Transcribe your podcast

This is something Joshua writes about in his book, sound like such an asshole, saying that it's OK, reading is good, that, you know, the Trump people who are rebelling against the masks and all of that stuff, that rebellion itself like, that's not wrong.


That's not bad to suggest that there is something perhaps greater than being alive, that there is something essentially human that's that we're being robbed of by being forced to stay inside and all these massive mandates or whatever like that, that like the root of that is what should be a good left position that there is you know, we shouldn't we have ideals that are worth more than, yes.


Our own lives. The only difference is the Trump people. They're doing it for a stupid reason.


They just want to go to frickin Applebee's like they're just morons. The thing they're fighting for that's greater than themselves is something stupid and abhorrent and gluttonous.


When I hang out and I don't wear the mask and I go to parties, that's me fighting for something greater than myself, which is the principle of hanging out.


Virgile, are you really not worried at all? Because to me it's one thing. You know, I know that we're young relatively and the risks are relatively small, but there are all kinds of people who are getting very sick and dying at young ages and they're all of these residual complications. That's what really gets me, because my cognitive ability, my cognitive sharpness has already declined so much from when I was in high school that the idea of having the lingering cognitive effects really makes me terrified.


I don't want this thing.


I don't. But, you know, when I got to virtual, it's you know, I mean, OK, yeah, I'll probably get dumber.


They'll probably accelerate the process of me getting dumber.


But I feel like that will mean that people can't really get mad at me so much because I'm like, oh, I'm stupid.


I got to covid bridges. I have a real question for you. Do you think that your risk taking behavior gives you any insight, like sincere insight into what's going on with trumpeter's and empathy?


Not altimeters, obviously, but anti maskers like what is that the true root of you kind of making the choice to take risks? This is an interesting thing because it comes up with taking ends up being a theme of the Jack interview going on.


Your version of the way you're characterizing me right now is like, is this all sure? I'm not I'm not taking all of these.


I'm not taking all of these risks. I wear the mask. I do all the stuff. Did like I know you could go back, but you hang, you hang out. I mean, we don't have to air this. We don't have to talk about this. I know it's a it's a vulnerable, but I can like a small groups of.


But you do understand that each of you thinks that you're hanging out with a small group of people and those people are not concentric circles of people. And so there are people's people's people's people that you are coming into contact with. By proxy and your circle is actually enormous in actuality, I'm not a doctor.


You've taken sex ed and someone has explained to you that if you have sex with just one person, but that person has had sex with 10 people in each of those 10 people, has had sex with 10 people, and now you've had sex with a hundred people until I took Americans, which is not even it's not even have that level of an explanation.


Like, I don't I I had to learn what genitals are on the on the street when a man and a woman love each other very much.


It's kind of like that. Yeah.


Look, what I want to say, seriousness, is that I care about you. You are my co-host and my coworker.


And I need you to stay safe for realises I know that you have this kind of like nihilistic aspect of your personality, side of your personality, and there's like a certain kind of like indifferent chic thing that you do, which is, you know, has its own appeal.


But I really would prefer that you not die.


Or be incapacitated for a long period of time or spread this to a lot of other people.


That's the sweetest thing anyone's she's we have a world renowned the psychoanalyst on the show. And yet you're the one psychoanalyzing me and my compulsions to have to be a cool guy who hangs out.


You can always hang out with me virtually Virgile. We need to start doing twitch.


OK, we're not leaving this party.


This may be a remark about the privilege of ladies, you know, I even think that if a lady's not a little bit late, you lose your dignity in Germany, in university.




Is like if you're a big professor, you can be 20 minutes late when you give a. You know, if you've got a mid-level maximum, they call it academic academic work for an hour. If you are like I'm just an assistant professor.


So, I mean, it's like I'm nowhere near big or important enough to justify being as late as I am. Then I appreciate that.


The most gracious response you see you that being important is grounded in some real qualities. You'll know, know if you're blessed, be able to eat, look and feel that she is really important. A good girl. This is a new mode of fame today. You are famous for being famous. You know, at least cope with my keep in mind that you were taking a life slip and is deeply sexy. At least this.


That is pretty accurate. And if I were it, Kim Kardashian will have taken me a lot longer to put my makeup on.


You know, I don't do much, as you may have noticed. Let's give the world to the guy who thinks he's the boss.


You know, I'm not the boss I like. I'm famous for being famous. Well, I mean, I think that's an interesting question. A lot of people criticize the Kardashians for that.


I'm curious, have you ever watched the show? Not me, because I have and so on.


And I don't watch TV. But generally, I mean, I know the family traditions, even in their previous incarnation, you remember. Who was that?


My that's the name Robert Kardashian.


Who was the guy being O.J. Simpson?


O.J. Simpson. He was there. No calculator. And I even remember seeing some jokes on TV where they were still small in daytime, small girls cadastre and girls joking around. And and, you know, and it's right for me. But I don't forget, it's something very mysterious about how to be famous. Let's take a different example. I really want to see, you know, the great classical music of Beethoven all of the sudden around eighteen hundred and something.


And he didn't want anything especially popular. He didn't earn a lot of money for his work when all of a sudden, very mysteriously, everybody knew he's the guy now is the great composer, you know, but it's very mysterious, these mechanisms of fame. So I totally agree with you. I am totally opposed to this cheap. She said let's less some of just the dancing tradition, this ultimate communication, you know, and sort of these I mean, these girls are ready to go.


And I do think, for example, that Bill Gates really deserves his fortune and fame. He was basically just good in buying, getting the stuff from others and concentrating it. He never was very creative genius. And so, you know.


And how did you notice how he established himself, not just at the bottom of the benefits guys in the world, but even some kind of old wise man, you know, keep going, how do battle poverty go beat and so on?


And he has a podcast now.


We cannot compete with him if he just keeps on 30, 40 million people who probably are just just 30 or 40 million, I don't know.


But I really spoke with guys who understand it now and told me that, look, this is the beginning of his life and his interest. Bill Gates, people automatically assume because you assumed that entitlement will be somehow free. No, no, the software will not be privatized.


And then he would say that we live in capitalism. Shouldn't this be considered? She pushed it in this direction also, and there are people from India, you know, all of you carried this stuff, it has so many different computers completely that they have to buy some additional applications. So they're OK. But we are losing time that you are now my hero. You know why? Why, why? What are you doing here? Don't you belong to some fanatic followers with your name?


You know what? You are married.


Then maybe you are.


