A Portal Into the Progressive Mind ft. Eric Weinstein

Summary

Summary of "A Portal Into the Progressive Mind ft. Eric Weinstein"

Release Date: July 23, 2020
Podcast: The 47 Morning Update with Ben Ferguson
Host: Premiere Networks
Guest: Eric Weinstein, mathematician, managing director of Teal Capital, founder of the Intellectual Dark Web

---

1. Introduction

The episode features a dynamic conversation between hosts Michael Knowles and Senator Ted Cruz with guest Eric Weinstein. The discussion delves into the complexities of modern progressivism, academia, media manipulation, immigration, and the broader socio-political landscape in the United States.

---

2. The Imposter Phenomenon and Credentialism

Timestamp: [00:47] – [03:13]

Eric Weinstein opens the discussion by addressing the concept of being an "imposter" in various facets of life. He critiques credentialism, suggesting that it has fostered silos within society, limiting the free exchange of ideas and creating barriers for those who might otherwise contribute innovatively.

Eric Weinstein [01:00]: "I think that part of the problem is that credentialism has given us a culture of silos. And therefore, because everyone's terrified of violating the Dunning-Kruger principle, effectively, we don't have people roaming around the cabin or with all access passes."

Weinstein contrasts the Dunning-Kruger Principle—where individuals with limited knowledge overestimate their competence—with the Peter Principle, which posits that individuals rise to their level of incompetence within hierarchical organizations. He argues that the latter is less relevant today due to stagnant growth in career advancement opportunities, particularly for younger generations.

Eric Weinstein [01:37]: "The market is not actually functioning to promote talent, and that there's a great deal of skepticism about whether meritocracy can continue to be a part of the American story."

---

3. State of Universities and Academic Silos

Timestamp: [03:43] – [08:02]

Weinstein critiques the modern university system, highlighting its failure to separate teaching from research effectively. He cites institutions like Rockefeller University and the Institute for Advanced Study as examples where research thrives without the burden of undergraduate teaching.

Eric Weinstein [04:48]: "I frequently compare it to the biathlon... we keep thinking that universities are principally about teaching. But I don't think that's their most interesting aspect."

He attributes the dysfunction within academia to an overemphasis on credentialism and the intertwining of teaching and research roles, which he believes hampers true intellectual progress.

---

4. Comparison of Dunning-Kruger and Peter Principle

Timestamp: [00:51] – [03:13]

The conversation further explores the differences between the Dunning-Kruger Principle and the Peter Principle, emphasizing how modern institutions stifle genuine talent and prevent individuals from reaching their full potential due to rigid hierarchical structures and outdated growth expectations.

Ted Cruz [01:29]: "The idea that people in general, when they're not very talented, tend to overestimate their competence in various fields may explain why I didn't know what it was."

---

5. Immigration and High-Skilled Workers

Timestamp: [14:25] – [17:25]

Weinstein delves into the topic of high-skilled immigration, arguing that current policies undermine American workers by allowing foreign labor to access privileged positions without fair compensation. He introduces the concept of "cosine immigration," advocating for ethical border openings that respect Americans' right to their labor market.

Eric Weinstein [14:25]: "Most Americans' most valuable possession is actually asymmetric access to their labor market. And we don't realize that that is actually the source of our wealth."

He criticizes the misuse of immigration policies, suggesting that they have become tools for rent-seeking rather than mechanisms to truly enhance the labor market and economic growth.

---

6. Identity Politics as a Substitute for Organized Labor

Timestamp: [17:25] – [20:54]

The discussion shifts to identity politics, with Weinstein positing that it has emerged as a substitute for organized labor in mobilizing voting blocs. He explains that as traditional labor unions have weakened, identity politics has been weaponized to divide and conquer, preventing collective action that could challenge existing power structures.

Eric Weinstein [18:20]: "Identity politics is the electoral substitute for organized labor that was lost... the idea is that identity politics is the electoral substitute for organized labor that was lost after Bill Clinton and Dick Morris decided that you had to have two Republican parties in order to not have more than 12 years of continuous one party rule."

This strategy, according to Weinstein, serves corporate interests by fragmenting the workforce and suppressing unionization efforts.

---

7. Media Manipulation and Narrative Control

Timestamp: [48:18] – [52:00]

Weinstein critiques modern media practices, introducing the concept of Russell Conjugation—the manipulation of language to elicit specific emotional responses without altering factual content. He cites terms like "illegal aliens" versus "undocumented workers" as examples of this subtle yet powerful manipulation.

Eric Weinstein [49:02]: "The emotional instruction is to hate the fink and to praise the whistleblower even though they're the same person."

He also introduces Iago Media, drawing parallels to Shakespeare’s character Iago from Othello, representing media outlets that sow discord and mistrust through biased reporting and narrative spin.

Eric Weinstein [48:37]: "The Iago media is found both on the left and on the right. Everybody's got a narrative."

---

8. Property Rights and Kelo vs. City of New London

Timestamp: [44:00] – [46:19]

The conversation addresses property rights, referencing the Supreme Court case Kelo vs. City of New London. Weinstein uses it to illustrate how private property can be unjustly seized under the guise of public use, highlighting the erosion of constitutional protections.

Ted Cruz [45:12]: "The Constitution provides that private property cannot be taken without just compensation. But it also provides that it has to be for a public use."

Weinstein criticizes the decision, labeling it as a "tragic" and "horrific" violation of individual rights, aligning with conservative perspectives on limiting governmental overreach.

---

9. Political Division and Media Influence

Timestamp: [32:02] – [50:21]

Weinstein discusses the deepening political divide in America, attributing it to media manipulation and the failure of institutions to foster genuine dialogue. He emphasizes the need for humility and accountability from both the left and the right to bridge the growing chasm.

Eric Weinstein [33:59]: "If the left sees antifa as its muscle, right? And the idea is that the right sees the proud boys or patriot Prayer, some far right group."

This mutual antagonism, fueled by partisan media narratives, hampers national unity and constructive discourse.

---

10. Public Health Response to COVID-19

Timestamp: [52:53] – [56:33]

Weinstein critiques the U.S. government's response to the COVID-19 pandemic, highlighting failures in preparedness, supply chain management, and public health messaging. He points out the politicization of health measures and the resultant loss of public trust in institutions.

Eric Weinstein [54:12]: "We have a serious situation in which our entire leadership class, of both parties, no offense, sir, is unworkable."

He underscores the need for transparent communication and effective coordination to manage public health crises, comparing the potential response to a "Manhattan Project."

---

11. Call for National Healing and Humility

Timestamp: [57:00] – [64:14]

In the concluding segments, Weinstein advocates for national introspection and humility. He urges leaders and citizens alike to acknowledge collective failures and embrace constructive conversations across partisan lines to restore national unity.

Eric Weinstein [58:28]: "We have a serious situation in which our entire leadership class, of both parties, no offense, sir, is unworkable."

Senator Ted Cruz echoes this sentiment, expressing optimism that civil and productive dialogues, such as the one in the podcast, are essential for America’s journey towards a "more perfect union."

Ted Cruz [62:10]: "I remain optimistic for our country. ... having a reasonable, civil, productive conversation with those with whom we disagree ... is at the heart of the American experiment."

---

12. Conclusion

The episode wraps up with mutual acknowledgments of the challenging topics discussed. Michael Knowles emphasizes the importance of admitting failures as a step towards national healing, highlighting humility as a key virtue necessary for progress.

Michael Knowles [64:13]: "One practical thing we could do to come back together is each of us, where appropriate, admit a failure or two speaks to a key virtue, which is humility."

Eric Weinstein concludes by appreciating the dialogue and reiterating the need for sincere efforts to bridge the national divide.

Eric Weinstein [64:14]: "Senator Cruz, thank you for inviting me."

