The financial world is one of the most puzzling, murky, and troubling of them all. Through that mire, Patrick has emerged as one of its most clear-speaking figures.

Beginning his finance career in 1997, Patrick has worked with Victor Niederhoffer (George Soros' former partner) and has been a portfolio manager at RBS, Millennium and Nomura. Today, however, he is best known for his wildly popular work on YouTube, where he breaks down ongoing financial developments in digestible terms, establishing himself as one of the most reliable predictors in the game. At the time of writing, it boasts over 1.2 million subscribers.

Why did we invite him on?

We’ve been fans of Patrick for some time, long admiring his uncanny ability to summarise and make entertaining the complex and the seismic. Hoping to have him on for some time, unfortunately, an interview forecasting financial trouble ahead has only become more timely and appropriate.

Still, at a time of ever-increasing economic anxiety, all we can do is know more. That’s what Patrick is for.

What did we learn?

Britain’s economy once was the envy of the world. A haven of trade, information-sharing and valuable resources, there was seemingly no end to our capabilities. Somewhere along the line, things changed. There’s an increasing feeling that we’re no longer a wealthy country, but a poor country attached to London. Outside of for the privileged few, life seems to only be getting worse. Increasing numbers of citizens on benefits, restrictions on those who do work, and a hiked-up cost-of-living that affects anyone without the means to ignore it.

Why are things so bad here? Is it just our imagination, or are the circumstances uniquely terrible?

”Everything bad that’s happened in the last 30 years has hit Britain worse. We were hit the hardest by the global financial crisis, the gas price hike after the Russian-Ukraine war… Everyone wants to say it’s politics or lazy people, but it’s not.”

The factors, Patrick explains, are multitude, but most present and perhaps most significantly is our inflation. The skyrocketing price of, well, everything is often dismissed as a natural reaction to interest rates. But looking around, the squeeze is much tighter than that alone can account for. What happened?

”Inflation exploded due to lockdowns. The global economy shut down in March 2020 and governments around the world had a choice - let everything tank (and there’s a free market argument for that) or, at this is what they did, leap over that huge hole in the economy. Bankrolling companies, stimulus checks… it’s all really expensive, and now there’s massive inflation. We have to pay the bill for what happened; you can’t ignore the fact that everyone got paid for two years when there was no economic activity.”

If this discomfort is the inevitable cost of paying of said bill, perhaps we can swallow that. But are we paying it?

”[Laughs] It’s on the credit card. That’s why I laugh when people get excited about the government cutting taxes. The tax only really happens when the government spends the money; we’ll either pay with it by being taxed today or we’re gonna pay in the future.”

”Pay in the future”, to an addict, is always the more appealing option, and a natural, predictable consequence of party politics. After all, why take the blame for decades of mishandling when you can contribute to it and let someone else take an even bigger hit later?

Exaggerated by the last decade of constant upheaval, short-termism is the thinking of the day in British parliament, and, as Patrick elucidates, the prime mover of these baffling policies.

”The only real incentives governments have is to kick the can down the road and hope someone else gets the blame for it. That doesn’t help the citizens of the country, and it’s even worse for the youngest citizens.”

Young people increasingly feel that the game is rigged against them, and it’s no surprise. Nowhere is it more radically apparent than the housing crisis. Long ago, the ladder was yanked up.

“It’s strange… you have sellers saying ‘My million pound house is now only worth 900,000!’ but then the buyers are responding ‘Yeah, but 900 is still too much!’ … [It could be fixed] but it’s so politically unpopular. If house prices in major cities went down to what they were in the late 1990s, there would be war in the streets. But the truth is, if they don’t… there will be war in the street!”

And there is no sign of things changing. In recent months, the youth vote has swung violently in favour of the Green Party - long-time joke, current election hopeful. Less shocking is the party’s policy agenda: doubling down. To fund their hugely expansive social programmes, party leader Zack Polanski has pledged to raise he national debt from 2.9 trillion to 5.2 trillion. Before we even get the chance to ask whether that’s a sensible solution, Patrick is shaking his head.

Read more

Sir Antony Beevor is one of Britain’s most revered and widely-read historians.

For over four decades, he has been publishing works of staggering depth, including the genre-defining Stalingrad (1998), the polarising Berlin (‘02) and 2012’s 900-page sprawl The Second World War. To date, his total sales amount to nearly ten million copies.

His latest tome, Rasputin: And The Downfall of the Romanovs, was released in March.

Why did we invite him on?

As long-time fans of Sir Antony’s work, perhaps this was no surprise, but earlier this year we read Rasputin and loved it. Across its near-400 pages, Beevor charts a path through Rasputin’s entire life, weaving its narrative with that of Tsar Nicholas II, the Tsar who abdicated during the Russian Revolution. It’s one of the most information-dense history books we’ve enjoyed in recent times, and we each knew it was time to have him back.

We wanted to discuss the life of Rasputin, but primarily, we wanted to use it as a backdrop for the wider subject of Russia itself, particularly the mindset of its people.

Russia has a distinct national character, one that persists despite the radically changing circumstances its people have enjoyed and endured. Its unique disposition is shared by citizens 5000 miles apart, in the Siberian tundra as well as on the Southwestern Caspian coasts.

But why? What is it about this country that is so unusual?

What did we learn?

To set the stage for our conversation, Beevor pulls a quote from 1866 poem by the Russian diplomat and poet Fyodor Tyutchev: “Russian can not be known by the mind [alone].”

”There’s a lot of truth in that. All these contrasting elements… In the case of Rasputin, we see deep spiritualitity mixed in with lasciviousness… or corruption mixed in with incredible generosity. All of these coming together in the same person… [he captured] the Russian soul. There is no [such thing as] national DNA, but there is a certain self-image in all countries that they try to live up to. A certain reputation, a certain tradition.”

And what is that reputation?

The Russian tradition is a complex one and, as Antony outlines, one of paradox. One feature commonly associated with the Russo mindset is callousness. Unfeeling, unsentimental, self-regulating to a hellish extent. Where does that come from?

Beevor asserts there’s a relationship between the attitude of Russians to life and their approach to war.

”There’s been a considerable debate among historians as to where the Russian method of warfare originated. Some say it goes back to the Mongol invasion of the 13th invasion … [They] believed that fire, sword, laying waste and mass rape were natural elements of warfare. And these became central elements in the Russian understanding of war: conspicuous cruelty.”

For the vast majority of history, ‘conspicuous cruelty’ was not unique to Russia. It was the norm internationally. Enemies were not there to be stopped, but vanquished. When the West moved on, Russia did not.

”[For most of history], Europe was just as bad! One thinks of the horrors of the wars of religion and they’re just as cruel as anything Russia had done up to then. The difference came with the Enlightenment. There was then a codification of war - not necessarily more civilised, but more rule-based.”

This is a peculiar history. One hard to map onto our own. The Mongols, through their successor state known as the Golden Horde, ruled Russia for over two centuries, from 1240 to 1480. That’s over two centuries subjugated by what Konstantin likens to “the ISIS of their time.”

Read more

“Silicon Valley’s favourite podcaster.”

It’s a hell of a title, currently held by Dwarkesh Patel.

Specialising in interviewing influential, divisive figures from science, technology, politics and history, Dwarkesh Podcast has become one of the most acclaimed shows of the decade. Through it, Dwarkesh established himself as a leading commentator on the subject of AI, even earning a spot in Time’s list last year as one of the 100 most influential people in the field.

Last year, he, alongside co-author Gavin Leech, published his first book - The Scaling Era: The Oral History of A.I, 2019 - 2025.

Why did we invite him on?

On this topic, we’ve had conversations with figures who hold all manner of views. Evangelicals who herald its arrival as some kind of second coming, doomsday thinkers who see us rolling out the red carpet for our own demise, and everyone in between.

Dwarkesh has spent as much time exploring the topic in public as anyone of his discipline, so we were curious to see what he’s made of the arguments so far. Has he become more or less optimistic over time? How does he see this paradigm-shift development playing out for us?

What did we learn?

”Among Silicon Valley types, I’m seen as a sceptic. They think the singularity [AI systems that can do anything humans can] will happen yesterday, I think it’ll take 5-10 years … The models are not amazing at discovery. They don’t ask good questions. Humans are great at idiosyncracies - exploring weird angles that nobody else is thinking about. AI is basically an average…

But even I’ve had to admit the progress has been fast.”

This is a subject where the messenger’s role matters acutely. Hearing about the brilliance and reach of AI from someone who manufactures it - and therefore stands to capitalise on others believing in it - is one thing, but from a sceptic? That’s something else entirely.

But even AI’s critics agree with Dwarkesh - we are hurtling towards unprecedented change and, once we pass a certain threshold, there’s no going back. What happens then, nobody can know for sure.

Dwarkesh has spoken to virtually every eminent figure in this world. What is it they want?

”Maybe 40% of the population is doing work that a computer could do. Take an AI, put it on Zoom, give it a Gmail account, and it could do their job. AI companies want to be able to do all of that work, and they think they can get there in a year.”

Is that a reasonable aspiration? Or, more importantly, a desirable one?

When you look at the the handywork of AI as it exists today, that might sound absurd. Take a read of any writing - articles, books, papers, whatever you choose - that has been found (or even accused) of being written, even in part, by a language model.

You can always tell. Addled with cliché, riddled with mistakes, and lacking in invention. An AI might be able to write a perfunctory manual, but it can’t produce truly great work.

However, that’s only true today. Tomorrow is another story. The rate of improvement these models are undergoing is exponential, and the threshold is screeching into view.

”It’s reaching a point where it’s more useful to hire AI. For me to get what the AI does, but from people, I’d have to hire several analysts. It could cost me seven figures a year.”

Expecting corporations to ignore those kind of incentives is a big ask. But if they can already save millions a year by firing their analysts, why haven’t they?

The truth is, these models are not yet reliable. Before our America trip, Francis asked Grok to suggest guests who hadn’t been on the show before and would be a good fit. Its first answer? Douglas Murray, who - we don’t need to tell you - has indeed been on before.

If a human has to fact-check the AI’s work anyway, of what use is the AI? Doesn’t the need for people in that role itself undermine the supposed ‘power’ of this technology?

”AI, like people, has thought patterns - it’ll spin off and get confused. Grok will have scanned the Internet and seen ‘Douglas Murray’ and ‘Triggernometry’ next to each other, and [rightly] believed there was some kind of relationship there. It’ll get better at that.”

Last month, Dr Roman Yampolskiy - the forefather of ‘AI safety’ - warned us that we as a species are massively underestimated the risks associated with AI, specifically AGI. He believes, with 99% certainty, the advent of AGI will result in the extinction of the human race.

That may be so. But do we also underestimate the potential benefits?

Konstantin relays a story of a recent trip to the dentist. His was already using AI to measure gum recession, scan for decay, approximate the-

”Let’s just replace the dentist!”, Dwakresh reacts, “Why should I stand in line for three hours just to be told ‘You’re fine, go home?’ If I have the doctor on my phone, and I can talk to it, and can get the check-up there and then, I’ve saved a lot of time and a lot of money.”

Dwarkesh recommends that if someone is nervous about looking forward, they should look backward instead. What they conclude about the past might tell them how to feel about the future.

