Joe Rogan Experience #2234 - Marc Andreessen
发布时间 2024-11-26 18:00:42 来源
Joe Rogan, why can't you check it out? The Joe Rogan experience. Train by day, Joe Rogan podcast by night! All day! Hello, Mark. Hello, good to see you. Thanks for having me back. My pleasure. Good to see you. The world's still functional. Amazing. Yeah, amazing. We wanted to talk about the post-election sort of a wrap-up. Yeah, sort of where we stand. Are you happy? It was a weird one. Morning in America. That was one of the first times ever I felt hopeful after an election. Like, you should have seen the green room at the Comedy Club. Everybody was like, yes. Yes. So my theory is the timeline, like in a science fiction movie, the timeline has split twice.
乔·罗根，为什么你不去看看呢？《乔·罗根体验》。白天训练，晚上听乔·罗根的播客！整天都在！你好，马克。你好，很高兴见到你。谢谢你再次邀请我。我的荣幸。见到你很高兴。世界还是正常运转的。这太让人惊讶了。是啊，很惊讶。我们想聊聊选举后的总结。对，看看我们现在的位置。你开心吗？这次选举挺奇怪的。美国的清晨。这是我第一次在选举后感到充满希望。你应该看看喜剧俱乐部的后台。每个人都是这样的：太好了。太好了。我的理论是，就像科幻电影里那样，时间线已经分裂了两次。
当然，请您提供需要翻译的文本内容，我将帮助您将其翻译成中文。
In the last, in the last, like nine months. What was the first split? There was when Trump got shot. Oh. Yeah. And there was that moment where the world was going to head in two totally different directions. Right. If he got hit. Yeah. Yeah. And we saw the most conspicuous display of physical bravery I've ever seen. Right. At that moment. Yeah. Exactly. And it could have gone, you know, horrifically badly for the entire world after that. So that was timeline split number one. So that other timeline is out there somewhere.
在过去九个月里，第一次分裂是什么时候？是特朗普被狙击的时候。哦。在那一刻，世界可能会朝着两个完全不同的方向发展。对，如果他受到了攻击的话。是的，没错。我们看到了我所见过的最显眼的身体勇气的表现。在那一刻，确实如此。而且事情可能会在那之后对整个世界造成可怕的后果。所以那是时间线分裂的第一次。另一条时间线在某处存在着。
当然，请提供你需要翻译的文本内容，我会把它翻译成中文并确保易读。
Yeah. And I don't want to visit it. Boy. Imagine being stuck there. What kind of horrible karma? No. I mean, that's a totalitarian dystopian nightmare. That's the bad place. Yeah. And then timeline split again on election day. I know you're a, you fancy a good conspiracy theory. Yes. And that, that gentleman being able to pull off what he did and, you know, the way it happened, the way it all went down is it's a Lee Harvey Oswald 2.0. Oh, yeah. Oh, yeah. Clearly. yeah. That we still don't know. Anything. There's no call for disclosure. yeah.
是的。我也不想去那里。天哪，想象一下被困在那里，那得积了多么糟糕的因果才会这样？不，那是个极权主义的反乌托邦噩梦，是个坏地方。而且，时间线又在选举日分裂了。我知道你喜欢阴谋论，对吧？是的，那个人居然能做到他所做的事情，还有事情发生的方式，让人想起李·哈维·奥斯瓦尔德2.0版。哦，是的，显然是这样。至今我们仍然一无所知，也没有披露真相的要求。是的。
当然，请提供你需要翻译成中文的文本内容。
There's no call for a press conference. There's no toxicology report. The toxicology report had to have been done. yeah. When you wanted to know, like what kind of stuff this kid is on that made him want to do that? Or if anything? Yeah. So my theory is it's almost as if the people want us to think it's a conspiracy. Like it's almost like the whole thing is almost orchestrated. Like it's just, it's so strange. This is like the rapid cremation. Like the whole thing was just completely bizarre.
没有必要召开新闻发布会，也没有毒理报告。毒理报告肯定已经做过了。是啊。当你想知道这个孩子是用了什么东西才会做出那样的事情，或者有没有任何东西时，你就会想要知道这个报告。所以我的理论是，似乎是有人想让我们觉得这是一场阴谋。就好像整个事情都是精心策划的，太奇怪了。这就像是快速火化一样，整个过程就是非常离奇。
当然，可以将要翻译的内容提供给我吗？
And then you're exactly right. Like no hearings. No, no, no, no. Now having said that, I expect that this will change. Right. So do you think they're going to do a dive into what happened? I don't know if they will, but I certainly would if I was in a position to do that. I wonder what they can actually find. I mean, I don't know if they wanted it to be a conspiracy that people talked about or if that's simply the best way to pull it off. yeah.
然后你说得完全对。就像没有听证会一样。没有，没有，没有。不过，我认为这一情况将会改变。对，你觉得他们会深入调查发生了什么吗？我不知道他们会不会，但如果我有能力的话，我肯定会这么做。我想知道他们能发现什么。我不知道他们是想让这成为人们谈论的阴谋，还是这只是最好的解决方式。嗯。
当然，请提供您希望翻译的具体内容，我会帮您翻译成中文并确保易读。
Or it's just, yeah. Or it's just, you know, as we saw, I think in the hearing afterwards, maybe just a systemic collapse of confidence. There's also a confidence in the fact that the news timeline today is so rapid. When things are relevant and people are paying attention to them is you have a couple of days, even with an assassination attempt on a former president. yeah.
或者，这只是，嗯，或者，这只是，你知道，就像我们在之后的听证会上看到的那样，可能只是系统性的信任崩溃。此外，人们对今天新闻时效性的信任也是如此之高。当某些事情与人们息息相关并受到关注时，你可能只有几天，甚至对于前总统的暗杀未遂也是如此。嗯。
请提供您需要翻译的文本，我会尽量将其翻译成易读的中文。
Where people were murdered. yeah. And there's, it's in and out. yeah. That's right. I think it's exactly. I think the news cycle now is like a two to three day social media firestorm and we just cycle from one to the next. yeah. And we have the memory of goldfish and right. You know, things right. Things that would have been era defining just come and go with the astonishing speed and shock. By the way, I should say, I don't think there was a, I doubt there was a conspiracy. I think anything's possible. I think it's just, we have a competence collapse.
在有人被谋杀的地方，是的。而且事情一波未平一波又起。没错，我觉得这很精确。现在的新闻周期就像一个持续两到三天的社交媒体风暴，我们只是从一个事件跳到下一个。是的。我们就像金鱼一样记性不好，许多曾经可以定义一个时代的事情都以惊人的速度和震惊消失了。顺便说一句，我应该说，我不认为有阴谋存在，我怀疑有阴谋。我觉得一切皆有可能，只是我们经历了一种能力的崩溃。
当然，请提供你希望翻译成中文的文本。
And I think we saw that on display when the, when the director at the time, you know, testified. Well, there's all the elements that could have been a conspiracy. It could have, but this is kind of the thing, which is this like it also could have been. Right. Systemic competence collapse. And then it's like, okay, would it be better off for the institute? You know, if it looks like a conspiracy, right. yeah.
我认为我们已经在当时的场合中看到了这一点，当时的负责人作证时展现了这一点。嗯，所有的因素都可能构成一个阴谋。是可能的，但这也有可能是系统性能力的崩溃。所以问题是，对于机构来说，如果它看起来像是一个阴谋，会不会更好呢？对。
当然，请提供您想翻译的具体内容。
You know, which, okay, two timelines, which role would you rather live in the one with the conspiracies or the one that's just like in competence everywhere? Well, I think you have both simultaneously. Right. I don't think it's binary. Right. I think there's incompetence everywhere and conspiracies are legitimate. They're real. yeah. And that one seems like conspiracy. The fact that his house was professionally scrubbed, there's no social media record of this kid online. There's no nothing. He's the only kid of his generation who's that far enough about politics to have no online footprint.
你知道，有两种不同的情境，你更愿意生活在哪一种呢？一种是充满阴谋论的世界，另一种则是到处都是无能。他们中，哪个角色你更愿意扮演？其实，我觉得这两种情境是可以同时存在的。我认为不是非此即彼的选择。到处都有不称职的人，也确实存在真正的阴谋。比如其中一个就听起来像阴谋：他的家被专业地清理过，这个小孩在社交媒体上没有任何记录，是他那一代唯一一个对政治不感兴趣到没有任何在线痕迹的孩子。
当然，请提供您需要翻译的英文文本，我会帮您翻译成中文并力求表达简单易读。
Right. Like it just doesn't make any sense. And he's a registered Republican. yeah. Like the whole thing is like, so weird. And he was like a bad shooter and then he became a great shooter. Well, he definitely trained. yeah. Like you could train someone to be on a good shooter. But like, this is all you have to do. But that's a little. Don't move and do that. Right. Get all your mechanics in place, understand technique and positioning, breathing. It's not like the most complicated thing from a prone position. Right. But the fact that he chose to use iron sights, I thought, was weird too. Yeah. There's a lot of weirdness to it. Yeah. You know, from 140 yards with a scope, that is an easy shot. Yeah. And then he could just like wander up. That's the different timeline. Right. The different timelines he has a scope. Yeah. And that's it. Okay.
好的。就像，这完全没有任何道理。而且他还是个注册的共和党人。对啊，整个事情非常奇怪。他原本是个糟糕的射手，但后来变成了很厉害的射手。他肯定接受过训练。是的，你可以训练一个人变得很好的射手。但就像，这就是你所需要做的。但有点简单。不要动，然后就这样做。对。把所有的动作准备好，理解技巧和位置，呼吸。从卧姿来说，这并不是最复杂的事情。对。但我觉得他选择用铁瞄准具也很奇怪。是啊，这里面有很多奇怪的地方。你知道，从140码用瞄准镜射击，那是个很简单的射击。而且他就可以这样走上去。这是不同的时间线。在不同的时间线里他用瞄准镜。嗯，就是这样。
All right. Right. That would have. And Trump's dead. Yep. And then boy. Yeah. Boy, do we live in a crazy world then. Yeah. Completely bizarre. I mean, what does the streets look like right now? Yeah. What kind of like protests and riots and. Yeah. You think January 6 was nice? yeah. If they had killed Trump, that would be January 6 on steroids everywhere. yeah. That's right. And we would experience it.
好的。对，那真的会让人震惊。而特朗普去世了。是的，然后，天啊。我们真是生活在一个疯狂的世界里。是的，完全离奇。我是说，现在街道上是什么样子的？对，什么样的抗议和骚乱。你觉得1月6日很严重吗？是的。如果他们杀了特朗普，那就会让1月6日的事情在各地变得更加严重。对，就是这样。而且我们会亲身经历。
I mean, you know, I don't know when I was a kid in my high school. High school history. You've got a boot-like copy of the Zuprooder film. Really? Which I mean, you know, it's like. What a gangster high school history. He was actually pretty focused on the. He's really loving Kennedy assassination. So we spend a lot of time on that.
我的意思是，你知道，我不知道当我还是个孩子在我高中的时候。高中历史课上。你得到了一个像靴子一样的扎普鲁德电影的拷贝。真的吗？我的意思是，你知道，这就像。真是个酷的高中历史课。他实际上很专注于这点。他真的很喜欢研究肯尼迪遇刺事件。所以我们花了很多时间在这上面。
And you know, you kind of watch it frame by frame and you can kind of see what's happening with this lots of questions. But like when things like that happen, you know, today, it's going to be a high definition 4K ultra surrounds on forever. yeah. Right. Playing out in your real time forever. And so like, yeah, I very much don't want to live in the world where those things happen. Well, we are very fortunate. yeah. I mean, like I said, after the election, I was like, wow, voting works.
你知道，你可以一帧一帧地观看，并且能够大概看出发生了什么，其中有很多问题。不过，当这样的事情发生时，你知道，现在它将会以4K超高清环绕的方式永远播放在你眼前的实时中。所以，我真的不想生活在一个这样的事情会发生的世界里。不过，我们非常幸运。就像我说的，选举之后，我想，哇，投票是有效的。
Yeah. Yes. How about that? Voting works. That's nice. Like they don't have the system completely rigged. And then. But they kind of tried to rig it at least with the media. Where the real rigging in the 2020 elections, I mean, you can cast all your conspiracies upon it in terms of like mail-in ballots and all this jazz. But the real rigging was the collusion between social media companies and the government to suppress information that would have altered the effect of the election.
好的，是这样的。投票确实有用，这很不错，说明系统没有完全被操控。但他们的确尝试过操控，至少通过媒体。在2020年大选中，真正的操控是社交媒体公司和政府之间的合谋，他们压制了一些可能会改变选举结果的信息。虽然你可以对邮寄选票等问题提出各种阴谋论，但真正的问题在这里。
yeah. That's legitimate. Oh, yeah, for sure. yeah. That was like direct interference. And it was aided and abetted by a lot of former intelligence officials. yeah. And by the current administration, tons of pressure on censorship coming from the current administration and all their kind of arms of the censorship apparatus. You have your hands in the tech community. You have your fingers in all that jazz. yeah. And the general attitude about all that stuff when it was revealed.
是的，这确实是合理的。哦，没错。是的，那就像是直接的干预。而且这还有很多前情报官员的支持和协助。是的，现任政府也施加了巨大的压力，推动审查制度，并且利用他们各种审查机制的力量。你们在科技界有广泛的影响力，涉足各个领域。是的，当这些事情被揭露出来时，人们普遍的态度就是如此。
How did people, you know, how did your peers respond to that? I think anybody in social media, the internet companies knew it. So it was pretty widely understood. I mean, look, there's nothing that happened at Twitter and the Twitter files. It wasn't happening all the other companies. Right. So it's a consistent pattern if you got the YouTube files. They would look exactly the same.
人们是怎么反应的？也就是说，你身边的人对那件事有什么看法？我认为任何在社交媒体和互联网公司工作的人都知道这一点。所以这是广泛被理解的。我的意思是，看看Twitter发生的事情以及Twitter文件，其实其他公司也发生了类似的事情。这是一种普遍的模式。如果你查看YouTube的文件，情况也会是一样的。
And of course, we should get the YouTube files. Sure. And now we probably will now with, you know, this new administration is probably going to start carving all this stuff open. yeah. So look, it was a pattern. And then look, you know, the companies bear a lot of responsibility. And the people in the companies, you know, made a lot of, I think, bad judgment calls. But the government, like the Biden White House was directly exerting censorship pressure on American companies to censor American citizens, which I think, by the way, is just flatly illegal.
当然，我们应该获取YouTube的文件。当然，现在在这个新政府的推动下，我们很可能会开始揭露这些事情。这是一种模式。而且，公司也要承担很大责任。公司里的很多人做出了很多错误的判断。但政府，比如说拜登政府，直接向美国公司施加了审查压力，以审查美国公民。我认为，这明显是违法的。
Like I think it's actually subject to criminal charges. Like I think there are people with criminal liability who were involved in this. So there was that there were also members of Congress doing the same thing, which is also illegal. And then there was a lot of funding of outside third party groups that were bringing a lot of pressure down on censorship. yeah. And just an example of that is there's a unit at Stanford, you know, right next door, you know, to us that, you know, was the internet censorship unit that was funded by the U.S. government and exerted tremendous pressure on the companies to censor.
我觉得这实际上可能涉及刑事指控。我认为其中有些人负有刑事责任。因此，这种情况发生了，还有一些国会议员也在做同样的事情，这也是违法的。接着，有大量资金流向外部第三方团体，这些团体施加了很大压力推动审查制度。比如，有一个单位就在我们旁边的斯坦福大学，这是一个互联网审查单位，由美国政府资助，并对企业施加了巨大压力以进行审查。
And it was, and it was very effective at doing so. Does it smell like sulfur when you walk those halls? It is very dark and grim. This whole thing is very bad. And so Stanford. Oh, yeah. Stanford Stanford by the way, another, you don't like that at Harvard, you know, a bunch of universities got pulled into this, a lot of NGOs and nonprofits got pulled into this. The Twitter files showed us kind of the basic roadmap. And then there's this thing called the Weaponization Committee that Congressman Jordan is running that has also revealed a lot of this. But I would imagine the new Trump administration is going to come in and carve all that wide open. And I know that there are people in, you know, being appointed to senior positions who are very determined to do that.
这句话翻译成中文并尽量易读如下：
“的确如此，而且它在这方面非常有效。当你走过那些走廊时，会闻到硫磺的气味吗？那里非常黑暗和阴沉。整件事情都很糟糕。然后是斯坦福，对，顺便说一下，不仅仅是哈佛，还有很多大学卷入其中，许多非政府组织和非营利组织也卷入其中。‘推特文件’为我们展示了基本路线图。此外，还有一个叫做‘武器化委员会’的东西，由国会议员乔丹负责，也揭示了很多问题。但我想新的特朗普政府将会进来，并彻底揭开这一切。我知道有些被任命到高级职位的人非常坚定地要这样做。”
This episode is brought to you by blinds.com. You probably think custom window coverings are just to keep the neighbors from staring in, right? But here's the thing. It also make your place look badass and can help you save on utility bills with blinds.com is easy to get top quality window treatments and service. And it's a hundred percent online. No hidden fees, no weird markups like you'd get in a showroom and their black Friday deals are already live.
本节目由 blinds.com 赞助。你可能以为定制窗帘只是为了防止邻居窥探，对吧？但实际上，它们还能让你的家看起来非常酷，并帮助你节省水电费。在 blinds.com，你可以轻松获得优质的窗帘和服务，全部都是在线操作。没有隐藏费用，也没有像展厅那样的奇怪加价。他们的黑色星期五优惠已经开始了。
So there's no need to wait for some pushy salesperson to give you an insane quote with blinds.com. You can do a free virtual consultation with one of their award winning designers when you have the time. They'll send you samples quick and easy and free. Then you can either go full DIY or let blinds.com handle everything from measuring to installation. These guys have covered over 25 million windows all backed with 100 percent satisfaction guarantee. You can't lose. So head to blinds.com now and grab those black Friday deals all month long. Use the code Rogen for $50 off when you spend $500 or more. Limited time offer rules and restrictions apply. See blinds.com for details.
所以，您无需等待那些喜欢强推的销售员给您一个离谱的报价。在blinds.com，您可以在有空的时候免费进行一次与他们屡获殊荣的设计师的虚拟咨询。他们会快速、简单且免费地寄送样品给您。随后，您可以选择完全自己动手，或者让blinds.com负责从测量到安装的一切工作。他们已经为超过2500万扇窗户提供服务，并且所有服务都百分之百满意保证，您无需担心。所以现在就前往blinds.com，整个11月都可以享受黑色星期五的优惠。如果您消费满500美元或以上，可以使用代码Rogen获得50美元的折扣。这是限时优惠，规则和限制适用。详情请参见blinds.com。
One of the things that I found really kind of shocking was when they revealed how much money the Democrats had spent on the election and how much money was spent on activist groups. Right. It's like more than $100 million, right? Yeah. It's an extensive government funding of politically oriented NGOs. Yeah. NGOs, one of those great terms, non-governmental organization, right? What the hell is that? What is that? Tell me, I don't know. Well, it's sort of a charity. Sort of. Sort of. But most of the time it's a political entity. It's an entity with a political agenda.
我发现特别震惊的一件事是，当他们揭露出了民主党在选举中花费了多少钱，以及用于激进组织的金额有多少时。是的，超过1亿美元，对吧？这是政府对有政治倾向的非政府组织的大量资助。对，非政府组织，这个词很有意思，意味着非政府组织，对吧？那是什么呢？我不知道，那是什么？嗯，这有点像慈善机构，但又不完全是。多数时候，它是一个有政治议程的组织。
But then it's funded by the government in a very large percentage of cases, including the NGOs in the censorship complex. The government grants, National Science Foundation grants, like the State Department grants, right? Direct money. And then, okay, now you've got an NGO funded by the government. Well, that's not an NGO. Right. That's a geo. Right. Right. And then you've got a conspiracy. Like when censorship, then you have a conspiracy because you've got government officials using government money to fund what look like private organizations that aren't.
在很多情况下，政府为其提供资金，包括那些在审查机制中的非政府组织。政府拨款、国家科学基金会拨款，比如国务院拨款，都是直接的资金支持。那么，当一个非政府组织由政府资助时，那就不再是非政府组织了，对吧？而是一个“政府组织”。对，这样就形成了一种阴谋。当涉及到言论审查时，就是因为政府官员利用政府资金资助看似是私人组织的机构，但实际上不是，这就是一种阴谋。
And then what happens is the government out sources to these NGOs, the things that it's not legally allowed to do. Like what? Like censorship. Oh, okay. Like violation of First Amendment rights. Right. Right. So the first, so what they always say is the First Amendment only applies to the government. The First Amendment says the government cannot, cannot censor American citizens. And so what they do is if you want to censor American citizens in the government, if you're smart, you don't do that, which you do is you fund an outside organization and then you have them do it. Boy. Right. And that's what's been happening. Right. And that's like hiring a hitman. Like it's not okay to murder someone, but you can hire someone to murder someone and then you're clean.
然后，政府会将它法律上不能直接执行的事情外包给这些非政府组织。比如什么呢？比如审查制度。哦，好吧。比如侵犯《第一修正案》所保障的权利。对，对。所以他们常说，《第一修正案》只适用于政府。《第一修正案》规定政府不能审查美国公民。因此，如果政府想要审查美国公民，如果你很聪明，你自己不会去做，而是会资助一个外部组织，让他们去做，真是的。对，这正是一直在发生的事。这就像雇佣一个杀手：虽然自己不能谋杀某人，但你可以雇人去干，这样你自己就清白了。
Yeah. And if you're going to murder, it's not enough to find out who the hitman was. You have to find out who paid the hitman. Right. Right. You want to work your way up the chain. And so a lot of this traces into the White House. The best defense the companies have is that a lot of this happened under coercion, right? Because when the government puts pressure on you, like it might be a phone call, it might be a letter, it might be the threat of an investigation, it might be a subpoena. It could take many forms. But when the government does that, it carries, you know, that's a very powerful message. Right. It's like a message from a mob boss, right? Right. Right. Don't you want to do me a favor? Yes, Mr. Gambino. I do, right? Like my corner store, I'd like it to not catch and fire tonight. Yeah. And so there's this overwhelming hammer blow pressure that comes in.
是的，如果要调查一起谋杀案，光找出杀手是谁是不够的，还必须找出是谁雇佣了这个杀手。你需要逐级往上查，而很多线索最终会追溯到白宫。公司最好的辩护理由是很多事情是在胁迫之下发生的。比如，政府施加压力的方式可能有很多种：可能是一个电话、一封信、一项调查的威胁，或者一张传票。无论是哪种形式，都传达着极其强烈的信息，就像是黑帮老大的命令。比如，“你不想帮我个忙吗？”“是的，Gambino先生，我当然想。”就像我希望我的小商店今晚别着火一样。因此，这种压倒性的强压力会到来。
And by the way, even when the government doesn't talk to you directly, if they're funding the organization that is talking to you, then it's very clear what's happening. And so you come under incredible pressure. And so the whole kind of chain, this whole chain of governments, activists, universities and companies was corrupted. And then on top of that, people in the companies in a lot of cases made a lot of decisions that I think they're probably increasingly starting to regret.
顺便说一下，即使政府不直接与你对话，如果他们资助的是和你对话的组织，那么很明显事情的实质是什么。因此，你会面临巨大的压力。整个政府、活动家、大学和公司的链条已经被腐蚀。除此之外，许多公司的员工做出了很多决定，我认为他们可能越来越后悔这些决定。
What was confusing to me was that the government spent so much money on these activist groups during the election. And I didn't understand like what purpose that would serve. Like what function would it serve to spend all this money on these activist groups that already support you, supposedly? Like are you bribing them to support you? Are you paying them to go on talk shows and consistently repeat the government's message, the current administration's message? Like what would be the function of that? So I think in some cases, it's just pay to play. So for example, we know that Kamala's campaign paid certain on her personalities, you know, to file it.
让我感到困惑的是，政府在选举期间花了那么多钱在这些激进组织上。我不太明白这样做有什么作用。花大笔钱在这些据说已经支持你的激进组织上有什么功能呢？是贿赂他们以确保他们继续支持你吗？还是付钱让他们上脱口秀节目，把政府或现任政府的消息一遍遍地重复？这样做的目的到底是什么呢？在某些情况下，我认为这就是一种利益交换。比如说，我们知道卡玛拉的竞选团队付钱给一些知名人士以获得支持。
And then there were, you know, which it's your point. People were very supportive of Kamala, who then gave her interviews that went really well. And so I think in some cases you just have straight pay to play. That's just how that system works. It's just expected. And then I think you have other organizations like these NGOs and other activist groups where they're actually, you know, they actually do field activities, right? And so there's, you know, maybe there's a get out the vote component or there's, you know, social media influence downstream component or some other, you know, kind of field activity that's happening in support of the election.
然后，你知道，就是这点。人们非常支持卡玛拉，她接受的采访进行得非常顺利。所以，我认为在某些情况下，这就是单纯的付费合作。这就是这个体系的运作方式，人们对此也习以为常。此外，还有其他组织，比如一些非政府组织和其他激进团体，他们确实在开展实地活动。也许会有一个动员投票的部分，或是通过社交媒体来影响选举，或者是其他在支持竞选的实地活动。
I just didn't think that they pay like when it's still unclear whether or not celebrities got paid to endorse her, right? Right? Have you? They've mixed it up because there's like Oprah says, Oprah says her production company was paid to put on the production, but she was not paid for the interview. Yeah, whatever. But it was, you know, to whatever, $2 million. Two and a half million. So it was initially listed as one and it turned out it was 2.5. Right. And so it was like, if I have a production company and my production company gets paid $2.5 million to endorse Trump, right? And then I go, I didn't get any of that money. Right. People like, she'll talk fuck off. Of course you got it's your company. What are you talking about?
我就是觉得不太理解，为什么在还不清楚名人是否真的被支付了代言费的时候，会这么说呢，对吧？对吧？你懂我意思吗？他们似乎搞混了，比如说奥普拉表示，她的制作公司收到了制作节目的费用，但她本人没有收访谈费。行吧，不管怎么样。反正，金额大概是两百万或者两百五十万。最初是写一百万，结果发现是两百五十万。对吧？就好比如果我有个制作公司，我的公司因为支持特朗普得到了两百五十万，然后我却说，我个人一分钱也没拿到。别人会觉得，这太搞笑了，明明是你的公司，当然最终还是算是你的钱。你在说什么呢？
Yeah. And also how much does it cost to do an event? Yes. How does it cost $2.5 million to put on an event? Like, are you feeding people gold sandwiches? Like, what are you doing? Like, how is that possible? Yeah, exactly. So yeah. And then you're because the fact that it's deliberately obfuscated, of course, is a clue. I just thought the really bizarre one was the allegations. And I would say unsubstantiated allegations. It's been alleged that Beyonce got $10 million and Lizzo got $3 million. Eminem got $1.8 million. Like, really? Yeah. I think if you just like published all these numbers, these celebrities will get so mad at each other. Oh, sure they are.
好的。那么，举办一个活动要花多少钱？是的。怎么可能需要花费250万美元来举办一个活动？难道是给大家吃金做的三明治吗？你到底在做什么？这怎么可能呢？是啊，没错。还有，因为这件事被故意搞得很模糊不清，这本身就是个线索。我只是觉得有些指控真的很奇怪，我认为这些都是没有根据的指控。据说碧昂丝拿了1000万美元，而Lizzo拿了300万美元，埃米纳姆拿了180万美元，真的吗？是的，我想如果你公布这些数据，这些名人之间肯定会非常生气。哦，当然会的。
Then you will learn everything. Eminem got short. Right. Right. Lizzo's furious right now, right? Yeah. Lizzo's probably listening to this right now being like, what? Well, I wonder if Lizzo was like, I didn't get shit. I would say it. But why haven't they said it? Like Beyonce has been mum about the whole thing. I think I would probably say. Yeah. Like, I didn't get any money to do that. Yeah. But that was a weird one too because a lot of people thought Beyonce was going to do a concert. Right. And they were like, what the fuck? Because they all came to see a free Beyonce concert. Yes. And then she just said, I want to support Kamala Harris. And everybody's like, good, good. Now if you like it, then you should have put a ring on it. Right. Come on. They love your songs. Yes.
然后你就会知道一切。埃米纳姆变矮了，对吧？对，没错。莉佐现在很生气，对吧？是的。莉佐可能正在听这个节目，然后心想，什么？我想知道莉佐是不是觉得，她什么都没得到。我会说出来。但为什么他们没有说出来呢？比如碧昂丝对整件事一直保持缄默。我想我可能会说。是的，我没有得到任何报酬去做那件事。但是那也很奇怪，因为很多人以为碧昂丝会开演唱会。对，然后他们就想，搞什么啊？因为他们都是来看免费的碧昂丝演唱会的。结果她只是说，她想支持卡玛拉·哈里斯。大家都觉得，好，很好。如果你喜欢它，那你就应该给它戴上戒指。是的，来吧。他们喜欢你的歌。没错。
That's what we're here for. Yes. I just didn't think that it was even possible that a, I didn't think a candidate would ever pay for an endorsement. Yeah. In fact that it was even alleged. Yeah. Well, you know, and then there's, of course, there's the even stinkier version arguably, which is all the social media influencer campaigns now. There's, you know, tremendous amount of payola. That's for sure. Right. Because I know people personally who are approached multiple times. Yeah. And offered a substantial amount of money to post things in support of Harris. Yeah. And like I'm, I'm pro capitalism and I'm happy for them that they get paid. But like maybe we should know. Yeah. That seems like something you should absolutely have to disclose. It should be like, like say if I was going to do an ad for, you know, whatever, a certain coffee company, black rifle coffee, and I did it on my Instagram, I'd have to say, add, I have to say this is an ad. Yeah. It's a paid ad. And that's part of the thing. Yeah. You know, unless it's your company, like you're supposed to say they're paying me to do this.
这就是我们在这里的原因。是的。我只是从没想过，甚至认为这不可能，一个候选人真的会为获得支持而付钱。对，事实上这都只是被指控而已。是的，你知道的，当然，还有一个更让人不安的版本，那就是当前的所有社交媒体影响力活动。确实存在大量的利益输送。这是肯定的。因为我认识的一些人曾多次被接触，并被给出一大笔钱来发布支持哈里斯的内容。我支持资本主义，也为他们能赚钱感到高兴，但是或许我们应该了解这件事。看起来这确实是需要公开的事情。就像如果我要为某个咖啡品牌，比如黑色步枪咖啡，在我的Instagram上做广告，我必须说这是广告，我要说这是付费广告。这是其中一部分。除非是你自己的公司，否则你应该说他们付钱让我这么做。
Yeah. Yeah. Well, you know, look, I, the good news with these is we learn each cycle. We learn a lot about how politics works. We learn about a lot about how fake it is. We learn a lot about the things we've put up with for a very long time. I mean, everybody's always like freaked out by like whatever the new guy does, but like this real scandal in most cases, I think is just the way the system already works. It's a sneaky system. Yeah. Well, another fascinating aspect of the system that we learned out this time around is the uncontrolled aspect of it, like what Trump called earned media was much more powerful than anything else. Yeah. The uncontrolled version of it.
好的。嗯，你知道吗，好消息是我们每次都在学习。我们学到了很多关于政治运作的东西，也看清了其中有多少虚假。我们还了解了我们长期以来忍受的很多事情。我的意思是，每当有新人出现，大家总是很惊慌失措，但在大多数情况下，我认为真正的问题是系统本身的运作方式，因为这是一个很狡猾的系统。嗯，还有一个我们这次学到的关于系统的有趣方面就是它的不可控特性，就像特朗普所说的免费媒体宣传，这比其他任何东西都更有力量。是的，它的不可控版本发挥了更大的作用。
One of the things that unfortunately for them, mass media or corporate media has done is they've diminished their credibility so much, so much so that like Joy Reid was on TV today talking about saying that Trump was going to shoot protesters and just wild unsubstantiated crazy shit. And the more they do stuff like that, the more that they say things like that, the more it diminishes their impact and the more it drives people to independent media sources. Yeah. I'm sure you've seen the ratings collapse that they've been, they're down to like, they're down to like MSNBC is down to like 50,000 people in the 18 to 20, 18 to 49 demo. That is so wild, which is tiny, right? It's so crazy. It's really tiny. So I think that's happening. The Gallup organization has done polls on trust in institutions, including media for the last 60 years. It's been a steady slide down. And in the last four years has fallen off a cliff. I think it's real. Oh, there's another study that came out. The kids are now watching a lot less TV. Kids are just giving up on TV. Yeah. And they're just, you know, they're on YouTube and TikTok and Instagram and other things. And so like I think it's tipping.
不幸的是，大众媒体或企业媒体已经极大地削弱了自己的信誉。例如，今天Joy Reid在电视上声称特朗普要射击抗议者，这种毫无根据的疯狂言论。媒体越是这样做，他们的影响力就越大打折扣，越来越多的人转向独立媒体来源。你可能已经注意到他们的收视率暴跌，比如MSNBC在18到49岁的人群中的观众数已经降到大约5万，这实在是太夸张了，真的是一个很小的数字。过去60年来，盖洛普组织一直在做关于对包括媒体在内的机构信任度的调查，结果显示，这种信任度一直在稳步下降，而在最近四年更是大幅下滑。我认为这是真实的。此外，还有一项研究显示，现在的孩子们看电视的时间大大减少，他们正在放弃电视，转而使用像YouTube、TikTok和Instagram这样的平台，所以我认为这种趋势正在发生变化。
A question I've been asking myself is when will the actual, you know, famously 1960 was the first television election, right? You know, sort of legend has it because it was the one where the televised debate really mattered. You saw the televised debate. You saw confident Kennedy and nervous Nixon. And if you heard it, you experienced something different. Enhanciveness and human effect. And vitality and health. Yeah. Right. And all these things, sort of positive, positive spirit, positive energy. I'm actually not this might be have been the first internet election or maybe we actually haven't had it yet. Like I feel like we're really close to the first internet election, but maybe it's not all the way there. I think this is it. I think this, there's an argument that this is it, right? And that, you know, all the, you know, all the stuff, especially in the last six months, all the podcast, obviously in your show, played a big role. But like, I think there's a real, if you're going to run in 28, like, I think there's like a fully internet native way to run these campaigns that might literally involve like zero television advertising. And maybe you don't even need to raise that money. And maybe to your point, if you have the right message, maybe you just go straight direct. Yeah, I think.
我一直在思考一个问题，那就是，我们什么时候会迎来真正意义上的“网络选举”？就像大家都知道的，1960年被称为第一次“电视选举”，因为那是电视辩论真正产生影响的一次。人们通过电视看到自信的肯尼迪和紧张的尼克松，而通过收音机听则可能感受到不一样的氛围。这就涉及到人的感知、活力和健康等因素。而在现在，我感觉我们离第一次真正意义上的“网络选举”很近了，可能这次就算是，但似乎还没有完全达到。尤其是过去六个月，各种播客，尤其是你的节目都发挥了很大作用。或许在2028年的选举中，可以通过一种完全依赖互联网的方式进行竞选，甚至可能完全不需要电视广告，也不需要大量筹集资金。或许只要有正确的信息传递给选民，直接通过网络进行宣传就够了。我觉得这是一条可能的道路。
It might be a completely different way to do this. I think that's the only way now. And I think if you do pay people, it's not going to have the same impact. You know, I think these call her daddy shows and all these different shows that she went on, I mean, I'm sure they had an impact. But I think that in the future, I'm sure they're scrambling to try to create their own version of this show. This is one thing that keeps coming up like we need our own Joe Rogan. But they had me. Well, number one they had you. Number one they had you. They had you in the dro-
这可能是一个完全不同的方法来做这件事。我认为这现在是唯一的方法。而且我觉得如果你付钱给别人，这不会产生同样的效果。你知道，我认为像《Call Her Daddy》这样的节目和她参加的所有其他节目，肯定产生了一些影响。但我相信将来，他们肯定会急着尝试创建自己版本的这个节目。这个话题不断涌现，比如说我们需要自己的乔·罗根。但是他们已经有我了。首先，他们有你。他们有你在......
ve you away as that number one number. But they also have, you know, ABC, NBC, CBS, CNN. Right. But that doesn't work anymore. It's like, you know, like you're using smoke signals and everybody else has a cell phone. Yeah, that's right. It doesn't work.
他们把你当作首要的首选。然而，他们也有像ABC、NBC、CBS和CNN这样的选择，对吧？但这种方法已经不管用了。这就像是用烟雾信号联系，而其他人都在用手机。没错，这确实行不通了。
Yeah, that's right. That's right. It's just it's a bizarre time. It's really interesting though. Like as you said, like we're in a great timeline. And I think it's a fascinating timeline too because there's so much uncertainty and there's so much right. We're at the verge of AI, you know, open AI, you know, Altman has said now that he thinks 2025 will be the year that AI becomes sentient, whatever that means, you know, artificial general intelligence will be will emerge. And who knows how that affects.
是的，没错。现在的确是个奇怪的时代，但也非常有趣。就像你说的，我们在一个很棒的时间线里。我也觉得这个时间线很迷人，因为充满了不确定性和潜在的可能性。我们正处在人工智能的边缘，像开放AI这样的公司。Altman 说他认为到2025年，人工智能将会有感知能力，不知道那具体意味着什么，可能会出现通用人工智能。谁知道这会带来怎样的影响呢。
I've said publicly and I'm kind of half joking that we need AI government. Yeah. You know, I it sounds crazy to say, but instead of having this like alpha chimpanzee that runs the tribe of humans, how about we have some like really logical fact based, you know, program, you know, that makes it like really reasonable and equitable in a way that we can all agree to. Right. Let's govern things in that manner.
我曾公开表示过，我有点开玩笑地说我们需要一个 AI 政府。是的，这听起来可能很疯狂，但与其让一个像领头猩猩的人来管理人类群体，不如我们有一个非常讲逻辑、基于事实的程序，这样会变得更合理和公平，让大家都能达成共识。对吧？我们就用这种方式来治理吧。
Right. So you can actually simulate this today because you can go on these systems, shed GPT or a plot of these others. And you can ask, you know, how should we handle issue X? How should this be? Yeah, we've done that. Right. How should the Department of Energy do whatever nuclear policy or whatever. And what I find when I do that is I discover two things. Number one, of course, these things are these things have the same problem. Social media is had, which is tremendously politically biased and right now that's on purpose and they need to fix that.
好的。实际上，你今天就可以进行这种模拟，因为你可以使用这些系统，比如访问 GPT 或其他类似平台。你可以询问，比如说，我们应该如何处理问题 X？如何应对某些情况？我们已经这么做过了。比如，美国能源部应该如何处理某些核政策等等。而我发现，当我这样做时，我发现了两个问题。首先，这些系统存在和社交媒体相同的问题，就是政治上存在巨大偏见。而且，目前这种偏见是故意存在的，他们需要解决这个问题。
And that's going to be a big topic in the next several years. But the other thing you learn is if you can get through the political basically bias and censorship, if you can actually get to a discussion of the actual issue, it's you get very sophisticated answers. Yes. Right. Very logical, very straightforward. And it will explain every aspect of the issue to you and it'll take you through all the pros and cons.
这将在未来几年成为一个重要话题。但你还会了解到，如果你能突破政治上的偏见和审查，真正讨论这个问题，你会得到非常深入的答案。是的，非常合理，非常直接。它会向你解释问题的各个方面，并带你了解所有的优缺点。
Yeah. And, you know, I mean, it might be the way to go, which is so horrifying for people to think because everyone's worried about the terminators taking over the world. And like if that's the first step as we let them govern us. Well, there's nothing stopping a politician from using this. There's nothing stopping a policy maker from using it as a tool. Right.
是的，你知道，我的意思是，这可能是一种方法，虽然这个想法让人感到害怕，因为每个人都担心终结者统治世界。如果我们让他们来治理我们，这是第一步。那么，政客和决策者也完全可以将其作为工具来使用，没有任何阻碍。
You start out, at least you start out using it as a tool. There's nothing to prevent. You're like, for example, I think military commanders in the field are going to have basically AI battlefield assistance that are going to advise them on strategy tactics. Yes. Right. How to win conflicts and then it'll start to work its way up and then they'll be doing you know, war planning. And then if you're a general, if you're, you know, sergeant or a colonel or a general, it's going to just mean you perform better. Yes.
一开始，你至少是把它当作一个工具来使用。没有什么可以阻止这一点。比如说，我认为战场上的军事指挥官将基本上拥有人工智能战场助手来给他们提供战略战术建议。是的。这样可以帮助他们赢得冲突，然后它会逐渐起到更大作用，甚至参与到战争规划中。如果你是一个将军、中士或上校，使用它就意味着你会表现得更好。是的。
And so maybe there's like, you know, the human, the sort of man machine kind of symbiotic relationship. And you could imagine that happening more in the policy process and the political process. And there's also AI controlled jets, which are far superior. They did, Mike Baker was telling us about that. They did these simulated dog fights and the AI controlled jets one 100% of the time. Yeah. Over humans.
也许可以想象出人类和机器之间那种共生关系。这种关系可能更多地出现在政策制定和政治过程中。同时还有人工智能控制的战斗机，它们的性能要优越得多。Mike Baker 告诉我们，他们进行了一些模拟空战，结果人工智能控制的战斗机在所有比赛中都战胜了人类飞行员。
Yeah. And there's a bunch of reasons for that. And part of it is just simply the speed of processing and so forth. But another big thing is if you don't have a human in the plane, you don't have the, you know, they say the spam in the can, you don't have the, you know, you don't have the human body in the plane. You don't have to keep a human being alive, which means you can be a lot faster and you can move a lot more quickly. G forces. Much higher G forces.
是的，这有很多原因。一部分原因是处理速度等方面的因素。但另一个主要原因是，如果飞机上没有人类，没有所谓的“罐头中的肉”，就没有人类身体在飞机里。这意味着你不需要考虑保持人类的生命，这样你就可以飞得更快，移动得更迅速。可以承受更高的重力加速度。
Yeah. And then there's no option for someone to go crazy. Yeah. That's also right. Yes. Exactly. No, there's no human element, you know, which is a real element. Yeah. No, like I think we're going to, it's going to be common to have like Mach five, you know, jet drones within a few years. And you know, there'll be a fraction of the size of the current, you know, manned planes, which means you can have like a lot more of them. And so you kind of want to imagine, you know, a thousand of these things like coming over the horizon right at you. And it really changes.
