詹克·乌伊古尔：特朗普对哈里斯、进步政治、共产主义与资本主义
Cenk Uygur: Trump vs Harris, Progressive Politics, Communism & Capitalism
进步派媒体人谈特朗普与哈里斯的选战、进步主义议程，以及共产主义与资本主义之争。
Cenk Uygur（詹克·乌伊古尔）有一个判断，他把美国政治的真相压缩成一个数字：98%。
他说，在国会议员决定怎么投票这件事上，真正起作用的不是选民、不是原则、不是辩论，是钱。他愿意把这个比例说成 98%。他也知道大部分人会觉得这个数字太极端，包括很多跟他立场相近的人，他们更愿意相信是 50 对 50：一半原则，一半钱。Cenk 说，不，是钱加一点点原则，不是原则加一点点钱。
这场对话持续了四个多小时，Lex Fridman 反复用同一个方式追问：你说 98%，那你能不能钢人化（steelman）一下反方观点？Cenk 试了几次，每次都自己承认失败。他不是那种在镜头前留余地的人，但他也不是那种只会喊口号的人。他的整套逻辑有一个很硬的骨架：钱从哪里来，人就为谁服务。
把这四个小时拆开来看，真正有信息量的部分落在三组概念的切割上：共产主义和公司主义、资本主义和公司主义、民粹和建制。这三组切割构成了他理解整个美国政治的坐标系。
他说共产主义必然失败，原因跟道德无关
Cenk 上来第一句话就是：“共产主义完全说不通，跟人性彻底相反，它从来就没成功过，而且总是演变成独裁。”
这句话从一个进步派媒体人嘴里说出来，听感上有点冲。他给的理由跟意识形态无关，是一个权力结构问题。共产主义假设所有人平等、没有权力层级，而这一点制造了一个权力真空。他说，人类的天性决定了，权力真空一定会被填满。只要你说“这里没有权力结构，大家都是平的”，总有一个人会站起来说，“我不同意，你们要走，那这个真空我就接手了”。
Lex 接住了这个点，并且用自己的语言重述了一遍：真正的解法在于让权力保持在可轮换、可制衡、可选举的状态里，消灭权力这条路走不通。Cenk 说，对，就是这个。
这一段值得单独拎出来，因为它把“共产主义为什么失败”这个老话题从道德判断里拽了出来，放进了一个更冷酷的框架：任何试图取消权力的制度设计，最后都会把权力集中到最少的人手里，因为真空不会存在，只会被填满。这个逻辑不是他的原创，但他说得很清楚。
公司主义才是美国现在真正的意识形态，而它讨厌竞争
Cenk 的坐标系里，左端是共产主义，右端是公司主义（corporatism），资本主义在中间。
他给公司主义下的定义很具体：企业慢慢接管整个系统，形成垄断和寡头，把机会平等彻底掐死。它跟资本主义最关键的区别只有一条，公司主义恨竞争，它要的是垄断；资本主义爱竞争，它要的是自由市场。
他举了一个例子来证明这个区别不是纸上谈兵：附带权益漏洞（carried interest loophole）。对冲基金和私募股权的高管，收入里那个 20% 的利润分成，本质上是劳动收入，应该按最高税率交税。但因为这条漏洞，它按 20% 左右的税率走。美国一个普通打工人，年收入到 8.4 万美元的时候，边际税率就已经超过 20% 了。也就是说，一个亿万富翁交的税率，和一个年薪八万四的中产一样。
他还有一组例子：政府不能跟药企谈判药价、没有全民医保、最低工资长期冻结、合并审查放水。这些在他眼里都是同一件事的不同侧面，规则被改写成对出资人有利的样子。
Lex 追问：所有公司都一样吗？制药、保险、油气确实更严重，但把所有公司都扔进同一个筐里，这个判断是不是太粗？
Cenk 的回答做了一个三级区分。
第一级，他说这些公司本身不“有罪”。一个公司想少交税、想压低人力成本，这是理性和自然的行为。问题出在政府有没有能力挡住这股力量。他引用亚当·斯密：你要保护市场不被垄断力量侵蚀，否则你根本就没有自由市场。
第二级，小企业和大企业不一样。他自己经营公司，所以他理解监管对小企业的负担，某种规模以下的豁免是有道理的。但他说，共和党天天喊“我们是为小企业说话”，然后给全球最大的石油公司批 300 亿美元补贴，这就不是在帮小企业了。
第三级，在他看来不存在“某个行业更坏”，只存在“某个行业更会游说”。他说华盛顿第一大金主不是 AIPAC，不是石油公司，不是银行，是大型制药。药企的政治能量大到什么程度？政府连药价都不能谈。他打了个比方：一瓶水在自由市场里卖一美元，到了联邦医保这里，药企进来说“这瓶水我卖一百美元”，政府还得说“好的先生，谢谢先生”。他说这比共产主义还反市场，你作为消费者，只能按企业开的价付钱，这已经不是市场了。
钱是唯一真正的议题，其他都是分心
Cenk 在 2011 年发起了 Wolf-PAC，目标是通过宪法第五条修正案程序，把私人资金从选举里彻底赶出去。他给这个组织起名“狼”，因为他说华盛顿所有他认识的人都会讨厌这个名字。按惯例，这种组织应该叫“美国公民支持美国”之类的，好骗人。他不要，他要的是一个明白无误的信号：我们是冲你来的。
他给出的解决方案分两步。
第一步，终止选举的私人融资，转向完全的公共融资。他承认这里有门槛问题，谁都不能凭空拿钱选，所以要用签名征集证明你有一定的民意基础，同时允许一百美元以下的小额捐款。他特别强调这一条背后的资本主义逻辑：谁给你签支票，你就为谁工作。这是商业世界最基础的常识，政界也一样。
第二步，终止企业人格（corporate personhood）。他专门澄清这跟取消公司无关，公司继续存在，只是不再享有宪法赋予公民的那些权利。他说美国的建国者本身就警惕公司，波士顿倾茶事件针对的是英国东印度公司，并非英国王室。他反复提醒的一点是，制宪者早就警告过，公司一旦成型就会积累金钱和权力，然后试图扼杀民主，而这句话在两百多年后被证明是对的。
问题是，修宪这条路走不通。要国会三分之二提出修正案，等于要一群靠腐败上位的人主动交出权力，这不可能。所以真正的杠杆在第二条路径：三分之二的州可以召集制宪会议。他说这是制宪者留下的天才设计。召集会议之后，还需要四分之三的州批准，这一步极难，但他说，全美有 93% 的人认为政客服务的是金主而不是选民，这是唯一一个能把左右两派都拉进来的议题。
媒体矩阵：议题不在左右，在亲企业
Cenk 对主流媒体的核心判断是：它们的偏向出在结构上，落在亲企业这一侧，左右之分只是表象。左右之分只在社会议题上成立。六十年代民权运动时媒体说“黑人应该平权”，右翼骂媒体有偏向；同性婚姻时媒体说“他们应该有同等权利”，右翼又骂有偏向。这两次右翼的抱怨在方向上不算错，媒体确实偏向平等，但他说这不是媒体的主要问题。
主要问题在经济议题上。他给了一个可验证的观察方法：每当一个经济法案上来，理论上应该互相仇视的 Fox News 和 MSNBC 会突然站到一起。
他举了反哄抬物价（anti-price gouging）的例子。哈里斯提出这个政策之后，MSNBC 的主持人、CNN 的主持人、《华盛顿邮报》的社论版，几乎同时开火，说这是价格管制、这是灾难。他说，等一下，你们不是死对头吗？怎么一瞬间全同意了？同样的场面发生在提高最低工资的时候，Fox 和 MSNBC 又一次默契地站到同一边，别碰我们心爱的公司。
他还给了一个更硬的证据，是 TYT 记者 David Shuster 亲历的。Shuster 之前在 MSNBC 和 Fox 都工作过，他在一家地方 NBC 电视台做了一期关于金钱政治的报道，被主编毙掉。Shuster 进办公室问为什么，主编搂着他的肩膀把他带到新闻编辑室，说：“你看到这些了吗？金钱政治付的钱。”
这一段是整个访谈里对机制描述得最具体的地方。Lex 顺着把这个循环讲清楚了：企业通过 super PAC 把钱给政客，政客拿这笔钱去买主流媒体的广告位，主流媒体的收入依赖这条链路，所以它没有动机去批评那条链路的源头。Cenk 更进一步说，广告本身的效果反而是次要的，更重要的是通过投放广告换来的“友好报道”。每一家电视台都知道民主党全国委员会和共和党全国委员会是它最大的客户，每年要给几十亿美元。对党内大佬，媒体永远不会真的开火；对外来者，媒体会把你撕碎。
他讲了一个自己在 MSNBC 做主持时的细节：他写了一段批评某家公司的稿子，管理层要求预审。他说，预审到底审什么？审你会不会批评我们的广告主。最后达成的妥协是把那家公司往后挪，但不能删。他强调了另一件事，大部分时候是隐性的，不用说出来。他举 Ashleigh Banfield 的例子：伊拉克战争期间 GE 拥有 MSNBC，GE 本身是国防承包商，所有反战的台前人物都被清掉。Banfield 因为在堪萨斯的一次演讲里说了伊战的真实成本，被从台前撤下来，合约不放，办公室直接搬进一个储物间，而且让全楼的人都看到。他说，那个储物间就是备忘录。
关于 AOC 和进步派的困境
Cenk 是 Justice Democrats 的联合创始人之一，AOC 那批人进入国会的早期助力有他一份。这一段他讲得很直接，也很不舒服。
他说，2018 年 AOC 竞选的时候，TYT 做了 34 个视频，给了她几百万的观看量，而当时几乎所有主流媒体都拒绝报道她。后来 Saikat Chakrabarti 从 Justice Democrats 的主管位置上去给她做竞选经理，Cenk 说这是美国政治史上最聪明的决定之一。她赢了，然后聘请 Saikat 做幕僚长、Corbin Trent 做传播总监。六个月后，两个人都走了。
为什么走？Cenk 说他听说的版本是：他们得罪了她的某位同僚，一个彻头彻尾的公司主义议员，在出卖她的政策提案。他说，如果你不敲打自己人，你什么都做不成；但你一旦敲打自己人，你就变成不受欢迎的人，而这个感受非常难受。他不掩饰自己的判断，AOC 后来走上了一条建制路线，因为她厌倦了不舒服。
他也承认这段话说出来会得罪人，也承认她确实做过一些硬的事。巴勒斯坦问题上她表现不错，Cori Bush 在国会台阶上做驱逐禁令的抗议也很棒，AOC 最早在佩洛西办公室的那次“吐口水”更是标志性时刻。他说那时候大家还在同一支队伍里。但他认为这些是例外，算不上路线。
他给出的对比是能力与策略的问题。2020 年之后有一批人想用议长投票来“逼”一个“全民医保”的表决，Cenk 说这个思路从一开始就错了。你没有一个替代议长人选，你选的议题又是最难的那个，民意支持还没有积累到那个程度，你会被打得很惨。他说正确的做法是先逼一个容易赢的：15 美元最低工资、带薪家庭假，这些都拿到 70% 以上的民意支持。赢一次，你就有筹码，然后再赢下一次，一步一步积累到全民医保。这跟公司派民主党那种假渐进主义是两回事，这是真正的策略性积累。
他说得更狠的一句是关于“信任拜登”策略的。Build Back Better 被曼钦和西内马一点一点砍掉的时候，进步派本应该拿出两到三个民调超过 70%、拜登自己也承诺过的提案，说“不给我们就不投”。他说，那一刻媒体会爆炸，会骂他们是民主党的败类、是毁掉法案的元凶。你必须扛得住这一轮核爆。扛不住，你就不是那个人。
拜登是怎样被赶下台的
Cenk 在一年前就开始公开说拜登赢不了。他的方法很简单：看民调，然后跟真人聊天。他说每次在烧烤聚会上问民主党人“你们怎么看拜登”，几乎异口同声，“太老了”。他特别强调“真人”这个词的含义：不在政治圈、不在媒体圈、不在推特上打政治嘴仗的人。他说 2016 年他预测特朗普会赢，用的也是这个方法。在俄亥俄州中部开几百英里看不到一块希拉里牌子，到处都是特朗普的周边。
然后他启动了一个叫 Operation Hope 的项目，让 TYT 的付费会员投票决定他要不要真的去参加民主党初选挑战拜登。76 比 24，去。他说会员是他的老板，老板让他去，他就去。
接下来这段是访谈里最有现场感的部分。他说他们联系了纽约最好的预约经纪人，那个人很诚实，没有收钱，回来说：“我跟他们谈了，你被封杀了。CNN 封杀你，MSNBC 封杀你，福克斯我估计也封杀，但不确定。”
Cenk 说，那就更要去。“如果你觉得我们正在撞冰山，那你就该冲进船长室抢方向盘。”他上不了主流媒体，但能上《Breakfast Club》，Charlamagne 同意他的判断，然后 Charlamagne 上了《每日秀》，Jon Stewart 做了一段。他说这不是严格的因果关系，但势头是一层层堆起来的。与此同时，Axelrod、Carville、Nate Silver、Ezra Klein、Charlamagne、Jon Stewart 这些人各自从不同方向说同一件事。等到辩论那天，观众不是第一次听到“他太老了”，他们第一次看到了证据。
关于拜登是被逼退还是自愿退，Cenk 的回答是“都是”。他说拜登当然是被逼的，没人会相信一个想连任的总统会无缘无故放弃。真正的驱动力就在金主身上，佩洛西和奥巴马都不是决定性因素。他说，拜登的权力来源就是金主，所以一旦金主说“我们不再给钱了”，他就没有选项了。但他也承认，最终决定必须由拜登本人做出，没有人能替他签这个字。
Lex 在这里说了一段很值得留意的个人看法：他希望拜登能主动、强势地退，像华盛顿那样主动交出权力，再配一篇好的演讲，然后启动一个真正的民主党候选人选拔流程，那会是一个美丽的时刻。Cenk 说他不只同意，他还去见了拜登核心圈的一位顾问，当面讲过这个逻辑。现在退，民主党会给他立雕像；不退，所有人会把他描述成一个自恋狂，把局面还给特朗普，成为故事里的反派。他说，英雄还是反派，你可以选；但“英雄并且赢”这个选项不存在。
哈里斯的三个阶段，和那个被低估的副手选择
Cenk 把哈里斯从政以来的表现分成三段。
第一段是上升期。地方检察官、加州总检察长、参议员，路线清晰，是被看作“下一个奥巴马”的人。2019 年第一场初选辩论她赢了，那句“那个在公交车上被送去融合学校的小女孩就是我”直接打在拜登的种族隔离政策上。
第二段是崩塌期。从那次辩论之后到拜登退选，是彻底的灾难。她在全民医保上反复，从“全民医保”退到“部分人的医保”，被图尔西·加巴德在辩论台上打穿，然后在爱荷华州之前就退选了。Cenk 说了一句很尖的话：他在总统选举里拿到的票数比哈里斯还多。后来她做副总统，拜登把移民这个烫手山芋扔给她，不给政策权限，只给责任。再往后就是那段被全网传播的“word salad”（词语沙拉）。
第三段是 2024 年的复活，这一段 Cenk 用了“震惊”这个词。拜登退选后，她两天之内锁定了足够多的代表票，方法非常专业，一个州一个州地开 Zoom，一个一个地谈。Cenk 说他当时正在跑初选，代表们打电话告诉他“她正在跟我们开会”。他说正常民主党人会搞砸这件事，希拉里会假定自己是女王，等着大家来叩头，而哈里斯把基础政治做对了，对民主党来说这已经是很大的胜利。
然后是副手选择。Cenk 说这是整个竞选里最关键的信号。他当时强烈希望是夏皮罗，因为他觉得哈里斯不可能选沃尔兹，沃尔兹不只是进步，更关键的是民粹，这不是民主党主流会选的方向。他举了希拉里选 Tim Kaine 的例子：Kaine 是“预防式防守”，是一张墙纸，讲话像白噪音。他说当希拉里选 Kaine 的时候他就知道她要输了。他说如果哈里斯选马克·凯利，那就是 Kaine 的等价物，人可能是好人，但讲话像看草生长，而且是个很公司派的民主党。她选了沃尔兹。Cenk 说，这就是正确的一步。
他也点出了哈里斯竞选里那些敢冒险的人。Lex 提到她的 TikTok 账号做了很多冒风险的、边角很锋利的内容，Cenk 说这就是关键，民主党从来不冒险，而你不冒险就赢不了。他说哈里斯在这件事上应该拿到全部功劳，因为她是竞选的最终决策者。
特朗普：不可接受的风险，但有一丝可能做对事
Cenk 对特朗普最重的一条批评是伪造选举人名单（fake electors scheme）。他花了几分钟把这个计划的机制讲清楚。他说，光扔“政变”这个词没用，得让人明白为什么它是政变。
他的解释是：1 月 6 日的骚乱本身不是为了占领国会大厦，那不可能成功。它的作用是拖延认证程序。拖到国会无法认证，就制造出混乱，让共和党议员可以说“我们不知道谁赢了，得踢回各州”。而各州那边，伪造的选举人票已经准备好了。本来是特朗普自己的合法选举人，但有一半人拒绝假装特朗普赢了，于是竞选团队临时找了一批愿意签字的共和党人。那些签字就是欺诈，现在很多人在各州被起诉。等两套选举人票都送到众议院，按宪法规则由众议院决定，但不是按人头，是按州代表团投票，而共和党当时控制多数州。这样即使特朗普输了选举，也能被送回国会大厦。Cenk 说，这就是正面攻击民主，他绝不接受。
但 Lex 要求钢人化特朗普的时候，Cenk 确实给了几条真实的正面评价。
第一条是苏莱曼尼事件。特朗普下令刺杀伊朗最高将领，这一步极其危险，可能引爆第三次世界大战。但之后伊朗的报复性轰炸明显是“小规模”的，他解读为伊朗在说“我们不想打，但国内得有交代”。然后军方工业复合体来找特朗普，要求他强硬回击，特朗普拒绝了。Cenk 说，那是他的高光时刻。
第二条是反战话语的转向。他说特朗普把共和党选民从“迪克·切尼的党、战争很棒、所有穆斯林都是坏的”这套话语里带了出来。现在共和党选民整体反战，讨厌切尼。Cenk 说，就算他不是真心的，就算他自己做的很多事可能引发更大的战争，这一条转变是真实的，他接受。
第三条是关于乌克兰。Cenk 的判断是，只有特朗普能结束那场战争，因为他会对乌克兰说“不签和平协议就断援”，而俄罗斯要的那三个地区，他会直接给。Lex 在这里明确不同意，他认为特朗普想当那个“一边拍普京肩膀一边在谈判桌上赢他”的人，而不是“照普京说的做”。Cenk 说，他不觉得特朗普是照普京说的做，他觉得特朗普对俄罗斯和对沙特、以色列没区别，你给钱我就喜欢你，你买我的公寓我就喜欢你。这算不上爱，这就是交易。
但他同时给了最大的警告：特朗普是一个巨大的风险。他用了一个商业类比，如果你在经营一家公司，你会不会雇特朗普当 CEO？所有观众脑子里都在喊不会。你有一个 80% 的概率他会炸掉这家公司，你不会冒这个险。他说，国家比公司更不该冒这个险。
这一段的收尾值得单独提出来。Cenk 说，特朗普是民粹主义者最该厌恶的人，因为他把一场真正的民粹运动劫持成了个人牟利工具。他说 MAGA 应该自己算这笔账，特朗普 2016 年靠“抽干沼泽”赢的，现在他什么都没做，为什么没有人追他的责？他说，如果 MAGA 真的在乎政策而不是个人崇拜，他们早该因为这件事把他掀翻。
小罗伯特·肯尼迪，和媒体“干草堆里找针”的手法
Cenk 对 RFK Jr. 的态度很复杂。他说自己在他还没参选、还是个环保律师的时候就认识他一点，他的法律工作非常出色，一辈子在大多数议题上站在正确的一边，追究化石燃料公司、保护被倾倒有毒物质的社区。他说他不恨 RFK 那些个人生活上的荒唐事，比如把一头死熊扔进中央公园，比如在离婚证词里提到脑子里有寄生虫。他给了一个同情的解释：RFK 的父亲在他少年时被刺杀，他有一个朋友也是父亲早逝，那个人的人生信条是“已经活过的不能被取消”（what is lived cannot be unlived）。如果我当时觉得好笑并且做了，那我就活过了，你拿我没办法。
但真正让他愤怒的是媒体对待 RFK 的方式。他给了一个很有解释力的框架：媒体对内部人用的是“干草堆里挑最好的部分”，对外来者用的是“干草堆里找针”。他讲了 Fred Thompson 的例子。那个演员出身的田纳西参议员，竞选时开一辆红色皮卡装作普通人，但他是坐加长林肯到皮卡旁边、再坐加长林肯回去的。媒体只拍皮卡，从不报道林肯，因为他是公司派共和党人，媒体喜欢他。
然后他讲了自己 2020 年竞选国会议员时被《纽约时报》《洛杉矶时报》、CNN 集体“找针”的经历。他说，他被指控“有长期反穆斯林言论的历史”，而报道没有提他自己就是穆斯林家庭出身。他后来成了无神论者，但家族背景是穆斯林，这个事实对报道的语境至关重要。他说，那些报道基于他讲的一个笑话：正统派犹太教徒和穆斯林都认为上天堂有点像时装比赛，一个穿着 19 世纪的俄罗斯大衣和大毛帽，一个穿着长袍和圆帽，上帝看着说“不不不，哦这身不错，进来吧”。他说，你真觉得宇宙的创造者会在意你穿什么？然后《纽约时报》把这个笑话写成“长期反犹、反穆斯林的历史”。
他还讲了那个被剪掉的笑话。那是一个关于兽交的段子，他用的是一种很干的讽刺语气，原话里明确说了“这是个坏主意”，但视频被右翼先剪掉后半段，然后一个建制派的网络喷子在初选里到处传播，Jake Tapper 转发时没有核实是否被剪辑，《纽约时报》暗示兽交是他的政治议程之一。他还提到自己采访过大卫·杜克（David Duke），在采访里直接骂对方是反犹分子、种族主义者、偏执狂、白痴，那大概是杜克一生中最难熬的一次采访。后来《纽约时报》为这一条发了更正。
他说，这些故事里他本人不重要，RFK 也不重要，重要的是它们暴露了媒体的运作方式：他们去找那些针，找不到就剪掉笑话的包袱，反正没人在意。他说，这套手法现在被用在了每一个外来者身上。
亚美尼亚种族灭绝：一个关于“部落软件”的样本
Lex 问了一个很直接的问题：你在 90 年代读宾大的时候公开否认过亚美尼亚种族灭绝，后来公开、明确地改变了立场，这个转变是怎么发生的？
Cenk 的回答没有回避，也没有自我美化。他把它归到一个他反复用的框架里：人的“硬件”是共情能力、诚信这些天生的东西，“软件”是家庭、媒体、朋友、文化给你的影响。他说，任何部落，宗教的也好、族群的也好，都会给你装一套软件，你在这套软件里长大，就会本能地维护它。他举了一个例子：一个特别进步、热爱伯尼、真心相信和平的土耳其人，你跟他聊库尔德人，他会立刻说“哦不，那些人，他们很坏很邪恶，我们对他们做的那些是必要的”。他说，这就是部落接管了。
他讲了自己小时候在纽约的土耳其裔美国日游行上，大家用土耳其语喊“土耳其是最大的国家，没有别的国家能比”。他当时大概十岁、十二岁，就问父亲，这不是很荒谬吗？美国很大，中国很大，我们为什么要喊这个？他说，那是他第一次开始意识到自己被灌输了什么。
到了大学，他读到某场奥斯曼帝国输掉的战役，第一反应是“这不可能，土耳其只输过一次战争，就是一战”。然后他意识到，这是他在土耳其读三年级时被教的，而它显然不是真的，但那个念头一直在他脑子里，他甚至没有察觉。
关于亚美尼亚，他说他当时读的是土耳其版本，那个版本里有大量“证据”。他举了其中一个：一战后一个美国军官（他记得是 Chesters 上校）说，亚美尼亚人经历了强迫行军之后“胖胖地、完全没被屠杀地”回到了那个地区。他当时想，这可是一个美国上校说的，那肯定是真的。等他成年后再看这句话，他说，你在开玩笑吗？那个人明显是在争取土耳其政府的合同。没有谁从强迫行军里回来是又胖又没被屠杀的。
真正的转折点是他和 Ana Kasparian 长期共事。Ana 是亚美尼亚裔，两人一起主持了将近 18 年，中间有过一些关于这个话题的台上讨论。他说，某一天他突然意识到，这件事也一样，显然是宣传。他说，一旦你意识到那是宣传，事情就变得容易得多。这就是他为什么一直想把人从矩阵里拔出来，因为一旦你认出宣传的形状，分辨真假就会变得容易得多。
这一段收尾很漂亮：一个土耳其人和一个亚美尼亚人一起做节目，把它做成了全美第一的网络新闻节目。他说，这就是美国的美。
以色列、巴勒斯坦，以及美国没用出来的那个杠杆
Cenk 的立场是：如果各方真想和平，方案其实已经在架子上了。沙特已经同意，巴以双方初步同意，哈马斯某种程度上也表示接受。方案大致是：以色列退出西岸和加沙，保留一定比例的定居点（历史上这个数字从 4% 涨到 6%，现在可能更高），巴勒斯坦人放弃回归权，只保留少数家庭的象征性回归。他说，巴勒斯坦人会觉得不公平，但你们没有杠杆，接受这个交易。以色列不可能让几百万巴勒斯坦人进来投票，那会终结犹太国家。
他说，现在最大的阻碍者就是内塔尼亚胡，这一点不需要勇气就能说。他公开说过不要巴勒斯坦国、反对两国方案。他用了很重的词，说内塔尼亚胡是他这一生见过最恶劣的恐怖分子之一，以色列右翼的斯莫特里奇和本-格维尔公开谈论种族清洗，把巴勒斯坦人赶进其他阿拉伯国家，这就是种族清洗的定义。
关于哈马斯，他有一个具体的替代路径：跟法塔赫谈，让法塔赫拿到的不只是和平协议，而是一个巴勒斯坦国，然后法塔赫以英雄的身份进入加沙，让它自己去清掉哈马斯。他说，现在法塔赫进加沙没有 credibility，因为它被视为占领者的同谋，而哈马斯是硬扛占领者的。但如果法塔赫能带回一个国家，局面就反过来了。
他还说了一句很关键的话：你不可能跟朋友谈判，你只能跟敌人谈判。美国媒体里那种“我们绝不跟哈马斯谈”的姿态，他说是愚蠢的，不谈，你就永远得不到和平。
然后是最锋利的一段。Lex 问美国在这件事里能扮演什么角色，Cenk 说，如果美国总统说一句“我要切断援助”，以色列会立刻回到谈判桌。他说这不需要复杂分析，只要问一句：如果美国总统真的这么说，内塔尼亚胡的政府会不会出大问题？会不会被迫提前大选？以色列政客和民众会不会真的开始担心失去一个巨大的资金和武器来源？Lex 说，绝对会。Cenk 说，那我们为什么不用这个杠杆？这太疯狂了。
Lex 在这里提了一个很有意思的假设：特朗普可能是唯一一个“疯到”会用这个杠杆的人。Cenk 同意了，但立刻加了一个最大的星号：有 12% 的概率他真这么做，那很好；但有 80% 的概率他做相反的事，把西岸直接给以色列，或者为了证明自己强硬而去炸伊朗。他说，如果你在经营一家公司，你不会雇这个人当 CEO，风险不可接受。但作为风险的一部分，那个小缝隙里确实有可能他意外做对了事。
这段对话其实把整场访谈的核心张力摆到了台面上。Lex 和 Cenk 对同一个人的判断差了十万八千里，但两个人都不打算说服对方，而是各自把推理链摊开给对方看。Cenk 说特朗普对普京的态度是交易，Lex 说那是想在谈判桌上赢。谁对谁错，没人能提前证明，但两个人都同意一件事：这个杠杆存在，而且没人用。
民粹主义的希望：三分之二的人是有共情的
访谈的收尾，Lex 问了一个很大的问题：对整个世界、对人类，什么给你希望？
Cenk 的回答回到了他反复用的那个比例。他说，你看任何一个国家的民调，几乎总是三分之二对三分之一。三分之二的人说“我们要有共情、要分享、要平等、要公正、要公平”，三分之一的人说“不不不，我我我我我”。他说，这是人性的分布。那个三分之一之所以在很多地方赢，是因为他们更有钱、更有权。而且，如果你更自私，你平均而言更可能积累到钱和权。他说他希望这不是真的，但事实如此。
然后他给了一个他认为更底层的论证。他说自己是个彻头彻尾的无神论者，不认为人类“有点像猿”，他认为人类就是猿。不同物种的反应方式不一样，蛇没有共情，因为它的 DNA 里没有。而高等猿类，黑猩猩、倭黑猩猩、人类，大致都想要“同意”（consent）。他说，黑猩猩名声很暴力，我们跟它们确实很接近，但很多人不知道的是，一个黑猩猩领袖不是靠暴力赢的。尤其是倭黑猩猩，它们靠给别的黑猩猩梳毛、去做一次狩猎然后把食物分给别人、去帮别人的忙。它们收集的是被统治者的同意。他说，这才是 alpha 的诞生方式，不是靠体力压制，是靠同意。这是我们的硬件。
他说，那两个三分之二的，长期看会赢。因为保守主义的立场本质上是“不要变化”，而世界在不停变化，所以它天然站在输的一边。他说这不是在贬低保守主义。你需要保守主义来平衡，需要有人在二战的时候是丘吉尔，需要有人提醒你一年检查六次电梯太过分了。保守主义有它非常重要的角色。但历史的长河里，改变总是赢。
他最后讲了一个家里的故事。他母亲娘家的姓在土耳其语里是 Yavaşça，意思是“慢慢地”。他小时候在伊斯坦布尔路过一座小清真寺，上面写着这个名字，他们进去问伊玛目为什么。伊玛目说，你们不知道吗？你们的一位祖先，是奥斯曼海军围困君士坦丁堡时的海军上将。那座城有一道巨大的铁链横在博斯普鲁斯海峡下面，所有船都会撞上去，两岸都是炮，世界上半个古代海军都沉在那条海峡底下，一千多年没人攻下过。这位祖先提出，造巨大的木板铺在陆地上，涂上油脂，把整支舰队从陆地上拖过去。
所有人都在说“不可能的，这城攻不下来”。只有他每天来问进度，这位祖先每天就答一句：慢慢地。于是征服者穆罕默德给他起了个外号，叫“慢将军”。
后来那一夜，整支奥斯曼舰队真的从陆地上被拖了过去，出现在博斯普鲁斯海峡的正中间。神圣罗马帝国投降了。
Cenk 用这个故事收尾，说的是他那套“改变为什么会发生”的理论：改变是一点一点发生的，然后突然发生。
这个句子听上去像鸡汤，但放在他整场访谈的逻辑里，它是有具体所指的。他前面讲的那一整套，修宪会议的州数、Wolf-PAC 的推进、Operation Hope 赶拜登下台、TYT 二十二年和主流媒体的拉锯，都属于“慢慢地”的部分。而拜登在辩论台上垮掉那一夜，属于“突然”。他说得很清楚：如果前面一年没有人反复说“他太老了，他赢不了”，那场辩论只会是一次意外；正因为铺垫已经铺满了，那场辩论才变成了压垮骆驼的最后一根稻草。
他给保守派留的那句话
访谈快到尾声的时候，Cenk 讲了他那本书的结尾。这一段比前面那些政策分析更值得单独拎出来，因为它解释了为什么一个左翼民粹主义者会花四个小时耐心地把保守派选民和共和党政客区分开来。
他说，保守派在他们的“大篷车”内部是有很强共情的。他们对家人好，对社区好，对教会好，对任何一个在车里面的人都很好。但他们在车厢外面架起了电网和铁丝网，只要你在外面，你就是“他者”，你就会被电。
他说他希望左派的“大篷车”更宽一些，把更多的人算作“我们”。这个差别的实际后果是：如果左派赢了，他们不会搞“只给左派的全民医保”，他们会搞所有人的全民医保；不会搞“只给左派的高工资”，他们会提高所有人的工资。右派不会是被排除在外的那一群。
这段话不只是修辞。它跟前面他那句“当 Charlie Kirk 说支持带薪家庭假，当 Patrick Bet-David 在他的节目里大致支持带薪家庭假，就接住这个胜利”是同一件事。他反复在讲一个左翼经常犯的操作错误：如果有人跟你只在 2% 的议题上一致，左派的第一反应是把他赶走；如果有人跟你只在 2% 的议题上不一致，左派的第一反应还是把他赶走。他说这样你永远赢不了选举。他见过太多人因为反战立场和右翼选民一致，却因为对方“是 MAGA”而拒绝合作。
这也是为什么他在整场访谈里对特朗普的评价是分裂的。一方面他明确说这个人是对民主的正面攻击，绝不能让他回白宫。另一方面当 Lex 让他钢人化特朗普的时候，他给出了三条真实的、正面的东西：拒绝轰炸伊朗的克制、把共和党选民变成反战群体、在乌克兰问题上愿意强推一份不完美的和平协议。他说，就算这些都不是出于真心，就算他自己做的很多事可能引爆更大的战争，这几件事本身是真实的，他愿意接受。
这种姿态在一个内容生态里是很稀缺的。它要求你在说“我绝不接受这个人当总统”的同时，还能说出“他这件事做对了”。大多数政治内容创作者做不到这一点，因为观众在两边都会惩罚这种分裂。
关于 93%、98%，和一个他没能钢成功的观点
整场对话里，Lex 试了至少四次钢人化。他问：所有公司都一样坏吗？所有政客都腐败吗？拿公司 PAC 钱的人不一定当场就卖了自己吧？人类里是不是大多数人都有诚信？Cenk 每次都认真接了，只有最后一次接得很勉强。
Lex 的论证是：绝大多数人是有诚信的；一个政客收了钱，不会当场变质，变质是一个缓慢的滑坡；既然腐败需要时间发酵，那任期限制就是一个可以对抗腐败的工具，你在他被腐蚀透之前就把他换掉。
Cenk 承认“随时间变坏”这一点是真的，他举了拜登和 Kyrsten Sinema 作为例子：一个是进来时反腐蚀、走的时候彻底被腐蚀；一个是进来时是进步派、拒绝 PAC 钱，后来变成参议院里最公司派的人。但他不同意任期限制能解决问题，理由是激励结构本身没变。只要钱还在，下一批人进来还是会走同一条路。他把这个叫做“软件”对“硬件”的持续加压：大部分人处在那个光谱的中间地带，你给他们的软件长期激励他们放弃诚信，他们就会放弃。
然后他把话题拉回政客这个群体的特殊性。他说政客平均而言更可能落在缺乏共情的那一端，原因是筛选机制。国会选举里，钱多的一方赢的概率是 95%，不分党派、不分意识形态。那个 5% 里没被钱绑住的人，接下来会遇到初选挑战和普选挑战，还是 95% 的规律。一轮一轮筛下来，最后留在里面的几乎只剩腐败的那批人。
Lex 追问：95% 是真的吗？他愿意相信越往上这个比例越低。Cenk 说，对，总统选举反而在某种意义上是腐败最少的。原因很具体：地方选举和参议员选举几乎没有媒体报道，所以你买的广告就是全部的信息环境，你多花两百万，你不但买到了广告位，还买到了地方台、地方电台、地方报纸的友好态度。总统选举不一样，总统选举里有“免费媒体”（earned media），体量大到压过付费媒体。他举了 2016 年：希拉里花的钱大概是特朗普的两倍，但她输了，因为特朗普拿到的免费媒体几乎是她的两倍。他说，免费媒体比广告更好，因为它嵌在内容里。
这就是他为什么还有希望的真正原因，也是他整场访谈里最有操作性的一句话：你只需要过初选那一关。过了初选，到了大选，你可以不鸟金主，你可以靠免费媒体赢，你甚至可以反过来逼自己的党和其他党。特朗普已经演示了一遍这条路怎么走，可惜他走错了方向。
他还补了一句很值得记下来的观察：他说他和他的团队之所以能在节目里提前预测某个法案会不会过，是因为这件事在大多数时候是能算出来的，算法就是跟着钱走。他说他们甚至在节目里教观众怎么做这种预测，现在会员会自己留言做预测，几乎每次都准。
关于他的那个“8%”
访谈里有一段明显偏离主题的闲聊，但它意外地最能体现这个人的质地。
Lex 提到，Cenk 以前说过自己在格斗上有机会打赢 Joe Rogan。Cenk 说对，非零概率，但概率每天都在下降。Lex 说这是他听过 Cenk 讲过最蠢的话，然后讲了他自己练柔术、摔跤、柔道这么多年的观察：那些信心十足、肌肉发达的大块头走进拳馆，个个都觉得自己是世界冠军，然后被打得很惨。
Cenk 的回应很有意思。他先说，如果一个没受过训练的 MMA 选手对上相信 Nick Fuentes 那套阴谋论的大块头，MMA 选手会把对方拆了，他喜欢看那种。然后他解释了自己当初为什么说那句话。十几年前 Michael Smerconish 在《赫芬顿邮报》写过一篇博客，讲美国的“娘炮化”，说左派都是软蛋。Cenk 写了一篇回应，说，那我们辩论，你要谈物理强度，那我们就约一场拳击，看看谁更硬。Smerconish 慌了，去找 Arianna Huffington 告状说 Cenk 在恐吓他。Cenk 说，这就是重点，我不是真要打他，我是要证明那套修辞有多蠢。
然后他给了自己的真实评估：对 Rogan，他有 8% 的概率；对 Alex Jones，他也有 8%。这个对称让 Lex 愣了一下。他解释说，因为你永远不知道，一拳打在耳朵上你就失去平衡了，接下来你就麻烦了，所以他可以走运，Alex Jones 也可以走运。Alex Jones 几乎不可能赢他，理由是他摔过跤。他举了跟孩子一起看韩国综艺《Physical 100》的例子：里面有一个抢球的摔跤环节，他跟孩子说每个摔跤手都会赢，每个 MMA 选手都会赢，每次都应验。孩子问爸爸你怎么知道的，他说因为我们受过训练，在摔跤比赛里我们不会输给没摔过跤的人。
第二条是他打过大约三十次街头实战。他说街头实战当然不等于 MMA，但也不等于零经验，而街头实战最重要的能力是能挨一拳打在脸上。他说他这辈子被打过几十次，年轻时他打架的方式是说“第一拳让你先打”。
Lex 说，即使这样，技术才是关键。他跟着教练 John Danaher 训练，技术本身会喂养意志力，你不需要那么多意志力，如果技术到位的话。Cenk 说他完全同意，他说这就是他提《Physical 100》的原因，技术几乎总是赢，他们争的只是 8% 还是 1% 还是 0.01%。
这段闲聊之所以值得写进来，是因为它跟前面那段严肃的政治分析共享同一个结构。他非常清楚自己在哪里是理性的，在哪里是情绪驱动的，并且愿意当场承认。他说，这不是我要死在上面的一座山，Joe 会赢，我明白。
关于他相信的那个更底层的东西
如果要从这四个小时里挑一个 Cenk 真正相信的东西，答案落在“人被统治需要被统治者的同意”这一条上，它不在资本主义、民粹主义、修宪这几样里。他说，这一点写在我们的 DNA 里。
他用这个解释了为什么共产主义会失败：权力真空会被填满，但填满之后仍然需要某种形式的同意才能维持。他也解释了为什么公司主义会失败：它靠的是收买，并非同意。他还解释了为什么长期看三分之二有共情的人会赢，因为共情是收集同意的能力。而他坚持“相信人民”而不是“相信精英”，也是同一套逻辑，因为精英的合法性最终也得靠同意，只是他们把它换成了钱。
这个论证在学术上是可以被挑战的。黑猩猩的政治行为研究比他说得要复杂得多，倭黑猩猩和黑猩猩的社会结构差异也远不止“梳毛还是打架”。但他用它做的事情不是学术，是给一个非常灰暗的政治时刻提供一个不靠乐观主义支撑的乐观结论。希望在他的用法里是一个可以被经验检验的判断，跟情绪无关。
他说得很直白：过去两百年里发生过人类历史上最坏的一些事，但整体上，预期寿命更高了，收入更高了，健康状况更好了。所以希望不是被错放的，它是经验的。
而他给“希望”下的那个定义，可能是整场访谈里最锋利的一句：
希望是这个世界上对精英最危险的东西。所以，不管你是右翼还是左翼，我需要你有希望，我需要你明白这份希望不是错放的。（Cenk Uygur）
那么，一个普通读者能从这四个小时里拿走什么
这场对话的信息密度很高，但真正能转化成日常动作的东西其实不多，也很具体。下面这几条是他自己反复演示过的方法，都是可执行的动作，没有态度口号。
- 给每一个预测记一笔账。Cenk 反复说“我提前说，你以后回来核对我”。这是一种可以自己执行的习惯：把你听到的每一个政治预测记下来，标上日期，三个月后回看，不管说这话的人是哪个立场。他说，如果你开始对所有评论员都这么做，最后还站着的只剩说真话的那几个。这个动作不需要立场，只需要一支笔。
- 看钱，不看话。他的核心方法论就三个字：follow the money。一个法案出来，先别看两边的评论，去看这个法案涉及哪个行业、那个行业今年花了多少游说费、哪些议员收了。这些信息是公开的，只是主流媒体几乎不报道。养成查 OpenSecrets 一类数据库的习惯，比看十条评论更有用。
- 用一个具体的事实去测试一个媒体。他的建议不是“不要相信媒体”，是“拿具体的事去测”。Morning Joe 说拜登支持 15 美元最低工资，然后拜登把这条从法案里拿掉了。这就是一次测试，结果出来了。你不需要判断一个媒体整体可不可信，你只需要积累这种小测试的结果，几次之后你自己就知道了。
- 分辨“已发生”和“说过会发生的”。他讲 FEMA 集中营的例子：Alex Jones 在奥巴马时期反复说政府要把人关进 FEMA 集中营，奥巴马下台了，没有集中营。他说，第三次没发生的时候，你就该开始怀疑了。这条规则对左右两边同样适用，对主流媒体的“专家预测”也一样适用。
- 当对手在某个议题上和你站到一起，接住这个胜利。这是他给左翼最具体的一条战术建议。右翼选民在反战、在带薪家庭假、在反对私股扫货住房这些议题上已经跟你站在一起了，这时候不要因为对方“是 MAGA”而把他推走。他说，你在一个 2% 的分歧上驱逐掉一个 98% 的潜在盟友，这算自杀，跟原则无关。
- 支持还在做原始报道的文字媒体。他点名了 AP、Reuters、The Intercept、The Lever，还有 Ryan Grim 现在在做的东西。他的判断很硬：电视新闻里的人本质上只是演员，你一夜之间把它们全关掉，不但不会伤到你，反而会帮到你。但文字报道不能丢，因为总得有人真的去收集事实。如果只能付一份订阅费，付给还在做原始报道的那一家，别付给观点工厂。
- 把“不舒服”当成一个可测量的成本。他讲 AOC 那段时说的最狠的一句话是：她后来走上建制路线，是因为她厌倦了不舒服。这一条对任何一个想在组织里推动改变的人都成立。你要提前想清楚，你愿意承受多少轮核爆级的攻击，然后按这个额度分配你的议题，别按你的理想排序。
最后一条也许是这四个小时真正的底色。Cenk 一直在说平衡、说钟摆、说不要走极端，但他自己在场上的时候，从来不温和。他承认自己会喊，会打断，会跟人起冲突，他说那是他这二十二年来活下来的方式。但同时他也说，他跟 Charlie Kirk、跟 Rudy Giuliani、跟 Mike Lindell 坐下来谈的时候，只要对方不喊，他也不喊。
他说，你必须在需要强硬的时候强硬，在需要文明的时候文明，因为对面那些人，就是我们自己。
Communism makes no sense at all, totally opposed to human nature.
共产主义毫无意义，完全违背人性。
00:00 It never works.
它永远不会起作用。
It always evolves into dictatorship.
它总是演变成独裁统治。
It creates a power vacuum.
它造成了权力真空。
When you say, “Hey, there’s no structure of power here.
当你说：“嘿，这里没有权力结构。
We’re all equal.
我们都是平等的。
It’s a flat line,” one guy usually gets up, because that’s human nature, and goes, “I don’t think so.
这是一条平坦的线，”一个人通常会站起来，因为这是人性，然后说，“我不这么认为。
I think if you’re going to leave a power vacuum, I’m going to take that power vacuum.”
我认为，如果你要留下权力真空，我就会填补这个权力真空。”
00:25 Corporatism hates competition.
社团主义讨厌竞争。
It wants monopoly and oligopoly power.
它想要垄断和寡头垄断权力。
Whereas capitalism loves competition and wants the free markets.
而资本主义喜欢竞争并想要自由市场。
When mainstream media has you hooked, you got no hope because you don’t have the right information.
当主流媒体让你着迷时，你就没有希望了，因为你没有正确的信息。
You have propaganda, you have marketing.
你有宣传，你有营销。
You don’t have real news.
你没有真正的消息。
When you’re in the online world, it’s chaotic.
当你身处网络世界时，一切都是混乱的。
And don’t get me wrong, it’s got plenty of downsides, but within that chaos, the truth begins to emerge.
不要误会我的意思，它有很多缺点，但在混乱中，真相开始浮出水面。
Trump is a massive risk because of all the things we talked about earlier, but there is a percentage chance that he’s such a wild card that he overturns the whole system, and that is why the establishment is a little scared of him.
由于我们之前讨论过的所有事情，特朗普是一个巨大的风险，但他很有可能是一个不确定的因素，以至于他会推翻整个体系，这就是为什么建制派有点害怕他。
The following is a conversation with Cenk Uygur, a progressive political commentator and host of The Young Turks.
以下是与进步政治评论员、青年土耳其党主持人岑克·维吾尔的对话。
01:11 As I’ve said before, I will speak with everyone, including on the left and the right of the political spectrum, always in good faith, with empathy, rigor, and backbone.
正如我之前所说，我将始终本着善意、同理心、严谨和坚定的态度与所有人交谈，包括政治领域的左派和右派。
Sometimes I fail.
有时我会失败。
Sometimes I say stupid, inaccurate, ineloquent things, and I frequently change my mind as I’m learning and thinking about the world.
有时我会说一些愚蠢的、不准确的、不雄辩的话，并且在学习和思考世界的过程中我经常改变主意。
For all this, I often get attacked, sometimes fairly, sometimes not.
尽管如此，我经常受到攻击，有时是公平的，有时不是。
But just know that I’m aware when I fall short and I will keep trying to do better.
但只要知道我知道自己什么时候有不足，我就会继续努力做得更好。
I love you all.
我爱你们。
This is the Lex Fridman podcast.
这是莱克斯·弗里德曼播客。
To support it, please check out our sponsors in the description.
为了支持它，请在说明中查看我们的赞助商。
And now, dear friends, here’s Cenk Uygur.
现在，亲爱的朋友们，这是岑克·维吾尔。
02:03 You wrote a book.
你写了一本书。
Yeah.
是的。
A manifesto that outlines the progressive vision for America.
一份概述美国进步愿景的宣言。
02:05 So the big question, what are some defining ideas of progressivism?
所以最大的问题是，进步主义的一些定义思想是什么？
Yes.
是的。
02:14 So in order to do that, Lex, we got to talk about where we are in the political spectrum.
因此，为了做到这一点，莱克斯，我们必须讨论我们在政治领域的位置。
And in fact, there’s two different spectrums now.
事实上，现在有两个不同的范围。
People often think of left, right, and that’s true, that exists, but layered on top of that is now populist versus establishment.
人们经常想到左派、右派，这是事实，确实存在，但除此之外现在还有民粹主义与建制派的对抗。
So I’m center-left on the left, right spectrum, but I’m all the way on that populist end of the second spectrum.
所以我在左、右光谱中属于中左翼，但我一直在第二光谱的民粹主义一端。
So where does progressivism lie within that?
那么进步主义到底在哪里呢？
Well, I would argue that it’s exactly in those places.
好吧，我认为它正是在那些地方。
It’s populist and it’s on the left, but it is not far left.
它是民粹主义的，它是左翼的，但也不是很左。
So far left is a different animal, and we could talk about that in a little bit.
最左边是一种不同的动物，我们可以稍微讨论一下。
So in terms of what makes a progressive, so expand the circle of liberty and justice for all, and equality of opportunity.
因此，就什么是进步而言，扩大所有人的自由和正义以及机会平等的范围。
Now people will say, well, that seems pretty broad and all American, but is it?
现在人们会说，好吧，这看起来相当宽泛，而且都是美国式的，但真的是这样吗？
Think about it.
想一想。
03:16 So expand the circle of liberty.
所以扩大自由的范围。
Everybody’s in favor of that, right?
大家都赞成，对吧？
No, absolutely not.
不，绝对不是。
Certainly the King of England was not in favor of expanding the circle of liberty, and the Founding Fathers said, “We’re going to expand it.” And they expanded it to propertied white men.
当然，英国国王不赞成扩大自由范围，开国元勋们说：“我们要扩大自由范围。”他们将其扩展到有产的白人。
And then progressives have been …
然后进步人士已经……
they’re progressives because they expanded the circle of liberty.
他们是进步主义者，因为他们扩大了自由的范围。
They, then from then on, as we were perfecting the union, progressives always say, “Expand it further.
他们，从那时起，当我们完善工会时，进步人士总是说：“进一步扩大它。
Include women, include people without property, include all races.” And at every turn, conservatives fight against it.
包括女性，包括没有财产的人，包括所有种族。”每一次，保守派都会与之抗争。
So that doesn’t mean if you’re a conservative today, you don’t want to include women or minorities, et cetera.
因此，这并不意味着如果您今天是保守派，您就不想包括女性或少数族裔等。
But today you would say, for example, “Well, I don’t want to expand the circle of liberty to, for example, undocumented immigrants.” And maybe you’re right about that, and we could have that discussion in terms of a specific philosophy.
但今天你会说，例如，“好吧，我不想将自由范围扩大到例如无证移民。”也许你是对的，我们可以根据特定的哲学进行讨论。
04:08 And I don’t believe that undocumented immigrants should immediately be citizens or anything along those lines.
我不认为无证移民应该立即成为公民或类似的东西。
But I do believe in expanding liberty overall.
但我确实相信全面扩大自由。
And the contours of that are what’s interesting.
有趣的是它的轮廓。
And then you see justice for all.
然后你就会看到所有人的正义。
Everybody’s for justice.
每个人都是为了正义。
No.
不。
Right now, marijuana possession is still illegal in a lot of parts of the country.
目前，在该国许多地区持有大麻仍然是非法的。
Now, a lot of right-wingers and left-wingers agree that it should be legal.
现在，许多右翼和左翼人士都认为这应该是合法的。
But for my entire lifetime, black people have been arrested at about 3.7 times the rate of white people and the entire country has been fine with it.
但在我的一生中，黑人被捕率大约是白人的 3.7 倍，整个国家都对此表示满意。
So is that justice?
那么这就是正义吗？
No.
不。
Black people smoke marijuana at the same rate.
黑人吸食大麻的比例相同。
Black people get arrested about four times the rate.
黑人被捕率大约是黑人的四倍。
That is an injustice that an enormous percentage of the country was comfortable with.
该国很大一部分人对这种不公正现象感到满意。
Well, progressives aren’t comfortable with it.
好吧，进步人士对此并不满意。
We want justice for all.
我们要为所有人伸张正义。
04:55 So equality of opportunity is an interesting one because the far left will say, at least some portions of them will say, equality of results.
因此，机会平等是一个有趣的问题，因为极左派会说，至少他们中的某些人会说，结果平等。
So progressives just want a fair chance, so free college education, but afterwards you don’t get to have exact same results as either the wealthiest person or we’re not all going to be equal.
所以进步人士只是想要一个公平的机会，所以免费的大学教育，但之后你不会得到与最富有的人完全相同的结果，或者我们不会都是平等的。
We don’t have equal talent, skills, abilities, et cetera.
我们没有同等的天赋、技能、能力等等。
There’s a lot of questions I can ask there.
我可以在那里问很多问题。
05:21 So on the circle of liberty, yes, so expanding the number of people whose freedoms are protected.
所以在自由范围上，是的，所以扩大了自由受到保护的人数。
But what about the magnitude of freedom for each individual person?
但每个人的自由程度又如何呢？
So expanding the freedom of the individual and protecting the freedoms of an individual.
因此扩大个人的自由并保护个人的自由。
It seems like progressives are more willing to expand the size of government where government can do all kinds of regulation, all kinds of controls in the individual.
进步派似乎更愿意扩大政府规模，让政府可以对个人进行各种监管和控制。
So Lex, what we’re probably going to talk about a lot today is balance.
所以莱克斯，我们今天可能要讨论的很多内容是平衡。
05:49 And so a lot of people think, “Oh, I am on the right, I’m on left.” And that comes with a certain preset ideology.
所以很多人会想，“哦，我在右边，我在左边。”这带有一定的预设意识形态。
So the right is always correct.
所以正确的永远是正确的。
The left is always correct.
左边永远是正确的。
So there’s two problems with that.
所以这有两个问题。
Number one, how could you possibly believe in a preset ideology if you’re an independent thinker?
第一，如果你是一个独立思考者，你怎么可能相信预设的意识形态？
It’s literally, by definition, not possible.
从字面上看，根据定义，这是不可能的。
If you say, “I lent my brain to an ideology that was created 80 years ago or eight years ago or 800 years ago, and I’m not going to change it,” you’re saying, “I don’t think for myself I bought into a culture.” And by the way, there’s a lot of different forms of culture you could buy into: religion, politics, sometimes racial, et cetera.
如果你说，“我把我的大脑借给了一种 80 年前、8 年前或 800 年前创造的意识形态，而我不会改变它，”你是在说，“我不认为我自己已经接受了一种文化。”顺便说一句，你可以接受很多不同形式的文化：宗教、政治，有时还有种族等等。
So that’s why you need, actually, balance.
所以这就是为什么你实际上需要平衡。
The second reason you need balance, other than independent thought, is because the answer is almost never black and white.
除了独立思考之外，你需要平衡的第二个原因是因为答案几乎从来都不是非黑即白的。
06:47 And that gets into a really interesting nuance because mainstream media, in my opinion, is the matrix, and its job is to delude you into thinking corporate rule is great for you and we should never change it and the status quo is wonderful.
这变成了一个非常有趣的细微差别，因为在我看来，主流媒体是一个矩阵，它的作用是欺骗你，让你认为公司规则对你来说很好，我们永远不应该改变它，现状是美好的。
So they have created a false middle.
所以他们创造了一个虚假的中间。
What mainstream media calls moderate, is actually, in my opinion, extremist corporate ideology.
主流媒体所说的温和，在我看来实际上是极端的企业意识形态。
So for example, they’ll say, Joe Manchin is a moderate.
例如，他们会说，乔·曼钦是温和派。
None of his positions are moderate other than potentially gun control in West Virginia.
除了西弗吉尼亚州潜在的枪支管制之外，他的立场都不温和。
He’s not for gun control.
他不支持枪支管制。
The people of West Virginia are not for gun control, generally speaking.
一般来说，西弗吉尼亚州人民并不支持枪支管制。
And he uses that, and they usually have these shiny objects where they’re like, “You see this?
他使用它，他们通常会在他们喜欢的地方放置这些闪亮的物体，“你看到这个了吗？
I’m a moderate because of guns,” or, “I’m a moderate because I’m a Democrat from West Virginia.”
因为枪支，我是温和派”，或者，“我是温和派，因为我是来自西弗吉尼亚州的民主党人。”
07:36 But wait, let’s look at your positions.
但是等等，让我们看看你们的立场。
You’re against paid family leave, that polls at 84%.
84% 的人反对带薪家庭假。
So you’re a radical corporatist who say that women should be forced back into work the day after they have birth.
所以你是一个激进的社团主义者，他说女性应该在产后第二天就被迫重返工作岗位。
You’re against a higher minimum wage, you’re for every corporate position, and they all poll at 33% or less.
你反对提高最低工资，你支持所有公司职位，而他们的民调支持率都在 33% 或更低。
So Joe Manchin is not at all a moderate, and this applies to almost every corporate Republican and every corporate Democrat.
因此，乔·曼钦根本不是温和派，这适用于几乎所有共和党企业界和民主党企业界。
They’re all extremists in supporting what I call corporatism.
他们都是支持我所说的社团主义的极端分子。
So you have to get to a balance in order to get to the right answer.
所以你必须达到平衡才能得到正确的答案。
So that’s an interesting distinction here.
这是一个有趣的区别。
08:11 So you’re actually, as far as I understand, pro-capitalism, which is an interesting place to be.
所以据我所知，你实际上是支持资本主义的，这是一个有趣的地方。
That’s the thing that probably makes you center-left and then still populist.
这可能会让你成为中左派，但仍然是民粹主义者。
You’re full of beautiful contradictions, let’s say this, which will be great to untangle.
你充满了美丽的矛盾，比方说，这将是很好的解开。
But what’s the difference between corporatism and capitalism?
但法团主义和资本主义有什么区别呢？
Is there a difference?
有区别吗？
Yeah, so I really believe in capitalism.
