in the last year that we've had with more information coming out about torture, our debate about torture in the last few months have been so debased in a way because it's focused on effectiveness. and, of course effectiveness doesn't matter right? it's unlawful, it's immoral. but i think this book shows yet again that there are really two things that orture absolutely garon -- that torture absolutely guarantees. one is pain and the other is false information. >> you can watch this and other programs online at booktv.org. ..

>> george friedman talks about the future of europe and the potential for conflict in the coming years. it is next on booktv. [inaudible conversations] >> anything. on behalf of the owners and

staff of all it takes them press, while clement thank you for coming out on this wintry night. before we get started i would like to take a moment to remind everybody to turn off for silent cell phones. as well i would like to remind everybody we are recording the event. when it's time to ask questions, please do use the ideas microphone which is right there so that your question will be recorded as well. as well if you could at the end of the event -- can you hear me? is it on now? is this okay? and if you can also fold up your chairs at the end of the evening and put them against a nearby shelf, that would be very helpful. [inaudible] okay. is this better?

also one your way out, be sure to grab a schedule that has our events politics & prose is hosting a lot of wonderful event in partnership with us poison pellets. be sure to check it out. and now to introduce our guest author tonight, george friedman zip local scientist, author and ceo, which he founded in 1996. he's many books in his most recent include to "new york times" bestsellers. the next one is called the next 100 years of forecast for the 21st century and the next decade, what the world will look like. george is in great demand as a public speaker and has been invited to speak at events for a major financial institutions as well as many military and government organizations. as well, regularly appears for such media organization says "wall street journal," new york times, fortune this week, just

to name a few. george is here tonight to talk about his new book "flashpoints: the emerging crisis in europe." if the title sounds germanic it's because it subject matter warranted. in the preface, where pointed to the stunning facts in the first half of the 20th century 100 million is purchased disease and the like. george immediately sets putting us back into the larger context of history and presents to us the real possibility that the conditions that led to thought distracted the last century could go into the next. george analysis of the situation is made all the more relevant by the fact his own family, richly from budapest only narrowly survived world war ii in the beginning of the cold war. this book is the work of a political scientist, but also as george makes clear a study motivated by a highly personal

connection to these historical events. please join me in welcoming george friedman. [applause] >> good evening. i always feel inadequate at politics & prose. i'm reminded of how many books i haven't read and that is a frightening thought. i wrote this book for two reasons. the first was when i published the next 100 years which is a book i wrote and i forecast the european union couldn't survive. this was published in 2008. 2006, 2007 and obviously was preposterous. i wanted to revisit it not only because i was right and it's nice being right but more because europe is so central to human history in the past 500

years. what happens in europe -- not that it happens everywhere but it is uniquely influential on the world. europe is not just another place. the second reason i wanted to write this book as is mentioned as i'm ontarian. my life and my family's life is down to the geopolitics of europe. my parents were born just before world war i. there are fathers and brothers spotted not war and its reshaped for a long time. they made their lives falling in love, starting a business and the kind of liberalism and hungry between the wars. he survived the holocaust and found themselves to be hunted by the communists because the social democrats. at the age of six months i was

put on a rubber raft with my 11-year-old sister, my father and my mother and we paddled across the gnu on august 9th 1949. i told searchlights were across the water. guard towers with machine guns and are leading with a non-earth life and death. the cold war had the gun in earnest in on both sides the sand of foreboding whiskey. i was six months old and i was wrote because how they cried out at night, we would die. so my life came from this place from the torture of what i called dirty one years. the years in 1914 and 1945 31 years in which year up went from

an extraordinarily civil human and decent plays to a life of extraordinary barbarism. my family was shaking. my father's night nurse my mother's nightmares. every night they would go back to their past. for me, the cold war was the deciding elements of my life that grew out of this period. so very little that came to me except being genuinely american and not living in texas all places, you can't be more american than that, can you? [laughter] you know, growing up in new york moving around the country, i always had this tension between myself as an american

which is where i went to school and grew up in everything else and as a hungarian, which was my first language. there's a deep paradox in europe. on the one side it conquered the world and overstated the conquered nature. it transformed man's relationship to each other. when europe started as an adventure in the 15th century the mongolians had never heard of the congolese. the congolese had never heard of the aztecs. with the europeans stayed with blood and strife in horror is created humanity. everyone became aware. to the point that for the first time, a single concept of humanity was an extraordinary achievement because after that point in the world we didn't know ourselves.