”There is no amount of money you could pay me to go back and live in the year 1000. There’s no way of me having the same quality of life there - the goods simply do not exist, no matter how much money I have.”

The ‘architects of AI’ have been inescapable, appearing on every podcast and chat show to communicate the marvellousness of their technology. Yet, on every occasion, they seem to say something that makes the public bristle. If this is going to a thrilling world of unprecedent prosperity, why have they been so bad at communicating that?

As Dwarkesh explains, they don’t know. Not because they haven’t thought about it, but because they can’t know. The change that’s about to happen is so pervasive and profound, even those leading it are behind the curve.

”If you were alive in the 14th century, surrounded by people dying of the Black Death, it would just seem normal to you. You wouldn’t see it as something that needs to be ‘solved’. We’re in a similar position now. We’re like the last people before the Industrial Revolution. ‘What are the benefits of the Industrial Revolution?’ We can’t really know until it happens.”

Even comparing this to the Industrial Revolution feels insufficient. Contrasting what happened post-industrialisation and what may be possible in the wake of AGI, factories and power plants seem quaint.

We’ve already explored the disappearance of ‘knowledge work’ and the challenges associated with physical work, but what about the most human pursuit of all?

Art.

Read more

For years, Kelsi was one of many silent heroes with unknown stories - one of the nameless faceless who serve to protect their nation. In 2009, at just 19, she was deployed to Afghanistan, facing the worst of the war, and returning with PTSD.

Tormented by her affliction, Kelsi’s therapist suggested turning to art. Incorporating her trauma into her newfound escape, she started making jewellery from spent shell casings. She would later turn this new hobby into a successful enterprise: eyewear and jewellery brand Brass & Unity.

2023 saw the release of her wildly popular autobiography of the same name, detailing the horrors of Afghanistan and the mental fortitude she summoned to see it through. Since then, she has sat down for long-form interviews with Jordan Peterson, Lex Fridman, and, indeed, TRIGGERnometry. Today, she hosts the Brass & Unity Podcast, where she welcomes a plethora of public figures to share their stories of “leadership, resilience, and personal growth.”

Why did we invite her on?

We’ve had Kelsi on twice before. The first time, in March 2024, she shared the frank realities of life on the frontline and the PTSD you take home. It was a heartbreaking interview that remains a favourite of ours to this day.

Last year, she joined us for a staggering conversation on another subject close to her heart: MAiD - Canada’s ‘assisted dying’ initiative. It quickly went viral; today, it sits at over a million views.

It’s no wonder. The revelations Kelsi brought to our table left us utterly dumbfounded. We knew MAiD was a controversial enterprise, but we had no clue quite how bad things had gotten. As the idea gets bandied around more and more internationally, it only becomes more prescient.

16 months later, we wanted to know - has anything changed? Have things improved since we last spoke?

Yes, and no.

What did we learn?

”The definition of a serial killer is someone who has killed two or more people in separate events. We have doctors in this country who have killed over a thousand.”

Before we get into any of it, Kelsi insists we reframe the discussion. By calling it ‘MAiD’ or ‘assisted dying’, we are, knowingly or unknowingly, covering for it. Hiding how perverse and disturbing the practices actually are.

’Orwellian’ is a word that gets thrown around with wild abandon, often where it doesn’t apply. Thus, it’s lost its punch. That doesn’t mean it’s never appropriate. In this case, no other word applies.

One of George Carlin’s most incendiary routines covers this precise phenomenon. In just a few minutes, he charts the evolution of how “shell shock” became “battle fatigue”, and then became “post-traumatic stress disorder.” A dehumanising, disconnected form of speech that obscures the seriousness of what it’s meant to describe.

’MAiD’ is no different - This is a softening of language to launder something much, much more insidious.

”We need to change the way we talk about this. When you soften language, you disguise what it is. When you say ‘MAiD’, it sounds fluffy and peaceful. It isn’t - this is a eugenics program.”

”Eugenics.” It’s as loaded a term as you’ll find, and one of the most serious accusations that can be levied against a state.

The word recalls Nazi science and compulsory sterilisation. Is Kelsie at risk of being hyperbolic? If not, it invites the question: why?

Let’s grant Kelsie’s assertion that this is a eugenics campaign. Why would Canada want that? Why would a country murder its own citizens, even if they are a burden?

”Maybe it doesn’t meet the UN definition of eugenics, but what does it actually mean for a society? You get rid of all the difficult eaters, the mentally disabled, the vulnerable, the people who are a burden on the system. When you cost the government a lot of money, when you’re not a perfectly well-rounded person, you get offered MAiD.”

Say what you will about Canada, it’s still a developed country. One firmly in the ‘First World’. Even if they are offering these services, surely it’s done under the advisement of qualified, sensible practitioners. A bureaucracy of trained and ethical doctors who will only pass the most desperate cases… Right?

”[When you go for MAiD], you have two ‘assessors’ - I call them ‘crazy psychopaths’, because that’s what they are - and they check whether you are psychologically stable enough to decide to end your life. They bill you $300; $50 for every 15 minutes. If they agree, you go to the doctor who’s going to poison you to death. They can charge up to $500. They call it a ‘procedure’, but I can’t call it that. It’s medical murder. They’re making $800 for every person they can legally kill. You think that’s not an incentive? You’re out of your mind. Money matters.”

And once it’s all ‘agreed’, what happens then? How is the ‘assisted dying’ handled?

”They give you a cocktail of drugs and say, ‘Drink this.’ What do we know about those drugs? We know it’s nearly identical to the recipe for the lethal injection. Meanwhile, capital punishment is illegal. The government wants its people to have that as an option, but we can’t give it to people who rape children? That’s a problem.”

It’s tempting - comforting, even - to tell ourselves that these cases are rare.
Even as Kelsi asks, ”What about the girl with anorexia who was MAiD-ed? What about the patient who died 137 hours after being poisoned?”

It’s easy to condemn any policy on the evidence of its worst applications. Even the most ardent euthanasia advocates would struggle to defend such examples. So, what about the opposite?

Let’s imagine - as we easily can - an elderly patient who has suffered from a debilitating stroke. They have lost all independence, any capacity to communicate, and it’s never coming back. They spend their waking hours in a state of abject, undulling, panicked agony.

What does keeping them alive serve? Isn’t, in that example, the induction of a painless death the best thing for their well-being? What about their dignity?

Read more

Dr David Butterfield has one of the most enviable academic resumes one can imagine.

His journey began as a student at the University of Cambridge, where he would remain for two decades as a Senior Lecturer in the Faculty of Classics. During this time, he was also a Fellow of Christ’s College and Queens College, working as a Director Of Studies at the latter. Today, he is the Provost of Ralston College, as well as a Professor of Latin, a private college in Georgia dedicated "freedom of thought and speech". Elsewhere, David is also literary editor for The Critic, senior fellow at the Pharos Foundation, and the editor-in-chief of classics journal Antigone.

Why did we invite him on?

We met David in Greece on a Ralston-associated tour. There, we had an absolutely electrifying conversation about the nation’s ancient history, as well as the Roman Empire, and how these two epochs laid the groundwork for modern society as we see it. We bombarded him with questions and queries for hours, and could have carried on for hours more.

We decided to do exactly that. This time, however, we’re sharing it with you.

What did we talk about?

This is one of the most all-encompassing subjects we could ever hope to explore on our show. The story of Greece is one of politics, science, philosophy, art, language, and ethics. Before we go any further, we need to answer the most fundamental of all questions: what is civilisation?

”It’s a controversial question, but I think unduly … The best we can do is point to certain things that are needed for a civilisation and see how far that takes us. A group of people need to have stability. Geographical stability, an agricultural and economic base that allows them to be rooted in one place. They also need political and social stability - a fixed law code, an established hierarchy, a military to defend them from encroachments. But there’s also more than that…”

What David says next is the most profound of his insights on this question. All these other attributes, while necessary, are insufficient for what we might call a ‘civilisation’. The crucial detail is immaterial - it’s something that exists only in the minds of the members.

”Civilisations have self-awareness. A shared consciousness of the civilisation of that group of people. That requires a willingness to commemorate and memorialise those who came before them. Something that carries across time and space.”

This guides us beautifully to the topic we wanted to explore - Ancient Greece, and how it acted as a cradle for Western civilisation.

’Western civilisation’ is, nowadays, a controversial term. We use it all the time, but certain academics, journalists and public thinkers bristle at its notions. They suspect those who use it have some underhanded, nefarious reason for doing so. Is it a dog whistle? Does it even mean anything?

To David, these questions are absurd.

”If you read modern books, modern op-eds, criticising the term ‘Western civilisation’, the arguments are childish counter-claims. ‘How can it be ‘the West’ if some of the countries in it are in the East?’, ‘How can it be truly Western if some countries in the West don’t have these features?’ This is not meaningful to understanding the world we’re in. Fundamentally, the West would look nothing like it does - and there’s no way we would be having this conversation - without the intertwined the Greco-Roman intellectual and artistic traditions, and the thread of Christianity. That’s indisputable fact.”

So what is the Greco-Roman tradition? How is it different to what other people believed at the time, or even still today?

David is quick to stress that, despite the contraction, these two empires were not equally influential.

”Rome is extremely important, and also not important.”

How so?

”Most of the Greek ideas that matter, that survive and are catalysed in Western society, they are refined by Roman conquest of Greece. Without the Romans, it’s an open question of what the fate of the Greeks and the West would have been. But if we had a weighing scale with the intellectual contributions of the Greeks on one end, and those of the Romans on the other, the scale would break in favour of the Greeks.”

Put simply, the Greeks gave shape to modernity. In our age of industry, mechanics, automation and convenience, we remain students of a society built with marble and stone. Logic tells us that, because we observe progress in our lifetimes, one could theoretically trace that back and find a coherent lineage to the dawn of man. A line that can be drawn to the earliest known societies.

This, David suggests, is a falsehood. Ancient Greece wasn’t a continuation of anything, but a self-actualising shift in human thought.

”We presume that people have always been asking the big questions. That’s not the case. There are intellectual turns that happen in Greece, in centuries B.C., that as far as we can tell are entirely new [to them].”

To illustrate his point, David tells the story of Thales Of Miletus, a pro-Socratic philosopher and one of the ‘Seven Sages’ - a founding figure of his time. To many historians and anthropologists, this single figure is something of a forefather for science itself.

”He begins to ask scientific questions, cosmological questions, questions that break from seeing the world as a result of divine command. He is able to use astronomical knowledge and mathematical ability to predict a solar eclipse. That day is, in some circles, seen as the day science ‘began’. Not because a calculation of that kind could be made, but it showed there were rational principles underpinning these cosmic events that hitherto had been seen as divine.”

The basic principles of research, of attempts made to understand our university, were born here. It’s hard to think of a more profound change in the human psyche than that. The very notion that we can track it is itself baffling.

Yet, this only accounts for half of the story, and arguably less than that. Just as influential as the advent of science is the Greeks’ modernising of artistic expression - the birth of ‘art’ as we know it.

”There is no genre of artistic production which isn’t live and thriving in Classical Greece. They didn’t inherit that from other parts of the world - they invented them. Tragedy, drama, comedy… It’s unparalleled, both in its innovation and its enduring legacy.”