是的，而且这样的话就不会有人失控的情况了。是的，没错。完全正确。没有所谓的人类因素，这才是真实存在的因素。对。我觉得在未来几年内，马赫五速度的喷气无人机会变得普遍。它们的体积会比现有的载人飞机小很多，这意味着你可以拥有更多这样的无人机。所以你可以想象一下，会有上千架这样的无人机从地平线上朝你飞来，这将带来很大的改变。
It's actually, I think it'd be very interesting. It really changes the fundamental equation of war in the following sense, fundamentally in the past, the people who won wars of the, the, the people who had the most men and the most material. Right. So you just need the most soldiers and you needed the most equipment. And in this drone world that we're talking about, it's going to be the people with the most money and the best technology.
我认为这将会非常有趣。从这个角度来看，它实际上改变了战争的基本规则。在过去，赢得战争的人通常是拥有最多士兵和最多物资的一方。也就是说，你需要最多的士兵和最多的设备。而在我们谈论的这个无人机时代，胜利者将是那些拥有最多资金和最佳技术的人。
Yeah. Right. And so for example, small states, you know, small advanced states, like Singapore will be able to punch way above their weight and then kind of large sort of economically or technologically backward states that normally would have won will now lose. And so it's going to, it's going to be a recalibration. And then it has the, the good news is you're not putting soldiers at risk, right? So you have a lot less, a lot less death. The bad news arguably is it'll be easier to get into conflicts because you're not putting soldiers at risk. So there's going to have to be a recalibration of like when you actually like lean in an attack.
好的。那么，比如说，一些小型的、先进的国家，比如新加坡，将能够发挥远超其实际能力的影响力。而那些传统上可能在经济或技术上落后的大国，现在可能会失去优势。因此，这将是一次重新调整。好的消息是，你没有将士兵置于危险之中，所以死亡会大大减少。而坏消息是，因为没有让士兵冒险，可能会更容易卷入冲突。因此，需要重新考虑在何时真正介入或发动攻击。
I'm sure you're aware of all this UAP disclosure jazz that you see on television. The more I look into it, the more I think at least a percentage of it, a healthy percentage of it is bullshit. And there's probably some government projects where they've developed some very sophisticated propulsion systems that they've applied to drones. And that that's what these people are seeing. This is one of the reasons why they continually have sightings over secured military spaces like out in the Eastern seaboard. Like there's areas over Virginia where they continually see them in San Diego. They see them off the coast of San Diego where there's a place where you would test stuff like that.
我相信你一定注意到了电视上关于UAP（不明飞行物）的那些新闻。越深入了解，我越觉得其中至少有一部分，甚至相当大的一部分，都是胡扯。而且可能存在一些政府的项目，他们开发了一些非常先进的推进系统，应用在无人机上。这就是为什么人们不断在一些军事禁区上空目击到这些现象的原因之一。例如，在弗吉尼亚东部沿海地区和圣地亚哥海岸，他们不断地看到这些现象，这些地方正是测试此类技术的地方。
Yeah. Well, so of course, of course, we know that that was the case for a very long time for sure from the 50s through the 80s because we, the development of stealth was highly classified and the SRS 71 was brand new at one point. So you had these like alien, you know, you paid attention to that stuff. Of course, of course, 100%. Yeah. And then, and then by the way, we're not the only ones. And so I, you know, my speculation would be that a lot, some of the military based stuff is, you know, the Chinese doing something similar. Yes.
是的，当然，当然，我们知道这种情况很长一段时间都是这样，从50年代到80年代肯定是如此，因为隐身技术的发展是高度机密的，SR-71飞机在某个时候是全新的。所以你会关注那些像不明飞行物一样的东西，当然，当然，百分之百地关注。然后，顺便说一下，不只是我们这样。我猜测很多与军事实验相关的事情，可能是中国也在进行类似的尝试。对。
And, you know, we got a glimpse into that with the balloon. Well, that was goofy though. We got shut down, but still the fact that the Chinese are flying surveillance balloons over American territory and they were able to slip through our early warning systems and just like, you know, later above military bases and like, you know, take lots of, you know, imagery and do whatever scans they do. Yeah. And like, not literally nothing was happening and we didn't even know they were there most of the time. And so like, you know, that's like a tip of the ice. It feels like a tip of the iceberg kind of thing where if they were doing that, there are probably other things going on.
翻译成中文：
你知道，我们通过那个气球事件瞥见了一些情况。尽管那有点滑稽，我们被拦截了，但关键是中国把监视气球飞到了美国领土上，他们竟然能在我们的预警系统中穿行无阻，停留在军事基地上方，拍摄大量的图像和进行各种扫描。而且，几乎没有任何干预，我们大多数时间甚至都不知道它们在那里。所以，这感觉就像是冰山一角，如果他们在做这种事情，可能还有别的事情在发生。
Well, I've read that someone had commented that similar things had happened during the Trump administration, but they didn't tell Trump because they didn't want him to shoot them down. Interesting. Interesting. For the record, I'm appreciating them down. Yeah. I think you should probably shoot them down and take pictures of shit. They're not. They're people up there fucking shoot them down. Yeah. What's the problem? Yes. Exactly. Yeah.
好吧，我读过有人评论说类似的事情在特朗普政府期间也发生过，但他们没有告诉特朗普，因为他们不希望他把那些东西打下来。有趣，很有趣。声明一下，我赞同将它们打下来。是的，我觉得你应该把它们打下来并拍些照片。它们不是东西，而是人啊，把它们打下来。是的，为什么不呢？完全同意。
Do you think there are any of those that are not of this world? I don't think there's any way to know from the outside. Have you ever like pondered it late at night, sit in on your porch staring up at this guy? Of course, of course. Well, you know, racist, you know, racist, number one is, is there not a, if it is, you know, did it recently get here? Have they been here for a long time? You know, do they arrive 5000 years ago? Tucker thinks they're demons and angels. You know, I mean, demons and angels, are demons and angels real? It's like, you know, literally, you know, probably not, but like, certainly they're metaphorically real and are there shaded the grave between literal and metaphorical? Well, the actions are certainly demonic and, and, and, right? Actions of human beings, mass things that happen in the world are uplifting or horrific. Yeah. Evil people doing evil things are possessed. I mean, they're, they're possessed by something, right? Like something is going on.
你觉得这个世界上是否存在一些不属于这个世界的事物？我觉得从外部来看，我们无法知道。你有没有在夜深人静的时候考虑过这个问题，比如坐在门廊上仰望星空？当然，当然会想。种族主义，首先是，如果有的话，那它最近才到这里的吗？或者它们已经在这里很久了？比如说，它们是5000年前到这里的吗？塔克认为它们是恶魔和天使。那么，恶魔和天使真的存在吗？从字面上看，可能不是真的，但在比喻意义上它们确实存在。字面意义和比喻意义之间是否有模糊的界限？当然，某些行为看起来确实是恶魔般的，对吧？人类的行为、世界上发生的大事可能是振奋人心的，也可能是可怕的。邪恶的人做邪恶的事情似乎是被某种东西附身了，对吧？就像有什么事情正在发生一样。
Right. And like, you know, what's, what's the dividing line between, you know, an actual supernatural force and a, and some sort of psychological, sociological thing that's so overwhelming that it just takes control of people and drives them crazy. Like you might might as well call that a demon. Yeah. It's fascinating because like when you think about from theological term, like when you think of it from a religious perspective, you know, people would apply what would a demon do? What would angels do? What is a, what is the will of God and what is like the evils of the worst aspects of humanity? You would, you know, you could apply them to so many things in the world, but we're very reluctant to say that something is demonic.
好的，就是说，你知道，什么是实际存在的超自然力量，和那种心理学或社会学的现象之间的分界线在哪里，这种现象强大到能够控制人们并使他们疯狂。你甚至可以称之为恶魔。是的，这很有意思，因为从神学的角度来看，从宗教的视角去思考，人们通常会问，恶魔会做什么？天使会做什么？上帝的意志是什么？以及人性最糟糕的一面是什么？你可以把这些概念应用到很多现实世界的问题上，但我们很少会直接称某件事物为恶魔。
Yeah. Like even though it's clearly demonic, like clearly in action, like this is what a demon would do. Yeah. A demon would possess people to gun down children. Exactly. You know, and you know, use drones to shoot down a wedding party. Yeah. A demon would do that. Right. Exactly.
是的。尽管这显然是恶魔所为，就像恶魔会做这些事情一样。是的。恶魔会附身在人身上，让他们用枪射击孩子。没错。你知道，还会用无人机打击婚礼派对。是的，恶魔会做这种事情。对的，没错。
So a friend of mine is a religious scholar. Catholic, Catholic University, and he's a religious history scholar. And he says that medieval people would have had a medieval people were psychologically better prepared for the era ahead of us with AI and robots and drones everywhere than we are because medieval people took it for granted that they lived in a world with higher powers, higher spirits, angels, demons, all kinds of supernatural entities.
我有一个朋友是宗教学者，他专注于天主教和宗教历史。他说，中世纪的人在心理上比我们更能适应即将到来的人工智能、机器人和无人机广泛存在的时代，因为中世纪的人们理所当然地认为自己生活在一个有更高力量、更高精神，以及天使、恶魔等各种超自然存在的世界中。
And they just, it was just assumed to be true. And in the world we're heading into, you know, that we're arguably already in, you know, there are going to be these, you know, new forces, these new entities running around doing things. And, you know, we're going to just, we're going to struggle and we're going to, you know, we're going to catastrophize. We're going to conclude, you know, like AI is the end of the world. Yeah. The medievals would have said, oh, it's just another spirit. Like, you know, it's just another kind of entity.
他们只是理所当然地认为这是事实。在我们正走向的这个世界中，或者说我们已经身处其中的世界，会出现许多新的力量和新的实体，在四处活动并做各种事情。在这个过程中，我们将经历挣扎，甚至可能会夸大其词地下结论，比如说人工智能是世界末日。中世纪的人可能会说："哦，这只是另一种精神，是另一种存在罢了。"
Yeah, it's better. It's better than humans. It's some things, but so are angels. And so we're going to have to like change our mentality. We're almost going to have to become a little bit more medieval. We're going to have to open up our minds to the kinds of entities that we're dealing with. Wow. Yeah. Which also could help us actually deal with people. Like, maybe, maybe, maybe there's an explanatory way to think about human behavior here that seems less rational, but might actually be more rational.
是的，这更好。这比人类要好。这是某些事物，但天使也如此。所以我们必须改变我们的心态。我们几乎需要变得更像中世纪那样。我们需要打开思维去理解我们正在处理的这些存在。哇。是的，这也可能有助于我们与人相处。也许，也许，也许这里有一种解释人类行为的方法，看起来不太理性，但实际上可能更理性。
Well, you express yourself very brilliantly in describing the current state of woke ideology as a religion. Yeah, that's right. And that the way you described it was brilliant because you were saying that it has all the elements, excommunication, adherence to a very strict doctrine, all these different aspects of it, saying things that everyone knows to be illogical and nonsensical, but you must repeat it.
你非常出色地将当今的“觉醒”意识形态比喻为一种宗教。是的，这个比喻非常贴切，因为这种意识形态确实具备了所有宗教的元素，比如开除异己、严格遵循教义等多个方面，以及明明知道不合逻辑和荒谬的事情，却还是必须复述。
You know, these things are indicative of people that are in cults or people that are a part of like a very, like a serious fundamental religion. Yeah. Well, I mean, of course, the big difference between woke and this traditional religions as well has no concept of redemption, right? Right. No concept of forgiveness, right? Which is a very evil religion. You do not want that. Yeah, it's only religion, right? Well, it's ill conceived, right? Because it's like immature. It's an immature religion. Yes, it's absolutely just. It's inherently totalitarian. It has to be because it can permanently destroy people. Yeah. Woke also understands something that the Greeks understood, which is being ostracized and being put to death are the same thing. And so when the Greeks sentenced somebody like Socrates to death, they gave them the option of just leaving.
你知道，这些东西表明人们可能是邪教的一部分，或者是属于那种非常严肃的原教旨宗教的人。当然，“觉醒”文化和传统宗教之间的一个重大区别是，它没有“救赎”的概念，对吧？也就是说，没有“宽恕”的概念，对吧？这就使得这种文化成为一种非常邪恶的宗教，你不想要那样的宗教。是的，这就像一种宗教，对吧？不过，这种文化是没有成熟思考的，因为它仍然不够成熟。这是因为它本质上是极权主义的，因为它可以永久性地摧毁一个人。“觉醒”也理解希腊人所理解的东西，即被排斥和被处死是相同的。所以当希腊人判决像苏格拉底这样的人处死时，他们给了他离开的机会。
But the problem was, yes, Socrates could have just walked out and left. No kidding. The reason that was considered equivalent sentences is because at that time, if you were not a citizen of a particular city, you would get killed in the next city. You'd be identified as the enemy presumptively and killed. And so there was no way to survive without being part of your community. Wow. And that's what the Wilkes figured out is you can do the same thing. If you're able to nail somebody on charges of having done something unacceptably horrible, then you make them toxic and all of a sudden they can't have, sure, you know, people, they lose friends, they lose family, they lose, they can't get work before you know it, like they're living severely diminished, damaged lives. And people then go out and kill themselves.
问题在于，没错，苏格拉底本可以直接走出去，离开这里。真的没有开玩笑。当时认为这相当于判处死刑的原因是，如果你不是某个城市的公民，那么在下一个城市你会被杀掉。人们会假设你是敌人，然后杀死你。因此，离开自己的社区是无法生存的。哇。而Wilkes意识到的是，如果你能够指控某人做了一件不可接受的可怕事情，你就可以达到同样的效果。这样一来，他们会变得有毒，人们会突然对他们敬而远之。不仅朋友和家人会远离他们，他们甚至很难找到工作。结果是，他们的生活变得十分艰难和破碎，很多人在这种情况下甚至选择了自杀。
I don't know if you have been paying attention at all to Blue Sky. I have. But I have multiple friends that have accounts on Blue Sky that are very sophisticated trolls and are pushing like the woke agenda to a satirical point. Like to like parody. Yeah. But like on the edge where you're not quite sure, they'll say enough real things that make sense and talk about their own anxieties and personal issues with stuff and then say fucking ridiculous shit. And it's fascinating. I bet it works. It does work. That's what's so terrifying. It's like all the outcasts of Twitter, all the people that were like, I can't take this. A few of them will come back, which is wonderful. I love when they come back. I'm gone. I'm going to go to Blue Sky. Fuck you people. Like a bunch of them went to threads for a while. Like Stephen King, he went to threads. Can't write back. They all come right back. They can't. Like a marketplace of ideas. Like okay, you could go to like a fruit stand in the middle of the fucking desert and that's a marketplace or you can go to the farmer's market where everybody's there. Like where are you going to go? That's right. You're going to go to the farmer's market. There's tons of people. It's a lot of fun. Yes. A lot of activity. Yes. That fruit stands fucking barren and deserted. There's no one there. There's very few choices.
我不知道你是否一直关注Blue Sky。我倒是很注意。我有好几个朋友在Blue Sky上有账号，他们都是非常高级的网络喷子，把所谓的“觉醒议程”推进到一种讽刺的地步，像是搞恶搞。他们会讲一些听起来很真实的话题，谈论他们自己的焦虑和个人问题，然后又说超级荒谬的话。这很有趣。我敢打赌这个方法有效。确实有效，这才是最可怕的地方。就像是Twitter上的那些边缘人士，还有那些说“我受不了这个”的人中的一部分还会回来，这很好。我喜欢他们回来。而我呢，我会说“我要去Blue Sky，再见!”他们中有一部分人去过Threads一段时间，比如Stephen King，就去了Threads，但很快又回来。就好像一个思想的集市，你能选择去沙漠中的一个水果摊位——那也算是一个市场，或者你可以选择去农贸市场，那里人多热闹。你会去哪？没错，你肯定去人多的农贸市场，那儿活动多，气氛好。那个水果摊可真是荒凉得很，没什么人，也没什么选择。
Yeah. Yeah. It's not fun. And it's win-win. Well it's win-win. I win-win now they're back on Twitter because it's good for them because they want to proselytize. And so they need an audience. Yes. So they win. Because it's really, really fun to dunk on them. But it's also weird for them to not want any pushback at all. Like don't, it isn't the whole thing supposed to be about an exchange of ideas. Like if you have a controversial idea and someone disagrees with it, don't you want to hear that position? I know I do. I want to hear it. Even if I vehemently disagree with it. I want to hear it. I want to know where, how do you, how's your brain work? How are you coming to these conclusions? What makes you think this way? Who are you? What are you like? On Instagram, I want to look at your pictures. I want to see what you're up to. What are you doing? Yeah. What are you doing your free time? What are you complaining about? Yeah. I want to, it's like, it's a fascinating education on human psychology.
是的，是的，这不太有趣，但这是双赢的局面。现在他们回到推特上，这对他们有好处，因为他们想宣传自己的观点，所以他们需要观众。因此，对于他们来说，这是赢，而对于我来说，回击他们真的很有趣。但很奇怪的是，他们似乎不希望有任何反对意见。难道一切不应该是关于思想交流吗？如果你有一个有争议的观点，而有人不赞同，你不想听听他们的立场吗？我知道我愿意听。即使我强烈反对，我也想听听他们的观点。我想了解他们是如何思考的，他们是如何得出这些结论的，是什么让他们这样思考的。他们是谁？他们是什么样的人？在Instagram上，我想看看他们的照片，了解他们在忙些什么，空闲时在做什么，在抱怨什么。这就像是一场关于人类心理学的迷人课程。
And to watch people express themselves publicly. And then also be attacked publicly by strangers which never happens in the real world. Like at scale. Yes. The way it happens on social media. And I think it's an amazing time for people to examine ideas. If you can handle it. Yeah. My favorite term is marketplace of idea. Yeah. You could have a marketplace of ideas. It's just going to be one idea. So blue sky is a marketplace of idea. Sure. Yeah. Access the marketplace of ideas. That final ask makes a lot of difference. Yeah. But the thing about X
观看人们在公众场合表达自己，同时也被陌生人公开攻击是社交媒体上的一种现象，这在现实世界中并不会大规模发生。是的，这种情况在社交媒体上很常见。我觉得这是一个让人们探讨想法的绝佳时期——如果你能够承受的话。我最喜欢的术语是“思想市场”。对，确实可以有一个思想市场，但通常会集中在一个想法上。所以蓝天（Blue Sky）是一个思想市场。当然，你可以接触到思想市场。最终的要求能带来很大的变化。对，但关于X的问题是...
is it really is diverse. I follow tons of like kooky leftist progressive nut bags that like have bizarre takes on everything. Yeah. And they were 100% convinced that Kamala Harris is going to sweep all the swing states including Iowa. They were all in. And I was like, this is wild. Yeah. Like, is that going to happen? Are they right? Like, this is crazy. But it's, they were 100% convinced. And it's fascinating to see all these different kinds of people to see the Charlie Kirk's and, you know, the full on left wing kooks and see them all together. Right. So you need that.
这真的非常多样化。我关注了很多古怪的左翼进步分子，他们对一切都有奇怪的看法。是的，他们100%相信卡玛拉·哈里斯会赢得所有摇摆州，包括爱荷华州。他们全心投入。而我心想，这真是太疯狂了。对吧，难道这真的会发生吗？他们说得对吗？这太不可思议了。他们非常确定。而看到各式各样的人，从查理·柯克到彻底的左翼古怪分子，能够看到他们在一起，这很有趣。所以，你需要这样的多样性。
Yeah. Well, look, so one of the ways I think to think about this is all new information is heretical by definition. Right. So anytime anybody has a new idea, it's a threat to the existing power structure. So all new ideas start as heresies. And so if you don't have an environment that can tolerate heresies, you're not going to have new ideas and you're going to end up with complete stagnation. Right. If you have stagnation, you're going to go straight into decline. Yeah. And I think this is the aberrant nature. This is the timeline split. I think that I think the last decade has just been like a really weird aberrant time where things have not been working like they should.
好的，看，这样理解这个问题的一个方法是：所有新的信息按照定义都是异端。对吧。所以任何人有一个新的想法时，它都会对现有的权力结构构成威胁。因此，所有的新想法一开始都是异端。如果你没有一个可以容纳异端的环境，你就不会有新的想法，最终会完全停滞不前。如果停滞不前，你会直接走向衰退。是的，我认为这是异常的本质，这是时间线的分裂。我认为过去十年就是一个非常奇怪的异常时期，很多事情没有像它们应该的那样运作。
And, you know, in 2015 Twitter called itself the free speech wing of the free speech party. Right. And Elon, Elon has not like, he has restored it. Right. He brought it back. He brought it back to something that everybody thought was completely normal 10 years ago. Yeah. And I think I hope this last 10 years increasingly is just going to feel like a bad dream. Like I can't believe we tolerated the level of repression, right? And anger and, you know, emotional incontinence and, you know, cancellation campaigns. Emotional incontinence is a great term. Yes. There has been a lot. That's really what it's like. It's like it's just diarrhea in your emotions. Yes. Just spraying rage in all directions.
在2015年，Twitter曾自称是“言论自由党的言论自由派”。对吧。而埃隆·马斯克则好像恢复了这个理念。他把Twitter带回到了10年前大家认为非常正常的状态。我希望过去这10年最终会让人觉得像是一场噩梦。我真无法相信我们曾经容忍过那种压制、愤怒、情绪失控以及取消文化的泛滥。“情绪失控”是个很贴切的说法，真的就像是情感上的腹泻，到处乱喷愤怒。
And so I, you know, I'm very, at the moment at least very optimistic that there's a cultural change happening here that's even more profound than the political. I have a lot of respect and also sympathy for Jack Dorsey. I like him a lot as a human being. I think he's a brilliant guy. And I think he had very good intentions, but he was a part of a very large corporation. And he had an idea for a Wild West Twitter. He wanted to have two versions of Twitter. He wanted to have the Twitter that was pre-Elon where there's moderation and you, you know, you can't dead name someone and all that jazz. And then he wanted to have an additional Twitter that was essentially what X is now. And he just didn't have the ability to push that through with the board and the executives and all the people that, you know, were fully on board with woke ideology.
所以，我现在非常乐观地认为，这里正在发生一种比政治变革更深刻的文化转变。我对杰克·多尔西非常尊重，也很同情。我很喜欢他这个人，觉得他很聪明。他有很好的初衷，但他所在的是一个非常庞大的公司。他曾设想要一个类似“狂野西部”的推特。他想做两个版本的推特，一个是之前的、有内容审核的推特，比如不能故意用旧名称呼人等；另一个是现在的X这样的推特。但他没有能力在董事会和那些完全支持进步意识形态的高管中推动这个想法。
Yeah. So the experience that people like Jack have had running these companies in the last decade has been, and I don't mean to let them off look for their decisions, but just the lived experience as they say of what these people's lives have been like is just daily pounding. Just every single day, it's like meteor strikes coming down from the sky, exploding around you, getting attacked from every conceivable direction, being called just incredibly horrible things being attacked from many different directions. He's already left blue sky.
是的。在过去十年里，像Jack这样的人经营这些公司的经历可以说是接连不断的打击。我并不是想为他们所做的决策开脱，但正如他们所说的，那些人的生活经历就是每天都受到猛烈的冲击。每天就像是从天而降的流星撞击在你周围，从各个可能的方向受到攻击，被称为各种可怕的东西。他已经离开Blue Sky了。
Well, yeah. So that's it. So that's it. Ernie and Jack is the Jack then created blue sky, which is kind of exactly the opposite of any way where he thought it. Oh, by the way, you know, the new, the new name for it, of course, is a blue cry. Ah, yeah. Exactly. Yeah. But he's also got, you know, look to his credit. He's still trying. And so he's got Noster, you know, which is another another. What is it? It's called Noster NOSTR. Oh, okay. It's just kind of new.
好的，是这样的。就是这样。然后，杰克创造了 "蓝天"，这其实和他原本想的不太一样。而且，你知道吗，它现在也有了一个新名字，叫 "蓝泣"。对，没错。不过值得赞扬的是，杰克还在继续努力，所以他还有 Noster，你知道的，那是另一个项目。它的名字叫 Noster，也就是 NOSTR。哦，好的，这只是个新东西。
This is, it's actually his third. He's going to keep swinging. And by the way, full credit, he's supported Elon, you know, they've mixed up a little bit. But by and large, he's been very supportive and was very supportive at a key time. Well, I also found it fascinating that when there was any sort of a right wing branch of that stuff like GAB or any of these, they would immediately be infiltrated by bots as well, like my friends, the troll on blue sky. But these are Nazis. Like these are Nazi bots. These are people that would just spew horrible hate. And then GAB would be labeled, oh, this is where the Nazis go. This is a right wing psychopath social media app.
这是，他实际上是第三次。他会继续努力。而且，值得称赞的是，他一直支持埃隆，虽然他们有过一些小分歧，但总体来说，他在关键时刻给予了很大的支持。我也觉得很有趣的是，当出现任何右派分支平台时，比如GAB或者其他类似的平台，它们很快就会被机器人渗透，比如我那些在blue sky上的朋友。但这些是纳粹机器人。这些人只会传播可怕的仇恨，然后GAB就会被贴上标签，说这是纳粹的聚集地，是一个右翼极端分子的社交媒体应用。
Yeah. And I think frankly, I think you get the same thing if you start out. I think if you start out overtly political on either side, I think that's what you end up with. Yes. And so I just like that doesn't seem to be an effective route to market. It seems like you have to start from the beginning as a general purpose service, but you need to have some sense of the actual guardrails you're going to have around. And by the way, every social media service, Internet service that ever works, there's always some content factors and restrictions because you can't have child porn, you can't have some violence, you can't have terrorist recruitment. And even the First Amendment, there's like a dozen carve outs that the Supreme Court has ruled on over time that are things like that that you can just say.
是的。我坦率地说，我认为如果一开始就采取明显的政治立场，无论是哪一方，结果都是一样的。因此，这似乎不是进入市场的有效途径。看起来你需要从一开始就作为一个通用服务进行启动，但同时也需要明确设定某些实际的限制。而且，顺便说一下，每一个成功的社交媒体或者互联网服务，都会有一些内容方面的限制，因为你不能有儿童色情，也不能有暴力内容，也不能有恐怖分子招募内容。即使是《第一修正案》，最高法院也针对某些特定内容做出过多项豁免裁决，这些都是不可发布的内容。
Right. I can't say let's go join ISIS and let's go attack Washington. It's literally not allowed. So there's always some controls, but you need to have a spine of steel if you're going to hold back the censorship pressure. And there's basically a sub stack company I'm involved in doing very well. I love Substack. I love Substack. I love it in Twitter, but doing extremely well. Fantastic. And they've done a great job, I think, of holding the line on this list. Yes. And then obviously. And it's an amazing resource. There's so many brilliant people on Substack.
好的。我不能说“让我们加入ISIS并攻击华盛顿”，因为这是完全不被允许的。所以总是会有一些限制，但如果你想抵制言论审查的压力，你需要有非常坚定的意志。我参与的一家Substack公司做得非常好。我非常喜欢Substack，我在Twitter上爱它，而且它做得极其出色。太棒了，我认为他们在这方面做得非常出色。而且，Substack是一个了不起的资源，上面有很多聪明的人。
Yeah, that's right. I love Substack. I get a large percentage of my news from Substack. That's right. It's really good and it's so valuable and it's such a great place for people who are independent journalists and physicians and scientists to publish their ideas and actually get paid for it by the people who subscribe to it. I think it's fantastic. And there's lots of people on the far left and the far right. Yes. So you actually have the full spray of it. When a far left person gets upset at work, you know, somebody working in the New York Times is mad because they're not far left enough, they quit and they start to sit back. And Substack welcomes them in.
是的，没错。我很喜欢Substack。我有很大一部分新闻都是从Substack获取的。没错，它真的很好，很有价值。它是一个很棒的平台，独立记者、医生和科学家可以在上面发表自己的想法，并通过订阅者获得报酬。我觉得这很了不起。上面有很多极左和极右的人。是的，你可以看到各个立场的观点。当一名极左人士在工作中感到不满，比如纽约时报的某人因为报纸不够极左而感到生气时，他们就辞职，然后开始休息，而Substack则欢迎他们加入。
Yes. Which is why they don't evolve into a gabber or something like that because it really is a platform. It really does welcome all of our customers. It's also very difficult to subvert in that same way because Substack is essays, right? You're reading people's essays and papers on things. And like these are long form things that are very well in a lot of cases, very well researched and it's not the kind of thing you just shit post on. You know, there are comments, but it's just like they don't hold the weight that the actual article holds. Right.
是的。这也是为什么它们没有演变成类似Gabber的平台，因为它实际上是一个平台，真正欢迎所有用户的加入。以同样方式颠覆它也很困难，因为Substack主要是发布文章。你在阅读人们写的长篇文章和论文，很多情况下这些内容经过缜密的研究，并不是那种可以随意发言的平台。虽然有评论功能，但评论的分量远不如实际文章的重要性。
So my partners, my partners at work, they've observed that I tend to be able to inflame situations from time to time. I tend to be provocative and get people really upset. And so the rule they've asked me to comply with is I'm allowed to write essays, for example, in Substack and I'm allowed to go on long form podcasts, but I'm not allowed to post. Really? Right. Exactly. Well, it's the rule.
所以我的同事注意到，我有时会让事情变得火上浇油。我常常会以挑衅的方式让人们真的很生气。因此，他们要求我遵循的规则是：我可以在 Substack 上写文章，可以参加长篇播客，但不允许发帖。真的吗？是的，没错，这是规则。
Now, by the way, I struggle against the rules because I can't help myself. Why do you want you to have rules? Because otherwise I inflame people too much. I drive people too crazy. You do it on purpose? Sometimes. I mean, sometimes you have to. Sometimes it's unintentional. Did you ever hear about when the entire continent, when the entire country of India was mad at me? No. Oh, I spent one night with the entire country of India basically wanted to kill me. It was like, it was incredible.
好，现在顺便说一下，我常常忍不住要反抗规则。你为什么需要规则呢？因为如果没有规则，我会让大家太激动，我会把人搞得太疯狂。你是故意的吗？有时候吧。我是说，有时候这是必要的，有时候则是无意的。你有没有听说过有一次整个印度都对我很生气？没听说过。哦，有个晚上整个印度的人民基本上都想杀了我，真是太不可思议了。
Oh my goodness. I happened. I mean, I was in a Twitter debate with somebody back when I was just posting freely on Twitter and it was a debate about economics and the topic of colonialism came up and I made a comment in a long thread about, you know, click colonialism and it turns out the Indians are still extremely sensitive about the topic of colonialism. And I did not understand the mindset and the historical orientation and I tripped the line and I stayed up all night and I went hyper viral in every time zone in India, every hour, there would be like an entirely new activation.
天啊，这事真的发生了。以前我在Twitter上自由发言的时候，曾经和别人就经济学问题展开过一场辩论。辩论中涉及到了殖民主义这个话题，我在一个长讨论串中关于殖民主义发表了评论。结果发现，印度人对殖民主义这个话题仍然十分敏感。我当时并不了解他们的心态和历史背景，结果踩到了雷区。我整晚没睡，在印度的每个时区都引发了大量讨论，每个小时都有新的热点涌现。
Wow. And I was like, I was like front page headline news, top of the hour TV news like all the way across India. Wow. Yes, it was like a, I do not recommend this as an experience. By the way, I learned how many incredible Indian American friends I have because they all rallied to my side. My side, you know, he's not, you know, marks not literally calling for the re-colonization of India. Like, it's not actually. It was probably the language barrier as well, right? Language and then just, I would, my big, it was just historical context. Americans have a different, we Americans experience history differently than almost everybody else. The history for us is just like stuff that happened in the past that doesn't matter anymore, but a lot of other people around the world experience history as something that really still matter, like really matters to their lives today. Yes, they just, they live in history more than we live a deeper understanding of kind of how they got to where they were and the things that happened to their parents and grandparents and- Right. And ancestors. And so there's just, it's just, you know, I don't know if it's, you know, better or worse, it's just a different way of experiencing reality. Yeah. Anyway, I recommend learning that lesson not by enraging a billion people. I experienced a small version of that recently because I said we shouldn't be using long-range missiles on Russia. Okay. And the Ukrainians, like, and Ukrainian bots, a bunch of people came after me. Yeah.
哇。当时我就像是印度全国的头条新闻，电视新闻的焦点。哇。但我并不推荐这种经历。顺便说一下，我因此了解到我有很多不可思议的印度裔美国朋友，他们都站在我这边，帮我澄清说，我并不是在呼吁重新殖民印度。实际上并不是这样。这可能也是语言障碍的问题，对吧？语言障碍加上历史背景的差异。我们美国人对待历史的方式与几乎世界上所有其他地方的人不同。在我们看来，历史只是发生在过去的那些事，不再重要了，但世界上很多其他地方的人感受到的历史对他们的重要性仍深深影响着当今的生活。他们生活在历史中，对如何到达现在的状态以及他们父辈祖辈经历的事情有更深刻的理解。所以这仅仅是不同的现实体验。我不推荐以激怒十亿人来学习这个教训。我最近经历了一个小版本，因为我说我们不应该用远程导弹攻击俄罗斯。然后乌克兰人和大量乌克兰机器人就开始抨击我。
Because I was saying, like, the Biden administration, I was like, fuck these people. And then I think some people misconstrued that as fuck the Ukrainian people, which I absolutely was not saying. I see. I was saying, fuck whoever in the last days of the presidency's decided to escalate this war because it appears that that's what they've done. The peers are there leaving Trump a giant mass at the very least. Right. So good news is I am allowed to go on podcasts. I am. That's good. In the theater, it's your side, bring it up though because it's your sub-stack thing. It's because it's basically, Mark, you need to explain yourself in long form. Yes. You can't just say a thing. Exactly. Your example. You can't just say a thing and have people extrapolate from it. Right. So extrapolate. It's not their fault because you haven't explained it.
因为我当时说，拜登政府，我就是觉得，这些人真让人生气。然后有些人误解了我的意思，以为我是在说乌克兰人民，但我绝对不是这个意思。我是批评那些在总统任期的最后阶段决定升级战争的人，因为看起来就是这样。他们似乎至少给特朗普留下了一个大麻烦。好消息是，我被允许上播客。这很好。在剧院这边，因为这是你的sub-stack，你得自己提出来，也就是你需要用长篇幅说明自己的立场。是的，你不能只说一句话，然后让别人来推测。对，去推测。误解不是他们的错，因为你没有解释清楚。
Right. Right. And so if you write something long form or if you go talk for three hours, at least the context will be there. And then if they want to get mad at you, that's fine. But you can point everybody to the transcript. It's clear that that's not what you meant. Do you also think while you're writing how things could be misconstrued? So let me do a really good job of being very clear about this. 100%. Yeah. You kind of have to. Yeah, yeah, yeah. Exactly. Yeah. Like Jimmy Corsetti on the other day. And he is an expert in ancient history and ancient civilizations. And we had fascinating subjects.
好的，好的。所以如果你写一些长篇文章或者讲话长达三个小时，至少上下文会在那里。然后如果有人因此生气，那也没关系，但你可以让大家看文字记录，很明显那不是你的本意。你在写作时，会考虑到别人可能会误解你的意思吗？所以我要非常清楚地表达这一点。百分之百会考虑到。是的，你基本上得这样做。没错，没错。就像那天的Jimmy Corsetti，他是古代历史和古代文明的专家，我们讨论了一些很有趣的题目。
And one of them that came up was the Nazis and their fascination with the occult. And so you had to clearly say, listen, fuck Hitler. Okay. Can I be really clear? Fuck Hitler. Fuck the Nazis. Okay. I have not in any way. Okay. Now that we're clear, let's talk about where the swastika came from. Fuck Hitler. Did I say fuck Hitler? Let me say it again. Fuck Hitler. But the swastika is this ancient symbol. And he's like talking about like why did the Nazis have this fascination with the occult and with ancient civilizations. And so we got into it, but it was like one of those things where it's like, all right, we're hitting the third rail. Everybody gets your rubber boots on. Yeah. You know, let's save everybody here.
其中一个话题是纳粹及其对神秘学的迷恋。因此，我需要明确表示：“去他的希特勒。” 可以更清楚吗？去他的希特勒，去他的纳粹。好，我们现在明确这一点了，那我们来谈谈卐字符的起源。去他的希特勒。我是不是说过去他的希特勒？让我再说一遍，去他的希特勒。不过，卐字符是一个古老的符号。他在讨论为什么纳粹对神秘学和古代文明产生了这种迷恋。于是我们讨论了这个问题，但这就像是触碰了敏感话题，大家需严阵以待。我们要为所有人提供保护。
Yeah. I've got a friend in the entertainment business who is quite left wing, but really likes World War II documentaries. And so he'll be like, yeah, I saw this great documentary last night about Hitler. And I'm like, I bet you did. You can't even have a copy of mein kampf in your house. Oh, a student at this is actually one of the Stanford crazy stories. A student at Stanford was reported to the disciplinary board, the civil, whatever, disciplinary board for reading a copy of mein kampf in the quad. Oh my God. Oh my God. That's so crazy. Which is a book that's been, you know, assigned for.
好的。我有一个在娱乐行业工作的朋友，他非常偏左，但他非常喜欢看关于二战的纪录片。所以他会说，“我昨晚看了一个关于希特勒的精彩纪录片。”而我的反应是，“我相信你看了。”因为在他家连《我的奋斗》都不能有一份。说到这个话题，有一个斯坦福的疯狂故事：斯坦福的一名学生因为在校园广场上读《我的奋斗》而被举报到了那个什么纪律委员会。哦天啊，这也太疯狂了。实际上，这本书曾被指定为阅读材料。
You could buy it right now on Amazon. 80 years to college kids to like understand who these people were and like how to not do that again. Yeah. That kid was like nearly brought up in charges and nearly expelled. So like, yeah, that's, that's, yes, this is the world that I hope that we're leaving. Well, it's just an awful way to look at things. It's so awful to think that if you read about someone horrible, you support them. Yeah, that's right. It's just so crazy. Like, whoa, how are we going to study history? Yeah, right. And how are we going to prevent that? Right. And if we can't, if we can't repar heads are on why they have on the first time. Especially something like the Nazis. Like how are we, how are we going to learn like what happened? Clearly 1920s Germany was very different than 1945 Germany. What the fuck happened in 25 years? So what we're essentially talking about is the year 1999 America versus 2024 America. Right. Imagine a shift of that magnitude. So crazy. There's a Holocaust in 2024. And in 1999 everybody's just hanging out. Yep, that's right.
你可以立即在亚马逊上购买。对于大学生来说，可能需要80年的时间才能理解这些人是谁，以及如何避免重蹈覆辙。是的。那个孩子几乎被指控和开除。所以，是的，这就是我们希望看到的世界。然而，这是一种非常糟糕的看法。认为阅读关于某个可怕的人就表示你支持他们，实在是太可怕了。没错。这真的很疯狂。那么，我们该如何学习历史呢？对吧，我们该如何防止类似事件再次发生呢？尤其是像纳粹这样的事件，我们要如何了解曾经发生了什么？显然，1920年代的德国和1945年的德国完全不同。25年间到底发生了什么？我们谈论的实际上是1999年的美国和2024年的美国之间的对比。想象一下如此巨大的变化。在2024年发生大屠杀，而在1999年，所有人都只是待在一起。对，就是这样。
Well, you should probably study that. You should know it. And you should probably not reprimand someone for reading a book on this. Yeah, that's right. Yeah, exactly. And look, the German people went along with it. Right. And so, you know, how did that happen? How did that happen? Right. And how many, you know, did they, did they, was it active agreement? Was it rest agreement? Was there, you know, what, what are the steps where things go horribly wrong? And how could we recognize those? Because those steps have taken place multiple times in history and recorded history. We'd know about them. So like if we see them happening today, maybe we should stop it and nip it at the bud. What better way than to read about when it already happened? Yeah.
你应该好好学习这些内容，了解其中的道理。不要责备别人因为读一本相关的书而批评人家。是的，对的。看看，德国人民当时也是这样的。那么，这是怎么发生的呢？到底是怎样的经过才让事情发展得一发不可收拾？我们应该如何识别这些信号？因为在历史上，这样的事情已经发生过多次而且被记录下来。如果我们今天看到类似的苗头，也许我们应该立即制止它，防患于未然。阅读已经发生过的历史，难道不是最好的方法吗？
One of my observations about people talking about current events is we know conclusively the prayer era has all had horrible, horrible problems, disasters, you know, catastrophes, wars and all kinds of, they made all kinds of horrible mistakes. But we are completely certain that in our time we figured it all out. Right. Right. We're 100% convinced that we have it all dialed in. And the one thing I know for sure is people 50 years from now are going to look back on us and they're going to say, oh my God, those people were awful. We're 100%. Right.
我对人们谈论时事的一个观察是，我们已经明确知道，在过去祈祷的时代中，经历了种种可怕的问题、灾难、战争和其他各种严重错误。但我们完全相信，在我们这个时代，我们已经完全解决了这些问题。是的，我们百分之百确信自己已经掌握了一切。我唯一能够确定的是，50年后的人们回过头来看我们时，会说：“天哪，那些人真糟糕。”我们对此深信不疑。
It's just, it's like in what way? Right. In what way are we horrible? I mean, certainly a lot of the way we treat each other is horrible, especially with the amount of information that we have available. But it is fascinating also that if you, you know, I visited Athens last year, last year and I got to tour the ruins and I was like, oh, I wonder when it all went south? Like when did they know this had fallen apart? Like when was it in the peak of everything? They probably thought, hey, we have the most amazing sophisticated civilization that's available on earth and we will maintain this. This is how we will be the center of intellectual discourse and the home of democracy. This is us. And then now there's like shitty apartment buildings next to the Parthenon. Like, what happened? Something horribly happened. And we don't want to think that could ever happen to us today.
这就是说，到底是怎么回事呢？对吧。我们是在哪些方面做得不好呢？我的意思是，我们对待彼此的方式，许多时候的确很糟糕，特别是当我们有如此多的信息可用时。然而，也很有趣的是，如果你去看看，比如我去年去了雅典，参观了那里的遗址，我当时想，哦，我好奇这一切到底什么时候开始崩溃的？他们什么时候意识到一切走向失败呢？在繁荣顶峰的时候，他们可能觉得，嘿，我们拥有世界上最辉煌、最先进的文明，我们会保持这个状态。我们将成为知识讨论的中心和民主的发源地。这就是我们。然而现在，帕台农神庙旁边矗立着破烂的公寓楼。到底发生了什么？显然有什么糟糕的事情发生了。而我们不愿相信今天的我们也可能会面对这样的情况。
We want to think we're American motherfucker. We're going to keep this bitch rolling forever. Leonard Skynard, Free Bird, let's go. Second Amendment, come on. And we think that it's just this is the future. America is the shining star of the world and we're going to carry this on. But probably not like historically. I mean, what is the longest running dominant civilization ever? The Romans existed for what, a couple thousand years? Like how long did the Greeks run? How long did the Egyptians? The Egyptians might be the longest running. If you take into account the possibility of alternative history timelines. Where they, you know, like Egyptian hieroglyphs, they have kings that go back 30,000 years. Here it is.
