The way it works now, we don’t do defense; we do offense.

QUESTIONS:

1. What would it take for the military to pass an audit?

2. Who benefits from an absence of auditing?

3. What would a less centralized system look like?

Does anyone believe that Cuba is a threat to the US and Cuba is a leading state sponsor of terror?

When a US politician uses the word “terror” its a sign that the have run out of valid arguments and are just piling on gratuitous and phony arguments.

Cuba and Iran: What do they have in common?

The common features of Iran and Cuba is that both

• feature very active groups of expat/religious supporters and a history of colonial involvement.

• huge amounts of money are to be made

• perpetual war is the glue that ties the US Empire together.

QUESTIONS:

1. What are the Cuban exiles living in Florida hoping to achieve through US foreign policy?

2. What percent of Americans support US foreign policy towards Cuba?

3. What percent of Americans would believe Cuba is a leading terror threat to the US after hearing a 3 minute counter-argument?

4. Are there other exile communities in the US that exert significant influence on US policy? List them in order of influence.

ELSEWHERE:

War Drives the Empire (Caityln Johnstone)

Yay! The troops are leaving Afghanistan — oh, now they’re waging a proxy war in Ukraine.

Excellent, they’re deescalating against Yemen — whoa, now they’re kidnapping the president of Venezuela.

Oh hey, it looks like the mass slaughter in Gaza has slowed down — oh, now they’re going to war with Iran.

Look, they’re pulling thousands of troops out of Germany — oh, it’s so they can move them to Poland.

Hey these Iran negotiations are finally getting somewhere — ah man, now they’re invading Cuba.

Over and over and over and over again. As soon as the human butchery slows down in one place, it picks up somewhere else.

The US empire exists in a constant state of war. War is the glue that holds the empire together. If the wars stop, the empire stops.

That’s why the denizens of the empire are never allowed to vote for an end to wars. You can vote for candidates who will end abortions or trans rights or corporate regulations, but you can’t vote for a candidate who will actually end the wars. Peace is never on the ballot, because war is too critical for the functioning of the empire.

Which is why it’s so important for us all to stand against the war machine. If we can end the wars, we can end the empire. Not until then will we have a shot at building a healthy world.

Former Google Chairman Eric Schmidt gave a commencement speech about AI and got boo’ed.

In the first half of the speech, he said some things which are troubling.

We thought that connecting everyone would be an unambiguous good, but the platforms ended up being isolating, degrading, coarsening, and polarizing.

No one set out to do this, “but it happened.”

The tone is active at first — we built this .. and then shifts to “passive” — “it happened”.

Schmidt was only responsible for Google the tool, not the Advertising Tool with A-B Testing

Google’s Moto used to be “Don’t be evil”

New Google Parent Company Drops ‘Don’t Be Evil’ Motto

“Employees of Alphabet and its subsidiaries and controlled affiliates should do the right thing—follow the law, act honorably, and treat each other with respect,” the new code reads, noticeably dropping the famous motto.

-Time Magazine Oct 4, 2015

QUESTIONS:

1. Do Tech executives like former Google CEO Eric Schmidt belong to an elite club that participates in actions for which they enjoy impunity?

2. How much does owning a fortune of ~$58 billion contribute to executive impunity?

3. What prompted them to drop their motto: “Don’t be evil”?

4. If you were a young graduate, how would you feel about our country’s “leadership” class?

5. On a scale from 1 to 10, how accountable are leaders to society?

SNOPES: Fact Check

Bettina Anderson, who married Donald Trump Jr., the eldest son of U.S. President Donald Trump, is the daughter of Jeffrey Epstein’s former banker.

Rating:

Mostly True

About this rating

What’s True

Anderson is the daughter of Harry Loy Anderson Jr., who owned Palm Beach National Bank and Trust. Records showed that Epstein held several accounts at that bank beginning in 1991.

What’s Undetermined

Epstein kept his money at several different financial institutions, and Harry Loy Anderson was Palm Beach National Bank and Trust’s president, so it’s unclear how involved he would have been in Epstein’s finances or to what extent he could be described as “Epstein’s banker.”

Snopes readers wrote in looking for more information about the claim, which went on to state that Anderson’s father was close enough with Epstein to provide a character reference letter in 1999.

We found it is mostly true — that is, there is substantial evidence confirming that Anderson is the daughter of Harry Loy Anderson Jr., and that Epstein held accounts at Harry Loy Anderson’s bank, the Palm Beach National Bank and Trust. Records released through the Epstein Files Transparency Act showed that Harry Loy Anderson approved two applications Epstein filed for business credit cards in 2001 and 2002.

However, the claim is rated mostly true because Palm Beach National Bank and Trust was only one of the many banks that Epstein used to hold his fortune, and it it’s unclear exactly how involved Anderson was in Epstein’s finances.

The character letter referenced in the social media posts was first reported in The New York Times Magazine in December 2025. The report claimed the letter was located in the archives of journalist Wayne Barrett at the Briscoe Center for American History at the University of Texas at Austin. Snopes attempted to obtain a copy of that letter but was unable to at time of publication because it wasn’t digitized.

As such, we cannot confirm the legitimacy of the character letter Harry Loy Anderson allegedly wrote for Epstein, though there is no reason to suspect it was fake.

We began our research by finding obituaries for Harry Loy Anderson, who died in 2013. All noted that he was survived by a large family, including Bettina Anderson, which confirmed the first part of the claim.

To address the claim that Harry Loy Anderson was Epstein’s banker, we searched his name in the Department of Justice’s database of files on Epstein. We found an email copy of Anderson’s obituary sent to Epstein, and a large collection of financial documents involving Anderson, Palm Beach National Bank and Trust and Epstein.

One of those documents, a customer profile for Epstein from June 2002, revealed that Epstein held at least six accounts at the bank totaling around $2 million, the first of which was opened in March 1991. Harry Loy Anderson’s name was listed as the “prim officer” on that customer profile, though it’s unclear exactly what that title meant and what responsibilities came with it.

The documents involved two credit card applications Epstein filed with Palm Beach National Bank and Trust, one in August 2001 on behalf of NES LLC and the other in May 2002 for JEGE Inc.

Both companies listed Epstein as the sole owner, and according to emails included in the files, the credit cards had limits of $35,000 and $25,000, respectively. Harry Loy Anderson had to approve both credit cards, according to those emails, because Epstein declined to provide extensive financial information.

The applications listed NES’ business as real estate. JEGE’s business, meanwhile, was listed as “aircraft.” (It was the business that officially owned the jet nicknamed the “Lolita Express.”)

The documents provided clear enough evidence that Anderson and Epstein had a business relationship, though it was unclear to what extent Anderson could truly be considered “Epstein’s banker.” While there were several emails and letters between Palm Beach National Bank and Trust staffers and Epstein’s associates discussing the business accounts, there were none from Anderson himself.

QUESTIONS:

1. Had you heard that the father of Donald Trump Jr’s new wife gave a positive character reference for Jefferey Epstein, calling hime a “a gentleman of the highest integrity” who “enjoys an excellent reputation in our community”?

2. What does this say about the Epstein class, and how they navigate society?

3. Would you believe there could be a comparable banker who referenced Donald Trump Sr. with similar character references?

4. What advice would you give someone marrying into the Trump family? I would advise them to check out Mary Trump (Mary’s Substack)?

DETAIL:

Times Now News: Father’s Reference: “A gentleman of highest integrity”

Harry Loy Anderson Jr’s Epstein Letter Sparks Fresh Buzz Around Donald Trump Jr and Bettina Anderson Wedding

A decades-old letter written by the late Florida banker Harry Loy Anderson Jr. in support of convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein has resurfaced online following the reported marriage of Bettina Anderson to Donald Trump Jr. The letter, dated 1998, was written several years before Epstein became the subject of a criminal investigation in Florida in 2005.

According to reports previously published by The New York Times, Anderson wrote the letter while serving as president of Palm Beach National Bank & Trust Company, where Epstein had reportedly maintained accounts since the early 1990s.

Breaking It Down

• What details are known about Bettina Anderson’s family background?

  Bettina Anderson grew up in a historic Palm Beach estate and is the daughter of Harry Loy Anderson Jr., a notable banker. Her mother runs a family-owned orange orchard and souvenir shop. Bettina has a background in art history from Columbia University and has worked in business development and consulting.

• How did Donald Trump Jr. and Bettina Anderson meet?

• What is unique about the Trump Jr. wedding ceremony?

In the letter, Anderson allegedly described Epstein as “a gentleman of the highest integrity” who “enjoys an excellent reputation in our community”. The document also reportedly stated that Epstein and several associated entities had been “valued clients” of the bank for approximately eight years and that their accounts had been handled “in an excellent manner”.

The letter has recently circulated widely on social media following reports of the marriage between Anderson and Trump Jr., with users drawing renewed attention to Epstein’s past connections within Palm Beach society.

Epstein, a financier with ties to prominent political, business and entertainment figures, died in custody in 2019 while awaiting trial on federal sex trafficking charges. He had previously pleaded guilty in Florida in 2008 to soliciting prostitution from a minor.

The name of Donald Trump has appeared in documents related to Epstein that have been released over the years, although no wrongdoing by Trump has been established in connection with those references.

The New York Times also reported that a former house manager employed by Epstein alleged that Palm Beach National Bank had been used to pay some of Epstein’s victims.

Anderson was a prominent businessman in Palm Beach and, according to reports, became one of the youngest bank presidents in the United States when he took charge of Worth Avenue National Bank at the age of 26.

He also co-founded the Palm Beach Day Academy and served on the board of the Historical Society of Palm Beach County, while supporting the American Red Cross at a national level. Anderson died in 2013 following a battle with Alzheimer’s disease.

Wikipedia: Iranian Jews

Iranian Jews^[4][a] constitute one of the oldest communities of the Jewish diaspora. Dating back to the biblical era, they originate from the Jews who arrived in Iran as Babylonian captives. Books of the Hebrew Bible (i.e., Esther, Isaiah, Daniel, Ezra, and Nehemiah) bring together an extensive narrative shedding light on contemporary Jewish life experiences in ancient Iran; there has been a continuous Jewish presence in Iran since at least the time of Cyrus the Great (the 6th century BCE), who led the Achaemenid army’s conquest of the Neo-Babylonian Empire and subsequently freed the Judahites from the Babylonian captivity.

History

Jews had been residing in Persia since around 727 BC, having arrived in the region as slaves after being captured by the Assyrian and Babylonian kings. According to one Jewish legend, the first Jew to enter Persia was Serah bat Asher, granddaughter of the Patriarch Jacob.^[8] The biblical books of Isaiah, Daniel, Ezra, Nehemiah, Chronicles, and Esther contain references to the life and experiences of Jews in Persia and accounts of their relations with the Persian kings. In the book of Ezra, the Persian kings are credited with permitting and enabling the Jews to return to Jerusalem and rebuild their Temple; its reconstruction was effected “according to the decree of Cyrus, and Darius, and Artaxerxes king of Persia” (Ezra 6:14). This great event in Jewish history took place in the late sixth-century BC, by which time there was a well-established and influential Jewish community in Persia.

Jews in ancient Persia mostly lived in their own communities. Iranian Jews lived in the ancient (and until the mid-20th century still extant) communities not only of Iran, but also the Armenian, Georgian, Iraqi, Bukharan, Afghan and Mountain Jewish communities.^{[9][10][11][12]}

Some of the communities have been isolated from other Jewish communities to the extent that their classification as “Persian Jews” is a matter of linguistic or geographical convenience rather than actual historical relationship with one another. Scholars believe that during the peak of the Persian Empire, Jews may have comprised as much as 20% of the population.^[13]

According to Encyclopædia Britannica: “The Jews trace their heritage in Iran to the Babylonian Exile of the 6th century BC[E] and, like the Armenians, have retained their ethnic, linguistic, and religious identity.”^[14] But the Library of Congress‘s country study on Iran states that “Over the centuries the Jews of Iran became physically, culturally, and linguistically indistinguishable from the non-Jewish population. The overwhelming majority of Jews speak Persian as their mother language, and a tiny minority, Kurdish.”^[15]

Islamic Republic (1979–present)

At the time of the 1979 Islamic Revolution, 80,000–100,000 Jews were living in Iran. From then on, Jewish emigration from Iran dramatically increased, as about 20,000 Jews left within several months of the revolution alone.^[47] The majority of Iran’s Jewish population, some 60,000 Jews, emigrated in the aftermath of the revolution, of whom 35,000 went to the United States, 20,000 to Israel, and 5,000 to Europe (mainly to the United Kingdom, France, Denmark, Germany, Italy, and Switzerland).^{[59][better source needed]} Some sources put the Iranian Jewish population in the mid and late 1980s as between 50,000 and 60,000.^[60] An estimate based on the 1986 census put the figure considerably higher for the same time, around 55,000.^[61] From the mid-1990s to the present there has been more uniformity in the figures, with most government sources since then estimating roughly 25,000 Jews remaining in Iran.^{[62][63][64][65]} These less recent official figures are considered bloated, and the Jewish community may not amount to more than 10,000.^[66] A 2012 census put the figure at about 8,756.^[67]

Ayatollah Khomeini met with the Jewish community upon his return from exile in Paris, when heads of the community, disturbed by the execution of one of their most distinguished representatives, the industrialist Habib Elghanian, arranged to meet him in Qom. At one point he said:

In the holy Quran, Moses, salutations upon him and all his kin, has been mentioned more than any other prophet. Prophet Moses was a mere shepherd when he stood up to the might of pharaoh and destroyed him. Moses, the Speaker-to-Allah, represented pharaoh’s slaves, the downtrodden, the mostazafeen of his time.

