Peter Thiel On The Rise Of The Machines And Xi, The CCP, and SBF

George Soros and other observers across the political spectrum have recognized Xi Jinping as the most dangerous enemy to society, indicating bipartisan recognition of the CCP threat that extends beyond conservative circles.

“there's an interesting bipartisanship here Peter Thiel George Soros of all people has called G the most dangerous enemy to society he did that a a a good bit ago I think the recognition is Dawning on people Mike Pompeo told me at the Nixon Library last week he's got dead eyes and I mean it's just an absolute Menace”

The mainstream media has declined so much that it doesn't dominate discourse the way it did 20-25 years ago, which is a mitigating factor against concern about media bias, though the media is still powerful and skews things in partisan ways.

“look if you if you just look at the state of the mainstream Media or things like this you would be you know completely pessimistic and you say it's just it's just completely hopeless and um and you know uh the the thing that's uh you know countervailing or at least moderating that is that it's it's been in such Decline and it just doesn't dominate the discourse in the way that it did you know 20 25 years ago”

The U.S. is in a very crazy, understated dynamic with China with military, technological, and economic dimensions, and this rivalry has been systematically understated for a long time despite its strategic significance.

“we we are we are in a um in a very uh we're in a very crazy Dynamic uh with China it's been it's been probably um it's probably been understated in in strange ways for um for uh for for some time but um but yes I I uh I think that uh you know we have we have this rivalry with China that's uh has a military Dimension it's a technological Dimension it has economic dimensions and um and it has been um it's been understated for for quite some time”

Peter Thiel has characterized TikTok as an AI weapon directed by China at the United States, and this was stated in a recent speech, but most Silicon Valley executives at a summit may understand it as a business competitor but are uncomfortable framing it as a weapon because that falls into the political correctness trap.

“you have gone on the record I think I want to get the quote right you said about Tick Tock it's an AI weapon that China has directed at the U.S and you did that in a recent speech do your colleagues at the summit of Silicon Valley believe that that Tick Tock is an AI weapon directed at China I know you believe it and I believe it and basically every Republican who serious believes it but do the Silicon Valley Executives at the summit understand and believe it um on on some level people understand that it's um it's it's at least a serious uh business competitor it um it's obviously getting people's attention there's and and so in that sense it is um it's a serious challenge for um for Facebook it's a serious challenge for for Google for companies like that so I think I think it's understood on that level um and then um and then you know are you I I don't know it's always it's not quite political correctness but um you know are you are you even able to talk about it as as this weapon that's um you know that's deranging us that's that's quite a bit harder you know the uh you know one of the one of the kinds of critiques that's been made of Facebook is that it um it has this deranging effect that it it somehow you know this is I think it's actually more of a left-wing critique of Facebook but it it sort of polarizes content is somehow you know exaggerates um the conservative content and deranges it and um I don't think that's that's true of Facebook I'm I'm more sympathetic to the conservative critique that it's actually shutting down contact and sort of standardizing it and um and that's sort of the opposite of polarized polarization but um but that kind of critique is probably uh probably one one that could make of of tick tock that it's uh it is somehow um you know it's it it uh it's it surfaces content to people that uh polarizes and deranges them and uh in that sense it's an AI weapon that's being targeted at our society”

Debates about diversity, identity politics, and related issues may be distracting the West from the primary threat of Communist China, and while these domestic issues are real and require discussion, exclusive focus on them serves the CCP's interests.

“I let me just push back a little bit on this view I think I think there are all these debates about um diversity identity politics that um that are kind of crazy but I'm I I wonder whether they they are also distractions from again communist China let's just let's just let's just let's just pause it that every single one of these debates is a distraction from you know from communist China and so um you know we can have there's there's uh you know I don't know they're they're you know there are race problems in this country and there is a debate we need to have about about racism and um there's something we need to do about the history and and overcome that but um if we only talk about that and talk about nothing else that's um that's somehow doing the ccp's bidding”

Peter Thiel argues both extreme optimism and extreme pessimism are modes where you don't do enough—extreme optimism is denial (we're winning so no action needed) and extreme pessimism is defeatism (we're losing so action is futile)—the correct stance is fighting without ideological commitment to outcome.

