Galloway, Kisin Debate Impact of Trump Policies on UK and US Growth

Galloway与Kisin辩论特朗普政策对英美经济增长的影响 特朗普的回归与西方政策的转向可能加剧英国的经济停滞，同时加速高净值人群向更高收益的海外市场流失。 小组讨论了唐纳德·特朗普再次当选所带来的地缘政治与经济影响，将其胜选归因于对极端进步主义及生活成本上升的文化与经济反弹。嘉宾们将充满活力、具有高风险承受力的美国经济与英国增长乏力、高税收及百万富翁外流的现状进行了对比，并探讨了英国是否面临沦为失败国家的风险。对话还延伸至青年男性脱离社会所面临的危机、DEI倡议的倒退，以及在埃隆·马斯克等领导者影响下社交媒体算法与言论自由的作用。最后，嘉宾们就如何在技术冲击和社会价值观转变的背景下培养具备抗逆力的年轻男性提出了实用建议。 唐纳德·特朗普的再次当选代表了对进步主义身份政治、DEI硬性规定以及西方机构中被认为过度的觉醒文化（woke）在文化与政治层面的反弹。 (2:20) 尽管拜登执政期间美国各项经济指标显示出强劲的宏观增长，但选民在生活必需品上面临严峻的生活成本压力，促使他们重新倒向特朗普的政治主张。 (9:19) 英国正面临严重的经济衰退，具体体现为一年内有超过10,000名高净值人士离开该国，以及企业信心降至近乎为零。 (17:15) 美英之间根本的经济差异源于风险承受度：美国培育了一个容纳高风险与创新的生态系统，而英国经济则严重依赖于为在其他地区创造的财富提供服务。 (20:06) 西方青年男性正面临严重的社会经济危机，其特征表现为相对财富下降、社会孤立率上升、受教育水平走低以及自杀率升高。 (30:31)

A panel discussion featuring Scott Galloway, Konstantin Kisin, and Daniel Priestley evaluates Donald Trump's political resurgence as a symptom of cultural overreach, economic distress, and institutional decay across the West. While debating Trump's governance and tech oligarchies, the panelists argue that Western democracies face shared structural crises: declining living standards, generational disenfranchisement, and punitive economic policies. The Western Political Pendulum and Economic Disconnect (2:20) Donald Trump's electoral return is characterized by the panel as a sharp popular reaction against dogmatic identity politics and declining living standards. Scott Galloway frames the transition as an alarming shift toward kleptocracy, citing Trump's pre-inauguration meme coin venture, yet acknowledges that Democratic messaging failed to resonate because macroeconomic gains felt disconnected from the cost of living. Although the US economy grew 10% between 2020 and 2025—triple Europe's rate—voters judged their situation against past living standards. Galloway cautions that Trump's proposed tariffs and deportations remain inflationary risks monitored by Treasury bond markets. Konstantin Kisin attributes the outcome to voter resistance against 'managed decline,' arguing that working-class citizens rejected net-zero constraints and unmanaged borders. Both Kisin and Galloway contend that diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) initiatives overextended into elite credentialism, citing that while over 50% of Harvard's freshman class identifies as non-white, roughly 70% come from upper-quintile dual-income households. The election of Trump, followed by federal and corporate rollbacks of DEI policies across firms like Walmart, Boeing, and Meta, signifies a decisive pushback against institutional overreach. Post-Brexit Britain's Stagnation and Capital Flight (17:15) The panel identifies deep structural weaknesses in the United Kingdom, highlighted by the departure of roughly 10,800 millionaires in a single year—a 160% surge—and business confidence plunging to a net balance of 0.2% in ICAEW surveys. Daniel Priestley argues the UK has failed to establish an economic identity post-Brexit, forcing founders to relocate to hubs like Dubai, Singapore, or the US. Priestley outlines three potential paths: returning to a European gateway role, becoming an incubator where startups sell to US buyers at $50 million valuations, or adopting a low-tax haven model. Galloway labels London a 'butler economy' that services external capital rather than originating breakthrough innovations, contrasting Europe's $1 million in venture capital per startup with $5 million in the US, and noting that Nvidia's market value exceeds the entire UK stock market. Additionally, Priestley points to structural disincentives: UK higher tax rates kick in at 2.5 times the average wage compared to 6 times in the US, pushing workers to cap earnings at £50,000, while exorbitant energy costs bottleneck domestic AI infrastructure. Generational Disenfranchisement and the Male Isolation Crisis (30:31) Galloway asserts that generational wealth distribution drove voter dissatisfaction more than single-issue social debates. American voters under 30 are 24% poorer than peers 40 years ago, while citizens over 70 are 72% richer. This economic bottleneck disproportionately strands young men, with one in three men under 25 living with parents, only one in three under 30 having a romantic partner, and men accounting for four out of five US suicides. Only 27% of 30-year-olds now have children, down from a historic 60%. Kisin argues that modern cultural narratives consistently deprecate masculinity, depriving young men of purpose, but insists that recovery requires personal agency and resilience rather than passive digital escapism. Galloway outlines a code of masculinity grounded in protection, provision, and creating 'surplus value'—contributing more economically and socially than one consumes—while warning that neglected, isolated young men increasingly gravitate toward online radicalism and conspiracy theories. Platform Regulation, Echo Chambers, and Industrial Resilience (68:04) Examining Big Tech and public discourse, the panel splits over speech platforms. Kisin defends Elon Musk’s deregulated model on X, arguing that unmoderated speech exposes institutional failures—such as the UK grooming gang scandals—that mainstream bodies ignored. Conversely, Galloway criticizes tech platforms for exploiting Section 230 immunity, arguing that immunity should be revoked when algorithms artificially amplify incendiary and bot-driven disinformation for ad profit. He advocates for strict age gates barring users under 16 from social networks, warning that social platforms have fragmented public reality into antagonistic factions. Addressing critical Western vulnerabilities, Kisin and Priestley argue that energy policy and Net Zero mandates undermine sovereign security. With UK energy costs roughly four times higher than in the US, Kisin warns that closing domestic steel mills cripples defense manufacturing, while Galloway notes that AI queries consume roughly ten times the power of standard search engines. Both conclude that Western stability requires tangible supply-chain resilience and infrastructure expansion over symbolic climate policy. The discussion leaves unresolved whether Western governments can reverse administrative stagnation, lower energy and housing costs, and reintegrate disaffected young citizens without succumbing to political extremism, tech oligarchies, or protectionist economic shocks.

本场讨论围绕特朗普重返白宫及西方社会的深层变局展开。与会嘉宾指出，美国政局转向本质上是对过度极化的身份政治的反弹与基层生活成本危机的集中爆发，同时折射出英美两国在经济模式、代际财富失衡以及科技与能源政策上的根本分歧。 特朗普回归：身份政治反弹与经济脱节 (2:20) Scott Galloway认为，美国大选结果反映出公众对过度纠偏的“觉醒”身份政治的强烈反弹。他指出高校DEI（多样性、平等与包容）政策已演变为精英阶层的特权工具，哈佛大学新生中虽有超50%为少数族裔，但其中约70%来自顶层五分之一的高收入双薪家庭。在经济层面，尽管拜登政府任内实现了G7国家中最低的通胀率以及2020至2025年间10%的经济增长（达到欧洲增速的三倍），但宏观资产的增值未能抵消工薪家庭面临的物价飙升重压。不过Galloway警示，特朗普在就职前夕发行迷因币等行为显露出向“盗贼统治”滑坡的风险，其高关税与大规模驱逐承诺若引发二次通胀，十年期美债市场将成为最终的经济制约力量。 Konstantin Kisin则强调，美国选民坚决拒绝了欧洲式的“受管理的衰退”，守卫边境与发展本土经济原本就是国家的基本职责。他认为特朗普代表了公众对意识形态过度介入生活的反抗，其联手马斯克精简行政官僚的商业化主张，精准契合了选民渴望恢复生活水准的现实预期。 英国困局：资本外逃、高税负与模式迷失 (17:15) 主持人Steven Bartlett引述数据指出，过去一年约有10,800名百万富翁离开英国（同比激增160%），企业信心指数净值暴跌至0.2%。Daniel Priestley分析，脱欧后的英国陷入国家定位缺失，徘徊于欧洲总部、美国后勤孵化器或独立避税港三种路径之间；英国在平均工资2.5倍处便开始征收高额边际税（美国为6倍），导致大量专业人才刻意将年薪压制在5万英镑以下或缩短工时以规避40%的税率。 Galloway以“管家经济”形容伦敦，指出其繁荣依赖于服务外部创造的财富，缺乏本土将顶级科研商业化的动力与机制；英伟达单家公司的市值已超越英国整个股市总和，且美国初创企业平均获得的风险投资（500万美元）是欧洲（100万美元）的五倍。尽管Galloway认为脱欧是重大的自残行为，但他反驳了英国是“失败国家”的判断，强调其法治与高校底蕴依然完好。Kisin则批评英国社会普遍将富人视作寄生虫的仇富心态，警告驱赶财富创造者将导致国家陷入长期停滞。 青年男性危机：代际财富失衡与社会疏离 (30:31) Galloway指出，大选背后的隐性驱动力是年轻男性的系统性坠落与代际财富剥夺：过去40年间，美国30岁以下人群财富缩水24%，而70岁以上人群财富增长72%，沉重的经济负担使年轻群体难以建立独立生活。数据显示，全美五分之四的自杀者为男性；30岁以下男性仅三分之一拥有女友（同龄女性则有三分之二拥有男友）；30岁人群中仅27%育有子女（以往为60%）；30岁以下有五分之一、25岁以下有三分之一仍与父母同住。脱离现实社会的青年男性正退缩为孤立群体，极易陷入抑郁与网络极端化。 Kisin认为将男性视作万恶之源的文化偏见剥夺了男孩的目标感，但他呼吁年轻人认清“无人会来拯救你”的冷酷现实，依靠个人责任感打破被动局面。Galloway主张重构以“保护、供养、繁衍”以及创造大于消耗的“盈余价值”为核心的男性准则，倡导建设实体第三空间对抗数字孤独；Priestley则批评源自19世纪普鲁士军事化模型的传统学校教育已彻底脱节，无法适应AI时代的技能需求。 科技寡头崛起：算法极化与平台治理之争 (66:38) Priestley指出，科技领袖近期密集向特朗普阵营靠拢，昭示着美国新型科技寡头政治正在形成。在言论平台方面，Kisin认为马斯克对X的收购利大于弊，有效打破了以往以打击假信息为名实施的言论压制，并以英国幼女诱拐团伙丑闻为例，说明X平台上的舆论曝光迫使长期回避争议的官方直面制度性掩盖。 Galloway则坚决主张限制社交巨头在《通信规范法》第230条下的绝对豁免权。他对比福斯新闻因大选造谣支付近7.88亿美元和解金，指出社交网络凭借算法主动放大煽动性内容牟利并充斥大量水军，理应承担发行人责任，并敦促立法禁止16岁以下未成年人使用社交媒体。Kisin对此提醒，强制身份核验可能危及极权体制下异见人士的安全，平台治理仍需在言论自由与算法约束之间审慎权衡。 能源瓶颈与去工业化：净零政策的现实代价 (87:43) Kisin批评单方面推进的“净零排放”政策是西方的意识形态贫困化。英国电价约为美国的四倍，尽管碳排放仅占全球2%，但激进减排不仅导致本土钢铁厂关闭、削弱国防工业建造军舰的自主韧性，还推高了能源支出，迫使养老金领取者承受高昂取暖成本。他坚持真正的环保建立在经济繁荣之上，呼吁英国恢复国内能源开采与基础设施建设。 Galloway从算力竞争视角指出，单次AI查询的能耗约为常规搜索引擎查询的10倍，充沛廉价的电力供给已成为技术竞赛的关键瓶颈。但他同时指出，美国本土能源审批充足，当前国内年轻人的首要痛点在于住房可负担性，亟须推行大力营建政策。对谈者一致认为，缺乏自主工业和充足能源，任何科技与国家复兴构想都将沦为空谈。 本场对话揭示出西方社会在政治、文化与产业层面的深度重组。尽管对谈各方在强人统治风险、社交媒体监管责任以及具体经济干预手段上存有显著分歧，但普遍共识在于：西方必须摒弃教条化的身份政治与官僚桎梏，在正视青年生存困境、夯实能源与制造业基石的前提下，方能重塑长期竞争力与社会凝聚力。

## Background 该视频由知名播客频道《The Diary Of A CEO》（主持人 Steven Bartlett）于 2025 年 1 月 23 日发布在 YouTube 平台上。视频简介指出，这是该频道针对特朗普重返白宫所举办的首场选举圆桌辩论，邀请了 Scott Galloway、Daniel Priestley 与 Konstantin Kisin 三位重量级意见领袖，共同探讨特朗普胜选对全球地缘、商业版图、民主制度的深远冲击，以及英国是否正面临国家崩溃的严峻现实。 ## TL;DR 对谈围绕特朗普再度执政对全球政治与经济格局的重构展开，嘉宾们深入剖析了觉醒文化（Wokeness）反噬、DEI 机制退潮与唯才主义（Meritocracy）回归的历史必然性。讨论尖锐揭示了大批百万富翁外流、高税负与高昂能源危机下英国沦为“管家经济”的沉沦窘境，并聚焦西方年轻男性在财富缩水、社交退缩及孤独流行病中的系统性溃败。此外，嘉宾们就埃隆·马斯克拆解言论审查的社会代价、社交平台算法煽动撕裂与信息茧房危机，以及 Net Zero 激进政策对欧洲去工业化与国防命门的摧残进行了多维交锋，最终落脚于父亲们在动荡新时代下引导年轻一代重拾责任、力量与创造剩余价值的硬核成长指南。 ## Atmosphere & style 全场对话节奏极快且张力十足，三位立场迥异的嘉宾展开了高密度、毫不掩饰的知性交锋，既有学术级的宏观数据拆解，又充满辛辣刻薄的英美式幽默。讨论在对政治盗贼统治与西方文明衰退的尖锐悲观审视，以及对商业开拓与个人英雄主义的激情呼唤之间反复震荡。现场氛围坦诚而极具张力，直面最敏感的文化和政治痛点，给听众带来一种在喧嚣极端化的现代舆论场中罕见的、既刺痛现实又充满穿透力的思想风暴感。 ## Bulletin - [30:36](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qpBnYB0I6_0&t=1836s) 2024 年美国大选本质上是对“年轻男性生存现状”的公投：美国 30 岁以下年轻人财富在过去 40 年缩水 24%，而 70 岁以上老年人财富激增 72%，五分之四的自杀者为男性，年轻群体正面临严重的经济与情感断层。 - [17:15](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qpBnYB0I6_0&t=1035s) 英国面临百万富翁外流与定位迷失：去年约有 10,800 名富豪离开英国，同比飙升约 160%，商业信心指数跌至 0.2%，英国正逐渐退化为美国资本与技术的外包“后台办公室”。 - [37:04](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qpBnYB0I6_0&t=2224s) 企业与政界出现反向去 DEI 浪潮：特朗普签署行政令限期解散联邦 DEI 项目，Meta、亚马逊、沃尔玛等跨国巨头亦纷纷缩减多元化配额，重塑唯才是举与阶级逆境扶持导向。 - [01:08:04](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qpBnYB0I6_0&t=4084s) 社交媒体推荐算法的免责特权受到强烈质疑：学者呼吁废除《通信规范法》第 230 条对算法加权内容的庇护，严禁 16 岁以下青少年使用社交媒体，以遏制机器人水军与极端情绪投毒。 - [01:27:43](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qpBnYB0I6_0&t=5263s) 欧洲能源自残危及国家安全与 AI 算力：英国电价已攀升至美国的四倍，激进的“净零”排放政策不仅造成去工业化与国防造舰困境，也无法承载下一代 AI 数据中心的庞大用能需求。 ## Key takeaways - [05:05](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qpBnYB0I6_0&t=305s) 特朗普的当选反映了大众对觉醒文化极端化的反噬，选民渴望守住边境安全与基本常识，而非被动接受“受管控的衰落”。 - [11:33](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qpBnYB0I6_0&t=693s) 拜登时期的亮眼宏观经济数据与底层民众体感严重脱节：租金、学费与日常物价暴涨，使得选民在心理上将生活成本归咎于现任政府。 - [19:02](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qpBnYB0I6_0&t=1142s) 英国因自残式脱欧与繁重税负陷入“管家经济”，创新资本与冒险精神匮乏，单家英伟达的市值已超越整个英国股票市场。 - [26:02](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qpBnYB0I6_0&t=1562s) 英国社会根深蒂固的仇富心态阻碍财富创造，将科技创业者与创造者视为寄生剥削者，促使本土拔尖人才加速流向美国与中东。 - [28:33](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qpBnYB0I6_0&t=1713s) 高昂的电价与过度依赖不可靠风光能源，使得英国在需要充沛电力支撑的 AI 算力基础设施竞赛中处于严重劣势。 - [30:36](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qpBnYB0I6_0&t=1836s) 年轻男性深陷“孤独流行病”与虚拟成瘾：沉迷色情、游戏与加密炒作，真实社交与恋爱技能严重退化，催生无性且反社交的边缘一代。 - [37:55](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qpBnYB0I6_0&t=2275s) 高等教育的 DEI 机制演变为制造人为稀缺的精英特权骗局，真正的平权行动应当基于家庭经济逆境而非肤色标签。 - [39:28](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qpBnYB0I6_0&t=2368s) 民主党将选民按身份切片的做法构成了对非特定标签群体的隐形歧视，而刻板配额更在无形中侮辱了女性和少数族裔凭借自身实力取得的成就。 - [47:44](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qpBnYB0I6_0&t=2864s) 健康的男性气概应当被重构为“保护、供养、繁衍”并创造剩余经济价值，而非右翼男权圈兜售的粗鄙、霸凌或迎合权力的伪装。 - [55:54](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qpBnYB0I6_0&t=3354s) 马斯克收购 X 平台并放宽审查尽管伴随着信息泥沙俱下，但在突破主流媒体信息茧房、曝光英国诱拐丑闻等关键公众议题上发挥了不可替代的作用。 - [01:08:04](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qpBnYB0I6_0&t=4084s) 科技巨头借助《通信规范法》第 230 条免死金牌，靠算法加权放大极端仇恨内容获利，应将其算法推荐行为定性为必须承担法律连带责任的“编辑策展”。 - [01:21:16](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qpBnYB0I6_0&t=4876s) 社交平台以“技术复杂性”为借口推卸治理责任，应设立强硬红线：对 16 岁以下未成年人禁网，并清除散播绝望情绪的无真实实体 Bot 网络。 - [01:24:38](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qpBnYB0I6_0&t=5078s) 西方工业时代的普鲁士教育体制已落后两个世纪，完全无法帮助年轻一代应对 AI 带来的职业颠覆与技能重塑。 - [01:30:10](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qpBnYB0I6_0&t=5410s) 净零排放意识形态导致英国关闭本土钢铁制造，不仅引发能源贫困，更在战云密布的地缘危机中使国家国防装备供应链命门受制于人。 - [01:36:28](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qpBnYB0I6_0&t=5788s) 年轻男性的救赎在于摆脱受害者心态与沉溺抱怨，通过掌握硬核动手技能、创造大于消耗的剩余价值，在门槛普遍降低的现实竞争中夺回人生主导权。 ## Detailed walkthrough ### [00:00](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qpBnYB0I6_0&t=0s) 剧烈转型的历史时刻与全明星对谈 主持人 Steven Bartlett 开门见山地指出，当今世界正处于极度疯狂、也是有史以来最引人注目的社会、文化与经济转型期。面对眼前日新月异、令人目不暇接的乱局，他打破常规，召集了三位在商业、经济及社会文化领域极具影响力的意见领袖展开首场选举圆桌辩论：美国纽约大学教授兼商业分析师 Scott Galloway、英国企业家兼商业策略师 Daniel Priestley，以及政治社会评论家 Konstantin Kisin。这三位嘉宾立场迥异，平时鲜少达成一致，但在本场辩论中，他们将全面拆解经济大局、唐纳德·特朗普（Donald Trump）重返白宫、埃隆·马斯克（Elon Musk）的影响力、人工智能的威胁与机遇、审查制度、觉醒文化（Wokeness）以及大批英国百万富翁外流、年轻男性身陷困境等核心命题，力图在犀利交锋中碰撞出共识。在切入正题前，主持人也提及频道后台一个令人惊讶的数据：高达 53% 的常态听众尚未订阅播客，他真诚呼吁听众点击订阅以支持团队持续产出更高品质的对话内容。 随后，主持人向 Scott Galloway 抛出了第一个宏观问题：作为现场唯一的美国人，如何看待过去几个月里美国发生的深刻剧变，以及这种剧烈震荡将如何波及全球？ ### [02:20](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qpBnYB0I6_0&t=140s) 两种视角的交锋：盗贼统治还是反抗“受管控的衰落”？ Scott Galloway 从宏观层面对美国的现状给出了极其犀利且悲观的定性。他指出，美国在经济乃至文化上长期为西方世界定调，而眼下正发生一场强烈的回摆——社会大众普遍认为所谓的“觉醒文化”（虽然他本人不喜这个词）最初是为了纠正系统性种族主义而产生的过度矫正，但如今造成的伤害和问题已远超其所解决的范畴。因此，从宣布边境紧急状态，到重新明确界定男女两性生理性别，一系列行政命令应运而生，而这些措施在很大程度上确实得到了美国大众的支持。 然而，Scott 指出更为黑暗严峻的一面：美国过去曾是繁荣的基石、公民权利与女性权益的护盾，以及向全球投射民主力量的平台；如今却光速堕落为他口中的“盗贼统治”（kleptocracy）。国家机器变成了巧取豪夺财富并将其杠杆化为政治权力的工具。他举例指出，在就职典礼前夕，市面上居然推出了“特朗普币”（Trump coin）和“梅拉尼娅币”（Melania coin）两款模因币（Meme coins）。Scott 嘲讽地设想了一个通话场景：俄罗斯的“弗拉德”（普京）致电特朗普，称为了稳定卢布和外汇储备，打算向特朗普币注资 6,000 亿卢布，瞬间将其推至两三百亿美元的市值；这笔交易完全不需要公开透明，而与此同时俄方顺理成章地要求美方切断对乌克兰的武器援助。面对主持人的追问，Scott 坦言自己是个“悲观主义者”（glass-half-empty kind of guy），他实在无法将一个被裁定犯有性侵虐待、煽动国会暴乱的人重返白宫，视为美国历史上值得庆贺的“光明灯塔”。 ```mermaid flowchart TD accTitle: Scott Galloway 对当前美国大选与体制演变的定性分析 accDescr: 展示觉醒文化反噬引发政策回摆，以及金钱与权力挂钩演变为盗贼统治的两种分析维度。 subgraph Culture["文化与社会层面：反过度矫正"] A["觉醒文化过度矫正"] --> B["引发广泛反弹"] B --> C["边境紧急状态 / 明确生理性别等行政令"] end subgraph Politics["体制与权力层面：盗贼统治"] D["传统基石: 繁荣、公民权与民主投射"] --> E["演变为资本巧取豪夺平台"] E --> F["发行个人模因币 (Trump/Melania Coin)"] F --> G["潜在暗箱交易与地缘政治利益捆绑"] end ``` ### [05:05](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qpBnYB0I6_0&t=305s) “常识”的回归与对觉醒极端化的反噬 Konstantin Kisin 则从完全不同的维度展开了观察。他认为，预测未来几个月的具体走势是不明智的，但特朗普胜选的核心意义在于提供了英国选民所没有的东西——真正的“选择权”。美国选民在两种截然不同的世界观、两种截然不同的发展路径之间做出了抉择。针对特朗普本人的批评固然必要且合理，但 Konstantin 指出，真正走入美国腹地、接触底层普通民众就会发现，美国人不愿像欧洲人那样被动接受“受管控的衰落”（managed decline）。