All language subtitles for Meeting.Snowden.2017.720p.WEBRip.x264.AAC-[YTS.MX]

Downloaded from
YTS.MX

- [Woman] One, two, three, go.

(speaking in foreign language)

Official YIFY movies site:
YTS.MX

Go, what we're gonna do.

(speaking in foreign language)

Change is gonna come,

it's gonna cart me away

doesn't matter what you do or say.

(dramatic music)

- [Narrator] Moscow, December 2016.

Vladimir Putin is the new king
of the international scene.

Donald Trump is about to become President

of the United States of America.

A new world order is coming.

Is this the end of democracy?

And is defending it becoming a crime?

Edward Snowden has dealt
with these questions

like no one.

The NSA sub-contractor
unveiled the US programs

on mass surveillance.

He has lived in exile
in Russia since then.

- [Edward] I don't go out
to nightclubs, you know,

I never have.

I don't go to bars, I don't drink alcohol.

It's just not interesting to me.

So, I've described myself
before in interviews

as an indoor cat.

(laughing)

- [Woman] Do you have special
requirements regarding phones

and everything or?

- No, not here, I mean.

There's so many people.

(laughs) I think anybody who wants to know

we're here probably
already knows we're here.

My name is Edward Snowden.

I'm, (laughs) I guess 33 years old now,

you know, the years kinda slip by

when you're out in limbo.

I thought when I was
first transiting Russia

that it was a terrifying, temporary trip

because I never planned to stay here.

And you've gotta remember,
I came from the CIA,

I came from the NSA, right?

If you have a picture of
Russia on the wall there

it's probably got a big
target sign around it.

But, I must say, although,

it was never my choice
to end up in Russia,

I'm glad that I'm not in jail.

- [Narrator] Four years ago,
he left his job in Hawaii.

In an hotel room in Hong Kong,

he gave classified information

to Laura Poitras and Glenn Greenwald,

two independent journalists
he had carefully picked.

Exposed, Washington launched a manhunt.

- No, I don't think Mr.
Snowden was a patriot.

- [Narrator] They revoked his passport

as he was transiting in Moscow.

Stuck for 39 days in the airport,

he sought asylum in 21 countries.

Germany, Switzerland, France,

they all bowed to the US pressure.

Exasperating American authorities,

Russia granted him a resident permit.

It is due to expire in six months.

The relationship between the US and Russia

has become unreadable.

Snowden's time in Russia is in jeopardy.

- The idea that great powers and countries

can trade people away without
regard to human rights

is of course possible.

Do I have any influence over it?

No.

If they want to do it, can I stop it?

No.

Will I worry about it?

No.

If my priority were safety,

I never would have left the NSA.

I'd still be spying on you today.

There are things that
matter more than safety.

And I think the things that I believe in

are worth the risk.

- [Narrator] Edward Snowden
belongs to a long tradition

of whistle blowers, and is not alone,

raising his voice in
defense of citizenship

and of a free internet.

With American Larry Lessig

and Icelandic Parliamentary
Birgitta Jonsdottir,

among others, they have been alerting us,

crying into the void.

As a law professor,
Lessig got Snowden to talk

to his Harvard students.

- I come from a, a government family.

- [Narrator] As a Parliamentary,
Birgitta Jonsdottir

has been maneuvering to
secure political asylum

for whistleblowers in Iceland.

All those years they have
supported each other over the web.

Trump in power, they lose a battle.

They have never met in person.

We gather them in Moscow as
rumors of Russia interference

in the US presidential elections come out.

As Russia mourns its
Ambassador killed in Turkey.

As Snowden carefully picks interviews,

and Harvey appears in so-called real life.

As the world gets ready for Christmas.

They come together to
discuss the only issue

that matters, their common fight,

how to save democracy.

- [Larry] So, I'm Larry Lessig.

- [Narrator] At Harvard,

Lessig heads a research
center on corruption.

