Kisin Says Trump Dismantles Post-War Order as Western Power Fades
The Diary Of A CEO
The collapse of the post-Cold War rules-based system forces a return to raw great-power competition, leaving a demilitarized and welfare-dependent Europe economically irrelevant unless it drastically reverses its demographic and industrial decline.
## Background
Ce contenu a été publié le 22 janvier 2026 sur la chaîne YouTube « The Diary Of A CEO » par Steven Bartlett, avec pour invité le commentateur politique Konstantin Kisin. Selon la description de la vidéo, Kisin y analyse l'effondrement de l'ordre international fondé sur des règles, le rôle croissant des armes nucléaires, les mauvais choix économiques et énergétiques de l'Europe, les menaces de l'IA sur l'emploi ainsi que l'impact géopolitique potentiel du Groenland.
## TL;DR
Konstantin Kisin affirme que le monde traverse une crise majeure due à l'effondrement de l'ordre multilatéral d'après-guerre et au retour d'un monde multipolaire fondé sur la force pure. Il analyse le déclin économique, industriel et militaire de la Grande-Bretagne et de l'Europe, tout en alertant sur les perturbations sociétales liées à l'automatisation par l'IA et aux crises démographiques. Face à ces tensions et aux bouleversements géopolitiques globaux, il plaide pour un retour au pragmatisme économique, à la souveraineté et à une transmission solide de valeurs humaines fondamentales aux futures générations.
## Atmosphere & style
L'échange entre Steven Bartlett et Konstantin Kisin est intense, lucide et teinté d'une franche gravité intellectuelle, balançant entre des prévisions géopolitiques sombres et des réflexions personelles chaleureuses. Le ton est direct, incisif et réaliste, sans langue de bois ni artifice politique, soutenu par la vivacité d'esprit et l'humour pince-sans-rire de Kisin. L'émission traverse un arc émotionnel fort, passant d'un constat d'urgence face au déclin de l'Occident à un moment d'intimité touchant où les deux hommes abordent la paternité, la responsabilité morale et l'espoir pour les enfants.
## Key takeaways
- [00:00](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nJeU72Rgjh4&t=0s) The post–World War II rules-based international order has collapsed, returning the world to explicit great-power competition and power struggles where international law functions only when backed by military force.
- [08:32](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nJeU72Rgjh4&t=512s) Nuclear weapons have become the ultimate source of national security and deterrence, meaning non-nuclear states now have a strong incentive to acquire nuclear arsenals to prevent foreign aggression.
- [13:17](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nJeU72Rgjh4&t=797s) Europe and the UK systematically eroded their geopolitical influence by prioritizing welfare spending and net-zero energy transitions over industrial strength, defense capability, and energy independence.
- [14:55](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nJeU72Rgjh4&t=895s) Recent U.S. actions in Venezuela and military operations targeting Iran were executed without consulting European allies, demonstrating how completely the UK and continental Europe have been sidelined in global decision-making.
- [19:41](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nJeU72Rgjh4&t=1181s) Decades of economic stagnation and high energy costs have left Britain's real GDP per capita lower than it was in 2006, fueling domestic social tensions and proxy debates around mass immigration.
- [24:20](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nJeU72Rgjh4&t=1460s) Rising youth support for radical redistribution and socialist policies is driven by housing unaffordability and 'elite overproduction,' where a surplus of university graduates faces limited high-paying job prospects.
- [29:36](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nJeU72Rgjh4&t=1776s) The rapid acceleration of artificial intelligence and robotics threatens widespread labor displacement, potentially concentrating capital among a tiny tech elite and forcing universal wealth redistribution.
- [31:43](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nJeU72Rgjh4&t=1903s) In an era of rapid technological disruption, traditional degree paths carry career risks, making human adaptability, resourcefulness, and interpersonal skills essential for the next generation.
- [37:04](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nJeU72Rgjh4&t=2224s) Western hesitation to provide decisive support during foreign crises, such as the protests in Iran, leaves civilian populations vulnerable to brutal regime crackdowns despite vocal Western encouragement.
- [44:01](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nJeU72Rgjh4&t=2641s) Donald Trump's explicit push to acquire Greenland and secure regional spheres of influence reflects a modern revival of imperial power politics and the Monroe Doctrine.
- [46:31](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nJeU72Rgjh4&t=2791s) A blueprint for Western renewal requires abandoning self-defeating economic policies, halting unmanaged mass immigration, rebuilding defense capabilities, and reversing demographic decline through higher birth rates.
- [54:58](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nJeU72Rgjh4&t=3298s) High taxation and an anti-success culture in the UK are driving an exodus of wealthy entrepreneurs and founders to jurisdictions like the UAE, stripping the public purse of massive tax revenues.
- [01:08:48](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nJeU72Rgjh4&t=4128s) Britain's unilateral push for Net Zero fails to reduce global carbon emissions, instead outsourcing industrial manufacturing to higher-emitting countries like China and India while inflating domestic energy costs.
- [01:19:20](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nJeU72Rgjh4&t=4760s) Perceptions of Western weakness—exemplified by the chaotic 2021 withdrawal from Afghanistan—emboldened authoritarian rivals to initiate regional conflicts and test global boundaries.
- [01:25:08](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nJeU72Rgjh4&t=5108s) Mainstream conservative movements face a growing threat from the reactionary 'woke right,' an identitarian and conspiracy-driven fringe that must be purged to maintain political credibility.
## Detailed walkthrough
Here is a detailed, faithful walkthrough covering Part 1 of the transcript.
---
[00:00](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nJeU72Rgjh4&t=0s) The Shattered Order and Trump's New Foreign Policy
Opening the discussion, host Steven Bartlett points out the overwhelming series of global shocks appearing on the news: Donald Trump seizing Nicolás Maduro in Venezuela, tensions surrounding a potential US invasion or purchase of Greenland, Iran's ongoing turmoil, and China openly signaling plans to take Taiwan. Political commentator Konstantin Kisin explains that these seemingly chaotic events are all symptoms of a single underlying reality: the final collapse of the post–World War II and post-Soviet rules-based international order.
For decades, the West operated under a shared "myth" that global affairs were governed by a structured set of international laws and agreements. Kisin highlights that international law—much like paper currency or social norms—is a shared construct that only functions when backed by the willingness and military force to enforce it. With the demise of the unipolar moment held by the US after 1991, that central enforcement mechanism has evaporated. President Trump, Kisin argues, is simply recognizing this reality and discarding "fake rules" that other global actors stopped following long ago, opting instead to act strictly in America's self-interest. In Venezuela, for example, Trump's actions mirror a modern revival of the Monroe Doctrine—refusing to tolerate a hostile foreign regime that has generated 7 million refugees, allowed Hezbollah training camps on Margarita Island, and deepened ties with Russia and China in the US's backyard.
* "We are not going to play by the fake rules anymore that no one else is playing by anyway."
* "International law... was a kind of shared myth that we have... A law is something that has to be backed by not only the consent of the people... but ultimately it's about the use of force."
* "The West lost its focus and its sense of purpose in 1991 because we were like, 'Well, we defeated our great rival, communism...'"
---
[00:08](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nJeU72Rgjh4&t=8s) Nuclear Proliferation and the Moral Decline of the West
Steven questions the inherent dangers of this unchecked geopolitical environment, asking if the world is effectively splitting into a two-tiered system where nuclear-armed superpowers can bully non-nuclear states without fear of intervention. Kisin agrees, emphasizing that the West bears direct responsibility for eroding its own authority. By launching wars in Iraq and Afghanistan on flimsy premises, the West gutted its own moral credibility to lecture nations like Russia on sovereignty.
Furthermore, Kisin warns that failing to fully support Ukraine in repelling Russia sends a disastrous signal to the rest of the world. If the international community demonstrates that possessing a nuclear arsenal is the only absolute guarantee against foreign invasion, smaller non-nuclear nations will logically rush to develop their own nuclear weapons, triggering unprecedented global proliferation. While large superpowers like the US, Russia, and China operate with aggressive leeway, smaller nuclear states remain somewhat constrained. During the exchange, Kisin jokes about the UK retaking France, before humorously pointing out Israel's paradoxical official nuclear stance.
* **The 9 Recognized/De Facto Nuclear Powers:** United States, Russia, United Kingdom, France, China, India, Pakistan, North Korea, and Israel.
* **Israel's Paradoxical Nuclear Stance:** Official policy is "we don't have nuclear weapons, but if the state of Israel is at risk of being destroyed, we will definitely use them."
* **The Consequences of Power Vacuums:** Kisin compares international power struggles to Mexico's drug cartels—when the central dominant authority breaks down, violent competition inevitably rushes in to fill the void.
---
[00:13](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nJeU72Rgjh4&t=13s) How Europe Sacrificed Power for Comfort
Tracing the historical decay of Western dominance, Kisin details how Europe grew complacent following the end of the Cold War. Having lost its sense of existential danger, Europe prioritized comfort and social spending while neglecting defense capabilities, energy independence, and industrial power. This strategic negligence made Europe deeply vulnerable to authoritarian aggression.
Kisin illustrates this shift by highlighting energy policy decisions across Europe—particularly Germany's closure of its nuclear power plants, which left the nation entirely reliant on Russian natural gas. This dependency severely crippled Germany's initial foreign policy response when Russia invaded Ukraine, resulting in famously weak early gestures like offering a mere 5,000 helmets. Similarly, Kisin points out that the UK crippled its domestic energy production and manufacturing base, leaving Great Britain with the highest industrial electricity prices in the developed world.
* **European Economic Snapshot:** Europe contains roughly 12% of the world's population and produces 25% of global GDP, yet accounts for 60% of the world's welfare spending.
* **Energy Decisions:** Germany shut down its nuclear power infrastructure, creating an extreme dependency on Russian gas prior to the invasion of Ukraine.
* **UK Industrial Decline:** High energy costs and green energy transitions drove manufacturing offshore, systematically weakening Britain's sovereign capacity.
---
<ElicitationsGroup message="Where would you like to take this summary next?">
<Elicitation label="Continue to Part 2 of the transcript" query="Please provide the walkthrough for Part 2 of the transcript."/>
<Elicitation label="Summarize key quotes and main takeaways" query="Can you synthesize the top takeaways and most notable quotes from Part 1?"/>
</ElicitationsGroup>
[14:55](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nJeU72Rgjh4&t=895s) Deindustrialization and the Decline of British Power
Konstantin Kisin details how Europe and the UK have systematically eroded their own industrial base. A key indicator of this weakness is the impending loss of the capability to manufacture virgin steel—an essential material for building military hardware and maintaining national defense. He argues that decades of absolute safety and comfort left Western European nations feeling "rudderless," allowing them to indulge in impractical policy experiments without facing immediate consequences. However, those consequences have now arrived, and the global standings of both Britain and continental Europe are plummeting rapidly.
Reflecting on recent geopolitical developments, Kisin notes that during President Trump's 12-day military operation targeting Iran’s nuclear facilities, American decision-makers did not even consult the British government. He rejects the notion that this stems from anti-British sentiment, pointing out that Americans generally admire the UK and hold deep respect for shared history and cultural ties. Instead, the exclusion is driven by a cold assessment of utility: the current U.S. administration assesses power purely through physical strength and practical capability. Because Britain and Europe have allowed their geopolitical influence to wither, they are simply no longer viewed as relevant partners.
An alliance, Kisin observes, functions much like a marriage where both parties must actively bring value to the table. When Steven Bartlett recalls growing up at a time when British Prime Ministers routinely made joint global announcements with U.S. Presidents, Kisin points out that recent events—such as the U.S. actions regarding Venezuela—demonstrate how completely the UK has been left out of the loop. Despite the high technical skill and bravery of British service members, the state has severely starved its defense budget. Today, national debt interest payments stand at 1.5 times the size of the defense budget and are heading toward double, signaling a fundamental misallocation of national resources.
* The UK is approaching a point where it can no longer produce its own virgin steel.
* Annual UK national debt interest payments are currently 1.5 times the total defense budget and rising.
* UK debt-to-GDP has surpassed 100%, fueled by expanding welfare and social expenditures.
* Britain’s real GDP per capita is lower today than it was in 2006, meaning the average person is poorer than two decades ago.
* Kisin criticizes Foreign Secretary David Lammy for making past irresponsible comments about Donald Trump while in opposition, damaging strategic diplomatic leverage.
---
[19:41](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nJeU72Rgjh4&t=1181s) Can Britain Turn It Around?
Addressing whether the UK can recover, Kisin expresses deep affection for the country, which is why he refuses to move abroad despite receiving numerous offers. Although he admits to not feeling overly "hopeful," he firmly rejects despair, believing that a British renaissance remains possible if there is a fundamental shift in leadership and national strategy. Bartlett questions what happens to nations that follow this economic trajectory, noting that for someone of his generation—having moved to the UK from Botswana 33 years ago—it is almost unimaginable for Britain to lose its status as a prosperous and influential power.
Kisin explains that this assumption of permanent privilege is precisely what led to the current decline. Because society assumed Britain would always remain prosperous, policymakers felt free to pursue reckless decisions. While the country retains immense human capital, world-class educational institutions, scientific innovation, and cultural output—ranging from legendary rock bands to world-famous stand-up comedians—it lacks the strategic leadership required to capitalize on these assets.
The consequences of this macroeconomic decline are directly felt by everyday citizens through stagnating living standards and shrinking economic opportunities. Kisin emphasizes that major domestic controversies, including debates surrounding mass immigration, are often proxy arguments for underlying economic stagnation. In a thriving economy where households feel increasingly prosperous, social tensions tend to diminish; in a stagnant one, geopolitical instability abroad bleeds directly into domestic hardship.
* Bartlett contrasts his childhood in Botswana with his upbringing in the UK, highlighting how younger generations take British prosperity for granted.
* Kisin stresses that cultural and scientific potential exists, but bad policy continues to hamstring economic growth.
* Geopolitical instability in early 2026 is already spilling over into domestic politics, forcing governments to divert scarce resources to international crises.
---
[24:20](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nJeU72Rgjh4&t=1460s) The Rise of Socialism, Elite Overproduction, and the AI Job Threat
The conversation shifts to the rising popularity of socialist policies among younger demographics, highlighted by local political victories like the election of Zohran Mamdani in New York. Kisin attributes this surge to a deep-seated craving for order and fairness among a generation that feels systematically robbed of its future. Young people face prohibitive housing costs and cannot easily build families or accumulate wealth. As a result, many gravitate toward radical redistributionist ideologies, even though Kisin regards these economic frameworks as thoroughly discredited by history.
A major driver of this social instability is the phenomenon of "elite overproduction." Kisin points to former Prime Minister Tony Blair's goal of sending 50% of young people to university. This created a massive cohort of graduates with elevated expectations but limited high-paying job prospects—a mismatch that breeds widespread resentment. This dynamic is rapidly accelerating due to artificial intelligence, which directly targets knowledge-worker and entry-level professional positions.
Bartlett expands on the impending shock of AI and automation, citing his first-hand experiences living in the United States. He describes riding in fully autonomous vehicles that navigate complex multi-hour trips without any human intervention. With driverless technologies like Waymo entering major cities like London and self-driving software improving rapidly, millions of commercial driving jobs worldwide face immediate displacement. Furthermore, rapid advancements in humanoid robotics—such as Tesla's Optimus project—are set to transform physical labor.
```
"It used to be that the intelligence part—the brain—would cost $20,000 or $30,000 just for a little robot arm. Now it's like 2 cents."
— Steven Bartlett, quoting a San Francisco robotics accelerator founder
```
* Kisin recalls an interaction at a London book signing with a father struggling to pull his teenage daughter from the far-left and his son from the far-right.
* San Francisco now sees a quarter to a third of street traffic comprised of driverless autonomous vehicles.
* Industrialists project that millions of autonomous humanoid robots will deploy into the global workforce, fundamentally altering manufacturing, delivery, and service industries.
* Bartlett highlights that while mechanical hardware components have been cheap for decades, the dramatic collapse in the cost of AI compute ("the brain") is driving an unprecedented explosion in robotics.
[29:36](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nJeU72Rgjh4&t=1776s) AI Disruption and the Escalation of Job Loss
The rapid pace of development in the AI landscape reflects Silicon Valley’s famous mantra, "move fast and break things," resulting in profound disruption across society. While human history has seen many major technological transitions that produced initial turmoil before eventual recovery, the scale of AI automation presents an unprecedented challenge. The prospect of millions of people losing their jobs—disproportionately impacting young people who are naturally more prone to radicalization—presents a dangerous trajectory for social stability.
```
AI Job Loss Risk -> Concentrated Wealth -> Mass Disillusionment -> Radicalization
```
As automation replaces labor at scale, wealth inevitably accrues to a tiny group of tech founders and investors who created the underlying systems decades prior. If 50 individuals hold virtually all global capital while the broader populace remains unemployed, wealth redistribution becomes an absolute necessity to prevent societal collapse. The alternative is violent revolution, making systematic redistribution—essentially paying everyone just to exist—the only logical path forward for those controlling the capital.
* Half-jokingly, Konstantin Kisin notes that despite writing an entire book opposing communism based on his personal background, he would be "100% on board with communism" in a world where no human has a job.
* Wealth redistribution will occur either voluntarily by the wealthy elite or "at the end of bayonets."
* Creating fake or superficial jobs for displaced workers is an unsustainable long-term strategy.
[31:43](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nJeU72Rgjh4&t=1903s) Preparing Children for an Uncertain Technological Future
Personal career trajectories in public speaking and media commentary may remain somewhat insulated from immediate AI automation, as audiences generally seek human perspectives rather than robotic opinions. However, predicting viable career paths for the next generation has become nearly impossible. Traditional advice, such as encouraging children to learn manual trades like plumbing, may prove obsolete within 15 to 20 years as robotics advances.
```
+------------------------------------+------------------------------------+
| Traditional Educational Path | Modern Adaptability Approach |
| (Obsolete) | (Required) |
+------------------------------------+------------------------------------+
| • Fixed skill acquisition | • High personal flexibility |
| • University degree for one career | • Resourcefulness & creativity |
| • Predetermined job trajectory | • Positive "go-getter" mindset |
| • Specialized technical labor | • Strong interpersonal skills |
+------------------------------------+------------------------------------+
```
Rather than training children for specific predetermined roles, parents must focus on cultivating core human qualities—resourcefulness, creativity, interpersonal skills, and a resilient mindset. The era of acquiring a single degree to secure a lifetime career is over, with the possible exception of those actively developing AI and robotics, who might delay their own replacement by a few extra years.
* Corporate leaders are actively instilling an existential anxiety in employees by warning them to adopt AI tools or risk replacement.
* Certain tech companies have engaged in irresponsible messaging, including a prominent billboard in Times Square explicitly telling employers to "Stop hiring humans" because the age of AI employees has arrived.
* AI presents virtually limitless potential upsides, such as curing complex diseases or engineering breakthrough energy solutions, which drives the relentless optimism of tech innovators.
[35:11](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nJeU72Rgjh4&t=2111s) Elon Musk's Vision for Humanoid Robotics in Healthcare
Elon Musk’s recent public statements regarding Tesla's humanoid robot, Optimus, illustrate the compressed timelines anticipated by tech leaders. Musk claims that within three years, Optimus will perform surgical procedures at scale with greater precision than the best human surgeons on Earth.
"There will be probably more Optimus robots that are great surgeons than there are all surgeons on Earth." — Elon Musk
Even if these projections take slightly longer—such as four or five years—the implications for professional fields like medicine are drastic. The widespread deployment of surgical robotics could render top-tier healthcare virtually free and globally accessible, offering medical care superior to what heads of state currently receive. Consequently, embarking on long, traditional medical training today carries significant career risk due to the rapid timeline of robotic capability.
* Musk predicts surgical capabilities for Optimus within three years, with massive scaling shortly thereafter.
* Advanced healthcare could become universally accessible, surpassing the quality currently available to world leaders.
* Given the multi-year duration of medical school, traditional medical education faces immediate disruption from accelerating robotic timelines.
[37:04](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nJeU72Rgjh4&t=2224s) The Uprising in Iran and Western Strategic Hesitation
The widespread civil unrest in Iran represents an ongoing attempt at a counterrevolution against the Islamic dictatorship established after the overthrow of the Shah in 1979. Despite repeated, brutally suppressed uprisings over the decades, Iranian citizens continue to risk their lives in pursuit of freedom. Iran's distinct cultural history—evidenced by pre-1979 archival imagery showing a modern, secular society—distinguishes its populace's aspirations from many other regions in the Middle East.
```
1979 Islamic Revolution ➔ Decades of Suppression ➔ Recurring Counterrevolutions ➔ Western Hesitation
```
Despite aggressive rhetoric and economic measures from American leadership, the United States remains hesitant to initiate direct military interventions. The American public harbors deep skepticism toward foreign wars, constraining leaders from engaging in kinetic operations or enforced regime change. This hesitation creates a dangerous dynamic: Western figures offer vocal encouragement to protesters ("we stand with you"), yet the lack of decisive physical support leaves the civilian population vulnerable to lethal crackdowns by the regime.
* U.S. policy under Donald Trump included threats of military action, a 25% tariff on countries trading with Iran, and canceling diplomatic meetings until the violence ceased.
* Casualty estimates from the crackdown on Iranian protesters range from 2,000 to over 18,000 people, though blackouts and internet restrictions make precise verification difficult.
* Historical interventions in Libya, Iraq, Afghanistan, and Syria demonstrate the severe danger of removing a dictatorial regime without a viable, stable plan for governance afterward.
[44:01](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nJeU72Rgjh4&t=2641s) Power Projection, Greenland, and the Resurgence of Empires
Donald Trump’s explicit push to acquire Greenland—warning that the United States will achieve this "the easy way or the hard way"—reflects a broader, uncensored return to explicit geopolitical sphere-of-influence tactics. Far from being a mere joke, control over Greenland is tied directly to securing critical military positions, trade routes, and natural resources across North and South America.
This strategic posture indicates that the global arena never truly moved past the mechanics of empire. Major superpowers continue to prioritize hard power, territory, and resource acquisition over post-war diplomatic frameworks, signaling a complete return to transparent great-power competition.
* Trump publicly referred to Canada as the "great state of Canada" and reinforced his intent regarding Greenland through aggressive statements.
* Global power dynamics are increasingly defined by direct territorial and resource control rather than reliance on international rules-based coalitions.
[44:40](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nJeU72Rgjh4&t=2680s) The Reality of Power Politics and a Multipolar World
Konstantin Kisin argues that the world has not suddenly become chaotic, but rather that Western nations have been living in a "dream world" by pretending power politics ever stopped. Aside from a brief post–World War II era dominated by the Cold War proxy struggles between the United States and the Soviet Union, world history has always been defined by great powers vying for influence. Today, the global landscape has shifted to a multipolar reality featuring two primary superpowers—the US and China—alongside Russia and an increasingly influential India. In this context, Donald Trump’s foreign policy is not an anomaly, but rather an explicit rejection of "fake rules" that no other global actor was following anyway. Great powers naturally seek to control their immediate regions to block rival foreign influence and secure strategic advantages.
For residents of Europe, Kisin warns that a multipolar world is likely to be detrimental. As power shifts away from the West, European nations risk becoming less wealthy, less powerful, and largely irrelevant unless they drastically alter course.
- **Global Powers:** The United States and China operate as the primary poles, with Russia striving to maintain global influence and India steadily rising through pragmatic development.
- **European Decline:** Europe risks shrinking in global relevance and wealth under the emerging multipolar dynamics unless it fundamentally reforms its domestic and economic strategies.
---
[46:31](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nJeU72Rgjh4&t=2791s) Rebuilding Western Strength: Economy, Culture, and Demographics
To counter its declining global standing, Kisin outlines a multi-step roadmap for European and British renewal. First, nations must abandon "suicidal economic policy" to restore GDP growth, which would make citizens more prosperous and ease growing domestic unrest. Second, governments must manage the cultural instability caused by sustained mass immigration. Kisin argues that while immigration brings certain benefits, unmanaged inflows leave citizens feeling alienated and unheard after repeatedly voting for lower numbers. Uncontrolled illegal immigration severely damages the public's perception of fairness, causing young citizens—who struggle to afford housing while seeing state funds allocated to newcomers—to lose faith and loyalty toward their own country.
To restore stability, Kisin argues that countries must halt large-scale immigration, tackle illegal crossings, fully integrate existing populations into a unified national identity, rebuild military capabilities, and double down on strategic alliances—specifically aligning closely with the United States. Finally, he stresses that Western nations must reverse their demographic decline by having significantly more children.
```
+-------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Kisin's Blueprint for Western Renewal |
+-------------------------------------------------------------------+
| 1. Economic Growth | Abandon self-defeating policies; boost GDP.|
| 2. Controlled Inflows | Stop mass/illegal immigration; integrate. |
| 3. Strong Defense | Rebuild national military capabilities. |
| 4. Strong Alliances | Deepen strategic ties with the United States.|
| 5. Demographic Boost | Encourage higher birth rates to avoid decay.|
+-------------------------------------------------------------------+
```
- **The Demographic "Death Spiral":** Kisin asserts that politicians rely on mass immigration to conceal underlying economic stagnation. By adding hundreds of thousands of people, leaders can claim overall GDP grew by 0.3%, even though per capita wealth declined.
- **Household Analogy:** Kisin illustrates this per capita decline with a hypothetical household earning £100,000 for four people. Adding two non-earning in-laws brings total household income to £120,000, but spreads the money across six people, leaving every individual poorer.
- **Dynamic Society:** Beyond economic metrics, youthful societies foster dynamism and innovation, whereas aging populations become culturally and economically stale.
---
[52:58](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nJeU72Rgjh4&t=3178s) The Business Exodus and Welfare Traps in the UK
Turning to the state of the United Kingdom under Prime Minister Keir Starmer, Kisin criticizes the current administration for presiding over the highest peacetime tax burden in British history. Steven Bartlett concurs, noting a pervasive pessimism in the UK business ecosystem where successful founders regularly discuss their "escape plans" to relocate overseas—a trend Bartlett says was virtually nonexistent a decade ago. Kisin attributes this mass exit to government policies that tax high earners heavily while culturally demonizing success, treating financial achievement as the product of "ill-gotten privilege" rather than hard work and innovation.
Kisin argues that British policy drives away talent while simultaneously maintaining an unsustainable welfare system that incentivizes young people to drop out of the workforce. By offering state support to young adults experiencing routine anxiety or depression, the system effectively writes them off, placing them on benefits rather than encouraging them to build productive lives.
- **Anti-Success Culture:** Unlike in the US, where wealth creation is celebrated, the UK cultural narrative often treats successful entrepreneurs as "evil" or unduly privileged, driving talent to move where they feel welcomed.
- **Industrial and AI Stagnation:** Net-zero targets and heavy European regulations make energy-intensive industries and cutting-edge sectors like AI economically unviable in the UK.
- **Tax Base Concentration:** HM Revenue and Customs (HMRC) data confirms that the top 10% of taxpayers pay 60% of all income tax in the UK, while the top 1% pay 30% of all income tax.
- **Welfare Reform Reversal:** Kisin notes that when the Labour government attempted to reform welfare, backbench revolts forced a retreat, leading the administration to target high earners with further taxes instead.
- **Personal Reflection:** Bartlett recalls hitting rock bottom as a teenager in Moss Side, Manchester, staring at bailiff letters on his desk and weighing whether to apply for Jobseeker's Allowance. While that experience gave him deep empathy for those in hardship, his current interactions with entrepreneurs confirm that high-net-worth individuals are actively fleeing the UK's tax and regulatory climate.
Here is a detailed, faithful walkthrough based on Part 5 of the transcript:
[01:00:07](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nJeU72Rgjh4&t=3607s) The Real Debate Around Taxing the Rich in the UK
The debate surrounding the exodus of wealthy individuals from the UK often gets framed as a moral argument rather than a practical economic reality. When high-earning individuals leave, critics often claim that Britain cannot compete with zero-tax jurisdictions like Dubai. However, the issue isn't competing with zero taxes—people genuinely want to live in Britain, but they are tired of being "clobbered over the head" and vilified as evil. A prominent example of this dynamic is Nikolay Storonsky, the founder of Revolut (one of the UK’s most successful recent companies, potentially worth $100 billion), who relocated to the UAE. While some dismiss the departure of rich individuals, the real danger lies in losing the people who *create* future wealth.
When high net worth founders abscond to places like the UAE, the financial loss to the public purse is catastrophic. Estimates suggest Storonsky’s departure alone represents a potential £3 billion loss in capital gains tax. Breaking down that figure highlights the harsh math of driving away wealth creators:
- The average UK taxpayer contributes roughly £7,000 to £7,500 per year in income tax.
- Dividing £3 billion by £7,000 shows that it takes approximately **430,000 to 450,000 average UK taxpayers** to replace the tax revenue lost from a single billionaire leaving.
- In plain terms, a single founder's potential tax bill equals the entire annual income tax revenue of a mid-sized UK city.
By forcing out wealth creators under the guise of "taxing the rich," the burden ultimately falls back on everyday citizens, forcing nearly half a million normal taxpayers to cover the shortfall. Because society views wealth through an ideological lens where "the rich are evil," the practical flaws of these tax policies completely blow over people's heads. If the UK instead embraced a growth-focused mindset—offering cheaper energy, addressing prime issues, and fostering a tax climate that encourages business creation—it could retain the very people needed to generate national wealth and fund public services, including the military.
- **Revolut Valuation:** Estimated up to £100 billion.
- **Capital Gains Loss:** £3 billion from Nikolay Storonsky leaving for the UAE.
- **Average Taxpayer Contribution:** £7,000–£7,500 per year.
- **Equivalent Tax Base:** ~450,000 average UK taxpayers required to replace one departed founder's tax payment.
- **Root Problem:** Welfare traps hundreds of thousands (or millions) of citizens on payouts, giving them money rather than helping them find purpose, while driving away wealth creators.
---
[01:04:46](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nJeU72Rgjh4&t=3886s) What Kind of Leader Does the UK Desperately Need?
When discussing political leadership, focusing on personalities is a distraction that triggers immediate tribalism; if you name a specific politician, people instantly accuse you of being "one of them." What the UK actually needs is a leader who fundamentally understands how the economy functions and implements the right policies. Keir Starmer strikes observers as a well-intentioned and fairly competent person, but his current direction is entirely wrong. However, laying the blame solely at Starmer's feet is unfair, as the Conservatives were equally useless before him, following three decades of terrible leadership across all major parties that dragged the nation down the wrong path.
If Keir Starmer—or any leader—were to announce a complete turnaround by cutting business taxes, scrapping Net Zero to deliver the cheapest energy in the world, building a strong military, and hiring 50,000 new police officers to tackle London's street crime, he would earn absolute, "ride or die" support. Yet current public perception reflects deep dissatisfaction:
- Polling shows only **18% of Britons view Keir Starmer positively**.
- **65% to 72% hold an unfavorable opinion** of Starmer.
- Starmer's approval ratings are among the weakest of any recent UK Prime Minister, falling below most predecessors even within historic Labour governments.
Personality swaps will not fix the underlying crisis; replacing Starmer with Kemi Badenoch would likely result in similar favorability ratings because the Conservative Party pursued identical failing policies while in power—driving the economy into the ground with "green lunacy," overseeing military decline, and arresting people over tweets. A political shift isn't enough; Britain requires a massive cultural paradigm shift regarding economic growth and unaffordable welfare.
---
[01:08:48](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nJeU72Rgjh4&t=4128s) Why the UK’s Wealth Mindset Needs a Rethink
Cultural transitions across an entire country are notoriously difficult to pull off. Changing national culture is vastly more complex than trying to change the culture of a 150-person corporate office in Berlin. Because cultural shifts do not happen smoothly, true fundamental improvement will only occur through "accelerationism"—the reality that conditions must get extremely bad before people wake up to what is actually happening.
Most citizens do not yet fully realize that they are poorer today than they were 20 years ago. Furthermore, the public has been misled regarding climate policies. Britain's unilateral push for Net Zero does not save the planet; reducing the UK's contribution from 2% down to 1.9% of global carbon emissions is an illusion. In reality, the UK is simply outsourcing its carbon emissions to India and China, then shipping manufactured goods back on massive, dirty-fuel tankers that ultimately increase overall global CO2 output.
This virtue-signaling policy actively destroys the UK economy and harms its vulnerable populations, forcing elderly pensioners to freeze in winter because they cannot afford energy bills in a first-world country. "We are not saving the planet by killing pensioners." Ordinary people will only start questioning these flawed narratives when they feel the painful bite of a fiscal crisis directly in their own pockets.
- **Global Carbon Share:** UK emissions account for ~2% down to 1.9% of global carbon output.
- **Net Zero Fallacy:** Manufacturing is offshored to higher-emitting countries (India, China) and cargo ships burn dirty fuel to import the goods back, net-increasing global emissions.
- **Political Career Ambitions:** Konstantin Kisin rejects entering formal politics despite regular offers, noting that backbench MPs lack real impact and politicians are forced to parrot party lines rather than speak the unfiltered truth.
---
[01:13:18](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nJeU72Rgjh4&t=4398s) How Power Struggles Shape Nations in a Multipolar World
As the post-war rules-based order breaks down into a multipolar world, the global shift impacts different nations in radically different ways. Europe stands to suffer greatly from this transition due to its self-inflicted economic and energy vulnerabilities. Conversely, non-Western superpowers are positioned to gain significant geopolitical leverage in an unconstrained world:
- **China:** Benefits greatly because it is far less restrained by the United States and can act without Western interference.
