insurrectionist for purposes of elections. In 1994, Congress passed a law that specifically defined insurrection as a criminal activity so that somebody could theoretically be convicted of insurrection and therefore ineligible to run for office.
If we’re getting into constitutional law, I mean there are a number of provisions that suggest that this is, number one, not self-executing. I mean, minority opinions in the Colorado Supreme Court case are pretty thorough. The number one contention, which is that this is not self-executing because other elements are not self-executing, that ignores subsequent actual law that happened. I mean, the Congress passed a law, for example, in 1872 defining who was an insurrectionist, who is not an insurrectionist for purposes of elections. In 1994, Congress passed a law that specifically defined insurrection as a criminal activity so that somebody could theoretically be convicted of insurrection and therefore ineligible to run for office.
It is unlike, say, the analogs that are used by the majority opinion, like age. Obviously this is not the same thing. We can all tell what somebody’s age is by looking at their birth certificate. I can’t tell whether somebody’s an insurrectionist without any reference to a legal statute or definition of the term.
Destiny
I would also be careful with that because remember, one of Trump’s first big political actions was challenging Obama’s birth certificate.
I would also be careful with that because remember, one of Trump’s first big political actions was challenging Obama’s birth certificate.
Ben Shapiro
And I thought that was dumb at the time, but in any case…
And I thought that was dumb at the time, but in any case…
Lex Fridman
I like that you both said, 100% chance that Trump will try to go for third term and 0% chance, which statistically-
I like that you both said, 100% chance that Trump will try to go for third term and 0% chance, which statistically-
Ben Shapiro
Third term? He’s done, man. Are you kidding?
Third term? He’s done, man. Are you kidding?
Destiny
He would want to.
He would want to.
Lex Fridman
But try.
But try.
Ben Shapiro
Trump’s going to walk around, hands up high. He’s going to be like, “I’m a two-term President. I’m the only President since Grover Cleveland…” He wouldn’t know, but since Grover Cleveland who served two non-consecutive terms. I kicked Joe Biden out of office and I kicked Hillary Clinton out of office. Dude would be… he’d be living large. Are you kidding? He doesn’t want the presidency anymore after that.
Trump’s going to walk around, hands up high. He’s going to be like, “I’m a two-term President. I’m the only President since Grover Cleveland…” He wouldn’t know, but since Grover Cleveland who served two non-consecutive terms. I kicked Joe Biden out of office and I kicked Hillary Clinton out of office. Dude would be… he’d be living large. Are you kidding? He doesn’t want the presidency anymore after that.
Destiny
I think it’s scary that Donald Trump… It feels like for all of the accusations that are made sometimes against Democrats, like Biden is ordering Garland to investigate Donald Trump and blah, blah, blah, it seems like Donald Trump would actually do that with his DOJ. Would give them orders.
I think it’s scary that Donald Trump… It feels like for all of the accusations that are made sometimes against Democrats, like Biden is ordering Garland to investigate Donald Trump and blah, blah, blah, it seems like Donald Trump would actually do that with his DOJ. Would give them orders.
Ben Shapiro
He didn’t. He didn’t. He didn’t do it with his DOJ.
He didn’t. He didn’t. He didn’t do it with his DOJ.
Destiny
Well, he kind of did though, right? So for instance, with Jeffrey Clark, Jeffrey Clark went to Rosen and Donahue and said, “Hey, listen, I need you guys to sign off on a letter that we’re going to use, essentially to bully states into overturning their elections by saying we found significant election fraud.” And part of that threat was Jeffrey Clark saying, “Listen, if you’re not going to do it, Rosen, Trump’s going to fire you and just make me the acting attorney general.” That was the threat that he carried, and I think Trump repeated that threat in a meeting later on that was only rebuked when I think like half the White House staff said, “If you do this, we’re resigning.”
Well, he kind of did though, right? So for instance, with Jeffrey Clark, Jeffrey Clark went to Rosen and Donahue and said, “Hey, listen, I need you guys to sign off on a letter that we’re going to use, essentially to bully states into overturning their elections by saying we found significant election fraud.” And part of that threat was Jeffrey Clark saying, “Listen, if you’re not going to do it, Rosen, Trump’s going to fire you and just make me the acting attorney general.” That was the threat that he carried, and I think Trump repeated that threat in a meeting later on that was only rebuked when I think like half the White House staff said, “If you do this, we’re resigning.”
Ben Shapiro
Okay, so that’s a slightly different topic because now you’re getting into all the election shenanigans and all of this, but-
Okay, so that’s a slightly different topic because now you’re getting into all the election shenanigans and all of this, but-
Destiny
Sure. I’m just saying he threatened to fire his acting attorney general if he wouldn’t carry the same platform essentially. If Trump could order his DOJ to do something, would he? It’s not beyond the pale for him, right?
Sure. I’m just saying he threatened to fire his acting attorney general if he wouldn’t carry the same platform essentially. If Trump could order his DOJ to do something, would he? It’s not beyond the pale for him, right?
Ben Shapiro
It’s not beyond the pale for him to order them to do it, and then it’s not beyond the pale for them to reject him doing that, which is the story of his entire administration-
It’s not beyond the pale for him to order them to do it, and then it’s not beyond the pale for them to reject him doing that, which is the story of his entire administration-
Destiny
I agree.
I agree.
Ben Shapiro
… whereas Joe Biden orders his DOJ to do things and then they just do them.
… whereas Joe Biden orders his DOJ to do things and then they just do them.
Destiny
Well, we can get into the specifics there. It-
Well, we can get into the specifics there. It-
Ben Shapiro
This is one of the big problems that I have with… I mean, for example, all the talk about Trump tyrant, Trump executive power… I mean, Joe Biden has used executive power in ways that far outstrip anything that Donald Trump-
This is one of the big problems that I have with… I mean, for example, all the talk about Trump tyrant, Trump executive power… I mean, Joe Biden has used executive power in ways that far outstrip anything that Donald Trump-
Destiny
Every President has been stretching and stretching and stretching executive power. That’s-
Every President has been stretching and stretching and stretching executive power. That’s-
Ben Shapiro
Joe Biden has gone well beyond anything Trump even remotely attempted to maintain via just pure executive power. And actually Trump’s use of executive power is nowhere near even what Obama’s was. Obama used executive power [inaudible 01:45:44] ways.
Joe Biden has gone well beyond anything Trump even remotely attempted to maintain via just pure executive power. And actually Trump’s use of executive power is nowhere near even what Obama’s was. Obama used executive power [inaudible 01:45:44] ways.
Destiny
I mean, Trump’s inability to get border policy passed literally had him using executive power to march the military down to the border to do border policy. I mean-
I mean, Trump’s inability to get border policy passed literally had him using executive power to march the military down to the border to do border policy. I mean-
Ben Shapiro
I mean, Joe Biden literally used the Occupational Safety and Hazard Administration to try to cram down vax mandates on 80 million Americans. That’s insane.
I mean, Joe Biden literally used the Occupational Safety and Hazard Administration to try to cram down vax mandates on 80 million Americans. That’s insane.
Destiny
Sure, but why can’t-
Sure, but why can’t-
Ben Shapiro
He literally said, ” I cannot relieve student loan debt,” and then tried to relieve hundreds of billions of dollars in student loan debt.
He literally said, ” I cannot relieve student loan debt,” and then tried to relieve hundreds of billions of dollars in student loan debt.
Destiny
Yeah, but what happened to that?
Yeah, but what happened to that?
Ben Shapiro
It got struck down by the Supreme Court, and then they still did it. They still did it. Biden brags about it. He brags about having relief [inaudible 01:46:13].
It got struck down by the Supreme Court, and then they still did it. They still did it. Biden brags about it. He brags about having relief [inaudible 01:46:13].