Well, that is just the name people. People do accuse us from time to time of being right wingers. I don't know if you're familiar with horseshoe theory, the idea that you're far enough left, then you circle back and end up having a lot in common with the right to this.


What's the use of everything possible or being a communist neofascist? That's what my mom said. I really don't discover. My answer is no. I'm not a fascist communist.


I'm a moderately conservative columnist myself, you know? OK, so we don't Einstein to power. You're about to argue with the boss who is the boss? Clinton said democracy. Yes, but I'm not know. You know how this democracy. Yes. As long as you know who is the boss now.


So an intro here.


Our guest today, if you have not noticed, is author, philosopher, flyboy's Jack.


He is the author of the forthcoming Pandemic Two Chronicles of a Time Lost available from our books.


There's a part of me that's going around and asking almost everyone we talked to, perhaps indulgently what they make of an argument that really put us on the map before the election, which was a conversation that we had with Noam Chomsky in which we asked this question of what we should do about the fact that the push to vote blue, no matter who, the push to vote for the Democratic candidate, the better candidate in any election, no matter what they are, what they believe in, who they are, ultimately seems to be having the effect of making it so the standards are lower and lower and lower for the party each year.


And all they have to do is be better than the Republicans for people to vote for them and win. And how do we start to reclaim the power to say we have some standards and to set some litmus tests for our own party so that America doesn't keep moving to the right, but can pull itself back to the left? And this is a very controversial question to be asking before the election, because people were very committed, very invested in getting Trump out of office.


And a lot we've got a lot of hate and negative pushback for it. And we're told that we did it.


Well, I will speak for me, Virgil, because most of the criticism came my way.


But I was told that I was naive, overly invested in electoral politics. I didn't know what I was talking about.


And so I want to ask you another great mind whether you've thought about this problem and what the best ways are to solve it.


Can we move a country left without being willing at some point to withhold one's vote for a candidate until some basic standards are met?


I understand quite a very tricky question. And answering this question in my way, as you or some of our listeners viewers maybe know, which cost me very dearly because it was a very risky ballot box 40 years ago, a little bit more I a vote drop and I immediately explain. I said, yes, Trump is a disgusting guy. So I even use somebody like imagine the scene people at the bottom, the old man Seacrest and then one guy, and that would be excrements.


But so I didn't think Trump was better than Hillary so that Hillary was the establishment. And maybe sometimes it's the time to take a risk of somebody who will at least trigger a similar dynamic. And whatever you say about Trump, I am close to him. I think that now he said to go, I agree with you, Biden establishment. It's ust it's big capital into. It's an old story, but I think that in the tense moment we are now in the United States, this is my nature in the sense of respecting the customs.


You know, I believe in common decency. I think that you cannot say, OK, it is sometimes vulgar and so on. But nonetheless, he he delivers a certain message. You know, the fact that he is vulgar means that he does introduce a type of discourse. And it's only it's not only that, it is things which are happening now.


Our closer to me, among others in Poland, in Hungary and so on, where you can be a racist in a long racist way down will never be organized by somebody else.


So I think manners matter. I don't agree. We don't think it's class warfare. So it doesn't mean that the more violence against all, the better. No, this is not how we win this fight. They would be my friends here, not by any strategy who will regard that the middle ground, which is too much to the left, because we will lose the middle ground. We have to learn the lesson from Trump here that I'm exactly didn't do this.


Here is an open conflict with the the conservative Republican establishment candidate. And for me, Bernie, is a good example here for two reasons. He knew I knew people who knew people at the end of the game who knew him because I was a mom, too, of course. And they explained it to me. You know, the miracle of Bernie was that and he said, I think this may be, you know, this is better. He said this was that important to get all the right people not by to vote for Trump.


This disappointed in the establishment, but we don't condemn not some emerging middle ground not being too extreme and so on and so on.


I even think maybe you know better. I don't know that one of the reasons why it may be impossible for me to get the nomination, but one of the reasons that she didn't do as well as she thought is that maybe he was, if I may use this expression, terrorized by all of those politically correct upper middle class people who him in this week is not he.


What I admire again in Bernie is that he combined this not being ashamed of being a true leftist with something which is extremely important, what they did not named by old Republicans, even the silent majority, that Bernie was a simple, decent guy. This is why when people think of me as a kind of a deconstructionist postmodernity Historicist relativize, my answer is always no dancs.


Then tweet. All these days in postmodernists, historicism means everything is relative manipulated. There is no absolute truth and so on is this is a common descent man. So what I'm saying is combine leftist politics more leftist than now. We I'm not saying moral decency appeals to ordinary moral people. And so we have to do this. All this politics of being dissent means being conservative and you have to over able to show that you are subversive.


We already mentioned the rule by Angela Nagler, the law, which I did, I did always, which that basically I don't see all the irony, brutality and so on to the to the new right. And, you know, we and see another cycle. And when somebody asks me to be a doctor, you know what my answer is that sorry to even consider taking me as your analyst, then you must really be crazy.


I know that hysteria.


I mean, you have two different constellation of litum and telling the truth hysterical. Well, that is something that is literally a lie. But through this lie.


Comes through quite neurotics like, but they told me they tell the truth, but it does make sense, we said of the global like for example, many that more intelligent Trump supporters like Stephen Bannon and so on. But even though there are some Peter Drew, you know, like this escalation of class differences, concentration of wealth and income, middle class, the list is already going for years. It went on under Obama. All that stuff.


So but nonetheless, of course, he did do a global analysis. It's a life. But that's why I always should be the most dangerous enemy propaganda. I'm not direct links, but the global alliance, which we pursue truth. For example, I study a lot how Hitler came to power. You're not some doctor with a keen to do a little. They shouldn't be any great. But it's true that in Germany in 1932, 70 to 80 percent of lawyers were Jewish, mostly Jewish and so on.


Of course, this doesn't in any way prove anti-Semitism. But in other words, the tragedy was that although from the future, which is a Trump nonetheless spoke in a way which addressed some of the disparity because people's concerns and this is for me, the way you read, I think is in the latest issue of new review, my daviss analysis of the elections. So Trump even got many more votes than was expected from even from blacks, from Latino Americans.


Right. From Asians and so on. She a way of addressing them, which these abstract political labels speaking, which incidentally, I even wrote and patronizing like you as a black person, don't you feel even isolated from.


So is this political correctness or protective attitude towards blacks is really nice, you know?


Well, yeah, it's it's an interesting question because a lot of folks are still mystified by why Trump was able to increase his margin with black voters.