我们想要认为自己是美国佬。我们会让这个局面一直持续下去。莱昂纳德·斯金纳德的《自由鸟》，走起。支持第二修正案，加油。我们觉得这就是未来。美国是世界的明星，我们会继续下去。但从历史角度看可能不是这样。历史上最持久的文明是哪一个？罗马文明存在了几千年，对吧？希腊文明又持续了多久？埃及文明可能是最持久的之一。如果你考虑到另类历史时间线的可能性，比如他们的象形文字中记载的国王历史可以追溯到三万年前。就是这样。
Egypt and Mesopotamia. There it is. One estimate measuring the time of the first pharaohs, the use of hieroglyph writing to the native religion was replaced by Christianity. Ancient Egyptian civilization endured for about 3,500 years. I bet it was more than that. The argument is just things just really didn't really change. Like change is we understand, historical change of the kind that we understand where things actually change, the people that live changes really kicked off with the Greeks. And so that was sort of the default status.
埃及和美索不达米亚。就是这些地方。有一种估计方法是从最初的法老时代开始测算的，包括象形文字的使用，直到当地的宗教被基督教取代。古埃及文明大约延续了3500年。我猜可能不止这些。争议在于，事物其实并没有太多变化。就像我们理解的那种历史变化，即事物和生活方式真正变化似乎是从希腊人开始的。因此，那段时间算是一种默认状态。
Right. Civilization for a long time. The Greeks kicked off change as we understand it and then the Romans. Do you know about the fish ponds? Fish ponds. The fish ponds. The Cicero's fish ponds. No. So the Roman Empire, you know, ran for, you know, in a sort of Roman Republican Empire and it sort of helped what you consider as dynamic phase, a sort of vital phase ran for a few, you know, a few hundred years, maybe 400 years total, something like that. And towards the end as it was sort of falling, it was stagnating and increasingly starting to fall apart. Brendan Meine says, when the rose got dangerous and nobody could quite explain why.
好的。文明持续了很长时间。希腊人开启了我们所理解的变革，然后是罗马人。你知道鱼塘吗？鱼塘。西塞罗的鱼塘。不知道。那么，罗马帝国以共和帝国的形式存在，以一种你可以认为是动态的、充满活力的阶段持续了几百年，总共大约400年左右。在它末期开始走向衰落，停滞不前并逐渐崩溃。Brendan Meine说，当时道路变得危险，却没有人能准确解释原因。
Right. Which sounds familiar, by the way. Cicero was, you know, one of the great Roman states went in. He wrote these letters that we have and in the letters he sends these letters to all of his aristocratic friends. And the theme in the letters is basically all of the actual competent capable citizens of Rome are out in the countryside at their villas, perfecting their fish ponds. Right. They pull in to themselves. They built their themselves their own protected environments, right? Right. Where they control everything and they're completely focused on ornamentation. They're completely focused on their clothes and on their, you know, lifestyles. Kardashians. They were Kardashians. Accenture. I don't know if the Kardashians have fish ponds, but if they did, they would be spectacular fish ponds. It would be amazing. No doubt they would be the most amazing fish ponds we have ever seen.
好的。这听起来很熟悉，顺便提一下。西塞罗是古罗马伟大的政治家之一。他写了一些我们现在还能看到的信件。在这些信件中，他写给所有贵族朋友的主题基本上是，罗马那些真正有能力的公民都在乡村的别墅里，专注于完善他们的鱼塘。他们闭门自守，打造自己的私人环境，在那里他们掌控一切，完全专注于装饰品、服装和生活方式。就像卡戴珊家族一样。我不知道卡戴珊家族是否有鱼塘，但如果他们有，一定是壮观的鱼塘，毫无疑问，它们会是我们见过的最惊人的鱼塘。
So he kept railing. He's like, stop with the fish ponds. Like stop working in the fit. Like get back out here, rejoin the Senate, like get back involved in the system. Let's keep this thing from caving in. Yeah. And I think, you know, I think, you know, the significance, I think of, you know, Trump actually talked about this in the campaign, you know, his version of this talking in the campaign, campaign trails, he's like, look, I could be off on a resort. I don't know these like all these, like, all the club club, many things I could be in my life course. And he's 78 years old. He probably would like to do that. Exactly. Right. And he's, you know, surrounded. And he's like, look, I'm not doing it. Cause like I need, I need to, I need to do this. And it's interesting. Cause you know, he doesn't use, you know, he's not referencing Cicero when he says that, but it's, it's that spirit, right? That Cicero talked about where, you know, when times get tough, do the people who are in a position to actually make positive change, actually step up or not. Right. And I think we've had a pretty long stretch here where that hasn't been the case.
所以，他不断地抱怨。他的意思是，别再搞那些养鱼池了，别再忙这忙那了，回到外面来，重新加入参议院，重新参与到系统中来。让我们阻止事情崩溃。我觉得，你知道，特朗普在竞选中谈到了这点，他在竞选活动中提出过类似的观点。他说，看看，我本可以在度假村享受生活，我不知道，我可以参加很多俱乐部活动，做我生活中应该做的事情。而且他都78岁了，可能会想那样做。然而，他没有，因为他说，他需要这样做。
这很有趣，因为尽管他在讲这些话时没有提到西塞罗，但这就是西塞罗所谈到的精神。就是当困难时期来临时，那些有能力带来积极改变的人是否会真正站出来。我认为，我们已经有很长一段时间没有看到这种情况了。
And I think maybe with Trump, and then I think also with Elon, I think, yes, because he was the other guy, right? He for sure could be for coalition, right? It's not just him. It's the vague, grandma, swarming. That's right. Which is another guy, by the way, who could be kicking it on a beach somewhere. 100%. Yeah. Very successful guy. And young and handsome. Yeah. Do whatever he wants. He's decided to go all in. And then you, of course you have Tulsi Gabbard and you know, you have JD Vance, who I think is brilliant. You have all these brilliant people that are together, which is very hopeful. This is what we didn't see out of the Biden Harris campaign. You know, what we saw from Harris and Waltz, you have Waltz, this guy who's, it seems like he's a compulsive liar. At the very least, he's lied multiple times about fairly insignificant things. You know, like whether or not he was a head coach or an assistant coach.
我认为可能是因为特朗普，还有埃隆·马斯克，我觉得是的，因为他也是那个很重要的人物，对吧？ 他绝对可能赞成联盟，这不仅仅是他一个人。这还有一位叫Vague的老太太（音译），一位很成功又年轻帅气的男人，他本可以在某个海滩上度假，百分之百可以这样。但他决定全心投入。此外，当然还有图尔西·加伯德，还有我认为很聪明的JD·万斯。你看，有这么多聪明的人聚集在一起，这让人感到很有希望。这是我们在拜登和哈里斯竞选活动中没有看到的情况。你知道，从哈里斯和沃尔兹那里我们看到的是，沃尔兹这个人，他似乎是个惯性撒谎者。至少，他已经在一些无关紧要的事情上撒了许多谎，比如他到底是主教练还是助理教练这样的事情。
And the lies have always elevated him socially, right? All the lies about his military service, or at least implying that he served in a different aspect. And then there was Tiananmen Square. Everything enhances his virtue. This is not what anybody wants. You want the opposite. You know, you want a guy like JD Vance, who served in the Marines and you know, went to Yale, comes from a single mother with addiction problems, rose from hard work and dedication to become who he is now. Like that's the kind of guy that I like. Yeah. That's what we all would like. Like, okay, that looks like a leader to me. Yeah. Yeah. Well, the Romans have this concept that took very seriously. They called virtue, right? And like did you, did you, there's a whole ranking by the way, the Roman verse here is and if you read them today, you just like want to burst out crying because you're just like, oh my God, I can't believe what we're missing. But like, yes.
他的谎言总是提升他的社会地位，对吧？所有关于他军旅生涯的谎言，或者至少是暗示他在不同的领域服役。然后还有天安门广场的事情。这一切都在提升他的美德。这不是任何人想要的。人们想要的是相反的。你知道，我们需要像JD·万斯那样的人，他曾在海军陆战队服役，后来去了耶鲁大学，出身于单亲家庭，还有母亲的成瘾问题，靠努力和奉献成为现在的自己。这就是我喜欢的人。是的，这也是我们都希望的。这样的人才看起来像是个领导者。是的，是的。罗马人有一个他们非常看重的概念，叫做美德。实际上，他们有一个完整的排名，如果今天读到这些，你可能会感动到想哭，因为你会感叹我们所失去的东西。是的。
People with virtue, people with virtue, it's not just that they think that they're good people or that they tell everybody they're good people. They actually act on it and actually step up. Well, this is what's missing from today's secular society, right? Like we don't have like a doctrine that encourages that sort of thinking and behavior and rewards it publicly, which religion does. You know, with true Christianity, you know, not subverted fucking giant arena Christianity where the guys fly in private jets and has Rolls Royces and shit, but actual like real Christian people.
有道德的人，不仅仅是认为自己是好人或告诉别人他们是好人，他们实际上会付诸行动，真正挺身而出。这正是当今世俗社会所缺乏的，对吧？我们没有一种教义去鼓励这种思想和行为并公开奖励它，而宗教恰恰会这样做。真正的基督教精神并不是那些被扭曲的、强调奢华生活的大型教会，而是体现在真正的基督徒身上。
Right. Well, the Romans had gods. I mean, their virtues had gods. Yeah. And so, and so they like it was actually wrapped. It was, at your point, it was like encoded into their religion. It was wrapped up in their religion. They knew exactly what was expected of them. They knew exactly what their ancestors expected of them. They knew exactly what their gods expected of them. I recently read Meditations again a couple of months ago. Yeah. Listen to it, Nasana. But it's brilliant. I mean, it's amazing that this guy, Marcus Aurelius, was thinking like this so many years ago. And it's so, it's so valid today. And it applies so well to modern life. It's so, so strange.
好的。罗马人有他们的众神。我是说，他们的美德也有对应的神祇。所以这些观念其实是深深融入他们的宗教中的。在当时，这些观念就像是被编码进了他们的信仰体系中。他们非常清楚自己的责任，知道祖先对他们的期望，也明白众神对他们的要求。我前几个月又读了一遍《沉思录》。听我说，Nasana，这本书真的很出色。不可思议的是，马克·奥勒留如此多年前的思考在今天仍然有很大的现实意义，对现代生活的适用性也很强，真是让人惊叹。
You know how brilliant this person was while he was running this incredible empire that he could write about human psychology and the value of forgiveness and, you know, being true to yourself and constantly being truthful everywhere and everything you do and all these virtues and all these stoicism that he, that he espoused, it's so valuable today. It's really remarkable that this person who was a leader, well, was it 2000 years ago, that his words still ring true today. Yeah. You probably know he didn't write it for public consumption. Right. Yeah. It was just even more amazing. It's private notebook. Which is why it's so good probably. Yeah. It's a sub stack.
你知道，这个人在经营一个了不起的帝国时，非常杰出，他能够写出关于人类心理、宽恕的价值、忠于自我以及在任何地方和任何事情上都保持诚实的内容，所有这些美德和他的斯多葛主义，这在今天仍然非常有价值。令人惊讶的是，这位大约两千年前的领导者，他的话语至今仍然引起共鸣。你可能知道，他写这些并不是为了公开发表，对吧。这就更神奇了，这本来是他的私人笔记。也许正因为如此，这些文字才如此精彩。有点像是他的私人随笔。
He's like, wow, people are going to hate on this. Let me, let me, let me, you know, let me preemptively attack the people in the comments or, right, so do them. But he's like, he's like, he's, he's lecturing himself, like he's telling himself how to act. Right. Like, you know, he's very, this is very deep. These are very deep important. My favorite, my favorite part of the, of the meditations is there's a section where it's something like, yeah, you're going to wake up this morning and everybody's going to hit you and everybody's going to lie to you and everybody's going to make dumb decisions and you're going to be incredibly frustrated and you're not going to get any credit for anything. And you have to get up anyway. Yeah. Like, that's all.
他就像在说，哇，人们肯定会批评这个。所以让我先来预防性地反击那些在评论里的人，或者反正这样做吧。但他好像在给自己上课，告诉自己该怎么做。对，这种心态很深刻，很重要。我最喜欢他冥想中的一部分是有一段话，大意是，你早上起来会发现每个人都在针对你，每个人都在撒谎，每个人都做愚蠢的决定，你会非常沮丧，而且你不会得到任何表扬。但你仍然得起床，继续前进。就是这样。
Yes. Yes. That's all true. Right. And you still have to get up and do your job. And of course he's saying that to himself as the leader of Rome. To himself, exactly. Yeah. And you know, and what's in there is just like, wow, his life was not, you know, he's just like, again, it's, it's actually, you don't like to see you. So it's just like you're going to get pounded. Like, yeah, if you're in these positions, you're going to get pounded every day. It's a, it's a, and if you're operating out of it, out of a, out of a true sense of virtue, if you're operating out of a true sense of like, if you're exercising your responsibilities, you get up and do it anyway. It's amazing how much it resonates. Yeah. It really is. What's amazing how much so many ancient writings resonate. Yeah. You know, there's so much valuable information just...
是的，是的，这都是事实。没错，但你仍然需要站起来做你的工作。当然，他是作为罗马的领导者对自己说这番话。对，确实是对自己说的。你知道，其中透露出一种感觉：哇，他的生活并不简单，就像你一样，他总是受到各种挑战。如果你处于这样的职位，每天都会受到压力和考验。如果你出于真正的美德和责任感去行动，你仍然要站起来完成任务。这种共鸣真是令人惊讶。古代的许多著作依然能引发我们的共鸣。里面蕴藏了很多宝贵的信息……
like in Sun Sous, the art of war. Or in, you know, book of five rings, you know, there's so many ancient books that you read and you go, first of all, I love reading them because I tried to imagine what, you know, what is this life like in like, if you want to take like, be a multi-musashi. You know, 1400, when did you live? Me and multi-musashi, he was like 14 20s or something. I found like, what's that like? Right. Like, what is your life like? What is, what is the, what is the view of the world when you, you don't really have detailed maps or you don't have any photographs, you don't have any idea what the fuck is going on in Europe unless you go there...
像在《孙子兵法》那样，或者在《五轮书》中，你知道，有很多古代的书籍当你阅读时会让你想象，首先，我喜欢阅读它们，因为我试着去想象，如果你想做一个像宫本武藏那样的人，生活会是什么样子。你知道，他是1400年代的人，他大概活在1420年代左右。我很好奇，那时的生活是怎样的。比如说，当你没有详细的地图，没有照片，对于欧洲到底发生了什么一无所知，除非你亲自去那里时，你的世界观会是什么样的？
like, what is, what is your version of the world like? And then to see someone's words written down and you read them and try to just imagine yourself in their perspective and their mindset. Right. Yeah. That's right. Yeah. Look, I think if you're somebody like that or somebody like Marcus Aurelius, you just have this incredible sense of responsibility. Yeah. Like, you, the one thing you do have is a sense of purpose. Like, you know exactly what you're here. You know exactly what your role is. You know exactly how you're supposed to behave. You know exactly how you're supposed to basically gain glory, how you're supposed to honor your ancestors. Like, it's, it's just all...
翻译成中文：
就像，你的世界是什么样的？然后看到别人的话写下来，你读它们，尝试想象自己在他们的视角和思维模式中。对，对，没错。看看，我觉得如果你是那样的人，或者像马可·奥勒留这样的人，你就会有一种强烈的责任感。是的，你拥有的就是一种目标感。就像，你完全清楚你在这里的意义。你完全清楚你的角色是什么。你完全清楚你应该如何表现。你完全清楚基本上应该如何获得荣耀，如何去尊敬你的祖先。这一切都很明确...
you know, exactly where you are in the community. Right. Right. You have this like incredible sense of groundedness and rootedness. And of course there's huge downsides to that, which is it really cuts off your ability to you know, run off and you know, go on American Idol. Right. There's like a lot of things you can't do. Right. But like, you know, you know what you're supposed to do and you either do it or you don't do it. And these days to have people like that, we need people who choose to be that way. Right. Which is a, which is a...
你知道，在你的社区里，你非常清楚自己所处的位置。是的，是的。你有一种难以置信的踏实感和归属感。当然，这也有很大的缺点，就是大大限制了你去追求一些梦想的能力，比如参加《美国偶像》这样的节目。对吧，有很多事情你不能做。但是，你知道自己应该做什么，要么去做，要么不做。而在当今社会，我们需要人们选择这种生活方式。这是一个...
you know, which is arguably harder, right? Given, given all the choices that they actually choose to live that way. Well, not only that, giving all the distractions that people face every day that keeps them from sitting down and riding a journal like that. Yeah. That's right. Yeah. You know, I mean, back then there's not a lot of different things to entertain you with. Correct. Yes. You had to be maybe a little bit more serious because you couldn't, you couldn't have as much fun. My favorite, my other favorite meditations Marcus really is thing is something like be the rocks on the shore at which the, at which the waves beat. Right. Like, yes. Your job is...
你知道，这可能反而更难，对吧？考虑到所有的选择，他们实际上选择了那样生活。不仅如此，还有每天缠绕人们的各种干扰，使他们很难坐下像那样写日记。是的，那是对的。你知道我的意思，当时没有太多不同的东西来娱乐你。没错，是的。你可能需要更严肃一些，因为你不能有太多乐趣。我最喜欢的冥想之一就是马可·奥勒留的话，比如说“做海岸上的礁石，让海浪拍打”。对吧？是的，你的任务就是……
to stand there like the rocks do and just the surf just like keeps coming and keeps coming and your job is just like stand there and take it. Imagine when it was like, like addressing the people back then to just yelling out into these groups or speaking in front of all the leaders like, yeah. And everyone's plotting to kill you. There is also a lot of that going on. Yeah. Everyone's, how many times they try to kill Hitler? Yes. Like everybody's trying to kill you. If you're, if you're running things, all your generals are probably secretly wanting to become the king.
站在那里就像岩石一样，而海浪不断地拍打着你，你的任务就是站在那里承受一切。想象一下，当时的人们面对这样的情况，对着那些人群大喊或在所有领导人面前发表讲话，是怎样的一种感觉。而且每个人似乎都在策划要杀了你。是的，有很多这样的情况发生。大家想尽办法杀掉希特勒，对吧？就像每个人都想要你的命一样。如果你在掌权，你所有的将军可能都在暗地里想当国王。
Yep. Yep. Exactly. Yeah. All these surfers are waiting in the wings. Not easy lives. You know, today, today most of the gelling seven metaphorically. No. Although every now and then. Yeah. It's a big shot. In the alternative timeline. Yes. Yes. Exactly. That's right. Yeah. How fearful were you leading up to the election that it wouldn't go into the new timeline? It was so weird because all the experts said it was 50, 50, razor, you know, razor sharp, you know, it's this tiny little, you know, thing 80,000 votes in eight counties. Yeah. And, you know, and then...
好的。好的。的确是这样。这些冲浪者都在等待机会，生活并不容易。你知道吗，如今大多数的联系都是隐喻式的。虽然偶尔会有一次巨大的成功。在另一条时间线上，是的，没错。是这样。关于选举，我有多担心它不会进入新的时间线？真是奇怪，因为所有专家都说这是50对50，非常接近，非常紧张，就像一个非常细微的差别，八个县区里只有80000票。然后，你知道……
Number one, then it wasn't, which means we can take all those experts and just dismiss them forever going forward because they clearly have clearly have clearly have no clue. So it's another set of people you don't have to listen to. But I had this really interesting conversation that kept nagging at me with a senior Democrat who's on his way out of of of politics. And he said in the summer, I said, how how certain is what's your view in this person said a Trump's going to win with 100% certainty? Really? This is a Democrat and from a sort of purple state. Right. So, you know, not New York or California, but like a state with, you know, sort of maybe that was on a broader cross section of people. And this person basically said, yeah, it said, look, all you have to do is fly anywhere in the country into any purple in place and go into a second or third tier, you know, side city and take a new birth for 30 minutes, you know, land at the airport, take a new birth drive around for 30 minutes, come back and just ask the driver, like, how's it going and who are they voting for? And basically 100% of the time the answer is going to be Trump because people are just were people were just like completely fed up. They were just completely fed up.
第一，那些专家全都说错了，这意味着我们可以永远忽略他们的意见，因为他们显然毫无头绪，所以你不必再听他们的了。不过，我和一位即将退出政坛的高级民主党人进行了一次非常有趣的谈话，这件事一直让我感到困扰。夏天的时候，我问他，他对此事的看法有多确定，他告诉我特朗普会以100%确定性获胜。真的吗？这是来自一个那种中立州的民主党人，并不是纽约或加州，而是一个拥有更广泛人群的州。他基本上说，你只需要飞往全国任何一个中立地区，进入一个二线或三线城市，在机场落地后开车绕行30分钟，然后问司机：“近况如何？你支持谁？”基本上他们的答案100%都是特朗普，因为人们已经感到极度厌倦和不满。
And then there was the, you know, Kamala enthusiasm, which this person said, you know, the Kamala enthusiasm is like highly focused in New York and California, which don't matter from an electoral standpoint, right? So they're not going to decide anything. But that is huge when it comes to media. Oh, sure. Of course. But that's the thing of this self-reinforcing nature of the bubble. This is what's actually so interesting with these media bubbles is like the people in these media bubbles are not breaking out. Like, this, like, they're getting deeper into the sort of collective psychosis that they indulge in and part of it was getting excited about a candidate for which there was very little popular support for once you got outside of these, you know, heavily blue states. Yeah. And so it's in a lot of ways, it's the most, you know, obvious explanation of the world, which is just people just fundamentally did not like the direction the country was going in and they were just fed up with it.
这段文字的意思是：然后，还有所谓的卡玛拉热情，一位评论者提到，这种热情主要集中在纽约和加州，从选举角度来看，这些州并不重要，因为它们不会决定选举结果。不过，在媒体方面，这种热情非常重要。当然，这就是媒体泡沫的自我强化特性。这些媒体泡沫有趣之处在于，泡沫中的人没有跳出圈外，反而越来越深陷在集体妄想中。这个现象的一部分就是对一位候选人兴奋不已，即使在这些蓝色州之外，这位候选人并没有获得多少大众支持。因此，这在很多方面是最显而易见的现实解释，那就是人们根本不喜欢国家的发展方向，他们对此感到厌倦。
There's also this very bizarre arrogance of people that were certain that Kamala Harris was going to win. I'm sure you've seen the viral video of this lady who's a political analyst who talks about going to the liquor store and buying a bottle of champagne. Oh, right. I saw that. Yeah. I don't want to show up to the poor lady. She's probably living in hell right now. But I'm blue sky. Yeah, she's probably I'm blue sky. She might be on it. Well, she was on it. I think she deleted her profile. Yeah. But the poor lady, I mean, she, but she was being very arrogant and she laughed and mocked this man and said, you do realize you wasted your vote. That's right. That's right. That's right. That's right. And she lat, which makes her hard to feel sorry for. That's right. It's like you were, you were ready to mock this man. Yes. But in her eyes, it was all about reproductive freedom. And she thought that that was under attack under the Trump administration and that women were going to stand up and they're going to stop that because in her echo chamber, that was the case.
有些人对于卡玛拉·哈里斯获胜的笃定态度真是让人感到莫名的自大。我相信你也看过那个政治分析师女性的病毒式视频，她说自己去酒铺买了一瓶香槟。哦，对，我也看到了。我不想在这里批评那个可怜的女士，她现在可能过得很艰难。但我在网上找不到她，她可能删掉了自己的账号。那个可怜的女士，她当时很傲慢，嘲笑一个人说“你知道自己浪费了选票吗？”这让人很难对她产生同情。她本来就准备好去嘲讽他。在她看来，这一切就是关系到生育自由，她认为在特朗普政府的领导下，生育自由受到威胁，女性会一起反对，因为在她的“同温层”中，情况就是这样的。
Everybody was universally, they all agreed. We're universally on board with this idea that Trump is evil. We got to get rid of them and women are going to vote and it's going to be fun. But like, who are you hanging out with, lady? You could hang out with a bunch of people that think baseball is awesome. And then you run to someone from another country like, what the fuck is baseball? Like, you got to realize there's a lot of people out there. Yeah. And people really don't like being talked down to. They really don't. And they don't like you mocking the fact that, first of all, nobody wasted their vote. Like, that's not how it goes. Like, you don't waste your vote if you vote different and the other side wins. It's not how the other side won. That's just how it is. Like, wasting the vote is a crazy way to look at it. Because I think also people look at things like tribal games. You know, like, you know, Texas is a huge football state and people love football. And it's always we this, we that when UT plays South Carolina, we this, we that. It's like, people love to be a part of a team that's winning. And they apply that, especially if they're not in the sports, to other things.
每个人都一致同意特朗普是个坏人，我们必须摆脱他。大家都认为女性的投票将是有趣的。但你是在和什么人交往呢？可能你和一群认为棒球很棒的人混在一起，但当你碰到来自其他国家的人，他们可能会问“棒球到底是什么？”你必须意识到这个世界上有很多不同观点的人。人们真的不喜欢被居高临下地对待，也不喜欢被嘲笑或指责他们浪费了选票。事实上，没有人浪费选票。如果你投了不同的票而另一方赢了，那并不是你浪费了选票，这就是事情的本质。有些人把投票看作是部落之间的游戏，比如德克萨斯州是个非常热爱橄榄球的地方，人们常常在UT对阵南卡罗来纳时说“我们这，我们那”。人们喜欢成为获胜团队的一部分，即便是在体育之外的事情上也是如此。
I think it's just a warm mentality. It's a tribal, warm mentality that's been sort of subverted in the human mind and applied to other things. It could be like Microsoft versus Apple. You know, it could be Android versus Apple, you know, iOS. It's weird how people get so tribal and then connect their own personal identity to other people agreeing with these ideas that they believe. Yeah. Yeah. I don't know for two thoughts. One is the Democrats for a long time were the big tent party. So the Democrats for the coalition of people who had very different points of view on things. And of course, you know, famously, it's all the different identity groups and it's all the different, you know, economic and unions and all these things.
我认为这只是一种温暖的心态。这是一种部落式、温暖的心态，它在人的意识中被颠覆，并应用于其他事物上。比如微软对苹果，或者安卓对苹果的iOS。这很奇怪，人们如此有部落意识，然后将自己的个人身份与他人是否同意他们所相信的观点联系在一起。是的。我有两点想法。一是民主党长期以来都是一个大帐篷式的政党，民主党是由对事物有着非常不同观点的人组成的联盟。还有，众所周知，包括所有不同的身份群体、经济团体、工会等等。
And Republicans were like the party of rigidity, right? And just for whatever set of a lot of the woke stuff had a lot to do with it is it flipped to where at least today Trump's Republican party is the big tent party. Yes. And to your point on having all these new people and many of whom are former Democrats. A lot of them. And the Democrats have decided to try to isolate out anybody, right, who disagrees on any issue and demand right lockstep conformity through the cancellation process. And so that that's a very interesting inversion that happened kind of without anybody saying anything about it. But it did happen.
共和党曾经被认为是一个非常刻板的政党，对吧？但是由于各种原因，尤其是一些与“觉醒文化”有关的事情，共和党现在已经转变为一个包容性更强的大帐篷政党，至少在今天是这样的，特别是在特朗普领导下的共和党。这也涉及到你提到的吸纳了许多新成员，其中很多人以前是民主党支持者。而民主党则选择孤立掉任何在某个问题上持不同意见的人，并通过“取消文化”来要求完全一致的立场。这种转变非常有趣，而且几乎是在没有人明确指出的情况下发生的，但的确发生了。
And then I think the other the other inversion was the economic conversion, which is remember the criticism of the Republican party for a long time was it was the party of trickle down economics. Yes. The idea was rich people are going to get all the money because they're going to get a tax as a administration. And then basically if poor people get any money, it's going to be because the rich people like trickle trickle some down. I think that inverted to where the Democrats, especially in the last four years became the trickle down party, which was we're going to tax and we're going to collect all the money and give it to the government.
然后，我认为另一个转变是经济上的转换。长期以来，人们批评共和党是涓滴经济学的政党。是的，这个理念是富人会获得所有的钱，因为他们会从税收政策中获益。如果穷人得到一点钱，那是因为富人会涓涓细流地将一些财富流向他们。但我觉得这一理念发生了逆转，尤其是在过去四年中，民主党成了涓滴效应的党派，他们的做法是通过征税收集所有的钱，然后把它交给政府。
And then we're going to let the government hand it out. Right. But they did it under the guise of tax the rich. They did it. They did it with this Robinhood mentality. At least they expressed that. Of course, that's how it starts. But then you end up with a $35 trillion federal debt. You end up with this giant annual deficit. And then you end up with all this money being handed out, right? Handed out in all these grants and all these things like just this, there's like shower of money coming from the government. But of course, if the government's giving you money, it also means the government can take money away.
然后，我们会让政府来分发这些钱，对吧？但他们是以“向富人征税”为幌子这么做的。他们这么做时采用了一种“罗宾汉”的心态，至少他们是这样表达的。当然，事情都是这样开始的，但是最终你会看到联邦债务膨胀到35万亿美元，你会看到每年都有巨额赤字，你会看到大量资金被分发出去，对吧？以各种补助和类似的项目形式，宛如政府在“下金钱雨”。但当然，如果政府在给你钱，这也意味着政府可以收走钱。
If you're making somebody dependent on you because you're giving the money, then you're in a tremendous position of power because you can make their life horrible by pulling the money away. Right. You can also control their ideology that way. 100%. Yeah. You own them. It's actually a form. It's on the spectrum to a form of domination that should make us very uncomfortable. And so maybe that would be fine if the debt in the deficit didn't have to control and inflation didn't get out of control, but it did.
如果你让某人依赖你，因为你给他钱，那么你就处于一种非常强大的地位，因为你可以通过停止给钱让他们的生活变得很糟糕。确实是这样。你也可以通过这种方式控制他们的思想。完全正确。你掌控了他们。这实际上是一种支配形式，让我们感到非常不自在。所以，如果债务和赤字不必受到控制，而通货膨胀也没有失控，那么这种做法可能还可以，但现实是这样的。
And then at that point, it's like, okay, this new kind of sort of tax and spend driven trickle down economics is clearly not sustainable. It's not going to work. So the way the Trump administration is going to approach the economy, they want less regulation. They want tariffs and less regulation. And they want more reliance on US energy. Right. They want to drill more, more natural gas, more fracking, more drilling for oil, and then allow companies to work without regulations inhibiting their performance. This will boost the economy.
然后在那时，情况就变得很清楚：这种新的、以税收和支出为驱动的经济下行模式显然不可持续，不会奏效。因此，特朗普政府处理经济的方式是，他们希望减少法规。他们希望实施关税并减少监管。他们还希望更多地依赖美国能源。对，他们想要进行更多的钻探，包括更多的天然气开采，更多的水力压裂，以及更多的石油钻探，然后让公司在没有监管限制的情况下运作。他们认为这会促进经济增长。
You'll have more productivity. You have more American manufacturing. You have more things happening. Yeah. So the two headline things you hear from them whenever they talk about this, the two headline things are number one growth. You just need faster growth. But by the way, it's the only way to resolve the long-term fiscal situation. It's the only way to resolve the debt. There's only two ways to do it. You can inflate your way out of it. And it end up in 1930s Germany with hyperinflation like that. That's one track you can get on, which is a very bad track. And you don't want to go there. Or you can grow faster. Because if you grow faster, then your economy can catch up to the debt. You can pay down the debt as you grow. And so they want to go for a higher rate of growth. And then the other thing is they want America to win. And my partner Ben and I were able to spend time with Trump this summer. And that was his, like, Adam, I think he kept going back, which is like, look, America has to win. And specifically what that means is America has to win in business and in technology and industry generally, globally. Like our company should be the ones that win these broad, we should win global markets. Like our company should be the global. How can anybody be against that? I happen to think that makes a lot of sense. Yes. I know.
你将会拥有更高的生产力，美国的制造业会增加，事情会更多地发生。那么，他们在谈论这些问题时，总是会提到两个重点：首先是增长。你需要更快的增长。而且，这是解决长期财政问题的唯一方法，也是解决债务问题的唯一途径。实际上，你只有两种方法来应对：一种是通过通货膨胀解决，这可能让你走上类似1930年代德国那样的恶性通胀道路，那是一个非常糟糕的轨道，你不希望看到那种情况的发生。另一种方法是实现更快的经济增长。因为如果经济增长加快，经济体就能赶上债务水平，并在增长的过程中偿还债务。所以他们希望实现更高的增长率。
其次，他们希望美国能够“赢”。我的合伙人本和我今年夏天有机会与特朗普会面，他反复强调这一观点：美国必须在全球范围内的商业、科技和工业领域取胜。我们的公司应该是那些在全球市场上胜出的公司。我们的公司应该成为全球性公司。谁会反对这一点呢？我认为这非常有道理。是的，我知道。
I mean, obviously you're well-manned and I am as well. But it's like, how could you not want that? Yes. By the way, if you are in favor of a high level of social support, if you want there to be lots of welfare programs and food assistance programs, all these things, I would argue you also want that because it's the growth that will pay for all the social programs. Right. Like that's how you square the circle. That's how you actually have your cake and eat it too, which is like first your economy just generates a fountain of money through growth and economic success. And then you can pay for whatever programs you want. I actually don't. Personally, like I'm totally fine. Like set up all the programs you want, all the social spending, all the sales units you want. And as long as it's easy to pay for it because you're growing so fast, then everybody wins. Yeah. And I've always said, if I knew that I paid more taxes, people in the world in this country would live better. I would do it. Right. I just don't believe that they're good at spending it. That's the thing, right? It's like if you're putting in this, if you've generated 35 trillion of debt and these are the results. Yeah. Yeah. Like this is not the deal. And then this is my friend that I talked about earlier, that was the point he made. It's just like, look, the deal has been broken. Like this is not the deal anybody signed up for. This is not how it's supposed to work. Everybody knows it. We were talking about giving people social programs and giving them benefits and then you could take that away at any moment.
意思是说，显然你和我都很理性，但谁不希望这样呢？如果你支持高水平的社会支持，比如大量的福利项目和食品援助项目，我认为你也会希望通过经济增长来支持这些社会项目，只有这样才能实现双赢的局面。首先，经济需要通过增长和成功创造财富，然后才能资助任何你想要的项目。对于实施这些项目和社会支出，我个人并不反对，只要通过快速增长来轻松支付这些费用，大家都会受益。而且我一直说，如果我知道多缴税能让这个国家和世界上的人过得更好，我会去做的。不过我怀疑他们花钱的方式，这才是问题所在。这个国家已经有35万亿的债务，但结果却不尽如人意。这让我朋友说，这个协议已经被打破，并不是大家所期望或签约的样子。我们曾谈过提供社会项目和福利，但你也能随时取消这些。
Yes. This was one of the big fears that people had about letting illegal immigrants into the country and moving them to swing states, which clearly happened and also giving them a bunch of benefits, which clearly happened. Money, food stamps, housing, all that happened. Stuff that wasn't available to veterans, stuff that wasn't available to homeless people, wasn't available to the very poor of this country. All of a sudden people came here illegally got those things. And the thought was, if you gave these people these things and you gave them a way better life, look, if I was living in a third world country with a family and I knew that I could come to America and I could get a job, an actual job and make money and my family's going to definitely eat, I'll vote for whoever the fuck you want me to vote for. I don't care. My life is infinitely better than it was in this totalitarian shithole that I was in until I walked here. I'll do whatever you want. I just want my family to survive and I think everything's going to, it's so much better than where I was if I'm in some war torn part of the world. It's so much better here. I don't care if the Democrats win or the Republicans, I'm in America and if the Republicans didn't give me any money and they want to get me out, they want to deport me. So this nice lady, she gave me an EBT card and I'm staying at the Roosevelt Hotel in New York City and I can get a flight somewhere else where I want to go there. Oh, this is wonderful.
是的，这是人们对非法移民进入国家并被转移到摇摆州时的一大担忧，这显然确实发生了，而且他们还获得了许多福利，也确实发生了。钱、食品券、住房，这些都给了他们。这些资源对退伍军人无效，对无家可归者无效，对这个国家非常贫穷的群体无效。但突然间，非法来到这里的人却得到了这些东西。想法是，如果你给这些人这些东西，并给他们一个更好的生活机会，看看，如果我生活在一个第三世界国家，有一个家庭，我知道我可以来到美国，找到一份实际的工作，赚钱，并确保我的家人有饭吃，我会给你想要我选的人投票。我不在乎。我的生活比我在那个集权国家时好太多了，我走到这里，只是想让我家人活下去，如果我在某个战乱地区，生活在这里好太多了。我不在乎是民主党赢或者共和党赢，我在美国，如果共和党不给我钱并想把我赶走，想要驱逐我。所以这位好心的女士给了我一张EBT卡，我住在纽约市的罗斯福酒店，我还可以飞到我想去的其他地方。哦，这真是太棒了。
So that's how it starts and there is a lot of that going on but I will say one of the things that's interesting is it doesn't necessarily stick that way and the sort of evidence for that is the sort of dramatic ramp up in the Hispanic vote for Trump. Well Hispanic people generally are very hard workers. So this gets the thing. So I'll just take a quick story on this. So after the night, after the 2016 election, literally everybody I knew was just completely traumatized. We were all just completely freaked out everybody was shocked. You were freaked out? Yeah, I was completely freaked out. Everybody was freaked out. I didn't expect him to win the nomination. I didn't expect him to win the race. And the media is on full historical blast and it's the end of the world and he's a Russian spiral. It's crazy stuff that we know not to be true. It's just full on. So a group of us, a group of us went out to dinner at a restaurant in Palo Alto and the atmosphere was like a funeral. And the restaurant was just despondent and ready to slit their wrists.
这就是事情的开端，类似的状况很多，不过有件有趣的事，我想说的是事情不一定总是如此。比如，西班牙裔对特朗普支持率的显著增长就是一个很好的例子。一般来说，西班牙裔人非常勤奋。这就引出了问题。我来讲个小故事。在2016年大选后的那个晚上，我认识的每一个人都完全被吓坏了。我们都非常震惊，每个人都感到意外。你也感到震惊吗？是的，我完全被吓到了，大家都是。我没想到他会赢得提名，更没想到他会赢得竞选。媒体当时铺天盖地地报道，仿佛世界末日，他被形容成俄罗斯的傀儡。我们知道这些并不是真的，但当时的氛围就是这样。所以我们一群人去帕洛阿尔托的一家餐厅吃晚餐，气氛就像是在葬礼上一样。餐厅里的人都情绪低落，一片绝望。
So we're sitting there eating and the food doesn't taste good. It's just like can't taste the food. You can't taste the drinks. Everybody's just depressed. And it gets this thing of like, my god, I can't believe that Trump, this, that. So it's racist anti-Hispanic and all this stuff. And it was one of those moments where the young waiter who's Hispanic, young man in his 20s, one of those rare moments where he broke into the conversation at the table. But it was in context. It was like, oh, thank God. Because we're just depressing ourselves to death. So thank God he's going to say something.
我们正坐在那里吃饭，但食物的味道不好，感觉不到食物和饮料的味道。每个人都感到很沮丧。就像在谈论天啊，真不敢相信特朗普，这样那样的事情，觉得都是反对西班牙裔的种族歧视之类的问题。这时，有一个难得的时刻，一个二十多岁西班牙裔的年轻服务员打断了我们的谈话，但他的插话是很有意义的，就像一阵及时雨。因为我们自己都快被沮丧情绪压垮了，所以很感激他能说点什么。
And he said, I think you guys are looking at it all wrong. He's like, my father thinks Trump is fantastic. My father came here as an immigrant. Whatever 30 years ago, built a life, you became a citizen, bought into the system, pays taxes, raised a family. Moan is long with a MAGA hat on. He thinks this guy is great. He thinks this guy is fantastic. And he voted for him. And he just had, and then you know, you for this before, but then it's like, and the thing that this guy said, the thing my father thinks is terrible is if other people are able to come here, they're able to cut in line. They didn't have to go through the process.
他说，我觉得你们的看法完全错了。他说，我的父亲认为特朗普很了不起。我的父亲是作为移民来到这里的。大约30年前，他在这里建立了生活，成为了公民，融入了这个体系，交税，养育了家庭。他一直戴着“让美国再次伟大”的帽子，觉得特朗普这个人很棒，他投票支持他。然后你也知道，对他来说，最糟糕的事情就是看到其他人能来到这里，他们可以插队，不用经历那些程序。
They didn't have to prove anything. They're not bought into the system. They're able to jump in. And then they don't. And then they're not buying into the system. And part of it, maybe they're not being accepted, but also part of it is they're not buying in. They're not assimilating. They're not becoming part of what makes America America. And by the way, in some cases, the criminals are coming across and terrorists are coming across and gangs. And it's like my father's not in favor of any of that. My father wants to be part of a great society, of a great America, not some dysfunctional, you know, basically just disaster zone.
他们不需要证明什么。他们没有融入这个体系，所以他们可以随时插手。然而他们没有这样做。于是他们没有融入这个体系。部分原因可能是他们没被接纳，但另一部分原因是他们自己也不愿意融入。他们没有同化，没有成为使美国成为美国的一部分。而且，顺便说一句，有些罪犯、恐怖分子和帮派成员正在越境。我父亲不赞成这些行为。他希望成为一个伟大社会的一部分，成为一个伟大美国的一员，而不是某个功能失调、几乎是灾难区的地方。
And I remember the group of us, it was my first glimmer of like, okay, I need to like completely rethink my whole sense of like how the world works. Is that one conversation? Yeah, yeah. Well, it was weird because it was like, so what happened to me is like, so I grew up in rural Wisconsin, which is now like completely Trump country. And so from like zero to 18, like I completely understood the mentality. And I was always like, explain it to my friends of like, no, no, like this is, you know, this is like a different place and people think differently. And then somehow between the ages of like 18 and 40 or whatever, I just like forgot.
我记得我们那群人，当时我第一次意识到，我需要彻底重新思考我对这个世界运行方式的理解。就是在那次谈话中，对吧？对啊，这感觉很奇怪。我是在威斯康星州的一个农村长大的，现在那里完全是特朗普的支持区域。从小到18岁，我完全理解那里人们的思维方式。我总是向朋友解释说：“不，不，这里是一个不一样的地方，人们的想法也不一样。”但不知怎么的，在我18岁到40岁之间的时间里，我竟然忘了这一点。
And I became a Californian. I became a fully assimilated Californian. And I was just like, well, of course, the Californians are much more sophisticated and advanced than right then people, you know, where I came from. And so of course, of course, of course, everybody in California has it figured out. And of course, California is going to lead the country and all this thinking, right? And and Trump was for me, Trump was the Trump six, 2016 was the wake up call of like, no, no, no, no, no. That's just like completely that is such an impoverished worldview of how this country works and how people think that it doesn't explain what you look as you have to explain what happened.