Destiny
For what he was able to relieve, which I think were related to particular types of student loan debt. But I’m just saying that well, the guardrails are holding with Biden as much as they’re holding with Trump. The only difference is that once Biden exhausts his executive power, he’s not running around lying to people or trying to extort people or trying to and concoct insane schemes.
For what he was able to relieve, which I think were related to particular types of student loan debt. But I’m just saying that well, the guardrails are holding with Biden as much as they’re holding with Trump. The only difference is that once Biden exhausts his executive power, he’s not running around lying to people or trying to extort people or trying to and concoct insane schemes.
Ben Shapiro
Well, I mean, here’s the way I would think of this. Think of the guardrails holding as the filter, meaning the coffee is in the filter. What you want is going to get through and all the stuff that the guardrails prevent the other stuff from getting through. Now the question becomes what liquid are you pouring into the filter? Meaning if the filter exists, if the guardrails hold, and if Donald Trump can’t steal elections, what’s the policy that comes through the other end of the filter? The policy I get from Donald Trump on the other end of the filter is a bunch of stuff that I like. The policy that I get from Joe Biden on the other end of the filter is a bunch of bullshit I don’t. So that’s the basic calculation.
Well, I mean, here’s the way I would think of this. Think of the guardrails holding as the filter, meaning the coffee is in the filter. What you want is going to get through and all the stuff that the guardrails prevent the other stuff from getting through. Now the question becomes what liquid are you pouring into the filter? Meaning if the filter exists, if the guardrails hold, and if Donald Trump can’t steal elections, what’s the policy that comes through the other end of the filter? The policy I get from Donald Trump on the other end of the filter is a bunch of stuff that I like. The policy that I get from Joe Biden on the other end of the filter is a bunch of bullshit I don’t. So that’s the basic calculation.
Destiny
Okay, so then the idea is essentially that Donald Trump’s rhetoric is insane, but we don’t care. Donald Trump would probably try to steal an election if he could, but he probably won’t be able to.
Okay, so then the idea is essentially that Donald Trump’s rhetoric is insane, but we don’t care. Donald Trump would probably try to steal an election if he could, but he probably won’t be able to.
Ben Shapiro
He’s not going to do it again. I told you. He’s not-
He’s not going to do it again. I told you. He’s not-
Destiny
You don’t think he has any… Why not?
You don’t think he has any… Why not?
Ben Shapiro
Because he won’t be eligible to be on the ballot in… I mean, by the way, you want to talk about 14th Amendment? That’s where the 14th Amendment applies. Okay? That’s where it actually applies, meaning he’s not qualified to be on the ballot in 2028 if he’s the President of the United States. States can literally, in self-executing fashion, take him off the ballot. Just like he’s passed the age of 35, once you have been President two times, you’re no longer eligible to be President of the United States.
Because he won’t be eligible to be on the ballot in… I mean, by the way, you want to talk about 14th Amendment? That’s where the 14th Amendment applies. Okay? That’s where it actually applies, meaning he’s not qualified to be on the ballot in 2028 if he’s the President of the United States. States can literally, in self-executing fashion, take him off the ballot. Just like he’s passed the age of 35, once you have been President two times, you’re no longer eligible to be President of the United States.
Destiny
Why-
Why-
Ben Shapiro
Then you actually have a strong case to keep him off the ballot.
Then you actually have a strong case to keep him off the ballot.
Destiny
Yeah, but why would the 14th Amendment stop him if he thought Vice President Pence could unilaterally decide the outcome of the election?
Yeah, but why would the 14th Amendment stop him if he thought Vice President Pence could unilaterally decide the outcome of the election?
Ben Shapiro
When he’s not on the ballot? So now your theory is that he’s going to get re-elected, and then in 2028, he’s not even going to be on the ballot and he’s going to direct his new Vice President, Kerry Lake, to simply declare him President of the United States when he has not been on a ballot?
When he’s not on the ballot? So now your theory is that he’s going to get re-elected, and then in 2028, he’s not even going to be on the ballot and he’s going to direct his new Vice President, Kerry Lake, to simply declare him President of the United States when he has not been on a ballot?
Destiny
I don’t know what the scheme would be. I think we can kind of laugh and say there’s no scheme we could even concoct, but I think that-
I don’t know what the scheme would be. I think we can kind of laugh and say there’s no scheme we could even concoct, but I think that-
Ben Shapiro
Macho, like with the machine gun, he’s going to walk into the-
Macho, like with the machine gun, he’s going to walk into the-
Destiny
I think the issue though is that the idea of electing another President that has tried to circumvent the peaceful transfer of power using extralegal means and then pretending like we can’t concoct a single scheme that he could try to circumvent other legal processes to have a third term or to have a longer term or to install who he wants as the next President… When a person has already shown you who they are and when every single person around him agrees with that, when every single person that’s worked with him, save for, what? Sydney Powell, Eastman and Giuliani, which I don’t think anybody would want to throw their lot in with those three, it just seems wild to me that we would say like, “Yeah, we’re just going to go ahead and trust this guy with another term or President, but he can’t run for a third term, so it’s fine,” when there’s like 50 million other things he could concoct-
I think the issue though is that the idea of electing another President that has tried to circumvent the peaceful transfer of power using extralegal means and then pretending like we can’t concoct a single scheme that he could try to circumvent other legal processes to have a third term or to have a longer term or to install who he wants as the next President… When a person has already shown you who they are and when every single person around him agrees with that, when every single person that’s worked with him, save for, what? Sydney Powell, Eastman and Giuliani, which I don’t think anybody would want to throw their lot in with those three, it just seems wild to me that we would say like, “Yeah, we’re just going to go ahead and trust this guy with another term or President, but he can’t run for a third term, so it’s fine,” when there’s like 50 million other things he could concoct-
Ben Shapiro
I’ll make you the case that if you want him not to make election trouble, you should elect him President in the next election cycle, and then he will be ineligible.
I’ll make you the case that if you want him not to make election trouble, you should elect him President in the next election cycle, and then he will be ineligible.
Destiny
Okay. I find that be a wholly unconvincing argument, but okay.
Okay. I find that be a wholly unconvincing argument, but okay.
Wokeism
Lex Fridman
Well, recently in the news, the Presidents of Harvard, Penn and MIT failed to fully denounce calls for genocide, and that rose questions about the influence of DEI programs at universities. And so maybe either looking at this or zooming out more broadly at identity politics at universities or identity politics, wokeism in our culture, how big of a threat is it to our culture to Western civilization, Ben?
Well, recently in the news, the Presidents of Harvard, Penn and MIT failed to fully denounce calls for genocide, and that rose questions about the influence of DEI programs at universities. And so maybe either looking at this or zooming out more broadly at identity politics at universities or identity politics, wokeism in our culture, how big of a threat is it to our culture to Western civilization, Ben?
Ben Shapiro
So obviously I’m going to say it’s a huge threat. The reason that I think this is a huge threat… I want to give a definition of wokeism because people are very often accused of not using wokeism properly or believing that it’s sort of a catchall phrase. I don’t think it’s a catchall term. I think that wokeism has its roots in postmodernism, which essentially suggests that every principle is a reflection of underlying structures of power, and that therefore any inequality that emerges under such a system is a reflection, again, of that structure of power.
So obviously I’m going to say it’s a huge threat. The reason that I think this is a huge threat… I want to give a definition of wokeism because people are very often accused of not using wokeism properly or believing that it’s sort of a catchall phrase. I don’t think it’s a catchall term. I think that wokeism has its roots in postmodernism, which essentially suggests that every principle is a reflection of underlying structures of power, and that therefore any inequality that emerges under such a system is a reflection, again, of that structure of power.