But I think a lot of black voters understand that that same instinct to be anti-establishment, to be frustrated with a system that has yielded so few returns over a very long period of time, black voters vote for Democratic candidates with upwards of 90 percent fidelity. And yet very little political attention is given to us between election cycles in terms of like material. I don't know if you've been following the news.


Joe Biden recently is in the hot seat because of a leaked call, a leaked video conference he did with some of the most preeminent civil rights leader groups and most prominent civil rights groups in America right now. And it was very dismissive, basically told them he wasn't going to concede to their pretty mild demand, even though they just finished getting him elected. And so, yes, people are fed up. And I think that black people are less likely to buy into the anti-establishment rhetoric because Donald Trump is so openly racist.


Right. And he people have to struggle. Do I want to be anti-establishment or do I want to support a racist?


Whereas white people are more able to say, OK, well, I can just be anti-establishment. The racism doesn't affect me personally, but it doesn't mean that it doesn't have an effect. Right. It doesn't mean that there isn't something an attractive quality about it. And the Democrats, it feels like it's not that they don't understand the appeal of being anti-establishment, they're just establishment. The Republican Party didn't run Trump. Trump just ran and beat the Republican Party.


Right. And I think the establishment is too afraid to even kind of put on faux anti-establishment, etfo, anti-establishment veneer to win. You could argue that that's what Obama was.


It's frustrating that they would seemingly rather fall into fascism than to simply move a little bit to the left or put forward a candidate who was willing to challenge the status quo even a little bit because Bernie Sanders wasn't even that radical, that beautiful little girl.


He always said from the beginning, all of my support, even when she was relatively unknown, is a guy who did a good job in Vermont. Well, when people say Bernie extremist or whatever, but a point, which I think we mentioned the last time we got agreement should be repeated again and again. That Burmese opposition claims demands we, you know, go to go well for welfare state at that point with this position, but it would be a very moderate social democratic upheaval.


And extreme social Democrat, for example, of Sweden went much further. This shows us where we are. So do you agree with these? I think that the let's call it nonetheless Democratic establishment is doing something which. Can be effective. I do remember when he was 40 years ago in the previous election and how they mobilise people to be racist movement Modise, you remember how dare you him that he was in active interview last week when he was young and he said very much so.


No, thank you, Bruce. We thought as a young boy, I was there in some establishment and we the movie that's not enough for women and so on and so on and all that stuff. This was for me, the the ultimate call. This might be debro feminism, whatever you want. But don't forget, there are also things in feminism, even in LGBT, which can be created by the establishment. This is now emerging in Europe. If I were to be a great establishment guy now, I would say make all of the consensual where they don't cost you really anything.


You know what? They like to do it now. It makes me throw up almost, you know, one of their mid-level managers makes a sleep a little bit racist. They make a big public scandal, you know, like, oh, there is no place for such a guy, but they have not been treating this so well.


And so it's very difficult to find the right time because I wonder if you agree, you know, where I always found this in political correctness, this fucking amazing racism. I also noticed that when they talk about politically correct and most unexpected, I mean, the fact that they're ready to be women shouldn't be that this is a factor, which is why you have a problem with tolerance. Just I tolerate you know, we did more and I expect to convince my friends, you can download the Martin Luther King's Speech writings.


She never striking a chord and so on.


What if something went wrong for me after sixty eight upheaval of the 60s when the left, basically, and especially after the collapse of socialism, conceded defeat and moved to the small college and so on and so on, they are extremely important to never should forget the with economic strategy. That's what's so great. But can I ask you this? Let me be frank. Biology's biology is getting cold. Then we can be brilliant. We mean AOC and this, but they may be.


I hope not. In my ideal universe I don't care about. They are perceived as too young for big bucks. You start being in the media. No, Ágúst.


Well, look, AFC is was legally too young to run for president in twenty twenty. She will turn thirty five before twenty, twenty four. But she couldn't by law run in twenty twenty. All of the other members of the squad were of age.


They were all thirty five or older or would be thirty five before election day.


But I think the issue there is I mean to your earlier point about Bernie Sanders, this is the question, was Bernie so successful because he was able to present himself as an everyman that people across the country, including white rural voters who might not otherwise be attracted to radical politics, could trust at the same time, his politics were so progressive that urban dwellers and leftists were interested in him as well, like that seemed to be a part of the magic.


Do folks like the squad members who tend to be more forward with their discussions of racial equity and really foreground identity, are they going to be able to have the same magic now? On the same on the other hand, there's an argument that they might be more successful than Bernie Sanders because they are able because of their identity and because of the extent to which the Democratic Party has really foregrounded identity in order to, to your point, able to cover for the extent that they're not offering anything material to people.


The Democratic Party has transformed itself into a party that basically acknowledges that it doesn't offer very much in terms of organized labor.


And the roots of the party used to be in the sixties and seventies. But what they offer instead to distinguish themselves and Republicans is that we like people of.


We like gay people, we like women, will stand up for equality of identity, even if we don't stand up for a class identity and there are people who now are Democrats and moderates who really like the squad because of what they physically represent and they act as sort of a Trojan horse for more progressive politics. So there's an argument that an AOC would do even better than Bernie because she would be able to attract people who actually don't like Bernie's politics, but do like the idea of a young, charismatic Latina woman as president of the United States.


And I've heard people make the argument, you know, Bernie was to work this time around. Bernie talked too much about identity this time around. I don't know that I agree with that. I do agree, though. I do think that he didn't talk enough about the class issues that distinguished him in 2016. So he didn't do the insider outsider. You're the establishment, you're corrupt, you're a corporatist.


I think you can do that. At the same time, you talk about some of the more identity based factors. And the issue wasn't that he talked too much about identity. It wasn't that. It was that he did so at the expense of talking about the stuff that was his bread and butter in twenty sixteen.


I totally agree with you here. Yes. I'm absolutely not saying forget identity politics. Sure. But the crucial thing is, I think to see the media. I mean, these kids, for example, believe Martin Luther King saw in the last year of his life where he moved much more to the left. He was watching this last speech when they even when he ran to support a strike, whether they were why black people together and so on and so on.


And this is why I think that now if we really want to this and to prevent him from coming back, even somebody like that in four years, this move towards clearer, lest we address this, not only the legendary Bush white workers and so on, but even you know where I see a tremendous dangerous politicization. I don't know how we teach in the United States, but in my country and in Europe, you know, millions of people, young, educated people who are precarious workers, sometimes it works, then it doesn't.


And I know many people who graduated with excellence and then, you know, like, why don't you get the contract? Then you have to work as you wait and then leave in permanent anxiety. And the looming ideology is telling them this is freedom, you are free to choose yourself and so on and so on. This is another potential summit. Then you might, as your beloved president, pull together for the future of the country.