A member of the establishment,

he has lectured and written

on the influence of money
in politics for years.

He has launched citizen mobilizations

to have representatives vote
campaign finance reform,

for him, the root cause
to all of our problems.

Last year, he tried to run
for the presidential election.

The Democratic Party excluded him.

- The last decade, I've
been obsessively focused

on how to revive a sense of democracy

in America and around the world.

I've tried an increasing
number of crazy ideas

to try to bring about fundamental change.

Because there is an increasing gap

between who the democracy
represents and the people.

And increasingly, the
people feel that gap.

Trump was elected because he tapped into

an extraordinary
frustration Americans have

with their government, with the sense that

their government does not represent them.

And the more outrageous he was,

the more politically incorrect he was,

the more he convinced the people

that the elite hated him, so
they should love Donald Trump.

Because, between the
authenticity of a person

willing to be completely
politically incorrect

and the fake integrity of every
other politician on stage,

it was an unfair fight

for an America so cynical
about their politicians.

- My name is Birgitta Jonsdottir.

- [Narrator] A poet, a single mom punk.

In 2010, Birgitta produced
the video Collateral Murder,

about US Army helicopters gun
firing at Iraqi civilians.

In the wake of the financial crisis,

she entered politics to help citizens

get all of their decision
of their destiny, again.

- I am a poetician.

And I actually decided,
in the wake of the crisis,

to establish a political moment

that should go inside the
system in order to understand it

so we could actually
create alternative systems.

And I established the
Pirate Party, with others.

And we got elected in 2013.

And we got recently an election,

10 members of Parliament out of 63.

I think our uniqueness is mostly about

the possibilities of engagement

to bring the power back to the people,

or take it from the powerful

and give it to the general public,

to be Robin Hoods of power.

Biggest service we can do right now

is just to think of innovative ways

for people to feel that
they are part of democracy,

to help them understand that our systems

are not separated from us,
that we are the system.

- What was revealed was not
just about surveillance.

That's what people get,

because that's how the news covered it.

But the larger question was,

how did we end up in this system

where everybody in the
world is being monitored,

watched and recorded,
and we never got a vote.

We never even knew it was happening.

Our officials that were supposed
to be voting on our behalf

didn't even tell us.

Increasingly, governments
are considering hacking

to be completely legal,
as long as they do it.

And there are cases where
this is a valuable authority

and you can understand why
they would want to do this.

The reality,

and this is not my claim,
this is from the White House,

is that mass surveillance
has never stopped

a single terrorist attack
in the United States.

These programs were never about terrorism.

They're about diplomatic manipulation,

economic espionage,

and social influence.

They're about power.

When we were exposed for doing it,

in violation of human rights
and laws around the world,

we made only the narrowest reforms.

We only tailored it at the edges.

And as soon as public attention

began to be distracted
by some new controversy,

they started thinking,

can we pressure our allies

to adopt the same laws that we had,

to make us less vulnerable to criticism?

The most extreme and
intrusive surveillance laws

in the history of the West

have now been passed into
law in the United Kingdom.

Germany has been pressured
to pass similar laws.

France has now passed new
laws on mass surveillance.

And we have created a new
kind of domino theory,

where, rather than trying to push back

the expansion of communism
around the world,

keeping that first domino from falling

and communism spreading
the other countries,

as they said during the Cold War,

today the domino theory is
about the loss of our rights.

People who say,

if you have nothing to hide
you have nothing to fear,

what they're saying is,

things are good enough,

we'll take care of everything.

Give up your power,

give up your freedom and
let us take care of you.

Trust us.

But democracy is not about trust.

Democracy is about effort.

- So we're filming this the day before

the electoral college will vote

on whether Donald Trump
will be our next president,

and there's a movement to get electors

to vote against their pledge.

America has been reminded

that these electors were
meant to exercise judgment.

Constitutionally, they were intended

to be a kind of final fail safe

before you select a president.