- **India:** Benefits for similar reasons, gaining strategic autonomy and regional influence.
- **Russia:** Potentially benefits, though the ultimate long-term outcome remains to be seen.
- **United States:** A mixed bag. While America can still secure its interests through raw strength, it will find itself dragged into far more international confrontations, creating a continuous drain on its resources and national energy.
[01:14:14](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nJeU72Rgjh4&t=4454s) Sponsor Break and DOAC Inner Circle Announcement
Before returning to the main conversation, Steven Bartlett highlights the compliance and security challenges that early-stage businesses face when landing big enterprise deals. While standard SOC 2 compliance is often insufficient for rigorous buyer requirements, podcast sponsor Vanta provides an AI and automation platform to help startups achieve and continuously monitor compliance within days. Additionally, Bartlett announces the launch of "DOAC Circle," an exclusive private community capped at its first 10,000 members. The inner circle grants fans direct access to off-camera guest briefs, unreleased video clips, scrapped episodes, behind-the-scenes footage, and input on future guest bookings.
- **Vanta Offer:** Startups can visit `[vanta.com/diary](https://vanta.com/diary)` to secure a $1,000 discount on automated compliance services.
- **DOAC Circle Features:** Direct community access to Steven Bartlett, exclusive behind-the-scenes footage, unreleased show briefs, scrapped episodes, and input on podcast guest selection.
- **Membership Cap:** Enrollment is restricted to the first 10,000 members via `doaccircle.com`.
---
[01:15:57](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nJeU72Rgjh4&t=4557s) The Patterns of Multipolarity and Historical Collapse
Steven Bartlett prompts Konstantin Kisin on whether human history has experienced multipolar eras before and what normally follows them. Drawing on Winston Churchill's *A History of the English-Speaking Peoples*, Kisin points out that whenever a strong ruler leaves no clear heir, power vacuums inevitably trigger intense domestic and global struggles. Bartlett shares a breakdown of historic multipolar eras—including 5th-century BC Ancient Greece, 19th-century Europe (1850s–1914), and the Warring States period in China (475 BC)—noting that such periods historically lead to weakened rules, accelerating arms races, regional conflicts, economic fragmentation, and severe domestic pressures like higher taxes and defense spending.
```
Multipolar Dynamics -> Power Vacuum -> Friction & Regional Wars -> New Hegemon Emerges
```
Kisin agrees with this historical cycle, attributing it directly to fundamental human nature rather than complex geopolitical theory. Because humans are naturally competitive and tribal, the lack of an undisputed global leader creates an environment where nations aggressively fight for dominance. History demonstrates that multipolar chaos traditionally concludes in one of three ways: managed ongoing chaos, total war that triggers a geopolitical reset, or the rise of a new single hegemon (similar to the United States' undisputed dominance between 1991 and the recent past).
- **Historical Multipolar Benchmarks:** Ancient Greece (5th Century BC), Warring States China (475 BC), and Europe (1850–1914).
- **Consequences of Multipolarity:** Weakening of international law, hardening of regional alliances, economic fragmentation, higher taxes, and reduced global economic growth.
- **The Three Endgames:** Managed chaos, major military conflict/reset, or the emergence of a new global hegemon.
- **Human Nature:** Kisin stresses that power struggles are rooted in basic human tribalism rather than abstract academic theories: "When there isn't a dominant force that everyone respects and accepts as the leader... you have a power struggle."
---
[01:19:20](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nJeU72Rgjh4&t=4760s) Nuclear Deterrence and the Lessons of Weakness
The discussion turns to whether nuclear weapons alter this historical cycle of world wars. Referencing historian Dominic Sandbrook from *The Rest Is History* podcast, Kisin notes that nuclear weapons have served as the ultimate force for peace by establishing an existential boundary that constrains superpower escalation. While he remains hopeful that the human instinct for self-preservation will prevent a nuclear catastrophe, he warns that novel military technologies over the next 20 years might challenge this balance.
Bartlett asks whether having a unpredictable leader like Donald Trump—who demonstrates a willingness to take bold military actions—acts as a necessary deterrent against rivals like Russia and China. Kisin argues that global adversaries exploit perceived Western weakness, citing the disastrous 2021 withdrawal from Afghanistan as the primary catalyst that emboldened events like the invasion of Ukraine and the October 7 attacks. To illustrate this cultural dynamic, Kisin contrasts Western and Soviet versions of *The Jungle Book*: in the Soviet adaptation, when the lead wolf Akela misses his prey during a hunt, the entire jungle instantly recognizes his weakness, triggering an immediate fight for pack dominance.
> "Everybody knows when the leader shows weakness and fails, that's the moment when everything goes to s*** and there's a power struggle for his role because he's no longer top dog. It's really as simple as that."
- **Nuclear Peace Thesis:** Nuclear arsenals have historically prevented direct major-power warfare through Mutual Assured Destruction (MAD).
- **Catalyst of Geopolitical Instability:** Kisin views the chaotic U.S. withdrawal from Afghanistan as a fatal display of weakness that signaled green lights to rival autocratic powers.
- **Cultural Parable:** The Soviet animation of *The Jungle Book* illustrates how wolf packs (and geopolitical actors) attack leaders the moment physical weakness is displayed.
---
[01:22:28](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nJeU72Rgjh4&t=4948s) Trump's Impact, Leaving the UK, and Policy vs. Emotion
Evaluating Trump's role in global politics, Kisin asserts that while Trump prioritizes American interests, his aggressive posture has exposed Europe's structural vulnerabilities and military reliance. If European nations wake up and rebuild their self-reliance, Trump’s pressure could prove beneficial for the broader Western alliance; however, Europe is currently moving in the opposite direction. When asked what would make him leave the UK permanently, Kisin admits that if the next election proves Britain is irrevocably continuing down its path of economic and societal decline, he would relocate to protect his children's future rather than stay in a decaying civilization.
Reflecting on core political philosophies, Kisin cites conservative economist Thomas Sowell, emphasizing that modern Western societies have spent decades replacing policies that actually work with policies that merely feel good. Whether discussing tax policies that drive out wealth-generating entrepreneurs or ideological governance, Kisin warns that prioritizing emotional satisfaction over practical outcomes guarantees national decline.
- **Trump and Europe:** Trump's foreign policy exposes the deep cleavage between the U.S. and Europe, forcing Europe to either rebuild its capabilities or face geopolitical irrelevance.
- **Emigration Threshold:** Kisin states he would consider leaving Britain permanently within 2 to 3 years if electoral choices confirm the country's trajectory is beyond rescue.
- **Thomas Sowell's Core Insight:** Society must abandon the trend of "replacing what works with what feels good" and return to outcome-based, realistic decision-making.
---
[01:25:08](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nJeU72Rgjh4&t=5108s) The "Woke Right" Threat and Personal Happiness
Addressing his reputation for criticizing both sides of the political aisle, Kisin warns against the dangerous emergence of the "woke right"—an identitarian, victimhood-driven fringe movement exemplified by figures like Nick Fuentes and Candace Owens. Much like the left embraced grievances based on identity, this reactionary right frames its worldview around oppression narratives, conspiracy theories, and outright antisemitism. Kisin warns mainstream conservatives that failing to aggressively purge these extremist elements will alienate moderate voters and repeat the left's mistake of letting radical ideologues redefine their entire brand.
Closing on a personal note, Bartlett asks Kisin if he is truly happy in his life. Away from the grim geopolitical reality and cultural battles he analyzes daily, Kisin warmly affirms that he is deeply happy, noting that raising children and spending time with his family provides him with profound purpose and joy.
> "On the right, if the right allows its extremist fringe to do the same thing, then lots of people are going to distance themselves from that... If they allow the extremists to take over, the entire movement will be painted as the extremists."
- **The "Woke Right":** Defined as a reactionary movement built on grievance, identitarianism, victimhood, and conspiratorial thinking.
- **Key Figures Mentioned:** Nick Fuentes and Candace Owens as examples of fringe figures pushing extreme narratives.
- **Warning to Conservatives:** Mainstream conservatism must actively reject radical elements to maintain credibility with independent, moderate voters who decide elections.
[01:29:13](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nJeU72Rgjh4&t=5353s) Why Having Children Changes Everything
Reflecting on his life as a parent, Konstantin Kisin describes children as "the best thing ever." While it is difficult to fully put into words, having a child transforms how one perceives the world and makes the concept of the future concrete rather than abstract. In the past, caring about one's nation or civilization was an intellectual exercise, but having "little people" turns the future into real individuals whose lives depend on the direction society takes. This experience deepens a person's connection to previous generations, fostering a newfound empathy for their own parents, as they realize the overwhelming balance of career, relationships, and child-rearing that their parents had to manage.
Parenting brings an immense sense of joy and an heightened concern for the immediate community and country, despite the undeniable stress and lack of sleep that comes with it. Konstantin notes that while he currently has one child, there might be more on the way in the future.
[01:31:08](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nJeU72Rgjh4&t=5468s) Preparing the Next Generation for an Uncertain World
When asked about his primary fear for his children, Konstantin emphasizes that a parent's true role is simply to focus on doing the best job possible raising them. Once they grow up, they will become independent individuals who must face whatever realities the world presents, much like previous generations did. He shares the personal story of his great-grandfather, who was younger than Konstantin is now when he was sent to the Eastern Front during World War II—leaving behind a baby son—and never returned.
Because parents cannot protect their children from every potential historical calamity, the only viable course of action is to equip them with the right values and preparation.
* **Historical Context:** Konstantin's great-grandfather died on the Eastern Front in World War II while leaving a baby at home.
* **Core Philosophy:** Parents cannot shield children from global hardship, but can only focus on raising them well to meet whatever future arises.
[01:32:06](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nJeU72Rgjh4&t=5526s) Influences and Lessons from Jordan Peterson
Answering the traditional closing question left by the previous podcast guest—regarding who made the biggest non-family influence on his life—Konstantin highlights three key figures. Intellectually, reading Thomas Sowell's books was completely transformational for his worldview. On a personal level, a former teacher taught him the value of giving people a chance to prove themselves by offering him an opportunity when he didn't deserve it.
On a behavioral level, touring with Jordan Peterson for three weeks left an indelible mark. Peterson proved to be one of the rare public figures who genuinely "preaches what he practices." Konstantin recounts a vivid example from a trip to El Paso on the US-Mexico border. After arriving late from the airport and starving, the team sat down at a local steak restaurant—a spot fans frequently locate because Peterson famously follows an all-meat diet. Before Peterson could even look at the menu, fans approached the table. Despite being exhausted and hungry, Peterson immediately stood up and gave them his full, undivided attention, taking photos and chatting.
> "A guy who talks about living in a certain way actually practices it... that was incredibly inspiring for me."
When their food finally arrived and Peterson put a piece of steak on his fork, a large group of 20 people approached. Without hesitation, Peterson put the fork down, stood up, and treated them with the exact same patient respect. Seeing someone live so authentically provided Konstantin with valuable insights into his own personal relationships and how he conducts his life.
[01:34:37](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nJeU72Rgjh4&t=5677s) Closing Remarks and Podcast Invitation
As the conversation wraps up, Steven Bartlett thanks Konstantin for his commitment to pursuing truth and encourages viewers to check out his podcast, *TRIGGERnometry*, as well as his book, *An Immigrant's Love Letter to the West*. Konstantin playfully turns the tables by asking Steven when he will finally come on *TRIGGERnometry* as a guest. Steven agrees to appear as a UK exclusive following the release of his new book, bringing the interview to a warm close before a short preview clip from the episode plays.
## Notable quotes
> [00:00](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nJeU72Rgjh4&t=0s) We are not going to play by the fake rules anymore that no one else is playing by anyway. — Konstantin Kisin
> [00:00](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nJeU72Rgjh4&t=0s) International law... was a kind of shared myth that we have... A law is something that has to be backed by not only the consent of the people... but ultimately it's about the use of force. — Konstantin Kisin
> [00:00](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nJeU72Rgjh4&t=0s) The West lost its focus and its sense of purpose in 1991 because we were like, 'Well, we defeated our great rival, communism...' — Konstantin Kisin
> [24:20](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nJeU72Rgjh4&t=1460s) It used to be that the intelligence part—the brain—would cost $20,000 or $30,000 just for a little robot arm. Now it's like 2 cents. — Steven Bartlett
> [37:03](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nJeU72Rgjh4&t=2223s) There will be probably more Optimus robots that are great surgeons than there are all surgeons on Earth. — Elon Musk
> [01:19:20](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nJeU72Rgjh4&t=4760s) Everybody knows when the leader shows weakness and fails, that's the moment when everything goes to s*** and there's a power struggle for his role because he's no longer top dog. It's really as simple as that. — Konstantin Kisin
> [01:25:08](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nJeU72Rgjh4&t=5108s) On the right, if the right allows its extremist fringe to do the same thing, then lots of people are going to distance themselves from that... If they allow the extremists to take over, the entire movement will be painted as the extremists. — Konstantin Kisin
> [01:32:06](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nJeU72Rgjh4&t=5526s) A guy who talks about living in a certain way actually practices it... that was incredibly inspiring for me. — Konstantin Kisin
## Mentioned
Konstantin Kisin, Steven Bartlett, Donald Trump, Nicolás Maduro, Keir Starmer, David Lammy, Zohran Mamdani, Tony Blair, Elon Musk, Kemi Badenoch, Nikolay Storonsky, Thomas Sowell, Dominic Sandbrook, Nick Fuentes, Candace Owens, Jordan Peterson, Winston Churchill, Venezuela, Greenland, Iran, China, Taiwan, Russia, Ukraine, United States, United Kingdom, Germany, France, Israel, India, Botswana, Dubai, UAE, TRIGGERnometry, An Immigrant's Love Letter to the West, The Diary Of A CEO, Waymo, Tesla, Optimus, Revolut, HM Revenue and Customs, Vanta, The Jungle Book, A History of the English-Speaking Peoples, The Rest Is History
Political commentator Konstantin Kisin argues that the post–Cold War rules-based international order has collapsed into a transactional, multipolar reality, exposing Western nations—particularly the United Kingdom and Europe—to severe geopolitical and economic vulnerabilities caused by decades of strategic complacency.
The Collapse of the Rules-Based Order (0:00)
Kisin asserts that international law was a shared construct effective only when backed by undisputed American enforcement. Following the end of the unipolar era after 1991, great powers have returned to traditional realpolitik and explicit spheres of influence. In Kisin's analysis, Donald Trump's assertive foreign policy—including operations in Venezuela, ambitions regarding Greenland, and unilateral strikes against Iranian nuclear sites—does not represent aberrant chaos, but a pragmatic recognition that rival powers like Russia and China ceased abiding by international rules long ago.
This breakdown shifts the global landscape toward an unstable multipolar structure featuring the United States, China, Russia, and India. Kisin argues that peace historically depends on credible hard power rather than international treaties. Consequently, displays of Western hesitation, such as the 2021 withdrawal from Afghanistan, operate as signals of vulnerability that invite aggression from rival authoritarian states.
European Deindustrialization and British Geopolitical Decline (14:55)
Tracing Europe's diminishing global influence, Kisin points out that while the continent represents roughly 12% of world population and 25% of global GDP, it accounts for 60% of worldwide welfare spending. Decades of prioritizing social comfort over defense, domestic manufacturing, and energy independence left European powers structurally exposed. Germany's shutdown of its nuclear fleet created a debilitating dependence on Russian natural gas, which hobbled its initial foreign policy responses.
In the United Kingdom, Kisin notes that annual national debt interest payments have risen to 1.5 times the total defense budget, debt-to-GDP has surpassed 100%, and real GDP per capita remains lower than in 2006. With Britain on the verge of losing its capacity to manufacture virgin steel, Kisin argues that the United States increasingly bypasses London during major military actions out of a cold assessment that the UK no longer possesses the practical military utility required of a serious strategic partner.
Fiscal Pressures, Entrepreneur Flight, and Energy Policy (60:07)
Addressing the UK's domestic outlook, Kisin and host Steven Bartlett contend that the highest peacetime tax burden in British history, combined with a cultural hostility toward high achievers, is driving away essential wealth creators. According to HMRC data cited in the discussion, the top 10% of taxpayers generate 60% of all UK income tax, while the top 1% generate 30%. The fragility of this concentrated tax base is illustrated by the relocation of Revolut founder Nikolay Storonsky to the UAE, an exit representing an estimated £3 billion loss in potential capital gains tax—requiring roughly 430,000 to 450,000 average taxpayers contributing £7,000 to £7,500 annually to replace.
Kisin further criticizes unilateral Net Zero commitments that lower the UK's 2% share of global carbon emissions by offshoring manufacturing to higher-emitting nations like China and India. He argues this policy creates the highest industrial electricity costs in the developed world and burdens vulnerable citizens without reducing net global emissions, while an expanding welfare apparatus disincentivizes younger generations from workforce participation.
Technological Disruption, Elite Overproduction, and Radicalization (24:20)
Kisin identifies "elite overproduction"—spurred by policies directing 50% of youth into university degrees—as a prime driver of domestic political instability. Facing high housing costs and limited professional opportunities, disaffected graduates increasingly turn toward extreme political movements on both the left and the right. Bartlett observes that this friction will intensify rapidly as artificial intelligence and autonomous robotics displace knowledge workers and traditional service labor.
Bartlett highlights how rapidly falling compute costs are accelerating commercial autonomy, pointing to autonomous vehicle fleets in San Francisco and Elon Musk's projection that Tesla's Optimus humanoid robots could match top human surgeons within three to five years. Kisin cautions that if technological displacement concentrates immense wealth among a minute corporate elite while leaving millions unemployable, massive state wealth redistribution will become an unavoidable necessity to prevent systemic social upheaval.
Kisin maintains that Western renewal remains possible through rapid economic deregulation, domestic energy expansion, military rearmament, and demographic growth. However, he concludes that meaningful policy reform may not occur until Western democracies experience an acute economic crisis that forces them to abandon emotionally appealing policies in favor of practical outcomes.
