Latest / LAST BEST HOPE: A Babylon 5 Podcast for Our Uncertain Age / #14 – Talking Heads (AND NOW FOR A WORD, THE ILLUSION OF TRUTH)

Transcript

#14 – Talking Heads (AND NOW FOR A WORD, THE ILLUSION OF TRUTH) · LAST BEST HOPE: A Babylon 5 Podcast for Our Uncertain Age

• 0:01
  JOSH: Back in the halcyon 1990s, a syndicated sci fi TV series warned us that it indeed can happen here.
• 0:08
  JOHN: In this podcast, we use Babylon 5 to talk through our current political moment in an attempt to process, understand, and perhaps find hope.
• 0:22
  JOSH: So this is the long awaited media episode that we're about to dive into. And today we're doing two of the sequence central news media episodes of the series. And now for A Word from season two and the Illusion of Truth from season four. And I think combining them was a good idea because most of what we'll say about one we would probably want to say about the other and even, you know, invoke the other. So it just sort of made sense, I think, to tackle both of them as one. But just before we dive into the episodes themselves, I think it's worth at least mentioning up top that the idea of, of utilizing the news media as a part of Babylon 5 the show, but also a part of the story that JMS was interested in telling was really, I think I've discovered, at least more central to the original conception of the show than I had even realized before we started doing the podcast. So in 1999, Jamis allowed his original notes on Babylon 5 to be released via his Last Word column in the Babylon 5 magazine. The these notes were the very first concepts he ever put down on paper moments after he had his inspiration for the show while taking a shower. So he describes it as the Babylon Project, a historical drama covering the years 2258-2262. The whole story is told in the past tense. We learn eventually that this is a documentary produced after the deaths of all involved. The second paragraph says, set up one main news source network. And then in parentheses he says, inn Interstellar News Network, which provides archival material and funds the documentary recreation of the rest. So only one continual source rather than multiple news sources. So from the very beginning, the role of the news media sort of inseparable from his idea about the show that he wanted to make. I think I'd always assumed that it was just sort of something he came up with while he was writing the show or fleshing out the concepts. No, it's more foundational as a part of the DNA of what the show actually is than I had ever thought.
• 2:28
  JOHN: That's so interesting. It's something that, you know, you don't. You wouldn't know unless he was sharing his thought process and sharing the details because it makes sense and there is a huge presence of it. But understand that it's that integral and that Woven into the DNA of the show. You said it before that, you know, that isn, as it became known, is not only did he specify it as one, he later sort of defines, well, why is there one news source, you know, and the show. This show comes out before the emergence of social media by almost 10 years. The show was released rate as the Internet takes off. And JMS himself was hugely present on AOL forums and later some other forums. It's a huge like. And he was embracing and going full speed with it and knew about this technology and incorporated that into his writing. But to have a single source, well, it makes sense. Now you're talking about intergalactic communication. So when he talks about in his comments, you know, that are summarized in the Lurker's guide about, you know, the equipment, the resources, the energy needed to transmit on an intergalactic scale is really only available to isn. There are going to be plenty of other networks at the domestic level on individual planets and then even certainly more that you get into localities or different things. That begins to make more sense. It's like, yes, at Earth's level of technology, it's probably also backed by. Which makes you more sense. That would be backed by the government or the government would have something to do with this infrastructure to allow for that kind of interstellar intergalactic transmission. So it. It becomes more natural that ISN would be in the pocket of Earth gov, no matter what form that takes, because they rely on it for their ability to transmit to the colonies, to Babylon 5, to the alien worlds, to the rest of the galaxy. You know, as opposed to the more diffuse media we became used to in the early 2000s. And the teens was that, oh, anybody was with a website can come up with a blog. They can have a little news source. You know, we're seeing the remonopolization in our own world down to fewer and fewer sources as more media is bought up. I mean, obviously it's worth mentioning. Yeah, we have the Paramount Skydance acquisition of not only now cbs, but you have and looking at the entire Warner Brothers portfolio, including cnn. So is that also the natural way that things flow under capitalism? Well, that's also a really important point. Is that the answer is yes. Historically, the ebb and flow of capitalism is that a new technology oftentimes requires huge capital inputs to make it work, so you only have a few players. Then it becomes democratized as it's cheaper and more people get access. And then the market then sort of naturally pushes it back towards monopolies and duopolies. And we're seeing that now manifest again. So would it make sense that there are sort of limited sources? Yeah, especially across that distance. So I can buy it as a story mechanism. You know, you always have to suspend belief. You know, how do they have faster light travel? There's hyperspace and you just, you gotta go with it because there's no other reference point. No.
• 5:21
  JOSH: Yeah. And it's funny with like the hyperspace example, because within the show it's like, oh, how'd you invent jump gates in hyperspace? Oh, we just found it. It was just there. It was just left over from like, who knows when.
• 5:30
  JOHN: Yeah, it's like, oh, well, you know, the Centauri then. So like it was like, okay, you know, and it's sort of like everybody, we guess we figure it out by discovering it's actually very much like the video game franchise Mass Effect. Brilliant space opera based sort of game. And it's also the things like, well, humans were sort of like, you know, like puttering around the solar system and then they found a jump gate or Stargate where it's like, well, there we go. There was a stargate. It is that ultimate McGuffin to telling a story. And then how does ISN transmit? Well, they have relays in hyperspace that are really expensive. Oh, that makes sense. Cool. So I can go.
• 5:59
  JOSH: Yeah. I mean, it also makes sense, like why even in season four, when B5 sort of launches its own counter programming with the voice of the Resistance, the only way that they're able to do that that is because they have access to draw on the great machine on epsilon 3. It's not just like something you can just throw together. It's like you need a massive amount of power. Which makes sense because like, if you think of, you know, the Artemis 2 mission which circumnavigated the moon last week, even 250,000 miles out, there's a two and a half second delay in the radio transmission. So, like, there's a speed limit to how quickly radio communication or current broadcasting technology can go. So when you're measuring not in hundreds of thousands of miles, but in light years, you know, which is. Is tens of trillions of miles, you need some serious investment, some serious energy, serious infrastructure, which conveniently allows JMS in this story to use the sort of older 20th century models of media and propaganda and like the format of that sort of authoritative voice on the TV screen as your sole source of news and information. From a storytelling perspective, it would just be super clunky if he had to figure out how to represent the cacophony of different perspectives and voices from, you know, various news outlets in his imagined future. So, you know, makes sense and it works and it's able to be, you know, streamlined, understandable and recognizable.