That used to be applied in sort of Marxist ways, the suggestion being that economic inequality was the result of misallocation of power in the structure preserved by an upper crust of people who wanted to cram down exploitation on people. That was sort of the Marxist version of postmodernism, and that got transmuted into sort of a racial version of postmodernism in which the systems of the United States are white supremacist in orientation, and are perpetuated by a group of people who are in fact in favor of the preservation of white power and white supremacy. That is the generalized theory of Critical Race Theory as proposed by, for example, Jean Stefancic and Richard Delgado in their book on Critical Race Theory.
That has taken a softer form that we refer to as DEI. The key in DEI is the E, meaning equity. So equity is a term that does not mean equality. People mix it up. Equality is the idea that we all ought to have equal rights, that we all ought to be treated equally by the law. Equity is the idea that if there is an inequality that emerges from any system, it is therefore due to discrimination, and the best way to tell whether somebody has been victimized is by dint of their race, and we can tell whether you’re a member of an oppressed group or an oppressor group by the intersectional identity that you carry, and by the nature of your group’s success or failure predominantly along economic and power lines in American life.
This means that if one group is predominantly successful economically, they must be a member of the victimizing class, and the only corrective for that would be, as Ibram X. Kendi likes to suggest, effectively anti-racist policies, racism in the serVice of destroying racism. That you’re going to have to in order to correct for discrimination that’s baked into the system. That’s incredibly dangerous. It leads to a victim-victimizer narrative that is unhealthy for individuals and terrible for societies. It relieves people of individual responsibility and it destroys the very notion of an objective metric by which we can decide meritocracy and meritocracy is the only system human beings have ever devised that has positive externalities in literally any area of life.
Every other distribution of wealth, power done along other lines that is not having to do with merit, has negative externalities. Every system having to do with merit has positive externalities because presumably the most effective and useful people are going to succeed under those systems. That’s the very basis of a meritocracy. And the externalities of that mean that other people benefit from the meritorious and excellent performance of those people.
Lex Fridman
Maybe it would be good to get your comments… your old stomping ground Harvard. Do you think the President Harvard should have been fired, forced out-
Maybe it would be good to get your comments… your old stomping ground Harvard. Do you think the President Harvard should have been fired, forced out-
Ben Shapiro
I mean, I think she should’ve been fired not over the plagiarism allegations. I think she should have been fired based on her performance just at that congressional hearing. If the word black had been substituted for Jew in that statement by Elise Stefanik, that she was asking about-
I mean, I think she should’ve been fired not over the plagiarism allegations. I think she should have been fired based on her performance just at that congressional hearing. If the word black had been substituted for Jew in that statement by Elise Stefanik, that she was asking about-
Destiny
Or trans.
Or trans.
Ben Shapiro
… or literally any other minority in America, maybe with the exception of Asian, then the answer would’ve been very different coming from Claudine Gay. With that said, I don’t think the firing of Claudine Gay really accomplishes very much. Did she get what she deserved? Sure. Does that mean that the underlying DEI equity-based system has been in any way severely damaged? No. I think that this is a way for universities, this is true for McGill and Penn also, to basically throw somebody overboard as the sacrifice to maintain the underlying system that continues to predominate at American universities where they spend literally billions of dollars every year on DEI initiatives and diversity hires and diversity administrators and all of this.
… or literally any other minority in America, maybe with the exception of Asian, then the answer would’ve been very different coming from Claudine Gay. With that said, I don’t think the firing of Claudine Gay really accomplishes very much. Did she get what she deserved? Sure. Does that mean that the underlying DEI equity-based system has been in any way severely damaged? No. I think that this is a way for universities, this is true for McGill and Penn also, to basically throw somebody overboard as the sacrifice to maintain the underlying system that continues to predominate at American universities where they spend literally billions of dollars every year on DEI initiatives and diversity hires and diversity administrators and all of this.
I mean, one of the costs of education escalating is in the massive administrative function that is now undertaken by universities, as opposed to teaching and cost of dorms and such.
Lex Fridman
You guys probably agree on a lot of this, right?
You guys probably agree on a lot of this, right?
Destiny
Kind of. Maybe, yeah. I don’t know what makes things do this, but it feels like we can never have a good thing and then have it end as a good thing. Things always get taken to their extreme, and then we have to fight on those extremes. I would argue that… Back in my day, we called it SJWs, Social Justice Warriors, before it became woke. I think it was like 2013 onwards, whatever. There are aspects to wokeism that I think are good. Like I like the additional representation that we have in media now. I like how, as much as people complain about the internet and how it’s regulated, that there are way more groups that are represented on the internet, whether we’re talking X, the platform formerly known as Twitter, or Facebook or whatever. Or whether we’re pushing women’s achievements in school and in the wider workforce. I think that these are all good things.
Kind of. Maybe, yeah. I don’t know what makes things do this, but it feels like we can never have a good thing and then have it end as a good thing. Things always get taken to their extreme, and then we have to fight on those extremes. I would argue that… Back in my day, we called it SJWs, Social Justice Warriors, before it became woke. I think it was like 2013 onwards, whatever. There are aspects to wokeism that I think are good. Like I like the additional representation that we have in media now. I like how, as much as people complain about the internet and how it’s regulated, that there are way more groups that are represented on the internet, whether we’re talking X, the platform formerly known as Twitter, or Facebook or whatever. Or whether we’re pushing women’s achievements in school and in the wider workforce. I think that these are all good things.
The issue that you run into is people don’t ever have a stopping point, and I think people kind of get lost in this woke-for-woke-sake thing where we start to see these very weird workings of these academic, I guess, arguments that are used for really horrible things. So for instance, I think that you can talk about in the United States, things like white supremacy or things like Oppression or certain demographics, especially with Jim Crow laws and pre-Jim Crow, and you can even talk about effects from that.
But then when you run into this weird world where we’ve kind of worked these things so that not only is white supremacy still as present today as it ever has been, well actually black people and other minorities can’t even be racist. They don’t have the power to, because we’re going to use a different definition of racism and we can only talk about punching up as opposed to punching down. And then we’re actually going to say it’s totally okay for these people to say or do whatever they want, and it’s never bad. But white people, who have always been the oppressors, even if you’re like a trailer park guy whose family’s addicted to meth, you have all this privilege, etc, etc.
I think that you run into these issues where woke ism, it starts off as a really good idea and I would argue has achieved really good things, especially in regards to women’s education and everything, and then it just gets so academia-ized… There’s a word there, academic, whatever, where you take something and you put it into school too much and then it comes out as some Frankenstein cancer baby of horrible things, such that today when I’m reading stuff, and I know Ben is the same way, if I even hear somebody say the word anti-racism, I’m probably ignoring every other thing you have to say.
Institutional capture
If you utter the word like colonial anything, I’m probably going to say you probably don’t have anything good to say. Yeah, a lot of it has just taken way too far. But you know what I will blame on some of this is I will blame conservatives for some of this-
Destiny
But you know what I will blame on some of this is I will blame conservatives for some of this because I think one issue that happens, and I think Ben might even agree with me here too, is I think there’s two huge problems that have happened in the United States I think broadly speaking is that, one, we become more different than we ever have been. And, two, we become more similar than we ever have been. And when I say this, what I mean is like we’re splitting off into these groups and then these groups are enforcing this insane homogeneity between these two separate groups. I think one of these schisms has been conservatives’ reluctancy to participate in things related to higher education.
But you know what I will blame on some of this is I will blame conservatives for some of this because I think one issue that happens, and I think Ben might even agree with me here too, is I think there’s two huge problems that have happened in the United States I think broadly speaking is that, one, we become more different than we ever have been. And, two, we become more similar than we ever have been. And when I say this, what I mean is like we’re splitting off into these groups and then these groups are enforcing this insane homogeneity between these two separate groups. I think one of these schisms has been conservatives’ reluctancy to participate in things related to higher education.
