0:00

At Kroger, no matter where you order

0:02

free pickup, you get the same great deals

0:04

as you get in store. So you can save

0:06

when you order during band practice. Or

0:08

at the dog park or wherever. Start

0:11

your cart with the Kroger app and save

0:13

from wherever

0:14

today. Kroger, fresh for everyone.

0:16

Thirty five dollar order minimum was packages may apply

0:18

subject to availability. Save more on

0:21

natural and organic items. Just clip your

0:23

digital coupons on our app and use them up to

0:25

five times in one transaction with your card.

0:27

Kroger, fresh for everyone.

0:33

Everything begins with energy. And the last energy

0:35

there is the less goods there are, the less

0:37

services there are, and the less there is to be distributed.

0:40

As always say, if that is the future

0:42

we want, fine. But think everybody

0:44

imagine themselves to be part

0:46

of that that small sliver of society

0:49

that still has access to those things.

0:51

They preach, you know, abstinence

0:54

from from fossil fuels, from energy, from

0:56

electricity, all these kind of things. But some are

0:58

always think that they themselves will

1:00

not be part of that. They all wanna enjoy

1:03

the the means of modern technology, but

1:05

but completely try to conceal the fact

1:07

that without energy, this is gonna end.

1:13

Hello. Welcome back to the Brendan O'Neil

1:15

Show with me, Brendan O'Neil, and

1:17

my special guest this

1:18

week, Ralph Ralph, welcome

1:21

to the show.

1:21

Braden, thank you so much for having me. So

1:24

Ralph, you speak and write

1:26

about many different issues for

1:28

many publications, including despite,

1:30

I'm very pleased to say, And

1:32

you also teach on political

1:34

science and economics at Webster University

1:37

in Vienna. So you cover a lot

1:39

of issues in the work that you do.

1:41

So they're there are quite a few things I want to ask

1:43

you about in this podcast, but

1:45

but I want to kick off with

1:47

climate change. Climate change is something that

1:50

you speak about, you write about the energy

1:52

issue, particularly as it pertains

1:54

to international relations and relations

1:56

in Europe. And I want to

1:58

ask you just to begin with about

2:00

the good news on climate change

2:03

because we very rarely hear about

2:05

the good news, but there is some out there.

2:07

So on the day that we're recording this,

2:09

we're hearing that the ozone layer is actually

2:12

on the mend and might be back to normal

2:14

by twenty forty. We

2:16

also hear from Bjorn Lundberg who's a

2:18

very reliable source that twenty

2:20

twenty two had an incredibly low

2:23

number of deaths from climate catastrophe,

2:25

which is the opposite of what we hear from

2:27

the climate change alarmists, which is

2:29

that loads of people are around the

2:31

world from from climate chaos. Also

2:34

last year, we heard that the great barrier reef

2:36

in Australia is not quite as sick

2:38

as we had been led to believe and is actually

2:41

doing pretty well at the moment. So

2:43

good things are happening. And

2:45

I wanted to ask you what you think this

2:47

tells us, the fact that there is good news on

2:49

the climate, but all we ever seem

2:51

to hear are horror stories

2:53

and predictions of

2:54

doom. What do you think that tells us about the climate

2:56

change issue more broadly? Well,

2:58

let me begin with maybe something with

3:01

something that I listened to our podcast

3:03

by the media today. Like, they say, oh, wow. We're

3:05

not a climate scientist. So So

3:07

how kind of how can he how can

3:09

he even pontificate on such a topic?

3:11

But I think with you mentioning, for example,

3:13

the case of the ozone layer, I think you hit the nail

3:15

on the head. Right? This was viewed

3:17

as a primarily technological scientific

3:20

problem, and it was approached as such.

3:22

And over the years, I think we came to a very,

3:24

very good solution of this problem. And

3:26

now things are measurably improving.

3:30

The difference I think when we encounter

3:32

with the contemporary modern climate

3:34

change movement is that

3:36

in essence, it's much more ideological

3:39

movements than kind the attempt

3:41

to scientifically solve

3:43

a technical problem. And that's really a huge

3:45

difference here. Because my point is

3:48

the technological problem or the

3:50

technological challenge of climate

3:52

change These are absolutely surmountable

3:55

problems. But I have a a feeling,

3:57

right, that that many people type their

3:59

very identity, their core of

4:01

what they are and what's the meaning in the life

4:03

is to this very question, which

4:05

means, which I find psychologically very understandable.

4:08

Which means that even if there would be a already

4:10

available solution to the problem, they

4:12

might be hesitant because they would

4:14

also mean, right, if you solve the problem you have

4:16

tied your life's work to, Well, your

4:18

life's work kind of would disappear. I mean,

4:20

look at I guess, this would be great material

4:22

for for a novel. And this is

4:24

why We are a long work, I'm a

4:26

love very much, Michael Schoenberg,

4:29

Alex Epstein. I mean, Epstein, I think goes

4:31

more into this direction because Epstein also identifies

4:33

himself as a philosopher and an

4:35

expert on energy. But I think a

4:38

long book as as the best

4:40

example in this case is he gives us

4:42

kind of all the good news, and they're all true. Right? I

4:44

mean, this decides you correct this, and right? These are

4:46

all fantastic news. But I think sometimes

4:49

he's missing the point of the modern climate

4:51

movement or the the most local

4:53

members of the of the current climate movement,

4:55

which is it's not about solving the problem

4:57

of climate change. It's much more solving

4:59

the problem of human society. Right?

5:02

It's it's climate. It's the starting point

5:04

that needs to to push us

5:06

into a new kind of, you know, deep

5:08

growth movement into a kind of a

5:10

new organization of society. And

5:12

I don't begrudge those people that, but I

5:14

think we have to face the issue

5:17

as what it is. This is not a matter of

5:19

solving a technological

5:22

problem. This is much more about kinda

5:24

what gives meaning to people's lives. And I

5:26

think this would would force us

5:28

to tackle, especially the political side

5:30

of this quite

5:31

differently. I think that we do it at the

5:33

moment. I think that's a that's a really

5:35

good point, and it's quite a striking point

5:37

in relation to the ozone layer discussion.

5:39

I remember when I was growing up, when

5:41

when I was at school, we were

5:44

constantly told about the ozone layer,

5:46

but it was done quite differently to how

5:48

climate is talked about today. We

5:50

were told that there were things we could do

5:52

to prevent you know, stop using

5:54

CFCs, stop using deodorants. I'm

5:56

not sure telling teenage boys

5:58

to stop using deodorant is the best

6:00

idea in the world, but still there was a

6:02

slightly practical approach.

6:04

You know, you could take action. We

6:07

could come together. We could fix this thing.

6:09

I do still think there was an element of the

6:11

politics of fear in some of the discussion

6:13

about the ozone layer, but it was

6:15

treated as a surmountable

6:18

problem And now we are here where the

6:20

United Nations is saying that the

6:22

ozone layer is is coming back together,

6:24

it looks like it's going to be okay.

6:26

And then you fast forward to today, as

6:28

you say, and there's a much more apocalyptic

6:31

view of the environment of

6:34

climate. And this notion that

6:36

it's unfixable largely because

6:39

human beings are a plague on the planet.

6:41

We are a catastrophe for mother

6:43

nature. We are draining all these resources.

6:45

We are the disease, and there needs to be some

6:47

kind of kill. It's become a kind of

6:49

missentropic, apocalyptic movement,

6:52

hasn't it? And as you it's not about

6:54

reaching an end goal. It's

6:56

about treating humanity itself

6:58

as this stain on

7:00

earth that needs to be removed or corrected

7:02

or contained in some

7:03

way. No. I agree. I mean, I that

7:06

might surprise you a little bit, but if if apart

7:08

from the very interesting technological and

7:10

scientific side, if people ask me,

7:12

what should you read in order to best understand

7:15

precisely what you just expressed, right, this kind

7:17

of mission tropic approach. And

7:20

another British author, right, Tom Holland, like,

7:22

not the actor but the historian. Right?

7:25

To wrote this great book a couple of years ago,

7:27

Dominion, where he kind of writes about the Christian

7:29

roots of our contemporary society, a

7:31

fantastic piece of work and And

7:33

then Tom Holland is also, I think,

7:35

a fantastic intellectual in many

7:37

areas. But I think he describes quite nicely

7:40

kind of how very many contemporary movements

7:43

kind of have still this this reformist

7:45

protestant further. And I think this is a

7:47

little bit what we also see with

7:49

the kind of movements that you just described.

7:51

Right? They are, for me, at least, they

7:53

kind of resemble a a new form of

7:55

the reformation. Right? This idea that the

7:58

end is nigh and and repent

8:00

now and and we we potentially have

8:02

to to burn the whole thing down

8:04

to start the new. All of these,

8:06

you know, it's it's against idolatry in

8:08

a sense, right, kind of that that that fossil

8:10

fuels need to to go away. And

8:12

and all these kind of things, I think, this is

8:14

very, very much a a form of of

8:16

centralized Christianity

8:19

that in a sense or to the kind of the

8:21

first way to secularization, godspeed

8:23

of of God. And now it looks like that the second

8:25

way for secularization wants to

8:27

get rid of of humanity altogether and

8:29

to use another example. I mean, it's it's

8:31

also somewhat amusing that

8:33

somebody like Paul Eric, and I'm sure that your

8:35

viewers and listeners are familiar with him.

8:37

Right? Who has been wrong

8:39

on every single major

8:41

issue is still drawn it out as

8:43

these kind of oracle of of what the

8:45

future of humanity is gonna lie. I mean, he

8:47

was fantastically wrong. I mean,

8:49

if you really can Good write that. Don't get me wrong. But

8:51

if we read what you wrote in the sixties and

8:53

seventies, it's really it's it's a

8:55

dystopian fiction, but it's

8:57

it's very far from any kind of science or

8:59

any kind of of record

9:02

prediction. But but, again, he still, you

9:04

know, tingles from one conference to

9:06

another. He was recently under kinda,

9:08

you know, well known

9:10

and and high brow. US even

9:12

shows sixty minutes. I know in in this

9:14

case word is still taken seriously.

9:16

But I think that is because he is

9:18

a prophet of this quasi

9:20

new religious movement, and it doesn't

9:22

matter whether or not what he

9:24

says is factually true.