we created this humanity. the humanity that we knew. it also created london, paris on the eve of world war i. an extraordinary place of not just physical culture, that place where on a night like this, mozart would be played in the winter would he kept outside and the lights were on and when you compare that to a century before, that was an extraordinary place. at the same time, it never conjured south. many tried. the french english german, dutch. and more after war they could never come together permanently. they could never be said he did it.

the geography of europe made it impossible. europe is the second smallest company in the world. today it has 52 sovereign nations. it is a place where you can drive for two hours in northern europe and encounter for languages, while difficult to understand in any way. what's important about europe is that it conquered the world and it conquered and bought a singular culture of science and philosophy to the world. and yet never stopped being a war with itself. never stopped this constant warfare. in 1910 and extremely bright man who won the nobel prize for the book called the great aleutian where he demonstrated there could he know serious wars in europe because the level of

interdependence the exposure in the financial markets if there was a war the consequences for trade made such a warm possible. e-mail, we look back. throughout my writing of this book, i kept remembering the absolute smug certainty that europe had put its history behind it. it's absolute smug conviction that it couldn't happen anymore. this is from a person of enormous sophistication, he was not a frivolous man and yet he didn't see what was coming right in front of them. that's a story that has to be sold in it self. how europe convinces itself of its exceptional at them. i would argue again commences at health of european exceptional

at them, but it solved a problem of war. it solved the problem of being oppressive. it solved the problem of poverty. and yeah remember this is a theme that repeats itself in european history. never more catastrophically than just the eve of 1913 when so much is happening. in 31 years, europe one from being the center of gravity of an imperial system the likes of which the world had never seen to be in occupied territory. one half tied by the soviet union, one half occupied united states. each treated their territory differently. but in the end european sovereignty was lost. the decision of war and peace the fundamental decisions was not made in a long in paris or

london it was made in moscow. i might add really notice given the americans or the russians behaved with enormous burdens. down. i was wondered what would've happened if the lysates in if the vice eastern europe in 1914 or 1939 owned nuclear weapons. from 1945 till the collapse of the soviet union, peace is not just here themselves. is a if you are soviet union collapsed last entry. europe is truly sovereign. it's in 1992 by: then that the maastricht treaty creating the modern european union dear son

everything else went into existence. to create a continent of enormous hope and promise and is spread to countries like greece, open the doors that greece would participate in the european experiment promised to germany and france would never again be enemies. it succeeded magnificently. 50 years of 1992 and after were among most prosperous years the world. it is a period of extraordinary prosperity and certainly the europeans do you knew how to handle prosperity because it's contained in the documents is peace and prosperity. not like life liberty and the pursuit of happiness. pursuit, but prosperity and it

left open the question, what if there was no prosperity. but if there is no peace? what happened then quiet but it seemed from 1992 onward when they speak of the european sense of exceptionalism, it was the belief that they had reached a plateau where they have learned the lesson that war doesn't pay and that understanding meant they would he eat no war. the other prosperity is better and property scaredy. all of this changed in seven weeks in 2008. on august 8th 2008, russian troops invaded georgia. this is not an event of transcendent importance. but it announced that even the things you thought were gone in europe that goes to come back to life.