## Background
本期内容由商业访谈频道《The Diary Of A CEO》（主持人 Steven Bartlett）于 2026 年 1 月 22 日发布在 YouTube 平台。对谈嘉宾为政治评论员、《TRIGGERnometry》播客联合主持人兼畅销书作者康斯坦丁·基辛（Konstantin Kisin）。节目简介指出，基辛在访谈中深度剖析了战后基于规则的国际秩序瓦解、欧洲与英国因能源和高税收政策导致的自残式衰退、AI 对全球就业与意识形态的剧烈冲击，以及特朗普如何通过现实主义动作重塑全球地缘权力版图。
## TL;DR
基辛直言西方维系数十年的“国际法与规则神话”已经破灭，世界正全面退回凭实力划分势力范围与依靠核威慑自保的“丛林法则”。他系统性批判了欧洲及英国的自满懈怠——高额税负、过度福利、盲目的净零排放以及将企业家污名化的社会风气，正将财富创造者赶向海外并导致人均生活水平长期停滞。与此同时，自动驾驶与具身智能等 AI 突破将在短期内摧毁海量劳动力岗位，加剧极端财富分化并催生对激进社会主义再分配的狂热诉求。基辛呼吁西方必须走出道德自我感动与受害者叙事，重振经济增长、工业制造与人口繁衍，以实力应对多极化风暴。
## Atmosphere & style
整场对话笼罩着一层清醒而逼人的地缘现实主义张力，基辛的语言风格冷峻、辛辣且直击痛处，毫不留情地戳破各类政治正确的温情面纱。两位对谈者在宏观危机分析、精确财政算账与英式黑色幽默之间切换自如，既有面对三战风险与技术失业大潮时的沉重压抑，也有探讨底层奋斗心路时的深切共鸣。随着话题从冰冷的国际博弈延展至为人父母的温情觉醒与对文明根基的坚守，访谈的情绪曲线最终从末世般的警世警钟沉淀为坚韧务实的生命关怀。
## Bulletin
- [02:50](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nJeU72Rgjh4&t=170s) 二战后建立的“基于规则的国际秩序”已彻底瓦解，西方在阿富汗和伊拉克的干涉损耗了道德与军事威慑，迫使全球回归依靠硬实力的多极化丛林法则。
- [13:34](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nJeU72Rgjh4&t=814s) 欧洲与英国深陷“经济自杀”与福利陷阱：欧洲仅占全球 12% 人口却消耗了 60% 的社会福利，英国国债利息支出已逼近国防预算的 2 倍且人均实际 GDP 倒退至 2006 年以下。
- [26:50](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nJeU72Rgjh4&t=1610s) 随着自动驾驶普及与人形机器人量产，全球最大的司机与蓝领就业池将瓦解；若数十个科技寡头垄断全部生产力，社会将不得不走向普遍基本收入（UBI）或共产主义分配模式以防暴力清算。
- [57:33](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nJeU72Rgjh4&t=3453s) 对富人的惩罚性高税收正导致英国财富创造者集体出逃，顶层 1% 纳税人贡献了全英 30% 个人所得税，仅 Revolut 创始人迁居迪拜就使英国损失潜在 30 亿英镑资本利得税。
## Key takeaways
- [02:50](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nJeU72Rgjh4&t=170s) 二战后的“国际法”与“基于规则的秩序”本质上是缺乏超主权强制执行力的共同神话，失去美国绝对军事警察角色后已全面崩塌。
- [11:25](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nJeU72Rgjh4&t=685s) 西方未能坚决击退侵略给全球带来灾难性示范，使中小国家意识到研制核武器已成为免遭欺凌的唯一终极安全保障。
- [13:34](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nJeU72Rgjh4&t=814s) 德国废核依赖俄气、英国承担高昂工业电价并失去原生钢铁产能，欧洲沉溺于净零排放与高福利而自废工业基础与国防硬实力。
- [15:22](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nJeU72Rgjh4&t=922s) 英国公共债务超 GDP 的 100%，每年国债利息支出达国防预算的 1.5 至 2 倍，且人均实际 GDP 低于 2006 年水平。
- [17:59](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nJeU72Rgjh4&t=1079s) 英国政客在野期间频繁羞辱特朗普，加上硬实力自我缩减，导致其在委内瑞拉及伊朗重大地缘决策中完全被美方无视并边缘化。
- [24:20](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nJeU72Rgjh4&t=1460s) 高等教育过度扩张导致“精英过剩”，数百万年轻人期望落空、买不起房，加上白领岗位受 AI 冲击，沦为激进社会主义与极端主义的温床。
- [26:50](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nJeU72Rgjh4&t=1610s) 调用尖端 AI 大模型的边际成本从数万美元骤降至两美分，推动完全自动驾驶与人形机器人快速颠覆全球最大的交通与蓝领就业池。
- [30:22](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nJeU72Rgjh4&t=1822s) 在所有人失去劳动就业机会的零就业社会中，极端财富集中将迫使制度转向按人头发放生存保障的 UBI 或共产主义分配模式以避免暴力革命。
- [31:43](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nJeU72Rgjh4&t=1903s) 传统“求学-深耕专业”的确定性职业路径彻底终结，父母培养下一代的核心资产转为适应力、共情交往能力、进取心与综合应变力。
- [37:04](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nJeU72Rgjh4&t=2224s) 西方对伊朗反抗政权的人民仅停留在口头支持，因民意厌战而缺乏落地干预胃口，且推翻独裁后缺乏接盘方案往往重蹈利比亚覆辙。
- [44:01](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nJeU72Rgjh4&t=2641s) 特朗普对格陵兰与委内瑞拉的强硬态度是门罗主义与大国划分自身“势力范围”的现实主义回归。
- [48:45](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nJeU72Rgjh4&t=2925s) 西方政客推行大规模移民的真实动因是掩盖人口自然缩减，利用人口基数膨胀粉饰账面微量 GDP 增长，实则人均财富大幅缩水。
- [57:33](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nJeU72Rgjh4&t=3453s) 英国前 10% 纳税人承担 60% 个人所得税，前 1% 承担 30%，将财富污名化的加税政策直接促成 Revolut 创始人等企业家携资外逃。
- [01:08:05](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nJeU72Rgjh4&t=4085s) 英国净零政策实际上是将高排放制造业外包给中印后再通过重油巨轮运回，不仅没有减少全球碳排放，反而重创国内经济并使老人难付暖气费。
- [01:13:18](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nJeU72Rgjh4&t=4398s) 多极化格局的最大受益者是中国与印度，因为美国对其约束力大降；而美国将卷入频繁对抗以致国力消耗，欧洲则面临被边缘化。
- [01:20:12](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nJeU72Rgjh4&t=4812s) 在苏联版《森林之子》中，狼王阿克拉失手即意味着丛林逐鹿夺权；西方领导人展现的任何退让软弱，都会被对手敏锐捕捉并引爆地缘危机。
- [01:23:00](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nJeU72Rgjh4&t=4980s) 西方社会严重陷入托马斯·索维尔所批判的“用感觉良好的政策取代真正有效的政策”的自我感动思维陷阱。
- [01:25:05](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nJeU72Rgjh4&t=5105s) 必须高度警惕右翼阵营中崛起的“觉醒右翼”（Woke Right），其本质与极左身份政治无异，放任其绑架将使保守派彻底丧失温和派与独立选民根基。
## Detailed walkthrough
### [00:00](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nJeU72Rgjh4&t=0s) 规则神话的破灭与西方文明的战略懈怠
节目开篇便抛出了一连串令人眼花缭乱且极具冲击力的全球地缘危机：美国传言要吞并格陵兰岛、伊朗内部局势动荡、唐纳德·特朗普强势扣押委内瑞拉总统尼古拉斯·马杜罗、中国大陆可能武统台湾的传闻甚嚣尘上，以及持续延烧的俄乌战争。面对史蒂芬·巴特利特对于“这个世界究竟怎么了”的困惑，政治评论员康斯坦丁·基辛给出了极具穿透力的定性：世人正在目睹西方阵营的日渐孱弱与敌对势力的步步进逼，其核心本质在于长期维系西方社会的“共同神话”彻底崩塌——那个曾经让人深信不疑的、凡事遵循既定规则的“基于规则的国际秩序”已经不复存在。特朗普对马杜罗的行动，恰恰代表了他看穿了这一现实，拒绝再遵循“别人根本不遵守的虚假规则”。
基辛进一步指出，这一切动荡并非偶然。普京下定决心全面进攻乌克兰，正是敏锐察觉到了西方的战略迷茫与意志消退，选择主动“试水”。西方在冷战后彻底丧失了目标感与危机感，沉溺于安逸与道德自满之中，一系列自断臂膀的操作终于引爆了反噬：
- **欧洲的经济与福利失衡**：欧洲人口仅占全球的 12%，GDP 占全球的 25%，却承担了全球高达 60% 的社会福利开支。
- **德国的能源自缚**：主动废除本土核能设施，导致自身在能源供给上严重受制于俄罗斯天然气。
- **英国的产业空心化与军队衰败**：系统性摧毁了本土制造业，将供应链拱手让给海外，同时大幅缩减军费与武装部队规模。
- **民众生活水平的停滞**：英国当下的实际人均财富甚至低于 20 年前，却背负着和平时期历史最高的税收负担，这种政策正将富有创新精神的企业家大批驱逐出境，导致国际影响力急剧滑落。
### [01:52](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nJeU72Rgjh4&t=112s) 主持人的真诚呼吁：听众支持与频道使命
在深入展开地缘政治分析之前，主持人史蒂芬·巴特利特向观众做了一段真挚的个人倾诉。他坦言制作团队原本为他准备了一份标准的公关口播稿，但他决定抛开脚本，以最本真、温和的方式与观众对话。史蒂芬感慨过去的一年是他生命中最不可思议的一段时光，自己曾经有过很多人生梦想，却从未想过能与全球数百万听众产生如此深度的思想共鸣。
史蒂芬将这份巨大的反馈视为一种沉甸甸的责任，并诚恳地向长期收看但尚未订阅的受众提出请求。他分享了一个后台数据：在经常收听该频道的受众中，约有 47% 的人其实并没有点击订阅。他承诺订阅完全免费，却是支撑制作团队奔赴全球、推动节目不断升级、探讨重大议题最关键的力量，并向观众郑重保证自己绝不会辜负这份信任。
### [02:50](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nJeU72Rgjh4&t=170s) 地缘政治的底层逻辑：从二战秩序到“丛林法则”的回归
面对当下错综复杂的国际局势，史蒂芬直言自己和大多数普通人一样，平日专注于具体的生活与工作，极少站在宏观视角审视全球博弈，每当抬起头看新闻，都会对铺天盖地的局部战争和强人行动感到极度困惑。基辛随即将视线拉回历史纵深，剖析了当前世界乱局的历史演进机制：
```mermaid
flowchart TD
accTitle: 现代国际秩序演进路径
accDescr: 展示从1945年雅尔塔体系到冷战单极霸权，再到规则破灭与门罗主义回归的过程。
subgraph S1["秩序形成期 (1945-1991)"]
A["1945 二战结束<br/>美苏两极冷战对抗"] --> B["1991 苏联解体<br/>美国单极霸权确立"]
end
subgraph S2["神话破灭期 (1991-至今)"]
B --> C["西方失去战略方向<br/>安于'规则秩序'的虚构神话"]
C --> D["缺乏强制执行力<br/>国际法与规则秩序崩塌"]
end
subgraph S3["强权回归期"]
D --> E["回归'丛林法则'<br/>特朗普重拾门罗主义与国家利益"]
end
```
基辛引用了尤瓦尔·赫拉利在《人类简史》中的核心洞见：人类社会维系运作的大多数基石——无论是货币、法律还是体制——本质上都是一种“共同神话”（shared myth）。纸币本身只是一张毫无价值的纸片，它之所以能购买商品，纯粹是因为所有人达成了一致共识。相比之下，“国际法”甚至比货币的神话更加脆弱。真正的法律必须以两样东西为后盾：相关各方的自愿认可，以及**合法的强制暴力**。国际法在历史上能够勉强生效，唯一的依托是世界上最强大的国家（美国）凭借军事力量充当事实上的“世界警察”。当一个大国（如中国）决定对台湾采取军事行动时，根本没有任何超主权实体拥有足够强大的军事力量来强制执行国际法。
基辛指出，这种认为世界运行在理性规则之下的集体虚构已经彻底破灭。特朗普的行动逻辑并非毫无章法的癫狂，而是清醒认识到世界已沦为“各人自扫门前雪，靠实力说话”的丛林。特朗普抓捕委内瑞拉总统马杜罗，本质上是对历史悠久的“门罗主义”（Monroe Doctrine）的强力回归——即绝不容许外部敌对势力插手美洲事务。委内瑞拉的崩溃已经导致 700 万难民外逃冲击美国边境，马杜罗公然倒向中俄，甚至允许真主党在玛格丽塔岛（Margarita Island）建立恐怖训练营。特朗普的逻辑非常简单直接："既然别人不再守规矩，我唯一的准则就是做对美国国家利益最有利的事。"
### [06:48](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nJeU72Rgjh4&t=408s) 示弱的代价：从乌克兰危机到全球连锁测试
针对史蒂芬提出的“这种单边强权策略是否存在巨大风险”的疑问，基辛予以坚定认同，但他强调真正的风险早已由西方长期的软弱和退让埋下。在基辛看来，西方多年来不断散发出的脆弱信号极大地助长了敌对势力的野心。他坚决反对将这些地缘动荡简单归咎于美国内部的党派之争（如拜登对阵特朗普、民主党对阵共和党），这是一种长达数十年的结构性意志退化：
- **俄乌冲突的本质**：绝非突发的历史意外，而是普京及其核心决策层对西方政治决心的公开试探，借此检验西方是否还有能力与意志阻止俄罗斯实现长期地缘野心。
- **哈马斯发动 10 月 7 日袭击**：在伊朗的暗中支持下策划，其底层逻辑完全一致——试探西方在道德与军事层面是否还能做出有力回应。
- **台海危机升级**：中国大陆如今毫不掩饰地公开探讨统一台湾的战略窗口，同样是看透了西方威慑力流失的连锁反应。
这种传统西方同盟的内部瓦解对于欧洲而言尤其危险，因为欧洲长期将自身防御外包，早已丧失了独立抵御全面风暴的硬实力。
在此处，史蒂芬提出了一个直击要害的底层逻辑追问：当今所有的超级大国似乎都倾向于把矛头对准那些“没有核武器”的国家。美国之所以不敢在台湾问题上同中国彻底撕破脸，或是对俄罗斯保持高度忌惮，归根结底是不是因为对方拥有庞大的核武库？如果世界的终极底牌是核武器，那是否意味着拥有核武器的国家实际上享有绝对的豁免权，而整个世界正在不可逆转地按照是否拥有核打击能力被彻底切分？
### [09:02](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nJeU72Rgjh4&t=542s) 规则秩序的崩塌与西方的道德反噬
康斯坦丁·基辛（Konstantin Kisin）指出，拥有毁灭地球能力的核大国在理论上一直可以为所欲为，此前之所以有所克制，完全是因为受到二战后建立的“基于规则的国际秩序”的约束。然而，这一框架如今已被彻底拆解。基辛认为，西方国家尤其是美国必须为此承担重大责任。西方在阿富汗和伊拉克发动的战争，从根本上摧毁了自身的道德公信力。
当西方国家自己都在凭一时冲动、捏造借口随意入侵他国时，就再也没有道德高地去指责俄罗斯“不得入侵乌克兰”。这种自相矛盾的行径不仅彻底蚕食了西方的道德威信，也损耗了西方的实际军事威慑力，使西方失去了惩罚破坏规则者的威慑手段与现实实力。双重侵蚀之下，旧有的国际秩序加速分崩离析。
### [09:47](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nJeU72Rgjh4&t=587s) 丛林法则重现：从格陵兰岛、委内瑞拉到墨西哥毒枭隐喻
史蒂芬·巴特利特（Steven Bartlett）坦言眼前的局势令他感到荒诞与恐惧。在他生活至今的33年里，从未听过一位美国总统公开谈论绑架别国元首、掠夺别国石油，甚至提出要从北约盟友丹麦手中夺取格陵兰岛。这种赤裸裸的行径让他深感底层逻辑已经发生质变：这是否意味着全世界都要倒退回“凭实力强取豪夺”的丛林法则？
基辛回应道，权力天平的倾斜必然带来这种局面。他一直主张西方必须竭力维持冷战后的“单极时刻”，防止自身实力衰退，因为一旦出现权力真空，就必然引发生死搏杀。他以墨西哥过去20年的毒枭战争为例：各派贩毒集团不断争权夺利，一旦中央权力崩溃或某个大毒枭被铲除，立刻就会引发血流成河的乱局。特朗普的所作所为，不过是赤裸裸地将国际政治中存在多年的现实摆上了台面。特朗普的逻辑十分粗暴：“如果俄罗斯和中国能够为所欲为而没人拦得住，那我们也可以随心所欲，谁也别想阻拦我们。”
```mermaid
flowchart TD
accTitle: 权力真空与地缘冲突恶性循环
accDescr: 展现冷战后单极秩序瓦解导致各方争夺真空并引发全球军事扩张的演变链条
subgraph OrderCollapse["规则崩塌与真空形成"]
A["西方发动伊拉克与阿富汗战争<br/>道德威信与军事威慑双重损耗"] --> B["基于规则的国际秩序瓦解"]
B --> C["全球权力平衡打破<br/>出现地缘政治权力真空"]
end
subgraph LawOfJungle["丛林法则与自卫竞赛"]
C --> D["大国奉行实力至上<br/>俄中与美各自单边行动"]
D --> E["小国缺乏安全屏障<br/>乌克兰受挫引发自危"]
E --> F["唯有核武才能自保<br/>全球面临核扩散高危风险"]
end
```
### [11:25](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nJeU72Rgjh4&t=685s) 核威慑与终极安全感：九个核大国的现实与荒诞
面对巴特利特的担忧，基辛强调西方未能全力支持乌克兰击退俄罗斯，带来了灾难性的示范效应。当全世界看到无核国家在遭受侵略时任人宰割、而核大国却因手握核按钮而无法被攻击时，对任何中小国家而言，研制核武器就成了唯一理性且唯一的终极安全保障。这将不可避免地在全世界引发核扩散的狂潮。
巴特利特追问，世界是否正分裂成由9到10个核大国主导并为所欲为的格局。基辛澄清指出，核大国之间也有天壤之别，并非每个拥有核武的国家都能对外扩张。巴基斯坦受制于自身国力与有限的核武库，周边邻国也多为核大国，很难像巨型超级大国那样横冲直撞；真正在国际地缘舞台上不受约束的，始终是美、俄、中三巨头。
谈及全球公认的9个拥有核武器的国家（美国、俄罗斯、英国、法国、中国、印度、巴基斯坦、朝鲜、以色列）时，基辛不仅开玩笑称自己“全力支持英国重新入侵法国”（随后笑着澄清这纯属玩笑），还犀利讽刺了以色列在核问题上人尽皆知的官方态度：“我们绝对没有核武器，但如果以色列国家面临灭亡威胁，我们百分之百会动用它们。”
### [13:34](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nJeU72Rgjh4&t=814s) 欧洲的“经济自杀”：高福利陷阱与“净零排放”幻想
回顾西方如何一步步沦落至此，基辛指出，在“9·11”事件之后，西方不仅失去了历史使命感，更丧失了对危险与风险的起码警惕，陷入了极度舒适与怠惰。基辛抛出一组令人震惊的数据来证明欧洲的虚弱与懈怠：
- **人口占比**：欧洲仅占全球总人口的 **12%**。
- **经济体量**：欧洲创造了全球约 **25%** 的 GDP。
- **福利开支**：欧洲却消耗了全球高达 **60%** 的社会福利支出。
基辛认为，这种沉溺于安逸的心态导致欧洲集体滑向了被称为“净零排放（Net Zero）”的“经济自杀”政策。由于数十年未曾感受过生存威胁，欧洲各国将大量精力耗费在“奢侈信念（luxury beliefs）”上。最典型的就是德国：盲目关闭自身的核电站，彻底将国家能源命脉寄托在俄罗斯天然气上。结果当俄乌战争爆发时，德国最初能拿出来的援助竟然只是令人啼笑皆非的“5000顶头盔”。
英国同样难逃厄运。英国如今承受着整个发达国家中最高的工业电价，彻底摧毁了本国的制造业基础，甚至已经沦落到无法生产原始原生钢铁（virgin steel）的地步。基辛感叹道，钢铁是国防和军事工业的基石，而欧洲因为长期的盲目自大与毫无危机感，完全抛弃了物质工业基础，如今严酷的现实后果终于找上了门。
### [15:22](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nJeU72Rgjh4&t=922s) 英国沦为配角：债务高企、军费萎缩与盟友价值的丧失
当巴特利特询问英国和欧洲在全球权力层级中的位置时，基辛毫不留情地给出了结论：“地位正在暴跌。”基辛举例指出，在特朗普摧毁伊朗核设施的“12天战争”中，根本没有人征求过英国的意见；在委内瑞拉问题上，英国首相基尔·斯塔默（Keir Starmer）第二天只能被动地对媒体表示自己“毫不知情”。
基辛解释，这并非因为美国人讨厌英国——事实上美国大众极具亲英情结，热爱英国文化和口音——而是因为英国已经让自己变得无足轻重。特朗普眼中唯有“实力”，而今天的英国和欧洲既不强大，也毫无用处。盟友关系本质上就像婚姻，双方必须各自带资源上桌，而英国如今对美国毫无利用价值。
尽管英国士兵、水手和飞行员依然保持着极高的专业素养、技术优势与勇气，但历任工党和保守党政府持续削减国防，导致国家机器严重虚脱。基辛列出了一系列刺眼的财政现实：
- **利息压倒国防**：英国每年的国债利息支出已经是国防预算的 **1.5倍**，并且正在迅速逼近国防预算的 **2倍**；英国每年偿还债务的钱远远超过保家卫国的军费。
- **负债率失控**：英国的公共债务占 GDP 比例已经**超过 100%**。
- **税负历史最高**：英国正承受着和平时期历史上最高的税负水平，但这些高昂的税收既没有用于强化军队，也没有投入核心建设，而是被无休止地消耗在庞大的社会福利与不切实际的“奢侈信念”之中。
### [17:59](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nJeU72Rgjh4&t=1079s) 英国经济衰退与外交失误：如何一步步走向“无足轻重”
康斯坦丁·基辛（Konstantin Kisin）指出，整个欧洲长期以来都在不断透支未来，向子孙后代借债度日，给自己发放根本负担不起的福利与资金。美国虽然也背负着高额债务，但与欧洲不同的是，美国拥有一个仍在强劲增长的经济体。反观英国，其人均 GDP（GDP per capita）在今天甚至低于 2006 年的水平。基辛强调，人均指标才是真正衡量个体福祉的关键——换句话说，英国普通人今天的实际经济状况比 20 年前还要拮据。英国不仅经济陷入衰退，还亲手摧毁了自己的制造业，严重削弱了国防武装力量。
除了硬实力的自我折损，英国在外交上的短视与轻率也让其国际地位雪上加霜。基辛直言不讳地指出，唐纳德·特朗普（Donald Trump）显然对外界针对他个人的评价极为敏感，但英国工党现政府在野时期，却日复一日地对他展开猛烈抨击与羞辱。以英国外交大臣戴维·拉米（David Lammy）为例，他过去针对特朗普发表的言论堪称“极度不负责任”。一个潜在要执掌国家外交大权、维系英美特殊关系的人，竟然如此鲁莽不智。基辛讽刺道，你之前把对方骂得体无完肤，现在当特朗普就全球地缘政治做出重大决策时，你却反过来巴望对方把你当回事、认真倾听你的诉求？“行为必有后果（Actions have consequences）”，英国今天的被边缘化正是自身种下的苦果。不过，基辛也表示自己并非全盘悲观，只要英国痛定思痛，在战略和行为上做出翻天覆地的彻底调整，未来依然存在转圜的余地。
### [19:41](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nJeU72Rgjh4&t=1181s) 英国已沦为看客：留在“下沉之船”上的责任与坚守
当主持人史蒂芬·巴特利特（Steven Bartlett）追问，若照目前的轨道继续走下去，英国最终会走向何方时，基辛给出了冷酷的断言：“我们已经到了，我们已经变得无足轻重（We're irrelevant）。”当委内瑞拉局势突变，没有人会关心英国的看法；当伊朗遭受空袭打击，也没有人在意英国的立场。未来所有重大的地缘政治决断，都将在完全无视英国的情况下展开，因为那些决策只属于全球主要强权，而英国已经退出了这个行列。
谈及个人选择，史蒂芬提到许多人将英国视作一艘“正在下沉的船”，并好奇基辛为何仍然选择定居英国。基辛幽默地调侃史蒂芬移居美国为自己的播客扫清了竞争对手（“这让我们成为了英国本土同领域最大的播客，我对此心存感激”），但随后神情严肃地表达了自己对英国的深厚感情。他坦言自己也收到过前往海外发展的各种优厚邀约，但他热爱英国并心怀感恩。他认为坚守在这里、为国家的未来发声并努力说服大众促成“英国复兴（British renaissance）”，是自己义不容辞的责任。当被问及内心是否抱有希望时，基辛坦率地回答：“并不抱希望，但我还没有绝望到放弃的程度。”他认为事情远未到彻底无望的地步，只要一切条件能够汇聚、配合一定的运气，局面依然有望逆转。
史蒂芬分享了自己的个人成长体验：他 33 年前出生于博茨瓦纳（Botswana），年幼时移居英国，在他一生的认知里，英国一直是一个举足轻重、经济实力远胜于非洲老家的世界强国。对于他这个年纪的英国人来说，英国会失去这种地位几乎是不可想象的。基辛直言，正是这种普遍的理所当然的自满情绪把国家推向了深渊——全民集体产生了一种错觉，以为无论做什么蠢事，英国永远都会是那个经济发达、军队强大、影响力遍布全球的“大英帝国”。然而，基辛强调英国并非没有翻盘的底牌：
- **杰出的人口与教育**：拥有极高的国民教育水平，以及历史上催生无数科技与科学突破的创新土壤。
- **巨大的文化影响力**：诞生了全球人类历史上最伟大的摇滚乐队中的半壁江山；即便单口喜剧（Stand-up comedy）发源于美国，英国也涌现出了一批世界最顶级的喜剧大师。
- **致命的短板**：空有卓越的经济、文化和科技潜力，却在极长的时间里严重缺乏正确的国家战略与真正有能力的政治领导力。
```mermaid
flowchart TD
accTitle: The Cycle of British Decline
accDescr: Diagram showing how complacency, economic erosion, and leadership failure led to geopolitical irrelevance.
subgraph Mindset["自满与幻想"]
A["历史惯性思维<br/>'我们永远是强大英帝国'"] --> B["忽视战略与短视决策<br/>'胡乱挥霍与产业去工业化'"]
end
subgraph Erosion["实力受损"]
B --> C["经济与国防衰退<br/>人均GDP倒退至2006年以下<br/>制造业与武装力量萎缩"]
B --> D["外交失策<br/>政客在野期频繁攻击盟友领导人"]
end
subgraph Consequence["现实困境"]
C --> E["沦为地缘政治看客<br/>重大决策被彻底无视"]
D --> E
E --> F["国内民众实际生活水平停滞<br/>引发深层社会焦虑与不满"]
end
```
### [22:47](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nJeU72Rgjh4&t=1367s) 宏观裂痕投射至个体生活：社会极化与激进主义的温床
史蒂芬提出疑问：对于英美两国的普通大众而言，地缘政治的宏大叙事往往显得高高在上，多极世界的降临与英国的衰落究竟会通过何种症状具体影响每一个普通人？基辛回答，最直接的症状就是“你今天的人均实际收入比 20 年前更低”。当前国内许多看似聚焦于特定议题的激烈辩论（例如针对大规模移民的争议），本质上都是经济停滞的替罪羊与代理人战争——如果经济处于蓬勃增长期、人人都感受到财富在增加，这些矛盾绝不会如此尖锐。此外，多极化秩序必然更加动荡和暴力，仅在 1 月的前两周，全球地缘政治就已经爆发了惊人程度的动荡。当国家不得不把大量稀缺资源消耗在应对海外危机上时，国内民生治理必然被严重挤压。
这种停滞与动荡进一步催生了年轻一代政治光谱的两极化。基辛分享了自己去年圣诞节前在伦敦举行线下签售会时的一段经历：一位父亲走上前来无奈地倾诉，自己家里的两个青少年孩子正在走向截然相反的极端——他每天既要费尽心思把女儿从“极左翼”拉回来，又要竭力阻止儿子滑向“极右翼”。基辛分析，剧烈的文化动荡与秩序崩塌让一部分人极度渴望恢复秩序与权威，从而倒向右翼；而另一部分人则感受到了巨大的社会不公与阶层固化，将怒火发泄在富人阶层身上，疯狂鼓吹“劫富济贫（Eat the rich）”与财富激进重组。
### [24:20](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nJeU72Rgjh4&t=1460s) 青年一代的绝望与“精英过剩”危机
针对大城市中社会主义思潮（例如左翼代表人物佐兰·马姆达尼 Zohran Mamdani 胜选等现象）的抬头，基辛剖析了其背后的深层动力。年轻人特别是大城市的年轻人感到未来的希望被彻底剥夺：房价高不可攀、根本买不起房，无力成家立业，正常生活的门槛被无限拔高。因此，他们病急乱投医，饥不择食地拥抱那些早已被历史证明不可行、荒谬透顶的激进社会主义解方。正如基辛此前指出的，上一代人一直在向后代借钱并堆砌天文数字般的国家债务，如今买单的时刻到来，这一代年轻人发现自己注定无法过上理想的生活。基辛认为，虽然美国整体上不至于全面走向社会主义（激进左翼基本局限在纽约等少数大城市），但背后的社会病灶是一致的。
除了住房负担能力危机，基辛还引述了社会学中的**“精英过剩（Elite Overproduction）”**理论来解释这一危机：
- **文凭通胀与期望落差**：从托尼·布莱尔（Tony Blair）时代起，政府推行“让 50% 的大众上大学”的高等教育扩张政策，导致大学毕业生泛滥。
- **技术变革的冲击**：市场根本无法提供与之匹配的高端白领岗位，尤其在当前 AI 技术飞速发展的时代，最先被大规模替代和消灭的正是这些传统白领岗位。
- **社会动荡的根源**：数以百万计的年轻人拥有高高在上的特权感与阶层期望（Entitlement），现实中却面临着跌入谷底的暗淡前景（Prospects），这种巨大的心理落差与社会失落感，正在成为引发整个社会剧烈动荡与极端主义狂潮的火药桶。
### [26:52](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nJeU72Rgjh4&t=1612s) 自动驾驶与人形机器人：人类最大就业池的瓦解
人工智能（AI）的爆发正在彻底重塑全球劳动力市场，并成为推动社会主义思潮再次抬头的核心催化剂。多位被誉为“AI教父”的先驱与顶级科技公司首席执行官已达成普遍共识：由AI引发的失业潮将以极其迅猛且极端的态势席卷而来。在许多英国民众尚未察觉这一剧变时，身处美国的观察者已经切身体会到了技术奇点的临近。最直观的震撼莫过于自动驾驶技术的落地——如今在美国驾驶车辆，驾驶员可以全程不触碰方向盘和踏板，车辆便能顺畅无阻地完成长达两三个小时的长途行程（例如前往约书亚树国家公园）。驾驶作为全球雇佣人数最多的职业之一，涵盖了海量的货运司机、出租车及网约车司机，而随着伦敦正式批准 Waymo 落地、特斯拉（Tesla）全自动驾驶（FSD）的推进，数以千万计的从业者即将面临生计被彻底颠覆的风险。
硬件与智能成本的断崖式下跌，让具身智能与人形机器人迎来爆发式拐点。特斯拉的人形机器人 Optimus 正加速落地，投资人杰森·卡拉卡尼斯（Jason Calacanis）在参观特斯拉工厂后甚至断言，未来全球将涌现出十亿台此类机器人，人们未来记住特斯拉很可能不再是因为电动汽车，而是其制造的人形机器人。旧金山创业生态的剧变同样印证了这一浪潮：在当地的孵化加速器中，数十位年轻创始人扎堆投身机器人赛道。其背后的核心逻辑在于，机械臂、关节等物理硬件在过去二三十年间早已成熟且廉价，此前最大的瓶颈在于高昂的“大脑”（即具身智能），过去让一个煎锅机械臂自主炒菜的计算智能成本高达两三万美元，而如今调用尖端大模型智能的边际成本仅需两美分。
在旧金山街头，目睹四分之一到三分之一的车辆完全没有人类驾驶员，视觉冲击极其强烈。科技初创企业一方面背负着“如果西方不做，中国就会抢占先机”的地缘科技竞争压力，另一方面也充斥着硅谷经典的“快速行动，打破陈规”（move fast and break things）激进心态。纵观人类历史，颠覆性技术总会引发阵痛与社会反弹，但这一次的冲击维度远超以往。数以百万计的人类将被挤出劳动市场，其中年轻人首当其冲，而这一群体历来最容易滑向政治极端主义。
```mermaid
flowchart TD
accTitle: AI 与机器人技术对就业及社会思潮的冲击链条
accDescr: 展示从技术成本下降到劳动力替代，再到财富集中与极端政治思潮抬头的因果传导过程
subgraph TechBreakthrough["技术拐点"]
A["具身智能与大脑成本暴跌<br>（从数万美元降至两美分）"] --> B["完全自动驾驶普及<br>（Waymo / Tesla FSD）"]
A --> C["人形机器人量产<br>（Tesla Optimus 等）"]
end
subgraph LaborDisruption["就业市场重构"]
B & C --> D["全球最大就业池瓦解<br>（司机、物流、蓝领工种）"]
D --> E["大规模青年失业群体形成"]
end
subgraph SociopoliticalImpact["社会与政治反弹"]
E --> F["对生存与价值的深层焦虑"]
F --> G["极端主义抬头与激进财富再分配诉求<br>（社会主义 / 共产主义呼声）"]
end
```
- **全球第一大职业群体的危机**：交通运输与配送业雇佣了全球最庞大的人口基数，随着 Waymo 进驻伦敦及特斯拉 FSD 的普及，网约车、出租车与货运司机面临断崖式失业。
- **智能成本暴跌**：机械臂等物理硬件已低成本存在数十年，但赋予其自主操作能力的智能软件成本从 20,000 至 30,000 美元骤降至两美分左右。
- **机器人数量预测**：埃隆·马斯克（Elon Musk）计划量产上百万台 Optimus 机器人，而硅谷投资圈预期未来全球具身机器人规模将突破十亿台。
---
### [30:22](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nJeU72Rgjh4&t=1822s) 零就业世界中的极端财富集中与“刺刀下的共产主义”
生产力与资本收益的高度垄断，正在将人类推向一个前所未有的制度十字路口。若未来的全部财富均由机器人和算法创造，全球极少数人（例如50个科技寡头）将掌控全球绝大部分财富，而绝大多数普通人则彻底失去出卖劳动力获取报酬的机会。康斯坦丁·基辛（Konstantin Kisin）直言，尽管自己写过一整本书阐述基于切身经历对社会主义与共产主义的坚决反对，但在一个“所有人都没有工作”的极端未来里，他“百分之百赞成共产主义”。
在财富极度失衡、大众毫无收入来源的情境下，激进的财富再分配将变得不可避免。社会根本无法通过人为捏造“虚假工作”来维系运转，唯一的出路便是“人只要活着就能领到报酬”的普遍基本收入（UBI）或共产主义分配模式。如果财富完全归属于二十年前提出创意或完成早期搭建的少数人手中，整个社会系统将彻底崩溃。寡头集团只有两条路可走：要么主动交出巨额财富进行自愿再分配，要么最终迎来“在刺刀尖上发生的暴力清算”。
- **分配模式的必然转向**：当人类劳动被彻底剥离生产环节，“唯有靠劳动换取生存”的传统经济契约失效，制度被迫走向按人头发放生存保障的模式。
- **历史周期的激化**：财富高度集中若缺乏制度性疏导通道，青年失业率的高企将成为点燃激进暴力革命的火药桶。
---
### [31:43](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nJeU72Rgjh4&t=1903s) 告别既定职业轨道：父母在技术断代期应如何培养下一代
面对这场在有生之年必将降临的巨大技术断层，个体的生存策略与家庭教育范式必须被彻底重塑。对于从事观点输出与思想交流的播客主或评论员而言，短期内尚具备一定的不可替代性，因为受众在情感上并不渴望听取机器人的见解；但在更长的时间轴上，任何既定职业都无法独善其身。不少人建议年轻一代去学习水电工、管道维修等传统蓝领技艺以规避 AI 冲击，但随着机器人灵巧度与具身智能的飞跃，十五至二十年后哪怕是管道工这一岗位同样可能被机器取代。
这种不确定性标志着“接受教育—习得专门技能—进入大学—深耕既定职业”这一延续了数十年的确定性人生路径彻底终结。人类再次置身于剧烈的大转型时代，父母能为子女提供的最佳装备不再是某种固化的职业技能，而是底层的通用生命素养：
1. **强大的适应力与弹性（Flexibility）**：在职场范式频繁颠覆的时代随需而变；
2. **极高的人际交往亲和力（Personable）**：维系人类特有的情感连接与共情；
3. **极强的主动性与进取心（Positive Go-Getter Mindset）**：在秩序瓦解中持续探寻资源与机会；
4. **创造力与综合应变力（Resourcefulness）**：除非直接投身于 AI 与机器人前沿研发，否则任何既定的单一职业规划在五年以上的时间跨度中都将面临被抹去的风险。
---
### [33:23](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nJeU72Rgjh4&t=2003s) 外星人降临般的集体焦虑与科技界的不负责任宣传
AI 普及所带来的不仅是实际岗位的缩减，更是一场广泛弥漫的“存在主义焦虑”（Existential Angst）。在大中型企业中，员工们几乎每天都在接受首席执行官的警告：“要么学会使用 AI，要么被其淘汰”。这种氛围犹如天文望远镜已经探测到外星舰队正跨越地平线逼近地球，尽管外星人尚未彻底着陆，但大众已经清晰得知他们是来剥夺人类的工作与赖以生存的一切。这种深深的无力感与恐惧，正从心理层面驱使大量普通大众倒向诉求托底与均贫富的社会主义观念。
科技行业在对外发声层面的傲慢与缺乏社会责任感，极大地激化了这种对立情绪。在纽约时代广场的巨幅商业广告牌上，曾赫然打出“停止招聘人类，AI 雇员时代已经到来”（Stop hiring humans. The age of the AI employee is here）的冷血标语。这种狂妄的宣发完全无视了普通人内心的恐慌与愤怒。诚然，AI 的潜在正面效益近乎无穷无尽——它有望彻底攻克癌症、突破基础物理学瓶颈、甚至解决人类永恒的能源危机；但科技精英若只沉醉于技术奇迹的乌托邦，而漠视大众切实的生计恐惧，这种理性的焦虑必将演变成难以承受的社会风暴。斯蒂芬·巴特利特（Steven Bartlett）随后调出了埃隆·马斯克关于特斯拉人形机器人 Optimus 即将公开发布的最新讲话视频，揭示这场颠覆已然兵临城下。
- **外星人隐喻**：将 AI 的突袭比作已从地平线现身的外星舰队，虽未全面降临，但全社会已被“生存资料与自我价值将被彻底夺走”的恐慌所笼罩。
- **时代广场广告事件**：科技公司公然使用“停止雇佣人类”作为营销噱头，反映出硅谷精英层与普通工薪大众心理脱节的严重程度。
- **两极化的科技未来**：无限的治愈绝症与能源解放潜力，与千万人失去饭碗的现实焦虑同时存在，构成当下时代最核心的心理张力。
### [35:24](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nJeU72Rgjh4&t=2124s) 医疗的终结？Optimus 机器人与外科医生的未来
对话延续了对科技颠覆的探讨，聚焦于马斯克（Elon Musk）关于人形机器人 Optimus 在医疗领域的惊人预言。当被问及机器人何时能在外科手术上超越最顶尖的人类医生时，马斯克的回答是“三年”，而且是“规模化普及（at scale）”。届时，世界上优秀的 Optimus 手术机器人数量甚至会超过全球所有人类外科医生的总和。即便放宽误差范围，认为需要四到五年，在需要极度精准的整形外科等领域，五年内人类也将完全无法与机器人相提并论。
这一前景带来的直接冲击是，全球最高水平的医疗服务未来可能接近免费，甚至普通人获得的医疗护理质量将超过如今美国总统所能享受的待遇。对此，主持人和嘉宾得出一个略带戏剧性却极为现实的结论：“现在去读医学院已经毫无意义了。”Konstantin 指出，马斯克作为这些技术的创造者，其言论显然受制于商业激励机制和个人的乐观主义天性，存在一定的“推销”成分。但即便三年的预测过于激进，这一转折点在十年之内也极大概率会到来。考虑到培养一名合格医生本身就需要漫长的时间周期，年轻一代面临的职业颠覆已近在咫尺。
- **马斯克的核心预测**：Optimus 手术机器人在 3 年内实现规模化，表现优于顶尖人类外科医生；4 到 5 年内全面碾压人类整形外科水平。
- **深远后果**：顶尖医疗几乎变得零成本普及，人人都可享有超越当今元首级别的医疗资源；医学院教育的实用价值面临崩塌。
- **Konstantin 的时间线评估**：即使存在商业吹捧，颠覆期最长也不会超过 10 年。
---
### [37:04](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nJeU72Rgjh4&t=2224s) 伊朗的抗争与西方的“口头支持”困局
话题转向中东，聚焦于伊朗街头爆发的危险且英勇的民众起义。Konstantin 解释道，这场运动本质上是一场“未遂的反革命（attempted counterrevolution）”。1979年伊朗爆发伊斯兰革命，推翻了巴列维国王（the Shah），建立起延续至今的伊斯兰神权独裁统治。几十年来，伊朗人民一次又一次试图推翻这个政权，却屡屡遭到极其残酷的流血镇压。
尽管特朗普在社交平台上措辞极其强硬——声称美军“已锁定、子弹上膛、随时待命（locked, loaded, and ready to go）”，威胁对所有与伊朗开展贸易的国家加征 25% 的关税，取消了与伊朗官员的所有会面，并打出“让伊朗再次伟大（MIGA - Make Iran Great Again）”的口号呼吁人民继续抗争——但现实中美军并未采取任何实质性的军事干预。Konstantin 指出，这反映了当今地缘政治的冰冷现实：美国公众对卷入海外战争深恶痛绝，执政者根本无法向国内民众兜售一场在中东推动政权更迭的方案。这使得伊朗统治集团意识到西方不会真正动手，从而在镇压抗议时更显肆无忌惮。
Konstantin 动情地回顾了伊朗悠久灿烂的历史与文化底蕴。在 1979 年之前，德黑兰街头随处可见身穿短裙、神采奕奕的自由女性，这与当今外界对中东的刻板印象大相径庭。然而，对于这种反抗，他表达了极深的悲观与同情：西方常常通过媒体和政客大肆高喊“我们与你们站在一起”，就像对待乌克兰那样摇旗呐喊，可当民众冒着生命危险走上街头后，西方提供的实质支援却微乎其微。目前因网络封锁，外界难以确认确切死伤，但据传遇难人数在 2,000 至 18,000 人之间。Konstantin 忧心忡忡地表示，他的最大恐惧是：在缺乏西方强力托底的情况下，独裁政权只会杀掉足够多的人，直到街头重归死寂。
```mermaid
flowchart TD
accTitle: 伊朗抗争与西方介入的困局
accDescr: 展示伊朗民众反抗、西方口头声援但缺乏军事介入、以及缺乏后续接盘方案所导致的历史循环困局。
subgraph 民众抗争与代价
A["1979年建立伊斯兰神权统治"] --> B["民众爆发反抗并要求自由"]
B --> C["政权残酷镇压（传2,000-18,000人遇难）"]
end
subgraph 西方与特朗普的反应
D["强硬口头施压与经济制裁<br/>（关税25%、取消外交会面）"] --> E{"是否派兵落地干预？"}
E -- "美民意极度厌战<br/>缺乏干涉胃口" --> F["无实质军事动作"]
end
subgraph 潜在结局与历史陷阱
F --> G["独裁政权残暴扑灭反抗"]
E -. 若强行推翻政权.-> H["后继方案缺失：<br/>重蹈利比亚/伊拉克/埃及覆辙"]
end
```
---
### [42:12](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nJeU72Rgjh4&t=2532s) 政权更迭的“次日陷阱”：从利比亚到埃及的历史教训
主持人指出，特朗普的外交风格往往是“言出必行”的，正如马可·卢比奥（Marco Rubio）等人此前所强调的那样，当特朗普警告要在委内瑞拉或伊朗核问题上采取行动时，外界最好相信他是认真的。但在面对台湾问题时，特朗普的态度却显得更为现实和保留，这与拜登公开承诺保卫台湾的表态形成鲜明对比。
Konstantin 强调，即便特朗普真的有决心帮助伊朗人民解除压迫，最关键的问题在于：“除掉独裁者之后怎么办？”西方过去在这一问题上犯下过连串灾难性错误：
- **利比亚、伊拉克、阿富汗**：强行推翻暴政后，留下的却是权力真空与更深重的宗派屠杀；
- **叙利亚**：如今陷入事实上的圣战分子割据；
- **埃及**：在“阿拉伯之春”推翻独裁者后，民众民选出的却是穆斯林兄弟会，最终民众不得不反过来呼吁军政府重掌大权。
即便迎回前国王之子礼萨·巴列维（Reza Pahlavi）主持民主过渡，谁来保护这一脆弱的民主进程不被旧政权残余力量反扑？在美军绝不可能“靴子落地（boots on the ground）”驻军维稳的前提下，缺乏可落地的战后善后方案，盲目行动只会制造新的废墟。
---
### [44:01](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nJeU72Rgjh4&t=2641s) 特朗普觊觎格陵兰：帝国势力范围的卷土重来？
对话最后触及了特朗普近期针对格陵兰岛（Greenland）引发的轩然大波。起初外界以为这只是典型的“特朗普式玩笑”——就像他曾开玩笑将加拿大称为“美国伟大的加拿大州”一样。然而在近期的采访中，特朗普却严肃表示，无论采取“容易的方式还是艰难的方式（the easy way or the hard way）”，美国都要拿下格陵兰。
Konstantin 剖析指出，这绝非单纯的口嗨，而是超级大国对自身“势力范围（sphere of influence）”的强势巩固。格陵兰地处北极战略航道要冲，坐拥极其丰富的稀缺资源，同时具备不可替代的军事基地部署价值。从委内瑞拉到格陵兰，美国正在重新圈定并保卫其在北美及南美的绝对控制权。面对主持人“我们是否正在重返帝国时代”的追问，大国地缘角力赤裸裸的扩张逻辑已然再次浮出水面。
### [44:38](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nJeU72Rgjh4&t=2678s) 帝国逻辑的回归与多极世界格局的成形
康斯坦丁·基辛（Konstantin Kisin）直言不讳地指出，人类社会“从未真正走出过帝国时代”（"We never left empire"）。在他看来，西方长期以来沉浸在一种不切实际的幻梦中，假装弱肉强食的大国竞争已经消失，但现实是世界自始至终都在按照这种残酷的逻辑运转。二战后短暂的稳定与秩序，本质上是大国对抗下的特殊产物：冷战时期美苏两极争霸，全球各地充斥着代理人战争；而在当今时代，格局演变为中美两大超级大国角逐，外加一个力图维持大国地位的俄罗斯，以及正在崛起且行事务实的印度。唐纳德·特朗普（Donald Trump）的各种强硬地缘战略动作，其底层逻辑不过是在挑明真相：既然别国从不遵守所谓的国际规则，美国也不会再继续遵守这套虚伪的“假规则”。
主持人史蒂文·巴特利特（Steven Bartlett）追问，特朗普是否正试图控制属于其势力范围的地区，基辛对此予以完全肯定。他解释道，控制周边邻国、将外部势力彻底驱逐出自家“后院”，以确保自身拥有压倒性的地缘战略优势，这是古往今来每一个大国的生存本能。当史蒂文提到自己在过去三十年中鲜少听到如此赤裸的强权话语时，基辛强调现实格局已经不可逆转地走向了多极化。
```mermaid
flowchart TD
accTitle: 全球多极势力竞争格局
