The Ten Thousand Things

Joe: There's reality
which is loving awareness

Sam: unconcerned by the arising
and passing away of phenomena

Ali: And then there are the 10 000 things

Sam: Hello and welcome
to the 10,000 things.

My name is Sam Ellis.

Joe: I'm Joe

Ali: Lowe.

And I'm Ally Kriti.

Joe: Today on the show, who is your guru?

Uh, we live in an age of online gurus,
public intellectuals, cult leaders,

influencers, and uh, we thought
we'd have a chat about it today.

It came about from Sam's frequent
references to Slavoj Žižek,

Sam: Slavoj Žižek, I guess,

Joe: just maybe, and I've had a
few over the years, Ali, I'm not

sure, have you ever had a guru?

Ali: not one in particular, but there's
certainly been people I've resonated

with and aspirationally wanted to
sort of, yeah, the things that I've

taken from them, but, but I wouldn't
say I've necessarily put all of my.

Eggs in one

Sam: basket, Nigella and Robbie.

Joe: Yeah.

So, so, because what I found
thinking about why Sam often wants

to refer back to Zizek is like.

An

Sam: appeal to

Joe: authority.

Why do you want to filter your
thoughts through someone else's?

Uh, no.

Or why do you want to refer back
to someone who most of us wouldn't

know who he is and whatever.

Sam: No, your complaint
is that he's too famous.

Joe: Uh, my complaint is he's
incomprehensible, and erratic, and

self contradictory, and basically, what
I don't get is you're a much clearer

communicator, and as far as I can tell,
thinker than he is, so why do you want

to defer to him, and when I jump online,
what I see is him sitting in front of

rapt audiences, making Basically no sense.

And then once every 20 minutes, he says
something that basically anyone down

the pub could say like, Oh, it was good.

It was good.

Like it was good when Trump
handed out those 2, 000 checks.

And when he does that, he says
something vaguely comprehensible

that the crowd goes wild.

They're like, Oh, wow.

Zizek made a point.

And it's like, Okay, so, confusing times
we live in, a lot going on, incredibly

confusing man, that you want to refer
things in this podcast back to him.

So then it got me thinking, well, he's
obviously a bit of a guru for Sam.

And we were going to explore his ex ideas,
but you weren't up for that, which makes

sense because they're incomprehensible.

I'll tell you what I wasn't up for.

So, I thought we could explore the
broader concept of, of wanting to

have, like I'm having fun already.

Who are the public intellectuals?

Why do we want them in an age of YouTube
where you can absorb like literally

hundreds of hours of someone's thoughts?

Yeah, that's right.

They can jump on YouTube and talk to
talk about the latest thing in the news.

So you can filter.

Mm hmm.

Sam: Well, my, my, um, I grew
up with gurus, like, you know,

like the Hare Krishna religion.

Sure.

Krishna's the, the boss.

He's at the center of a non binary
God at the center of creation,

but It's all through the Guru.

The Guru is the, you know,
the way to access the truth.

And you cultivate, and it also
veers into, as these things often

do, into Guru worship, which then
becomes part of the faith itself

and not just an expression of it.

So, like, we can't worship God directly.

Well, we can, we can worship these
representations in the form of deities,

you know, like the statues, the idols,
as a Catholic might call it, and we can

worship their earthly servant, the guru,
and in fact, we should serve each other,

and that's how, we should be humble,
and we should, you know, et cetera,

and that's how we'll become enlightened
and spiritual and find God and stuff.

So you have to, Like, some people
will place Jesus at the heart of their

Christianity and others are kind of
more directing their thoughts towards

a slightly more impersonal God.

So in the Hare Krishnas, it's like the
guru is, God is the saviour ultimately,

but the guru is The in between
saviour and they're gonna, they're

gonna help get you through this mess.

Like you're in a crisis and the,
that being born on this earth

is a crisis and the guru is
going to help you through that.

So the guru has the answers.

The guru has the answers.

They're, they're,

Joe: they're an authorised representative.

It sounds like something set up for
inherently for horrific things to

Sam: happen.

Oh, of course.

It's a recipe for disaster, but it's
remarkable how often it doesn't do that.

And You know, it's not an, it's not
a complete unmitigated disaster.

In the West, it was.

So when you take this guru thing and then
combine it with Western values and like

marketing and, you know, big budgets.

Well, you end up with guru scandal.

And that's But India, they have guru
scandals there too, but a lot of the

gurus over there, they're small time,
like they've got their little local

band and, you know, you can go see
some of the, you know, here's this tiny

little building where this guru met with
his followers and it's nothing grand.

It's like a, basically a dirt hut.

And it's a little bit better than that.

You know, it's got cow dung floor
and, you know, it's clay rendering.

My brick or something.

It's pretty basic and like they
could have fit maybe 20 people

in there and that's that's that
Guru is looking after 20 people.

That's it.

That seems sustainable to me When
they've got like the Hare Krishna's

had thousands of followers around the
world Thousands and you've initiated

every last one of those people in a fire
sacrifice full proper Vedic ceremony

and they've said In vows in Sanskrit.

I like will place my spiritual
progress In your hands, and

I will take your instruction.

I will do what you tell me.

And that is the most, like, yeah,
explicit and condensed form.

So why do we talk about influences or,
you know, Douglas Murray or, uh, you

know, the Weinsteins or Jordan Peterson.

Uh, why do we call them gurus?

Well, because people do a similar thing.

They go, that's it.

I'm going to do everything
Jordan Peterson tells me to do.

I'm going to think everything
this person tells me to think.

Now with Zizek, I'm referring to him a lot
like I would a scriptural authority, not

so much to back up my points, but more to
say there is something here I can explain.

And as you say, I can explain
it more clearly perhaps.

But, if you want to know more
about this, go to the source.

Go to the guy who has thought about
it more than me and go, I'm really,

I'm hoping people will go and dig
in and find something in there

because I've taken bits and pieces.