the presence with authority and that is still playing itself out in ukraine and elsewhere. the idea that the russian question had unsettled in august 2008 was demonstrated by so many things everything appears settled, but nothing ever is permanently. and then come the seven weeks, lehman brothers collapsed in the collapse of lehman brothers was an event that the europeans thought was there for the american cowboys. but it doesn't possess. you start with subprime mortgage crisis and a response to be a bang so many are free banks are as responsible as anyone else. they say to me, you americans started this.

but it did and that is what they do. they know how to deal with financial crisis. against all reasonable law says a half, ahead of the federal reserve inc. the secretary of the treasury major preferred secretary to a coworker do the next day. but the united states was headed. it didn't cascade cascade and cascade into we grew last quarter of 5%. the europeans had never experienced this before. this is what christ is united states is world war ii. the bond crisis. there was the third world that christ did. there's the savings and loan crisis. all solved in the same way.

the government intervened to save the bankers and the bankers call the government are responsible for his hit here. a wonderful game we play. the europeans hobnobbing to go. they have no commonality. in that room no question, it doesn't want to bail out. but the question that germany versus greece, france versus germany, this was the question

and the fact that going bankrupt doesn't mean the people you've laid off are not your problem. so you would expect massive risk-taking didn't occur because it could have been. when it occurred, it occurred on the black market because no one could afford the taxes. there was no google that was going to emerge in europe. though microsoft is going to challenge ibm and destroyed the mainframe business. a corporation today. europe was constructed in such a way as to ensure the existing

additional corporations the massive ones was preserved and the wave of constant innovation that destroyed and created new companies didn't quite take place in the same way. when the banking crisis hit europe in the europeans try to solve the problem another banking crisis but to a sovereign debt crisis was simply that other countries in the periphery, a lot of them couldn't play back their loans. they couldn't pay off their bones. for me greece is the forerunner of everything that happens in europe could not be a liar. everything that happens to greece eventually happens to everyone else.

the question was what is to be done and what was to be done with either forget the dad in some way or force the debtor nations to pay back what they owed. there is a great debate between germany and the rest of europe and the germans voted for paying it back. the result was austerity. that austerity created a massive wave of unemployment. the unemployment rate today in spain is 23%. the unemployment rate reaches 26%. when you take all of miniature in europe, southern italy, france, the unemployment rate as it has been for years now 20% and more. it's an important number because it's the unemployment rate to the united states and the great

depression. southern europe is in a massive depression. german unemployment is at 5%. i'm not blaming the germans. the germans were trapped. they built an industrial plant far greater than their own economy that could assume they have to export them the tools they needed. the others consumed and didn't develop the industry. when it came down to it there's no one european experience anymore. the idea that we europeans are one was lost. germany was experiencing life in a different way than britain was, certainly in a different way than southern europe was in eastern europe facing the russians who are reemerging after 2008 was alone because the spaniards really didn't worry much about the russians. they didn't worry much about the greeks. what happened here was a

fragmentation. there was no european experience. there was the greek experience telling your and all the national distinctions reemerge. institutions remain in place, but what it meant to be a european changed tremendously. companies were in fact did in the united states. think of motor vehicles. factors are government employees. electrical engineers. the economy is much greater. you have a friend increase whose architect to chex houses after

earthquakes used to earn 3000 euros to munch and now owns a hundred euros a month. even those employed around the edge of tenure he beyond it. when the poor get poorer, it is not a radical event. they understand what it means to be poor. it is the circle compounded by misery. but when you are an architect when you are a professional in the middle class there is an expectation of how you will live and suddenly, the middle classes of europe, southern europe are plunged into a life they never expected. for a great period of time, there is expectation among the middle-class that it was going to get better. this wasn't the way it was going to be. it has been more than six years

since 2008 and it's only gotten worse. and so what you see happening in europe is the rise of the kind of parties is on the 19th on it and 30s extreme right-wing parties for the most part and left-wing parties. all united in the idea that europe was a very bad idea and one out. the right-wing parties solve that by the way cometh way cinema thumbs-up and the greeks which had a left-wing party not mentioned. but the mainstream parties of europe that created the european union are being challenged even in britain by the united kingdom independence party. spain, by putting mullahs, and france by the national front parties have been nonexistent until recently are now as