For a long time, conservatives are saying, oh, the educational institutions are against us. Rush Limbaugh talks about how evil the colleges are and blah, blah, blah. And then what happens is conservatives are less and less willing to engage in them. So then you get this scenario or this environment where everybody that’s engaged in academia on the administrative side are fucking insane. They’re even more so to, and I also want to draw a distinction between the administrators and the faculty because oftentimes when you’re reading story after story after story of all of these insane admins that are pushing further and further left, usually the faculty is fighting against it. A lot of the tenure professors, a lot of people in their departments are saying, hold on, well, we actually don’t agree with this.
But I feel like, because conservatives for so long have demonized these institutions rather than critically evaluated them and tried to have honest critique and engagement, that they’ve just completely broken off. And when you only have a bunch of lefties or righties together, all they’ll do is they veer off even more into their insane directions. I feel like that’s a big problem that we’ve run into in the country to where conservatives have totally broken off some conversations, broken away from where they won’t participate in them anymore, and then the people that you have left just run as far to the left as possible.
Ben Shapiro
Certainly when you look at certain institutions, I think that one of the things that people on both sides of the aisle are constantly looking at is has the institution suffered such capture that there is just no capacity to fix it? And when you talk about the universities, I’m not going to blame conservatives for the failure of the universities because they haven’t been present in major positions at universities since effectively the late 1960s. You can go read Shelby Steele’s work on this where he talks about how he used to be, he’s now a conservative black person. He was a liberal black person at the time. He was actually quite a radical black activist at the time in the ’60s. And he talks about walking into the office of liberal administrators who were largely on his side with regard to civil rights, and being a radical, him claiming that the systems of the university were inherently broken, were inherently wrong, unfixable.
Certainly when you look at certain institutions, I think that one of the things that people on both sides of the aisle are constantly looking at is has the institution suffered such capture that there is just no capacity to fix it? And when you talk about the universities, I’m not going to blame conservatives for the failure of the universities because they haven’t been present in major positions at universities since effectively the late 1960s. You can go read Shelby Steele’s work on this where he talks about how he used to be, he’s now a conservative black person. He was a liberal black person at the time. He was actually quite a radical black activist at the time in the ’60s. And he talks about walking into the office of liberal administrators who were largely on his side with regard to civil rights, and being a radical, him claiming that the systems of the university were inherently broken, were inherently wrong, unfixable.
And he talks about this, it’s a very evocative episode where he’s talking about how he’s smoking, and as he’s smoking, the ash is growing more and more, and the ash falls down on this very expensive carpet. And the president of the university who’s listening to him rant and rave, Shelby Steele says, “I thought he was going to say something about this. I mean, I was wrecking a thousand dollar carpet in his office being a jackass, and instead, I could see him wilt inside. I could see him collapse. He didn’t have the institutional credibility or sort of the spiritual strength to just say, ‘Listen, I agree with you on some of these things, but you’re acting like a jackass.'” And what you see in the late 1960s and early 1970s is in fact the collapse of these institutions to the point where, by the time I was going to college, there was this radical disproportion between conservatives and liberals.
The problem is that when it comes to a system like the universities, basically you have to separate the universities off into two separate categories. One is STEM, where the universities are still pretty damn good. American universities, when it comes to STEM, are still leading universities in the world. Harvard’s main creations these days are coming from actual hard science field. Then you have the liberal arts field in which you basically have a self-perpetuating elite because that’s actually how dissertations work. If you have somebody who’s very far to the left and you decide that you’re going to write a dissertation on the history of American gun rights, the chances that that is going to be approved by your dissertation advisor are much lower than if you happen to write something that tends to agree with the political positions of your dissertation advisor. Now, listen, I think there are open and tolerant professors, even in the liberal arts at these universities.
I went to these universities. I went to UCLA, I went to Harvard Law School. When I was at Harvard Law School, one of my favorite professors was Lani Guinier. Lani Guinier, they tried to appoint her, I believe, Secretary of Labor under Clinton. And she was too liberal and she got rejected. So she was like a full- on communist. By the time I went there, she was great. We had debates every day. It was wonderful. She used to write me recommendations for my legal jobs. After we left, Randall Kennedy, I don’t agree with him very much. Randall Kennedy was terrific professor. There are some professors who are like this. Unfortunately, there tends to be, in these echo chambers, more and more ideological conformity that is rigorously enforced, and it is by left on left. So, for example, when I was at Harvard Law School, the president of the university was another president who ended up being ousted, Larry Summers.
Larry Summers had been the Secretary of Treasury under Bill Clinton, and he made the critical error of suggesting that perhaps the dearth of women in hard sciences in prestigious positions was due to possibly two factors that people were refusing to talk about. One was the possibility that women actually didn’t want to be in hard sciences at nearly the rates that men do, which happens to be true. And, two, was the distribution of STEM IQ, which is something that you certainly were not allowed to talk about. The idea that the men’s bell curve when it comes to IQ, particularly on STEM subjects, tends to be shallower than the women’s bell curve. So when you get to the very end of the bell curve, what you tend to see is a lot of really dumb guys and a lot of really smarter guys.
And so when you’re talking about the top universities, maybe that has something to do with the disproportion. And he’s trying to explain that to say that our systems are not discriminating if we end up with more men than women, maybe more men are applying and more men are qualified. That’s quite a… He was ousted for that by a left-wing faculty and general alum network at Harvard University. There’s a lot to blame conservatives for surrendering the playing field. I totally agree that conservatives should not have surrendered the playing field in some institutions. Colleges were surrendered a lot earlier than 20 years ago. They were surrendered in the late 1960s, early 1970s.
Destiny
I think that, a couple of things. One of the big issues that I have with this, I don’t know if we call it era of Trumpism or populism, is this total disregard for institutions and this disconnect from participation in the system. So it’s one of the big things that I fight with progressives about, who cares because they’re all 20 years old, they don’t vote anyway. But it’s another thing that I noticed with a lot of people that are Trump voters, Trump fans, or whatever, is this idea where we say, this institution is irrevocably destroyed, it’s irredeemable, it can’t be saved. Nothing that we do can fix it. And I think that what that leads people to doing is, one, they disconnect further.
I think that, a couple of things. One of the big issues that I have with this, I don’t know if we call it era of Trumpism or populism, is this total disregard for institutions and this disconnect from participation in the system. So it’s one of the big things that I fight with progressives about, who cares because they’re all 20 years old, they don’t vote anyway. But it’s another thing that I noticed with a lot of people that are Trump voters, Trump fans, or whatever, is this idea where we say, this institution is irrevocably destroyed, it’s irredeemable, it can’t be saved. Nothing that we do can fix it. And I think that what that leads people to doing is, one, they disconnect further.
And then, two, there’s a general hopelessness when it comes to how society is ran or structured, such that you fall into that populist brain rot of the only person that can save me is Donald Trump. I can’t trust literally anything. And I think that when you start driving people into that direction, all it does is it further amplifies all the problems that you’re complaining about. So that’s one of the reasons why when we talk about conservative participation, I want there to be more conservatives that are trying to participate in academia. But I feel like the leading thought or the leading speaking out against it is basically saying it’s a waste of time. It’s completely lost.
Ben Shapiro
So I think that the alternative to that is that you are seeing on the right a growth of, for example, alternative universities, saying-
So I think that the alternative to that is that you are seeing on the right a growth of, for example, alternative universities, saying-
Destiny
Yeah, but this is the worst thing.
Yeah, but this is the worst thing.