---

Notable Quotes with Timestamps

1. Eric Weinstein on Credentialism:

   "[01:00] ... credentialism has given us a culture of silos. And therefore, because everyone's terrified of violating the Dunning-Kruger principle..."

2. Eric Weinstein on Identity Politics:

   "[18:20] ... Identity politics is the electoral substitute for organized labor that was lost..."

3. Eric Weinstein on Media Manipulation:

   "[48:37] ... The Iago media is found both on the left and on the right. Everybody's got a narrative."

4. Ted Cruz on Property Rights:

   "[45:12] ... the Constitution provides that private property cannot be taken without just compensation..."

5. Eric Weinstein on Public Health Response:

   "[54:12] ... we have a serious situation in which our entire leadership class, of both parties, no offense..."

6. Eric Weinstein on National Healing:

   "[58:28] ... we have a serious situation in which our entire leadership class, of both parties..."

7. Ted Cruz on Optimism:

   "[62:10] ... having a reasonable, civil, productive conversation with those with whom we disagree..."

---

Conclusion

This episode of The 47 Morning Update with Ben Ferguson provides a profound exploration of the structural and cultural issues plaguing modern American society. Eric Weinstein offers incisive critiques on credentialism, identity politics, media manipulation, and institutional failures, while Ted Cruz and Michael Knowles engage in a meaningful dialogue about the path forward. The conversation underscores the necessity for humility, accountability, and genuine bipartisan dialogue as essential components for healing and advancing the American project.

Transcript

[Michael Knowles]

2020 has been a year of surprises. Impeachment, riots, plague, murder, hornets. And perhaps most shocking of all, a progressive is joining Verdict. I'm Michael Knowles. This is Verdict with Ted Cruz. Welcome back to Verdict with Ted Cruz. Such a pleasure to be here as always with the senator and our progressive guest. Actually, I don't know that that term totally encapsulates our guest, Eric Weinstein, mathematician, managing director of Teal Capital, founder of the Intellectual Dark Web, and the title that you suggested to me, imposter.

[Eric Weinstein]

Guilty.

[Michael Knowles]

Thank you very much for being with us, Michael.

[Eric Weinstein]

Great pleasure to be here. And thank you, Senator, for inviting me.

[Ted Cruz]

Thank you for joining us. So you suggested impostor. That leads to the natural question, imposter at what?

[Eric Weinstein]

Just about everything. I mean, I think that part of the problem is that credentialism has given us a culture of silos. And therefore, because everyone's terrified of violating the Dunning Kruger principle, effectively, we don't have people roaming around the cabin or with all access passes.

[Ted Cruz]

So assume theoretically that there's one listener out there who may be a lawyer and an elected member of the Senate who doesn't know what the Dunning Kruger Principle is.

[Eric Weinstein]

The idea that people in general, when they're not very talented, tend to overestimate their competence in various fields may explain.

[Ted Cruz]

Why I didn't know what it was.

[Eric Weinstein]

Well, it'll show up in the comments of the YouTube version.

[Ted Cruz]

All right, so how does Dunning Kruger compare to the Peter Principle?

[Eric Weinstein]

Well, I think that the Peter Principle has to do with systems of selective pressures, so that in a previous world where corporate ladders and the like actually functioned, which many of our younger viewers won't know anything about because the corporate ladder hasn't worked for a great deal of time, people would advance by merit to the point at which they would find that they were first incompetent and then they would stop there and effectively you would go one step beyond where your competency lay. I think that the Peter Principle really doesn't function because what you right now have is an insane situation whereby people like myself, who about 55 years old, 54 technically, have never even started our careers because of the holding pattern that we find having to do with a tremendous number of people in the silent and boomer generations, and given that we, you know, holding the important chairs, and at least in, for example, in academics, when we get rid of things like mandatory retirement, you have a very interesting situation whereby lots of talented people never had the chance to come up. And so in terms of progressivism, one of the things that's really important to understand is that in many ways the market is not actually functioning to promote talent, and that there's a great deal of skepticism about whether meritocracy can continue to be a part of the American story. And then what we're finding is that in the absence of a functioning meritocracy, Maoism is becoming incredibly important, is being embraced by one of our two major parties. And I think Maoism is very distinct from progressivism.

[Ted Cruz]

So I definitely want to get there, but I actually want to pause on something you said because it's interesting. So you've had extraordinary academic career. You have a Ph.D. in mathematics.

[Eric Weinstein]

No, I haven't had an extraordinary academic career.

[Michael Knowles]

You have an extraordinary credential, and my.

[Eric Weinstein]

Credentials are quite acceptable.

[Ted Cruz]

And you're now managing partner, Teal Capital in at least most external worlds. That would be. So you said you had not yet started your career. I'm fascinated. What that.

[Eric Weinstein]

Well, you're descended from mathematicians and computer programmers. Am I correct?

[Ted Cruz]

I am. Both my parents are mathematicians. Right.

[Eric Weinstein]

Your mother was a mathematician from Rice, if I'm not mistaken.

[Ted Cruz]

Class of 56 from rice. My dad, class of 61 from Texas. And they became computer programmers at really the dawn of the computer age. And until I was about 15, I thought the path I was gonna go was electrical engineering and computer science.

[Eric Weinstein]

So as interesting as making money and getting to advise one of the world's most brilliant venture capitalists and investors is I really still think of myself as an academician. And I happen to find myself in the business world, like many people who come from academics, and found that the university system was absolutely unworkable, as we're currently seeing. And so effectively, I'm always interested in getting back to mathematics, physics and economics, finance, risk at a theoretical level, and there simply really isn't a career path.

[Ted Cruz]

Is your love of teaching, of research, of writing, when you view a fully formed and blossomed academic life, what would it entail?

[Eric Weinstein]

Well, the great danger is that I love teaching and it's important not to teach because research is far more important, far more frustrating. And because we've housed both teaching and research in our universities, people are very confused. And I frequently compare it to the biathlon. I remember as a child when I learned that there was an Olympic sport that combined cross country skiing and shooting. I thought it was about the dumbest and funniest thing I'd ever heard. And in part, we were very confused about the research university because we keep thinking that universities are principally about teaching. But I Don't think that that's their most interesting aspect. I think if you look at, for example, Rockefeller University, which has no undergraduates, University of California, San Francisco, Fine Biomedical University, no undergraduates. The Institute for Advanced Study doesn't even have graduate students. It's very important that we learn that previous generations put our research and our teaching in the same place. And the teaching is what's getting us into tremendous trouble.

[Ted Cruz]

So I have to admit, I always thought the biathlon was an Olympic sport designed for James Bond.

[Eric Weinstein]

Well, it seems like that. But if you think about the Winter War, Finland versus the Soviet Union, the reason that tiny Finland was able to hold off the giant bear was is that they particularly excelled at skiing and shooting. Not only that, they did have the good idea that you probably should wear white if you're going to be against snow and ice so that the enemy finds it harder to see.

[Ted Cruz]

Well, and I gotta say, there's not a great historical pedigree behind people fighting wars in and around Russia in the wintertime. So that's all more impressive.

[Michael Knowles]

Yes, that is. Well, I'd like to pick up on this point of the academy and of camouflage, as a matter of fact, because you have not fit in very well in the academy, and this is very odd to me.

[Ted Cruz]

You have a degree, which is a damn fine point. Michael and I today did a book podcast on Aldous Huckley's Brave New World and Not Fitting In. I have to say, particularly after discussing that this afternoon, not fitting in may be about as high a compliment as one can give in this brave new world to an individual in this brave new world who dares think for himself.

[Michael Knowles]

So what went wrong in the universities?