increase our forerunner of all things taking power. and what they are saying is we cannot live in this europe. indians, the problem of europe is simply this. it is a coalition of nations who are there for peace and prosperity. and if they don't have prosperity, what is the point of being european? this was same problem to united states had one we were founded and recalled these united states emphasizing the states. we had a problem of this sort, which was the economy of the south and the economy at the north the verge, the moral understand what the united states meant diverse and we met at his work for a great conference and we agreed with as much blood and violence in order that this was one nation under

god, indivisible but hopefully liberty and justice for all. who will die to preserve the european union? who will go to gettysburg? where will the grand army of the republic be raised from? there is no center of gravity of europe beyond the economic center. the basic reality of europe, which is the nation -- a continent of nations gave to share no fate remains the case. we've just seen the decision by the european central bank to do what is called kiwi which is print money. too little too late, but they will print money. it's very interesting to find how they have to do it. the european central bank will

not distribute this money. each of the national banks would print the money and they're about to but only their own debt. why? because no nation wants to take part in the default of another nation. no nation wants to be a viable for another nation's irresponsibility and each nation wants to control how it is spent. they don't want the european central bank to decide what that to buy and what not to buy. and that just happened last week. the reemergence of the autonomous nationstate reminds us not only that europe is divided, but that for millennia at spin in place of conflict and war. it may be coincidence. maybe part of the picture, but that war is already there in

ukraine. whether russia reemerged from the ashes of the nerdiness interesting claims and is being faced by nations like poland and romania who looked to the nato to help them. nato isn't going to help them because that was the loss of sovereignty and commitment. the americans and the u.s. forces in europe announced that the united states is going to be pre-positioning tanks in poland, hungary and balkans poland, romania and the baltics. while that may not be noticed by many people, that is quite a commitment to we've started to do. it is the united states that would take this role. it is very important to understand that europe is never at peace. 100,000 people died in yugoslavia. but the europeans with a doing the europeans so it doesn't

count. they did say that. but what is happening here is that the countries that face russia, the baltics poland, romania, they face them alone. the other europeans are part of it. during world war ii, on the pacific seemed to be at risk iowa really wasn't involved. that is the real reality of europe. the nationstate represents the shared fate a shared history, a shared culture, a love of one's own. and one of the things the european union tried to do was not abolished the love of one's own there we define it so you have two loves you for your country in europe.

this is the recess today. between 1992 and 2008 are collapsing. meetings are held both are taken, but the fundamental inner of the system isn't working. before that period, before the american and russian occupation, europe was a nightmare. my life wouldn't be what it is if it hadn't been 31 years of horror. so there is one fundamental question. is it possible this time for europe to fragment into its nationstates and not resort to what they've always resorted to

before, war. war in europe is unthinkable yet it's being waged right now in ukraine. the idea is that you can hide european nation he returns to full poverty is the great test and ultimately you cannot have 52 countries living in the sack at smallest continent in the world. in a place where there are multiple histories, multiple languages and multifold narratives of what happened 500 years ago or a thousand years ago. if you wonder about that, go to hungary and ask about the romanians. as the romanians about the hungarians. it is hard to see they are talking about the same history. they don't like each other. much of europe doesn't like each other and it interesting to go back there and hear the germans

speak of the absolutely dissolute greeks when the greeks speak of the return of german paratroopers. you think that all of this is past. it clearly isn't. the question is where does that leave? i don't think in european history there's any basis over for them. so europe is not exceptional. in my view europe is returning after a very short drive men to what was. how bad it becomes becomes an interesting question. but already, the nations hate each other, resent each other and tell stories of how the others betrayed them and that is an uneasy thing in the center of the world, the place that created the world set the stage for philosophy in most part.

