From the SiliconANGLE Media Office in Boston, Massachusetts, it's theCUBE. Now, here's your host, Dave Vellante. Welcome everybody to this CUBE conversation here in our Malboro offices. I am very excited today. I spent a number of years at IDC, which of course is owned by IDG. And there's new book out, relatively new called Future Forward. Leadership lessons from Patrick McGovern, the visionary who circled the globe and built a technology media empire. And there's a great book, a lot of stories that I didn't know, many that I didn't know. And the author of that book, Glenn Rifkin, is here to talk about not only Pat McGovern, but also some of the lessons that he put forth to help us as entrepreneurs and leaders apply to create better businesses and change the world. Glenn, thanks so much for coming on theCUBE. Thank you, Dave. Great to see you. So let me start with, why did you write this book? Well, a couple of reasons. The main reason was Patrick McGovern III, Pat's son came to me at the end of 2016 and said, my father had died in 2014 and I feel like his legacy deserves a book. And many people told me you were the guy to do it. So the background on that is I myself worked at IDG back in the 1980s. I was an editor at Computer World, got to know Pat during that time, did some work for him after I left Computer World on a one-on-one basis. Then I would see him over the years, interview him for the New York Times or other magazines. And every time I'd see Pat, I'd end our conversation by saying, Pat, when are we gonna do your book? And he would laugh and he would say, I'm not ready to do that yet, there's just still too much to do. And so it became sort of an inside joke for us. But I always really did wanna write this book about him because I felt he deserved a book. He was just one of these game-changing pioneers in the tech industry. He really was and of course the book was even more meaningful for me as we and I started right in the same time, 1983. And by that time IDG was almost 20 years old and it was quite a powerhouse then, but boy we saw really the ascendancy of IDG as a brand. And the book reviews on the back covers our tech elite, Benioff wrote the foreword, Mark Benioff. You had Bill Gates in there, Walter Isaacson was in there, Guy Kawasaki, Bob Metcalf, George Colony. He actually worked for a little stint at IDC for a while, John Markoff of the New York Times. So the elite of tech really sort of blessed this book and it was really a lot to do with Pat McGovern, right? Oh, absolutely. I think that the people on the inside understood how important he was to the history of the tech industry. He was not a household name, first of all. You didn't think of Steve Jobs, Bill Gates and then Pat McGovern. However, those who are in the know realized that he was as important in his own way as they were because somebody had to chronicle this story. Somebody had to share the story of the evolution of this amazing information technology and how it changed the world. And Pat was never a front of the TV camera guy. He was a guy who put his people forward, he put his products forward for sure, which is why IDG as a corporate name, most people don't know what that means, but people did know Mac world, people did know PC world, they knew IDC, they knew computer world for sure. So that was Pat's view of the world. He didn't care whether he had the spotlight on him or not. When you listen to leaders like Reed Hoffman or Eric Schmidt talk about great companies and how to build great companies, they always come back to culture. The book opens with a scene of, and we all at IDG remember this, well, we're hanging around waiting for Pat to come in and hand out what was then called the Christmas bonus, back when that wasn't politically incorrect to say. Now, of course it's the holiday bonus, but it was, it was the Christmas bonus time and Pat was coming around and he was gonna personally hand a bonus, which was a substantial bonus to every single employee at the company. I mean, and he did that really literally forever, throughout his career. It was unheard of, CEOs just didn't do that and still don't do that. If you were lucky you got a message in the lunch room from the CEO, good work troops, keep up the good work. Pat just had a really different view of the culture of this company, as you know from having been there and I know, it was very familial. There was a sense that we were all in this together and it really was important for him to let every employee know that. The idea that he went to every desk in every office for IDG around the United States, when we were there in the 80s, there were probably 5,000 employees in the U.S., he had to devote substantial amount of time, and weeks at a time to come to every building and do this, but year after year he insisted on doing it. His assistant at the time, Mary Dollher, told me she wanted to sign the cards, the Christmas cards and he insisted that he ensign every one of them personally. This was the kind of view he had of how you keep employees happy. If your employees are happy, the customers are going to be happy and you're going to make a lot of money and that's what he did. And it wasn't just that, he had this awesome holiday party that you described which was epic and during the party, they would actually take pictures of every single person at the party and then they would load the carousel, you remember the 35 millimeter carousel and then toward the end of the evening they would play that and everybody was transfixed. They wanted to see the picture of themselves. And to actually pull that off in the 1980s, it was not trivial today, it would be a piece of cake. And then there was the IDG update, the good news memos, there was a 10 year launch, the 20 year trips around the world. There were a lot of really rich benefits that in and of themselves, maybe not a huge deal, but that was the culture that he set. Yeah, there was no question that if you talk to anybody who worked in this company over say the last 50 years, you're gonna get the same kind of stories. I've been kind of amazed, I'm going around, marketing the book, talking about the book at various events and the deep affection for this guy that still holds five years after he died is just remarkable. You don't really see that with the CEO class. There's a couple, Steve Jobs left a great legacy of creativity. He was not a wonderful guy to his employees, but Pat McGovern, people love this guy and I would be signing books and somebody'd say, I've been at IDG for 27 years and I remember all of this and I've been there 33 years and there's a real longevity to this impact that he had on people. Now the book was just, it was not just sort of a biography McGovern, it was really about lessons from a leader and an entrepreneur and a media mogul who grew this great company in this culture that we can apply as business people and business leaders. I want to give you a sense of what Pat McGovern did. He really didn't take any outside capital. He did a little bit of a public offering with IDG books, but really no outside capital, completely self-funded, built a $3.8 billion empire, 300 publications, 280 million readers, I think it was almost 100 or maybe even more, 100 countries. And so you used the word remarkable. That is a remarkable achievement for a self-funded company. Yeah, Pat had a very clear vision of how, first of all, Pat had a photographic memory and if you were a manager in the company, you got a chance to sit in meetings with Pat and if you didn't know the numbers better than he did, which was a tough challenge, you were in trouble because he knew everything and so he was really a numbers focused guy and he understood that his best way to make profit was to not be looking for outside funding, not to have to share the wealth with investors, that you could do this yourself if you ran it tightly. I called it in the book a loose, tight organization. Loose meaning he was a deep believer in decentralization that every market needed its own leadership because they knew the market in Austria or in Russia or wherever better than you would know it from a headquarters in Boston, but you also needed that tightness, a firm grip on the finances. You needed to know what was going on with each of the budgets or you were going to end up in big trouble, which a lot of companies find themselves in. Well, and you know, having worked there, I mean, essentially if you made your numbers and did so ethically and he's kind of followed some of the corporate rules which we'll talk about, kind of left you alone, right? You know, you could pretty much do whatever you wanted. You could stay in any hotel. You really couldn't fly first class and we may be talking about that. But he was a complex man. I mean, he was obviously wealthy, he was a billionaire, he was very generous, but at the same time he was frugal. Yeah.  