I've been doing as much
media as I possibly can,

and I've been writing as much
to kind of create the story,

you know, we got a narrative

that helps people understand
how we get to where we are.

I went around to lawyer after lawyer,

senior lawyers, law firms,
and they just wouldn't do it.

And then we tried to
recruit people to help us

to at least make electors aware

of their constitutional freedom,

to vote their conscience.

And, they refused to step up.

The victory's too uncertain.

They don't want to be embarrassed.

They don't want to be me.

They don't want to be in the
position I'm in right now.

And this dynamic is what's terrifying,

because when you look, I mean,

these people all believe
this is the apocalypse.

They believe this is a disaster.

And yet, when they are not willing to risk

personal sacrifice in the face of this,

and it's really scary.

So they all stayed silent.

- [Narrator] To prevent Donald Trump

from reaching the US
presidency, Lessig is trying

to influence the vote of
the electoral college.

The web gets mad at him.

- [Larry] I can't even open my inbox,

because it's just so ugly.

But, you know,

criticism always includes a
reference to a gun in some way.

And it's like a normal way to think about

how you express your disagreement,

that, I disagree with
you, and I have a gun.

- How long will it be until they arrive?

Birgitta and Larry are seeing

not just what's here, but what's coming.

And maybe why we got
here in the first place.

- You know, I was this
close to be able to form

a very progressive government in Iceland.

It was so close I could just touch it.

And then I just watched
it, you know, slip away.

But we now have actually done something

that everybody needs to
start to think about.

And we've actually made an alternative.

Anybody can actually write the policy,

you don't even have to be in the party.

You just have to take
it through our process

and then we take it
into our holding system.

Then it might actually end
up as a law or resolution,

or something that becomes
a new policy in Iceland.

I've always felt that, you know, myself,

that if I wanted to
live in my dream world,

I had to help create it.

- [Edward] That's them.

- [Birgitta] Sometimes, you
know, history comes knocking.

And this is one of those moments.

- [Larry] It's a good time
to have this conversation

because it feels like we're at an end,

at a dead end, a blockage.

(doorbell ringing)

- Hey!

Come on in, how are you?

- I'm good.

- So good to see you.

Long way, thank you for coming.

Great to meet you, thank
you for coming all this way.

- Well, extraordinary times
call for extraordinary measures.

(laughing)

- Yeah.

- Oh, you're one of
these geeks. (laughing)

- Do you guys want anything to drink,

before we get started?

- I would like some water.

- Yeah, I would love some water.

- [Birgitta] Yeah, how long
are we gonna be on camera?

- [Narrator] As much as you want.

As much as you can discuss with us,

that we can know of.

So we're gonna go on film, is that okay?

- Good.

- So, a poet, a lawyer and
a geek walk into a bar.

And the question is,

why do we believe in democracy any more?

What's the potential?

Why do we think this makes sense?

Because look, there's
a lot of good evidence

against it right now.

You've had the best
experience of any of us

in trying to redefine what
politics will be like.

The Pirate Party in Iceland,

even though you were
incredibly successful,

almost 15 percent of the
population supported you,

the winner, almost by a factor of three,

the party that got the largest support,

was exactly the opposite
conception the politics.

- Yes, it's the party
that talks about stability

and indoctrinates, it's the
fear of change and so forth.

When we were really
successful in the polls,

I knew that we would never get that much

during the elections,

because it's harder to get
young people to go out and vote.

And our greatest support
base is people below 25.

But there was another element,

a very strong element that was at play.

Some of the media guys in Iceland

were talking to guys like Bloomberg,

were reporting to them that the investors

were, you know, pulling back,

because there couldn't be a
Pirate Party victory in Iceland.

I know that it had an influence

on people that might have voted for us,

but got afraid that we would get into

some sort of economic havoc again.

So they played on exactly the right fears.

And one can become very
frustrated that these things

that we are so close to
getting have not happened.