我成了一个加州人，完全融入了加州的生活。我当时就觉得，当然，加州人比我来自的地方的人要更有见识、更先进。所以当然，加州的每个人都懂得一切，加州当然会引领全国的思想潮流。然而，特朗普的2016年竞选对我来说是一个警醒——不是这样的。这种想法完全是一种贫乏的视角，无法解释这个国家的运作和人们的思维方式。你必须去解释发生的事情。
And then you have to like, if you have some sense of being able to predict what's next, which is what I'm supposed to be doing for a living, you know, it's for the best thing is supposed to be. It's like, okay, I got to rebuild my entire model of the world for like how this all works and how this whole system, how this country works. But it was that conversation that the kick started it for me. So what was the process of altering your perspective or at least opening it up? Yeah.
好的，以下是这个段落的中文翻译：
然后，你需要有某种能预测接下来会发生什么的能力，这正是我工作中需要做到的。这样做是最好的事情。就是说，我需要重新建立对世界运作方式的整个模型，对这个系统及国家如何运作的理解。不过，正是那次对话让我开始这样做。那么，你是怎么改变自己的视角，或至少让自己更加开放的呢？
So for me, it was primarily it was reading. And so I started actually read my way back in history and I actually went all the way back. I tried to read of like where the origins of like left wing thought came from and then communism and how did that evolve in your liberal democracy and then also right wing thought and like, you know, everybody's calling everybody fascist now. So like, what was fascism? Is that what this is? Right? How did how did the Germans do with it? You know, so all of those questions and then, you know, kind of converging on in the last 80 years, like how is that, you know, either stabilized or not stabilized.
对我来说，主要是通过阅读来了解这些内容。所以我开始通过阅读回顾历史，我一直追溯到很久以前。我尝试去了解左翼思想的起源，然后是共产主义，以及它是如何在自由民主中演变的，还有右翼思想。现在大家都在叫别人法西斯主义者，所以我想知道究竟什么是法西斯主义，这和现在说的是否一样？德国人是如何处理这个问题的？所有这些问题让我思考过去80年来这些思想是如何稳定或不稳定的。
And so I did that. But the other thing is I just started talking to a lot more people and I just stopped assuming that because I read it in the New York Times that it was true. And you know, and by the way, and then of course what unfolded in the years, you know, kind of sense was, you know, the whole, I followed the whole Russia gate thing like super closely, like I read everything and I read all the reports.
所以我就这么做了。但另一方面，我开始与更多人交流，不再仅仅因为是从《纽约时报》上读到的就认定为真。而且，顺便说一下，接下来几年所发生的事情是，我非常密切地关注整个“通俄门”事件，所有报道和报告我都认真阅读了。
What did you think initially? Did you think it was true? Because it's like this overwhelming consensus from the entire expert class that of course is a Russian spy. I sat on stage, I went to Hillary's first post election loss speech, which he gave at Stanford, the very first one. And I sat, we know that people organizing it. So we sat literally like 15 feet from from from Hillary in her first appearance.
你最初是怎么想的？你认为这是真的？因为几乎所有专家都一致认为，他当然是俄罗斯间谍。我坐在舞台上，参加了希拉里在斯坦福大学发表的首次败选后讲话。我们认识组织活动的人，所以我们坐在距离希拉里大概15英尺的地方，见证了她的首次露面。
And you know, the whole thing is fraught with just like incredible tension because in the Russia gate stuff is in full full blown, full blown display. And I go there and I'm like, all right, this is going to mean to me. And you know, in the audience, a Stanford audience. And so it's all 100% Hillary Clinton supporters. Right. And I'm sitting there and I'm on my best behavior because I'm with my wife and I have to like not, you know, I have to not act out.
整个事情充满了令人难以置信的紧张感，因为“通俄门”事件正在全面爆发。我去那里心里想着，这对我来说意味着什么。而现场的观众是来自斯坦福大学的观众，全都是希拉里·克林顿的支持者。我坐在那里，表现得非常得体，因为我和我妻子在一起，我必须控制住自己，不表现得失态。
And Hillary gets up there and she says Trump is only president today because Vladimir Putin hacked Facebook and made him the president. Right. And I'm sitting in the audience and I'm like on the Facebook board and I'm like, that's not like, that's not true. And I know for an absolute fact that that's not true. Right.
希拉里站上台，说特朗普能成为总统全是因为普京入侵了Facebook，把他推上了总统之位。对吧。我坐在观众席中，而我可是Facebook董事会的一员，我心想，这不是真的。我非常确定这不是真的。
And so that got me thinking and then the Russia gate stuff unspooled and I was like, you know, the whole the the the the the the steel dossier and like all this stuff comes out. What was the accusations about Facebook? How did she think that Russia hacked Facebook and made Trump the president? Yeah. So it's this whole thing with this.
这让我开始思考，然后俄罗斯门事件逐渐爆发。我当时就在想，所有这些，比如斯蒂尔档案，还有其他的信息都出来了。关于脸书的指控是什么？她是怎么认为俄罗斯黑了脸书然后让特朗普当上总统的呢？对，就是这样一个事情。
So remember this whole thing camera genolitica. And so it's this whole thing that there was this basically there was this data. There was this theory, which by the way, it's like completely it is like a completely fake thing like this didn't that. So there was this there was this there was this data set on user behavior that in theory, there's academic there's a theory that you could sort of impute human behavior from this data set and then you could use it to predict what people would do and how they would react to different kinds of messages. And it was like this like magical breakthrough and basically thought control.
记住这整件事，也就是所谓的 "Camera Genolitica"。这个事情的核心是，基本上有一个关于用户行为的数据集。理论上，有一种学术理论认为可以利用这个数据集来推测人类的行为，然后用它来预测人们会如何行动以及他们对不同信息的反应。这听起来像是一种神奇的突破，几乎就像是思想控制。但实际上，这个理论是完全虚假的，并不存在。
And then there was this company called Cambridge Analytica in the UK that figured out a way to do this. And then it was this like new kind of literally like mind control like, you know, by far like the most powerful meme weapon of all time for getting people to go the way that the way that you want. And it was this data breach of face.
然后，在英国有家公司叫剑桥分析，它找到了实现这一点的方法。这就像是一种全新的思想控制工具，可以说是有史以来最强大的操控人心的“武器”，能引导人们按照你想要的方式行事。而这还涉及到一次脸书的数据泄露事件。
The whole thing was weird because Facebook had been criticized for a decade leading up to 2016 that it kept all the data closed. Right. So the criticism was Facebook, nevertheless, any of the data, it doesn't share the data, right. And the criticism for years was Facebook is the roachmatullo data and the virtuous thing for it to do is to actually free the data and let everybody else have access to the data.
整个事情很奇怪，因为在2016年之前的十年里，Facebook 一直被批评将所有数据封闭。对吧。因此，批评声认为，尽管如此，Facebook 并没有分享任何数据，对吧。多年来的批评一直是说Facebook 对数据“吝啬鬼”，而正确的做法应该是释放数据，让其他人都能访问这些数据。
And then in 2016, let flipped 180 degrees. And it was Facebook is the most evil company of all time because it let Cambridge Analytica get access to this data and then Russia ran basically a psychological operation of the American citizens using Facebook push back. They did early on. They did early on.
然后在2016年，情况发生了180度的转变。人们开始认为Facebook是史上最邪恶的公司，因为它让剑桥分析公司获取了用户数据，然后俄罗斯利用Facebook对美国公民进行了心理战。起初，他们对此提出过反对。
They do today in their way, but you know, they're trying to run a business. They're trying to get to the next quarter. They're trying to keep the employee base and everybody copacetic. They're trying not to get just completely destroyed by the politicians. They're getting slammed every single day on every conceivable issue you can imagine.
他们今天以自己的方式行事，但是你知道，他们是在努力经营一家公司。他们在努力挺过下个季度。他们在尽力保持员工团队和所有人的和谐。他们尽量不被政客彻底打压。他们每天都在各个可想而知的问题上遭受抨击。
And it's actually very interesting. When you're in these companies, like these big issues are big issues, but you're also literally trying to like make the quarter, right? You're trying to ship your products. You're trying to close your sales. You're trying to keep your employees from quitting. Right. You have these, you have responsibilities, right? You have practical concern responsibilities.
这实际上非常有趣。当你在这些公司工作时，那些重大问题确实很重要，但你同时也在努力完成季度目标，对吧？你在努力出货、完成销售，并努力防止员工离职。对吧？你有这些责任，还有实际的担忧和责任。
So sometimes these companies get kind of wedged because they can't do the things that they would do if they were just in damage control mode. And then they, right. And then they, you know, then they, maybe the message doesn't get out. But so what was the bigger shift, the waiter or the Hillary speech? Oh, it was the waiter. I mean, by that, the waiter was the much bigger shift because it was listening to a normal, it was listening to a person with their feet on the ground actually explaining the way the world worked. Whereas with Hillary, it was, it was cope, right? It was, it was delusion. She, it was, it was amazing, by the way. She then spent the next hour and a half.
所以有时候这些公司会陷入困境，因为他们无法在危机控制模式下做自己该做的事情。这样一来，他们的信息可能就没能传达出去。那么更大的转变是什么，是服务员还是希拉里的讲话？哦，是服务员。我的意思是，服务员代表了更大的转变，因为他是一个脚踏实地的人，真正解释了世界的运作方式。而希拉里的讲话，是在应对，是一种自欺欺人。顺便说一下，她接下来又讲了一个半小时。
When I, when I'm in a place where I don't know if I'm going to control myself, I bring a little notepad along because I can work out my demons like draw a dick. Exactly. So that I don't, so that I don't say anything, right? Like super bad. So I brought my little notepad on. I mean, my little, my little fisher space pen, right? And I, I pulled out and I started making a list of all of the people and organizations that she blamed for her defeat that were not named Hillary Clinton. And I got 20. My favorite was Netflix, by the way. Netflix. She blamed Netflix. What did Netflix do? You know, I'm not an anti-Clinton documentary.
当我处于一个不知道自己能否控制住自己的地方时，我会带一个小笔记本，因为我可以在上面画些东西来平息内心的纠结。就比如画个无厘头的图，这样我就不会说出一些过头的话了。于是，我带着这个小笔记本和我的小太空笔，开始列出她责怪的那些导致她失败的人和组织，这些名单中不包括希拉里·克林顿。我列出了20个名字。我最喜欢一个是Netflix。她居然责怪Netflix。Netflix做了什么呢？反正不是拍了一部反克林顿的纪录片。
Oh, you mean facts? Well, this is particularly funny because the CEO Netflix is a famous Democrat. He's a super Democrat. Yeah, Ted. Well, not actually, Ted, but also read, specifically read, read, read Hastings and his wife are very enthusiastic left wingers. But I mean, it was just this litany of, you know, basically excuses and complaints, right? With no sense of like responsibility, personal responsibility at all. You know, just like pure grievance. Wow. And so it was the negative, it was negative lesson of like, okay, like whatever that is, it's not the path.
哦，你是说事实吗？这可真有趣，因为Netflix的首席执行官是个著名的民主党人。他还是个超级民主党人。是的，Ted，不，不是Ted，其实是Reed，特别是Reed Hastings，他和他的妻子都是非常热情的左翼人士。但我意思是，基本上，就是一连串的借口和抱怨，对吧？完全没有任何责任感，也没有个人责任感，就像纯粹的怨愤。哇。所以这是一个消极的教训：无论那是什么，都不是正确的道路。
Did she blame Comey? Oh, yeah. Oh, absolutely. Yeah. Oh, yeah, she absolutely hated that guy. Yeah, no question. That was a wild one. 100%. Yeah, exactly. And by the way, like that was super weird. Yeah. You know, I don't think she was completely wrong. I don't understand that one. Honestly, if they didn't want Trump to win, I don't get that one. Well, she's get she. We know she's guilty, but we're not going to charge her. Right. Is a weird. It's crazy. Is a weird message to send. It's almost as weird as the Biden one where we don't think he's competent to stand trial for the documents that he had that were classified.
她指责科米了吗？哦，是的，绝对指责。对，她绝对讨厌那个家伙，毫无疑问。这件事情真的很疯狂，百分百的疯狂。是的，完全同意。而且顺便说一下，那真是太奇怪了。我觉得她的看法也不完全错。我真的不太明白这一点。说实话，如果他们不想让特朗普赢，我就不理解这样做的理由。她被认为有罪，但却没有被起诉。这的确是一个很奇怪的信息。这几乎和拜登的那个事件一样奇怪，我们觉得他没有能力因为他拥有机密文件而被审判。这真是疯狂的事情。
Exactly. But he can what have his finger on the button? What the fuck are you talking about? Exactly. We know he's guilty, but we never convict him because the jury would say that he's a senile old man, which is crazy because he's still running for president at the time. He's running for reelection. Well, then remember everybody at the time said the media said that the prosecutor is lying. Right. Because if we, if that was sharp as attack, sharp as attack. My favorite is Joe Scarborough. This is the best Biden intellectually, the best one ever seen like dude. Yes.
好的，但他怎么能掌握大权？你在说什么鬼话？没错，我们知道他有罪，但我们从未定他的罪，因为陪审团会说他是一个年迈糊涂的老人，这很荒谬，因为他那时还在竞选总统连任。而且，记得当时大家都说媒体称检察官在撒谎。对，因为如果他头脑清晰得像把尖锥，我最喜欢的是乔·斯卡伯勒。他说这是见过的最聪明的拜登，真是绝了。对。
And then meanwhile he had to go to Mar-a-Lago and kiss the ring. Yes. Exactly. Exactly. Exactly. My favorite was the, remember the about earlier this year was the invention of the term cheap fake. Cheap fake. Cheap fake. Because everybody's worried about the AI deep fake, which really didn't, and there was really nothing, nothing happened to that. And so the cheap fake we learned is a video that just simply shows you something. Right. Right. It's claimed to be out of context, but it actually turns out that it's actually just telling you the truth. It didn't, Nancy Pelosi start using that one cheap fake.
然后与此同时，他不得不去海湖庄园，以表示忠诚。是的，没错，没错，没错。我最喜欢的事情之一是，记得今年早些时候发明了一个术语叫做“廉价假货”。“廉价假货”。“廉价假货”。因为大家都在担心人工智能的深度伪造，但实际上并没有什么大事情发生。所以我们了解到“廉价假货”就是一个仅仅展示某些内容的视频。对，它被声称为断章取义，但实际上它只是告诉你真相。南希·佩洛西不是开始使用那个“廉价假货”吗？
Yeah. Exactly. Because the theory was it was going to be clips out of context. Yeah. But it turned out there were clips in context. Have you seen, there's a gentleman who made a video here. I'll send it to you Jamie because I sent Duncan. It's pretty fucking crazy of what AI is capable of now by, come on, on my phone updated. You son of a bitch. Come on. Don't make me go to fucking Android because I will. This guy did this insane video where it's all completely AI and everything he did, including his voice. It's here. I'll set it to you Jamie. It's 100% AI generated.
好的。确实是这样的。因为理论上来说，这应该是断章取义的一些片段。但结果发现这些片段是有上下文的。你看过吗？这里有位先生做了一个视频。我会发给你，Jamie，因为我已经发给Duncan了。这真的很疯狂，看看现在的AI能做些什么。拜托，我的手机该更新了。你这个该死的东西。拜托，别让我换成安卓，因为我会这样做的。这个人做了一个全靠AI生成的视频，包括他的声音。我会发给你，Jamie。这个视频是100%由AI生成的。
And it's so hard to believe because it's so good. And it really puts you in this when you're talking about cheap fake, I just sent it to you, Jim. Cheap fakes and deep fakes. Let's put the headphones on to watch this because it's so crazy. We're at that moment where you cannot tell. Right. And let's look at this one because it's pretty extraordinary. This is the best version that I've seen so far. This is completely AI. I can lapse to speak like me. One of our companies. Oh, okay. Any text. And it will sound like me. Then I trained a agent with a video of mine.
很难相信这是真的，因为它太逼真了。在谈论廉价造假时，我刚才把它发给你了，Jim。廉价造假和深度造假。我们最好戴上耳机来看这个，因为实在是太不可思议了。我们已经到了无法分辨真假时刻。对，再看看这个，因为它真的很特别。这是我目前看到的最好的版本。这完全是由人工智能生成的。我可以让一个程序模拟我的说话方式。我们的其中一家公司支持这种技术。哦，任何文本都可以使声音听起来像我。然后我用我的一个视频来训练了一个代理人。
I input the audio file to generate a video based on my text. The video you are watching right now is the result 100% generated in AI. What do you think of that? Guys, I know this might sound crazy. How crazy is that? Oh, that's your company? That's him. Oh, that's him. Yeah, yeah, yeah. That's the AI generator. Yeah, yeah, that's right. That's right. That's right. So that's two companies. But yeah, no, that's right. That's not. Yeah, yeah. Well, this is part of the first internet election. Probably the first internet election will be the one that has this kind of thing actually in it where people get tricked.
我将音频文件输入到系统中，根据我的文字生成了一个视频。你现在看到的视频完全是由AI生成的。你觉得怎么样？大家，我知道这可能听起来很疯狂。有多疯狂呢？哦，那是你的公司吗？那是他。哦，没错，就是他。对，对，就是AI生成器。没错，没错，对，是对的。对，就是这样。所以这是两家公司。但是，是的，不，那不是。哦，对，对。那么这可能是第一次在互联网上进行的选举，其中可能有这样的技术，可能会有人因此而被误导。
Why didn't they do that with common hairs? It turns out they would have done an amazing job. Like really knocked it out of the park with a solid speech. They didn't. Just have her say it on the internet. Yes. Just have a bunch of viral videos of her speaking so eloquently and perfectly. One would think exactly. That's the fear of the future, right? Yeah, yeah. And so like I think that's going to be the kind of thing that's going to happen. In terms of like the dirty tricks side. I think that, you know, that will be a part of it, right? Yeah. There's always some way to try to try to game these things. Just have the most brilliant writers formulate, you know, get AI to do it.
为什么他们不这样对待普通的头发呢？结果证明，如果他们这样做，会有惊人的效果。就像真的能精彩地完成一场坚实的演讲一样。可他们没有。他们只是让她在网上说。是的。只是让她发布一系列她讲话流利完美的病毒式视频。正如人们所想的那样。这不正是对未来的一种恐惧吗？嗯，是的。所以我认为这类事情可能会发生。在所谓的"肮脏手段"方面，我想这也会是其中的一部分吧。总有办法可以试着操控这些事情。让最优秀的作家来撰写内容，或者让AI来完成。
Like you're saying AI has all these solutions to things that are super logical. Yeah. And well, there's no like weird thinking in it. So, you know, cut all the fat out. So I think we have a theory on how to fix this. And the theory basically is we're going to have to switch our sense of what's real from basically just trying to eyeball it and figure out whether it's real to only taking seriously the things that we know are real. And the way that we would know things are real is we'll have them registered on the blockchain.
就像你在说人工智能有这些逻辑性很强的解决方案一样。对，没有那种奇怪的思维方式，所以呢，把所有多余的东西都去掉。所以我认为我们有一个修复这个问题的理论。这个理论基本上就是我们需要改变对真实事物的认知，从用肉眼判断和猜测事物是否真实，转变为只认真对待我们知道真实的东西。而我们知道某件事情是真实的方式就是将其注册在区块链上。
Right. And so I think the way this is going to work in the future is every politician will have an account on a blockchain service, like a crypto service. And then every politician, whenever they say anything in public, whenever they're, you know, going to have people around them with cameras all the time, whenever they put out a statement, they're going to cryptographically sign it on the blockchain so that it can be validated that it is actually content from them. And then I think we're just going to have to reach an understanding that we're just going to have to write off everything else that we see. Which frankly is a good idea anyway, because there just is a lot of noise, you know, in the environment.
好的，我认为未来的运作方式可能是每位政客都会在区块链服务上有一个账号，比如加密服务。然后每当政客在公共场合发言，无论何时他们被摄像机围绕或发布声明时，他们都会在区块链上进行加密签名，以验证这确实是他们的内容。这样一来，我们需要达成共识，即要忽略其他看到的所有信息。坦率地说，这本来就是个好主意，因为环境中有太多噪音信息。
How would you integrate that with social media though? Because one of the issues is these low information voters that are getting information either from clickbait headlines on these websites where they don't even read the actual paragraph of the mic, which might be completely different than the headline itself. The headline is just inflammatory. And then viral videos. Like how would you.
你会如何将其与社交媒体结合呢？因为问题之一是这些低信息量的选民，他们从点击诱导性标题的网站获取信息，却不去读那些可能与标题完全不同的文章内容。标题只是起到煽动作用。还有那些病毒式传播的视频。所以你会怎么做呢？
So, so the thing is, so that's already happening even pre AI, right? And so I would say that's a pre-existing problem. And so like we can't, you know, we can't. And by the way, that's been happening for a long time. Like newspapers have been scandal sheets forever. If you go back hundreds of, if you go back hundreds of years for the first newspapers, they were running all kinds of Skrilace. The first newspaper was a scandal sheet of the Vatican. Like in real, you're 1500. It was all these like terrible rumors about like the Pope and the bishops and all these cardinals and all the stuff that was the first newspaper.
所以，这个问题在人工智能出现之前就已经存在了，对吧？我会说这是一个已经存在的问题。其实，这种情况已经持续很长时间了。报纸一直以来都像是八卦小报。如果你回溯几百年的历史，看看最早的报纸，它们都在刊登各种小报新闻。世界上第一份报纸其实是梵蒂冈的丑闻小报。大约在1500年左右，它充斥着关于教皇、主教和一些枢机主教的各种恶劣传闻，那就是第一份报纸。
That was the very first newspaper was in the Vatican. And then the American, all the American colonial newspapers were like that in the revolutionary era. It was all crazy rumors and innuendo and people accusing each other of. There was a famous election in 1800, which was Jefferson versus Adams that we think of as these like super upstanding, you know, upright people. And they're just like smearing the crap out of each other in their respective newspapers. Right? Because they would actually own newspapers in those days. And then they would just like attack each other.
这是第一份报纸出现在梵蒂冈的时候。然后，在革命时期，美国所有的殖民地报纸都是这样的，充满了各种疯狂的谣言和暗示，人们互相指责。在1800年，有一次著名的选举，杰斐逊对阵亚当斯。我们通常认为他们是非常正派的人，但实际上他们各自在自己的报纸里大肆攻击对方。因为在那时候，他们自己拥有报纸，然后就在上面互相攻击。
And more things change. Ben Franklin, Ben Franklin, Ben Franklin, you know, printed newspapers before he became a, became when a government and he created 15 different sock puppets. He created 15 different and pseudonym. He was a suit, a non. And then he would basically have them argue with each other in his newspaper without telling people that it was all him. Oh, Ben. So he had all these different personalities. And so like we've been in a world of like information warfare for a very long time. We've been in a world of sensationalists, you know, nightly news.
事情不断变化。很久以前，本·富兰克林在成为政府官员之前印刷过报纸。他创造了15个不同的“化名”，这些不同的身份常常在他的报纸上相互争论，而读者们并不知道这些其实都是富兰克林一人自导自演的。哦，本。这样一来，他就塑造了各种不同的个性。事实上，我们早已生活在一个信息战的世界中，一个充满耸人听闻的夜间新闻的世界。
If it was a if it bleeds, it leads, you know, sensationalist stuff for a long time. We've been in the world of like propaganda for a long time. So, so that, you know, that you're not going to that you're never going to make that go away. But isn't it funny that we don't think of the past like that? Oh, yeah. We just assume the in virtuous and we assume they had it all figured out. Yeah. That very much is not true. There's all kinds of crazy, crazy banana stuff.
如果过去一直都是那种“流血的新闻更吸引人”这种哗众取宠的东西，我们其实在这样的宣传环境中生活了很久。你不可能让这种情况消失。但是有趣的是，我们居然没有以这样的方式看待过去。是的，我们总是假设过去的人很有道德，并且已经把一切搞定。然而这完全不是真的，过去也有各种疯狂荒诞的事情。
My favorite is in the Vietnam War, what was the, it was the, the Gulf of Tonkin that sort of kicked off the sort of big escalation of being like, we now know for a fact, it didn't happen. Right. The whole thing just didn't happen. And now there's this big debate about like, did they know it didn't happen? Or did, you know, did they fake it? But like, so there's always been stuff like that in history. And that we can't fix and AI will be a new way to do that kind of thing.
我最感兴趣的是越南战争中，有个事情，比如说，是北部湾事件，引发了一场大规模的战争升级。我们现在了解到，那件事情根本没有发生。整个事件根本就不存在。现在有一个大的辩论，是关于他们当时是否知道它没有发生，或者他们是否伪造了这个事件。历史上总是有这样的事情，而我们无法改变这一点，而人工智能将成为进行这类事情的新方式。
But what we can do is we can reorient people to say, okay, now you're going to have to like take seriously, this stuff is real. And if you want to actually know what's happening, this stuff is real and we can prove that it's real. And if it's not, it's entertainment and you can choose to believe it or not. Right. But you should not rely on it. And look, it's not going to be perfect and it's going to take time. But there is, there is a way to address this.
我们可以做的是引导大家重新认识：好，现在你们得认真对待，这些东西是事实。如果你想真正了解发生了什么，这些东西确实是事实，我们可以证明它是真的。如果不是，那就是娱乐，你可以选择信或不信。但是，你不应该依赖它。要知道，这不会是完美的，需要时间，但确实有办法可以解决这个问题。
Okay. So that would be the solution to deep fakes, the block chain. Yeah, you flip it. You flip it. Yeah. That's logical. Yeah. That actually just makes sense. So that actually kind of gives me hope. I do generally have hope, even though I look at the pessimistic side of things, I'm generally optimistic because my real feeling about human beings is most people are good. I genuinely believe there's far more good people in the world than bad people. There's far more people that just want to live a good life and have a good time and enjoy themselves than there are people who are tyrants.
好的，所以解决深度伪造问题的办法是区块链。是的，你可以这样转换思路。确实是合乎逻辑的，这确实是有道理的。这让我有点希望。即使我常常看到事情悲观的一面，我总体上还是乐观的，因为我对人类的真实看法是，大多数人都是善良的。我真心相信，世界上善良的人远多于坏人。想要过上美好生活、享受生活的人远远多于那些暴君。
Yeah. I'm super optimistic. I'm incredibly optimistic. I was optimistic already with flashes of pessimism, but like I'm really optimistic and especially now. So I think this is going to be, we have the real potential here for Golden Age. We really do. We really do. Yeah. The capabilities that we have and the people that we, I mean, look in my day job, I meet these young, you know, I meet these 22 year olds every day that are just like the smartest people in the world.
是的，我非常乐观。我本来就很乐观，虽然偶尔有些悲观的念头，但我现在真的非常乐观。我觉得我们真的有机会迎来一个黄金时代。我们确实有这样的潜力。我们的能力和人才，特别是我在工作中每天见到这些聪明绝顶的年轻人，让我对未来充满信心。
It's the smartest people I've ever met. I think they're getting better, by the way, as time passes. They're, by the time they're 22, they just know a lot more. They have so much more access to information than we did. Yeah. They're getting capable and ready to go and fire it up. And they know each other, able to connect online and they're already in communities and they know how to help each other. And so like, yeah, the productive and inventive creative aspect, particularly of this country is just like there's never been anything like it in the world.
这是我见过的最聪明的人。我觉得随着时间的推移，他们变得越来越优秀。到了22岁时，他们就知道了很多东西。与我们过去相比，他们有更多获取信息的途径。他们非常有能力，准备好大展身手。他们相互认识，可以在线建立联系，已经融入了不同的社区，并且懂得如何互相帮助。因此，这个国家的生产力和创新创造力，真的是前所未有的。
I think there's also the real potential for a shift in perspective, a positive, patriotic shift in perspective that can happen in this country. And if you think about what happened with the woke ideology, how it swept so quickly over the country and changed so many aspects of the way we deal with things socially, it happened so radically and so quickly and such a large change that people are susceptible to change. It's possible to enact change and a positive change in a good direction where people are optimistic about the future, which you are and I am. I mean, I think that's probably contagious. Yeah, that's right. I really do think that it's an upward spiral. It was Evan Haefer who said that thing about psychology the other day. It was one of his friend of mine who's a former Special Forces guy. He said that psychology is more contagious than the flu.
我认为在这个国家中也存在着一个转变视角的真实潜力，这是一种积极、爱国的视角转变。如果你回想一下觉醒意识形态是如何快速席卷全国并改变我们社交方式的多方面，它所带来的变化如此迅速而剧烈，说明人们很容易接受改变。因此，我们有可能实现一个积极的向好方向的转变，让人们对未来感到乐观，而你和我都是这样想的。我觉得这种乐观态度是有感染力的，没错。我真的认为这是一种向上的良性循环。正如Evan Haefer，那位我的朋友也是前特种部队的成员，前几天说过的一句话：心理学比流感更具传染性。
Right. Right. Exactly. Yes. Yeah. Yeah, I think that's right. So one of the interesting things is going to happen right now. You know, we talked a lot about Trump's victory and Republicans, but there's now a civil war that's kicked off inside the Democratic Party, which is very interesting because they lost so badly. Right. So the fact that they lost the White House and they lost the popular vote and they lost the Congress and they lost the Senate and they lost the Supreme Court. Right. Like this time it's undeniable that like the current path that they've been on is not working. Like it's your put like being an exclusionary party and kicking people out for wrong thing. Like it's not they're not going to win elections. They're not just kicking people out there, barring people from making it to the primaries, which is very undemocratic.
好的，没错，完全正确。是的，我认为这是对的。现在有一个很有趣的事情正在发生。我们之前谈了很多关于特朗普的胜利和共和党，但现在民主党内部爆发了一场内战，这很有趣，因为他们输得很惨。是的，他们失去了白宫，失去了普选，失去了国会，失去了参议院，也失去了最高法院。这一次显而易见，他们目前的路线行不通。他们变得排他，把持不同意见的人排除在外，这样是赢不了选举的。他们不仅排斥人，还阻止一些人进入初选，这非常不民主。
That's right. That's right. Yeah, exactly. We're starting with Bernie in 2016 and then right continuing. So Donna Rice's book. She documented that. Right. Right. And so like I would say the smart Democrats know that this is not a viable path. You can't have a political party that doesn't win. It doesn't make it's not it's not useful. And so there's going to have there's a civil war that's underway inside that party that's kicking off right now where they're going to have to recalibrate. Just decide what they want their future to be. And it's going to be a big decision. And the same thing happened by the way when Reagan beat Carter really badly in 80 and then had a landslide in 84. It then took Democrats 12 years right to get to Bill Clinton and actually win again.
好的，没错。是的，确实如此。我们从2016年的伯尼开始，然后继续下去。唐娜·莱斯的书记录了这些情况。没错。所以我会说聪明的民主党人知道这不是一条可行的道路。你不能拥有一个不能赢的政党，这样没有用。因此，目前这个党内正在发生一场内部分歧，他们将不得不重新调整方向，决定他们想要的未来。这将是一个重大决策。顺便说一下，当里根在1980年击败卡特并在1984年大获全胜时，也发生了同样的事情。之后，民主党花了12年的时间才在克林顿时代再次赢得胜利。
And so they have this cautionary tale of they went too far in the 60s and 70s and it took them 12 years to recover. And so if you talk to the like really smart Democrats right now, they're like, look, this can't be 12 years. That's crazy. We have to do this a lot faster, but we have to reorient and we have to get back to common sense. We have to get back to normal. We have to get back to sensible. We have to get back to moderate. We were actually playing Bill Clinton debating during the elections of, well, what year was that Jamie? I forget which was when he first ran. What year did he first run? Oh, 92. 92. 92. So it was the 92. And I was like, I vote for that guy. Yeah, exactly. You know, heartbeat. That's awesome.
他们有一个警示性的故事，就是他们在60年代和70年代走得太远了，花了12年才恢复过来。因此，如果你现在和那些非常聪明的民主党人交谈，他们会说，这不能再是12年。这太疯狂了。我们必须更快地完成这些任务，但我们需要重新调整方向，回归常识，恢复正常，恢复理智，回到中间立场。我们实际上在播放比尔·克林顿在选举期间的辩论...嗯，那是哪个年份来着？杰米，我忘了他第一次竞选的年份。哦，是92年。92年。没错，就是92年。我当时想，我会投票给那个人。没错，毫不犹豫。这太棒了。
Also, we played a clip of Hillary Clinton, Hillary Clinton where she sounded more MAGA than anybody who's MAGA today. So where she was talking about the penalties that illegal immigrants should face. They should pay a stiff fund because they came into this country illegally. And if they're a criminal, they should be jailed or kicked out of the country without question. Like all this was like so MAGA. Yeah. I was like, this is so wild to hear from Hillary in 2008. Yep. That's right. That's right. And Hillary and Joe Biden and Dianne Feinstein and all these people wanted to build a wall. Uh huh. Dianne Feinstein, our Senator in California at the time, very, you know, very left wing. She was down on the border, like the photo ops in front of the wall that was being built, like trying to take credit for it. Crazy. Yeah. And so, so yeah, so another reason for optimism is I think that they're going to be able to pull their way back. Like I think they're going to be able, I think getting, losing this bad is very motivating to be able to pull your way back and become more normal. And I think again, that would be like, I mean, how great would it be if you had two parties that actually had like sense of normal normal policies?
当然，我们还播放了一段希拉里·克林顿的录像，在那段录像中，她听起来比任何现在的MAGA（特朗普的支持者）还要偏向MAGA。她谈到非法移民应该受到的处罚，认为他们应该因为非法入境而支付巨额罚款。如果他们是罪犯，就应该毫不犹豫地被监禁或驱逐出境。当时听到希拉里的这些话，我觉得特别像MAGA的立场，而那是2008年的希拉里。没错。希拉里、乔·拜登、黛安·费恩斯坦这些人都曾支持建墙。黛安·费恩斯坦，当时加州的参议员，一个非常左翼的人，她甚至还在边境拍照，试图为正在建的墙抢功。这真是太疯狂了。所以，乐观的另一个理由是，我认为他们会有能力重新回归。我认为这次失利会激励他们想办法重回正轨，变得更正常。我再次觉得，如果两个政党都能有正常的政策，这会是多么好的一件事啊。
I mean, imagine Clinton was running up against Trump. Yes, exactly. Like he was so good. He played that speech that he gave after sister, sister soldier, it said a bunch of like very anti white things about white people. And he gave this like super eloquent, but yet compassionate speech about this, where he's very charitable about her position as being a young person and not having the best perspective on things. It was fucking brilliant. Yeah. It was brilliant. Like that's the guy. Like that's a president. Now, by modern standards, of course, he was a fascist. Yeah. Well, that's the weird thing about fascism, right? Because fascism, by definition, is almost always applied to right wing totalitarian governments. Right. But it's really kind of just adherence to the state and enforcing a doctrine and enforcing people to think and behave at very specific, which is what the left wing does.
我来翻译并简化这段话：
想象一下，如果克林顿要和特朗普竞争。是的，没错。他真的很厉害。他在一次关于Sister Souljah的演讲中表现得非常出色。Sister Souljah说了一些非常反白人的话，而克林顿在这之后发表了一场既优雅又富有同情心的演讲，他对她的立场非常宽容，认为她只是年轻，可能对事情缺乏更好的视角。那太精彩了。真的太精彩了。这才是总统该有的样子。然而，以现代标准来看，他可能会被认为是一个法西斯主义者。这很奇怪，因为法西斯主义通常用于描述极右的极权政府。但实际上，它只是指国家的严格控制，强迫人们按照特定方式思想和行为，这恰好也是左翼所做的。
And then you talk about like being pro war. Well, who's more pro war right now? Trump or the Biden administration, clearly Trump is less pro war. Really Trump wants to end the wars. Clearly Biden just allowed Ukraine to use long range missiles into Russia. Like this is, I don't know what's going on in terms of negotiations. I hear all kinds of different things. But if you looked at one side that is pushing for these wars and seems to be all in on it and the other side that's not like with the fucking polar shift is so dramatic. That's right. It's really weird.
然后你提到支持战争的问题。那么，现在谁更支持战争呢？特朗普还是拜登政府？显然，特朗普对战争的支持程度较低。实际上，特朗普想结束战争。而拜登则刚刚允许乌克兰使用远程导弹攻击俄罗斯。我不清楚谈判的具体情况，只是听到了各种不同的说法。但如果你看看一方推动这些战争的态度，另一方则反对，那种对比真的很明显。的确，这真是太奇怪了。
The free speech thing, which was always a tenant of the left wing party. It was like, you know, I mean, it was doctrine, like free speech is necessary. It's the foundation of our ability to discuss and find out what's right and what's wrong. Right. You have to be. I mean, it's the ADL. You still let fucking Nazis speak. They used to let them march. They would defend their right to do it. Right. Yeah. Because you needed to air out the idea to be to show why it was wrong. Exactly. Yeah.
言论自由曾经是左翼政党的一个基本原则。可以说，它是一种信条，认为言论自由是我们能够讨论、判断对错的基础。比如，反诽谤联盟（ADL）甚至允许纳粹发表言论，他们曾经让纳粹游行，并捍卫他们这么做的权利。因为需要公开这些观点，以展示其错误之处。
So, look, it was not that long ago when you had Democrats that were very much in favor of many of these extremely sensible positions. Yeah. Super recent. It was pretty recent. Yeah. But again, reason for after, I don't know if they're going to pull it off. They might just, they might go crazier. Like they might just go right off the cliff. Like it's certainly possible, but like it is also possible that they'll drag it back and it might happen quite quickly. And I'm hopeful and optimistic. I am as well. I think the temperature of society, like the mindset of society is so clearly moving away from that madness that they're going to have to course correct, which is just logical. There's just no way they're going to keep doing it the same way or double down. It's just not going to, it's like they're going to go the way that MSNBC, they're going to become ridiculous. Yeah. That's right. So they have to, which is good for everyone. For everyone.
所以，你看，不久之前，一些民主党人还是非常支持这些非常理智的立场的。是的，非常近期的事情。但现在，说实话，我不确定他们能否坚持下去。他们可能会变得更加疯狂，甚至可能走向极端。当然也有可能他们会回归理性，而且可能会发生得很快。我对此充满希望和乐观。我也是。我认为整个社会的氛围和思维方式，显然正在远离那种疯狂，所以他们不得不纠正航向，这是合情合理的。他们不会继续以同样的方式行事或加倍投注。这就像他们会走MSNBC的路子，变得荒谬无比。所以他们必须改变，这对所有人都好。对每个人。
One of my theories is you can separate the concepts of the United States and America. And you can be very optimistic about America and have all kinds of issues with the United States, but still be positive about America. And the difference is the United States is the formal system of the government and the politics and all the stuff we get mad about in America is the people. Right. And so you can be incredibly, as I am, incredibly bullish about the people. And then it's just a question of whether in the America part, and it's just a question of whether you can get the United States part kind of lined up to at least not prevent good things from happening and ideally help good things. Well, what are the things that you think about this administration, at least what they're proposing that would move us in that direction as opposed to the way things were going?
我的一个理论是，你可以将“美国”这个概念和“美利坚合众国”分开。你可以对“美国”充满乐观，同时对“美利坚合众国”存在各种问题，但仍然对“美国”持积极态度。区别在于，“美利坚合众国”是政府的正式制度和我们经常抱怨的政治，而“美国”则是指人民。因此，你可以对充满活力的美国人民感到非常看好，就像我一样。这就看能否让“美利坚合众国”的部分不去阻碍美好事情的发生，理想情况下还能帮助促成这些好事。那么，对于现任政府，他们至少提议了哪些政策有助于向这个方向发展，而不是回到过去的老路呢？
There's a lot of things. I mean, see, I think you got to start with the doge, the Department of Government Efficiency Yeah, that you know, Elon, it's hilarious. And it just winds up being doge. Doge, he's been pushing doge coin forever. The universe speaks. Yeah, it's just so, so many things are just so on the nose that you're like, it's a simulation reel. Yes. I mean, it has to be real. Yes, exactly. Exactly.
有很多事情。我是说，你看，我觉得你得从 "Doge" 开始，也就是政府效率部。你知道，Elon 真是太搞笑了，结果名字就叫 Doge。Doge，他一直在推广狗狗币。宇宙在发声。是的，有太多事情都如此明显，以至于你会想，这就是一种模拟现实。是的，我是说，这肯定是真的。没错，没错。
And Elon is programming it in the back room late at night in between playing. We certainly got a good position in the game and tweeting exactly. He's the number one Diablo player in the world right now, by the way. Exactly. He just got number one, which means fucking bananas, which means he has a time to do that, which means he could be the guy steering the simulation. Yeah. Yeah, so look, this goes back to what we were talking about before, like it just, it is time to carve this government back in size and scope.
埃隆在后房编程，通常是在玩游戏的间隙进行的。我们在游戏中确实占据了很好的位置，并且准确地在推特上发布了消息。顺便说一下，他现在是全球排名第一的《暗黑破坏神》玩家。没错，他刚刚拿到第一，这简直不可思议，这说明他有时间去做这些事情，也可能意味着他是那个操控模拟的人。是的，这与我们之前讨论的内容有关，现在是时候减少政府的规模和范围了。
It's time to take the overall, you know, you can talk about distribution of taxes, but it's time to take the overall tax load down. It's time to take the spending down. It's time to get the government out of the position of deciding who gets money. It's time to unleash economic growth. Elon explained that there's more agencies than there have been years of the United States. Correct. Yeah, 450 federal agencies and two new ones a year.
现在是时候整体上减少税负了。你可以讨论税收分配的问题，但现在是降低整体税负的时候，也是减少支出的时候。是时候让政府不再决定谁能得到钱，是释放经济增长潜力的时候了。Elon解释说，美国的联邦机构数量甚至超过了美国存在的年数。没错，现在有450个联邦机构，而且每年还新增两个。
And then my favorite twist is we have this thing called independent federal agencies. So for example, with this thing called the Consumer Finance Protection Bureau, CFPB, which is the sort of Elizabeth Warren's personal agency that she gets to control. And it's an independent agency that just gets to run and do whatever it wants, right? And if you read the Constitution, like there is no such thing as independent agency, and yet there it is.