9:26

But he fits what the kind of their

9:28

religion expects of their profit. I don't

9:30

want to make anybody uncomfortable with the kind of

9:32

language, but I think we have to look at it from this

9:34

perspective because that's the only planation that

9:36

I can understand. Right? If somebody

9:38

says to you year after year

9:41

after year, right, that three times three

9:43

equals ten, And no matter how

9:45

often you point out that actually equals

9:47

nine, but everybody's also says, yeah, but it

9:49

could hypothetically somehow be

9:51

actually ten. Right? Then the only

9:53

way for me to explain it is

9:56

that that this is more at home,

9:58

let's say, in the part of the soul

10:00

responsible for or the part of the brain if

10:02

you want, responsible for the religious

10:04

sentiments than for our

10:05

our, you know, factual and

10:07

and logical capacities to think.

10:09

I think Paul Erlick is is a very good

10:12

example of of the kind of thing that we're talking about.

10:14

And I I want to dig down a little a

10:16

little deeper into this issue as well

10:18

because as you say he was catastrophically

10:20

wrong the stuff that he wrote in the sixties and

10:22

seventies. So I'm sure many listeners

10:24

to the podcast will be familiar with

10:26

Paula Eric's work on the population

10:28

issue and his discussion of the population

10:30

time bomb and the idea that there would

10:32

be so many people

10:34

that we just wouldn't be able to keep

10:36

up. They would starve, there would be war,

10:38

there would be disaster. And of

10:40

course, that didn't happen.

10:42

And in fact, vast

10:44

numbers of people have been lifted

10:47

out of poverty in countries like

10:49

China and India and elsewhere,

10:51

even as the population of the earth has

10:53

grown and grown over the past few decades.

10:55

And I think his wrongness is very interesting

10:58

because it reflects the fact that the

11:00

original population scare monger

11:02

Thomas Malthus at the end of the

11:04

seventeen hundreds, the beginning of the eighteen

11:06

hundreds. He was wrong as well in his

11:08

predictions that mankind would run

11:10

out of food and so on. And

11:12

I think the reason these people are always

11:14

wrong is because they downplay

11:16

human ingenuity, and the fact that

11:18

we are very, very good at coming

11:20

up with solutions for

11:23

organizing society in a

11:25

better way so that there is enough

11:27

food, enough transportation and so

11:29

on. So Malthus didn't see

11:31

the industrial revolution coming.

11:33

He couldn't appreciate that mankind

11:35

had that in him. Early

11:37

didn't see what the great consequences

11:39

of the green revolution would be and

11:41

further advances in in the sixties and

11:43

seventies as well. So it is part of

11:45

the problem It's not just that it's an intellectual

11:47

problem. I think you described very well that

11:49

it seems to come from the religious part of the

11:51

brain or however we might to

11:53

describe it. But it's also a

11:55

political challenge because

11:57

I think a lot of these people's

11:59

predictions have a quite baneful

12:01

impact on society and on

12:03

our belief in our capacity to

12:05

make things happen, whereas

12:07

history does prove that in fact, we're

12:09

pretty good at coming up with solutions to the

12:11

problems that confront

12:12

us. yes or no. Right? I think what you

12:14

described is absolutely correct. I would I

12:16

I agree hundred percent. I would just maybe add

12:19

one one asterisk to it,

12:21

and that is that that

12:23

kind of technological ability

12:25

to to overcome certain challenges. I think

12:27

it still needs a specific cultural

12:30

ideological surrounding to make this possible.

12:32

And and I think my my best

12:34

example is for this. This is a story I I got.

12:36

There's also something that I would recommend

12:38

to all of of your listeners every book

12:40

ever written by Butler Smith

12:42

on the matter of of progress and in

12:44

energy. He has just recently published his

12:46

most recent book has the very modest

12:49

title, how the world really works, but

12:51

it's the kind of

12:53

the the immodest title aside,

12:55

I mean, it really explains a lot how the

12:57

world does, in fact, really work. And

12:59

one of the the things he describes is an

13:01

anecdote and the book is that the

13:03

modern world in eighteen ninety eight was I

13:05

refer to this also in one of our recent pieces

13:07

for Spike was very close to global

13:09

famine because populations

13:11

grew significantly faster than food

13:13

production. But the idea was

13:15

that we can actually solve this problem

13:17

through science. We will figure out

13:19

fairly soon how to produce

13:21

artificial and synthetic fertilizers, and

13:23

then the problem will be solved. Everyone is

13:25

optimistic. Like, he quotes a couple of

13:27

speeches by scientists in the eighty

13:29

nineties say, well, this is a huge

13:31

problem, but not to worry, we're gonna

13:33

figure this out just in time. And they

13:35

did. Right? It was a little bit for

13:37

sticking out in Great Britain and a little stick

13:39

it out. In Germany, it then became known

13:41

as the famous Harbour Bosch process,

13:43

the the production of of ammonia.

13:45

But actually, many many different peoples

13:47

were involved in this but the

13:49

attitude was one of saying like science will

13:51

give us the tools to deal with these

13:53

problems. They could hypothetically also

13:55

throw in their hands in the air and say, It's

13:57

all over. We have to deindustrialize.

14:00

Industrialization was a huge mistake. We

14:02

are gonna starve to that, but they didn't do

14:04

this. And this worries me a little bit about the

14:06

contemporary approach to the problem. Right? That the

14:08

focus is so much that that

14:10

modernity itself is questionable. The

14:12

technological progress self is

14:14

questionable. And then we have to go

14:16

back to, you know, earlier times.

14:18

And this is openly said by influential

14:21

figures. Right? I mean, what do they mean when they

14:23

say, well, we cannot adapt

14:25

technologically. We have to adapt our

14:27

lifestyle. I mean, we kinda all know what they

14:29

mean by that. Right? What's what's behind

14:31

this? In this voice me. Because if

14:33

we look at, kind of, if we take the broad sweep

14:35

of human history, and

14:37

we wanna find the one underlying thing

14:40

that kinda connect different stages of

14:42

human development independently of of where

14:44

in the globe and at what time. I mean, what

14:46

we figure out is that kind of every

14:48

step of of improvement

14:50

was accompanied or was was

14:52

triggered if you want by a more

14:54

efficient or an ingenious use of energy. And

14:56

to give you one example, right? I mean, decoration

14:59

of of, you know, agriculture flower

15:01

bread, you know, bread was a huge improvement

15:03

when it came to to nutrition. But

15:05

once we figured out that you don't have

15:07

to grind wheat by hand all day. Oh, I think

15:09

it's in the movie with Arnold Schwarzinger, and

15:11

I think it's it's the first Conan the Bavarian.

15:13

Right? Where where it's where he gets

15:15

muscular because he's he has this manual,

15:17

you know, wheat grinder

15:19

that he has to -- Yeah. -- to use. But

15:21

once we figure out how to do it with either

15:23

water weed or a wing mill, It's not

15:25

just that that kind of we saved time. Right? It

15:27

was it was we saved energy. We

15:29

used the kinetic energy from

15:31

water, from wind, and it's freed and

15:33

us up to do something else. And

15:35

and I think this is kinda a theme

15:37

that goes through human development, that the

15:39

better we become in using

15:41

energy the the the richer

15:43

society got. And this is why the contemporary

15:45

movement, worries me. The healthy turns

15:47

against energy. In many ways, it's

15:49

an anti energy movement. And to

15:51

put it in kind of a bumper sticker,

15:53

you know, slogan is less

15:56

energy is gonna mean

15:58

less wealth. There is no way around it. So

16:00

if we can do what the activists

16:02

demand. Right? You know, give up on gas,

16:04

give up on oil, give up on coal, you

16:06

know, don't touch nuclear, which is the most irrational

16:08

of all positions, we can do all of

16:10

this. But don't tell people, oh,

16:12

don't worry us to do in Germany. Living

16:14

standards will then, you know, kind of be

16:16

somewhere as they were in the nineteen seventies

16:18

because they won't. And even if they

16:20

would be, I mean, apart from the music,

16:22

nobody really wants to go back to the nineteen

16:24

seventies. Imagine if somebody in

16:26

your family with diabetes. Right? Who

16:28

needs dialysis or something, you

16:30

know, cancer, you know, comfort plate, but

16:33

nobody wants to go back to the medical

16:36

sophistication of the 1970s. And I think we

16:38

tend to forget that I think we tend to

16:40

forget that that modern life

16:43

is is really built on an

16:45

abundance of of energy.

16:47

And if we want to get rid of that abundance,

16:49

the consequence is gonna

16:51

be a decline in wealth. And I

16:53

mean, I think the movement gets much more

16:55

open about this, but I think this is how we

16:57

have to approach

16:57

it. We should not try to dilute people about what

16:59

the consequences would be. Yeah. III

17:01

really agree with your point about

17:04

the cultural atmosphere of the

17:06

cultural zeitgeist being incredibly important

17:08

in this discussion. And

17:12

that's why I think winning the

17:14

cultural battle against the

17:16

downbeat apocalyptic mood of our

17:18

times as expressed most clearly through the climate

17:20

change alarmism agenda is

17:22

really incredibly important because if

17:24

we are going to have those leaps

17:26

forward that people have made in the past and those

17:29

thinking of new ways to approach old

17:31

problems, then we do have to have confidence in

17:33

ourselves as a species. And

17:35

that is lacking in contemporary society. To

17:38

that end, I want to ask you also

17:41

about Germany. You've written

17:43

some great pieces about Germany despite

17:45

and for other publications as well.

17:47

In relation, it's particularly to

17:49

the energy question. And I I want

17:51

to just ask you about the

17:53

consequences of the kind of thing that we're talking about. So in

17:56

Germany, you've described Germany

17:58

almost standing on the abyss. Be

18:00

because of the choices it has made in relation to

18:02

energy over the past few decades, it's

18:05

turned its back on nuclear power.

18:08

It banned fracking despite the

18:10

fact that it has an extraordinary amount of

18:12

an abundant amount of shale

18:14

gas under under the surface.

18:17

And as a consequence of that, Germany, over

18:19

the past year, in particular, following

18:21

the outbreak of war in Ukraine and

18:23

and the tensions with Russia, has found

18:26

itself hasn't it in an incredibly difficult

18:28

position, and and it's had to wind back

18:30

some of its hostility

18:32

to nuclear power. And it's found

18:34

itself increasingly relying on coal,

18:37

which we are told is the

18:39

filthiest fossil fuel of all. So

18:41

could you explain a little bit

18:43

about the predicament that Germany is currently in in

18:45

relation to energy and how it got into

18:47

that

18:47

predicament. Yeah. I mean, I mean, Germany is a is

18:49

a very interesting example

18:52

of this. Because there is, I think, no

18:54

better case study we have how,

18:56

let's say, a misguided

18:59

ideology have real life consequences. And Germany is a

19:01

wonderful example. You mentioned correct the right that

19:03

Germany is actually blessed

19:05

in some areas or they would be

19:07

blessed with with shale reserves so they they have, authentically,

19:09

could do a lot of fracking.