and to realize it's returning to the past. thank you. [applause] questions please. >> yeah, if i may. i must say i am not for merit. i am from the caribbean, but i grew up in the netherlands. i went to school in the netherlands. my colonies of the netherlands. i must say that i'm a little bit pessimistic than you about europe. all right do not see nic potentially a fact are interviewing key out of the periphery of europe by

potentially can see a factoring depending on what happens in greece, you can see a problem. and even if that happens the original european economic community france germany even spain yet again, england is a problem here. england has always been a problem >> not to the english. >> not to the english, but to the french. so that can be a problem. so if you have a fracturing the fracturing is not going to come in my opinion, lead to a fracturing. i note of countries very well. i simply do not buy that. that's a major potential and aspect as such.

there are problems on the periphery. >> most europeans don't live in france and germany. they are not becomes the issue. they compete. i am not saying the german and french go toward because a fundamental fault line of europe is between the european peninsula in the mainland. it is the line that runs from the baltics through belarus, ukraine, sometimes eased. and this fall line was one of the foundations of world war i. that is where my family fought. it was not the french trenches. it was the germans the hungarians, dirt. so when we speak of the fragmentation it is altogether possible that we'll have different fragments.

we see this borderline coming to life. we are at a see the tension developing in the ukraine. we see the confrontation in eastern europe and the tension in eastern europe. one of the fragments is that this huge center of rapidly of europe which is certainly in terms of size significance is important. this has become alive. one of the most important questions asked in europe as well the germans join us in one of the most important discussions going on is between the germans and the russians who are also flirting with each other. therefore it is not germany and france going to war. it will be the entire periphery shatters and when it shatters -- we just saw an election in which 45% of the scots voted to leave

a 300 year union. we see in barcelona an independence movement. we see the northern lake in italy speaking about dividing it. it is not simply that history will repeat itself, but even within countries the assumption is more than italy and southern italy are one country by being challenged by some. i do know this much. if you go to romania or if you go to poland they feel near war and with going on in ukraine is significant. their question is where does germany stand? so what i will agree with you that it's extremely difficult to imagine another lens involved in the war i will also argue that first, the assumption that this

is the heart of europe is true in one sense but it is hard to say that britain is not part of the heart of europe or spain over does the hard west. what draws it apart historically is not only animosity between the french and the germans the fear of the turks and not fear is very real. >> thank you. >> it's a wonderful thing to wish to ask peace and prosperity. it is much better than reward most places and mess up the world. i submit to you that the problems of europe were not doing too also the united states doing. instead of -- after the end of

soviet russia, instead of helping russia there was hope. we want cold war. create. we won. i'm trying to help them present russia from falling into complete economic collapse. and the mortality rate increased alike expect to see in the low 60s. there is starvation, history and now we have the backlash. we take it off and don't pay attention to europe and the united states. plus the fact there was this talk about putting a missile defense and moving into nato that was seen by many russians

as a hostile project. i wanted to comment on that. >> it is -- the united states is 25% of the world economy. therefore it bears responsibility, even by default, in some way for everything in the world. however the question of europe is the european question. the intent to shift the burden to the united states is the same and shifting the burden of civil war to the british because they bought an american continent. one of the things that happens when these crises have been a slow, what happened. as to the europeans, the gdp of europe was in the united states if they wish to stabilize the

situation in russia. nobody would stop them. of course the germans didn't want to stabilize the situation in greece or spain, so we than linux. the idea that had the united states aged in trying to rebuild russia and the united states would not then be resented deeply for rebuilding russia, the united states can be shown to intersect with everything that happens. it cannot be held morally responsible for how the other nations behave. so if you want to talk about the fact that the united states did he that most patients in a different place, all fully agree. if you want to say that absent the united states this would have happened, i don't think that's true. what i am arguing is what happened in russia would have a great deal more to do with germany and a great deal more to do with the european union and