At the end of the discussion Khomeini declared, “We recognize our Jews as separate from those godless, bloodsucking Zionists”,^[66] and issued a fatwa decreeing that the Jews were to be protected.^[68]

Synagogues and Hebrew schools

See also: List of synagogues in Iran

Most Jews live in Tehran, the capital.^[115] Today^[when?] Tehran has 11 functioning synagogues, many of them with Hebrew schools. It has two kosher restaurants, an old-age home and a cemetery. There is a Jewish library with 20,000 titles.^[73] Traditionally however, Shiraz, Hamedan, Isfahan, Tabriz, Nahawand, Babol and some other cities of Iran were home to large populations of Jews. Isfahan has a Jewish population of about 1,500, consisting mostly of businesspeople. As of 2015 there were 13 synagogues,^[where?] including the primary synagogue on Palestine Square. In Esfahan, many Jewish businesses are concentrated in an area called “Jewish Passage”.^[116]

.. Current status

Iran’s Jewish community is officially recognized as a religious minority group by the government, and, like the Zoroastrians and Christians, they are allocated one seat in the Iranian Parliament. Homayoun Sameh is the current Jewish member of the parliament, replacing Siamak Moreh Sedgh in the 2020 election. In 2000, former Jewish MP Manuchehr Eliasi estimated that at that time there were still 60,000–85,000 Jews in Iran; most other sources put the figure at 25,000.^[78] In 2011 the Jewish population numbered 8,756.^[79] In 2016 Jewish population numbered 9,826.^[5] In 2019 the Jewish Population numbered 8,300^[3] and they constitute 0.01% of Iranian population, a number claimed in 2017 by Sergio DellaPergola, a leading Jewish demographer.^[80]

Iranian Jews have their own newspaper (called “Ofogh-e-Bina”) with Jewish scholars performing Judaic research at Tehran‘s “Central Library of Jewish Association”.^[81] The Dr. Sapir Jewish Hospital is Iran‘s largest charity hospital of any religious minority community in the country;^[81] however, most of its patients and staff are Muslim.^[82]

Chief Rabbi Yousef Hamadani Cohen was the spiritual leader for the Jewish community of Iran from 1994 to 2007, when he was succeeded by Mashallah Golestani-Nejad.^[83] In August 2000, Cohen met with Iranian President Mohammad Khatami for the first time.^[84] In 2003, Cohen and Motamed met with Khatami at Yusef Abad Synagogue, which was the first time a President of Iran had visited a synagogue since the Islamic Revolution.^[85] Haroun Yashayaei is the chairman of the Jewish Committee of Tehran and leader of Iran’s Jewish community.^[85][86] On 26 January 2007, Yashayaei’s letter to President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad concerning his Holocaust denial comments brought about worldwide media attention.^{[87][88][89][90]}

The Jews of Iran have been best known for certain occupations like making gold jewelry and dealing in antiques, textiles and carpets.^{[citation needed]}

^{Read More: Full Wikipedia Article}

QUESTIONS:

1. Did you remember the Jewish roots in Iran?

2. Are you surprised that there are still Jews living in Iran that are part of an officially recognized minority group?

3. How does the history of Jews in Iran compare to the history of Jews living in Europe?

Source: World Liberty Financial

Gemini

Cryptocurrency has become a massive and highly debated pillar of President Donald Trump’s total wealth, shifting his financial portfolio significantly since his return to the White House.

While his overall net worth fluctuates heavily depending on the source—with Forbes and Bloomberg tracking it between $6.5 billion and $7 billion, and some temporary estimates going much higher—cryptocurrency and related digital ventures are now estimated to make up a substantial percentage of his fortune.

The Breakdown of Trump’s Crypto Wealth

Financial disclosures, media investigations (Forbes, Bloomberg), and government watchdog trackers indicate that crypto ventures have added roughly $2.3 billion to $2.9 billion to the Trump family fortune. This translates to roughly 35% to 40% of his total estimated net worth.

The main drivers of his digital asset wealth include:

• World Liberty Financial (WLFI): A crypto platform heavily affiliated with the Trump family. Through brand licensing, early equity, and token allocations, this venture has generated over $1.1 billion in value.

• The $TRUMP Meme Coin: Launched around the time of his second inauguration, this token brought in an estimated $616 million through direct allocations and licensed name promotion as its market value surged.

• ALT5 Sigma (AI Financial): Another core crypto venture tied to the family, contributing roughly $538 million to his wealth profile.

• American Bitcoin & Early Stablecoins: Assorted strategic digital assets, including partnerships with stablecoins like USD1, which account for tens of millions more.

• Trump NFTs (Digital Trading Cards): The early catalyst for his crypto venture, which brought in several million dollars through licensing fees and Ethereum royalties.

A Cultural and Financial Shift

This marks a massive shift from Trump’s first presidency, during which he publicly criticized Bitcoin, once calling it a “scam.”

Following his pivot to a pro-crypto platform during the 2024 campaign and his subsequent executive actions—such as proposing a strategic federal cryptocurrency reserve—the market value of his personal digital holdings skyrocketed. Independent observers and media outlets note that his crypto portfolio now rivals, or in some cases exceeds, individual crown jewels in his traditional real estate portfolio.

QUESTIONS:

1. How much of World Liberty Financial revenue is a result of normal buying Bitcoins, as compared. to buying Trump’s own proprietary fiat coin?

2. What percentage of “investors” in Donald Trump’s Crypto were using their purchase. to influence (bribe) Trump?

3. What do you think the value of Trump’s fiat crypto will be in 3 years? Do you predict he will attempt to cash out in anticipation a decline.

Transcript: (swearing)

18:01

Oh yeah. You could you could have a lot of fun actually, couldn’t you? like looking through patents, buying them up and then and then open sourcing them all so that we actually had you know a

innovation that that that could move easily with people’s inspiration and the the results could come back to the world.

Get off these fossil fuels and all that nonsense.

Yeah. All those uh those wonderful inventions that have been quietly put in a drawer somewhere in, you know, Shell or Chevron or whatever.

Buy them up.

DETAIL: GEMINI

Q: What are some examples of patents that have been bought up to suppress them (so that they can't compete with existing companies)?

A: In the business world, buying up intellectual property specifically to lock it away so competitors can’t use it is known as “patent shelving” or defensive patent acquisition.

While pop culture is full of urban legends about water-powered cars and infinite-energy devices being bought and suppressed by shadow organizations, the corporate world has several well-documented, real-world examples of strategic patent shelving designed to protect market shares or existing monopolies.

Here are some famous and historically verified examples:

1. Large-Format NiMH Batteries (The EV1 Backlash)

One of the most heavily cited examples of corporate patent suppression involves the automotive and oil industries in the 1990s and early 2000s.

• The Tech: Ovonic developed large-format Nickel-Metal Hydride (NiMH) batteries, which were highly efficient and capable of giving early electric vehicles—like General Motors’ EV1—a much longer driving range.

• The Acquisition: In 1994, General Motors bought a majority interest in Ovonic’s battery development. Later, in 2000, GM sold its control of these patents to Texaco, a major oil company (which was subsequently acquired by Chevron).

• The Suppression: Chevron’s subsidiary, Cobasys, strictly controlled the patents and refused to sell large-format NiMH batteries to auto manufacturers for use in fully electric vehicles, only licensing them for smaller hybrid formats. Because of this, many automakers had to delay their electric vehicle plans until the patents expired or until Lithium-ion technology matured enough to replace them.

2. The Early Incandescent Light Bulb (Woodward & Evans Patent)

Thomas Edison is credited with inventing the commercial light bulb, but he did it partly by buying out his competition to eliminate threats to his business model.

• The Tech: In 1874, two Canadian inventors named Henry Woodward and Mathew Evans patented a light bulb that used a carbon filament in a non-oxidizing nitrogen environment—a very similar concept to what Edison wanted to build.

• The Acquisition: Realizing that this prior patent could legally challenge his own work and create a massive market competitor, Edison bought the Canadian and U.S. patent rights from Woodward and Evans in 1879 for $5,000 (a significant sum at the time).

• The Suppression: Edison didn’t use their specific design; instead, he acquired it to neutralize the legal and commercial threat, ensuring his own version of the technology would dominate the market without interference.

3. Early Telephone Technology (Western Union & Gray)

During the birth of telecommunications, a massive corporate battle took place over who would control the future of the telephone.

• The Tech: Elisha Gray and Alexander Graham Bell independently designed telephone prototypes at nearly the exact same time. Gray’s financial backers sold his technology rights to Western Union, the dominant telegraph monopoly of the era.

• The Acquisition: Western Union realized that the telephone was a direct, existential threat to their incredibly profitable telegraph network.

• The Suppression: Instead of developing Gray’s telephone technology to improve communication for the public, Western Union initially used their vast patent portfolio and resources to suppress Bell’s telephone company through aggressive lawsuits, trying to keep the telephone market from expanding and eating into their telegraph profits. (Eventually, Bell won out, and AT&T ironically grew so large it later bought Western Union’s telegraph business).

4. “Pay-for-Delay” in the Pharmaceutical Industry

While not always an outright purchase of a single patent, the pharmaceutical industry frequently utilizes a legal loophole known as “Pay-for-Delay” to suppress competition.

• The Setup: When a major drug company’s patent on a blockbuster medication is about to expire, generic drug manufacturers file patents and applications to produce cheaper versions of the drug.

• The Suppression: Rather than competing, the brand-name company will pay millions of dollars to the generic company in a legal settlement. In exchange for the cash, the generic company agrees to “shelve” its alternative version and delay entering the market for several years. The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) heavily regulates this practice because it artificially keeps drug prices high by suppressing competing patents.

What are the drugs that have been affected by "Pay-for-Delay"?

5. Defensive Patent Aggregators

In the tech sector, companies like RPX Corporation and Allied Security Trust operate on a massive scale to buy up patents for the literal purpose of keeping them out of circulation.

While they don’t do this to hurt consumers, they practice a form of protective suppression. They buy up patents from bankrupt firms or independent inventors before “patent trolls” can buy them. Once purchased, they clear the rights for their member companies (like Google, Apple, or Cisco) and effectively shelve the patents so they can never be used in a lawsuit to disrupt the tech ecosystem.

QUESTIONS:

1. Should the federal government have stripped/bought Chevron’s patent, based on Chevron’s conflict of interest and alleged withholding of the patent in contravention of patents’ goal to promote progress?

2. Do you believe GM’s EV1 electric car was withdrawn because of a lack of demand? Was the path to profitability unattractive at the time?

3. Are you familiar with some of the pharmeuetical drugs that have been subject to “pay-for-delay”? How much has this tactic cost people you know or insurers you use?

ELSEWHERE:

NiMH Battery Pattens

Stanford R. Ovshinsky invented and patented a popular improvement of the NiMH battery and founded Ovonic Battery Company in 1982. General Motors purchased Ovonics’ patent in 1994. By the late 1990s, NiMH batteries were being used successfully in many fully electric vehicles, such as the General Motors EV1 and Dodge Caravan EPIC minivan.

This generation of electric cars, although successful, was abruptly pulled off the market.

In October 2000, the patent was sold to Texaco, and a week later Texaco was acquired by Chevron. Chevron’s Cobasys subsidiary provides these batteries only to large OEM orders. General Motors shut down production of the EV1, citing lack of battery availability as a chief obstacle. Cobasys control of NiMH batteries created a patent encumbrance for large automotive NiMH batteries.^{[42] [43] [44] [45] [46]}

• ^{Everything.explained.today}

General Motors EV1 Electric Car

The General Motors EV1 is a subcompact car that was produced from 1996 to 1999 by the American automaker General Motors (GM). A two-door, two-seat coupe, it was the first attempt by a major American automaker at a purpose-built, mass-produced electric vehicle following the 1990 introduction of the emissions standards in the US.

In 1990, GM debuted the battery electric Impact prototype, from which the design of the production EV1 was largely inspired. The California Air Resources Board enacted a mandate that year, stating that the seven leading automakers marketing vehicles in the US must produce and sell zero-emissions vehicles to maintain access to the California market. GM began manufacturing the car in 1996. In its initial stages of production, most of them were leased to consumers in California, Arizona, and Georgia. Within a year of the EV1’s release, leasing programs were also launched in various other American states.

Produced in two short generations, the EV1 featured a lightweight aluminum frame and a three-phase AC induction motor capable of producing 137 brake horsepower (102 kW). At the 1998 Detroit Auto Show, GM unveiled several EV1 prototypes, comprising a series hybrid, a parallel hybrid, a compressed natural gas variant, and a four-door conversion. Despite favorable customer reception, GM believed that electric cars occupied an unprofitable niche of the automobile market, ultimately reclaiming and crushing most of the cars. In 2003, GM terminated the EV1 program, disregarding protests from customers.

The EV1’s cancellation has remained a subject of dispute. Electric car enthusiasts, environmental interest groups, and former EV1 lessees have accused the company of self-sabotaging its electric car program to avoid potential losses in spare parts sales, while also blaming the oil industry for conspiring to keep electric cars off the road. Its discontinuation inspired the documentary film Who Killed the Electric Car? (2006), and at the time, GM gained a reputation as the company “that killed the electric car”.

EV1 Counter-Argument:

The EV1 was unprofitable (initially), but GM developed the car anyway to meet the 1990 California Air Resources Board (CARB). In 2002 the automakers lobbied to weaken the mandate and no longer had the incentive to maintain the EV1 program. This still isn’t conclusive about what should have been done with the battery patents. (Gemini)

In Fyodor Dostoyevsky’s story “The Grand Inquisitor,” Jesus returns to earth at the time of the Spanish Inquisition.

The Grand Inquisitor confronts a returned Christ. The Inquisitor argues that Jesus fundamentally misunderstood human nature by giving humanity the burden of free will, which they are too weak to bear. The Grand Inquistor argues that humanity would be better off if Jesus hadn’t rejected Satan’s temptations of Miracle, Mystery, and Authority.

For literary critic Edward Wasiolek, it is Christ who is guilty and cruel, and it is the Grand Inquisitor who is kind and innocent. It is Christ who demands that men suffer for Him, whereas the Grand Inquisitor suffers for men."1

3 Temptations of Jesus

Charismatic Christian nationalists2 seek two of the three powers from Jesus’s Temptation — eliminating Mystery & claiming Authority.