We, a younger generation, younger than something favorable, almost 60 percent of the people are already precarious. Nobody wants to commit yourself. And of course, you have a couple of them who are so successful that being gregarious means you make a better and better contract every year, but not the majority, the majority, simply because at the same time, we are in an economy which.


Presupposes that your baby out, we are all debt and so on, and then it's a very dangerous situation of having a precarious job and being in debt and so on and so on. But I don't agree with you. For example, somebody some people don't be so much on defense, but you don't see the importance of Black Lives Matter. And I don't know, Black Lives Matter is a universal statement. It doesn't exclude that I only matter, but it correctly perceives that the model of how police violence and social functions in the U.S., the model of it, is what is happening to blacks.


You just take the metaphor so far, while all the men appears to be universal, but it is really particular, its privileged, the white. So this is a very important point for me. I totally support this type of race. Politics by descenders think this is where our struggle should be. For example, racism, sexism. The strategy of the ruling establishment is precisely to kind of distract us from wider economic base and so on and so on.


Yes, and here is the same even week people are saying again and again of come on now receiving a medical emergency. It's know about equality and so on and so on.


No, we should take the epidemic is part of a global problem and there would be other viruses that will be ecological catastrophes and so on and so on.


So they're both solutions are horrible that are now on the market. On the one hand, it's the Trump solution. Basically wait for the vaccine life. We return to normal. And he basically at some level even ignored it like that normally, except they're wearing masks and so on and so on.


But then we get something which is maybe some people, the more dangerous the screen New Deal, the Great Recession, or how do they know this is how big capital reinvented itself? And it's already the rhetoric is going. But I just quickly went through a book by New York Times bestseller author. It's something called Like A Double Score or whatever, Chris Scalloway. It got away.


I think it's a pretty great image of the he said the epic of Korona epidemic from the United States was this rapid explosion of social distinctions like the upper 10 percent are moving closer towards the upper one two percent middle class woofing forward.


We know the data, but then what to do?


And then it's ridiculous whether capitalism should reinvent the love and care, because this is Bill Gates archaic, you know, mean Elizabeth Warren. They're both just slightly higher taxes for the rich. Bill Gates immediately protested, you know. Right. No longer capitalism and so on.


So I think that's what I really fear. And I don't see any resistance in the battle against this is that capitalism will be reset. But in the sense of big corporations, especially corporations of which occupy exert even more power, more state control. And it's the home because and then I just saw to just one old lady, I would like to, as an old Marxist on the list at some level to propose it was down twenty years ago when some Italian guys.


But now believe it's very interesting to look at this new type of mega going to digital capitalism, whatever.


But like Jeff Bezos, a big guy. So where does that come from? I think it's something very interesting. It's a move that's the Italian capable of the decade to go from it all, sit back to and mocks capitalism develops. Then instead of you have a piece of land, you do a lot of the things the prophet exploits.


You know, she's for example, with Bill Gates, you're going to take the chief, for example, exploits his workers. Maybe he pays them relatively well.


So, you know, the blind, this big man has an almost monopoly position in the field of digital communication, which is our troubles in the sense of common space, digital space, we blowing the doors and data geniuses that we can use it for free and independent. So I think he's getting caught in the same way. Jeff Bezos with others and so on and so on. So I think they're going to make the same thing happening in capitalism with people telling me that you thought capitalism will remain unchanged.


Maybe, but these are really changing this question that keeps coming up.


And Virgil and I just talked about this in the context of a Star Trek episode is what does happen?


I mean, part of I think what you're describing with this, with the technological billionaires and the way our our our country is, you know, that's where the money is. That's the direction we're living in. A lot of conversation is going on about people being made redundant by machines. And technology is to have a serious conversation about what happens consequently to the workforce, the people who aren't a part of that economy. And Andrew Yang in part, got so much traction as a political candidate in this past election cycle because he was really foregrounding those issues.


What's going to happen to all of these truckers when we have self-driving cars, all of these technological innovations that are right on the horizon?


And it seems like an important conversation needs to be had or we need to start shifting people's consciousness to the to become comfortable with the idea that there is intrinsic human value and that people should be able to be supported regardless, you know, have a certain standard of life and decency, health care, housing, food, etc. even if there are jobs that exist any more for them to do, because so much labor is being done by machines and for us to rethink what our contributions are to society or whether or not people have to make some contribution in order to survive in a new world where we don't have the same need for everyone to labor and toil the same way.


And should we think differently about people's careers, especially, as you pointed out, so many people in my generation and the generation behind me are already so precarious, are already slaves to the gig economy, are already feeling like it's not an unwillingness to work, but it's truly a lack of opportunity in the business community seems to understand that they even need to soften their message because of how imbalanced things are.


And last year, the Business Roundtable, which is a group representing all of the major business interests in the country, had to acknowledge, OK, we have been saying that the number one goal of corporate law is to maximize shareholder profit. Even we now have to acknowledge that maybe we should keep some other interests in mind because it seems so callous at a time when we have unprecedented wealth inequality in this country to keep pretending like we're doing some public good by maximizing shareholder profit.


Nobody has shares like seven percent of the outside of retirement income for one is what, like seven percent of Americans actually own shares in the stock market.


So it's an interesting kind of philosophical moment that we're at. And I think that's part of why Bernie Sanders showing up and saying health care is a human right. Bringing up FDR is freedom from want freedom from.


You know, the idea that true freedom is really the freedom not to be so constrained by your basic material needs in a way that we've been taught is just part of life or part of capitalism or what our expectations should be.


And to have the confidence to say my life is valuable, my existence is valuable, regardless of whether or not I can get a job stocking shelves. And if one day there's a there's a machine that can stock shelves, that's not the biggest tragedy in the world because it should be perceived as something that frees us to be whatever we want to be, something better, something different than a cog in a machine.


I deeply agree with you, and I must tell you why. Because you know what always strikes me as a crazy paradox in what society to believe we something which at the very elementary level through my school should be good use machines. We'd be doing work. So we have to work less, you know, instead of being good news. Bad news. No, no. Maybe you should just reorganize society. Some countries are into the local. This is taken, but I'm going to break New Zealand for the working week.


And so, you know, I don't really agree with you. We should keep this dynamic economy. This maybe a good part of the economy is that you are forced to reinvent yourself, recreate these.


I deeply agree with what you said, only if this as a kind of a safety network of universal basic income, health care, universal health care, so that you feel safe and condemned by all of the precariousness and so on and so on.