是的，所以我真的相信资本主义。
08:33 I don’t think that there’s really a second choice.
我不认为真的有第二个选择。
Where it gets super interesting is the distinction between capitalism and socialism, because that’s not at all as clear as people think it is.
非常有趣的地方是资本主义和社会主义之间的区别，因为这根本不像人们想象的那么清晰。
And people often say socialism and communism as synonyms when they’re not synonyms.
人们经常将社会主义和共产主义视为同义词，但实际上它们并不是同义词。
And so I view it as there’s basically four distinct areas.
所以我认为它基本上有四个不同的领域。
It’s obviously a spectrum.
这显然是一个频谱。
Everything is a spectrum.
一切都是一个光谱。
On one end, you have communism on the left and on the other end you have corporatism on the right.
一方面，左派是共产主义，另一方面，右派是法团主义。
And I would argue that capitalism is in the middle.
我认为资本主义处于中间位置。
And so communism, we know, state owns all property.
因此，我们知道，共产主义国家拥有所有财产。
You’re not allowed to have private property.
你不可以拥有私人财产。
So I will piss off a lot of people in this show.
所以我会在这个节目中得罪很多人。
So I’m asking for their patience.
所以我请求他们耐心等待。
Please hear me out and because, don’t worry, I’m going to piss off the other side too.
请听我说完，因为，别担心，我也会惹恼对方。
09:32 So communism makes no sense at all, totally opposed to human nature.
所以共产主义根本没有任何意义，完全违背人性。
It never works.
它永远不会起作用。
It always evolves into dictatorship because it is not built for human nature.
它总是演变成独裁，因为它不是为人性而建立的。
We’re never going to act like that.
我们永远不会那样做。
It’s not in our DNA.
它不存在于我们的 DNA 中。
You could try to wish it into existence than they have, and it never works.
你可以尝试比他们更希望它存在，但它永远不会成功。
And it’s because once you have almost no rules in terms of, “Oh, we’re all equal,” even though communism eventually winds up having an enormous amount of rules, it creates a power vacuum.
这是因为一旦你几乎没有“哦，我们都是平等的”规则，即使共产主义最终拥有大量规则，它也会造成权力真空。
When you say, “Hey, there’s no structure of power here.
当你说：“嘿，这里没有权力结构。
We’re all equal.
我们都是平等的。
It’s a flat line,” one guy usually gets up because that’s human nature, and goes, “I don’t think so.
这是一条平坦的线，”一个人通常会站起来，因为这是人性，然后说，“我不这么认为。
I think if you’re going to leave a power vacuum, I’m going to take that power vacuum.”
我认为，如果你要留下权力真空，我就会填补这个权力真空。”
That’s actually a really interesting way to put it, because when everyone is equal, nobody is in power, and human nature is such that there’s everybody [inaudible 00:10:33] that there’s a will to power.
这实际上是一种非常有趣的表达方式，因为当每个人都是平等的时候，没有人掌权，而人性就是每个人 [听不清 00:10:33] 都有权力意志。
10:23 So when you create a power vacuum, somebody’s going to fill it.
因此，当你创造权力真空时，就会有人来填补它。
So the alternative is to have people in power, but there’s a balance of power, and then there’s a democratic system that elects the people in power and keeps churning and rotating who’s involved.
因此，另一种选择是让人民掌权，但要保持权力平衡，然后有一个民主制度，选举掌权者，并不断地搅动和轮换参与人员。
That is exactly it, Lex.
就是这样，莱克斯。
10:47 You got it exactly right, in my opinion.
在我看来，你说得完全正确。
Okay, so that’s why communism never works and can never work.
好吧，这就是为什么共产主义从来都行不通，也永远行不通。
So it’s an idea of we’re all going to work as hard as we possibly can and take only what we need.
因此，我们所有人都将尽我们所能努力工作，只获取我们需要的东西。
Where?
在哪里？
When has that ever happened in the history of humanity?
人类历史上什么时候发生过这样的事？
We’re just not built that way.
我们只是不是那样构建的。
So we can get into that debate with my friends on the left, et cetera.
所以我们可以和我的左翼朋友们进行辩论，等等。
Now, corporatism is just as extreme and just as dangerous, and that is basically what we have in America now.
现在，社团主义同样极端、同样危险，这基本上就是我们现在美国所面临的情况。
What we have in America now, and this is another giant trick that the Matrix played on everybody, that they did a shell game, and all of a sudden extreme corporatists like Manchin, and almost every Republican in the Senate, are moderates.
我们现在在美国所面临的情况，这是矩阵对每个人玩的另一个巨大诡计，他们做了一场骗局，突然之间，像曼钦这样的极端社团主义者，以及参议院中的几乎所有共和党人，都变成了温和派。
Oh my God, Mitch McConnell, all of a sudden, is a moderate and et cetera, as long as you’re not a populist, populists are never moderate.
天哪，米奇·麦康奈尔突然之间变成了温和派等等，只要你不是民粹主义者，民粹主义者就永远不是温和派。
11:43 But if you love corporations and corporate tax cuts and everything in favor of corporations, you’re magically called a moderate when you actually, according to the polling, have super extreme positions that the American people hate.
但如果你喜欢公司和公司减税以及一切有利于公司的事情，你就会神奇地被称为温和派，而根据民意调查，你实际上拥有美国人民讨厌的超级极端立场。
And by the way, that’s part of the reason for the rise of Trump.
顺便说一句，这也是特朗普崛起的部分原因。
We can come back to that.
我们可以回到这一点。
But the second shell game is taking out capitalism, putting in corporatism, but still calling it capitalism.
但第二个骗局是去掉资本主义，放入社团主义，但仍称其为资本主义。
Okay, so what is corporatism?
好吧，那么什么是法团主义呢？
It is when corporations slowly take over the system and create monopoly and oligopoly power.
这是企业慢慢接管系统并创造垄断和寡头垄断力量的时候。
So that snuffs out equality of opportunity.
这样就消除了机会平等。
So how do they do that?
那么他们是怎么做到的呢？
When people say the system is rigged, they oftentimes can’t explain it that well.
当人们说系统被操纵时，他们通常无法很好地解释。
And then mainstream media goes, “Oh, you sound conspiratorial.
然后主流媒体说：“哦，你听起来有阴谋。
It was rigged, yeah.
它被操纵了，是的。
I wonder how.” Yeah, super easy to explain it.
我想知道怎么办。”是的，超级容易解释。
12:37 Here’s one of dozens of examples: carried interest loophole.
这是数十个例子之一：附带权益漏洞。
So that is for hedge funds, private equity, the top people on Wall Street, that’s part of their income.
对于对冲基金、私募股权、华尔街的顶尖人士来说，这是他们收入的一部分。
They get 2 and 20, right?
他们得到 2 和 20，对吗？
So 2% is a flat fee no matter what happens to the fund.
因此，无论基金发生什么情况，2% 都是固定费用。
And 20% of the profits of the fund goes back to the people who invested it.
基金利润的 20% 会返还给投资人。
It’s not their money, it’s not their investment.
这不是他们的钱，也不是他们的投资。
What they’re getting is actually just income, and should be taxed at the highest rate.
他们得到的实际上只是收入，应该按最高税率纳税。
But it’s because of this loophole, it’s taxed at a much lower rate, at around 20%.
但正是因为这个漏洞，它的税率要低得多，约为20%。
So do you know at what income level you go above 20% if you’re a regular Joe?
那么，如果您是普通人，您知道什么收入水平可以超过 20% 吗？
It’s at $84,000 a year.
每年 84,000 美元。
So these billionaires are getting the same tax rate as people making $84,000 a year.
因此，这些亿万富翁的税率与年收入 84,000 美元的人相同。
It’s unbelievably unfair.
这太不公平了。
And that’s corporatism taking over and starting to rig the rules.
这就是社团主义接管并开始操纵规则。
I’m going to pay less taxes.
我要少缴税。
You are going to pay more taxes.
你将要缴纳更多的税。
13:37 So again, I can give you dozens of those examples.
再说一次，我可以给你举几十个这样的例子。
So in mergers so that they get to oligopoly power, that’s how you rig a system.
因此，在合并中，为了获得寡头垄断的权力，这就是你操纵系统的方式。
Lowering the corporate tax rates, making sure that there is no real minimum wage, making sure there’s no universal healthcare.
降低企业税率，确保没有实际最低工资，确保没有全民医疗保健。
We all become indentured servants of corporations.
我们都成为公司的契约仆人。
They take away power from the average guy, give it to the most powerful people in the world.
他们剥夺了普通人的权力，把它交给了世界上最有权势的人。
But the most important distinction, Lex, is that corporatism hates competition.
但莱克斯，最重要的区别是社团主义讨厌竞争。
It wants monopoly and oligopoly power.
它想要垄断和寡头垄断权力。
Whereas capitalism loves competition and wants the free markets.
而资本主义喜欢竞争并想要自由市场。
14:14 And I remember we started Young Turks back in 2002, so we’ve been around for 22 years, longest running daily show on the internet ever.
我记得我们早在 2002 年就开始了 Young Turks，所以我们已经存在了 22 年，是有史以来在互联网上运行时间最长的每日节目。
And so we were pre Iraq war and the Iraq war starts, and Dick Cheney starts handing out no-bid contracts.
所以我们在伊拉克战争之前，伊拉克战争开始了，迪克·切尼开始分发无投标合同。
I’m like, what part of capitalism is a no-bid contract?
我想，资本主义的哪一部分是无投标合同？
You can’t negotiate drug prices.
您无法协商药品价格。
That’s the most anti-free market thing I have ever heard.
这是我听过的最反自由市场的说法。
It’s almost like communism for corporations.
这几乎就像企业的共产主义。
They get everything and you get nothing.
他们得到一切，而你什么也得不到。
So it’s preposterous, it’s awful, and it kills the free markets, and it’s killing this country, and it is the main ideology and religion of the establishment.
所以这是荒谬的、可怕的，它扼杀了自由市场，它正在扼杀这个国家，它是当权派的主要意识形态和宗教。
Are all companies built the same here?
这里所有的公司都是一样的吗？
15:04 So when you say corporatism, it seems like just looking here at the list by industry lobbyists, it seems like there are certain industries that are worse offenders than others, like pharmaceuticals, like insurance, oil and gas.
因此，当你说社团主义时，似乎只要看看行业游说者的清单，似乎有些行业比其他行业更严重，比如制药业、保险业、石油和天然气行业。
So it seems to me it feels wrong to just throw all companies into the same bucket of they’re all guilty.
因此，在我看来，将所有公司都归入同一桶，认为它们都是有罪的，这是错误的。
No, they’re not all guilty.
不，他们并不都是有罪的。
15:36 So let’s make a bunch of distinctions here.
因此，让我们在这里做一些区分。
So first of all, first of all, are they “guilty?” No.
所以首先，首先，他们“有罪”吗？不。
They’re doing something that is logical and natural.
他们正在做一些合乎逻辑且自然的事情。
So if you’re a company, do you want to pay higher taxes or lower taxes?
那么如果你是一家公司，你想要缴纳更高的税还是更低的税？
Of course you want to pay lower taxes.
当然，您希望缴纳较低的税款。
Do you want to have higher employee costs or lower employee costs?
您想要更高的员工成本还是更低的员工成本？
Of course you want lower employee costs.
您当然希望降低员工成本。
But the government needs to understand that and protect us from that power that they are going to exercise to get to those results.
但政府需要理解这一点，并保护我们免受他们为实现这些结果而行使的权力的影响。
And if you think free markets is there is no government, you read it wrong.
如果你认为自由市场就是没有政府，那你就错了。
Go back and reread Adam Smith.
回去重读一下亚当·斯密吧。
He says, you must protect against monopoly power.
他说，你必须防止垄断势力。
If you do not protect against monopoly power, you’ll have no free markets.
如果不防范垄断势力，就不会有自由市场。
And he’s absolutely right.
他是完全正确的。
So second distinction is between small business and big business.
第二个区别是小企业和大企业之间的区别。
That’s why Republicans will always be like, “Oh, we’re doing this for small business.
这就是为什么共和党人总是会说：“哦，我们这样做是为了小企业。
That’s why we got the biggest oil companies in the world, 30 billion in subsidies.” What happened to small business?
这就是为什么我们得到了世界上最大的石油公司 300 亿美元的补贴。”小企业怎么了？
So I run a small business.
所以我经营一家小企业。
And so if people were to say like, “Hey, maybe there should be exemptions for some of the regulations if your company has less than five employees, 10 employees, 50 employees, et cetera,” there’s some logic in that.
因此，如果人们说，“嘿，如果你的公司员工人数少于 5 名、10 名、50 名员工等，也许应该豁免某些规定”，这是有一定逻辑的。
Because businesses have different stages of growth and they have different interests and different needs in those stages of growth.
因为企业有不同的成长阶段，在不同的成长阶段有不同的利益和不同的需求。
And we want to facilitate small business growth because that’s great for the economy, that’s great for markets freedom, et cetera.
我们希望促进小企业的增长，因为这对经济、市场自由都有好处，等等。
But the bigger corporations, even there, there’s a third distinction.
但即便是规模较大的公司，也存在第三个区别。
It isn’t that there are certain industries that are worse, there’s just that there are industries that are better at lobbying.
并不是说某些行业更糟糕，而是说某些行业更擅长游说。
17:19 So anyone who right now, number one donor in Washington, a lot of people make a mistake.
因此，现在，华盛顿的第一大捐助者，很多人都犯了错误。
They think it’s APAC or they think it’s the oil companies or the banks.
他们认为是亚太地区，或者他们认为是石油公司或银行。
No, it’s big pharma.
不，这是一家大型制药公司。
And who has the most power in this country?
谁在这个国家拥有最大的权力？
Big pharma.
大制药公司。
So we can’t even negotiate the drug prices.
所以我们甚至无法协商药品价格。
I mean, look, guys, think about it this way.
我的意思是，看，伙计们，这样想一下。
That’s like saying, “Okay, here’s a bottle of water.” And normally in the free market that would cost about a dollar.
这就像说：“好吧，这是一瓶水。”通常在自由市场上，这将花费大约一美元。
For Medicare, the drug companies come in and go, “No, I’m not charging a dollar for that water.
对于医疗保险，制药公司进出，“不，我不会为这些水收取一美元。
I’m charging a hundred dollars.
我要收费一百美元。
And the government has to say, “Yes, sir, thank you, sir.
政府必须说：“是的，先生，谢谢你，先生。
Of course, sir, we’ll pay $100.” That’s why it’s compared to communism, because I can’t imagine anything more diametrically opposed to the free market than you, the consumer have to pay whatever the hell a corporation charges.
当然，先生，我们会付 100 美元。”这就是为什么它与共产主义相比，因为我无法想象还有什么比你更与自由市场截然相反的了，消费者必须支付公司收取的任何费用。
That’s insanity.
这太疯狂了。
Let alone the patents, let alone the fact that the American people pay for the research and then they make billions of dollars off of it and we get nothing but robbed by them.
更不用说专利了，更不用说美国人民为研究付费，然后他们从中赚取数十亿美元，而我们除了被他们抢劫之外一无所获。
18:22 So it’s about lobby power.
所以这与游说力量有关。
Oil companies have huge lobby power.
石油公司拥有巨大的游说力量。
Defense contractors have huge lobby power.
国防承包商拥有巨大的游说力量。
It’s not that they’re more evil, it’s just that they have figured out the game better and they have basically taken the influence they need to capture the market, capture the government, and snuff out all competition, or a lot of competition.
并不是说他们更邪恶，而是他们更好地理解了游戏规则，他们基本上已经获得了占领市场、占领政府、消灭所有竞争或大量竞争所需的影响力。
Well, figured out the game better.
嗯，对游戏有了更好的了解。
18:41 So I think a lot of companies are good at winning the right way by building better products, by making people happier with the work they’re doing and the winning at the game of capitalism.
因此，我认为很多公司都善于以正确的方式赢得胜利，通过打造更好的产品，让人们对他们正在做的工作感到更满意，并在资本主义游戏中获胜。
And then there’s other companies that win at the game of lobbying, and I just want to draw that distinction because I think it’s a small subset of companies that are playing the game of lobbying.
还有其他公司在游说游戏中获胜，我只是想区分这一点，因为我认为只有一小部分公司在玩游说游戏。
It’s like big pharma.
这就像大型制药公司。
So Lex, first of all, you have to set rules for what makes sense, not, “Oh, I don’t like this industry,” or “I don’t like this company,” or, “Hey, this company is not doing that much lobbying at this point.
所以莱克斯，首先，你必须制定有意义的规则，而不是，“哦，我不喜欢这个行业”，或者“我不喜欢这家公司”，或者，“嘿，这家公司目前没有做那么多游说。
19:11 They will later when they realize what’s going on.” So for example, in my opinion, APAC has totally bought almost all of Congress.
当他们意识到发生了什么事之后就会知道。”例如，在我看来，亚太地区已经完全收买了几乎所有的国会。
And so now other countries are going to wake up and go, “Wait, you could just buy the American government?” So APAC is going to spend about $100 million dollars in this cycle, and then they’re getting 26 billion back.
所以现在其他国家将会醒悟并说：“等等，你可以收买美国政府吗？”因此，亚太地区将在这个周期中花费约 1 亿美元，然后他们将收回 260 亿美元。
So every country in the world is soon going to realize, oh, take American citizens that live there, get them a tremendous amount of money and just buy the U.S. government.
因此，世界上每个国家很快就会意识到，哦，拿住在那里的美国公民，给他们一大笔钱，然后收买美国政府。
But for corporations, they’ve already realized that on a massive scale.
但对于企业来说，他们已经大规模地意识到了这一点。
19:58 So for example, in the two industries you gave: automotive.
例如，在您给出的两个行业中：汽车。
So in New Jersey, about a decade or ago or so, one of the most powerful lobbies is car dealerships.
因此，在新泽西州，大约十年前左右，最强大的游说团体之一是汽车经销商。
So at the national level, you’ve got pharma and you’ve got defense contractors, et cetera.
因此，在国家层面，有制药公司和国防承包商，等等。
At the local level guys who have huge power, number one is utilities.
在地方一级拥有巨大权力的人中，排名第一的是公用事业。
Number two is real estate.
第二是房地产。
And then car dealerships are hilariously among the top because it’s local businesses that are financing the politicians at the local level.
然后，汽车经销商滑稽地跻身前列，因为是当地企业为地方政客提供资金。
So they passed a law saying that you have to sell through dealerships.
因此他们通过了一项法律，规定必须通过经销商进行销售。
But Tesla doesn’t sell through dealerships, and it was intended to bully, intimidate, and push out Tesla, out of the market.
但特斯拉并不通过经销商销售，其目的是欺凌、恐吓、将特斯拉赶出市场。
They then did that in a number of different states throughout the country.
然后他们在全国许多不同的州这样做了。
20:45 So does that make any sense in a democracy?
那么这对于民主国家有意义吗？
Of course not.
当然不是。
Why do you have to sell your product through a specific vehicle or medium?
为什么必须通过特定的工具或媒介来销售产品？
You could sell it any way you like.
你可以以任何你喜欢的方式出售它。
That’s the most anti-free market thing possible.
这是最反自由市场的事情。
Why?
为什么？
It was just total utter corruption.
这完全是彻底的腐败。
But it’s perfectly legal.
但这是完全合法的。
The Supreme Court legalized bribery.
最高法院将贿赂合法化。
So then what happened in that case?
那么当时的情况是怎样的呢？
So then Elon came in and gave campaign contributions and reversed it.
然后埃隆进来并提供竞选捐款并扭转了局面。
So now we’re in a battle where it’s an open auction.
所以现在我们正处于一场公开拍卖的战斗中。
Different companies are buying different politicians, and then they’re pretending to have debates about principles and ideas, etc.
不同的公司收买不同的政客，然后他们假装就原则和想法等进行辩论。
21:22 So now let’s look at tech.
那么现在我们来看看技术。
In the beginning, Facebook was not spending any money in politics, or almost any money in politics.
一开始，Facebook 没有在政治上花任何钱，或者说几乎没有在政治上花任何钱。
So what happens?
那么会发生什么呢？
They’re getting hammered, they get pulled into congressional hearings and Facebook’s got fake news and oh my God, all these trouble from Facebook.
他们受到打击，他们被拉进国会听证会，Facebook 收到假新闻，天哪，所有这些麻烦都来自 Facebook。
Then Facebook does the logical thing.
然后 Facebook 就会做合乎逻辑的事情。
Oh, it turns out I need to grease these sons of bitches.
哦，原来我需要给这些王八蛋涂脂抹粉。
So then they hire a whole bunch of Republicans consultants.
然后他们聘请了一大堆共和党顾问。
They go grease all the Republicans and most of the corporate Democrats, and then all of a sudden we’re no longer talking about Facebook at all and Facebook are angels.
他们让所有共和党人和大多数企业民主党人都感到高兴，然后突然间我们不再谈论 Facebook，Facebook 就是天使。
And now we’ve turned our attention to who?
现在我们把注意力转向谁？
Facebook’s top competitor, TikTok.
Facebook 的最大竞争对手 TikTok。
Funny how that works.
有趣的是，这是如何运作的。
22:06 And by the way, then Donald Trump goes “Oh TikTok’s a big dangerous company working with China.” And then Jeff Yaz comes in on this cycle, part owner of TikTok, and he doesn’t want TikTok banished, of course.
顺便说一句，唐纳德·特朗普随后说道：“哦，TikTok 是一家与中国合作的大危险公司。”然后杰夫·亚兹（Jeff Yaz）加入了这个循环，他是 TikTok 的部分所有者，当然，他不希望 TikTok 被驱逐。
So he gives Trump a couple of million dollars.
所以他给了特朗普几百万美元。
Trump turns around the next day and goes, “We love TikTok.
特朗普第二天转身说道：“我们喜欢 TikTok。
TikTok’s a good company.”
TikTok 是一家好公司。”
So that’s a big contributor to influencing what politicians say and what they think.
因此，这是影响政客言论和想法的重要因素。
22:29 But it’s not the entire thing, right?
但这还不是全部，对吧？
No, it is.
不，是的。
22:36 It’s 98%.
是98%。
I’ll go on mainstream media and they’ll be like, “Oh, I see what you’re saying.
我会去主流媒体，他们会说，“哦，我明白你在说什么。
I can see how that influences politicians about 10%.” I’m like, “No, no, it’s 98%.” And even a lot of good people think it’s 50/50.
我可以看到这对政客的影响大约为 10%。”我说：“不，不，是 98%。”甚至很多优秀的人也认为这是 50/50。
They have principles and they have money.
他们有原则，有钱。
No, they have money and this smidge of principles.
不，他们有钱，还有一点原则。
That’s why I wanted to clarify 98 too.
这就是为什么我也想澄清98。
Okay, so how do we fix it?
好吧，那么我们该如何解决呢？
22:58 So it’s really interesting and nice that you have pro-capitalism and anti-corporatism.
所以，支持资本主义和反社团主义真的很有趣也很好。
So how do we create a system where the free market can rule.
那么我们如何创建一个自由市场可以统治的体系呢？
Where capitalism can rule, we can have these vibrant flourishing of all these companies competing against each other and creating awesome stuff.
在资本主义可以统治的地方，我们可以让所有这些公司相互竞争并创造出令人惊叹的东西，蓬勃发展。
So in the book, I call it democratic capitalism as opposed to Bernie’s democratic socialism.
因此，在书中，我将其称为民主资本主义，而不是伯尼的民主社会主义。
23:20 We can get into that distinction in a minute.
我们很快就能了解这种区别。
But so as Adam Smith said, and anyone who studies capitalism knows, you need the government to protect the market as well as the people.
但正如亚当·斯密所说，任何研究资本主义的人都知道，你需要政府保护市场和人民。
Why do we have cops?
为什么我们有警察？
Because if we don’t have cops, somebody’s going to go, “Well, I like Lex’s equipment.
因为如果我们没有警察，就会有人说：“好吧，我喜欢莱克斯的设备。
Why don’t I just go into his house and take it?” So you need the cops to protect you, and that’s the government.
我为什么不直接进他家拿走呢？”所以你需要警察来保护你，这就是政府。
So people say, “Oh, I hate big government.” Do you?
所以人们说，“哦，我讨厌大政府。”你呢？
It depends, right?
这要看情况，对吧？
If your house is getting robbed, all of a sudden you like the government.
如果你的房子被抢劫了，你会突然喜欢上政府。
But you also need cops on Wall Street because if you allow insider trading, the powerful are going to rob you blind and the little guy’s going to get screwed.
但华尔街也需要警察，因为如果你允许内幕交易，有权势的人就会盲目地抢劫你，而小人物就会被搞砸。
24:05 So that’s this easy example.
这就是这个简单的例子。
And so if you don’t have those cops, the bad guys are going to take over.
因此，如果没有这些警察，坏人就会接管。
They’re going to set the rules, rig the rules in their favor.
他们将制定规则，操纵规则以利于他们。
So that’s why you need regulation.
这就是为什么你需要监管。
And so the Republicans on purpose made regulation a dirty word.
因此，共和党人故意让监管成为一个肮脏的词。
They’re like, “Oh, all regulation is bad.” And then sometimes on the left, people fall for the trap of all regulation is good.
他们会说，“哦，所有的监管都很糟糕。”有时，左翼人士会陷入“所有监管都是好的”的陷阱。
A guy, I like has a great analogy on this, Matt Stoller, he’s one of the original, I would argue, progressives.
我喜欢的一个人对此有一个很好的类比，马特·斯托勒（Matt Stoller），我认为他是最早的进步主义者之一。
And there’s about four of us, I’m sure there’s more, but that have stayed true to the original meaning of progressivism and populism: me, Matt Stoller, David Sirota, Ryan Grim.
我们大约有四个人，我确信还有更多，但这仍然忠于进步主义和民粹主义的原始含义：我、马特·斯托勒、大卫·西罗塔、瑞安·格里姆。
And it used to be in that original blogger group, there was guys like Glenn Greenwald and other interesting cats, but they went in different directions.
曾经在那个最初的博客小组中，有像格伦·格林沃尔德和其他有趣的猫这样的人，但他们走向了不同的方向。
24:59 So Matt has a great line.
所以马特有一句很棒的台词。
He says, “If somebody comes up to you and says, how big a pipe do you want?” There is no answer for that.
他说：“如果有人走过来问你，你想要多大的烟斗？”对此没有答案。
It depends on the job, doesn’t it?
这取决于工作，不是吗？
What are we doing?
我们在做什么？
What are we building?
我们正在建设什么？
I am going to tell you the size of the pipe depending on the project.
我将根据项目告诉您管道的尺寸。
So when people say, “Are you in favor of regulation or against it?” that’s an absurd question.
因此，当人们问“你支持监管还是反对监管？”时，这是一个荒谬的问题。
Of course you need regulation.
当然需要监管。
It just means laws.
它只是意味着法律。
So don’t kill your neighbor is a regulation.
所以不杀邻居是一条规定。
So my idea is a simple one, and one we’re going to keep coming back to, balance.
所以我的想法很简单，我们将不断回归平衡。
So when my dad was a small business owner in New Jersey and they inspected the elevator six times a year, that was over regulation.
因此，当我父亲是新泽西州的一家小企业主时，他们每年检查电梯六次，这超出了监管范围。
And I said to my dad, “So should they not inspect it at all?” I’m a young kid growing up and he said, “Oh no, you got to inspect it at least twice a year.” I said, “Why?” He said, “Because in Turkey, sometimes they don’t inspect it and then the elevator falls.” So balance of reason, correct regulation to protect the markets and to protect the American people.
我对我爸爸说：“那么他们不应该检查它吗？”我是一个正在成长的孩子，他说：“哦，不，你每年至少要检查两次。”我说：“为什么？”他说，“因为在土耳其，有时他们不检查，电梯就会掉下来。”因此，要平衡理性和正确的监管，以保护市场和保护美国人民。
Yeah, but finding the right level of regulation, especially in, for example, in tech, something I’m much more familiar with, is very difficult because people in Congress are living in the 20th century before the internet was invented.
是的，但是找到适当水平的监管是非常困难的，尤其是在我更熟悉的科技领域，因为国会里的人生活在互联网发明之前的 20 世纪。
26:06 So how are they supposed to come up with regulations?
那么他们应该如何制定法规呢？
Yeah.
是的。
That’s the idea of the free market, is you should be able to compete.
这就是自由市场的理念，你应该能够竞争。
26:24 The market regulates, and then the government can step in and protect the market from forming monopolies, for example, which is easier to do.
市场调节，然后政府可以介入，保护市场不形成垄断，这是比较容易做到的。
But that’s a form of regulation.
但这是一种监管形式。
But then there’s more checking the elevator twice a year.
但每年检查电梯的次数更多。
26:38 That’s a more sort of specific watching, micromanaging.
这是一种更具体的观察、微观管理。
So Lex, here’s the deal.
那么莱克斯，事情就是这样。
26:46 There’s no way around the laws are made by politicians.
法律是政客制定的，没有办法绕过。
So you can’t give up then and go, “Oh, it’s a bunch of schmucks.” I think most politicians are just servants for the donor class.
所以你不能放弃然后说：“哦，这是一群笨蛋。”我认为大多数政客只是捐助阶级的仆人。
The media makes it sound like they’re the best of us.
媒体让他们听起来像是我们中最好的。
“Oh, they deserve a lot of honor and respect,” and they kiss their ass et cetera.
“哦，他们应该得到很多荣誉和尊重，”他们会亲吻他们的屁股等等。
I think generally speaking, they’re usually the worst of us, especially in this corporatist structure.
我认为一般来说，他们通常是我们中最糟糕的，尤其是在这个社团主义结构中。
Because they’re the guys who their number one talent is, “Yes sir.
因为他们是第一号人才，“是的，先生。
No sir.
不，先生。
What would you like me to do with your donor money, sir?
先生，您希望我用您的捐款做什么？
Absolutely, I’ll serve you completely.
没问题，我会全力为您服务。
Or 98%.” So in this structure, the politicians are the worst of us.
或者98%。”所以在这个结构中，政客是我们当中最糟糕的。
But at some point you need somebody elected to be your representative, to do democratic capitalism, so that you have capitalism, but it’s checked by the government on behalf of the people.
但在某些时候，你需要有人当选为你的代表，实行民主资本主义，这样你就拥有了资本主义，但这是由政府代表人民进行检查的。
27:41 It’s the people that are saying, “These are the rules of the land and you have to abide by them.” So how do you get to the best possible answer which is related to an earlier question you asked, Lex, which is the number one thing you have to do is get big money out of politics?
人们在说：“这是这片土地的规则，你必须遵守它们。”那么，你如何获得与你之前提出的问题相关的最佳答案，莱克斯，你要做的第一件事就是从政治中获得大笔资金？
Everything else is near impossible as long as we are drowned in money and whoever has more money wins.
只要我们被金钱淹没，其他一切都几乎是不可能的，谁有更多的钱就赢了。
And by the way, when it comes to legislation, again, that’s true about 98% of the time.
顺便说一下，在立法方面，98% 的情况都是如此。
We predict things ahead of time.
我们提前预测事情。
People are like, “Wow, how did you know that bill wasn’t going to pass or was going to pass?” It’s the easiest thing in the world.
人们会说，“哇，你怎么知道该法案不会通过或将会通过？”这是世界上最容易的事情。
And we literally teach our audience on the Young Turks, “Watch, you’ll be able to see for yourself.” And now our members comment in, they do these predictions.
我们确实教导我们的观众关于青年土耳其党的事情：“观看，你将能够亲眼看到。”现在我们的成员发表评论，他们做了这些预测。
They’re almost always right because it’s so simple.
他们几乎总是对的，因为它是如此简单。
Follow the money.
跟着钱走。
28:33 So if you get big money out of politics, and I could explain how to do that in a sec, then you’re at a place where you’ve got your best shot at honest representatives that are going to try their best to get to the right answer.
因此，如果你从政治中获得大笔资金，而我可以在一秒钟内解释如何做到这一点，那么你就可以在一个地方，你可以最大限度地吸引诚实的代表，他们将尽最大努力得到正确的答案。
Are they going to get to the right answer out of the gate?
他们能一开始就得到正确的答案吗？
Usually not.
通常不会。
So they pass a law, there’s something wrong with the law, they then fix that part.
所以他们通过了一项法律，如果法律有问题，他们就会修复该部分。
It is a pendulum.
它是一个钟摆。
You don’t want it to swing too wildly, but you do need a little bit of oscillation in that pendulum to get to the right balance.
你不希望它摆动得太厉害，但你确实需要钟摆有一点摆动才能达到正确的平衡。
By the way, I was listening to Joe Biden from when he was like 30 years old, the speeches, he was eloquent as hell.
顺便说一句，我从乔·拜登 30 岁的时候就开始听他的演讲，他的演讲非常雄辩。
29:03 It’s fun to listen to actually.
实际上听起来很有趣。
And he has a speech he gives or just maybe a conversation in Congress, I’m not sure where, where he talks about how corrupt the whole system is, and he’s really honest and fun.
他发表了一次演讲，或者只是在国会进行了一次谈话，我不确定他在哪里谈论整个系统是多么腐败，而且他真的很诚实而且很有趣。
And that Joe Biden was great, by the way, that guy.
顺便说一句，乔·拜登很棒，那个人。
I mean, age sucks.
我的意思是，年龄很糟糕。
People get older.
人们变老了。
But he was talking quite honestly about having to suck up to all these rich people and that he couldn’t really suck up to the really rich people.
但他很诚实地说，他必须巴结所有这些有钱人，但他无法真正巴结真正的有钱人。
They said, “Come back to us 10 years later when you’re more integrated into the system.” But he was really honest about it, and he’s saying, “That’s how it is.
他们说：“10 年后，当你更加融入系统时，再来找我们吧。”但他对此非常诚实，他说：“事情就是这样。
That’s what we have to do.
这就是我们必须做的。
And that really sucks that that’s what we have to do.”
这真的很糟糕，这就是我们必须做的。”
So we did a video on our TikTok channel, then and now, of Joe Biden.
因此，我们在 TikTok 频道上制作了一段关于乔·拜登的视频，当时和现在。
29:57 This is when I was trying to push Biden out.
当时我正试图把拜登赶出去。
We should say you were one of the people early on, saying Biden needs to step down.
应该说，你是早期认为拜登需要下台的人之一。
Yeah, I started about a year ago because I was positive that Biden had a 0% chance of winning.
是的，我大约一年前就开始了，因为我确信拜登获胜的机会是 0%。
30:10 And it turned out, by the way, two days before he dropped out, his inside advisors inside the White House said, “Yeah, near 0% chance of winning.” So we were right all along.
顺便说一句，结果是，在他退出的前两天，他在白宫的内部顾问说：“是的，获胜的机会几乎为零。”所以我们一直都是对的。
You got a lot of criticism for that, by the way.
顺便说一句，你为此受到了很多批评。
30:27 But yeah.
但是是的。
We can come back to that.
我们可以回到这一点。
30:28 Yes, I did.
是的，我做到了。
And which makes it Tuesday for me.
这对我来说就是星期二。
I get a lot of criticism for everything.
我的每件事都受到很多批评。
And by the way, Democratic Party, you’re welcome.
顺便说一句，民主党，不客气。
But Biden’s a really interesting example.
但拜登是一个非常有趣的例子。
I’m really glad you brought it up.
我真的很高兴你提出来。
So the video on TikTok was just showing Biden then, Biden now.
所以TikTok上的视频只是展示了当时的拜登，现在的拜登。
And you’re right, Biden was so dynamic.
你是对的，拜登是如此充满活力。
When you see how dynamic he was, we did side-by-side, and then you see him now going “I can barely finish.” Anyways, you’re like, “Oh, that’s not the same guy.
当你看到他多么充满活力时，我们并肩作战，然后你看到他现在说“我几乎无法完成”。不管怎样，你会说，“哦，那不是同一个人。
I get it.” And that got 5 million views because it resonates.
我明白了。”因为它引起了共鸣，所以获得了 500 万次观看。
They’re like, “Yeah, yeah, of course”.
他们就像，“是的，是的，当然”。
31:08 But when he first started, to the point you’re making Lex, he wanted …
但当他刚开始制作《Lex》时，他想要……
In fact, I know because I talked to him about this, his very first bill was anti-corruption.
事实上，我知道因为我和他谈过这个问题，他的第一个法案就是反腐败。
Why?
为什么？
Because at that point, everything changes in 1976 to 78, the Supreme Court decisions that basically legalize bribery.
因为从那时起，一切都发生了变化，从 1976 年到 78 年，最高法院的判决基本上使贿赂合法化。
31:25 But remember Biden is ancient.
但请记住，拜登已经很古老了。
So he’s coming into politics at a time when money has not yet drowned politics.
因此，他进入政坛之际，金钱还没有淹没政治。
And in fact, the American population is super-pissed about the fact that it’s begun.
事实上，美国民众对它的开始感到非常愤怒。
They don’t like corruption.
他们不喜欢腐败。
So early Biden, because he’s reading the room, is very anti-corruption.
拜登很早就非常反腐败，因为他正在阅读房间。
And the first bill he proposes is to get money out of politics.
他提出的第一项法案就是让资金脱离政治。
But as Biden goes on for his epic 200-year career in Washington, he starts to get not more conservative, more corporate, because he’s just taken more and more money.
但随着拜登在华盛顿继续他 200 年史诗般的职业生涯，他开始变得不再保守，而是变得更加企业化，因为他只是拿了越来越多的钱。
By the middle of his career.
在他职业生涯的中期。
He has a nickname, the Senator from MBNA.
他有一个昵称，MBNA参议员。
Okay.
好的。
32:00 Nickname, the Senator from MBNA.
昵称，MBNA 参议员。
Okay.
好的。
MBNA was a credit card company based in Delaware, and the reason he had that nickname is because there isn’t anything Joe Biden wouldn’t have done for credit card companies and corporations based in Delaware, which are almost all corporations, okay?
MBNA 是一家总部位于特拉华州的信用卡公司，他之所以有这个绰号，是因为乔·拜登不会为总部位于特拉华州的信用卡公司和公司做任何事情，而这些公司和公司几乎都是公司，好吗？
So he became the most corporate senator in the country, and hence the most beloved by corporate media.
因此，他成为了该国最多企业参议员，也因此最受企业媒体喜爱。
Corporate media has protected him his entire career until about a month ago.
直到大约一个月前，企业媒体一直在保护他的整个职业生涯。
So, for example, in the primaries, both in 2020 and 2024, if you said the Senator from MBNA, I guarantee you almost no one in the audience has heard of it.
所以，举个例子，在2020年和2024年的初选中，如果你说MBNA的参议员，我保证观众中几乎没有人听说过。
If you heard of it, good job.
如果你听说过，干得好。
32:41 You know politics really well, but the reason you didn’t hear of it is because the mainstream media wouldn’t say, “That’s outrageous of Joe Biden to be such a corporate stooge.” They’d say, “That’s outrageous of you to point out something that’s true and something we reported on earlier.” So they protected him at all costs.
你对政治非常了解，但你之所以没有听说过它，是因为主流媒体不会说，“乔·拜登这样的企业傀儡，太令人愤慨了。”他们会说：“你指出一些真实的事情以及我们之前报道过的事情，这太无耻了。”所以他们不惜一切代价保护他。
Now, finally, when you get to this version of Joe Biden, he can’t talk, he can’t walk, he bears no resemblance to the young guy who came in saying that money in politics was a problem.
现在，最后，当你看到这个版本的乔·拜登时，他不会说话，他不会走路，他与那个进来说政治上的金钱是问题的年轻人没有任何相似之处。
Now he’s saying money in politics is the solution.
现在他说政治上的金钱是解决方案。
In 2020, he said, “Well, I can raise more money than Bernie.
2020 年，他说：“好吧，我可以筹集到比伯尼更多的钱。
I can kiss corporate ass better than Bernie.
我比伯尼更能亲公司的屁股。
I’m the biggest corporate kisser in the world.
我是世界上最大的企业接吻者。
So, I’m going to raise a billion dollars and you need to support me.”
所以，我要筹集十亿美元，你需要支持我。”
33:28 Now, of course, he doesn’t say it in those words, but that was the message to the establishment.
当然，现在他并没有用这些话说出来，但这就是向当权派传达的信息。
Buttigieg, Klobuchar, Obama, Clyburn, everybody goes, “Oh, that’s right.
布蒂吉格、克洛布彻、奥巴马、克莱伯恩，每个人都会说：“哦，没错。
Biden, Biden, Biden, Biden, not Bernie.” I don’t know that there’s anybody in the country who instinctually dislikes Bernie more than Barack Obama.
拜登，拜登，拜登，拜登，不是伯尼。”我不知道这个国家还有谁比巴拉克·奥巴马更本能地不喜欢伯尼。
That’s an interesting…
这是一个有趣的……
33:46 I’m not taking that tangent at this moment.
我现在不会采取这种切线。
You mentioned mainstream media.
你提到了主流媒体。
What’s the motivation for mainstream media to be corporatist also?
主流媒体也走向社团主义的动机是什么？
So first of all, they’re giant corporations.
首先，他们是大公司。
33:55 So, they’re all multi-billion dollar corporations.
所以，它们都是价值数十亿美元的公司。
In the old days, we had incredible number of media outlets.
过去，我们拥有数量惊人的媒体。
So, you go to San Francisco, there’d be at least two papers and there’d be a paperboy.
所以，你去旧金山，那里至少有两张报纸，而且还会有一个报童。
I’m going all the way back, paperboy on each corner, and they’re competing with one another.
我一路往回走，每个角落都有报童，他们互相竞争。
Literally, they’d be catty corner and one guy’s going, “Oh, here are all this details.” They’re trying to get an audience.
从字面上看，他们会是一个狡猾的角落，一个人会说，“哦，这是所有这些细节。”他们正试图吸引观众。
They’re trying to get people interested.
他们试图引起人们的兴趣。
So, they’re populist, they’re interesting, they’re mark breakers, they’re challenging the government.
所以，他们是民粹主义者，他们很有趣，他们是突破者，他们在挑战政府。
Fast forward to now, or not now, but about a decade ago, five years ago, in that ballpark, now there’s only six giant media corporations left.
快进到现在，或者不是现在，但大约十年前，五年前，在那个球场上，现在只剩下六家巨型媒体公司了。
34:40 It’s an oligopoly, and they’re all multi-billion dollar corporations.
这是寡头垄断，而且都是价值数十亿美元的公司。
They all want tax cuts.
他们都希望减税。
Especially about 20 years ago during the Iraq War, half of them are defense contractors.
尤其是大约20年前的伊拉克战争期间，其中一半是国防承包商。
So, they’re just using the news as marketing to start wars like the Iraq War.
所以，他们只是利用新闻作为营销手段来发动伊拉克战争等战争。
Then GE, which owned MSNBC, makes a tremendous amount of money, so much more money from war than it does for media.
然后，拥有 MSNBC 的通用电气赚了很多钱，从战争中赚到的钱比从媒体赚到的钱多得多。
That media is a good marketing spend for these corporations.
对于这些公司来说，媒体是一项很好的营销支出。
Now, that’s part of it, that they themselves want the same exact thing as the rest of corporations do for corporate rule, lower tax cuts, deregulation, so they can merge, et cetera.
现在，这就是其中的一部分，他们自己想要和其他公司一样的公司规则、更低的减税、放松管制，这样他们就可以合并等等。
But the second part of it is arguably even more important.
但第二部分可以说更为重要。
So, where does all that money in politics go?
那么，这些政治资金都去哪儿了呢？
35:27 So for example, in 2022, it’s just a midterm election.
比如说2022年，这只是一次中期选举。
No presidential should be lower spending.
任何一位总统都不应该减少开支。
A ridiculous $17 billion are spent on the election cycle.
选举周期花费了 170 亿美元，令人难以置信。
Where does the $17 billion go?
这170亿美元去哪儿了？
Almost all of it goes into corporate media, mainstream media, television, newspapers, radio.
几乎所有的内容都进入了企业媒体、主流媒体、电视、报纸、广播。
They’re buying ads like nuts.
他们疯狂地购买广告。
So, we have a reporter at TYT, David Schuster.
TYT 的记者 David Schuster。
He used to work at MSNBC, Fox News, et cetera.
他曾在MSNBC、福克斯新闻等机构工作。
David once did a piece about money and politics at a local NBC news station, and his editor or GM spiked the story.
大卫曾经在当地的 NBC 新闻台做过一篇关于金钱和政治的文章，他的编辑或总经理对这个故事进行了大肆报道。
David goes into his office and asks him, “So why?
大卫走进他的办公室问他：“那为什么呢？
This story is true.
这个故事是真实的。
It’s a huge part of politics.
这是政治的重要组成部分。
If we’re going to report on this issue, we got to tell you what’s actually happening.”
如果我们要报道这个问题，我们就必须告诉你到底发生了什么。”
36:17 So he says, “David, come here.” He puts his arm around his shoulders, takes him to the big newsroom, and he goes, “You see all this?
所以他说：“大卫，到这里来。”他用手臂搂住他的肩膀，把他带到大新闻编辑室，然后他说：“你看到这一切了吗？
Money in politics paid for that.”
政治上的金钱为此付出了代价。”
That’s really fascinating.
这真的很有趣。
36:28 So, big corporations, they’re giving money to politicians through different channels, and then the politicians are spending that money on mainstream media.
因此，大公司通过不同渠道向政客提供资金，然后政客将这些钱花在主流媒体上。
So, there’s a vicious cycle where it’s in the interest of the mainstream media not to criticize the very corporations that are feeding that cycle.
因此，这是一个恶性循环，主流媒体不批评那些助长这一循环的公司才符合主流媒体的利益。
It’s not actually direct, it’s not like corporations are…
它实际上并不直接，也不像公司……
Because I was thinking one of the ways is direct advertisement.
因为我在想其中一种方法就是直接做广告。
Pharmaceuticals obviously advertise a lot on mainstream media, but there’s also indirect, which is giving the politicians money or super PACs and the super PACs and the spend money on…
制药公司显然在主流媒体上做了很多广告，但也有间接的，即给政客钱或超级政治行动委员会，超级政治行动委员会和花钱......
That’s why mainstream media never talks about the number one factor in politics, which is money.
这就是为什么主流媒体从不谈论政治中的第一因素，那就是金钱。
37:11 We all know.
我们都知道。
I mean, now as we talked about earlier, we see it with our own eyes, open auction.
我的意思是，正如我们之前谈到的，我们亲眼所见，公开拍卖。
Any country, any company, anybody that has money, the politicians will now literally say, “I am now working for this guy,” as Trump says, “because he gave me a strong endorsement,” which means a lot of money.
任何国家、任何公司、任何有钱的人，政客们现在都会说，“我现在为这个人工作”，正如特朗普所说，“因为他给了我强有力的支持”，这意味着很多钱。
The press never covers it, almost never, right?
媒体从不报道它，几乎从不报道，对吧？
So you’re telling me you’re doing an article on the infrastructure build or build back better, et cetera.
所以你告诉我你正在写一篇关于基础设施建设或更好地重建等等的文章。
You are not going to mention the enormous amount of money that every lobbyist spent on that bill.
你不会提及每个说客在该法案上花费的巨额资金。
That’s absurd.
这太荒谬了。
That’s absurd.
这太荒谬了。
That’s 98% of the ballgame.
这就是比赛的 98%。
37:57 The reason they hide the ball is because they don’t want you to know this whole thing is based on the money that they are receiving.
他们隐藏球的原因是因为他们不想让你知道这整件事是基于他们收到的钱。
By the way, one more thing about that, Lex.
顺便说一句，还有一件事，莱克斯。
It’s that the ads themselves actually, they work and they work pretty well, but that’s not the main reason you spend money on ads.
事实上，广告本身确实有效，而且效果很好，但这并不是你花钱买广告的主要原因。
You spend the money on ads to get friendly coverage from the content, from the free media that you’re getting from that same outlet.
你把钱花在广告上，以获得内容的友好报道，从你从同一渠道获得的免费媒体。
So, since every newspaper and every television station and network knows that the Democratic Party and the Republican Party are their top clients, they’re going to get billions of dollars from them.
因此，由于每家报纸、每家电视台和网络都知道民主党和共和党是他们的最大客户，他们将从他们那里获得数十亿美元。
They never really criticized the Republican and Democratic Party.
他们从来没有真正批评过共和党和民主党。
On the other hand, if you’re an outsider, they’ll rip your face off.
另一方面，如果你是外人，他们就会撕掉你的脸。
That’s also really interesting.
这也很有趣。
38:48 So, if you’re an advertiser, if you’re big pharma and you’re advertising, it’s not that the advertisement works.
所以，如果你是一个广告商，如果你是一家大型制药公司并且你在做广告，那么这并不是说广告有效。
It’s that the hosts are too afraid, not explicitly, just even implicitly.
就是主办方太害怕了，不是明示的，就是隐晦的。
They’re self-censoring.
他们进行自我审查。
They’re not going to have any guests that are controversial, anti-big pharma, or they’re not going to make any jokes about big pharma.
他们不会邀请任何有争议的、反大型制药公司的客人，或者他们不会拿大型制药公司开玩笑。
That continues and expands.
这种情况仍在继续并扩大。
That’s really interesting.
这真的很有趣。
Sometimes it’s super direct.
有时它非常直接。
39:18 When I was a host on MSNBC, I had a company that I was criticizing in my script and management looked at it.
当我在 MSNBC 担任主持人时，我在剧本中批评了一家公司，管理层也看了它。
By the way, I used to go off prompter a lot and it drove him crazy, not because I wasn’t good at it.
顺便说一句，我过去经常不提提示，这让他发疯，并不是因为我不擅长。
I think my ratings went up whenever I went off prompter, but because they couldn’t pre-approve the script.
我认为每当我关闭提示时我的收视率都会上升，但因为他们无法预先批准剧本。
What do they want to pre-approve?
他们想要预先批准什么？
Hey, are you going to criticize one of our sponsors, one of our advertisers, et cetera?
嘿，你要批评我们的一位赞助商、一位广告商等等吗？
So we had a giant fight over it, and the compromise was I moved them lower in the script but kept them in the story.
所以我们为此发生了一场激烈的争吵，最终的妥协是我把它们移到了剧本的较低位置，但保留在故事中。
So, sometimes it’s super direct like that, but way more often it’s implicit.
所以，有时它是非常直接的，但更多时候它是含蓄的。
It’s indirect.
这是间接的。
You don’t have to say it.
你不必说出来。
So, I give you a spectacular example of it, so that you get a sense of how it works implicitly.
因此，我给您提供了一个精彩的示例，以便您了解它是如何隐含地工作的。
40:10 So, since GE is a giant defense contractor, they own MSNBC at the time of the Iraq War.
因此，由于通用电气是一家大型国防承包商，他们在伊拉克战争期间拥有微软全国广播公司（MSNBC）。
They fired everyone who was against the Iraq War on air.
他们在广播中解雇了所有反对伊拉克战争的人。
So, Phil Donahue, Jesse Ventura, Ashleigh Banfield, but Ashleigh Banfield, they did something different with.
所以，菲尔·多纳休、杰西·文图拉、阿什利·班菲尔德，但阿什利·班菲尔德，他们做了一些不同的事情。
She was a rising star at the time.
她当时是一颗冉冉升起的新星。
She goes and gives a speech in Kansas, not really even having a policy position, but just talking about the actual cost of this Iraq War and how we should be really careful.
她去堪萨斯州发表演讲，甚至没有真正的政策立场，只是谈论这场伊拉克战争的实际成本以及我们应该如何真正小心。
They hate that.
他们讨厌那样。
So, they take their rising star and they take her off-air and she goes, “Okay, good.
所以，他们让这位后起之秀让她停播，她说：“好吧，很好。
Let me out of my contract.
让我解除合同。
It’s okay, I’ll go.” Because she was such a star at that time, she could have easily gotten somewhere else.
没关系，我这就去。”因为她当时已经是明星了，所以她很容易去别的地方。
They go, “No, we’re not going to let you out of your contract.”
他们说：“不，我们不会让你解除合同。”
40:53 Why not?
为什么不呢？
Were you going to pay me to do nothing?
你要付钱让我什么都不做吗？
Yeah, not only that, we’re moving your office.
是的，不仅如此，我们还要搬迁你的办公室。
Where are you moving it to?
你要把它移到哪里？
They literally moved it into a closet and they made sure that everybody in the building saw her getting taken off the air and moved into a closet.
他们确实把它搬进了壁橱，并确保大楼里的每个人都看到她被取消广播并搬进壁橱。
The closet is the memo, right?
壁橱就是备忘录，对吗？
That’s the memo to the whole building, you better shut up and do as you’re told, okay?
这是给整栋楼的备忘录，你最好闭嘴，按照吩咐去做，好吗？
So that way, I don’t have to tell you and get myself in trouble.
这样，我就不必告诉你，也不必给自己惹上麻烦。
It’s super obvious.
这是非常明显的。
There are guardrails here, and you are not allowed to go beyond acceptable thought.
这里有护栏，不准你超出可接受的想法。
Acceptable thought is our sponsors are great, politicians are great, the powerful are great.
可以接受的想法是我们的赞助商是伟大的，政治家是伟大的，有权势的人是伟大的。
So how do we begin to fix that, and what exactly are we fixing?
那么我们如何开始解决这个问题，我们到底要解决什么？
41:33 Is it the influence of the lobbyists?
是游说者的影响吗？
It feels like companies have found different ways to achieve influence.
感觉公司已经找到了不同的方式来实现影响力。
So, how do we get money out of politics?
那么，我们如何从政治中获取金钱呢？
So it’s very difficult but doable and we will do it, but in order to do it, the populist left and the populist right have to unite.
所以这是非常困难但可行的，我们会这样做，但为了做到这一点，民粹主义左翼和民粹主义右翼必须团结起来。
41:50 By the way, that is why we have the culture wars.
顺便说一句，这就是我们发生文化战争的原因。
That’s why you’re voting for Trump.
这就是你投票给特朗普的原因。
No chance.
没有机会。
42:04 So, we can get into that in a minute.
所以，我们马上就可以讨论这个问题。
So, the culture wars are meant to divide us.
因此，文化战争旨在分裂我们。
If we get united, we have enough leverage and power to be able to do it, but you can’t do it through a normal bill.
如果我们团结起来，我们就有足够的影响力和力量来做到这一点，但你不能通过正常的法案来做到这一点。
Because if you do it on a bill, the whole point of capturing the Supreme Court was to make sure that they kill any piece of legislation that would protect the American people.
因为如果你通过一项法案来做到这一点，占领最高法院的全部目的就是确保他们废除任何保护美国人民的立法。
You’re saying the Supreme Court is also captured by this?
你是说最高法院也被这个俘虏了？
Oh, 100%.
哦，100%。
42:27 Okay.
好的。
So, let me explain.
那么，让我解释一下。
Again, people for the uninitiated, they think, “Oh, that sounds conspiratorial.” Well, in this case, that’s actually somewhat true because people now know about this.
再说一次，对于那些不了解情况的人来说，他们会想，“哦，这听起来像是阴谋。”嗯，在这种情况下，这实际上有点正确，因为人们现在知道了这一点。
It’s the Powell memo, the most infamous political memo in history.
这是鲍威尔备忘录，历史上最臭名昭著的政治备忘录。
Lewis Powell writes a memo for the Chamber of Commerce in 1971.
1971 年，刘易斯·鲍威尔 (Lewis Powell) 为商会撰写了一份备忘录。
That’s basically a blueprint for how the Chamber of Commerce can take over the government.
这基本上是商会如何接管政府的蓝图。
Lewis Powell explains, one of the most important things you have to do is take over the media, but even more important than that is taking over the Supreme Court, because the Supreme Court is the ultimate arbiter of what is allowed and not allowed.
刘易斯·鲍威尔解释说，你要做的最重要的事情之一就是接管媒体，但比这更重要的是接管最高法院，因为最高法院是允许和不允许什么的最终仲裁者。
He says, “We need ‘activist judges’ to help business interests on the court.”
他说：“我们需要‘积极分子法官’来帮助法庭上的商业利益。”
43:17 Then Nixon reads the memo and goes, “That sounds like a really good idea.
然后尼克松读了这份备忘录并说道：“这听起来真是个好主意。
How about I put you on the Supreme Court?” He puts Lewis Powell, the guy who wrote the memo, on the Supreme Court where he’s the deciding vote in Bellotti and Buckley.
我把你送上最高法院怎么样？”他将备忘录的撰写人刘易斯·鲍威尔 (Lewis Powell) 推上最高法院，他在贝洛蒂和巴克利中投出决定性的一票。
So, those two decisions are 1976 to 1978, and what they say is, yeah, I read the Constitution and it says that money’s speech.
所以，这两个决定是 1976 年到 1978 年，他们说的是，是的，我读了宪法，它说金钱的言论。
No, it isn’t.
不，不是。
No, it didn’t.
不，没有。
That’s not even close to true.
这根本不符合事实。
They just made it up.
他们只是弥补了这一点。
They said, “Okay, in corporations, they’re human beings.” No, they’re not.
他们说：“好吧，在公司里，他们也是人。”不，他们不是。
That’s preposterous.
这太荒谬了。
They have the same inalienable rights as human beings and citizens do.
他们与人类和公民一样享有不可剥夺的权利。
Money is speech and speech is an inalienable right.