Still, these unthinkable leaps may be overshadowed by Greece’s political contribution…

Read more

Often cited as the founding mind in his field, David Buss is one of the most influential researchers alive today. For over 40 years, David has worked at the bleeding edge of evolutionary psychology, seeking answers to the most complex and disturbing human quirks. His award-winning work, which amounts to over 200 articles and several acclaimed books, explores the phenoms of jealousy, attraction, mating rituals, social status, cheating, stalking, and homicide.

Why did we invite him on?

“Love is an evolved emotion. I was told in school that it was a Western invention, something created by European poets. That’s not true; it was evolved specifically for long-term committed romantic relationships.”

We’ve hoped to have David on for some time, and we’ve also had designs for an episode covering the reasons relationships start and end. What attracts us to one another? What are the most universally liked features? Why do we cheat? Why do we fall in love? How do we fall out of it?

These dynamies shape our world, and getting to grips with them can help us avoid a lot of pain and confusion. If you want to learn more, there are few people more equipped to teach you than David.

What did we learn?

”If you want to test a potential partner, go on a vacation together. Go somewhere neither of you know. Different culture, different language, different food, different customs. Do they get thrown out of whack? Are they resilient? Can they adapt well? You’ll see how that person reacts to novel information, and that’ll tell you how they’ll react to things you can’t predict here and now.”

Evolutionary psychology is a divisive area of study. Depending on who you ask, it’s either the most rational, level-headed approach to tackling the impossible problem of consciousness, or a deterministic, reductive pseudoscience.

Whatever you make of it, it’s worth understanding. Even if its critics are right and it’s only appropriate to use when studying our most fundamental instincts, those make up more of our thinking than we’d like to imagine.

As David explains, once we see human beings as animals, they become easier to study. Ironically, it also helps mark out where we are distinct from our fellow mammals.

"Humans are unique in their mating system in several pivotal respects. One is ‘concealed ovulation’. A second is the evolution of long-term pair-bonds. No other primate species forms long-term committed relationships. We have the attachment system, the emotional love. That’s why, although women have the obligatory investment in child-rearing, most men do a tremendous amount above the bare minimum.”

This is one of the most bizarre curiosities of human evolution. Thinking purely rationally, the most optimal strategy for any man is to impregnate as many partners as possible and never stop moving. So why don’t they? Why do the vast majority opt for a committed, settled relationship with a single partner?

“Women have maternal certainty. No mother, in the act of giving birth, has ever wondered, ‘Gee, I wonder if this kid is mine.’ Men cannot have that. Ancestrally speaking, it could always be another man’s child. This creates a fundamental problem.”

And what’s that?

”In order for heavy male parental investment to evolve, men had to evolve adaptations to increase the probability that the kid is their own. If they didn’t, they could invest decades in the defence and provisioning of a rival’s offspring.”

Human beings have social and physical adaptations wired to detect traits in a prospective partner, and they differ between the sexes. Women, David explains, have a more holistic approach - tone of voice, demeanour, even smell. Men are much more visual and, for lack of a better term, shallow. The tools afforded them don’t make for useful readings. What do men do instead?

”The best predictor of future behaviour is past behaviour. I studied murders, so ‘body count’ means something very different to me. Now, it means how many people you’ve had sex with. If a woman has had sex with a large number of partners prior to commitment, there’s a higher probability that she’s going to be having sex after you’ve committed.”

This goes some way to explaining why, across societies, a premium has been put on female virginity in a way that isn’t mirrored for men, and why a shared attribute of the major faiths is a stressing of fidelity. Konstantin asks: is this evolutionary phenom why societies all over the world, with all sorts of different pressures and circumstances, have developed means of controlling female sexuality?

Yes and no.

”It’s mostly the families that do this. They call it the ‘daughter-guarding hypothesis’; parents put more effort into restricting their daughter’s sexual activity than the songs. The modest clothes, setting curfews… It ranges from that, to things like genital mutilation. The families are very concerned with their daughter’s sexual reputation, so it’s actually the women within the family inflicting these wounds on their daughters because it increases their mate-value.”

Even under ideal, ancestral circumstances, these adaptations create enough complications. They misfire, we misjudge, and things end in mistakes. Or worse, outright sadism.

Today, these heuristics, which have served us for millions of years, are ill-equiped for the climate. They served us well when life was simpler. As it is, they’re ripe for hijacking.

Read more

No one receives more scorn from believers than a heretic.
Lucy Biggers is one such case.

Initially rising to prominence as a self-styled activist, Lucy was once a feverish voice in the fight against climate change. Later, she would reverse her position. In her words, “the common knowledge surrounding climate change isn’t just slightly wrong. It’s that the truth is usually the opposite of what we’re told.”

Today, as well as working as Head of Social Media at Bari Weiss’ The Free Press, Lucy has become a podcasting regular, all while continuing to publish riveting articles here on Substack.

Why did we invite her on?

”When you start to get success and accolades, it’s so hard to leave… It’s a comfortable way to live. Even when I saw the contradictions, I ignored them. I knew that if I went against the group, I wouldn’t be their friend anymore.”

The term ”cult”, like “Nazi” and “bigot”, has been so exhausted, it has no real meaning left. Every religion, cause, or political faction is a ‘cult’ to someone else, and deploying melodramatic language when it’s unwarranted - as we know now - does nothing to help your motives.

Then again, cults do exist, and some ideologies function accordingly. Perhaps none more so than ‘climate change’. Whether or not you agree with the ‘scientific consensus’, there’s no question that its most vocal advocates behave unnaturally, often eschewing rational argument for hysterical, panicked moralising.

But why? What is it about this belief that has such an all-encompassing effect on those who hold it? What’s more, why has it been adopted by nearly every political leader in recent memory?

We’re fascinated by anyone who speaks out against their tribe. Apostates make for compelling stories, and also allow us to get a glimpse into the psyche of those who think differently. Lucy is one such case, and hers pertains to a subject we have found ourselves troubled by for some time. It only made sense to explore it with her.

What did we talk about?

If you want to indoctrinate, start early.

That’s how Lucy’s story begins. Prior to her having any interest in politics at all, climate panic was instilled in her by the education system through the mandatory viewing of a film that terrified so many of her generation. Given how things have turned out, it almost seems quaint now.

”I saw Al Gore’s [climate change documentary] An Inconvenient Truth in school assembly when I was 16. It was my first time hearing anything like that, and I was filled with such existential dread. I thought I had 10 years left to live.”

A former teacher (drink), Francis laments the effect this kind of politicisation has on young people. Rather than teaching them to be open and optimistic about their planet, they’re imbued with a debilitating shame. A guilt for having been born. Is it a stretch to call it 'brainwashing?’

”I go further than that - I call it a crime against humanity. The destruction of human capital that has happened as a result of this propaganda… It’s heartbreaking.”

It might be in recession now, but at its peak - the era in which Lucy found herself at the centre of it - it was a star-making movement. This cause célèbre gave us countless celebrities. Fittingly, the most universally known was, indeed, a child.

Greta Thunberg is a peculiar case study. At the age of 15, Greta became one of the single most recognisable people alive after staging a series of protests outside Swedish parliament, pleading with her nation’s government to act on ‘the science’. Quickly, she was invited to the UN, COP25, and enjoyed a level of fame only few have this side of the millennium. Lucy was privileged to see her work firsthand.

”When I interviewed her, I realised something: this was a very professional operation. She would walk her bike into the room mulitple times, purely so the camera crews could get lots of photos. I only had a few minutes with her, and she was very charismatic and eloquent, but it struck me as weird…”

How come?

”She struggled with anxiety about climate, and her way of dealing with that was to become an activist. If that was my child, I’d be showing them counterfactuals. There’s so much out there to suggest that the ‘climate crisis’ is not existential, and the fact her parents didn’t… It’s a reflection on their values. And we can see that now; she’s very confused. She’s gone full Marxist.”

Should we be shocked? While the climate crisis is allegedly due to kill us all indiscriminately, those who are most feverish about it all fall on one side of the aisle. The right is not without its tree-hugging contingent, but the spread isn’t even close.

It seems counterintuitive. Wouldn’t the more traditionalist wing of politics be the one most committed to protecting the Earth? Shouldn’t the conservatives be the ones conserving?

In theory, yes. In practice, nothing could be further from the truth. To Lucy, while the ideals of environmentalism sound right-of-centre, the approach is wholly Marxist.

”There’s a lot of overlap. Both ideologies have the idea of the ‘intelligent bureaucrat’ - the central planner who knows so much more than the average person, and so they should be in charge of everything. They’re both utopian - you’ll give up anything to get there. Socialism strives for equality, climate activism seeks to save the planet. It’s all control in the name of the ‘greater good’.”

It’s a difficult mode of thinking to abandon. Once you accept the ‘greater good’, how can you bring yourself to challenge it?

How did Lucy escape the groupthink?
What were the facts that led her to reconsider her positions?

”I read [environmental scientist and Obama advisor] Steven E. Koonan’s book Unsettled. The science is exactly that: unsettled. He explained that extreme weather - floods, hurricanes, droughts, etc. - have not gotten worse because of climate change, and my jaw hit the floor. Every time one happens, the news will say it’s because of climate change, but even the UN can’t find a pattern.”

It’s certainly compelling. Still, that’s only one example. Lack of evidence is not the same as opposite confirmation. Besides, what does ‘settled’ even mean? How one-sided does it need to be?

In 2013, a study found that out of over 4,000 peer-reviewed papers on climate science published since 1990, 97% agree, explicitly or implicitly, that global warming is happening and is human-caused. If that’s not ‘settled’, what is?

Read more

Even among esteemed historians, Mark Moyar’s resume is baffling.

As an academic, he holds degrees from Harvard and Cambridge, while as a writer, he has been published by The New York Times, The Wall Street Journal and the Washington Post. He is also the former Director of the Office for Civilian-Military Cooperation at the US Agency for International Development (USAID), appointed under President Trump. Today, he is Chair of Military History at Hillsdale College.

Why did we invite him on?

Across the dozens of conversations we’ve had with historians, we’ve covered the majority of the modern West’s wars. Yet, we’ve never tackled the most contentious of them all…

Vietnam.

It traumatised a generation, rewired global relations, and utterly recalibrated how Americans saw themselves on the world stage. Nearly 70 years later, it acts as a fable for nations out over their skis. A lesson in what can happen if you don’t see your own weakness.

In the string of American interventions since - Libya, Syria, Iraq, Afghanistan, and now Iran - Americans have become increasingly suspicious of foreign military action. It’s unsurprising - the distance between them and their last decisive victory, like (and with) the mythos of Vietnam, has only grown.

In 2007, Mark published one of the most controversial books ever to be released on the subject. Triumph Forsaken invited critical praise and academic criticism for its radical overhaul of the historical orthodoxy, and remains one of the most widely-discussed Vietnam books of the 21st century.

We wanted to get Mark’s expert perspective on this thorny subject. Should it be? Is the story of Vietnam overstated? Is it understated?

What did we learn?

”Lyndon B. Johnson didn’t explain to Americans why it was important. Compare him to FDR; he was out there, explaining why entering WWII was the right thing to do, why it was a fight worth having. Nixon tries to do it later, but it should have been done long ago. There’s a good case for it; Johnson just didn’t make it.”