Ben Shapiro
No, I don’t think so at all. I think competition is a great way of incentivizing some change on behalf of universities that may have forgotten that there’s an entire another side of the aisle in the United States, meaning-
No, I don’t think so at all. I think competition is a great way of incentivizing some change on behalf of universities that may have forgotten that there’s an entire another side of the aisle in the United States, meaning-
Destiny
No shot. I don’t believe. I don’t think even you think that.
No shot. I don’t believe. I don’t think even you think that.
Ben Shapiro
So first of all, first all, let me be clear.
So first of all, first all, let me be clear.
Destiny
Go ahead.
Go ahead.
Ben Shapiro
I think the entire educational system at the upper levels, if you’re not in STEM, is a complete scam. I think it’s a complete waste of money. I think it’s a complete waste of time. And I think that it’s all it is is a formalized, very expensive sorting mechanism for people of IQ. That’s all it is. People take an SAT, you go to a good school, you take four years of bullshit. I know. I did it at UCLA. And then, we analyze based on your degree where you should go to law school. I could have gone directly from high school to law school with maybe one year of training, and then done one year of law school, and been done. Okay. The reality is that this is a giant scam, and this is, again, it’s a bipartisan problem, but it’s just a generalized problem. You want to talk about things that hurt the lower classes in the United States? The bleeding of degrees up is so wild and crazy. There’re so many jobs in the United States that should not require a college degree that we now require a college degree to do because there was this weird idea that came over Americans where they mistook correlation for causation. They would say, oh, look, people who go to college are making more money than people who don’t go to college, therefore everyone should go to college. Well, maybe the reason is because people who are going to college were better qualified for particular jobs because, on average, not all the time, but on average, a lot of those people were smarter and making more money because of that. And so all you’ve done is you’ve now created these additional layers of stratification. So a person who used to be able to get a job with a college degree now has to have a postdoc degree in order to go get that degree.
I think the entire educational system at the upper levels, if you’re not in STEM, is a complete scam. I think it’s a complete waste of money. I think it’s a complete waste of time. And I think that it’s all it is is a formalized, very expensive sorting mechanism for people of IQ. That’s all it is. People take an SAT, you go to a good school, you take four years of bullshit. I know. I did it at UCLA. And then, we analyze based on your degree where you should go to law school. I could have gone directly from high school to law school with maybe one year of training, and then done one year of law school, and been done. Okay. The reality is that this is a giant scam, and this is, again, it’s a bipartisan problem, but it’s just a generalized problem. You want to talk about things that hurt the lower classes in the United States? The bleeding of degrees up is so wild and crazy. There’re so many jobs in the United States that should not require a college degree that we now require a college degree to do because there was this weird idea that came over Americans where they mistook correlation for causation. They would say, oh, look, people who go to college are making more money than people who don’t go to college, therefore everyone should go to college. Well, maybe the reason is because people who are going to college were better qualified for particular jobs because, on average, not all the time, but on average, a lot of those people were smarter and making more money because of that. And so all you’ve done is you’ve now created these additional layers of stratification. So a person who used to be able to get a job with a college degree now has to have a postdoc degree in order to go get that degree.
A person who used to be able to just graduate high school, now it’s de facto, you got to go to JuCo, and then you got to go to college, or nobody’s even going to look at your resume. It’s really, really terrible for people who can’t afford all of that. It’s led to this massive increase in educational cost that is inexplicable other than this particular sort of bleed up. And by the way, federal subsidies for higher education, again, one of my problems with federal subsidies for higher education, I’d love for everyone to be able to go to college if qualified to do so and if it is productive. But one of the things I did when I went to law school is I took loans because a bank said I was going to get my money back if I got a law degree from Harvard. But you know when you’re not going to get your money back? If you’re a bank, you’re not going to lend to some dude who wants to major in Art Theory because is that a good bet? There’s no collateral.
If I give a loan for a house, I can go repossess the house. How do I repossess your garbage college degree from UCLA? There’s no way to do that. This is the broader conversation about education in general. I think the educational system is cruising for a bruising, and I think all that’s necessary for it to completely collapse on the non-STEM side where you actually learn things is for people who employ to simply say, give me your SAT score and I will hire you for an apprenticeship directly out of high school. That it would cut out so much of the middleman. But as far as the general point that you’re making about institutions, I may disagree on the education and how far it’s gone. In general, I agree with you. So in general, I agree. And, I guess, to use my favorite longest word in the English language here, I would consider myself in many cases an anti-disestablishmentarianist.
Lex Fridman
Nice.
Nice.
Ben Shapiro
See that? I like to drop that because if you’re an establishmentarian, that means you like the establishment.
See that? I like to drop that because if you’re an establishmentarian, that means you like the establishment.
Destiny
The opposite is disestablishmentarianism.
The opposite is disestablishmentarianism.
Ben Shapiro
Disestablishmentarianism, right? So I’m an anti-
Disestablishmentarianism, right? So I’m an anti-
Lex Fridman
Can you say that word, Destiny?
Can you say that word, Destiny?
Destiny
That’s the one we all learned growing up, anti-disestablishmentarianism.
That’s the one we all learned growing up, anti-disestablishmentarianism.
Ben Shapiro
There you go.
There you go.
Destiny
The longest word in the dictionary.
The longest word in the dictionary.
Ben Shapiro
And so he is also. But I think-
And so he is also. But I think-
Destiny
Then some candidate group say, what about supercalifragilisti- and then you’re-
Then some candidate group say, what about supercalifragilisti- and then you’re-
Ben Shapiro
What about [inaudible 02:05:51]?
What about [inaudible 02:05:51]?
Destiny
Or the science terms.
Or the science terms.
Ben Shapiro
Exactly.
Exactly.
Destiny
Or what about the 7,000 letter thing that’s from part of biochem.
Or what about the 7,000 letter thing that’s from part of biochem.
Lex Fridman
I got my education in the Soviet Union, so we just did math. Didn’t learn any of this.
I got my education in the Soviet Union, so we just did math. Didn’t learn any of this.
Ben Shapiro
That’s why you’re a useful person.
That’s why you’re a useful person.
Destiny
Soviet Union Math. Was that one plus one, how to make that equal three?
Soviet Union Math. Was that one plus one, how to make that equal three?
Ben Shapiro
We know long words, and he streams on the internet, and I talk for a living, so anyway. But the point is that I don’t disagree that there is a general populist tendency on all sides of the aisle to look at the institutions and then throw them overboard. I think that some of that is earned by people who are in positions of power at institutions who have completely undermined the faith and credibility of those institutions. I think that you have to examine institution by institutions, which ones are salvageable and which ones are not. So I’m not a full anti-disestablishmentarianism. I’d be partially in that camp. There are certain institutions like higher education in the liberal arts that I think we may be better off without. And then there are certain institutions like, say, participation in American government where when people talk about we need a revolution, like, no, we don’t. That’s not a thing. We need an evolution. We need change. We can use the system. But I think you have to establish, you have to look at it industry by industry, just institution by institution.
We know long words, and he streams on the internet, and I talk for a living, so anyway. But the point is that I don’t disagree that there is a general populist tendency on all sides of the aisle to look at the institutions and then throw them overboard. I think that some of that is earned by people who are in positions of power at institutions who have completely undermined the faith and credibility of those institutions. I think that you have to examine institution by institutions, which ones are salvageable and which ones are not. So I’m not a full anti-disestablishmentarianism. I’d be partially in that camp. There are certain institutions like higher education in the liberal arts that I think we may be better off without. And then there are certain institutions like, say, participation in American government where when people talk about we need a revolution, like, no, we don’t. That’s not a thing. We need an evolution. We need change. We can use the system. But I think you have to establish, you have to look at it industry by industry, just institution by institution.