But one also has to recognize that

if the idea is not in the right time,

you know, if you tried to
push it when it's not ready,

it's like having a premature baby.

- But what frustrates
me is I feel like we,

we act as if we live within a democracy.

But it's like, communists
in Russia in 1976, right?

It's like, they pretended
they had a communist system,

but they had this completely corrupted,

bureaucratic structure

that defeated whatever ideals they had.

But today in the United States,
right now, this very day,

people are struggling
with the question whether

quote, electors, people
who have been selected

for the purpose of exercising their vote

for the president of the United States,

have the freedom to vote.

But the point is, we don't have anything

like a representative democracy
in the United States today,

yet there's no place to say that

without sounding like a crazy.

- Historically, we've
had radicals in society,

we've had factions and groups

that say all kinds of crazy things.

And over time, through some means

that we may not fully understand yet,

what can be considered serious

has been narrowed and
narrowed and narrowed until

what can be discussed and credited

as a not-crazy statement

precisely aligns with

what the most powerful
institutions in a society

agree is that.

So now, what you can discuss

and be considered a serious person

is strictly limited to the institutions

that are exercising an influence

that we don't necessarily want.

I can think of no more
clear example of this

than recently, you, Larry,

you ran, campaigned for
president of the United States.

Your campaign platform was
about something very different.

It was about getting
the financial influence

of these core, corrupting
influences of society,

out of our electoral process.

And this was treated as a kind of heresy.

We saw these influences that
are normally very hard to see.

They happen very slowly, at the margins.

And they creep in,

suddenly crash in like a wave,

to treat you who, I
mean, you're a serious,

very well-respected professor
in the United States,

and yet there was a clear effort

to paint you as a crazy person

for talking about something

that seems incredibly reasonable,

and if you polled the American public,

is incredibly popular.

What do you think was happening there?

- Well let's separate the part
that's about me in particular

from the more general point

about why real solutions
can't be discussed.

So, I was originally
advising Bernie Sanders,

but when I said to Bernie Sanders,

look, you've gotta make

fixing this corrupted
system the primary push.

Because if you don't, everything
else you're talking about

is just crazy talk.

Look, you and I can agree
the single payer health care

would be a reasonable
idea to at least discuss.

But it's crazy talk so long
as we have a political system

where insurance companies and
the pharmaceutical companies

and the medical establishment

have so much power in politics.

So, make fixing democracy first.

So when he refused to do that,

it's a crazy idea,

I decided I wanted to be a candidate

to at least get to the debates,

to at least have a chance to make it clear

how every issue was
affected by this issue.

Like, everything tied back.

And you know, of course
they set up the rules.

I said if we raised a
million dollars I would run,

we raised a million dollars, I ran,

the rules said I had to
get a certain percentage

in the debates, and when
I got those percentages,

they changed the rules, so I
couldn't get into the debate.

And the point is,

we aren't allowed to
talk about the solution,

it's ruled off the table.

The only tng we can talk about
is the kind of hate politics,

the politics of hate that both operates

within parties and between parties,

and it's no accident that

that's because this turns out to be

the sexiest thing for
cable news to follow.

(beeping)

- What is that?

(speaking in foreign language)

- Uh, we're gonna go again,
this is, I guess, take three.

(clapping)

If I can ask one follow up question,

it's a little bit radioactive.

If we have a democracy, even in part,

even if it's not a properly
functioning democracy,

and we keep getting bad outcomes,

how much is the public
responsible for this?

And how much of it is systemic?

Maybe there is a fundamental weakness

that's about access to information.

That it's about the way
that we communicate.

People have called it fake news.

Where, people will come across
some very interesting story,

that could be completely untrue,

but they want to believe it's true.

It confirms their
biases, even if it's not.

So they share it, they
spread it, that signal,

to their friends,

to members of their tribe, if you will,

that they get it, that they're with it,

they're on your side.

They're supplying political ammunition.

They're sort of being a good
soldier on the the side.