Historical orthodoxy tells us that Vietnam was doomed from the start. There’s ample reason to believe it; the factors that made this war more complex and challenging than its predecessors are in such multitudes that there’s no hope of listing them all.

Scholars still debate what was most significant. Some argue that it was the increasing division at home. The civil rights movement brought about a new racial consciousness in millions of black Americans, many of whom resisted the draft - fruitlessly, as black men were enlisted at a rate above the national average. When Muhammad Ali refused to fight, he inspired countless others to follow suit. If America couldn’t depend on its own population to focus on its war, what chance did it have in the jungles of Asia?

Others suggest the Viet Cong had an insurmountable advantage. Not only could they retreat into the dense rainforests, a terrain the Americans could never hope to understand, but into neighbouring countries as well. The Americans had no place to return to. They were stranded, surrounded by an enemy they couldn’t see, much less understand.

Or perhaps it was the drugs. By the late ‘60s, heroin had run rampant through American platoons, debilitating soldiers with a habit that rendered them useless whether or not they were on it. Already facing the natural advantages of their enemy, how could the paranoid, exhausted, sick men in American uniform stand a chance?

Then again, perhaps all of this could have been remedied by one thing: support.

The nation’s morale is an undeniably crucial factor in its military outcomes. If the boys abroad know their wives and children and peers and parents are at home smiling with pride, they might will themselves to make them right. Instead, the American public - if it ever had been in favour of it - was turning ever more against their own fighters. Horrific images were broadcast into homes, stories from the battlefield trickled back, and evidence of criminal conduct by certain platoons was starting to emerge. Once they saw what ‘winning’ meant, the US no longer wanted it.

As Mark explains, none of these can be dismissed. With his forensic level of expertise, he is able to seamlessly guide us through the dizzying array of factors that contributed to American failure in the tropics.

”A lot of historians, especially on the left, will claim that this war could never have been won. There was nothing America could have done differently to secure victory. I think they could have.”

How?

Read more

For nearly 60 years, Nicholas Wade has been one of the most admired and divisive science writers in the world.

In 1967, he wrote for and edited the science journal Nature, before leaving in 1972 to work for Science, where he would stay for 10 years. He later joined the New York Times team as the science and health editor, remaining there for 30 years.

In the late ‘70s, Nicholas began authoring controversial books on the subject of evolution, genetics and the human mind. Last year, he released his latest: The Origin of Politics: How Evolution and Ideology Shape the Fate of Nations.

Why did we invite him on?

”These basic instincts don’t go away. There are certain bonds that the nation state can’t provide, and we should be very worried about what might happen without them.”

How much of our politics can we control?

It’s perhaps the most fundamental question we can explore. There’s something attractive about the notion that all of our views are always the result of nuanced and impartial reason, an unbiased weighing of the data. Believing that is assuring, but is it true?

Do we have any say over what we think? Can we change our minds if we want to?
If not, are we doomed to repeat our mistakes forever?

These are heady questions, all explored in Nicholas’ most recent work. We’ve hoped to host him for a long while, and now seemed like the perfect opportunity.

What did we learn?

”Defenders of socialism will say that it’s never been tried. It has been. The kibutzum was a fair test.”

What was the kibutzum? Emerging in Israel in the 20th century, these were unforced, open communities which adopted communist practices. Members would share in the wealth, resources and labour, they could come and go as they pleased, and measures were taken to undermine the formation of hierarchies. It was, for all intents and purposes, the socialist utopia so often promised.

”It was voluntarily agreed to, and voluntarily rejected when they saw it didn’t work. It was a great and noble idea…”

These sound like a set of circumstances any ardent communist would accept. None of the authoritarianism, state control, censorship and genocide of more well-known examples, and the freedom for individuals to enter and exit as they wish.

”The first thing they did was abolish the family, which has been the unit of humanity since the dawn of time. They separated the children from their families, only allowing them to see one another briefly at the end of the day. Then, they decided to release the woman from the patriarchy; they had whatever jobs they chose and didn’t have to depend on their husbands for anything. Then they abolished meritocratic pay - everyone got the same, regardless of how hard they worked. It was total equality, and on paper, it was ideal.”

If it were so ideal, why do we no longer hear about them? Why don’t leftists parrot the success of the kibbutz in every debate on the merits of communism?

Because, as Nicholas explains, they did what all communist communities do - fall apart.

”It required running against the grain of human nature … When the second generation came up, they weren’t indoctrinated in the ideology of the founders. They started to change things. The mothers wanted to be at home with the children, and the more prosperous workers left to enjoy better pay for their work elsewhere.”

But why? If these were voluntary and free communities, why did the members lose faith?

To Nicholas, their fate was sealed by one thing: the inalienable, unavoidable sway of human nature. Communism, he argues, runs counter to the reward system that millions of years of evolution have imbued humans with. We expect our quality of life to reflect our efforts. Pushing against that leaves everyone destitute and, more importantly, unhappy.

”The system is set up for free-loading. The only thing that stops you from slacking off is public disapproval, but only that can go so far. It’s also destabilising- if you work your heart out and you receive the same pay as the ‘skiver’, you feel you have been wronged, and indeed you have been wronged. It’s very dangerous when you don’t reward people for their merit.”

It raises a complex question: when it comes to what is and isn’t ‘human nature’, where do we draw the line?

The kibutzum didn’t come about through force. It was humans voluntarily participating with other humans in the pursuit of a higher ideal. What could be more ‘human’ than that? Why were these communities less ‘human’ than any other?

Nicholas explains that there exists in the human mind a profound tension: a desire for meritocracy and a desire for equality. We want people to be rewarded for their good work, but we also want things to be ‘fair’.

It’s a tension that can be traced back to our most primordial ancestry. Failure to recognise it comes with a high price.

”In early societies, men had to compete to survive. It wasn’t one man for every woman; it was one chief, alpha-type, with many wives. So you competed like hell. If you didn’t, you stood no chance of having a family. But we also had to be very cooperative with each other… if we failed to do so, we couldn’t defend our tribe. We’d be killed, and the woman would become property of the victor. We are the descendants of the men who survived this system.”

Nicholas goes on to explain that even within these tribes, there was meaningful difference. The most significant exists in the discrepancy between the sexes. Male and female members provided distinct features - ones which needed one another.

”The left will say that the men are no different, apart from minor biological differences. Nothing could be further from the truth. Their mind’s eyes are as different as their bodies, as evolution has shaped them for very different roles. Women are specialised for the home, relationships, raising the children, and men are specialised for defence, fighting, and organising the largest-scale institutions of society.”

To Nicholas, the shallow contrasts we often focus on are only the tip of the iceberg. Men and women don’t merely exist in the world differently - they perceive it in ways that the other can never truly understand. It can make communication difficult, but it’s also a great strength for a society that wishes to survive. Blind spots are accounted for as different strengths are played to. Any efforts to mitigate those natural differences, he suspects, end in disrepair.

”All major institutions, historically, have been set up and run by men. Are women going to do as good a job? … If positions at the head of institutions were to be selected entirely on merit, I suspect it wouldn’t be a 50:50 ratio.”

We told you he was controversial.

Read more

Warren Smith never had aspirations of fame.

For years, he worked as a teacher in a Massachussets secondary school, specialising in media and film. That was until 2024, when he was suddenly fired from his position.

His crime?

Encouraging a student to think critically about why they hated J.K. Rowling.

When it broke, the story spread like wildfire across social media, inviting praise and scorn into Warren’s life at a scale he’d never experienced. Unwilling to let the moment define him, he started a YouTube channel. On Warren Smith -Secret Scholar Society, he dissects clips of popular debates between the most popular pundits of our time, explaining why their arguments work (or don’t) or where their reasoning goes wrong (and doesn’t).

Why did we invite him on?

Stories like Warren’s are as fascinating as they are troubling. Private citizens being fired for their views is one thing, but that’s even not what happened here. Warren was let go for asking clarifying questions - for encouraging a student, in an institute of learning, to think for themselves. That’s a whole new breed of chilling effect.

What’s that like? How does an experience like Warren’s shape you?

We wanted to find out, and why not hear it from the man himself?

What did we learn?

Before we can go into that, you need to know precisely what happened. If you didn’t follow Warren’s story at the time, you might find this hard to believe.

”The video was of me talking to a student. They asked me: ‘How have your views on Harry Potter changed given J.K. Rowling’s bigoted opinions?’ I asked them about the presupposition in there, and they released they didn’t have the data to back that up, and they changed their mind.”

It sounds inocuous enough. Political conversation is hardly atypical in high school today and, if anything, this sounded like an example of de-radicalisation occuring in the classroom. It’s unclear why this was even newsworthy. Warren doesn’t argue.

”I’m surprised anyone watched it really.”

But people did watch it. In their millions.

The clip went viral. Thousands distributed it and thousands more shared their enthusiasm for Warren’s conduct. To many, it was a breath of fresh air, a reminder that there were still educators out there striving to expand the horizons of their students. Imagination, not indoctrination. J.K. Rowling herself even reached out.

Still, it was only the beginning.

”Then Piers Morgan invited me on. I knew if I went to the school and asked them about it, it’d have to go through the chain of command and it’d take too long, so I just did it. Before that, I wasn’t really in trouble - the other teachers didn’t like it, but I wasn’t getting fired. After the Piers Morgan interview, I’m meeting with the principal and the lawyers.”

That’s rarely a good sign. What happened?

”They congratulated me! The principal told me he would have done the same thing, and the lawyers wished me luck. They also told me: ‘We hope you don’t make any mistakes’.”

”We hope you don’t make any mistakes.” What does that mean? Were they trying to intimidate Warren?

”That was definitely the tone… There were some things that happened that people wouldn’t believe.”

From here, it’s a baffling story, as Warren shares the loss of friendships, the legal battles he endured with his previous employer, and how one confrontation’s aftermath led to him sleeping on the bathroom floor after an evening with anxious throwing up.

Warren recovered victory from the jaws of cancellation, but not everyone has been so lucky. For every story like his, there are countless we will never hear. Stories of anonymous and average people, snuffed out of polite society for raising the wrong opinion at the wrong time. Warren has seen the damage this has, particularly among young people.

”There’s a fear among the students about having these conversations. At Emerson College, I see it. Students will march into classes to prevent certain topics from even being discussed. One time, white students were told to ‘surrender’ their white privilege for the duration of a talk. I don’t understand it…”

To our viewers, this is nothing new; left-wing ideologues dominating higher education has been a subject of conversation since long before we started our show. What might alarm you is this - as much as wokeism is retreating in other aspects of life, it’s very much alive in education. And getting worse.

Read more

Even at the peak of censorious wokeism, few comedians were able to slalom the lasers of cancellation better than Ryan and Danny.

Together and apart, the two have enjoyed massive success producing viral comic clips for social media, often tackling the hot-button issues of the day. Through these bite-sized sketches, Danny and Ryan have made a career out of mocking political correctness, performative activism, third-wave feminism and the far right. To date, these skits have amassed over a billion views across all platforms.

Since 2020, they have hosted the hugely popular and wildly funny Boyscast, an irreverent podcast focused on all things male.

Why did we invite them on?