• 7:34
  JOHN: Yeah. And, you know, coming from 1993, 94, when the show premieres, makes even more sense from that. But that's what I like about the show is it has sort of a timeless feel to it while also feeling terribly wetted in the 90s at the same time. You know, quick funny side note on that. Having a conversation with some people recently, I'm hearing more and more rumblings of people quoting the Matrix and saying, wow, was the 90s. Maybe it really was the pinnacle of human civilization. A lot of people feeling that. I read another article today about people like going back to Walkmans and Discman and all these technologies from the 90s or late 80s and, like, in this very, like, retro way and sort of nostalgic way. I think we always do that to some extent. But it does show that, like, despite having little friction to creating your own, you know, media outlet, having a Twitter feed and a podcast like we're on right now, having the reach is more difficult. You have to have. You almost have to do things that are going to get you. Some people call it clout if you're talking about social media, or you have to have breaking news that nobody else can initially get, or a take on it that's more. More compelling, but it incentivizes some bad behavior that you're doing to get the clicks, to get the views. It's not done purely with the idea of getting the news as objective as possible. And that's an interesting line that comes into the illusion of truth later is when they have a discussion about objectivity and a sort of debate like, is this meant to be objective? And, you know, Sheridan accuses the reporter in that episode of not being objective. And was it Dan Randall, you know, basically outright says it's. He doesn't believe in objectivity, you know, and uses that to be like, well, I'm honest, and that at least some of your truth will get through. Now, if we're jumping there, these two episodes really bookend each other interesting ways because one is isn as it is when the show launches, and as we would be more familiar with it, it has the errors of cnn, which was at that time the major cable news network. MSNBC was soon to be launched at this point in the 90s and then and around the same time Fox News. But at this point, CNN would have been the reference point for viewers. And CNN at that point also had that coming off a couple years out of the Gulf War One there had a reputation as being objective and reliable. You know, it was Ted Turner's creation and all of that size and starts as that in season one and this episode now for Word is season two. And that's still sort of the assumption by the characters in the show and I think largely the viewers. I think there's a little bit of, you know, there's the natural skepticism towards reporters, which I feel like people have always had, because sometimes it's because they have an agenda, other times because, oh man, they are going to get to the truth. And I want the truth getting out or I don't want them, you know, telling that story about me. But it was closest to CNN as part of a Reference point, Season 4, after the fall of Earth, when it has become a deliberate constructed propaganda arm of President Clark. So you get sort of the before and after and of course there are different people involved and. And the news anchors that you see in the first two seasons through severed dreams in season three, who are, you know, now off the air when ISN comes back online under, under Clark, you see them return once they're freed and once the Earth is freed by Sheridan. So with that you get to see a transformation, but using the same tools and the same air of authority. So, you know. And now for a Word is an interesting name for an episode too because a news show doesn't say a Now for a Word. They say it when they're cutting to one of their sponsors. And now for a word from so and so. So I. I was thinking to myself, well, this is weird. Why do they do that? And then I remember the conversation you and I had. I'm like, oh, the subliminal messaging of the Psychor. This is actually a Now for a word from Psychor. But it's said bluntly. That's my theory is that this is now. I mean they run advertisements through this episode. I loved. I do like when TV shows do that. I think JMS says this is one of the first sci fi shows to film this way. I can't agree or disagree with that. I don't know enough about was on the air. But the idea of having a total media episode and then having the commercials within the show of that and other things, it started feeling eerie because it was using the same commercial style of, you know, the 90s. It was very familiar to us. And you're like, oh, I Don't. I don't know if I like the psicorps getting in there. And it felt like it did sort of poison the authenticity, I should say, the objectivity of the reporters. Like, oh, yeah, but this is. Psychor is trying to get its claws here.
• 12:02
  JOSH: Yeah. I mean, you know what's interesting too, it's like setting aside for a moment the, you know, opinions about the actual news shows themselves. But like, you know, you can be watching the news and then there's a commercial for who knows what company.
• 12:16
  JOHN: Okay. No, I'm going to tell you what it is, because if you're watching Fox News, it is all Viagra and boner pills and funeral insurance and reverse mortgages.
• 12:26
  JOSH: Gosh, that's a sad.
• 12:27
  JOHN: You can, you can. It's a sad picture.
• 12:29
  JOSH: Yeah, it is.
• 12:30
  JOHN: You can tell so much about the media you're consuming, particularly on tv where it's more chosen by the network than it is by an algorithm. You can tell so much about them by that and about who they think their audience is. You know, MSNBC is different, CNN is different. But when it is all erectile dysfunction, funeral costs and selling your house to a bank so you can survive. Yeah, that's a. That. You're right. That's a bleak picture. So this is about like. Well, your audience is people who are thinking about the Psi Corps.
• 13:02
  JOSH: Well, yeah. The other thing that's also particularly insidious about it is that the audience for that commercial is not even necessarily people who suspect that they themselves may be size sensitive or something. It's actually for the mundanes to sort of snitch on those who they suspect.
• 13:20
  JOHN: Yep.
• 13:20
  JOSH: And also for the mundanes to feel comfortable that the telepaths aren't among them. They have a place to go and they're really nice, so why wouldn't you want to go there? So it's about really making the existence of the Psi Corps and the existence of telepaths in general palatable for the audience of mundanes. And obviously I'm using the word mundanes because that's how the teeps refer to us in the show. Us, quote, unquote, normals.
• 13:47
  JOHN: And the commercial told a story too. It was very, you know, sympathetic. That here's this little boy who is, you know, feeling different than everybody else and who doesn't at that age. But now he is different. He's a burgeoning telepath. And the parents who don't know what to do and then the psychor and they like transport in with like, you know, like like he's manifesting from a Star Trek transporter beam. The psy cop appears. He goes, oh my God, a psy cop. As if they're like. Because they're sort of marketed as this respectable heroic figures. And she has questions. She asks questions earnestly, which is like. Again, like every commercial you see on these networks even today is like, well, what about this? What about that? And it's very earnest. And then they flash forward in the commercial and there's little Johnny. That was his name, right? Johnny, you know, coiffed hair, wearing a little suit and you know, a psych. A Psychor suit with a pin on it and everything. And he's like, you've come so far. I'm so proud of you. You know, he's about to go off to the academy and it is very comforting and oh, there's a place for somebody. It's really good propaganda.
• 14:55
  JOSH: It's really good propaganda. The other thing that stood out to me, for whatever reason was they also said that the Psi Corps will take care of all of his expenses for life. So it's another way where you can leverage capitalist precarity to persuade someone this organization is the right choice for you. It's like, you know, if you. For whatever reason, if you're feeling like you don't fit in and, you know, maybe you're worried about the future and you're having trouble holding down a job and blah, blah, blah, it's like, well, you don't have to worry about that anymore. The psycho will take care of everything. And when you live in a state of financial precarity like that, you are much more susceptible to set aside more vague notions about the ethical questions or whatever because, you know, where the rubber meets the road. Like, you need to have a roof over your head and clothes on your back and food on the table. So it's like, it's really appealing. If you have an opportunity because you are special, there's something intrinsic about you. And if I go with them, I don't have to worry about that precarity anymore. You know, it's another disincentive for more socialist policies when you are trying to maintain certain hierarchies of power and control in your society. You know, it is also interesting that you really do get the sense through the ads in this and also the way they discuss things in the show that the Earth seemed generally a capitalist society the way that we in the US Are familiar with it. Which probably speaks to. Again, you know, we talk about how this show sort of appeared and was conceived and made and produced in a moment where we thought we were at the end of history and Western capitalism and democracy had won. So it sort of stands to reason, if you extrapolate, well, okay, 200, 300 years into the future that system is still how we would be organizing our society.