But I actually just want to pass
people along to a higher power.

But

Joe: he is your

Sam: favourite, right?

He's one of my favourites, yeah,

Joe: yeah.

Could you simply outline?

A few of his

Sam: ideas.

He's had a very long career, um, covering
a lot of different things, but I think

it's fair to say he's a philosopher, first
and foremost, and he's interested in, you

know, I think worthwhile problems, like
how do, you know, how do the forces of,

ideology, media, Money, how does all that
impact the consciousness of, the masses?

So he's interested in consciousness, he's
interested in culture, he's interested

in films and what films say and how
they speak to us and how ideology

works through cinema, how it tells
us what to desire and tells us what

to value and shapes that powerfully.

But what

Joe: he's interested in making the person
to go to, if you want to know what's

the interpretation of what's say going
on in the news, which is when I turn

on YouTube, what I see is him talking
about Gaza or Ukraine or whatever.

And what I find is he, he,
uh, he's talking nonsense

actually a lot of the time.

Yeah.

Sam: Sometimes he speaks in riddles
and paradoxes because like all good,

many, many good philosophers do.

Joe: Talking about climate change, he was
talking about four or five degrees of.

warming and London being underwater and
I'm like, Oh, that was 10 years ago.

That was a possibility, but.

It's not anymore, so the conversation's
moved on, so, but he finds it fun, right?

To him, it's fun and it's funny.

Yeah, okay,

Sam: we could, look, we could

Joe: probably, yeah.

So they're the kind of people that I
find, they're the people I get really

angry at because a lot of people are
actually listening to them and they're

talking, they're spreading fear and lies.

Alright,

Sam: well let's do the, let's,
okay, the UK has been experiencing

a rapid And frightening,
apocalyptic increase in flooding.

They're getting belted every other year.

No, no,

Joe: no, he's talking
about sea level rise.

Sam: Okay, there's two things, yes.

Sea level rise and flooding.

Let's not

Joe: get into it because four
or five degrees is nonsense.

He's talking nonsense.

Okay.

Four or five degrees is nonsense now.

Right, so.

We're not looking at that.

What, is it an old clip?

No, no, this is like
a couple of weeks ago.

Look, so.

He finds it funny.

There's new books about
the world's already ended.

There is no future, so let's just
have a play around with the past,

that's basically what he's saying.

It just came out,

Sam: 2023.

Okay, yeah, I haven't read it yet.

I mainly access his work through
the people that interpret it.

So I listen to people that read his
stuff, and then And if that's not a

Joe: guru What is, like, there's
people out there listening to

Sam: his words.

I listen to

Joe: the interpreters of the scripture.

To me, just on a common sense level,
his words are basically nonsense.

Yeah, but no, but I've And then people
are interpreting them on podcasts,

and then you're listening to the
interpretations of the utterings of Zizek.

Sure.

And then you're going, this is a
great way to understand the world.

And I'm going back to first
principles and looking at him going,

no, no, he's talking nonsense.

Sam: Well, I'll tell you, I'll
tell you what he's, what I've

gathered from his principles.

He's interested in justice and
freedom, but not in any simple

version of what they are.

He's interested in maximum human
dignity and how the difficult,

very, very difficult problem
of how we actually do that.

Not always starting with like practical
proposals, let's tax this or do that.

He's interested in.

Unpicking the difficult problem of how
to even talk about it in the right way.

And I think you and he would entirely
agree that these are difficult

conversations to do in the right way.

So he's just trying to get through all
the, the baggage and ideology and delusion

and the rest of like, what's actually
going on in like our little homo sapiens

brains and like the, how do we respond
to the information environment we're in

and he's, and to analyze all of that,
he's drawing on Marx, he's drawing on.

Lakhan, who was drawing on Freud,
and Hegel, you know, so Hegelian

dialectics, how does history work,
how does the human consciousness work,

so he's trying to address those sort
of two problems at the same time.

So, and he's putting out books at a
huge clip, it's impossible to summarize

his output in any meaningful way.

What I get attracted to is when I hear
other people reporting back with a With

a sense of excitement and like I had a
breakthrough on this My understanding

of this thing and it was reading this
so I keep hearing smart people say

interesting provocative things that
get me thinking And have like long

complicated discussions about it, and
I don't follow all of it But then their

source material is Zizek so in the end it
doesn't matter to me all that much what

he says It's a universe of discourse that
he's created, and I'm part of that, and

I'm interested in being part of that.

And what he does, what seems to do for
thousands of people, is just provide

pretty much the opposite of what you said.

Those people would say, he really
gives me this no nonsense, cuts

through, he attacks wokeism more
effectively than anyone on the right.

And he attacks all the sacred
cows of the left more effectively

than anyone on the right.

And, for example, one of the famous
things that he was misunderstood was

explaining the value of racist jokes.

Right?

And this is one that I'm not going
to attempt to do because I don't

necessarily know if I agree with him.

But, it's a powerful
argument that he makes.

Or another one, people think, he said
once, Oh, people think I disagree with,

you know, the gender movement, right?

And, I've maybe not made
my position clear enough.

He said, I'm interested
in a common morality.

There's nothing that complicated
about what I'm saying.

And I am 100 percent in solidarity
with the gender movement.

I just think they don't go far enough.

They say they want freedom
and they need to get it.

By others should allow
me to define my gender.

Of course they should, but you should
be asking for so much more than that.

So you're wrong in the sense
that your target is too small.

Gender movement.

Go bigger.

You know, so he's just, he's all
about prodding and pushing and

just telling everyone constantly
go bigger, go bigger, go bigger.

Joe: I like that.

What I've observed in the culture
is that people mod of once.

Filtered their ideas through a news
outlet like a New York Times or read

the Age in Melbourne and it's kind
of, everyone's kind of generally

reading the same thing and it's been
replaced with And our gurus were

Sam: those boring columnists
that we would read every

Joe: week.

I think so.