Because they're trying
to win a power struggle.

And we end up poisoning our own wells

because of our own sort
of unexamined biases.

And one of the big
effects is that it seems

our individual voices have
lost value as a result.

We can reduce the importance of speech

by flooding the zone with it.

It becomes difficult to
separate fact from fiction,

to separate true from false.

- Exactly.

The problem that we are faced with today

is that it's so easy to divide people.

It's so easy to, you know, say,

look at the narrative about
Russian and America now.

- Particularly, when
everybody's resource-bounded.

You've got, on the front
page of just one newspaper,

The Washington Post, The New York Times,

The Guardian, whatever,

30 stories on an average webpage.

How many of those can you actually read?

There's been research
done recently that said

something like 60 percent of
Americans only read headlines.

They never actually click
through to the stories.

So suddenly headlines
have become more important

than the reporting itself.

- And they are clickbaits, so. (laughing)

- Yeah, in some contexts.

Let's hope that they
don't all follow that.

But yeah, it's a serious issue.

But again, why is clickbait a thing?

Why is fake news a thing?

Because people are rewarded for it.

Authors can write a truly
fake story and share it,

because it gets more clicks,
it gets more responses.

Outrage sells.

It creates a counter-reaction.

People wanna fight back.
- Hate sells.

- Exactly.

Really it's about passion.

How do we mitigate

the frailties of human nature?

- Well I was on Wall Street,

I was talking to one of
these Wall Street bankers,

and he's like, yeah, this is
gonna be terrible for my kids,

really bad for the environment,

but we're gonna do really well!

- I'd like to think

of these problems as questions
of emergent behavior.

You have to structure
a system of incentives

such that it's in the
decision-maker's interest

to act in the most moral,
most appropriate way.

- I always wondered, when
you went through the drama

of your act of citizenship,

I mean, you put your life on the line,

took an act to make the public aware

of something that should have outraged

people on the left and the right.

Their government was lying to them.

There was perpetual
surveillance being spread

without any acknowledgement
by our government.

And this violated anybody's conception

of what rights should be.

I just wonder, when you did that,

and you didn't see America react

by saying thank you,

but instead you saw America
react by saying, he's a traitor,

you should be locked up, right?

And when you saw that,

you know, were you as wise as you seem?

- No.

- Well, this is just where we are.

- Look, I mean.

I knew it was coming.

In fact, I said it in that first interview

that came out in The Guardian.

I said, look, my greatest fear
is that nothing will change.

Now, things actually have changed.

The Congress changed laws as a result,

the president signed
them, and the courts ruled

that laws that had previously
gone without question

had been illegal and
possibly unconstitutional

for more than a decade.

It's not enough.

Yes, we do get some crazy people

on both the left and the right

who come out against it.

And these people aren't

what we would consider
traditionally crazy.

These are in fact the
ones who are in that,

serious people category.

But that's why they come out against me.

They see not the issue

of unconstitutional mass
surveillance in the United States.

They see an individual challenging

the stability, the structure,

the dignity, if you will, the reputation

or the governing class,
the governing elite.

And you know, it's right
for them to disagree with.

In fact, I'm happy to defend

their opportunity to condemn me.

Because that's now why I
acted, it wasn't for them.

It's that something changes,

something of the gravity of
the problems that we face,

and the necessity of
dissent, of resistance,

when you're faced with them.

My coworkers, when I talked to them,

they were deeply concerned with it.

They saw it as problematic,

they saw it as likely unconstitutional.

But they said, you know what
happens to people who speak up.

When I was sitting there,

it wasn't abstract ideas

of the beauty and honor
of the US Constitution.

Ultimately that's a personal
decision you have to make.

What does it mean to you?

And the question of democracy

that we've been describing, for me,

came down to this concept

that it's not enough to
believe in something,

you have to stand for
something or it doesn't exist.

When it came to that,

I didn't want to be the guy on the axe.