19:11

They they they have. The thing

19:13

is everybody who talks about that they should

19:15

build out nuclear it would be enough if they

19:17

would actually continue to run the nuclear they

19:20

already have. So we're not even talking about building

19:22

new power plants. We're just talking about continuing

19:24

dose that they have who are by every

19:26

evidence we have in excellent

19:28

condition. And even if they wouldn't be

19:30

Alright. And, you know, you have like, the French are currently

19:33

doing under Great Paints. You have to do some

19:35

modernization. You have to exchange some,

19:37

you know, piece bits and pieces there,

19:39

but it it doesn't mean that it's it's not you

19:41

can either run them or don't run them, right, where

19:43

you see potential for improvement or

19:45

repairs you do it. So there is

19:47

a lot of potential there. And what we kind

19:49

of encounter in this case

19:51

is that the idea

19:53

that that Germany must

19:56

in some area take the

19:58

lead for the salvation of the planet. And

20:00

I'm really using that that strong

20:02

language on purpose. Because even though as you correctly pointed out, particularly

20:05

with the burning of coal, they have kind of straight

20:07

from that gold very, very far. But

20:09

that was the motivation for

20:11

the so called energy transition? Or is it, you know, the the I

20:13

think the German term is now also well known,

20:15

the Enerke event. That that was the motivation.

20:17

Right? The Germany will lead

20:20

the world into a more

20:22

sustainable, a renewable, greener

20:24

future. I mean, the green movement in many

20:26

ways was born in Germany, right?

20:28

This is a very, very,

20:30

also philosophically, a very German

20:32

thing that that I don't mean, I loved. I'm asking, I

20:34

love the Germans. I think the Austrians are

20:36

with the more cyclical and realistic version of the

20:39

Germans. Not like, you know, we we usually don't

20:41

get that much trapped in in in our

20:43

ideological delusions. But I think

20:45

this is in German case, a really good example.

20:47

Right? But the idea was they will show the

20:49

world that you can be an

20:51

industrialized powerhouse on,

20:53

you know, wind and solar. Now

20:55

it became very clear early

20:57

on that this is not gonna work, but they kind

20:59

of found a neat little way

21:01

out of this, and that was, of course, Russian

21:03

gas. Right? And you can say that the German

21:05

green was fueled by by

21:07

gas from Russia because Gas

21:09

kind of took a little bit of of a middle

21:11

ground. It was not dirty coal.

21:13

It was not, you know, the enemy of

21:15

of the early green and environmental

21:17

movement. It was not nuclear. So it

21:19

had kind of this this middle

21:21

of the road quality

21:23

that that allowed it to

21:25

be to used. But now we find out that

21:27

actually most of German industrial power

21:29

in the last decade has rested

21:31

on one particular fossil fuel and

21:33

that is gas. And with this

21:35

falling away, they still

21:37

cannot bring themselves to look

21:39

at alternative sources of energy

21:41

at home what they're doing is kind of that

21:43

they look now across the globe, right?

21:45

LNG from the U. S. LNG from

21:47

Qatar, they talk about

21:49

hydrogen from Norway and hydrogen

21:51

from Africa. Which personally, I

21:53

believe, this is gonna be the next

21:55

big disappointment that we

21:57

will experience the same

21:59

can the negative consequences of

22:02

betting everything on wind and solar the same

22:04

will happen with betting everything on

22:06

LNG and hydrogen. It's

22:08

it's very worrisome because as

22:10

I said before, you

22:12

cannot have it both ways.

22:14

If you say we're gonna import

22:16

all our energy, and we're gonna import

22:18

it even at exorbitant

22:21

prices, you have to pay

22:23

those prices. I mean, this is really the one thing

22:25

I think even in the public debate that is still

22:27

not understood. Right? Everybody says, oh,

22:29

wonderful. The the gas storage

22:31

is full. And and, you know, we kinda have had overcome the

22:33

energy crisis, but we didn't. Because

22:35

it came at a horrendous price, just to

22:37

give you one example, Germans

22:39

spent twelve percent of

22:41

their domestic economic

22:43

product. But on

22:46

energy, four hundred forty billion euros or in

22:48

dollars four hundred sixty billion

22:51

dollars were spent on buying every

22:53

morse of energy around the

22:55

planet kinda to keep the lights on in Germany.

22:57

You can do this one year. Maybe

22:59

you can do it a second year. But at

23:01

some point, the markets are hypothetically

23:03

just to, you know, exaggerate a little

23:05

bit. Just for the German economy to

23:08

remain where it is, it would have to

23:10

grow. You can approximately by ten

23:12

percent every year just to

23:14

cover the cost of energy imports. But

23:16

that's I mean, this is just not gonna happen.

23:18

Right? It's not gonna happen. No matter

23:20

how often, that, you know, the

23:22

economy minister will all of Schultz, the chancellor

23:24

will say that the crisis is over.

23:26

It has abated, you know, that

23:28

the situation is under control. It

23:31

isn't, like, not under significant cost that what you see

23:33

now is the last point. You

23:35

get this almost, you know, ironic new

23:38

alliance of of companies and

23:40

unions because even some of the largest German unions

23:42

are saying, like, our members

23:45

are terrified because

23:47

companies who can no longer

23:49

compete will close down. There is no

23:51

alternative. And again,

23:53

the German government tries to pay it

23:55

over with no subsidies similar was to

23:57

what they do in Great Britain where they have the

23:59

same problem. Europeans and

24:03

also British, Since most of the

24:05

world's energy is not traded in

24:07

euros or pounds, we

24:10

cannot print energy like the US can. Right?

24:12

As for the for the US, this is not so that

24:14

much of a problem because most of global

24:16

resources are traded in dollars. So

24:18

hypothetically, the Federal Reserve can print more

24:20

dollars and take buy more energy with those

24:22

dollars. The Europeans cannot do this

24:24

because the more money we print, the less

24:26

value the euro has, and the more

24:28

expensive this energy is gonna get

24:30

for us. And the one way out of this,

24:32

and you kinda alluded to this, is we

24:34

need to either start producing

24:36

at least some of that energy, reliable

24:39

energy domestically. All we're gonna say,

24:41

we're gonna be, you know, mostly

24:43

renewable, but that also is gonna mean that we

24:45

probably will not be a

24:48

significant industrial power in the

24:50

future. And just to add on one last sentence,

24:52

because very often people say, well, but that's

24:54

just Germany. Right? The Germans might be crazy, but

24:56

but the polls are not you, you know, is

24:58

correct. All the Scandinavians are not. But okay.

25:00

That's also correct. But the problem is

25:03

the European Union has project rests

25:05

on the shoulders of German economic

25:08

power. So if Germany is,

25:10

no, going off the cliff, they gonna

25:12

drag at least some of them down with them. idea

25:14

that, you know, an alliance, let's say,

25:16

of Poland, Sweden, and Denmark

25:19

will prop up the European

25:21

Union and the European economy

25:23

well, Germany, and to some extent, also the French are

25:25

gonna descend into the age of

25:27

of the industrialization. That's just

25:29

not gonna happen. And

25:32

it's last point on this, and it's twice as said,

25:35

because the human resources in

25:37

Germany, the potential of the German

25:39

economy is still huge. The

25:41

the German Mittelstand, right, the the famous

25:43

small to medium enterprises in

25:45

Germany are still one of the best in the

25:48

world. But even they they cannot deny reality. You

25:50

can have the best engineering company. But

25:52

if you electricity build quadruples

25:54

as it is the case to many of

25:56

those companies, they just can't deal

25:58

with that. So, you know, you can have the smartest

26:00

engineers, but you you you

26:02

you like, you can't do anything. And

26:04

we saw this with this

26:06

under great celebration, they

26:08

opened the first LNG terminal in

26:10

Milan, Harlem in Northern Germany. I

26:12

mean, hundred days, they built an

26:14

entire pipeline from Northern Germany

26:16

to Southern Germany because if they

26:19

want to, right, they could still

26:21

do it. But they only want it on the

26:23

rarest off occasions, and that's really the

26:24

problem. Hello, twenty

26:27

twenty three. The new year is here.

26:29

And whether you're making big changes

26:31

or just settling back into a consistent

26:34

routine, chances are you could use some

26:36

audio accompaniment on your

26:38

journey. I know that for me it's

26:40

crucial. If you follow my Instagram, you'll know I've been traveling

26:42

this week and it's a great time for me

26:44

to catch up on all the podcasts

26:46

I listen to. good pair of

26:49

wireless earbuds is indispensable.

26:51

For premium audio, at

26:53

the perfect price point, I think you've

26:55

got to go with Raycom.

26:58

Raycon's everyday earbuds look

27:00

feel and sound better than

27:02

ever. And with optimized gel

27:04

tips for the perfect in

27:06

ear fit, they're really comfortable too. Then

27:08

there's the eight hours of play time and

27:10

the thirty two hour battery life that you

27:12

get with Raycom's earbuds Plus,

27:14

Raycoms are priced just right. At

27:17

half the price of other premium

27:19

audio brands, it's really

27:21

no wonder that Raycoms everyday

27:23

airbuds have over fifty thousand

27:25

five star reviews. Then

27:27

there's also noise isolation, the

27:30

ability to set up customizable sound

27:33

profiles and the earbud tap

27:35

functions. I've been experimenting

27:37

with all these features on my new

27:39

earbuds and the results are excellent.

27:41

We have a special offer for listeners to

27:43

my podcast. All you need to do to

27:45

get fifteen percent off your Raycon

27:48

order is buy

27:51

raycom dot com slash brandon.