[Eric Weinstein]

Well, the universities are the system which has the biggest problem with egos. Now, People don't understand what an ego is. So you see, the US had an exceptional run of it between 1945 and about 1971 through 73, where we had broadly distributed, very stable, technologically led growth. And this high level of growth caused us to predicate our institutions on an expectation of growth. Now, that expectation mysteriously changed around 1971 through 73. And this is the important singularity that we went through that many people don't even know existed. In fact, there is now a website, which I'm very relieved to be able to point to, which is called WTF happened in 1971. So I recommend that to all of your viewers and listeners.

[Ted Cruz]

I suppose I should be really disappointed since I was born in December of 1970.

[Michael Knowles]

Yes, you know, correlation is not causation. That's one of the few things I learned in college, but I can hang our hat on that.

[Eric Weinstein]

So what happened was that all of our institutions, and I think this is one of the most important stories that very few people know, all of our institutions have an expectation of growth that you have so many years that you spend as an associate before you become the partner in a law firm or in a medical practice, or you're an associate professor before you're given tenure. Now, what happened was that those growth expectations couldn't be met in the same way that a plane has a stall speed. And so when all of these institutions stalled out at once because there was an implicit expectation of growth in the university systems, one professor might hope to leave between 20 and 30 students who would also hope to become professors. Now, that had to do with the fact that the university system was expanding from approximately educating 8% of the population at post secondary level to around 50%. That was possible for a brief period of time to actually use the contributions of apprentice labor. And what happened was, is that the universities had the most aggressive stall speed or ego. So if they didn't move fast enough, they became pathological before other institutions became pathological. Now, the problem that we're having that very few people understand is a universal failure of institutions to be able to provide for the people who buy into the idea of contributing in and getting something out that could be a pension, that could be an expectation of permanent employment and being a shareholder inside of such an institution. What happened was, is that the universities were the first to need emergency assistance. And they effectively got that during the Reagan era. Sorry to tell you the bad news. It was a conservative era where the National Science foundation, the National Academy of Sciences, had to team up in order to effectively rescue the universities if they weren't going to put in more money. And so what we came up with was a brilliant idea. We would lie about American scientists and engineers. We would say that they were lousy and that they weren't interested in contributing to this very demanding profession. And by the way, we have a universe filled with the best and the brightest in four countries in Asia. And we should just bring them over in large numbers because what we'd always done is we had a labor force that was based on apprentice labor. So the students are actually the workers. But by calling them students, you don't have to pay them, you don't allow them to unionize, and then by doing this on foreign visas. You talk about educating the world, but you don't actually admit that what's going on is that you're coming up with people who are willing to accept visas as payment because there are no professorships for most people to take over.

[Ted Cruz]

Now, you consider yourself a man of the left. Yes. It is interesting, the view you're laying out of immigration posing a threat to American jobs, because that, at least in today's political world, is a view most associated, not exclusively, but most associated with a right, and in fact associated with Trump to some extent.

[Eric Weinstein]

Well, unfortunately, what this really is is it's closer to Agatha Christie's murder on the Orient Express. You had the Wall Street Journal proposing a constitutional amendment. There shall be open borders. You have people on the, you know, the Sierra Club used to oppose immigration. Maybe Cesar Chavez, not typically associated with the right, would have been an opponent of immigration. It has nothing to do. Well, it has nothing. What you have to understand is that the idealism of every era is usually the COVID story of a theft.

[Michael Knowles]

I want to pause there for a moment. Say that again, because that strikes me as an important point.

[Eric Weinstein]

Okay. The idealism and the sloganeering of every era is typically the fig leaf that is put over the greed of one party goring the ox of another.

[Michael Knowles]

So what would be an example?

[Eric Weinstein]

Well, for example, in the 80s, you'll remember that competitiveness was a rallying cry and competitiveness was about trying to get American unions to give up hard won advances for the national good. So it was a patriotism that was associated with understanding we're going to have to tighten our belts, we're going to have to get into fighting shape. And that was gonna be painful, but we were all gonna be better off on the other side. So after PATCO was destroyed, again, problem of the Reagan time, what you then had was the next phase, which was we are the world. And the we are the world globalization narrative was about breaking the bonds that tie our fellow ourselves to our fellow Americans. So the idea is if we could just get rid of the rights of hillbillies and appellations of blacks of various people inside of the US what we could then do is relocate all of these factories and various opportunities overseas to get access to other labor. And then when Bill Clinton and Dick Morris figured out that the Republicans had this great thing going, they wanted to get in on the act, so they got really aggressive about it. And then we have things like nafta. And one of the really interesting things that you have recently is people like economist Brad DeLong, who was one of the architects of NAFTA, admitting tearing off the mask and saying you do realize that what we were optimizing was a social welfare function that was intrinsically social Darwinism because it actually benefited you by the cube of your wealth. And then his point was, I don't understand why we're getting so much hate. Look at all the good we did for peasants in Mexico, which is a little bit of a weird thing to say when you trick American voters into voting something and then after the fact you say, sure, it may have made some of you worse off in Ohio and Michigan, but look at all the.

[Michael Knowles]

Good it's good for the other country.

[Eric Weinstein]

That we did in Nayaritza.

[Ted Cruz]

So let me ask your view. Assume for the sake of argument that the objective is to benefit Americans in the United States, to benefit jobs, to benefit their economic welfare, to make their lives better. In your view, what would be the optimum immigration and or trade regime that would maximize the economic condition for Americans?

[Eric Weinstein]

Well, first of all, it's a great question. I have to show that I'm not. There's nothing xenophobic about this. So I've written a paper called Migration for the benefit of all peer reviewed economic paper about how you can open a border ethically by using cosine immigration that is most Americans most valuable possession is actually asymmetric access to their labor market. And we don't realize that that is actually the source of our wealth. Now again, if you wouldn't mind put.

[Michael Knowles]

That in layman's terms.

[Eric Weinstein]

Sure. You have the right to your own labor market, given that your country maintains a right to conscript you, to tax you. Part of the social contract is that you get a share in your country's wealth through having a right. Now the interesting part about it is if we can just get your right declared red tape or an impediment to the free market, then I can take your right without having to pay you anything for it. Now this is in fact a violation of free market economics.

[Ted Cruz]

Let me ask, what does it mean to have a right to a market?

[Eric Weinstein]

I understand something called labor certification. So when you have labor certification, you have to go through a certain amount of.

[Ted Cruz]

So a high tech worker to come in. There has to be a certification that there's not. They're not us to fill that need.

[Eric Weinstein]

Yes. And in fact we should not make labor certification easy because part of what forces us to renew is putting our businesses under pressure. So one of the things that I find very interesting. So I'm now gonna say something pro right after I've been anti right.

[Michael Knowles]

Yes. Cause just for those who are Struggling to keep catch up as I am. You've just come out and criticized the Reagan era. You've built up your left wing bona fide.

[Ted Cruz]

He's criticized the Reagan era for too much big government, which I'm actually perfectly fine with that criticism of.

[Michael Knowles]

And then, Eric, you've gone back and attacked the left for, or at least I suppose we would call it the modern left for its open borders or advocacy of high skilled immigration.

[Eric Weinstein]

It didn't advocate for high skilled immigration. It lied effectively. What you did is you got the National Science foundation and the National Academy of Sciences to stab American scientists in the back on behalf of scientific employers. And so all of the sloppy talk about best and brightest.

[Ted Cruz]

So if Tim Cook were sitting here, Tim Cook would argue that they need access to Chinese and Indian engineers in computer science.

[Eric Weinstein]

They would never sit here.

[Ted Cruz]

If I'm on set, let's imagine the hypothetical or tell me why.

[Eric Weinstein]

You would have to chain him to a radiator or you would have to.

[Ted Cruz]

Wheel him into the way. We have those tools in this podcast.

[Michael Knowles]

That's true. That's part of our Hollywood setup here.