Again, I was really happy,

a young guy, a technologist,

didn't graduate from high school,

making an extraordinary amount of money.

- Living in Hawaii.

- Living in Hawaii, of course.

With the love of my life.

And,

my life is easy, all I have
to do is spy on people.

That's it.

It's not a hard job.

Anyone here could do it.

But,

the problem was never gonna get better

unless somebody did something about it.

And I had waited, and I had waited,

and no one else was
doing anything about it.

I talked to other people.

People are scared like hell,

I was scared like hell.

But not doing it became
worse than doing it.

And there is this idea

that one of the strongest ways

for people to make a difference

is to recognize the
things that they do know.

The things that they
doesn't have to be educated

by other people on,
because it's their life,

it's near to them, it's happening locally.

They understand the issues,
they understand the players.

And to recognize that there are no heroes.

Nobody's gonna come around
and fix this for you.

There is no class of person
who goes around there,

and adventurer, they're
fixing all the problems,

that person is you.

It's us, it's all of us, every time.

And I think,

yeah, you know, I'm not
gonna save the world.

I took my best shot, didn't work, right?

- No, but, but, you did.

- But the thing is, you don't have to.

It's not up to you alone.

All you have to do is something.

All you have to do is put
a brick on the ground,

so that someone else can put
their brick on top of it.

And step by step, I think we are.

We are gonna have problems,

we are gonna have politicians,

we are gonna have elections
where they come in

and they knock all the bricks over, right?

But there are more of us
than there are of them.

- [Narrator] Sorry, we have
to cut for technical reason.

- Yeah but the thing is, like, you know,

whenever an individual does something,

like you did, you've
done it, I've done it,

just because you feel you must, after,

and it's this recognition
that it's not only

that individuals can change the world,

it's this recognition
that you must, as well.

And you might not change,
like, with the Big Bang.

- Well it's also, like
you said, good examples.

We need positive examples.

We need people trying,
we need people striving.

Even if they don't make it.

- I think coming back to where we were

just before we had to cut,
about the need for courage.

And I wanna think a little bit
about the different contexts

in which, you know, there's
extraordinary courage,

extraordinary sacrifices, and small,

and you were talking
about relatively small.

We've gotta think about,
a little bit more about

what makes it possible for people

to be able to be courageous.

- Okay, um.

I don't remember what take we're
on, but we'll go from here,

final leg. (clapping)

- But earlier in this conversation,

you also made the point
about how small the table is,

and that critical parts
of the conversation

are just off the table.

And what's really terrifying is when,

in order to make a critical point,

you've basically got
to leap off the table.

I mean, you had to sacrifice.

I guess you imagined you were
going to sacrifice everything.

You were more lucky than it
turned out you expected to be.

I've never had to make a
sacrifice as big as yours,

but I have been in this
position where I felt like

the right thing to do is
self-destructive in a certain way.

It's leaping off a cliff,

and you know there's
nothing at the bottom,

but it's the thing that has to happen

if it's going to begin
to move the conversation

in the right way.

And I just wonder, when
you reflect on that,

what is it that we can imagine

inspiring people to do here,

when the table is so small

and we can't get the right
answers on the table?

- Temporary insanity.

(laughing)

That would be my excuse.

No, I think,

I do think it's unrealistic

to rely on altruism or self-sacrifice.

We've talked today about incentives.

Perhaps this is the core problem.

People believe that truly participating

in a meaningful way in their system,

trying to change things for the better,

seeing a central injustice
and trying to challenge it,

will cost them more than they gain.

Maybe that's what needs to change.

We have seen the last decade

is perhaps the clearest
example in modern history

of the effectiveness of
the politics of fear.

Fear works as a political strategy.

The only thing a politician needs to do

to carve a gaping hole

in our most treasured sort of values,

our heritage, our history,

our system of laws, our
protection of rights,

is say, because terrorism.

Done, that's all it takes.