He flew coach and I remember one time I was on a United flight and I was, I had upgraded, you know, using my miles and I sat down and right there was Lori McGovern and we both looked at each other and said right at the same time, I upgraded. Because Pat never flew up front. But he would always fly with a stack of newspapers in the seat next time. Oh yeah, yeah. Yeah, well, woe to, you were lucky he wasn't on the plane and spotted you as he was walking past you into coach because he was not real forgiving when he saw people, people would hide and, you know, try to avoid him at all costs. He, I mean, and he was a big man. Pat was six, three, you know, 250 pounds at least built like a linebacker. So he didn't fit into coach that well but he was, and he wasn't flying, you know, the shuttle to New York. He was flying a Beijing. He was flying a Moscow. He was going all over the world squeezing himself into these seats. Now, you know, full disclosure as he got older and had like probably 10 million air miles at his disposal he would upgrade to occasionally for those long haul flights just cause he wanted to be fresh when he would get off the plane. But yeah, these are legends about Pat that his frugality was just pure legend in the company. He owned this, you know, several versions of that dark blue suit. And that's what you would see him in. He would never deviate from that. And, but he had his patterns but he understood the impact those patterns had on his employees and on his customers. I want to get into some of the lessons because really this is what the book is all about, the heart of it. And you mentioned, you know, Juan and we'll get into some others but you really got to stay close to the customer. That was one of the 10 corporate values. And you remember, he used to go to the meetings and he'd sometimes randomly ask people to recite. What's number eight? He'd be like, you have your chief there. Just to give you a sense, this man was an entrepreneur. He started the company in 1964 with a database that he kind of pre-sold. He was kind of the sell, design, build type of mentality. He even pre-sold this thing. And he started Computer World in 1967. So it was really only a few years after he launched the company that he started Computer World. Other than Datamation, there was nothing there. Huge pent up demand for that type of publication and he caught lightning in the bottle. And that's really how he funded. No question. Computer World became the Bible of the industry. It became a cash cow for IDG. But at the time, it's so easy to look in hindsight and say, oh, well, obviously. But when Pat was doing this, one little known fact is he was an editor at a publication called Computers and Automation that was based in Newton, Massachusetts. And he kept that job even after he started IDC which was the original company in 1964. It was going to be a research company. And it was doing great. He was seeing the build up. But it wasn't until 67 when he started Computer World that he said, okay, now this is gonna be a full-time gig for me. And he left the other publication for good. But he was sort of hedging his bets there for a little while. And that's where he really gained respect for what we call the Chinese wall, the editorial versus advertising. We're gonna talk about that some more. So I mentioned 1967, Computer World. So he launched in 1964. By 1971, he was going to Japan. We're gonna talk about the China stories as well. So he named the company International Data Corp. He had a little spot in Newton mass, right? So he had a vision.  And that really leads to some of the leadership lessons. And one of them in the book was sort of have a mission, have a vision. And really, Pat was always talking about information, technology. In fact, when Wine for Dummies came out, it kind of created a little friction. That was really off the center. Or Wine for Dummies or Sex for Dummies. Yeah, Sex for Dummies, right? That's right, with Dr. Ruth Westheimer. But generally speaking, Glenn, he was on that mark. He really didn't deviate from that vision. Yeah, no, it was very crucial to the development of the company that he got people to buy into that mission because the mission was everything. And he understood, he had the numbers but he also saw what was happening out there from the 1960s when IBM mainframes filled a room. And only the high-priests of data centers could touch them. He had a vision for what was coming next. And he started to understand that there would be many facets to this information about information technology. It wasn't going to be boring, if anything, it was going to be the story of our age. And he was going to stick to it and sell it. You know, timing is everything, but so is, you know, Pat was a workaholic and an amazing mind. But one of the things I learned from the book, and you said this, Pat Keneally mentioned it, all American industrial and social revolutions have had a media company linked to them. Crane and automobiles, Penton and Energy, McGraw Hill and Aerospace, Annenberg, of course, and TV. And in technology, it was IDG. Yeah, he, like I said earlier, he really was a key figure in the development of this industry. And it was, you know, one of the key things about that, a lot of publications that came and went made the mistake of being platform or, you know, vertical market specific. And if that market changed, and it was inevitably going to change in high tech, you were done. He never, you know, he never married himself to some specific technology cycle. His idea was the audience was not going to change. The audience was going to have to roll with this. So the company, IDG, would produce publications that got that. You know, Computer World was actually a little bit late to the PC game, but eventually got into it. And we tracked the different cycles. You know, things in tech move in sine waves. They come and go. And Pat never was, you know, flustered by that. He could handle any kind of changes from the mainframes down to the smartphone when it came. And so that kind of flexibility and ability to adjust to markets really was unprecedented in that particular part of the market. One of the other lessons in the book, I call it nation building. And Pat shared with you that, look, and you shared actually with your readers, if you want to do it right, you've got to be on the ground. You've got to be there. And the China story is one that I didn't know about how Pat kind of talked his way into China. Give us a little summary of that story. I love that story because it's so Pat. It was 1978. Pat was in Tokyo on a business trip, one of his many business trips. And he was going to be flying to Moscow for a trade show. And he got a flight that was going to make a stopover in Beijing, which in those days was called Peking, and was not open to Americans. There were no U.S. and China diplomatic relations then. But Pat had it in mind that he was going to get off that plane in Beijing and see what he could see. So that meant that he had to leave the flight when it landed in Beijing and talk his way through the customs as they were in China at the time with folks in the, wherever, the quonset hut that served for the airport, speaking no English and him speaking no Chinese, he somehow convinced these folks to give him a day pass because he kept saying to them, I'm only in transit, it's okay. Like he wasn't coming to spy on them or anything. So here's this massive American businessman in his dark suit, and he somehow gets into downtown Beijing, which at the time was mostly bicycles, very few cars. There were camels walking down the street. They'd come with traders from Mongolia. The people were still wearing the drab outfits from the Mao era. And Pat just spent the whole day wandering around the city just soaking it in. He was that kind of a world traveler. He loved different cultures, mostly Eastern cultures. And he would pop his head into bookstores. And what he saw were people just clamoring to get their hands on anything, a newspaper, a magazine. And it just, it didn't take long for the light bulb to go on and said, this is a market we need to play in. He was fascinated with China. I, as an employee and a business P&L manager, I never understood it. I said, the per capita spending on IT in China was like a dollar. Right. And I remember my lunch within my 10 year lunch. He said, yeah, but there's going to be a huge opportunity there and I don't know how we're going to get the money out.  I'm not worried about that. And of course, he meets Hugo Shang, which is a huge player in the book. And the home run out of China was, of course, the venture capital piece, which he started before there was even a stock market really to exit in China. Yeah. No, he was really a visionary. I mean, that word gets tossed around maybe more than it should. But Pat was a bona fide visionary. And he saw things in China that were developing that others didn't see, including, for example, his own board, who told him he was crazy. Because in 1980, he went back to China without telling them. And within days, he had a meeting with the Ministry of Technology and set up a joint venture, cost IDG $250,000. And six months later, the first issue of China computer world was being published. And within a couple of years, it was the biggest publication in China. He told me at some point that $250,000 investment turned into $85 million. But when he got home that first trip, the board was furious. They said, how can you do business with the commies? You're going to ruin our brand. And Pat said, just stick with me on this one. You're going to see. And the venture capital story was just an offshoot. He saw the opportunity in the early 90s that venture in China could, in fact, be a huge market. Why not help build it? And that's what he did. What's your take on, so IDG sold to basically Chinese investors? It's kind of bittersweet. But in the same time, it's symbolic, given Pat's love for China and the Chinese people. There's been a little bit of criticism about that. I know that the US government required IDC to spin out its supercomputer division because of concerns there. I'm always teasing Michael Dell that at the next IDG board meeting, those Lenovo numbers, they're going to look kind of low. But what are your thoughts on that in terms of people