“I always think that both um optimism and pessimism are are somehow incorrect um they're too ideological you know um and they're both um they're both um modes where you don't do enough because extreme optimism means that you don't have to do anything um you know we're sort of on The Winning Side extreme pessimism is defeatist and we're going to lose so I always think of extreme optimism as a form of denial extreme um Extreme epessimism as a form of acceptance and what we need to do is somewhere in between we need to be fighting and um we need um and you know and then and then I think you know it's not you know I don't think these things are written in the laws of History they're up to um humans they're up to human agency they're they're sort of choice there's freedom and in deciding what what's going to happen”

'Identity' is a logically incoherent concept because it means both 'that which makes you identical' (same) and 'that which makes you different' (unique), so identity politics creates an endless maze of derangement where one can argue in any direction based on which meaning is invoked.

“you know um the um you know the Chinese Communist goal to take over the world or something like that and so if we're you know if we're talking about identity politics it's endless like it's an endless maze it's you know the word identity means um that which makes you identical that which makes makes you the same and that which makes you unique that What Makes You Different so identity means both same and different and so when you start with a word that means a and not a you can go in any crazy Direction you want and so it is it's an endless Maze of derangement”

Drug legalization (alcohol post-1929, marijuana post-2008) represents a societal choice driven by hopelessness and depression, not principled libertarian argument—legalization happens when people have given up on a better future and accepted dysfunction.

“I I am I'm skeptical of the War on Drugs but um as a cultural Observer I um I I I I I do think there's something about all the forms of drug legalization that's deeply linked to pessimism and hopelessness of our society so if we don't talk about it on the individual level but just the the social level you know um you know there was something about Prohibition in the 1920s that was wrong as a policy but it was optimistic in the sense that you know you had to um the 1920s were the last ridiculously hopeful decade where you know you have to work so hard you can't have a hangover the next day and in the 1930s we have the depression and we um and you know you and then you legalize alcohol and it's I think it's correct to legalize alcohol but um it's also what you do when everyone's out of work and they have nothing better to do and uh marijuana legalization you have to think of it was this slow slow moving thing and the inflection point was 2008 when you have the uh the crash in 08 and then um everyone's depressed and we need a legalizing marijuana post-08 was like legalizing alcohol post 1929”

ChatGPT and AI represent perhaps the biggest event in tech since the launch of the iPhone in 2008, and while Silicon Valley has historically overstated technology, this may be one time the media is not exaggerating the significance.

“it is probably uh it's probably the biggest event in text since maybe the launch of the iPhone back in 2008 or something like that and you know the media always Over States things this is perhaps uh this perhaps the one time there uh they're um they're not exaggerating uh too much”

Francis Fukuyama's 'The End of History' is an example of a book that, while completely wrong, was interesting in offering a coherent big-picture view; contemporary books are either center-left orthodoxy (like Steven Pinker's 'Better Angels') or missing alternatives that challenge establishment consensus.

“I would sort of describe uh you know the fukuyama book or things like that you you know we don't we don't even have books that are wrong in the way the fukuyama book's wrong where it's like an interesting big picture view of where the world is going that's not complete you know complete Orthodoxy you know you have I don't know you have um we have sort of these Center left Orthodoxy books I I don't know it's Stephen Pinker are better Angels where [53:35] yes things are getting sort of less violent and everyone's becoming a liberal atheist and this is sort of the way the societies gradually becoming better and it's it's somehow completely wrong but it's the complete conventional wisdom and there is um you know there's nothing on the other side”

The fact that mainstream media deranged hatred of Trump was not sufficient to stop him from winning in 2016 demonstrates how weak the media has become relative to its power in earlier decades.

“you know um they they hated Mr Trump in a completely deranged way and it was not enough to stop him from from winning so that was like uh um I know it was a it was a manifestation of just how weak the media is that they couldn't they couldn't stop Trump in 2016”

China's strategy is to leverage Western reflexive defensiveness about accusations of racism by having CCP 'wolf diplomats' call critics of TikTok racist conspiracy theorists, thereby delegitimizing substantive conversation about the platform's dangers by making criticism socially costly.

“the CCP is very aware of how we are reflexively defensive and so as soon as Tick-Tock criticisms began to surface from you and other people who actually understand how it works they began to call the critics of tis talk uh racist conspiracy theorists because they want to shut down the conversation because nobody in America wants to be called a racist or a conspiracy conspiracy theorist so the ccp's uh uh wolf diplomats immediately go out and call everyone who questions Tick Tock a racist conspiracy theorist did you notice that do you see what they're trying to do they're trying to delegitimize the conversation about tick tock's danger”

Wall Street, Hollywood, and universities are co-opted by China to varying degrees—with universities being the worst, utilizing cheap Chinese graduate students as quasi-slave labor while enabling intellectual property extraction that benefits the CCP.