accDescr: 展示中美两极主导、俄印角力以及欧洲边缘化的多极地缘结构。
subgraph Core["核心两极"]
US["美国 (US)"]
CN["中国 (China)"]
end
subgraph Contenders["关键力量"]
RU["俄罗斯 (Russia)<br/>力争第三极地位"]
IN["印度 (India)<br/>务实崛起中"]
end
subgraph Periphery["陷入边缘化的欧洲"]
EU["欧洲国家 (Europe)<br/>经济政策自戕 / 缺乏硬实力"]
end
US <-->|"战略博弈与重塑规则"| CN
RU -.->|"区域扰动"| Core
IN -.->|"独立发展"| Core
Core ==>|"挤压边缘化"| EU
```
---
### [46:07](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nJeU72Rgjh4&t=2767s) 欧洲边缘化危机与自救路线图
面对多极化对欧洲普通人究竟是福是祸的提问，基辛给出了极具悲观色彩的判断：对于生活在欧洲的人而言，这大概率是场灾难，因为欧洲正在变得“更弱小、更贫穷、更无足轻重”（"less powerful, less wealthy, less relevant"）。但他随即补充道，如果欧洲愿意痛定思痛做出根本改变，这种衰落并非无法挽回。基辛系统性地提出了重塑欧洲竞争力的四项核心措施：
首先，欧洲必须彻底废除当下这种“自杀式的经济政策”（suicidal economic policy），全力重启经济增长以扩大占全球 GDP 的份额。只有蛋糕做大、民众重新富裕起来，国内日益加剧的社会怨气才能得到抚平。基辛打了个生动的比方：就像搬到阳光明媚的洛杉矶生活一样，人们变富裕时情绪总会变好。
其次，欧洲必须正视并系统性解决移民问题。虽然大规模移民带来过部分积极因素，但也引发了巨大的文化动荡。选民一次又一次投票反对大规模移民，却眼睁睁看着国家被撕裂成互不相通的割裂族群（"this community, that community"）。基辛强调，政府必须坚决遏制非法移民，因为这种现象极大地破坏了社会的公平感与公民对国家的忠诚纽带。当下许多西方年轻人之所以陷入幻灭并拒绝为国家而战，正是因为他们发现自己连房子都买不起，政府却在动用纳税人的钱为新涌入的无证移民解决食宿。欧洲需要停止大规模人口涌入，转而全力整合现存的移民群体，重新确立统一的国家身份认同。
最后，欧洲必须重建军队与国防制造能力，并在地缘博弈中明确站队。基辛认为，对英国而言最明智的选择就是坚定维护并深化与美国的同盟关系，发挥自身在盟友体系中的独特价值，协同应对全球风暴。
---
### [48:45](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nJeU72Rgjh4&t=2925s) 人口断崖危机与 GDP 增长的“统计骗局”
除了经济、安全与移民，基辛认为欧洲乃至西方复兴面临的最关键死穴是生育率，他直言：“我们必须生更多的孩子，多得多的孩子。”撇开道义与政治正确的说教，国家竞争最基础的算术规律就是人口规模：在其他条件相同的前提下，人口更多的国家必然拥有更强的综合国力。欧洲当前正深陷“人口死亡螺旋”（demographic death spiral），而这也是西方政客秘而不宣、拼命推行大规模移民的真实动因。
政客们绝不会向大众承认真相：如果不引入几十万外来人口，欧洲持续变穷的事实就会立刻暴露无遗。只要人口基数扩大，即便人均 GDP 在下降，政客也可以吹嘘国家实现了“0.3% 的经济微增”，借此掩盖社会生产力停滞的败局。为了让听众更直观地理解这种统计学戏法，基辛举了一个通俗的家庭收支账本模型：
| 指标 | 初始家庭核心成员（4口人） | 引入低收入亲属（增至6口人） | 实际变化与本质 |
|:--- |:--- |:--- |:--- |
| **家庭构成** | 夫妇2人 + 孩子2人 | 夫妇2人 + 孩子2人 + 岳父母2人 | 人口总数扩张 50% |
| **年总收入** | £100,000 | £120,000（老人各赚 £10,000） | 账面总收入增长 20% |
| **人均收入** | **£25,000** | **£20,000** | **人均实际财富下降 20%** |
| **现实映射** | 原生社会的真实发展水平 | 盲目引入低技能劳动力粉饰报表 | 宏观 GDP 增长，大众实际生活水平严重缩水 |
基辛进一步强调，除了冷冰冰的经济数字，缺少儿童的社会往往缺乏活力，充斥着老年人口的社会容易变得死气沉沉。唯有源源不断的新生血液，才能维持社会的进取心和创新动力，驱动下一代向前发展。
---
### [50:58](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nJeU72Rgjh4&t=3058s) 商业赞助插播：Shopify 与 Ketone-IQ
史蒂文在此处插播了本期节目的赞助商信息：
- **Shopify**：新年伊始许多人虽怀揣目标却常因追求完美而不敢迈出第一步。Shopify 为创业者提供全流程建站、社媒分销、多币种收单及内置 AI 工具等一站式服务，目前提供每月 1 美元试用期优惠。
- **Ketone-IQ**：史蒂文谈及自己在偶然试用这款由公司同事 Lily 摆在工位上的外源酮补充剂后，因其对提升专注度、精力及工作效率有显著成效，遂决定投资成为其合伙人。目前该产品在全美 Target 门店均有销售，并为听众提供专属订阅折扣。
---
### [52:58](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nJeU72Rgjh4&t=3178s) 英国的治理困境与全社会的“悲观自证”
播客回归正题后，史蒂文询问基辛对英国首相基尔·斯塔默（Keir Starmer）执政表现的评价。基辛指出，虽然人们习惯于把所有问题归咎于特定领导人（正如将所有问题都简单归为拜登或特朗普），但客观事实是，斯塔默目前的治理毫无疑问是失败的。当前英国面临着“和平时期历史最高水平的税收负担”，极其沉重的税负直接扼杀了工商业的生机。
基辛直接向史蒂文求证：“我敢打赌，你随口就能列出 50 个由于营商环境恶化而带着企业离开英国的企业家朋友。”正在点头的史蒂文对这一现象表示深切认同。基辛强调，税率飙升、资本外逃与整体生活质量的直线滑坡构成了英国的恶性循环。更为致命的是，一种普遍弥漫的社会悲观情绪正在笼罩英国，而这种悲观情绪正在不可避免地变成一场自怨自艾的“自我实现预言”（self-fulfilling prophecy），彻底锁死了国家向上突破的空间。
### [53:50](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nJeU72Rgjh4&t=3230s) 创业者的“出逃计划”与英国将财富污名化的恶性循环
Steven Bartlett 分享了自己投资组合中一个令人不安的常态：如今创始人常常跑来跟他说，刚以 2000 万英镑的价格出售了公司 10% 的股权，而紧接着的下一句话就是他们准备离开英国的“出逃计划”（escape plan）。在十年前，这种情况根本不会发生。Konstantin Kisin 指出，这完全是政府政策直接造成的后果：政府一方面以惊人的高税率对富人横征暴敛，另一方面在社会舆论上不断将成功人士塑造成“邪恶”的代名词。在当下的英国社会算法中，只要你富有，你就被默认是有罪和享有特权的。
Kisin 提出了他的核心理论，认为这种仇富心理可以追溯到历史上的“乡绅阶层”（landed gentry）观念——过去在英国，如果一个人富有，几乎肯定是因为他老爸有钱，财富被视为某种不当得利的特权。而在美国，文化截然不同，人们看到成功者会说：“你成功是因为你努力且有好点子，我想向你学习，成为像你一样的人”；但在英国，人们的第一反应却是：“你发财了，我们必须课重税收割你”。Kisin 打了个生动的比方：如果一个男人晚上回到家，妻子对他说“钱全是你挣的，但你就是个混球，我很讨厌你”，时间一久，任何人都会选择离开，去一个自己被欢迎和珍惜的地方。
```mermaid
flowchart TD
accTitle: 英国资本与人才外流的恶性循环
accDescr: 展示英国高税收与仇富文化如何导致财富创造者外逃并最终缩小税基的循环过程。
subgraph Culture["社会心态与政策"]
A["高额税负与过度监管"] --> B["将成功者污名化<br/>（'富人即邪恶'）"]
end
subgraph Impact["商业与人才流失"]
B --> C["高技能人才与创业者制定出逃计划"]
C --> D["企业外迁至迪拜/美国等低税与亲商环境"]
end
subgraph Fiscal["财政危机与反噬"]
D --> E["国家税基严重萎缩"]
E --> F["对未离开的群体进一步加税以填补赤字"]
F --> A
end
```
这种心态直接驱逐了最有进取心、才华和创造力的企业家。再加上“净零排放”（Net Zero）政策使任何高耗能产业在英国变得完全不可行（在 AI 等新兴领域表现尤为明显），以及欧洲繁琐的监管，英国正在自废武功。Kisin 强调，情况原本不必如此，上世纪 90 年代英国曾拥有积极进取、亲商的社会氛围，但这需要强有力的领导者，而现任首相基尔·斯塔默（Keir Starmer）恰恰走向了反面。
---
### [56:13](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nJeU72Rgjh4&t=3373s) 福利陷阱、年轻一代的沉沦与不可削减的财政黑洞
工党政府之所以无法解决核心问题，根源在于国家在福利上支出了巨额资金，将大量本可以工作的人困在福利体系中。Kisin 认为这违背了年轻人自身的利益，甚至违背了他们的真实意愿。他以自己的亲身经历为例：二十岁出头时，他也曾迷茫、抑郁和焦虑，甚至去求职面试时都因为极度紧张而汗流浃背；如果当时有人对他说：“你抑郁焦虑不用去工作了，我们每年给你 2 万英镑，你就在家打 PlayStation 游戏、抽大麻度日吧”，他坦言当时年轻的自己绝对会接受，大多数普通年轻人也会接受。
正是这种“发钱了事”的政策，让国家直接放弃了整整一代年轻人。巨额的福利支出不仅在财政上不可持续，而且在政治上已沦为“不可削减之物”——工党政府此前曾试图削减福利并推行改革，但本党后座议员（backbenchers）立刻发起反叛，政府迅速认怂妥协，转而喊出口号：“我们不改福利了，我们去‘向富人征税’，因为富人税交得不够多”。
---
### [57:33](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nJeU72Rgjh4&t=3453s) 英国税收真相与“劫富”政策的致命反噬
在现场查证真实数据后，事实狠狠反驳了“富人没交够税”的论调：
- 英国收入前 10% 的纳税人缴纳了全英国 **60%** 的个人所得税；在资本利得税上这一比例也基本一致。
- 根据英国皇家税务与海关总署（HMRC）的数据，英国前 **1%** 的顶层纳税人缴纳了全英 **30%** 的个人所得税。
Kisin 警告，当政府把这 1% 的人痛骂为恶人并驱逐他们时，税基将急剧萎缩，结果必然是对留下来的人课征更高的税率，去填补那些纯税收消耗者的赤字。
Steven Bartlett 对此深有感触，坦言自己内心十分矛盾：他曾住在曼彻斯特的 Moss Side，桌子右边堆着催债执法员的信件，左边是一台破烂不堪的笔记本电脑，身上连吃顿饭的钱都没有，翻箱倒柜找 1 英镑硬币只为了去“Young Dar”外卖店买点中餐；18 岁左右的他当时已经打印好了求职者津贴（Jobseeker's Allowance）的申请表，差一点就掉入了福利依赖中，因此他对挣扎在底层的群体怀有极其深切的同理心。但另一方面，作为投资人接触过大量企业家后，他必须向公众道出残酷的现实：那些声称“富人不会离开”的论调完全是谎言，“富人真的会走”。
以英国近年来最成功的金融科技独角兽 Revolut（估值可能达 1000 亿美元）为例，其创始人尼克·斯托隆斯基（Nik Storonsky）已移居阿联酋（迪拜）。Kisin 并不在乎单纯有钱人的离开，他在乎的是“财富创造者”的流失。可靠报道指出，因为斯托隆斯基的离开，英国直接损失了他原本应缴纳的高达 **30 亿英镑** 的潜在资本利得税。
Steven 算了一笔极其直观的经济账：
- 英国普通纳税人平均每年缴纳约 7,000 至 7,500 英镑的税款。
- 用 30 亿英镑除以 7,000 英镑，相当于约 **43 万至 45 万名普通英国纳税人** 全年的税收总和。
- 这意味着，仅仅一位顶级企业家的离开，英国就蒸发了相当于“一整座中等英国城市”全体居民一年的个人所得税收入。
Kisin 讽刺道：“恭喜你们向富人征税，干得漂亮！现在有 50 万普通英国人必须多交税来填补这个窟窿了。”这就是英国当下自欺欺人的政策所带来的残酷代价。
### [01:03:02](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nJeU72Rgjh4&t=3782s) 针对富人的道德绑架与企业家的流失危机
公众对向富人加税的执念已经演变成一种近乎宗教式的“道德审判”。在许多英国民众的思维惯性里，“富人天生就是邪恶的，因此必须承担更多税负”这一信条根深蒂固，以至于任何理性的经济分析都会被完全无视。即便在逻辑上向人们证明这种政策在现实层面根本行不通——过度增税只会迫使高净值人群与优质企业逃离——人们依然拒绝接受。这种脱离现实的做法引发了发人深省的质问：如果一项政策在实践中已被反复证明无效，为什么还要一意孤行？
留住财富创造者的关键，不仅在于税率本身，更在于英国究竟能为他们提供怎样的营商土壤。如果英国能够以经济增长为核心导向，大幅降低能源成本，创始人权衡去留的天平就会明显向本土倾斜。尽管迪拜拥有低税率等诸多优势，但坦率地说，“绝大多数人其实并不情愿必须背井离乡去迪拜生活”。英国本应是一个极具吸引力的宜居之地，只要政府下决心解决治安问题、重塑增长心态，并建立鼓励创业与雇佣员工的税收环境，国家就完全不必失去那些创造未来财富的核心群体。毕竟，国家的综合国力乃至军事防务，本质上全由经济实力决定——没有繁荣的经济支撑，强大陆军或海军便无从谈起。
```mermaid
flowchart TD
accTitle: 英国高税收与高能源成本引发的企业外流恶性循环
accDescr: 展示了道德化加税和高能源成本如何导致资本与人才流向迪拜等地，进而削弱经济与国防力量。
subgraph Trap ["道德陷阱与劣势政策"]
A["公众认知偏见<br/>'富人天生邪恶，必须加税'"] --> B["高企的税负与<br/>昂贵的能源成本"]
B --> C["本土创业环境恶化与<br/>街头治安问题频发"]
end
subgraph Exodus ["资本与人才外流"]
C --> D["企业家与财富创造者<br/>被迫外迁（如迁往迪拜）"]
D --> E["国家税基与<br/>就业岗位流失"]
end
subgraph Consequence ["国力衰退"]
E --> F["经济停滞与财政吃紧"]
F --> G["缺乏资源维持强大陆军与国防"]
G -.->|进一步恶化综合国力| B
end
```
### [01:04:36](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nJeU72Rgjh4&t=3876s) 走出“领袖人格论”：历届政府的体制性失败
讨论谁适合领导英国时，过度聚焦于政治家个人的性格往往会陷入党派偏见的泥潭——只要报出一个名字，立刻就会被贴上“他是某某阵营的人”的标签。与其迷信特定领袖，不如认清英国真正急需的政策组合：如果现任首相基尔·斯塔默（Keir Starmer）明天公开宣布推行全面的“大英帝国复兴变革”——削减企业税、废除净零排放政策、提供全球最低廉的商业能源、重振强大的军队，并增派五万名警力严厉打击伦敦街头犯罪，那么即便再严厉的批评者也会毫不犹豫地选择“誓死追随斯塔默”（"ride or die"）。真正值得支持的不是某种政治招牌，而是这些能拯救国家的切实行径。
针对斯塔默极其低迷的民调数据（仅有约 18% 的英国民众持正面看法，差评率高达 65% 至 72%），将当下的所有灾难单单归咎于他一人既不客观也无意义。斯塔默个人或许心地善良且具备一定的官僚办事能力，但他目前推行的政策方向完全错误：
- **斯塔默的困境**：虽然公众对他的执政表现极度不满，支持率甚至跌破了数任前任的底线，但即使换成保守党的凯米·巴德诺克（Kemi Badenoch），其支持率大概率也同样惨淡，因为两党在深层体制上换汤不换药。
- **三十年的连环衰退**：英国过去三十年遭遇了连绵不断的劣质领导——托尼·布莱尔（Tony Blair）的工党政府展现出极高的行政效率，却非常高效地把国家带向糟糕的方向；此后的保守党与自由民主党联合政府、以及长达十余年的保守党执政同样无能透顶，不仅未能削减不可持续的福利支出，反而大搞“绿色狂想”、严查推特言论并坐视军力萎缩。
- **文化范式的盲区**：福利制度的无度膨胀是历届政府都未能触碰的毒瘤。工党原本有更好的政治资本去缩减开支（不至于像保守党那样直接被扣上“仇视穷人”的帽子），最终却依旧向党内后座议员的妥协屈服。
### [01:08:05](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nJeU72Rgjh4&t=4085s) 文化转型的困局与“加速主义”：净零排放的荒谬现实
改变一个国家的深层文化极其艰难，这种难度不亚于商业管理中跨国团队文化的融合失败——正如试图凭借一腔热血跑到柏林分部去扭转 150 名德国员工根深蒂固的工作文化，最终只会碰一鼻子灰。正因文化范式几乎无法通过温和的政治说教发生扭转，“加速主义”（Accelerationism）成了某种残酷的现实必然：唯有当现状恶化到极其惨烈的地步，当人们再也无法自欺欺人时，真正的根本性转变才可能发生。
广大民众目前尚未完全意识到，自己今天的实际生活水平已显著落后于二十年前；他们依然盲目相信将英国的碳排放从全球占比的 2% 降到 1.9% 就是在“拯救地球”。这种净零神话掩盖了荒谬的现实：英国实际上只是将制造业与碳排放外包给了印度和中国，然后通过消耗重油的巨型油轮将这些用更不环保的方式制造出来的商品运回本土，这反而在全球范围内增加了二氧化碳净排放量。普通大众唯有在切身体会到财政危机的剧痛、连日常生活都难以负担时，才会彻底清醒并质疑政策本身。虽然目睹公众承受痛苦绝非所愿，但这或许是打破“净零迷思”并唤醒国民意识的唯一路径。
### [01:10:44](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nJeU72Rgjh4&t=4244s) 气候变化争议的本质与经济代价
讨论转向气候变化本身时，不可否认全球气候正在发生变迁。科学界不断发出极地冰川融化、发展中国家首当其冲、极端自然灾害频发以及难民潮加剧的严厉警告。尽管公众对气候科学的细节并非专家，也无意在基础科学事实上做过多无谓争辩，但在应对气候变化的手段上，一味采取自残式的经济收紧与虚伪的碳减排策略，不仅无法扭转全球变暖的趋势，反而会过早摧毁西方世界维持生存与繁荣的物质根基。
### [01:11:12](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nJeU72Rgjh4&t=4272s) 虚假的环保与英国退休金领取者的困境
对话接续此前关于经济与能源政策的讨论。Konstantin Kisin 语气尖锐地质问：把本国的碳排放外包给其他国家，同时彻底摧毁自身经济，这究竟对谁有好处？他直言，所谓的拯救地球不过是一场自欺欺人的把戏。在现实中，人们根本没有拯救地球，反而摧毁了本国经济，甚至导致英国本国的退休金领取者在每年冬天因付不起昂贵的高额取暖费而冻死。他情绪激动地强调，在英国这样一个第一世界发达国家，发生老年人因取暖问题丧命的悲剧，完全是错误的政府政策所致，"我们根本没有通过害死退休老人来拯救地球，我坚决反对害死退休老人。"
- 英国等发达国家通过将碳排放转移至发展中国家，换取账面上的减排指标，实则未对全球气候产生净效益。
- 昂贵的绿色能源与气候政策直接推高了能源价格，使无力承担取暖费用的弱势老年群体面临冻死的严峻生存危机。
---
### [01:12:02](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nJeU72Rgjh4&t=4322s) 为什么 Konstantin Kisin 拒绝步入政坛
主持人 Steven Bartlett 询问 Konstantin 是否具备参选资格，以及是否曾考虑过从政，因为他的使命感似乎与政治生涯极为契合。Konstantin 确认自己拥有资格，并透露经常有人邀请他参政，但他对此完全没有兴趣。他清醒地指出，相比成为一名坐在议会后排、只能偶尔向首相提问一次的地方选区议员，抑或是当上极不可能的首相，他在目前的自媒体平台上能够接触到海量受众，拥有远大于政客的影响力。
他阐明了自己与政治体制的格格不入：政治是一场要求人遵循“党派路线”（party line）的游戏，一旦成为政客，就必须掩盖甚至放弃自己真实的信念，改口声称“本党认为如何如何”。而他唯一关心的，是毫无过滤地阐述自己眼中的真实世界，把具体的政策执行留给政客。此外，他的性格也无法胜任政客的工作——他追求真相，缺乏耐心去妥协、建立政治联盟，更无法把精力投入到基层修补道路坑洼（potholes）等琐碎琐事中。
---
### [01:13:18](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nJeU72Rgjh4&t=4398s) 多极化世界：谁是赢家，谁是输家？
随后话题转回多极化格局。当被问及多极化世界的出现对谁最为有利时，Konstantin 斩钉截铁地回答：中国。因为在多极格局下，美国对各区域的约束力显著削弱，中国能够更加不受限制地根据自身意愿行事；出于类似的原因，印度也将从这种权力分散中受益；至于俄罗斯能否获益，目前仍是未知数。
谈到美国时，Konstantin 认为情况要复杂得多：一方面，凭借庞大的综合国力，美国依旧能够争取并获得其想要的核心利益；但另一方面，失去绝对霸权地位意味着美国将在国际上卷入更加频繁的外交与军事对抗，这势必将严重消耗其自身的国家资源与精力。
```mermaid
flowchart TD
accTitle: 多极化格局对主要大国的影响
accDescr: 展示在多极化体系下，中国、印度、俄罗斯以及美国各自面临的地缘政治利弊得失。
subgraph Beneficiaries["主要受益国"]
A["中国 China"] -->|"摆脱美国约束，扩张自主权"| R1["实现地缘与战略诉求"]
B["印度 India"] -->|"在大国博弈中获得战略自主"| R2["多方逢源提升影响力"]
end
subgraph Uncertain["不确定性国家"]
C["俄罗斯 Russia"] -->|"战争消耗与博弈"| R3["收益尚有待观察"]
end
subgraph Complex["利弊交织国家"]
D["美国 USA"] -->|"仍能达成部分诉求"| P1["维护核心利益"]
D -->|"面临频发的国际对抗"| P2["消耗资源与国家精力"]
end
```
---
### [01:14:03](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nJeU72Rgjh4&t=4443s) 赞助商插播：Vanta 与 DOAC 核心会员社群
Steven 在此插播了节目赞助商与社群推广：
- **Vanta 合规平台**：初创企业在 AI 浪潮的推动下以惊人速度成长，并比以往更早面对企业级大单。然而，大客户带来的监管与合规要求（例如 SOC 2 认证）常使早期团队捉襟见肘。Vanta 借助 AI 与自动化系统，帮助企业在几天内达到买家安全预期，并提供持续的合规监测以保障交易顺利推进。听众访问 `vanta.com/diary` 可享受 1000 美元专属折扣。
- **DOAC Inner Circle（核心圈子）**：Steven 宣布面向全球听众限量开放 10,000 个名额，邀请加入专属的私密社群。会员可直击大量未公开内容，包括录制期间 iPad 上的采访提纲、删减片段、幕后花絮以及未曾发布的完整剧集，并能直接与 Steven 互动、决定未来的采访选题与受访嘉宾。
---
### [01:15:57](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nJeU72Rgjh4&t=4557s) 历史的宿命：权力真空与多极动荡
针对历史上是否曾存在过多极化格局的提问，Konstantin 明确表示历史上发生过无数次。他引用丘吉尔的著作《英语民族史》（A History of the English-Speaking Peoples）指出，历史往往遵循一种固定循环：一个强势的统治者离世且没有明确继承人，随后便陷入长期的软弱期与争夺权位王座的血腥较量。现实中的世界格局亦是如此，随着单一超强力量的衰落，全球必将迎来更加动荡、充斥着暴力与争夺统治权的黑暗时期。
随后，Steven 分享了一组历史多极时期的对比案例，并梳理了 AI 所归纳的历史发展规律：
- **公元前 5 世纪的古希腊**：城邦争霸的混乱年代。
- **公元前 475 年中国的战国时代**：列国割据与兼并战争。
- **1850 年至 1914 年的欧洲**：大国均势破裂，最终滑向第一次世界大战。
AI 总结的历史演进阶段极为鲜明：国际规则弱化、摩擦加剧、约束力下降、区域性局部战争频发、军备竞赛加剧、同盟阵营固化、经济碎片化、国防开支暴涨以及国内经济增长受阻。而历史最终的收尾通常只有三种模式：受控的混乱、全面大战引发的格局重启，以及随后一个全新的“霸权力量”（hegemon）崛起。
Konstantin 笑称这让他的观点听起来像“全是从 AI 那里偷来的”，但他解释称，这并非高深的地缘政治学理论，而是植根于人类本质的第一性原理常识。人类本质上是具有部族性与竞争性的物种。一旦失去了一个大家都认可、能压制各方的绝对领袖（正如 1991 年冷战结束后直到不久前的美国霸权时刻），就会必然出现权力真空，而每一次权力真空，都不可避免地演变为惨烈的权力争夺。
---
### [01:19:20](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nJeU72Rgjh4&t=4760s) 核武器：文明毁灭的魔咒，还是和平的守护者？
面对 Steven 关于历史上从未出现过“拥有核武器的多极世界”的追问，Konstantin 指出，核武器既是巨大的潜在风险，也是人类免于全面大战的最大和平力量。他援引历史播客《The Rest is History》的历史学家 Dominic Sandbrook（多米尼克·桑德布鲁克）此前在节目中的观点：核武器正是人类自二战后未再爆发世界大战的根本原因，也很可能是未来唯一能有效遏制大国全面交火的终极制约。
针对“核武器是否能打破历史终结与大战重置的循环”这一假设，Konstantin 抱有审慎的乐观态度。他认为人类自我保存的求生本能极其强烈，这种强烈的自保欲望将大概率阻止各方按下毁灭彼此的核按钮；但在权力结构剧烈重组的动荡期，各大国必须如履薄冰地应对这一前所未有的生死大考。
### [01:20:12](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nJeU72Rgjh4&t=4812s) 强人领袖、威慑力与苏联版《森林之子》的丛林法则
讨论从未来军事力量与地缘政治领导力切入。Konstantin Kisin 指出，20 年后核武器甚至可能不再是世界上最强大的武器。主持人 Steven 提出，唐纳德·特朗普（Donald Trump）属于某种极其特立独行、毫不道歉的领导者类型，尤其是到了任期后期且受法律限制无法再度连任时，行事更加无所顾忌；如果美国换上另一种被中俄等国认为软弱、绝不敢夜袭核掩体或抓捕别国总统的领导人，西方是否会面临巨大的风险？Kisin 斩钉截铁地回答：“风险极其巨大。”他直言，当前世界的乱局正是由此而来——从灾难性的阿富汗撤军，到 2022 年俄乌冲突全面爆发，再到 10 月 7 日哈马斯袭击以色列，本质上都是对手在窥见西方软弱后采取的行动。
为了具象化这种威慑力的心理机制，生于苏联、父母分别带有乌克兰和俄罗斯血统的 Kisin 举了一个文化对比的例子：西方人熟悉的《森林之子》（The Jungle Book）是迪士尼式的温情动画，而苏联时期的动画改编版则极其冷酷硬核。在苏联版本开篇中，狼群首领阿克拉（Akela）在带领狼群捕猎时失手扑空，丛林里瞬间爆发出尖叫：“阿克拉失手了！（Akela missed!）”所有野兽心知肚明——当狼王展现出软弱和失败的那一刻，就是秩序瓦解、群雄逐鹿夺权的血腥起点。国际政治与丛林法则如出一辙：一旦领袖不再是“顶级猎手”，残酷的权力更迭与挑战便会接踵而至。
对于特朗普对西方整体而言究竟是福是祸，Kisin 给出了极其客观且分层的评价：
- **对美国而言**：特朗普的强硬与行事风格无疑对维护美国自身利益起到了积极作用。
- **对欧洲而言**：特朗普毫不留情地揭开了欧洲自身的虚弱与无能，加剧了欧美之间的撕裂与分道扬镳。
- **潜在转机**：如果这种冲击能彻底敲响警钟，促使欧洲从亲手编织的政治噩梦中清醒过来并改弦更张，那对西方整体尚有一线生机；然而令人担忧的是，欧洲当前的实际表现完全是在朝相反的方向滑落。
```mermaid
flowchart TD
accTitle: 威慑力丧失与权力真空演变图
accDescr: 展示领导者展现软弱如何导致国际威慑力崩溃并引发连锁冲突。
subgraph Deterrence_Collapse["威慑力瓦解机制"]
A["展现软弱与犹豫<br/>（如阿富汗撤军 / 阿克拉捕猎失手）"] --> B["对手嗅到权力真空<br/>（失去'顶级猎手'威慑）"]
end
subgraph Global_Fallout["地缘政治连锁危机"]
B --> C["地区冲突接连爆发<br/>（俄乌战争 / 10月7日袭击）"]
B --> D["挑战旧有规则与秩序"]
end
```
---
### [01:23:00](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nJeU72Rgjh4&t=4980s) 逃离英国的底线与托马斯·索维尔的现实法则
被问及在什么情况下会彻底离开英国，Kisin 坦承，短期的工作机会外派在任何时候都可能发生，但如果要说“彻底离开英国且永不返回”，那必须是在接下来的两三年或下一次大选之后，当他确信英国正在其错误的道路上越走越远、彻底失去复苏希望的时候。历史上许多伟大的国家与文明都曾走向不可逆的衰落，如果英国真的注定万劫不复，他绝不会牺牲自己的孩子，让他们困在一个走向沉沦的国家。但只要还有挽救的可能——哪怕听起来有点像特朗普的“让英国再次伟大（Make Britain Great Again）”——他也愿意留下来全力抗争，让孩子们成为国家复兴的一部分。
谈及当下社会讨论中最严重被忽略的核心议题，Kisin 强调，整个西方社会正陷入一种致命的思维陷阱：人们过度在乎某种行为“让自己感觉如何（how things make us feel）”，而完全无视该行为在现实中产生的客观后果。他再次推崇著名学者托马斯·索维尔（Thomas Sowell）的洞见：过去几十年西方一直在做的事情，就是“用感觉良好的东西取代真正有效的东西（replacing what works with what feels good）”。
- **政策制定失真**：包括驱逐企业家、惩罚财富创造的高税收政策，本质上全是为了满足某种意识形态上的道德自我感动与情感宣泄，而非解决实际经济运行中的问题。
- **回归现实的必要性**：唯有摒弃这种虚妄的情感依赖，脚踏实地回归常识与规律，国家与社会才有真正重获繁荣的可能。
---
### [01:25:05](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nJeU72Rgjh4&t=5105s) 《一封献给西方的移民情书》与警惕“觉醒右翼”的异化
Steven 赞誉 Kisin 于 2022 年出版的畅销书《一封献给西方的移民情书》（*An Immigrant's Love Letter to the West*），感叹书中的悲观预言如今正逐一应验，并称赞 Kisin 能够摆脱算法回音室的操纵，始终站在客观事实而非党派立场的维度去同时批评左翼与右翼。针对目前右翼阵营中最值得警惕的现象，Kisin 深入剖析了正在崛起的“觉醒右翼”（Woke Right）。
Kisin 指出，以尼克·富恩特斯（Nick Fuentes）和坎迪斯·欧文斯（Candace Owens）等极端人物为代表的群体，本质上是在用一套基于身份政治、怨恨心理和受害者叙事的逻辑来重新武装右翼。他们宣称自己是“受害者”，并将所有社会矛盾简单归咎于特定群体（如犹太人），带有强烈的法西斯主义与 1930 年代纳粹意识形态阴影。主流保守主义目前对这类人进行了坚决切割，但仍有人以“维护保守派团结”为由试图接纳他们，Kisin 警告这将是毁灭性的错误：
- **重复左翼的覆灭覆辙**：过去左翼正是因为温和派懦弱退缩，任由激进的“觉醒派”劫持话语权，导致公众最终将整个左派等同于“染蓝发、穿鼻环、盲从格蕾塔·通贝里（Greta Thunberg）”的极端分子，最终被广大温和派选民抛弃。
- **中间选民的流失**：在英国乃至党派对立严重的美国，决定大局的依然是理性的独立选民与温和民众。一旦右翼被极端分子的污名污染，便会失去最广大的民意根基。
- **秩序对决混乱的历史机遇**：正如乔丹·彼得森（Jordan Peterson）所论述的混乱与秩序的平衡，当今公众在经历了多年的治安恶化、非法移民失控和文化撕裂后，内心极度渴望重建秩序。如果右翼能够保持理性、务实地解决犯罪和边境管控等核心问题，完全有机会长期执政；但若放任极端主义夺舍，这千载难逢的历史机遇将被彻底葬送。
在段落的最后，对话转入温情而笃定的私人时刻。当 Steven 突然提问：“你现在快乐吗？”Kisin 毫不犹豫地回答：“非常快乐。”至于快乐的源泉，他给出了极其简单而有力的答案：“我的家庭。”
### [01:29:09](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nJeU72Rgjh4&t=5349s) 成为父亲与“未来不再是一个抽象概念”
当被问及家庭为何能带来如此巨大的幸福感时，康斯坦丁·基辛（Konstantin Kisin）毫不犹豫地表示，拥有孩子是一份无可替代的恩赐，“这是世界上最棒的事情”。尽管深知缺乏睡眠与育儿压力的艰辛，但他认为这种体验是任何言语都难以完全传达的，唯有亲身经历才能真正体会。为了向史蒂文阐释这种蜕变，他引用了自己常说的一句话——“未来不再是一个抽象概念”。在成为父亲之前，他对国家前途、文明兴衰的关切大多停留在理论与哲学的宏观层面；而当孩子降生后，未来的载体具象化为了一个实实在在的小生命，所有宏大的社会变迁都直接关系到下一代的生存环境。
为人父母的转变不仅重塑了基辛对未来的看法，也让他与过去建立了前所未有的情感连结。他坦言，只有当自己有了孩子，才能真正理解并体谅自己的父母。曾经年少时无法理解甚至心生怨怼的某些父母举动，如今在自己同时面对繁重工作、伴侣关系与家庭琐事的多重重压下，突然间变得完全合情合理——因为自己现在也在做着完全相同的事情。这种对过往的释怀与同理心，伴随着对当下社区、国家走势更为深切的现实关怀，构成了为人父母既沉重又无比充实的独特体验。
- 康斯坦丁纠正史蒂文关于他有两个孩子的猜测，透露自己目前育有一个孩子，但未来计划迎来更多新生命的降临。
- 成为父亲带来的三重心理蜕变：对国家未来的关切从“抽象理论”转变为“具象血脉”；对父母当年的不易产生深刻共情；对眼下身处的社区和国家走向拥有了更强的切身危机感。
### [01:31:08](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nJeU72Rgjh4&t=5468s) 面对残酷世界的育儿观：从东线战场的曾祖父谈起
谈到对孩子未来所处世界的最大担忧，基辛并未陷入宏观地缘危机的焦虑清单，而是将焦点拉回父母的核心职责。在他看来，外部世界的动荡与残酷是人类文明的常态，父母不可能为孩子构筑一座永久的避难所。他最首要的关切在于自己与妻子能否尽全力将孩子抚养成人，培养出他们健全独立的人格与韧性。孩子终将成为独立的个体，必须像历史上千千万万的先辈一样，亲自去直面他们那个时代的惊涛骇浪。
为了说明这种历史常态，基辛提及了家族的真实过往：他的曾祖父在比他现在还要年轻的年纪，就抛下家中襁褓中的男婴，被强行征召送往二战残酷的东线战场，从此一去不返。基辛感慨道，人类纵观整部历史，始终都在被迫承受当下那个严酷世界的重压；作为当代父母，妄图完全隔绝外界风浪是不切实际的幻想，唯一能做且必须做好的，就是尽可能为孩子打下坚实的成长根基，赋予他们迎战现实的能力与品格。
### [01:32:06](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nJeU72Rgjh4&t=5526s) 改变人生的非家庭影响者：恩师、托马斯·索维尔与乔丹·彼得森
按照《CEO日记》（The Diary Of A CEO）的经典收尾传统，前一位嘉宾留给康斯坦丁的问题是：“在家庭成员之外，谁对你的人生产生了最大的影响？他们又是如何让你成为一个更好的人？”面对这个难以用单一名字概括的问题，基辛分别从机会赋予、思想启迪与行为榜样三个维度分享了三位关键人物：
- **求学时期的恩师**：在他自认表现欠佳、“根本配不上这种机会”的关键时刻，破例给予了他证明自己的宝贵机会，这让他终身铭记“给予他人证明自身可能性的重要性”；
- **经济学家托马斯·索维尔（Thomas Sowell）**：索维尔的学术著作在智识层面上彻底重塑了他的思维方式，让他学会如何冷静、客观、透彻地拆解纷繁复杂的社会议题；
- **心理学学者乔丹·彼得森（Jordan Peterson）**：几年前与彼得森一同进行为期三周的巡回演讲，让基辛在近距离观察中获得了极大的震撼与启发。他发现彼得森是罕见的“言行完全合一”之人，在私底下展现出的品格与在聚光灯下毫无二致。
基辛分享了一段在得克萨斯州边境城市埃尔帕索（El Paso）巡演时的难忘轶事。由于航班延误，团队抵达时已经饥肠辘辘，因为彼得森只吃牛排，他们便直奔当地最好的牛排馆，而粉丝们也早已摸清了彼得森的生活习惯并闻风而来。当他们刚坐下翻开菜单时，第一批热情的粉丝便上前问候；饿极了的彼得森立刻放下菜单起身，专注倾听、签名合影并细致询问对方的生活。好不容易重新坐下点单后，第二批粉丝又走上前来，彼得森再次毫无保留地投入同样的精力。最令人动容的瞬间发生在牛排终于端上桌时：
> “美国服务员通常会说：‘请切开确认一下熟度是否合适。’彼得森切下一小块牛排，叉在叉子上，正要送进嘴里的那一刹那，身后突然走来整整二十个人的旅行团，高呼：‘彼得森博士，非常抱歉打扰您！’他把手里的叉子轻轻放下，站起身来，给眼前这群人展现出了与之前完全一样的尊重、耐心与全神贯注。”
这种在极度疲惫与饥饿状态下依然坚守原则、真诚对待每一个普通人的行事作风，让旁观的基辛深受震撼，也深刻重塑了他处理人际关系与面对公众时的道德自省。
```mermaid
flowchart TD
accTitle: 康斯坦丁·基辛的非家庭精神导师图谱
accDescr: 展现基辛受到的三位非家庭人物在机会、智识与行为实践三个维度的深远影响
subgraph Influences["生命中的三大关键影响"]
T["学校恩师<br/>(机会维度)"]
S["托马斯·索维尔<br/>(智识维度)"]
P["乔丹·彼得森<br/>(行为维度)"]
end
subgraph Impact["人格塑造与理念落地"]
T --> O["学会为他人提供自证机会"]
S --> C["重塑对世界运转逻辑的思考框架"]
P --> I["做到知行合一：埃尔帕索牛排馆的谦逊见证"]
end
```
### [01:34:37](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nJeU72Rgjh4&t=5677s) 尾声对话与邀约：真相探寻者的彼此共鸣
访谈进入尾声，主持人史蒂文·巴特利特高度评价了基辛在纷乱舆论环境中始终坚持追寻真相的勇气，并郑重向听众推荐了基辛主持的热门播客《TRIGGERnometry》及其畅销著作《An Immigrant's Love Letter to the West》。
基辛幽默地接过话茬，当场向史蒂文反向邀约：“史蒂文，你到底什么时候来上《TRIGGERnometry》？”史蒂文笑着透露自己的新书刚刚杀青，基辛随即打趣称希望将新书发售时的独家对谈锁定在自己的节目上，促成一场“英国独家（UK exclusive）”。在一片轻松欢快的笑声与达成约定的握手中，两人结束了这场深度访谈。随后，片尾预告迅速切换回全片开头的宏大惊悚时刻——基辛严肃警告称世界或许已经站在第三次世界大战的门槛边缘，一场误判甚至一段由 AI 生成的虚假爆款视频，就可能将整个人类拖入核毁灭的深渊。
## Notable quotes
> [02:50](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nJeU72Rgjh4&t=170s) 既然别人不再守规矩，我唯一的准则就是做对美国国家利益最有利的事。 — 康斯坦丁·基辛
> [09:47](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nJeU72Rgjh4&t=587s) 如果俄罗斯和中国能够为所欲为而没人拦得住，那我们也可以随心所欲，谁也别想阻拦我们。 — 康斯坦丁·基辛
> [11:25](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nJeU72Rgjh4&t=685s) 我们绝对没有核武器，但如果以色列国家面临灭亡威胁，我们百分之百会动用它们。 — 康斯坦丁·基辛
> [17:59](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nJeU72Rgjh4&t=1079s) 行为必有后果（Actions have consequences）。 — 康斯坦丁·基辛
> [19:41](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nJeU72Rgjh4&t=1181s) 我们已经到了，我们已经变得无足轻重（We're irrelevant）。 — 康斯坦丁·基辛
> [19:41](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nJeU72Rgjh4&t=1181s) 并不抱希望，但我还没有绝望到放弃的程度。 — 康斯坦丁·基辛
> [33:23](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nJeU72Rgjh4&t=2003s) 停止招聘人类，AI 雇员时代已经到来（Stop hiring humans. The age of the AI employee is here）。
> [44:38](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nJeU72Rgjh4&t=2678s) 人类社会从未真正走出过帝国时代（We never left empire）。 — 康斯坦丁·基辛
> [48:45](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nJeU72Rgjh4&t=2925s) 我们必须生更多的孩子，多得多的孩子。 — 康斯坦丁·基辛
> [57:33](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nJeU72Rgjh4&t=3453s) 恭喜你们向富人征税，干得漂亮！现在有 50 万普通英国人必须多交税来填补这个窟窿了。 — 康斯坦丁·基辛
> [01:11:12](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nJeU72Rgjh4&t=4272s) 我们根本没有通过害死退休老人来拯救地球，我坚决反对害死退休老人。 — 康斯坦丁·基辛
> [01:20:12](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nJeU72Rgjh4&t=4812s) 阿克拉失手了！（Akela missed!）
> [01:23:00](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nJeU72Rgjh4&t=4980s) 用感觉良好的东西取代真正有效的东西（replacing what works with what feels good）。 — 托马斯·索维尔
> [01:29:09](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nJeU72Rgjh4&t=5349s) 未来不再是一个抽象概念。 — 康斯坦丁·基辛
## Mentioned
Konstantin Kisin (康斯坦丁·基辛), Steven Bartlett (史蒂芬·巴特利特), Donald Trump (唐纳德·特朗普), Nicolás Maduro (尼古拉斯·马杜罗), Vladimir Putin (弗拉基米尔·普京), Keir Starmer (基尔·斯塔默), David Lammy (戴维·拉米), Elon Musk (埃隆·马斯克), Jason Calacanis (杰森·卡拉卡尼斯), Marco Rubio (马可·卢比奥), Reza Pahlavi (礼萨·巴列维), Nik Storonsky (尼克·斯托隆斯基), Kemi Badenoch (凯米·巴德诺克), Tony Blair (托马斯·布莱尔), Winston Churchill (温斯顿·丘吉尔), Dominic Sandbrook (多米尼克·桑德布鲁克), Thomas Sowell (托马斯·索维尔), Jordan Peterson (乔丹·彼得森), Nick Fuentes (尼克·富恩特斯), Candace Owens (坎迪斯·欧文斯), Greta Thunberg (格蕾塔·通贝里), Optimus, Waymo, Tesla FSD, Shopify, Ketone-IQ, Vanta, Revolut, HMRC (英国皇家税务与海关总署), TRIGGERnometry, The Diary Of A CEO, An Immigrant's Love Letter to the West, A History of the English-Speaking Peoples (英语民族史), The Jungle Book (森林之子)
## Video description
Political commentator Konstantin Kisin breaks down Iran’s turning point, how Greenland could reshape global power, why he thinks mass immigration must stop, and how Trump’s actions in Venezuela exposes Europe!
Konstantin Kisin is a political thinker and co-host of the podcast TRIGGERnometry, known for his sharp analysis of geopolitics, immigration, and cultural issues. He is also the best-selling author of the book, ‘An Immigrant's Love Letter to the West’.
He explains:
◼️Why the post-war rules-based order is collapsing, and what a multipolar world really looks like
◼️How nuclear weapons have become the only true source of national security
◼️Why Europe’s economic and energy choices destroyed its global influence
◼️Why AI-driven job losses could fuel extremism and radical redistribution
◼️How Greenland could shift global power dynamics in America’s favour
00:00 Intro
02:51 What’s Really Going On in the World Right Now?
08:32 How Much of This Chaos Links Back to Nuclear Weapons?
13:17 Why Every Global Superpower Is Acting Alone
19:41 Where Is the UK Headed If This Keeps Up?
20:45 Can the UK Still Make a Comeback?
24:20 Why Socialism Is Rising Again—And What It Means
30:36 Are We Actually Moving Toward a Communist World?
37:04 What the Iran Protests Reveal About Global Unrest