• 16:37
  JOHN: Yeah.
• 16:38
  JOSH: Even under a unified Earth government.
• 16:40
  JOHN: That was always. JMS's sort of point was to. To make it that this wasn't Star Trek. With post scarcity and a new economic model that isn't even defined that allows people to pursue things. This was saying we operate under the same shitty constraints we have today. Just what would that be like on this level? The only ones who honestly seem to not operate under those restrictions seem to be, certainly, Shadows and Vorlons. But the Minbari, to some extent. But they're sort of calcified in their caste system. There's really not mention of much trade with the Minbari. The Minbari themselves also don't mention trade. They talk about it. The Narn talk about it. Countless groups are always talking about trade. The Minbari seem maybe less interested in it because they're a little more insular. But they're also regularly referred to as that much more advanced. So I don't think they have to operate on that. But the worker caste are also seen. You know, there's a bit of mixture, like, well, are the artists workers? Are they, you know, also part of the religious cast? But it seems more of a way. You use the word earlier hierarchy that they're still finding a way. Even if they're not functioning in a way that we can relate to economically they're still maintaining hierarchies. And that's why they find themselves in the same precarious spot in Season four that every other group goes through. That they follow their government and their society falls apart and has to be rebuilt because their hierarchies didn't survive the breaking of these notions that were somewhat false and illusory in the first place. But that's. Again, that's a whole other episode that we'll get into in season four. I'm sure.
• 18:16
  JOSH: What's interesting also is that when they have the interview with Senator Quantrell who's the head of the Babylon 5 Advisory Council 1 of the things that they are talking about, you know, essentially, is Babylon 5 worth all this money that we're spending on it? You know, which I think is a fascinating place for JMS to bring the show. Because, like, could you imagine somebody saying on Star Trek like, hey, we're not sure that the Enterprise is worth the money. This like whole strange new worlds, five year mission thing, you know, we're thinking about doing an audit here and see if you really need all this. Like, that does not really compute given the context of the Star Trek universe. So it is really interesting that something that this episode, because of the, the format, you get to see a lot of context of the world that the characters and the setting are existing in. So you understand like, oh, like there are financial pressures here and like the PSICorps is viewed in this way at home. Like this is what the citizens on Earth are seeing. They're seeing these commercials for the PSiCorps. And actually something was a small little thing that Dr. Franklin said in that scene where they interviewed him. He starts off by saying, you know, something that people who have never left Earth don't understand about space. And when he said that, something clicked in my head. The idea that you've never left Earth is not that unusual, it seems like, or, you know, you went on a trip once around the moon or like to see Mars or Jupiter or something, and that was it. But that made me realize, you know, how easy stirring up anti alien sentiment, how easy that is because most never been out there. So it's some abstraction. And it's like, you know, Babylon 5, that we're spending all this money. Why don't we just not mess with those guys and take care of ourselves?
• 20:04
  JOHN: Franklin's response there is his sort of curt response as he's trying to do his job. And even he gets sort of challenged like, why is my baby. Why are you and all these aliens? You know, it is just like, why are you helping these people and not these people? Which quick side note, that is always a cynical ploy by politicians particularly. They embrace the notion of a scarce economy and then they say, oh well, if you weren't helping this group of people, imagine how many resources we would have for this group of people. And how does that apply to us today? Well, they said it to us in the last election and they said, oh, well, if we stop helping the immigrants, we can have better X, Y and Z. Of course, that never materializes, even as they brutalize, you know, immigrants. And then magically there's plenty of money for a new war. In fact, a war that they're requesting more money than some previous recent wars and military engagements. It's wild how that's always there. And that's why it is a cynical argument to be made. Yes, there are to some degree that there are finite resources, ultimately the creativity in how to make them work is unlimited in some ways. But the idea that it's always this group that's, that's holding off, that's baked in here is that, well, if it weren't for the aliens, if it wasn't for this. And then, yeah, act two, where Cynthia Torqueman, the, the, the, the reporter who's interviewing everybody interviews the, the senator, you know, who, who was, he replaced Senator, Senator Hidoshi Doshi, who was previously there. And he's just not in office anymore. And that's always the interesting turnover with something like a Senate. And that skepticism was really interesting because he, he tries to like be both, you know, oh yeah, it's a waste of money but you know, there is some benefit, you know, playing both sides, as many do. But that cynicism from the politician is a natural reflection of people. Human beings were not built to see the long game. We can barely deal with handling a medium term game. We want a short term thing. And the, and the fundamental flaw of politics as we know it is that it focuses on, you know, elections are. Every few years. They're going to focus on what have you done for me lately. Somebody who has a grand vision that may not pay off for a decade, two decade, three decades can never come back for justification because it's not going to be there yet. Now when they mess something up, they're not going to be there for the, to be held accountable either. The people who might be doing a good job might be held accountable for the previous person who did a bad job. Which begs questions, how do you get something like Babylon 5 built? There was obviously heavy influence from the Vorlons to get that going behind the scenes, you know, with, via the Minbari. You know, there was obviously some stuff going on with that. But that human instinct, we do it right now. Well, this thing isn't worth the money. Space every. We're back to the moon, we're talking about this now. Only recently back to the moon after but 50 year hiatus basically. And that's because America lost that idea. They said, oh, why is this worth the money now we spend, we spend more money on again these military operations. Whether whether it's a war like now or countless bases all over, but the idea of space travel or at least figuring out our solar system and NASA, well, what a waste that is. And I think, well, we saw that recently on. There's a great show for all mankind on Apple TV plus a show I recommend to fans of Babylon 5. I think it's enjoy that show. Same idea that until there becomes an economic benefit and then they resent the people in space. Oh. Because that now they have a resource. I think it's a fundamental flaw of human beings to think short term and then to. To resent the idea that their resources are being spent outside their physical view. You know, it's. These people are getting it. So Babylon 5 is the ultimate manifestation of that because it's aliens, it's people how many light years away. Oh, Earth still isn't perfect. So why aren't we just using those resources for us? And I don't really have, you know, I don't know how we get to the Federation by comparison. But I know that at the very least, if we're going to, you know, see it through you can't be operating in the same model that we've been doing all this time. So Babylon 5 doesn't pretend to go beyond it. They just say, yeah, we're stuck in this. And this is why Earth sort of starts behaving really dangerously because they're subject to the same problems we have today. So, you know, after that interview, she interviews Delenne. That's the one that struck me as the most interesting but deliberate interview. Delenn. You know, Delenn is caught off guard. Delenn is learning who and what she is now being a hybrid. And she had no idea in her, she wasn't thinking this far ahead that humans seeing a Minbari, their enemy of 10 years ago who's going to exterminate them. Quick side note on that the Minbari only killed 25,000 people in the war. They make reference to that in the show.
• 25:04
  JOSH: Quarter million, I thought.
• 25:05
  JOHN: What was a quarter million or 25,000?
• 25:07
  JOSH: I thought it was a quarter million.