“there are ways in which Wall Street is co-opted there are ways in which Hollywood is co-opted there are ways in which universities are co-opted you know if you think of you know um graduate schools and um in our liberal universities probably 40 50 of the science students are Chinese and you can think of it as you know it's a from the University point of view it's a form of indentured quasi-slave labor and these graduate students um and so they get they get cheap grad students as um as uh slave labor and um and then they uh they don't question the way in which it's co-opted by China”

The difficulty in America's discourse about China stems from the political constraint that even labeling the enemy is hard because people fear being accused of racism, forcing complex discussions about terminology before substantive policy can be debated.

“the fact that we've been having this conversation is telling you something about you know how difficult this is on the U.S side where um you know even even labeling the enemy is is hard to do because we immediately have to you know um be careful that we don't um don't get accused of racism or something like that”

AI conversations consistently get deranged by devolving into extreme questions about whether AI will replace humans or destroy the world, when a more calibrated view recognizes it as a valuable, transformative business technology that knocked off $150 billion from Google's market cap as a threat to the search monopoly for the first time in 20 years.

“I'm always struck by how quickly they uh they uh they go in in a very uh very strange uh deranged Direction so I think there's some kind of calibration where it's a it's a very important very transformative technology it's um you know it's it's it's probably going to be uh quite valuable as a business um you know it's it's it's valuable for Microsoft as a corporation it's uh you know it knocked off 150 billion dollars the market cap it'll say nation of Google so it's a it's a threat to the search engine for the first time in in 20 years”

Bitcoin was originally a technological version of gold—a libertarian, crypto-anarchist, anti-Fed, anti-fiat money currency that was powerful and potentially transformative, but the question remains whether it actually functions in that way as advertised.

“things like Bitcoin they were um you know crypto libertarian Cypher Punk crypto Anarchist you know anti-fed anti-fiat money uh kind of Technology where um you know I I always uh describe it as you know in some sense Bitcoin was um was a sort of technological version of gold where gold is this anti-fiat money um hard money currency and um and and and and that's that's what was both um powerful and uh and uh potentially transformed about it it was um and then um and then you know and then the question is does it does it really work in that way um and when um you know when when um when people in the FBI tell me that uh they would like um you know every all the criminals to use crypto because that way they can catch them you know uh and I'm not making a pro-criminal argument but if uh if um you know if if crypto is is a way that the government can monitor everyone's payments and transactions is it um is it really this uh decentralizing technology as advertised”

The 2022 midterm elections were pathetic for Republicans because they failed to run on a strong affirmative agenda; the best argument they had (stopping Biden judicial appointments) was insufficient to win after Republicans already own the court's conservative majority.

“it was very disappointing how pathetically the Republicans did and there's a lot of blame to go around but I think um you know I think I think my critique is we did not run on anything we did not have you know we did not have a strong agenda and um and you know and and basically if [48:52] the best argument you had was that your um you know you're stopping Biden judicial appointments that that's not enough to win”

The straightforward way to restore media credibility is to cover both sides, let both sides talk, address topic selection bias (what topics are chosen vs. excluded rather than just how topics are presented), and willingness to debate contentious questions like whether the CCP is a problem for the U.S.

“it's it's it's it's it's it's and there's so straightforward things you can do there's there's some way in which you just um it's it's it's it's it's it's you just cover both sides you just let both sides talk you know it's not the bias in media is um is is not in you know how how topics are presented it's it's in what topics you even select it's it's how you know certain things we don't cover it's certain thing you know you know you probably you know if you cover if you talk about the question of whether the CCP is a problem for the US just raising the question you know is almost an answer and then uh and then we end up just not talking about certain types of questions and uh and so that's that's that's you know you I I think yeah I think CNN all these places would correct it if we if we just had a debate if we just corrected it just having the debate we'll our side will when”

AI can be characterized as a centralizing, communist technology that concentrates data, enables monitoring, and represents control, whereas crypto (specifically Bitcoin) was intended as a libertarian technology to decentralize power and money, creating a binary ideological split in technological design.