44:01 Did Trump Really Try to Buy Greenland—And Why?
46:07 Are Multipolar Powers Helping or Hurting the World Order?
46:35 What China's Shrinking Child Population Means for the Future
53:09 What Do You Really Think of Keir Starmer?
57:43 The Real Debate Around Taxing the Rich in the UK
01:04:46 What Kind of Leader Does the UK Desperately Need?
01:08:48 Why the UK’s Wealth Mindset Needs a Rethink
01:16:07 What History Can Teach Us About Today’s Crisis
01:19:28 How Power Struggles Shape Nations—and Collapse Them
01:20:34 Is Trump the Leader for This Moment in History?
01:23:14 What Would Make You Leave the UK for Good?
01:26:08 The One Issue You Can’t Ignore on the Right
01:29:15 Are You Truly Happy Right Now?
01:31:08 What’s Your Biggest Worry for Your Kids’ Future?
01:32:06 Who Shaped You Most, Outside of Family?
Follow Konstantin:
Instagram - https://bit.ly/4r30J3p
X - https://bit.ly/4pJf7wx
Substack - https://bit.ly/4bbvnmv
Podcast - https://bit.ly/4r5reW2
You can purchase Konstantin’s book, ‘An Immigrant's Love Letter to the West’, here: https://amzn.to/3YQavd7
The Diary Of A CEO:
◼️Join DOAC circle here - https://doaccircle.com/
◼️Buy The Diary Of A CEO book here - https://smarturl.it/DOACbook
◼️The 1% Diary is back - limited time only: https://bit.ly/3YFbJbt
◼️The Diary Of A CEO Conversation Cards (Second Edition): https://g2ul0.app.link/f31dsUttKKb
◼️Get email updates - https://bit.ly/diary-of-a-ceo-yt
◼️Follow Steven - https://g2ul0.app.link/gnGqL4IsKKb
Sponsors:
Shopify - https://shopify.com/bartlett
Ketone - https://ketone.com/STEVEN for 30% off your subscription order
Vanta - https://vanta.com/diary for $1000 off
[Source](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nJeU72Rgjh4)
Source quotes
[2:50] 康斯坦丁·基辛: 既然别人不再守规矩，我唯一的准则就是做对美国国家利益最有利的事。
[9:47] 康斯坦丁·基辛: 如果俄罗斯和中国能够为所欲为而没人拦得住，那我们也可以随心所欲，谁也别想阻拦我们。
[11:25] 康斯坦丁·基辛: 我们绝对没有核武器，但如果以色列国家面临灭亡威胁，我们百分之百会动用它们。
[17:59] 康斯坦丁·基辛: 行为必有后果（Actions have consequences）。
[19:41] 康斯坦丁·基辛: 我们已经到了，我们已经变得无足轻重（We're irrelevant）。
[19:41] 康斯坦丁·基辛: 并不抱希望，但我还没有绝望到放弃的程度。
[33:23] 停止招聘人类，AI 雇员时代已经到来（Stop hiring humans. The age of the AI employee is here）。
[44:38] 康斯坦丁·基辛: 人类社会从未真正走出过帝国时代（We never left empire）。
[48:45] 康斯坦丁·基辛: 我们必须生更多的孩子，多得多的孩子。
[57:33] 康斯坦丁·基辛: 恭喜你们向富人征税，干得漂亮！现在有 50 万普通英国人必须多交税来填补这个窟窿了。
[71:12] 康斯坦丁·基辛: 我们根本没有通过害死退休老人来拯救地球，我坚决反对害死退休老人。
[80:12] 阿克拉失手了！（Akela missed!）
[83:00] 托马斯·索维尔: 用感觉良好的东西取代真正有效的东西（replacing what works with what feels good）。
[89:09] 康斯坦丁·基辛: 未来不再是一个抽象概念。
Source quotes
[0:00] Konstantin Kisin: We are not going to play by the fake rules anymore that no one else is playing by anyway.
[0:00] Konstantin Kisin: International law... was a kind of shared myth that we have... A law is something that has to be backed by not only the consent of the people... but ultimately it's about the use of force.
[0:00] Konstantin Kisin: The West lost its focus and its sense of purpose in 1991 because we were like, 'Well, we defeated our great rival, communism...'
[24:20] Steven Bartlett: It used to be that the intelligence part—the brain—would cost $20,000 or $30,000 just for a little robot arm. Now it's like 2 cents.
[37:03] Elon Musk: There will be probably more Optimus robots that are great surgeons than there are all surgeons on Earth.
[79:20] Konstantin Kisin: Everybody knows when the leader shows weakness and fails, that's the moment when everything goes to s*** and there's a power struggle for his role because he's no longer top dog. It's really as simple as that.
[85:08] Konstantin Kisin: On the right, if the right allows its extremist fringe to do the same thing, then lots of people are going to distance themselves from that... If they allow the extremists to take over, the entire movement will be painted as the extremists.
[92:06] Konstantin Kisin: A guy who talks about living in a certain way actually practices it... that was incredibly inspiring for me.
Original transcript
[0:00] There's mention of Greenland being
[0:01] invaded by the United States. There's
[0:03] the situation in Iran. Trump has
[0:06] snatched Maduro from Venezuela. There's
[0:07] [music] talk of China taking back
[0:09] Taiwan. What the hell is going on?
[0:11] >> Well, what you're seeing is the West
[0:13] becoming [music] weaker and embolding
[0:15] our enemies and the final collapse of a
[0:17] shared myth that we were living in a
[0:19] structured world where everything is
[0:20] done according to the rules. That is now
[0:23] gone. And Trump is acting in recognition
[0:26] of that reality, saying we are not going
[0:28] to play by [music] the fake rules
[0:29] anymore that no one else is playing by.
[0:31] Anyway,
[0:31] >> is there a risk with this strategy?
[0:33] >> Of course. And we can talk about the
[0:34] reasons for it. I think it's really
[0:36] important.
[0:36] >> The floor is yours.
[0:38] >> Constantine Kissen is one of the
[0:39] sharpest voices [music] in political
[0:41] commentary right now.
[0:43] >> He's here to unpack the current
[0:44] geopolitical landscape and what could be
[0:47] done to salvage the West before it's too
[0:49] late.
[0:49] >> So, Russia invading Ukraine was not an
[0:51] accident. It was a consequence of the
[0:53] fact that Putin felt this was the moment
[0:55] to test the waters. Can we now do the
[0:57] things we've always wanted to do?
[0:59] Because the West lost its focus and
[1:02] sense of purpose. [music] So, for
[1:03] example, I don't know if you know this,
[1:05] Europe is 12% of the world's population,
[1:07] 25% of the world's GDP, and 60% of the
[1:10] world's welfare spending. Germany
[1:12] destroyed its nuclear facilities,
[1:13] [music] thereby making itself reliant on
[1:15] Russian gas. And in Britain, we've
[1:17] destroyed our manufacturing, which is
[1:18] now produced elsewhere. and we've run
[1:20] down our armed forces because we have
[1:22] felt so safe and so comfortable because
[1:23] there's been no consequence. Well, the
[1:26] consequences are here per person. We
[1:28] [music] have less money today than we
[1:29] did 20 years ago. We have the highest
[1:31] tax burden in peace time history. We're
[1:33] driving out the entrepreneurs and we've
[1:35] already seen [music] a decline in our
[1:36] power in the world and our influence in
[1:38] the world. That's the big danger. But
[1:40] there is an opportunity to turn things
[1:41] around if we can make these big
[1:43] decisions. What are you hopeful?
[1:52] >> Listen, my my team gave me a script that
[1:53] they asked me to read, but I'm just
[1:55] going to ask you um in the nicest way I
[1:57] possibly can. Thank you first and
[1:59] foremost for choosing to subscribe to
[2:00] this channel. It is um it's been one of
[2:01] the most incredible crazy years of my
[2:03] life. I never could have imagined. I had
[2:05] so many dreams in my life, but this was
[2:07] not one of them. And the very fact that
[2:09] these conversations have resonated with
[2:10] you and you've given me so much feedback
[2:11] is something I will always be
[2:12] appreciative of. And I almost carry away
[2:14] a sort of burden of uh responsibility to
[2:17] pay you back. And the favor I would like
[2:19] to ask from you today is to subscribe to
[2:21] the channel if you um would be so
[2:22] obliged. It's completely free to do
[2:24] that. Roughly about 47% of you that
[2:26] listen to this channel frequently
[2:28] currently don't subscribe to this
[2:29] channel. So if you're one of those
[2:30] people, please come and join us. Hit the
[2:32] subscribe button. It's the single free
[2:33] thing you can do to make this channel
[2:34] better. And every subscriber sort of
[2:37] pays into this show and allows us to do
[2:38] things bigger and better and to push
[2:40] ourselves even more. And I will not let
[2:42] you down if you hit the subscribe
[2:43] button. I promise you. And if I do,
[2:44] please do unsubscribe, but I promise I
[2:46] won't. Thank you, [music]
[2:50] Constantine.
[2:52] There is so much going on in the world
[2:54] right now that it is incredibly
[2:56] confusing to somebody like me who
[2:58] doesn't spend a lot of time thinking
[3:00] about geopolitics or the bigger picture.
[3:02] I'm very very heads downstand as I
[3:04] imagine a lot of people in my audience
[3:05] are. We kind of get on with our lives.
[3:06] But every time we look up at the news,
[3:08] there's Trump has snatched Maduro from
[3:11] Venezuela. There's the war with Russia
[3:14] and Ukraine. There's something going on
[3:16] with Iran. There's mention of Greenland
[3:18] being invaded by the United States.
[3:20] There's talk of China taking back
[3:22] Taiwan. I wanted to speak to you today
[3:25] to understand your perspective on the
[3:27] bigger picture here.
[3:29] >> What the hell is going on?
[3:31] Well, what you're seeing is the the
[3:34] final collapse of what people have
[3:35] described as the postworld war II order,
[3:37] which then became the post Soviet
[3:39] collapse order. So, if you think about
[3:42] 1945, World War II finishes and the Cold
[3:45] War begins. So, you go from World War II
[3:49] to two big major players in the world
[3:52] competing for dominance. And that lasts
[3:55] until 1991 when the Soviet Union
[3:57] collapses at which point you get the
[3:59] uniolar world in which there's only one
[4:01] hedgeimonyy, only one country that's
[4:02] really setting the terms of what's
[4:04] happening in the world. The west lost
[4:06] its focus and its sense of purpose in
[4:10] 1991 because we were like, well, we we
[4:13] defeated our great rival, communism,
[4:15] Soviet, Russia, etc. And then we kind of
[4:18] didn't really know what to do and we
[4:20] took eye off the ball. And what's
[4:22] happening now is that entire framework
[4:25] that we have had since World War II is
[4:27] disintegrating very rapidly. This is why
[4:30] you know in in light of recent events
[4:32] and the the Maduro situation you hear a
[4:35] lot of people talk about international
[4:36] law. International law was I don't know
[4:39] if you if you ever had you will know
[4:41] Harrari on your show. I have yet to
[4:43] wrote the book book called Sapiens in
[4:44] which he talks about the fact that
[4:46] almost everything that we live in the
[4:49] world in in which we exist is a kind of
[4:52] shared myth that we have and laws and
[4:55] money and all these things. They are
[4:56] agreements that we have between us to
[4:59] make things real that are not real.
[5:01] Money isn't real. That piece of paper
[5:03] has no value in your pocket really
[5:06] outside of the fact that other people
[5:07] have got together and agreed that it's
[5:09] money. Right. Well, international law
[5:12] really was that, but even weaker than
[5:13] that. Because if you think about what a
[5:15] law is, a law is something that has to
[5:17] be backed by not only the consent of the
[5:20] people who are involved, but also
[5:22] ultimately it's about the use of force,
[5:24] the legitimate use of force. Now, for
[5:26] international law, there's never been
[5:29] anything that could enforce that law
[5:32] other than the most powerful country in
[5:33] the world, right? So if China invades
[5:36] Taiwan, no one's going to do anything
[5:38] about it because there is no overarching
[5:40] authority with the military to be able
[5:42] to do anything about it. And so that
[5:45] shared fiction that we had which we were
[5:48] living in a structured world in which
[5:50] everything is done according to the
[5:52] rules, the rules-based order. You might
[5:54] have heard that term being used. That is
[5:56] now gone. And Trump is acting in
[6:00] recognition of that reality. and he's
[6:02] saying, well, given that it's sort of
[6:05] every man for himself now, I'm going to
[6:07] do what's in the interest of the United
[6:08] States. Is it in the interest of the
[6:10] United States, for example, to have an
[6:12] openly hostile leader of a country close
[6:15] to the US, which is so destabilized that
[6:19] 7 million people have fled as refugees?
[6:21] >> Venezuela.
[6:21] >> Venezuela. Is it in our interest to have
[6:24] this person cozying up to Russia and
[6:26] China? Is it in our interest to allow
[6:28] him to have Hezbollah training camps on
[6:30] the island of Margarita? Is it in our
[6:32] interest? It's going back to the Monroy
[6:34] doctrine, the idea that America does not
[6:36] allow foreign nations to meddle in its
[6:38] backyard, so to speak. And so what he's
[6:41] doing now is going, "Well, look, this is
[6:42] the world we live in. I'm going to do
[6:44] what's best for my country." And I think
[6:46] that's what you're seeing.
[6:48] >> Is there a risk with this strategy?
[6:50] >> Of course, there's a risk with every
[6:52] strategy. Of course, there's a risk with
[6:53] this strategy. There was a big risk
[6:55] inevitably with this strategy and I
[6:57] think you know as I talked about in my
[6:59] book the the west becoming weaker and
[7:02] emboldening our enemies which is what we
[7:04] have done for a long time now is
[7:06] creating an environment where we are
[7:08] opening ourselves up to challenge from
[7:10] other forces. Russia invading Ukraine
[7:12] was not an accident. It was not an
[7:14] accident. It was a consequence of the
[7:16] fact that Putin and other people in his
[7:20] leadership team felt this was the moment
[7:22] to test the waters. Can we now do the
[7:25] things we've always wanted to do
[7:27] >> and they felt they could do that under
[7:28] Biden in your view?
[7:29] >> Yes. But see, I wouldn't personalize it
[7:32] down to that level. I think far too many
[7:34] people get carried away with, you know,
[7:36] Republican, Democrat, left, right,
[7:38] Biden, Trump. It's an ongoing process
[7:40] that's been going on for decades. And
[7:43] the culmination of it was first the
[7:45] invasion of Ukraine, then October 7th.
[7:47] October 7th was not an accident either.
[7:49] Hamas backed by Iran felt that this was
[7:52] their moment to act because again is the
[7:55] West going to be able to respond
[7:57] morally, militarily, and in other ways
[7:59] powerfully to that. They felt that they
[8:01] were able to test it. The fact that
[8:03] China now is openly talking about taking
[8:05] Taiwan is again another symptom of this
[8:08] same thing. So the risk is there and of
[8:11] course the risk as well is that you know
[8:14] the the crumbling western alliance we
[8:16] can talk about the reasons for it. I
[8:17] think it's really important to
[8:18] particularly we're recording this in
[8:20] Britain and and in Europe more broadly.
[8:22] I think that's an important
[8:23] conversation. The western alliance is
[8:25] falling apart. Um and that is always
[8:27] going to be a risk. It's particularly
[8:29] big risk for Europe. I feel
[8:31] >> how much of this and before we go into
[8:32] the details and just catch up on a few
[8:34] of the things you said there. How much
[8:35] of this is linked to nuclear weapons?
[8:37] Because I was thinking I I can't really
[8:39] All of these superpowers are going for
[8:41] countries that aren't armed with nuclear
[8:43] weapons.
[8:44] >> And it all it somewhat feels to me that
[8:46] the reason why the US wouldn't get
[8:49] involved if China took Taiwan is because
[8:51] they have nukes. And the reason why
[8:54] the US is a little bit intimidated by
[8:56] Russia is because they have nukes. So is
[8:58] it really the world is splitting into
[9:00] nuclear powers and anyone with nukes can
[9:02] do what the they want because they
[9:04] can basically wipe out planet Earth if
[9:06] they get angry. And that has always been
[9:07] the case except we've been constrained
[9:10] by the framework of the rules-based
[9:12] order. But that got taken apart. And
[9:15] this is where I think the West and the
[9:16] United States including needs to take
[9:18] responsibility because the the war in
[9:20] Afghanistan and Iraq even more so
[9:23] completely undermined our moral
[9:25] credibility. You know, how can you say,
[9:28] well, Russia isn't allowed to invade
[9:29] Ukraine if you go around invading
[9:31] countries on a whim, making up excuses
[9:33] and reasons to do that. So we have
[9:35] eroded our moral authority and we've
[9:38] also eroded our military strength and
[9:40] the potential that we have to inflict
[9:42] damage on people who misbehave so to
[9:44] speak. So both of those things have come
[9:46] together.
[9:47] >> It seems so crazy to me that in my
[9:50] lifetime I'm I'm seeing cuz it's really
[9:51] never happened in the 33 years that I've
[9:53] been alive. I'm hearing a US president
[9:55] talk about kidnapping another president
[9:58] and then going in and taking the oil.
[10:00] And then you know what? We might take
[10:02] Greenland as well. We might have that
[10:03] big country over there as well. Even
[10:05] though it belongs to a NATO ally in
[10:07] Denmark,
[10:08] >> it it feels like something has
[10:10] fundamentally changed.
[10:11] >> It has.
[10:11] >> And I'm scared of the presidents this is
[10:13] going to set because do we then all just
[10:15] get to start taking countries we want?
[10:17] >> Well, this is what happens when there is
[10:20] a a a a shifting of the balance of
[10:22] power. This is why I always said
[10:24] maintaining the unipolar moment as it
[10:27] was and not allowing the west to weaken
[10:28] itself was a really important thing
[10:30] because the moment you have a power
[10:32] vacuum, you always have a power
[10:34] struggle. Mexico is a very good example
[10:37] of this. If you look at what's been
[10:38] happening, there's been a a gigantic
[10:40] drug war in Mexico for the last 20 years
[10:43] because there are different cartels
[10:44] vying for power. And the moment you take
[10:47] out the leader of one cartel or
[10:49] something happens, there's a bloodbath.
[10:51] Because this is what happens when the
[10:53] central authority, the central power,
[10:55] the the current system breaks down. You
[10:58] inevitably end up in a much more
[10:59] violent, much more unstable, much more
[11:01] unpredictable place. And all Trump
[11:03] really is doing is reflecting the
[11:06] reality that has been already there for
[11:08] years, except he's reflecting in
[11:10] American foreign policy. He's saying,
[11:12] "Well, look, if Russia is going to do
[11:14] what it wants to do, and we can't stop
[11:16] them, and if China is going to do what
[11:17] they want to do, and we can't stop them,
[11:19] well, we've got to do what we've got to
[11:21] do, and no one's going to stop us." And
[11:23] that's the world you've ended up in. And
[11:25] by the way, just on the nuclear point, I
[11:26] think it's important to say you're 100%
[11:29] right. And this is one of the things
[11:30] I've always said about not supporting
[11:32] Ukraine properly, which we haven't done.
[11:35] we have not supported them enough to be
[11:37] able to actually fully repel the
[11:39] aggression from Russia is it would
[11:40] inevitably lead to lots of other small
[11:42] countries pursuing nuclear weapons
[11:44] because it is the only guarantee of
[11:45] security in this world. it that is a
[11:48] huge danger for the world in terms of
[11:50] nuclear proliferation because if the
[11:52] precedent is like you say the people
[11:55] with nuclear weapons can do what they
[11:57] want and they can never be attacked and
[11:58] the people with no nuclear weapons are
[12:00] vulnerable and weak what would be the
[12:02] most rational thing for you to do if
[12:04] you're a smaller country that's the big
[12:06] danger
[12:07] >> cuz you know you were talking about a
[12:09] uniolar world and a multi-polar world
[12:10] but I wonder if the it's going to be how
[12:12] many nuclear powers are there there's
[12:14] like nine or or 10
[12:16] >> if the world is going to split into
[12:17] these 10 nuclear powers and these 10
[12:19] nuclear powers can basically do what
[12:20] they want.
[12:22] >> Well, nuclear powers are different. I
[12:23] don't I don't see Pakistan likely to be
[12:25] rampaging through its neighbors, not at
[12:27] least cuz they're all they're all
[12:29] nuclear powers themselves. Uh I think
[12:31] you're you're talking about Russia,
[12:32] China, and the US primarily. I don't see
[12:35] Britain, you know, reinvading France,
[12:37] although that's something obviously I'm
[12:38] in favor of. If Pakistan decided to take
[12:40] a neighboring country though,
[12:41] >> nobody can really come for them because
[12:43] >> uh economic
[12:44] >> having one nuke is not the same as
[12:46] having a gigantic nuclear arsenal. I
[12:48] think Pakistan is relatively constrained
[12:49] in its behavior, but the big superpowers
[12:52] are not. So,
[12:53] >> by the way, retaking France was a joke.
[12:56] I just want to make that clear.
[12:58] >> And there's eight there's nine nuclear
[13:00] powers. United States, Russia, UK,
[13:02] France, China, India, Pakistan, North
[13:04] Korea, and Israel. Although I don't
[13:06] think they admit it.
[13:07] >> Yeah. Israel's policy on nuclear weapons
[13:09] is very funny. Do you know what the
[13:10] official position is? We don't have
[13:12] nuclear weapons, but if the state of
[13:14] Israel is at risk of being destroyed, we
[13:17] will definitely use them. [laughter]
[13:20] >> So, how did we get here? What are what
[13:23] are the factors at play that brought us
[13:24] to this particular situation? You talked
[13:25] about the crumbling of the Western
[13:26] Alliance and other things. What what do
[13:28] we need to know about what happened for
[13:29] us to get to this state where it seems
[13:31] like it's every big power for themsel?