美国人不希望国家变得贫穷衰弱，也不愿因为所谓“净零排放”（Net Zero）政策而让老百姓的生活陷入困顿；他们依然渴望国家繁荣、强大、具有全球领导力。官方给出的通胀数据掩盖了底层生活的真实剧痛，普通人的生活成本在过去几年迎来了毁灭性的暴涨。 Konstantin 进一步强调，无论立场偏左还是偏右，都必须承认特朗普承诺推动的核心事项本身是完全合情合理的： - **捍卫国家边境安全**：阻止非法入境是任何主权政府最基本的职责底线。 - **确保经济繁荣发展**：保障国民生计与生活水准，而不是任由生活成本侵蚀中产。 - **摆脱虚伪的地缘政治姿态**：终结既要高调干预外部冲突、却又不全力帮助乌克兰取胜的既软弱又好战的矛盾政策。 在文化议题上，Konstantin 完全赞同反觉醒浪潮的必然性。他指出，许多原本彻底远离政治的普通人，在过去三四年里突然被强行要求接受各种荒谬的概念——比如男人可以通过自我认同变成女人并进入女子监狱；如果未成年人声称自己是异性，就应该对其进行变性切除手术。普通大众的真实反应是：“这完全疯了，我是一个自由派，但这根本不是自由主义。” Konstantin 警告称，如果觉醒左翼继续以这种脱离常识的方式垄断公共话语，必然会激起右翼的强烈反弹；而特朗普甚至已经算是这种反弹浪潮中相对温和、克制的一种形态了。 随即，主持人将话锋转向 Scott Galloway，追问左翼究竟是如何一步步走入迷途的，以及右翼思潮是否注定将在整个西方世界全面蔓延。 ### [09:41](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qpBnYB0I6_0&t=581s) 民主党的走火入魔：从 DEI 的初衷到常识的扭曲 Scott Galloway 作为大学教授，尖锐地剖析了民主党近年来的核心失误——“做对了起头，却在极端的道路上走得太远”。回顾 60 年前，普林斯顿、耶鲁和哈佛三校加起来仅有 12 名黑人学生，当时基于种族的平权行动（Affirmative Action）无疑合情合理。但如今，哈佛大学的大一新生中超过半数是非白人，而这些少数族裔新生中 70% 来自收入位于全美前 20% 的双职工优渥家庭。过去黑人与白人之间的学业差距曾是贫富差距的两倍，现在这一比例已彻底倒转。DEI（多样性、平等与包容）从一个良好的初衷沦为失控的制度狂热，甚至反向催生了它原本试图消除的种族偏见。 在文化议题上，这种走火入魔进一步疏远了普通大众。在加利福尼亚州，玩板网球（Padel）的人口甚至超过了跨性别者的总数，但民主党却将其与传统民权运动捆绑，甚至支持变性女性参与女性自行车比赛并以领先 5 分钟的绝对优势夺冠，还要全社会为此鼓掌喝彩。这种违背常识的政治狂热激怒了全美无数普通父母，让他们产生强烈的荒诞感。更致命的是候选人层面的战略灾难：拜登违背了自己只当“过渡候选人”的承诺，其自负迫使民主党在极短时间内换上哈里斯，上演了一场毫无准备、类似英国闪电大选的仓促竞选，最终引发了选民对“过度矫正”的必然反噬。 ### [11:33](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qpBnYB0I6_0&t=693s) 繁荣与感知的脱节：美国经济的亮眼数据与分配裂痕 Scott Galloway 随后反驳了关于“美国人投票是为了选择经济繁荣”的说法，直言过去四年美国早已处于无与伦比的繁荣之中。在全球 190 个主权国家中，有 189 个会毫不犹豫地愿意与美国互换经济处境。然而，民主党在传达这些经济成就时遭遇了彻底的沟通惨败。 ```mermaid flowchart TD accTitle: 经济现实与选民感知脱节模型 accDescr: 展示宏观经济强劲指标如何因分配不均和心理机制转化为对政府的怨气 subgraph Macro["宏观经济指标（实际表现亮眼）"] M1["美股创 71 次历史新高"] M2["占全球 97% AI 核心资本与产业"] M3["2020 年以来经济增长 10%（欧洲 3 倍）"] M4["G7 集团中最低通胀与最高增速"] end subgraph Perception["微观体感与归因心理"] P1["生活成本暴涨：租金飙升、学费上涨、麦片变贵"] P2["心理归因偏差：工资涨归功个人拼搏，物价涨归咎现任总统"] P3["威廉·吉布森定律：繁荣已经到来，但分布极不均衡"] end subgraph Reaction["选民与市场反应"] R1["选民拒绝买账拜登的经济叙事"] R2["特朗普上台推行关税与移民限制（潜在高通胀）"] R3["市场最终制约力量：10 年期美债收益率（真正的房间成年人）"] end Macro --> Perception Perception --> Reaction ``` 尽管宏观数据极为强劲，但拜登政府在百姓面临房租飞涨、大学学费飙升和日常开销重压时大谈特谈经济有多好，反而招致极大反感。Scott 提醒道，特朗普标志性的反移民和激进关税政策本身具有极强的通胀效应，其推高赤字的做法无异于提前向后代征税；在未来的推行过程中，真正能够制衡总统疯狂政策的“房间里的成年人”，将是冷酷无情的 10 年期美债市场。 - 经济体量对比：仅在旧金山国际机场方圆 7 英里的区域内创造的市值，就超过了欧洲过去 20 年创造的总和。 - 生产力剪刀差：美国劳动者如果在每年 8 月就停工不干，其创造的财富和产出依然高于欧洲人辛苦工作一整年。 ### [13:33](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qpBnYB0I6_0&t=813s) 营销大师还是商业重塑：特朗普对美国梦的精准兜售 针对“特朗普只是营销做得更好”的提问，Konstantin Kisin 指出政治本质上就是营销，而特朗普正是顶级的“首席营销官”。但他强调，选民的经济对比并不是拿美国去比疲软的欧洲，而是拿拜登执政期对比特朗普第一任期时的体感，以及对未来商业领袖治理的期待。像埃隆·马斯克（Elon Musk）和维韦克·拉马斯瓦米（Vivek Ramaswamy）这样的商界领袖挂帅政府效率部门（DOGE），直击了整个西方世界官僚机构臃肿、公职系统巨额浪费的顽疾，让商界与大众倍感振奋，许多原本不支持特朗普的企业家也在这一周期选择倒戈。 在对待特朗普极具争议的关税威胁与言论时，Konstantin 认为绝不能按字面意思机械理解，这些言论往往是他极限施压的商业谈判策略与信号博弈，意在逼迫对手“乖乖坐回谈判桌”。他总结道，欧洲的逻辑是守着现有的饼争论“如何公平切分”，而美国的底层逻辑永远是“如何做大蛋糕”。特朗普击中的核心痛点在于重建摇摇欲坠的美国梦——让年轻人不再需要打三份零工来支付房租，重新燃起买房、结婚并依靠单职工收入养育家庭的希望。 ### [17:15](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qpBnYB0I6_0&t=1035s) 英国的滑坡与资本出逃：企业家奔向美利坚 主持人将话题切回英国本土的现实危机：主流媒体正被百万富翁创纪录外流的头条新闻刷屏。去年约有 10,800 名百万富翁逃离英国，同比暴增约 160%；英国特许会计师协会对千名会计师的年度调研显示，商业信心指数暴跌 14 点，仅剩惨淡的 0.2%。在本土创业圈中，甚至形成了一种压倒性的共识——如果今天想做一番事业，唯一正确的出路就是买机票去美国。 商业加速器创始人 Daniel Priestley 证实了这一令人窒息的现状：英国对于商业和资本的价值主张已经“彻底跌穿地板”。极其严苛的高税负以及持续萎缩的企业生态，正在逼走最聪明的大脑。追求低税收和新兴机遇的人蜂拥前往迪拜、新加坡或中国香港，而渴求庞大统一市场与扩张野心的顶尖创业者则全部奔赴美国。脱欧后的英国彻底迷失了自身的全球定位，彻底丧失了以往作为“欧洲企业总部”的枢纽优势。 ### [19:02](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qpBnYB0I6_0&t=1142s) 脱欧后英国的定位危机：“管家经济”与美国人才外包地 Daniel Priestley 剖析了英国在脱欧后迟迟未能确立的国家定位。过去，全球企业会把英国当作打入欧洲市场的桥头堡，但如今英国正逐渐退化为美国的“后台办公室”（Back Office）与初创孵化器。许多优秀的英国本土企业在估值做到 5000 万美元时，就不得不出售给美国私募股权机构或美股上市公司。更严峻的是，由于英国科技等高技能岗位的薪资水平相比美国“已经跌到了地板上”，大量美国公司直接将英国视为低成本离岸外包和低价挖角人才的乐园，导致极其聪明顶尖的英国人才价值被严重贬低。Daniel 指出，摆在英国面前其实有清晰的三条潜在路径，但脱欧多年过去，决策层至今没有下定决心选择任何一条： ```mermaid flowchart TD accTitle: 英国脱欧后的三种战略路径抉择 accDescr: 流程图展示了英国在脱欧后未能明确选择的三种国家经济发展模型。 subgraph UK_Choices ["英国脱欧后的定位抉择"] A["昔日定位：进军欧洲的桥头堡"] --> B{"战略三选一（至今悬而未决）"} B --> C["路径一：美国的后台办公室 / 孵化器<br/>（估值达5000万即卖美资，沦为廉价技术外包）"] B --> D["路径二：重塑独立避风港<br/>（对标迪拜、新加坡：低犯罪、极低税率）"] B --> E["路径三：重建本土高附加值产业极"] end ``` 针对这一局面，Stephen Bartlett 向迁居英国的 Scott Galloway 提问：面对商业信心暴跌、企业家外流、过去十年刀具犯罪率激增 81%、以及在全球 AI 投资上比美国落后达 2000% 等严峻数据，作为将全家搬来英国的创业者，是否依然看好这里的创业环境？ Scott Galloway 回忆起自己父母在 19 岁和 22 岁时分别从格拉斯哥和伦敦移民美国的往事，直言美英之间最根本的差距在于“冒险意愿”（Risk Appetite）。他指出，留在英国的人往往缺乏那种敢于押注一切的冒险基因；相比之下，美国人均创业者数量是英国的 5 倍，每家初创企业获得的资金体量也是其 5 倍，美国平均每家初创公司对应着 500 万美元待部署的风投资金，而欧洲仅有 100 万美元。 Scott 用自己在纽约 SoHo 区一家名为 Dig Inn 的小餐馆就餐的经历举例：他当时非常喜欢那家店，直接留下名片问店员能否联系老板、需不需要注资再开一家。但在英国，他绝不会有这种冲动。在美国，疯狂的想法偶尔会通过狂热的天才、高校知识产权与庞大技术资本发生剧烈碰撞，从而诞生出像英伟达（NVIDIA）这种市值能够超越整个英国股市的超级巨头。谈及当下的英国，Scott 直言自己生活在从大理石拱门（Marble Arch）步行可达的精英温室里，他将所见的英国经济概括为一种典型的“管家经济”（Butler Economy）： > “这里赚到的所有钱，本质上都在服务于别处创造出来的财富。你做金融服务是在伺候富人，开高端餐厅也是在伺候富人，我看不到多少内生的财富创造。……美国依然是全世界最适合赚钱的地方，而欧洲依然是全世界最适合花钱的地方。” - 美国初创企业的人均数量是英国的 5 倍，单笔创业投资规模同样高出 5 倍。 - 欧洲每家初创公司对应的风险投资储备金仅约 100 万美元，而美国高达 500 万美元。 - 英伟达（NVIDIA）单家公司的市值已超越了英国整个股票市场的总价值。 --- ### [23:19](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qpBnYB0I6_0&t=1399s) 英国是“失败国家”吗？自残式脱欧与埃隆·马斯克的批评 当被问及“英国是否已沦为一个失败国家（Failing Nation）”时，Scott Galloway 明确表示反对。他认为英国拥有太多得天独厚的底蕴：世界顶尖的高校科研力量、依然被公认为全球第二大城市的伦敦、无与伦比的文化软实力输出（如英超联赛与摇滚乐），以及健全的法治与社会秩序。 但他同时指出，英国确实遭受了严重的“自残式创伤”（Self-inflicted Wound）。在 Scott 看来，除了美国当年发动伊拉克战争之外，现代历史上西方国家最大的自我戕害就是英国脱欧（Brexit）。作为一个崇尚商业理性的美国人，他完全无法理解英国为何会做出“一举推高物价、同时严重摧毁生产力”的自杀式经济决策。尽管如此，他依然对自己眼中的英国保持着一种“谨慎的乐观”，期待英国有朝一日能重新找回本应拥有的全球地位。 Stephen Bartlett 随后将话题转向埃隆·马斯克（Elon Musk）近一个月来在社交媒体上对英国的猛烈抨击，马斯克甚至公开将英国形容为“失败国家”，引发英国舆论和媒体的巨大震动。 Konstantin Kisin 对英国主流媒体的激烈反应嗤之以鼻。他讽刺道，英国媒体人整天对美国大选指手画脚、教导美国选民该给谁投票，却在马斯克评价英国时陷入歇斯底里的崩溃，大喊“美国人在干预我们的内政”，显得极度虚伪。Konstantin 强调，现实是美国已经取代了往昔大英帝国的地位，成为了西方文明的真正中心。无论是文化、政治还是音乐，英国本质上都是从美国全盘“下载”而来的。他呼吁英国社会在吸收美国文化时应当去糟取精： > “如果我们要从美国下载文化和政治，拜托我们至少把那些好的东西学过来，而不是把那套糟糕透顶的 Woke 觉醒文化、DEI（多元、平等、包容）和各种政治正确的垃圾当成宝贝；真正该学的是美国的企业家精神、乐观主义、积极向上的冲劲，以及那种 Scott 提到的放手一搏、敢于冒险的魄力。” --- ### [26:02](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qpBnYB0I6_0&t=1562s) 仇富心态的桎梏：从“食利地主”偏见到创造者的流失 面对英国是否处于衰退中的提问，Konstantin Kisin 避开了非黑即白的二元定性，转向讨论整个国家的发展趋势。针对“英国一年内有超过一万名百万富翁离境”的严峻事实，Konstantin 犀利指出，英国普通大众的反应往往不是危机感，而是拍手称快地嘲弄：“太好了，这些为富不仁的寄生虫终于滚蛋了。” Konstantin 深入剖析了这种根深蒂固的英国式仇富心理： 1. **历史包袱的投射**：英国历史深植于封建贵族与食利地主阶层（Landed Gentry）的传统中，公众习惯性地将财富视为不道德、不应得的剥削所得； 2. **忽视现代商业本质**：现代商业世界中的成功者绝大多数是通过打造更好的产品、降低服务成本、实实在在地为他人解决了难题，才在价值交换中获得了丰厚的财富回馈； 3. **人才驱逐的恶性循环**：如果全社会始终将创造财富的人视为罪人而非贡献者，并将优秀的创业者赶出国门，整个经济体注定陷入万劫不复的永久停滞。 随后，Stephen Bartlett 邀请 Daniel Priestley 加入探讨，询问这种英国特有的负面态度是否确实是一种扼杀国家潜力的“自我伤害”。Daniel 坦言社会态度确实存在顽疾，但他依然坚信伦敦拥有全球罕见的综合优势——在这一座城市中，同时交织着全球顶级的媒体、金融、科技、娱乐、政治与国防生态，汇聚着最具创造力的人才群落。 ### [28:33](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qpBnYB0I6_0&t=1713s) 英国税制重负与高昂能源危机 伦敦本身汇聚了如同洛杉矶、华盛顿、纽约和迈阿密等各大城市的精髓，是一座极具多元包容性与创业活力的熔炉，然而其潜能却被严苛的税收制度严重扼杀。在美国，公民通常只有在收入达到平均工资的六倍时才会触及最高税率档位，但在英国，一旦收入达到平均工资的两倍半，就会陷入沉重的税负困境。许多英国人甚至刻意将自己的年收入压在 5 万英镑以下，因为一旦跨过这个门槛，边际所得税率就会飙升至 40%。这种税制结构直接打击了生产积极性，不少聪明能干的高薪潜力人群宁愿缩减业务规模，甚至有员工主动提出“每周多休一天假”来规避增税，直言“我不干了，我拒绝缴纳 40% 的税率”。企业税、高额的资本利得税、增值税（VAT）以及地方税（Council Tax）层层叠加，让创业者和劳动者苦不堪言。 与此同时，能源成本正成为制约英国未来竞争力的致命短板。当今全球正迈入人工智能经济时代，而算力基础设施和 AI 数据中心的高速运转极度依赖廉价电力；世界上根本不存在能源极其昂贵却能实现高增长的繁荣经济体。特朗普在竞选中的核心承诺之一就是提供极其廉价的能源，因为“廉价能源等于高速增长”。相比之下，英国拥有全球最昂贵的电力系统之一，根本无法支撑大型数据中心的能耗需求。面对 AI 革命的浪潮，单靠结满霜冻的风力发电机和太阳能电池板，根本无法托起现代数字经济的未来。 ```mermaid flowchart TD accTitle: 英国经济发展瓶颈分析 accDescr: 展示高额税收与高昂能源双重挤压对英国经济和创新活力的抑制过程 subgraph Taxes ["税负重压"] T1["收入达平均工资2.5倍触顶"] --> T2["5万英镑税率跳升至40%"] T2 --> T3["人才主动躺平/削减工时"] T4["企业税/资本利得税/VAT叠加"] --> T3 end subgraph Energy ["能源危机"] E1["全球最昂贵的电力成本"] --> E2["过度依赖风光可再生能源"] E2 --> E3["无力支撑AI数据中心能耗"] end T3 --> Bottleneck["创新与生产力受挫<br>资本与人才外流"] E3 --> Bottleneck ``` --- ### [30:36](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qpBnYB0I6_0&t=1836s) 2024大选的核心真相：年轻男性的全面溃败 面对能源话题，斯科特·加洛韦（Scott Galloway）首先澄清了一个常见误区：特朗普虽然发布行政命令声称存在“能源危机”，但事实上，经通胀调整后，美国的汽油价格甚至比 50 年前更加便宜，美国当前已然是全球第一大石油生产国，真正的危机其实在于住房。在加洛韦看来，2024 年美国大选原本被民主党设想为一场关于“女性堕胎权与身体自主权”的公投，但最终大选结果显示，这实际上是一场关于“年轻男性生存现状”的全面公投。从选票转向来看，除了拉美裔选民外，倒向共和党最剧烈的群体正是 30 岁以下的年轻人，以及处于 45 至 64 岁之间的中年女性——而这些女性绝大多数正是年轻男性的母亲。 当一位母亲看到自己的儿子成年后整天躲在地下室里抽电子烟、沉迷于电子游戏、无法立足于社会时，“她根本不在乎乌克兰的主权完整，也不在乎跨性别群体的权益，她唯一在乎的是自己的孩子正在烂掉”。更残酷的是，移动互联网以每日前上百次的频率向年轻人推送所谓的“色情化财富”（pornographic wealth）——朋友圈里同龄人坐私人飞机旅行、在圣巴泰勒米岛度假狂欢，而他们自己却一无所有。美国当前的税收政策本质上是在“搜刮年轻人的钱包，填满老人的口袋”，让祖父母辈可以升级奢华邮轮，而年轻人却背负着高不可攀的学费与房价。 数据清晰勾勒出美国年轻男性的断崖式跌落： - **财富差距恶化**：与 40 年前相比，美国 30 岁以下年轻人的财富缩水了 24%，而 70 岁以上老人的财富却激增了 72%。 - **生命危机**：走进美国的停尸房，每 5 起自杀案件中就有 4 起是男性。 - **两性与情感脱节**：30 岁以下的男性中只有三分之一拥有女友，而同年龄段女性却有三分之二拥有男友。数学上的不平衡源于年轻女性正普遍向上寻找更具经济基础与情感成熟度的年长男性。 - **啃老与社交退缩**：美国 30 岁的男性中有五分之一仍与父母同住，25 岁以下这一比例更是高达三分之一。年轻男性的肥胖率、抑郁率不断飙升，性生活频率骤降；30 岁拥有孩子的比例从过去的 60% 暴跌至 27%。 - **极端化与社会脱轨**：女性在单身时往往能将精力投入职场（美国年轻单身女性的购房率和城市收入已反超男性），而缺乏家庭、职场或学业约束的年轻男性，其精力则极易转向厌女症、极端民族主义和阴谋论，沦为与现实完全脱节的危险公民。 加洛韦痛心地指出，美国正在孕育一种前所未见的“无性、反社交的年轻男性物种”。当现实中求职艰难、社交碰壁，他们便彻底选择“退出美国社会”，选择躺在地下室里，用色情网站替代恋爱健身，用加密货币或股票交易软件替代脚踏实地的全职工作。 --- ### [34:23](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qpBnYB0I6_0&t=2063s) 文化妖魔化与男性的个人拯救 康斯坦丁·基辛（Konstantin Kisin）随即切入文化层面的分析，尖锐地指出：“数十年如一日地妖魔化男性，必然会结出恶果。”在主流流行文化、影视作品和广告宣传中，“男人是一切罪恶的根源”这一叙事被反复灌输——每一支广告里的女性都是精明强干的掌控者，男性则是滑稽笨拙的丑角；好莱坞大片中永远是女英雄所向披靡，男角色窝囊无能。不仅如此，现行的教育体系不断惩罚男孩好动的天性，社会舆论更将传统的男性阳刚美德污名化为道德瑕疵。当社会抽离了男性的使命感、价值感与上升通道时，年轻男性的全面溃退早已命中注定。 但基辛对沉沦中的年轻男性给出了截然不同的硬核忠告： > “解决你们人生问题的答案绝不可能是沉溺于色情或虚拟网络。唯一的出路是挺起脊梁，承担责任，去争取一份工作或创立一份事业，亲自改善自己的处境。没有人会来救你，也没有人会来帮你。” 他解释道，出于漫长的进化心理机制，人类社会天然会对女性怀有保护与同情，并为女性量身打造各种扶持项目，但这种温情绝不会降临到男性头上。即使社会长期充斥着对男性的偏见，年轻男性的唯一救赎依然是“从沙发上站起来，走到现实世界中去建造、去创造、去杀出一条血路”。基辛呼吁社会彻底结束愚蠢的性别内战，重新回到人类文明的基本常识：健康的男性气质与健康的女性气质缺一不可，两性只有彼此尊重、协作同行，才能组建家庭、繁衍后代，维系文明与社会的良性延续。 --- ### [37:04](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qpBnYB0I6_0&t=2224s) 特朗普废除DEI政策与企业界的集体转向 谈及文化与制度层面的巨变，主持人史蒂芬·巴特利特（Steven Bartlett）将话题引向特朗普就职后的重磅举措。特朗普在就职演说中高调宣称：“我们将铸就一个没有肤色偏见、基于能力与功绩的社会（color blind and merit-based）。”在签署的众多行政命令中，特朗普明确要求在 60 天内彻底取缔并解散联邦政府内部推行的各项多元化、平等与包容（DEI）项目。 与此同时，这种去意识形态化的浪潮正从华盛顿席卷至商业界的最前沿。在过去的数月里，包括科技巨头 Meta，零售巨头沃尔玛（Walmart）与亚马逊（Amazon），以及麦当劳、福特汽车、哈雷戴维森（Harley-Davidson）、波音（Boeing）和丰田（Toyota）等跨国企业，均纷纷宣布撤销、缩减或逆转其内部推行多年的 DEI 机制。巴特利特就此向现场嘉宾抛出核心追问：企业界与政界曾经赖以维系的身分政治（Identity Politics）似乎正在发生根本性逆转，各位是否支持特朗普全面取缔与回滚 DEI 举措的强硬行动？面对这一尖锐问题，嘉宾直言其中蕴含着极为复杂的权衡与分歧。 ### [37:55](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qpBnYB0I6_0&t=2275s) 高等教育的 DEI 骗局：奢侈品式的人为稀缺与阶级固化 斯科特·加洛韦（Scott Galloway）直言不讳地指出，美国顶尖大学里的多元化、公平与包容（DEI）机制本质上是一场巨大的“障眼法”。作为身处大学体制内部的人，他自嘲是这种“种姓制度”的执行者之一——大学管理层和教授们每天早晨照镜子时思考的其实是同一个问题：“如何在减少问责的同时提高自己的薪酬？”为了达成这一目的，美国高校采用了一种类似奢侈品集团 LVMH 的极致精英主义策略。以达特茅斯学院（Dartmouth College）为例，学校坐拥高达 80 亿美元的捐赠基金，每年却仅仅录取 500 名新生。围绕“录取谁”的 DEI 争辩完全掩盖了最根本的核心问题——“到底录取了多少人”。 加洛韦强调，如果一所大学的捐赠基金规模或大一新生人数的增速赶不上人口增长率，政府就应当直接剥夺其免税资格。高等教育真正该做的是扩大供给：录取更多同性恋学生、更多跨性别学生，同时也录取更多来自农业州的白人共和党人。社区大学从来不谈 DEI，因为它们没有严苛的排他性门槛，因此也不存在所谓的 DEI 矛盾。大学校园里的 DEI 如今已经发展到“吞食自身尾巴”的荒谬地步。从最初的良好初衷演变至今，它与所谓的商学院伦理系、可持续发展系和领导力系一样，成了一个供养缺乏严苛考核标准且永不被解雇人员的庞大官僚机构，最终这些高昂成本全部转嫁成了年轻人的巨额学生贷款。 加洛韦回顾了自己的人生经历：他由一位做了一辈子秘书的单亲移民母亲抚养长大，正是凭借联邦佩尔助学金（Pell Grants）和照顾低收入家庭的政策才获得了接受高等教育的“不公平优势”。他坚决主张平权行动（Affirmative Action）应当摒弃外在身份标签，转向以经济困难程度为核心的“逆境平权”，正如加利福尼亚大学（University of California）在 1997 年所做的那样。他尖锐地总结道：“平权行动应当基于肤色，但这唯一的颜色必须是绿色（美元）。”扶助处于贫困中的弱势群体理所应当，可一旦社会开始依据外在的种族身份赋予特权，所引发的矛盾与撕裂将远远超过其试图解决的问题。 - 达特茅斯学院拥有 80 亿美元捐赠基金，但新生名额被严格限制在约 500 人，人为制造教育资源的极端稀缺。 - 加州大学自 1997 年起废除基于种族的平权措施，全面转向基于家庭经济逆境的衡量标准。 - 加洛韦主张应裁撤高校内膨胀的 DEI 部门、伦理学及领导力机构，以遏制学生债务的无序飙升。 ### [39:28](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qpBnYB0I6_0&t=2368s) 私营领域的结构性失衡与民主党的“身份切片”陷阱 虽然加洛韦对高校 DEI 的过度泛滥深恶痛绝，但在谈及私营企业与风险投资领域时，他依然保持了审慎与客观。作为先后出任过 7 家上市公司和 12 家私营企业董事的资深商业人士，他承认私营领域的多元化进程仍未彻底完成。在风险投资行业，约有 40% 的风险资本（甚至 70% 至 80% 实际部署的资本）仍然集中在仅毕业于斯坦福大学和哈佛大学两所名校的白人男性手中，女性创业者在吸纳风投资金方面依然面临巨大鸿沟。因此，在企业董事会和特定商业领域中，扩大观察视角、有意识地吸纳代表性不足的群体的确有其必要性，政策推进必须因行业而异。 然而，当这种理念被政治化并走向极端时，便会产生毁灭性的反弹。加洛韦以参加民主党全国代表大会（DNC）的经历为例指出，民主党官方网站（dnc.org）上公然罗列了 17 个特定的利益群体，明确宣称他们所服务的对象包括亚裔及太平洋岛民、老年人、退伍军人、非裔美国人以及残障人士等。加洛韦把这些人群的比例累加后发现，他们覆盖了全美 76% 的人口。这种把选民按身份切片的做法导致了一个极其危险的荒谬逻辑：“当你宣称自己积极代表全美 76% 的人口时，你其实并不是在代表他们，你是在公开歧视剩下的 24%。” ```mermaid flowchart TD accTitle: 身份政治与逆境平权的机制对比 accDescr: 对比基于种族的身份标签平权机制与基于经济逆境的平权机制在社会结果上的差异 subgraph Identity["身份政治模型 (DEI)"] A["按种族/性别划分特定群体"] --> B["特权倾斜与按配额填表"] B --> C["富裕少数族裔进一步获益"] B --> D["底层白人与贫困群体被彻底边缘化"] C & D --> E["引发种族对抗与反向歧视争议"] end subgraph Adversity["阶级逆境模型 (以经济为导向)"] F["考察实际家庭收入与教育逆境"] --> G["精准提供财务与学术支持 (如佩尔助学金)"] G --> H["帮助跨越阶级的贫困学生 (不分族裔)"] H --> I["维系唯才是举与社会融合"] end ``` ### [41:17](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qpBnYB0I6_0&t=2477s) 帝国历史的消亡、逆向歧视与“唯才是举”的共同体认同 康斯坦丁·基辛（Konstantin Kisin）对加洛韦的观点表示完全赞同，并从历史与文明演进的高度剖析了 DEI 在整个西方世界引发巨大民怨的根源。基辛指出，现实中的优势与劣势本质上是阶级和财富问题，但当前的 DEI 体系却将大量红利输送给了来自富裕、成功家庭的少数族裔后代，这些孩子本就拥有极大的家庭特权；与此同时，在底层贫困中苦苦挣扎的孩子——无论是黑人还是白人——却完全失去了向上流动的机会。 从全球历史来看，现代西方社会创造了人类有史以来族裔最多元、且制度上不设公开压迫的独特文明。以往的帝国体系无一例外由单一主体民族绝对主导： - 苏联由俄罗斯人主导； - 奥斯曼帝国由土耳其人主导； - 大英帝国由英国本土人主导。 在旧时代，其他族裔心知肚明自己是二等公民。而今天，西方社会建立在“人人平等”的核心信条之上。然而，极端的 DEI 政策却走向了全盘颠倒的反向歧视：大学录取对不同族裔设定双重标准，企业盲目按指标招聘，甚至连英国广播公司（BBC）都公开设立了“禁止白人申请”的特定实习项目。基辛愤怒地指出，当事情演变到这种地步时，公众内心的真实声音是：“我知道社会不让我说出口，但这纯粹就是种族主义，我们本是为了消除种族主义，结果却陷入了新的种族主义。” 基辛作为雇主现身说法：“我们这里所有人都雇佣员工，我们在招聘时有谁会去在意对方的肤色？我开公司需要的是在这个薪资预算内最优秀的人才，我不在乎他是紫色、绿色、蓝色还是白色！”如果放弃唯才是举的原则，任由身份政治将不同族裔绑架成争夺资源的竞争集团，多元多民族社会必将分崩离析。基辛大声呼吁摒弃狭隘的身份标签，重新凝聚共识：“我们首先都是英国人，或者我们首先都是美国人。我们必须拥有这个统领一切的‘保护伞身份’，个人的种族或性别在这个身份面前是次要的。” ### [46:16](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qpBnYB0I6_0&t=2776s) 配额机制对成功的侮辱与竞选方案的两种底层思维 丹尼尔·普里斯特利（Daniel Priestley）进一步指出了 DEI 配额文化中最具破坏性、最恶毒的一面：它极大地贬低并质疑了少数族裔和女性凭借自身努力取得的卓越成就。当一个拥有多元背景的优秀候选人脱颖而出时，周围的人甚至候选人自己都会不自觉地怀疑：“她究竟是因为能力优秀被录取的，还是仅仅为了帮公司满足多元化指标？” 普里斯特利分享了他近期的招聘经历：在最终入围的两名候选人中有一男一女，最终入选的是那位女性。他由衷地感叹：“我最不希望看到的事情，就是这位女性误以为自己胜出是因为她的性别。事实是，她在整个考核流程中表现最为出色，毫无争议。她理应确信自己是因为足够拔尖而获得这份工作的。”当职场演变成“为了宣称公司多元化而随便拉一个符合标签的人来打勾”时，整套制度便彻底沦为了对才华与潜力的背叛。 谈及刚刚落幕的美国大选，普里斯特利以两党官网的内容构造揭示了选民背后的心理抉择。民主党的官方主页核心是“我们为了谁（Who We're For）”，通篇充斥着各种身份特权列表与受害者标签分类；而特朗普的竞选主页标题则是直截了当的“我们将要执行的 20 件事（20 Things We're Going To Do）”，条理清晰地列出一份包含 20 项具体举措的行动清单。这形成了鲜明的两极对照：一边是深陷身份政治分化、不断许诺群体特权的空洞说辞，另一边是目标清晰、专注落地的执行清单，美国公众最终在这两种截然不同的治理哲学间做出了决定性的抉择。 ### [47:44](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qpBnYB0I6_0&t=2864s) 重新定义男性气概与扎克伯格的“伪装” 主持人 Steven 谈到马克·扎克伯格（Mark Zuckerberg）近期的一次访谈。扎克伯格在谈及男性气概与身份认同时表示，“我认为拥有一种稍微多推崇一点进攻性（aggression）的文化，本身具有非常积极的价值”。这番话听起来十分耳熟，几乎与 Scott Galloway 之前在节目中表达的观点如出一辙——Scott 曾直言，男人应当具备“走进任何一个房间都能把所有人都打趴下”的体魄与底气。然而，在公众印象中，扎克伯格的为人与商业风格与 Scott 的世界观大相径庭，这引发了关于扎克伯格是否真正认同这种价值观的追问。 ```mermaid flowchart TD accTitle: Scott Galloway 对男性气概的界定对比 accDescr: 对比扎克伯格/特朗普式的攻击性与真正具有建设性的男性行为准则 subgraph Toxic["虚假或倒退的‘男性气概’"] A1["向权力谄媚 / 跪舔求饶"] A2["取消健康审核，纵容仇恨算法"] A3["网络霸凌、人身攻击与粗鄙残酷"] end subgraph True["Scott 倡导的建设性准则"] B1["保护 (Protection)"] B2["提供 / 供养 (Providing)"] B3["繁衍与责任 (Procreation)"] B4["创造剩余价值、强壮、不抱怨"] end ``` Scott 对此给出了极其尖锐的驳斥。他承认自己确实赞美年轻男性的身体机能——在 30 岁以下，男性拥有坚固的骨骼、惊人的快肌纤维（double twitch muscle）以及充沛的睾酮，任何人回望自己 25 岁时都会感慨自己当年为何没活得像个势不可挡的庞然大物。