[Eric Weinstein]

No, but it's very important and it's one of the reasons why people won't invite me to talk about. I mean, there is essentially no one at my level that I know of who's openly against high skilled immigration. Is the worst part of our immigration.

[Michael Knowles]

Yes. This has struck me as a position you can't say. You can say it on things like podcasts, which is why I think you have a successful podcast and why people listen to this show too.

[Ted Cruz]

And let's segue. This is fascinating, but I don't want to miss a major portion of this topic, which is. And I told you we'd get back back to this. You made reference to the modern left to some or even many becoming Maoist. Yes, and for the listeners. I think I know what you mean, but tell us what you mean by that.

[Eric Weinstein]

Well, you have a very weird coupling on the technical left. So with Dick Morris and Bill Clinton effectively becoming a second Republican party, you then had a problem, which is how do I replace organized labor as a voting bloc? And my wife Pia Malani's great insight here was she's an economist with the Institute for New Economic Thinking, a Soros funded institute.

[Michael Knowles]

Now we've got the left wing bona fides again. All right, I'm reoriented.

[Eric Weinstein]

Her point was that you need something cheaper than labor because labor makes economic demand. So there's always a search for who's willing to accept the least. And the thing that you can actually get voters with for people who are willing to accept very little has been identity politics. So the idea is that identity politics is the electoral substitute for organized labor that was lost after Bill Clinton and Dick Morris decided that you had to have two Republican parties in order to not have more than 12 years of continuous one party rule.

[Michael Knowles]

And one sees memos going around the Internet, for instance, from mega corporations that actually show executives at some major corporations have relied on identity politics to divide up labor in the hopes that they wouldn't unionize.

[Ted Cruz]

So in identity politics, by that you mean my characteristics, whether it is that I am a male, whether it is that I am Cuban American or Irish or Italian, or whether it is that I am straight, or whatever other categories we can slice ourselves into demographically, it is thinking of ourselves in those pigeonholes. And then I suppose you mean also perceiving by virtue of those characteristics that you are victimized and need to need protection, need something to prevent that victimization from others. Is that what you mean or. Tell me what you mean.

[Eric Weinstein]

Well, it's exactly right. I mean, what you have is a situation, I think that this in some sense ties back to probably the 2010 midterm elections, where I think that Barack Obama, who had not been interested in identity politics particularly and had wanted more unity, saw an opening, which I think was coming from the observation of the Colorado Senate election, if I'm not mistaken. And shortly thereafter, you had a dear colleague letter that went out from the Obama administration warning universities to be on their best behavior with respect to safety issues. Because I think feminist issues were part of what made Colorado the bright spot for the Democrats in a Republican election. And so effectively what you did is you started a search for a very aggressive demographic which for a period of time, people were satisfied with simply being recognized and being the thrill of reflection. And by the way, the Maoists have lots of points that are correct. It's not that they're wrong about everything.

[Ted Cruz]

So for those not experts on Chinese history and political political theory, what is a Maoist in a sentence or two?

[Eric Weinstein]

Well, what I'm really interested in is the experience of the Red Guard where we. There's a point where you have to get rid of the intelligentsia in order to have a blank slate for a new world. So effectively what you do is you go after the professors, the doctors, the professionals, and you have to have some way of clearing if you're going to build something. Very often you have to raise whatever trees and houses are previously there.

[Ted Cruz]

Now you also have personal experience, both yourself as an academic, but your brother was also an academic and paid a real price from the victimization culture, I think. Would you care to just share what happened to your brother and what your thoughts are?

[Eric Weinstein]

Well, it's important because many Democrats have never heard of my brother, whereas almost all Republicans have heard of my brother. Yes, and this has to do with the fact that the Democratic allied media mysteriously no longer reports news that is counter narrative, which is something I associate with sort of the right wing media as well. So I've gone on Fox and said that Fox is I consider in large measure a propaganda machine. But the left has learned that they need to do the same thing. And so effectively they didn't cover the fact that there was a Maoist insurrection at Evergreen State College, which is under the same governor who allowed the Capitol Hill exclusion zone where the police were shoved out and almost immediately people died. Surprise, surprise. So, you know, the Pacific Northwest is experimenting with an extremely dangerous cocktail of this neo or cultural Maoism, effectively with government support. Now I have to say that the right behaved much more sensibly because the left has abandoned what we had previously associated as progressive and liberal values with free speech going back to the 60s and the 50s. And I've called this reversal from right to left, left cartheism. So the problem of left cartheism, again, I don't have any particular allegiance to one party or the other because they're both useless to me. What I see is just a completely unworkable leadership class that has strayed from traditional American values. And whether you're progressive or conservative or libertarian, the main thing right now is to get back to smart as opposed to stupid.

[Michael Knowles]

So you've drawn this distinction here, and I think it's one that we see a lot on college campuses and in our politics and in our media, which is between Maoism or Marxism, this hard radical left, and what we would have once called liberalism liberal, not left. And people like Dave Rubin and others have talked about this. You would call yourself, I suppose, a liberal or a progressive in the old sense. Barry Weiss, who's written about the intellectual dark web which you founded and talks about these things. Bari Weiss has just left the New York Times because they are too hard left for her and she's an old school liberal left. They're not.

[Eric Weinstein]

They're nuts.

[Michael Knowles]

Well, those are synonymous in my mind.

[Eric Weinstein]

But stupid and crazy shouldn't be part of a political spectrum. That should be a mental condition.

[Ted Cruz]

So I'll tell a story. When I was a first Year law student at Harvard. My criminal law professor was Alan Dershowitz. He remains a good friend. And I remember a couple of things he said in the criminal law class. One of the things he said, and you were talking about people overestimating their capabilities, I remember him saying, one thing that is true even at Harvard Law school, is that 50% of the class is in the bottom half. And that. That's true. That made an impression. But he also made a point. He said, listen, by any measure, I, Alan Dershowitz, am in the most liberal 1% of the American populace on almost any policy issue. My views are on the left. And yet he made the point then, which became even more true in later years. He said, on this faculty, I'm considered in some ways a conservative or reactionary because I believe in free speech. I believe in disagreement. I don't believe in silencing my critics.

[Michael Knowles]

What year was this?

[Ted Cruz]

I believe this would have been 92 or 93. So I forget if I took Crim law in spring or fall, but it was either fall of 92 or spring of 93.

[Eric Weinstein]

Things changed a lot between I arrived at Harvard in the mid-1980s and when was Bork 87. So I remember Alan Dershowitz talking about Bork. And Bork is one of the most confusing aspects of a domestic dispute between the two parties, where effectively, the Democrats viewed it as, I can't believe you would betray us by putting Bork forward. The Republicans said, I can't believe you would betray us by deciding that you were gonna scuttle this nomination.

[Michael Knowles]

Because Judge Bork, for those who don't remember, back in 1987, was this conservative judge. He's nominated by Ronald Reagan, and Teddy Kennedy leads the charge against him. It was a character assassination. It was considered the beginning of this really brutal confirmation process that now seems to happen every time we nominate.

[Ted Cruz]

In fact, he has the distinction of having been verbized, which verbized, I will confess, is a term I think I've coined. I don't know anyone else who's used it in that his name has become a verb to this day. To be borked is to go through the experience, Clarence Thomas experience, the Brett Kavanaugh experience, which is a confirmation hearing that is brutal. Actually. Tony Lake. Bill Clinton was nominated under Bill Clinton. He wrote a letter withdrawing his nomination, and with apologies to Hobbs, Leviathan said that the confirmation process is nasty and brutal without being short, and Bork ushered in a whole new era of nasty personal crime.

[Eric Weinstein]

But this is the problem with a blood feud where if you can't agree. What the. There are two stories about what happened around Bork. And let me just say something self critical on the left to amuse you because I'm gonna go back to bashing the right.