金钱就是言论，言论是不可剥夺的权利。
So, corporations can spend unlimited money in politics, and there goes our democracy, gone.
因此，企业可以在政治上花费无限的金钱，而我们的民主就会消失。
44:10 So, Citizens United just shot a dead horse with a Gatling gun and made it worse and put it on steroids, but it was already dead in 1978.
所以，公民联合只是用加特林机枪打死了一匹死马，然后让它变得更糟，给它打了类固醇，但它在1978年就已经死了。
For the rest of your life, you’ll see this.
在你的余生中，你都会看到这一点。
Every chart about the American economy starts to diverge in 1978.
1978 年，每张有关美国经济的图表都开始出现分歧。
1938 to 1978, we have golden 40 years of economic prosperity.
1938年到1978年，我们经历了经济繁荣的黄金40年。
We create the greatest middle class the world has ever seen and our productivity is sky-high, but our wages match our productivity.
我们创造了世界上最伟大的中产阶级，我们的生产力极高，但我们的工资与我们的生产力相匹配。
After 1978, productivity is still sky-high best in the world.
1978年以后，生产力仍然是世界第一。
Oh, American worker’s lazy, not remotely true.
哦，美国工人很懒，但事实并非如此。
We work our ass off, but we just flatline.
我们竭尽全力地工作，但我们只是停滞不前。
They’ve been flatlining for about 50 years straight.
大约 50 年来，它们一直处于停滞状态。
The reason is because the Supreme Court made bribery legal.
原因是最高法院将贿赂合法化。
So, in order to get past the Supreme Court, you only have one choice.
因此，为了通过最高法院，你只有一个选择。
45:09 That’s an amendment.
这是一项修正案。
So, you have to get an amendment.
所以，你必须获得修正案。
Amendments are very difficult.
修改难度很大。
So, for example, you need two-thirds of Congress to even propose the amendment.
例如，你甚至需要国会三分之二的议员才能提出修正案。
So, well, why would Congress propose an amendment that would take away their own power?
那么，国会为什么要提出一项剥夺他们权力的修正案呢？
Because almost everybody in Congress got there through corruption.
因为几乎国会中的每个人都是通过腐败获得这一地位的。
Their main talent is I can kiss corporate ass better than you can.
他们的主要才能是我比你更能拍拍公司的屁股。
A person with more money in Congress wins 95% of the time, but the good news is the founding fathers were geniuses, and they put in a second outlet.
在国会中拥有更多资金的人在 95% 的情况下都会获胜，但好消息是开国元勋们都是天才，他们设置了第二个出路。
They said, “Or two-thirds of the states can call for a convention where you can propose an amendment.
他们说，“或者三分之二的州可以呼吁召开一次大会，在那里你可以提出修正案。
After an amendment is proposed, then three-quarters of the states have to ratify it.”
修正案提出后，必须得到四分之三州的批准。”
45:55 That’s what makes it so difficult, because getting three-quarters of the states, there’s so many red states, so many blue states, getting three-quarters of the states to agree is near impossible.
这就是事情变得如此困难的原因，因为要获得四分之三的州的同意，有这么多的红色州，这么多的蓝色州，让四分之三的州同意几乎是不可能的。
But there is one issue that the whole country agrees on, 93% of Americans believe that politicians serve their donors and not their voters.
但有一个问题是全国都同意的，93%的美国人认为政客是为他们的捐助者服务，而不是为他们的选民服务。
So, this is the one thing we can unite on.
所以，这是我们可以团结起来的一件事。
If we unite on this, we push our states to call for a convention.
如果我们在这个问题上团结起来，我们就会推动各州召开一次大会。
We all go to the convention together, we bring democracy alive, and we propose amendments to the Constitution.
我们一起参加大会，我们赋予民主活力，我们提出宪法修正案。
The best amendment gets three-quarters of the states to ratify.
最好的修正案需要四分之三的州批准。
You go above the Supreme Court and you solve the whole thing.
你越过最高法院，你就能解决整个问题。
So if 93% of people want this, why hasn’t it happened yet?
那么，如果 93% 的人都希望这样，为什么它还没有发生呢？
46:33 I mean, the obvious answer is there’s corporate control of the media and the politicians, but it seems like our current system and the megaphone that a president has should be able to unite the populace left and right.
我的意思是，显而易见的答案是企业对媒体和政客的控制，但似乎我们当前的体系和总统拥有的扩音器应该能够团结左右民众。
So, it shouldn’t be that difficult to do.
所以，这应该不难做到。
Why hasn’t a person like Trump who’s a billionaire or on the left, a rich businessman run just on this and win?
为什么像特朗普这样的亿万富翁或左翼富商不靠这个竞选并获胜呢？
Well, eventually they will.
好吧，最终他们会的。
47:06 So, that’s why I actually have a lot of hope, even though things seem super dark right now.
所以，这就是为什么我实际上有很多希望，尽管现在事情看起来非常黑暗。
That’s why I was for Bernie, so I can come back to that, but why hasn’t Trump done it?
这就是为什么我支持伯尼，所以我可以回到这一点，但为什么特朗普没有这样做呢？
It’s easy.
这很容易。
He’s like, “What am I, a sucker?
他就像是，“我是什么，一个傻瓜？
The guy gives me money.
那家伙给我钱。
I do what the guy wants.
我做那家伙想要的事。
Why would I get rid of that?
我为什么要摆脱它？
That’s how I got into power.
我就是这样上台的。
So, that’s how I’m doing it now.” I go to [inaudible 00:47:29] and say, “Give me $100 million and I’ll let Israel annex the West Bank.
所以，我现在就是这么做的。”我去 [听不清 00:47:29] 说：“给我 1 亿美元，我会让以色列吞并约旦河西岸。
So, I’ll go to the oil companies and give me $1 billion and I’ll give you tax subsidies.
所以，我会去找石油公司，给我 10 亿美元，然后我会给你们税收补贴。
I’ll let you drill.
我让你钻。
I’ll take away regulation.
我将取消监管。
Why would I stop that?”
我为什么要阻止呢？”
You think he likes money more than he likes being popular?
你认为他更喜欢钱而不是受人欢迎吗？
47:41 Because there’s a big part of him that’s a populist in the sense that he loves being admired by large masses of people.
因为他身上有很大一部分是民粹主义者，因为他喜欢受到广大人民的钦佩。
You’re absolutely right, but that is the fault of MAGA.
你说得完全正确，但那是 MAGA 的错。
47:55 So, MAGA, you’re screwing populists in a way that is infuriating and smart libertarians like Dave Smith have figured this out.
所以，MAGA，你正在以一种令人愤怒的方式欺骗民粹主义者，像戴夫·史密斯这样聪明的自由主义者已经明白了这一点。
That’s why he’s just as mad at Trump as I am.
这就是为什么他和我一样对特朗普感到愤怒。
It’s because he took a populist movement and he redirected it for his own personal gain.
这是因为他发起了一场民粹主义运动，并为了自己的个人利益而改变了它的方向。
MAGA, figure it out.
MAGA，弄清楚吧。
Come on.
快点。
So, if you say, “Oh, you think Democrats have figured out that these politics…” No, they largely haven’t figured it out either.
所以，如果你说，“哦，你认为民主党已经弄清楚这些政治......”不，他们基本上也没有弄清楚。
I think there’s Blue MAGA, and I could talk about that as well.
我认为有 Blue MAGA，我也可以谈谈它。
But for those of us on the populist left, yeah, we’re not enamored by politicians.
但对于我们这些民粹左翼人士来说，是的，我们并不迷恋政客。
48:37 For example, when Bernie does the wrong thing, we call him out.
例如，当伯尼做错事时，我们会斥责他。
Bernie is not my Goddamn uncle.
伯尼不是我该死的叔叔。
I don’t like him for some personality reason.
由于某些性格原因我不喜欢他。
It’s not a cult of personality.
这不是个人崇拜。
You do the right thing, I love you for it.
你做了正确的事，我因此爱你。
You do the wrong thing, I’m going to kick your ass for it.
你做错了事，我会踢你的屁股。
But Donald Trump does this massive ridiculous corruption over and over again.
但唐纳德·特朗普一次又一次地犯下这种大规模荒谬的腐败行为。
MAGA is like, “I’m here for it.
MAGA 就像是，“我来这里就是为了它。
Love it.
喜欢它。
As long as you’re doing the corruption, I’m okay with it.”
只要你继续腐败，我就可以接受。”
What does Trump say about getting money out of politics?
特朗普对于从政治中获取金钱有何看法？
He says nothing about it.
他对此什么也没说。
49:01 MAGA, why haven’t you held him to account?
MAGA，你为什么不追究他的责任？
So when Bernie helped Biden take out $15 minimum wage from the Senate bill on the first bill that was introduced in the Biden administration, we went nuts.
因此，当伯尼帮助拜登在拜登政府提出的第一项法案中从参议院法案中取出 15 美元的最低工资时，我们都疯了。
We did a petition.
我们做了请愿。
We sent in videos to Bernie, our audience going, “Don’t kill it, Bernie.
我们向伯尼发送了视频，我们的观众说：“别杀了它，伯尼。
Don’t kill it.” So Bernie then reintroduced it as an amendment.
别杀了它。”因此伯尼随后将其作为修正案重新提出。
It got voted down, but he did the right thing.
结果被否决了，但他做了正确的事。
That is us holding our top leader accountable and saying, “You better get back on track because we’re not here for you and your personal self-aggrandizement.
这就是我们要求我们的最高领导人承担责任，并说：“你最好回到正轨，因为我们不是为了你和你个人的自我扩张而存在的。
We’re here for policy.” If MAGA was actually here for policy, they would’ve absolutely leveled Trump on the fact that he…
我们来这里是为了政策。”如果 MAGA 实际上是为了政策而存在的，他们绝对会因为特朗普......
I mean, remember what he ran on drain the swamp.
我的意思是，记住他在排干沼泽时跑了什么。
That’s why he won in 2016.
这就是他在2016年获胜的原因。
49:51 So, I predicted on ABC right after the DNC and Hillary Clinton was up 10, 12 points, whatever she was, and I said, “Trump would win.” The whole panel laughed out loud.
所以，在民主党全国委员会和希拉里·克林顿领先 10 个、12 个百分点（无论她是谁）之后，我就在 ABC 上预测，“特朗普会赢。”全场哄堂大笑。
They’re like, “Get a load of this crazy guy.” I said, “He’s a populist who seems to hate the establishment in a populist time.
他们就像是，“让这个疯狂的家伙负载一下。”我说：“他是一个民粹主义者，似乎讨厌民粹主义时代的当权派。
Drain the swamp is a great slogan.
排干沼泽是一个伟大的口号。
I knew he would win when he was in a Republican debate and he said, ‘I paid all these guys.
当他参加共和党辩论时，我知道他会赢，他说，‘我付钱给所有这些人。
Before I paid them, and they did whatever I wanted.'” I was like, “That’s so true.” People will love that, and especially Republican voters will love that.
在我付钱给他们之前，他们就为我做任何事。’”我当时想，“那是真的。”人们会喜欢这一点，尤其是共和党选民会喜欢这一点。
I actually have a lot of respect for Republican voters because they actually genuinely hate corruption.
我实际上非常尊重共和党选民，因为他们真的讨厌腐败。
So what would an amendment look like that helps prevent money being an influence in politics?
那么，有助于防止金钱影响政治的修正案会是什么样子呢？
So I started a group called Wolf-PAC.
所以我成立了一个名为 Wolf-PAC 的小组。
Nice name.
好名字。
Thank you, wold-pac.com.
谢谢您，wold-pac.com。
50:48 The reason why I named it Wolf-PAC is because everyone in Washington I knew would hate that name.
我之所以将其命名为“Wolf-PAC”，是因为我认识的华盛顿每个人都会讨厌这个名字。
It’s a populist name.
这是一个民粹主义的名字。
Everybody in Washington snickers, “Now you’re supposed to name it Americans for America and just trick people,” et cetera.
华盛顿的每个人都在窃笑，“现在你应该把它命名为美国人，为美国而欺骗人们，”等等。
No, no, no.
不，不，不。
Wolf-PAC means we’re coming for you, okay?
Wolf-PAC 意味着我们来找你，好吗？
We’re not coming for you in a weirdo physical or violent way.
我们不会以奇怪的身体或暴力方式来找你。
We’re coming for you in a democratic way, okay?
我们将以民主的方式来找你，好吗？
So we’re going to go to those state houses.
所以我们要去那些州议会大厦。
We’re going to get them to propose a convention and we did it in five states, but then the Democratic Party started beating us back.
我们要让他们提议召开一次大会，我们在五个州做到了这一点，但后来民主党开始反击我们。
We’ll get to that.
我们会解决这个问题的。
So, we are going to overturn your apple cart and we’re going to put the American people back in charge.
所以，我们将推翻你的苹果车，我们将让美国人民重新掌权。
So, what does the amendment say?
那么，修正案到底说了什么？
51:32 Number one, a lot of people will have different opinions on what it should say, and that’s what you sort out in a convention.
第一，很多人会对它应该说什么有不同的看法，这就是你在大会上整理出来的。
So, for example, one of the things that conservatives can propose, which makes sense, is term limits.
例如，保守派可以提出的、有意义的事情之一就是任期限制。
Because the reason why these super old politicians are in charge is because they provide a return on investment.
因为这些超级老政客之所以掌权，是因为他们提供了投资回报。
So, if you give to Biden, Pelosi, or McConnell, they’re going to deliver for you.
因此，如果你向拜登、佩洛西或麦康奈尔捐款，他们就会为你提供帮助。
They love that return on investment.
他们喜欢这种投资回报。
They don’t want to risk it on a new guy.
他们不想在新人身上冒险。
The new guy might have principles, ew, or might want to actually do a little bit for his voters, boo.
新人可能有原则，呃，或者可能想为他的选民做一点事情，嘘。
Every corrupt system has these old guys hanging around that help maintain power, et cetera.
每个腐败的系统都有这些老家伙在身边帮助维持权力等等。
So, my particular proposal in the amendments would be a couple of things.
因此，我在修正案中的具体建议有以下几点。
52:21 One is end private financing of elections.
一是结束选举的私人融资。
Look, if you’re a businessperson, you’re a capitalist, you know this with absolute certainty.
看，如果你是一个商人，你是一个资本家，你绝对清楚这一点。
If somebody signs your check, that’s the person you work for.
如果有人签署了您的支票，那就是您的工作人员。
So, if private interests are funding politicians, the politicians will serve private interests.
因此，如果私人利益为政客提供资金，那么政客就会为私人利益服务。
Then you’re going to get into a fight like Elon did in New Jersey where the car dealerships and Tesla are getting into an auction.
然后你就会像埃隆在新泽西州那样陷入一场战斗，汽车经销商和特斯拉正在进行拍卖。
Can I hear $100,000, $1 million, $2 million, $3 million?
我能听到 10 万美元、100 万美元、200 万美元、300 万美元吗？
Now you got to go bribe the government official.
现在你必须去贿赂政府官员。
That’s called a campaign contribution.
这就是所谓的竞选捐款。
This is a terrible system.
这是一个可怕的系统。
End the private financing, go to complete public financing of elections.
结束私人融资，去完成选举的公共融资。
53:07 That’s when conservatives, because they’ve been propagandized by corporate media.
那是保守派，因为他们受到了企业媒体的宣传。
Yes, mainstream media got into your head too.
是的，主流媒体也进入了你的脑海。
Right-wing media got into your head too, and right-wing media also financed by a lot of this corrupt interest.
右翼媒体也进入了你的脑海，右翼媒体也受到大量腐败利益的资助。
So, they tell you, “Oh, you don’t want to publicly finance.
所以，他们告诉你，“哦，你不想公开融资。
Oh, my God.
哦，天啊。
You’d be spending like $1 billion on politicians.” Brother, they’re spending trillions of dollars of your money because they’re financed by the guys that they’re giving all of your money to.
你会在政客身上花费大约 10 亿美元。”兄弟，他们花了你数万亿美元的钱，因为他们的资金来源是他们把你所有的钱都捐给了他们。
So can you educate me?
那你能教育我吗？
53:32 Does that prevent something like Citizen United?
这会阻止像公民联合这样的事情吗？
So super PACs are all gone in this case.
所以超级政治行动委员会在这种情况下全部消失了。
So, indirect funding is also-
因此，间接资助也是——
Indirect funding’s gone, direct funding’s gone.
间接资金消失了，直接资金也消失了。
53:41 You have to set up some thresholds.
你必须设置一些阈值。
Not everybody can just get money to run.
不是每个人都能赚到钱来跑步。
You have to prove that you have some popular support.
你必须证明你有一些民众的支持。
So, signature gathering, you would still allow for small money donations like up to $100, something along those lines.
因此，在签名收集过程中，您仍然可以接受小额捐款，例如最多 100 美元，类似的情况。
Not 5,000 or whatever it is now.
不是 5,000 或现在的任何数字。
Yeah, I think 5,000 is too high, but those are fine debates.
是的，我认为 5,000 太高了，但这些都是很好的辩论。
54:02 But you basically want to create an incentive.
但你基本上想创造一种激励。
Everything is about incentives and disincentives.
一切都与激励和抑制有关。
Again, capitalists realize this better than anyone else.
资本家再次比其他人更清楚地认识到这一点。
So, you want to set up an incentive to serve your voters, not your donors.
因此，您希望制定激励措施来为您的选民而不是捐助者服务。
So, if you take away private donors, well, there goes that incentive and that’s gigantic.
所以，如果你拿走私人捐助者，那么这种激励就会消失，而且这是巨大的。
Then if you set up small grassroots funding as a way to get past the threshold to get the funding to run an election, well, then good, because then you’re serving small donors, which are generally voters.
然后，如果你设立小额基层资金作为跨越获得选举资金门槛的一种方式，那么很好，因为这样你就为小额捐助者（通常是选民）提供服务。
So, that’s what you want.
所以，这就是你想要的。
Ending private financing is critical, but the second thing is ending corporate personhood.
结束私人融资至关重要，但第二件事是结束企业人格。
This is where you get into a lot of fights because you have two reasons.
这就是你陷入很多争吵的地方，因为有两个原因。
54:49 One is some folks have a principled position against it, and they say, “Well, I mean the Sierra Club is technically a corporation.
一是有些人持原则立场反对它，他们说：“嗯，我的意思是塞拉俱乐部在技术上是一家公司。
ACLU is technically a corporation.
从技术上讲，美国公民自由联盟是一家公司。
So, if you end corporate personhood, then that could endanger their existence.” No, it doesn’t endanger their existence at all.
因此，如果你终止企业人格，那么可能会危及他们的存在。”不，这根本不会危及他们的存在。
So, it doesn’t endanger GM or GE’s existence.
因此，它不会危及通用汽车或通用电气的生存。
It doesn’t endanger anybody’s existence.
它不会危及任何人的生存。
Corporations exist.
公司是存在的。
We’re not trying to take them away.
我们并不是想把它们夺走。
I would never do that, right?
我永远不会那样做，对吧？
That’s not smart, that’s not workable, et cetera.
这不聪明，不可行，等等。
We’re just saying they don’t have constitutional rights.
我们只是说他们没有宪法权利。
So, they have the rights that we give them.
因此，他们拥有我们赋予他们的权利。
By the way, read the founding fathers.
顺便，读一下开国元勋们的书。
This is also in my book.
这也在我的书里。
They hated corporations.
他们讨厌公司。
The American Revolution was partly against the British East India Company.
美国革命在一定程度上是反对英国东印度公司的。
55:39 So, the Tea Party in Boston was against that corporation.
因此，波士顿茶党反对该公司。
They threw their tea overboard.
他们把茶扔到了海里。
It was not against the British monarchy.
它并不反对英国君主制。
All the founding fathers warned us over and over again, watch out for corporations, because once they form, they will amass money and power and look to kill off democracy.
所有的开国元勋都一遍又一遍地警告我们，要提防公司，因为它们一旦成立，就会积聚金钱和权力，并试图扼杀民主。
They were totally right.
他们是完全正确的。
That’s exactly what happened.
这正是发生的事情。
So, it’s not that you don’t have them.
所以，并不是说你没有它们。
It’s that through democratic capitalism, you limit their power.
而是通过民主资本主义，你限制了他们的权力。
You can give them a bunch of rights.
你可以给他们很多权利。
You say, “Hey, you have a right to exist.
你说：“嘿，你有生存的权利。
You have a right to do this, this, and this, but you do not have constitutional rights of a citizen.” So you don’t have the right to speak to a politician by giving them a billion dollars.
你有权这样做、这样做、这样做，但你没有公民的宪法权利。”所以你没有权利通过给政客十亿美元来与他们交谈。
You believe that the people will be able to find the right policies to regulate and tax the corporations such that capitalism can flourish still?
您相信人民将能够找到正确的政策来监管企业并对其征税，从而使资本主义能够继续繁荣？
Yes.
是的。
56:40 You know why?
你知道为什么吗？
Because I’m a real populist, and I believe in the people.
因为我是一个真正的民粹主义者，我相信人民。
So, I drive the establishment crazy because they don’t believe in the people.
所以，我让当权者发疯，因为他们不相信人民。
They think, “Oh, have you seen MAGA?
他们想，“哦，你看过 MAGA 吗？
Have you seen these guys?
你见过这些家伙吗？
Have you seen the radicals on the left?
你见过左边的激进分子吗？
We’re so much smarter.
我们聪明多了。
You know how many Ivy League degrees we have?
你知道我们有多少个常春藤盟校学位吗？
We know what we’re doing.” No, you don’t.
我们知道我们在做什么。”不，你不知道。
No, everybody to some degree looks out for their own interests.
不，每个人都在某种程度上关注自己的利益。
Why I like capitalism and why I love democracy is because it’s the wisdom of the crowd.
我为什么喜欢资本主义，为什么我喜欢民主，因为它是群众的智慧。
So, in the long run, the crowd is right.
所以，从长远来看，大众是对的。
Oftentimes in the short term, we’re wrong.
从短期来看，我们常常是错的。
But the wisdom of the crowd in the long run is much, much better than the elites that run things.
但从长远来看，群众的智慧比管理事物的精英要好得多。
57:23 The elites say, “Well, we’re so smart and educated, so we’re going to know better what’s good for you.” No, brother.
精英们说：“好吧，我们非常聪明，受过良好教育，所以我们会更好地知道什么对你有好处。”不，兄弟。
You’re going to know what’s better for you.
你会知道什么对你更好。
So, here’s something that a lot of people get wrong on the populist left and right.
所以，这是很多人对民粹主义左派和右派的误解。
They think, “Oh, those guys are evil.” They’re not evil.
他们想：“哦，那些家伙很邪恶。”他们并不邪恶。
I’ve met them.
我见过他们。
I worked at MSNBC, I worked on cable, I went to Wharton, Columbia Law, et cetera.
我在 MSNBC 工作，在有线电视工作，我去了沃顿商学院、哥伦比亚大学法学院等等。
I know a lot of those guys.
我认识很多这样的人。
So, they’re not at all evil.
所以，他们一点也不邪恶。
They don’t even know that they’re mainly serving their own interests.
他们甚至不知道他们主要是在为自己的利益服务。
They just naturally do it.
他们只是自然而然地这样做。
57:52 So, they think the carried interest loophole makes a lot of sense.
因此，他们认为附带权益漏洞很有意义。
They think corporate tax cuts makes a lot of sense.
他们认为企业减税很有意义。
You not getting higher wages, you not having healthcare, it makes a lot of sense.
你没有得到更高的工资，你没有医疗保健，这是很有意义的。
It doesn’t make any goddamn sense, but they get themselves to believe it.
这根本没有任何意义，但他们却让自己相信它。
That’s another portion of the invisible hand of the market.
这是市场看不见的手的另一部分。
So there’s problems with every path.
所以每条路都会有问题。
58:10 So, the elite, like you mentioned, can be corrupted by greed, by power, and so on.
所以，正如你提到的，精英可能会被贪婪、权力等所腐蚀。
But the crowd, I agree with you, by the way, about the wisdom of the crowd versus the wisdom of the elite, but the crowd can be captured by a charismatic leader.
但是顺便说一句，我同意你关于大众智慧与精英智慧的观点，但大众可以被有魅力的领导者所俘获。
I’m probably a populist myself.
我自己可能是一个民粹主义者。
The problem with populism is that it can’t be and has been throughout history captured by bad people.
民粹主义的问题在于，它不可能而且在整个历史上一直被坏人所捕获。
But if you say to me, trust the elites or trust the people, I’m going to trust the people every single time.
但如果你对我说，相信精英或相信人民，我每次都会相信人民。
Well, that’s why you’re such an interesting…
好吧，这就是为什么你这么有趣……
58:44 I don’t want to say contradiction, but there’s a tension that creates the balance.
我不想说矛盾，但有一种张力创造了平衡。
So, to me, in the way you’re speaking might result in hurting capitalism.
所以，对我来说，你说话的方式可能会损害资本主义。
So, it is easy in fighting corporatism to hurt companies, to go too far the other way.
因此，在对抗法团主义的过程中，很容易伤害公司，甚至走得太远。
Yeah, of course.
是的，当然。
So when you talk about corporate tax, so what’s the magic number for the corporate tax?
那么，当您谈论公司税时，公司税的神奇数字是多少？
59:08 If it’s too high, companies leave.
如果太高，公司就会离开。
Companies have so much power right now.
公司现在拥有如此强大的权力。
59:20 This pendulum has swung so far.
这个钟摆已经摆了这么远。
Guys, we’re almost out of time.
伙计们，我们快没时间了。
The window’s closing.
窗户正在关闭。
The minute private equity buys all of our homes, the residential real estate market, we’re screwed.
一旦私募股权公司购买了我们所有的房屋，即住宅房地产市场，我们就完蛋了。
We’re indentured servants forever.
我们永远是契约仆人。
There goes wealth creation for the average American.
为普通美国人创造财富。
So, you’re right, Lex, that it’s not a contradiction.
所以，你是对的，莱克斯，这并不矛盾。
It’s a tension that is inevitable to get to balance.
这是一种不可避免的紧张，需要达到平衡。
The reason why people can’t figure me out, they’re like, “Well, you’re on the left, but you’re a capitalist, et cetera.” That’s not a contradiction.
人们之所以无法理解我，他们会说，“好吧，你是左派，但你是资本家，等等。”这并不矛盾。
That’s getting to the right balance.
这样就达到了正确的平衡。
In order to do that, if you say, “Well, if we change the system, I’m afraid of change because what if the pendulum swings too far in the other direction?”
为了做到这一点，如果你说：“好吧，如果我们改变系统，我担心改变，因为如果钟摆朝另一个方向摆动太远怎么办？”
1:00:12 Well, then you would be opposed to change at all times.
好吧，那么你就会一直反对改变。
So, if you do that, it actually reminds me of the Biden fight.
所以，如果你这样做，它实际上让我想起了拜登之战。
So, I’m like, “Guys, he has almost no chance of winning.
所以，我想，“伙计们，他几乎没有获胜的机会。
He stands for the establishment.
他代表建制派。
He can’t talk.” But then the number one pushback I’d get from Democrats was, yeah, but what if we change?
他不能说话。”但我从民主党那里得到的第一个阻力是，是的，但是如果我们改变怎么办？
It’s so scary.
太可怕了。
We don’t know about Kamala Harris.
我们不了解卡马拉·哈里斯。
What if it’s not Kamala Harris?
如果不是卡玛拉·哈里斯怎么办？
It’s so scary, don’t change.
太可怕了，不要改变。
Yeah, but if you say change might be worse, it also might be better.
是的，但如果你说改变可能会更糟，那么它也可能会更好。
You’re at zero.
你是零。
Anything is better, right?
任何事情都更好，对吧？
Right now, in terms of corruption in America, we’re at 98% corruption.
目前，就美国的腐败而言，我们的腐败率高达 98%。
So, we’ve got 2% decency left.
所以，我们还剩下 2% 的体面。
Brother, this is when you want change.
兄弟，这就是你想要改变的时候。
1:01:05 Lex, if you actually have wisdom of the crowd, just like in supply and demand and how it works in economics, it works the same way in a functioning democracy.
莱克斯，如果你真的拥有群众的智慧，就像供给和需求以及它在经济学中的运作方式一样，它在一个运作良好的民主国家中也以同样的方式运作。
You go too far, you come back in.
你走得太远了，你回来吧。
So, for example, when Reagan came into office, me and my dad and my family, we were Republicans.
因此，举例来说，当里根上任时，我、我的父亲和我的家人都是共和党人。
Why?
为什么？
At that point, the highest marginal tax rate was at 70%.
当时，最高边际税率为70%。
70% is too high.
70%太高了。
Then he brought it all the way down to 28%.
然后他把这个比例一路降到了28%。
That’s too low.
那太低了。
That’s how the system modulates itself.
这就是系统自我调节的方式。
Already we were headed towards corruption because it’s the 80s now.
我们已经走向腐败，因为现在是 80 年代。
We’re past 78, magic 78 marker.
我们已经超过 78 分了，神奇的 78 分。
1:01:48 Even Carter was way more conservative economically than people realize because we’re already getting past it by the time it’s in his administration.
就连卡特在经济上也比人们意识到的要保守得多，因为在他执政时我们已经克服了这一点。
But the bottom line is, yes, whenever you have real wisdom of the crowd, whether it’s in business or in politics, you’re going to have fluctuation.
但底线是，是的，只要你有真正的群众智慧，无论是在商业还是在政治上，你就会出现波动。
You’re going to have that pendulum swinging back and forth.
你将会看到钟摆来回摆动。
You don’t want wild swings, communism, corporatism, right?
你不想要剧烈的波动、共产主义、社团主义，对吧？
You want to get to hey, where’s the right balance here between capitalism and what people think is socialism?
你想知道，资本主义和人们认为的社会主义之间的正确平衡在哪里？
Yeah.
是的。
1:02:17 So, I guess I agree with most of the things you said about the corruption.
所以，我想我同意你所说的关于腐败的大部分内容。
I just wish there would be more celebration of the fact that capitalism and some incredible companies in the history of the 20th century has created so much wealth, so much innovation that has increased the quality of life on average.
我只是希望人们能够更多地庆祝这样一个事实：资本主义和 20 世纪历史上一些令人难以置信的公司创造了如此多的财富，如此多的创新，提高了平均生活质量。
They’ve also increased the wealth inequality and exploitation of the workers and this stuff, but you want to not forget to celebrate the awesomeness that companies have also brought outside the political sphere just in creating awesome stuff.
他们还加剧了财富不平等和对工人的剥削以及诸如此类的事情，但你不要忘记庆祝公司在创造出色的东西时也将其带到了政治领域之外。
Look, I run a company.
听着，我经营一家公司。
1:02:53 So, I don’t want companies to go away, and I don’t want you to hate all companies.
所以，我不希望公司消失，也不希望你讨厌所有公司。
I think Young Turks is a wonderful company.
我认为Young Turks 是一家很棒的公司。
We provide great healthcare, we take care of our employees, we care about the community, et cetera.
我们提供优质的医疗保健、照顾员工、关心社区等等。
We’re building a whole nation online on those principles and the right way to run a company.
我们正在按照这些原则和正确的公司运营方式建立一个在线国家。
But guys, we’re at the wrong part of the pendulum.
但是伙计们，我们正处在错误的位置。
The companies have overwhelming power and they’re crushing us.
这些公司拥有压倒性的力量，他们正在压垮我们。
We’re like that scene in Star Wars with the trash compactor is closing in on them.
我们就像星球大战中垃圾压实机逼近他们的场景一样。
The walls are closing in.
墙壁正在关闭。
We’re almost out of time because they’ve captured the government almost entirely.
我们快没时间了，因为他们几乎完全控制了政府。
They’re only serving corporate interests.
他们只为企业利益服务。
We’ve got to get back into balance before it’s too late.
我们必须在为时已晚之前恢复平衡。
That’s why I care so much about structural issues.
这就是为什么我如此关心结构性问题。
So, I form Justice Democrats, so that’s AOC, et cetera, right?
所以，我组建了正义民主党，这就是 AOC，等等，对吗？
People know it as the squad.
人们都知道它是小队。
They know it as just Democrats, et cetera.
他们只是民主党人，等等。
I’m one of the co-founders of that, and my number one rule was no corporate PAC money.
我是该项目的联合创始人之一，我的第一条规则就是不得向企业 PAC 提供资金。
So, you’re not allowed to take corporate PAC money.
因此，您不得拿走企业 PAC 的资金。
By the way, now, Matt-
顺便说一句，现在，马特-
1:04:00 Okay, so you’re not allowed to take corporate PAC money.
好吧，所以你不能拿公司 PAC 的钱。
By the way.
顺便一提。
Now Matt Gaetz and Josh Hawley have stopped taking corporate PAC money and they’ve become, to some degree on economic issues genuine populists.
现在，马特·盖茨和乔什·霍利已经停止接受企业政治行动委员会的资金，在某种程度上，他们在经济问题上已经成为真正的民粹主义者。
It’s amazing.
太棒了。
It happens overnight.
它发生在一夜之间。
All of a sudden they’re talking about holding corporations accountable, et cetera.
突然间，他们开始谈论让公司承担责任等等。
Now just Democrats wind up having other problems.
现在只有民主党人面临其他问题。
They got too deep into social issues, not economic issues.
他们对社会问题过于深入，而不是经济问题。
There’s a general criticism of billionaires, right?
人们普遍批评亿万富翁，对吗？
1:04:24 This idea.
这个想法。
Now you could say that billionaires are avoiding taxes and they’re not getting taxed enough.
现在你可以说亿万富翁正在避税，但他们没有得到足够的税收。
But I think under that flag of criticizing billionaires is criticizing all companies that do epic shit.
但我认为，在批评亿万富翁的旗帜下，实际上是在批评所有做史诗般事情的公司。
That build stuff.
那个构建的东西。
Oh, okay.
哦好的。
1:04:45 So-
所以——
That create stuff.
创造东西。
1:04:46 That’s what I’m worried about.
这就是我担心的。
I don’t hear enough genuine…
我听的还不够真实……
I like celebrating people.
我喜欢庆祝人们。
I like celebrating ideas.
我喜欢庆祝想法。
I just don’t hear enough genuine celebration of companies when they do cool things.
当公司做了很酷的事情时，我只是没有听到足够多的真正的庆祝。
So are you, right, not about companies, but about capitalism?
那么，你关心的不是公司，而是资本主义吗？
1:05:01 Yes.
是的。
Because you look at life expectancy 200 years ago, and you look at it now and you go, wow, holy shit, we did amazing things.
因为你看看 200 年前的预期寿命，再看看现在，你会觉得，哇，天啊，我们做了惊人的事情。
And what happened in the last 200 years?
过去200年发生了什么？
We went from dictatorships more towards democracy, wisdom of the crowd.
我们从独裁走向民主，走向群众的智慧。
We went from serfs and indentured servants and a nobility that holds the land to more towards capitalism.
我们从农奴、契约仆人和拥有土地的贵族走向了资本主义。
And boom, the crowd is right.
繁荣，群众是对的。
Things go really well.
事情进展得很顺利。
The advances in medicine are amazing, and medicine is a great example.
医学的进步是惊人的，医学就是一个很好的例子。
And on our show, I point all those things out and I say, look, we hate the drug companies because of how they’ve captured the government, right?
在我们的节目中，我指出了所有这些事情，我说，看，我们讨厌制药公司，因为他们如何俘获了政府，对吗？
But we don’t hate the drug companies for creating great drugs.
但我们并不讨厌制药公司创造出优秀的药物。
Those drugs save lives.
这些药物可以挽救生命。
They just saved my life.
他们刚刚救了我的命。
They saved countless millions upon millions of lives.
他们拯救了无数人的生命。
1:05:57 So the right idea isn’t shut down drug companies.
因此，正确的想法不是关闭制药公司。
The right idea is don’t let them buy the government, right?
正确的想法是不要让他们收买政府，对吗？
And I know we get back into our instinctual shells, so on the left they’ll be, oh, we should get rid of all billionaires.
我知道我们会回到本能的外壳，所以左边的人会说，哦，我们应该摆脱所有亿万富翁。
Why?
为什么？
How does that fix the system?
那如何修复系统呢？
Tell me how it fixes the system, and I’m all ears.
告诉我它是如何修复系统的，我洗耳恭听。
My solution is end private financing.
我的解决方案是结束私人融资。
Then you can be a billionaire all you like.
那么你就可以随心所欲地成为亿万富翁。
You can’t buy the government.
你不能收买政府。
That’s a more logical way to go about it.
这是一种更合乎逻辑的处理方式。
I’ve never worn an Eat the Rich shirt, and it drives me crazy.
我从来没有穿过“Eat the Rich”衬衫，这让我发疯。
I’m like, “You would’ve eaten FDR.” Right?
我想，“你会吃掉罗斯福的。”正确的？
And FDR is the best president, the most populous president in my opinion.
在我看来，罗斯福是最好的总统，也是人口最多的总统。
And so no, there’s wonderful rich people.
所以不，有很多很棒的富人。
Of course, of course there’s a range of humanity.
当然，人性当然是有一定范围的。
But you don’t want to get rid of the rich.
但你不想摆脱富人。
You don’t want to get rid of companies, but you also don’t want to let them control everything.
你不想摆脱公司，但你也不想让他们控制一切。
1:06:51 Here, I’ll give you an example that’s really, and that informs a lot of how I think about things, which is my dad.
在这里，我将给你举一个真实的例子，它告诉了我很多关于事物的想法，那就是我的父亲。
So my dad was a farmer in southeastern Turkey, near the Syrian border.
我父亲是土耳其东南部靠近叙利亚边境的农民。
No money.
没有钱。
In fact, his dad died when he was six months old.
事实上，他的父亲在他六个月大时就去世了。
And so they were saddled with debt and no electricity in his house.
因此，他们背负着债务，而且他的房子也没有电。
As poor as poor gets.
穷得有多穷。
And he wound up living the American dream.
他最终实现了美国梦。
And so how did he do that?
那么他是怎么做到的呢？
What made the difference?
是什么造成了差异？
Well, what made the difference is opportunity.
嗯，造成差异的是机会。
So I’m a populist because my dad was in the masses, and the elites say the masses are no good.
所以我是一个民粹主义者，因为我父亲是群众中的一员，而精英们却说群众不好。
We’re smart, you’re not.
我们很聪明，但你不聪明。
We’re educated, you are not.
我们受过教育，而你却没有。
At meritocracy, we talk about that.
在精英管理中，我们谈论这一点。
We have earned merit.
我们已经赢得了功德。
And if you’re poor or middle-class, you have not earned merit.
如果你是穷人或中产阶级，你就没有赢得功绩。
Okay?
好的？
You’re useless and worthless.
你是无用且毫无价值的。
And I hate that.
我讨厌那样。
1:07:51 So what did Turkey do back in the 1960s that liberated my dad?
那么土耳其在 20 世纪 60 年代做了什么解放了我父亲呢？
They provided free college education.
他们提供免费的大学教育。
You had to test into it, but the top 15% got a free college education at the best colleges in Turkey.
你必须通过考试，但排名前 15% 的人可以在土耳其最好的大学接受免费大学教育。
And my uncle saved all of our lives when he came to my dad and said, “Do you like working on this farm?” And my dad’s like, “Fuck no.” It’s super hot.
当我叔叔来找我爸爸说：“你喜欢在这个农场工作吗？”时，他救了我们所有人的命。我爸爸就说，“操，不。”太热了。
It’s super hard.
太难了。
They got to get up at four in the morning.
他们早上四点就必须起床。
If they’re lucky, they have a family next door gives them a mule.
如果幸运的话，隔壁的家人会给他们一头骡子。
If they’re not, they got to carry the shit themselves.
如果他们不这样做，他们就必须自己承担这些粪便。
So my uncle told him, work just as hard in school and you’ll be able to get a house, a car, pretty girls, et cetera.
所以我叔叔告诉他，在学校里同样努力，你就能得到房子、汽车、漂亮女孩等等。
My dad works his ass off, gets into the school, and he comes out of a mechanical engineer and starts his own company.
我爸爸拼命工作，进入学校，从一名机械工程师走出来，创办了自己的公司。
1:08:40 He creates a company in Turkey, hires hundreds of people.
他在土耳其创建了一家公司，雇用了数百名员工。
He then moves to America, creates a company here, hires tons of people.
然后他搬到了美国，在这里创建了一家公司，雇用了大量人员。
Do I hate companies?
我讨厌公司吗？
No.
不。
My dad set up two companies and I saw how much it benefited people.
我父亲成立了两家公司，我看到它给人们带来了多大的好处。
I saw how much employees would come up to my dad 20, 30 years later in the street and hug him.
我看到 20、30 年后，有多少员工会在街上走到我父亲身边并拥抱他。
And they’d tell me, as a young kid, your dad’s the most fair boss we ever had.
当我还是个小孩子的时候，他们会告诉我，你爸爸是我们遇到过的最公平的老板。
And we love him for it.
我们因此爱他。
That’s how you run a company.
这就是你经营公司的方式。
And he taught me the value of hard work.
他教会了我努力工作的价值。
1:09:09 But the reason I brought it up here is because he taught me, look, skill and ability is a genetic lottery.
但我之所以在这里提出来，是因为他教我，外表、技巧和能力是一种基因彩票。
So you’re not going to just get the rich to win all the genetic lottery.
因此，你不会仅仅通过致富来赢得所有基因彩票。
No.
不。
There’s going to be tons of poor kids and middle-class kids who are just as good if not better.
将会有大量的贫困孩子和中产阶级孩子即使不是更好，也同样优秀。
You have to provide them the opportunity, the fair chance to succeed.
你必须为他们提供机会，公平的成功机会。
You have to believe in them.
你必须相信他们。
So this isn’t about disempowering anyone.
所以这并不是要剥夺任何人的权力。
It’s about empowering all of those kids who are doing the right thing, who are smart and want to work hard so they could build their own companies and add to the economy.
这是为了赋予所有那些做正确事、聪明、想要努力工作的孩子权力，这样他们就可以建立自己的公司并为经济做出贡献。
What in general is your view on meritocracy?
您对精英管理的总体看法是什么？
So I love meritocracy.
所以我喜欢精英管理。
1:09:50 I wish that we lived in a meritocracy and I want to drive towards living in a meritocracy.
我希望我们生活在精英政治中，并且我希望努力实现精英政治的生活。
So that’s why I don’t like equality of results.
所以这就是为什么我不喜欢结果平等。
So now people that are on the left will get super mad at that and go, what do you mean?
所以现在左翼人士会对此非常生气，然后说，你是什么意思？
Well, okay, brother, let’s say you’re at work and you got one guy who’s working his ass off.
好吧，兄弟，假设你正在工作，有一个人正在拼命工作。
Another guy, that’s going, I don’t care.
另一个人，就这样，我不在乎。
I’m not going to do it.
我不会这么做。
Well, the guy who works super hard has to pick up the slack.
好吧，工作超级努力的人必须收拾残局。
Now he’s working twice as hard and now you want the same results?
现在他加倍努力，而你却想要同样的结果？
You want the same salary as that guy?
你想要和那个人一样的薪水吗？
No brother.
没有兄弟。
No.
不。
He’s working twice, four times, 10 times harder than you.
他比你努力两倍、四倍、十倍。
That’s not fair.
这不公平。
Fairness matters.
公平很重要。
We were in the suburbs of Jersey, but we wound up in Freehold eventually, and we lived across a farm, which is…
我们当时在泽西岛的郊区，但最终我们来到了弗里霍尔德，我们住在一个农场对面，那是……
In central Jersey, it happens.
在泽西岛中部，这种事就发生了。
And it was called Fair Chance Farm.
它被称为公平机会农场。
I was like, how did I get, this is amazing, right?
我当时想，我是怎么得到的，这太棒了，对吧？
And I love that.
我喜欢这样。
That’s the essence of America, and that’s what I want to go back to.
这就是美国的本质，也是我想回到的。
So we’ve got to create that opportunity, not just because it’s the moral thing to do, but because it’s also the economically smart thing to do.
因此，我们必须创造这个机会，不仅因为这是道德上的事情，而且因为这也是经济上明智的事情。
If you enable all those great people that are in lower income classes and middle income classes, you’re going to get a much better economy, a much stronger democracy.
如果你让所有那些处于低收入阶层和中等收入阶层的伟大人士受益，你将获得更好的经济、更强大的民主。
So that’s the direction we go.
这就是我们前进的方向。
So again, it’s about balance, but what do you think about DEI policies say in academia and companies?
再说一次，这关乎平衡，但您对学术界和企业界的 DEI 政策有何看法？
1:11:16 So the movement as it has evolved, where’s that on the balance?
那么，随着运动的发展，平衡点在哪里呢？
How far is it pushing towards equality of outcome versus equality of opportunity?
它在多大程度上推动结果平等与机会平等？
So now we’re getting into social issues.
所以现在我们要讨论社会问题。
1:11:41 So this is where we all rip each other apart, and then the people at the top laugh their off at us and go, we got them fighting over trans issues.
所以这就是我们互相撕扯的地方，然后高层的人嘲笑我们然后走开，我们让他们因为跨性别问题而争吵。
They’re killing each other.
他们正在互相残杀。
It is hilarious.
太搞笑了。
And they’re so busy, they don’t realize we’re running the place.
他们太忙了，没有意识到我们正在经营这个地方。
Right?
正确的？
Okay, but let’s engage.
好吧，但让我们参与吧。
Some people will look at DEI and go, well, that just gives me an opportunity just like anyone else.
有些人会看着 DEI 然后说，好吧，这给了我一个机会，就像其他人一样。
I love DEI.
我爱德伊。
And other person will look at it and go, no, that says that you should be picked above me.
其他人会看着它然后说，不，这表明你应该在我之上被选中。
And I hate DEI.
我讨厌DEI。
So the reality of DEI is a little bit more complicated, but you got to go back.
所以 DEI 的现实有点复杂，但你必须回去。
So first, did we need affirmative action in the 1960s?
首先，我们在 20 世纪 60 年代需要平权行动吗？
Definitely.
确实。
Why?
为什么？
All the firefighter jobs in South Carolina, as an example, are going to white guys.
例如，南卡罗来纳州的所有消防员工作都由白人担任。
1:12:31 All the longshoremen jobs in New York, LA, wherever you have it, are all going to white guys because that’s how the system was.
纽约、洛杉矶的所有码头工人工作，无论在哪里，都被白人占据，因为体制就是这样。
Yes, also in the north.
是的，北方也有。
So we now are in a civil rights era.
所以我们现在处于一个民权时代。
We decide we’re going to go towards equality.
我们决定要走向平等。
Minorities, in that case, mainly black Americans, had to find a way to break in.
在这种情况下，少数族裔，主要是美国黑人，必须找到一种闯入的方法。
If you’re a longshoreman and it’s a good job, you naturally pass it on to your son.
如果你是一名码头工人，而且这是一份好工作，你自然会把它传给你的儿子。
I get your instinct, I don’t hate you for it.
我明白你的直觉，我并不因此而恨你。
But we got to let black kids also have a shot at it.
但我们必须让黑人孩子也有机会这样做。
So you need it in the beginning, but at a certain point you have to phase it out.
所以一开始你需要它，但到了某个时候你必须逐步淘汰它。
1:13:06 So when I was growing up, it’s now in the late ’80s, early ’90s, I hated affirmative action and I’ve been principled on it from day one.
所以，在我成长的过程中，现在是 80 年代末、90 年代初，我讨厌平权行动，但从第一天起我就坚持原则。
And to this day, I’m not in favor of affirmative action.
直到今天，我仍然不赞成平权行动。
I say it on the show all the time.
我在节目中一直这么说。
Why?
为什么？
I’m a minority.
我是少数派。
Being a Turk.
作为一个土耳其人。
I grew up Muslim, I’m an atheist now, but generally speaking, a Muslim is certainly a minority in America and pretty much a hated one overall.
我是穆斯林长大的，现在我是一个无神论者，但一般来说，穆斯林肯定是美国的少数群体，而且总体上是一个令人讨厌的群体。
But I didn’t check off Muslim or Turkish or any ethnicity when I applied to college because I believe in a meritocracy as we were talking about.
但当我申请大学时，我并没有勾选穆斯林、土耳其或任何种族，因为我相信我们所说的精英管理。
But we don’t really have a meritocracy now, so I can come back to that, so I didn’t check it off because I didn’t want an unfair advantage, because I want to earn it.
但我们现在并没有真正的精英管理，所以我可以回到这一点，所以我没有勾选它，因为我不想获得不公平的优势，因为我想赢得它。
I want to earn it.
我想赚到它。
So now I’m in law school and I’m hanging out with right-wingers because at that point I’m a Republican, and one of the guys says to me about a black student going to Columbia, he says, oh, I wonder how he got in here.
所以现在我在法学院，我和右翼分子在一起，因为那时我是共和党人，其中一个人对我说，一名黑人学生要去哥伦比亚大学，他说，哦，我想知道他是怎么进来的。
1:14:13 God, that is the problem with affirmative action.
天哪，这就是平权行动的问题。
It devalues the accomplishments of every minority in the country.
它贬低了该国每个少数民族的成就。
You have to transition away from it.
你必须摆脱它。
If you don’t, it sets up a caste system.
如果你不这样做，就会建立种姓制度。
And that caste system is lethal to democracy.
这种种姓制度对民主来说是致命的。
So does DEI go too far?
那么DEI是否走得太远了？
In some instances, yes.
在某些情况下，是的。
But is it a boogeyman that’s going to take all the white jobs and make them black as Trump would say, black jobs, and give minorities too much power, et cetera?
但这是否是一个妖怪会像特朗普所说的那样，夺走所有白人的工作岗位并将其变成黑人，黑人工作岗位，并赋予少数族裔太多的权力等等？
No.
不。
The idea isn’t to rob you and to give all the opportunity to minorities.
我们的想法不是要抢劫你，而是把所有机会都给少数族裔。
The idea is to make it equal.
我们的想法是使其平等。
But as the pendulum swings, did it swing too far in some directions?
但当钟摆摆动时，是否在某些方向上摆动得太远了？
Yes.
是的。
The left can’t acknowledge that and the right can’t acknowledge that, of course, at some point you got to give a chance for others to break in so they have a fair chance.
左派不能承认这一点，右派也不能承认这一点，当然，在某些时候你必须给其他人闯入的机会，这样他们就有公平的机会。
By the way, Michelle Obama had a good line about the black jobs in the DNC speech-
顺便说一句，米歇尔·奥巴马在民主党全国委员会演讲中关于黑人就业问题的台词很好——
Great line.
很棒的线路。
1:15:07 I loved that.
我喜欢那个。
Where somebody should tell Trump that the presidency might be just one of those black jobs.
有人应该告诉特朗普，总统职位可能只是这些黑人工作之一。
1:15:08 Anyway, but why do you think the left doesn’t acknowledge when DEI gets ridiculous?
无论如何，但你认为为什么当 DEI 变得荒谬时左派不承认呢？
Which it, in certain places and in certain places at a large scale has gotten ridiculous.
在某些地方和大规模的某些地方，这已经变得荒谬了。
Because people are taught to just be in the tribe they’re in.
因为人们被教导要融入他们所在的部落。
1:15:28 And to believe it a hundred percent.
并且百分百相信。
I’ve gotten kicked out of every…
我已经被踢出了每一个…
I might be the most attacked man in internet history, partly because we’ve been around forever.
我可能是互联网历史上受攻击最多的人，部分原因是我们一直存在。
And partly because I disagree with every part of the political spectrum, because I believe in independent thought.
部分原因是我不同意政治光谱的各个部分，因为我相信独立思想。
And the minute you vary a little bit, people go nuts.
一旦你稍微改变一点，人们就会发疯。
And so the far left tribe is going to go with their preset ideology, just like the far right tribe is.
因此，极左部落将遵循他们预设的意识形态，就像极右部落一样。
1:16:02 So for example, on trans issues, we’ve protected trans people for over 20 years in The Young Turks.
例如，在跨性别问题上，我们在青年土耳其党中保护跨性别者已有 20 多年了。
We fought for equality for trans people and for all LGBTQ people for two decades.
二十年来，我们为跨性别者和所有 LGBTQ 人群的平等而奋斗。
We did it way before anyone else did.
我们比其他人更早地做到了这一点。
When Biden came out in favor of gay marriage in 2013, we’re like, this is comically late.
当拜登在 2013 年公开支持同性婚姻时，我们的反应是，这太晚了。
So we were all supposed to congratulate him in the year 2013 that he thinks gay people should have the same rights as straight people?
所以我们都应该在2013年祝贺他认为同性恋者应该享有与异性恋者相同的权利？
And that he had to push Obama to get there?
他必须推动奥巴马才能实现这一目标？
So on the other hand, I’m like, guys, if you allow trans women to go into professional sports, not at the high school level, but professional sports, but let’s say they go into MMA or boxing and a trans woman, I mean, it happens in boxing, it happens in MMA, punches a biological woman so hard that she kills her.
所以另一方面，我想，伙计们，如果你允许跨性别女性进入职业体育运动，不是在高中水平，而是职业运动，但假设她们进入 MMA 或拳击，而一个跨性别女性，我的意思是，它发生在拳击中，它发生在 MMA 中，用力殴打一个亲生女人，以致她杀死了她。
So you’re going to set back trans rights 50 years.
所以你会让跨性别者的权利倒退 50 年。
I’m not trying to hurt you, I’m trying to help you.
我不是想伤害你，我只是想帮助你。
You have to do bounds of reason.
你必须遵循理性的界限。
1:17:07 So when I say simple things like that, and I say, you can give LeBron James every hormone blocker on planet earth, he’s still going to dominate the WNBA.
所以当我说这样简单的事情时，我说，你可以给勒布朗·詹姆斯服用地球上所有的荷尔蒙阻滞剂，他仍然会统治 WNBA。
Okay?
好的？
It would be comical.
这会很滑稽。
He might score a hundred points a night.
他一个晚上可能会得到一百分。
And they’ll say, that’s outrageous.
他们会说，这太离谱了。
And some have called me Nazi for saying that trans women or that professional leagues should make their own decisions on whether they allow trans women in or not.
有些人称我为纳粹分子，因为我说跨性别女性或职业联盟应该自己决定是否允许跨性别女性加入。
So why do they say that?
那么他们为什么这么说呢？
Because they’re so besieged, they think we cannot give an inch.
因为他们被围困得很厉害，他们认为我们不能让步。
We cannot give any ground.
我们不能有任何退让。
If you give any ground, you’re a Nazi.
如果你有任何退让，你就是纳粹分子。
Okay?
好的？
So we’ve got to get out of that mindset.
所以我们必须摆脱这种心态。
You can’t function in a democracy and be in an extreme position and expect the rest of the country to go towards your extreme position.
你不能在民主国家中处于极端立场，并期望国家其他地区也采取你的极端立场。
So why do you think we are not in a meritocracy?
那么你为什么认为我们没有实行精英制度呢？
Because of the corruption.
因为腐败。
1:18:00 So for example, but there’s also, remember, corporate media is the matrix and they plug you into cable in the old days.
举个例子，但请记住，企业媒体是矩阵，在过去他们让你接上有线电视。
Now, it’s a little bit different because of online media, but especially 10 years ago, and remember we started 22 years ago.
现在，由于在线媒体的存在，情况有所不同，尤其是 10 年前，请记住我们是 22 年前开始的。
So I’ve been losing my mind over how obvious corporate media corruption has been for decades now, but no one acknowledged it until online media got stronger.
因此，几十年来，我一直对企业媒体腐败的明显现象感到困惑，但直到在线媒体变得更强大之前，没有人承认这一点。
But one of the myths that corporate media creates is the myth of meritocracy.
但企业媒体创造的神话之一是精英管理的神话。
Not that meritocracy can’t exist or shouldn’t exist, but they pretend it exists today.
并不是说精英管理不能存在或不应该存在，但他们假装它今天存在。
So the problem with that myth, Lex, is that it gets people thinking, well, if they’re already rich, they must have merited it by definition.
所以，莱克斯，这个神话的问题在于，它让人们思考，好吧，如果他们已经很富有，那么从定义上来说，他们一定是应得的。
So all the rich have merit.
所以富人都有功德。
And the reverse of that, if you’re poor or middle class, well, you must not have merited wealth.
相反，如果你是穷人或中产阶级，那么你一定没有应得的财富。
So you’re no good.
所以说你也不好。
We don’t have to listen to you.
我们不必听你的。
And that’s a really dangerous, awful idea.
这是一个非常危险、可怕的想法。
1:19:05 And so if we get to a meritocracy one day, I’ll be the happiest person in America.
因此，如果有一天我们实现精英管理，我将成为美国最幸福的人。
But right now it’s…
但现在是……
Look here I’ll give you an example that I put in the book, and it’s not us, this other folks at this YouTube video.
看这里，我会给你举一个我放在书中的例子，这不是我们，而是这个 YouTube 视频中的其他人。
I can’t even quite find who they were, but it was a brilliant video, and they said, we’re going to do a hundred yard race.
我什至不太清楚他们是谁，但这是一个精彩的视频，他们说，我们要进行百码比赛。
But hold on before we start, anyone who has two parents take two steps forward.
但在我们开始之前请稍等，任何有两个父母的人都向前迈出两步。
Anyone who went to college, take another two steps forward.
凡是上过大学的人，再向前迈出两步。
Anyone who doesn’t have bills to pay for education anymore, take two steps forward.