当乌克兰边境遭遇俄军入侵时，前线需要的正是这种强悍的力量。但他认为扎克伯格根本不懂什么叫“令人心生向往的男性气概”。扎克伯格如今的这番表态，本质上是因为特朗普曾公开威胁要将他送进监狱，出于恐惧而急忙向特朗普“献媚舔屁股”（kiss Trump's ass）。Meta 曾经标榜的“内容审核”，如今为了迎合新政权被轻飘飘地打成“言论审查”；放任推荐算法推波助澜仇恨与煽动性言论，绝不是男性气概。 在 Scott 看来，真正的男性气概核心只有三点：保护（protection）、供养（providing）与繁衍（procreation）。扎克伯格不过是借着男性气概的幌子，来掩盖自己逢迎讨好的奴才嘴脸。更何况，企业并不需要被刻意贴上男性化或女性化的标签，其核心使命应当是为股东或利益相关者创造价值。Scott 强调，男性气概与生理性别并不是绝对绑定的：他在 CrossFit 健身房里经常与一群女同性恋消防员一起高强度训练，她们展现出无与伦比的男性气概与爆发力，“一旦发生火灾，她们完全能把我整个人扛出火场”。相反，很多男性也展现出优秀的女性特质，社会没必要将特定性格锁死在某种性别里。最后 Scott 忍不住毒舌吐槽扎克伯格的转型扮相：“扎克伯格大谈男性气概？得了吧，他现在看起来活像个车臣的摇头丸贩子（Chechen molly dealer）。” ### [50:51](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qpBnYB0I6_0&t=3051s) 年轻男性需要的“行为准则”与现实困境 当今社会对性别的讨论存在着严重的双重标准。Scott 指出，如果在行业大会上公开宣称“女性是更好的管理者”，全场必定掌声雷动、连声附和；但如果有人敢说“男性往往更具冒险进取精神，因而更适合创业”，立刻就会被扣上厌女症（misogynist）的帽子，当场遭到抵制与驱逐。然而不可否认的是，当代年轻男性正在面临全面的生活溃败：走进教堂接受精神洗礼的人越来越少，现实人际交往不断萎缩，来自双亲家庭或军队的传统纪律约束逐渐瓦解，年轻一代亟需一套能够安身立命的行为准则（code）。 Scott 呼吁将男性气概重新定义为一种充满向上力量的追求： - 身体强壮：锻炼体魄，崇尚力量与体能，以此为荣而非感到羞耻。 - 拒绝抱怨与自怨自艾：用行动解决现实生活中的障碍。 - 创造剩余经济价值：努力工作、热爱财富，为社会贡献的税收要远远多于消耗的公共资源。 - 保持积极进取但克制克制：在酒吧冲突中扮演拉架劝和的角色，而不是挑起事端的打手。 - 忠诚与建设性：保护自己的国家，而不是成天在社交网络上无脑发帖泄愤（shitposting）。 - 体面而勇敢地追求爱情：敢于当面向心仪的女性表达浪漫好感，如果不幸被拒绝，坦然接受并各自安好，这绝不是犯罪。 这种对男性气概的呼唤在社会各界引发了戏剧性的舆论逆转。五年前，凡是公开谈论男性特质的人都会被斥责为厌女，而如今，推动这一话题重回公众视野的最核心群体反而是母亲们。越来越多的母亲陷入了极度焦虑：“我有三个孩子，两个女儿极其出色，一个在公关界崭露头角，另一个考上了宾夕法尼亚大学（Penn）；但我的儿子却整天窝在地下室里，一边抽着电子烟，一边没日没夜地打电子游戏。”年轻男性正在迷失，他们迫切需要一种刻在骨子里、能让他们重拾尊严与目标的精神信条。 ### [52:40](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qpBnYB0I6_0&t=3160s) 特朗普、马斯克与“男权圈”的歧路 主持人 Steven 提出，Scott 刚才描绘的这一整套推崇责任、竞争与体魄的男性叙事，在政治光谱上其实更容易被美国右翼或共和党所吸纳，而非自由派左翼。在这场大选中，特朗普极其敏锐地嗅到了年轻男性的情绪真空，毅然决然地全方位拥抱“男权圈”（manosphere）——深入加密货币社群、高谈太空火箭、频繁现身 Joe Rogan 和 Theo Von 等顶流直男播客。特朗普没有回避所谓的“有毒男性气概”争议，反而是主动冲进这股浪潮，并成功收割了年轻男性的选票。 Scott 对此分析道，特朗普所兜售的那套男性气概走向了极其糟糕的歧路：充斥着过度的粗鄙、残酷与霸凌，这绝不是真正的成熟男性。同样，在谈及埃隆·马斯克（Elon Musk）时，Scott 展现了鲜明的两面评价： - 值得赞叹的男性力量：敢于押上全副身家冒巨大风险、研发出能被发射塔机械臂“筷子”稳稳夹住的回收火箭、以一己之力掀起全球电动汽车技术革命并创造海量财富，这种敢为人先的魄力确实是极佳的男性典范。 - 令人不齿的反面榜样：公开指责前往泰国溶洞救援少年的潜水员是“恋童癖”；在网络上公开辱骂前员工是性犯罪者，导致对方甚至不敢呆在家中；与多名女性育有十几个孩子，却未与任何一人共同生活承担家庭责任；在床头摆放上膛的枪支；因成瘾问题而多次丧失自我情绪控制。 在 Scott 看来，马斯克的冒险精神固然是年轻小男孩们顶礼膜拜的超级英雄，但他当下的心智状态与个人行为，绝不配被称为成年男性的合格榜样。 ### [54:06](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qpBnYB0I6_0&t=3246s) 赞助口播：PerfectTed 抹茶与 1% 手账 节目进入中场休息，主持人 Steven 进行了两则商业赞助产品的分享与推介： 其一是英国抹茶品牌 PerfectTed。Steven 分享了自己对抹茶提神功效的喜爱，并透露自己正是该品牌的早期投资人。他现场展示了包括海盐焦糖、蜜桃、薄荷、莓果及香草在内的多款风味抹茶粉，并用摇摇杯在镜头前即时冲泡了一杯香草抹茶。该产品不仅可在英国 Tesco 及 Holland & Barrett 等线下实体零售店买到，在官网下单使用专属折扣码还能享受 40% 的折扣。 其二是团队开发的“1% 日记”（The 1% Diary）。Steven 援引数据指出，大约 80% 的新年计划会在每年 2 月彻底流产，其根本原因在于人们过度盯着宏大的最终目标，而忽视了日常每一步微小的行动。那些容易做到的小事，往往也同样最容易被弃置不管。该手账专为 90 天的习惯养成而设计，主打每天进步 1% 的复利思维，并配套了互助打卡社区。由于首发库存迅速售罄，团队目前开启了第二批次的发售。 ### [55:54](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qpBnYB0I6_0&t=3354s) 埃隆·马斯克收购 X 是社会的净收益吗？ 话题随后重新回到技术巨头、言论审查与言论自由的博弈上。Steven 向政治评论员 Konstantin Kisin 提问：扎克伯格执掌的 Meta 如今正在推翻过去十年建立的内容审核规范——在过去的 Facebook 生态中，只要用户发表偏右翼或非主流的观点，随时面临被删帖、限流甚至封号的风险；而马斯克收购 X 平台（原 Twitter）更是一场彻底打破审核的震荡。与此同时，持批评态度的 Scott 已经彻底停更并离开了 X。Steven 直截了当地询问 Konstantin：马斯克收购 X，对整个社会而言究竟是不是一笔“净收益”（net positive）？ Konstantin 坦言，从宏观的净收益角度来看，他的答案是“是的”。但他随即补充道，很多人一听到“净收益”三个字，就会天真地以为这个新系统完美无瑕、毫无漏洞。事实绝非如此。马斯克推行的极端自由化平台同样存在明显的弊端：审查机制过去虽然扼杀了许多正当言论，但它在客观上也确实发挥了“数字过滤网”的作用，将大量极其恶劣、下作且充满恶意的人群隔离在主流视野之外。如今随着审核门槛的几乎彻底拆除，在 X 上冲浪的人必须面对的一个现实代价，就是不得不频繁直面各种令人作呕、毫无底线的肮脏内容直接怼到眼前。言论自由带来了思想流通的活力，但也必然伴随着信息环境的泥沙俱下。 ### [57:12](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qpBnYB0I6_0&t=3432s) 言论自由的代价与科技巨头的“觉醒转向” 康斯坦丁·基辛（Konstantin Kisin）指出，言论自由从来都不是免费的，当今网络环境的混乱就是必须承受的代价。他带着浓厚的讽刺意味谈及马克·扎克伯格（Mark Zuckerberg）近期“奇迹般地转变为言论自由斗士”，戏谑地表示自己对扎克伯格的转变表示热烈欢迎，且“毫不怀疑其动机绝对纯粹，绝对与刚刚揭晓的大选结果或文化风向的逆转没有任何关系”。基辛强调，过去几年里，像他们这样在大型平台上频遭封禁和审查的人，实际上已经在言论自由的辩论中取得了彻底的胜利。 大型社交平台的算法机制天然偏向极端与争议，理性和温和的真知灼见往往难以获得曝光，这注定了自由开放的舆论场会充满令人不适的言论。然而，基辛坚定地认为，能够听到并传播客观真实的想法与事实，其价值远远高于个人主观感受被冒犯的成本。尽管种族歧视或厌女言论令人厌恶，但他宁愿忍受这些不良言论的存在，也不愿生活在一个关键事实被系统性扼杀的审查环境里。他举例指出，过去几年中，讨论“新冠病毒可能源自中国实验室”遭到全面压制，而关乎选民决断的“亨特·拜登笔记本电脑事件”更是被扣上“俄罗斯假消息”的帽子强行封口；如今这种审查机制终于被打破，平台正在回归对真实事实的包容。 - **算法平台与真理传播**：算法驱动的推荐机制天然奖励情绪化的极端言论，导致理性和温和观点难以吸睛，但必须承受言论场的不完美以换取自由。 - **被压制的历史议题**： - 新冠病毒溯源假说（实验室泄漏论此前遭平台审查封杀）。 - 亨特·拜登笔记本电脑丑闻（被误导定性为外国虚假信息，剥夺选民知情权）。 --- ### [58:59](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qpBnYB0I6_0&t=3539s) 社交平台 X、埃隆·马斯克与英国诱拐团伙丑闻 基辛将讨论引回英国本土，分享了自己在自媒体播客《Trigonometry》上的亲身经历。自 2019 至 2020 年起，他们就持续揭露和报道英国各地骇人听闻的“诱拐团伙丑闻”（grooming gangs scandal）。在长达几十年的时间里，大量年轻女性遭受系统性性侵和虐待，这本应是每天必须持续质询、直至执法部门、社工机构及政府治理产生彻底变革的重大国家危机。然而，英国主流媒体往往浅尝辄止，浅度报道后便迅速移开视线，致使受害者与社会维权活动家长期求告无门。 这一切在埃隆·马斯克（Elon Musk）收购推特（现 X）后发生了根本扭转。马斯克在 X 上以极高的热度转发并放大了受害者与活动人士的声音，将这桩压制数十年的丑闻推上了国际焦点，迫使英国首相基尔·斯塔默（Keir Starmer）陷入被动防御并不得不做出官方回应。基辛激动地表示：“这绝对是一件大好事！”如果这种开放且不受限的社交平台在 30 年前就存在，无数年轻少女就无需经历如此惨痛的人生地狱。 ```mermaid flowchart TD accTitle: 社交平台机制对英国社会丑闻推动路径 accDescr: 对比传统媒体忽略与马斯克利用 X 平台放大受害群体声音迫使政府应对的路径流程 subgraph Past["过去：传统审查与冷处理模式"] A["重大恶性社会丑闻<br/>（诱拐犯罪与系统性伤害）"] --> B["主流媒体浅尝辄止<br/>警政及社工机构失职怠惰"] B --> C["缺乏持续公众监督<br/>受害者声音长期被边缘化"] end subgraph Present["现在：去中心化平台介入"] D["马斯克收购 X 平台<br/>打破既有内容审查"] --> E["直接放大受害者与活动家原声<br/>引发全网海量转发讨论"] E --> F["形成巨大跨国舆论压力<br/>迫使英国政府与首相正视应对"] end ``` --- ### [01:00:45](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qpBnYB0I6_0&t=3645s) 为何马斯克在此刻向英国政治发难？ 主持人提出疑问：为什么马斯克会选择在当前节点，将推文火力集中对准英国首相基尔·斯塔默及诱拐案丑闻？马斯克的推文往往像是在“实时公开思考”，背后究竟有怎样的意图与驱动力？ 基辛从文化与地缘的角度剖析了两个核心原因： 1. **信息差与认知觉醒**：绝大多数美国公众直到最近才得知这一丑闻的严重程度。基辛回忆一年前在纽约参加一场私人高规格研讨会时，当被问及“为何如此反对政治正确与言论审查”时，他向在场的美国精英阶层讲述了英国诱拐团伙的惨剧，那些见多识广、深谙媒体的精英们无不感到极度震惊。马斯克如今的发声，恰好契合了这股在美英舆论圈中逐步浮现的认知浪潮。 2. **西方文明的共生性（Symbiosis）**：马斯克关注的不仅是美国一国，而是整个西方文明的命运。基辛指出，美英以及欧洲如今在文化上紧密相连、高度共生： - 英国对言论自由的压制和立法的紧缩，必然会跨越大西洋渗透至美国； - 欧盟推动的在线审查法规一旦落地，美国国内也会出现“欧洲已有先例，我们为何不效仿”的呼声。 - 面对英国政府在重大犯罪调查上的不作为，马斯克采取了无党派倾斜的施压策略。不仅工党政府受到猛烈抨击，保守党此前的无能同样难辞其咎，马斯克甚至公开质疑奈杰尔·法拉奇（Nigel Farage）是否适合领导英国改革党（Reform UK），意图直接重塑英国政治走向。 --- ### [01:03:49](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qpBnYB0I6_0&t=3829s) 马斯克的终极蓝图：走出洞穴与文明进取心 当被问及“马斯克究竟想要达到什么目的”时，基辛坦言自己虽未与马斯克私下深交或进行专访，但从其长期的言论和行动中可以看出，马斯克怀有一种远超地球地缘纷争的宏大文明愿景： - **重塑进取与拓荒精神**：人类走出洞穴是为了探索更广阔的天地，而非龟缩在逼仄的角落里哀叹文明的衰退。马斯克对火星殖民的执着，正是试图将人类的注意力从地表微不足道的党派攻讦中拔高，构建对星际未来的向往。 - **摆脱人口崩溃与虚无主义**：基辛痛批当前西方社会的萎靡心态——生育率跌至每位女性 1.5 个孩子、年轻人对组建家庭和孕育后代失去渴望，仿佛整个文明在等待消亡。马斯克追求的是充满希望、技术乐观和积极繁衍的文明形态。 - **痛击英国当下的平庸与衰败**：基辛认为英国现任政府正通过过度管制、放任非法移民、扼杀经济与文化凝聚力，向国民灌输一种“小国寡民、安于平庸（play small）、切勿非分之想”的颓废心态；马斯克对现政权的抨击，正是为了唤醒公众拒绝接受这种缓慢的安乐死。 现场嘉宾补充道，马斯克在一年前就立下誓言，要“在全人类范围内彻底瓦解觉醒思想病毒（woke mind virus）”，确立唯才任用（meritocracy）和绝对的言论自由。马斯克具备常人难以企及的惊人专注力与执行韧性，一旦认定目标，他便会长期锁定并持续出击。 ### [01:06:15](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qpBnYB0I6_0&t=3975s) 科技寡头与政客的博弈：拆分风险与海湖庄园的“效忠” 讨论切入埃隆·马斯克的行事风格。嘉宾们指出，马斯克是一个“必须承受痛苦、热衷战斗”的人，他的大脑似乎处于一种不与激烈冲突对抗就无法放松的状态——他的生活需要压力，需要巨大的敌人来维持动力，而英国首相基尔·斯塔默（Keir Starmer）恰好完美契合了他心目中对手的所有特质。 紧接着，Daniel Priestley 将视角转向大型科技巨头（Big Tech）与即将上台的特朗普政府之间的微妙关系。他提到 Scott Galloway 过去倡导的“拆分大科技公司”，并指出在未来的四年中，这种可能性完全存在。特朗普和副总统 JD·万斯（JD Vance）等人都曾与科技巨头正面硬刚，未来四年或许正是他们向科技巨头展开“复仇”的绝佳窗口——外界甚至可能看到谷歌被迫剥离 YouTube，或者亚马逊被迫分拆 AWS（亚马逊云计算服务）。正因如此，科技巨头的高管们近几周纷纷赶往海湖庄园向特朗普“阿谀奉承”（butt-kissing），特朗普甚至公开炫耀这些人排着队飞来讨好他。媒体头条随之惊呼：美国正在形成一个由贝索斯、马斯克和扎克伯格组成的“科技寡头集团”，他们正聚拢在特朗普身后，形成一股前所未有的政治与资本合力。 主持人随后将问题抛给 Scott Galloway：Konstantin 认为马斯克涉足政治与英国事务是为了“推动人类福祉”，这是否符合 Galloway 对马斯克的观察？此外，Galloway 为何会决定离开 X（原 Twitter）并转投 Bluesky 和 Threads 等竞品？ ### [01:08:04](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qpBnYB0I6_0&t=4084s) 算法的罪恶：机器与虚假账号是否享有“言论自由”？ Scott Galloway 直言自己无法揣测马斯克的内心动机，甚至坦承“我完全搞不懂这个人”，并且对英国深层复杂的社会议题没有足够专业度去妄加评论。但他重点剖析了社交媒体的审查制度与言论自由的本质。Galloway 强调，自由民主社会的基石在于“几乎任何人都可以就任何人发表几乎任何言论”；然而核心问题在于：**算法机器人（Bots）和机器是否也享有言论自由的宪法权利？** Galloway 分享了自己的亲身经历：他认为那些被自己批评过估值虚高的风投机构（VCs），曾雇佣成千上万的机器人账号在 X 上对他进行持续的污名化围剿；因批评普京，俄罗斯格鲁乌（GRU）的网军水军（troll farms）也会用成群的机器账号对他发起恶意攻击。他反问：难道这些虚假机器人也配拥有言论自由吗？他将社交平台与传统媒体进行了严厉对比： - **传统媒体的法律问责**：福克斯新闻（Fox News）的主播明知多米宁投票机（Dominion Voting Systems）被委内瑞拉操纵的说法纯属谎言，却依然对外散播，最终被法院认定需承担诽谤责任，赔偿了超过 7.5 亿美元。 - **社交平台的责任豁免**：在 Galloway 看来，福克斯新闻事件在 Meta 和 X 平台上的乱象面前不过是“垃圾桶着火碰上了核爆蘑菇云”。 ```mermaid flowchart TD accTitle: Traditional Media vs Social Media Platform Liability accDescr: Comparison showing how traditional media faces legal liability while social platforms exploit Section 230 despite algorithmically amplifying outrage. subgraph TraditionalMedia["传统媒体模式 (如 Fox News)"] A["采编并散播不实信息"] --> B["面临诽谤诉讼"] B --> C["承担巨额赔偿 (如 Dominion 案赔偿超 7.5 亿美元)"] end subgraph SocialPlatforms["社交平台模式 (Meta / X)"] D["用户与黑客水军发布谣言与极端言论"] --> E["算法以营利为目的主动加权推荐 (超出有机传播范围)"] E --> F["受美国《通信规范法》第 230 条庇护免责"] end ``` Galloway 阐明，公众当然有权发表“mRNA 疫苗会改变 DNA”等异端言论，因为少数派的声音至关重要，甚至偶有阴谋论者言中的情况。但问题的核心在于商业模式——平台通过算法将最丑陋、最煽动仇恨的内容放大到远远超出其自然传播（organic reach）的范围，以此榨取流量与利润，却借助美国《通信规范法》第 230 条（Section 230）完全豁免一切法律责任。假如本场播客毫无证据地指控马斯克是恋童癖并造成特斯拉融资受损，播客团队必定会被告到倾家荡产；然而全球最有权势的媒体平台却能凭借 230 条免死金牌，靠散布愤怒、谎言与阴谋论赚得盆满钵满。这种机制直接导致三分之二的共和党选民深信 2020 年大选被窃取，五分之一的美国人相信 9/11 是一场内部阴谋。 ### [01:11:15](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qpBnYB0I6_0&t=4275s) 信息茧房与算法投毒：现实的温情与线上的恶臭 Konstantin Kisin 赞同算法煽动情绪的危害，并指出马斯克在收购 X 时也曾直面机器人与愤怒放大机制的问题，尽管其目前的治理成效尚未达到预期。Konstantin 强调，这不仅是某一家平台的问题，而是整个数字文明必须解决的技术通病——外国势力与个人都可以轻松利用水军操纵公众认知。 此外，信息茧房（Echo Chambers）正在将极端观点推向极致。过去的人即便怀揣荒谬的想法，周日依然得坐在教堂的长凳上，与持不同观念的理性邻里交流共处；而如今，算法将同温层紧密闭合，人们只与分享同样极端观点的人抱团，彼此强化偏见，最终迅速滑向激进化。 Scott Galloway 对此深有共鸣。他生动地讲述了前一天的真实生活体验： - 他在现实中的餐厅（Gringo's）吃饭时，遇到的全都是温和有礼的活人——有人热情地跑来合影，表达对内容的喜爱；有人礼貌地表达异见，双方展开了理智且友善的对话。 - 然而，当他一回到家打开手机，屏幕上却是 40 多个机器人账号铺天盖地咒骂他是“种族灭绝教授”（Professor Genocide）。 Galloway 感叹，现实生活中的人类由于面对面的社会契约往往温和友善，而网络大语言模型（LLM）与推荐算法爬取的完全是互联网阴暗角落里的污泥浊水（treif），这根本不能代表人类物种的真实面貌，只能反映平台追逐煽动性流量的商业贪婪。 针对自己退出 X 的决定，Galloway 打了个比方：“如果你不喜欢 Chick-fil-A（福来鸡），别去吃就是了。”马斯克花 440 亿美元哪怕把它改造成极端酒吧也是他的商业自由，政府不该干预；但他自己同样拥有“不给马斯克刷漆干活”的自由，因此转投其他平台纯粹是因为“不想待在一个让自己心情恶劣的糟糕地方”。最后，Galloway 提出了直击要害的立法建议：**彻底取消针对算法加权推荐内容的 Section 230 保护**。一旦平台算法主动将内容推送到自然传播范围之外，这就构成了实质性的“编辑策展行为”（editorial decision），平台必须与传统媒体一样，对其中的诽谤与中伤承担完全的法律连带责任。Daniel 赞叹这一提议切中要害，并提醒大家，随着生成式 AI 的爆发，今年起人类阅读到的大量极具煽动性的优质内容都将由算法直接生成，探讨机器是否享有言论自由绝非虚妄的哲学空谈。 ### [01:15:06](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qpBnYB0I6_0&t=4506s) 虚假广告与社交媒体的分裂：政治立场的站队工具 Steven Bartlett 将话题从抽象的理论拉回到了切身的日常现实：如今的 Bot（机器人程序）已经能够极其自然地生成对话，普通人甚至可能聊上一整天都意识不到对方是机器。Steven 分享了自己过去一周的亲身经历——他的 WhatsApp 被朋友们的信息轰炸，因为在 X（原 Twitter）平台上充斥着大量盗用他头像的虚假赞助广告。这些广告伪造了 BBC 的新闻头条，赫然写着“英国央行起诉 Steven Bartlett”或“不敢相信这发生在他身上”，点击进去就是一个加密货币诈骗陷阱。更令人不安的是，这些发布虚假广告的账号不仅是批量自动化生成的 Bot，而且全都是拥有蓝勾的“已认证账号”（Verified Accounts），背后甚至砸了真金白银做付费推广。Steven 感叹，在网上胡乱发帖是一回事，但花钱投放虚假广告进行公开诽谤和诈骗，完全是“另一个维度的恶劣”。 随后，Steven 指出过去十年中全球社交平台激增了 50%，互联网正在陷入剧烈的碎片化与阵营化。从 Rumble 到 Bluesky，再到 Threads，用户不再是在同一个公共广场交流，而是根据政治光谱挑选各自的社交软件，社交网络已经演变为彼此隔绝的政治阵地。 ```mermaid flowchart TD accTitle: 社交媒体政治分化与现实撕裂流程 accDescr: 展示用户根据政治立场分流至封闭社交平台，最终导致算法信息茧房与现实感断裂的过程。 subgraph PlatformDispersion["平台分化与用户站队"] A["传统综合平台<br/>(X / Twitter)"] --> B["右翼倾向平台<br/>(Rumble / Truth Social)"] A --> C["左翼及建制平台<br/>(Bluesky / Threads)"] end subgraph EchoChamber["信息茧房与现实碎片化"] B --> D["极化叙事与算法加剧<br/>单一信息流喂养"] C --> D D --> E["现实感知断裂<br/>同住一街却宛如身处不同平行宇宙"] end ``` - **认证账号沦为诈骗工具**：黑产团伙批量生成带蓝勾的认证 Bot 账号，利用 AI 生成图像与伪造 BBC 头条投放定向赞助广告。 - **社交网络剧增 50%**：过去十年新兴平台层出不穷，各平台按政治立场加速分流，削弱了跨群体对话的可能。 --- ### [01:16:54](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qpBnYB0I6_0&t=4614s) 现实的碎片化：阿西莫夫的预言与身份验证难题 Konstantin Kisin 认同社会现实正在经历严重撕裂。他借用“挡风玻璃效应”（Windscreen Effect）解释道：当人们在驾驶座后被人别车时，物理隔绝会让人变得极具攻击性，而在酒吧面对面并肩坐着时则绝不会如此暴躁；线下肉身在场的真实接触极其珍贵，这也是播客访谈坚持面对面录制的原因。然而在他看来，当前的信息撕裂不是某个具体政客、X 平台或 Elon Musk 个人的问题，而是一场席卷全人类的深层技术革命。他回顾自己童年阅读艾萨克·阿西莫夫（Isaac Asimov）科幻小说的体会——当人类创造出对规则照单全收的机器时，原本为了保护人类的设计往往会在哲学与道德层面演变成消灭人类的灾难。当今的人们不再是以“英国人”或“美国人”的地理身份生活，而是通过算法，与全球一小撮认知一致的人抱团，形成封闭的信念体系，哪怕门对门的邻居，脑海中也是完全不同的世界。 在治理层面，Konstantin 明确反驳了 Scott Galloway 先前关于“取消 Section 230、将平台视为出版商”的主张，认为将传统媒体法规生搬硬套到科技平台上并不合适。他指出，治理 Bot 假账号的最直接手段就是实名认证，但这立即会引发巨大的隐私与安全伦理危机： > “如果今天 Elon Musk 掌管 X，你放心交出身份信息；但如果哪天 George Soros 把平台买下来了呢？那些在伊朗匿名反抗宗教神权统治的人权活动家，一旦平台被黑客入侵或易主，他们的下场会是什么？” --- ### [01:21:16](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qpBnYB0I6_0&t=4876s) “复杂的幻觉”：平台推卸责任的遮羞布 Scott Galloway 随即打断并犀利反驳，指责 Konstantin 陷入了科技巨头精心编造的“复杂性幻觉”（Illusion of Complexity）。科技公司往往借口“技术太复杂、权衡太两难”，以此逃避作为社会公器的监管责任，从而在损害公共利益的同时不断拉升股东价值。Scott 驳斥了所谓的个人隐私担忧：“相信我，Konstantin，他们早就把你的底细摸得一清二楚了，我只要有一张信用卡，在暗网就能轻松买到你海量的个人数据。” Scott 认为解决办法并不像科技公司鼓吹的那么无解，关键在于划定底线与实施中间路径： * **严禁未成年人使用社交媒体**：必须推行强硬的年龄验证机制，“16 岁以下的青少年没有任何理由出现在社交媒体平台上”。 * **第三方加密与去中心化匿名**：对于需要匿名保护的异见人士、人权活动家或恶搞账号，完全可以借助区块链技术或独立的第三方匿名凭据来发放有限配额。 * **精准清除有害僵尸网络**：平台完全有能力鉴别并封杀那些“毫无信誉、毫无真实灵魂、仅有数十个粉丝，整天只会在网上挑起骂战、散播绝望情绪”的纯 Bot 账号。 在 Scott 看来，平台之所以坐视不管，纯粹是因为更多的 Bot 意味着更多虚假的点击率、更多展示给日产（Nissan）等广告主的欺诈曝光，最终转化为更高的财报收入与股东回报。 --- ### [01:22:51](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qpBnYB0I6_0&t=4971s) 屏幕成瘾与信息革命的历史代价 Konstantin 对 Scott 提出的一些切入点表示赞同，尤其是关于青少年的年龄限制。他幽默地透露，自己两岁半的儿子在家中受到了严格管束，因为他的妻子已经成了一名彻底的“屏幕纳粹”（Screen Nazi），“这孩子恐怕得等到 40 岁才能拥有自己的手机”。 Konstantin 严肃指出，社交媒体对心智发育尚未成熟、极易受外界影响的年轻人造成了摧毁性的冲击，禁止 16 岁以下接触社交媒体是绝对正确的方向。 在总结当下的困境时，Konstantin 将眼下的数字浪潮与人类历史上上一次伟大的信息载体革命——活字印刷术的发明相提并论。他提醒众人，印刷术在欧洲普及时，打破了教会对信息的垄断，但随后直接引发了长达两个世纪血腥惨烈的宗教战争。人类如今同样站在信息彻底去中心化与碎片化的十字路口，如果不希望重蹈历史的毁灭性覆辙，社会就必须建立能够容纳不同思想表达的非审查环境，并通过漫长而理性的对话，逐步摸索出适应机器新时代的生存契约。 ### [01:24:00](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qpBnYB0I6_0&t=5040s) 闭门深思：西方社会被忽视的真正核心议题 随着整场大选辩论与国际局势讨论接近尾声，主持人指出，公众日常关注的对话往往只是新闻周期的被动映射，而新闻周期的走向又完全受制于人们的点击偏好。这种注意力机制充斥着恐惧情绪与热点叙事——无论是激辩非法移民问题，还是围绕特朗普的争议言行。然而，真正决定西方未来走向的重大议题，往往被这种喧嚣所掩盖。主持人向三位嘉宾抛出一个宏大而深刻的问题：“当前有什么最重要的大事关乎西方的未来，却完全没有得到应有的关注与讨论？” ```mermaid flowchart TD accTitle: 西方社会面临的三大被忽视危机 accDescr: 展示三位嘉宾对西方未来核心盲区的诊断，涵盖教育、社交心理与能源去工业化。 subgraph S1["Daniel Priestley"] A["工业时代普鲁士教育体制"] --> B["AI 颠覆就业与技能需求"] end subgraph S2["Scott Galloway"] C["政治极端化与中产代表缺失"] D["青年男性孤独流行病与数字沉迷"] end subgraph S3["Konstantin Kisin"] E["净零排放意识形态与高昂能源成本"] F["去工业化危机与国防供应链断裂"] end ``` ### [01:24:38](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qpBnYB0I6_0&t=5078s) Daniel Priestley：落后两个世纪的普鲁士教育模式与 AI 冲击 Daniel Priestley 首先作答，直言当前整个教育系统正在彻底辜负年轻一代。学校根本没有教给孩子们适应现实世界的技能，更没有意识到人工智能（AI）将成为他们一生中面临的最具颠覆性的技术变革。父母和学校设想的未来传统职业通道，在 AI 浪潮下大概率将不复存在。 Priestley 强调，现行的学校制度可以一路追溯到 19 世纪初期的普鲁士军事化教育体制，其底层逻辑是为了工业化与军队服从性而设计的。我们必须对整套教育逻辑进行颠覆性审视：为什么学生必须按同一出生年份划分班级？为什么必须按照僵化的学科划分进行分科学习？西方必须跳脱旧框架，探索能够真正让下一代掌握应对未知未来能力的全新教育模式。 ### [01:25:39](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qpBnYB0I6_0&t=5139s) Scott Galloway：极端政治与青年男性的“孤独流行病” 谈及美国面临的隐形危机，Scott Galloway 将政治极端化列为第二大挑战。他用“零下 40 度时摄氏度与华氏度数值相同”来比喻极左与极右的异曲同工：由于美国的选举制度以及《联合公民案》（Citizens United）开启的金钱政治，极左与极右的狂热分子在国会与公共舆论中被严重过度代表，理性温和的多数人反而陷入被边缘化的“少数人统治”境地。两极势力往往在鲁莽的赤字开支以及反犹太主义上吊诡地达成一致。 然而，Galloway 认为对美国社会构成最严重威胁的隐形杀手是“孤独流行病”（loneliness epidemic）。世界上资金最雄厚、资源最顶级的大型科技公司，正通过精巧设计的算法牢牢霸占屏幕，竭力向年轻人——尤其是年轻男性——兜售一种“屏幕里的虚拟人生仿真品”。其结果是毁灭性的：年轻人逐渐陷入孤立，最终在现实中醒来时发现自己肥胖、孤独、缺乏社交与生存技能。 针对年轻男性的社交断层，Galloway 指出社会迫切需要重建“第三空间”（third spaces），呼吁重拾面对面的真实人际互动： - **友谊枯竭现状**：每七个成年男性中就有一人没有任何朋友（1 in 7）；每四个人中就有一人叫不出一个最好的朋友（1 in 4）。 - **心理异化路径**：长期深陷信息茧房导致年轻人轻易落入阴谋论、彼此猜忌防备、向外迁怒归咎于女性和国家体制，向内演变为自我伤害。 - **走出屏幕的呼吁**：Galloway 带着半开玩笑半认真的口吻表示，年轻人应该走出家门、去喝点酒、去犯一些可能带来回报的愚蠢错误、去恋爱做爱。正如他常对指导的年轻男性所言：“浪漫喜剧电影通常长达两个小时，而不是只有十五分钟，这是有原因的——人际交往真他妈的难，但这一切绝对值得。” - **新群体的诞生**：他极度担忧西方正在批量培养一种新型“无社交、无性生活”的年轻男性群体（asocial, asexual beings），不仅焦虑肥胖，在公民素养上也彻底失序。 ### [01:27:43](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qpBnYB0I6_0&t=5263s) Konstantin Kisin：净零教条对英国经济与能源的摧残 轮到 Konstantin Kisin 发言时，他将矛头直指英国和欧洲绝口不提却性命攸关的死穴：能源政策与“净零”（Net Zero）意识形态。Kisin 直陈，英国目前的能源价格高达美国的整整四倍。这一切完全是一场打着“拯救地球”旗号的意识形态自残。 Kisin 摆出残酷的现实数据反驳道德崇高的说辞：英国的碳排放仅占全球总量的 2%。让本就贫困的英国退休老人因为交不起高昂取暖账单在冬日里受冻等死，根本解决不了全球气候变化。净零政策将社会推向制度性贫困，重创本土企业竞争力，扼杀国家积累财富的能力。这种以“挽救地球”、“取悦小女孩格蕾塔”（Greta Thunberg）为名的政治作秀，本质上是一种深层的道德破产。 | 核心维度 | 现实窘境 / 政策后果 | Kisin 提出的务实破局路径 | |:--- |:--- |:--- | | **能源成本** | 英国电费气价达到美国的 **4 倍**，导致本土制造业停滞 | 效仿特朗普“钻吧，宝贝，钻吧”（Drill, baby, drill），全力开发本土能源储备 | | **民生保障** | 贫困领养老金人员面临严重的冬季生存与燃料账单危机 | 降低能源价格，让国民在普遍富裕后自然建立环保责任感 | | **科技转型** | 盲目去工业化导致资本流失，科研投资资金匮乏 | 依靠繁荣经济生成的财富，反哺投资清洁高效的下一代能源科技 | ### [01:30:10](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qpBnYB0I6_0&t=5410s) 能源争论与制造虚无：从国家安全到供应链命门 针对 Kisin 的发言，Scott Galloway 赞同廉价能源是现代社会的基石，并补充指出 AI 的崛起对电网提出了前所未有的考验——一次 AI 生成式查询所消耗的能源大约是传统 Google 搜索的 10 倍，能源供给正是算力发展的核心瓶颈；未来的解决方案必将依赖液化天然气（LNG）与核能。不过，Galloway 纠正了关于美国能源政策的刻板印象，指出在拜登政府任内发放的石油钻探许可证甚至超过了特朗普的第一任期，美国并不缺能源；对美国而言，当前最亟待推动的口号不是“钻吧，宝贝，钻吧”，而是“建吧，宝贝，建吧”（Build, baby, build）——必须大力兴建平价住房，以拯救在畸高房价面前失去组建家庭意愿的年轻一代。 随后，Kisin 打断并进一步补充了去工业化对国防安全的灾难性后果。他指出，历史上的大英帝国凭借强大的海上舰队崛起（“统治波涛的英格兰”）；而今在地缘政治冲突四起、战争阴云密布的时代，英国由于推行激进的绿色减排政策，几乎关闭了国内所有的钢铁厂，连自主建造军舰都步履维艰。 全球化分工与产业链外包在平时看似降低了物价，但在危机时刻却将国家命门完全拱手让人。正如新冠疫情（COVID-19）爆发时，西方国家突然发现连防护口罩都全部受制于中国生产；倘若未来爆发全面冲突，难道指望潜在对手继续源源不断地向英国供应特种钢材，用来造飞机军舰反制他们？Kisin 严厉警告，埃德·米利班德（Ed Miliband）等人推动的净零能源路线是一场彻头彻尾的意识形态癫狂，这不仅摧毁了经济根基与国防工业，连住宅建设也因为“施工产生碳排放”的教条限制而陷入瘫痪。 ### [01:32:46](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qpBnYB0I6_0&t=5566s) 摆脱净零执念：能源自主与现实民生 在进入收官讨论前，康斯坦丁·基辛（Konstantin Kisin）就前序话题进行了犀利的收尾总结。他直言不讳地指出，当下许多三十多岁甚至四十岁的人依然被迫四人合租一套公寓，其根源就在于过度偏执的绿色政策使得生活与建造成本高居不下。西方社会必须放下对“净零排放”（Net Zero）的盲目执念，转而把精力投入到真正的建设、钻探以及扩大能源生产当中。基辛严厉批评道，绝不能再自欺欺人地认为“为了让自己获得拯救地球的良好感觉，就必须让底层穷苦大众承受现实痛苦”，更何况这种做法从客观事实上根本没有起到拯救地球的作用。 ### [01:33:13](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qpBnYB0I6_0&t=5593s) 父亲的思考：在混乱世界中如何教育下一代 主持人史蒂芬·巴特利特（Steven Bartlett）顺着话题引出了整场节目的最后一个议题。他观察到座上的三位嘉宾不仅是极具影响力的意见领袖，同时全都是男孩的父亲，只不过各自孩子所处的年龄阶段不同。在当前充满信息回音室、算法极化且未来前景高度不确定的世界里，年轻一代往往感到无所适从、极度迷茫。巴特利特邀请每位父亲给出自己对儿子的建议，分享在未来的岁月里究竟应当如何武装年轻男性，以应对快速演变的人类社会。 ### [01:33:49](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qpBnYB0I6_0&t=5629s) 丹尼尔·普里斯利：博雅通识、AI 运用与动手能力 丹尼尔·普里斯利（Daniel Priestley）率先分享了自己的养育策略。他育有一个 6 岁的女儿、一个 7 岁的儿子和一个 10 岁的儿子。他坦言，要为瞬息万变的世界做好准备确实极其复杂，并常常成为自己内心焦虑的源头。面对十年或十五年后的未来，他的家庭教育主要采取了“广博通识结合前沿技术”的复合路径： - **广泛的通识教育与 AI 协作**：注重培养孩子跨领域的广泛通识认知，让他们理解不同领域的全貌，同时引导孩子在监督下与 AI 进行交互对话，教会他们利用 AI 技术在特定课题上快速深入钻研。 - **不可替代的动手实体技能**：坚持让孩子们掌握基本的物理操作与维修手艺，例如学习如何修理锅炉、如何用锯子锯开木头等接地气的生存与生活技能。 - **舞台表现与公众表达**：安排孩子们参加戏剧表演班，鼓励他们在舞台上登台亮相，锤炼面对公众时的心理素质、沟通自信与个人气场。 普里斯利真诚地表示，思考孩子们未来将踏入的世界究竟是何面貌，始终是他人生中的一大焦虑点，因此他对其他父亲的成熟经验抱有极大的求教热情。 ```mermaid flowchart TD accTitle: Daniel Priestley's Child Preparation Framework accDescr: 丹尼尔·普里斯利为孩子应对未来设定的三维成长培养框架 subgraph Core["核心底层认知"] A["广泛通识认知<br/>General Knowledge"] end subgraph Skills["关键能力储备"] B["人机协作<br/>监督式 AI 对话与深度钻研"] C["实体动手能力<br/>修锅炉 / 锯木头等硬技能"] D["公众表现力<br/>戏剧表演 / 舞台自信"] end subgraph Outcome["未来适应力"] E["应对瞬息万变的社会竞争"] end A --> B A --> C A --> D B --> E C --> E D --> E ``` ### [01:34:58](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qpBnYB0I6_0&t=5698s) 康斯坦丁·基辛：历史参照下的真正自信与“降维打击” 康斯坦丁·基辛的儿子目前只有两岁半，他承认现在谈论这些或许为时尚早，但他已经构想好了当儿子长大成人、能够理解世界时必须听进耳中的一番硬核独白。基辛借用自己家族横跨几代人的沉重历史为儿子树立参照系：曾祖父被从苏维埃乌克兰强征至纳粹德国充当苦役奴工；曾祖母出生在苏联古拉格劳改营中；曾祖母不仅熬过了二战期间的德军占领，如今还在乌克兰亲历弗拉基米尔·普京的战火入侵。基辛直言：“你根本没有生活在什么有史以来最糟糕的时代，你身边其实全是一帮软蛋。” 基辛的论述充满了激越的生存竞争哲学。他坚信只要一名年轻男性做好本职工作、掌握必需技能、拼尽全力追求人生抱负并坚决相信自我才华，当下反而是人类历史上前所未有的最好时代。如今的社会充斥着顾影自怜、自我感伤的人，只要一个人不沉溺于受害者心态，懂得站出来为自己争取、勇敢进取并保持自信，他就能在方方面面实现“全面横扫”（clean up）： - **情感与择偶**：年轻女性正在迫切寻找那些敢于担当、自信自强、有所作为的真正男子汉； - **财富与事业**：在经济竞争与职业发展中同样能大获全胜，因为周遭的综合竞争门槛“从来没有像今天这么低过”。 ### [01:36:28](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qpBnYB0I6_0&t=5788s) 斯科特·加洛韦：身教胜于言传、剩余价值与成为男人的标准 斯科特·加洛韦（Scott Galloway）作为拥有 14 岁和 17 岁儿子的资深父亲，给出了充满生活智慧与现实张力的观点。他认为到了这个年龄，口头说教已经毫无意义，父亲唯一能做的就是**身体力行地树立行为典范**（Model Behavior）。他展示给儿子们的生活方式包括：对孩子们的母亲极其体贴尊重，证明要想拥有美满家庭就必须成为慷慨、深情的伴侣；尽管随着年龄增长愈发艰难，但依然逼迫自己保持强健的体魄；在商业战场上勇猛精进，待人接物时却保持友善谦逊。 在观念传授上，加洛韦反复给两个儿子灌输**“剩余价值”（Surplus Value）**的概念： - **从资源消耗者到价值贡献者**：他直白地敲打儿子们，他们目前纯粹是“索取者”（takers）和“净负债”（net negative）。英国卓越的学校体制在他们身上投入巨额资源，而他们几乎毫无回馈；父母给予他们的爱也远多于他们给予父母的爱。 - **成年的真正分水岭**：跨入男性的真正门槛既不是发生性行为，也不是完成某种宗教仪式，而是你开始创造出剩余价值——给予他人的爱多于索取的关怀，倾听他人抱怨的耐心多于自己的抱怨，创造的财富收入大于自身的消耗。 加洛韦还分享了他从儿子幼年起就贯彻的一套“男人该做的事”（What a man does）的行为准则。他教导儿子，当有客人登门时，男人会主动上前帮客人拎行李送进客房；坐在餐桌旁时，男人的视线要时刻留意谁的水杯空了并主动倒水。他自豪地回忆起儿子 6 岁、体重才 30 磅时，曾吃力地抱起巨大的水壶主动为满桌客人添水，引得全场侧目。而在约会与男女交往上，加洛韦坦然承认自己持守某种传统的骑士风度：“男人约女人去喝咖啡，男人买单。”当儿子反驳他观念太像老派的建制派守旧者时，加洛韦幽默而粗粝地回击：“你小子到底还想不想有性生活了？想的话就老老实实去买单！” 最后，加洛韦重申他坚决反对虚无主义与末日灾难论。当代拥有优渥条件的年轻男性手握无限机遇与潜能，理应毫无借口地大展宏图、创造属于自己的精彩人生。 ### [01:39:08](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qpBnYB0I6_0&t=5948s) 圆满结语与思想交锋的价值 在对谈的终章，史蒂芬·巴特利特对三位嘉宾在临时召集的圆桌会议中贡献的高密度、幽默且富有层次的见解表达了由衷的敬意与感谢。巴特利特强调，在当今撕裂的舆论场中，能够就最敏感的社会议题展开如此坦诚、尊重而又充满交锋的理性对话，对厘清大众内心的混乱感具有至关重要的公共价值。 在节目最后，巴特利特向观众推荐了三位嘉宾即将推出的力作与长期成果： - **斯科特·加洛韦**：聚焦男性生存困境与男性气质重塑的重磅新书即将问世； - **康斯坦丁·基辛**：其主持的热门访谈播客节目《TRIGGERnometry》以敢言与敏锐对话著称； - **丹尼尔·普里斯利**：涵盖商业战略与企业家精神的多部畅销著作及其官方网站。 本次围绕特朗普再次当选、大西洋两岸未来格局以及社会价值观演变的圆桌讨论至此圆满落幕。 ## Notable quotes > [19:02](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qpBnYB0I6_0&t=1142s) 这里赚到的所有钱，本质上都在服务于别处创造出来的财富。你做金融服务是在伺候富人，开高端餐厅也是在伺候富人，我看不到多少内生的财富创造。……美国依然是全世界最适合赚钱的地方，而欧洲依然是全世界最适合花钱的地方。 — Scott Galloway > [23:19](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qpBnYB0I6_0&t=1399s) 如果我们要从美国下载文化和政治，拜托我们至少把那些好的东西学过来，而不是把那套糟糕透顶的 Woke 觉醒文化、DEI（多元、平等、包容）和各种政治正确的垃圾当成宝贝；真正该学的是美国的企业家精神、乐观主义、积极向上的冲劲，以及那种 Scott 提到的放手一搏、敢于冒险的魄力。 — Konstantin Kisin > [34:23](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qpBnYB0I6_0&t=2063s) 解决你们人生问题的答案绝不可能是沉溺于色情或虚拟网络。唯一的出路是挺起脊梁，承担责任，去争取一份工作或创立一份事业，亲自改善自己的处境。没有人会来救你，也没有人会来帮你。 — Konstantin Kisin > [37:55](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qpBnYB0I6_0&t=2275s) 平权行动应当基于肤色，但这唯一的颜色必须是绿色（美元）。 — Scott Galloway > [39:28](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qpBnYB0I6_0&t=2368s) 当你宣称自己积极代表全美 76% 的人口时，你其实并不是在代表他们，你是在公开歧视剩下的 24%。 — Scott Galloway > [41:17](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qpBnYB0I6_0&t=2477s) 我们这里所有人都雇佣员工，我们在招聘时有谁会去在意对方的肤色？我开公司需要的是在这个薪资预算内最优秀的人才，我不在乎他是紫色、绿色、蓝色还是白色！ — Konstantin Kisin > [47:44](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qpBnYB0I6_0&t=2864s) 扎克伯格大谈男性气概？得了吧，他现在看起来活像个车臣的摇头丸贩子（Chechen molly dealer）。 — Scott Galloway > [01:16:54](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qpBnYB0I6_0&t=4614s) 如果今天 Elon Musk 掌管 X，你放心交出身份信息；但如果哪天 George Soros 把平台买下来了呢？那些在伊朗匿名反抗宗教神权统治的人权活动家，一旦平台被黑客入侵或易主，他们的下场会是什么？ — Konstantin Kisin > [01:25:39](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qpBnYB0I6_0&t=5139s) 浪漫喜剧电影通常长达两个小时，而不是只有十五分钟，这是有原因的——人际交往真他妈的难，但这一切绝对值得。 — Scott Galloway > [01:34:58](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qpBnYB0I6_0&t=5698s) 你根本没有生活在什么有史以来最糟糕的时代，你身边其实全是一帮软蛋。 — Konstantin Kisin > [01:36:28](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qpBnYB0I6_0&t=5788s) 你小子到底还想不想有性生活了？想的话就老老实实去买单！ — Scott Galloway ## Mentioned 唐纳德·特朗普 (Donald Trump), 埃隆·马斯克 (Elon Musk), 史蒂芬·巴特利特 (Steven Bartlett), 斯科特·加洛韦 (Scott Galloway), 丹尼尔·普里斯利 (Daniel Priestley), 康斯坦丁·基辛 (Konstantin Kisin), 卡玛拉·哈里斯 (Kamala Harris), 乔·拜登 (Joe Biden), 马克·扎克伯格 (Mark Zuckerberg), 维韦克·拉马斯瓦米 (Vivek Ramaswamy), 基尔·斯塔默 (Keir Starmer), 奈杰尔·法拉奇 (Nigel Farage), 埃德·米利班德 (Ed Miliband), 格蕾塔·通贝里 (Greta Thunberg), 弗拉基米尔·普京 (Vladimir Putin), 乔治·索罗斯 (George Soros), JD·万斯 (JD Vance), 杰夫·贝索斯 (Jeff Bezos), 英伟达 (NVIDIA), Meta, 亚马逊 (Amazon), 谷歌 (Google), 沃尔玛 (Walmart), 波音 (Boeing), 哈雷戴维森 (Harley-Davidson), 福特汽车 (Ford), 丰田 (Toyota), 麦当劳 (McDonald's), 福克斯新闻 (Fox News), 英国广播公司 (BBC), X (原 Twitter), Bluesky, Threads, Rumble, Truth Social, The Diary Of A CEO, TRIGGERnometry, PerfectTed, The 1% Diary, 政府效率部 (DOGE), 美国《通信规范法》第 230 条 (Section 230), 多元化、平等与包容 (DEI) ## Video description Trump has taken the oath of office, but what does this really mean for the future of the world? The Diary Of A CEO’s first ever election round table is joined by three renowned voices: Scott Galloway, Daniel Priestly and Konstantin Kisin. Konstantin Kisin, a political and social commentator known for discussing some of society's most controversial topics. Professor Scott Galloway, a renowned professor and business analyst who publicly endorsed Kamala Harris, offers sharp, data-driven critiques of Trump’s policies and their impact on democracy and the economy. Daniel Priestley, an entrepreneur and strategist, examines how Trump’s election could reshape the business landscape, addressing the challenges and opportunities for industries adapting to new policies. 00:00 Intro 02:20 What's the Big Picture as It Relates to This Election? 05:05 The Things Trump Is Promising Are Things That Should Happen 09:19 Has the Left Lost Its Way? 13:33 Did Trump Just Have a Better Marketing Campaign? 17:15 Millionaires Are Leaving the UK 20:07 Is the UK Still a Good Place for Business vs. the US? 23:19 Is the UK a Failing Nation? 24:46 Elon Musk's Attack on the UK 26:02 The UK's Attitude Toward the Rich Is Wrong 27:57 Is the British Attitude Holding Us Back From Our Potential? 31:02 Young Men Are Struggling in America 37:04 The Rollback of Trump's DEI Measures 44:02 Trump's Move Toward a Merit-Based Society 47:44 Masculinity and Identity Issues 52:40 Trump's Stance on Masculinity 55:53 Elon Musk and Censorship 58:38 The Power of Freedom of Speech 01:00:45 Why Has Elon Chosen Now to Raise These Issues? 01:03:49 What Does Elon Musk Want? 01:06:38 Big Tech Cosying Up to Trump 01:10:00 Living in an Echo Chamber With Algorithms 01:16:04 Social Networks Are Becoming Political Environments 01:24:05 Where Is the West Heading? 01:27:43 What's Not Getting Enough Attention Right Now? 01:33:13 Best Advice to Prepare Young Men for the Future 1% Diary Launch: 🚀 The 1% Diary is back - and it won’t be around for long, so act fast! https://bit.ly/1-Diary-YT-ad-reads Follow Daniel Priestly: Instagram - https://g2ul0.app.link/DyXMfookeQb Twitter - https://g2ul0.app.link/2yBnZUwkeQb Website - https://g2ul0.app.link/HpUTO9ukeQb Follow Scott Galloway: Instagram - https://g2ul0.app.link/NXSe3vpRaOb Twitter - https://g2ul0.app.link/iSn6TsrRaOb Website - https://g2ul0.app.link/lkDgXatRaOb Follow Konstantin Kisin: Instagram - https://g2ul0.app.link/9dEAmZfnZMb Twitter - https://g2ul0.app.link/zxPCajjnZMb Website - https://g2ul0.app.link/rFcxrQlnZMb You can purchase the The Diary Of A CEO Conversation Cards: Second Edition, here: https://g2ul0.app.link/f31dsUttKKb Follow me: https://g2ul0.app.link/gnGqL4IsKKb Sponsors: PerfectTed - https://www.perfectted.com with code DIARY40 for 40% off [Source](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qpBnYB0I6_0)

[19:02] Scott Galloway: 这里赚到的所有钱，本质上都在服务于别处创造出来的财富。你做金融服务是在伺候富人，开高端餐厅也是在伺候富人，我看不到多少内生的财富创造。……美国依然是全世界最适合赚钱的地方，而欧洲依然是全世界最适合花钱的地方。 [23:19] Konstantin Kisin: 如果我们要从美国下载文化和政治，拜托我们至少把那些好的东西学过来，而不是把那套糟糕透顶的 Woke 觉醒文化、DEI（多元、平等、包容）和各种政治正确的垃圾当成宝贝；真正该学的是美国的企业家精神、乐观主义、积极向上的冲劲，以及那种 Scott 提到的放手一搏、敢于冒险的魄力。 [34:23] Konstantin Kisin: 解决你们人生问题的答案绝不可能是沉溺于色情或虚拟网络。唯一的出路是挺起脊梁，承担责任，去争取一份工作或创立一份事业，亲自改善自己的处境。没有人会来救你，也没有人会来帮你。 [37:55] Scott Galloway: 平权行动应当基于肤色，但这唯一的颜色必须是绿色（美元）。 [39:28] Scott Galloway: 当你宣称自己积极代表全美 76% 的人口时，你其实并不是在代表他们，你是在公开歧视剩下的 24%。 [41:17] Konstantin Kisin: 我们这里所有人都雇佣员工，我们在招聘时有谁会去在意对方的肤色？我开公司需要的是在这个薪资预算内最优秀的人才，我不在乎他是紫色、绿色、蓝色还是白色！ [47:44] Scott Galloway: 扎克伯格大谈男性气概？得了吧，他现在看起来活像个车臣的摇头丸贩子（Chechen molly dealer）。 [76:54] Konstantin Kisin: 如果今天 Elon Musk 掌管 X，你放心交出身份信息；但如果哪天 George Soros 把平台买下来了呢？那些在伊朗匿名反抗宗教神权统治的人权活动家，一旦平台被黑客入侵或易主，他们的下场会是什么？ [85:39] Scott Galloway: 浪漫喜剧电影通常长达两个小时，而不是只有十五分钟，这是有原因的——人际交往真他妈的难，但这一切绝对值得。 [94:58] Konstantin Kisin: 你根本没有生活在什么有史以来最糟糕的时代，你身边其实全是一帮软蛋。 [96:28] Scott Galloway: 你小子到底还想不想有性生活了？想的话就老老实实去买单！

[2:20] Scott Galloway: America used to be a platform for prosperity... I would argue that it feels like a pretty quick transition to almost like a kleptocracy... America's become a platform for acquiring wealth and then leveraging that wealth as a proxy of power. [9:19] Scott Galloway: We Democrats, we get it right, and then we just go too damn far... DEI 60 years ago... Race-based affirmative action makes sense. This year more than half of Harvard's freshman class identifies as non-white, but 70% of those non-whites come from dual-income homes in the upper quintile. [24:46] Konstantin Kisin: If we're going to download American culture and politics, let's at least take the good stuff instead of all this terrible woke shit that we downloaded from them... and actually take the entrepreneurial spirit. [47:44] Scott Galloway: You're going to look back at your 25-year-old self and think, 'Why wasn't I a [ __ ] monster like Steve Bannon?' [47:44] Scott Galloway: When Russian soldiers pour over the border in Ukraine, you want some of that big dick energy... [47:44] Scott Galloway: Zuckerberg and masculinity, give me a [ __ ] break. He looks like a Chechen molly dealer. [55:53] Konstantin Kisin: Freedom always has a price, and that's what we're seeing. [55:53] Konstantin Kisin: [Zuckerberg's] miraculous transformation into a free speech warrior is just wonderful... I'm sure it's entirely genuine and not anything to do with the election results... [66:38] Steven Bartlett: There's now headlines saying that there's this tech oligarchy forming in the United States where Bezos and Elon and Zuck are all now friends and they're stood behind Trump as this unifying force. [72:12] Scott Galloway: People in real life, I find are just lovely and wonderful. And it's a shame that these LLMs aren't crawling this cuz the treif and some of the vile shit they're crawling online... doesn't even reflect our species. [84:05] Scott Galloway: Romantic comedies are two hours, not 15 minutes, for a reason. This stuff is hard, and it's worth it. But I worry that we're raising this new species of asocial, asexual being called the young American male that is obese, anxious, and just a shitty citizen. [93:13] Scott Galloway: Your crossing to manhood isn't sex or some religious ceremony. Your crossing to manhood is when you start creating surplus value. You're loving more people than you're absorbing... You're creating more revenue than you're absorbing.