criticized China in terms of IP protections, et cetera? What would Pat have said to that, do you think? Pat made 130 trips to China in his life. We calculated at some point that just the airtime in planes would have been something like 3 and 1 half to four years of his life on planes going to China and back. I think Pat would today acknowledge, as he did then, that China has issues. You can't be that naive if he got that. But he also understood that these were people at the end of the day who were thirsty and hungry for information and that they were going to be a player in the world economy at some point and that it was crucial for IDG to be at the forefront of that, not just play later, but let's get in early, let's lead the parade. And I think that some part of him would have been OK with the sale of the company to this conglomerate there called China Oceanwide. Clearly controversial, I mean. But once Pat died, everyone knew that the company was never going to be the same with the leader who had been at the helm for 50 years. It was going to be a tough transition for whoever took over. And I think it's hard to say. Certainly there's criticism of things going on with China. China is going to be the hot topic page one of the New York Times almost every single day for a long time to come. I think Pat would have said, this was appropriate, given my love of China, that kind of return on investment he got from China, I think he would have been OK with it. Yeah, and to invoke the Ben Franklin Maxim trading partner seldom wage war. And so I think Pat would have probably looked at it that way, but huge home run. I mean, I think he was early on at Baidu and Alibaba and Tencent, an amazing story. I want to talk about decentralization, because that was always something that was just on our minds as employees of IDG. It was keep the corporate staff lean, have a flat organization. If you had 8, 10, 12 direct reports, that was OK. Pat really meant it when he said, you're the CEO of your own business. Whether that business was IDC, big company, or a manager at IDC where you might have done tens of millions of dollars.  You were encouraged to try new things. You were encouraged to fail and fail fast. The arch nemesis of IDG was Ziff Davis. They were command and control, sort of Bill Ziff. CMP, to a certain extent, was kind of the same way out of Manhasset. Totally different philosophies. And I think Pat never, ever even came close to wavering from that decentralization philosophy, did he? No, no, I mean, I think that the story that he told me that I found fascinating was he didn't have an epiphany that decentralization would be the mechanism for success. It was more that he had started traveling. And when he'd come back to his office, the memos and requests and papers to sign were stacked up two feet high. And he realized that he was holding up the company because he wasn't there to do this. And that, at some point, he couldn't do it all. It was going to be too big for that. And that's when the light came on and said, this decentralization concept really makes sense for us. If we're going to be an international company which clearly was his mission from the beginning, we have to say the people on the ground in those markets are the people who are going to make the decisions because we can't make them from Boston. And I talked to many people who did a trip to Europe, met the folks in London, met the folks in Munich. And they said to a person, it was so ahead of its time. Today it just seems obvious. But in the 1960s, early 70s, it was really not a regular leadership tenant in most companies. The command and control that you talked about was the way that you did business. And they both worked, but from a cultural standpoint, clearly IDG and IDC have had staying power. And he had the three-quarter rule. You talked about it in your book. If you missed your numbers, three quarters in a row, you were in trouble. One quarter, hey, let's talk. Two quarters, we maybe make some changes. Three quarters, you're gone. And so, as I said, if you were making your numbers, you had wide latitude. One of the things you didn't have latitude on was, I'll call it pay to play. Crossing that line between editorial and advertising. And Pat, I remember I was at a meeting one time, I'm sorry to tell you these stories, but we were at an off-site meeting in a Woods meeting and they give you exercise.  Bill LaBaris, who was the editor-in-chief of a computer all the time said, who's the customer? And Pat said, that's a great question. To the publisher, it's the advertiser. To you, Bill, and the editorial staff, it's the reader. And both are equally important. And Pat would never allow the editorial to be compromised by the advertiser. Yeah, no, there was a clear barrier between church and state in that company. And he consistently backed editorial on that issue. Because keep in mind, when we started then, and I was a journalist hoping to change the world, the trade press then was considered a little below the mainstream business press. The trade press had a reputation for being a little too cozy with the advertisers. And Pat said early on, we can't do that. Because everything we have, our product, the brand is built on integrity. And if the reader doesn't believe that what we're reporting is actually true and factual and unbiased, we're gonna lose the advertisers in the long run anyway. So he was clear that that had to be the case. And time and again, there would be conflict that would come up. It was just, as you just described it, the publishers, the sales guys, they wanted to bring in money. And if it, occasionally, hey, we could nudge the editor of this particular publication, take it a little bit easier on this vendor because they're gonna advertise big with us. Pat just would always back the editor and say, that's not gonna happen. And it caused friction for sure. But he was unwavering in his support. Well, it was interesting because Macworld, I think, is an interesting case study because there were sort of some backroom dealings in Pat Maneuver to be able to get the Macworld brand license for that. But it caused friction between Steve Jobs and the writers of Macworld. They would write something that Steve Jobs, who was a control freak, couldn't control. And he regretted giving that license. Yeah, he once said that was the worst decision he ever made, was to give the license to Pat. Macworld was published on the day that Mac was introduced in 1984. That was the deal that they had. And it was, what Jobs forgot was how important it was to the development of that product to have a whole magazine devoted to it on day one and a really good magazine that a lot of people still lament the glory days of Macworld. But yeah, he and Steve Jobs did not get along. And I think that almost says a lot more about Jobs because Pat pretty much got along with everybody. That church and state dynamic seems to be changing across the industry. I mean, the tech journalism, there aren't any more tech journalists in the United States. I mean, I'm overstating that, but far fewer than there were when we were at IDG, you're seeing all kinds of publications and media companies struggling. Kara Swisher, who's the greatest journalist in Walt Mossberg in the tech industry, tried to make it on their own and couldn't. So those lines are somewhat blurring, not that Kara Swisher is blurring those lines. She's, I think, very, very solid in that regard. But it seems like the business model is changing. As an observer of the markets, what do you think's happening in the publishing world? Well, as a journalist, I'm sort of aghast at what's going on these days. A lot of my, I've been around a long time and seeing former colleagues who are no longer in journalism because the jobs just started drying up is, it's a scary prospect. Unlike being the enemy of the people, the First Amendment is pretty important to the future of the democracy. So to see these cutbacks and newspapers going out of business is difficult. At the same time, the internet was inevitable and it was going to change that dynamic dramatically. So how does that play out? Well, the problem is anybody can post anything they want on social media and call it news. And the challenge is to maintain some level of integrity in the kind of reporting that you do. And it's more important now than ever. And so I think that somebody like Pat would be an important figure if he was still around in trying to keep that going. Well, Facebook and Google have cut the heart out of a lot of the business models of many media companies. And you're seeing sort of a pendulum swing back to nonprofits, which I understand, and speaking to folks that back in the mid to early 1900s, nonprofits were the way in which journalism got funded. Maybe it's billionaires buying things like the Washington Post that helped fund it, but clearly the model's shifting and it's somewhat unclear what's happening there. I wanted to talk to you about another lesson, which Pat was the head cheerleader. So I remember, just after we started, the computer world's 20th anniversary, and they hired the marching band and they walked, Pat and Mary Dollarher walked from Five Spin Street, IDG headquarters. They walked to Computer World, which was up, I guess, old constituent path or maybe it was actually on Route 30 at the time. And Pat was dressed up as the drum major and Mary as well. He would do crazy things like that. He'd jump out of a plane with IDG as number one again. He'd post a flag in Antarctica. IDG's number one again. It was just, it was an amazing dynamic that he had always cheering people on. Yeah, he was what he called himself the CEO of the Chief Encouragement Officer. You mentioned earlier the good news notes. Everyone who worked there at some point received this eight by 10 piece of paper with a rainbow logo on it and it said, good news. And there was a personal note from Pat McGovern out of the blue, totally unexpected to thank you and congratulate you on some bit of work, whatever it was, if you were a reporter, some article you wrote, if you were a sales guy, a sale that you made. And people all over the world would get these from him and put them up in their cubicles because it was like a badge of honor to have them. People still have them in a folder somewhere. And he was just unrelenting in supporting the people who worked there. And it was, the impact of that is something you can't put a price tag on. It just, it stays with people for all their lives. People who have left there and gone on to four or five different jobs always think fondly back to the days at IDG and knowing that the CEO had your back in that manner. The legend of the legacy of Patrick J. McGovern is not just in IDG and IDC, which he was interested in your book.  