It's been replaced with individuals.

So like at one point Zizek debated
Jordan Peterson but they're two

sides of the same coin like You put,
yeah, like you and people that you're

listening to put a high value on the
utterances of this one individual.

Right?

I look at it and think,
wow, this is nonsense.

And then, and then another person comes
along and puts a very, a lot of people

put a very high value on Jordan Peterson.

But then he says other
things which are nonsense.

Well, he's

Sam: one, he's one great
thing Jordan Peterson said.

Really resonated with me, and this
was fairly early on, but I was

already aware of the many problems.

I was getting a sense of
where it was all gonna go.

But I must admit, I'm like, man, this
is a brilliant quote, and I don't

mind sharing it and attributing it.

It's your duty to make your
children acceptable to others.

And I'm like, yeah, yeah, you're
a fascist, you're a weirdo,

you're a reactionary, but there
is some truth in that, you know?

There's no use pretending that if you
let your kids be anything and everything

and you don't tell them there's any
need to be accountable for anything and

don't let anyone tell you anything, it's
like, well, then it's not going to work.

Yeah.

He's right.

They do need to be acceptable
to society on some level.

Joe: But I guess what I'm
saying is, I think it's worse.

I think it was better when, like, people
had similar sources and they were, they

had editorial, they had editors, they had
editorial boards, they had Now that it's

individuals, it's like you and your Zizek
bros versus Jordan Peterson and his bros.

There do tend to be men, there's
groups of all over the internet.

Zizek has way more female followers
than Jordan Peterson, but anyway.

I just went and had a look this
week at the ones that I've looked

at before, like Yuval Noah Harari,
Douglas Murray is another one.

You know, Russell Brand has tried to be
that, but because he's always been so

dodgy, there's always, I don't know, like,
he's one who tried to go even beyond guru

and become like a, uh, a messiah, right?

Oh, a hundred percent.

So, but it's amazing how far they get.

They get all, they're
all, they're all thriving.

And

Sam: the thing that brings them
down is either a financial scandal,

a sex scandal, Or people just
eventually go, just move on.

Oh, but see,

Joe: yeah,

Ali: yeah.

They lose their relevancy, but
it's the thing at the moment with

everybody with access, well, you
know, most people with access to a

phone can create their own platform.

That's right.

And so, you know, anyone could start a
Tik Tok or YouTube channel off their phone

and start, you know, sharing their ideas.

And so, yeah.

Whereas before, if it was coming from
a place of say, someone who's been.

Educated to become a journalist to then
write in a column who's, you know, coming

from a really, it's, it's a much more
limited sort of, view that you're going

to get if, and then everybody reading
the same thing versus now when it's just

anybody, it's a bit of a free for all.

Sam: Yeah, and I don't,
and that's what you find

Joe: alarming.

I don't think we're in a, in a
healthier intellectual environment

than say our parents were.

But can we, can,

Sam: okay, but.

Can we settle, can we bring
reality into it for a second?

So back in the good old days when
there were editors and consensus

reality was in better shape and public
epistemology, there was no crisis.

I disagree.

There were multiple crises throughout
the 20th century, but we're just

forgetting about all of them for now.

We didn't live through them.

We're living through this one.

Now, when do I agree there's
a crisis epistemologically?

Yeah.

And I'm absolutely fine with it.

I think there has to be an
epistemological crisis because

the previous shit isn't cutting

Joe: it.

Can you define epistemology
for the audience?

Sam: How we know.

So, you know, sort of the, some
of the two, the two basic sort of

problems in philosophy, you know.

The problem of existence and the problem
of knowledge, and you know, so Descartes

deals with both of those in Meditations
on First Philosophy, and he decides that

God solves both problems, for example.

Well, I think therefore I am solves
the problem of existence, you know,

and philosophies of, different
philosophies deal with these problems

in different ways, different religions
deal with them in different ways.

And people have expressed the moment we're
living in as an epistemological crisis.

A crisis in how we know.

Others have even said it's
an ontological crisis.

People are doubting their
own existence on some level.

And social media is a way of,
we're sort of praying that others

will validate our existence.

And I find all of that does not
induce the kind of moral panic in

me that it does in other people.

To be honest, I was experiencing moral
panic before consensus reality broke

down, and my panic was based on the
fact that consensus reality just was

not keeping up with real reality.

And so, with the New York Times,
for example, the paper of record,

never gotten it wrong apparently,
or just only with small things, and

they've always issued corrections.

Complete bullshit.

New York Times were
all the way on Vietnam.

So, that conflict Basically, their
support was instrumental in that

conflict lasting as long as it did.

They defended it and protected it in so
many ways, and were constantly on the

record as this is a justified war, it's
a viable war, and, you know, we will

prevail and there will be a good result.

I think we can all agree
that just isn't so.

So that prompts an uplift.

Every time the public, the penny
drops about every 20, 30 years.

Oh, all the big commentators got it wrong.

And everyone looks around and
goes, well, who should we listen

to then, if not the New York Times?

And now what about Iraq, 2001, Twin
Towers, Pentagon says, perfect.

We had some plans in the top
drawer for just this occasion.

Let's invade two countries at once.

Afghanistan, not that hard
to get that over the line.

Iraq, much, much harder.

Let's distort.

Uh, let's really put our thumb on the
scales here at the UN and with the

mass media and all the rest of it.

Well, guess what?

You didn't need to tell CNN to support it.

They were happy to queue up.

So the so called left wing
media, absolute nonsense.

They totally backed it.

They're not left wing media.

They're corporate media.

Fox, CNN, NBC, all the big
papers, all queued up to support

it 100 percent of the way.

All the way with Bush, just like in NAMM.

And then all those veterans
went, Yeah, we're off to get

the weapons of mass destruction.

We're off to liberate
the women of Afghanistan.

Then they all come home, busted
and fucked up, and go, well,

all those people lied to us.

Then what do they do?

Trump comes along and says, Fake news.