27:54

That's BUYRAYC0N

28:01

dot com slash brendon

28:03

to get fifteen percent

28:05

off. By raycom dot com

28:08

slash brandon. So

28:09

how

28:10

did we end up in this situation? In

28:12

relation to the energy specifically. So

28:14

you've described very well that the

28:17

situation Germany finds itself in

28:19

and the craziness of

28:21

it. have a different but kind

28:23

of similar situation in the UK

28:25

where we import loads and loads of

28:28

coal. We import hundreds

28:30

of thousands of tons of coal

28:32

from around the world, from Australia,

28:34

and other places, while

28:37

any suggestion of opening a coal fired

28:39

station here in the UK itself

28:41

is instantly frowned upon

28:43

green activists will agitate against

28:45

it and try get it shut down. It's

28:48

it's very peculiar situation where we're

28:50

almost outsourcing the

28:52

dirty stuff to do

28:54

with capitalism so that we can be

28:56

virtuous nations. So

28:58

it's it's almost like we have elites that are

29:00

more concerned with being

29:02

with virtue than with production,

29:04

than with creation, than with energy,

29:06

the practical matters that a government

29:08

surely should concern itself with. Do you think

29:10

part of the problem here in terms

29:12

of the really bizarre situation we

29:15

found ourselves in where Germany had

29:17

become increasingly reliant on

29:19

Russia of all places for

29:21

gas and and so on. The UK

29:23

is relying on other parts of the world

29:25

for copious amounts

29:27

of coal. While refusing to

29:29

do very much of that dirty work itself

29:31

because the middle classes here don't like

29:33

it very much. It is part of the problem

29:35

that we've elevated in a

29:37

political sense the desire to be

29:39

virtuous over the desire to

29:41

be sensible and productive within

29:43

the nation state.

29:44

Oh, absolutely. I would I would I would say this is a you

29:47

phrased it nicer than I than I have at the

29:49

beginning. No. I think you're absolutely right then. And

29:51

this I mean, you said it

29:53

beautifully. This idea of

29:55

being virtuous, I would once again

29:57

without any intention to bore your listeners with

29:59

the same argument over and over. But

30:01

the very term of virtue idea

30:03

that comes from a religious

30:06

philosophical part of of of

30:08

human nature. Not a not a

30:10

problem solving one. As you as you say,

30:12

right, can you you want to to show your

30:14

dedication to the goods, to the pure,

30:16

to the the untouched, and

30:18

and, you know, all of that is find

30:20

by me, but it has consequences. I

30:22

I give you one example. So I I

30:24

occasionally go with my students to the

30:26

Technicolor Museum in in Vienna and they

30:28

have, like, know that the very kind of

30:30

first nineteenth century,

30:32

you know, steel furnaces and

30:34

and iron smelters and and these kind

30:36

of things there. And when I see them,

30:39

right, they fill me with excitement. Right? At

30:41

that day, because for for me, this is the

30:43

embodiment of industrialization. This

30:45

is for me the beginning of the

30:47

modern world. Right? Steel

30:49

cement. Right? Like, everything you know,

30:51

the railways. Right? So this this is kinda

30:53

when when when did you time die to

30:55

revolution. Right? Kind of when humanity really kind of then

30:57

started to produce so much that

30:59

we could have a middle class. Right?

31:01

That wealth was no longer limited

31:04

to, like, the one percent it was, in Roman times, or

31:06

Greek times. Right? That slavery basically

31:08

became obsolete. Right? Because it was a

31:10

really inefficient way of of providing

31:13

energy in a sense of, you know, forced

31:15

human labor compared to the steam

31:17

engine. But when I talk to my students,

31:19

that's not what I see. Right?

31:21

They see the beginning of pollution,

31:23

the beginning of of the exploitation

31:25

of natural resources. So so

31:27

so for them, it's the beginning for me, it's

31:29

the beginning of a glorious time for them and, oh,

31:31

of course, significantly younger than me. Right?

31:34

They see the beginning of the end that if only

31:36

we could turn back the clock, right, and

31:38

and kinda Ideally, if we would

31:40

have just prevented the first steel mill from

31:42

ever being built, the world would be a better

31:44

place. And I think this is exactly what you

31:46

described. Right? There

31:48

is a pathological emotional

31:52

rejection of everything that

31:54

makes the modern world possible, and I mean it's

31:56

exactly the way I side. Because

31:58

and this is I think where we make mistakes in

32:00

the educational system. Whatever

32:03

it is that that that makes the

32:05

modern world work. Right? It is

32:07

somehow connect it to the question

32:09

of energy or to highly energy

32:11

intensive materials. As I said, it's

32:13

steel, it's cement, it's it's synthetic

32:15

fertilizers, right, for which you need natural

32:18

gas. And of course, it's also plastics. I

32:20

mean, we tend to ignore, right,

32:22

without fossil fuels. We wouldn't have plastic. Now I

32:24

have that's because I'm a collector. Right? I have

32:26

two two masses of the user's

32:28

action figures standing behind me.

32:30

And this is I think who people think about when they hear plastic, right?

32:32

They think of of of of barbie dolls and these

32:34

kind of things, but go into a

32:36

hospital, right, how how much

32:39

know, storage thing, whether it's for blah, blah,

32:41

blah, the materials depends on

32:43

plastic. Right? You know, when you look at and and let's

32:45

think of a movie. Right? You have the victim of

32:47

an accident, and they are in the hospital bed

32:49

and you see all these things going

32:51

into the face and everywhere, you couldn't

32:53

do this without plastic. You can't do

32:55

this with glass or

32:57

wood or or anything. So

32:59

a world without these

33:01

these these materials would

33:04

be, I know, in many ways, I

33:06

think a much poorer, especially,

33:08

this is this is going to your point,

33:10

especially for the lower classes

33:12

and the middle classes, because they can no afford

33:14

it. We would basically revert to the

33:16

pre industrial time where

33:18

the quote unquote rich

33:20

they would like, they just put a generator

33:22

in their basement or, you

33:25

know, they have private clinics who still

33:27

have access to these materials made

33:29

from plastic or whatever it then might

33:31

be. But for the majority of the

33:33

population, it's gonna be really problematic. And I

33:35

think there we fail in education.

33:37

We need to make increasingly clear to people.

33:40

Everything begins with

33:42

energy. Everything. When it

33:44

was manual labor, right, as

33:46

muscle energy, or whether it's now, you know,

33:48

going to to kind of the most modern

33:50

one, the energy contained in a

33:52

in a tiny uranium for

33:54

nuclear energy. And the less energy there is,

33:56

the less goods there are, the less services there,

33:58

and the less there is to be distributed. As

34:00

always say, if that is the future we

34:03

want, Fine. But I think

34:05

everybody imagines themselves to be

34:07

part of that that small sliver

34:09

of society that still has access

34:11

to those things. But it it

34:14

reminds me, you know, but when you read a history

34:16

book about the Romans and the Greeks, and

34:18

everybody reads those books and imagines

34:20

themselves to be a senator. Oh, he matches

34:22

themselves to be Caesar. No one reads the book

34:24

and says, oh God. I know I probably would

34:26

have been either a slave or a

34:28

woman who had a horrible at that time or

34:30

somebody who could crucified or, you know, what died of a of a, you

34:32

know, a mundane sickness at the age of

34:34

twenty five. This is not what we do, and I think

34:36

it's the same with with the

34:38

environmental thing.

34:40

We Oesamantly, but they preach, you know, abstinence

34:42

from from fossil fuels, from

34:44

energy, from electricity, all these kind of

34:48

things. But some are always think that they themselves will not

34:50

be part of that. And we have proof for this.

34:52

My my favorite example is, you

34:54

know, when John Kerry was

34:56

flying privately to Greenland to get an award for his work for

34:59

the for the good of climate. And there

35:01

a journalist asked him, well, don't you think

35:03

that's that's in a there's

35:06

contradiction there. And and his answer

35:08

was absolutely not because what he does

35:10

for the climate is so important that that he

35:12

of course is exempt from the rules he wants to

35:14

force on anybody else. I

35:16

mean, the jokes about El Gora's mansion

35:18

in Tennessee. Right? I mean, these jokes were

35:20

have been made twenty years ago, but they're

35:22

still true. Right? They're like,

35:25

You know, Greta Thunberg, again, I don't

35:27

scratch or anything she does, but but she

35:29

does not hesitate to sell a new book

35:31

on a Kindle Right? She doesn't say that her books

35:33

can only be bought in a

35:36

store where where Swedish

35:38

children have

35:40

know, made handwritten copies of their books. So, again, they all wanna enjoy

35:42

the the means of modern technology, but

35:44

but completely try to conceal the

35:47

fact that without energy

35:49

and abundance of energy. This this this is

35:52

gonna end. I share your

35:54

enthusiasm for the industrial revolution. I

35:56

think people failed to

35:58

appreciate maybe as a consequence

36:00

of education apart from anything

36:02

else, just how central

36:04

industrialization was

36:06

to the movement

36:08

of humankind into an

36:10

entirely new era. And it

36:12

was so frustrating for

36:14

me when I saw

36:16

Gretchen Thunberg at the a climate summit in Glasgow saying, look, the

36:18

reason it's good that this is being held in the

36:20

United Kingdom is because you

36:22

guys bear a

36:24

lot of responsibility for the horrors we're currently facing because

36:26

you initiated in large part the

36:28

industrial revolution. And Boris

36:30

Johnson echoed some

36:32

of those sentiments. He was prime

36:34

minister at the time, which was

36:36

incredibly concerning. And I think, you know,

36:38

Alex Epstein has made this point as well.

36:40

If if you want to see what the apocalypse,

36:42

you're all scared off really will

36:44

look like go and visit

36:46

the poorest people in the world

36:49

whose lives are unimaginable to

36:51

people in the west. I mean, the daily grind of

36:53

making sure that you don't die. That's the

36:55

kind of thing that about

36:58

when people lack the resources that we

37:00

are lucky enough to have. I

37:02

wanted to touch

37:04

on you the question of whether

37:06

you think there's gonna be a reckoning with

37:08

some of these problems that we're talking

37:10

about. As a consequence of

37:12

various different things coming together,

37:14

the lockdown moment, which is I think raising

37:16

lots of questions about

37:18

energy, about production, about

37:21

how society functions, Of course, the

37:23

war in Ukraine, which has raised the energy question enormously for Germany and for

37:26

the rest

37:28

of Europe. Also, we have

37:30

the really insane spectacle

37:32

of the Dutch government

37:34

pressuring farmers to use

37:38

fewer fertilizers and there's a

37:40

real pushback from Dutch farmers.