然后，我最喜欢的转折是，我们有一种叫做独立联邦机构的东西。例如，有一个叫做消费者金融保护局（CFPB）的机构，这基本上是伊丽莎白·沃伦的个人机构，由她来掌控。它是一个独立的机构，可以随心所欲地运行。如果你读宪法，里面并没有提到独立机构这样的东西，但它确实存在。
What does her agency do? Whatever she wants. What does it do though? Basically, terrorized financial institutions prevent new competition, new startups that want to compete with the big banks. Really? Oh yeah. How so? Just by terrorizing anybody who tries to do anything new in financial services. Can you give me an example? You know, de-banking.
她的机构是做什么的？基本上，她想怎么做就怎么做。那具体是做什么呢？简单来说，就是恐吓金融机构，阻止新的竞争和初创公司与大银行竞争。真的吗？是的。怎么做到的？就是恐吓任何在金融服务领域尝试创新的人。能给个例子吗？比如，取消银行服务。
This is where a lot of the de-banking comes from is these agencies. So de-banking is when you as either a person or your company are literally kicked out of the banking system. Like the de-conier. Exactly. Like the de-conier, my partner, Ben's father, has been de-banked. Really? For what? For having the wrong politics. For saying unacceptable things. Under current banking regulations, okay, here's a great thing.
这就是很多"取消银行服务"现象的来源——这些机构。"取消银行服务"就是指你个人或你的公司被银行系统拒之门外。就像"取消德科尼尔"一样。确切地说，我的搭档本的父亲就被取消了银行服务。真的吗？为什么？因为他的政治观点不被接受，因为他说了不被认可的话。在现行的银行法规下，这就是一个大问题。
Under current banking regulations, after all the reforms of the last 20 years, there's now a category called a politically exposed person. PEP. And if you were a PEP, you were required by financial regulators to kick them off, to kick them out of your bank. What? Well, if you're politically on the left. That's fine. No. Because they're not politically exposed. So no one on the left gets de-banked? I have not heard of a single list.
在现行的银行法规下，经过过去20年的所有改革之后，现在有一个类别叫做“政治公众人物”，简称PEP。如果你被认定为PEP，金融监管机构会要求银行将你拒之门外，把你赶出银行。这是什么意思呢？如果你在政治上属于左翼，那就没问题。不，不是这样的，因为他们不被视为政治公众人物。所以没有人因左翼政治倾向而被银行拒绝服务吗？我还没听说过有这样的名单。
It's a bit of an ill fkitting de-banked. Can you tell me what the person that you know did, what they said that got them de-banked? Oh, well, David Hurwitz is the right wing. He's pro-Trump. He's said all kinds of things. He's been very anti-Islamic terrorism. He's been very worried about immigration, all these things. And they de-banked him for the day to day.
这段英文翻译成中文可以表达为：“有些不合常理地被取消了银行服务。你能告诉我你认识的那个人做了什么或说了什么，使他们被取消银行服务吗？哦，David Hurwitz是右翼人士，他支持特朗普，说了各种各样的话，他一直非常反对伊斯兰恐怖主义，对移民问题非常担忧。因此，他们取消了他日常的银行服务。”
So you get kicked out of your bank account. You get kicked out of the credit card transactions. By the way, you can't run. How is that legal? Well, exactly. So this is the thing. And then you go into this thing of like, well, there's no, this is where the government and the companies get intertwined. That's your fascism point, which is there's no, there's a constitutional amendment that says the government can't restrict your speech, but there's no constitutional amendment that says the government can't de-bank you. Right?
所以，你被踢出了银行账户，你的信用卡交易也被停止。而且，你还无法逃避。这样合法吗？正是如此，这就是问题所在。然后，你会发现，政府和公司之间如此密切交织，这就涉及到所谓的“法西斯主义”了。宪法修正案中规定政府不能限制你的言论自由，但并没有提到政府不能让你无法使用银行服务，对吧？
And so they, if they can't do the one thing, they do the other thing. And then they don't have to de-bank you. They just have to put pressure on the private company banks to do it. And then the private company banks do it because they're expected to. But the government gets to say we didn't do it. It was the private company that did it. And of course, Jacob and Morgan can decide who they want to have as customers. Of course, right? Is their private company. And so it's this, it's this sleight of hand that happens. So it's basically it's a privatized sanctions regime that lets bureaucrats do to American citizens the same thing that we do to Iran. Just kick you out of the financial system. And so this has been happening to all the crypto entrepreneurs in the last four years.
他们如果不能直接做到一件事，就会选择另一种方式。这样一来，他们就不需要直接取消你的银行账户，只需对私人银行施加压力即可。而那些银行会照办，因为这符合大家的预期。但政府可以说，这不是他们做的，是私人银行的决定。当然，Jacob 和 Morgan 可以挑选他们愿意接受的客户，毕竟他们是私人公司。所以，这就相当于一种戏法。本质上，这是一个私有化的制裁机制，让官僚对待美国公民的方式和我们对待伊朗的一样，把你踢出金融系统。在过去四年中，这种情况一直发生在所有加密货币创业者身上。
This has been happening a lot of the fintech entrepreneurs, anybody trying to start any kind of new banking service because they're trying to protect the big banks. And then this has been happening, by the way, also in legal fields of economic activity that they don't like. And so a lot of this started about 15 years ago with this thing called Operation Shark Point where they decided to, as marijuana started to become legal, as prostitution started to become legal and then guns, which there's always a fight about. Under the Obama administration, they started to de-bank legal marijuana businesses, escort businesses and then and then and then gun shops, just like your gun manufacturers.
这经常发生在很多金融科技企业家身上，任何想要启动新银行服务的人都会遇到这种情况，因为他们试图保护大银行。此外，这种情况也发生在他们不喜欢的合法经济活动领域。大约15年前，这种情况开始于一个名为“鲨鱼点行动”（Operation Choke Point）的项目。当时大麻开始合法化，性工作开始合法化，还有枪支，总是存在争议。在奥巴马政府时期，他们开始对合法的大麻业务、陪护业务以及枪支商店进行“去银行化”处理，就像对枪支制造商一样。
And just like you're done, you're out of the banking system. And so if you're running a medical marijuana dispensary in 2012, like you guess what? You're doing your business all in cash because you literally can't get a bank account. You can't get a visa terminal. You can't process transactions. You can't do payroll. You can't do direct deposit. You can't get insurance. Like none of that stuff is if you've been sanctioned. Right? None of that stuff is available.
就像那样，你就退出了银行系统。所以如果你在2012年经营一家医疗大麻药房，会怎样呢？你所有的业务都得用现金进行，因为你根本无法开设银行账户。你不能申请到Visa刷卡机，也无法处理交易。你没法发工资，也不能进行直接存款，甚至不能办理保险。如果你被制裁了，这些东西就统统得不到。
And then this administration extended that concept to apply it to tech founders, crypto founders, and then just generally political opponents. Yeah. So that's been like super pernicious. I wasn't aware of that. Oh, 100%. And this is called, so it was Operation Shark Point 1.0 was 15 years ago against the pot in the guns. Choke Point 2.0 is primarily against their political enemies and then to their disfavored tech startups. And it's hit the tech world. We've had like 30 founders de-banked in the last four years.
这届政府将这一概念扩展应用到科技创始人、加密货币创始人，以及更广泛的政治对手上。这种做法非常恶劣。我之前并不知道这件事。哦，绝对是的。这被称为“窒息点”行动。大约15年前的“窒息点1.0”主要针对大麻和枪支。而“窒息点2.0”则主要针对他们的政治敌人及其不受欢迎的科技初创公司。这对科技界造成了影响。在过去四年里，大约有30位创始人被取消银行账户。
Yeah, yeah, yeah. It's been a big recurring pattern. 30. This is one of the reasons why we ended up supporting Trump. We just can't live in this world. We can't live in a world where somebody starts a company that's a completely legal thing. And then they literally get sanctioned and embargoed by the United States government through a completely unaccountable. By the way, no due process. None of this is written down. There's no rules. there's no court. There's no decision process. There's no appeal. Who do you appeal to?
是的，是的，是的。这已经成为一个反复出现的模式之一。这也是我们最终支持特朗普的原因之一。我们无法生活在这样一个世界里：有人合法地创办了一家公司，但却被美国政府无端制裁和禁止。而且整个过程完全没有透明度。没有正当程序，这些制裁措施没有书面记录，没有明确的规则，没有法院审理，也没有决策过程，更没有上诉的可能。你能向谁上诉呢？
Right? Like who do you go to to get your bank account back? Right? You know, and then there's this and then there's also the civil asset forfeiture side of it, which is right the other side. And that doesn't happen to us, but that happens to people in a lot of places now who get arrested and all of a sudden, you know, the state takes their money. Yes. That happens to people that get pulled over and they have a large amount of cash. Some states, right? Or you know, there'll be there've been, you know, well publicized examples of like, you know, there was like, you know, there would be some investigation into like, you know, safe deposit boxes.
对吧？就像，当你的银行账户被锁定时，你去找谁帮你解决？对吧？然后还有民事资产没收这一面，这就是事情的另一面。虽然这不一定发生在我们身上，但在很多地方，人们被逮捕后，政府就会没收他们的钱。是的。这种情况发生在被拦下并携带大量现金的人身上。在一些州，对吧？或者，有些非常知名的例子，比如对保险箱的调查。
And the next thing, you know, the the the feds have seized all the all the contents of the state deposit safe deposit boxes and that that stuff never gets returned. And so it's it's this and this is when you know, this is when Trump says the deep state, you know, like the way we would describe it is it's it's administrative power. It's it's political power being administered, not through legislation. Right? So there's no defined law that covers this. It's not through regulation. Right? There's nothing you can you can't go sue a regulator to fix this. It's not through any kind of court judgment. It's just raw power. It's just raw administrative power. It's the government or politicians just deciding that things are going to be a certain way. And then they just apply pressure until they get it.
接下来你会发现，联邦政府已经查封了州立银行保险箱中的所有物品，而这些东西往往从未归还。然后这就是特朗普所说的“深层政府”（deep state），我们会这样描述：这是行政权力，是通过行政手段而不是立法进行的政治权力运作。简单来说，没有明确的法律来规范这种行为，也没有可以通过起诉监管机构来解决的方法，也不涉及任何法院判决。这就是赤裸裸的权力，是纯粹的行政权力。政府或政治人物只是决定事情要这样发展，然后施加压力直到他们实现目标。
So what happens to those 30 tech people that you know, start to go into a different field, like try to do something different and try to try to try to get, you know, complete up ending of your life. Yeah, complete up ending of your life and try to try to try to, yeah, try to change your life, try to get out of that, try to get away from the eye of Sauron, try to get out of whatever zone got you into this and keep applying for new bank accounts at different banks and hope that at some point a bank will say, you know, okay, you know, it's okay. We've checked in. It's now all right. Whoa.
那么，那些你认识的30个科技人员会怎样呢？如果他们开始进入不同的领域，尝试做些不同的事情，并试图彻底改变自己的生活，是的，彻底改变自己的生活，试图改变现状，试着离开某种让他们置身其中的环境，像是摆脱“索伦之眼”的监视一样，尽量脱离让他们陷入困境的区域。他们会不停地申请不同银行的新账户，希望最终某家银行会对他们说：“好了，我们已经核实过了，现在一切正常。” 哇。
But there's no so what do they do with their money? Like what happens? Do you? I mean, you go to cash. I mean, you go to cash. You can't have a yeah. So where do you put it? Under your mattress. Under your mattress. Yes, exactly. Yeah. Exactly. Exactly. Yeah. That is so insane. Yeah. So someone has $30 million in the bank and they get de-banked. Diamonds, art, you know, do you, I don't know, go overseas somewhere.
但是，如果没有银行，他们拿这些钱怎么办呢？会发生什么？我的意思是，你把钱变成现金。对，变成现金。但你不能拥有一个……所以你把钱放在哪里？放在床垫下面。没错，就放在床垫下面。是的，完全正确。这样做太疯狂了。想象一下，有人银行账户里有三千万美元，然后他们的账户被冻结。也许买钻石，艺术品，或者，我不知道，去海外某个地方。
Holy shit. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. And just like it just happens. And again, it's really, really important. There's no fingerprints. Like there's no. Right. There's no person who there's no stick above the strings. Yeah. Exactly. Right. It just happened. And we can trace it back because we understand exactly, you know, we know, we know the, we know the politicians involved and we know how the agencies work and we know how the pressure is applied and we know that the banks get phone calls and so forth.
天啊。对，对，对，对。这事就这么发生了。而且，真的非常、非常重要的是，没有留下任何痕迹，比如没有人留下任何指纹。也就是说，没有人露面，没有人直接操控事情。对，正是这样。事情就这样发生了。我们可以追溯它，因为我们知道确切的情况，我们了解涉及的政治人物，我们知道相关机构是如何运作的，我们了解施压的方式，也知道银行接到了电话之类的情况。
And so we can loosely, like we understand the flow of power as it happens. But when you're on the receiving end of this, your specific instance of it, like you can't trace it back. There's nothing you can do about it. So these, what are the instances? Like what is the company? What are they trying to do and how do they run a foul? All the crypto startups in the last basically four years. So remember the crypto thing got like really, you know, sort of everybody got excited and like NFTs and like all that stuff. Right. And just like stopped. Yeah.
翻译如下：
所以我们可以大致理解权力的流动及其发生的方式。但当你处于接收这一过程的一端时，你无法追溯它的来源，也无能为力。那么，具体的情况是什么呢？公司是谁？他们想做什么，又是如何出错的呢？基本上，在过去四年中，所有的加密货币创业公司都经历了类似的情况。还记得加密货币让大家都很兴奋，还有NFT和其他类似的东西，对吧？然后就突然停下来了。
And the reason it stopped is because basically every crypto founder, every crypto startup, they either got debunked personally and forced out of the industry or their company got debunked and so it couldn't keep operating or they got prosecuted, charged or they got threatened with being charged. This is a fun, this is a fun twist. It was a fun little twist. The, the, so the SEC sort of has been trying to kill the crypto industry under, under Biden. And this has been a big issue issue for us because we're, we're the biggest crypto crypto startup investor.
其之所以停止，是因为几乎所有的加密货币创始人和初创公司要么被揭露个人问题而被迫退出行业，要么他们的公司被揭露问题无法继续运营，或者他们被起诉、指控，甚至被威胁面临指控。这是一个有趣的小转折。美国证券交易委员会在拜登政府下，一直在试图打击加密货币行业。这对我们来说是一个大问题，因为我们是最大的加密货币初创公司投资者。
The SEC can, they can investigate you. They can subpoena you. They can prosecute you. They can do all these things. But they don't have to do any of those things to really damage you. All they have to do is they issue what's called a world's notice. And the world's notice is a notification that you may be charged at some point in the future. Like you're like on notice that you might be doing something wrong and they might be coming after you at some point in the future. Oh my God. Okay. Terrifying. Yes. The eye of Sauron is on you.
美国证监会（SEC）可以对你进行调查，他们可以传唤你，甚至可以起诉你。他们可以做到这些事情。但其实他们不需要做到这些就能对你造成损害。他们只需要发布一种叫做“Wells通知”的文件。这是一种通知，告知你可能在未来的某个时候被起诉。也就是说，他们提醒你可能做了些不当的事情，他们可能会在未来的某个时候来找你。哦天哪，这真的很可怕。就像索伦之眼在注视着你。
Now trying to be a company with a world's notice doing business with anybody else. Oh my God. Right. Try to, try to work with a big company, try to get access to a bank, try to do anything. So that's when they support DEI initiatives and they, yeah. Well, then the SEC, the SEC under Biden became a, the SEC under Biden became a direct application of exactly. So DEI, they started, they did a lot with that and then ESG, all the ESG stuff and ESG is a very malleable concept and they piled all kinds of new requirements into that.
现在，公司正努力成为一家引人注目的全球公司，与其他公司进行合作。天哪，没错。他们尝试与大公司合作，努力获得银行的支持，想要做很多事情。所以这就是他们支持多元化、公平和包容性（DEI）项目的时候。而且在拜登领导下，美国证券交易委员会（SEC）也采取了类似的措施。他们在DEI方面做了很多工作，然后在环境、社会和公司治理（ESG）上也投入了大量精力。ESG是一个非常灵活的概念，他们在这个领域加入了各种新的要求。
So through that, through this process, the SEC could basically just simply dictate what companies do with no accountability at all. Like there's no, you know, there's no over, there's no over there. Their hearings where they get yelled at, but like nothing changed. Nothing ever happened in a hearing that ever changed anything. Wow. It was just the raw application of power. Right. And so, yeah. And this is your friends. This is happened to. Oh yeah, for sure. Yeah. Well, we had, like I said, we had an employee who got de-bank because he had crypto in his job title.
因此，通过这个过程，美国证券交易委员会（SEC）基本上可以毫无责任地决定公司该做什么。就像是，没有任何监督，没有任何约束。有听证会，可能有批评声出现，但实际上什么都没有改变。在听证会上从未发生过任何改变。这就是赤裸裸的权力运用。对，没错。这也发生在你朋友身上？哦，是的，当然。就像我说的，我们有一位员工因为他在职位名称中有“加密货币”而被银行取消了账户。
Oh, he was doing crypto policy for us and his bank booted him because he, because they did, they did, they did a screen across. It's what they told us is they did a screen across their, their customer base. And anyone with crypto, because, because anybody with crypto became a politically exposed person because wow, because crypto was, was politically controversial. Right. That's so. You hear that sometimes it's like, these terms, compliance, reputation, management, tone at the top, they have these lovely sounding terms that make it sound like everybody's going to be an upstanding citizen. But what they're all code for is destroy the enemy. Like bring the hammer of God and the bank and the government or whoever or the, or the social media, bring it down and just like crush the individual with no due process.
哦，他曾经为我们负责加密政策，但他的银行把他开除了，因为他们对其所有客户进行了筛查。银行告诉我们，他们对所有客户进行了筛查，任何涉及加密货币的人都被认为是政治暴露者，因为加密货币在政治上是有争议的。你有时会听到这种说法，比如合规、声誉管理、高层态度这些听起来很美好的词汇，让人觉得每个人都会成为一个正直的公民。但实际上这些都是暗语，意思是除掉异己。就像上帝的铁锤一样，银行、政府或社交媒体无一例外地会打压个人，而不讲求任何程序正义。
And look, there's an argument in the long run that this is all unconstitutional because the constitution gives us all the right to do process and this is government pressure. Right. So like there's probably a Supreme Court case in five years that's going to find retroactively that this was all illegal. But in the moment when you're the guy who's been de-banked, I mean, and then also the potential that if you do challenge them in court and lose the repercussions to be even heavier. Exactly. Yeah. 100%. Why is it really worth your effort? Yeah. Is it worth the risk? That's right. Especially if you've already had your life upended. You ready to do it again?
翻译为中文：
看，在长远来看，有人会说这一切都是违宪的，因为宪法赋予我们所有人正当程序的权利，而这就是政府的压力。没错。所以可能五年后，最高法院会追溯性地裁定这一切都是非法的。但当下，如果你是被取消银行账户的人，那意味深刻。而且，如果你选择在法庭上挑战他们但输了，后果可能会更加严重。完全同意。因此，你真的值得费力去做吗？是值得冒这个险吗？尤其是当你的生活已经被颠覆的时候，你准备好再经历一次吗？
Yeah, that's right. When you barely built yourself back up. Yeah. So this is, and I think this is an important context where like when Elon and Vivek talk about like reducing regulation, you know, there's two ways to think about reducing regulation. It's like, oh my God, the water in there are going to get dirty and the food's going to get poisoned. Right. Now some of those regulations I think are very important. But the other way to think about it is examples like this, which is just raw government power being applied to ordinary people who are just trying to live their lives are just trying to do something legitimate. And they're just on the wrong side of something that people in power have decided. Right.
好的，当你刚刚重新振作起来。是的，所以我认为这是一个重要的背景，当埃隆和维韦克谈论减少监管时，可以从两方面来理解。一个方面是可能导致水变脏，食物被污染。我认为其中一些监管是非常重要的。但另一个角度来看，像这样的例子显示，政府的权力可能被粗暴地施加到普通人身上，而他们只是想过正常生活，做一些合法的事情，却因为权力者的决定站到了错误的一边。
Well, there's something that isn't illegal, but they don't want to be done. Exactly. Like crypto or having the wrong political points of view. Well, the trucker, you know, the other great examples, the trucker strike up in Canada was an even more direct version of this because here you had truckers physically showing up and it was something like step one was they take away your driver's license, which by the way, right? It's just somebody pressing a button on the keyboard. No more driver's license. Step two is they take away your insurance. And step three is they take away your kids. Right. And so like that was their version of this. And that was a very specific take away your kids. That was the threat at the end to the truckers and the Canada trucker strike because the trucker strike in Canada was going to jam up these cities because it was the farmers that were the truckers were very serious. They wanted to they were doing a nonviolent protest, but they wanted to stall the cities to be able to exert political pressure back back on the government. Right.
好的，有些事情虽然不违法，但他们不希望你去做。对，像加密货币或者持有不正确的政治观点。比如加拿大的卡车司机，就是一个更直接的例子。因为在加拿大的卡车司机罢工事件中，他们真实地出现了。第一步，他们会吊销你的驾照，这只是某人在键盘上按一下按钮的事情，没有驾照了。第二步，他们会取消你的保险。第三步，他们会夺走你的孩子。这就是针对卡车司机罢工的威胁，因为这些卡车司机打算阻塞城市。他们是非常认真的农民，想通过不暴力的抗议来给政府施加政治压力。
And the government was like, we'll tolerate it for a little while. And we'll take your trucker license, then we'll take your insurance and we'll take your kids. And how do they say they would take their kids? Because it's administrative power. Like you can't you can't right the theory of it. You can't let these aren't good parents if they're sitting in a truck in the middle of Calgary preventing goods and services from reaching people, right? Putting people's lives at risk. Wow. You know, child's child's seizure. Now I don't know if they actually see sees any kids, but it's just an example of there is an agency in the Canadian government just like in the US government that if they want to, they can take your kids.
政府表示，他们会暂时容忍这种情况。然后，他们会吊销你的卡车驾驶执照，取消你的保险，甚至可能带走你的孩子。他们声称可以带走孩子的理由是因为依法具有行政权力。按照他们的理论来说，那些坐在卡车上，阻碍货物和服务送达，危及他人生命的人，不是称职的父母。这真是令人震惊。关于儿童监护权的剥夺，我不知道他们是否真的采取了这样的行动，但这是一个例子，说明加拿大政府中确实存在一个类似于美国政府的部门，如果他们愿意，可以带走你的孩子。
Well they were doing de-banking there with people who donated to the trucker convoy. That's right. Which is even crazier. That's right. Not even people who were there. People who were opposed to the mandates that Trudeau's administration was imposing on people. And so they donated to these truckers. And then they got their bank accounts taken away. Which is really crazy. Yeah. And so and I and I think exactly. And I think that I think the right way to think about this is when we think about totalitarianism, we think about literally World War II. You know, we think about Nazis and jack boots with like tanks and guns and you know, beating people up and killing people. Like that's our mental and that's you might call it that hard to tell it. Right.
他们正在对那些向卡车司机车队捐款的人进行取消银行账户的做法。没错。这种行为真的很疯狂。那些被取消账户的人甚至不是参加游行的人，而是反对特鲁多政府所施加的政策的人。他们向卡车司机捐款，结果他们的银行账户被封了。这实在是太疯狂了。是的，我认为，这让我们在思考极权主义时有了新的视角。我们往往会联想到二战时期，比如纳粹、军靴、坦克和武器，以及对人的暴力和杀戮。这是我们脑海中的极权主义形象，你可以称之为传统意义上的极权主义。
That's like very clearly like violent to tell it. But there's this other version you might call soft to totalitarianism, which is just rules and power exercised arbitrarily. That just simply suppresses everything. Right. And this is to speech control and de-banking and all these other things that we've been talking about. And that is that you know, the good news is they're not coming up and like beating you up in the middle of the night. The bad news is like you are under their complete control and they can do whatever they want to you that doesn't involve physical violence, which basically includes the entire aspect of you know, every aspect of how you actually conduct your life and support your family and get an income and everything else.
这就明显是非常暴力的控制手段。但是，还有另一种版本，你可以称之为温和的极权主义，就是以武断的方式执行的规则和权力。这种方式简单来说就是压制一切。比如言论控制、取消银行账户以及我们一直在讨论的其他事情。好消息是，他们不会半夜跑来揍你。坏消息是，你完全处于他们的掌控之下，他们可以对你为所欲为，而这些手段不涉及身体暴力，却影响你生活的方方面面，比如如何经营你的生活、养家糊口和获得收入等等。
And most people aren't even aware of it. Yeah, that's right. And then you know, like these are these are individual one-off things. Most people don't have a voice. Right. You know, it's very hard to organize, you know, organize around these. And then by the way, if there's an organization that organizes to try to get these stories out, it then itself can get depressed and de-banked. Well, it happened during the COVID lockdowns, right? So the lockdown protests, you all got suppressed. Right. So you went, you know, so it's like, so the lockdown went from two weeks to across the curve to two months to two years. Right. Right. Which is like, okay, what the hell? Right.
大多数人甚至没有意识到这一点。是的，没错。你知道，这些都是个别的、一次性的事情。大多数人没有发声的机会。你知道的，这些东西很难去组织。顺便说一句，如果有一个组织试图让这些故事被公众知晓，它自己也可能会遭受打压，甚至被银行系统排除掉。 这种情况在 COVID 疫情期间的封锁中就曾发生过。封锁抗议遭到了压制。封锁从最初的两周延长到了两个月，甚至两年。对吧，这让人感到困惑和无奈。
And then there were these protests that were, there were these protests that were forming out nonviolent protests that were forming up to protest lockdowns. And you know, you could argue the issue different ways, but people have a legitimate right to protest for that just like they do for anything else. And the next thing you know is all the lockdown protests got censored, like just like, boop, gone. Right. And so at that point, like the normal process of being able to try to get redress from your government, right, for, you know, for, to force your rights to literally, for example, see your family all of a sudden, like you can't even organize a protest.
然后就出现了这些抗议活动，这些抗议活动是非暴力的，旨在抗议封锁措施。你可以从不同的角度讨论这个问题，但人们有合法的权利来为此抗议，就像他们有权为其他事情抗议一样。接着，就在你还没反应过来的时候，所有关于封锁的抗议都被审查了，就像是突然之间，砰，全没了。因此，在那种情况下，正常情况下你向政府寻求救济的途径——比如说为了坚持你的权利，见到你的家人——突然之间，你甚至不能组织抗议。
Do you, how much are you aware of what happened with the FTX crisis? Because one of the things that happened with the FTX thing was it was revealed that they were, I think they were the number two donor to the Democratic Party. Do you think that that is sort of a preemptive measure to avoid any of this debanking and, you know, be financially invested in these people so they're not going to come after you? Yeah, that was his, it was explicitly his strategy. That was Sam's, yeah, Sam's approach is Sam, Sam's approach is just pay everybody. So Sam's approach was just, I have $8 billion of customer funds that I can use for whatever I want. Right. Which was the crime. Right. And then a big part of what he used, some of it he used to like hang out with celebrities and get Tom and Giselle to endorse FTX and the Larry David commercial and all this stuff. Right. But a lot of that, something like $150 million that money went to basically just pay politicians. And a lot of that money was paid to politicians with no compliance at all with all the campaign finance regulations that the rest of us all have to comply with. And so the money was just shotgun out the door. How come they don't have to comply? Well, it was illegal. I mean, it was illegal because he was breaking the law. I mean, it was, to be clear, he was illegal.
你对FTX危机了解多少？其中一件事是，他们被揭露是民主党的第二大捐款人。你觉得这是否是一种预先的措施，以避免遭到金融排斥，并且通过财务上的投资确保自己不被追究？是的，那是山姆的策略。他的办法就是给每个人付钱。他用的资金就是价值80亿美元的客户资金，他认为可以随意使用。这就是犯罪行为。他还用其中一部分钱来和名人一起玩，比如让汤姆和吉赛尔代言FTX，以及拉里·戴维的商业广告。但其中约1.5亿美元被用来支付给政治家，完全无视所有竞选财务法规，而我们其他人都必须遵守这些规定。因此，这些资金就像霰弹枪一样分发出去。他们为什么不需要遵守法律呢？因为那是不合法的，他是在违法。
Now, a very funny thing happened, which is when he was indicted by the US government, they didn't, they ended up not charging him on campaign finance fraud. Because they'd have to give all the money back? Well, so there's two theories on it. The thing that they said was their extradition agreement with Bermuda threatened to not extradite him if they charged him on that charge, which is like super weird because you're the United number one, you're the United States of America. You can probably get the guy. Number two, did he really want to stay in a prison in Bermuda? Right. And so that was all weird. And then look, the other, there's no evidence for this, but the other theory is, yeah, the whoever are the powers that be that decide these things in DC decided to not open it. It's like the Epstein client list. Like there are certain boxes that are better not to open at least. Well, the campaign finance thing, wouldn't they have to pay it back?
现在，一个很有趣的事情发生了。当他被美国政府起诉时，他们最终没有指控他竞选财务欺诈。为什么呢？因为他们需要把所有的钱退回来？有两种理论解释这个情况。他们说是因为与百慕大的引渡协议，若对此指控起诉，则百慕大可能会拒绝引渡他。这听起来很奇怪，因为首先，你是美国，这样能抓到他吧？其次，他真的想留在百慕大的监狱吗？对吧，这都很奇怪。还有另外一个没有证据的理论就是，决定这些事情的华盛顿权力者选择不去碰它。这就像爱泼斯坦的客户名单一样，某些箱子最好不要打开。而关于竞选资金的问题，难道真的需要把钱还回去吗？
So then there's this panic, the minute one of these scandals breaks like that, there's these panic rush and all of a sudden politicians discover philanthropic causes. They can donate the money to. Right. And then, yeah, in the fullness of time, the trustees might come claw the money back. So yeah, there's, you know, it'll, it'll play out however it does. But it is, it is interesting. It is a great example of it was the shotgunning money into the system under like basically just like or nakedly breaking the law. And then it, now look, he's in prison. The other argument is he's in prison. He's in prison already, like whatever. It just would have been, you know, in other sentence, but like he did break the law and he was not actually charged on that. And that, that prosecution has not happened and probably sitting here today never will.
所以，当这样的丑闻爆出时，人们立刻陷入恐慌，政治家们突然发现了可以捐款的慈善事业。这种情况就是这样，然后，随着时间的推移，受托人可能会把钱追回。所以，这件事怎么发展都会有其过程。但这很有趣，是一个很好的例子，说明了以十分明显甚至公然违法的方式把钱投入体系中。现在，看吧，他入狱了。另一种说法是，他已经入狱了，不管怎样，他确实违反了法律，但实际上并没有因这一点被指控。如今，那起诉讼尚未发生，很可能也永远不会发生。
What's really fascinating about him is that he was right. And if they didn't come after him, he would have gotten all that money to those people. It seems like it kind of turned around, right? He didn't get him off the hook though. It didn't. No, well, he did something. He still did something illegal. He did. Yeah. Did he know it was illegal? He is in prison. I think it's really hard to get inside that guy's head. Yeah. I don't know that I can represent his mental state. He'd be a fascinating podcast guest if he was out. He flopped a very, very hard at trial. Yeah. So he, he had an explanation, but no, it's just the jury didn't buy it. What was his explanation? You know, he was, you know, that it was all the money was all being invested and he was going to give it all back. And it was all this and that, you know, it's like, and then all these complicated theories around all this effective altruism and this and that and the other thing. And the prosecution is just like it was the customer's money. It wasn't your money. Right. Clearly. Yeah. And so I, like, I don't know, like, yeah.
他真正令人着迷的地方在于他确实是对的。如果没有人追查他，他本可以把那些钱都给到那些人手里。看起来事情似乎有些反转，对吗？不过这并没有让他脱身。没有，他确实做了些非法的事情。他知道这些是违法的吗？他现在在监狱。我觉得很难真正理解这个人的内心。是的，我无法准确表达他的心理状态。如果他能出来，他会是一个很吸引人的播客嘉宾。他在审判时表现得很糟糕。他确实有一个解释，但陪审团并不接受。他的解释是什么呢？他认为那些钱全都在投资，他会把钱还回去，还有很多类似这样的复杂理论，比如有效利他主义等等。但检方的观点是：那是客户的钱，不是你的钱。显而易见，是这样的。嗯，是的，我不知道。
Well, there's also amphetamines involved, which definitely tend to skew your judgment. I mean, him and that lady were like sort of proponents of amphetamines. And they were taking, there was some anti-parkinson's drug they were taking that has a side effect of reducing your risk. Oh, dopamine agonists. Yeah. One of those. Yeah. Like re-equip. Yeah. Something like that. They were here. You have these patches. Wow. He was taking these patches. That makes you do wild shit. That also makes people gamble. Yeah. Exactly. Well, yeah. Yeah. There was a guy who won a lawsuit from Galaxo Smith Klein because he took re-equip and became a gay sex and gambling addict.
好的，这里面提到了安非他明，这种药物确实会影响一个人的判断力。我的意思是，他和那个女士好像是安非他明的支持者。他们在服用一种治疗帕金森症的药物，这种药物有降低风险的副作用。哦，是多巴胺激动剂，对，类似于Requip这样的药物。他们在使用这些贴片，天啊，他在使用这些贴片，让人做一些疯狂的事情。它也让人沉迷于赌博。对，确实是这样。有一个人因为服用了Requip药物，结果变得沉迷于同性性行为和赌博，然后起诉葛兰素史克公司并赢得了官司。
Yeah. I think they paid him the equivalent of like 500 plus thousand American dollars. I believe it was in Ireland. Yeah. Yeah. Dopamine agonists are weird. They do strange things to people. If that happened to me, I would definitely sue. That's crazy that those guys were taking those things. At least Sam was. Oh boy. What a wild fella. Yeah. M-Sam. Confirmed. He wears an M-Sam patch. What's an M-Sam patch? He's supposed to use the depression medication. Oh, his supposed use of the depression medication had kicked up some rumors.
是的，我觉得他们给他的报酬相当于50多万美元。我相信这是在爱尔兰。是的，没错。多巴胺激动剂很奇怪，它们会对人造成奇怪的影响。如果这种事情发生在我身上，我肯定会起诉。这些家伙竟然会使用这些药物，真是不可思议。至少山姆用了。哦，天哪，真是个疯狂的家伙。是的，M-Sam已被确认，他贴了一片M-Sam贴片。什么是M-Sam贴片？据说是用于治疗抑郁症的药物。他使用这种抗抑郁药物的消息激起了一些传闻。
So what is that? That's the stuff? That's the end of Parkinson's? Do you think that was- Is that a dopamine agonist? Does it say? I'm not sure. Um. I'll look it up one. Yeah. See, dopamine agonist. Yeah, Parkinson's. There we go. Yeah. Interesting. It's like related. If it's not that, it's like a related class. Interesting. How does it work? Does it say how it works? Commonly used for depression. How does it work though? There you go. Okay, it's an MAO inhibitor. Interesting. Used to treat mental depression adults. This medicine is a monoamine oxygen inhibitor. It's a different one that says it's barely. It could be the same. It could be the same. Sledgeley. Oh, okay. Yeah, that's Sledgeley. Sledgeley is also- Yeah. People take that as well as a neutropic I've heard.
这是什么东西？那个就是吗？是帕金森病的终结吗？你觉得那是——是多巴胺激动剂吗？上面有写吗？我不太确定。我查一下。看，多巴胺激动剂，是啊，跟帕金森病有关。很有意思。如果不是那个，也是一个相关类别的东西。很有意思。它是怎么工作的？有写它怎么工作吗？通常用于抑郁症。却是怎么工作呢？看到了。哦，它是一种MAO抑制剂。很有意思。用来治疗成年人精神抑郁症。这种药是一种单胺氧化酶抑制剂。另一个说法是几乎一样。可能是同一种。可能是同一种。Sledgeley。哦，对，Sledgeley。Sledgeley也是，我听说有人把它当作脑力增强药来用。
Yeah. That's what it is. So it isn't a sledgely- a sledgely- Yeah. Sledgely- Sledgely- Sledgely- Sledgely- I think it's sledgely. I'm not taking that. He was taking it as a, but not in a patch. He was taking it in a pill form and he said it was a neutropic. So monoamine oxygen inhibitor. So that's the stuff that's the active and that's what makes ayahuasca orally active. Same thing. Monoamine oxygen inhibitor along with the plant that contains dimethyl tryptamine, which is not normally orally active.
好的，就是这样。所以这不是一个传统的——不是一个传统的——是的，传统的——传统的——传统的——我认为是传统的。我不认同他的说法。他服用的是一种药丸形式，不是膏贴形式。他说这是一种神经营养剂，也就是单胺氧化酶抑制剂。这种物质是活性成分，使得亚马逊圣藤毒液在口服时有效。相似的原理，单胺氧化酶抑制剂与含有二甲基色胺的植物一起使用，通常情况下这种物质口服无效。
So this guy, if he was doing drugs and taking MAO inhibitors, he was out of his fucking mind. Guaranteed, because I know people have taken prescription grade MAO inhibitors and then taken mushrooms and literally almost never came back. Like got to the point where for weeks they were fucked up and then when they did come back, they were like, I almost lost it. Like I was almost gone gone. Like, you know, like the dude from Pink Floyd, like never coming back. Shine on you crazy diamond. You're gone. And that happens to people. So this fucking kid with billions of dollars of people's money is taking those kinds of medications and amphetamines and who knows what.
所以这个人，如果他在吸毒的同时还服用单胺氧化酶抑制剂，那他真是疯了。我可以肯定，因为我认识一些人曾服用处方级的单胺氧化酶抑制剂，然后吃了蘑菇后几乎无法恢复正常。整整几周他们都神志不清，等他们回来后，他们说，差点完全迷失自己，几乎走不出来。就像平克·弗洛伊德乐队的那个人一样，永远地迷失了，像《你这疯狂的钻石》一样消失。而这样的事情是真实发生的。所以这个有几十亿美元的人正服用这些药物，还有安非他明，以及其他不知道的东西。
Yeah. You know, he had an on staff psychiatrist who was prescribing all this stuff. Wonderful. Like Hitler. And inside that. Exactly. Once again. Once again back to Hitler. That's so crazy. What a wild boy. Yeah. Are you following the cycle of the theories that now emerging around a zimpic and psychological changes that a zimpic causes? No, but I did read that it makes your heart shrink. Well, there's some theory to that, which is very concerning. But there's there's a fair amount of evidence that it resolves alcohol addiction, certain forms of drug addiction, and gambling addictions.
好的，你知道吗，他有一个在职的精神科医生给他开这些药。太棒了，就像希特勒。是的，没错。我们又一次提到希特勒。真是太疯狂了。这家伙真是个狂野的人。你有没有关注现在围绕 “奥晶匹克” 兴起的一系列理论以及它对心理变化的影响？我没有，但我读到它可以让心脏缩小。这个理论有点令人担忧，但有相当多的证据表明它可以缓解酒精成瘾、某些形式的药物成瘾和赌博成瘾。
And the current theory is that what it does is it basically it essentially increases your self control, your self discipline and it reduces cravings. And there's a theory that this is very positive. Let's say this is true, which is what they think right now. We'll see. But that's what they think. But it's positive is the theory that, you know, if we were all like more responsible in our lives, we'd all be more successful in society. We'd go better. Yeah. Counter argument would be like responsible is only part of living. And it's only part of what makes a society work. And we also need risk taking and we need creativity and we need impulsiveness.
当前的理论认为，这种做法的基本作用是提高你的自控能力和自律性，同时减少欲望。这一理论被认为是非常积极的。假设这个理论是真的，也就是他们目前所认为的，我们拭目以待。但他们的看法是，这种积极的效果在于，如果我们都能更加负责任，我们在生活中会更成功，社会也会更好。然而，反对的观点可能会认为，负责任只是生活的一部分，也是使社会运作的一个方面。我们还需要冒险精神、创造力和冲动性。
Yes. Right. And we need variety. Yes. And maybe we're all going to get into a channel. Right. Right. And maybe we're not going to like where that where that that just by itself ends up. Yeah, you can't have everybody discipline. You have to have wild fuckers out there. Yeah. You have to have your jelly rolls of the world. You have to have crazy people. They're fun. They make things more interesting. Yeah, that's right. So it's essentially discipline in, you know, a pill form or an injectable form. Yeah. And it's so very helpful. I had to prescribe increasingly starting to prescribe it to alcoholics and apparently it's working quite well. That's crazy. Well, that brings me to Ibogaine, which is the one thing that has like the most success for people with addictions. And it's illegal in this country. People go down to Mexico and go to these Ibogaine retreats. Apparently I haven't done it, but it's apparently this insane introspective journey that's very uncomfortable and it lasts about 24 hours. It's not something that's addictive in any way, shape or form.
好的。是的，我们确实需要多样性。是的，也许我们都会加入某个固定的渠道。对对。可也许我们不会喜欢那种单调的结果。是的，你不能让所有人都循规蹈矩。世界需要那些疯狂的人，他们让生活更有趣。没错。所以这就像是一种纪律药物，可能是药丸或注射剂。这非常有帮助。我发现需要开始给酒鬼们开这种药，而且效果还不错。这很奇妙。这让我联想到一种名为伊波加因的东西，它在帮助戒除成瘾方面非常成功。但在我们国家是非法的。有人会去墨西哥参加伊波加因戒疗营。我没试过，但据说这是一种非常激烈的内省之旅，持续大约24小时，而且很不舒服。这种东西本身并没有成瘾性。
Almost everyone says it's a very uncomfortable experience, but you gain unbelievable insight into what is wrong with you that makes you want to pick up heroin. Like what's going on in there that you're trying to escape? Like what is this? And it recognizes that pathway and puts a chemical stop there. It actually like stops people from having addictive cravings and rewire the way they think about things, particularly beneficial to veterans. A lot of veterans who have just seen way too much and come over and they're all fucked up and they don't have any way to straighten their brain out. And they've had tremendous benefits using that.
几乎所有人都说这是一种非常不舒服的体验，但是你会获得令人惊讶的洞察力，了解到是什么问题让你想去尝试海洛因。比如你内心深处到底发生了什么让你想逃避？这到底是什么？这个过程识别了那条路径，并在化学上阻断它。它实际上可以阻止人们产生上瘾的渴望，并重新塑造他们对事情的看法，对退伍军人尤其有帮助。许多退伍军人经历过太多痛苦，回国后心理受到严重影响，没有办法理清自己的思维。使用这种方法后，他们获得了巨大的益处。
I wonder with particularly with these those ozempics and wagavii and all these different types of weight loss diabetic drugs, I wonder if there's a way to mitigate these side effects. Because when I've talked to people that think that my friend Brigham, Brigham Bueller, who runs weights too well, he's concerned about side effects of it, but he's also, he looks at people that are just morbidly obese and he's like, these people, they need some fucking help. They've gone down this terrible road. Yes, they shouldn't have done it. Yes. Okay, we all agree to that. Don't eat pie all day.