And they go, yeah, damn right.

It is.

There's no denying it.

It was fake news.

There's no fucking denying it.

Trump didn't cause this problem.

He exploited it.

Yeah, but a broken clock

Ali: is right twice a day.

Sam: Those broken men turned to fascism,
Jo, and that's the situation we're in now.

But is that

Ali: sort of in, like in a post sort
of fake news world where that is, The

information that, yeah, you cannot be
trusted that we, you know, we get whether

even from mainstream news sources.

Yes.

How does that play out though now
with like, when you, we've got

another two wars on two fronts in
Gaza and Ukraine and like, Yeah.

Sam: And the mainstream media
dropping the ball on this one too.

Yeah.

Ali: So, so why did, so we
gravitate towards these outliers.

Joe: Go to individuals.

And then what happens it's so it's
more flawed than the New York Times.

But the individuals, you know,
you can trust Brian, trust Brian.

I can't trust anyone, but I
can trust Glenn Greenwald.

Then Glenn Greenwald goes weirdly pro
Russia and then at what point do you go?

He's gone full Marga.

Oh, how do I get off him?

Because he was the one person because of
what Sam said about the mainstream media.

Well, Glenn was the guy.

All I can trust is this one guy.

Well, you have to have a varied diet.

But, like, I was going

Ali: to say, with all gurus, or like,
and you see if, by extension, like

a cult leader, when it becomes like
a cult, it's that sunk cost fallacy.

Yeah.

It's like, I have invested so much.

Yes.

And I feel I've invested so much in
this person, and they've been right

so long, they will get it right.

It's just, you know, and
you have your blinkers on.

Yeah, it's awful.

You lose the ability to think about
it critically, even when they fuck up.

And so, And that's what it is.

It's this sunk cost fallacy.

It's the same.

Yeah.

In a, in a cult setting as it is when we
deify the, you know, people who, you know,

with these ideas that, you know, You know,
it's like, well, how could they be wrong?

Like, they were right about all
these other things, or like,

I'm going to keep persisting.

Joe: That's right.

Yeah, and then what often happens
is people go outside their area of

expertise, like I say, a Noam Chomsky,
or there's plenty of them, and they

go not only beyond their area of
expertise, they go way beyond, and

they stop talking about their area of
expertise, and all they talk about is

something that they're not an expert in.

Okay.

And that happens, and so I can look
up people whose books I've read, say

like Steven Pinker, And get his latest
thoughts on the latest things and at

least I've read a couple of his books
So I have some idea how his mind works,

which is good, but it doesn't make him
infallible No, but I had the experience.

Sam: Oh, he's he's a he's he's a lowly.

It's a bloody He's a chum of old
mate in the prison, you know Epstein

and he is a sus cool liberal guy who
believes in freedom and progress, but

is actually Pretty much standing by,
while fascism takes over his country.

And Steven Pinker is useless, that guy.

He's worse than

Joe: useless.

Is one, is a good example,
but there's a lot of them.

See, I had to reckon with the fact
that in 2018, 2019 His pointless

Sam: liberalism is what enables fascism to
thrive, because it's full of lies and half

Joe: truths.

I read a bunch of different public
intellectuals in the last week.

and his latest interview, I read
that, it actually still made more

sense than a lot of the other stuff.

Sure.

I, I read Yeah, your

Sam: no opinion thing, or
this guy, or that guy, you've

followed these individuals too.

And I guess that's what you're saying.

Joe: I'm saying I've done it, and
it's mostly been very bad for me.

You know, the safest place for me if
I'm going to trust one person's take

on things, honestly the safest and
calmest place is probably Matt Iglesias.

It's just a center left Democrat
who wants Biden to get re elected,

doesn't want the end of the world,
whatever, but I've stopped paying

him for information as well.

Noah Smith's different.

Noah Smith, like, wants a war with China.

Like once it became obvious how excited he
gets about military spending, you're like,

all right, I can't, I can't read this.

And he's a classic example

Sam: where he's

Joe: trained as an economist,
but what gets him the most clicks

is when he theorizes about China
starting a war with America.

So he starts writing
about that all the time.

But he's an economist, like he's
not in a foreign policy expert.

So I'm constantly trying to
triangulate these people.

So then I go and look at like, John
Mersheimer, and him talking about

realist politics and how you can
understand rationally what Russia's done.

But what I wanted to talk about was the
one positive of looking to individuals

was 2018, 2019, my side of politics,
the left, Was lying to me more and more

about climate change, particularly with
the, Extinction Rebellion movement saying

humans are going to become extinct.

And then basically you can
just pick up the Guardian and

be told it's kind of that,

Sam: right?

I didn't say, I never said
humans were going to be extinct.

Joe: You're not in Extinction
Rebellion as far as

Sam: I know.

But here's the thing, we're driving
everything else to extinction.

But this is the thing.

That's

Joe: what XR is really about.

That's not what humans, that's not what.

Extinction Rebellion are saying,
they're saying humans will be extinct.

Anyway, it's the big
lie on the left, right?

That climate change will kill us all.

And do you rank

Sam: that lie as equally
pernicious as election?

For

Joe: my mental health, for my
mental health as an individual,

it was really damaging, right?

So I finally, and I'll never know how I
got out of the ideological straitjacket

I was in, but I finally had a look At
like a Michael Schellenberger and a Bjorn

Lomberg and what, what are they saying?

I know I'm not allowed to look at them
because I'm a lefty, but I had a look.

And suddenly this whole world opened
up of people who weren't lying to me.

Yeah, yeah, yeah.

Right?

Sam: And we can build nuclear

Joe: power plants that rocked my
world because my side of politics

was telling me the big lie,
the other side of politics was

Sam: Stop calling it the, the big
lie is only one use and it's that

we should let Trump run the world.

That's the big lie.

There's more than one big lie.

No, that's the only one
worth talking about.