37:42

We're seeing a slightly similar dynamic

37:44

in Canada and also in Ireland where

37:46

farmers are saying, look, If you put

37:48

pressure on us to

37:50

restrict the amount of modern stuff that

37:52

we use, we're going to be able to

37:54

produce less food

37:56

for society. And of course, there was the huge blow up in Sri

37:58

Lanka last year, which

38:00

where the the government was essentially swept

38:02

aside, and and that was in

38:05

some part instigated by the fact that

38:08

Sri Lanka was made into a net zero

38:10

nation, which meant that farmers were

38:12

not able to produce needed

38:14

and the food that society needed. So

38:16

there is a bit of a confrontation taken

38:18

place. Isn't that? Between ordinary

38:22

people, very often farmers, other workers as well, and

38:24

this elite ideology which seems

38:26

to be pretty unhinged in terms of

38:28

the ideas that it's pushing on society.

38:32

I think that's true. I think that's true. I mean, I I don't know

38:35

when and in what form of reckoning

38:37

is gonna come, but I think

38:40

that the pushback is getting stronger. And you see interesting new

38:42

alliances emerge. I mean,

38:44

from at least, what what I always consider

38:46

to me, I always consider

38:48

spike to be much more of, like, you know, a center

38:50

left publication, but not necessarily a center right conservative publication.

38:53

And I always kind of consider myself to

38:55

be more to the right

38:57

to the left But, you know, here we are. So there is

38:59

there is a I think there is a kind of a new

39:02

alliance between common sense people

39:04

and and between a little bit deeper. The

39:06

new right than the old Because

39:08

one of the things that you mentioned is,

39:10

so eloquent, just now,

39:12

usually the political left what

39:15

the party that was interested in, you

39:17

know, expanding wealth to the lower

39:20

classes, to enabling the the

39:22

the working class to have much of as much

39:24

of a dignified life as possible. But

39:26

they have morphed into for

39:28

lack of better expression into the party

39:30

of an elite minority. And I think what we see now is

39:33

that that vacuum gradually gets

39:35

filled. And people that

39:38

You mentioned like Alex Epstein, you have, you know,

39:40

Michael and so many

39:42

others, their audience is growing. So

39:44

that tells me that that their is

39:48

increasingly the kind of

39:50

thinking. Again, I think we

39:52

talk to people about common sense that

39:54

and we see this now in great Britain and we

39:56

see it now in continental Europe, and

39:58

this is going to get worse in twenty twenty

40:00

three. During the great

40:02

financial crisis of two thousand and

40:04

eight to two thousand eleven, right, it was

40:06

possible pretty much by central

40:08

bank policy to isolate

40:10

the majority of the people from the

40:12

consequences of a misguided monetary policy.

40:15

But in the realm of energy, it will not be

40:18

possible to guide the people forever from the

40:20

consequences of a misguided

40:22

energy policy. So and we see this

40:24

now. I mean, the bills are going up for everyone, and and the government cannot

40:26

keep up with, you know, transferring more

40:28

and more money to people whose energy

40:31

bills go up because all that's gonna do is it's

40:33

gonna fire up inflation. Because the this is again,

40:36

because energy is the most basic thing.

40:39

there no energy available, you can throw

40:42

as many euros at least as it at

40:44

it as you want. It's not

40:46

gonna make

40:48

more energy. So so if energy prices go up by ten percent, let's say.

40:50

And the government says, oh, no problem. We give

40:52

everybody a raise of ten percent more

40:54

than energy prices are just gonna

40:56

go up fifteen percent because nobody is gonna reduce their

40:58

consumption. And and I think this

41:00

is this is gonna be,

41:02

you know,

41:04

if this is the new normal, I don't think that people are gonna willing to

41:06

put up with this forever. And we

41:08

are already manufacturing. I know it's

41:12

also that It's the same in the United States that United Kingdom. already

41:14

manufacturing the new crisis under the

41:16

label of heat pumps. I mean, you know,

41:18

for everybody who listens to this,

41:21

You know? Take take note of that. I mean, a

41:23

heat pump is basically and this is

41:25

the absurdity in a nutshell. A heat

41:27

pump is basically an air conditioning

41:29

unit that can also heat your apartment. So the

41:31

same people that every summer

41:34

say, is it necessary to use air

41:36

conditioning? Why do you have to turn on

41:38

air condition? Is now

41:40

saying the future of the

41:42

planet rests on making

41:44

more expensive, you know, and and more

41:46

complex air

41:48

conditioning units. That need electricity. And so so we want to

41:50

switch everything to electric

41:52

vehicles. So we we we we want to

41:54

switch the

41:56

economy to more electricity and simultaneously say,

41:58

we don't put electricity from gas. We don't

42:00

put electricity from coal. We don't put electricity

42:02

from nuclear. This is

42:05

not gonna work. So so we can try to push the

42:07

clash of ideology and reality maybe

42:10

out a little further, but that clash is

42:12

gonna come to put

42:14

it simply the math is not

42:16

gonna add up. This is not this is what I always

42:18

say. Yes. I'm not a I'm not a

42:20

physicist, but that's just

42:22

a simple matter of fact, if I increase

42:24

the demand for a good, in this case,

42:26

electricity and I decrease

42:30

the supply I mean, then the price is gonna go up, and I think

42:32

the price is gonna go up

42:34

significantly. And and at some point, people

42:36

will say, you know, you you

42:38

promised us

42:40

that we can save the planet and, you know,

42:42

keep our living standards or the promise at some point.

42:44

I mean, everybody now acts as if

42:47

they don't remember this. But

42:49

if you go back and how they talked about the energy

42:52

transition three or four years ago, they

42:54

said it's gonna be

42:56

cheaper, cleaner, and more

42:58

reliable. Well, now we know it's not

43:00

cheaper. It's not cleaner

43:02

because those wind turbines, those solar panels, they

43:04

have to be built and building them making

43:06

them is a huge, huge

43:08

CO2 problem. You know, and we're

43:10

not even talking about slave labor in

43:13

China label in Africa and these kind of things that are

43:15

connected to it. And they are definitely not

43:17

more reliable. So so all the

43:19

promises that were made

43:22

are are unfulfilled to this moment, and what makes it

43:24

worse is as it happened so often, this

43:26

is kind of what the religious sentiment

43:28

comes in.

43:30

If you see your ideas failing, instead of abandoning

43:32

them, right, you double down on them. And

43:34

I think this is what we see also happening

43:36

in many of these areas. I

43:39

have no problem with solar. I have no

43:41

problem with wind. But I think we have to look at it.

43:43

Well, I have more problem with wind, to be honest

43:45

with you, solar. But I think we have to look

43:47

at it realistically. And if you compare, for

43:49

example, nuclear and solar, nuclear and wind,

43:52

there is absolutely no question

43:54

that nuclear

43:56

is superior. But we we we don't do it. Right? And and as you so

43:58

what happens then in winter in December,

44:00

we burn coal or in New

44:02

England, they burn oil. You

44:06

know, it's it's it's really like we're rerunning the industrial revolution in

44:08

a sense here. Like, we we're using

44:10

the 30s, 30s tools

44:12

and everybody's, you know, kinda,

44:15

whistling and say, well, nothing

44:17

to see here. Well, move on. Nothing

44:19

to see here. And and and I think

44:21

this is again the

44:24

fossil fuels keep the energy transition going. But once we no

44:26

longer have them,

44:28

well, good luck and to

44:30

do maybe one last point and this

44:33

Energy can at the moment not be stockpiled. So

44:35

when you say, but look how great solar is in

44:37

the summer, look how great wind is in the summer.

44:39

And that doesn't help you. Right? It's it's

44:42

I I used this example before.

44:44

This is like saying,

44:46

you know, you need to breathe

44:49

twenty 473 sixty five. You you cannot say, I'm

44:51

gonna breathe twice as much on Sunday and then

44:53

I stop breathing on Monday because then you're

44:55

gonna be dead. And

44:57

it's same with energy. You cannot say I produce

45:00

more in August and

45:02

then I have it available in December

45:04

because we have no storage.

45:07

And and once again, these are not

45:09

opinions. This is, you know, this

45:11

is physics. If to be very clear, if

45:13

there is a breakthrough in

45:16

battery technology, If we can storage energy, you know, maybe not maybe

45:18

not just electricity but also

45:20

heat for, let's say, one month or

45:22

two month, and we can

45:24

charge these these storage

45:26

systems with wind and solar in the summer. Then

45:28

I'm the first one to say, yes, let's

45:30

do it. But the technology at the moment is not there and it as

45:32

absurd. We are betting

45:36

our future. On the

45:38

technology, we hope will

45:41

materialize in the coming years.

45:43

And again, I don't want to want to

45:45

kind of overstretch to the analogy But

45:47

this is, like, hoping for the second coming

45:49

of Jesus. It is not that much different. Like,

45:51

you pin your hopes on something

45:54

that's not there yet. And it might Joy

45:56

might be there. But yeah. And and again,

45:58

Jesus might return tomorrow. Right?

46:00

And then all our conversations have

46:03

been useless. But would I really pin everything I

46:05

own on on on this thing from app

46:07

to app? I mean, sure.