• 25:08
  JOHN: It was a relatively low number. Yeah, 250,000 dead. You know, in fact, I think J sort of references it at one point that it wasn't that devastating a war in terms of, you know, Earth wasn't what wasn't leveled. We lost a ton of ships. But most importantly, Earth lost its pride. They had just come off the Dilgar War. They were riding high and the Minbari smacked them down and were an existential threat until the Minbari surrendered. I mean, yes, human species was going to end if, you know, if the Minbari were going to follow through and simply, you know, wipe out Earth. But the actual death toll was modest compared to the population of Earth and even previous wars. But the pride, the damage to the pride was massive. So when Cynthia Torquin points out, like, well, how do you think Viewers are going to respond to seeing you as if delenna is making a mockery of humans by impersonating them. Which, that, that's how a lot of people, you know, I know this, this is a far stretch and was not the intention, but it's how a lot of people accuse drag performers in the current sort of hostile climate to those who are gender non conforming. It, it, it seems like, oh, well, there it's, it's just somebody impersonating another group and the sensitivity to, you know, purity versus everything else. And there it is. Yeah, there is Delenn a new, a new being. You know, the result of something that started a thousand years ago with time travel and all the time you stuff. But it, it was something she wasn't ready for but it was something that I think the reporter was waiting for to give her audience some red meat right there.
• 26:41
  JOSH: Yeah. You know, you saying that makes me realize, you know, if you think about it like the interview with Delenn was the only one where it seemed like Cynthia Torqueman went in there with a specific agenda, a specific thing that she wanted to get. And it is interesting because if you listen to how Senator Quantrell talks about the war which I think is supposed to be sort of a window into how the general population of Earth is starting to think about the war is sort of that, you know, that was then and, you know, we made a mistake. Maybe it was a reflection of our leadership at the time. And now obviously that wouldn't happen again because we're in a stronger position now. And I think, like, you can see there is an attempt to, to move away from, you know. He also says the Babylon Project was created in this like, traumatic moment. This sort of like psychic wound where, you know, humanity had been existentially threatened. And a project like the Babylon Station seemed like a nice idea. Now that we have some perspective from it and we're not right there on the edge of the abyss. Maybe it seems like, you know, more of a highfalutin, high minded project, short term memory problem.
• 27:57
  JOHN: Like humans will create something in a moment, clarity, you know, when again, the Earth Membari war has just happened and they say, oh, this is a threat. Like, space is big. There are a lot of people out there and it's really easy to. It's really easy to up like to the point that it could lead to annihilation. Then the moment things appear to normalize, the war is over. The Minbari had in fact surrendered. So there's even that chauvinism like well, they surrendered to us. We must be superior, you know? And now 10 years have passed and the memory goes really quick. So. Yeah, why would we need to be spending money on this? Isn't everything just fine until the next time? It's like preparing for, you know, a rare storm. Well, it's going to hit at some point but you might live a decade without it. And this is. This is where I have my science fiction. Like meets realism again, minus hyperspace is that are human beings capable of interstellar travel? Because we don't exhibit the organizational and cooperative tendencies I think that will be necessary at that scale. Because whether it's encountering them in Bari or a singularity or anything and everything that we might screw up that our memories are so short, our impulse is so great and that we would wipe ourselves out, you know, it wouldn't have been in the Minbari, would have finished the job or we screw something else up. So it's always a question of, like, as a species, are we really capable of being what is, and I don't even use the word evolved. Are we capable of matching the circumstance that something like that would demand of us assuming that we can figure out the relativity problem and get out there and assuming there are other life forms out there? And I think the cool part about the show is that it. It does take something that's very accessible. But I think the only way that people do survive is because while there are ancient ones out there who've sort of, you know, left just enough intact that we can get by on it. But that was the part that really, even when I was a kid watching the show that interview with the senator pissed me off because from a kid's perspective, it was. Babylon 5 is good. How could you be against that? From an adult perspective, it's like, oh, you're just falling into every politician's trap of just like, well, why do we need that thing now? And the arrogance and the. And the conviction with which he says it is exactly. He could be any senator today saying that exact same thing. But instead of about Babylon 5, it could be any one of our projects out there. When we. When we gutted a year ago, when this administration gutted usaid, you know, usaid, that was exactly the same argument made almost a word for word thing. You know, people see this and they don't understand why we're spending that money. It's a tiny fraction of the budget. It was a tiny, tiny fraction of the budget. But it's magnified effect was much more than even spending a dollar in the military. But that wasn't relevant. It was. But remember, USAID goes to other people, so that concept kicks in the same way that it does with Senator Quantrell. Oh, but we're spending money for aliens. Yeah, it's, it's, it's distressing. I think JMS in his commentary, like, and, and, you know, in his emails and AOL and everything said, yeah, find this a little bit troubling, you know, and they're also going to find it very familiar.
• 31:09
  JOSH: You know what else I thought was really interesting, too? It's a little more subtle, but I think it's a really good illustration of how what we see in the news media is kind of a distortion of reality and not, you know, in this example, it's not even an intentional one. I don't think Londo comes off as so reasonable and so nice and g' Kar comes off as unreasonable and almost like hyperbolic and hysterical. Now we have the advantage of knowing what the quote unquote, real situation is on the ground. And we know that Londo and the Centauri in this instance are the monsters. And everything g' Kar is saying is exactly right. G' Kar has a moment in the Council chambers where he says something like, you know, like all of this is a distraction. Like they're distracting you with all of the details to sound reasonable. So that he said something like, we all know what we have to do here and they're distracting us with details so we can avoid calling a spade a spade. And that just rang very true. Like, he's right. But on tv, who seems like the one who you want to trust, you know what I mean?
• 32:14
  JOHN: Yeah, yeah.
• 32:16
  JOSH: Which I thought was really interesting. Like, the other thing also, is that, like, so, yeah. And now for a word, this is ostensibly the neutral in air quotes version of isn. But even then, in the very beginning, like, there were subtle things like the language she uses to describe the situation on Mars. Right. She calls them terrorists or something and says something about the Earth loyal majority. It sounds like very neutral framing, but we know that Mars is sort of existing under the heel of Earth and Earth corporations. And those terrorists in another context that we will come to sympathize with are more like freedom fighters and revolutionaries. So to see how the world of the show sees itself is very enlightening in the context of the story and understanding JMS's intention here, you know, and you're right, there's something about what Dan Randall says in the fourth season episode the Illusion of Truth. He Basically says there's no such thing as an objective story. And he's kind of right about that. The first episode, I think most viewers and the people making it would think of that news program as, quote, unquote, objective. But as we've just discussed, a lot of values and belief systems and ideologies are really underlying and informing everything that she's saying. The way she frames the whole situation. She's not objective, yet she and the audience think that they are objective. So in a strange way, like there's something a little more honest about saying, I'm not trying to be objective because that's impossible. I am up front that what I'm saying here is not objective. Now, that said, I think in practice, the story that Dan Randall ends up producing in that episode is even less objective. It's more of an overt fabrication than I think even Sheridan and the command staff were expecting. Because he seems very reasonable when he presents himself.
• 34:20
  JOHN: Yeah, he's trying to. He's trying to entice the idea that he is nonetheless reasonable.
• 34:24
  JOSH: Right.