1. Miracle: turn these stones to bread. (see more below)

2. Mystery: cast yourself down .. God will prove your divinity to humanity lest you dash your foot upon the stone.

   1. Charismatic Christians seek miraculous displays of healing, signs and wonders to prove that their version of Christianity is the right one ( and special)

3. Authority: Christian Nationalists seek a state religion so that the country has a common worship, under a Christian nation.

The Grand Inquisitor | Dostoyevsky

According to the Inquisitor, there are only three powers on earth capable of conquering the human conscience and providing the happiness of security. These three powers correspond directly to the three temptations of Christ in the wilderness:

1. Miracle (The Temptation of Bread)

The first power is Miracle, which addresses humanity’s base physical needs and their deep desire for something material to worship.

• The Concept: The Inquisitor argues that humans care far less about abstract spiritual freedom than they do about physical survival and certainty. If you feed them, they will follow you.

• The Example Given: This refers to the first temptation in the desert, where Satan asks Jesus to turn stones into bread. Jesus refused, declaring that “man lives not by bread alone.” * The Inquisitor’s Critique: The Inquisitor calls this a massive mistake. He argues that by refusing to buy mankind’s obedience with bread, Jesus left them starving and confused. The Church, however, chose to accept this power. They give the people bread, and in return, the people gladly surrender their freedom.

2. Mystery (The Temptation of the Pinnacle)

The second power is Mystery, which addresses humanity’s need for absolute, unquestioning faith and a desire to feel that someone else holds the secrets to existence.

• The Concept: Human beings do not want the anxiety of choosing what is right or wrong on their own. They want to submit to a mystical, higher authority that tells them what to believe without requiring proof or personal responsibility.

• The Example Given: This refers to the temptation where Satan takes Jesus to the pinnacle of the temple and tells Him to cast Himself down, for the angels would catch Him and prove His divinity. Jesus refused, refusing to “tempt the Lord.”

• The Inquisitor’s Critique: The Inquisitor argues that humans need miracles and mystery to keep their faith intact. By refusing to show a dazzling, undeniable sign of His power, Jesus demanded a faith that was free and uncoerced. The Inquisitor claims that humans are too weak for that; they need the mystery preserved by a ruling elite to feel safe.

3. Authority (The Temptation of the Kingdoms)

The third power is Authority (or Universal Unity), which addresses mankind’s universal craving for someone to rule over them and unite the world under one banner.

• The Concept: The ultimate torment of human beings is the search for someone to bow down to. Furthermore, they desire a common worship—a state where everyone agrees and submits to the exact same ruler, eliminating the conflict caused by differing beliefs.

• The Example Given: This refers to the final temptation, where Satan shows Jesus all the kingdoms of the world and offers them to Him if Jesus will bow down and worship him. Jesus rejected worldly power.

• The Inquisitor’s Critique: The Inquisitor states that the Church openly admitted to taking what Jesus rejected: the sword of Caesar. By accepting worldly authority, the Church rules over men, takes away the crushing burden of their free will, and gives them a peaceful, managed existence.

In summary: The Grand Inquisitor claims that by rejecting Miracle, Mystery, and Authority, Jesus acted as if He didn’t love humanity at all, demanding too much of them. The Inquisitor’s Church “corrected” His work by utilizing these three forces to make mankind happy, obedient, and captive forever.

QUESTIONS:

1. After reading the allegory of the spoons in heaven, how close can we get achieving universal “bread?”

2. Did you remember that the root of the temptation of Jesus throwing himself off the temple (#2) was the temptation for Christ to prove his divinity by a public miracle?

3. How should one approach people that seek Authority over all the kingdoms of the world (temptation #3)?

ELSEWHERE:

The Grand Inquisitor (pdf), By Fyodor Dostoyevsky, from The Brothers Karamazov (1880, II v 5) Translated from the Russian by Richard Pevear and Larissa Volokhonsky

Spark Notes: Book 5: Pro and Contra, Chapter 5: The Grand Inquisitor, The Brothers Karamazov

Irwin Weil on Dostoyevsky

25-minute Long form production of “The Grand Inquisitor” from 1975

https://www.flickr.com/photos/paullew/33106633202

FOOTNOTES:

Gemini

The idea that Heaven and Hell are actually the exact same location is a profound concept found in various theological, philosophical, and literary traditions. Instead of being two separate physical places on a map, the theory suggests that Heaven and Hell are the same reality, but experienced differently based on the condition of a person’s soul.

Here is how different traditions and thinkers break down this concept:

1. The Eastern Orthodox Christian View

In Eastern Orthodox theology, this is actually a standard doctrine rather than a fringe theory.

• The River of Fire: God’s presence and unconditional love are often described as an uncreated light or fire.

• The Experience: When a person dies, they enter into the immediate presence of God’s love.

  • For those who love God and have purified their hearts, this divine light is experienced as indescribable joy, warmth, and paradise (Heaven).

  • For those who have hardened their hearts, rejected love, and prefer selfishness, that very same divine light feels like burning, exposure, and torment (Hell).

The Analogy: Think of the sun. The exact same sunlight softens wax but hardens clay. The sun isn’t doing two different things; the reaction depends entirely on the material receiving the light.

2. The Famous “Spoons” Allegory

There is a famous global parable (often called the Allegory of the Long Spoons) that perfectly illustrates this idea:

• The Scene: A traveler is granted a tour of both Heaven and Hell. First, they visit Hell. They see a massive banquet table piled high with delicious food, but everyone is starving, miserable, and screaming. Why? Because their arms are strapped to six-foot-long spoons, and they cannot bend their elbows to feed themselves.

• The Twist: The traveler then visits Heaven. To their surprise, the room is exactly the same—the same table, the same food, and the same six-foot-long spoons. However, in Heaven, everyone is happy, well-fed, and singing.

• The Difference: In Heaven, the people are using the long spoons to feed each other across the table. The environment is identical; the mindset and relationship to others create the Heaven or the Hell.

3. Literary and Philosophical Interpretations

Many writers and philosophers have toyed with the idea that the afterlife is a mirror of our internal state.

• John Milton (Paradise Lost): Satan famously remarks, “The mind is its own place, and in itself can make a Heaven of Hell, a Hell of Heaven.” This suggests that our mental and spiritual state dictates our reality, regardless of our physical surroundings.

• Jean-Paul Sartre: In his play No Exit, three deceased characters are locked in a plain, ordinary room together. There are no flames or pitchforks, yet they torture each other psychologically just by being who they are, leading to the famous line, “Hell is other people.”

• Summary

  • Ultimately, the idea that “Heaven and Hell are the same place” shifts the focus away from afterlife geography and places it entirely on human disposition. It argues that joy and torment are not external punishments or rewards handed out by a judge, but the natural, internal consequences of how we choose to live, love, and perceive reality.

QUESTIONS:

1. Would you want to be in a place where the first are last and the last are first?

2. Rather than solely “believing” in God as the key to salvation, does it make more sense to orient oneself to the type of “Kingdom of God” Jesus described?

3. How did Jesus describe the “Kingdom of Heaven”?

The plan was to create a loss-leading spectacle which would attract attention.

Then the event wast to be an advertisement used to sell supplements to the public.

• 91% used Testosterone

• 79% used Human Growth Hormone

• 29% used Anabolic Steroids

But only 1 world record was “broken” because they only trained for 4 months!

QUESTIONS:

1. Are you surprised that only 1 world record was “broken”?

2. Are you surprised that some “enhanced” athletes did worse than their high school results?

3. Why do you think the “enhanced” athletes didn’t do as well?

4. How many records do you think will be broken if they have another year or two to train?

5. Do you think the sponsors will recover their sponsorship amounts?

ELSEWHERE:

• Scott Carney Investigates (substack)

• enhanced.com

Claim Summary:

Jimmy Dore doesn’t believe that September 11, 2001 was Lutnick’s son’s first day of kindergarten. Does it check out?

Short Answer: Yes, we can have reasonable confidence, that September 11, 2001 was Luknick’s son’s first day of kindergarten, although I can’t prove it with primary documents.

Evaluating the Claim:

On first level of inspection, Jimmy Dore appears correct but this claim requires at least 4 levels of inspection.

Levels of Inspection:

1. New York City High Schools started on September 5, 2001. New York used a “staggered start”:

   New York City Elementary and Middle Schools started on September 6, 2001.

2. Horace Mann, where Lutnick’s son went, is private, and is alleged to have a staggered start, beginning on September 10 for grades 1 though 12 and September 11 for kindergarten and nursery school.

3. I have not seen a primary document backing up this claim about about a staggered September 11, 2001 kindergarten start date, but it is consistent with staggered public schools and an archived Horace Mann document which shows the existance of Horace Mann staggard starts for at least 2016-2020.

4. To fully prove the claim, you need access a primary source document, so we can conclusively say that Dore is incorrect.

Conclusion:

Although I do not have the Horace Mann primary documents from 2001 - 2002, the public schools used a staggered start in 2001, as did Horace Mann in 2016-2020.

• It seems more plausible that Horace Mann’s kindergarten used a staggered schedule in 2001, than that Horace Mann’s hadn’t been using a staggered schedule on September 10, 2001 and only adopted a staggered schedule later (by at least 2016, when we have the the first available digital copy of their calendar.)

QUESTIONS:

1. Is Jimmy Dore assuming the Sept 5, 2001 start date for his claim?

2. Is Jimmy Dore assuming that the kindergartners did not use a staggered start at Horace Mann?

3. Do you know of primary source evidence that Horace Mann (where Howard Lutnick’s son went to school) was not using a staggered start?

I admit that there is a technical need to distinguish between traditional (kinetic) action and cyber (non-kinetic) action, but did the military really need to repurpose an obscure word from physics?

I think the larger motivation is the desire to create a “sterile, bureaucratic [euphamism] to describe the stark realities of combat and lethal force.” (Gemini)

Might a clearer alternative to “kinetic” action be “violent”action as compared with “non-violent” action?

QUESTIONS:

1. What are the best clear alternatives for the military’s term “kinetic?”

2. How much do you believe the military’s language was guided by a genuine desire to establish a more precise way of distinguishing between tradition violence and non-violent means, such as cyber attacks?

3. Does calling it “kinetic action” reduce the conscience’s resistance to participating in violence?

4. List as many corporate or military euphemisms as you can, ranked from most double-speak, to least. Are there different types of euphemisms, such as “garage man” = “sanitation engineer”, or “Walmart associate” or “rapid unscheduled disassembly” (crash)r?

DETAILS: (Gemini Results )

Q: Please define what the military means by "kinetic" action.

A: In military and intelligence parlance, “kinetic” action refers to the use of lethal, physical force to achieve a tactical or strategic objective.

To put it bluntly: it is a euphemism for traditional warfare. If an operation involves bombs, bullets, missiles, or troops on the ground physically engaging an enemy, it is considered kinetic.

Here is a breakdown of how the term is used, why it’s used, and what contrasts with it.

Key Characteristics of Kinetic Operations

• Physical Destruction: The primary goal or method is the physical destruction of an enemy’s assets, infrastructure, or personnel.

• Measurable Damage: The success of a kinetic strike is usually measured through traditional Battle Damage Assessment (BDA)—such as a destroyed bunker, a disabled tank, or a compromised runway.

• Active Engagement: It includes everything from a sniper round or a drone strike to full-scale artillery barrages and amphibious assaults.

Why Use the Word “Kinetic”?

The term originates from physics, where kinetic energy is the energy an object possesses due to its motion ($KE = \frac{1}{2}mv^2$). In a military context, it was popularized in the early 2000s (prominently during the war in Afghanistan and the 2003 invasion of Iraq) for a few reasons:

1. Precision: It allows planners to differentiate between physical destruction and other modern forms of warfare.

2. Clinical Language: Like many military terms, it provides a sterile, bureaucratic way to describe the stark realities of combat and lethal force.

The Opposite: “Non-Kinetic” Action

To fully understand “kinetic,” it helps to look at its counterpart. Non-kinetic warfare refers to operations that change the operational environment or defeat an enemy without using physical, destructive force.

Today's military strategies almost always combine both, using non-kinetic operations (like disabling an air defense radar via a cyber disruption) to pave the way for a kinetic operation (the actual airstrike).

The “presumption of regularity” is a legal term describing when a court gives the government’s lawyers the benefit of the doubt unless proven to the contrary. This involves trusting that the government lawyers are telling the truth when they file a motion or speak in court.

With cases like the Oregon DOJ Voter Lawsuit, a judge withheld this benefit of the doubt.

Follow up: Brandolini’s Law

Brandolini’s law (or the bullshit asymmetry principle) is an Internet adage coined in 2013 by Italian programmer Alberto Brandolini. It compares the considerable effort of debunking misinformation to the relative ease of creating it in the first place. The adage states:

The amount of energy needed to refute bullshit is an order of magnitude bigger than that needed to produce it.^[1][2]

In an example of Brandolini’s law during the COVID-19 pandemic, Jeff Yates, a disinformation journalist at Radio-Canada, described the experience of debunking a popular YouTube video spreading COVID-19 medical misinformation presented by a pineapple importer: “He makes all kinds of different claims. I had to check every single one of them. I had to call relevant experts and talk to them. I had to transcribe those interviews. I had to write a text that is legible and interesting to read. It’s madness. It took this guy 15 minutes to make his video and it took me three days to fact-check.”^[9]

What happens when the presumption of regularity meets brandolini’s law?

Tim’s explanation: The court stops giving the government lawyers the benefit of the doubt so that the plaintiff’s lawyers face a less asymmetric challenge of refuting their claims.

California Governor’s Race

In the the case of Butch Ware, the candidate for Governor was knocked out of the race by a false allegation that his paperwork wasn’t properly redacted. This claim was was reported to his campaign by email ten minutes before the deadline. Ware was able to appeal, whereupon a judge found the redaction claim against him baseless, but the Democrats said the ballots had already been printed without his name on them.