And I'm not a pessimist here. Don't underestimate ordinary people because many of them might then tell me about people are lazy. If they get too much of a basic income, they will not want to work. Not stupid, but at least most of us feel even bothered to get aggressive, even if you don't get a meaningful job. Don't underestimate I don't overestimate ordinary people. They are aggressive like we all also don't underestimate them. And you know, the other thing that we should break of this profit.


I forgot his name. That was a British leftist. No, remember, Longdale is called Lauderdale from about eighteen hundred. She went to Paris in support of the Jacobins and so on, and she pointed, how far is our usual market notion of wealth of getting to you first? And it's more than an average through today. Imagine a country, small town, Denver, where there is freely enough water and the air is good. But on the market, this doesn't come like websites that are freely available.


So, you know, it's just so the country is poor. Now imagine the water gets polluted. So you need private investors who filter water in it. From the purely capital standpoint, this means also for the large majority, I mean just an additional expense to pay for water.


But from the market standpoint, it means there is more wealth because capitalism is the same. It imagine a country with good air and it gets bad. Then you have to filter the air. People have to wear masks, oxygen supply and so on. And a lot of our wins today, I think, is this type of the wealth, which makes us really poorer. You know, of course, the economist Marxist David Kavi, you know, he says one of the alternatives among liberals and they want that and that is that one of the alternatives among liberals is to accept the limits of what can be put on the market or not.


For example, I understand this. I'm deeply for women's equality. When there was a strand of feminism at when I was young, where they say we mothers are doing effectively free, unpaid labor. So that idea was less commodified. Every mother should be paid so much and so on and so well. Now, as much as I do appreciate this logic, of course we must still exploit the Klemperer's so on. But nevertheless, I don't think this this logic of let's commodify include into the market.


Also, this unpaid work is the ultimate. So you see, the other dimension would be less commodification in some sense, not just include everything on the market. And incidentally, here you can see also where Trump spoke. It's obvious, but another group is a. For example, I don't even think that Steve Bannon, for whom the tragedy is that the disappearing middle class and then you see she's talking about a family without the kids of returning to that era where as a worker, you had a constant job.


You put a little money aside. And I don't believe in global modification. I think in the terms that you precisely describe a basic safety net, our country can absorb all these weeks, then lease the space for free. If you are ambitious to take all the risks, it's not enough to be against precarious works with these old conservative social democratic argumentation people going on a job where you you know, even the examples where I really work in your small percent more wage them.


But no, I have nothing against its productive element of risk precariousness. But don't people see that that must be. General safety net from joined from my view, but it's not going good.


Maybe this is the problem between the United States and the United States, you know, that you could be the Europe.


You know, the big difference when you enter a high rise building in the United States, the ground floor is already one first floor, first floor, you know, but then you are on the ground floor, zero one if you go up. And I think theoretically we are more right here, at least Europeans to go to a little bit different. About two, three, four. You meet the ground floor, you need this new universal base. You know, you can begin with your bottom with two different accountancy and so on.


Also another thing, which in a strange way disappointed me. You are for me, I don't believe keenly the religious life. What does it matter if you have trust in God? Only when you know you probably don't.


But when I enter your hotel of blaming the hotel, which is more than 30 feet of snow, you're this almost solely by Wall Street.


And then you jump to the.


Yes, but Coolman retreating as if God doesn't know something is really of thing.


You need to take maybe this lesson, which, you know, some intelligent conservatives are aware of. You need some kind of a basic system of decency rules, public safety and so on and so forth, which is a necessary condition, the safety net for effective competition, for competition in society.


This is why the you will not be Fukuyama on the show.


No, no.


Not going to talk with Fukuyama. No, but that's not really I will lost my that believes I am wrong. But I seriously doubt this because she's honest enough.


She at this moment the end of history, blah blah. And now she feels that that doesn't function, that Fukuyama dream is over. But see, what does it mean. It was easy. No, you're right. I'm going to remember it. The line to make fun of Fukuyama. No history goes wrong. He's wrong.


But most of the last time they were I go them Fukuyama left. You know, they basically said that the economic system is, like Tony Blair said, just a little bit more here and there and so on. No, what is happening now is clear. The system as we know it is reaching its limits. Even those in the ruling class know. I hope that you're right.


And certainly the younger generations have seen, I think, a real ideological shift. And I don't think that they're putting that genie back in the bottle. I wanted to drill down on the point that you opened with about Donald Trump and the decision that faced voters who wanted substantive change and this question of should we withhold our vote and risk Donald Trump getting re-elected? And you were arguing that, you know what's called an acceleration, this argument by some you know, if we elect Trump that maybe that will spark a better outcome and prevent this kind of rightward shift.


I wasn't even necessarily making the going that far.


The argument I was even just making was if we say Joe Biden, I'll vote for you, but only if you support X, Y or Z policy, then that would have the effect of turning it into at least a better candidate and preventing him from being basically an eighties era Republican. Right. Extracting some power for voters, again, at the very least.


And I think what a lot of people pushed back and said was, OK, they didn't want to hear it.


And they basically said, if you do anything to jeopardize Joe Biden's chances, if you were willing to make good on that threat and withhold your vote, that means that Trump would win and so many more people would die. Right. And so they set up a kind of trolley problem and they said, Brianna, all you got to do is pull the lever and save the people. All you got to do is pull the lever and save the people.


And what I said to Noam Chomsky and what I've been saying up in other places is the strongest position here.


Chomsky's position was you just have to vote. It takes. Ten minutes to vote. That the environment is such a enormous problem, Chomsky's position is Trump is a fascist, he's an existential threat. If he gets another term, that's it for American democracy and that's it for any hopes on the left. So, you know, it's selfish of someone to withhold their vote to. It is selfish for someone to vote for anyone but Joe Biden. It is selfish to not vote that everyone has an obligation to vote for Biden.


And then of that, we should push Biden to the left after the election right through activism. Right.


What he was murky about and wouldn't really refuse to answer was what does that mean?


Right. That's immediate. That's why I did get extremely risky move four years ago and say vote down because. No, I don't, because I agree. Again, John Stevens looking at me, I being that weak covid and we said that story and so on. Yeah. Was really bringing the country on the edge of some kind of a civil war. But my position is clear. I see. I did that. You know, she said, OK, Trump is an absolute catastrophe.


Biden But immediately after Biden's victory on TV, she said, no, the peace is over. We started our fight again.