the european unions policies towards russia have to do with united states. we had very little trade with russia. the european union has a great deal of trade. in the end i don't think responsibility is the issue or blame is the issue. it is the underlying geopolitical structure that determines what comes out of that ended as one of the characteristics of human beings that somebody must be held responsible and of course it must not be me therefore it must be you. the fact of the matter is there are many forces beyond anyone's control. that's my answer. >> i've been using research for some time. thank you for what is basically a good harvest. however, i want to thank you for what is basically pretty good service. under the points of contention

between the u.s. and europe is a question of genetic modification of agriculture. strafford used to cover this topic x and civilly, but hasn't done a single article on this since 2006. wikileaks says this is because of the financial relationship between strafford and companies such as nonsense. would you care to comment on not quite >> we have no relationship with monsanto and the other company wikileaks -- >> why have you ignored -- >> we don't know enough about it. the heavy technical subject in which science is divided and there is nothing we can fan out to it. there are many issues we don't discuss. we confine ourselves to those issues in which we have something significant to. when the issue first broke out we also don't discuss questions of ebola very much.

>> but hezbollah doesn't have the geopolitical point of this contention. >> i'm not sure it has a geopolitical importance. you've made your mind up on the subject and i am saying i'm ignorant. we don't cover it because we don't cover issues that are technical. as for wikileaks and what it's claimed, i hope you go onto their website and read the e-mails because the distance between what is claimed to be in this e-mail such as work for a month and to him in the e-mails is breathtaking. we have no relationship with monsanto, nor any other companies that claim to work for. so why we don't cover it there's plenty of people who are experts. we are not. >> shouldn't you be hiring some of those people? [inaudible] >> i am wondering a lot about

nato. is nato a substantial force? is it reliable? is it useful? is a capable? what is it? is the united states bound through nato treaties to defend countries that are nato members and that russia may invade good >> welcome one mustn't overstate russian strength. >> not strength, but in her. >> the nerve. >> bittner doesn't get you enough fuel to get there. so what i am saying is first of all, nato is a military alliance, therefore it doesn't exist you can't have a military alliance about militaries. most of it driven particularly praiseworthy or not is the

reality. a mutual defense treaty in which only one nation has a sufficient military force under any circus and says to have a real significant effect. not a symbolic contribution isn't there. so my opinion, nato doesn't exist. it certainly has wonderful parties. tail parties in brussels or a hand in. but it doesn't have the portability of of an organized command structure that can order troops into combat. plus, nato is does the that any action must be approved by everyone unanimously. any one nation can veto it. during the cold war when there is a consensus and war plans were voted before him, that wasn't the matter. right now if the united states were to want to support: for ukraine or something like that that would be very hard to do.

it's pretty much by the cells and it's sick of following us around. they may not have deployed these two data as an institution is more a hindrance to the united states facing because it obligates us to do things in concert with other allies. our obligation is still there even if i allies can tell. but we don't know what the mission is and any one nation can vote against anything. the united states is clearly not moving towards bilateral relations outside of the context of nato with various countries. >> i would like to make an announcement for the people standing up -- [inaudible] >> i've two questions. one, if you are still following hungry, i'd like you to comment

on the kind of turned to the right of hungarian politics and the meaning of that and secondly, you know, just a couple weeks ago all the leaders of europe were standing together in pairs and whether that is just an anomaly or that did represent some kind of attempt to recapture some european spirit it, you mention the loss. >> meetings take place. a few weeks after that was the bailout plan. he plan. these national banks, not the european institutions. so you know come to stand together to take pictures. hungary is an interesting case because you have a prime minister who has been said basically, look him in the is a threat to us. what happened is the mortgages were let out by german, austrian

banks and they were denominated in euros. they were denominated in swiss francs, even in the end. hungary retains its currency. the hungarian has collapsed and the ability of hungarians to repay these mortgages has devolved. you're going to have to restructure to be refused. they say okay here's the deal. one we are repainted florence here too we are paying about 60 cents on the dollar and three, your other option is we don't repay anything. we do fall. give us a call when you make the decision. well, two things happen. first, the europeans decided the european bureaucrats -- and they decided or divine was a monster. the second thing is they didn't object to the bailout. they were happy to get 60 cents to the dollar.