“if we if we say that uh crypto is libertarian Bitcoin these cryptocurrencies our way uh to decentralize power um you know to um to decentralize um decentralized money and that they somehow have this uh libertarian Vibe uh can we also then say that AI is communist that it's a it's a technology to centralize data uh to monitor data um and um and uh but that sort of um so that it's both powerful and potentially dangerous”

Becoming a grandparent changes one's time horizon from 10-20 year concerns to 50-75 year concerns, fundamentally altering how threats are assessed and prioritized.

“Mitt Romney when I first sat down to interview him 2005 or six he asked me if I was a grandfather and I wasn't yet I am now and the reason he said is because once you become a grandparent your perspective changes completely you go from worrying about the next 10 or 20 years to worry about the next 50 to 75 years and that has happened to me as I become a grandfather”

Sam Bankman-Fried and FTX represented a capitalist-communist fusion product: SBF's narrative was ultra-capitalist (making a trillion dollars) fused with communist altruism (giving all money away to left-wing nonprofits), and this fusion was desired by media and regulators precisely because it resolved the ideological tension of making massive profits while appearing virtuous.

“there was sort of a uh revolutionary decentralizing promise of crypto and then uh there are all these ways it hasn't it hasn't quite been met and then you know I think the the the strange thing about Sam bankman freed and FDX and all of that is that it was um it it was this capitalist communist Fusion product you know uh the Sam bangman freed narrative was you know he was going to make a trillion dollars so it was Uber capitalist and then it was this effect driven altruism communist thing that was fused to it and it's okay for me to make a trillion dollars because I'm going to give all the money away to left-wing non-profits and um and uh the the sort of social cultural question we'd ask about our society is not why was SBF a fraud but why um why why did you get away with this fraud why was it so desired by the media by The Regulators and it's somehow this capitalist communist Fusion product is what they wanted”

Thiel doesn't like what drug legalization tells us about American society and culture—that we are giving up on a better future and accepting dysfunction—even though policy-wise he is sympathetic to legalization arguments as a libertarian.

“so um you know I I I I I see it as um yeah as a uh um I as a policy maker I I'm sympathetic to the legalization arguments but I I don't I I really don't like what it tells us about our society or our culture and you know um and uh and and that's sort of where we're stuck and that's where we're gonna stop”

German politics is dominated by corporate interests where Volkswagen is deeply co-opted by China (half its cars made in China), Social Democrats represent workers who want Volkswagen jobs, Christian Democrats represent management, and even the Green party is the most anti-communist Chinese party, indicating how distorted German politics has become.

“you know in some ways you can think of um Germany it's all sort of it's all sort of dominated by these weird corporate interests if you look at it on a partisan level you know um you think of a company like Volkswagen you know uh the social Democrats are it's it's sort of it's a company that's deeply co-opted by China because you know half their cars are now made in China and that somehow appease the Chinese government and you know the social Democrats are the workers at Volkswagen and the Christian democrats or the management and the free Democrats or the shareholders and um probably probably the great the green party in Germany is the most Anti communist Chinese and that's telling you something about how messed up the politics there are”

Germany had a historically unhealthy North Stream pipeline codependence with Russia, and now Europe and the U.S. have a hundred unhealthy codependent relationships with China that parallel that pipeline in scope and complexity, creating structural vulnerability.

“I think this this we need a new word for the unhealthy relationship with China and it's something like it's a codependent relationship and um and just like the codependent relationship that um Russia had with Germany where this pipeline was this you know sort of unhealthy codependency we have a hundred pipelines between the U.S and China or between you know Western Europe and China where um things are sort of entangled in this in this co-dependent way”

Tech companies like Microsoft, Amazon, Google, and Facebook are ideologically uncomfortable challenging the CCP even though they don't sell products or make money in China, unlike Apple or Wall Street, indicating ideological rather than economic alignment.

“they don't actually get to sell stuff in China they don't actually make money um but um but yes ideologically they're very uncomfortable uh questioning it or challenging it and um you know and um there are uh there are no uh Tech CEOs who are willing to really go on record as um as challenging the CCP even though you know they're they're frozen out of China they don't make money in China so you know in some sense they're not getting paid off in the way that Hollywood or Wall Street is with again the big exception of Apple”

The appropriate terminology for China's regime is not 'CCP' but 'Communist China' or 'red China' or 'chi-coms' because the regime represents a party-state fusion (like the Soviet Union) that cannot be cleanly separated into the Communist Party as an organization versus China as a country.