[13:34] >> Well, partly we've already talked about
[13:35] it. So it's it's after 91 in particular
[13:38] the west loses its not only its sense of
[13:41] purpose but it loses its its sense of
[13:44] danger and sense of risk. So we get very
[13:46] comfortable. I don't know if you know
[13:47] this uh Europe is 12% of the world's
[13:50] population, 25% of the world's GDP and
[13:53] 60% of the world's welfare spending.
[13:56] >> Wow.
[13:57] >> So if you do that, that is a sign that
[13:59] you've got very comfortable. You've got
[14:01] very lazy. You have lost the ability to
[14:04] realize you live in a dangerous world.
[14:05] It's, you know, this is a bit of a
[14:06] sidetrack, but it is an important
[14:08] addendum to this conversation. This is
[14:10] why European countries have pursued
[14:13] economic suicide that we call net zero
[14:15] as vigorously as we have because we have
[14:18] felt so safe and so comfortable. we've
[14:20] engaged in all this luxury uh obsessions
[14:23] to the point where as you know Germany
[14:25] destroyed its nuclear facilities uh
[14:28] thereby making itself reliant on Russian
[14:30] gas so that when Russia invaded Ukraine
[14:33] the Germans opened the first thing that
[14:35] they said is oh we were going to support
[14:36] Ukraine we're going to give them 5,000
[14:38] helmets right because they were so
[14:40] dependent on Russian gas because they
[14:43] refused to produce their own energy this
[14:45] is exactly the same thing we've done in
[14:47] Britain Britain has the highest
[14:48] industrial electricity prices in the
[14:50] world in the developed world which means
[14:53] we basically destroyed all our
[14:55] manufacturing industry which is now
[14:56] produced elsewhere. We're getting to the
[14:59] point where we can't make our own virgin
[15:01] steel. Steel is kind of important if you
[15:03] want to have a military etc etc etc. So
[15:07] in Europe in particular, this has
[15:09] happened because we've just felt so safe
[15:11] and so comfortable and also so
[15:13] rudderless that we've been able to
[15:15] engage in all these looney ideas because
[15:18] there's been no consequence. Well, the
[15:20] consequences are here.
[15:22] >> Where does Britain and Europe sit in the
[15:26] sort of rankings of importance in the
[15:27] world and power?
[15:28] >> It's plummeting.
[15:30] I mean, look at the the Trump's uh
[15:33] 12-day war in Iran, destroying Iran's
[15:36] nuclear facilities. No one even asked
[15:38] the British what we thought about
[15:39] anymore. And that's not because, you
[15:41] know, a lot of people like to say, "Oh,
[15:42] you know, the Americans, they hate the
[15:44] British." Americans love Britain. As you
[15:46] know, you live in America now. You have
[15:48] a British accent. I'm sure people come
[15:50] up to you all the time and talk to you
[15:51] about their connections with our
[15:52] country, the shared history, all of that
[15:54] stuff. The problem is we have made
[15:56] ourselves irrelevant because everything
[15:59] that Trump is looking at is strength.
[16:01] Right? Is Britain strong now in the
[16:03] world? No. Is Europe strong now in the
[16:05] world? No. And so if you're not strong,
[16:07] you will not be taken seriously. And
[16:09] unfortunately because of what our
[16:10] leaders have done over success of and
[16:12] it's left right every political party
[16:14] that we have that's been in power they
[16:16] have overseen a decline in our status in
[16:20] the world in our power in the world in
[16:21] our influence in the world to the point
[16:23] now where the Americans are looking at
[16:25] Europe and they're going why would we be
[16:27] allied with people who are not useful to
[16:29] us an alliance is kind of like a
[16:31] marriage both people have to bring
[16:33] something to the table what do we bring
[16:35] to the table from an American
[16:36] perspective
[16:38] >> this is a fairly new thing, isn't it?
[16:39] Because I remember growing up, I'd
[16:41] repeatedly hear the prime minister of
[16:42] the UK talking about how he had spoken
[16:44] to his US counterpart and they had made
[16:47] a decision and then in even with the
[16:49] Venezuela situation, I think Karma came
[16:51] out the next day and said like, I had no
[16:53] idea this was happening.
[16:54] >> Of course, but why would you consult
[16:56] with people who don't matter?
[16:57] >> Why don't we matter?
[16:58] >> We don't matter because we have nothing
[17:00] to bring to the table. We don't despite
[17:02] the the extremely high level of
[17:04] professionalism, our technological
[17:06] superiority, the courage of our soldiers
[17:08] and our sailors and our airmen, despite
[17:11] the immense military tradition Britain
[17:13] has, we have cut I mean our debt
[17:16] interest repayments annually
[17:19] 1.5 times heading towards being twice
[17:22] our defense budget. We spent more on
[17:25] paying off the debt, the national debt
[17:27] every year than we spend on defense. How
[17:30] did the UK get here?
[17:31] >> Well, our our debt to GDP is over 100%.
[17:35] We keep borrowing money. We talked about
[17:37] the disproportionate amount of welfare
[17:39] spending and social spending and so on.
[17:41] We got here by forgetting that we live
[17:44] in the real world and engaging in lots
[17:46] of luxury beliefs about what we ought to
[17:48] do. Uh so we have the highest tax burden
[17:50] in peace time history in this country.
[17:53] And we do that not because we want to
[17:55] have a robust military or to do other
[17:57] things like that. We do it so that we
[17:59] can continue to pay ourselves money we
[18:01] don't have borrowing it from our
[18:03] children and our grandchildren. And this
[18:05] is the case across Europe really.
[18:07] America also has a high level of debt
[18:09] but they have a growing economy unlike
[18:11] ours. Britain uh Britain's GDP per
[18:13] capita is lower today than it was in
[18:15] 2006. We have per capita which is what
[18:19] matters per person. We have less money
[18:21] today than we did 20 years ago. So our
[18:24] economy's declined. We've destroyed our
[18:26] manufacturing. we've run down our armed
[18:28] forces. And also, I mean, look,
[18:32] President Trump, I think, is fair to
[18:34] say, is quite sensitive about what
[18:35] people say about him. We have a
[18:37] government now that very imprudently and
[18:41] unwisely spent the time they were in
[18:43] opposition on him on a daily
[18:45] basis. David Lambie, if you take, who's
[18:48] our foreign secretary, if you take some
[18:50] of his comments about President Trump,
[18:52] they were just deeply irresponsible.
[18:54] whatever you think about the rights and
[18:56] wrongs of what he said. A someone who
[18:58] has the potential to be this country's
[18:59] foreign secretary in charge of our
[19:01] relationship with the United States
[19:03] cannot be so imprudent as to make those
[19:06] kinds of comments. And then you're
[19:08] going, well, you've just been calling
[19:10] this guy every name under the sun and
[19:13] now you want to you want to be relevant.
[19:15] You want to be taken seriously. You want
[19:17] to be engaged with as he makes huge
[19:19] decisions about geopolitics. Actions
[19:22] have consequences and the actions we
[19:24] have been taken have produced the
[19:25] consequences that we've got. Now look, I
[19:28] am not all doom and gloom about that. If
[19:30] we change our strategy and if we change
[19:32] our behavior, we can change the pro the
[19:34] the the end product of that. We can do
[19:36] that. But that's going to require a
[19:38] massive readjustment
[19:40] >> with the current direction of travel.
[19:42] Where does the UK end up?
[19:43] >> We're already there. We're irrelevant.
[19:46] We are irrelevant when these, like you
[19:48] said, Venezuela happens. No one cares
[19:50] about us. When Iran gets bombed, no one
[19:52] cares about us. All the future big
[19:54] decisions about geopolitics are going to
[19:57] be made without Britain even being
[19:59] considered because it's going to be made
[20:01] by the major powers of which Britain is
[20:02] no longer one.
[20:05] >> You choose to live in the UK despite
[20:07] your views that the UK is a bit of a
[20:10] sinking ship. I guess
[20:11] >> because of my views actually.
[20:14] >> Because of your views.
[20:14] >> Yeah. Like look, you've moved to the
[20:16] United States, which I'm grateful for
[20:17] cuz it's made us the biggest UK podcast
[20:19] in our space. I I appreciate that. But
[20:22] as you can imagine, we get offers to do
[20:24] the same in all sorts of different ways,
[20:25] and we could have done the same. I love
[20:27] this country. I'm very grateful to, and
[20:29] I feel to stay and fight for it and to
[20:32] articulate my views and try and persuade
[20:33] people to my point of view so that we
[20:35] can have a British renaissance, so that
[20:37] we can have a British recovery is my
[20:39] duty for as long as I can do that. And
[20:41] if at some point, you know, I feel it's
[20:42] completely futile, which I do not. Um,
[20:45] >> so you hopeful.
[20:46] >> I'm not despondent to the point of
[20:48] giving up is where I am.
[20:49] >> Are you hopeful?
[20:50] >> No. No. But but I'm also not at the
[20:54] point where I feel it's futile. I think
[20:55] there is there is an opportunity to turn
[20:58] things around if if everything comes
[21:00] together and we're very fortunate. Uh,
[21:02] and that's what I'm hopefully trying to
[21:04] contribute to. through history when
[21:06] companies pursue the strategy that the
[21:08] UK is currently pursuing
[21:10] >> where where does it end up economically?
[21:13] >> Well, Stephen, you're the business guy.
[21:14] You tell me.
[21:15] >> No, but I don't I'm not I don't have the
[21:16] greatest view of history and so I'm
[21:17] wondering if there's because you know in
[21:19] the UK I I was born 33 years ago in
[21:22] Bosotswana and I moved to the UK when I
[21:23] was young and um I've always known the
[21:26] UK to be important and consequential and
[21:30] the the economy to be, you know, much
[21:31] better than where I'm from in Botswana.
[21:34] So it's it's almost inconceivable for a
[21:36] British person of my age to to think
[21:38] that the UK could ever not be that. Yes.
[21:40] Because it's always been in my lifetime.
[21:42] >> Yes. But that is in many ways I'm not
[21:44] pinning the blame on you obviously, but
[21:45] that is in many ways how we got here.
[21:47] Because what we thought collectively
[21:49] was, well, look, no matter what we do,
[21:52] we're always going to be Great Britain.
[21:54] We're going to have a great economy.
[21:55] We're going to have a strong military.
[21:56] We're going to have a this. We're going
[21:57] to have influence in the world. And then
[21:59] we started doing lots of stupid
[22:02] And that's how we've ended up in the
[22:03] place that we've ended up. So this
[22:05] country has every potential to be great.
[22:07] The people are incredible. The level of
[22:09] education, uh, the scientific and
[22:11] technological advances that this country
[22:13] has produced, the cultural, look at the
[22:15] greatest bands in human history. Like
[22:18] half of them are British comedians. I
[22:20] mean, standup comedy is not a a British
[22:22] invention. It was actually invented in
[22:24] America. But look at some of the
[22:26] greatest comedians in human history.
[22:27] Again, lots and lots of British people.
[22:29] So culturally, scientifically,
[22:31] technologically, economically, we have
[22:34] the potential. We have to have the
[22:36] correct leadership and the right
[22:38] strategy. And those two things have been
[22:40] lacking for a long time. That's how
[22:41] we've ended up here. Can we turn it
[22:43] around? It's going to be very, very,
[22:44] very difficult. But I but we've got to
[22:46] try.
[22:47] >> Why would these issues impact us on a
[22:49] individual level? So I'm thinking about
[22:51] the average person listening now,
[22:53] whether they are in the United States or
[22:54] here in Britain. You know, this stuff
[22:56] happens kind of up above us and we get
[22:58] on with our lives. But what are the
[23:00] symptoms we'll begin to see
[23:02] >> this multipolar world or the the fall of
[23:04] Britain?
[23:05] >> You are already poorer today than you
[23:07] were 20 years ago
[23:08] >> per capita
[23:09] >> in the UK.
[23:10] >> In the UK,
[23:10] >> yeah,
[23:11] >> that seems to me quite important. And in
[23:13] fact, many of our conversations about
[23:15] domestic issues, whether it's mass
[23:16] immigration and all of these other
[23:18] things, they're really proxies for that
[23:20] conversation. because if we if the
[23:21] economy was growing and people felt
[23:23] richer,
[23:25] all of this stuff would become less
[23:26] important, right? Well, I think we'd
[23:28] agree with that. So, that's one aspect
[23:30] of it. The other aspect of it is, as I
[23:32] talked about the multipolar world being
[23:34] by necessity more violent and unstable.
[23:38] We are going, you know, you we I don't
[23:40] know when this will go out, but we're
[23:41] recording this in the middle of January.
[23:43] It's been like two weeks since the year
[23:45] started and we've already seen crazy
[23:47] amounts of instability geopolitically
[23:50] already. Is that fair to say? So, this
[23:52] will continue and that will bleed
[23:54] through to domestic politics because if
[23:57] you have to spend more of your resources
[23:58] worrying about things abroad, it means
[24:00] you can do less at home and so on and so
[24:02] on and so on. So the the ramifications
[24:04] of this will be very impactful on
[24:06] everybody around the world more on
[24:09] non-western countries because they a lot
[24:11] of them are going to be in the front
[24:12] line of this in in the way that I I
[24:14] doubt we will be. Uh but still the
[24:16] consequences for us will be very
[24:18] significant.
[24:19] >> And we're seeing adjacent to this this
[24:21] rise in socialism.
[24:22] >> Yeah.
[24:23] >> The conversation around socialism.
[24:24] Obviously Menani has been elected mayor.
[24:27] But do you think this is at all linked
[24:28] to the bigger picture this rise in
[24:30] socialism?
[24:30] >> Yeah. In fact, I I think you know I
[24:32] wrote an article a long time ago called
[24:34] Why I Fear the Future and I did a video
[24:36] based on it in which I talked about
[24:38] something. It's interesting. I did a
[24:39] live show um here in London just before
[24:42] Christmas and I did a book signing and
[24:44] one of the guys came up to me and he
[24:45] said, "I've got two kids. They're both
[24:47] teenagers, daughter and the son and I'm
[24:49] trying to pull the daughter in from the
[24:50] far left and I'm trying to pull the son
[24:52] in from the far right." That's going to
[24:54] be the big challenge going forward
[24:56] because um the amount of chaos and
[25:00] instability and cultural kind of
[25:03] cultural upheaval that we've seen has
[25:05] produced a craving for order and on the
[25:08] social that's the right side you know we
[25:10] must you know get this and on the other
[25:13] side it's produced a sense of injustice
[25:17] and the pursuit of inequality. That's
[25:18] why you hear people talk so much about
[25:20] the rich the rich the rich the rich and
[25:22] you know eat the rich we got to
[25:24] redistribute all of this stuff because
[25:26] particularly in the big cities young
[25:27] people rightly feel that they can they
[25:29] can't really get on the housing ladder
[25:30] they can't establish a family life is
[25:33] more difficult so they reach for these
[25:35] very um dis disproven discredited and
[25:38] completely unworkable solutions of the
[25:39] kind Manny uh will of course deliver but
[25:42] it's because their sense of their sense
[25:46] is that the future's been taken away
[25:47] from And in many ways they're correct
[25:50] because as I said earlier we have been
[25:52] borrowing from our children and our
[25:54] grandchildren. We've been saddling with
[25:56] crippling debts our entire economy that
[25:59] will come to an end and it's going to be
[26:01] them that is left to foot the bill and
[26:03] it's going to be very painful and partly
[26:05] they see that and already they see that
[26:06] they just can't afford the life that
[26:08] they want. I do think in the United
[26:10] States it's a much more contained
[26:11] phenomenon. I think Mamani and if you
[26:13] look at sort of the American socialists,
[26:16] they all tend to cluster around New York
[26:18] and one or two other big cities. It's
[26:19] not like the entirety of America is
[26:21] going socialist. But I think housing
[26:24] unaffordability is one. Another
[26:26] explanation which I think is also
[26:27] powerful is what's called elite over
[26:29] production which is if you have as Tony
[26:31] Blair did this idea that 50% of the
[26:33] public should should go to university.
[26:36] Well, they do and then it turns out
[26:38] there's not enough jobs for them.
[26:39] Particularly in the age of AI where they
[26:41] are the jobs that are being eliminated
[26:43] very rapidly. You then get a lot of
[26:45] people whose entitlement is up here and
[26:48] whose prospects are down here. That
[26:50] produces a tremendous amount of social
[26:52] disease as well.
[26:53] >> I think this is a really important
[26:54] connected point
[26:57] on the subject of socialism and the rise
[26:59] of socialism that we will see is this
[27:01] point of AI. And when I listen to very
[27:04] very smart people who are considered to
[27:06] be the godfathers of AI or CEOs who are
[27:09] building these technology companies,
[27:10] there seems to be a consensus that
[27:11] socialism will only increase because the
[27:13] job losses associated with AI are going
[27:15] to be pretty quick and pretty extreme.
[27:18] And um I mean one of them that most
[27:20] Brits won't understand is something we
[27:22] understand now living in America, which
[27:23] is my car drives itself.
[27:24] >> Yes. And I I've said this a few times
[27:26] because I'm really trying to it's like
[27:27] the first moment Eureka moment I think
[27:29] you have is in America when I get in my
[27:31] car I don't touch the steering wheel or
[27:33] the pedals and it can drive me to Joshua
[27:35] Tree which is like 2 and a half three
[27:36] hours away uninterrupted and I say this
[27:38] because driving is like one of the
[27:40] biggest employees in the world. I think
[27:41] it is the biggest profession in the
[27:42] world
[27:43] >> and London just announced that Whimos
[27:45] are here and soon surely Teslas will be
[27:48] allowed to do full self-driving here as
[27:50] well
[27:51] >> and in such a world delivery drivers,
[27:52] taxi drivers, Uber drivers are going to
[27:55] be without jobs and we're seeing this um
[27:58] huge rise in autonomous humanoid robots
[28:00] as well
[28:01] >> and Elon's pay packet says that he he
[28:04] will make a million of these autonomous
[28:06] robots and get them out into the world
[28:07] and Jason Kakanakas who just visited
[28:10] Elon 's factory said there'll be a
[28:12] billion of these and he thinks that we
[28:14] won't even even remember Tesla for
[28:16] making cars will only remember them for
[28:17] the robots they're made because these
[28:19] Optimus robots which are coming are
[28:22] going to be so consequential and the
[28:23] last point here is a very good friend of
[28:24] mine who runs this big sort of
[28:26] innovation accelerator in San Francisco
[28:28] I visited the accelerator a couple of
[28:30] weeks back and um he I said to him why
[28:33] why is everybody here all these young
[28:34] founders these 40 50 young founders in
[28:36] your building called effing all working
[28:37] on robotics and he goes well you know
[28:39] we've had all parts for like 20, 30
[28:41] years. But the expensive part was the
[28:43] intelligence.
[28:44] >> The brain.
[28:44] >> Yeah. The brain. He goes, "Now we have
[28:46] the bra." He said, "It used to He showed
[28:47] me this arm, this robotic arm that had a
[28:49] frying pan on it that would cook for you
[28:51] in a box. It just cooks whatever you
[28:52] want in a box." And he goes, "We've had
[28:54] all these parts for the last 30 years."
[28:56] That they were cheap. He goes, "The the
[28:58] intelligence part, the brain would cost
[29:00] 20 or $30,000 just for this little robot
[29:03] arm." He goes, "Now it's like 2 cents."
[29:06] >> Yeah.
[29:06] >> And he say, "So you're seeing this huge
[29:08] explosion in robotics." I don't think
[29:10] people understand what's coming.
[29:11] >> No. And going to San Francisco is
[29:13] eyeopening on two levels. Number one is
[29:16] like a quarter to a third of the cars on
[29:17] the road don't have drivers.
[29:19] >> Yeah.
[29:19] >> And just visually seeing that is so
[29:21] striking.
[29:22] >> Um but the other thing is talking to
[29:24] some of the people involved. There is a
[29:26] there are some people who are fairly
[29:27] sensible about it, fairly responsible
[29:29] among the founders, although they will
[29:31] still say and I think they're right that
[29:33] like if we don't do this, China will and
[29:34] so we've got to do this. But there's
[29:36] also a lot and I I'm sure you've
[29:38] encountered there's a kind of you know
[29:40] that famous Facebook mantra of move fast
[29:42] and break things. There's a lot of that
[29:44] going on in the AI space and so it's
[29:47] going to be hugely impactful. I don't
[29:49] claim to know the the all the little
[29:51] details of how that will play out other
[29:53] than to say it's going to be very
[29:55] disruptive. Uh and disruptiveness has
[29:58] happened throughout human history. It's
[29:59] always produced a backlash. It's always
[30:01] caused a lot of disease. But then
[30:03] humanity has managed to recover. This is
[30:05] different level and we will see how it
[30:07] plays out. But yeah, of course it's
[30:08] going to be and yeah, a world in which
[30:10] millions of people in which millions of
[30:13] people no longer have jobs and most of
[30:15] them are disproportionately young people
[30:17] who are more prone to extremism anyway.
[30:20] Yeah, that's not a pretty picture
[30:22] >> and one would assume that the wealth
[30:24] will acrude to a few.
[30:25] >> Yes,
[30:26] >> in such a scenario.
[30:27] >> And what's funny is I have said really
[30:29] only half jokingly. I mean I wrote a
[30:30] whole book about my opposition to
[30:31] communism and socialism based on
[30:33] experience.
[30:34] In a world in which no one has a job,
[30:35] I'm like 100% on board with communism.
[30:40] >> Do you think that's the world we're
[30:41] heading towards?
[30:42] >> Possibly.
[30:43] >> Yeah. But it makes sense. I mean, like
[30:45] you, if you think about it from the
[30:47] perspective of
[30:50] 50 people in the world, have all the
[30:52] money in the world, and everyone else
[30:53] has no job. I think a little bit of
[30:56] wealth redistribution is going to be
[30:58] unavoidable in that situation. And it
[30:59] can either happen voluntarily or it's
[31:01] going to happen at the end of bayonets.
[31:02] That's the choice.
[31:04] >> When you say communism would be the only
[31:06] choice in such a scenario, what what
[31:07] does that mean?
[31:07] >> Uh it means everybody gets paid for
[31:10] existing,
[31:12] right? Well, I mean, what else is there?
[31:14] You're going to create fake jobs for
[31:16] people. That's not going to work, right?
[31:18] So if if all the wealth in the world is
[31:21] going to be created by robots, a world
[31:23] in which th the products of their labor
[31:26] it only acrus to 50 people who had the
[31:29] idea or did the work 20 years ago that's
[31:32] not going to sustain itself. And so uh
[31:36] it would be very very unwise of those
[31:39] people to attempt to hold on to all that
[31:41] wealth and it would not end well for
[31:42] them in my opinion.
[31:43] >> On a personal level, you know, this
[31:45] disruption is going to happen in your
[31:46] lifetime.
[31:46] >> Yeah. Are you thinking much about it or
[31:48] planning for it at all? Did has it
[31:50] changed any of the decisions you you
[31:51] make on a a day-to-day basis or
[31:53] month-to-month basis?
[31:54] >> Well, I'm very fortunate that I am
[31:57] probably a little harder to replace with
[31:59] a robot just because people don't really
[32:01] want to hear robots opinions. I would
[32:03] imagine we might get to that point, but
[32:05] I think it's unlikely. So on my my own
[32:07] level, I'm probably, you know, the time
[32:10] scale I'm working to in the next 10
[32:11] years, I imagine I'll I'll get myself to
[32:14] a point where I'm going to be reasonably
[32:15] comfortable no matter what happens. For
[32:17] my children,
[32:17] >> that was us cutting forward 10 years and
[32:19] watching.
[32:19] >> Yeah. Yeah. Just totally me just
[32:21] unemployed long. [laughter]
[32:23] I can't believe what happened. For my
[32:25] children, it's a very different
[32:27] conversation. Uh so a lot of people are
[32:29] like, well, you know, what should I
[32:31] teach my children? And people are, oh
[32:32] yeah, they should be a plumber. I don't
[32:34] think you're going to need plumbers 15,
[32:35] 20 years from now either. So I I
[32:37] honestly don't know what that future
[32:39] looks like. And in many ways, that's
[32:41] always been the reality of life for most
[32:44] people. We are living through one of
[32:45] those great transitions in human history
[32:47] in which all you can do is equip your
[32:50] children with the basic skill sets of
[32:52] life as opposed to what might have been
[32:55] done 20 30 years ago where like you you
[32:58] get you go to school to develop a skill
[32:59] to go to university to build a career.
[33:01] Now, you're going to have to show a lot
[33:03] of flex in this modern world. So, you're
[33:04] going to have to be personable. You're
[33:06] going to have to be resourceful. You're
[33:08] going to have to be creative. You're
[33:09] going to have to go have a a positive
[33:10] go-getter mindset. You're going to have
[33:12] to have those basics nailed down as
[33:14] opposed to here's the career that you've
[33:16] been predetermined to have, unless of
[33:18] course you go into AI and robotics, in
[33:20] which case you probably won't be
[33:21] replaced for at least 5 years.
[33:23] >> I think there's something to the fact
[33:24] that there's an angst with AI. And when
[33:26] you know people listen to podcasts all
[33:28] the time. Yeah.
[33:29] >> They everyone who has a job in a big
[33:31] corporate environment now is being told
[33:33] by their CEO that you better learn AI or
[33:35] it's going to replace you. So we're
[33:36] living in this moment of
[33:38] >> there's like aliens coming over the
[33:39] horizon and we've spotted them.
[33:42] >> They're not quite here yet,
[33:44] >> but it's it's like saying to the general
[33:45] public, look, there's aliens coming and
[33:47] they're coming for your job and
[33:48] everything you value. That angst in and
[33:50] of itself I think can drive people
[33:53] towards ideas like socialism
[33:56] understandably.
[33:57] >> Yeah.
[33:57] >> Because you you know it's it's a it's a
[33:59] deep existential angst
[34:02] >> and also a lot of the AI people not all
[34:05] of them a lot of them are being but a
[34:07] lot of them are being deeply
[34:08] irresponsible and very unwise with their
[34:10] messaging. What? Last time I was in New
[34:12] York, I was walking through Time Square.
[34:14] There was this giant billboard which
[34:15] said, it was the name of the company,
[34:17] which I don't remember. Stop hiring
[34:19] humans. The age of the AI employees
[34:21] here. I'm going, have you really thought
[34:24] about this? Have you thought about
[34:25] putting your company's name on this
[34:27] poster? Do you understand the impact
[34:29] this is going to have on a normal person
[34:31] looking at that? Um, but they are. So,
[34:34] the thing is with AI is the the positive
[34:37] upsides of it are limitless. Literally
[34:40] limitless. And so a lot of the people
[34:42] who are in that space, that's what they
[34:44] focus on. And they're like, we can solve
[34:46] cancer. We can solve medical problems.
[34:48] We can have AI that's better than any
[34:50] physicist that can ever that's ever
[34:52] lived that can give us the, you know,
[34:54] the eternal engine or or or whatever. We
[34:56] don't need energy anymore. Like there
[34:58] are all sorts of crazy things that come
[35:00] out of AI that are potentially
[35:02] beneficial. And that is exciting. But
[35:05] the angst that you talk about, I think,
[35:07] is there. And I think it's also quite
[35:09] rational. You just reminded me of a
[35:11] video that came out this week from Elon
[35:13] where he says this. I'll play it for
[35:16] you. I think it's this one's. So, he's
[35:18] talking about Elon's talking about the
[35:20] robots that are about to be released
[35:22] from Tesla, which are called Optimus.
[35:24] And someone's asking him
[35:26] >> how good they will be at surgery.
[35:28] >> What do you think Optimus will be a
[35:29] better surgeon than the best surgeons?
[35:34] How long for that? [snorts]
[35:35] >> Three years.
[35:36] >> Three years. Okay. Yeah. And by the way,
[35:39] I say three years.
[35:40] at scale.
[35:41] >> Yes.
[35:42] >> And there will be more probably more
[35:43] Optimus robots that are great surgeons
[35:46] than there are
[35:47] >> all surgeons on Earth.
[35:48] >> And the cost of that but that's an
[35:50] important statement in 3 years time.
[35:52] >> Yeah.
[35:52] >> Um because medicine I mean absolutely
[35:58] if it's four or five years who cares.
[36:00] It's still an
[36:00] >> extreme precision.
[36:02] >> Yes.
[36:02] >> Three years. Um,
[36:04] yes. Better than any any probably I'd
[36:07] say if you like put a little margin on
[36:09] it. Better than any human in four years
[36:11] >> who's in plastic surgery. 5 years is not
[36:14] even close.
[36:15] >> I think your point was medicine is going
[36:18] to be effectively free. The best
[36:20] medicine in the world.
[36:21] >> Everyone will have access to medical
[36:23] care that is better than what the
[36:26] president receives right now.
[36:27] >> So don't go to medical school.
[36:29] >> Yes. Pointless.
[36:31] >> Yeah. pointless going to medical school.
[36:34] >> Look, he knows way more about this than
[36:36] I do. I would also say that I think both
[36:38] the incentive structure and his personal
[36:40] temperament lean towards a kind of
[36:42] optimism and there's a sales dimension
[36:45] to this as well, obviously, cuz he's one
[36:47] of the people producing the stuff. So,
[36:48] his optimism may be a product of the
[36:50] incentive structure that he's subject
[36:52] to. But even if it's not 3 years,
[36:56] I I don't think it's more than 10 years.
[36:59] So, that's the time frame. And given how
[37:01] long it takes to train to become a
[37:02] doctor. Yeah.
[37:04] >> I want to talk about the situation in
[37:06] Iran.
[37:07] >> We're seeing what one might call an
[37:09] uprising at the moment where protesters
[37:11] are are on the street in a country where
[37:13] it is very very dangerous um and also
[37:15] very brave to protest against the
[37:17] leadership there. Where does this fit in
[37:20] the broader context? What what the hell
[37:21] is going on?
[37:22] >> I am not an expert on Iran, but
[37:25] effectively what's happening in Iran is
[37:27] an attempted counterrevolution. So they
[37:29] had a revolution in 1979. They overthrew
[37:32] the ruler, the sha, and they replaced
[37:34] him with a an Islamic dictatorship,
[37:37] which is what you've had since 1979. And
[37:39] the people of Iran have attempted to
[37:42] overthrow this Islamic dictatorship
[37:45] repeatedly. They've always been brutally
[37:46] suppressed. And that's basically what's
[37:48] happening now again.
[37:49] >> And is does this fit somewhere into the
[37:51] broader conflict of geopolitics in the
[37:52] US, the multipol? Well, only in the
[37:55] sense that you can see that even
[37:57] President Trump, who's talked quite
[37:59] brashly about what he might do if this
[38:02] sort of gets out of hand, is still not
[38:04] as we speak doing anything about it on a
[38:07] on a kind of kinetic level. And that's
[38:10] partly for the reasons that we talked
[38:12] about earlier, which is the United
[38:13] States is deeply deeply the United
[38:16] States public are deeply deeply
[38:17] skeptical about foreign interventions.
[38:20] And so the idea that we that we the West
[38:22] would support a a regime change in Iran
[38:26] is not something that you can sell to
[38:29] the American people right now. And so he
[38:30] has to be he has to be much more careful
[38:33] about what he might otherwise have done
[38:35] in Iran. And so because of that, the
[38:38] leaders of Iran probably feel like
[38:40] they're in a better position to crack
[38:42] down and survive versus what might have
[38:45] happened in the past. I mean, Trump's
[38:48] been quite vocal in what he might do in
[38:50] his threats. He said that the US would
[38:52] come to the protesters rescue, that we
[38:54] are locked, loaded, and ready to go. He
[38:56] announced that countries doing business
[38:57] with Iran, faced a 25% tariff on their
[39:00] trade with the US, ramping up pressure.
[39:02] >> And he called for Iranians to keep
[39:03] protesting.
[39:05] Um, and then more recently, he said,
[39:06] "I've canceled all meetings with Iranian
[39:08] officials until the senseless killing of
[39:09] protest stops. Help is on the way. Mag
[39:13] mega,
[39:14] >> make Iran great." Well, Iran, you know,
[39:17] I mean, one thing that should be said is
[39:19] the Persian Empire and the Persian
[39:20] people are a great people with a very
[39:22] rich history. And what's interesting is
[39:25] in attempting to over I don't know if
[39:27] you've ever seen pictures from Tehran
[39:28] from before 1979, it's like women
[39:30] walking around in miniskirts and and all
[39:32] the rest of it. So, they have a very
[39:34] long history of freedom in a way that we
[39:37] don't tend to think of the Middle East
[39:39] as having today. uh and that's that's
[39:41] that's an example of how it's perhaps
[39:44] different from other parts of the Middle
[39:46] East. But you can see the the reluctance
[39:49] to actually do anything about it because
[39:50] the question is well let's say you do
[39:52] remove the current leadership. Let's say
[39:55] you bring back the son of the former
[39:57] Shah Resa he oversees a transition to
[40:01] some kind of democratic thing. Who is
[40:03] there protecting that process from being
[40:07] disrupted by the remnants of the old
[40:09] regime? Who's going to do that? Is there
[40:12] American boots on the ground? Cuz
[40:13] there's literally zero appetite for that
[40:16] in America. That's the challenge that I
[40:18] think he faces, which is probably why he
[40:20] hasn't done anything.