任何不再支付教育费用的人，请向前迈出两步。
They do all these things.
他们做所有这些事情。
And then at the end, before they start, somebody’s 20 yards from the finish line, and a lot of people are still at the starting line, and then they go, okay, now we’re going to run a race.
然后在最后，在他们开始之前，有人距离终点线 20 码，很多人仍然在起跑线，然后他们说，好吧，现在我们要参加一场比赛。
And the guy who was right next to the finish line wins and they go, meritocracy.
紧邻终点线的人获胜，他们走了，精英统治。
Okay?
好的？
So the challenge there is to know which disparities when you just freeze the system and observe are actually a result of some kind of discrimination or a flaw in the system versus the result of meritocracy, of the better runner being ahead.
因此，面临的挑战是，当你冻结系统并观察时，要知道哪些差异实际上是某种歧视或系统缺陷的结果，而不是精英管理的结果，即更好的跑步者领先。
That’s right.
这是正确的。
1:20:12 There are some parts that are easy to solve, Lex.
有些部分很容易解决，Lex。
So if you donated to a politician and he gave you a billion dollar subsidy, that’s not meritocracy.
因此，如果你向一位政客捐款，而他给了你十亿美元的补贴，那就不是精英统治。
So if you follow on the money, you can see the flaws in the system.
因此，如果你跟踪资金，你就能看到系统中的缺陷。
Exactly.
确切地。
1:20:27 And again, nothing’s ever perfect.
再说一遍，没有什么是完美的。
At any snapshot of history or of the moment, you’re going to be at some point in the pendulum swing.
在任何历史或当下的快照中，你都会处于钟摆摆动的某个时刻。
But if you trust the people and you let the pendulum swing but not wildly, then you’re going to get to the right answers in the long run.
但如果你信任人们，让钟摆摆动但不疯狂，那么从长远来看你就会得到正确的答案。
So you think this woke mind virus that the right refers to is a problem, but not a big problem?
那么你认为右边所指的这种觉醒病毒是一个问题，但不是一个大问题？
No.
不。
1:20:54 So the right wing drives me crazy.
所以右翼让我发疯。
So look, guys, your instincts of populism is correct.
所以，伙计们，你们的民粹主义直觉是正确的。
Your instincts of anti-corruption is correct, right?
你的反腐败直觉是正确的，对吗？
And I love you for it.
我因此而爱你。
And so in a lot of ways, the right-wing voters figured out the whole system’s screwed before left-wing voters did.
因此，在很多方面，右翼选民先于左翼选民发现整个体系已经搞砸了。
I shouldn’t say left-wing voters, because progressives and left-wing have been saying it for not only decades, but maybe centuries.
我不应该说左翼选民，因为进步派和左翼不仅几十年来一直这么说，而且可能几个世纪了。
But democratic voters.
但民主选民。
A lot of democratic voters, some of them actually like this current system, a lot of them have been tricked into liking this current system.
很多民主选民，其中一些人实际上喜欢这个现行制度，很多人被欺骗而喜欢这个现行制度。
And the left should be fighting against corruption harder than the right.
左翼应该比右翼更努力地打击腐败。
But right now, unfortunately that’s not the case.
但不幸的是，现在情况并非如此。
1:21:38 So there’s a lot that I like about right-wing voters.
所以我很喜欢右翼选民。
But you guys get tricked on social issues so easily.
但你们很容易在社会问题上被欺骗。
So how many people are involved in trans high school sports and a girl who should have finished first in that track race in the middle of Indiana finished second.
那么有多少人参与跨性别高中运动，而一个本应在印第安纳州中部的田径比赛中获得第一名的女孩却获得了第二名。
First of all, this is the big crime?
首先，这是大罪吗？
And how many people are involved about 7?
大约有7人参与其中？
13?
13？
Out of a country of 330 million people?
来自一个拥有 3.3 亿人口的国家？
And you can’t see that that’s a distraction?
你看不出这是一种干扰吗？
And everything they did that is bait that the right wing media puts out there, they run after.
他们所做的一切都是右翼媒体投放的诱饵，他们追逐。
I mean, Tucker Carlson doing insane segments about Eminem should be sexier.
我的意思是，塔克·卡尔森对阿姆的疯狂片段应该更性感。
Mr. Potato Head has gender issues.
土豆头先生有性别问题。
Guys, get out of there.
伙计们，离开那里。
Get out of there.
离开那里。
It’s a trap.
这是一个陷阱。
Okay?
好的？
Yeah, that doesn’t mean that there’s…
是的，这并不意味着有……
1:22:31 Absolutely.
绝对的。
It doesn’t mean that there’s larger scale issues with things like DEI that aren’t so fun to talk about or viral to talk about on an anecdotal scale.
这并不意味着像 DEI 这样的事情存在更大范围的问题，这些问题谈起来不那么有趣，或者在轶事层面上谈论起来不那么流行。
DEI does create a culture of fear with cancel culture, and it does create a culture that limits the freedom of expression, and it does limit the meritocracy in another way.
DEI 确实创造了一种带有取消文化的恐惧文化，它确实创造了一种限制言论自由的文化，它确实以另一种方式限制了精英统治。
So you’re basically saying, forget all these other problems.
所以你基本上是在说，忘记所有这些其他问题。
Money is the biggest problem.
钱是最大的问题。
So first of all, on AOC, as an example, and I don’t mean to pick on her, but she won through the great work of her and Saikat Chakrabarti and Corbyn Trent and others who were leaders of the Justice Democrats that went and helped her campaign.
首先，以 AOC 为例，我并不是有意挑剔她，但她是通过她以及 Saikat Chakrabarti 和 Corbyn Trent 以及其他帮助她竞选的正义民主党领导人的出色工作而获胜的。
1:23:07 They were critical help.
他们是至关重要的帮助。
And we all told her the same thing.
我们都告诉她同样的事情。
So it’s not about me, me, me.
所以这不是关于我，我，我。
And so we all said, you’ve got to challenge the establishment and you’ve got to work on money in politics first, because if you don’t work on money in politics and you don’t fix that, you’re going to lose on almost all other issues.
所以我们都说，你必须挑战当权者，你必须首先在政治上处理金钱问题，因为如果你不在政治上处理金钱问题并且不解决这个问题，你就会在几乎所有其他问题上失败。
But she didn’t believe us because it’s uncomfortable.
但她不相信我们，因为这很不舒服。
And all the progressives that went into Congress, they drive me crazy.
所有进入国会的进步人士都让我发疯。
They think, oh, no, no, you’re exaggerating.
他们认为，哦，不，不，你太夸张了。
And the minute they get in, all of a sudden, my colleagues.
他们进来的那一刻，突然间，我的同事们。
Your colleagues hate you and they’re going to drive you out.
你的同事讨厌你，他们会把你赶出去。
You’re a sucker.
你真是个傻瓜。
And Jamaal Bowman, Corey Bush, what did they do?
还有贾马尔·鲍曼、科里·布什，他们做了什么？
They drove them out.
他们把他们赶了出去。
Marie Newman drove them out.
玛丽·纽曼把他们赶了出去。
And because they’re not on your side, they’re not your colleagues.
因为他们不站在你这边，所以他们不是你的同事。
1:24:11 And what happened to $15 minimum wage?
15 美元的最低工资怎么了？
And I remember talking to one of those Congress people, I leave out the name, and saying, hey, you know they’re not going to do $15 minimum wage.
我记得与其中一位国会议员交谈时，我省略了名字，然后说，嘿，你知道他们不会执行 15 美元的最低工资。
And he is like, “Oh, Cenk, you’re out of the loop.
他说：“哦，Cenk，你已经被排除在外了。
Nancy Pelosi assured us that they are going to do $15 minimum wage.” I’m like, “I love you, but you’re totally wrong.
南希·佩洛西向我们保证，他们将实行 15 美元的最低工资。”我想，“我爱你，但你完全错了。
Moneyed interests are not going to do $15 minimum wage.
金钱利益无法满足 15 美元的最低工资要求。
You have to start fighting now.” And they didn’t get it.
你现在必须开始战斗。”但他们没有明白。
So they lost on almost all those issues.
所以他们在几乎所有这些问题上都失败了。
It’s all about incentives and disincentives and rules.
这都是关于激励、抑制和规则的。
If you don’t fix the rules, you’re going to constantly run into the same brick wall.
如果你不修正规则，你就会不断地碰上同样的砖墙。
1:24:47 Now, the second issue that we were talking about is in the culture wars.
现在，我们谈论的第二个问题是文化战争。
The rest of us are stuck between the two extreme two-percenter on both sides.
我们其他人都被困在两边两个极端的百分之二之间。
So the two two-percenter on the left goes, if you’re a white woman, you need to shut up and listen now, okay?
所以左边的百分之二的人说，如果你是白人女性，你现在需要闭嘴听，好吗？
That’s ridiculous.
这太荒谬了。
No, you don’t.
不，你不知道。
If you’re a white woman, you have every right to speak out.
如果您是白人女性，您完全有权发声。
You have every right that every other human being has.
你拥有其他人所拥有的一切权利。
And so would I love for all of us to listen to one another, to have empathy for one another and go, hey, I wonder how a right-winger thinks about this.
因此，我希望我们所有人都能互相倾听，互相同情，然后说，嘿，我想知道右翼分子对此有何看法。
I wonder how a left-Winger thinks about this.
我想知道左翼人士对此有何看法。
I wonder why they think that way, right?
我想知道他们为什么这么想，对吗？
I love that and I want that.
我喜欢那个，我想要那个。
So I want you to listen, but I don’t want you to shut up.
所以我希望你听，但我不希望你闭嘴。
So that 2% gets extreme and I don’t like it.
所以 2% 就变得极端了，我不喜欢它。
1:25:35 But on the right wing, you got your 2% who think that that’s all that’s happening on the left, and that’s all that’s happening in American politics, and they think the entire left believes that tiny 2%, and so they hate the left, and they’re like, oh, I’m not going to shut up.
但在右翼，有 2% 的人认为这就是左派所发生的一切，这就是美国政治中所发生的一切，他们认为整个左派都相信那微不足道的 2%，所以他们讨厌左派，他们会说，哦，我不会闭嘴。
Oh, I’m not going to wear a mask.
哦，我不会戴口罩。
I’m not going to do any of these things and I’m not going to do anything.
我不会做任何这些事情，我也不会做任何事情。
That’s a freedom.
那是一种自由。
And then a Republican comes along and goes, oh yeah, that thing you call freedom, that’s deregulation for corporations because you shouldn’t really have freedom.
然后一位共和党人出现并走了，哦，是的，你所谓的自由，那就是对公司的放松管制，因为你不应该真正拥有自由。
Companies should have freedom.
企业应该有自由。
And then the guy goes, “Yeah, freedom for ExxonMobil.” No brother, they tricked you.
然后那个人说：“是的，埃克森美孚的自由。”不，兄弟，他们欺骗了你。
Yeah, the 2% on each side is a useful distraction for for the corruption of the politicians via money still.
是的，双方的 2% 仍然可以有效分散政客通过金钱腐败的注意力。
1:26:12 I’m talking about the 96% that remains in the middle and the impact that DEI policies has on them.
我说的是剩下的 96% 的中间人以及 DEI 政策对他们的影响。
So here’s where it gets absurd.
所以这就是荒谬的地方。
1:26:25 I’ll give you a good example of absurdity.
我给你举一个很好的例子来说明荒谬。
So in a school, I believe in California, they noticed that Latino students were not doing as well in AP and honors classes.
因此，我相信在加利福尼亚州的一所学校中，他们注意到拉丁裔学生在 AP 和荣誉课程中的表现不佳。
So they canceled AP and honors classes.
所以他们取消了 AP 和荣誉课程。
Oh, come on.
哦，来吧。
What are you doing?
你在干什么？
That’s nuts.
那太疯狂了。
No, your job is to help them get better grades, get better opportunity, et cetera.
不，你的工作是帮助他们获得更好的成绩，获得更好的机会等等。
That’s the harder thing to do, and the right thing to do.
这是更难做的事情，也是正确的事情。
Your job isn’t, I’m going to make everything equal by taking away the opportunity for higher achievement for other students.
你的工作不是，我将通过剥夺其他学生取得更高成就的机会来使一切平等。
If that’s what you’re doing and you think you’re on the left, you’re not really on the left.
如果这就是你正在做的事情，并且你认为自己是左派，那么你并不是真正的左派。
I actually think that’s like an authoritarian position that no progressive in their right mind would be in favor of.
事实上，我认为这就像一种独裁立场，任何头脑正常的进步人士都不会赞成。
But it’s all definitional.
但这都是定义性的。
So here’s another example of definitional.
这是定义的另一个例子。
Communism.
共产主义。
They say, oh my god, Kamala Harris is a communist.
他们说，天哪，卡马拉·哈里斯是一名共产主义者。
1:27:24 Well, you’re telling on yourself brothers and sisters, when you say that that means A, I don’t know what communism means, and B, I don’t have any idea what’s going on in American politics.
好吧，兄弟姐妹们，你们说这句话的意思是A，我不知道共产主义是什么意思，B，我不知道美国政治是怎么回事。
Kamala Harris is a corporatist.
卡马拉·哈里斯是一位社团主义者。
That’s her problem.
这是她的问题。
Not that she’s a communist, she’s on the other end of the spectrum.
并不是说她是共产主义者，而是她处于光谱的另一端。
The idea that Kamala Harris would come into office and say, that’s it.
卡玛拉·哈里斯上任后会说，就是这样。
There’s no more private property.
不再有私有财产了。
We’re going to take all of your homes and it’s now government property, then all your cars, et cetera.
我们将没收你所有的房屋，现在它是政府财产，然后是你所有的汽车，等等。
She was not going to get within a billion miles of that.
她不会到达十亿英里之内。
Her donors would never allow her to get within a billion miles of that.
她的捐助者永远不会允许她到达十亿英里以内。
That is so preposterous that when you say something like that, it’s disqualifying.
这太荒谬了，当你说出这样的话时，你就失去了资格。
I can’t debate someone who thinks that Democrats are communists when they’re actually largely corporatists.
我无法与那些认为民主党人是共产主义者的人辩论，而他们实际上主要是社团主义者。
You see what I’m saying?
你明白我在说什么吗？
Yeah.
是的。
1:28:12 So let’s go there.
那么我们就去那里吧。
So when people call her a communist, they’re usually referring to certain kinds of policies.
因此，当人们称她为共产主义者时，他们通常指的是某些政策。
So do you think, I mean, it’s a ridiculous label to assign to Kamala Harris, especially given the history of communism in the 20th century and what those economic and political policies have led to, the scale of suffering that led to, and it just degrades the meaning of the word, but to take that seriously, why is she not a communist?
所以你认为，我的意思是，给卡玛拉·哈里斯贴上这个标签是一个荒谬的标签，特别是考虑到20世纪共产主义的历史，以及那些经济和政治政策所导致的结果，所导致的痛苦的规模，它只是降低了这个词的含义，但认真对待这个问题，为什么她不是共产主义者？
So you said she’s not a communist because she’s a corporatist.
所以你说她不是共产主义者，因为她是社团主义者。
That can’t be…
那不可能……
Okay.
好的。
Everybody in politics is a corporatist-
政治界的每个人都是社团主义者——
Almost.
差不多了。
Almost everybody in politics is a corporatist, but that doesn’t mean that corporations have completely bought their mind.
政界几乎每个人都是社团主义者，但这并不意味着企业完全接受了他们的想法。
1:28:54 They have an influence in their mind on issues that matter to those corporations-
他们对那些对这些公司重要的问题有影响力——
Yep.
是的。
Right?
正确的？
Yep.
是的。
Outside of that, they’re still thinking for the voters because they still have to win the votes.
除此之外，他们仍在为选民着想，因为他们仍然必须赢得选票。
Barely.
仅仅。
Okay.
好的。
So here, let me give you examples so you see what I’m saying.
所以在这里，让我给你举一些例子，这样你就明白我在说什么了。
1:29:14 So if you just wanted votes, you would do a lot of what Tim Walz did.
因此，如果你只是想要选票，你会做蒂姆·沃尔兹所做的很多事情。
And by the way, a lot of what Bernie did, that’s why Bernie who had no media coverage went from 2% in 2015 to by the end about 48% because he’s just doing things that were popular and that American people wanted, et cetera, because he’s not controlled by corporations.
顺便说一句，伯尼所做的很多事情，这就是为什么没有媒体报道的伯尼从 2015 年的 2% 上升到年底的 48% 左右，因为他只是在做受欢迎的事情，美国人想要的事情等等，因为他不受公司控制。
By the way, neither is Tom Massie on the right wing side, on the Republican side.
顺便说一句，汤姆·马西也不属于右翼共和党一方。
So it’s not all, that’s why I always say almost all.
所以这还不是全部，这就是为什么我总是说几乎全部。
Right?
正确的？
So if you’re doing things that are popular, people love it.
因此，如果你做的事情很受欢迎，人们就会喜欢它。
So today, what would Kamala Harris do if she actually just wanted to win?
那么今天，如果卡玛拉·哈里斯真的只是想赢的话，她会怎么做呢？
So number one, she was trying to pass paid family leave right now.
第一，她现在正试图通过带薪家庭假。
Why?
为什么？
It polls at 84% and even 74% of Republicans want it.
民意调查显示，84% 的支持率甚至 74% 的共和党人都希望如此。
1:30:07 Why?
为什么？
Because it says, hey, when you have a baby, you should get 12 weeks off.
因为它说，嘿，当你生了孩子后，你应该休息 12 周。
Bond with your baby.
与宝宝建立亲密关系。
Right now, in a lot of states that don’t have paid family leave, you have to go back to work the very next day, or you have to use all of your sick days, all your vacation days, just have one or two weeks with your baby.
现在，在许多没有带薪家庭假的州，你必须第二天就回去工作，或者你必须利用你所有的病假、所有的假期，只花一到两周的时间陪伴你的孩子。
So conservatives love paid family leave, liberals love paid family leave.
所以保守派喜欢带薪探亲假，自由派喜欢带薪探亲假。
That’s why it polls so high.
这就是为什么它的民意调查如此之高。
So why isn’t she proposing it?
那么她为什么不提议呢？
It’s not in her economic plan.
这不在她的经济计划中。
Tim Walz already passed it in Minnesota.
蒂姆·沃尔兹（Tim Walz）已经在明尼苏达州通过了它。
He showed how easy it was.
他向我们展示了这是多么容易。
If you want votes, and then you know what’s going to happen if you propose paid family leave, the Republicans are going to go, no, our beloved corporations don’t want to spend another dollar on moms, and they fall for that trap, and then you are in an infinitely better shape.
如果你想要选票，然后你知道如果你提议带薪家庭假会发生什么，共和党人就会说，不，我们心爱的公司不想在妈妈身上再花一美元，他们就会落入这个陷阱，然后你的情况就会好得多。
1:30:53 So why doesn’t she do it?
那么她为什么不这样做呢？
She doesn’t do it because her corporate donors don’t want her to do it.
她不这样做是因为她的企业捐助者不希望她这样做。
$15 minimum wage, layup.
最低工资 15 美元，上篮。
Over two thirds of the country wants it because it not only gives you higher wages for minimum wage folks, but it pushes wages up for others.
这个国家超过三分之二的人希望它，因为它不仅为最低工资的人提供更高的工资，而且还推高了其他人的工资。
And what do the elites say?
精英们怎么说？
Oh, that’s going to drive up inflation.
哦，这会推高通货膨胀。
No, you shouldn’t get paid anymore.
不，你不应该再得到报酬了。
Wait, wait, wait, wait, hold on.
等等，等等，等等，等等，坚持住。
So you’re saying all the other prices should go up, but the only thing that shouldn’t go up is our wages?
所以你说其他的物价都应该涨，唯独我们的工资不应该涨？
No, our wages should go up.
不，我们的工资应该上涨。
So these are all easy ones.
所以这些都是很容易的。
1:31:25 Here’s another one.
这是另一个。
Anti-corruption.
反腐败。
Why isn’t she running on getting money out of politics?
她为什么不从政治中获取金钱呢？
It polls at over 90%.
民意调查的支持率超过90%。
Why isn’t Trump running on it anymore?
为什么特朗普不再竞选了？
He won when he ran on it in 2016, he didn’t mean a word of it, but he ran on it.
2016年他跑的时候赢了，他不是故意的，但他跑了。
It was smart.
这很聪明。
They don’t do it because their corporate donors take their heads off if they do it.
他们之所以不这样做，是因为如果他们这样做的话，他们的企业捐助者就会大吃一惊。
So in contradiction to that, why did she propose to raise the corporate tax rate from, whatever, 21% to 28%?
那么与此相矛盾的是，她为什么提议将企业税率从 21% 提高到 28%？
Because that’s easy, because that is something that’s super popular and she’s not going to do it.
因为那很容易，因为那是非常受欢迎的事情，而她不会这样做。
1:31:51 That’s why.
这就是原因。
So guys, this is where I break the hearts of Blue MAGA.
伙计们，这就是我让 Blue MAGA 心碎的地方。
Blue MAGA thinks, oh my God, these Democrats, they’re angels, and the right wing is, and the Republicans are evil, and they work for big business, but not Kamala Harris, not Joe Biden.
蓝色MAGA认为，天啊，这些民主党人，他们是天使，右翼是，而共和党人是邪恶的，他们为大企业工作，但不是卡马拉·哈里斯，也不是乔·拜登。
Right?
正确的？
Okay.
好的。
Well, Donald Trump took the corporate tax rate from 35% to 21%.
唐纳德·特朗普将公司税率从 35% 提高到 21%。
So that’s trillions of dollars that got transferred because guys, you got to understand if the corporations don’t pay it, we have to pay it because we’re running up these giant deficits and eventually either they’re going to, not eventually, they keep raising our taxes in different ways that you’re not noticing.
所以，这是数万亿美元的转移，因为伙计们，你们必须明白，如果企业不支付，我们就必须支付，因为我们正在增加这些巨大的赤字，最终要么他们会，而不是最终，他们会以你们没有注意到的不同方式继续提高我们的税收。
They keep increasing fees and fines and different ways for the government to collect money.
他们不断增加费用和罚款以及政府收钱的不同方式。
So we’re paying for it.
所以我们要为此付出代价。
1:32:44 And on top of that, eventually they’re going to cut your Social Security and Medicare because they’re going to say, oh, we don’t have any options left anymore.
最重要的是，最终他们会削减你的社会保障和医疗保险，因为他们会说，哦，我们已经没有任何选择了。
You don’t have any options left any more because you kept giving trillions of dollars in tax cuts to corporations, so we’re going to have to pay for that.
你已经没有任何选择了，因为你一直在向企业提供数万亿美元的减税，所以我们将不得不为此付出代价。
1:32:56 So then Biden says, oh my God, I’m going to bring corporate taxes back up to 28%.
然后拜登说，天哪，我要把公司税恢复到 28%。
I’m like, wait, hold on.
我想，等等，坚持住。
They were at 35.
他们当时35岁。
You already did a sleight of hand and said 28.
你已经耍了把戏，说28。
Okay?
好吧？
Then he gets into office and Manchin says, no, 25, that’s the highest I’ll go.
然后他上任后，曼钦说，不，25，这是我能达到的最高目标。
And he goes, okay, fine.
他说，好吧，好吧。
25.
25.
And then while you’re not looking, they just dump it.
然后趁你不注意的时候，他们就把它扔掉了。
They don’t even do 25.
他们甚至连25都做不到。
It’s still at 21.
现在还是21点。
So hear me now, quote me later.
所以现在听我说，稍后引用我的话。
I do predictions on the show all the time because you should hold me accountable.
我一直在节目中进行预测，因为你应该让我负责。
You should hold all your pundits accountable.
你应该让所有专家承担责任。
If you held all your pundits accountable, we’d be the last man standing.
如果你让所有专家承担责任，我们将是最后一个站着的人。
And that’s what happened.
这就是发生的事情。
Okay?
好的？
So I guarantee you she will not increase corporate taxes.
所以我向你保证她不会增加公司税。
So would the same be the case for price controls or the anti-price gouging that she’s proposing?
那么她所提议的价格管制或反哄抬物价的情况也会如此吗？
So it’s not price controls, it’s anti-price gouging?
所以这不是价格管制，而是反哄抬物价？
It is price controls, but I mean minimum wage is price controls also.
这是价格管制，但我的意思是最低工资也是价格管制。
Now we’re going to get into a lot of minutiae, but I’ll try to keep it broad.
现在我们将讨论很多细节，但我会尽量保持广泛。
1:33:50 So price controls are a disaster.
因此，价格管制是一场灾难。
They never work.
他们从不工作。
If you say, oh, here’s a banana.
如果你说，哦，这是一根香蕉。
It has to stay at a dollar a pound, make up a number.
必须保持在一美元一磅，凑个数。
Well supply and demand’s going to move.
供应和需求将会发生变化。
And so the minute it moves to $2 or where the price should be, then you’re going to run into shortages.
因此，一旦价格升至 2 美元或应有的价格，你就会遇到短缺。
And we all know this, it’s a bad idea.
我们都知道，这是一个坏主意。
But are there laws against price gouging?
但有法律禁止哄抬物价吗？
There already are, and they’re a good idea.
已经有了，而且是个好主意。
So, why?
那么，为什么呢？
You have a natural disaster?
你有自然灾害吗？
All of a sudden, the water that was a dollar, now they’re charging a hundred dollars.
突然之间，原来一美元的水，现在要价一百美元了。
The government has to come in, democratic capitalism, they come in and go, no, I’m going to protect the people.
政府必须进来，民主资本主义，他们进来又走，不，我要保护人民。
So you’re not allowed to price gouge, maybe charge $2, et cetera, but you’re not going to charge a hundred.
所以你不可以哄抬物价，也许可以收取 2 美元，等等，但你不会收取 100 美元。
But it is temporary.
但这是暂时的。
We get that done, we end the problem there, and then we bring it back to a normal supply and demand.
我们完成了这个工作，解决了问题，然后将其恢复到正常的供需状态。
Okay?
好的？
1:34:45 So that’s what she’s proposing.
这就是她的提议。
That’s all political because the price gouging has already passed.
这都是政治性的，因为哄抬物价已经过去了。
They did it in ’21 and ’22, and so now the grocery stores are actually a low-margin business.
他们在 21 年和 22 年就这么做了，所以现在杂货店实际上是一个低利润行业。
She says grocery stores, that’s how I know she doesn’t mean it because the grocery stores weren’t the problem.
她说杂货店，我就知道她不是这个意思，因为杂货店不是问题所在。
Consumer goods were the problem.
消费品是问题所在。
1:35:05 Those companies-
那些公司——
She’s following the polls where most people will say that the groceries are too expensive.
她正在关注民意调查，大多数人都会说食品杂货太贵了。
1:35:06 So she’s just basically address…
所以她基本上只是地址......
Saying the most popular thing.
说一句最流行的话。
Yeah.
是的。
A hundred percent.
百分之一百。
1:35:15 And you could tell in which proposals she means it and which proposals she doesn’t because of the framing, right?
你可以从框架中看出她在哪些提案中是认真的，哪些提案不是她的，对吗？
So this is a mediocre example, but in housing, she said, we have to stop private equity from buying houses in bulk.
所以这是一个平庸的例子，但在住房方面，她说，我们必须阻止私募股权公司批量购买房屋。
I’m like, huh, curious that they put the word in bulk there.
我想，嗯，很好奇他们把这个词批量放在那里。
Why does it have to be in bulk?
为什么一定要批量？
Why don’t we just stop them from buying any residential home?
我们为什么不阻止他们购买任何住宅呢？
You could set up normal boundaries, right?
你可以设定正常的界限，对吧？
For example, Charlie Kirk was on The Young Turks this week-
例如，查理柯克本周在青年土耳其人节目中-
By the way.
顺便说一句。
1:35:48 Sorry to take that tangent.
抱歉，采取了切线。
I really enjoyed that conversation.
我真的很喜欢那次谈话。
I really enjoyed that you talked to…
我真的很高兴与你交谈......
That was civil.
那是文明的。
You guys disagreed pretty intensely, but there was a lot of respect.
你们的分歧非常激烈，但也充满了尊重。
I really enjoyed that.
我真的很喜欢这样。
Thank you brother.
谢谢兄弟。
That was beautiful.
那真是太美了。
1:36:01 You and Charlie Kirk and I think-
你和查理·柯克和我认为——
1:36:00 Yeah.
是的。
Thank you, brother.
谢谢你，兄弟。
That was beautiful.
那真是太美了。
1:36:01 You and Charlie Kirk, and I think Anna was there.
你和查理·柯克，我想安娜也在场。
Yeah, that’s right.
是的，没错。
That’s nice.
那很好。
Yeah.
是的。
1:36:06 Quick tangent, look, I’ve done a lot of yelling online, okay?
快切线，看，我已经在网上喊了很多次了，好吗？
I yell when, A, there’s an issue that you should be passionate about, 40,000 people, 25,000 women and children slaughtered in Gaza.
当我大喊，A，有一个你应该热衷的问题，40,000 人，25,000 名妇女和儿童在加沙被屠杀。
If you’re not emotionally upset by that and you think it’s no big deal, I think that’s a problem.
如果你对此没有感到情绪上的不安，并且认为这没什么大不了的，我认为这是一个问题。
But when you add gaslighting on top, that’s what drives me crazy.
但当你在上面添加煤气灯时，那就是让我发疯的原因。
Then when you add filibustering on top, then that sets me off.
然后当你在上面加上阻挠议事时，那就让我生气了。
So, for all my life, right wing has gone on cable and filibustered.
所以，在我的一生中，右翼一直在电缆上进行阻挠。
They take up so much more time than the left wing guests.
他们比左翼客人占用的时间多得多。
The left wing guests always like go, “Okay.
左翼客人总是喜欢走，“好吧。
Well, I’m offended, he’s taking up too much time.” No, brother, go over the top.
好吧，我很生气，他占用了太多时间。”不，兄弟，过分了。
Go over the top.
越过顶部。
You’re not going to talk over me.
你不会谈论我的。
I’m going to talk over you, okay?
我来跟你谈谈，好吗？
1:36:57 Then when you gaslight and you go, “Oh no, 1,200 people in Israel being killed is awful,” which it is, but 40,000 people being killed in Gaza, it’s no big deal.
然后，当你点燃煤气灯时，你会说，“哦，不，以色列有 1,200 人被杀太可怕了”，事实确实如此，但加沙有 40,000 人被杀，这没什么大不了的。
We should keep giving them money, keep killing, keep killing, and that’s normal.
我们应该继续给他们钱，继续杀戮，继续杀戮，这很正常。
No, it’s not normal.
不，这不正常。
I’m not going to let you say it’s normal.
我不会让你说这很正常。
That’s nuts.
那太疯狂了。
We were against the Iraq War.
我们反对伊拉克战争。
There was only two shows that were on the air nationally that were against the Iraq War, us and Democracy Now with Amy Goodman.
全国范围内播出的只有两部反对伊拉克战争的节目，《美国》和《艾米·古德曼的《现在的民主》》。
At the time, I used to yell all the time because mainstream media would gaslight the fuck out of us.
那时，我总是大喊大叫，因为主流媒体会把我们搞得屁滚尿流。
We’re going to be greeted as liberators, me and Ben Mankiewicz on the air.
我们将在广播中受到解放者的欢迎，我和本·曼凯维奇。
Ben doesn’t yell as much.
本没有那么大喊大叫。
He’s now the host of Turner Classic Movies, but he’s saying it in a calm way.
他现在是特纳经典电影的主持人，但他说话的方式很平静。
I’m saying it in a screaming way.
我是用尖叫的方式说的。
1:37:44 We’re not going to be greeted as liberators.
我们不会被视为解放者。
When you drop a bomb on someone’s head, they don’t greet you as a liberator.
当你把炸弹扔到某人头上时，他们不会把你当作解放者来欢迎。
Stop saying insane things.
别再说那些疯狂的话了。
Seven out of 10 Americans thought that Saddam Hussein had personally attacked us on 9/11.
十分之七的美国人认为萨达姆·侯赛因在 9/11 事件中对我们进行了人身攻击。
We got lied into that war by corporate media, okay?
我们被企业媒体欺骗进入了这场战争，好吗？
Now, there’s a couple of good things that Trump has done.
现在，特朗普做了几件好事。
One is get people to realize corporate media is the matrix and get them to an anti-war position.
一是让人们认识到企业媒体是矩阵，并让他们采取反战立场。
He himself doesn’t have an anti-war position, but his voters do and that’s a positive.
他本人没有反战立场，但他的选民有反战立场，这是积极的。
We can come back to that.
我们可以回到这一点。
1:38:17 But these days, the reason why the Charlie Kirk conversations are going great, and Rudy Giuliani and Mike Lindell, and historically though, go back again 10 years, 20 years, we’ve always been respectful when someone comes on our show and we have a debate.
但如今，查理·柯克、鲁迪·朱利安尼和迈克·林德尔的谈话进展顺利的原因是，从历史上看，再回到 10、20 年前，当有人出现在我们的节目中并进行辩论时，我们总是表现出尊重。
As long as they’re not yelling, I match the tenor of the host, right?
只要他们不喊叫，我就符合主持人的语气了，对吧？
You and I are having a reasonable conversation.
你和我正在进行合理的对话。
I’m not raising my voice.
我不会提高声音。
I’m not yelling at you for no reason.
我不会无缘无故地对你大喊大叫。
So, now when Charlie’s not going to battle anymore for talking points, I’m shutting off my mind, all I’m doing is yelling at you, then I’m going to yell back at him.
所以，现在当查理不再为谈话要点而战时，我就关闭了我的思维，我所做的就是对你大喊大叫，然后我会对他大喊大叫。
But now he’s saying, “Okay, let’s have a reasonable conversation.” Great.
但现在他说：“好吧，我们来好好谈谈吧。”伟大的。
I love it.
我喜欢它。
I love reasonable conversations.
我喜欢合理的谈话。
It was great.
太棒了。
1:39:01 It was refreshing.
真是令人耳目一新。
What were we talking about, you buying up housing?
我们在说什么，你买房吗？
Yes.
是的。
1:39:07 So, Charlie, when he was on, said, “Hey, listen, I think that there should be a cap though.” I forget if he said 10 billion or 100 billion in assets.
所以，查理在上场时说：“嘿，听着，我认为应该有一个上限。”我忘了他说的是100亿还是1000亿资产。
If you have less than that, you should still be able to do real estate as an investment, even if it’s residential.
如果您的资金少于此金额，您仍然可以将房地产作为投资，即使是住宅。
But above that, it gets to…
但除此之外，它还……
Okay, that’s good.
好吧，那很好。
No problem.
没问题。
We can have a debate about that and we can figure out, “Is the right number 10, 100, 20, 5?” No problem.
我们可以对此进行辩论，然后我们可以找出“10、100、20、5 是正确的数字吗？”没问题。
You could put in reasonable limitations, but we got to get them to stop buying the homes.
你可以施加合理的限制，但我们必须让他们停止购买房屋。
So, when Kamala Harris says, “Oh, we’ll stop them from buying homes in bulk,” I’m like, “Okay, there’s the loophole.” So they’re going to use that loophole.
所以，当卡玛拉·哈里斯说，“哦，我们会阻止他们批量购买房屋，”我想，“好吧，这就是漏洞。”所以他们会利用这个漏洞。
Besides which, it’s not going to pass.
除此之外，它不会通过。
Wall Street owns the government.
华尔街拥有政府。
1:39:48 So, there’s no way corporate Republicans and Democrats, which are about 98% of politicians, are going to limit private equity.
因此，共和党和民主党企业（约占政客的 98%）不可能限制私募股权。
So, when do we ever get a little bit of change?
那么，我们什么时候才能得到一点改变呢？
When Democrats are in charge, they do 5 to 15% of their agenda.
当民主党掌权时，他们会完成 5% 到 15% 的议程。
That’s not because they’re warm-hearted.
这并不是因为他们热心肠。
It’s a release valve, right?
这是一个释放阀，对吗？
Oh, see, under Obama, we got about 5% change.
哦，看，在奥巴马的领导下，我们获得了大约 5% 的变化。
What was that?
那是什么？
That was Obamacare.
那就是奥巴马医改。
That was most of the change that we got.
这是我们得到的大部分改变。
What’s the greatest part of Obamacare?
奥巴马医改最伟大的部分是什么？
Now, a lot of right-wing also agree, almost all of right-wing agree about this portion, which is they got rid of the bias against pre-existing conditions.
现在，很多右翼也同意，几乎所有的右翼都同意这一部分，就是摆脱了对既有条件的偏见。
Why did they do that particularly?
他们为什么要特别这么做呢？
Because the country was about to get in a fucking rage.
因为这个国家即将陷入愤怒。
We all have pre-existing conditions.
我们都有既存条件。
1:40:40 If you deny me when I’m sick, what the fuck is the point of insurance?
如果我生病的时候你拒绝我，那保险还有什么意义呢？
The anger had gotten to a nuclear level.
愤怒已经达到了核的程度。
So, release valve, get rid of pre-existing conditions.
所以，释放阀门，摆脱已有的条件。
Let’s go back to just milking them regularly.
让我们回到定期挤奶的话题。
Oh, by the way, put in a mandate so that they have to buy it from us, right?
哦，顺便说一下，制定一项任务，让他们必须从我们这里购买，对吗？
Do you know who originally came up with Obamacare?
你知道奥巴马医改最初是谁提出的吗？
The Heritage Foundation.
传统基金会。
It was their proposal.
这是他们的提议。
Romney did it in Massachusetts.
罗姆尼在马萨诸塞州做到了这一点。
It was called Romneycare.
它被称为罗姆尼医改。
So, I think this is a super important election, but I’ve earned the credibility to be able to say that, because in 2012, I said, “This is a largely unimportant election.” Mitt Romney and Barack Obama’s policies on economic issues are near identical.
所以，我认为这是一场超级重要的选举，但我已经赢得了能够这么说的可信度，因为在 2012 年，我说过，“这基本上是一场不重要的选举。”米特·罗姆尼和巴拉克·奥巴马在经济问题上的政策几乎相同。
Obamacare was literally Romneycare.
奥巴马医改实际上就是罗姆尼医改。
1:41:26 Right now, the left says, “Oh, the Heritage Foundation, it’s so dangerous, Project 2025.” Well, brother, they’re the ones who wrote Obamacare, and you say, that’s the greatest change in the world, right?
现在，左派说：“哦，传统基金会，2025 计划太危险了。”好吧，兄弟，他们是奥巴马医改的制定者，你说，这是世界上最大的变化，对吗？
So that’s why the Democrats, yeah, I’ll take the 10% change overall.
所以这就是为什么民主党，是的，我会接受 10% 的总体变化。
I think Biden did about 15%.
我认为拜登做了大约15%。
Obama did 5%, but they’ll also march you backwards by deregulating like Clinton did and Obama did, the bank bailouts like Obama did.
奥巴马做到了 5%，但他们也会像克林顿和奥巴马那样放松管制，像奥巴马那样对银行进行救助，从而让你倒退。
But 10% is better than 0%, but it’s not to help you.
但 10% 比 0% 好，但它对你没有帮助。
It’s the release valve, so the system keeps going.
这是释放阀，因此系统可以继续运行。
Is it possible to steelman the case that not all politicians are corporatists or maybe how would you approach that?
是否有可能证明并非所有政客都是法团主义者，或者您会如何处理这个问题？
1:42:00 For example, this podcast has a bunch of sponsors.
例如，这个播客有很多赞助商。
I give zero fucks about what they think about what I’m saying.
我对他们对我所说的话的看法为零。
They have zero control over me.
他们对我的控制权为零。
Maybe you could say that’s because it’s not a lot of money, or maybe I’m a unique person or something like this.
也许你会说那是因为钱不多，或者也许我是一个独特的人或类似的东西。
I would like to believe a lot of politicians are this way, that they have ideas.
我愿意相信很多政治家都是这样的，他们有想法。
While they take money, they see it as a game that you accept the money, go to certain parties, hug people and so on, but it doesn’t actually fundamentally compromise your integrity on issues you actually care about.
当他们拿钱时，他们将其视为一种游戏，你接受金钱，参加某些聚会，拥抱别人等等，但这实际上并没有从根本上损害你在真正关心的问题上的诚信。
I could steelman almost anything.
我几乎可以做任何事情。
1:42:57 I could steelman Trump.
我可以成为钢铁侠特朗普。
I could steelman conservatives easily, right?
我很容易成为钢铁侠保守派，对吗？
Corporate politician is a hard one.
企业政治家是一位很难的人。
So, first, it’s not all politicians.
所以，首先，并不全是政客。
We could start out nice and easy.
我们可以轻松愉快地开始。
Tom Massie, now, Hawley and Gates not taking corporate PAC money.
汤姆·马西（Tom Massie），现在，霍利和盖茨不再接受企业政治行动委员会的资金。
Bernie, the squad, they don’t take corporate PAC money.
伯尼和他的团队，他们不接受企业政治行动委员会的资金。
You could disagree on either end of those folks on social issues, but generally they are 1,000 times less corrupt.
在社会问题上，你可以不同意这些人的任何一方，但一般来说，他们的腐败程度要低 1000 倍。
They’re more honest.
他们更诚实。
Part of the reason you might hate this squad is because they’re so honest.
你可能讨厌这支球队的部分原因是他们太诚实了。
They tell you their real opinion on social issues that you really disagree with.
他们会告诉你他们对你真正不同意的社会问题的真实看法。
A lot of the corporate politicians won’t do that because they’re trying to get as many votes as possible, so they can fillet their donors when they get into office and do all their favors for them.
许多企业政客不会这样做，因为他们试图获得尽可能多的选票，这样他们就可以在上任时充实他们的捐助者，并为他们做所有的事情。
But you see, I’m already falling apart on the steelmanning of corporate politicians.
但你看，我已经对企业政客的钢铁般的管理感到崩溃了。
Let’s zoom in on that.
让我们放大来看。
1:43:50 So, if you take corporate PAC money, that’s it.
所以，如果你拿了企业 PAC 的钱，就这样了。
You’re corrupted.
你被破坏了。
Say you’re a politician, you’re a president, you’re a human being.
假设你是一名政治家，你是一位总统，你是一个人。
You’re a person with integrity.
你是一个正直的人。
You’re a person who thinks about the world.
你是一个会思考这个世界的人。
You’re saying, “If I was a corporate PAC and I gave you a billion dollars, I could tell you anything.”
你是说，“如果我是企业政治行动委员会，并且给了你 10 亿美元，我可以告诉你任何事情。”
So everything is a spectrum.
所以一切都是一个光谱。
1:44:14 Humanity is a spectrum.
人性是一个光谱。
So, can you find outliers who could take corporate PAC money and still be principled enough to resist this lure?
那么，你能找到那些可以接受公司 PAC 资金但仍然有足够原则来抵制这种诱惑的异常者吗？
Yeah, I would hope that I would be a person like that, but I wouldn’t take corporate PAC money.
是的，我希望我能成为这样的人，但我不会接受公司 PAC 的资金。
But if you force me to, I think I would still stay principled and do it.
但如果你强迫我这么做，我想我还是会坚持原则去做。
Could you find 10, 20 other people in the country?
你能在这个国家找到10、20个人吗？
Yeah, but on average, that is not what will happen.
是的，但平均而言，这不会发生。
What will happen is they will take the money and do exactly as they are told.
将会发生的事情是，他们会拿走钱并完全按照他们的指示去做。
See, I think most people have integrity.
你看，我认为大多数人都是正直的。
1:44:49 Okay, hold on.
好吧，等一下。
So, what I’m more worried about is when you take corporate-backed money, it’s not that you are immediately sold.
所以，我更担心的是，当你拿到企业支持的资金时，并不是你立即被卖掉。
It is over time.
时间已经过去了。
Over time.
随着时间的推移。
1:45:02 That’s true.
这是真的。
Yeah, I get it.
是的，我明白了。
1:45:04 But I wonder if the integrity that I think most people have can withstand the gradual slippery slope of the effect of corporate money, which if what I’m saying is true that most people have integrity, one of the ways to solve the effect of corporate money is term limits, because it takes time to corrupt people.
但我想知道，我认为大多数人所拥有的诚信是否能够承受企业金钱效应逐渐滑坡的影响，如果我说的是大多数人都具有诚信，那么解决企业金钱效应的方法之一就是任期限制，因为腐蚀人需要时间。
You can’t buy them immediately, and then the term limits can be issued.
您不能立即购买它们，然后可以发布期限限制。
Cenk is shaking his head.
岑克摇摇头。
Yeah, no.
是的，不。
1:45:38 So, look, you’re right that over time it gets way worse.
所以，看，你是对的，随着时间的推移，情况会变得更糟。
As we talked about earlier, Biden’s a great example of that comes in anti-corruption, winds up being totally pro-corruption by the end, but he was also here for almost all of it as we started in a world that was not run by money in politics and is now completely run by money in politics.
正如我们之前谈到的，拜登是反腐败的一个很好的例子，最终完全支持腐败，但他也几乎参与了所有这一切，因为我们开始在一个政治上不由金钱统治的世界，而现在政治上完全由金钱统治。
Does it get worse over time?
随着时间的推移，情况会变得更糟吗？
Kyrsten Sinema in Arizona is a great example of that, comes in as a progressive, doesn’t want to take PAC money, cares about the average person, et cetera.
亚利桑那州的 Kyrsten Sinema 就是一个很好的例子，他是一名进步人士，不想拿 PAC 的钱，关心普通人，等等。
Over time, she becomes the biggest corporatist in the Senate and a total disaster.
随着时间的推移，她成为参议院最大的社团主义者，彻底成为一场灾难。
But if you say that the majority of politicians have…
但如果你说大多数政客都有……
I don’t know if this is what you’re saying, majority of politicians have integrity.
我不知道你是不是这么说的，大多数政客都是有诚信的。
No, let’s start at the majority of human beings.
不，让我们从大多数人开始。
1:46:27 I think that politicians are not a special group of sociopaths.
我认为政客并不是一个特殊的反社会群体。
I think they are.
我认为他们是。
They lean a little bit towards that direction, but they’re not only sociopaths going to politics.
他们有点倾向于这个方向，但他们不仅仅是走向政治的反社会者。
1:46:39 It’s like you have to have some sociopathic qualities, I think, to go into politics, but they’re not complete sociopaths.
我认为，就像你必须具备一些反社会的品质才能从政，但他们并不是完全的反社会者。
I think they do have integrity because sometimes for very selfish reasons, it’s not all about money, even for a selfish person, for a narcissist.
我认为他们确实有正直，因为有时出于非常自私的原因，这并不全是金钱的问题，即使对于一个自私的人，一个自恋者来说也是如此。
It’s also about being recognized for having had positive impact on the world.
它还意味着因对世界产生积极影响而获得认可。
Yeah, I get it.
是的，我明白了。
1:47:06 All right, so let’s break it down.
好吧，让我们来分解一下。
So, first, human beings, then we’ll get to politicians.
所以，首先是人类，然后是政客。
Do human beings have integrity?
人类有诚信吗？
Well, it’s a spectrum.
嗯，这是一个频谱。
So, some people have enormous integrity, some people have no integrity.
所以，有的人有很大的诚信，有的人没有诚信。
So, there is not one type or character.
因此，不存在一种类型或特征。
So, some people have a ton of empathy for other human beings, and they literally feel it.
所以，有些人对其他人有很多同理心，他们确实感受到了这一点。
I feel the pain of someone else, and I’m not alone.
我感受到别人的痛苦，而且我并不孤单。
Most people feel the pain of someone else.
大多数人都能感受到别人的痛苦。
If you see it on video, a baby being hurt, overwhelming majority of human beings will go, “No!” Right?
如果你在视频中看到婴儿受伤，绝大多数人都会说：“不！”正确的？
You have empathy.
你有同理心。
That’s a natural feeling that you have.
这是你自然而然的感觉。
Some people have no empathy because they’re on the extreme end of the spectrum, serial killers and Donald Trump.
有些人没有同理心，因为他们处于极端，比如连环杀手和唐纳德·特朗普。
1:47:56 So, I’m partly joking, but not really.
所以，我部分是在开玩笑，但不是真的。
He has never demonstrated any empathy that I have ever seen for any other human being.
我从未见过他对任何其他人表现出任何同情心。
I’m going to trigger some right-wingers because they think every terrible thing he said is out of context or joking or not real or fake news.
我会触发一些右翼分子，因为他们认为他所说的每一件可怕的事情都是断章取义或开玩笑，或者不是真实或虚假的新闻。
But his chief of staff didn’t make it up.
但他的幕僚长并没有弥补这一点。
He called people who went into the military suckers and losers.
他称那些参军的人是傻瓜和失败者。
Why?
为什么？
Why did he say that?
他为什么这么说？
Just hang with me for a second.
陪我一会儿吧。
Don’t have your head explode.
别让你的头爆炸。
Okay?
好的？
I’m not saying to Lex.
我不是对莱克斯说。
I’m saying to the right-wingers out there.
我是对那里的右翼分子说的。
1:48:27 So, the reason is because if you’re like Trump and you literally don’t feel the empathy, you’d think, “Why the hell would I go in the military, get killed for someone else?
所以，原因是因为如果你像特朗普一样，并且你确实没有感受到同理心，你会想，“我到底为什么要参军，为别人而被杀？
What a sucker.
真是个傻瓜。
No, I’m going to stay out of the military.
不，我不会参军。
I’m going to stay alive.
我要活下去。
I’m going to make a ton of money and I’m going to look out for myself.” He assumes because everybody does this, you assume that everyone thinks like you do, but they don’t.
我会赚很多钱，我会照顾自己。”他假设因为每个人都这样做，所以你假设每个人都像你一样思考，但他们没有。
So, Trump assumes everybody’s as much of a dirt bag as he is, because he doesn’t feel it.
因此，特朗普认为每个人都和他一样是个垃圾，因为他没有感觉到。
He doesn’t feel the empathy.
他感觉不到同理心。
So, he’s like, “Yeah, you’d be an idiot, a sucker and a loser to go into the military and have sacrifice for other people.” So you see the spectrum.
所以，他说，“是的，如果你参军并为他人做出牺牲，那你就是个白痴、傻瓜和失败者。”所以你看到了光谱。
1:49:08 Even if you think Trump’s not on that end and you think I’m wrong about that, you get that there are people on that end.
即使你认为特朗普不站在那一端，并且你认为我错了，你也会明白有人站在那一端。
So, you have a spectrum of integrity, empathy, et cetera.
所以，你有一系列的正直、同理心等等。
That’s what I would call your hardware.
这就是我所说的硬件。
You layer on top of that your software, and the software is cultural influences, your parents, media, your friends.
你在你的软件之上分层，该软件受到文化影响，你的父母、媒体、你的朋友。
All these are cultural influences.
所有这些都是文化影响。
So, now when you’re in certain industries, they value more integrity.
所以，现在当你身处某些行业时，他们更看重诚信。
So, religious leaders, if you’re doing it right, which is also very rare, but if you’re doing it right, you’re supposed to have empathy for the poor, the needy, the whole flock.
所以，宗教领袖们，如果你做得对，这也是非常罕见的，但如果你做得对，你就应该对穷人、有需要的人、整个羊群抱有同情心。
So, that profession is incentivizing you towards empathy and integrity.
所以，这个职业会激励你表现出同理心和正直。
1:49:54 Even then, a giant amount of people abuse it, but okay, good.
即便如此，仍有大量的人滥用它，但好吧，很好。
In politics, it creates incentives for the opposite, no integrity.
在政治上，它会激励相反的人，不诚实。
That software, to your point, over time gets stronger and stronger and stronger until it takes over.
就您而言，该软件随着时间的推移会变得越来越强大，直到它占据主导地位。
Now, you might have someone with a lot of integrity like Tom Massie, the Republican from Kentucky.
现在，你可能会遇到像肯塔基州共和党人汤姆·马西这样正直的人。
Whether I agree with him or disagree with him on policy, I get that the brother is actually doing it based on principles.
无论我在政策上同意还是不同意，我都知道这位弟兄实际上是有原则的。
There isn’t any amount of money you can give Tom Massie for him to change his principles.
你无法给汤姆·马西多少钱来让他改变他的原则。
Why?
为什么？
He’s on the principled end of the spectrum as a human being, so is Bernie.
作为一个人，他属于原则性的一端，伯尼也是如此。
They’re on the same part of that spectrum.
他们处于该范围的同一部分。
1:50:39 But for most people, the great majority of the spectrum, if you overload them with software that incentivizes them to not have integrity, they will succumb.
但对于大多数人来说，绝大多数人，如果你用软件让他们超载，激励他们不诚信，他们就会屈服。
Now let’s switch to politicians in particular.
现在让我们特别转向政治家。
Why do I think that they’re on average far more likely to be on the sociopathic part of the spectrum?
为什么我认为他们平均更有可能属于反社会群体？
Because of the incentives and disincentives.
因为有激励和抑制因素。
So, this changes every congressional cycle.
因此，这会改变每个国会周期。
When just Democrats were winning a lot, it got all the way down to 87.5%.
当民主党获胜很多时，它的支持率一路下降到87.5%。
But on average for congressional elections, the person with more money wins 95% of the time.
但平均而言，在国会选举中，95% 的情况下，有更多钱的人会获胜。
1:51:17 It doesn’t matter if they’re a liberal or conservative, Republican or Democrat or any ideology they have, 95%.
无论他们是自由派还是保守派，共和党还是民主党，或者他们拥有的任何意识形态，95%都没关系。
So, now let’s say you got the 5% that went in that are not hooked on the money.
所以，现在假设你有 5% 的人参与其中，但他们并不迷恋金钱。
Well, they’re going to get a primary challenge, then they’re going to get a general election challenge.
好吧，他们将面临初选挑战，然后他们将面临大选挑战。
95% of the time, the one with more money wins.
95% 的情况下，钱多的人会获胜。
So, eventually, this system cycles through until almost only the corrupt are left.
因此，最终，这个系统会循环往复，直到几乎只剩下腐败分子。
One second.
一秒钟。
1:51:43 Is that real, 95%?
95%是真的吗？
So if you have more money, 95% of the time you win, huh?
所以如果你有更多的钱，95%的时间你都会赢，是吧？
Yes.
是的。
I like to believe that’s less the case, for example, for higher you get.
我愿意相信情况并非如此，例如，因为你得到的更高。
Yes, that’s true.
是的，确实如此。
1:52:02 You’re right.
你说得对。
So, you know why?
那么，你知道为什么吗？
So the presidential race is ironically in some ways the least corrupt.
因此，具有讽刺意味的是，总统竞选在某些方面是腐败程度最低的。
So, let’s dive into why.
那么，让我们深入探讨一下原因。
If you’re running a local race anywhere in the country, you’re going to get almost no press coverage, meaning a congressional race, right?
如果你在全国任何地方举办当地比赛，你几乎不会得到任何媒体报道，这意味着国会竞选，对吗？
If you’re running a Senate race in the middle of Montana, you’re going to get almost no media coverage.
如果你在蒙大拿州中部参加参议员竞选，你几乎不会得到任何媒体报道。
So, that’s where your money in politics has the most effect, because then you could just buy the airwaves.
所以，这就是你在政治上的钱发挥最大作用的地方，因为这样你就可以购买广播电视了。
You outspend the other guy, you get all the ads, plus you get the friendly media coverage because you just bought a couple of million dollars of ads in the middle of Montana.
你花的钱比别人多，你得到了所有的广告，而且你还得到了友好的媒体报道，因为你刚刚在蒙大拿州中部购买了几百万美元的广告。
So, the local news loves you, the TV stations, the radio stations, the papers.
所以，当地新闻、电视台、广播电台、报纸都爱你。
1:52:43 So, some of the papers are principled.
所以，有些论文是有原则的。
They might say, “Oh, no,” but overall, they’re not calling you a radical.
他们可能会说，“哦，不，”但总的来说，他们并没有称你为激进分子。
They’re not calling you anything and you’re buying those races.
他们没有给你任何称呼，而你却在购买这些比赛。
But when you get to the presidential race, that’s much harder, because presidential race, you have earned media, free media that overwhelms paid media.
但当你参加总统竞选时，这就困难得多，因为总统竞选，你赢得了媒体，自由媒体压倒了付费媒体。
Perfect examples is 2016.
2016 年就是一个完美的例子。
Hillary Clinton outraces Trump by about two to one, but she loses anyway.
希拉里·克林顿以大约二比一的比分战胜了特朗普，但她还是输了。
Why?
为什么？
Because Trump got almost twice as much earned media as she did.
因为特朗普获得的免费媒体几乎是她的两倍。
The earned media is better.
赢得媒体更好。
It’s inside the content.
就在内容里面。
It is definitely better.
这绝对是更好的。
So, in a presidential election, as long as you got past the primary, you could actually win with not that much money.
所以，总统选举，只要通过初选，其实花不了多少钱就能获胜。
1:53:27 That’s part of the reason why I have hope, Lex, because all you got to do is get past a Republican or democratic primary.
这就是我抱有希望的部分原因，莱克斯，因为你所要做的就是通过共和党或民主党初选。
Now that’s very, very, very difficult, but Trump did it, right?
现在这非常非常困难，但特朗普做到了，对吧？
Now, he took it in the wrong direction, but he did leave a blueprint for how to do it.