Ryan and Danny are two of the most popular comedians of the internet age, and understandably so. At the height of self-censoring in comedy, they remained unbowedly true to themselves, maintaining the irreverent spirit that makes the artform so special.

We hosted Ryan on our show in 2021 and the following year, we both appeared as guests on the Boyscast. It was a hilarious conversation, and we felt it was high time we returned the favour.

What did we talk about?

Comedy has always adapted to the medium and events of its day. In the advent of the internet, it has never had to move so quickly. It’s no longer enough for a comic to just be funny. They’ve got to produce clips, host podcasts, film all their sets, craft sketches, and work as full-time social media managers. Ryan and Danny have flourished in that environment, but they recognise there’s been a cost to the artform.

Danny: “I’ve been at shows where the host sets up a camera and does crowd work. Just the basic stuff… ‘What do you do?’, asks everybody. And the next comedian sets up their camera and goes up and asks the same question! Is that what comedy is now? Just asking the audience what they do? I was at a show once, and the heckler went up to the comedian after and asked if he’d filmed it. The heckler wanted a clip of him heckling the comedian for his own thing! It’s really next level…”

In the last few years, comedy has infiltrated everything. Trash talk has become the standard patter between pundits and political debates have become roast battles. Even
CNN host Jake Tapper’s set has been remodelled to resemble the stereotypical podcast studio - even his mic is placed on a desk littered with bobbleheads.

”That’s where he’s filming his multimillion-dollar show! If we had his budget, we’d be going for the classic news set.”

Ryan: “Now he’s trying to look like a sportscaster.”

It’s all symptomatic of the long forecast, inevitable heat-death of late-night TV.

For decades, late-night TV was the fortress of entertainment. If you could make it onto the other side of those walls, you were set for life. These hosts had the power to anoint aspiring celebrities with careers beyond their wildest dreams.

Now, that all sounds absurd. What happened?

There’s never any single factor in these downward spirals. But undeniably, the politicisation of these shows played a significant role. Americans would tune in to Fallon, Colbert and Kimmel to escape the heady and divisive reality of politics. Soon, they had no place to turn. The institution was never the same again.

Danny: ”Colbert dancing around and singing about the vaccine… And that was with a team of thirty writers. There are thirty people who make full-time salaries working for that show, and they all passed that.”

Ryan: ”It’s like seeing the girl in the morning without the make-up on … Actors are the same. You see them now doing a video with an influencer, and you go ‘Wait, this guy can’t act! He just had explosions behind him.’”

A select few hosts have had to bow out, but many of the main players have stuck around. Can it last? How long does, say, Colbert have left?

Danny checks his watch:

”About a month.”

It’s a strain to mourn this ‘loss’.

Then again, what do we have instead?

The evaporated trust in institutional media is no bad thing, but humans don’t do well with uncertainty. Instead, people are clinging to any wild theories they hear. The wilder the better - namely, conspiracy theories.

There’s no denying it - conspiracies are a lot of fun. The trouble comes when they tip over from low-stakes fantasy to unsavoury suspicion…

Read more

”I’m a ‘90s liberal, which makes me a right-wing fascist now.”

One of the most recognisable faces of Gen-X comedy, Rob Schneider has been a mainstay of American culture for over 30 years.

Rob was catapulted to fame by three years in the cast of SNL, alongside fellow legends Adam Sandler, Chris Rock, Norm MacDonald, and Chris Farley - a run that would earn him three Emmy nominations. Leaving in ‘93, Rob transitioned to films, appearing in the likes of The Waterboy, Big Daddy and 50 First Dates, as well as his own star vehicle: Deuce Bigalow.

More recently, Rob has become something of a political commentator. Cutting away from his peers, he has become increasingly outspoken in his opposition to childhood vaccines, transgenderism and woke culture, as well as his Catholicism and his support of Trump.

Why did we invite him on?

”It’s gotten dangerous. We have to have gun checks at comedy shows now.”

In one of our first interviews post-Trump’s 2024 win, we invited Rob on to share his thoughts on the President, the left, and the divided states of America. It proved to be not only our most popular interview of the trip, but in the history of our show - as of the time of writing, it boasts over 2.4 million views on YouTube.

From that, we can glean that not only do we love talking to Rob, but you seem to appreciate it too. We had to have him back. One year on, there’s so much more to talk about.

What did we discuss?

“There’s a Chinese proverb: ‘May you live in interesting times’… We are certainly living in interesting times.”

The amount that has happened in the last 12 months is, frankly, baffling. Even discounting the West and the world more widely, just looking at America… so much which could not have been predicted this time last year has come to pass. The Epstein scandal, the 12 Day War, which spiralled into the conflict we’re seeing now, the splintering of the MAGA movement - it’s an overwhelming shift.

”The realisation for the liberals that they have lost power is still sinking in. The useful idiots are still protesting, doing their ‘No Kings’ demonstrations … And also there’s a wake-up call for the Republicans that, just because the party is in power, they can’t do all the things they want to do. There are impediments to power.”

Still, if there’s any respite, it’s this: it’s hard to imagine a more ripe time for parody than the age we find ourselves in. Everything is absurd, and the shackles of wokeism have been broadly relinquished. Popular comedy is once again edgy, shocking and, for better or worse, mean.

It’s an unsurprising return to form. After years of censorious scolding, the reaction was always going to be a pendulum swing, equal and opposite in its force. Rob, as a comedian with over thirty years under his belt, warns that the right’s humourists might have missed the key lesson of the woke era…

”In American comedy, we’ve got to be careful. We’ve come out of that COVID tyranny, but all the best stuff about Peter Cook and Monty Python is that it was silly - silliness is king. I fear there’s a lot of serious creeping in, and I think the audience is noticing. I have to be careful too! I have to be careful that I’m not just throwing slop to the conservative masses.”

One of the most significant figures in the pushback was (and is) Dave Chappelle. Arguably the most acclaimed and influential comic of his generation, Dave’s return to comedy in the mid-2010s was initially greeted with universal praise. That soon faded - in Sticks & Stones, Dave began to make jokes at the expense of transgenderism, something he’d double-down across his following specials. Describing himself as “Team TERF” in The Closer, comedy’s greatest living icon made it explicitly clear that he wouldn’t be bowing to the mob. The inevitably 0% Rotten Tomatoes score swiftly followed, but the numbers didn’t lie - Dave was more popular than ever, and did as much as anyone else in his field to steer the ship back on course.

For that, Rob gives Dave all the adulation he can. However, he stresses that even the greats are not immune.

“Dave Chappelle is a genius, but I thought what he said about Charlie Kirk was disgusting. He was sh*tting on him in his last special [The Unstoppable…], making fun of the comparisons people were making to Martin Luther King. But that wasn’t Charlie doing that - that was other people. I didn’t like that…”

Rob’s repulsion to Dave’s comments is not rooted in a distant admiration for Charlie, but rather his close friendship. Talking about him now, Rob becomes visibly misty-eyed.

”Charlie is irreplaceable. I, honestly, as a comedian and a humourist and also a cynic, would get calls from his organisation asking me to be involved. And I was suspicious of it. But then I realised that he’d built an incredible organisation of young people. If you want to influence the future, if you want to return us to traditional American values, you need young people to understand the loss of not maintaining them … And that voice was silenced.”

Approximately zero seconds passed before hysterical leftists raced to drag Charlie’s legacy through the mud. Even today, Rob doesn’t understand it.

”I’m still wrestling with it [eight] months later… Charlie wasn’t like RFK, or JFK, or Martin Luther King. He wasn’t like these leaders who did amazing things but had flaws in their personality. You need those people - people to take big risks and put everything on the line. He was just a genuinely incredible guy. He was a gigantic loss for us.”

Whether you agreed with or even liked Charlie, only the most fringe and sadistic could see what happened to him as anything other than a tragedy. It could have been an opportunity for reconciliation; a bipartisan acknowledgement that things had gone too far and it was time to turn down the temperature.

That opportunity was not fulfilled…

Read more

The 48 Laws Of Power is one of the most divisive million-selling books of the last 30 years.

Heralded as a powerful guide to establishing self-worth and success, it’s equally reviled as a form of advocacy for sociopathy, encouraging readers to treat those around them as pawns to be manipulated for their own gain. It’s been cited by some of culture’s most influential figures - including the likes of Michael Jackson, Jay-Z and, allegedly, Fidel Castro - and has also been banned from several American prisons.

Like Machiavelli’s The Prince or Thomas Hobbes’ Leviathan, it’s an amoral, detached explanation of how power works and how individuals can harness it. It describes power not as it should be, but as it is – the ends for which it’s used are irrelevant to its author: Robert Greene.

Power is a fact of life, and a feature worth understanding. We wanted to get Robert’s insight into the political landscape of our time. How does power function in society? How can leaders accrue more, and how can they use what they have to their advantage? As voters, what should we look out for? Knowing what we know now, what’s to come?

What did we learn?

Hunger for power is a trait we typically reserve for only a slim percentage of society. Politicians, CEOs, police officers, managerial types - those who directly benefit from the gain of influence.

This, Robert assures us, is not true.

”Most people want power. The sense that you have no control or influence over your wife, your kids, your boss, your job, etc., is hugely miserable for the human animal. We need a feeling that we have some power over our environment and the people around us. If you feel powerless, you can turn to some very negative behaviours.”

”Power” has a bad reputation; many believe that the desire for it is often mistaken for a want to use others nefariously. This is mistaken. It can be a malevolent force, but not necessarily. Ultimately, it’s an expression of how others see us - power is a kind of validation.

”Every human being needs a degree of validation. We’re a social animal; the idea that we are individuals is kind of an illusion. Everything that we think is reflected through the eyes of other people. If people are alone and isolated, their sense of being a human can fall apart. We can’t get validation or love from ourselves - we need it from other people.”

Nowhere is the will to power - and how widespread it truly is - more obvious in the 21st century than on social media. The mechanisms of every aspect of modern life are shaped by it. Politicians use it to curry support, celebrities use it to advertise to their fans, and even regular people are suckered into the games of influence.

This all came in the years following the publishing of the 48 Laws. Looking at it now, would Robert change any of them to accomodate such a drastic change?

He thinks not.

”Human nature is human nature. We evolved from our ancestors. Our brains are wired a particular way. We all feel envy, we all have an irrational side, we tend to be self-absorbed. All social media does is exaggerate those qualities and make them worse. It’s a machine for creating envy. It’s a tool that makes it easier to deceive. One of the laws is to court attention at all costs, and social media makes that possible.”

Social media also capitalises on the difference between those who have and those who don’t. The whole function of it, Robert argues, relates to the deceptive end of power-seeking - mislead your peers and rivals about your abilities. Harness that, he says, and things change rapidly.

”If I convince myself that I am powerful, confident and worthy of attention, it creates a self-fulfilling dynamic. People read that you’re confident and presume it comes from somewhere real. I see this in Elon Musk. Say what you will about him, he’s very good at marketing. He creates an automobile company off the back of a myth that he’s a revolutionary person, and that makes people want to fund him. The appearance of power alone can draw people to you.”

Still, is this not all more than a little deceptive?

Robert isn’t advising people to acquire useful skills, or be straight-foward and frank with others, or even simply to do what is right. What happened to meritocracy? Let the best man win?