[40:20] >> And how do you think the story plays
[40:22] out?
[40:22] >> No idea, mate. No idea. I I I have no
[40:25] idea what what's going to happen here. I
[40:27] fear unfortunately that what the regime
[40:30] will do I'm not saying this is what will
[40:32] happen but my fear is and it's one of
[40:35] the reasons that I am
[40:39] I sympathize so deeply with the Iranian
[40:41] people that are rising up against the
[40:43] oppression but I am wary of encouraging
[40:46] encouraging them unless we are willing
[40:48] to back them fully. This is exactly in
[40:51] in a way that what happened with
[40:52] Ukraine. There was a lot of rah rah
[40:54] rahrh and there was not nearly enough
[40:56] support to actually help them defend
[40:58] their country. My fear is there will be
[41:01] a lot of rah. We support the Ukrainian
[41:03] people. We stand with them blah blah,
[41:05] you know, blah blah blah. But ultimately
[41:08] the regime will kill more of them and it
[41:10] will kill enough of them for this to go
[41:12] away. That's my worry.
[41:14] >> Well, I hope the world does come to the
[41:16] support of the Iranians. I really do.
[41:18] >> Me too. because for all the reasons
[41:20] you've said, beautiful country,
[41:21] beautiful people, and um it's it's
[41:24] horrific to see what's going on. There's
[41:25] varying estimates. It's unfortunately we
[41:28] we don't have accurate numbers because I
[41:30] mean the internet is down and it's
[41:32] always hard to get accurate numbers in
[41:33] the situation, but I've heard estimates
[41:35] ranging from 2,000 to 18,000 people
[41:37] being killed. And uh it's inconceivable
[41:40] I think for Westerners like us to
[41:43] understand what it is to live in an
[41:44] environment like that.
[41:46] >> Which is why they're protesting as
[41:47] courageously as they are. I just hope
[41:50] that the geopolitical realities allow us
[41:53] to support them in the way that we keep
[41:54] saying we would. Do you see what I'm
[41:57] saying?
[41:57] >> Yeah, of course. Yeah. And this is Yeah.
[41:59] >> And this is my big worry. We have we
[42:01] have done a lot of this. We stand with
[42:04] you. We support you. And then when push
[42:06] comes to shove,
[42:08] the realities of the thing come into
[42:10] play and suddenly we're a lot more
[42:12] careful about it.
[42:12] >> Trump seems to walk the walk more so
[42:14] than others.
[42:15] >> Absolutely.
[42:16] >> And he seems to It's funny because I
[42:18] think it was Biden that said to China
[42:20] that if they took back Taiwan, he would
[42:21] get involved.
[42:24] >> Trump didn't say that.
[42:25] >> He's kind of I was looking at some
[42:26] quotes from Trump and it seems like he's
[42:27] basically like, well, if they take
[42:28] Taiwan back, I ain't going to get
[42:30] involved. But in other instances where
[42:32] he warns countries that he'll bomb them
[42:34] or take action. Yeah.
[42:36] >> Like Venezuela or like Iran with the the
[42:38] nuclear weapon situation, he does seem
[42:40] to follow through.
[42:42] >> And I Marco Rubio and Hegathth were
[42:44] saying the other day in the interview I
[42:45] was watching that listen when when is
[42:47] the world going to learn? If Trump says
[42:49] something, he's going to do it. And you
[42:50] know him saying that we will come to
[42:52] your rescue.
[42:53] >> Well, hopefully they come through on
[42:55] that, but also hopefully they have a
[42:57] plan for what happens after that.
[43:00] >> Yeah. And this is the mistake we've
[43:02] obviously made in a number of countries,
[43:05] Libya, Iraq,
[43:07] Afghanistan,
[43:09] Syria, which is now basically headed by
[43:11] a jihadi.
[43:12] >> Yeah.
[43:13] >> Right. Where we go, oh yeah, we've got
[43:15] to remove this terrible guy and yeah,
[43:18] he's terrible guy and we're right to
[43:19] remove him. But then what do you end up
[43:21] with afterwards? So if they do help the
[43:23] Iranian people, which I hope they have,
[43:25] they have the plans to do, then I hope
[43:27] they have a plan for what happens after
[43:29] that and how you get Iran to a position
[43:32] where the people of Iran get to choose
[43:33] their own leaders and those leaders stay
[43:35] in power and those leaders are the sorts
[43:38] of people that you might want to see in
[43:40] charge because you know this happened in
[43:42] Egypt. They they they have the Arab
[43:44] Spring. They overthrow the evil dictator
[43:46] and what do they do? they elect the
[43:47] Muslim Brotherhood and then the people
[43:49] go no no no no we need the military back
[43:51] etc. So these are not easy problems to
[43:53] solve which is why people are being
[43:55] careful about it. So I hope they have a
[43:56] a plan and a solution for what comes
[43:58] after if they in fact act
[44:00] >> and Trump's also talking about taking
[44:02] Greenland
[44:03] >> which is the first time I heard him say
[44:05] that I thought he was joking. I thought
[44:07] this is just a funny Trump, you know,
[44:08] when he was talking about taking Canada.
[44:10] >> Yeah,
[44:11] >> it was he was calling it the great state
[44:13] of Canada. I thought this was him just
[44:14] joking. But in more recent times, in the
[44:16] last week, I heard him say in an
[44:18] interview, "We're going to do it the
[44:19] easy way or the hard way." Words to that
[44:21] effect.
[44:24] >> What's going on?
[44:25] >> Well, we talked about they're trying to
[44:26] protect their sphere of influence in
[44:28] North America and South America, and
[44:30] they they want they want they want to
[44:32] have the military bases there that they
[44:34] want to have there. They want to have
[44:35] the resources and access to that.
[44:36] >> Are we returning to empires?
[44:38] >> We never left empire. This is the This
[44:40] is the great thing that we we've been
[44:43] living in the dream world. We've been
[44:44] pretending these things haven't been
[44:46] going on the entire time. They have. The
[44:48] world's always been like this.
[44:50] There was a brief moment after World War
[44:53] II when it wasn't like this because we
[44:55] were fighting the Soviet Union. And the
[44:57] Soviet Union, the battle in the Cold War
[44:59] was very similar. There was proxy wars
[45:01] all over the place between those two
[45:03] great powers. Right now there's two
[45:06] different great powers and a third
[45:08] smaller power in Russia and India is
[45:10] rising as well who are all trying to
[45:12] make their moves and all Trump is doing
[45:14] is saying well we are not going to play
[45:16] by the fake rules anymore that no one
[45:18] else is playing by anyway.
[45:21] >> And so is Trump endeavoring to take that
[45:24] part of the world take control of that?
[45:26] >> Take control. Yeah. In many ways, it's
[45:28] what every great power seeks to do is to
[45:30] control its neighbors so that they don't
[45:32] have foreign influence in their backyard
[45:34] so that they have the strategic
[45:36] advantage in that area. Um, it's the way
[45:39] of the world.
[45:41] >> I mean, I didn't hear this rhetoric for
[45:43] the other 30 years of my life.
[45:45] >> Yeah.
[45:46] >> As explicitly.
[45:47] >> Yeah.
[45:48] >> And when you say multipolar,
[45:50] what are the polls?
[45:52] >> Well, it's the US and China.
[45:54] >> Yeah. are the two Russia wants to claim
[45:58] it's a third one and then you will see
[46:00] the rise of India I think over time as
[46:02] well India is a lot more sensible about
[46:05] these things about the way that they're
[46:06] developing
[46:07] >> and is is the multipolar world a good
[46:09] thing or a bad thing or is it just
[46:10] indifferent
[46:11] >> for whom
[46:12] >> for let's do people living in Europe
[46:16] >> I think it's likely to be a very bad
[46:18] thing for people living in Europe
[46:21] because we become less powerful less
[46:23] wealthy less relevant
[46:25] uh for the reasons we've already
[46:27] discussed. We could change it if we
[46:29] wanted to.
[46:31] >> How
[46:32] >> we could uh abandon our suicidal
[46:34] economic policy. So we could have
[46:36] economic growth again which would
[46:38] increase our share of GDP. We would make
[46:41] our people more prosperous. It would
[46:43] help to quell domestic unease.
[46:46] >> Part of which has been created by mass
[46:47] immigration. People care about that more
[46:50] because they're poorer. Right? If we
[46:52] were growing, then everybody's a little
[46:55] bit happier. It's like you move to LA,
[46:56] the sunshine is nice, everybody's a
[46:58] little bit happier. When you're getting
[46:59] richer, everybody's a little bit
[47:01] happier. So, that's one of them. The
[47:02] second one is you've got to recognize
[47:05] that the huge waves of immigration we
[47:08] have had uh have brought some positives.
[47:11] They've also brought a tremendous amount
[47:13] of cultural instability. People feel
[47:15] like their country is changing. They
[47:17] never voted for it. In fact, they
[47:18] repeatedly voted against it. So you have
[47:20] to arrest the sense that our country is
[47:23] ceasing to be one place and instead
[47:25] we're becoming different communities,
[47:27] right? The this community, the that
[47:29] community. Instead, we've got to go to a
[47:31] place where we're all British or we're
[47:33] all American or we're all French or
[47:34] whatever it is, we've got to integrate
[47:36] fully the people have already arrived.
[47:38] And to do that, you have to make sure
[47:40] you don't continue to have the same
[47:42] scale of inflows that we've had. You
[47:44] have to deal with illegal immigration.
[47:46] You have to stop that from happening
[47:47] because that that really affects how
[47:49] people feel about sense of fairness and
[47:51] a commitment and loyalty to their
[47:53] country. One of the reasons if you talk
[47:54] to young people they they'll say they're
[47:56] disillusioned, they won't fight for
[47:58] their country, etc. is they feel like
[48:00] well their country doesn't care about
[48:02] them. It's bringing in people that it's
[48:04] paying to have a house and and so all
[48:06] the rest of it while they can't get on
[48:08] the property letter. So you've got to
[48:09] deal with immigration as a whole
[48:11] package. Then you have to rebuild your
[48:13] military. You have to rebuild your
[48:14] military capacity.
[48:16] And then you have to understand the new
[48:19] world in which we live and really pick a
[48:21] team and say which alliances are we
[48:23] going to nurture. In my opinion the best
[48:25] thing Britain could do is to nurture the
[48:28] alliance with the United States to make
[48:30] itself relevant within that alliance for
[48:32] in the ways that I've already talked
[48:34] about and then join forces with the US
[48:36] and recognize that we have very similar
[48:38] interests in a lot of things and if we
[48:40] were prepared to act like it then we'd
[48:42] be in a much better place.
[48:45] And also you got to have more kids.
[48:48] A lot more kids.
[48:50] >> Why?
[48:51] >> Uh if you if you look at forget about
[48:53] the moral kind of sensibilities and
[48:54] politically correct stuff about it, the
[48:56] more people you have, the more powerful
[48:58] you are comparative all other things
[49:00] being equal, right? A country with more
[49:03] people is more powerful than a country
[49:04] with fewer people. Just if everything
[49:06] else is the same. But more importantly,
[49:09] our dem we're in a demographic death
[49:11] spiral. And this is one of the reasons
[49:13] we have had mass immigration.
[49:14] Politicians won't tell you the honest
[49:16] truth of it. But the real reason is they
[49:17] keep bringing in hundreds of thousands
[49:20] of people is if they don't, we will see
[49:22] the reality which is that we're getting
[49:24] poorer all the time. But if they bring
[49:26] in a mass of people from outside, they
[49:30] can say that the economy is growing not
[49:33] because it's growing on a per capita
[49:34] basis, but because you've simply added
[49:36] more people to the population. And if if
[49:38] if this is seems abstract, think about
[49:40] it like this. Let's say you have
[49:43] uh you have a family, you, your
[49:45] girlfriend, and you've got two kids,
[49:47] right? And your total household income
[49:49] is £100,000 a year, let's say, for the
[49:51] four of you. Now, let's say you bring in
[49:53] your in-laws. They live in the same
[49:55] house, right? They don't earn anything.
[49:57] Let's say they own 10 grand a year each.
[49:58] So now your household income is
[50:00] £120,000. So you've got richer, haven't
[50:02] you?
[50:04] >> No, you've now got six people to spread
[50:07] that money over and now you're per
[50:08] person a lot poorer. That's what British
[50:11] and European leaders have done so that
[50:15] they could pretend that we're not
[50:16] getting poorer all the time. That's why
[50:19] they've done it. Uh this is what they
[50:20] say. We need people to come and do the
[50:22] jobs. That that's what they mean. They
[50:24] mean we need to bring in more people so
[50:26] we can tell you the economy has grown by
[50:28] 0.3%.
[50:30] While you've been getting poorer. So
[50:32] you've got to address the economic side
[50:34] of this as well of the demographic
[50:36] thing. And the third thing actually is
[50:39] societies with lots of kids kids are
[50:41] just much more dynamic than societies
[50:43] without them. You know, you get very
[50:45] stale when you've got too many older
[50:47] people. You need that young energy, that
[50:49] young blood. You need young people. You
[50:51] need children around. Uh and then they
[50:53] will of course be the next generation to
[50:54] drive things forward. So you we've got
[50:56] to have loads more loads more kids.
[50:58] >> New year always has a strange energy to
[51:00] it because people start talking about
[51:02] their goals, fresh starts, and new
[51:03] habits. But the reality is that most
[51:05] people carry the same ideas they had
[51:07] last year into the new year. I'm guilty
[51:09] of that, too. And they still don't end
[51:10] up doing anything with them. And I get
[51:12] why. Starting something new, especially
[51:14] if it's a business or a project, is
[51:15] overwhelming. Before you start, you're
[51:16] looking for the perfect moment and to be
[51:18] the perfect version of yourself. When
[51:20] really what matters most is taking that
[51:22] first step. If you've had an idea for a
[51:24] while, a product, a store, something
[51:26] you've been sitting on, our sponsor
[51:28] Shopify makes it easy to get started
[51:30] because you can build your store, sell
[51:32] on socials, take payments, use AI tools,
[51:34] and manage everything all in one place.
[51:37] So, if 2026 is the year you finally back
[51:40] yourself, go to shopify.co.uk/bartlet
[51:44] and start selling. And you can sign up
[51:46] for a $1 per month trial right now, too.
[51:50] Just go to shopify.co.uk/ UK/bartlet.
[51:53] I promise you, you don't need to have it
[51:56] all figured out. You just need to start.
[51:59] You know, every once in a while, you
[52:00] come across a product that has such a
[52:03] huge impact on your life that you'd
[52:04] probably describe as a gamecher. And I
[52:08] would say for about 35 to 40% of my
[52:12] team, they would currently describe this
[52:14] product that I have in front of me
[52:16] called Ketone IQ, which you can get at
[52:18] ketone.com,
[52:20] as a game changer. But the reason I
[52:22] became a co-owner of this company and
[52:23] the reason why they they now are a
[52:24] sponsor of this podcast is because one
[52:27] day when I came to work, there was a box
[52:28] of this stuff sat on my desk. I had no
[52:30] idea what it was. Lily and my team says
[52:32] that this company have been in touch. So
[52:33] I went upstairs, tried it, and quite
[52:36] frankly, the rest is history. in terms
[52:37] of my focus, my energy levels, how I
[52:40] feel, how I work, how productive I am.
[52:43] Game changer. So, if you want to give it
[52:44] a try, visit ketone.com/stephven
[52:46] for 30% off. You'll also get a free gift
[52:49] with your second shipment. And now you
[52:51] can find Ketone IQ at Target stores
[52:53] across the United States where your
[52:55] first shot is completely free of charge.
[52:58] And what do you think of Kier Starmmer
[53:00] and the way he's leading the UK?
[53:02] >> It's very tempting always. We come back
[53:05] to the Biden Trump left right thing to
[53:07] put the blame on one specific person. I
[53:10] don't think he's doing a good job for
[53:12] the reasons that I told you. We we've
[53:13] got the highest tax burden in peace time
[53:16] history. So, he's driving business
[53:17] through the floor. I know that you will
[53:19] we you and I have never spoken about
[53:21] this, but I bet you could name 50 people
[53:24] off the top of your head who've left the
[53:26] UK to go to other places, who run
[53:27] businesses. You're nodding, right, for
[53:29] people listening. But why is that
[53:30] happening? because the business climate
[53:32] here is not good.
[53:34] >> Mhm. [clears throat]
[53:34] >> The taxes here are very high and also
[53:37] the quality of life here is declined.
[53:39] >> And generally, you know, I think maybe
[53:41] the first point you said about climate,
[53:43] there's a pessimism.
[53:44] >> Yes.
[53:45] >> Why is that? Why is that?
[53:48] >> It's self-fulfilling.
[53:50] >> Yes.
[53:50] >> It's like a self-fulfilling pessimism
[53:52] where founders who are in my portfolio
[53:53] that I've invested in will come to me
[53:55] and say, "Hi, you know, we've just sold
[53:57] uh 10% of the business for 20 million."
[53:59] Yeah.
[54:00] >> And then the next sentence will be their
[54:01] escape plan.
[54:02] >> Mhm.
[54:03] >> And that didn't used to happen even 10
[54:05] years ago.
[54:05] >> And that's because of government policy.
[54:08] That's the only way that this happens.
[54:10] Right? Because if the government a keeps
[54:12] taxing you up to your eyeballs and b
[54:14] keeps telling you that you are evil,
[54:17] which is what it does, right? If you're
[54:18] rich in Britain, you are evil. That's
[54:21] the that's the algorithm we have. And we
[54:23] treat successful people. We immediately
[54:26] assume that they're privileged people.
[54:27] Well, my pet theory is that this goes
[54:29] back to the land of gentry. The idea
[54:33] that in this country if you were rich,
[54:35] there was a time when that was almost
[54:37] certainly because your dad was rich or
[54:39] at least people thought that. And so
[54:42] this sense that if someone is successful
[54:44] economically, financially, it's probably
[54:46] because they've benefited from some sort
[54:48] of illotten privilege. It permeates
[54:51] everything. In America, people don't
[54:53] feel that way. They go, "You've been
[54:54] successful because you've worked really
[54:56] hard and you've had a great idea. I'd
[54:58] love to learn from you. I'd love to be
[54:59] more like you." In Britain, we go,
[55:01] "You've been successful. You know, we
[55:03] got to tax you." So, if the government
[55:06] keeps taxing you and then telling you
[55:07] you're a bad person while you pay the
[55:09] overwhelming share of the taxes in the
[55:11] country, it's not a great place to be.
[55:14] You know, if I come home tonight and my
[55:16] wife says, "Yeah, you earn all the
[55:17] money, but you're a dick and I don't
[55:18] like you." And
[55:21] after a while, you sort of go, well, if
[55:23] this isn't working, I'll go somewhere
[55:25] where I'm wanted. Do you know what I
[55:26] mean? And I think that's what's
[55:28] happening to a lot of the most driven,
[55:30] the most talented, the most successful,
[55:32] the most creative people. And so, we're
[55:34] driving out the business, we're driving
[55:36] out the entrepreneurs. Then on the
[55:38] industrial side of it, we talked about
[55:39] it before, net zero basically means that
[55:41] any energyintensive business is
[55:43] completely unviable in Britain. And I'm
[55:45] sure you've seen this with AI and lots
[55:47] of other things. you go to where you can
[55:50] do your business. Then on top of that
[55:52] you add regulation particularly in in
[55:54] Europe which restricts your ability to
[55:57] do things again. So there's this um you
[56:01] and it didn't didn't have to be like
[56:03] that. It wasn't like that in the '9s in
[56:05] this country, right? There was a
[56:07] positive go-getter business climate and
[56:09] you can do that again. You just have to
[56:11] have a leader who is willing to do that.
[56:13] And SAM is the opposite of that. And
[56:16] part of the reason is that they simply
[56:18] can't do anything about the fact that we
[56:21] are spending huge amounts of money uh
[56:24] keeping lots and lots of people trapped
[56:26] in welfare against in many ways against
[56:30] their interest and actually in some ways
[56:31] I would argue even against their will
[56:33] because and I've made this point before
[56:36] if you said to you're a very driven
[56:38] person. I'm a very driven person, but
[56:40] when I was in my early 20s, if you'd
[56:43] said to me, "You don't need to work."
[56:46] You know, I know you're feeling a bit
[56:47] depressed, as I was in my early 20s. I
[56:49] wasn't sure what I was doing with life.
[56:50] You're a bit depressed. You're a bit
[56:51] anxious. I remember going to apply for a
[56:53] job and just sweating buckets cuz I was
[56:55] so anxious. Right. Well, you've got
[56:58] anxiety, you've got depression, you
[57:00] can't work. We'll give you 20 grand a
[57:02] year and you can just, you know, we'll
[57:04] write you off and you just sit home,
[57:06] play on the PlayStation, smoke weed. I
[57:08] would have taken that. Most people would
[57:09] have taken that. And that's the position
[57:11] we have put a lot of our young people
[57:13] in. Uh we just ride them off. We give
[57:15] them benefits and we forget about them.
[57:17] And that welfare bill has become a
[57:20] unsustainable, but it's also uncutable.
[57:22] They try the Labor government tried to
[57:24] cut it. They tried to reform welfare and
[57:26] their own backbenches revolted and they
[57:28] caved and they said, "No, no, no. We're
[57:30] not going to reform welfare. We're going
[57:31] to tax the rich because the rich, you
[57:32] know, don't pay enough tax." when in the
[57:34] reality I think the top you maybe look
[57:36] this up 10 the top 10% of taxpayers in
[57:39] this country pay
[57:41] I think more than half of all the tax
[57:44] probably significantly more than half of
[57:46] all the tax but look it up I think the
[57:48] top 1% pay 33% of all the tax fact check
[57:51] me on this
[57:53] >> okay so the top 10% of taxpayers
[57:57] pay 60% of all income tax
[58:00] >> yeah and also um what's the other one
[58:02] the capital gains as well. If you look
[58:04] up capital gains, it's basically the
[58:06] same. So if you put those two together,
[58:07] which is basically what we pay on
[58:10] earning, the top 10% pay 60% of it. So
[58:14] what happens when you chase out those
[58:17] people, which is what we're doing. What
[58:18] happens to your tax base? You get less
[58:20] and less tax. That means you have to tax
[58:23] the people who haven't left yet more and
[58:24] more in order to pay people who are not
[58:28] who are net consumers of tax revenues.
[58:31] According to HM revenue and customs data
[58:34] in the UK, the top 1% pay 30% of all
[58:38] income.
[58:38] >> I said 33. So 30. Yeah.
[58:40] >> Yeah. So what happens when you say that
[58:43] 1% are evil and they must pay more? 1%
[58:48] pay 30% of all the tax.
[58:50] >> It's funny. I'm quite a torn person on
[58:52] this subject because I I represent kind
[58:54] of two sides of this argument. The first
[58:56] side of the argument, I just have this
[58:58] sort of visceral memory of being sat at
[59:01] my desk in Mosside with these like baiff
[59:03] letters on my right, this smashed up
[59:04] laptop on my left, knowing that I had no
[59:06] way of eating that day and thinking,
[59:08] "Oh, I you know what I need to do?
[59:10] There's this thing called jobsekers
[59:12] allowance."
[59:13] >> And I was like messing with the do I
[59:15] join it cuz like right now I'm like
[59:16] scavenging for pound coins to see if I
[59:18] can buy some Chinese from Young Dar
[59:20] Takeaway. And I printed off the forms
[59:23] and the forms were there in front of me
[59:24] on the desk to apply for jobsekers
[59:26] allowance when I was maybe 18 years old,
[59:27] roughly that age, 18, 19 years old. And
[59:30] because I got so close, I have the huge
[59:32] amount of empathy for people that
[59:34] >> get to that point. And then on the other
[59:36] side, because I'm now in a different
[59:38] world
[59:39] >> and I I'm around entrepreneurs so much
[59:42] who are
[59:43] >> so so frequently telling me their escape
[59:45] plan from the UK that I feel the need to
[59:48] let the average the the normal person
[59:50] that's listening to this podcast that
[59:51] maybe doesn't have the access to
[59:53] entrepreneurs or the inside
[59:54] conversations that that I have with
[59:56] entrepreneurs know that when people come
[59:58] on the show and tell you that rich
[60:00] people will leave, it is my experience
[60:04] that rich people leave and like because
[60:07] there there is an argument ongoing
[60:08] argument no they won't leave and there
[60:10] people point out different things no
[60:11] they they leave they leave I mean we
[60:13] just saw Revolute which is one of the
[60:15] the most successful companies emerge
[60:17] from the UK in recent times it's
[60:19] probably going to be worth a hundred
[60:20] billion the founder left
[60:22] >> I think it's Dubai or somewhere it's
[60:24] gone to
[60:24] >> and people say well Britain can't
[60:26] compete with a zero tax environment we
[60:28] don't need to compete with a zero tax
[60:29] environment people want to live in
[60:31] Britain still you just have to stop
[60:34] clobbering over them over the head and
[60:35] calling them evil.
[60:37] >> Right.
[60:37] >> Yeah.
[60:38] >> Now, look, you know, I can give you a
[60:40] sob story as well. Like when I was at
[60:42] university, I had no I had to stop
[60:44] university cuz I couldn't pay for it. I
[60:45] slept on the street in a park. Blah blah
[60:48] blah blah blah. Empathy for days for
[60:50] people who are in that position. And
[60:53] there are lots of people, by the way,
[60:54] and this is important to say, Stephen,
[60:56] who are not in your position. They're
[60:58] not super talented. They're not
[60:59] predisposed to success. They're not as
[61:01] hardworking and motivated as you for
[61:03] whatever reason. And many people are
[61:04] disabled. Many people have all sorts of
[61:06] other issues. And of course, we've got
[61:07] to help them. But what we have done is
[61:10] trapped now hundreds of thousands, if
[61:13] not millions of people who could be
[61:14] working and have meaning and purpose in
[61:17] their life on welfare and we're not
[61:20] helping them get off it because it's
[61:22] much easier to give them a payout and
[61:23] forget about them. That's what's
[61:25] happening. And so, you know, I've had
[61:27] these views since before I was in any
[61:29] way successful. I just looked at what
[61:31] works. And when we talk about rich
[61:34] people leaving, the thing is I don't
[61:35] care about rich people leaving. People
[61:37] who have a lot of money leaving is not
[61:39] really an issue for me. What's an issue
[61:41] for me is people who are going to create
[61:44] wealth leaving. So on that point, the
[61:47] founder of Revolute leaving the UK, Nick
[61:50] Strinsky, I think his name is, um,
[61:53] estimates say, credible reports say that
[61:56] because he's leaving, there's going to
[61:58] be a3 billion pound potential loss of
[62:01] capital gains tax that he would have
[62:04] paid had he not absconded to the UAE.
[62:07] Now to put this into more stark terms
[62:09] what that means. I then um did some
[62:11] research and I was looking at how many
[62:13] people it would take to pay that 3
[62:15] billion. How many average taxpayers it
[62:16] would take to pay that 3 billion that we
[62:18] that we lose by him leaving.
[62:20] >> And it says roughly £450,000
[62:24] average UK taxpayers because the average
[62:25] UK taxpayer pays about £7,000 to £7,500
[62:29] a year. So very simple math 3 billion
[62:32] divided by 7,000 equals 430,000 people.
[62:36] Mhm.
[62:36] >> So in plain English, that billionaire's
[62:39] potential tax bill is equal to the
[62:41] entire income tax of a midsized UK city
[62:45] for one year because that person decided
[62:48] to leave.
[62:48] >> Congratulations, you tax the rich.
[62:51] Congratulations. Now half a million
[62:53] people have to pay more tax.
[62:56] Well done.
[62:59] That's what we're doing. And because
[63:02] it's become a moral argument because the
[63:04] rich are evil
[63:06] in our mentality,
[63:08] people don't hear this point at all. It
[63:10] just totally goes over their head. They
[63:12] go, you know, but but the rich are evil,
[63:13] they must pay more tax. And you go, even
[63:16] if I agreed with you, it still doesn't
[63:19] work in practice.
[63:22] So if something is not working in
[63:24] practice, why would you keep doing it?
[63:27] I think as well, you know, one of your
[63:28] other points was around what the UK has
[63:31] to offer them. And I think if the UK was
[63:33] really growth focused and you know, the
[63:35] energy point you made, energy was
[63:37] cheaper here, then
[63:39] >> that equation that these founders are
[63:41] making whether to stay or to leave would
[63:43] tilt a little bit further in our
[63:44] direction. So, it's super it's so
[63:46] difficult.
[63:47] >> And no, no disrespect to Dubai, but most
[63:50] people don't want to have to live in
[63:52] Dubai.
[63:53] I think the UK is a lovely honestly I
[63:55] mean
[63:55] >> that's what I mean right and I say this
[63:57] with there's lots of great appealing
[63:58] things about Dubai but if you dealt with
[64:00] prime in the UK and you had a growth
[64:04] focused mindset you had a tax climate
[64:06] that encouraged people to start
[64:08] businesses and employ people we wouldn't
[64:10] be losing these people and we shouldn't
[64:12] be losing these people they are they are
[64:13] the people who will create the wealth of
[64:15] the future and they should be doing it
[64:17] here they should be founding and keeping
[64:18] their businesses here and if you did
[64:20] that then you start to turn the whole
[64:23] thing we've been talking about around
[64:24] because ultimately everything is about
[64:26] economics in in this sense the military
[64:29] is about economics.
[64:31] It's about do you have the resources to
[64:33] have a strong military? We don't. So we
[64:35] don't.
[64:36] >> So which leader do we need?
[64:38] >> Again, I don't like getting into the
[64:40] personality side of things. But what you
[64:42] need is someone who understands how the
[64:44] economy works.
[64:45] >> Why don't you like getting into the
[64:46] personality side of things?
[64:48] >> Because what happens when if I give you
[64:50] a name?
[64:50] >> Yeah.
[64:51] >> Then immediately people say, "Oh, he's
[64:53] one of them."
[64:55] >> Okay.
[64:55] >> Right. I am not one of them of any them.
[64:58] I'm just telling you what the policies
[65:00] are that I think would work for our
[65:01] country. If Kia Starama tomorrow came on
[65:05] your show and said, "Stephen, I'm here
[65:07] to announce a great British
[65:08] transformation. We're going to cut
[65:10] business taxes. We're going to get rid
[65:12] of net zero. We're going to make sure
[65:13] that we have the cheapest energy in the
[65:15] world for our businesses to grow and
[65:17] thrive. We're going to have a strong,
[65:19] capable military. And by the way, I've
[65:21] just hired 50,000 new police officers to
[65:23] deal with all the ridiculous amounts of
[65:24] street crime we've got in London. Sign
[65:27] me up. I'm all K star ride or die,
[65:31] right? But that's probably not going to
[65:34] happen. That's probably not going to
[65:35] happen with any of the other leaders
[65:37] that we have. So, I'm here telling you
[65:39] what I think the right policies are. And
[65:41] if there's a leader who advocates for
[65:43] those policies, that's the sort of
[65:44] leader that I will support.
[65:46] >> Only 18% of Britons view Karma
[65:48] positively.
[65:49] >> Yeah.
[65:50] >> With around 65 to 72% holding an
[65:53] unfavorable opinion.
[65:55] >> You're desperate for me to slag off
[65:56] Karma. I'm happy to do it.
[65:58] >> No, no. I'm I'm actually not. [laughter]
[65:59] I'm actually not. Do you know what? Do
[66:01] you know what my opinion? Kiss Dharma?
[66:02] Probably a really nice person.
[66:04] >> Probably
[66:04] >> probably a really nice person.
[66:05] >> Yeah. I don't really care how nice he
[66:07] is. And that's my attitude to all
[66:08] politicians. I care about whether
[66:10] they're going to do things that are good
[66:12] for our country. Uh from what I know,
[66:14] he's probably he strikes me as a very uh
[66:17] well-intentioned, probably fairly
[66:19] competent person.
[66:21] >> Uh but what he's doing is completely
[66:23] wrong. The only reason I don't like to
[66:25] go in on him is I think he I I think
[66:28] he's useless. I do. I also don't think
[66:30] it's fair to lay the blame for
[66:32] everything that's happening at his feet.
[66:34] The Conservatives were useless before
[66:36] that. The Lib Dems and the Conservatives
[66:38] were useless before that. The Labour
[66:39] Party under Blair were actually not
[66:41] useless. They were really really good at
[66:42] ter doing terrible things to the
[66:44] country. They were very competent at
[66:46] doing that. So what we have had for now
[66:50] one, two, three decades is terrible
[66:52] leadership that's taken us in completely
[66:53] the wrong direction.
[66:54] >> I I'm I'm I have to cite the statistics
[66:58] around his favorability or popularity
[67:00] because it puts everything you're saying
[67:01] in context, which is these ideas aren't
[67:03] popular.
[67:03] >> No. Polling has shown that Stalmer's
[67:05] approval among the British public is the
[67:07] weakest of any recent UK prime minister
[67:09] with dissatisfaction levels on some
[67:11] trackers showing him to be below most
[67:15] predecessors um in even in the Labor
[67:17] government. So that's the the weird part
[67:19] because it's not it's doesn't seem to be
[67:21] working to drive favorability either.
[67:24] >> No, but but this is why I'm saying
[67:26] focusing on him individually isn't
[67:27] helpful actually. And this is not to
[67:29] argue with you unnecessarily. If you put
[67:31] Chem Bono in his place, she'd have the
[67:33] same favorability ratings.