I don’t know if the Democrats were malicious in knocking Ware off the ballot, but I have enough suspicion to make me think the immediate remedy should be to reprint the ballots. And besides, was the the alleged error — not redacting your phone number — so severe as to warrant knocking a contender out of the race. Ware’s appeal found that all information was properly redacted. It was just a false alarm.

There’s a saying that it is better to exonerate 9 guilty men rather than to wrongfully convict 1 man.

A similar principle would be: where mischief is suspected, or the error was made by the government, it is better to print a new ballot than leave stand the appearance of alleged wrongdoing.

To require candidates to unnecessarily overcome this type of potential law-fare undermines the legitimacy of the electoral process and results in some voters concluding electoral politics is rigged. If we don’t want that to be the case we need to make the current system work.

QUESTIONS:

1. This loss of the “presumption of regularity” has only occurred in a small number of cases. How broadly do you see it being applied in the next few years?

2. How pervasively do you see this loss of trust affecting trust in other institutions?

3. How long will it take for the Department of Justice to regain the courts’ trust?

ELSEWHERE:

• Wikipedia definition

MORE DETAIL:

Gemini Request:

Q: How did George Washington obtain his land in America?

A: George Washington was one of the largest landowners in 18th-century America, accumulating tens of thousands of acres over his lifetime. He didn’t inherit all of it; rather, he obtained his vast landholdings through a combination of inheritance, a wealthy marriage, aggressive land speculation, and military service bounties.

Here is the breakdown of how Washington acquired his estate.

1. Inheritance (The Foundation)

While Washington became immensely wealthy, he did not start out as the richest man in Virginia.

• Little Hunting Creek (Mount Vernon): In 1743, when George was 11, his father Augustine died. The family’s primary estate, Mount Vernon (then called Little Hunting Creek), was left to George’s older half-brother, Lawrence. George inherited a smaller property, Ferry Farm.

• Lawrence’s Death: In 1752, Lawrence died of tuberculosis. He left Mount Vernon to his daughter, but with the provision that if she died without heirs, the lease would pass to George. She passed away shortly after, and by 1754, George was leasing the property from Lawrence’s widow. He inherited it outright when she died in 1761.

  Thanks for reading openpolitics! This post is public so feel free to share it.

  Share

2. A Wealthy Marriage

In 1759, Washington married Martha Dandridge Custis, a young and incredibly wealthy widow.

• Martha’s late husband, Daniel Parke Custis, had left behind an enormous estate, including roughly 18,000 acres of land and hundreds of enslaved laborers.

• As her husband, George became the legal administrator of the “Custis Dower” lands. While he didn’t technically own all of this land outright (portions were held in trust for Martha’s children), it vastly increased his financial power, gave him immediate control over lucrative tobacco-producing properties, and allowed him to buy even more land.

3. Military Bounties

Washington used his military service to secure massive tracts of frontier land, particularly in the Ohio River Valley (modern-day western Pennsylvania, West Virginia, and Ohio).

• The French and Indian War: To incentivize enlistment during the war, Virginia Governor Robert Dinwiddie promised land bounties to volunteers.

• The 1754 Proclamation: As the commander of the Virginia Regiment, Washington was entitled to a massive share of these bounties. After the war, he aggressively pooled his certificates and even bought up the land rights of ordinary soldiers who preferred quick cash over distant frontier land. Through this, he secured over 20,000 acres of prime wilderness.

4. Land Speculation and Surveying

Before he was a military commander or president, Washington was a professional surveyor. Starting at age 16, this job gave him firsthand knowledge of which frontier lands were the most fertile and valuable.

• The Mississippi Company: Washington invested heavily in land speculation companies, which sought to acquire massive Western land grants from the British crown to survey, subdivide, and sell to incoming settlers.

• Patents and Purchases: Throughout his adult life, Washington constantly used his profits from tobacco and wheat farming to buy up adjacent properties around Mount Vernon, expanding it from a 2,100-acre estate into an 8,000-acre enterprise divided into five distinct farms.

The Grand Total: By the time of his death in 1799, George Washington owned more than 52,000 acres of land across Virginia, Pennsylvania, Maryland, New York, Kentucky, and the Ohio territory, making him one of the wealthiest citizens in the newly formed United States.

QUESTIONS:

1. George Washington didn’t have any children. He inherited quite a bit of property from his parents and his wife. Why did he want to acquire so much more property? What good did it do him?

2. What does it say about George Washington that he invested heavily in land speculation businesses?

3. Washington bought up certificates from enlistees in the French and Indian war who wanted immediate cash. Is it problematic that the government paid soldiers out of the proceeds of the Indian land that was taken; and the commander of the regiment pooled the certificates of soldiers who wanted immediate cash?

When other countries deal with oil constraints, it prompts them to explore efficiency and other options like EV. China’s BYD is an EV (Electric Vehicle) leader and China’s supply chains are holding up better than the US.

Many countries feel that it is better depend upon China than the US.

1. Obama: voters desired change from Bush

2. Trump: Make America Great Again

3. Biden: Back to Normalcy

4. Trump: America First

There is a saying:

• “No Matter who you vote for, you always get John McCain”

The John McCain Quote expresses a cynicism that no matter how you vote, you always get John McCain’s foreign policy.

• “The Who” suggested that the “Revolutions of the 1960s” don’t cause lasting change: Meet the new boss. Same as the old boss.

Transcript

.. do you guys know where this started because I am super super curious now I think maybe it's

16:51

this be crazy

[Music]

There's nothing in the street
Looks any different to me
And the slogans are effaced, by-the-bye
And the parting on the left
Is now the parting on the right
And the beards have all grown longer overnight

that bass line was like so delicious

[Music]

huh that it basically sounds like they’re saying that this revolution happened and

nothing’s really changed is that what I’m getting uh beards have grown longer overnight I guess that changed but that the party on

the left is now The Parting on the right yeah it sounds like not much is different that’s a bummer

17:58

I wouldn’t want to go through all of that for not much change

Andrew s to choose

Pickup my guitar and play just like yesterday

We don’t get fooled again!

[Music]

just like yesterday yeah

oh my gosh I I feel like this message just clicked to me and whoa

um that is a very very strong statement essentially saying like you’ve gone to

all of this trouble and you’ve uh had lots of deaths and upheaval life and life is pretty much the same as it was

before I’m still playing my guitar um and saying Don’t Get Fooled Again Don’t Get Fooled Again but it kind of sounds like there’s not much

hope that that won’t happen from the way that they’re delivering it uh that is such an amazing commentary for

things today too uh whoa whoa I’m sort of internalizing that for a little bit this is going to take a bit

to digest oh my gosh okay let’s go back and hear that section one more time because I need some I need some time

The beards have grown long overnight

pickup my guitar and pray, just like yester

We don’’t get fooled again.

[Applause]

[Music]

just like yesterday and I’ll get on my knees

oh my gosh whoa so this is this is so fascinating to me because it feels like such a

statement about society and I know that there are times when revolutions are so important that there’s an oppressive regime and it is making it impossible for people to live well for voices to be heard I hate it when people censor music so that’s one of my personal pet peeves and uh but then I understand also that sometimes we just make a big deal about something and there’s really not that much change that comes from it and it feels frustrating

um and somebody says oh I’m going to change a law but then there really isn’t any practical change in the end and I totally get that it feels like they’re

talking about drama and writing that happens but not actual uh not a big shift in life

it makes you for me it’s making me really think about okay I need to be careful about how much energy I pour into certain things there are some things that you can affect that really really matter and then there’s some things that maybe

21:16

I need to just not be so stressed about but maybe my takeaway right now is that you should pick your battles carefully

Gemini Response:

Q: What is the meaning of the lyrics of The Who's "Won't get fooled again"?

A: Written by guitarist Pete Townshend and released in 1971 on the album Who’s Next, “Won’t Get Fooled Again” is one of rock history’s most famous anthems. While its high-energy, stadium-rock sound makes it sound like a passionate call to arms, the actual lyrics tell a much different story.

At its core, the song is about political disillusionment, the failure of revolutions, and deep cynicism toward those in power. The meaning of the lyrics can be broken down into several key themes and historical contexts:

1. The Cyclical Nature of Power (”Meet the new boss, same as the old boss”)

The final line of the song—“Meet the new boss, same as the old boss”—summarizes its entire thesis. Townshend wrote the song to argue that political revolutions rarely change anything for the average person.

In the beginning of the song, there is a righteous uprising (“We’ll be fighting in the streets”), and the old system is overthrown. However, by the end of the song, the idealistic revolutionaries who led the charge have simply stepped into the shoes of the dictators they replaced. They become just as corrupt, authoritarian, and controlling as the previous government. Townshend is warning that human nature dictates that whoever gains power will eventually abuse it.

2. Disillusionment with the 1960s Counterculture

Townshend wrote the song as the optimism of the 1960s “peace and love” hippie movement was curdling into the harsher reality of the 1970s. He became incredibly skeptical of self-proclaimed counterculture leaders who claimed they were going to radically change the world.

A specific turning point for Townshend happened at the 1969 Woodstock festival, where political activist Abbie Hoffman hijacked the microphone during The Who’s set to give a political speech. Townshend famously kicked Hoffman off the stage with his guitar. Recalling his mindset during that era, Townshend later told Creem magazine:

“I wrote ‘Won’t Get Fooled Again’ as a reaction to all that—’Leave me out of it: I don’t think your lot would be any better than the other lot!’ All those hippies wandering about thinking the world was going to be different... As a cynical English arsehole, I walked through it all and felt like... trying to make them realise that nothing had changed and nothing was going to change.”

3. Key Lyrical Breakdowns

• “And the parting on the left / Are now parting on the right / And the beards have all grown longer overnight” This lines explicitly highlights how quickly political movements shift. The revolutionaries on the political left have succeeded, aged, and essentially become the conservative establishment on the right.

• “I’ll tip my hat to the new constitution / Take a bow for the new revolution / Smile and grin at the change all around / Pick up my guitar and play / Just like yesterday” Instead of fighting or buying into the propaganda of the “new regime,” the narrator chooses a path of passive compliance and personal survival. He will politely nod along to whatever government is in charge, but he refuses to give them his soul or his allegiance. His true loyalty remains to his own life and his art (“Pick up my guitar and play”).

• “I’ll get on my knees and pray / We don’t get fooled again” The title phrase is framed as a prayer rather than an aggressive boast. It is a plea for personal autonomy and a vow to never again blindly follow political saviors, demagogues, or ideological movements.

4. The Lifehouse Context

The song was originally written for Townshend’s abandoned sci-fi rock opera, Lifehouse. In the plot of that project, a dystopian government forces a climate-ravaged populace to live in “experience suits” controlled by a central grid. A group of rebels hacks the grid and organizes a massive rock concert to achieve universal, spiritual enlightenment through music.

“Won’t Get Fooled Again” was meant to close the opera. In the story, after the concert achieves its spiritual climax, the main characters transcend to a higher consciousness and disappear, leaving the tyrannical government and the military behind with no one left to oppress but themselves. Roger Daltrey’s famous, earth-shattering scream near the end of the track symbolizes the ultimate release of frustration and a definitive break from systemic oppression.

Summary

“Won’t Get Fooled Again” is an anti-establishment song that is also deeply anti-revolution. It serves as a timeless warning to keep a healthy skepticism toward politicians of all parties. It argues that true freedom isn’t found by changing who sits at the top of the political ladder, but by safeguarding your own personal independence and refusing to let your mind be co-opted by any mass movement.

The presumption of regularity: Where it has been proved that an “official act” has been done, it will be presumed, until the contrary is proved, that the said act “complied with any necessary formalities” and that the person who did it was “duly appointed”. (wikipedia)

Summary:

1. Judicial Deference and Broken Trust with the DOJ

• The Presumption of Regularity: The hosts discuss how judges have historically operated under a “presumption of regularity”—the baseline assumption that the Department of Justice (DOJ) and government attorneys act strictly by the book as officers of the court whose sole goal is to do justice.

• Loss of Trust: This systemic trust has been broken due to repeated government oversteps. Specific examples are cited, including a judge in the Broadview case who explicitly stated she could no longer trust what the government said, and a decision in Abraik Garcia where a judge ruled that the government had vindictively prosecuted an individual.

• Long-Term Institutional Damage: Mary McCord notes that as a former longtime DOJ attorney, it is painful to witness the “immeasurable” damage being done to the institution. She emphasizes that a future administration dedicated to the rule of law will face a massive hurdle in rebuilding credibility with federal judges.

2. The Challenge of Rebuilding the DOJ

• Hiring Practices and Loyalty Tests: The conversation touches on how the current administration has fundamentally altered the department by seeking to terminate career employees who disagree, and by hiring individuals based on a “litmus test of loyalty” (such as asking job applicants who won the 2020 election).

• The Dilemma of Restructuring: Rebuilding the department poses a difficult challenge. While completely “cleaning house” runs the risk of looking like a retaliatory political cycle and strips the DOJ of vital institutional memory, leaving politically loyalist hires in place makes digging out of the trust deficit much harder. The hosts consider alternatives like probation periods or forcing personnel to reapply for their jobs.

• Prosecutorial Integrity: McCord reflects on her early days as a prosecutor, emphasizing that a DOJ attorney’s most valuable asset is absolute candor—presenting bad facts and weak points openly to the judge so that the department’s representations can always be taken at face value.

3. The Indictment of Raul Castro

• The Historical Context: The DOJ recently issued a relatively bare-bones indictment against 94-year-old Raul Castro, the former defense minister, president, and brother of Fidel Castro. The indictment stems from a 1996 incident involving the shooting down of aircraft operated by the humanitarian group Brothers to the Rescue (Hermanos al Rescate), which was assisting Cuban migrants.

• Geopolitical Pressure vs. Law: Because the events took place three decades ago, the hosts question the unusual timing. They debate whether a sudden break in decades-old evidence occurred (similar to the Lockerbie bombing case updates), or if the criminal justice tool is being improperly used as a geopolitical lever to apply pressure to the current Cuban regime.