Destiny
On that position, are institutions, do you think Biden or Trump would salvage you more?
On that position, are institutions, do you think Biden or Trump would salvage you more?
Ben Shapiro
As far as the institutions?
As far as the institutions?
Destiny
Yeah.
Yeah.
Ben Shapiro
I think the institutions in the United States at the governmental level are robust. I think the social institutions are fair.
I think the institutions in the United States at the governmental level are robust. I think the social institutions are fair.
Destiny
But I’m just curious on your general view of institutions, do you think Biden or Trump would salvage you more on how you view them?
But I’m just curious on your general view of institutions, do you think Biden or Trump would salvage you more on how you view them?
Ben Shapiro
I mean, I think that, in rhetoric, Biden would, and then I think that he would tear out the face of the institution wearing it around like a mask, like Hannibal Lecter. I mean-
I mean, I think that, in rhetoric, Biden would, and then I think that he would tear out the face of the institution wearing it around like a mask, like Hannibal Lecter. I mean-
Destiny
Even though he resisted some people’s calls to pack the court and…
Even though he resisted some people’s calls to pack the court and…
Ben Shapiro
Yes, because I think that his use of executive power was greater than that of Donald Trump. The power that he had, he used to greater effect than Donald Trump. Donald Trump, again, thrashed up against the sides of the box, but could not get out of it.
Yes, because I think that his use of executive power was greater than that of Donald Trump. The power that he had, he used to greater effect than Donald Trump. Donald Trump, again, thrashed up against the sides of the box, but could not get out of it.
Destiny
For just real quick, because that answer went a lot farther than the initial question. But just on the real quick thing, the reason why I, again, my main problem that I feel like we have today in society is people are getting into their own bubbles. The idea of having conservative schools and liberal schools seems like the saddest thing in the world to me. I would want conservatives and liberals going to school together because I think these people need to interact with each other more, if for no other reason than to say that the other person is not an actual monstrous, horrible entity that wants to destroy the country.
For just real quick, because that answer went a lot farther than the initial question. But just on the real quick thing, the reason why I, again, my main problem that I feel like we have today in society is people are getting into their own bubbles. The idea of having conservative schools and liberal schools seems like the saddest thing in the world to me. I would want conservatives and liberals going to school together because I think these people need to interact with each other more, if for no other reason than to say that the other person is not an actual monstrous, horrible entity that wants to destroy the country.
Ben Shapiro
Listen, I think a classically liberal idea for many schools would not be a bad thing. I think it would be a good thing. I just wonder if that’s salvageable. And if it’s not salvageable, then the answer to that is to actually create alternative institutions.
Listen, I think a classically liberal idea for many schools would not be a bad thing. I think it would be a good thing. I just wonder if that’s salvageable. And if it’s not salvageable, then the answer to that is to actually create alternative institutions.
Destiny
I feel like the biggest issue that we have is people are they sort into these different phantom worlds to where, even if you live in the same city, there are totally different worlds that exist between liberals and conservatives. And I feel like one of the big barriers to people understanding the other side, sometimes it’s just a little bit of information or a little bit of firsthand experience. So in terms of information, I’m sure you saw, I don’t know if this is a full-on study, but they were talking about how some huge percentage of students would change their mind on from the river to the sea when you told them what from the river to sea, actually-
I feel like the biggest issue that we have is people are they sort into these different phantom worlds to where, even if you live in the same city, there are totally different worlds that exist between liberals and conservatives. And I feel like one of the big barriers to people understanding the other side, sometimes it’s just a little bit of information or a little bit of firsthand experience. So in terms of information, I’m sure you saw, I don’t know if this is a full-on study, but they were talking about how some huge percentage of students would change their mind on from the river to the sea when you told them what from the river to sea, actually-
Ben Shapiro
What the river was and what the sea was?
What the river was and what the sea was?
Destiny
Yeah. Or when you said like, what does a one state solution mean? A lot of them, such that the numbers went from 70% to 30% in terms of support would fall. And it wasn’t because you were doing a radical redefining their whole ideology. You were just giving them a little bit more information. And then something that I’ve seen on a firsthand level is when I go and speak or do debates at universities, sometimes I’m in very, very, very conservative areas. Some of my fans are trans. Having a trans person show up and talk to conservatives for a little bit, not in a speech, but just in a bar or a setting, a lot of them walk away. They’re like, oh, not every trans person is like this insane lunatic from Twitter that is a fucking, an actual crazy person. And then for some of my fans, when they hang out with conservatives like, oh, these guys are actually pretty friendly. I thought they would’ve all been homophobic, racist, transphobic, and evil, but they’re not. They’re just like normal people. I feel like we need more of that-
Yeah. Or when you said like, what does a one state solution mean? A lot of them, such that the numbers went from 70% to 30% in terms of support would fall. And it wasn’t because you were doing a radical redefining their whole ideology. You were just giving them a little bit more information. And then something that I’ve seen on a firsthand level is when I go and speak or do debates at universities, sometimes I’m in very, very, very conservative areas. Some of my fans are trans. Having a trans person show up and talk to conservatives for a little bit, not in a speech, but just in a bar or a setting, a lot of them walk away. They’re like, oh, not every trans person is like this insane lunatic from Twitter that is a fucking, an actual crazy person. And then for some of my fans, when they hang out with conservatives like, oh, these guys are actually pretty friendly. I thought they would’ve all been homophobic, racist, transphobic, and evil, but they’re not. They’re just like normal people. I feel like we need more of that-
Ben Shapiro
I totally agree with that. Certainly.
I totally agree with that. Certainly.
Destiny
And I feel like on our social media platforms, on our algorithms, and our schools, I feel like we’re sorting harder and harder and harder, and any type of rhetoric that encourages the sorting is really bad and damaging. We need to continue to mix up. And there’s other things I wanted to talk about, but Lex is opening his mouth.
And I feel like on our social media platforms, on our algorithms, and our schools, I feel like we’re sorting harder and harder and harder, and any type of rhetoric that encourages the sorting is really bad and damaging. We need to continue to mix up. And there’s other things I wanted to talk about, but Lex is opening his mouth.
Lex Fridman
Destiny, the uniter. Wow.
Destiny, the uniter. Wow.
Destiny
Like Biden. Not like Trump.
Like Biden. Not like Trump.
Monogamy vs open relationships
Lex Fridman
As we approach the end, let us descend into the meme further and further. Ben, you’re in a monogamous marriage. And Destiny, you’ve been mostly in an open marriage until recently. How foundational is marriage, monogamous marriage, to the United States of America? Can open marriages work? Are they harmful to society? Ben.
As we approach the end, let us descend into the meme further and further. Ben, you’re in a monogamous marriage. And Destiny, you’ve been mostly in an open marriage until recently. How foundational is marriage, monogamous marriage, to the United States of America? Can open marriages work? Are they harmful to society? Ben.
Ben Shapiro
Marriages are the single most important thing that people can do in the United States because the things within your control are easier to control than the things outside your control. People tend to think about big political change, obviously about things they can do to change the entire system, but the reality is the thing that you can do that best changes society is to get married and have kids and raise your kids responsibly. That is the single best thing that you can do. Can an open marriage work? I mean, I think that it depends on your definition of work. So in my version of work, the answer is no, because what you actually need in order to facilitate the healthy growing of a child is a father and mother who are committed to each other. All ideas about there being no emotional component to sexual activity are completely specious. That it is true for men, that it is for women, but it’s not true for either.