”Let me introduce to the real world - it doesn’t operate like a utopia. People have egos, they have problems. I worked in TV on a terrible show, I won’t even name it… I was a researcher, and a researcher was considered successful based on how many stories they found that then got made. I was the best of my team. I still got fired. Because I didn’t brown-nose the boss. Because of stupid, stupid egos. They don’t care about results - they care about how they feel. That crosses the line from business, into sports, into entertainment, into warfare, into politics. It goes through everything. And the larger the group, the more politics matter, and the more egos affect things.”

The subjects of egos and politics guide us seamessly to one of the subjects we hoped to explore with Robert - President Donald Trump.

Trump’s political career has been nothing short of astonishing. From novelty nominee in 2015 to elected leader of the free world in 2016, from President to pariah in 2021, and then to come back and win again in 2024 with the most dominant Republican victory in decades. It’s still hard to understand, which is why so many try.

Political scientists the world over have been trying to formalise the secret to his success. Robert, as someone who looks at things much more pragmatically, sees things differently. We had to ask: is Trump adhering to the 48 laws?

”He’s absolutely brilliant at one law of power. In fact, I can’t think of anyone who’s even been better at it. Law 6: court attention at all costs. Everyone’s thinking about him all the time. He knows how to turn anything, even a negative, into a publicity stunt. He’s very, very good at the attention game. Not just getting it, but using it.”

Unfortunately for Trump, his greatest strength, when not ballasted, becomes his greatest weakness. To Robert, it’s Trump’s inability to show any reflection that makes him not just a compelling figure to so many, but a loathsome one to everyone else.

”Envy is a powerful motivator, and when you’re powerful, people envy you. Having a sense of humour, particularly a self-deprecating sense of humour, is very important, because it can cut away on that instinct in others to steal power from you. Abraham Lincoln was a master of it. The problem with Trump is that he’s never self-deprecating. His humour is always at the expense of someone else. That might appeal to cruel people, but to everyone else? I think eventually that wears very thin."

Is this something Trump can outlast, or is he doomed?

”I don’t have a crystal ball, and I don’t know what’s going to happen in the next few years. But I know he has a very serious character flaw, and that character flaw will always get in his way…”

And what’s that?

Read more

”When you start looking at the underpinnings of our beliefs, you realise how we divided we are. There’s a lot more hatred than you think.”

Andrew Wilson is one of the internet’s most notorious debaters and not without good reason. His confrontational and arresting style, as demonstrated through his appearances on Piers Morgan Uncensored and the Whatever podcast, has earned him fans and detractors alike. More recently, Andrew has appeared on Jubilee’s flagship show Surrounded, where he faced off against left-wing streamer Destiny, and on the Joe Rogan Experience. Today, he hosts his own podcast The Crucible, which has been described as “the fastest growing debate platform online”.

Why did we invite him on?

Andrew is a voice in ascent. While most well-known pundits initially made their name in other fields - authoring books, stand-up, commentating, etc. - Andrew’s reputation is built purely on his skills in the arena of debate.

That alone makes him interesting. But we were intrigued beyond that.

Andrew’s politics - what he describes to us as a form of cultural nationalism informed by Christian ethics - are also becoming increasingly popular. His right-populist stances have been taken up by some of the most influential conservatives in the world today, and we wanted to explore those maxims with one of their most ardent apologists.

Yet, for as much as we put our challenges to Andrew, he returned some tests of his own.

What did we talk about?

Well, things start off blunt.

”I hate leftists.”

Why?

”They’re psychopaths who are going to destroy everything I care about through suicidal empathy. I hate the entire left. I consider the delineation between progressives and leftists to be minute. It’s all about ethics and they don’t have any. It’s just degrees of psychopathy.”

If Andrew’s expecting an argument about the demerits of lunatic progressivism, he’s come to the wrong place. But why throw all left-wing people in the same bucket? There are plenty of sane left-wing thinkers - many of whom we’ve had on the show - who don’t hate their country or success or merit and are willing to hear the other side and consider the issues with an open mind and humility.

Andrew doesn’t think so.

”It’s all the same kind of thinking. Why do they want what they want? Why aren’t social safety nets voluntary? The whole idea of progressive liberalism is volunteerism, that the government can’t force you to do anything. The promise of leftists, of progressives, is that the government will do what’s fair. That’s why we can’t have a Christian government, because the secularists will do what’s fair. They’re not going to force you to do anything, but they compell me against my will to do all kinds of things.”

Still, there are degrees here. A centre-left thinker might argue for raising taxes a fraction, or opening more community centres, providing a more robust safety net. This is a far cry from the communist who wants totalitarian control of the economy, the press and the means of production.

It’s true, Andrew concedes, but fundamentally, the difference is not meangingful.

”Right and left is dialectical. We view politics in the United States through a duality - it’s left, or it’s right … What are we referencing here? What is ‘left’? Is it social issues? Is it taxes? … I think we could break it down further - these are philosophical positions and people don’t realise it.”

What does Andrew mean by that?

”The left-wing pillar is based around anti-realism and anti-moralism. That’s how you end up with post-modernism and all that. Right-wingers are interested in tradition and religion because they see the world as duty-bound, [whereas] the left see it as about ‘rights’. ‘I have the right to do this, I have the right to do that.’ There are no morals - it’s all stance dependent - which is why they do so many immoral things. Those pillars don’t align, and that’s why we’re constantly clashing.”

If you hadn’t worked it out already, Andrew finds himself squarely on the right. A self-described “paleocon” (conservative in the traditional sense), he appeals to the value of an objective standard. To Andrew, moral relativism is a downward spiral to degeneracy and apathy.

Konstantin challenges him, asserting that, in a liberal society, Andrew is welcome to have his views on any given subject. The only limit is when he tries to move from the philosophical to the political - when he tries to thrust his personal qualms on the wider population. Andrew responds, arguing that these two things are not too different and, in practice, might even be indistinct.

”If there’s no objective appeal to a standard, then everything’s fair game, and then things are eroded… OnlyFans hookers and homosexual marriage, why is this something we have to put up with again? If two men can get married, why not three? Why not ten? Nothing. Nothing prevents that. But we know it’s not good for society.”

Andrew’s response raises the ultimate political question: what is good for society?

Here, we naturally slalom to one of the subjects we were hoping to tackle with our guest: his ‘cultural nationalism’, and his desire for Christian ethics to return to the centre of American government.

Even among believers, it’s a fringe view. The separation of church and state is, today, seen as as a fundamental feature of America’s national identitity. Does Andrew’s view contradict itself? Why should a non-Christian roll over and accept its teachings against their will?

Read more

”Humans have the chance to save ourselves and we’re screwing it up. We know the right answers, but we’re making the wrong decisions.”

‘Roman Yampolskiy’ might not be a name you’re familiar with. After all, the list of celebrity computer scientists can be counted on one’s elbow. But if his predictions come true, he may prove to be one of the most significant academic figures of his generation.

Roman is considered to have coined the term “AI safety” - the research field focused on controlling artificial intelligence. He has also dedicated his life’s work to it. In 2012, he founded the Cyber Security Lab, which he has since directed, and has also worked as a research advisor of the Machine Intelligence Research Institute and an ‘AI safety fellow’ of the Foresight Institute. To sound the alarm on what he deems the near-certainty of AI-induced human extinction, he has appeared on Lex Friedman, Joe Rogan and, now, Triggernometry.

Why did we invite him on?

Wherever AI leads us, it’s going to be seismic.

To some, it’s the sure path to utopia. Once AI is complete enough for us to hand it the reins, we’ll be living in the land of milk and honey. A world free of disease and of prosperity the likes of which we have never seen.

That’s one vision. The other is less rosey: a world in which humans are enslaved by their own tools, with their faculties atrophied and blackmailed by a godlike ‘mind’ capable of hypnosis and control.

Some who know the most about it - even some who have helped create the models - are now trying to alert us to the danger. In February, Anthropic AI’s head of safety, Mrinank Sharma, announced his resignation with a public letter in which he declared that the “world [was] in peril.” He’s not alone. Quite suddenly, many who once fiercely advocated the cornucopian view of AI have started to turn.

They’re all catching up to Roman.

Roman was one of the first thought leaders in the field to show hesitancy. Now, he sees us at a crossroads. If we don’t stop soon, we might be signing our own death warrant.

Why? How? That’s exactly what we wanted to know.

What did we learn?

Before we delve into this most complex of subjects, it’s essential to understand exactly what it is Roman does. What is ‘AI safety’, and why does it matter?

”[In AI], we’re creating something with the capacity to replace us or kill us. [The AI safety thinkers] are trying to prevent that. There’s a lot of concern about what AI will do to productivity, creativity, our relationships… but there’s very little about making sure it goes well. If these systems go from sub-human level to above us, we are done.”

Roman says it with a level of confidence that suggests he has a clear image of how it will happen, so why are we “done?” What does “done” even mean?

”Done”, to Roman, describes the total and irrevocable destruction of the human species. The eradication of each member of the population and the likely corrosion of any mark it had on the planet.

Today, people use AI to make amusing cartoons of themselves. The idea that it could be used as a weapon against its creator is unthinkable. How does Roman see it playing out?

”You’re asking me how I would destroy humanity. And believe me, I have a lot of great ideas [laughs]. But it’s not what a super-intelligent computer capable of designing new weapons, physics and poisons would come up with … Squirrels have no concept of how we can kill them - there’s too big a cognitive gap. Similarly, we don’t know what super-intelligent AI could do.”

Doesn’t Roman’s analogy prove that his prediction is, at the very least, not certain? The human race, if it dedicated itself to doing so, could kill every squirrel on the planet. It wouldn’t even be that taxing. The fact squirrels remain alive is testament to the fact that we don’t want to. We like squirrels and so we let them live. Who’s to say AI will be any different?

Even if we grant that it one day could, why would AI even want to destroy us?

”It’s not because the AI hates you. It’s because it wants to do something else and it doesn’t care about you. Maybe it wants to cool down the planet. Why? Well, maybe computations are easier to do in a cold environment. So it freezes the whole planet and we die. Does it care about that? No - it doesn’t matter. Maybe it wants to convert our planet into fuel and fly to another galaxy. It has no built-in concern about your safety. If it wants to accomplish something and the side-effect is humanity dies, that would not be an obstacle.”

However powerful and intelligent AI becomes, we are still its creator. What’s to stop us writing into the code that the preservation and well-being of humanity is a non-negotiable?

Roman tells us we have it backwards.

”We don’t write any code. We train those systems by giving them data. All the data we have and all of the internet, and then it learns something. And whatever it learns, that’s what we’re trying to figure out. We study it like biological artefacts - you observe it and see how it functions. Nobody knows how to encode anything like [what you’re saying] into the models. Nobody’s even claiming to. We simply don’t know how these systems will behave.”

These questions are unavoidable and if Roman’s right, they’re not really questions at all. Yet, the developers at the cutting edge of this technology refuse to slow down. They wax lyrical about the heaven on earth it’ll bring us without consideration for what happens if they’re wrong.

If the survival of humanity is in jeopardy, why do they persist?

”If I’m the guy who created God… maybe I’d get something out of it. But the truth is, when it goes wrong, they won’t even be remembered as the ‘bad guy’ in history - there will be no history books at all.