• 34:24
  JOHN: Which is one of the ultimate weapons that fascists use, by the way, is, is the appearance and the appeal to reasonableness. Most people think of the screaming man at the podium. That's one part of the equation. That's the rile you up part. But the rest is done by the underlings, which is. Well, isn't it reasonable to do something this way? Oh, yes, I have these beliefs, but I'm a reasonable person and it disarms a lot of people and. Which is quite literally what happens here is that Sheridan is disarmed enough to let them in to do this. And the interviews are, are conducted in such a way that they appear reasonable. But then the final job is not only. It's not only a hack job, it's literally a cut and paste job where they change the questions at points to and are completely disingenuous. Where they, you know, and that's the interesting part where, where the first episode can be seen as having elements of problems and some bias here and there. Illusion of truth doesn't have an illusion from the writer's standpoint about what ISN is and what they're doing today. It was quite obvious that when it's aired, they've replaced, they've looped over the questions and they even changed the positioning of the interviewer so the viewer will pick up that, oh, this isn't even the same as what we saw was actually filmed in the interview. So does any truth get out? I guess some does, but there that, that's the. That's the kind of back and forth of like, do you do an interview with a propagandist or do you let them define you? I think the unfortunate answer is they're going to define you no matter what. Maybe getting your face on there means that something gets through. As Mr. Randall said, that may, you know, some of the truth gets through, but if they're doing their job really well, only the truth they want will. Will. Will get through. And that's, you know, that's the part. The second one also gives you an insight, uses. It uses the media to show how far authoritarianism can go. Because if you're watching it as somebody who's not under its control, you see. You see the characters who are clearly have been tortured into submission and are now confessing to things. Now, that's not as foreign as we would like. The. The writing style, the vibe, and the language that's used. JMS takes directly from our own history. He's taking that from the McCarthy era from the House Committee on American affairs and people confessing to things, but instead of it being about being a communist or homosexual, it is confessing to being an alien sympathizer. Again, all those things come in orbit with each other. You know, they're in that same realm, and JMS knew that. So you're seeing the media being used to propagandize and put up somebody who is admitted to their sins and is seeking redemption because who doesn't like a redemption story? And here is somebody asking for forgiveness for being an alien sympathizer, you know, and all that other kind of stuff. And that's what sort of is. Is the most insidious part about it, because we are familiar with it. It isn't foreign. It isn't out there. It's a concept that we do have recently in our history. And, you know, this is a jumping off point for something I watched recently, too, which had the same problem, which is if this. If this is rooted in our history in the 1950s on Netflix, there's. There's a dramatization of the Nuremberg trials called Nuremberg. And it's great. And it features a doctor who interviews Guring. What happens after that, the end of the movie. What happened in the real world, too, was that he's doing a. He's doing a radio interview with the media, you know, about a book he's written about the high command of the Third Reich, and that none of them had any clear, severe psychological pathology. You know, there was narcissism, there was a bit of delusion, aggrandizement and other things, but there wasn't something that lets you put them in a box in a mental institution. Say, look at that weird subject over there. They were as human as anybody else. And when he said that, and then he says it can happen here, the radio hosts were like, well how could you dare say that we defeated them. And, and they drum off the air. The guy's book didn't sell. And the media did a job of protecting the pride of Americans by shutting this doctor down. And this is the same thread through the media that you respect reporters. You're always trying to get the truth out there. But when it's an industry and when there's pride of a culture on the line, doesn't matter how objective many people think they're being, there's going to be a big push to defend pride. And in this case you start off with a now for word. It's defending human pride against aliens in subtle ways. And then the obvious waves of Delan and now it's just full on out there. It's, they, they've gone over to that horrible part. I, I found Jamis's commentary on Illusion of Truth really accurate because he said this is a great episode. People are going to remember, they're going to talk about it, but they're not going to want to watch it again. This is a tough episode to watch because it not only feels relevant, it feels uncomfortable, really uncomfortable because you know what they're about to do, you know what they're about to do to your heroes. You see that train coming down the tunnel that they're going to do a hatchet job on your characters. And then of course you see that happen at the end and you see everybody's reaction and I'm just turning the station off, you know, Ivanova storming out. You know, what do you do how you know, and that leads to this, you know, profound problem that Jamis is trying to address here is that the media is so dead with a press, I should say is so important. But how easily it can be corrupted and co opted by the powerful to, to, to create something really oppressive. And you know, did, did Dan Randall keep his promise to Sheridan? That's that, that's an question.
• 40:15
  JOSH: That's something I wonder. Like I also wonder whether the story was manipulated even without his involvement. Even more, I know that he, yeah, but like I would love to, to know how he felt about that report because, you know, like he almost sells you in that sit down meeting that first meeting that he has with Sheridan he seems like he's not trying to pull one over. He's like, look, yeah, we know why I'm here. But within what we are and what we're trying to do, we are trying. So you have more to lose if you shut me out than if you work with me. Right? And, you know, you kind of like him for saying that a little bit or you at least respect him a little bit. And then the broadcast that they show the broadcast that he goes on to make is just such a hatchet job. And you do, strangely, feel betrayed. And then you feel stupid for feeling betrayed because you knew from moment one what this was going to be. You know? And that last shot, that silent shot of Sheridan and everybody watching and Sheridan is just staring out the window and everyone goes up to him and no one can say anything because it's just, like, so bad. It's just so bad.
• 41:28
  JOHN: Even Delenn cannot console him. It's just.
• 41:31
  JOSH: I thought that was really effective. You know, it's almost as if JMS's position, at least as it comes through in this episode is do not even try to engage them because you. You will walk face to face with a chainsaw. And in no way will that be helpful to you. Right. Something that I noticed watching Illusion of Truth, the Report segment was the amount of footage that they played silently so they could completely remove it from context and replace it with whatever context they wanted. Like, it reminded me of a few weeks ago. There was that kerfluffle where Trump was present at the dignified transfer for the bodies of the soldiers who were flown home. And he was, like, wearing a Trump hat or something. We all saw that, except for Fox viewers who saw a shot from his first term where he wasn't wearing a hat. Like, that's what that made me think of. It was like, oh, see, like, if you just show the picture. Also, during the ICE raids in Minneapolis they were showing footage from the George Floyd protests like, as if to say, this is what's happening there now. And that's why he has to send ICE in now. Right? Like, using the images without the audio, without the context. So it just seems like it's a part of the thing that you're saying it is. There was another thing about Dan Randall's report that I thought was interesting. You know, their whole thesis here is this, like, wild conspiracy theory that they've created out of whole cloth about how Sheridan and the army of Light are, like, trying to create, like, these alien human hybrids and they're like trying to destroy us from within. And Sheridan is in league with the Minbari and they're trying to turn us into them to be more like them and blah, blah, blah. And the damning thing is that there's one detail that's real. They saw the cryotubes that had the telepaths who they rescued. But then when he asks Franklin about it, he lies and says, no, no, no, we don't have anyone in suspended animation now. No. And from that little kernel of that they create this whole elaborate conspiracy. It's all circumstantial. It's like, you know, reflecting their own anxieties and insecurities and blah, blah, blah. You know, it has no resemblance to what's actually going on at all. Except for that little ammunition where they did catch them doing something wrong. They don't have any interest in what it actually is or what it actually means. No, no, no. But that allows them to say, okay, we caught them here, so that's fair game. So that means that whatever we say about them must be true. Because look, we showed you that he lied, right? And that reminded me of like, do you remember the Seth Rich conspiracy? The Democratic staffer? There was an armed robbery and he was shot. And then that turned into the Clinton campaign had him assassinated. The murder was real. But from there they weren't interested in what actually happened. Not at all. All they knew was that, wow, that looks really bad and suspicious. So we can use that.