[Michael Knowles]

Okay, well, I'll enjoy this while it lasts.

[Eric Weinstein]

Sure. All right. There is a perspective on the left which had to do with the Warren court in the 60s, which is we can afford not to be the dominant force politically as long as we have our own power base. And the power base might be in the media and it might be in the universities, it might be in the court. So very often what you find in my circles is we can't have Trump again. Why? Because of the Court. The Court. The Court. The Court. Always fascinating. And what that is, is that because.

[Ted Cruz]

That'S what the right says too. What I hear from the left is rarely as much of a focus on the court. So I think that's just an interesting insight because our echo chambers are sometimes different.

[Eric Weinstein]

This is what causes people to say, don't experiment with third party candidacies, don't experiment with populism. We can never afford to actually deal with our own values because the primary issue is making sure that they don't get nine out of nine conservative Supreme Court justices legislating on all sorts of things that are sacred to the left. So the left, the thinking left's traditional perspective, flawed as it may be, is we can afford to have democracy as long as we have very strong power bases. Maybe in Hollywood, maybe in the press, maybe in the universities, maybe in the court. We can afford to lose the presidency and the Congress regularly. Now, that concept of a second balance of power, a Mexican standoff, with apologies to our neighbors to the south, or personally, I just think it's a great concept. So I would be thrilled if I were Mexican. That has not been understood. And what effectively the left believed until the Reagan revolution was we have an idea that the court should be this kind of upper class, very cerebral thing that is a counter to our populist instincts. And of course, Bork wasn't necessarily anti intellectual. He's viewed as an intellectual on the right, but it was viewed as a violation of a tacit understanding which the right didn't necessarily understood. Understand. And as a result, there are two different origin stories of the nastiness that will go on forever until we get family counseling. So the reason I'm bringing this up on your show is that there's a question. Can we go back and say, look, we're gonna keep borking everybody all the time.

[Ted Cruz]

So I do have to, for the record, put a caveat that only one side does the borking. So Ruth Bader Ginsburg was confirmed, I think 98 to nothing. Steve Breyer, if you look at where the nasty personal attacks are coming from, I suspect the counter argument you'll give is Merrick Garland. Merrick Garland was never personally attacked, but he was never personally attacked. And what the Senate said with regard to the Scalia vacancy that occurred in February of a presidential year is no Senate had filled a vacancy that occurred in a presidential year in 80 years. And regardless of whom the President nominated, we were gonna let the election decide. I get you likely disagree with that, but it was not a personal attack on Judge Garland who hadn't been nominated.

[Michael Knowles]

There was no Michael Avenatti before Judge Garland.

[Eric Weinstein]

I am furious.

[Ted Cruz]

Or for Breyer, for so Breyer for anybody else.

[Eric Weinstein]

I am furious with the nominal left. Okay, so it's not that I'm sitting here. The reason I'm bringing this up is because more of us need to understand our history because our grandparents did not correctly tell us what our country is like. The idea that the Warren Court, for example, is a sacred thing from the left, which in fact probably overreached a fair amount. And then some of that had to be rolled back. Okay, so now you have this problem that the intellectual progressives of that era had tasted something that they thought was William O. Douglas was this is the greatest thing that could happen. Too much got advanced. They got used to something. We then have this contentious history. Honestly, to be blunt about it, I'm much more worried about the American project than I'm worried about the Democratic or the Republican or the conservative right. And so the key thing is it's important that we go back and if you will agree that maybe the Merrick Garland thing wasn't terrific, I'll agree that.

[Michael Knowles]

The Bournemouth thing, just for the record, I am not willing to agree to that at all.

[Ted Cruz]

So I'm willing to say we can. Will agree to disagree.

[Eric Weinstein]

I can dig in here and then we can screw up the interview. It's up to you guys.

[Ted Cruz]

I concede that you believe that in a heartfelt and genuine way.

[Eric Weinstein]

This is the problem of the game theory. I'm sort of more adventurous. If you guys don't want to play ball, I'm willing to dig into, but I don't want.

[Ted Cruz]

So I do think there's some other points that are fruitful that are not going to result in, as you suggest, a Mexican standoff.

[Eric Weinstein]

The differential application, for example, with Judge Kavanaugh and Joe Biden of rules around the emerging MeToo weapon nicely showcases the point that you guys should be making. But what I'm gonna say is just a word to the wise, to my friends on the right, if you choose not to actually see the point of the left, and you allow the left to say, hey, maybe we didn't do something that was so terrific, and then you take your victory lap, kiss your future appointments sailing through based on legal merit goodbye.

[Michael Knowles]

So you really think that this national divide, the family counseling that we need, it comes down to this moment in the 80s, with the courts specifically?

[Eric Weinstein]

No, no, no, no, no. It comes down to the fact that we lost growth.

[Michael Knowles]

So it goes back further. It goes back further than you.

[Eric Weinstein]

All of the crazies and creepies that are roaming the American stage at the moment were present in every era. The Ku Klux Klan was present. The anarchists were present. But the key issue is that when you're dealing with pathogens, if you have a functioning immune system, you don't know about the pathogens. If you want to know who understands the pathogens in the system, it's the immunocompromised. When we lost growth, we became immunocompromised. And all the creepy crawlies are coming out from every particular place. They're coming out from the right, they're coming at it from the left. And there's one move that can save the Republic, in my opinion, which is that the core left and the core right, who haven't become insane, have to realize that they have more interest in each other than they do in their own wings, right? And so the idea is, if you think we have a word in Yiddish called the starker, starker is the muscle. If the left sees antifa as its muscle, right? And the idea is that the right sees the proud boys or patriot Prayer, some far right group, by the way.

[Ted Cruz]

No one on the right sees the proud boys. They're bigoted idiots. And it's just a. Antifa's a bunch of lunatics. But here's a difference, just in the political world, and I get that you're coming from the academic and invested world, in the podcast world, in the podcast world, but I am more than happy. As far as I know, I've never met a proud boy. I think they're bigoted morons. My colleagues. If you had a Democratic senator sitting here, none of them will condemn antifa. So I'll condemn those guys. Those are not my guys.

[Eric Weinstein]

Well, you don't have a senator you have a guy who's never gonna run for the Senate. I'll condemn antifa. Great.

[Ted Cruz]

Wonderful. And we are agreed with that. And I'm against anyone who's bigoted or violent.

[Eric Weinstein]

But what we're trying to do here is we're trying to model what an American conversation is supposed to be as opposed to a partisan conversation. And what that is, is we continually check in with each other and say, you know, we did some wrong stuff, but we did it because we thought we were reacting to you. And then you walk things back. But the problem is, you know, in control theory, when you have positive feedback, when the idea is, you know, I do something because you did it, but you thought that I did, then the idea is you can just kiss your future goodbye.

[Michael Knowles]

Well, you know, on this point, because I think we would certainly agree. Every conservative I know would agree that we care more about our country than we do about any particular partisan victory at any particular moment. And yet we're at this moment.

[Ted Cruz]

And actually, Michael, I'm gonna now push back on you and agree. Now, look, there may be every conservative, maybe, maybe not, but there are certainly Republicans who are interested in partisan grandmothers.

[Michael Knowles]

Yes.

[Ted Cruz]

You know, and so there is partisanship and misbehavior on both sides.

[Michael Knowles]

Misprioritization of where we should be thinking of things. However, there's this difference right now where the mainstream left, led by these radical loony activists, but now this has spread to the mainstream. They seem to be disrespecting the country itself. They will protest the flag, the symbol of the country itself.

[Ted Cruz]

Michael, before we get to this, I don't want to miss. We touched on what happened to your brother, but we didn't tell the story. And so for those who are listening or watching, it would be helpful to.