46:10

But again, that's a very, very

46:12

risky bet. And I'm I'm worried that I think at

46:14

this point in time, the the

46:16

no. We can still get the curve. We

46:18

can we can turn around. But at

46:21

some point, it's can't be too late because the rest of the

46:23

world is not sleeping. Right? Saudi Arabia says they

46:26

want to start their own petrochemical

46:28

industry, which is what Germany was leading over the

46:30

last couple

46:32

of decades. Right, India, China,

46:34

we no longer live in in

46:36

the kind of world with the the advantage,

46:38

the distance of the west to the

46:41

rest of the world is so great that they can never

46:43

catch up. If they get a

46:45

surplus in energy, if they get a surplus in

46:47

an educated workforce, if they have the

46:50

kind of mindset, that we have, you know,

46:52

a hundred and fifty years ago when it comes to

46:54

these kind of problems, they're gonna

46:56

overtake us sooner later, and they're gonna get rich,

46:58

and we're gonna get poor. It

47:00

happened before history. So that so this is

47:02

like, we all everybody always thinks they live

47:04

in exceptional

47:06

times. We live in interesting times, but I I think that

47:08

that's the the basic rules

47:10

of of economics of progress

47:14

they are not suspended just because we we are Europeans or

47:16

Americans, and and I think we're gonna find out

47:18

one way or

47:19

another. If you're a regular listener to this

47:21

show or a regular reader

47:23

of Spiked. Why not become a spiked

47:26

supporter? Spike supporters is our thriving

47:28

community of people who donate

47:30

to spiked. Anyone who gives five pounds or more a month fifty

47:32

pounds or more a year can

47:34

become a spike supporter and get access

47:36

to lots of

47:38

exciting perks. Spike

47:40

supporters can comment on articles, get free

47:42

and discounted tickets to events, get

47:44

a discount on all items in

47:48

our shop and bookmark articles as you browse. This is

47:50

our way of saying thank you to all of

47:52

you who fund our

47:54

work, spiked is completely

47:56

free and yet you still hand over your

47:58

hard earned cash to make sure that anyone

48:00

anywhere can read us and listen to

48:02

us We're incredibly grateful

48:05

for your generosity. If you don't give

48:07

to Spike yet, now is the perfect time

48:09

to start. Just go to Spike

48:11

hyphen online dot com

48:14

slash supporters to set up your

48:16

donation and your spike

48:18

supporters

48:18

account. That's spiked online dot com

48:21

slash supporters. We do

48:23

live in

48:23

interesting times. That's very true. And I I liked

48:26

your point about

48:28

strange new alliances that are

48:30

emerging, and and Spike has always considered

48:33

itself a left wing publication. And

48:35

I think people forget the If

48:37

you look even back to Karl Marx, Karl Marx referred

48:40

to Malthus' writing on

48:42

population and food

48:44

and nature, as a libel against the human race

48:46

because he thought that Malthus and others

48:48

were naturalizing

48:49

poverty. The treating poverty

48:51

is something

48:52

that product of a

48:54

natural limits, whereas Mark's

48:56

argument and subsequent radical argument

48:58

was that poverty was a

49:01

production of social limits, the inability at

49:03

a certain point for society to break

49:05

through and the necessity of

49:07

society breaking through in order that more

49:09

people could live healthy, wealthy, comfortable lives. I

49:11

think the contemporary left has completely

49:14

forgotten that and has

49:16

bought into the

49:18

naturalized view of the world at the

49:20

Malthusian, the the neo

49:22

Malthusian view that the problems

49:24

we face are consequences of

49:26

natural limits rather than

49:28

off the culture we find ourselves in

49:30

and the inability of us

49:32

to push forward in the way that we

49:34

need to. So the

49:36

abandonment of social thinking for

49:38

natural thinking on the left is a real problem.

49:40

And that does create new alliances

49:42

between old Leftists who

49:44

still believe that the social is

49:46

important and people on the right who are likewise in favor of progress, in

49:48

favor of industrialization and so on.

49:52

Ralph, just one more issue on

49:54

which there is potentially a

49:56

reckoning taking place, which

49:58

is on the issue of

50:00

the populist rights and the populist pushback against

50:04

democracy, I guess. You you have written

50:06

extensively and spoken extensively on

50:08

issues relating

50:10

to the populist right in Europe. We've seen Georgia Maloney

50:12

take control in Italy. We've seen

50:14

the Sweden Democrats do very well in Sweden,

50:16

both of those over the past year.

50:20

Of course, there was Brexit, which I don't think is a right

50:23

wing thing. It's it's a democratic thing.

50:25

There was the Trump vote. All

50:27

these things taking place. I

50:30

wonder what your assessment is at the moment off the

50:33

pocketless pushback and where you think things

50:35

are going to go next

50:38

in relation to that? Well, some of them

50:39

I have to admit, but of course, that's my own that

50:42

those are my own political preferences. So so

50:45

don't pretend that this is an objective assessment. This is kind of

50:47

my my personal assessment.

50:50

I think that the the

50:52

Swedish right kind of cut many

50:54

things right. I think that they found out

50:56

they increasingly figure out the right

50:58

answer to the energy question. I

51:00

think they have been – maybe the

51:02

rhetoric has been problematic, but I think

51:04

they have been right in large part of the

51:06

immigration question. I think

51:08

Italy and the Georgia Maloney surprisingly, I

51:10

think they are about to announce their u-turn when it comes to nuclear energy.

51:12

So I think in many areas,

51:14

there is less of

51:18

a disappointment of populist

51:20

right wing movements than there has been in the

51:22

past. And I think one of the reasons

51:24

for this is I mean, this is I think gonna

51:26

be one of the the hidden cause requencies of

51:28

the war in Ukraine.

51:30

That the the right has

51:32

a certain, let's say, philosophic advantage

51:35

at the moment. Because I I'm a fervent believer.

51:37

And I I mean, I can't be wrong here, but this is kind of my own

51:39

theory. Right? That every political movement, whatever

51:42

whatever the

51:44

right left wing or center. Right? You

51:46

need an ideological core. You you need kind of a a justification

51:48

for your existence. And I think for

51:50

many on the left, it

51:53

has become this idea, you know, that the

51:55

world is gonna end. Right? Kind of that that

51:57

that that this this

52:00

this very radical climate

52:02

slash environmental approach. And

52:04

as you mentioned, so nice to write kind of this

52:06

idea that humanity itself is a plague, and

52:08

that the the best thing you can do is

52:10

not having children and and all these kind

52:12

of things. And this is, of course, also a driving element in the

52:14

energy crisis. The right is an advantage

52:16

because I think the right has lost to

52:18

China, so saying, no, we

52:20

stand for the nation. Right? We take

52:22

nationalism seriously, and they can point to

52:24

Ukraine

52:25

and say, if

52:27

which which, I think, the right does generally right, this thing. So we we

52:29

believe in borders. Right? We believe

52:31

in national identity. Even

52:34

if you're a left winger and you put a little Ukrainian flag in the

52:36

social media profile, you actually make a right wing

52:38

point. But this allows, I

52:40

think, the right to increasingly be

52:43

non ideological in these other

52:46

questions because, you know, for for the

52:48

nationalist says my primary

52:50

goal is the well-being of

52:52

my nation. And if I need nuclear energy for this, I'm gonna go for nuclear

52:54

energy. If I need, you know, closed

52:56

borders for this, I'm gonna go for closed borders.

52:58

That is what the kind of,

53:00

you know,

53:02

the left that wishes so desperately

53:04

to be cosmopolitan and transnational.

53:06

Right? And super national they

53:09

cannot do this. For them, it's always either you

53:11

save the planet or nothing. And I think that's when

53:13

the right wing at the moment hasn't been managed because

53:15

they can say, we don't

53:18

aspire to save the planet. For us, it's really

53:20

the national interest that comes first.

53:22

Hungary is a good example there. Right?

53:24

Although, you know, if the Hungary tendency to the cynical, although

53:27

I think that's also a little bit historical

53:29

ingrained in the Hungarian political

53:32

tradition. But Poland is an

53:34

example for this. Right? Right? There there is

53:36

no longer any kind of

53:39

discomfort. We're saying we put our national interest

53:41

first. And even Joe Biden's America, right, if you look at

53:44

the inflation reduction act, I mean, this this

53:46

is pretty much an you know, you could

53:48

rephrase it

53:50

at as the, you know, domestic industrial

53:52

protection act probably would be a more

53:54

accurate way to to describe it. So

53:56

I think that that many

53:59

of these these traditionally right

54:01

wing ideas are becoming more

54:04

mainstream. And I think that in many of the

54:06

areas, like not just energy other areas

54:08

I think that at least

54:10

some on the right tends to have

54:12

the potentially more sustainable

54:16

outlook. Than than the left. But I I mean, we see this. I mean, left parties

54:18

have travel all over the

54:20

west, with one exception, and this is, I

54:22

think, particularly interesting for the listeners in

54:26

the UK. The United Kingdom currently doesn't have

54:28

a real conservative party. So so

54:30

you you have labor and you you have

54:32

kind of, you know, a little

54:34

less of

54:36

a little a little less left of center supposedly conservative

54:38

party, and that's not gonna fly with

54:40

the people. I mean, this so I

54:43

I completely understand that, you know,

54:45

the toys are in trouble because you mentioned Boris Johnson before, I

54:48

mean, and, you know,

54:50

despite this, idiosyncratic

54:52

behaviors. I think a very talented individual, but

54:54

he was not conservative, you know,

54:56

in a in a factoring way or

54:59

or anything, or like or on

55:01

or anybody. And there is, I

55:04

think, room for for

55:06

populist movements also in in in

55:08

Great Britain. Conservatism

55:10

in in its own way, I think, is coming

55:12

back. It's coming back with the

55:14

vengeance. This will also put

55:16

the European Union under

55:18

significant strain. I don't buy

55:20

the argument that many are making that

55:22

with every crisis in EU is getting

55:24

stronger and more unified. I don't think that's

55:26

happening. I think the division's with Easter and

55:28

Western Europe are very real

55:30

and are about to get deeper in the

55:32

years to come. So so the

55:34

the time of populism, as many say,

55:36

I think, is not over. I think it's just it's just about to

55:37

begin. So I think there's a lot we kind of see in the in the the

55:40

years to come. Yeah. That's it's

55:42

interesting what you say there because

55:44

I think in relation

55:46

to the right and the right having the upper hand

55:48

at the moment, particularly on

55:50

issues related to borders

55:52

and national democracy and things that

55:54

people are genuinely interested in. What I find quite depressing

55:57

about that is that the left, this

55:59

is another issue on which the left

56:01

used to be quite good. I

56:03

mean, if you think about the less support for national liberation

56:06

struggles, for example, or

56:08

the less traditional commitment

56:10

to the idea of democracy, and, of course,

56:12

democracy can largely only take

56:14

place within a nation state

56:16

democracy as we understand it.

56:18

Anyway, you if you think back

56:20

to, you know, historical figures

56:22

like James commonly in Ireland, for example, during the

56:24

nineteen sixteen Easter rising, he

56:26

made the point that a country is

56:28

not free unless

56:30

it is incomplete control of its

56:32

borders and its territory. So that used to

56:34

be an idea that Leftists and radical

56:38

Leftists were very keen on. But as you say, they

56:40

have bit by bit, they've abandoned

56:42

that, and they've embraced this kind

56:46

of phony cosmopolitanism, this kind of

56:48

globalism that is really just an

56:50

antagonism with borders, an

56:52

agitation with democracy, and a desire to

56:54

do politics

56:56

above the nation state and above ordinary

56:58

people. And and it's

57:00

in some sense so ironic

57:03

because it it's on on the one hand, right, even

57:05

the contemporary left likes to pride

57:08

themselves on being, you know, the most secular,

57:10

the most, you know, atheistic

57:12

of all movements. But exactly what

57:14

you just described, right, this idea of

57:16

of of, you know, that they have these universal values

57:18

and and that that that, you

57:21

know, the world is at wonder. It's

57:24

so fundamentally, like, this this is

57:26

such a a kind of Christian way

57:28

to look at the world. So the the the the

57:30

the the the most

57:32

sexual, you know, atheist movements, they

57:34

really sound like, you know, the

57:36

only protestants. A

57:38

lot of of what's going on on the left is a form of

57:40

of a of a second reformation. And

57:42

this is also why they are so

57:44

influential because they really believe in

57:48

this with the further of, you know, the recently converted.