And I was started when I saw the sort of downturn. And then now it's a very, very successful company, whatever, $300, $400 million, throwing off a lot of profits. Just to decide, I worked for every single CEO at IDC with the exception of Pat McGovern. And now, Kirk Campbell, the current CEO is moving on. Crawford Del Pratt's moving into the role of president just a matter of time before he gets CEO. So I will, and I hired Crawford. So you did. So I have worked for and or hired every CEO of IDC except for Pat McGovern. So, but the legacy goes beyond IDG and IDC, great brands. The McGovern Brain Institute, 350 million, is that right? That's right. He dedicated to studying the human brain. He and Laurie were very much involved. Typical of Pat, he wasn't just he hears the check and disappear, he was going in, hey, I have some ideas, and talk about that a little bit. Yeah, well, this was a guy who spent his whole life fascinated by the human brain. And the impact technology would have on the human brain. So when he had enough money, he and Laurie in 2000 gave a $350 million gift to MIT to create the McGovern Institute for Brain Research. At the time, the largest academic gift ever given to any university. And as you said, Pat wasn't a guy who was gonna write a check and leave and wave goodbye. Pat was involved from day one. He and Laurie would come and sit in day long seminars talking, listening to researchers talk about the most esoteric research going on. And he would take notes and he was, he wasn't a brain scientist, but he wanted to know more. And he would talk to researchers. He would send good news notes to them just like he did with IDG. And it had the same impact. People said, this guy is a serious supporter here. He's not just showing up with a checkbook. Bob DeSimon, who's the director of the Brain Institute just marveled at this guy's energy level that he would come in and for days just sit there and listen and take it all in. And it just, it was an indicator of what kind of person he was, this insatiable curiosity to learn more and more about the world. And he wanted his legacy to be this intersection of technology and brain research. He felt that this institute could cure all sorts of brain related diseases, Alzheimer's, Parkinson's, et cetera, and it would then just make a better future for mankind than as corny as that might sound. That was really the motivator for Pat McGovern. Well, it's funny you mentioned the word corny because a lot of people saw Pat as somewhat corny, but as you got to know him, you're like, wow, he really means this. He loves his company. The company was his extended family. When Pat met his untimely demise, we held a crowd chat, crowdchat.net slash thanks Pat. And there's a voting mechanism in there. And the number one vote was from Paul Gillan, who posted Leo DeRosha said that nice guys finish last, Pat McGovern proved that wrong. And I think that's very true. And again, awesome legacy. What number book is this for you? You've written a lot of books. This is number 13. 13. Congratulations, lucky 13. Thank you. The book is Fast Forward by Glenn Rifkin. I'm sorry, Future Forward. Future Forward by Glenn Rifkin. Check out, there's a link in the YouTube down below. Check that out. And there's some additional information there. Glenn, congratulations on getting the book done. And thanks so much for coming around here. Thank you for having me. This is great. Really enjoyed it. It's always good to chat with another former IDG or who gets it. I've got back a lot of memories. So again, thanks for writing the book. All right, thanks for watching, everybody. We'll see you next time. This is Dave Vellante. You're watching theCUBE.


then finally um I would just reiterate and reinforce the work that the AGI and our members have done with our self-regulation model which is modeled after distilled spirits and beer industries and you know the processes they've had in place for decades and you know how that creates a means for regulation and modification and high standard that is not just for AGI members but all operators in this space. Thank you. Thank you. I think when we talk about advertising everybody talks about in the context of restrictions right but I think we should also be talking about the affirmative I think this was alluded to when you're talking about that you should have the font in a certain size or you should do some standalone uh responsible gaming advertising as a part of licensure and a privilege to operate within the state um things that I also feel have significant good and evil components are these celebrity endorsements right. Kate highlighted a wonderful new celebrity endorsement around RG that was just unveiled last week that has power to influence consumers to engage with these RG features we've seen similar type of advertising and alcohol um so I don't think when we talk about the power of celebrity endorsements it's fair to just think about the the negative side but there's also real power in having a celebrity come out and say hey look I I take a break sometimes that's okay you should too and I think that these operators need to be incentivized more to lean into that to adopt RG messaging and to use their celebrity power to highlight all of these great features and functionalities that they do offer consumers to help keep their gaming safe um on the other side I think it's very appropriate for us to look at some of the more mature markets especially in Europe that have concerns around celebrity endorsements and their impact on youth for the negative and I think that we've seen a few US jurisdictions that in regulations have put forth that no endorsement can be with someone who is under the age of 21 or tends to resonate most with a younger demographic I know it seems kind of common sense but I think it's an important thing to highlight I'd also just like to leave on the note of I didn't hear any real mention about risk-free um I know that's a topic in regulations uh right now there's no such thing as really a risk-free bet many of us would argue so maybe considering not having that you know a term that is allowed to be used in advertising some jurisdictions have moved in that direction also mark um I'm sorry you were going very quickly through the statute but I also don't know if it talks about advertising cannot encourage excessive wagering um I think that's another important component to be considered and I thank you Madam chair if I may I also just wanted to highlight the great work of UNLB um and examining this issue and and Alan is raising his hand I wanted to acknowledge the work that he had done in this area and how it was a a key resource for us in developing our life so the AGA and and I'm going to be correct and the AGA I'm sorry the AGA yeah certainly um and and please I know that you all have a good relationship with Mark please pass along links to your materials he will make sure we see them we are building up you know a treasury of um treasure chest really of these valuable um uh research documents and it will help us as we moved into setting up our regulations Alan so a couple of things um and thank you mark I appreciate the shout out um I think we need to understand how young the field of study is about sports advertising sports betting advertising and therefore I think on this topic in particular I think this is generally true in online betting regulation but on the regulation of sports betting advertising I think you've got to keep flexibility in mind you've got to be prepared to make changes when there is evidence to support it um and and so this is kind of the the other end of the precautionary approach that is very much a part of the framework and should be but the sort of the flip side of that is when you get new learning you've got to be prepared to make a certain adjustment um the the notion of celebrities might be one of those examples there there's some research on it but virtually none of it here in the united states and and how we process ideas of the celebrity at the same time several companies are running responsible gambling ads with celebrities so I don't know that we necessarily want to just cut that off I think that's an area of growth that we probably would like to encourage um and then last point I want to make I agree with everything philosophically that has been said about things that the commission can do things that licensees