现在，他走错了方向，但他确实留下了如何去做的蓝图。
So, once you get to the general election, you’re off to the race.
因此，一旦进入大选，你就可以开始竞选了。
You could do any goddamn thing you like.
你可以做任何你喜欢的事。
Okay, you could be super popular.
好吧，你可能会变得超级受欢迎。
You don’t have to give a shit about the donors.
你不必关心捐助者。
You can get into office.
就可以进办公室了。
You could bully your own party and the other party into doing what you want, and you can get everything done.
你可以胁迫自己的一方和对方做你想做的事，你就可以完成一切。
You could even get money out of politics.
你甚至可以从政治中赚钱。
So, don’t lose hope.
所以，不要失去希望。
I mean, we even started Operation Hope at TYT and our first project was to knock Biden out.
我的意思是，我们甚至在 TYT 启动了希望行动，我们的第一个项目就是击败拜登。
1:54:07 Everybody said, “You guys are nuts.
每个人都说：“你们疯了。
That’s totally impossible.” We knocked Biden out.
那是完全不可能的。”我们把拜登淘汰了。
Did we do it alone?
是我们一个人做的吗？
Of course not.
当然不是。
We were a small part of it, but we laid the groundwork for hope and we laid the groundwork for when he flopped in the debate.
我们只是其中的一小部分，但我们为希望奠定了基础，也为他在辩论中失败奠定了基础。
People had already been told, remember, he’s bad, he’s old, he’s not right.
人们已经被告知，记住，他很坏，他老了，他不对。
The debate proved it.
辩论证明了这一点。
If we hadn’t done that groundwork, and not just Young Turks obviously, but Axelrod and Carville and Nate Silver and Ezra Klein, et cetera, Charlamagne tha God, Jon Stewart, all these people helped a lot.
如果我们没有做好这些基础工作，显然不仅仅是青年土耳其党，还有阿克塞尔罗德、卡维尔、内特·西尔弗和埃兹拉·克莱因等等，查拉曼大帝、乔恩·斯图尔特，所有这些人都帮了很多忙。
So, that when the debate happened, it confirmed the idea that out there that he was too old and couldn’t do it.
因此，当辩论发生时，它证实了这样的想法：他太老了，无法做到这一点。
So, my point is if you lose hope, you’re done for.
所以，我的观点是，如果你失去希望，你就完蛋了。
Then they’re definitely going to win, right?
那么他们肯定会赢，对吧？
1:54:54 Hope is the most dangerous thing in the world for the elites.
对于精英来说，希望是世界上最危险的事情。
So, whether you’re right-wing or left-wing, I need you to have hope and I need you to understand it’s not misplaced.
所以，无论你是右翼还是左翼，我都需要你抱有希望，我需要你明白它并没有错。
We just got to get past the primary, and we’re going to turn this whole thing around.
我们刚刚通过初选，我们将扭转整个局面。
Basically, a presidential candidate who’s a populist, who in part runs on getting money out of politics.
基本上，总统候选人是民粹主义者，他的竞选部分是为了从政治中获取金钱。
1:55:07 Okay.
好的。
Well, then let’s talk about Donald Trump.
好吧，那么我们来谈谈唐纳德·特朗普。
So, to me, the two biggest criticisms of Trump is the fake election scheme.
所以，对我来说，对特朗普最大的两个批评是虚假的选举计划。
Out of that whole 2020 election, the fake election scheme is the thing that really bothers me.
在整个 2020 年选举中，虚假选举计划才是真正困扰我的事情。
Then the second thing across a larger timescale is the counterproductive division that he’s created in let’s say our public discourse.
然后，在更大的时间范围内的第二件事是他在我们的公共话语中创造的适得其反的分裂。
What are your top five criticisms of Trump?
您对特朗普最重要的五项批评是什么？
Okay, so number one, I have the same exact thing as you.
好吧，第一，我和你有同样的事情。
1:55:48 The fake electors scheme is unacceptable, totally disqualifying.
假选举人计划是不可接受的，完全丧失选举资格。
So, the fake electors scheme was a literal coup attempt.
因此，假选举人计划实际上是一次政变企图。
So, he doesn’t win the election.
所以，他没有赢得选举。
For folks who don’t know, I need to explain why it’s a coup attempt because you just throw out words and then people get triggered by the words and then they go into their separate corners.
对于那些不知道的人，我需要解释为什么这是一次政变尝试，因为你只需说出一些话，然后人们就会被这些话所触发，然后他们就会进入各自的角落。
So, the January 6th rioters, they were not going to keep the building.
所以，1 月 6 日的暴乱者，他们不会保留这座建筑。
That was not a coup attempt.
那不是政变企图。
It’s not like, “Oh, the MAGA guys have the building.
这并不是说，“哦，MAGA 的人拥有这座大楼。
I guess they win, right?” No, that was never going to happen.
我猜他们赢了，对吧？”不，那永远不会发生。
So, what was the point of the January 6th riot?
那么，1月6日骚乱的意义何在？
It was to delay the proceedings.
这是为了拖延诉讼程序。
Why did it matter that they were going to delay the proceedings?
为什么他们推迟诉讼程序很重要？
1:56:34 Because if you can’t certify the election, they wanted general confusion and chaos so that the Republicans in Congress could say, “Well, we don’t know who won, so we’re going to have to kick it back to the states.” The states, they had the fake electors ready.
因为如果你不能证明选举结果，他们希望造成普遍的混乱和混乱，以便国会中的共和党人可以说：“好吧，我们不知道谁赢了，所以我们将不得不把选举权退回给各州。”各州，他们准备好了假选举人。
Remember, the fake electors are not Trump’s electors.
请记住，假选举人不是特朗普的选举人。
Both candidates have a slate of electors, Biden’s electors and Trump’s electors.
两位候选人都有选举人名单，拜登的选举人和特朗普的选举人。
They go to the Trump electors first in this plan, and half the Trump electors go, ” No, I’m not going to pretend Trump won the election when he didn’t win the election.” So they’re like, “Shit, now we’ve got to come up with fake electors.” So they enlist these Republicans who go, “Yeah, I’ll pretend Trump won,” right?
在这个计划中，他们首先去找特朗普的选民，一半的特朗普选民会说，“不，我不会在特朗普没有赢得选举时假装他赢得了选举。”所以他们会说，“妈的，现在我们必须想出假选举人了。”所以他们招募了这些共和党人，他们会说：“是的，我会假装特朗普赢了，”对吗？
1:57:13 So they sign a piece of paper.
于是他们在一张纸上签名。
That’s fraud, and that’s why a lot of them are now being prosecuted in the different states.
这就是欺诈，这就是为什么他们中的许多人现在在不同的州受到起诉。
So, the idea is the Republican legislators then go, “We’re sending these new electors in and we think Trump won Arizona and Georgia and Wisconsin.” That was the idea.
因此，共和党立法者的想法是，“我们将派出这些新选举人，我们认为特朗普赢得了亚利桑那州、佐治亚州和威斯康星州。”这就是我的想法。
That was the plan.
这就是计划。
Then you come back to the House.
然后你就回到议院。
At that point when there are two different sets of electors, the constitutional rule is the House decides, but the House decides not on a majority because the Democrats had the majority at the time, they decide on a majority of the states.
到那时，当有两组不同的选举人时，宪法规则是众议院决定，但众议院不决定多数，因为民主党当时拥有多数，他们决定多数州。
They vote by state, and the Republicans had the majority of the states.
他们按州投票，共和党占据了大多数州。
So, in that way, you steal the election.
所以，这样一来，你就窃取了选举权。
Even though Trump didn’t win, you install him back in as president.
即使特朗普没有获胜，你还是让他重新担任总统。
1:58:04 That is a frontal assault on democracy, and I loathe it.
这是对民主的正面攻击，我讨厌它。
Then Trump on top just blabbers out, “Well, sometimes if there’s massive fraud in an election,” in other words, I think I won.
然后特朗普在上面喋喋不休地说，“好吧，有时如果选举中存在大规模舞弊，”换句话说，我认为我赢了。
I don’t even think that.
我什至不这么认为。
I’m just saying that I won.
我只是说我赢了。
He says, “You can terminate any rule, regulation, or article even in the Constitution.” No, brother, you cannot terminate the Constitution because you’d like to do a fake electors scheme and do a coup against America.
他说：“你可以终止任何规则、条例或条款，甚至是宪法中的条款。”不，兄弟，你不能终止宪法，因为你想做一个假选举人计划并发动针对美国的政变。
Fuck you.
操你妈的。
Okay?
好的？
So I’m never going to allow this want-to-be tyrant to go back into the White House and endanger our system.
所以我永远不会允许这个想成为暴君的人回到白宫并危及我们的体系。
So, you want to endanger the corrupt system.
所以，你想危及腐败的体系。
I’m the guy.
我就是那个人。
Okay, let’s go get that corrupt system and tear it down.
好吧，让我们去把那个腐败的系统拆掉吧。
1:58:48 If you want to endanger the real system, democracy, capitalism, the Constitution, then I’m your biggest enemy.
如果你想危害真正的制度、民主、资本主义、宪法，那么我就是你最大的敌人。
So, I’m never going to take that risk.
所以，我永远不会冒这个风险。
You see it every time he goes to talk to a dictator.
每次他去与独裁者谈话时你都会看到它。
Look, guys, I’m asking you to be principled, right?
听着，伙计们，我要求你们要有原则，对吗？
I asked the left of that, and we drive away some of our audience when we do that.
我问了左边，当我们这样做时，我们赶走了一些观众。
So, we got the balls to do that to our own side.
所以，我们有胆量为自己做到这一点。
So, for the right wing, be honest, if it was Joe Biden or Barack Obama or Kamala Harris that went and wrote “love letters” to a communist dictator who runs concentration camps, you would say, “Communist!
所以，对于右翼来说，说实话，如果是乔·拜登、巴拉克·奥巴马或卡马拉·哈里斯去给一个管理集中营的共产主义独裁者写了“情书”，你会说，“共产主义！
We knew it.
我们知道。
Look at that.” Trump literally says about Kim Jong Un, “We wrote love letters to one another.
看看那个。”特朗普谈到金正恩时，字面意思是：“我们互相写了情书。
We fell in love.”
我们相爱了。”
1:59:36 If a Democrat said that, they’d be politically decapitated, their career would be instantly over.
如果民主党人这么说，他们就会在政治上被斩首，他们的职业生涯就会立即结束。
But Trump, whenever it’s Xi Jinping, Vladimir Putin, don’t get into Russia, Russia, Russia, but it’s just that he’s a strong man, right?
但特朗普，每当是习近平、普京，别扯上俄罗斯俄罗斯俄罗斯，只是他是个强人，对吧？
Kim Jong Un or Viktor Orbán, Duterte in the Philippines, anytime it’s a strong man that says, “Screw our Constitution, screw our rules.
金正恩、欧尔班、菲律宾的杜特尔特，任何时候只要有强人说：“搞砸我们的宪法，搞砸我们的规则。
I want total loyalty to one person,” Trump loves them.
我想要对一个人完全忠诚，”特朗普喜欢他们。
He loves them.
他爱他们。
He said once, he’s like, “Oh, it’s great.
有一次他说，“哦，太棒了。
You go to North Korea or China.
你去朝鲜或中国。
When the leader walks in, everybody applauds and everybody listens to what he says.
当领导走进来时，大家都鼓掌，大家都听他讲话。
That’s how it should be here.” No, brother, that’s not how it should be here.
这里就应该是这样的。”不，兄弟，这里不应该是这样的。
You hate democracy.
你讨厌民主。
You want to be the sole guy in charge.
你想成为唯一的负责人。
As a populist, you should loathe Donald Trump.
作为一个民粹主义者，你应该讨厌唐纳德·特朗普。
I agree on the fake electors scheme.
我同意假选民计划。
2:00:29 Can you steelman and maybe educate me on…
你能不能教我一下……
There’s a book Rigged that I started reading.
我开始读一本《Rigged》。
Is there any degree to which the election was rigged or elections in general are rigged?
选举是否受到操纵或总体选举是否受到操纵？
So I think the book Rigged, the main case they make is not that there’s some shady fake ballots.
所以我认为《被操纵》这本书，他们提出的主要理由并不是存在一些不正当的假选票。
It’s more the impact of mainstream media and the impact of big tech.
更多的是主流媒体的影响和大科技的影响。
So rigged is another one of those words that triggers people and is ill-defined, right?
“如此操纵”是另一个会触发人们并且定义不明确的词，对吧？
2:00:58 So let’s begin to define it.
那么让我们开始定义它。
So, the worst case of rigged is we actually changed the votes.
所以，最糟糕的操纵情况就是我们实际上改变了选票。
So, a lot of Trump people think that that’s what happened.
所以，很多特朗普的支持者认为这就是发生的事情。
Nonsense, that didn’t happen at all.
废话，这根本就没有发生。
Okay?
好的？
By the way, some on the left thought the votes were changed in the 2016 primary, and it was literally rigged against Bernie.
顺便说一句，一些左翼人士认为 2016 年初选的选票发生了变化，这实际上是针对伯尼的操纵。
No, that did not happen.
不，那没有发生。
That is a massive crime and is very risky and is relatively easy to get caught.
这是一种大规模犯罪，风险很大，而且相对容易被抓住。
People who are in power are not interested in getting caught.
有权势的人对被抓住不感兴趣。
They’re not interested in going to jail, et cetera.
他们对进监狱等等不感兴趣。
It is a very extreme thing.
这是一件非常极端的事情。
Could it happen?
它会发生吗？
Yes, it could happen.
是的，这有可能发生。
Have I seen any evidence of it happening in my lifetime?
在我的一生中，我有看到过这种事发生的证据吗？
Not really.
并不真地。
Given how much people hate this, you probably just need to find evidence of one time, one vote being changed, where you can trace them saying something in some room somewhere.
考虑到人们有多讨厌这一点，你可能只需要找到一次、一张选票被改变的证据，你就可以追踪他们在某个房间的某个地方说了些什么。
2:01:49 That would just explode.
那只会爆炸。
That evidence just doesn’t seem to be there.
这些证据似乎并不存在。
By the way, for the right-wing who say, “Verify the vote,” goddamn right, verify the vote, right?
顺便说一句，对于那些说“验证投票”的右翼来说，该死的正确，验证投票，对吧？
2:02:07 So you want to have different proposals like paper ballots, recounts, hand recounts, which by the way, you had not the paper ballots, but the three recounts and a hand recount in Georgia.
所以你想要不同的提案，比如纸质选票、重新计票、手工重新计票，顺便说一句，你没有纸质选票，而是在佐治亚州进行了三次重新计票和一次手工重新计票。
In so many of these swing states, he lost, he lost, he lost.
在很多这样的摇摆州，他输了，他输了，他输了。
There was no significant voter fraud.
没有发生重大选民欺诈行为。
Now, second thing in terms of rigging is voter fraud.
现在，操纵方面的第二件事是选民欺诈。
The right-wing believes, “Oh, my God, there’s voter fraud everywhere.”
右翼认为，“天哪，选民欺诈无处不在。”
2:02:36 Not remotely true.
远非如此。
Heritage Foundation does a study.
传统基金会做了一项研究。
They want to prove it so badly.
他们非常想证明这一点。
It turns out, no matter how they moved the numbers, the final number they got was it happens 0.0000006% of the time.
事实证明，无论他们如何移动数字，他们得到的最终数字都是 0.0000006% 的时间发生这种情况。
It almost never happens.
这几乎不会发生。
They found like 31 instances over a decade or two decades.
他们在十年或二十年里发现了大约 31 个实例。
What counts as voter fraud?
什么算作选民欺诈？
A lot of times these days, it’ll be Republicans who do it because it’ll be…
如今很多时候，都是共和党人这样做，因为这将是……
2:03:04 It’s not nefarious.
这并不邪恶。
It’s a knucklehead who goes in, goes, “Oh, I heard they’re having the illegals vote.
这是一个笨蛋走进来，说道：“哦，我听说他们正在让非法者投票。
So, I voted for me and my mom, even though she’s dead.
所以，我投票给了我和我妈妈，尽管她已经去世了。
But that’s fair.
但这是公平的。
They’re doing it.” No, brother, that’s not fair.
他们正在这样做。”不，兄弟，这不公平。
That’s not how it works.
事情不是这样的。
You’re under arrest.
你被捕了。
So what about non-citizens voting?
那么非公民投票呢？
It’s preposterous.
这太荒谬了。
2:03:25 Of course, non-citizens shouldn’t vote and they don’t vote.
当然，非公民不应该投票，他们也不会投票。
But you don’t have to prove citizenship when you’re voting, right?
但投票时您不必证明公民身份，对吧？
No, you do.
不，你知道。
2:03:34 I mean, so it depends on what you mean by prove and when you vote, right?
我的意思是，所以这取决于你所说的证明是什么意思以及你何时投票，对吧？
So you are not allowed to vote as an undocumented immigrant.
因此，您不能作为无证移民投票。
So, that happens up front.
所以，这发生在前面。
Again, it’s a hall of mirrors.
再说一遍，这是一个镜子大厅。
There’s so many different ways to create mirages.
创造海市蜃楼的方法有很多种。
So, the Republicans will say, “Well, when you go to the voting booth, they don’t make your show a passport.” Yeah, that’s true.
所以，共和党人会说，“好吧，当你去投票站时，他们不会把你的节目当作护照。”是的，确实如此。
But you showed it earlier when you registered, and we can get into voter ID laws.
但你在注册时早些时候就展示了它，我们可以进入选民身份法。
There’s all sorts of things.
有各种各样的事情。
We will speed up the spectrum, right?
我们会加快频谱速度，对吗？
So these things almost never happen.
所以这些事情几乎不会发生。
Voter fraud happens super rarely and not enough to swing elections.
选民舞弊现象极少发生，不足以左右选举结果。
By the way, sometimes if there is an issue, they’ll redo an election.
顺便说一句，有时如果出现问题，他们会重新进行选举。
2:04:16 There is actually a process for that.
实际上有一个过程。
It happened in North Carolina because Republicans did voter fraud in this one district.
这件事发生在北卡罗来纳州，因为共和党人在这一地区进行了选民欺诈。
It wasn’t the candidate himself.
这不是候选人本人。
It was this campaign person, and they did ballot harvesting, but ballot harvesting, again, it depends on what you mean.
是这个竞选人员，他们收集了选票，但是选票收集，这又取决于你的意思。
If you’re just collecting ballots, that’s okay.
如果您只是收集选票，那也没关系。
He changed the ballots.
他改变了选票。
That’s not okay.
那不行。
So, they had to redo that election.
因此，他们不得不重做那次选举。
So, now the real place where it gets rigged is before elections.
所以，现在真正被操纵的地方是选举之前。
There’s two main ways that things get rigged.
操纵事物的主要方式有两种。
One is almost exclusively…
一个几乎完全是……
No, that’s not fair.
不，这不公平。
I was going to say Republicans, but Democrats do it too in a different way.
我本来想说共和党人，但民主党人也以不同的方式做这件事。
So, Republicans would come in.
所以，共和党人会加入。
Brian Kemp is the king of this in Georgia.
布莱恩·坎普 (Brian Kemp) 是佐治亚州的国王。
So, he was against Trump doing it ex post facto.
因此，他反对特朗普事后这样做。
2:05:01 He’s like, “No, you idiot.
他说：“不，你这个白痴。
We don’t cheat after the election.
选举后我们不会作弊。
We cheat before the election.” Okay?
我们在选举前作弊。”好的？
So they’ll go, “Well, I mean, you got to clear out the voter rolls every once in a while.” That’s true because people die.
所以他们会说，“嗯，我的意思是，你必须每隔一段时间清理一下选民名册。”这是真的，因为人都会死。
People move and you got to clean out the voter rolls.
人们搬家，你必须清理选民名册。
So, then they come in and they go, “We will clean them out mainly in Black areas.” Okay?
所以，然后他们进来然后走了，“我们将主要在黑人地区清除他们。”好的？
Oh, look at that.
哦，看看那个。
There goes a couple of million Black voters.
几百万黑人选民消失了。
Well, some of those, I suppose, are real voters, but they’ll have to re-register and then they’ll find that out on election day.
嗯，我想其中一些是真正的选民，但他们必须重新登记，然后他们会在选举日发现这一点。
Oh, well, sorry, you couldn’t vote this time.
哦，好吧，抱歉，这次你不能投票。
Remember to re-register next time.
下次记得重新注册。
So, do they go, “Hey, we’re going to take Black people off the voter rolls.” No.
那么，他们会说，“嘿，我们要把黑人从选民名册上剔除。”不。
2:05:38 What they do is we’re having more issues in these districts.
他们所做的是我们在这些地区遇到了更多问题。
Here’s another way they do it.
这是他们的另一种方法。
How many voting booths do you have in the area?
该地区有多少个投票站？
So primarily Republican areas will get tons of voting booths.
因此，主要是共和党地区将拥有大量投票站。
So, you don’t have to wait in line.
所以，您不必排队等候。
You go in, you vote, you go to work, no problem.
你进去、投票、上班，没问题。
You’re in a Black area, run in a Republican state.
你在黑人地区，在共和党州运行。
All of a sudden, hey, look that city.
突然，嘿，看看那个城市。
Well, we sent you four voting booths.
好吧，我们给你送了四个投票站。
Oh, you got a million people there.
哦，那里有一百万人。
Well, what are you going to do?
嗯，你打算做什么？
I guess you got to wait in line the whole day.
我猜你得排队等一整天。
You can’t go to work, et cetera.
你不能去上班，等等。
So, that’s the way of-
所以，这就是——
I refuse to believe it’s only the Republicans that do that, I would say.
我想说，我不相信只有共和党人会这样做。
So that’s why I paused.
所以这就是我暂停的原因。
Yeah, that just seems too obvious to do by both sides.
是的，这似乎太明显了，双方都无法做到。
No, the Democrats are so weak, Lex.
不，民主党太软弱了，莱克斯。
2:06:25 They mainly don’t do that.
他们主要不这样做。
But they do do the third thing, which is gerrymandering.
但他们确实做了第三件事，那就是不公正地划分选区。
So, both Republicans and Democrats.
所以，无论是共和党还是民主党。
Also, they have favorite flavors of messing with the vote.
而且，他们最喜欢搞乱投票。
2:06:33 Okay.
好的。
Yeah.
是的。
2:06:38 So, gerrymandering is the best way to rig an election.
因此，不公正选区是操纵选举的最佳方式。
That way the politicians pick their voters, instead of the voters picking their politicians.
这样政客们就能挑选他们的选民，而不是选民们挑选他们的政客。
So, all these districts are so heavily gerrymandered that the incumbent almost can’t lose.
因此，所有这些选区都严重不公正地划分选区，现任者几乎不会输。
They’ll push most of the voters into one district, most of the voters in another district, because they don’t want competition.
他们会将大部分选民推入一个选区，将大部分选民推入另一选区，因为他们不想竞争。
So, then you’re screwed.
所以，那你就完蛋了。
The vote isn’t rigged, but the district is rigged, so that the incumbent wins almost no matter what, right?
投票没有被操纵，但选区被操纵了，所以现任者几乎无论如何都会获胜，对吗？
So that’s why we’ve gotten so polarized, because the gerrymandering creates like 90% of seats that are safe.
这就是为什么我们变得如此两极分化，因为不公正划分选区创造了大约 90% 的安全席位。
So, they don’t have to compromise.
所以，他们不必妥协。
They don’t have to get to a middle.
他们不必走到中间。
They could just be extreme on either side because they already locked it up.
他们可能在任何一方都极端，因为他们已经锁定了它。
Okay.
好的。
2:07:31 So, that’s the number one way to rig an election.
所以，这是操纵选举的首要方法。
Now, finally, the last part of it, maybe the most important, maybe even more important than gerrymandering, and that’s the media.
现在，最后一部分，也许是最重要的，甚至可能比不公正地划分选区更重要，那就是媒体。
So, it just happened to RFK Junior.
所以，这件事就发生在 RFK Junior 身上。
It happened to Bernie in 2015.
2015年，伯尼就遇到过这样的事。
It happens to any outsider, right or left.
这种事发生在任何局外人身上，无论是右派还是左派。
The media if you’re an outsider will say, “Well, radical…” Number one, they don’t platform you, right?
如果你是局外人，媒体会说，“好吧，激进……”第一，他们不会平台化你，对吧？
So they’re not going to have you on to begin with.
所以他们一开始就不会让你上场。
Nobody’s even going to find out about you.
甚至没有人会知道你的情况。
If nobody finds out about you, you’re done for, right?
如果没人发现你，你就完蛋了，对吧？
So Bernie broke through that because-
所以伯尼突破了这一点，因为——
2:08:00 …
……
about you’re done for, right?
你完蛋了，对吧？
So Bernie broke through that, because he was so popular, and the rallies were so huge that local news couldn’t help but cover him.
所以伯尼突破了这一点，因为他太受欢迎了，而且集会规模如此之大，以至于当地新闻忍不住报道他。
Jesus Christ, what are all these people doing in the middle of the city?
天哪，这些人在市中心做什么？
And he slowly broke through that.
而他也慢慢地突破了这一点。
But do you know that in 2015, as he’s doing this miraculous run against Hillary Clinton, nobody thinks he has a chance.
但你知道吗，2015 年，当他奇迹般地击败希拉里·克林顿 (Hillary Clinton) 时，没有人认为他有机会。
And here comes Bernie, and he’s almost at 48%.
伯尼来了，他的支持率几乎达到 48%。
He had seven seconds of coverage on ABC that year.
那年他在美国广播公司 (ABC) 进行了七秒的报道。
They just will not put you on.
他们只是不会让你这么做。
That is the number one way they rig an election.
这是他们操纵选举的首要方式。
Bobby Kennedy, Jr. sitting at 20% in a primary, no town hall.
小鲍比·肯尼迪 (Bobby Kennedy, Jr.) 在没有市政厅的初选中获得 20% 的选票。
20% is a giant number.
20%是一个巨大的数字。
And you’re not going to do a town hall.
而且你不会去市政厅。
You’re not going to do a debate.
你不会进行辩论。
12% in the general election.
大选中得票率为12%。
A giant number in a general election.
大选中的一个巨大数字。
No town hall, no debate.
没有市政厅，没有辩论。
If no one finds out about you, they don’t know to vote for you, if they don’t find out your policies.
如果没有人了解您，如果他们不了解您的政策，他们就不知道投票给您。
Corporate media rigs elections more than anything else in the world.
企业媒体对选举的操纵比世界上其他任何事情都多。
Now, this is something you’ve been a bit controversial about.
现在，这是你一直有争议的事情。
2:09:03 But the general sort of standard belief is that there’s a left-leaning bias in the mainstream media, because as I think studies show a large majority of journalists are left-leaning.
但普遍的标准信念是主流媒体存在左倾偏见，因为我认为研究表明绝大多数记者都是左倾。
And then that there’s a bias in Big Tech.
然后大型科技公司也存在偏见。
Employees of Big Tech companies from search engines to social media are left-leaning.
从搜索引擎到社交媒体，大型科技公司的员工都是左倾的。
And there that’s a huge majority is left-leaning.
其中绝大多数是左倾。
So the conventional wisdom is that there is a bias that was the left.
所以传统观点认为存在左派偏见。
Yeah.
是的。
So first of all, I think you’ve argued that that’s not true, that there’s a bias in the other direction.
首先，我认为你认为这不是真的，在另一个方向上存在偏见。
2:09:38 But whether there’s a bias or not, do you think that, how big of an impact that has on the result of the election?
但无论是否存在偏见，您认为这对选举结果的影响有多大？
Okay, so let’s break that down.
好吧，让我们来分解一下。
2:09:51 Tech and media are totally different.
科技和媒体是完全不同的。
So let’s do media first, then we’ll do tech.
所以我们先做媒体，然后再做技术。
So on mainstream media, or corporate media, and I actually think that right-wing media like Fox News is part of corporate media.
所以在主流媒体，或者企业媒体上，我实际上认为像福克斯新闻这样的右翼媒体是企业媒体的一部分。
They just play good cop, bad cop.
他们只是扮演好警察，坏警察。
And so in that realm, the bias is not right or left, except on social issues.
因此，在这个领域，除了社会问题之外，偏见不分左右。
And that’s where that image comes from.
这就是该图像的来源。
On social issues, yes, the media is generally on the left.
在社会问题上，是的，媒体普遍偏左。
And right-wing, sorry, but this started in the 1960s, and the right-wing got super mad at mainstream media saying that black people were equal to white people.
右翼，抱歉，但这始于 20 世纪 60 年代，右翼对主流媒体说黑人与白人平等的说法非常愤怒。
That’s not the case anymore.
现在情况已不再是这样了。
Okay.
好的。
Right-wing calm down.
右翼冷静下来。
I’m not calling you all racist.
我并不是说你们都是种族主义者。
But in the 1960s was there racism?
但20世纪60年代有种族主义吗？
Of course.
当然。
Of course, they wouldn’t even let black kids into the schools, right?
当然，他们甚至不会让黑人孩子进入学校，对吗？
2:10:42 There was massive segregation in the south, but a lot in the north as well.
南方存在大规模种族隔离，北方也有很多种族隔离。
And at that point in mainstream media says, “Well, I mean they are citizens, they should have equal rights.” And the right-wing goes, “Bias.” Okay, yeah, I mean, you’re kind of right, it is a bias.
主流媒体当时说：“嗯，我的意思是他们是公民，他们应该拥有平等的权利。”右翼则说：“偏见。”好吧，是的，我的意思是，你是对的，这是一种偏见。
It is a bias towards equality in that case.
在这种情况下，这是对平等的偏见。
But that is perceived as on the left.
但这被认为是在左边。
Now, fast-forward to today, you don’t have that on the racial issues as obviously as much as you had it back then.
现在，快进到今天，在种族问题上你不再像当时那样明显了。
But on gay marriage that existed for a long time, where the media is like, “Well, they kind of should have the same rights as straight people.” And the right-wing went, “Bias.” So okay, you’re kind of right about that.
但对于存在很长时间的同性婚姻，媒体会说，“好吧，他们应该拥有与异性恋者相同的权利。”右翼则说：“偏见。”好吧，你是对的。
But at the same time, I would argue their position is correct.
但与此同时，我认为他们的立场是正确的。
But can they go too far?
但他们会走得太远吗？
Of course they can go too far.
当然，他们可能走得太远。
2:11:31 Okay.
好的。
Now, but that’s not the main deal, guys.
现在，但这不是主要问题，伙计们。
That’s to distract you.
那是为了分散你的注意力。
The main deal is economic issues.
主要处理的是经济问题。
And again, we say it ahead of time, and you can see if we’re right or wrong.
再说一次，我们提前说出来，你可以看看我们是对还是错。
So we will tell folks when we get to an economic bill, you’ll see all of a sudden the guys who theoretically disagree, Fox News and MSNBC close ranks.
因此，我们会告诉人们，当我们提出一项经济法案时，你会突然看到理论上不同意的人，福克斯新闻和微软全国广播公司（MSNBC）紧密团结在一起。
And you just saw it happen with price gouging, that issue of price gouging.
你刚刚看到了价格欺诈的情况，即价格欺诈问题。
All of a sudden there’s a lot of MSNBC hosts, CNN hosts, Washington Post writes an op-ed against it.
突然间出现了很多 MSNBC 主持人、CNN 主持人，《华盛顿邮报》写了一篇专栏文章反对它。
And everybody panics is like, “No, no, no, no, no, no, no, no.
每个人都惊慌失措，“不，不，不，不，不，不，不，不。
You can’t control anything a corporation does.
你无法控制公司所做的任何事情。
This is wrong.
这是错误的。
This is wrong.” Oh, what happened?
这是错误的。”噢，发生什么事了？
I thought you guys hated each other.
我以为你们互相讨厌
All of a sudden, you totally agree.
突然之间，你完全同意了。
Fascinating.
迷人。
2:12:13 Okay.
好的。
Same thing happened on increasing wages.
同样的情况也发生在工资上涨上。
When they were talking about increasing the minimum wage, Stephanie Ruhle, giant [inaudible 02:12:20] against it on MSNBC.
当他们谈论提高最低工资时，斯蒂芬妮·鲁尔（Stephanie Ruhle）在 MSNBC 上反对这一提议[听不清 02:12:20]。
All of a sudden Fox News and MSNBC agree.
福克斯新闻和微软全国广播公司突然同意了。
Do not touch beloved corporations.
不要碰心爱的公司。
So now that gets us to our real bias.
现在这让我们看到了我们真正的偏见。
It’s not left or right.
它不是左或右。
It’s pro-corporate, for all the reasons we talked about before, corporate media, corporate politicians.
出于我们之前讨论过的所有原因，这是有利于企业的，企业媒体，企业政治家。
So if you don’t believe me today, whether you’re on the right or the left, watch.
所以，如果你今天不相信我，无论你是左派还是右派，请观看。
Next time an economic issue, where do they fall, how do they react?
下次遇到经济问题时，他们会落在哪里，他们会如何反应？
When anytime it’s a corporate issue, where does the media go?
当涉及到企业问题时，媒体会去哪里？
So that’s the real bias of the media.
这就是媒体真正的偏见。
And so since the real bias of the media is pro-corporations, that is not a left-wing position.
因此，由于媒体的真正偏见是支持企业，所以这不是左翼立场。
That is considered more of a right-wing position.
这更多地被认为是右翼立场。
I even think that’s a misnomer, because to be fair to right-wing voters, they’re not pro-big business.
我什至认为这是用词不当，因为公平地说，右翼选民并不支持大企业。
They’re not pro-corruption, but the Republican politicians are.
他们并不支持腐败，但共和党政客却支持腐败。
So it gets framed as a right-wing issue.
因此它被视为右翼问题。
2:13:14 So if you think that the corporate media is too populist, you just don’t get it.
因此，如果您认为企业媒体过于民粹主义，那您就是不明白。
They aren’t, they hate populism.
他们不是，他们讨厌民粹主义。
So now when you turn to tech.
所以现在当你转向科技时。
So tech’s a complicated one, because yeah, people write the code.
所以技术是一项复杂的技术，因为是的，人们编写代码。
If they’re left-wingers, they’re going to have certain assumptions, and they might write that into the codes or the rules.
如果他们是左翼分子，他们就会有某些假设，他们可能会将其写入代码或规则中。
But they’re also, generally speaking, wealthy.
但一般来说，他们也很富有。
They’re usually white.
它们通常是白色的。
They’re usually male.
他们通常是男性。
And those biases also go in, and there’s a lot of people on the left who object to that bias, right?
这些偏见也随之而来，而且有很多左翼人士反对这种偏见，对吗？
But that’s a fair and interesting conversation, and one we have to be careful of, and one we could hopefully find a middle ground on, but that’s not the major problem.
但这是一场公平而有趣的对话，我们必须小心，我们希望能够找到中间立场，但这不是主要问题。
The major reason why Big Tech gets attacked is because they are competitors of who?
大型科技公司受到攻击的主要原因是他们是谁的竞争对手？
Social media competes with mainstream media.
社交媒体与主流媒体竞争。
2:14:10 So mainstream media has been attacking Big Tech from day one, pretending that they’re really concerned.
因此，主流媒体从第一天起就一直在攻击大型科技公司，假装他们真的很担心。
Yeah, they’re really concerned, because that’s their competition, and they’re getting their ass handed to them.
是的，他们真的很担心，因为那是他们的竞争对手，他们的屁股被交给了他们。
So I did a story on The Young Turks about CNN article, about all the dangers of social media.
所以我在《青年土耳其党》上做了一篇关于 CNN 文章的报道，讲述了社交媒体的所有危险。
I’m like, “Guys, this is written by their advertising department.” Okay.
我说，“伙计们，这是他们广告部门写的。”好的。
And in fact, they go to the advertisers and they find a rando video on YouTube or Facebook out of billions of videos, and they’re like, “Look, your ad is on this video.
事实上，他们去找广告商，从 YouTube 或 Facebook 上的数十亿视频中找到了一个随机视频，他们会说：“看，你的广告就在这个视频上。
Do you denounce and reject every Big Tech company and every member of social media?” And the advertisers is like, “Shit.
你会谴责并拒绝每一个大型科技公司和每一个社交媒体成员吗？”广告商的反应是：“妈的。”
Yeah, I do.” Meanwhile, they’re doing MILF Island on TV.
是的，我愿意。”与此同时，他们正在电视上拍摄《摩洛伊斯兰解放阵线岛》。
Okay.
好的。
I didn’t know that.
我不知道。
2:15:03 I need to check it out.
我需要检查一下。
There’s literally a show that came out recently, where it’s moms and their sons.
最近有一档节目上映，内容是妈妈和她们的儿子。
2:15:05 And they fuck each other.
他们互相操。
Oh wow.
哦哇。
Okay.
好的。
2:15:13 They don’t have sex with their mom.
他们不与妈妈发生性关系。
They have sex with a different mom.
他们与不同的妈妈发生性关系。
Got it.
知道了。
Or they date.
或者他们约会。
2:15:18 But then the show is, oh, then they go off into a corner, et cetera, right?
但接下来的表演是，哦，然后他们就进入了一个角落，等等，对吧？
I’m like, you’re doing this kind of the worst degrading, ridiculous, immoral programming, and then you found a video on YouTube that has a problem.
我想，你正在做这种最有辱人格、荒谬、不道德的节目，然后你在 YouTube 上发现了一个有问题的视频。
Get the fuck out of here.
他妈的离开这里。
You’re just trying to kneecap your competition.
你只是想打败你的竞争对手。
Let’s talk about the saga of Joe Biden.
我们来谈谈乔·拜登的传奇故事。
2:15:36 So over the past year, over the past few months.
所以过去的一年，过去的几个月。
Can you just rewind.
你能倒带一下吗？
Maybe tell the story of Joe Biden as you see from the election perspective?
也许可以从选举的角度讲述乔·拜登的故事？
Yeah.
是的。
2:15:52 So about a year ago, I am looking at the polling.
大约一年前，我正在查看民意调查。
And first of all, I have eyes and ears.
首先，我有眼睛和耳朵。
So whenever I see Biden, I’m like, this is a disaster.
所以每当我看到拜登时，我都会想，这是一场灾难。
And then I go and talk to real people.
然后我去和真实的人交谈。
And when I say real people, I mean not in politics.
当我说真正的人时，我的意思不是政治中的人。
That’s not their job.
那不是他们的工作。
Because people involved in politics or media have a certain perspective, and it’s colored by all of the exchanges in mainstream media, social media, et cetera.
因为参与政治或媒体的人有一定的观点，并且它被主流媒体、社交媒体等的所有交流所影响。
Real people aren’t on Twitter having political fights.
真正的人不会在推特上进行政治斗争。
They’re not watching CNN religiously, et cetera.
他们并没有认真地观看 CNN，等等。
Whenever I was at a barbecue, ” You guys all Democrats?” In some barbecues.
每当我参加烧烤聚会时，“你们都是民主党人吗？”在一些烧烤店里。
“Yeah.” What do you guys think of Joe Biden?
“是的。”你们觉得乔·拜登怎么样？
Almost in unison, “Too old.” Every real person said too old.
几乎异口同声：“太老了。”每个真人都说太老了。
So I look at what real people are saying.
所以我看看真实的人们在说什么。
That’s why I thought Trump was going to win in 2016.
这就是为什么我认为特朗普会在 2016 年获胜。
2:16:45 I go in the middle of Ohio, I can’t see a Hillary Clinton sign for hundreds of miles.
我去俄亥俄州中部，数百英里之外都看不到希拉里·克林顿的标志。
It is Trump paraphernalia everywhere.
到处都是特朗普的用具。
So that’s not end all, be all.
所以这还不是全部，只是全部。
You could say it’s anecdotal, but you begin to collect data points.
你可以说这是轶事，但你开始收集数据点。
But then the real data points are in polling.
但真正的数据点是在民意调查中。
Okay.
好的。
So now I’m looking at Biden polling, he’s in the thirties.
所以现在我在看拜登的民意调查，他三十多岁了。
No incumbent in the thirties has ever come back to win.
没有一个三十年代的现任者能够重新获胜。
I’m like, it’s already over.
我想，一切都已经结束了。
Then all of a sudden, oh my God, Trump takes the lead with Latinos.
然后突然之间，天哪，特朗普在拉丁裔方面取得了领先。
It’s double over.
这是双倍的。
By later in the process, Trump took the lead with young voters.
在此过程的后期，特朗普在年轻选民中发挥了带头作用。
I’m like, “This is the most over election in history.” A Democrat cannot win if they’re not winning young voters.
我想，“这是历史上最过度的选举。”如果民主党不能赢得年轻选民，他们就无法获胜。
That’s impossible.
那是不可能的。
Trump’s cutting into his lead with black voters.
特朗普正在削弱他在黑人选民中的领先地位。
This thing is over.
这件事已经结束了。
And I go tell people, and they’re like, “You are crazy.” Why do they think I’m crazy?
我去告诉人们，他们会说，“你疯了。”为什么他们认为我疯了？
Because MSNBC is lying to them 24/7, telling them that Joe Biden created sliced bread, and the wheel, and fire.
因为 MSNBC 24/7 都在对他们撒谎，告诉他们乔·拜登创造了切片面包、轮子和火。
And my favorite talking point was, he’s a dynamo behind the scenes.
我最喜欢的话题是，他是幕后的动力。
Yeah.
是的。
I’m like, “Okay, let me get this right.” It’s like an SNL skit, right?
我想，“好吧，让我把这件事做好。”这就像 SNL 的短剧，对吧？
2:17:56 I’m like so behind the scenes, he’s like, all right, Sally, get me the memo on that and we’re okay, we’re going to do this, and I’m in command of the material.
我在幕后就像这样，他就像，好吧，莎莉，给我一份备忘录，我们就可以了，我们要做这件事，我负责材料。
Then he goes in front of the cameras.” Anyways.” Why would any politician do that?
然后他就走到镜头前。”无论如何。”为什么政治家会这么做？
Why would they be terrible in front of the camera and great off camera?
为什么他们在镜头前很糟糕，但在镜头外却很出色？
It doesn’t make any sense.
这没有任何意义。
But once you get people enough propaganda, and MSNBC created blue MAGA, they’ll believe anything.
但一旦你让人们得到足够的宣传，并且 MSNBC 创造了蓝色 MAGA，他们就会相信任何事情。
So they believe that Biden was dynamic and young, and that he was the best possible candidate to beat Donald Trump.
因此他们认为拜登充满活力且年轻，他是击败唐纳德·特朗普的最佳候选人。
When in reality, he was about the only Democrat who couldn’t beat Donald Trump.
事实上，他是唯一一位无法击败唐纳德·特朗普的民主党人。
2:18:36 So number one, I don’t co-sign on a bullshit.
所以第一，我不会在废话上签名。
I don’t care which side you’re on.
我不在乎你站在哪一边。
Number two, as you heard earlier, I can’t have Trump winning.
第二，正如你之前听到的，我不能让特朗普获胜。
It endangers the country.
它危害国家。
It endangers our constitution, et cetera.
它危及我们的宪法等等。
So I’m going to do something about it.
所以我要为此做点什么。
And so I start something called Operation Hope on The Young Turks.
所以我开始了一项名为“青年土耳其人希望行动”的活动。
And we ask the audience, “What should we do?” So there’s different projects in Operation Hope.
我们问观众：“我们应该做什么？”所以希望行动中有不同的项目。
But the first project that pops up is knock Biden out of the race.
但出现的第一个项目是让拜登退出竞选。
And so then I ask our paying members on TYT, I say, “Guys, you’re going to vote, and then I’m going to do what you tell me to do.
然后我问 TYT 上的付费会员，我说：“伙计们，你们去投票，然后我就按照你们告诉我的去做。
If you say no, I like Biden, or I think Biden’s the best candidate, or even if he isn’t, we’re not going to be able to win on this, so don’t do it.” Should I enter the primary against Biden?
如果你说不，我喜欢拜登，或者我认为拜登是最好的候选人，或者即使他不是，我们也无法在这件事上获胜，所以不要这样做。”我应该参加初选对抗拜登吗？
2:19:25 Okay.
好的。
76, 24, go, enter.
76、24，走，进。
I’m a populist.
我是一个民粹主义者。
You tell me to go.
你告诉我走吧。
You’re my paying members, you’re my boss.
你是我的付费会员，你是我的老板。
I’m going to go.
我要走了。
Okay.
好的。
So I enter the primary.
所以我进入了初级。
Now, I’m not born in the country, so people are going to freak out about that.
现在，我不是出生在这个国家，所以人们会对此感到害怕。
I’m a talk show host.
我是脱口秀主持人。
The establishment media despises me, so I’m not going to get any airtime.
建制媒体鄙视我，所以我不会得到任何播出时间。
In fact, we consider hiring the top booking agent in New York.
事实上，我们正在考虑聘请纽约顶级的预订代理。
We talked to him, and he says, “Well, I’m actually in New York this week.” And he says, “I’m going to go talk to those guys, and I’ll come back to you.” And he was really decent, because normally he charges a lot.
我们和他交谈过，他说：“嗯，这周我实际上在纽约。”他说：“我要去和那些人谈谈，然后再回来找你。”而且他真的很不错，因为通常他收费很高。
Just take the money, right?
拿钱就行了是吗？
And go, “Oh, yeah, yeah, I’ll get you out.” But he was a wonderful guy.
然后说：“哦，是的，是的，我会带你出去的。”但他是一个很棒的人。
He said, “I talked to them, you’re banned.
他说：“我和他们谈过，你被禁止了。
So don’t do it.
所以不要这样做。
You’re banned at CNN.
你被 CNN 禁止了。
You’re banned at MSNBC, and I think you’re banned on Fox News, but I’m not sure.”
你在 MSNBC 被禁止，我认为你在福克斯新闻也被禁止，但我不确定。”
2:20:21 Okay.
好的。
So long odds, why do you do it?
机会这么大，你为什么要这么做呢？
Because if you think we’re going to crash into the iceberg, you might as well bum rush the captain’s course.
因为如果你认为我们会撞上冰山，那你还不如直接冲向船长的航向。
I’m lunging at the wheel.
我猛冲方向盘。
So what difference can I make?
那么我能做出什么改变呢？
Well, I can make a difference by going on every show on planet Earth and going, “He’s too old.
好吧，我可以通过参加地球上的每一场演出并说：“他太老了。
He’s in the thirties.
他三十多岁了。
He has no chance of winning, no chance of winning.” I go on Charlemagne Show, Breakfast Club, right?
他没有获胜的机会，没有获胜的机会。”我去参加查理曼大帝秀、早餐俱乐部，对吗？
Charlemagne agrees.
查理曼同意了。
All of a sudden we’re having Buzz.
突然之间我们就听到了嗡嗡声。
And then people go, “Oh, Charlemagne said he has no chance of winning.” Then Charlemagne’s on the Daily Show, talks to Jon Stewart.
然后人们会说，“哦，查理曼说他没有获胜的机会。”然后查理曼在《每日秀》上与乔恩·斯图尔特交谈。
Jon Stewart does a segment.
乔恩·斯图尔特做了一个片段。
This is not necessarily causal, but Buzz is building.
这不一定是因果关系，但 Buzz 正在积累。
So then Jon Stewart does a segment, if you remember, and people got super pissed at him, too old, can’t win.
然后乔恩·斯图尔特做了一个片段，如果你还记得的话，人们对他非常生气，太老了，赢不了。
And all that buzz is building.
所有这些嗡嗡声都在酝酿之中。
2:21:08 Meanwhile, unrelated to us, David Axelrod and James Carville, and I’m like, “Guys, figure it out.
与此同时，与我们无关的大卫·阿克塞尔罗德和詹姆斯·卡维尔，我说，“伙计们，弄清楚吧。
Who does Axelrod speak for?” The top advisor for Barack Obama.
阿克塞尔罗德代表谁说话？”巴拉克·奥巴马的高级顾问。
Who is James Carville, the top advisor for?
詹姆斯·卡维尔（James Carville）是谁的最高顾问？
The Clintons.
克林顿夫妇。
This is the Clintons and the Obama sending their emissaries to say, “We can read a poll.
这是克林顿夫妇和奥巴马夫妇派出他们的特使说：“我们可以阅读民意调查。
He’s going to lose.
他会输的。
Change direction.” So when the debate happens, we laid the groundwork.
改变方向。”因此，当辩论发生时，我们就奠定了基础。
If we hadn’t laid the groundwork, debate would’ve been the first time that Blue MAGA would’ve thought, “Oh, maybe Biden can’t win.” But since all of us said it, and strange bedfellows, I loathe Nancy Pelosi, but she was on our side.
如果我们没有奠定基础，辩论将是蓝色 MAGA 第一次想到，“哦，也许拜登赢不了。”但既然我们所有人都这么说了，而且还有奇怪的同床异梦，我讨厌南希·佩洛西，但她站在我们一边。
I got a lot of issues with Bill Maher.
我和比尔·马赫之间有很多问题。
He was on our side.
他是我们这边的。
I got a lot of issues with Axelrod and Carville, and they were on our side.
我和阿克塞尔罗德和卡维尔有很多问题，他们是站在我们这边的。
So the people who believed in objective reality kind of independently made a plan.
因此，相信客观现实的人们独立地制定了计划。
Let’s show people objective reality.
让人们看到客观现实。
And we did.
我们做到了。
And we drove him out, and it made all the difference.
然后我们把他赶了出去，这一切都变得不同了。
So you think he stepped down voluntarily, or was he forced out?
那么你认为他是自愿下台的，还是被迫下台的？
Both.
两个都。
2:22:15 So again, it depends on what you mean.
再说一次，这取决于你的意思。
So was he forced out?
那么他是被逼出来的吗？
Of course he was forced out.
当然是被逼出来的。
You think he just woke up and he is like, “Oh, yeah, you know what?
你认为他刚刚醒来，他就像是，“哦，是的，你知道吗？
Screw my legacy.
去他妈的我的遗产。
I don’t want to be a two term president.
我不想当两届总统。
I’ll just drop out for no reason.” No, we forced them out.
我会无缘无故地退学。”不，是我们逼他们走的。
Of course we did.
我们当然做到了。
And when I say we, I had a tiny, tiny, tiny role.
当我说我们时，我扮演的角色很小很小。
The people who had the major roles, Nancy Pelosi, Barack Obama and all those folks.
扮演主要角色的人，南希·佩洛西、巴拉克·奥巴马以及所有这些人。
But even they were not the main driving force.
但即便如此，他们也不是主要推动力。
The number one driving force were the donors.
第一推动力是捐助者。
What is the source of power of Bernie or Massey?
伯尼或梅西的权力来源是什么？
The people.
人民。
What is the source of power for Biden?
拜登的权力来源是什么？
The donors.
捐助者。
The donors made Biden.
捐助者造就了拜登。
He is the donors’ candidate.
他是捐助者的候选人。
And that’s why he told the donors, nothing will fundamentally change.
这就是为什么他告诉捐助者，什么都不会从根本上改变。
If you say Lex, “No Cenk, I think you’re too extreme that Biden works for the donors 98%.
如果你对 Lex 说：“不，Cenk，我认为你太极端了，拜登为 98% 的捐助者工作。
I think he only works for them 80% or 55%.” Fine.
我认为他只为他们工作了 80% 或 55%。”美好的。
We could have that debate.
我们可以进行这样的辩论。
2:23:12 But you can’t argue that it isn’t his source of power.
但你不能说这不是他的力量来源。
And you can’t argue it anymore, even if you were going to argue it earlier, because once the donors said, “We’re not giving you any more money.” He didn’t have any options.
即使你早些时候打算争论，你也不能再争论了，因为一旦捐助者说：“我们不会再给你钱了。”他没有任何选择。
He couldn’t go on.
他无法继续下去。
But was he forced out at knife point or something?
但他是被刀逼出来的吗？
No.
不。
So was it voluntary?
那么这是自愿的吗？
Yeah.
是的。
Ultimately, if Biden decided to stay in, there was nothing we could do about it.
最终，如果拜登决定留任，我们就无能为力。
And so he had to voluntarily make that decision.
所以他必须自愿做出这个决定。
But he voluntarily made it, because he had no choice left.
但他自愿这样做，因为他别无选择。
Yeah.
是的。
2:23:41 I wish he stepped down voluntarily from a place of strength.
我希望他能自愿从一个有力量的地方退下来。
So I think presidents, I think politicians in general, especially at the highest levels, want legacy.
所以我认为总统们，我认为一般政治家，特别是最高层的政治家，都想要遗产。
And to me at least, one of the greatest things you could do is to walk away at the top.
至少对我来说，你能做的最伟大的事情之一就是登上顶峰。
I mean, George Washington, to walk away from power is I think universally respected, especially if you got a good speech to go with it and you do it really well, not in some kind of cynical or calculated or some kind of transactional way, but just as a great leader.
我的意思是，乔治·华盛顿，我认为放弃权力是普遍受到尊重的，特别是如果你有一个很好的演讲，而且你做得很好，不是以某种愤世嫉俗、算计或某种交易的方式，而是作为一个伟大的领导者。
And maybe be a little bit even more dramatic than you need to be in doing it.
也许比你在做这件事时需要的更戏剧化一点。
Yeah, I thought that would be a beautiful moment.
是的，我想那将是一个美好的时刻。
And then launch some kind of democratic process for electing a different option.
然后启动某种民主程序来选举不同的选项。
Not only did I agree with you 100%, I reached one of his top advisors, one of the guys you see in the press all the time, as in his inner circle.
我不仅百分百同意你的观点，而且还联系了他的一位高级顾问，他是你经常在媒体上看到的人之一，就像在他的核心圈子里一样。
2:24:36 I never said that before, because we were in the middle of it.
我以前从未说过这样的话，因为我们正处于其中。
And I’m never going to betray anyone’s confidence.
我永远不会背叛任何人的信任。
And I’ll never say who it was.
我永远不会说那是谁。
Okay.
好的。
But he was gracious enough to meet with me as I was about to enter the primary.
但当我即将进入初选时，他很慷慨地与我见面。
And look, it is smart too, because get information, intelligence, et cetera.
看，它也很聪明，因为可以获得信息、情报等等。
Is this guy going to be trouble, or not trouble?
这家伙到底是要惹麻烦，还是不惹麻烦呢？
But at least he took the meeting.
但至少他参加了会议。
And the case I made is exactly the one you just said, Lex.
我提出的案例正是你刚才所说的，莱克斯。
This about 10 months ago.
这是大约10个月前的事。
I said, “If he drops out now, they build statues of him, the Democrats.” If you are right-wing or you hate him, I get it.
我说，“如果他现在退出，民主党人就会为他建造雕像。”如果你是右翼分子或者你讨厌他，我明白。
2:25:23 But the Democrats would’ve said he beat Trump and protected democracy in 2020, and he steps down graciously now to make sure we beat Trump again in 2024, and he lets go of power voluntarily.
但民主党会说他在 2020 年击败了特朗普并保护了民主，而他现在慷慨地下台，以确保我们在 2024 年再次击败特朗普，他自愿放弃权力。
He’s going to be a hero, an absolute hero.
他将成为一个英雄，一个绝对的英雄。
But if he doesn’t, you’re going to force all of us to kick the living crap out of him, and tell everybody he’s an egomaniac, which he is.
但如果他不这样做，你就会迫使我们所有人把他踢得屁滚尿流，并告诉每个人他是一个自大狂，他确实是这样。
And he’s doing this so that he could be…
他这样做是为了……
If you don’t know Washington in that bubble, if you’re a one-term president, you’re a loser.
如果你不了解那个泡沫中的华盛顿，如果你是一届总统，那么你就是一个失败者。
If you’re a two-term president, you have a legacy, and you’re historic.
如果你是连任两届的总统，你就有遗产，而且你是历史性的。
He’s running for one reason, and one reason only.
他竞选的原因只有一个，而且只有一个原因。
My legacy.
我的遗产。
I will be a two-term president.
我将连任两届总统。
I will be considered historic.
我将被认为是历史性的。
I’m like, brother, now you’re going to be considered a villain, the villain of the story.
我想，兄弟，现在你将被视为恶棍，故事中的恶棍。
You’re handing it right back to Trump.
你正在把它交还给特朗普。
You’re not going to win.
你不会赢。
2:26:17 And you know, look at the numbers.
你知道，看看数字。
Any political professional knows you’re not going to win.
任何政治专业人士都知道你不会赢。
So you have hero or villain, and you get to choose.
所以你有英雄或恶棍，你可以选择。
But if you think you’re going to be a hero and beat Trump, that is not a choice you have.
但如果你认为自己会成为英雄并击败特朗普，那就不是你的选择。
That is not going to happen.
那是不会发生的。
And they didn’t believe us.
他们不相信我们。
But by then they did.
但到那时他们做到了。
Were you troubled by how Kamala Harris was selected after he stepped down?
您对卡马拉·哈里斯卸任后如何被选中感到困扰吗？
Yes and no.
是和不是。
2:26:41 So I argued for an open convention.
所以我主张召开一次开放的大会。
And so if Biden had stepped down when we were trying to get people into the primary, knock him out, then that would’ve been a perfect solution.
因此，如果拜登在我们试图让人们进入初选时下台，将他淘汰，那么这将是一个完美的解决方案。
Then all the governors could go in, Walz, Beshear, Whitmer, Kamala Harris goes in, obviously they have a real primary at that point.