• 44:38
  JOHN: Yeah. Oh, man. This is, this is where it gets real. This is where it gets real. Because I almost. I was nervous about doing the media episodes because that is far less science fiction, space opera, galactic story than it is. Absolutely, absolutely. Something that's gonna hit hard. Hit hard today. Illusions of Truth. I, I didn't re. Watch it this week. I rewatched about two months ago and now for a word, I watched more recently. I watched it yesterday, but. And I took JMS's advice. Like, it's hard to go back to repeatedly because you're just looking at your characters suffering. But more so, it's just so relevant today and it feels it. Jamis used again, going back to the 50s. He used people who were blacklisted in the anti communist fervor as, as names of characters in this episode and people who were referenced, you know, and journalists who were, you know, who were blacklisted, you know, writers, everything. And we think, well, that's, that's back then. That's when their things are in black and white. Like, isn't that like an eon ago. And it's the same. It's a little bit harder to wipe somebody out in terms of silencing them completely today. But today the version of that is algorithms. And Twitter is the ultimate example of the algorithm is customized to one man's whim. One individual is customizing the women. If you want, you know, you can go on Twitter and find out, doesn't matter what your preference, you'll see some of what you're used to browsing on there. But you're going to see what it's owner, Elon Musk wants you to see besides his own tweets, the topics that he is obsessed with right now. So it's not as. It's not like you're blacklisted in the clearest way. And they called it shadow banning on Twitter for a while. So it's even more insidious. This is much more direct. You watch this episode, like a lot of tv, you sort of know who the good guy and the bad guys are. That's getting a little bit. A little bit dicier now. A couple quick notes though, about this episode which I also found interesting. They. An illusion of truth. They. They had a point where they were citing historical incidents that happened the same day. You know, like this day in history. And it was April 12, 2261. So I wrote it down here and the. The things they listed were Yuri Garagon's flight into space, April 12, 1961. Like there we go, big thing. President Clinton's establishment of a commission on the Future in 1999.
• 46:59
  JOSH: And that then was the future.
• 47:01
  JOHN: And that was the future that wasn't even the show aired before that. Yeah. So to clarify, that didn't actually happen. Ye. That was. That was fictional future history written. And then the Sea of Tranquility has the first lunar colony in 2018. Jumping further ahead, the PSI Corps are founding in 2161. So there we go. The episodes are book ended. Okay. The Psychor is all up in the business of the first episode with the media, with the subliminal messaging of the Psicorps. Your friend, trust the Psicorps. And here we are. Oh, look at this. It's the. It's the anniversary of the founding of the Psicorps. Obviously trying to like still drinking that. The Psi Core is. Is really important to this story. But having those three things, I'm like, oh yeah, getting us into space. Clinton fictionally beginning to think more about the future. And then a lunar colony. Great. Then the Psi Corps always comes back to the Same thing. So you're never. You can never forget what this is about. But it was. The little details really, really work. And jms. Yeah. Besides choosing names, you know, they. He put in so much. But, you know, the production overall is meant to drop the hints that somebody watching at that time would get. We are a little bit further out from the 50s now, and I think that, you know, the 50s being 40 years back from the airing of Babylon 5, makes it still in living memory. I think the people watching it today, they might feel like we are doing this. Vibes that are similar to what we're seeing in real time. But I don't think if you had somebody our age, then a teenager watching the show knew they're not going to have that experience, you know, of their elders. Having talked about the McCarthy era, it's just not in. It's not in consciousness anymore. So maybe that's what we're doing. What we're doing here is because we're bringing it into where it's doing the same. The same thing. These episodes don't leave you hopeful, except for the fact that we know where the story goes. We know that, you know, the truth comes in. And we did. And since we already did an episode on deconstruction of falling stars, that that's a topic all the way to the end of the show is how do people remember things? How do they know things? How is information transmitted? And how what is truth? Those are major questions. Jamis doesn't go down the rabbit hole. Too much of postmodernism that there can be no truth. It's more so that, well, you're not going to get the objective truth per se, but if you dig for it, if you work hard and you're not going in it, you know, with nothing but preconceived notions, you can learn. That was his hope, was that you can always learn, even if you can't get the perfect vision of it from the writer of a TV show to know the truth about what the characters are doing. He's not cynical.
• 49:41
  JOSH: No, he's not. He's not cynical. He's actually. I think he's the opposite of that. I think he's. He's an optimist, but I think it's sobered with a healthy dose of radio reality. Right.
• 49:51
  JOHN: Yeah.
• 49:51
  JOSH: You know, and I think he's right. I think ultimately, if you take a more nuanced view of history and historical narratives that you're presented with, you know, if you dig a little deeper and you're not under the illusion that there is a knowable, definitive answer. You can find more detail, more context, and you can have a more holistic understanding of what happened and why. Yeah, but you know, like we said, like, we don't know. We're living through events now. We don't know why certain decisions are being made or why certain things are happening. Like a lot of our news right now is hypothesizing and theorizing, well, why is this happening? Like what did actually happen and what are these leaders of ours thinking? So I think that there's this notion, perhaps perpetuated by the way we learn history in school, that well after the fact, once the haze of confusion of the ground level perspective is lifted and we can see everything with more clarity and blah, blah, blah, that the actual truth will be legible, will be knowable. And I think that that's a mistake. You will learn more, but I think it's a mistake to confuse that for unvarnished, definitive truth. Because there's always more context, there's always more nuance. Like these are really complex and complicated things. Like you can see video of something happening, see exactly what was said and who said it and where and all that. And without knowing what happened right before the camera started rolling and without seeing what happened right after, you may not have an accurate understanding of what you just saw. Right. So, you know, the idea that there is a historical truth that is knowable, I think is kind of a facile, myopic, convenient and comforting way to think about history and historical forces, but, and maybe sometimes even useful when it's properly humbling.
• 51:48
  JOHN: So to the historian, to, to, to the anthropologist, you know, and all the social science disciplines, which, you know, I think authoritarians dislike, I think in their best forms, the process is not one of finding the only conclusion. You are, as I said, I said earlier, continuing to learn, but it's a mystery that keeps on offering up more. So you think you know what happened in the Civil War and who Abraham Lincoln was, and you discover more. You either read more books or you find there's more correspondence, there's, there are more letters between people he was corresponding with that get unearthed from somebody's estate that never got released to the public and they give you more. You're not going to get a perfect omniscient view of what something is. But if you take it with that sort of humbleness but also eagerness to, to learn, you're going to constantly learn more and explore more. And it's like a puzzle box that doesn't stop, you get, you get satisfaction, but you get to go deeper. Again, that doesn't work with a type of mind that needs everything to be neatly concluded. This is what we know. We're done. We move on with our lives. And the hard sciences don't give you that benefit either. You go from.