can do to prevent promotion and uh and encouragement to an underage audience the most impactful group however are parents and I think this is a shared responsibility of government of a regulatory body like the commission of the public health uh apparatus within the commonwealth and operators to start to put out educational programs to parents to knock it off I spoke with someone today who told me that when she was six years old six her father would go to the track take her and give her six dollars to age her and that's how she learned how to gamble that that is absolutely nuts and yet it's a unbelievably common part of our society it's one of those things we're just going to need to chip away at but getting parents involved in reducing incidents of youth gambling I think is a critical part of the mix okay I'm just going to pause I'm looking at the time 357 Michael and Marlene are next and um this is a really big topic uh Marlene I guess I just want to say that um I disagree with what Alan just said in terms of us being on the other end of the precautionary approach I think that with an issue so large that we are not sure of the impact of um advertising and as as you know folks have heard me say a million times um as the mother of two sports crazed teenage boys I am concerned beyond belief given especially what I do for a living um that and to Alan's point I'm certainly a parent who talks about gambling with my children um but I am concerned about the cumulative effect of advertising on my children um here in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts and we haven't human legalized sports wagering yet I can't go to a Fenway with my kids and not see sports advertising everywhere or excuse me gambling advertising everywhere that they then connect back to the advertisements that they see on NECN they see on the internet they see so I don't have a solution but I I totally disagree if that's what Alan was saying that I totally disagree with the idea that we need to wait till we get enough research I think we have to pay attention to the most vulnerable populations youth being one of them but certainly looking at communities at risk and we we know who some of those communities are already through our other research here in Massachusetts and I think the time for the gaming commission to act upon this and think about um bands or limitations on advertising is now not not until we have it all figured out Marlene if I can if if that's what what you understood me to say I might have misunderstood but oh I misspoke I completely agree that at this moment paying attention to advertising and promotion that is directed toward youth that is a serious problem what I'm getting at is some of the things that we're talking about with youth in mind like celebrities we don't know whether or not youth are responding to them and depending on how they're used there may be enormous benefits to getting celebrities involved in um in in responsible gambling advertising and promotion when I said the other side of the precautionary I'm only talking about the commission's ability to get new learnings continually improve make changes that's all I'm talking about I am absolutely not suggesting that the things you've recommended here are uh you know are to be avoided simply because there isn't evidence yet I didn't didn't mean to give that impression and I appreciate the clarification I think I was hearing that in this little word that I get I currently use a lot but we need to really remain nimble as more of evidence comes in so that we want to build that flexibility into our regulatory structure to be able to pivot if that's a fair summary Alan that was kind of what my quick takeaway I also really appreciate in our main giving that parental point of view um I only have adult children so I can only imagine the challenge for those who are raising their younger children commissioners I know that Michael wanted to weigh in um these guys can I turn to Michael and can we just have a few more minutes to wrap up commissioners are you okay with that we all right um and and guess I understand we're running a little bit beyond form so Michael so Madam Chair I'm cognizant of the time so I'll be quick I'll just quickly follow up on uh one of the things that Alan said you know there's a unique opportunity especially as the holiday season rises for an ad campaign about not purchasing lottery tickets for your children as gifts um I'll also just state quickly about advertising is that it's widely recognized that wagering advertisements tend to emphasize the positive aspects of gambling experience and skewed outcome expense expectancies towards inflated prospects of winning um the there's only a small body of literature but the body of literature does tend to show that marking material that this kind of marking material tends to increase the desire to gamble among problem gamblers moderate low risk gamblers so that's something that should be taken into consideration um moving forward thank you for that um I want to just one for terms of clarification the gaming commission doesn't have regulatory oversight over the lottery and um I'll leave uh any kind of a campaign around lottery ticket sales to um treasurer Goldberg who did appear in front of us uh earlier this week so um but I can just interrupt and say that because you know so typically done this because they're lottery agents so they've been cooperative partners in that holiday campaign the ncpg and the gill university right and so I was going to say we we uh do that in in collaboration and it's pursuant to uh chapter 23k which um in fact is exactly what treasurer Goldberg was testifying to earlier this week about um continuing our our relationship to support the benefit of the lottery which she explained as I mentioned you know does have such an important role in providing unrestricted local funds but I just wanted to make sure you know that we um we work with them don't control that okay um other questions now for my double commissioners this is such a big topic I think it might even require a reconvening if our guests um would be willing um as we work uh word up I see case cover hand up yes sure just a a few points and I'll be brief um some context so sports betting advertising only constituted one percent of total broadcast ads last year so putting that in perspective of all the advertising we're seeing it's a very small percentage um you know partners in this space like leagues and media companies uh have limits that they've set for themselves for example the NFL uh has limitation of one ad per quarter and pre game and post game so six games per session or per game um and are considering other means for um their own regulatory self-regulatory guidance um and you know in terms of bans or significant restrictions um and I don't mean to sound like a broken record uh but it will only impede the ability for the legal market to find a way to attract new customers um I was looking at some of my notes and um in just the first two months of 2022 internet searches for illegal offshore sports books increased 22 percent year over year and almost all almost 60 percent of all sports book searches were for illegal sites both well above the national average so there's an uphill battle uh to get consumers into the protections of the legal market and then finally in terms of where these ads are placed um the aj's marketing code uh you know requires that ads are placed in means broadcast cable radio etc where at least 73.6 percent of the audience is reasonably expected to be of the legal gambling age and that's tied to nielson and census data and is aligned with other such standards set by discus and the distilled spirits council and the beer institute for their self-regulatory model so it's a broader industry uh and advertising standard so just a few fine points to put on this conversation thank you thank you commissioners questions and I'll turn to mark two of course but um I I know that we're short of time but I do have one question that I'd love to follow up on selfishly it may only was involved earlier in the earlier conversation I'd like clarification from alan when we were talking about setting limitations with respect to um tech tools like play my way that could go on to a mobile device you talked about taking risk into consideration and the the the fats and how uh I guess I'd like to know is that practical is that something the operators can do is is that just so complex well it it may be complex I can't even tell you today whether or not it's relevant what what we are trying to find are alternative ways of communicating with gamblers to help them contextualize what they're about to do right so the idea of putting how much weight you're during the session how much you've won or lost during the session is one of the ways to provide context to the players we we want to take a look at whether or not risk factors will will enhance responsible play or god forbid make it worse right because you know if you there are some people who seek out risk and we've got to be careful about that this this may not work so at the moment this is a hypothetical discussion we've been having and it's not ready for implementation anywhere right so at least in terms of the analysis so I guess we won't worry then about whether it's actually technically um feasible okay thank you this really helpful advertising um I have one other question there have been considerations about require does any other jurisdiction require an operator to does to rather than adding on language with every single ad about responsible gaming