然后所有的州长都可以进去，沃尔兹、贝希尔、惠特默、卡马拉·哈里斯都进去，显然他们那时有一场真正的初选。
Me, at later Dean Phillips came in.
我，后来迪恩·菲利普斯进来了。
Me, Dean, and I mean, Maryanne wouldn’t drop out.
我，迪恩，我的意思是，玛丽安不会退学。
Me and Dean would definitely drop out.
我和迪恩肯定会退学。
Because our whole point was get other people in the race, make sure we win.
因为我们的重点是让其他人参与比赛，确保我们获胜。
Okay.
好的。
Then you would’ve had a great primary, it would’ve been the right way to do it, both morally, constitutionally, et cetera.
那么你就会有一场伟大的初选，这将是正确的方式，无论是在道德上、宪法上还是其他方面。
But also as a matter of politics, because you would’ve gotten a lot of coverage for your young, exciting candidates, and you would’ve legitimized the idea of that you’re protecting democracy.
但从政治角度来说，因为你会得到很多关于年轻、令人兴奋的候选人的报道，而且你也会使你保护民主的想法合法化。
2:27:31 Okay.
好的。
So that didn’t happen because of Biden.
所以这一切并没有因为拜登而发生。
It is what it is.
就是这样。
So now when Biden drops out, at least do a vestige of democracy.
所以现在当拜登退出时，至少做一点民主的痕迹。
Go to the convention and do what it’s designed to do, which is pick a candidate.
参加大会并做它的目的，那就是挑选一名候选人。
Ezra Klein made a great case for this in the New York Times podcast that he did.
埃兹拉·克莱因（Ezra Klein）在他所做的《纽约时报》播客中对此做了很好的论证。
That made a huge difference, and he was great for doing that.
这产生了巨大的变化，他在这方面做得很好。
So I believe in an open convention.
所以我相信开放的大会。
But I know Democrats that love to anoint, because they don’t trust the people.
但我知道民主党人喜欢任命，因为他们不信任人民。
So they think the elites are geniuses, don’t worry, we’ll pick the right candidate.
所以他们认为精英都是天才，不用担心，我们会挑选合适的人选。
Yeah, I remember when you picked Hillary Clinton, how’d that work out?
是的，我记得当你选择希拉里·克林顿时，结果如何？
And I remember when you said Joe Biden was the right candidate in 2024.
我记得你说过乔·拜登是 2024 年的合适候选人。
How’d that work out?
结果怎么样？
Do not anoint.
不要涂油。
2:28:12 But in the end, they didn’t.
但最终，他们没有。
So what happened was, Biden does the first announcement, he either forgot or on purpose didn’t put Kamala Harris in there.
所以发生的事情是，拜登发布了第一个公告，他要么忘记了，要么故意没有把卡马拉·哈里斯放在那里。
So there’s all this kumbaya now.
所以现在就有了这一切。
Nah, they don’t like each other.
不，他们互相不喜欢对方。
And Biden’s been screwing her over the entire time she’s been vice president.
在她担任副总统期间，拜登一直在欺骗她。
So he doesn’t put her in the original statement.
所以他没有把她放在最初的陈述中。
And I’m like, “Whoa.” I do a live video of media.
我就想，“哇。”我做媒体现场视频。
I’m like, “Kamala.
我想，“卡马拉。
Harris is not in the statement.” In the middle of my video, they put out a second one going, okay, okay, fine, Kamala Harris, because that’s too much for the president not to endorse his Vice president.
哈里斯并未出现在声明中。”在我的视频中间，他们推出了第二个，好吧，好吧，好吧，卡玛拉·哈里斯，因为这对于总统来说太过分了，不能不支持他的副总统。
I think it was really somebody stormed into the room and said, “You absolutely must.”
我认为确实是有人冲进房间说：“你绝对必须这么做。”
I don’t know, I wasn’t there, but probably.
我不知道，我当时不在场，但很可能。
2:28:50 Or they planned, I don’t know.
或者他们计划好了，我不知道。
But the bottom line is it was glaring that he didn’t put her in the first letter.
但最重要的是，他没有把她写在第一封信中，这一点很明显。
Okay.
好的。
So he had to put her in the second one.
所以他只得把她安排在第二位。
Fine, no problem.
很好，没问题。
But Obama, Pelosi and Schumer did not endorse Kamala Harris.
但奥巴马、佩洛西和舒默并未支持卡马拉·哈里斯。
That’s huge.
那是巨大的。
Normally the Democrats would all endorse her, and would all say she’s anointed, shut up everybody.
通常民主党人都会支持她，都会说她是受膏者，让大家闭嘴。
And then MSNBC would scream, “Shut up.
然后微软全国广播公司（MSNBC）会尖叫：“闭嘴。
Shut up.
闭嘴。
She’s anointed.” But they didn’t do that.
她是受膏者。”但他们没有那么做。
So then Kamala Harris had to win over the delegates.
因此，卡玛拉·哈里斯必须赢得代表们的支持。
And I thought she would win them over in the convention.
我以为她会在大会上赢得他们的支持。
But she locked them up in two days.
但两天后她就把它们锁起来了。
And I know, because I delegates, because I ran.
我知道，因为我代表了，因为我参加了竞选。
And the delegates are calling me saying, “She’s getting on a zoom right now with us.” She went to all the states and worked her ass off, and locked up enough delegates to get the nomination in two days.
代表们打电话给我说：“她现在正在和我们一起进行交流。”她走遍了所有的州，拼尽全力，锁定了足够的代表，以便在两天内获得提名。
Yeah.
是的。
2:29:47 But come on, its Biden endorsed.
但来吧，这是拜登支持的。
Of course.
当然。
But why is that an of course?
但为什么这是当然的呢？
2:29:50 Why not say sort of layout Walz and Shapiro and Kamala Harris, and the options to say, lets at least the facade of democracy, of a democratic process.
为什么不说沃尔兹、夏皮罗和卡马拉·哈里斯的布局，以及说的选项，至少让民主、民主进程的表面。
There’s what should happen and what is likely to happen.
有应该发生的事情和可能发生的事情。
2:30:05 So should Biden not have endorsed?
那么拜登不应该支持吗？
Yeah, of course.
是的，当然。
I think Biden should have done the same thing as Obama and Pelosi and not endorse, and say, “Hey, we’d love to have a process where we figure out who the right nominee is.” And at that point, I’m really worried about Kamala Harris, because she’s doing word salads nonstop.
我认为拜登应该做与奥巴马和佩洛西相同的事情，而不是支持，然后说：“嘿，我们希望有一个程序来找出合适的提名人是谁。”那时，我真的很担心卡玛拉·哈里斯，因为她不停地做文字沙拉。
So I’m like, “Don’t make the same mistake we did before, and just pick someone out of a hat.
所以我想，“不要犯我们以前犯过的同样的错误，只是凭空挑选一个人。
Test them.
测试它们。
Test them.
测试它们。
You get stronger candidates when you test them.” The authoritarian nature of the DNC drives me crazy.
当你测试他们时，你会得到更强大的候选人。”民主党全国委员会的独裁性质让我发疯。
They don’t believe in testing candidates.
他们不相信测试候选人。
They don’t believe in letting their own voters decide.
他们不相信让自己的选民来决定。
And look, when we were in the primary, they canceled the Florida election.
你看，当我们参加初选时，他们取消了佛罗里达州的选举。
And they took me, Dean and Marianne off the ballot in North Carolina and Tennessee.
他们把我、迪安和玛丽安从北卡罗来纳州和田纳西州的选票中剔除。
I’m like, “Guys, if you’re going to make a case for democracy in the general election and you cancel elections in the primaries, do you not get how ridiculous you look, how hypocritical you look?”
我说，“伙计们，如果你们要在大选中为民主辩护，然后取消初选选举，你们难道不明白你们看起来有多么可笑、有多么虚伪吗？”
2:31:05 So I didn’t want Biden to endorse anyone.
所以我不希望拜登支持任何人。
But I’m shocked that they didn’t all endorse her.
但令我震惊的是，他们并不都支持她。
Because normally what happens is they all endorse.
因为通常发生的事情是他们都认可。
So bottom line Lex is, did she earn it in a perfect system, not even close, right?
所以莱克斯的底线是，她是在一个完美的系统中赢得的吗？甚至还差得远，对吗？
But did she earn it enough in this imperfect way where at least she showed some degree of competence that assuaged my concerns?
但她以这种不完美的方式赚得足够多吗？至少她表现出了一定程度的能力，缓解了我的担忧？
Yes.
是的。
So because a normal Democrat would bungle that.
因为一个普通的民主党人会搞砸这一点。
Like Hillary Clinton wouldn’t have talked to the delegates.
就像希拉里·克林顿不会与代表们交谈一样。
She would assume that she’s the queen, and that they would all bow their heads.
她会认为她是女王，他们都会低下头。
So the fact that she did elementary politics correct, for Democrats that’s like a big win.
因此，她在基本政治上的正确性，对于民主党来说就像是一个巨大的胜利。
It just really frustrated me, because it smelled of the same thing of fucking over Bernie in 2015, 2016, and RFK, and just the anointing aspect.
这真的让我很沮丧，因为它的味道与 2015 年、2016 年和 RFK 操弄伯尼的味道是一样的，而且只是恩膏方面。
2:31:47 Now, they seem to have gotten lucky in this situation that it’s very possible that Kamala Harris would’ve been selected through a democratic process.
现在，在这种情况下，他们似乎很幸运，卡马拉·哈里斯很可能通过民主程序当选。
But I have to say, listening to the speeches at the DNC, Walz was amazing.
但我不得不说，听了民主党全国委员会的演讲，沃尔兹真是太棒了。
Shapiro was really strong.
夏皮罗真的很强。
And Kamala actually was much better as compared to her as a candidate previously.
而卡玛拉实际上比她之前作为候选人时要好得多。
Yep.
是的。
But personally don’t think she would’ve been the result of a democratic process.
但我个人并不认为她是民主进程的结果。
So you don’t often give your opinions.
所以你不经常发表自己的意见。
2:32:25 But when you give the opinions, I actually agree a huge percentage of the time, in this conversation.
但当你提出意见时，在这次谈话中，我实际上在很大一部分时间里都同意。
So I fought for Shapiro in the primary.
所以我在初选中为夏皮罗而战。
And when she was trying to pick for a VP, because I thought there’s no way she’s going to pick Walz.
当她试图挑选副总裁时，因为我认为她不可能选择沃尔兹。
He’s way too, not just progressive, but more importantly populist, right?
他也是如此，不仅是进步的，而且更重要的是民粹主义的，对吧？
So I didn’t think she’d go in that direction.
所以我不认为她会朝那个方向发展。
And Shapiro actually did a bunch of populist things in Pennsylvania.
夏皮罗实际上在宾夕法尼亚州做了很多民粹主义的事情。
That’s part of the reason why he’s so popular in Pennsylvania.
这就是他在宾夕法尼亚州如此受欢迎的部分原因。
He looks like a smooth talking politician, but his actions are pretty good.
他看上去像是一个能说会道的政治家，但他的行动却相当不错。
And so Shapiro was great, Walz was great.
所以夏皮罗很棒，沃尔兹也很棒。
The Obamas are legendary.
奥巴马夫妇是传奇人物。
Even Clinton at his advanced age makes terrific points in a speech, where you go, “Well, that one’s hard to argue with.” And so I’m shocked at the competence of the DNC, shocked at it.
即使是年事已高的克林顿也会在演讲中提出精彩的观点，你会说：“好吧，这个人很难反驳。”所以我对民主党全国委员会的能力感到震惊，对它感到震惊。
2:33:12 `But of all those, Lex, so you can give a good speech, and the Obamas give a mean speech.
“但是在所有这些中，莱克斯，你可以发表精彩的演讲，而奥巴马夫妇则发表卑鄙的演讲。
But I saw Obama as president.
但我看到奥巴马是总统。
He didn’t deliver on that.
他没有兑现这一点。
But the one guy that stood out is Walz.
但最引人注目的一个人是沃尔兹。
And the reason is because he’s a real person.
原因是因为他是一个真实的人。
Yeah, real person, populist.
是的，真实的人，民粹主义者。
We all got to work towards picking the most genuine candidates.
我们都必须努力挑选最真诚的候选人。
2:33:32 So here on the right-wing side, for example, I would prefer a Marjorie Taylor Greene to a Mitch McConnell any day.
例如，在右翼方面，我更喜欢马乔里·泰勒·格林，而不是米奇·麦康奈尔。
Marjorie Taylor Greene is genuine.
玛乔丽·泰勒·格林是真诚的。
She might be genuinely not, so I don’t agree with her.
她可能真的不是，所以我不同意她的观点。
She might be even more right-wing than others, but I believe that she means it.
她可能比其他人更右翼，但我相信她是认真的。
And I’ll take that any day over a fraud corporatist like Mitch McConnell, who’s just going to do what his donor’s command of him, et cetera.
我随时都会接受像米奇·麦康奈尔这样的欺诈社团主义者，他只会做他的捐助者对他的命令，等等。
I got to ask you, because I also love Bernie, still got it.
我必须问你，因为我也爱伯尼，仍然明白。
2:34:03 I love Bernie.
我爱伯尼。
I always have.
我一直都有。
I think he might still do it, but I enjoyed his conversations with Tom Hartman.
我认为他可能仍然会这样做，但我喜欢他与汤姆·哈特曼的谈话。
He’s a genuine one, like Bernie.
他是一个真诚的人，就像伯尼一样。
Even if you disagree with him, that’s a genuine human being.
即使你不同意他的观点，那也是一个真正的人。
Yep.
是的。
So just talk about that.
所以就谈谈这个吧。
2:34:21 Does it trouble you that he’s been fucked over in 2015, 2016, and again, 2020.
他在 2015 年、2016 年、2020 年都被搞砸了，这让你感到困扰吗？
And why does it keep forgiving people?
为什么它总是宽容人们？
Yeah.
是的。
2:34:35 So I love Bernie for the same reason you were saying.
所以我爱伯尼的原因和你说的一样。
Because he’s a real person.
因为他是一个真实的人。
He’s a populist.
他是一个民粹主义者。
He means it.
他是认真的。
And that is so rare in politics.
这在政治上是非常罕见的。
I feel like I’m Diogenes, and I went looking for the one honest man and found it in Bernie.
我觉得我是第欧根尼，我去寻找一个诚实的人，并在伯尼身上找到了它。
And so I did a video in 2013 saying, Bernie Sanders can beat Hillary Clinton in a primary.
所以我在 2013 年制作了一个视频，说伯尼·桑德斯可以在初选中击败希拉里·克林顿。
In 2013, that video exists.
2013 年，该视频存在。
Because why did I think that?
因为我为什么这么想？
I didn’t say it of any of the corporate politicians and the guys who were supposed to challenge her and stuff.
我没有对任何企业政客和那些应该挑战她之类的人说这句话。
Because populist and honest.
因为民粹和诚实。
And the country’s dying for an honest populist, dying for it.
这个国家正在为一个诚实的民粹主义者而死，为之而死。
So love the brother.
所以很爱弟弟。
Now, that doesn’t mean that he’s right on strategy.
现在，这并不意味着他的策略是正确的。
And he drives me crazy on strategy.
他的策略让我抓狂。
So two elements of that.
所以有两个要素。
Number one, in 2016 and in 2020, for God’s sake attack your opponent.
第一，在 2016 年和 2020 年，看在上帝的份上攻击你的对手。
2:35:29 You said something about Trump that I disagree with, where I’m defending Trump.
你说了一些关于特朗普的言论，我不同意，我是在为特朗普辩护。
Okay.
好的。
You don’t like what he did to the public discourse.
你不喜欢他对公众言论的所作所为。
No, I don’t mind it.
不，我不介意。
And I’ll tell you why.
我会告诉你原因。
Because at least he got a little bit past the fakeness.
因为至少他已经摆脱了虚假。
He’s a con man and he’s a fraud overall, and he does everything for his own interest, but at least he doesn’t speak like a bullshitting politician.
他是个骗子，总体来说是个骗子，他所做的一切都是为了自己的利益，但至少他说话不像一个胡言乱语的政客。
And he’s not wrong that you have to bully your own party to amass enough power to get things done.
他说得没错，你必须欺负自己的政党才能积累足够的权力来完成任务。
And he showed that that’s possible.
他证明这是可能的。
So the problem with the Democrats is civility.
所以民主党的问题在于文明。
So my whole life, they’re like, “Oh, no, no, no, don’t say anything.
所以我的一生，他们就像，“哦，不，不，不，什么也别说。
Let’s lose with civility.” So for example, in debates, whether it’s on TV, online, or whatever, Democrats or people on the left are always saying, “I’m offended.” I never get offended.
让我们以文明的方式输掉吧。”例如，在辩论中，无论是在电视上、网络上还是其他什么地方，民主党人或左翼人士总是说：“我被冒犯了。”我从不生气。
No, after I’m done, you’re going to be offended.
不，我说完之后，你会生气的。
Okay, fight back, fighting back wins.
好吧，反击，反击胜利。
2:36:31 And we couldn’t get Bernie to fight back.
我们无法让伯尼反击。
In 2020 he was one state away.
2020 年，他在一个州之外。
He won the first three states.
他赢得了前三个州。
He crushed in Nevada.
他在内华达州崩溃了。
All we needed was South Carolina.
我们所需要的只是南卡罗来纳州。
But in order to get South Carolina, we all knew, everybody on his campaign.
但为了赢得南卡罗来纳州，我们都知道，他竞选中的每个人都知道。
Everyone who’s in progressive media, we all knew you’ve got to attack Biden.
每个从事进步媒体的人，我们都知道你必须攻击拜登。
If you don’t, they’re just going to tsunami you.
如果你不这样做，他们就会对你发起海啸。
The corporate medias and the corporate politicians are going to run roughshod over you.
企业媒体和企业政客将会对你进行粗暴对待。
You have to make the case against them.
你必须对他们提出指控。
And so two times Bernie flinched.
伯尼有两次退缩了。
One in 2016, in the Brooklyn debate, they asked, “Did the money that Hillary Clinton taken from the banks affect her votes?” And he said, “No.” Of course it affected our votes.
2016 年，在布鲁克林辩论中，他们问道：“希拉里·克林顿从银行拿走的钱影响了她的选票吗？”他说：“不。”当然，这影响了我们的选票。
Of course it did.
当然是这样。
You have to say yes, and you have to show it and prove it.
你必须说是，你必须展示它并证明它。
2:37:17 The bankruptcy bill.
破产法案。
When she was First Lady, she was totally in favor of the American people and against the bankruptcy bill, because it has the banks, you can’t discharge any debts, credit card debt and bank debt, et cetera.
当她担任第一夫人时，她完全支持美国人民，反对破产法案，因为它有银行，你无法免除任何债务，信用卡债务和银行债务等等。
It’s an awful bill.
这是一笔糟糕的账单。
It’s one of the most corporatist bills.
这是最社团主义的法案之一。
She was on the right side as a First Lady.
作为第一夫人，她站在正确的一边。
She becomes a senator, takes banker money, and all of a sudden she flips over to the banker side.
她成为参议员，拿了银行家的钱，突然之间，她转向了银行家一边。
Say it Bernie, for God’s sake, say it.
说出来，伯尼，看在上帝的份上，说出来。
Then in one of the debates in 2020, his team prepares attacks against Biden.
然后在 2020 年的一场辩论中，他的团队准备攻击拜登。
They’re not personal, they’re not like…
他们不是个人，他们不像……
You can sense by now, if I’m in a political race, my objective is rip the other guy’s face off.
你现在可以感觉到，如果我参加政治竞选，我的目标就是撕烂别人的脸。
Yeah.
是的。
Politically, rhetorically, never physically.
政治上，修辞上，从来没有身体上。
Yes, yes, yes, yes.
是的，是的，是的，是的。
But I would get it to a point where they’d think, I don’t know if I’m going to vote for Cenk, but I know I’m not voting for the other guy.
但我会让他们认为，我不知道我是否会投票给岑克，但我知道我不会投票给另一个人。
2:38:07 Okay, so you got to do that if you want to win.
好吧，如果你想赢就必须这么做。
So they prepare this.
所以他们准备了这个。
He says, “I’m going to do it.” He goes out in the podium and doesn’t do it.
他说：“我会这么做的。”他走到讲台上却没有这么做。
Because he can’t.
因为他不能。
He’s too damn nice.
他太好了。
He just can’t attack the other guy.
他只是无法攻击另一个人。
Now that’s problem number one in strategy.
现在这是战略中的第一个问题。
Problem number two is something you alluded to.
第二个问题是你提到的。
So Biden gets into office.
拜登就这样上台了。
Bernie thinks they’re friends.
伯尼认为他们是朋友。
They’re not friends.
他们不是朋友。
Biden’s just using him.
拜登只是在利用他。
So he used them to get the credibility.
所以他利用它们来获得可信度。
And then he eviscerates 85% of the progressive proposals that Bernie put forward.
然后他剔除了伯尼提出的 85% 的进步提案。
Biden throws away $15 minimum wage.
拜登废除了 15 美元的最低工资。
That was Bernie’s signature issue.
这是伯尼的签名问题。
Doesn’t even propose the public option.
甚至没有提出公共选项。
Dumps paid family for no reason.
无缘无故地抛弃付给家人的钱。
I can go on and on.
我可以继续说下去。
And Bernie co-signs on it, because he thinks he’s in an alliance.
伯尼也签署了该协议，因为他认为自己是一个联盟。
He thinks Biden’s on his side, and he thinks we’re going to get things done.
他认为拜登站在他一边，他认为我们会完成任务。
2:39:04 And to be fair to Bernie, like I said earlier, Obama got only 5% of his agenda passed.
公平地说，正如我之前所说，奥巴马的议程只获得了 5% 的通过。
And Biden got 15%.
拜登获得了15%。
Okay.
好的。
So you’re right, Bernie, you got three times more than under Obama.
所以你是对的，伯尼，你的收入是奥巴马领导下的三倍。
But you’re wrong, that is not fundamental change.
但你错了，这不是根本性的改变。
And without fundamental change, we’re screwed.
如果不进行根本性的改变，我们就会完蛋。
Let me ask you about another impressive speech, AOC.
让我问你另一场令人印象深刻的演讲，AOC。
2:39:23 Is it possible that she’s the future of the party, future president?
她有可能是党的未来、未来的主席吗？
No.
不。
2:39:32 So AOC, in my opinion, lost her way.
因此，在我看来，AOC 迷失了方向。
And so-
所以——
In which way?
通过什么方式？
So it’s tough talking about these things, because people take it so personally.
所以谈论这些事情很难，因为人们把它看得太私人了。
2:39:41 And that’s why you’ll see very few politicians on our shows.
这就是为什么你在我们的节目中很少看到政客。
Because we give super tough interviews, and the words out in the street, don’t go on The Young Turks, they’ll ask you super hard questions.
因为我们会进行非常艰难的采访，而街上的说法是，不要继续发表在青年土耳其党身上，他们会问你非常棘手的问题。
So only a couple do it.
所以只有几个人这样做。
Like Ro Khanna does it, he’s brave-
就像罗·卡纳那样，他很勇敢——
2:40:00 Right.
对。
Only a couple do it like Ro Khanna does it.
只有少数几个人能像罗·卡纳那样。
He’s brave, and we’ll get into shouting matches sometimes in the middle of bills and stuff, but at least he’s there to defend his position.
他很勇敢，有时我们会因为账单之类的事情而争吵，但至少他会捍卫自己的立场。
I respect him for that.
我因此尊重他。
Tim Ryan, a little bit more of a conservative Democrat when he was in the house.
蒂姆·瑞安(Tim Ryan)在众议院时更像是一位保守的民主党人。
He would take on any debate, et cetera.
他会接受任何辩论等等。
There’s a couple of good guys that do it, but generally they don’t.
有几个好人会这样做，但通常他们不会。
This relates to AOC because when AOC is running we do 34 videos on her.
这与 AOC 有关，因为当 AOC 运行时，我们针对她制作了 34 个视频。
We get her millions of views.
我们为她带来了数百万的观看次数。
We founded Just Democrats and now launched it on the show.
我们创立了“正义民主党”，现在将其推出到节目中。
Our audience, Ryan Grim documents in one of his books, our audience raises $2.5 million for those progressive candidates overall.
我们的观众 Ryan Grim 在他的一本书中记录道，我们的观众为这些进步候选人总共筹集了 250 万美元。
And at that point, AOC and all those Rashida Tlaib, et cetera, they’re all dying to come onto Young Turks.
到那时，AOC 和所有拉什达·特莱布 (Rashida Tlaib) 等人都渴望加入青年土耳其党。
2:40:50 Makes sense.
有道理。
I would too, of course.
我当然也愿意。
It’s not because it’s The Young Turks, any media outlet.
这并不是因为它是青年土耳其党或任何媒体。
And most media outlets, almost all the media outlets reject them.
而大多数媒体，几乎所有媒体都拒绝他们。
We cover AOC more than all the other press combined, and she wins for a number of reasons.
我们对 AOC 的报道比所有其他媒体的总和还要多，她获胜的原因有很多。
That’s one of the reasons.
这是原因之一。
But there’s many others, and she did a terrific job herself.
但还有很多其他人，她自己也做得非常出色。
She then takes Saikat and Corbin who were the…
然后她带了塞卡特和科尔宾，他们是……
Saikat was the head of Just Democrats and Corbin was Communications Director for Just Democrats.
塞卡特是公正民主党的负责人，科尔宾是公正民主党的通讯总监。
Then Saikat made one of the most brilliant political decisions arguably in American history, he called me and he said, “Cenk, I’m going to go from head of Just Democrats to running AOCs campaign.” And I’m like, “Well, the other candidates are going to get pissed, and you’re staking the entire enterprise on one candidate.” And I’m like, “Saikat, I’m not in it.
然后，塞卡特做出了可以说是美国历史上最明智的政治决定之一，他打电话给我，他说：“岑克，我将从公正民主党的负责人转而负责 AOC 的竞选活动。”我想，“好吧，其他候选人会生气，而你却把整个企业都押在了一位候选人身上。”我说，“Saikat，我不参与其中。
I’m doing the media arm.
我正在做媒体部门。
You’re in the trenches.
你在战壕里。
You’re the guy making the decisions, so I’m going to trust whatever you say.
你是做出决定的人，所以我会相信你所说的一切。
You sure?” And he said, “I’m sure.”
你确定吗？他说：“我确定。”
2:41:51 Him and Corbin go over to AOCs campaign.
他和科尔宾参加了 AOC 的竞选活动。
AOC then wins, that miraculous win.
然后AOC 获胜，那场奇迹般的胜利。
Then she hires Saikat to be her Chief of Staff, and she hires Corbin to be her Communications Director.
然后，她聘请 Saikat 担任她的幕僚长，并聘请 Corbin 担任她的通讯总监。
Within six months, they’re gone.
六个月之内，他们就消失了。
And once they’re gone, AOC then goes on an establishment path.
一旦他们离开，AOC 就会走上一条建立之路。
Because why were they gone?
因为他们为什么走了？
Oh, they insulted one of her colleagues.
哦，他们侮辱了她的一位同事。
Yeah, that colleague who’s a total corporatist and was selling out one of her policy proposals.
是的，那位同事是个彻头彻尾的社团主义者，正在出卖她的一项政策建议。
If you don’t call out your own side, you’re never going to get anything done.
如果你不呼吁自己的立场，你永远不会完成任何事情。
But if you call out your own side, you become persona non grata, and it is super uncomfortable.
但如果你喊出自己的一面，你就成了不受欢迎的人，那就超级不舒服。
And we couldn’t get them to do things that were uncomfortable.
我们无法让他们做一些不舒服的事情。
Now, she’s going to find that outrageous, and she’s going to be very offended by that, and she’s going to point to a bunch of things she did that were uncomfortable.
现在，她会觉得这很无耻，她会因此感到非常生气，她会指出她所做的很多令人不舒服的事情。
2:42:44 And to be fair to her, she has.
公平地说，她确实做到了。
Until that speech, she was pretty good on Palestine when we desperately needed it.
在那次演讲之前，当我们迫切需要巴勒斯坦问题时，她对巴勒斯坦问题表现得相当好。
She was pretty good on a bunch of issues.
她在很多问题上都表现得很好。
Cori Bush did that campaign on evictions, et cetera, on the capital steps.
科里·布什在首都台阶上发起了关于驱逐等问题的运动。
That was great.
那很棒。
AOCs original spit-in in Pelosi’s office.
AOC 最初在佩洛西办公室随地吐痰。
At that point we’re all still on the same team.
那时我们仍然在同一个团队中。
It’s a spectacular success.
这是一次巨大的成功。
Me, Corbin and Saikat are saying, “Do it again.
我、科尔宾和塞卡特说：“再做一次。
Do it again.” Not don’t abuse it, don’t be a clown and do it every other day.
再做一次。”不是不要滥用它，不要成为一个小丑，每隔一天就这样做一次。
But when it matters, you need to be able to challenge Pelosi.
但当重要的时候，你需要能够挑战佩洛西。
And in my opinion, she just got to a point where she got exhausted being uncomfortable.
在我看来，她已经到了精疲力竭、不舒服的地步。
It’s really hard, the media hates you and they keep pounding away and calling you a radical and you’re destroying the Democratic Party, you’re destroying unity.
这真的很难，媒体讨厌你，他们不断地抨击你，称你为激进分子，你正在摧毁民主党，你正在摧毁团结。
Whereas if you go along, all of a sudden you’re a queen.
然而，如果你顺从，你就会突然成为女王。
And now all of a sudden the mainstream media is saying, oh, AOC, she could be the [inaudible 02:43:46].
现在主流媒体突然说，哦，AOC，她可能就是[听不清 02:43:46]。
There’s some degree to which you want to sometimes bide your time and just rest a bit.
在某种程度上，有时你想等待时机，休息一下。
2:43:45 And I think from my perspective, maybe you can educate me, she seems like a legit, progressive, legit even populist, charismatic, young, a lot of time to develop the game of politics, how to play it well enough to avoid the bullshit.
我认为从我的角度来看，也许你可以教育我，她看起来是一个合法的、进步的、甚至是民粹主义的、有魅力的、年轻的，有很多时间来发展政治游戏，如何玩得足够好以避免废话。
I guess she doesn’t take corporate PAC money?
我猜她不拿公司 PAC 的钱？
That’s right.
这是正确的。
2:44:13 No, she’s still true on that.
不，她仍然相信这一点。
As far as just looking over the next few elections, who’s going to be running?
就接下来的几次选举而言，谁将参加竞选？
2:44:16 Who’s going to be a real player?
谁会成为真正的玩家？
To me she seems like an obvious person that’s going to be in the race.
对我来说，她似乎是一个明显会参加竞选的人。
While I fight for the ideal, I’m very practical.
我在为理想而奋斗的同时，也很实际。
2:44:31 For example, she wins, and then one cycle later after 2020, there’s these guys who want to “force” the vote, and it was on the speakership of Nancy Pelosi, and they wanted to use it to get Medicare for All.
例如，她赢了，然后在 2020 年的一个周期后，有些人想要“强制”投票，这是南希·佩洛西的议长，他们想用它来获得全民医疗保险。
I’m like, “Guys, forcing a vote is a terrific idea.
我说：“伙计们，强制投票是个好主意。
On the speakership, okay, who’s your alternative?” “Oh, we don’t have an alternative.” Already giant red flag.
关于发言人，好吧，你的选择是谁？” “哦，我们没有其他选择。”已经是巨大的红旗了。
“What’s the issue you’re looking to have them vote on?” “Medicare for All.” “Oh, you don’t know politics.”
“你想让他们投票的问题是什么？” “全民医疗保险”。 “哦，你不懂政治。”
2:45:18 I love Medicare for All.
我喜欢全民医疗保险。
We have to get Medicare for All.
我们必须获得全民医疗保险。
But if that’s the first one you put up without gaining any leverage, you’re going to get slaughtered.
但如果这是你在没有获得任何影响力的情况下提出的第一个，你就会被屠杀。
Put up something easy, force a vote on $15 minimum wage, or pick another one that’s easy, paid family leave.
提出一些简单的方案，强制就 15 美元的最低工资进行投票，或者选择另一个简单的带薪家庭假。
These are all polling great.
这些都很棒。
Because if you force a vote on that, you can actually win.
因为如果你强制投票，你实际上可以获胜。
And if you win, you gain leverage, and then you do the next one and the next one.
如果你赢了，你就获得了影响力，然后你就可以做下一件、下一件。
And then you do Medicare for All.
然后你就实行全民医疗保险。
Not bullshit gradualism that the corporate Democrats do, but actually strategically, practically building up power and leverage and using it at the right times.
这不是民主党企业所做的废话渐进主义，而是实际上从战略上讲，切实地建立权力和影响力，并在正确的时间使用它。
2:45:55 If I thought that’s what AOC was doing, I would love it.
如果我认为这就是 AOC 正在做的事情，我会喜欢它。
I don’t need her to force a vote on Medicare for All, I don’t need her to go on some wild tangents that don’t make any sense and is only going to diminish her power.
我不需要她强制对全民医疗保险进行投票，我不需要她做出一些没有任何意义、只会削弱她权力的疯狂切线。
But when they eviscerated all the progressive proposals in Build Back Better, how did that happen?
但是，当他们在《重建更好》中剔除所有进步提案时，这是怎么发生的呢？
Manchin and Sinema used every ounce of leverage they had.
曼钦和西内玛动用了他们所拥有的每一分力量。
They said, “I’m just not going to vote for it.
他们说：“我只是不会投票支持它。
I don’t care.
我不在乎。
The status quo was always perfect for my donors, so I don’t need you.
现状对我的捐助者来说总是完美的，所以我不需要你。
I vote no.
我投反对票。
Now, take out everything I want,” and Biden did.
现在，拿出我想要的一切，”拜登照做了。
2:46:35 Progressives had to push back and say, “Here is two to three proposals.
进步人士不得不反驳说：“这里有两到三个提案。
Not everything, not everything.
不是一切，不是一切。
Two to three proposals.
两到三个提案。
They all poll over 70%.
他们的民意调查都超过70%。
They’re all no-brainers, and they’re all things that Joe Biden promised.
这些都是理所当然的，都是乔·拜登所承诺的。
We want those in the bill, otherwise we’re voting no.” At that point, what would’ve happened is the media would’ve exploded and they would’ve said, AOC and the rest are the scum of the earth, they’re ruining the Democratic Party.
我们希望将这些内容纳入法案，否则我们将投反对票。”到那时，媒体就会爆炸，他们会说，AOC 和其他人都是地球上的败类，他们正在毁掉民主党。
We’re not going to get the bill.
我们不会收到账单的。
They’re the worst.
他们是最糟糕的。
You have to withstand that.
你必须忍受这一点。
If you cannot withstand a nuclear blast from mainstream media, you’re not the person.
如果你无法承受主流媒体的核爆炸，那么你就不是那个人。
You have to run that obstacle course to get to change.
你必须跑完障碍赛才能改变。
If they had stood their ground, they definitely would’ve won on one to two of those issues.
如果他们坚持自己的立场，他们肯定会在其中一到两个问题上获胜。
Instead, they went with a strategy that was called, it was literally called, Trust Biden.
相反，他们采取了一种策略，字面意思是“信任拜登”。
All right, so big question.
好吧，这么大的问题。
2:47:32 Who wins this election, Kamala or Trump?
卡马拉和特朗普谁会赢得这次选举？
And what’s Kamala’s path to victory?
卡玛拉的胜利之路是什么？
And if you can steel, man, what’s Trump’s path to victory?
如果你能做到这一点，伙计，特朗普的胜利之路是什么？
There’s not enough information yet.
还没有足够的信息。
2:47:46 Since I make a lot of predictions on air and then brag about it unbearably, people are always, they’ll stop me in the streets and they’ll be like, “Predict this.
由于我在广播中做了很多预测，然后令人难以忍受地吹嘘它，人们总是会在街上拦住我，他们会说，“预测一下。
Predict my marriage.” “Brother, I don’t know anything about your marriage.
预测我的婚姻。” “哥，你结婚的事我一无所知。
How can I possibly predict something without having any information?” In the case of this campaign, right now I got Kamala Harris at 55% chance of winning, which is not bad.
我怎么可能在没有任何信息的情况下预测某些事情呢？”就本次竞选而言，现在我以 55% 的几率赢得卡玛拉·哈里斯，这还不错。
Doesn’t mean she’s going to win by 55 because then that would be a 10 point margin.
并不意味着她会以 55 分获胜，因为那样的话就领先 10 分。
That’s not going to happen.
那不会发生。
But I say around 51 to 55, but it’s nowhere near over because of a lot of things.
但我说的是 51 到 55 左右，但由于很多事情，它还远未结束。
One, the Democrats are still seen as more establishment and people hate the establishment.
第一，民主党仍然被视为更建制派，而人们讨厌建制派。
Two, if war breaks out in the Middle East, which is now unfortunately bordering on likely, if that war breaks out, all bets are off.
第二，如果中东爆发战争（不幸的是，现在战争很可能爆发），那么所有的赌注都将落空。
Do you mean a regional war?
你的意思是地区战争吗？
Yeah, like Iran, Israel gets to be a real thing, not just a pinprick and a little bombing here and an assassination there.
是的，就像伊朗一样，以色列成为一个真实的存在，而不仅仅是这里的针刺和一点轰炸，那里的暗杀。
2:48:46 No, we’re going to war.
不，我们要打仗了。
If that happens, then all bets are off and no one has any idea who’s going to win.
如果发生这种情况，那么所有的赌注都会被取消，没有人知道谁会赢。
And if they’re pretending that they know, that’s ridiculous because it’s so unpredictable.
如果他们假装知道，那就太荒谬了，因为事情太不可预测了。
And then the third bogey for her is if she goes back to word salads.
然后她的第三个柏忌是如果她回到单词沙拉。
2:49:16 There’s three phases of Kamala Harris’s career.
卡马拉·哈里斯的职业生涯分为三个阶段。
She’s not necessarily any different in terms of policy.
她在政策方面不一定有什么不同。
You can frame it in a bad way, you could frame it in a good way.
你可以用不好的方式来构建它，也可以用好的方式来构建它。
You could say, oh, she’s just seeing which way the wind is blowing.
你可以说，哦，她只是在看风向。
And then, oh, she’s a tough cop prosecutor, and then she’s doing justice reform when people want justice reform.
然后，哦，她是一名强硬的警察检察官，当人们想要司法改革时，她正在进行司法改革。
Oh, she’s a waffler.
哦，她是个华夫饼。
2:49:39 Or you could paint it as she’s pretty balanced.
或者你可以把它画成她非常平衡。
She prosecuted serious criminals very harshly, but then on marijuana possession got them into rehab.
她非常严厉地起诉严重罪犯，但随后因持有大麻而将他们送入戒毒所。
And you know what?
你知道吗？
That’s actually what you should do.
这实际上是你应该做的。
I’m not talking about policy so there you could have one of those views about Kamala Harris, and I get it.
我不是在谈论政策，所以你可以对卡马拉·哈里斯有这样的看法，我明白了。
I’m talking about stylistically.
我说的是风格上的。
Kamala Harris until the second debate in the primaries in 2020 is a very competent politician who’s in line to be the next Obama.
卡玛拉·哈里斯 (Kamala Harris) 在 2020 年初选第二次辩论之前都是一位非常有能力的政治家，有望成为下一任奥巴马。
She’s killing it.
她正在扼杀它。
District attorney, attorney general, senator.
地区检察官、总检察长、参议员。
And then the first debate, if you remember, she won.
然后第一场辩论，如果你还记得的话，她赢了。
She had that great line about, “There was a little girl on that bus that was integrating the schools, and that girl was me.” And Biden being the knucklehead that he is, he’s caught on tape going…
她有一句很棒的台词：“那辆巴士上有一个小女孩正在整合学校，那个女孩就是我。”拜登是个傻瓜，他被录像带发现……
Don’t have that reaction, brother, because she’s criticizing his segregation policy on buses back in the ’70.
兄弟，别有那种反应，因为她正在批评他 70 年代在公交车上的种族隔离政策。
2:50:46 Anyways, so she’s doing terrific.
无论如何，她做得很棒。
And then after that debate until Biden drops out is a disaster area for Kamala Harris’s career.
在那次辩论之后，直到拜登退出，卡马拉·哈里斯的职业生涯将陷入灾难。
In the primary she starts falling apart.
在初选中，她开始崩溃。
She can’t strategize right, she’s for Medicare for All.
她无法制定正确的战略，她支持全民医疗保险。
No, she’s not, she’s for Medicare for some.
不，她不是，她支持某些人的医疗保险。
What’s Medicare for some?
某些人的医疗保险是什么？
I don’t know.
我不知道。
And she goes to the next debate and Tulsi Gabbard kicks her ass.
她参加下一场辩论，图尔西·加巴德狠狠地踢了她一脚。
And then goes to the third debate, gets her kicked again, and she’s starting to drift away.
然后进入第三场辩论，再次被踢，她开始走开。
Then at this point, and this is funny, I have more votes for president than Kamala Harris does, because Kamala Harris dropped out before Iowa because that’s how much of a disaster her campaign turned into when she was leading.
然后在这一点上，这很有趣，我比卡马拉·哈里斯获得更多的总统选票，因为卡马拉·哈里斯在爱荷华州之前退出，因为这就是她领导时她的竞选活动变成了一场多大的灾难。
She was leading.
她领先。
2:51:33 Then she becomes vice president and Biden, probably because of that bus line, Jill Biden caught tremendous feelings over that line.
然后她成为副总统和拜登，可能是因为那条公交线路，吉尔·拜登在那条线路上感受到了巨大的感受。
Biden’s like, here, have this albatross around your neck.
拜登就像，在这里，把这个信天翁挂在你的脖子上。
It’s called immigration.
这就是所谓的移民。
Good luck.
祝你好运。
I’m not going to do anything about it.
我不会对此采取任何行动。
I’m not going to change policy, but I’m putting you in charge of it to get your ass handed to you.
我不会改变政策，但我会让你负责它，让你的屁股交给你。
And she does, so that’s a disaster.
她确实这么做了，所以这是一场灾难。
And then she starts doing interviews where she’s like, “We have to become the change, the being, but not the thing we were and the unbecoming.” And you’re, what is going on?
然后她开始接受采访，她说，“我们必须改变，成为存在，但不是我们过去的样子和不合适的样子。”而你，发生了什么事？
Why can neither one of them speak?
为什么他们谁都不能说话？
2:52:12 But then the third act shocks me.
但第三幕让我震惊。
Biden steps down, she goes and grabs all those delegates in a super competent way that we talked about earlier.
拜登下台后，她以我们之前讨论过的超级称职的方式去争取所有这些代表。
And then she goes out and gives a speech.
然后她出去发表演讲。
I’m, oh, that speech is good.
我是，哦，这个演讲很好。
Okay, and another one, another one.
好吧，再来一张，再一张。
I’m, wait a minute, these are good speeches.
我，等一下，这些都是很好的演讲。
No more word salads.
不再有沙拉这个词了。
Then she picks Tim Walz and shocks the world.
然后她选择了蒂姆·沃尔兹并震惊了世界。
I’m like, that’s the correct VP pick.
我想，这是正确的副总裁选择。
That is a miracle.
这是一个奇迹。
And then she goes and does the economically populist plan, all those proposals about housing that people care about, grocery prices that people care about.
然后她开始实施经济民粹主义计划，所有这些关于人们关心的住房、人们关心的杂货价格的建议。
Real or not real, that is correct political strategy.
真实与否，才是正确的政治策略。
This Kamala Harris is back to the original Kamala Harris, who was a very competent, skilled politician.
这个卡马拉·哈里斯又回到了原来的卡马拉·哈里斯，他是一位非常有能力、技术娴熟的政治家。
And as I was telling you offline, whoever’s doing her TikTok is blowing up and they’re doing risky, edgy stuff.
正如我在线下告诉你们的那样，无论是谁在做她的 TikTok，他们都在做危险、前卫的事情。
Yes.
是的。
I did not expect that from somebody that comes from the Biden camp of just be safe, be boring, all this stuff.
我没想到来自拜登阵营的人会说，要安全，要无聊，所有这些东西。
You have to give Kamala Harris ultimate credit, because she’s the leader of the campaign and she makes the final decisions.
你必须给予卡玛拉·哈里斯最终的信任，因为她是竞选活动的领导者，并且她做出了最终决定。
2:53:17 But there’s apparently a couple of people inside that campaign that are ass kickers, and they have convinced her to take risk, which Democrats never take.
但竞选团队中显然有几个人很牛逼，他们说服她去冒险，而民主党人却从来不冒险。
And it is correct to take risks.
冒险是正确的。
You cannot get to victory without risk.
没有风险就无法取得胜利。
The vice president pick is the bellwether.
副总统人选是领头羊。
When Hillary Clinton picked Tim Kaine, I said, “That’s it, she’s going to lose.” Because Tim Kaine is playing prevent defense.
当希拉里·克林顿选择蒂姆·凯恩时，我说：“就是这样，她会输。”因为蒂姆凯恩正在打预防防守。
He’s wallpaper.
他是壁纸。
He’d be lucky to be wallpaper, he’s just a white wall.
他很幸运能成为壁纸，他只是一堵白墙。
And when he speaks it’s white noise.
当他说话时，就是白噪音。
He never says anything interesting, he’s the most boring pick of all time.
他从来没有说过任何有趣的话，他是有史以来最无聊的人选。
That saying, we already won.
话虽这么说，我们已经赢了。
Ha, ha.
哈，哈。
2:54:02 If Kamala Harris had picked Mark Kelly, that’s the Tim Kaine equivalent.
如果卡玛拉·哈里斯选择了马克·凯利，那就相当于蒂姆·凯恩。
Oh, he’s an astronaut.
哦，他是一名宇航员。
I don’t give a shit that he’s an astronaut.
我根本不在乎他是一名宇航员。
What is he saying?
他在说什么？
Is he a good politician?
他是一个好的政治家吗？
Does he have good policies?
他有好的政策吗？
Is he exciting on the campaign trail?
他的竞选活动令人兴奋吗？
Is he going to add to your momentum?
他会增加你的动力吗？
Mark Kelly, he might be a good guy, but number one, he’s a very corporate Democrat.
马克·凯利，他可能是个好人，但第一，他是一位非常有企业精神的民主党人。
And number two, it’s like watching grass grow.
第二，就像看着草生长一样。
He’s terrible at speaking if you ask me.
如果你问我的话，他说话很糟糕。
I thought, for sure she’s going to pick Mark Kelly, because that’s what a normal Democrat does.
我想，她肯定会选择马克·凯利，因为这就是一个正常的民主党人所做的。
Or if they want to go wild and crazy, they’ll go to Beshear.
或者，如果他们想要疯狂，他们就会去 Beshear。
I was, please let it be Shapiro, because he’s at least not bad.
我是，请让他是夏皮罗吧，因为他至少不坏。
He’s done some populous things and he’s strategic, he’s really smart.
他做了一些广为人知的事情，而且他很有战略眼光，他真的很聪明。
I need smart candidates.
我需要聪明的候选人。
Dumb candidates don’t help.
愚蠢的候选人没有帮助。
They don’t have a mind of their own.
他们没有自己的想法。
They can’t take risks.
他们不能冒险。
They’re not independent thinkers.
他们不是独立思考者。
They’re going to lose.
他们会输的。
She picks the smartest, most populous candidate.
她挑选了最聪明、人口最多的候选人。
Boom, boom, we got a winner.
繁荣，繁荣，我们赢了。
That’s a good campaign.
这是一个很好的活动。
Speaking of risks, when they debate, when Kamala and Trump debate, what do you think that’s going to look like?
说到风险，当他们辩论时，当卡马拉和特朗普辩论时，你认为那会是什么样子？
2:55:00 Who do you think is going to win?
你认为谁会赢？
Oh, that’s not close.
哦，那还不太接近。
2:55:12 Kamala Harris will win unless she falls apart.
卡马拉·哈里斯（Kamala Harris）除非崩溃，否则她将会获胜。
Unless she goes back to the bad era.
除非她回到那个糟糕的时代。
That’s risk number three.
这是第三个风险。
Well, hold on a second.
好吧，请稍等。
2:55:19 Oh, I guess in a debate, you can have pre-written.
哦，我想在辩论中，你可以预先写好。
It seems like when she’s going off the top of her head is when the word salad sometimes comes out.
似乎当她发疯的时候，沙拉这个词有时就会出现。
Sometimes.
有时。
Well, we’ll have to see because she hasn’t done any tough interviews, she hasn’t really been challenged.
好吧，我们得看看，因为她没有接受过任何艰难的采访，她并没有真正受到挑战。
2:55:31 I hope to God that doesn’t happen.
我希望上帝不会发生这种事。
That she doesn’t fall apart, you mean?
她不会崩溃，你是说？
Yeah.
是的。
I hope she does a bunch of interviews, right?
我希望她能接受很多采访，对吗？
Oh, definitely, definitely.
噢，绝对，绝对。
2:55:42 This is going to sound really funny.
这听起来真的很有趣。
I’m too honest, but I am in the context of Kamala Harris probably shouldn’t come on The Young Turks.
我太诚实了，但我在卡玛拉·哈里斯的背景下可能不应该出现在青年土耳其人中。
We do a really tough interview and it would hurt her.
我们进行了一次非常艰难的采访，这会伤害她。
Do you though?
你有吗？
2:55:57 It’s tough, but you’re pretty respectful.
这很难，但你很尊重。
Maybe I’m okay with a little bit of tension.
也许我可以接受一点点紧张。
You’re pretty respectful.
你很尊重人。
Even when you’re yelling, there’s respect.
即使你大喊大叫，也有尊重。
You don’t do a got you type thing.
你不会做“让你打字”的事情。
There’s certain things you could do.
有些事情你可以做。
You said this in the past, you can say a lot in from the past that’s out of context.
你过去说过这样的话，你可以说很多过去断章取义的话。
It forces the other person to have to define the context, just debate type tactics over and over.
它迫使对方必须定义上下文，只是一遍又一遍地辩论类型的策略。
You don’t seem to do that.
你似乎不这样做。
You just ask them questions generally and then you argue the point, and then you also hear what they say.
你只是笼统地问他们问题，然后你争论这一点，然后你也听到他们说什么。
The only thing I’ve seen you do sometimes tough, that you sometimes interrupt.
我见过的唯一一件事是你有时候做得很艰难，有时候你会打断。
You speak over the person if they are trying to do the same.
如果他们也想做同样的事，你就可以说服他们。
Right.
正确的。
2:56:48 Only if they’re filibustering.
除非他们进行阻挠。
Yeah, if they’re filibustering.
是的，如果他们在阻挠的话。
2:56:50 But that’s a tricky one.
但这是一个棘手的问题。
That’s a tricky one.
这是一个棘手的问题。
Right.
正确的。
2:56:54 No, but Lex, the problem for her coming on our show isn’t that we would be unfair to her, it’s that we would be fair.
不，但是莱克斯，她来参加我们的节目的问题不是我们对她不公平，而是我们要公平。
We would ask questions she is going to have trouble answering.
我们会问她难以回答的问题。
All the corporate stuff.
所有公司的东西。
Right.
正确的。
2:57:07 Biden said he was going to take the corporate tax rate to 28%, and he barely tried.
拜登表示他打算将企业税率提高到28%，但他几乎没有尝试过。
You say you’re going to take it to 28%, why should we trust you?
你说你要把它提高到28%，我们为什么要相信你？
You guys said $15 minimum wage, and then you took it out of the bill.
你们说最低工资是 15 美元，然后就从账单中扣除了。
Why should we trust you?
我们为什么要相信你？
Those are very tough questions.
这些都是非常棘手的问题。
She’s never going to get that in mainstream media.
她永远不会在主流媒体上看到这一点。
Mainstream media is going to have faux toughness, but in reality they’re going to be softballs.
主流媒体将假装强硬，但实际上他们将是垒球。
And so the debates, you’re right Lex, is a little bit easier because Sarah Palin proved that you could just memorize scripted talking points.
所以，莱克斯，你是对的，辩论会容易一些，因为莎拉·佩林证明你可以记住脚本化的谈话要点。
And she admitted it later, she was super nervous, she memorized the talking points.
她后来承认，她超级紧张，她记住了谈话要点。
And no matter what they asked, she just gave the talking point.
无论他们问什么，她只是给出谈话要点。
Which by the way, people barely noticed because that’s what all politicians do, she just admitted it.
顺便说一句，人们几乎没有注意到，因为这就是所有政客所做的，她只是承认了这一点。
2:58:01 And so, no, Trump’s a disaster in a debate.
所以，不，特朗普在辩论中是一场灾难。
He’s a one man wrecking crew of his own campaign.
他是一个独自一人破坏自己竞选团队的人。
Any competent debater would eviscerate Donald Trump.
任何有能力的辩手都会把唐纳德·特朗普 (Donald Trump) 说得一干二净。
On any given topic, when he says something…
在任何特定主题上，当他说某事时……
Here, let’s take one lunatic conspiracy theory that he just had recently.
在这里，我们就拿他最近刚刚提出的一个疯狂的阴谋论来说吧。
And by the way, if you’re a right-winger and you keep getting hurt every time I say he’s a lunatic, or I insult Donald Trump, you sound like a left-winger.
顺便说一句，如果你是右翼分子，每次我说他是个疯子，或者我侮辱唐纳德·特朗普时，你都会受到伤害，那么你听起来就像是左翼分子。
I’m offended.
我很生气。
I’m offended, I’m offended.
我生气了，我生气了。
Get over it.
克服它。
Get over it.
克服它。
We have disagreements, hear what the other side is saying.
我们有分歧，听听对方怎么说。
And by the way, I say the same thing to the left.
顺便说一句，我对左边也说了同样的话。
I say, you think everybody on the right’s evil, you’re crazy.
我说，你认为右翼的人都是邪恶的，你疯了。
No, they just have a different way of looking at the world.
不，他们只是看待世界的方式不同。
Which by the way, is an interesting conversation, we should talk about that in a minute too.
顺便说一下，这是一次有趣的对话，我们也应该稍后讨论一下。
I do it to both sides.
我对双方都这样做。
2:58:56 But Trump says, “Oh, I don’t think there’s anyone at Kamala Harris’s rallies, all the pictures are AI.” Let’s say he says that in a debate because he’s liable to say anything.
但特朗普说，“哦，我认为卡马拉·哈里斯的集会上没有人，所有图片都是人工智能。”假设他在辩论中这么说，因为他可能会说什么。
You just say, okay, so you think every reporter that was there, every photographer that was there, every human being that was there, they’re all lying.
你只是说，好吧，所以你认为在场的每个记者，在场的每个摄影师，在场的每个人，他们都在撒谎。
They have a conspiracy of thousands of people, but none of them were actually there.
他们有一个数千人的阴谋，但实际上没有一个人在场。
Do you understand how insane you sound?
你知道你听起来有多疯狂吗？
This is a good place to, can you steel man the case for Trump?
这是一个好地方，你能为特朗普辩护吗？
Trump is a massive risk because of all the things we talked about earlier, but there is a percentage chance that he’s such a wild card that he overturns the whole system.
由于我们之前讨论过的所有事情，特朗普是一个巨大的风险，但他很有可能是一个外卡，以至于他推翻了整个体系。
2:59:36 And that is why the establishment is a little scared of him.
这就是为什么当权者有点害怕他。
If he’s in office…
如果他在任的话……
Here, I’ll give you a case of Donald Trump doing something right.
在这里，我给大家举一个唐纳德·特朗普做对事情的例子。
Something wrong first and then something right.
先有错误的事情，然后有正确的事情。
He bombs Soleimani , the top general of Iran, and kills him.
他轰炸了伊朗最高将领苏莱马尼并杀死了他。
That risks World War Three, that risks a giant war with Iran that devolves.
这可能会引发第三次世界大战，也可能会引发与伊朗的大规模战争。
Iran is four times the size of Iraq.
伊朗的面积是伊拉克的四倍。
If you’re anti-war, you should have hated that he assassinated Soleimani.
如果你反战，你应该讨厌他刺杀苏莱马尼。
3:00:13 But after the assassination, Iran doesn’t want to get into it even though they’re in a rage and they do a small bombing.
但暗杀事件发生后，伊朗并不想卷入其中，尽管他们盛怒之下进行了小型爆炸。
You could tell if it’s a small or a big one.
你可以判断它是小还是大。
That’s them saying, we don’t really want war, but for our domestic crowd we have to bomb you back.
他们是说，我们真的不想战争，但为了我们国内的民众，我们必须轰炸你们。
And that’s when the military industrial complex comes to Trump and says, “No, you have to show them who’s tough and bomb this area.” And Trump says, “No, they did a small bombing, not a large bombing.
就在那时，军事工业联合体来找特朗普说：“不，你必须向他们展示谁是强硬的，并轰炸这个地区。”特朗普说：“不，他们进行了一次小型爆炸，而不是一次大规模爆炸。
I don’t want the war.
我不想要战争。
I’m not going to do that bombing.” That was his shining moment.
我不会做那种爆炸事件。”那是他的高光时刻。
For me one of the biggest steel man for Trump is that he has both the skill and the predisposition to not be a warmonger.
对我来说，特朗普最大的钢铁侠之一就是他既有能力，也有不成为战争贩子的倾向。
3:00:46 He, I think better than the other candidates I’ve seen, is able to end wars and end them, now, you might disagree with it, but in a way where there’s legitimately effective negotiation that happens.