[67:36] >> Really? Even though she has different
[67:37] ideas.
[67:38] >> Does she?
[67:39] >> I don't know. You tell me.
[67:40] >> She has some different ideas. I mean,
[67:42] the Conservative Party's gone a long way
[67:44] to changing their policy on things like
[67:46] net zero, right? But while they were in
[67:48] power, they were doing all the same
[67:50] stuff. They were arresting people for
[67:52] tweets. They were driving the economy
[67:55] into the ground with this green lunacy.
[67:57] They were the ones that oversaw the
[67:58] decline of our military. So uh in in in
[68:01] some ways the personality conversation
[68:03] is really not that important here.
[68:05] What's important is a gigantic paradigm
[68:07] shift needs to happen to our attitude to
[68:10] everything. And one of them is dealing
[68:12] with unaffordable welfare. The tries
[68:14] didn't do that. Labor aren't doing it. I
[68:16] actually thought Labor had a better shot
[68:18] because at least people wouldn't say
[68:20] labor are evil and they hate poor
[68:21] people. That's what they say when the
[68:23] Tories tried to cut welfare. When Labor
[68:24] tried to cut welfare, I didn't think
[68:26] that would happen, but they just caved
[68:27] to their own backbench. Maybe they had
[68:29] to for political reasons. But you you
[68:31] you just have to the the shift that
[68:33] needs to happen in Britain is not
[68:34] political. It's cultural. We have to
[68:36] change the mindset that we have as a
[68:38] country around these things.
[68:40] >> Cultural transitions are very very very
[68:43] hard. And I say that from the
[68:44] perspective as a business owner. If you
[68:46] tried to get me to change when I had a
[68:48] lot of people, so say you I remember in
[68:50] my German office back in the day in
[68:52] social change German office, we had 150
[68:54] people. Very very different culture to
[68:55] the UK. I thought naively as a 23 24
[68:58] year old I could fly there
[69:00] >> and change the culture of the Berlin
[69:02] office.
[69:04] [laughter]
[69:05] >> How dumb was I?
[69:06] >> This is not how we do things.
[69:08] >> I could not change I could not change
[69:10] the culture of the German the Berlin
[69:11] office. So I think about a country
[69:13] changing the culture of a country.
[69:15] >> Yeah. That's why I'm what I call an
[69:17] accelerationist.
[69:18] >> What does that mean? It means that I
[69:20] believe that the only thing the only way
[69:22] that these things will truly
[69:23] fundamentally get better is when they
[69:25] get really really bad first.
[69:27] >> So you think it's going to get really
[69:28] really
[69:29] >> the only way to change the culture is
[69:31] for people to understand what's actually
[69:33] happening uh so that they can't pretend
[69:36] the things that are happening are not
[69:37] happening. And that's what's happening
[69:39] at the moment. Most people don't yet
[69:41] quite know that they're poorer today
[69:43] than they were 20 years ago. Most people
[69:45] still think that we are saving the
[69:47] planet when we reduce Britain's carbon
[69:50] emissions from 2% to 1.9% of global
[69:53] carbon emissions. While in fact, we're
[69:55] not even doing that. We're taking our
[69:57] carbon emissions and we're sending them
[69:59] to India and China and then shipping
[70:01] back the stuff they make for us in a
[70:03] dirtier way on big tankers which
[70:05] actually consume more dirty fuel and
[70:07] we're actually ending up increasing our
[70:09] CO2 output, not reducing it. Most people
[70:12] don't know that. But when they feel it
[70:14] in their pocket, when they feel like the
[70:17] we're having a fiscal crisis, when they
[70:19] feel like they really can't afford their
[70:20] life anymore, that's when they're going
[70:22] to start to ask some of these questions.
[70:23] It's one of the reasons actually the
[70:25] narrative on net zero is shifting. Like
[70:27] almost nobody other than the government
[70:28] in this country still believes in the
[70:30] idea of net zero, right? Because it's
[70:33] moving quite quickly in that direction.
[70:35] Uh and on lots of other things, it will
[70:37] happen when things get much more
[70:38] difficult for ordinary people. Sadly, I
[70:41] don't want that to happen, but I think
[70:42] it's the only way things get better.
[70:44] >> But on the subject of global warming,
[70:46] it's scientific fact that the climate is
[70:49] changing.
[70:50] >> Changing unfavorably.
[70:51] >> Uh what do you mean by unfavorably?
[70:52] >> Well, if the you know, scientists talk
[70:54] about the poles melting and how that
[70:56] will have big impact on you know third
[70:58] world nations and
[71:00] >> um how that will be a net negative for
[71:03] the planet because then you'll see more
[71:04] migration, you'll see more sort of
[71:06] natural disasters and those kinds of
[71:08] things. Well, let's let's not argue
[71:10] about that because neither of us is a
[71:11] climate scientist, but let's accept that
[71:12] for the sake of argument.
[71:15] >> How is outsourcing our carbon emissions
[71:18] to other countries
[71:20] >> while destroying our economy?
[71:23] >> That's I mean
[71:24] >> making that better.
[71:25] >> It's not.
[71:25] >> It's not right.
[71:27] >> And that's all I'm saying. All I'm
[71:29] saying is we are pretending to be saving
[71:31] the planet when we are not saving the
[71:33] planet while also destroying our economy
[71:36] while also making sure that pensioners
[71:39] in this country die every winter cuz
[71:41] they can't afford to pay the heating
[71:43] bills that they need to pay to stay warm
[71:47] in in what is a first world country.
[71:50] That's what's happening and it's
[71:52] happening because of government policy.
[71:55] So we are not saving the planet by
[71:58] killing pensioners. I I'm not in favor
[72:00] of killing pensioners.
[72:02] >> Have you ever thought about going into
[72:03] politics? Are you eligible for
[72:05] >> eligible? Yes. Have I ever thought about
[72:07] it? No. I I people offer me to go into
[72:10] politics regularly, but it it's just
[72:12] it's not my game.
[72:14] >> Why? You know, you when you talked about
[72:16] your mission, Yeah. it seems very
[72:18] aligned with
[72:19] >> going into politics.
[72:20] >> I feel I have way more influence doing
[72:21] what I do now
[72:22] >> than being, I don't know, prime
[72:23] minister. Well, that's extremely
[72:25] unlikely than being the the MP for the
[72:28] whatever on C who who gets one chance to
[72:30] ask a question of prime minister. No,
[72:32] no, no, no, no. I get to speak to way
[72:35] more people and to persuade more people
[72:36] and to articulate ideas in a much more
[72:40] unfiltered sense. And I think that's
[72:41] really important in the modern climate.
[72:43] What happens when you become a
[72:44] politician is you start having to talk
[72:47] the party line and then you suddenly
[72:49] don't quite follow what you actually
[72:51] believe. Now you have to adjust and you
[72:52] have to say, well, you know, the party
[72:55] believes this. Well, I'm not interested
[72:57] in speaking for the party. I'm
[72:58] interested for describing things in
[73:00] reality as I see them. And then if there
[73:03] are politicians who want to take that
[73:04] on, that's their job, not mine. I just
[73:06] don't have the temperament for it
[73:08] either. I just I'm much more interested
[73:10] about in the truth than I am in getting
[73:13] along with people, coalition building,
[73:16] caring about potholes, you know, all of
[73:18] this other stuff. In this multipolar
[73:20] world, this is how we got to the
[73:21] subject. I asked you who would benefit
[73:23] and is it a good thing? Yeah. And then I
[73:24] asked you is is it a good thing for
[73:26] Europe? And you said no. Yeah.
[73:27] >> Who is it a good thing for?
[73:28] >> China
[73:30] >> because they get to do
[73:33] >> do what they want, whatever that is.
[73:36] They're much less restrained by the US.
[73:39] It's good for India for same reasons. Uh
[73:43] is it good for Russia? We'll find out.
[73:45] >> Possibly.
[73:46] >> Good for America.
[73:48] >> Yes and no. Oh, I think it's that that
[73:49] is more complicated. I think America
[73:52] will be able to get what it wants in
[73:54] that world, but it's probably going to
[73:56] find itself in a lot more confrontations
[73:58] internationally, and that will obviously
[74:00] be a drain on its resources and and its
[74:02] energy.
[74:03] >> If you've ever worked in a startup, you
[74:05] already know it's chaos. It's speed, and
[74:07] it is survival. And now with AI
[74:08] accelerating everything, that speed has
[74:10] only increased. Startups are landing
[74:12] enterprise deals even earlier than
[74:14] before. But what comes with those deals
[74:16] is regulatory requirements. something a
[74:18] lot of earlystage businesses aren't
[74:20] equipped to handle. And a sock too, if
[74:22] you know what that means, isn't always
[74:24] enough. When having the right kind of
[74:26] security is the difference between
[74:28] making a deal or breaking a deal, you
[74:30] need to have a plan in place. Vanta, who
[74:32] are a sponsor of this podcast, have an
[74:34] AI and automation system that makes it
[74:36] easier to meet buyer expectations in
[74:38] just days. And they continuously monitor
[74:40] your compliance so any future deals are
[74:42] never blocked. With AI changing
[74:44] regulations, their team knows exactly
[74:45] what's needed and when it's needed, and
[74:48] they've built the fastest and easiest
[74:49] path to get you there. If you're running
[74:51] a startup and this appeals, you can
[74:52] visit vanta.com/diary
[74:55] and get $1,000 off. That's
[74:56] vanta.com/dary
[74:58] for $1,000 off. And the bigger win, your
[75:01] peace of mind.
[75:04] Make sure you keep what I'm about to say
[75:05] to yourself. I'm inviting 10,000 of you
[75:08] to come even deeper into the diary of a
[75:10] CEO. Welcome to my inner circle. This is
[75:13] a brand new private community that I'm
[75:15] launching to the world. We have so many
[75:16] incredible things that happen that you
[75:18] are never shown. We have the briefs that
[75:21] are on my iPad when I'm recording the
[75:22] conversation. We have clips we've never
[75:24] released. We have behind the scenes
[75:26] conversations with the guest and also
[75:27] the episodes that we've never ever
[75:30] released and so much more. In the
[75:33] circle, you'll have direct access to me.
[75:35] You can tell us what you want this show
[75:36] to be, who you want us to interview, and
[75:38] the types of conversations you would
[75:40] love us to have. But remember, for now,
[75:42] we're only inviting the first 10,000
[75:44] people that join before it closes. So,
[75:46] if you want to join our private closed
[75:48] community, head to the link in the
[75:49] description below or go to
[75:50] daccircle.com.
[75:54] I will speak to you there.
[75:57] >> Have we ever been in a multipolar world
[75:59] through history?
[76:00] >> Well, yeah, loads of times.
[76:02] >> What happened next? Look, a friend of
[76:03] mine, very good friend of mine gave me
[76:05] uh the the history of the English-sp
[76:08] speakaking peoples by Winston Churchill
[76:09] and it talks about the history of this
[76:11] country of England in particular and
[76:13] basically you go from strong ruler and
[76:16] then he has no no heir. You have a
[76:19] period of weakness and what happens
[76:20] there's a big power struggle over the
[76:22] throne over over power. This is this is
[76:25] what's going to happen. you are going to
[76:27] see more instability, more violence,
[76:30] more attempts to fight for dominance in
[76:32] the world. It's going to be a much more
[76:33] unstable period of time. Unfortunately,
[76:35] it's one of the reasons I've been so
[76:37] passionate about trying to say let's not
[76:40] let's not allow this to happen.
[76:42] >> Instability.
[76:43] >> Yeah. in terms of war, in terms of
[76:46] >> in terms of war, in terms of conflict,
[76:48] in terms of people to trying to redraw
[76:51] maps, in terms of people trying to get
[76:55] access to resources that otherwise would
[76:56] have been considered unchallengeable,
[76:58] etc. Yeah,
[76:59] >> I was looking back through history and I
[77:01] was asking the question, has there been
[77:04] a multipolar world before? And there's
[77:06] these moments through history, fifth
[77:08] century BC with ancient Greece, um 19th
[77:11] centur 19th century Europe between the
[77:14] 1850s and 1914s, the wearing states of
[77:18] China in 475 BC. And then my next
[77:21] question was what happens next?
[77:24] >> And the short answer is more friction,
[77:28] less restraint, higher risk.
[77:30] Realistically, the first thing that
[77:32] happens is rules weaken, which I guess
[77:34] is kind of what we're seeing at the
[77:35] moment
[77:36] >> with this whole idea of international
[77:37] law.
[77:39] >> Regional wars begin, not one big war.
[77:41] Arms races accelerate. Some alliances
[77:44] harden, economic fragmentation, domestic
[77:47] pressure rises, so higher defense
[77:50] spending, higher taxes, etc., um, lower
[77:52] growth.
[77:54] And the three end games history keeps
[77:56] showing that we have managed chaos,
[77:59] major war, a reset, and then a new hedge
[78:04] hegeimon emerges.
[78:05] >> Yes.
[78:06] >> What the does that mean?
[78:07] >> Hegeimon is the one dominant power that
[78:09] that that sort of in the same way that
[78:11] the US had that moment between 91 and
[78:14] recently when it was the only undisputed
[78:17] power in the world.
[78:18] >> Do you agree with that pattern of
[78:19] events? Well, I was going to say you
[78:20] sort of make it look like I've got all
[78:22] my ideas from AI, but yeah. Yeah. But
[78:25] but but the see this is the thing is
[78:26] like before we started I said to you,
[78:28] Stephen, do me one favor. Don't present
[78:30] me as an expert cuz I'm just a guy
[78:32] thinking from first principles and
[78:33] explaining the basics as I understand
[78:35] them. All of this is common sense
[78:37] because ultimately it comes back to
[78:39] human nature, right? We are a tribal
[78:42] competitive species. That's what we are.
[78:45] So when there isn't a dominant force
[78:48] that everyone respects and accepts as
[78:50] the leader, what happens every single
[78:54] time when you have a power vacuum, you
[78:56] have a power struggle. That's what we
[78:59] are seeing and that's what you're going
[79:00] to see. It's human nature. It's not
[79:03] about knowing geopolitics and having
[79:05] studied international theory for 40
[79:07] years. It's just basic human nature.
[79:10] When there when there is a dispute about
[79:12] who the leader is, that always creates
[79:15] the thing that AI just told you.
[79:18] >> Well, the next step in that is a power
[79:20] struggle.
[79:20] >> Yeah. But that's what you're seeing now.
[79:22] >> But in there's never been a nuclear,
[79:24] >> right? And nuclear weapons have been the
[79:26] great force for peace. We had the the
[79:28] great historian from the rest is
[79:29] history, Dominic Samrach, on the show
[79:31] and I asked him about this and he said,
[79:32] "Yeah, I mean nuclear weapons is why we
[79:34] haven't had a major war and it's maybe
[79:38] the one thing that will constrain our
[79:41] ability to have a major war." It's one
[79:44] possibility.
[79:46] It's also the great risk.
[79:49] >> Maybe this is where the cycle ends
[79:51] because of nuclear weapons is what
[79:52] you're saying. Maybe this is
[79:54] >> um yeah, I'm I'm I am hopeful on that
[79:57] front actually. I I am hopeful that
[79:59] human beings ultimately the instinct for
[80:01] self-preservation is so strong that we
[80:02] do not go there. I think that's that's
[80:05] by far and away the most likely
[80:06] scenario. But of course, it is something
[80:08] that humans have to reckon with and we
[80:10] have to be very very careful as things
[80:12] more and by the way nuclear weapons
[80:15] may not be the most powerful weapons
[80:16] that exist in the world 20 years from
[80:18] now.
[80:21] in such a world and I know you don't
[80:22] like it being about individuals but
[80:24] Trump is a certain type of leader
[80:27] >> you know quite unapologetic in what he
[80:29] says
[80:30] >> I think he's got even more unapologetic
[80:32] because he only has a couple of years
[80:34] left and he can't be reelected because
[80:35] of the laws are you concerned that if a
[80:38] different type of leader
[80:40] arrived into power in the US maybe
[80:43] someone who China and Russia thought was
[80:48] less likely to
[80:50] send the the the jets in at nighttime
[80:52] and bomb nuclear bunkers or snatch a
[80:54] president from their house.
[80:56] >> Would that be a risk for the West in
[80:57] your view?
[80:58] >> Massive.
[80:59] >> So do you think
[81:00] >> but that's how we got here. This is why
[81:02] that withdrawal from Afghanistan
[81:04] embarrassing as it was is exactly how
[81:06] you get everything else. It's just one
[81:08] symptom of people thinking we talked
[81:10] about October 7th, we talked about the
[81:12] invasion of Ukraine, right? That's what
[81:15] happens when they see weakness. This is
[81:18] what happens. I remember, you know, um
[81:20] it's kind of funny. It shows the
[81:21] cultural differences between the Russian
[81:23] mindset and the Western mindset because
[81:24] the Jungle Book that we had in the
[81:26] Soviet Union is very different to the
[81:28] one that you see that you guys had here.
[81:30] Did you see Jungle, you know, the
[81:31] original Jungle Book?
[81:32] >> The Disney one?
[81:33] >> Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. You know, it's
[81:34] all have the, you know, uh
[81:36] >> context you should probably say where
[81:37] you come from because
[81:38] >> I'm from from the Soviet Union. I was
[81:40] born there. Um and
[81:42] >> your your father, you've got mother and
[81:43] father that Ukrainian and Russian.
[81:45] >> Yeah. Basically. Yeah. Um, so the Soviet
[81:48] Jungle Book adaptation, very different.
[81:50] And there's this the one of the opening
[81:52] scenes is Akella, who is the lead wolf.
[81:54] He's the the wolf, the leader of the
[81:56] wolf pack. They're on a hunt and he
[81:59] they're hunting and he misses the he's
[82:02] supposed to grab the animal and he
[82:03] misses. And suddenly the cry goes around
[82:06] the jungle. I ke
[82:09] knows what that means.
[82:11] Everybody knows when the leader shows
[82:13] weakness and fails, that's the moment
[82:17] when everything goes to and there's
[82:19] a power struggle for his role because
[82:21] he's no longer top dog.
[82:24] It's really as simple as that.
[82:28] >> So, do you think Trump's a good thing
[82:29] for the West?
[82:31] >> Trump is a good thing for America.
[82:33] >> I think what he's done by virtue of his
[82:35] behavior is he's exposed the weakness of
[82:38] Europe. And there is a cleave now
[82:41] happening between Europe and America.
[82:43] And to that extent, I think it could be
[82:45] a good thing for Europe if Europe gets
[82:48] its act together and says, "Actually,
[82:49] we've got to wake up from the nightmare
[82:51] that we've created for ourselves and
[82:53] start acting differently." If that
[82:55] happens, it will also be a good thing
[82:56] for the West. That is not what's
[82:58] happening right now. It's going in the
[82:59] exact opposite direction.
[83:00] >> What would it take for you to leave the
[83:01] UK?
[83:05] Um
[83:07] you well look I like you know everybody
[83:09] gets job opportunities and stuff goes
[83:12] for a year or two somewhere that that
[83:14] that could happen in any circumstance.
[83:16] If you mean like for me to say I'm
[83:17] leaving Britain never coming back. Um I
[83:21] think it would have to be clear at the
[83:23] next election that Britain is actually
[83:27] going further down the path that we're
[83:28] on. So two or three years from now, I'd
[83:31] have to conclude that there's actually
[83:33] no there's no way we're coming back.
[83:34] It's over. And that's happened to great
[83:37] countries and great civilizations in
[83:38] history. If that's what happens, then I
[83:40] I don't see why I should do my children
[83:42] to living here. If we can rescue it, uh,
[83:46] and
[83:48] make this sounding like Trump, make
[83:50] Britain great again, but you know what I
[83:52] mean. Um, then I I I would love to fight
[83:55] for that and I'd love to to have my
[83:56] children be part of that.
[83:58] What is the most important thing that we
[84:00] didn't talk about that we should have
[84:01] talked about?
[84:02] >> This point I keep coming back to,
[84:03] Stephen, which is we can't live in a
[84:07] world in which we care more about how
[84:09] things make us feel than about the
[84:12] consequences of the actions that we take
[84:15] so much. This is a Thomas Sol. Last time
[84:18] you had me on, I mentioned to you what a
[84:20] great writer and thinker Thomas Soul is.
[84:22] I don't know if you've had a chance to
[84:24] check out any of his work, but I
[84:25] recommend it thoroughly to everyone
[84:27] watching and listening. He he talks
[84:28] about the fact that the last several
[84:30] decades have been spent replacing what
[84:32] works with what feels good. That's the
[84:35] one thing we're not talking about. All
[84:37] the policies you and I have been talking
[84:39] about are all about what makes us feel
[84:41] good as opposed to what actually works
[84:44] in practice. And our conversation about
[84:46] chasing out entrepreneurs, it's exactly
[84:49] about that. It's exactly what it's
[84:51] about. It's about fulfilling your
[84:53] ideological emotional needs as opposed
[84:56] to doing things that practically work.
[84:59] If we can make that adjustment and get
[85:01] back to reality, the world's our oyster.
[85:05] >> An immigrants love letter to the West,
[85:08] the book that you wrote. It was a smash
[85:10] here, Sunday Times bestseller.
[85:12] >> Yeah. Unfortunately, it gets more
[85:14] accurate every day, which is really
[85:15] worrying because I was very pessimistic
[85:18] about a lot of the things I said.
[85:19] >> That is absolutely right. You wrote
[85:21] this, was it 2022?
[85:22] >> 2022, it came out.
[85:23] >> 2022.
[85:24] >> Yeah.
[85:25] >> And it appears to be a prediction as the
[85:28] days go on. A prediction that is being
[85:30] validated, unfortunately. I highly
[85:31] recommend everybody reads this book. I'm
[85:33] going to link it below for anyone that
[85:34] hasn't read it. What's unique about you
[85:37] is you do appear to be very wedded to
[85:41] objective truth as you see it versus
[85:43] being ideologically cap captured by
[85:45] either side. And I've seen you I've seen
[85:47] you both attack the right at times and
[85:49] I've also seen you attack the left at
[85:51] times which is it's a unique position to
[85:54] be in in a world with algorithms that
[85:55] try and push you into a particular echo
[85:57] chamber.
[85:59] I guess on that point what is it about
[86:01] the the right that you take most issue
[86:04] with at the moment?
[86:06] >> Oh there's a thing that I've uh other
[86:08] people have at a similar time. So, I'm
[86:10] not claiming authorship of it, but
[86:12] there's something that I call the woke
[86:14] right, uh, which is essentially an
[86:17] identitarian resentment victimhood-based
[86:20] movement on the right, represented by
[86:22] the sort of extreme characters like Nick
[86:23] Fuentes and Candace Owens in the United
[86:26] States. You know, their worldview is
[86:28] that they they've been oppressed. You
[86:30] know, the work narrative was we are
[86:32] oppressed. Well, now they say we we've
[86:33] been oppressed and uh it's all the fault
[86:37] of various groups, the Jews, the
[86:39] whoevers. So, it's a kind of um there's
[86:42] almost, you know, I think it's fair to
[86:43] say that there are elements of it that
[86:45] are just openly fascistic and and and
[86:47] reminiscent of the Nazis that we saw in
[86:49] the 1930s ideologically speaking. Um,
[86:52] and the mainstream right has utterly
[86:55] rejected these people, which I think is
[86:56] really reassuring. But there are some
[86:58] people who who say well actually no no
[87:01] we need to include them and we shouldn't
[87:03] divide the conservative movement which I
[87:06] think is a huge mistake from for
[87:08] conservatives to make because their
[87:10] movement and their reputation with
[87:13] normal people will be very very badly
[87:15] polluted in the eyes of independents and
[87:17] moderate people who actually represent
[87:19] the overwhelming majority of the public.
[87:21] Even in America, which is so divided and
[87:23] so partisan, the normal average person
[87:26] will vote for this party or for that
[87:29] party depending on what they see. And in
[87:31] Britain, that's even more the case. And
[87:33] so to the extent that the right, so
[87:36] they're basically there's a risk of the
[87:38] right repeating the mistakes of the
[87:39] left. What happened on the left? Woke
[87:41] people came along and they said, "We're
[87:43] the left. Our crazy work ideas is
[87:46] actually the left." and the sensible
[87:48] people on the left were terrified of
[87:50] challenging them. And so over time, most
[87:53] people began to associate the left with
[87:55] blue-haired, nose piercing, you know,
[87:57] Greta Tunberg kind of ideology. And they
[88:00] went, I don't want any of that. Well, on
[88:02] the right, if the right allows its
[88:04] extremist fringe to do the same thing,
[88:06] then lots of people are going to
[88:08] distance themselves from that. So, I
[88:10] think the right has a tremendous
[88:13] opportunity to, you know, we've had this
[88:15] great tension. And I know you've had
[88:16] Jordan Peterson on your show and I'm
[88:18] sure he talked about chaos and order and
[88:21] that relationship is a very fragile
[88:22] thing in society. We have had so much
[88:25] chaos that there is a lot of craving for
[88:27] order now. There's a craving to deal
[88:29] with crime. There's a craving to deal
[88:31] with illegal immigration. There's a
[88:32] craving to deal with cultural uh
[88:35] disruption that we've had, right?
[88:36] There's a craving for that sense of
[88:38] order to come back. And if the right is
[88:40] reasonable and sensible about addressing
[88:43] those issues, they could be in charge
[88:44] for a very long time and have an
[88:46] opportunity to put some of their views
[88:48] into public policy, which is they
[88:49] haven't had uh the opportunity to do for
[88:51] a long time. If they allow the
[88:53] extremists to take over, they will be
[88:55] painted, the entire movement will be
[88:57] painted as the extremists and then they
[88:59] will not have the opportunity to
[89:01] actually implement their agenda.
[89:04] >> Are you happy?
[89:05] >> Very.
[89:06] >> What makes you happy?
[89:07] >> My family.
[89:09] What about your family makes you happy?
[89:11] >> Having children is a blessing. It's the
[89:13] best thing ever. I you know I banged on
[89:15] about this to you last time, but it is
[89:18] >> why
[89:18] >> why are children the best thing ever?
[89:20] >> Yeah.
[89:20] >> Can't explain it. It's not one of the
[89:22] like I can find some words to give you,
[89:25] but it's just one of those things. It's
[89:26] like you you don't know it until you
[89:29] have that experience. Uh I could give
[89:31] you some nice sound bites. You know, one
[89:34] of the things I've said in the past is
[89:35] that the future is no longer an
[89:37] abstraction.
[89:38] >> What does that mean?
[89:39] >> It means that
[89:41] in the past I cared about this country
[89:44] or this civilization from a fairly
[89:48] theoretical perspective.
[89:50] Now the future of this country is one
[89:52] person and maybe other people coming
[89:54] along, right? Little people that I have.
[89:57] They are the future in my mind, right?
[89:59] So I'm much more attached. I'm much more
[90:01] attached to the people who came before
[90:02] me. I have much more understanding of my
[90:05] when you have kids, you have a much
[90:06] better understanding of your parents cuz
[90:08] you go, "Oh, wow." So, the reason they
[90:11] did this stupid thing is a I'm also
[90:14] doing it now for some reason. And also,
[90:16] they were really dealing with all of all
[90:18] the things that I'm now deal I've got a
[90:19] job and I've got a relationship and I've
[90:21] got a this and I've got a that. So, of
[90:23] course, they sometimes behaved in ways
[90:24] that I didn't understand or like or
[90:26] whatever. So, you have more empathy for
[90:28] your parents. You also have much much
[90:30] more concern about where your country is
[90:32] going, your nation's going, your
[90:34] community is going, your immediate
[90:35] environment cuz that's where your
[90:36] children live. And then there just joy.
[90:38] I mean, it's um there's nothing like it.
[90:42] There's really really nothing like it.
[90:44] It's the most wonderful thing. It's
[90:46] hard.
[90:47] >> It you don't sleep a lot and it's
[90:49] stressful at times, but it's the best.
[90:52] It's absolutely the best.
[90:53] >> And you've got two kids.
[90:54] >> I've got one. Uh but maybe more on the
[90:56] way.
[90:57] >> Oh, okay. Congratulations. Thank you.
[90:59] >> And what what is your primary concern
[91:01] for the world they're coming into?
[91:04] >> Well, we've talked about all of this,
[91:06] right? I
[91:06] >> there was a primary
[91:07] >> I think my primary concern for my kids
[91:09] is that my wife and I do the best job we
[91:12] can in raising them well. And then
[91:14] ultimately they're going to be their own
[91:15] people and they're going to have to deal
[91:16] with the world in front of them in
[91:17] exactly the same way that others before
[91:19] have done. My grandfather uh my
[91:22] great-grandfather
[91:23] he was younger than me now when he was
[91:26] sent to the Eastern Front while he had a
[91:29] baby son at home and he never came back.
[91:31] Human beings have had to deal with all
[91:33] of this throughout history. We always
[91:35] have to deal with the reality of the
[91:36] terrible world that we face at that
[91:38] moment in time. They're going to have to
[91:39] do the same. I can't protect them from
[91:41] that. What I can do is set them up in
[91:44] the best possible way. And that's the
[91:45] only thing I can do as a parent. That's
[91:46] what I'm trying to do. We have a closing
[91:48] tradition where Damascus leaves a
[91:50] question for the next.
[91:51] >> Yeah.
[91:52] >> The question that's been left for you is
[91:54] who was the biggest non-family member
[91:57] influence in your life and how did they
[91:59] make you a better person?
[92:02] >> Yeah. Not fair to boil it down to one. I
[92:05] think um I I had a teacher once who um
[92:10] basically made me realize that it's very
[92:14] very important to give people an
[92:16] opportunity to prove themselves and he
[92:18] did that by giving me an opportunity
[92:20] when I really didn't deserve it but he
[92:22] gave it to me and I took it. I've also
[92:25] just intellectually Thomas Saul I I I
[92:27] mentioned him reading his books is just
[92:29] completely transformational for me and
[92:30] it really helped me think about the
[92:32] world. I think on a on a on a kind of
[92:36] personal behavioral level I got a a huge
[92:40] opportunity uh to to tour with Jordan
[92:42] Peterson for three weeks a couple of
[92:44] years back. Uh, and that was completely
[92:46] transformational seeing him up close,
[92:48] spending time with him, seeing that this
[92:50] is a man who the way he is in public is
[92:54] exactly the way that he is in in
[92:56] private. And so he really one of those
[92:58] very very rare people who preaches what
[93:00] he practices. I remember we uh I think
[93:03] it was El Paso. We arrived right on the
[93:04] south on the on the on the border and we
[93:07] arrived we were late from the airport
[93:10] starving starving. And one of the things
[93:13] that tends to happen is everyone who
[93:15] goes to his live shows works out that he
[93:18] might be at the best steak restaurant in
[93:20] town
[93:21] >> on the day. So we turn up to the steak
[93:24] restaurant cuz he only eats steak. We're
[93:26] starving. We sit down. Um the the waiter
[93:30] brings the menus. We're the moment we
[93:32] start looking at the menus. This group
[93:33] of guys comes over guy guys and girls
[93:36] comes over. He stands up, forgets about
[93:39] the menu. We're starving. gives them,
[93:41] you know, all the attention in the
[93:43] world. Selfies, has a little chat, ask
[93:44] them what they do, blah blah blah blah
[93:46] blah, sits down, places the order.
[93:49] Another group of people come over, gives
[93:51] them the same amount of attention. And
[93:52] by this point, we're dying of hunger.
[93:55] Finally, our steaks arrive, and you know
[93:57] they do in America, they say, "Please
[93:58] check that it's been cooked properly."
[93:59] So, he cuts in, he cuts off a piece, he
[94:02] puts it on a fork, and as he's about to
[94:04] place it in his mouth, a group of
[94:07] literally 20 people shows up saying,
[94:09] "Dr. Peterson, I'm so sorry. He puts the
[94:12] fork down, stands up, and gives them all
[94:15] the exact same amount of attention that
[94:17] he'd given the previous people. And just
[94:19] in everyone that he interacted with,
[94:21] that's what I saw. A guy who talks about
[94:24] living in a certain way, actually
[94:25] practices it. And that was, you know,
[94:27] incredibly inspiring for me. Really
[94:29] educational, gave me a lot of thoughts
[94:31] about my relationships, how I live my
[94:34] life. Um, he's he's a great man.
[94:37] >> Constantine. Thank you.
[94:38] >> Thank you very much. Thanks for having
[94:40] me.
[94:40] >> Staying in the pursuit of truth and I
[94:41] highly recommend people check out
[94:42] trigonometry your podcast. I'm going to
[94:44] link it below. Um and also the book is
[94:48] going to be linked below. Is there
[94:50] anything else?
[94:51] >> Yes, Stephen. When are you coming on
[94:52] trigonometry? That's the question.
[94:53] >> I've just finished my book.
[94:55] >> Oh,
[94:55] >> it comes out in
[94:56] >> UK exclusive is what I'm hearing.
[94:59] >> Deal. Deal. [laughter]
[95:01] >> Signed.
[95:02] >> Thank you so much. I really appreciate
[95:03] it.
[95:04] >> Thanks, man. I appreciate you having me.
[95:05] I believe that we are already at the
[95:07] early stages if not in World War II.
[95:09] >> We are one [music] misunderstanding, one
[95:12] miscalculation away,
[95:13] >> or even one AI generated viral video
[95:16] >> from nuclear annihilation. So, here's a
[95:19] terrifying detail that the public does
[95:21] not know. So,
[95:23] >> wow.