Marriages are the single most important thing that people can do in the United States because the things within your control are easier to control than the things outside your control. People tend to think about big political change, obviously about things they can do to change the entire system, but the reality is the thing that you can do that best changes society is to get married and have kids and raise your kids responsibly. That is the single best thing that you can do. Can an open marriage work? I mean, I think that it depends on your definition of work. So in my version of work, the answer is no, because what you actually need in order to facilitate the healthy growing of a child is a father and mother who are committed to each other. All ideas about there being no emotional component to sexual activity are completely specious. That it is true for men, that it is for women, but it’s not true for either.
The idea of a full commitment to a human being with whom you genetically create children, which is typically how we’ve done it throughout human existence, is in fact the fundamental basis for any functional civilization. It allows for the transmission of culture and values. It allows for the transmission of beliefs and responsibility. And it gives the great lie to both, the communitarian lie, the atomistic individualist lie. The communitarian lie is that you belong to the giant community of man, which is not true because you have a family. And your allegiance should be and is naturally to the members of your family first. That’s how we learn, and then we expound that out.
And it also is a lie to the notion that we are all atomistic individuals with no responsibilities. We are born into a world of responsibilities. Everyone is born into a world of responsibilities, and rules, and roles. And those are good. And if we do not actually socialize our children that way, there will be, number one, no children. Number two, there will be no healthy children. Number three, there will be not the foundation for either social fabric, which is the real glue that holds together society or for a functional government. So, yes. Yes, monogamous marriage. I’m a fan. 15 years married, four kids. Yes.
Lex Fridman
Destiny, what do you think?
Destiny, what do you think?
Destiny
I think that when we talk about relationships or marriage, I think something that’s really important is we have to talk about whether or not children are being discussed or not. Because I think once you introduce the child aspect, I think the style or the type of relationship that you do is going to become way more important than whatever exists prior to that. I would agree, for instance, in terms of what Ben is saying, that there is probably going to be some structure that is ideal for the care and the raising of a child. I think that having a child gives you a much bigger buy-in to society because now, all of a sudden, you care about a lot of things that you might not have before because not only do you exist in society, you can’t just run. Now you’ve got a child that exists there and you’ve got to ensure that everything functions smoothly, not just for you, but for that child as well.
I think that when we talk about relationships or marriage, I think something that’s really important is we have to talk about whether or not children are being discussed or not. Because I think once you introduce the child aspect, I think the style or the type of relationship that you do is going to become way more important than whatever exists prior to that. I would agree, for instance, in terms of what Ben is saying, that there is probably going to be some structure that is ideal for the care and the raising of a child. I think that having a child gives you a much bigger buy-in to society because now, all of a sudden, you care about a lot of things that you might not have before because not only do you exist in society, you can’t just run. Now you’ve got a child that exists there and you’ve got to ensure that everything functions smoothly, not just for you, but for that child as well.
And, arguably, although we’re getting into weird places I guess in the world now, children are the primary conduit for where you transmit cultural values and everything. The one kind of weird thing that we are coming up against, that we have been coming up against now for some number of decades and we’ll continue to is as societies progress, seems like people are having less children. And I actually don’t know 100% what the answer is to that question.
Ben Shapiro
I do.
I do.
Destiny
I’m sure you do. I mean, an implementable answer that works that we know we can get everybody on board with. It seems like, for a large part of human history, having children, and it still is, having children is awesome, and children are cool and children are magical and miraculous and all of this, but you didn’t really have much competing for your attention to have a child. When you hit a certain age and you started working, especially if you’re a woman, I mean, childbirth is kind of the next step. And then having a family, raising your children, and then doing that was kind of the next step. Nowadays, especially with women being able to work, especially with women having access to birth control, there’s a lot available in the world that’s competing for the interest of people that could otherwise be having children such that we’ve almost flipped it, such that, as Ben brought up earlier, wealthy people tend to have less children than not wealthy people, or unless you’re part of particular religious communities that push childbirth a lot.
I’m sure you do. I mean, an implementable answer that works that we know we can get everybody on board with. It seems like, for a large part of human history, having children, and it still is, having children is awesome, and children are cool and children are magical and miraculous and all of this, but you didn’t really have much competing for your attention to have a child. When you hit a certain age and you started working, especially if you’re a woman, I mean, childbirth is kind of the next step. And then having a family, raising your children, and then doing that was kind of the next step. Nowadays, especially with women being able to work, especially with women having access to birth control, there’s a lot available in the world that’s competing for the interest of people that could otherwise be having children such that we’ve almost flipped it, such that, as Ben brought up earlier, wealthy people tend to have less children than not wealthy people, or unless you’re part of particular religious communities that push childbirth a lot.
I don’t know if I would say there exists a moral imperative on an individual to have children. I think that there’s a lot of interesting arguments down that path. I don’t know if we’re quite at the point yet where we need to say like, oh my God, we’re running out of people. We need to have more kids. I don’t think we’re quite there yet, but we are seeing weird demographic trends that are having big impacts on how countries are playing out. For instance, the fact that we have a disproportionately huge aging population that needs to be taken care of with medical expenses and everything, that vote in different ways than our younger population, and that when they die off, the way that society is going to look is going to be a lot different. I don’t actually have a, I’m not entirely sure what the future’s going to look like in terms of pushing people to have kids when every single industrialized country, as they become more industrialized, have fewer and fewer and fewer children.
Rapid fire questions
Lex Fridman
Rapid fire questions.
Rapid fire questions.
Ben Shapiro
My answer was go to church.
My answer was go to church.
Destiny
Religion, yeah. I figured.
Religion, yeah. I figured.
Lex Fridman
Well, we could talk about religion, but that’s not rapid fire at all. Let me ask, this is from the internet, does body count matter?
Well, we could talk about religion, but that’s not rapid fire at all. Let me ask, this is from the internet, does body count matter?
Destiny
Jesus Christ. You’re really bringing up the red pill stuff.
Jesus Christ. You’re really bringing up the red pill stuff.
Lex Fridman
Are you avoiding answering?
Are you avoiding answering?
Destiny
I mean, it’s totally, it depends on who you are. If you’re somebody that doesn’t care about it, it doesn’t. If you’re somebody that does care about it, yeah, it does, of course. Depends on the-
I mean, it’s totally, it depends on who you are. If you’re somebody that doesn’t care about it, it doesn’t. If you’re somebody that does care about it, yeah, it does, of course. Depends on the-
Ben Shapiro
The answer is yes.
The answer is yes.
Lex Fridman
Okay. Should porn be banned?
Okay. Should porn be banned?
Destiny
No.
No.
Ben Shapiro
If you could do it, yes. There is no benefit to pornography. It’s a waste of time and destructive to the human soul.
If you could do it, yes. There is no benefit to pornography. It’s a waste of time and destructive to the human soul.
Lex Fridman
I can’t believe I’m asking this question. Is OnlyFans empowering or destructive for women?
I can’t believe I’m asking this question. Is OnlyFans empowering or destructive for women?
Destiny
Jesus. These are rapid fire?
Jesus. These are rapid fire?
Lex Fridman
Yeah, just you can’t-
Yeah, just you can’t-
Destiny
I mean, it’s probably empowering for the ones that are making a lot of money off it. It probably feels disempowering for others that feel affected by the cultural norms set by women that do OnlyFans. There’s my rapid fire answer.
I mean, it’s probably empowering for the ones that are making a lot of money off it. It probably feels disempowering for others that feel affected by the cultural norms set by women that do OnlyFans. There’s my rapid fire answer.
Ben Shapiro
It’s destructive to even the ones who are making a lot of money because when you degrade yourself to being just a set of human body characteristics that other people jack off to, it’s bad for you and it’s bad for them.
It’s destructive to even the ones who are making a lot of money because when you degrade yourself to being just a set of human body characteristics that other people jack off to, it’s bad for you and it’s bad for them.
Lex Fridman
Is rap music…
Is rap music…
Ben Shapiro
Absolutely.
Absolutely.