[0:00] The world is absolutely crazy right now. [0:03] This is one of the most interesting [0:04] moments of social, cultural, and [0:06] economic transition that I have ever [0:08] seen. [0:09] So, I wanted to do something that I've [0:10] never done before. I called upon three [0:13] of the leading voices on the social, [0:14] cultural, business, and economic issues [0:16] to give their unfiltered, unsensored [0:19] points of view so that we can all make [0:21] sense of all of this craziness happening [0:22] before our eyes. They don't always agree [0:25] on much, but today they thrash it out to [0:27] see if they can agree on something. We [0:30] go through the economy, Trump, Elon [0:32] Musk, AI, censorship, wokeness, and why [0:35] so many men are struggling. [0:37] Why are tens of thousands of [0:39] millionaires running away from the UK? [0:41] The terrifying truth and opportunity in [0:42] AI. And I ask all of them, what is the [0:44] most important thing in 2025 that nobody [0:48] is talking about with the aim of [0:49] reaching clarity, agreement, and having [0:52] a laugh in the process. [0:54] This is the episode you probably didn't [0:55] know you needed. [0:59] This has always blown my mind a little [1:01] bit. 53% of you that listen to the show [1:04] regularly haven't yet subscribed to the [1:06] show. So, could I ask you for a favor [1:08] before we start? If you like the show [1:09] and you like what we do here and you [1:10] want to support us, the free, simple way [1:12] that you can do just that is by hitting [1:13] the subscribe button. And my commitment [1:15] to you is if you do that, then I'll do [1:17] everything in my power, me and my team, [1:19] to make sure that this show is better [1:20] for you every single week. We'll listen [1:22] to your feedback. We'll find the guest [1:24] that you want me to speak to. And we'll [1:25] continue to do what we do. Thank you so [1:27] much. [1:31] You guys are [1:33] three of the best commentators, the most [1:35] articulate people I know that also have [1:38] the most interesting, broad experience, [1:40] and also I think political background. [1:42] So, I wanted to talk to you about [1:43] everything that's going on in the world, [1:44] and I wanted to ask you guys some of the [1:46] dumb questions that I ponder alone with [1:48] myself and with my dumb friends in my [1:49] WhatsApp group. It feels to me that the [1:52] world is at a real moment of transition [1:55] in many regards, so like social [1:57] transition, cultural transition, [1:58] economic transition. And I think the US [2:01] has been a catalyst for all of that. So, [2:02] that's why I wanted to have this [2:03] conversation today. We've got an [2:05] American here, Scott. I think Scott's [2:07] the only American here. [2:09] Um we've got Constantine, we've got [2:10] Daniel, who are two Brits, but spend a [2:12] lot of time between America as well. And [2:15] so, I I I want to come to Scott first [2:16] and ask Scott a question, which is a [2:18] very big, broad question, which is from [2:21] your perspective, Scott. You know, when [2:22] I talk about this feeling of transition [2:24] that seems to be like almost inside my [2:26] chest that we're a really historic [2:28] moment, what is your analysis on this? [2:30] What is the big picture here? What what [2:32] what what's happened over the last [2:34] three, four, five, six, seven months? [2:36] And how is that going to impact all of [2:38] us [2:39] around the world? [2:40] Well, if you if you think of the US is [2:42] setting setting the tone economically [2:45] and maybe even culturally for the West, [2:48] there's definitely a reversion away from [2:52] people feel that quote unquote wokeness, [2:54] and I don't like that word, but I'll use [2:55] it here, [2:56] was the sort of overcorrection to [2:58] systemic racism, and then it began [3:01] to cause more damage than it was [3:04] um [3:06] or cause more problems than it was [3:07] solving. And I think there's been a [3:08] serious kind of lurch back, if you will, [3:11] whether it's executive actions declaring [3:14] the border a state of emergency, [3:17] you know, stuff around [3:18] saying that gender is a thing, there's [3:20] male and female. [3:22] Uh and most of these issues the actually [3:25] American public supports. I would say on [3:27] a more [3:28] cynical level, America used to be a [3:30] platform for prosperity, [3:32] the protection of civil rights, the [3:35] projection of [3:37] women's rights, and power and democracy [3:39] abroad. And I would argue that [3:41] it would feels like a pretty quick [3:43] transition to almost like a [3:45] you know, I call it a kleptocracy, but [3:46] America's become a platform [3:49] for [3:50] um [3:51] acquiring wealth and then leveraging [3:52] that wealth [3:54] uh as a means or a proxy of power. And [3:56] the ultimate example of that was the [3:57] launch of two meme coins, the Trump coin [3:59] and the Melania coin, [4:01] the day before the presidency such that [4:03] this conversation could have already or [4:06] might happen this week, and I'll finish [4:07] here. [4:09] President Trump, it's Vlad. Uh we're [4:12] thinking about stabilizing our currency [4:14] or trying to stem the outflows of our [4:17] of our reserves. So, we're thinking [4:18] about pulsing in about 600 billion [4:21] rubles [4:22] into the Trump coin, which based on my [4:24] economist's estimation would take the [4:26] value of it to a 20 or 30 billion dollar [4:28] market cap, [4:31] Mr. Trump. And none of this would be [4:33] disclosable or transparent. Also, in [4:35] unrelated news, we'd really appreciate [4:38] you seizing arm shipments to Ukraine. [4:40] So, I I I think we've gone kind of full [4:43] kleptocracy is the way I would I would [4:45] describe it. [4:46] Are you optimistic, Scott? [4:49] Well, I'm a glass half empty kind of [4:50] guy. I don't [4:52] I I don't know if I'm just getting [4:53] older, but no, I don't I don't see a man [4:56] convicted of sexual abuse or found [4:58] liable who inspired an insurrection [5:01] retaking the White House as a point of [5:03] light for the American experience. [5:05] Constantine. [5:07] I I I suspect you'd have a slightly [5:10] different view on all of the above. How [5:12] are you feeling about everything that [5:13] happened yesterday? Did you watch the [5:14] inauguration? What is your big picture, [5:16] 30,000 ft view? [5:18] Uh I think it's incre incredibly unwise [5:20] to make, you know, bold predictions [5:22] about what's going to happen over the [5:24] next 6 to 7 months. I do think uh what [5:27] America had at the election and what the [5:30] election of Donald Trump represents is [5:31] something that we in the UK don't have, [5:33] which is choice. Uh they had a very [5:36] clear choice between two very different [5:38] perspectives on the world, between two [5:39] very different approaches, between two [5:41] very different candidates. And [5:44] ultimately [5:45] uh criticisms of President Trump uh are [5:48] necessary and legitimate, of course they [5:50] are. But at the end of the day, I [5:52] believe, having spent quite a lot of [5:54] time in America around election time and [5:56] also just generally and traveling around [5:58] real America, not just in, you know, DC [6:00] and and LA and New York, um the the [6:03] reason that he was elected was that [6:06] the American people are not prepared to [6:08] accept what Europeans have decided [6:11] they're prepared to accept, which is [6:12] managed decline. The American people do [6:15] not want their country to become weaker, [6:17] they do not want it to become poorer, [6:19] they do not want to impoverish their [6:22] fellow citizens through net zero. What [6:24] they want is their country to be great, [6:26] their country to be powerful, their [6:28] country to be influential. Uh the [6:31] economic realities for most Americans [6:33] are not really reflected in the figures [6:35] that we are told. So, when people talk [6:37] about inflation, uh the reality of [6:39] people's lives on the ground is that the [6:42] cost of living has gone up very, very [6:44] significantly over the last few years. [6:47] Um [6:48] And that's not always reflected directly [6:50] in the in the overall inflation figure [6:52] that we're shown because certain things [6:54] are much more influential in people's [6:55] lives than others. Um and so, uh whether [6:59] the decision to elect President Trump [7:01] ends up being um this positive uh [7:05] thing for which the should be lots of [7:07] optimism is a matter of uh the next 4 [7:10] years. Are we going to see [7:12] um a presidency that really does [7:14] everything it promises? And by the way, [7:16] you know, if you look at the things that [7:17] Donald Trump is promising, [7:19] uh I think whether you're left or right, [7:22] you have to acknowledge that they are [7:23] things that are worth doing. Uh having a [7:26] secure border so that people don't come [7:28] into your country legally is a basic [7:30] duty of government. Uh economic [7:33] prosperity is a basic duty of [7:34] government. Uh withdrawing America from [7:38] uh a kind of uh simultaneously [7:41] aggressive but weak posture around the [7:43] world where America sort of says, "Yeah, [7:45] yeah, we're going to get involved in [7:47] these foreign conflicts, but we're not [7:48] actually going to then practically help [7:50] Ukraine win that war." Is is a kind of [7:53] stupid position on both, whichever side [7:55] you're on. Um so, on all of these [7:57] things, and and of course, you know, [7:59] Scott mentioned wokeness. I think he's [8:01] absolutely right that the there is a [8:03] massive backlash happening around the [8:05] world because lots and lots of people [8:07] who were completely apolitical uh until [8:10] the last three or four years, or maybe [8:12] maybe until 2016, just feel like the [8:14] world has gone crazy, and suddenly [8:16] they're supposed to pretend that men can [8:18] change sex and become women, and now [8:20] they're entitled to be in female [8:22] prisons, and you know, if your teenager [8:24] says that they are the opposite sex, [8:26] you're supposed to chop their breasts [8:27] off, and all of this other stuff that [8:29] ordinary people just look at and go, [8:30] "This is crazy. Like, I am liberal, but [8:33] this isn't liberal. This is some kind of [8:35] weird thing that's going on." And I see [8:37] I see the the the backlash against all [8:39] of that all over the the the Western [8:42] world, and I think Donald Trump [8:43] signifies that that people are fed up of [8:47] that. And [8:48] uh I have been warning for a very long [8:50] time that if the the the woke left [8:54] continues to exercise this level of [8:57] influence on our public debate, the [8:59] reaction will be the rise of the right, [9:01] and uh Donald Trump is one of the most [9:04] uh diplomatic and pleasant versions of [9:07] what you're likely to get if the left [9:09] keeps going crazy. We will see [9:12] what challenges [9:14] uh the world throws at him over the next [9:16] 4 years, and whether he's capable of [9:18] responding to them. [9:20] Scott, has the left lost its way in your [9:23] view? And if so, how did that happen? [9:25] And just to respond to some of [9:26] Constantine's points about Trump being [9:28] the best of a sort of right-wing [9:29] collective, are we going to see [9:32] right-wing sort of ideology spread [9:34] throughout the Western world over the [9:36] the coming years? What's your take on [9:37] all of the above? [9:39] Um you definitely [9:41] you know, we Democrats, [9:43] we get it right, and then we just go too [9:45] damn far. [9:46] And and so, I I look at I'm a I'm a [9:49] professor on a campus. DEI, 60 years ago [9:52] there were 12 black people at Princeton [9:54] and Yale and Harvard combined. That was [9:56] a problem. Race-based affirmative action [9:57] makes sense. [9:59] This year more than half of Harvard's [10:00] freshman class identifies as non-white. [10:03] But 70% of those non-whites come from [10:05] dual-income homes in the upper quintile [10:08] of income-earning homes. The academic [10:10] gap between black and white used to be [10:12] double what it was between rich and [10:13] poor. It's now flipped. [10:15] So DEI was a good idea that quite [10:17] frankly has gone insane and now just [10:19] represents the same racism it was trying [10:22] to [10:23] uh do away with. So and then we created [10:26] two candidates who [10:28] were the only candidates who could make [10:30] make each other viable. [10:31] Uh Vice President Harris, given the hand [10:33] she dealt with, did the best she did. I [10:35] think President Biden should be buried [10:36] in a crypt entitled narcissist who [10:38] decided that it made sense for him to to [10:42] go back on his pledge to be a transition [10:44] candidate [10:45] and gave us a British-style election [10:48] timing on the Democratic side without in [10:50] a in a marketplace where you need time [10:51] and money. [10:53] Uh so it was not we did not have a great [10:55] candidate. There is uh [10:57] uh [10:58] an understandable swing back from what [11:00] is an overcorrection around some of [11:02] these issues. [11:04] Um you know, parents we gave them a huge [11:06] issue with transgender rights. There's a [11:08] There's more pedal players in California [11:10] than transgender people and yet the [11:11] Democrats decided to conflate it with a [11:13] civil rights movement and think that it [11:15] was okay for [11:17] a woman who uh transitioned, a [11:20] transgender woman, to enter a bicycle [11:22] race and finish 5 minutes before [11:24] everybody else and then we all bark up [11:26] the same tree and decide that it's [11:27] inspiring. And parents all over the [11:29] nation are saying, "What has [11:31] you know, we've literally gone crazy?" [11:33] Where I would disagree a little bit with [11:34] Constantine is that America choosing [11:36] economic growth and prosperity there are [11:38] 190 sovereign nations in the world. 189 [11:41] would change places with America over [11:42] the last 4 years. [11:44] Uh we had 71 new record highs in the [11:46] markets. 97% of all AI we've created [11:49] more market capitalization in a 7-mi [11:51] radius of Vestavia International Airport [11:54] than Europe's created in the last 20 [11:55] years. We have the lowest inflation in [11:57] the G7. We have the highest growth. [11:59] We've grown 10% since 2020. That's [12:01] triple the rate of Europe. Biden was [12:04] unable to communicate any of that [12:06] effectively [12:07] because there's this psychological [12:09] dynamic that when your wages go up, you [12:11] credit your own grit and character. And [12:13] when the price of cereal goes up, you [12:15] blame the president. Now, similar to the [12:17] future or what how William Gibson [12:19] described the future, [12:21] it's here. It's just not evenly [12:22] distributed. Prosperity is unprecedented [12:25] in the US over the last 4 years. It just [12:26] wasn't It just wasn't evenly [12:28] distributed. Now, [12:30] having said that, in America you can [12:32] stop working in August and you've [12:34] produced more and made more money than [12:35] you have in Europe the whole year. And [12:38] it has gotten better. It's got It's as [12:40] things are less bad than anywhere in the [12:42] world in the US. Biden was unable to [12:43] communicate it. And then talking about [12:45] how great the economy is when rents were [12:47] skyrocketing, tuition was going up, it [12:50] was an ineffective strategy. But I don't [12:52] think it's fair to say Americans chose [12:54] prosperity. We have prosperity. I would [12:56] argue that quite frankly some of the [12:58] Republican ideals around deficit [12:59] spending, which are nothing but taxes on [13:01] future generations pulled forward. [13:03] I mean, we'll see how that works. But [13:06] his signature policies, a clampdown on [13:08] immigration, [13:10] tariffs, [13:11] um these things are wildly inflationary. [13:14] So Constantine's right. It's going to be [13:15] difficult. It's You don't know what's [13:17] going to happen. [13:18] But it feels to me I would argue that [13:20] that my favorite appointment in the [13:22] Trump administration and the adult in [13:23] the room is the 10-year bond, which is [13:26] going to say, "Sorry, girlfriend" when I [13:29] believe the president tries to implement [13:30] some of these economic policies. [13:32] Constantine, is that true? Cuz what I [13:34] heard there is that effectively Trump [13:35] had a better marketing campaign. [13:38] Um and that reality is somewhat [13:39] different from what the Americans were [13:41] sold in the in the last election cycle. [13:44] Well, politics is about marketing and [13:47] Trump is the marketer-in-chief. He's [13:49] very good at branding and selling ideas [13:51] and partly that's what politics is [13:52] about. Uh but in terms of the economy, I [13:55] I think uh Scott is entirely right. It's [13:57] one of the reasons I I admire America so [13:59] much, the sense of dynamism and economic [14:01] growth and the desire to create things [14:03] and build things. It's an observation [14:05] I've had every time I've been there. You [14:07] know, if you if you have a successful [14:09] restaurant in the UK, you go, "Well, [14:11] I've got a successful restaurant." In [14:13] America, if you have a successful [14:14] restaurant, you open a second one and a [14:16] third one and you create a chain. Right? [14:18] So their attitude to business more [14:20] broadly is is is fantastic and I love [14:22] it. But I think the difference is that I [14:24] don't think Americans were comparing the [14:26] American economy under Joe Biden to the [14:29] European economies. They were comparing [14:31] the American economy under Joe Biden to [14:33] the American economy under Donald Trump [14:35] in his first term and also what they [14:38] expect him to do for the future. When [14:41] they look at the fact that he's got real [14:43] business leaders in government now like [14:45] Vivek Ramaswamy and Elon Musk talking [14:48] about government efficiency. We have to [14:50] admit that all Western countries have a [14:53] massively bloated civil service, what we [14:55] call civil service in the UK, and the [14:57] administrative state in the US that [15:00] wastes a huge amount of money, uh that [15:02] produces very little in terms of output [15:04] in many cases, and that needs to be [15:06] slimmed down. And people I think are [15:08] very excited about that. And when I talk [15:09] to [15:11] business leaders in America, including [15:13] ones that were never on the Trump train, [15:15] so to speak, so many of them went over [15:18] to his side in this election cycle [15:21] because they just felt that he was going [15:23] to [15:24] continue to accelerate American growth [15:28] and continue to deliver prosperity for [15:30] the American people. Now, Scott's point [15:32] about tariffs and all of these other [15:34] things, [15:35] uh you know, I I I am [15:37] uh I've listened to Donald Trump enough [15:38] now to know that you not necessarily [15:41] should not necessarily be taking him [15:42] literally. Uh I think many of the things [15:45] he said says are negotiation tactics and [15:48] signaling. So when he says, "I'm going [15:50] to build this or do that or do this," [15:53] you have to sort of read between the [15:55] lines. When he says, you know, "This [15:57] will be the worst thing that" you just [15:59] go he's saying to people like, "You [16:01] better work with me, otherwise this is [16:02] going to work out badly for you" on all [16:04] of these things. Um and so it remains to [16:07] be seen whether he's successful in those [16:09] tactics at getting what he wants. Look, [16:11] America is always going to be an unequal [16:13] society. It's designed in a way that is [16:16] going to make it that way. In America, [16:18] the focus is how do we grow the pie? In [16:21] Europe, the focus is how do we divide it [16:23] up so everyone gets their fair little [16:25] share, right? So Americans are about [16:27] expanding the pie and then the people [16:29] who bake the pie get as much of it as [16:32] they possibly can. Um but the question [16:34] is can there be a sense in America that [16:37] the American dream is alive? That you do [16:40] not have to work three gig economy jobs [16:43] to pay your rent. That you're going to [16:45] be able to buy a house. That you're [16:47] going to be able to afford to have [16:48] children. That you're going to be able [16:50] to raise a family perhaps on a single [16:52] income, something that most people only [16:54] dream about nowadays. That's really what [16:57] this whole economic conversation is [16:59] about. And we will see over the next 4 [17:01] years if Donald Trump is able to [17:03] slightly even change the direction of [17:05] travel towards those things that [17:06] actually Americans of my generation and [17:10] older used to take for granted as the [17:13] promise of the country that they live [17:15] in. [17:16] I've I've thought a lot about this over [17:17] the last couple of weeks in particular [17:19] because we're hearing these big [17:20] headlines in national papers in the UK [17:22] that millionaires are leaving the UK in [17:25] historic numbers. I think it's 10,800 [17:27] millionaires left last year, which is an [17:30] increase of about 160% versus the [17:32] previous year. And the general sentiment [17:34] in terms of business confidence in the [17:36] UK is at a [17:39] a several-year low. So I think it's the [17:40] lowest it's been since just [17:42] post-pandemic. Um there's this I think [17:45] it's the Institute of Accountants. They [17:46] call up 1,000 accountants every year and [17:48] they get they run a survey to see how [17:50] much confidence they have in business in [17:52] this country. And it's fallen 14 points [17:54] to 0.2% confidence um in terms of [17:57] business. [17:58] There's but there's this big narrative [18:00] emerging amongst my entrepreneurial [18:01] friends that if you want to start a [18:02] business right now, the best place to be [18:04] in the world is to be in America. It's [18:06] to get over to America and to leave the [18:08] UK. Now, Dan, how does that square in? [18:10] And you have an accelerator. You speak [18:12] to lots of entrepreneurs. How does that [18:14] sort of compare or contrast with what [18:16] you're seeing at the moment? [18:17] Yeah, 100%. The value proposition for [18:19] the UK has dropped through the floor. [18:21] Very, very high tax. The the ecosystem [18:24] of businesses in decline. Some of the [18:26] smartest people are now in Dubai. [18:29] Um some incredible creators that I know [18:31] have moved to Singapore, Hong Kong, [18:33] Dubai. Um many are going to the USA. Um [18:37] so if people are interested in bigger [18:39] markets and bigger opportunities, [18:40] they're into the USA. If they're [18:41] interested in lower tax and more um [18:44] fringe opportunities, they're in the [18:45] Middle East. Um [18:47] and uh essentially, you know, the UK [18:50] hasn't found a place in the world. I [18:52] think there are three business models [18:53] the UK could go for. Um which is either [18:57] the [18:57] the head office of Europe, which is what [18:59] we were when we were inside the EU and [19:02] everyone used to come here uh to build a [19:05] European business. Um we could be the [19:07] back office of the USA. Um so the [19:11] incubator for the USA. A lot of a lot of [19:13] smart companies uh get to their first 50 [19:15] million of value here in the UK and then [19:17] sell to a US private equity firm or a US [19:19] listed company. [19:21] Um and a lot of US companies are now [19:23] actually coming here to poach talent or [19:26] to outsource things to the UK uh more [19:28] cheaply than they could do it in the US. [19:30] Um the the the wages in the in the UK [19:34] are through the floor compared to what [19:36] you would pay in the US, especially, you [19:37] know, in tech roles. [19:39] So very smart people in the UK are [19:41] massively devalued. Um and then the [19:43] third option would be to be an [19:45] independent uh tax haven and to go with [19:48] the uh low-crime, low-tax [19:52] uh model of Dubai, Singapore, [19:55] you know, those kind of options. So, we [19:57] haven't really picked one of those three [19:58] yet. We're still, you know, all these [20:01] years after Brexit, and we haven't said [20:02] which of those three models we want to [20:05] adopt. [20:06] Scott, you moved here a couple of years [20:07] ago to the UK. [20:10] And despite everything that's going on [20:11] in the UK, are you still bullish on this [20:15] being a place for entrepreneurship and [20:16] business? [20:17] I was looking at some stats before we [20:19] started this conversation around the [20:21] sort of key areas of concern for me. [20:23] Business stats I've talked about there, [20:25] the the drop in business confidence, the [20:27] entrepreneur exodus that we're seeing, [20:29] but things like knife crime in the UK [20:31] are up 81% over the last decade, which I [20:34] think is a symptom probably of something [20:35] else. And one of the big things I think [20:38] a lot about as an entrepreneur at the [20:39] moment is artificial intelligence. And [20:41] our investment in artificial [20:42] intelligence from a global perspective [20:43] is is down about 2,000% versus a country [20:46] like America. So, you've moved here, [20:49] you've brought your family here. Are you [20:51] bullish on the UK versus the US from an [20:53] entrepreneur's perspective? [20:55] So, the the question I get most [20:57] frequently when I speak here is to [20:58] compare and contrast the US with the UK, [21:00] and I use a personal anecdote. My [21:02] parents immigrated to the US from [21:04] Glasgow and London when they were 19 and [21:07] 22. They took enormous risks. [21:10] I've been an entrepreneur my whole life. [21:11] I like to think that's a lot of my [21:12] success is my fault, that I inherited [21:14] sort of that risk-taking DNA. And when I [21:16] speak to people [21:17] in the UK, I say the primary difference [21:19] is you're the ones that stayed. [21:22] And that is it kind of comes down to our [21:24] risk appetite. The US has five times per [21:27] capita the number of entrepreneurs. It [21:29] has five times the dollar volume per [21:33] startup. There's $5 million in venture [21:34] capital waiting to be deployed for every [21:36] startup in the US versus 1 million in [21:39] Europe. [21:40] I I loved what Constantine said about a [21:42] restaurant. I went into this great [21:44] little restaurant in SoHo a few weeks [21:45] ago called Dig Inn, and I loved it so [21:47] much I said I left my card and said, [21:49] "Can you have the owner? I'd like to [21:50] find that [21:51] I'd like to open another one. Does he [21:53] need money?" [21:54] I would never I just would never do that [21:56] here. I thought that was a really [21:57] interesting insight. In the In the [22:00] the collision of risk, crazy ideas that [22:03] occasionally become crazy genius, [22:06] and technology, and intellectual [22:08] property, and great universities [22:10] results in a company that no one had [22:12] heard of 5 years ago being worth more [22:13] than the entire UK stock market, Nvidia. [22:16] So, there's just a an enormous [22:19] difference. So, the way I would [22:20] summarize my impression of [22:23] the UK economy, I'll I'll just say [22:25] London. I have no experience in I I I I [22:28] don't go anywhere that's not walking [22:30] distance from Marble Arch. So, my bubble [22:32] is pretty opaque. But the way I would [22:34] describe the economy here is I love the [22:36] term the butler economy. And that is all [22:38] the money I see being made here [22:40] is people servicing [22:42] wealth created somewhere else. [22:45] Yeah, you're either in financial [22:46] services servicing with rich people, [22:49] you're either opening a restaurant or [22:50] hospitality servicing rich people, but I [22:53] don't see a lot of organic wealth [22:54] creation. I interviewed the two {quote} [22:56] {unquote} inventors of AI at one of your [22:58] prestigious universities. My first [22:59] question is, "How the hell were you not [23:01] able to make any money if you invented [23:03] AI?" [23:04] Why haven't you been able to capture any [23:05] money? But just for your listeners, my [23:08] summation of [23:10] Europe versus the US after molesting the [23:12] US for the last 35 years is US is still [23:15] the best place to make money, and Europe [23:16] is still the best place to spend it. [23:19] Is this a failing nation, Scott? [23:21] I think you have too much going for you [23:23] to be described as a failing nation. You [23:25] still have amazing universities. It's [23:27] the second London still the second best [23:29] city in the world. [23:31] Premier League is an unbelievable [23:32] export. I know how ridiculous that [23:34] sounds. People want to be here. There's [23:35] still rule of law, rule of play. You [23:37] still produce amazing rock and roll. I [23:39] just don't I just don't see how you [23:41] could say this is a failed [23:43] You know, I would argue that the [23:46] second only to our entry into Iraq, the [23:49] greatest self-inflicted wound was [23:50] Brexit. Like just I [23:53] An American can't understand why you [23:54] would decide to increase your prices [23:56] while reducing productivity in one fell [23:58] swoop. We can't it's difficult for us to [24:01] wrap our heads around some of the [24:03] economic decisions [24:05] the UK has made, but I think a a lot of [24:07] people are kind of betting or hoping [24:10] that the UK begins to grow again. So, [24:13] I'm I'm in a weird way I'm sort of I [24:15] would call myself cautiously optimistic [24:17] about the UK. I think at some point [24:20] it registers it begins to occupy the [24:22] place it could it should command, if you [24:24] will. [24:26] Constantine, [24:27] I I would ask the same question to you [24:28] as well. Do you think the UK is a [24:30] failing nation? And Scott describes [24:31] self-inflicted wounds there. I've heard [24:33] you speak of self-inflicted wounds when [24:35] you talk more broadly about the West and [24:37] what the West needs to to do to turn [24:38] itself around. And also just layering a [24:41] third point on top of that, which is [24:42] somewhat linked to this, is Elon Musk [24:45] has taken a particular interest in the [24:47] UK over the last month in particular. [24:50] And he's started to describe it online, [24:52] it seems, as a failing nation. What's [24:55] your view? [24:56] Well, I'm glad you asked me about Elon [24:57] Musk, because the thing that I love most [24:59] about the media having this massive [25:01] meltdown about, "Oh, no, these Americans [25:03] are interfering in our political" These [25:06] are the same media commentators who are [25:08] constantly banging on about American [25:10] politics and saying, "Donald Trump needs [25:12] to do this. You need to vote for