[Eric Weinstein]

Tell my brother was an anti racist who left an Ivy League education at the University of Pennsylvania because he stood up for black women being exploited by a Jewish white fraternity. Yeah. And he was, you know, he was. Got death threats, got the Golden Gazelle Award from the National Organization of Women, became a professor at Evergreen State University or Evergreen State College as a biologist, only to find out that effectively the problem with racism was black racism against whites. And there was an extremely hard line sort of cultural Marxist perspective where anti racists in name were actually racists. They defined it so that racism was impossible. And therefore you had this counter narrative to the, let's say the New York Times narrative driven journalism, which said that these black students were in fact besieged by racism. And so my brother, as A staunch anti racist was being attacked by racists who were calling themselves anti race. So the whole thing was incredibly confusing. And only one journalist, effectively at the New York Times got in early on that, and her name was Barry Weiss, who resigned today. And I've been talking to Barry about this for some time.

[Ted Cruz]

So I don't know, Barry, tell me a bit. I read her letter today.

[Eric Weinstein]

Sure.

[Ted Cruz]

I thought it was extraordinary. So I'm interested in. Hey, tell me a little bit about her and what are your thoughts at what happened at the New York Times and what she said?

[Eric Weinstein]

The New York Times is going through. Let's create a new word evergreening. The evergreening of an institution is the point at which the people that the Times probably hired thinking, oh, we have an aging readership, we're a legacy media organization. Let's get some hip kids to get more clicks and more younger viewers. And the idea is that all those kids were supposed to become somewhat more liberal and moderate as they acquired significant others children and mortgages. And that didn't happen. And in fact, what happened was, is that they began to take over the very institution that was hoping to exploit them effectively.

[Ted Cruz]

And for clarification, when you say they hired young campus radicals in the hope and expectation they would become somewhat more liberal, help listeners understand on what axis what more liberal means, because those terms sometimes have varying meanings.

[Eric Weinstein]

Very good. There's a huge problem that we need to get to, which is that the reason that we can't get out of our national nightmare at the moment is that the center has to make a move that it refuses to do. And the center or the core maybe would be a better way of saying it has to admit that it became kleptocratic. And so the corruption of the core left and the core right means that there's nowhere to turn from the extremes. So whenever you say no to the extremes, the thing is, oh, are you telling me that we're going to be back to the core left and the core right and their extraction? So if you think about the United States as a family business, yeah, the family business was sensational between 1945 and the early 70s. Built up a tremendous amount of wealth, but then you have a very rich family with a sputtering family business. The first wave of concern, probably through the middle of the Reagan administration, was how do we restart growth so that we can get back to being ourselves? Yeah, all of these supply side gimmicks and the offshoring and the downsizing and the financialization and all of these things were not good enough to actually deal with the underlying problem because it didn't have a diagnosis as to what actually happened back then. What it was good enough to do was to keep some slices of the pie growing at the expense of others. So the idea is that instead of seeing each other as a source of camaraderie or military support or innovation, we started viewing each other as a source of protein. And then we started the process of American self cannibalization. Okay, well, that's part of what we did with nafta. That's part of what we did with our immigration policies. That's what the whole globalization stuff really amounts to. So the idea is that right now what you have is you have certain sectors that grow by cannibalizing other sectors. And as a result, if we call that growth, we can fudge our national statistics.

[Ted Cruz]

So who are the winners and who are the losers? Who are the cannibals and whose dinner?

[Eric Weinstein]

Well, it depends. In what car did you arrive to this meeting? That would be the question. Please don't answer that. But the idea is that most of us know whether we're winners or losers. Weirdly, if you're flying first class, you're probably a loser because the real winners are in a completely different airport or terminal altogether. And so the idea is we have an invisible winner class that doesn't necessarily even want to act like the winner class. Some of those people, by the way, are winners because they contributed, and that was the traditional way. Others are winners because they figured out how to cannibalize somebody else. And so we have this very weird thing which is that we have so much cannibalization that we've given up on merit because we now see merit as an excuse. And this is actually a fair point of the Maoists who don't see a fair world. So there was an implicit sort of morality in market mechanism. Now, as a person on the left, I'm a huge fan of markets. Why? Because there's nothing more progressive. The word progressive contains progress. Markets are what lift people up.

[Ted Cruz]

Yeah.

[Eric Weinstein]

Now when those markets become dominated by rent seeking and political economy and capture.

[Ted Cruz]

Okay, tell our listeners what rent seeking means.

[Eric Weinstein]

Well, rent seeking is an economist's insult. It means that your source of wealth is non productive. So it's a technical term. We can get into what a rent is at an economic level. But just assume that the word rent is being used in a way that is different than. You may. It's analogous to certain other forms of rent. But the key point is it's the debasing of market morality. There's a Judeo Christian sort of aspect to the idea of a functioning meritocracy in which we are rewarded in part, part, not in whole, but in part based on our contribution. The market doesn't work perfectly, even if an honest free market economist has to recognize that market failure is a part of every market.

[Ted Cruz]

So can you give people maybe an example of on the one side, productive meritocracy, someone creating a better mousetrap that increases productivity, that benefits others, versus rent seeking and cannibalization? Is there an example you could give of the two?

[Eric Weinstein]

Well, there's an origin story of a particularly successful business that I believe began, which I won't mention by recognizing that the Inuit had special rights to sell the loss, to sell tax write offs from failing businesses. So when you notice that some group was given some right for some purpose and you say, huh, here's something I can exploit, you know, it's an arbitrage. You can arbitrage something and it's probably not the intended, intended use or for example, if I can successfully portray this man's right to access his own labor market in an asymmetric way and I can successfully portray him as a leech on society, then the idea is that I can say I'm going to take your most valuable possession uncompensated.

[Michael Knowles]

I feel like a true victim because people do this to me all the time when they call me a leech on society.

[Eric Weinstein]

Well, we're doing this in la. I think your point. Yes, I think this point we're doing this in la. Dodger Stadium, of course, is built on three towns that were Hispanic, that were collectively known as Chavez Ravine. And the idea is that what we simply did, and it was, I believe, Republican led, if I'm not mistaken, is that we actually took away private property by getting those towns condemned. And by condemning those towns, we were able, through this mechanism to remove a bunch of people so that we could pave over the place and put a giant stadium in.

[Ted Cruz]

By the way, I'm perhaps a hopeless optimist in that multiple things that I've heard you say are leading me to believe that deep down you are much more conservative or libertarian than you realize and perhaps that we'll see what that journey lies. But I will say that particular example, one major battle between left and right today, particularly in the legal world and Supreme Court world, which is the world I came from before politics, concerns property rights. And there's a well known case, I don't know if you're familiar with Kelo vs City of New London.

[Eric Weinstein]

I don't know it.

[Ted Cruz]

So it concerned New London, Connecticut, a woman whose family home had been in her family for 100 years. She was an older woman. And New London, Connecticut condemned her home. And the reason they condemned her home is because Pfizer wanted to build a parking lot. And the city Council of New London, Connecticut, they wanted Pfizer to be happy, so they condemned her home to give it to Pfizer, to give it to a private corporation for their benefit. And the case went all the way to the Supreme Court. And the Constitution provides that, that private property cannot be taken without just compensation. But it also provides that it has to be for a public use. And the question in Kelo was, is condemning private property to give it to a private corporation, not for a freeway, not for a bridge, not for something that is for the public, but for the private benefit of a corporation. Is that consistent with the Constitution? The supreme court unfortunately ruled 5, 4 against the owner of the home in New London.

[Eric Weinstein]

Thank you for saying the word unfortunately.