The fact that democracy is now a smaller majority in Congress than before, maybe even easier, because this means for many votes, Democrats will need the support to.


And you know, but here's the problem. Here's the question, because right now there is an argument that's really taken over the last year that says Ágúst, because the margins in the House are so slim, but only if only 15 progressives are willing to hold up Nancy Pelosi, the the vote for Nancy Pelosi to be speaker of the House.


Then they can extract a concession now and say, Nancy, we're only going to make you speaker of the House if you put Medicare for all to a floor vote.


And that's what people are pushing for. And AOC has come out on on Twitter saying that she doesn't think that that's a good idea, that she's willing to fight for certain concessions, but that Medicare fighting for a floor vote on Medicare for all isn't one of them. And she so far hasn't been willing to disclose what you know, with any specificity, what concessions she's actually fighting for, which has caused a lot of the left to be very disappointed in her in this moment.


Because if the argument is we are going to have a truly oppositional stance after the election, we're going to do whatever it takes to push right and left in this moment, it seems like already the the left isn't fully embracing its power to really wrest real power, real, real control.


Really the real problem, the real problem isn't the real power that there is no actual Socialist Party in the United States, because if there were a Socialist Party that had that had a whip, right. That said, OK, we're going to vote as a bloc in a European parliamentary system, they would hold the balance of power.




They would be junior partners in a coalition because Nancy Pelosi wouldn't have the votes to become speaker of the House without them.


And they could say, OK, so in return for our, you know, our confidence and supply to prop up your government, you know, we demand that a vote on this. You know, we demand that this be on the agenda. We demand you not pursue this course and so on and so forth as it is right now. Someone like Alexandru Calcio Cortez, there's not even a socialist caucus in the United States Congress and either House of Congress, though.


There are socialists, someone like Alexandria, Costa Cortez.


Well, she's she's she's an autonomous politician. She's not responsible to a socialist party the most like if she were to to pursue a course of action, if she were to to play softball with Pelosi, not take a hard enough line, what's the most that's going to happen? Like the Socialists will put out a statement or something like that? Well, it doesn't matter. She's elected as a Democrat and she is a famous and popular enough figure that she you know, she's not afraid of being punished.


As you say something, you know, what's the problem? And you are very correct. You just don't know to translate into. No, Durham's United States are becoming far right. Meaning she just out of these four parties, really bad ideas that I'm kind of right wing populism, conservative establishment, liberal Democratic establishment. And you have the beginning of whatever you call democratic socialism and so on and so on. And the most interesting for me is, of course, this split within the Democratic Party.


No, we are all jumping around. See the problem, how far to go, but I think that, you know, I see what are you being told that is in control and so on, Nancy Pelosi or whoever. If you don't keep this because part of you is a dangerous game. But on the other hand, I am ready to take a risk in the sense, you know, even Biden is immobilized to some extent. And even if he will be forced to make compromises with so-called moderate Republicans, he's already almost indistinguishable from that.


Right, as Biden and somebody like me, Meterology.


Who kind of functionally naturally now? Yes, so maybe I don't know. I don't know. But I understand that again, to take a little bit more of a risk. I mean, you know what? So sobered me. You remember when it wasn't clear, even now one hundred percent is down to concede defeat. I remember on CNN Gargon, I don't know where. I do think that that will prevent power. And I should forget about that.


OK, so to country, you would expect such a report to be in times like this, the president from some what would be the U.S. Senate where civil from these huge United States in the sense that, you know, I am not here to optimise revolutionary, like all the better mandery scales, all the bad things are getting too dangerous.


On the other hand, what I am afraid is that if you make too many compromises here, then day by day, I mean established Democrats. Nancy Pelosi, we. This is the game. We immediately know this seat just use is because they really know they can always count on us, you know.


Yeah, exactly. And I think your point about risk is really an important one, because both in this context with AMC and what she should do and in the context of the preelection conversation of should we vote for for Joe Biden, the question is kind of what your assessment of the cost and benefits are. Right. If it do you think it's more important for AFSC to be able to stay in Congress and have a good relationship with Pelosi and fight for smaller things down the line, then you might say, let's not waste your political capital on something like Medicare for all.


But if you believe, like you've been saying, that this is an existential crisis, that we're in the middle of a global pandemic, that 40 million Americans have been kicked off their health insurance and this is an exigent moment, then why wouldn't you do absolutely everything in your power right now? Because already so much harm has been done and so much more harm is coming down the pike that we don't have time to negotiate about what may or may not happen incrementally down the line.


And same as with the Chomsky debate, I offered that, OK, there are certain populations, for example, black Americans who have already been bearing the brunt of neoliberalism for decades and decades and decades.


You're saying that if Trump gets elected again, it's fascism and he's going to take the country into this unprecedented place? Fair enough.


But are you properly weighing iRace? Are you properly weighing the harms that accrue under neoliberalism? That's all I'm asking. Are you really considering the harms that accrue under neoliberalism and the likelihood that Joe Biden is not going to fix the environment is not going to change the things that you've said?


The crucial thing we should never forget that didn't follow from the moment he was right.


He she emerged out of these deadlock, compromising of of the liberal Democratic establishment. Right. My position was, again, another I'm sorry, maybe I'm repeating myself, but they used this metaphor, which is like I consider myself a vampire and what vampires most elections be like on this vampire.


Go vote and vote for Biden. But I know immediately that I should go home, even if this means maybe even in the Democratic Party, there will be something tremendous to break down the door about the system in the United States that will have opened up some totally new perspective, new coalitions and so on and so on. So I think that, again, the only really we need is to allow that to is not to revolution. If revolutionary figure that she that she pretends she's for the ordinary people and so on.


And some point she may even be a little bit aware, like many Chinese friends, not a communist, but only communist, their friends who were arrested. Incidentally, some of them don't mean that at one point they appreciate. The problem is that she's right that all this new international wealth has a structural element, the ultra exploitation of the Chinese working class. So here there is an element of truth. China is in some sense our future in the sense of this, I'm sorry if I repeat myself, you know, we left this in the 20th century.


You remember another century when I was young. You are not there that I always remember that we entered through the wild boar, capitalist competition and strong authoritarian state when in China you both go about doing so well. My idea is let's take some risks here. We should risk more, if not the next. We just got some local eccentricity. You know, you show them like is the Democratic family.


They will say, oh, you see, we also have this issue that is there, but they're not really interested in, you know what I'm saying this, but not just because of some orthodox leftism, but we should never forget politics that he thinks will not return to normal, that I don't that there will be ecological crises. Just look what is happening around the world. I like those cold parks on the north coast of Europe and Asia, like north of Norway and so on.