“but Hugh I think saying CCP is in a way too mild because that's interesting like the Democratic party or the Republican party and um and it's not just a party because it's you know it's this party State Fusion that you're dealing with and so um we need something like it's like Soviet Union it's it's a Communist Party fused with a country and um and so I think I think we should be calling it something like communist China or maybe red China which was you know a retro thing to say even for Nixon or or Reagan but I think red China gets at this um party State Fusion problem”

The right question about SBF is not 'why was he a fraud?' but 'why was he so desired by media and regulators that they overlooked his obvious fraud?', pointing to deeper cultural/ideological alignment rather than mere corruption.

“the the sort of social cultural question we'd ask about our society is not why was SBF a fraud but why um why why did you get away with this fraud why was it so desired by the media by The Regulators and it's somehow this capitalist communist Fusion product is what they wanted”

Iowa caucuses and agricultural exports create a challenge for Republican primary candidates—Iowa is heavily agricultural and benefiting from Chinese trade, making it politically difficult to run aggressively on China because Iowa Democrats and Republicans both have economic incentives to oppose anti-China rhetoric.

“Iowa Iowa if you look at the states in the U.S Iowa is a state that has you know a lot of agricultural exports and um it is um it is uh it is relatively co-opted by China so how do you how do you run an Iowa primary and uh you know it you can you know there's certain issues that um that Iowa excuse to but it's it excuse dovish on China and so there's you know there's a there's a weird challenge with the caucuses in Iowa”

Law schools in Thiel's era (when he attended Stanford Law) had relatively healthy political debate because law is deeply connected to governance, unlike fields like political science or English where discussion can be decoupled from actual institutional reality.

“you do yeah when when you know you the law schools were still relatively [50:27] healthy because you always you have a certain kind of political debate in law that you don't have in most other academic Fields because it is you know it is it's deeply connected to the society so um you know if you if you study I don't know political science or English as an undergraduate it's it somehow can be very decoupled from from actual governance but uh but something like uh like law school you always have these debates at least”

The Republican Party is producing some candidates serious about the Chinese Communist threat (Jim Banks, Mike Gallagher), but generally the party is moving slowly toward seriousness on China, taking a very long time to shift like a super tanker.

“for the last 10 years is the party producing candidates that are serious about the Chinese Communists but Jim Banks in Indiana is serious about the Chinese Communist Party Mike Gallagher is serious about the chi-coms generally is the Republican Party serious about it um it's it's look it's it's more serious than it was 10 20 years ago but um I don't know it's a very very slow moving I don't know super tanker or something it's just very slow to very slow to shift”

Trump was good on China despite other weaknesses, and a disturbingly large part of the Republican establishment in Senate and House is weirdly co-opted by China, making the party's China focus inconsistent.

“I think uh you know um and I think this was where um you know this is where I think president Trump was was was good um and and this is where um where a disturbingly large part of the Republican establishment um both Senate house elsewhere is is is weirdly co-opted so it's it's you know it's it's it's not it's not a simply partisan thing”

In the 2020 Democratic primary, Joe Biden was the 'Manchurian Candidate'—the worst possible person for the U.S. in confronting China—and Michael Bloomberg was the secondary default Manchurian Candidate, making the Democratic primary field particularly weak on China policy.

“I think um Biden was in some sense like as close to The Manchurian Candidate as we could get in 2020 if you if you looked at the people in the Democratic primary it was um it was Biden was The Manchurian Candidate you know and then you know the if Biden wasn't going to get going to make it Bloomberg was sort of the the default Manchurian Candidate so they were the the worst possible people for for the US from getting tough on China”

China has been deranged by technology to the extent that it resembles the Cylons from Battlestar Galactica—technology has overrun the country, with comprehensive monitoring at all times and places under Xi Jinping's control, creating a system distinct from traditional totalitarianism.

“China's had uh you know it's had AI for a decade and it's um it's it's a country that's been deranged by technology everything is monitored at all times in all places and um you know I don't know this is again you have to be careful not to exaggerate but it's like the cylons on Battlestar Galactica they've been you know technology has has overrun the country it's it's in you know there's a sense in which G is this communist dictator and there's a sense in which the computers have taken over the whole country everyone's monitored at all times in all places”

In the 1930s, Germany was the subject of appeasement by Britain/France, but now in 2023, Germany has become the appeaser in chief, reversing historical roles and making it complicit in the West's appeasement of China.