• The “Dunro Doctrine”: The hosts link the indictment to broader shifts in foreign policy where the administration appears to be abdicating its traditional role as a global superpower, focusing instead on asserting regional hegemony over countries like Venezuela and Cuba (coined by the president as the “Dunro Doctrine,” a play on the Monroe Doctrine).

4. Concluding Remarks

• The host notes that the overarching theme of the episode is that every discussed policy or legal maneuver “feels illegal,” prompting the show’s title, The Illegal News.

• The episode concludes with lighthearted banter regarding the shift from wearing “soft pants” (joggers) on Zoom during the 2020 pandemic to the unfortunate post-pandemic return of “hard pants” (jeans) due to leaving the house and resuming in-person life.

Transcript

35:10

I mean, I don’t know how many times I’ve had versions of this conversations with our rotating cast of lawyers about the judges because this is one thing I have really learned doing this show is the difference that the government gets from judges or the judges basically says like I trust that the government is telling me the truth and that like increasingly the judges can no longer trust the government to be telling the truth.

That’s 100% and you know um there’s different cataloges of this on just security. They’ve been cataloging every time a judge is like that presumption of regularity, which is what we call it. We as judges, we’re going to presume that DOJ is doing things by the book and frankly that all the government is doing things by the book. That’s out the window because you violated it too many times. This idea and she specifically, this judge in the Broadview case specifically said, I trusted what you would say. I treat every attorney who appears before me as an officer of the court, but I put even more reliance on the Department of Justice attorneys. your sole goal is to do justice, that trust has been broken. And we’re seeing this, like you said, over and over and over again. And again, the the judge’s decision in a break Garcia was also saying, I can’t trust the government. You vindictively prosecuted this person. You know, as a former longtime multi-dead DOJ attorney, it pains me because the damage to the Department of Justice is just at this point immeasurable. And at some point in the future, if we get to that point where we have a rule of law based administration, they’re going to have to rebuild that trust. And it may not be with some of the people who are there right now.

Actually, just a quick point of privilege on this one cuz we debate this uh at the bull work a lot around sort of when you watch all of this stuff getting torn down. I mean, and this goes across the board. It’s like, will other countries ever trust us again? You know, can we trust our legal system? All of this stuff. What does it look like to rebuild the trust in DOJ? Is it just like you got to get everyone out and hire completely new people? Is that what you do?

That is such an important and hard question to my mind because I I do think there is a danger. I mean, this is what essentially Trump has done right through his DOJ is let’s just fire anyone who disagrees with us. And that looks really awful. Well, I mean, the vast majority of attorneys at DOJ are career, not political attorneys and have worked under Republican administrations and Democratic administrations, and they’ve always seen their oath appropriately to the Constitution, not to any person who’s in office, and they’ve followed the facts and the law where it leads. And, you know, I was years and years without ever knowing anyone’s politics in my office because we didn’t talk about that. We worked on our cases. you know, the thought of going in and kind of cleaning house feels like, oh, we’re just like now in a cycle of of of that kind of thing. And DOJ needs to have career people who understand the institution, who have good memory of like how things have been handled. But on the other hand, there are clearly people who have been hired purely based on a litmus test of loyalty to Donald Trump and potentially even ask questions like who won the 2020 election. I mean, there certainly has been reporting that those questions have been asked. And so, how does a new Department of Justice determine sort of who to keep and who not to keep? And do you give everybody the benefit of the doubt to start with and then but you say, you know, maybe people are going to be on a probationary time and we’re going to, you know, wait and see or do you make everyone reapply for their jobs? I mean, there’s lots of possibilities there. I will say though, I worry about, you know, continuing what will then be portrayed as some sort of cycle of retribution. Um, and so I think we have to think long and carefully about it. But if there aren’t some changes, I think it’ll be a much harder to dig out of this hole that DOJ is in in terms of having lost the trust of the judges. as a prosecutor when I went into court and this was from day one Sarah and this is because my anecdote my view was look the most important thing I have in front of the judges who I’m going to appear in front of over and over and over again is that they trust my integrity and my judgment and they know I will never ever ever lie to them, stretch the truth to them, be anything less than perfectly candid. That means I tell them the good arguments I have. I tell them the bad facts and the bad things that hurt the government because I want when I walk in the courtroom, the judge to be like, “That’s Mary McCord. I I feel good about what the government’s, you know, doing and saying and representing.” I mean, that is what you have as a DOJ attorney. And when that is lost, um it’s just, you know, it’s a it’s a big big deal.

Well, there’ll be years for us to talk about this. Uh, and I want to talk about it more because I I’m I am increasingly obsessed with like what the right things are to think about. But first, first, uh, we’re going to need new people in power to even start to to to get there. Um, all right. The last thing I want to talk about before we get out of here, I don’t know very much about this at all. It’s something uh, this Castro indictment. It is something that I have seen in the news. I understand just a little bit about, but this is your like core. This is what you know, right? This is national security law. And so the DOJ has indicted Raul Castro, the Cuban political leader, former president, uh, and brother of Fidel Castro. And I don’t, this is all important because like maybe we’re gonna invade Cuba. Uh, it’s starting to feel like that could happen. Can you just give me the lay of the land on why we’re suddenly indicting Rel Castro?

Well, I cannot give you the lay of the land on why we’re suddenly indicting Raul Castro because this is, of course, for something that happened back in 1996. Now, I had my first child in 1996, and he will be turning 30 years old uh this year. Now, I got my driver’s license that year.

There you go. Shows how much older I am than you, too.

So, the now I will say one of the things the Department of Justice says is look, we our memories are long and if we have the ability to bring to somebody someone to justice who deserves to be brought to justice, we will do it no matter how long it takes. We’ve certainly done that in terrorism related cases. And I and I’ll say this is not charges of terrorism case. Um uh and so it’s not so much that 30 years have passed, but the timing is kind of unusual, right? Did something new happened that just broke open the evidence that allowed us to bring this indictment or is this um you know one that maybe had been passed on before by previous DOJs but now is thought as well maybe this can be a tool to put pressure on the Castro you know regime. Now again, of course, Raul Castro is not the president of of Cuba anymore and hasn’t been since 2018, but by all reporting, and I am not a Cuba expert. By all reporting, he still has an incredible influence there. Um, and the president, you know, has less. Um and so you know it does make you wonder is the timing of this really about pressure geopolitics and things like that or is it really about oh finally we have the evidence to bring um this person to justice for example just to talk about sort of like the long memory. You remember the Lockerby shooting pan pan the shooting down over Scotland um long long long time ago. work, work, work, work, work to try to develop evidence to hold someone accountable. And for decades, it just took, you know, you just couldn’t get there. And even when I was still at the Department in National Security, we were finally getting access to some new evidence. That case is now on track to actually, you know, be tried. So, it does happen that these things finally things break open. This is a pretty short indictment. Um, and it’s really about shooting down uh planes that were flown by uh people associated with brothers to the rec rescue, manos als um who were really trying to assist migrants who were leaving Cuba by flying planes and helping direct them and things like that. And it was a it was a they were shot down back again in 1996. And really what I see when I read the indictment is sort of like because Raul Castro was the defense minister and would have been part of the decision-making. Therefore, you know, Argo, he’s responsible for this. So, it’s unclear to me what is sort of like the evidence that really, you know, seals it. That doesn’t have to be an indictment. Indictment can be relatively bare bones, but it does make you to the timing point wonder what’s new here. And you know whether this is leading up to a Maduro type capture. I mean Raul Castro is 94 years old. Um that seems not like this government wouldn’t do it. But I wonder if it’s another a way to bring pressure in other forms as opposed to an invasion. But what do I know about that?

Yeah. And and maybe I shouldn’t even use the term invasion. My guess is because this is a a bigger thing and again foreign policy much like basically uh qualitative research and domestic policy are my areas of expertise and not uh international but based on what’s clearly shaping up is that we seem to be abdicating our role as a superpower and instead looking for kind of regional hedgeimonyy over places like Venezuela and Cuba. It does feel like we’ve decided to just exert control over this part of the globe and that that seems to be what’s happening in our foreign policy.

I think that’s consistent with things that the president has said, right? He wants his own now what’s he call it? The Dunro doctrine, right? A play on words of the Monroe Doctrine.

Dunro doctrine. Yeah.

Right. Where he thinks, you know, the western heaven he hemisphere should be ours. But using criminal tools for that, like you know, that’s not what they were actually made for.

Uh well, as the through line for this entire episode, um every single piece of this feels illegal. Um which is why this show is called the illegal news. Mary, thank you so much for doing this. I got to tell you, we blew through that because you are just like on it. No deviations like Andrew. No pleading for clothes from sponsors. just like banged out all the all the legal uh stuff we could we could ask for. And I’m not going to call you the superior co-host of Main Justice, but you are an excellent co-host of Main Justice and I really appreciate you coming on the show today. Hope you’ll do it again with me soon.

I will. I’m thrilled to be on the show. It’s such a great program and I’m such a huge admirer of you, Sarah. And actually, I will tell one story. My favorite story about you is the first time I met you back in like 2020 on some Zoom where all kinds of us who were worried about the election were on this Zoom and we’re all in these little Hollywood squares and we were talking about, you know, the the the sort of like things that came from co and I think I said something about um it’s nice to be able to wear jeans instead of a suit every day and you’re like jeans those are hard pants. I don’t wear hard pants and I’ve never forgotten that hard pants. Nobody wears hard pants when all you’re going to see is the top, you know, head of people on the Zoom. I have you to thank for no more hard pants.

That is funny. That is true that during the pandemic, I only wore like joggers and that every time I put on jeans, I was like, why would anybody do this to themselves? This is horrible. But now I’m back in hard pants.

Yes. Sucks, huh? But oh well.

Oh, yeah. Uh, but you know what? I do like being able to leave my house. So, you know, tradeoffs in life. Tradeoffs. All right, Mary. Thank you so much, guys. We’ll be back next week with more illegal news. Uh, in the meantime, don’t forget to rate, review us, and subscribe to All the Bull Work Things. See you.

Intersectionality

Intersectionality emerged out of Professor Crenshaw’s need to explain how black women were facing a different type of discrimination in hiring—the companies said we hire blacks and women, but this meant they hired black men and white women, but they did not hire black women.

Racism and sexism were not parallel forms of discrimination, but intersecting, meaning these companies did not hire at the intersection of race and sex.

0:00 Introduction
1:53 How Is Blackness Understood in Different Parts of Europe?
6:16 Denial is the Essence of Racism
8:17 A Racist Incident on Ash’s Graduation
9:33 Oprah’s Handbag: Race & Class & Critical Race Theory
13:48 What Is Intersectionality?
18:12 Intersectionality Gone Viral
23:08 The Problem With Identity Politics at University: Race Without Class
28:20 What’s the Best Strategy to Tackle Racism?
35:34 The Importance of Stories About Race: Shame Versus Empowerment
43:27 The Erasure of Multiracial Struggles for Justice
44:51 Identity Politics & Individualism
49:51 American-ness & Intersectionality
55:50 A Lost Anti-Imperialism
1:00:29 The Role of Actually Existing Communism
1:05:09 Race and Gender
1:10:02 The Politics of Music
1:17:30 Anita Hill & Clarence Thomas
1:20:17 Debating Kamala Harris’ Legacy: Weak Candidate or Victim of Misogynoir?
1:29:44 Why Do Voters Keep Choosing Fascism Over Centrism?
1:39:56 What Causes Fascism + Rioting?
1:48:38 Investment in Communities: A Rising Tide Lifts All Boats
1:53:43 The Importance of Back Talking

Lancashire Cotton Strikes

Ash Sarkar, who interviews her, tells the story of the Lancashire cotton strikes and boycotts

However in the year 1862, a then-controversial decision taken by Lancashire mill workers changed the dynamics of this booming British industry with long-lasting and historic consequences. These workers refused to use the raw cotton picked by the slaves in the Southern states of America to be processed in their looms. This decision triggered mixed response from various sections of British society: the economy suffered, unemployment rose, violence spread, but the Lancashire mill workers’ righteousness was upheld.

The boycott of cotton in Manchester was directly linked with the American Civil War. The North, led by the President Abraham Lincoln, fought the southern Confederate States of America to abolish slavery and re-establish the unified United States of America. During the height of the Civil War in America, President Lincoln persuaded leaders in the Europe not to trade Southern cotton picked by slaves. He insisted that by doing so the world leaders would help strengthen his enemies, prolong the war, and, consequently, continue to encourage slavery.

After the Lancashire workers stopped dealing with American cotton, many followed suit and the once booming cotton industry slowed considerably. Within a period of only 12 months, Lancashire started feeling the bite of the ban. Lancashire alone imported more than 1.3 billion pounds of raw cotton, all of it grown by the Southern plantation owners and picked by slaves kept in horrendous and inhumane conditions. The embargo meant that countless looms from across Lancashire had to be shut and left to rust while hundreds of workers were left without work.

Proposal: Create a White History Month : stories of righteous white abolitionists, civil rights leaders, anti-apartheid whites that don’t always get highlighted

We need a way to deal with the aftereffects of colonialization and enslavement

Asymmetric solidarity: you understand each other by struggling together

QUESTIONS:

1. Is this what you thought intersectionality is?

2. What do you think about the role of narratives of shame vs empowerment?

3. What do you think about the British use of significant money in addressing racial disparities in schooling?

4. Why do voters choose fascism over centrism?

5. Do you agree with Censhaw about the reasons for Kamala Harris’s loss?

6. Do you agree with Censhaw on the importance of backtalking?

7. Do you have other ideas for questions?

TWITTER:

[Children of Light] @luminal_church Mar 8,2024

Anyone who thinks Sam is a good person hasn’t seen an interview with him. He does mirroring. He appeases the speaker.

This is not a good trait for any human to have.