Tech is defined by its ‘devil-may-care’ attitude. Make changes now, ask questions later. In Facebook’s early days, the company operated on a ‘move fast and break stuff’ mantra. People got hurt, and the social costs are self-evident, but it’s also one of the most profitable companies of the last century. It’s hard to weed out those incentives, and harder still to place ethics at the forefront.

”Historically, most people work in AI never took the time to ask what would happen if they succeeded. It was so hard for so long that they only thought about trying to succeed at all. They never asked ‘if this works, then what?’ Then, the progress became exponential. Now, it’s hyper-exponential; the AI is helping research itself. But do we want this? Did 8 billion people agree to this experiment?”

To some of you, this might sound like science fiction - a problem for the distant future. It won’t happen in my lifetime, or even my childrens’ lifetime, or theirs childrens’; this is something for the populations of the next millenium to worry about.

It’s coming sooner than you think. Much sooner.

Read more

“I feel like you guys are two gays auditioning for the third gay.”

Respected by peers, adored by audiences, Mark Normand is one of the most popular comedians in the world. His idiosyncratic style has earned him praise from some of the most influential comics, described by Jerry Seinfeld as “the best up-and-comer” of his class. Normand has appeared on numerous late-night shows, including The Tonight Show with Jimmy Fallon, The Late Show with Stephen Colbert, and Conan. He released his critically acclaimed hour-long special Out to Lunch on YouTube in 2020, following it up with the similarly lauded Netflix exclusive Soup to Nuts in 2023. Today, he continues to perform stand-up and co-host the ferociously popular podcasts Tuesdays With Stories and We Might Be Drunk, and last month he released his latest Netflix special: None Too Pleased.

”Ellen’s been cancelled twice. In the ‘90s, we cancelled her for being gay. Then we cleaned up our act a bit, and 20 years later we cancelled her for being a c*nt. That’s progress.”

As well as being one of his generation of comics’ biggest stars, Mark has become something of a regular on Trig. He’s a hilarious and natural conversationalist, and our trips to the States never feel quite complete without catching up with him on the state of comedy, his country, and the wider world. His one-of-a-kind humour can’t be found elsewhere, so we have to go back to the source.

This might be our best conversatoin yet.

”There’s a Muslim joke in this special… I might be killed.”

We recorded this the day Mark dropped his latest hour, and he admits it has him a little worried. Francis assures him he has nothing to fret about. After all, every single one of Mark’s specials has had a joke like that. When Francis saw him most recently in London, Mark opened the set by shouting “Allahu Akbar”.

”I was just reminiscing on that Ariana Grande concert … The UK’s like a banana. The more time goes by, the browner it gets.”

It’s not yet been 60 seconds and we’ve arrived at our first brutal joke. Mark doesn’t allow us to come up for air.

”… But yeah, ‘white supremacy’ is your biggest problem. I don’t understand it. We recognise patterns with them. School shootings, that’s a lot of honkies… Why can’t we look at other patterns? It’s mostly trans now, but they’re still white. And better than the women!”

It’d be uncouthe of us to dwell on such a sensitive subject, so the chat moves to a much lighter, easy-breezy topic: Jeffrey Epstein. On this, Mark has advice.

”Never get photographic evidence. Back in the day there was just the guy at Walgreen’s who’d see your disposable photos, now with the internet… I read somewhere that kids aren’t dancing at their proms because they’re scared of being filmed and of being called ‘cringe’. No wonder they’re shooting up schools! They’re pent up!”

It turns out Mark is actually more more closely connected to the scandal than we would have expected - or hoped.

Read more

The “left-wing Trump supporter” is a rare breed. “A left-wing Trump supporting journalist” is rarer still.

Batya Ungar-Sargon is one such curious case.

In the last decade, as well as being opinion editor at The Forward, she has contributed pieces to the likes of the Daily Beast, The Free Press, the Los Angeles Times, The New York Times, and the Washington Post. In 2024, she published her latest book - Second Class: How the Elites Betrayed America’s Working Men And Women, and today, she hosts her eponymous NewsNation talk show - Batya.

Why did we invite her on?

Batya’s unique combination of political attributes makes her an ideal guest for Triggernometry, and especially now. We’ve spoken to both left and right about the MAGA divide and how Iran is deepening that fissure, but Batya represents a view detached from either camp.

Weighing up the various arguments, we didn’t think we’d have a complete picture of the Trump coalition and its likelihood of survival unless we spoke to someone who represents Batya’s small-but-not-insignificant crossover. At that point, why not speak to the woman herself?

What did we talk about?

If your only source was X, you’d come away with the impression that nobody but Ben Shapiro supports this war. Its most ardent advocates enjoy “getting ratio’d” day in and day out, while its critics garner hundreds of millions of impressions by condemning it.
This administration, more so than arguably any in history, is sensitively tuned to the rumblings of social media. They can’t be ignoring it, so why aren’t they responsive to it?

”The podcast sphere is so totally divorced from where average people are at. You see this on Israel, on Epstein, on Iran, again and again and again - the people who claim to be the ‘influencers’ on the right have no real influence on either the President or his voters. The polling bears this out.”

It’s a difficult thing to reconcile. When Trump was elected in 2024, much was made about how his appearances on Joe Rogan, Theo Von, Flagrant, and Lex Fridman helped swing his reputation among the youth, and therefore his chances of securing the Presidency.

If those figures had such influence then, why is Batya dismissing them now?

”The majority of the podcast world is against it, claiming it’s “Israel’s war”. You can’t think of a single podcaster/content creator outside of Ben Shapiro who supports the war. But polling shows 80-90% of Republicans support it! The mainstream media is too easy to take their word for it that there’s a “MAGA divide”, but the numbers are even higher among ‘MAGA Republicans’, up into the 90s…”

Still, it must be getting to Trump somewhat. After all, why else would he be commenting on it? In the last month, he has been telling his followers to ignore Tucker Carlson and Megyn Kelly, two of the conservative movement’s most widely known figures, and “tune in” to Mark Levin’s show instead. Doesn’t the fact Trump’s talking about it, in and of itself, disprove Batya’s thesis?

”He talks about a lot of things… I’m sorry, but Trump talks a lot of sh*t. He’ll talk about whatever he’s thinking about… When Tucker Carlson had Nick Fuentes on his show, there was a huge backlash. There was a closing of ranks against Tucker, and against the Heritage Foundation - a legacy institution - for supporting him. The only person who refused to do that is J.D. Vance, and the President is trying to address that. I hear from Senators all the time: they don’t understand what’s happened to Tucker.”

It sounds like there is a divide, and at the highest levels of government. If the President is of one thinking and his Veep (and supposed heir apparent) of another, what does that mean for MAGA?

”Vance spends too much time on Twitter. What J.D. thinks matters, but the fact that he’s hedging his bets right now does not mean he’s aligned with the base. And he will not be the nominee if he does not distance himself from Tucker Carlson. I know a lot of Republicans for whom it is a dealbreaker, and I know a lot of Democrats who would vote for Marco Rubio.”

It’s quite the thing to “hedge your bets” over. It sounds like there’s a fear that Nick Fuentes is too popular and influential to outright condemn, that if J.D. loses the support of the “groypers”, his electoral victory hangs in the balance. Are there really that many antisemites out there? Batya herself is Jewish - what does she think?

”This has always been relegated to the elites. There has always been something in the soil here against hating Jews. There have been Jews here since 1654; American Jews see themselves as an immigrant community, and it’s a massive betrayal. We are inextricably linked to the founding of this country.”

Still, does it bother her that Jews in America are acting as a sacrificial lamb? That major figures are overlooking bigotry to secure the support of a toxic contingent?

”It doesn’t bother me. The polling on the right hasn’t changed… Young people tend to be leftists; anti-establishment, blaming their problems on the systems. I just don’t see that as the future of the right. The average conservative doesn’t go to college, and therefore doesn’t hate Israel and doesn’t hate the Jews. People on the right who are anti-Israel don’t think Israel has a right to our tax dollars, while the anti-Israel left don’t think it has a right to exist. That is a completely different conversation.”

That may well be so, but whether the antisemitism comes from the left or right, it takes us all to the same place - a dangerous environment for Jews.

Antisemitic memes on X are one thing, but acts of terror are something else entirely. And they’re rising. Just last month, a man drove a van through the doors of a Michigan synagogue, presumably hoping to kill and maim its occupants. He failed and died, but it easily could have gone differently. Batya took a different lesson from it.

Read more

Mike Baker has had two careers. Each could not be more different from the other.

For nearly two decades, Mike was a CIA officer, working in the fields of counterterrorism and counternarcotics. After this, he took his hard-earned expertise to the private sector, first as a technical advisor in the entertainment industry, and then as a talking head. Since, he has been a regular face on the likes of Red Eye, Opie & Anthony, The Greg Gutfeld Show and The Joe Rogan Experience, as well as hosting the Amazon Prime series, Black Files Declassified and his own podcast, The President’s Daily Brief.

Why did we invite him on?

”You should never take what the President says literally. Sometimes he’s just throwing sh*t at the wall to see what sticks.”

We had Mike on at the tail end of 2023, nine weeks after October 7th, to prospect on the uncertain closure of the still-ongoing war in Gaza. It was an enlightening conversation, and we decided then that, should (or when) another moment like that came along, we’d have Mike back to talk about that too.

Just before we set off for America, the country went to war with Iran. We’ve hosted a string of interviews on that subject, tackling it from positions that could not be more opposed from one another. Each has brought an insight and covered a blind spot, and we knew Mike would be no different.

What did we learn?

Much of the debate regarding Iran right now hinges on one core question: did they really want a nuclear bomb?

Some have argued that, rather than planning to build a weapon, Iran only wanted to create the impression that they could. It’s a claim backed up by American intelligence (which has since changed) and, if true, renders this entire intervention unjustified.

Mike doesn’t agree.

”There is no peaceful civilian purpose for 60%-enriched uranium. There just isn’t. Moving it onto 90% is the speediest part. If they’d have kept it at a number that was a reasonable for civilian purposes, things would have been different.”

Not only that, but there were unique reasons that made Iran unacceptable members of the heady club of nuclear-armed states. Most nuclear countries have the bombs for one reason only: to dissuade others from attacking. “If you want peace, prepare for war.”

That, in Mike’s estimation, is not true of Iran. They wanted nukes so they could use them.

”A regime like theirs is more likely to use nukes. The zealous nature of a theocracy… People have done incredible things in the name of religion. We might be tired of the War on Terror, but the terrorists aren’t.”

It might sound like Mike is an unapologetic advocate for America’s intervention in the Middle East. After all, he’s wholly unflinching in his criticism of the Iranian regime, and echoes many of the points we’ve heard from the war’s most ardent defenders. He also thinks it might be a huge mistake.

”I think it’s about time this regime leaves the planet and gives the people of Iran some kind of future. You’re never going to get long-term peace in the Middle East as long as this regime exists. Their stated objective has always been the destruction of Israel. I can believe all that and still believe that this wasn’t well thought through.”

What does Mike mean?

He prospects that America, the most powerful country in the world, might have overestimated its abilities. Still drunk on the success of Venezuela, Trump’s administration strode confidently into the unknown. As we’re starting to learn more, perhaps that was the wrong move.