57:50

This is why they and and they're good at this.

57:52

Right? This so they are not complacent. So

57:54

I as always say, I

57:56

absolutely respect the energy of

57:58

the Greta Thunbergs and others,

58:00

but I completely disagree with the

58:03

goal. Right? And and I think that that that the center that

58:05

we we've been to also interrupt you, but

58:07

this exactly what you described it so

58:09

nice. Right? This this this this this

58:11

this all these universalist ideas that talk

58:13

about humanity that, like, nobody

58:16

in India thinks this way. Right? Nobody in

58:18

China thinks this way. This This is none of them

58:20

would would could not necessarily think

58:22

about humanity as one.

58:24

Global citizenship, as beautiful as it sounds,

58:26

is a purely

58:28

western idea.

58:28

Right? And and so so this is also a new form in many ways of of,

58:30

you know, kinda any pure mindset choose from

58:32

a from a different angle. So

58:36

That's a good

58:37

point. And I do think that the idea global citizenship stems

58:40

in large part from the modern

58:42

left or the modern technocrats

58:45

loss of faith in their own citizens.

58:48

So because they increasingly see

58:50

the citizens within their own nation

58:52

state as a problem, as a

58:54

failure, as the kind of ideas

58:56

who vote for things like Brexit or things

58:58

like Trump or things like the alternative

59:00

for Dutch lender, whatever else it might be.

59:03

They tend to increasingly look

59:06

towards higher up globalized

59:08

institutions to carry out politics

59:10

in a more rarerified way. And

59:12

I think The the link between the rise of the idea of

59:14

global citizenship and the decline of their

59:16

trust in democratic institutions

59:18

is very,

59:20

very interesting and probably one of the key

59:22

factors in contemporary politics. But I

59:24

wanted to ask you on that how much you

59:26

think the war in Ukraine will turn

59:28

some of this stuff on

59:30

its

59:31

head. So already we have a situation

59:34

where so

59:35

called liberals and so called

59:37

Leftists in the West are

59:39

expressing support for Ukraine,

59:42

either unaware or uncaring of

59:44

the fact that they're expressing support for an

59:46

idea that they've actually been raging against

59:48

for the past few decades, which is the

59:51

idea of national sovereignty, the idea that a

59:53

nation should be in control of its own

59:55

future and its own fate. That's

59:57

an idea that they undermine all the time when

1:00:00

they support the European Union

1:00:02

imposing sanctions on Hungary, for

1:00:04

example, or when they argue that

1:00:06

Britain should bow down to

1:00:08

Brussels again and forget the Brexit project.

1:00:10

They continually undermine the

1:00:12

idea of national sovereignty, but they claim to

1:00:14

support it in relation to Ukraine. And also, you've

1:00:16

written about the tensions

1:00:18

that the war in Ukraine has raised

1:00:20

within the European Union.

1:00:22

So in instead of responding to Ukraine as a unified

1:00:24

block, which is how the European Union

1:00:26

presents itself, there have actually been

1:00:28

national tensions within

1:00:30

the EU Ukraine

1:00:32

should be dealt with, what, how the

1:00:34

conflict should be resolved and so on.

1:00:36

So is it possible that

1:00:39

the Ukraine conflict will

1:00:42

restore respect for national sovereignty

1:00:44

or at least bring to

1:00:46

the surface national tensions and remind us that we live in a

1:00:48

world of nations rather than a world

1:00:50

of so called global

1:00:51

citizenship. I think it does us.

1:00:53

And I think it ultimately but also deepened

1:00:55

the divisions that have been part of

1:00:57

the European project at

1:01:00

least since two thousand and four, which was

1:01:02

when ten Eastern European countries

1:01:04

joins the the European Union. And and

1:01:06

as always, right? I I'm I'm a huge

1:01:08

fan of Central and Eastern

1:01:10

European countries. I I have a lot of

1:01:12

respect and admiration for them,

1:01:14

but not every, you know,

1:01:16

something that that that's good on its own, right,

1:01:18

doesn't necessarily make a great match

1:01:20

with something else. And the the European Union as a supernational project

1:01:23

was predicated on

1:01:25

the idea of supernationalism

1:01:28

on the one hand, but also on

1:01:30

postnationalism on the other hand. Right?

1:01:32

The the very idea, as you mentioned,

1:01:34

so so eloquently again, that no nation

1:01:37

should have, you know, its its own faith in

1:01:39

its own hands entirely. Right? That there should

1:01:41

be some element that

1:01:44

is given to institutions that might be

1:01:46

wiser and more restrained

1:01:48

than the sometimes too easily

1:01:50

excitable people within the

1:01:52

nation state. But that only

1:01:54

worked as long as the members of of

1:01:56

the European Union kind of all part of the

1:01:58

sentiment, and that ended with Eastern

1:02:00

Europeans. The the Polish don't think

1:02:02

that way the Hungarians obviously don't think this way. The the

1:02:04

Czechs don't think the way, the Slovaks don't think the

1:02:06

way on the Balkans.

1:02:09

Right? I mean, in in

1:02:12

Croatia, Serbia, Slovenia,

1:02:14

like some of the members of the

1:02:16

US as well. They were always nationalists.

1:02:18

I mean, the idea, like, nobody in Serbia Croatia would understand

1:02:20

the idea of postnationalism and the

1:02:22

same in Poland. Right? So so

1:02:24

this this this entire idea because

1:02:28

it it held together as long as there was no test for

1:02:30

it and there were Ukraine. It's a test for it

1:02:32

because as you correctly pointed out,

1:02:35

this is now a question of,

1:02:37

okay, and what is the space or the

1:02:39

room for nationalism in the

1:02:41

European Union going forward? And I

1:02:43

think one half still ultimately believes that there is no room

1:02:45

for it. And the other half believes that it should

1:02:48

be front and center. And I don't think

1:02:50

you can keep something like that that

1:02:52

together forever.

1:02:54

I mean, there are some Germans want

1:02:56

to go back to the status quo

1:02:58

before the war. I mean, this is

1:03:01

just recently kind of to connect the two topics of our

1:03:04

conversation. The German Ministry

1:03:06

of Economics was green lighting

1:03:09

the additional construction of

1:03:11

gas powered electricity power

1:03:14

plants. I mean, where's the gas gonna come from?

1:03:16

At some point, they they will, if there should

1:03:18

be an opportunity, they will buy Russian

1:03:20

gas again, and I'm sure that they wanna do

1:03:22

this rather sooner than later. So for them, it

1:03:25

really is about ending the war as

1:03:27

soon as possible. Whereas, for example, for

1:03:29

the Polish, I think it's much

1:03:31

more about, quote unquote, winning the

1:03:33

war. And and those are not the same like, those are not

1:03:35

the same goals. I mean, as always, right, the the I

1:03:37

I know I constantly get mails where people's out here are

1:03:40

shilling for us. You know, I'm I'm neither a fan of

1:03:42

Russian nor a fan of

1:03:44

Vladimir Putin. And I'm definitely

1:03:46

not a fan of invading neighboring

1:03:48

countries. But I still

1:03:50

believe that that that you need a

1:03:52

strategy. Right? You need you need a

1:03:54

goal. Right? And and when when I hear

1:03:56

politicians say that the support for Ukraine

1:03:58

is unconditional, and the

1:04:00

only party who will decide when this war

1:04:02

is over

1:04:04

is is, you know, is Ukraine? I don't think that that is really

1:04:06

how how do promising or or

1:04:08

anything should work. Right? I mean, the United States

1:04:10

and world war two did not say to

1:04:13

the British you want. Our support is unconditional.

1:04:15

I mean, if you look at the conditions

1:04:17

that Roosevelt asked of the British,

1:04:19

they were substantial. Right?

1:04:21

So so as it was always clear that that the national

1:04:24

interest ultimately was more

1:04:26

superior to any on the

1:04:28

surface moral claims of of

1:04:30

international politics. And I think that must

1:04:32

be at some point the same year. What is

1:04:34

the goal? What is ultimately the goal

1:04:36

of of

1:04:38

of Europe's policy towards

1:04:40

Ukraine. And and will all

1:04:42

member states be willing to to

1:04:44

support this? I mean, Hungary made their position clear,

1:04:46

and and we can have a discussion

1:04:48

whether we find it immoral or not, but their

1:04:51

position is that the Hungarian economy

1:04:54

depends extensively on energy

1:04:56

from Russia and they cannot bear words, not mine.

1:04:59

Right? And they said they cannot

1:05:01

sacrifice the national economy for

1:05:03

a foreign country. As I like,

1:05:05

we can agree or disagree with that.

1:05:08

But but I think that a majority in

1:05:10

Hungary shares that kind of

1:05:12

sentiment. And and I

1:05:14

think that even in Germany. I mean, if we're gonna see in twenty

1:05:16

twenty three that neither

1:05:18

inflation nor the problem of

1:05:20

prices in the

1:05:22

energy sector can be controlled, and I don't think it it

1:05:24

will be controlled at any point. So I think

1:05:26

that public sentiment is gonna shift

1:05:28

very, very,

1:05:30

very quickly. I think that outside

1:05:32

of of Twitter and the social media support

1:05:34

for Ukraine is not

1:05:38

going as deep as as some might believe. And once again, I'm

1:05:40

not saying this because I

1:05:42

find this is this is a good thing or the right

1:05:44

thing.

1:05:44

I think it's just a fact with which we have to

1:05:46

deal. Okay, Ralph.

1:05:48

My last question for you is,

1:05:50

I guess, about the year ahead

1:05:52

or the years ahead, and

1:05:55

whether you feel optimistic or So obviously, lots of bad

1:05:57

things are happening in the world, and we've touched on

1:05:59

some of those today. But at

1:06:01

the same time,

1:06:04

there are very interesting questions swirling around in political

1:06:07

life, which wasn't necessarily the

1:06:09

case pre two

1:06:12

thousand and steam or in the in

1:06:14

the two thousands and the late nineties things were a bit more

1:06:16

stuck and and a bit more confusing.