Repeat it enough times,
like an incantation,

and rights will just
evaporate, get out of the way,

and the law will pass.

What if we could change that?

- Exactly.

- But you know, if you imagine
you were 20 years older

and you had three kids in college,

and you know, a mortgage,

and your partner was someone
who had a career, you know.

Then your refusal to do the brave thing

is really an act of charity
or generosity to them,

because you're so tied,
you're bonded together.

- But the larger dynamic behind

what you were describing there,

older people who are more established,

they are, in many ways, the establishment.

They're not the big establishment

that's, you know, keeping people down.

But they have lost a large part

of their democratic influence,

because they have something
they are afraid to lose.

Fear, we have to break the fear.

- Christ is coming, but are we ready?

- Yeah.

- I think there's an honesty to that,

that none of us are special, right?

In fact, the most interesting
commonality of our backgrounds

is how different we are.

And maybe this is, I
mean, not to get too cute

in the answers here, but this is

the beautiful thing about
that idea we were describing

of, why democracy, why
do we even care any more?

Well, it's about the right
of self-determination.

Ordinary people can do
extraordinary things.

And if they don't,

there are costs to that

that are greater than
what we put on the table.

- Exactly.

And that's exactly the point.

That we are all just ordinary people

that felt inspired to, you
know, take a leap of faith.

- I'm more ordinary than you are.

- No no no no no.

You know, I'm the most ordinary.

Defined by my standards.

- We're all gonna fight over
who's the most ordinary.

(laughing)

- So let's throw a dice
on that. (laughing)

- This has been wonderful, thank you.

- Thank you, it's been really wonderful.

- I really loved this.

- Yeah, me too.

Awesome.

- [Edward] Happy?

Can we lose the cameras?

- [Narrator] Thank you.

- [Larry] In the end, as I walked out,

you know, the part that I was hopeful of,

that we would have a plan,

there would be a way to go forward,

like an obvious way to go
forward, didn't happen.

The idea that he put on the
table which was so compelling,

the idea that we can't put on the table

the things we need to be talking about,

and that drives people, reformers like me,

to recognize that we've gotta
be willing to risk craziness

in order to inject this issue

back into ordinary political debate.

And that's difficult, because
there's only so many times

you can be crazy, before you are crazy.

There's only so many times
you can leap off of a building

before people start locking you up

and saying, you're not
allowed to go out any more.

And the failures pile on.

One person I didn't even know wrote me,

you need to take on projects you can win.

And I thought, you know,
there are a lot of people

taking on projects they can win.

We need people to take on
projects that they will lose,

but because losing, they can
move the argument, at least.

- [Birgitta] The key to able to function

is these sort of times we're in

is to just be able and willing to let go.

It's not really about losing.

It's just, you know, this serenity.

That nothing, nothing in this world

is hammered out in a rock.

Nothing.

Because eventually,
this rock becomes dust,

and grains of sand.

Maybe it's just like being able to let go

of fear of change.

It's much easier to control
people that are afraid

than people that are self-confident,

and believe in a collective future.

We need to start to create new narratives,

that it's safe to change,

that stability is an illusion.

It doesn't exist.

- [Larry] The refusal of the elite

to confront the fact that

democracy will not accept

a system where they
win and the people lose

left us open, for a populist,

and this incredibly destructive dynamic.

I feel like I spent way too much time

accepting the skeptics,
skepticism, taking it onboard.

And you have to ignore the experts

in a moment of fundamental transformation,

because the experts are
experts within a system,

not experts about how to
get the system changed.

- [Narrator] Larry and
Birgitta leave Moscow

and Edward behind.

His ideas have made him stateless.

In this hotel room, his
time with us stretches.

He's about to disappear again.

It seems he only lives in the internet.

- The question we struggle with is,

who defines the eras, who defines history?

Who defines when change happens,

when it started and when it ended.

Every progressive action that's
happened throughout history

has grown out of a system that
people saw was inadequate,

a system that people saw was unfair,

and that they then disrupted,
they then overturned,

to lead to a new system.