It's actually not even worth talking about
in itself, but this idea that climate that

Joe: Extinction Rebellion is engaging
in the same the big lie in this,

in the Orwellian sense, if you say
something that's outrageous enough,

it's probably not so hard to believe,
but why would they say it unless it was

Sam: true, you know?

Look, Ali, you were trying to

Ali: No, I was just saying, like,
why does, why can't you Remove

yourself from the situation.

Why does the big light like why does
why can't you see that for what it is?

And

Joe: why do you expect I needed these
individuals to to write books that I could

read or particularly Schellenberger's book
apocalypse Never to read it thoroughly

and look just through the UN's own
climate data and projections and stuff

So just thoroughly sit down and debunk
15 years of, of left, the left wing, I

understand what they're doing politically.

They're trying to raise
awareness and get people alarmed

so that we act on omissions.

I get it.

But it got to a point psychologically
where I was gonna, I was like a teenager

who didn't think there was a future.

Right?

Yeah.

Sure.

Ali: But also, but why is
that that everyone else's

responsibility and not yours?

What do you mean?

Like why, like why, why can't
you, like, I mean, obviously

the issue then is with you.

Whenever

Joe: I'm disturbed, the
problem is always in me.

It's actually not the world's problem.

But what I'm saying is the
balm that I found was a guru.

But then Schellenberger, straight
away, off the deep end again, he

gets obsessed with like, um, right
wing conspiracy theories, and

obsessed with crime in San Francisco.

Runs for governor of California like
straight off the deep end, but the

book still stands as a real really good
corrective To that particular decade

and a half of climate propaganda, right?

So, but he can't be my
guru because he's a nutter.

Yeah, right.

Your long books probably a nutter.

Yeah, like You're really good at

Sam: getting off the train
when you should it seems But

Joe: all I'm trying to
find is the truth Yeah.

And I can't get it from
Reading the Guardian.

So that's where my strongly
recommend against it.

But that's where my, my epistemology
broke down when I would have thought

like growing up, my dad used to get the
Guardian weekly from the actual, it was

Sam: probably okay back then.

Yeah.

From the

Joe: actual like news agent.

Yeah.

Because it was so much
better quality than the age.

So I come into this, this age going,
well, I can trust it, but I can't because

they're just trying to get clicks.

Right.

Yep.

So, yep.

Capitalism balked it.

But because

Ali: I'm safe.

I mean like even with like, like with
the ABC like I've there's been things

recently in particularly like some of
the coverage I'm like even that's that's

always been my safe space or at least
like you know at least I get something you

Joe: know.

Some of the coverage of what?

Sam: You name it.

I

Ali: was going to say
particularly the war in

Joe: Gaza.

What if I said to you there's
one guy who knows all about

Sam: the Middle East.

Immigration.

Triple J.

Triple J led a story with We heard
first from a Sky News person about

immigration and why we need to lock

Joe: everyone up.

But Ali, what if, like, if I said to
you, there's, there's one person that

you can read and watch his YouTube,
read his book or her book, they're never

women for me, which is instructive.

And they'll explain the Middle
East to you or give you what you

want to hear about Palestine.

Fuck the ABC.

Stop, stop watching the ABC.

Just follow this one person and they'll
post every day or every two days.

But Ali, you're

Sam: probably getting updates
from like a hundred, 150 sources.

Ali: Yeah, it's not just the one,
but like, but yeah, no, I've just.

Yeah, sometimes I would, I mean, I just
remember it was Adam and I were sitting

there and watching the news the other day
and both of us, both of us were just like,

Sam: it's useless, like yeah,

Joe: we were just quite,

Ali: yeah, it was really

Sam: appalling.

It's an awful program.

Yeah.

Yeah.

It's the worst show on TV.

Ali: And yeah, it just, I don't
know, it really, yeah, my, I suppose,

yeah, your trusted gurus when
they, they disappoint you or they

Joe: fail you.

So you've never had one though?

Yeah.

Sam: Well, I'd say, I'd say Oh,
the ABC was like our guru, Ali.

I see what you're

Ali: saying.

Yeah.

Yeah.

That used to be my For sure.

Yeah.

Absolutely.

Like as in the way that the
Guardian used to be yours or

Sam: A kind of institutional guru.

It's an institutional

Ali: guru.

Yeah.

But it was

Joe: like, it was at least the one
I'll go to my grave saying that

was, is better than one individual.

Oh no, no.

I'm all

Sam: about institutions.

Yeah.

Yeah.

But at the moment Most of them are failing
or not fit for purpose in some way, even

if they're surviving really well, they're
not serving us correctly, and there's an

awful lot of institutions that need to
be reformed, and there's others that will

just naturally collapse and be replaced.

But you have a

Joe: look at the ABC and you go,
alright, well that's kind of like

the mainstream, vaguely normie

Sam: I'm not suggesting the ABC should be
replaced, but God, it needs some reform.

Joe: Yeah.

But you know that you're getting like
some kind of like Yeah, I don't know.

Compared to reading The Economist,
reading the ABC News world page is

like, I don't know, a hundredth or
something of what you're getting

about world news in The Economist.

You find it

Sam: quite parochial, the ABC world news.

Joe: I read it now because I don't, I want
to know a much, much less about the world

after a couple of years of full immersion
with The Economist, I just went, I'm

going to live in Melbourne for a while.

Sam: But again, The Economist
is not full immersion,

Joe: like full immersion
from the center, right?

Pro capitalists.

Sam: Yeah.

Also, I would direct your attention.

Like I said this before, to, I've
come across like countless interviews

that have really given me a much,
much better feeling of like, I

think I actually have a much.

Better understanding of, not perfect
understanding of what's going on, but

it's really shifted me away from what
I'm getting in the information space.

So the New Books Network, I've said
this before, they've got like, I don't

know, 150 channels, like, you know,
genocide studies, South Asian studies,

like every single academic discipline.