“you know um in the 1930s Germany was the country that was the uh the subject of you know appeasement and now it has become the appeaser in Chief so um yeah there's there there's some very very uh uh strange Dimensions about the history”

Mitch McConnell held open the Scalia Supreme Court vacancy, preventing Merrick Garland from being appointed and allowing Trump to appoint Amy Coney Barrett, thus saving the Constitution and the First Amendment from progressive control, but the Supreme Court is still the least important branch of government and executive/legislative action on China is more important.

“Peter you took a lot Stanford he's he saved the Constitution by getting by holding open the vacancy of Scalia he got Trump elected by doing so I always defend Mitch to Donald Trump when he's on the program because you know you wouldn't have won if he had let the Scalia vacancy be filled by Merrick Garland and we could kiss our first amendment goodbye if the left got control of the Court the way that they wanted to get control of the Court sure but um but I I would I would I would argue that the Supreme Court is still the least important branch of our of our government”

The FBI has told Thiel they would prefer criminals to use crypto because it enables them to track and catch criminals, which suggests crypto may have been co-opted into a surveillance tool rather than remaining a decentralizing technology.

“when um you know when when um when people in the FBI tell me that uh they would like um you know every all the criminals to use crypto because that way they can catch them you know uh and I'm not making a pro-criminal argument but if uh if um you know if if crypto is is a way that the government can monitor everyone's payments and transactions is it um is it really this uh decentralizing technology as advertised or or is it um is it actually a version of AI a version of centralized you know control of the financial system of the payment system of of things like this”

Silicon Valley is less co-opted by China than Hollywood, Wall Street, or universities, but Apple represents the key problem—with 2.5 trillion dollar market cap, it is the largest tech company, deeply dominated by China because half its cars are manufactured there (noting iPhones, not cars).

“I I I I I think Silicon Valley is not the most co-opted so um if you if you if you look at these come I think Hollywood is worse I think Wall Street is worse I think the universities are worse um but um but yes if you look at the individual the big tech companies probably the the one that's problematic is um is Apple where you know you have the iPhones are manufactured in China and so if you think of you know an apple is the biggest of the tech companies um and it is uh it's about a two and a half trillion dollar market cap and somehow um it is this um it is uh you know it's very dominated by China”

Hugh Hewitt practices self-censorship on controversial topics like gender fluidity when broadcasting to audiences with children (school drop-off radio), declining to raise certain topics not from external pressure but from responsible audience sensitivity.

“you know there are some topics I I myself you know I'm going to offer myself up as an example of self-censorship I do not talk about gender fluidity on the radio because there are children in the car on the way to school and I don't want to present the parents with a question that they don't want their third grader to ask them if they're getting out of the car as they're being dropped off at elementary school so I self-censor the topics that I cover”

If he were a king of the world, Hugh Hewitt would spend all his time talking about the Chinese Communist Party—both the strategic competition and specific military elements like ICBM and submarine production where the U.S. is falling behind.

“if I were a king of the world not Queen not Duke not Earl all I would do is talk about the Chinese Communist party I spent half of the show this morning that I'm talking to you with Deb Fisher on our strategic competition Weaponry we're falling behind their ICBM production their submarine production I talked to Gallagher about the balloon I would talk about it all the time because I agree with you profoundly but most Americans and I and I this is not a left right issue they don't want to talk about it or think about it whereas China controls what their people talk about and think about all the time”

In the late 1980s at Stanford, Thiel was involved in campus culture wars and founded the Stanford Review to argue against political correctness; in retrospect, he worries that conservatives were right about those specific issues but wrong about focus—the elephant in the room was Chinese Communist ambition, not culture wars.

“when I was I was an undergraduate at Stanford in the in the late 80s and I was involved in all these cult campus Wars culture wars [43:38] I started a conservative student newspaper the Stanford review I uh wrote an anti-political correctness book in the mid 90s uh the diversity myth and um and I think I think there was a way in which the conservatives were right about all the issues and and yet I I worry that um it was somehow the wrong thing to focus on and uh that you know and that we were you know we were missing the elephant in the [44:09] room which you know I would say this point is something like you know um the um you know the Chinese Communist goal to take over the world or something like that”