我认为他比我见过的其他候选人更好，能够结束战争并结束它们，现在，你可能不同意它，但以一种发生合法有效谈判的方式。
I just don’t see any other candidate currently being able to sit down with Zelensky and Putin and to negotiate a peace treaty that both are equally unhappy with.
我只是认为目前没有任何其他候选人能够与泽连斯基和普京坐下来谈判达成一项双方都同样不满意的和平条约。
On the one hand, almost all other politicians are going be controlled by the military-industrial complex, and that complex wants to bleed Russia dry, and that’s what the Ukraine War is doing.
一方面，几乎所有其他政客都将受到军工联合体的控制，而该联合体想要榨干俄罗斯的血，而这就是乌克兰战争正在做的事情。
3:01:25 It’s a double win for the defense contractors.
这对国防承包商来说是双赢。
Number one, every dollar we send to Ukraine is actually not going to Ukraine, it’s going to US defense contractors, and then they are sending old weapons to Ukraine.
第一，我们发送给乌克兰的每一美元实际上都不会流向乌克兰，而是流向美国国防承包商，然后他们又向乌克兰发送旧武器。
The money is to build new weapons for us.
这笔钱是用来为我们制造新武器的。
A lot of people don’t know that.
很多人不知道这一点。
The defense contractors want that war to go on forever, and they’re an enormous influence in Washington.
国防承包商希望这场战争永远持续下去，他们在华盛顿有着巨大的影响力。
3:02:04 The second win is they’re depleting Russia.
第二个胜利是他们正在消耗俄罗斯。
And Russia has gotten themselves into a quagmire, like we did in Iraq and Afghanistan, and they’re bleeding out.
俄罗斯已经让自己陷入了泥潭，就像我们在伊拉克和阿富汗那样，他们正在流血。
The military-industrial complex wants Russia to bleed out for as long as humanly possible.
军工联合体希望俄罗斯尽可能长时间地流血。
They actually care more about their own interest, of course, than they do about Ukrainian interests.
当然，他们实际上更关心自己的利益，而不是乌克兰的利益。
In fact, there’s a good argument to be made that Ukraine could have gotten a peace deal earlier and we prevented it.
事实上，有一个很好的论据认为，乌克兰本来可以更早地达成和平协议，但我们阻止了它。
But the bottom line now is probably how a deal gets done is they let go of three more areas in Ukraine.
但现在的底线可能是如何达成协议：他们放弃乌克兰的另外三个地区。
They already lost Crimea.
他们已经失去了克里米亚。
They’d have to let go of three more regions.
他们还必须放弃另外三个地区。
And that is tough because at that point Russia’s a little bit encouraged.
这很困难，因为那时俄罗斯有点受到鼓舞。
Every time they do an invasion, they get more land.
他们每次入侵，都会获得更多的土地。
They might not get all the land they wanted, but they get a lot of land.
他们可能得不到他们想要的所有土地，但他们得到了很多土地。
It’s a very difficult issue.
这是一个非常困难的问题。
But literally, which person, if they become president, will end the war?
但从字面上看，如果谁成为总统，谁会结束战争？
Trump will end that war because Trump will go in and he loves Russia and Putin anyway.
特朗普将结束这场战争，因为特朗普会参战，而且他无论如何都爱俄罗斯和普京。
I just disagree with, he loves Russia, the implication of that.
我只是不同意他爱俄罗斯这句话的含义。
3:03:13 Meaning he’ll do whatever Putin tells him.
这意味着他会按照普京的指示去做。
I think…
我认为……
He’ll do 90% of what Putin tells him.
普京告诉他的事情他会做 90%。
I just disagree with that.
我只是不同意这一点。
3:03:25 I think he wants to be the person that says, fuck you to Putin while patting him-
我认为他想成为那个一边拍拍普京一边对普京说“操你”的人——
No way.
没办法。
…
……
3:03:36 on the back, but out negotiating Putin.
在后面，但不在与普京谈判。
I don’t like talking about Russia because there’s so much emotions that go into that topic.
我不喜欢谈论俄罗斯，因为这个话题涉及太多情绪。
3:03:40 The right wing, the minute you mention Russia, they’re like, oh, it’s a hoax and all this baggage that comes with it, et cetera.
右翼，一旦你提到俄罗斯，他们就会说，哦，这是一个骗局，还有随之而来的所有包袱，等等。
To me, Russia’s not any different than Saudi Arabia or Israel for Trump.
对我来说，对于特朗普来说，俄罗斯与沙特阿拉伯或以色列没有什么不同。
You give me money, I like you.
你给我钱，我就喜欢你。
You buy my apartments, I like you.
你买我的公寓，我喜欢你。
If you don’t give me money, I don’t like you.
你不给我钱，我就不喜欢你。
It’s not that complicated.
没那么复杂。
Okay, don’t worry about the Russia part of it.
好吧，不用担心俄罗斯的部分。
The bottom line is Trump thinks, what do I care about those three regions of Ukraine?
底线是特朗普认为，我关心乌克兰的这三个地区做什么？
I want to get this thing done.
我想把这件事完成。
He’ll go and he’ll say, “Ukraine, we’re going to withdraw all help unless you agree to a peace deal with Russia, and Russia wants those three regions, that’s the peace deal.
他会说，“乌克兰，我们将撤回所有帮助，除非你同意与俄罗斯达成和平协议，而俄罗斯想要这三个地区，这就是和平协议。
That’s it.” Ukraine will lose a part of their country and we get to a peace deal.
就是这样。”乌克兰将失去其国家的一部分，我们将达成和平协议。
See, I hope not.
瞧，我希望不是。
3:04:36 I hope not.
我希望不会。
I think Trump sees themselves and wants to be a great negotiator, and I personally want the death of people to end.
我认为特朗普看到了自己并希望成为一名出色的谈判者，我个人希望人们的死亡能够结束。
And I think Trump would bring that much faster.
我认为特朗普会更快地实现这一点。
And I disagree with you, at least my hope is that he would negotiate something that would be fair.
我不同意你的观点，至少我希望他能够谈判一些公平的事情。
His anti-war record is so complicated because moving the embassy in Israel and killing the top Iranian general were super provocative, and they could have easily triggered a giant war there.
他的反战记录如此复杂，因为迁移驻以色列大使馆和杀死伊朗高级将领是超级挑衅性的，他们很容易在那里引发一场大规模的战争。
3:05:05 And then you know what’s going to happen if you get into any kind of real war?
然后你知道如果你陷入任何类型的真正战争会发生什么吗？
Trump’s going to want to prove his buttons larger.
特朗普想要证明他的按钮更大。
Then he’s going to do massive, ridiculous bombings.
然后他就会制造大规模、可笑的爆炸事件。
I worry about nukes.
我担心核武器。
And so we had Giuliani on the show, on the RNC, and I asked him this question.
因此，朱利安尼参加了共和党全国委员会的节目，我问了他这个问题。
I said, “He keeps saying, ‘Oh, they wouldn’t do it if I was in charge.'” I’m like, “What does that mean?
我说，“他一直说，‘哦，如果我负责的话，他们就不会这么做。’”我想，“这是什么意思？
Because it sounds like what it means is they wouldn’t do it because they know if they did it, I would do something insane like attack Russia or use nukes.” And Rudy said, “Yeah, that’s what it means.”
因为听起来这意味着他们不会这样做，因为他们知道如果他们这样做，我会做一些疯狂的事情，比如攻击俄罗斯或使用核武器。”鲁迪说：“是的，就是这个意思。”
3:05:56 That means you have to at least bluff that, and you have to get them to believe that he’s a madman.
这意味着你至少必须虚张声势，并且必须让他们相信他是个疯子。
That’s the madman theory of Nixon.
这就是尼克松的疯子理论。
And Rudy said that too.
鲁迪也这么说过。
He was very clear about it.
他对此非常清楚。
But the problem is, if you get your bluff called.
但问题是，如果你的虚张声势被揭穿了。
And so if you actually attack Russia, you’re going to start World War Three.
因此，如果你真的攻击俄罗斯，你就会引发第三次世界大战。
That’s why, yeah, if you could just get away with bluffing, maybe.
这就是为什么，是的，如果你能侥幸逃脱虚张声势的话，也许吧。
But he’s playing a very dangerous game, and he massively increased drone strikes.
但他正在玩一场非常危险的游戏，他大幅增加了无人机袭击。
On the other hand, he didn’t bomb Iran further, and on the other hand, he started the process of withdrawal from Afghanistan.
一方面他没有进一步轰炸伊朗，另一方面他开始了从阿富汗撤军的进程。
Not black and white, complicated record.
不是黑白分明的，复杂的记录。
3:06:40 And one thing, I’ll give him another piece of credit here.
还有一件事，我要在这里给他另一项荣誉。
I think I’m taking this steel manning too far, but the credit was that he changed the rhetoric of the right wing.
我认为我对这个钢铁人的看法太过分了，但值得赞扬的是他改变了右翼的言论。
They went from the party of Dick Cheney, War is great, and all Muslims are evil.
他们来自迪克·切尼的政党，战争是伟大的，所有穆斯林都是邪恶的。
And so he hates Muslims too, but that’s a different thing.
所以他也讨厌穆斯林，但那是另一回事。
But, oh, we have to attack the enemy.
但是，哦，我们必须攻击敌人。
We have to start wars, et cetera.
我们必须发动战争等等。
To now the Republican voters are generally anti-war and hate Dick Cheney.
到目前为止，共和党选民普遍反战并憎恨迪克·切尼。
Oh, I’ll take it.
哦，我会接受的。
I’ll take it.
我要买它。
That’s a great thing that Trump did, even if he didn’t mean it.
这是特朗普所做的一件伟大的事情，即使他不是故意的。
Even if he does these provocative things that could lead to a much worse war.
即使他做出这些挑衅性的事情也可能导致一场更严重的战争。
Even if I’m worried that he’ll be so reckless he’ll start a bigger war.
即使我担心他会鲁莽行事，引发一场更大的战争。
At least he did that, right, and so I’m happy to have our right wing brothers and sisters join us in the anti-war movement.
至少他做到了，对，所以我很高兴我们的右翼兄弟姐妹加入我们的反战运动。
And I’m not being a jerk about it.
我并不是一个混蛋。
I love it.
我喜欢它。
3:07:40 And so this is another thing the left does wrong from time to time, which is if you agree with a right-winger 2%, they’ll be, “Oh, welcome in.
所以这是左派时不时做错的另一件事，如果你同意 2% 的右翼分子，他们会说，“哦，欢迎进来。
Come on, vote for Trump.
来吧，投票给特朗普吧。
Come on in.
进来吧。
Yeah, woohoo.
是的，呜呼。
Water’s warm.” If you disagree with the left 2%, they’re, “That’s it.
水是温的。”如果你不同意剩下的 2%，他们会说：“就是这样。
You’re banished and you’re a Nazi.” ” Well, brother, how are we going to win an election if you’re banishing everybody there is.
你被放逐了，你是纳粹分子。” “好吧，兄弟，如果你驱逐所有人，我们如何赢得选举。
Hold up.
坚持住。
These Republican voters are coming at your anti-war position.
这些共和党选民正站在你的反战立场上。
Take the win.
取得胜利。
“No, they’re [inaudible 03:08:14] and I won’t deal with them.” “Even when they agree with you?
“不，他们[听不清 03:08:14] 我不会和他们打交道。” “即使他们同意你的观点？
That doesn’t make any sense.
这没有任何意义。
That doesn’t make any sense.
这没有任何意义。
Take the win.” When Charlie Kirk says yes to paid family leave, when Patrick Bette-David on his program roughly says yes to paid family leave, take the win.
拿下胜利吧。”当查理·柯克（Charlie Kirk）同意带薪家事假时，当帕特里克·贝蒂·大卫（Patrick Bette-David）在他的节目中大致同意带薪家事假时，就赢了。
RFK Jr. You said some positive things for a while about RFK Jr. and I think you said you would even consider voting for him given the slate of people.
小罗伯特·肯尼迪 (RFK Jr.) 你曾对小罗伯特·肯尼迪 (RFK Jr.) 说了一些积极的话，我想你说过，考虑到选民名单，你甚至会考虑投票给他。
3:08:31 This was at the time when Biden was still in.
当时拜登还在位。
What do you think about him?
你觉得他怎么样？
What do you think about RFK Jr. as a candidate, as a person?
作为候选人，作为一个人，您如何看待小罗伯特·肯尼迪？
He’s been on the show, right?
他参加过节目，对吗？
Yeah.
是的。
Yeah, so he was on our show.
是的，所以他出现在我们的节目中。
3:08:55 People loved that interview, you could check it out anytime.
人们喜欢那次采访，你可以随时查看。
That’s great.
太好了。
And why do people love it whether they’re right or left?
为什么人们喜欢它，无论他们是右派还是左派？
3:09:01 Because we’re fair.
因为我们是公平的。
We actually asked him about his policy position, he explained them.
我们实际上询问了他的政策立场，他对此进行了解释。
I challenge him, and then he explains, and we give him a fair hearing.
我挑战他，然后他解释，我们给他一个公平的听证会。
But I knew Bobby a little bit before he ran when he was an environmental lawyer.
但在鲍比参选之前，我对他有一点了解，当时他还是一名环境律师。
And his legal work is excellent, and he’s been on the right side of most of the issues for most of his life.
他的法律工作非常出色，而且在他一生的大部分时间里，他在大多数问题上都站在正确的一边。
A, I like him on that.
A，这一点我喜欢他。
Two, on his wildlife, the dead bear and the worms and all that stuff.
第二，关于他的野生动物，死熊和蠕虫以及所有这些东西。
There’s two important lessons you should get out that.
您应该从中吸取两个重要的教训。
Well, one’s just about Bobby, but the other one’s a general one that’s really important for you to know no matter what you think of Bobby Kennedy.
嗯，一个是关于鲍比的，但另一个是一般性的，无论你对鲍比·肯尼迪有什么看法，了解它对你来说都非常重要。
3:09:47 On the personal front, I have a friend that’s very similar to him.
在个人方面，我有一个和他非常相似的朋友。
In fact, he’s one of my best friends.
事实上，他是我最好的朋友之一。
And I know why.
我知道为什么。
This is my theory on why Bobby and my friend led a wild life.
这就是我关于为什么鲍比和我的朋友过着疯狂生活的理论。
Both of their dads died young.
他们的父亲都英年早逝。
When my friend’s dad died, he was 18, and his dad died in his arms.
我朋友的父亲去世时，他18岁，他的父亲死在他怀里。
And he has a motto, “What is lived cannot be unlived.” If I had a great time and I thought it was hilarious to dump a dead bear in Central Park, then I lived it and I had a great time and nothing you could do about it.
他有一句座右铭：“生活过的就不能不生活。”如果我度过了愉快的时光，并且我认为在中央公园扔一只死熊很搞笑，那么我就生活在那里，我度过了愉快的时光，而你对此无能为力。
And sometimes that’ll get you in trouble, and sometimes you’ll have a fantastic time.
有时这会给你带来麻烦，有时你会度过一段美好的时光。
And obviously, Bobby’s dad was killed when he was young, and maybe that got into his head of, you better live strong and live an interesting life.
显然，鲍比的父亲在他年轻时就被杀了，也许这进入了他的脑海，你最好坚强地生活，过有趣的生活。
And so I don’t begrudge him that.
所以我并不嫉妒他。
Even if I begrudge some of the things that he did in that life, I get why he did it.
即使我嫉妒他在那一世所做的一些事情，我也明白他为什么这么做。
I don’t hate him like other people hate him for some of those personal stuff.
我不像其他人因为一些个人的事情而讨厌他那样讨厌他。
3:10:52 And I like him for all the things that he did positive.
我喜欢他所做的所有积极的事情。
Holding fossil fuel companies accountable, protecting communities that had poison dumped into the rivers, et cetera.
让化石燃料公司承担责任，保护向河流倾倒毒物的社区等等。
The thing that affects everybody is when he gets…
影响每个人的事情是当他得到......
Corporate media smeared the hell out of him, and they didn’t allow him to speak.
企业媒体对他进行了极尽抹黑，并且不允许他发表讲话。
And then they did the needle in a haystack trick.
然后他们就完成了大海捞针的戏法。
Whenever it’s an insider, they find the best parts of their lives and then they amplify it.
无论何时，只要是内部人士，他们就会发现自己生活中最好的部分，然后将其放大。
Joe Biden is average Joe from Scranton.
乔·拜登是来自斯克兰顿的普通乔。
Mother fucker’s been in DC for the last 52 years, you think we don’t have eyes and ears?
混蛋在华盛顿已经呆了 52 年了，你以为我们没有眼睛和耳朵吗？
Average Joe from Scranton, who are you kidding?
来自斯克兰顿的普通乔，你在开玩笑吗？
3:11:38 There’s a guy named Fred Thompson who’s an actor, and he was a senator from Tennessee later.
有一个叫弗雷德·汤普森的演员，后来成为田纳西州的参议员。
And he had this great little trick that he would do.
他有一个他会做的很棒的小把戏。
There’s a red pickup truck that he would campaign with so he looks like a regular Joe.
他会开着一辆红色皮卡车参加竞选活动，所以他看起来就像一个普通的乔。
But he’s a millionaire actor.
但他是一位百万富翁演员。
But here’s the funny part.
但这是有趣的部分。
He would drive to the red pickup truck in a limo, and he would drive back from the campaign event in a limo.
他会开着豪华轿车去红色皮卡，然后又开着豪华轿车从竞选活动回来。
But the press never reported the limo, they only reported him in the red pickup truck.
但媒体从未报道过这辆豪华轿车，他们只报道了他乘坐的红色皮卡车。
3:12:00 Never reported the limo.
从来没有报告过豪华轿车。
They only reported him in the red pickup truck, as if that’s what he drives.
他们只报道了他开的是红色皮卡车，就好像他就是开的那样。
See, that’s the theater of politics.
看，这就是政治舞台。
Why?
为什么？
Because Fred Thompson was a corporate Republican, so they loved him.
因为弗雷德·汤普森是一名企业共和党人，所以他们爱他。
So they go, “Yeah, sure, yeah, red pickup truck.
所以他们说，“是的，当然，是的，红色皮卡车。
Oh, good old Fred Thompson, right?” But if you’re an outsider and they don’t like you, then they’re going to look at the haystack of your life and they’re going to try to find needles.
哦，好老弗雷德·汤普森，对吧？”但如果你是一个局外人，而他们不喜欢你，那么他们就会在你生活的大海捞针中寻找针。
So they’ve done this to Trump, they’ve done this to Bernie, they’ve done this to Bobby Kennedy Jr. And with Bobby, they’re like, ooh, there’s some juicy needles in here.
所以他们对特朗普这样做了，他们对伯尼这样做了，他们对小鲍比·肯尼迪也这样做了。对于鲍比，他们就像，哦，这里有一些多汁的针。
So they find those and they go, you see this?
所以他们找到了那些然后就走了，你看到这个了吗？
The only thing you should know about Bobby, Kennedy Jr. is that he found a dead bear and put it in Central Park.
关于小鲍比·肯尼迪，你唯一应该知道的就是他发现了一只死熊并将其放在中央公园。
Oh, wait, wait, wait.
哦，等等，等等，等等。
I found another one.
我找到了另一个。
3:12:50 The other thing you should know about Bobby is that he once said in a divorce deposition that he had a brain worm that, by the way, it turns out that affects millions of people and is not that big a deal, right?
关于鲍比，你应该知道的另一件事是，他曾经在一份离婚证词中说，他患有脑蠕虫，顺便说一句，事实证明，这种蠕虫影响了数百万人，而且没什么大不了的，对吧？
But look, he is a radical.
但你看，他是个激进分子。
Ah, he is.
啊，他是。
This defines him completely.
这完全定义了他。
The spectacular case of that actually happened to me.
这种惊人的案例确实发生在我身上。
So I ran for Congress in 2020 and The New York Times, LA Times CNN, they all butchered me with needles.
所以我在 2020 年竞选国会议员，《纽约时报》、《洛杉矶时报》、CNN，他们都用针刺死了我。
Okay?
好吧？
So they said, “He has a long history of making anti-Muslim jokes.” Well, first of all, they didn’t even say jokes.
所以他们说，“他开反穆斯林笑话的历史由来已久。”好吧，首先，他们甚至没有说笑话。
They said anti-Muslim rhetoric.
他们说反穆斯林言论。
I’m like, I am Muslim.
我想，我是穆斯林。
I mean, I’m an atheist, but I grew up Muslim.
我的意思是，我是一个无神论者，但我是穆斯林长大的。
My family’s Muslim, my background’s Muslim.
我的家人是穆斯林，我的背景也是穆斯林。
You don’t think that’s relevant in the story?
你认为这与故事无关吗？
And they did it based on one joke I told about, and they said, oh, also, of course they say that I’m anti-Semitic, that’s like, you start with that.
他们是根据我讲的一个笑话来做的，他们说，哦，还有，他们当然说我是反犹太主义者，就像，你从这个开始。
3:13:47 That’s just baked in for everyone, right?
这只是为每个人准备的，对吧？
So they said, I had made a joke about how Orthodox Jews and Muslims, they think that getting into heaven is a little bit of a fashion contest.
所以他们说，我开了一个玩笑，说东正教犹太人和穆斯林认为进入天堂有点像一场时尚竞赛。
So the Orthodox Jews go in there with the Russian coats from the 1800s and the giant Russian hat, the Muslims going with their robe and the skull cap and stuff.
因此，东正教犹太人穿着 1800 年代的俄罗斯外套和巨大的俄罗斯帽子进去，穆斯林则穿着长袍和无边帽等东西。
And God’s looking around going, “No, no, no.
上帝环顾四周，说：“不，不，不。
Ooh, nice outfit.
噢，好衣服。
Come on in.” Right?
进来吧。”对吗？
Do you really think the creator of the universe gives a damn to what you wear?
你真的认为宇宙的创造者在乎你穿什么吗？
Okay?
好吧？
So New York Times took that and said, “Long history of being anti-Semitic and anti-Muslim.”
因此，《纽约时报》接受了这一点，并表示：“反犹太主义和反穆斯林的历史由来已久。”
Right.
对。
Okay, so there’s this, oh, this is a famous one, relatively.
好吧，那就是这个，哦，这是一个比较有名的。
3:14:27 I did a joke about bestiality like a dozen years ago…
十几年前我开了一个关于兽交的笑话……
Very nice.
非常好。
So I started out to joke nice and dry, and I go, “Look, is the horse going to object if he’s the one getting pleasure?” Now, Anna is my co-host.
所以我开始开玩笑，然后我说：“看，如果马是得到快乐的人，它会反对吗？”现在，安娜是我的共同主持人。
3:14:38 She’s younger at that time, and she’s like, “That seems like a bad idea, Cenk.” I’m like, “Of course it’s a bad idea,” but I’m being dry.
那时她还年轻，她说：“这似乎是个坏主意，岑克。”我想，“这当然是个坏主意”，但我很干。
But some people are laughing in the studio and stuff.
但有些人在工作室里大笑之类的。
And then I say, “If I was emperor of the world, I would make that legal.” And they cut the tape.
然后我说，“如果我是世界皇帝，我会让这合法化。”他们剪掉了胶带。
If you watch the rest of the tape, I say, “Now, would the horse object?
如果你看了录像带的其余部分，我会说：“现在，马会反对吗？
Nah.” But they cut the tape.
不。”但他们剪掉了胶带。
Originally, a right-winger did that.
最初，右翼分子这样做了。
And then a establishment troll in that primary started putting out those tapes to everyone.
然后，初选中的一个当权巨魔开始向所有人分发这些磁带。
Jake Tapper retweeted it, didn’t look to see if it’s edited or not edited.
杰克·塔珀（Jake Tapper）转发了这条推文，但没有查看它是否已编辑。
The New York Times implied that bestiality was part of my agenda.
《纽约时报》暗示兽交是我议程的一部分。
Jesus Christ.
耶稣基督。
Please tell me that’s part of your Wikipedia.
请告诉我这是你的维基百科的一部分。
3:15:36 The bestiality thing is part of your…
兽交是你的一部分……
I don’t know.
我不知道。
3:15:42 I don’t know.
我不知道。
But guys, so in those stories, I’m not important.
但是伙计们，所以在那些故事中，我并不重要。
And even Bobby Kennedy Jr. is not important.
甚至小鲍比·肯尼迪也不重要。
What it reveals about the media is what’s important.
它揭示了媒体的什么才是重要的。
So they’re going to find those needles, whether it’s…
所以他们会找到那些针，不管是……
And even if they don’t have the needles, you know what?
即使他们没有针头，你知道吗？
We’ll cut the tape before your joke’s punchline.
我们会在你的笑话的妙语之前剪掉磁带。
So we’ll just run it and we’ll lie about you.
所以我们只要运行它，我们就会对你撒谎。
Who cares, right?
谁在乎，对吧？
And so, oh, they also said that I had David Duke on to share his anti-Semitic point of view.
所以，哦，他们还说我请大卫·杜克来分享他的反犹太主义观点。
If you watch the interview, I told David Duke, “You’re an anti-Semite.
如果你看过采访，我告诉大卫·杜克，“你是一个反犹太主义者。
You’re a racist, you’re a bigot.
你是种族主义者，你是偏执狂。
You’re an idiot.” It was the toughest interview he’s probably ever had in his life.
你是个白痴。”这可能是他一生中经历过的最艰难的采访。
And other journalists got mad at that part, and they were like, “No, guys, you’re just flat out lying.
其他记者对此感到愤怒，他们说：“不，伙计们，你们简直就是在撒谎。
I watched the interview.
我看了采访。
Did any of you watch the interview?
你们有人看采访吗？
He takes the guy’s head off.” And so The New York Times issued a correction on that one.
他把那家伙的头砍下来了。”因此《纽约时报》对此做出了更正。
So they’re like, okay, fine.
所以他们就像，好吧，很好。
He was being sarcastic when he said, “Sure, you’re not racist, Dave.”
当他说“当然，你不是种族主义者，戴夫”时，他是在讽刺。
One of the sources of hope to all this is there’s a lot of independent media now, but mainstream media has a lot of power still and carries a lot of power.
这一切的希望来源之一是现在有很多独立媒体，但主流媒体仍然拥有很大的力量，并且承载着很大的力量。
3:16:45 You think they’re going to die eventually?
你认为他们最终会死吗？
Yeah, definitely.
是的，绝对是。
3:16:57 So two things about that that are super important.
因此，有两件事非常重要。
First of all, this is why I tell people to have hope.
首先，这就是为什么我告诉人们要有希望。
I don’t believe in false hope.
我不相信虚假的希望。
So if you think Kamala Harris is your knight in shining armor, and she’s going to come in, she’s going to get money out of politics, she’s going to ignore the donors, that’s false hope.
因此，如果你认为卡玛拉·哈里斯是你身披闪亮盔甲的骑士，她会加入，她会从政治中获取资金，她会忽视捐助者，那是错误的希望。
It’s crazy talk, right?
这真是疯狂的言论，对吧？
So why am I in favor of Kamala Harris?
那么我为什么支持卡马拉·哈里斯呢？
I’m going to live to fight another day.
我要活着再战斗一天。
I’m worried that Trump’s going to end the whole thing, and then we’re not going to have an opportunity to actually get a populist to win.
我担心特朗普会结束整个事情，然后我们就没有机会真正让民粹主义者获胜。
And I’m encouraged by some of the things she’s doing, and maybe she does even 25% of her agenda, but I’m not going to give you false hope that she’s your savior.
我对她所做的一些事情感到鼓舞，也许她甚至完成了她议程的 25%，但我不会给你错误的希望，认为她是你的救世主。
But I believe massively in hope.
但我坚信希望。
And number one, it’s true to the point that we were talking about earlier, Lex and how last 200 years have been choppy but overall fantastic.
第一，我们之前讨论过的莱克斯（Lex）以及过去 200 年如何波涛汹涌但总体来说非常棒。
3:17:46 Terrible things have happened in that time period.
那段时间发生了可怕的事情。
Some of the worst things that have ever happened in history.
历史上发生过的一些最糟糕的事情。
But overall life expectancy is higher, incomes are higher, health is better, et cetera.
但总体预期寿命更高、收入更高、健康状况更好等等。
So hope is not misplaced.
所以希望并没有落空。
It’s real.
这是真的。
It’s empirical.
这是经验性的。
So now we talked about how you could get money out of politics, and that’s a legitimate hope, but media is another place where we have huge hope.
所以现在我们讨论了如何从政治中赚钱，这是一个合理的希望，但媒体是我们抱有巨大希望的另一个地方。
So of all the corporate robots, the most important robot is media.
所以在所有的企业机器人中，最重要的机器人就是媒体。
So when mainstream media has you hooked in at the back of your neck, you’re going to believe all these fairy tales about how politicians are nice people and they’re trying to do the right thing, and donor money doesn’t have any influence on them.
因此，当主流媒体让你陷入困境时，你就会相信所有这些关于政治家是好人的童话故事，他们正在努力做正确的事情，而捐款对他们没有任何影响。
So once you unplug from the matrix, well then you begin to see, oh yeah, hey, look, he took the donor money, did what the donors wanted, he took the donor money, did what the donors want, 98% of the time.
所以一旦你从矩阵中拔出，那么你就会开始看到，哦，是的，嘿，看，他拿了捐赠者的钱，做了捐赠者想要的事情，他拿了捐赠者的钱，做了捐赠者想要的事情，98％的时间。
3:18:41 So then you see clearly.
那么你就看得清楚了。
So now what’s happening at large, mainstream media is losing their power.
所以现在发生的事情，主流媒体正在失去他们的力量。
And now online media, swarming, swarming, swarming, swarming.
现在网络媒体，蜂拥而至，蜂拥而至，蜂拥而至。
And so this goes back to why I started the Young Turks.
这又回到了我创立青年土耳其党的原因。
So let me touch on that here and then we can come back to it if you want.
所以让我在这里谈谈这个，然后如果你愿意的话我们可以再回来讨论这个问题。
So in 1998, I write an email to my friends and I say, “Online video is going to be television.” And unsurprisingly, and they say, “You’re nuts.
因此，在 1998 年，我给朋友们写了一封电子邮件，我说：“在线视频将成为电视。”毫不奇怪，他们说：“你疯了。
That’s never going to happen.” At that point, we’re still doing AOL dial-ups, like…
这永远不会发生。”那时，我们仍在使用 AOL 拨号，例如……
Online video barely exists and television’s mammoth.
在线视频几乎不存在，而电视却规模庞大。
I say, “Guys, it’s just a matter of logic.” For me, there’s so many ironies, I’m known for yelling online sometimes, but in reality, I’m obsessed with logic.
我说：“伙计们，这只是一个逻辑问题。”对我来说，有很多讽刺，我有时会在网上大喊大叫，但实际上，我很痴迷于逻辑。
So when you have gatekeepers, gatekeepers pick based on what they want, what the powerful want, in that case, advertisers, politicians, et cetera, they’re never going to design programming as good as wisdom of the crowd.
因此，当你有看门人时，看门人会根据他们想要什么、有权势者想要什么来选择，在这种情况下，广告商、政客等，他们永远不会设计出与大众智慧一样好的节目。
3:19:50 When people start doing online video, I’m like, boom, there’s no gatekeepers.
当人们开始制作在线视频时，我想，繁荣，没有看门人了。
This is democratized.
这是民主化的。
Wisdom of the crowd’s going to win.
群众的智慧将会获胜。
So if you start with no money…
所以如果你一开始没有钱……
And let’s pick a different example, not the Young Turks.
让我们举一个不同的例子，不是青年土耳其党。
Let’s say Phil DeFranco.
比如说菲尔·德弗兰科。
He’s been around forever and he also does news.
他一直存在，而且也做新闻。
And so Phil starts doing a show and he doesn’t have any money, he’s just like us.
所以菲尔开始做一场演出，他没有钱，他就像我们一样。
And so what does he have to do to get an audience?
那么他需要做什么才能吸引观众呢？
He has to do a show that is really popular.
他必须做一个非常受欢迎的节目。
He’s got to figure out a way, how do I get their attention?
他得想个办法，我怎样才能引起他们的注意？
How do I keep their attention?
我如何保持他们的注意力？
And he starts doing a great show.
他开始表演精彩的表演。
And so every year it’s us and Phil for best news show for like a decade.
因此，近十年来，每年我们和菲尔都会获得最佳新闻节目奖。
3:20:33 And meanwhile, I’m back over at CNN, Wolf Blitzer still droning on from a teleprompter.
与此同时，我回到了 CNN，沃尔夫·布利策（Wolf Blitzer）仍在通过提词器嗡嗡作响。
You put Wolf Blitzer online without the force of CNN with him, he gets negative seven views.
如果你在没有 CNN 力量的情况下将 Wolf Blitzer 放到网上，他会得到七个负面观点。
No one’s interested in what Wolf Blitzer has to say.
没有人对沃尔夫·布利策所说的话感兴趣。
It’s not personal.
这不是个人的。
I don’t know the brother.
我不认识这位兄弟。
I’m just saying institutionally, logically, et cetera.
我只是说制度上、逻辑上等等。
So I’m like, these guys are going to win.
所以我想，这些人会赢。
So when YouTube starts, we go on YouTube right away.
因此，当 YouTube 启动时，我们会立即访问 YouTube。
We’re the first YouTube partner.
我们是第一个 YouTube 合作伙伴。
So I am literally the original YouTuber, okay?
所以我确实是最初的 YouTuber，好吗？
Nice.
不错。
Susan Wojcicki, the former CEO, the late Susan Wojcicki, a wonderful woman.
苏珊·沃西基（Susan Wojcicki），前首席执行官，已故的苏珊·沃西基（Susan Wojcicki），一位出色的女性。
3:21:08 And if that triggers you again on the right, you’re wrong.
如果这再次触发你的右侧，那你就错了。
She was a terrific person.
她是一个很棒的人。
And when she started her own YouTube channel, I was the first interview ’cause we were the first YouTube partner.
当她开设自己的 YouTube 频道时，我是第一个接受采访的人，因为我们是第一个 YouTube 合作伙伴。
So I love that.
所以我喜欢这样。
But let me connect it back to the hope.
但让我把它和希望联系起来。
When mainstream media has you hooked, you got no hope because you don’t have the right information.
当主流媒体让你着迷时，你就没有希望了，因为你没有正确的信息。
You have propaganda, you have marketing, you don’t have real news.
你有宣传，你有营销，你没有真正的新闻。
When you’re in the online world, it’s chaotic.
当你身处网络世界时，一切都是混乱的。
And don’t get me wrong, it’s got plenty of downsides.
不要误会我的意思，它有很多缺点。
But within that chaos, the truth begins to emerge.
但在混乱之中，真相开始浮出水面。
And so for example, Young Turks has had dozens of fights with different creators throughout history.
例如，青年土耳其党在历史上曾与不同的创作者进行过数十次斗争。
Why?
为什么？
When you’re number one in news online, the algorithm rewards anyone attacking you because then you get into their algorithmic loop.
当你在网上新闻中排名第一时，算法会奖励任何攻击你的人，因为这样你就进入了他们的算法循环。
3:22:08 It’s not an accident that we’ve been attacked dozens of times.
我们遭受数十次袭击并非偶然。
One, we’re independent thinkers.
第一，我们是独立思考者。
So anyone, if we don’t match their ideology, they’re going to attack us.
所以任何人，如果我们不符合他们的意识形态，他们就会攻击我们。
But number two, they get in our algorithm loop.
但第二，它们进入了我们的算法循环。
It’s too hard to resist.
太难以抗拒了。
So all of a sudden they think that we’re being funded by Nancy Pelosi or the CIA, and oh, we’re off to the races.
所以突然间他们认为我们得到了南希·佩洛西或中央情报局的资助，哦，我们开始参加比赛了。
There’s another fight.
还有一场战斗。
But our competition is a graveyard.
但我们的竞争是一个墓地。
And so we’ve won almost all of those fights.
所以我们几乎赢得了所有这些战斗。
Why?
为什么？
Because we try really hard to stick with the truth, with logic, and we don’t do audience capture.
因为我们非常努力地坚持事实和逻辑，而且我们不做观众吸引。
Even if our audience is going in one direction, we don’t think it’s right.
即使我们的观众朝着一个方向发展，我们也不认为这是正确的。
Anna and I will come out and go, “No, sorry guys.
安娜和我会出来走，“不，对不起，伙计们。
Love you, but rent control is not a good idea,” et cetera.
我爱你，但租金管制不是一个好主意，”等等。
So in that world, the people, it’s going to take a while, guys, but people who are telling the truth are eventually going to rise up.
所以在那个世界里，人们需要一段时间，伙计们，但说实话的人最终会站出来。
3:23:04 And when they do, now we’re free.
当他们这样做时，我们就自由了。
Now, the second part is even more devastating for mainstream media, because I’m a businessman, I keep looking at the revenue for CNN cetera, and they have a massive problem, and people don’t realize how big the problem is.
现在，第二部分对主流媒体来说更具破坏性，因为我是一名商人，我一直在关注 CNN 等的收入，他们有一个巨大的问题，而人们没有意识到问题有多大。
That thing’s going to capsize.
那东西将会倾覆。
I don’t talk about it often because I don’t want more competition.
我不经常谈论它，因为我不想有更多的竞争。
I also have a company in the online world, et cetera, but I’m too honest, I got to say it.
我在网络世界也有一家公司等等，但我太诚实了，我不得不说。
I got to say it.
我必须说出来。
So they have two revenue streams.
所以他们有两个收入来源。
One is ads.
一是广告。
That’s why they serve advertisers and politicians are huge advertisers as we mentioned.
这就是为什么他们为广告商服务，而政客是我们提到的巨大广告商。
The second revenue stream, depending on the company, is arguably more important, which is subscribers.
第二个收入来源（取决于公司）可以说更为重要，即订户。
So now what happens in a business normally is, so they started out low and then they got high, and now they got a ton of subscribers.
所以现在企业中通常发生的情况是，他们一开始很低，然后很高，现在他们有了大量的订户。
3:24:02 At its peak cable has a hundred million households.
在鼎盛时期，有线电视拥有一亿户家庭。
So they’re raking in unbelievable money from subscriber fees, and they got advertising on top.
所以他们从订户费中赚到了令人难以置信的钱，而且他们还得到了广告。
So when you’re all the way up here, your costs start to rise.
因此，当你一路上升到这里时，你的成本就开始上升。
Why do they rise?
他们为什么会崛起？
Because then the on-air talent has leverage.
因为那样的话，播音人才就有影响力。
And as an example, there’s many others.
举个例子，还有很多其他的例子。
And so the on-air talent, like Sean Hannity says, “I do a program that brings in X amount of maybe a hundred million, maybe 200 million, so give me 40 million a year.” And they do.
因此，像肖恩·汉尼提（Sean Hannity）所说的那样，播音人才“我做的一个节目可能带来一亿，也许两亿的收入，所以每年给我 4000 万。”他们确实这么做了。
Sean is making 40 million a year last I checked, okay?
我上次查了一下，肖恩每年赚 4000 万，好吗？
So I don’t know if he’s still getting that kind of money, and I’m just spacing out on reporting, but that’s a monster.
所以我不知道他是否还能拿到那么多钱，我只是在报道上闲逛，但那是一个怪物。
So they have all these giant costs, but the minute you go from a hundred million, now I think around 70 million, you just lost a giant chunk of your revenue.
所以他们有所有这些巨大的成本，但是一旦你从一亿，现在我想大约七千万，你就损失了很大一部分收入。
Now when your costs are higher than your revenue, nighty night, it’s been nice knowing you.
现在，当您的成本高于收入时，每晚，认识您真是太好了。
Yeah, it’s going to collapse and it’s going to be painful.
是的，它会崩溃并且会很痛苦。
But what we need guys is, sorry, last thing on that is, we need the print guys like AP, Reuters, Intercept, The Lever, [inaudible 03:25:13] Runs whatever Ryan’s working on now, [inaudible 03:25:15] Ryan Grim said it.
但我们需要的是，抱歉，最后一件事是，我们需要美联社、路透社、Intercept、The Lever 等印刷媒体，[听不清 03:25:13] 运行 Ryan 现在正在做的任何事情，[听不清 03:25:15] Ryan Grim 说过。
3:25:03 We need those badly.
我们非常需要这些。
We need someone to collect actual information and do the best they can in presenting it in an objective way.
我们需要有人收集实际信息，并尽最大努力以客观的方式呈现这些信息。
We all got to support that.
我们都必须支持这一点。
So you can’t lose text, that’s so important.
所以你不能丢失文本，这一点非常重要。
The TV guys are just actors.
电视剧里的人只是演员。
You can lose them overnight and it won’t hurt you.
你可能会在一夜之间失去它们，但这不会伤害你。
It’ll help you.
它会对你有所帮助。
Yeah, it’s going to be a messy battle for truth, because the reality is there’s a lot of money to be made and a lot of attention to be gained from drama farming.
是的，这将是一场为真理而战的混乱之战，因为现实是，戏剧种植可以赚很多钱，也可以获得很多关注。
3:25:33 So just constantly creating drama.
所以就不断地创造戏剧。
And sometimes drama helps find the truth like we were mentioning, but most of the time it’s just drama and it doesn’t care about the truth.
有时戏剧有助于找到真相，就像我们提到的那样，但大多数时候它只是戏剧，并不关心真相。
It just cares about drama.
它只关心戏剧。
And then the same as conspiracy theories.
然后就和阴谋论一样了。
Now, some conspiracy theories have value and depth, and they allow us to question the institutions, but the bottom line is conspiracy theories get clicks.
现在，一些阴谋论具有价值和深度，它们让我们可以质疑机构，但底线是阴谋论得到点击。
And so you can just keep coming up random conspiracy theories, many of them don’t have to be grounded in the truth at all.
所以你可以不断地提出随机的阴谋论，其中许多根本不需要基于事实。
And so that’s the sea we’re operating in.
这就是我们作业的海域。
And so it’s a tricky space too.
所以这也是一个棘手的空间。
But Lex, look at all the people who are the biggest now, because we’ve now had a couple of decades at this, and I mean as an industry.
但是莱克斯，看看现在所有最大的人，因为我们在这方面已经有几十年了，我的意思是作为一个行业。
3:26:25 So I would argue you’re huge and you don’t do that.
所以我认为你很大，但你不会这样做。
You don’t do the conspiracy theories.
你不做阴谋论。
You don’t do the drama at all.
你根本不演戏剧。
Rogan is huge.
罗根很大。
Yeah, maybe there’s drama, but he’s genuine.
是的，也许有戏剧性，但他是真诚的。
I got a lot of issues with some of his policies.
我对他的一些政策有很多疑问。
I’ve mixed opinions on Joe in a lot of different ways, but I don’t doubt that he’s genuine and people can sense that.
我对乔有很多不同的看法，但我毫不怀疑他是真诚的，人们可以感觉到这一点。
And he’s huge.
而且他很大。
We’re genuine, we’re huge.
我们是真诚的，我们是巨大的。
So this is the market beginning to work.
所以这就是市场开始发挥作用的时刻。
So speaking of Joe, let me ask you about this.
说到乔，让我问你这个问题。
Here we go.
我们开始吧。
I didn’t actually know this, but when I was prepping for this conversation, I saw that you actually said at some point in the past that you can beat up Rogan in a fight.
我实际上并不知道这一点，但是当我准备这次谈话时，我看到你实际上在过去的某个时候说过你可以在战斗中击败罗根。
Yeah.
是的。
No, you said that you have a shot.
不，你说过你有机会。
3:27:22 It’s a non-zero probability.
这是一个非零概率。
Yes.
是的。
Do you still believe this?
你还相信这个吗？
Yes.
是的。
3:27:27 But the probability is dropping.
但概率正在下降。
It’s dropping every day.
它每天都在下降。
I think it’s probably the stupidest thing I’ve ever heard you say.
我想这可能是我听过你说过的最愚蠢的事情了。
3:27:31 I wrestled and did Jiu-Jitsu and judo and all the kinds of fighting sports my whole life.
我一生都在摔跤、柔术、柔道以及各种格斗运动。
And I just observed a lot of really confident, large guys roll into gyms.
我刚刚观察到很多非常自信的大块头走进健身房。
He’s ripped, he could deadlift, he could talk all kinds of shit.
他很厉害，他可以硬拉，他可以说各种各样的废话。
And he beliefs he’s going to be the next world champion and he just gets his ass kicked.
他相信自己将成为下一个世界冠军，但他却被狠狠地踢了一顿。
Yeah, of course.
是的，当然。
3:27:56 Okay.
好的。
And I saw this Israeli MMA fighter take on an anti-Semite who was huge and thought that…
我看到这位以色列综合格斗选手与一位身材魁梧的反犹太分子较量，我认为……
He believed in Nick Fuentes conspiracy theories or something.
他相信尼克·富恩特斯阴谋论什么的。
And the MMA fighter dismantled him, and I loved it.
这位综合格斗选手击败了他，我很喜欢。
And then we tweeted back and forth, et cetera.
然后我们来回发推文，等等。
So guys, first, let me just assure you, I get it.
所以，伙计们，首先，让我向你们保证，我明白了。
So now let me tell you why I said it and then why I think it’s a non-zero chance.
现在让我告诉你为什么我这么说，以及为什么我认为这是一个非零的机会。
So Michael Smerconish had written this blog, I don’t know, 10, 15 years ago on Huffington Post.
迈克尔·斯默科尼什 (Michael Smerconish) 在 10、15 年前在《赫芬顿邮报》上写了这篇博客，我不知道。
We were both bloggers at that point and about the wussification of America.
那时我们都是博主，都关注美国的乌斯化。
3:28:40 Now, he was saying the left is a bunch of wussies, right?
现在，他说左边是一群胆小鬼，对吗？
So I wrote a blog saying, “Hey, Michael, I would rather debate you.
所以我写了一篇博客说：“嘿，迈克尔，我宁愿和你辩论。
So if you want to debate about how we’re wussies, let’s do it.
所以，如果你想争论我们是如何懦弱的，那就开始吧。
Let’s find them.
让我们找到他们。
But you are mentioning physicality and how you guys are tougher.
但你提到了身体素质以及你们如何变得更强硬。
So if you prefer only in a prescribed setting, and we’re not going to go do it in the streets like idiots, but if you want, we’ll have a boxing match or whatever you want, and we’ll see who’s tougher.”
所以，如果你只喜欢在规定的环境中，我们不会像白痴一样在街上做，但如果你愿意，我们会举办一场拳击比赛或任何你想要的，我们会看看谁更强硬。”
3:29:08 And he panicked and he cried to mommy, which was Ariana Huffington, and said, “Oh, Cenk’s intimidating me.” Okay, all right, well who’s the wussy now, bitch?
他惊慌失措，向妈妈阿丽亚娜·赫芬顿哭诉，说：“哦，森克在恐吓我。”好吧，好吧，现在谁是胆小鬼，婊子？
So that is not to actually get into a fight with poor Michael Smerconish, right?
所以这并不是真正与可怜的迈克尔·斯默科尼什打架，对吧？
It’s to prove, hey, don’t use rhetoric like that.
这是为了证明，嘿，不要使用这样的言辞。
That’s dumb.
那太愚蠢了。
And this is me proving that it’s dumb.
这就是我证明它是愚蠢的。
Okay?
好的？
So now Joe had said, I forget what he said at the time, and he said something similar.
所以现在乔说，我忘了他当时说了什么，他也说了类似的话。
And I’m up to hear with Joe at that point.
到时候我会和乔一起听听。
I don’t know if we’ll ever talk yet, right?
我不知道我们是否还会说话，对吧？
But you’ve been in a show and that was a good conversation.
但你参加过一场演出，那是一次很好的谈话。
It was a great conversation.
这是一次很棒的谈话。
That was a while back.
那是不久前的事了。
3:29:45 Yeah.
是的。
Yeah.
是的。
I hope he has you on again.
我希望他能再次和你在一起。
Yeah.
是的。
3:29:47 So I get it.
所以我明白了。
I bet you I don’t like this take you have, a lot.
我敢打赌，我非常不喜欢你的这个镜头。
3:29:50 I bet you he hates it because him as an MMA commentator, he gets to hear so many bros.
我敢打赌他讨厌它，因为作为一名综合格斗解说员，他能听到很多兄弟的声音。
Yeah, yeah, yeah.
是啊，是啊，是啊。
It’s all about the mindset, bro.
这完全取决于心态，兄弟。
3:30:02 Now, to [inaudible 03:30:06], the point you’re making, which I do think it’s the stupidest thing you’ve ever said, but the actual intent, which is whether you’re left or right, there’s strong people on the left, mentally strong, physically strong.
现在，[听不清 03:30:06]，你所提出的观点，我确实认为这是你说过的最愚蠢的事情，但实际意图是，无论你是左派还是右派，左边都有坚强的人，精神上坚强，身体上坚强。
I think the whole point is not that you can beat them, but you are willing to fight if you need to.
我认为重点不在于你能打败他们，而是如果需要的话你愿意战斗。
A hundred percent.
百分之一百。
So it’s not like I believe I could beat him, it’s like all this calling the people on the left wussies or whatever.
所以我并不相信我能打败他，这就像所有这些都在称左边的人为胆小鬼或其他什么。
3:30:31 I’m willing to step in the fight, even if I’m on train, even if I’m a out of shape, I’m willing to fight.
我愿意加入战斗，即使我在火车上，即使我身体不好，我也愿意战斗。
Yeah, I get it.
是的，我明白了。
I understand that.
我明白这一点。
But it’s just pick a different person.
但这只是选择了不同的人。
That’s why I wrote down my genuine curiosity is if you can beat up Alex, Alex Jones versus Cenk, the legitimate is I would pay for that.
这就是为什么我写下了我真正的好奇心，如果你能打败亚历克斯，亚历克斯琼斯对森克，合理的是我会为此付出代价。
Because you’re both untrained.
因为你们俩都没有受过训练。
You both got I would say, the spirit.
我想说，你们俩都有精神。
No, no.
不，不。
3:31:04 Look, I’ll give the same fairness.
看，我也会给予同样的公平。
I think I got an 8% chance of being beating Rogan.
我认为我有 8% 的机会击败罗根。
You’re [inaudible 03:31:12].
你是[听不清 03:31:12]。
I know, I got it.
我知道，我明白了。
3:31:12 Hold on.
坚持，稍等。
All right.
好的。
And I think to be fair, Alex has an 8% chance of beating me.
公平地说，我认为 Alex 有 8% 的机会击败我。
Oh, wow.
哦，哇。
3:31:17 Okay.
好的。
Yeah.
是的。
3:31:19 Because you never know.
因为你永远不知道。
He catches you on a lucky punch.
他用一记幸运拳接住了你。
I got punched in the ear once and you lose your balance and then you’re in a lot of trouble.
有一次我的耳朵被打了一拳，你就失去了平衡，然后你就有了很多麻烦。
So I can get lucky.
这样我就能走运了。
Alex Jones can get lucky.
亚历克斯·琼斯可能会很幸运。
It’s me against Rogan is harder.
是我对阵罗根更难。
If you said to me you don’t have 8% chance, but Alex does.
如果你对我说你没有 8% 的机会，但 Alex 有。
Okay, I’m not going to…
好吧，我不会……
It’s fine.
没关系。
So why does Alex stand almost no chance, if you ask me.
那么，如果你问我，为什么亚历克斯几乎没有机会。
So first of all, it’s not just because I’m big and he’s big.
首先，这不仅仅是因为我很大，他也很大。
One, I wrestled.
一、我摔跤。
Oh, you wrestled?
哦，你摔跤了吗？
Yeah, if you wrestle then…
是的，如果你摔跤的话……
3:31:50 I watched this show with my kids, Physical 100, it’s like a Korean show where they try to find out who’s the best athlete.
我和我的孩子们一起看了这个节目《体能 100》，这就像一个韩国节目，他们试图找出谁是最好的运动员。
They have one thing where they have to wrestle away the ball and keep it, this big giant ball.
他们有一件事就是必须夺走球并保留它，这个巨大的球。
I’m like, every wrestler is going to win.
我想，每个摔跤手都会获胜。
Every MMA fighter is going to win.
每一位综合格斗选手都会获胜。
And every time they win and they’re like, “Dad, how’d you know that?” Because we get trained, we’re not going to lose to a non-wrestler in a wrestling contest.
每次他们获胜时，他们都会说：“爸爸，你怎么知道的？”因为我们接受过训练，所以我们不会在摔跤比赛中输给非摔跤手。
It’s not going to happen.
这不会发生。
So you can get lucky, but it’s unlikely.
所以你可能会很幸运，但可能性很小。
So one, wrestling, now, that was from a long time ago, but at least the mechanics, right?
所以，摔跤，那是很久以前的事了，但至少是机制，对吧？
Number two, I’ve gotten into about 30 actual street fights in my life.
第二，我一生中实际卷入过大约 30 次街头斗殴。
And you can say street fights not the same as MMA, of course, that’s true.
你可以说街头斗殴和MMA不一样，当然，这是真的。
Obviously true, right?
显然是真的，对吧？
But it’s not no experience, it’s some experience.
但这不是没有经验，而是有一些经验。
And the most important part of a street fight is being able to take a punch to the face.
街头打斗中最重要的部分是能够承受脸部的打击。
Knowing what it feels like to get punched in the face, yeah.
知道脸上被打一拳是什么感觉，是的。
So I’ve been punched in the face, I don’t know, dozens of times in my life.
所以我的脸被打了几十次，我不知道，在我的一生中。
3:32:44 I used to start fights by saying, “I’ll let you take the first punch.” So I didn’t start the fights, they just started ’cause they punched me in the face.
我过去常常在打架时说：“我会让你先打第一拳。”所以，不是我挑起打斗，而是他们挑衅，因为他们打了我的脸。
And then for Alex, the main thing, and also true for Rogan, is it’s about willpower.
对于亚历克斯来说，最重要的是意志力，对于罗根来说也是如此。
So if Joe has a 92% chance, in my opinion, of knocking me out or beating me, because he has the skill and he’s trained and he knows what he’s doing.
所以，在我看来，如果乔有 92% 的机会击倒我或击败我，因为他有技能，他受过训练，而且他知道自己在做什么。
So all the willpower in the world isn’t going to help you if you get kicked upside the head, right?
所以，如果你的头被踢了一脚，世界上所有的意志力都帮不了你，对吧？
But in the unlikely circumstances that I’ve worn him down, then I’m a little bit more in the ball game ’cause I got willpower.
但在不太可能的情况下，我让他疲惫不堪，然后我会更加专注于球赛，因为我有意志力。
For Alex, he doesn’t have the willpower I have, okay?
对于亚历克斯来说，他没有我的意志力，好吗？
Because to me, the idea of losing to Alex Jones is unthinkable.
因为对我来说，输给亚历克斯·琼斯是不可想象的。
I would do anything not to lose, anything.
为了不失去，我愿意做任何事情，任何事情。
Let me just say, so that’s beautiful.
我只想说，那就太美了。
3:33:42 I love this.
我喜欢这个。
I would pay a lot of money to watch the two of you just even wrestle.
我愿意花很多钱看你们两个摔跤。
But with Joe, I think I have to say, it’s like it 0.0001% chance, you have a chance before you even get to the mentality.
但对于乔，我想我不得不说，这就像 0.0001% 的机会，在你进入心态之前你就有机会。
And the other thing is, on the mentality side, one of the fascinating things about Joe is he’s actually a sweetheart in person, like this.
另一件事是，在心态方面，乔的一个迷人之处在于他实际上是一个甜心，就像这样。
But there’s something that takes over him when he competes.
但当他参加比赛时，有一些东西会接管他。
Brother, we’ve been around 22 years in the toughest industry in the world.
兄弟，我们在世界上最艰难的行业已经工作了大约 22 年。
I understand, yeah.
我明白了，是的。
If you have any idea how hard it’s to run a 75 person company and make money online and survive after all the guys who took billions of dollars went down.
如果你知道，在所有拿走数十亿美元的人倒闭之后，经营一家拥有 75 名员工的公司、在网上赚钱并生存下来是多么困难。
I hear you.
我听到了。
Tremendous willpower.
巨大的意志力。
3:34:28 But overall, this is not the hill I’m dying on.
但总的来说，这不是我要死的山。
Okay?
好的？
Joe would win, I get it.
乔会赢，我明白。
I think we’re all allowed one kind of blind spot, I suppose.
我想我们都被允许存在一种盲点。
So you don’t think a big guy that still is in good shape, that was a wrestler that’s been on a lot of street fights, you still think 0.0001?
所以你不认为一个身材仍然很好的大个子，一个参加过很多街头斗殴的摔跤手，你仍然认为0.0001？
It depends on the street fights.
这取决于街头斗殴。
3:34:54 But yeah, 0.001.
但是，是的，0.001。
I just see technique-
我只看技术——
Okay, yeah.
好吧，是的。
3:34:57 And it’s such a minute disagreement because, so take me out of it.
这是一个很小的分歧，因为，所以让我摆脱它。
So you take out the willpower part of blah, blah, blah.
所以你把“等等”中的意志力部分去掉。
I think it’s one to 2%.
我认为是 1% 到 2%。
Yeah, he could catch the guy on about and get lucky.