to have a certain percentage of their advertising budget be actually dedicated to strictly rg messaging no gaming promotion you know we operators and and something that you know it's it's aligned with what what aga is providing we also can consider commissioners whether we use them of our budget to also do public service um advertising that's something we haven't talked about it can be but have you heard about requiring because honestly our our licenses are are following our Greg and they do on the billboards put language up the font size could be increased right and and that might be helpful but not as effective and I also just think it takes away from their own effective you know customer marketing goals have you heard of a percentage of budget and what do you think about that I don't believe there's current regulations to provide a percentage of advertising that goes to responsible gaming and Brian would probably be the person who can keep me honest there and I um you know the commission getting engaged on this space we there's other regulators who have promoted have a game plan so it's in a kind of open source the platform that welcome a conversation there and then in terms of a percentage that one is a tricky one to suss out um each operator it would be so nuanced to each operator that it may be hard to set a specific standard and but know that I can I can have a whole presentation on the various programs that are in place today in terms of responsible gaming and how operators are advancing that um both you know individually but with their league partners and media partners so um you know I think that's something left uh best best practices than necessarily statute I think I think Chair Juddstein to your point we I've we've been thinking about that a little bit because I do think now most of these helpline regulations were conceived in the 80s when before this saturation of advertising I do think there's a a white noise problem if you will where you know the numbers just everywhere in tiny font whatever regardless of the font size it becomes meaningless and so I think I've been thinking exactly longer lines of of saying you know maybe there it's it's almost like a an election you elect either to say okay I'll do you know 20% of my ad budget would be towards pure responsible gambling and then that means the other you know I can reduce it or something like that or I like to put just the number on everywhere just saturation vomit you know I don't know um so we're it is I do think that our helpline regulations need to adapt I think again Massachusetts might find itself being the only place that doesn't use 800 gambler within a few years um you know everyone else is shifting towards that um and that we have to think about whether or not in this modern age just slapping a helpline number on everything is the most effective approach or whether we want to be a little bit more selective you know with with a more targeted specific ad just for all the reasons you said so I don't know that I think in case right I don't know that anybody's gone down that road yet um you guys again might be a leader and and starting to think about that but I encourage you to do so it's it's a conversation we'd really like to have I don't know the right answer and I certainly think there may be some arguments why there should be the number everywhere but I kind of lean towards where you're going I think maybe there's a better way to approach this in this in this in this era thank you I'm going to take two short comments from Brian and Ellen just because they have their hands up and I'm going to have to put it just sadly um we have um obligations I know personally so Brian I just wanted to confirm that Kate and Keith said that there aren't any current regulations or even statutory requirements around a percentage that being said several several jurisdictions excuse me are considering maybe a certain number of responsible gaming standalone ads we know the efficacy of a standalone ad is far more significant than that of a small font I think it also far extends just a helpline number to the terminology play responsibly very subjective someday I'd love to have a discussion about we can all define what is drinking responsibly but none of us could probably come up with the same answer for playing responsibly um anyway I'd be happy to talk more about what other jurisdictions are considering for those standalone or particular font sizes um but anyway I think it's far more than helpline I think it goes to just rg messaging in general yes thank you Ellen well actually what I wanted to say really does piggyback nicely on Brian's comment um setting a percentage I think is a sticky topic however uh causing licensees to demonstrate what they're doing I think that is an absolute necessity and you know one of the things that that happens among competing companies is you know if you're the one walking in with a very unimpressive presentation you're probably not going to want to have that happen again um and I just I think that this is an industry that is learning to to approach these topics trying to approach these topics I don't know that forcing that is necessary other than to say once a year or once every six months whatever it's going to be you're going to come come forward and show us what you're doing show us your work well that's really really helpful and I understand the stickiness um we've got the sticking matters before but I think um we we also know that I think you're leaning into what we do hold our licensees accountable for reporting but it also if we engage in any kind of a competitive selection process uh there's an opportunity here I see my fellow commissioners nodding their head to this become an important part of the criteria that we would look at for final operator licenses so this has been really helpful to me commissioners I I don't want to be the last question unless it surely is the last question thank you Commissioner Hill no I want to say thank you to everybody who was here today this was very informative taking more notes today than I think I've ever taken I'm in my year's time here so a lot to to digest and a lot of great ideas that I that I think we can maybe implement as we move forward so looking forward to that conversation amongst the amongst the commissioners and again thanks to everyone who came today it's great job yeah thank you any other comments from my fellow commissioners Commissioner Maynard I just wanted to say thank you to all of you all of you I I had a lot of questions that were answered in the midst of your conversations and discussions and you know I never want to hear myself thrown on so it was good to hear the experts become this Kate you'll be happy to know that both Commissioner Hill and I are huge wrestling fans and knew exactly who this was when you spoke about it but it definitely does give us a lot to think about as we move forward and I do believe that if there is competitive process that most of what was said here today not just in this section but others is going to weigh on on me excellent thank you Commissioner Skinner I just want to second everything that Commissioner Hill just said every single word thank you all thank you thank you Nikisha and Commissioner O'Brien I'd like everybody to be able to leave so I don't think there's anything I can add that hasn't been said other than thank you and this probably is not going to be the last time you're going to pass excellent so I want to extend the appreciation beyond what you've heard I think we led with that appreciation and you have been so so helpful to us we thank you for your time we thank you for your generosity mark if I can allow this to be the last word mark will be in touch no doubt mark that's the last word thank you very much thank you I'm I feel very grateful to each one of our families truly these are a long time colleagues of yours we thank you for all the insights that we knew we would be able to achieve and again the shortage of time my apologies for keeping you beyond the four o'clock thank you have a do you need a motion madam chair to adjourn oh yes thank you a second second all righty commissioner o'Brien hi commissioner hill hi mr. Skinner hi and commissioner Maynard hi it takes a village and I appreciate everyone's help I vote yes have a great great evening everyone thank you bye


They're good hitters, you know, they they have a good understanding of the strike zone. You know, I was able to execute some some pitches and some of those they took some other pitches they were able to put in play, you know, so I think that's why some some some of the endings got a little too long for me. You know, you've got to give them credit, they they're a quick hitting team that has a good understanding of the strike zone. You were incredibly sharp this spring. Why do you think that hasn't translated the first two starts of the season into the results that you most likely would have wanted? What do you think has been the reason for that? You know, spring training in the regular season are just different, you know, and I do feel really good. Today I felt that I was more aggressive in the zone and I was able to attack those guys. But that's how it goes, you know, hitters make adjustments, then it's up to us as pitchers to make adjustments. And that's that's how the game goes, you know, doing the regular season, they're going to start making adjustments. I got to start making adjustments. Good thing is that I feel really good and I was able to be more aggressive in the zone. So it's up to me now to make the adjustments necessary.