Not big raining down on Arctic Sea below the summer. Temperatures there over 30 degrees Celsius, between 105 right now. I mean, things are really happening in our environment and circumstances. Hunger, everybody knows it. And I don't think things are happening that it's not simply our choice. We go out right now. We are not thinking in terms of then things know thinking about 100 years from now, we'll all be the experts. I think intellectually then 16 years of now, we believe people think, well, if we're lucky to exist, will explode.


And remember, there are so many world or even Asia generally countries. Global warming is not something you read about in the newspaper or sat in the same room. I go to the beach today. They're from South Florida. It's happening now and so on. That's my list of things I am more eager to buy. But I want to keep what was good in the old world. We were used to as much of it as possible and I think moving more to the left control over economy and so on is the only way to save.


What is to say these things are very serious. You know, people do, like you said, people who think that, you know, there are small problems, just let me return to normal. No, that is a symptom of this liberal democratic normality. That is the problem. And I'm also decide that I agree with you. But nonetheless, we already are some bias.


As I said, swallow guts is the time to Alysse should go to Bidle and say, you know, I ate my garlic, a beautiful black male chauvinism in the nineteenth century, only with Bradstock and so on.


Vampires became the men in the eighteenth century. And before Zombi went along, we did this. I did.


So what I'm saying. Don't you think that I think the crazy thing because this also simply excludes, you know, but a little bit more, because also people will remember these things will get really cross. We should prevent those in power who have this stupid, simple excuse for who, you know, we must be able to tell them if we saw it time. You know, the same is true. For example, even with these fires you look at two or three years ago, there was a report they made it public in the United Kingdom done by some scientist of the government.


What is the greatest threat to the United Kingdom? And they said clearly not China, not this, not that. It's the violence. Now, we should get the courage to keep moving.


That's why the subtitle of my book is Chronicles of a Time. We know the United like going to be in Europe or the killing fields. We thought this over in the summer and didn't get prepared. And now we are ready.


We are. This is the interesting contrast between your book and Chomsky's latest book, which. Is about climate change and which essentially says, don't panic, we can take care of this if we spend something like 15 trillion dollars over the next 20 years, you know, like this will go away, will solve the problem, and then we can go back to struggle. Then we can go back to to fighting, you know, for fighting for communism and your book.


You know, that's my only defense. You know, the only way to really prevent global warming catastrophe is to change the system. You see, I don't accept this logic. No, we are dealing with the real problem of pandemic or drug war or whatever.


And let's forget about people know you said capitalism. And so there are already answers from the other side to this and also, you know, mean by that many times. I have a great respect nonetheless for Chomsky.


I was going to say I'm not here fault he it's both of you. I think what he said today was that he amounts to what he should have done today. It's easy to say, OK, now release the watch list over, which is Biden. But what do we do now to prevent a new governing body? For me only means now that I have to say we should avoid this fascination. All you have the day, you know, and let's just fight that.


No, if I may use that, it be going by Clinton, which was quite manipulative. Be tough on crime, but also on the cost of crime.


But my point would be, yes, we tough on Trump, but we also would be also from the college. So what brought that in?


Yeah, I think that that's so important to say because there is an aspect of it. It is not the most important thing, but it does feel like you're getting gasless often, especially in the lead up to the election. There was such an intolerance for any acknowledgement of the way the compromises we've made enabled Trump created Trump and the reaction for for.




And people liked to say, well, of course, it's not enough to get rid of Trump. We also have to do a lot to fix the country. But they would say that as a platitude and there would never be a substantive conversation about what it look like to fix the country. And there was never and to this day, there continues not to be a really substantive conversation about what it looks like to push right and left. Are we talking about a general strike?


What are labor leaders up to right now in this moment?


If AMC were to take the stand and hold up the Pelosi vote in order to extract concessions, would she have the support of major activist groups who could lead protests in the streets, lead protests in front of Congress, people's offices or homes that don't vote, that don't support Medicare for all or these other kinds of programs that people desperately need right now in this crisis?


You know, those conversations. We're trying to have them on this podcast. And I don't mean to pretend to know what's going on in every labor meeting in America, but it is frustrating that, OK, Donald Trump has been defeated by an election that has been stuck here for weeks.


Where are these conversations? Where is everybody who said they were going to be protesting day one?


And it starts to be obvious, seem obvious that those were platitudes intended to make us eat our garlic with no intention that there's a blood coming our way.


Sorry, guys, we've got time to really think about the U.S. because of some leftist pride or whatever they call it. But many of our people in the world believe it's how many catastrophes are looming and so on. And the only solution I see, it's kind of the basic things. Global health care. We need some global agency, local government. Well, what is the government going to get in immediately? Kind global coordination and so on. For example, some parts are turning into that now.


Desertification is going to be like northern Siberia. It's getting warmer, ready for the year. There will be large movements, maybe even hundreds of millions of people how to organize this without loss. And this is why I think it's not enough, this self-satisfaction. OK, now we are buying into on. No, no. We just avoided one catastrophe. Nothing is really resolved, I think, because also, as you said already before, it was clear when senators at the beginning of something else earlier, why don't we go next to whoever it was, there wasn't even at that point the idea that this signal between the lines of many centrist Democrats was ultimately better than that.




And Bloomberg even was first offered as a stand it. And honestly, it is very difficult to argue that Bloomberg is better than I mean, you can make the argument either way.


But Bloomberg is such an evil, terrible man that the idea that all of these these liberals who pretended to care about social justice issues and pretended to care about the rights of marginalized groups, Bloomberg led a war on black and brown young people in New York, the likes of which is rarely matched across this country in terms of the stop and frisk, an infringement on people's rights, mass police saying it was disgusting. And you saw how quickly. This is what I wrote an article about litmus test in this question of should we hold Biden to any kind of standard, the Democrats, any kind of standard?


And Bloomberg was kind of one of my crucial talking points.


You know, if you're willing to support Bloomberg, that obviously means that what you care about with Trump. But the problem you have with Trump is largely aesthetic and not principles of property.


And what does it mean for the Democratic Party if it's willing to admit that it only is an aesthetic party that cares about a more diverse and more polite version of the exact same thing? In that case, you can't tell me that vote blue, no matter who makes any sense, because you're it's not the lesser of two evils at that point. It's just a whole pot of evils. And you're picking them out like a bingo game.


You cannot even imagine how much I agree with you. Yes, these are crucial things today. Again, where the left has to take some risks today. Otherwise it will just be lost in the not so far future. A couple of years to begin from this year are going, you know, because things are gradually accumulating.