Lex Fridman
Have you evolved on this or-
Have you evolved on this or-
Ben Shapiro
Have I evolved on this? So again, I’m going to go to what’s the definition of music? My original argument about rap was that music involves the following three elements. Rhythm, melody, harmony. Rap typically involves maybe one of those. There maybe, maybe a melody, maybe sometimes. So it depends on the kind of rap. With that said, I could be convinced on this issue. But, listen, I’m a classical violinist. I mean, it’s how I was raised. I listen to Beethoven and Brahms and Mozart in the car with my kids. So is it comparable, is it in the same category as Beethoven, Brahms, and Mozart? I have a very hard time sticking it in the same category as that.
Have I evolved on this? So again, I’m going to go to what’s the definition of music? My original argument about rap was that music involves the following three elements. Rhythm, melody, harmony. Rap typically involves maybe one of those. There maybe, maybe a melody, maybe sometimes. So it depends on the kind of rap. With that said, I could be convinced on this issue. But, listen, I’m a classical violinist. I mean, it’s how I was raised. I listen to Beethoven and Brahms and Mozart in the car with my kids. So is it comparable, is it in the same category as Beethoven, Brahms, and Mozart? I have a very hard time sticking it in the same category as that.
Lex Fridman
All right. You’re both world-class debaters, even public intellectuals, if I can say that.
All right. You’re both world-class debaters, even public intellectuals, if I can say that.
Destiny
Jesus.
Jesus.
Ben Shapiro
[inaudible 02:16:32] real hard here.
[inaudible 02:16:32] real hard here.
Lex Fridman
I know. You both care about the truth. What is your process of arriving at the truth?
I know. You both care about the truth. What is your process of arriving at the truth?
Destiny
I think it’s really important to, everybody will say that they’re objective and that they are nonpartisan. I think it’s really important to have mental safeguards for bad opinions. So, for instance, a couple of things that I’ll ask myself is for a particular debate that I’m having, can I argue convincingly both sides of the debate? If I can’t, I won’t bother having the debate because I realize that I’m probably too partisanly dug in if I can’t even represent an opposite argument here. Another question that you might ask yourself is like, well, what would it take to convince you out of a certain position? If you feel very strongly that Medicare for All is a good system by which to run the United States healthcare, and somebody says, well, what would it take you to convince you otherwise? If you can’t even fathom, well, what would it take to convince me otherwise, you’re probably too dug into a position.
I think it’s really important to, everybody will say that they’re objective and that they are nonpartisan. I think it’s really important to have mental safeguards for bad opinions. So, for instance, a couple of things that I’ll ask myself is for a particular debate that I’m having, can I argue convincingly both sides of the debate? If I can’t, I won’t bother having the debate because I realize that I’m probably too partisanly dug in if I can’t even represent an opposite argument here. Another question that you might ask yourself is like, well, what would it take to convince you out of a certain position? If you feel very strongly that Medicare for All is a good system by which to run the United States healthcare, and somebody says, well, what would it take you to convince you otherwise? If you can’t even fathom, well, what would it take to convince me otherwise, you’re probably too dug into a position.
So I think if you go through life saying, well, I try my best to be unbiased rather than saying, I try my best to be aware of my biases because the latter is more realistic and the former is literally impossible unless you’re a computer. So I think having actual mental practices that you engage in to try to counter some of the biases that you have is more important than trying to pretend that you’re free of all biases and then consuming all your media from one source.
Lex Fridman
Ben?
Ben?
Ben Shapiro
I mean, I agree with a lot of that. I think that the easiest practical guide is read a bunch of different things from a bunch of different sources, and where they cross is probably the set of facts, and then everything else is extrapolated opinion from different premises. That’s sort of the short story. So read the New York Times and Breitbart, and they’re going to disagree on a lot, but if the core of the story-
I mean, I agree with a lot of that. I think that the easiest practical guide is read a bunch of different things from a bunch of different sources, and where they cross is probably the set of facts, and then everything else is extrapolated opinion from different premises. That’s sort of the short story. So read the New York Times and Breitbart, and they’re going to disagree on a lot, but if the core of the story-
Lex Fridman
And the Daily Wire.
And the Daily Wire.
Ben Shapiro
Certainly read the Daily Wire. If you read the Daily Wire and you read the Washington Post and there’s a nexus of the same thing, then you can pretty well guarantee that, at least, if we’re all blind men feeling the elephant, at least, if we’re all feeling the trunk, we know that there’s a trunk there. You may not know what the elephant is.
Certainly read the Daily Wire. If you read the Daily Wire and you read the Washington Post and there’s a nexus of the same thing, then you can pretty well guarantee that, at least, if we’re all blind men feeling the elephant, at least, if we’re all feeling the trunk, we know that there’s a trunk there. You may not know what the elephant is.
Lex Fridman
And if you’re feeling frisky, then watch Destiny as well.
And if you’re feeling frisky, then watch Destiny as well.
Destiny
Thanks.
Thanks.
Lex Fridman
You’ve talked about having a conversation, debating Ben for a long time. What is your favorite thing about Ben Shapiro?
You’ve talked about having a conversation, debating Ben for a long time. What is your favorite thing about Ben Shapiro?
Destiny
My favorite thing about Ben Shapiro is, at least when we’re in election season, he’s very critical of his own party. I appreciate that. I feel like Ben generally tries to adhere more to the fact-based arguments than other conservatives that I listen to, which is something that I appreciate because it’s more fun to fight on the factual grounds of discussing things like foreign policy or whatever, rather than people that only inhabit the idealistic or philosophical grounds because they don’t want to learn about any of the facts. So I appreciate that.
My favorite thing about Ben Shapiro is, at least when we’re in election season, he’s very critical of his own party. I appreciate that. I feel like Ben generally tries to adhere more to the fact-based arguments than other conservatives that I listen to, which is something that I appreciate because it’s more fun to fight on the factual grounds of discussing things like foreign policy or whatever, rather than people that only inhabit the idealistic or philosophical grounds because they don’t want to learn about any of the facts. So I appreciate that.
Lex Fridman
Ben, you’ve gotten a chance to talk to Destiny now. What do you like about the guy?
Ben, you’ve gotten a chance to talk to Destiny now. What do you like about the guy?
Ben Shapiro
A lot of the same sorts of things, but it’s really fun to see how you do your process. That is a cool thing. That is a cool thing. And it’s a gift to the audience because, honestly, doing what we do, so much of what we do is sitting and reading and being behind closed doors and educating yourself and talking with people. But getting to watch you do it in real time is a really cool window into how people think and how people learn. So that’s a really neat thing.
A lot of the same sorts of things, but it’s really fun to see how you do your process. That is a cool thing. That is a cool thing. And it’s a gift to the audience because, honestly, doing what we do, so much of what we do is sitting and reading and being behind closed doors and educating yourself and talking with people. But getting to watch you do it in real time is a really cool window into how people think and how people learn. So that’s a really neat thing.
Lex Fridman
Well, gentlemen, this was incredible. It’s an honor. Thank you for doing this today.
Well, gentlemen, this was incredible. It’s an honor. Thank you for doing this today.
Ben Shapiro
Thanks a lot.
Thanks a lot.
Destiny
Thanks for having me.
Thanks for having me.
Lex Fridman
Thanks for listening to this debate between Ben Shapiro and Destiny. To support this podcast, please check out our sponsors in the description. And now, let me leave you with some words from Aristotle. The basis of a democratic state is liberty. Thank you for listening and hope to see you next time.
Thanks for listening to this debate between Ben Shapiro and Destiny. To support this podcast, please check out our sponsors in the description. And now, let me leave you with some words from Aristotle. The basis of a democratic state is liberty. Thank you for listening and hope to see you next time.