• 53:00
  JOSH: Well, they give you the illusion of that though, because it's, you know, numbers and figures and numbers.
• 53:04
  JOHN: Newtonian physics is the end of it. Oh, but then we needed relativity, quantum physics and, and we, we need that sort of certainty. We're pattern recognition creatures as humans and we love something that we think is final and done. Though of course then we need something else to go figure out about. So propaganda knows that they give you the beginning, middle and end. They give you every explanation and they tell you this is all you need to know and this is the whole story. And it's up to everybody else to do the work. Because even in the Final Cut project from the Illusion of Truth, if you go back and rewatch it as a viewer, there's still enough truth that bleeds through in there. If you're looking for it or at least you're open to it. You're not just saying, okay, what these people say is absolute, whether it's the interviews, the people, and you'll be able to piece things together. And I think maybe that's also the hope that comes from it. And that was the hope of Sheridan and I guess an agreeing to it is that again those little pieces might come through. And when you do get to him saving, or I should say liberating Earth, there were a nearly half the population or more that knew it was all bullshit. They knew what the Clark government was doing was bullshit. They knew was propaganda. The way I think a lot of people today, even if their political views align with those in leadership, especially now, are beginning to see this is kind of bullshit. We live in that moment right now where that break is beginning. I don't know where it's going to go, but I think the Iran war has been a tipping point for that. Look at the fractured media landscape on the right, because it took something that they took as an article of faith, which is no new wars. America first. And now we're in a new war which is trying to be sold as America first. But they're not able to sell it as well for that because, you know, the irony is that, you know, since we're not getting anything directly out of it and we're not getting the footage of people celebrating taking down statues in Iraq you know, that was a disaster. There's nothing to sell it on. And people are beginning to say, yeah, I'm beginning to see that people, people can't stand when it, they begin to feel like they're being made a fool up.
• 55:15
  JOSH: Well, the interesting thing about that also is that, and the particular misstep of this whole insane war in Iraq is that, excuse me, in Iran, not the first person to make that mistake is that I think popular support in this country in the modern era can be somewhat reliably reduced to the price of gas.
• 55:38
  JOHN: Yeah.
• 55:39
  JOSH: And I filled my tank up yesterday and obviously I live in California, so it's very, very expensive here, but I have never paid so much for gas in my life. It was $6.55 a gallon.
• 55:50
  JOHN: Oh, wow.
• 55:52
  JOSH: And I also heard, I was watching the news yesterday and an Iranian official said, we are going to make the United States nostalgic. $4 and $5 gas.
• 56:03
  JOHN: Yeah.
• 56:03
  JOSH: And like, I don't know what they thought. No, I know what they thought. They thought this would be over in two weeks.
• 56:09
  JOHN: They thought it would be over in two weeks. And you know what the parallel to B5 that I see in that is the Shadows. The Shadows make a promise, get into this war for us, and you're going to experience glory and success. And that's what they do. That's what we've discussed is at that point when in severed dreams, when the rangers reporting back that the Shadows had gone to the outer worlds, the league of non line worlds, and promised a bunch of them, Listen, you go to war against your neighbor and you are going to, you're going to be so tired of winning. You know, it's like you might as well. Basically, of course, it was for the Shadows goal of their weird evolutionary view of chaos, but just weakening them all so whoever survived could steamroll over those people. But they, but they thought they were going to get this great awesome result from it. And the, the, the naive promises that were made to Trump on this. Apparently the people in the room when he was sold on this all knew. They're like, yeah, this is not going to end well. None of this is going to come. But there were two world leaders, Netanyahu and, and, and Trump and, and Trump was being sold. But anyhow, what the deal was like, this is going to be a great success for our two countries. But they were both falling into a trap of their own grandiosity and their own delusion as to how great it would be. Anybody. And again, we're hearing rumblings from the Israeli cabinet, the Israeli government. People in both our countries knew this was a disaster, but the people at the top that the fact that we still, as humans, give one person control over so much. So all it required is two people to be deluded to put us in this situation. So, yeah, the shadows would have no trouble coming to us and being like, hey, you want to go do this? And, yeah, that sounds great. And, and. And here we are. The only hope is that the illusion this time breaks and some. A bit of the truth starts to re. Establish itself. Or at least. At least people start to become skeptical of their leaders in a way that doesn't make them more vulnerable to populists.
• 58:07
  JOSH: You know, there's also this idea, and I forget who coined the term, this idea of hypernormalization, which I first encountered from the Adam Curtis documentary of the same name, which described the. The sort of vibes in the Soviet Union while it was crumbling in the late 1980s. And essentially what it is is that everybody knows what's really happening, and everybody knows what the government is saying is nonsense, is lies, right? But there's no other way. Like, there's no vessel or form for doing anything with that information beyond going through the motions, you know, propping up this collapsing society by pretending everything is fine. So. But there's this, like, knowingness that we're sort of experiencing now. And I think a lot of Trump supporters have been going through this for a while where it's. That they know what he's saying is wrong, they know he's lying, but they have the illusion of the reality that they want. So it's. So they ignore it because it's not material to what they were getting out of the whole deal, if that makes any sense.
• 59:17
  JOHN: Makes a lot of sense.
• 59:18
  JOSH: One last thing that you made me think of, and I hesitate to even go here, because I don't know if we can tie it all back in, but, you know, you were talking about, you know, the wisdom of entrusting these decisions to one individual at the top. And then I was thinking, well, yeah, I mean, soon enough it'll be AI systems, right, that are making all these mathematically considered decisions for us, and the people who are designing those systems to the point of what you were saying a few minutes ago, they are the ones who like those definitive answers. They are the ones who need everything reducible to definitive concepts and statements to the point where, you know, we were talking about, you know, nuance and thoughtfulness. Marc Andreessen, a few weeks ago, had that interview where he Basically said that he doesn't believe in self reflection, that he, he thinks it's a distraction and a weakness and an invention of 20th century intellectuals. I mean, by the way, like that claim on its own is so staggeringly obviously wrong. It almost makes you wonder if he wasn't trolling everyone by saying it. So he doesn't believe in introspection. And then Elon Musk chimed in on social media and said he also doesn't believe in introspection. He says it's for the weak. You know, I was also reminded of. Do you remember when William Shatner went into space with Jeff Bezos and a few others on the Blue Origin mission? Right. There was a clip of William Shatner right after they landed where he was talking about how seeing the Earth from that high up really affected him. And he was having this really introspective moment where he was wrestling with this perspective that he just experienced. And he's trying to work through it, and Jeff Bezos is standing right next to him. He starts out trying to listen, but then it's just very clear he's not interested in what William Shatner is trying to say at all. Just, you know, sort of smiling and nodding and sort of, you know, moves on. All of these things taken together. My point is if the way to combat propaganda, if the way to not fall for simple, reductive narratives about history and who did what and why and for what reason is to have this more nuanced, thoughtful view, is to reach within yourself and, you know, maybe relate your own complex interiority with people who exist and live lives outside of your own experience. Like, if that is how you have a healthy, functioning society that works for all people, all kinds of people, aren't we in trouble that the most powerful people on Earth who are literally shaping and designing systems that they want to run our society, are not only actively disinterested in these concepts of introspection and nuance, they are hostile toward them. And I don't know what to do with that. Something about heads, heads on pikes, maybe. I don't know.