this." [25:14] Like all of this stuff is ridiculous. [25:16] The reality is we download our culture, [25:19] our politics, our music, almost [25:22] everything from America. Right? They [25:24] America has become what Britain used to [25:26] be, which is the center of Western [25:28] civilization. And my request and ask and [25:31] begging of British people is if we're [25:33] going to download American culture and [25:36] politics, let's at least take the good [25:37] stuff instead of all this terrible woke [25:40] [ __ ] that we downloaded from them, the [25:42] DEI and all this other nonsense, and [25:44] actually take the entrepreneurial spirit [25:46] and all this all these other things that [25:48] are really great about America. The [25:50] optimism, the positivity, the [25:52] willingness to to have a go, to take a [25:54] risk, as Scott as Scott was talking [25:56] about. So, I wish we took more of that. [26:00] And it speaks to your question about are [26:02] we a failing nation? Look, [26:04] I think it's it's a pretty deliberately [26:06] inflammatory question, which I don't [26:08] want to [26:10] kind of actually accept it in in that [26:12] way. But what I think we should [26:13] acknowledge is are we trending up or are [26:16] we trending down? And when you talk [26:18] about over 10,000 millionaires have [26:21] left, I hear that through a normal [26:24] British person's ear. [26:27] And I worry that there's quite a lot of [26:29] British people who will hear that and [26:31] say, "Oh, good. All of these rich [26:34] parasites have left." Because that's our [26:36] attitude in the UK to a very large [26:38] extent. We see wealthy people not as [26:41] what they are, which is for the most [26:42] part, not everybody, but for the most [26:44] part, people who've created a tremendous [26:46] amount of value for their fellow human [26:49] beings, and as a result of that have [26:51] been rewarded. We see them because we, [26:54] you know, we have this history of the [26:56] landed gentry. And so, to us a [26:58] millionaire is someone who has these [27:00] ill-gotten gains that they don't [27:02] deserve, right? That is not really the [27:05] world we live in. When I talk to wealthy [27:07] people in this country and pretty much [27:09] everywhere else, for the most part, [27:11] especially in the Western world, these [27:13] are people who've created something that [27:15] has fundamentally helped other human [27:17] beings do something better, do something [27:20] easier, buy products cheaper, whatever [27:22] it is. That's who the successful people [27:24] really are. [27:25] And we just need an attitude shift. [27:28] That's what we should be downloading [27:29] from America. What we should be saying [27:31] inside our heads is, "This person is [27:33] successful because they've helped other [27:35] people. Great. We want How do we get [27:38] more of those people into our country?" [27:40] And I'm afraid I'm telling you something [27:42] that you know better than anyone, [27:43] Stephen. If you don't have entrepreneurs [27:45] in your country creating businesses and [27:47] creating jobs, the economy is going to [27:49] stagnate for the rest of eternity. [27:51] We have to get smart, talented, driven [27:54] people into our country instead of [27:56] chasing them out. [27:58] Dan, I know this is a subject that [27:59] you're very passionate about, and [28:01] Constantine's articulated it really, [28:02] really well. I've seen lots of your [28:04] posts about this subject, Dan. What are [28:05] you saying? And is it true that the [28:07] British attitude is a form of self-harm [28:10] that's holding us back from our [28:12] potential? [28:13] There there are definitely attitudinal [28:15] factors, but you'll also get the most [28:16] incredibly entrepreneurial people here [28:18] in London. London is a melting pot for [28:21] creativity. You've got Sitting in one [28:23] city, you've got people who are [28:25] phenomenal at media, finance, [28:27] technology, entertainment, politics, [28:30] defense. Like all of this Like if you [28:33] take the best of LA and Washington and [28:36] New York and Miami and kind of start [28:38] moving it into one city, you know, you [28:40] get elements of that in London. [28:42] It's a very diverse city from that point [28:45] of view, and it creates an [28:46] entrepreneurial melting pot. The issue [28:48] is taxes. [28:49] Nobody wants to pay 60% of their income [28:53] in taxes. [28:54] And as soon as you hit, you know, in in [28:56] the US, you don't hit the top tax rate [28:58] until you are six times the average [29:00] wage. Here in the UK, it's two and a [29:02] half times. So, as soon as you're two [29:04] and a half times the average wage, you [29:06] are you're in real trouble. There are so [29:09] many people in the UK who deliberately [29:11] hold their income at 50,000 pounds [29:14] because after 50,000 pounds, you get [29:16] taxed 40% of your income. So, people [29:18] just give up, and they say, "I'm not [29:20] going I know some really smart, really [29:22] talented people who could be earning a [29:24] lot more, and they refuse to pay the 40% [29:27] rate. So, they like keep everything [29:29] small because they don't want to go from [29:30] 20 to 40% at the 50 grand rate, which is [29:33] crazy. And I've employed people who have [29:36] said, "Can I have a day off a week [29:37] rather than going over that threshold?" [29:39] So, [29:41] you know, that's that's a huge issue, [29:43] the tax issue. The company rate tax is [29:45] high. The corporate [29:47] capital gains rate is tax taxed very [29:49] high. The VAT is high. The council tax [29:52] is high. All of these additional taxes [29:54] just keep piling up. [29:56] And then the other cost at the moment, [29:58] if we want to have an AI economy, we [30:00] need cheap electricity. One thing that [30:02] Trump has committed to is is really [30:04] really cheap energy. There is no such [30:06] thing as a fast-growth, high, you know, [30:10] high-octane economy that has expensive [30:12] energy. [30:13] Cheap energy equals fast growth. And we [30:16] have the most expensive energy in the [30:17] world. We can't run data centers here [30:20] because the energy cost is going to be [30:22] too high. So, if we want to have an [30:24] AI-driven economy, you know, we can't do [30:26] it with windmills and solar panels that [30:28] have got frost all over them. [30:31] Scott, you look um [30:33] like a lot of a lot of thoughts are [30:34] going through your head following those [30:35] two comments. What are you thinking? [30:36] Well, uh with respect to energy, Trump [30:40] issued an executive order calling it an [30:41] energy crisis. Gasoline in the US, on an [30:44] inflation-adjusted basis, is less [30:45] expensive than it was 50 years ago. We [30:47] are now the largest oil producer in the [30:48] world. [30:50] I would argue I would argue that we have [30:52] um a housing crisis. [30:54] And that the executive order should have [30:55] been around that. It just going back to [30:57] the US, and I'm curious if the same [30:59] dynamics and whether Constantin and [31:01] Daniel agree with this. I believe this [31:04] the election in the US was supposed to [31:05] be a referendum on women's rights. [31:07] Women's rights did not show up. [31:09] This was a referendum on young men in my [31:11] view. And that is, if you look at the [31:13] two cohorts that swung most from blue [31:16] red versus 2020, [31:18] two of the three cohorts, other than [31:20] Latinas, [31:21] was people under the age of 30 who in [31:23] the US are 24% less wealthy than they [31:25] were 40 years ago. People over the age [31:27] of 70 are 72% wealthier. Our tax code is [31:30] basically an attempt to shove money from [31:31] the young to the old. [31:33] And two, 45-to-64-year-old [31:36] women, who I would affectionately [31:37] describe as their mother. [31:39] And that is, when your son's in the [31:40] basement vaping and playing video games, [31:42] and I think a lot about struggling young [31:44] men, [31:45] you don't give a flying [ __ ] about [31:46] territorial sovereignty in the Ukraine, [31:48] or Ukraine, excuse me, or transgender [31:50] rights. All you know is your kid isn't [31:51] doing well. And 210 times a day your [31:54] kid's getting a notification that [31:56] somebody he knows is on a Gulf Stream or [31:58] partying in St. Barts, and it's not him [32:00] or her. And so, we not only have young [32:03] people not doing as well, [32:05] this pornographic wealth is just shoved [32:08] in their face. [32:10] And you end up with uh in my opinion, uh [32:13] kind of a young struggling young man. No [32:15] group has fallen further faster in the [32:16] world, I would argue, than young men in [32:18] America. [32:19] They are if you go into a morgue in the [32:22] United States, [32:23] and there's five people who died by [32:24] suicide, four of them are men. [32:26] One in three men under the age of 30 has [32:28] a girlfriend. Two in three women under [32:30] the age of 30 has a boyfriend. Why do [32:31] you think that's mathematically [32:32] impossible? Cuz women are dating older [32:34] cuz they want more economically and [32:35] emotionally viable men. [32:37] There's one in five men live at home at [32:40] the age of 30. One in three under the [32:42] age of 25. They're not having sex. [32:44] They're more obese. They're more [32:45] depressed. [32:47] When women don't have a relationship, [32:49] they oftentimes channel that energy into [32:51] their professional lives. More women own [32:53] single women own homes in the US than [32:55] single men. Women in urban areas under [32:57] the age of 30 are making more money than [32:58] men. [32:59] When men don't have the guardrails of a [33:01] relationship or a job or being in [33:02] school, they pour that energy sometimes [33:05] into unproductive things. Misogyny, [33:08] nationalism or extreme nationalism, [33:10] conspiracy theory. In some, they become [33:14] really shitty citizens. They become [33:16] sequestered from society. So, I'm [33:17] worried in the US our biggest threat is [33:19] a new species of asexual, asocial young [33:22] men [33:23] who are incredibly dangerous, have lost [33:26] have opted out of America. 60% of [33:28] 30-year-olds used to have one child in [33:30] America, now it's 27%. [33:32] So, people I think in the US, and I'm I [33:35] am just a genuine question. I don't know [33:37] if it's the same problem here. [33:39] Our tax policies have taken money from [33:40] the young, [33:42] stuffed them in the pockets of old [33:43] people, so Nana and Popkin upgrade from [33:46] Crystal Cruises. Meanwhile, young people [33:48] can't afford education, they can't [33:50] afford housing. [33:51] And we we especially see this really [33:55] acute emerging crisis [33:57] among young men who are just opting out [33:59] of America, who don't even want to try [34:01] and date, don't even want to enroll in [34:03] school, don't want even try and get a [34:05] job. Just stick in their basements and [34:07] go on Reddit or Discord. Or why go try [34:10] and shower, work out, and get a [34:12] relationship when you have YouPorn? Why [34:15] get a job when you can trade stocks or [34:17] crypto on Coinbase or Robinhood? I think [34:20] this is In my opinion, this is the most [34:22] dangerous trend in America right now. It [34:23] was almost like demonizing men for [34:25] decades has consequences. [34:28] I mean, this [34:29] this is what's been happening. Men are [34:31] the root of all evil, the root of all [34:33] evil, the root of all evil. Every advert [34:35] is about, you know, the woman is strong [34:37] and capable, the guy's pathetic. In [34:39] every movie, the woman's kicking ass and [34:41] the the man is pathetic. This has been [34:44] going on for decades. It's a cultural [34:45] thing as well as an economic thing. Um [34:48] and many of us have been saying that [34:50] when you take meaning uh and opportunity [34:53] away from men, if you create an [34:55] education system that punishes boys for [34:57] being boys, uh if you create a society [35:01] in which traditional masculine virtues [35:04] become vices, [35:05] uh then you will create exactly the sort [35:07] of thing that Scott is talking about. [35:09] It's a terrible thing that's been done. [35:11] Uh having said that, my message is [35:13] always the same to young men who who I [35:15] hope are listening, which is the answer [35:17] to your problems is never going to be, [35:19] as Scott says, porn and this and that. [35:21] The answer to your problems is going to [35:23] take responsibility, go out and get a [35:25] job or create a business, and and [35:27] actually make your life better. No one's [35:29] coming to save you. No one's coming to [35:31] help you. There is no uh [35:34] the the the sort of programs that we [35:36] have for women where we sort of go, [35:38] "Well, you know, let's give them an [35:39] opportunity here." No none of that's [35:41] happening for men. It's not going to [35:42] happen because for evolutionary reasons, [35:45] we just don't feel sorry for men the way [35:46] that we do for women. That's a reality. [35:49] I know it sucks, but the answer for men [35:51] is going to be the the answer that's [35:53] always been the answer for men, which is [35:55] for you to get off the sofa, to get off [35:57] the couch, and go out and actually do [35:59] and create and build and find your own [36:01] way through it. Even if you have to [36:04] acknowledge that the society you live in [36:06] has been conditioned for quite a long [36:07] time to think that you're a piece of [36:09] [ __ ] cuz cuz you happen to have the [36:10] genitalia that you do. Now, [36:13] that I I think it is is the harsh [36:15] reality of it. And I think Scott is [36:17] right to point this out as a problem, [36:19] and I hope that we start to have [36:21] both in terms of economic policy, but in [36:23] terms of also just the cultural [36:24] conversations and the way we talk about [36:26] these issues, we come back to something [36:28] that human beings have known through the [36:30] entire history of the our species, which [36:32] is men and women are both good and need [36:35] to work together in order to thrive and [36:38] succeed together, in order to have [36:39] families, in order to have children, and [36:41] in order for us to have healthy [36:43] communities and healthy societies. You [36:45] need healthy femininity, and you need [36:47] healthy masculinity, and they need to [36:49] come to together and work together. [36:51] That's what we're supposed to do. And [36:54] these stupid gender wars and this idea [36:57] that men as a group are this and women [37:00] as a group are that, all of that just [37:02] needs to end. [37:04] I was watching last night as Trump sat [37:05] there signing all of those executive [37:07] orders, and I also watched his [37:08] inauguration speech where he said, "We [37:10] will forge a society that is color blind [37:12] and merit-based." [37:15] And he signed a bunch of executive [37:16] orders last night to eliminate eliminate [37:18] a variety of different DEI programs in [37:19] the federal government, directing [37:20] agencies to dismantle these practices [37:23] within 60 days. And then over the last [37:26] couple of months, we've seen Meta come [37:27] out and dismantle and reverse some of [37:29] their DEI programs. We've seen [37:30] McDonald's, Walmart, Ford, [37:32] Harley-Davidson, Boeing, Amazon, Toyota. [37:35] It feels like there's a real shift [37:38] happening in both how, you know, sort of [37:41] um identity politics, but also in the [37:44] sort of corporate environment that those [37:45] identity politics have really emerged [37:47] from. Are you supportive of Trump's move [37:50] to roll back DEI measures? [37:54] So, I I I think there's a lot of nuance [37:55] here. I would argue in universities, [37:58] we've [38:00] DEI is used as a giant misdirect from [38:02] people such as myself who are enforcers [38:04] of the caste system and wake up every [38:06] morning and look in the mirror and ask [38:07] ourselves the same question, how do I [38:08] increase my compensation while [38:10] decreasing my accountability? [38:12] And what I found is the ultimate [38:14] strategy is to create an LVMA trajectory [38:16] as [ __ ] elitist strategy, [38:19] where Dartmouth sits on a endowment of [38:22] $8 billion and lets in 500 kids. So, the [38:26] conversation around who gets in is a [38:28] misdirect from the important question, [38:29] that is how many. [38:31] If you are not growing your endowment or [38:33] your freshman class faster than [38:34] population, you should lose your [38:35] tax-free status. We should be letting in [38:37] more gay kids, more trans kids, more [38:39] white Republicans from rural state. You [38:42] know who doesn't talk about DEI? Junior [38:43] colleges, cuz there's no admissions. [38:46] They don't have a problem with DEI. So, [38:48] I think DEI on campus has ended up [38:50] eating its own tail, started out with [38:52] the right idea. Now it's nothing. And I [38:54] would I would argue the same is somewhat [38:56] true to the Democratic Party. I went to [38:57] the the Democratic National Convention. [38:59] On the dnc.org website, it lists 17 [39:03] special interest groups, and it says [39:04] explicitly who we serve. [39:07] Asian Pacific Islanders, seniors, [39:09] veterans, black Americans, the disabled. [39:13] It basically lists I added the sub 76% [39:16] of the population. [39:17] And when you say you're actively [39:19] advocating for 76% of the population, [39:22] you're not advocating for 76% of the [39:24] population, you're discriminating [39:25] against the 24%. It's gone too far. I [39:28] would argue in the workplace, having [39:30] served on [39:31] seven public company boards and [39:34] I'm going to do a lot of boasting here [39:35] cuz I'm desperate for all of your [39:37] affirmation, and 12 private company [39:39] boards, there's still work to be done in [39:42] the private sector. There still is a [39:44] cycle [39:46] 40% of all venture capital and probably [39:48] 70 or 80% of all venture capital [39:50] deployed are white guys from just two [39:52] universities, Stanford and Harvard. So I [39:55] would argue universities it's gotten out [39:56] of control. I'd love to see the DEI [39:58] apparatus disassembled as along with the [40:00] ethics department, the sustainability [40:02] department, the leadership department. [40:04] These are all [ __ ] where we hire [40:05] formally important people with no [40:06] standards. They never get fired. It just [40:09] translates to more student debt. In the [40:11] boardroom in corporations and certain [40:13] sectors, I do think there is a need to [40:17] be thoughtful about broadening the [40:19] aperture of the lens and bringing in [40:21] people [40:22] who are underrepresented. There's still [40:24] a dearth [40:25] of women raising venture capital. So I I [40:28] think it's nuanced based on sector. [40:31] Um but to just say all DEI is bad, I [40:33] want to move to where the University of [40:35] California did in 1997. They don't have [40:37] race-based affirmative action. [40:39] They have adversity-based affirmative [40:42] action. I'm a beneficiary of affirmative [40:43] action. I had something called Pell [40:45] Grants. [40:46] I was raised by a single immigrant [40:47] mother who lived and died a secretary. [40:49] So I got grants. I had unfair advantage [40:52] because I came from a household that was [40:55] low-income. And I think that there [40:57] should be affirmative action and I [40:59] should think it should be based on [41:00] color, but that color is green. [41:04] The poor need our help. The moment you [41:06] start advocating for special advantage [41:09] based on any external factors, I think [41:12] at this point in our society it probably [41:14] causes more problems than it solves. [41:17] That's exactly right. That's exactly [41:19] right, Steven. And I think if we take a [41:21] step back and look at why DEI has become [41:23] such a big part of the conversation, [41:25] it's precisely because instead of [41:27] addressing the reality [41:29] of people's lives, which is some people [41:31] are disadvantaged and some people are [41:32] advantaged, [41:33] actually what we've mainly done and and [41:35] the Scott alluded to [41:37] the very beginning of our discussion is [41:39] we've given a leg up to very [41:43] wealthy my ethnic minority people from [41:46] successful families. And they now their [41:49] children now get into prestigious [41:51] universities, [41:53] which they probably would have done [41:55] anyway, some of them because they come [41:58] from very advantaged backgrounds. And [41:59] the kids that are growing up in poverty, [42:01] black and white, have no shot [42:03] whatsoever. But the reason that it's [42:05] become such a big issue around the [42:07] Western world, actually I don't think [42:10] it's it's the nuances that we've delved [42:11] in into here, but actually something [42:13] else, which is we have created [42:16] the most ethnically diverse societies in [42:18] history. And what I mean by that is not [42:21] that we've created societies in which [42:23] there are large groups of people who are [42:25] different from each other, but for the [42:27] first time probably in human history [42:29] we've created societies in which there [42:31] is a lot of ethnic diversity and there [42:34] is no overt discrimination against some [42:37] groups of people in the sense of you [42:39] know, the imperial societies in the past [42:41] would have had one dominant ethnic [42:43] group, which is, you know, the Russians [42:46] in the Soviet Union or the the Turks in [42:49] the Ottoman Empire or the Brits in the [42:51] British Empire, whatever. That was the [42:53] ethnic group that was like the dominant [42:55] one. And everybody else was a kind of [42:57] second-class citizen and everybody knew [42:59] it, right? We don't have that anymore. [43:01] We have highly diverse societies where [43:03] people of every single background exist, [43:06] in which we have this idea [43:09] that we're all supposed to be equal. And [43:12] when we have programs that explicitly [43:15] discriminate against people, there were [43:18] times when the discrimination was [43:20] explicit against black people. Well, [43:22] we've got we've gone full circle now [43:24] where the discrimination was going the [43:26] other way in university admissions, in [43:29] hiring, in all sort in corporate [43:30] America, in government, in all sorts of [43:32] things. You know, in this country the [43:34] BBC has internships that aren't [43:36] available to white people, etc. When you [43:39] get to that point, as Scott said earlier [43:41] on, everyone just goes, "Look, I know [43:43] I'm not supposed to say this, but the [43:44] reality is this is racism. This is a [43:47] form of racism and I thought we were [43:49] trying to get away from the racism." So [43:52] to the extent that the the the [43:54] elimination of DEI is about creating a [43:57] merit-based society [43:59] in which people are given an opportunity [44:01] because they're skilled and talented and [44:03] they have the potential to actually [44:05] achieve things and create wealth, you [44:07] know, we all know this. We all employ [44:09] people, right? Uh how many of us are [44:12] thinking about the races of the people [44:13] we hire? I don't think we think about [44:15] that at all. What we are thinking about [44:17] is I run a business, I need the very [44:19] best possible [44:21] very best possible person for this job [44:22] at the price I'm willing to pay. I don't [44:24] care if they are purple, green, blue, [44:27] white, what whatever. It doesn't matter. [44:30] What matters is are we getting the best [44:32] person for the job? And my concern about [44:35] identity politics has always been that [44:38] if we do not adopt that worldview, then [44:42] what we will do is create a worldview in [44:44] which we have different racial groups [44:47] competing with each other on the basis [44:49] of race. And that is a very very [44:51] dangerous mix for a multiethnic society [44:53] like ours, which is why I've been [44:56] begging people to let go of the stupid [44:58] idea of identity politics and to say [45:01] first and foremost, we are all Brits or [45:04] we are all Americans. We have this [45:07] umbrella identity under which we all [45:09] operate and our personal ethnicity or [45:12] sex or whatever is secondary to that. [45:15] And actually for the purposes of [45:16] employment, for the purposes of college [45:18] admission, etc., is irrelevant. Yes, if [45:22] there is disadvantage, if we grow up in [45:24] a single-parent home with a low income, [45:26] we may need some extra support there. If [45:28] we had [45:30] terrible schooling or education was not [45:32] good, we may need extra support. If [45:34] there's certain things that make it [45:36] easier for us because of of the [45:37] disadvantages we've had to fulfill our [45:40] talent and potential, I'm all for that. [45:43] But what we've created [45:45] so far and that's why I'm delighted it's [45:47] being eliminated is an anti-meritocratic [45:50] system which says, "We don't care what [45:52] you bring to the workplace. We don't [45:53] care whether you deserve this place or [45:55] no, we don't care about the potential [45:57] you have. Actually, we just needed a [45:59] insert category tick box to fill this [46:03] slot. And you filled it. It doesn't [46:05] really matter that you're not doing your [46:06] job very well because now we can say, [46:08] you know, we're a diverse company." I [46:11] don't care about that and we shouldn't [46:12] care about that as a society. And thank [46:14] God that's now gone. [46:16] Yeah, I think the worst part about it, [46:17] too, is that it calls into question when [46:20] someone does succeed [46:22] and they're from a diverse background, [46:23] you know, it calls into question why [46:25] they got that job in the first place, [46:26] which I think is horrible. [46:28] You know, I just hired from two [46:30] candidates, the final two candidates. Um [46:33] was a was a guy and a woman. Um I would [46:36] hate if the woman felt that she got the [46:40] job because she's a woman and not [46:42] because she's best. She turns out she [46:43] was by far the best in the process. And [46:46] I would love for her to know that there [46:47] was absolutely nothing that changed our [46:50] view. We weren't trying to fill a a [46:52] position with a woman, we were trying to [46:54] fill the position with the best and she [46:55] should know she was the best. Um I think [46:57] the contrast that was really fascinating [46:59] was between Trump's website and um the [47:03] Democrats' website. So in the in the [47:05] Democrats' website it was who we're for, [47:07] which was what Scott was saying. But the [47:09] Trump's were Trump's website was the 20 [47:11] things we're going to do. And it was [47:13] just a list of 20 These are the 20 [47:15] action points. This is what we're going [47:16] to we're going to do this, we're going [47:17] to do this, we're going to do this, [47:19] we're going to do this. So it was a [47:20] to-do list as opposed to [47:23] the identities where held that that we [47:25] want to advantage list. Um and I think [47:28] that was the choice, you know, at the [47:29] beginning Constantine said, you know, [47:31] America had a choice. And for me when I [47:33] looked at those two websites, I saw this [47:35] choice between the identities being the [47:38] main thing or the to-do list [47:41] uh being the main thing. And they're [47:42] very different approaches. [47:44] Scott, I am when I was listening to that [47:46] Zuckerberg interview talking about um [47:48] masculinity and identity issues, one of [47:49] the lines he said in there sounded like [47:51] something you've said on my show before [47:53] where he said, "I think having a culture [47:55] that celebrates that aggression a little [47:57] bit more," talking about masculinity, [47:58] "has its own merits that are really [48:00] positive." [48:01] Now, [48:03] Mark Zuckerberg isn't necessarily [48:04] someone that I [48:06] saw closely aligning to your worldview. [48:08] Am I right in thinking that that's [48:10] something you agree with? Cuz I remember [48:12] you saying to me you you think people [48:13] should be able to walk in a room and [48:15] kick everyone's ass. [48:17] What I've said on your show is that I [48:18] think the male form, especially under [48:20] the age of 30 with its bone structure, [48:22] incredible double twitch muscle, and [48:24] then this amazing [48:26] amazing chemical called testosterone, [48:29] you're going to look back [48:31] at your 25-year-old self and think, "Why [48:32] wasn't I a [ __ ] monster like Steve [48:34] Bannon?" [48:36] Because and also [48:38] there there is [48:40] I I you know, some masculinity when [48:42] Russian soldiers pour over the border [48:44] in Ukraine, you want some of that big [48:46] dick energy that Daniel was was talking [48:48] about. In the case of Zuckerberg, I I [48:51] don't think [48:52] I don't think he really understands an [48:54] aspirational view of masculinity. I [48:55] think when he couches [48:58] immediately kind of trying to kiss [48:59] Trump's ass because Trump threatened to [49:01] put him in prison [49:03] and what he used to call moderation he's [49:04] now calling censorship. And when you [49:06] have an algorithm [49:08] that elevates incendiary hateful [49:10] content, I would not describe that as [49:12] masculinity. For me, masculinity comes [49:14] down to protection, [49:15] providing, and procreation. [49:18] And I don't think it's a I think to talk [49:20] about gendering a workplace in the [49:23] context of trying to [49:25] excuse [49:27] a [49:28] total elimination of what I would think [49:30] is probably healthy moderation. [49:32] I imagine Daniel and Constantine might [49:34] have a different view. [49:35] I don't I I think he's just couching his [49:39] his his supplicant obsequious kiss-ass [49:41] behavior under the auspices of [49:43] masculinity. It just doesn't ring true [49:45] for me. And I'm not sure we need to man [49:48] up or fem up organizations and companies [49:51] right now. When I talk about [49:52] masculinity, [49:54] you know, this If I say at a conference, [49:57] "Oh, women are better managers." [49:59] Everyone goes, "Yes, that's right. [50:00] That's right." Right? That's okay. If I [50:02] say men are more risk-aggressive and [50:03] make better entrepreneurs, you're a [50:05] misogynist. [50:07] You you're out. [50:08] And the reality is men and women bring [50:10] different attributes. But the masculine [50:12] and femininity, I think masculinity is a [50:14] wonderful thing, but I think we need a [50:15] different image of it. I think people [50:16] born as male have an easier time leaning [50:18] into those things. Having said that, [50:20] I work out at a CrossFit with a bunch of [50:22] lesbian firefighters. They bring great [50:24] masculine energy. I And they could carry [50:26] my ass out of a fire. So, a lot of men [50:30] demonstrate wonderful feminine [50:31] qualities. A lot of women demonstrate [50:33] wonderful masculine qualities. I don't [50:35] think these things are sequestered to [50:36] anyone born as a specific [50:38] a specific gender. What I think What I [50:40] talk about masculinity, I don't talk [50:42] about it in the role of corporations. I [50:44] think that [50:45] I think that's just fraught with risk [50:46] and not worth talking about. It should [50:48] be about shareholder value or [50:49] stakeholder value. [50:51] I think young men need a code. We're [50:53] going to church less. We have fewer [50:54] relationships. So, what's the code you [50:56] hold into onto in terms of [50:59] creating behaviors that are productive [51:00] for you, yourself, society. And I think [51:03] masculinity needs to be redefined as [51:05] something more aspirational where you're [51:06] celebrated for being really [ __ ] [51:08] strong. You're celebrated for not [51:10] complaining. You're celebrated for [51:12] creating surplus value. Create more tax [51:14] revenue than you absorb. You're [51:16] celebrated for being aggressive. You're [51:17] celebrated for breaking up fights at [51:19] bars, not [51:20] not not starting them. You're celebrated [51:22] for protecting your country, not [51:24] shitposting it. You know, there's You're [51:26] you're celebrated for approaching [51:28] strange women and expressing romantic [51:30] interest. [51:31] That's that's not a crime. [51:33] And if she's not interested, and you're [51:35] rejected, you're both going to be fine. [51:38] Uh you know, you're celebrated for [51:39] getting out of the house. You're [51:40] celebrated for working. You're [51:42] celebrated for making money and liking [51:43] money. [51:44] I think there just needs to be a [51:45] redefinition of masculinity in the [51:47] context of helping young men [51:50] find a code [51:52] that they used to get from the armed [51:53] services or from dual dual parent [51:55] households. And I I've I feel like [51:57] they're struggling. So, I like the idea [51:59] of something that they feel in their [52:01] bones and in their [52:03] in their body and in their DNA that they [52:05] can lean into, that we celebrate. And [52:07] the conversation is flipped entirely. 