I remember an Occupy Wall Street and then people said, you see, it disappeared because now, you know, it was part of a long planning process. Yes.


Occupy Wall Street and Bernie Sanders and so on.


And even if we lost something, you know, in either politics are important already for this. She deserves a monument because she was that she made render socialism still a couple of years ago. This was simply not acceptable.


Right. Sorry, I have to go. I know. Collapsing.


All right. Shall we wrap up then? Let's wrap it up.


But you believe the one who played by Stalin, who at the end of a meeting of Politburo standing like that, as you can see, and said this conclusion, will you be Stalin?


OK, I could I could do that. I can land this plane. I want to thank you so much for taking so much time with us today.


But be serious. My God, I like you because you know what? My tragedy. Sorry to interrupt you again. You'll see me these three. I give you the people of Ukraine, please. No, I want to say that, you know, it's my paradox, but they seem like United States is a country. Sorry, they are not. It's wonderful, but it's so diverse, you know.


So you got no, I too like America. You know, I look I sound like a politician already. Well, the thing is, I did grow up abroad.


And it's one thing, you know, before I moved overseas, you know, like a lot of liberals and progressives, it's like, oh, American exceptionalism is bad. So to say that you, like America feels a little like a little gross sometimes, you know, like overly patriotic or, you know, we should say, you know, walk that.


You think it's beautiful how he behaves now. So we're dancing, growing in the United States because of his interest, humiliation. Trump, really. He's made America great. He really doesn't like America. Right. Right. He's a boy. He's just it's an even if it's just existence. Right.


And I think growing up abroad, it taught me to have a little bit more nationalistic pride, because let me tell you, when you go to international school, you hear all day is everyone talking about how America sucks, which, you know, and now I think that the left should really embrace the fact that.


To your point, we are fighting so hard and agitating so much because we think that there's something worth fighting for and I appreciate you coming here and giving us your sage wisdom and helping us to clarify exactly how we should do that.


And I hope you take time. I hope you are willing to come back and talk with us about other subjects and get into the Kardashians.


Now, I know you will know I have so many nicknames like this of your dad, but now I know what we next. I love it.


The book is called Pandemic Two Chronicles of a Time. Loss of his vision for Preorder at All Our Books. Your publisher also requested Assoc.. If we wanted to offer our listeners a discount code, get a discount on preordering the book. And I think we should I think you should use the discount code Chomsky to get some percentage off the list price of this book launch attacks on me.


This is a nice move. I said you can use discount code.


Chomsky The link will be in the description of this episode. Savoy's you Jack. Wonderful. Thank you so much for coming.


I'm really grateful to you. Thanks very much. And incidentally, mostly to you, this electoral votes, blah, blah, the vote, it's settled.


All of the lawsuits are done and ended last week and a conclusive sort of ground.


But I was so fascinated by him. He cites to the end, you know, after all the losses we saw the same the left, there was no great smoothly. That's from still have another chance. No, no, not really.


No, no.


I want to be more it's a complicated process. It's going to be more shit that might be very dramatic next month when Congress actually counts the electoral votes.


But at the end of the day, there's not really a pathway for him to, you know, stay in office again. It's all this is all show. It's all bullshit.


So thanks very much, Dan. And please, let's do it again. Absolutely. Time today, which means that you take a walk from your drawing room to the bathroom. Maybe.


Well, maybe we'll have you on with Noam Chomsky, but we'll have to trick him. We'll have to say, no, we didn't like to come back on and then you show up and then your head shows up late.


And then I would last to do it because, you know, it was a tragedy. I don't know what happened. I never changed the team. I even would go through that, my B.S.. So how many times I quoted or reflect to Chomsky, and it's more than three quarters. Absolutely.


In a positive way, you know, OK, I can hear everybody can say to me, you know, I pretty much thank you care.


Take care.


Bye bye. Always great to have a fellow person who's defeated.


Noam Chomsky, the conversation on the phone. I think it's interesting that all of us still see ourselves as admirers of Chomsky.


Despite the box the world wants to put us in a totemic figure, the American left. And he is someone who has maintained his integrity and his courage throughout his entire career as a as an activist, as a writer.


You know, he's someone who right after 9/11, there was still, you know, was still banging this drum and still saying, well, you know, the American empire, it's pretty fucking bad, you know, no, we shouldn't go to war in Afghanistan and we shouldn't go to war in Iraq.


That's something that not a lot. You know, a lot of, you know, people ostensibly on the left, they swung hard right after 9/11 and said, no, we've got to go get these guys.


You know, we're just going to abandon this this empire critique. So, you know, props to him on it.


That's useful context.


I was thinking about the whole AFC, Michigan and the ways in which Bernie is so trusted, although there have been moments where he's disappointed, obviously his base as well.


And how, you know, some people are saying it's misogyny, that folks are willing to throw AFC out so quickly and they will still stand behind Bernie and others on the left who have also made mistakes or not acted and the the most left way possible at all times.


And I think part of it is that when you have people who have shown instances of dramatic courage and then over the course of their history, you're willing to cut them a little bit more slack. You're willing to say, well, the reason that they didn't do it I would have liked in this instance isn't because of a lack of courage, because they've demonstrated it already. It must be because of some other consideration I'm not privy to.


And maybe the issue with as the is, although she has had very courageous moments that I do not want to take from her, principally from my perspective coming out supporting Bernie after the heart attack, that really meant a lot to us and the campaign that was a real real come to Jesus, you know, falls on the table sort of moment, although she's had that that moment, you know, her career is a lot shorter, so.


I do think that, you know, her medals just being tested a little bit in this moment, and I don't think that this is an asset cancellation party, I don't think it's what it will turn into. But it's nice when you hear that people like Jack have had these moments of integrity. I think that is what we're looking for and that's what we're all building to. And I hope that she is able to get to that point in her career.




Well, thank you for joining us for another wonderful episode of Bad Faith. You can subscribe to this show for more things, more more episodes, premium episodes of the show that are only for the subscribers. You can subscribe to it at Patreon Dotcom and Slash Bad Faith podcast.


Indeed, that's a yes indeed. Truly, truly, truly. Amen, brother Virgile sister Bree. Until next time.


Keep the faith. Never thought I'd see the light again. I got something and I can see again. I think that I finally breathe again. I've got something to believe in. I can finally see. Morning. Morning. I never thought I would be here again. Now I feel like I should leave again. It's OK, they're only feeling. I feel like I can feel the.