End: Twitter Post

COMMENTS:

As one board member summed up Altman, he has “two traits that are almost never seen in the same person.

1. The first is a strong desire to please people, to be liked in any given interaction.

2. The second is almost a sociopathic lack of concern for the consequences that may come from deceiving someone.”

Ars Technica

QUESTIONS:

1. Have you experienced deliberate mirroring?

   1. I believe I have, when I reported an identity theft to a police officer. He used exaggerated mirroring to try to make me feel at ease.

2. Do you know of a good video the shows an example of deliberate mirroring?

3. When is mirroring good? When is it bad?

   • My guess is that the Twitter poster above objects to the sales mirroring technique found at the end of this article:

   • “Sales mirroring technique 1: Use the three-word trick”

ARTICLES:

1) Mirroring in Interviews and the Workplace, Indeed

Mirroring is a technique that can be used in interviews, meetings and other business settings to help build a rapport with the person you’re speaking to. It’s something many people do unconsciously, but it can be learned and is a useful technique to use in interviews and sales meetings.

Start your job posting, instantly

What is mirroring?

Mirroring involves using the same phrases, postures and gestures as the person you’re speaking to. It often happens organically in friend groups and with couples. Young children also tend to mirror people they look up to. In work contexts, mirroring is something an interviewee, salesperson or manager might do deliberately to help build a rapport with someone they’ve only just met.

As an interviewer, if you notice an interviewee mirroring you subtly, this could be a sign they’re a skilled communicator. Combined with other signs of emotional intelligence, the ability to mirror people effectively is a positive attribute for anyone who is going to be in a people-facing position.

How does mirroring work?

This technique works because of a concept known as limbic synchrony. When people see someone adopt a posture or express an emotion, special types of neurons known as “mirror neurons” activate in their brain, triggering a response or feeling as if the watcher had performed the action themselves. This action is why some people find it difficult to be around those who are distressed and enjoy being around those who are happy.

Mirroring in interviews or other business contexts can subconsciously make the person you’re speaking to believe you’re their friend. This approach makes it easier to win them over. Since job interviews are a two-way process, mirroring is something both the interviewer and the interviewee can employ. When you practice mirroring as an interviewer, trainer or manager, you make the person you’re speaking to feel at ease, helping your interactions go more smoothly.

Tips for successful mirroring

Successful mirroring requires paying attention to the other person’s posture and mannerisms and reflecting them subtly, for example:

Reflecting their posture

In an interview, performance review or training scenario, you’ll most likely start with a relatively formal posture and expect the interviewee or team member to behave similarly. As the meeting progresses, you may wish to adopt a more relaxed posture to make the other person more comfortable, and they could do the same.

Pace and tone of speech

Talking loudly to someone else who speaks softly can come across as intimidating. Matching their tone could put them at ease. The same applies to the pace of speech. If you’re leading a meeting and aren’t pushed for time, trying to reflect the other person’s pacing can give them a subconscious feeling of talking to a friend.

If you find yourself rushing because you know the interview is at risk of overrunning, consider disclosing this rather than simply talking faster. This method will reduce the risk of the interviewee feeling dismissed or rushed by your sudden change in mannerisms.

Use of language

In job interviews or training scenarios, some use of jargon or formal language is expected. If you’re speaking to a prospective client or someone you’ve just met at a trade show, you’d want to communicate with them using similar language as them. That doesn’t mean dropping slang or emotive language. Staying professional is important. However, there’s little point in being stilted and formal or using language the other person would find confusing or intimidating.

Gestures and mannerisms

Pay attention to the gestures and mannerisms the other person uses. Perhaps they nod or tilt their head while you’re speaking or wave their hands when they’re talking. Work similar gestures into your own behavior during the conversation, but don’t overdo it.

The secret to successful mirroring is to be subtle. If you copy everything a person is doing in an exaggerated fashion, they may take that as a sign of disrespect. If you’re normally someone who sits still while listening, nod only if you actually agree. If you don’t naturally gesticulate but want to mirror someone who does, choose moments where it would make sense, such as gesturing for emphasis. Carefully selected motions will help you build a connection with the person you’re speaking to.

What should you avoid when mirroring?

Mirroring should be subtle. It’s important to avoid “copying” a person in a way that could be seen as offensive. This consideration is particularly important if you’re trying to build a diverse team and are interviewing people from different cultures. Some actions to avoid include the following:

• Copying a person’s accent

• Imitating any unusual speech patterns

• Mirroring hostile or negative visible demeanor (such as crossed arms)

• Immediate or exact copying of gestures

• Imitating tics or nervous gestures

Practice mirroring in low-stress social scenarios until you get used to doing it. If someone leans forward, crosses their legs or clasps their hands together, don’t immediately copy them. Instead, slowly shift your posture so it looks similar to theirs. This approach will be less obvious but will have a similar subconscious effect.

Other rapport-building techniques

Mirroring isn’t always appropriate. If someone is stressed or nervous, mirroring them could worsen the situation. Other rapport-building techniques may work just as well. Being mindful of your own demeanor and tone is the first step toward putting the person you’re speaking to at ease.

Active listening is also useful. Make eye contact if the person seems comfortable with it. Ask questions to ensure you’ve fully understood what the person is saying. Even if you think you’ve understood their point, try paraphrasing it back to them. This method will show them that you’ve been listening and will also give them a chance to correct anything you misunderstood. In job interviews, note how your candidate responds to final questions. Have they been paying attention during the interview? Did they research the company before coming?

Make conversations as interactive as possible. Look for areas of common ground, share stories that you think the other person may be interested in and try to use analogies that you’ll both understand. These small changes could help make communication easier. The answers a candidate gives to casual questions in a job interview can often be more informative about their suitability for a job than their technical or skills-based answers.

2) Want To Nail An Interview? Use Mirroring, Forbes

The day has arrived, your job interview with a top executive in a high profile company. Your training and credentials are exactly what they’re looking for in a job candidate.

You’ve never been the shyest person. In fact, most of your peers would say your interpersonal skills are uncanny, and you’re a great conversationalist. You’ve prepared for the interview, identified your personal brand, and you’re ready to sell it.

You walk into the interviewer’s office and greet him with a hardy handshake. But you notice your interviewer flinches slightly. You brush it off and take a seat. The interviewer begins shuffling through papers, sweat forms on his eyebrow, and you notice his hands shaking slightly.

Without looking up, he asks you, “What interests you in this position?” You wait a few seconds, thinking he’ll look up and make eye contact with you—he doesn’t.

So you put on your most jovial tone and start talking about how the position fits a lot of your skills and also provides you with room to grow. You go into a long-winded speech about how the company’s culture is so appealing, and how you’re ready to work with a group of dynamic people.

After you’re done, you stare at the interviewer who has now become—your victim. The interviewer seems more nervous than ever—the next question he asks, and every question following, comes out in a hardly audible whisper. But you just shrug it off and continue to be loud and outgoing.

The interview ends. You leave. You never hear back from that company.

What Went Wrong?

First of all, you failed to meet the needs of your interviewer. Think about it, he seemed shy, nervous, and slightly introverted. You, on the other hand, were loud, exciting, and overpowering. Instead of catering to what he needed from you and building rapport, you decided to take charge and dominate the interview, which made your interviewer even more uncomfortable.

It’s Time to Adopt the Art of Mirroring

There are many ways to establish rapport, a relationship of mutual trust and understanding, and the Mirroring Technique is a great one. It’s about connecting. When mirroring goes well, the person you’re speaking with, whether a customer or an interviewer, deems you trustworthy because, subconsciously, they find similarities that connect you both.

Forbes Daily: Join over 1 million Forbes Daily subscribers and get our best stories, exclusive reporting and essential analysis of the day’s news in your inbox every weekday.

Email Address

Sign Up

By signing up, you agree to receive this newsletter, other updates about Forbes and its affiliates’ offerings, our Terms of Service (including resolving disputes on an individual basis via arbitration), and you acknowledge our Privacy Statement. Forbes is protected by reCAPTCHA, and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.

How do I perform the Mirroring Technique?

Mirroring is the practice of adopting another person’s behaviors, mannerisms, and ways of speaking. When performed well, it’s as if you become a mirror image of the other person. Here’s why it’s important:

• People trust those who are similar to themselves. It puts them at ease and makes the conversation run more smoothly

• When done right, you put yourself in the customer’s shoes (in this case, your interviewer’s shoes). When you do this, you force yourself to see the world from their perspective—which can be a gratifying experience for both you and them.

Had you lowered your tone and acted less aggressively in your hypothetical interview above, the interviewer would likely have felt more at ease and the conversation would probably have been more fluid.

There are three rules to successful mirroring:

1. Mirroring is NOT mimicking. It’s subtle. The person to whom you’re speaking should never feel that you’re copying them. So for example, if an interviewer rubs his nose or puts his hand on his chin, you should wait about 30 to 50 seconds and then touch your face in a similar way. Note: You don’t need to do exactly what the other person is doing; you just need to do something similar. Another example is listening to the language they use. If they say “pop” instead of “coke,” you should do the same. Listen to their phrasing, language, and sentence structure and try to recreate it in your own language patterns.

2. Only reflect positive speech and body language. If the interviewer seems angry or annoyed, that’s a behavior you don’t want to take on yourself. In cases like this, try to be positive and friendly, and you may help them open up.

3. Don’t get distracted. You want to notice and reflect back your interviewer’s mannerisms, but don’t pay so much attention to what they’re doing that you stop hearing what they’re actually saying. Remember that one of the reasons mirroring establishes rapport is that it forces you to see things from someone else’s perspective.

Go Out and Try It

The Mirroring Technique is a skill, and in order to get good at it, you need to practice. Don’t let the first time you do it be with an interviewer for a job or a customer for an important sale. Go home, call up some friends, and practice over the phone. Ask a colleague to go get coffee with you, and see if you can implement some of the above skills. When done right, mirroring can help you bond and connect with your prospect by forcing you to pay close attention. It could mean the difference between getting the job and not getting the job, so don’t take this skill for granted.

What is the psychology behind mirroring?

For centuries, philosophers puzzled over how humans truly understand each other. Back then, they had no science to rely on, just speculation. Fast forward to today, and we’ve unlocked decades of research from psychologists, neuroscientists, and cognitive scientists. Yet, even with all this knowledge, understanding how we intuitively ‘get’ one another still remains a bit of a mystery.

The key lies in mirror neurons – a groundbreaking discovery in neuroscience. First identified by renowned researcher Giacomo Rizzolatti while studying monkeys, mirror neurons are responsible for our instinctive ability to mimic the actions of others. These neurons fire not only when we act but also when we observe someone else doing it. This explains why we often yawn when we see someone else yawn, cringe when we witness a fall, or feel the weight of someone else’s grief.

This neural mechanism’s discovery has helped us understand intentions and learn by observation. What makes mirroring particularly effective in sales is its subtlety – it influences prospects without being detected, avoiding any sense of manipulation.

Sales mirroring technique 1: Use the three-word trick

In Never Split the Difference, Chris Voss talks about the power of simply repeating three words back to the other person. Those can include the last three words of what someone just said or the most important three words of what someone just said.

For example:

Sales Pro: “How is your current product management system working for you?”

Prospect: “It’s working pretty well.”

Sales Pro: “Your current system is working well?”

By repeating back the same idea to the prospect, you prompt them to continue explaining a thought. Most people would respond to the above statement by diving more into how their current system is working for them, or introducing any concerns that they have with it.

“Yeah, it’s been working well except that it doesn’t yet integrate with our CRM…” That’s your cue to take the conversation forward and make it meaningful.

ELSEWHERE:

• How to Use Mirroring as a Negotiation Tactic

• Sales Mirroring: Stepping Into Your Prospect’s Mental Shoes

SUMMARY:

Elon’s father, Errol Musk, gives a free-ranging interview to a “colored” South African living in London.

1. Perspectives on Apartheid and Race Relations

• The Apartheid Era: Errol Musk expresses a viewpoint that faces strong pushback from the host. While the host highlights the systemic oppression, land restrictions (86% of land reserved for whites), and wage disparities of Apartheid, Musk argues that black people had employment, owned homelands, and that “separate development” applied to white groups (English vs. Afrikaans) as well. He denies having a personal nostalgia for Apartheid, noting he ran for parliament twice with the anti-Apartheid Progressive Party in the 1970s and 1980s.

• Views on Black Governance: Musk expresses deep skepticism regarding the capability of a black-led government to run South Africa, citing widespread corruption, theft, and infrastructure deterioration under the ANC. However, he acknowledges that the ANC “hasn’t done such a bad job” in terms of ensuring overall survival and that general racial harmony in daily life is better now than before.

• Controversial Comparisons: Musk states that nature and history have endowed different races with different cultural “talents” for managing large populations or specialized skills (such as white farmers being historically better suited for farming in Africa). He also defends controversial figures and drawing a parallel between British far-right activist Tommy Robinson and Nelson Mandela, claiming both were unjustly jailed by the state. When the host challenges his assertion that Mandela killed women and children, Musk backtracks, stating he doesn’t want to get into the court records.

2. Immigration and Xenophobia

• Musk claims South Africa is facing a severe crisis due to an estimated 27 million illegal immigrants coming from countries north of South Africa (like Zimbabwe).

• He asserts that these immigrants only find employment from the white, Indian, and colored populations because local black populations lack employment-generating capabilities. In his own mid-sized town, he claims every single black worker is from Zimbabwe.

3. Personal Background and Upbringing of His Children

• Humble Beginnings to Wealth: Musk describes growing up very poor as a refugee family after World War II, living in a single communal room. However, through his technical aptitude, he became highly successful at a young age, owning a private airplane, a Mercedes, and one of the finest homes in the country by his late 20s.

• Raising Elon: Because of his wealth, his children (Elon, Kimbal, and Tosca) grew up in a highly privileged environment and traveled extensively. Musk sent Elon to study in the United States alone at age 17, confident he could handle it due to his worldly upbringing.