是的，他可以抓住这个家伙并获得幸运。
I think it’s because I’ve talked to…
我想这是因为我和……谈过
3:35:08 So I trained with a coach named John Donaher, and we talk about this a lot.
所以我和一位名叫约翰·多纳赫的教练一起训练，我们经常谈论这个问题。
And I think technique is the thing that also feeds the willpower.
我认为技术也能增强意志力。
It actually builds up your confidence in the way that nothing else does in the more actionable way, because you won’t need that much willpower.
实际上，它可以以其他任何方法都无法比这更可行的方式建立你的信心，因为你不需要那么多的意志力。
No.
不。
If the technique is backed, you don’t have to be a tough guy to win debates if you’re just fucking good at debates.
如果技术得到支持，只要你非常擅长辩论，你就不必成为一个硬汉来赢得辩论。
3:35:32 So I think people just don’t understand the value in sport and especially in combat of technique.
所以我认为人们只是不理解体育运动的价值，尤其是技术格斗的价值。
Now, a great irony is I actually totally agree with that.
现在，一个很大的讽刺是我实际上完全同意这一点。
3:35:46 That’s why made a mention of the Physical 100.
这就是为什么要提到身体100。
Technique’s going to win almost every time.
技术几乎每次都会获胜。
We’re having a debate about whether it’s eight or one or 0.01, it’s either way, technique wins.
我们正在争论是 8 还是 1 还是 0.01，无论哪种方式，技术都会获胜。
We agree.
我们同意。
Okay, beautiful.
好吧，漂亮。
3:36:02 One of the controversial things you’ve done, in the nineties as a student at UPenn, you publicly denied the Armenian Genocide, which is the mass murder of over a million Armenians in 1915 and ’16 in the Ottoman Empire.
你做过的有争议的事情之一是，在九十年代，作为宾夕法尼亚大学的一名学生，你公开否认亚美尼亚种族灭绝，这是1915年和16年奥斯曼帝国对超过一百万亚美尼亚人的大规模屠杀。
You have since then publicly and clearly changed your mind on this.
从那时起，您公开并明确地改变了对此的看法。
Tell me the process you went through to change your mind.
告诉我你改变主意所经历的过程。
So when you’re a kid, you’re taught a whole bunch of things.
所以当你还是个孩子的时候，你会被教导很多东西。
3:36:34 That’s the software that we talked about earlier.
这就是我们之前谈到的软件。
So cultural software is media, family, friends, social media, et cetera.
所以文化软件是媒体、家庭、朋友、社交媒体等等。
And so growing up in any tribe, whether it’s a religious tribe or an ethnic tribe, you are going to get indoctrinated into that tribe’s way of thinking.
因此，在任何部落长大，无论是宗教部落还是民族部落，你都会被灌输该部落的思维方式。
So you take a Turkish person who’s super progressive, loves Bernie, believes with all their heart and peace, and you tell them something about Kurds and they’ll say, “Oh no, not those guys.
所以你找一个非常进步、热爱伯尼、全心全意地相信的土耳其人，然后你告诉他们一些关于库尔德人的事情，他们会说，“哦，不，不是那些人。
They’re terrible and evil and we have to do what we do to them.” You see, that’s the tribe taking over.
他们可怕又邪恶，我们必须对他们做我们该做的事。”你看，那是部落接管的。
3:37:13 And so you tell any religious person what’s wrong with the other religions, they’re like, “Oh, yeah, yeah, that’s totally true.” You get to their religion, tribe takes over, “No, how dare you.
所以你告诉任何宗教人士其他宗教有什么问题，他们会说，“哦，是的，是的，那是完全正确的。”当你接触到他们的宗教信仰时，部落就会接管，“不，你怎么敢。
I’m offended.” So I grew up with Turkish propaganda.
我很生气。”所以我是在土耳其的宣传中长大的。
So I’ll tell you a couple of funny instances of it.
所以我会告诉你几个有趣的例子。
When we were kids, we’d go to Turkish American Day Parade.
当我们还是孩子的时候，我们会去参加土耳其美国日游行。
I’m like 10 or 12 years old, it’s in the middle of New York because I grew up in Jersey.
我大概 10 岁或 12 岁，在纽约中部，因为我在泽西长大。
That’s why I got in all those fights.
这就是为什么我参与所有这些战斗。
3:37:42 And we would chant in Turkish, Turkey is the biggest country.
我们会用土耳其语高呼，土耳其是最大的国家。
There’s no other country that’s even big.
没有其他国家比它更大。
And I was like, this is crazy.
我当时想，这太疯狂了。
I’m like, “Dad, isn’t this crazy?
我心想：“爸爸，这不是疯了吗？
America’s big, China’s big.
美国很大，中国也很大。
Why are we chanting this nonsensical chant?” So that’s the beginning of beginning to realize your indoctrination.
我们为什么要唱这种无意义的歌？”所以这就是开始实现你的灌输的开始。
I’m in college and I read about some battle that the Ottoman Empire lost, and I’m like, that can’t be right.
我在上大学，读到奥斯曼帝国输掉的一些战斗，我想，这不可能是正确的。
The Turks have only lost one war, World War I, right?
土耳其人只输过一场战争，第一次世界大战，对吗？
And I was like, oh my God, I’m an idiot.
我当时想，天哪，我是个白痴。
I got taught that in third grade in Turkey.
我在土耳其三年级时就学到了这一点。
Of course, that’s not true.
当然，事实并非如此。
That’s ridiculously untrue.
这是非常荒谬的。
All those thoughts are in your head, you don’t even realize it.
所有这些想法都在你的脑海里，你甚至没有意识到。
And so on the Armenian Genocide, I read the Turkish version, and the Turkish version has all of these as evidence.
等等关于亚美尼亚种族灭绝，我读了土耳其版本，土耳其版本有所有这些作为证据。
So it’s real in that it exists.
所以它的存在是真实的。
3:38:29 But here, I’ll give you a great example of it.
但在这里，我会给你一个很好的例子。
I think it was Colonel Chesters, some random American military guy after World War I and he says about the Armenians after the mass march, the forced marches, he says, “They returned to the area fat and entirely unmassacred.” Okay?
我认为那是切斯特斯上校，他是第一次世界大战后的某个美国军人，他谈到大规模游行后的亚美尼亚人，强制游行，他说，“他们回到了这个地区，身体肥胖，完全没有遭到屠杀。”好的？
I’m like, Hey, that’s an American Colonel that’s saying that.
我想，嘿，这是一位美国上校这么说的。
So that’s obviously true.
所以这显然是正确的。
You see that it didn’t happen, or at least in the way that the Armenians say.
你会发现这并没有发生，或者至少像亚美尼亚人所说的那样。
Now as a grownup, I look at it and I go, are you kidding me?
现在作为一个成年人，我看着它然后我走了，你在开玩笑吗？
That guy’s obviously trying to get a contract with the Turkish government, right?
那家伙显然是想与土耳其政府签订合同，对吧？
Nobody returns from a forced march fat and entirely unmassacred, right?
没有人从强行军中回来时是肥胖的并且完全没有被屠杀，对吗？
So that’s propaganda.
所以这就是宣传。
And that one was so indoctrinated that it was tough to let go.
而且那个人被灌输得如此之深，以至于很难放手。
So in at Penn, I write that op ed, et cetera, and then over the course of time…
所以在宾夕法尼亚大学，我写了那篇专栏文章等等，然后随着时间的推移......
And so Anna and I disagree on things from time to time, and we’ve been co-hosting now for…
所以安娜和我有时会在一些事情上产生分歧，我们现在已经共同主持了……
She’s been at the Young Turks for 18 years and co-hosting for almost 18.
她已经在青年土耳其党工作了 18 年，并与他人共同主持了近 18 年。
3:39:34 And so she’s Armenian.
所以她是亚美尼亚人。
And by the way, I love America.
顺便说一句，我爱美国。
Look, we came to America because we love this country, land of hope and opportunity.
看，我们来到美国是因为我们热爱这个国家，这片充满希望和机遇的土地。
That’s part of why I fight so hard for the average American, for the American idea.
这就是为什么我为普通美国人、为美国理念而奋斗的部分原因。
So here’s a Turk and an Armenian doing a show together, and it becomes the number one online news show.
这是一个土耳其人和一个亚美尼亚人一起表演的节目，它成为了排名第一的在线新闻节目。
That’s the beauty of America.
这就是美国的美丽之处。
So she’s telling me things and we’re having some on-air discussions about it, et cetera.
所以她正在告诉我一些事情，我们正在就此进行一些直播讨论，等等。
And then it just dawned on me like, no, this too was obviously propaganda.
然后我突然意识到，不，这显然也是宣传。
So at that point, once you realize that, it becomes easier.
因此，一旦你意识到这一点，事情就会变得更容易。
That’s why I’m trying to unplug people from the matrix, because once you realize it’s propaganda, oh my God, it gets infinitely easier to start telling what’s true or not true.
这就是为什么我试图将人们从矩阵中拔出来，因为一旦你意识到这是宣传，天哪，开始分辨什么是真的、什么是假的就会变得无比容易。
So maybe by way of advice, how do you know when you’re deluded by propaganda?
所以也许作为建议，你怎么知道你什么时候被宣传欺骗了？
3:40:20 How do you know when you’re not plugged into the matrix, when you’re plugged into the matrix?
你怎么知道什么时候没有插入矩阵，什么时候插入矩阵？
You have to keep testing it against objective reality.
你必须不断根据客观现实对其进行测试。
3:40:32 They said something, did it happen or did it not happen?
他们说了些什么，是发生了还是没发生？
So here, here’s an easy one.
所以这里，这是一个简单的。
Alex Jones for a long time, especially under Obama, kept saying.
亚历克斯·琼斯（Alex Jones）很长一段时间，尤其是在奥巴马执政期间，一直在这样说。
“They’re going to put us on FEMA camps.
“他们会把我们安置在联邦紧急事务管理署 (FEMA) 营地。
I tell you, they’re going to stuff us all in the FEMA camps, and they’re going to put us there, they’re going to let us out.
我告诉你，他们会把我们所有人都塞进联邦应急管理局的营地，他们会把我们放在那里，他们会把我们放出去。
I know it.
我知道。
I know for sure.” Nobody’s been in a FEMA camp.
我肯定知道。”没有人去过联邦紧急事务管理局 (FEMA) 营地。
Obama left, there was no FEMA camps.
奥巴马离开后，联邦应急管理局营地就消失了。
So when I asked for the right wing conspiracy guys, “Guys, has any of their things ever come true?
所以当我询问那些右翼阴谋分子时，“伙计们，他们的事情有实现过吗？
They always say all these crazy things that never, ever happened.
他们总是说所有这些从未发生过的疯狂事情。
So the third time it doesn’t happen, can you please start to wonder, maybe I’m on the wrong side.” But that’s not just for right-wingers, that’s easy, right?
所以第三次这种情况没有发生时，请你开始怀疑，也许我站在错误的一边。”但这不仅仅适用于右翼分子，这很容易，对吧？
3:41:18 But it’s also for mainstream media, and that’s where I get the biggest pushback.
但这也适用于主流媒体，这也是我受到最大阻力的地方。
Because my tribe is what the kids call PMC, professional management class, okay?
因为我的部落就是孩子们所说的PMC，专业管理班，好吗？
Their careers, you go up the ladder, you have this route, that route, et cetera.
他们的职业生涯，你沿着阶梯往上走，你有这条路线，那条路线，等等。
And so for that class, the status quo is pretty good.
所以对于这个班级来说，现状还是不错的。
So when Biden gives you 15% change, you’re like, what else do y’all want?
因此，当拜登给你 15% 的零钱时，你会想，你们还想要什么？
That’s amazing.
太棒了。
He just course corrected a little bit, now it’s perfect.
他只是稍微纠正了一点，现在就完美了。
But for the average guy who needs a hundred percent change, not 15, they look at it and they go, what the fuck?
但对于需要 100%（而不是 15%）改变的普通人来说，他们看着它然后就会想，这他妈的是什么？
He only did 15% and everybody’s declaring him a hero.
他只完成了 15%，但每个人都称他为英雄。
So those are the hardest guys to get through on.
所以这些人是最难对付的人。
And those are the guys who get most mad at me, not the right-wingers, the establishment.
最让我生气的是那些人，而不是右翼分子和建制派。
That’s why I’m nails on a chalkboard for them because I’m on the left, but I call out their crap and their marketing and propaganda.
这就是为什么我对他们的黑板钉钉子，因为我是左派，但我会指出他们的废话以及他们的营销和宣传。
3:42:18 And that’s why I mentioned earlier, he might not even consciously know it, but no one dislikes Bernie more than Obama because if Bernie got into office, he’d embarrass Obama by doing a lot more change.
这就是为什么我之前提到过，他甚至可能没有意识到这一点，但没有人比奥巴马更不喜欢伯尼，因为如果伯尼上任，他会做出更多改变，让奥巴马难堪。
And Obama told us the change wasn’t possible.
奥巴马告诉我们这种改变是不可能的。
He could only get 5%.
他只能得到5%。
And so if Bernie does 50%, then Obama’s humiliated and his record and his legacy is ruined.
因此，如果伯尼做到了 50%，那么奥巴马就会受到羞辱，他的记录和遗产就会被毁。
So I don’t think he makes that conscious decision, but his subconscious, it’s a way of thinking.
所以我不认为他做出了有意识的决定，而是他的潜意识，这是一种思维方式。
So if you’re watching Morning Joe, test them, he says something that Biden is for $15 minimum wage.
因此，如果你正在观看《早安乔》，请测试一下他们，他会说拜登的最低工资为 15 美元。
When Biden takes it out of the bill, know that Morning Joe was lying to you.
当拜登将其从法案中删除时，请知道早安乔在对你撒谎。
He says that Biden said he was for the public option, but he never even proposed it.
他说，拜登说他支持公众选择，但他从未提出过。
When Morning Joe still defends him and you see an objective reality, Biden didn’t actually propose that bill, you know that they’re lying to.
当《早安乔》仍然为他辩护并且你看到客观现实时，拜登实际上并没有提出该法案，你知道他们在撒谎。
Test it against objective reality.
根据客观现实对其进行测试。
Did it actually happen or didn’t it?
它真的发生了还是没有发生？
I mean, there’s some of that [inaudible 03:43:23], some of the conspiracy theories.
我的意思是，有一些[听不清03:43:23]，一些阴谋论。
3:43:22 Do you think there’s some value to the conspiracy theories that come from the right, but actually more so come from the anti-establishment?
您认为来自右翼的阴谋论有一定的价值，但实际上更多的是来自反建制的阴谋论吗？
For me, there’s a lot that raise a bit of a question.
对我来说，有很多事情引起了一些问题。
A lot of them could probably be explained by corporatism and the military industrial complex.
其中很多可能可以用社团主义和军事工业联合体来解释。
But there’s also a lot of them could be explained by creepiness and shadiness in human nature.
但也有很多可以用人性中的令人毛骨悚然和阴暗来解释。
Epstein is an example of that.
爱泼斯坦就是一个例子。
There’s a lot of ways to explain Epstein, including the basic creepiness of human nature.
有很多方法可以解释爱泼斯坦，包括人性的基本令人毛骨悚然。
3:44:00 …
……
including the basic creepiness of human nature.
包括人性中基本的令人毛骨悚然的东西。
But there could be bigger explanations underlying it.
但这背后可能有更大的解释。
Sometimes when we have long, thoughtful conversations like this, I’ll say it depends a lot.
有时，当我们进行像这样的长时间、深思熟虑的对话时，我会说这取决于很多。
Yeah.
是的。
And then people get frustrated by that.
然后人们就会对此感到沮丧。
3:44:13 But then, you’re frustrated by the world because it depends.
但随后，你会对这个世界感到沮丧，因为这取决于情况。
3:44:18 So, conspiracy theories.
所以，阴谋论。
If you say, “Are they all right or are they all wrong?
如果你说：“他们都对还是错？
Are any of the questions wrong?” It depends what is the conspiracy theory.
有什么问题是错的吗？”这要看什么是阴谋论。
If it’s some of the absurd ones we’ve mentioned here, God, it’s easily disproven.
如果这是我们在这里提到的一些荒谬的事情，上帝，它很容易被证明是错误的。
On the other hand, there’s a conspiracy theory about JFK’s assassination.
另一方面，关于肯尼迪遇刺事件存在着阴谋论。
Which one is the conspiracy theory?
哪一个是阴谋论？
That Lee Harvey Oswald, from 12 miles away, shot a magic bullet that went like this and hit 13 people, and came out Kennedy’s brain?
那个李·哈维·奥斯瓦尔德，从12英里外，发射了一颗神奇的子弹，像这样，击中了13个人，然后从肯尼迪的大脑里出来了？
Or that the government might have wanted to cover up an assassination of the President for whatever reason?
或者政府可能出于某种原因想要掩盖总统遇刺事件？
Come on.
快点。
3:45:03 Now, I’m of course doing hyperbole.
现在，我当然是在夸张。
The JFK enthusiasts will be like, “No, it didn’t.
肯尼迪的粉丝们会说：“不，没有。
The bullet actually go like this.
子弹实际上是这样走的。
It didn’t actually hit 13 people.” I’m kidding, guys.
它实际上并没有击中13人。”我在开玩笑，伙计们。
But in terms of is that conspiracy theory real, that JFK was not just killed by Lee Harvey Oswald?
但就这一阴谋论是否真实而言，肯尼迪不仅仅是被李·哈维·奥斯瓦尔德杀害的？
Almost certainly.
几乎可以肯定。
If you read real books, with tons of information, the most likely culprit is Allen Dulles, the head of the CIA that he hired.
如果你读过真正的书籍，里面有大量的信息，最有可能的罪魁祸首是他雇佣的中央情报局局长艾伦·杜勒斯。
Back when there was a deep state, there actually was a deep state.
当存在深层状态时，实际上存在深层状态。
They did coups against other countries’ leaders all the time.
他们一直对其他国家的领导人发动政变。
But they tell us, “Oh, they wouldn’t do it to our own leader.” But remember, it’s not the CIA.
但他们告诉我们，“哦，他们不会对我们自己的领导人这样做。”但请记住，这不是中央情报局。
He’d left the CIA already.
他已经离开中央情报局了。
3:45:49 I don’t know if it was ex-CIA guys, I don’t know if the Mob was involved.
我不知道是否是前中央情报局人员，我不知道黑帮是否参与其中。
I don’t know any of those details.
我不知道这些细节。
But I know some things that are obvious.
但我知道一些显而易见的事情。
That bullet didn’t magically hit him from over there.
那颗子弹并没有神奇地从那边击中他。
Jack Ruby killed Lee Harvey Oswald.
杰克·鲁比杀死了李·哈维·奥斯瓦尔德。
Jack Ruby was a mobster who, on the record, had said that he hated Kennedy.
杰克·鲁比是一个黑帮，他曾公开表示他讨厌肯尼迪。
All of a sudden, he became patriotic overnight and shot the assailant, who was unguarded.
突然间，他一夜之间爱国起来，射杀了毫无防备的行凶者。
Maybe.
或许。
Less likely.
可能性较小。
3:46:15 Okay, so let’s speed up though.
好吧，那我们就加快速度吧。
My point is, yeah, some conspiracy theories could be true.
我的观点是，是的，有些阴谋论可能是真的。
It depends on objective reality.
这取决于客观现实。
You get to Epstein.
你去爱泼斯坦。
Again, I always do it ahead of time because I want you to test me and see does it match objective reality.
再说一次，我总是提前做，因为我想让你测试我，看看它是否符合客观现实。
I said the minute that it happened, you’ll have your answer based on whether the video in the hallway worked or not.
我说过，事情发生的那一刻，你就会根据走廊里的视频是否有效得到答案。
If the video in the hallway works, they’ll be just as many conspiracy theories, but it’ll actually show actually who went in and didn’t go in.
如果走廊里的视频有效，它们将是同样多的阴谋论，但它实际上会显示谁进去了，谁没有进去。
But if the video in the hallway doesn’t work, they definitely killed him.
但如果走廊里的视频不起作用，他们肯定会杀了他。
3:46:55 A couple of days later, “Oh, the video in that particular hallway happened to not be working.
几天后，“哦，那个走廊里的视频碰巧不起作用了。
The guards both happened to be on break at the same time.
两个警卫恰好同时休息。
And the most notorious pedophile criminal in the country happened to be unguarded.
而这个国家最臭名昭著的恋童癖罪犯恰好无人看守。
That is the one time he decided to hang himself.” Listen, man.
那是他第一次决定上吊自杀。”听着，伙计。
The only way you believe that is you got mainstream media to get you to believe that the minute the phrase conspiracy theory is mentioned, you have to shut off your mind.
你相信这一点的唯一方法是你让主流媒体让你相信，一旦提到阴谋论这个词，你就必须关闭你的思维。
And you have to believe whatever the media tells you.
而且你必须相信媒体告诉你的一切。
Yeah.
是的。
3:47:31 Well, it’s interesting, you just mentioned.
嗯，这很有趣，你刚才提到了。
Do you think the CIA has not grown in power?
你认为中央情报局的权力还没有增长吗？
No, no.
不，不。
3:47:37 They’ve greatly waned in power.
他们的权力大大削弱了。
Interesting.
有趣的。
In the old days, the CIA has an actual deep state, because the country was run by a bunch of families.
在过去，中央情报局实际上有一个深层政府，因为这个国家是由一群家庭管理的。
3:47:41 You go to Yale, the Skull and Bones thing was real.
你去耶鲁大学，骷髅会的事情是真实的。
You go to Harvard.
你去哈佛。
Look at the Dulles family.
看看杜勒斯家族。
Half of them go into government, the other half go into banking.
其中一半进入政府，另一半进入银行业。
Why are the Central American countries called the Banana Republics?
中美洲国家为什么被称为香蕉共和国？
Because we, America, did a coup against one of those countries because a banana company wanted it.
因为我们美国对其中一个国家发动了一场政变，因为一家香蕉公司想要它。
Because they’re like, “How dare you charge whatever you want for your natural resource?
因为他们会说，“你怎么敢对你的自然资源收取任何你想要的费用？
We American corporations have the right to all of your natural resources at the lowest possible rate.”
我们美国公司有权以尽可能低的价格获得你们所有的自然资源。”
3:48:21 “Allen, get rid of these guys.” And Allen would.
“艾伦，干掉这些家伙。”艾伦会的。
And sometimes, they would go extra judicial, like potentially with the JFK assassination.
有时，他们会采取额外的司法措施，例如肯尼迪遇刺事件。
By the way, if you pissed off J.
顺便说一句，如果你惹怒了J.
Edgar Hoover, he was just going to put a bullet in your head and we were done with you.
埃德加·胡佛，他只是想向你的脑袋开一枪，我们就完了。
Fred Hampton, among others.
弗雷德·汉普顿等人。
3:48:46 But nowadays, that’s not how the world works.
但如今，世界不是这样运作的。
A small number of families cannot control a country and an economy this size.
少数家族无法控制如此规模的国家和经济。
New people pop up.
新人不断涌现。
Well, Mark Zuckerberg wasn’t part of those families.
嗯，马克·扎克伯格不属于这些家庭。
Elon Musk wasn’t part of those families.
埃隆·马斯克不属于这些家庭。
Neither was Bezos.
贝索斯也不是。
For you to believe those conspiracy theories, you have to think that Bezos and Musk, et cetera, were like, “Oh, you guys are still running the country?
要让你相信这些阴谋论，你必须认为贝佐斯和马斯克等人会说：“哦，你们还在统治这个国家吗？
No problem.
没问题。
Go ahead.” They’re not going to do that.
继续吧。”他们不会那样做的。
3:49:17 Now we’ve gotten into a system where it’s the invisible hand of the market that runs the country.
现在我们已经进入了一个由市场这只看不见的手来管理国家的体系。
But unfortunately, it’s only for the powerful.
但不幸的是，这只是强者的专利。
It’s more of a machine.
它更像是一台机器。
This is super interesting and ties to what we were talking about earlier, Lex.
这非常有趣，并且与我们之前讨论的内容有关，Lex。
Which is that they don’t do political assassinations anymore.
也就是说，他们不再进行政治暗杀了。
They do character assassinations.
他们进行人格暗杀。
That’s the needle in the haystack thing.
这就是大海捞针的事情。
3:49:42 If you do an assassination of someone, you build up their status.
如果你暗杀某人，你就会提升他们的地位。
They become a martyr and you build up their cause.
他们成为烈士，而你则建立他们的事业。
But if you do a character assassination, you smear the cause with the person.
但如果你进行人格诽谤，你就抹黑了这个人的事业。
The cause goes down, not up.
原因是下降，而不是上升。
The market found a better way of getting rid of agitating outsiders.
市场找到了一个更好的方法来摆脱烦人的局外人。
Well, that’s one of the conspiracy theories with Epstein, is that he’s a front for, I guess CIA, and they’re getting data on people, like creepy pedophile kind of data.
嗯，这是爱泼斯坦的阴谋论之一，我猜他是中央情报局的幌子，他们正在获取有关人的数据，比如令人毛骨悚然的恋童癖数据。
3:50:03 They can use to then threaten character assassination, to in this way, put the people in their pockets.
他们可以利用人格诽谤来威胁，以这种方式将人民收入囊中。
Look, we’re not in on it so there’s no way we can know.
看，我们没有参与其中，所以我们无法知道。
3:50:29 But I just always go back to logic.
但我总是回归逻辑。
He has dirt on a lot of powerful people.
他对很多有权势的人都有污蔑。
He dies in a way that is an obvious murder and not a suicide.
他的死方式显然是谋杀而不是自杀。
Then you begin to think, “Who would have enough power to be able to get away with that crime?” That is a very limited number of either people or governments.
然后你开始思考，“谁有足够的权力能够逃脱犯罪？”无论是个人还是政府的数量都非常有限。
Yeah.
是的。
That’s probably your answer without knowing anything that’s internal.
这可能就是你在不了解任何内部情况的情况下的答案。
Yeah.
是的。
3:51:06 It’s crazy we don’t have the list of clients.
我们没有客户名单真是太疯狂了。
3:51:09 What is the best way to achieve stability and peace in Israel and Palestine in the current situation and in the next five, 10 years?
在当前局势和未来五年、十年内，实现以色列和巴勒斯坦稳定与和平的最佳途径是什么？
If people wanted to get to peace, it’s relatively straightforward.
如果人们想要实现和平，那是相对简单的。
3:51:20 There’s already a deal that was negotiated.
已经达成协议。
The Saudis agreed to it, and they’re an important player in this game.
沙特同意了，他们是这场游戏的重要参与者。
The Palestinians and the Israelis have initially agreed to it.
巴勒斯坦人和以色列人初步同意了这一点。
Even Hamas has kind of agreed to it.
甚至哈马斯也同意了。
That deal exists and is just waiting on the shelf to get done.
该交易已经存在，只是等待完成。
3:51:41 It’s pretty straightforward.
这非常简单。
Israel gets out of the West Bank and Gaza Strip, but they keep X percentage.
以色列撤出了约旦河西岸和加沙地带，但他们保留了 X%。
It used to be 4%, then it went up to 6%.
原来是4%，后来涨到了6%。
It’s probably a higher number now.
现在这个数字可能更高。
The Palestinians keep losing leverage as we go.
随着我们的前进，巴勒斯坦人不断失去影响力。
3:51:56 You remember how hard it was to get a deal on Ukraine, I thought.
我想，你还记得在乌克兰问题上达成协议是多么困难。
That’s a very complicated one.
这是一个非常复杂的问题。
Israel is much more straightforward.
以色列则简单得多。
You get the hell out of the occupied territories, keep some of the …
你从被占领的领土上滚出去，保留一些……
Those settlements are the worst thing.
这些定居点是最糟糕的事情。
They’re a cancer.
他们是一种癌症。
But anyway, I don’t know.
但无论如何，我不知道。
But there is an answer to the settlements, and it’s probably that Israel keeps them, even though that drives me crazy.
但定居点的问题有一个答案，很可能是以色列保留了这些定居点，尽管这让我发疯。
No right of return for Palestinians.
巴勒斯坦人没有返回的权利。
There will be symbolic right of return for a couple of families.
一些家庭将享有象征性的返回权。
Palestinians go, “Oh, no way.” Guys, you have no leverage.
巴勒斯坦人说：“哦，不可能。”伙计们，你们没有杠杆。
Take the deal.
接受这笔交易。
Take the deal.
接受这笔交易。
You’re not going to get a right of return.
您不会获得退货权。
Israel is not going to allow millions of Palestinians to go and vote in Israel.
以色列不会允许数百万巴勒斯坦人去以色列投票。
It would end the Jewish State.
它将结束犹太国家。
You have to get to a practical solution.
你必须找到一个切实可行的解决方案。
Honestly, the number one person blocking it now is Netanyahu.
老实说，现在第一个阻止的人是内塔尼亚胡。
That’s obvious.
这是显而易见的。
That doesn’t take a lot of courage to say that.
说出这样的话并不需要多大的勇气。
He says publicly, “I don’t want a Palestinian State.
他公开表示：“我不想要巴勒斯坦国。
I’m against a two-state solution.” He’s been monstrous.
我反对两国解决方案。”他太可怕了。
He’s one of the worst terrorists of my lifetime.
他是我一生中最糟糕的恐怖分子之一。
That’s easy.
这很容易。
3:53:00 The right wing of Israel has lot its mind.
以色列右翼有很多想法。
The Smotrich, and the Ben-Gvirs openly talking about ethnic cleansing, and driving them into other Arab countries.
斯莫特里奇家族和本格维尔家族公开谈论种族清洗，并将他们驱赶到其他阿拉伯国家。
It’s the definition of ethnic cleansing.
这是种族清洗的定义。
I know that the Arabs are going to take the deal.
我知道阿拉伯人会接受这笔交易。
Saudi Arabia cannot wait to take the deal because they just want to get business going.
沙特阿拉伯迫不及待地想接受这笔交易，因为他们只想让生意继续下去。
Do you think Hamas takes the deal?
您认为哈马斯会接受这笔交易吗？
I have a solution where you don’t need Hamas.
我有一个不需要哈马斯的解决方案。
3:53:28 But yes, Hamas would definitely take the deal.
但是，哈马斯肯定会接受这笔交易。
Hamas already publicly said that they would even get rid of that Israel doesn’t have a right to exist.
哈马斯已经公开表示，他们甚至会摆脱以色列没有生存权的说法。
3:53:39 We hear so much propaganda in American media.
我们在美国媒体上听到了很多宣传。
It’s maddening.
真让人抓狂。
This idea that you don’t deal with Hamas is so dumb.
不与哈马斯打交道的想法太愚蠢了。
The reason it’s dumb is you don’t negotiate with your friends, you negotiate with your enemies.
它之所以愚蠢是因为你不与朋友谈判，而是与敌人谈判。
“Well, I don’t want to negotiate with them.
“好吧，我不想和他们谈判。
I don’t like them.” Well then, you’re not going to get to peace.
我不喜欢他们。”那么，你不会获得和平。
But still, there is a path that doesn’t include Hamas.
但仍有一条道路不包括哈马斯。
Make a deal with Fatah, that runs the West Bank.
与管理西岸的法塔赫达成协议。
Right now, Fatah went into Gaza Strip, they wouldn’t be able to manage it because they don’t have enough credibility.
现在，法塔赫进入加沙地带，他们管不了，因为他们没有足够的信誉。
They’re mainly seen as in cahoots with occupiers, whereas Hamas is hardcore and fighting against the occupiers.
他们主要被视为与占领者勾结，而哈马斯则是铁杆分子，与占领者作战。
But if Fatah delivers not only a peace deal, but a Palestinian state, then they come in as heroes.
但如果法塔赫不仅达成了和平协议，而且建立了巴勒斯坦国，那么他们就会成为英雄。
You make the deal with them, you let them run the Gaza Strip, and you empower them to drive out Hamas.
你与他们达成协议，让他们管理加沙地带，并授权他们驱逐哈马斯。
That way, they do your dirty work for you, in a sense.
这样，从某种意义上说，他们就为你做了肮脏的工作。
3:54:42 But good, because Hamas is a terrorist organization.
但这很好，因为哈马斯是一个恐怖组织。
They’re not helpful.
他们没有帮助。
Especially if the Palestinians get a state, the violence has to stop immediately.
特别是如果巴勒斯坦人建立国家，暴力必须立即停止。
That’s the whole point.
这就是重点。
The trade is you get a state, Israel gets safety and peace.
交易是你得到一个国家，以色列得到安全与和平。
So no more rockets at Israel?
那么以色列不再有火箭弹了吗？
No more rockets.
不再有火箭了。
3:54:59 If you do any other rockets, and Israel does the barbaric thing they just did, even I would say, “Hey, brother, we had a peace deal.” If you violate a peace deal and you do a bomb, they’re going to do a bomb and they’re bomb is much larger.
如果你发射任何其他火箭，而以色列做了他们刚才所做的野蛮事情，我什至会说，“嘿，兄弟，我们达成了和平协议。”如果你违反和平协议而制造了炸弹，他们就会制造炸弹，而且他们制造的炸弹要大得多。
3:55:18 By the way, can it work?
顺便问一下，能行吗？
It already has worked.
它已经起作用了。
Israel already did it with Egypt.
以色列已经对埃及这样做了。
Egypt was 100 times Hamas.
埃及是哈马斯的100倍。
Egypt gathered all the Arab armies and actually physically invaded Israel when Israel could lose.
当以色列可能失败时，埃及集结了所有阿拉伯军队并实际入侵了以色列。
They did it several times.
他们这样做了好几次。
3:55:36 Lex, at the time, not just the right, the war hawks, but most people thought, “There’s no way Egypt will keep that peace deal.
莱克斯，当时，不仅是右翼战争鹰派，而且大多数人都认为，“埃及不可能遵守和平协议。
Oh, they’re suckers.
哦，他们是傻瓜。
We’re giving them the Sinai Peninsula back.
我们要把西奈半岛还给他们。
Then they’re just going to keep bombing and attacking us.” There hasn’t been a single bomb from Egypt since the peace deal.
然后他们就会继续轰炸和攻击我们。”自和平协议签订以来，埃及没有再发生过一颗炸弹。
Peace deals work.
和平交易有效。
War gets you more war.
战争会给你带来更多的战争。
Peace deals get you peace.
和平协议给你带来和平。
3:56:04 This is true of all of life.
这对于所有的生活都是如此。
Don’t let the perfect be the enemy of the good.
不要让完美成为优秀的敌人。
If you’re saying, “Well, I’m not positive that a peace deal is going to be perfect.
如果你说：“嗯，我不确定和平协议会是完美的。
12 more rockets might be fired.” Well, brother, what do we have now?
可能还会发射 12 枚火箭。”好吧，兄弟，我们现在有什么？
We have endless rockets now.
我们现在有无尽的火箭。
If Israel is supposed to be a safe haven for Jews, and I get it, and I want it.
如果以色列应该成为犹太人的避风港，我明白，我想要它。
Then become a safe haven.
然后成为避风港。
The way that you’re a safe haven is stop the occupation.
让你成为避难所的方法就是停止占领。
It’s not complicated.
这并不复杂。
3:56:38 Let’s be honest.
说实话。
The reason the right wing government of Israel is not stopping the occupation is because they want to take more and more land.
以色列右翼政府之所以不停止占领，是因为他们想占领越来越多的土地。
They have, throughout time, taken way more of the West Bank than they had originally.
随着时间的推移，他们占领的西岸地区比原来要多得多。
Now Netanyahu is saying, “I want a corridor in the middle of Gaza.
现在内塔尼亚胡说：“我想要在加沙中部建立一条走廊。
I want a corridor at the border of Egypt.” Now we’re back to occupying Gaza physically, let alone through power, et cetera.
我想要在埃及边境建立一条走廊。”现在我们又回到了对加沙的实际占领，更不用说通过武力等手段了。
Bibi has to go.
比比必须走了。
Definitely.
确实。
What’s the role of US in making a peace deal like that happen?
美国在达成这样的和平协议中扮演什么角色？
It’s going to sound outlandish, but I can get you a ceasefire almost overnight if Bibi’s gone.
这听起来很奇怪，但如果比比走了，我几乎可以在一夜之间让你停火。
3:57:17 Because the Israeli negotiators have said publicly …
因为以色列谈判代表公开表示……
Not publicly, it got leaked and it was in the Israeli press.
它没有公开，而是被泄露并出现在以色列媒体上。
“You have to give us a little bit of wiggle room.
“你必须给我们一点回旋的余地。
If you don’t give us a little bit of wiggle room, obviously they’re not going to do the deal.” He’s like, “I know.” That’s why he’s not giving them the wiggle room.
如果你不给我们一点回旋余地，显然他们不会做这笔交易。”他就像是，“我知道。”这就是为什么他不给他们回旋余地。
3:57:43 Don’t ask for land in Gaza.
不要在加沙索要土地。
Get the hell out of Gaza.
滚出加沙吧。
You ceasefire.
你们停火。
That’s the easy part.
这是最简单的部分。
The hard part is the occupation, ending the occupation.
最困难的部分是占领，结束占领。
Even that, I can get it to you in two months, as long as Israel actually wants a deal.
即便如此，只要以色列确实想要达成协议，我就可以在两个月内给你。
Go to an election, get rid of Netanyahu.
举行选举，除掉内塔尼亚胡。
Put in Benny Gantz.
放入本尼·甘茨。
Is Benny Gantz an angel?
本尼·甘茨是天使吗？
No.
不。
He’s the one that ordered all the bombings of Gaza to begin with.
他是一开始就下令对加沙进行所有轰炸的人。
3:58:11 Look, Benny Gantz has got massive war crimes on his record, so don’t worry, he’s not a softie.
看，本尼·甘茨有大量战争罪记录，所以别担心，他不是一个软弱的人。
But he’s not my favorite guy in the world, to say the least.
但至少可以说，他不是我在世界上最喜欢的人。
But Benny Gantz can do a peace deal if he wants to.
但本尼·甘茨如果愿意的话可以达成和平协议。
3:58:26 Look, only one group of people can actually settle this.
你看，只有一群人才能真正解决这个问题。
Well, there’s actually two groups of people.
嗯，实际上有两类人。
One is the Israeli population.
一是以色列人口。
You vote in someone who wants to do a peace deal, you’ll get a peace deal.
你投票给想要达成和平协议的人，你就会得到和平协议。
Number two is the American President.
第二位是美国总统。
If I’m the American President …
如果我是美国总统……
I’m saying in a hypothetical.
我是在假设的情况下说的。
Or any American President that actually wants to get a peace deal done.
或者任何真正想要达成和平协议的美国总统。
You just say, “I’m going to cut the funding.” Israel will do the deal immediately.
你只需说：“我要削减资金。”以色列将立即达成协议。
They don’t say they want to cut the funding, because APAC gives them $100 million.
他们并没有说要削减资金，因为亚太地区给了他们 1 亿美元。
It’s not complicated.
这并不复杂。
Not 1% complicated.
没有 1% 复杂。
Yeah.
是的。
Lex, tell me this.
莱克斯，告诉我这个。
3:59:01 If the US President said, “I’m going to cut the funding,” do you think that it might have a giant problem for Netanyahu, might it hurt his government, might they have to go to an election?
如果美国总统说，“我要削减资金”，你认为这对内塔尼亚胡来说可能是一个巨大的问题吗？这是否会伤害他的政府，他们是否必须参加选举？
Would the Israeli politicians, let alone the population, begin to really, really worry that they’re going to lose an enormous source of funding and weapons?
以色列政客，更不用说人民，是否会开始真正、真正担心他们将失去巨大的资金和武器来源？
Yeah, absolutely.
是的，绝对是。
3:59:22 Absolutely.
绝对地。
Why wouldn’t we use our leverage?
我们为什么不利用我们的杠杆呢？
3:59:23 It’s crazy not to use our leverage.
不利用我们的影响力是疯狂的。
Yeah.
是的。
3:59:28 This is where we go back to this deal man of Trump.
这就是我们回到特朗普这个交易人的地方。
It feels like he’s the only one crazy enough to use that leverage.
感觉他是唯一一个疯狂到足以利用这一杠杆的人。
Yes.
是的。
By crazy, I mean in the good kind of sense.
我所说的疯狂是指好的方面。
3:59:39 Bold enough, not giving a shit about convention, not giving a shit about pressures, and money, and influence, and all that kind of stuff.
足够大胆，不在乎惯例，不在乎压力，金钱，影响力，以及所有类似的东西。
Yes, but with the biggest asterisk in the history of the world.
是的，但是带有世界历史上最大的星号。
3:59:48 Which is 12% chance he does that, and that’s great.
他有 12% 的机会做到这一点，这很好。
But a huge chance he does the opposite and he goes …
但很有可能他会做相反的事情，然后他……
Let’s call it 80 again.
让我们再次称其为80。
80%, “Oh, yeah, Miriam wanted me to give the West Bank to Israel, so you have it, guys, now.
80%，“哦，是的，米里亚姆希望我把约旦河西岸交给以色列，所以你们现在就得到了，伙计们。
You can just occupy the whole thing forever.” A giant war.
你可以永远占据整个事情。”一场巨大的战争。
“Oh, yeah, I’m going to prove how tough I am.
“哦，是的，我要证明我有多坚强。
I going to nuke Iran.” Oh, no!
我要用核武器攻击伊朗。”哦，不！
What are you doing?
你在干什么？
What are you doing?
你在干什么？
4:00:18 Trump is a massive risk.
特朗普是一个巨大的风险。
He’s an enormous amount of risk.
他冒着巨大的风险。
If you were running a company and not a country, would you hire Trump as your CEO?
如果你经营的是一家公司而不是一个国家，你会聘请特朗普作为你的首席执行官吗？
Everyone watching just screamed inside their heads, “No!” You would never take that kind of risk with your company.
所有人都在心里呐喊：“不！”你永远不会在你的公司冒这种风险。
You got an 80% chance the guy’s going to blow up the company.
这个人有 80% 的可能性会炸毁公司。
No way, no way.
没办法，没办法。
You know it, too.
你也知道。
Especially if you’re a business man, you know you’re not going to hire that loose cannon to run your company.
尤其是如果你是一名商人，你知道你不会雇佣那个松散的大炮来经营你的公司。
It’s unacceptable risk.
这是不可接受的风险。
4:00:48 But you’re not wrong, we talked about it earlier.
但你没有错，我们之前已经讨论过了。
But as part of that risk, there’s a sliver in there that he could accidentally do the right thing.
但作为风险的一部分，他可能会不小心做出正确的事情。
We talked a lot about hope in this conversation.
在这次谈话中我们谈论了很多关于希望的话题。
4:00:56 Zooming out, what gives you hope about the future of this whole thing?
缩小范围，是什么让你对整个事情的未来充满希望？
Of humanity, not just the United States.
人类，而不仅仅是美国。
Of us humans on Earth.
我们地球上的人类。
Why am I center left and not center right?
为什么我是中间偏左而不是中间偏右？
4:01:07 It gets to that question.
这就涉及到这个问题了。
You look at the polling, not just here in America, but in almost any country, and it almost always breaks out to two-thirds to one-third.
你看看民意调查，不仅在美国，而且在几乎任何国家，它几乎总是突破三分之二到三分之一。
Two-thirds of the people say, “Let’s be empathetic.
三分之二的人说：“让我们保持同理心。
Let’s share.
让我们分享一下。
Let’s do equality, justice.
让我们做到平等、正义。
Let’s be fair.” One-third goes, “No.
让我们公平一点。”三分之一的人说：“不。
Me, me, me, me, me, me, me.” That’s just the nature of humanity.
我，我，我，我，我，我，我。”这就是人性的本质。
4:01:37 Usually, the same third goes, “No change.” Another two-thirds go, “Well, some change.” Because if you don’t do any change, you’re never going to get to the right answer.
通常，第三个同样的人会说“没有变化”。另外三分之二的人会说：“好吧，做一些改变吧。”因为如果你不做任何改变，你永远不会得到正确的答案。
For the wisdom of the crowd to work, for free markets to work, for everything to work, you have to keep changing because the times change, and the culture changes, and the situation changes.
为了让群众的智慧发挥作用，让自由市场发挥作用，让一切发挥作用，你必须不断改变，因为时代在变，文化在变，情况在变。
That why there’s amendments in the Constitution, because you need to be able to change the document from time to time.
这就是为什么宪法有修正案，因为你需要能够不时地更改文件。
Be careful with it.
小心一点。
But you need to allow for an avenue for change.
但你需要留出改变的途径。
4:02:11 Now why does the one-third keep winning in so many different places?
为什么三分之一的人在这么多不同的地方不断获胜？
Because they have more money and power.
因为他们有更多的钱和权力。
By the way, if you’re more selfish, you’re more likely to get more money and power.
顺便说一句，如果你更自私，你就更有可能获得更多的金钱和权力。
I wish that weren’t the case, but it is.
我希望情况并非如此，但事实确实如此。
These are not blanket rules, they’re on average.
这些不是一揽子规则，而是平均规则。
That third winds up winning in so many circumstances.
在很多情况下，第三个最终都会获胜。
4:02:34 But the bottom line is, we are a species that requires consent.
但底线是，我们是一个需要同意的物种。
I’m a stone-cold atheist.
我是一个冷酷无神论者。
I don’t think we’re kind of like apes, I think we are apes.
我不认为我们有点像猿类，我认为我们就是猿类。
All the scientists out there are going, “Well, of course we are.” Everyone else is going, “That’s crazy.” When you look at it as a species, different species react in different ways.
所有的科学家都会说：“好吧，我们当然是。”其他人都会说：“这太疯狂了。”当你将其视为一个物种时，不同的物种会以不同的方式做出反应。
Snakes have no empathy because it’s not in their DNA.
蛇没有同理心，因为它们的DNA中没有同理心。
That’s why we have a sense of what a snake does.
这就是为什么我们对蛇的行为有所了解。
The good news is, for higher level apes like us, bonobos, chimpanzees, and humans, we all roughly want consent.
好消息是，对于像我们这样的高级猿类、倭黑猩猩、黑猩猩和人类来说，我们都大致需要同意。
4:03:21 A chimpanzee, for example, who has a violent reputation and they are violent, and unfortunately we’re pretty close to them.
例如，黑猩猩有着暴力的名声，而且它们也很暴力，不幸的是我们与它们非常接近。
But what people don’t know is a leader doesn’t win through violence, especially for bonobos.
但人们不知道的是，领导者不会通过暴力取胜，尤其是对倭黑猩猩来说。
They win by picking lice off of other chimpanzees, by going and doing favors.
他们通过从其他黑猩猩身上剔除虱子、通过帮助他人而获胜。
Going to do a hunt, getting food, and giving it to someone else.
去打猎，获取食物，然后把它送给别人。
Because what they’re gathering is the consent of the governed.
因为他们正在收集的是被统治者的同意。
That’s how you become the alpha.
这就是你成为阿尔法的方式。
You don’t do it through physical dominance, you do it through consent.
你不是通过身体支配来做到这一点，而是通过同意来做到这一点。
That’s how we’re hardwired, that’s in our DNA.
这就是我们与生俱来的，这是我们的 DNA。
4:03:57 That two-thirds, in the long run, will win.
从长远来看，这三分之二的人将会获胜。
We will have empathy, we will have change.
我们会有同理心，我们会有改变。
That’s the hope that we’re all looking for.
这就是我们都在寻找的希望。
Hope has got the numbers, it seems like.
看起来希望已经得到了数字。
Yeah.
是的。
4:04:12 In fact, one more thing, Lex.
事实上，还有一件事，莱克斯。
Yes.
是的。
Look at history.
看看历史。
4:04:15 Hope and change always win.
希望和改变总会获胜。
Again, conservatives don’t catch feelings.
再说一次，保守派不会抓住感情。
There is a need conservatives, because you have to balance things out.
需要保守派，因为你必须平衡事情。
If you just had even that wonderful two- thirds, that still wouldn’t be the ideal system.
即使你只有那美妙的三分之二，那仍然不是理想的系统。
You need a Winston Churchill if you’re in the middle of World War II.
如果你正处于第二次世界大战期间，你需要温斯顿·丘吉尔。
You need someone to say regulating six inspections of the elevators is too many.
你需要有人说对电梯进行六次检查太多了。
You need that balance, and conservatives have a role, and it’s a really important role.
你需要这种平衡，保守派可以发挥作用，而且这是一个非常重要的作用。
4:04:46 But having said that, they’re assigned to losing throughout history because they’re fighting on losing ground.
但话虽如此，他们在历史上注定会失败，因为他们是在节节败退的情况下战斗的。
A conservative says, “No change, but the world is constantly changing so they’re destined to lose.
一位保守派人士表示：“没有变化，但世界在不断变化，所以他们注定会失败。
That’s why the Founding Fathers went against the British Monarchy.
这就是开国元勋们反对英国君主制的原因。
That’s why the Civil Rights movement won.
这就是民权运动获胜的原因。
They didn’t win overnight.
他们并不是一夜之间就获胜的。
It took them 100 years to get equal rights, let alone past slavery.
他们花了100年才获得平等权利，更不用说摆脱奴隶制了。
We won on women’s rights, we won on gay rights.
我们赢得了妇女权利，我们赢得了同性恋权利。
We keep winning.
我们不断获胜。
But every snapshot in time makes it feel like we’re losing.
但每一个及时的快照都让我们感觉我们正在失败。
There’s a bad guy in charge.
有一个坏人在负责。
We are living under corporate rule, et cetera.
我们生活在公司统治之下，等等。
But in the long tide of history, change always wins.
但在历史的长河中，变革总是胜利的。
4:05:32 The empathetic, generally speaking left wing …
一般来说，富有同情心的左翼......
But again, don’t worry about the titles.
但同样，不要担心标题。
People get obsessed with the labels.
人们对标签着迷。
The two-thirds that’s empathetic, that includes a lot of right wingers.
三分之二的人是有同理心的，其中包括很多右翼分子。
You win at the end in history every single time.
在历史的最后，你每一次都会获胜。
We fight forward.
我们奋勇向前。
We’re tough when we need to be.
当我们需要的时候，我们会变得坚强。
We need that willpower to win any fight.
我们需要意志力来赢得任何战斗。
But we’re civil and respectful to the other side because they are us.
但我们对对方有礼貌并尊重，因为他们就是我们。
4:06:02 Progressives, all the time, we say, “Look …” This was the ending of my book.
进步主义者，我们总是说，“看……”这就是我书的结尾。
Which is for conservatives, you have a lot of empathy for inside the wagons.
对于保守派来说，你对马车内部有很多同理心。
Conservatives are great to their family, generally speaking.
一般来说，保守派对他们的家庭很好。
To their community, to their church, to anyone that’s inside the wagons.
对他们的社区，对他们的教堂，对马车里的任何人。
But they set up electric fences and barbed wire around their wagons.
但他们在货车周围设置了电围栏和铁丝网。
If you’re on the outside, you’re the others and you’re going to get electrified.
如果你在外面，你就是其他人，你会感到兴奋。
It’s constantly.
它是不断的。
I like to think the left wing has wider wagons.
我喜欢认为左翼有更宽的货车。
We view the world as more us and not you.
我们认为世界更多的是我们，而不是你。
4:06:43 The good news of that is, if we win, we’re not going to do Medicare for only the left.
好消息是，如果我们获胜，我们将不会只为左翼人士提供医疗保险。
We’re going to Medicare for all.
我们将为所有人提供医疗保险。
You’re all going to get universal healthcare.
你们都将获得全民医疗保健。
We’re going to do higher wages for all.
我们将为所有人提供更高的工资。
The right wing is not going to be left out.
右翼不会被排除在外。
Lex, I’m going to tell you a fun story.
莱克斯，我要告诉你一个有趣的故事。
It’s about my family.
这是关于我的家人的。
I’m sure that parts of it are apocryphal, because it’s from 500 years ago.
我确信其中部分内容是杜撰的，因为它是 500 年前的事。
But it gives you a sense of the old Mark Twain quote, if it’s really Mark Twain’s.
但如果这确实是马克·吐温的名言的话，它会让你感受到马克·吐温的那句古老名言。
Of, “Change happens really gradually, and then all of a sudden.” My mom’s last name in Turkish is Yavaşça, it means slowly.
其中，“变化是逐渐发生的，然后是突然发生的。”我妈妈的土耳其语姓氏是 Yavaşça，意思是慢慢地。
It’s a weird name, even in Turkish.
即使在土耳其语中，这也是一个奇怪的名字。
4:07:34 One day, we’re walking past a mosque in Istanbul when I’m a kid.
当我还是个孩子的时候，有一天，我们走过伊斯坦布尔的一座清真寺。
It says on the mosque, “Yavaşça.” We’re like, “What is this?” It’s a small, little mosque.
清真寺上写着“Yavaşça”。我们会想，“这是什么？”这是一座很小很小的清真寺。
We go inside.
我们进去。
My dad starts the Imam questions.
我爸爸开始问伊玛目问题。
He says, “Why is the mosque named that?” He said, “You don’t know?” Because my dad said, “My wife’s last name is Yavaşça.” He’s like, “Oh my God.” He’s like, “Your ancestor was the Admiral of the Ottoman Navy when they conquered Constantinople.”
他说：“清真寺为什么叫这个名字？”他说：“你不知道？”因为我爸爸说：“我妻子的姓是亚瓦萨。”他就像是，“天哪。”他就像是，“你的祖先是奥斯曼海军征服君士坦丁堡时的海军上将。”
4:08:13 Grandpa, from 5, 600 years ago, came up with the idea.
这个主意是五六百年前的爷爷想出来的。
You can’t ever conquer Constantinople because there’s a giant chain underneath the Bosphorus.
你永远无法征服君士坦丁堡，因为博斯普鲁斯海峡下面有一条巨大的链条。
All the ships get stuck on the chain, there’s cannons on both sides.
所有的船都被卡在了链条上，两边都有大炮。
Half the ancient navies in the world are at the bottom of the Bosphorus.
世界上一半的古代海军都位于博斯普鲁斯海峡的底部。
It hasn’t been conquered in over 1000 years, nobody thinks it can be conquered.
它已经一千多年没有被征服过，没有人认为它可以被征服。
Grandpa comes up with the idea of, “Why don’t we build giant wooden planks over land and grease them?
爷爷想出了一个主意：“我们为什么不在陆地上建造巨大的木板并涂上油脂呢？
And pass our fleet over land, onto the other side.” Everybody goes, because whenever anybody proposed a new idea, no matter how logical it is, they go, “Oh, that’s impossible.
然后让我们的舰队越过陆地，到达另一边。”每个人都会去，因为每当有人提出一个新想法时，无论它多么合乎逻辑，他们都会说：“哦，那是不可能的。
No way it’s going to work.
不可能的。
Oh, you’re crazy.
哦，你疯了。
This is an unconquerable city.
这是一座不可征服的城市。
What are you guys even doing?”
你们到底在做什么？”
4:08:54 Every day, Mehmed the Conqueror comes up to Grandpa and says, “All right.
每天，征服者穆罕默德都会来到爷爷面前说：“好吧。
How’s your plan to do this project going?” Grandpa says, “Slowly.” He names him Commander Slowly.
你这个项目的计划进行得怎么样了？”爷爷说：“慢慢来。”他任命他为“缓慢指挥官”。
Yeah.
是的。
One night, after the whole thing’s done.
一天晚上，一切都完成后。
4:09:09 They had passed the entire Ottoman fleet over the land.
他们已经超越了整个奥斯曼帝国的舰队。
Wind up in the middle of the Bosphorus, and the Holy Roman Empire concedes.
最终到达博斯普鲁斯海峡中部，神圣罗马帝国承认。
They surrender.
他们投降了。
Because change happens really gradually, and then all of a sudden.
因为变化确实是逐渐发生的，然后突然发生的。
Good story.
好故事。
4:09:27 Well, Cenk, thank you for fighting for that change for many years now.
好吧，Cenk，感谢您多年来为这一变革而奋斗。
For over two decades now.
至今已有二十多年了。
Thank you for talking today.
谢谢你今天的发言。
Appreciate it, Lex.
很感激，莱克斯。
4:09:39 Thank you for having the conversation.
感谢您接受我们的谈话。
Thanks for listening to this conversation with Cenk Uyhgur.
感谢您收听与岑克·维吾尔的对话。
4:09:42 To support this podcast, please check out our sponsors in the description.
为了支持这个播客，请在说明中查看我们的赞助商。
4:09:48 Now let me leave you with some words from Hannah Arendt.
现在让我向您介绍汉娜·阿伦特的一些话。
“Totalitarianism is never content to rule by external means.
“极权主义从来不满足于通过外部手段进行统治。
Namely, through the state and a machinery of violence.
也就是说，通过国家和暴力机制。
Thanks to its peculiar ideology and the role assigned to it in the apparatus of coercion, totalitarianism has discovered a means of dominating and terrorizing human beings from within.”
由于其独特的意识形态和在强制机构中所扮演的角色，极权主义已经找到了一种从内部统治和恐吓人类的手段。”
4:10:15 Thank you for listening.
感谢您的聆听。
I hope to see you next time.
我希望下次能见到你。
本集资源与出处
- 视频在 YouTube 收看
- 音频官方 MP3 直链来自 lexfridman.com 官方播客 RSS
- 官网Lex Fridman 官网本集页面
- 文稿官方 Transcript（lexfridman.com）
- 文稿HappyScribe 版文稿