[Ted Cruz]

I mean, it's a tragic decision. It's a horrific decision. I decried it at the time and I was actually Solicitor General of Texas, and I was at a conference of the other SGs when it came down. And the other SGs were celebrating. This is a victory for government power. And I remember looking at them saying, just because you can wear a jackboot doesn't mean you should. What a terrible trampling on private rights. And you will find, I think many on the right, and certainly on the libertarian right, believe passionately in what you and I are both saying.

[Michael Knowles]

But I suppose, Eric, I think your analogy is so apt. This idea of devouring the other person. You know, when we love someone, we will the good of the other. And then when, I don't know, we lust after them, we just want to devour them.

[Eric Weinstein]

Right.

[Michael Knowles]

And there's this difference here, and I totally see your points on this happening in the United States over the past several decades. However, implicit in wanting to come back together, have this family, therapy, love one another again, love our fellow countrymen again. We have to sort of will the good of the country, don't we? And do you have this fear that there has been a mainstreaming of not just not liking the other side, but actually not liking the country itself? The American Project.

[Eric Weinstein]

Are you familiar with Othello?

[Michael Knowles]

Yeah, we were just talking about it today, as a matter of fact.

[Ted Cruz]

It features prominently in Brave New World, which as it so happens, we were.

[Eric Weinstein]

Discussing the problem Is Iago. Now, Iago deranges the protagonist, I guess, Othello, against his beloved Desdemona. And the idea is that by putting certain ideas into the head of Othello, Othello will actually carry out the murder of Desdemona and figure out too late who has in fact caused him to destroy that which he loves. Now, right at the moment, we have a problem with the Iago media. Now there's the Iago media that is taking place within Fox News.

[Ted Cruz]

We have the second term we've coined, both of which the evergreening and the Iago media are both worth.

[Michael Knowles]

This is big. We're getting headlines.

[Ted Cruz]

Sorry, I just had to. I like that term.

[Eric Weinstein]

Not every day a sitting senator asks me from an opposite perspective to come. And it would be rude not to.

[Ted Cruz]

So please continue. Sorry for that.

[Eric Weinstein]

The Iago media is found both on the left and on the right. Everybody's got a narrative. When the news is narrative aligned, they report the news. When the news is counter narrative, they either don't touch it at all or they lie or they spin. There's another concept called Russell conjugation, for example.

[Ted Cruz]

So Russell conjugation, Bertrand Russell.

[Eric Weinstein]

A Brit of some note, went onto the BBC and he said something which I think is fascinating. He noticed that the word synonym does not cover certain cases very well. For example, fink versus whistleblower. Technically they're both synonyms at a content level, but the emotional instruction is to hate the fink and to praise the whistleblower even though they're the same person. Now, Frank Luntz. Bizarre.

[Ted Cruz]

Frank is a friend. I know.

[Eric Weinstein]

I went to college with Frank. Frank Luntz did not know the term, but he effectively reinvented and weaponized Russell conjugation. So the idea is that we are all against illegal aliens and we are for undocumented workers. We oppose the death tax, but we support an estate tax. And the fact is we language is.

[Ted Cruz]

Weaponized in politics and modern discourse.

[Eric Weinstein]

Well, exactly. And so where we are right now is we are in a situation in which our media derange us every day. And by the way, media is going to include tech to hate each other.

[Michael Knowles]

Because tech has become, and we talk about this all the time when we Talk about Section 230 and the Communications Decency act, tech has become a sort of publisher, a participant in the media.

[Eric Weinstein]

Tech is the new media. And in this situation, with greater power.

[Ted Cruz]

Than the New York Times ever had.

[Eric Weinstein]

Amen, brother. And so the problem that we're having is that what works as both business and politics is to get Othello to murder Desdemona on a daily basis. And that is what we play out as our heads are filled. We don't understand why we can't talk to our loved ones, why Thanksgiving dinners don't work. Were a little bit confused as to why. Not only is George Washington face down from his podium with 1619 scrawled on it, and when somebody publishes call them the 1619 riots, the De facto head of the New York Times, Nikole Hannah Jones, says, it would be an honor. You laugh.

[Michael Knowles]

I laugh because otherwise I would cry.

[Ted Cruz]

At schools across the country. The 1619 Project.

[Eric Weinstein]

But the same thing is explicitly reviewed. And the same thing is true with. With libtards. I don't know what a libtard is, do you?

[Ted Cruz]

I assume a pejorative for someone on the left. Although it's not a point I use.

[Michael Knowles]

Yeah, I haven't used it myself.

[Eric Weinstein]

My point is that what we have is that we have a poisoned national dialogue in which wherever you consume your media, you are getting a constant set of emotional instructions. That is the concept of Russell conjugation. And because we don't practice critical feeling, we know about critical thinking, but we don't know that most of our feelings are not our feelings, but feelings that we have inherited through daily programming. And as a result, for example, I know that you're evil and you're the devil, and I'm not supposed to be here, but here I am.

[Michael Knowles]

Well, that's a fact.

[Ted Cruz]

Can I let out a mo?

[Eric Weinstein]

I've always wanted to make a deal with the devil, but the devil never returns my phone calls. The issue is, I bet, a fiddle.

[Ted Cruz]

Of gold against your soul.

[Eric Weinstein]

By the way, did you see the second one with Mark O'Connor, the greatest fiddle player? Another time.

[Michael Knowles]

That's for the next episode.

[Eric Weinstein]

The situation that we're in is that we have to realize that we are being deranged. And therefore we can't even mount a response to the COVID epidemic. That was a layup. You just have a Manhattan Project. You say, who are the smart people across virology, epidemiology, mathematics, economists? Who are the geopolitical theorists? You immediately expedite security clearances. You test them all, you get transport, you put them in a dorm with tons of whiteboards, lots of coffee, and you say, you're not gonna see your family for two months. Get it done. We can't even do that.

[Michael Knowles]

Well, because so many of those public health officials were writing politicized letters in defense of leftist protests to the tune of 1200 at a time, not just.

[Eric Weinstein]

We also had a problem with our surgeon general, who decided that masks weren't a good idea, or Dr. Fauci or the head of the CDC. And why? Because we have a problem that we lie about public health. Many people who go into public health believe in the public good and for the public to engage in beneficial behaviors, that you're solving a massive prisoner's dilemma. Of course, it would be better if everybody else took a vaccine and you didn't have to, in case there's any risk with the vaccine. As an example of a typical coordination problem. So one of the problems that we have is that we told obvious lies. Now, the lie, the most important one, is that the academic literature had told us to stock supplies and ICU beds and make sure that we were ready for surges, because surges are situations in which you don't have what would be called a Poisson process of random arrivals that determine your needs. You have a correlated event. So if you have rioting in a city, you're gonna need much more policing. Suddenly, yeah, we were completely unprepared. And because we were unprepared, we decided that what we would do is to lie to the American people, and we would tell them things that made no sense. So either we might lie to them from the Democratic side about the idea.

[Ted Cruz]

That the inconsistencies were massive and head jerking, and every American noticed them at one point or another.

[Eric Weinstein]

The idea is that Nancy Pelosi should resign, Donald Trump should resign, Anthony Fauci should resign, the head of the CDC should resign. We should not be talking to the who. We need to get the lying sons of bitches out of the chairs in which they have the ability to lie for some reason to the American public, which degrades our faith in government, in data, in science, and in reason. And quite honestly, it's much more important that we have faith that not all of our expert class is psychopathic, not all of them are on the take, that it isn't a war of the very rich and their experts against, you know, as expert witnesses, if you will, against the rest of us pretending to be objective, but actually carrying out the orders of somebody else. So we have a serious situation in which our entire leadership class, of both parties, no offense, sir, is unworkable. And the inability. I was tweeting about this quite openly, which is we are lying. What we are saying about masks not working is because we are covering for our own failure to heed our own literature.

[Michael Knowles]

We were believing the first guys instead of it's.