• Funding Zip2: In 1995, after Elon and Kimbal graduated, they asked him for funds to start a “.com” company. At the time, wealthy South Africans were desperate to liquidate assets to flee the incoming black-led government. Musk sold his large ocean yacht at a steep loss (for $100,000) and used underground third-party channels to transfer the funds to the U.S., resulting in the brothers receiving $75,000 to launch their business.

4. Security and Crime in South Africa

• Post-1994 Lawlessness: Musk describes a severe deterioration of safety and a massive spike in violent crime in the northern suburbs of Johannesburg (such as Sandton) following the 1994 transition. He claims that violent gangs targeted homes at random to rob, kill, and assault residents, operating freely due to a total lack of police intervention, which eventually forced communities to establish private security groups.

• The Farm Invasion Incident: He recounts a personal event from 1998 where intruders targeted his 12-acre horse farm. Musk states that he was told by others that his 6-year-old daughter “likely” would have been taken and murdered for muti (traditional medicine/witchcraft) purposes had he not intervened.

• Host Pushback: The host heavily criticizes this assertion, calling it a dangerous insinuation rooted in internal prejudice and racial bias. When the host questions whether the intruders were simply there to steal, Musk doubles down, suggesting they could have shot her through the head or eyes instead, while reiterating that local people warned him about the muti risk.

5. Closing Reflections on Life and Current Coexistence

• Perspectives on Hardship: Towards the end of the conversation, Musk reflects on his own early childhood hardships. He emphasizes that despite his later wealth, he grew up with no toys, barefoot, and without even basic luxuries like milk because it was too expensive. He uses this background to argue that his critiques do not come from a place of unearned privilege, but from someone who understands what it means to have a difficult life.

• Modern Day Interaction: Despite his deep political and structural concerns regarding the ANC government, Musk concludes the interview on a surprisingly positive note regarding everyday life in South Africa. He expresses admiration for how kind, decent, and peaceful ordinary South Africans are to one another in their daily interactions across racial lines (whether Black, white, or Colored).

• Final Conclusion: He notes that while the general population is deeply worried about the ruling party “pinching” funds and failing to manage the country’s infrastructure, the people themselves remain remarkably happy and harmonious in their day-to-day coexistence. The interview closes with the host thanking Musk for his time and for patiently spending an additional half-hour troubleshooting technical issues before the call could begin.

QUESTIONS:

1. Why do think the statistics about land ownership seem to trip Elon’s father, Errol, up so much?

2. Why do you think Errol believes that nature and history have endowed different races with different cultural “talents” for managing large populations or specialized skills (such as white farmers being historically better suited for farming in Africa)?

3. The Musk family financed Tommy Robinsons’ lawyers. Errol Musk supports Robinson, yet can’t recall what Robinson was charged with. Judging by his answers about the charges of Nelson Mandella, as well as the charges against Tommy Robinson, where do you think Errol Musk gets his information from?

4. Why do you think Errol Musk is so averse to immigration from Zimbabwe, given that he agrees that they are good workers?

5. The interviewer pushes back against Errol Musk’s belief that Errol’s 6-year old daughter would be killed for muti, citing statistics. Errol instead believes the word of local people, who warned him about the muti risk. What approach would be most effective in persuading him to rethink this fear?

6. Would you consider Elon Musk’s father to be a white nationalist? What do you make of Elon’s ?

TRANSCRIPT:

Chapter 1

Tommy Robinson was a political prisoner. I don’t want to go on with it. Do you really believe that if they left these expertise, this land, this machinery, these techniques were left to black people that they would just starve themselves and be incapable of farming themselves? Yes. You believe that? Absolutely no doubt about it. He’s called you quote a terrible human being, someone who plans evil, someone who’s done every crime you can possibly think of. He has also said that he would not introduce you to your to his kids. There seems to be this like sort of even when you’re speaking now there’s this nostalgia for a time where 80% of South Africans were black were were were seriously oppressed and marginalized. So let’s say German shepherds and you decide you’re going to bring in a bunch of terriers or something. They start fighting. They’re not the same. So they start fighting. But did you did you just compare human beings to dogs? When did when did when did Mandela kill women and children? he actually uh was found guilty of placing bombs. You know, I don’t want to get into that. And so, I mean, no, but I think it’s quite it’s quite important to get into it because you say that he was guilty of killing women and children, but he was never charged with that. Do you know why Tommy Robinson was put in jail? It was again, you know, it’s a setup. You know, we we proved that it was a setup. I don’t want to, you know, I mean, you say you don’t want to get into it, but I mean Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay, let’s just stop. I’m going to just look at the camera. I’m going to make a welcome and then we’ll start the interview. 1 2 3 clap.

Chapter 2: Growing up after the war

Hi, good day. Welcome to another episode of Unapologetic. I’m your host Karim. And today I’m speaking to the father of who will most likely be the first trillionaire on Earth. Uh Elon Musk is the is the guy who’s going to be the first trillionaire on Earth. But I’m speaking to Errol Musk, his father. Errol, welcome to the show. Thank you, Errol. Thank you. Thank you for your time. uh just I mean the audience may not know this but you spent at least half an hour working with us to troubleshoot this call so that we can actually have this interview and so we’re really grateful for that because I mean despite you clearly being quite an important person you had you had the time to do that for us so we thank you for that. Um just to sort of start this off with um uh I’ve mentioned that you know your your son may be the first trillion on Earth. is currently worth depending on on the price of stocks and how people are valuing SpaceX at the moment anywhere between 600 and 850 billion US. Um it’s very very it’s possible that you know within a week or less he could be worth a trillion. He may not stay there for a while but eventually he probably would. Did you think I mean I I understand that you came from you yourself came from quite humble beginnings. Did you ever think when you were growing up as a child that one day you’d be the father of who would most like the person who’s going to most likely be the first trillion on earth? No. No. I never we never thought like that when I was uh young. We I grew up after the Second World War. You know, things were were very difficult. You you became accustomed to the way your parents and your parents uh your friends parents had to live. uh people lived very much um on the little bit of money they earned all the time. I as a young boy always imagined one day, you know, it must be nice to to be better off because occasionally you did see people who, you know, when I was a child who seemed to be better off, but generally speaking um you I grew up more um with an academic urge to to uh justify my existence to to to to be um worth something uh uh in terms of in my case very much technical things. I I was very good at technical things and so I I left university at the age of 22. By that time I was 24. I already had a private airplane and I had a brand new Mercedes and and 25 my son was born and I was married to May and uh it just continued like that in my life. Um so that um I uh found a natural aptitude to um to to work with uh development and understand it was like I didn’t know it was built into me was sort of built into me to do this kind of thing. And so by the time I was 30 years of age I had everything that a person could possibly want. By the time I was 30, my home, which I’d lived in already for about 3 years, is today the home of the European Union ambassador to Southern Africa. So, it’s probably one of the five finest homes in the country. And I bought that when I was 27. So, I Elon and Kimble were raised in that type of environment and Tusca. And so, they had seen a great deal of things. And certainly by the age of 18, by the time they finished school, they were very capable individuals because we had traveled so much and it was possible for under those circumstances for me to do what very few people could have done at that time. We’re talking about 45 years ago, 40 years ago, um where I um said to Elon, I want you to go and study in the United States. and he he he completely agreed with me and jumped at the idea. And so at the age of 17, I was able to send him on his own when he wasn’t even eligible for to drive a car because it’s 18 to drive a car in this country and and I sent him off to America to study and I knew he would be all right because he had done so much traveling with me. So that that is the sort of background. I grew up very poor. My parents after the war were refugees. So we had we lived in a a sort of communal house with one room and um we eventually managed to get two rooms and um we were lucky. Most of the people only had one room for the family for the whole family. And so I um but as far as expecting my child to be the the richest person in the world, I was always wondering because as time went by in those days, I was the provider for everybody. So I was the provider for my brother, my wife, my wife’s family, my some of relatives of mine. I was prov I had to provide for everybody because I was doing very well and so I did that and of course providing for everybody meant I was providing for the children. I never really thought in terms of them ever having to work and and do anything for me in return. I never thought of that and I I I was more um a little bit slow on that. I I I imagined they would

Chapter 3: Sending Elon to America

get jobs after they finished studies in America. They all studied in America, all three of them. And I imagined they would get jobs afterwards. And I was hoping it would be a good job when he was a young student that when he took me to the places that he was working at like the Bank of Nova Scotia, the people clearly held him in very high regard. And for the first time I was uh you know sidelined and I I I that was quite interesting to see. Um after they finished studies they asked me if they could start if I had any money to help help them start a this is 1995 um helped them start they they graduated at the same time Elon and Kimble and um the reason was that Elon did a double degree. Anyway, they asked me if I could start them off on a with some funds on a um um what do you call it? Um.com company. Now, of course, in 1995, I had no idea what a.com was. But um I uh said yes, I’ll I will help them. And we had in South Africa at the time gone over to a black government. So South Africa was in a terrible state. something like uh you know some of the places must be today um that are struggling um you know I think of what’s going on in the Middle East and stuff and we we we had a everybody was leaving the country it was very hard and you couldn’t really sell anything people were giving their homes away to get away from being under a black government and um so I was able to sell I at that point I had a very big oceangoing yacht which I paid a lot of money for. I paid about 400,000 for it and I I sold it for a h 100,000 and send that money to to them and um uh I man the only way I could do it was to send it through um third party people who I gave them the money here and then they took a cut on the money and the cut was then incre increased by others and at the end of the day they received um 75,000 75,000 is that is that like rand or dollars or no dollars? Dollars dollars. Okay. Just I mean thanks we’ll come back to the story just you mentioned a few things there. You mentioned about you know South Africa changed uh the the ANC uh the democratic government took to took place people were leaving the country. Um you know I mean some people would would would think that you know most most people look at that and think that was a great thing. South Africa finally got rid of a partate and now it was free. uh you obviously don’t seem to have that view. Um I mean I want to I want to I want to talk about that a bit more and obviously I’m a South African too. You you I think Georgie has told you that our our producer um but before we actually get to to the stuff about apart because I think we will speak about that. I mean there’s many people who also believe Elon himself kind of has some sort of white nationalist views. He’s aligned himself with Toby Robinson. He spoke at Tommy Robinson’s march in 2025. What’s your response to that? No, no. Um I uh never the reason I stayed in South Africa, I never wanted my children to leave, but people were faced with um un difficult situations. We had a country north of us for example, not one but one of them was Zimbabwe which had you know which deteriorated to to an extent that that the they were printing 4 billion Rod um Zimbabwe dollar notes to buy which couldn’t buy a loaf of bread um you know so we we were very unsure about the people in South Africa very unsure about the future I mean it’s it’s not it’s not rocket science. It’s easy to understand and we have in fact managed to carry carry on for the last 30 years in South Africa. But the country is deteriorating at quite a quite a quite a rate. Why? I mean there are no new Yeah. Finish your thought. Finish your thought. Racial affairs are much better now. There’s racially things are quite good here. Don’t see any racial events here anymore at all. and not that I saw much before but um we don’t have any any any in that respect we were at a very good position in South Africa but um but um as far as running the country is concerned you know the ANC put their cronies in you know with you know maybe grade two or grade four and make them the minister of defense and the minister of economics and stuff. Can you can you give me examples of can you give me examples of anyone who’s grade two or grade four and became the minister of defense? Well, I think uh Zuma was great too and he was state president. Yeah. I mean Zuma I mean you know fair enough lot of people can disagree on on on I mean will agree that he was corrupt etc. But but I mean in in his own light Zuma received quite a quite astute education. But I mean the point is it seems like again and I I I mean I’d want to discuss the Tommy Robinson thing with with yourself and Elon um with Elon at least but there seems to be this like sort of even when you’re speaking now there’s this nostalgia for a time where 80% of South Africans were black were were seriously oppressed and marginalized and were not given freedom for for large parts of the aparted era. Black people couldn’t buy land. Um they they were not allowed there to live in in in ghettos. You know, they had to carry and it seems like there’s from your part there’s sort of nostalgia for this for this era. You know, we we hope like you know you was things were better back then and now things aren’t that great. What would your response to that be? No. No, that’s not true. That’s not accurate. No, it it’s more wasn’t nostalgia. It was a worry um that how on earth um are is the country going to get by under the under black government? Um we’ve seen the theft and damage that’s been done to the country since uh 1994. Everybody can see it. Everybody’s aware of it. So we on the other hand, I also say to people, you know, the ANC hasn’t done such a bad job. At least we all sort of around. A lot of us are still around and we we’re okay. We haven’t had to take two boats and stuff. But um but people were very very worried and and you can’t take a situation where like a couple of million people were so worried that they gave up everything just to leave and say that’s nothing. That doesn’t mean anything. Of course, it meant anything. We’re sitting in a country today. No, I mean look, I I I IP disagree that I don’t disagree that South Africa has a lot of problems and that there’s I I I mean I don’t disagree that South Africa has a lot of problems. There’s corruption, there’s been systemic thing. Yeah. But I mean I mean are you grappling with the fact that I mean you also mentioned earlier on that there seems to be racial harmony. 100% when you look at the rugby field and you look at a bunch of things there’s a lot more racial harmony than there is now. that the average black family in South Africa now still only has 6% of what a a white household in South Africa would have that’s 116th right so it’s been and that and this is post a partic after 30 years of of freedom so surely you know and and that’s that that’s an indictment on the government itself right but I mean there seems to be so much racial problem still in South Africa but more specifically I mean I mean let’s that being said what do you what do you make about the fact