If we can't allow failure,

what we're saying is we
can't allow progress.

Periods of peace have given
rise to a kind of complacency

that allows demagogues,
that allows fringe elements

to exploit people's politeness,

politeness that was born
from comfort, right?

Because we didn't have to
struggle, we didn't have to fight.

We didn't actually have to
stand up and defend our ideas.

Because we simply believed

that they could not
possibly be threatened.

And now...

Perhaps we've become too polite.

Perhaps we've become too quiet.

Perhaps our own comfort
is our worst enemy.

Being in Russia

has taught me to remember

that even those people
that you've been taught,

you know, for years and years and years,

are not that different from yourself.

The Russian people want the same thing.

They want success, they want
freedom, they want liberty.

It is in these moments of instability,

where it becomes very fashionable to say,

the world has gone mad,
there's nothing we can do.

But I think, these are the moments

where hope matters the most.

Individuals have never
been more connected.

We are more educated.

We are more well-resourced
in absolute terms

rather than relative terms.

Is it enough?

I think so.

Are you challenges great?

Definitely.

But the reality is this.

If we coordinate, if we
think, if we work together,

if we share the things we believe in,

if we persuade people

not just in our communities
but around the world,

we can construct bonds of fraternity

that don't even see borders.

We can create ties between human hearts,

minds that speak different languages,

that can unite

into something that is
bigger than any government,

perhaps bigger than all governments.

Because we share a commonality of values.

We can construct a system of incentives

that is blind to class,

and aware only of our humanity.

(people chanting)

- [Woman] Tell me what
democracy looks like!

- [All] This is what democracy looks like!

- [Woman] Tell me what
democracy looks like!

- [All] This is what democracy looks like!

- [Woman] Tell me what
democracy looks like!

- [All] This is what democracy looks like!

- [Woman] Tell me what
democracy looks like!

- [All] This is what democracy looks like!

- [Woman] Tell me what
democracy looks like!

- [All] This is what democracy looks like!

- [Woman] Tell me what
democracy looks like!

- [All] This is what democracy looks like!

- [Woman] Tell me what
democracy looks like!

- [All] This is what democracy looks like!

- [Woman] Tell me what
democracy looks like!

- [All] This is what democracy looks like!

- [Woman] Tell me what
democracy looks like!

- [All] This is what democracy looks like!

- [Woman] Tell me what
democracy looks like!

- [All] This is what democracy looks like!

- [Woman] Tell me what
democracy looks like!

- [All] This is what democracy looks like!

- [Woman] Tell me what
democracy looks like!

- [All] This is what democracy looks like!

- [Woman] Tell me what
democracy looks like!

- [All] This is what democracy looks like!

- [Woman] Tell me what
democracy looks like!

- [All] This is what democracy looks like!

- [Woman] Tell me what
democracy looks like!

- [All] This is what democracy looks like!

- [Woman] Tell me what
democracy looks like!

- [All] This is what democracy looks like!

- [Woman] Tell me what
democracy looks like!

- [All] This is what democracy looks like!

- [Woman] Tell me what
democracy looks like!

- [All] This is what democracy looks like!

- [Woman] Tell me what
democracy looks like!

- [All] This is what democracy looks like!

- [Woman] Tell me what
democracy looks like!

- [All] This is what democracy looks like!

- [Woman] Tell me what
democracy looks like!

- [All] This is what democracy looks like!

- [Woman] Tell me what
democracy looks like!

- [All] This is what democracy looks like!

- [Woman] Tell me what
democracy looks like!

- [All] This is what democracy looks like!

- [Woman] Tell me what
democracy looks like!

- [All] This is what democracy looks like!

- [Woman] Tell me what
democracy looks like!

- [All] This is what democracy looks like!

- [Woman] Tell me what
democracy looks like!

- [All] This is what democracy looks like!

(thoughtful dramatic music)