• 1:02:12
  JOHN: Well, that's, that's, that's where you get Lanier just like, well, Lanier knew this. Wait for it to happen, and they, and they will end up getting themselves on those pikes at some point. And I think that's sort of his wisdom there and that he figures out how to do the little good that he can and the time that he has and somehow, you know, survives long enough to become emperor in a roundabout way. I hear all that from Shatner's despondency to seeing the globe from that afar, because he was saying, what are we doing to this planet? He didn't see it as, oh, cool, we've made it out into space like he thought he would. Like, this is going to be the first step towards the Enterprise he saw too. There's our lifeboat, and we're messing it up. And that's all we have. Like, space is so vast and we don't have warp drive, we don't have magic teleportation technologies. Like, we actually have to deal with what's on that blue dot. And we're not. We're acting like children and we're just burning it all down. And going back to what you said about, you know, Musk, Andreessen. I. I think they believe what they're saying. They. I think they are trying to nudge to its extent. I mean, they're always trying to get a rise out of people, but I think they believe it. I think the nature of the mind that leads one there. And look at the way the corporations are in charge of Earth in season four, subservient to Clark, but for their own interests. And they're still the ones in charge. And we talked about that in previous episodes. There's a lack of conscience and a lack of, of, you know, that one can call sociopathy with that introspection. I. I think Andreessen makes a point, as does Musk. A level of introspection that I think would be average would not allow them to do the things that they do. I think the very things from. In many cases to become. You know, there's a quote. Very rarely is a great man, a good man. I think that, that. I think that was Lord Acton, but I'm the guy who talked about power, but I could be wrong about that. And I think that's the. That's what comes back to me is, oh, yeah, to be great means you have to sacrifice being good. And introspection is a conscience. It's, you know. Yes. On the negative side, it can be you're stuck in your own past. Oh, my God, I made a mistake. I'll never live it through. Or you relive it and relive it and relive it. That. That can be a problem holding you back. And that's, I think, some of what they're talking about. And that's where they take a lot of shots towards therapy because, well, why revisit your mistake? That's in the past. You got to move forward. Okay? There's some validity to that. What they're really talking about is not just jettisoning your past, you can move forward. It's that even in the moment you can't, you can't have a conscience. And yes, I think on the other end, people who have conscious that are too strong can end up paralyzed. What do I do? How do I do the right thing? And you can't make a decision and you can't make the tough call sometimes, but they're at that other extreme. They're, they're not the ideal, they're not something to aspire to and in their wake up often is left just ruin, not great results. But they'll never believe that and people will challenge what we're saying here. Well, what have you done that compares? Fair enough, but that's not the question we're asking. It's is their greatness going to be worth the price that we all pay? The answer is always no. That's my stance. And I don't care whether they're talking about SpaceX or building the pyramids, if, if the toll is big enough, it's not worth it. It's just not worth it if we're giving up too much or we are aggrandizing. In this case, it's not that it's been as evident we, we gave one man not only the most of the riches of the planet to be the richest man by by far, but the influence to determine elections. And to go along with that is to say, well, what's so great about him? Nothing, except he doesn't have any introspection and can continue moving forward. Whereas even some of our most craven politicians get tripped up by every once in a while and that's why they can't be him. So no, I, I don't value that and I have great respect for what Shatner said there. But again, I don't take that as a lack of hope. I, I see it as giving us focus.
• 1:06:06
  JOSH: Yeah.
• 1:06:07
  JOHN: And no, and that's what we've been missing.
• 1:06:10
  JOSH: That was less like a lack of hope and more that Jeff Bezos's reaction to what Shatner was saying in that was just complete disinterest. He was like, yeah, not interested in what he was trying to say whatsoever. And that I thought was notable. And it also makes you Wonder. It's like SpaceX, okay, great, you know, AI, whatever. But once you get there and achieve that, like say SpaceX gets us to Mars or something. Right. If you've sacrificed your humanity in the process, it's like all okay, then what? Like Musk in particular talks a big talk about how we have to become a multi planet civilization to bring the light of consciousness to the rest of the universe, whatever. But to what end? Right? Like why, why is that good? Beyond the fact that it's just more from his perspective, you know what I mean? Like what does he think is going to happen if it's not enlightenment? Sorry, what was that?
• 1:07:12
  JOHN: It's not even what Sinclair says in season one.
• 1:07:14
  JOSH: No.
• 1:07:14
  JOHN: You know, which is grand vision though. I think he thinks he's saying that.
• 1:07:19
  JOSH: I don't think he understands the difference anyway. Yeah. Was there anything else you wanted to touch on or any closing thoughts?
• 1:07:26
  JOHN: Well, I do enjoy the way that he portrays the, the anchors and the reporters. I felt like it was sort of a timeless nature of, you know, good reporters and bad reporters and our familiarity with that. So I, I appreciate everything from the casting, the writing and I. And just as we discussed before, I love the ISN characters. They just, they just really hold up well and they just feel like, yeah, this, they would be on future cnn. This, this is that person. And if, if you want to feel better about is and if you want to feel better about, you know, that watch when they come back on the air after Sheridan liberates Earth and the emotion in that, in that episode from the anchors who, who have, you know, been gone for these past few years,
• 1:08:15
  JOSH: what do you think is the role of universe today, that newspaper, in terms of how it fits into the whole media ecosystem of the future? Because it occurs to be like transmitting even a text file. You know, maybe the bandwidth is no problem, but the speed is still a problem. So you would still need access to some hyperspace relay that has some extraordinary cost and requires an amount of power
• 1:08:39
  JOHN: just to send people do get their messages back and forth to family. So, so, so text. And that is probably much more accessible than the more real time. Like ISN is not only obviously video, it's real time, it's more real time as opposed to hours or days of a, of, of, of a delay. Well, this is, this has been an interesting one. This has been more depressing in some ways because we, we knew that going in. JMS even warned us on re watching these episodes that they can be a hit to the gut. But you know, always a fun time to, to discuss.
• 1:09:15
  JOSH: No, completely. Yeah. I think the illusion of truth is a harder watch now than it was 20 years ago or 30 years ago. How long ago? 30 years ago. 1997, I believe.
• 1:09:25
  JOHN: Don't do that. Don't do that. No, no. Oh, I think how long it's been. All that does is ages. That's all that does.
• 1:09:32
  JOSH: Yeah. Yeah. All right. But that is, I guess, the definitive media discussion in Babylon 5. We will return to these sorts of conversations because it's sort of woven throughout the show. But, yeah, check us out LastBestHopeB5.com and find us across social media. At last best hope be5 and please reach out last best hopebe5gmail. And as always, sometimes peace is just another word for surrender.