And it's a fire hose of new books, and you
can just, and they're all academic books

on a single topic by a single author,
sometimes they're edited volumes, but the

point is, every last person there is an
expert, and they've focused on this one

area for at least a few years, and they're
coming from a disciplinary background,

and you can evaluate the disciplinary
background, you can evaluate what they

say, but here's the thing, you don't have
to take any one person for it, because

in the next week, you could listen to
Uh, 50 interviews with experts on any

given topic from the New Books Network
and your sophistication of understanding

will have gone up a thousand,

Joe: two thousand percent.

Is your favorite stuff the Zizek stuff?

In terms of pleasurable, like,
ah, that information's enjoyable.

Oh, Zizek, you've done it again.

That kind of stuff you only
get from your guru, right?

Uh, sometimes.

You don't get that from
some bland academic you've

Sam: never heard of.

Look, to be honest, yeah, I
think he is operating in the

mode of entertainment at times.

Yeah.

You want some information

Ali: from your guru, you want to, yeah.

Sam: Yeah.

And I think a lot of information,
a lot of informational content is

actually mainly entertainment at
all, is consumed as entertainment.

So like some of my favorite pods are
very informative, but I'm actually

there to hang out with those people.

And they can talk about
whatever they want.

And like, that's the other thing.

We get the burden of individual
choice is like, A, unsustainable,

B, non existent in a real sense.

Like, I keep saying this on the show,
like, we have to live as individuals,

but we can't live as individuals.

Like, we, we can only survive
collectively, and we have

responsibilities to others and vice versa.

And that's actually the
good news, not the bad news.

And I can't Shoulder alone this
responsibility of deciding what To trust.

It's not a job for one person to do by

Joe: themselves.

Yeah.

I mean, I do, the best I can
come up with is read whole books.

So I've read a couple of
Douglas Murray's whole books.

So then when he, whatever he talks about
the most recent thing, I can go, at least

I know at, at length what this guy thinks.

Yeah.

But he talked about, Well, yeah.

He talked about going to talk to groups
of people, which he's always done.

Sure.

And in an auditorium, 10 years ago,
he used to know, He used to be able

to assume that everyone had read
vaguely similar stuff like whether

it was the New York Times or you
know He's in he's a right winger.

So he's working moving
in right wing circles.

Maybe that all read the
spectator, whatever.

Yep, right He used to be able to assume
that and he said now I stand in front of

a crowd of 500 people Like there's almost
no commonality like everyone's coming

from completely different perspectives
You have no idea what they've been

reading what they've been watching.

So he's just

Sam: saying

Joe: He says, he goes, I don't, I
can't assume a set of common facts

Sam: anymore.

Can't someone, can't
someone make my job easier?

Well, no, no.

I just want to trot out a speech and
assume it'll land the same everywhere.

Joe: No, no.

What a lazy, lazy man.

He wasn't saying it, he wasn't even
complaining, he was just sort of saying

Sam: You've got to respond to every
situation, you've got to be in the moment,

Joe: dude.

Yeah, but it's Engaging

Ali: dialogue.

Your guru can't keep up with the plurif

Joe: Yeah.

I think, I think as a bi I know, I
I think for me as a Pluriferation.

Ali: Yeah, yeah.

Of information and gurus.

Joe: No, but, but what he's pointing to
Yeah, one guy trying to figure it all out.

Yeah, good of agreed upon facts is
very unstable and dangerous, right?

Like very, very No, but

Sam: who said Who said agreed upon
facts have to stay agreed upon?

It's not static.

Well, I think from my perspective We have
to continually disagree on established

facts that turn out to be wrong.

I think from my perspective
Slavery is fine.

As, uh, Christianity is the
only true religion, etc.

I mean, come on, man.

I

Joe: think from my perspective as a
bipolar person, because my brain can

organically leave consensual reality Yeah.

And then no one has a clue
what I'm talking about.

Nah,

Sam: I've understood everything.

Joe: Yeah, because I'm on my meds.

But like, because, because I can do
that organically, I find it terrifying

the idea that no one has a fucking
clue what's going on in the world.

And, and honestly, I don't think right
now, there is a guru that has a clue

that that can encapsulate it all.

You know, I'm looking for the simplest.

Sam Harris

Sam: actually gets close in some ways.

The simplest, clearest.

Your boy, Sam, go back

Joe: to him.

No, I've never liked him
as a public intellectual at

Sam: all.

I've shit canned him so hard to you.

I

Joe: like him on the
meditation stuff, but I

Sam: don't, yeah.

Out of all the gurus out there, he is
the least self appointed in a weird way.

It's so strange of me to say that.

His ego's

Joe: too big.

I don't want his opinions on everything.

Sam: I've heard him backtrack.

And I'm like, man, that's all I need
from a public intellectual, in any case.

I don't

Joe: want to be a Sam Harris, bro.

I actually don't want to be a guru, but
what I want is the simplest, clearest,

most honest explanation of things.

Sure.

Ali: But not one person is going to be
able to fulfill that tip for you in the

same way that not one person is the answer
to anybody's problems in any capacity.

That's right.

And not one guru is going to have.

The answers to every situation
that you could possibly pose to it.

But

Joe: is that what a dialectic is, Sam?

Yes.

Because I don't understand a
dialectic, but let me give you this.

Go, go.

Like, since the Ukraine war started,
I didn't read any John Mersheimer.

Yeah.

And lefties loved John Mersheimer because
he basically blamed America, right?

So, then eventually, I Chomsky
is a stick to linguistics.

Eventually, I'll watch a John
Mersheimer speech and I'm like, wow.

This really appeals to me, because
he's explaining something clearly,

he sees Putin as a rational actor,
which is very reassuring on that is

the world going to blow up, because
a rational actor is much less likely

to do that than an irrational madman.

And we don't

Sam: need no clash of civilizations
nonsense, no thank you.

Joe: So, the clarity of Mershama's thought
is It's very reassuring to me, even though

it's all bad news, of course, because
of course everything in geopolitics

is bad news from an American hegemony.