我很好奇，特别是关于这些像Ozempic和Wegovy这样的减肥糖尿病药物，我想知道是否有办法减轻这些药物的副作用。因为当我和一些人讨论这些药物时，比如我的朋友Brigham Bueller，他经营着Weights Too Well，对副作用感到担忧。但他也看到那些严重肥胖的人，他觉得这些人确实需要一些帮助，他们走上了一条糟糕的道路。是的，他们本不该这样做，大家都同意这一点，比如不该整天吃馅饼。
But if you've gotten to 500 pounds, you're probably, you're in a bad state and you could probably use some help and maybe that could get them back on track. Maybe there's a way with maybe strength training because one of the things is they lose a large percentage of muscle mass and bone density. Maybe that could be mitigated with strength training. Maybe it's one of those things like if you're going to get on an ozempic, you must lift weights three times a week, which is that might be it. I mean, if it's just losing tissue, there's certainly, that's relatively easy to fix. That's right. And by the way, there's a ton of R&D going into these drugs right now. So there's going to be many more versions of these things. I'm hopeful that we could develop something where no one can ever be obese again. That would be really interesting.
但如果你的体重已经达到500磅，你可能状况不太好，可能需要一些帮助，也许这能让你重回正轨。也许可以通过力量训练找到一种方法，因为其中一个问题是他们会失去大量肌肉质量和骨骼密度。这可能可以通过力量训练来缓解。可能这样规定更好：如果你要使用奥泽匹克（Ozempic）药物，你必须每周举重三次。如果只是丢失的组织，相对来说，修复起来比较容易。此外，目前有大量的研发投入到这些药物中，所以未来会有很多版本。我希望我们能开发出一种方法，使人们永远不再肥胖，那将会非常有趣。
I mean, maybe this is just the first steps of this, right? And then like these are crude versions of what will ultimately be a very comprehensive way of addressing an issue like that. So the other thing I'd say, so I've been down on Florida the last couple of weeks working on some of the stuff happening down there. And one of the things I learned is that the RFK is really in charge of health for the country from here, like he's really in charge working with the president. And he, for all the controversy around some of his positions, this whole, he's very serious about this.
我的意思是，也许这只是个开始，对吗？这些可能只是最终解决此类问题的粗略版本。还有一点我要说的是，过去几周我一直在佛罗里达州，参与那里的工作。其中一个我了解到的是，RFK 真的在负责国家的健康问题，他和总统一起努力。尽管他的某些立场有争议，但在这个问题上，他确实很认真。
And a lot of people, including a lot of the most qualified people I know in the field are like, yes, it is long overdue that we look at the food system and we look at all these all just whatever, to your point, the horrible track that we've been on for 40 years, which is just a complete catastrophe. And I think it's a, there's this concept in psychology called common knowledge, which is it's like, it's something that everybody knows, but yet nobody states out loud. And so it like, it's like known, but then all of a sudden there's a tipping point and all of a sudden it's not only known, but it's like obvious all of a sudden everybody agrees on it.
很多人，包括我认识的领域内最资深的一些人，都认为我们早就应该关注食品系统，以及我们过去40年来走过的那条糟糕的道路，可以说简直是一场彻底的灾难。在心理学中有一个概念叫“常识”，就是那些人人都知道但没人明确说出来的东西。虽然大家心里清楚，但没有直接表达出来。然而，突然间会有一个临界点，到了那时，不仅大家都知道，而且人人都认为这是显而易见的事情。
And this feels like one of those moments where it's like nutrition, behavioral, you know, exercise, like the path that people are on to become obese. Like, no. Like this actually needs to be addressed. Like, this is actually a profound issue. And it's, it's we're on the road to hell and like it has to get fixed and maybe it gets fixed chemically and maybe it gets fixed behaviorally or other things. Maybe the culture has to change, but like it has to get fixed. And I'm actually, I've been very encouraged that that like, I think this is not going to be a very big focus area and not just by the government, but I think also in the culture. I agree.
这感觉就像是在讨论营养、行为、锻炼等问题，就像人们走上肥胖之路一样。这个问题确实需要解决，它是一个深刻的问题。我们正在走向一个非常糟糕的局面，必须要有所改变。可能通过化学手段来解决，可能通过行为改变来解决，或者其他方式。也许文化需要改变，但无论如何，这个问题必须解决。而且我感到非常鼓舞，因为我认为这将成为一个非常重要的关注领域，不仅仅是政府重视，我觉得文化层面也会重视。我同意这个观点。
And I'm very encouraged as well. And I think as we were talking before about a sort of a shift in perspective of the country, I think a shift in perspective of the country towards that being something that you should strive towards. I think that's coming too. I think that's happening right now. One of the happiest moments for me is when I run into someone and they said they were inspired to get fit and healthy from listening to me talking about the benefits of it. And I've talked to so many people that are lost, 100 pounds, 150 pounds. They're exercising regularly. They eat healthy. It's fantastic. It's one of my favorite things when I run into people that are fans of the podcast.
我也感到非常鼓舞。我觉得，就像我们之前谈到的，国家的观念有了一定的转变，我认为这种转变正在让人们意识到健康和健身是值得追求的目标。我觉得这种变化正在发生。我最快乐的时刻之一，就是当我遇到有人时，他们告诉我，他们听了我谈论健康和健身的好处后，受到了启发，决定变得健康。我与很多人交流过，他们减掉了100磅、150磅，他们定期锻炼，饮食也更加健康。这真是太棒了。所以每次遇到喜欢我们播客的人，我都觉得特别开心。
So one of my theories on this is that part of this, what happened is something very specific happen during COVID, which is the public health people by and large looked very unhealthy. Yes. They didn't look good. Right. And so you've got these people standing up there telling everybody how they've got to do all the lockdowns and the masks and all that stuff. Yeah, Bill Gates should get jacked. That would be very helpful. He's got a lot of money. It would be extremely helpful. Get a trainer. When he writes the book and goes in the press to her to talk about public health. Stop getting the fake, get a trainer. That would be great. Yeah. By the way, it'd be great for him and his family and society. It would be very reassuring. Bill Gates had a six pack. I'd listen to him more. That, I think would be absolutely fantastic. And so it's just this thing. It's just like, well, of course, like, yes, the people who are telling us all how to live and eat ought to be healthy.
我的其中一个想法是，新冠疫情期间发生了一件非常具体的事情，就是负责公共卫生的人看起来普遍不太健康。没错，他们看起来不太好。然而，他们却站在那里告诉大家要怎么进行封锁、戴口罩等等。是的，比尔·盖茨应该好好锻炼一下。这会非常有帮助。他有很多钱，可以找个健身教练。当他写书或参加媒体活动来讨论公共卫生的时候，不要再作秀了，找个教练锻炼身体，这样会很棒。顺便说一下，这对他本人、他的家人以及整个社会都会很有利。比尔·盖茨如果有强壮的腹肌，我会更相信他。我认为那会非常棒。这就是问题所在，当然，那些告诉我们该如何生活和饮食的人理应保持健康。
Right. And if they're not like, that's where RFK comes and play. 100% he looks fantastic. Yeah, he looks great. Yeah. Supertastic. Yeah, we're taking pictures. I'm like, dude, you're jacked. We're going to put my arm on him. I'm like, you're fucking jacked, dude. Look at you. Works out all the time at Gold's Gym in Venice. There we go. The jeans on. Awesome. Works out what jeans on. That's old school. I don't get that. That's amazing. That seems weird. It seems like it gets in the way you're squats unless you're wearing like, like, origin jeans. It's got a lot of stretchy fabrics. It's got a lot of stretchy fabrics. Yeah, you have to give stretchy jeans. But even then, like, put some shorts on your fucking weirdo. Like, what are you doing, man? It's like prison.
好的。如果他们不像这样，那就是RFK出现发挥作用的时候了。 他看起来真是棒极了。 是的，他看起来很棒。 是的，超级棒。 我们在拍照时，我心想，伙计，你真是健硕。我把胳膊放在他身上，说，伙计，你真是肌肉发达，看看你自己。他一直在威尼斯的Gold's Gym锻炼。我们继续，他穿着牛仔裤。太棒了。他穿牛仔裤锻炼。这很复古。我不明白，那很神奇。看起来很奇怪。感觉牛仔裤会妨碍做深蹲，除非你穿的是那种有很多弹性面料的牛仔裤。是的，你需要有弹性的牛仔裤。但即便如此，还是穿上短裤吧，你这个怪人。在做什么呢，像监狱里一样。
You're an incredibly good. It is. It's fantastic. It is a little streak-ready. It is a little old school. You know, wearing Timbalands. Yes. Timbalands and a pair of jeans and doing your squats. It's kind of crazy. Exactly. But the promotion of health is like, I don't know how anybody could be against that. Do you want more energy? Do you want more vitality in your life? Well, you should be healthier. It's like your body's race car and you could choose if you work hard enough to jack up the horsepower. You can make better breaks. You can have a better fuel injection system. Like the whole thing can work way better. Like, all you have to do is work at it. And that is your vehicle for propelling you through this life. It'll give you more energy for creativity, more energy for your family, more energy for your hobbies, your recreations, time with your friends.
你非常出色，简直太棒了。这种风格有些复古，就像穿着Timberland靴子和牛仔裤做深蹲一样，有点疯狂。但提倡健康生活这一点，似乎没人会反对。你想要更多能量吗？你想在生活中获得更多活力吗？那你就应该更加健康。把你的身体想象成一辆赛车，如果你努力，可以提升马力、改进刹车系统、优化燃油喷射系统。所有的一切都会运转得更好。你只需要为之努力，它就会成为你在人生中前进的动力，让你在创造力、家庭生活、爱好、娱乐和朋友相处中拥有更多的精力。
You'll literally have more energy as a human, which is what we all like. Nobody likes waking up and feeling like shit. I mean, everybody's been hungover who's had a few drinks and you wake up in the morning like, what am I doing? I don't ever want to do this again. Why did I do this to my fellow? And then you can't wait for the day when you feel better. Like, you drink your electrolytes, you get your sleep, you do whatever the fuck you can. And you're like, I'll be over this soon. Oh, your head.
你会感觉到作为人类所拥有的更多能量，这正是我们大家都喜欢的。没有人喜欢早上醒来时感觉糟糕。就像每个人喝多了酒都会感到宿醉，早上醒来时会想，我在干嘛？我再也不要这样了。我为什么要这样对自己？然后你只希望能快点恢复感觉好一些。所以你会喝电解质饮料，补充睡眠，尽一切可能让自己好转。你会想着，很快就会好起来的。这就是生活状态。
And everybody likes having more energy. It's better for you. And we could promote that as a society. And this RFK junior appointment is a really big step in that direction that we've really never had before. That's right. You have to go back to like literally his uncle. Like JFK had a program like this in like 1962. Yeah. Been a long time. Well, Michelle Obama did for a bit, right? A little bit. Although that was like vegetarian, you know, getting into like vegetarian school. Oh, she's saying vegetarian. She was vegetarian, but like, well, Eric Adams, you know, the governor of New York, he's been trying to push vegetarian school lunches.
每个人都喜欢拥有更多的精力，这对你有好处。作为一个社会，我们可以推广这种理念。而任命小罗伯特·F·肯尼迪（RFK）为此角色是向前迈出的重要一步，我们之前从未有过这样的举措。没错，你得追溯到他叔叔的时代。约翰·F·肯尼迪在1962年左右推动了一个类似的项目。确实已经过去很久了。呃，米歇尔·奥巴马之前也尝试过，是吧？稍微尝试了一下。虽然那更多是提倡素食，比如在学校推行素食。哦，是的，她提倡素食。她是素食主义者，但像纽约州长埃里克·亚当斯，他一直在努力推行学校提供素食午餐。
It's like, no, that's not right. No, that's not right. It's so dumb. I can't wait until they can figure out that plants really can think and feel. Right. Because they're real close. They're real close to proving that. They've demonstrated intelligence and allocation of resources through mycelium. There's a lot of stuff that we know now about plants that we didn't know then. I think they're all conscious. I think everything's conscious. Yeah. I think we need audio recordings of the screams. Yeah. I mean, you know, the lawn is just like Armageddon. You know, the thing to play audio recordings of caterpillars, eating leaves and it changes the flavor profile of all the plants around it. Awesome. Oh, yeah. They've done this because there's a phenomenon when giraffes.
这就像，"不，这不对。不，这不对。太蠢了。我迫不及待希望他们能发现植物确实能思考和感知。对，因为他们已经非常接近于证明这一点了。他们已经通过菌丝展示了智能和资源分配。我们现在知道很多关于植物的事情是以前不知道的。我觉得它们都有意识。我觉得一切都有意识。"是的。我觉得我们需要记录植物尖叫的声音。是的，我的意思是，草坪就像世界末日。你知道，那种播放毛毛虫吃叶子声音的东西，会改变周围所有植物的味道。这真是太棒了。哦，是的，他们做到过，因为有种现象，当长颈鹿...
If giraffes are eating, if they are upwind and they're eating leaves, as the wind comes down and gets to the other acacia trees, the acacia trees will, they'll come up with this phytochemical. They produce a phytochemical that's disgusting to the giraffes and the giraffes will literally starve because they won't eat those trees. They do this somehow or another through communication. It's like they're preventing war. They're being attacked by mammals and they're like, we have to stop the attack and nature is provided then with this mechanism to do that, which is really crazy. That's amazing.
长颈鹿在吃东西时，如果长颈鹿在上风向并正在吃树叶，风会吹到其他相思树，那些相思树就会释放出一种化学物质。这种化学物质会让长颈鹿感到厌恶，长颈鹿就不会吃这些树，甚至可能因此饿肚子。相思树通过某种沟通方式达到这一效果，就像是在防止“战争”。它们受到了长颈鹿的“攻击”，于是自然而然就有了这样的防御机制来应对，这真是太神奇了！
So back to the Doge for a moment. So one of the reasons why everybody became unhealthy is because the government directly put itself into the food system and specifically high fructose corn syrup. Right. High fructose corn syrup was an artifact of government agriculture subsidies. Right. The country was good during World War II because we needed food at one time. Yeah. Right. But like by the 1970s, we were massively over producing specifically we were massively over producing corn and the corn lobby, the sort of agriculture lobby became very powerful and we have this government agency. One of the 450 government agencies is the USDA and the USDA has a dual mandate. It's to promote US agriculture, specifically things like corn and it's also to advise us on what we should eat and they also do the food pyramid. And that's why the food pyramid is upside down, right? For all those decades where we're supposed to eat carbs and not protein and fat was because literally this the agency that's responsible for promoting agriculture and then that agency it's inserted itself through laws, regulations and this kind of administrator pressure and basically said, thou shalt use high fructose corn syrup because it is a byproduct of corn as opposed to sugar. Right. And as we now know that was absolutely poisonous decision like that was like literal poison, absolutely ruinous decision, just an absolutely terrible idea. Well, Casey Means was on here and she was explaining the very mechanism by which high fructose corn syrup encourages over consumption.
回到狗狗币话题之一。每个人变得不健康的原因之一是因为政府直接介入到食品系统中，特别是高果糖玉米糖浆的使用。高果糖玉米糖浆实际上是政府农业补贴的产物。第二次世界大战期间，国家需要大量食物，因此农业生产非常繁荣。然而，到了20世纪70年代，我们尤其是玉米生产过剩，农业游说团体变得非常强大。政府设有450个机构之一的美国农业部（USDA）有双重任务：促进美国农业，尤其是像玉米这样的产品，同时也指导我们的饮食建议，他们也负责制定食物金字塔。这就是为什么食物金字塔向来强调我们应该多吃碳水化合物而不是蛋白质和脂肪。因为负责促进农业的机构通过法律、法规和行政压力强迫我们使用高果糖玉米糖浆，这是玉米的副产品，而不是糖。而我们现在知道这绝对是个有害的决定，简直就是“毒药”，是个非常糟糕的主意。Casey Means在此解释了高果糖玉米糖浆如何促进过度消费的机制。
Right. And then it's essentially like it's an evolutionary thing that like where bears would eat like a bunch of berries to get fat for the winter. It's like these high fructose corn syrup encourages you to over consume. Yeah, we were not supposed to be eating this. Right. This was not supposed to happen. It would not have to be drinking it. 100% look, yeah, 100% and so and but this would not have happened have the government not made it happen. And so it traces directly back to a government decision to do that. Now they didn't of course they didn't understand the consequences, but that's kind of the point which is they interfered without understanding the consequences. And so that's the kind of thing where you look at it and you're just like, all right, like, and then you're 40 years later and you're still doing it. Right. And then at some point you know what the consequences are and then at some point there's a question of whether they're being covered up. Right.
好的。这基本上就像一种进化现象，就像熊在冬天来临前吃很多浆果来增肥一样。高果糖玉米糖浆鼓励你过量消费。我们本不该吃这些东西的，对吧？这不应该发生，我们本不该喝这些东西。百分之百是这样的，是的，完全正确，但是这些事不会发生，如果不是因为政府的推动。事情可以直接追溯到政府的一个决策。当然，他们当时并不了解后果，但这正是问题所在，他们在不理解后果的情况下进行了干预。于是这样一种状况就好像让你觉得，好吧，然后过了40年，你仍然在重复这种事情。然后在某个时候，你知道后果是什么，再然后就会出现是否隐瞒后果的问题。
Right. And it's just like, okay, at some point this has to stop. Right. And literally they just need to stop. Like they just need to stop subsidizing corn and they need to stop forcing the food companies to do this. They just need to stop. And so this goes back to like the regulatory reform thing, which is like there's just like a tremendous amount of this that may have been good intention at one point. Yeah. But sitting here today, we're living with these horrible downstream consequences and unless somebody steps in with a hammer, none of this is going to happen.
好的。事情就是这样，总有一个时候这些行为必须停止。意思是，他们真的需要停止。他们应该停止对玉米的补贴，应该停止强迫食品公司这样做。他们必须停止。这涉及到监管改革的问题，虽然很多规定可能起初是出于好意，但现在我们正在承受这些政策带来的严重后果。除非有人果断出手加以阻止，否则这一切不会改变。
And they also have the insane amount of money that's involved because R.J. Reynolds, these tobacco companies, when they were getting sanctioned, they were getting in trouble, they decided, well, let's buy all these food companies. And so now these same companies that lied about whether or not cigarettes are addictive and cause cancer, now these same companies are pushing super unhealthy food on people, or at least selling super unhealthy food people, which I think you should be allowed to buy.
他们拥有巨额资金，这是因为R.J.雷诺兹公司和其他烟草公司在受到制裁和陷入困境时，决定购买大量食品公司。因此，那些曾经对香烟是否会上瘾和致癌撒谎的公司，现在开始向人们推广或至少销售极不健康的食品。我认为人们购买这些食品的权利应该被允许。
I think you should be allowed to buy whatever the fuck you want. I'm all for that. But I do think we should be much more aware of what's actually going on like you're saying and why this stuff is in there in the first place. Right. And then you're giving these other, you know, more delicate questions, but it's like, okay, food assistance programs for like, you know, low income people and low income children. It's like, okay, should they be, do we want little kids who have no control over this to end up on the receiving end of this food production pipeline, to be forward with government money and being 300 pounds by the time they're 18.
我认为你应该有权购买任何你想要的东西。我完全支持这一点。但我确实认为我们应该更加了解事情的真相，比如你所说的，以及这些东西为什么会出现。对吧。而且，你也提出了其他一些更微妙的问题，比如，为低收入人群和儿童提供的食物援助计划。我们真的希望那些没有选择权的小孩子在这样的食品生产链条的末端，依靠政府资助，等到18岁时体重达到300磅吗？
Right. And cheaper than other food. And cheaper than other foods because they're subsidized because they're subsidized. And so, and you just, you have this very perverse outcome where you have these government officials who have been standing up there for 40 years saying we're protecting you, we're protecting you and what's been happening is they've been poisoning us. Yeah. And stuff like it just needs to stop. And that's where you need something like the doge. So and somebody like President Trump, what would they be able to do to mitigate a lot of these issues? Like, how would they, if you want to, would you make it illegal to put high fructose corn syrup in and as an ingredient, or would you simply stop subsidizing? Like, and what would be, how would that work within the government? Like, how would you apply something like that?
好的，而且比其他食物便宜。之所以比其他食物便宜，是因为有补贴。这样就产生了一个非常不好的结果，那就是那些声称保护我们、保护我们的政府官员，其实这些年来一直在伤害我们。确实需要停止这样的行为。这时候就需要一些像狗狗币这样的东西，以及像特朗普总统这样的人来解决很多这些问题。他们会怎么做呢？比如说，你会禁止在食品中使用高果糖玉米糖浆这种成分吗，或者说你会停止补贴吗？在政府中，这样的措施该如何实施呢？
Yeah, I think there's three things you can do, two of which involve direct action and then the third is maybe even the most important. So one is you can just stop doing things that are harmful. You can stop doing things. The government can stop subsidizing bad things. That's an example. Like give you any parallel, parallel thing. If you want to clean up the universities, you need to stop feeding them student loans. Right. So, right. The government should stop paying for things that are clearly harmful. So, so that's one. And then two is look, there may be a role for additional, you know, protections or prohibitions. And so for example, maybe you let people freely buy all the Oreos they want, but maybe you can't get them with food assistance programs so that, you know, kids who have no control over it are not, are not being poisoned. And so, you know, maybe do that. But, but I always think that the third thing is culture, culture.
好的，我认为有三件事情可以做，其中两件涉及直接行动，而第三件可能是最重要的。首先，你可以停止做一些有害的事情。比如政府可以停止对不良行为的补贴。例如，如果你想改善大学环境，就需要停止向他们提供学生贷款。所以，政府不应该为明显有害的事情买单。
其次，可能需要增加一些保护措施或禁止措施。比如说，或许可以让人们自由购买他们想要的奥利奥，但可能在食品援助计划中不能提供这些产品，以防止那些无法选择的孩子们受到伤害。
然而，我始终认为第三点是文化，文化。
Like there's always a temptation with these discussions because the government's so powerful to talk about what the government does or doesn't do. And I think so much of this has to do with the culture. It's actually upstream or downstream from politics, which is like, like, what is the cultural tone of the country? What's the value system? What are the role models? Right. What are people being inspired to do? Also what form of shaming is in effect? Like what are we not going to tolerate? Take the perverse fat studies? Like, are we going to glorify obesity, right? Right. No. No. And that's not necessarily a legal judgment or a court case, but it's a cultural statement. And if the, and it's not that the government plays, should control the culture, but our leaders certainly play a big role in that. Yeah. And so, in both in and outside of government. So for our leaders to step up at a moment like this and basically say, yeah, no, this is not the kind of culture we're going to have. It's not the kind of society we're going to have. It's not what kids should, you know, be looking up to.
在这样的讨论中，我们常常会被吸引去谈论政府的作为或不作为，因为政府的权力很大。但我认为，这很大程度上与文化有关。其实文化是政治的上游或下游，也就是说，一个国家的文化氛围是什么？价值体系是什么？榜样是谁？对吧。人们受到什么启发去做什么？还，有什么样的羞耻机制在发挥作用？我们不容忍什么？比如，我们会美化肥胖这种现象吗？不会的。这不是一个法律上的判断或法庭案件，而是一种文化宣言。而政府并不应该控制文化，但我们的领导者无疑在这方面有重要作用，对，在政府内外。所以我们的领导人在这种时候应该挺身而出，明确表示: 我们不想要这样的文化，不想要这样的社会，这不是孩子们应该效仿的榜样。
I think, I think is just as powerful as the actual government actions. It's interesting you say in the kind of shaming, because I don't want to shame anybody for being fat, but boy, does that work. Maybe you should shame, maybe you should shame parents if their kids are fat. Yeah. Right. The problem is, and maybe there's so many people that are ignorant as to what exactly is going on. Oh, of course. And that's, it's like absolutely required. And they're being fed bullshit. 100%. But again, it's also cultural, which is like, okay, is the media thing. Is the media educating people on this? And if the mainstream media is not doing it right, should there be new media sources that are? Yeah. And then therefore, which sources in the media get respect? Right. And so we have this giant collective culture question that we get to, we all get to ask an answer, and particularly those of us in a position to be able to send messages that a lot of people hear. So that will help. That will help move the needle. But what specifically can RFK Jr. do once he actually gets in? Oh, yeah. I mean, there's. Oh, yeah. He was. He was. He was. He was. He was. He was. He was a secretary of HSHS. He has very broad, you know, I would say, a very broad ability to look at this holistically inside the government. What kind of pushback is there going to be against that? Like, that seems like a wild amount of money is going to be lost. Yeah. So there's. So there's. There's a kind of in parallel with that, and there will be some convergence between those. And, you know, there's the. We'll see. There's the potential here for quite dramatic action on a lot of these fronts. Did you imagine if you're running an agency and you have to have a meeting with Vivek and Elon? Yes. And you got to open your books? Yes. Yes. It's like off the space where they brought in the bobs for console. Yes. What do you do here? Exactly. That's exactly what it's like. Is there a meme like that? I think there's a meme where they take those guys and they put Elon and Vivek's heads on them. Yes.
我认为“想法”与政府的实际行动一样具有影响力。你提到羞辱的方法很有趣，因为我并不想因为人们肥胖而羞辱他们，但天哪，这确实有效。也许你应该羞辱那些孩子肥胖的父母。对，对。问题在于，有太多的人对究竟发生了什么一无所知。当然，这种情况绝对需要关注。他们被灌输了一些虚假的信息，毫无疑问。但这也涉及文化问题，比如媒体是否在教育人们这个问题。如果主流媒体没有正确引导，是否应该有新的媒体来源来承担这个责任？然后，哪些媒体来源能赢得公众的尊重呢？因此，我们有一个巨大的、集体的文化问题，大家都可以提出和回答，尤其是那些有能力传达影响广泛信息的人。这将有助于推动变化。但是，一旦RFK Jr.真的上台后，他能具体做些什么呢？哦，是的，我的意思是，他曾担任美国卫生与公共服务部部长，他有能力在政府内部全面地审视这个问题。但是，针对他的行动会有怎样的反弹呢？因为这样的行动似乎会导致巨额资金的损失。是的，这与此并行发展，并且在某些方面会有所交集。我们可以预见在很多方面可能会采取相当激进的行动。你能想象管理一个机构时需要和Vivek以及Elon开会吗？必须查看你的账目？就像电影《上班一条虫》里面带着Bob去公司咨询一样。你在这里到底负责什么？确实是这么回事。是不是有一个这样的表情包呢？我想有一个表情包把Elon和Vivek的头像放到那些人的身上。
So there was another key timeline split that happened in Silicon Valley about two years ago. Actually, two and a half years ago when Elon was actually right before he took over Twitter, where he got in an email fight with the CEO of Twitter at the time, who's actually a guy who's a friend of mine who's a really good guy. But it literally. This guy had just been promoted from engineering to run the company, and then like a month later he ends up trying to deal with the Elon situation. So kind of got a little bit sandbagged on it. But yes. Of course he said Elon Musk says he re-washed off of space to prepare for doge. Of course he did. Of course he did. Fucking psycho. Exactly. God, we're so lucky that guy's around. Exactly.
大约两年前，硅谷发生了另一个重要的时间节点分裂。准确地说，是在大约两年半前，当时埃隆·马斯克刚好在接手推特前夕，与当时推特的CEO通过邮件发生了争执。这位CEO是我的朋友，是一个不错的人。他刚从工程职位升任为公司负责人，但一个月后，就不得不处理与埃隆相关的问题，所以他有些措手不及。不过，是的，埃隆·马斯克当然声称他重新洗牌是在为狗狗币做准备。毫无疑问，是这样的。简直是个疯子。没错。天哪，我们真是很幸运有这个人在身边。没错。
So there was this moment in the Twitter takeover where Elon sends his email and he says, and the line is, what did you get done this week? Whoa. What did you get done this week? And in the context of Silicon Valley companies, that was a provocative statement because a lot of Silicon Valley companies take months or years to do anything. But imagine that statement being applied to the government. Oh my God. Right. Like the level of like accelerated like, okay, what are the problems? How are we going to fix them and what have you gotten done this week? Yeah. You think debanking upended some lives? Yes. Exactly. So yes. What have you done this week? And by the way, when Elon runs this guy, it's actually interesting. A guy just tweeted or posted or is eated. But it's like to work for Elon at his AI company, X AI. And he said, Elon came in last week and he said, Elon spent 18 hours at the office and in five minute chunks. And it was every five, each person had a five minute speaking slot to explain to Elon what they were doing. Wow. And he did that for, you know, five times, whatever, right? Oh, for 18 hours. Jesus Christ. And so think about what that meant. Every employee had an opportunity to tell the big boss what they were working on. Every employee had an opportunity to be recognized for their effort. Every employee had an opportunity to get live feedback from the big boss who had a comprehensive overview of everything as to what they should be doing. Whoa. And there's no place to hide. Whoa. Right. And think about different it is for a company to be run that way. Right. And even again, the Valley companies generally are quite well run by sort of business standards and even that, like that's the level of intensity that most Valley companies aren't even close to.
所以在埃隆·马斯克接管推特的过程中，有这样一个时刻——他发出了一封邮件，里面有一句话是：“你这周完成了什么？” 哇，你这周完成了什么？在硅谷的公司背景下，这是一个挑衅性的说法，因为很多硅谷公司常常需要几个月甚至几年来完成某件事情。但想象一下，如果这个问题应用到政府身上。天哪。对，那个加速的程度，比如说：问题是什么？我们打算如何解决？这周你做了什么？是的。你认为取消银行服务颠覆了一些人的生活吗？是的，没错。所以，是的，你这周做了什么？顺便说一下，当埃隆管理这家公司的时候，事情真的很有趣。有一个人发推特或者发帖子表达了想在他的AI公司X AI工作的愿望。他说，埃隆上周来了，他在办公室里待了18个小时，每个人都有5分钟的时间向埃隆说明自己在做什么。哇。他这么做，总共做了18个小时。天哪。想想这意味着什么。每个员工都有机会告诉大老板他们在做什么。每个员工都有机会因为他们的努力而得到认可。每个员工都有机会从全面了解所有事情的大老板那里获得即时反馈，了解他们应该做什么。哇。没有任何隐藏的地方。哇。想一想，这种管理方式对公司来说有多么不同。即使硅谷的公司通常被认为根据商业标准来说运营得相当不错，即便如此，大多数硅谷公司甚至都无法接近这种强度。
Now, imagine that applied to government. To government. And it's just, and again, this is the kind of thing. There's no law that, like there's no reason it can't be done. There's no law that prevents that. There's nothing in the Constitution that says you can't do that. It's a choice. How the government is run is a choice on the part of the executive branch of the president for how it's going to get run. And there's no reason why the government can't literally be run this way.
现在，想象一下这种情况应用于政府。用于政府。再次强调，这是那种事情。没有法律像那样规定这种事情不可以做。没有法律阻止它。宪法中没有任何内容说你不能这样做。这是一个选择。政府如何运作是总统的行政部门选择如何运作的结果。没有理由说政府不能以这种方式运作。
And here's what's crazy. The pushback against even the concept of this by leftists. So leftists defending bureaucratic bloat and big government is wild to watch. Right. And they shouldn't be doing, which is a weird thing to have wedged themselves into. My hope is they'll figure out how weird this is. Do you think it's like just an ideological thing? Like the right wants this. So we oppose it. I think the left thinks they control the government. Like I think 50 years ago, they would have been on the other side of this issue. Like no Mchopsky 50 years ago, of course, would have been on the other side of this. He would have viewed government power as an extension of like the state and big business intertwined. And you have these just term manufacturing of consent, whereas like government and business are conspiring against you.
这段话的大意是这样的：令人感到奇怪的是，一些左派人士甚至反对这个概念本身。看到左派为官僚主义膨胀和大政府辩护是相当不可思议的。他们不应该这样做，这让人感觉他们自己把自己陷入了一个很奇怪的境地。我希望他们能意识到这件事情有多么奇怪。你认为这只是意识形态的问题吗？就好像因为右派支持这个，所以我们左派就反对。我觉得左派认为他们能控制政府。大概50年前，他们可能在这个问题上持相反立场。像诺姆·乔姆斯基这样的学者，50年前肯定会站在另一边。他会认为政府权力是国家与大企业相互交织的延伸。这种情况下，政府和商业好像是在合谋对抗普通人。
Yeah. And I think the other side of this, but I think today's leftists think they control the government, which in many ways they do. Well, so Washington DC voted 94% for Kabul, 6% for Trump. Right. And so, okay. So two data points that is data point number one, data point number two, four of the 10 wealthiest counties in the country are suburbs of Washington DC. Wow. Lobbyists.
是的，我认为事情的另一面是，今天的左派认为他们掌控着政府，在很多方面确实如此。华盛顿特区94%的人投票支持拜登，只有6%的人支持特朗普。好吧，这就是数据点之一。数据点之二是，美国10个最富裕的县中有4个位于华盛顿特区的郊区。哇，这与说客有关系。
Lobbyists. Yeah. They call beltway bandits. Yeah. That's a crazy job. It's the actual term. These aren't people working for the government. These are people making money from the government. Right. These are people sponging off the government. And so, like, yeah, to the extent the Democrats have wedged themselves into a position where they're defending this, they really shouldn't. They should really rethink this. They should figure out how to get back to the correct mentality on this that they used to have. No, if there's less government blow, then there's less tax dollars. You don't need as much money to fund these things. There's like people can be taxed less.
说客，对吧。有人称他们为“环城大道强盗”。这工作挺奇怪的。这其实是个专业术语。他们不是政府雇员，而是从政府那里赚钱的人。可以说，他们是靠政府发财的人。所以，如果民主党在某种程度上把自己置于要为这种现象辩护的位置上，那就不太好了。他们应该重新考虑这个问题，应该找回他们曾经对待这个问题的正确态度。毕竟，如果政府开支减少，所需的税收就会减少，人们的税负压力也会减轻。
There can be more allegiaion of these funds towards the social programs that we all want. You know, most federal workers never came back to work. Really? Yeah. They work from home. Most. Most. Yeah. Very large percentage. Something like half just literally just never came back. Whoa. They still, by the way, still drop paycheck. They're still on their jobs, but literally they're not in the office.
对于我们都希望的社会项目，可以有更多的资金分配。你知道吗，大多数联邦工作人员从未重返工作岗位。真的吗？是的。他们在家工作。大多数。大多数。是的，一个非常大的比例。差不多一半的人真的从未回到办公室。哇。顺便说一句，他们仍然领着工资，他们仍然有工作，只是实际上不在办公室。
Or in some cases, they have an agreement where there's one agency, by the way, but there's one agency where there's the worthy. There's, okay, here's another great thing. There are agencies of the federal government whose workforces are both civil servants, civil civil civil service protections and unionized. Attractively paid for by the taxpayer, but they both have civil service protections, which by the way are totally made up. There's no concept in the constitution of civil service protections. It's just like totally made up thing. And they're unionized.
有时候，他们之间达成了一种协议，比如说，有一个机构，这里值得一提的是，有一个机构存在。这就是另一个很好的例子。有些联邦政府机构的员工既是公务员，也享有公务员保护，同时他们也是工会成员。他们的薪水由纳税人支付，而且他们都享有公务员保护。然而，这种所谓的公务员保护完全是人为的，宪法中没有这样的概念。这个保护机制是人为设定的，并且这些员工也是工会成员。
And then there's a particular agency that I know of where the union agreement, the union negotiated the return of the office from COVID and the agreement was you have to be in the office one day a month. Whoa. And actually, the pattern now is what they do is the employees come in on the last day of the month and the first day of the following month. So they only have to be there for two days. For two months. Out of 60 days. That's crazy.
我知道有一个特定的机构，他们的工会谈判达成协议，从COVID疫情后返回办公室，协议的要求是每个月只需要在办公室待一天。哇。实际上，现在的模式是员工在每个月的最后一天和下个月的第一天来办公室。所以实际上，他们只需要在两个月内的60天中来两天。这真是疯了。
As a consequence, many of them have actually left the area, right? Because they get their government paycheck, which is calibrated for living there. And then they go live someplace nice, someplace nice, but they go live in the Ozarks or something where it's cost of living is cheaper and they have a bigger house. And in theory, they're working from home, but like, is it actually happening? And this is, again, this is the dose. One of the things that the doge they've already announced, the thing they've said is you can work from home just not for the federal government.
因此，他们中的许多人实际上已经离开了这个地区，对吧？因为他们领取的政府工资是根据在当地生活定制的。然后他们搬到一个更宜居的地方，比如奥扎克等成本较低的地方生活，并拥有更大的房子。理论上，他们是在家工作，但实际上是否真是这样呢？而且，这又是一个关键点。某些管理层已经宣布了，他们表示你可以在家工作，但不能为联邦政府工作。
Oh, right. Yeah. And so when people are talking about like, is the doge going to be able to do anything? Like it's just, okay, there's 50% of the federal workforce. Right. And it's, you know, and as a taxpayer, how do you feel about that? And you know, to your point on paying taxes, like if those people are in the office and they're dynamos of activity and they're making the country better. Right. Fair enough. Of course. But if they're kicking it at home, right? Maybe not. Yeah, maybe not. And that's the how much oversight has there been on whether or not they've been kicking it? Excellent question.
哦，对。是的。所以当人们在谈论，比如说，狗狗币（doge）是否能发挥作用时，就像是，好吧，占联邦员工的50%。对吧。作为纳税人，你对此有何感想？对于你关于缴税的看法，如果这些人在办公室里精力充沛地工作，使国家变得更好，那当然是好的，没问题。但如果他们在家里闲着，可能就不那么好了。是的，也许不是。关于他们是否真的在家闲着，有多少监督呢？这是个很好的问题。
Yeah. Now it turns out there are ways, there are actually, there are ways to figure this out. So for example, for many jobs where you have to log in to be able to get access, like to email, you can actually, in like, often you have VPNs to get into the corporate network. You can actually audit and you can see who's been working. And then there's a, do you know about mouse wigglers? Yes. Yes. Programs. No, actually physical. Oh, they have physical mouse wigglers now. Physical mouse wigglers. And so it's a physical device that holds your mouse and then on a intermittently wiggles it. And a friend of mine who runs a big tech company, he just had like a nagging feeling in the back of his head that maybe all of his remote workers weren't pulling their weight. And so he actually wrote himself on a weekend algorithm to inspect all the mouse movements of all employees for a week. And then, and then he bought all 50 mouse wigglers from China that you can buy. And he fingerprinted them all and he found that he had like a whole bunch of employees who were using mouse wigglers. Wow. Right. And so how many federal employees are using mouse wigglers? Right. So how crazy is that? That's how they can measure whether or not you're active. Yeah. Whether your mouse is moving. Yeah. Like what are they, what are they seeing? Just a pattern of movement of the mouse. That's it? Well, the mouse, the mouse wigglers move in a way that you can fingerprint. So is this like, do you agree to a certain amount of disclosure of your personal information while you're working? Like how do you get access to mouse wiggles? Oh, so it's very common. So in corporate environments, it's very common that your company issued computer has some kind of software on it that lets the company control the software and gives them, gives the company some level of visibility into what you're doing. And it doesn't mean, it doesn't mean they're watching, literally washing you. But it means that they have the ability to kind of reach in and be able to, you know, how much is the computer on? Wow. Is the mouse moving. And so that's actually a reasonably common thing. I heard the most ridiculous argument against this. They're like, what are you going to do with all those employees that get fired? Like, what are you going to do with all those people who are stealing hubcaps? They're making a living steal. What are you going to do if you make hubcaps stealing illegal? Like, what are you talking about? They're essentially stealing tax dollars. If they really are doing something that's totally useless and we're wasting enormous amounts of money on this every year, the argument that what are you going to do if those people can't do that anymore is really crazy.
是的，现在看来确实有办法可以弄清楚这些事情。比如说，很多需要登录访问的工作，比如电子邮件，你实际上可以使用VPN进入公司网络，进行审计并查看谁在工作。你知道鼠标摇动器吗？是的，程序？不，其实是实物的。哦，现在有实体的鼠标摇动器，是一个实体设备，它固定住你的鼠标，然后间歇性地摇动它。我有一个在大科技公司工作的朋友，他总觉得他的远程员工可能没有全心全力工作。因此，他周末亲自写了一个算法，检查所有员工一周的鼠标活动。然后，他从中国购买了50个鼠标摇动器，并对它们进行了指纹识别，发现有一大批员工在使用鼠标摇动器。哇。那么，有多少联邦雇员在用鼠标摇动器呢？对吧，这真是疯狂！这就是他们检测你是否活跃的方法，看看你的鼠标是否在动。那他们能看到什么呢？只是看到一个鼠标移动的模式，就这样？其实鼠标摇动器的移动方式是可以被识别出来的。那么这是否意味着你在工作时同意某种个人信息的披露呢？你是怎么得到鼠标活动数据的？哦，在公司环境中，这很常见。公司发给你的电脑通常装有某种软件，让公司能够控制软件，并让公司对你的工作有一定的可见性。这并不意味着他们在实际监视你，但他们有能力查看，比如电脑开了多久，鼠标是否在动。这其实是一个相当普遍的现象。我听到过一个最荒谬的反对理由，他们说：你要如何处理那些被解雇的员工呢？就像是，你会怎么处理那些偷轮毂盖的人呢？他们靠偷窃为生。你如果不允许偷轮毂盖，那该如何是好呢？这是什么逻辑呢？他们实质上是在偷税款。如果这些人真的在做完全无用的事情，并且我们每年在这上面浪费了大量资金，那么说这些人不能这样做了的反对理由简直太荒谬了。
Yeah. Well, the answer is they can do something productive. Yeah. And if people are more than capable, you don't have to infantilize someone to say, like, this is the only thing they're capable of doing. Exactly. They've worked for the government for 20 years. This is all they can do. Yeah. And then, by the way, there's multiple knock on, a positive knock on the facts. If you can cut government spending, there's multiple knock on the facts. So one is if you cut the spending, you can cut the taxes and you can just simply, the private economy then just simply has more money because it hasn't been taken. And so if there's less public spend, there will be more private spend. Right. Right. Because the money reallicates. And so there might be just as much demand in the economy as just coming from people choosing to buy things instead of the government forcing it. So that's number one. Number two, you can bring down government debt, which means you can bring down government interest. And the government today, the federal government today pays more interest than we pay for the Department of Defense. Right. But how much of that is salary? No, no, that's just interest on the debt. Right. That's just interest on the old debt. Okay.