Ladies and gentlemen, the President of the United States and Mrs. Reagan, of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, and the United States of America. To close the honors. Prime Minister Thatcher, here's a story from our old West. It's said that a cowboy went riding one day and suddenly stumbled into the Grand Canyon. And he's supposed to have said, wow, something sure has happened here. Prime Minister Thatcher, when we contemplate the world as it is today, and how it was when we first met here eight years ago, we too have a right to say something sure has happened. When we first met on these grounds in 1981, economic crisis beset both our countries. Inflation and unemployment were reaching dangerously disruptive levels. The aggressive designs of squalid dictators large and small were seen everywhere. Totalitarian expansion was underway on four continents. Terrorism was growing, and in the face of the most massive arms built up in human history, our own defenses had fallen into disrepair and decline. A new nuclear missile was aimed at Europe and Asia. There was talk of unilateral cutbacks and American withdrawals and nuclear freezes and questions about the alliance. Our alliance, the great alliance built with such difficulty and daring since the last world war, was in grave danger. All of these problems spoke to an even deeper crisis, a crisis of faith, the crisis of will among the democracies. Here in our own nation, there were those who questioned whether our democratic institutions could survive, whether the modern world had made them obsolete. Well, now it's changed. Now the excitement and vigor and energy in the world is with the cause of freedom. As the United States and Great Britain and other free nations have prospered, we have seen an almost Newtonian revolution in the science of economics. We are learning that the way to prosperity is not more bureaucracy and redistribution of wealth, but less government and more freedom for the entrepreneur and for the creativity of the individual. Change, extraordinary change has come upon the world. And that's why at this moment, Prime Minister Thatcher, we're especially glad to be welcoming you here to our shores and to have this opportunity to acknowledge the special role that you and the people of Great Britain have made in achieving this remarkable change. It was my privilege last June, shortly after my return from Moscow, to note in a speech at Guild Hall, your extraordinary role in the revitalization of freedom. Today in welcoming you to these shores, I and the American people again restate our gratitude. In the critical hour, Margaret Thatcher and the people of Great Britain stood fast in freedom's defense and upheld all the noblest of your island nation's traditions. Yours was the part of courage and resolve and vision. Bismarck reflected once that the supreme fact of the 19th century was that Great Britain and the United States shared the same language. And surely future historians will note that a supreme fact of this century was that Great Britain and the United States shared the same cause, the cause of human freedom. Together we've come a long way in striving for that cause. Even in the terrible disappointment following the last world war, when we realized all we had striven for in that great conflict, world peace and freedom would once again elude us and that we would have to begin again and stand together again in facing the menace of war and totalitarian tyranny, even then we did not lose heart and stand together we have. When first you were here, Prime Minister Thatcher, we referred to a decade fraught with danger. We can hope today that in meeting those dangers we have transformed this decade into a turning point, a turning point for our age and for all time. In continuing this work, it is profoundly reassuring to me and to all who care about freedom that you will continue to share with America your vision in your steady hand. And this is especially critical to us at this moment of transition in our government. So whatever the future may hold today, the American people express to you our thanks, our affection and our determination to stand with you until freedom has triumphed. Sir Winston put it very well when he said, The day may dawn when fair play, love for one's fellow men, respect for justice and freedom, will enable tormented generations to march forth serene and triumphant. Meanwhile, never flinch, never weary, never despair. Mr. President, may I thank you warmly for those words of welcome and for this marvelous ceremony which I shall never forget. It is a great honor to be your last official guest after eight historic years of your presidency, one of the greatest in America's history. It's an opportunity to affirm anew the deep friendships not only between ourselves but between the British and American peoples. An opportunity to salute all that you have accomplished over these eight years on behalf of this great nation and of free people everywhere. And an opportunity to look ahead to the bright promise of the future. Mr. President, when you welcome me to the White House on my first official visit to Washington under your presidency, you forecast two things. First, that the decade would be less dangerous if the West maintained the strength required for peace. And second, that Britain and America would stand side by side in that endeavor. Both promises have been honored and honored handsomely. We thank you for being such a staunch and loyal ally and friend to our country. Together our nations have faced the challenges of our time and have not flinched. We forged ahead with strengthening the peace, spreading prosperity and safeguarding liberty. Your conviction, Mr. President, that the only sure peace is one founded on a strong defence has enabled us to take a first historic step in the reduction of nuclear arms. You, sir, have presided over a period of economic expansion unparalleled in peacetime in recent American history. But above all, Mr. President, you have restored faith in the American dream, a dream of boundless opportunity built on enterprise, individual effort and personal generosity. As a result, respect for America stands high in the world today. And thanks to your courage and your leadership, the fire of individual freedom burns more brightly, not just in America, not just in the West, but right across the world. We in Britain, Mr. President, have been proud to be your partners in that great adventure. We've counted it a privilege to join you in enlarging freedom and furthering the democratic way of life. 200 years ago, Tom Payne told the founders of this great nation, we have it in our power to begin the world over again. Mr. President, the office which you hold is the greatest in the world. But it is the man who holds that office, you, sir, who has enabled us to begin the world over again. We salute and thank you for it.


Discover the exquisite beauty of Islam with our exclusive poster collection showcasing the 99 names of Allah. Each poster meticulously presents the Arabic name, pronunciation and English translation embodying the essence of our Creator. Elevate your surroundings with these high quality designs that not only serve as art but also offer a glimpse into the profound beauty of Islamic culture. Immerse yourself in the collection and unveil the magnificence of the 99 names. Links in the description box. Alright guys, welcome back to the channel. If you're new Manus Bobby, guys, super interesting video today we're gonna react to the Perennial Philosophy in three minutes. The reason why I want to react to this video today is not only because it is extremely short and concise but moreover, Perennialism is something that most people subscribe to nowadays. They tell you that all religions are supposed to be respected and that ultimately all religions lead to the same God. But that is of course a contradiction that cannot be if you actually look at the theology of those religions. Judaism proclaims that Jesus is not a prophet. Islam, on the other hand, does. Christianity goes so far to say that Jesus is actually not only a prophet, no, he is God indeed. So those three belief systems cannot coexist. It is absolutely impossible. It goes against simple logic and the law of non-contradiction. Jesus cannot be God and not God at the same time which then implies of course that Christianity cannot be true if Islam is true. Guys, before we jump into the video leave me a thumbs up if you enjoy my content and subscribe to the channel if you haven't already. Moreover, check out the links in the description box below to further support my work. And now with no further ado, let's have a look. The world's major religious traditions have varying beliefs and traditions at the institutional level so they appear to be very different from one another. But as you move toward the contemplative level of these religions they begin to converge. They become more and more similar in nature. That's because the mystical experiences of these religions the very core upon which these religions are based point to the same absolute truth. Whether you want to call that a union with God, Nirvana, the Godhead, liberation, eternal bliss, enlightenment, spiritual awakening, Brahmin or something else they are pointing to the same thing. Yeah, there is this famous quote that states the theologians all disagree however the mystics all agree. But I have to make a point here because I come from a mystical background, a spiritual background myself and I had those mystical, deep, enlightening spiritual experiences myself. In those states you experience a dissolution of the ego and ultimately the eyes of this world are stripped of the filters of the matrix come off so to speak and you can get into a state that could be described as union with God. But what does that mean now? What does it imply? Because if you actually look into those mystical writings of certain theologians you will find out that all of them describe God as a perfect unity. Even if you look at mystics such as Meister Eckert who was a German Christian theologian that actually subscribed to the Trinity had to admit due to his mystical experiences that in the end there is no Trinity. There is only one God. There is only one substrate which he called Der Grund. And therefore ultimately what the video here is saying is that once all the theological doctrines are stripped away and you have a real experience, experiential knowledge then you perceive that there is only one God worthy of worship. And now we have to ask ourselves which religion does teach that concept? Because in the background you can see this graph which proclaims there is an exoteric and esoteric dimension and a religious traditions dimension. But then there is a deeper mystical tradition and through that you enter into the transcendent unity. However, the question that we truly have to ask here of course is what's the point of those exoteric teachings of those religious traditions if they are false? Because if the mystical experience we're going to presuppose that it is truthful in those experiences you experience that God is one but your theology says that God is three in one or your theology says that God manifests in millions of deities that are equally God as well. So