Of course.

From his perspective, he
wants America to win, right?

So it's all bad news, but it's clear
and states are acting rationally still.

So I want to believe that, but then
because I'm curious, I read more

and I read critiques saying, John
Mersheimer gets everything wrong

about everything all the time.

And so the guru part kicks in where
I'm like, no, I don't want it.

Is it a dialectic to
triangulate those things?

Yes.

As opposed to my instinct is just like,
all right, how about if I only read

John Mershheimer for the next year?

And I keep thinking that states act
rationally, you know, for a year, imagine

that, read his book, just watch his,
whatever pops up on YouTube, become

a foreign policy realist, become, and
what I'm really good at is observing

John Mersheimer thought till eventually
I could come on here and I'll give

you like great Mersheimer, right?

But at the moment, I've only
known who he is for two weeks.

You could be Mersha on the

Sam: GPT for sure.

Joe: Triangulating it and it
makes me more and more confused.

But again, I do it because I'm
curious and I do it because I

don't trust them getting closer to
reality by just trusting one person.

Ali: I mean, you can't trust just
one person and we have more and

more people than ever before.

What is your favourite.

We all have different stories.

But I

Joe: think what you naturally did as
a saner, healthier person than me,

is you were able to read The Guardian
for 10 years, but with a grain

of salt, say yeah but not really.

Over

Ali: and over again.

Yeah.

The Guardian's actually never really,
I mean, yeah, I mean, occasionally

I'll read something and be like, jeez,
but, but for the most part it doesn't

bother me, I don't take it personally.

I mean, like I said.

Occasionally I do get let down,
like I got let down by the ABC,

but like, but it's not the But it

Joe: never, does it ever
make your stomach flip?

Does it ever make you
grip the chair in terror?

Ali: Truthfully, the only time I'm ever
gripped with fear and terror is when it's

a completely irrational, bonkers sort
of thing that is not based in reality,

and it's usually when I'm not well.

So,

Joe: so like volcanoes?

Ali: Yeah, or something like some sort
of like Baba Vanga kind of like doomsday

Nostradamus sort of some Absolutely
not based in any reality whatsoever,

Joe: like the main calendar.

Ali: Yeah, yeah, yeah.

Like something like that.

And I'll yeah.

And I'll have a moment of
absolute despair and paranoia.

Joe: Yeah.

So I'm like that with a bit about
things that other people are, and

Ali: then that's not based
in any sort of reality.

And it's, it's whereas,
and that's just like.

me letting my brain play in that
space for a little while until

I'm like, okay, you, you Yeah,

Joe: I do it because I'm bored too.

I scare the shit out of
myself because I'm bored too.

It's a form of entertainment.

Sam: Yeah.

Yeah.

Look, that's the thing.

So beware of the feelings, I think,
and we can't always be guided by

the feelings we have in reaction to
things that we've read or looked at.

And I actually think The guru
instinct is not entirely misplaced.

Like we want to trust people and I'm fine.

I think we can't operate without it.

So, I think what's helping is
what we're doing right here.

And I think that's the
best way to triangulate.

So you can, you bring along
your Mersheimer, I'll bring

along, uh, whatever else.

I don't have anything on hand really.

And Ali's.

Just brought in some good stuff and I
think, you know, useful perspective and

the triangulation occurs in dialogue.

I think when we try and triangulate, we
try to get the dialectic going between

like ourselves and then this and this
multiplicity of media that doesn't work.

It's sort of like, all I mean by the
dialectic is thing A, that's true.

Thing B, oh wait, maybe that's true.

Thing C.

You know, historical force
meets other historical force.

What happens?

It's just, it really,
it's just one plus one

Joe: equals I don't think, yeah,
unfortunately I, I think I'll go to my

grave not knowing what a dialectic is.

It's as simple

Ali: as But having like, yeah,
just like a friend check in.

Do you know what a dialectic is?

We'll just have, yeah, like I think
like Sam's saying, just have someone

just check in like For the rational.

I don't know.

Yes.

Yeah.

Like you need, you need like, so

Sam: yeah, I'm holding this thesis.

Yes.

Do you have an anti antithesis for this?

Yeah.

And then they say,

Ali: yeah, like, am I being, it's like
when you go to a friend and you're

like, am I being rational about this?

Am I being exactly like, am I?

But yeah, and that's the thing,

Joe: like I'm, it's just having

Sam: someone just, but you help me
evaluate this situation at work.

Ali: I'm buffing and someone's
opinion that you value the gurus.

Then is your friend in
that moment always there?

But

Joe: I'm buffing it around and I'm
looking for chances to act too.

Like I almost went to an Extinction
Rebellion meeting and then all they

were going to serve there was daal
and I'm like, no, I'm not going.

That's how close I got to
joining Extinction Rebellion.

XR, if

Sam: only you'd serve
cheeseburgers made from proper

Joe: climate change beef.

Three years millenarian,
you know, death cult.

But three years before, I
was willing to maybe join it.

So I'm constantly being buffeted
by this stuff that I look around

and I'm like, well, everyone else
just kind of stays where they are

and it doesn't bug them that much.

And then they just go make a cup of tea.

I nearly go and join a death cult and then
I turn on them and become a right winger.

And it's like, I just
watch it happen to myself.

It's like watching a fucking
leaf be blown around in the wind.

You can generate electricity

Sam: from this.

Ali: I think there's so much of
that is to do with our state of

mind and all mental health and.

G Tech

Sam: would be nodding to all of this.

My mum would

Ali: have said to me that her biggest
fear for me would have been that I would

have joined a cult or something like that.

That she thought I was so
susceptible to joining a cult or

running off and joining a cult.

What, you've just

Sam: got that credulous instinct?

Ali: There's something about, like
she just thought that I, that was

Joe: she I've been told not
that, like not that long ago

that I could be a cult leader.

Sam: Well there you go.