Chapter 5: Contesting apartheid’s legacy

that you know in in earlier interviews you’ve mentioned. I saw an interview with you about 18 months ago where you compared Nelson Mandela to Tommy Robinson. You said they’re kind of similar. Do do you do you feel that way? Yes. You know, you have to understand I went to Mandela’s trial when I was in grade 12 when I was in our metriculan class. I I I went to the trial of Mandela myself on my bicycle and not only Mandela but several others. And uh I was very relieved as a boy. I was interested in that kind of thing when the the death sentences were commuted um to life imprisonment at the time. Um people in the street on the other hand were crying. People in the street who’ lost their relatives and had lost their children and so forth were crying and and and being very unhappy about this decision. But um I’m very relieved that that that that the death sentence and such like was commuted. But it’s important to understand that um there were issues that people had problems with. It’s not as though there was nothing at all. And um you know um people wanted to continue as far as oppressing the blacks were concerned. That’s not true. Every black had work. Blacks had owned their homelands and we were not allowed to buy land in their homelands. And white people Yeah, but blacks the homelands was 14% land the homelands the homelands was 14 No, the homeland was a total of 14%. All the homelands was a to Errol that’s just completely incorrect. The homelands were 14% of the total land of South Africa. The vast majority of the land 86% was black people were forbidden from buying land or which was traditionally their land there right the there was some when when they were not in their homelands when they not in their bantistan this is just basic apartate this is just the basic understanding of what apartate was that when when you know for for a vast majority of the period of apartate they couldn’t buy land in those areas they had to carry around passes to they they had employment their their wages were stipulated to be less than white people for the same job. They were given a different type of education. They were not allowed equal access to go to the same universities and study the same things. This was just basic apartate. This is why it was a part. This is why it was aborant. This is why the entire international community, you know, boycotted South Africa and put sanctions on South Africa and were were relieved that that apartate ended. And it seems to me that that there’s just a a lack of facts in what you’re saying. But more specifically, I mean, you have said previously you’ve actually compared you have compared Tommy Robinson to Mandela. What’s your response to that? Do you do you think Tommy Robinson is similar to Mandela? Well, first of all, let me just correct you there. I’m not giving you incorrect facts. Um, you may as well be calling yourself giving me incorrect facts. I lived here, so I know what I’m talking about. I I mean, now as far as I live there, too. you living there doesn’t change the facts but it’s fine we can agree to disagree yes that’s all right I I actually stood stood for uh twice for parliament uh you know for the progressive party what they called um and the object was to do away with a partate this was in the 70s and 80s but um um so we were not people um u wanting a partate in my family at any rate. It’s also important to remember that we had separate development in South Africa for the white people. So the white people were also given separate development. There was separate nursery schools for English 100% schools, separate high schools, separate universities. So for the two white groups Yes. Sure, but they were both given more privileged access to all of these these these these facilities than black and and and and non-white people. Well, yes, you know, it in in in certain instances it could be that and in certain instances maybe not. But what I would say is that uh we were all subject to this kind of separate development. As an English-speaking South African, I had absolutely no say in the government. The government is run by the offconce group. I had nothing. We were but but but you could vote. You could vote for but you could vote. Well, you you could vote but the voting was hopeless. You know, we we had elections which we only lost because the

Chapter 6: Land, homelands and race

numbers were were too small for our side. We could black people were not allowed to vote. They were completely excluded from the election process. Do you not see the difference in that? They were they were they were as the as the officer set it up. I don’t want to get into this. We’ll go too far in one direction, but get back to the point. But the black people were given um their own parliaments in their own Zuluand Trans to rule themselves in their given their own Yeah. They couldn’t make they couldn’t make laws for the vast majority of blacks who were forced to live and rent land from the government in in cities where they were forced to work or had to work, you know, forced to work to sustain themselves, but they had to work for for extra low wages. Yes. No, the blacks could have stayed in the in Zuland and and they could have built up their country and they could have stayed in the trans sky, the coars, and built up the trans sky or they could have stayed Now even now when you say this even now when you say this just a minute please know they could have stayed there but they didn’t want to stay there they wanted to come to the white areas because there was no work for any black in their own areas they did not provide work for each other only the white people provided work and that’s where we sit today when we have 27 million according to business insider or something wrote a thing about this we have 20 about three months ago they said we have 27 million uh illegal uh uh illegal foreigners in South Africa working here right now and um when you take that the total population is about 60 million it’s nearly half the population is from above South Africa coming here to work for who they come here to work for the small white Indian and colored population. Those are the only people that employ them. And so they are down here. But it sounds like it sounds like it sounds like even now even now it sounds like when you’re speaking and I’m I’m not trying to make espersions. I’m just trying to ask for clarity. Even now when you’re speaking there’s this kind of tone of like maybe it would have been better if if these these black people stayed in in what was their banistans which was just 14% of the total country even though they were 80% of the population and built that up and that now there’s some incapability from black people to run to govern to create employment to create business not taking into consideration any structural disadvantage any of the fact that you know they were not allowed to own lands and they were not allowed to operate and own businesses for such a long And obviously a structural dis in the white areas in the white areas they could be employed but as you say they had these rules not to sell or buy land but I I take you up on that I’m not sure about that 14%. But apart from that um the um have you have you looked a map of South Africa have you seen how big Papa and these places were? Yeah, but but instead of talking about that that time, I’m fully sympathetic with you. I I I was opposed to everything you are talking about. I wasn’t happy with it. Um and most of my friends were not happy with it. But we were the English speaking group group. We couldn’t do anything about it. And um okay with but where where we are now in South Africa is that we have nearly half the population has moved down from Africa. And they come here in the vain hope in many cases I think of to to to to get um to get um work and then send the money back to their countries uh north of us and um the only people these illegals get work from are from the white people, the Indian people and the um colored people to a certain extent. And so it’s a really um big problem that we have in South Africa. And um there are riots recently trying to where the local black people are asking telling the government they’ve got to get get all these illegals back out of South Africa because they’re taking the jobs of that of theirs. And in in the town in which I

Chapter 7: Mandela vs Robinson

live, which is a midsize town, there are absolutely no local black people. Every single black person in this town, comes from Zimbabwe. Every single one. And so it’s we employ them because they’re good workers. Because sometimes you need workers. So we employ them. But the this is a bad situation and the government is doing nothing about nothing at all. Okay. I I I I I do understand that South Africa actually has a xenophobic problem when it comes to dealing with immigrants and that there’s a lot of immigrants that move to South Africa. Obviously, there’s a lot of problems in Africa. There’s been wars. There’s economic migrants and and there are a lot of structural problems. The issue I’m taking with is there seems to be this tone that black people are incapable. Black people in South Africa are incapable of being able to self-development. Uh not not not understanding that there’s been a structural disadvantage. And I think this echoes because I want to I want to I want to come back to some of the things that you have said in other other interviews where you’ve compared Tommy Robinson to Mandela specifically. Do you do you agree with that comparison? Do you think that Tommy Robinson is like Mandela? Um what’s your what’s your reflections on that? Well, yes, you know, Mandela, you know, killed many people with the things that him and his group did. You know, women when did when did Mandela kill women and children? Well, before uh 1963, they planted various bombs around the country and they deel Dickley was involved in he was the head of the he actually uh was found guilty of placing bombs. You know, I don’t want to get into that. And so I mean no but no but I think it’s quite it’s quite important to get into it because you say that he was guilty of killing women and children but he was never charged with that. He was he was charged with something else. He was he was charged with with with he was charged with sabotage and conspiracy to to to plan guorilla warfare against military targets. He was never charged with killing women and children. Found guilty of No, there was He wasn’t found guilty. He wasn’t found guilty. He he he he admitted to he he he pleaded guilty to the act of sabotage and to to to organizing guerrilla warfare. And so there wasn’t even I mean he actually pleaded guilty. He didn’t he didn’t take the non-guilty plea. Well I was there you know so um um I mean you may be there but this is what this is what the the court records say. This is what history books say. I understand that you may have been there but and I understand maybe the people outside the courts were saying that he killed women and children but I mean Mandela’s famous words as you know in his that the whole world probably knows when he stood in the dock it ended off by saying I have fought against white domination and I fought against black domination. I have cherished the ideal of a democratic and free society in which all persons will live together in harmony and with equal opportunities. It is an ideal for which I hope to live for and to see realized. But my lord, if it needs be, it is an ideal farm which I’m prepared to die for. Now that’s I mean he that’s clearly someone who was was was striving to have an equal and free society. Do you think I mean first your response to that but secondly do you think that’s what people like Tommy Robinson and other people who your son has aligned with and you have praised are seeking the same thing. Yes. Yes. Tommy Robinson. Um, when I was invi in when they interviewed me about Tommy Robinson, when things were very active with him, I and they were putting him they jailed him without any reason and so forth. I um said he’s it’s it’s a parallel. It’s similar to to Mandela because if if you if somebody had said to someone in 1963 that one day Mandela who was then I don’t know 35 years old... white farming has taken a big grip. They’re quite good at farming. It’s not it’s not about being good or bad. They just happen to have that ability. Yeah. Because there’s a historical there’s a historical advantage. Do do you not see that? Do you not see that historically? 400 years of farming in in Africa, you know, 400 years of farming in a country where you might get rain one year, not the next. Yes. Okay. Errol. Errol, I I I I I don’t I’m not disagreeing with you that that generally white farmers in South Africa are good at farming. I agree with that. I’m saying do you not see that that’s because there’s been a structural advantage? There’s a structural advantage to that because you know they they they’ve they managed to own the the knowledge the techniques they they it’s been handed down that skill set right and and and black people literally you mentioned that you know there are subsistence farmers that is not true there are many countries in Africa where black people run very big and successful farms there’s a big weather problem in Africa on the whole in how do how do you think all the people of Kenya eat do you think there’s no farms that function in big countries like Kenya and Nigeria. Nigeria has a population of 200 million people. Where do you think they they get their food from? Well, it’s a bit far away for me, but I know that um Zimbabwe um imports their food and they get um a lot free a lot of free food has been given to Zimbabwe and Zambia by the people of the United States. You know, I’ve been there when the food has been delivered. You know, I’m not saying people are good or bad. People have different talents. People, some people are are are set up by nature over history to be a to be a group of maybe two or three thousand. Other people develop the ability to be a group of many thousands. other people develops. So, so who are the people who are the who are the people who are who have been developed to be millions and who are the people are developed to be less? You said some people have been developed to be Yeah. Just just this is interesting to me cuz I mean this is just enlightenment. Well, I would say the Indians, the Indians, the Chinese, the Europeans um had developed heavily populated um uh places over the hundreds of years that passed. Um when you went to other places like uh India uh North America you found the Indian people the ready Indians or whatever you call them uh living in small groups you know not because they were not sustained they didn’t have large um um setups to sustain them the the in order to have a community of millions you have to have an incredibly advanced way of managing millions. It’s not the same as as being a small group. I I I I think I think just regarding you know the the the way we think about this I mean I hear what you’re saying but disregard I mean the idea that some people have or based on on their race and their culture innate talents to to become larger and not because they were s because they lived in big cities that were situated in the center of big trading routes uh because they were the center of big civilizations. I just I just think we’re going to disagree on that. Um, but what I do think is interesting is is uh there’s an interesting story I heard you you talk about on a podcast where you where you were almost killed. You and your at the time your daughter was 6 years old was almost killed. Um, and this was in South Africa. Do you want to do you want to tell us the story? Yeah. Well, I uh this was back in 1998. So it was after 1994 and after 1994 circumstances in uh the area where I lived at the time which was um uh Johannesburg uh northern suburbs or Santon um after 1994 circumstances deteriorated d terribly um and people were um being shot and killed at random um every day, every day. And um every night and um uh a lot of the time it was it was not political. It was just gang gangs looking at easy targets knowing that there are no police to do anything about it. At that time we did start building up private police groups but not at first. And so quite a few of my friends were shot dead in their home. Um and then the home was pillaged and the women were raped and stuff. And um this happened uh at at an alarming rate. And I remember one day driving into the area where I had a horse farm. I had 12 acres and a horse farm in Santon. And um to get to my place, there was a shortcut to go through uh what was called Loneill Housing. And and one day I drove in and it was a shortcut up to my place and there was a big white sheet across the end of the at the crossroads and the the white that it looked like a driving cinema screen. It was so big, very big. And painted on this was, “Do you want to die?” in blue in blue letters. And then it... people so most likely my daughter would remain muty out of which I’m sure is a terrifying thing to deal with. No, no, which I’m sure is a terrifying thing to consider, right? But this insinuation that oh she would have ended up as Miy and you said likely. You said likely. And so this is just there seems to be this consistent, you know, uh internal prejudice and bias which you know I I just think maybe needs a bit of addressing. So you think they would have just shot her dead and left her for dead? I’m not sure. Right. And I’m sure it was horrible. Right. But they they seem to have been people who came to you on your farm. So they probably wanted to take something from you, steal something from you. There have been cases of I I I I know I know I know I know people personally who have had who have been subject to horrible crimes in South Africa as a South African people in my neighborhood, distant family, people who are friends of family and I’ve heard horrible stories, right? And and that’s that’s an aborant crime, right? But the idea that most likely I mean I don’t think they came here to make muti because if they came to make muti then they would have I mean who knows, right? But this insinuation they caught my daughter. Yes. But it’s but like I said 0.2% or 1%. What I’m telling you is very simple. It’s not complicated. What’s what’s not complicated? No. No. Like I say, I’m sure this is this was a very tragic thing that occurred to you and and you know and and very difficult. But the insinuation that most likely your daughter would have ended up as muty, I just think carries with it while it’s a you know or these people are here to make muty. It just carries with it a lot of a lot of undertones which people would find problematic. Maybe they have just shot her. Yeah, maybe they have just shot her through the head or something which would have been aborant and horrible which would have which would have been horrible. Which would have been horrible. Yeah, maybe they could have just shot her in each eye or something and and thankfully that but but I was told that the likelihood was that they would have used her for Moody. But you talk like that, you know. it would take to to to plan such a thing. Okay. Well, let me finish also by saying Yes. Let me finish also by saying this. I as a South African, I grew up with bare feet, no toys, no special things, nothing special. I lived in a little room. I had no gifts as a child. I got no milk as a child. It was too expensive. So I know what it is to have a hard time but not so much a hard time. We were happy but in our way it was hard but because of that I could be you making asking...