1:06:18

But at the moment, there are some

1:06:21

fascinating questions swirling around. You write

1:06:24

about them, you speak about them. We've just talked about

1:06:26

some of them in the past hour.

1:06:28

Ukraine is

1:06:30

reraising the question of national sovereignty. It's also making Europe

1:06:32

confront the energy crisis if

1:06:34

we've got the nerve to do

1:06:36

that. We're seeing populist pushbacks. We're

1:06:38

seeing people

1:06:40

raising questions about net zero, raising questions about technology,

1:06:42

raising questions about whether the lockdown

1:06:44

was the right thing to do and what the

1:06:46

consequences of lockdown will be.

1:06:49

Do you feel optimistic that people

1:06:52

are asking the right questions and that we

1:06:54

might come up with some good

1:06:55

solutions? Or do you feel pessimistic about

1:06:57

things going forward? I think there is a lot

1:06:59

to be too pessimistic about and there is depending on which

1:07:01

area we look at and there is a lot to be

1:07:04

optimistic about.

1:07:06

I mean, what gives me as somebody, you know, like you, as

1:07:09

somebody in Europe, but someone gives me help is I'm

1:07:11

not worried about the United States.

1:07:14

I know there is always this talk, but we heard this in the seventies how, you

1:07:16

know, the American moment is over and America

1:07:18

is on the brink of decline and

1:07:22

and they will replace by, you know, a multipolar

1:07:24

coalition of brick states

1:07:27

that include India and China

1:07:29

and Saudi Arabia and even

1:07:31

though they are based there at least on the brink of war

1:07:33

with each other. So I think the United States will

1:07:35

fare quite well. They're still the most

1:07:38

dynamic economy on the planet. There's barely

1:07:40

any significant innovation. The

1:07:42

note in one way or another was was made

1:07:44

by the United States. It's due to their political

1:07:46

system. Their their struck Right? If

1:07:49

things go crazy in California, people move to Texas. If things go crazy

1:07:51

in New York, they move to Florida. So

1:07:53

people have options there.

1:07:56

And they still strike with a very energetic society for

1:07:58

a variety of reasons. With warriors in

1:08:00

Europe and with warriors in Great Britain,

1:08:04

It strikes me as we are exhausted societies. And I

1:08:07

think 111 good way to

1:08:09

measure this for me at least

1:08:12

this. Right, that there is society that's exhausted, at least that's

1:08:14

my sense, right, it becomes prickly, it becomes

1:08:16

petty. And I think this is

1:08:18

what you see also, you know,

1:08:21

you know, when recently, I'm sure you heard of

1:08:23

this, you know, when when this one woman across the street of an abortion clinic was

1:08:28

arrested for for silently praying. Right? And and

1:08:30

and there are most always like this coming out of Britain. And we have time in Continental Europe as well.

1:08:32

Right? Kind of, well, will

1:08:34

the government starts to, you know,

1:08:38

kinda crackdown on, let's say,

1:08:40

the mundane parts of life, but that

1:08:42

the more difficult or the more,

1:08:44

let's say, challenging things like, you

1:08:46

know, serious crimes in other areas, like the

1:08:49

matter of migration, like the matter

1:08:51

of energy. They're incapable of of

1:08:53

kind of approaching with the

1:08:55

same kind of energy that we could

1:08:57

in the past. And just as a last point of this, IIII can I

1:08:59

don't wanna come across as a reactionary,

1:09:04

you know, nineteenth century, I apologize, although that's

1:09:06

pretty much what I am. But if

1:09:09

you look at what societies

1:09:11

had to go through at that time population growth with migration. I mean, this

1:09:14

the nineteenth century was in many you

1:09:17

know, it was crazy in many

1:09:19

ways. You had assassinations of SARS.

1:09:21

You had the assassinations of the US president. You you know,

1:09:23

you'd wars and continental Europe, you know, over all

1:09:25

kinds of, you

1:09:28

know, small you know, drinking,

1:09:30

drinking water areas. But but the general attitude was one of

1:09:32

that the world is there to

1:09:34

be mastered and it can be mastered.

1:09:39

For better or worse, the one I'm not trying to paint a rosy

1:09:41

picture there, but it was it was a

1:09:43

time of tremendous trust

1:09:46

in our capacity to innovate in our capacity to adapt. And let's

1:09:49

be honest here for a second,

1:09:51

all the great inventions that

1:09:54

that kind of then predetermine the twenties and

1:09:57

the 21st century were made in

1:09:59

the nineteenth century. Right?

1:10:02

From from fertilizer, to photography, to, you know,

1:10:04

electricity, to the modern

1:10:06

means of communication, electromagnetism,

1:10:09

you know, all these kind of things was

1:10:12

made during that time. And, you know, all

1:10:14

that even in German is a great example.

1:10:16

Right? The the the the kind of

1:10:18

the most Dominant German companies that still exist are

1:10:20

pretty much all founded at the turn

1:10:22

of the nineteenth and twentieth century,

1:10:25

which was as I

1:10:27

said in many ways highly energetic societies with

1:10:29

all their downsides, you know, but I'm not kinda glossy over that and

1:10:31

but we are no longer that and

1:10:33

you see it in

1:10:35

the debate. Right? We only talk about

1:10:37

redistribution. We only talk about, you know, kind

1:10:40

of general basic incomes,

1:10:42

all these kind of things

1:10:44

we about when we talk about

1:10:46

the working class. We don't talk about how can we uplift the working class. How can we give them a dignified

1:10:49

life. We basically

1:10:52

talk about how can we

1:10:54

tranquilize them? Right? Give them free Internet access, you know, give them give them data, free booze,

1:10:56

and and then everything will be

1:10:58

fine. We see that also near

1:11:02

at the world, you know, economic forum when somebody

1:11:04

like, yeah, you call Harare says,

1:11:06

yeah, we just, you know, two

1:11:09

thirds of humanity will

1:11:11

basically be useless in in in a couple of years. I

1:11:13

mean, this is a again, this is not the attitude of of of, you know,

1:11:16

looking at

1:11:18

the world as, you know, there is still so much to be discovered. There is still

1:11:20

so much to be to be done.

1:11:22

And that worries me the most is

1:11:26

we have maybe it's also a demographic thing. Right?

1:11:28

We're just older now. The average age

1:11:30

in Austria is forty six. So so

1:11:32

I guess, you know, this is an

1:11:34

age where you think more of element that none

1:11:36

of your next startup, but but I think we can feel

1:11:39

this. So this kind of a societal and and civilizational exhaustion I

1:11:43

think is at the root of so many of the

1:11:45

problems we haven't. But you see this,

1:11:47

right? It kind

1:11:50

of that's disarming for the sun, the wind, the

1:11:52

weather, untouched nature, it's it's

1:11:54

no longer how, you know,

1:11:57

as I said, for steel, and

1:11:59

uranium. And all this can it's it's again,

1:12:01

it's we want tranquility. We want this

1:12:03

is this is why I think that,

1:12:05

you know, the German position, the war,

1:12:08

and Ukraine because they are they

1:12:10

always see the Germans. They are in Kahoots with the Russians. No. I think it just bothers them

1:12:13

because it disturbs

1:12:16

the peace. So

1:12:18

if it's not that they that

1:12:20

they like one or another, it disturbs the tranquility,

1:12:22

which, again, the European Union was the institutionalization often

1:12:27

exhausted civilization. Right? Make the welfare

1:12:30

state accessible and leave on

1:12:32

the US protection that pretty much

1:12:34

was the project that everybody hates

1:12:36

to talk about this in Europe because

1:12:38

it doesn't, you know, we like the, you know, the grandfather who's who's constantly going to to

1:12:40

their grandchild and asked them for a check,

1:12:42

but I mean, pretty much in in a

1:12:46

sense, exaggerate it, of course, in in this

1:12:48

case, but that's pretty much what it is. And and

1:12:50

I see neither on the right nor on

1:12:53

the left, any political movement that says, you

1:12:55

know, You know, we let's let's let's get stronger.

1:12:57

And if you allow me, I've promised

1:12:59

the last point.

1:13:02

We'll also become it just bothers me the most. And as well, for example, why,

1:13:04

like, spiked so much and many of the

1:13:06

things you guys do, would be coming

1:13:10

so utterly humorous. It's it's a no There is no

1:13:12

modern Oscar wild. There is no real

1:13:14

transgression in a sense. And I

1:13:17

think these are important

1:13:19

elements of the society. You know, we have everything.

1:13:21

It's it's a I said it's it's a we are very, you

1:13:23

know, in a sense, very boring, which is, again,

1:13:26

why I'm just stand while the environmental movement has such

1:13:29

appeal for young people because

1:13:31

it's exciting. Saving

1:13:34

the planet is more exciting than saving for retirement, and

1:13:36

I kinda can understand that. Ralph,

1:13:38

thank you very much indeed. Thank

1:13:41

you so much.

1:13:43

This was fantastic.

1:14:03

Thank you for listening to the O'Neil show. We'll be back

1:14:06

with another guest and more

1:14:08

discussion. Don't

1:14:10

forget to subscribe And in the meantime, keep reading spiked

1:14:13

at WWW

1:14:15

dot spiked online

1:14:19

dot com. At the Home Depot, we are dedicated to

1:14:21

helping you build the skills that get your

1:14:23

home projects done right. That's

1:14:26

why we offer free and interactive

1:14:28

online DIY workshops. During the live streams,

1:14:30

our knowledgeable associates help you tackle your

1:14:33

DIY projects no

1:14:35

matter your age or skill level, you

1:14:37

can learn how to install new single pole switches as well as standard duplex and

1:14:40

GFCI outlets.

1:14:43

Register for free at home depot dot com slash workshops. The

1:14:45

Home Depot, how doers get

1:14:48

more done. With

1:14:50

one of the best savings rates in America, banking with

1:14:52

Capital One is the easiest decision in

1:14:55

the history of

1:14:55

decisions, even easier than choosing slash

1:14:58

to be in your band. Next up for lead guitar.

1:15:04

You're in.

1:15:06

Cool. Yep. Even easier than that. And

1:15:08

with no fees or minimums on checking and

1:15:10

savings accounts, is it even a

1:15:14

decision? That's banking reimagined. What's in your law? Terms apply. See

1:15:16

capital one dot com slash bank

1:15:18

for details. Capital One and A member

1:15:20

FDIC.