Well yeah, indeed.

Maybe I've joined the 10,
no, you would rock at that.

I think Ali would You'd almost be immune,

Joe: wouldn't you?

Ali: No, no, no, but I think there
is some sort of, there is something

lacking or something or some sort
of, that she's been able to sense.

I can totally see it too, that where I
would completely just abandon reality

and just throw myself into something
because it just seemed like a fun

thing to do because of the boredom.

I think that's something that would
have, and I think that's, you and

I, we get bored and like, it's like,
you know, I'm just going to play

with it, whether it, when we were
younger, it's like, I'm just going to.

You know, when it was drugs, alcohol,

Joe: even as a kid, just
imagining horrible things.

Yeah.

Dangerous

Sam: ideas, I think it's
like I play video games.

Well,

Ali: I remember as a kid,
I'm going to scare the shit

out of myself, just for fun.

Sam: Yeah, exactly.

Let's spin around until I feel sick.

Joe: I remember as a kid being
mortified, thinking about spontaneous.

Spontaneous combustion.

Sam: Oh yeah.

That one got me.

Joe: What happened in the eighties?

Why were we all being

Ali: told about spontaneous combustion?

That seemed like a much more
scary thing that was actually a

viable way to die than it actually

Sam: When I heard satanic child sacrifice,
I was like, what a load of shit.

Spontaneous combustion.

Oh my God.

That could totally happen.

Totally happen.

Joe: Yeah.

Which actually gets to the root.

Yes.

Root cause of the fear is
actually the fear of death.

Oh, a hundred percent.

But

Sam: yeah, like, yeah.

Joe: Or the neurosis.

Yeah.

The only thing that saved me really from,
from being dragged off to some extreme is

my sense of irony and my sense of humor.

So, you know, like, but yeah,
I'm at a point now at the

end of 2023 where I can't.

Thank God, but I can't find a guru who
can actually explain the world to me.

It's too chaotic.

no one, no one can predict it.

No one can explain it.

Uh, that's fine.

That's actually a healthy place to be.

I think it's healthy.

Ali: And like, and to place the,
go back to sort of like, yeah, as.

And I think that's and having like
the area of expertise and putting our

trust into somebody who's got the area
of expertise and we've talked about

this before on the show where people
have jumped out of their lane to

talk on other things and they, that's
where they get derailed, but they're

sort of playing to the algorithm
and you know, that's what's selling

Joe: the, Mearsheimer talking on
foreign policy is his area of expertise.

It's just that he happens to have got a
lot of big things wrong over the years.

Ali: And so I think, yeah, we

Joe: need to sort of.

But if I believed him, I would sleep
better at night because he basically

said a month ago he doesn't think China
will attack Taiwan anytime soon, which

is something that keeps me up at night.

Yeah.

Because that's the one where
unfortunately, you know,

our lives are at stake.

Sam: Also, beware of the people that are
attacking Mearsheimer in a one eyed way.

What's their agenda?

Why are they so invested
in tearing him down?

I mean, think about it.

Joe: And it gets confusing very quickly.

Sam: Yeah.

I'm not saying he's a perfect guy,
but I really feel like he has said

useful things from time to time.

And I think that's all we can really ask?

Like, I mean,

Joe: I don't He's more than a
clock getting it right twice a day.

I don't think he's

Sam: deliberately being, trying
to be evil, I don't think.

Joe: No, no, and look, in defence of
your mate Zizek, he seems like a person

I think he's a very genuine person.

Yeah, he seems like a nice enough guy.

He just, he's The stuff, when he
goes off, off piste about stuff,

it's, it's, it's stuff that's
basically just reading the news.

Sam: I mean, the problem is
defining piste, I guess, but

Joe: he's just reading the
news and then theorizing.

It's not, he's not doing whatever
rigor he puts into his books when

he goes out and does these public.

Sam: Yeah, no, that's interesting.

I think like throwing

Joe: stuff out there,

Sam: but academics operate
on different levels.

There's the serious, quiet, lonely work.

of footnoting and referencing.

And then there's the giving lectures,
which is, everyone agrees a little

bit more of a popular medium.

It's okay to make a joke.

It's okay to be a little bit more
loose depending on the lecture context.

Then there's the dialogue with, there's
a formal dialogue context, the informal

dialogue context, popular outreach.

You have to do all of that.

Joe: As you've said, your therapist
said to you about your whole life from

childhood onwards, is you've always been
Perfuddled people and confused people.

That's true.

Right.

You found the adult world befuddling
and you decided to befuddle people.

To me, that's Cizek.

To me, that's Cizek.

He's like, I sent it to one
of the most recent clips.

It's 15 minutes.

He is the

Sam: avatar

Joe: minutes where he doesn't finish a
single, he doesn't finish a single point

and nothing he says makes any sense.

Sam: I don't know, clearly
he has ADD or something.

Yeah, yeah, so

Joe: he doesn't Maybe
that's why I like him.

It's 15 minutes of this.

It's incomprehensible.

It's posted on YouTube a week ago
as The Life and Work of Zuzek.

That's what it says,
and then you watch it.

It's just 15 minutes from a debate of,
or whatever, from a public lecture.

Sam: I love you two.

I'm going to get you two to wrap it up.

I've got to go and grab a couple of kids.

Joe: What I'm saying is that's
the reason you're drawn to Zuzek.

Because he's, he, unlike, he's not
bringing clarity, he's bringing confusion.

That's what I'm up for.

And you want more confusion, I want
more clarity, let's finish it up.

Sam: Yes, simple answers to
hard questions, not boring.

Joe: There is unlimited confusion
out there, there's very limited

clarity, that's what I would say.

Sam: Yeah, yeah.

In the confusion lies
the clarity somewhere.

Clarity's false.

Go get the cube, Sam.

Okay, love you guys.

What was that great intro you did?

Joe: Outro.

That's been another one
of the 10, 000 things.

Whoa slick.