好，答案是他们可以从事一些有生产力的事情。如果一个人完全有能力去做事情，你不必把他看得过于简单化，好像他只能做这件事一样。比如，他们在政府部门工作了20年，这就是他们唯一能做的吗？其实，如果削减政府开支，会带来多个积极的连锁反应。首先，如果减少开支，就可以降低税收，这样私营经济就会有更多资金，因为这些钱没有被政府收走。减少公共开支意味着私营经济中的消费会相应增加，因为资金会重新配置，所以可能会有同样多的市场需求，只不过需求来自于人们自愿购买商品，而不是政府的强制需求。其次，削减开支还可以降低政府债务，从而减少政府的利息支出。目前，联邦政府支付的利息比我们支付给国防部的还多。你可能会问有多少是用于工资的？不，不，这只是借债的利息，是旧债的利息支出。
Paragraph 1:
We pay like 1.2 billion a year right now, I think is the latest number, which is just interest on debt. It's not paying for any good or service. It's just interest on debt. But again, what percentage of that is the GDP? Of the GDP? Well, so the total government spending is on the order of 7 trillion. Interest payments are like 1.2 trillion, something like that. 1.2 trillion a year. I think that's the current number. DoD is 800 billion a year. So 1.2 trillion. Just off the top. Yeah, just off the top. And again, nobody's benefiting from that. It's just interest payments. That's bananas. Right. And total GDP is like, I don't have any room for that. I don't know. It's 20, 30, 40 trillion. It's much larger than that. But like still.
我们现在每年大概支付12亿美元，这应该是最新的数字，这笔钱只是用来支付债务的利息。它并没有用于任何商品或服务，只是债务的利息。那么，这在GDP中占多大比例呢？政府总支出大约是7万亿美元，而利息支出大概是1.2万亿美元，每年大约是这个数。我想这是当前的数字。国防部每年需支出8000亿美元。所以1.2万亿美元就这样没了。是的，就这样没了。而且再强调一次，没有人从中受益，这只是利息支出。真是疯狂。而总GDP是多少，我这里没地方计算，不清楚，也许是20万亿、30万亿、40万亿，它远高于这个数字。不过，就这样。
Paragraph 1:
It's It's It's enough. This is a lot of money. And the total accumulated debt is 35 trillion. And the total accumulated debt is 35 trillion. And it adds another trillion of accumulated debt every 100 days. Yes. Oh my god, it hurts my head. There's a congressman, actually, Thomas Massey. You should have. So he's the one guy in Washington who talks about this. And he's one of the only libertarians. And he's an MIT engineer. And he actually designed himself a pocket lapel pen calculator of the government debt. And he wears it every day. So he walks around with this scroll. He walks with a little scrolling LED display. Oh my god. On his lapel. And it literally counts. It counts the debt. And it's accurate. It's pulling data from the US Treasury. And it's actually an accurate count. And so it's like 34 trillion, 35 trillion, 36 trillion. Here's the kicker. At the current pace of the compounding, it'll cross the debt will cross 100 trillion in the foreseeable future. So he's already working on the redesign, because he needs a bigger device with a bigger screen to be able to display the bigger number. How much anxiety do you get standing around him? Looking at the thing. That's his goal. Because otherwise, the status quo in Washington has just let this happen. And so anyway, so another way you benefit is reduction of interest.
这是太多了。这是一大笔钱。总累积债务已经达到35万亿美元，而且每100天又增加一万亿的债务。天哪，真让人头疼。其实，有位国会议员，叫托马斯·马西。你应该了解他。他是华盛顿唯一谈论这件事的人之一，并且是为数不多的自由意志主义者之一。他还是麻省理工学院的工程师。他自己设计了一支用于计算政府债务的口袋翻领笔，并每天佩戴。他随身携带这个小型LED显示屏，在他的翻领上滚动显示债务金额，并且数据准确无误，是从美国财政部实时提取的。目前债务为34万亿、35万亿、36万亿。而且按照现有的复利增长速度，债务在不远的将来会超过100万亿美元。因此，他已经在重新设计一个更大的装置，以便显示更大的数字。站在他身边，看着这个装置，你会有多焦虑。这就是他的目的。因为否则，华盛顿的现状就是任由其发展。不管怎样，另一种你会得益的方式是减少利息。
Paragraph 2:
And then another way you benefit is reduction of interest rates. If you bring down the amount of debt in the economy, you bring down interest rates. And then everybody else who buys things, when you go to buy for a house, your mortgage is cheaper. So anybody who ever borrows money in the real economy, then therefore is better off. This is the argument against it being only good for wealthy people. It's good for everybody. Yeah, it's good for anybody who ever gets car loan, home loan, small business loan. You want to bring down interest rates. But this fundamental discussion of it, like the argument particularly from the left, is that all these tax cuts, deregulation, all this, all this is going to do is make Trump supporters and Trump's people wealthier. And it's going to ruin the middle class and ruin the lower, everyone else is going to suffer. So just observationally, almost all the rich people in our society are for common.
第二段：另一个好处是利率下降。如果你减少经济中的债务量，利率就会下降。这样，当你去买房时，你的贷款利息就会更低。因此，所有在真实经济中借钱的人都会受益。这就是为什么说这种措施不仅对富人有利，而是对所有人都有好处的理由。无论是申请汽车贷款、住房贷款还是小企业贷款的人，都会希望利率下降。然而，这个根本性的讨论中，尤其是左派的观点认为，所有的减税和放松监管措施只会让特朗普及其支持者更富有，还会破坏中产阶级和底层人群，让其他人都受苦。从观察来看，我们社会中的大多数富人都支持普通民众。
Paragraph 1:
Right, really? Yeah, the Democratic Party, so Democrat Republican, it's what they call, it's a political scientist called top plus bottom versus middle is the configuration. So the Democratic Party is the top and the bottom versus the middle. So the top is what you might call the sort of upper middle class coastal elites. So it's everybody who went to the fancy schools, it's everybody with the fancy jobs. For sure me, I guess your grandfather didn't. Yeah. Right, but it's like, it's like, it's like, it's like high net worth, high income people with primarily knowledge working jobs. Right, so some professor, reporter, programmer, right, database expert, like author, lawyer, you know, accountant banker, like all this sort of, you know, quote, the elite jobs and all the elite degrees, by the way, who all went to the top schools and got like, you know, the elite degree.
好的，真的吗？嗯，民主党，也就是民主党和共和党，被一位政治学家称为“上下夹击中间”的配置。所以，民主党代表的是社会的上层和底层，而中间层被夹在中间。上层指的是你可以称之为中上阶层的海岸精英。这包括那些上过名牌学校和拥有高级工作的人。可以肯定地说像我自己，我猜你祖父就没有。对，对，就是这样，有高净值和高收入的人，他们主要从事知识型工作。比如教授、记者、程序员、数据库专家、作家、律师、会计师、银行家等这些所谓的“精英工作”以及拥有所有的精英学位，他们都是从顶级学校毕业并获得了精英学位。
Paragraph 2:
So that's the top. And then the bottom is what you call the clientele underclass, right? So it's the, it's the, it's the rainbow coalition, right? So it's all, it's the minority groups, right? So it's the assembly of, you know, low income, African Americans, low income Latinos, you know, dot dot dot dot all recent immigrants and so forth, right? And so that's the democratic coalition that they explicitly program against. And then Republicans in our era, Republicans are in them. It's the middle class, lower middle class, you know, it's all the people who don't have the fancy degrees and that are doing all the actual work that's basically making the country run, right?
第二段：上层是指精英阶层。那么底层就是你所说的“服务阶层的下层”对吧？这就是所谓的“彩虹联盟”。这些都是少数族裔群体，包括低收入的非裔美国人、低收入的拉美裔、以及最近移民的群体等等。这是一个民主党联盟，他们明确反对的目标。而在我们这个时代，共和党则吸引的是中产阶级和低中产阶级，是那些没有高学历但实际上让国家运转的人。
Paragraph 3:
So it's everybody from the small business owner or the restaurateur, you know, the truck drivers, truck drivers, farmers, you know, all the way, you know, garbage men and janitor, like everybody who goes to work nine to five has a job, probably probably either small business or a physical job, you know, it's sort of say labor, like real labor, like actual labor, calluses on the hands, right? Kinds of stuff. So kind of the so-called real economy, which is why right, the Republicans are concentrated in the center and the south, because that's where all those things are. And then Democrats are concentrated in New York and California and on the coast, which is where all the symbolic, you know, creative intellectual jobs are. And so the weird thing that's happened is liberalism, progressivism started speaking for the working man, right? Like 100 years ago, it spoke for the working man and now what's happened is there's been a complete reorientation where the working man has separated out.
段落3：
所以，从小企业主、餐馆老板，到卡车司机、农民，再到垃圾工和清洁工，所有从事朝九晚五工作的人，无论是小企业还是体力工作，都是所谓的“实体经济”劳动者，相当于真正的劳动力，手上长着老茧的那种。而这也是为什么共和党人在美国中部和南部更集中，因为这些地方就是这些劳动者的聚集地。而民主党人则在纽约、加利福尼亚以及沿海地区较为集中的原因，是因为那里是象征性的、创造性的、知识型工作的聚集地。奇怪的是，自由主义和进步主义在大约100年前是为工人阶层发声的，而现在却出现了一种完全的转变，工人阶层与之分离开来。
Paragraph 1: And then you saw that in this most recent election where the unions, the union leadership still for the most part endorsed Kamala, but the rank and file voted majority for Trump in a lot of cases. And the data point that I remember is the teamsters voted 70% for Trump. What do you think the motivation of all these wealthy be able to vote for Kamala Harris was? Because they feel great, because they're saving the world. It's amazing to be in charge and control society and decide who everything works and decide who's good and who's bad. And like you're elite, you get to be the elite, you get to make the elite decisions. And if you want to be in that group, you have to. You got it, you got to do this. And you feel good about yourself because you feel like what you're doing is on behalf of your, you feel like what you're doing is on behalf of your client of your clientele. It's reinforced by the echo chamber you live in. Yeah. And if you read the media, New York Times, it's just, New York Times only has two articles anymore. It's either how evil are Republicans or how innocent and helpless are poor group minorities or identity groups. And so the oppositional force, and then but we're the party of good with the Catholic. Because we're taking care of all these poor, marginalized people. So it's a very compelling, you feel great about yourself. It's just absolutely amazing. And then by the way, it just so happens that the economy is wired up in a way where you're getting paid a ton of money for not working very hard.
在最近的选举中，工会的领导层大多还是支持卡玛拉，但基层会员在很多情况下则多数投票给特朗普。我记得一个数据点是，货车司机工会有70%支持特朗普。你认为这些富有的人支持卡玛拉·哈里斯的动机是什么呢？因为他们感觉很好，因为他们认为自己在拯救世界。掌控社会、决定一切运作、评判好坏都是很棒的事。就像是，成为精英，你可以做精英的决定。如果你想成为那个群体的一员，你就得这样做。你会为自己感到自豪，因为你觉得自己做的事情是为了你的客户。你的想法在你所处的回音室中得到了强化。是的。如果你看了媒体，比如《纽约时报》，他们现在只剩下两种文章：要么是共和党有多邪恶，要么是少数族裔或身份群体多么无辜无助。而对立阵营则认为我们是善良的一方，因为我们在关心那些贫穷、边缘化的人群。所以这种感觉很有吸引力，让你对自己感觉良好，简直不可思议。再加上，碰巧经济的运作方式让你可以不花大力气就赚很多钱。
Paragraph 2: Right. And it's all great. And then you're completely isolated away from the lived experience of just normal people, which is the state that I've found myself in, where it would never even occur to you to talk to a garbage man or to somebody, you know, running a restaurant or whatever, because, but it's just like, you're not affected by the rising crime rates. Right. Because you live in a safe neighborhood. Right. And you've got to, you know, you're against the wall in the border, but you got to wall around your house. Right. Right. And so you just, you're in this bubble. And then you only ever talk to people who agree with you. Right. And then the media is constantly reinforcing it. And then you get ostracized if you disagree. And that's, and that's the wedge. Like that's the wedge. And it worked. Like, look, for a long time, for 40, 50, 60 years, it worked as a way to gain and hold political power. It's just, it's just gotten wedged in kind of this corner where it can no longer win. And so therefore it has to get reassembled.
好的。这一切都很好。但你完全脱离了普通人的生活体验，这是我发现自己的状态。在这种状态下，你甚至不会想到去和一个垃圾工人或餐馆经营者交谈，因为你不受犯罪率上升的影响。你住在一个安全的社区，你的房子周围有围墙，所以你就生活在一个泡沫里。你只跟同意你观点的人交谈，媒体不断加强这种观点，如果你不同意就会被排斥。这就是分裂，它行之有效。长达四五十年，这种方式在获取和维持政治权力方面很奏效，但如今它走到了一个无法再赢的角落，所以必须重新组装。
Paragraph 1: So for you, when you have the shift of thinking, you talk to the waiter and then the Hillary Clinton speech. And then like, how long is it before you start publicly expressing these things? And like how much of the reluctance is there?
对于你来说，当你改变思维方式时，你和服务员交谈，然后听了希拉里·克林顿的演讲。那么，从那时起，你需要多长时间才能开始公开表达这些想法？在这个过程中，有多少犹豫不决呢？
Paragraph 2: Well, so from 2016 to 2020, I was just like trying to figure out what the hell was going on. And then COVID hit. And then I was trying to figure out what the hell was going on with COVID and, you know, our business, you know, went crazy, our business caved in and had all kinds of crazy, horrible things happening. And we, you know, we have all these companies. We have hundreds of companies who are responsible for startups. And so we're working with them to try to keep them afloat and get the money and everything.
在2016年到2020年之间，我一直在努力搞清楚到底发生了什么。然后疫情突然爆发，我又开始尝试去弄明白疫情期间的状况。我们的业务经历了剧烈的波动，甚至险些崩溃，发生了许多糟糕的事情。我们负责的初创公司有上百家，所以我们努力帮助他们渡过难关，确保他们能获得资金和支持。
Paragraph 3: But really it was, I mean, really the big thing was the Biden administration just like flat out tried to kill us. Like they just came like straight at us and they came straight at our founders. And so, and they tried to kill crypto and they were on their way to trying to kill AI. I mean, they were horrible. Like they were, a second. What was the motivation to kill AI?
第三段：其实，真正让我感到震惊的是，拜登政府真的毫不掩饰地试图“扼杀”我们。他们直接对我们下手，对我们的创始人下手。他们试图扼杀加密技术，并且也在着手尝试扼杀人工智能。他们的行为太糟糕了。那么，试图扼杀人工智能的动机是什么呢？
Paragraph 4: Because they want control. I mean, they want control. They want to control, they want to control in the same way they can. So they recognize the potential of it and they want to hit it off of the path. They want to control it. They want to put it in a headlock. They don't necessarily want to stop it, but they want to make sure that they control it in the same way that they control social media in the same way that they control the press.
他们想要控制。我的意思是，他们就是想要控制。他们希望像控制其他一样去控制它。他们看到了其中的潜力，并想要抢先一步。他们想要控制住它，想要牢牢掌控。并不一定是要阻止它的发展，而是要确保像控制社交媒体和新闻媒体那样去控制它。
Paragraph 5: So how are they trying to do that? I mean, so it's the AI is to think about it as the same dynamics that cause censorship to happen on social media were also going to happen in AI. And so there's a couple steps to it. So one is you just want a small number of companies that do AI because you want to be able to put them in a headlock and control them. So you basically want to give, you basically want to have a government, you want to bless a small set of large companies with a cartel and set up a regulatory structure where those companies are intertwined with the government and then you want to prevent startups from being able to enter that cartel.
他们打算如何实现这个目标呢？我的意思是，AI的发展可以类比于社交媒体上的审查机制，这种机制也会在AI领域出现。具体来说，有几个步骤。首先，你希望只有少数公司的AI产品，因为这样可以更容易地对这些公司实施控制。基本上，你希望政府能够支持少数大型公司，与这些公司形成一个类似垄断的联盟，并建立一个与政府紧密相连的监管结构。同时，你还希望阻止初创公司加入这个联盟。
Paragraph 1: How would they do that? That's a threat to the control. So it's a concept called regulatory capture. And so the way this has happened many times for hundreds of years, this is like a very well established kind of thing in economics and politics. So suppose you're a big bank, suppose you're Jamie Dimon, you run JPMorgan Chase, like what's like the biggest possible threat of what you could possibly face? It's that there's some disruptive change that comes along that upends your entire business. You know, your Kodak, you're making a ton of money on analog film and the digital cameras come along and you get destroyed. And for the, in your obituaries, like you're the idiot, you know, who- Blockbuster video.
他们怎么做到这一点？那是对控制力的威胁。这是一个被称为"监管俘获"的概念。 在经济学和政治学中，几百年来这种现象已经是很常见的。假设你是一家大银行，比如你是杰米·戴蒙，经营着摩根大通。那么你可能面临的最大威胁是什么呢？ 就是有某种颠覆性的变化出现，彻底颠覆你的整个业务。好比你是柯达，靠胶卷赚了很多钱，结果数码相机会来让你一败涂地，最后人们在讣告中称呼你为“那个愚蠢的家伙”，比如百视达那样的公司。
Paragraph 2: Blockbuster video. Like that's the cautionary detail. Those are the ghost stories that those guys tell around a campfire at night. Right. They're just absolutely terrifying. And like business schools teach you, like that's the one thing you do not want to do. And so there's two ways to try to deal with that. One is you could try to invent the future before it happens to you, but that's hard because you're running a big company and you know, these startups are out there doing all these crazy things. And can you really do that? And it's hard and frisky and dangerous.
第2段：百视达（Blockbuster）的故事。这就像一个警告的细节。这些故事就像是那些人在篝火旁讲的鬼故事，令人毛骨悚然。商学院会告诉你，这就是你绝对不想重复的错误。所以，要应对这种情况有两种方法。一种是尽量在未来发生变化之前先创造未来，但这很困难，因为你在经营一家大公司，而那些初创公司正在做各种疯狂的事情。你能真的做到吗？这既困难，又充满风险和危险。
Paragraph 3: The other thing you can do is you can go to the government and you can basically say, okay, we would like to propose basically a trade, which is we would like the government to put up a wall of regulation. Right. We would like the government to put in place rules, right? That are potentially thousands of pages long, right? And in fact, the more the better, right? We want a very, very, very high bar for regulation for what's required to be in this business because I'm a big company. I can afford 10,000 lawyers in compliance people, right? I voluntarily put myself under basically the government thumb.
第三段：你还可以去找政府，提出一个建议，也就是希望政府建立一堵法规墙。我们希望政府制定一些规则，可能会有成千上万页的内容，越多越好。我们希望对进入这个行业的要求设置一个非常高的门槛。因为我是大公司，我能负担得起聘请一万名律师在合规事务上工作。我自愿将自己置于政府的管控之下。
Paragraph 4: But in return, the government has erected this wall of regulation such that the next startup comes along and just the next company comes along and just literally can't function. And by the way, this is literally what happened in banking. So pre 2008, pre the financial crisis, there were many different banks in the country, big, big, medium, small, and lots of new bank startups. Every year, people would just start banks, entrepreneurial banks of many, many different kinds. After the financial crisis, we have this problem called the too big to fail banks, right?
第四段：但作为交换，政府设立了一道监管壁垒，以至于接下来的初创公司乃至任何新公司几乎无法运作。顺便说一下，这正是银行业中发生的事情。在2008年金融危机之前，全国有各类银行，大中小都有，还有许多新的银行创业公司。每年，人们都会创办各种类型的新银行。然而，金融危机之后，我们遇到了所谓“太大而不能倒”的银行问题。
Paragraph 1: The banks were too big. And so there was this legislation called Dodd-Frank, which was regulatory reform for banking, which was gonna fix the too big to fail banking problem. They implemented that in 2011. I call that the big bank protection act of 2011. It was marketed as it was gonna solve the problem of the too big to fail banks. What it actually did was it made them much larger. So those banks are, those two big to fail banks, the same ones we bailed out are now much larger than they were before. The banking industry has concentrated into those banks. All the midsize banks are being shaken out, and periodically they'll go under, like our bank in Silicon Valley, Silicon Valley Bank, right? It went under, and this has been happening all across the economy.
银行规模过大，于是出台了一项名为《多德-弗兰克法案》的立法，这是为了进行银行业的监管改革，旨在解决“大而不倒”的银行问题。这个法案于2011年实施，我称之为2011年“银行保护法案”。它本被宣传为可以解决“大而不倒”银行的问题，但实际上，这些银行变得更大了。那些曾经被救助的大银行现在比以前更大，银行业因此更加集中于这些庞然大物。中型银行被逐渐淘汰，它们时不时会倒闭，比如我们的硅谷银行，硅谷银行破产了，这种情况在整个经济中屡见不鲜。
Paragraph 2: And then since Dodd-Frank, the number of new banks created in the United States has dropped to zero. Whoa. And so the banking system is being centralized basically into 10 big banks. They actually have a term, they have a great term called G-SIB, globally significant something, something bank. And so there's like 10 G-SIBs, and then basically what's gonna happen is those are gonna consolidate basically into the three big banks. And if you get D-Bank by one of the big three. You're done. You're absolutely done. Oh my God. But think about it from the other side. If you're the treasury secretary, and you want your political enemy D-bank is just a phone call, right? Which is what has been happening, which is happening under the prior regime. Wow. And again, like at that. Zero, zero new banks. Yeah, zero. Literally it was like cardiac arrest. It was like that's it for new bank chargers. And we've had companies that have tried to start new banks, and it's essentially impossible because you have to comply with the wall of regulation. You need to go hire your 10,000 compliance people and your lawyers. But you can't afford to do that because you're not big enough yet. So you can't function, like you can't exist. Like it's not, it's ruled out. By definition it's ruled out. You can't do it. It's not financially viable. Wow.
自从多德-弗兰克法案通过以来，美国新成立的银行数量降到了零。哇。这意味着银行系统基本上被集中到了10家大银行中。他们甚至有个专门的术语，叫G-SIB，指的是全球重要性银行，这种银行有大约10家。基本上，这些银行会再进一步合并成三大银行。如果你被其中之一切断服务，那你就彻底完了。天哪。但是从另一个角度看，如果你是财政部长，你想封杀你的政治对手，仅仅需要一个电话，这种情况在之前的政权下已经发生过。哇。新银行数量归零，真是令人震惊。真的就像心脏骤停一样，新银行的牌照就此冻结。有公司尝试创建新银行，但这几乎是不可能的，因为必须遵守繁杂的法规，要雇佣大量的合规人员和律师。然而，你却没有足够的资源来承担这些，因为你的规模还不够大。所以根本无法运作，根本无法存在。按定义来说，这已经被排除在外了。无法做到，这在经济上是不可行的。哇。
Paragraph 3: So that happened in banking. That's what they've been doing in social media. It's been the same. And by the way, this has happened in many other industries. By the way, this happened. The food industry is greatly consolidated. That's a lot of what's happened in that industry as well. And it's the intertwining of government and the company, right? Because at that point it's like, okay, is this a private company? Yes. It's still a private company. It has a stock price. It has a CEO. Does the CEO have to do everything that the relevant cabinet secretary tells him to do? Yes, he does. Why does he have to do that? Because if not, it's going to be investigations and subpoenas and prosecutions and proctological examinations for the rest of his life. Wow. Everything. So it's essentially what we accuse the CCP of doing in China. It's the, so if you combine banking and social media and now AI, you have basically privatized social credit score.
这段话讲述了银行业、社交媒体和其他许多行业的发展状况。它指出，这些行业经历了类似的变化，其中一个关键因素是政府与企业的紧密联系。作者提到，食品行业也发生了巨大整合，而这种现象在其他行业同样存在。企业名义上仍然是私人公司，有股票价格和首席执行官，但实际上CEO必须遵循相关政府官员的指示，否则将面临调查、传票、起诉等一系列麻烦。因此，这种情况和我们指责中国中共所做的事情本质上相似，即企业与政府的深度合作，结合银行业、社交媒体和人工智能，就像形成了一种私有化的“社会信用体系”。
Paragraph 1: Right, is where you end up with this, right? And this goes back to the trucker strike thing. You don't have to threaten to take away somebody's kids. You just like, you threaten to take away their insurance. You don't threaten to take away their insurance. It's not government insurance is being taken away. The same thing has happened in the insurance industry. It's consolidated down to a small handful of companies. They're super regulated. If the government doesn't want you to have insurance, you're not going to have insurance. And there's no constitutional right to insurance. So there's no appeal press. We're back to the banking thing. And so that happened in banking. That's been happening in tech, social media generally. It's been happening in many other sectors. And then it's happening specifically in AI. And what you have in AI is you have a set of CEOs of some of the big AI companies that want this to happen. Because again, their big threat is that we're going to fund a startup that's going to eat their lunch, right? It's going to really screw them up. So they're like, look, if we could just take the position we have and lock it in with government protection, the trade is we'll do whatever the government wants. And if you assume the government is controlled by, you know, people who want to censor and punish and cancel their political opponents, that's going to come right along with it. And so that's why when these AI systems come out, like nine times out of 10, they're tremendously politically biased.
好的，这就是你最终的结果，对吧？这还涉及到卡车司机罢工的问题。你不需要威胁要带走某人的孩子。你只需要威胁要取消他们的保险就行。其实并不会真的取消他们的保险。不是政府的保险被取消。同样的情况在保险行业也发生了。这个行业已经集中到少数几家公司，受到严格监管。如果政府不想让你有保险，你就不会有保险。而且，保险并不是宪法权利，没有上诉的途径。我们又回到了银行业的问题。这种情况在银行业、科技领域和社交媒体上都在发生，也在许多其他行业发生。现在这种情况特别体现在人工智能领域。大公司的一些人工智能公司首席执行官其实希望这种情况发生。因为他们最大的威胁是，我们会资助一个初创公司，那会对他们造成影响。所以他们想着，如果能利用现有地位再加上政府的保护，那就好办了。交易是我们会做政府希望我们做的事情。如果假设政府被那些想要审查、惩罚和取消其政治对手的人控制，那么这种情况就会伴随而来。所以，当这些人工智能系统推出时，十之八九都会有很强的政治偏见。
Paragraph 2: You can do this today. You just go out, you go into these systems today and you just like ask, you just start asking like really basic questions. Gemi-ize the best example of that, right? When they had multiracial or Nazis. The black Nazis. Yeah. Once again, we're back to the Nazis. Yes. So it turns according to Gemini, Hitler had an excellent DEI policy. Yeah. Now, in reality, he did not. And it's important to understand that in reality, he did not. But yeah, Gemini happily threw up black Nazis because it's because it's, they programmed it to be biased. He programmed it in a political direction. This is guy David Rosado who's been doing these analyses on the social media side where he shows the incidence rates of the rise of like all of the woke, like language, like in the media. And there's similar studies that have come out for the AI where there's studies that have been done that basically show the political orientation of the LLMs because you can ask them questions.
第二段：你今天就可以做到这一点。你只需出去，进入这些系统，然后开始提出一些非常基本的问题。Gemi是这方面最好的例子，对吧？他们讨论多种族或纳粹的问题。黑纳粹。是的，我们又回到纳粹了。根据Gemini的说法，希特勒曾有一项出色的多元化、公平和包容（DEI）政策。然而，实际上他并没有。理解这一点是很重要的。不过，Gemini却很乐意地给出了黑纳粹的例子，因为它被编程成有偏见的，被设定为一种政治方向。有个名叫大卫·罗萨多的人在社交媒体方面做了这些分析，他展示了媒体中使用觉醒语言的频率上升。此外，还进行了类似的研究，显示通过提问可以揭示大型语言模型（LLMs）的政治倾向。
Paragraph 1: And they'll tell you. And they're just like nine out of 10 of them are like tremendously biased. And then there's a handful that aren't. And then there's tremendous pressure. This is one of the threats from the government is is the government basically going to force our startups to come in and compliance not just with their trade rules but also with all of their, essentially, a censorship regime on AI that's exactly like the censorship regime that we had on social media. Wow, that's terrifying. Yeah, exactly. And yes. And this is my belief in what I've been trying to tell people in Washington, which is if you thought social media censorship was bad, this has the potential to be a thousand times worse. And the reason is social media is important, but at the end of the day, it's quote, just people talking to each other. AI is going to be the control layer on everything. So AI is going to be the control layer on how your kids learn at school. It's going to be the control layer on who gets loans. It's going to be the control layer on does your house open when you come to the front door. It's going to be the control layer on everything. And so if that gets wired into the political system, the way that the banks did and the way that social media did, like we are in for a very bad future. And that's a big thing that we've been trying to prevent is to keep that from happening. And the Biden administration was explicitly on that path. Like they were very clearly going for that. And it was just like crystal clear that's where it was headed. And do you feel like with a second administration, they'd be even more emboldened to acting that direction? Yes. 100%. Another Biden administration for sure. And then there was an open question around Kamala. And the open question there was just she wouldn't, as you know, she wouldn't declare if her issues positions were the same as Biden's or if they were different. Right. And so you could imagine a Kamala administration that had a very different approach, but she refused to clarify any of her positions. Right. And so we had to assume that they would be the same as Biden's, which I think is the default case.
他们会告诉你，九成的人都是非常有偏见的，只有少数人不是。而且压力巨大。这是政府的一个威胁，即政府基本上要强迫我们的初创公司不仅要符合他们的贸易规则，还要遵守他们的、实质上是和我们在社交媒体上有的那种一模一样的AI审查制度。哇，这太可怕了。是的，确实可怕。这就是我一直试图告诉华盛顿的人们的观点：如果你认为社交媒体审查已经很糟糕，那么这有可能糟糕一千倍。原因是社交媒体虽然重要，但毕竟只是人们互相交流。AI将成为一切的控制层。AI将成为孩子们在学校学习的控制层，它将决定谁能获得贷款，并将决定当你到达家门口时房子是否打开。AI将成为一切的控制层。因此，如果这样的系统像银行和社交媒体一样被政治系统接入，那我们将面临一个非常糟糕的未来。这就是我们一直努力防止的事情。拜登政府显然正走在这条路上，非常明显就是朝这个方向走。而且如果有第二届政府，他们在这方面的行动可能会更大胆吗？是的，百分之百。再来一个拜登政府肯定如此。然后关于卡玛拉的问题是她不会表明自己是否与拜登在有些立场上一致，或者是否有所不同。你可以想象一个卡玛拉领导的政府可能会采取完全不同的方法，但她拒绝澄清她的任何立场。于是我们只能假设她的立场和拜登是相同的，我认为这是默认的情况。
Paragraph 2: Now, is this a closeted sort of a perspective in Silicon Valley? Do people hide these thoughts that this administration would be bad for business? I mean, much less now than we used to. Yeah. I mean, look, you know, Elon really broke a lot of it. Elon did two things that really opened a lot of this up. One is he bought Twitter, which really gave us a place to talk about this stuff, all of us. But then also he himself, of course, started to actually express himself. And so he gave a lot of the rest of us permission structure to be able to say these things. And then look, it's like a cascade where people are like, OK, apparently you cannot talk about things. OK, I have some things to say. Yeah. Well, and then look, also just they went too far. They tightened the screws. I mean, they really came at us at the heart. And so in the heart of they come at us, like we didn't predict. When Biden won, like we didn't think it would have negative effects in our business. We thought, yeah, probably taxes will go up. But like, we'll just keep doing business. But then they did all these things, right? And it took a couple of years to figure out that this was not like a temporary thing, like this was like a concerted campaign and that they were really coming from this. Agencies specifically is involved in doing that. Oh, I mean, they have alphabet soup. But like SEC, SCC, Dreddy, Bill Crypto, very specifically FTC, you know, was thoroughly weaponized. There's something called the CFTC, which is the other part of the crypto puzzle.
段落 2：那么，这是否是一种在硅谷被隐藏的观点呢？人们是否会隐瞒这样的想法，即本届政府对商业不利呢？我想说，现在比以前要少得多。是的，看看，埃隆确实打破了很多这种禁忌。他做了两件事情，让很多人可以更公开地谈论这些问题。首先，他买下了推特，这给了我们一个讨论这些问题的平台。然后，他本人也开始真正表达自己的观点。这为我们其他人提供了一种"许可结构"，让我们可以说出这些想法。接着，这就像多米诺骨牌效应，人们意识到，可以谈论这些事了，于是大家也就敢于发声。此外，政府的某些举措实在是太过分了，给我们造成很大冲击，尤其是在我们没预料到的核心地方。当拜登上台时，我们没想到对我们的生意会有负面影响。我们以为可能税会增加，但我们会继续做生意。然而，政府采取的这些行动让我们用了几年时间才明白，这不是暂时的，而是有计划的行动，各种机构都在参与。他们的机关就像字母汤，比如说SEC（证券交易委员会）、CFTC（商品期货交易委员会）等等，尤其是FTC（联邦贸易委员会）被彻底利用了，对加密货币领域的影响特别明显。
Paragraph 1: Commodities futures, crypto, there's crypto that's a security. There's some forms of crypto that are security and the SEC regulates. There's other kinds of crypto that are a commodity that the CFTC regulates. It was the CFPB I mentioned earlier. So the Consumer Finance Protection Bureau, right, decided that they were also going to regulate AI, which they just volunteered for. And then, you know, the FAA killed the drone industry years ago. The reason why we don't have, the reason why the Chinese are winning in the drone, the drone wars is because the FAA basically made drones illegal in the US years ago. So like the FAA has been a big problem. You know, the, what is it, the F, also the FAA.
在这段文字中，作者讨论了不同类型的数字货币及其监管问题。某些加密货币被视为证券，由美国证券交易委员会（SEC）监管，而其他类型的加密货币则被视为商品，由美国商品期货交易委员会（CFTC）监管。此外，作者提到消费者金融保护局（CFPB）决定自愿参与对人工智能的监管。接着，作者批评美国联邦航空管理局（FAA），认为其几年前的法律法规导致美国无人机行业受到了严重打击，使得中国在无人机技术上取得领先。这反映出FAA在某些领域的监管问题。
Paragraph 2: When you say made drones illegal, but you can still buy drones. Like what have they done? So legally, you cannot fly a drone in the US that is beyond line of sight if you don't have a pilot's license. Wow. Which means if you're a US drone manufacturer, you have to build a system that enforces that regulation. So you have to handicap your ability. Yes. So either the US drone needs to either not fly beyond line of sight, which is not very useful, right? Or it needs to somehow validate, we only have customers that have pilot's licenses. China, there's no such restriction. And the Chinese, because we run a more open economy, the Chinese drones, you can just buy in the US and use however you want. Technically, as the user of the drone, you're out of compliance with the law, but they ignore that part. They just punish the American drone makers. Wow. And that's why Chinese own the drone market. And that's why 90% of the drones used by the US military and by US police are Chinese made drones, which again, that sounds like a terrible security risk is a very bad idea, because every Chinese drone is both a potential surveillance platform and a potential weapon. Oh, criminy.
当你说让无人机变得非法，但你仍然可以购买无人机，这到底是什么意思呢？事实上，在美国，如果没有飞行员执照，你在法律上是不能飞出视野范围的无人机的。哇，这就意味着如果你是一家美国无人机制造商，你就必须设计一个系统来执行这项法规。这实际上限制了你的能力。是的。所以，美国无人机要么不能飞出视野范围，但这样就不太有用了；要么需要确保只有拥有飞行员执照的客户才能使用。而在中国，没有这样的限制。因为我们实行更开放的经济政策，中国的无人机可以在美国被轻松购买并随意使用。在技术层面上，无人机的用户违反了法律规定，但他们无视这一点，只对美国的无人机制造商进行限制。哇，这就是为什么中国在无人机市场占主导地位的原因。这也是为什么美国军方和警察使用的无人机中有90%都是中国制造的，这听起来确实是个很大的安全隐患，因为每一架中国无人机都可能成为潜在的监视平台和武器。哎呀。
Paragraph 3: Yes. Well, I've seen the advancements in Chinese drones, in particular, the choreographed dances that they do in the sky, where they had, did you see the dragon one? Yeah. Yeah, I see if you could find that, Jamie. Chinese dragon drone displays, like one of the largest ones they ever did. It's unbelievable how much more advanced they are. Yeah. And I will tell you, the Biden administration had zero interest in addressing this, like, or worse than zero, like just, I would say absolute contempt for the idea of a US drone industry. Yeah. So let's watch this thing, so you can go full screen on that. Like, this is just a grid in the sky to get this. They're flying up together. They did one that was at night, Jamie, because they're all lit up. The video is just a little bit. Oh, OK. I can skip ahead. So imagine those with guns, Jesus Christ. Coming at you, right? Well, we get to see some of that in Ukraine. Yeah. 100%. Absolutely. Yeah. We've seen those suicide drones. Like, look at this. That dragon in the sky is drones that are all lit up. I mean, that is unbelievable. Yeah. It even has a puff of fire coming out of its mouth. Yeah. That's incredible. If they send that at a football stadium during a game with grenades on those drones, oh my god. It's carnage. Dude, don't even put that out there. Don't put that voodoo on me, Ricky Bobby. Sorry. Look at that heart in the sky with a heartbeat. Correct. This is insane.
是的，我注意到了中国无人机的发展，尤其是在天空中表演的编舞。你看过那个龙形的表演吗？对，Jamie，你能找到那个视频吗？这是他们做过的最大规模的无人机表演之一。看到这些，我真的觉得他们先进了很多。而且，我觉得拜登政府对这个问题完全不感兴趣，甚至可以说是对美国无人机行业的想法有绝对的轻视。好吧，我们来看这个视频，可以全屏观看。就像一个在天空中的网格，无人机一起飞起来。他们有一个在夜晚的表演，因为所有无人机都亮着。哦，视频有点长，可以快进。想象一下这些无人机装备上武器，那真是太恐怖了。我们在乌克兰也看到了这些自杀式无人机，确实如此，毫无疑问。那条在天空中的龙是由许多发光的无人机组成的，简直令人难以置信。它甚至还会喷出火焰，真是难以想象。如果在足球比赛中，把这些无人机带上手榴弹飞向体育场，那将是灾难性的。拜托，别这么说，别把这个诅咒说出来。抱歉，你看那颗心在天空中跳动，真疯狂。
Paragraph 1: Correct. Yes. They had a little one like that that played over the M&M concert when I was at CODA. Right. At the circuits of the Americas here, they had this giant M&M concert. There's like 100,000 people there. And then afterwards, they had drones in the sky that did little dances. Chinese drones. Hey. I bet they weren't like this, though. It didn't, wasn't it that level? I mean, that's unbelievable. Enjoy the show while you can. That's crazy. Yeah. That's a Chinese thing only. Yeah.
当然可以。有一次我在CODA的时候，他们在M&M的演唱会上展示了一个小型的无人机表演。在美国赛车场，有一个巨大的M&M演唱会，大约有十万人参加。演唱会结束后，天空中出现了无人机在空中跳舞表演，是中国制造的无人机。这样的表演真是让人难以置信，可以的话尽量去体验一下这种表演。这样的表演只有中国才有。
Paragraph 2: I don't, yeah. Look, DOD runs in these. Soldiers in the field. It's very common soldiers. Just soldiers, normal, normal ground soldiers in the field carry drones in their backpacks because they want to be able to see what's around the building or up in the roof. Yeah. And these are Chinese man drones. And every single one of them can be taken over by China and used for whatever they want. Oh my god. Anytime they want. Is the Trump administration on this? They're very, I don't know what they'll do. Yeah. It's somewhere in the priority order of the things that they're dealing. But they are, yes, they are well aware of this. And well, I mean, it's the kind of thing I would hope that would get some attention. Yeah.
我不知道，是的。看，美国国防部常常使用这些设备。前线的士兵，普通的地面士兵把无人机装在背包里，因为他们想要查看建筑物周围或屋顶上的情况。这些无人机是中国制造的，每一架都能被中国接管并用于他们的任何目的，天啊，随时都行。特朗普政府是否关注这个问题？他们非常清楚，但我不知道他们会怎么做。这在他们处理的事情中有一定的优先级。他们确实意识到了这个问题。我希望这能引起一些关注。是的。
Paragraph 3: Well, this is the big suspect to the UAP thing. Because if that's what we're seeing, we're seeing super sophisticated Chinese drones that operate on some novel propulsion system, that's not good. And that could be because they put ridiculous regulations on drone manufacturers in America. Yeah, that's right. And they got way ahead of us. Yeah, that's right. Yeah, these are bad. These are bad. These are bad. So you're just opening my eyes to this. I always had this rose colored glasses view of our society versus the Chinese society. Our society is more open. So people can innovate and come up with new startups and all these crazy ideas. Because there's so much freedom in America, they don't have to deal with the government being involved in every business. Silly me. Well, silly me. I was wrong.
第三段：好吧，这就是关于不明航空现象（UAP）的主要嫌疑。因为如果我们看到的，是使用某种新型推进系统的超级先进的中国无人机，这可不是什么好事。这可能是因为美国给无人机制造商设定了过多的限制。是的，他们远远超过了我们。是的，这很糟糕，这很糟糕。这真是让我大开眼界。我以前一直对我们的社会抱有一种过于乐观的看法，相比之下认为中国社会不如我们开放。在我们的社会中，人们可以创新，创办新企业，各种奇思妙想层出不穷。因为在美国，个人有很大的自由，不需要面对政府参与各项业务。真是天真了，我错了。
Paragraph 4: So this is my argument. When I make geopolitically in DC, which is our, if you imagine that the 21st century is going to be, let's say a contest between the US and China, the same way that in the 20th century, it was the US versus the Soviet Union. And like contest competition, cold war, maybe hot war. Like that's the basic fundamental kind of geopolitical puzzle of the 21st century. Then you want to think very clearly about the strengths and weaknesses of both yourselves and about the other side. And then as you think about how to beat the other guy, is the answer to become more like them or more like yourself? Maxium Waters made that argument when it comes to social digital scores and cryptocurrency and a centralized digital currency. She was talking about that. In order to compete with China, we have to come up with a centralized digital currency. In my view is exactly the wrong thing. Yes, I heard that. I was like, that's a terrible idea. It's exactly the wrong thing. You got to be like China to compete with China? It's exactly the wrong thing. It's exactly the wrong thing. You don't want that. Because because the China system has its problems, like they terrorize their own population directly.