then we have to conclude of course that all of those theologies, those esoteric exoteric theologies are absolutely wrong and besides the point the mystics then would in turn agree with the teachings of Islam. I'm not talking about visions of angels I'm referring to the subjective experience of oneness with all that is an awareness of their oneness with the infinite a deep interconnectedness and ego dissolution. As Alan Watts stated in his book This Is It it is a realization that his individual consciousness and existence is a point of view temporarily adopted by something immeasurably greater than himself. All the great spiritual leaders Buddha, Jesus, Rumi, Krishna, Dalilama, Muhammad and on and on were leading us to the same absolute truth. Theologians may quarrel but the mystics of the world speak the same language. All religions have these mystical experiences at their core. We use the term the absolute truth and it is of course only Islam that presents the 99 names of Allah with the beautiful name Al Haqq which you guessed it means the absolute truth. Allah, God in Islam is the absolute truth. Here however the video claims that the absolute truth is the mystical experience. Of course not the mystical experience is a way to perceive the absolute truth to find out about the absolute truth. Theology can be such a way a pathway for many as well. But the point of the story is that the absolute truth is God. He quoted Alan Watts there and Alan Watts says as well that there is something higher than him something absolutely perfect that is greater than him. Yet again no matter how you look at it ultimately theologically speaking it is only Islam that is the coherent doctrine. But they describe them differently because their interpretation of the Godhead is deeply influenced by the language and culture of these people. These mystical experiences are beyond words and thought so a Christian having a mystical experience would describe it very differently from a Buddhist having that same experience. No it is absolutely not sufficient to simply blame it on language and culture. A Christian would describe God as Father, Son and Holy Spirit. He would claim that a human actually is God. One human, one unique human is actually God that at the same time the Son of God that incarnated and died for us he died for our sins. That has nothing to do with culture and linguistic. I mean especially if you look at the context Jesus was born amongst the Jews so therefore culturally this was surely not the context whatsoever. Those Jews were predominantly monotheistic of course. It has nothing to do with language and culture. It is a theological description of who God actually is. So therefore if we look into Islam this has nothing to do with Arabic. He is uniquely one. He neither begets nor is he begotten and there is nothing like him. So this description is crystal clear and you cannot find such a description of God in any other religion. Every religion has different methods and practices that lead you to the same truth or at the very least an aspect of that absolute truth. What is the truth? What I am very loosely describing here when I say that all religions point to the same ultimate reality is the perennial philosophy. I'm not saying all religions are the same. They are different. Their doctrines and beliefs are different. Some believe in one God, others believe in multiple gods or no God at all. There are many paths up the mountain but the ultimate end point is the same. If you said it yourself how can the end point be the same? First of course we have to determine what the absolute truth is. Within Islam the absolute truth is God. The way that those mystics describe it they are speaking about God as well. So now if the Muslim engages in mystical experiences for example within Sufism and reaches the point of full understanding that God is one he actually confirms Islam. But what if a Buddhist gets enlightened and witnesses that one God? What does that mean then? That of course implies that Buddhism is absolutely wrong because Buddhism proposes that there is no God whatsoever. The same applies of course for Hinduism and Christianity that proclaim that God is not uniquely one. God is the absolute truth. The religion is the vehicle to God. However if the religion proposes that there is no God then of course it cannot lead you to that one God. So that be the case. They must all be true to some degree and that's because they are pointing at the same thing. The idea that my religion is correct and yours is wrong is a terrible belief that has contributed to an incredible amount of death over the last several millennia. Yes absolutely and this is why perennialism or those new agey movements ultimately come from the devil because it's nothing but falsehood and of course absolutely irrational and illogical. As I explained already if Islam is true with the claim there is only one God worthy of worship then Hinduism cannot be true. If Christianity is true that Jesus is God and Jesus is the third person of the Godhead then Judaism in turn cannot be true of course. But perennialism like all of those other doctrines ultimately is hardcore liberalism. Boohoo! People killed themselves over religions. Boohoo! So evil, so bigoted. Let's all come together and simply unite. Let's just all agree that we are all partially right. Nobody is really right. No religion is truly true. No God is the real God but we are all somehow right. Live and let live. It makes sense but this is the incoherency of liberalism of course. Because nowadays in this modern world some people will say a woman is actually anything you want it to be. Other people will say no woman is a biological female. Are those just opinions? Is there an ultimate truth in this day and age? No there isn't. All of it is subjective right. Whatever you like to believe, believe it but please don't impose it on to me. This is the essence of a weak society that has fallen away from God. It reminds me of a quote of Miyamoto Musashi one of the greatest if not the greatest samurai to ever live. He said, truth is not what you want it to be. It is what it is. And you must bend to its power or live in a lie.  It is the matrix all over again of the red. When he gives up the truth just to be comfortable. But yet again the truth does not care about comfort the truth is what it is and therefore yet again no it's not possible that all religions are equally true. From another faith you can still take the lessons from other religions. They're not necessarily opposed to each other at the deeper levels and for those that are not part of any religion you can ignore the dogma of religion and go straight to the methods and practices of self-actualization. Some people without religious backgrounds have experienced these deep states of oneness as well. So being a follower of a faith may help but it's not required. Yet again absolute doctrine of the devils here because as I said already I debelt in mysticism the new age I even went to the Amazon rainforest and drank the kool aid with the shamans you know what I'm talking about the point of the story here is of course that he says you don't need to be religious you don't need a religious law just do your thing man and you can experience it yourself. The reality however is totally different. If you see what happens to people with no religious background that go into those experiences many of them come out with psychosis and others come out with delusions of grandeur.  Do what they will but the will to this satanic doctrine has been proposed by Aleister Crowley one of the most notorious Satanists to ever walk the face of the earth. Again it's important not to get wrapped up in the terminology. Understand that these experiences are beyond language but language can help point the way. That is true. Alright this is it for today's video I pretty much said everything I needed to say throughout the video therefore I'm going to cut it off here. If you enjoy the content leave me a thumbs up subscribe to the channel if you haven't already check out the links in the description box below to further support. And now as always may God bless you all much love and peace.


Imagine, it's 1400 years ago, it's the ninth of Maharram, the night of Ashurah. You see hundreds of people leaving the camp of Mansa and Mezala. There and then you decide you're going to stay, knowing at the camp, knowing what's going to happen to you the following day. So the morning of Ashurah comes, you're the 73rd companion of Mansa and Mezala. And the Imam leaves it up to you to choose how you want to serve him. So whether it's, for example, going with Hazretat Abbas al-Aslam to get water, whether it's to stand in front of Mansa al-Aslam and shield him while he's praying and the enemy are firing arrows at him, whether it's to guard the tents of the women and children so that no harm comes to them. Where would you want to serve? I think I would go with helping Hazretat Abbas get water. Why? Because it's only one person that's going and there's a lot of kids that need water so I'd go and help them to get kids for the water. Knowing that you wouldn't come back? I'd still try because I don't know what's going to happen after because anything could happen. Why is it important to bring water back for the children? Why is it important to help them? I don't know but because nowadays, like a lot of kids die because of thirst and if they had water they would survive. So because they were, because they kept on telling them that they're thirsty, the kids. So I would go help. Imagine you come home from school one day and your house is really busy, everyone's running around. So you ask your mum what's going on and she says we've got a guest. Someone's come to see you. So you say who's the guest? She says he's waiting for you in the living room. So you come to the living room, you open the door and you see Imam Hussain al-Islam sitting there. What would you say to him in that moment? What would you want him to say to you? What would you like to hear from him?  And the day of judgment, like they'll be on the 40 Mahshum side, not against them. And probably like the future generations will probably have my grandkids and stuff. They would be on the good side as well. So now you've sat down with him, you've spoken to him and he's getting up to leave. What would you say as a farewell? What would you do in that situation? I don't know, I don't know what I'd do because it's all a surprise because I never knew he was coming. And if he was waiting for me I really don't know what to say. So at the beginning I asked you about 1400 years ago, obviously knowing the events that took place on Ashura. It might be easy to say if I was there I would do this, if I was there I would do that, if I was there I would make sure that this happened and that happened and etc. In this day and age we have our 12th of month. What have we done for him? What have you done for him? What would you like to do for him? I would like to be on his side on the day of judgment because some people say, I don't know if it's a hadith or something, but they said from Makkah he would come and I think he would walk all the way to Karbala and people would try to kill him and I would want to be there and help him defend him.