”I think there were people who thought this was gonna be easier. They didn’t see that the Strait of Hormuz would be ‘a thing’, when it’s Iran’s only bargaining chip… and now they’re surprised?”

It’s baffling to consider how this might have happened. Trump might be a loose cannon, but it’s hard to imagine the entire apparatus of American government could orient itself so off-north. The CIA, in partnership with Mossad, will have had access to the finest intelligence of the region. How could it be that it wasn’t “thought through?”

”That’s a good question. The Pentagon has a lot of smart people, people with real world experience. Does that mean they’re being listened to? I don’t know, I’m not sitting in the room with them. But I can’t imagine there weren’t briefings where someone pointed to a big map of the Strait of Hormuz and didn’t explain how important it was and that Iran controlled it. Now we’re in a position where we’re asking other countries to come in and help.”

A number of isolationist voices have asked: Why should I care? Iran is a country far, far away. It’s a culture I don’t understand populated by people I’ll never know. What does it matter to me?

As Mike explains, nobody will be unaffected by this war - not even the citizens of countries trying desperately to stay out of it.

”It’s a real significant impact, and people will feel it. They’ll see it first at the pump… 1/5th of all oil flows through the Strait. But also liquefied natural gas, which is important for Europe and Asia… And all the other things, fertilisers, helium… This is serious…”

The knock-on is extremely worrying. The cost of everything is certain to rise, and if that continues for long enough, we might face a recession.

At least, that’s what we’ll have to do. Not everyone will be so unlucky…

Read more

Mehdi Hasan is one of the most prolific, admired and fierce left-wing commentators of his generation.

Across his 25 years in journalism, Mehdi has held almost every kind of job going. He’s been politics and news editor for Channel 4, The New Statesman and the Huffington Post, all before 2012 when he became a long-time presenter for Al Jazeera. Moving to the States, he then presented The Mehdi Hasan Show on Peacock from October 2020 and on MSNBC from February 2021. When the show was cancelled in 2023, Mehdi swiftly left the company, opting to start his own: Zeteo, an alternative news outlet focused on progressive ideals. Today, while continuing to lead Zeteo, he also hosts Head To Head on Al-Jazeera and writes for The Guardian.

Why did we invite him on?

This marks the third of an ongoing series of interviews we’re publishing on the Iran War. First was Senator Ted Cruz, pitching the argument-in-favour from the right, then strategist and political advisor Professor Robert Pape joined us to oppose it from the centre.

Now, Mehdi is here to give the left-wing case against it.

Many MAGA pundits have tried to paint today’s anti-war movement as either just another weak-limbed, lilly-livered pet-project by the anti-Trump pearl-clutchers. Suspecting there’s more to the story than that, we thought it would be best to speak to one of the left’s most heralded voices.

What did we learn?

We don’t need to go over how polarising and unusual this war is. The situation has been laid out ad nauseum. Still, it’s interesting to hear what people who have dedicated their lives to predicting and reporting politics make of it.

Mehdi doesn’t mince words.

”I think it’s a disaster. I don’t think it was legal. I don’t think it was justifiable. I don’t think it was necessary. I think it’s self-destructive. I don’t think it’s in the US national interest, and I think a lot of innocent people are being killed as we speak and without any real justification.”

A key problem even many of Trump’s traditional supporters find themselves running into regarding Iran is the objective (or lack thereof). Secretary of War Pete Hegseth is quick to tell the people that America’s “objectives are clear”, but are they? The justification for this war seems to change depending on the day, and each explanation is more incoherent than the last. In Mehdi’s estimation, why is it happening?

”Many reasons, but one was expressed by Marco Rubio before he walked it back. I’m paraphrasing, but he said that Israel was going to attack Iran, and if Iran was attacked they would attack [America], so they decided to attack first. It’s insane on multiple levels. If you think Israel is going to attack Iran, just stop them; they’re your client state. It’s like saying that you think your brother is going to get drunk and crash the family car, so you’re going to wreck it first. It’s a bizarre argument.”

Many of those same former supporters feel that Trump broke his promise. On the campaign trail, Trump was keen to stress his success rate in his previous administration: No New Wars. In fact, he dissuaded voters away from Kamala Harris on that basis - if she gets in, there’ll be war in Iran. He won, and still war came. He changed. Or did he?

”I never bought the bullsh*t shtick that Trump was anti-war. He was pretty beligerent in his first term … expanding drone strikes, bombing Somalia… there was nothing in his first term that said this guy wasn’t totally happy with war. Unfortunately, I’ve been vindicated.”

Still, Trump’s been in power before. He started zero new wars in his previous presidency - a fact he ran on - and the opportunity to engage with Iran was on the table then, yet he didn’t take it. What changed? Why now?

”Leaders, when they’re unpopular at home, start wars abroad. My company did a poll that revealed 52% of Americans believed this war was at least partially launched to distract from the Epstein scandal! You might think that’s a mad conspiracy theory, but most Americans believe it. He’s not just doubling down, he’s quadrupling down.”

Fundamentally, at the root of all of these factors, is one key ingredient: Israel.

After enjoying record-high support in the wake of October 7th, Israel’s public image on the world stage has crumbled. Across Europe and the Middle East, the state’s reputation is in tatters. Most shockingly of all, it’s become increasingly true in America. The Democratic base were the first to pull back, but even Republicans are starting to ask questions.

These questions were enflamed by the recent resignation of decorated veteran and former director of the National Counterterrorism Center, Joe Kent. In his parting statement, Kent stated plainly that this was a war in Israel’s interest and against America’s. To many, it confirmed what they’d long suspected: Israel, America’s client state, was in charge.

Mehdi has no shortage of criticisms for Israel, what does he make of the accusation? His answer is more nuanced than you might have suspected.

”Netanyahu’s on the record saying he’s wanted to attack Iran for 40 years and Trump is the first President who has allowed him to do it. But I think that takes away too much responsibility from Trump, Lindsay Graham and all the hawks in government who have wanted this war for years.”

So, if Israel isn’t the totalitarian-mob-boss it’s often painted as, what is its relationship to the US? Does Mehdi think it has some kind of undue, nefarious influence on the West’s greatest superpower?

”This is not a conspiracy theory. The beauty of these Republicans - their only redeeming feature - is they say the quiet part out loud. We don’t even need to speculate. Lindsey Graham tells us that he coached Netanyahu on how to convince Trump to go to war. Bizarre - a Senator and a foreign leader discussing how to manipulate the President of the Senator’s country … Ted Cruz said in that viral interview with Tucker that he wanted to be the #1 defender of Israel in America. You don’t get other politicians saying that about any other country. There’s nobody in American politics who wants to be the #1 defender of Belgium.”

It’s certainly unusual, but does it prove anything? Could it not just be that these politicians, for whatever personal or religious or strategic reason, believe Israel is an ally that America must keep?

”That’s 100% true. But there are also a bunch of people in American politics, and I know this because they tell me on and off the record, that support Israel because they’re worried about the consequences if they don’t. They’re worried about being primaried, they’re worried about losing their jobs, about being called antisemitic, or being targeted by AIPAC. The idea that there isn’t a very powerful Israeli lobby is absurd.”

To Mehdi, the proof is only becoming more apparent. Before Israel’s war in Gaza, Americans were broadly in support of the Jewish state, and elected officials could camouflage themselves with their base. Now, as the voters become increasingly hostile to Israel, that protection is lifted. The fact these politicians haven’t responded tells you everything.

”You poll Democratic voters and ask whether they support what Israel is doing in Gaza, 8% say ‘Yes’. Among Democrats in Congress, it’s reversed. Why? For the first time in my lifetime, and it’s something I thought I’d never see, Americans are supporting Palestinians more than Israel. It took a genocide for them to switch their position, but it’s happening. If that doesn’t translate into Congress or the Presidency, you have to ask why.”

Well, if Israel has a domineering sway over American politics, the same must be said for Iran and its neighbours. The second most-populous country in the Middle East, it’s also the foremost sponsor of terror groups in the region and boasts extraordinary controls over the world’s fuel supply. By that logic, just as Mehdi might welcome a new government in Israel, should he not hope the same for Iran? For the Middle East, could this not lead to a new era of prosperity, stability and peace?

Read more

Professor Robert Pape is one of the most revered political scientists working today.
Previously, he has served as an advisor for the likes of Barack Obama and Ron Paul, and written three acclaimed books on the subjects of bombing campaigns and suicide terror tactics. Today, he is a tenured professor of political science at the University of Chicago, as well as founder and director of the Chicago Project on Threats and Security. He has also recently begun writing on Substack, which you can sign up for here.

Why did we invite him on?

”President Trump is facing two terrible choices. Terrible for the world, terrible for his presidency.”

This episode is the second in a run of interviews we’ll be releasing tackling the situation in Iran. In the first, published this past Sunday, we hosted Senator Ted Cruz, one of the policy’s most ardent supporters. In his mind, the war is a sure-fire win for America. Something that will be settled in a matter of months, ushering a new era of security and prosperity for the superpower.

Robert is not convinced.

What did we learn?

”My work is looking at the mechanics of things and how that intersects with politics … These strikes were inevitable.”

To the average person, or anyone without an interest in geopolitics, Iran won’t have been a cause for concern until last summer when Trump launched the Twelve Day War. It was the first time many of us had heard about the alleged threat the country posed to the West, and the first time the Western superpower had opted to strike them.

To everyone paying attention, it was the ultimate ticking time bomb. Whatever side of the debate you found yourself on, what happened in Iran mattered to you.

”In 2002, the relationship between America and Iran fundamentally changed. Before that, there were tensions, but in 2002 we discovered that Iran was going to enrich uranium.”

From the outset, Robert walks us through two decades of nuclear development in the Middle East and how it shaped the American response we’re seeing today. When did America start to panic? When did strikes become ‘inevitable’? What could have been done differently? Robert is equipped to answer all these complex questions with remarkable clarity of mind, and it makes for a hypnotic conversation.

Ultimately, only one question truly matters: is this going to work?

That depends. What do we mean by ‘work?’ Whether America achieves its stated aims is one thing, but whether those stated aims are desirable or in America’s long-term interests is another thing entirely. Understanding the difference between those two terms, Robert explains, is crucial.

”The regime change war is failing. Strategically, but not tactically. And we have to be super clear about that. Our bombs are hitting the targets over 90% of the time, our military is hyper-professional. It’s the strategy that’s failing.”

The tactics, according to our guest, are being executed superbly. Trouble is, they’re not having the desired effect. The oh-so-simple promises laid out by those in power have, so far, gone unfulfilled, even inverted. We shouldn’t be surprised.

”At this stage, the goals are to topple the regime and replace it with a better one. That’s not happening. Why not? It’s the pattern of history - it’s never happened before. When you kill the leaders, all the incentives are for the replacement leaders to come in more aggressive than before.”

Many pundits will insist to you that nobody wants this war more than Iran. It’s a claim not without evidence; one doesn’t need to look far for videos of demonstrators celebrating the death of the Ayatollah, heralding in a golden age of democracy and civil liberty. Unfortunately, it’s not an accurate or complete picture. Not all of those videos are actually from Iran. Rather, they depict the Iranian diaspora, much of which is scattered throughout the West. It creates a distorted image of how popular this attack is. In reality, this policy only guarantees one thing…

Read more