这是我的观点。在华盛顿，我在地缘政治上提出这样的论点：如果你设想21世纪将会是美国和中国之间的竞争，就像20世纪是美国和苏联之间的竞争——冷战，或许还有热战——那么这就是21世纪基本的地缘政治难题。那么你需要清楚地考虑你自己的长处和短处，以及对手的长处和短处。当你思考如何战胜对方时，答案是要变得更像对方还是更像自己？马克西姆·沃特斯在谈论社交数字评分、加密货币和集中数字货币时就提出了这个观点。她认为，为了与中国竞争，我们必须推出一个集中的数字货币。而在我看来，这正是错误的做法。我听到时就想，这是个糟糕的主意，完全错误。要与中国竞争就得变得像中国一样？完全是错误的做法。你不想这样。因为中国的体制有其自身的问题，比如他们直接对自己的人民进行恐吓。
Paragraph 5: They do impose the social credit score stuff. They do all this stuff. And then by the way, here's something we have going for us, which is the Chinese system has turned on capitalism. Xi Jinping is not a capitalist. And there is a broad-based crackdown on private business in China. It's a friend of mine, one of the leading investors in China. He said, every single Chinese tech founder has either left China or wants to leave China. And they're all trying to get their money out and they're all trying to get their families out. Because it's now too dangerous to run a tech company in China because the government might just snatch you, like literally physically snatch you at any point. And you may or may not come back.
他们确实实施了社会信用评分系统，采取了各种措施。此外，我们有一点优势，那就是中国的体制已经转向反对资本主义。习近平不是一个资本主义者，中国正在全面打压私营企业。我有一个朋友，是中国的顶级投资者之一。他说，每一位中国的科技公司创始人要么已经离开中国，要么想要离开。他们都想把钱和家人转移出中国。因为在中国经营科技公司现在太危险了，政府可能会随时抓捕你，真的会在身体上抓捕，而且你可能不会再回来。
Paragraph 1: And then every Chinese CEO has a political officer of the Chinese Communist Party sitting down the hall who can come in and override your decisions anytime he wants to. And by the way, and drag you into training. This is a great thing. OK, so you're sitting here. You're the CEO of a company with 50 billion revenue and 100,000 employees. And this guy from the CCP comes in and pulls you. And you sit in the conference room down the hall for seven hours, getting grilled on how well you understand marks. So that actually happens. It's a political officer. So that's the kind of thing that happened in the Soviet Union and that's the kind of thing that happens in China. So you'd rather be a CEO in the US than in China, for sure, as long as the US system actually stays open, where you can actually get all the benefits of all the power of all these incredibly smart people building companies and building products.
段落1：在中国，每位企业的首席执行官办公室的走廊里都会坐着一位来自中国共产党的政治官员，他可以随时干涉你的决策。此外，他还可能把你拉去参加培训。这种情况真的存在。想象一下，你是一个年收入500亿、拥有10万名员工的公司的CEO，然后这个来自中共的人走进来，把你带走。在会议室里坐上七个小时，接受对马克思主义理解程度的严格考核。这是政治官员的职责。这种情况类似于过去苏联发生的事情，也是在中国发生的事情。因此，只要美国的体制继续开放，能够让你利用这些聪明人才的力量来建立公司和产品，你肯定会更愿意在美国当CEO，而不是在中国。
Paragraph 2: But and that's why this administration freaked us out somewhere, because it felt like they were trying to become way more like China. So I was not nearly as aware as I should have been about all these things that you're saying. I didn't know this. I did know that about the banks. And I certainly didn't know that they were cracking down on AI the same way they cracked down on social media. The AI thing was very alarming. We had meetings this spring that were the most alarming meetings I've ever been in, where they were taking us through their plans. And it was what kind of can you talk about it? Basically just full government control, like this sort of thing. There will be a small number of large companies that will be completely regulated and controlled by the government.
第二段：但这就是为什么这届政府让我们感到不安的原因之一，因为他们看起来好像在试图变得更像中国。所以我对你所说的这些事情没有足够的了解。我不知道这些事情。我确实知道关于银行的情况，但我完全不知道他们对人工智能的打击措施和对社交媒体的打击是一样的。对人工智能的打击确实非常令人震惊。我们在今年春天参加了一些会议，那是我参加过的最让人震惊的会议，他们在会上向我们介绍了他们的计划。基本上就是说，政府将全面掌控，只有少数大型公司会被政府完全监管和控制。
Paragraph 3: They told us they just said, don't even start startups. Like don't even bother. Like there's just no way. There's no way that they can succeed. There's no way that we're going to permit that to happen. Wow. Yeah. This is already over. It's going to be two or three companies. And we're going to control them. And that's that. This is already finished. Oh my god. When you leave a meeting like that, what do you do? You go in Durst, Donald Trump. Oh my god. And again, I'll just tell you, because I'm going to get a lot of, the flak I'm going to get for this is just a crazy, whatever right-winger. But I was a Democrat. I supported Bill Clinton in 92. I supported Clinton in 96. I supported Gore, who I knew very well in 2000.
他们告诉我们，干脆不要去创业，甚至连尝试都不要尝试。他们说，完全没有可能成功，我们也不可能允许这种事情发生。哇，听完这种话感觉就像结束了一样，最终只会剩下两三家公司，而我们会掌控它们，就这样，已经没有机会了。天啊，当你从这样的会议中走出来时，你会怎么做？你会转向支持特朗普吗？天啊，我要再说一次，因为我知道我会因为这番话被大量攻击，被说成是疯狂的右翼分子。但事实上，我一直是个民主党人，我在1992年和1996年都支持克林顿，还在2000年支持过戈尔。
Paragraph 4: I knew John Kerry. I supported him in 04. I supported Obama. I supported Hillary in 16. I was like a Democrat in good standing. And then completely out in the cocktail circuit now. Like you love to hang out with people. So this is actually true. There's now two kinds of dinner parties in Silicon Valley. They fractured cleanly in half. There's the ones where every person there believes every single thing that was in the New York Times that day. Which by the way, is often very different than whatever was in the New York Times six months ago. But everybody has fully updated their views for that day. And that's what they talk about at the dinner party. I have no longer invited to those.
第4段：我认识约翰·克里，支持他在04年的竞选，也支持奥巴马，还支持希拉里在16年的竞选。我就像是一名有良好声誉的民主党人。然而现在，我完全被排除在社交圈子之外了。过去我喜欢和人们聚会，而这是真的。现在，在硅谷有两种截然不同的晚宴。第一种是，所有参加的人都相信当天《纽约时报》上的每一个字。顺便说一下，这通常与六个月前的《纽约时报》内容有很大不同，但每个人都完全更新了他们当天的观点，他们就在晚宴上讨论这些内容。而我再也没有被邀请参加这些晚宴。
Paragraph 1: Nor do I want to go to them. And then there's the other kind, which is David Sachs, and all these guys, and all these people, and just this growing universe. It's a microcosm of what's happening more broadly in the culture, which is like, hey, let's actually get together and talk about things. But it's so much more comforting when it's you guys and not the my pillow guy. You know what I mean? It's like no disrespect, Mike, to the my pillow guy. But you know what I'm saying? I want people that are smarter than me to be saying these things. That's what helps. It helps when you say, well, this person actually knows what they're talking about. They're very well informed.
我并不想去那些地方。然后还有另一种情况，比如大卫·萨克斯和其他人，还有这个不断扩大的圈子。这其实是整个文化现象的一个缩影：我们来聚在一起谈论事情吧。但是，当是你们而不是那个卖枕头的人时，我感到更自在。你知道我的意思吧？我并不是对卖枕头的迈克不敬，但你懂我的意思。我希望比我聪明的人来谈论这些事情。这样能起到帮助。当你说，“这个人实际上知道他们在说什么，他们很有见识”时，这确实很有帮助。
Paragraph 2: And they understand the repercussions. They understand what's been coming their way. And these people like yourself, they could speak about the plans that you're laying out, what they were trying to do with AI, is fucking terrifying. That should terrify everybody. Where you have bureaucrats who are now in control of potentially the biggest ancient of change in the history of the human race, potentially. And you're going to let what? The people that can't even balance the budget, people that don't know what the fuck is going on, that sounds insane. And look, my hope, I think under Clinton and Gore, I think that they dealt with this very different.
第二段：他们明白这样做的后果，也知道即将发生的事情。这些和你一样的人，可以谈论你们正在制定的计划，在人工智能领域想要做的事情，实在是令人恐惧。这种情况应该让所有人感到恐惧。现在，有一些官僚可能会掌控人类历史上最大的变革力量，你要让谁来负责？那些连预算都没办法平衡、不知道发生了什么事情的人，听起来真是疯了。看，我的希望是，我认为在克林顿和戈尔时代，他们对待这件事情的方式非常不同。
Paragraph 1: I mean, look, they dealt with the internet very differently than the current crop are dealing with these technologies. Well, it was very different. It was very different. But also, they were much more, Clinton and Gore in particular, were much more understanding that you could add. So there used to be this thing I called the deal with the capital D. And the deal was you could be, and this is what I was. You could be a tech founder. You could start a private company. You could create a tech product. Everybody loved you. It was great. Glowing press coverage, the whole thing. You take the company public. It employs a lot of people. It creates a lot of jobs. You make a lot of money. At some point, you cash out. And then you donate all the money to charity. And everybody thinks you're a hero. And it's just great.
第1段：我的意思是，他们处理互联网的方式与现在这一代处理这些技术的方式非常不同。确实很不一样。但是，克林顿和戈尔特别能理解你可以增添些什么。过去有个我称之为“大写的协议”的东西。协议很简单：你可以成为一个科技创始人，创办一家私营公司，开发一款科技产品。大家都喜欢你，媒体大肆赞美，一切都很美好。然后你将公司上市，提供大量就业机会，创造很多工作。你赚了很多钱，最终套现离场。然后把钱都捐给慈善机构。人人都认为你是英雄，一切都很美好。
Paragraph 2: And this is how it ran for a very long time. And this was the deal. This was Clinton and Gore with 100% support of that. And they were 100% pro-capitalism in this way, and 100% pro-tech. And they actually did a lot to foster this kind of environment. And basically, what happened is the last 15 years or so of Democrats culminating in this administration basically broke every part of that deal. For people in my world, every single part of that was shattered, where technology became presumptively evil. And if you were a business person, you were presumptively a bad person. And then technology was presumptively had bad effects.
以下是这段文字的中文翻译，尽量易于阅读：
这是这种情况持续了很长时间的方式。这就是当时的协议。克林顿和戈尔对此给予了百分之百的支持。他们以这样的方式完全集支持资本主义，并完全集支持科技。他们实际上为促进这种环境做了很多事情。基本上，接下来发生的事情是，过去大约15年的民主党人，直到当前政府，基本上打破了协议的每个部分。在我所在的领域，每一个部分都被摧毁了，科技被认为是有害的。如果你是一名商人，你被假定为坏人。而科技被假定带来不良影响。
Paragraph 3: And then they were going to regulate you and try to kill you and quash you. And then the kicker was philanthropy became evil. And this is a real culture change in the last five years that I hope will reverse now, which is philanthropy now is a dirty word on the left because it's the private person choosing to give away the money as opposed to the government choosing a way to give the money. So I'll give you the ultimate case. Here's where I radicalized on this topic. So you'll recall some years back Mark Zuckerberg and his wife, Priscilla, they have a ton of money in Facebook stock. They created a nonprofit entity called Chan Zuckerberg Initiative, which the original mission was to literally cure all disease.
第三段：接着，他们会想管制你，试图打压你、消灭你。然后，关键是慈善被视为邪恶。这是过去五年里一种真正的文化变迁，我希望这种变化能逆转。现在，在左派看来，慈善成了一个贬义词，因为这意味着由私人选择如何捐赠款项，而不是由政府来决定。所以，我认为这是一个极端的例子。这就是我在这个话题上变得激进的原因。还记得几年前马克·扎克伯格和他的妻子普里西拉吗？他们持有大量的Facebook股票，并创建了一个名为"Chan Zuckerberg Initiative"的非盈利机构，其初衷就是要彻底治愈所有疾病。
Paragraph 4: And this could be like $200 billion going to cure all disease, right? So like big deal. They said they committed to donating 99% of their assets to this new foundation. They got brutally attacked from the left. And the attack was they're only doing it to save money on taxes. Now, basic mathematics, you don't give away 99% of your money to save money on taxes, right? But it was a vicious attack. It was like a very, very aggressive attack. And the fundamental reason for the attack was how dare they treat that money like it's their own, how dare they decide where it goes. Instead, tax rates for billionaires should go to 90 something percent.
第四段：这可能就像是两千亿美元用于治愈所有疾病，对吧？非常重要的事情。他们表示承诺将99%的资产捐赠给这个新基金会。然而，他们受到来自左翼的猛烈抨击。批评者认为，他们这样做只是为了省下税款。但是，简单数学就能看出，你不会为了节税而赠送99%的钱，对吧？但这还是一次非常激烈的攻击。根本原因在于批评者质问：他们怎么敢把这些钱当成自己的，怎么敢决定钱的去向。而且人们觉得，亿万富翁的税率应该被提高到90%以上。
Paragraph 5: The government should take the money and the government should allocate it. And that would be the morally proper and correct thing to do. What do you think is the root of that kind of thinking? Utopian collectivism. It's socialism that works. Socialism. Yeah, it's the core idea of socialism. It's like the core idea is this is a radical egalitarianism. Everybody should be exactly the same. All outcomes should be exactly the same. Everything should be completely fair at all times. And some root of it has to be an envy. Of course. Yeah, envy, resentment. Nietzsche had this great term. They called it recentiment. And it's like turbocharged resentment.
政府应该拿这笔钱，并进行分配，这是道德上恰当和正确的做法。你觉得这种想法的根源是什么？乌托邦式的集体主义。这是有效的社会主义。社会主义，没错，这就是社会主义的核心理念。核心理念就是一种激进的平等主义，每个人都应该完全一样，所有结果都应该完全一样，一切时刻都应该完全公平。其根源之一必然是嫉妒。当然，是的，嫉妒，怨恨。尼采有个很棒的术语，称之为“仇恨情结”，就像增强版的怨恨。
Paragraph 1: And so the way he described it as recentiment is envy, resentment, and bitterness that is so intense that it causes an inversion of values. And the things that used to be good become bad. And the things that used to be bad become good. Ooh. Right. And that's how your land or be becomes bad. For philanthropy becomes bad because it should be the state operating on behalf of the people as a whole who are handing out the money, not the individual. I was not aware of that blowback. I would have loved to read some of those comments. I would like to go to their page and see what else they comment on.
他说的“怨恨”是一种极度的嫉妒、怨气和苦涩感，会导致价值观的颠倒。本来是好的东西变得坏了，而以前觉得坏的东西反而变得好了。哦，对。这就是为什么你的地产或资产变得不好，因为慈善行为被认为是坏的，因为应该由国家代表全体人民来分配资金，而不是个人来做。我之前不知道有这样的反应。我真希望能读一些这样的评论，我想去他们的页面看看他们还针对其他什么发表了评论。
Paragraph 2: I'll give you another example. Here's another radicalizing moment. OK. So my friend Cheryl Sandberg, who I worked with very closely for a long time at Facebook. And by the way, Democrat, liberal, by the way, endorsed Kamala, like very much not on the same page as me on these things. She actually worked in the Clinton administration, died in the world Democrat. She wrote this book called Lean In about 12 years ago. It's this sort of feminist manifesto. And it basically said. Lean in is a whole lean in. Lean in. And the thesis of Lean In was that women in their lives and careers could quote unquote lean in. She said what she observed in a lot of meetings was the men were leaning in to the table and sitting in front. And then the women were leaning back and waiting to be called on.
我再给你举个例子。这是另一个激发思考的时刻。好吧，我的朋友谢丽尔·桑德伯格，她和我在Facebook紧密合作了很长时间。顺便说一下，她是民主党人，自由主义者，支持卡玛拉，并且在这些问题上跟我完全不同立场。实际上，她曾在克林顿政府中任职，是个坚定的民主党人。约12年前，她写了一本叫《向前一步》的书，这是一本带有女性主义色彩的宣言。书中的主要论点是鼓励女性在生活和职业中“向前一步”。她观察到，在许多会议中，男性倾向于在桌子上倾身向前，坐在前排，而女性则往往往后靠，等着被叫到。
Paragraph 1: She said the women should lean in. It became a metaphor for her for women should lean in on their careers. They should aggressively advocate for themselves to get raises and promotions. Like men do. Like men do. They should basically women should basically become more aggressive in the workplace and then therefore perform better. And so it was like, it was a manifesto of women basically saying be more confident, be more assertive, be more aggressive, be more successful. And I read the draft of the book when she was writing it.
她说女性应该勇往直前。这成为了一个比喻，意指女性在职场中应该积极主动。她们应该像男性那样，为自己争取加薪和晋升。基本上，就是鼓励女性在工作中更加积极，更有表现力，从而表现得更出色。所以，这就像是一个宣言，鼓励女性更加自信、更强势、更积极，更成功。我在她写这本书的过程中读过草稿。
Paragraph 2: And I said, well, you realize you've written a right-wing manifesto. Right. Right. Right. Right. She looks at me like I've lost my mind, right? Because she's a lifelong lifelong left. She's like, what do you mean? This book is a statement that women have agency. This book is a statement that the things that women choose to do will lead to better results. But that's what people believe on the right. On the left, what people believe is that women are only always and ever victims. Wow. And if a woman doesn't succeed in a career, it's because she's being discriminated against.
第二段：我说，你知道你写了一份右翼宣言，对吧。对，对，对，对。她看着我，好像我疯了，因为她一辈子都是坚定的左派。她说，你什么意思？这本书是在宣扬女性有自主权。这本书是在说，女性所选择的事情会带来更好的结果。但这正是右翼人士的观点。在左翼观点中，人们认为女性总是、仅仅是受害者。哇。而如果一名女性在事业上没有成功，那是因为她受到了歧视。
Paragraph 3: And so I said, I predicted when this book comes out, right-wingers are going to think it's great. And you're going to get it. Like the left is going to come at you. Because you're violating the fundamental principle of the left, which is anybody who does less well as a victim, which in that case is exactly what happened. By the way, the reviews were all by women. And they tore into her. Like in every major publication, they just completely ripped her. Wow. And they're like, how dare this rich entitled woman be telling us, you know, these would be telling women that they're not victims and that they're, you know, that they have all this agency.
所以我说过，当这本书出版时，右翼人士会觉得它很棒。而左翼则会攻击你，因为你违反了左翼的一个基本原则，那就是任何表现不佳的人都是受害者。在那种情况下，事情正是如此。顺便说一下，所有的评论都是由女性撰写的，她们猛烈抨击了作者。在每家主要出版物中，她们都彻底批评了她。哇，她们的意思是，这个有钱有势的女人怎么敢告诉我们，说女性不是受害者，并且她们其实拥有很多自主权。
Paragraph 4: Because this is denial of sexism, right? It's denial of oppression. Wow. Because imagine if a man wrote a book like that for men. Right. That was patriarchy, right? That's, yeah, that would be good. Well, but I mean, that would be good. But men wouldn't attack it. Oh, right. Exactly, right. It would be a guide book. Yeah, this is how you kick ass and get ahead. Yeah, we call it self-help. Lean in, bro. Lean in. Just go. Exactly, right.
因为这就是对性别歧视的否认，对吗？是对压迫的否认。哇。想象一下，如果一个男人为男性写了一本这样的书。这就是父权制，对吧？不过，我是说，那其实挺好的。但男人不会攻击这样的书。哦，对，没错。这样一本书会是一部指导手册，是关于如何干得出色和取得成功的。对，我们称之为自助书。去争取吧，兄弟。去拼搏。没错。
Paragraph 5: Wow, that's crazy. Is she going to attack for that? So again, it's just, it's the inversion. It's the inversion, which is like advocating on your own behalf and choosing to do things that make you worse. What was her reaction to that? Well, I would say she was, I don't want to speak for her, but she was not pleased. I mean, she was shocked that you were correct. Did you have a follow-up conversation with her? What did she say? We talked about it a lot. Like, God damn it, Mark, how'd you see that one coming? So she was in the, but the answer is she, her worldview of how these things worked was from a different, it was from the Clinton-Gorg era. In which you could, in which you could say things like that. You could talk like that. Yes. And by the time the book came out, it was already into the second Obama term heading it, right? And then the book stuff started. And then at that point, you could no longer say things like that. Wow. And everything got classified through this very hard edge, right, us versus them. Right, oppressor versus oppressed. Boy.
哇，真是不可思议。她会因此发起攻击吗？所以，说到底，这就是一种颠倒的状态。就像你在为自己辩护，却选择做让自己变得更糟的事情。她对此有什么反应？嗯，我想说她不高兴，我不想替她发言，但她很震惊，因为你是对的。你们有进一步的交流吗？她说了什么？我们对此进行了很多讨论。比如，她会说：“天啊，马克，你是怎么预见到这一点的？”她的观念是建立在克林顿-戈尔时代，那时你还可以那样讲话。是的，但到这本书出版时，已经进入了奥巴马的第二个任期，然后书的事情就开始了。在那时，你已经不能再那样说话了。哇，一切都被划分成非常尖锐的“我们对他们”、“压迫者对被压迫者”的对立局面。天啊。
Paragraph 6: You know, kind of mindset. It's such a contrast to what we hoped would happen when Obama would be president. That's right. My thought was, okay, look, there's still some racism, but clearly, if you're the baddest motherfucker, you can get ahead. Like, you can win the country will vote for you. That's not what happened. No. And you can win again. You win twice. Be like, I've always said, up until I've lost a lot of respect for him from some of the things that he said during this election cycle, because I think they got desperate and they just resorted to actual lies. And I thought this is crazy to see him lying, especially the very fine people hoax. And we played the video back and forth of what Obama said he said and what he actually said. And it's pretty shocking, because he's very explicit. He's saying not white nationalists, not neo-Nazis. They should be condemned. He says that very clearly. That's not what I'm talking about. Talk about people who are protesting that are taking down on this statue. And when you see a guy like Obama do that, it's such a bummer, because he was the guy for me that was like our best spokesman. He was like, here's a guy that came from a single parent household. He wasn't some rich, entitled kid who was given everything in life. He's this brilliant speaker. He's handsome. He represents what we're hoping for. We're hoping for a colorblind society to just treat people in the merit of who they are. And anyone can achieve. And look, here he is. He made it.
你知道，这种心态与我们当初对奥巴马当总统时的期望形成了鲜明对比。没错，我的想法是，好的，也许还有些种族歧视，但很明显，如果你足够优秀，你就能成功。你可以赢得大家的投票。但事实并非如此。而且你还能再赢一次。一直以来我都说，我对他说过的一些话失去了很多尊重，尤其是在最近的选举中，因为我觉得他们变得很绝望，甚至撒了谎。我觉得他撒谎让人很难过，特别是在那个“非常好的人的骗局”上。我们反复播放奥巴马说他的话，和他实际上说了什么，很震惊，因为他很明确地表示，不是白人国家主义者，也不是新纳粹分子，那些应该受到谴责。他说得非常清楚，我谈论的不是他们，而是那些抗议拆雕像的人。当你看到像奥巴马这样的人这样做时，真的很让人失望，因为对我来说，他是我们最好的代言人。他来自单亲家庭，不是含着金汤匙出生的富家子弟。他是一位出色的演讲者，又很有魅力，代表了我们的期望。我们期待一个不看肤色，只看能力的社会，任何人都可以成功。瞧，他做到了。
Paragraph 1: And then all of a sudden, identity politics goes through the fucking roof. And victim mentality becomes a thing that people choose to side with. And it just gets real weird for a long time. That's right. That's right. And like I said, I hope they can find their way back. But this lady's still on Team Kamala. Oh, yeah. She got a few lessons out of that, but not all of them. No, if you've been a lifelong Democrat, this is a if you've been a lifelong Democrat, and if that's in this quarter, a lot of people's value systems, then it's a real challenge. Oh, yeah.
第一段：突然之间，身份政治变得非常激烈。受害者心态成了一种人们选择支持的东西，这种情况持续了很长一段时间，让人感觉非常怪异。没错。正如我所说的，我希望他们能够找到回归的路。但这位女士仍然支持卡玛拉。是的，她从中学到了几课，但并不是所有的。如果你是个终生民主党人，并且在这个领域有很多人的价值观，这确实是个很大的挑战。是的。
Paragraph 2: That's my parents. When your movement goes in directions. Well, yeah. And you can choose to follow into the craziest version of it, or you can choose to say, you know what? I'm still not going to switch sides, but at least I'm going to advocate for my team to come back. This is Richie Torres. This guy is a congressman in Queens, I think, or the Bronx. He's actually started out everybody thought he was going to be a far lefty because he's gay. He's black. He's Latino. He was like at least associated with the squad early on. And he's like one of the guys in the Democratic Party who has now stood up.
这是我的父母。当你的行动向不同方向发展时。嗯，是的。你可以选择追随其中最疯狂的版本，或者可以选择说，你知道吗？我还是不会改变立场，但至少我会倡导我的团队回来。这是Richie Torres。他是一个国会议员，好像是在皇后区，或者布朗克斯区。他实际上刚开始时，大家都以为他会是个极左派，因为他是同性恋。他是黑人。他是拉丁裔。他最初至少与"小队"有关联。现在他是民主党中站出来的人之一。
Paragraph 3: And he's been doing this in public for the last two weeks, saying, clearly, we have to get back to sense. Like we have to get back to common sense. We have to get back to moderation. Yeah. We have to have law enforcement. We can't have crime in the streets. We have to have a border. We have to get we, the Democrats, have to get back to moderation in sense. And so he is hoping to lead the party. That's great. I think we support him. And I think he's a very impressive guy. So there are people like any's young and very energetic. And I think he has a very bright future. But that's the kind of person who could lead the party.
在过去的两周里，他一直在公开表示，我们必须恢复理智。就像我们必须回归常识一样，我们要恢复适度。是的，我们必须执行法律，不能让犯罪发生在街头。我们必须有边界。我们，民主党，必须回归理智和适度。因此，他希望能领导这个党派。这很棒。我想我们应该支持他，我认为他是一个非常令人印象深刻的人。所以有些人像他一样年轻且充满活力，我认为他拥有非常光明的未来。而这样的人才能够领导这个党派。
Paragraph 4: Well, the big Nietzschean shift was when Dick Cheney endorsed Kamala and everybody cheered. If there's not a better example than that, please tell me what it is. Because that one was fucking nuts. Dick Cheney was always the hard right. During the Bush administration, all the lefties looked at him like that was Satan. That's right. He was the profiteer. That's right. He was the manipulator. He was the guy pulling the strings. He was the CEO of Hal Burton. That came up.
好吧，一个重大变化就像尼采式的转变，当迪克·切尼支持卡玛拉时，大家都欢呼。如果还有比这更好的例子，请告诉我，因为这真是太疯狂了。迪克·切尼一直是坚定的右翼。在布什执政时期，所有左翼人士都把他视作撒旦。没错，他是贪图利益的人。没错，他是操控游戏的人。他是哈里伯顿公司的CEO，这一切都出现了。
Paragraph 5: The whole thing was so crazy. And to see, oh, Dick Cheney just endorsed Kamala. And everybody's like, yay. Look, Dick Cheney's on our side. Like, what the fuck are you guys talking about? This is the best shift of it, right? Yeah, that's right. That's right. That's right. All of a sudden, we're all new. All of a sudden, we overall neo-cons. All of a sudden, as you said, all of a sudden, we're pro-war. It's like, wait, wait a minute. Because as you know, the Democrats used to be the anti-war party. Yes.
第五段：整个事情太疯狂了。看到迪克·切尼支持卡玛拉，大家都在欢呼。看啊，迪克·切尼站在我们这边了。你们到底在说些什么？这是最奇怪的转变，对吧？是的，是的，是的。突然之间，我们全都变成新保守主义者了。突然之间，我们全都支持战争了。等等，等等。你们知道，民主党以前是反战的政党。对吧。
Paragraph 6: They were the anti-war party for a very long time. Yes. Yes. And yeah. Except back when they were trying to keep slavery in act. That's part of the problem. That was a different. People don't realize that. That was a different era. But you know what, coming out of Vietnam, they were definitely the anti-war party for like 30 years. But isn't that a shift as well? Yeah. But the shift of the Republicans from back in the day being Abraham Lincoln and trying to get rid of slavery and the Democrats fighting to keep it. Like these weird ideological swings, they happen. And we're still attached to the idea of being a Democrat as like being a Clinton Democrat. We're in this weird sort of denial of what the ideology actually stands for versus how we think of ourselves when we say, I'm a Democrat. I'm a good person. I support civil rights, women's rights, blah, blah, blah, blah, down the line. I'm a Democrat. And if you go against that, well now you're against all these things that you know to be inherently important for society.
他们曾经是反战党派，非常长一段时间都是这样的。是的，是的。不过，在他们试图维持奴隶制存在的时候除外。这就是部分问题所在。那是一个不同的时代，人们没有意识到这一点。但你知道吗，自越南战争结束后，他们确实成为了反战党派，大约持续了30年。但这也算是一种转变吗？是的。不过，共和党也经历过转变，从亚伯拉罕·林肯时期致力于废除奴隶制，到民主党当时努力维护奴隶制。像这样的意识形态转变确实发生过。如今，我们仍然把“民主党”定义为像克林顿民主党那样，处于一种对意识形态实际意义的奇怪否认中，而只是简单地认为，当我们说“我是一个民主党人”时，就是一个好人，我支持民权、妇女权利等等。如果有人反对这一切，现在就意味着他们反对我们认为对社会至关重要的所有事情。
Paragraph 1: Yeah, that's right. They got you. They got you. They wrote you into some crazy thing, where you support in war. And then there was the big faction, right? There's the big free Palestine versus support Israel. Because the left always supported Israel. Yeah, 100%. And then all of a sudden there's this free Palestine movement, which divides the left even further. There was a book written some years back by the guy Norman Putt-Horets in the script. So why are Jews liberal? Right. He was a right-wing Jew. A very important Jewish thinker, American Jewish thinker, in the 60s, 70s, 80s. And he's like, basically he had this thesis that these Jewish liberal voters in the US like basically are voting against, ultimately they're voting for the wrong team. Because what they don't understand basically is this is sort of a path number one to antisemitism, which is what's happened.
当然，他们抓住了你。他们把你写进了一些疯狂的事情中，比如支持战争。然后就有了大型派别，对吧？有支持巴勒斯坦独立的大阵营和支持以色列的阵营。因为左派一直是支持以色列的，没错。在某个时刻，突然出现了一个自由巴勒斯坦运动，这进一步分裂了左派。几年前，诺曼·普特霍雷茨写了一本书，书中探讨了为什么犹太人倾向于自由主义。他是个右翼的犹太人，在60、70、80年代是一个非常重要的美国犹太思想家。他的基本观点是，美国的犹太自由派选民实际上是在为错误的阵营投票。他们不明白的是，这是一条通向反犹太主义的道路，而这正是已经发生的事情。
Paragraph 2: But number two, basically you're never going to have long-term support for Israel from the left because the basic concept of Israel violates the idea. Israel is literally a religious ethnostate. Right. And that's inherently a right-wing idea, not a left-wing idea. The left doesn't have room for that. And a military superproduct. And a military right. And is able to do that. And it's run by a former Special Forces operator. Yes, very capable. Yes, very capable soldier in his life. He's a fucking assassin. Exactly. And so he argued that, I don't know, this is like whatever 20 years ago, he's like this is headed in the wrong direction. But the argument was ignored at the time.
第二段：其次，基本上，左翼永远不会长期支持以色列，因为以色列的基本理念与左翼的想法相悖。以色列实际上是一个宗教民族国家，而这本质上是右翼的想法，不是左翼的。左翼对此没有接受的空间。此外，以色列还是一个军事强国，领导者是一名前特种部队的军官，非常有能力。他是一名出色的士兵，相当于一个刺客。有人大约在20年前就曾经指出，以色列的发展方向可能有问题，但当时这个观点没有被重视。
Paragraph 3: And then at least a lot of my Jewish friends after October 7th, they were completely horrified to find out. For example, the DEI was actually anti-Jewish, which is what everybody learned with the scandals at the universities. And there's two ways of looking at that. One is, oh my god, DEI is anti-Jewish. Therefore, we need to add shoes to the DEI scorecard. Well, when we saw the heads of Harvard, and was it Yale? No. It was Harvard and MIT in Columbia. Yeah. Yeah. That's right. That was just so in everyone's face and so bananas. And then we saw that, you have right, exactly. And then we saw is that this same sort of radicalized left had actually slid into not just anti-Semitism and not just anti-Israel, but also pro, I mean ultimately pro-terrorist, pro-homos. You know, the new acronym, LGBTH. Ooh. But there's a bunch of other stuff in there now. There's Q, there's two spirit. I know what you gotta get. H in there now, pro-homos. Oh boy, really? Yeah, of course, of course. And so like, yeah. I bring it up just as an act to take a position, just as an example of it's the kind of realignment. Yeah. A lot of Jewish Americans now are having to kind of rethink fundamental questions about political structure and alliances, who they should be part of and who they shouldn't be part of.
在10月7日之后，我的许多犹太朋友都感到震惊，比如他们发现多元、公平与包容（DEI）其实是反犹太的，这一点在大学丑闻中显而易见。对此有两种看法：一种是，天啊，DEI竟然是反犹太的，因此我们需要在DEI评分中添加一些应对的措施。当我们看到哈佛、麻省理工学院和哥伦比亚大学的领导人处理这些问题时，那种明显的偏见实在令人惊讶。此外，我们还看到，激进的左派不仅走向了反犹太主义和反以色列，甚至在某种程度上倾向于支持恐怖主义和其他极端组织，比如新的缩写LGBTH——哦，还有LGBTQ等等。现在，许多犹太裔美国人不得不重新思考他们在政治结构和联盟中的基本立场，考虑应该与谁携手，应该与谁保持距离。
Paragraph 1: So I think to your point, I think like the whole country is going through. I think we're going through the first profound political realignment probably since the 1960s, which is when everything shifted between Johnson and Nixon in the South. I think we're going through the most profound version of that right now. And I think it's something like the multi-ethnic working class coalition that came together around Trump, basically again, against this super exaggerated elite plus underclass kind of structure that the Democrats have built for themselves. And it just turns out there's just a lot more people in the middle. And so I think, but by the way, including a lot of Black vote for Trump is way up, Hispanic vote for Trump is way up, Belize vote for Trump is way up, gay vote is like all of the identity groups that Democrats relied on all these years are union vote is for Trump. I'm sure you've seen the map, the electoral map of California, 2024 and 2020. In contrast, it's a crazy red wave. It's going through across the whole, the state is red now. Those of us on the coast are going to get pushed into the ocean. Yes.
我认为，现在整个国家正在经历一次深刻的政治重组，可能是自20世纪60年代以来最深刻的一次。当时，在美国南方，约翰逊和尼克松之间发生了巨大的政治转变。而现在，我认为我们正在经历一个更加深刻的版本。就像特朗普周围形成的多种族工人阶级联盟，这个联盟主要是对抗民主党所谓的夸大精英和底层阶级结构。事实证明，中间派的人数要多得多。此外，包括很多黑人对特朗普的支持率大幅上升，西班牙裔对特朗普的支持率大幅上升，伯利兹裔对特朗普的支持率大幅上升，甚至包括以往被民主党依赖的少数群体如同性恋者的选票和工会的选票现在都转向了特朗普。相信你也看过2024年和2020年加州的选举地图，对比之下，简直是惊人的“红色浪潮”席卷全州，现在整个州都是红色了。我们这些住在海岸线上的人可能就要被推到海里去了。
Paragraph 2: Well, I think maybe the other way, what you were talking about the hopeful way that the Democrats will wake up and come up with a more reasonable, I mean, there's obviously clear cultural pushback on all these crazier issues. And I mean, the giant pushback from women about biological men competing against women. I mean, this is a giant one where women are like, listen, we created Title IX for a reason. Like, we want women sports to be for women. You can't have it for mentally ill men that think that they can be able to just decide they're a woman and compete against women, which is what it is in a lot of places. You don't even have to get tested. There's not like some sort of a hormone protocol. It's just like, it's just what your identity is, which is just nuts. And that's one of the things that I think a lot of people on the left are having a really hard time justifying. Yeah. Because how can you deny a victim group? Right. Right. You can't.
第二段翻译：嗯，我觉得可能会有另一种方式。你之前提到过一种充满希望的方式，即民主党人会醒悟过来，提出更合理的方案。显然，针对这些极端问题存在明显的文化反弹。我指的是，女性对生物学上的男性与女性竞争的强烈反对。这是一个很大的问题，女性会说，我们创建第九章法案是有原因的。我们希望女性体育就是为女性准备的。不能让那些心理有障碍的男性仅仅因为他们认为自己是女性就可以和女性竞争。在很多地方，你甚至不需要检测，没有什么激素标准，仅仅凭个人认同，这实在是太疯狂了。而这是左翼的很多人很难辩解的问题之一。因为你怎么能否定一个受害群体呢？对吧，对吧。你不能。
Paragraph 3: I mean, in the full version of that, in the extreme version, in ideology, you cannot deny any of it. You cannot deny a victim claim. What also comes with this weird caveat where you have to deny the existence of perverts. Because a pervert, all they have to do is say I identify as a woman throwing a wig, and now you can go hang around the women's room, and no one can say anything. Well, you've emboldened and empowered one of the worst groups in society that we've always protected women from. And you have to pretend they don't exist if you just want to base it solely on identity, especially like a self-described identity. You just decide, and then that's it. And, you know, I mean, there's states that have that now with prisoners. That all a prisoner has to do is identify with being a woman, and you are now housed in women's prisons.
在这里表达一种极端的观点中，你不能否认任何受害者的说法。这个观点还有个奇怪的附带条件，就是你必须否认变态的存在。因为一个变态只需要说自己是女性，然后戴个假发，他就可以待在女厕旁边，没有人能说什么。这样一来，你就壮大了我们一直以来保护女性免受其影响的社会中最糟糕的群体之一。你得假装他们不存在，特别是如果你单纯地基于身份认同，尤其是自我描述的身份认同。有人只是决定，然后就是这样。而且，你知道，现在有些州对于囚犯也是这么做的。一个囚犯只需要认同自己是女性，就会被安排到女子监狱中。
Paragraph 4: California has 47 of them when the last time I looked at it. And there's hundreds that are waiting, unlike a waiting list to try to get in. So you have women who, you know, especially if you're, someone who's dealing with, if you've ever been raped or sexually abused, and now you have to share space with a man who might be a fucking pervert. And some of these men even have some crimes that are along those lines that they're in jail for. It's crazy. I mean, Canada is the worst at it. There's a bunch of different examples of these type of people getting in female prisons. And it's just, it's insanity. And I think the left rejects that too for the most part. There's the sensible version of the left that is like, hey, yeah, I'm pro-gay rights. Yeah, I'm pro-women's rights. I'm pro-civil rights. I'm pro-choice. I'm pro-this. I'm anti-warmer. But also, you can't let psychos just put on a fucking dress and hang out in women's rooms just because we wanna be kind. Like that's nuts. So there has to be some, and then there's legitimate trans women. So like, how do you make the distinct, well, clearly we have to have a fucking conversation. And if you don't allow that conversation to take place, like if you go to blue sky and you type in, there are only two genders, you're banned.
加利福尼亚有47个这样的案例，这是我上次查看时的数字。而且还有数百人在等待，就像在等待名单上想要进入这类地方一样。所以，你知道的，那些女性，如果你曾经遭受过强奸或性虐待，现在却不得不和可能是变态的男性共享空间。这些男性中有些甚至因类似犯罪被监禁。这非常疯狂。其实，加拿大在这方面是最糟糕的。有很多这类人进入女性监狱的例子。这太荒谬了。我认为，大多数左翼人士也反对这种情况。理性的左派支持同性恋权利、女性权利、公民权利、选择权等，他们可能反对战争，但他们也认为不能仅仅因为出于好心，就让精神失常的人穿上裙子进入女性空间，这太不合常理了。因此，我们需要进行一些讨论。此外，还有真正的跨性别女性存在。那么，如何区分这些情况呢？显然，我们需要进行认真的对话。如果不允许进行这样的对话，比如，如果你在 Blue Sky 上输入“只有两个性别”，你会被封禁。
Paragraph 1: Yeah, you're a nerd. Right there, people have done it. There's a bunch of people who've done it. It's fun. It's fun. They have like, they've created a little sock puppet account. They say some shit that should have been a reasonable thing to say just 20 years ago. Yeah, well, you make me hopeful, Mark. Good. You do, you do. Because you lay things out in like a really well thought out way that is not hyperbolic and you're making a lot of sense. So I'm glad we talked. I feel better. Good, fantastic. I think the world does too. I really do.
对，就是说你是个书呆子。没错，人们已经这样做了。很多人都这样做过。这很有趣，很有趣。他们创建了一个小木偶账号，然后说一些在20年前还算合理的话。嗯，好吧，马克，你让我感到有希望。真的。因为你把事情讲得非常清楚，不夸张，而且很有道理。所以我很高兴我们聊了这次。我感觉好多了。太好了，太棒了。我想整个世界都一样。我真的这么觉得。
Paragraph 2: I mean, I've talked to a lot of people, even people that are Democrats, they say I feel better than Trump won. Every day, it feels better. It's just like, it feels like just things are opening up. It's the Obama campaign. It's hope and change. Yeah, it's hope and change. Never? It's hope you're changing. If this is kind of actually hope and change, this is actually it. It feels like oxygen return. Yes. Well, thank you very much, Mark. I really appreciate you. Tell everybody your sub stack how to find you on social media.
我和许多人交流过，包括一些民主党人，他们说感觉更好，就像特朗普赢了一样。每天的感觉都在变好，就像事情在逐渐打开一样。这就像是奥巴马的竞选活动：希望与变革。是的，就是希望与变革。难道不是吗？是希望你在改变。如果这真的是希望与变革，那这就是它的样子。这感觉就像氧气回来了。好的，非常感谢你，马克。我真的很感激你。告诉大家如何在社交媒体上找到你的 Substack。
Paragraph 3: Oh, I'm on X under P. Mark A. I'm on sub stack. Google me. All right. Ask perplexity. All right. Ask chat GPT and it will deny that. No, it will happily tell you that I exist. At least last time I checked. What about Wikipedia? We don't know. Yeah, we don't know if Catherine knows. It's still right here. Always pleasure, Mark. Thank you very much. Appreciate you. All right. Bye everybody.
第3段：哦，我在X上叫P. Mark A。我也在Substack上。可以用Google搜我。好吧，问问Perplexity。好吧，问问ChatGPT，它不会否认的。不，它会很开心地告诉你我确实存在。至少我上次查看是这样的。那么维基百科呢？我们不知道。是的，我们不知道Catherine是否知道。它仍然在这里。总是很高兴，Mark。非常感谢。感谢你。好吧，再见，大家。