[Eric Weinstein]

A very easy speech that you give. You say, you know, ladies and gentlemen, we have to level with the American public. We are unprepared and we can find fault and perhaps we should do so after the national emergency. But right now we need to pull together in order to make sure that our first responders, our medical personnel, people who are on the front lines are protected. We don't have an inadequate supply of personal protective equipment, of ICU beds. The real reason that we need to flatten the curve is because we're trying to avoid what we might call deaths of discretion where we have a triage situation.

[Ted Cruz]

And we saw that in Italy tragically.

[Eric Weinstein]

Well, okay, but the point is we have a limbo bar and the limbo bar was too low and that's why we were flattening the curve and the limbo bar was supposed to be higher. And I believe actually George W. Bush did better with this, that this had then got drawn down under Obama, not replaced under Trump. And so whatever was going on with the PPE stuff, it was a failure of government that we then foisted onto the shoulders of the American people.

[Ted Cruz]

And we also had an enormous failure with testing, particularly early on, rolling it out.

[Eric Weinstein]

Well, we were completely incompetent. We'd outsourced so much of our supply chain to China, not realizing that we.

[Ted Cruz]

Have a geopolitical rival because massive, catastrophic, tragic mistake. We've got to change. If I can sort of take it to a wrap up point and see if there.

[Eric Weinstein]

Oh, I thought we were going to do H1B, but okay.

[Ted Cruz]

Let'S see if there is any cause for optimism. How do we get from Othello to Midsummer Night's Dream?

[Eric Weinstein]

Oh, well, key issue is that we have to start talking about our own failures. And in part, what I hope you've heard is that I'm willing to call out the left, the right and the libertarian. Like the libertarian problem is that it doesn't work to pretend that we're all atomistic. We see that with respect to contagion and masks and the like. Sure, right. So Arnold Kling has this beautiful description. He says that you have three groups, Progressives, conservatives and libertarians. Libertarians are animated principally by hating coercion. Progressives are animated principally by hating oppression. And conservatives are principally animated by needless loss of hard won traditions and gains over past generations. And the answer is that any sensible person should want to make sure that they're optimizing among the three and not to become part of a simplistic situation whereby they so hate coercion or so hate oppression that they lose sight of the entire picture and therefore lose the plot of the American project. So what I've tried to do here is, is to try to say, and I've just begun this exploration, I'm so sorry, we have to cut it short, is that there are a couple of moves that are necessary. One, we have to agree that we have an unworkable leadership class. The five final candidates for President of the United States were all born in the 1940s. We have never before Donald Trump had a president who had first inaugurated this.

[Ted Cruz]

To be honest, I preferred the final candidates. And in the last cycle.

[Eric Weinstein]

We had.

[Michael Knowles]

Some good ones there. Let me say, I noticed Eric doesn't have a comment on this one.

[Ted Cruz]

Let me say, actually on that point.

[Michael Knowles]

Or is he making a comment on that?

[Eric Weinstein]

Well, no, no, no. We had a situation, quite honestly, if I'm honest. Sure. I have to be honest that one of the things that I liked best was when you became animated because of the bizarre behavior of our current president. And I know that for political reasons, you have moved closer to him. But one of the great dangers of Donald Trump, and he's got certain benefits, which is that he's the first person to figure out how to come up the system by not playing the game. And we almost had that on the Democratic side with Bernie Sanders. In a certain sense, we have a situation whereby Donald Trump was, you know, the old song about, I know an old lady who swallowed a fly. So I made a parody of it, which was, I know a young country that voted a Trump a Clinton to bump. We voted a Trump. We have now gone down a path where Donald Trump is a disaster. With respect to the Oral Torah of the United States, we have the written Torah, which is the Constitution, but in Judaism, you also have the culture around it. And this man is so bizarre, so strange, that he is destroying the relationship that many of us have with the country, because he's actually a genius. He's an unbelievable strategist. Those tweets, they are not haphazard. They are not brain farts. They are very carefully designed. He knows exactly what he's doing, I believe. And in part, we have now created a culture whereby we are weaponizing these very exotic techniques instead of doing what we're supposed to be doing, which is being productive, trying to ensure freedom, making sure that we're taking care of the countries that rely on us for their protection, trying to be more decent, more circumspect. And I think it's absolutely Imperative, for example, that we start to examine things. I mean, I'm just racing to get to this. We stumbled over this Jeffrey Epstein situation, and I have not heard ar Iago media ask the question, is Jeffrey Epstein attached, to the best of our knowledge, at the State Department, the CIA, the FBI, the nsa, to any intelligence service? And is there a reason that you are refusing to ask this question to the point that you can get no comment onto the record? Right.

[Ted Cruz]

So for what it's worth, I emphatically agree with you. What Jeffrey Epstein did, at least all of the evidence and testimony to date, is grotesque. It is offensive, it is a travesty of justice that he died in his cell through whatever causes led to that. And I think there is an imperative that everyone involved, everyone complicit, be held accountable. And I think the question you're raising is an important one that needs to.

[Eric Weinstein]

Be, why would the New York Times or the Washington Post or Fox News ask the question, was this person attached to intelligence? To the point where we can either get an emphatic, of course we would never do that, or no comment. Now, if we can get either one.

[Ted Cruz]

Of these things, and for what it's worth, in D.C. my sense is most people assume he was attached to intelligence. I don't know of any evidence to that effect. And it is a question that needs to be asked.

[Eric Weinstein]

Now, I'm called a crazy person, you know, a conspiracy theorist for saying, why aren't we talking more about the Wuhan Institute of Virology? Why aren't we talking?

[Ted Cruz]

And we've had whole podcasts on that.

[Eric Weinstein]

Why aren't we talking more about Jeffrey Epstein? Why are we not calling for a return to the Church and Pike committees of the 1970s to give us closure so that if we did nothing wrong, we can know that we did nothing wrong?

[Ted Cruz]

And the abuses of intelligence and law enforcement, I think, are a profoundly consequential point. But let me say this just at a time of intense division, at a time of tribalism, and you're right, atomized information, atomized news sources, partisan propaganda, news sources, social media, where we unfriend those who disagree and only listen to those who agree and have a constantly reinforcing ecosystem. I remain optimistic for our country. And I think what I hope what has just occurred in this podcast, which is having a reasonable, civil, productive conversation with those with whom we disagree, at least on some issues, is at the heart of the American experiment. Who we should be as a democracy and I hope is the path to emerge from tragedy into instead what I consider to be the hero's journey of our nation state and America's journey towards a more perfect union and a more just society. So thank you for coming. You said beforehand into the lion's den. I hope the lions have at least been cuddly.

[Michael Knowles]

I don't know if that would be the case.

[Ted Cruz]

Been hospitable and your ideas have been fascinating and it's been a great pleasure.

[Eric Weinstein]

Senator Cruz, thank you for inviting me.

[Michael Knowles]

That was very well said, Senator, of course. Eric, thank you so much for being here. This point you've hit on about one practical thing we could do to come back together is each of us, where appropriate, admit a failure or two speaks to a key virtue, which is humility, unfortunately, probably lacking at the moment in the country, but the beginning of wisdom and very likely at least a glimmer of hope for the future of the country.

[Eric Weinstein]

Thank you very much.

[Michael Knowles]

Thank you both. I'm Michael Knowles. This is VERDICT WITH Ted Cruz.

[Eric Weinstein]

Foreign.

[Ted Cruz]

This episode of Verdict with Ted.

[Eric Weinstein]

Cruz is being brought to you by.

[Ted Cruz]

Jobs, Freedom and Security pac, a political action committee dedicated to supporting conservative causes, organizations and candidates across the country. In 2022, jobs, freedom and Security PAC plans to donate to conservative candidates running for Congress and help the Republican Party across the nation.