hungary is interesting because of the model of how other countries might hinder the untenable debt crises they face. so when this happened the poll started looking very carefully to hungarians. the romanians who don't like the hungarians and in the great collection, the hungarian novel was held out as a solution. and now announced your pain back nothing. payback a certain percentage. another dozen american airlines says. and he himself is a populist leader who wanted to craft down is very popular or has been popular recently. he instituted a bunch of really impressive was in terms of free speech, taxing media and so on.

but this do me a fuss about hungry, but a model that might emerge in europe of the populist right-wing leader very popular for defending hungry again the italian and austrian banks. i once asked about the banking system. the science of the banking system in hungary. the austrians have the banking system in hungary. we don't have one. and that is the kind of you that is taken advantage of to build this decision. so, i think it is important what is happening in hungary. i think part of it is an indifference human rights, to civil rights and part of it is really tapping into the possibility of hungarians and they thought it was the crisis.

>> high. going back to 1992 and the formation of the e.u. its very concept other than peace and prosperity they could've built a european union on that would've survived the economic downturn? is there a concept for a common european identity that could survive the recession? >> they wanted one. but there is no common european entity. the problem that france and germany have their histories and then there has dairies they are each other's enemies. so when you take a look at france and britain, they have histories. but they are against each other. the histories of the european nations don't draw on a commonality. they draw on tension. one of the things the europeans want to do is forget that history because if you don't forget the history, you can't get people to work together. let's not dwell on our past. but stronger future.

that is a very good thing to do if your future is rosy and doesn't disgrace these. the problem is the only thing they could dwell on what the promise that it really meant something of peace prosperity european stability, a decent society. the problem with that is that it can handle everything but crisis and the europeans facing their first crisis have found themselves unable to handle it together. there is no history to bind them. their history divided them. so it is very hard to think of what they would not otherwise. they used to have something called christianity and they are to have that now. even christianity was of course divided between catholics and protestants in no one. these that would've united europe, replaced by secularism and the secularism really was a very thin role which to hold

together an anti-t., especially one in which you had to ask for bud, sweat and tears. they are not in a position to ask for that. thank you very much. [applause] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations]

>> was he smart, you write? no, not exceptionally. >> i compare and contrast them is an absolutely wonderful smart guy of course, bill gates. bill gates had more of what you would call conventional mental processing power. i marvel in watch bill gates take large amounts of information. the greens would have for windows on the menu would be processing the nation and just be absolutely brilliant. steve was not brilliant in that way. he didn't have that analytical processing power. what he had was an intuitive genius. he could just have a feel for things. a feel for what it was like a feel for beauty a feel for what would work.

so to me that is what it is. i even saw it in albert einstein who i write about. albert einstein was not the best physicists in europe in 1905. in fact, he was the third class examiner and the swiss patent office and he couldn't even get his phd. they kept rejecting his thesis. he couldn't get a job at the university. he wouldn't say he is a conventional standards the greatest physicist mind of 1905, but he was the greatest genius. he was able to make imaginative and intuitive leaps. i would never put steve jobs ever put even the same quantum orbit is albert einstein. but there was a similarity which is that the genius of steve jobs came from making intuitive leaps, imaginative leaps, questioning received

wisdom and that is where ben franklin did a test of steve jobs did come albert einstein did his question things that you and i might say the received wisdom of newton riding at the beginning of the content via that good time marches along second by second irrespective of how we observe it. get albert einstein how do we know that? how do we test that? how do we take two clocks and synchronize them? ..