5 [52:10] years ago, I was called a misogynist for [52:11] talking about masculinity. Now, the [52:14] conversation is being led in advocated [52:16] by one group, and it's mothers, [52:19] who are like, "I My son is not doing [52:21] well. I got three kids, two daughters. [52:23] Daughters in PR, and the other one's at [52:25] Penn, and my son is in the basement [52:26] vaping and playing video games. He needs [52:29] something to latch onto. He needs a [52:31] code." Anyways, but I apologize, word [52:33] salad. [52:35] Zuckerberg and masculinity, give me a [52:36] [ __ ] break. He looks like a Chechen [52:38] molly dealer. [52:40] Sorry, back to you, Stephen. [52:45] Well, it's just it's interesting when [52:46] you speak, Scott, because your views on [52:48] masculinity, um it appear to me to be [52:51] most better represented by the right [52:54] side of politics than the left side of [52:55] politics. They both have their own [52:56] vision of masculinity, and yours seems [52:58] to be a Republican view of masculinity. [53:00] He flew [53:01] To Trump's credit, he he saw the [53:03] opportunity, and he flew right into the [53:05] manosphere. Rockets, crypto, Joe Rogan, [53:10] uh Theo Von. He said, "No, I'm I'm I'm [53:14] not going to run from this. I'm going to [53:16] fly right into it." Now, I would argue [53:18] that his vision of masculinity has too [53:20] much coarseness, too much cruelty, too [53:23] much bullying. I don't think that's [53:24] masculinity. [53:26] I think when we talk about Elon Musk [53:28] taking risks, sending rockets that are [53:30] captured by scissors coming down, [53:32] inspiring the EV race, taking an [53:33] enormous risk, making a [ __ ] ton of [53:35] money. Yeah, that's a great form of [53:36] masculinity. Accusing men trying to save [53:40] Thai soccer players, calling them [53:42] pedophiles, calling your employees a sex [53:44] criminal such that they have to leave [53:45] their house, having 13 kids by five [53:48] women or three women, none of which you [53:50] live with, living next to sleeping next [53:52] to a loaded gun, losing control of your [53:56] of your your your your self-control [53:58] because of addiction, I don't think [54:00] that's a great role model. I I think [54:01] he's an amazing role role model for [54:03] boys. I don't think he's a great role [54:04] model for men. [54:06] In terms of energy, there are so many [54:07] reasons why I'm a big matcha fan, if you [54:09] don't already know by now. And so much [54:11] so that I actually invested in the UK's [54:12] leading matcha company called [54:14] PerfectTed. And one of my favorite [54:15] PerfectTed products is these delicious [54:18] matcha pouches that come in every flavor [54:20] from salted caramel to peach flavor to [54:23] mint flavor to berry flavor. One of my [54:25] favorites is this vanilla flavor, which [54:27] I'm going to make [54:29] in just 2 seconds. You just take this [54:31] mixer here, [54:32] get a little bit of the powder, pop it [54:34] on top of the shaker like that, put the [54:37] lid on. [54:40] Shake, shake, shake. [54:45] Delicious. If you haven't tried this [54:46] yet, you can find PerfectTed at Tesco [54:48] and Holland Barrett stores or online [54:50] where you can get 40% off with my code [54:53] diary40. Head to perfectted.com and put [54:56] in code diary40 to try this delicious [54:58] multi-flavored matcha now. Highly [55:00] recommend. And if you do it, please tag [55:02] me, send me a message online. [55:03] Do you know that 80% of resolutions fail [55:06] by February? It's because we focus too [55:08] much on the end goal, and we forget the [55:10] small daily actions that actually move [55:12] us forward. Those actions that are easy [55:13] to do are also easy not to do in life. [55:16] It's easy to save a dollar, so it's also [55:17] easy not to. Making one small [55:19] improvement each day, one tiny step in [55:22] the right direction, has a big [55:23] difference over time. And that is the 1% [55:26] mindset, which is why we created the 1% [55:28] diary, a 90-day journal designed to help [55:31] you stay consistent and focus on the [55:33] small wins and make real progress over [55:35] time. It also gives you access to the 1% [55:37] community, a space where you can stay [55:39] accountable, motivated, inspired along [55:42] with many others on the same journey. We [55:43] launched the 1% diary in November, and [55:45] it sold out. So, now we're doing a [55:47] second drop. Head to the diary.com to [55:50] grab yours before it sells out again. [55:52] I'll put the link below. [55:54] Constantine, [55:55] Elon Musk, censorship. The word [55:57] censorship was used there by [55:59] um Scott. We've seen this reversal in [56:02] Meta's attitude, Facebook's attitude [56:04] that had been built up over a decade, [56:06] where it it almost felt like if you had [56:08] sort of right-leaning views or really [56:10] any unaccepted views, and you posted [56:12] those on Facebook, you would face maybe [56:13] having the post deleted or your account [56:15] suspended. This new world of um of [56:18] speech of free speech and as it pertains [56:21] to masculinity, do you think Elon Musk's [56:24] decision to buy X, which I noticed, [56:26] Scott, you'd left X. You no longer post [56:28] or tweet on X anymore. Do you think [56:31] Elon's [56:32] decision to buy X is a net positive for [56:34] society? [56:37] Uh net, yes, but I think what people [56:39] hear when you say that is there's no [56:41] problems with this system than, you [56:45] know, compared to the ones we had [56:47] before. Uh there are definitely [56:48] disadvantages to a free platform like uh [56:53] X now. And one of them is, [56:56] inevitably, when you remove censorship, [56:58] one of the things that censorship was [57:00] doing was keeping all all the deeply [57:02] unpleasant uh people uh [57:06] away from being able to shove things in [57:08] your face. And that happens quite a lot [57:10] on X. So, I don't enjoy that aspect of [57:12] it. Uh but I've always said that would [57:13] be the price that we would pay for [57:15] freedom. Uh freedom Freedom always has a [57:18] price, and that's what we're seeing. Uh [57:20] as for Zuckerberg, [57:22] his miraculous transformation into a [57:24] free speech warrior is just wonderful, [57:26] and I I'm delighted to welcome him. I'm [57:28] sure it's entirely genuine and not [57:30] anything to do with the election results [57:32] we've just seen in any way whatsoever [57:34] and the fact that the culture shifted. [57:36] And those of us who were being censored [57:38] by people like him for years actually [57:42] winning the argument. Well, what it [57:43] shows you is we've won the argument on [57:45] free speech [57:47] when it comes to the big tech platforms. [57:49] Um and it's going to be messy. Uh and I [57:52] always said it was going to be messy [57:53] because, inevitably, when you create [57:55] these large platforms that are [57:57] algorithmically driven, [57:58] uh where the truth and the moderate [58:01] reasonable take is not what usually gets [58:04] attention, you're going to see a lot of [58:06] unpleasantness. [58:07] I value [58:10] the ability to hear and communicate [58:12] truthful uh ideas and facts over my own [58:16] subjective feelings. Oh, someone said a [58:19] a thing I don't like, or someone was [58:21] racist, or someone was misogynistic. I [58:23] don't enjoy the fact that that happens, [58:26] but I would rather that happened, and [58:28] also we were not being censored from [58:30] saying, you know, COVID probably came [58:32] from a lab in China, which we were. Uh [58:35] you know, the the the the the Hunter [58:38] Biden laptop story isn't Russian [58:40] disinformation. Actually, it's an [58:41] important piece of information that [58:44] American voters need to hear when [58:46] they're making their decision about the [58:47] election. [58:48] Uh and all of these other things that [58:49] were being suppressed and censored [58:51] across social media for years, um [58:54] they're not anymore, and I think that's [58:56] a good thing. And I think that's [58:57] helpful. And if you look at, you know, [58:59] to bring it back to the UK for a moment, [59:01] Stephen, uh as you know, on [59:03] Trigonometry, we've tried to cover the [59:05] grooming gangs uh scandal. And it's an [59:09] outrage what happened in this country [59:11] over decades. We've we've been covering [59:13] that for years, since about 2019, 2020, [59:16] to very little purchase. And one of the [59:19] reasons is it was just something that [59:20] the media sort of covered and then moved [59:23] on. When it actually should have been [59:24] something we talked about on a daily [59:26] basis until serious action was taken, [59:28] and we saw real real change. Real change [59:31] in policing. real change in social work, [59:34] real change in government, real change [59:36] in the way that these racially [59:38] aggravated hate crimes were treated. Um, [59:41] well, none of that was really being [59:42] talked about seriously until Elon kicked [59:45] up a fuss, amplified the voices of [59:48] survivors, amplified the voices of [59:50] companions on X, which he bought, and [59:53] now the British government is forced to [59:56] do whatever it can to actually address [59:58] those issues uh to to to the extent that [60:01] it will, you know, a lot of people will [60:02] say it still doesn't go far enough. [60:04] Well, if it doesn't go far enough, we [60:06] now have a platform from which we can [60:08] continue to have that conversation until [60:11] there is the sort of inquiry and the [60:12] sort of outcomes that people want to [60:14] actually deliver real change. So, is [60:17] that a positive? God, yes. God, yes. We [60:20] needed that. Those women who were raped [60:22] on a mass scale needed their voices to [60:25] be amplified by someone like Elon Musk [60:27] on a platform like X, which is now free. [60:30] to the point where Keir Starmer is [60:32] forcing into defensive action. That I [60:34] wish that was around 30 years ago [60:36] because a hell of a lot of young girls [60:37] and women wouldn't have suffered the way [60:39] they did if we had the opportunity to [60:41] get that message out. So, God, yes, it's [60:44] a net positive. Just to pick up on that, [60:46] Constantine. I I I've had a question in [60:47] my mind for a while um [60:49] regarding the scandal, which is [60:51] horrific, I think we something we all [60:52] definitely agree on, is why has Elon [60:55] chosen now? And why has he chosen [60:58] Keir Starmer as the sort of central [61:01] target of this flurry of tweets around [61:04] the grooming scandals? Because there's [61:06] clearly you you [61:07] Elon's a I think an individual which you [61:09] can kind of see thinking in real time. [61:11] Like if you go back through his tweets [61:13] cuz there's so many of them and they [61:14] kind of come in these spurts, you can [61:16] almost see what he's getting at. Is [61:18] there an underlying reason why he's made [61:20] this essential issue over the last [61:21] couple of weeks? [61:22] I I think there are several reasons. One [61:24] of the reasons that it's happening now [61:26] is actually most Americans were [61:27] completely unaware of this issue until [61:29] recently. I remember a year ago being [61:32] speaking at a private event in New York [61:35] and somebody said to me, well, you know, [61:36] what what is the consequence of [61:38] political correctness? Well, why why are [61:40] you so against it? Why are you so [61:41] against censorship? And I talked about [61:43] the grooming gangs and and people were [61:45] horrified. They hadn't even And these [61:47] are well-informed, educated people who [61:49] are media savvy and whatever. So, one of [61:52] the reasons is I think to a lot of [61:53] Americans this issue is only coming to [61:55] the fore now in front of their mind. Uh [61:58] the second issue, I think, is that Elon [62:01] Musk understands what I said earlier, [62:03] which is we have a global Western [62:05] culture now. Uh and so what happens in [62:07] Britain matters just as much as what [62:09] happens in America because we are we are [62:11] symbiotic with each other now. When [62:13] there's a a restriction of speech in the [62:16] UK, when we have laws about what people [62:19] are and aren't allowed to say, that has [62:21] an impact across the world. When you see [62:23] the European Union trying to pass [62:25] legislation about online censorship, [62:27] that has an impact because if something [62:30] exists in the UK and in many European [62:33] countries, it's only a matter of time [62:34] before people in America going to say, [62:36] well, look, they've got this in Europe, [62:38] why don't we bring it over here? And [62:39] vice versa. So, what happens in America [62:42] affects us in Europe and in the UK and [62:44] what happens in Europe and the UK [62:45] affects America. So, what Elon, I think, [62:47] is trying to do is to say, we care about [62:51] our civilization. Elon doesn't really [62:53] talk that much about the United States, [62:55] he talks about our civilization as I do [62:57] because I believe that we are now one [63:00] thing to a very significant extent. Now, [63:02] from our civilizational point of view, [63:05] is it a good thing that mass rape gangs [63:07] in the UK are being insufficiently [63:10] investigated and treated improperly by [63:12] the police and the government? No, it's [63:14] not, it's a very bad thing. So, how do [63:15] we address that? Well, we address that [63:17] by putting pressure on the government of [63:19] the day. Now, [63:21] I don't see the grooming gangs as a [63:22] party political issue. The Tories didn't [63:24] really do anything about it properly [63:26] either, although there were individual [63:27] members of of the cabinet that tried to [63:30] to do something like Suella Braverman. [63:32] Um but he's putting pressure on the [63:34] government of the day. You can see him [63:36] going after Nigel Farage of all people [63:38] and saying Nigel Farage is not the right [63:41] leader for reform. So, he's he's in he's [63:44] attempting to shape British politics in [63:46] the direction that he feels is the right [63:48] way. [63:49] he want? [63:50] What outcome does he want? I look, I [63:52] don't know what Elon Musk want. I don't [63:53] know him personally. I haven't even yet [63:55] had a chance to interview him, which I [63:56] really look forward to doing cuz I think [63:58] he's one of the the great visionaries of [64:00] our time, whether you like him or not, I [64:02] think that's undeniably true. [64:04] Um but my sense is he's trying to uh [64:08] talk about all the things that we've [64:09] been discussing, freedom of expression, [64:12] the end of identity politics and the [64:14] pursuit of meritocracy, a pioneering [64:16] pioneering inspiring vision of the [64:18] future, which is why he's talking about [64:20] Mars and and a vision for our [64:22] civilization that goes beyond the narrow [64:24] squabbling that we do here on Earth. [64:27] Um a and and the the the understanding [64:30] that human beings are are meant we we [64:32] left the cave. We're not supposed to [64:35] stay in a place with the walls closing [64:37] in on us and feel like we're in decline. [64:40] We're not supposed to be a civilization [64:42] that has 1.5 children per woman and that [64:45] is simply just leaving the planet Earth [64:47] because we can't reproduce. We're [64:49] supposed to look at the future with hope [64:51] and optimism. We're going to we're [64:53] supposed to say, I want things to be [64:56] better. I want things to be better for [64:58] my children. I want to have children. I [65:00] want the vision of our society [65:03] be being one of positivity and optimism [65:06] and a sense of a pioneering vision and [65:08] inspiration. That's what I think he [65:10] wants and um [65:12] I don't really see any of that in the [65:14] current government in the UK and I think [65:15] he's right to go after them and say, you [65:17] are destroying your country's economy, [65:19] you're destroying its culture, you are [65:21] destroying its sense of cohesiveness by [65:24] allowing illegal immigration, you are [65:26] destroying that sense of optimism and [65:28] vision and you're not saying to people, [65:30] let's build something better, you're [65:32] saying, let's stay small, let's play [65:34] small, let's not rise above our station. [65:36] And I think [65:38] we need people like that, imperfect as [65:40] they may be in all sorts of different [65:42] ways, to drive our civilization forward, [65:45] to say to us, there is an inspiring [65:47] vision to which we're all moving as [65:49] opposed to just sitting there and [65:51] waiting to die, which is what we've been [65:53] doing for far too long. Yeah, I think I [65:56] think Elon is [65:57] taking at his word, you know, he said a [65:59] year ago that he was going to absolutely [66:01] dismantle the woke mind virus globally [66:03] and he was going to ensure meritocracy [66:05] and free speech. [66:07] And he when he sets his mind on [66:08] something, he has the ability to stay [66:10] focused on it for a very long time to a [66:11] degree most people can't fathom. [66:15] You know, and he's and he's absolutely [66:16] willing to endure pain. He loves a [66:18] fight. He he obviously has the kind of [66:20] mind that can't relax unless he's kind [66:23] of grinding up against some gear [66:26] as well. Like the way he the way he [66:28] works, he needs stress in his life. He [66:30] needs a big enemy, he needs a big fight [66:31] to to engage with. [66:33] And I think Keir Starmer just ticked all [66:35] of his boxes as someone to go up [66:37] against. [66:38] I think I think what's interesting is we [66:40] talk about these big tech. I love that [66:42] Scott has previously talked about [66:43] breaking up big tech and I think there's [66:45] potential for that in the next four [66:46] years. All of these guys like Trump and [66:50] JD Vance and [66:52] all of them have have [66:53] uh locked horns with big tech and [66:56] they've come you know, this is their [66:57] chance to get revenge on big tech in the [66:59] next four years. They could do a little [67:01] you know, you might see Google have to [67:04] you know, spin off YouTube or you might [67:06] see AWS have to come away from Amazon or [67:08] something like that. Who knows? But um [67:11] it's interesting that that a lot of [67:12] these big tech guys, they're probably [67:14] cozying up to Trump um because you know, [67:18] that could be on the cards as well. [67:20] There's been a lot of um Trump butt kick [67:23] butt kissing over the last couple of [67:24] weeks. I think Trump's almost bragged [67:26] about the fact that everybody's flown [67:28] down to Mar-a-Lago to kiss his butt and [67:30] to cozy up with him and there's now [67:32] headlines saying that there's this tech [67:33] oligarchy forming in the United States [67:35] where Bezos and Elon and Zuck are all [67:38] now friends and they're stood behind [67:40] Trump as this unifying force. Just to [67:42] just to touch on a few points of that [67:43] but also on Constantine's message that [67:45] Elon is doing this for the betterment of [67:47] humanity, to further humanity, his [67:49] involvement with the UK but his broader [67:51] involvement in politics now. Scott, does [67:53] that square with how you think about [67:55] Elon? And I am quite [67:57] um curious to ask you why you made the [67:59] decision to leave X and to go to Blue [68:01] Sky and Threads and things like that. [68:04] Yeah, I can't speculate on what [68:05] motivates Elon Musk. I I just I quite [68:07] frankly just don't get the guy and I [68:08] don't also I don't I don't have the [68:10] domain expertise to comment on the rape [68:12] gangs. It's such a serious upsetting [68:15] issue. I I don't know it well enough to [68:16] speak intelligently to it. [68:19] The just the topic of the of censorship [68:21] though [68:22] as it relates to Meta [68:25] a hallmark of a free society and a [68:27] democracy is that pretty much anyone can [68:29] say pretty much anything about pretty [68:30] much anybody. I I believe that. The [68:33] question is [68:34] do machines and bots have free speech [68:36] rights? [68:37] Because if I say something [68:40] I believe and I [68:42] I may be paranoid but it doesn't mean [68:43] I'm wrong. I believe VCs who whose [68:46] portfolio companies I've said are [68:47] overvalued have enlisted thousands of [68:49] bots to basically just [ __ ] post me over [68:52] and over on X to diminish my [68:54] credibility. I think because I've been [68:56] critical of Putin that the GRU has hired [68:58] troll farms to create lists of thousands [68:59] of people to weaponize bots [69:02] to say disparaging things about them. Do [69:04] those bots have free speech rights? In [69:06] addition [69:08] when Fox News [69:11] distributes information to its anchors [69:12] saying Dominion voting machines were [69:14] weaponized by Hugo Chavez in Venezuela [69:17] despite the fact they knew that was not [69:19] true but they tell their [69:21] broadcasters to do it anyways and then [69:23] Dominion says, this hurt our business [69:25] and you knew it was false and you [69:27] decided to communicate it anyways, [69:30] there at courts find them liable, and [69:32] they have to pay three quarters of a [69:33] billion dollars. What happened at Fox [69:36] News was a dumpster fire compared to the [69:38] nuclear mushroom cloud [69:40] on Meta. [69:41] So, a a lot of what we're talking about [69:43] here, if you want to say that mRNA [69:45] vaccines alter your DNA, [69:48] I think you you should have the right to [69:49] say that. The dissenter's voice is [69:51] important cuz occasionally the [69:52] conspiracy theorists end up being [69:54] correct. [69:55] The question is, [69:57] when you have a business model that [69:58] elevates the most incendiary, ugly [70:00] content beyond its organic reach, should [70:04] you then be exonerated from all [70:05] liability and slander that traditional [70:08] media companies [70:09] are liable to? If we were to say that [70:12] Elon Musk [70:14] is a pedophile and state start stating [70:17] facts and evidence of it, and he could [70:19] show that it's hurt his ability to raise [70:22] money for Tesla, [70:23] and he filed legal action against this [70:25] podcast, I think we would be in a world [70:27] of hurt. [70:29] And and and it would that that legal [70:31] liability is warranted. But the most [70:33] powerful media companies in the world [70:35] have Section 230 protection, [70:37] so they can they have a business model [70:40] where conspiracy theory or novel [70:41] content, which is Latin for [ __ ] and [70:43] lies, and the more angry it is, it gets [70:46] elevated beyond its organic reach. [70:49] So, while I'm kind of down with the [70:51] notion that we should have free speech [70:53] and anybody should be able to say pretty [70:55] much whatever they want, [70:57] there's something wrong when we have [70:58] algorithms that have a profit incentive [71:01] around rage, conspiracy theory, and [71:03] lies, [71:04] and two-thirds of Republicans believe [71:06] that the election was stolen. [71:09] And when one one in five Americans think [71:12] that 9/11 was an inside job. [71:15] I mean, there we are [71:16] Let's be honest, they thought that [71:18] before the internet. I remember watching [71:19] all the 9/11 truth and movies and all of [71:22] that. But your point overall is right. I [71:24] I totally agree. And by the way, Elon [71:26] agrees with you. When he bought X, he [71:28] talked about the bot problem. He talked [71:30] about the amplification of outrage. He [71:33] hasn't done as much as I I hoped he [71:35] would have done so far, but I I hope [71:37] that they do address that because that [71:39] isn't an Elon or an X problem. It's a [71:42] technology problem of the modern world. [71:44] The reality is that the more we live our [71:46] lives online, the more you're going to [71:48] have a [71:49] the problem of the ability of foreign [71:51] governments, of individual people to [71:54] create fake accounts, bot farms, etc., [71:58] to influence the way we look at all of [71:59] these things. [72:01] And [72:02] we're going to have to come to terms [72:04] with that reality because it's it's it's [72:06] a technological issue that we're going [72:07] to have to solve for, and we haven't [72:10] yet. [72:10] very easy for people to get caught in [72:12] their own bubbles as well, which is a [72:13] new phenomenon. There was a time where [72:15] if you believed crazy things, you still [72:17] had to sit next to someone else in [72:19] church and talk to them about their life [72:22] and what they believe, and you [72:23] encountered dissenting voices. You did [72:25] You encountered sane, rational people [72:28] who had very different views to you that [72:30] you had to be friends with long-term. [72:32] Whereas where we are right now is if [72:34] you've got some sort of crazy view, you [72:36] can find yourself only talking to people [72:38] who who share those views, and only [72:41] sharing content that reinforces those [72:43] views until such time that you become [72:45] extremely radicalized. [72:47] I think that's such an important point [72:49] because I think it's a real shame that [72:50] AI LLMs aren't crawling the real world. [72:53] I was at Gringo's yesterday. Someone [72:55] comes up to me, love your content. [72:58] Let's take a picture. They're so nice. [72:59] Another person comes up to me and says, [73:00] I disagree with your view on this, but [73:02] we have a civil conversation. [73:04] And then I come home to 40 bots telling [73:05] me I'm Professor Genocide. [73:08] I mean, people in the real world, [73:10] generally speaking, I don't know if it's [73:11] cuz it's threat of physical violence or [73:13] they want to have sex with you or maybe [73:14] they think some some point you'll hire [73:15] their kid, [73:17] or generally just a commodity of man, [73:19] but people in real life, I find are just [73:22] lovely and wonderful. And it's a shame [73:24] that these LLMs aren't crawling this [73:26] cuz the treif and some of the vile [ __ ] [73:29] they're they're crawling online, which I [73:32] don't even think reflects our species. I [73:34] think it reflects [73:35] technology that has a profit motive [73:37] around promoting the most incendiary, [73:39] hateful content. So, there's got to be [73:42] some sort of medium speed here. And [73:44] also, I got to fact-check Steve because [73:46] you don't like Chick-fil-A, don't eat at [73:48] Chick-fil-A. I I I if Musk wants to pay [73:51] $44 billion and turn it into a Nazi porn [73:53] bar, that's his right. I don't think [73:55] there's I don't think it's illegal. I [73:56] don't think the government should step [73:57] in, [73:58] but I don't have to paint his fence. [74:01] And I can go to another platform. That's [74:04] my right, too. And everyone says, "Oh, [74:05] you're against free speech." I'm like, [74:07] "No, I'm not. I'm against being on a [74:08] platform that makes me feel bad." [74:11] So, he has the right. And all this [74:14] notion around Meta, free speech, it's a [74:16] little different because they control so [74:17] much of the media, but these are media [74:19] companies, and they should be liable for [74:22] slander or defamation the same way [74:24] traditional media companies are [74:25] involved. I think we could solve a lot [74:27] of this problem by just removing 230 [74:29] protections for algorithmically elevated [74:32] content. If you decide [74:35] to elevate content [74:37] beyond its organic reach, then you are [74:39] making an editorial decision, and you [74:41] should be liable if that in fact is [74:43] slanderous or defamatory. [74:45] I think that's really fascinating as a [74:47] way of handling it. And also, we're [74:49] living in a world where as of this year, [74:52] some of the most [74:53] phenomenal content you will read will be [74:55] algorithmically generated. And some of [74:57] the most compelling content. So, this [74:59] idea that Scott's talking about of [75:01] should bots have free speech, it sounds [75:04] like a kind of, [75:06] you know, intellectual kind of [75:07] pseudo-intellectual topic, but it's [75:09] absolutely a very practical topic in the [75:11] sense that [75:13] bots now can generate conversations very [75:15] easily, and some of the you could spend [75:18] all day talking to a bot and not know. [75:20] It's funny this is this subject has come [75:22] up because in the last week, I had a [75:25] flurry of messages on WhatsApp from [75:26] friends. Actually, two tweets yesterday [75:27] which you could probably see if you just [75:29] search my name, because on X at the [75:31] moment, there's multiple ads running [75:33] that are fake articles with fake BBC [75:36] headlines with my face in. So, it says [75:38] things like, "The Bank of England is [75:40] suing Steve Bartlett." And this is [75:41] running as a sponsored ad on X. [75:44] And people are tweeting me these things. [75:46] My friend says every time he refreshes [75:47] the feed, he sees a new sponsored ad of [75:50] a fake article of me. And sometimes it's [75:52] like, "Can't believe this happened to [75:54] Steve." And it's a BBC article. You [75:56] click on it, you get scammed. [75:58] I think it's a crypto scam. I don't want [75:59] to click. I'll send the link to you guys [76:01] so you can click on it for me. But um I [76:02] just it really has cuz that is a bot. [76:05] There's multiple of them, multiple [76:06] accounts that have been spun up. They're [76:08] all verified accounts. And it's [76:10] AI-generated imagery with a paid ad [76:12] behind it. That's the bit that really [76:14] gets me. I get people can post [ __ ] but [76:16] but sponsoring [76:18] sponsoring it is a new a new level of a [76:20] new level of like defamation. Um one of [76:24] the big macro things I've been thinking [76:25] a lot about that I haven't shared yet is [76:26] just the the amount of social networks [76:28] that have emerged. In the last 10 years, [76:31] there's been a 50% increase so far in [76:33] new social networks that have emerged, [76:35] and we're seeing this splintering now of [76:36] the Rumbles, the Blue Skies, the [76:38] Threads. And it almost seems, talking [76:40] about echo chambers, that social [76:42] networks are becoming sort of political [76:44] environments, and you're choosing your [76:45] social network now based on your [76:46] politics. This doesn't seem like a net [76:50] positive thing for society. [76:54] No. No, I I think we're living through [76:56] an era of the fragmentation of our [76:58] reality, and it it comes, you know, [77:00] Scott's point about people behaving [77:02] better in person is true. Although I [77:05] would say [77:06] there is the windscreen effect or the [77:08] windshield effect, which is if you [77:10] someone cuts you up in traffic and you [77:11] feel that there's some kind of physical [77:13] separation between the two of you, most [77:15] people behave slightly differently in [77:17] that context than they would if they [77:18] were sitting next to somebody [77:19] face-to-face in a bar. So, it's it's [77:22] there's something about being physically [77:24] present with other people that changes [77:27] it, which is one of the reasons, you [77:28] know, I know you have pretty much all [77:30] your interviews face-to-face, and we do [77:32] as well, because I generally speaking, [77:35] it's very difficult to connect [77:37] authentically with people. Obviously, [77:38] we've managed to do it in the course of [77:39] this conversation, but beyond that, it's [77:41] difficult. Um [77:43] And so, we're going to have to work on [77:45] that. But I just What the point I'm [77:46] trying to make is this isn't a political [77:49] issue. It's not an X issue. It's not an [77:52] Elon Musk issue. It's a technological [77:55] issue. We're living through [77:57] probably already have lived through most [77:59] of of the digital revolution. And I used [78:01] to as a kid love Isaac Asimov science [78:04] fiction books. And one of the reasons I [78:06] did enjoy reading them so much is it was [78:09] a world in which there was an [78:10] exploration of what does the creation of [78:13] robots, [78:15] which is what we're living through, [78:18] mean for morality? What does it mean for [78:21] philosophy? What does it mean for [78:22] humanity? What does it mean for [78:25] What How do we build rules in a world in [78:27] which you have these machines that take [78:29] every rule literally, and suddenly you [78:31] find that, you know, the desire to [78:33] protect humanity results in the end of [78:36] humanity. How do you How do you navigate [78:38] all of this? And that is what we're [78:40] living through. We are also living [78:42] through a period when our realities are [78:44] being fragmented. And so, [78:46] we we we we believe a very small set of [78:51] things that other people like us [78:53] somewhere in a very different part of [78:55] the world, as Daniel was saying earlier, [78:57] also believe. And we now live in this [78:59] not we don't live in in England or in [79:02] Scotland or in America. We live almost [79:05] like in a world of people who think like [79:07] us in the West. [79:10] And then other people live right next [79:12] door to us who live in a whole different [79:15] world because they consume a whole [79:16] different set of information. That is [79:19] the reality. We can complain about it. [79:22] That is not going to change. And I the [79:25] only thing I I really want to [79:28] raise where I disagree with what with [79:30] Scott about this idea that Facebook and [79:34] X, etc. are uh, they are [79:37] publishers and not platforms. I don't [79:41] think you can apply the same media [79:43] organization section 230 to them. It It [79:45] just I I don't think it's appropriate. [79:48] They are platforms in which people [79:49] publish information. The The artificial [79:52] amplification is a fair point. We need [79:54] to deal with that. We need to deal with [79:55] the bot problem. [79:57] That's a very difficult one because [80:00] uh, one of the challenges is the only [80:02] way to really deal that I can see with a [80:04] bot problem is to get people to verify [80:06] their identity online. [80:08] That obviously has a lot of questions [80:11] around that because once you start [80:12] forcing people to give their identity [80:15] over to some anonymous blob online who's [80:18] collecting that data, what are they [80:20] doing with it? And, you know, if you [80:23] don't like Elon Musk or if you don't [80:25] like the previous Twitter regime as I [80:27] didn't, then the question for you is, [80:29] well, [80:30] you know, let's say right now I look at [80:32] Twitter and I'm like, yeah, I'm happy to [80:33] verify my identity. I'm happy to confirm [80:36] who I am. Well, what if, you know, [80:38] George Soros buys X off Elon at some [80:41] point? Are you still happy that that [80:43] information is being held? Are you still [80:45] happy that the anonymous account you've [80:46] now now made confirmed? You know, what [80:49] happens to the anonymous activist [80:51] speaking about the Ayatollah's regime in [80:54] Iran? What happens to them when they've [80:56] had to verify their identity and the [80:58] wrong person buys our platform or [81:00] someone hacks it, etc.? So, it's a [81:02] conversation that's [81:04] that's not If there were easy solutions [81:06] on these issues, they would have been [81:08] solved by now. This is a very difficult [81:10] thing for humanity to navigate and we're [81:11] going to have to find a way to do it [81:13] and incrementally so. I I just want to [81:16] respond to that. I think you're guilty [81:18] of the same [81:19] illusion of complexity that protects [81:21] these companies from acting like actors [81:23] such that they can do anything [81:24] regardless of the damage to the [81:25] commonwealth to add shareholder value. [81:28] If you implemented we have [81:31] First off, this notion that you don't [81:33] want to give up your identity, trust me, [81:34] they know everything about you, [81:35] Constantine, already. And I could go get [81:38] a ton of information on you from the [81:39] dark web fairly easily with a credit [81:41] card. [81:42] So, the notion that it somehow we [81:45] shouldn't have some sort of You could [81:47] have [81:48] We need age verification for social [81:50] media. There's no reason anyone in the [81:51] age of 16 should be on a social media [81:54] platform. And regarding the [81:57] the the civil rights activists or the [81:59] women's rights activists that needs an [82:00] anonymity, you could create a number of [82:02] accounts and use blockchain or some sort [82:05] of third-party anonymous to have a [82:07] certain number of accounts. It says, [82:08] "Look, if you want an anonymous parody [82:10] account, you want to make fun of people, [82:12] fine. If you want to an account talking [82:15] about issues that you feel are sensitive [82:17] from other markets, fine. We could We [82:20] could absolutely figure that out and [82:22] then figure out, "Okay, this account is [82:24] doing nothing. It has no base. It has no [82:26] soul. It has no values. It has 72 [82:28] followers. All it's doing is trying to [82:30] start fights online. All it's doing is [82:33] trying to make people feel shitty about [82:34] Britain or shitty about America. [82:37] And the reality is these companies use [82:39] that illusion of complexity such that [82:40] they can have more bots creating more [82:43] fake clicks, more Nissan ads, and more [82:45] shareholder value. I I think there's a [82:47] middle ground here. I think we could [82:49] figure this out. I agree. Well, that's [82:51] what I'm saying. I think some of the [82:52] ideas that you're putting forward, [82:55] right or wrong, I don't know, but these [82:57] are the conversations we should be [82:58] having. How do we make sure I I mean, my [83:01] son is 2 and 1/2 years old and if my my [83:04] my wife has become a complete screen [83:06] Nazi, so he's probably not going to get [83:08] a phone until he's about 40. But but but [83:11] I think your point about people [83:13] shouldn't be on social media Yeah. [83:17] People shouldn't be on social media [83:18] until they're 16. Absolutely correct. [83:21] What that's doing to the minds of Well, [83:23] or everybody, but particularly young [83:24] people who are really susceptible to it. [83:26] You're completely right. [83:28] The verification dimension is difficult, [83:30] as I say. We're going to have to hash [83:32] this all out as as humanity. We're just [83:35] going to have to work this all out. How [83:36] do we live in this new world that we now [83:38] live in? It's going to take some time [83:40] and I hope it's not as bad as the last [83:42] time the the information space was [83:45] revolutionized, which was the printing [83:47] press. That caused about two centuries [83:48] of religious war. Hopefully we can avoid [83:51] that. And part of the way to do that is [83:54] to create environments which are [83:56] uncensored where people can express [83:58] different ideas. We can have these [84:00] battles and eventually come to some sort [84:02] of mutual understanding. I hope that [84:04] happens. What I wanted to ask you all, [84:07] to really close out this conversation, [84:09] was [84:11] These conversations tend to be a bit of [84:12] a reflection of what's in the news cycle [84:14] and what's in the news cycle tends to be [84:15] a reflection of what people are clicking [84:17] and a lot of that's driven by fear and [84:18] the sort of narrative of the time, [84:20] whether it's immigration or the Trump [84:21] immigration. But what is the What is the [84:24] big important idea that we're not [84:26] talking about? What's the most important [84:29] thing that we should be talking about [84:30] that isn't getting enough attention [84:31] right now as it relates to the future of [84:34] the West? And that's a big broad [84:36] question. I'll start with you, Daniel. [84:38] Uh, for me it's the schooling system. [84:40] I think the schooling system is not [84:42] preparing people for a world that exists [84:44] and that we're teaching [84:46] you know, we haven't grasped the fact [84:48] that AI is going to be the biggest, most [84:51] disruptive technology in the lives of [84:53] our children and that the jobs that we [84:56] think they might be able to go into [84:57] probably won't exist. Um, we need to [85:01] have a radical look at this idea that [85:05] children should go to school with the [85:07] same age groups or [85:09] study a certain set of topics or that it [85:11] should be topic-based at all. [85:14] We need to explore you know, are there [85:17] better models for the schooling system [85:19] that prepare people for the world that [85:21] we're going to be in? Our current [85:23] schooling system goes back to the early [85:25] 1800s. It was essentially based on a [85:27] military schooling system in Prussia. [85:29] Um, and that's kind of where it evolved [85:31] from. [85:32] I think what we need to do is think [85:33] about [85:34] what what are the you know, what are the [85:36] skills that our kids are going to need? [85:39] I see two and I can only I don't feel [85:41] like I I can wrap my arms around UK's [85:44] issues, but in terms of the US, [85:45] political extremism I would put at [85:47] number two, you know, at -40° C [85:50] and Fahrenheit meet. [85:51] And because of our electoral system and [85:53] Citizens United, people from the far [85:55] left who are crazy and people from the [85:57] far right who are crazy are just [85:59] overrepresented and they come together [86:00] to meet on reckless spending, deficit [86:02] spending. They come together to agree on [86:04] anti-Semitism. [86:06] And there's just too many people on the [86:07] far left and the far right. And the [86:08] people in the middle it's minority rule. [86:10] They're just not represented. However, I [86:12] think the biggest threat that people [86:14] aren't talking about, and I'm I've [86:16] actually spent some time talking [86:18] with the administration around this or [86:19] the former administration, I should say, [86:21] is loneliness. And that is [86:24] you have the deepest pocketed, most [86:26] well-resourced companies and people in [86:28] the world trying to convince people, [86:30] especially young men, that they can have [86:31] a reasonable facsimile of life on a [86:32] screen with an algorithm. And I think [86:34] they literally go crazy. I think they [86:36] wake up and they're obese and lonely and [86:38] have no skills. [86:40] Um, we talked about this. I think young [86:42] people I say this jokingly, but half [86:43] seriously, I think young people need to [86:45] get out of the house more, drink more, [86:46] make a series of bad decisions that [86:47] might pay off. [86:48] I think we need [86:50] I think we need to I think we need more [86:51] sex. I think we need more [86:54] uh, people in people in third spaces. We [86:57] need more church, more religious, more [86:59] more institutions, national service. [87:01] We're mammals and I worry that we're One [87:04] in seven men doesn't have a single [87:06] friend. One in four men can't name a [87:07] best friend. [87:09] So, this loneliness epidemic where [87:11] people get into a bubble and start [87:13] engaging into conspiracy theory, not [87:15] trusting each other, [87:16] uh, blaming women, blaming the nation, [87:19] self-harm. [87:21] I just I worry about, you know, what I [87:23] say to young men, I coach a lot of young [87:25] men, romantic comedies are 2 hours, not [87:27] 15 minutes, for a reason. This [ __ ] is [87:28] hard. [87:30] And it's worth it. But I worry that [87:32] we're raising, like I said, this new [87:34] species of asocial, asexual being called [87:37] the young American male that is obese, [87:39] anxious, and just a shitty citizen. [87:43] Constantine, the most important thing in [87:44] 2025 that's not getting enough [87:46] attention. [87:47] Uh, in the UK and in most of Europe, [87:51] it's an issue that Daniel raised [87:52] earlier, which is in the UK our energy [87:54] prices are four times what they are in [87:56] the United States. [87:57] That is an ideological decision. It's [88:00] done because we're saving the planet. [88:02] That's what we we're being told. The [88:04] reality is [88:05] uh, our contribution to global [88:08] carbon emissions is we're responsible [88:10] for 2% of global carbon emissions in the [88:13] world. Uh, making British pensioners [88:16] freeze to death every winter cuz they [88:18] can't afford fuel bills is not the [88:20] solution to climate change. And if you [88:22] amplify that further, [88:24] make driving businesses out of business, [88:28] making our economy uncompetitive, making [88:30] Britain unable to generate wealth for [88:32] itself and for its future is not the [88:34] moral position. Net zero, [88:37] which is the impoverishment of our [88:39] society for ideological reasons, has [88:41] been positioned as the moral cause where [88:43] we're saving the planet, we're ending [88:45] climate change. We're not We're not [88:47] doing any of that. All we're doing is [88:49] virtue signaling and making our fellow [88:51] citizens suffer. So, what we should be [88:53] talking about is how do we make energy [88:56] cheap again so that we can have a [88:58] prosperous economy. And guess what? When [89:00] people are prosperous, that's when they [89:02] actually start being responsible about [89:04] pollution, about throwing away things [89:06] they don't need. And also, when you have [89:09] money, that's when you can invest money [89:11] in scientific research, which allows you [89:13] to find cleaner, better forms of energy. [89:16] That's what we should be doing. We [89:18] should be making sure that we generate [89:20] as much wealth for our fellow citizens [89:22] as possible because a lot of people are [89:23] struggling. [89:25] And I think it's deeply, deeply immoral [89:29] to impoverish already poor pensioners in [89:32] this country and to prevent businesses [89:34] from hiring people and giving them jobs [89:36] and opportunities, including the young [89:38] men that Scott is talking about because [89:40] we are saving the planet and we're [89:42] trying to keep little Greta happy. We're [89:44] not doing any of that. We're not [89:46] successful in that. We should stop [89:47] pretending and we should do what Donald [89:49] Trump said he plans to do, which is [89:51] drill, baby, drill. We should be [89:53] exploring and exploiting all the energy [89:56] reserves we have in this country in [89:58] order to create clean energy and better [90:02] forms of energy for the future as well [90:04] as to improve the well-being of our [90:05] fellow citizens. That's what we should [90:07] be talking about a hell of a lot more [90:09] than we are. You need cheap energy. [90:11] You're right. It's [90:12] what I would argue. I I think it's going [90:14] to be liquid natural gas and nuclear. We [90:16] haven't talked about AI. AI requires 10 [90:19] times the energy of a GA query as a [90:21] Google query. The choke point is energy. [90:23] I would argue in the US, I think we [90:25] benefit more from, as opposed to drill, [90:27] baby, drill, build, baby, build. I think [90:29] young people have seen housing prices [90:31] just go crazy. There's a psychological [90:33] benefit to household formation, forced [90:35] savings. [90:37] So, I I don't [90:39] I'm going to take you at your word [90:40] because you're a very smart guy that [90:41] Britain has implemented a series of [90:43] policies that have I did that energy [90:45] stat you rolled out was incredible. [90:48] But in the US, like I said, we're we're [90:51] I don't want to say we're drowning in [90:52] oil. We've we're [90:54] we've There were more drilling permits [90:56] issued under Biden [90:57] than than the previous Trump admin. I [91:00] mean, just to call Biden anti-energy [91:03] or that somehow we're have this this [91:06] massively overinflated energy prices, [91:08] it's just not That hasn't happened in [91:10] the US. Um uh I would like We need We [91:13] need more homes in the US. And in the [91:16] UK, too. And Stephen, let me just, [91:17] before you wrap up, fill the stats out a [91:19] little bit more. [91:20] Uh obviously, everyone understands that [91:22] geopolitically we're in a pretty tense [91:24] time and there's conflict happening. [91:26] Britain is in a position now where we [91:29] would struggle. The You got to remember [91:31] British history. Britain is [91:33] Britannia rules the waves, right? The [91:35] way that Britain has become a great [91:38] nation throughout history is by having a [91:39] powerful fleet. We would struggle to [91:41] build warships now cuz we've closed down [91:43] all our steelworks cuz we're green. [91:47] Right? It's insanity. Uh and and on [91:49] every other issue to do with with energy [91:52] and industry, we have basically [91:55] deliberately moved our production [91:57] facilities to other countries. Okay, [91:59] great idea. Globalization, make things [92:01] cheaper, ship things. Well, wonderful. [92:02] Okay, what happened during COVID? What [92:05] happened when suddenly the the entire [92:07] chains of production weren't quite [92:10] operating the way that they normally do? [92:11] Oh, China suddenly holding all the [92:13] masks. Interesting things. So, what do [92:15] you think is going to happen when [92:16] there's a war? Oh, they're just going to [92:17] keep shipping the steel to us to make [92:19] the battleships and the warplanes that [92:20] we need to fight them? That's what you [92:22] think is going to happen? This whole [92:23] thing, this whole agenda is ideological [92:27] insanity. And what Ed Miliband is about [92:29] to do to this country when it comes to [92:31] this issue needs to talk about way more. [92:34] And it it is about economic prosperity. [92:36] It is about housing because one of the [92:38] reasons we don't build as much housing [92:39] as we need to is again, we you know, [92:42] building housing produces emissions and [92:44] we don't want to be We don't want to be [92:46] not green, so that's why people in their [92:47] 30s and 40s are now living in flat [92:50] shares for four people, right? We have [92:52] got to let go of this obsession with net [92:54] zero. We have got to build. We have got [92:56] to drill. We have got to produce energy. [92:59] And we have got to stop thinking that [93:01] the moral thing to do is to make our [93:04] poor citizens suffer in order that we [93:07] feel good about saving the planet, which [93:09] we're not even remotely saving by doing [93:12] this. Guys, thank you so much for all of [93:15] your perspectives. One of the things I I [93:16] realized as you guys were talking is [93:17] that you're all fathers. And you're all [93:19] fathers of boys, although you're fathers [93:21] of boys at different ages. So, I wanted [93:24] to just give you all 30 seconds, if you [93:25] could, and this is maybe me asking for [93:27] myself for this advice, but based on [93:29] everything that's happening in the [93:30] world, which can feel incredibly [93:32] confusing, especially to young people, [93:34] where we're getting a lot of our [93:35] information from different echo [93:36] chambers, what is the advice that you [93:39] would all give to your young boys [93:42] that would best prepare them for the [93:45] future in the the next couple of years. [93:46] Starting with you, Dan. [93:49] Yeah, so I've got a [93:50] 6-year-old daughter, a 7-year-old son, [93:52] and a 10-year-old son. Um it's an [93:54] incredibly confusing time because [93:57] preparing them for a world that's [93:58] fast-changing [93:59] is difficult. We're taking the approach [94:02] of [94:03] a a lot of general knowledge across a [94:05] lot of things so that [94:07] what you can use AI to run deep in [94:09] different topics. We're encouraging the [94:11] kids to interact with supervised AI [94:14] conversations and and have like letting [94:16] them know that that technology is [94:17] available. Um [94:19] we're also just focusing on some manual [94:21] skills like how to fix a boiler and how [94:23] to, you know, how to [94:25] saw through some wood and [94:27] you know, [94:28] the those kind of things. And also, um [94:31] we're doing things like acting classes, [94:34] being up on a stage and performing. Um [94:37] so, all all of those kind of typical [94:39] things, but to be to be honest, um it is [94:42] a point of anxiety in my life just [94:44] thinking about what [94:46] you know, what the world looks like for, [94:49] you know, 10 10 or 15 years from now [94:51] that they're going to be going into. So, [94:53] if you get clear answers on this, I'm [94:55] I'm I'm really open to learning. [94:58] For me, the my son's 2 and 1/2, so it's [95:00] a little bit early for this pep talk, [95:02] but [95:03] my message to to to him is when he's old [95:05] enough to hear it is going to be this. [95:08] Your grandfather [95:09] my your great-grandfather, my [95:11] grandfather was taken as a slave laborer [95:13] from Soviet Ukraine to Nazi Germany. [95:16] Your great-grandfather was born uh your [95:19] great-grandmother, rather, was born in [95:21] the Soviet gulag. Uh your [95:23] great-grandmother lived through the [95:25] German occupation and is now living [95:26] through Vladimir Putin's invasion of [95:28] Ukraine. You are not living in the worst [95:31] time ever. You're surrounded by [ __ ] [95:33] If you are a man and if you do your job [95:37] and if you learn the skills that you [95:38] need to do and if you pursue the things [95:40] that you want to do with your life to [95:42] the best of your ability, if you believe [95:44] in yourself, if you believe that you're [95:46] talented, if you actually achieve the [95:48] things that you set your mind to, [95:49] there's never been a better time in the [95:51] history of humanity than now. You're [95:54] surrounded mostly by people who feel [95:56] sorry for themselves. If you're not one [95:58] of them, you're going to clean up. Young [96:00] women are looking for a young man like [96:03] you who's actually going to stand up for [96:04] himself, who's actually going to go out [96:06] there and achieve and be confident. Be [96:08] that and you're going to clean up when [96:10] it comes to to finding the right partner [96:12] for yourself. You're going to clean up [96:14] when it comes to making money. You're [96:16] going to clean up to your when it comes [96:17] to your career. You're going to clean up [96:18] on every front cuz the bar has never [96:20] been lower. The bar has never been [96:22] lower. So, just go out and be a man and [96:25] life is going to be great. [96:28] I I'm I'm older. I have 14- and [96:30] 17-year-old boys and my observation is [96:32] you can't tell them anything. The best [96:34] you can do is you can try and model [96:36] behavior for them. [96:38] So, I'm trying to be really kind to [96:40] their mother. I'm trying to show them [96:42] that you you know, if you're serious [96:44] about having a good family, [96:46] you got to be a generous, loving [96:48] partner. [96:49] Um [96:50] I'm trying to be in great physical [96:51] shape, and which is getting harder and [96:53] harder. I'm trying to be aggressive [96:56] around them in terms of business and [96:58] um trying to be kind. And what I do, [97:03] I do talk to them about the the concept [97:05] of surplus value. I'm like, "You're [97:06] takers right now. You know, the UK [97:09] school system, which is amazing, is [97:10] investing a lot in you and you're giving [97:12] almost nothing back. Me and your [97:14] your mother are loving you a lot more [97:15] than you're loving us. You're just [97:17] taking resources everywhere. You're a [97:19] net negative. [97:21] And your crossing to manhood isn't sex [97:24] or some religious ceremony. Your [97:26] crossing to manhood is when you are [97:27] start creating surplus value. You're [97:30] you're you're you're loving more people [97:32] than you're absorbing. You're listening [97:34] to more complaints than you are [97:35] complaining. You're creating more [97:37] revenue than you're absorbing. [97:39] That's the notion of surplus value. And [97:41] I have this trick [97:43] uh called what a man does. And I've been [97:44] doing this when they're kids. I'm like, [97:46] "Guests show up, a man goes and gets [97:48] their luggage and puts it in their room. [97:50] A man's constantly scanning the table [97:52] for empty water glasses and [97:54] I mean, the proudest one of the proudest [97:56] moments I ever had was when one of like [97:57] my 6-year-old boy, who was all like 30 [97:59] lb, got up and went over this gigantic [98:02] pitcher of water at this table and like [98:03] started like trying to pour other [98:05] people's water and everyone had no idea [98:07] what was going on here. [98:09] You know, I do these things called what [98:10] a man does. [98:12] A man goes up to A man asks a woman out [98:15] for coffee. A man pays for women. I'm [98:19] I'm a sexist that way. I still I've told [98:21] my man my my son gave me this rap on, [98:24] "Oh, Dad, you're so establishment." I'm [98:26] like, "Do you ever want to have sex?" [98:28] I'm like, "Then you need to pay." [98:31] I mean, that's the bottom line. Anyways, [98:33] but what I would say is I'm trying to [98:35] model. I'm trying to model good behavior [98:38] or or be a good a good role model, but [98:41] I agree with Constantine and and Daniel. [98:44] I I think I think every day they have [98:47] more potential to lead the most amazing [98:49] life in history. I'm not a nihilist. I'm [98:52] not a catastrophist. I think I have big [98:53] problems, but given the blessings of the [98:56] sons born to these men in future, you [98:59] know, future sons that you'll have, [99:00] Stephen, Jesus, it's good to be them. [99:03] There's just They have no excuse. They [99:04] should They should They should rock on. [99:06] They should have a wonderful life. [99:08] Constantine, Scott, Daniel, thank you so [99:10] much for taking the time [99:12] sort of short notice to talk about all [99:14] these subjects. It's incredibly [99:15] wide-ranging conversation and you bring [99:17] such an interesting hilarious nuanced [99:19] perspective to these issues. I'm glad [99:20] that we can have these conversations and [99:23] disagree in a respectful way that [99:25] hopefully clarifies a lot of the [99:26] confusion that I experience and a lot of [99:28] people are experiencing at the moment. [99:29] So thank you to all of you. I'm going to [99:31] link to all of your work on the screen. [99:32] I know Scott you've got a book coming on [99:33] masculinity which we're all very very [99:35] excited about. We've been waiting it's [99:36] long overdue. Please hurry up. [99:38] Constantine you've got an incredible [99:39] podcast which you have Trigonometry [99:40] which I'm going to link on the screen [99:41] and I suggest everybody goes and listens [99:43] to and subscribes to if they're looking [99:45] for more of this stuff. And Daniel [99:46] you've just been on my show already but [99:48] your endless amount of books and I think [99:49] the best place to get more from you is [99:51] your website of course. [99:53] The Daniel Priestley website where you [99:54] can find all of your books and all of [99:55] your work and everything you're doing [99:56] now. Thank you everybody. Really really [99:59] appreciative and incredibly grateful for [100:01] taking part in our first little of [100:02] experiment of this kind. So yeah, thank [100:05] you. [100:29] Oh.